Learning Expectations and Outcomes for an Engineering Leadership Principles Class

Many institutions have advisory groups who offer advice on curricular issues, such as academic objectives and industry needs; however, students’ educational expectations are often absent from this definition process. The purpose of this paper is to provide insight into student leadership learning expectations and measured performance. This study addresses these issues by recording student expectations for an engineering leadership principles class. The study then places these expectations within the perspective of the defined course learning objectives. Data were collected in the introductory engineering leadership class at the Pennsylvania State University. Across three academic semesters, a total of 79 students took both the pre-course and post-course leadership principles survey. The goal of this survey was to understand how students perceive their learning of characteristics related to leadership. Additionally, a student expectations assessment, whereby students were asked what three different leadership attributes they would like to develop, was collected from the same student class cohorts. The five most frequently listed student-reported expectation attributes were: (1) confidence, (2) communication ability, (3) trust in team members, (4) ability to inspire-motivate, and (5) ability to exercise sound judgment. The average student response on the leadership principles survey from precourse to post-course for all five student-identified learning expectations shifted in the anticipated direction of response, which indicates the class positively changed students’ reported leadership principles efficacy. There is a strong relationship between student-identified learning expectations and improved understanding of the related leadership principles course content. Introduction and Background Although broad consensus exists regarding the value of leadership skills development in 21 st century engineering education, many engineering schools that identify leadership development as part of their educational mission lack a functional mechanism by which to accomplish this goal. 1 Those institutions in which engineering leadership education is explicit are able to rely, in part, on fundamental traditions of leadership pedagogy, but are also confronted with discipline specific needs and a rapidly changing world. Given the breadth of the engineering profession, and the lack of an engineering leadership domain definition, specific program objectives in place today depend in large part upon the worldview of those administrating the program or teaching the course. A literature review on the topic revealed a broad field of perspectives indicative of the early stages of domain definition. 2 Thus, program facets related to engineering leadership (e.g., innovation and technology product design, and managing complex systems) require program-specific assessment to determine efficacy. Other outcomes such as knowledge of leadership theory, leadership skills, and project planning may be common components assessable across programs. Many colleges have industrial and professional advisory groups that offer advice on academic issues and industry trends and needs. 3 Some researchers indicate feedback solicitation from seniors and alumni provide useful retrospective insights on perceived abilities, competencies, P ge 23851.2 and value of the curriculum. 4 The special interests, expertise, and prospective needs of an audience, however, are critical to successful communication. 5 While audience interests and needs seem intuitively important, there is a significant absence of literature addressing the topic of expectations that engineering students hold about the outcomes of their education. For example, evaluation of teaching at the end of the semester usually offers students the opportunity to comment on the improvement of instructor teaching and existing course content; while the opportunity to provide this type of retrospective feedback is perceived by students to be of value, it does not provide explicit guidance with respect to curriculum expectations. 6 Other studies have assessed students’ expectations regarding the engineering profession in order to measure high school student interest 7 or undergraduate retention within a university college. 8,9 One researcher focused on the value of interpersonal relationships with students and real-time feedback on teaching methods, but not content. 10 The goal of the present study was to systematically record student-identified learning expectations and compare these expectations to their understanding of leadership principles. For the purpose of this paper, we define “student expectations” to mean those learning outcomes students aspire to, hope for, plan to aquire, hence expect from the class; in essence the reason they registered for the class and what they expected to learn from the class. This study evaluated the teaching effectiveness of a 2-credit gateway course for the engineering leadership development minor at the Pennsylvania State University (Penn State). The course, “Leadership Principles”, was designed to introduce students to the fundamentals of leadership, including: self-awareness, team skills and motivational strategies, cultural sensitivity and the value of diversity, organizational leadership, innovation, decision making, and judgment. The course is delivered by faculty and accomplished industry leaders and includes reading assignments of key, related articles. Student engagement is encouraged and assessed in-class by frequent class presentations, exercises, and discussions as well as outside of the classroom by having the student document their insights gained for each topic covered. Furthermore, team projects are assigned throughout the course in order to provide students with opportunities to exercise and reinforce the leadership skills that they have learned. The course has evolved to its current state over the 18-year history of the minor. The leadership principles course is part of a minor that has been recognized in a recent global study as one of the best examples of explicit engineering leadership programs. 1 The minor and course are open to all engineering disciplines, and attract a limited number of non-engineering students, for a total enrollment in the minor of nearly 100 students. More than 80 students register for this gateway class per year, representing about 5% of the students entering the College of Engineering.