INNOVATION AND ASSESSMENT OF ENGINEERING CURRICULA

INNOVATION AND ASSESSMENT OF ENGINEERING CURRICULA Proceedings of the International Symposium Valladolid, 15th 17th May 2009

URBANO DOMÍNGUEZ (Editor-coordinador) INNOVATION AND ASSESSMENT OF ENGINEERING CURRICULA Valladolid 2009

La presente publicación se realiza al amparo del Proyecto para la renovación de las Metodologías docentes en el marco de la Convergencia Europea hacia el EEES, concedido a la Universidad de Valladolid por la Agencia para la Calidad del Sistema Universitario de Castilla y León (curso académico 2008-2009) Cover by José Muñoz Domínguez Los Autores Imprime: Gráficas 81. www.graficas81.com Depósito Legal: VA-791-2009 ISBN: 978-84-692-2864-7

TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD Domínguez, U.... 1 INVITED LECTURES Competition in Engineering Education. What are the Criteria? Graaff, E. de... 5 The Learning Assessment as a Quality Control Process Armengol, J.... 15 The New Learning Methods in Denmark and a very International Example for Engineering Students Hansen, J..... 27 WORKING SESSIONS SESSION 1 Teachers Workload in a Project- Led Engineering Education Approach Alves, A. et al.... 41 Efficiency of Active Methodologies and Continuous Assessment in Computing Courses Domínguez Jiménes, J.J., and Estero Botaro, A.... 53 Assesment of Project Based Learning Approaches: Who Assesses and who does not? Hattum- Jansenn, N. van.... 69 Teaching/Learning Process, Video, and Statistics: what s in common? Leão, C.P., and Rodrigues, C.S.... 77 Innovation and Assessment of Engineering Curricula i

Active Methodologies in Engineering Education Miró Juliá, M..... 87 SESSION 2 Developing the Design Ability of Engineering Students Aran, A.... 107 Sharing Experiences on Formative Assessment at the University of Valladolid Arranz Manso, G. et al.... 113 The Impact of Peer Assessment on Teamwork and Student Evaluation: A Case Study with Engineering Students Fernandes, S. et al..... 125 Proposal Activities and Evaluation for the Competencies Development Pardo Seco, F. et al..... 137 SESSION 3 Work- Group in Mathematics Angulo, Ó., and Martínez, M.C.... 151 Teamwork as a Basis to Develop other Competences Arribas Gómez, L., and Sánchez Mayoral, L.P.... 159 Social Responsibility in the University Arribas Gómez, L. et al.... 175 Sustainable Development in the Engineering Curricula Llaverías, N., Reyes, G., and Comellas, L.,... 189 SESSION 4 Role of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering Curricula by University of Miskolc in Improvement of a more Competitive Hungarian/ European Industry DöbrOczöni, A., Szentirmai, L., and Kalmár, L.,... 203 The Role of External Consultation in the Design and Evaluation of Chemical Engineering Bachelor Programmes Lucas Yagüe, S. et al.... 223 Sixty Credits for a Quick Employment Noè, C.,.... 235 ii Innovación y Evaluación de Currículos de Formación de Ingenieros

Towards a System Founded on Key Competencies Needed by Contemporary Engineers Regout, S.,.... 247 POSTER SESSION Multi- Skilled Teams on a Project- Based Engineering Education Experience Dinis- Carvalho, J., and Moreira, N..... 259 Engineering Students Perceptions about Assessment in Project- Led Education Fernandes, S., Flores, M.A., and Lima, R.M.,... 261 Multidisciplinar PBL: Innovation in Leisure and Amusement Products and Services Fuentes, P., and Songel, G..... 273 The Qualifications Framework for the European Higher Education Area (EQF-EHEA) and its Application to the Qualifications Framework for the Spanish Higher Education (MECES) García Terán, J.M.... 285 Innovation Group Teaching in Chemistry, Electricity and Electronics. Work Strategies Martínez Rodrigo, F. et al.... 301 Course of Introduction to Physics for Technical Degrees: Analysis of Results Mozo Ruiz,I. et al..... 315 REPORTS OF THE SESSIONS WORKING SESSION 1 Reported by Erik de Graaff and Urbano Domínguez... 331 WORKING SESSION 2 Reported by Jesús Armengol... 333 WORKING SESSION 3 Reported by Jorgen Hansen... 335 WORKING SESSION 4 Reported by Pedro Fuentes... 337 Innovation and Assessment of Engineering Curricula iii

PANEL ROUND ON INNOVATION IN ENGINERING CURRICULA Reported by Urbano Domínguez... 339 WORKSHOP ON INNOVATION AND ASSESSMENT OF ENGINERING EDUCATION. ENGLISH SESSION Reported by Erik de Graaff and Natascha van Hattum-Janssen... 341 WORKSHOP ON INNOVATION AND ASSESSMENT OF ENGINERING EDUCATION. SPANISH SESSION Reported by Jesús Armengol... 343 iv Innovación y Evaluación de Currículos de Formación de Ingenieros

FOREWORD Many things have changed in Higher Education in Europe since the Bologna Declaration was signed in 1999. In response to the new situation, many Curricula have undergone substantial changes and new Degrees have appeared all over Europe. On the other hand, those changes have promoted a deeper interest on methodology, and particularly on learning oriented education, and on innovation. In the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) and with reference to Engineering Education there are important changes either already implemented or on the way to be introduced soon. As for the actors, some of them have now a certain temporal perspective of those changes while others, as it happens in Spain, are still working on how to shape them. It is then a good moment to share experiences, to present examples of good practice, and to define new lines of Curriculum Development. With reference to this, Innovation and Assessment are considered key issues. This book collects the presentations and other activities carried out at an International Symposium organized by the University of Valladolid, in collaboration with the SEFI Curriculum Development Working Group (CDWG). The Symposium was a discussion oriented meeting on topics such as Curriculum Innovation, Accreditation and Assessment, Active Learning, Project and Problem Based Learning, and Examples of Good Practice. It was addressed to those interested in actively participating in innovation processes in Engineering Education: administrators, students and teachers. Introductory lectures to focus the main points, sessions for oral and poster presentations, a workshop and a panel round conformed the technical part of the Programme. The information is arranged in several blocks, and it begins with one containing the invited lectures. It is followed by others with the papers of the different working sessions and those for poster presentation. Papers appear within each block arranged alphabetically by the name of their first authors. Finally there are the reports of the working sessions followed by one of the Innovation and Assessment of Engineering Curricula 1

panel round on curriculum innovation, and those of workshop on innovation and assessment of curricula, in the English and the Spanish sessions. The organizers wish to thank all the people who collaborated for the successful running of the Symposium, and especially the assistance provided by members of the students Association BEST, and by Jesús Magdaleno who prepared the edition of the Proceedings. Financial support from the University of Valladolid which arranged the publication of the book with the Proceedings is also gratefully acknowledged. Urbano Domínguez University of Valladolid Chairperson of SEFI CDWG 2 Innovación y Evaluación de Currículos de Formación de Ingenieros

INVITED LECTURES

COMPETITION IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION: WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA? GRAAFF, E. DE Delft Technical University, Delft, The Netherlands E.deGraaff@tudelft.nl 1. INTRODUCTION Everyone always wants high quality. That is something we all agree on. The problem is that it is very hard to define quality. Maybe it is even impossible to define quality objectively. This is at least the main thesis in the icon novel of the seventies Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Values by Robert Pirsig. In this book, Pirsig explores the meaning of the concept quality in a series of philosophical discussions. Although we cannot define quality, he points out that people agree on what has quality and what has not. He describes an experiment at a school were the students are challenged to identify which of the essays produces by their fellow students have high quality and which essays do not possess this attribute. He reports a hundred percent agreement and concludes that even if we do not know what quality is we are still able to recognize it. This phenomenon resembles the description of the concept as intended by the Dutch psychologist Adriaan de Groot (de Groot, 1966). In his standard work on research methodology he identifies the major problems for research in the social sciences. One of those problems concerns the definition of research variables. De Groot recognizes that the basic concepts in the natural sciences, like length and weight can be measured directly by means of empirical observations. With many concepts in the social sciences, like for instance intelligence such direct observations are not possible. As a consequence, such concepts can only be measured indirectly by constructing tests that differentiate the performance of people according to the degree they posses the trait. Naturally, these indirect operationalizations differ from one to the next. Still we have a common understanding on what intelligence is. In general, people are able to agree on the identification of intelligent people. The common factor is what de Groot labels the concept as intended. These days quality in higher education attracts a lot of attention. There are several international ranking systems producing lists op top universities. Evidently the concept of quality of higher education institutes can be measured only indirectly. The question is, therefore, to what extend we can agree on the common denominators in Innovation and Assessment of Engineering Curricula 5

the definition of quality. What are the criteria that decide on the position in the picking order? This paper explores the system of ranking of international engineering schools in order to find out what decides on the position of a particular school. 2. INTERNATIONAL RANKING SYSTEMS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Probably the most well know international ranking system in higher education is the USA based World University Rankings from Times Higher Education, followed by the Shanghai Jiao Tong - Academic Ranking of World Universities from China. Table 1 lists five different ranking systems with their websites. Each of these systems sports its own set of criteria, with as a consequence difference in the positions of institutes on the rankings. This paper will focus on the principle of ranking in general, forfeiting the analysis of the differences between the systems. The World University Rankings from Times Higher Education and the Shanghai Jiao Tong - Academic Ranking of World Universities will be used as examples. Table 1. International Ranking systems for Higher Education Times Higher Education - QS World University Rankings Shanghai Jiao Tong - Academic Ranking of World Universities Professional Ranking Of World Universities Webometrics Ranking of World Universities CHE Ranking http://www.topuniversities.com/worlduniversityrankings/ http://www.arwu.org/ http://www.ensmp.fr/actualites/pr/emp-ranking.html http://www.webometrics.info/ http://www.che-ranking.de/cms/ 3. THE WORLDS TOP RANKING ENGINEERING INSTITUTES The QS World University Ranking system, produced by Quacquarelli Symonds was the first international ranking of higher education institutes. The ranking system aims to present a multifaceted view of the relative strengths of the world s leading universities. Weightings are decided by the Times Higher Education and are based on its opinion of the importance of the measured criteria balanced against the effectiveness of the indicator to evaluate the intended measure. The rankings are based on a combination of five distinct indicators (see table 2). 6 Innovación y Evaluación de Currículos de Formación de Ingenieros

Tabble 2. Ranking Indicators and weight of the QS ranking system Ranking Indicator Explanation of Ranking Indicator Weighting of Ranking Indicator Academic Composite score drawn from peer 40% Peer Review review survey (which is divided into five subject areas). 6,354 responses in 2008. Employer Review Score based on responses to employer 10% survey. 2,339 responses in 2008. Student-to-Faculty Score based on student-to-faculty ratio 20% Ratio Citations per Score based on research performance Faculty Member factored against the size of the research body 20% International Score based on the proportion of Faculty international faculty at the schools 5% International Score based on the proportion of Students international students at the school 5% Peer review weighs heavy in this ranking system. A lot of effort is put in collecting data from academics from all over the world. The rankings are based on the responses to a survey distributed worldwide both to previous respondents and subscribers to two key databases. Since 2007 respondents are prevented from selecting their own institution. Table 3 presents the QS top ten ranking for 2008. Table 3.: Top ten of the Times Higher Education - QS World University Rankings in 2008 Rank Institution Country Subject Score 1 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) United States 100.0 2 University of California, Berkeley United States 93.9 3 Stanford University United States 85.3 4 California Institute of Technology (Caltech) United States 81.6 5 University of Cambridge United Kingdom 76.2 6 Carnegie Mellon University United States 71.6 7 Imperial College London United Kingdom 70.9 8 Georgia Institute of Technology United States 68.9 9 University of Tokyo Japan 67.4 10 University of Toronto Canada 66.0 Looking a this table the first thing that catches the eye is the strong dominance of USA based Universities with six places in the top ten. This picture is the same if you look at Universities in general (also 6 in the top ten), or if you look at the top 20 (13 USA). Innovation and Assessment of Engineering Curricula 7

It is not obvious how we should explain the American dominance. Of course, it could simply be that the best institutes of Higher Education are USA based. In any case the top institutes all have a high regarded reputation and a strong international visibility. Still, it appears a bit strange that in the top ten there is only one institute that is based in a non native English speaking country (the University of Tokyo in Japan). Extending this picture to the top twenty results in some improvements. Among the institutes ranking from 11 to 20 there are six non USA based institutes, four of them even non native English speaking, with TU Delft from the Netherlands proudly at place 17. One might think that the strong USA dominance is caused by the fact that the QS Times Higher Education ranking system itself is USA based. Therfore it is interesting to compare the outcomes with the China based Shanghai Jiao Tong - Academic Ranking of World Universities. Table 4 presents the top ten of this ranking system for 2008. The Shanghai Jiao Tong - Academic Ranking of World Universities consists of a score on four categories, each weighing 25% of the end result: HiCi - Highly cited researchers PUB - Articles Indexed in Science Citation Index TOP - Percentage of articles published in top 20% journals of ENG fields Fund - Total engineering-related research The striking outcome is that in table 4 all ten institutes in the top ten are USA based. A closer look reveals that the top place is the same and that most top institutes are represented in both lists, although there are some small differences in the exact order. The QS ranking is added in the last column. 8 Innovación y Evaluación de Currículos de Formación de Ingenieros

Table 4.: Top ten of the Shanghai Jiao Tong - Academic Ranking of World Universities 2008 in the field of Engineering Technology and computer sciences World Institution Country Score Score Score Score Total QS Rank on on on on Score rank ENG HiCi PUB TOP Fund 1 Massachusetts USA 99 73 92 98 100 1 Inst Tech (MIT) 2 Stanford Univ USA 100 62 91 79 91.8 3 3 Univ Illinois - USA 66 69 84 91 85.7 71 Urbana Champaign 4 Univ California - USA 77 69 86 70 83.5 2 Berkeley 5 Univ Michigan - USA 61 65 91 77 81.3 18 Ann Arbor 6 Univ Texas - USA 73 62 87 71 81.1 70 Austin 7 Carnegie Mellon Univ USA 53 57 83 100 80.7 6 8 Georgia Inst Tech USA 35 76 88 91 80.1 8 9 Pennsylvania State USA 69 65 83 70 79.2 11 Univ - Univ Park 10 Univ California - USA 68 54 84 75 77.5 5 San Diego The fact that the Chinese ranking favours the USA institutes even stronger appears to be caused by the criteria that are being used. The Academic Ranking of World Universities appears to be grounded in research eminence only, even if the research performance is measured in various ways. In the QS World University Rankings citations only count for 20% of the score. The Academic Peer Review is the most important indicator carrying a weighting of 40%. Besides that there is also room for the student staff ratio and the international orientation of both staff and students. The Times Higher Education - QS World University Rankings is also applied to specific regions. It is interesting to have a closer look at the top ten ranking of European Engineering Institutes (see table5). Without the USA it is now the United Kingdom that dominated the ranking. Only two institutes from non native English speaking countries are listed in the top ten, one from France and one from Switzerland. Among the next series of ten there are 8 non British institutes, three of these are based in the Netherlands. Innovation and Assessment of Engineering Curricula 9

Table 5. QS World University Rankings Top European Universities in 2008 Rank 1 University of Cambridge United Kingdom 99.5 Overall Score Academic Employer Student to International International Citations per Peer Review Review Faculty Faculty Students Faculty Score 100 Score 100 Score 99 Score 98 Score 95 Score 89 2 University of Oxford United Kingdom 98.9 Academic Employer Student to International International Citations per Peer Review Review Faculty Faculty Students Faculty Score 100 Score 100 Score 100 Score 96 Score 96 Score 85 3 Imperial College London United Kingdom 98.4 Academic Employer Student to International International Citations per Peer Review Review Faculty Faculty Students Faculty Score 99 Score 100 Score 100 Score 98 Score 100 Score 83 4 University College London United Kingdom 98.1 Academic Employer Student to International International Citations per Peer Review Review Faculty Faculty Students Faculty Score 96 Score 99 Score 100 Score 96 Score 100 Score 89 5 King s College London United Kingdom 89.5 Academic Employer Student to International International Citations per Peer Review Review Faculty Faculty Students Faculty Score 93 Score 98 Score 89 Score 91 Score 85 Score 70 6 University of Edinburgh United Kingdom 89.3 Academic Employer Student to International International Citations per Peer Review Review Faculty Faculty Students Faculty Score 96 Score 99 Score 82 Score 91 Score 82 Score 70 7 ETH Zurich (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) Switzerland 89.1 Academic Employer Student to International International Citations per Peer Review Review Faculty Faculty Students Faculty Score 95 Score 82 Score 56 Score 100 Score 94 Score 99 8 École Normale Supérieure, Paris France 84.8 Academic Employer Student to International International Citations per Peer Review Review Faculty Faculty Students Faculty Score 93 Score 72 Score 68 Score 29 Score 69 Score 99 10 Innovación y Evaluación de Currículos de Formación de Ingenieros

9 University of Manchester United Kingdom 84.4 Academic Employer Student to International International Citations per Peer Review Review Faculty Faculty Students Faculty Score 91 Score 100 Score 82 Score 91 Score 84 Score 56 10 University of Bristol United Kingdom 84.1 Academic Employer Student to International International Citations per Peer Review Review Faculty Faculty Students Faculty Score 83 Score 99 Score 82 Score 85 Score 74 Score 4. COMPARING CRITERIA In order to analyze what attributes count towards a high place on the ranking table 6 compares the scores of the highest ranking institute, the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom with the scores of Delft University of Technology placed at number 27 in this list. Table 6. Comparison between Cambridge and Delft Rank Overall Score 1 University of Cambridge United Kingdom 99.5 Academic Employer Student to International International Citations per Peer Review Review Faculty Faculty Students Faculty Score 100 Score 100 Score 99 Score 98 Score 95 Score 89 27 Delft University of Technology the Netherlands 71.8 Academic Employer Student to International International Citations per Peer Review Review Faculty Faculty Students Faculty Score 78 Score 87 Score 66 Score 80 Score 66 Score 49 The main difference between the scores of these two institutes is to be found in the category Citations. Evidently, the professors at Cambridge produce work that is cited more often than the Delft professors. By the way this also explains why TU Delft with a rank number of 17 in the QS system does not appear at all in the top 100 of the Chinese ranking as this system is heavily dominated by scientific recognition. But more specifically, is shows how language influences the ratings. The bias towards English is part of the Science Citation system. Eminent scientists from countries like France, Germany or Spain of course also publish in English. However, as it is not their mother tongue it takes more time and effort. Even today there are probably many valuable contributions to science that we do not know about because they are published in other languages than English. Innovation and Assessment of Engineering Curricula 11

Other notable discrepancies between Cambridge and Delft are to be found in the student to faculty ratio and the International students. The first one has to do with government financing and therefore is difficult to influence by the institute. The second one is in part again dependable on the language. For the average student in Asia it makes more sense to follow a study abroad in England, learning English at the same time that it is to study in the Netherlands or Denmark. The past years TU Delft has implemented a policy to attract more students from abroad through offering all its master courses in the English language. In the course of this policy the number of English speaking professors has been increased, which also contributed positively to the ranking. 5. CONCLUSIONS To summarize the conclusions of the analysis of the different ranking systems, it is clear that: - Rank depends on largely on reputation, favouring traditional values - There is a strong bias favouring the native English speaking schools - Quality in research dominates quality in education Evidently there is little room to influence the position of an institute in the rankings by means of a policy. The status of an institute depends on a long time reputation that will be difficult to change and many factors can not be controlled. The one issue that maybe could be resolved is the bias towards research. In many countries there are local systems ranking universities not only in terms of research reputation, but rather aiming for quality of the learning and teaching a the institute. A system from the USA that aims for this objective is the US News Ranking Methodology (www.usnews.com/sections/rankings) In this ranking system, which aims for USA colleges and Universities overall rankings of undergraduate engineering programs are based solely on a survey of engineering deans and senior faculty who are asked to rate each program they are familiar with on a scale from 1 (marginal) to 5 (distinguished). Overall rankings of graduate engineering programs are based on the weighed average of the following 10 indicators. 12 Innovación y Evaluación de Currículos de Formación de Ingenieros

Table 7. Criteria of the USA colleges and Universities ranking Quality Assessment 0.40 Peer Assessment Score 0.25 Recruiter Assessment Score 0.15 Student Selectively 0.10 Mean GRE Quantitative Score 0.0675 Acceptance Rate 0.0325 Faculty Resources 0.25 Doctoral Student-to-Faculty Ratio 0.075 Master s Student-to-Faculty Ratio 0.0375 Percent of Faculty that are Members of the National Academy of Engineering 0.075 Doctoral Degrees Awarded 0.0625 Research Activity 0.25 Total Research Expenditures 0.15 Average Research Expenditures Per Faculty Member 0.10 Still there will be a bias towards the traditional. In particular from the educational point of view that is a pity. Very often the most innovative schools are not the traditional ones. In a system to assess the quality of education there should be a way to gain points for innovative power. Also missing from the US rating system is a judgement on the education from the alumni of a school. Research on this topic is just starting, but is show a lot of promise (Saunders, 2008) REFERENCES Groot, A.D. de (1969), Methodology. Foundations of inference and research in the behavioral sciences. The Hague-Paris, Mouton & Co. Pirsig, Robert M. (1974), Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Values. New York, Quill. Saunders-Smits, G.N. (2008), Study of Delft Aerospace Alumni, PhD thesis. Delft, TU Delft. Innovation and Assessment of Engineering Curricula 13

Websites Times Higher Education - QS World University Rankings: http://www.topuniversities. com/worlduniversityrankings/ Shanghai Jiao Tong - Academic Ranking of World Universities: http://www.arwu. org/ Professional Ranking Of World Universities: http://www.ensmp.fr/actualites/pr/ EMP-ranking.html Webometrics Ranking of World Universities: http://www.webometrics.info/ CHE Ranking: http://www.che-ranking.de/ US News Ranking Methodology: www.usnews.com/sections/rankings for details 14 Innovación y Evaluación de Currículos de Formación de Ingenieros

THE LEARNING ASSESSMENT AS A QUALITY CONTROL PROCESS ARMENGOL, J. UPC. Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya JESUS.ARMENGOL@upc.edu ABSTRACT The relationship between the university and the industry is usual within the framework of the research. From the point of view of the teaching there are some things that we can learn from the industry. The process of learning can be seen like an industrial process. Saving the distances, a student without knowledge of one theme registers (he enters into the process) to our subject. He follows the process of the subject (he goes to class, studies...) and in the end is subjected to a quality control. If the pupil overcomes the quality control he can continue studying (to pass to the following process) and if he does not overcome it, is returned at the beginning of the process. This process is temporarily long (a period of four months or a course) and using a control with few feedback makes it quite inefficient. In the industry this final control stopped being used many years ago (beginning of the last century). Does anybody imagine a car factory working with a control of this kind, with a verifier of the cars quality only at the end of the assembly line? Which is the ideal duration of an educational process? Traditionally a subject of a year or a period of four months has been considered as one only process. The student takes the subject and at the end passes the quality control (examination). But the student can ask himself some questions, for example: Why they wait until February to say me that the theme studied (or the problems solved) in October is wrong?. Briefing to the student (as often as we can) of the evolution of his learning process is the basis of a good evaluation system. In education this process is known as continuous assessment. Each subject states several learning outcomes that often are attained sequentially. Is it not this one a good dimension of a process? A system of continuous assessment has to be flexible to pay attention to the diversity of learning outcomes. It has to be flexible in the time (we need to control when our process needs, not when the academic administrator states), in how we control (each learning outcome can need a different way of control, an exam, a test, a report ), in what we control (transversal competencies, specific competencies ), and in the result (a pass/fail, a mark, a classification, ). Innovation and Assessment of Engineering Curricula 15

If the learning outcomes develop sequentially it is necessary to verify the achievement of each of them. If they make it simultaneously or in parallel processes, it is necessary to indicate how it advances its achievement in periods short enough. The worst lack of the final examination is that it does not give us any information of how the learning process of our students has gone. We do not know what has happened during the learning process and we are not able to make anything to improve it. In a system with continuous assessment we will have much more information of the learning process of our students and we will be able to search a solution to the arisen problems. Some of you can be a lot infuriated by the comparison between a student and a merchandise. This comparative one is certainly provoker. We use it especially when we teach courses of teacher training or talks, where we need to provoke the audience in order to foster the debate about the educational model. But beyond the provocation, the question that we have to ask ourselves is, if what happens is that we know better the productive process of merchandise that the educational process of our students. If you want to improve the product, take care of the process!! If we zoom in the educational process from a concrete subject to all the subjects of the studies, we realize that a complete curriculum is a set of complex processes. Many sequential ones (subjects) and some other, diffused in time (complex competencies, transversal competencies...). To assure the quality the solution can be to see it as a set of autonomous processes and to coordinate them. The university teachers are very good process managers. They usually do it with his research (they identify lacks, they plan how to improve them, they implement the foreseen solutions, they report the process and results, and they start again). Why they cannot do this work in his teaching work? If we achieve that the teachers take their teaching like a process which it is necessary to improve, and manage it, the educational quality will be assured and will improve constantly. 16 Innovación y Evaluación de Currículos de Formación de Ingenieros

Innovation and Assessment of Engineering Curricula 17

18 Innovación y Evaluación de Currículos de Formación de Ingenieros

Innovation and Assessment of Engineering Curricula 19

20 Innovación y Evaluación de Currículos de Formación de Ingenieros

Innovation and Assessment of Engineering Curricula 21

22 Innovación y Evaluación de Currículos de Formación de Ingenieros

Innovation and Assessment of Engineering Curricula 23

24 Innovación y Evaluación de Currículos de Formación de Ingenieros

Innovation and Assessment of Engineering Curricula 25

THE NEW LEARNING METHODS IN DENMARK AND A VERY INTERNATIONAL EXAMPLE FOR ENGINEERING STUDENTS. HANSEN, J. Copenhagen Univ. College. Eng. Dept. of Export Eng. European Project Semester. Lautrupvang 15, 2750 Ballerup, Denmark. jha@ihk.dk ABSTRACT The teaching or learning methods have been changing in the last decades for many reasons: It is important to motivate students and they have to learn in depth and in an active way. Further, they have to learn to learn, and communication skills and the ability to work in teams are important today. The changes started more than 40 years ago in Denmark, and e.g. two universities founded in 1972 and in 1974 (Roskilde Universitet and Aalborg Universitet) became famous because most of their learning was based upon projects and students learning in teams. At Copenhagen University College of Engineering, we have also a long tradition for project based learning. E.g. we started an Export Engineering Education in 1985 in which a big part of the learning was problem based with teams of students working on interdisciplinary projects. Another example is European Project Semester, EPS, in which engineering students from the whole world do projects in international teams. Most of the projects are interdisciplinary and done in cooperation with industry, but some projects are academic projects. Usually projects are done at a well-defined stage of a curriculum so that students at a specific stage of their education can learn some well-defined subjects. At the EPS however, students come from different educations and different stages and work together on real-life projects. In consequence, it cannot always be predicted precisely what they will learn, but in reality it is difficult to predict what they will need in their future career. The students will certainly learn something and acquire communication skills and other soft skills. In addition they ll get a very international experience and an international network. So far we have received 1039 students from 35 countries in the EPS and a lot of positive statements from professors and students who know the EPS. This paper deals with the Danish experiences with project based learning and especially with EPS. An important part is the assessment procedure which is discussed. Keywords: Projects, teamwork, international, assessment. Innovation and Assessment of Engineering Curricula 27

1. INTRODUCTION During the latest decades, the teaching or learning methods have been changing in many countries. There are several reasons for that: We have become aware of the fact that it is important to put focus on the outcome, i.e. what the students have learnt, instead on what the professors are teaching. If students really shall benefit from their learning, they have to learn in a more active way and get a deeper understanding of their subjects. Learning by heart without a real understanding is useless, and a way to get a deeper understanding could be project based learning. We often need to motivate the students today. Thanks to the cultural changes in society students don t accept to sit and passively listen to professors, as they often did in earlier days. Technology and science is changing quicker than ever, so engineers must be able to learn during their whole career in the future; they have to learn to learn. Because technology is so complicated today, engineers cannot work alone and usually they work in interdisciplinary teams. In consequence, they need good skills of cooperation and communication. Another important aspect is internationalisation. Al big companies today are operating internationally, and in most companies engineers need international competences. 2. THE SITUATION IN DENMARK The changes came to Denmark at a very early stage. Already in the sixties, project based and problem based learning with students working and studying in teams became common in Denmark. In 1972, Roskilde Universitetscenter, now Roskilde Universitet, was established (1). In this university almost all learning from the very beginning was done by interdisciplinary problems or projects and students working in groups. In 1974, Aalborg Universitetscenter, now Aalborg Universitet, was founded (2). In this university the major part of the learning was also from the very beginning done by interdisciplinary projects and students working in teams. In fact, the author of this paper experienced project based learning at high school in 1963 and 64 and remembers this as a very motivating and efficient learning method. We have also a long tradition for project based learning at Copenhagen University College of Engineering. E.g. we have had an Export Engineering Education since 1985 in which a big part of the learning has been carried out with interdisciplinary projects and students working in teams. There has been much discussion about the new learning methods in Denmark, and at some occasions it has almost been like a religious war. Some people claim that only the new learning methods are efficient and give the students a deeper understanding of the subjects. Others claim that we cannot be sure that students learn what they should learn by project based learning. Others claim that many students are too passive in the groups and only pass the exams thanks to the other students. Another problem is that some 28 Innovación y Evaluación de Currículos de Formación de Ingenieros

projects tend to be unfocused, and many teams can waste a lot of time in the first part of a project period, because they are confused and don t know how to get started. In reality, neither the traditional nor the new learning methods can guarantee that all students learn what we expect them to learn! Research about the outcome of different learning and teaching methods give different results, but in general it seems that the well-skilled and motivated students will learn more with the new methods, and the weaker students will learn less. Anyway, students have different learning styles, and teachers/professors have also different teaching styles. In consequence, a good mixture of more traditional teaching and project based or problem based learning will usually give the best results according to the authors opinion, and in most Danish universities, a balanced mixture of old and new teaching methods is the standard of today. An important part of the discussion is related to the assessment. Some research concludes that students learn more by project work in teams because more students pass the exam. However, the reason could be that some students pass the exam thanks to the work of the other team members! In consequence, we have to be aware of the assessment, and in earlier days the assessment didn t always focus on this, so some students did pass the exam thanks to the other team members. The present Danish government has by law made any kind of group exams illegal to avoid this problem. This decision has been criticized by many university people who claim, that it doesn t make sense that students work together in teams and are assessed individually. 3. A SPECIAL EXAMPLE: EUROPEAN PROJECT SEMSTER, EPS 3.1. The Background of EPS. At The Engineering College of Elsinore in 1995, Prof. Arvid Andersen started a European Project Semester, EPS. The aim was to make students active and motivated and to give them team competences and enhance their communication skills. However, the most important aspect of the EPS was and is that students should study in international teams, so that communication and teamwork skills should be acquired in an international ambience. In short, students should get international competences. EPS started with very few students, but in 1997 it was transferred to Copenhagen University College of Engineering where it became a great success, and for several years we have been receiving between 65 and 70 international EPS-students every semester. The name is not correct in the sense that students not only are European. Since 1999 we have accepted students from all countries worldwide. 3.2. What Is European Project Semester, EPS? EPS is a semester for international engineering students who have completed at least four semesters. It is not only for engineering students, but also for other students who Innovation and Assessment of Engineering Curricula 29

can participate in an engineering project. E.g. very often there is a need of a marketing student in an engineering project. The EPS consists of a formally taught course programme (5 ECTS) and a large, interdisciplinary project, usually carried out in cooperation with a Danish company (25 ECTS). All project groups are put together according to the students fields of study and the demands of the projects, the students preferences, the group size (usually 4 or 5) and the international mix: no more than two students with the same nationality in a team. The overall aim of the courses is to help students to work in international teams and to carry out the project work. The courses given are: Team Building, Communication, Project Management and Systematic Innovation. Other courses are Environmental Subjects, European Law and Language, i.e. English and basic Danish. The projects are the major part of EPS. Most of them are interdisciplinary, but a few of them are narrower and go more into depth. Most of them are real-life projects done in cooperation with companies, but some projects are academic projects without a company, although it is our experience that it is very motivating for the students to do a real project for a company waiting for their findings. Most companies are Danish, but we have also done projects in cooperation with companies and institutions in Spain. 3.3. Where and When? EPS started at The Engineering College of Elsinore in 1995 and came to Copenhagen University College of Engineering in 1997. It has been very successful so other universities have got our permission to do an EPS: Avans Hogeschool in s-hertogenbosch in the Netherlands, Høgskolen I Oslo in Norway, The Technical University of Lodz in Poland, La Universidad Politécnica de Valencia in Spain, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya in Vilanova i la Geltrù in Spain and Fachhochschule Kiel in Germany. Some universities offer an EPS in the spring semester, others in the autumn semester, and e.g. in Denmark there is an EPS in spring and in autumn. This information can be found in a common web-portal (3). 3.4. Getting off to a Good Start A semester is in reality a very short time, especially for exchange students who come to a new place and a new accommodation. Most things are different and students have to find out how and where things are done. Another problem is that students who not are used to project based learning can waste a lot of time in the initial phase of the project work finding out what is important, what is not, and defining the project. In 30 Innovación y Evaluación de Currículos de Formación de Ingenieros

consequence it is important that the projects start so efficiently as possible. Therefore, all the accepted students will receive descriptions of the projects they can choose at least two months before the semester starts. Students send a prioritised list of three preferred projects, and the project groups are formed on the basis of this. If the students are to be motivated, it is of course best if their first priority can be respected, but other things are also important: The skills of the students in the teams should meet the demands of the projects. The group size should usually be 4 or 5 students. All teams should be international, which means no more than two students of the same nationality in each team. It is our experience that this international mix is very important, and students tell us again and again that the international experience was the most motivating part of it all. Once the groups have been formed, each student receives an e-mail informing him/her of his/her project and names and e-mail addresses of the other team members. Students are asked to discuss with a professor or supervisor from their home universities how they can contribute to the project work and to be ready to discuss and define the projects when they start the EPS. This is also important because the students should get credit for the semester when they return to their home universities. Thus students will hopefully be prepared for the EPS so that the semester can start efficiently. Sometimes they begin discussions about the projects by e-mail before they arrive in Copenhagen. When project groups meet with supervisors from industry and from the engineering college at the start of EPS, they should discuss the projects. Companies of course know what they want, and students hopefully know how they can contribute, what is required from their home universities and what they would like to do. Supervisors from the engineering college will ensure that the outcome of the discussion is a realistic problem statement and a project of a good theoretical level. However, we always tell the students that it is their project and that they should take responsibility for the project. It is a part of the Danish attitude to project based learning, and it is important if they shall learn to study in a mature way, but some students are reluctant to making decisions and defining the projects. They prefer that the professors or the company supervisors tell them what to do. During the first week there are courses such as teambuilding, communication and project management. At the same time, students start the project work by gathering information and step-by-step making the problem statement more precise. They also have to make Gantt Charts for the project work, define aims and objectives and decide what their particular tasks shall be. Innovation and Assessment of Engineering Curricula 31

3.5. The Belbin Test The students have different fields of study, different nationalities and different cultures. They also have different personalities. All EPS-students are required to do a Belbin Test on-line before they start the EPS, so that we have an idea of the character of each group member and of the qualities present or lacking in each team. We need different personalities and skills in all teams, but on the other hand, teamwork can be difficult when the personalities are very different. The Belbin Test makes the students aware of those differences and throws light on the personal resources in the teams (4). Usually, students will understand that they need the different personalities in the teams, although the differences at times can make the cooperation difficult. Hopefully, they ll learn to appreciate diversity. 3.6. Project Work and Supervision Often, when people are working together in teams, the cooperation is not efficient and much time can be wasted. It can be caused by people who don t contribute effectively to the work, maybe because they are not motivated, or people who don t organise their work well. In the beginning of the semester there is a course about project management, and during the semester supervisors help the students to work well-structured and wellplanned and to make use of what they learned in project management. A team cannot work effectively without meetings. On the other hand, many people have wasted a lot of time on meetings. So, we have to teach the students how to prepare meetings and to write agendas, how to chair meetings and how to take minutes of the meetings. All EPS-teams have meetings with their supervisors at least once a week, and all students are writing agendas, chairing meetings and writing minutes by turns. Supervisors should of course be able to help with technical questions from the students and give them good advice about the project work. However, this is not enough. It is also very important that supervisors follow the teamwork and the group performance closely. Sometimes students feel that the project work is fine and everything is OK. Sometimes they are frustrated and inclined to loose confidence and need to be cheered up. Sometimes there are hidden conflicts. Sometimes there are open conflicts. Misunderstandings due to different cultural backgrounds can generate many conflicts. When 60 70 students of maybe 15 nationalities are working together in project teams, many things can go wrong, and misunderstandings can cause a lot of problems and conflicts. Communication is not only a matter of language; the cultural background and the context are also important factors. Different people with different backgrounds interpret the same words differently. Different working habits, 32 Innovación y Evaluación de Currículos de Formación de Ingenieros

monochronic or polychronic culture, formal or informal culture, direct or indirect communication, expressive or reserved culture, relation-focus or deal-focus and many other differences can cause misunderstandings and conflicts. Of course, some conflicts will not be caused by misunderstandings, but by different opinions. This is legal, students are not clones of each other and don t necessarily agree about how the projects should be. In consequence, they have to learn to negotiate. Finally, we are all individuals, and problems can often arise when people of very different character work together, although a well-functioning team usually needs people of different personalities. In short, supervisors have not only to be aware of conflicts and other problems, but they also have to be able and willing to help the students deal with them. Students must learn to treat conflicts, and in case they cannot do it they can rely upon their supervisors. Some students tend to hide conflicts because they think it is embarrassing. When this happens, they ll usually get worse till they explode, so it is important that supervisors can detect hidden conflicts. In short, supervisors have several important tasks in EPS: technical teacher, advisor for the team process and as a person who can facilitate and nurture the team process. This can be important if a student loses motivation. In those cases it is important to find out what the problem is. Sometimes a small change of a project can motivate an uninterested student. Many things can go wrong, but the majority of students who choose the EPS are aware of the importance of the international experience and well motivated for this reason. They usually have a positive attitude, and they learn to appreciate the diversity even though it often gives rise to difficulties. An important part of the EPS-concept is that the students are responsible for their project work. We want to treat them as adults and not as children. It would be too time-consuming for supervisors to monitor the students continually, and it would also be very boring for the students as well as for the supervisors! The idea is that students will behave in a mature and responsible manner if we treat them as grown-ups. For some students, however, this freedom can lead to temptation! There will always in all universities and collages be students who try to get their education with a minimum of effort or even try to cheat. Such students especially if they are used to a more traditional teaching system might believe that EPS is an opportunity for leaning back and enjoying life instead of studying. We have to be realistic and face this problem. If all students in a team agree to be lackadaisical, the supervisors must be able to detect this and make it clear to the students that it won t work. However, many teams put a lot of effort into concealing their indolence and try to make it look as if their poor results are simply due to bad lick. Supervisors have to be very aware of this Innovation and Assessment of Engineering Curricula 33