For such projects and programmes the alignment of cross-functional teams, mutual respect, common language are key in the building of partnerships between universities, industries and other organisations. Conversations at the Unconference about portfolios gave me a different perspective. Staff in engineering and sciences at my university are reluctant, even allergic to portfolios. Only our Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering and Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment use portfolios as a showcase of projects, products or performances.
Their use focuses on the admission process. Establishing a portfolio during a study in Delft is neither the norm nor stimulated. It is supposed to demand a lot of argumentation and persistence for students to compose and write, and for staff to review, give feedback and not to forget, to grade and allocate credits. That is the way we have been administrating since decades. When we are serious to adopt a student-centred approach in our education, we have to understand that we should neither grade nor allocate credits to portfolios.
These are key in student-centred education. They are not just a log of problems solved or a showcase of products etc over time, but a synthesis of what somebody has learnt, what he or she has done, and who he or she is. They include personal growth in and outside the university. In Georgia Tech all students build such portfolio over their four years undergraduate study.
The students are coached in portfolio writing, by providing good examples and checklists, and in giving feedback to each other. Peer reviewing these portfolios by students is powerful. Students sometimes choose to split a portfolio in a personal and public part. The participants of the Unconference expected that portfolios of accomplishments, containing a synthesis of skillsets and mindsets, will soon be equally important as university diplomas as a prerequisite for a job.
Not only for their first job, but for their career. Taking the innovations in pedagogy into consideration, strengthening didactic professionalism of and trust in a high degree of professional autonomy for teaching staff have to become the norm.
Innovations in E-learning, instruction technology, assessment, and engineering education
From the conversations I understood that universities in the Netherlands are well ahead of many North-American universities in pedagogical training of their staff. In the Netherlands it has become a prerequisite for academic staff to complete a hour training about the fundamentals of university teaching to get tenure. An important difference with the US is that we build capacity by training people who are expected to have tenure in a couple of years time, whilst many lecturing staff in the US will not have tenure.
In the US PhD students, postdocs, temporary lecturers and late-stage faculty do most of the teaching. Lecturing staff with tenure are increasingly replaced by professors-of-practice who bring 20 to 30 years of valuable experience in engineering practice but miss any didactic qualities. Change is all about culture and leadership, and the thing that can only make the difference in higher education is the people. In this conversation I not only noticed the differences in culture between American and European universities in managing change, but also the commonalities in problems to make change happen.
I found the biggest difference between the North-American and my Western-European context were in decision making. In my context I am more used to the tradition of bottom-up developments and initiatives by staff on the shop floor, that are supported or not by higher management. Consequently they take a long time to reach maturity because urgency and time are not prioritised or budgets are not made available for change.
The tolerance to failure, i. Management should take the courage to create a culture of experimentation and risk taking. Great ideas for educational change and modernisation often hit stumbles by the administrators and formal bodies in the organisation. Working with administrators seems challenging always. In the discussions we all shared the view that it will be the students and young generation of academic staff who will be the change agents. The threat of being replaced by a computer screen or an avatar is real.
The education systems in engineering and technology at the present time were designed for a world that no longer exists, the world of the Second Industrial Revolution. At high tempo she explained in her keynote that engineering education is challenged by numbers and scale, and by a major change in human needs.
Massification explosive growth in student numbers , diversification wider range of learners , personalisation self-paced learners who know what they need and globalisation education reaching everywhere are factors that impact what and how we will have to teach in the next decades. Emerging technologiesy can only provide part of the solution. Humans will be part of the story as well. The social expectations change. The expectations of Generation-Z, the Post-Millennials, about learning and teaching change.
Their needs change also. Good employability needs excellent adaptive capacity. Cognitive abilities, communication, empathy as well as the ability to connect to people are set to play an ever more critical role. University diplomas may soon no longer be the only pre-requisite for the engineering professional world. Increasingly learners want more control of their learning path, prefer unbundled courses to linear curricula, in order to rebundle them in individual curricula. Teri Balser stressed the need to design learning for humans. Modern teaching will be about training and coaching students in autonomy, self-efficacy, lifelong learning and societal purpose.
Generation-Z is driven to succeed, aware, concerned, and accustomed to being treated as a peer by adults. Academic staff are subject matter experts who focus on content delivery. The higher social skills is where the needs will be in the emerging Artificial Intelligence age of learning machines, avatars, automation and robotisation. In the second keynote, Dr. The traditional focus in engineering on performance, quality and cost shifts to end-to-end systems and service.
The integration of physical and cyber systems will get the highest priority in engineering education, research and innovation.
- Teaching & Learning Highlights.
- Engineers’ Occupational Stress and Stress Prevention System: E-psycho-diagnostics and E-learning!
- Ebook Innovations In E Learning, Instruction Technology, Assessment, And Engineering Education .
- The Manipulative Man: Identify His Behavior, Counter the Abuse, Regain Control.
- Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice (JITE:IIP).
- International Journal on Innovations in Online Education - IJIOE!
Schools and universities will put more effort in training students and upskilling staff and employees in ICT. Projects on robotics, Internet of Things, Artificial Intelligence for intelligent transport systems, food production, health care, disaster prevention will start.
Innovations in E Learning Instruction Technology Assessment and Engineering Education Information
Also agriculture will be in the spot lights with the development of smart breeding machines, the use of machine learning, and research for genetically modified silk worms for producing glowing silk. Engineering and agricultural studies are being transformed to train students specifically to collaborate with both people and intelligent machines and have impact on society.
The third keynote by Dr. The study assessed outcomes in generic skills that are common to all engineering students such as critical thinking, analytical reasoning, problem-solving, written communication , and discipline-specific skills in engineering and economics. The AHELO project evaluated student performance at the global level, across diverse cultures, languages and different types of institutions.
The major purpose was a benchmarking of institutional achieved learning outcomes against that of peers. The results showed that the assessment by Constructive Response Tasks CRT required a thoughtful balance between preciseness and open-endedness. The close alignment of a CRT and the very specific learning outcome was key. Many of the CRTs turned out to be more context discipline, culture, language, politics dependent than expected. It seemed more challenging than anticipated to establish a test item bench with common CRTs that are usable for different engineering disciplines for universities worldwide.
Fukahori stated that it was unfortunate that particularly the achievement levels of generic engineering skills were difficult to assess through common CRTs. In the professional engineering world, technical skills can be easily re trained and upskilled on the job, whereas generic skills cannot. So these generic skills should be trained well during the academic study. It are these generic skills that are considered so important for ingenuity, innovativess, interdisciplinary thinking and entrepreneurial behaviour, she concluded.