Agents
of Change: Achieving Diversity in Electrical and Computer Engineering Research
and Education
A National Science Foundation Workshop organized by the Division of Electrical and Communication Systems, Engineering Directorate in collaboration with the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department Heads Association
June 17-18, 2003
NSF Coordinators
J. A. Momoh and V. Varadan
Electrical and Communication Systems Engineering
Report Coordinators
S. M. Goodnick, Arizona State University
C. C. Liu, University of Washington
Session Coordinators
C. L. DeMarco, University of Wisconsin-Madison
J. Johnson, Howard University
P. L. Mack, Morgan State University
S. I. Marcus, University of Maryland
D. Soldan, Kansas State University
M. Smith, Purdue University
R. Walters, University of Maryland
J. Zayas-Castro, University of South Florida
Agents
of Change: Achieving Diversity in Electrical and Computer Engineering Research
and Education
1. Overview
of the Workshop... 3
2. Challenges
and Opportunities of Diversity in Higher Education.... 3
3. Experiences
of Women and Minority Faculty in Academia.... 5
4. Best
Practices in Achieving Diversity in Higher Education.... 6
4.1.1. Recruitment
of the K-12 Talent Pool 6
4.1.2. Recruitment,
Retention and Graduation of Undergraduate Students 7
4.1.3. Observations,
Recommendations, and Action Items 8
4.3.2. Recommended
Practices to Overcome the Barriers 12
4.4. Whither
Affirmative Action (R. Walters, M. Smith) 13
4.4.1. Issues
Related to Current Programs and Recommendations 14
4.4.2. Issues
Related to Expanding University Efforts to Increase Diversity 15
5. Workshop
Summary and Action Items 16
5.1. Action
Items to Increase the Number of Students in Bachelor’s Programs 16
5.1.1. Action
items for NSF 16
5.1.2. Action
Items for ECEDHA 17
5.2. Action
Items to Increase Diversity in Graduate School and Faculty Positions 17
5.2.1. Action
items for NSF 17
5.2.2. Action
Items for ECEDHA: 17
6. Agents of
Change: AGENDA. 19
Agents
of Change: Achieving Diversity in Electrical and Computer Engineering Research
and Education
The Agents of Change Workshop was held June 17th and 18th, 2003, at the National Science Foundation in Arlington, Virginia. The purpose of the workshop was to bring together the chairs, deans and faculty members representing Electrical and Computer Engineering programs in the U.S. to share best practices and discuss innovative strategies to significantly enhance the diversity of the student and faculty bodies. The vision of diversity articulated at the workshop is to develop a welcoming and nurturing climate in educational institutions for women and underrepresented minority groups in Electrical and Computer Engineering. As “Agents of Change,” the workshop participants were invited to help formulate a national agenda and action plans for recruitment and retention of faculty members, graduate, undergraduate, and K-12 students. At this workshop, the goal was achieved through keynote speeches by the NSF leadership, who discussed the importance and goals of diversity, presentations from deans and other leaders from academic institutions and organizations that have demonstrated results in developing diverse talents, and breakout sessions that involved extensive discussions. The following is a summary of the keynote speeches at the workshop.
Diversity is a priority of the National Science Foundation for the development of the workforce in the 21st century in the U.S. The U.S. Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act indicates that it is in the national interest to ensure the full development and use of scientific and engineering talents of men and women, equally, of all ethnic, racial and economic backgrounds.
Today,
women remain underrepresented in the science and engineering workforce.
Underrepresented minorities (URMs) earn less than one tenth of the total
science and engineering doctoral degrees awarded even though they represent 23%
of the U.S. population. Between 2000-2010, it is expected that about 100,000
job opportunities will be available in the areas of computer hardware,
electrical and electronics engineerings.
During the same period, the number of international students is expected to
decline and the U.S. population will become more diverse, therefore the
development of a diverse talent pool is an important national challenge.
Diversity can be viewed from the moral, legal or equity points of view. However, it is fundamentally important to recognize that a diverse engineering workforce brings more elegant engineering solutions that improve the quality of life. It is also pointed out that greater diversity makes a more robust ecosystem than does a monoculture. Ultimately, the case of diversity is made by its impact on the sustained growth of science and engineering. Effective management of diversity in an organization results in synergy that helps create productive working relationships in a pluralistic environment.
Georgia Tech was featured in the workshop program. Dr. Gary May of Georgia Tech provided their experience through the NSF AGEP (Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate) program and the FACES (Facilitating Academic Careers in Engineering and Sciences) program. Minority faculty members serve as role models that provide mentorship. The Focus Fellows program was initiated in 2001. Through the program, 10 prospective faculty candidates are invited per year. The recruitment strategy includes face-to-face opportunities by targeted faculty visits and participation in minority professional society meetings, including NSBE (National Society Of Black Engineers) and HACU (Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities). The EMERGE cybernetwork provides a national database that facilitates data collection and sharing. The retention strategy includes three major steps: orientation, mentoring and climate studies. An annual new faculty orientation brings panels with veteran faculty on various relevant topics. The Office of Diversity Management matches mentors with mentees. Faculty mentoring awards are given to mentors/mentees who demonstrated exemplary research and teaching partnership. The College of Engineering chairs and majority faculty were asked to describe the environment for minority faculty. Majority faculty felt that the institution’s challenging environment requires the same expectations of excellence and performance in all faculty. Minority faculty members were also asked questions about their roles and level of satisfaction. Within the College, minority faculty members were pleased to be with the institution. Some faculty described negative aspects of their faculty role as service demand is high, but the commitment is not considered in their evaluation and promotion process.
The College of Engineering at the University of Michigan has a 3-5 year strategic plan with metrics and incentives that sets a goal to double the underrepresented minority enrollment in four years. All underrepresented graduate students are awarded fellowships for their first year of study. Dean Stephen Director pointed out that at Michigan, there is a “distributed responsibility” to achieve diversity by the College of Engineering and its departments. A diversity / quality index incorporating the percentage of women and underrepresented minorities is used for general fellowship distribution. Their strategy is summarized by several features - Early identification of students, Setting clear goals and actions, and Everyone is responsible. The steps to success are (1) clear goals, (2) good mix of financial support, (3) distributed responsibility for achieving diversity, (4) a comprehensive set of recruiting programs, and (5) a supportive climate and extensive retention activities. The recruiting activities at Michigan include participation in national student society conferences, e.g., National Society of Black Engineers, Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers, American Indian Science and Engineering Society. Michigan has a program called “3-2” with Tuskegee University and Xavier University. Students spend 3 years at a partner undergraduate institution and 2 years at Michigan. Overall, the minority graduate student enrollment is growing steadily from 6.8% to 10.5% during the period from 1998-99 to 2002-03. Dean Director also discussed six MYTHS: (1) The pool is too small – UM actually experienced a 22% increase in the application pool in 2003 and a 30% surge in Ph.D. enrollment, i.e. more new GEM students enrolled than any other College of Engineering in the U.S. (2) There are insufficient funds to attract graduate students – at UM 100% undergraduate represented minority graduate students have support, (3) They won’t come to …[Michigan] – Michigan created a positive internal climate and strong student-faculty interactions. (4) It is inappropriate to recruit our own – many graduate schools do recruit their own undergraduates. (5) We have to lower our standards to admit URM students – average graduate student entry GPA 3.4 and 1800 GRE score, 92% of GEM supported students graduate. (6) Everyone comes with the same background – students are attracted to Michigan for different reasons and they have diverse backgrounds. Dean Director’s presentation concluded with the following lessons learned: Set clear goals and have an action plan, create incentives and collaborations to exchange best practices, everyone is responsible and engage the entire community, participate in multiple approaches to recruit URM graduate students, URM student societies are excellent resources for supportive community and environment, attack myths head on, listen to students and alumni, measure improvement and success.
Penn State University provided their experience in enhancing the understanding of diversity in institutions. Various definitions of diversity were discussed: affirmative action, valuing differences, managing diversity and leveraging diversity. It is recommended that “managing diversity” is a more pragmatic approach. It is also pointed out that top level commitment is crucial if diversity is to be achieved. Through the form of a game, it is emphasized that the “wealth” factor should be taken into account in order to gain a full appreciation of the diversity issue – a large amount of the wealth in the U.S. is inherited.
A number of faculty members representing women, African American, Hispanic groups, and native Americans were invited to share their experiences as faculty members in different institutions. A summary of the experiences are as follows:
· Feedback from the department chairs and key faculty members is important for faculty career development
· Open, straight forward and helpful management style from the chairs is important
· Chairs should advise junior faculty to stay focused in their priorities
· Proactive approach to obtain feedback from the department chair may be necessary
· Increasing visibility and national reputation through contacts with leaders in the fields and attending key conferences
· NSF support through CAREER and PFF was instrumental in career development
· Educational experience does not emphasize diversity and therefore the faculty member had to learn from examples and mistakes
· Raising children while working as a faculty member was a challenge for women faculty
· Discouraging comments from colleagues
· Recognition of the importance to serve as a role model for students
· Unpleasant experience in institutions that discourage underrepresented minority students. Institutions must be careful of the messages they send to the students
· Much progress has been made in institutions in embracing diversity and more progress is expected
· Important to avoid social isolation
Following the presentations by the plenary and topical speakers, the workshop participants organized into breakout groups to address best practices and needs for achieving diversity in four different focus areas. The first group, led by Dr. Jose Zayas-Castro and Dr. Pamela Leigh Mack, addressed recruitment, retention and graduation of K-12 and undergraduate students in ECE. The second group, led by Dr. James Johnson and Dr. Steven Marcus, addressed the same with respect to underrepresented faculty in ECE. A third group, led by Dr. David Soldan and Dr. Chris DeMarco, focused on recruitment and retention of underrepresented groups into ECE graduate programs. Finally, the fourth group led by Dr. Ronald Walters and Dr. Mark Smith discussed the future of affirmative action, and its impact on achieving diversity in engineering programs. A summary of the discussion during these breakout sessions and recommendations for action follow.
Dr. Vasundara Varadan opened the discussion by giving her perspective on this issue. Engineering is currently absent in most K-12 schools, which poses a large obstacle to the recruitment of students, particularly underrepresented groups, into engineering programs. Universities and others have the responsibility to reach back into high schools, and reaching back is an effective way to recruit undergraduates. Summer programs for pre-college students and pre-freshmen programs for admitted new freshmen are among two best practice approaches. In order to be effective, in addition to program development, non-traditional approaches to capturing students must be done. Paraphrasing Dr. Frederick Humphries, President of NAFEO (National Association For Equal Opportunity In Higher Education), every student needs to experience what it takes to get an “A” grade in something, regardless of what it is. Once a student knows what it takes to get that “A,” he or she has developed a sense of what it takes to succeed. One approach that Dr. Humphries uses is to give students an opportunity to be reexamined, since the ultimate goal is to ensure that the student understands the material. Also, being very open and personal with students can be quite effective. After the introductory remarks on best practices by Dr. Varadan, the discussion continued with the participants from the many constituencies represented.
In this discussion, it became evident that the training of pre-college teachers was a very key aspect of recruiting students. Some of the best practices mentioned associated with this included: collaboration of Colleges of Education and Engineering to teach engineering to pre-college teachers, bringing K-12 teachers to universities to work with students in various programs (e.g. summer program for middle school girls), providing hands on training for math and science teachers, and finally, getting science and math teachers connected to NSF personnel.
Other K-12 Best Practices cited include:
· Programs from kindergarten through high school that engender parental commitment and involvement-participants are followed through until they graduate.
· Saturday Academy- math preparation and technology exposure for elementary, middle and high school students
· Introduce a Girl to Engineering Day- IEEE national program during National Engineers Week that exposes girls to electrical and computer engineering
· Summer programs for girls-middle and high school students (ex. HORIZON)
· Summer programs for high school students (e.g. AISES; a three-week summer program for high school students)
· Introducing systems engineering to high school students (an on-going activity with various IEEE societies)
· Infinity project- an electrical and computer engineering hands-on application course developed for high school juniors and seniors. High school teachers are trained to teach the subject matter.
Best practices in recruiting, retaining and graduating undergraduate students were reported by the breakout session participants, as well as one of the luncheon speakers, Dr. A. Toy Caldwell-Colbert, Provost at Howard University. Dr. Caldwell-Tolbert indicated the importance of establishing a supportive culture. She also stated that it is more than a student deserving to be at an institution, but also a matter of “whether you feel people like you being there, and you are made to feel welcome.” Developing faculty/student interactions early and in a non-haphazard manner are important as well, and merit should be tied to this. One of the best practices she presented was a pinning ceremony at Howard for new freshmen, an event attended by the University President, Chairs and faculty.
A summary of the best practices presented by the session participants is given below:
· Employing undergraduates to teach K-12 students- This activity emphasizes learning and commitment to their studies for undergraduates. It also addresses financial problems for undergraduates.
· Mentoring- Graduate and/or upper level students mentor freshmen and are compensated.
· FAST TRACK to Achievement- workshops for freshmen on mastering mathematics, making it in engineering and planning to graduate
· Project Learn- two faculty, each working with a group of fifteen students
· Catch-Up- addresses the time to graduate problem by paying for up to two courses for students in the summer so that they can “catch up”
· Sophomore shadowing- sophomores shadow undergraduate and graduate students.
· Moving electrical engineering courses earlier in the curriculum to interest and motivate students. One example was a digital logic course that was moved to the freshmen year. Another example was a freshmen success class to get students excited by early successes.
· Infinity project- the hands-on application course cited in Section 4.1.1, here developed and taught to first year electrical and computer engineering students.
In addition to action items, there were other important points that arose in the discussion. These are categorized as observation and recommendations and are provided below:
Observations:
· There can be numerous separate programs that work, but unless you have buy-in from academic units, buy-in from faculty and buy-in from top administrators, there will only be incremental changes. The programs or activities have to become institutionalized.
· There is a need to work with industry closely.
· Programs need to be portable.
· The best practices for K-12 and undergraduate students are not electrical and computer engineering specific. The participants indicated that the same programs, especially for K-12, could be used for ECE recruitment but that ECE faculty participation would make the difference. It was suggested that physics is a gatekeeper for ECE students, and programs to address that issue would improve recruitment and retention of students.
Recommendations
· Train high school teachers to teach physics
· Teach physics earlier in pre-college, perhaps sophomore year
· Establish a summer institute for physics teachers
· Teach circuits in pre-college
Action Items for NSF
· Become the National Science and Engineering Foundation
· Establish a clearinghouse for best practices
· Help in convincing legislators to introduce engineering in high schools
· Develop tools to help graduates do outreach (train, give certain messages)
· Provide supplements to majority institution faculty to mentor underrepresented students at other institutions
· Insist on proposals that address broader impacts- indicate what type of institution the project is applicable (small, large, etc.)
· Review programs that have been funded and determine which programs work
The discussion on increasing the number of underrepresented minorities and women entering graduate programs and completing graduate degrees centered on four themes: promoting the opportunities and value of graduate education in undergraduate programs (and earlier); reducing real and perceived barriers to graduate school entry; providing strong financial and mentoring support upon entry and throughout the graduate program; showing administrative leadership and financial support for these efforts.
With several years showing a trend of decreasing enrollment in engineering among domestic students, universal and early promotion of graduate education opportunities becomes critical. Many U.S. engineering programs have instituted courses to provide engineering design experience in the first year of the engineering curriculum. It was recommended that such courses, which provide an early overview of the engineering design and professional experience, be expanded to highlight the role of graduate education in career advancement (and satisfaction). Universities should leverage alumni and outside industrial speakers to promote the value of graduate degrees, as such speakers will have extra credibility with students when carrying this message. Speakers who serve as role models of success for students from underrepresented minority groups will be particularly valuable in these roles. Similarly, creating and promoting student coop opportunities in industries and national laboratories that are “advanced degree friendly” can provide important motivation towards graduate school among minority and women students. Finally, it was felt that NSF can play an important role in further expansion and promotion of undergraduate research opportunities that give students early and close contact with faculty mentors. Clearly, early research experience is a very successful pathway to graduate school.
To reduce real, and perceived, entry barriers to graduate school, several recommendations emerged. First, it was noted that increasing numbers of U.S. graduate programs are not requiring GRE scores of domestic students, having found performance on the GRE to be an unreliable predictor of U.S. students’ success in graduate school. Expansion of this trend would certainly reduce a perceived barrier, and experience from many programs suggests it would not compromise the quality of admitted students. Many students who may struggle in first year undergraduate courses go on to very successfully master the advanced engineering coursework that relates most closely to graduate program work. Decreasing the influence of freshman year course grades on the GPA used in graduate admissions would benefit many domestic students, including underrepresented minorities and women. The attractiveness of graduate programs, and the success rate of students once they enter, often depends on the existence of a supportive cohort of fellow students. In recruiting efforts, making sure that perspective students from underrepresented minority groups are exposed to such a supportive cohort is critical. It is strongly recommended that current graduate students be highly involved in recruiting efforts. Once students are accepted and arrive at graduate school, the institution must continue to do all it can to make graduate school welcoming. An important element of the institution’s efforts must be to foster the formation of strong, supportive cohorts for all students, and particularly for female students and students of color.
It is obvious that financial assistance is a critical element of support at entry to graduate school, and throughout a student’s program. For minority students, who may be more likely than majority students to be the first generation in their family to pursue an advanced degree, financial support is particularly important. There is strong anecdotal evidence to suggest that with the rising cost of undergraduate education, one of the entry barriers to graduate school is accumulated debt incurred during undergraduate years. It is recommended NSF collect and study data on this issue. If the data supports the anecdotal evidence, the breakout groups advocate creation of graduate fellowship programs that include deferment of undergraduate debt, with forgiveness upon completion of a graduate degree.
To attract greater numbers of minority students, and make graduate school an attractive career step, it is recommended that programs expand partnerships between graduate research institutions and those historically black colleges and universities and Hispanic serving institutions that have a stronger undergraduate focus. These programs can be beneficial both through direct student exchanges, and through faculty exchanges and sabbaticals that place more potential role models in visible positions at research institutions. Steps could be taken to expand use of the NSF REU program to encourage exchanges of students between institutions. The perception of many NSF supported researchers is that REU are useful only for targeting students currently at their own institution. With suitable partnerships, perhaps facilitated by NSF, it is envisioned that the REU could be used to a much greater degree to host visiting students and, in particular, students from HBCUs and HSIs. Fostering internet technology to enhance (but not replace) mentoring opportunities in such partnerships could be another useful NSF contribution, through the creation of both virtual mentoring networks and peer-to-peer student cohort group networks. The successful example of www.mentornet.net for women in science and engineering is very promising in this regard.
The closing point that emerged from this session is simply that all of the steps outlined depended heavily on strong administrative leadership at universities, both above and below the department chair level. Administrative leadership was perceived to be particularly important in continuing to improve the cultural climate in graduate programs to truly make these programs welcoming and supportive of all students. To provide concrete evidence of leadership, opportunities for matching institutional funds to NSF funds for such programs as workshops for prospective URM grad students are recommended. Likewise, administrative leadership and faculty buy-in is critical in efforts to keep time to complete graduate degrees fair and attractive to perspective students.
The breakout session on recruitment, retention, and promotion of underrepresented faculty in ECE began with a discussion of the background and overall framework for the issue. One major point raised was that the institutional success of colleges and universities can no longer be separated from diversity programming. An Alfred P. Sloan Foundation report[1] points out that “industry is ahead of academe in acting on…workforce imperatives” like diversity. Educating the educators and administrators will be as fundamental to the success of expanding diversity as educating the students.
The “Blueprint for Diversity”[2] sets forth five diversity planning principles and their definitions which lead to successful diversity programs. They are:
· Accountability—defines the process for determining and monitoring responsibility for meeting campus needs through program development and implementation. There must be commitment and leadership at the highest levels of the university. What is absolutely key is the leadership and commitment of the department chair or head. From the point of view of recruitment, retention and promotion of underrepresented faculty, the chair must be strongly committed to: hiring, mentoring, promotion of faculty; building a sense of community; hiring even if the area of the candidate is not exactly in area of greatest stated need; conveying the importance of diversity to faculty and recruiting committees; openness, shared information, modeling caring and respectfulness among faculty.
· Inclusiveness—means that faculty representing all dimensions of diversity will be included on committees. This also means that recruiting, retention, and promotion of underrepresented faculty is the job of faculty and administrators at all levels of the university.
· Shared Responsibility—the expectation that each campus unit and each member of the campus has the responsibility to make the campus welcoming for all people. Everyone must participate: it is not just the job of the chair.
· Evaluation—provides a means for continuous feedback. It is essential to keep practitioners informed of the changing needs of the affected populations. There must be a commitment for feedback and continually improving the process.