University of Texas at El Paso
Banner
main banner
Hover here, then click toolbar to edit content

Phase 2 Proposal

Page Contents

  • Executive Summary
    1. Introduction
      1. Background
      2. MIE Vision and Goals
      3. Current Model Components
      4. Planning Process for Phase 2
      5. Innovation driven by Evaluation
      6. Priorities for an Improved Model
    2. Organizing for Success
      1. UTEP MIE Project Organization
      2. External Advisory Committee
      3. Sustainability Committee
      4. Evaluation Team
      5. Key Collaborators
    3. Effecting Change
      1. Aligning Curricular Experiences
      2. An Environment to Create Student Success
      3. Tools to Promote Learning
      4. Developing and Strengthening Degree Programs
      5. A Path to Graduate School
      6. Deliverables
    4. Continuous Improvement
    5. Time Table
      • Year 6
      • Year 7
      • Year 8
  • References
    • Additional Literature

Executive Summary

The University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) is a national leader in Hispanic education. Over 67 percent of its approximate 15,000 students are underrepresented minorities and an estimated two-thirds are the first in their families to attend college. Approximately 85 percent of UTEP’s students come from El Paso County, a fast growing urban region representative of many large southwestern cities that now have, or soon will have, a majority of their population composed of groups currently underrepresented in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology (SMET). UTEP, however, is unique in that it is the only major urban university in the Southwest whose ethnic distribution matches the demographics of the region it serves. Being designated a Model Institution for Excellence (MIE) in 1995 has provided UTEP the opportunity to serve as a model for the urban university of the future, one with a mission to serve a multicultural population where minority students comprise the majority. Over the past four years MIE has provided support for UTEP to:

  • Increase the retention and success of all first-time SMET entering students through a mandatory summer orientation program and an academic program that clusters courses in English, Mathematics, and Critical Inquiry

  • Provide support for SMET students through a center that houses peer mentoring, group study and workshop facilities, and portable computer equipment

  • Offer research mentoring and professional enrichment experiences to undergraduate SMET students

  • Strengthen SMET programs by hiring new faculty members with a record of excellence in teaching and placing them in strategic departments

  • Strengthen the faculty by providing development opportunities that promote student centered learning

  • Improve the university infrastructure by enhancing the capability for formative evaluation.

Based on a nine-month planning process and a thorough evaluation of first phase activities, UTEP proposes a series of second phase activities for MIE. The planning process involved faculty, students, staff, administrators and an external advisory committee. The proposed activities either expand those developed in the first phase or modify first phase activities, or are new initiatives. Specifically, UTEP proposes to:

  • Expand the program for entering students from a one-semester activity to one that provides students strong mentoring and support activities through the first two years of their college experience. This effort will include a thorough review and revision of the existing lower division curricula in science and engineering and include the development of learning communities.

  • Expand the current faculty development effort to further promote the adoption of active learning in all science and engineering classroom settings and promote a scholarly approach to teaching.

  • Physically expand the current student support center and redesign existing classrooms to serve both an instructional function and when not used for classes as a location for other educational enrichment activities.

  • Restructure the current undergraduate research support activity to identify, early in their academic careers, talented students and place them in activities to track them to graduate school. The key to this activity will be the creation of student cohorts that will play a major role in motivating the students to consider graduate education and increase the likelihood that students are able to enroll in programs that meet their needs.

  • Build on current pre-college interest in the environment to develop an environmental degree program in the sciences and an environmental certification program in engineering to attract students who otherwise might not have chosen degree programs in SMET.

Leadership for the effort will be provided by a Principal Investigator (PI) involved with MIE in a variety of roles since its inception. The PI will report to the Provost. The Deans of Science and of Engineering will serve as co-PIs. The program will be supported by an experienced core administrative group and actively incorporate evaluation in the decision making process.

  1. Introduction

    1. Background

      The University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) is a comprehensive urban university offering a full range of undergraduate and graduate programs to the residents of west Texas, southern New Mexico, and northern Mexico. As the second largest Hispanic institution in the United States, UTEP is taking the necessary steps to become a model of educational leadership in a changing economic, technological, and social environment.

      The UTEP community commits itself to the two ideals of excellence and access. UTEP provides quality higher education to a diverse, and mostly commuting, student population. The University aims to extend the greatest possible educational access to a region that has been geographically isolated, with limited economic and educational opportunities for its people. At the same time, UTEP works to ensure that all of its graduates obtain an education that will enable them to be competitive in the global marketplace.

      The ethnic composition of students at UTEP mirrors the community it serves: a binational and multicultural metroplex with more than 2 million inhabitants on both sides of the US-Mexican border. Today 67.4 percent of UTEP students are Hispanic. African Americans and Native Americans enroll in proportions paralleling their representation in the local community.

      A majority of the UTEP students are employed. Because of this necessity to work to finance their college education, more than 70 percent of the students anticipate that it will take them 6 years to complete their bachelor’s degrees. Many of the entering students at UTEP come from families who have no college experience. However, the same families strongly encourage participation in higher education as a way to improve the quality of their lives.

    2. MIE Vision and Goals

      The UTEP Model Institutions for Excellence (MIE) Project affirms that every student can learn and model good practices that increase learning [Shaping the Future]. Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology (SMET) faculty must be cognizant of the student’s precollege preparation yet maintain high expectations for student development within a supportive climate. SMET faculty must build inquiry, a sense of wonder and the excitement of discovery, communication and teamwork, critical thinking, and life-long learning skills into learning experiences. The Institution’s Colleges of Science and Engineering are committed to setting goals with measurable expectations for all students and accept the responsibility for effective undergraduate teaching, offering a broad curriculum to all students and using technology effectively to enhance learning.

      The goals of the MIE Project are to strengthen the SMET baccalaureate degree producing capability of the Institution and to produce graduates who will go on to seek advanced SMET degrees. In the initial phase of the MIE Project, UTEP has:

      • Provided all first-time full-time SMET entering students with tools for success through a mandatory summer orientation program and a first year academic program that clusters courses in English Composition, Mathematics, and Critical Inquiry.

      • Provided support for SMET students through a center that houses peer mentoring, group study and workshop facilities, meeting rooms, and portable computer equipment.

      • Offered research mentoring and professional enrichment experiences to the majority of undergraduate SMET students.

      • Enhanced the SMET curriculum by incorporating cooperative learning strategies in selected coursework.

      • Strengthened SMET programs by hiring new faculty members with a record of excellence in teaching and scholarship, and placing them in strategic departments.

      • Strengthened the faculty by providing development opportunities that promote student centered learning.

      • Improved the university infrastructure by enhancing the capability for formative evaluation, research, and planning in the Colleges of Science and Engineering.

      In the second phase of the MIE Project, UTEP will continue to serve as a national model for successful recruitment, undergraduate retention, academic enrichment, early research mentoring, orientation to graduate school, and production of SMET baccalaureate degree recipients who go on to earn graduate degrees. To this end, UTEP will refine strategies currently in place and implement new integrated activities that:

      • Improve first and second year retention rates in all SMET programs.
      • Enhance support services to reach a large SMET student population.
      • Increase the number of SMET faculty that adopt active learning strategies in the classroom.
      • Increase the number of SMET faculty that produce scholarly work in the field of educational research.
      • Increase the number of SMET students that enroll in Graduate School.
      • Increase the number of students in SMET programs with historically low enrollments.

    3. Current Model Components

      The UTEP MIE initiative supports five major components that promote change in institutional culture with the ultimate goal of improving the SMET Educational system. UTEP’s MIE components are*:

      • The SMET Entering Student Program. This is a mandatory orientation, advising, and first year academic program for all incoming students who have indicated an interest in pursuing a SMET career.

      • The Academic Center for Engineers and Scientists (ACES†). This is a student support center which provides tutoring, study resources, general advising, and other key services for the academic success of a largely commuter SMET student population.

      • The Center for Effective Teaching and Learning (CETaL‡). This is a faculty development center that promotes scholarly teaching and educational research across campus.

      • The Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) Program. This is a major component of an effort to track talented undergraduates into graduate school by enriching their on campus experiences and encouraging them to pursue off campus research opportunities and professional internships.

      • SMET Curriculum Reform. This is an effort that encourages faculty to adopt active learning strategies in the classroom, and revamp course content and student performance assessment techniques.

      Each MIE component is driven by a plan with goals, objectives, and expected outcomes. Formative evaluation is a central part of each component. All efforts are integrated through the UTEP MIE Office, which gives direction and focus to the enterprise.

    4. Planning Process for Phase 2

      The planning process for this proposal began in the fall of 1998 with an MIE Advisory Committee meeting. The Committee was briefed on the accomplishments of each of the components of the MIE initiative. A strategy for developing this proposal was agreed to at the meeting. The Committee also urged that a more aggressive strategy for dissemination of results and faculty participation be developed.

      In January of 1999, Prof. Benjamin C. Flores of the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department was appointed Director of the MIE Initiative. He initiated a consultation process with the Dean of Science, Dean of Engineering, SMET Department Chairs, and SMET Faculty to review accomplishments and outline priorities for the second phase proposal.

      In April of the same year, the MIE Advisory Committee reconvened to meet with the SMET Chairs. Discussions focused on goals and expected outcomes. The Committee urged UTEP to develop an integrated approach to priority areas, building on the accomplishments of the first MIE Project phase.

      In May and June of 1999, the MIE Director conducted two proposal planning workshops which included 44 administrators, faculty and professional staff. Participants elected to join one of five task force groups to develop specific plans of action for the second phase of the MIE Initiative. Each task force presented an outline of its plan, discussed the connections to other MIE activities, and listened to critiques in an open forum. After additional meetings, each task force submitted a report to the MIE Director with goals and action items for the proposal. The MIE Director with the assistance of the Program Evaluation Director summarized ideas and developed an assessment plan for the proposed activities. The Provost was then asked to review the plan for approval. The proposal was shared with the task force groups for a final critique in late July.

    5. Innovation driven by Evaluation

      Continuous evaluation and refinement is a key element of the UTEP MIE Project. The evaluation process is designed to support the planning and implementation of the project’s goals, objectives and innovative activities. This provides a framework for showing how a series of activities leads to outcomes. For instance, if some of the posited steps are not supported by the data, then the evaluation can show where the expected sequence of steps breaks down and suggest points that require improvement in the conceptualization of the project.

      Project activities, accomplishments, and evaluation in Phase 1 focus on developing the Institution’s capability to facilitate the acclimatization of entering students and increase their retention in SMET fields at the University. During Phase 1, evaluation activities have been designed primarily to track the academic involvement of entering students, particularly pre-science and pre-engineering students who are not calculus ready, and to determine their success rates in courses in their majors.

      As the project moves into Phase 2, the emphasis on evaluation will be broadened to long-term tracking of students transitioning into the major, success in both lower division courses and courses in the major, persistence toward graduation, and graduation and acceptance into graduate programs in SMET fields. Faculty development that leads to institutional change will also be assessed.

    6. Priorities for an Improved Model

      UTEP proposes to produce an institutional model that builds on existing work and addresses four areas of strategic importance.

      • Lower division curriculum innovation and pedagogical reform. The SMET Entering Student Program is credited with improving the performance and retention of new students. The average SMET entering student now earns a letter grade of C+ in the first year (compared to a D+ before the program was implemented). Furthermore, the average SMET entering student now has a 78 percent probability of enrolling in the second year (compared to 67 percent two years ago). Building on this success, UTEP will implement strategies that yield similar results in the sophomore year. These strategies will include integrating original interdisciplinary course materials and pedagogical approaches in lower division course blocks. The intent is for the average SMET student to develop in a supportive academic climate in which high expectations prevail so that the student’s probability of enrolling in the third academic year is increased by 20 to 25 percent.

      • Enhancement of the student resource and service facilities. The Academic Center for Engineers and Scientists has provided an on campus environment for the UTEP commuter student body to engage in science and engineering academic and professional development activities. ACES serves almost half of the SMET student population. UTEP will enhance ACES space so that the Center has the capacity to reach all SMET students. The strategy will include the development of multifunctional ACES satellites and expansion of the Center itself.

      • Linkage of research experiences for undergraduates to the Graduate School. UTEP has a rich tradition of offering undergraduate research experiences that introduce students to academic inquiry and encourages them to pursue SMET post-baccalaureate degrees. The MIE Project supported 67 students this year alone. However, to increase the number of students on the track to Graduate School, the current one-on-one mentoring model needs to be expanded to a team approach. UTEP will implement such an innovative cooperative research model targeting junior and senior cohorts of students.

      • Development and strengthening of undergraduate SMET programs. Students from the school districts in El Paso receive grounding in science and its relation to the environment during their K-12 education. While area school districts provide a good foundation in science, attracting students to majors in the traditional science disciplines has proven difficult. Meanwhile, the Earth’s environment now receives significant publicity and is a popular area of interest for young people. Creating strong environmental study programs should be an effective way to attract students to scientific and engineering careers. To achieve this, UTEP will create a high-visibility environmental science degree, with strong advising and research and internship opportunities at its core. UTEP will also implement a green engineering certificate program with courses that emphasize the design of sustainable and renewable systems for future generations.

  2. Organizing for Success

    1. UTEP MIE Project Organization

      The MIE Principal Investigator (PI) will be Dr. Benjamin C. Flores, Associate Professor in Electrical and Computer Engineering, who is currently serving as Director of the MIE Project. He will report directly to Dr. Stephen Riter, UTEP Provost†. The co-Principal Investigators will be Dr. Thomas Brady, Dean of the College of Science, and Dr. Andrew Swift, Dean of the College of Engineering. Dr. Flores will be responsible for developing policy and approving strategies. He will monitor activities on a day-to-day basis and oversee the evaluation effort and interactions with the Advisory and Sustainability Committees and outside consultants. He will be the key point of contact with the National Science Foundation.

      Dr. Flores is a respected engineering educator and researcher. He has mentored 2 Ph.D. candidates, 12 Master of Science students, and 11 undergraduate research assistants all at UTEP (1990-1999). He holds a seat in the University Faculty Senate. He is member of the University Undergraduate Curriculum Committee and chair of the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department Undergraduate Curriculum Committee. He is also a member of the Advisory Committee for the UTEP Center for Inter-American and Border Studies and the UTEP Minority Access Research Center. Dr. Flores is the UTEP liaison to the NSF Coalition Foundation Programs at Arizona State University and the University of Wisconsin at Madison. Dr. Brady is leader in Science Education. He is co-PI of UTEP’s Partnership for Excellence in Teacher Education. He currently serves as Dean of the College of Science and Professor of Biological Sciences. He has mentored 1 Ph.D. and 6 MS recipients. He is a member of the El Paso Institute for Educational Renewal and of the Chamber of Commerce sponsored Leadership El Paso Class XXI. Dr. Brady serves on the University’s Diversity Committee and on the boards of directors of the Texas Society for Biomedical Research, Paso Del Norte Health Foundation Research Center, and on the board of the Centro de Estudios Biológicos de la Universidad Autónoma de Ciudad Juárez. Dr. Brady is also Director of the UTEP Indio Mountain Ranch Research Station. Dr. Swift is a leader in Engineering Education. As Dean of the College of Engineering, he is primarily responsible for insuring continued accreditation across four engineering departments and the computer science department. In that capacity, he has initiated numerous reforms to insure the college is managed using outcome-based criteria for undergraduate engineering education, as well as being instrumental in working with the Dean of Science and introducing a new Entering Students Program for the college. Dr. Swift has supervised numerous MS students and has served on several Ph.D. committees. He serves on the advisory committee for the Partnership for Excellence in Teacher Education. He recently participated in a series of workshops for K-12 Educational Renewal in El Paso, led a team for the American Physical Society, Texas Leadership Institute to introduce Inquiry-based learning in the K-12 classroom. He also has several years experience teaching a revised curriculum for introductory and seminar courses to engineering freshman at UTEP.

    2. External Advisory Committee

      The External Advisory Committee will continue to be chaired by Mr. Edward Ahnert, President of the Exxon Education Foundation [enclosure]. The Committee is composed of a group of distinguished faculty, higher education administrators, and industry and government leaders. The Committee will assist UTEP in conceptualizing and implementing changes proposed for the second phase of the MIE Project. The Committee will continue to be a critical friend to the process. The members of the Committee are:

      • Alan Anderson, Boeing
      • Gregory Andrews, University of Arizona
      • Dan Arvizu, CH2MHill
      • Bruce Aumack, IBM
      • Charles Berry, Texas Dept. of Transportation
      • Jorge Broggio, General Motors
      • Norman DeMeza, Sandia National Laboratories
      • Mario Gonzalez, UT System
      • Wayne Johnson, Raytheon
      • Jean MacGregor, Evergreen State College
      • Susan Millar, University of Wisconsin, Madison
      • Gloria Montano, Compaq
      • Bess Stephens, Hewlett Packard
      • Ignacio Tinoco, U of CA at Berkeley
      • Karan Watson, Texas A&M University
      • Tim Yoshino, WI School of Veterinary Medicine

    3. Sustainability Committee

      A Sustainability Committee will be created to ensure that MIE activities become an integral part of the University upon completion of the project. Dr. Stephen Riter (University Provost) will chair the Committee. Members of the Committee will include the PI and co-PIs, as well as Dr. Richard Padilla‡ (Vice President for Student Affairs), Dr. Margaret Smith (Associate Vice President for Undergraduate Affairs), Dr. Charles Ambler (Associate Vice President for Graduate Studies), Dr. Evelyn Posey (Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs), and Dr. Pablo Arenaz (Associate Dean of Science and Engineering).

    4. Evaluation Team

      The evaluation effort will continue to be directed by Dr. Connie Kubo Della-Piana. She is an expert in formative assessment and evaluation of national recognition. Dr. Della-Piana will report directly to the PI and make recommendations for continuous project improvement. She will continue to lead a team whose charge is to evaluate MIE activities for accountability, project improvement, and project understanding. Members of the evaluation team will include an evaluation coordinator, an MSET data coordinator, a curriculum evaluation coordinator, and a data manager.

    5. Key Collaborators

      The following faculty members will play key roles in the second phase of the MIE Project. All of them are highly qualified individuals with outstanding records in their fields [CVs enclosed].

      • Pablo Arenaz (Biology) Entering and Lower Division Student Programs
      • Ann Quiroz Gates (Computer Science) Pre-Graduate School Program
      • Kate Miller (Geological Sciences) Environmental Science
      • James Salvador (Chemistry) Center for Effective Teaching and Learning
      • Stephen Stafford (Metallurgical Engineering) Academic Center for Engineers and Scientists
      • Charles Turner (Civil Engineering) Green Engineering

  3. Effecting Change

    1. Aligning Curricular Experiences

      As of the fall of 1998, all entering SMET students are required to participate in the science and engineering entering student program called Circles of Learning for Entering Students (CircLES). As part of this program, students attend an integrated SMET summer orientation and enroll in a SMET learning community consisting of English, Mathematics, and Critical Inquiry cluster courses [Flores, 1997]. During orientation, students are introduced to cooperative learning through a variety of activities that encourage students to learn and work together. Faculty and instructors who teach in the CircLES program use cooperative learning as a guiding pedagogical strategy in their courses [Della Piana et al., 1999]. To support the implementation of this in the classroom, CircLES faculty and peer facilitators are required to participate in CETaL† development workshops. Students in CircLES have a variety of opportunities to work and learn in cooperative learning settings [Brochure enclosed].

      We propose to further refine and extend the CircLES program based on lesson learned from Phase 1 [Della Piana et al., 1999] and to achieve sustainability by the end of the second phase. The program will provide a transition and create links to other MIE activities. The program will also link to the NSF funded El Paso Collaborative for Academic Excellence. A priority in this respect will be to begin the alignment of High School and College Mathematics and Science curricula. To this effect, leaders from the Collaborative and CircLES faculty will build professional relationships that lead to improved introductory college courses.

      Currently, when students leave CircLES and begin to move into lower division courses of their intended major, the predominant pedagogical strategy changes. Students, whose first experiences with university courses have been guided by active learning strategies [Millis and Cottell, 1998], must now face a traditional lecture paradigm in a majority of their courses. Students are thus challenged to make the transition from SMET learning communities to lower division coursework. Historically, approximately 15 percent of an entering student cohort population will leave after the second academic year, yielding a two-year retention rate of approximately 50% [1999 UTEP Facts Book].

      We propose to design lower division SMET curricula within course blocks as an effective approach to increase retention rates of students in their second year at UTEP. Such blocks will include freshman and sophomore courses with aligned or integrated curricula. Instances of such blocks could be:

      Calculus, Dynamics, Physics, Statics Biology, Chemistry, and Pre-Calculus

      Faculty teams who teach these blocks will provide necessary support for students to remain successful in second year courses. These students will be more knowledgeable and gain more confidence as they move into upper division courses. In addition, the design of block courses will draw faculty together to plan, implement, and assess the alignment and integration of course materials.

      The goal of these curricular experiences is to create an environment in which scholarly teaching and active learning are central to advancing the preparation of students toward their majors by building on the successes of CircLES. Planning will focus on student development, faculty enhancement, and institutional change.

      Student development objectives include increasing retention rates for first and second year students, maintaining active learning and team building activities, enhancing student understanding of the interrelationship of course content, and increasing academic and social skills.

      Faculty enhancement objectives include increasing cross-discipline collaboration, providing opportunities for development of alternative pedagogical approaches, expanding the number of faculty involved in teaching lower division courses, developing a culture of scholarly teaching, and increasing journal publications and presentations related to effective and/or innovative teaching.

      Institutional objectives include changing the institutional culture to recognize teaching and learning as important contributions to its mission, and ensuring sustainability of program initiatives.

    2. An Environment to Create Student Success

      Keeping commuter SMET students on campus has been shown to benefit academic program success through the early years of college study [Toder and Hartsough, 1993]. Efforts to foster academic and social integration are especially important for commuters. A sense of community plays an important role in retention [Johnson, 1997]. A priority of the MIE Project has been to provide UTEP SMET students, who are mostly commuters, with the space and resources they need, through the Academic Center for Engineers and Scientists. ACES has served for over two years as a unique model and facility for student development and retention [Brochure enclosed]. Based on various evaluation tools, we recognize that the Center needs to evolve to do more than just serve as a model for student support facilities.

      The current ACES facility is well utilized and has seen significant growth in the number of users since it opened its doors in the fall of 1997. The facility, which is located in the classroom building of the Science-Engineering Complex, has the capacity of comfortably serving approximately 70 students at a time. Yet, in the 1998-1999 academic cycle, more than 50 percent of the 2500 SMET registered students were active users. There is a genuine need for additional space.

      Preliminary impact studies, utilization surveys and focus groups have revealed that additional ACES space can be utilized to better serve SMET students at UTEP. The most common complaints are high noise level, overcrowding, and insufficient tutoring and computer resources available. In addition, there appear to be segments of the SMET student population that are currently not making use of the facility. Increasing capacity and expanding services targeted at these students are top priorities.

      We propose to increase the space and resources of the Center in or around the science and engineering classroom building. This expansion will include modifications of the existing space dedicated to student tutors, administration of student development opportunities, expansion of learning resources, support of outreach activities, and addition of quiet and small group study areas.

      We also propose to convert the science and engineering classroom building into a multifunction facility. The building is mainly used for instruction in the morning, but can easily hold student support activities in the afternoons and evenings. The updated classrooms will be designed to provide dual use that will maximize instructional utilization and provide additional study environments. Four ordinary rooms will be transformed into state-of-the-art multimedia classrooms. Four additional rooms will support active/cooperative learning teaching techniques. Wireless computer technology will be incorporated eliminating the need for traditional computer lab space.

      Furthermore, we propose to develop ACES satellites in the Departments of Mathematics, Computer Science, and Geological Sciences. These departments have their main facilities outside of the immediate vicinity of the Engineering-Science complex. Students in these departments feel geographically isolated from the Center. The ACES satellites will correct the sense of distance and connect the students to the Center.

      The goal of this expansion project is to provide an improved student support service center that encourages and motivates all SMET students to focus on their academic development and success. Some of the MIE student support activities that will be augmented are:

      • CirCLES orientation and advising activities
      • Peer facilitating and tutoring
      • Leadership training sessions
      • Graduate school preparation workshops

      By introducing entering students to ACES as part of the CircLES orientation program, they will learn first—hand what ACES can provide for them. Peer facilitators and tutors from the CircLES program will also have an operating area in the proposed plan. ACES will also provide information and support for graduate school preparation and opportunities for professional and academic development (i.e. research positions, internships, and workshops). Expanded leadership and peer educator training programs will be provided to MIE peer facilitators as well as the ACES student management team.

    3. Tools to Promote Learning

      The UTEP MIE Project is committed to further supporting SMET faculty development through activities organized by CETaL. The Center offers SMET faculty a variety of knowledge-based tools via experiential workshops in cooperative learning and instructional technology, academic seminars, conference participation, undergraduate education journal publications, and reference materials.

      The Center is evolving beyond its innovative but limited scope. We propose to develop an aggressive agenda for SMET faculty development that nurtures the appreciation of efficient and effective pedagogical approaches and promotes research in this area. The key to success will be the development of learning communities made up of faculty members in support of MIE activities. The Advisory Committee and national experts concur on this matter [enclosure].

      CETaL has served well the Colleges of Science and Engineering. Given the positive impact it has had on the faculty of these two colleges, the Center’s sphere of influence should be expanded. Thus, we propose to increase the visibility of CETaL on campus and the metropolitan area of El Paso. The Center will work on increasing interaction with university faculty, promoting a culture in which educational research and reform are highly regarded. The Center will also work on developing a regional community of learners that includes K-12 teachers from the El Paso Collaborative for Academic Excellence (supported by the NSF Urban Systemic Initiative Program) and the Partnership for Excellence in Teaching Education (funded by the NSF Collaborative for Excellence in Teacher Preparation Program).

      CETaL is in the process of being institutionalized. CETaL is currently directed by Dr. James Salvador who is assisted by a Board of Fellows nominated to serve two-year terms by their respective College [enclosure]. The Director’s position is supported through the Office of the Provost. Funding for some activities organized by the Fellows is provided by UTEP. The Center will be sustainable at the end of Phase 2.

    4. Developing and Strengthening Degree Programs

      Environmental Science

      Part of the University’s mission is to provide educational opportunities that take advantage of the binational setting and to develop research and other activities which apply UTEP expertise and resources to the search for solutions to regional, national, and international problems. The international setting of the El Paso-Juarez metropolitan area provides a unique scientific laboratory for studying human impact on the environment.

      Thus, we see a promising way to attract undergraduate students to science departments with historically low enrollments (viz. Geological Sciences, Chemistry, and Physics). We propose to implement an interdisciplinary undergraduate program in environmental science that will provide a rigorous foundation in the sciences, guarantee job placement after graduation, and prepare students for entry into Graduate School.

      The goal of the environmental science degree program is to increase the number of students that pursue baccalaureate degrees in the scientific disciplines through a highly attractive interdisciplinary program. In the course of implementing the program, a plan that includes student development and faculty enhancement, and institutionalization will be developed.

      The main features of the Environmental Science Program will include:

      • The University core (42 credit hours)
      • An environmental Science core (42 credit hours including active learning coursework)
      • A choice of concentration in Biosciences, Environmental Chemistry, Environmental Geoscience, and Hydrosciences (36 credit hours)
      • A mandatory internship experience
      • Professional Environmental Practice Certification

      The number of factors that contribute to the success of undergraduate environmental programs as measured by the post-graduate career experience of graduates of such programs have been identified [O’Reilly et al., 1995]. The main factors that are seen to have an impact on the proposed academic program are addressed below:

      • Strong advising. Aggressive early advising will start in the CircLES program and be methodically thorough in subsequent semesters.
      • Employer involvement. Potential recruiters (including government agencies, national laboratories, corporations, and other institutions of higher learning) will be involved in the development, implementation, assessment, and refinement of the program.
      • Internships. All students enrolled in the program will be placed in paid internships to increase the likeliness of being employed upon graduation.
      • Work Skills. Faculty will implement active learning pedagogical approaches in environmental science courses to increase student performance in terms of depth of knowledge and breath of understanding, communication skills, and computer skills.

      Approval for the program will be obtained by the beginning of Phase 2. At least three new courses need to be developed. The Environmental Science Program will be closely coordinated with the proposed Green Engineering curriculum proposed next.

      Green Engineering

      Most engineers and technologists solve infrastructure challenges in the most economically efficient manner possible. These solutions are often based on short-term economics. This perspective is a reflection of the traditional engineering curriculum. At UTEP, the majority of engineering faculty and students seldom question the impact that engineering decisions have on society and the globe. The ABET 2000 accreditation process will change this as it specifically addresses this point [Sacre and Della Piana, 1997]. We will prepare for this constructive challenge by implementing significant curricular modifications with an environmental focus.

      We propose to develop a freshman laboratory for all entering students that utilizes experiments dealing with air, solar & wind energy, and water and solid waste. Students will perform environmental measurements using modern electronic data acquisition and control systems and develop an understanding of the natural systems on which the Earth depends and how the technological infrastructure affects nature. At the sophomore and junior level, we propose to identify and refine a set of "green courses" in engineering and science from which the student can select a minimum number of credit hours that will earn him or her a minor in "green engineering" that is printed on the transcript.

      At the senior level, we propose to provide students in the green track with the on-campus opportunity to become certified as environmental professionals through a nationally recognized organization such as the Institute of Professional Environmental Practice. This organization uses a two-stage process where passing the first exam qualifies the student as an environmental professional in training and a second exam, which is taken after several years of experience, as a qualified environmental professional. This process parallels the sequence of Fundamentals of Engineering and Professional Engineering Exams, but does not compete with it.

      The goal is to provide engineering students on the "green track" with the knowledge base to better understand the impact of their decisions and to enable them to design systems that are sustainable and renewable for future generations. Planning will focus on student development, faculty development, and institutional change.

      The Green Engineering Track will be closely linked with the SMET Curricular Alignment described above (§ III.A) and the proposed Environmental Science Program. The green engineering curriculum will include a few new courses and utilize existing courses wherever possible. This will maximize coordination with the proposed degree program in Science.

    5. A Path to Graduate School

      Over the last five years, it has become more difficult to attract SMET students into Graduate School (See table below). Part of the reason is that engineering graduates are being recruited more aggressively than ever by corporations and seem to find security in financially rewarding jobs. While graduates in Chemistry, Physics, Geology, and Mathematics are for the most part committed to pursuing post baccalaureate degrees, undergraduate enrollment rates in these disciplines remain low (as discussed in §III.D). Moreover, Biology graduates frequently enter into medicine or veterinary school.

      Graduate Student Enrollment. Source: UTEP Fact Book 1998-1999.
        1993-1994 1994-1995 1995-1996 1996-1997 1997-1998
      Engineering 100 85 66 85 68
      Science 42 43 39 45 29

      As the next table shows, the number of undergraduate degrees conferred by the College of Science has fluctuated over the last five years. Similarly, the number of undergraduate degrees conferred by the College of Engineering has fluctuated significantly. A more effective approach to attract new students to graduate studies is required.

      Conferred Undergraduate Degrees. Source: UTEP Fact Book 1998-1999.
        1993-1994 1994-1995 1995-1996 1996-1997 1997-1998
      Engineering 165 202 183 155 153
      Science 103 96 88 99 93

      The UTEP MIE project has provided meaningful research experiences for undergraduates, but their impact on graduate school enrollment is not clear. We propose to develop and implement a pre-graduate school program that will significantly increase the current percentage of SMET graduates who enroll in graduate school. To achieve this, we will identify and recruit cohorts of junior students who have the potential and desire to pursue careers in research and development. Each participating student in the cohort will receive a research stipend for up to two academic years. UTEP will assemble student cohorts prior to the fall semester of each year. This will be expected to last at least two years. Each cohort will be divided into Affinity Research Groups.

      The Affinity Research Group concept and model [Gates and Teller, 1999] provides an innovative way of structuring research groups that involve undergraduate and graduate students. Built on a cooperative model, affinity research groups include students with a wide range of experiences and skill levels, and provide them with opportunities to deepen their knowledge in technical areas. Through structured and well-defined components, students develop technical, research, and professional skills that are needed to become effective leaders and make significant research contributions [Enclosure]. In the proposed program, several faculty mentors will develop affinity research groups. These faculty mentors will receive training in cooperative learning, study the approach, apply the major components of the model, and share experiences with colleagues.

      The goal of this program is to increase the number of students that pursue graduate degrees in science and engineering by providing students with a meaningful two-year undergraduate research experience and by offering the faculty a new model for research mentoring.

      Aside from performing research, first year affinity groups will enroll in a junior research seminar in the fall, spring, and summer sessions (and earn a total of three academic credits). The seminar will be conducted by a professor and a student coordinator and have an active learning format. Student affinity groups will learn to develop research portfolios, computer-aided presentations, and showcase web sites. Students will also have an opportunity to prepare and practice for the GRE examination. In the first summer session, affinity groups will place and participate in external REU programs or national research centers. Faculty mentors will play a significant role in the placement process of their respective affinity groups. The group placing strategy has the purpose of preventing anxiety and isolationism at the summer research sites. The student coordinator will be in close contact with the students, assess their experience and share this information with summer site managers. Upon returning from their summer external research experience, the students will participate in a research exposition hosted by the MIE Office.

      Second year affinity groups will continue to perform research with their respective faculty mentors and enroll in a senior capstone experience as a cohort. The second year cohort will learn from a faculty team the art of thesis writing and journal publishing. The cohort will take the GRE examination in the fall, repeat the exam if necessary in early spring, and apply for admission into graduate school. At the end of the spring semester, the students will present their research findings in selected national and international research conferences and publish their articles in a digital version of an UG research journal [enclosure].

      The proposed program will be refined over a three-year period. By the end of this period one student cohort will have been in graduate school for a year and its performance will have been assessed. A second cohort will be ready to move into graduate school. Two more cohorts will be in the pipeline.

    6. Deliverables

      Upon completion of the second phase of the MIE Project, UTEP will deliver the following:

      • A sustainable CircLES Program that has retention and success strategies in place
      • A reformed lower SMET division curriculum that has retention and active learning strategies in place
      • An expanded Academic Center for Engineers and Scientists with enhanced student service capacity
      • A sustainable Center for Effective Teaching an Learning with an aggressive faculty development program that promotes effective teaching techniques and educational research
      • A highly structured undergraduate research program that tracks students into Graduate School
      • A strong curriculum in Environmental Science with active learning pedagogy at its core
      • A certificate program in Green Engineering with continuous assessment procedures in place
      • An evaluation model for institutions with aggressive student retention and success agendas

      The goals, activities, their interconnections and products form a model of student retention and development, faculty development, and institutional change. The model itself should be effective, efficient, and transportable. A timetable for the deliverables of the model is appended.

  4. Continuous Improvement

    Phase 1 evaluation activities have focused on assessing the effectiveness and impact of project activities designed to:

    • Increase the academic and social involvement of entering students
    • Provide entering students with the academic skills and resources for success in lower division courses and courses in their majors (Astin 1994, Tinto 1993)

    As we move to Phase 2, the focus of the evaluation will be broadened to long-term tracking of students, improvement and institutionalization of MIE activities, and curriculum development. Central to the evaluation of the MIE Project is the assessment of project success in terms of student outcomes, institutionalization of project components and the capacity of the institution for continuous improvement (Government Performance and Results Act, Engineering Criteria 2000). In addition, MIE evaluation activities will be coordinated with other continuous improvement activities on campus such as the ABET 2000 effort in the College of Engineering.

    Phase 2 evaluation and assessment activities are designed for three purposes:

    • Accountability (assessing the worth of the investment and the promise of the project as it evolves)
    • Improvement (discovering what is working and where are the potentials for improving performance)
    • Understanding (developing knowledge concerning the feasibility of the project or project components in other settings)

    Evaluating the effectiveness and impact of key elements of the MIE Project will require multiple strategies and measures. The challenge is to develop measures sensitive to the impact of multiple interventions and unintended or unexpected outcomes. The following is a brief summary of the evaluation for Phase 2 with reference to specific activities as presented in the evaluation plan.

    Relational Database. Phase 2 will see an expansion of the establishment and use of student information databases. A relational database of UTEP SMET students will be established that links CircLES, the REU, and institutional databases. Data on enrollment and success in mathematics and science courses taken in high school will be developed and integrated through a concerted effort with the El Paso Collaborative for Academic Excellence. This relational database will provide the resources to conduct longitudinal studies of student progress in SMET fields and assist with the alignment of curriculum in secondary and post-secondary content areas. Refer to Evaluation Table: Redesign of Lower Division Curriculum Evaluation

    Comparison studies. Phase 2 will see the establishment and assessment of benchmarks that link the entering students program, the redesign of lower division curriculum and upper division curriculum, drawing on the work of the NSF-supported engineering coalitions. The impact of the CircLES program and the new curriculum initiatives on long-term retention rates and student success will be examined through (1) assessing student success in lower division courses and courses in the major and (2) comparing student performance in clustered courses with high intensity and low intensity implementation. Direct causal linkages will not be possible, due to multiple interventions put in place to increase the retention rates of students in SEM fields. Use of program theory and measures sensitive to the impact of multiple interventions will be used to draw low-level inferences about program success. See Evaluation Tables: Redesign of Lower Division Curriculum Evaluation, Center for Effective Teaching and Learning, Establishment of an Undergraduate Program in Environmental Science, Greening of the Curriculum in Engineering)

    Curriculum evaluation. Phase 2 focuses on the examination and improvement of lower division curriculum and the SMET pipeline. Drawing on the work of the Foundation Coalition, multiple methods and measures will be used to document and assess the effort. Formative feedback will be emphasized in Year 6 and Year 7. The focus of the evaluation activities in Year 8 will shift to a more summative evaluation effort. Phase 2 evaluation activities will be tried-out in Year 5 of Phase 1 using the statistics and probabilities integrated course as a test case. Refer to Evaluation Tables: Redesign of Lower Division Curriculum Evaluation, Academic Center for Engineers and Scientists, Center for Effective Teaching and Learning, Establishment of an Undergraduate Program in Environmental Science, Greening of the Curriculum in Engineering.

    Focused studies. Instrumentation will be developed to document and assess the impact of student participation in undergraduate research experiences, professional enrichment experiences and peer mentoring. These experiences focus on the role of undergraduate enrichment experience in increasing the likelihood of students’ pursuit of graduate degrees and/or acceptance of leadership roles in their chosen fields (National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering & Institute of Medicine, 1997). In addition, in partnership with the Colleges of Science and Engineering, MIE will assist in the development of a follow-up survey of alumni and examine the undergraduate experience focusing on the second year and student success in lower division courses. Refer to appended Evaluation Tables: Research Experience for Undergraduates, Academic Center for Engineers and Scientists, Redesign of Lower Division Curriculum Evaluation.

    Linkages among MIE components/activities. Phase 1 evaluation activities focused on the implementation and outcomes of the elements of MIE. Phase 2 evaluation activities will emphasize the implementation and outcomes of the linkages among MIE activities. For example, the link between CircLES and ACES can lead to a better understanding of how student success is associated with participation in structured academic interventions and utilization of centers such as ACES. Refer to Evaluation Tables: Redesign of Lower Division Curriculum Evaluation, Academic Center for Engineers and Scientists, Research Experience for Undergraduates, Center for Effective Teaching and Learning, Establishment of an Undergraduate Program in Environmental Science, Greening of the Curriculum in Engineering.

    Institutionalization and organizational change study. To document the work and impact of the MIE Project on UTEP, a study of institutional change will be supported by the administration. Current work in instituting and understanding institutional change in higher education, particularly in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology has focused on implementation of interventions typically involving students who self select into the program, such as the efforts of the engineering coalitions. The UTEP MIE Project offers a unique opportunity to evaluate and study one large-scale effort to change SMET post-secondary education in which components of the effort are requirements for SMET students. Change in the way courses are taught is viewed as a mechanism for institutional change with faculty being key to any sustainable and broad-based curricular innovation [MacGregor, 1999]. The proposed study will be developed to document how these changes impact the culture of the institution. Refer to Appended Evaluation Tables: Redesign of Lower Division Curriculum Evaluation, Academic Center for Engineers and Scientists, Research Experience for Undergraduates, Center for Effective Teaching and Learning, Establishment of an Undergraduate Program in Environmental Science, Greening of the Curriculum in Engineering.

  5. Time Table

    Year 6 (2000-2001)

    1. Expand ACES headquarters
    2. Enroll Y2K student cohort in consolidated CircLES program
    3. Pilot first set of SMET lower-division block courses
    4. Enroll first cohort of Environmental Science students
    5. Pilot Green Engineering Laboratory
    6. Enroll first cohort of Green Engineering students
    7. Enlist first cohort of SMET affinity groups
    8. Expand the mission of CETaL to include the entire campus
    9. Evaluate efforts including linkages among components and develop a theory of evaluation

    Year 7 (2001-2002)

    1. Develop two ACES satellites and open expanded ACES headquarters
    2. Enroll second cohort in refined CircLES program
    3. Pilot second set of SMET lower-division block courses
    4. Enroll second cohort of Environmental Science students
    5. Refine and expand Green Engineering Laboratory
    6. Enroll second cohort and certify first cohort of Green Engineering students
    7. Enlist second cohort of SMET affinity groups and have first cohort apply to Graduate School
    8. Expand the mission of CETaL to include El Paso Community of life-long learners
    9. Evaluate all efforts and refine theory of evaluation

    Year 8 (2002-2003)

    1. Provide continuous ACES services to all SMET students
    2. Enroll third cohort in CircLES program and set up the program for sustainability
    3. Scale up SMET lower-division block courses
    4. Enroll third cohort and certify second cohort of Environmental Science students
    5. Scale up Green Engineering Laboratory
    6. Enroll third cohort and certify second cohort of Green Engineering students
    7. Enlist third cohort of SMET affinity groups and have second cohort apply to Graduate School
    8. Plan the institutionalization of CETaL
    9. Evaluate all efforts and validate theory of evaluation of systemic reform

  6. References

    Advisory Committee to the National Science Foundation, Directorate for Education and Human Resources, James M. Rosser (Chair), Shaping the Future: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology, NSF 96-139, 1996.

    Benjamin C. Flores, The UTEP Freshman Seminar Experience, American Society for Engineering Education GSW Conference, Houston, Texas 1997.

    Connie Kubo Della-Piana, Pablo Arenaz, Andrew Bernat, Walter Fisher, Elaine Fredericksen, Louis Irwin, and Nancy Marcus, Learning Communities in SEM: Creating and Sustaining Curricular innovation at UTEP, in Strengthening Learning Communities: Case Studies from the National Learning Communities Dissemination Project (FIPSE), Washington Center for Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Education, The Evergreen State College, May 1999.

    Barbara J. Millis and Philip G. Cottell, Jr., Cooperative Learning for Higher Education Faculty, Oryx Press, 1998.

    Center for Institutional Evaluation, Research and Planning, 1998-1999 UTEP Fact Book, The University of Texas at El Paso, 1999.

    F. Toder and C. Hartsough, Journal of College Student Development, vol. 34, pp. 153-160, March 1993.

    J. Johnson, Commuter College Students: What Factors Determine Who Will Persist and Who Will Drop Out?, College Student Journal, vol. 31, pp. 323-332, 1997.

    Douglas O’Reilly, Jacqui Deegan, and Lori Colombo, Environmental Studies: 2000, An Overview of Undergraduate Interdisciplinary Environmental Programs and the Careers of their Graduates, The Environmental Careers Organization, 1995.

    Besterfield-Sacre & Connie Kubo Della-Piana, An Approach to ABET Accreditation: Formative Evaluation and Continuous Improvement, Proceedings of the Best Assessment Processes in Engineering Education II: A Working Symposium, pp. 1-10, October 1998,

    Ann Q. Gates, Patricia Teller, Andrew Bernat, and Nelly Delgado, Expanding Participation in Undergraduate Research Using the Affinity Group Model, to appear in Journal of Engineering Education, 1999.

    A. Astin, What Matters in College? Four Critical Year Revisited, Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco, 1993.

    Vincent Tinto, Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition, 2nd Edition, The University of Chicago Press, 1993.

    Jean MacGregor, Strengthening Learning Communities: Case Studies from the National Learning Communities Dissemination Project (FIPSE), Washington Center for Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Education, The Evergreen State College, May 1999.

    Additional Literature

    Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today’s Students, Simon and Schuster, 1987.

    Laura Border, The Graduate Teacher Certification Program: Description and Assessment after Two Years, Manuscript, 1998.

    John Dewey, Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education, Free Press, 1944.

    The Environmental Careers Organization, The Complete Guide to Environmental Careers in the 21st Century, Island Press, 1999.

    S.R. Gregerman, W.V. Hippel, J. Jonides, J.S. Lerner, B.A. Nagda, Undergraduate Student-Faculty Research Partnerships Affect Student Retention, The Review of Higher Education, 22(1), pp. 55-71, 1998.

    R.O. Hope, L.I. Rendon, Educating a New Majority, Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1996.

    Zachary Karabell, What’s College For? The Struggle to Define American Higher Education, Basic Books, 1998.

    J. Strassburger, Embracing Undergraduate Research, American Society of Higher Education Bulletin, 47, pp. 3-5, May 1995.

    J.R. Wilder, Retention in Higher Education, Psychology: A Quarterly Journal of Human Behavior, 20 (2), pp. 4-9, 1983.