Enhancing Engineering Education in Europe (E4) SOCRATES II Thematic Network ing.unifi.it/tne4

1. Enhancing Engineering Education in Europe (E4)SOCRATES II Thematic Networkwww.ing.unifi.it/tne4 Università degli Studi di Firenze Co-ordinating and contracting Institution

2. E4 Presentation 1. Introduction CONTRACTING INSTITUTION: Università degli Studi di Firenze www.unifi.it TN PRESIDENT & LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE: Prof. Claudio BORRI, Università degli Studi di Firenze e4@ing.unifi.it TN CO-ORDINATOR Prof. Francesco MAFFIOLI, Politecnico di Milano maffioli@elet.polimi.it

3. E4 Presentation 1. Introduction • Goal:To enhance the European dimension in Higher Engineering Education • Discipline: Higher Engineering Education (06.0) • Countries involved: all 15 EU Member States plus BG, EE HU, LT, MT, NO, PL, RO, RU, SK, TK and CH (eligible as well as non-eligible countries included) • Institutions involved:112 Institutions/Organisations which have signed a bilateral agreement

4. E4 Countries Involved 1. Introduction 27 COUNTRIES

5. E4 General Purposes 2. General purposes and tools • to enhance the compatibility of the many diverse routes to the status of Professional Engineer which exist in Europe; • to facilitate greater mobility of skilled personnel and integration of the various situations throughout Europe; • to give a wider visibility of examples of and recommendations for good practice, in order to allow recognition based on mutual understanding and respect; • to reach all potentially relevant players in EE in Europe through effective dissemination actions taking advantage of traditional (e.g. conferences), as well as more modern (e.g. internet) tools; • to involve the professional and industrial organisations directly;

6. E4 Tools 2. General purposes and tools • a set of Activities with a balance between study type and experimental actions, so that E4 could be regarded as an experimental laboratory for EE; • a simple management structure, taking into account the changes characterising Socrates II with respect to Socrates I; • a strict coordination of the various activities in order to enhance the cohesion of the whole project; • a strong attention given to the dissemination phase, in order to reach all potentially relevant actors in EE in Europe; • a direct involvement of the professional world; • a strong link with other initiatives and TN’s in similar fields in order to take advantage of cross-fertilisation opportunities.

7. E4 Project Structure 5 Activities Activity 1 - Employability Through Innovative Curricula Activity 2 - Quality Assessment and Transparency forEnhanced Mobility and Trans-European Recognition Activity 3 - Engineering Professional Development for Europe Activity 4 - Enhancing the European Dimension Activity 5 - Innovative Learning and Teaching Methods

8. E4 Project Structure 3 Transversal Actions T.A. 1 – Web site conception & management T.A. 2 - Electronic bulletin, publications, glossary T.A. 3 – Organisation of conferences International Advisory Board 3 high level experts

9. E4 Final Publications The main outcomes of E4 have been collected in 6 volumes to be soon published: Volume A: Introductory book Volume B: Glossary and Tuning Report Volume C: Activity 1 Volume D: Activity 2 Volume E: Activities 3 and 4 Volume F: Activity 5 (The contents of the 6 Volumes, plus other relevant documents, will be included in an attached CD-Rom.)

10. E4 ACTIVITY 1 Activity 1: Employability Through Innovative Curricula

11. E4 ACTIVITY 1 Outputs A set of guidelines for core profiles of two-tier curricula in Engineering is one of the main outcomes of this Activity.

12. E4 ACTIVITY 1 Guidelines for Core Profiles Guidelines for Core Profiles of Two Tier Curricula (Summary) The guidelines refer to two already elaborated main factors of influence: - the implication of the Bologna Declaration with an expressed policy of shaping the education systems in a such a way that increased student migration, cooperation and interchanges will become a natural aspect of European integration; - the increasing complexity of the engineering world with rapid technical development, new emerging branches, internationalisation of research, development, business and production.

13. E4 ACTIVITY 1 Guidelines for Core Profiles European integration (Bologna Declaration) The two tier system appears to be generally recognised, even though there are differences and exceptions. It is reasonable to assume that this system will be the dominant structure of engineering courses, and that student migration should be adapted to such a system. For reference purposes a 3 + 2 system is assumed for the Bachelor and Master level courses. The Ph.D. level is not included in the discussions. One agreed aim is to facilitate student mobility. To remove practical obstacles to such mobility some basic requirements must be met:- the academic levels of courses must correspond to each other;- the knowledge base must cover identical or corresponding areas;- students must be able to communicate in their environment;- institutions must remove formal obstacles to student migration;- degrees awarded must be recognised in all European countries.

14. E4 ACTIVITY 1 Guidelines for Core Profiles Internet Education The Internet will increase in importance and will form the base for new and enhanced teaching methods as well as new types of courses and new ways of obtaining degrees. The guidelines do not analyse these trends in depth, but recognise the importance of considering the possibilities and effects that Internet will have in the future. Students and institutions will be required to master the challenges of Internet.

15. E4 ACTIVITY 1 Guidelines for Core Profiles Language Communication Discussions on language are sometimes difficult, and have a tendency to trigger national feelings, historical attitudes, and policies. Internationally there is, however, a very clear trend of accepting English as the commun language of education. Developments in the computer world, the world of publications, international conferences, international industry and business, also show a factor common to all of them: English is accepted as the only common world language. Recognising this as a fact, educators should evaluate which consequence this will have for engineering education. One obvious conclusion is that all engineers must be able to use English as a working language. An open question is whether all engineering courses should be conducted using English as a common language.

16. E4 ACTIVITY 1 Guidelines for Core Profiles New Areas of Education Industry and companies require an increasing degree of specialisation. The traditional engineering fields have given birth to a multitude of new areas such as: environmental engineering, micro system engineering, bioengineering, product development engineering, marine engineering, nuclear engineering, etc. Another trend is to combine and/or supplement engineering education with other fields of study like business, product development, export engineering, human resource development, and international relations. These trends will most likely continue, and will represent new challenges and possibilities for the educational systems.

17. E4 ACTIVITY 1 Guidelines for Core Profiles Purpose of the Core Profile Guidelines In order to form a common basis for European EE “guidelines for engineering core profiles” have been elaborated. The guidelines describe the qualities expected from a European engineer of 2010, and the requirements that his/her educators should use as a base for the formation. The profiles do NOT give a detailed list of subjects, hours, etcetera in the traditional way of describing a curriculum, but try to follow a learning outcomes approach by stating which qualities and academic abilities the student should possess at the end of certain degree programmes. The student is at the centre. How courses are organised and conducted is left to each institution, as long as the student fulfils the requirements at the end. The core profile forms a basis for improved awareness and a reference, but it is also a recommendation. The following factors are considered.

18. E4 ACTIVITY 1 Guidelines for Core Profiles University Planning The core profile is a reference for university planners. The acceptance of the core profile will contribute to shape the curricula in accordance with the intentions of the Bologna Declaration. There will, however, still be ample room for different approaches and national differences, which are still desired. The aim is to create a path for student migration with as few obstacles as possible.

19. E4 ACTIVITY 1 Guidelines for Core Profiles Life-long Learning Engineers of tomorrow will face an increasing demand on their ability to adjust to new technology, new environments, and new types of jobs. This could be described as an ability and an acceptance that life long learning is a natural course of events. Hence the core profile must prepare the student for this aspect of his/her future career. (see also Activity 3)

20. E4 ACTIVITY 1 Guidelines for Core Profiles Accreditation of the Curricula Accreditation will be carried out by different bodies, and in different ways. The core profile is intended to form a common reference for accreditation bodies. Even though it does not cover any full course program, it should be used as a basic reference that must be met by all courses. Accreditation should be carried out by the national education and engineering authorities, but international agreement should be reached as a basis to the recognition of university degrees in all countries. (see also Activity 2)

21. E4 ACTIVITY 1 Guidelines for Core Profiles Core profile definition The core profile is the ensemble of courses and knowledge that forms the professional profile of the student. The core courses and requirements must show the difference between engineering and non-engineering studies in the first place, and between various engineering specialisations in the second place. Hence the core should consist of some general requirements needed to define EE and some detailed requirements enough to distinguish between particular specialities. The core courses should be provided by each University as parts of its curricula.

22. E4 ACTIVITY 1 Guidelines for Core Profiles Engineering Profiles Traditionally different types of engineers have received their education in institutions giving them different profiles.One such clear distinction can be drawn between the “Fachhochschule” and Universities in Germany, and between previous “Polytechnics” and Universities in the UK. Other countries have similar arrangements. The guidelines do not address the differences inherent in such profiles. A true core must be common for all profiles, but must leave space for the diversity that will be and should be part of the institutional characteristics. The core is a reference for a threshold or minimum level which should be fulfilled by all profiles of engineering education.

23. E4 ACTIVITY 1 Guidelines for Core Profiles Some institutions incorporate periods of practical training as part of the university courses. One may question for example if a 4 year course is really a full 4 years, ifseveral months or even one year are allocated to practical training or internship. However, it may contribute in a significant way to the outcomes and the profile of a degree. These guidelines do not define the workload, duration or contents of a university year of study. With reference to the 3 + 2 years used as reference, these are years of study defined as such by any university in accordance with the Bologna declaration and would correspond to a minimum of 180 ECTS credits for the first cycle degree and additional 120 ECTS credits for the achievement of a second cycle degree.

24. E4 ACTIVITY 1 Guidelines for Core Profiles Summing up Specifications in these guidelines are outcomes oriented, and focus on the skills, abilities, potentials and personality of the graduate. Teaching/Learning arrangements and methods provided to generate these outcomes must remain within the responsibility of the relevant institution and can be based on an increasing range of innovative approaches as already described. Therefore, the proposed core prfiles do not contain: - a detailed list of subjects and topics which must be taught; - a specification of how many hours must be devoted to different subjects;- a specification of how the university should arrange its inputs to the students.

25. E4 ACTIVITY 1 Guidelines for Core Profiles The work of Activity 1 on curriculum development issues has been guided by the intention to contribute to the establishment of a European Higher Education Area, by addressing crucial aspects of harmonisation, compatibility and comparability, and to the enhancement of EE by encouraging diversity and innovative solutions to deal with a range of changing demands. Creative competitiveness and the strive for specific profiles of engineering qualifications on a high level of quality must be accompanied by the attempt to make diversity and quality transparent on the basis of common terminology. Thematic Networks still contribute to tackle these challenges by the promotion of innovative approaches and by collecting examples good practices.

26. E4 ACTIVITY 1 A1: Employability through Innovative Curricula Promoter: Günter HEITMANN heitmidd@sp.zrz.tu-berlin.de Technische Universität Berlin Germany

27. E4 ACTIVITY 2 Activity 2: Quality Assessment and Transparency for Enhanced Mobility and Trans-European Recognition

28. E4 ACTIVITY 2 Outputs The main outcome of this Activity is a Volume in three parts (Volume B of the E4 6-book collection): 1. Accreditation and Recognition in European Engineering (Rapporteur: Giuliano Augusti): a up-to-date survey on recognition and accreditation practices in 23 European countries. 2.Quality Assurance in Engineering Education on a National and European Scale(Rapporteur: Muzio Gola): an overview of evaluation mandate, focus and procedures in the light of quality and quality assurance, accreditation, responsibility, with particular reference to higher education and examples drawn from a number of European evaluation models. 3. New trends on Evaluation and Recognition (Rapporteur: Alfredo Soerio): an illustration, based on case studies, of emerging trends for the evaluation and accreditation of initial and continuing education programme.

29. E4 ACTIVITY 2 Survey on Recognition Volume B Part 1: 1. Accreditation and Recognition in European Engineering (Rapporteur: Giuliano Augusti): a up-to-date survey on recognition and accreditation practices in 23 European countries.

30. E4 ACTIVITY 2 QA Recommendations Volume B Part 2: 2.Quality Assurance in Engineering Education on a National and European Scale(Rapporteur: Muzio Gola): an overview of evaluation mandate, focus and procedures in the light of quality and quality assurance, accreditation, responsibility, with particular reference to higher education and examples drawn from a number of European evaluation models. Some recommendation have been elaborated and are summarised in the following

31. E4 ACTIVITY 2 QA Recommendations Statements Regarding Evaluation: a Proposal for the Debate Identifying the “minimum set” of evaluation requirements suitable for Programmes of the first and second level, common to all countries and to all scientific sectors, appears to be a reasonable and achievable objective. Such “minimum set” could stimulate discussion about what constitutes good quality within higher education and support the development of a common methodological framework and common quality criteria for comparative international evaluations within higher education programmes. For the sake of clarity and to stimulate a lively debate, the statements are strictly geared to the needs of the learning process, i.e., not inclusive of all the many and various requirements mentioned in the literature on quality and evaluation of higher education.

32. E4 ACTIVITY 2 QA Recommendations Basic Policy of a Study Programme A study Programme should be evaluated on the basis of its ability to put into effect a policy focusing - clearly and distinctly - on the external and internal “efficacy” of the learning process: -  specify worthwhile learning goals - enable most students to achieve the established objectives. According to a policy of this sort, quality must be interpreted in terms of: -  relevance of the purpose (fitness of purpose) - fitness for purpose with a special accent on “transformation” The “efficiency” criterion or, in other words, the cost awareness, should be seen as a constraint affecting the implementation of the policy, not as a policy in itself.

33. E4 ACTIVITY 2 QA Recommendations The Focus of the Judgement 1 The instruments of the external evaluation are: - indicators with summative functions: in particular: indicators of intake, progression, success of the student and of the graduate -  experts’ judgements: with both summative and formative functions, on the aspects and factors required by the model. The organisational system, which is highly variable from one case to another and is always developed over several levels (Programme, Faculty, University), should be left in a free format and should be evaluated ex-post, in terms of its suitability to support those actions having a bearing on the internal and external efficacy of the Programme.

34. E4 ACTIVITY 2 QA Recommendations The Focus of the Judgement 2 Thus, it is sufficient to ensure that the following indications are provided for each aspect / factor envisaged by the model: - it must be absolutely clear which person or committee is responsible for the policy, the quality and the execution of all educational matters relating to a given study programme -  that those responsible discharge their duties competently and on time -  that each action is documented in a pertinent and accessible manner. In other words, that the effectiveness of an organisational system is evidenced by the description of the actions and their documented effects, factor by factor.

35. E4 ACTIVITY 2 QA Recommendations Changing the Philosophy of the Self-evaluation Report It is proposed to discard the logic and practice of periodic “evaluation reports” and adopt a logic of on-going monitoring: it is desirable that each Programme be required to maintain an “information model” that collects and updates the quantitative parameters and the qualitative descriptions enabling the external examiners (with special regard to: academic authorities, third parties, external evaluators...) to formulate an informed judgement. This “information model”, which preferably should be made known to the public, can be flanked by a “self-evaluation supplement” discussing the strengths and weaknesses; in many documents it is claimed that this analysis is a necessary preliminary condition for external evaluation.

36. E4 ACTIVITY 2 QA Recommendations The Structure of the Information Model A comparative examination of the evaluation checklists has shown that the different items to be considered can be grouped into four key “aspects” or “dimensions” of the evaluation: - Requirements and objectives - Teaching and learning - Learning resources -  Monitoring, analysis, review An appropriate quality assurance mechanism will be present if these four aspects are kept under control in an effective manner by the Programme. Each “aspect” is clarified through a certain number of “factors” to be treated separately (even though it would be very helpful to consider their interconnections). The “factors” together with their “key aspects” represent the “minimum set” needed for the evaluation model.

37. E4 ACTIVITY 2 QA Recommendations The Information Model Contents of the : a) Requirements The first aspect of the model is indicated as “Requirements and objectives” instead of “Aims and objectives” to underscore the fact that in order to determine the occupational roles for which students are being trained it is also necessary to investigate the needs of the external parties concerned. In some instances, it is possible to stipulate a veritable alliance with the world outside the university as a valuable aid to overcome deep-seated habits and to increase public awareness of the logic underlying the Programme. In order to determine the requirements it is therefore necessary to clearly identify the parties concerned. Needless to say, it would be a mistake to push this attempt beyond reasonable limits for the sake of formal compliance. A traditional Programme that refers to well consolidated professional roles needs not be motivated by specific market surveys; the opposite is true for a Programme relating to new, evolving professions.

38. E4 ACTIVITY 2 QA Recommendations Educational Objectives The translation of the “requirements” factor into “educational objectives” is performed by the university; it uses the know-how and the language of training specialists; it consists essentially of harmonising the knowledge building processes and learning outcomes that meet the requirements. This is the point at which it is necessary to reflect critically on the strategies, make choices, clearly express justifications for the chosen priorities. The best guide currently available for the formulation of learning outcomes is provided in the “Benchmarking Statements” by the QAA. This document could be adopted as the starting point for the definition of educational objectives, in terms of contents and levels.

39. E4 ACTIVITY 2 QA Recommendations Teaching, Assessment Methods Once the educational objectives of the Programme have been identified and deployed as specific objectives of the individual courses of study, the teacher is provided with great freedom of action as to the methods to be employed in order to achieve them and to ascertain whether they have been achieved. Nor could it be otherwise, considering that the teacher is by definition the professional possessing the competencies that qualify him/her for this function.

40. E4 ACTIVITY 2 QA Recommendations Breaking down the “Factors” into their Constituent “Elements” A working description of the factors is provided by breaking them down into their “elements”; an overview of the evaluation modes, such as those mentioned in chapter 2 supplies many interesting indications. An example: the “examination and assessment methods” factors can be broken down into elements such as -  Does the assessment process enable learners to demonstrate achievement of the intended outcomes? -  Are there criteria that enable internal and external examiners to distinguish between different categories of achievement? -  Can there be full confidence in the security and integrity of assessment procedures? Does the assessment strategy have an adequate formative function in developing student abilities?

41. E4 ACTIVITY 2 QA Recommendations External Judgement The external examiners shall formulate their judgement based on the contents of the “information model” and, if made available, also on those of the “self-evaluation supplement”. Their judgement shall take into account the indicators and the documents mentioned in the information model and, finally, shall use meetings and discussions. Final judgement will be expressed by factors, and shall be expressed, in a “summative” manner, by selecting an ordinal category from a set. It is a good idea to add comments or statements with a “formative” function. Of great interest for its conciseness is the approach adopted in Estonia, where the individual requirements are articulated in statements expressing a desirable treatment of each factor or element. Example: " Responsibilities for each area are formulated clearly".

42. E4 ACTIVITY 2 Case Studies Volume B Part 3: 3. New trends on Evaluation and Recognition (Rapporteur: Alfredo Soerio): an illustration, based on case studies, of emerging trends for the evaluation and accreditation of initial and continuing education programme.

43. E4 ACTIVITY 2 A2: Quality Assessment and Transparency for Enhanced Mobility and Trans-European Recognition Promoters: Giuliano AUGUSTI GAugusti@uniroma1.it Università di Roma “La Sapienza”, Italy Alfredo SOEIRO avsoeiro@reit.up.pt Universidade do Porto, Portugal

44. E4 ACTIVITY 3 Activity 3:Engineering Professional Development for Europe

45. E4 ACTIVITY 3 Continuing Professional Development (CPD), was the object of Activity 3. CPD is of course strictly related to Continuing Engineering Education (CEE), and Activity 3 took advantage very strongly of the CEE Working Group of SEFI, as an essential forum for inspiration and discussion. One of the most important aspects to realise is that there is not a solution suitable for all cases. Moreover the CPD market appears, as other service markets, to run faster than the suppliers.

46. E4 ACTIVITY 3 • The mission of Activity 3 was itemised as follows: • monitoring actions already established within European projects, as well as in individual universities, professional associations, companies and other organisations; • collecting examples of good practice in the development of continuing education opportunities for engineers; • assessing the role of research as a component of continuing engineering education; • producing guidelines for the development of good continuing professional development initiatives in Engineering faculties; • helping to develop a learning culture in industry. • In the following are reported • some of the recommendations worked out by Activity 3

47. E4 ACTIVITY 3 Recommendations • In the following are reported some of the • Recommendations on • Continuing Engineering Education Management • elaborated by Activity 3 • and included in Volume E of the E4 6-book collection • (1) •  Recommendations on “Demand Analysis” • Understand Business Processes and Strategy of your Customers; • Get to Know your Customers; • Know Technical Trends; • What the Competitors do not Deliver; • Competences to be Developed.

48. E4 ACTIVITY 3 Recommendations • Recommendations on • Continuing Engineering Education Management (2) • Recommendations on “Product Design” • For a good design of a CEE package, one should: • Precisely Identify the Competence Needs of the Client. • Choose an Adequate Price. • Define Right Content. • Assure Staff Competence.

49. E4 ACTIVITY 3 Recommendations • Recommendations on • Continuing Engineering Education Management (3) • Recommendation on Marketing • Know the market; • Obtain a good quality in the content of the course (and , if so, try it to be certified somehow); • Increase society-university interaction; • Networking and co-operating with other providers.

50. E4 ACTIVITY 3 Recommendations • Recommendations on • Continuing Engineering Education Management (4) • Recommendation on “Sharing ODL Material” • Adaptation of the materials; • Clear protocol/contract; • Modular design & top-down design.