ERAWATCH Country Reports 2012: France

This analytical country report is one of a series of annual ERAWATCH reports produced for EU Member States and Countries Associated to the Seventh Framework Programme for Research of the European Union (FP7). The main objective of the ERAWATCH Annual Country Reports is to characterise and assess the performance of national research systems and related policies in a structured manner that is comparable across countries. The Country Report 2012 builds on and updates the 2011 edition. The report identifies the structural challenges of the national research and innovation system and assesses the match between the national priorities and the structural challenges, highlighting the latest developments, their dynamics and impact in the overall national context. They further analyse and assess the ability of the policy mix in place to consistently and efficiently tackle these challenges. These reports were originally produced in December 2012, focusing on policy developments over the previous twelve months. The reports were produced by independent experts under direct contract with IPTS. The analytical framework and the structure of the reports have been developed by the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies of the Joint Research Centre (JRC-IPTS) and Directorate General for Research and Innovation with contributions from external experts.JRC.J.2-Knowledge for Growt

ERAWATCH Analytical Country Report 2007: France

The main objective of ERAWATCH analytical country reports is to characterise and assess the performance of national research systems and related policies in a structured manner that is comparable across countries. The reports support the mutual learning process and the monitoring of Member States efforts by DG Research in the context of the Lisbon Strategy. In order to do so, the system analysis focuses on key processes relevant for system performance. Four policy-relevant domains of the research system are distinguished, namely resource mobilisation, knowledge demand, knowledge production and knowledge circulation. This analytical approach has been tested in 2007 by applying it to six countries, one of which is France. The report is based on a synthesis of information from the ERAWATCH Research Inventory and other important available information sources.JRC.J.3-Knowledge for Growt

ERAWATCH Country Report 2008. An Assessment of Research System and Policies: France

The main objective of ERAWATCH country reports 2008 is to characterise and assess the performance of national research systems and related policies in a structured manner that is comparable across countries. The reports are produced for each EU Member State to support the mutual learning process and the monitoring of Member States' efforts by DG Research in the context of the Lisbon Strategy and the European Research Area. In order to do so, the system analysis focuses on key processes relevant for system performance. Four policy-relevant domains of the research system are distinguished, namely resource mobilisation, knowledge demand, knowledge production and knowledge circulation. The reports are based on a synthesis of information from the ERAWATCH Research Inventory and other important available information sources.JRC.DG.J.3-Knowledge for Growt

Organising evidence-informed innovation: the development of a research agenda

Educational innovation often builds on existing practices, and focuses on improvement, rather than a radical change. One current example of educational innovation is Challenge-Based Learning (CBL). At university [blinded] the approach is a curriculum wide implementation of CBL based on a integrated programme that combines implementation of bottom-up innovation projects with research. The result of this research contributes to the translation of CBL to practice, thus helping curriculum designers and teachers in designing and executing their courses. In the process evidence is collected about principles of CBL, learning behaviour, learning outcomes, and didactical aspects of CBL, such as coaching and self-directed learning, assessment, pedagogies, and design of challenges, and facilitating structures. The goal of this paper is to explore the development of a research agenda, which aligns research and practice, and to contribute to evidence for successful CBL implementation as result. The CBL research agenda shows which topics and aspects of CBL are addressed by research and practice, and which are overlooked. It is a systematic way of collecting strategic and practical problems related to CBL implementation, and how these are translated into research questions, methods, and results. The CBL research agenda leads to dialogue, which in turn guides our CBL programme. This integrated programme, including the research agenda is governed by a Taskforce CBL and supported by programme management, and a university wide research community. This approach enables the curriculum wide implementation and research of CBL as a concept for educating engineers of the future and strengthening on-campus education

Organising evidence-informed innovation:The development of a research agenda

Educational innovation often builds on existing practices, and focuses on improvement, rather than a radical change. One current example of educational innovation is Challenge-Based Learning (CBL). At university [blinded] the approach is a curriculum wide implementation of CBL based on a integrated programme that combines implementation of bottom-up innovation projects with research. The result of this research contributes to the translation of CBL to practice, thus helping curriculum designers and teachers in designing and executing their courses. In the process evidence is collected about principles of CBL, learning behaviour, learning outcomes, and didactical aspects of CBL, such as coaching and self-directed The goal of this paper is to explore the development of a research agenda, which aligns research and practice, and to contribute to evidence for successful CBL implementation as result. The CBL research agenda shows which topics and aspects of CBL are addressed by research and practice, and which are overlooked. It is a systematic way of collecting strategic and practical problems related to CBL implementation, and how these are translated into research questions, methods, and results. The CBL research agenda leads to dialogue, which in turn guides our CBL programme. This integrated programme, including the research agenda is governed by a Taskforce CBL and supported by programme management, and a university wide research community. This approach enables the curriculum wide implementation and research of CBL as a concept for educating engineers of the future and strengthening on-campus education.</p

Policy Discontinuity and Duration Outcomes

International audienceCausal effects of a policy change on hazard rates of a duration outcome variable are not identified from a comparison of spells before and after the policy change if there is unobserved heterogeneity in the effects and no model structure is imposed. We develop a discontinuity approach that overcomes this by considering spells that include the moment of the policy change and by exploiting variation in the moment at which different cohorts are exposed to the policy change. We prove identification of average treatment effects on hazard rates without model structure. We estimate these effects by kernel hazard regression. We use the introduction of the NDYP program for young unemployed individuals in the UK to estimate average program participation effects on the exit rate to work as well as anticipation effects

Variety in Challenge-Based Learning in higher education

Increasingly higher education programs are made open and flexible to face challenges demanded by societal changes. Challenge-based learning (CBL) is perceived as an educational concept shaping these open and flexible programs. However, CBL as a field of research is still in its infancy. The present study searches for all-embracing commonalities of CBL in engineering education. We propose an evaluative framework that both includes commonalities and allows for variety in CBL characteristics between study components. This framework, labelled CBL-compass, serves as a methodological approach for educational staff and researchers to visualise the local colour of CBL in higher education institutions. With this study we aim to advance the field by contributing to a conceptual basis in flexibility in CBL. Our research question was: How can we assess the variety of CBL implementations in engineering education experiments? This question was answered by an evaluative case study. First, existing literature on CBL was scoped. The characteristics following from this review were perceived as dimensions, each with associated indicators. Empirical data were collected from an evaluation of six CBL experiments. The variety of scores on the CBL-compass gave an impression of how teachers implemented CBL in their course or project and can thus be used as an evaluation mechanism to improve this implementation. Filling in the CBL-compass triggered reflection among teachers about their course and CBL. The added value of the CBL-compass is the attention for, amongst others assessment or teacher skills and support, which are important for the overall quality of study components