Blog Archives

Blog by Birgit Pepin, 4TU.CEE leader TU/e

It is now common knowledge that technologies are transforming, and will continue to transform, society and economy throughout the world – we live in a rapidly changing world. For many employees the reality is that there is the continual need to adapt to technological changes. Such changes are not limited to the world of work, they of course impact on higher education, in particular on engineering education, as the providers of the future work force. Technology is also transforming our students’ lives, including the ways they learn. Hence our curricula and courses must reflect such changes. Moreover, technology is changing our curriculum materials (e.g. when textbooks turn into e-textbooks), students’ access to and interactions with curriculum materials, and with media. These changes in education (and educational materials) must be reflected in change of aims and of instructional approaches.

The four technical universities in the Netherlands (i.e. Delft, Eindhoven, Twente, and Wageningen) have developed strategic frameworks for the coming years (e.g. TU/e Strategy 2030). Regarding the impact of technology on education, the TU/e document describes that “digitization touches on every aspect of our education”. (p.31, TU/e Strategy 2030). In terms of changes that come with technology and digitization, TU/e document states (amongst others) that:

• students need to be equipped with digital skills;
• courses need to be offered “in a flexible and modular way to provide learning opportunities tailored to the individual” student;
• “coherent packages of online courses” for future on-campus students need to be developed;
• mobile learning needs to be available, so that students “can learn when and where they want”;
• assessment systems need to be developed to “support the interaction and feedback between students and their coaches”;
• an infrastructure for obtaining and processing (e.g. from a distance) needs to be created; and
• open access to all research results needs to be provided.

In my previous blog (https://4tucee.weblog.tudelft.nl/2018/03/20/connecting-the-dots/) I have argued that the OECD suggests a shift in educational aims, also in engineering education. In this blog I consider that, due to a technology-changed world (both in the world of work, as well as in students’ personal lives) and in line with the “new aims”, we have to change learning environments and instructional approaches in engineering education. These changes afford particular dilemmas for course designers/teachers, and I argue that in order to develop new curricula and courses that align with changing student learning practices, and at the same time take advantage of technological affordances (and constraints), it is necessary to provide support for teachers.

What are (some of) the changes in terms of student learning?

The OECD (2018) predicts that a new kind of student learning (and teacher teaching) is necessary in order to be able to face “unprecedented challenges” -social, economic and environmental (see earlier blog). Whilst a number of “21st century” learning skills and knowledges have been identified as necessary to suitably and effectively prepare our students for these challenges (so that they can eventually join the future workforce), the repercussions of these challenges for the design of student learning (environments) have largely not been taken up. Whereas employers now seek future engineers who are competent and confident collaborators and team-players, creative problem solvers, effective communicators, and critical thinkers, most of our students in higher engineering education still learn in traditional settings and environments, emphasizing hierarchically organized knowledge and curricula and offering little support for becoming “systems thinkers”. Employers now demand engineers who think flexibly and are adaptable, able to function effectively in a less structured, shared and activity-based environment. It can be said that students are no longer well-served by being presented with “static” subject matter knowledge, and exposed to traditional instructionist teaching approaches in formal spaces. They need to be able to learn to “make connections”, learn in new and flexible ways that prepare them to function well in tomorrow’s world (Schuck, Kearney, & Burden, 2017).

Photo Taken In Bangkok, Thailand

Let’s learn from particular examples. (1) Nowadays students do not only learn on campus during particular hours, or at home with the help of Learning Management Systems; they may learn, for example, on the train, or in a cafe; in other words, more flexible time-space configurations are needed for new modes of learning. New portable devices offer new possibilities for student learning in a multiplicity of formal and informal, physical and virtual contexts (ibid). (2) Learning may take place “polysynchronously” (Oztok et al. 2014), across spaces posing challenges for teachers who are not used to think about this flexible use of time. (3) Learning may also occur without a teacher, initiated by learners themselves and in the presence of peers and experts from around the globe (Schuck, et al. 2017). (4) Informal (recreational) learning in digital spaces (e.g. multiplayer games) assumes that learners are self-directed and autonomous. Young people using these spaces choose what they learn and operate at their own pace and in their chosen way. Learning in these spaces is typically situated in learning networks and communities; they require collaboration and problem solving, for example, and the focus is on interaction with peers and creation with new media (Aubusson, Griffin, & Kearney 2012).

It is clear that new technological affordances nurture new learning practices. These provide challenges for teachers, in particular in terms of designing new pathways and environments for student learning. What could some of the design challenges be? This is discussed in the next section.

What are the challenges our teachers face?

In terms of learning contexts, traditional physical learning spaces (e.g. lecture theatres) or formal virtual spaces (e.g. Learning Management Systems) typically assume a delivery model of learning, where the teacher is the expert and is charged with the authority to “cover the content” of the course, in other words to disseminate knowledge to generally passive learners. In “new contexts” learners have to take on a more participative, collaborative role, for example, by making use of online networks and learner-generated content (e.g. because it is needed for a particular project) in social, virtual communities.

Considering the strategy papers of the four technical universities, there are a number of challenges for our teachers in engineering education, amongst them the following:

1. Collaboration – individualization: on the one hand students are to be provided with collaborative learning spaces, where they can co-act across a range of networks, with peers, teachers/experts – this is said to “emancipate their minds” (Dewey); on the other, students are expected to be able to develop their individualized learning paths, where they can develop agency over their own learning.
2. Authenticity – “artificiality” of concepts: on the one hand students are to be provided with authentic, relevant, real-world situations/contexts that they can make sense of (in terms of personal meaning making); on the other there are “artificial” (scientific) concepts that allow transfer from one situation to another (without detriment to the conceptual underpinning) and these concepts make sense to students in different situations.
3. (at curriculum level) “Didactic coherence” as seen through the eyes of the expert/teacher – “dynamic coherence” as seen through the eyes of the student (e.g. what the student regards as relevant learning packages for a particular project): on the one hand there is the coherence as seen through the eyes of the teacher/expert, in his endeavor to provide “coherent packages of online courses” for students – this is often linked to didactical considerations for particular contents; on the other there is the “dynamic coherence” as seen by the student/s when s/he learns on challenging projects and puts together his/her own learning line for this.
4. (at instructional level) Provision (by teachers) of various potential student learning paths – provision of “tools” for students developing their own actual learning path: on the one hand teachers are expected to create “personal learning paths” for students, so that they have a choice to pursue their own goals and interests; on the other, with technology and digitization it is possible for students to choose themselves the ”tools” they need, in order to develop their own learning paths. These will be “personal” and independent of time and space, whether students learn in the train, on campus, at night or on weekends.

These are only four of the challenges, perhaps dilemmas, I see for our teachers, and there are likely to be many more. How can we support teachers in their design and implementation efforts of new instructional approaches? How can we facilitate the design (and enactment) of courses that reflect the new aims and strategies? If we are striving to make these future visions a reality, there are clearly a few challenges ahead of us.

Blog by 4TU.CEE programme coordinators Chantal Brans (TU/e) and Renate Klaassen (TUD)

This year’s theme of the SEFI conference in Copenhagen was built on the three pillars “Creativity, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship for Engineering Education Excellence”.

In her key note Ruth Graham addressed the innovative nature of the up and coming or trending Universities (MIT report) around the world. In the panel discussion with representatives of the trending Universities it became clear that creativity, (team) initiative and entrepreneurship and as a result thereof innovative results in student output, at curriculum and programme level are among the key ingredients of excellent universities of the future. Inspiring examples were given:

• a Dream Team student from TU Delft was present, expressing the student driven and entrepreneurial mind set need to succeed;
• a student from the entrepreneurial programme of DTU (DK) demonstrated how this type of approach is embedded in the whole programme;
• from UCL (UK) a programme change maker, responsible for the bachelor programme design, showed that interdisciplinary learning with challenge based assignments including clients from industry, were driving forces to break down barriers between different disciplines;
• in Singapore (SUTD) the 4D principle of student learning was emphasized, where students go from 1D design activities, applying concepts in practice to 4D student led design activities;
• PUC in Chili has a mandatory hands on cross disciplinary course where student solve problems facing Chili by seeking technology based solutions. Regional entrepreneurs are involved as coaches;
• CSU Australia discussed a fully flexible programme with a Netflix model of learning path and job-placement to learn and demonstrate the mastery of engineering skills. Requiring high levels of independence, entrepreneurship and creativity.

Industry perspective

Another perspective was given by the industry key note speakers and panel discussion. They pointed out that the shortage in the labor market for technology driven jobs will have amounted to 700.000 worldwide in 2020 – 2025.  Reasons for companies like Microsoft, Netcompany and Dassault systems to present the universities what their needs are concerning employees.

The view of the industry, provided by Charlotte Mark (Microsoft) and André Rogaczewski (Netcompany) on what they need from Technological Universities was clear. Both complex problem solving, creativity and asking good questions were among their favorite skills for their future employees. Mark stressed the importance of a company culture that fosters talented colleagues whereas Rogaczewski zoomed in on diversity and the need to attract female talents much more. Mark however also indicated that not all students have to become a “broad” engineer.

The role of universities

Companies themselves seek close collaborations with Universities and offer all kinds of educational activities to university students too. They feel the role of the Universities in teaching and learning is to take care of the fundamental skills. The companies would take care of the three pillars of engineering education “creativity, innovation and entrepreneurial mindset”. A rather interesting statement. Do universities also consider teaching fundamental skills to students as their main task? Or could this be outsourced to online learning companies………

To take it a step further they felt that the employee of the future should have computational skills, far beyond simple coding languages, think of exponential technologies and learning through AI, have domain knowledge and tech knowledge in that domain, have multiple degrees, be a life-long learner and teach others how to learn all these skills. This would imply that we will be in business for a long time!

A contribution from both KU Leuven and TU Delft PREFER zoomed in on different professional engineering roles to help students understand what type of future jobs are there for them. The Roles show overlap with the TU Delft Think Tank roles drawn up in 2015 and are tested in companies and at the University. The improvement of study skills was also discussed. It became obvious that many engineering programmes are searching for appropriate methods that are effective and attractive for our students.

Research in Higher Engineering Education

The search for solutions and good ideas is probably the most typical for this SEFI conference. It also  pointed directly to the need for more and better research within Higher Engineering Education (HEE). In order to create knowledge, a deeper understanding, but also common language in the field of engineering education, we should free up more time to read an articles within the field and discuss it with our colleagues.

The Experimentarium

What we take away from the week in Copenhagen is that we have a strong European community in HEE. We have many common challenges, but also the ability to experiment to find out what works and what doesn’t. To close of this inspirational week we also visited the Experimentarium, a science museum with a lot of hands-on experiments that we could discover ourselves. Here again as shown in the Virtual Speech experiment at TU Delft, not only successes, but also the brilliant failures are worth sharing.

Innovation spaces

The SEFI conference underlines that the 4TU’s are working on the right topics, of which innovation spaces is one. The DTU’s Skylab for example was the highlight of the campus tour. In this lab student teams can design and build artefacts for competitions and other purposes. Facilities such as these are being created more and more, also at our 4 TU’s. In February 2019 4TU.CEE will organise an innovation space tour that will cover all four TU’s facilities. More information will follow….

We want to thank DTU, for a well-organised conference. It certainly serves as a good example for the 4TU.CEE SEFI2020 conference to be held in Twente.

Read the 4TU.CEE SEFI 2018 contributions:

• Deep or surface approaches to studying, which is applied? Comparing study skills of first year engineering students
• Engineers in the physics classroom
• Enhancing interdisciplinary hands-on education in the field of magnetic levitation mobility and signals analysis and control
• First year engineering students’ use and orchestration of resources to develop actual student learning paths
• Impact of engineering roles in a design process for solving complex problems
• Space-driven educational innovation
• Striving for engineering students’ motivation and deep learning in an ethics and history course
• The applicability of feedback of virtual speech app metrics in a presentation technique course

Blog by Emiel van Puffelen, 4TU.CEE leader WUR

In general Japanese brands are known for their top quality, low breakdown rates, and innovative design. This group of islands has the most leading camera and electronic brands, such as: Canon, Casio, Konica Minolta, Nikon, Nintendo, Olympus, Panasonic, Pioneer, Sony, Toshiba and Yamaha. And the car engineers add some very innovative and successful brands to that list. While other major car brands are still struggling to leave 100% fossil drive, Japan is already developing the fifth generation of hybrid cars. And in many other engineering markets, Japan is leading as well.

Shinkansen train

And there is another Japanese miracle: their public transport system. The cities have extremely dense and large subway and local train systems. All the lines offer very frequent connections, are always on time and have good facilities. The networks of different cities are connected by the famous Shinkansen high-speed trains.

That brings us to the question; what is the secret of Japanese engineering? How come there are so many top quality brands, with low breakdown rate and innovative design? Why is their public transportation so much better?

Kaizen

Travel to Japan and the answer will become obvious. It is a personal characteristic: dedication, combined with a group characteristic: kaizen (continuous improvement):

• The Japanese are very dedicated; they have a high drive to do everything 100% right, with respect for other people and the environment. An example: nobody will litter; the streets are very clean and very few trash bins are needed as everybody will take trash home.
• For organisations the combined goal is kaizen; all members of a group are intrinsically motivated to coordinate their actions to achieve that. The subsequent Toyota Prius models are a clear example of high-speed continuous improvement.

Can we teach that kind of dedication with respect combined with intrinsic motivation for kaizen at our universities?

That question brings us to the CDIO 2018 conference in Kanazawa Japan.

CDIO Conference Japan

At the conference much emphases was put on soft skills and interdisciplinarity. I think that dedication and kaizen have to be embedded in society. It is a long way to achieve that and universities can be the starting point; so:

Let’s put dedication and kaizen on top of our list for future proof engineering softs skills!

One of the first steps would be to closely look at the CDIO methodology and see how it can include kaizen better. CDIO stands for: Conceiving – Designing – Implementing – Operating and should in my opinion be followed by ‘Evaluation’. Not merely to conclude, but to also serve as a starting point of the next CDIO improvement cycle. Furthermore I am a strong supporter of putting more focus on soft skills and interdisciplinarity in the CDIO methodology. There is certainly plenty to discuss at the CDIO International Working Meeting this autumn in Delft.

Blog by Jan van der Veen, 4TU.CEE leader University of Twente

It was at the kick-off meeting of our 4TU.Centre for Engineering Education that keynote speaker Ruth Graham presented research outcomes showing that both senior university management and academics agree that teaching excellence should have more weight in academic careers. If everybody agrees, why is it not happening already? Universities are institutes for Higher Education, so how come that educational merits do not pay off as much as research grants and publications. Ruth Graham showed that the main showstopper was the lack of good and agreed measurement tools. Student surveys are valuable but should not be the only indicator. This is why the Royal Academy of Engineering (UK) asked her to develop such tools in collaboration with international partners. Together with 15 universities such as Harvard, MIT, NUS (Singapore), Chalmers (Gothenburg) and UNSW (Sidney), a teaching framework was developed and tested. University of Twente participated on behalf of the 4TU.Centre for Engineering Education, piloting tools in two faculties.

Teaching framework

This spring, the Royal Academy of Engineering (UK) launched the teaching framework that enables universities to implement career emphasis on education. The four level picture indicates how academic teachers can develop themselves. In the Netherlands the first level of effective teacher refers to the Dutch UTQ (BKO) level. Most Dutch universities have some sort of senior university teaching qualification (SUTQ) which can be linked to level 2. At the third level we see different tracks for those taking a leadership role and those opting for scholarship of teaching and learning. The fourth level is reserved for those having widespread impact beyond their own university.

Career framework for university teaching – Royal Academy of Engineering UK / Ruth Graham, www.teachingframework.com

In the international group of universities local contexts lead to different implementations. Some use the framework primarily for staff that fully operate on educational tasks, while others prefer to see combinations of research and education per academic, percentages of each to be discussed, and possibly also changing over time in someone’s career. Criteria for a professorship with an emphasis on education have been implemented at some of the Dutch universities.

Implementation

At the educational event of VSNU on May 24th, Ruth Graham highlighted the main parts of the teaching framework and how it can be used. A well-received keynote in line with remarks by the minister of education Ingrid van Engelshoven and the VSNU chair Pieter Duisenberg. Similar approaches from all Dutch universities can make implementation easier and would then allow academics to transfer ‘educational achievements’ when moving from one university to another. As many domains are international, the link to the international group of universities is beneficial as well. Discussions are now ongoing how to monitor implementations and impact. The 4TU.Centre for Engineering Education is opting to participate. The proof of the pudding is in the eating as they say, so let’s see how it works out. Most Dutch universities have organised and concentrated their research quite well, further gains for society (and yes, also for ranking purposes) require a further upgrading of the educational side of academia including a well-defined link to career steps and professional development options that support staff in optimising their educational activities.

Blog by Birgit Pepin, 4TU.CEE leader TU/e

“To navigate through such uncertainty, students will need to develop curiosity, imagination, resilience and self-regulation; they will need to respect and appreciate the ideas, perspectives and values of others; and they will need to cope with failure and rejection, and to move forward in the face of adversity. Their motivation will be more than getting a good job and a high income; they will also need to care about the well-being of their friends and families, their communities and the planet.”

Position paper OECD and engineering education
If you think that this quote comes from our recent university documents, you are mistaken. It is from the OECD document “The future of education and skills- education 2030- the future we want” – a position paper by the OECD (based on first investigations of their project). If you think that this paper relates to higher education, you are mistaken – it is meant for education from pre-school to higher education!

In this blog I summarize the document (which I recently read) by highlighting some of the thoughts that I found most valuable for us in engineering education, and with the view to the “engineer of the future” and engineering education 2030.

In the foreword the director of the ‘The Future of Education and Skills 2030’ project, Andreas Schleicher, outlines the underpinning questions of the project:

• What knowledge, skills, attitudes and values will today’s students need to thrive and shape their world?
• How can instructional systems develop these knowledge, skills, attitudes and values effectively?

How to deal with future challenges
The background to the project is that, so he claims, we are facing “unprecedented challenges” -social, economic and environmental – and problems and uncertainties that we cannot anticipate, “it will be a shared responsibility to seize opportunities and find solutions”. He predicts that in order to “navigate through such uncertainty, students will need to develop curiosity, imagination, resilience and self- regulation; they will need to respect and appreciate the ideas, perspectives and values of others; and they will need to cope with failure and rejection, and to move forward in the face of adversity. “ Moreover, he is certain that their motivation (for education) will be “more than getting a good job and a high income”, but they will also need to think about, and care for “the well-being of their friends and families, their communities and the planet”. In order to reach these aims, he states, “education can equip learners with agency and a sense of purpose, and the competencies they need, to shape their own lives and contribute to the lives of others”. In short, and translating these aims to engineering education, we (as engineering educators) have to help our students to become “active, responsible, and engaged citizens” as engineers.

Learner agency and co-agency
Attending in more detail to his vision, key features are (1) “learner agency”, and (2) “co-agency”. With reference to (2) he explains “co-agency” as “the interactive, mutually supportive relationships that help learners to progress towards their valued goals”. In such a context there are no instructors on the one hand, and learners on the other, but everyone should be considered a learner: students, teachers, school managers, parents and communities. Concerning (1) learner agency, in his opinion there are two factors in particular that help learners enable agency: (a) a “personalised learning environment that supports and motivates each student to nurture his or her passions, make connections between different learning experiences and opportunities, and design their own learning projects and processes in collaboration with others”; and (b) a solid knowledge foundation where “literacy and numeracy remain crucial”. In terms of literacies he emphasizes that “digital literacy” and “data literacy” are becoming increasingly essential.

Innovation through co-operation and collaboration
However, what caught my attention most were his elaborations on knowledge and competence development. He predicts that “disciplinary knowledge will continue to be important, as the raw material from which new knowledge is developed, together with the capacity to think across the boundaries of disciplines and “connect the dots”. Interestingly, he divides knowledge into (a) epistemic knowledge (knowledge about the disciplines), e.g. knowing how to think like a mathematician, historian or scientist, will enable students to extend their disciplinary knowledge; and (b) procedural knowledge, which he assumes to be through “practical problem-solving, such as through design thinking and systems thinking”. Of course, students will be expected to apply their knowledge in “unknown and evolving circumstances”, for which “they will need a broad range of skills, including cognitive and meta-cognitive skills (e.g. critical thinking, creative thinking, learning to learn and self-regulation); social and emotional skills (e.g. empathy, self-efficacy and collaboration); and practical and physical skills (e.g. using new information and communication technology devices)”.  In terms of innovation, he presumes that “innovation springs not from individuals thinking and working alone, but through co-operation and collaboration with others to draw on existing knowledge to create new knowledge. The constructs that underpin the competency include adaptability, creativity, curiosity and open-mindedness”.

System thinking
He sums up that in order to be prepared for the future, “individuals have to learn to think and act in a more integrated way, taking into account the interconnections and inter-relations between contradictory or incompatible ideas, logics and positions, from both short- and long-term perspectives. In other words, they have to learn to be systems thinkers”.

This speaks to all of us in STEM education, definitely to me (as a mathematics educator), as I have always thought of ‘developing an understanding of a concept’ means ‘making connections’ (or as he put it earlier “connecting the dots”). And it is through the richness (or paucity) of connections that we can evaluate whether we have deeply understood, or developed a surface understanding of the concept. Which kinds of connections to make, which ones are likely to be most helpful, and how to support the making/scaffolding of connections, is surely the task of the teacher. ‘Making connections’ (as a teacher) also includes connecting to our students, their thinking, their experiences, and their interests, to name but a few.

Making dreams come true
Coming back to the initial quote, this outline is for the whole of education, and it emphasizes a broad personal development, which in addition to connected knowledge are also ideals in our engineering education. At the same time we know how difficult this is to make dreams come true, also in education. If we want to make a contribution in higher education, do we subscribe to these ideals, and how can we (start to) operationalize them?

  By Jan van der Veen, University of Twente

Visiting Moscow in the wintertime (17-20 January 2018) is special: few tourists, a snow covered city and a very warm welcome. The CDIO community of Technical Universities applying project based learning met at Skoltech University. This newly established English language university has started a couple of years ago with masters and PhD programmes. The main building is still under construction but was open for us. Some architects of the Beijing Olympic Stadium were hired and together with the founding team a special building was created. A rare occasion when you can align your educational design with the building and learning spaces from scratch! The building is huge, walking around the circular building will make a nice exercise of 880 meters.

Developing economies

Within this circle there are smaller units for separate research and education settings while offering many opportunities to meet and collaborate. Students are engaged in these settings from the start. The founding team was composed of both Russian engineers as well as engineering education specialists from around the world. One of the Skoltech inspirators was Edward Crawley (MIT) who delivered a keynote on how research and education can feed into innovation processes. Next to the university the first spin-offs are set up and more to come. This reminds us that technical universities are supposed to play a role in the development of our economies. The keynote and discussion covered how the educational programme could play a role in this regard via entrepreneurial skills, creativity, risk taking and  making interdisciplinary connections.

TU Eindhoven presentation

New CDIO members presented themselves. TU Eindhoven was introduced by Lex Lemmens. His presentation showed that Eindhoven is eager to have innovation as a focal point, well connected with small and larger companies in the Eindhoven region.

University career frameworks

Tretyakov Gallery

Together with Birgit Pepin(TU Eindhoven) and Clement Fortin(Skoltech) 4TU.CEE ran a workshop on university career frameworks that balance teaching and research achievements. This relates to international efforts coordinated by the Royal Academy of Engineering project supervised by Ruth Graham. In many universities both management and staff wish this balance to be enforced but few see how this can be achieved. After three introductory case studies participants formulated their recommendations group-wise. Clearly not only a framework and measuring tools are required but also a culture shift. Parallel to this career approach a professional development programme beyond basic teacher training workshops is needed, see for example the pilot at the University of Twente. Aiming at scholarship of teaching and learning fits naturally in an academic context, connecting nicely to what 4TU.CEE stands for. Besides an inspiring engineering education meeting there was some time left to visit a few Moscow highlights. The Tretyakov Gallery is definitely on my shortlist with many paintings from Repin and other great Russian painters.

 Blog of the TU/e’s visit to Paris by Birgit Pepin, 4TU.CEE leader TU/e

On the 2^nd November 2017 a delegation of five colleagues (and two students) from different TU/e departments and disciplines, all belonging or interested in the Innovation Space at TU/e, visited two tertiary institutions/schools/universities in Paris, which are known to be “different” in terms of their teaching and learning practices. And indeed the two schools could not be more different from each other!

d.school

In the morning of the 2^nd November we visited d.school, situated at the Universite Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallee. This school initially started when the Ministry of Education and Research brought out a call for projects under the IDEFI (Excellence Initiatives for Innovative Education) framework.

d.school

——————————

The French school system

On a side note, you probably know that France has this system of Grandes Ecoles and Polytechniques: these are elite schools that are very difficult to get into. For example, to get into the elite schools for engineering, students prepare for two years in special courses (cours preparatoires) after which they have to pass the concours (entrance examination) to get accepted in one of these Grandes Ecoles. During these two years of preparation for the concours, students typically work 60-80 hours per week, on high level mathematics and science topic areas. They sometimes call these students ‘moles’ (mollen in Dutch), to illustrate that they only occasionally come up to the surface (from their intense studies) to gasp some air! Once they have passed the entrance examination/concours successfully, they are admitted to the elite school where they study engineering for another three years (which is said to be ‘easy’ after the two years of extremely hard work). The students from these elite schools have no problem to find jobs; they belong to the elite of the country – “la haute couture” as our guide put it.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————

In the case of d.school, several partners (École des Ponts ParisTech, ENSAVT, UPEMLV, ESIEE Paris and EIVP) joined forces to establish the French d.school, equal to (or above?) international standards and sharing an outlook with Europe’s Living Labs. The goal of d.school is to act as a role model for innovative and future educational approaches, with the aim of inspiring a new generation of training programs in breakthrough innovation, through new methods drawing on design thinking, like those established at Stanford University (USA).

For d.school Stanford was the example, as the Mecca of innovators, as the source of inspiration par excellence. And it was also the place where the d.school was born, after its founder (Hasso Plattner) became convinced of the importance of making design thinking an official academic subject. There are two other ‘sister’ schools to d.school: one at Stanford University, the other in Potsdam (both set up in 2005). Their ambitions are the following:

– to train future innovators to be “thinkers” and “makers” of breakthroughs
– to use design thinking to inspire multidisciplinary teams
– to foster radical alliances between students, teachers and industry
– to tackle big projects and use prototyping to discover new solutions.

On their website we can read:

“d.school, situated within the Ecole des Ponts ParisTech, aims to discover the richness of innovation through the culture of design thinking. Engineers, architects, designers, urban planners, or students of any other discipline, if you want to learn innovation by practicing it, this school is for you!  (our translation)

Student project presentations

During our visit we could participate in several of the students’ project presentations. These were presented, and students typically also worked, in particular design spaces (housed at the École des Ponts), also called ‘studios’ (linking to the industrial design tradition inherited from the Arts & Crafts movement). In comparison, the Silicon Valley/Stanford tradition has the myth of the “garage” space, where the designer/inventor typically develops his prototype and runs the first technical feasibility tests on his idea. In the d.schools context, our guide also spoke of “loft” spaces: an open space with a very high ceiling, housing as many as a dozen teams. D.school now has 300 m² with access to a 400 m² prototyping room, eight classrooms and a lecture hall in a new, highly innovative positive energy building. It is said that this layout is to create a changed mindset compared with conventional workspaces; a mindset that fosters innovation, exploration, experimentation.

presentation of student projec

Talking to a group of students (working on a project of finding new ways of mobility/wheelchairs) at d.school, it was clear that these students not only had the cognitive skills (probably acquired during their 4-5 years of rigorous Grandes Ecoles studies), but could also combine this with their social and entrepreneurial skills: they had to find financial funding and support for their project, and had to disseminate and sell the final product too. Indeed, the capacity to mobilize the key players must be triggered from the start by communication initiatives, termed “dissemination”. The students we talked to wanted to do something different than the traditional engineering studies, and they wanted to be given the space to develop their skills and potential – “Innovation- the fruit of passion” as a slogan of one of their conferences (in Bretagne in this case).

«Design thinking can be described as a discipline that uses the designer’s sensibility and methods to match people’s needs with what is technologically feasible and what a viable business strategy can convert into customer value and market opportunity.»

Tim Brown, CEO of IDEO, HBR, 2009

Ecole 42

In the afternoon of the 2^nd November, our group went to visit another very different school: a school/university that admits everybody – no examination results needed to get in! After ‘la haute couture’ at d.school, we met students who had not passed a single school examination. Moreover, this university has no teachers, syllabus or fees – they say that Paris’s École 42 is reinventing education for the future! And more than that: this free, teacher-less university is (apparently) schooling thousands of “future-proof programmers”, who have no problems to find jobs in France’s high tech industry- something that they have in common with their ‘colleagues’ from d.school.

When we walked in, we had to wait some time at the reception. There is tight entry restrictions (not everybody can walk in from the street). The hall looks like a modern art hall: from colourful provocative street art, to a window that shows the main “computer/number crunching” machine, the hardware that feeds the computers in the school.

When our guide came, we could visit the whole place. It was like a village, where students live: places to rest, or sleep, bathrooms and showers, eating places, and … two huge floors full of big screens – iMacs as far as the eye can see! And students buzzing around the place: working, chatting, eating, resting, … working and helping each other: alone, with headphones, in pairs and groups—hovering around iMacs. No graffiti, no vandalism, no theft, although the school is open 24/7.

iMac room at Ecole 42

The guide told us that (unlike other school/universities where students have to provide degree certificates or skills tests to get in) here at Ecole 42 students have four weeks to prove that they can earn a place at the school: they have a four-week course, ‘la piscine’ (the swimming pool), which teaches and tests students on games-like tests. Once they have been accepted, they can study for three to five years, to come out as programming specialists: apparently, 80% of students get jobs before they finish the course; and 100% are employed by the end!

Early each morning students get digital assignments/projects to complete, and they have a certain time to complete them. This means that students are juggling projects all the time. Since there are no teachers, it is up to students to figure things out. Everything is graded by peers (and using the software). Students manage their own time (within limits of assessment, of course); they have to be self-organized. So, learning at École 42 is both project-based and peer-to-peer based.

The school is 100% merit based. Typically, we were told, approximately one third pass a basic online logic test to qualify for entry, but the school can only take a certain number per year, so only the top students are admitted to the ‘la piscine’. Approximately 3,000 then compete in pools of 1,000 for a month to see who best completes the digital projects (of ‘la piscine’); the top third of performers are then admitted. Of those, only 5-15% drop out during the course.

The curriculum is gamified and students work on digital projects; there are modules (e.g. tech integration, algorithms) and languages (e.g. Python, C, Java). Our guide also talked about the peer marking: if students want their projects corrected, they must spend “correction points” – these they earn by correcting someone else’s project.

Whilst schools and universities around the world are eager to find out what knowledge and skills students need to succeed and thrive in their lives future (in the Netherlands we discuss and often disagree about which knowledge and skills should be prioritized, and how they should be taught), here notions of problem-based learning, collaboration, creativity, critical thinking, communication, and initiative (or agency) seem to be at work. Not as a result, but this school seems to be set up with them in mind from the start.

The school is the brainchild of Xavier Niel, a French billionaire and serial entrepreneur. In 2013, he declared that France’s education system was broken and set out to “fix (one part of) it”. He wanted to address two problems: the lack of coding talent in France; and the perceived inequality surrounding the Grandes Ecoles, the elite universities and engineering schools. What he cares about, so they say, is logic and motivation. He thinks that programming is more art than science. The result of his vision, Ecole 42, is something unlike any other school in France, or elsewhere. Apparently, students are not taught, but they create “what they need”.

The two schools could not be more different! It is indeed difficult to bring to paper all the impressions and thoughts that one has on such an eye-opening tour.

By Emiel van Puffelen, WUR

A sustainable world
SEFI 2017 was an inspiring conference and the sessions showed a consensus that our engineers are needed to make the world sustainable. They will have to make smart designs to reach the 17 United Nation goals as shown below. To reach these goals engineering disciplines will have to contribute to solutions. Life science engineers have a role to play in almost all goals.

UN sustainable development goals

Sustainability in education
Universities are busy integrating sustainability in the curriculum and courses and are fitting in sustainability courses. They are often intrinsically motivated to do so. A comparison between the Danish and French situation shows that adding push factors for sustainability in education within the accreditation process helps as well. The Technische Universität Berlin even showed that you can integrate sustainability in the curricula while doing the regular work needed for the BA/MA  structure.

A literature review (2009-2017) by Hull and Carlo Cattaneo of University-LIUC, shows a change in the interests in Teaching Sustainability. At first there was a need to present a systemic and holistic vision of sustainability. The next phase focussed on the development of instruments to construct a curriculum. And the final shift was geared towards the development of measures to quantify the Sustainability content or learning outcomes.

Mount PICO pilot geothermal power plant

If you like to know more about sustainable electricity production the Mount PICO pilot geothermal power plant is worth a mouse click. It has been operational for 3 months and is already supplying 12% of the electric power of Terceira island. The output will considerably increase in the near future. The SEFI visit to the plant cured me from a narrow minded focus on wind and solar energy.

Design of active Learning
Lewas Lab offers a combination of active education and research by measuring water quality and quantity data on the Virginia Tech campus. This option and many others can be part of course design. Wageningen University is successful in designing blended courses for active learning; and my SEFI article describes the steps to be made.

The changing work field
Another consensus at the conference: our students will have jobs that do not exists yet or differ significantly from those in the present world. The skills and competency for future engineers (our students!) are listed in a literature review from Aalborg University and Itasca Community College (USA). On the list are skills such as multi- and interdisciplinary teamwork and systems thinking. This also asks for learning environments in which students are able and challenged to play an active role, as is the case in problem based, project organised learning.

The proceedings offer this and many other inspiring articles. The 4TU.CEE contributions can be found on the 4TU.CEE website.

By Jan van der Veen and Lisa Gommer, University of Twente

Here are some highlights of this year’s world conference of CDIO, the organisation that connects Technical Universities that apply project based learning in their curriculum. The conference brings together a nice combination of teaching staff, educational experts and programme managers.

Edward Crawley

Maker projects

Edward Crawley (MIT) discussed the latest plans of MIT’s engineering school now opting for modules that they call ‘project centric’. In their New Engineering Education Transformation (NEET) approach foundational content is provided in segments that feed the student teams in their work on the projects. For these segments they will use both digital formats as well as traditional lecturing. Throughout the curriculum the emphasis will be on ‘maker projects’ in which the engineering students together produce all sorts of ‘machines’ while staff are coaching them on interpersonal and professional skills in the process.

Open source simulations

Kathy Perkins

Kathy Perkins (Boulder, Colorado) used her keynote to show how PhET simulations are best used in secondary schools and undergraduate programmes. As these open source simulations can easily be linked to separate languages, the worldwide use has increased to 100 million times per year, quite amazing. Simplification of complex experiments and visualisation of phenomena that are invisible to the human eye are among the success factors. Simulations can be used in self-study mode, pairwise as in many lab experiments or as an active component embedded in lectures. Tasks are preferably open so as not to end with a recipe. In follow-up discussions with Kathy Perkins we concluded that Twente students in teacher training programmes can contribute to the development and testing of new simulations with feedback from the PhET team.

Student motivation

In a workshop Alan Ryan and his colleagues from the University of Limerick discussed sources of motivation for both students and teachers. They asked teachers what aspects of  a course they thought would motivate students to learn and what would demotivate them. The same questions were asked to students. Both teachers and students indicated ‘interest and relevance of the subject’ and ‘receiving a high grade or credit’ as the two most motivating factors. For students however, the enthusiasm of the teacher (3^rdplace) and his or her positive attitude to the students were also important for motivation (6^th place), whereas teachers expected clear objectives and course design to be more important. Looking at demotivating factors, the differences are even bigger. Students indicate that ‘negative feedback or lack of encouragement from the teacher’ and ‘lack of enthusiasm’ were the two main factors for causing demotivation. Teachers expect ‘dislike of the subject area and unclear objectives’ to be the most important factors. Apparently the teacher plays a more important role in student motivation than we tend to think. The way we approach students, the feedback we give and the way we show passion for the subject matter greatly affect the way our students are engaged in learning.

Calgary Campus

Campus

Another highlight relates to the venue of the conference, the campus of the University of Calgary which together with an excellent organisation made the occasion a very pleasant one. Apart from the Olympic Oval with skaters training for next winters competition, in particular the engineering education buildings stands out with respect to their education facilities. The newest engineering building is fully dedicated to the bachelor engineering education courses, projects and labs. Next to these buildings, the Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning has all facilities for supporting staff development.

Aldert Kamp

4TU.CEE and CDIO

In the closing session Aldert Kamp (TUD / 4TU.CEE Delft chair) was chosen as co-director CDIO. Congratulations Aldert! The University of Twente presented itself as a new CDIO member receiving great interest on the Twente Educational model.

By Emiel van Puffelen, WUR

Earlier Jan van der Veen presented education highlights of two Swiss technical universities: EPFL at Lausanne and ETH at Zürich that the 4TU.CEE staff visited this spring. There was so much inspiration that we need a second blog to inform you of all that we learned. We hope to inspire you too! Click on the links in the text for more information.

Discovery Learning Laboratories
I particularly want to mention the Discovery Learning Laboratories (DLL) at EPFL. The DLLs are thematic spaces for lab sessions that can be integrated into the curriculum of all studies. These spaces are adapted for teaching large groups, generally at BSc level. The DLLs were started up 4 years ago to bring students from different fields together in cross-disciplinary teaching labs. It was also a way to cope with the growing number of students, since hands-on courses could not be offered to them at the same time. Students can sign in for a lab session on the website which shows availability. All 4TU have similar projects and it is nice to evaluate and make new plans while looking at the EPFL approach!

MOOC research and innovation programme
EPFL also has an extensive MOOC research and innovation programme, which is not being used as a promotion tool, but set up to transform online education. EPFL knows how students watch their video clips and which type of teachers are doing well with MOOCS. Research and innovation includes: Tracking behaviour for plagiarism detection; an environment which enables 4 to 5 individuals to watch MOOCs and solve exercises together; social media and multimedia research to characterize (non)verbal behaviour of social video users, to build tools for interaction with online video.

MOOC production with front and ceiling camera, Wacom and displays for the teacher.

MOOC clips are easily made with a 30 seconds intro with the teacher in frame; after that her/his hands are shown in the interaction with a Wacom tablet. The teachers produce clips without assistants using a front and ceiling camera. The Wacom eliminates the need for animations. This works fine for EPFL!

Speak up logo

SpeakUp
An interesting interaction tool that EPFL developed with the University of Lausanne and that is frequently used in lectures is SpeakUp. This free app increases participation in the classroom by providing an open chatroom for anonymous questions with no need to create an account. Students can vote on the questions they like to see answered and discuss their opinions. After 24 hours the ‘virtual room’ disappears again. Interesting fact is that twice as many questions are asked with SpeakUp than without.

Education at ETH

The compact education vision of ETH has inspiring focuses on interdisciplinary, system-oriented & critical thinking. It also defines quality criteria for teaching for curricula and courses and the university’s expectations of all those engaged in teaching processes, from students to lecturers to administrative and technical staff.

Lunch at ETH Zürich

The ETH department Educational Development and Technology couples teachers with their education developers for a few days. This department promotes innovation in education by the Innovedum fund. They support 20 projects per year of approximately 100.000 francs per project. Projects last 2-3 years and support of education developers is available. Furthermore ETH has an innovative programme for educational staff development including a programme for every level of teaching experience  and nice refresh teaching lunchtime events.

EPFL and ETH are both top universities offering exciting innovations in education and they are very willing to share their education vision, programmes and practical approach, which is highly appreciated! Their inspiration is right under your mouse button!