JUNE 2010 IEEE WOMEN IN ENGINEERING MAGAZINE 29

t

IEEE Women in Engineering program manager and associate editor of IEEE Women in Engineering Magazine. “The Ship the Chip lesson not only explores how engineers develop packaging design requirements, but also evaluates the external stresses that engineers must consider when developing a package or product design. Students worked as teams of engineers, evaluating material selection, manufacturing, testing and evaluation of their package design. This is also helpful in the field of technol-ogy when computers and software are shipped daily.

The Microsoft DigiGirlz Camp is a great way to expose girls to a variety of career options in science, technology, engineering, and math. “Providing this hands-on experience provides a way to encourage interest into the field, moti-vate learning, increase awareness of technology, and all while having fun,” Tennant adds. “It was evident that the Microsoft DigiGirlz program will inspire more girls into the fields of science, technology, engineering, and math.”

Since its inception in 2000, Micro-soft’s DigiGirlz Technology Programs (which include high-tech camps and one-day events) have provided free technology education and interactive experiences to thousands of young women around the world. The DigiGirlz programs began with a high-tech camp facilitated at Microsoft’s headquarters in Redmond, Washington, in 2000 with 35 students, and is continually expand-ing into other geographies. More than

6,800 students have benefited from Microsoft DigiGirlz Tech-nology Programs. In 2009 alone, the DigiGirlz programs reached roughly 3,400 girls in 40 loca-tions worldwide.

Microsoft has experienced evidence of this success by wel-coming former DigiGirlz as both high school and college interns. The number of DigiGirlz who return as high school interns at the Redmond Corporate Campus equals approximately 10–16% of total high school interns hired per year. In 2009, two former DigiGirlz returned to Microsoft as college interns working in technical fields.

DigiGirlz success stories include Logan Olson, who developed and man-ages Logan Magazine for girls with dis-abilities, using Microsoft accessibility technology. Anna Molosky recently won the National Center for Women and Information Technology’s Aspirations in Computing Award, which recognizes young women for their computing-related achievements and interests. Olivia Pineda is volunteering for an online magazine called Amazing Kids, a free online magazine geared toward kids 9–12 years old. To help shed a spotlight on technology, Olivia recently conducted an exclusive interview with Bill Gates for the magazine.

The DigiGirlz Programs are part of Microsoft’s longstanding commitment to strengthening the pipeline of women in technology. Through opportunities

like DigiGirlz, Microsoft wants to show girls that they can succeed in careers in science and technology. Microsoft hopes by introducing girls to a multi-tude of career options now, it will spark an interest that will last a lifetime.

—Stephanie Rowland

The Infusion of Creativity

Saving America’s engineering schools

This article examines the current state of engineering schools, particularly in the United States and abroad, by exploring how foreign and domestic institutional leaders can infuse their

More than 6,800 students have benefited from Microsoft DigiGirlz Technology Programs.

Keyana Tennant, associate editor of IEEE Women in Engineering Magazine, works with a diverse group during a recent DigiGirlz program.

Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MWIE.2010.936182

IEEE WOMEN IN ENGINEERING MAGAZINE JUNE 2010 30

organizations with creativity, thereby producing innovative engineering stu-dents, globally. The article seeks ways to make the engineering discipline more attractive to students so that more young peo-ple will consider careers in math and science.

Our methodology begins by discussing the current status quo in U.S. engineer-ing schools. The lack of creativity by today’s engi-neers universally becomes critical as more businesses look for technical workers for the future work-force. From a market-oriented perspec-tive, organizational leaders must be concerned with the present downward trend of American engineering schools when it comes to producing innova-tive students. We highlight suggestions for enhancing creativity in engineering schools globally. Therefore, this infor-mation is valuable to researchers and practitioners who are seeking methods to improve the overall effectiveness of engineering programs across the globe.

As the world continues the trend toward globalization and becomes more of a smaller entity, the United States and other nations must embrace the pres-ent culture if it wants to continue to be at the forefront of helping to direct the course of the world. This is imperative because globalization is already becom-ing the norm and therefore changing the very fabric of how the world operates. In light of this trend, how can current engineering schools infuse innovation and creativity into their curriculum in order to prepare engineering students for future development and to compete on the world stage? Immediate change is needed as impending danger looms.

Given this revelation, we examine the current state of engineering schools, par-ticularly in the United States and abroad, by exploring how foreign and domes-tic institutional leaders can infuse their organizations with creativity, thereby producing innovative engineering stu-dents globally. The lack of creativity by today’s engineers becomes critical as

more businesses look for technical work-ers for the future workforce. Accord-ing to a survey conducted by Peter D.

Hart Research Associates, 63% of American business leaders

said that college graduates are not prepared for the global environment. From a market-orient-ed perspective, organi-zational leaders must be concerned with the

present downward trend of American engineering

schools in producing innova-tive students.

21st Century Challenges

Academia must overcome several potential barriers when transforming engineering schools into centers of innovation. Currently, there are 346 uni-versities approved by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), the national organization that sets standards for engineering schools. Mechanical engineering is one of the more traditional disciplines being repre-sented at over 270 universities. However, there are a variety of other engineer-ing options offered to students such as biomedical, civil, electrical, software, or materials science engineering. Finding innovative ways to jumpstart tomorrow’s engineers is a great concern to engineer-ing schools that want to remain relevant in the 21st century.

Although scientists and engineers make up only 5% of the United States population, they generate up to 50% of the Gross Domestic Product. Many engi-neers are employed in traditional techni-cal areas, but increasing technological demands of society require the expanded roles of engineers. Fewer and fewer stu-dents, however, are earning degrees in engineering and science. This situation is creating a national crisis for businesses looking for innovation and creativity from the nation’s finest. Furthermore, reporter Kathryn Wallace, in her investi-gation of America’s Brain Drain, argues that the United States is doing very little to train and educate the next generation of engineers and scientists. She points to

the fact that other countries create a cul-ture for learning and promote the bright-est students.

Several key factors illuminate the downturn of America’s competitiveness across the globe. These include: 1) several key agencies for U.S. scientific research and development will face a retirement crisis in the near future, 2) less than 6% of high school seniors are pursuing engineering degrees, down 36% from a decade ago, 3) the number of China’s undergraduate degrees in the hard sci-ences were 56% compared to 17% for the United States in 2000, and 4) in the next several years, China will likely pro-duce six times the number of engineers in the future than the United States. In 2004, the United States graduated rough-ly 70,000 undergraduate engineers while other countries such as China (600,000) and India (350,000) are graduating more engineers. In 1989, the National Science Foundation warned of a shortfall in both Ph.D.s and bachelor’s degrees in the natu-ral sciences and engineering.

Some critics call these negative fore-casts overblown and feel that America has plenty of engineers and scientists. In fact, foreign-born students in science and engineering fields continue to rise. For example, the proportion of foreign-born people with Ph.D.s in technical fields rose from 24% to 38% between 1990 and 2000. Furthermore, students who are currently in engineering programs are leaving to pursue nonengineering or science fields. Technical students have a higher rate of changing majors over-all (44%) than humanities, social sci-ences, or education (30%) students. Four issues contributing to switching decisions include a) the perception that a technical career is not as lucrative as other fields, b) the perception of low job satisfaction, c) the unappealing lifestyle of a technical professional, and d) students’ experiences of low grades and of curve-grading in their first two years of engineering.

Traditionally, educators attribute the high attrition rate of individuals leav-ing engineering majors to their inability to cope with the intrinsic hardness of technical majors and do not view it as a major problem. However, criticism of

Schools should

support more of an international

component of learning.

JUNE 2010 IEEE WOMEN IN ENGINEERING MAGAZINE 31

faculty pedagogy, together with those of curriculum design and student practices, constitutes the largest group of problems for students leaving technical majors.

Creative Transformation

of Engineering Schools

In order to face the fierce realities of globalization, engineering schools must rethink their approach to education by focusing on strategy, structure, and culture. First, these schools need to shift their strategy. Technological and cultural inf luences are demand-ing new creative solutions. Many institutional lead-ers operate engineering schools in a manner that suggests that innovation happens by chance.

Michael Michalko, au -thor of Thinkertoys, ar-gues that creativity is not an accident. In fact, it must be an organization’s intention to foster cre-ative-thinking strategies.

Therefore, organizational leaders must take an active effort in building this type of organization. In addi-tion, leaders have a direct impact on constructing an organizational design that supports creativity. Since most traditional universities are caught in the status quo, there must be a change in direc-tion. Many engineering schools are too rigid in their design and lose focus.

The consequences of overly empha-sizing structure can be dangerous. Gone are the days of traditional organizations designed with predetermined outcomes. Nontraditional universities are leverag-ing diversity as a competitive advantage while many traditional schools are not. The changing demographics are reshap-ing America’s institutions. Thus, the demographic changes of more women, minorities, and low-income students

have created social pressure on engineer-ing schools to find other pipeline sources than the traditional sources.

Second, engineering schools should be structured to support more of an international component of learning. In most 21st century organizations, struc-ture is not static and must be adapted for the environment. By adding a study

abroad program, engineering schools can immerse their students in different cul-tures and allow them to work in multi-cultural teams. Some schools, such as Cornell University, use their structure to encourage their engineering students to study abroad. The university’s main-tenance of cultural competence is a key attribute in an increasingly global envi-ronment. In fact, Tom Peterson, author of “Engineering in a Global Context,” argues that a well-rounded engineering educa-

tion must include the ability of engineer-ing students to study abroad in order to understand globalization.

Third, there is also a need for a more generalized and liberal arts form of edu-cation for engineering students to spawn creativity. According to many business executives, the 21st century needs stu-dents who possess good communication

skills, critical thinking, applied knowledge, intellec-tual depth, ethics, and cul-tural understanding. Many times engineering students lose sight of creativity and focus solely on the techni-cal aspects of engineering. A liberal arts education pro-vides an exchange of fresh ideas and an expansion of the creative mind.

Researcher Gary Berg argues that higher edu-cation needs to balance applied and liberal arts curricula in order to be ef fect ive. Therefore, a new approach to learn-ing is needed in engineer-ing schools. In tomorrow’s universities, collaborative building will be in high demand. Liberal arts sub-jects will become more attractive to the business community because of the special skills in multifunc-tional thinking and prob-lem solving.

Universities can play a critical role in foster-ing these developments in their students. In the

humanities, faculty members com-monly encourage students to experience different disciplines before making a final decision on a major. By contrast, engineering faculty members discour-age such experiences in other areas and demand early commitment to one’s engineering major. Therefore, receiving broader educational experiences in such areas as business or political science is virtually impossible. Peterson maintains that it is crucial to provide business

©A

RT

VIL

LE, L

LC

IEEE WOMEN IN ENGINEERING MAGAZINE JUNE 2010 32

education to engineering students, a broader exposure to the humanities, and opportunities for global engineer-ing experiences. This exposure will give students a skill set that makes them extremely valuable to the market.

Finally, the culture climate of most engineering schools needs to change if they want to survive. Organiza-tional culture within engi-neering schools creates a culture of elite students who view themselves as entering difficult and demanding engi-neering majors. In addition, faculty mat-ters contribute to a non-creative environment.

Elaine Seymour and Nancy Hewitt, authors of Talk-ing About Leaving, argue that criticism of poor teaching is the most universal reasons students leave technical fields to pursue something else. Today’s climate for most engineering students is a ster-ile school environment where students are left to fend for themselves. Faculty members are viewed as unapproachable or unavailable to help with academic or personal career planning.

George von Krogh, Kazuo Ichijo, and Ikujiro Nonaka, authors of Enabling Knowledge Creation, maintain that orga-nizations of the future must show their commitment by becoming organizations that care. In fact, many times faculty members discourage engineering stu-dents from acquiring a broader educa-tional experience. Therefore, engineering schools become a place where students are inhibited from growing creatively. By contrast, students want good faculty teaching, advisement, assessment prac-tices, and curriculum design in order to compete. Therefore, engineering schools must foster care and concern for stu-dents if they want to develop creativity in their schools.

Conclusion

Twenty-first century leaders in engi-neering departments must address the needs of students in becoming creative if they hope to take advantage of future

opportunities in hypercompetitive envi-ronments. Some people wonder if these schools can change. According to a Harris Poll sponsored by the American Association of Engineering Societies and IEEE-USA, only 2% of the general pub-lic associate engineering with creativity. Furthermore, some supporters of the sta-

tus quo argue that it is impos-sible for these institutions

to change. Clearly, they have plenty of ammu-nition in this regard.

First, current en-gineering schools make it virtually im-possible for students

to branch out of their prescribed curriculums.

There are massive numbers of technical requirements, such

as physics and thermodynamics, to ful-fill for graduation. Second, an interna-tional component for engineers may not be practical.

In general, many American students are not fluent in another language. This is also true of engineering students. In fact, engineering students may find it difficult to locate a study abroad program that is conducive to their discipline.

Last, many professors may not be supportive of changing the current cli-mate. This fact may be the biggest hurdle. However, “out-of-the-box” thinking is needed to transform these institutions. Universities can think holistically instead of departmentalizing their organizations. Given these perspectives, the various departments could develop courses that introduce a multidisciplinary approach. For example, an economic course could have a calculus component that could be emphasized for engineering students. An English class could be established where required writings are based on an inter-est from a student’s discipline such as engineering. Recruitment of engineering professors could target potential employ-ees who have broad backgrounds and experiences in order to widen the knowl-edge of engineering students and change the organizational culture. If engineering schools want to remain relevant in the upcoming years, leaders within engineer-

ing schools must develop an environment where creativity can flourish and be on the top of the organization’s to-do lists.

In fact, Gareth Morgan, author of Imaginization, argues that empowering people in organizations stimulates imagi-nation and innovation. Without train-ing in the basic concepts of creativity, engineering students have little insight on becoming future innovators. Deans of engineering schools, faculty members, and other institutional leaders can have an impact in constructing this type of organization in the future.

Today’s academic institutions must change if they wish to survive the era of intense global competition. U.S. engi-neering schools can succeed in helping American businesses compete by restruc-turing their organizations based on strate-gy, structure, and culture. Creativity is the linchpin for this success. Can engineering schools transform themselves into creative institutions? Only time will tell if they are truly successful.

References[1] M. B. Marklein, “Employees want new way to

judge graduates beyond tests, grades,” USA Today, 2008.

[2] P. Altbach. (2001). Why higher education is not a global commodity. The Chronicle of Higher Education [Online]. Available: http://lists.onenet.net/pipermail/gld/2001-May/005661.html

[3] S. Gryskiewicz, Positive Turbulence. San Fran-cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1999.

[4] S. Jackson. (2005). The quiet crisis and the future of American competitiveness. Rensse-laer Polytechnic Institute [Online]. Available: http://www.rpi.edu/homepage/quietcrisis/ps082905-acs.html

[5] G. Gereffi and V. Wadhwa, “Framing the engineering outsourcing debate: Placing the United States on a level playing field with China and India,” Master of Engineering Management Program, Duke Univ., 2005.

[6] National Science Board. (2004). An emerg-ing and critical problem of the science and engineering labor force [Online]. Available: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsb0407/

[7] M. Michalko, Thinkertoys. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press, 2006.

[8] Cornell University. (2006, May 22). Cornell engineering: Study abroad [Online]. Available: http://www.engineering.cornell.edu/student-services/academic-advising/academic-infor-mation/study-abroad/index.cfm

[9] W. B. Stouffer, J. Russell, and M. Oliva, “Mak-ing the strange familiar: Creativity and the future of engineering education,” in Proc. American Society for Engineering Education Annu. Conf. and Exposition, 2004.

—Daryl D. Green and Brandice Green

Without training in the

basic concepts of creativity, students

have little insight on becoming future

innovators.