Understanding the European Bologna Process

This paper describes the European Bologna process, provides a ‘mid-term’ review of its implementation status and discusses its possible positive and negative impacts on US – European links in the fields of engineering and technology education. The first section of this paper describes the meaning and rationale behind each of the Bologna objectives, and why there is a need to establish a European area of higher education. It also comments on how these objectives are interpreted within educational institutions. The second section provides a mid-term report on the implementation status within European universities, focussed primarily on engineering and technology education. The third section of this paper describes the issues associated with successfully implementing Bologna in engineering and technology education. These include critical issues such as degree structure, how educational institutions are addressing the two-cycle requirement, the employability of first cycle graduates, and quality enhancement at both an institutional and a national level. The final section outlines the implications and impacts for US – European institutional co-operation and links, particularly in the area of student exchange

Examining the Role of the University in Creating Jobs

This paper begins by setting out the rationale for why today’s university must be involved with job creation in terms of institutional mission and global competitiveness. We present a review of recent literature, from both sides of the Atlantic, regarding universities, technology and science parks and job creation. Measuring the impact of university actions is reviewed in terms of general criteria, impact of incubators, and where jobs are being created. A case study of Silicon Valley is reviewed as well as a discussion of roles that government might play. The paper concludes with the presentation of findings from the literature review and the lessons learned from them. Finally the authors advance a set of recommendations for universities as they address this increasingly important imperative. This paper should be of interest to university administrators seeking to refine or broaden third mission activities

Growing Research in a Traditionally Teaching-Oriented College

There is increasing pressure on universities to contribute to ‘the knowledge society’ by increasing the level of research activity and output within the university. This is particularly true in the sciences, engineering and technology. This increased pressure applies equally to traditionally teaching-oriented colleges (TTOC), although not at the same scale as research-intensive universities. For the TTOC, given the primacy of teaching, this paper discusses the nexus between teaching and research and the question ‘why do research?’ is addressed within the overarching goal of embedding a research culture within the college. Initiatives to develop and grow sustainable research activity in traditionally teaching-oriented colleges are introduced and discussed. It seeks to answer the question as to how such initiatives can prove successful in both North American and European colleges

Successful Engineering and Technology Student Mobility: Key Student Perspectives and Quality Determinants Before, During and After Student Exchange Under the Atlantis Programme

In this paper, we describe the lessons learned, and determinants of quality, from two Atlantis programmes. Additionally our two student authors will share key student perspectives relevant to student mobility: (1) before they visited the partner university, (2) while they were studying at the partner university and (3) after they returned to their home university. Purdue University and the Technological University Dublin, together with the Hochschule Darmstadt and Pennsylvania State University, were successful in securing an Atlantis mobility grant [1] for four years to support student and staff mobility between the United States and Europe. The programme has just completed its third year and both engineering and technology students have benefitted from it. Subsequently Purdue University, Technological University Dublin and the Universitat Politècnica De Catalunya were successful in securing an Atlantis grant to implement a dual degree MSc in Sustainability, Technology & Innovation [2]. This programme is now underway and the first students have begun study in partner universities. Given that the core theme for this SEFI Annual conference is global engineering recognition, sustainability, mobility, this paper will address aspects of all three of these topics from both a student and an academic perspective. Among the key determinants of quality [3] that will be highlighted are student selection, student preparation and orientation (both out-going and incoming), student housing considerations; instructional culture differences; student plan of study establishment; student finances; accommodation of miss-matched calendars; purposes and nature of faculty mobility; programme operation and personnel; project communication and evaluation [4]. The concept of sustainability will be approached in terms of both the content and experiences designed into the students’ plan of study as well as the continuation of the exchanges and dual degree programme beyond the four year externally funded projects that enabled their initiation. Because no academic paper can present first person student insights, perspectives, and concerns and because these are also central to the success of such programmes, we have carefully involved two students in the preparation of our paper and delivery of the presentation. In turn, they have interacted with other exchangees so that a broad perspective is presented. The summary findings of the projects’ third party evaluator [5] will be summarized to yield a complete 360° overview of what makes such important exchange and study-abroad programmes in engineering and technology fields successful. Finally, we will conclude with a brief highlighting of the evaluation design, assessment and monitoring systems needed to maintain effective forward progress for such project. The paper will be presented by two faculty/academics associated with managing the Atlantis programmes and by two students who participated in the Atlantis programmes

Quality Indicators for Engineering and Technology Education

In recent years the development and use of university rankings, comparisons, and/or league tables has become popular and several methodologies are now frequently used to provide a comparative ranking of universities. These rankings are often based on research and publication activity and also not uncommonly focus on indicators that can be measured rather than those that should be measured. Further, the indicators are generally examined for the university as a whole rather than for university divisions, departments or programs. Implicit also is that placement in the rankings is indicative of quality. This paper provides an overview of the methodologies used for the more popular rankings and summarizes their strengths and weaknesses. It examines the critiques of rankings and league tables to provide appropriate context. The paper then examines the issue of how a university (or a college or program) could be assessed in terms of the quality of its engineering and technology programs. It proposes a set of indicators that could be used to provide relative measures of quality, not so much for individual engineering or technology programs, but rather of the university

Using Peer Assessments in Team Activities

Regardless of the path industrial technology students take upon graduation, they will be required to work effectively as part of a team. To help students develop the skills necessary for this, many industrial technology faculty incorporate team activities into their curricula. Time constraints placed on busy faculty and research supporting the positive benefits of cooperative learning 1 represent two additional reasons for incorporating cooperative group-based learning activities into classes. But, how do faculty assess student progress and assign grades when using team activities? Most who have tried have confronted the inevitable group versus individual problems. While most cooperative learning experts conclude that group activities work best when team grades are adjusted for individual performance (Kaufman, Felder, and Fuller, 2000), this is challenging to accomplish because of the difficulty in ascertaining individual ability and accomplishments within the context of group activities—particularly in larger classes. This article explores the process of using peer assessments in cooperative learning to hold students individually accountable and thereby provide fair grading to students who do the work, as well as to those who do not

Implications of Philosophy for Engineering and Engineering Technology Bachelors Programs

This paper raises the question: What is philosophy and then, after describing its branches and school, it extends the definitions to implications for the practice of engineering and engineering technology education. It folds the definitions against the work of engineering faculty. The latter was described as including curriculum development, teaching, mentoring/advising, research/scholarship, and engagement. Sample codes of ethics are shared for engineering technology students and professionals

Using Contextual Learning to Build Cross-Functional Skills in Industrial Technology Curricula

This article is from Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 38, no. 3 (Spring 2001).</p

Successful Engineering and Technology Student Mobility: Key Student Perspectives and Quality Determinants Before, During and After Student Exchange Under the Atlantis Programme

The EU-US Agreement through the Atlantis Programmes supports consortia of higher education and training institutions working together at undergraduate or graduate level to improve their educational services, to compare and modernise curricula and to develop joint study programmes with full recognition of credits and qualifications. The EU-US Atlantis Programme funds innovative projects across three strands: mobility projects, double or joint “transatlantic degrees” for students in the EU and US and policy-oriented measures. The main focus of activities must be on transatlantic rather than intra-European or intra-American interactions. Funded activities, such as the development of curricula, joint study programmes, exchanges and study abroad with provision for mutual credit recognition and language and cultural preparation, should be of demonstrable benefit to higher education students, vocational education and training learners and teachers/trainers/administrative staff