Transcript Enhancing Engineering Education in Europe (E4) SOCRATES II

Enhancing Engineering
Education in Europe (E4)
SOCRATES II Thematic Network
www.ing.unifi.it/tne4
Università degli Studi di Firenze
Co-ordinating and contracting Institution
1
Presentation
E4
1. Introduction
CONTRACTING INSTITUTION:
Università degli Studi di Firenze
www.unifi.it
TN PRESIDENT & LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE:
Prof. Claudio BORRI, Università degli Studi di
Firenze
[email protected]
TN CO-ORDINATOR
Prof. Francesco MAFFIOLI, Politecnico di Milano
2
[email protected]
Presentation
E4
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
3
Countries Involved
E4
1. Introduction
27 COUNTRIES
AT
3
LT
2
BE
12
LU
1
BG
2
MT
1
CH
4
NL
3
DE
11
NO
1
DK
3
PL
5
EE
1
PT
5
ES
6
RO
3
FI
4
RU
1
FR
16
SE
4
GR
2
SK
1
HU
3
TK
1
IE
1
UK
8
IT
8
TOTAL
112
4
E4 2. General
General Purposes
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;
5
E4
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.
Tools
6
Project
Structure
E4
5 Activities
Activity 1 - Employability Through Innovative Curricula
Activity 2 - Quality Assessment and Transparency for
Enhanced 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
7
Project
Structure
E4
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
8
Final
Publications
E4
The main outcomes of E4 have been collected
in 6 volumes to be soon published:
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
A: Introductory book
B: Glossary and Tuning Report
C: Activity 1
D: Activity 2
E: Activities 3 and 4
F: Activity 5
(The contents of the 6 Volumes, plus other relevant
documents, will be included in an attached CD-Rom.)
9
E4
ACTIVITY 1
Activity 1: Employability Through Innovative
Curricula
10
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.
11
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.
12
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.
13
ACTIVITY 1
Guidelines for
Core Profiles
E4
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.
14
ACTIVITY 1
Guidelines for
Core Profiles
E4
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.
15
ACTIVITY 1
Guidelines for
Core Profiles
E4
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.
16
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.
17
ACTIVITY 1
Guidelines for
Core Profiles
E4
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.
18
ACTIVITY 1
Guidelines for
Core Profiles
E4
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)
19
ACTIVITY 1
Guidelines for
Core Profiles
E4
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)
20
ACTIVITY 1
Guidelines for
Core Profiles
E4
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 nonengineering 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.
21
ACTIVITY 1
Guidelines for
Core Profiles
E4
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.
22
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, if several 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.
23
ACTIVITY 1
Guidelines for
Core Profiles
E4
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.
24
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.
25
ACTIVITY 1
E4
A1: Employability through Innovative Curricula
Promoter:
Günter HEITMANN
[email protected]
Technische Universität Berlin
Germany
26
E4
ACTIVITY 2
Activity 2: Quality Assessment and
Transparency for Enhanced Mobility and
Trans-European Recognition
27
ACTIVITY 2
Outputs
E4
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.
28
ACTIVITY 2
Survey on Recognition
E4
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.
29
ACTIVITY 2
QA Recommendations
E4
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
30
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.
31
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.
32
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 expost, in terms of its suitability to support those actions having a bearing
on the internal and external efficacy of the Programme.
33
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.
34
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.
35
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.
36
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
37
Programme relating to new, evolving professions.
ACTIVITY 2
QA Recommendations
E4
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.
38
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.
39
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?
40
ACTIVITY 2
QA Recommendations
E4
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".
41
ACTIVITY 2
Case Studies
E4
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.
42
ACTIVITY 2
E4
A2: Quality Assessment and Transparency for
Enhanced Mobility and Trans-European
Recognition
Promoters:
Giuliano AUGUSTI
[email protected]
Università di Roma “La Sapienza”, Italy
Alfredo SOEIRO
[email protected]
Universidade do Porto, Portugal
43
E4
ACTIVITY 3
Activity 3: Engineering Professional
Development for Europe
44
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.
45
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
46
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.
47
ACTIVITY 3
Recommendations
E4
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.
48
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.
49
ACTIVITY 3
Recommendations
E4
Recommendations on
Continuing Engineering Education Management (4)
Recommendation on “Sharing ODL Material”
• Adaptation of the materials;
• Clear protocol/contract;
• Modular design & top-down design.
50
ACTIVITY 3
E4
A3: Engineering Professional
Development for Europe
Promoter:
Patricio MONTESINOS
[email protected]
Universidad Politecnica de Valencia
Spain
51
ACTIVITY 4
E4
Activity 4: Enhancing the European
Dimension
52
ACTIVITY 4
E4
The role of the Internationalisation
Despite the great success of ERASMUS Programme in increasing
the mobility of graduate students in Europe, the awareness of the
necessity of introducing a European Dimension for all engineering
students is not yet as widely accepted and understood as it
should be. Among other aspects, it is felt that this need can be
satisfied only introducing elements of internationalisation culture
into the formation one receives at home.
53
ACTIVITY 4
E4
Activity 4 had two sides:
- one devoted to identify these elements and how to
incorporate them into an already crowded curriculum;
- the other one devoted to design actions to facilitate
students mobility, trying to remove hindrances on it
and proposing initiatives to stimulate it (like the socalled JEEP Teams introduced by H3E).
54
E4
ACTIVITY 4
Four lines of actions were identified:
· to study the structure of the European work
environment, in order to assess the real needs;
· to identify tools for introducing the international
component in Higher Engineering Education;
· to study current hindrances to international
employability;
· to establish and study projects targeted to
international teams of students, akin to the JEEP
Teams.
The main outcomes of Activity 4 are collected in a
report included in Volume E of the E4 6-book collection
55
E4
ACTIVITY 4
Following the stated mission, this Report is
articulated as follows:
- The real needs of industry;
- Internationalisation of Universities;
- Project Teams;
- Register of courses given in foreign languages across
Europe (this aspect was identified only during the last
year of E4);
- Annex 1 with the main characteristics of ECTS;
- Annex 2 with enquiry form for going on constructing
the Register mentioned above.
56
E4
ACTIVITY 4
A set of guidelines for setting up international project
teams complete the work done by this Activity.
The recommendations include valuable reflections on:
• Size and Composition of Teams;
• Institutional Links;
• Level of Project;
• Travel by Students;
• Institutional Commitment;
57
ACTIVITY 4
E4
A4: Enhancing the European Dimension
Promoters:
Brian MULHALL
[email protected]
University of Surrey
United Kingdom
Jean-Pierre CHARLOT
[email protected]
Université d’Angers
France
58
E4
ACTIVITY 5
Activity 5: Innovative Learning and Teaching
Methods
59
E4
ACTIVITY 5
Activity 5 provided a significant basis for further
discussion of EE and its challenges in the future of elearning by offering examples, for example, of a
virtual campus, good practices, trans-national and
online courses.
4 main themes were recognised and 4 Special Interest
Groups (SIGs) established, each with its own coordinator.
Future plans for each of these themes were also
outlined.
60
E4
ACTIVITY 5
During the three years of E4,
Activity 5 developed its own web site :
http://virtual.hut.fi/E4_Action5/
All results of Activity 5 are available on this web site.
The main outcomes of Activity 5 are also
collected in a report in book form
(Volume F of the E4 6-book collection).
The CD-ROM version of the report of Activity 5
includes a great amount of hyperlinks.
61
ACTIVITY 5
E4
Content of Volume F (The Activity 5 book) (1)
- Presentation of the working methods;
- Discussion of the themes in which Activity 5 has been
articulated:
- study of virtual university initiatives in Europe;
- good practices in the use;
- support of new teaching and learning technologies,
- training for engineering teachers and facilitation of ODLICT in teaching and learning,
- experiences of net-based and trans-national courses.
- Students’ views on new learning challenges.
- Conclusions;
- Recommendations.
62
ACTIVITY 5
E4
Content of Volume F (The Activity 5 book) (2)
-
The four Annexes report:
main activities;
active members-institutions;
the methodology for benchmarking national e-learning
strategies;
survey of virtual campus and virtual university activities in
Europe
It must be emphasised that a lot more can be found on the web
site of Activity 5, part of it reflected in the CD-Rom attached to
the full set of books of E4.
63
ACTIVITY 5
E4
A5: Innovative Learning and Teaching
Methods
Promoter:
Matti PURSULA
[email protected]
Helsinki University of Technology
Finland
64
The Glossary ad-hoc Task Force
The Tuning Engineering Synergy Group
E4
Volume B contains two other important outcomes of E4
obtained by two specially appointed task groups:
Glossary
of
Terms Relevant
Education:
for
Engineering
an essential tool for anybody reading or writing about
Engineering Education, aimed at explaining and unifying the
terms used. It will be kept up-to-date on the E4 web site and
be inherited by TREE: all suggestions are welcome.
Tuning Educational Structures in Europe: Report
of the Engineering Synergy Group:
the evolving Engineering Education is compared with the
process of “harmonisation” in other fields of European Higher
Education
65
E4
HEADQUARTERS
(also of the new “T.R.E.E.” Network)
International Relations Office
Università degli Studi di Firenze
Facoltà di Ingegneria
Via di S. Marta, 3
I-50139 Firenze, Italy
Tel: ++39.055.4796543
Fax: ++39.055.4796544
E-mail: [email protected]
66
E4
E4 WEB SITE
http://www.ing.unifi.it/tne4
67
Большое спосибо за
внимания!
[email protected]
68