aprip round 1 overview - home - think mission … · aprip round 1 overview june 15, 2015 ... this...

A P RIP ROU ND 1 OV ER V IEW

June 15, 2015

THIS SECTION PROVIDES THE READER WITH THE RESULTS OF THE INITIAL REVIEW OF ALL APRIP TEAM

REPORTS. ONE OF THE APRIP TEAM REPORTS FOLLOWS THIS SECTION.

The purpose of this report is to provide a high-level overview of Round 1 of the UMS Program Integration portion of the

Academic Portfolio Review and Integration Process (APRIP). Nine discipline-based teams met from January-May, 2015 to

discuss strategies to increase quality, access, and fiscal sustainability through inter-institutional collaboration. Teams

represented business, criminal justice, education, engineering, history, languages, marine science, nursing, and

recreation/tourism. Each provided a detailed report containing recommendations for further development.

On June 11, the Chief Academic Officers reviewed all nine team reports and determined which action items would be

pursued at this time. They presented and discussed their recommendations with the APRIP Oversight Committee on

June 12. They especially noted the following:

1. The team reports represent extraordinary levels of time, thought, and effort on the part of over 100

individuals. The teams were working under very difficult conditions, both in terms of time available and

because so many of the factors required to implement One University were and remain undecided. CAOs

and the Oversight Committee are deeply grateful to these academic pioneers for their good work.

2. The CAOs are recommending follow-up on many but not all of the team recommendations, based on a

variety of factors. They will return to the reports in the future as the system is able to lay more groundwork

for additional action steps.

3. The CAOs will assign follow-up responsibility for recommended actions to individuals or groups that have

the appropriate responsibility and authority to bring them to life – in most cases to administrators or official

groups. Team input will continue to have value as needed, but they have fulfilled the responsibilities

requested of them.

ACTION ITEMS FOR INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION

1. Business

a. Support the development of a single MBA for UMaine and USM. Increase recruitment efforts and expand

pipelines into that MBA from business programs at the other five campuses. Develop opportunities for students

in undergraduate majors other than business, as well, to move into this MBA.

b. Further develop a vision and plan for the business programs at the five smaller campuses. This plan should

further integrate, with intentionality, these programs to support them with more efficient operations, while also

encouraging campus differentiation where appropriate.

. Criminal Justice and Criminology

a. Establish a common community / professional advisory board.

b. Develop a common associate’s degree with common course numbering, descriptions, and learning outcomes.

c. Pursue ACJS certification / accreditation of the common associate’s degree.

3. Education

a. Re-institute System-wide Education Deans’ and Directors’ meetings to coordinate the work already being done

across the System, and to explore, plan, and implement other collaborative efforts going forward.

b. Continue work on the common Master of Education in Instructional Technology currently in development

between UMaine, USM, and UMF.

c. Continue work on the 3+2 program in Rehabilitation and Counselor Education currently in development between

USM and UMF, and the suspension of UM’s Counselor Education program.

d. Collaboratively deliver secondary education methods courses for all secondary candidates across the System.

e. Build pathways from all seven campuses into graduate work in Education.

f. Collaborate on course / program delivery across the seven campuses using the cohort model to the greatest

extent possible, to achieve the greatest possible access and efficiency.

4. Engineering

a. Develop a uniform curriculum for students in their first two years of mechanical engineering and electrical

engineering. Courses will be primarily delivered on site, but will be fully transferable to facilitate student transfer

between UM and USM.

b. Move a selection of upper-level courses toward more online pedagogy to facilitate sharing those courses

between the two campuses.

c. Establish curricular committees in mechanical engineering and electrical engineering to meet each semester to

ensure that first-two year curricula remain aligned and to ensure that the coordination is operating effectively

and efficiently.

d. Develop curricula at the five smaller campuses to allow those students, after one or two years, to transfer into

the engineering programs at UM and/or USM.

e. Develop uniform course numbering in the core areas—mathematics, physics, and chemistry—to facilitate

transfer and ensure consistency.

5. History

a. Develop a stronger pathway from the various undergraduate programs into the graduate program at UMaine,

and invite all UMS history faculty to apply for admission into UMaine’s graduate faculty.

b. Explore the possibility of merging the four current undergraduate programs into a single program that would be

available on all seven campuses, in order to sustain and build the availability of history curriculum. Encourage

differentiation in areas of expertise at various campuses, to further build the diversity of history education.

6. Languages

a. Continue the existing French and Spanish degree programs, with access at all seven campuses, initially with a

focus on language acquisition.

b. Expand language acquisition opportunities in other languages such as Japanese, Chinese, and Arabic. For

example, Chinese could be offered through USM’s Confucius Institute.

c. Continue the M.A. in Applied Teaching in French and Spanish.

d. Coordinate and integrate all UMS study abroad offices to expand and support study abroad on all seven

campuses.

7. Marine Sciences

a. Develop joint, blended, team-taught, etc. courses in a variety of ways, such as distance courses with field-based

components. Take advantage of short course opportunities, such as one day per week, summers, weekends, etc.

that allow rich use of off-site facilities.

b. Articulate the curricula, particularly with learning outcomes at upper levels, to facilitate students moving from

undergraduate into graduate programs.

c. Explore further opportunities to collaborate on use of facilities, both on campus and off site.

d. Develop a 4+1 Professional Science master’s degree, with dual 400/500 level courses as appropriate.

e. Develop a common Web presence, particularly for purposes of marketing and student recruitment.

8. Nursing

a. Develop a plan for the full alignment of nursing curriculum within the UMS, including a detailed articulation of the

challenges and a plan for addressing them.

b. Given the critical importance of expanding nursing programs to meet the current and future needs of Maine,

consult with appropriate external group(s) to help us better understand the challenges and identify strategies

for expanding our capacity, particularly in clinical placements. Also explore strategies currently being used at

nursing programs in other rural states.

c. Develop a report on the current nursing education partnership between UMA and UMFK. Include an analysis of

the challenges and successes experienced in this collaboration thus far, as well as suggestions for improvements.

This report should be delivered to the UMS CAOs for their review by the end of the fall 2015 semester.

9. Recreation and Tourism

a. Strengthen communication across the campuses with the development of a central Web site, designed to serve

students and faculty, but also to serve as a marketing and student recruitment tool.

b. Seek opportunities for semester-long “residencies,” to allow students at any campus to take full advantage of the

differentiated areas of expertise and opportunity at other campuses.

c. Further expand the range of short courses available, taking advantage of the range of specializations already

available on the various campuses. Consider a full range of possibilities—summers, weekends, January and May

terms, semester breaks, etc.

d. Develop pathways to take further advantage of articulated 4+1 opportunities for student progression into

graduate work.

e. Consider the development of hybrid team-taught courses, employing “point persons” in the field to work with

the primary on site (or online) instructor.

f. Collaborate on market-based certificate programs, expanding access across multiple campuses.

Essential Next Steps

The APRIP Teams were engaged in high-level planning. All of the disciplines require additional work to bring the

recommendations to reality, some more than others. The existing teams or successor designees must do some

additional planning, and most will need funding. Leaders and professional staff must do considerable work to enable the

plans to become reality. This work will be costly and requires a capital budget. External funding would significantly

advance the time frame for implementation.

In a May 2015 meeting, Team Leaders recommended that UMS support their recommendations as follows:

1. Build capacity for extensive distance-delivery and blended instruction, including a. Significant increases in interactive video instructional sites that are absolutely reliable and faculty-

friendly. b. Significant increases in faculty professional and instructional development capacity (time, access to

expertise and resources), ease of access, and expectations. c. Common academic calendar system-wide d. System-wide academic information system for course planning, advising, program marketing e. System-wide marketing

2. Establish capacities and systems for students to enroll simultaneously in multiple institutions – capacities that are seamless and impact-neutral for students, faculty, and institutions. a. Students: Advising, registration, tuition rates, fees, billing, payment, reliable planning for transfer,

financial aid, grade transfer, online comprehensive catalog and pathways, etc. b. Faculty: Workload and P&T recognition c. Institutions: Revenues and enrollment credit, non-competitive funding model

Additional Achievements, Round 1:

Emerging culture: help each other better serve students, whether on the giving or receiving end; inter-

institutional respect for faculty expertise; expanded professional colleagueship

Transferability enhancements, certificate and associate programs

Increased awareness of benefits from greater comparability/standardization of general education

Extraordinary voluntary service to UMS despite heavy workloads, contrary administrative systems, fear, and

sometimes-difficult interpersonal issues

Important lessons to apply to the Round 2 process and beyond

REPORT OF UMS APRIP ENGINEERING TEAM

June 1, 2015

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... iii

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 2

DEMAND FOR ENGINEERS IN MAINE .................................................................................... 2

WORKING APPROACH OF ENGINEERING TEAM ................................................................ 4

DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT ENGINEERING PROGRAMS IN UMS ................................... 4

HISTORY OF COLLABORATIONS TO DATE .......................................................................... 6

POSSIBLE ORGANIZATIONAL MODELS FOR ENGINEERING EDUCATION IN MAINE .................................................................................................................................... 7

RECOMMENDED COLLABORATION MODEL ....................................................................... 7

Description of Penn State Model ................................................................................................ 7

Description of Recommended Model for Delivery of Engineering Programs within the UMS ............................................................................................................................... 9

Discipline Specific Curricular Communities ........................................................................ 10

Entry Level Engineering Community .................................................................................... 11

Proposed Reporting Structure .............................................................................................. 12

Effect of Proposed Model on Quality ....................................................................................... 12

Effect of Proposed Model on Access ........................................................................................ 13

Effect of Proposed Model on Financial Sustainability ............................................................. 13

RECOMMENDED COURSE DELIVERY METHODOLOGIES ...............................................14

FINANCIAL MODEL FOR INVESTMENT IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION ......................15

APPENDIX A - ROLE OF ENGINEERS IN MAINE’S ECONOMY .........................................16

APPENDIX B - NUMBER OF STUDENTS, NUMBER OF FACULTY, CREDIT HOUR PRODUCTION, NUMBER OF DEGREES AWARDED, AND RESEARCH FUNDING LEVEL BY ACADEMIC PROGRAM ...............................................................21

APPENDIX C - ADVANTAGES, DISADVANTAGES, AND IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES FOR POSSIBLE ORGANIZATIONAL MODELS ...................................27

APPENDIX D - ADVANTAGES, DISADVANTAGES, AND IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES OF COURSE DELIVERY MODELS ........................................................32

APPENDIX E - SUMMARY OF EAC ACCREDITED DEGREES OFFERED WITHIN THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM. ................................................36

APPENDIX F - SUMMARY OF TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH DIRECTORS OF ENGINEERING AT PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY ........................................37

ii

APPENDIX G - UPPER LEVEL ENGINEERING COURSES OFFERED ONLINE IN THE LAST THREE YEARS BY UMAINE. .........................................................................42

APPENDIX H - SAMPLE OF INTERCAMPUS TRANSFER PROGRAM OF STUDY ...........43

APPENDIX I - COURSE DELIVERY METHODOLOGIES ......................................................44

APPENDIX J - PROJECTED REVENUE MODEL .....................................................................46

APPENDIX K - PROJECTED EXPENSE MODEL.....................................................................50

iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Growth of engineering employment in Maine compared to total employment. ............ 3

Figure 2. Employment status of engineers who graduated in Maine in academic year 12-13. ..... 4 Figure 3. Undergraduate enrollment (head count) in UMaine College of Engineering and

USM Department of Engineering with projection to 2019. ............................................5

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Summary of number of undergraduate engineering degrees offered, faculty, and

undergraduates within Pennsylvania State University System and UMS. ...................... 8

Table 2. Sample transfer interface for engineering programs within the UMS. .......................... 11

of 51

REPORT OF UMS APRIP ENGINEERING TEAM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Virtually everything that is touched by the human hand is profoundly impacted by engineers. While engineers comprise just over 1% of Maine’s workforce they are responsible for over 5% of Maine’s GDP. Over the next decade, it is estimated that the gap between the engineers needed in our state and the supply of new graduates will exceed 1,200. Thus, it is imperative that the University of Maine System (UMS) supports robust engineering programs with increased capacity to educate the engineers who are essential to the growth of our society and economy.

Engineering degrees within the UMS system are offered by the College of Engineering at the University of Maine (UMaine) and the Department of Engineering at the University of Southern Maine (USM). At the bachelor’s level, UMaine offers seven engineering and four engineering technology degrees, while USM offers two complementary engineering degrees. In addition, UMaine offers eight engineering M.S. and five Ph.D. degrees. In Fall’14, UMaine had 1,339 engineering undergraduates, 484 engineering technology undergraduates, and 150 graduate students while USM had 226 engineering undergraduates. Undergraduate enrollment has grown 75% since 2001. In FY14, UMaine engineering received $9.5-million in research grants.

The vision for delivery of engineering programs within the UMS is for engineering bachelor degrees to be offered by UMaine and USM. After weighing the advantages, disadvantages, and implementation challenges of five organizational models, the engineering team recommends the Penn State model where the engineering programs at UMaine and USM maintain separate administrative structures but are coordinated through faculty-led curricular communities. Degree programs that are common between UMaine and USM would have the same curriculum for the first two years. This would allow students to easily transfer between UMaine and USM. In addition, an intercampus transfer model would allow students to start engineering at any campus in the UMS. Four course delivery models were examined. The team recommends a mix of traditional face-to-face instruction, especially for lower division courses, online sharing of selected upper division engineering electives, and a rigorous trail of blended delivery (i.e., face-to-face and online) of one or two lower division engineering courses. The proposed model would be facilitated if there was a uniform course numbering system and consistent course learning outcomes for foundational mathematics and science courses throughout the UMS. For this reason, the engineering team strongly recommends that mathematics, physics, and chemistry be included in the next round of APRIP. As consumers, it is critical that engineering faculty be included on these disciplinary APRIP teams.

The proposed model increases educational quality by allowing students at UMaine and USM to take advantage of a broader array of engineering electives. Developing selected courses for blended delivery has the potential to improve student learning. Access will be increased by allowing students to start engineering at any campus in the UMS and facilitating transfer between UMaine and USM. The engineering programs at UMaine and USM already have very high student:faculty ratios relative to their peers. As a result, there are limited opportunities for cost savings. However, there is a proven track record of engineering enrollment and resulting revenue growth. The UMaine and USM engineering programs are at or above capacity. Thus, investment is needed to allow further growth, which is critical to our state. For every $1 invested in engineering, an additional $1 is returned for investment elsewhere on campus.

of 51

INTRODUCTION

Engineers play a role in society that is disproportionally large relative to their numbers. Virtually everything that is touched by the human hand is profoundly impacted by engineers. This is obvious for things like cars and cells phones. But it is less obvious for basic necessities like the food that we eat. Think of the technology needed to produce the fertilizer, harvest the food, and transport the food from farm to market. Think even of beautiful sculptures – the steel chisel gripped by the hand of the sculptor is made possible by engineers.

Engineers play a critical role in Maine’s economy. Engineers comprise just over 1% of

Maine’s workforce, yet they are responsible for over 5% of Maine’s GDP. This is an impact of over $560,000 per engineer. In 2013, engineers employed in Maine paid an estimated $29-million in state taxes. By 2023, this is projected to grow to $43-million.

In Maine, responsibility for educating engineers is shouldered by three public institutions:

University of Maine (UMaine), University of Southern Maine (USM), and Maine Maritime Academy (MMA). Maine is the only state in the northeast with no private institutions offering engineering degrees. For this reason, it is imperative that public institutions in Maine have strong engineering programs with the capacity to educate the engineers who are essential to the growth of our society and economy.

This report was prepared by the engineering team of the Academic Program Review and

Integration Process (APRIP) as directed by the charge provided at the APRIP Sub-Team Orientation held on January 24, 2015. The key aspects of the charge are to “enhance and expand access” while “achieving necessary fiscal efficiencies”. The scope of the engineering team was limited to the engineering programs at UMaine and USM, as well as the possibility that the other campuses within the University of Maine System (UMS) could be viable starting points for students desiring engineering degrees. The scope does not include the engineering technology programs at UMaine or the technology programs at USM.

This report details the demand for engineers in our state, reviews the current engineering

programs at UMaine and USM, examines several models for delivery of engineering education in Maine, and recommends a model that is best suited to current conditions. Finally, the report provides a financial model for growth of engineering education in our state. While the focus of this report is on undergraduate education, it should be noted that engineering graduate education and research, which are primarily conducted by UMaine, are vital to the innovation needed for the future of our state.

DEMAND FOR ENGINEERS IN MAINE The number of engineers1 employed in Maine has grown from 5,740 in 2004 to 6,600 in

2013, an increase of 860 (15% growth). This is an annual growth rate of about 95 engineering positions. Conversely, during the same period employment for all occupations in Maine decreased by 2% as shown in Figure 1. Nationwide, there was 10.5% growth in engineering 1 Engineers includes: all engineering occupations, engineering managers, and construction managers; does not include architects, landscape architects, or engineering technicians.

of 51

employment from 2004 to 2013. Thus, engineering employment grew faster in Maine than the nation as a whole2.

Nationwide, the U.S. will need to add an estimated 250,000 engineering positions over the next decade3. This is a growth of 11%. Assuming that this trend applies in Maine, our state will need to add 750 engineering positions by 2023.

In addition, replacements will be needed for engineers who retire or otherwise leave the engineering workforce. An estimated 27% of Maine’s workers in the “Professional, Technical and Scientific” category, which includes engineers, are age 55 or older4. By 2023, over 1,750 engineers will be needed to replace retirees. Additional engineers will be needed to replace those who leave the profession. Thus, Maine will likely need more than 2,500 new and replacement engineers from 2013 through 2023.

In 2014 there were 1,272 job postings for engineers in Maine5. These positions range from entry level engineers to senior engineering managers. The number of job posting greatly exceeds the roughly 300 engineering bachelor’s degrees that are produced in Maine each year. When this imbalance in Maine is combined with the nationwide demand for engineers, it is no surprise that that the placement rate for Maine engineering graduates is near 100%.

An analysis of the graduates who earned an engineering bachelor’s degree in academic year 12-13 shows a dramatic of underproduction of engineers in Maine. In this academic year, a total of 317 bachelor’s degrees in engineering and engineering technology were granted in Maine by the accredited programs at UMaine, USM, and MMA. The estimated fate of these graduates is shown in Figure 2. There is a major gap between the estimated 129 graduates from UMaine, USM, and MMA who entered the engineering profession in our state and the roughly 250 new and replacement engineers that are needed each year. The cumulative 10-year gap is expected to exceed 1200. Some of this gap can be satisfied by attracting engineers educated outside of Maine to our state. However, given the nationwide demand for engineers, this cannot be the only strategy. It is essential that the state grow its capacity to educate engineers right here in Maine. Further details of this analysis are given in Appendix A.

2 Employment data from U.S. Department of Labor State Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates 3 Lampinen, J., & McAward, T. (2014), Spotlight on Engineering: Promising Futures for New Engineers, Kelly Engineering Resources (http://www.kellyservices.us/uploadedFiles/United_States_-_Kelly_Services/New_Smart_Content/Candidate_Resource_Center/Managing_Your_Career/Eng_Promising_Futures.pdf) 4 Based on data extracted from http://ledextract.ces.census.gov/ for the second quarter of 2014; the category “Professional, Technical and Scientific” includes engineers, scientists, and related technical professionals; data for engineers alone is not available. 5 Source: Labor/Insight Jobs (Burning Glass Technologies)

Figure 1. Growth of engineering employment in Maine compared to total employment.

of 51

Figure 2. Employment status of engineers who graduated in Maine in academic year 12-13.

WORKING APPROACH OF ENGINEERING TEAM

The engineering team conducted most of its work through three face-to-face meetings. The primary purpose of the first meeting was to establish ground rules for operation of the engineering team, an overall vision for engineering education in Maine, identify possible alternative models for organizing engineering higher education, and examine possible delivery methodologies. The purpose of the second meeting was to complete the discussion of possible organizational models and delivery methodologies, and then to select an organizational model and delivery methodology that best fit conditions in Maine. After this meeting team members worked individually and in small groups to develop a draft report. At the third meeting the team edited the first draft of the final report and resolved any remaining issues. Final editing was done via email.

The members of the engineering team who participated in one or more of the meetings

were: Michael Boyle, Blake Burke, Calen Colby, Lester French, James Graves, Justin Hafford, Donald Hummels, Dana Humphrey, Corey Letourneau, Carlos Lück, James Smith, and Clayton Wheeler. Jason Johnson reviewed portions of the report. Mikel Leighton from the UMS was the note taker at the first meeting. Tina Baughman from the UMS was the note taker at the second and third meetings. Their assistance was greatly appreciated. DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT ENGINEERING PROGRAMS IN UMS

Engineering degrees within the UMS system are offered by the College of Engineering at UMaine (located in Orono), and the Department of Engineering at USM (located in Gorham). Appendix B provides tabular data detailing the number of students, number of faculty, credit hour production, number of degrees awarded, and research funding level for the various engineering programs. Over the last 15 years, there has been a 75% growth in the combined enrollment at UMaine and USM as shown in Figure 3. Moreover, enrollment has been growing faster than in the U.S. as a whole. Since the number of faculty has remained essentially constant, the student:faculty ratio has grown from 15:1 in 2001 to 28:1 in 2014. For comparison, the average student:faculty ratio of the engineering programs at the other New England land grant universities is 16:1.

129

245

131

28 In Maine employed as engineers

In Maine employed in fields related to engineering

In Maine employed in fields unrelated to engineering

Employed outside of Maine

Graduate school

of 51

Figure 3. Undergraduate enrollment (head count) in UMaine College of Engineering and USM Department of Engineering with projection to 2019.

At UMaine, the College of Engineering (COE) is comprised of five academic units: Chemical and Biological Engineering, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, and the School of Engineering Technology. In addition, the engineering physics program is jointly administered by the COE and College of Liberal Arts and Science. These units offer seven B.S. degrees in engineering, four B.S. degrees in Engineering Technology, seven Master of Science degrees, one Professional Science Masters degree with six tracks, and four Ph.D.’s. In addition, a Ph.D. in Biomedical Engineering is offered through the Graduate School of Biomedical Science and Engineering. All UMaine undergraduate degree programs are accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). The COE has 66.4 FTE faculty inclusive of lecturers and tenure/tenure track, 1,836 undergraduates (a growth of 68% since Fall 2001), and 155 graduate students. In FY14, the COE received $9.5-million in research grants and corporate contracts. In April 2014, the COE was selected as one of seven UMaine “Signature Areas” based upon its strength in research and education and world-class reputation. Through its leadership and cross-campus collaboration, the COE plays a uniquely integral role in six of the seven signature areas, and four of six “emerging areas”.

At USM, the Department of Engineering is a unit of the College of Science, Technology,

and Health. The department offers B.S. degrees in electrical engineering and in mechanical engineering. The Electrical Engineering Program has been accredited by ABET since 1990. The much newer Mechanical Engineering Program, which began in 2007, will undergo its first accreditation review in Fall 2015. The department has seven FTE faculty inclusive of lecturers and tenure/tenure track, and 226 active students (a growth of 169% since Fall 2001). In FY15,

of 51

the Department of Engineering conferred 36 baccalaureate degrees (22 in EE and 14 in ME). The student population encompasses a mix of traditional and non-traditional, place-bound students. Both the electrical engineering and the mechanical engineering programs at USM were established at the urging of and with considerable support from southern Maine industry. The mechanical engineering program emphasizes electromechanical systems that leverage synergy with the electrical engineering program. The Department’s mission statement states that “[w]e are a technical resource to the community”. This is fully consonant with USM’s focus as a metropolitan university. Of the engineering programs, the B.S. degrees in Electrical Engineering and in Mechanical Engineering are offered at both UMaine and USM.

Although, not within the scope of this report, MMA offers a Bachelor of Marine Systems

Engineering. This degree is accredited under the naval architecture and marine engineering standard of ABET. In AY 12/13, 13 degrees were granted in this major. HISTORY OF COLLABORATIONS TO DATE

The engineering programs at UMaine and USM have a history of collaborations. UMaine assisted USM in starting their degree program in mechanical engineering by offering four foundational mechanical engineering courses online. As USM hired mechanical engineering faculty, they began teaching these courses on their own. The final offering under this collaboration was in 2011. UMaine’s Dr. Michael Boyle has served on the USM Engineering Program External Advisory Board. UMaine Associate Dean Mohamad Musavi assisted USM with a review of their mechanical engineering program prior to its upcoming ABET accreditation visit. There is a history of student mobility between UMaine and USM. Over the years, a number of engineering students started at USM and completed their degrees at UMaine, while others started at UMaine and completed their degrees at USM.

UMaine and USM are founding members of the Maine Engineering Promotional Council

(MEPC). This is a collaboration between companies in Maine with a demand for engineers and the institutions of higher education in Maine that produce those engineers. The feature event is the annual Engineering Expo that targets middle and high school students to expose them to the possibilities of careers in engineering. The location of the Expo alternates between UMaine and USM. Well over 1,500 people attend the Expo each year. This year marked the 13th anniversary of the Expo. UMaine and USM faculty, staff, and most importantly students, are key to making the Expo a success. Victoria Wingo, Communications Specialist from the UMaine COE, currently serves as the Executive Director of MEPC.

USM’s Drs. Guvench and Lück taught two UMaine graduate courses to engineers at

National Semiconductor (now Texas Instruments). UMaine and USM engineering faculty collaborate on funded research projects. Examples include USM’s Dr. Jankowski working with UMaine’s Dr. Abedi on a NASA funded project and USM’s Dr. Guvench working with UMaine’s Drs. Neivandt and Gardner on a project for the U.S. Army.

of 51

POSSIBLE ORGANIZATIONAL MODELS FOR ENGINEERING EDUCATION IN MAINE

The engineering team discussed five possible collaboration models listed below.

Status quo – separate engineering programs at UMaine and USM making decisions completely independent of each other

Penn State Model – programs maintain separate administrative structure, but coordinate at the degree program level; includes an extensive intercampus transfer model (which was discussed separately)

Intercampus transfer model – students start at campus X then transfer to campus Y to complete their degree; variations could include starting at campus X, transferring to campus Y for one or more years, then returning to campus X or to a third campus to complete their degree

Merge engineering programs – merge engineering programs at UMaine and USM resulting in one engineering department for each major discipline with faculty located on two campuses

Unique branding – offer degree programs at UMaine and USM that are unique and don’t overlap; a variation is offering engineering degree programs at one campus and engineering technology degree programs at another campus

The advantages, disadvantages, and implementation challenges for each model were

identified. Advantages were defined as benefits that are inherent or could be achieved with a properly implemented model. Disadvantages were defined as drawbacks inherent to the model and would be very difficult to overcome. Challenges are issues that would need to be addressed to effectively implement the model. These are summarized in Appendix C. In addition, three alternative course delivery models were discussed: online delivery of undergraduate courses; online delivery of upper level undergraduate and graduate courses; and blended courses (a mix of online and live instruction). The advantages, disadvantages, and implementation challenges of each are summarized in Appendix D.

After weighing the advantages, disadvantages, and implementation challenges of each

model, the engineering team recommends a combination of the Penn State model, intercampus transfer model, and online delivery of selected upper level undergraduate and graduate courses. In addition, the team recommends that a trial be conducted of blended delivery of lower-level engineering courses. The team’s recommendations are discussed in detail in the next section. RECOMMENDED COLLABORATION MODEL Description of Penn State Model

Many aspects of the recommended collaboration model are based on the organization of engineering degree programs within the Pennsylvania State University System (Penn State). For this reason, a description of the engineering team’s understanding of this model is warranted. Within this system, ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) accredited degrees are distributed as follows: seventeen offered at University Park, four at Behrend (Erie), four at

of 51

Harrisburg, and one at Wilkes-Barre. Four degree programs are offered at multiple campuses. Three select degrees are only offered at branch campuses. A summary of all EAC accredited degrees offered within Penn State is given in Appendix E.

Each Penn State campus that offers engineering degrees has sufficient full-time faculty to offer the degree, independent of other campuses. As a result, students take very few online engineering courses from a campus other than their home campus. The number of faculty, degrees offered and students, as well as, student:faculty ratio are summarized in Table 1. There is a clear difference in scale and adequacy of staffing between Penn State and the engineering programs within the UMS. For example, there is a critical mass of faculty to offer full engineering degrees at the branch campuses. At Behrend, there is an average of eight faculty for each degree offered, while there are an average of five faculty for each degree offered at Harrisburg and Wilkes-Barre. At University Park, there is an average of 33 faculty members per degree offered. The undergraduate student:faculty ratio at University Park is comparable to the 16:1 average for the research intensive engineering programs at the New England land grants not including UMaine which is much higher at 26:1. The student:faculty ratio at USM is comparable to that of Behrend. The student:faculty ratio at Harrisburg is low and may be due to the engineering programs at this institution being relatively new, dating from the mid-2000’s. These institutions focus primarily on undergraduate education.

Table 1. Summary of number of undergraduate engineering degrees offered, faculty, and undergraduates within Pennsylvania State University System and UMS.

Campus Number of

Degrees Offered

FTE Faculty Headcount

Undergraduates

Undergraduate Student:Faculty

Ratio

University Park

17 561 10,201 18:1

Behrend (Erie) 4 32 1087 34:1 Harrisburg 4 21 215 10:1 Wilkes-Barre 1 5 N/A N/A UMaine 7 51 1339 26:1 USM 2 7 226 32:1

Data sources: FTE Faculty and number of undergraduates at University Park, Behrend, and Harrisburg from Profiles of Engineering and Engineering Technology Colleges, American Society for Engineering Education, 2013 Edition; FTE Faculty at Wilkes-Barre from institution’s website; UMaine and USM data from Appendix B.

The key mechanism that unifies the engineering programs at the campuses within the Penn State system are “curricular communities” for each degree program that is offered at multiple campuses. Membership is comprised of faculty from each campus that offers the degree. Each curricular community is responsible for ensuring that the first two years of the curriculum is the same, no matter which campus a student is attending. Moreover, the curricular community ensures that all required engineering courses offered in the first two years have the same learning outcomes. Each curricular community meets once or twice per year. The most important advantage of this organizational model is that a student can seamlessly transfer from one campus to another during the first two years of study. At the Behrend campus,

of 51

approximately 80% of the students complete their engineering degree on that campus while 20% transfer to another campus to complete their degree. A disadvantage of this model is that the process to change curriculum or learning outcomes is a slow negotiation.

Another feature of the Penn State model is that students may start fifteen of the engineering degrees offered within the system at any of the 19 system campuses. Students can complete between two and four semesters at their starting campus before needing to transfer. Their transfer matrix is given at: http://www.engr.psu.edu/AcademicPlans/default.aspx. The high level of functionality of this system is possible due to: uniform course numbering throughout the system; system-wide curricular communities for supporting disciplines such as mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology; and offering foundational first-year and sophomore-level engineering courses at multiple campuses. For example, the course Statics, a foundational course in engineering mechanics required for multiple engineering degrees, will be offered live on all 19 campuses in Fall 2015. Another course, Introduction to Engineering Design, which Penn State requires for all engineering majors, was offered live at 18 of 19 campuses in Spring 2015 and will be offered on 17 of 19 campuses in Fall 2015. Pennsylvania has clearly made a significant investment in allowing students to begin engineering at any campus. Students who move from one campus to another are treated as transfer students. They must meet the admissions criteria of the program they wish to enter at the receiving campus.

The engineering college at University Park is headed by a dean, while the engineering

schools at Behrend and Harrisburg are each headed by a Director of Engineering. The latter, for all intent and purpose, function as deans. The Director of Engineering at Behrend and Harrisburg report to a Senior Associate Dean, who reports to the head of their campus, whose title is Chancellor. The Chancellor reports to the Vice President Commonwealth Campuses who reports to the Executive Vice President and Provost at University Park, then the President of Penn State. For selected issues, the Directors of Engineering work directly with the Vice President Commonwealth Campuses, bypassing their local leadership structure. Based on interviews with the Director of Engineering at Behrend and Harrisburg, they have limited direct interaction with the Dean of Engineering at University Park. The Director of Engineering at Behrend reported that each campus has a high level of independence on budget matters. Transcripts of interviews with the Director of Engineering at the Behrend and Harrisburg campuses are included as Appendix F. Description of Recommended Model for Delivery of Engineering Programs within the UMS

The vision for delivery of engineering programs within the UMS is for engineering bachelor degrees to be offered by UMaine and USM. The programs would be coordinated by curricular communities for each degree program that they have in common. In addition, students would be able to start at any campus within the UMS and transfer after two to four semesters to either UMaine or USM to complete their degree. This would be coordinated by another curricular committee. A description of the model is given in the following.

of 51

Discipline Specific Curricular Communities

A cornerstone of the proposed model is the formation of discipline specific curricular communities for each degree program that is common between UMaine and USM. With current degree offerings, curricular communities would be formed for electrical engineering and mechanical engineering. Each curricular community would have multiple responsibilities. The most important of which will be developing a common curriculum for the first two years of the degree program. In addition, each curricular community would develop common learning outcomes for all required engineering courses within the first two years of the curriculum. It is presumed that these goals can be achieved, since this is identical to what is done in the Penn State system. However, if the model cannot be fully achieved within the UMS for highly compelling reasons, this must be clearly justified to the responsible deans and provosts at UMaine and USM.

Curricular communities would have responsibilities for identifying opportunities for

delivery of selected upper level engineering electives to be delivered online. The engineering team believes that some upper level engineering courses, when delivered with appropriate pedagogical methods, can be delivered online with high quality. Students from either UMaine or USM could take these courses to satisfy engineering electives. This effort would build on the 27 upper-level engineering courses that have been offered online by UMaine within the last three years (Appendix G). It is expected that the curricular communities will identify a suite of courses to be offered online that would be beneficial to students at both UMaine and USM. The end result will be that students will have a broader array of engineering electives to choose from.

The engineering team feels that delivery of most lower-level foundational engineering courses is best done live in a traditional classroom environment. Given high student numbers, this is a cost effective delivery model. However, the team recommends that curricular communities identify one or two courses to use as a trial for blended delivery. These would be a mix of online and live instruction. For example, some of the course content could be delivered using pre-recorded modules. The modules could be coupled with real-time assignments that students complete to assess their knowledge. Then, most of the class time could be used for students working in groups to solve challenging homework problems, supplemented by faculty members discussing the shortcomings in student learning as they become evident. Significant effort is needed to develop a high quality blended course. This would require up-front investment in faculty time, learning design staff, and facilities. The learning outcomes of students in blended courses should be rigorously assessed. This should be used as feedback to improve the blended courses. The curricular communities will need to assess the overall success of the effort from a student learning perspective, as well as, the amount of faculty time required for these types of courses relative to traditional courses. If the trials are successful, the curricular community could recommend additional courses for development as blended courses.

The final duty of the discipline specific curricular communities is to be a forum for

discussion of filling faculty vacancies. Specifically, the discussion would focus on what specific expertise is most needed to provide the breadth needed to offer their discipline in Maine. When appropriate, the curricular communities will recommend that faculty from UMaine and USM

of 51

both serve on search committees. In this capacity, the curricular committee would be advisory to their respective department chairs and deans. Entry Level Engineering Community

The entry level engineering community would be responsible for developing and maintaining the entry level curriculum that would allow a student to start their engineering degree at any campus in the system then transfer to either UMaine or USM after two to four semesters to complete their degree. Membership of the community would be comprised of faculty from all seven campuses. The recommended makeup of the committee is: three UMaine engineering faculty, two USM engineering faculty, one mathematics faculty member from UMaine or USM, one science faculty member from UMaine or USM, and one faculty member from each of the remaining five UMS institutions.

The workproduct of this community would be modeled after the transfer interface

developed by Penn State. A sample of the transfer interface for the UMS is shown in Table 2. Each cell in the transfer interface would link to a program of study specific to the starting campus and degree program. Students would need to transfer after two to four semesters at the starting institution, with the number of semesters governed by the range of foundational courses offered by the starting institution and the requirements of the engineering degree program. A sample program of study is shown in Appendix H.

Table 2. Sample transfer interface for engineering programs within the UMS.

Campus UMaine BIO1 CEN1 CHE1 CIE1 ELE1,2 EPS1 MEE1,2 USM BIO1 CEN1 CHE1 CIE1 ELE1,2 EPS1 MEE1,2 UMA BIO1 CEN1 CHE1 CIE1 ELE1,2 EPS1 MEE1,2 UMF BIO1 CEN1 CHE1 CIE1 ELE1,2 EPS1 MEE1,2 UMFK BIO1 CEN1 CHE1 CIE1 ELE1,2 EPS1 MEE1,2 UMM BIO1 CEN1 CHE1 CIE1 ELE1,2 EPS1 MEE1,2 UMPI BIO1 CEN1 CHE1 CIE1 ELE1,2 EPS1 MEE1,2 BIO = bioengineering; CEN = computer engineering; CHE = chemical engineering; CIE = civil engineering; ELE = electrical engineering; EPS = engineering physics; MEE = mechanical engineering 1program completed at UMaine; 2program completed at USM

Development of each program of study would be simplified if there was a uniform course numbering system and uniform course learning outcomes for foundational mathematics and science courses throughout the UMS. For this reason, the engineering team strongly recommends that mathematics, physics, and chemistry be included in the next round of APRIP. It is critical that engineering faculty be included on these disciplinary APRIP teams.

The entry level engineering community would be responsible for developing admissions

guidelines for students who want to begin their engineering studies at UMS campuses other than UMaine or USM. To be eligible for transfer, students would need to meet the admissions criteria

of 51

for the receiving institution and the specific engineering degree program. It is expected that the latter will focus on minimum grades in foundational mathematics and science courses. The community will also explore the option of co-admission to the appropriate engineering or pre-engineering program at UMaine or USM. The entry level engineering community would develop advising guidelines for students beginning their engineering studies at a UMS campus other than UMaine and USM. This would need to include both curricular and engineering career guidance. Proposed Reporting Structure

The reporting structure would be modeled after that used for engineering within the Penn State system. Thus, the head of the engineering programs at UMaine and USM would report up through their normal campus hierarchy. The curricular communities would be convened by the Dean of Engineering at UMaine working in consultation with the Dean of Science, Technology, and Health at USM. The Dean of Engineering at UMaine would have primary responsibility for monitoring the work of the curricular groups and reporting progress to the UMaine Provost and USM Dean of Science, Technology, and Health. Effect of Proposed Model on Quality

The proposed model will increase educational quality by allowing students at UMaine and USM to take advantage of upper level engineering electives that are already offered online and by converting selected additional courses to online delivery. This would provide students a greater variety of choices for electives thereby allowing them to better customize their education to their interests and to meet the needs of the engineering workplace. Access to a broader diversity of topics will enhance the students’ overall quality of education.

Online delivery expands the opportunities for engineering practitioners to be instructors

for specialized courses, further expanding the breadth of opportunities for students. An example that has already been implemented is having Dr. David Rubenstein, President of Maine Aerospace Consulting, teach four aerospace engineering courses from his office in Falmouth, Maine. This effort started in 2009. To date, 182 UMaine engineering students and 6 practicing engineers have taken Dr. Reubenstein’s courses.

Developing selected courses for blended delivery has the potential to improve student

learning in challenging engineering courses. In the blended delivery model, much of the knowledge transfer and learning assessment is done asynchronously through online modules. Online learning assessment tools provide students with immediate feedback. The online modules free up class time to be used for problem solving sessions, where students work on homework problems and in small groups, all under the guidance of the class instructor. Appropriate student advising is important for blended delivery courses. This overall approach caters to a range of student learning styles. Studies have shown that blended courses foster increased student interaction with the course material, leading to better long-term retention of the

of 51

material. Through this process, students gain increased skills in self-directed learning6, which is foundational to the life-long learning that is essential to engineers in our rapidly changing technological world and is a learning outcome required for ABET accreditation of engineering programs. Effect of Proposed Model on Access

The proposed model will retain the access of current student populations to the existing engineering programs at UMaine and USM. Moreover, it will increase access by allowing students to begin any of the seven UMaine and two USM engineering bachelor degree programs at any of the campuses within the UMS. Students who achieve minimum grades in critical path foundational courses in mathematics, science, and engineering would be able to transfer to UMaine or USM to complete their degree. Provided they follow the published program of study, students will be able to complete their degree in four years. For engineering degrees that are offered both by UMaine and USM, having a curriculum that is common for the first two years will allow students to seamlessly transfer between the two institutions during the first half of their education. Effect of Proposed Model on Financial Sustainability

The engineering programs at UMaine and USM already have very high student:faculty ratios relative to their peers. As a result there are limited opportunities for cost savings. However, the proposed model has the potential to make some contributions to financial sustainability as described below.

Allowing students to start engineering degrees at any of the seven campuses in the UMS,

may increase utilization of available capacity in foundational mathematics and science courses at some campuses. In addition, increased access may result in an increase in students entering the UMS to pursue degrees in engineering. If this occurs, there would be increased tuition revenue. However, it is cautioned that investment in engineering faculty at UMaine and USM is needed to provide the instructional capacity needed to accommodate these students once they transfer.

Online delivery of selected engineering electives has the potential to modestly increase

student credit hour generation for only a small increase in instructional costs. This would be achieved by UMaine or USM engineering students taking courses offered online by the other institution. Online delivery can also expand access to the pool of engineering practitioners who could be adjunct instructors for specialized courses. While there would be costs to train adjunct instructors in use of online instruction, the salary per course would be less than for a full-time faculty member. After making the initial and ongoing financial investment to develop and maintain blended courses, there may be some small economies in use of faculty time to deliver the courses.

6“Hybrid Learning Benefits” http://www.bothell.washington.edu/learningtech/hybrid-and-online-learning/hybrid-learning/about-hybrid-learning/benefits

of 51

The demand for students wanting to study engineering in Maine is rising (see Figure 1). This has significant potential to increase tuition revenue. However, this would require concomitant investments in capacity. A financial model to accomplish this is discussed in the final section. RECOMMENDED COURSE DELIVERY METHODOLOGIES

It is recommended that most course content, especially foundational mathematics, science and engineering courses be delivered with traditional face-to-face classes. Selected upper level engineering electives will be delivered online so that students at both UMaine and USM can have access to a broader range of courses. One or two trials will be conducted of blended delivery of lower level engineering courses. The advantages, disadvantages, and implementation challenges are presented in Appendix D. The team agreed that the quality of teaching and learning is critical. New investments/incentives are required to support faculty and learning design in developing “best practice” course methodologies. At least initially, flexibility to explore various processes and methodologies will be required. The process will be incremental, evolving and adapting over time. Additional discussion of characteristics of several delivery methodologies is given in Appendix I. INSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVES OF ALL RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS

The demand for engineers in the state of Maine can be satisfied by a combination of: (1) increasing the capacity of foundational courses in mathematics, chemistry, and physics as well as selected introduction to engineering courses across the UMS; (2) increasing access to the engineering programs at UMaine and USM; and (3) increasing the capacity of the engineering programs at UMaine and USM. The five universities in the UMS that do not offer engineering degrees can be partners with UMaine and USM by providing capacity for the foundational courses in mathematics, chemistry, and physics and providing entry points into engineering programs at UMaine and USM.

At many of the universities in the UMS there is capacity in the foundational courses in

mathematics, chemistry, and physics. Providing these foundational courses at a greater number of locations in the UMS will improve access for students who are not initially prepared, financially or academically, to make the move to UMaine or USM. Additionally, using a variety of distance education modalities, students enrolled at UMaine and USM, will gain access to classes that may better fit their schedules. Another advantage to providing the foundational courses at the other universities is spreading exposure to the engineering programs across the UMS. Natural synergies with some degree programs, such as Computer Information Systems or Architecture, may be used as a springboard to engineering degrees. There are some challenges to providing the foundational courses at the other UMS universities. (1) The learning outcomes of the foundational courses must be aligned so that they meet the requirements of the engineering programs at UMaine and USM. This challenge will be addressed by discipline specific curricular communities and entry level engineering community. (2) Guidelines for advising engineering students must be developed at the five campuses that do not offer engineering. This

of 51

challenge can be met by having clearly defined pathways toward completion of engineering degrees as described previously. (3) The challenge of faculty governance and institutional control must also be addressed in a manner that is sensitive to the concerns of the five universities. (4) An Introduction to Engineering Design course should be offered at each of the seven UMS campuses. This course should be developed by the entry level engineering community and discipline specific curricular communities. Additionally, the course should be designed so that it meets general education requirements. FINANCIAL MODEL FOR INVESTMENT IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION

The growth in undergraduate engineering enrollment at UMaine and USM has had a substantial financial benefit for the UMS. If the UMS is to continue to reap these benefits it is essential that investments be made in engineering faculty, staff, teaching assistants, and facilities. Without this investment further growth in undergraduate numbers is not possible. A financial model to stabilize the current engineering programs and allow for future growth is described below.

The financial model is based on the engineering undergraduate enrollment growth that has

already occurred along with the possibility of future growth combined with the trend of increasing numbers of non-resident students. This model includes all tuition revenue generated by engineering students. Revenue and expense models are presented.

The revenue model makes predictions through FY20. It is based on the following key

assumptions: Growth trends for total and non-resident undergraduates will continue (see Figure 3).

Tuition for resident, NEBHE, and Canadian undergraduates will remain unchanged.

Tuition for non-resident and international students will increase by 3% per year.

Tuition revenue is discounted for financial aid whose source is E&G Using FY13 as a baseline, this shows that net tuition revenue generated by engineering undergraduates will increase by $10-million by FY20 at UMaine and by $0.7-million at USM. The revenue model is shown in Appendix J.

For enrollment growth to continue, strategic investments must be made in engineering at UMaine and USM. The investment model is based on the following key assumptions:

Faculty, staff, and teaching assistant salaries increase by 3% per year.

Graduate student tuition and health insurance increase by 3% per year.

Sufficient faculty are added to reduce the student/faculty ratio from a peak of 28:1 to 25:1 at UMaine and 34:1 to 33:1 at USM by FY20 while allowing student numbers to continue to increase.

The investment model is shown in Appendix K. This shows that by FY20, for every dollar invested in engineering at UMaine an additional $1.65 will be available for investment elsewhere on campus. Likewise, at USM, an additional $1 will be available. It is essential that some of the added revenue be invested in departments that support engineering.

Return on investment in engineering exceeds 2:1

of 51

APPENDIX A ROLE OF ENGINEERS IN MAINE’S ECONOMY

of 51

Engineers in Maine’s Economy

Prepared by Dana N. Humphrey, Ph.D., P.E. Dean of Engineering University of Maine

V1 (02/25/2015) ---- NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION ---

Introduction

Engineers play a vital, but sometimes overlooked, role in Maine’s economy. This critical role is quantified in the following sections. Furthermore, it is shown that Maine is under producing the number of engineers needed for our state. Investing in engineering education is critical to overcoming this shortfall. The long-term return on investment for the State of Maine will be significant. Engineering Employment Growth in Maine

The number of engineers7 employed in Maine has grown from 5,740 in 2004 to 6,600 in 2013, an increase of 860 (15.0% growth). This is an annual growth rate of about 95 engineering positions. Conversely, during the same period employment for all occupations in Maine decreased by 2%. Nationwide, there was 10.5% growth in engineering employment from 2004 to 2013. Thus, engineering employment grew faster in Maine than the nation as a whole8.

Nationwide, the U.S. will need to add an estimated 250,000 engineering positions over the next decade9. This is a growth of 11%. Assuming that this trend applies in Maine, our state will need to add roughly 750 engineering positions by 2023.

In addition, replacements will be needed for engineers who retire or

7 Engineers includes: all engineering occupations, engineering managers, and construction managers; does not include architects, landscape architects, or engineering technicians. 8 Employment data from U.S. Department of Labor State Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates 9 Lampinen, J., & McAward, T. (2014), Spotlight on Engineering: Promising Futures for New Engineers, Kelly Engineering Resources (http://www.kellyservices.us/uploadedFiles/United_States_-_Kelly_Services/New_Smart_Content/Candidate_Resource_Center/Managing_Your_Career/Eng_Promising_Futures.pdf)

Engineering Employment in Maine Compared to Total Employment

of 51

otherwise leave the engineering workforce. Nationwide, more than half of the engineering workforce is age 45 or older compared to 40% for overall labor force10. The age distribution is similar for Maine. Moreover, 27% of Maine’s workers in the “Professional, Technical and Scientific” category, which includes engineers, are age 55 or older11. Based on a straight line projection of past trends, the Maine Department of Labor estimates that 1,250 replacement engineers will be needed in our state by 202312. However, if all the engineers currently age 55 or older retire by 2023, over 1,750 engineers will be needed just to replace retirees. Additional engineers will be needed to replace those who leave the profession. Thus, Maine will likely need more than 2,500 new and replacement engineers from 2013 through 2023.

Contribution of Engineers to Maine’s Economy

In 2013, the median salary for engineers in Maine was $82,032. The total wages earned by engineers was $541-million13, a 44% increase since 2004. The estimated total state taxes paid by engineers was $29-million in 201314. If engineering employment in Maine grows as discussed previously, the total wages earned by engineers is expected to be $801-million producing tax revenue of $43-million by year 2023 (accounting for past trends for wage inflation).

Direct Wages and Taxes for Maine Engineers

10 Ibid. 11 Based on data extracted from http://ledextract.ces.census.gov/ for the second quarter of 2014; the category “Professional, Technical and Scientific” includes engineers, scientists, and related technical professionals; data for engineers alone is not available. 12In a personal communication John Dorrer, former director of the Maine Department of Labor’s Center for Workforce Research and Information stated that: “occupational projections from the Department of Labor tend to be conservative and have often underestimated growth particularly in professional technical fields (projections are straight line updates of historical trends without much emphasis on structural and technological changes that impact demand)” 13 Wage data from U.S. Department of Labor State Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates 14 Based on total state tax rate (income plus sales) of 5.36% for the income decile $74,758-$108,724 as given in “Maine Tax Incidence Study” by Michael J. Allen, Economic Research Division, Maine Revenue Service, Presented to Joint Standing Committee on Taxation, August 15, 2011.

2003 2013

2023 (projection)

# engineers employed 5,700 6,600 7,350

Average salary $62,343 $82,032 $109,000

Total wages earned $355-M $541-M $801-M

Estimated state taxes paid $19-M $29-M $43-M

of 51

The contribution of engineers to Maine’s economy goes far beyond their direct wages. A study by UMaine’s Prof. Todd Gabe estimated that sales revenue attributable directly to engineers in 2011 was $2.25-billion. The multiplier effect that result from engineers in terms of purchases of supplies and employment of non-engineering workers adds another $1.45-billion. Thus, the total economic impact of engineers in Maine totals $3.70-billion. This is an economic impact of over $560,000 per engineer and totals 5.4% of Maine’s GDP. Given that engineers comprise just 1.1% of Maine’s workforce, this demonstrates the out-sized influence of engineers on Maine’s economy. If the number of engineers employed in Maine grows as discussed above, they would be expected to add over $400-million to Maine’s GDP by 2023. The state tax revenue generated by engineering activities in 2011 is estimated to be $160-million. By 2023, this is expected to grow to $180-million. This is based on state tax revenue being 5.8% of Maine’s GDP.15 Demand Versus Production of Engineers in Maine

In 2014 there were 1,272 job postings for engineers in Maine16. These positions range from entry level engineers to senior engineering managers. The number of job posting greatly exceeds the roughly 300 engineering bachelor’s degrees that are produced in Maine each year. When this imbalance in Maine is combined with the nationwide demand for engineers, it is no surprise that that the placement rate for UMaine engineering graduates exceeds 99%. Even during the recent recession, the placement rate never dropped below 95%.

An analysis of the graduates who earned an engineering bachelor’s degree in academic year 12-13 shows a dramatic of underproduction of engineers in Maine. In this academic year, a total of 317 bachelor’s degrees in engineering and engineering technology were granted in Maine by the accredited programs at the University of Maine, University of Southern Maine (USM), and Maine Maritime Academy (MMA). Of these 298 (94%) were granted by UMaine, 8 were granted by MMA, and 11 were granted by USM. Due to the overwhelming predominance of UMaine graduates, the fate of these graduates can give a good picture of the whole. Based on the most recent Life After UMaine Survey, 91% of engineering graduates reported that they were employed full-time and 8.9% reported that they were full-time graduate students, yielding a total placement rate of greater than 99%. This in and of itself is a strong indicator of the demand for engineers.

15 In 2009, taxes collected by the state were $2.91-B and the state’s GDP was $50.0-B; thus, total state taxes were 5.8%. References: “Maine Tax Incidence Study” and Avery, J.E., et al (2011), “Gross Domestic Product by State,” Survey of Current Business, July, pp. 142-169. 16 Source: Labor/Insight Jobs (Burning Glass Technologies)

Placement Rate for UMaine Engineering Graduates

of 51

Further scrutiny is needed to quantify the number of graduates available for engineering jobs in Maine. This must consider the percent of graduates who take positions in Maine and the percent who take positions outside of the engineering profession. The latter is important because an engineering degree provides the foundation for careers in a wide range of non-engineering fields including information technology, business, public administration, education, law, and medicine. The most recent Life After UMaine Survey showed that 54.6% of engineering graduates who reported being employed full time took their first job in Maine.17 Of the students who were employed full-time, 82% reported that they were employed within their field of study while 15% reported that they were employed in related fields. Finally, 3% reported that they were employed full-time in a field unrelated to engineering. Applying these percentages to the number of engineering graduates yields an estimated 129 graduates who took positions in Maine as engineers18, 24 took positions in Maine in fields related to engineering19, and 5 took positions in Maine in fields unrelated to engineering20. In addition, an estimated 131 graduates accepted employment outside of Maine either as engineers or non-engineers, and 28 continued on to graduate school.

Employment Status Number In Maine employed as engineers 129 In Maine employed in fields related to engineering 24 In Maine employed in fields unrelated to engineering 5 TOTAL IN MAINE 158 Employed outside of Maine 131 Graduate school 28 TOTAL GRADUATES IN ACADEMIC YEAR 12-13 317

There is a major gap between the 129 graduates from UMaine, USM, and MMA who entered the engineering profession in our state and the roughly 250 new and replacement engineers that are needed each year for the next decade. Some of this gap can be satisfied by attracting engineers educated outside of Maine to our state. However, given the nationwide demand for engineers, this cannot be the only strategy. It is essential that the state grow its capacity to educate engineers right here in Maine.

17 The survey further showed that 65% of graduates who were Maine residents took their first job in Maine, while 11% of non-Maine residents took their first job in Maine. 18 317 total graduates x 91% employed full-time x 54.6% employed in Maine x 82% employed in engineering 19 317 total graduates x 91% employed full-time x 54.6% employed in Maine x 15% employed in related fields 20 317 total graduates x 91% employed full-time x 54.6% employed in Maine x 3% employed infields not related to engineering

of 51

APPENDIX B

NUMBER OF STUDENTS, NUMBER OF FACULTY, CREDIT HOUR PRODUCTION, NUMBER OF DEGREES AWARDED, AND RESEARCH FUNDING LEVEL BY

ACADEMIC PROGRAM

of 51

APPENDIX C ADVANTAGES, DISADVANTAGES, AND IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES FOR

POSSIBLE ORGANIZATIONAL MODELS

of 51

Organizational Model Advantages Disadvantages Challenges Status Quo – Separate programs making decisions completely independent of each other

Work is done Know how to manage Some program differentiation

(e.g., UMaine has traditional mechanical engineering program while USM focuses on electromechanical)

Currently have high quality program

Program agility (ability to change quickly)

USM caters to part-time students

Know what costs are

Can’t control appropriate distribution of resources

Hard to shift costs/resources between programs

Hard to have breadth of expertise needed to offer degree programs

Perceived competition between programs at UMaine and USM

Missed opportunities for cooperation/collaboration

Fewer opportunities for specialized education that students desire/deserve

No coordination of faculty hires

Change is perceived to be a threat to quality

No data to show that alternatives would be an improvement

Need to communicate that programs are complementary and serve distinct student markets

Growth of both programs is recourse constrained

Limited communication between programs

UMaine and USM engineering programs constrained by finances within their universities

Penn State Model – Programs maintain separate administrative structure, but coordinate at the degree program level

Existing model at Penn State can be used for guidance

Accommodates different promotion and tenure criteria at UMaine and USM

Would use existing UMaine and USM administrative structures with separate departments with separate chairs and deans

Students have well defined pathways to degree that cross campus boundaries

Faculty and administrative time required to achieve the desired level coordination

Must develop governance structure that crosses the boundaries of seven UMS campuses as well as respecting the individual campus faculty governance

Does not address need for sufficient faculty for engineering programs at UMaine and USM

Funds for each program will continue to be allocated through respective campuses

Need an online curriculum management system such as that used by Penn State

of 51

Organizational Model Advantages Disadvantages Challenges Note: The following model is a subset of the Penn State Model

Intercampus transfer model – X years at starting campus followed by Y years at second campus; variations of this model include X+Y+N – X years at starting campus, followed by Y years at another campus, followed by N years returning to original campus or a third campus

Advantages to students in both directions (.e.g., internships

High mobility between campuses

Expanded access to programs Enhanced flexibility for

students Allows students to go to

campus that offers unique opportunities

Students from smaller campuses are able to explore engineering

Would need to change how faculty governance is applied, but some faculty are set in their ways

On smaller campuses students would get less exposure on how to think like an engineer

Some students are location bound and don’t have the ability to change from one campus to another

Coordination between campuses takes ongoing faculty and staff time

Young students need to have a live faculty member – critical for retention

With multiple campuses participating, how do students register and how is tuition allocated

Need reciprocal Quid Pro Quo, i.e., should flow in both directions between UMaine and USM

Need 1+3 with UMA, UMF, UMM, UMPI, and UMFK

Growth in engineering students requires more faculty and facilities

No financial incentive for campus X to mentor/advise students to go to Y

How would student moving from campus X to Y affect campus X’s retention rate?

Good model for students to start at community college and then move to UMaine or USM

Need system to advise engineering students at starting campus

Can this model be expanded to colleges outside the UMS?

Can this model be meshed with high school dual enrollment programs?

Every member of staff should be able to sell engineering programs

of 51

Organizational Model Advantages Disadvantages Challenges Intercampus transfer model – X years at starting campus followed by Y years at second campus; variations of this model include X+Y+N – X years at starting campus, followed by Y years at another campus, followed by N years returning to original campus or a third campus (continued)

Need standardized core of foundational courses in mathematics, chemistry and physics

Must remove barriers for students to take an online course from another campus; this includes issues with student financial aid; can this be solved by the home campus “buying” the student’s seat in another campus’s course

Merge two programs but maintain current locations and separate ABET accreditation

Competition and duplication eliminated

Can share faculty with specialized knowledge across UMS

Faculty can move from UMaine to USM and remain in same department

All faculty are able to supervise graduate students

Easier to link resources of UMaine into USM

Major change is difficult Funding must be provided to

maintain faculty at two locations

The funds to operate a single program would flow from two campuses

The differences in student populations and faculty expectations at UMaine and USM are so great that it would not be possible to implement this model at this point in time

How would this affect operating costs and revenue allocation?

Resource allocation – will one program suffer to support the other?

Unknown cost of implementation – temptation would be to implement on the cheap

Dissimilar promotion and tenure criteria

Different workload and research expectations at UMaine and USM

Must maintain separate ABET accreditation for programs

Acceptance by engineering faculty at both UMaine and USM is uncertain

Overburdened faculty do not have the time needed to share expertise between institution

of 51

Organizational Model Advantages Disadvantages Challenges Brand programs at each campus to make them unique

Captures market share Reduces competition between

campuses New programs would be

additions to statewide offerings rather than duplications

Opportunities for adding graduate programs

Programs that are unique within New England could take advantage of the NEBHE rate and thus be attractive to nonresident students

Loses synergies between programs

There are already too few faculty for the programs that we have

of 51

APPENDIX D ADVANTAGES, DISADVANTAGES, AND IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES

OF COURSE DELIVERY MODELS

of 51

Delivery Model Advantages Disadvantages Challenges Traditional face-to-face Provides good opportunity for

instructor to motivate and excite students, especially 1st and 2nd year students

Personal presence, during class, after class, in office hours is irreplaceable

Students feel that their expensive college of choice is offering the program that they came to campus for in the first place

Absent the disadvantages of various synchronous and asynchronous teaching methods, faculty can push students for higher quality work

Able to address student questions during class which enhances learning for all students

Good for group interaction, team building, group problem solving and peer-led learning

Less time consuming to prepare to deliver

Communication skills building (rhetorical skills, presentation etc.)

Relationship building (more rewarding for faculty/students)

Remote students and students at different campuses do not have access

The range of upper level electives available on a campus is limited to that teachable by the staff on that campus

Time/place specific No/little time for students to

reflect during class Group think/group dynamics

can inhibit student participation

Environmental factors (sensory experiences can distract from learning)

High student numbers reduce the quality of this otherwise proven teaching technique

In order to support students starting engineering at all 7 campuses, staff is required at all campuses

Flexibility - shared classroom schedule is limited/dictates formats

of 51

Delivery Model Advantages Disadvantages Challenges Traditional face-to-face (cont’d) Direct interaction/observation

of verbal/non-verbal communication

Facilitates hands-on and skill based training

Environmental factors (sensory experiences can enhance learning)

Online delivery of undergraduate courses

Accessible, convenient, and available for students

Can process lots of students through courses

If right teaching technology is used, when instructor answers question for one student, all students will hear/receive the answer

Facilitates some learning styles

Reduces duplication between campuses

Critical path courses can be offered every semester

Limited inter-personal interaction between students even when using appropriate technology

Can be more costly because of the time and resources needed to develop quality online courses

Course content must be periodically updated and improved resulting in long term costs that can negate potential for cost savings

Can process a lot of students Can be lower quality

especially if taught by faculty inexperienced in online delivery

Access to facilities like labs not possible without special arrangements for students to come to a campus

Community building is hard online

Must use appropriate technology to overcome lack of face time with faculty

With multiple campuses participating, how do students register and how is tuition allocated

Have to rethink teaching methods

Good for supplemental courses, but not for foundational courses

Lack of common calendar across system complicates delivery of synchronous online courses

Ownership of course material governed by UMS Intellectual Property Policy (default is that ownership of copyrightable material, such as developed for courses, resides with creator)

Upfront cost to develop quality online courses

Technology is evolving and sometimes unreliable

of 51

Delivery Model Advantages Disadvantages Challenges Online delivery of upper level undergraduate and graduate courses

Opens to wider markets and potential revenue sources

Opens wider array of courses Seniors and graduate students

are more mature and better able to handle online courses

Increases diversity of student population by including both traditional undergraduates, graduate students, and engineering practitioners in the same class

Some seniors not fully motivated, so may not keep up with requirements for course

No access to labs even on an

informal basis

To market beyond the borders of Maine it helps if the course is unique and instructor has a national (or at least regional) reputation

Not suitable for all courses Only compatible with some

student’s learning styles

Blended courses Flexibility of delivery/format Can integrate advantages of

multiple methodologies Access to global resources via

online options Technological

enhancements/opportunities Self pace options More metrics possible for

learner & faculty More active learning is

possible Maximize institutional use of

space & other efficiencies

More expensive to develop More student discipline

required Can introduce potential

disadvantages of separate methodologies listed above

Technological limitations/considerations

Less environmental/institutional experiences

Delivery of existing methodology without re-designing courses/programming (i.e. just teaching in a blended format the same way you would teach face to face.)

Providing appropriate learning design support/resources for faculty

of 51

APPENDIX E SUMMARY OF EAC ACCREDITED DEGREES OFFERED WITHIN THE

PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM.

Campus ABET

CommissionDegree

Behrend EAC Computer Engineering Behrend EAC Electrical Engineering Behrend EAC Mechanical Engineering Behrend EAC Software Engineering Harrisburg EAC Civil Engineering Harrisburg EAC Electrical Engineering Harrisburg EAC Environmental Engineering Harrisburg EAC Mechanical Engineering University Park EAC Aerospace Engineering University Park EAC Architectural Engineering University Park EAC Bioengineering University Park EAC Biological Engineering University Park EAC Chemical Engineering University Park EAC Civil Engineering University Park EAC Computer Engineering University Park EAC Electrical Engineering University Park EAC Energy Engineering University Park EAC Engineering Science University Park EAC Environmental Systems Engineering University Park EAC Industrial Engineering University Park EAC Materials Science and Engineering University Park EAC Mechanical Engineering University Park EAC Mining Engineering University Park EAC Nuclear Engineering University Park EAC Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering Wilkes-Barre EAC Surveying Engineering

of 51

APPENDIX F SUMMARY OF TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH DIRECTORS OF ENGINEERING

AT PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

Summary of Telephone Interview with Dr. Ralph Ford

Director, School of Engineering Penn State Behrend (Erie)

04/06/15

Interview conducted and summary prepared by Dana Humphrey.

Dean of Engineering University of Maine

BACKGROUND FROM PENN STATE BEHREND WEBSITE

3 Associate Technology Degrees (Electrical Eng Tech, Mechanical Eng Tech, and Plastics Eng Tech)

6 BS Engineering/Computer Science Degrees (Computer Eng, Computer Sci, Electrical Eng, Industrial Eng, Mechanical Eng, and Software Eng)

3 BS Engineering Technology Degrees (Electrical and Computer Eng Tech, Mechanical Eng Tech, Plastics Eng Tech)

Also have an MS in Manufacturing Management Fall’13 enrollment = 1445 2013 degrees granted: 14 AS, 109 BS Engineering, 90 BS Engineering Tech 55 faculty including the department chairs (looks like about a 60/40 mix of T/TE and

lecturers) – could not determine which faculty members were FT or PT 4 in director’s office, including Director Ford 11 support staff (clerical and technicians) – could not determine who was FT or PT Dr. Ford has been at Behrend for 21 years and has been Director of School of

Engineering for 10 years SUMMARY OF INTERVIEW Administration

Described Penn State as one university distributed across several campuses There are 18 campuses but only four are full service universities; the many campuses is

partly an outgrowth of Pennsylvania having a weak community college system There is a long history of affiliation between campuses Director Ford reports to the Chancellor of the Penn State Behrend campus (Note:

chancellor at Penn State would be the equivalent of a president in the UMS; the head of all of Penn State is called a President)

Director Ford has direct access to the Vice President for Commonwealth Campuses in University Park and consults with that person as needed on issues

of 51

Limited interaction with Dean of Engineering at University Park; they do coordinate on some donors and coop opportunities for students; more recently there has been collaboration on joint research projects

Director Ford described Penn State as a “good system” Within the limits of their budget, each campus has autonomy on hiring faculty/staff There is a formula that distributes funding; there is a “franchise fee” that is charged to

cover system operation and this will be going up Campuses have a high level of independence in budget matters One metric that is monitored is cost per credit hour at each campus – it is higher at

Behrend because of engineering and much higher at University Park because of research mission

Curriculum

Each campus grants its own degrees, i.e., the name of the campus is on the degree Engineering degrees at each campus are separately accredited by ABET Curriculum is designed so that students can start at any campus, then transfer to any

campus that offers the degree that they are seeking For degrees that are offered by multiple campuses, the first two years of the curriculum

are the same at each campus (there are sometimes inconsequential differences in the details such as whether a course is offered in the fall or spring); strive to have the same content in all these courses

For the third and fourth years there are some commonalities in the curriculum, but also some differences; at this level, sometimes courses with the same name and course number can have differences in content

Some campuses offer degrees that are unique to that location, for example Behrend offers a degree in software engineering that is unique within Penn State

Achieve common curriculum through a consultative process; disciplinary groups (called “curricular communities”) meet once or twice a year; have an on-line system to manage curricular maintenance and modification; a faculty member at any campus can comment on proposed changes; a result of all this process is that curricular change is slow

Director Ford estimates that 80% of students complete their degree at the campus that they started at, while 20% transfer; a campus gets “credit” for the student only when they are on their campus; a sending campus gets no “credit” for sending a student to another campus; a result is that there is competition for students

On-line learning o 99% of instruction is face-to-face o Most of on-line instruction is in humanities o The student pays their tuition to their home campus and then the home campus

“buys” their seat from the offering campus; the cost to “buy” is fixed and is less than the total tuition paid by the student

Faculty

Within the limits of their budget, each campus has autonomy on hiring faculty/staff There is no coordination/consultation between campuses when hiring faculty Some engineering technology faculty teach courses that are taken by engineering students

of 51

P&T policy controlled at campus level, but does need to be approved by administration that resides on University Park campus; there are system-wide P&T workshops each year

Faculty governance: each campus has a “faculty conclave” and then there is a system-wide “faculty senate” with representation from each campus

Different faculty workload expectation at each campus Faculty at Behrend do need to be active in research, but lower expectation than for

faculty at University Park; at Behrend engineering faculty expected to publish around 6 to 8 journal papers over a 10 year period

There is some research collaboration between University Park and Behrend faculty with similar interests and recently it is growing

General

Every campus benefits from the Penn State brand – Director Ford described as “very valuable”

There is a lot of focus on University Park; sometimes the smaller campuses feel like they get lost in the shuffle

In recent years, the smaller campuses have lost 3,000 students Outside of University Park there is a $22-M budget shortfall

of 51

Summary of Telephone Interview with Dr. Rafic Bachnak

Director, School of Engineering Penn State Harrisburg

04/16/15

Interview conducted and summary prepared by Dana Humphrey.

Dean of Engineering University of Maine

BACKGROUND FROM PENN STATE HARRISBURG WEBSITE&ASEE (2014), Profiles of Engineering and Engineering Technology Colleges

Does not offer associates degrees in engineering/technology 4 BS Engineering/Computer Science Degrees (Civil Engineering, Computer Science,

Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering,) 3 BS Engineering Technology Degrees (Structural Design and Construction Engineering

Technology, Electrical Engineering Technology,Mechanical Engineering Technology) 4 MS engineering degrees (Environmental Pollution Control, Engineering Science,

Environmental Engineering, Engineering Management, Electrical Engineering)(Note: in ASEE all MS degrees granted listed under University Park)

Engineering Fall’13 undergraduate enrollment = 195 FT and 20 PT Engineering Technology Fall’13 undergraduate enrollment = 230 FT and 21 PT 2013 degrees granted: 36 BS Engineering, 36 BS Engineering Tech (Note: in ASEE all

MS degrees granted listed under University Park) 33 faculty including the department chairs serving the engineering and engineering

technology programs – could not determine which faculty members were FT or PT (ASEE lists 21 FTE engineering faculty in Harrisburg – may not include faculty who teach in engineering technology)

Other programs in the same college as engineering/engineering tech: biology, science, mathematics

Director Bachank and an Associate Director in Deans Office 11 support staff (clerical and technicians) – could not determine who was FT or PT nor

who served engineering of the other programs in the college Dr. Bachnak has been at Director at Harrisburg for about 2 years. Prior to that he was a

department chair at a Texas A&M International University in Laredo, Texas and a faculty member at Texas A&M – Corpus Christi

SUMMARY OF INTERVIEW Administration

All campuses are part of Penn State vs. Texas A&M where each campus is largely independent

Harrisburg campus is headed by a Chancellor; there is a Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs who acts like a “Provost” (currently this is a Professor of Electrical Engineering)

of 51

Dr. Bachnak has a good relationship with University Park but only goes their twice a year; recent visits have been prompted by a new EE partnership between Harrisburg and University Park which will allow 60 students to have a six week summer research experience (two weeks in University Park and four weeks in Harrisburg)

Dr. Bachnak directly contacts University Park as needed Budgeting: funds are distributed based on enrollment, needs (e.g., engineering more

expensive), and differential tuition; once funds are distributed, control of budget is local Curriculum

The first two years of engineering curriculum are the same at Harrisburg as at University Park. Some students intend to transfer from the start, while others change their mind along the way

Due to common curriculum, no changes can be made until everyone agrees; this makes it hard to change things

Local control of admissions criteria; admissions criteria is higher at University Park A student who wants to move from one campus to another is treated as a transfer student;

student must meet the admissions/transfer criteria of the accepting campus; the process is easier than an external transfer because the student’s academic record is already in the system

Working on a new on-line MS program in EE in partnership with University Park Faculty

The process for approval of P&T criteria starts at the school level (in UMS parlance this would be the college level), then reviewed/approved at campus level, then on to system level committee. This ensures a level of uniformity between the campuses. At Harrisburg there are minimal expectations for research but much higher expectations at University Park.

General

Limited on-line instruction except during the summer Some competition for students between the campuses but it is not obvious Dr. Bachnak is working to build relationships with other campuses and has visited 7 out

of 20 so far Penn State vs. Texas A&M organizational model

o Texas A&M – each campus is totally independent; each campus headed by a president

o Penn State – some processes are more complex than at Texas A&M; takes longer to accomplish things; not as efficient as at Texas A&M; at Penn State significant changes can take 5 to 10 years

of 51

APPENDIX G UPPER LEVEL ENGINEERING COURSES OFFERED ONLINE

IN THE LAST THREE YEARS BY UMAINE.

Course Number

Course Title Credit Hours

Semesters & years offered

ECE 467 Solar Cells and Their Applications 3 S’14, S’15 ECE 498 Special Topic - Power Systems 3 S’13, S’15 ECE 498 Special Topic - Microwave Engineering 3 S’13 ECE 498 Special Topic - Project Management and System Engineering 1 F’13, F’14, F’15 ECE 498 Special Topic – Electric Circuits/Power/Machinery 3 S’13, S’15 ECE 515 Random Variables and Stochastic Processes 3 F’13, F’15 ECE 543 Microelectronic Devices I 3 F’14, F’15 ECE 550 Electromagnetic Theory 3 S’13, S’14, S’15 ECE 571 Advanced Microprocessor-Based Design 3 S’13, F’14 ECE 573 Microprogramming 3 F’13, F’14, F’15 ECE 574 Cluster Computing 3 S’14, F’15 ECE 577 Fuzzy Logic 3 S’13, S’14, S’15 EET 460 Renewable Energy and Electricity Production 3 F’13, F’14, F’15 EET 498 Special Topic – Alternative Energy Seminar 1 F’13, F’14, F’15 GEE 486 Advanced Project Management 3 F’13, F’14, F’15 MEE 445 Aeronautics 3 F’14, F’15 MEE 446 Astronautics 3 F’13, F’15 MEE 480 Wind Energy Engineering 3 S’13, S’14 MEE 489 Offshore Floating System Design 3 F’13, F’14 MEE 547 Flight Dynamics and Control of Aircraft and Space Vehicles 3 S’13, S’15 MEE 548 Spacecraft Orbit and Attitude Dynamics and Control 3 S’14 MEE 564 Fluid Structure Interaction 3 S’13, S’14, F’15 SVT 325 Surveying/Engineering Ethics 1 F’13, S’13, F’14,

S’14, F’15, S’15 SVT 501 Advanced Adjustment Computations 3 F’14, F’15 SVT 511 Geodetic U.S. Public Land Survey Computations 3 F’14 SVT 532 Survey Strategies in Use of Lidar 3 S’14, S’15 SVT 541 Geodesy 3 S’15

of 51

APPENDIX H SAMPLE OF INTERCAMPUS TRANSFER PROGRAM OF STUDY

Mechanical Engineering - Starting at Umaine Farmington DRAFT DRAFT DRAFTOne Year at farmington - Three Years at Umaine

First Year - FarmingtonFall Spring

Eng 100 Composition (UM ENG 101) 3 Computer Programming in C+ (UM COS 220)** 3Mat 140 Calculus I (UM MAT 126) 4 Mat 142 Calculus II (UM MAT 127) 4Phy 141 Gen Physics I with Lab (UM PHY 121) 4 Phy 142 Gen Physics II with Lab (UM PHY 122) 4Fys 100 Freshman Seminar (UM MEE 101) 2 Arts and Humanities/Social Science*** 3Arts and Humanities/Social Science*** 3 MEE 150 Statics - UM Class* 3

Credits 16 Credits 17

Second Year - Umaine

Fall Spring

MAT 228 Calculus III 4 ECE 209 Fund of Electric Circuits - UM Class 3CHY 121/123 Gen Chem I with Lab 4 Basic Science Elective 4MEE 230 Thermodynamics I - UM Class 3 Arts and Humanities/Social Science*** 3Arts and Humanities/Social Science*** 3 MAT 259 Diff Equ with Linear Algebra 4MEE 251 Strengths of Materials - UM Class 3 MEE 270 Dynamics - UM Class 3


Third Year - UmaineFall SpringMEE 360 Fluid Mechanics 3 MEE 320 Material Science 3MEE 370 Controls 3 MEE 341 Mechanical Lab I 3MEE 380 Design I 3 ECP 341 Technical Writing II 1MEE 231 Thermodynamics II 3 MEE 381 Design II 3MAT 332 Statistics 3 MEE 456 Intro to Finite Element 3

ME Technical Elective 3Credits 15 Credits 16

Forth Year - UmaineFall SpringMEE 432 Heat Transfer 3 MEE 443 Mechanical Lab III 2MEE 442 Mechanical Lab II 2 MEE 471 Mechanical Vibrations 3MEE 487 Design III (Capstone) 4 MEE 488 Design IV (Capstone) 4ME Technical Elective 3 ECP 488 Technical Writing III 1ECP 487 Technical Writing II 1 ME Technical Elective 3Arts and Humanities/Social Science*** 3 Arts and Humanities/Social Science*** 3


*MEE 150 Statics would need to be taught at UMF** A C+ Class offered at Umaine Farmington*** UM's Arts and Science electives must also satisfy some general education reuirements that requires the distribution of these

classes over 6 areas.

of 51

APPENDIX I COURSE DELIVERY METHODOLOGIES

Status Quo Course Delivery Methodologies

Status Quo teaching, i.e. face-to-face in a classroom with students is the most common teaching methodology used in UMS classrooms and in most engineering schools. It is time-proven to provide a quality educational experience at reasonable cost and will continue to be the dominant methodology where practicable. Nevertheless there is a need to explore other methodologies that, depending on the circumstances, have the potential to improve quality, increase access, and enhance financial sustainability.

Other Methodologies

The following is a tabulation of a number of methodologies that, by using technology, allow for course delivery to multiple locations with a remote instructor. A. Synchronous Methodologies

a. Video Conferencing Systems – Dedicated locations are equipped with proprietary video conferencing systems that can be remotely scheduled to interoperate for course delivery. UMaine, USM, Jackson Laboratory and Maine Medical have used such systems for delivering bioscience courses.

b. Audio Conferencing- Here telephone systems are used to augment course delivery. For example, the UMS Phone Bridge can and has been used to bring students together from remote locations to conduct course discussions, to supplement faculty hours etc.

c. Web Conferencing- This methodology utilizes computer software-based communication systems that run on a web browser. The software is designed to host collaborative experiences that can be used to deliver courses. Examples are video conferencing tools, screen sharing and other interactive modules that can be used to facilitate multisite instruction. Some more common software packages are Adobe Connect, WebEx and Google Hangouts.

B. Asynchronous Options

a. Here students may complete courses in part or entirely asynchronously. Materials are made available through various systems of delivery. Some techniques are: i. Learning Management System (LMS) Facilitate Courses- Here students work at

their own pace to complete lesson materials. Tools such as Blackboard, Moodle and Synapse are tools for creating and submitting assignments and other components necessary for on-line delivery.

ii. Video/Audio Streaming- Here streaming media is used to deliver course content on-demand to students. Faculty utilize various techniques such as screen capture, studio environments, classroom capture etc. to deliver course material in streaming format. Existing media archive services are also available on-line or through vendors.

of 51

C. “Flipped Classroom Methodology a. Flipping a classroom is a technique that utilizes asynchronous practices to move elements

such as lectures to assigned activities in order to utilize synchronous (real-time) class time for more interactive teaching and learning activities.

D. Blended (a.k.a. Hybrid) Class Instruction- This is a technique for using multiple teaching

methodologies to deliver a course. For example, a course could have two sections, one comprised of traditional students and another of on-line students using, for example, video audio streaming. Both sections would complete the same assigned materials independently but would meet via Web Conferencing for certain activities.

The forgoing has described a number of teaching methodologies that can be used to address the need to provide quality cost-effective engineering education to Maine students. In particular, some of the newer techniques, particularly those which rely on telecommunication technology, show promise for providing instruction to engineering students where the local demand for a particular course does not justify the constant presence of an instructor but where statewide the critical number of students exists. Using these new techniques, however, comes with costs, particularly upfront ones. We refer to two factors that must be considered before their widespread adoption.

A. Many, perhaps the majority of UMS faculty, are not facile in using these techniques. Effective use of any of these requires the availability of specialists to assist in both learning design for particular courses and determining whether, on a case-by-case basis, which methodology is best suited. B. Widespread adoption of new methodologies will require both flexibility and patience. New instructional modes often go through a rough start, particularly when faculty unskilled with them, are utilizing them. So patience and some forbearing will be necessary during the initial adoption phase.

of 51

AP

PE

ND

IX J

PR

OJE

CT

ED

RE

VE

NU

E M

OD

EL

of 51

UMaine College of Engineering

of 51

USM Department of Engineering

of 51

APPENDIX K PROJECTED EXPENSE MODEL

aprip round 1 overview - home - think mission … · aprip round 1 overview june 15, 2015 ... this...

Documents