The brave souls that were tasked to set up this project center are Alissa Ostapenko, Jacob Dupuis, Austin Hartshorn and Kit Zellerbach. They are all juniors studying at Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI). They are big fans of Dr. Aaron Sakulich.

Alissa is a Computer Science and Mathematical Sciences Major. Jacob is a Management Engineering Major. Austin is a Electrical and Computer Engineering Major. Kit is a Computer Science Major.

They are being advised by Dr. Melissa Belz, who is an Assistant Teaching Professor at WPI and also the Director of the Costa Rica Project Center.

Dr. Aaron Sakuluch is a Civil & Environmental Engineering Professor at WPI. He will work with sponsors in the future to manage projects and maintain relationships.

"Iceland is a really interesting place, and I look forward to being the Director of a Project Center there. Iceland has always been known for its natural beauty, its fishing, and its farming. The events of the recent decade, with the buildup of Iceland as a tourist destination, with investment from energy-hungry foreign industry, and with the effects of a changing climate, have created a very complicated social situation that will require a great deal of thought, research, and planning to successfully navigate. Working with Icelandic partners focused on coping with tourism, protecting the natural environment, safeguarding cultural heritage, and responding to climate change will allow our students to contribute their part to these efforts and come to a more complete understanding that engineering solutions cannot be successfully applied without a thorough understanding of the social context in which challenges are being addressed."

Since Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) established its project-based curriculum in 1972, it has enabled undergraduates to complete degree-required projects at off-campus project centers (Woods, 2004). At these centers, faculty-advised teams of students work with external sponsoring organizations to tackle open-ended challenges related to technology and society (WPI, 2017). Recognizing the ways off-campus learning benefits both students and sponsors, the university has offered project opportunities internationally since 1987. WPI continues to “re-engineer” global education (Davis & Mello, 2003) through its Global Projects Program (GPP). The program currently operates over 40 project centers across the globe (“Project Immersion”, 2018).

Despite the large number of centers, there are not enough sites to meet the increasing demand for completing projects off-campus. As a result, WPI is making a significant effort to increase program capacity by opening project sites in new locations where students can complete projects ("Strategic Plan", 2016). Iceland is one possible location for a new project center. In addition to a rich history and unique natural landscapes, Iceland has numerous organizations and research groups offering opportunities for student projects. Our project investigates the possibility of beginning a new project center in Iceland by exploring potential partnerships with Icelandic organizations and evaluating the logistical needs of students and faculty.

The goal of our project was to investigate the potential of developing a project center in Iceland. Our work in assessing the “risks and rewards” of pursuing a project site in Iceland is critical for the university to make the final “Go/No Go” decision of establishing the center (Hofstrand, 2009). In our investigation, we considered the distinct needs of the primary stakeholder groups, namely the students and faculty of the WPI community. We also considered the learning outcomes for students and the benefit of student projects for potential partnering organizations in Iceland. Structuring our project work around these stakeholder groups, we achieved our goal through four main objectives:

1. 1. Understand the key characteristics of a WPI project center
2. 2. Create and document a network of potential sponsors for student projects
3. 3. Evaluate available resources for housing, food, and transport in Iceland to meet student and faculty needs
4. 4. Produce materials to promote and support an Iceland Project Center WPI students

To establish a baseline for our research, we studied past IQP reports pertaining to project center development and success. We read and analyzed reports for feasibility studies completed for project centers in Zurich, Switzerland; Wellington, New Zealand; Bar Harbor, Maine; and Tokyo, Japan. In these reports, we highlighted the various techniques past student teams used to assess sponsor opportunities and student logistics. We also studied IQP reports promoting projects in long-established sites such as the Venice, Italy Project Center and Melbourne, Australia Project Center. We noted the number of projects offered year-to-year at each site as well as the various types of sponsors at seven different project centers. This helped inform our decision about what type of organizations to look for in Iceland.

After we developed a baseline understanding of the key components of a project center, we conducted interviews with IGSD faculty who have had experience as Center Directors or IQP advisors. Through these interviews, we gained an in-depth understanding of project, sponsor, and management requirements of successful sites, and learned about challenges project centers have overcome. We conducted 45 minute semi-structured expert interviews based on a convenience sampling of IGSD faculty. Our interviewees included Dr. Richard F. Vaz, Director for the Center of Project Based Learning and Co-Director of the Bangkok Project Center; Dr. Stephen McCauley, Co-Director of the Melbourne Project Center; Dr. Dominic Golding, Director of the London and Nantucket Project Centers; and Dr. R. Creighton Peet, Director of the Namibia and Hong Kong Project Centers. We also recorded each response, with permission, to recall any information. Our recordings will be destroyed upon the completion of the project.

After conducting the interviews, we compiled all notes and coded the responses by thematic content. We developed a comparative matrix of project center requirements pertaining to sponsors, logistics, and student projects and organized responses based on each interviewee. This allowed us to highlight similar and unique responses from our experts.

We sent surveys to students who completed or were in progress of completing IQP in Denmark and Costa Rica, because both these sites require some form of language preparation. This information was used as a relevant model to help investigate the need for students to learn basic Icelandic. Overall, the research we conducted in Objective 1 was a critical step towards investigating the feasibility of an Iceland project center. It provided an important baseline for our knowledge and guided our work when engaging with potential sponsoring organizations and assessing whether an Iceland Project Center could meet WPI student needs.

As mentioned previously, the work Objective 1 guided our interactions with the potential partnering organizations with whom we met. It allowed us to effectively document and assess the landscape of future student projects in Iceland. To evaluate the landscape of potential sponsors and projects in Iceland, we started by developing a sponsor checklist with characteristics based on criteria from our interviews and research of past project center feasibility studies. As a result of this, when we met with organizations in Iceland, we were able to communicate the goals of student projects. These organizations mainly consisted of, governmental agencies, and smaller nonprofits focusing on tourism, ecology, historical preservation, and education. This initial round of contacts was compiled through internet research. We also spoke with Donal Boyd, a WPI alumnus who is currently living in Iceland, and asked him about student project opportunities in the country. We emailed a total of 67 potential sponsoring organizations based in Greater Reykjavík and Akranes. We also considered Akureyri as a potential project center. However, we did not pursue project opportunities in Akureyri due to its remote location. Of the organizations contacted, we scheduled interviews with 10 that expressed interest in the program. These organizations were:

Next, we planned our approaches and questions for the semi-structured, informational sponsor interviews. Meeting in-person with sponsors allowed us to establish important connections with organizations in Iceland as a foundation to the sponsor network. Prior to each interview, we researched each organization and prepared a set of past IQP reports that would be of interest to each of the specific organizations with whom we met.

When we met with each organization, we started by introducing ourselves, and then asked about the work our interviewee engaged in. By learning about the organization, we hypothesized where a student team’s work could be useful to the interviewee and subsequently introduced the WPI project model. When explaining the IQP, we emphasized the open-ended nature of student projects, as well as the program’s position at the intersection of science and technology in society. Lastly, we asked our interviewee about additional contacts that may be interested in working with students.

After each interview, one student sent a follow up “thank you” email to the interviewee, along with relevant IQP reports for the organization to look at. These IQP reports gave interested sponsors a clear idea of the IQP report format, as well as the quality and depth of projects. After each interview, we coded and compiled our notes. We highlighted specific details about each organization, as well as potential projects they mentioned in the interview. This allowed us to create a personalized profile for each organization we spoke to. We also offered a follow-up meeting to have in-depth discussions of potential projects and project logistics. During the follow-up discussed more IQP specifics and answered any questions or concerns pertaining to for example, project timing, and time commitments from sponsors.

Using the data from our meetings, we evaluated sponsors based on our subjective observations. For instance, we noted the sponsor’s willingness to collaborate and wrote down any notable quotes or questions we received. The data from all of our attempted contacts and conducted interviews was important in determining our final recommendations to Dr. Sakulich. Following these meetings, we created a sponsor catalog as a supplementary deliverable to Dr. Sakulich. The catalog summarized our interactions with Icelandic organizations, including ones that responded and ones that did not respond. We provided a description of each organization and contact information for future inquiries.

From Objective 1, we determined the logistical needs of WPI students that a project center must fulfill. Our work in this objective gave us both quantitative and qualitative data for analyzing the logistics of living and working in Iceland as students.

The Student Handbook for the Iceland ISRP A’18 outlined travel information regarding housing, transportation and food costs for students in Iceland (Sakulich, 2018). To supplement this information, we tracked our expenses on food, transportation, and extracurricular activities. Moreover, we recorded personal accounts of our team’s experiences living, traveling, and working in Akranes and Reykjavík. This information was used as an addendum to the Student Handbook on how to experience Iceland on a budget.

In the middle and end of the project term, we interviewed the other WPI student groups in Iceland. Three weeks into the term, we sent a survey to gather initial perceptions of travel, living expenses, and student life. Later in the term, we asked students working alongside us to name their favorite and least favorite aspects of their project experiences in Iceland. We recorded their responses and combined them into a video.

To evaluate our living accommodations, we considered several factors such as distance from potential sponsors, site travel costs, and amenities near student housing. After our experiences in Akranes, we explored alternative housing locations in four municipalities of Greater Reykjavík. We visited each of the four municipalities in pairs and investigated amenities such as clinics and grocery stores, recreational activities, and transportation options around two to three bus stops in each municipality.

As an additional component of our project, we produced media materials to showcase an Iceland Project Center to WPI students. We gave priority to our work for Objectives 2 and 3 and completed promotional materials in our remaining time. We divided this objective into two parts: preparing materials for students and preparing materials for sponsors. When producing materials for students, we explored the types of promotional materials current WPI project centers used to understand their contents and structures. We also used video projects we created for a Global Labs media workshop held during the project term. To give WPI students a snapshot of project life in Iceland, we produced a short video showcasing the student life and project experiences of all WPI student teams in Iceland.

Drafts of these videos were sent to WPI students on campus. We sent a survey along with the video to get feedback on the excitement and usefulness of the video content so we could improve it as necessary. These four objectives guided our project preparation and work in Iceland as we sought sponsors and investigated options for student living and learning in Iceland. In the following section, we outline and analyze our results for each of the four objectives and include deliverables where appropriate.

Through our first hand experiences in Iceland we were able to evaluate the feasibility of the Iceland Project Center. The following points are findings from our methods.

Interviews with IGSD faculty highlighted successful project center characteristics. A successful project center needs invested center directors and faculty advisors as well as a strong sponsor network. We put most of our effort into developing the sponsor network during the project term. Our faculty interviews revealed that certain sponsor sectors are more suitable than others for coordinating interdisciplinary projects. Students tend to work with smaller, non-profit organizations, government agencies, and museums, because these organizations often lack resources to work on projects full-time and are more open to student creativity. We focused on these sectors when finding and contacting potential sponsoring organizations.

We emailed 67 potential sponsors and met with ten organizations who were interested in working with WPI students. Figure 1 indicates the various sectors that these sponsors are a part of. By the end of the term, our sponsor network consisted of four ‘definite yes’, two ‘very interested’, and four ‘maybe’ organizations.

Establishing a point of contact and arranging meetings proved to be the most difficult aspect of creating the sponsor network. The Icelandic community is very close knit, making it difficult to establish initial communication with organizations. As outsiders, we primarily relied on our emails to present ourselves professionally and to relay key information about the program in a condensed way. Transportation from Akranes to Reykjavik was inconvenient. Additionally, travel to other parts of Iceland proved to be nearly impossible without a car. Moreover, the buses outside the city are considerably expensive. The best, yet most expensive, way for students to see the natural wonders of Iceland is to book a private tour.

Student feedback played an important role in evaluating housing, transportation and student life options. We used feedback from other IQP teams to assess Akranes as a housing location and to investigate the municipalities within Greater Reykjavik. In our investigation we found four municipalities that would provide a better working environment and student life balance than Akranes. These included:

• Kópavogur
• Hafnarfjörður
• Garðabær
• Mosfellsbær

1.Based on potential student project complications, we recommend that students spend time learning the fundamentals of the Icelandic language during PQP/ID 2050 through the online language learning platform that WPI offers. This would benefit both sponsors and students for several potential projects, as well as student life while in Iceland. Moreover, we recommend finding a local liaison, who can be helpful in translating any surveys that students produce and to help students with their Icelandic as they work in Iceland.

2.We recommend that IGSD include the price for a monthly bus pass within the program costs. Without a bus pass, student expenses will increase a lot at the expense of a quality student experience. If housing will be in Akranes, the country bus pass costs $221 (24,600 ISK). If housing is in Reykjavík, the city bus pass costs $110 (12,300 ISK). Cards can be purchased ahead of time via the Strætó website and available for students to pick up when they arrive in country.

3.A group tour would be an interesting way to introduce students to the natural wonders of Iceland. We recommend reserving a group Golden Circle Complete tour through Arctic Adventures. This tour was very informative and a great introduction to Icelandic history and geology. The tour provided a large variety of sights for the day-long timeframe. We found that the tour was worth the $108 cost per person, as other tours offer fewer opportunities, for a higher cost.

4.Although Akranes was a suitable housing location, many potential sponsoring organizations and cultural activities were located in the Reykjavik area. Thus, we recommend finding student housing accommodations in the greater Reykjavik municipalities. IGSD should prioritize housing locations in the Kópavogur, Mosfellsbær, Hafnarfjörður, and Garðabær municipalities because they offer many resources for students and provide easy access to Reykjavík center.

5.Another complexity in student’s IQP participation is the number of international off-campus project opportunities available each term. Many international project opportunities are offered in B term, C term, and D term. There are fewer opportunities offered in A term and E term. New international project centers active during A or E term provide students with more flexibility in planning the timing of their projects. Due to the vast number of tourists visiting Iceland during the summer, housing is expensive and in high demand. Thus, it would be difficult to coordinate affordable housing for 24 students during E term. During B and C term, daylight hours are limited and winter weather conditions are harsh, making project work and travel difficult. Therefore, we recommend opening a project center in Iceland during A Term.

Sponsor Presentation

This presentation was used to introduce ourselves, WPI, and detail the Global Projects Program during sponsor meetings. It includes information on the project time frame, possible student deliverables, and named other project centers’ partnering organizations. Additionally, it provides information about the time and mentorship commitment sponsors could expect when working with students. It proved to be a helpful way to organize and relay all the important information about the nature and logistics of student projects.

Sponsor Catalog

This catalog provides a complete collection of all potential sponsors and important information for each organization.

Iceland Project Center Logo

The logo is a Vegvísir, meaning ‘wayfinder’ (Bergmann, 2018). The Vegvísir is an Icelandic magical stave, a symbol of protection and guidance, meant to aid the bearer in finding their way through rough weather.

Click here to download.

Promotional Video

This promotional video was created to garner interest of future IQP students in completing IQP in Iceland and to also provide a real account of the student project experience at the Iceland Project Center. This minute long video highlighs various aspects of student life and project work in Iceland. It does not include personal reflections, and instead gives brief snapshots of our exciting experiences as the first WPI students in Iceland.

Student Reflections

At the end of the project term, we asked the WPI students working alongside us to state their favorite and least favorite parts of their project experiences in Iceland. This open-ended reflection provided a brief, personal account of the challenges and excitement students experienced as the first WPI undergraduates completing more traditional IQP projects in Iceland, namely monitoring microplastic pollution on beaches and gathering climate change perceptions.

About ABET. Retrieved from http://www.abet.org/about-abet/.

Adam, N. (2018). Tourism Saved Iceland, but Now It’s a Headache. [online] WSJ.

Bansal, R., Leigh Isenhart, R., & Meagher, T. (2013). Switzerland Feasibility Analysis. Zurich,

Switzerland: Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

Bragadottir, K. A., & Cox, A. (2008, April 6). Iceland: Life on global warming's front line. Reuters.

Bergmann, S. (2018, February). A Guide to Icelandic Runes.

Bremer, Darlene. (2007). Engineering the World. International Educator Vol. 11, 31-38. NAFSA.

Callahan, A., Filippou, S., Henson, K., and Zuccolo, L. (2016). Twenty years down under:

Documenting the history and assessing the impacts of WPI’s Melbourne Project Center: Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

Cederberg, K., Espinoza, B., LaFlamme, R., and San Andres M. (2015). Investigating a New

Project Center: Cuenca, Ecuador. Cuenca, Ecuador: Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

Chartier, D. (2010). An Egalitarian, Progressive And Peaceful Country: An

Independent Utopia. In The End of Iceland's Innocence: The Image of Iceland in

the Foreign Media during the Financial Crisis (pp. 39-46). University of Ottawa Press.

Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs, 2016-2017 (2016). ABET.

Davis, P., & Mello, N. (2003). LAST WORD: A WORLD-CLASS EDUCATION. ASEE Prism,

12(5), 68-68.

Downey, G. L., & Beddoes, K. (2010). [Interview with Dr. Richard Vaz.] What is Global

Engineering Education For? The Making of International Educators, Part I & II. Synthesis

Lectures on Global Engineering, 1(1), 1-264.

Drogin, S., Harlow, C., Kopchak, O., Schick, D., Tremblay, A., & Wiig, D. (2009, June 1).

Determining the Feasibility of an IQP Project Center in Santa Fe, New Mexico (Rep.). Worcester Polytechnic Institute

Duca, Z., Lopriore, D., & Roux, N. (2012). Feasibility of a WPI Project Center in Bar Harbor,

Maine. Bar Harbor, Maine: Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

Elevate Impact: A Strategic Plan for WPI, 2015-2018. (2015).

Fancher, C., Heller, R., Nesbitt, N., Whorton, S., Woodnorth S., (2009). Wellington Project

Initiative. Wellington, New Zealand: Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

(2015, April). [Tourism in Iceland in Figures]. Published raw data. (Ferdamalastofa, 2015)

Fox, J. (2018). Why tourism investment is Iceland's growth engine. Hotel Management.

Global Projects for All. (2017, August 21).

Granquist, S. M., & Sigurjonsdottir, H. (2014). The effect of land based seal watching tourism on

the haul-out behaviour of harbour seals (phoca vitulina) in iceland. Applied Animal

Behaviour Science, 156, 85-93. doi://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2014.04.004

Grants. (n.d.). Iceland Human Rights Council.

Jiusto, Scott & F. Vaz, Richard. (2016). Understanding Impacts: Community Engagement

Programs and Their Implications for Communities, Campuses and Societies. 125-137.

Meldrim, A., Morrison, A., and Stanley, P. (2011). Helping WPI Students Make Better IQP

Choices. Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

Project Immersion. (2018). Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

Salisbury, M., Umbach, P., Paulsen, M., & Pascarella, E. (2009). Understanding the Choice

Process of the Intent to Study Abroad. Research in Higher Education, 50(2), 119-143.

Snitkjær, C. E. (2018, August 24). Through The Westfjords: A Dialogue On Icelandic Tourism.

Reykjavík Grapevine.

Staff. (2017, May 26). Iceland's vanishing glaciers will severely affect human life. Iceland

Magazine.

Strategic Plan for WPI: An Overview. (2016, September 12). Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

United States Department of State, 2011 Country Reports on Human Rights - Iceland, (2012)

Vaz, R. F., & Pedersen, P. C. (2002, November). Experiential learning with a global perspective:

Overseas senior design projects. In Frontiers in Education, 2002. FIE 2002. 32nd Annual

(Vol. 3, pp. S3B-S3B). IEEE.

Vaz, R., and P. Quinn, “Long Term Impacts of Off-Campus Project Work on Student Learning

and Development,” Proceedings of the 2014 Frontiers in Education Conference, IEEE,

2014.

Ward, T. R., Shumway, H. E., Sanchez, F. A., Nakamura, Y., Fraga Alvarez, D. V., Enyedy, A. J.,

Chao, D., Barber, A. C. (2018). Implementing an IQP Project Center in Japan. Worcester
Polytechnic Institute.

Woods, D. (2004) Handbook for IQP Advisors and Students. Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

Worcester Polytechnic Institute (2017). Undergraduate Catalog 2017-2018, 3-4, 16-17.

Worcester, MA: Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

Sakulich, A. R., & Elgert, L. (2017). Establishing Undergraduate Project Centers in Cuenca,

Ecuador, and Panama City, Panama. Council on Undergraduate Research Quarterly,

37(3).

Ísfiskur tók við lyklavöldum að fiskvinnsluhúsum. (2018, January 12). Skessuhorn.

Strætó BS. (n.d.).