Minutes November 03, 2009 CPACE II

Date: Nov 03, 2009                                         

 Time: 10:00 p.m. - 11:30 p.m.


  • Michigan State University (MSU): Mark,  Abdol, Daina, Neeraj, Jon, Tom (briefly), Claudia
  • Corporation for a Skilled Workforce (CSW): Cindee, TKysha
  • LCC: Louise, Jing
  • SAMPI: Mark J.


- Recent communications with AB and other groups:

  • Cindee explained CSW's communication with employers (non-AB members that participated in the interview process (Employer Interview Tracking). Main points of the communication: thanks for participating in Phase I, reminder about the industry report, phase II funding from NSF, ways they can help in the new phase (authentic problems, join the talent development network), our interest in maintaining relationship.
  • Jon explained his communication with the AB.  Main points of the communication: thanks for participating in Phase I, phase II funding from NSF, ways they can help in the new phase (authentic problems, continued participation, suggest potential new AB members). Information about the first AB meeting at the beginning of next year. Red item indicates that a response is required some have answered, Jon will follow up with the ones who did not answer.
  • We need to be clear about who is remaining in the AB to figure out the gaps and repopulate.
  • For automotive we can try to get Ford. Jon and Louise will leverage personal contacts
  • Jing has a contact in a company Niowave (EE representation)
  • Daina will follow up with ADM, Cargill and MBI

- Date for AB meeting:

  • 3rd week of February (we did not firmly decide).
  • Purpose of the meeting: Keeping them engaged, start working their networks, Activity around authentic problems (this means that by then we will have the issues around this figured out).
  • Thoughts about authentic problems: - CIV and ChE are the front but the problems should be multidisciplinary. How do we decompose the problems to teach and represent eng issues. What does an authentic problem looks like?

- CT Issue: Is all over the proposal.

  • We need to get started in curricular revision mode so we can : drop the CT language, replace with computational principles and evolve the meaning over time in our working through designing the instructional modules.

-More Thoughts about authentic problems:

  • We need to extract additional information from the interviews. Look at the mission critical (company and software) find underlying similarities and what are the computational "things"
  •  Before we go to the companies we need a clear idea and possible examples of authentic problems. we need to go to the organizations with something practical so that they can think about it some sort of guideline.
  • It is important that the problems have a context so that students use the tools in real life settings. Need to teach most faculty how to use authentic problems
  • There is an EGR 102 section that rolls out in Spring 2010 we can use this as a test. We should have some Authentic problems and we can try a couple of things.
  • It could be important to give the AB members some grounding information about the intent of the courses (f. ex. EGR) and ask them to help us with problem based based on their experience.
  • Our task is to create instructional modules