{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02977667493796526, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0033085194375516956, 'mean_word_length': 5.576086956521739, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 1, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Good educational experiments are not necessarily good change processes

Design, problem solving, and scientific discovery are examples of important processes for which engineers and scientists have developed exemplary process models, i.e., a set of widely accepted procedures by which these functions may best be accomplished. However, undergraduate curriculum transformation in engineering, that is, systemic change in pedagogy, content, and/or course structure, lacks a widely recognized process model. In other words, engineering faculty members do not widely and explicitly agree upon a set of assumptions and flow diagrams for initiating, sustaining and integrating curriculum improvement. The two-loop model that is described in conjunction with the EC2000 criterion (http://www.abet.org/eac/two_loops.htm) provides a flow diagram that integrates assessment, evaluation and feedback processes. However the two-loop model does not provide a set of assumptions and flow diagrams for quantum actual change or improvement. To initiate discussion of models for the curriculum change process, referred to as change models, this paper examines three change models and advocates the organizational change model.