Progress: The Dean has sent out a memo to all engineering faculty with guidelines to follow regarding the teaching process as well as teaching support activities.
If the College of Engineering at UT is to be widely recognized as the “best college” in the country, it must establish a distinguished record of innovation in all of the traditional missions of a university: education, research and practice, and service. To innovate intelligently, we must pick our targets wisely and garner sufficient resources to have a significant impact in reaching those targets. The following strategies are required:
Strategy A: Forecast important national and global trends that will affect the future of the engineering profession and define the College's strategic response to these trends.
Advances in technology come about in response to changing paradigms in society at large and to breakthroughs in scientific knowledge that open new windows of opportunity. While in rare circumstances these changes are revolutionary in nature, most often they evolve over a period of time and thus the general trajectory of social and scientific change can be predicted. To ensure that the College stays “ahead of the curve,” we should:
Action 1: Institute a standing committee (the 2020 Committee) charged with monitoring global trends in economics, politics, science, technology and society and with formulating new strategies and programs to capitalize on these trends.
This Committee should consist of a chairperson with wide-ranging vision appointed by the Dean, the Associate Dean for Research of the College of Engineering (ex officio), four members of the College faculty, three members of the Engineering Foundation Advisory Committee, and two others. Each member would serve a three-year term, with staggered beginning time so that three new members are present each year. This Committee would serve, in essence, as an ongoing strategic planning committee. The Committee should also be charged with removing obsolete or completed portions of the existing plan. Each Department is encouraged to have a similar committee constituted as appropriate.
Responsibility: Dean to appoint committee
Resources: Committee time, staff support, possible travel costs
Timeline: This committee can be set up immediately.
Success Metric: Ability of the College to attain leadership in creativity and innovation of programs.
Progress: The 2020 Committee has been formed, with Keys Curry as chairman.
Action 2: Establish a source of “seed capital” to encourage innovative programs, including those with a significant risk but potentially important payoffs.
This program would require administration by the Dean and a select group of faculty and EFAC members. EFAC would be charged with the task of raising the initial funds for this effort.
Responsibility: Dean, EFAC committee, Asst. Dean for Development
Resources: Time and effort by those charged; funding to provide $100,000/yr in seed capital.
Timeline: Initiate within one year; achieve proposed funding level within three years.
Success Metric: Number of seed programs that go on to significant external funding after the seeding period.
Progress: We have not established a "seed capital" fund per se, but the Center of Excellence Programs and the support provided by companies to individual departments can be used for this purpose. Similarly, the equipment matching funds and the overhead return funds can be used to help support new research ventures.
Per John Halton, as part of the "We're Texas" campaign, we seek to acquire "Excellence Funds" which allow great flexibility as to use of distributions from endowments. In addition, a "Seed Capital Endowment Fund" is in the portfolio of funding options we are prepared to discuss with donors and potential donors.
Strategy B: Encourage engineering enterprise and the teaching of the creation of wealth through technology.
The College should lead in the teaching of creation of knowledge-based wealth. For this, the following goals should be adopted.
Action 1: Implement a College policy on faculty entrepreneurship to provide clear guidelines on acceptable involvement.
Faculty entrepreneurship provides an important means of tech transfer that benefits the community as well as The University. The benefits as well as the pitfalls in encouraging faculty involvement in off-campus enterprises should be studied and a clear College policy in this regard should be implemented.
Responsibility: Dean consulting with faculty
Resources: Time
Timeline: Policy available in one year
Success Metric: Faculty understanding of the role and scope of entrepreneurial activities..
Progress: We have received approval from the VP-Research office for faculty to engage in start-up enterprises using IP developed by faculty, staff, and students. UT can support the new venture with an equity position. Contracts can be written allowing the inventors to receive half the proceeds from UT's receipts, and UT and the College of Engineering splitting the other half.
Action 2: Provide educational programs for the teaching of creation of wealth through technology.
Short courses, formal courses and continuing studies courses in aspects of entrepreneurship as related to engineering should be examined for viability and implemented if indicated by demand. Opportunities for cooperation with other Colleges (particularly Business) should be examined and implemented. Successful FOA/alumnae should be drawn upon.
Responsibility: Director of CES.
Resources: Should be self-supporting
Timeline: Implemented within 2 years
Success Metric: Establishment of successful programs and courses
Progress: Collaborating with the Austin Software Council on an "Entrepreneur's Conference" that will have an agenda focused on issues related to entrepreneurial issues for high technology companies. A related effort is in the establishment of a Learning Lab to provide a forum for small high growth companies to work with CoE/CLEE as well as other small companies in the development of continuing education programs designed specifically for their needs. Promoting "Tuesday Night at the Commons" scheduled to begin in the Fall 1999 semester. The Software Quality Institute, a program of the Center for Lifelong Engineering Education, is scheduling all of their courses and seminars to be held on a single night (Tuesday) in the same location (PRC Commons) to maximize the networking opportunities that high tech professionals value.
Strategy C: Provide clear support for teaching excellence and other contributions to excellence within the College.
The College of Engineering recognizes that excellent teaching at the undergraduate and graduate levels is a primary obligation to students and to the State of Texas. Yet, faculty do not always perceive that teaching is recognized fully in the promotion, tenure, and merit review process. The College can take action to make sure that teaching excellence is fully recognized and rewarded, and that faculty recognize its importance to the College.
Action 1: Implement an endowment to recognize excellence in teaching, to be rotated among deserving faculty.
This action would establish teaching as a priority of the College and of our supporters who endow the Chair. The income from a $1M endowment could be used as an award for one or more recipients each year. The recipient will be expected to be a spokesperson for teaching excellence, and could be required to provide one or more seminars on the subject.
Responsibility: Assistant Dean for Development
Resources: Time for Assistant Dean, help from EFAC
Timeline: Fully funded within 2 years
Success Metric: Establishment of Chair, recognition for recipients in media and by peers.
Progress: John Halton reports that we have not made progress on this goal as the current focus has been to acquire additional chairs which can be used to retain NAE members. As the "We're Texas" campaign moves forward, we hope to be able to interest a donor of a general purpose chair in this "teaching chair."
Action 2: Provide guidelines to departmental Budget Councils and the College Tenure and Promotion Review Committee on the factors to be considered in evaluation of teaching.
Excellent teaching is expected in the classroom, and can be evaluated using student ratings and faculty peer reviews. However, activities that impact teaching inside and outside the University should also be considered, including externally reviewed publications on educational issues, course materials developed by faculty and used externally, grants and contracts received to develop educational materials, textbooks published and adopted at other universities, etc.
Responsibility: Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Department Chairmen
Resources: None
Timeline: In place for 1999-2000 promotion cycle
Success Metric: Procedures in place in each Department and in College promotion/tenure review committee to include careful evaluation of teaching contributions.
Progress: A document titled "Guidelines for Recognizing Faculty Teaching Effectiveness and Related Contributions" was prepared in Spring 1999 and distributed by the Dean to faculty in the College. The purpose of these guidelines was to point out to the faulty and to Budget Councils in particular the importance to be placed on teaching effectiveness in salary advancement, promotion in rank, and tenure. This document is available on the College’s Web site in The Academic Affairs Office site.
Chemical Engineering does this routinely and when the next reviews are done, the Department will communicate the College statements on teaching contributions.
Dr. Francis Bostick, Chair of Electrical and Computer Engineering reports that there has been no departmental action to establish a firm set of guidelines by which the quality of a faculty member’s teaching is evaluated. The guidelines drafted by Neal Armstrong are considered in the promotion and tenure review process. The teaching effectiveness of a faculty member who is put up for promotion is carefully evaluated by an ad hoc departmental panel. This evaluation involves assessing how well the faculty member’s courses are organized, the quality of the classroom presentations, the relevance of the course materials, and the processes by which students are evaluated. Student opinions of the course and the instructor are also considered. It has been our experience that quality teaching can take different forms and it is difficult to follow a rigid set of guidelines.
[Also see (G1:SD:A3); (G2:SD:A1)]
Action 3. Provide guidelines to departmental Budget Councils and the College Tenure and Promotion Review Committee for rewarding faculty and staff who make significant and innovative contributions to the achievement of the above goal and who undertake positions of national leadership in socially-responsive engineering activities.
Responsibility: Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Department Chairmen
Resources: Minimal
Timeline: In place for 1999-2000 promotion cycle
Success Metric: Procedures in place to assure that decision-making bodies consider such activities in the promotion/tenure/merit process.
Progress: A document titled "Guidelines for Recognizing Faculty Teaching Effectiveness and Related Contributions" was prepared in Spring 1999 and distributed by the Dean to faculty in the College. The purpose of these guidelines was to point out to the faulty and to Budget Councils in particular the importance to be placed on teaching in salary advancement, promotion in rank, and tenure. This document includes recognition of faculty teaching excellence. It is available on the College’s Web site in The Academic Affairs Office.
This will be done as part of the annual review the Department of Chemical Engineering is about to undertake.
The Electrical and Computer Engineering Department’s faculty evaluation Metric system includes scores for community and professional activities. Staff innovation and involvement in socially responsive activities are certainly factored into the evaluation process for salary recommendations and award nominations.
[Also see (G1:SD:A3); (G2:SD:A1)]
Action 4: Provide guidelines to departmental Budget Councils and the College Tenure and Promotion Review Committee for appropriate rewards and recognition for faculty who take a lead role in promoting and participating in distance learning and continuing education activities.
Responsibility: Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Department Chairmen
Resources: None
Timeline: In place for 1999-2000 promotion cycle
Success Metric: Procedures in place in each Department and in College promotion/tenure review committee to include careful evaluation of contributions to distance learning/continuing education.
Progress: A document titled "Guidelines for Recognizing Faculty Teaching Effectiveness and Related Contributions" was prepared in Spring 1999 and distributed by the Dean to faculty in the College. The purpose of these guidelines was to point out to the faulty and to Budget Councils in particular the importance to be placed on teaching in salary advancement, promotion in rank, and tenure. This document includes recognition of faculty who take a lead in promoting and participating in distance learning and continuing education activities.
This will be done as part of the annual review the Department of Chemical Engineering is about to undertake.
The Electrical and Computer Engineering Department’s faculty evaluation Metric system includes a category for participation in continuing education. There is no specific category for being involved in distance education. Until now only two of our faculty have participated in distance education. As this form of instruction becomes more common, Department Chairman Dr. Francis Bostick feels sure it will be represented in the evaluation system.
[Also see (G1:SD:A3); (G2:SD:A1)]
Action 5: Provide guidelines to departmental Budget Councils and the College Tenure and Promotion Review Committee for rewarding faculty contributions to collaborative teaching and research, and avoid searching for individual contributions to successful collaborative efforts. Collaborative teaching and research should specifically be recognized in the promotion, tenure, and merit evaluations.
If collaborative efforts are successful, then the faculty engaged in the work are very likely to be contributors, and should be recognized.
Responsibility: Associate Dean for Academic Affairs
Resources: Budget Councils, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and College Promotion and Tenure Review Committee
Timeline: In place by Fall, 1999 semester
Success Metric: Increased participation by faculty in collaborative/interdisciplinary teaching and research.
[Also see (G1:SD:A3); (G2:SD:A1)]
Progress: A document titled "Guidelines for Recognizing Faculty Teaching Effectiveness and Related Contributions" was prepared in Spring 1999 and distributed by the Dean to faculty in the College. The purpose of these guidelines was to point out to the faulty and to Budget Councils in particular the importance to be placed on teaching in salary advancement, promotion in rank, and tenure. This document includes recognition of faculty contributions to collaborative teaching.
New computer-based technology is providing tools for more effective instruction in engineering. Many of our conventional methods of academic and technical communication are being supplemented with electronic media. To insure that the College of Engineering is a leader in the development and implementation of new technology-based instructional approaches, we should:
Action 6: Provide paid undergraduate student support to faculty for preparing and maintaining web-based, course materials, etc.
Responsibility: Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Department Chairmen
Resources: Funding of $10,000/semester will provide 15 undergraduates at 5 hr/wk, $7/hr
Timeline: Fully funded within 2 years
Success Metric: Web resources established for interested faculty, updated continuously.
Progress: While regular funding for undergraduate support for preparing and maintaining web-based course materials, multimedia materials, and so forth, has not been obtained, funding has been made available for graduate students as Teaching Assistants to assist in this way. Approximately $30,000 in Academic Development Funds are made available each spring to support proposals by faculty who wish to develop and maintain multimedia, web-assisted, and web-based materials. In addition, some 20 TA positions were funded in those departments that requested them during Summer 1999 specifically for students who could help faculty develop and maintain such materials.
Chemical Engineering has done this in the past and continues to to do this. Sometimes the funding goes to undergraduate students and sometimes it is provided to graduate students. Faculty only need to make their case and we will find the resources.
The Electrical and Computer Engineering Department does not have department funds set aside specifically to pay for undergraduate assistants to help develop and maintain web-based course materials. The web activity is, however, considered part of the normal process of delivering a course. If a TA is assigned to a course then some portion of his or her duties could be to assist with the web-based materials. Last summer Neal Armstrong made available a number of TA slots to be dedicated to the development of web-based materials and most of our recent proposals for Academic Development Funds have involved developing web-based course materials.