ECE Professor Frank Kschischang holds the Canada Research Chair in Communications Algorithms. He currently teaches courses in: Communication Systems (ECE316), Digital Communication (ECE417), and Error Control Codes (ECE 1501). He received a BASc (hon.) in Electrical Engineering from UBC, and a MASc and PhD in Electrical Engineering from U of T. He joined the Faculty in 1991, though his university teaching career began when he was called upon while still a PhD student to teach a class in 1990. A popular teacher, he has received numerous teaching awards including the 2005-2006 Faculty Teaching Award.

His research interests are in the area of digital communications, information theory and error-control coding, as applied to a variety of wireless and wireline communication systems. He has received several awards in recognition of his research. He is a Fellow of the Engineering Institute of Canada and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).

Professor Kschischang was a driving force in the development of the so-called "flexible curriculum" in ECE and currently serves as Director of Curriculum within ECE, as well as Chair of the Faculty's Engineering Curriculum Committee.

What are some of the biggest changes recently approved by Faculty Council?

The main changes recently approved are the introduction of two new Minor Programs of Study (ably championed by Professor Bryan Karney): one in Sustainable Energy and one in Environmental Engineering (complementing the existing minor in Bioengineering). By selecting a particular set of six courses, involving at least one defined core course and a combination of other courses (several of which must be at an advanced level), students can complete the requirements for the Minor, and receive a notation on their graduating transcript.

Other major changes involve a re-structuring of the EngSci curriculum in the foundation years (with the aim of reducing student workload, eliminating quarter-courses, and re-integrating laboratories with corresponding courses), as well as a merging of the Electrical and Computer Options of EngSci.

Tell us why it is important to renew the Engineering curriculum.

Engineering is a very dynamic discipline, in which rapid advances are constantly being made in the approach taken to solve problems. The Engineering curriculum must continually be updated not only to reflect the evolving Engineering practice in established disciplines, but also to capture new areas as they emerge. An evolving curriculum is a sign of vitality. It is an indication of a constant (and healthy) rethinking of priorities in, and approaches to, Engineering education.

How frequently are major changes suggested and implemented?

Each year the Faculty Curriculum Committee presents a number of changes to the Engineering curriculum in just about every program. New courses are added, existing courses are adjusted, prerequisites are added or modified, etc. Major changes are less frequent, but do occur from time to time.

Many programs in recent years have undergone significant curriculum renewal in response to the 2001 Decanal Task Force on Curriculum Change, struck by then-Dean Michael Charles. The main theme of these changes has been to provide students with increased flexibility to select from among a diversity of technical and non-technical electives, to increase exposure to elements of Engineering design and teamwork, and to integrate the teaching of professional skills (such as Engineering communication) with the teaching of technical material. The various Options within EngSci are also constantly evolving; for example, 2008 is the first year of a new Option in the Energy Systems area.

What type of consultation is involved in proposing curriculum changes and updates?

Curriculum change is largely driven by the Departments responsible for each program. Associated with every Engineering program (including EngSci) is a Departmental committee which has the responsibility of maintaining the curriculum in that program. Departmental curriculum committees are usually staffed with faculty and staff members drawn from across a broad spectrum of technical areas within each Department.

At the Faculty level, each program is represented at the Faculty Curriculum Committee, where curriculum changes from the Departmental committees are brought forward for approval. In turn, the Faculty Curriculum Committee presents a summary of proposed changes for approval by Faculty Council. Once approved, the changes are reflected in the Faculty Calendar. In some cases, for example, when new programs are proposed, the chain of approvals extends even further within the University hierarchy, through the Committee on Academic Policy and Programs, and ultimately to Governing Council.

Probably the single most important mechanism for curriculum change originates with the course instructors. Instructors tend to be very passionate about the courses they are teaching and are anxious to fine-tune their course (for example, by introducing new examples, re-developing the labs, modifying the scope of the course, etc.). Instructors are also well aware of the latest research findings in their area, are eager to explore how these research findings might be incorporated in the teaching of Engineering fundamentals at the undergraduate level. Thus, most curriculum change is initiated in "bottom-up" fashion. Sometimes curriculum change is initiated "top-down" also, as was the case with the 2001 Decanal Task Force mentioned earlier.

Finally, like all institutional change, large-scale curriculum changes need a "champion": a passionate, committed advocate who can clearly articulate the need for the changes and the benefits that will result when the changes are implemented.

What institutions were evaluated to help determine the changes?

When major changes are made, most Departments follow a process of wide consultation, allowing all stake-holders, including students and professors, to provide feedback. In some cases, the process can sometimes take several years. Students often sit on the committees that define new curricular initiatives. (This was certainly the case in the development of the flexible curriculum in ECE.) There is also student representation on the Faculty Curriculum Committee, and of course student representation at Faculty Council.

Are there any other universities that you/the committee feel are truly leading all others in terms of innovative curriculum?

There certainly are many fine Engineering schools that provide excellent examples of innovative curricula. One shining example is the Keller Center for Innovation in Engineering Education at Princeton University, which is developing a number of new approaches in the education of Engineers (and non-Engineers, too).

We have always been leaders in Engineering curriculum development. What challenges do you foresee in the Engineering educational system?

There are many challenges that face the designers of future Engineering curricula. For example, what topics in the curriculum should be emphasized in order to prepare students to compete in a global workforce? Should the Faculty place a greater emphasis on and play a larger role in continuing education? Should leadership, entrepreneurship, or public policy studies become a mandatory part of the education of the Engineer? Is the standard four-year university program in Engineering still adequate preparation for an Engineering career?

There is also a growing sense that the achievement of a certain minimal "technical literacy" is (or should be) becoming an important aspect in the education even of non-Engineers. We certainly recognize the importance of the humanities and social sciences in the education of Engineering students, and in fact require that all Engineering students receive some exposure to these areas. Perhaps Engineering should begin to reciprocate by introducing Engineering courses for the non-specialist.

What interests you about the area of Engineering curriculum, and what inspired you to become involved as the committee’s chair?

I'm in it for the students. Innovation in curriculum is focused entirely on the question of what is best for the students, with the aim of preparing them as well as possible for their future careers, allowing them to take their places as productive members of society. I find this focus on students to be very rewarding.

Are there any ideas or proposed changes to the curriculum that you can share with us to give us a glimpse into the future?

I am confident that the curriculum will continue to evolve to help meet the changing demands placed on the graduates of our programs.

(home)