Global State of the Art in Engineering Education

The global state of the art in engineering education

MARCH 2018

DR RUTH GRAHAM

Executive summary i The global state of the art in engineering education

Copyright © 2018 by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, write to the publisher, addressed “Attention: Permissions Coordinator,” at the address below.

Printed in the United States of America

First Printing, 2018

ISBN 13: 9780692089200

New Engineering Education Transformation Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue Room 1-229B Cambridge, MA 02139 USA neet.mit.edu

i The global state of the art in engineering education

Executive summary

The study considers the global state of the art in engineering undergraduate education. It was undertaken to inform Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s (MIT) New Engineering Education Transformation (NEET), an initiative charged with developing and delivering a world-leading program of undergraduate engineering education at the university.

The study was structured in two phases, both of which used one-to-one interviews as the primary evidence gathering tool:

Phase 1 conducted between September and November 2016, Phase 1 provided a snapshot of the cutting edge of global engineering education and a horizon scan of how the state of the art is likely to develop in the future. The analysis drew on interviews with 50 global thought leaders in engineering education and identified the most highly-regarded current and emerging university leaders in the field. Phase 2 conducted between March and November 2017, Phase 2 involved case studies of four selected institutions identified during Phase 1 as being ‘emerging leaders’ in engineering education: Singapore University of Technology and Design (Singapore), University College London (UK), Charles Sturt University (Australia) and TU Delft (Netherlands).

Together, the two phases of the study are informed by interviews with 178 individuals with in-depth knowledge and experience of world-leading engineering programs. As such, they paint a rich and diverse picture of the state of the art in engineering education as well as the opportunities and constraints facing the sector.

The report addresses five key questions, the first four of which are outlined below:

1. Which institutions are considered to be the ‘current leaders’ in engineering education? Olin College of Engineering and MIT were both cited by the majority of thought leaders consulted in Phase 1 to be the ‘current leaders’ in engineering education. Other highly-rated universities including Stanford University, Aalborg University and TU Delft. Many interviewees noted that the engineering education sector was entering a period of rapid change, and they therefore anticipated considerable movement in global leadership in the coming years.

2. Which institutions are considered to be ‘emerging leaders’ in engineering education? A number of institutions – including Singapore University of Technology and Design, Olin College of Engineering, University College London, the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile and Iron Range Engineering – were consistently cited by Phase 1 thought leaders as global ‘emerging leaders’ in engineering education.

3. What features distinguish the ‘current leaders’ and ‘emerging leaders’ in engineering education? Institutions identified as ‘current leaders’ in engineering education tended to be well-established US and European research-led universities catering to large student cohorts. Good educational

Executive summary ii The global state of the art in engineering education

practices highlighted at these institutions included user-centered design, technology-driven entrepreneurship, active project-based learning and a focus on rigor in the engineering ‘fundamentals’.

The group of ‘emerging leaders’ represented a new generation of engineering programs, many of which were developed from a blank slate or the product of systemic educational reform, and which were often shaped by specific regional needs and constraints. Distinctive educational features of the ‘emerging leaders’ include work-based learning, multidisciplinary programs and a dual emphasis on engineering design and student self-reflection. Case study evaluations suggest that the ‘emerging leader’ programs have benefitted from strong and visionary academic leadership, a faculty culture of educational innovation and new tools that support educational exploration and student assessment.

4. What key challenges are likely to constrain the progress of engineering education in the future? A range of barriers that continue to constrain positive change in engineering education worldwide was identified. These include aligning government and higher education goals, the challenge of delivering student-centered active learning to large student cohorts, the siloed monodisciplinary structure of many engineering schools, and faculty appointment and promotion systems that are not perceived as rewarding teaching achievement.

The final question addressed by the study was ‘What is the future direction for the engineering education sector?’ Drawing on evidence from both phases of work, a horizon scanning approach was used to anticipate both the future trajectory of the engineering education sector and the profile of the leading engineering programs in the decades to come. It pointed to three defining trends.

The first anticipated trend is a tilting of the global axis of engineering education leadership. Evidence from the study pointed to a shift in the center of gravity of the world’s leading engineering programs from north to south and from high-income countries to the emerging economic ‘powerhouses’ in Asia and South America. Many among this new generation of world leaders will be propelled by strategic government investment in engineering education as an incubator for the technology-based entrepreneurial talent that will drive national economic growth.

The second anticipated trend is a move towards socially-relevant and outward-facing engineering curricula. Such curricula emphasize student choice, multidisciplinary learning and societal impact, coupled with a breadth of student experience outside the classroom, outside traditional engineering disciplines and across the world. While many of these educational features appear within engineering programs at the ‘current leader’ institutions, they are often “bolt-on activities” and are isolated within the curriculum. As a result, much of the benefit of these experiences remains unexploited because they are unconnected with other curricular components and students are not encouraged to reflect upon and apply what they have learned in other areas of the degree program. In contrast to the ‘current leaders’, many institutions identified as ‘emerging leaders’ in engineering education typically deliver distinctive, student-centered curricular experiences within an integrated and unified educational approach. In most cases, their curricula were designed from a blank slate or were the result of a recent systemic reform. Experiences such as work-based learning and societally-relevant design projects are

Executive summary iii The global state of the art in engineering education

embedded into the programs in a way that provides a solid platform for student self-reflection and a pathway for students to both contextualize and apply the knowledge and skills they have gained elsewhere in the curriculum. However, many of these ‘emerging leader’ exemplars – such as at Olin College of Engineering and Iron Range Engineering – cater to relatively small cohort sizes. The key innovations that are likely to define the next chapter for engineering education are the mechanisms by which such features can be integrated across the curriculum at scale: delivered to large student cohorts under constrained budgets. In the words of one thought leader:

“The next phase in the evolution of engineering education is for the rest of us to figure out how we can offer this type of quality of education at scale.”

The third anticipated trend for the sector is therefore the emergence of a new generation of leaders in engineering education that delivers integrated student-centered curricula at scale. The case studies considered in Phase 2 point to a number of institutions that have developed such a model, where this curricular coherence and integration is delivered through a connective spine of design projects. For example, the Singapore University of Technology and Design curriculum is delivered through multidisciplinary design projects, which contextualize and integrate learning across courses and years of study. A second example is the UCL Engineering curriculum which structures the first two years of study in five-week cycles, where students spend four weeks acquiring a range of knowledge and skills that they subsequently contextualize and apply in a one-week intensive design project. Interviewees also suggested that, in the longer term, some of the world’s leading engineering programs would increasingly deliver student-centered learning to large student cohorts through a blend of off-campus personalized online learning and on-campus hands-on experiential learning:

“This is the future of the field, where you put the student at the center and use the resources to facilitate team projects and authentic experiences, and then put the taught curriculum online.”

A number of institutions are already moving forward with such an educational model. Most notable is one of the case study institutions, CSU Engineering in Australia. This newly-established five-and-a-half- year program combines an 18-month on-campus education, framed around a series of project-based challenges, with four years of off-campus, work-based learning. Almost all ‘technical engineering content’ – including both knowledge and skills – is delivered online and accessed independently by students, as and when they need it. This program was described as “completely rethinking what engineering education ought to look like” with the potential to be “very influential, if they can pull it off.”

Taken together, the study feedback suggested that the engineering education sector is entering a period of rapid and fundamental change, where the world’s most highly-rated programs would no longer be confined to global research leaders and small boutique programs. This sets the scene for the emergence of new players from all corners of the globe that will set the future benchmark for excellence in engineering education.

Executive summary iv The global state of the art in engineering education

Acknowledgements

This report was commissioned and financially supported by MIT. I am particularly grateful to the students, faculty, university managers, industry partners, academic leaders, teaching and learning professionals, educational researchers, graduate employers and national government representatives from across the world who contributed so generously to the study by giving their time and sharing their experiences, knowledge and expertise.

Acknowledgements v The global state of the art in engineering education

Contents

PART I Introduction to the study 1

1. Context 2

2. Study approach 3

3. Focus of the report 7

PART II The world’s leading engineering programs 8

4. Who are the current leaders in engineering education? 9

5. Who are the emerging leaders in engineering education? 11

6. How should educational quality be measured? 13

PART III Case studies of ‘emerging leaders’ 15

7. Introduction to the case studies 16

8. Summaries of the four case studies 19

PART IV Global Engineering education: challenges and future directions 28

9. What features distinguish the top-rated programs? 29

10. What challenges constrain progress of the sector? 34

11. What is the future direction for the sector? 39

APPENDICES 48

Appendix A. Phase 1 background information and feedback 49

Appendix B. SUTD case study 65

Appendix C. UCL Engineering case study 91

Appendix D. CSU Engineering case study 116

Appendix E. TU Delft case study 139

Contents vi The global state of the art in engineering education

PART I Introduction to the study

Part I provides a brief introduction to the study. It discusses the study context, which is focused on identifying and exploring the global state of the art in engineering education. It then describes the approach taken to the study, which drew on interviews from global thought leaders and in-depth case studies of four ‘emerging leaders’ in engineering education.

Part I closes with a summary of the report’s structure and focus.

Introduction to the study 1 The global state of the art in engineering education

1. Context

In June 2016, MIT launched the New Engineering Education Transformation (NEET), an initiative charged with developing and delivering a world-leading program of undergraduate engineering education at the university. Building on MIT’s established educational strengths, NEET responds to the need for a focus on ‘new machines and systems’ in engineering education.

The NEET vision is built upon three pillars:

• an educational approach that is underpinned by design synthesis and innovation;

• educational delivery that integrates effective and appropriate modern pedagogical approaches, supported by a flexible curriculum;

• an educational structure that reflects the challenges facing engineering in the 21st century.

To inform this program of reform, MIT commissioned a benchmarking study of the global state of the art in undergraduate engineering education. The study addressed five critical questions:

1. Which institutions worldwide are considered the ‘current leaders’ in engineering education?

2. Which institutions worldwide are considered the ‘emerging leaders’ in engineering education?

3. What features distinguish the global ‘current leaders’ and ‘emerging leaders’ in engineering education?

4. What key challenges are likely to constrain the global progress of engineering education in the future?

5. What is the future direction for the global engineering education sector?

As well as supporting the ongoing curricular innovations and reforms at MIT, this study is designed to inform the global engineering education community and support positive educational change across the world.

The study focused on engineering education at the undergraduate level. Its scope did not include educational research/scholarship, postgraduate study or other factors not directly related to the quality of undergraduate education as experienced by the students enrolled.

The study was conducted by an independent higher education consultant. Further details of her background and experience can be found at her website, www.rhgraham.org.

Introduction to the study 2 The global state of the art in engineering education

2. Study approach

The study was structured in two phases, both of which used one-to-one interviews as the primary evidence gathering tool:

Phase 1 used interview evidence from 50 global thought leaders in engineering education to provide a snapshot of the cutting edge of global engineering education and a horizon scan of how the state of the art is likely to develop in the future;

Phase 2 involved a case study evaluation of four selected institutions identified during Phase 1 as being ‘emerging leaders’ in engineering education.

Together, the two phases of the study are informed by interviews with 178 individuals with in-depth knowledge and experience of some of the world’s leading engineering programs. As such, they paint a rich and diverse picture of the state of the art in engineering education as well as the opportunities and constraints facing the sector.

During both phases of work, interviews were one-to-one, typically of one hour in duration and in English. Quotes from the study’s 178 interviewees are used throughout the report to illustrate the common views and themes that emerged. Anonymity was protected; interviews took place on the understanding that information or opinions would not be attributed to named individuals in the report unless explicit permission was granted by the interviewee.

Further details of the approach taken in Phase 1 and Phase 2 are provided in the two subsections that follow.

2.1. Phase 1 approach

Conducted between September and November 2016, Phase 1 sought to identify the world’s most highly-regarded engineering programs and characterize the approach taken by these top-ranked institutions. It focused on both ‘current leaders’ as well as ‘emerging leaders’ in the field and drew on interviews with 50 individuals recognized to be global thought leaders in engineering education. This set of opinion-leaders included pioneers in engineering education research, policymakers in the field, and university leaders with direct experience of delivering the world’s most highly-regarded engineering education programs. By bringing together the perspectives and insights of this respected group of international experts, the study provided a map of global best practice in engineering education and the future direction of the field.

Initial targets for interview were identified through a review of the literature and the author’s knowledge of the international engineering education network. A snowballing method was used to identify further individuals for consultation, with the initial group asked to identify other international thought leaders who should be consulted in the study. Priority was given to thought leaders recommended by three or more interviewees.

Introduction to the study 3 The global state of the art in engineering education

A total of 50 thought leaders from 18 18 countries were successfully interviewed. 16 14 Their geographical location is indicated in 12 Figure 1. US-based interviewees 10 8 represented the single largest group of 6 4 experts, a weighting that reflects the 2 frequency with which US-based individuals 0 North Europe Asia South Australia Africa were recommended as global thought America America leaders. A full list of the 50 individuals consulted in the study is provided in Figure 1. Breakdown of interviewees by location Appendix A.1.

A common set of questions was asked of all interviewees (as provided in Appendix A.2) with additional questions included for individuals with relevant specialist knowledge (in areas such as engineering design or the measurement of educational impact).

The interviews were complemented by a snapshot literature search and review on the state of the art in engineering education. This synthesis of current knowledge was used to provide contextual information about the best practice programs highlighted during the consultations. Additional consultations were undertaken with nine individuals to capture information about specific pedagogical approaches or programmatic details that had been highlighted as particular areas of interest during the interviews with thought leaders.

2.2. Phase 2 approach

The second phase of the study focused on four ‘emerging leaders’ of engineering education, as identified by thought leaders consulted during Phase 1. Section 7 of the report describes the criteria used to select the programs nominated as case studies – Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD), the engineering school at University College London (UCL Engineering), the engineering school at Charles Sturt University (CSU Engineering) and Delft University of Technology (TU Delft).

A formal invitation was submitted to each nominated university, seeking permission to proceed with the case study. These invitations stated that the completed case study evaluation would be held in confidence by its author pending their approval.

Each case study was undertaken over a six- to eight-week period between March and November 2017. The major data-gathering tool used for each case study was one-to-one semi-structured interviews with multiple stakeholders to the undergraduate program. A total of 133 one-to-one interviews were conducted across all four case studies, with between 31 and 37 one-to-one interviews conducted in each case.1 The majority were one-hour interviews, conducted face-to-face during on-site visits to the

1 It should be noted that five individuals consulted during Phase 1 of the study were interviewed on a second occasion in reference to one of the Phase 2 case studies. For this reason, the total number of interviewees listed for both phases of the study is shown as 178 rather than 183.

Introduction to the study 4 The global state of the art in engineering education

university. Where this was not possible, interviews were undertaken remotely, by telephone or Skype. Where requested, interview questions were supplied in advance.

An initial group of targets for interview was identified through a review of the literature as well as through recommendations from interviewees from Phase 1 and key contact points from the case study institution. Outcomes from this first wave of interviews were used to identify further interviewees, to ensure that a range of perspectives and roles was represented. Case study interviewees were drawn from four groups of stakeholders (see Figure 2):

• current and previous university academic leaders, including university presidents, deans and program leaders (as appropriate);

• current and previous university faculty, in both teaching-only and teaching and research roles, and representatives from the university teaching and learning functions;

• university students and alumni;

• external stakeholders, including members of the national government, peer regional and national universities, industry/university partners and graduate employers.

Stakeholder group SUTD UCL CSU TU Delft Engineering Engineering

University academic 11 9 5 9 leaders

University faculty and 10 12 9 13 educational professionals

University students and 7 5 7 6 alumni

External stakeholders 9 5 11 5

TOTAL 37 31 32 33

Additional faculty and 22 6 6 5 students consulted in groups

Figure 2. Distribution of interviewees by stakeholder group for each case study

To protect anonymity, the identities of interviewees consulted during Phase 2 remain confidential. During on-site visits to case study institutions, additional stakeholder feedback was captured from small groups of faculty and students, through informal focus-group style discussions. The number of individuals consulted during such group discussions is included at the bottom of Figure 2.

Introduction to the study 5 The global state of the art in engineering education

For each case study, the interviews and focus group feedback were complemented with:

• a snapshot literature search and review to identify pre-existing evaluations or documentation on the university or its educational approach;

• a review of any readily available institutional data relating to the university’s undergraduate engineering program and/or the demographics of its engineering student populations;

• on-site observations of the university’s courses, activities and events (as appropriate) as well as informal interaction with participating students.

Each case study was written up as a report and a two-page summary. Case study universities were given the opportunity to amend any inaccuracies or omissions in the draft documents prior to their subsequent inclusion in this report. Section 8 provides the two-page summaries. The corresponding full case study reports can be found in Appendices B, C, D and E. These reports all share a common structure, as outlined in Box 1.

Box 1. Common structure of case studies, each containing five sections:

1. Context: an overview of the national higher education landscape and the institutional context, including the university’s size, focus and student demographic; 2. Development of the engineering education program: the key stages in the development of the university’s undergraduate program from its conception, or from the time when the program started to evolve, through to the present day; 3. Educational approach: the defining features of the university’s engineering program/s, the dominant pedagogical approach and the structures and processes that support it; 4. Curriculum design: the program’s curricular design, providing information and examples of its key components; 5. Review and concluding comments: summary of the defining features of the engineering program, the factors that have underpinned its success and future challenges it may face.

Introduction to the study 6 The global state of the art in engineering education

3. Focus of the report

The structure of the report is outlined below:

Part II The world’s leading engineering programs: outlines the universities considered to be the ‘current leaders’ and the ‘emerging leaders’ in engineering education, as identified by the 50 thought leaders consulted during Phase 1 of the study. Part II also describes the selection criteria used by thought leaders when identifying these two groups of institutions;

Part III Case studies of ‘emerging leaders’ in engineering education: provides a summary of the case studies undertaken during Phase 2 of the study, focused on four ‘emerging leaders’ in engineering education: Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD), University College London (UCL), Charles Sturt University and Delft University of Technology (TU Delft). The full case study reports are provided in Appendices B, C, D and E;

Part IV Global engineering education – challenges and future directions: brings together outcomes from Phase 1 and Phase 2, and outlines (i) features that distinguish the ‘current leader’ and ‘emerging leader’ institutions; (ii) major challenges facing the progress of the engineering sector; and (iii) major trends that are likely to define the trajectory of global engineering education in the future.

APPENDICES

Appendix A Background information from Phase 1 of the study: including (i) a list of the thought leaders consulted; (ii) the core interview questions asked of thought leaders; (iii) thought leaders’ feedback on measures of quality and impact in engineering education; (iv) a summary of the feedback given by thought leaders on selected top-rated institutions; and (v) broad data to characterize the top-rated institutions.

Appendix B–E Case studies: from the universities selected for evaluation during Phase 2 of the study. These universities are:

Appendix B SUTD (Singapore)

Appendix C UCL Engineering (UK)

Appendix D CSU Engineering (Australia)

Appendix E TU Delft (Netherlands)

Introduction to the study 7 The global state of the art in engineering education

PART II The world’s leading engineering programs

Part II presents outcomes from Phase 1 of the study, which canvassed the perspectives and experiences from 50 global thought leaders in engineering education. Thought leaders were asked to identify the universities that they considered to be (i) current world leaders in engineering education; and (ii) emerging world leaders in engineering education. In both cases, interviewees were asked to identify institutions rather than programs or courses, enabling their recommendations to be combined into institutional ‘rankings’ for both the ‘current leaders’ and ‘emerging leaders’, as presented in Section 4 and Section 5 respectively.

Section 6 explores the criteria used by the thought leaders in their selections of ‘current leaders’ and ‘emerging leaders’ and discusses how quality and impact in engineering education can be measured.

The world’s leading engineering programs 8 The global state of the art in engineering education

4. Who are the current leaders in engineering education?

The 50 thought leaders were asked to identify and describe the five or six universities they considered to be the current global leaders in engineering education.

In all, 81 universities from 22 countries were identified. The 10 institutions most consistently cited as ‘current leaders’ are presented in Figure 3. As it indicates, two US-based institutions were each identified by over half of those consulted – Olin College of Engineering and MIT. The universities that just fell short of this ‘top 10’ list included Harvey Mudd College, Singapore Polytechnic, Nanyang Technological University and Imperial College London.

5 Number of recommendations

0 MIT (US) UCL (UK) UCL NUS (Singapore) Olin College (US) College Olin TU Delft(Netherlands) Purdue University (US) Stanford University(US) University of Cambridge (UK) Cambridge of University Aalborg University (Denmark) University Aalborg Chalmers University (Sweden) University Chalmers

Figure 3. The 10 institutions most frequently identified as ‘current leaders’ in engineering education

An analysis of the selections revealed that US-based individuals were disproportionately likely to identify US-based universities as ‘current leaders’: 66% of the ‘current leaders’ selected by US-based interviewees were from the US. This pattern was not evident among interviewees from countries outside the US: only 18% of their selections were for institutions in the continent in which they were based.

To ensure that the top 10 list of ‘current leaders’ was not unduly influenced by this potential bias, the data were reanalyzed to take account of the individual’s country of residence. This second analysis, as presented in Figure 4, excluded recommendations made by interviewees within their own country of residence. To protect anonymity, only the top five institutions are listed in Figure 4. The top 10 institutions identified as ‘current leaders’ remained unchanged following this re-evaluation; however,

The world’s leading engineering programs 9 The global state of the art in engineering education

the ranking of Purdue University and Stanford University was lower. The premier positions held by both Olin College of Engineering and MIT remained unchanged, although their ranked order was reversed, perhaps reflecting the fact that non-US interviewees were more likely to identify Olin College as an ‘emerging leader’ rather than a ‘current leader’.

5 Number of recommendations 0 MIT (US) Olin College (US) Aalborg University TU Delft (Netherlands) Stanford University (US) (Denmark)

Figure 4. The five institutions most frequently identified as ‘current leaders’ in engineering education, with the results adjusted for the country of residence of the interviewee

In describing their institutional selections, around half of the interviewees went on to suggest that the engineering education sector was entering a period of rapid and fundamental change. As a result, many suggested that the universities they identified as world leaders were likely “to be quite different in five years’ time to what they are now, because the benchmark of what constitutes good practice is changing.” Interviewees also suggested that these changes were not confined to engineering: quality and impact in undergraduate education were increasingly becoming priorities across the sector. Some interviewees noted the increased emphasis given by university leaders, including presidents, vice-chancellors and senior managers, to their institution’s educational vision and strategy. For example, one interviewee reported that, in the past:

“the conversations I had with deans, with university presidents, started and ended with research… [but now] they are talking about their teaching: what they are doing, what they are changing.”

Others, however, also noted the difficulty in “knowing what really goes on in the classroom” at other institutions and being able to “distinguish the rhetoric from the reality.” As a result, it was suggested that most attention will continue to be paid to “universities at the top of the [international] rankings and the universities on the conference circuit” with good practice elsewhere often overlooked.

Further information on the common features of the ‘current leader’ institutions is given in Section 9.1. Feedback provided by thought leaders on top-rated ‘current leaders’ in engineering education is provided in Appendix A.4 and a broad comparison of the profile of 12 of the top-rated engineering programs is provided in Appendix A.5.

The world’s leading engineering programs 10 The global state of the art in engineering education

5. Who are the emerging leaders in engineering education?

Thought leaders were asked to identify and describe the five or six universities that they considered to be the ‘emerging leaders’ in engineering education: the institutions that look set to rise to the cutting- edge of engineering education worldwide in the decades to come.

In all, 89 universities from across 27 countries were identified. The 10 universities most frequently cited are presented in Figure 5. The group of universities that just fell short of this ‘top 10’ list included Monterrey Tech (Mexico), Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Hong Kong), RWTH Aachen University (Germany) and Nanyang Technological University (Singapore).

Number of recommendations 4

0 UCL (UK) UCL PUC (Chile) NUS (Singapore)NUS Olin College (US) College Olin SUTD (Singapore) SUTD TU (Netherlands) Delft Tsinghua (China) University Arizona State University (US) University State Arizona Iron Range Engineering (US) Engineering Range Iron Charles Sturt University (Australia) University Sturt Charles

Figure 5. The 10 most frequently-identified ‘emerging leaders’ in engineering education

Four institutions feature prominently among both the current and emerging global leaders. While some interviewees identified Olin College of Engineering, the National University of Singapore (NUS), UCL and TU Delft as ‘current leaders’, others (particularly those based at institutions that were not national or regional peers to these universities) viewed them as ‘emerging leaders’. This suggests that the ranked position of these four institutions could have been even higher if their status as either a ‘current leader’ or ‘emerging leader’ had been allocated more consistently. Overall, however, SUTD and Olin College of Engineering were the institutions most frequently cited as ‘emerging leaders’ in engineering education.

The world’s leading engineering programs 11 The global state of the art in engineering education

Further information on the common features of the ‘emerging leader’ institutions is given in Section 9.2. Feedback provided by thought leaders on each top-rated ‘emerging leader’ in engineering education is provided in Appendix A.4.

As explored further in Section 11.1, a particularly striking feature of the ‘emerging leaders’ is how their geographical location contrasts with that of the ‘current leaders’ in engineering education. While the majority of ‘current leaders’ are based in North America or Europe, the institutions selected as ‘emerging leaders’ are drawn from a wider group of countries, with Asia and South America featuring prominently.

A number of institutions were also repeatedly discussed by interviewees as “places to watch for the future,” but were seen to be at too early a stage of development to yet identify as ‘emerging leaders’. Examples are given in Box 2.

Box 2. ‘Places to watch’ in engineering education, as identified by thought leaders

• NMiTE,2 a teaching-only engineering and technology institution currently under development in the UK, with a focus on creativity, innovation and experiential learning. NMiTE aims to admit its first cohort of students in 2019. With no formal lectures, the curriculum will be developed in partnership with industry and will incorporate 6- to 12-month mandatory work placements; • the Lassonde School of Engineering3 at York University (Canada), a new engineering school that aims to educate ‘renaissance engineers’4 and admitted its first undergraduates to its programs in 2013; • BVB College,5 based in Hubli, India, which transformed its undergraduate curriculum to focus on social and technological innovation in a multidisciplinary learning environment. One of the drivers for the educational reform was to advance the development of the regional entrepreneurial ecosystem. Around 1200 engineering students graduate from BVB College each year; • new Boston-based institution in the US: a number of thought leaders spoke about the new university currently under development by Christine Ortiz, former Dean of Graduate Education at MIT; • the new engineering school at Insper6 in Brazil which has developed a new hands-on, student-centered curriculum.

2 New Model in Technology & Engineering (NMiTE), UK (http://nmite.org.uk)

3 Lassonde School of Engineering, York University (http://lassonde.yorku.ca)

4 Club Lassonde, Lassonde School of Engineering (http://clublassonde.com)

5 B. V. Bhoomaraddi College of Engineering and Technology, India (http://www.bvb.edu)

6 The new way to teach engineering, Insper, Brazil (http://www.insper.edu.br/en/newsroom/insper-in-the-media/the-new-way-to- teach-engineering/)

The world’s leading engineering programs 12 The global state of the art in engineering education

6. How should educational quality be measured?

Phase 1 interviews explored the thought leaders’ views on how quality and impact in engineering education should be measured. They were asked to consider the criteria underpinning their selections of ‘current leaders’ and ‘emerging leaders’ and to note those institutions taking a robust approach to measuring the impact and quality of their undergraduate programs.

There was a clear consensus that:

“measuring the impact we have on our students, how much they are actually learning, is something that we as a community do very badly.”

Indeed, the vast majority (over 80%) of thought leaders were unable to provide the name of one or more institutions that they believed were taking “an effective approach to measuring the impact of their programs on student learning and/or measuring the impact of an educational change” (see question 6 in Appendix A.2). Instead, interviewees spoke about the paucity of reliable and comparable data by which the quality of an institution’s education could be assessed; an issue that both constrained their ability to make informed assessments of the quality of an institution’s education as an external observer and restricted the evidence base upon which the engineering education community as a whole was able to move forward. International university rankings were widely recognized to provide very poor indicators of educational quality, often relying on proxy measures such as staff-to-student ratios and graduate employment profiles. In turn, scholarly activities in engineering education were widely regarded to be insufficiently related to overall program quality and impact: “the scholarly work going on in engineering education is not translated back into the lecture room, it’s always theoretical.”

One institution was repeatedly cited as an exception to this pattern: Aalborg University in Denmark. It was singled out as having taken a more coherent and robust approach to measuring its institutional impact on student learning. Indeed, interview feedback suggested that the systematic approach to assessing program impacts, the demonstrable quality of the programs and the external visibility given to the university’s achievements all played a role in Aalborg University’s identification as a ‘current leader’ in engineering education (see Figure 3). For example, in 2004, Aalborg University published a survey that captured employers’ perspectives of the skills and capabilities of Aalborg University graduates compared to graduates from peer Danish institutions that had not widely adopted a problem-based approach.7 While all graduates were rated equally for their technical engineering knowledge, Aalborg University graduates were identified as demonstrating a superior range of personal and professional skills when compared to graduates from peer institutions. More recently, Aalborg University has developed the PROCEED-2-WORK study, capturing longitudinal data on the experiences and perspectives of Danish engineering students as they transition into the workplace.8

7 Kjærsdam, F. (2004). Technology transfer in a globalised world: transferring between university and industry through cooperation and education. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, 3(1), 63–66

8 PROCEED-2-WORK, Aalborg University (http://vbn.aau.dk/en/projects/proceed2work(12da3a74-9831-4e8d-9d52- 27200206a6b6).html)

The world’s leading engineering programs 13 The global state of the art in engineering education

Overall, the thought leaders identified three broad types of informal indicators that they might use to determine the educational quality of institutions outside their own. Summarized in Box 3, these are: (i) the quality and impact of the university’s graduates; (ii) the ‘delta’ added to the students during their studies; and (iii) the institution’s capacity to deliver a world-class education. Feedback from thought leaders relating to each of the three groups of indicators is explored further in A.3.

Box 3. Informal indicators of quality in engineering education identified by thought leaders

1. The quality and impact of the graduates: the career trajectory and impact of graduates was seen as an important indicator of the quality of an undergraduate program. Measures proposed included graduates’ “career prospects ten years out” and the extent to which graduates “have the capabilities that industry needs now and in the future.” However, skepticism was expressed about the validity of such metrics for cross-institutional comparisons when seeking to identify the best programs worldwide. This skepticism stemmed from the influence of the quality of the student intake on graduate outcomes. Some thought leaders argued that the use of these ‘output measures’, both formally and informally, had secured a reputation of educational quality for many of the world’s top-rated research universities – ones that receive an exceptional quality of student intake – that was not borne out in practice. 2. The ‘value added’ to students during their studies: many interviewees suggested that “the gold standard” for measuring quality and impact of engineering programs was to capture the ‘delta’ or ‘value added’ to students during the course of their studies. It was acknowledged, however, that “we just don’t have anything like the quality and breadth of data that we need to make any objective assessments of the ‘delta’ in engineering programs. This is the next big frontier for engineering education.” 3. The institution’s capacity to deliver a world-class education: the capacity of an institution to deliver a world-class education was identified by almost 90% of thought leaders as guiding their selection of ‘current leaders’ and ‘emerging leaders’. This was in part due to the absence of other reliable and robust data relating to educational quality. Three dimensions of institutional capacity were emphasized: • the institutional leadership in and commitment to education, as evidenced, for example, through its processes for recognizing and rewarding teaching excellence and through its investment in support for teaching and learning; • the educational culture, as reflected by, for example, “the willingness [of the school/university] to innovate and try new things” and the extent to which faculty are “informed and actively discussing teaching with colleagues”; • the capacity of the institution to influence practice elsewhere, as apparent through: (i) the university’s active interventions to inform and improve educational practice at a regional/global level; and (ii) the transferability of the institution’s practices to other universities across the world.

Most interviewees touched upon all three indicators during their interview. However, one indicator – the institution’s capacity to deliver a world-class education, indicator 3 in Box 3 – was given particular weight and was consistently cited when identifying ‘current leaders’ and ‘emerging leaders’. The thought leaders noted that institutional capacity was the only indicator where the evidence was readily available (unlike ‘value added’ data, indicator 2) and not distorted by the quality of the student intake (unlike indicators relating to the quality and impact of graduates, indicator 1).

The world’s leading engineering programs 14 The global state of the art in engineering education

PART III Case studies of ‘emerging leaders’

Part III summarizes the outcomes from Phase 2 of the study, which focused on case studies of four of the ‘emerging leaders’ in engineering education:

1. SUTD (Singapore)

2. UCL Engineering (UK)

3. CSU Engineering (Australia)

4. TU Delft (Netherlands)

Section 7 provides background information on the scope and approach taken to the case studies. Section 8 presents summaries of each case study. The full case studies are presented in the appendices: Appendix B (SUTD), Appendix C (UCL Engineering), Appendix D (CSU Engineering) and Appendix E (TU Delft).

Case studies of ‘emerging leaders’ 15 The global state of the art in engineering education

7. Introduction to the case studies

7.1. The four institutions selected as case studies

Phase 1 identified a ‘top 10’ list of both ‘current leaders’ and ‘emerging leaders’ in engineering education. Each stands as an exemplar of excellence in engineering education and all could have been selected as case studies.

These top-rated institutions have typically followed one of three development pathways:

• programs established in recent years from a ‘blank slate’, such as CSU Engineering, Iron Range Engineering, Olin College of Engineering or SUTD;

• programs that are the product of ambitious systemic reform, such as PUC, UCL or Arizona State University;

• universities that have taken a continual and forward-thinking approach to the development of their educational provision, such as MIT, Stanford University or TU Delft.

The universities identified as case studies were selected to represent a balance of these three approaches. They were also selected to ensure that a range of geographical, economic and institutional contexts was represented. Guided by these criteria, the four universities/schools selected as case studies were:

SUTD (Singapore) A recently-established engineering and architecture specialist university that offers a design-centered, multidisciplinary and project- based curriculum structured around small group learning. The SUTD case study report is given in Appendix B;

UCL Engineering (UK) One of UCL’s 11 Faculties, UCL Engineering recently implemented a root-and-branch educational reform, the Integrated Engineering Programme, across its nine engineering undergraduate programs. The UCL Engineering case study report is given in Appendix C;

CSU Engineering (Australia) A new engineering program, established in regional Australia, that combines on-campus project-based learning with online learning and off-campus work-based learning. The CSU Engineering case study report is given in Appendix D;

TU Delft (Netherlands) A university known for its egalitarian culture and spirit of inclusivity that has allowed bottom-up innovation to emerge in areas such as design-led curricula, student-led extra-curricular activities and online learning. The TU Delft case study report is given in Appendix E.

Summaries of each case study are given in Section 8.

Case studies of ‘emerging leaders’ 16 The global state of the art in engineering education

7.2. Broad comparisons of the scale and focus of the case studies

The four case study programs vary considerably in their scale and approach. For example, two of the case studies focus on specialist engineering and technology institutions – SUTD and TU Delft – and therefore the case study covers all of the university’s undergraduate programs. The other two case studies – UCL Engineering and CSU Engineering – focus on the engineering school of a larger university. As a result, there is wide variation in the size of the case study programs; the CSU Engineering program currently caters to an annual intake of 28 students while the annual intake to TU Delft bachelor programs totals over 3700 students.

The case study programs also differ in their curricula design and focus. To enable broad comparisons, Figure 6 presents an overview of the four curricula side by side. Each curriculum is described in more detail in the case study reports (Appendix B–E).

When reviewing Figure 6, it should be noted that:

• only undergraduate programs are included. The master curriculum is only shown if the program is a combined bachelor/master, as with UCL Engineering and CSU Engineering;

• CSU Engineering is the only program where all participating students follow a single curriculum track. The other three curricula offer student choice in selecting their specialist majors. As such, the curricula shown for SUTD, UCL Engineering and TU Delft show a typical or sample program: the SUTD curriculum illustrates the Engineering Product Development specialism (from Year 2 to Year 3.5) and the TU Delft curriculum illustrates the Aerospace Engineering bachelor program;

• although not shown, the length of the academic year varies across the four institutions. For example, the TU Delft curriculum comprises two 20-week semesters; the SUTD curriculum comprises three terms of 14 weeks; and during 12-month work placements during the final four years of study, CSU Engineering students work 47 weeks per year;

• diagonal green shading used in the SUTD curriculum denotes multiple design projects that are integrated within and across courses;

• examination periods are only shown for UCL Engineering. The other three undergraduate programs either do not include examinations or the examination periods are too short to illustrate in the curricula summaries: CSU Engineering does not offer formal examinations; SUTD offers two–three day examination periods at the close of each term; TU Delft typically offers two weeks of examinations both at the midpoint and end of each semester.

Case studies of ‘emerging leaders’ 17 The global state of the art in engineering education

humanities and basic engineering design project design and independent internship / social sciences science professional skills activities period exchange courses exams minor / electives thesis

YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6

BEng

SUTD

BEng MEng

UCL ENGINEERING

MEng

CSU ENGINEERING

ON-CAMPUS

OFF-CAMPUS WORK PLACEMENT

BSc

TU DELFT

Figure 6. The curricula structure and content for each of the four case study engineering programs

Case studies of ‘emerging leaders’ 18 The global state of the art in engineering education

8. Summaries of the four case studies

Summaries of each case study are provided in the subsections that follow:

Section 8.1 provides a summary of the SUTD case study (full report in Appendix B). SUTD was identified by Phase 1 thought leaders as the foremost ‘emerging leader’ in engineering education;

Section 8.2 provides a summary of the UCL Engineering case study (full report in Appendix C). UCL was identified by thought leaders in Phase 1 as both a ‘current leader’ and ‘emerging leader’ in engineering education;

Section 8.3 provides a summary of the CSU Engineering case study (full report in Appendix D). CSU was identified by thought leaders in Phase 1 as an ‘emerging leader’ in engineering education;

Section 8.4 provides a summary of the TU Delft case study (full report in Appendix E). TU Delft was identified by thought leaders in Phase 1 as both a ‘current leader’ and ‘emerging leader’ in engineering education.

Details of the case study approach taken are given in Section 2. However, key points to note are:

• the case studies are built from one-to-one interviews, which captured the experiences and perspectives of key stakeholders. Between 31 and 37 stakeholder were interviewed for each case study;

• anonymized quotes from the 133 interviewees consulted as part of the case studies are used to illustrate common views and themes;

• each case study report shares a common structure;

• reflecting the focus of the report, the case studies only consider undergraduate education. Graduate education or research activities at the case study institutions are not considered unless specifically linked to undergraduate programs;

• the case studies are forward-looking assessments of programs at the cutting edge of practice; as such, limited evidence of their impact on student learning and outcomes was available.

It should also be noted that the terminology used for each case study is consistent with that used by its institutional stakeholders. This convention was used to avoid confusion caused by the dual use of the word ‘faculty’, which can mean ‘a member of academic staff’ at one institution and ‘one of the university’s schools’ at another. In particular:

• university ‘faculty’ or ‘academic staff’ are described as ‘teachers’ at TU Delft and ‘academics’ or ‘staff’ at UCL;

• discipline-specific Schools are referred to as ‘Faculties’ at both UCL and TU Delft.

Case studies of ‘emerging leaders’ 19 The global state of the art in engineering education

8.1. Summary of the SUTD case study

In August 2007, Singapore’s Prime Minister announced government plans to increase national participation rates in publicly-funded higher education from 25% to 30%. At the time, Singapore was home to only three publicly-funded universities. The government’s vision called for an increase in the capacity and diversity of Singapore’s higher education landscape through establishing a fourth university. This new institution was to be an engine for national economic growth, fostering talent and applied research in three critical sectors: (i) engineering and applied sciences; (ii) business and information technology; and (iii) architecture and design. With an emphasis on interdisciplinary, hands- on learning and a strong connectivity with industry, the university would also offer “a new future- oriented [educational] approach” designed to nurture technology-driven entrepreneurs and inspire future generations to follow careers in science and engineering. Following a call to the global higher education community, the government selected MIT as the major partner in its establishment.

MIT developed a blueprint for the new university that placed design at its heart. The design focus would also be reflected in the name of the institution, the “Singapore University of Technology and Design” (SUTD), carrying the motto, “a better world by design.” In May 2012, SUTD welcomed the first cohort of students to its undergraduate program.

The university’s educational structure and approach are distinctive in a number of respects, including:

• design- and maker-based learning: the SUTD pedagogy is underpinned by design-based active learning. Open-ended design activities and projects are integrated throughout the curriculum to help students explore, integrate and reinforce their ongoing learning. Many take a hands-on approach, asking students to deliver a working prototype;

• a collaborative culture: faculty and student interviewees alike pointed to “a flat hierarchy” and “a ‘start-up’ atmosphere” at SUTD. This “camaraderie and community spirit” among the student population is supported by SUTD’s extensive use of small group learning;

• a multidisciplinary approach: SUTD is not structured around “traditional engineering siloes” and does not offer conventional engineering disciplinary degrees. Instead, students study a common first year and then specialize within one of four multidisciplinary ‘pillars’ – such as Engineering Systems & Design – for the remainder of their studies;

• a breadth of education: SUTD offers a breadth of experience not traditionally associated with engineering undergraduate study, including research opportunities, industry internships, undergraduate teaching opportunities and courses in humanities and social sciences;

• academic rigor in the ‘engineering fundamentals’: most of SUTD’s courses take their content directly from MIT, with the majority retaining equivalent expectations for student achievement. As a result, the academic rigor of the SUTD curriculum is unquestionably high.

Despite being co-designed by a team working across two continents – from MIT and SUTD – each of these distinctive features is embedded in a thoughtfully-designed curriculum that allows students to contextualize and assimilate their learning across courses and between years of study. Indeed, what is most striking about SUTD’s approach is its connectivity: connectivity between cross-disciplinary faculty

Case studies of ‘emerging leaders’ 20 The global state of the art in engineering education

teaching teams, connectivity between courses in the curriculum and connectivity between students, within and outside their formal studies.

This connectivity plays a major role in shaping the distinctive characteristics of SUTD’s student and graduates. Interviewees consistently pointed to two distinctive attributes that set them apart from peers:

• intrinsic motivation: the experience of working in small-group learning communities on immersive real-world projects was understood to have been instrumental in nurturing students’ intrinsic motivation and “shaking them out of chasing the paper grade”; • adaptability: the adaptability to tackle ill-defined problems that “spill over the boundaries of … disciplines” and to address the changing needs of projects and/or professional roles.

Much of the success of the SUTD education rests on the commitment and vision of its leaders and faculty. Supported by its partnership with MIT, the university has appointed a world-class, hand-picked leadership team and a cadre of outstanding young faculty that together will undoubtedly enable SUTD to continue to push the boundaries of design-focused research and innovation in science and technology. Alongside its stellar research credentials, the university also offers a deep commitment to its educational mission. Indeed, one of the most striking features of the interview feedback from SUTD’s academic leaders was their shared educational vision and their clear personal commitment to establishing a new paradigm for engineering education.

Two additional factors have been integral to the success of the SUTD education:

• the Singapore government’s investment in and commitment to the university. At the same time, the government has also offered SUTD’s leadership the autonomy and flexibility needed to establish an educational culture and approach that is both unique and world-class;

• the MIT partnership, which has been instrumental in both co-designing a world-class curriculum and instilling a culture of innovation among SUTD students and faculty.

As SUTD moves beyond its educational partnership with MIT, it faces two important challenges. The first concerns building the size of its undergraduate population in the face of a declining Singaporean prospective student population, an increasingly competitive national higher education landscape and the reluctance of many prospective students and their parents “to take the risk of choosing a university that is still so young.” The second challenge concerns preserving SUTD’s collaborative, student-centered culture and distinctive educational approach as the institution grows. The university recognizes the challenges faced. It will welcome a new president in 2018 to lead a university that has embraced and championed design-led, student-centered education and is well-placed to continue to define best practice in engineering education for many years to come.

Case studies of ‘emerging leaders’ 21 The global state of the art in engineering education

8.2. Summary of the UCL case study

Based in the UK, UCL is one of the world’s leading research-led universities, consistently positioned within the top 10 in global university rankings. The university supports a wide range of disciplines, from fine art to medicine and from astrophysics to anthropology. UCL Engineering is one of the university’s 11 Faculties. It comprises 11 departments, of which nine offer degree programs at the undergraduate level.

Before 2010, the undergraduate programs in UCL Engineering were unremarkable from their peers, and characterized as “very engineering science-focused, very traditional, with very little group work or practical work.” In addition, while “we have been incredibly good at working in an interdisciplinary way in our research portfolio,” departments were reported to have operated “in independence, in very traditional silos” in the educational domain. The seeds of reform were sown in early 2011, when the then Dean of UCL Engineering became increasingly convinced of the need for the Faculty to adopt a radically different approach to undergraduate education. As he commented:

“Our programs looked pretty much like the engineering education I had experienced and I wasn’t satisfied with that. I wanted something that looks like UCL, like our spirit, our values and our vision of engineering.”

In the three years that followed, the Faculty designed and delivered a root-and-branch reform to its undergraduate curriculum. Called the Integrated Engineering Programme (IEP), the new Faculty-wide program was launched In September 2014. It brought together two major components:

• a common curricular structure applied across all engineering departments: although all engineering students continued to be based within discipline-specific departments from entry to the university, a common Faculty-wide curricular structure was adopted during the first two years of study. A centerpiece of this curriculum was the Scenarios: a series of five-week curricular cycles where students would spend four weeks building critical engineering skills and knowledge that they would subsequently apply in a one-week intensive design project. These experiences were designed to help students to contextualize and reinforce their learning throughout the program by applying their knowledge to authentic engineering problems.

• multidisciplinary experiences that bring together most or all engineering students: students from across UCL Engineering would come together to engage in a series of multidisciplinary projects and modules during the first two years of study. The experiences were designed to allow students to “break out from their disciplinary silos,” offering them critical insight into the role and place of their own engineering discipline, as well as the tools “to work effectively with people from a range of backgrounds and perspectives.” One example is How to Change the World, an intensive two-week project at the close of Year 2 where students work in multidisciplinary teams to solve open-ended humanitarian problems.

When asked to describe its defining features, interviewees consistently pointed to the IEP’s emphasis on: multidisciplinary learning; the application of knowledge to practice; the framing of engineering as a vehicle for positive world change; and the development of students’ professional skills and attitudes. UCL Engineering is not alone in driving forward an educational agenda that is underpinned by these

Case studies of ‘emerging leaders’ 22 The global state of the art in engineering education

features; some or all appear in the mission statements of many engineering schools worldwide. Where UCL Engineering stands apart, however, is in the scale of their application and in their integration across the programs. Where peer engineering programs may offer multidisciplinary, project-based experiences, they often cater only to small student numbers or are isolated from the rest of the curriculum, with students struggling to connect these experiences to their learning in the ‘core’ engineering modules. In contrast, the IEP education is integrated across the core curriculum for all engineering students. UCL Engineering engages a thousand incoming engineering students each year, from across eight departments, in immersive and authentic engineering projects that are integrated into a coherent curriculum structure.

Interviewees consistently attributed the success of the IEP reform to a number of factors. These included the flexible and responsive leadership approach provided by the Faculty’s senior managers that offered “a balance between vision and ambition with a pragmatism about how we can make this work.” It was a leadership style that was to seen to empower departments to drive change from the bottom up in a way that reflected their particular needs, interests and culture.

The IEP also faces some important challenges. Two, in particular, were singled out by interviewees. The first relates to maintaining an effective balance between, on the one hand, establishing a cross- Faculty educational model that is coherent, ambitious and evidence-informed, and, on the other hand, ensuring that each department retains ownership of their disciplinary curriculum and is able to shape its development according to their own strategic priorities. The second relates to the roles and focus of academic staff. Interviewee feedback suggested that the introduction of the IEP has led to a bifurcation of academic staff roles: that the transition away from teacher-centered delivery of ‘engineering content’ and towards project-centered learning had left “research-focused staff, who would have taught the traditional lectures, doing less teaching” and “staff that are more interested in teaching taking on a much greater load.” Where this reshaping of academic roles reflects the interests and priorities of staff members, such diversification may not necessarily present a problem. However, its success rests on the capacity of the recently-reformed UCL promotion system to appropriately recognize and reward the contribution of academics in the educational domain.

Despite the challenges faced, however, the IEP offers a world-class model, and both the Faculty and university have been explicit about their commitment to sustaining and strengthening these educational reforms. At the same time, the growing educational expertise embedded in the departments, the IEP team and the newly established Centre for Engineering Education ensure that UCL has a solid platform on which to continue to advance its innovative and evidence-informed curriculum.

Case studies of ‘emerging leaders’ 23 The global state of the art in engineering education

8.3. Summary of the CSU case study

Charles Sturt University (CSU) is located in regional south-eastern Australia, in an area marked by low population density, away from the country’s major metropolitan hubs. Rooted in a mission to “support our regions and the professions that sustain our regions,” CSU has built its disciplinary base around the economic and social needs of regional New South Wales. Building on these established strengths in professions “that are the lifeblood of the regional economy” – such as nursing, teaching and accountancy – the past 20 years has seen the university diversify further to include disciplines such as dentistry and veterinary science.

One discipline that had proved difficult to “get off the ground,” however, was engineering. The rationale for establishing an engineering program at CSU was widely acknowledged, with growing calls from industry and local councils to increase the regional talent pool of skilled engineering professionals. However, concerns remained about the viability of a new engineering program within the CSU regional setting:

“…we would be the 37th engineering school in Australia. We had no reputation in engineering… The big question is why would people want to come to us?”

The conclusion reached was that if CSU was to establish an engineering program, it must offer prospective students “something completely unique, something they could not get anywhere else.” In the four years that followed, the university’s first engineering school was established – CSU Engineering – and a diverse team was assembled to design and build a distinctive new engineering undergraduate program.

What was created was a five-and-a half-year joint bachelor/master program in Civil Systems Engineering that was launched in February 2016. Its student intake number would be small; the first cohort joining CSU Engineering was just 28 students. The curriculum is structured in two distinct phases. The first phase – comprising the first 18 months of the program – is based on campus and structured around a series of project-based design challenges that immerse students in the broader societal context of engineering. The second phase – comprising the last four years of the program – is based off-campus and structured around a sequence of four paid 12-month work placements.

CSU Engineering’s educational approach offers three distinctive features:

• a professional, work-ready environment: the close industry partnerships that lie at the heart of the CSU Engineering program were noted to be “engrained in the culture and the expectations on students” enrolled in the program. This culture is reflected in the curricular “focus on practical engineering and preparing people for the workplace,” where students are able “to work on real engineering problems and are treated like professionals” from the point of entry to the program.

• underpinned by self-directed learning: the program takes a student-centered, experiential approach that emphasizes self-directed learning. Students are confronted with a series of on- campus challenges and work-based problems and are expected to identify, master and apply the knowledge and skills necessary to tackle them, as well as reflect upon their learning. Students are also encouraged to direct and manage their own learning goals.

Case studies of ‘emerging leaders’ 24 The global state of the art in engineering education

• embedding flexible, state of the art online learning: arguably the most distinctive element of the CSU Engineering education is its approach to online learning. Almost all ‘technical engineering content’ – including both knowledge acquisition and skills development – is disaggregated into a set of ‘topics’ that are delivered online for students to access independently, when and how they wish.

CSU Engineering brings together many of the features that the thought leaders in Phase 1 of the study identified as likely to distinguish the world’s leading engineering programs in the decades to come. However, when asked to identify the characteristics that set CSU Engineering apart on a global stage, many external observers pointed to its blend of face-to-face project-based learning with student- directed online learning: “the first 18 months is exceptional, it embodies all aspects of best practice that I have seen.” One observer characterized CSU Engineering’s online platform for flexible “just in time” learning as “the most innovative thing I have ever seen in pedagogy.”

Despite these clear strengths, this newly-established program faces major challenges, the most pressing of which will be meeting its annual student recruitment targets. As one external observer commented:

“the biggest challenge facing CSU is exposure. If future Australian engineers and their families were aware of and actually understood the CSU model… the enrolments would sky-rocket. The difficulty is in creating the awareness.”

Much of the early success of the CSU Engineering program rests on the expertise, energy and leadership of the CSU Engineering team; it is a team that combines strong industry connectivity, hands- on experience with major curricular reform and expertise in pedagogical scholarship. The program’s success has also been underpinned by two additional factors:

• the “unwavering support” offered from the university’s senior management that has ensured that the vision and design of the program has remained largely uncompromised by institutional constraints or protocols;

• the ability of the program’s leaders to draw upon external expertise and goodwill from across both the university and the country, which has proved invaluable to the design and delivery of the engineering program: “there has been a real sense that they are all working for a common good and there is a genuine academic and intellectual honesty about how they all try to share that.”

CSU Engineering, however, is a young program and evidence of its impact on student learning will not be available for a number of years. Nonetheless, interview feedback from external observers was universally positive, as one noted: “… I’ve never seen anything like it before, but I am really excited by what I see. It is a new chapter in engineering education.”

Case studies of ‘emerging leaders’ 25 The global state of the art in engineering education

8.4. Summary of the TU Delft case study

Established in 1842, TU Delft is the oldest and largest of the three technology-specialist universities in the Netherlands. It is formed of eight Faculties that encompass engineering, applied science and design.

TU Delft featured among the top 10 ‘current leaders’ and ‘emerging leaders’ in engineering education, as compiled in Phase 1 of this study. Its reputation derives from a blend of factors which have enabled it to remain at the forefront of educational practice. Key among these is what interviewees referred to as “the Delft spirit.” It is an ethos of openness and inclusivity that enables new ideas and innovative approaches to emerge from across the university community, from students and teachers as well as university leaders and managers. The egalitarian principles that inform this ethos are embedded in Dutch society and, consistent with these principles, interviewees described how TU Delft has nurtured an environment where creativity can flourish. The quality of its students bears testimony to the success of its approach. So too does the university’s growing reputation as “a global thought leader in engineering education,” a position which has undoubtedly been advanced by influential reports such as Engineering Education in a Rapidly Changing World.9

Unlike the other three institutions considered for case study evaluation in this MIT-commissioned report, TU Delft does not offer a single overarching model for its engineering education. Instead, its programs are characterized by their diversity. The 17 bachelor programs and 33 master programs at TU Delft are designed and delivered relatively independently and considerable variation in curricular design and pedagogy exists between them. However, they share common characteristics.

In addition to its egalitarian culture, interviewee feedback suggested that four features of the TU Delft education set it apart from national and global peers:

• deep disciplinary knowledge: all interviewees highlighted the technical rigor of the TU Delft education, with its students graduating with “a solid background in maths, mechanics and the engineering fundamentals”;

• design-centered learning: the design-centered curriculum established in a number of the university’s Faculties – including Industrial Design Engineering and Aerospace Engineering – was seen to provide opportunities for students to apply and contextualize their learning;

• an ambitious student culture of initiative and hands-on learning: the culture of TU Delft was seen to promote ambition and leadership among its student population, with significant opportunities to apply their knowledge to real engineering problems. Much of this activity is driven and supported by the student-led extra-curricular activities, which operate relatively independently of the university;

9 Kamp, A. (2016) Engineering education in a rapidly changing world, second revised edition (https://www.4tu.nl/cee/en/publications/vision-engineering-education.pdf)

Case studies of ‘emerging leaders’ 26 The global state of the art in engineering education

• a pioneering approach to blended and online learning: many interviewees noted the university’s growing strength in online learning and the positive impact this has had in recent years on student learning, both on- and off-campus.

TU Delft’s position among the ‘emerging leaders’ in engineering education is not the result of systematic reform or a blank-slate development. Instead, its strength lies in its capacity for incremental change, and, in particular, for maintaining its reputation for academic excellence while embracing educational innovations that subsequently become sector-wide. Vital to the process of incremental change has been cross-campus consultation and consensus-building, centrally supported by the provision of “opportunities and space” for teachers and Faculties to drive educational reform from the bottom up. One interviewee characterized this process of teacher-led educational reform to be:

“like the way oil spreads on water,… change happened slowly – by consensus, in small steps, letting people get used to the idea all the time.”

A crucial factor underpinning the success of TU Delft’s education has been the quality of its educational leadership. The educational approaches for which TU Delft is internationally recognized – design-led curricula, student-led activities and online learning – have been given targeted support when and where needed. In TU Delft’s decentralized environment, the groups leading each of these initiatives have also been given the freedom to be creative without the structural and regulatory constraints found in many academic institutions.

The university’s approach, however, was also seen to present inherent tensions. While many of the successes of TU Delft’s educational approach are associated with its decentralized institutional structure, so too are many of its challenges. Interviewees from both within and outside TU Delft referred to the university as “a collection of islands and small kingdoms,” where “the bright spots are scattered” and pedagogical practice varies considerably across the institution. Limited program connectivity appears to exist between Faculties, and few structural changes have been imposed on teachers that were not mandated by the national government.

The university is now, however, at a turning point. It has developed a draft vision statement containing a number of radical ideas for educational change, including the introduction of greater student flexibility and choice and the integration of new multidisciplinary, active learning experiences. For many Faculties, these proposals would require significant educational change, both pedagogical and curricular. The proposals would also require significant cross-Faculty cooperation and institution-wide changes. As this suggests, a bottom-up approach to reform is unlikely to be sufficient if these proposed ideas are to be successfully implemented. The realization of the reforms proposed in the university’s ‘vision’ document is also likely to require a step change in TU Delft’s culture.

These and other challenges face the university as it seeks to pilot and develop its new vision in teaching and learning. However, its history of delivering high-quality engineering education suggests that TU Delft will be able to build upon its culture of engagement in educational change and retain its position among the global thought leaders in engineering education.

Case studies of ‘emerging leaders’ 27 The global state of the art in engineering education

PART IV Global Engineering education: challenges and future directions

Part IV provides an assessment of the state of the art in engineering education and a horizon scan of the future direction for the global sector. It draws on the two phases of the study: the consultations with 50 thought leaders in engineering education (Phase 1) and the case studies of four ‘emerging leaders’ in engineering education identified through the consultations (Phase 2).

Part IV addresses three questions:

1. What are the distinctive features and strategies of the world’s top-rated programs? (Section 9);

2. What key challenges are likely to constrain the global progress of engineering education? (Section 10);

3. What is the future direction for the global engineering education sector? (Section 11).

Anonymous quotes from interviewees consulted in Phases 1 and 2 are used to illustrate the views expressed.

Global Engineering education: challenges and future directions 28 The global state of the art in engineering education

9. What features distinguish the top-rated programs?

Both phases of the study explored the features and experiences shared by the world’s top-rated ‘current leaders’ and ‘emerging leaders’ in engineering education: the Phase 1 feedback from thought leaders was used to characterize and profile these top-rated programs and the Phase 2 feedback from stakeholders was used to identify the facilitators of positive educational change.

Drawing on this evidence, this Section explores three questions in turn:

1. What is the common profile and approach of ‘current leaders’ in engineering education? (Section 9.1) 2. What is the common profile and approach of ‘emerging leaders’ in engineering education? (Section 9.2) 3. What are the common factors that facilitate educational excellence among the ‘emerging leaders’ selected for case study evaluation? (Section 9.3)

9.1. Profile and approach of the ‘current leaders’ in engineering education

The institutions identified by interviewees as global ‘current leaders’ in engineering education (as presented in Figure 3, page 9) share a number of common features:

• established international profile: the majority of the ‘current leaders’ are well-established public universities catering for relatively large cohorts of undergraduate engineering students. A significant overlap is apparent between the institutions most frequently cited by interviewees to be ‘current leaders’ in engineering education and the international university rankings – indeed, four of the universities identified as ‘emerging leaders’ (MIT, Stanford University, UCL and the University of Cambridge) also appear in the top 10 of the 2018 QS World University Rankings.10

• educational excellence often confined to ‘pockets’: many Phase 1 thought leaders noted that the good practice that helped to make a university world-leading in engineering education was rarely institution-wide: “so much of these things are pockets, it is one program or one department. Unless it is a new university, like Olin, there are not many places where the whole university is a leader.” Another described the educational practices at the ‘current leader’ institutions as “a lot of bright spots of activity, but nothing coherent.” Educational cohesion was seen as a particular challenge in countries such as the US where individual faculty autonomy plays a significant role. Indeed, a number of interviewees noted that “European universities, like Aalborg, Delft, Chalmers and KTH [Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden] seem to have been able to take a more coordinated approach, a more consistent approach.” However, feedback – both from interviewees based at the top-cited ‘current leader’ institutions and external observers –

10 QS World University Rankings 2018 (https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2018)

Global Engineering education: challenges and future directions 29 The global state of the art in engineering education

suggested that, regardless of location, most are “finding it difficult to propagate the ideas, the culture, the good practice out from the pockets of excellence. This is going to take some time and a lot of effort.”

• emphasis on external engagement and educational collaborations: the majority of the ‘current leaders’ – particularly the five most frequently cited universities – have been actively engaged in disseminating their ideas and practices across the international higher education community. In addition, most have strategic global partnerships to support the development of undergraduate engineering programs elsewhere. Examples include: (i) the Collaboratory11 at Olin College of Engineering; (ii) the Conceive, Design, Implement and Operate (CDIO)12 initiative established and co-led by MIT; (iii) Epicenter,13 operating until recently at Stanford University; and (iv) the UNESCO Centre for Problem-Based Learning14 at Aalborg University.

In addition to these commonalities in profile and structure, similarities in educational approach were also apparent among the ‘current leaders’, as outlined in Box 4.

Box 4. Distinctive pedagogical features of the ‘current leaders’ in engineering education:

• pathways and linkages for students to engage with the university’s research activities, often building upon rigorous, applied teaching in the engineering fundamentals; • a wide range of technology-based extra-curricular activities and experiences available to students, many of which are student-led; • multiple opportunities for hands-on, experiential learning throughout the curriculum, often focusing on “problem identification as well as problem solution,” and typically supported by state of the art maker spaces and team working areas; • the application of user-centered design throughout the curriculum, often linked to the development of students’ entrepreneurial capabilities and/or engaged with the social responsibility agenda; • emerging capabilities in online learning and blended learning; • longstanding partnerships with industry that inform the engineering curriculum as well as the engineering research agenda.

11 Collaboratory, Olin College of Engineering (http://www.olin.edu/collaborate/collaboratory/)

12 CDIO (Conceive, Design, Implement and Operate) (http://www.cdio.org)

13 Epicenter, Stanford University (http://epicenter.stanford.edu)

14 Aalborg Centre for Problem Based Learning in Engineering Science and Sustainability under the Auspices of UNESCO (http://www.ucpbl.net)

Global Engineering education: challenges and future directions 30 The global state of the art in engineering education

9.2. Profile and approach of the ‘emerging leaders’ in engineering education

The institutions identified by interviewees as ‘emerging leaders’ in engineering education (as presented in Figure 5 on page 11) share a number of common features.

The first feature that connects most ‘emerging leader' institutions is their systemic and unified educational approach. The majority of ‘emerging leaders’ fall into one of two categories:

• new start: a university or engineering school established from a blank slate with a distinctive and integrated educational approach, such as SUTD, Olin College of Engineering, Iron Range Engineering and Charles Sturt University (CSU);

• systemic reform: a university or engineering school that has engaged in systemic educational reform to implement an integrated and unified educational approach across engineering disciplines, such as UCL, PUC and Arizona State University.

Interviewee feedback suggests that such a unified and consistent educational approach – one reaching across all engineering programs – is not a feature of the majority of the ‘current leaders’.

The second feature connecting many of the ‘emerging leaders’ is the extent to which their development has been shaped by regional needs and constraints. For example:

• the educational reforms in the School of Engineering at the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile (PUC)15 have been advanced by significant government investment aimed at catalyzing a new generation of technology innovators to drive the economy and improve social mobility;

• the new engineering school at CSU16 (Australia) was established in response to the regional shortage of engineers with transferable and entrepreneurial skills;

• the educational transformation in the engineering school at Arizona State University17 (US) has been focused specifically on supporting the health, opportunity and economic development of the state of Arizona.

Interview feedback suggests that the clarity of educational goals among these institutions – be that of national economic development, improving the regional engineering skills base or tackling societal inequalities – has enabled them to take a more visionary and innovative approach, one that would not have been possible if the focus of reform had simply been on “updating the catalog.”

The third feature common to the ‘emerging leaders’ is an educational approach that distinguishes them from the ‘current leader’ institutions. While the elements of this approach varied across the ‘emerging leaders’, they included at least three of the following:

15 Clover 2030, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile (http://www.ingenieria2030.org)

16 CSU Engineering, Charles Sturt University (http://www.csu.edu.au/go/engineering)

17 Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering, Arizona State University (https://engineering.asu.edu/#)

Global Engineering education: challenges and future directions 31 The global state of the art in engineering education

• non-conventional student entry requirements or selection processes;

• the increasing integration of work-based learning;

• the blending of off-campus online learning with on-campus intensive experiential learning;

• the establishment of student-led, extra-curricular activities in contexts and cultures that are not typically associated with non-curricular experiences;

• a dual emphasis on engineering design and student self-reflection.

These elements combined in ways that marked a distinctive break with the educational approaches of the ‘current leaders’. The educational features anticipated to define the next generation of leaders in engineering education are explored further in Section 11.2.

9.3. Facilitators of best practice in engineering education

The case studies of four ‘emerging leaders’ of engineering education (summarized in Section 8 and presented in full in Appendices B–E) provide insight into the common factors that facilitate best practice in engineering education. Four common features were particularly evident:

• strength of academic leadership: a prominent theme that linked all case study institutions was their academic leadership. It was a leadership style that articulated a clear educational vision and demonstrated a personal commitment to establishing a new paradigm for engineering education at the institution. The leadership approaches were also highly inclusive, drawing on feedback, evidence and ideas from across the university hierarchy and beyond the institution. For the cases of UCL Engineering and CSU Engineering, strong and consistent support from university senior managers for the development of their non- traditional educational models appeared to be a critical factor in their success. For example, at CSU Engineering, the university senior management was understood to bring “no expectations or preconditions about what [the program] should look like” and, instead, “allowed us to break the university’s rules” in order to accommodate the program’s unconventional timetabling, staffing, budgeting and on-campus space requirements. As a result of this “unwavering support,” the vision and design of the CSU Engineering program was not “watered down along the way” and has remained largely uncompromised by institutional constraints.

• a collegial and exploratory educational culture: interviewees at each of the case study institutions repeatedly pointed to a distinctive ‘spirit’ or culture of collegiality and common purpose that pervaded the faculty. In each case, this culture was identified as an important mechanism to allow ideas and practice to emerge from the ‘bottom up’. For example, at TU Delft, interviewees spoke about “a Delft spirit and attitude, where they are forward-thinking, ambitious and entrepreneurial and committed to education.” This egalitarian culture and spirit of inclusivity has allowed bottom-up innovation to emerge in areas including design-led curricula, student-led extra-curricular activities and online learning. For both CSU Engineering and SUTD, the universities were able to hand-pick faculty who brought a commitment to the universities’ educational mission. For example, many of the SUTD interviewees spoke about the empowerment of faculty to collaborate and innovate in teaching: “the management is giving

Global Engineering education: challenges and future directions 32 The global state of the art in engineering education

[us] flexibility to try new ideas… they just want to know how the students benefit, but the openness is there.”

• student engagement in and understanding of new educational approaches: one of the most striking features of the on-site visits to the case study institutions was the high level of student engagement apparent: engagement in the student-led extra-curricular activity DreamTeams18 at TU Delft and engagement in the student-centered and active curricula at CSU Engineering, SUTD and UCL Engineering. It is interesting to note that this latter group of engineering programs – at CSU Engineering, SUTD and UCL Engineering – all faced early resistance from the student population to the introduction of the new curricula. The new programs called upon students to engage in exploratory and open-ended problem-solving and address challenges that spanned multiple disciplines. In the early months and years, some students were left overwhelmed by the challenges posed and skeptical about the relevance of such experiences in an engineering program. In each case, these barriers were overcome through improved and targeted communication with the student body, focused in three areas: (i) conveying the major challenges facing the engineering sector in the 21st century and the key capabilities that will allow engineering graduates to contribute most in this environment; (ii) explaining how the program’s distinctive pedagogy would help students to nurture these competencies; and (iii) articulating a clear set of expectations and deliverables for each course or activity.

• in-house development of new tools and resources to support and advance the educational approach: all of the case study institutions have developed in-house tools and mechanisms to support and advance their distinctive educational approach. For example, UCL Engineering, SUTD and CSU Engineering have all developed, or are developing, tools for student assessment that are compatible with their own distinctive pedagogical approach. For UCL and SUTD, these tools are designed to ensure that individual student contributions to group projects are appropriately recognized; for CSU Engineering, online tools support the assessment of students’ ‘mastery’ of topics. Three of the four case study institutions are also building significant capacity in engineering education research, to create an evidence base from which to inform and advance the undergraduate programs. It is also interesting to note that each case study institution has strengthened its capacity to deliver authentic on-campus engineering challenges through establishing new teaching roles, such as Undergraduate Teaching Assistants (at SUTD and TU Delft), Engineers in Residence (at CSU Engineering) and Teaching Fellows (at UCL Engineering).

18 TU Delft DreamTeams (https://www.tudelft.nl/d-dream/)

Global Engineering education: challenges and future directions 33 The global state of the art in engineering education

10. What challenges constrain progress of the sector?

During Phase 1 of the study, thought leaders were asked about the key challenges facing the global progress of engineering education in the coming decades. Four issues were consistently identified:

1. the alignment between governments and universities in their priorities and vision for engineering education;

2. the challenge of delivering high-quality, student-centered education to large and diverse student cohorts;

3. the siloed nature of many engineering schools and universities that inhibits collaboration and cross-disciplinary learning;

4. faculty appointment, promotion and tenure systems that reinforce an academic culture that does not appropriately prioritize and reward teaching excellence.

These issues are discussed in turn below.

10.1. Alignment of goals between government and higher education

Phase 1 thought leaders noted that government funding, support and interventions are likely to play an important role in driving change in engineering education in the coming years. They pointed to the growing number of national governments – such as Chile, the Netherlands, Singapore, South Korea and China – that were strategically investing in engineering education as an incubator for a new generation of talent in technology innovation and a springboard for economic growth. Many reported that such investments are having “a transformative effect” on the capacity for “visionary and ambitious reform in engineering education.” In contrast, interviewees based outside these national contexts were more likely to point to perceived conflict between universities and governments in their priorities for engineering education. As outlined below, concerns typically fell within three broad categories.

The first set of concerns related to a perceived tension between “what engineering science professors want to teach engineers to do, so that they can become young scientists and PhD students, and the needs of government and society, which is to create engineers to contribute to economic development and growth.” Some commented that this tension “will either progress or be resolved in the next decade.” Nevertheless, interviewees suggested that such a conflict – and a broader lack of consensus about the purpose of engineering undergraduate education – lies at the heart of why many faculty and engineering schools are reluctant to engage in curriculum reform.

Secondly, some interviewees highlighted the restrictions imposed by national accreditation requirements, “the expectations of local governing bodies” and government higher education regulations. The impact of these restrictions on the structure, content and delivery of undergraduate programs was particularly noted in countries such as China, India, Brazil and Canada; in consequence, they “leave little room for experimentation and new ideas.” For example, one interviewee described the challenges of creating cross-disciplinary engineering programs within an accreditation system that was intrinsically monodisciplinary in approach: “when you try to be innovative, try to work in a cross-disciplinary way, you

Global Engineering education: challenges and future directions 34 The global state of the art in engineering education

see the long arm of the professional accreditation societies that prevent engineering schools from doing this.” It is interesting to note, however, that all four case study institutions reviewed as part of this study had either been, or were on track to be, awarded accreditation for their engineering programs.

Thirdly, concerns were raised about the unpredictable nature of government higher education funding, which “makes it difficult to plan for the future” and often “derails or restricts what it is possible for [engineering] schools to do in practice.” For example, some US-based interviewees expressed concern about reductions in state funding for public universities:

“[there are] increasing expectations for the number of graduates we can produce… expectations of access to an affordable education but without a solid economic basis for how that happens. This commodification works against innovation and is a real concern for the future. The large public universities are the places that really interesting things can happen [in engineering education] at scale, but finances will play a role.”

Other interviewees highlighted countries such as the UK and Australia, where recent changes in government policy had the potential to restrict educational innovation and the establishment of regional networks of support. For example, interviewees pointed to the recent decision of the Australian government to cease distributing grants to support innovation in university education through the Office for Learning and Teaching. One interviewee suggested that, over many years, these grants “have impacted almost every one of the 35 [engineering school in Australia]. The amount was trivial – around AUS $8 million – but they would have been matched by the university and they have been very influential... We have already lost momentum.” Concerns were expressed that the strong national network of support and expertise in engineering education that has developed in recent decades across Australia may “start to fade” as the lack of educational grant opportunities constrains the pool of new engineering faculty willing to specialize in teaching and learning.

10.2. Adapting to larger and more diverse student cohorts

Phase 1 thought leaders reflected on the worldwide trend towards the integration of active, student- centered learning into engineering curricula and the benefits that this brings to students. It was noted that “early pioneers like Aalborg have been an inspiration to many” since their establishment of a new problem-based engineering curriculum in 1974.19 The widespread influence of the CDIO initiative12 was also noted to have “spurred a lot of changes in a lot of countries across the world: new introductory engineering courses, industry-linked projects and learning through doing.” The interview feedback made clear that the majority of thought leaders anticipated that “team-based, hands-on student learning that responds to the needs of society and industry” would underpin the world’s leading engineering programs in the decades to come. However, concerns were repeatedly expressed about the capacity of large, publicly-funded institutions to deliver such educational programs to large student cohorts, particularly when operating under limited budgets. In particular, interviewees pointed to the increasing cohort

19 Problem-Based Learning at Aalborg University (http://www.en.aau.dk/about-aau/aalborg-model-problem-based-learning/)

Global Engineering education: challenges and future directions 35 The global state of the art in engineering education

sizes at many large public universities and the challenges that this poses to educational quality. The views of this interviewee were typical of many of the thought leaders:

“How do we deal with this expansion [of student numbers]? How do we still engage students early on with the world of engineering? How do we show them the messiness of engineering, the political and social aspects? ... How do we do this beyond the capstone project? This type of education, the type of education we want to have, is expensive. So how do you do this for all students, large cohorts of students, without compromising on everything?”

Interviewees from institutions experiencing a rapid increase in student numbers were particularly aware that there were few ‘role model’ institutions delivering high-quality student-centered education at scale. Indeed, many of the educational features common to the ‘current leaders’ and ‘emerging leaders’ in engineering education – including entrepreneurial or authentic industry experiences – are, in practice, only available to relatively small student cohorts.20 As one interviewee commented:

“places like Olin and Iron Range are early development models – high cost, low volume – but the economically feasible version will come next.”

It was also recognized that increasing student numbers would inevitably bring a greater diversity in student demographics and background. Although it was noted by many that “we cannot continue to cater to the same type of students, we need to attract the students that would not normally think of engineering,” it was also suggested that a more diverse student body was not well served by current engineering curricula. Many of the engineering schools and universities identified as ‘current leaders’ and ‘emerging leaders’ have, in recent years, pioneered changes specifically aimed at increasing the diversity of their student populations. Some of these interventions have involved adapting the entry criteria to undergraduate programs. For example, CSU Engineering and the Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering at UCL do not require prospective students to have studied mathematics and physics as prerequisites for entry, as is typical for most engineering degree programs, but rather have a selection process open to candidates from all disciplinary backgrounds. In addition, Olin College of Engineering uses residential ‘selection weekends’ to shortlist potential candidates, and PUC has developed a dedicated Talent and Inclusion entry route for under-represented groups, with dedicated mentoring and support offered to this group of students.

20 For example, the National University of Singapore was singled out by many for the quality and influence of its programs in engineering design education. However, the Innovative and Design-Centric Programme at NUS is an invitation-only program that caters to 100 students per year-group, representing less than 10% of the engineering student cohort.

Global Engineering education: challenges and future directions 36 The global state of the art in engineering education

10.3. Disciplinary and educational siloes

The discipline/department-based structure of many engineering schools and universities was seen to be holding back innovation and excellence in engineering education. As discussed further in Section 11.2, multidisciplinary learning and increased student choice were predicted to be key features of the best engineering programs over the coming decades. It was acknowledged, however, that such developments would be constrained by the structural separation that often exists between and beyond engineering disciplines and the lack of informal interaction across these boundaries, particularly in teaching and learning. For example, one thought leader noted that the provision of curricular flexibility was significantly constrained by:

“impenetrable departmental silos that make it almost impossible to offer students real choices that are not completely disconnected from the rest of their curriculum.”

Interviewees also noted the difficulty in reforming the ‘fundamental’ courses that are often “bought in from the [university’s] science school,” and ensuring that their approach, content and focus formed a coherent and consistent part of the engineering degree program as a whole. As one explained:

“if a department equals a program, there is no way that you can discontinue a program …. [Instead] you need to create a strong power base around the [cross-disciplinary] programs, so that departments are not only interested to offer their own standard courses, so that you are not coming with your hat in your hand begging the maths department to change anything.”

In this respect, Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden was noted by a number of interviewees to be “a real beacon for their interdisciplinary programs… they have created a good power balance [between the departments and the programs] with mutual commitment from both sides.”

Many of the high-profile engineering and technology universities established in recent years (including SUTD in Singapore, Skoltech21 in Russia and Olin College of Engineering in the US) have been created without traditional engineering disciplinary boundaries. Feedback from representatives from these institutions suggests that this approach has:

“meant that we could focus on what capabilities we wanted for our graduates, what types of experiences we wanted them to have, rather than arbitrarily bounding them by a set of disciplines that are no longer relevant to the types of problems that they will need to solve in their careers.”

Other highly-rated institutions such as UCL in the UK and PUC in Chile have made important strides in recent years to “soften the [existing] boundaries” between engineering disciplines and create more opportunities for cross-disciplinary collaboration and learning.

21 Skoltech (http://www.skoltech.ru/en/)

Global Engineering education: challenges and future directions 37 The global state of the art in engineering education

10.4. Faculty engagement with and university rewards for education

Phase 1 interviewees consistently pointed to the lack of faculty engagement and recognition as a major barrier to the progress of engineering education globally. Some spoke about “the disconnect between the academic and the world of [engineering] practice” as well as the lack of formal and informal support available to faculty to reflect upon and improve their teaching practice.

However, the major focus of interviewee feedback was on “the reluctance of faculty to change because they are in an environment where education is not rewarded by their university.” In particular, the criteria by which faculty are appointed and promoted were repeatedly cited as a major inhibitor to educational excellence and capacity to reform:

“Most engineering programs are at research-led institutions. [Faculty] are ultimately being judged on being an excellent researcher… tenure is based on research, so you do enough teaching to tick the teaching box. [Educational] reform is focused on teaching people to teach more efficiently so that you can spend more time on research.”

As another interviewee put it, “the relative thresholds for being an adequate teacher and an adequate researcher are very different.” It was also suggested that the lack of appropriate metrics for evaluating the quality and impact of teaching was an important barrier to improving its reward and recognition in faculty careers:

“I have great ways to measure a great researcher. I don't have the same indicators that someone is a great teacher. This makes it very difficult to endorse them for [promotion] and all we have to give them is a teaching prize.”

Many noted that the greater weight given to research over teaching in faculty promotion reflected perceptions more broadly across higher education: “what determines reputation [of a university] continues to be research. Unless this changes, it is difficult to see how there will be an extensive change to teaching across the [sector]… it will continue to be the outliers, the mavericks.”

It is interesting to note that this issue was equally apparent at most of the case study institutions. Despite delivering globally renowned undergraduate programs, a major concern consistently raised by faculty and academic leaders alike was the lack of appropriate reward for contribution to education in faculty career progression. In the words of one academic leader at a case study institution:

“The desire exists among senior managers to change [the promotion system], but it has not been enacted. Implementing it is a different thing because we want to attract the best [faculty] and they know that their future and reputation among peers depends on their research... so we do not reward teaching in the way we should.”

Many interviewees went on to note the potential long-term damage that such inequitable reward systems may have upon faculty and their willingness to devote time to advancing the curriculum and supporting a breadth of student learning.

Global Engineering education: challenges and future directions 38 The global state of the art in engineering education

11. What is the future direction for the sector?

This Section takes a horizon scanning approach to anticipate both the future trajectory of the engineering education sector and the profile of the leading engineering programs in the decades to come. It draws upon evidence from Phases 1 and 2 of the study and the wider literature.

Evidence from the study pointed to three trends likely to define the future of the engineering education sector:

• a tilting of the global axis of engineering education leadership, from north to south and from high-income countries to the emerging economic powerhouses in Asia and South America. Many among this new generation of world leaders will be propelled by strategic government investment in engineering education as an incubator for the technology-based entrepreneurial talent that will drive national economic growth. This theme is explored further in Section 11.1;

• a move towards socially-relevant and outward-facing engineering curricula. These curricula will emphasize student choice, multidisciplinary learning and societal impact, as well as expose students to a breadth of experiences outside the classroom, outside the traditional engineering disciplines and across the world. This theme is explored further in Section 11.2;

• the emergence of university leaders that deliver an integrated and world-class curriculum at scale. The next generation of world leaders in engineering education is unlikely to be distinguished by specific classroom techniques or student experiences. Rather, they are likely to be institutions that deliver an integrated and coherent student-centered curriculum to large student cohorts under constrained budgets. This theme is explored further in Section 11.3.

One particular case study institution, SUTD in Singapore, exemplifies each of these three themes, as outlined in Box 5 and explored further in Appendix B.

Box 5. The SUTD undergraduate education

SUTD was born out of the Singaporean government’s vision to establish a new university that would be an engine for national economic growth, fostering talent and applied research in engineering, architecture and design. Over the coming years, SUTD’s annual undergraduate intake is set to increase from 450 to 1000. Established in 2009, the university’s educational approach and structure are distinctive in a number of respects. For example, with no departments or schools, SUTD offers a multidisciplinary education built on a rigorous grounding in the fundamental engineering sciences. The curriculum is immersed in design-centered active learning that allows students to connect and integrate their learning between both courses and years of study. Many of these projects have a hands-on component and are supported by open-access state of the art maker spaces. Indeed, it is estimated that by completion of the degree program, every SUTD student will have participated in 20 to 30 intensive design projects. SUTD also offers a breadth of experience not traditionally associated with engineering undergraduate study, including research opportunities, industry internships, undergraduate teaching opportunities and courses in humanities and social sciences.

Global Engineering education: challenges and future directions 39 The global state of the art in engineering education

11.1. Tilting of the global axis of engineering education leadership

Interview feedback from both phases of the study suggests that the engineering education sector is entering a period of rapid and fundamental change. As one Phase 1 interviewee commented:

“… for years and years, there was endless talk about why engineering education needed to change, lots of statements and reports about what needed to be done. And nothing changed, give or take a few electives and new mission statements ... [but in recent years] something has happened, things are happening in places you have never even heard of, all over the world. Doing the same old thing is suddenly not going to be good enough.”

Echoing this observation, thought leaders in the field did not just anticipate rapid change among institutions that have hitherto taken a leading role in driving the debate and shaping best practices in engineering education – typically research-led institutions located in North America and Europe. Their feedback also pointed to a fundamental change to the profile and geographical location of the institutions that will be defining and advancing the state of the art in engineering education in the future. This geographical shift of focus can be seen by contrasting the location of the institutions identified by Phase 1 thought leaders as both ‘current leaders’ and ‘emerging leaders’ in the field.

Figure 7 presents data for all recommendations made by Phase 1 interviewees, in the categories of ‘current leaders’ and ‘emerging leaders’, by global region. As this data illustrates, institutions identified as the world’s ‘current leaders’ in engineering education are predominantly based in the US or Europe (representing 54% and 29% of the total recommendations made, respectively, and totaling 83% in all). In contrast, the ‘emerging leaders’ are much more likely to include Asian-based universities (increasing from 13% to 32% of the total selections made) and South American-based institutions (increasing from 3% to 11% of the total selections made). The geographical center of gravity of the world’s leading engineering programs may therefore be undergoing a fundamental shift, from north to south and from established high-income countries to the emerging economic ‘powerhouses’ in Asia and South America.

North America Europe Asia South America Australasia Africa

Current leaders 54% 29% 13%

Emerging leaders 24% 26% 32% 11% 9%

Figure 7. The locations of all recommendations made for ‘current’ and ‘emerging’ leaders

Global Engineering education: challenges and future directions 40 The global state of the art in engineering education

This global trend is illustrated in Figure 8. It highlights the regional shift from North America and Europe to Asia, South America and Australia, as indicated by the direction of the arrows. It also turns a spotlight on the particular countries that were highlighted among the ‘emerging leaders’ from across the world. Many of the developments in these countries are propelled by strategic government engagement in engineering education and supported by strategic investment in undergraduate engineering programs to drive national economic growth. It is also interesting to note that the countries consistently represented among the ‘emerging leaders’ include those which are relatively small, such as Singapore (population: 5.6m), Chile (population: 18m) and the Netherlands (population: 17m).

SWEDEN CANADA UNITED KINGDOM DENMARK NORTH NETHERLANDS AMERICA EUROPE UNITED STATES CHINA SOUTH KOREA

INDIA TAIWAN

HONG KONG ASIA SINGAPORE

BRAZIL SOUTH AMERICA AUSTRALASIA AUSTRALIA CHILE

Figure 8. Global patterns of the ‘emerging leaders’ in engineering education

Although only one South American university features among the top 10 of ‘emerging leaders’, a range of other institutions in Brazil, Colombia, Mexico and Chile were consistently identified by Phase 1 interviewees. The transformations underway in Chile were particularly noted:

“what I see universities doing across Chile – from the most elite research universities through to mid- range regional universities – is just phenomenal … It is an all-out effort, implemented with not only a vision, but with what people are doing on the ground.”

Almost a third of universities identified as ‘emerging leaders’ were based in Asia. As one thought leader noted: “there has been an unprecedented expansion of higher education in South East Asia, and engineering education is at the core of that. There is going to be interesting things coming out of those parts of the world.” Indeed, interviewees at a university senior management or dean level often spoke about:

“… spending quite a lot of time in the Asian part of the world recently … Other countries are not losing momentum, but there is a strong realization in many Asian universities that strength in research needs to be balanced by strength in education and there are real opportunities there.”

Global Engineering education: challenges and future directions 41 The global state of the art in engineering education

A theme repeated by thought leaders was that, while “the teaching and the curriculum is not yet what I would call cutting edge,” it was the speed and direction of travel in many key Asian universities that was the source of particular interest. Many noted the significant investment in engineering education in both China and South Korea and the potentially disruptive influence of new private universities in India. However, it was Singapore that was discussed most frequently. Over 60% of interviewees identified at least one of four Singaporean institutions – SUTD, NUS, Nanyang Technical University and Singapore Polytechnic – either as a ‘current leader’ or an ‘emerging leader’ in engineering education. Benefitting from considerable government support and investment in higher education, Singapore was seen as “a country with a history of having to innovate” where universities offered a unique “willingness to collaborate with others in a forward-thinking way.”

In addition to this geographical shift in the location of many future leaders, some thought leaders also suggested that the engineering education landscape would see an increased diversification in the coming years, particularly outside “prestige brand” universities. Some anticipated that institutions would seek to establish more distinctive and focused institutional profiles, catering to a more clearly- defined market both for prospective students and graduate employers: “to compete, you need to know what niche you are filling.” As another interviewee commented:

“there are choices that universities are going to be making – whether they are a science/technology or an engineering/design oriented university, whether they are online or on-campus, whether it is about practice or about research.”

It was recognized that such developments may be particularly evident among universities operating in competitive markets for prospective students. In this context, it is interesting to note that many of the institutions identified as the ‘emerging leaders’ (Figure 5, Section 5) would be considered to offer a ‘niche’ engineering education, with respect to their student intake, educational focus and/or graduate profile. Examples would include SUTD (see Appendix B), Olin College of Engineering, IRE and CSU (see Appendix D). Some interviewees suggested that such developments were unlikely to spread to large, research-led institutions: “[university] rankings are a big impediment to diversification. Universities clamor for prestige and prestige comes from research. You cannot do this and be too focused.”

Global Engineering education: challenges and future directions 42 The global state of the art in engineering education

11.2. Educational focus of future leaders in engineering education

The evidence gathered from both phases of the study was used to anticipate the distinctive curricular experiences that would be shared by the world’s best engineering programs in the future. The curricular emphasis in areas already evident among many of the ‘current leaders’ in engineering education – such as user-centered design, technology-driven entrepreneurship, active project-based learning and a focus on rigor in the engineering ‘fundamentals’ – are likely to continue to be prominent features. In addition, five curricular themes appear likely to become increasingly prominent:

• student choice and flexibility: interviewees suggested that, as “engineering schools start to move away from seeing engineering students only as scientists, future PhD students,” a range of different learning pathways for students will be offered, “to educate students in the profile that is more oriented to their future career.” As one interviewee put it:

“Beyond the fundamental core, there are so many competing topics that we could include – entrepreneurship, service learning..., internships, research methods – we need to allow the students to explore these things and then let them choose a pathway that suits their talents and interests.”

• multidisciplinary learning: interviewees noted that the ability to integrate knowledge and to work effectively across disciplines, both within and beyond engineering, is increasingly seen as a fundamental skill that all engineering graduates should possess;

• the role, responsibilities and ethics of engineers in society: interviewees spoke about the key role that engineers will increasingly play in tackling the challenges facing society, including water scarcity, air pollution and the shift to non-carbon-based industries. It was anticipated that this emphasis would increasingly be reflected in engineering curricula and “a greater focus on solving human challenges and the problems facing society” would emerge as hallmarks of the world’s best engineering programs;

• global outlook and experiences: it was anticipated that engineering schools would increasingly focus on the development of “skills to be effective in a global environment,” providing students with a range of opportunities to work across nationalities and cultures. It was noted, in particular, that “most US [engineering] schools have a long way to go on the global side. We don’t give our students the kind of global exposure they need and [we] are way behind some other countries”;

• breadth of student experience: interviewees anticipated that engineering students would be offered greater choice in their studies, allowing them to add breadth to their learning outside the traditional engineering disciplines. Interviewees also pointed to an increasing emphasis on experiences outside the classroom, such as work-based learning.

The five themes listed above are distinctive features of many of the ‘emerging leader’ institutions and often go hand in hand within their curricula. Examples include the emphasis on multidisciplinary learning, user-centered design, entrepreneurship and societal impact in the new undergraduate programs at PUC in Chile (see Appendix A.4.7) and the student-centered, project-based approach

Global Engineering education: challenges and future directions 43 The global state of the art in engineering education

adopted at Olin College of Engineering in the US (see Appendix A.4.1) which offers a multidisciplinary student-centered education that extends across and beyond traditional engineering disciplines and is anchored in issues of ethics and social responsibility. A further example, taken from one of the case study institutions, UCL, is provided in Box 6 and explored in Appendix C.

It should also be noted that the educational features and approaches listed above are not radically new: societally-oriented, multidisciplinary curricula that expose students to a breath of experiences, for example, are established features of many engineering programs worldwide. When discussing the pedagogies that would characterize the best engineering programs worldwide in the decades to come, many Phase 1 thought leaders commented that:

“I don’t see any brilliant new techniques down the pipe. We already have the ideas. We are rich in theory. What we will need to get better at is pulling them together.”

This key challenge – the ability of engineering programs to ‘pull together’ and integrate best practice experiences at scale – is discussed in the Section that follows.

Box 6. The integrated Engineering Programme at UCL Engineering

Established in 2014, the Integrated Engineering Programme22 (IEP) represented a root-and-branch reform of the undergraduate curriculum across UCL’s school of engineering, UCL Engineering. The IEP incorporates a common school-wide curricular structure that has been adopted by all engineering departments for the first two years of undergraduate study. A centerpiece of this curriculum is a series of Scenarios, operating in five-week cycles, where students spend four weeks building critical engineering skills and knowledge that they subsequently apply to tackle a one- week intensive design project. Often drawing on external partnerships with industry, charities and the regional community, the Scenario projects ask students to “solve real engineering problems.” As students progress through their studies, the Scenarios are designed to become increasingly complex and open-ended. The IEP is also interspersed with a series of team-based projects that draw together the full student cohort of almost 1000 students from across the engineering school. These multidisciplinary projects are notable for their global, societal and ethical focus, challenging engineering students with questions such as “How can engineering contribute to global TB (Tuberculosis) vaccines?” For example, at the close of the second year of study, all engineering students come together to participate in How to Change the World,23 a two-week intensive team-based project to devise practical solutions to real societal and environmental problems from across the world. Provided with an open-ended brief from external clients such as the World Bank and Arup, mixed student teams drawn from different disciplines are asked to consider not just a technical solution, but also the societal, environmental and public policy implications of their approach.

22 Integrated Engineering Programme, UCL (http://www.engineering.ucl.ac.uk/integrated-engineering/)

23 How to Change the World, UCL (http://www.engineering.ucl.ac.uk/industry/change-world/)

Global Engineering education: challenges and future directions 44 The global state of the art in engineering education

11.3. Scaling-up and integrating good practice

Feedback from the Phase 1 thought leaders and outcomes of the Phase 2 case studies suggest that the key innovations that will define the next chapter of global engineering education are unlikely to be new teaching techniques or curricular components, but rather how programs are managed, structured and delivered in practice. In particular, and echoing a theme highlighted in Section 10.2, Phase 1 thought leaders anticipated that the next generation of leaders in the field would be those that incorporated best practice into a coherent and integrated curriculum that could be successfully delivered to large cohort groups and under constrained budgets.

A striking feature of many of the universities identified as ‘current leaders’ is that good practices in engineering education are often isolated, confined to ‘pockets’, with limited connectivity to the rest of the curriculum. For example, although an increasing number of leading universities are including enriching student-centered experiences into their programs – such as user-centered design projects, work placements or community-based social entrepreneurship – many are characterized as “‘bolt-on’ activities.” Phase 1 thought leaders repeatedly noted that, in engineering schools across the world, much of the benefit of these experiences often remains unexploited because they are unconnected with other curricular experiences; in consequence, students are not encouraged to reflect upon and apply what they have learned in other areas of their degree program. In the words of one interviewee: “the learning is not contextualized and the student does not get the maximum benefit” from the experience.

In contrast to the ‘current leaders’, many institutions identified as the ‘emerging leaders’ are distinguished by their integrated and unified educational approach. In most cases, their curricula were designed from a blank slate or were the result of a recent systemic reform. Experiences, such as work- based learning and societally-relevant design projects, are central to the program, and provide a platform for students to contextualize, reflect upon and apply the knowledge and skills they have gained elsewhere in the curriculum. However, many of these educational exemplars – such as at Olin College of Engineering and IRE – cater to relatively small cohort sizes. The key innovations that are likely to define the next chapter for engineering education are the mechanisms by which such features can be integrated at scale: to large student cohorts under constrained budgets. As one thought leader put it:

“the next phase in the evolution of engineering education is for the rest of us to figure out how we can offer this type of quality of education at scale.”

The case studies considered in Phase 2 point to a number of institutions that offer such a model, where this curricular coherence and integration is delivered through a connective spine of design projects. Examples include the SUTD curriculum (summarized in Box 5) that is anchored in multidisciplinary design projects which contextualize and integrate learning across courses and years of study. A second example is the UCL Engineering curriculum (summarized in Box 6).

In the longer term, Phase 1 thought leaders suggested that an increasing number of the world’s leading engineering programs would deliver student-centered learning to large student cohorts through a blend of off-campus personalized online learning and on-campus hands-on experiential learning.

Global Engineering education: challenges and future directions 45 The global state of the art in engineering education

Through such an approach, “most of the [engineering] fundamentals will be learned online” with “a greater sharing of materials between universities” to reduce costs. As Phase 1 thought leaders noted:

“this is the future of the field, where you put the student at the center and use the resources to facilitate team projects and authentic experiences, and then put the taught curriculum online”;

“these new players are going to change the landscape. With an online component and a unique model, they will be a disruptive force that will cause the whole landscape of engineering education to change. I didn’t feel that way five years ago.”

Despite some doubts expressed about the capacity of the current generation of online tools to offer “individualized pathways for each student,” a number of institutions are already moving forward with engineering education models that blend off-campus online learning with on-campus active learning experiences, on the assumption that “the technology will very quickly catch up with us.” One notable example from the case study institutions is the new program at CSU Engineering in Australia, as outlined in Box 7 and explored further in Appendix D. Box 8 provides three further examples of top- rated universities that are currently preparing to develop online platforms to deliver engineering ‘content’ in conjunction with intensive on-campus challenges and projects to apply, embed and contextualize this learning.

Box 7. CSU Engineering, Australia

Launched in 2016, the new engineering undergraduate program at Charles Sturt University was described by thought leaders as “completely rethinking what engineering education ought to look like,” with the potential to be “very influential, if they can pull it off.” Amongst those that cited CSU Engineering as an ‘emerging leader’ in engineering education globally, almost all spoke about their particular interest in the potential transferability of its blended on-campus and online approach to their own institutions. The five-and-a-half year-program combines an 18-month on-campus education, framed around a series of project-based challenges, with four years of off-campus, work-based learning. Almost all ‘technical engineering content’ – including both knowledge and skills – is delivered online and accessed by students as and when they need it. Fundamental engineering courses have been disaggregated into a set of online ‘topics’, offered in “small bite-sized chunks rather than semester- long courses, giving people freedom in how they learn.” In collaboration with a commercial company, CSU Engineering has created a bespoke online platform that provides students with a visual map of the relationships and dependencies between topics, and allows them to identify new topics they wish to target based on their own interests and/or specific problems encountered in their project- based challenges or work placements.

Global Engineering education: challenges and future directions 46 The global state of the art in engineering education

Box 8. Three engineering programs preparing to blend online and on-campus learning:

Iron Range Engineering (IRE), in the US, is an example of an engineering program that is adapting its existing curricula to embrace blended online and on-campus learning. IRE was highlighted as an ‘emerging leader’ in engineering education for its problem-based, hands-on approach, which was described as “a truly innovative program and an amazing thing to watch.” The second generation of IRE is currently under development and will launch in 2019. It will be designed as “a low cost model which will cost less than tuition.” Rather than bringing industry-sponsored projects to the students on-site, the new program will embed students in industry to work on dedicated authentic projects. A significant proportion of the learning and support will be supplied online. To be established as a four-year bachelor degree program, Iron Range Version 2 plans to admit 125 students per year in its steady state, a significant increase from its current intake of 25. Aalborg University, in Denmark, was identified as a ‘current leader’ in engineering education. The university is investing over 9 million Danish Krone (Approx. US$1.5m) over the next three years to develop “new models of problem-based learning for the digital age” with a view to implementing such approaches at the university. The model is likely to bring mixed method approaches to problem- based learning that will be supported by virtual projects, international linkages and online learning. Monterrey Tech, in Mexico, which just fell short of the top 10 of the ‘emerging leader’ institutions, has recently developed the Tec2124 curriculum that is structured around a series of design-based challenges. Each challenge is associated with a set of ‘prior competencies’, with the onus placed on the student to develop these competencies through self-directed research, engaging with the challenge user group and registering for modules linked to the challenge, many of which will be online.

This Section has identified three defining trends that are likely to play a critical role in shaping the future of engineering education: a tilting of the global axis of leadership in the field; a move towards socially-relevant and outward-facing curricula; and the emergence of university leaders that deliver an integrated and world-class curriculum at scale. While the study focused only on engineering education, these trends are likely to be evident across the university sector. Engineering education therefore has a pivotal role to play in addressing the major challenges facing universities in the 21st century. It has the opportunity to be the catalyst and standard bearer for excellence in higher education, and the incubator from which best practices will develop and spread.

24 Tec21, Monterrey Institute of Technology (http://modelotec21.itesm.mx/index.html)

Global Engineering education: challenges and future directions 47 APPENDIX A: 48 PHASE 1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND FEEDBACK

Phase 1 background information and feedback and information background Phase 1

– bal state art the bal in engineering of education

APPENDIX A

APPENDICES The glo

APPENDIX A: 49 PHASE 1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND FEEDBACK

NFORMATION

e 1 e rated universitiesrated -

rated universitiesrated -

PHASE 1 BACKGROUND I BACKGROUND 1 PHASE

Data to characterize 12 of the top the of 12 characterize to Data The core interviewquestionsusedduring Phas Phase 1 feedback on informalmeasures educational of quality and impact top the on leaders thought from Feedback The names and affiliationsthe thought of 50leaders consulted during Phase 1 Phase 1 background information and feedback and information background Phase 1

FEEDBACK –

A.5 A.2 A.3 A.4 A.1 bal state art the bal in engineering of education

Appendix A provides background information from Phase 1 of the study. It is structured in in structured is It study. the of 1 Phase from information background provides A Appendix five sections:

APPENDIX A

AND APPENDIX A APPENDIX The glo

APPENDIX A: 50 PHASE 1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND FEEDBACK

State University, US

Learning), University of

The Royal Institute of Technology (KTH),

Associate Dean (Teaching & ,

, MIT, US MIT, , Catholic University of Chile, Chile

ngineering, Beijing Jiaotong University, China University, Jiaotong Beijing ngineering, Monterrey Institute of Technology and Higher Education, Mexico Education, Higher and Technology of Institute Monterrey

r and October 2016.October r and

President,

Aeronautics and Astronautics Center for Engineering Learning & Teaching and Professor, Human Centered Design &

Chancellor and Senior Professor, Birla Institute of Technology & Science (BITS Pilani), India -

The John A. Edwardson Dean of Engineering, Purdue University, US Hoechst Celanese Professor Emeritus of Chemical Engineering, North Carolina Carolina North Engineering, Chemical of Emeritus Professor HoechstCelanese US (ASEE), Education Engineering for Society American Director, Executive TEES Research Professor, Dwight Look College of Engineering, Texas University, A&M US Academic Vice UK Liverpool, of University Engineering, of School Engineering, of Professor Emeritus Director, Educational Innovation and Research Technology Sydney, Australia Associate Department Head and Professor of Mechanical Engineering, MIT, US Distinguished Professor of Industrial Management and Director of the Center for Internet of Things Taiwan Technology, and Science of University Taiwan National Innovation, Associate Dean for Learning and Teaching, School of Engineering and Applied Science, Aston University, UK of Professor Argentina University, Technological National Professor, and President IFEES Dean, School of Engineering, Pontifical Associate Professor in Engineering Education Development, Sweden Associate Professor and Director of the Engineering Education ResearchCenter (EERC), University of US Pittsburg, Vice UniversityEducation, Cape of Engineeringin Research for Centre Development, Academic of Professor Town, South Africa andEducationIndustries, Engineering Higher between Cooperation on Chair andProfessorUNESCO Department of Mechanical E London, UK College Imperial Engineering, Design of School theDyson of Head Dean of the Faculty of Applied Science & Engineering, University of Toronto, Canada Senior Executive Educational Development Officer, LearningLab DTU, Technical University of Denmark, Denmark Director, US Washington, of University Engineering, Chair of Engineering Education,University of Western Australia, Australia

Yan - Leah Mary

Cynthia

Case, Jenni Sacre, Clark, Robin Garza,David Childs, Peter - Froyd, Jeffrey Froyd, Hosoi, Anette Hosoi, Amon, Cristina Cha, Jianzhong Atman, Felder, Richard Felder, Jamieson, Hadgraft, Roger Hadgraft, Baillie, Caroline Chou, Shuo Goodhew, Peter Goodhew, Crawley, Edward Cukierman, Uriel Edström, Kristina Edström, Andersson, Pernille Fortenberry, Norman Fortenberry, Bhattacharyya, Souvik Phase 1 background information and feedback and information background Phase 1

Besterfield – Thought duringleaders Phaseconsulted bal state art the bal in engineering of education de la de Llera Martin, Juan Carlos APPENDIX A study; interviews were held during Septembe during held were interviews study; Listed below are the 50 thought leaders consulted during Phase 1 of the study. For each individual, the the individual, each For study. the of 1 Phase during consulted leaders thought 50 the are below Listed this interview their theof belowfor time taken presented from institutionalare roles affiliations and The glo A.1.

APPENDIX A: 51 PHASE 1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND FEEDBACK

Malaysia

of Singapore,

University, USUniversity,

y of Twente, Twente, of y

Denmark

d Technology,d India

Charles Sturt University, Australia

College of Engineering, US

Engineering Education and PBL and Chairholder, UNESCO Chair in Problem Based Based Problem in Chair UNESCO Chairholder, and PBL and Education Engineering

Education, Aerospace Engineering, Delft University of Technology (TU Delft), Netherlands Delft), (TU Technology of University Delft Engineering, Aerospace Education,

Dean (Education), Faculty of Engineering Sciences,University College London (UCL), UK - Head of the School of Civil Engineering, University of Queensland, Australia Queensland, of University Engineering, Civil of theSchool of Head Director of Curriculum, Iron Range Engineering, US Chairman of 3TU Centre for Engineering Education and Associate Professor, Universit Netherlands Dean and Professor (IUCEE) Education Engineering for Collaboration Universal Indo director, Executive US Lowell, UMass Emeritus, Senior Vice President and Dean, Technical University of Denmark, Consultant on Science, Technology, Innovation and Higher Education, Chile Dean of Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, McMaster University, Canada UniversityNational Nanotechnology, & NanoFibers for Centre of and ProfessorDirector Singapore The Burton J. and Deedee McMurtry UniversityFellow in Undergraduate Education and Professor of US University, Stanford Engineering, Mechanical Engineeringof an College Bhoomaraddi V. B. Principal, Dean of College of Engineering and Director of Center for Innovative Engineering Education, Sungkyunkwan University, South Korea andScienceUniversity,Technology Ethiopia Ababa Addis ofPresident Sweden Olin President, Vice Malaysia,Technologyof University Education, Engineering for Centre and ProfessorDirector, Rico Puerto InnovaHiED, Associatesof& and Director LuenyMorell ofPrincipal Chair of Structural Mechanics, TUM Department of Civil, Geo and Environmental Engineering, Technical Germany Munch, of University US University, Harvard Laspau, Director, Executive Professor inProfessor Learning in Engineering Education, Aalborg University, Denmark Associate Professor, Department of Industrial Engineering, Tsinghua University, China Canada QuebecMontreal, inof atProfessor University UQAM, Engineering, of Professor Foundation Director, Leonhard Center for the Enhancement of Engineering Education, Penn State Singapore (SUTD), and Design University Technology of Singapore President, Dean of Education, Chair Professor of Product Development, Chalmers University of Technology, Director of Technology of University Professor, Adjunct and Australia South of University Professor, Emeritus Sydney, Australia

stassis a, Angélica a, Miller, Rick Miller, King, Robin King, Ulseth, Ron Ulseth, Torero, José Puri, IshwarPuri, Kamp, Aldert Kamp, Vigild, Martin Vigild, Mitchell, John Mitchell, Lueny Morell, Lindsay, Euan Litzinger, Tom Song, Sung Jin Shettar, Ashok Yutronic, Jorge Yutronic, Koo, Benjamin Koo, Kolmos, Anette Kolmos, Vedula,Krishna Nater Sheppard, Sheri Müller, Gerhard Müller, Malmqvist, Johan Malmqvist, VanVeen,der Jan Tadesse, Tarekegn Magnanti, Thomas Magnanti, Kozanitis, Ana Kozanitis, Phase 1 background information and feedback and information background Phase 1 Ramakrishna, Seeram Ramakrishna,

Mohd Yusof,Khairiyah Mohd – bal state art the bal in engineering of education APPENDIX A The glo

APPENDIX A: 52 PHASE 1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND FEEDBACK

ective approachto e expertise of the the of expertise e

oach? edge of educational practice in the decades to come? For For come? to decades the in practice educational of edge -

tions in advance of the consultation. the of advance in tions success?

terviews, additionalquestions were includedin this list. As appropriate, these 6 universities do you consider to be the current global leaders in engineering education, in 6 universities would you consider to be emerging global leaders in engineering education, – – universities, from across the world, would consideryou to have taken effan

cation programs in 2025? in programs cation Phase 1 background information and feedback and information background Phase 1

– measuring the impact of their programs on student learning and/or measuring the impact of an an of impact the measuring and/or learning student on programs their of impact the measuring reform? educational this of part as consulted be should feel you whom individuals other any recommend you Could study? edu of progress the constrain will that orbarriers challenges major the be to consider you do What decade? coming the over reform education engineering Which each, what impresses you most about their appr their about most you impresses what each, leaders? global these identify to using you are criteria/metrics What What decade? coming the in change to worldwide education engineering expect you do How engineering leading world’s the among evident be to expect you do features/themes common terms of educational design, quality and influence? For each, what factors do you feel are most most are feel you do factors what each, For influence? and quality design, educational of terms their for responsible 5 Which cutting the at be to potential the have that Phase questions 1 interview 5 Which

bal state art the bal in engineering of education 7. 5. 6. 3. 4. 2. 1. APPENDIX A

interviewee (such as engineering design, online learning or the measurement of educational impact). educational of measurement the or learning online design, engineering as (such interviewee additional questions were designedto (i) explore the educational vision and approach atthe th to relating topics specific discuss (ii) and/or institution; own interviewee’s For around half of the in the of half around For Providedbelow are thecorequestions used to frame intervieweach during Phase the1 of study.All ques sent were interviewees The glo A.2.

APPENDIX A: 53 PHASE 1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND FEEDBACK

”;

where thewhere “

– a university’s capacity

– institutional institutional icator of the quality of of quality the of icator - of informalindicator they ones that receive an

”; –

aduate outcomes. thoughtSome leaders argued

” rated research universities universities research rated -

e one most consistently used by thought leaders to identify identify to leaders thought by used consistently most one e

have the capabilities that industry needs now and in the future that was not borne out in practice. As one interviewee interviewee one As practice. in out borne not was that

– was th was

erentiation in the engineering education market market education engineering the in erentiation – of the university’s graduates;

it is not clearif the ‘elite’ universities are playinga bigger role than justtaking ” It was suggested that measures of ‘output quality’ may have been appropriate appropriate been have may quality’ ‘output of measures that suggested was It ” career prospects ten years out. years ten prospects career class education

- ). Itshould be noted,however, that thethird of theseindicators 6

uates’ “ uates’ quality of student intake intake student of quality Phase 1 background information and feedback and information background Phase 1

– their impact on the social and economic situation of their own country own their of situation economic and social the on impact their the quality and impact and quality the studies; their during students the to added ‘delta’ the education. class world a deliver to capacity institution’s the Informal indicators of quality in engineeringInformal qualityeducation in ofindicators “ “ graduates which to extent the grad s the graduate [from such institutions] coming out distinctive because of who the graduate was when was graduate the who of because distinctive out coming institutions] such [from graduate the s

I The quality and impact of university graduates university of impact and quality The

“ transformation the of because distinctive out coming graduate the is or institution, the into came they no have we because know don't We there?... were they while achieve to them helps institution the that question.” that at seriously look to instruments

, Section bal state art the bal in engineering of education institutions.

3 • • • • • • APPENDIX A Another simply commented, “ commented, simply Another top. the from cream the diff little was there where era an in exceptional exceptional observed: that the use of these ‘output measures’, both formally and informally, had secured a reputation of of reputation a secured had informally, and formally both measures’, ‘output these of use the that top world’s the of many for quality educational comparisons when seeking to identify the best programs worldwide. Skepticism stemmed from the the from stemmed Skepticism worldwide. programs best the identify to seeking when comparisons gr on intake student the of quality the of influence peer cross for metrics such of validity the about expressed was skepticism However, Simplified versions of such metrics, including graduate employability and earnings, are often included included often are earnings, and employability graduate including metrics, such of versions Simplified of quality the distinguish to observers external enable to seen were and rankings, university national in an undergraduateprogram. Measuresproposed included: A.3.1. The trajectorycareer impact and of gradateswas importantas regarded anind both ‘current leaders’ and ‘emerging leaders’ in engineering education. engineering in leaders’ ‘emerging and leaders’ both ‘current Box world a deliver to These three types of indicator discussedare in turn in the subsectionsthat (andfollow in summarized consistently pointed to three broad types of indicator that they might use to evaluate educational educational evaluate to use might that they indicator of types broad three to pointed consistently quality: During Phase 1 of the study, thought leaders were asked to identify the types types the identify to asked were leaders thought study, the of 1 Phase During leaders Thought their own. outside institutions of quality educational the determine might to use The glo A.3.

APPENDIX A: 54 PHASE 1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND FEEDBACK

- are are in

- ) a more ranked ranked ring the ring - real trick!” real

, OECD outcomes s noted that that s noted - learning - of -

such as Aalborg University in Denmark, re talking about MIT, it is

– and wherethere waslimited visibility of

arning gain in higher education, RAND Corporation – ” that were understood to be catering to “ to catering be to understood were that

ilibrary.org/education/assessment

- – their entry cohort are not those deemed as having the the having as deemed those not are cohort entry their uch a thing, need you a andsteady hand youto need ” for measuring the quality and impact of of impact and quality the measuring for ” Washington, DC: American Association of State Colleges and and Colleges State of Association American DC: Washington, nted:

) edge educationpractice from outside of thetop - we just don’t have anything like the quality and breadth of data “

http://www.oecd Perspectives. Perspectives. he places that might be lower down in the research rankings, may

the gold standard gold the For example, one interviewee explained that his selection of CSU as as CSU of selection his that explained interviewee one example, For

” Another interviewee noted that ‘value added’ impact measures “ measures impact added’ ‘value that noted interviewee Another ”

” dent.”

) added Assessment. and do whatever they like with them because, let’s face it, they were always going to to going always were they it, face let’s because, them with like they whatever do and

–

27 , 26 , 25 Assessment of Learning Outcomes in Higher Education: A Comparative Review of Selected Practices

they are also going to be t be to going also are they Papers No. 15, OECD Publishing ( Publishing OECD 15, No. Papers

." – o makeany objectiveassessments of the ‘delta’ inengineering programs. This is the next big Phase 1 background information and feedback and information background Phase 1

C. H., Guerin, B., Harte, E., Frearson, M., & Manville, C. (2015). Le M., Manville, & Frearson, B., E., Harte, Guerin, C. H., pring 2006). Value –

e start The ‘delta’ of student learning provided by the university the by provided learning student of ‘delta’ The “The next generation of [leading universities in engineering education] won’t be just the places that take take that places the just be won’t education] engineering in universities [leading of generation next “The students best the be good notexceptional have students, arebut really doing quitesomething special… with the students they have.Thoseare the places that peopleto want findout about, because they are thedoing bal state art the bal in engineering of education education_244257272573 - Nusche, D. Nusche, (2008), McGrath, AASCU. (S

http://www.aascu.org/uploadedFiles/AASCU/Content/Root/PolicyAndAdvocacy/PolicyPublications/06_perspectives(1).pdf http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR996.html APPENDIX A higher ( 27 Education Working ( 26 Universities. 25

collect a base line and you need a continuity of the data collected. The question is, who is going to do such a such do to going is who is, question The collected. thedata of acontinuity need you and line abase collect education? engineering in thing frontierengineeringeducation. for s do to because education, higher in link missing big the However, it was widely acknowledged that acknowledged was widely it However, t need we that course of their studies. These views were informed by the wider debate on ‘value added’ measures in measures added’ ‘value on debate wider by the informed were views These their studies. course of education. higher Many interviewees suggested that “ that suggested interviewees Many du students the to added’ ‘value or ‘delta’ the capture to was programs education engineering A.3.2. straightforward, because people who go to MIT have those qualities already. But Charles Sturt are [seeking to to [seeking are Sturt Charles But already. qualities those have MIT to go who people because straightforward, develop] intrinsic motivation… thein people thatthrough the walk door,that people don’t necessarily have th at any an ‘emergingleader’ wasinfluenced by the fact that “ a you when motivation intrinsic looking for are If you greatest skills. CSU in Australia and Iron Range Engineering in the US US the in Engineering Range Iron and Australia in CSU stu engineering of type typical In this context, interviewees noted their interest in institutions institutions in interest their noted interviewees context, this In the engineering education landscape had changed dramatically in the past five years, with the the with years, five past the in dramatically changed had landscape education engineering the cutting of visibility increased and emergence comme intervieweeresearchAs universities. one curriculum in most engineering schools was roughly the same the roughly was schools engineering most in curriculum interviewee However, own. your beyond institutions at priorities and practice educational The glo

APPENDIX A: 55 PHASE 1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND FEEDBACK

). As noted above, above, noted As 9

’. a direct connection between between connection direct a

centered pedagogical - ded as crucial. As one

uded the investments in in investments the uded

the idea that something needs to change change to needs something that idea the tion

–

not many people are that brave and that

” in leadership positions and the capacity of the the of capacity the and positions leadership in ” – class educa class ractice elsewhere.ractice - ent to education. Theseincluded: . Chalmers University DelftNUSChalmers . TU and Technology, of class education was identified by almost 90% of of 90% almost by was identified education class - iable and robust data relating to educational quality. quality. educational to relating data robust and iable

class engineering education. At a time of significant -

progression

career career

class education. Many interviewees reflected upon the institutional features that could - ambition of a small number of individuals of number small a of ambition nizedin faculty

Phase 1 background information and feedback and information background Phase 1

– ‘Engineering Practice Centres’ in Tsinghua University (China) and the new flexible classroom theflexible(China) classroom andnew University inCentres’‘Engineering Practice Tsinghua (Denmark). at DTU spaces and pervasiveness of faculty trainingin education theor extentto whicheducation is recog regard; this in strength their for noted repeatedly were student progress and support that spaces learning in investment approaches. Examples repeatedly cited byinterviewees incl processes for supporting, informing and recognizing teaching excellence, such as the quality quality the as such excellence, teaching recognizing and informing supporting, for processes the institutional leadership/commitment to education; to leadership/commitment institutional the culture; educational the p influence to institution the of capacity the Institutionalleadership and in tocommitment education

The institution’s capacity to deliver a world a deliver to capacity institution’s The [in engineering education] is taking hold. There is still a slight fear, but the prerequisite for change is change for the prerequisite but fear, slight isa still There hold. taking is education] [in engineering becoming universal. Butit takes leadera to do it charismatic.” “I am getting encouraging messages from across the world world the across from messages encouraging getting am “I bal state art the bal in engineering of education

• • • • • APPENDIX A As this implies, many also noted that a university’s prominence as a world leader was often closely tied tied closely often was leader world a as prominence university’s a that noted also many implies, this As champions: change two or one of tenure continued the to worldwide change in engineering education, such leadership was regar was leadership such education, engineering in change worldwide commented: interviewee the vision and vision the world maintain and develop to university Many interviewees also spoke at length about what was understood to be “ be to understood was what about length at spoke also interviewees Many provide a world a provide commitm institutional an of indicators as be seen A.3.3.1. to capacity university’s a of cornerstones as identified were leadership and commitment Institutional the educational approach of the ‘current leaders’ and ‘emerging leaders’ (see Section Section (see leaders’ ‘emerging and leaders’ ‘current the of approach educational the These dimensions below.discussedare subsections The should be read alongside feedback relating to Three dimensionsinstitutional of capacity were given particular emphasis: thought leaders as guiding their selection of ‘current leaders’ and ‘emerging leaders ‘emerging and leaders’ ‘current of selection their guiding as leaders thought rel other of absence the to due part in was this A.3.3. The capacity of an institution to deliver a world The glo

APPENDIX A: 56 PHASE 1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND FEEDBACK

hted: ” and and ” based based - informed, informed, le were to to were le ” and by by and ” arker of al innovation was ” was repeatedly repeatedly was ” looking cultureand - preparedto riskstake in their

outward scalable, transferable and a role model to to model role aand transferable scalable,

.” where culturea A critical mass of

the willingness [of the school/university] to school/university] the [of willingness the eagues “

are willing and able to change the rules and and rules the change to able and willing are dly highlighted in this regard were Arizona State State Arizona were regard this in highlighted dly aninstitution’s “

the extent to which engineering faculty are “ are faculty engineering which to extent the .” wereelementsThree.”culture thisof repeatedly

” in engineering education was seen as a key m key a as seen was education engineering in ”

based examination of what is working and what is not

- theextent towhich theundergraduate engineeringprogram was

.” Institutions such as Purdue University, AalborgInstitutions.” University,Purdue University thesuchand as .” Many notedMany.” culture that a pervasive educationof thinking approach: thinking - ational provision practice.and .” Institutions.” repeate : examples includedCSU,examples DTU, Delft,Stanford ChalmersUniversity,TU : to engineering education that was “ was that education engineering to an evidence an

nique culture in teaching u ” was regarded by some as an important foundation of international leadership. leadership. international of foundation important an as some by regarded was ” enthusiastic and knowledgeable about engineering education engineering about knowledgeable and enthusiastic of the institution to influence practice elsewhere based approach: based -

” and a university management that “ that management university a and ” an approach

” ”

Phase 1 background information and feedback and information background Phase 1

sponding to valid critique valid to sponding – built on educational scholarship, just not doingthey thinkwhat like seems a good direction re the transferability of the institution’s ideas and practices to other universities across the the across universities other to practices and ideas institution’s the of the transferability world: programs other the university’s active interventions to inform, influence and improve educational educational improve and influence inform, to interventions active university’s the level: global and regional a practice at engagement external to commitment highlighted repeatedly were institutions of number A field. the in leadership future and current below). box the (see regard this in “ “ by forward driven “ evidence an taking as out singled consistently were Malaysia Technology of University approachto their educ engaged and actively discussing teaching with coll with teaching discussing actively and engaged facultywere“ Technology. of University Chalmers and Delft TU College, Olin as such institutions at identified evidence teaching accordingly regulations IRE. and PUC UCL, Engineering, of College Olin CSU, University, education: towards attitudes faculty innovative and forward and innovative things new try and innovate “ are that level: required institutional a faculty faculty both and at The capacity capacity The Educational culture Educational institutions don’t cause change, it is people … for any institution, if two or three key peop key three or two if institution, any for … people is it change, cause don’t institutions

leave, the university might continue to do what it is doing, but they would not continue to move move to continue not would they but doing, is it what do to continue might university the leave, forward. “ bal state art the bal in engineering of education

• • • • • APPENDIX A their selection of ‘current leaders’ and ‘emerging leaders’. Two elements were particularly highlig particularly were elements Two leaders’. ‘emerging and leaders’ ‘current of selection their A.3.3.3. The (78%)majority of intervieweesthe cited capacity to influencepractice elsewhere as a key factor in about the university’s “ emphasized: A.3.3.2. spoke often interviewees leader’, ‘emerging or leader’ ‘current a as institution an identifying When the caliber of specific leaders specific of caliber the UCL. and PUC Technology, of University Indeed, the success of many of the ‘current leaders’ and ‘emerging leaders’ was repeatedly attributed to to attributed repeatedly was leaders’ ‘emerging and leaders’ ‘current the of many of success the Indeed, The glo

APPENDIX A: 57 PHASE 1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND FEEDBACK

– world - ty and Aalborg Aalborg and ty rch in rch institutions] for for institutions]

minded and inclusive inclusive and minded -

open ” to supportthe delivery of globally ” many interviewees suggested that “ that suggested interviewees many ” .” interviewees Manyconcluded .” that a

reflected the ‘norm’ worldwide, thus allowing their worldwide, thus the ‘norm’ reflected

– about it. This means that they are operating at scale, scale, at operating are they that means This it. about

Olin College of Engineering and MIT for formal and informal informal and formal for MIT and Engineering of College Olin there should always be a place [among the world’s leading leading world’s the [among place a be always should there udent projects and opportunities. and projects udent

ofile, resourcing and cohort size Phase 1 background information and feedback and information background Phase 1

– engineering that has informed and inspired reform elsewhere; reform inspired and informed has that engineering “ an taken have that PUC and NTU NUS, as such Institutions partnerships [university] international towards attitude focused st Stanford University, University, Stanford in practice influenced have that activities and outreach partnerships university world; the across education engineering resea educational of quality a for University Purdue and University Aalborg TsinghuaUniversity its emerging for in informingrole and educational supporting reform China; across schools engineering in student prstudent were leaders thought many reason, this For elsewhere. portable be to practices and ideas Universi Purdue University, State Arizona UCL, PUC, in interested particularly University. boutique programs, where canyouincubate ideas, new programs engineering other that issues the to responding is university the that means me, to class, something doing are they and with faced are tightand with a budget witha student diverse [cohort] conditions whose institutions favor should education engineering in leader global as position While noting that “ that noting While

bal state art the bal in engineering of education • • • • Institutions engaged in activities to influence educational practice elsewhere: practice educational influence to activities in engaged Institutions APPENDIX A

The glo

APPENDIX A: 58 PHASE 1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND FEEDBACK

. E) – on on

embodies everything I everything embodies (Appendix B below. The case study study case The below.

institutions included in this

Section 4 and Section 5): is not given not is directed exploration and social

.” In .”this a context, number of - –

.” base. It is home to a very selective and and selective very a to home is It base. case study study case -

four four

ship, self ship, t 30 years 30 t centered educational approach is underpinned by leading a number of interviewees to commentthat - is a small private university focused university private small a is

n the appendices that follow that appendices n the 28 i

.” Many.” that Olin noted College “ rated institutions -

)

evolution from a ‘boutique institution’ to an institution oriented to to oriented institution an to institution’ ‘boutique a from evolution

provided

Information on the on Information rent leader’ in engineering education by more than half of of half than by more education engineering in leader’ rent

http://www.olin.edu annual student intake is 80,

in engineering education in the pas the in education engineering in –

ed ge Engineering (US) ge Engineering

Phase 1 background information and feedback and information background Phase 1

ent cohort – TsinghuaUniversity (China) PurdueUniversity (US) (Singapore) NUS Singapore, of University National PontificalCatholic University of Chile, (Chile)PUC Ran Iron MIT (US) MIT University (US) Stanford (Denmark) University Aalborg Olin College of Engineering (US) Engineering of College Olin SUTD, UCL Engineering, CSU Engineering and TU Delft

Feedback onFeedback top the based challenges. The themes of entrepreneur of themes The challenges. based

– Olin College of Engineering (US) Engineering of College Olin -

that have recently implemented a program of educational reform, some contextual information information contextual some reform, educational of program a implemented recently have that bal state art the bal in engineering of education 9. 5. 6. 7. 8. 2. 3. 4. 1. Olin College of Engineering ( Engineering of College Olin

Olin’sreputation is disproportionate with its size APPENDIX A 28 Olin College was identified as a ‘cur a as identified was College Olin a over by leader’ ‘emerging an and Europe) and America North in based those (particularly interviewees interviewees anticipated Olin College’s “ College’s Olin anticipated interviewees world the throughout reforms engineering the support massively “ learn have we think Olin College has a very unconventional culture and resource and culture unconventional very a has College Olin small stud experiential learning, where students draw inspiration from across a wide disciplinary base to tackle tackle to base disciplinary wide a across from inspiration draw students where learning, experiential design departments, tenure With or no approach. educational particularly responsibilityin evident the are Establishedin 1997, Olin College of Engineering Its student education. engineering undergraduate A.4.1. report arereports these four for institutions feedbackmost given,commonly critical notbeenfeedback has included. For institutions,newer or those descriptions. the in included also is While the summaries generally reflect the balance of views expressed by interviewees and focus on the the on focus and interviewees by expressed views of balance the reflect generally summaries the While Providedbelow is a summary of selected interviewee feedback institutionson most frequently cited as education (see leaders’inengineering ‘current leaders’ ‘emerging or The glo A.4.

APPENDIX A: 59 PHASE 1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND FEEDBACK that that getting dentified edge edge - US interviewees) to to interviewees) US - adopted a purely

32 to the prominence of design design of prominence the to ” and their success in “ in success their and ” ” Interviewees consistently the sheer quality of staff and and staff of quality sheer the a high exposure to cutting to exposure high a “

strengthened by its leadership in the the in leadership its by strengthened

array of experiences open to students to use use to students to open experiences of array at AalborgUniversity

hearts minds.and .” ” ” informed educational approach and willingness to to willingness and approach educational informed ewees (and over a third ofnon - supported by ”

generating model, and one which ensures that MIT graduates - ” of the engineering programs at Stanford University “ University Stanford at programs engineering the of ”

)

outstanding engineering education that provides students with so so with students provides that education engineering outstanding ” which has been further been has which ”

” in engineering education. Many interviewees commented on on commented interviewees Many education. engineering in ”

) .” MIT’s education .” influence engineering also globally was on

integrate knowledge integrate

” Many also suggested that the engineering programs benefitted from from benefitted programs engineering the that suggested also Many ” influential feature of its approach. In particular, many interviewees interviewees many particular, In approach. its of feature influential

real or realistic industry problems in their projects their in problems industry realistic or real unparalleled, 30 service, liberal arts university where students have experiences in humanities, learn learn in humanities, experiences have students where arts university liberal service, - .” A number of interviewees suggested that “ ” In particular, many pointed to the “ the to pointed many particular, In ”

)

buildand was identified by 40% of intervi of 40% by identified was

) 31 https://www.stanford.edu http://www.en.aau.dk

playful,experimental quality of places to benchmark to places of in the world. the in Phase 1 background information and feedback and information background Phase 1

a really mature [educational] model that is powerful and transformational. They should be on on be should They transformational. and powerful is that model [educational] mature really a – Based LearningBased (PBL) approach.university The was interviewees describedby the across - initiative and edX. and initiative

Aalborg University (Denmark) University Aalborg Stanford University (US) University Stanford MIT (US)

“ an offer to reported widely was https://www.edx.org http://web.mit.edu bal state art the bal in engineering of education 12

29 ng embedded ng ain full inted to the increasing size of the engineering student population, which now represents 39% of of 39% represents now which population, student engineering the of size increasing the to inted key feature of the Aalborg approach that appeared to influence its identification by interviewees as a a as interviewees by identification its influence to appeared that approach Aalborg the of feature key edX ( edX Stanford University ( UniversityAalborg ( MIT ( MIT

bei APPENDIX A 30 31 32 29 ‘current leader’ or ‘emerging leader’ was its evidencewas ‘current its leader’ leader’ ‘emerging or students into action mode rather than transmission mode transmission than rather mode action into students A everyone’s list list everyone’s “ of use effective Aalborg’s Problem “ as world A.4.4. programs educational the 1974, in establishment its From “ foreigninvolvedlanguages activists. and inget can being pointed to the “ the to pointed fosters the freedomstudents. for undergraduates at the university. This expansion was attributed, by some, “ by some, attributed, was expansion This university. the at undergraduates changed has It campus. the across entrepreneurship and be a ‘current leader’ in engineering education. The focus on design and entrepreneurship was singled singled was entrepreneurship and design on focus The education. engineering in leader’ be ‘current a out as a prominent and highly po A.4.3. University Stanford CDIO technology in entrepreneurial ways entrepreneurial in technology “ be to by some described students that MIT attracts means that it is a self is it that means attracts MIT that students best the are MIT to opportunities many researchers and research A.4.2. quarter of interviewees (particularly those from Asia and South America). Seven individuals i individuals Seven America). and South Asia from those (particularly interviewees of quarter leader’. ‘emerging an and leader’ ‘current a both as College Olin The glo

APPENDIX A: 60 PHASE 1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND FEEDBACK (NUS)

.” The

of at at of

36 – on

ewees 37

. is deeply deeply is .” For example, For.”all he world.

) Centric Programme Centric ) - ” that are delivered by the the by delivered are that ” nce in engineering education. education. engineering in nce on learning at scale at learning on utional environment that “ that environment utional - .” Indeed, .”the theof openness identification as a ‘current leader’ in in leader’ ‘current a as identification ciated. Many noted the quality of the

33 ly global experience… 70% of their their of 70% experience… global ly program that was reported to have had had have to was reported that program

Innovation & Design & Innovation

34 ) ” in an instit cited the quality of educational research from the ” was a topic repeatedly discussed by interviewees, as as interviewees, by discussed repeatedly topic a was ”

)

either in PBL, educational change or in program program in or change educational PBL, in either

– https://engineering.purdue.edu/ENE

qualityofthe first programsyear will have had a substantial experiential experience inexperience four their a experiential substantial willhad have there are a huge number of options and electives that students can can students that electives and options of number huge a are there http://www.eng.nus.edu.sg/edic/dcp.html .”

“

–

) ed service learning, undergraduate research or study abroard abroard study or research undergraduate learning, service ed figuring how you can do hands ted the“ ngapore (Singapore) ngapore

onlyprogram within theFaculty of Engineering provideshands

- http://www.nus.edu.sg

to get some of the best students and teaching staff from across the world the across from staff teaching and students best the of some get to

.”

https://engineering.purdue.edu/EPICS bold and impressive experiment, Centric Centric Programme,( NUS - commitment to offering their students a tru students their offering to commitment http://www.purdue.edu ty’s ability “ ability ty’s as a key pillar of theuniversity’s leadership andinflue

with which Purdue University is most strongly asso strongly most is University Purdue which with

cts of NUS’s engineering undergraduate programs that were repeatedly highlighted by to engage ininternational collaborations – Phase 1 background information and feedback and information background Phase 1

35 – like internships,coops, extend and their “ National University of Si of University National Purdue University (US) University Purdue

– bal state art the bal in engineering of education – ” School of Engineering Education, Purdue University ( UniversityNational ( Singapore of Innovation & Design Purdue UniversityPurdue ( EPICS, Purdue University (

valuation valuation APPENDIX A 35 36 37 33 34

were described as a “ a as described were teaching quality supporting to committed university “ university universi the was decade past the over NUS at school engineering the across implemented developments educational take undergraduates spendatleast one semesterata university abroad Other aspe Other flexibility their included interviewees opportunities for students towork on authentic, multidisciplinarydesign challenges developand skills. leadership and creative entrepreneurial, most commonly highlighted by interviewees was the the was interviewees by highlighted most commonly Establishedin 2009, this invite A.4.6. The feature engineeringof theundergraduate program at NationaltheUniversity of Singapore scholarly research conducted by the School and the influence this has had on attitudes towards and and towards attitudes had on this has influence the and School by the conducted scholarly research t of rest the and University Purdue across both education, engineering in practices Across the engineering education community, however, it is probably the School of Engineering Engineering of School the probably is it however, community, education engineering the Across Education years more or semester one least pointed to Purdue’s leadership in “ in leadership Purdue’s to pointed of Purdue’s engineering2000 students“ School of Engineering Education, as well as the EPICS the as well as Education, Engineering School of intervi Other world. the across programs undergraduate engineering on influence significant A number of factors appeared to support Purdue University’s Purdue support to appeared factors of number A ci Some education. engineering e A.4.5. collaborate with partners across the world. Many world. the across with partners collaborate UNESCOCentre forProblem Based Learning The glo

APPENDIX A: 61 PHASE 1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND FEEDBACK - - -

- - - reflections reflections - innovation , aiming to - ranked ranked - (IRE) is anupper

long industry long - 40 Research, Innovation Innovation Research, Minnesota State State Minnesota program seeks to establish establish to seeks program

earch, education and and education earch, Engineering 2030 Engineering thatwas largelyteacher centered design and social

- – .org/outcome/research r its curricular developments. r its curricular developments. Clover 2030 Clover year engineering bachelor’s degree. - cation model model cation f each project, students are toasked submit dents. Entrepreneurship andinnovation are also

) ” both within and beyond Chile, which is reflected reflected is which Chile, beyond and within both ”

ng and prototyping their solution. The school is school The solution. their prototyping ng and centered approach to tackling the challenge, and - disciplinaryteams of studentsin their third year of - s, IRE degrees are certificated by by certificated are degrees IRE s, http://www.ingenieria2030

(PUC) is one of SouthAmerica’s most highly

http://www.uc.cl/en ) the educational pillar of the the of pillar educational the

– gy innovation and entrepreneurship. Interviewees noted, in in noted, Interviewees entrepreneurship. and innovation gy

11, the Engineering School at PUC launched a significant program of of program significant a launched at PUC School the Engineering 11, year program is entirely structured around semester around structured entirely is program year -

centered solutions to key challenges facing Chile in areas such as housing, housing, as such in areas Chile facing challenges key to solutions centered - .” that cuts across all of its operating functions: res functions: operating its of all across cuts that

course. It challenges cross challenges It course.

–

http://ire.nhed.edu 39 15 Engineering (US) pioneering visionofthe school… [thatis] poised to prominentbecome a engineering leader, ty as well as student flexibility and choice. Interviewees also noted the curricular focus on on focus curricular the noted also Interviewees choice. and flexibility student as well as ty tholic University of Chile (PUC) ( (PUC) Chile of University tholic Phase 1 background information and feedback and information background Phase 1

centered education that emphasizes multidisciplinarity, user - led institutions. In 20 In institutions. led – Clover 2030 Clover largely to the Community College student market, Iron Range Engineering Range Iron market, student College Community the to largely -

–

Iron Range Range Iron Pontifical Catholic University of Chile (Chile) Chile of University Catholic Pontifical ) oredprojects using a PBL approach, with no traditional courses. At thestart eachof semester,

bal state art the bal in engineering of education Research, Innovation and Entrepreneurship course, PUC ( Iron Range Engineering ( Pontifical Ca Pontifical

building deeper relationships industrywith and society APPENDIX A 39 course/ 40 38 directed learning is a critical element of IRE, which is supported by a significant focus on student self student on focus significant a by supported is which IRE, of element critical a is learning directed self structured and 150 around submit document asked to reflection. are students Indeed, as determinehow thesewill be achieved.At the close o Self panel. mixed a before orally, are conducted All exams report. learning a and report design both a currently fixed at 25. The two The 25. at fixed currently spons well project as to each relating and outcomes goals learning their own to define expected are students Although based on a Community College campu College Community a on based Although is intake annual its and 2009 in students to doors its opened first program The Mankato. University, Catering four a of two years final the comprising program, division A.4.8. also investing in a range of new multidisciplinarylearning spaces and maker spaces as well as a fo base evidence an provide to education engineering of department study to develop technology to develop study user a take Students inequalities. heath and waste designi before groups, user with extensively engage prominent themes within and beyond the curriculum. One such experience is the the is experience One such curriculum. the beyond and within themes prominent Entrepreneurship and “ stu to offered experiences and projects the of many in a student responsibili Moving away from a traditional Chilean engineering edu engineering Chilean traditional a from away Moving duration in years six and centered drive national capacity in technolo in capacity national drive “ the particular, internationally and regionally technology transfer. This ongoing systemic reform has been accelerated over the past three years by a a by years three past the over accelerated been has reform systemic ongoing This transfer. technology schools, engineering Chilean selected in investment government major research reform A.4.7. The CatholicPontifical University of Chile The glo

APPENDIX A: 62 PHASE 1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND FEEDBACK - they they ecting ecting ago ago about about

students

.” – s. …. It is emulates emulates - curricular activities at activities curricular - .” Such national Such.” national centered and experiential - what inspires me most inspires me what services/single - it is adventurousand it is new. Though explosion of extra of explosion supporting the unique trajectory of every every of trajectory the unique supporting .” As one interviewee commented, “ intervieweeAs.” one commented,

) /

a truly innovative model, based on good scholarly scholarly good on based model, innovative truly a n also helps to guide and inform student decision decision student inform and guide to helps n also

.” It was notedIt.”wasuniversity’s that the status as a global driven entrepreneurship and innovation across and beyond beyond and across innovation and entrepreneurship driven at Tsinghua University hastaken a national leadership - starting to be balanced by their thinking about engineering I would not have given you Tsinghua’s name a few years years few a name Tsinghua’s you given have not would I oladesthat it deserves http://www.unesco.org/new/en/media reflectio

- ifferent ways of teaching … and it is very well supported by the the by supported well very is it and … teaching of ways ifferent

ed a shift towards a more student more a towards shift a ed crop students. They take studentsthat wouldn't makeit into - .” As one interviewee commented, “

the - the Innovation Club, the Entrepreneurship Club, the Flying Club Club Flying the Club, Entrepreneurship the Club, Innovation the

of some professors are allowing students to become more adventurous, helping - – the technology and innovation skills of the country the of skills innovation and technology the

Interviewees highlighted a number of aspects of this emerging strength in strength emerging this of aspects of number a highlighted Interviewees

.” year program. With a strong program focus on “ - ” which, for some, reflect that will be based at Tsinghua University. Tsinghua at based be will that In particular, it was reported th

Phase 1 background information and feedback and information background Phase 1

different.” 41

downchange, if [faculty] come up goodwith ideas,they will try it.Iam impressed the with kind of – ct relating to student and staff communication and a learning environment that “ - that Tsinghuahad taken in enabling educational reform:“

” the continuous process of self of process continuous the ” Tsinghua University (China) University Tsinghua bal state art the bal in engineering of education ership will be further reinforced by the recent establishment of the UNESCO Centre for Engineering Engineering for Centre UNESCO the of establishment recent the by reinforced further be will ership International Center for Engineering Education ( they have changed a lot in the past five years five past the in lot a changed have they

APPENDIX A view/news/unveiling_of_international_centre_for_engineering_education 41

Tsinghua is the student groups groups the student is Tsinghua changing is it and passionate... and strong is It shots. the calling are they and fast so moving are educational approach where “ where approach educational engineers just not leaders, be to them the curriculum. A number of interviewees also spoke about the “ the about spoke also interviewees of number A curriculum. the university, the Chinese government.” Chinese refl spaces, maker and buildings new in investment the was notable Most education. engineering an increasingly strong focus technologyon it is a top a is it d into put to willing are they that support Many interviewees, particularly those based within Asia, commented upon the bold and inclusive inclusive and bold the upon commented Asia, within based those particularly interviewees, Many position lead Education position to drive educational reform in engineering schools across China, as part of the government the part of as China, across schools engineering in reform educational drive to position “ to build program supported – “ inengineering was research powerhouse education.” Many of the interviewees that identified Tsinghua University as a global ‘emerging leader’ in leader’ ‘emerging global a as University Tsinghua identified that interviewees the of Many “ that commented education engineering A.4.9. outstanding engineering departments and they turn them into independent learners in two year two in learners independent into them turn they and departments engineering outstanding very really work, that doesn’t get the press and acc the get thatwork,the press doesn’t cream any with starting not are professional practice “ was IRE that commented interviewees of number A making in their choice of projects, competencies, specialisms and ways of working. Professional Professional working. ways of and specialisms projects, competencies, choice of their in making code professional a code, dress a with program, IRE the in emphasized strongly also are expectations of condu during the two during the student, The glo

APPENDIX A: 63 PHASE 1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND FEEDBACK half half - a -

and - rated -

group to include; to group -

. 1 stitutions er of years to completion of the the of completion to years of er Table

cademic year. year. cademic rated engineering programs identified by programs identified engineering rated -

; Purdue University, Stanford University, Singapore the numb the

rated in -

the number of students in the incoming (typically first year) year) first (typically incoming inthe students of number the ted programs varyin duration from two to five

whether thedata relates tothe engineering school/department ra

the total number of tenure and tenure track faculty (professor, (professor, faculty track tenure and tenure of number total the

, for which web hyperlinks are provided. notWhere availableinthe public ghlighted are either newly established or have experienced recent increases in sources of the data presented. Most data have been gathered from publicly publicly from gathered been have data Most presented. the data of sources of faculty: of

y the term ‘engineering’ mean that the data are unlikely to be strictly comparable. With With comparable. strictly be to unlikely are data the that mean ‘engineering’ term the y

Phase 1 background information and feedback and information background Phase 1

– data source: source: data available sources concerned. universities the from directly requested was data domain, major) was selected as the most appropriate sample year sample appropriate the as most was selected major) thenumber associateprofessor and assistantprofessor) equivalentor engineering;in engineering cohort. As the top the As cohort. engineering more offer would group singlea year in population student the that decided was ityears, of number a that Given population. undergraduate total the than size program the to insight hi programs the engineering an declare to cohort the first (or cohort student incoming the numbers, student duration of the undergraduate degree: undergraduate the of duration as bachelor/master, combined or bachelor to (either degree engineering undergraduate indicated); intake: student undergraduate the university name and country location country name and university the consideration: under unit the or whether (in thecase of specialistengineering technologyand institutions) it relates tothe institution; entire Data to characterize top Data to characterize

ppendix sectionprovides broad data onthe top bal state art the bal in engineering of education

A • • • • • • APPENDIX A

universities. a 2016/17 the to relate data all stated, otherwise Unless National and institutional difference in data collection procedures and disciplinary boundaries boundaries disciplinary and procedures collection data in difference institutional and National b encompassed top 12 the of scale and profiles the of overview broad a presents table the caveat, that For each institution, data was gathered for each of the following metrics: following the of each for gathered was data institution, each For Engineering, Pontifical CatholicUniversity Chile,of (UCL). London College University and Delft TU (SUTD), Design and Technology of University The universities12 Aalborgconsidered University, are: Charles University,Sturt MinnesotaState of College Olin (NUS), Singapore of University National MIT, Engineering), Range (Iron University This in presented as study, the of 1 inPhase leaders thought The glo A.5.

APPENDIX A: 64 PHASE 1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND FEEDBACK

UCL UCL

Source Source

: 2016 NUS NUS

ASEE College College ASEE ASEE College College ASEE Purdue Purdue Delft TU -

2016

- , NUS correspondence

Summaryof

and Figures and and

rated engineering - Data source: Data with correspondence institution source: Data University, College of and Facts Engineering, Figures source: Data Stanford Profiles: University source: Data with correspondence institution source: Data Facts 2015/16) from (data faculty for source Data numbers: with institution. data for student statistics student Data source Data source: Data with correspondence institution source: Data with correspondence institution source: Data with correspondence institution source: Data MIT Profiles: sources: Data Report Annual Engineering 2016 student undergraduate enrolment Office Registrar’s source: Data with correspondence institution top

7 4 45 faculty 181 452 249 110 930 302 713 379 291 Number Number of

28 25 80 761 947 439 959 839 2706 3749 1945 1400 student intake student Undergraduate Undergraduate

7 academic year unless otherwise stated otherwise unless year academic 7

BSE) (BSc) (to BS) (to BS) (to 4 years 4 years 3 years 4 years 2 years 4 years 4 years 4 years 3 years (to BSc) (to BSc) (to BSc) (to (to BSc) (to 3.5 year 2016/ 5.5 years 5.5 years (to BEng) (to (to BEng) (to (to MEng) (to (to joint MEng) joint (to (final 2 years of of years 2 (final (3 years to BEng) to years (3 Duration of of Duration undergraduate degree

institution Science School of School of Faculty of College of Iron Range Range Iron Engineering Engineering Engineering Engineering Full Full institution Full institution UC Engineering Engineering and and Engineering UCL Engineering CSU CSU Engineering NUS Engineering NUS Unit under under Unit consideration All data refers to the

US US US US US UK Chile Australia Denmark Singapore Singapore progra Netherlands Country Phase 1 background information and feedback and information background Phase 1

–

Comparative information to characterize the institutional profile and scale of 12 of scale and profile institutional the characterize to information Comparative

bal state art the bal in engineering of education UCL TU Delft TU University SUTD Stanford Purdue Purdue University Catholic University of Chile of Engineering Pontifical Olin College NUS MIT Minnesota Minnesota State University Charles Sturt University Aalborg Aalborg University name University University APPENDIX A Table Table The glo

APPENDIX B: CASE STUDY – SINGAPORE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND DESIGN 65 (SUTD), SINGAPORE

RE e and and e

ollaboration with MIT and rate their learning between both courses courses both between learning their rate SINGAPOREUNIVERSITY centered active learning which is supported by

- SIGN (SUTD), SINGAPO (SUTD), SIGN –

TD offersalso breadth of a experiencenot traditionally CASE STUDY CASE intensive university,established in 2009 in c -

Singapore University of Technologyand Design (SUTD), Singapore

– maker spaces. SU spaces. maker

nly majoruniversity partner in the undergraduate space, SUTDwas seenby some

CASE STUDY

–

evolve in the future. This feature appears to have further supported SUTD’s global profil global SUTD’s supported further have to appears feature This future. the in evolve recognition. associatedwith engineering undergraduate study, including research opportunities,industry social and humanities in courses and opportunities teaching undergraduate internships, sciences. o MIT’s As might MIT at programs undergraduate the how into window a providing as leaders thought education that helps students to connect and integ and connect to students helps that education and years of study. Buildingupon a rigorous groundingin the fundamentalengineering design in is immersed the curriculum sciences, the art state of the study. study. the isSUTD research a of number a in distinctive are structure and approach educational Its University. Zhejiang multidisciplinary SUTD offersschools, or a no example, respects.with departments For Reasons for selection of SUTD as caseas a studyReasonsselectionfor SUTD of the as foremost identified was (SUTD) Design and Technology of University Singapore 1 Phase during of leaders consulted bythought engineering the education ‘emerging leader’ in

APPENDIX B

OF TECHNOLOGY AND DE AND OF TECHNOLOGY APPENDIX B APPENDIX The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX B: CASE STUDY – SINGAPORE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND DESIGN 66 (SUTD), SINGAPORE

2017 focused focused -

“… advance advance “…

ound a third (30%) to:

42 2016 2017) –

campus accommodation is currently currently is accommodation campus -

) which for home students are currently currently are students home for which

, the undergraduateintake inthe – ty is not structured around traditional traditional around structured not is ty 9 lation overall and 30% of those based in in based those of 30% and overall lation 2015 To To date, three cohorts of SUTDhave students Figure Figure n Tuition fees

2014 http://www.sutd.edu.sg intensive university with a mission a with university intensive -

. While . already While attracting of anresearch income annual

l undergraduate intake at SUTD (2012 SUTD at intake undergraduate l grounded leaders and innovators to serve societal needs, with a focus on a with focus needs, societal to serve innovators and leaders grounded

- . Annua 2013

It is a research termbachelor program. - Figure

Singapore University of Technologyand Design (SUTD), Singapore

are heavily subsidizedby government support. –

– 2012 does not yet feature in the global university rankings; a greater number of student student of number greater a rankings; university global the in feature not yet does

E STUDY E STUDY focused focused disciplines. - CAS

– focused focused positions. facultySUTD arehighly a international group, with ar Zhejiang University. University. Zhejiang - 0 Context The university context context university The

300 200 100 500 400

ledge and nurture technically nurture and ledge intake ersity’s target for its undergraduate student intake is 1000; on 1000; is intake student undergraduate its for target ersity’s Undergraduate Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD) (

APPENDIX B 42 originated from Singapore, 25% fromthe rest of Asia, and 40% from Europe and theUS. Over the population. student the of growth with the linein increased be will numbers faculty years, coming Theuniversity is currently home to faculty,which143 110 of tenure onare a track and 33 in are teaching university: women represent 40% of the undergraduate popu undergraduate the of 40% represent women university: engineering university’s first year of operation was 344, and it had risen to 439 by the 2017 academic year. The The year. academic 2017 by the 439 to risen had it and 344, was operation of year first university’s univ available for 600 of this cohort.Female participation is relatively high for a technology Five years since welcoming its first cohort of undergraduates, in 2012, the student and faculty faculty and student the 2012, in undergraduates, of cohort first its welcoming since years Five i illustrated As growing. are still SUTD at populations graduated from its eight its from graduated term per SIN$5700 SIN$50m, SUTD SIN$50m, inclusion. for eligible is it before graduate must cohorts disciplinary departments. Instead, both its research and educational activities are integrated within a a within integrated are activities educational and research its both Instead, departments. disciplinary structure institutional multidisciplinary Design, through an integrated multidisciplinary curriculum and multidisciplinary research.” multidisciplinary and curriculum multidisciplinary an integrated through Design, Broadlyengineering onfocused and architecture, the universi Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD) was established in 2009, in collaboration with in collaboration 2009, in established was (SUTD) Design and Technology of University Singapore and MIT know B.1.1. The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global B.1.

APPENDIX B: CASE STUDY – SINGAPORE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND DESIGN 67 (SUTD), SINGAPORE ct

” the

43 lobal hub hub lobal niversity niversity - pore’s low low pore’s human human

” among among ” Trends in in Trends global - t recent recent t

Thepastdecade has also nment has invested invested has nment )

chasing the paper grade paper the chasing arealess than half the size of

rise rapidly up the global u risethe up rapidly

) ) ) – s educational performance, performance, educational s

Singapore is also the third most densely most densely third also the is Singapore

embedded societal emphasis on on emphasis societal embedded - 44 clas - gapore (SUTD), Singapore (SUTD), https://www.weforum.org/reports/the

Singapore students topped the world rankings in rankings world the topped students Singapore

high levelsofcompetition stressand motivated culture of “ of culture motivated - 45 NUS and NTU

– http://www.iea.nl/timss ly Switzerland. ly factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html - Today, Singapore Today,is Singapore characterized low by unemployment, (TIMSS),

world - https://www.nrf.gov.sg/rie2020

d to anextrinsically 17: World Economic Forum 17: ( World

- to support the national research and innovation infrastructure, infrastructure, innovation and research national the support to

) 46 1

- aged aged children, as well “ as - http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/sin e University of Social Sciences (SUSS) Sciences Social of University e 2017 2020 -

– Singapore University of Technologyand Design

– 2016 - report which has significantly reduced the pool of prospective undergraduates in the city state: state: city the in undergraduates prospective of pool the reduced significantly has which -

ix autonomous universities are National University of Singapore (NUS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), CASE STUDY 48

International Mathematics and Science Study ( –

The national context context national The

rates, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the - Singapore has the world’s lowest fertility rate at 0.82 children born per women. Source: Central Intelligence Agency World Fa World Competitiveness Report 2016 Report Competitiveness World Trends in Research, Innovation and Enterprise 2020 Plan ( Singapore’s s The World Bank in Singapore (

APPENDIX B Book ( Singapore Management University (SMU), Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD), Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT) and Singapor 48 46 47 44 competitiveness 45 43 between 2012 and 2017 alone, the population of young people graduating high school fell by 21%. by 21%. fell school high graduating people young of population the alone, 2017 and 2012 between among Singapore’s school Singa issue of the highlighted interviewees Secondly, education. higher entering students birth particular stand out. Firstly, it was suggested that the deeply the that was suggested it Firstly, out. stand particular le has performance educational Against this backdrop of government investment and world and investment government of backdrop this Against in Two sector. education higher Singapore’s facing challenges of number a to pointed also interviewees seen the country’s most established universities universities established most country’s seen the respectively. position 11th placed in 15th and nowrankings, which are fundingbetween 2016 universities. autonomous six country’s the beyond and across extending As with the primary and secondary education sectors, the Singapore gover Singapore the sectors, education secondary and primary the with As research in SIN$19.2b committed has government the Indeed, education. higher in strategically International Mathematics and Science Study Science and Mathematics International level. secondary and primary at physics and both mathematics These investments have impressiveyielded Singaporeresults:is globally recognizedits educational for mos in the example, For levels. secondary and primary both at performance, populated country in the world: its population of 5.5 million resides in an in an resides million 5.5 of population its world: the in country populated its in heavily invested has government the resources, natural limited With Island. Rhode education. notably through most economicresourcesdrive growth, to low crime rates, and the ethnic diversity of its population. Indeed, it is now identified as the world’s world’s the as identified now is it Indeed, population. its of diversity ethnic the and rates, crime low on behind economy, competitive most second last 50 years have seen the island nation transition from a developing economy to a leading g leading a to economy developing a from transition nation island the seen have years 50 last for finance, manufacturingeducation. and B.1.2. 7.7%, of growth GDP annual an average With 1965. in republic a as established was Singapore The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX B: CASE STUDY – SINGAPORE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND DESIGN 68 (SUTD), SINGAPORE

(SMA)

iculated the MIT Alliance driven driven – - time, Singapore was

Singapore y withindustry,itwould y also

The government’s vision called

appointed team at SUTD. - 47 ly

t).

(SMART). MIT’s interest was also

50 2012); from MIT developed and submitted a

presen – 2010) – – 2010); – ” designed to nurture technology nurture to designed ” d a call for collaborators from the global higher higher global the from collaborators call for d a eas into practice using a green field, a ‘fresh start’ start’ ‘fresh a field, green a using practice into eas

Faculty Advisory Group onlearning and a strong connectivit -

funded higherfunded education from 25% to At 30%. the - funded universities: NUS, NTU and SMU. -

) ) ingtalent and applied research in three critical sectors: (i)engineering and MIT Alliance for Research and Technologyand MIT AllianceResearch for –

Singapore University of Technologyand Design (SUTD), Singapore

–

oriented [educational]approach - ” ” Singapore CASE STUDY designing SUTD’s undergraduate education (2010

– : https://smart.mit.edu launching and advancing the SUTD education (2012 education SUTD the advancing and launching The development ofTheSUTD the development education (2007 Singapore in university new a for vision the co a core group of faculty that were passionate about new modes of teaching in engineering… [who] saw saw [who] engineering… in teaching of modes new about passionate were that faculty of group core a The vision for a new university in Singapore (2007 Singapore in university new a for vision The

http://web.mit.edu/sma/ a new future new a “ id these put to way a as collaboration the curriculum.

development of the SUTD education can be structured around three broad time periods: time broad three around structured be can education SUTD the of development • • •

SMA ( SMART (

APPENDIX B 49 50 role MIT might play in its establishment, if selected as a partner. MIT put forward a vision for puta small for MIT if a partner.establishment,a vision selected forward role in as its play might MIT traditional no and year per undergraduates 1000 of intake an with university, interdisciplinary During the 18 months that followed, a a followed, that months 18 the During art and university the new of features distinctive the delineated that proposals series of driven by driven long history of partnership with Singapore through initiatives such as the the as such initiatives through Singapore with partnership of history long and laterthe In August 2008, the Singapore government issue government Singapore the 2008, August In its upon built which interest, an registered MIT university. new the establish to community education offer “ engineering. and science in careers follow to generations new inspire and entrepreneurs economic growth, foster growth, economic applied sciences; (ii)business informationand technology; and (iii) architecture and design.With an hands interdisciplinary, on emphasis for an increase in capacitythe and diversity of Singapore’shigher educationlandscape through national for engine an be to was institution new This country. the in university fourth a establishing participation rates in publicly in rates participation publicly three only to home B.2.1. national increase to plans government outlined Minister Prime Singapore’s 2007, August In stakeholders consulted for the case study. It reflects a development process forged through through forged process development a reflects It study. case the for consulted stakeholders new the and MIT government, Singapore the between collaboration The timeline is informed interviewsby with37 stakeholders and focus group discussions with 22 The The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global B.2.

APPENDIX B: CASE STUDY – SINGAPORE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND DESIGN 69 (SUTD), SINGAPORE -

; - 4 -

for

including (i)

MIT faculty; MIT broad Program ” across the country. the across ”

.”

ed with Zhejiang University in in University Zhejiang with ed

) The education and research

SUTD Winter A SUTD

located between SUTD and MIT; and SUTD between located

one mentorshipby ” - week week - to - SUTD collaboration: SUTDcollaboration: – Many interviewees noted that, in consequence, consequence, in that, noted interviewees Many e to a certain approach to design … We live in an an in live We … design to approach certain a to e

appointed President of SUTD signed a - 50 , business and university leaders and university , business for SUTD and for MITSUTDundergraduates, and involving155

MIT’s vision for the new university incorporated a design a incorporated university new the for vision MIT’s

51 , by active learning in small cohort groups. The design focus focus design The groups. cohort small in learning by active

program involving up to a year’s residency at MIT; (ii) 2 MIT; (ii) at residency up year’s a to involving program

lso placed design at the heart of the new university. As one one As university. new the of heart the at design placed lso TEAL

explained: including (i) secondments of senior MIT faculty to SUTD to co to SUTD to faculty MIT senior of secondments (i) including a bettera world by design. what are US companies doing that have the greatest market market doingthatthe greatest have are companies US what

focused focused research co center – - including amajor programof collaborative research andthe providing SUTD faculty with a range of opportunities including (i) (i) including opportunities range of with a faculty SUTD providing http://web.mit.edu/edtech/casestudies/teal.html is it almost certainly du certainly almost it is including support for (i) the development of SUTD’s institutional

– motto, “ motto, recruitment of early cohorts of undergraduate and graduate students graduate undergraduate and earlycohorts of recruitment of

The proposal a students to explore the Chinese culture and economy

ayerin the development theof MITproposal was appointed Presidentas of Teach the Teacher the Teach ed to SUTD by MIT through the MIT the through MIT by toSUTD ed

Singapore University of Technologyand Design (SUTD), Singapore Global LeadershipProgram

building: – - agreementwere to torun 2017 and 2020, respectively; its major features are teaching residencies at MIT; and (iii) one - . Soon after, a second collaboration agreementwas. sign Soon collaboration a second after, week 9 Faculty Advisory Group - Box CASE STUDY

– week co week skills: innovation and leadership students’ nurture to programs dedicated 10 the 3 the (ii) and 2017; and 2013 between participants, 2017. and 2015 between participants, 156 involving undergraduates, SUTD curriculum development: development: curriculum of 90% (over courses 93 SUTD of review and development the (ii) and curriculum; the design fields; relevant the in faculty MIT specialist by curriculum) undergraduate the development: faculty in participation institution the of marketing the (iii) leaders; academic and faculty early of hiring (ii) the policies; (iv) and institution; collaboration: research design a of establishment . Support provid. 9

“If you look at wealth creation creation wealth at look you “If Apple like capitalization, design.” through happens innovation and economy innovation well known and well respected by government • • • • • Box Technology Enabled Active Learning (

APPENDIX B 51 courses that would allow “ allow would that courses outlinedin elective several and program exchange student significant a SUTD offer would partnership this China: collaboration agreement for the foundation of the new university. university. new the of foundation the for agreement collaboration the of components was “ was newly the and MIT of President the 2010, January In SUTD. A former Dean of Engineering at MIT, he had also spent much of the past decade in Singapore in in Singapore in decade past the of much also spent had he at MIT, Engineering Dean of ASUTD. former SMART. of director rolesincludedthat the founding and economy, and portfolio research culture, Singaporean the of understanding deep a brought he Design” (SUTD), carrying the the carrying (SUTD), Design” pl key a 2009, October In centered curriculum that was underpinned was that curriculum centered and Technology of University “Singapore the university, new the of name the in reflected be also would Inspired, in part, by its experience with with experience its by part, in Inspired, disciplinary departments. departments. disciplinary the member of The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX B: CASE STUDY – SINGAPORE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND DESIGN 70 (SUTD), SINGAPORE

ts ts – - Systems Systems

; Chairman of of Chairman directed directed - so too did i did too so

stinctive stinctive more concept – edge student edge - .” SUTD’s four pillars.” four SUTD’s are: all aspects theof

. These principlesincluded . These

Provost Provost for Education and - 2012)

similar in undergraduate size to MIT to size undergraduate in similar Box Box

– – talent regionally and globally, SUTD SUTD globally, and regionally talent organized around what the world fundamentally fundamentally world the what around organized Architecture and Sustainable Design (ASD), (ASD), Design Sustainable and Architecture Using what was termed an ‘outside in’ approach, approach, in’ ‘outside an termed was what Using

: disciplinedepartments, SUTDwould be structured - rities would be shaped by the needs of industry and irst year and pillar specialisms, while MIT faculty with with faculty MIT while specialisms, pillar and year irst

SUTD would be small would small be SUTD

based design would be infused into infused be would design based perspectives fromboth Eastern and Western cultures

: SUTD would provide a learning environment that offers students In contrast toits Singaporean peers, SUTD’s curriculumwould

(ISTD).

ear and would expose students to experiences beyond the scope of of scope the beyond experiences to students expose would and ear iplinary pillars that are “ Instead of single of Instead

centered

- Technically student ratio and a pedagogical approach that emphasized self emphasized that approach pedagogical a and ratio student

- : nt

class and research intensive while also delivering a cutting

to - - Singapore University of Technologyand Design (SUTD), Singapore

Attracting the best faculty and student student and faculty best the Attracting –

: based education based - centered SUTD collaboration launched in January 2010, SUTD was reported to be “ to be was reported 2010, SUTD in January launched collaboration SUTD - class – - ” The conceptwas founded on the government’s vision for Singapore’s new university and CASE STUDY through the appointment of academic leaders, faculty and student pioneers pioneers student and faculty leaders, academic of appointment the through

designing SUTD’s undergraduate education (2010 education undergraduate SUTD’s designing – - – . The broad principles around which SUTD would be built: be SUTD would which Thearound broad . principles

A broad offer a common first y humanities in courses and internships industry including programs, engineering traditional and social sciences. societal societal change; innovation and leadership Fostering prio research and educational SUTD’s entrepreneurs; and leaders technology of new generation a nurturing on with focus a society, Small and stude staff low a with and small grouplearning; Design positive drive to technology and design of use the on emphasis with an activities, university’s consumes: products [architectural and engineering], services and systems and services engineering], and [architectural products consumes: Engineering Development, Product Engineering Design, Sustainable and Architecture andDesign andInformation Systems Technology and Design; West’ and ‘East’ of A blend and in experiences immersive World world be would education; centered Multidisciplinarity around fourmultidisc 10 Co

7. 6. 4. 5. 3. 1. 2. Box APPENDIX B educational approach and culture: the university’s Provost, Vice Provost, university’s the culture: and approach educational Following the appointment of the university President, the Singapore government made three further further three made government Singapore the President, university the of appointment the Following appointments during theturn of 2010that wouldprove critical toestablishing SUTD’s di however pedagogy. and curriculum evolving university’s the over influence curricula development were primarily driven by the MIT side of the partnership. A team of senior MIT senior of team A partnership. the of MIT side the by driven primarily were development curricula facultydrove the designSUTD’s of common f grew, capacity SUTD’s As courses. individual develop to engaged were domains specific in expertise Systems Technology and Design and Technology Systems SUTD’s of phases early the employees, of handful a just and campus no had university fledgling the As multidisciplinarity, as represented by four pillars: by four represented as multidisciplinarity, Engineering ProductDevelopment (EPD), Engineering Systems Designand (ESD) and Information than reality. than articulatedin a set principlesof developed by MIT, outlinedin B.2.2. MIT the When The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX B: CASE STUDY – SINGAPORE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND DESIGN 71 (SUTD), SINGAPORE [a] [a] and and - ”

culture culture small on how the the how on

s ” This was an an was This ” ” On joining joining On ” incredibly incredibly career faculty that that faculty career - he Singapore so that they could have have they could that so

f the decision

understoodwhat the government verymanaged, very s like a startup, we had a had we a startup, like s

mindedness and commitment commitment and mindedness the SUTD President also - it wa it potential early potential The first cohort of faculty - centered learning, they were

- an open an understandingoft side.” - ” This spirit was most evident in the array array the in evident most was spirit This ”

) ” who brought “ brought who ” together’culture, an informal atmosphere.

side and MIT SUTD partnership, enabled new and “ - – ated ated betweenSUTD andMIT.

SUTD collaboration significant autonomy and to have entrusted loc nership withcounterparts at MIT, quicklyestablished a positions in high calibre universities, both regionally and and regionally both universities, calibre high in positions setting the culture, the tone of the university from the first day - – ersity of Technology and Design ersity of Technology (SUTD), Singapore ” Many interviewees, internal and external to the university, noted noted university, the to external and internal interviewees, Many ” co https://idc.sutd.edu.sg .

to shepherd the project…. [and] make all o all make [and] project…. the shepherd to curricular activities that were soon established by this “ doc doc appointing a cadre of faculty and pillar heads pillar and faculty of cadre a appointing - 52

” For example, SUTD’s final year capstone projects were originally originally were projects capstone year final SUTD’s example, For ” Centre ( .” ” Indeed, “ Indeed, ” taking, creativity and innovation. and creativity taking,

- led extra Singapore Univ

- – ” with the establishment of SUTD. Following these appointments, the government government the appointments, these Following SUTD. of establishment the with ” risk eve exceptional young researchers young exceptional

” It was to be a culture that embraced and celebrated innovation, including in the the in including innovation, celebrated and embraced that culture a be to was It ”

CASE STUDY

cational] vision at SUTD… they were nottied to the old waysof doingthings. – we wanted to create a ‘we are all in it ” advances to be made to the evolving SUTD curriculum: “ curriculum: SUTD evolving the to made be to advances ” MIT International Design International Design MIT - specific. As new ideas emerged, the team expanded the scope of the capstone projects to - International Design Centre, Design International SUTD

APPENDIX B 52 great idea and we just did it! did just and we idea great pillar ethos, supported by the collaborative MIT collaborative the by supported ethos, exciting curriculum. pioneering its that noted consistently development SUTD’s of period this in engaged Interviewees ethos that ran counter to traditional Singapore culture, described as “ as described culture, Singapore traditional to counter ran that ethos hierarchical. group of student pioneers. of groupstudent for staff, faculty was and students a strategic priority of SUTD’s academic leadership;inthe words of one, “ student culture of “ of culture student of innovative, student students to help build the university’s profile, campus and curriculum, as well as shape its shape well as as and curriculum, campus profile, university’s the build help to students part in working cohort, This culture. new new 30 of cohort early an admitted also SUTD leadership, academic and faculty its building Alongside approached some theof world’sleading thinkers and practitioners in design. resultThe was a the leaders of as and leaders pillar as both university, to the appointments high caliber set of to the [edu the to student in development professional inengaged MIT and at residencies took faculty many SUTD, time, this At MIT. at and Singapore in both learning active centered, globally. Although few had experience or training in student in training or experience had few Although globally. reportedto be “ Singapore in March 2010. Many of the new recruits were high new recruits the Many of March in2010. Singapore post from direct SUTD came to An early priority for SUTD was “ was SUTD for priority early An SUTD the both from development curriculum appointeesjoined theuniversity shortly after it tookresidence in a temporary campus in West university takewould shape wasto achi trying MIT the given have to reported was “ leaders university of group this sensitivity to the local environment local the to sensitivity “ appointees three these President, university’s the with together that, “ deep a bring to reported was Each Trustees. of Board the The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX B: CASE STUDY – SINGAPORE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND DESIGN 72 (SUTD), SINGAPORE

– ” and SUTD’s SUTD’s and ” what does it does what as motivating their

–

ection designexperiences

centric. There was very very was There centric. -

m. In particular, particular, In m. intervieweespointed to centered design design centered

the MIT conn MIT the based - date) – typical Singapore student. They were were They student. Singapore typical powered] potato cannon, that could deliver -

disciplinary spheres of research for the - ” Inthe monthsthat followed, SUTD’s was designed to connect students’ learning learning students’ connect to designed was

– ” character of the student cohort. As one observer observer one As cohort. student the of character ” based and small group learning learning group small and based - ” A number of SUTD of number A ” quirky itoffered something differentto the other [Singaporean] first year course] ‘Introduction to Design’, and now they aand tohave they Design’,now yearfirst course] ‘Introduction

cademic leader: leader: cademic

oughout the SUTDcurriculum. For example, immersive, appointed Head of the EPD pillarstarted to developnew a bringing together final year students from across the the across from students final year together bringing first cohort of students to its undergraduate program. Many

willing to take a risk on coming to a university that didn't even exist yet ollaborative, a place you can make things happen.” things make can you place a ollaborative,

– ” in the context of the draft SUTD curriculu SUTD draft the of context the in ” design a device, a [chemically the courses [under development] were too content too were development] [under courses the ” formed between the diverse faculty teaching teams established for for established teams teaching faculty diverse the between formed ” based, c

framed around problem -

– Singapore University of Technologyand Design (SUTD), Singapore

–

), a crucialelement of the 4D approach was the application of 76 s in advanced mathematics, physics, chemistry, and humanities. The project would CASE STUDY

– long experience midway through Term 1 1 Term through midway experience long - ne ofne the most excitingof parts isSUTDthe connections betweenresearch and teachingthat would (page O

Launching and advancing the SUTD education (2012 education SUTD the advancing and Launching “SUTD attracted a very particular type of student, not the the not student, of type particular very a attracted “SUTD dynamic, entrepreneurial ideas.” of full geeky, bit little not have been possiblein traditionala university.way theThe teaching team together.comes Soa [the teach biologist a and robotocist them.” destroy to nests mosquito find to robot autonomous an] [developing together project research “

11 a week

the uncommon interactions uncommon the APPENDIX B universities,itis problem Student interviewees among this inaugural group pointed to both “ to both pointed group inaugural this among Student interviewees approach educational “ one, of words the In university. of choice In May 2012, SUTD welcomed the the welcomed SUTD 2012, May In “ and distinctive the to pointed interviewees from outside SUTD commented: B.2.3. such projects, that, in turn, helped to foster new inter new to foster helped in that,turn, projects, such a SUTD one of words the In university. foodtomedieval thata siege. castleunder was “ – from course “ to teams student upon call experiences were being integrated thr integrated being were experiences project such first The program. the of 1 Year of term each for designed were projects integrative and years of study. By early 2012, six months launchof the ahead undergraduateof the programs, 4D design Box courses different between learning connect also and courses within concepts explore both to pedagogical model, called the ‘4D’ approach, that would enable student enable would that approach, ‘4D’ the called model, pedagogical in further described As curriculum. SUTD the beyond and across embedded be to experiences concerns were raised that “ that were raised concerns curriculum. the in design little very learning, active little Provost for Education and the newly By the fall of 2011, team the tobegan think more strategically question,the about “ university? design a be to mean make them truly multidisciplinary, multidisciplinary, truly make them pillars. four university’s The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX B: CASE STUDY – SINGAPORE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND DESIGN 73 (SUTD), SINGAPORE

er er SUTD – ram ram “in this this “in address suggested

it was not

– Introduction to to Introduction slow Interview feedback

They didn't didn't They

” … [In this course] course] this … [In

too The second challenge

to the the to

” with students to to students with ” rollout of the flagship Year Year 1 the of flagship rollout

xplained: year courses. Interviewees - spending much more. much spending the fuel cell car was car cell fuel the “ ramed around a fuel cell vehicle. However, vehicle.cellHowever, a fuel ramed around town hall meeting educational vision articulated by the MIT the by articulated vision educational uncertainty. There is no right or wrong the university was also rolling out a unique unique a out rolling also was theuniversity

” of definitions of ‘design’ and of teaching styles. styles. teaching of and ‘design’ of definitions of ” directed and exploratory learning style and in in and style learning exploratory and directed - 52 at they need to do to get an A an get to todo need they at level SUTD students as teaching assistantsto provide - … students were telling us ‘we cannot cope with this thing’… this with cope cannot ‘we us telling were … students

as well otheras first

exactly wh exactly ions and deliverables; (iii) creating new classes in ‘time ‘time in classes new creating (iii) deliverables; and ions irected and active learning approach; among other facilities, facilities, other among approach; learning active and irected confusing mix the cohort. However, as one faculty member noted, noted, member faculty one as However, cohort. the

g -

page reports when they wereonly asked for 20. .” - access prototyping facilities.At the same time, the SUTD prog - e expectat e . Interviewees . SUTD to pointed importancefrom theacross foundational ” of innovative engineering education, this award represented a major major a represented award this education, engineering innovative of ” professional accreditation. With the university’s curriculum and pedagogies pedagogies and curriculum university’s the With accreditation. professional onundergraduate curriculum that remaineduntested at this scale. - Singapore University of Technologyand Design (SUTD), Singapore Introduction to Design to Introduction

ive learning amon learning ive – which was credited to the powerful

, set of cours

endedproblems posed. As one courseleader e - clear

a students were unclear about course expectations and deliverables. and expectations course about unclear were students CASE STUDY

down. They do the test and know – - facilitythatincludes open Introduction to Design to Introduction

centered, hands 2 course. These included: (i) establishing a coordinated and consistent definition of ‘design’; (ii) (ii) ‘design’; of definition consistent and coordinated a establishing (i) included: These course. -

“Students in Singapore come from a very controlled environment in Junior College that is a bit bit a is that College Junior in environment controlled very a from come Singapore in “Students top the hated they and minimal is instructions of set the 100 writing were They answer… time their manage to how know pushingatthe boundaries APPENDIX B students from both SUTD and MIT. For example, the 2D ‘potato cannon’ project originally set during during set project originally cannon’ 2D ‘potato the example, For MIT. and both SUTD from students Termthe 1 of curriculum had been replaced with a project f that students and both faculty by expressed were concerns innovation at SUTD continued to support a process of curricular development and renewal. A numb A renewal. and development curricular of process a support to continued SUTD at innovation of thesedevelopments were undertaken as collaborationsbetween faculty, academic leaders and partnership. and experimentation educational of culture collaborative the followed, that years and months the In “ SUTD milestone for 5000m provisional awarded was move to SUTD’s permanent university campus in the Changi region of Singapore in January 2015 also 2015 in January Singapore of Changi region the in university campus permanent move to SUTD’s self to a transition students’ supported a IDC, the and cohorts capstone and year first for classrooms dedicated provided campus new the support and advice in in advice and support The resolved. been had problems initial the of many 2014, in course the of iteration third the by that, articulating senior of the appointment (iv) and management’; In response, SUTD faculty and academic leaders called a “ a called leaders academic and faculty SUTD response, In introduced were measures new of number a result, a As faced. problems the Design tackling the open the tackling As a result, a As self a to adjusting in faced students difficulty the was suggested that the problems centered on two challenges. The first related to course management, management, to course related first The challenges. on two centered the problems that suggested “ a with confronted were students where firsttheoflot weruna problems [of course],had were they course, this on week per hours 12 spending of instead course, course, of thiscourse for introducing students tothe principles designof as well nurturingas a culture of and act collaborative design The first testmajor SUTDof the incurriculumAugust came with 2012, the SUTD’s launch year was a challenging period for the university’s faculty and academic leaders. As well well As leaders. academic and university’s faculty the for period waschallenging a year launch SUTD’s as driving forwardnew research groups and the IDC, The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX B: CASE STUDY – SINGAPORE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND DESIGN 74 (SUTD), SINGAPORE core core a

weenthe based on the which opened

53 , [were] [were]

house mechanisms mechanisms house - … based education, education, based -

year SUTD students yeartostudents SUTD - o theSingapore government

c project c and third centri

Learning Sciences Lab - -

UTD UTD ich offered students a clearer connection to to connection clearer a students offered ich S wh

– ) group project work in an equitable way?

” to the mutual benefits the partnership offered both universities. universities. both offered partnership the benefits mutual the to ” viewees pointed to their experience with SUTD as a major propulsion rocket rocket propulsion - he Freshman design course and in the capstone T

.”

https://sutd.edu.sg/learningsciences based inter based and the project was not using the content from all of the courses in the way we we way the in courses the of all from content the using not was project the and by by SUTD. -

–

Singapore University of Technologyand Design (SUTD), Singapore

–

framed around framed a sugararound

TD academicTD leaders and faculty.among Some thisexploring group are experiencethe of CASE STUDY –

– how can ensureSUTDthat contributions to group areprojects spreadevenly across members,its others? theefforts ofon withrelying student no to what extent does SUTD’s integrative curriculum equip students to identify and apply concepts concepts apply and identify to students equip curriculum integrative SUTD’s does extent what to topics? or problems new to courses previous in learned how can assessSUTDindividual contributions to directly influenced “ principles SUTD design ” In consequence, the faculty teaching team invited second invited team teaching faculty the consequence, In ”

. • • • Learning Sciences Lab, SUTD (

ideas and experiences in the classroom the in experiences and ideas APPENDIX B 53

to address these questions with a view to incorporating the lessons learned into the university’s university’s the into learned lessons the incorporating to view a with questions these address to design. educational A group of SUTD faculty recently submitted a SIN$1m research proposal t proposal research SIN$1m a submitted recently faculty SUTD of group A addressing questions such as: group of SU group of the of some to responding Others are up. ground the from curriculum distinctive SUTD’s creating design a delivering with associated and opportunities challenges its doors in July 2016. The university’s evolving curriculum and pedagogy will also be propelled by its its by propelled be also will pedagogy and curriculum evolving university’s The 2016. July in doors its by forward driven being is and research, educational inbase evidence and expertise growing and profile must flourish independently. universityThe is putting in placenewin the as such development, educational ongoing support to Theend educationalof the partnership with newMIT heralds a for phase SUTD, one itswherebrand in MIT’s Department of Nuclear Science & Engineering were described to be be to described were Engineering & Science Nuclear of Department MIT’s in Indeed, a number of MIT of number a Indeed, reforms educational recent the example, For curricula. and courses own their to change for inspiration two institutions. Interviewees attributed this commitment to a continuing collaboration and to sharing sharing to and collaboration continuing a to commitment this attributed Interviewees institutions. two “ The educationalformal partnership between endedMIT and SUTD in 2017. Intervieweesboth from bet continue will connections educational informal that however, clear, made SUTD and MIT redesign the project. In collaboration with faculty leaders from MIT, a completely new project wasproject new leadersMIT, a completely faculty from with redesigncollaboration project. In the developed courses. 1 Term linked the exciting for the students students the for exciting liked The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX B: CASE STUDY – SINGAPORE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND DESIGN 75 (SUTD), SINGAPORE

. - 11 ” and and ”

Box

.” based based - such as

– curricular - the rigor and and rigor the a flat hierarchy class size rarely

rt from its national

workshop and ‘fab lab’ lab’ ‘fab and workshop

” and“ the studentpopulation is

. Each pillar. brings Each together

is described further in in further described is

– ” among ” on learning is also a major feature of state of the art the of state -

engage in multiple design projects and and projects design multiple in engage

s week industryinternship, and are - termed ‘4D’

– led activities, which may include teaching teaching include may which activities, led nt interviewees alikepointed to “ - curricular activities call upon students to develop and - based, and many, particularly in Year 1 of study, adopt an an adopt study, of 1 Year in particularly many, and based, - the SUTD pedagogy is underpinned by design by underpinned is pedagogy SUTD the

the SUTD curriculum offers a breadth ofeducation not

unrestricted access to the culture here is just so open, you can talk to anyone, no no anyone, to talk can you open, so just is here culture the

for the for remainderthe of their studies SUTD is not structured around “traditional engineering siloes”

– centered education education centered - camaraderie and community spirit faculty and stude

led clubs and researchprojects. In addition, by their graduation, all ” at SUTD: “ SUTD: at ” ss these [disciplinary] boundaries… they tackle the whole problem whole the tackle they boundaries… [disciplinary] these ss - based learning: based - ” This “ This ” the foundations of the curriculum that came from MIT from came that curriculum the of foundations the Singapore University of Technologyand Design (SUTD), Singapore

– urses, while others span multiple courses and years of study. This distinct multi distinct This study. of years and courses multiple span others while urses, ” that this implies, four features were consistently highlighted: consistently were features four implies, this that ” d by SUTD’s extensive use of small group learning. Throughout the first year (three (three year first the Throughout learning. group small of use extensive SUTD’s d by and maker up’ atmosphereup’

- - our students don't think of themselves as a mechanical engineer or a civil engineer. Real Real engineer. civil a or engineer mechanical a as themselves of think don't students our ering Systems & Design Design & Systems ering “ problems acrosit e curriculum is dedicated to humanities and social sciences (HASS). Non (HASS). sciences social and humanities to dedicated is curriculum e ortunities, student CASE STUDY

– a ‘start a encouraged to spend time abroad on study exchanges or organized summer programs. summer organized or exchanges study on abroad time spend to encouraged of th the at month one and week per afternoons two with emphasized, also are experiences student to dedicated year the of beginning opp 16 least one at completed have must students SUTD a breadth of student experience: student of breadth a (22%) fifth a over example, For study. undergraduate engineering with associated traditionally and doesnot offer conventionalengineering disciplinary degrees.Instead, studentsstudy a pillars multidisciplinary four of one within specialize then and year first common Engine faculty from and across beyond engineeringdisciplines: supporte interact they whom with 50, of groups cohort within exclusively work students study, of terms) indeed, classroom: dedicated a within projects and classes curricular all in study. of years all in 50 exceeds approach: multidisciplinary a refine physical prototypes of their design ideas. design theirideas. refineprototypesphysical of culture: collaborative a “ are. they who matter Very few of SUTD’s classes are lecture are classes SUTD’s of Very few Hands approach. classroom’ ‘flipped and/or experiential largely With curriculum. SUTD the facilities, projects,many courses and non design active learning. Throughout all years of study, student single within located are Some focus. of areas and durations scales, of range a on experiences co or classes design to approach layered SUTD’s approach educational

• • • • APPENDIX B

academic standards academic Interviewees were asked to identify the distinguishing features that set SUTD apa SUTD set that features distinguishing the identify to asked were Interviewees and globalpeers. Noting “ The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global B.3.

APPENDIX B: CASE STUDY – SINGAPORE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND DESIGN 76 (SUTD), SINGAPORE

a 83

the long long

Year

- The hem hem

. often

concepts 2D (page

on - 13 erm 3 of of 3 erm time on their - concepts concepts

curriculum to

designedto . , allowing t Box be this this be est scale, scale, est s allow students to led - allowstudents to

designprojects

span a full semester. project project most recent courses. recent most

The includeddatain given in The themes The for themes

engage full engage using the principles of of principles the using

. . 3 theproject is advanced style integrate and apply are

can

- Many take a hands a take Many , for example,, for competitive course, students spend one one spend students course,

activities term

Table dwide. Most, however, follow substantial 3D

: SUTD takes a very different 30 worl undergraduate research and and research undergraduate entire –

Physics II Physics class design exercise learning. - courses. in the ESD pillar embeds a semester

2D projects 20 and programming. In some cases, all The scale and focus of these design

: the activities apply exploreand

each iteration, iteration, each long capstone long by students in their in students by -

for example, theproject in2D T student are 4D activities onradar a gun, participation in participation

learning.

: 1D so that students students that so are integratedthroughout the

: course course be more immersive and and immersive more be SUTD’s undergraduate program undergraduate SUTD’s ongoing

Design (SUTD), Singapore across

red ipated in ipated e eir eir learned in the Year 1 1 Year the in

run through

s projects projects cent

- SUTD has coined the term ‘4D’ to descri me 1D experiences may be short, discrete exercises, exercises, discrete short, be may experiences 1Dme

that are studied concurrently. The project themes project The concurrently. studied are that So

during coursesin three separate terms, student teamsbuild a

are outlined below: principles athletics, studies, cultural directed, with teams asked to formulate a suitable project brief brief project suitable a formulate to asked teams with directed,

For example, For -

activities and eature of engineering curricula engineering of eature her 1D exercises may Ot technical systems, optimization systems, technical

student will have partic have will student esign esign Data and Business Analytics Business and Data specific course. specific

in the form of a single, semester single, a of form the in apply design

sit a single project over time; with with time; project over single a sit a a diverse range of subject areas; e newideas or concepts as they arebeing taught; at thelarg techniques and concepts

Singapore University of Technologyand growing algae for biofuels, and draws together learning from the courses in courses the from learning together draws and biofuels, for algae growing

SUTD

two or more courses courses more or two rses are suspended for one week one for suspended rses are In othercases, 2Dproject – experiences spanning multiple years of study are used to consolidate and and consolidate to used are study of years multiple spanning experiences and .

on often ended d ended

layered approach to design to approach layered - g across a range of topics. topics. of range a g across cou are often student - s within

of the ‘4D’ approach

each each extualiz across Open design activities, spanning multiple courses multiple spanning activities, design

explore explore

CASE STUDY focuse

– to to projects, community teams, activities. entrepreneurial using the new the using pillar, EPD the in example, For 3D another of Details performance. and efficiency its improve progressively and windmill which focuses pillar, EPD the from also project, curriculum the outside activities, 4D design 2D project projects linked the of each from concepts encompasses that time over progressively building activities, 3D design repeatedly revi 2D 2D from together draw 1 chemistry, biology, relevant confined to a single class. single a to confined afternoondesigning and constructing speakers from a paper plate electromagnetism. the example, For partners. by industry posed problems real to tackle teams in work students where 1D project 1D design activities, within a single course single a within activities, 1D design learned

: The ‘4D’ educational approach atTheSUTD educational ‘4D’approach :

is distilled from interviews with stakeholders to to stakeholders with interviews from distilled is 11 • • • • themes explored during many of these projects are redesigned regularly, keeping the challenges challenges the keeping regularly, redesigned are projects these of many during explored themes ‘fresh’. By graduation, The layers four immersive project immersive learninreinforce multi distinctive, approach, asking studentsto deliver a workingprototype. in short, scale, smallest the at enormously: vary experiences apply and cont consolidate learning from across the undergraduate program. program. undergraduate the across from learning consolidate approach. th reinforce and integrate explore, help students Design projects are a familiar f familiar a are projects Design structure, similar Box APPENDIX B table table Key features of SUTD’s educational approach are outlined below, in in below, outlined are approach educational SUTD’s of Key features The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX B: CASE STUDY – SINGAPORE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND DESIGN 77 (SUTD), SINGAPORE ” ”

Teach

support support

based . A team -

e background; three days of y SUTD faculty and and faculty y SUTD –

house house center to active learning active - we have only had haveweyears threehad only and and

an an in

track facultywhich focuses -

53 term curriculum. ). -

centered active learning, with a a with learning, active centered -

urriculum developand new dimensionsof engineering problems B.2.3 tenure as well as through group discussion group discussion through well as as

track faculty. Interviewees suggested - the professional developmentand support Except ASD, electives make up over half of of half over up make ASD, electives Except

teaching isteaching not inrewardedany exceptional

” for” its design education Details a major element of the SUTD education, with with SUTD the education, of element a major educational research ismore prominent thanat most ” alongsideand projects problems. to bring strong qualificationsin mathematics and physics. s to rebalance the priorities of these reward systems. reward of these priorities the rebalance s to n suchareas activeas learning, facilitation, design ” Some Some ” noted, as however, that “ specific departments or degree programs, the SUTD education is ” ofMany the educational papers published b - r as found atNUS, which is home to 27 times more students. SUTD education approach and support systems support and approach education SUTD on learning and prototyping, and learning on - the USpromotion the system development ofstudents’ intrinsicdevelopment motivation early in studies,their the the the

extended lectures extended curricular learning is is learning curricular - rounds, scope exist scope rounds, solving. Some of the specialist courses and electives in the pillar years, however, - technical aptitudedesign, for multidisciplinarylearning anda willingness to risks.take program at MIT. A number of ad hoc pedagogical training workshops were also

led extra led - . . Keyfeatures of Singapore University of Technologyand Design (SUTD), Singapore 2

students’ team projects. Indeed, 70% of the marks awarded for the final year capstone capstone final year the for awarded of70%marks the Indeed, projects. team students’ –

passion for for passion Interviewees suggested that, at SUTD, “ SUTD, at that, suggested Interviewees universities. intensive research of themes on the focused are leaders academic conduct to government Singapore the to proposal a submitted recently also have SUTD from c SUTD in the learning student to evaluate study a major Section (see projects group design for tools assessment Student dedicated timeset aside periods for these activities. students engage to in Since the early ‘student pioneers’joined SUTD in 2010, over 90 clubs andsocieties have beenformed at the university, the numbe same project onis based products bysubmitted such student teams, asreports. andprototypes of much SUTD, of phases development early the the In in participating faculty SUTD 40 with MIT, by provided was learning and teaching in the Teacher i campus, SUTD the on organized Lab, Science Learning the established SUTD 2016, In learning. educational development among the university’s faculty. tenure 110 and ‘lecturers’ 33 employs currently SUTD that SUTD has adopted “ “ where outcomes, research on almost exclusively way unless you crazy.mess up like of promotion” intrinsically multidisciplinary. The programs span science, engineering and architecture and and With discipline no traditional architecture and engineering science, span programs The multidisciplinary. intrinsically encourage students lookto beyond the purely technical through,for example, HASS coursesand design projects. Much ofSUTD curriculum the is delivered through design particular focus hands on problem and “ use to reported were the support to order In two sit students Thereafter, graded. is not program SUTD the of term first exams at of the end term. each However, of the much assessment is linkedcontinuous and to were shortlisted and 439 enrolled. Although no fixed entry criteria are specified, most most specified, are criteria entry fixed no Although enrolled. 439 and shortlisted were expected are candidates shortlisted interviewed. are candidates shortlisted all where Singapore in university only is the leader, SUTD academic SUTD one of words the in with, candidates identify to used are Interviews “ of the 30% at is capped accept to is able SUTD that students overseas of proportion The Colleg a Junior have 80% around intake, student Singaporean Of the cohort. the rest studiedat Polytechnics or took Internationalan Baccalaureate. Year1 of SUTD’s isprogram common allfor Studentsstudents. then select their pillar onwards. 2 from Year is studied which specialism, the pillar curricula. Students alsoare given significant choice and flexibility over the focus and eight the throughout embedded which are projects, scope of In 2017, SUTD received 3700 applications from prospective undergraduates, from which 900 900 which from undergraduates, prospective from applications 3700 received SUTD 2017, In

Table Table

CASE STUDY

– curricular curricular - feature teaching feedback approach disciplines Criteria for for Criteria selection ofselection Educational Educational Educational Educational Reward and and Reward Pedagogical Pedagogical work across across work Teaching and and Teaching opportunities Flexibility and and Flexibility recognition of of recognition student intake student student choice student Extra Assessment and and Assessment learning support learning Opportunities to to Opportunities research activities research APPENDIX B The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX B: CASE STUDY – SINGAPORE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND DESIGN 78 (SUTD), SINGAPORE

e -

. B.4.3 s in duration and and duration in s B.4.1 AsianLeadership

ogram ogram isthree and a to participate in a a in participate to is taken from EPD. The The EPD. from taken is

, where students engagmay

Figure Figure aniesin Zhejiang tory courses in design, HASS and the the and HASS design, in courses tory . It comprises three major. It comprises components: three thetwo ‘summer’ terms at the start of Years

. led activities are a major part of university life. life. university of part major a are activities led five beforemonths peer Singaporean - day afternoons to enable students to devote this this devote to students enable to afternoons day

weightedcourses. Beyond these timetabled curricular activities offered both between and and between both offered activities curricular - – - Figure Figure ” Internships are typically 16 week 16 typically are Internships ” B.4.2 . student

and regional comp Independent Activities Period Activities Independent curriculum illustrated in illustrated curriculum

” Activities extend beyond student clubs and societies. For For societies. and clubs student beyond extend Activities ”

The FreshmoreThe isyearexplored further in Section

The pillar curricular activity are given particular prominence: - led activities: . - is unusual in a number of respects. The bachelor pr bachelor The respects. of number a in unusual is

broadeningexperiences during the final two terms of study, students from across SUTDengage in a

the first year of study is common to all students and provides foundational foundational provides and students all to common is study of year first the

lumis built from four equally curricular pursuits, which might include courses or overseas field trips linked to on leadership program. Other summer program partners include Stanford in duration and starts in May May in starts and duration in - - Singapore University of Technologyand Design (SUTD), Singapore

in lower year groups. Around a half of undergraduates also engage in non curricular passions. curricular - students continue their SUTD education within one of four multidisciplinary pillars: multidisciplinary four of within one education SUTD their continue students –

extra , during, which around 100 SUTD studentseach yearspend weeks13 at theuniversity’s during whatwould traditionallybe considered the ‘summer’break. The academic yearis based multidisciplinary capstone project, as described further in Section Section in further described as project, capstone multidisciplinary based

- – time in non CASE STUDY -

academic calendar – particular courses of study. During this period, the university also runs training courses to to courses training runs also university the period, this During study. of courses particular internships. their for students prepare example, many students take up roles as teaching assistants, to support and guide the learning learning the guide and support to assistants, teaching as roles up take students many example, of their peers of month the In addition, researchers. and faculty with SUTD projects research curricular January each isyear as assigned an full University, the University of California, Berkeley and TU Berlin. Berlin. TU and Berkeley California, of University the University, student independent, Fri or Wednesday on scheduled are classes No “ to time programs or other “ other or programs are supported by over 700 industrypartners. Summer programs include the Program University, Zhejiang partner, Chinese hands bespoke summer internships and overseas experiences: overseas and internships summer summer exchanges, overseas internships, in engage to students for left open are 2 and 3 Curriculum design Capstone project: Capstone team engineering pillar themes. themes. pillar engineering Pillar years: ISTD and ESD EPD, ASD, Section in further explored are pillar years Freshmore year: Freshmore introduc well as as science and mathematics in courses

• • 3. 2. 1. APPENDIX B during terms. Two types of non of types Two during terms. Each term of the curricu non on emphasis considerable places SUTD courses, universities universities also long comparedto national and global peers, comprising three terms of 14 weekseach. The SUTD terms) (eight years half An overview of the SUTD curriculum is provided in in provided is curriculum SUTD the of overview An The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global B.4.

APPENDIX B:

CASE STUDY – SINGAPORE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND DESIGN 79 (SUTD), SINGAPORE

CAPSTONE PROJECT The curriculum closes with a two-term multidisciplinary capstone project undertaken in collaboration with industry.

3½ BEng , pillar. electives 3 . EXCHANGE / INTERNSHIP The curriculum integrates a 18-week period at the beginning of the second and third years of study for students to engage in internships, summer programs or overseas exchanges. internship / exchange Engineering Product Development Engineering Product Development Engineering Product Development , with the ‘pillar years’ taken from EPD from taken years’ ‘pillar the with 2 design courses Information Systems Technology and Design Information Systems Technology

, and Architecture and Sustainable Design Architecture and Sustainable INDEPENDENT ACTIVITIES PERIOD Throughout January of each year, students engage full-time in independent pursuits, such as undergraduate research projects, student-led clubs and exchange programs. independent activities period The curriculum structure outlined below is taken from the The curriculum structure outlined PILLAR YEARS such as onwards, rather than selecting traditional specialisms From the second year of study of four computer science, students select to specialize in one mechanical engineering or multidisciplinary pillars: Engineering Systems and Design 1 . Outlinestructure of the SUTD curriculum, in week 10 of the ﬁnal term 10 design project

Figure of the Freshmore year, students engage full time in a week-long project where they apply their learning from the four concurrent, compulsory courses. EXAMPLE OF 2D DESIGN ACTIVITY 2D design activities are integrated throughout the eight-term curriculum to allow students to apply and integrate their learning across multiple courses. For example, core disciplinary core disciplinary content in humanities and social sciences. All in humanities and social sciences. cohort courses are taught in small groups. FRESHMORE YEAR on The ﬁrst year of study is focused foundational science and mathematics, courses supported by two introductory Singapore University of Technologyand Design (SUTD), Singapore

0 – CASE STUDY

– humanities and humanities and social sciences courses This ﬂagship Freshmore course introduces students to design thinking and explores key tools and techniques used at each stage of the design cycle. INTRODUCTION TO DESIGN APPENDIX B education art in engineering the state of The global APPENDIX B: CASE STUDY – SINGAPORE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND DESIGN 80 (SUTD), SINGAPORE

2D Project 2D week - of a

had had

p and

–

– . 11 based learning is learning based chasing the paper thepaper chasing - (i) foundational TERM 3 TERM Figure Figure

on,design - Chemistry Biologyand the Modelling World Systems thein Engineering World Physical Digital The World them out of of out them

Independent activities period activities Independent livered and supported foreach of shaking orking as part of these cohort

” . SUTD’s Freshmore year Freshmore SUTD’s

course in Term 2. Term in course s structured around activities such as group group as such activities around s structured

is the small class sizes. TheFreshmore year adopts

– both inside and outside of the curriculum

–

TERM 2 TERM 2D 2D Project ... People are willing to help each other. Willing to stay u stay to Willing other. each help to willing are People ...

Introduction to to Design Introduction Physics II Physics HASS II HASS Society, Theorizing theSelf and Culture Advanced II Mathematics with every day for three terms. You stop being academically based projects projects based

. Curriculumstructure of group approach places considerable demands on campus space and and space campus on demands considerable places group approach - year student: - - Introduction to Design to Introduction students’ intrinsic motivation and “ and motivation intrinsic students’ 11

, the Freshmore year bringstogether four components: ore University of Technology and Design (SUTD), Singapore

interact 2D Project 2D Figure

Box Singap

solving, prototyping and team competitions. Another striking feature feature striking Another competitions. team and prototyping solving, - – engagement and ambition. Many noted that w that noted Many ambition. and engagement it is more collaborative more is it approach; students spendthe yearworking exclusively in a cohort group of 50within a

TERM 1 TERM CASE STUDY

– based - weighted required courses across thethree terms of study, as outlined in - Freshmore year “these 50 people you you people 50 “these competitive, SUTD to unique very is This group. another help to night all ” In thewords of one final

. Physics I Physics Biologyand Chemistry NaturalWorld HASS I HASS civilizations World and texts Advanced I Mathematics cohort APPENDIX B mathematics and science courses; (ii) introductory HASS courses; (iii) major, immersive 2D projects in in projects 2D immersive major, (iii) courses; HASS introductory (ii) courses; science and mathematics the (iv) and study; of term each As explored further in in further explored As been instrumental in nurturing in instrumental been grade building students’ students’ building team immersive on communities nine separate cohort groups. However, interview feedback from students, graduates and faculty alike alike faculty and graduates students, from feedback interview However, groups. cohort nine separate and cohort the across support of community a nurturing in plays it role transformative the underlined dedicated classroom. This small This classroom. dedicated facultyteaching eachteams; and course project activitybe mustde discussions, problem discussions, year per students 450 around of intake an despite a program in a number of respects. One is the extent to which active, hands active, which to extent the is One respects. of number a in program clas every almost with curriculum, the into integrated equally TheFreshmore looksyear and feels very differentthe to first year of a engineeringconventional terms cover material traditionally associated with both a Freshman curriculum and the first half first the and curriculum Freshman a both with associated traditionally material cover terms 12 together brings it students, allfor incoming year common a as Offered curriculum. Sophomore B.4.1. 14 three extended its because called so year, the ‘Freshmore’ termed is study year of first SUTD’s The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX B: CASE STUDY – SINGAPORE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND DESIGN 81 (SUTD), SINGAPORE

- ’, of

the the D.” askedto

an an , newlythree : the systems were eams could could eams and

pillars – of close the At ” . world ‘better by design

n exploration of“ ended problems, which which problems, ended - focusthe of Freshmore

and also drawsupon what

eering One example is from the the from is example One key

open the firstprovides “

e a engin

are ” through a through ”

school children school

t - .” It also offers a structured introduction introduction structured a offers also It powered rocket. The project drew drew project The rocket. powered o SUTD to review evaluateand the

ample,in 2017, the majorproject 2D in - ” each assigned one of the 20 core core 20 the of one assigned each . by students, faculty and academic academic and faculty by students,

curriculum. In the final term

uncertainty and were to SUTD the technological body’

law or electromagnetic waves waves electromagnetic or law of 1D of and1D 2D activities.

troduction to SUTD’s SUTD’s to troduction an introduction to the dominant disciplines in social social in disciplines dominant the to introduction an use e chosen courses. All cohorts are facilitated by one one by facilitated are cohorts All courses. chosen e sets the tone for everything the students do here at SUT “at JuniorCollege, students can channelthemselves intothe Student teams teams Student

“ provided in the Freshmore year: Freshmore the in provided

and systemdynamics), thephysical world (covering topics such

the importance of HASS in broadening students’ experiences beyond beyond experiences students’ broadening in HASS of importance the such as Gauss’ Gauss’ as such are that that

– ”

ugar and potassium nitrate); physics (focused on the friction friction the on (focused physics nitrate); potassium and ugar explained:

to help studentsto deal with heir focus oncontent delivery, allFreshmore foundational courses are

courses , in Term 2 of study,was described is embedded into each Freshmore term and calls upon students to integrate integrate to students upon calls and term Freshmore each into embedded is n 2017, for example, student teams were asked to identity, design and and design identity, to were asked teams student example, for n 2017,

children and their teachers are invited t invited are teachers their and children

Singapore University of Technologyand Design (SUTD), Singapor As one one As

– ” ” while the second offers “ offers second the while ” flagship course , operations reserach standards are high; much of the content covered, particularly during the first two two the first during particularly covered, content the of much high; are standards

intervieweesnoted “ school - as“ a minute teachingmodule to explain this conceptto high

ming). Despite t Despite ming). long project, each rocket was tested and the teams presented a poster of the research research the of poster a presented teams the and tested was rocket each project, long technical.

CASE STUDY high m -

15 Many Many . –

” . : The four core components of SUTD’s Freshmore year Freshmore of SUTD’s The four core : components foundational HASS courses HASS foundational 12 design a finalproject is graded by faculty from thes architect and engineer.one had been learned in at least two of the courses studied in Term 2. So, for example, t example, for So, 2. in Term studied courses the of two least at in learned had been the consider or mathematics) in learned algebra linear the upon (drawing positioning global utilize The course). HASS science social their on (drawing design their on interactions social of influence steps in the design cycle. These tools are applied in the Term 2 major 2D project that runs that runs project 2D 2 major the Term in applied tools are These cycle. design the steps in I term. the throughout ‘ of theme the to responds that product a prototype major goal of the course is “ is course the goal of major coming before had have will many experiences not are progressive underpin that ideas and tools key explore students week, each in thinking; design to Introduction to Design to Introduction alike leaders distance travelled by the rocket); and HASS (focused on the social impact of rockets). At the close the At rockets). of impact social the on (focused HASS and rocket); the by travelled distance week this design. their underpinning upon content from each of the Term 1 courses: from chemistry (focused on the power generated generated power the on (focused chemistry from 1 courses: Term the of each from content upon from the chemical reaction of s the predicting on (focused mathematics rocket); the tether to used wire rope by the generated One major 2D project 2D One major ex For term. that studied courses four all from learning their Term 1student asked teams to assemble and launch a sugar a connection between technology and the humanities…if SUTD wants to make the make to wants SUTD humanities…if the and technology between connection a society appreciate and world the understand to need students then science purely the make and exposure that build to need We science. social to exposure little very have They stream. science Two buil was civilization our which upon philosophies the to introduction world’s great books term, the the term, modules 2017 iteration of the Physics II course. II course. Physics the of 2017 iteration the in covered concepts “ as thermodynamics statics)and andthe digitalworld (introducing modularity and abstraction wellas as progra extensive with learning active in immersed terms of study, was directly translated over from the MIT MIT the from over translated directly was study, of terms in an provide courses foundational developed (including world Foundational mathematics, science and engineering courses engineering and science mathematics, Foundational Academic year. Box APPENDIX B The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX B: CASE STUDY – SINGAPORE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND DESIGN 82 (SUTD), SINGAPORE -

ESD and

ck’ within within ck’

. TERM 8 TERM allows students

12 HASS ELECTIVE HASS Advanced/ technical electives Advanced/ technical electives

Figure Figure .

considers how technology technology how considers

Film Studies Capstone projectCapstone

TERM 7 TERM to speak tothe intersection between HASS ELECTIVE HASS Advanced/ technical electives Advanced/ technical electives pillars, all incorporate the following three

as machinelearning. Introduction to Algorithms to Introduction

Technology and the Self ween focus track inISTD offers ‘core’ classesinnetworks and

TERM 6 TERM offered;most of the curriculum is devoted to ‘core’ courses. focused focused and active,withextensive use themade of

- Core electives Core electives HASS ELECTIVE HASS Core electives considers Asian philosophies and and philosophies Asian considers

for example,

–

” Cyber Security Cyber Project 2D . Outline structure of the EPD pillarcurriculum Indeed, one of themost striking features of thepillar curriculais the

ies. uce their own short films. short own their uce When choosing electives, most students opt to follow a ‘focus tra ‘focus a follow to opt students most electives, choosing When TERM 5 TERM

Figure 54 students select five HASS elective courses from around 40 options. Two broad broad Two 40 options. around courses electivefrom HASS five select students . Computational Structures

Singapore University of Technologyand Design (SUTD), Singapore Core electives System and control Engineering and design eng. project HASS ELECTIVE HASS

during the first two to three terms of each pillar, students take a number of of number take a students pillar, each of terms three to two first the during –

: on on completion of the ‘core’ pillar courses,much theof curriculum is devotedto pillar

Sages Through the Ages : outlines some of the2D 3Dand projects integratedinto the EPD curriculum;pillar a

2D Project 2D 13

rses include include rses CASE STUDY

Box Box – types of HASS elective are offered. Some are designed “ designed are Some offered. are elective HASS of types technology and sciences social for sciences; social and humanities in immersion pure a offer Others identity. influence can example, prod and explore to an identified field of interest, which typically comprises both requiredcourses wellas as open the example, For electives. and security, wellas electivesas in fields such HASS electives required courses that are fundamental to the subject. For example, in ISTD, these ‘core’ pillar example, these in ISTD, ‘core’ For to the subject. requiredarethat fundamental courses cou electives electives specific pillar ‘core’ pillar Pillar years Pillar TERM 4 TERM Although the curriculum structure varies bet varies structure curriculum the Although

. • • • Structures and materials Probability and statistics Circuits and electronics HASS ELECTIVE HASS In In the ASD pillar, only a limited number of electives are

APPENDIX B 54 selected by around 120 students each year. The EPD curriculum is outlined in in outlined is curriculum EPD The each year. 120 students by around selected extent to which 1D, 2D and 3D activities are intertwined across and between courses and years. For For years. and courses between and across intertwined are activities 3D and 2D 1D, which to extent example, courses. The pedagogical approach is design is approach pedagogical The courses. facilit prototyping university’s The coveredcontentduring pillarthe years draws heavily MIT courses,on particularlyinthe ‘core’ ISTD components: B.4.2. EPD, ASD, ‘pillars’: multidisciplinary four of one in specialize students year, Freshmore the After The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX B: CASE STUDY – SINGAPORE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND DESIGN 83 (SUTD), SINGAPORE

4 – that that

– , such ’

System System connects connects this

core core

5 to improve and and improve to

. It asks . student focus focus tracks course: every 3 every course: term project from Term 5

- connects with a with a connects

Electromagnetism & & Electromagnetism harvesting windmill or or windmill harvesting wheel that converts a ur - - fo course , this 2D project is ) course with the Term heir learning heir

specialist ‘ Rally Championship 2D Materials t

course. The project is project The course. (toprocess and analyze the

Engineering Design & Product Product & Design Engineering

of the EPD curriculum, the the

– 4 and

course asks students to build a simple simple a build to students asks course

Term Structures &

spherical robot: student teams are first are first teams student robot: spherical 4 a are given below, illustrating 2D and 3D the first iteration of a a of iteration first the Structures & Materials Structures & System & Control System

Signal Processing

Structures & Materials designed to introduce students to concepts are askedto apply

” that draws on concepts from both courses; the the courses; both from concepts on draws that ” ith one of EPD’s nine nine EPD’s of one ith (to develop a positioning radar for use on a boat).

and of an aircraft bridge; offers

within each course, 2D and 3D activities are Term Term 5

Circuits & Electronics & Circuits course, taken in taken course,

students drive wheelchair. As well as exploring the content of the the of content the exploring well As as wheelchair. drive the Term Term the - ,

Circuits & Electronics & Circuits to develop a feedback control system for a cart robot. robot. cart a for system control feedback a develop to . Past projects have included projects . a have mono Past

with

linked with the Term Term the with linked

courses: courses: embedded embedded

Fluid Mechanics Fluid So, the So, to advance the design of of design the advance to linked EPD

and Engineering Design & Product Engineering Product & Design Engineering

Circuits& Electronics 5 ( curriculum. Two examples Circuits & Electronics & Circuits

projects, including: projects, two

time 2D project 2D time moves from the hardware, to the system and then to the software of the of to the software then theand system to hardware, the from moves 2D activities Materials Science

- - EPD EPD 1D activities 1D activities participating course participating Term Term Circuits& Electronics

Singapore University of Technologyand Design (SUTD), Singapore give students a feeling of what track they might want to follow”

where

– courses and (to refine the antennaedesign), in

mini

g 2D project project g 2D

each each core core

2D and 3D long full long to come up withtheir own projectidea lon long 2D project 2D long - - in -

he the the t

: :

. 2 Robotics CASE STUDY course: term week 3D activity term

adar: o their robot, which could be used in any application of theirchoosing. onto multiple – askedto evaluate and disassemble a spherical robot produced as part of SUTD faculty new features prototypeunique three and propose, design, model thenresearch. must They t Held in the middle of the term, the project is project the term, the of middle the Held in must cart each week, the of the close As controllers. PID and diagrams block such as competition elimination an in course obstacle an navigate public. the to open is a a chassis. the robot including components, of kit basic with a provided are Student teams the radar is then improved during the during improved then is radar the 7 includingand electives 8, Terms during revisited EPD of innumber a Application the radar) from signal a focused on guns.Asradar students progressthrough the curriculum, the focus of ongoing project r design. refine radar’s the of control The highway. the on cars of speed the measure to it use and radar frequency low as electric into an wheelchair manual feeder two “ to designed onwards; weeks, students engage in a ‘mini 2D’ project that integrates key concepts covered that week week that covered concepts key integrates that project 2D’ ‘mini a in engage students weeks, energy an building include projects These courses. two the of each in vibration the detect to device a creating a “ teams only stipulationis that it mustbe alignedw a series of : Examples of the use of 2D and 3D activities in the EPD pillar

13 • • • • • & Control EXAMPLE linked which are of both activities, 2D two including projects, number of EXAMPLE 1 EXAMPLE of range a with projects that connect with connect that projects Engineering In additi In the across interwoven Box APPENDIX B The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX B: CASE STUDY – SINGAPORE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND DESIGN 84 (SUTD), SINGAPORE ,

guide Each Each

” . informed informed - . Others call which drew drew which

– ther SIN$7k in SIN$7k ther day day -

The team developedThe team a a fur ended, such as a - , with, 50around

’. in areas such as ethics, ethics, as such areas in the entrepreneurial track

ported and inspired written and oral oral and written

ly mentorship to their team. team. their to mentorship ly egrated new biomedical biomedical new egrated their their

om leastat two of SUTD’spillars. term project - year students from across the the across from students year is termed an ‘Entrepreneurial ‘Entrepreneurial an termed is follow to wishing Students idea. up ing the degree. The SUTD capstone, capstone, SUTD The degree. the ing fr

- -

industry sup industry

accepted onto dur hip

and a numberhave alreadyestablished

upon teamsto consider thetechnical and

mining. Teams Teams take what take that are “

learned based start based o s call - members as they develop produce a working prototype. The industrypartner

to to For example, a recent capstone project project capstone recent a example, For

teams

for their projectfor their It brings together final together brings It

on on their education in engineering, science, HASS and design for approval. .

drawing its drawing was focused on a ‘digital health studio health ‘digital a on focused was

as wellas as

–

week project review process and presentation of the project project the of presentation and process review project week , - own technology

to identify potential applications for a flexible LED light LED flexible a for applications potential identify to ’ world challenges world

- solutions. solutions.

55 funding and agency mentorship from a regional venture capitalist. - real

3M aculty ‘instructors’,taken fromtwo different pillars, are assigned to one support to scale - - students to - mp, a three pillar specialism, theproject

on large

multidisciplinary

. Two . f Two brief set by an industry partner that addresses an authentic, multidisciplinary multidisciplinary authentic, an that addresses partner industry an by set brief Singapore University of Technologyand Design (SUTD), Singapore )

Capstone Committee – is is participate in a project validation process, comprising a three a comprising process, validation project in a participate the company company the project offer one

unique the teams in each classroom. Additional guidance is also provided by communications communications by provided also is guidance Additional classroom. each in teams the

CASE STUDY which draws which

acedby the company.Drawing ’, – Capstone

up companies on graduation. on up companies https://www.3m.com - scale prototype of the interior of a ‘smart’ meeting room, which int which room, meeting ‘smart’ a of interior the of prototype scale - 3M ( apstone

APPENDIX B 55 Entrepreneurial capstone teams own the IP start business case to the the to case business with provided are They development. the project to support SIN$3k must raise funding a government from seed this route must first first must route this ca boot entrepreneurship problem. However, up to five teams a year may opt t opt may year a teams five to up However, problem. C technology and data visualization to support medical examinations and briefings. and examinations medical support to visualization data and technology The majorityvast capstoneof SUTD projects are focused, as outlined above, onindustry an together students from all four pillars pillars four all from students together full Projects vary considerably in their size, scope and focus. Some are highly open by posed project develop to teams upon nontechnical aspects of their solution their of aspects nontechnical will andweek project emerging ideasthe from offer retains IP any of the problem f problem as well eachas student’s Secondly, the projects address address projects Secondly, the a tackles team presentations. Student must also take short modules throughout the project project the throughout modules short take also must Student presentations. data and management project safety, writing, technical students in each room in students and facilitate who instructors, Mirroring the cohort model adopted in the Freshmore year, the multidisciplinary teams work within within work teams multidisciplinary the year, Freshmore the in adopted model cohort the Mirroring one of sevendedicated ‘capstone’classrooms throughout the two Firstly, the capstone capstone the Firstly, six of team project each with university, to consolidate, apply and reflect upon what has been been has what upon reflect and apply consolidate, to respects. important in two is distinctive however, B.4.3. project capstone a with closes curriculum SUTD the world, the around programs engineering many Like The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX B: CASE STUDY – SINGAPORE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND DESIGN 85 (SUTD), SINGAPORE

l as as l -

directed directed . This - .” ” as wel : the : the

aduates based projects and and projects based - en students, within and and within students, en directed learning and - curricular student curricular -

as discussedas in turn below.

disciplinary faculty teaching teaching faculty disciplinary

- – izes self centric, multidisciplinary -

makes you think differently. It is is It differently. think you makes

other students. You can give them them give can You students. other

of SUTD students and gr

on on their learning.For example, one student of SUTD students and graduates

e SUTD curriculum: curriculum: SUTD e solving and emphas and solving - ified SUTD as the world’s foremost ‘emerging leader’ in in leader’ ‘emerging foremost world’s the as SUTD ified

spill over the boundaries of different disciplines of different boundaries the over spill daptability daptability logy and Design (SUTD), Singapore (SUTD), Design and logy a

designedcurriculum that allows studentsto contextualize bout the Ithuman first. changed how Iam thinking” - intrinsic motivation intrinsic

teams farmore easily than just doing a paper exercise… paper a doing just onproblem ne SUTD student: - designed by a team working across two continents, each of these these of each continents, two across working team by a designed - nted totwo attributes of SUTD students and graduates that set them

ng across courses and between years of study. Indeed, what is most striking striking most is what Indeed, study. of years between and courses ng across

” theirintrinsic motivation and their adaptability

defined problems that “ that problems defined - – Singapore University of Techno

based’ small group learning and the extensive use of design of use extensive the and learning group small based’ – - and they can stand back and see the problem… they are not just looking from the little box of of box little the from looking just not are they problem… the see and back stand can they and

CASE STUDY

– Review comments concluding and tes many of the featurespredicted by thought leaders consulted in Phase 1to distinguish the onlearning. In the words of o SUTD students can integrate into integrate can SUTD students making a prototype ratherthan

- “ anything discipline. own their “at other universities, HASS is not compulsory, but it makes you a more responsible engineer. It creates creates It engineer. responsible more a you makes it but compulsory, not is HASS universities, other “at the about thinking more Iwas SUTD, to Icame before culture… other’ each ‘understanding an a think I HASS, after now, technology, no longer about homework that only you need to spend two on.hours investedYou get in it “ APPENDIX B set SUTD graduates apart. In the words of one: one: words of the In apart. graduates set SUTD the adaptability to respond to the changing needs of projects and/or professional roles. Interview Interview roles. professional and/or projects of needs changing the to respond to adaptability the feedback graduate employersfrom suggested that this adaptabilitywas one of keythe attributesthat Interviewees also consistently pointed to the to pointed consistently also Interviewees adaptability totackle ill commented on the role of the HASS courses within th within courses HASS the of role the on commented Indeed, SUTD student interviewees were notable for the degree to which they had reflected upon the the upon reflected had they which to degree the for notable were interviewees student SUTD Indeed, impact its and approach educational distinctive university’s activities, the ‘cohort hands Interviewees repeatedly pointed to the the to pointed repeatedly Interviewees non on emphasis strong university’s the by nurtured be to understood was positive. In particular, many poi many particular, In positive. apart from their peers outsidethe curriculum.A majorvehicle thisfor integrative learningis SUTD’s innovative4D projects. overwhelmingly was employers graduate and graduates faculty, students, SUTD’s from Feedback and assimilate their learni about the SUTDeducation is its connectivity: connectivity between cross betwe connectivity and curriculum the in courses between connectivity teams, student choice. Despite being co being Despite choice. student features is embedded into a thoughtfully best engineering programs in the decades to come: it offers a design a offers it come: to decades the in programs engineering best hands with infused is that education founded:the university’s undergraduate educationstandspeers. apart from SUTD The curriculum integra Thought leaders from of Phasethe 1 ident study well is position premier SUTD’s that suggests evaluation study case This education. engineering The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global B.5.

APPENDIX B: CASE STUDY – SINGAPORE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND DESIGN 86 (SUTD), SINGAPORE

based based - -

SUTD As a result, result, a As t interest to to interest t red and red and e

;

cent will be - almost all in thisinnovative

… : worldwide for its its for worldwide be of mos

red and project red and approach, in e such as systems as such

Our students toget fined to a numbersmall – may and needs the es … z i cent - con

and HASS that that

– red culture of the university, the university, red culture of e cent - the educational approach pioneered by by pioneered approach educational the centered multidisciplinary activities are ed atstudent - approach

that that

This evolutionary approach to curriculum fundamentals’ s design centered, multidisciplinary at the cost of ‘dumbingdown’ academic

: SUTD’s - ” . s red ethos, which emphaswhich red ethos, igned. igned. r of r of e suggest

these experiences are not not are experiences these

come design

–

– cent ’s So what is critical is that the students have confidence as - redes

engineering engineering clear the SUTD curriculum is not static: courses, projects and and projects courses, not static: is curriculum SUTD the clear

A criticism often level often criticism A students joining SUTD each year participate participate year each SUTD joining students

working working - few compromises have been made to the programs’ academic rigor. the interest of the wider engineeringeducation community: directly from MIT,with the majority retainingequivalent expectations

ll 450 ll mic leaders stressed the importance they placed on nurturing nurturing placed on they importance the stressed leaders mic –

a curriculum is unquestionably high, despite its design

the academic rigo academic the :

– attract features of SUTD experienceis not confinedto small, selected student groups; ures ures

being updated and potential to influence practice in engineering schools and institutions around around institutions and schools engineering in practice influence to potential

Singapore University of Technologyand Design (SUTD), Singapore

the –

of the SUTD – case study also makes also study case solving and team and solving

r - stakeholder interview feedback interview stakeholder r, with compromises to the depth of study made only in a handful of courses. of inhandful depth study a of made only to the compromises r, with ship courses or projects that are isolated from the rest of the curriculum the of the rest from isolated are that projects or ship courses go There are three CASE STUDY

is delivered at scale at delivered is in ‘ the rigor by underpinned is is integrated throughout the curriculum the throughout is integrated – erent hats aligning to the needs of the project the of needs the to aligning hats erent technologies areadvancing so quickly that 30%or 40% of what students learn based approach to the content delivery. content the to approach based for student achievement it it curriculum it content their take courses it it program entire the across embedded of flag - are continuously “…

understandthat there is thatno project a single discipline cansolve by all itself… they wear diff offers significant industry. into get they when redundant problem particular any solve to means the find to able are and designer a s

• • • world. world. APPENDIX B

where teaching is unapologetically held in the same esteem as research. as esteem same the in held unapologetically is teaching where pillar design university’s the reflects development student collaborative, the reflects also It user. the of experience Evidence from the academic ri rigo academic the project standards in mathematics and the engineering sciences. A crucial feature of the SUTD curriculum is curriculum the SUTD of feature A crucial sciences. engineering the and mathematics in standards known curriculum a MIT, at delivered that mirrors content course its of much that curricula is that the development of personal and professional competencies competencies professional and personal of development the is that curricula problem thinking, It is the last of these feat these of last the is It community. education engineering the SUTD SUTD the to likely are that particular, Taken together, Similarly, SUTD faculty and acade and faculty Similarly, SUTD adaptability: students’ The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX B: CASE STUDY – SINGAPORE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND DESIGN 87 (SUTD), SINGAPORE

a This in our our in based based

- designing of - picked picked - on, maker - class. The -

pointed to the influence influence the to pointed ass,hand [innovative] culture cl - a university that is completely completely is that university a

the capacity and interest to try try to interest and capacity the education. Buildingupon their own that very special special very that

xtensive use of hands of use xtensive ” The Singapore government was also also was government Singapore The ” . is the quality of SUTD’s leadership. leadership. SUTD’s of quality the is and practical support necessary to build a led

mandateto create

instil D consistently noted that: noted consistently D the

” , expertise,

typically, that kind of investment only happens with the the with happens only investment of kind that typically, focused focused research and innovation in science and and architecture - dentials, the university also offers a deep commitment to sustaining across the SUTD student population. Others - ” and offer the university the autonomy and flexibility needed needed flexibility and autonomy the university the offer and ”

This clearly educationalarticulated vision wasto offer seen “

” . ” on SUTD’s educational culture and curriculum. For example, many many example, For curriculum. and culture educational SUTD’s on ”

three factors have underpinned the successful design and delivery delivery and design successful the underpinned have factors three

” ” ” . . . It is always searching for ways to be innovative and is prepared to to prepared is and innovative be to ways for searching always is It . stage - leadership

s has been the added value of the university’s collaboration with MIT. with collaboration university’s the of value added the been has er

them is the Singapore government’s investment in and commitment to the the to commitment and in investment government’s Singapore the is

” approach has come with “ with come has approach ” … to push the boundaries. SUTD’

Singapore University of Technologyand Design (SUTD), Singapore

off - – ust in , but at SUTD, it is everywhere, in every course nershipprovided thecredibility now understood to beself to understood now tr

hands e objectives of the university and with that acceptance, all of the policies, courses, research research courses, policies, the of all acceptance, that with and university the of objectives e success factor success to “ to

CASE STUDY

in the plans, there were so many unknowns, but [MIT] have had had have [MIT] but unknowns, many so were there plans, the in , and perhaps most important, success factor success important, most perhaps and , – success factor [project]

” that is that ” intangibles of the relationship the of intangibles Success factors factors Success political and cultural values were understood to underpin the government’s substantial substantial government’s the underpin to understood were values cultural and political

“Singapore is a country whose political leadership values education and values research and is is and research values and education values leadership political whose country a is “Singapore preparedto invest in it do should we how to listen

profile part profile - third second first the APPENDIX B SUTD’s academic leaders was their shared educational vision and their clear personal commitment to to commitment personal clear their and vision educational shared was their leaders academic SUTD’s engineering for paradigm new a establishing technology. Alongside its stellar research cre research stellar its Alongside technology. from feedback interview the of features striking most the of one Indeed, mission. educational its leadership team and a cadre of outstanding young faculty that together will undoubtedly enable SUTD SUTD enable undoubtedly will together that faculty young outstanding of cadre a and team leadership design of boundaries the push to continue to The world a has appointed university the with MIT, partnership its by Supported courses: “ courses: us with things interesting highlighted how the early exchange programs at MIT “ MIT at programs exchange early the how highlighted students co the to faculty SUTD MIT and between established approach collaborative the to pointed particular, faculty and academic leaders from both MIT and SUTD consistently consistently SUTD MIT and both leaders from academic and faculty particular, of “ high In slate. blank a from program undergraduate exacting academically and recognized globally efforts are aligned to this objective this to aligned are efforts The single focus that is always towards design, we are not pulled in multiple directions… faculty clearly clearly faculty directions… multiple in pulled not are we design, towards always is that focus single understandth to establish an educational culture and approach that was both unique and world and unique both was that approach and culture educational an establish to “ government’s different, where isdesign cent capstone understood distinctive features, such as its small group learning and its e and its learning group small its as such features, distinctive “ noted, interviewee external one As learning. These most SUTD’s of many realizing in vital been has turn, in environment, funding This SUTD. in investment university. Interviewees from across and beyond SUT beyond and across from Interviewees university. of SUTD’s distinctive undergraduateeducation. The B.5.1. that suggested feedback Interview The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX B: CASE STUDY – SINGAPORE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND DESIGN 88 (SUTD), SINGAPORE s

the the the final final the “

s not s not ’ ] competing ] competing

- take therisk of to over90% of

56 evidence as evidence

” As one interviewee interviewee one As ” . his

” ’

; ”

.” ” in global university rankings, rankings, university global in ” https://www.moe.gov.sg/docs/default laborate and innovate in teaching is is teaching in innovate and laborate ranked

their purity of ideal of purity their )

ver, SUTD is committed to increasing its intake numbers to collaboration with MIT has now ended. now MIT has with collaboration

early proof of the success and impact of the SUTD education came came education SUTD the of impact and success the of proof early it is a culture of no boundaries no of culture a is it to try new ideas… they just want to know how the students benefit, but but benefit, students the how know to want just they ideas… new try to we have an increasing number of universities [in Singapore

cult… the concern parents have is not about the pedagogy, it pedagogy, the about not is have parents concern the cult… adverse society and values education so much that taking a risk on on risk a taking that much so education values and society adverse

- at is still so young and is un is and young so still is at secondary/files/sutd.pdf risk ed that the SUTD education faces two major challenges over the coming coming the over challenges major two faces education SUTD the that ed is building the size of the university’s undergraduate population. Current Current population. undergraduate university’s the of size the building is -

universitiesin the city statedoubling innumber, from three to six, in thepast

Singapore University of Technologyand Design (SUTD), Singapore

they will need to keep the integrity of recruitment, not in terms of academic rigor but but rigor academic of terms in not recruitment, of integrity the keep to need will they [us] flexibility [us] “ – ” Thisempowerment of facultyto col both NUS and NTU benefitting from rapid rises in the global university rankings; university global the in rises rapid from benefitting NTU and NUS both . it is such such is it al priorities are recognized and understood by SUTD faculty. In the words of one, “ funded - CASE STUDY

– particularly since the educational educational the since particularly commented: commented: students, the of quirkiness the of terms in “ parents their and students Singaporean prospective many of reluctance the th auniversity choosing decade, and and decade, country’s the from resulting students prospective Singaporean of population declining the “ birthrate: low continuing offorofIta createsascale and candidates. shrinking quality pool problem the increasingly competitive higher education landscape in Singapore, with the number of of number the with inSingapore, landscape education higher competitive increasingly the publicly h 2017 with the publication of the Singapore graduate employment survey: employment graduate Singapore the of publication with the h 2017 Singapore Singapore Challenges faced about the education, it is ‘will my child get a job at this new university? new this at job a get child my ‘will is it education, the about “ diffi particularly is education

first major challenge major first • • • Ministry of Education Singapore, Graduate employment survey, 2017 ( Singapore, survey, employment Graduate 2017 Education of Ministry

APPENDIX B source/document/education/post 56 SUTD’s most recent graduates secured employment within six months of completion and had the had the and completion of months within six employment secured graduates most SUTD’s recent t described One observer graduates. Singapore all of earnings average highest Despite this considerable challenge, challenge, considerable this Despite Marc in Interview feedback suggested that the last of these factors is perhaps the most pressing: pressing: most the perhaps is factors these of last the that suggested feedback Interview that may constrain national recruitment, including: recruitment, national constrain may that 1000. With its overseas student intake capped at 30%, the university must look primarily to the the to primarily look must university the 30%, at intake capped student overseas its 1000. With factor of number a to pointed feedback Interview growth. this enable to market Singaporean national The Howe year. per 450 around at stand intakes Interview feedback suggest feedback Interview below. turn in discussed is Each years. B.5.2. the openness is there is openness the As leadership. byacademic its is shaped again, which, culture, distinctive university’s the by supported one SUTD faculty membernoted, “ These institution giving is management experiences of educational change before joining SUTD, its academic leaders are deeply committed to to committed deeply are leaders academic its SUTD, joining before change educational of experiences philosophy. educational university’s the The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX B: CASE STUDY – SINGAPORE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND DESIGN 89 (SUTD), SINGAPORE ” ” . transition transition ” andwilling to so it does

Some Some , centered,

- based based - who has been a critical critical a been has who ple in,will lapse it intoa based pedagogy for their their for pedagogy based

- minded people, it is very very is it people, minded – - a more traditional university traditional more a month teaching calendar. calendar. teaching month

might compromise SUTD’s

– d, d, lecture rising during its early development. earlydevelopment. its during rising re not [being] committed to the e ” across the SUTD faculty, which have, for for have, which faculty, SUTD the across ” . SUTD can look tocan. forward the SUTD cent - red by decades in decades by red are no longera small university as they bring more peo more bring they as university’s size without imposing new imposing without size university’s Many of SUTD’s faculty appointed to date were were date to appointed faculty SUTD’s of Many start pulling the university towards the norm in in the norm towards the university pulling start we

traditional [educational] approaches [educational] traditional - late 2017 al role in ensuring that the university’s education culture

down in in down emic rigor with features recognized to distinguish the future future the distinguish to recognized features with rigor emic

increasing the the increasing led education. education. led -

moreopen to non ign ethos, they might they ethos, ign stepped “at the moment, we are a small group of like of group small a are we moment, the “at will undoubtedlyhelp to strengthen its brand acrossthe wider

–

disciplinary research collaborations and helped to ensure a consistency consistency a ensure to helped and collaborations research disciplinary facing SUTDfacing the concerns scalabilityits educational of approach and -

docs…they have been not colo that - ” st career level were seen to carry a risk of “ risk of a carry to were seen level career - Singapore University of Technologyand Design (SUTD), Singapore consistently noted that the university’s small faculty and student populations populations student and faculty small university’s the that noted consistently

and in particular the recruitment of new faculty

The most significant concern raised by interviewees, however, was that – – conversations, interactions on a daily basis adaily on interactions conversations,

” through, for example, adopting a teacher a adopting example, for through, ” ,

s at mid s at owth fresh from po

CASE STUDY h in courses taught across multiple small cohorts of students. Many SUTD Many students. of cohorts small multiple across taught in courses h

– Interviewees Interviewees

howcanthis ‘can do’ culture maintainedbe when words of one SUTD faculty: faculty: SUTD one of words “ not dilutedget over time?”

second major challenge major second ed environment?” ed APPENDIX B global leaders. leaders. global to a new President with confidence. Only five years after matriculating its first student, it has achieved achieved has it student, first its matriculating after years five Only confidence. with President new a to a premier position within engineeringeducation. hasIt promised, and hasdelivered, a model of acad combines that education engineering and approach are sustained as it expands. currentThe university President force in establishing this culture It is clear that the strength of SUTD’s leadership in embracing and championing design championing and embracing in leadership SUTD’s of strength the that clear is It critic a play will learning active multidisciplinary higher education themes. project renewing constantly of practice the ceasing courses or New appointee New des the have, we vision [educational] described as “ as described “ as described were they result, a As 12 university’s the supporting to time their of proportion greater a devote institutional gr institutional student and innovative to commitment bureaucratic systems and divisions on the institutions: “ institutions: the on divisions and systems bureaucratic silo personalized. mustWhat we doto keep thetorch brightburning when our numbers grow?” of challenge the to pointed interviewees In the In interviewees, however, asked the question: question: the asked however, interviewees, example, advanced new cross new advanced example, of approac have helped to nurture a culture of collegiality and shared ideals across the institution. The university’s university’s The institution. the across ideals shared and collegiality of culture a nurture to helped have a opportunities and problems to rapidly to react it size has allowed “ enabled also has It The culture. piece of validity neededSUTD community. The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX B: CASE STUDY – SINGAPORE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND DESIGN 90 (SUTD), SINGAPORE

Singapore

rsity

Design

Technology and Design ms ms Sustainable Design

ersity of Social Sciences Social of ersity MIT Alliance MIT Technology and Research for Alliance MIT Institute of Technology Technology of Institute – – Singapore University of Technologyand Design (SUTD), ering Product Development Product ering

– Singapore Singapore Singapore Singapore Unive Management Singapore Univ Singapore Design and Technology of University Singapore Trends in InternationalMathematics and Science Study Architecture and Architecture Engine Engineering Systems and Syste Information University Technological Nanyang Singapore of University National

CASE STUDY

–

SUTD TIMSS SIT SMA SMART SMU SUSS ESD ISTD NTU NUS Acronyms used in SUTD case study case SUTD in used Acronyms ASD EPD APPENDIX B

The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX C:

CASE STUDY – UCL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON, UK 91 - intensive intensive - , te in July July in te

implemented the Integrated Integrated the implemented

–

The first cohort studentsof BEng

over 950students joined theFaculty g such an ambitious and forward and ambitious an g such

“…they are a massively research massively a are “…they –

.” UCL ENGINEERING UCL

UCL Engineering

– –

branch reform of the undergraduate curriculum curriculum undergraduate the of reform branch ” implementin ” - ONDON, UK ONDON, and - g Science g Science

structure, adopted by all undergraduate programs across UCL UCL across programs undergraduate by all adopted structure,

a university like UCL like university a dergraduate education seriously CASE STUDY CASE

UCL Engineering, University College London, UK London, College University Engineering, UCL

–

and almost all study under the IEP curriculum. ers to UCL Engineering are relatively high high relatively are Engineering UCL to ers

– ngineering departments. The new educational approach has two major two major has approach educational new The departments. ngineering CASE STUDY

– shared multidisciplinary team projects and Minors, bringing students together from from together students bringing Minors, projects and team multidisciplinary shared across UCL Engineering. a common curriculum Engineering, that isbuilt around a series of authentic engineering projects;

on the significance “ of it, put interviewee one As reform. educational looking university,oneofthe top thein 10 that world, could have really laughedthis off. Butthey didn't. un the taking are They in 2016/17 2016/17 in gradua to due counterparts MEng with their 2017, in July the IEP from graduated 2018. leader’ ‘current a both as study the of 1 Phase in experts by identified was Engineering UCL and an ‘emergingleader’ in global engineeringundergraduate education. Many commented - numb Intake Engineering Programme (IEP), a root across alle components: - Reasons for selection of UCL Engineering as a casestudy a Engineering as Reasonsselectionfor UCL of Engineerin of Faculty UCL’s 2014, In

APPENDIX C

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE L COLLEGE UNIVERSITY APPENDIX C APPENDIX The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX C:

CASE STUDY – UCL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON, UK 92

2016/17

from

2015/16 . ndeed, UCL UCL ndeed,

of central

a 2014/15

the undergraduate undergraduate the 2013/14 2016 2000 to , ,

2012/13 2011/12 Figure Figure )

Biochemical Engineering, Chemical 2010/11 and Security & Crime Science

UCL Engineering

rankings - 2009/10

the recent introduction of new degree degree new of introduction recent the

2008/09 from As illustrated in in illustrated As

2007/08 59

)

2006/07 Engineering Biomedical 2005/06 niversities.com/university ationhas increased from 7,000 to 21,000.At the same time,

2004/05

http://www.ref.ac.uk/ 2003/04

, Medical Physics &

2002/03 https://www.topu

supports a wide range of disciplines, from fine art to medicine and

otal number of undergraduate students in undergraduate of otal number 2001/02 UCL Engineering, University College London, UK London, College University Engineering, UCL

published in 2014, UCL was identified as the country’s leading research university. university. research leading country’s the as identified was UCL 2014, in published

. T –

in 2004, UCL was ranked 34th in the world; today it is ranked 7th. I 7th. ranked is it today world; the in 34th ranked was UCL 2004, in

, University, College London (UCL) is based in the Bloomsbury are

13 57 2000/01 is one of the university’s 11 Faculties. It comprises 11 departments, of which nine nine which of departments, 11 comprises It Faculties. 11 university’s the of one is 26

Figure 0 CASE STUDY

500 1000 2500 2000 1500 3500 3000 – Context

The university context university The

Total number of undergraduates of number Total of School UCL Engineering, Electrical & Electronic Science, Computer Engineering, Geomatic & Environmental Civil, eering, Research Excellence Framework 2014 ( The nine departments in UCL Engineering offering undergraduate programs are: QS World University Rankings ( Rankings University World QS

APPENDIX C Management, Mechanical Engineering Mechanical Management, 59 Engin 57 58 student population in UCL Engineering has grown almost threefold in the past decade, to over 3,000. 3,000. to over past decade, the in threefold almost has grown Engineering UCL in population student Thisincrease in student numbers beenhas both built UCL Engineering UCL offer degreeprograms atthe undergraduate level. boasts a formidable global research reputation. In the UK’s most recent national evaluation of of evaluation national recent most UK’s the In reputation. research global formidable a boasts research, university UCL has advanced rapidly up the international university rankings; in the first year of publication of the the of publication of year first the in rankings; university international the up rapidly advanced has UCL QS WorldRankings and reputation. In thelast decade alone, theuniversity’s undergraduate populationhasincreased from popul graduate its and 18,000, to 12,000 Establishedin 18 university The London. astrophysics to anthropology. Recent years have been ones of significant growth in theuniversity’s size C.1.1. The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global C.1.

APPENDIX C:

CASE STUDY – UCL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON, UK 93 he he For For

- 2000s and - UK UK

- e learning learning gnificant gnificant making the making

–

is Mechanical existing programs. programs. existing

g andimprove In England, these investment investment these England, In

year students from UK universities, universities, UK from students year

- Programme withinProgramme the was introduced, an annual annual an introduced, was 61

. OECD Publishing . OECD theearly 2000s to 150 today. The 62 Teaching Excellence Framework Excellence Teaching in 2014. in (NSS)

The staff The andstaff populations student UCL in

cohort sizes amon sizes cohort .

the the ficantly,doubling over past the four years to Note: United Kingdom

were established established were ghest in the OECD. the in ghest )

) is an annual survey final of annual an ) is

esults will be used to determine the maximum level of of level maximum the determine to used be will esults Country Engineering Biomedical Engineering

National Student Survey

. The current pilot current versionpilot nationally. framework usesThe the of f their education. e UK higher education landscape from its international peers. peers. international its from landscape education higher UK e such as NSS scores, student retention levels and graduat and levels retention student NSS scores, as such

: OECD Indicators

6 – totaling 19% of the undergraduate student population population student undergraduate the of 19% totaling

– stem for grading the quality of a university’s undergraduate http://www.hefce.ac.uk/lt/tef/ andprogressive a growth in

From 2020, the TEF r TEF the 2020, From

60 red into UCL Engineering from the Faculty of Mathematical & Physical Sciences in the mid the in Sciences Physical & Mathematical of Faculty the from Engineering UCL into red

UCL Engineering, University College London, UK London, College University Engineering, UCL http://www.thestudentsurvey.com

– along with a university’s writtenstatement, to gradeinstitutions bronze,as silver

– year students from UK universities, capturing students’ perspectives on the quality of - Education Education at201 a Glance ). CASE STUDY

Science transfer 6

– a voluntary ranking sy

The national context national The

63 , Teaching Excellence Framework ( National Student National Survey ( Computer (201 OECD

epartment ofMedical Physics and Biomedical

APPENDIX C 62 o quality the on perspectives their capturing 63 60 new Biomedical Engineering and Management Science programs 61

was awarded silver status. status. silver awarded was England. in university each by charged be can that fees tuition employment rates rates employment or gold standard for teachingquality. The outcomes from this pilot were announcedin June 2017: UCL environment and student outcomes student and environment availablequantitative indicators survey final of the introduced UKgovernment the recently, More education. their (TEF) has precipitated the introduction of a number of national systems to monitor monitor to systems national of number a of introduction the precipitated has the 2005, in example, For performance. £50.8k (approximately US$60k). US$60k). (approximately £50.8k Theincrease in hasfees brought qualitythe UKundergraduate educationof into sharper focus, and per annum, and is charged by most English universities for all degree subjects. As a result, average average As result, a subjects. degree all for universities English by most is charged and per annum, signi increased has graduates English for debt student undergraduate study in England 20 years ago, and have progressively increased in the years since. T since. years the in increased progressively have and ago, years 20 in England study undergraduate US$12k) (approximately £9.25k at stands currently which fees, on ‘cap’ maximum a sets government country the second most popular destination for overseas study worldwide. National spending on on spending National worldwide. study overseas for destination popular most second the country hi the of one high, also is UK the in education higher for introduced were fees Tuition loans. students via paid fees tuition by supported partially are levels over half of young peoplein the UK enternow higher education. UKThe also attracts a si students overseas of number A number of factors distinguish th distinguish factors of number A decades, in recent enrolments in increases progressive high: following are rates Student participation C.1.2. Engineering are also highlyinternational: 53% of theFaculty’s 309 FTE academic staff are non undergraduates. its of 45% are as nationals, Engineering, which hasseen its undergraduate intake rise from45 in to the is 25 students, of intake cohort, smallest d programs into the Faculty the into programs population student largest the typically with program Engineering UCL the example, The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX C:

CASE STUDY – UCL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON, UK 94

very

,”

wasn’t wasn’t I ated ated became As the former former the As In addition, addition, In

and and

” in the the in ”

.” .” d Integr

prior to 2011 as “ as 2011 to prior atediverse 21st century

islands oflocal innovation 64 collective ownershipof the

of “ ;

in our research portfolio research our in

UCL Engineering UCL was not much to pick out our 2014) lacked did anot have distinctive – Civil, Environmental and Geomatics Geomatics and Environmental Civil,

there there ” and “ and ” branch reform of its undergraduate undergraduate its of reform branch Dean of - radically different approach to approach different radically

UCL Engineering UCL

roup workor practical work . and -

In 2006, the the 2006, In date)

– .”

2012) independence, in very traditional silos traditional very in independence,

Against the background of an educational approach approach educational an of background the Against UCL engineering education education UCL engineering 2012); –

– an crafted and circulateddocument a detailing“a in .” (2014

the interviewees pointed to anumber

,” wide educational approach (2012 approach educational wide a practiced familiarity withthe coreengineering skills - exploiting our collective strength collective our exploiting

t “ t UCL Engineering atUCL. It is structuredacross threetime periods: 2011 the former De the former 2011 )

- in in .”

(IEP

program that connected engineering disciplinary theory with a spine of of spine a with theory disciplinary engineering connected that program IEP UCL Engineering, University College London, UK London, College University Engineering, UCL was no was

the key milestones that have shaped thedevelopment of the –

,” department had implemented a root a implemented had department s

focused, very traditional, with very little g - main. Indeed, in the words of one interviewee: “ interviewee: words one of the in Indeed, main. with that. I wanted something that looks like UCL, like our spirit, our values and our our spirit, our looksvalues like like thatUCL, Isomething with that. wanted , most substantially in Civil Engineering Civil in substantially , most (CEGE)

CASE STUDY UCL Engineering was known as the Faculty of Engineering Sciences.

– ” by academic staff. The externaldrivers for reform focused on concerns thatengineering esigning the new Faculty new the esigning olling out the d r The development of of development The foundations for curricular reform (2011 Foundations for curricular reform (2011 we have been incredibly good at working in an interdisciplinary way

“our programs looked pretty much like the engineering education I had experience had I education engineering the like much pretty looked programs “our satisfied vision ofengineering

is discussed in turn in the subsections below. subsections the in turn in discussed is

• • • Until 2014,Until

that had not changed much in 40 years 40 in much changed not had that APPENDIX C 64 Following a number of months of attempting to stimulate a wider discussion about the rationale for for rationale the about discussion wider a stimulate to attempting of months of number a Following mid in reform, educational graduates were leaving UCL without the breadth of professional skills to navig to skills professional of breadth the without UCL were leaving graduates “ without and careers engineering commented: Dean [educational] offering [educational] programs undergraduate education. His motivations stemmed from both internal and external drivers. The The drivers. external and internal both from stemmed motivations His education. undergraduate “ Faculty the that perception a upon built reform for drivers internal The wereseeds inof reform early sown 2011,when the then a adopt to Faculty the for need the of convinced increasingly curriculum, creating a creating curriculum, authentic, immersiveprojects. “ Faculty] [in the Engineering educational do educational program engineering standard a from education while “ while “ operated have to reported were departments Interviewees characterized the undergraduate education in in education undergraduate the characterized Interviewees science engineering Each C.2.1. This section outline Programme Engineering The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global C.2.

APPENDIX C:

CASE STUDY – UCL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON, UK 95

- g ment.

change change – cational cational

teachin

we knew we 62 . called for for called ” and who who and ” While much of of much While

wide edu wide

- – .

.” inor

solving, shared cross shared solving, .” - ” in the NSS the in ” osed program introduced

. Ten years of experimenting. Ten of years

“class sizes had increased increased had sizes “class to really work then they engaged … and from from and … engaged they then

wide educational approach brought brought approach educational wide - – 2014) em in teams. Therewas a groupof us – slots - rongreaction and it was the best partments were coming under increasing increasing under were coming partments and on the form and focusthat this disappointing scores

as it wasknown atthe time

Electronic and Electrical Engineering – in the curriculum the in

led engineering problem engineering led ” The proposal triggered considerabledebate -

and time and me

” to” academics across theFaculty. The response

, theproposed Faculty rriculum change rriculum programs lelevel in the

, but knew it had to be holistic to it had knew , but

ey saw lectures saw ey h just washed over people’s heads, but actually when you came up up came you when actually but heads, people’s over washed just more

engths he brought to the embryonic program of reform. He was was He reform. of program embryonic the to brought he engths [had] [had] Faculty teaching team. team. teaching Faculty somebody that was known and respected by a lot of people lot a by respected and known was that somebody when t when - wide educational reform (2012 reform educational wide

- – At thesame time, a number of de

the lack of practical application practical of lack the .”

Common Engineering Program Engineering Common Faculty curricular framework and significant components that would be be would that components significant and framework curricular Faculty UCL Engineering, University College London, UK London, College University Engineering, UCL

- – of components,including practice Faculty engagement and effort involving around 120 academic staff and 80 80 and staff academic 120 around involving effort and engagement Faculty - based learning at the modu the at learning based - CommonEngineering Programme frustrated frustrated by CASE STUDY

hen try you tolittle drop theinbits curriculum,thereare always limitationsfundamental – w It evolved through three main waves of activity, as outlined below. outlined as activity, of waves main three through evolved It

… Designing the Faculty the Designing like expecting students to develop teamwork by throwing th throwing by teamwork develop to students expecting like something do to wanted that “ with a curriculum plan witha plan curriculum Faculty the from feedback constructive amazingly had we onwards point that “… people were completely horrified. There was quite a st a quite was There horrified. completely were people “… possiblething that could have happened, becausethensuddenly people actuallyengaged. All of rationale educational the

ver was the rapid and ongoing growth to the student population: APPENDIX C fellows. Thedesign of newthe cross significant understood the university’s educational processes and the distinctive cultures within each depart each within cultures distinctive the and processes educational university’s the understood C.2.2. of thenew appointee theand str “ as characterized consistently Interviewee responses, from across and beyond the Faculty, were striking in their positive assessment assessment positive their in striking were Faculty, the beyond and across from responses, Interviewee with problem with that: conclude to him led had also department reform. The successful candidate, appointed in April 2012, was himself a former UCL student and had and student UCL inApril 2012, himself a former was reform.candidate, appointed The successful “ been long In early 2012, while debate continued across the Faculty, the Dean advertised a 0.5 FTE seconded seconded FTE 0.5 a advertised Dean the Faculty, the across continued debate while 2012, early In Faculty a of delivery and scoping the lead to academic engineering UCL a for position something had to change to had something “ light of in approach educational their reshape to pressure proved instrumental in starting to engage departments with the need for educational reform. One reform. educational for need with the departments engage to starting in instrumental proved dri struggling… really We were numbers. in staff increase similar a not was there and significantly… across the Faculty onboth the merits of factors contextual of number a by many, expressed was initially skepticism Although might take. both a common cross both common a cross by a centrally, delivered together a number number a together M specialist a of introduction the and topics engineering core of teaching Faculty prop the departments, the in reside to continued ownership curriculum the Entitled the complete redesign of all of the [engineering] ofthe all of redesign complete recalled: Dean former the As immediate. was The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX C:

CASE STUDY – UCL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON, UK 96 ” - ?

in in

IEP teaching teaching rounds of of rounds

, the IEP IEP the e first time time first e few took the the took

, a

designing

; modules, modules,

what modules domodules we what :

Scenarios .” Faculty and establish establish and Faculty want for want graduates their

s .” 2013, after “ after 2013, - integration across departments departments across integration all engineering students projects and and projects he initial task facing the newly the facing task initial he T

. y mid ” without adopting deeper changes. changes. deeper adopting without ” dissected the first two years of the B an enthusiastic board of people from from people of board enthusiastic an Faculty committee

Chemical Engineering Chemical - .” cohesive curriculum cohesive : although over a year untilthe launch of the emphasizing “ emphasizing

in a a in ,

it notes it such as as such

week intensivedesign project - tion (IEP) Faculty educational framework was agreed, as as agreed, was framework educational Faculty specific departments from entry to to the entry from departments specific

- - post

With little little With The group also “ he assembled “ Some,

all engineering students from across the Faculty

hat skills did the department

” ,” . W profile, culture and priorities, approaches to curriculum curriculum to approaches priorities, and culture profile, The second wave of activity focused on

brought considerable expertise in teaching and learning learning and teaching in expertise considerable brought

a new cross in a series of multidisciplinary

,” their their

wide curricular structure would be adopted during the first first the during adopted be would structure curricular wide

- within discipline within rriculum and pedagogical approach. Others were noted to have noted were Others pedagogical rriculum approach. and Faculty educational approach educational Faculty - scaffold to build the new curriculum around tions such as, “ as, such tions ycles, where students spend four weeks acquiring a range of who often who like what type of graduates are we trying to produce… to trying we are graduates of type what like a “ , covering the walls with walls the covering A centerpiece of this curriculum would be a series of of series a be would curriculum this of centerpiece A Many interviewees noted that this phase of work generated considerable considerable generated work of phase this that noted interviewees Many was to canvass views from across and beyond the the beyond and across from views canvass to was

. . betweendepartments

week c week - around the IEP framework.

UCL Engineering, University College London, UK London, College University Engineering, UCL

Integrated Engineering Programme Engineering Integrated – Director Director , a common Faculty . Although retaining many elements of the Dean’s Althoughtheof not original elements proposal, . it did retaining many carry each component of the students’ educa students’ the of component each framework as

” to explore ques explore to ” following sciences, engineering fundamental the of teaching the to approach Faculty experience 14

- Reflecting differences in of

IEP ” talking to people, listening to their views Box CASE STUDY Program

drive forward change forward drive – two years of study of years two operatingin five one a in applied that are skills and knowledge components: multidisciplinary shared engage to together come would mathematics. of teaching common the including a common curricular structure across the Faculty the across structure curricular common a based be to continue would university : The two core components of the IEP, as agreed by the cross to to hat examples of practicegood already exist? industry In order to reduce the load on academic staff, most departments appointed a cadre of of cadre a appointed departments most staff, academic on load the reduce to order In

W . icant concerns raised by departments. Reflecting this shift in focus, the educational framework framework educational the focus, in shift this Reflecting departments. by raised concerns icant • • and going back to the drawing board drawing the to back going and

Box reconfigured their [existing] curriculum to fit around the IEP framework IEP the around fit to curriculum [existing] their reconfigured APPENDIX C and used the “ th for programs undergraduate developing were Engineering, Biomedical as such Others, reformenormously varied opportunity to overhaul theentire cu debate within departments about the focus and goals of their undergraduate programs: “ programs: undergraduate their of goals and focus the about departments within debate brought lotaof issuesto the fore, need? actually fellows and/or September 2014, this process of curricular change was rapid and called for intensive and dedicated dedicated and intensive for called and rapid was change curricular of this process 2014, September effort Wave 2: departmental curricular reform. curricular departmental 2: Wave curricula departmental was renamed as the the as renamed was integration and forward a cross signif talks outlinedin and, “ department, every in curriculum broad agreement about the focus and structure of a shared education framework. Following six six Following framework. education shared a of structure and focus the about agreement broad “ of months department each Wave 1: agreeing a common cross common a 1: agreeing Wave appointed The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX C:

CASE STUDY – UCL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON, UK 97

how how

Following Following

. he new . Inthe . - IEP focused IEP’s theon

– reaching change. reaching change. - Centre for Advancing Advancing for Centre , thewider, university a vision for theuniversity’s teaching fellows teaching

66 , g with new tools to drive drive to tools with new g focused transformingon

scale group project work on the - week humanitarian challenge that - wave of activity activity of wave

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching During thisperiod, UCL also initiated - Nonetheless, the pilot offered offered pilot the Nonetheless,

upport to help students appreciate the the appreciate students help to upport .” In 2013, a new university Provost took took Provost university new a 2013, In .” on over the previous decade, interviewee to and change culture educational to ed UCL Engineering UCL third .”

The

ended,two

- appointed cohort of andthe Director of the -

reaching reforms were implemented across the across implemented were reaching reforms

- . class university that had taken its eye off the ball in in ball the off eye its taken had that university class ) - Connected Curriculum Connected model came in June 2014 with a pilot involving 700 involving pilot with a 2014 June in model came

ilot shone a light onseveral critical challenges facing p connecting students with research, connectingstudents

IEP an open learning/sites/teaching

- ended problem solving, and the activity timing, after the after timing, activity the and solving, problem ended by a newly a by -

HTCTW completely exhausted A number of key senior management appointments soon soon appointments management senior key of number A

.” hing has since become UCL Arena ( Faculty modules. Faculty (HTCTW), driven -

ed and rewarded z was

appointments and promotion systems,

–

Provost for Student Affairs Student for Provost s its ). -

research was our overriding priority overriding our was research of each of whom were deeply committ deeply were whom of each year cohort, the

- Vice s –

UCL Engineering, University College London, UK London, College University Engineering, UCL

65 https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching – development reform - scale pilots, a major test of the test of major a pilots, scale

xample, in 2014, UCL launched the the UCL launched in 2014, xample, -

How to Change the World the Change to How CASE STUDY made it clear that he had inherited a world a inherited had he that clear it made includingthe

. example, the Forit underlined need for dedicated s branch – – - year exams when students were “ . wasby pilotIn particular, primarily theengagement,bymarredlow student driven the - IEP and of - arallelwith the emerging plans educationalfor reform in IEP - The Centre for Advancing Learning and Teac ( Curriculum Connected

APPENDIX C learning/files/connected_curriculum_brochure_21_june_2017.pdf learning/professional 66 65 forward reform,was noted intervieweesmanyby propelling developmenttheas of the interviewee: one of words teaching achievement was recogni was achievement teaching The vocal institutional commitmenteducational to culturechange, alon across disciplines and connecting students to real world problems world real to students connecting and disciplines across root In the months and years that followed, a series of far of series a followed, that years and months the In e For university. “ around built was that education undergraduate Learning and Teaching and Learning education. student of the quality improving to staff of the contribution rewarding and supporting teaching. He was very candid about that about candid very was He teaching. followed feedbacksuggested that “ “ who post, environment for teaching and learning also entered a period of radical and far and radical of period a entered also learning and teaching for environment populati student university’s the in growth significant Despite UCL campus. UCL p In of the problems. alsoIt complex discipline tomultidisciplinary theirof relevance own importance and large for space teaching flexible securing of challenge the highlighted end components many for preparation and design of the shape to on go would that insights considerable the the open to exposure prior of lack participants’ would bring together all engineering students at the end of Year 2. Taking its participants from the the from participants its Taking 2. Year of end the at students engineering all together bring would second existing Faculty’s a series of small t of component complex the most perhaps on focused It the Faculty. across from students curriculum: Wave 3: developing the IEP’s cross IEP’s the developing 3: Wave component multidisciplinary The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX C:

CASE STUDY – UCL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON, UK 98 -

s there there , such

The

.”

week - ” .” f study, Heads to the rest of

were

consistently consistently hallenges described in in described

year IEP C - ic contexts. contexts. ic – a lot of negative negative of lot a relation new engineering new Faculty five Faculty and directed learning learning directed -

- Provost that was components, components,

- alone module, D&PSwas - IEP n authentic problem problem n authentic key societal challenges. societal key

a cross bore little

cenarios the curriculum in Years 1 S

and still needed convincing needed still and

Interviewees, however, however, Interviewees,

[module] were multidisciplinary and brought brought and multidisciplinary were

students from across the Faculty. The The Faculty. the across from students fertilization of core project focused on focused project

- modules. of students studying under the

was imposed

date) year – a projecta heldin the first fiveweeks of the degree -

Challenges : modules throughout the first three years o years three the first throughout modules ended problem solving and self

- week designproject; (D&PS) professionalskills -

shock of ‘why can’t they just give us the answers?’ the us give they just can’t of ‘why shock first - the the stemic curriculum reform. As one interviewee noted, “ noted, interviewee As one reform. curriculum stemic . Withinweekjoining . their UCL,first of all weekdesign projectstackled by incoming first ” during these early months of delivery with “ with delivery of months early these during ” - core multidisciplinary experiences: multidisciplinary core multidisciplinary multidisciplinary

ersity ersity College UKLondon, 15 Challenge 1 Challenge

time one time

module. Although delivered as a stand a delivered as Although module.

five Box Box IEP’s time - the Faculty (2014 Faculty the

[academics] felt the IEP week curricular clusters, which underpin underpin which clusters, curricular week . Three issues stand out.. issues Three stand The to first issue relatedexpectation a lack of D&PS - the integration and cross and integration the

, full IEP five

. Some Some . sue related to related sue week - around teething problems teething

IEP across IEP UCL Engineering, Univ Engineering, UCL

two intensive arenoted in

Design & Professional Skills Professional & Design

– –

there was definitely a culture a definitely was there few a twoa specialist options for second and third year students across UCL Engineering; across students year third and second for options specialist

a Dean that was driving this and wanted to see it happen and a number of new new of number a and ithappen see to wanted and this driving was that Dean a : C.4 The third is

quite a quite a CASE STUDY .”

called upon students to work in multidisciplinary teams to tackle a tackle to teams multidisciplinary in work to students upon called and shared – sue centered sue

he stars aligned…we had a Provost that was talking about teaching, a Vice Minors: HTCTW Scenarios cycles: Scenarios and 2 of study,where students spend four weeks learning engineeringtheory and skills full a in applied then are that (D&PS): Skills Professional Design and skills; professional and personal students’ build to designed Challenges: both iteration, first IEP’s the In students. Engineering; UCL across from students together : Innovative features of the IEP ” from the student participants that exacerbated residual concerns among some academic academic some among concerns residual exacerbated that participants student the from ” was launched in September 2014. Innovative features of this new curriculum curriculum new this of features Innovative 2014. September in launched was

15 …t Rolling out the out Rolling ewee feedbackpoints to numbera of factors that contributedto theproblems faced during the

supportive, supportive, things new do to willing were that UCL of outside from came that lecturers and Department of “

• • • • • still a huge reluctance IEP Box hallenge APPENDIX C Challenge the courses the all together brought time, the at that, program During early iterations of the IEP, however, this integration proved challenging, and the experience the and challenging, proved integration this however, IEP, the of iterations early During “ that were departments and some students designed to closely integrate with the students’ learning throughout the the throughout learning students’ the with integrate closely to designed authent in skills professional their apply and upon reflect learn, to able were they that they experienced: “ experienced: they issecond the to respect with particularly setting among the incoming students. The first cohort first The students. the incoming among setting open theof for unprepared levels reportedto be Intervi the of implementation early staff about the underlying merits of the the sy merits of the underlying about staff was pointed to “ to pointed feedback detail in Section Section in detail the in were participating students C The C.2.3. The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX C:

CASE STUDY – UCL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON, UK 99

,”

I had a a had I

] an howtheir them Challenge get r internal internal r to explore their their explore to Most 2016/17. in

too vague and and vague too s I found that found I and “ [ IEP

voiced concerns that concerns voiced cylinde - weredesignedto

student

the highlight of my degree my of highlight the h each of the components thecomponents ofeach h such as the fuel system or asthesystem fuel such based experiences for the the for experiences based

In addition, as this this as addition, In all five groups had a fully fully a had groups five all ,” as “ as

. , “ , .”

student cohort pointed to a to a pointed cohort student

cademics also also cademics IEP Challenge 1 Challenge engage students engage . In theUCLterm Yearof final 2, cenarios was all the interviewer wanted to talk to me me to talk to wantedall was the interviewer “ S

Challenge IEP September 2016, each department

”; in ”; based based week aimed to - -

cenarios S five assembly of the engine the of assembly ed in parallel to to parallel in ed

- Itwas framed around asingle and

.” allenge 1 allenge teams were asked to researc to asked were teams

,” cohort of 150 students was divided into six groups and groups six into divided was students 150 of cohort ood to be their chosen discipline

hallenges One experience, in particular, however, appearsto have been

C , and each team was asked to create a video about “ about avideo create to asked was team each and , based learning. One example of the new approach taken to to taken approach new the of example One learning. based

- .” y IEP cohort embarked on this application process, many were surprised to to were surprised many process, application this on embarked cohort , taken, from Mechanical Engineering.

and connect asdepartmental a cohort f the project, each student was asked to prepare a short video and and video short a prepare to asked was student each project, the f

modules deliver modules week

stripped into component form. Each groupof 25 was then split into 16 taken into the departments IEP incoming incoming assembl - MechanicalEngineering assigned a unique sub unique a assigned Box D&PS The was “ was

together and apply their learning from the preceding modules within “ within modules preceding the from learning their apply and together

UCL Engineering, University College London, UK London, College University Engineering, UCL UCL UCL

ences in the week experience tointroduce their incoming cohort to the engineeringdiscipline – The -

.”

Mechanical Engineering Mechanical .” assembly and identify how they fit together. Although teams were not required to to required not were teams Although together. fit they how identify and assembly life jigsaw life frontof in them - - Challenge 1 Challenge is provided in in provided is CASE STUDY

real

– a : Challenge 1: 16 report about their sub their about report works engine construct the components, by the end of the the of theend by thecomponents, construct engine working to students introduced modules these forexample, So, projects. these into directly integrate engine their of drawings engineering creating when use to needed they packages CAD the o close Atthe components. five teams, and each “ each and teams, five head. cylinder the “ With sub their of The2016/17 something in involved practical1 from day engine. combustion engine an given was each Box APPENDIX C summer vacation. When the When the vacation. summer findthattheir experi and time my managed I how and conflict with dealt I how about asking was about…he transformative in improving students’ attitudes towards the the towards attitudes students’ improving in transformative Engineering students often apply industryfor internships or engineering allowingthem to draw fun really but stressful intensive, progressive improvement in their experiences with the new curriculum as they advanced through their their through advanced they as new curriculum the with experiences their in improvement progressive department the identified many particular, In studies. Despite the early issues faced, interview responses from the first first the from responses interview faced, issues early the Despite and toengage studentswith project 1 Challenge significantly, significantly, five new a delivered specialist engineering discipline engineering specialist the to made were adjustments major of number a concerns, these to response In seemingly unrelated to what they underst they what to unrelated seemingly a studies, undergraduate their in experience first students’ the was allow would that activities alternative of expense the at come to appeared it framedthe around sustainableenergyneeds of different countries theacross world.Many students, “ as was characterized which posed, problem the with connect to struggled however, The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX C:

CASE STUDY – UCL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON, UK 100 at the

UCL In 2022,

HTCTW

Centre for for Centre ;

)

my peers from different different from peers my cohorts was similarly similarly was cohorts as wellas as some new

education/ lans are underway to to underway are lans -

BEng or whichMEng study will IEP UCL Engineering to their learning and employability, employability, and learning their to

cohort participated in in participated cohort

IEP engineering across - IEP in April 2015 as a majorinstitutional and for at students’internship application -

For example, p example, For

from UCL Engineering They became the best salespeople for the for salespeople best the became They

This will Thisbe will throughthe advanced ”

ained from working with “ in the former London 2012 Olympic Village. Village. Olympic 2012 London former the in

established established a real energy in the room... [with] some fantastic ideas ideas fantastic some [with] room... the in energy real a 68 students students , of them made interviews got from they feedback the positive … UCL East

which was was which based project in the final year of of year final the in project based

- outcomplete and the first studentcohort midway through their 67 - , class expertise. class - industry experiences.

n of UCL Engineering within a new university campus. university new a within Engineering UCL n of ) roll

(CEE) of new teaching space for

east IEP 2 - ams,such as Engineering Design and Mechatronics. http://www.engineering.ucl.ac.uk/centre (

” as well as with external experts from across a range of sectors. sectors. of range a across from experts external with as well as ”

teamwill dedicate particular effort in three areas: UCL Engineering, University College London, UK London, College University Engineering, UCL 2500m

multidisciplinary teams

– IEP Interview feedback from studentsin the first and second will bring will

f study, f attentionstudy, turnedbuilding to upon thiseducational platform. Inthe months and then they started to talk to the years below years the to talk to started they then CASE STUDY Similarly, many faculty interviewees suggested th tackled by tackled .”

idence base and world and base idence

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ucl – UCL will launch a new campus, campus, new a launch will UCL East progr undergraduate offering more authentic authentic more offering industry optional an establish be expansio the supporting ensuring that the Faculty’s continuing educational development is informed by the latest latest the by is informed development educational continuing Faculty’s the that ensuring ev Engineering Education education; engineering in research for hub national flip flip their the opinions IEP] [about “ doing. were we what of misconceptions their rethink IEP…

• • • Centre for Engineering Education UCL East (

APPENDIX C 67 68

third year o year third the come, to years By earlywith 2017, initialthe coming out coming g had they skills the describing many with positive, backgrounds engineering student engagement progressively grew. By the time the first the first the time By grew. progressively engagement student “ to pointed consistently observers 2, Year of end With these external experiences emphasizing the benefits of the the of benefits the emphasizing experiences external these With lot to say!” to lot to: appeared experience The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX C:

CASE STUDY – UCL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON, UK 101 e

- IEP Three

ergraduate ergraduate

allowing

: y, charities, y, charities,

cross the world, student world, the cross sand incoming engineering engineering incoming sand providing, as interviewees interviewees as providing,

: to work effectivelywith people from

educational approach:

education is integrated across the core core the across integrated is education

IEP’s

IEP

offering them critical insightinto the role and

,”

solving across and beyond their und their beyond and across solving scale educational innovations has been has been innovations educational scale - - .” offering an educationthat blends both rigor in the allowing students to contextualize and reinforce

Faculty projects and experiences and projects Faculty : : -

capacityand confidence to use their engineering skills to ”; ven below. ven

a real breadth of learning in many different professional skills like like skills professional different many in learning of breadth real a ”;

educational approach educational

stands apart, however, is in the scale of their application and in and application their of the scale in is however, apart, stands

with a range of very different project experiences, varying in scope, scope, in varying experiences, project different very of range a with and nurturing their “

out from their disciplinary silos disciplinary their from out

he curriculum, with students struggling to connect these experiences to their their to experiences these connect to struggling with students curriculum, he ,” alone in driving forward an educational agenda that is underpinned by the

UCL Engineering, University College London, UK London, College University Engineering, UCL

– break fundamentals with “ UCL Engineering UCL bove; some or all appear in the mission statements of many engineering schools schools engineering many of statements mission the in appear all or some bove; based curricula cater only to small student numbers or a selected subgroup of the the of subgroup selected a or numbers student small to only cater curricula based - students, from day one, with a sense of the power of engineers as people who can change th CASE STUDY

–

make a positive impact on society on impact positive a make capabilities professional of development engineering writing technical and teams in working relating, problems, many of which have been developed with partners from industr from partners with developed been have which of many problems, community; regional the across and agencies development change world positive for vehicle a as engineering on focus “ noted, theworld for good place of their own engineering discipline as well as the tools “ tools the as well as discipline engineering own their of place perspectives and backgrounds of range a practice to knowledge of the application engineering authentic to knowledge their applying by curriculum the throughout learning their UCL UCL Engineering’s cross through learning multidisciplinary “ to students

• • • • APPENDIX C

significantly enhanced by a number of important communities, tools and support systems. systems. support tools and communities, important of number by a enhanced significantly gi are reform for facilitators such of examples studies. studies. The capacity of UCLto deliverEngineering such large length, format, intensity and assessment protocols. This diversity of experience helps students to to students helps experience of diversity This protocols. assessment and intensity format, length, problem to approach adaptable and agile an develop integrated with their disciplinary modules into a coherent curriculum structure. In addition, the the addition, In structure. curriculum coherent a into modules disciplinary their with integrated students provides curriculum learning in the ‘core’ engineering modules. In contrast, the the contrast, In modules. engineering ‘core’ the in learning thou a engages UCL Engineering students. engineering all for curriculum are that projects engineering authentic and immersive in departments, eight across from students, overall cohort.In addition, where authentic, multidisciplinary challenges are offered, they are often t of rest the from isolated their integration across the full curriculum. In many engineering schools a schools engineering many In curriculum. full the across integration their project centered, UCL Engineering is not is Engineering UCL features outlined a Where worldwide. Interviewees pointed to a number of defining features of the of features defining of number a to pointed Interviewees The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global C.3.

APPENDIX C:

CASE STUDY – UCL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON, UK 102 - - to ” The “

–

group t. A t. - 70 69 UCL within the the within

l culture l facing - It brings brings It

transformation. transformation.

67 contributions - IEP hosted by by hosted - (CEE). creating new peer peer new creating

assessments made by will appoint its first post

team and embedded

based learning at the the at learning based student - - IEP CEE iomedical Engineering Engineering iomedical fairly assessment rubric - - assessment rubrics use affective criteria to criteria affective use rubrics assessment -

and one externally ; the peer the

– Examples of thenew tools and assess - . 2017, the the 2017,

generated peer generated

- accordingly brings together UCL educational researchers researchers UCL educational together brings

generated peer - a bespokea online peer assessmenttool.

CEE

, developed bythe B

the

How student ognition of contributions made byindividual team

to help us to change the Faculty’s educationa Faculty’s the change to us help to 71 , “

Centre for Engineering Education Engineering for Centre develop a student – has dedicated significant effort to to effort significant dedicated has

to respond to and review review and to respond to

of ” and influence practice elsewhere. Co elsewhere. practice influence and ” employed both centrally in the the in centrally both employed

learning/news/2017/mar/how , - h studentteam identifies and agrees uponthe criteria by . From . programSeptember MScit will 2018, in an launch

)

facing do not simply fulfill administrative or teaching delivery roles; roles; delivery teaching or fulfill administrative simply not do - the marks allocated marks the IEP has catalyzed important advances in student assessmen student in advances important catalyzed has

Education s tudents IEP

. SEFI SEFI Annual Conference.

3 cl.ac.uk/ioe wide initiative to to initiative wide UCL Engineering UCL - centered curricula, particularly when delivered at large scale, is ensuring , in which, in eac degreepeer assessment’ allows s - - has established the the established has moderating Institute of of Institute teaching fellows

Table centered learning across the Faculty. Faculty. the across learning centered UCL -

UCL Engineering, University College London, UK London, College University Engineering, UCL a

teaching fellow – http://www.u . which . hallenges C https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching curriculum,

olsthat have provedto be innovativeand effective . Paper presented at , M.S., Tilley, E., Marie, J., Mitchell J.E. (2017) and theUCL year IEP

- team has also provided staff training in areas such as ‘facilitation’ to advance the the advance to ‘facilitation’ as such areas in training staff provided also has team CASE STUDY

, the introduction of the – UCL Engineering UCL the concept of ‘360 of concept the department teammates, their spearheading the development and introduction and development the first project; the of close the at assessed be will members team of contributions the which , IEP , the, new cadre of

) • • • IPAC Consortium ( Institute of Education ( Roach K., Smith

ngineering education, targeting engineering academics. engineering targeting education, ngineering APPENDIX C 70 work 71 69 evaluate teamwork A summary of UCL Engineering’s educational approach, distilled from UCL documents and interview interview and documents UCL from distilled approach, educational Engineering’s UCL of summary A feedback,is provided in doc to begin formal evaluation of the the of evaluation formal begin to doc e Engineering late From worldwide. institutions from academics leading with together two functions: one internally one functions: two together support academic offering and learning student evaluating through education engineering in knowledge advance Thirdly assessment to include: Engineering by UCL developed projects members risks provoking widespread student disengagement. With project With disengagement. student widespread provoking risks members the of heart that individual student contributions to group projects are appropriately recognized and the marking marking the and recognized appropriately are projects group to contributions student individual that rec Inadequate accordingly. moderated system Secondly project for challenge major central central student of introduction In many cases, these these cases, many In the across run that experiences and themes curricular key leading with charged been have many learning. students’ the across connectivity and coherence promote to them enabling curriculum, Firstly the to rigor educational and expertise dedicated brought has departments, within The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX C:

CASE STUDY – UCL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON, UK 103 ,

evel evel L

grants,

72 projects.

oduction of the IEP IEP the of oduction led clubs led are

- 74 Scenario ChangeMaker

and projects connect connect projects and

UCL UCL Engineering

) UCL focusedaandtrack research - net assessment [load] increased

the

) Scenarios alizing the recognition and reward of of reward and recognition the alizing tice varies by department. Team societies/ - and - focusedsupportstrack advancement a to -

programme gested that “ - provides a number of pathways for professional

summative and therefore require second marking. marking. second require therefore and summative

and training is provided both through the central IEP IEP central the through both provided is training and

.” CEGE is alone, however, in not stipulating any UCL Global Citizenship Programme. Citizenship Global UCL are l.ac.uk/groups citizenship - UCL Arena UCL

) ir chosen ir disciplines. and learning as well as access to the the to access as as well learning and ved with the the with ved

evel. However, with girls accounting for only 20% of Physics ‘A’ ‘A’ Physics of 20% only for accounting girls with However, evel. L ducational impact. based interviewees sug many of which focus on engineering outreach. Students from UCL UCL from Students outreach. engineering on focus which of many -

based learning; and (ii) participation and inclusivity in engineering The remaining curriculum is largely devoted to ‘core’ engineering or

- 73 evel) grades and written submissions. In UCL Engineering, student selection selection student Engineering, UCL In submissions. andwritten grades evel) L of which focused on improving and form ring. However, many of the departmental specific educational research groups. Areas of particular research focus include include focus research particular Areas of groups. research educational specific .” In addition, the introduction of the IEP has also heralded the development of a a of development the heralded also has IEP the of introduction the addition, In .” -

http://www.engineering.uc departments traditionally required prospective students to have studied http://www.ucl.ac.uk/global much evel grades in the in grades evel ( L school (‘A’ (‘A’ school - address the Faculty’s gender balance gender Faculty’s the address based and skills - discipline

UCL Engineering, University College London, College University Engineering, UCL

based experiences.

- – fundscollaborative staff/student educational reform projects. . . Keyfeatures of the approach to undergraduateeducation at http://www.ucl.ac.uk/changemakers 3 (

organized at a Faculty level, invol heavily also are Engineering Interviewees reported a significant growth in engineering education research capacity since the sincethe capacity research education engineering insignificant a growth reported Interviewees of IEP,introduction the supported at Facultythethe level by CEEdepartmentallevel at andby emerging (i) problem throughout schooling, higher education and professional careers. student a of each engineering number linked department, to those to addition In UCL supports three career pathways: an academic track, an education an track, academic an pathways: career three supports UCL track. During the preparation of this case study, the university was rolling out a major reformthese pathways,to teaching achievement. For example, the new education ‘ProfessorialTeaching Fellow’ position and the academic track provides much greater scope for e of basis the on advancement after the IEP came in came IEP the after work. project team to contribution individual of evaluation the for tools novel of number aAt Faculty level, teaching and learning support level, university a At CEE. the through and development support in teaching which Design and Professional Skills modules where pedagogical prac pedagogical where modules Skills Professional and Design teaching is largely confined to multidisciplinary IEP modules and departmental Although the IEP has brought a slight reduction in the quantity of exams at the end of Years 1 and 2 has new alsoit introduced assessed deliverables during restthe of academicthe year,linked typically to project work. Almost all such assessments As a result, many department Shared IEP modules provide opportunities for students to work with peers from other engineering departments. Beyond electives, limited opportunities are available for themoutsideenginee from to work with students community. wider and the schools charities, industry, with students through is indelivered curriculum 40%aroundof departments most the that estimated Interviewees project in order to “ to inorder prerequisite subjects for entry; successful candidates to this department ‘A’ top areattained only required to have Students remain within their chosen engineering discipline from entry to UCL and throughout their degree. Choice is offered through the Minor (in Years 2 and 3) and electives (in Year 4). In 2012, UCL ceased interviewing prospective students; candidates are now selected solely on on the solely nowselected are candidates students; interviewing ceased prospective UCL 2012, In basis of high conductedisaon departmentalbasis. Engineering UCL ‘A’ at physics and mathematics intr the following requirement this dropped departments most UK, the in entrants Details clubs and societies ( societies and clubs

Table Table CASE STUDY

– d

curricular curricular - UCL ChangeMakers UCL Engineering UCL Global Citizenship Programme

APPENDIX C 72 73 74

The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

Extra opportunities Educational activities research teaching Reward and of recognition Teaching an learning support Assessment and feedback approach disciplines Pedagogical student choice student to Opportunities across work Flexibility and selection of of selection intake student Educational Educational feature for Criteria APPENDIX C:

CASE STUDY – UCL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON, UK 104

ts - BEng

UCL

around a

– wide; nes, such as - duringYears 1 The remaining

from eachfrom year

a departmental level,

core’ engineering modules, modules, engineering core’

‘ ; , years in duration. duration. in years

The UCL Engineering academic year is held during Year 1, where students students where 1, Year during held

3 is four

Challenges specific engineering modules. engineering specific - which

week multidisciplinaryproject at the close of , - It comprises two broad components: broad two comprises It and

Challenges . 14

a two

week - ltidisciplinary problem; ltidisciplinary ended humanitarian problems.

- Scenarios MEng degreeMEng that are common to all departments;

a structured program of skilldevelopment that students

Figure Figure week projects atthe start of Year 1introducing studen - – a shared set of professional skillsmodules

largely discipline largely

: Design and Professional Skills Professional and Design week curricular cycleswhere students spend fourweeks , - These experiences are coordinated centrally by the Faculty and

modules

is described in turn in the subsections that follow. that subsections the in turn in described is

hallenges

– C

the only ‘core’engineering module that is taught Faculty

tly on the first two years of the BEng and MEng curriculum at at curriculum MEng and BEng the of years two first the on tly – an take undergraduates the second oftwo five n

two immersive five ; the final term is largely dedicated to exams.

a series of five

IEP Faculty teams. They include: They teams. Faculty -

Minors specialisms, often at the interface between engineering discipli engineering between interface at the often specialisms, UCL Engineering, University College London, UK London, College University Engineering, UCL

curriculum is provided in provided is curriculum –

week intensivedesign project; and -

IEP week terms week - Years 3 and 4 of study are largelydetermined by each department, but most bring ore engineering ore 10

acrossUCL Engineering. UCL Engineering

How to Change the World World (HTCTW): the Change to How open tackle students where 2 Year from across the Faculty tacklemu a skills: professional common total in taught those of quarter mathematics: Challenge 2: Challenge can apply and build upon in their their in upon build and apply can Minors: medicines; regenerative and engineering ocean design, building sustainable C Scenarios: a tackle to apply subsequently they that knowledge and skills engineering critical building one Skills: Professional Design and Challenges: studies; their for context a setting and engineering of scope and role the to 75 .

CASE STUDY • • • • • • • • •

HTCTW – , focuses predomina Curriculum design Multidisciplinary experiences that bring together most or all students students or all most together bring that experiences Multidisciplinary group cross by taught their goals, format and assessment protocols are shared across the Faculty. This common common This Faculty. the across shared are protocols assessment and format goals, their elements: key of number a integrates framework curriculum A common curriculum structure shared by all engineering departments departments engineering by all shared structure curriculum A common and 2 of study. Although these modules are designed and delivered at follow a similar pathway, but complete their studies at the close of Year

IEP 2. 1. Around 60% of Around

cenarios APPENDIX C divided into three 75 students

Each keyelement of the S The Engineering content. disciplinary core and electives with projects group or individual together An outline of the the of outline An The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global C.4.

APPENDIX C:

CASE STUDY – UCL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON, UK 105 4 MEng 3 BEng

MINORS duringStudents minors study the allowingstudy,and second of yearthird deepenbroadeneither or their themto capabilities. engineering thesis HOW TO CHANGE THE WORLD THE CHANGE TO HOW multidisciplinaryteams tasks project intensive Thistwo-week, to engineeeringsolutions of practical devise to students challenges.real-worldandsocietal environmental 2 minor / / minor elective

ex ams SCENARIO SCENARIO CYCLES engagestudents All one-week,infull-time drawupon which requirethe themto projects knowledgegainedand skills linked from solution. adevise to order in courses four-week Outline curriculum structure of the IEP at UCL .

14 1 Figure

core disciplinary core content UCL Engineering, University College London, UK London, College University Engineering, UCL

– design and design professionalskills CHALLENGE 1 CHALLENGE Thefive-week acurriculum with opens incoming introduces that project learningproject-based as to students as theirwell to discipline. engineering Challenge 2 Challenge Thedesignfive-weeksecond challenge brings together Engineering UCL addressa across to from students problemon focused multidisciplinary health. global 0 CASE STUDY

– project APPENDIX C education art in engineering the state of The global components each to common department examples of of examples IEPcurricular experiences involvingall engineering students examples of examples cross-faculty APPENDIX C:

CASE STUDY – UCL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON, UK 106 ended ended - more -

participate in the the in participate

It takes a “ a takes It

;

” Computer Computer discipline and and discipline sessions that that sessions Adolfo IbáñezAdolfo

ises its own context context own its ises students were also also were students

respectively.

CEGE working and experiential learning, - ering students. ering UCL Engineering UCL , each, dev n that collapsed during the the during that collapsed n ó in the UK and and UK the in

Challenge 2 Challenge

mentary projects that focused in turn CEGE

e students were asked to build and test a test a and build to asked were students reflective review) and team elementsteam reflective review) and Challenge 1 Challenge

- and from across .” round the 2010 Chilean earthquake. Chilean roundthe 2010 focused focused approach, such as hour weekly workshop workshop weekly hour

- - a

y practicalintroduction to the impact engineers can 76 week project, the UK and Chilean students students Chilean and UK the project, week - two CEGE

e, assessments involve both individual individual both involve assessments e, hallenges research and coming up with ideas with up coming and research C

five introduce them to team to them introduce Challenge 1 Challenge Challenge 1 Challenge a seriesa of compl

. For . exampl experience involving all engine all involving experience

students were asked to create a numerical model of the tower

collaborations with their Chilean teammates. teammates. Chilean their with collaborations

AIU based and designed to introduce students to their their to students introduce to designed and based

Faculty - - Challenge 1 Challenge Some have taken a research a taken have Some ngineering, University College London,UK online All departments adopt the same timetable, learning outcomes and and outcomes learning same timetable, the adopt departments All

The projects focus in turn on the two broad stages of the design cycle:

.” UCL E UCL explore and refine it, conduct it, refine and explore

“

is designed anddelivered by departments. It asks studentsto take an open is a cross – .”

week projects that aim to: “ office tower fromtheChilean cityof Concepci

BSc students do not participate in the provide further details of of details further provide -

ngineering themes: structures, geotechnical engineering, transportation and and transportation engineering, geotechnical structures, themes: ngineering

e in Chile. Over the course of the the of course the Over Chile. in an an tasks student teams to each create a website to outline the activities of one of of one of activities the outline to website a create each to teams student tasks 18

, as outlined below. ivil ivil c is departmentally is

Box el of of el department framedits 2016/17 (AIU) CASE STUDY

te of the art the te in engineering of education : two : five two which – CEGE to their undergraduate studies, 700 students 700 studies, undergraduate their to transition from the guided thinking they experience at [high] school to an independent, self independent, an to school [high] at experience they thinking guided the from transition ,

Challenge 1 Challenge and problem 2 Challenge prototype working a to through brief defined tightly a : Challenge 1 and

Challenges

CEGE 17

17 • • Management Science Management supported and informed the teams’ progression through the projects, projects, the through progression teams’ the informed and supported the manage to expected scale mod scale the turn, in earthquake; 2010 two the Alongside failure. of mode the identify to on four key theme, structures the in example, For geomatics. Membership of each student team was drawn both from from both drawn was team each student of Membership University on remotely collaborate to asked were the department’s research groups. Other departments have focused on engineering design, design, engineering on focused have departments Other groups. research department’s the such as The and brief for the project. Science elements (such as a short video presentation and a self a and presentation video short a as (such elements (such as a technical report and peer assessment). for framework common a follow departments all While offer “ driven of learningway assessment protocols for Box 1 Challenge hallenges

APPENDIX C 76

Box have at globala scale On entry entry On C ver a them give and design engineering to them introduce C.4.1. The global sta The global

APPENDIX C:

CASE STUDY – UCL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON, UK 107 ,

,” This

view - of - - Challenge 1 Challenge

essional essional

. Challenge agement skills. are not Computer aharan Africa, Africa, aharan

s - . For example, For . specific point specific reactor - who students are stepping up to to up stepping are students such that the critical skills

hour sessions each each sessions hour - teamsto reflect upon and

cenarios “discuss progress and and progress “discuss two

S , when “ It is coordinatedby the module uses theuses module

. Scenarios modules is delivered to is delivered modules

. .” hallenge a departmental s ” such as teamwork, leadership, leadership, teamwork, as such ” C and D&PS

D&PS pics

Challenge 2 Challenge 15. This experience calls upon students to put to put students upon calls experience 15. This – Seven hundred engineering students, from from students, engineering hundred Seven time’. Forexample, while engaged in

- .” Challenges in - cutting to cutting UCL Engineering UCL communicating with people people with communicating

- teaching fellow the concurrent concurrent the

need it

meet their deadlines

,” cross

t aculty teaching team. projectThe brief is tightly F -

Around one in four of of four in one Around children aged 10 aged children

.” students are required to attend two two to attend required are students carefullyto week project duringYear 1 where studentswork with local schools to - inform theteams’ thinking and enablethem tomonitor their engineerswho focus onthe power and structure of theplant; team, covering “ tomake amanufacturing plant for aTB vaccine in sub students from across from students

to to IEP site for the people tha people the for site - Challenge 1, 1, Challenge g and planning skills. Then, during during Then, skills. planning g and

UCL Engineering, University College London, UK London, College University Engineering, UCL

–

up isprovided with a technicalbrief and asked toproduce aworking

ging the project Although taught departmentally, the modules adhere to a common set of learning learning of set common a to adhere modules the departmentally, taught Although offers a five

a brings together together brings team and delivered by a cross a by delivered and team

learning intopractice, forexample, by“ CASE STUDY

te of the art the te in engineering of education – chemical, biochemical and biomedical engineers who focus on the bio the on focus who engineers biomedical and biochemical chemical, civil and mechanical mechanical civil and the for systems control the on focus who scientists computer and engineering electrical bioreactor; IEP

: Challenge 2 Design and Professional Skills (D&PS) Skills Professional and Design modules are designed to coordinate with the with coordinate to designed are modules provides a structured approach to the progressive development of the students’ prof students’ the of development progressive the to approach structured a provides

ress. Each multidisciplinary team also meets on a weekly basis to alsoteam on meets ress.Each multidisciplinary

18 D&PS • • • prog groups between information exchange Each specialist gro to Similar prototype. designed are which week, that makes vaccines on vaccines makes that across sevendepartments, aredivided into multidisciplinaryteams of 35. Each team is built from three specialistgroups, comprising: Challenge 2 2 Challenge central “ students asks and defined Box APPENDIX C

develop interactive coding lessons for for lessons coding interactive develop their and man Scientists learning is further advanced as students move into their departmental departmental their into move students as advanced further is learning Science Computer work with others from outside their department their outside others workfrom with project man and communications develop and explore to framework a as schedule the concurrent D&PS modules bring students together in their their in together students bring modules D&PS concurrent the teamworkin their build D&PS ‘just developed are projects these tackle to needed communications and project management. Modules requiring “ requiring Modules management. project and communications and developed are standards, professional and law ethics, risk, design, drawing, technical such as of team by a typically by departments, delivered outcomes and assessmentprotocols. core the by departments D&PS skills. engineering C.4.2. The global sta The global

APPENDIX C:

CASE STUDY – UCL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON, UK 108 e z

content. content. 19

week - specific, specific, - embed Box module as they as module ended. Most are are Most ended. - . Although. each

looks in more more in looks

20 community, the the community, orkshops then open

cycles

UCL Engineering Box ng in this this ng in project. project.

consolidate and contextuali and consolidate evaluate the rheology of an an of rheology the evaluate is designed to “ to designed is “

– configured into four into configured specific engineering problems. problems. engineering specific - w based - cenario - S cenario design and delivery of their their of delivery and design S As students progress through their their through progress students As

cycles (in Year 2, Term 2) reverse this this reverse 2) Term 2, Year (in cycles

.” has adopted a ‘flipped classroom’ classroom’ ‘flipped a adopted has week centered approaches. For example, the

- -

to real engineering problems during class class during problems engineering real to

students are offered separate, discipline separate, are offered students

cenario

S department basis, they all share a common common a share all they basis, department - by - dedicated to ‘core’engineering disciplinary

r eachr one based experiences into the the into experiences based where they are asked to asked are they where wide module. wide -

- – well is fluid the ensure will that operation mixing a e z Faculty team of five academics delivers the the delivers academics five of team Faculty Year 1 and 2Mathematics in Biomedical Engineering and and Engineering Biomedical in -

week intensiveproject, and thenexplore the theories and – -

time team project, designed to “ to designed project, team time - 77 The final two

.” Management Science

A cross A

fellow, with supportthe from academic leads of the linked wide in Term 2 2 Term in

and and - curriculum are punctuated by six by six punctuated are curriculum Biochemical Engineering

.” 2

continues to be to continues solve real engineering problems week full

IEP - briefs offered briefs

cenario

in the modules the in

–

project ed

UCL Engineering, University College London, UK London, College University Engineering, UCL

project from Chemical Engineering. Chemical from project to mathematics to

projects are designed to become increasingly complex and and complex increasingly become to designed are projects – solving after class. Students draw heavily on their learni their on heavily draw Students class. after solving

- cycles are five weeks in duration and comprise four weeks of ‘core’ disciplinary and and disciplinary ‘core’ of weeks four and comprise duration in weeks five are cycles

cenario chanics module in in module chanics Biochemical Engineering S

, Scenario introduced a new stream of project of stream new a introduced cenario

Scenario S practice in CASE STUDY Scenario te of the art the te in engineering of education Each Each departmenthas takendistinctive a approachto the

IEP

– ‘core’ module taught Faculty taught module ‘core’ and second years of the projects ask students to “ to students ask projects is designed anddelivered on a department thesix

Core disciplinary modules Scenarios modules followed by one a followed modules

.”

year fluid me - Computer Science

ducation, much of thecurriculum cenario cenario APPENDIX C mathematics education and do not participate in this Faculty this in participate not do and education mathematics 77 mathematical theory to students in two groups of 300. Departmentally 300. of groups two in to students theory mathematical discipline solve to tools mathematical these apply to students challenge These disciplinaryworkshops commonshare a structure andprotocol. assessment The only engineering unknownsample, fluid and anddesign characteri mixed and onlineproblem linked the tackle first approach;with videos and quizzesbefore class, application Most ‘core’ modules are taught traditionally, based around lectures, tutorials, workshops and ‘labs’. ‘labs’. and workshops tutorials, lectures, around based traditionally, taught are modules ‘core’ Most student active, are adopting number increasing an However, e re are modules ‘core’ these however, study, of years two first the During fo context theoretical a offer they that such blocks C.4.4. the While detail at one one at detail Scenario projects. Examples of the approaches taken are provided in the boxes overleaf: overleaf: boxes the in provided are taken the approaches of Examples projects. Scenario outlines managed by a departmental teaching departmental by a managed modules. Often drawing on external partnerships with industry, charities and the regional the and charities industry, with partnerships external on drawing Often S the studies, format, and ask studentsfirst to tackle a one it. underpin that principles D&PS whatlearn have students S structure. C.4.3. The first The global sta The global

APPENDIX C:

CASE STUDY – UCL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON, UK 109 -

them .” while the the while

,” consumer consumer e a number number a e - ”: the firm’s firm’s the ”: are created group group

- to

- year

cenarios

Separation Processes Processes Separation . to a a to S modules and two of and modules tory experimentation experimentation tory

, whoensures, that the

endedbrief, placing navigating the legal - new

” of the brief. The project project The brief. the of ” and established close ,” d from from d

D&PS – dence andquality oflife for a

dropped a bombshell

are delivered

teaching fellow

modules. For example, the law the example, For modules.

Chemical Engineering Chemical Crystallization Scenarios a deliberately open

p the program fresh and D&PS is led by a a by led is

kee week, teamswere “

by a partner charity. partner by a linked linked the

focused pharmaceutical theon industry. Students self

cenarios

presented with with presented required to produce a market strategy and direct and strategy market a produce to required

ioprojects offered Biomedical in Engineering , Term 2), Term Separation Processes 2 “ in students’ work to support helped module

– Midway through through Midway

Year 2 Year (

UCL Engineering, University College London, UK London, College University Engineering, UCL

opics coveredby the D&PS – : test the suitability of materials for a leg brace; : design and build an article of smart clothing for an athlete; : use electrical activity from an arm to control a computer game; : pitch a startup idea based on a real medical device developed by a : develop a prototype device to support indepen : design a smartphone app for measuring pulse rates; teams would be would teams

the the Chemical Engineering Chemical drug’ to combat Alzheimer’s disease. Teams were asked to produce a strategic strategic a produce to were asked Teams disease. Alzheimer’s combat to drug’ - Scenario 6 Scenario was designed for integration with two ‘core’ modules delivered during Term 2 of Year 2 2 Year of 2 Term during delivered modules ‘core’ two with integration for designed was how the firm should respond to the crisis faced. They were asked to includ to asked were faced. They crisis the to respond should firm the how

CASE STUDY te of the art the te in engineering of education – Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario department; researcherEngineering in the Biomedical 6 Scenario identified as population, disabled Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario camein asa ‘subjectmatter expert’, working for thecompany, duringthe launch lecture [for : Scenario 6 in Chemical Engineering in Chemical Scenario 6 : : Briefs from the six Scenar fromsix Briefs the : long experiences align with the students’ learning from linked linked from learning students’ the with align experiences long -

cenario],to discuss the active therapeuticand crystallization aspects 20 19 firm forward.going • • • • • • S ics components supported students as they developed an advert for their drug which was was which drug their for advert an developed they as students supported components ics

Chemical Engineering Chemical enario 6 enario also “

madein good faith and demonstrated ethicaljudgment that was sensitive to the wider audience eth “ also integrated key t of components theframeworks and including pharmaceuticals, approval for processes drugs for discovery partnerships with the academics involved in each. The academic lea academic The each. in involved academics the with partnerships 2 the Sc in competitor would be entering the market much sooner than expected and, in addition to their their to addition in and, expected than sooner much market the entering be would competitor strategic report, advert. YouTube on theirhardness and flowability; (iii)proposals on the optimal particle morphology of the for strategy business a (iv) and modeling; mathematical for calling drug formulation, for crystals the report on of elements in this report: (i) the development options for the reformulation of thedrug and labora for used, calling tablets on the research (ii) process; manufacturing as a senior engineeringteam in a pharmaceutical firm facing a looming competitive threat to ‘wonder their every year, each focused on a different application of of application different a on focused each year, every The 2016/17 were and six of groups into divided week term. that during delivered modules ‘core’ four the “ To students. 160 and 140 between of cohort Box Each of the six Box APPENDIX C

The global sta The global

APPENDIX C:

CASE STUDY – UCL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON, UK 110

pitch in . In.

engineering engineering rt a of and

) while others and

teams by by teams ‘wearable

a lot less scaffolding scaffolding less lot a ; 65 external65 ; connected systems connected from around from20 around teamsdeliver a ‘

ended multidisciplinary multidisciplinary ended - student student Arup Faculty teaching team, team, teaching Faculty

- sustainable energy sustainable Minor management and

and showcase event. event. showcase

and

intelligent systems ars may focus on

humanitarianchallenge, such as the

. research field that stands on the stands field that on research

21 Red Cross Red , anguages l Box

Electronic and Electrical Engineering students come together to participate to participate together come students ; future ; ye future

delivered by a cross by a delivered or the supply of safe, cleanwater is is

, connected systems connected inor asked student teams toundertake a . Its twofold:engagewithare goals (i) to students , defined, with students offered “ offered students with defined, M -

, the closing project will ask students developto World Bank campus

saving

68 - HTCTW edge engineering edge -

Minors .”

UCL Engineering UCL

UCL East

crime & security engineering, & security crime London College of Fashion of College London nanotechnology graduate teaching assistant managing each challenge cohort of 150 of cohort challenge each managing assistant teaching graduate -

sustainable energy sustainable Internet of Things ations such theas inors: inors: z M multidisciplinary activity multidisciplinary 2017, spread across the five cohorts. five the across spread 2017,

ee modules. Early modules typically provide anintroduction to the field, UCL Engineering, University College London, UK London, College University Engineering, UCL

specific mentorship and guidance is also provided to the provided also is guidance and mentorship specific HTCTW – - to their chosen challenge. challenge. chosen their to used onthe fall withinfall two broadcategories: some designedare to broaden students’ inskills

. typical A for a Minor outlined is in format

time, intensive intensive time, - comprises thr comprises

The posedproblems intentionallyare ill presentation to a judging panel of external experts at a final a at experts external of panel judging a to presentation CASE STUDY

te of the art the te in engineering of education – inor a full . Minors : Typical format for UCL Engineering , How to Change the World the Change to How Minors M

21 they would have had in the Challenges the in had have would they

inor, which is foc is which inor, n technology’ in collaboration with the the with collaboration in technology’ community has access to national grid electricity. In the 2017/18 iteration of the the of iteration 2017/18 the In electricity. grid national to access has community M new‘smart the campus’ for solutions currently coordinates three three coordinates currently the in project the final 2016/17, the of 5% only where community Kenyan rural a for solutions energy new develop and brief needs oftendrawing on expert guest lecturers from acrossand beyondUCL. The finalmodule is often framed around authentican project, where canstudents explore topicthe furtherpa as of department the example, For team. multidisciplinary Box Each APPENDIX C and poster’ and partners engaged in in engaged partners activity, the of week second the during solutions their of development Following students. Challenge students. organi from partners, external and novel solutions post one and academics two with use of smart technologies to encourage energy encourage to technologies use smart of practical to develop five or four of teams multidisciplinary into allocated then are Students sanitation. tha different a each addressing cohorts, five into divided Students are the role engineers can play in addressing some of the world’s major social and environmental environmental and social major world’s the of some addressing in play can engineers role the open and challenging tackle to capabilities students’ build to (ii) and challenges; problems. During the last two weeks of Year 2, 750 750 2, Year of weeks two last the During HTCTW C.4.6. & public policy) public & are designed immerseto students in a cutting as (such disciplines between interface options foreign as (such engineering to complementary disciplines C.4.5. one study to select students all study, of year third and second the During The global sta The global

APPENDIX C:

CASE STUDY – UCL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON, UK 111 - - UCL

nts and and nts students to students led led - experience as a a as experience engineering

.” application to real the true test of the IEP IEP the of test true the ” and offered a a offered and ” is developing a developing is they pointed,in

s fered to a small HTCTW – into the 67

direct , that allows now seem to be a Faculty CEE multidimentional, open

IEP offeredby departme we

over time to be realized: “ realized: be to has been delivered. The reach and reach The delivered. been has

cenarios

S cycles delivered during the first two two first the during delivered cycles

IEP

has yet yet has

curriculum

early implementation, students, staff and and staff students, implementation, early IEP on the capabilities, attitudes andcareer

on the Faculty culture and attitudestowards

, students address

cenario IEP S IEP IEP IEP’s Others reported that“ students an invaluable insight into the role and and role the into insight an invaluable students

on’ on’ experience or an option of - the .” HTCTW from one of world’sfrom thepremier research comments over whichover the

– College London,UK based learning that is immersed in authentic engineering engineering authentic in immersed is that learning based

- impact of the the of impact scale

brokenbarriers down between department side immersive and engaging projects in which this learning

full he

. we get feedback from employers and we can see the quality of PhD red, project red,

IEP e wide activitieslike

- concluding . coherent curricular framework offered by the by the offered framework curricular coherent

until cent , - ” of the introduction of the the of introduction the of ” integration of ambitious multidisciplinaryexperiences in the s

UCL Engineering, University Engineering, UCL

is the –

. These experiences also offer of bestpractice isthe

is the the is This approach is visiblemostin the

are impressive; this isnot a ‘bolt

. Large elements. into discretetheof Large divided wherecurriculum are theclusters, ‘core or student f a new spirit for educational research educational for spirit new a

IEP To To captureimpactevidence such in a systematic themanner, –

CASE STUDY te of the art the te in engineering of education .” – provides a robust curricula blueprint blueprint curricula robust a provides Review and and Review

unexpectedeffect managers alike pointed to a vast improvement to the educational approach, and thereby the thereby and approach, educational to the improvement vast to a pointed alike managers

of specialism third domain third second domain second first domain first IEP APPENDIX C longitudinal study to determine the influence of of influence the determine to study longitudinal graduates its of trajectories won’t come for won’tcome ayears few for candidates where there is a buzz about teaching. It seems to have changed the conversation entirely theconversationchanged to have about It teaching. whereseems a is there buzz t foundations, strong these Despite teaching. Many suggested that it had “ had it that suggested Many teaching. “ for platform this activity. At the same time, almost half of the UCL academics and senior managers interviewed interviewed managers senior and academics UCL the of half almost time, same the At activity. this “ noted student experience, in the months and years since. Many appeared to use the the to use Many appeared since. years and months the in experience, student the of impact and quality improved the of barometer of iterations three last the during learning and engagement student in improvements vast to particular, While noting the problems experienced during the the during experienced problems the noting While senior subsection of the student cohort. Almost all of the 1000 undergraduates commencing study at study commencing undergraduates 1000 the of all Almost cohort. student the of subsection Engineering participate The the scope of years of study. Interview outcomes highlighted the diversity of of diversity the highlighted outcomes Interview study. of years designed. been had they which with insight and creativity the engineering content’ is delivered along delivered is content’ engineering applied. be must The through its engineering theory of understanding reinforcetheir advance and problems world application of their disciplinary specialismin real engineering problems. curriculum. Through Faculty Through curriculum. and backgrounds perspectives, different from those with work to them require that problems ended areas practice. It offers an exemplar of educational best practice in three domains. domains. three in practice best educational of exemplar an It offers practice. The The universities The global sta The global C.5.

APPENDIX C:

CASE STUDY – UCL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON, UK 112

” . was was ily

line line - –

the the In In

signing signing ”

. main .” flexible now now UCL time and and time

that “ that

In the words words the In , the culture development development

founding ing

e IEP transformation transformation the

invest IEP , many interviewees IEP the the of thesenew appointees

onal reform. UCL Engineering

.” up’: - can tolerate change more eas more change tolerate can of the

known and respected figure figure respected and known for teachingfor and learning. With a - es a soft leadership style, where he he where style, leadership soft a

to improve educational quality. In quality. educational improve to ottom ” a well in academics about identified as an explicit signal balance between vision ambitionand with a

s their priorities, interests and culture ” time roles. Many roles. time

. a - “

as offering “ At the same time,interviewees from

In particular, many pointed to to pointed many particular, In

. Itmeans that they the university did not get in the way of what we were were we what of way the in get not did university the .” or part

- offered in parallel to the development of the

Ensuring that departments were provided with

” . y where itsmouth is that in full in

one that reflect a new confidence

– ” mone or ensuringfor thecoherence of student learningin “ when describing the success the describing when

philosophy thatphilosophy came fromthe top down but the with a real understandingof the ground,the culture, the people

a the associatedean promotion systems were were systems promotion

t “ approach teaching and learning and teaching cenarios

S UCL’s thread through the curriculum the through thread

this undoubtedly played a role in helping to make the change happen change the make to helping in role a played undoubtedly this brough teaching fellows

se , who has becomesince the associate dean and the talent,energy ideasand they provided,proved critical establishingin a

, leadership who committed individuals that made the change happen change the made that individuals committed IEP . below: factorsThree as stand outlined out, UCL Engineering, University College London, UK London, College University Engineering, UCL “

preparedto itsput – providing the Faculty with considerable freedom regarding the direction and focus focus and direction the regarding freedom considerable with Faculty the providing senior management noted that “

IEP expertise in in expertise

,” ing CASE STUDY te of the art the te in engineering of education – freedom inoffreedom the direction change quickly assumed pivotal roles within their departments, often with responsibility for de for with responsibility often departments, their within roles pivotal quickly assumed and delivering project as the areas, subject understood to be critical to the success of the reform. In many departments, the new cohort of of new cohort the departments, many In reform. the of success the to critical be to understood fellows teaching of community 80 around employs empowering departments to drive change from the ‘b the from change drive to departments empowering “ providing as described was up bottom from coming implementation “ doing so, the university has instilled has university the so, doing develop Engineering do to trying of thechange process. university leadership was vocal and explicit in its support for educati for support itsin explicit and vocal was leadership university of one interviewee, “ to changes particular, university was across campus described also Interviewees that. to respond people and everyone to listens environment: institutional supportive and support systemsin teaching and learning atUCL werebeing transformed, and the and responsive pragmatismabout how wecanmake this work the of director as characterized was individual this UCL, at history long quality of Faculty leadership: Faculty of quality wasIt as a seen indriving the change. leadership Faculty referredof to the strength Success factors Success

• • • APPENDIX C and delivery of the C.5.1. th underpinned have that factors success of number a to pointed feedback Interviewee The global sta The global

APPENDIX C:

CASE STUDY – UCL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON, UK 113 -

Faculty Faculty from road

he , many further configurethe

IEP based based Indeed, Indeed, -

practical that haveposed .” rather than than rather

– ad to“ n wherethey were introduction of new new of introduction ricular components ricular components to students challenges scale project scale new teachingspaces -

However, many of these these of many However,

IEP IEP .” . Some themirrorSome . some departments were reported were reported departments some

IEP

– Despite the the Despite understood by some to be be to some by understood

.” leading to higher contact hours overall. overall. hours contact higher to leading

zation of themes, knowledge and skills skills and knowledge themes, of zation was was state of the the art state of

,”

that is an area where the rubber hits t hits rubber the where area an is that one thing I would do differently, better, if I had to to had I if better, differently, do would I thing one shared their views with students in a way that that a way in students with views their shared is built from key cur key from built is

“

hallenges

: that fertili C - the n the assessment load, with assessments assessments with load, assessment the n IEP “ many interviewees noted that UCL offered UCL offered noted that interviewees many IEP

and

the the Instead, some reported that they h they that reported some Instead, implementation has faced faced has implementation

.” core content IEP

cenarios S and the cross

existing existing

interviewees suggested that, following the introduction of the the of introduction the following that, suggested interviewees –

plementation and sustainability of the curricular reform. Three Three reform. curricular the of sustainability and plementation

.” required further development in some departments. the the

. So they suddenly found themselves in a situatio a in themselves found suddenly they So . – such as

poor communication of the purposes of the –

“ down down : range of challenges in delivering thein delivering challenges range of , ‘core’ fundamentals,etc.) arethat designed allowto students to

a ” among academic staff who “ cut cut

floored flexible learning spaces tothe support large the approach taken; frustration frustration taken; approach the

- UCL Engineering, University College London, UK London, College University Engineering, UCL

faced – relates to existing exams, assignments and coursework. and assignments exams, existing hallenges

come online from 2022. from come online C with –

t flat t components components dissenters ,

has has

68 r

.” experienced byuniversities across theworld in the transitionto experiential, student the curriculum is more demanding than it used to be to used it than demanding more is curriculum the As one explained one As

CASE STUDY , “ te of the art the te in engineering of education .” – cenarios e were doing something quite differentand disruptive and we didn’t spend enough time S rustration rustration between each component component each between integration of curricular components: curricular of integration ( outcomes Interview studies. their across learning their apply and integrate contextualize, integration this that suggested to be reluctant to “ to reluctant be to i increase net a to pointed interviewees Other associatedwith thenew curricularcomponents being includedin addition to of instead issues are likely to be resolved as the extensive and and extensive the as resolved be to likely are issues East UCL ‘load’: curricular in increases IEP curricula insufficien the to integral are that experiences learning problems most faced we where that’s and projectsto the fitspaces we have, ratherthanthe wayother around inflexibility of university learning spaces: learning university of inflexibility W Challenges faced explaining to the students why students the to explaining beingasked things to do very differently tothey what saw engineering students elsewheredoing why understand didn't they and “

first challenge • • • APPENDIX C was not helpful With limited information offered to incoming students about the drivers and goals of the the of goals and drivers the about students incoming to offered information limited With f voiced by “ compounded senior managers consistently identified this issue as this identified consistently managers senior do it again stand out in particular. in stand out The In addition to these practical constraints, the the constraints, practical these to addition In a more fundamental barrier to theim constraints including: learning, centered C.5.2. Engineering UCL The global sta The global

APPENDIX C:

CASE STUDY – UCL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON, UK 114

in the

setting setting has led led has IEP

cycle. cycle. activities

are in the the in are IEP

.” Computer Computer reaching reaching - informed, and, and, informed, - cenario S and

a compromise compromise a were heavily involved in

week week - focused staff, who would whofocused staff, would centered delivery of - before the IEP - giving departments more more departments giving who “ , research regarded and radical overhaul to its to overhaul radical and regarded - A major challenge facing the the facing challenge major A

.” Management Science Management profile theirpeople, work has not been a lotof people f thatinmore interested aref teaching where we were we where - mics in the education domain. Notes of class educational model and both the - Wherethis reshaping of academic of a well staf

.” to engage in a second round of far of round second ina engage to

” and “ and ” nd the IEP structure and do not conform to all all to conform not do and structure IEP nd the CEGE g an effective balance between, on the one hand, hand, one the on between, balance effective g an offers a world

owing educationalowing expertise embedded in departments, IEP centered learning had left “ left had learning centered based experiences throughout their curricula that “ that curricula their throughout experiences based - -

called on on called

relates to the roles and focus of teaching staff. While the extent extent the While staff. teaching of focus and roles the to relates is achievin is

IEP doing lessdoing teaching IEP IEP Interviewees among this latter group consistently reported that “ that reported consistently group latter this among Interviewees

.” ensure that UCL has a solid platform on which to continue to advance their their advance to continue to which on platform solid a has UCL that ensure informed curriculum. load -

facing the

UCL Engineering, University College London, UK London, College University Engineering, UCL

CEE CEE faced theby –

Faculty educational model that is coherent, ambitious and evidence and ambitious coherent, is that model educational Faculty - grated authentic project authentic grated the format of these activitiesdoes not strictly adhereto the five of academic staff roles: that the transition away fromteacher

approach and the department’s [existing] approach [existing] department’s the and approach ,”

SE STUDY

CA ” te of the art the te in engineering of education . – have inte have ed team and the

z third challenge second challenge second IEP lectsthe interests and priorities of staff members, this separation of roles maynot necessarily cogni APPENDIX C

innovative and evidence and innovative educational reforms. At the same time, the gr the time, same the At reforms. educational the Despite the challenges faced, however, the the however, faced, challenges the Despite these strengthen and sustain to commitment their about explicit been have university and Faculty the IEP have been promoted to full professor, but for the less high less the for but professor, full to promoted been have IEP the re appropriately recognize and reward the contribution of acade “ regard: in this interviewees by some expressed were concern up thetook program lotaof andwork, research my suffered ref to system promotion UCL new the of capacity the on rests its success However, problem. a present have taughtthe traditional lectures, greater much a on taking to a bifurcation bifurcation a to towards project ‘engineering content’ and The the of introduction the that suggested feedback interviewee departments, between differed months and years to come will be to maintain an effective balance between between effective balance maintain an to be will to come and months years to back going and philosophy theprogram losing without control owndepartmental curriculum, the “ as described was CEGE by adopted subsequently model The reforms. educational betweentheIEP spirit of the IEP of the spirit back the on Coming challenges. particular faced also CEGE discretion in their curricula approach. For example, while both both while example, For approach. curricula in their discretion Science ideas and approaches developed, however, lie beyo lie however, developed, approaches and ideas for asked have departments of number a result, a As requirements. timetabling its of elements on the otherhand, ensuring that each department retains ownership of their disciplinaryupon curriculum called and has IEP The culture. and priorities own their to according development its shape to able is the of Some reform. educational fundamental in expertise and time considerable invest to departments The cross a establishing The global sta The global

APPENDIX C:

CASE STUDY – UCL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON, UK 115

UCL Engineering, University College London, UK London, College University Engineering, UCL

– eaching Excellence Framework Framework Excellence eaching University College London London College University Adolfo Ibáñez University University Ibáñez Adolfo Education Engineering for Centre Engineering Geomatics and Environmental Civil, Skills Professional and Design World the Change How to Programme Engineering Integrated Survey Student National T

CASE STUDY te of the art the te in engineering of education

–

UCL D&PS HTCTW IEP NSS TEF Acronyms used in UCL Engineering case study case Engineering UCL in used Acronyms AIU CEE CEGE APPENDIX C

The global sta The global

APPENDIX D:

CASE STUDY – CSU ENGINEERING, CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY, AUSTRALIA 116 -

– CSU CSU

– mpus, work ca -

A based pedagogical pedagogical based - veryinfluential, if they can pull campus education, that is that education, campus completely rethinking what - accessedby students as and

month on - based andwork - CSU ENGINEERING, ENGINEERING, CSU eastern Australia, in a regional area set apart apart set area regional a in Australia, eastern

- –

year joint bachelor/master program in Civil - half ” withthe potential to be“ - is delivered online and online delivered is

a – -

based challenges, with four years of off of years with four challenges, based

- arles Sturt University, Australia University, Sturt arles and -

UNIVERSITY, AUSTRALI UNIVERSITY, developed program wasdescribed as “ - ive blend of online, project online, of blend ive CASE STUDY CASE

CSU Engineering, Ch

directed online learning. Almost all ‘technical engineering content’ content’ engineering ‘technical all Almost learning. online directed - – has offered a five a offered has

The newlyThe

–

CASE STUDY

– .” f

experts during Phase 1 of the study. When selecting CSU Engineering, experts pointed in in pointed experts Engineering, CSU selecting When study. the of 1 Phase during experts innovat its to particular approaches. like look to ought education engineering of it approachto self skills and knowledge both including it. need they when by identified education engineering in leaders’ ‘emerging 10 top the among is Engineering CSU from the country’slarge metropolitan hubs. Since 2016, its engineering school Engineering 18 an combines program The Engineering. Systems framed seriesaround a of project its is however, program, Engineering CSU the of feature distinctive most The learning. based Reasons for selection of CSU Engineering as a casestudy a Engineering Reasonsselectionfor as CSU of south in based is (CSU) University Sturt Charles

APPENDIX D

CHARLES STURT CHARLES STURT APPENDIX D APPENDIX The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX D:

CASE STUDY – CSU ENGINEERING, CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY, AUSTRALIA 117 . S$40m S$40m One of the the of One

.” to build skills based learning learning based was described described was -

graduates studying studying graduates - CSU campus campus le, 71% are over the the over are 71% le, - higher education attracts an annual research ion that wants to improve the lives

campus post campus s - Colleges of Advanced Education Advanced of Colleges CSU from are 77% students, campus

.” ithout preten ithout eastern Australia, in an area marked by low low by marked area an in Australia, eastern - building to choose - based interviewee. Indeed, Indeed, interviewee. based - CSU a place w the merger of three three of merger the

based learning component,to make thatsure when you - alsopredominantly first generationstudents: in 2016, only

held commitment to the economic andsocial development ” when investing in new ideas, such as the recent AU recent the as such ideas, new in investing when ” - is the in university…so to going not is one competitor s number ’ ” and “ and ”

Wodonga, Bathurst, Canberra Dubbo, Goulburn, Orange, Port Macquarie and and Macquarie Port Orange, Goulburn, Dubbo, Canberra Bathurst, Wodonga,

CSU - indicated that their parents held a undergraduate degree. As a a As degree. undergraduate a held parents their that indicated in regional New South Wales. Wales. South New regional in

intake

This proudly CSU’s

.” This regional focushasmany shaped university’sof the strategic decisions and

CSU Engineering, Charles SturtUniversity, Australia

willingness to take risks to take willingness .” – campus undergraduates studying online, and off and online, studying undergraduates campus

- versity. Many interviewees, from both within and outside CSU, credited its credited CSU, outside and within both from interviewees, Many versity. ou are ready to go. The bottom line is that you don’t come to CSU for the brand, the the brand, the for CSU to come don’t you that is line bottom The go. to ready are ou nts, spreadin roughlyequal numbersbetween three populations: on

CASE STUDY

CSU apart from its national peers is its pedagogical focus on online and work and online on focus pedagogical its is peers national its from apart CSU –

ledge inour regions long been Australia’s largest provider of distance and online education. It is home to around around to home is It education. online and distance of provider largest Australia’s been long

Context just about every course at CSU has a work a has CSU at course every about just context university The

“ y graduate, profession a and job a for CSU to come you reputation, people we serve has

based across seven campuses seven across based a university with dirt under its fingernails its under dirt with university a is is The university’s seven campuses are in Albury

APPENDIX D Wagga Wagga. CSU also has study centers in Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney. Sydney. and Melbourne Brisbane, in centers study has also CSU Wagga. Wagga 78 investment in the establishment of a new campus in the previously underserved town of Port Port of town underserved previously the in campus new a of establishment the in investment Macquarie. of the the of “ its to attributed was and know and of its host region wasunderlined by almostevery as “ Another feature that distinguishes CSU from many national peers is its driving mission “ mission driving its is peers national many from CSU distinguishes that feature Another any Australianuni placements: work of integration university’s the to rates employability university’s major selling points to this community is its strong employment rates: 84% of CSU students students CSU of 84% rates: employment its isstrong community this to points selling major university’s of proportion the highest graduation, of months six within study of their field within employment gain result, many interviewees noted that, “ that, result, noted interviewees many aspiration about all is it ourselves, sell we which in markets age of 21 (compared to a national average of 54%) and, among on remote Australia. regional or undergraduates incoming its 14% of undergraduates, off undergraduates, online. Its undergraduateintake is distinctivein number a of respects. For examp CSU stude 40,000 what sets what and its commitment tothe regional community. It below, outlined as However, output. publication for nationally 25th ranks and AUS$14m of income Charles Sturt University (CSU) is located in regional south regional in located is (CSU) University Sturt Charles explorer, British a after Named hubs. metropolitan major country’s the from away density, population following 1989, in established was university the D.1.1. The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global D.1.

APPENDIX D:

CASE STUDY – CSU ENGINEERING, CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY, AUSTRALIA 118 of

s ’ map

Two CSU CSU

ve also higher higher ng for almost almost ng for are small. if you take a take you if

aim to infuse

… EIR Global Trends in Engineering

maintaintheir engineering

to 90. – Mapping CSU Engineering CSU community. Operati community.

with annualintake intended to reach

,” supports a national journal, an annual annual an journal, national a supports

) 80

ng enrolments. Engineering degree degree Engineering enrolments. ng

are expectedare “ International student numbers ha numbers student International

81 cohorts

- Education, 27(1), 77 79

EIR Sydney, however, is a major hub for for hub major a is however, Sydney, half

” . . It is. in engineering two one only It of schools regional entsentered in February 2016 and 28 studentsentered http://www.aaee.net.au CSU Engineering’s 10 staff members include two Professors two include members staff 10 Engineering’s CSU untry’s coastline. Participationin Australian tertiary education

counted for 21% of publications in engineering education, placing placing education, engineering in publications of 21% for counted e 2016: Highlights. OCED Publishing OCED Highlights. 2016: e being used to fund student scholarships as well as the program l industry in a consultancycapacity. Theincome generatedby is is

ineering, Charles Sturt University, Australia University, Sturt Charles ineering, Engineers in Residence (EIR), one laboratory manager and five faculty,

turf is everything but Sydney but everything is turf strong background in engineering education research. The The research. education engineering in background strong

CSU Eng r

2008. EngineeringInternational of Journal – – context Blue Mountain National MountainBlue Park

once you get beyond the Blue Mountains, there is [almost] no one else one no [almost] is there Mountains, Blue the beyond get you once , ou is based on the university’s Bathurst campus, 200km inland of Sydney and separated separated and Sydney of inland 200km campus, Bathurst university’s the on based is

consulting activities activities consulting Australasian Association forEngineering Education

CASE STUDY

” by working with regiona with working by ” – The national The

New South Wales South New Australasian Association Australasian Education for ( Engineering D. (2011). M., Rajendran, Sangam, & P., Hurtado, K., M., Beddoes, Borrego, B.K., Jesiek, OECD (2016) Australia: Education at a Glanc a at Education Australia: (2016) OECD

APPENDIX D Education Research, 2005 80 81 79 suggested that Australian authors ac authors Australian that suggested volume. publication by US the to only second country the 30 years, the the 30 years, analysis recent a Indeed, research. education engineering of profile strengthening a and conference around 12,000per year. education engineering its of vitality the for notable also is Australia international students account for around 30% of engineeri of 30% around for account students international totalling intakes undergraduate national with Australia, across universities 35 at are offered programs increased significantly in recent years: between 2001 and 2016, the country’s share of the global global the of share country’s the 2016, and 2001 between years: recent in significantly increased level, undergraduate at even Today, 11%. to 4% from increased market student international inhabitants living within 50km of the co the of 50km within living inhabitants a least at hold adults country’s the 43% of Today, years. past 25 the over considerably grown has OECD. the in levels highest the of one degree, bachelor At the national level, Australia is the sixth largest country in the world and home to around 24 million million 24 around to home and world the in country largest sixth the is Australia level, national the At of 85% around with regions, urban and coastal the in located predominantly is population Its people. D.1.2. Engineering’s program. PhD new a including activities, research education engineering professional practices, experiences and expectations into the program’s culture. In addition to their their to In addition culture. program’s the into expectations and experiences practices, professional the responsibilities, mentorship student and teaching credentials Engineering Education, two a bring whom of many in February 2017. These groups were described as “ as described were groups These 2017. February in a steady state of 50 students from2018. within the city basin. In contrast, the staffing and student numbers at at numbers student and staffing the contrast, In basin. city the within 29 stud date: enrolled to have cohorts student New South Wales: “ Wales: South New of studying currently students engineering 100,000 country’s the of third one around with education, CSU Engineering CSU from the city theby The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX D:

CASE STUDY – CSU ENGINEERING, CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY, AUSTRALIA 119

,” keep keep ” of of ”

In 2011, 2011, In to to

.” Washington nt typent built its disappear

such as as such

These – With a number number a With

”

CSU .”

.” enesis, enesis, ,” CSU 2016); very differe – to

However, concerns concerns However,

program .”

regional setting: regional

our regions our

CSU 2014); as Deputyas Chair of the rospective students, the team students, rospective – no reputation in engineering. sustain

however, was engineering. The rationale rationale The engineering. was however,

and approach (2014 ,”

CSU within the the within regional New South Wales. Building on on Building Wales. New South regional

?” from overfrom the Blue Mountains

CSU Engineering was widely acknowledged, with growing calls from from calls growing with acknowledged, widely was

ing an engineering education would typically “ typically would education engineering an ing people if you train them in the region, you keep them in the region the in them keep you region, the in them train you if that are the lifeblood of the regional economy regional the of lifeblood the are that CSU get off the ground creditation board and a role role a and board creditation was to establish an engineering program, it must offer offer must it program, engineering an establish to was

other other

ac engineering program program engineering

the past 20 years has seen the university diversify further to to further diversify university the seen has years 20 past the

. At the heart of At thethe wasseries . extended programof heartproposed an of – CSU

22 attract

a newa power power ofengineering to transform communities

An external consultant was engaged to drive forward its development. development. its forward drive to engaged was consultant external An engineeringprogram (from 2016). Box Box engineering school in Australia. We had had We Australia. in school engineering The big question is why would people want to come to us? What would would What us? to come to want people would is why question big The

and the th th CSU support our regions and the professions that that the professions and regions our support e new new e that offered students the industry experience they needed to walk into a job and walk walk and job a into walk to needed they experience industry the students offered that school graduates seek graduates school CSU Engineering, Charles SturtUniversity, Australia something completely unique, something they could not get anywhere else - ined in in ined

– Engineers Australia Engineers , the international body that oversees a global accreditation agreement for ountains to go to university in Sydney or on the coast and never come back come never and coast the on or Sydney in university to go to ountains nes such as dentistry and veterinary science. science. veterinary and dentistry as such nes and appreciate appreciate and

CASE STUDY

– senior managers being trained engineers, many within the university were also noted noted were also university the within many engineers, trained being managers senior

and The development of the the of development The the development of the CSU Engineering curriculum Engineering CSU the of development the th of launch the the foundations for a new engineering program at CSU (2011 CSU at program engineering new a for foundations the Chair of the the of Chair

The foundations for a new engineering program at at program engineering new a for foundations The

“…we would be the 37 the be would “…we brand. a have don’t We Wales South of New University the to going them stop try and local councils to increase the regional talent pool of skilled engineering professionals. In In professionals. engineering skilled of pool talent regional the increase to councils local and try

• • • CSU’s underst APPENDIX D [local] students in our region our in students [local] requirements are outl “ that placements work Drawing on a wealth of data and consultations with employers and p and employers with consultations and data of wealth a on Drawing “ to potential the offered that program engineering new distinctive a for case business a developed Accord Committee degrees. engineering professional She brought expertise, experience and connectivity in engineering education, including a longstanding longstanding a including education, engineering in connectivity and experience expertise, brought She role a smallteam was assembledto develop a feasibilitystudy for the formation of a “ at program engineering The wasconclusion reached that if “ students prospective remained about the viability remained the of about over the Blue M Blue the over of “ particular, it had long been recognized that “ that recognized been long had it particular, andexisting local high for establishing engineeringanprogram at indus include discipli include “ to difficult proved had that discipline One these established strengths in professions “ professions in strengths established these accountancy and teaching nursing, Rooted in a mission to “ to mission a in Rooted needs of social and economic the around base disciplinary D.2.1. This section summarizes milestones,the activitiesevents and markedthat have the g periods: time three around structured is It Engineering. CSU of growth and establishment The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global D.2.

APPENDIX D:

CASE STUDY – CSU ENGINEERING, CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY, AUSTRALIA 120

– n involved program program

” and and ” motivation, motivation,

Interviewees with a blank page, self he new Foundation

” –

. played a major role in his his in role major a played

–

CSU Engineering CSU months based on campus on campus based months ” had recently left the role as as role the left recently had ”

nimum of 480hours’ exposure to 18 program ain market niche

work placements; work

isting program program isting ” nationally and globally; globally; and nationally ” , to allowto , the program to draw on t will allow them to adapt to the changing changing the to adapt to them allow will t there were very few people out there that had all all had that there out people few very were there paid paid master program; master “

” . tha and needs the for discipline relevant most the ” professional capabilities capabilities professional ” – situates the by pureby fortune good The national engineering accreditationbody,

reform in a number of universities across Australia. universities across of innumber reform a campus campus

- .” proof r -

management and entrepreneurship. and management took up post in April 2014. Many interviewees noted that his his that noted interviewees Many 2014. April in post up took future to findsomeone who was able tolead it

] status

ngineering, as “ as ngineering, School Business CSU

, CEng , the the

and took the thing to a whole new level that we weren’t even thinking thinking even weren’t we that level new whole a to thing the took and ” . civil e based curricula based as a combinedbachelor/ half years in duration, with the first first the with duration, in years half

- - n ,” a o - change in the vision and momentum of the project… [t project… the of momentum and vision the in change - ngineer within

and - step es for the new CSU Engineering programEngineering CSU new the for es a CSU Engineering, Charles SturtUniversity, Australia the next step was “ was step next the “

at the forefrontof engineering education – DY DY , requires engineeringprograms incorporateto a mi [Professional E CASE STU

– it should be based be should it in strengths institutional existing it should provide students with “ with students provide should it thinking systems attitudes, entrepreneurial regions; the beyond and within careers engineering of demands needs and focused be should it demands of the region it should be five be should it and thelast four yearsdedicated to off “ that approach distinctive a offer should it “ it positions : Proposed featur

you don't have the legacyof what you arereplacing “I knew I would forever regret not doing this… this time, I would not be working against the inertia inertia the against working be not Iwould time, this this… doing not regret forever would I knew “I wind… tail a us give to willing university a at be would I program, existing an of n track record in evidence hartered 22 • thisblueprint for the newengineering program inplace, and provisional approval fromthe • • • • Foundation Professor of Engineering of Professor Foundation C Box APPENDIX D His first priority was to address what were understood to be the two critical risks for the new program program new the for risks critical two the be to understood were what address to was priority His first a establish not would it (ii) and even; break to numbers student insufficient attract would it (i) that: Professor] was a dynamo of energy of dynamo a was Professor] contagious was passion His about. The appointment brought decision to accept the role: the accept to decision prove up ground the from program, engineering new pioneering a shape to mandate the explained, he As exan of protocols or practices culture, the by unconstrained One such candidate, however, was identified and “ and identified was however, candidate, such One and profile global a offered candidate The University. Queensland Central at engineering of dean understandthe constraints of the academic systems theyand toneeded have proven flair creativityand i short!” very was list The education. engineering with the search for potential candidates made clear that clear made candidates potential for search the with and leader strong a be to needed they ambitious, be to needed they for… looking were we qualities the With With proceed, to university professional practice, equivalent to around 12 weeks. The proposed new new proposed The weeks. 12 around to equivalent practice, professional placements. work paid of years four embedding further, much experience this took into into Australia Engineers The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX D:

CASE STUDY – CSU ENGINEERING, CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY, AUSTRALIA 121 try try CSU CSU - practice practice

which which

CSU and off to host work work host to

- it's a beautiful beautiful a it's

– on provided the om elsewhere andjust

in an airporthotel in Sydney.

picked group ofengineering - worked closely with the architects to to architects the with closely worked

to step aside from the standard standard the from aside step to

remained true to the innovative vision we had set set had we vision innovative the to true remained program were short. Formal approval to launch launch to approval Formal short. were program

ural and operational constraints were imposed on on imposed were constraints operational ural and were open and informallearning spaces curriculum and approach and curriculum

point subjects each year. This exempti This year. each subjects point - Tangible Curriculum Week Curriculum Tangible to support the student cohorts in steady state. From his his From state. steady in cohorts student the support to ng, workingon prototypes, working together tothe rest of the market…She made us differentiate

d period that “ that period d theaters, theaters, CSU Engineering CSU meeti Foundation Professor Foundation

– embodied the ethosand professionalismthat wewere trying to CSU Engineering CSU limite the the -

CSU CSU Engineering it would have been somuch easier for them to compromise. They had so was also offered considerable flexibility in the creation of its learning spaces. spaces. learning its of creation the in flexibility considerable offered also was

In place of lecture CSU Engineering, Charles SturtUniversity, Australia

– .” Instead, the Foundation Professor chose to drive forward the curriculum design design curriculum the forward drive to chose Professor Foundation the Instead,

”

at thetime was: .

.” evelopment of the the of evelopment CASE STUDY

– CSU Engineering CSU School

day intensive meeting had 16 participants, drawn predominantly from Australia’s engineering engineering Australia’s from predominantly drawn participants, had 16 meeting intensive day not just giving us permission to do things differently,but giving us mandatetoa it do . . - …

The d The

differently. She understood that can’tyou with comejust the oldup same and product expect it to be successful, orthogonalneed you to be ourselves “ ” As one observer noted,“ .

.” February 2015, CSU Engineering hosted the the hosted Engineering CSU 2015, February they are there from morning to evening evening to morning from there are they APPENDIX D The five education innovators, practitioners and researchers from across Australia. across from researchers and practitioners innovators, education In translated it over it translated hand a of expertise and experience combined the harnessing through out fr curriculum] engineering [an of part taken just have would people of lot a time, little and no additionalprogram staff yetin post, a key challenge facing theFoundation Professor was time in a curriculum the developing By earlyelements 2015, key of CSUwere Engineering underway: well program the structurehadbeen employers targeted with discussion and construction under was building new the defined, students its first of arrival the until 12 months with only However, earnest. in begun had placements “ space students could access 24 hours a day. Many interviewees went on to note the critical role that these these that role the critical to note went on interviewees Many day. hours a 24 access could students cohort: student the among community and attitudes aspirations, building in since played have spaces develop an engineering building that “ that building engineering an develop theprogram in create campus AUS$14m, around of budget a With So, for example, the university permitted permitted the university example, for So, of structuring thecurriculum around four eight on both projects, immersive major students offer to flexibility the with program emerging development of a distinctive and innovative approach. As one interviewee noted, the Dean of the the of Dean the noted, interviewee one As approach. innovative and distinctive a of development Business university worked hard to ensure that very few struct few very that ensure to hard worked university the encourage and support to continued managers university senior Indeed, program. embryonic the of the first student cohort set Februaryfor 2016. This left just 501 days toestablish theprogram’s the constrained, was severely time development While spaces. learning and staffing curriculum, Timelines for the developmentthe of en for date the and 2014 October in Executive Senior university the by granted was program new the through relationship building with the regional engineering and educational communities. communities. educational and engineering regional the with building relationship through D.2.2. sufficiently large pipeline of work placements placements work of pipeline large sufficiently appointment,therefore, much of the Foundation Professor’s timewasdevoted to mitigating these risks The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX D:

CASE STUDY – CSU ENGINEERING, CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY, AUSTRALIA 122

sized sized

” ; . Laboratory Laboratory and a small bite

in “ in

as and whenneeded;

almost impossible for us to try intotwo discrete o the online domain. The online background,with some an offered een“ of CSUof Engineering the deal was, we don't leave this this leave don't we was, deal the

Professor of Engineering Education in Residence

xperience from outside Australia. A

to develop an online platform to to platform online an develop to

: culture of treating the students as students the treating of culture research

feature m regional industry and educational educational and industry m regional thus divided divided thus

” we came together as a group of individuals to . Engineers directed student learning; andthe transfer of This “ This - based challenges, that call on students to to students on call that challenges, based

- was ” . allow students to identify, explore and acquire , with each topic , two, based academic career in both civil engineering and to to -

: , arguably the most distinctive feature of theCSU and the other devoted to the ‘content’ knowledge online learning online to establish the program as a professional workplace workplace professional a as program the establish to

, theprogram’s, new

: t this implies this t vil engineering academics with a background in eachof the e and skills and e learning topic tree topic

long courses, giving people freedom in how they learn they how in freedom people giving courses, long - would together become defining features of the program: a a program: the of features defining become together would

–

Attendees described a highly creative, collegial and open atmosphere, atmosphere, and open collegial creative, highly a described Attendees ” went on to form a defining defining a form to on went ”

but allofbut them have a for passion engineering educationand a the coreengineering concepts and skills are disaggregatedinto discrete directed including five faculty

state of the art the of state

– – self some with an engineering education education engineering an with some Box 23

ls taken forward from the Tangible Curriculum Week Week Curriculum Tangible the from takenforward ls – In the words of one participant, “ participant, one of words the In training in in - student engineers rather than engineering students, with all of the

, where based engineering curriculum that both drew on global best practice and was was and practice best global on drew both that curriculum engineering based .” - CSU Engineering, Charles SturtUniversity, Australia accessedindependently online bystudents. .” in Tangible Curriculum Week Curriculum Tangible

flexible, - ed ed – z e legacy of traditional educational approaches: “ approaches: educational traditional of legacy e ari CASE STUDY summ many of whom brought an academic background and e and background academic an brought whom of many professional engineering culture engineering professional

– – – deliver all engineering knowledg engineering all deliver semester than rather chunks underpinned by by underpinned curriculum The independently. learning their project intensive to devoted one components: problems, engineering authentic tackle and skills necessary totackle theseproblems, that students access embedding a “ educates that professionalismand autonomytha professionals

post, bringing with him a distinguished US distinguished a him with bringing post, edge, evidence : Three key proposa -

industry background and some are ci are some and background industry different specialist areas centricity student “the team is diverse diverse is team “the hour topics and topics hour - 23 • • • up Box APPENDIX D Manager new group: by this skills introduced of blend and quality the noted interviewees number of engineering education research. In the months that followed, eight further appointments were made made were appointments further eight followed, that months the In research. education engineering team Engineering CSU the to A few weeks after the the after weeks few A took Engineering curriculum three professional engineering culture; an expectation for self for expectation an culture; engineering professional all learning in theengineering ‘fundamentals’ and professional skills int tothe become was‘content’ component Theweekplayed major in a role evolutionthe CSU of Engineering. The proposalsthree key that emerged do something formative the for engineering educationsector where they were able to explore educational ideas that would have b have would that ideas educational explore to able were they where [institutions] own our in cutting th by unconstrained hotel until wea have curriculum!” education community and supported by representatives fro representatives by supported and community education a build to was goal the room, the in experience and ideas the distilling Through CSU. from designers The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX D:

CASE STUDY – CSU ENGINEERING, CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY, AUSTRALIA 123

topic a called for for called

[online] With “ With we started we

” . Rube Goldberg Rube ed curricular knowledge and and knowledge Engineers Without Without Engineers paving the way for for way the paving

students, the red and societally relevant relevant societally and red e saw the schedule, decided It is interesting to notethat Neither group,however, were Terms of Reference the challenges the ” and formed a strong,

cent ” ” engineering - . . scales were short: “ short: were scales number of mechanisms to - job motivation and time management management time and motivation

t sets the agenda for engineering engineering for agenda the sets t human

to take their work placements the the placements work their take to nt cohort: some were highly motivated motivated highly were some nt cohort: build their their build , while, others “ and creatingeach theof componenttopics for the

oject: to work together to build a n realtime to any unforeseen difficulties faced. ) challenges . As a As result, . notof were students in danger many

” intervieweesnoted, time based based . - challenges topic tree

ployers. In parallel tothese curricular developments, the and took extra shifts in their day their in shifts extra took and based based

buildthe program’s industry partnerships, staff were also aware that they would need to be responsive to responsive be to need would they that aware also were staff -

we were only just a few months ahead of theofonlymonths few ahead just we a were offer transformative practice tha practice transformative offer ,” to to “

work

. Both elementsupon turn . students’ Both heCSU Engineeringteam introduced t ,

..everything we do should bepositively disruptive . adopted the [CSU Engineering building] as their own their as building] Engineering [CSU the adopted

CSU Engineering, Charles SturtUniversity, Australia

topic tree topic ations. In thewords of one committee member,its – z faculty member, “

, reflected theprogram’s growing emphasis “ on curriculum in play in curriculum

In response . This work called for benchmarking of leadingof called This workfor benchmarkingnationalengineering . and programs civil

alia

At the same time, much of the curriculum was still under development. In the words of one one of words the In development. under still was curriculum the of much time, same the At ” CASE STUDY .

novel

, while theat time workingsame independently to – 82 topictree The launch of CSU Engineering (from 2016 (from Engineering CSU of launch The

ately convoluted manner. lenges visory committee brought together key champions from local government, industry and social social and industry government, local from champions key together brought committee visory A Rube GoldbergA Rube machine devicea is usesthat sequencea linkedof effect’ steps ‘domino a toin a complete in task simple a

APPENDIX D deliber 82 completing the minimum number of online topics necessary necessary topics online of number minimum the completing following year. that they didn’t need to do much much do to need didn’t they that online the to time sufficient committing skills. Two distinct learning styles emerged among the stude among emerged styles learning distinct skills. Two and dedicated excessive time to their team chal online the skills from One issue that quickly became apparent was that many students were struggling to adjust to a self a to adjust to struggling were students many that was apparent became quickly that issue One world’ ‘real tackle to teams in work to students upon called program The learning. of mode directed tree was still under construction and we were still nailing down the details of details the down nailing still were we and construction under still was tree completely ongoing student feedback and adapt theprogram i machine. Engineering CSU that the group quickly “ quickly group the that pr first with their engaged they as identity cohesive D.2.3. The first cohort of 28enrolled studentsin CSU Engineeringin February 2016. intervieweesMany noted preferencesto the university allocation system With each of the major curricular components in place, CSU started to actively market the program to to program the market actively to started CSU place, in components curricular major the of each With many As 2016. in July students prospective their put students] [prospective before months two was which intake, first the before months six advertising Borders Austr engineering education internationally education of CEO former the was committee advisory this lead to appointed individual the development organi development to program Engineering CSU the student work placement opportunities, and founded the program’s external advisory committee. The The committee. advisory external the program’s founded and opportunities, placement work student ad online a survey of engineering graduate em continued Professor Foundation In the months following these appointments, significant effort was focused on detail on focused was effort significant appointments, these following months the In project the designing development: The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX D:

CASE STUDY – CSU ENGINEERING, CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY, AUSTRALIA 124

EngFest CSU CSU approach. hese the the

EngFest

” . a hypothetic a , one of theCSU student maintain steady progress progress steady maintain 24 soon increased. As one faculty Asfaculty one increased. soon

” They know that if they fail on the on the fail they if that know They . curriculum) entered and and entered curriculum)

, as theinaugural student cohort Box systems thinking capabilities of the the of capabilities thinking systems .”

brings together 9000 engineering engineering 9000 together brings

the topic tree staff) before selection. In addition to In addition selection. before staff) ted’ to become ‘cadet engineers’ and and engineers’ ‘cadet become to ted’

CSU Engineering’s educational Engineering’s CSU Although it is difficult to directly compare the the compare directly to difficult is it Although in February 2017. While this new cohort was nome’ was introduced, as “ as introduced, was nome’

” EngFest 2017 EngFest G . CSU Engineering CSU . outlined As in he online online he , an annualevent to showcase the students’work etro motivation and independent study. As one groups, therefore, the second annual annual second the therefore, groups, M - -

self

EngFest EngFest CSU Engineering CSU , the first cohortstudentwas preparing to embark theiron CSU Engineering CSU progress on t on progress a design competition that

with those at peer engineering schools, one interesting point of of point interesting one schools, engineering peer at those with

”

) 83 , Although a number of student interviewees noted that “ capacity for capacity

” . – ” of the quality and impact of of impact and quality the of ” challenges

The allocation of students’ placementswork followed conventional hosted its first first its hosted

(the first majorproject in the

establish a weekly routine that would allow them to to them allow would that routine weekly a establish campus campus

EWB Challenge EWB CSU Engineering, Charles SturtUniversity, Australia -

CSU Engineering CSU . For example,For . ‘ a conceptual – ittook them a while to getthere, but studentsstarted to realise howmuch work they first real test

blown away by the students’ work, the way they were able to communicate their ideas was the was consistently positive, with many pointing to “ to pointing many with positive, consistently was

http://www.ewbchallenge.org h] is quite differentto anything I anywherehave seen else CSU Engineering CSU (

staff member commented member staff topic tree topic Challenge 1 Challenge udents’progress was universally positive. One externalinterviewee who attended

CASE STUDY

– EngFest

nome is not a popular character! placement, we will haveatime hard findingin placements the future “the reputation of CSU Engineering walks out of the door [when the placements start]…The students students start]…The placements the [when door the of out walks Engineering CSU of reputation “the feel thanarereputation.they morethat carrying this stronglydo we perhaps most importantly importantly most perhaps G

– campus work placements. placements. work campus - June 2016,June etro EWB EWB Challenge

APPENDIX D 83 Engineering Theplacement students’ performance turns their on professionalcapabilities, preparation academic and were embarking on their first work placements in July 2017. Many interviewees pointed to t to pointed interviewees Many 2017. July in placements work first their on embarking were “ as experiences students [whic students TheMIT Benchmarking siteStudy visit place duringtook marked a major milestone for this first cohort, as they they ‘gradua as cohort, this first for milestone major marked a program’s the to attendees external from feedback interview Again, placements. work their entered second were interviewed (by both the employer and and employer the both (by interviewed were enrolled year both work from student showcasing off candidates shortlisted and ‘adverts’ written to responded students protocols: employment engineering The second cohort of 28joined students on initial their tackling subsequently won the won subsequently Zealand. New and Australia across from students learning outcomes at at outcomes learning 2016 the weeks after few a came comparison from teams described being “ being described months few a for CSU] [at been only had they and amazing, community to review and benchmark the early impact of the new program. Interviewee feedback feedback Interviewee program. new the of impact early the benchmark and review to community about the st In In external the for opportunity first the was event This community. wider the and employers regional to member observed, “ member observed, neededto intoput topic the tree, week after week, ifthey were togoing toablebe graduate student that completes the topics at a steady rate throughout the year and emails students each week to let let to week each students emails and the year throughout rate a steady at topics the completes that student done has he many how know them M encourage students to to students encourage the through The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX D:

CASE STUDY – CSU ENGINEERING, CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY, AUSTRALIA 125 ies One One d on a a on d ial ial

CSU CSU ere EWB we all CSU

” Their . thequality as a surprise that that

” . The –

Team Two Good to Good Two Team attheNew South

CSU design brief cent brief design

a matter of months, the

is a design competition for for competition design a is

for 83 ok the time to understand the the understand to time the ok

Teams are judged on a number

challenge calling themselves themselves calling ”

. – final consistently pointed to two team

inAustralia andNew Zealand,with e should look at composting at look should e

2016 2016 finals and the finals of the competition. and the challengepartner. a completely new engineering school that a that school engineering new completely a

CSU very important. Reputationsare quickto build –

, directedlearning approach taken by the among both staff and students

centered ideas to advance authentic soc authentic advance to ideas centered -

EWB . for teamsto practice and improve -

– . The established national competition came came competition national established - EWB Challenge EWB Borders (EWB) Challenge Borders (EWB) EngFest e team: thequality oftheir communication and the

for Charles Sturt “

EWB Challenge EWB ,

They considered the local skills and capacity and how it related to to related it how and capacity and local skills the considered They

ambia. One of theCSU teams

Z ding to unsanitary landfill sites around the camp. The team team The camp. the around sites landfill unsanitary to ding research, not just in the topic tree, they to they tree, topic the in just not research, noted in particular that the the that particular in noted

to come from nowhereand win the competitionwas incredible Engineers Without Without Engineers

CSU Engineering CSU – as selected as one theof four teams to represent he

ough eventsough such as en went on to win both the semi the both win to on went en r w the the

Working in teams, students are asked to develop a design solution to one or or one to solution design a develop to asked are students teams, in Working e economic, social and environmental aspects of the design. the of aspects environmental and social economic, e

and the repeated opportunities in the regions, word of mouth is very is mouth of word regions, the in CSU Engineering, Charles SturtUniversity, Australia

out – organizer – hey th hey ” year engineering students participating each year. sourced materials for its construction, the system was designed to provide famil to provide designed was the system construction, its for materials sourced : t - - staff credited the team’s success to a number of factors, including the levels of of levels the including factors, number a of to success team’s the credited staff

It is therefore with some trepidation trepidation some with therefore is It

.” finals they really did their their did really they - hallenge will remotely support and monitorthese work placements. “

CASE STUDY As one observer commented observer one As technology… They also presented themselves with maturity and confidence, as a professional professional a as confidence, and maturity with themselves presented also They technology… is embedded into the curriculum at 30 universities universities 30 at curriculum the into embedded is

–

– focused organicon wastemanagement. Asone of teamthe explained,members “

– the the project student a as not client, a for working people as team, “really understood and appreciated the [regional] context and were very integrated in their their in integrated very were and context [regional] the appreciated and understood “really technology. the of consideration : EWB Challenge 2016

EWB C EWB year engineering students to develop technology

- 24 their presentations, th presentations, their students students problem the region, of CSU Engineering CSU the self to the teams, offered support and mentorship local Interviewees involved in the organization of th of organization the in involved Interviewees factors thatmarked context. regional the of appreciation deep into ideas engineering technical their of integration success of the CSU Engineering team in this well in this team CSU Engineering the of success many. to about nothing knew us of lot Team Two Good to Waste to Good Two Team semi Wales operational been only had that program engineering an from Coming living within the camp with organic fertilization for small vegetable gardens while at the same time time same the at while gardens vegetable small for fertilization organic with camp the within living waste.environmental reducing disposing of organic waste, lea waste, organic of disposing drum. storage grain recycled a from made system composting rotating a prototyped and developed locally only Using came from a farming background, so the consensus was that w that was consensus the so background, farming a from came fresh fruit of and dual a lack hadof problems the revealed research refugee camp into the of difficulties the and children, camp’s theof many among growth stunted to leading vegetables, student engineers started work on the work on started engineers student refugee in Western settlement Waste and consideration of th of cohort first the studies, undergraduate their starting after weeks two 2016, February In Challenge around 9000 first of criteria, includingdemonstration theirof technical understanding, communication theirof idea first projects. development by highlighted needs development the moresocial of Box t 2007, in established First APPENDIX D Engineering Many also noted that “ that noted also Many die to quick and The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX D:

CASE STUDY – CSU ENGINEERING, CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY, AUSTRALIA 126 - to the the

- red, is is

e – , that, The

cent - focus on the the are for their Eventhe

challenges .” work on real

to staff pointed to “ from outsideCSUfrom

ation need to be be to need ation

z . iculum. What really sets sets really What iculum. 4

Table Table entryto theprogram.

both internal and external to to external and internal both

” as well as the extended work work extended the as well as ” – directed online learning. Almost Almost learning. online directed - CSU Engineering Engineering CSU heprogram takes a student engrained in the culture and and culture the in engrained

” Students are confronted with a series of of series with a are confronted Students As one interviewee one As .

. T

” with only 18 months to prep to months 18 only with ” starting in terms of the questions that . The close industry partnerships . that industry lie The close - the point of of point the up aworkplace than university Many Many ” where students are able “ able are students where ” - ,

.” ” from from ” exams andlectures ” taken to the curriculum design and delivery. However, However, delivery. and design curriculum the to taken ” awareand self - directed learning. learning. directed directed learning directed - - who referto incoming engineering students as ‘student

professionals – ready environment ready

educational approach educational morelike a tech start professionals in training

es self es program were noted to be “ be to noted were program z including both knowledge acquisition and skills development development skills and acquisition knowledge both including

staff

educational approach are outlinedin –

feels red approach red “ based problems and are expected to identify, master and apply the the apply and master identify, to expected are and problems based e to be paid while you study you while paid be to -

to identify the most distinctive features of the engineering program at at program engineering the of features distinctive most the identify to cent Engineering apart frompeer programs, nationally and globally. - enrolled in the program. This culture is reflected in the curricular “ curricular the in reflected is culture This program. the in enrolled ccessed by students as and when they need it. Students are encouraged to to encouraged are it. Students need they when and as by students ccessed

e. They need to be self tobe need They e. CSU CSU CSU Engineering, Charles SturtUniversity, Australia and workand es their role as “ as role their es

z program apart, however, is its approach to self to its approach is however, apart, program – s experiential and self and experiential

professional, work professional,

CSU Engineering CSU CSU Engineering’s CSU that set set that

– emphasi

challenge CASE STUDY

–

: – CSU Engineering’s values and the people

CSU students, in particular, noted the lack of “ of lack the noted particular, in students, CSU

they ask. What CSU has created is a different way of thinking of way different a is created has CSU What ask. they “the ethos of ownership that they are trying to drive is so important. We can’t afford docile bodies in in bodies docile afford can’t We important. so is drive to trying are they that ownership of ethos “the organi an in projects the driving people the now, agile so is world The industry. proactive, not passiv CSU Engineering Engineering CSU campus campus

- APPENDIX D Key features of of features Key direct and manage their own learning goals. The majority of staff time is therefore devoted to face to devoted is therefore time staff of majority The goals. learning their own manage direct and face mentorship and supportstudents of and student teams. explained all ‘technicalengineering content’ a is and online delivered posed are authentic and build progressively in complexity throughout the curr the throughout in complexity progressively build and are authentic posed the on The learning. their upon reflect as well them as to tackle necessary skills and knowledge The second isfactor emphasi that approach experiential language used by by used language engineers’ placements. work professional culture and approach is also apparent in the design of the new engineering building engineering new the of design the in apparent also is approach and culture professional interviewee, one of words the in practicalengineering and preparing forpeople the workplace like treated are and problems engineering at the heart of the CSU Engineering students” on expectations the program program the The first isfactor a placements that allowed them “ them allowed that placements ethical groups interviewee all across identified consistently were factors two All interviewees were invited invited were interviewees All CSU. The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global D.3.

APPENDIX D:

CASE STUDY – CSU ENGINEERING, CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY, AUSTRALIA 127

- -

;

how how

: how do do how

Support Support

h to h to CSU CSU

we noware we

campus campus ’ and ‘ - topic tree basis

involves two two involves so CSU CSU topic tree

– the state’s campus work campus

- ng /industry mentor. /industry ,”

based learning.based online in record and -

Research interests interests Research

level.

and off and .”

on a weekly a on

challenge engineering in expertise work alongside students

and reflecting on their their on reflecting and

CSU Engineeri CSU , only a small fraction of our of fraction small a , only commercial provider. commercial challenges ngineering. led engineering society. - ’? Secondly, shortlisted candidates in the country scores

directed, problem s - students to students campus challenges and off and challenges campus

- generated report on their their on report generated -

campus campus Associate Professor Associate - group school school

- and are required to complete a mandatory a mandatory complete required to are and

is offered by a a by offered is

Engineering – one person one here, two people there

the the University Newof South Wales – roup, at at roup, centered and experiential education. It blends It blends education. experiential and centered - education approach and support systems

CSU Engineering the the promotioncriteria at the university arefairly topic tree following assessed components assessed following curricular activities offered by the university, university, the by offered activities curricular - how will you contribute to the diversity of our school our of diversity the to you contribute will how campus interview for final selection. - on the on basis highof , ‘ of evidence of achievement in their portfolios. in their of achievement of evidence

would have would got have into corresponding to that field. to that corresponding

‘acceptable teaching’, the current university promotion pathways

tends be scatteredto –

based learningbased on(through directed study (through a network of online learning ‘topics’ which

teamincludes four individualswith globala profile ] - -

staff without existing educational qualifications have completed a post a completed have qualifications educational existing without staff

minute on - , guided interestsby their both the focusand of their projects/placements. offers a highly student highly a offers is the only engineering school in Australia that does not stipulate a formal formal a stipulate not does that Australia in school engineering only the is reflection, with students setting their own goals own their setting students with reflection, the CSU Engineering CSU the

- tree ” to ” recognizeto additional contributions in made teaching learning.and topic tree

tudents haverecently established studenta reflection on their progress towards their learning goals and upcoming targets; targets; upcoming and goals learning their towards progress their on reflection staff noted that “ that noted staff -

structural, water or geotechnical or water geotechnical structural,

in Australia in – around 10% 10% around ” with” research output the as major criterion.Itwas suggested that, abeyond [

topic – tests/assignments associatedwith around three topics from the written reviewof the contributions made by teammates to projects; self documentation and problem and

ring the largest the engineering education research

based interviewees noted that “ CSU Engineering CSU • • • • - CSU Engineering, Charles SturtUniversity, Australia CSU Engineering CSU

– might struggle traditional minimum thresholdof “ The engineering research.education intervieweeoneAs out, pointed “ education of] [one self and feedback and assessment automated include and education engineering in program PhD new a establish to underway also are Plans g the to researcher additional appoint an extra of range typical the Beyond s Engineering Assessment loads are high. In addition to any project or work deliverables, students would would students deliverables, work or project any to addition In high. are loads Assessment typically requiredbe to submit the automatically receive an would also week they Each progress fromand feedback both personal their their mentor and All university. the through starting since learning and teaching in certificate graduate the of use and development the for CSU specialize specialize branchof the for exist opportunities curricular No on the both during However, with disciplines. other from interacting time their of portion considerable a spend will students placements, work e beyond and across from professionals and communities Engineering CSU project placements)with self also The education complete). order to in of mastery demonstrate must students emphasizes self progress,achievements and failures. program has academic no ‘prerequisites’for itsOneintake. interviewee the from Enginee students for process selection student The school. engineering largest ‘ as such to questions, five respond asked to are students prospective Firstly, stages. society’ to contribute engineers CSU at study to prepared academically you are 30 for a invitedare choose they topics any complete to free are students subjects, required ‘core’ the Beyond the from two final the During for. apply to wish they placements work which select also Students whic in civil engineering of three one areas of select must of yearsstudents study, Details Engineering CSU threshold attainmentlevel in mathematicsfor selection tothe program. Indeed, the . . Keyfeatures of 4

Table Table CASE STUDY

–

support

curricular curricular - Extra opportunities research activities research teaching Educational Reward and and Reward of recognition Teaching and and Teaching learning Assessment and and Assessment feedback Pedagogical Pedagogical approach Opportunities to to Opportunities across work disciplines Flexibility and and Flexibility choice student selection of student student ofselection intake Educational feature for Criteria APPENDIX D The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX D:

CASE STUDY – CSU ENGINEERING, CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY, AUSTRALIA 128 -

nts. With With nts.

CSU

t contracts and and contracts t . Engineering directedlearning, - sized’ learning in - agreedbetween the CSU CSU is is campus training for for training campus - campus and structured structured and campus - curriculum is structured in

month employmen month - mentor, who will visit them in person at face face support from

Amongst the first cohort of of cohort first the Amongst

ram, are three pillars of activity:three pillars of areram, to - CSU CSU Engineering CSU

ar focusthe of thesis topics ye - (comprising 8% of the curriculum) allowing students likelyto draw upon particular challenges and

in turn in the subsections that follow that subsections the in turn in

is is half d - r 1.5 to Yearr basedis 1.5 off to 5.5) e a - campus, during and beyond their work placeme work their beyond and during campus, - and - . Drawing on face Year 0 to Year 1.5) is based on campus and structured around around structured and campus on based is 1.5) Year to 0 Year

(comprising 42% of the curriculum) offeringproject workand

(fromYea five

gned to build their capacity for independent self month work placements. work month from - and throughout theprog ( he

(comprising 50% theof curriculum)providing ‘bite

, t 12 e during each placement year. An industry mentor also provides provides also mentor industry An year. placement each during e challenges 15 paid paid based pillar based - Figure Figure reflect upon their learning goals and achievements. and goals learning their upon reflect CSU Engineering, Charles SturtUniversity, Australia

– of thecurriculum

based design design based of the curriculum -

ence of four mentor and industry mentor, but but mentor, industry and mentor , the scaffoldingprovided to studentsis progressively reducedto support their Students submit weekly reflections to their to reflections weekly submit Students

students, around one third have taken work placements in local government, with the localin government, work placements taken have third one around students, phases.

CASE STUDY

CSU – engineering theory and skills which students access online as and when needed; when and as online access students which skills and theory engineering pillar review and planning performance and identify to project/portfolio learning; their explore and apply contextualize, to students for experiences based pillar tree’ ‘topic online Curriculum design

challenge

second phase second distinct first phase ries team of • • • APPENDIX D Each of these three curricular pillars is describ opportunities identifiedthrough theirwork placements. phases, two these across Running bachelor and master thesis projects respectively. The The respectively. projects thesis master and bachelor students, their role prior to the placement and are also appointed as CSU Engineering adjunct lecturers for the the for lecturers adjunct Engineering CSU as appointed also are and placement the to prior role their students’ on focused are placements work of years final and second The placement. the of duration dedicated mentorship and training opportunities to the students and provides them with weekly weekly with them provides and students the to opportunities training and mentorship dedicated feedback their on progress.Industry mentorsprovidedwith are online and on learning contracts with their employer on the understanding that one day per week will be dedicated to to dedicated be will week per day one that understanding the on employer their with contracts learning studies. their onc least at work of place their Engineering sign industry. in private 12Students working remainingthirds two The around a sequ each each learners. independent as development such that they are equipped to source and assimilate the knowledge and skills they need to tackle the to tackle need they skills and the knowledge assimilate and to source equipped are they that such off when face they problems and projects faculty,it focuses immersing on students in broaderthe societal engineering,context of building their for preparation in capabilities professional their strengthening and knowledge engineering technical desi also Itis placement. work their The a se As outlined overleaf in overleaf outlined As two The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global D.4.

APPENDIX D:

CASE STUDY – CSU ENGINEERING, CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY, AUSTRALIA 129

½ 5 MEng 5

BACHELOR AND MASTER THESIS Duringandsecondtheirthe of year forth placementsthework respectively, undertakestudentswill Bachelortheir and Master theses. curriculum

4 CSU Engineering CSU 3

SCENARIO WEEKS Throughoutplacements,work their campustwo return for studentswill to eachto year weeks’ separate‘scenario group engageprojects.cross-year design in . Outlinestructure of the 2 thesis 15 Figure DESIGN & PROFESSIONAL &DESIGN SKILLS guidanceidentifyown their to learningthroughoutgoals their andstudies placement,work as progress. and learning

design and design skills professional 1 tion CSU Engineering, Charles SturtUniversity, Australia

online topic tree online topic – ONLINE TOPIC ONLINE TREE Engineeringdisciplinary knowledgeandare skills deliveredonline in each of ‘topics’, discrete designedwhich is take to complete. to hours three CHALLENGE 0 CHALLENGE while studentstackle hands-onthat projects campus.on The challenges progressively complexityinmonths.build over 18 the 0 T N E CASE STUDY

S EM M S – C U U U A P L P L U M P IC AM K CA project R C - R - R F O F N U AND SKILLS PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING KNOWLEDGE EXAMPLES OF PROJECT EXAMPLESOF ANDWORK-BASED LEARNING O W O C APPENDIX D educa art in engineering the state of The global APPENDIX D:

CASE STUDY – CSU ENGINEERING, CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY, AUSTRALIA 130

. . learning learning fill infill any

An outline outline An topictree

challenge based based cements are challenges challenges such as the -

sed pillar’. – coordinator to to coordinator

ba - based based ew and the the and ew - designed so that they are able - “ and groups

- – challenge These project

achievements and

.” outline how they are using their their using are they how outline based pillar’ is devoted to to devoted is pillar’ based - Specifically

– ” between year between ” changes as the students move through through move students the as changes s portion of the curriculum. the curriculum. of portion s engineering tools tools engineering , allstudents working placementon will

document their document

campu to . access expected are theStudents online EngFest - 5 work experience. Each portfolio addresses a a addresses portfolio Each experience. work hour workshop with the the with workshop hour - - life problems and projects encountered by by encountered projects and problems life - Table Table in in

generational learning generational

, the real .” long residential ‘scenario weeks’. ‘scenario residential long -

inter s will also be able to access additional resources resources additional to access able be also will s the students through: (i) a meeting with their team mentor to to mentor team their with meeting a (i) through: students the

overleaf

reviews of other teams in the cohort). This experience is is experience This cohort). in the teams other of reviews , students are confrontedwith a series of team idea of how to prepare a portfolio portfolio a prepare to how of idea campus ave tackled anethical problem or how theyhave been accountable - the the as theywork remotely on their theses.

– based pillar based re applying engineering methods and methods engineering applying re - is provided provided is

and, together, is designed buildto the resourcesneeded for the student to

campus portions of their studies. studies. their of portions campus - – CSU Engineering, Charles SturtUniversity, Australia

– months of study of months

through online portfolios,which capture both contributions ofthe team (through, for

challenges such as how they h how they as such

– get students used to CASE STUDY four years working off working years four first and third workplacements, the ispillar devoted to preparationthe of onlineportfolios first 18 first

– to identify and master any new knowledge and skills that they need to tackle their their tackle to need they that skills and knowledge new any master and identify to

challenge based learning. The nature of these project experiences experiences project these of nature The learning. based the campus and off and campus - Project and portfolio and Project -

APPENDIX D gaps in knowledge that the students are missing during their work placements their work during missing are the students that knowledge gaps in return to campus twice each week for returntwice year to campus “ nurture to designed be will experiences subjects will also guide students through, for example, the design of a literature revi literature a of design the example, for through, students guide also will subjects annual the to addition In report. thesis a of preparation problems and projects from the student’s workplace. In addition to guidance and support from both both from support and guidance to In addition workplace. student’s the from projects and problems student mentors, CSU and industry their laboratories Engineering CSU apply for chartered professionalengineer status ongraduation. The second and fourth pla specific on focus and respectively theses (‘capstone’) master and (‘cornerstone’) bachelor the to devoted different topic topic different for thework of others During During of students’ achievements and learningduring their in During the the During portfolio and the ‘project for context the used as are placements their during students designed to “ to designed professional skills,theya how placements their during independently it do to example, project plans, cost analyses and presentations) and contributions of the individual (through, (through, individual the of contributions and presentations) and analyses cost plans, project example, for example, failure reports and peer provide guidance and information on the project. Students project. the on information and guidance provide for each Weekly support is typically provided to to provided istypically support Weekly three a (ii) and faced; challenges and progress discuss that build progressively in complexity throughout the on the throughout complexity in progressively build that of each of these tree topic the on the the During Accounting for around 42% of the curriculum, the ‘project and portfolio and ‘project the curriculum, the of 42% around for Accounting project D.4.1. The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX D:

CASE STUDY – CSU ENGINEERING, CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY, AUSTRALIA 131

ts. is is

year and the based based

, a - for their challenge

As with all all with As . At the

rk withother identify a client client a identify , teams must The full s roadsand challenge

CSU Engineering Engineering CSU ” oldingand support

. ” design adesign solution to ,

care care facility - EWB Challenge EWB time)

- ” , CSU students are .

challenges

a lot of scaff of lot a ” for the students. As one one As students. the for ”

was to develop a proposal for a a for proposal a develop to was

campus -

on presentation as a group. a as presentation changing the scope throughout the the throughout scope the changing

specific areas such as ‘ understand theunderstand human aspect of and individualportfolio EWB Challenge EWB

time, to theconstruction of a Rube s challenge - work together with, to “ to with, together work (two weeks, full weeks, (two

for a virtual client, with each team focused

ge project project before commencing their workplacemen

students “

final

near death experience , itis, structured around the based components. components. based a - engineering building. This pass/fail eviews ofteam members’ contributions that are challenge 24 , team, report CSU Engineering’s where students may select their own teammates and and teammates own their select may students where EngFest s

In addition to the design portfolio, prototype and final final and prototype portfolio, design the to addition In (12 weeks)(12

.” offered“ a

. With virtual. the “ client to give students resilience to pressureand preparethem , with, teams allocated to floor of the challenge . Outline. of e year engineering students to tackle humanitarian design dimensional dimensional - 5 - help students learn resilience to change and to failure ” faced by their chosen business. For example, in 2017, projects projects 2017, in example, For business. chosen their by faced ” challenge work together to create everything between. between. everything create to together work

rniture materials from recycled coffee waste for a local café local a for waste coffee recycled from materials rniture cohort must deliver deliver must cohort Table Table Focused Engineering Challenge (12 weeks) (12 Challenge Engineering Focused - As described in Box Box in described As CSU Engineering, Charles SturtUniversity, Australia

the the

– is designed “ designed is .”

It is the only only the is It

” asked to . student long project is designed to help to designed is project long Rube Goldberg Engineering Challen Engineering Goldberg Rube

- HumanitarianChallenge – drainage and sewage’ In additionto thebasic requirements of the is designed to “ to designed is machine across th machine across

close, in addition to prototype to addition in close, CASE STUDY , students submit onlineweekly r .

with at least two other teams. The cohort is provided with the first and last step of the the of step last and first the with provided is cohort The teams. other two least at with

or ‘ 82 the design of a water heating and recycling system for a local age local a for system recycling and heating water a of design the challenge

Bathurst Olympic Village – s itis supposedto be uncomfortable and frustrating and…helps [students]to reflecton what t challenge final the at client the to ideas pitch their included included fu new of development mentor, based on their experience in the previous projects. Teams are asked to are asked Teams projects. previous the in experience their on based mentor, from the regional community that subsequentlythey problem engineering real a Challenge 3: Client Lead Engineering Challenge (15 weeks) (15 Challenge Engineering Lead Client 3: Challenge The final work placement used to moderate the assessment for team for assessment the moderate to used teams for a collective positive outcome positive collective a for teams report, full the challenges noted, “ noted, wo to need you that realization the to come they and with work to good people makes overpass’ prioritize to difficult is it that so information with teams the flooding and exercise that suggested staff group work on a single multi single a on work group on one aspect of the problem.For example, the2016 fictional Challenge 2: Process 2: Challenge 2 Challenge of thecurriculum, this project wasdescribed as offering students“ challenges the through move they as reduces This solution. their to get to challenges portfolio. theAs first major design extensive prototype toan required developand a This semester projects engineering first for competition national Challenge 1: 1: Challenge working. Each team of three is asked to create at least four working steps of the machine that that machine the of steps working four least at create to asked is three of team Each working. connec and sequence, Theweeks first the two curriculumof devoted,are full Goldberg with team students and familiarize cohort student the of cohesion the build to designed Challenge 0 0 Challenge APPENDIX D The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX D:

CASE STUDY – CSU ENGINEERING, CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY, AUSTRALIA 132

.”

cluding cluding topics topics

[topics] topic tree Using an an Using

. ntinued all the mapping mapping the all topictree’s s “ and identify the

, CSU Engineeringhas provides a visual map of of map visual a provides

topic tree topic topic tree software provide software topic tree topic

ered as ‘live topics’. In these cases, cases, these In topics’. ‘live as ered directed learning and co and learning directed The - ses with a final assessment. A ‘mastery’ ‘mastery’ A assessment. final a with ses .

Realizeit including engineering disciplinary disciplinary engineering including 16

–

The )

84 Figure Figure water, structural or geotechnical engineering). geotechnical or structural water,

y delivered via weekly lectures, tutorials and

Realizeit. relies on students’ self

is typicall is

” . – , as illustrated, as in http://realizeitlearning.com simulations (as appropriate), each topic offers the students specialism (either topic tree topic -

the ability to handle a 1000 topic map, and to display it visually, and to let let to and visually, it display to and map, topic 1000 a handle to ability the

– topic tree topic d on their own interests and/or specific problems encountered in their their in encountered problems specific and/or interests own d their on alue

CSU Engineering, Charles SturtUniversity, Australia

– pillar

civil engineering engineering civil feedback for majoritythe of topicswill be automated.At present, however, fully

CASE STUDY

or work placements. design,To construct and managethe

– that's the key v key the that's by graduation, students must have completed 600 topics, including at least 80 from their their 80 from least at including topics, 600 completed have must students by graduation, chosen before commencing their work placement, students must have completed 240 topics, in topics, 240 completed have must students placement, work their commencing before engineering fundamental from areas of range on a focus that topics 80 mandatory drawing; CAD to science/mathematics Topic tree Topic

person session. forms one forms leaf of the -

• • Realizeit, based in Dublin and Chicago (

APPENDIX D 84 engagement with the program. Although students are free to complete any elements of the the of elements any complete to free are students Although program. the with engagement stipulated: are requirements minimum of number a wish, they that an in The successful operation of the offered exclusively online, such engineeringas laboratories, are off time for suitable a to arrange concerned member staff the approach and together group must students and student automated assessment and feedbackis only offered for aroundthird a of topics. Topics that cannot be opportunities to apply their learningto a real problem, and clo approachis taken,whereby students mustscore 75% or more in their assessment for the topicto be assessment the state, steady in When operating ‘pass/fail’. a are topics such, as complete: considered Each topic is designed totake the averagestudent aroundthree hours to complete. In additionto app and videos content, written success: “ success: on demand it through navigate students of the links between topics, the prerequisite chains and [information on] who has completed what completed has who on] [information and chains prerequisite the topics, between links the of the to crucial as software the of capabilities mapping the to pointed interviewees Many challenges company, commercial a with closely worked the relationships and dependencies between topics and specialist branches of engineering of branches specialist and topics between dependencies and relationships the onlineplatform, students are able to tracktheir progress through the base target to wish they ‘topics’ that are delivered online for students to access independently, when and how they wish. they Each howwhen to access students independently, for deliveredand ‘topics’ that online are topic ‘fundamentals’ skills professional and of set a into disaggregated been has content this curriculum, Engineering CSU the In laboratories. D.4.2. content’ ‘technical curriculum, engineering traditional a In The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX D:

CASE STUDY – CSU ENGINEERING, CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY, AUSTRALIA 133

) mechanical properties of metals

stralia shown in more detail more in shown , with one section (covering the

topic tree topic

CSU Engineering, Charles SturtUniversity, Au

– CSU Engineering CSU . The CASE STUDY

16 – Figure APPENDIX D The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX D:

CASE STUDY – CSU ENGINEERING, CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY, AUSTRALIA 134 to to

for - a lotof best of the the the start of of start the

decide on the goals to “ to

most pointed to the pointed most

,” Challenge 1 Challenge

with the remainder developed in

face or online tutorials are organized

” - ” , . g’ and ‘conflict management’. management’. ‘conflict and g’

to empowerstudents to set their own goals - face settin

- ” , helping them to manage their time and reflect reflect time and their manage to them helping these requirements. However, their progress is progress their However, requirements. these wer wer before

Drawing on theirexperiences from the first six ” write reflections every week ,

o .”

mentor at the close of at theof close mentor

the rest of their studies.

: campus, students continue to prepare and submit weekly weekly submit and prepare to continue students campus, ntinuing their weekly reflections, students submit a portfolio portfolio a submit students reflections, weekly their ntinuing having t -

staff, with support provided where needed. For example, where “ where For example, needed. where provided support with staff,

CSU Engineering CSU . Asnoted . one reflection throughout throughout reflection reflections in areas such as ‘goal as such in areas reflections - CSU Engineering, Charles SturtUniversity, Australia Their progress is further supported by fortnightly workshops, designed to -

– mentor and industry mentor, and reviewed three times each year to monitor the

CSU Engineering CSU is still under construction. To date, around 300 topics are available, with a further 700 700 further a with available, are topics 300 around date, To construction. under still is

CSU CASE STUDY

– it has made me think more about what it will mean for me to be a professional engineer and how how and engineer professional a be to me for mean will it what about more think me made has it

Performance planning and review pillar review and planning Performance

“ of sorts all were there interview… [placement] my with helped really It time. my structure to questionsthatI would notable have been to ans or each quarter and, on a weeklybasis, are askedto submit reflections onprogress and targets topic tree topic APPENDIX D reflections and complete a portfolio at the close of each work placement. each work the close reflectionsof a portfolio at complete and student’s progress and achievements. Co achievements. and progress student’s at the close eachof placement. While off each year to identify their goals. This audit is used to draw up a ‘learning agreement’ which is signed by by signed is which agreement’ ‘learning a up draw to used is audit This goals. their identify to year each student, the While on placement, students are asked to undertake a ‘personal and professional audit’ at at audit’ professional and ‘personal a undertake to asked are students placement, on While At the end of each semester, students submit a reflective portfolio. Although some student student some Although portfolio. reflective a submit students semester, each of end the At “ of burden the about spoke interviewees offers pillar this that benefits advance students’ self topics, as well as target areas for personal and professional development. Students meet with their their with meet Students development. professional and personal for areas target as well as topics, ment for theweek.coming they need to reach before going on work placement work on going before reach to need they specialist and fundamental in progress curricular planned their include goals these study, of months study support and self and support study their with meet Students first their learning and track the progress they are making are they progress the track and learning their of spine a students offers pillar this program, the of term second the in Starting learning. their upon D.4.3. The planning‘performance and review’ pillar isdesigned to “ house. The “ from externally sourced be will topics of third one that is anticipated It development. under upon improve cannot we that there, out is that material online the peopleare spending ontime topica notbut it completing difficulties. or concerns specific support Students work relatively independently to complete to complete independently work relatively Students by monitored The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX D:

CASE STUDY – CSU ENGINEERING, CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY, AUSTRALIA 135 - ot Were the the

” . directed directed - Secondly, the Secondly,

based and and based emerging emerging ‘ - .”

earning with with earning “ as learning ” global experts in the field. apart on a global stage,

based l based - brings together many of the the of many together brings

just in time in just blending project

– ring from its potentialinfluence to established program in regional amongthe top 10 of - ight into the ‘value add’ of a world a of add’ ‘value the into ight

highlighted. Firstly, many pointed to to pointed many Firstly, highlighted.

Although the program’s annual student student annual program’s the Although faceproject the caliber of the people that it brought on on brought it that people the of caliber the

- ace experience in developing transferable transferable developing in experience ace .”

to CSU Engineering CSU - primarily primarily much, much larger cohort sizes cohort larger much much, CSU Enginee CSU centered engineering; diverse opportunities for -

ordinary, ratherthan exceptional, students ” . platform for flexible “ ) identified aslikely to distinguish theworld’s leading

CSU Engineering CSU 9

’s ” iversity, Australia iversity, . comments

the benefits of workpl of benefits the … I’ve never seen anything like it before, but I am really excited by by excited really amI but before, it like anything seen I’ve never … ‘ordinary’ students, it would undoubtedly endorse theendorse undoubtedly itwould students,‘ordinary’ topic tree

campus educational approach approach educational campus

- the the neering education the first 18 months is exceptional, it embodies all aspects of best practice practice best of aspects all embodies it exceptional, is months 18 first the is a young program and evidence of its impact on student learning will n will learning student on impact its of evidence and program young a is tered students shouldbe on the radar of somany

reflection; a focus on human on focus a reflection; -

CSU Engineering, Charles SturtUn characterized characterized ”

. I haveever seen in pedagogy – scale up to much larger cohorts of students of cohorts larger much to up scale ntake demographic of of demographic ntake One to “ to i experience was understood to provide critical ins critical provide to understood was experience offers a radically different approach to undergraduate engineeringeducation; none of

, however,,

– learning technology; and “ and technology; learning .”

centered education on the learning of “ tudent self tudent - ently capped at 50, the approach taken was considered by many external observers to to observers external many by considered was taken approach the 50, at capped ently CASE STUDY

– directed online learning: “ learning: online directed centered, engineering curriculum. In particular, particular, In curriculum. engineering centered, - Review concluding and -

” to design and deliver the program. Interview feedback from external observers, however, however, observers, external from feedback Interview program. the deliver and design to ” APPENDIX D was universally positive. As one noted: “ noted: one As positive. universally was engi Itinchapter Iwhatis new see. a CSU Engineering CSU observers external from feedback interview Nonetheless, come. to years of number a for be available aspirations of its world. the across program engineering other any to approach the of transferability class, student class, and mindsets motivations, skills, the in improvements significant demonstrate to program the hold considerable potential to be applied successfully to “ to successfully applied be to potential considerable hold Engineering CSU the potential for CSU Engineering’s on Engineering’s CSU for potential the onlinelearning curr is intake suggests that the top 10 ranking of CSU Engineering stems stems CSU Engineering of 10 ranking the top that suggests were characteristics program particular Two elsewhere. practice One factor that has propelled its global profile is undoubtedly “ undoubtedly is profile global its propelled has that factor One board leaders’ in the field might come as a surprise to many; that a newly a that many; to surprise a as come might field the in leaders’ regis 57 only with Australia most innovative thing thing innovative most of ranking the innovations, evident these Despite external observers consistently pointed to the blend of face of blend the to pointed consistently observers external student seen have I that attributes in graduates in attributes set that characteristics the identify to when asked However, students to explore and apply engineering learning through authentic problems; the use of responsive, responsive, of use the problems; authentic through learning engineering apply and explore to students the art state of engineering programs in the decades to come. These include: a pedagogy that advances self advances that pedagogy a include: These come. to decades the in programs engineering s and learning teacher features that 50the leaders thought Section (see CSU Engineering Engineering CSU traditional, a of elements befamiliar would approaches pedagogical or parts component program’s the The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global D.5.

APPENDIX D:

CASE STUDY – CSU ENGINEERING, CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY, AUSTRALIA 136 - - in the break

” and and ” to

CSU CSU Professor of . They all all They . brought no , staffing, esty about how how about esty team. External External team. the vision and

good will from will from good that sense real a ,”

and

allowed us ” who were were who ” ing education research research education ing and,in particular, the managers “ managers vision and passion has has been

– CSU there there CSU Engineering CSU ” and,instead, “ based and draws upon upon draws and based

- unwavering support its ability ability its

” and has remained largely largely remained has and ” Foundation Professor Foundation

unconventional timetabling unconventional whendescribing the roleplayed by , ss has has been ss of the program’s teaching staff teaching program’s the of

er program’s program’s team noted that senior the strongest pedigree of engineer of pedigree strongest the drew upon the expertise and experience of a well a of experience and expertise the upon drew

succe

n along the way

As a result of this “ this of result a As

. the the calib For example For . nd there isgenuinend a academic intellectualand hon

thestrong and consistent support from the university’s senior stick to our guns, hold our nerve and not frustrate the Foundation

Engineering to nurture and draw upon external expertise and and expertise external upon draw and nurture to

the expertise and leadership of the the of leadership and expertise the

–

yed by the leadership of the ”

requirements

CSU Engineering CSU CSU CSU ” of people that are respected in the profession that had a passion to change change to passion a had that profession the in respected are that people of . about what [the program] should look like look should program] [the what about has been been has

s has been has

The community engaged in the program’s development has included well

were given $15m of university funds and no one is bitter about it it becauseone andis aboutno of bitter funds university were $15m given has has not been watered dow

design of .” ” respectively. , who were reported tocrucial offer a balance of skills: “ CSU Engineering, Charles SturtUniversity, Australia

ilities had an incredible success getting the building up and running in 12 months months 12 in running and up building the getting success incredible an had ilities – dministration had a success in creating a little miracle with the timetabling ” in order to accommodate accommodate to order in ” campus space campus Fac - a critical mass mass critical a

, “ underpinning CSU Engineering’s CSU underpinning

CSU Engineering program, as outlined in turn below. turn in outlined as program, Engineering CSU rules

As a result, the educational approach is both evidence both is approach educational the result, a As ore this thing blossoms thing this ore

CASE STUDY .”

The team brings together industry experience with extensive expertise in pedagogical – the Foundation Professor

d Student A .” [CSU Engineering] [CSU Success factors Success e all working for a common good a good common a for working all e

success. So success. an have aof piece the success “ its for important all are they and special is that something in part a had they that feels everyone third success factor success third second success factor success second first factor first rogram’s development, one interviewee noted: interviewee one rogram’s development, steady, trusted wisdom trusted steady, APPENDIX D “ team, as well as the critical role pla role critical the as well as team, Engineering Education in Australia in this of purpose common and collegiality the underlined also Interviewees practice. best international practice “ as described interviewee one which scholarship, The “ the on commented consistently interviewees as characterized noted that they were comfortable to “ to comfortable were they that noted bef Professor design of the program “ program the design of turn, in management, senior University protocols. or constraints institutional by uncompromised the university’s the on and budgeting management. Many among the among Many management. orprecondition expectations experts. experts. The they ar they that share to try all they educational research innovators and educational regarded nationalrepresentatives, accreditation At a national level, the the level, national a At “ community: education engineering Australian collegial and established p ability of across boththe university and the country delivery of the the of delivery The D.5.1. and design successful the in instrumental been have factors three that suggests feedback Interview The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX D:

CASE STUDY – CSU ENGINEERING, CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY, AUSTRALIA 137

er - ” to -

four four ambition

”; leaving some directed study study directed

- a linchpina of the . Both . current Both ,” on an ongoing ng the program’s program’s ng the of twoof leaders:key

ed as as ed rocket. The difficulty is is difficulty The rocket. z on its pace of growth or - dealing thewith calib

s udent intake targets, targets, intake udent month work placements placements work month

tenure - passion, drive insightand we had hoped we team are ableto quickly “

as CSU Engineering CSU is operating in steady state, with with state, steady in operating is

section of the population of section - was characteri was team are well aware of these

continued

at least untilthe graduation ofour first

CSU Engineering CSU whose

, established program in a regional university, a a university, regional a in program established - CSU Engineering CSU to maintain their motivation for self for motivation their maintain to

motivated comingin - nd actually understoodtheCSUmodel theirduring CSU Engineering CSU will be meetingits annual st and the

mitigating the risks. Interview outcomes, however, however, outcomes, Interview the risks. mitigating when

Foundation Professor Foundation interview outcomes made clear that the success of the the of success the that clear made outcomes interview :

one challenge facedearly on was “ :

: Foundation Professor Foundation as a as newly At this early stage in its development, many elements of the the of elements many development, its in stage early this At

ers and the a supportive engagingand learning environment. For a the biggest challenge facing CSU is exposure. If future Australian Australian future If exposure. is CSU facing challenge biggest the .”

les Sturt University, Australia University, Sturt les “

directed learning. The program is likely to face similar issues as as issues similar face to likely is program The learning. directed chancellors have offered the program a largely unconstrained - - devotedto CSU Engineering CSU may face an additional challenge, one that is partially born of its born of partially isthat challenge, one an additional face may

onsiderable challenge; shed under a constrained timeline, with much of the curriculum being the curriculum of with much timeline, constrained under a shed chancellor and the the and chancellor sk that some will struggle - a c

CSU Engineering, Char

– is a ri a is prepared for self for prepared -

ongoing work placements work ongoing present was establi was ousuniversity vice

” making process for choosing a university, the enrolments would sky would enrolments the university, a choosing for process making 12 months ahead timemonthsof 12 . - there will will and significant effort is CASE STUDY

, – thatCSU Engineering early impact. At the same time, the the time, same the At impact. early collaborations external and internal program’s “ success continued program’s the to pivotal be would students program over the coming years is likely to rest upon the continued continued the upon rest to likely is years coming the over program vice university the and previ expectation unrealistic not imposed have evolve and to which inspace each year. Each placement must expose students to varied and challenging professional challenging and varied to students expose must placement Each year. each offer and problems engineering experiences work of pipeline this providing numbers, staff small with program basis lead institutional key retaining engineers and their families were aware of a of aware were families their and engineers decision cross broad a in understanding and awareness the creating in securing an annual intake of 50students, it mustsecure andsupport 20012 increasing student recruitment student increasing facing challenge major As one students. prospective among reputation and profile its builds it while particularly commented: observer external face support both from staff and peers, be to likely are students campus, off However, arise. that problems any with deal and identify a As concurrently. pressures work and studies their manage must and peers from isolated result, and fall behind; maintaining student engagement self as not are they where get, we students of ill students face benefit from students campus, on While work placements. their into move students Challenges faced

• • • • APPENDIX D challenges suggest andearly success, as outlinedbriefly below. Both universitythe senior management success and sustainability, interviewees consistently pointed to four issues: to four pointed consistently interviewees sustainability, and success developed just “ just developed faci challenges the identify to when asked particular, In unproven. remain program D.5.2. Engineering CSU The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX D:

CASE STUDY – CSU ENGINEERING, CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY, AUSTRALIA 138

CSU CSU based based - based and and based - ” andcapabilities big dream alia, using work

campus study: this will severely severely will this study: campus - ailingexpectation among many xtend their horizons curriculum has been phenomenally phenomenally been has curriculum

e is planning to offer “ offer to planning is

team in the months and years to come.

that aims to nurture graduates who are are who graduates nurture to aims that informed by global best practice in in practice best global by informed

– – profit sector. profit sector. -

eering for - tion tion is able to secure, and is likely to rule out, for for out, rule to likely is and secure, to able is

thinkers; CSU Engineering oyment options are open to them on graduation, be - CSU Engineering CSU CSU Engin CSU medium regional companies or local councils. After After 18 councils. local or companies regional medium - informed young engineers. The challenge facing the the facing challenge The engineers. young informed - solving, some interviewees questioned whether these these whether questioned some interviewees solving, to -

CSU Engineering CSU

edge engineering educa engineering edge - CSU Engineering, Charles SturtUniversity, Australia

– nts within startups orwithin the not ” in their operation and focus. focus. and operation their in ” centered, experiential and online learning Engineers Without Borders Charles Sturt University University Sturt Charles Engineers in Residence - motivated and adaptable systems adaptable and motivated - teamwill be to ensure that thesestudents’ future work placements allowthem tocontinue

CASE STUDY itional ” for students in later years of study and has recently sent 10 students to the EWB summit in summit EWB the to students 10 sent recently has and study of years later in students for ”

–

that it supports and advances engineering capabilities in regional Austr regional in capabilities engineering advances and supports it that challenges distinct the to attuned and in experienced are who graduates nurture to learning facing engineers.regional that it offers a cutting a offers it that student highly based experiences would inspire students and continue to “ to continue and students inspire would experiences based -

EWB Acronyms used in CSU Engineering case study case Engineering CSU in used Acronyms CSU EIR • • e CSU campus footprint andwithin small prettytrad APPENDIX D

this learning trajectory, such that extensive empl extensive that such trajectory, learning this world. the in elsewhere or Australia regional in that were strikingly articulate, motivated and well and motivated articulate, strikingly were Engineering There is no thatdoubt the first months18 of the program the on study of 18 months first the had completed who interviewees the student successful: restrict the types of placements that placements that restrict types of the placeme example, placements prev the by constrained be may ambition this However, Cambodia. off years of four their during an income receive will they that students students taking all four years of their placements with companies that are both regionally both are that companies with placements their years of four all taking students “ work as they progressedthrough their studies.Concerns centered, in particular, on thepotential impact of th problem challenging and diverse of months likely to present a number of challenges to the the to challenges of number a present to likely In study. of years four final the during placements work inthe is evident most is conflict this Where to close geographically were students of cohort the first for secured placements the work of most 2017, While not incompatible, the priorities and goal associated with each of these two narratives are are narratives two these of each with associated goal and priorities the incompatible, not While is perspectives two these Reconciling success. program for measures the are as different, distinctly When asked to describe the vision and mission of the CSU Engineering program, interviewees would would interviewees program, Engineering CSU the of mission and vision the describe to asked When narratives: two following the of one to speak typically The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX E:

CASE STUDY – TU DELFT, NETHERLANDS 139

S a a global global a up’ educational educational up’ - al ‘fit’ that has also

TU DELFT, NETHERLAND DELFT, TU

thinking, ambitious and entrepreneurial and and entrepreneurial and ambitious thinking, led activities, and itsinvestment in theteaching - ng leaders’ in engineering education compiled compiled education engineering in leaders’ ng - –

his, in turn, has facilitated ‘bottom facilitated has turn, in his, including innovativeengineering programs in

Industrial Design, the early development of open and online online and open of development early the Design, Industrial .” in This .” stepseen tospirit was bewider of with key aspects Dutch CASE STUDY CASE

TU Delft, Netherlands

– eminent position within the engineering education community was attributed to to attributed was community education engineering the within position eminent - leaderin engineering education,”

CASE STUDY

– t spirit and attitude, where they are forward are they where attitude, and spirit t

TU Delft’s pre T leadership. educational its of quality the new a to way the paving now is and papers, discussion influential including innovation university. the for vision educational Delf education to committed cultur a egalitarianism, and inclusivity of values the including culture, Crucially, universities. Dutch between partnership and collaboration of degree high a enabled during Phase 1 of the study. A range of factors were seen to explain its position as “ as position its explain seen to were factors of A range study. the of 1 during Phase thought and Engineering Aerospace student successful and ambitious education, “ as identified interviewees was what initiatives these Underpinning staff. academic skills of Reasons for selection of TU Delft as a a Delft casestudy as Reasonsselectionfor TU of on prominently feature to institutions four of one was Delft) (TU Technology of University Delft ‘emergi and leaders’ ‘current both of lists the

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX E APPENDIX The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX E:

CASE STUDY – TU DELFT, NETHERLANDS 140

its ble, 87

o ) Many Many

” and “ and ” million million 85 rankings access online - - 385 385 golly we

€ class, with the with the class, - . You can’t can’t You . open and accessi and open university “ - Interviewees

” ees traced Delft’s Delft’s traced ees world . World University Rankings University World

solve the problem willingness to together work willingness other universities

n with a with

” was seen to pervade all aspects of of aspects all pervade to seen was ” ledprojects. Interview gineering is also reflected in the university’s the university’s in reflected also is gineering n theNetherlands….n So,the attitude is ‘we - i

Times Higher Education

year flooding. You start engineering with the Delft spirit Delft - ely. ely. embedded ethic of social responsibility. They pointed, for

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world - ompassengineering, appliedscience design.and ( chnology (TU Delft) is the oldest and largest of the three ” approach to en to approach ” thousand 2018 -

curricular student curricular

a - respectiv and less bureaucracy tha bureaucracy less and -

Indeed, this “ this Indeed, n 10 in

- open, transparent attitude, transparent open, ” . relevant in the worldin the atio - z

me & Materials Engineering. Materials me & n building the country’s coastal defenses in the face of rising sea levels. As levels. sea rising of face the in defenses coastal country’s the building n

socially and 54

TU Delft, Netherlands

withstand] one withstand]

– rd

lties: Architecture & the Built Environment; Civil Engineering & Geosciences; Electrical Engineering, solving and noted: noted:

- 86 specialist universities in the Netherlands. It is located in the historic city of Delft, 60km Delft, 60km of city historic the in is It located Netherlands. the in universities specialist - CASE STUDY doengineering mentality

hierarchy in the organi -

– QS World University Rankings Context or a long time, we were the only technical university university technical only the were we time, long a or The university context university The can west of Amsterdam, theDutch capital.

are designed to to designed are by and this on work to going are We country. the protect to going are we that mentality succeed!” to going are “There are all sorts of circumstances by which Delft became relevant from a social point of view. view. of point social a from relevant became Delft which by circumstances of sorts all are “There F just to have you flooding, by threatened is land Ifyour it’. do can [that dams and dykes constructed We here. land higher no is there because land, higher to move

- ” back to its early history and its deeply its and history early its to back ” , problem versity ranked 63 At TU Delft, At the Delft, TU termterm ‘teacher’describeor staff. This used is theto faculty academic used is throughout case study t Times Higher Education World University Rankings TU Delft’s eight Facu

spirit APPENDIX E 86 avoid confusion with the eight ‘Faculties’ that comprise the university. 87 85 Policy Management; & Technology, Engineering; Aerospace Engineering; Design Computer& Industrial Science; Mathematics Sciences; Applied Mechanical Mariti

annual research income is sourced fromindustry. Its research outputs are also uni and the This“ Delft’s TU of third one over Indeed, industry. with collaborations research longstanding one teacher “ industries country’s the developing in played university the role national pivotal the to example, followingWorld II War and i university life, as evidenced in the institution’s early decision to become a pioneer in open in pioneer a become to decision early institution’s the in evidenced as life, university extra ambitious highly its and learning consistently highlighted TU Delft’s “ Delft’s TU highlighted consistently active to respond quickly to new opportunities. The university was also characterized as as characterized also was university The opportunities. new to quickly respond to witha flat TU Delft is formed of eight Facultiesenc that and practices own its pursue to each enabling Faculties, to accorded autonomy the noted interviewees Establishedin 1842, Delft University of Te technology south E.1.1. The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global E.1.

APPENDIX E:

CASE STUDY – TU DELFT, NETHERLANDS 141

year - 2016

you don't

year - , it is 2015 progress of the the of progress

University Teaching 2016 -

2014 ’s master program master program ’s

cycle system of bachelor, master bachelor, of system cycle - t, 2006 t, and whichone was repeatedly

– 2013 TU DelftTU Many interviewees suggested a a suggested interviewees Many

hen a country is so small, if

). ” ? introduce a national national a introduce 2012 (i) establish three a establish (i) Dutch, comparedto 25% in 2006. - its population of 17 million is housed within within housed is million 17 of population its institutional recognition of qualifications and periods of

- this national group. national this process_en - st Dutch students complete both cycles: at TU TU at cycles: both complete students st Dutch Bachelor 2011 across the Netherlands in 2002, TUDelft’s five

88 2010 Master Times Higher Education World University Rankings University World Education Higher Times education/bologna - populated country; populated -

by 29 European countries to 2009 is the level of collaboration and partnership between its 13 13 its between partnership and collaboration of level the is

the words of one interviewee, “w interviewee, one of words the – In In therlands in 1999

. year master program. Mo 2008 -

. Total bachelor and masterpopulation atTU Delf with TU Delft ranked second in in second ranked Delft TU with

17 87 , thepastdecade hasbrought rapid growthto population of around 11,400, of which 26% are female. female. are which 26% of 11,400, around of population

ndows and ndows cooperate,you how can compete actedto theuniversity’s 33 masterprograms, which are exclusively taughtin TU Delft, Ne i

17 2007 – Figure nly bythe US andUK. All 13 Dutch research universities appear within theworld’s top student Figure Figure 2006 0 CASE STUDY

orientedinstitutions – - 5,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 25,000 wide culture of collaboration played a criticalrole in shapingthe direction and

The national context national The 2018 world; in the regarded in the -

http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/higher Total number of students students of number Total The Bologna Declaration was signed

APPENDIX E study ( study 88 and doctorate, (ii) strengthen quality assurance, and (iii) support the inter country’s university system. This has included an agreement to to agreement an included has This system. university country’s open your doors and w and doors your open sector highlighted during the interviews interviews the during highlighted research 200 ranked institutions, 200 ranked Netherlands the in system education higher the of aspect distinctive A highly outperformed o TheNetherlands is denselya small and an area around twicethe size of New Jersey. DutchThe highereducation system is among the most E.1.2. English; by 2016,34% of TUDelft master students werenon population, which now stands at over 10,000. The growth has been driven by increasing numbers of of numbers increasing by driven been has growth The 10,000. over at stands now which population, overseasstudents attr are home to a in outlined As bachelor program and a two a and program bachelor typically university, the at programs master to progress students undergraduate of 97% Delft, Dutch taught and in are 17 programs bachelor university’s Most Faculty. the sameremainingof in the Following the introduction of the Bologna Process Bologna the of introduction the Following three a cycles: distinct two create to reform systemic underwent curriculum undergraduate The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX E:

CASE STUDY – TU DELFT, NETHERLANDS 142

- 2016 -

2015

) 2014 In 2015, the grants paid paid grants the 2015, In

89 2013

ms at the country’s research the country’s ms at

subscribed programs. - spot.nl/openaccess/eng/ - e in government funding per European European per funding government in e 15k in 2014. 2014. in 15k 2012 € the - on

- ed using a weighted lottery system that was was that system lottery weighted a using ed 2011 2016 Bachelor level - institutional alliance thathas secured agreement - 2010 level, 2006 level, tp://www.magazine Master level ht 20k in 2000 to to around 2000 in 20k 2009

€

bachelor and master degree progra degree master and bachelor

2008 ted universities increasedfrom 8% to 18%. subscribed programs were allocat - publishersto make scientificpapers free to access. 2007

TU Delft, Netherlands

orien are taught in English. These shifts have broughtgrowing a overseas student

– - Today, 60% of Today, 60%

) for university teachers and a cross 2006 paid after graduation. Revenue from loan repayments started to accrue from September September from accrue to started repayments loan from Revenue graduation. after paid 0 UTQ (

CASE STUDY

30000 20000 10000 60000 50000 40000 80000 70000 . Total number offirst yearstudents at the 13Dutch research universities at bachelorand master – 18

ntake numbers at bachelor and master level almost doubled across Dutch research universities. universities. Dutch research across doubled almost level master and bachelor at numbers ntake Number of first year students year first of Number Figure The Netherlands: Paving the way for open access (

APPENDIX E 89 provide universities with more freedom to select students for over for students select to freedom more with universities provide recently, placesover on however, 2016, in introduced changes Government government. Dutch by the centrally controlled Entry to universityis managed on the principle of ‘open access’: studentswith the appropriate Until their choice. of university and program the at study to place a to entitled are qualifications 2017 and will be invested back into university teaching across the country, including the creation of of the creation including country, the across teaching university into back invested be will 2017 and research. educational support to programs and positions new teaching student, which has fallen from around around from has fallen which student, with were replaced costs) living and fees tuition their annual cover (to students to bygovernment the re be to loans, Increasing student numbers have been accompanied by a declin a by accompanied been have numbers student Increasing students at research students oriented universities master and bachelor international of proportion the 2016, to decade the in country: the to population 2006, i 2006, English towards transitioned also has sector education higher Dutch the period, same the Over delivery. language Recent decades have brought major changes to the Dutch higher education system, including an an including system, education higher Dutch the to changes major brought have decades Recent from decade the In support. financial government in decline a and population student the in increase Qualification major world’s the with The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX E:

CASE STUDY – TU DELFT, NETHERLANDS 143

and in

led

Vital to lding, lding, had been put

e educational educational e bui to date). to

- yz wide. - (from 2015);

Linking all streams,

1999 1999 held reputation for for reputation held

- 2015); 2013); education . – – has grown in parallel to, to, parallel in grown has

– its strength lies in its its in lies strength its

2010);

– (2010

focused focused roles the at ’ - (2005

led activities ( Instead,

- by by consensus, in steps,small letting and support system rengths were gaining global gaining were rengths

– ” for teachers and Faculties todrive 2010) – study success study ‘ curricular activities activities curricular at theinstitutional level -

s approach educational campus consultation and consensus - teaching of the engineering fundamentals. fundamentals. engineering the of teaching ledextra slate development. - -

” . opportunities and space and opportunities growth of ambitious student ambitious of growth

. The timeline is builtis timeline . from interviewee feedback The recollections and

that of thestudent lishment of a drive to improve improve to drive a of lishment

–

hange, and, in particular, for maintaining its reputation for academic academic for its reputation maintaining for particular, in and, hange, ” overshadowed by the institution’s research success. research institution’s the by overshadowed ” led learning. , - eads on water,… change happenedslowly emergence and and emergence enhancing the profile of education at TU Delft TU at education of profile the enhancing estab (2013 learning online and connectivity external in growth vision educational new a of development TU Delft, Netherlands

–

: : : : : E.2.3 E.2.4 E.2.5 E.2.1 E.2.2 stitutional leadership in education; and (ii) the growth of open and online learning. The The learning. online and open of (ii) the growth and education; in leadership stitutional n CASE STUDY

has been strategic institutional investment in areas with the potential to catal to potential the with in areas investment institutional strategic been has – The development of TU Delft’ TU of development The Enhancingprofilethe educationof Delftat TU (2005

Section Sectio Section Section Section like the way oil spr oil way the like curricular student curricular

ce of hiring teachers from industry or offering split industry/academic posts was curtailed under - “ people toget the used idea allthetime APPENDIX E university were phased out at a time when TU Delft’s research st research Delft’s when TU time a at out phased were university “ that university the within recognition growing was there However, prominence. seat back the in much too practi Education research. in pressure competitive global and national growing Historically, these features were combined with an immersion in engineering practice, drawing on the the on drawing practice, engineering in immersion with an combined were features these Historically, university’s the Through the however, itsteaching1990s, experience of staff. diverserich industry and Interviewees from both outside and within TU Delft consistently noted its proudly its noted consistently Delft TU within and outside both from Interviewees academic rigor in engineeringeducation and the E.2.1. however, however, technologies educational in staff, academic skills of teaching the in institution: the across change extra finaltimeperiod described and largely independently from, theeducational changes Interwoven across the first four time periods are two important dimensions of TU Delft’s educational educational Delft’s TU of dimensions important two are periods time four first the across Interwoven in (i) success: education over the past two decades two past the over education of thoseinvolved. Starting in 2005, it isstructured around five timeperiods: This section outlines key milestones and activitiesthat have shaped evolutionthe of Delft’sTU educational reform to be: be: to reform educational centrally supported by the provision of “ of provision by the supported centrally teacher of process this characterized interviewee One up. bottom the from reform educational capacity for incremental c incremental for capacity sector become subsequently that innovations educational embracing while excellence cross been has change incremental of process the Unlike the other case studies, TU Delft’s position among the emerging leaders in engineering education education engineering in leaders emerging the among position Delft’s TU studies, case other the Unlike blank a or reform systematic of result the not is The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global E.2.

APPENDIX E:

CASE STUDY – TU DELFT, NETHERLANDS 144 in in (

on For For by groups of of by groups . for Education,

focus focus

ricula also offered offered also ricula

” courses that a lot of of lot a that courses . and [offer] a [offer] and

“

problems – President curriculum challenges challenges curriculum -

Aerospace Engineering Aerospace and evaluated ed university, many many university, ed z predominant predominant introductory courses to Vice

on campus on and centered

- ) 07. It was not until 2010, 2010, not until was It 07. Interviewees noted that this tested - . in 2007 (

ties for networking and sharing educational educational sharing and networking for ties role of education education of role and dedicated online to puteducation on the agenda the the

“ – ” Industrial Design Engineering Design Industrial

wideeffort and respondedto a critical appraisal of the - university appointed its first its appointed university ” the .

the university were also seen to pave the way for more more for way the pave to seen also were university the mission was symbolized by the by the symbolized was mission , with, prototypes the road

driving change in such a decentrali a such in change driving He was able able was He

of … ustrial Design Engineering Design ustrial Ind In 2003, the

egically atwhat content might add most value tothe online audience and year projects in - n increasing emphasis on on emphasis n increasing wide changesquickly followed, including the appointment ofDirectors of TU Delft, Netherlands -

–

President for Education and Operations in 2005 time teamwas dedicatedto developing and managingthis online content,which - - campus consultation was initiated to assess the university’s needs and ambitions in in ambitions and needs university’s the assess to was initiated consultation campus - up’ change driven by individualFaculties. Twonotable educational reformsinitiated at - Despite the challenges

institutional collaborations were also established, most notably an agreement across across agreement an notably most established, also were collaborations institutional : - its Executive Board. Board. Executive its CASE STUDY

one of the second – uired all new academic staff and lecturers to gain this UTQ within five years of their their of years five within UTQ gain this to lecturers and staff new academic uired all have have particular problems likewith, calculus

Bothweredriven reforms Facultyby a s was a big boost to theinstitution a to boost was big counterbalance to the focus on research on focus the to counterbalance “ . schoolchildren. ) he educational initiatives launched across across launched initiatives educational he APPENDIX E

aroundhalf of thebachelor programs. started to create dedicated materials for what was termed the ‘stumble’ courses courses ‘stumble’ the termed was what for materials dedicated to create started student included slides, examinations and lectures captured by video from the back of the classroom. The The classroom. the of back the from video by captured lectures and examinations slides, included strat look to started also team starting with the launch of the TU Delft open courseware website in 20 in website courseware open Delft TU the launch of the with starting full a that however, local local learning, online and open in capabilities its build to started also university the period, this During an integrated approach, structured around a seriesof authenticdesign example, toy wooden a build and design to students 2009 cur revised Both graduates. their of responsibilities and roles professional changing radical ‘bottom of Faculties the in were time this interviewees pointed to a to pointed interviewees T Delft req Delft appointment. Education for eachFaculty and a suite of new opportuni Cross ideas. TU 2010, By staff. teaching for qualification UTQ mandatory a introduce to universities research Dutch Soon after, a cross after, a Soon Institution education. later becoming Vice becoming later appointment To To many, this imbalance in university’sthe research by The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX E:

CASE STUDY – TU DELFT, NETHERLANDS 145 out - from from year

- as itas

Courses It had one of of one had year master and

” ” - . The review

Faculty of of Faculty program as a platform platform a as program

rricular thread rricular the Some challenges were challenges Some

ts to achieve 75% of their study study their of 75% achieve to ts each cu each

theoreticalcontext to these of study. The reforms achieved

university were the lowest in the the in lowest the were university a complete their degree in four in four degree their complete Study Success 2013)

It brought a suite of reforms to the the to reforms of suite a brought It

to build and integrate integrate and build to went on to complete the three the complete to on went –

skills and attitudes necessary to necessary attitudes and skills year curriculum, offering offering curriculum, year - m oversee week projects each year. limited coherence tothe learning

” Implemented in 2013, the new new the 2013, in Implemented ”

- . year studen . the the - tion of the combined five 25 One third of the new curriculum was was curriculum new the of third One

asingeconomic constraint. offered Box the second year second the

. its coherence and integration of learning. of integration and coherence its

to cture and the Built Environment Built and the cture n thematerialn program in 2011. 2011. in program

up, with all teachers involved thein process recommendations of the committee on the future sustainability of the the of sustainability future the on committee the of recommendations

- between2011 and 2015, the proportion of bachelor – , ensure to woven across the three the across woven Architecture, Urbanism and Building Sciences Building and Urbanism Architecture,

participation in Dutch higher education had risen steadily had risen education higher Dutch in participation to continue continue to

Study Success FacultyofArchite

tional structure and allowing the a measure that requires all first all requires that measure a in order

” e Hague: Ministry of Education of Ministry Hague: e from the bottom from leted their first year of study, went on to to on went study, of year first their leted year program year - design; technology; fundamentals; society, practice and process; academic skills; representation,

TU Delft. Pass rates and retention rates at the TU Delft, Netherlands

–

. dedicated team of professors was assigned to to was assigned professors of team dedicated

rallel to the design projects were designed designed wereto projectsprovide the design rallel to A six core curricular threads core curricular six identified a number of critical challenges facing the national sector, including high drop high including sector, national the facing challenges critical of number a identified

CASE STUDY lar threads are:

90 ly evident at evident ly – : Educational reforms in the based challenges and/or support the development of of development the support and/or challenges based Establishment drive aof to improve ‘studysuccess’ (2010 - a lot of repetition, redundancy and overlap i overlap and redundancy repetition, of lot a increased from 22% to 55%. A number of Faculties used the used Faculties of number A 55%. to 22% from increased

, 25 Veerman, C., et al. (2010). Threefold differentiation differentiation Threefold (2010). et al. C., Veerman, The curricu tackle them. them. tackle three ranthe throughout running running in pa team students a transparent educa transparent a students studies. their throughout thread each in competencies seven two through delivered thread, design the to dedicated and “ “ was designed curriculum comprised Prior to 2011,the bachelor program in befragmented, to seen was curriculum The university. the in rates retention student lowest the that parallel in operating courses small multiple with Box

APPENDIX E visualization and form and visualization Dutch higher education system. Th 91 90 for more radical reformstheir toundergraduate programs. Oneexamplewas in outlined as Environment, Built the and Architecture students who, having comp who, having students years credits in the first year ofstudy year first the in credits in outcomes: rapid improvements student In response, TU Deft launched the the launched Deft TU response, In “ including education, bachelor bachelor program within four years; average time to comple to time average years; four within program bachelor years. 7.5 was programs bachelor rates, extended study completion times and insufficient flexibility.timescurricular and rates, study completion extended particular year first their passed had who students the of 22% only country: capacity to support such an expansion at a time of incre of time a at expansion an such support to capacity outcomes 400,000 to over 600,000 students. Anticipating equally significant increases in the decade to come, in in to come, decade the in increases significant equally Anticipating students. 600,000 to over 400,000 its and system education higher thenational of review a commissioned government Dutch 2010 the E.2.2. 2010, to up leading decades two the In The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX E:

CASE STUDY – TU DELFT, NETHERLANDS 146

- - to to

- Many Many open ed ed ed since since

clinical - university

of - runner or a a or runner - creating creating we have a social we a have technical technical respond

, It institutional - receiving 80,000 80,000 receiving

” ” . , 3TU Centre for for Centre 3TU ducational change at at change ducational launched a launched she was seen to bring to bring was seen she

The university’s 95

, ” wide recognition of the . -

President for Education and - public university Momentum was reinforc was Momentum role in the global ‘open science’inthe global ‘open role 2013 were characterized by some by some characterized were 2013

President a

Vice ” success instant - –

2015) disciplinary, cross as engineers, people were more aware aware more were people engineers, as as as – - key an

) this domain had grown steadily grown had domain this looking period of e of period looking a new - ” the period from 2013 heralded new new heralded 2013 from period the ” ,

play a a play in open and online learning, aswell as a 94 as part ofwider a partnership between the

) d were open to the idea that the same could happen country TU Delft as the European leader in open and online

Open EducationOpen Consortium in teaching in )

investment appointment of

reputation through a pioneering approach to online learning. online to approach pioneering a through reputation Clinical Technology Clinical this was the moment for us to decide, are we a front a we are decide, to us for moment the was this

As many interviewees noted, “ noted, interviewees many As The university’sThe activitiesin

resident of the lands 89 ucation and for collaboration outside the university. For example, in in example, For university. the outside collaboration for and ucation https://www.4tu.nl/cee/en/ https://www.tudelft.nl/en/education/programmes/bachelors/kt/bachelor

struck a chord with what people wanted for the country for wanted people what with chord a struck wide reforms implemented from 2005 http://www.educationandlearning.nl/home ast ast p - http://www.oeconsortium.org . A. p (later becoming4TU), as a collaboration betweenthe country’s ” culture that has seen the the seen has that culture ”

appointedDirector of Education, the new Vice

92 TU Delft, Nether -

the potential for establishing for potential the Many noted that “ that noted Many Centre for Education and Learning, and Education for Centre –

” . removingthe ‘tail’of poor practice U Delft toextend its global building, these alliances paved the way for new cross for way the paved alliances these building, T - early in 2013 in early

free and open he plan gainedtraction with teachingstaff and managers alike. Thevision of CASE STUDY

“ , such as the jointbachelor in ) – Growth in external connectivity and online learning (2013 learning and online connectivity external Growth in

tre for Education and Learning ( Learning and Education tre for onsibility to give back to the country. This is something important to people to important something is This country. the to back give to onsibility bal network of expertise and new ideas. ideas. new and expertise of network bal Clinical Technology, LDE consortium ( Technology, LDE consortium Clinical ( Consortium Education Open 4TU CentreEducation ( 4TU for Engineering Cen

APPENDIX E 94 technology/ 95 92 93

enrolments in the first few months. Their success contributed to university to contributed success Their months. few first the in enrolments for potential with online learning withonline followeronlinetake webeingthe leftofrisk Could learning]… behind? [in “ were 2013, September in launched MOOCS, of set first the when engineering base provided further impetus: it was suggested that “ that suggested was it impetus: further provided base engineering an have can technologies disruptive that impact the of and ‘openeducation’ movements. resp accesseducational resources“ Dutch the Togetherwithnewly a on consultation wide T learning. an energy commitmentand to theuniversity’s glo interviewees credited this shift in focus to the the to focus in shift this credited interviewees Operations 2010, and production on its first set of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) began in late 2012. 2012. late in began (MOOCs) Courses Online Open Massive of set first its on production and 2010, 2013. from significantly advanced learning online and open this in ambitions Delft’s TU However, Thedevelopment key that stands out at DelftTU this during period, however, is the growthrapid of its open and online learningcapacity. and network programs Engineering Education the and universities, research educational for opportunities to In addition (LDE). Erasmus Delft and Leiden, of universities opportunities for innovationin ed the learning: and teaching in alliances national strategic two forged Delft TU2013, TU Delft. university theWhile “ as interviewees E.2.3. outward and ambitious more a of the beginning 2013 marked The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX E:

CASE STUDY – TU DELFT, NETHERLANDS 147

jewel for

“

a “ ” of of ” people a core

through through

a more nd youngnd took a co a took a sobering sobering a

suggested

Solar Energy have to think twice students in open and online online and open in level, TU Delft is also of the [Extension School] School] [Extension the of

over a million

engrained culture engrained

an “ wide reform to mathematics mathematics to reform wide -

Extension School to the engagement of engagement the to As one interviewee noted: Extension School a veryinternational a

achieving was described to be “ be to described was down down at TUat Delft quickly became

successes was the –

” ). At broadera or their education. They go to to go They education. their or 27 ” of the early MOOCS was identified as a a as identified was MOOCS early the of ” MOOCs Box profile early early profile - TU DelftTU Extension School access provision. , with its were noted to be “ be to noted were - , online learning

professionalism and creativity

huge success on i s, technologists and educational specialists to design, design, to specialists educational and technologists s, the the the School One example is the campus the is example One

if you put things out there, to the world, you you world, the to there, out things put you if focused focused on four core areas: (i) courseware;open (ii) MOOCS; ts research leaders. The experience of developing online online developing of experience The leaders. research ts

alprovis , the useblended of learninginthe university’sbachelor and ” Many within and outside the the outside and within Many ” .

and

amongthese high

Extension School In addition to “ to addition In significantly. significantly. . . campus students to gain formal credit for studying MOOCs from other other from MOOCs studying for credit formal gain to students campus year bachelor students (see teachers: - - Notable

ll as more choice in the coursethey can follow. ”

. . S stimulated interest in open in interest stimulated S Extension School 26 TU Delft, Netherlands In the words of one, “ one, of words the In

topic as we

– , Box Box of the university’s onlineprovision canbe attributed

and second

. - reaching changes in attitudes towards educational innovation across campus across innovation educational towards attitudes in changes reaching

September 2016

- ” ” . which can be reviewed by anyone, anywhere in the worldanyone, anywherereviewed be can by which by rowing interest in open access provision helped tohelped break access provision in open interest rowing ” of the university’s education university’s the of ” early MOOC early “

CASE STUDY success

” for many. – , g – were much more open to taking pedagogical advice…. When they are in theExtensionthey in WhenSchool, are takingadvice…. more to open muchpedagogical were , the , the the ” bringing expertise and experience from outside the country. The The country. the outside from experience and expertise bringing ” “ of part as education their on working start and advice take help, for ask and mode different a into step team a ” , APPENDIX E flexiblewaylearn to teaching for first for teaching on for potential the exploring offer to designed is 2015, late launched initiative, pilot The worldwide. institutions Since the launch of the launch of Since the has increased programs master that, as a result, participating participating result, a as that, experience topnotch be to Itneeds quality. the about resistance to pedagogical training among i pedagogical resistance training among to materials MOOC, outlined in outlined MOOC, Secondly conferences and everyone recognizes them. They are stars! … It is a new avenue for them to create networks networks create to them for avenue anew is It … stars! are They them. recognizes everyone and conferences research their around Firstly faculty,early inteachers.individualprofessors a of[involved the visibilitymotivation the was These big recognizedMOOCs] their only throughresearch being were f not but catalyst for far for catalyst mechanisms two team “ Here, staff. teaching university’s the group of in the crown the in enrolments build, deliver and review each new online product. product. online new each review and deliver build, the of establishment the Following design approach to developing online materials; each participating teaching staff member worked as as worked member staff teaching participating each materials; online developing to design approach developer business with team dedicated a part of (iii) online academic courses with paidenrollment; and (iv)professional education courses with paid the to appointed staff FTE 25 The enrolment. group, Further institutional investment quickly followed. The The followed. quickly investment institutional Further 2014 spring in opened was education The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX E:

CASE STUDY – TU DELFT, NETHERLANDS 148 in in -

ed - flipped

aunch L a

delivered by by delivered

and involved the onlinebefore

peer interaction - odel. Using Using

to - effective mathematics mathematics effective

Each Each mathematics generated content and and content generated - ing articular needs and lments todate have l

To To date, blendednew the based approach. based es, assignments and exams, exams, and assignments es, s registered learners was used was used learners s registered - ’ students through each each through students

The new courses were ollowing the introduction of the classroom m classroom

f ) the MOOC. Studentswere deliver department.

: Extension School and then take onlinequizzes and

, guide with the on for rate the pass 2013,

– energy/ - year students. - to cover 30% more material in the course course the in material more 30% cover to

is tailored to the p the to tailored is

lments; total enro total lments; l – regional solar energy systems.regional energy solar . Activeengagementstudent is learning and as well as the student

, able Civil Engineering Civil d for the levels of active peer active of levels the d for enro

and second s, designed to designed s, class

- - and the difficulties of gh a traditional lectured traditional gh a Applied Mathematics Applied Nonetheless, the model was recognized to have have to recognized was model the Nonetheless, ,000 d in d was among the first to be developed at TU Delft. Delft. TU at developed be to first the among was

the the 96 throu was transformed to a flipped a to transformed was

to all first all to

learning.tudelft.nl/courses/solar MOOC - specific exercises during class exercises specific

- both online an online both est database of images of of images of database est reinforce the relationships between them. Solar Energy department

interactive concept map concept interactive https://online larg Course components are tailored to the students’ discipline of study and and study of discipline students’ the to tailored are components Course Solar Energy

s been rolled out across four of the eight Faculties at TU Delft. at TU Faculties the eight of four out across rolled been s

TU Delft, Netherlands elective had fluctuated between 67% and72% 10 minute videos with custom animations, exercis animations, with custom videos minute 10

low student engagement engagement student low

a rship with learning developers at theDelft learning TU with developers at rship The MOOC isparticularlyThe note –

– h he coursewas designed to run concurrently . , t , ,000 Indeed, in the firstyear alone, feedback from the MOOC education is a mandatory element of the bachelor programs at TU Delft, Delft, TU at programs bachelor the of element mandatory a is education

to large numbers of students students of numbers large to week course guides students through the design of a photovoltaic system. system. photovoltaic a of design the through students guides course week CASE STUDY -

such as calculus, linear algebra and statistics statistics and linear algebra calculus, as such Solar EnergySolar

– classroom approach in 2014, pass rates increased to 89%. –

: Blended learning approach tomathematics teaching in Years 1 and 2 : Solar : Energy MOOC 27 26 Applied Mathematics Applied generate the world’s world’s the generate TU Deft, Solar Energy MOOC ( further supported using and concept mathematical approach learning class, work in groups on discipline on groups in work class, class. after homework isregular provided, feedback developed in partne in developed in teachers mathematics 25 all of training exercises complete and video introductory an watch students approach, classroom In response, TU Delft launched a major initiative in 2014 to transition its mathematics teaching to a a to teaching mathematics its transition to 2014 in initiative major a launched Delft TU response, In in pilot with a starting approach, learning blended disciplinary focus of each bachelor program. program. bachelor each of focus disciplinary including problems, education Mathematics Mathematics the course Box flipped than had previously been possible. The new pedagogy also yielded significant improvements in in improvements significant yielded also pedagogy new The possible. been previously had than 2010 between years the four In exam performance. students’ campus September 2014 September askedto follow theMOOC’s lectures online,with classroom timedevoted toexercises and was instructor the approach, Using this discussion. to to on Delft TU the MOOC, this through developed materials the and experience the both on Drawing in elective master campus and learning that ithas facilitated between students information. this eight this 57 attracted MOOC the alone, year first its In 160 exceeded Launched in 2013, the the 2013, in Launched Bringingtogether 6 Box

APPENDIX E 96

The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX E:

CASE STUDY – TU DELFT, NETHERLANDS 149

” ,

, ”

year - for the

and

to identify identify to

wide - – in 2014 Taking a to provide a a provide to

will integrate will

97 . one support for -

to ) - ” The report stirred this would just end up in in up end just would this .

Academy –

4TU Centre for for Centre 4TU n unwillingness to prepare prepare to unwillingness n education). scattered across campus “

ly The new

ore balanced picture between

Teaching AcademyTeaching initiative in 2016. The initiative initiative The 2016. in initiative .

doesleave teachersnot with tospace pment and innovation are supported are innovation and pment “

TU Delft is not a university that has a has that a university not is Delft TU m a taking and exploration in teaching and and inteaching exploration and taking “ - and teaching online and campus Aerospace Engineering Aerospace - k and MOOCs) and innovative development

) 2017, the university embarked on a two on a embarked the university 2017, http://www.cdio.org/node/6183 ( on support (including one

– - established the the established orld support new innovations in the classroom visionstatements for the attributesthat our face face learning,previous - Seeking to create Spotlight on Education on Spotlight to ” In consequence, there was a was there consequence, In ”

- . .” an incubator and accelerator for educational development educational for accelerator and incubator an campus course campus TU DelftTU “ - date back to an influential report, first published published first report, influential an to back date To further consolidate To further and strengthenitscapacity for

articulating TUDelft’s educational vision and ambition

TU Delft’s department of pidly Changing W Changing pidly

the university’s education and target student intake should should intake student target and education university’s the

a a R n in n ” Instead, during 2016 during Instead, ” launched the the launched

sed as stepping stones to build the university’s first institution focused focused on

eaching fellowships to to fellowships eaching new ideas,innovations and researchprojects in has focused on how educational develo educational how on focused has

ducation in https://www.tudelft.nl/teachingacademy/ that thepressure for research excellence TU Delft

year t to explore how explore to

,” TU Delft, Netherlands

– two institutional teacher training), hands training), teacher institutional consulting with students, teachers and Faculty managers across campus campus across managers Faculty and teachers students, with consulting

ation,in September 2017, – The origins of this process

Director of Educatio of Director novate or improve their teaching full of bland and meaningless statements that ofcouldanywhere meaningless apply statements and bland full 4). Engineering E 4). Engineering facility. Itis designed to act as CASE STUDY . Despite inwas onlinetheincreasingand its . successes growing domain, an open there

– scanning approach, the report articulated “ articulated the report approach, scanning , including, - Development of a new educational vision and support system (from 2015) (from system support and vision educational new a of Development

second wave of activity of wave second first wave of activity of wave first TU Delft Teaching Academy ( Kamp, A. (201

APPENDIX E 97 98 a drawer and no one would read it. read would one no and drawer a process iterative educational vision statement. As many interviewees made clear, “ clear, made interviewees many As statement. vision educational paperwork unnecessary or policies written of lot a document “ students, teachers and university managers from across TU Delft. TU across from managers university and teachers students, Theworkshop outputs were u Engineering Education together brought workshops these Tank’, Think Spirits ‘Free the Termed decades. coming the in change considerable debate, across and beyond TU Delft. Shortly after its publication, in early 2015 a series of of series a 2015 early in publication, its after Delft. Shortly TU beyond and across debate, considerable fiveworkshopswas organizedby DelfttheDirectors TU of Education and the horizon work of world the in career successful a for acquire to have will students engineering The come. to years the by written teachers involved in the development of on of development the in involved teachers (more intensive support for providing professional development (courses and support in on support and (courses development professional providing including learning, TU Delft’s support in online, blended and face single a into educational innov educational campus across support learning and teaching for point single access provided opportunities to support and celebrate innovation, ris innovation, celebrate and support to opportunities provided learning teachers. university leading the prizes for collaborate, in collaborate, research and education at TUDelft recognition institutional likely to have a profound effect on the institution’s culture and curriculum in the future. future. the in curriculum and culture institution’s the on effect profound a have to likely The E.2.4. Theperiod 2015has from brought educationaltwo major developments to Delft,TU eachis of which The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX E:

CASE STUDY – TU DELFT, NETHERLANDS 150 dy dy

’. that

.” Each year,

an old old an

, 95% of its master students students master students nothing hobby clubs, like ” and were soon soon were and ” of

goal of winning the the winning of goal are going to join class solar car from a - TU DelftTU led ‘study association - curricular activities focused on ” at TU Delft stands out. The - they had no money, money, no had they xtra Aerospace Engineering At the time, there were big curricular activities curricular

ly with the major changes to global global to changes major the with ly s, the (as yet unpublished) vision statement statement vision unpublished) yet (as the s, vivid culture m to build, the the curricular activities. Even among Dutch Dutch among Even activities. curricular - led extra a -

clubs and societies are distinguished by their by distinguished are societies and clubs leaders in the first phase of this study. study. this of phase first the in leaders ) time roleswithout formaluniversity

administrative duties in a club or society; it is recognized, aligned strong

e.org ledextr – - led activity, “ - time -

and financiallysupports a significant number full

l s

” .

in the race, like General Motors and Honda. Everyone thought they they thought Everyone Honda. and Motors General like race, the in

team, which had been established by a group of of group a by established been had which team, ]

giving themselves two years to design and build a world a build and design to two years themselves giving

TU Delft, Netherlands , without any kind of formal permission from the [university] Board

99 , such as offering students the flexibility to select specialist pathways of study, and study, of pathways specialist to select the flexibility students offering as such – https://www.worldsolarchalleng disciplinary experiences experiences disciplinary

led activities varywidely, and include social clubs, student councils and one ‘stu - - –

participating [ highlights discussion points for future development in its educational portfolio. Many Many portfolio. educational itsin development future for points discussion highlights

officially acknowledge Formula Student CASE STUDY

– in the beginning, no one believed these guys could do it. They had told us ‘we ‘we us told had They it. do could guys these believed one no beginning, the in Emergence growthand ambitiousof student “ win’. to going are we and cars solar for Australia in race the companies for the place provision, wereno no was crazy. There

ime out of their studies to fulfil to studies their of out ime t

World Solar Challenge ( Challenge Solar World

APPENDIX E 99 the previous year. previous the with companies that went on to sponsor their fledgling team. They took up residence in “ in residence up took They team. fledgling their sponsor to on went that companies with basement of a building the by joined With support from a Delft professor who was a former astronaut, the students were soon connected connected soon were students the astronaut, former a was who professor Delft a from support With standing start. TU Delft interviewees noted noted that: interviewees Delft start. TU standing Thisin 1999,whenchanged small group a studentsof master set themselves the Challenge Solar World the application of engineering and technology; instead, most did not extend beyond “ beyond extend not did most instead, technology; and engineering of application the clubs repair car and motorbike the however, that many more students take such full such take students more many that however, acknowledgement. However,until 1999/2000, very few theseof e the university university the take bachelor and master student cohort are members of the Faculty’s student Faculty’s the of members are cohort student master and bachelor Delft’s TU context, international wider in a Viewed students. by them in invested time of level the for and university the from independence university’s student university’s association’ for each of the university’sFaculties; example,for in TU Delft long hasbeen itsknown student for student of tradition their with universities, E.2.5. offeringmore cross thought the by anticipated education engineering the significant increases in the student population, both from home and overseas markets. The The markets. overseas and home from both population, student the in increases significant the also statement of theseproposals Bringingtogether the each outputs of thefrom consultation to adapt to how as such university, the facing currently challenges educational the of some explores and articulatethe distinct qualities of the TUDelft education and chartcourse a for its future development. The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX E:

CASE STUDY – TU DELFT, NETHERLANDS 151

. – , 5 ally € powered powered - DreamHall DreamHall Human Power Power Human to join the space. space. the join to Aerospace Delft

… it became a decision

Nuon Solar Team Solar Nuon

ealisation of Extremely of ealisation – .” based environment. environment. based - Dream R Dream gram of workshops provides provides workshops of gram time team members typic members team time - . The team then went on to winteam went then on. The 1.5m per year, and includes the the includes and year, per 1.5m € ” in a team a in ” operated relatively independently from one

standing for standing for –

’, : 102 d outside TU Delft, the nine members of the solar solar the of members nine the Delft, TU outside d week ‘top track’ pro track’ ‘top week off of the success was enormous was success the of off e crazy ideas crazy e - led teams based at TU Delft Delft TU at based teams led - - z

) WorldSolar Challenge

. This totals around ) houses around 400 students across nine teams. The The teams. nine across students 400 around houses

. . . Following. staff, key thisstrong lobbying from academic DreamTeams ‘ levelstudents, and around aquarter of them are engaged full im of breaking theworld speed record for a human - won the the won lft, the student teams continued to work independently from from independently work to continued teams student the lft,

– record s

was understood to have a dramatic impact on the coherence and and coherence the on impact dramatic a have to understood was DreamHall

100 DreamHall in 2013, with the third iteration of the team’s design, with a a with design, team’s the of iteration third the with 2013, in

for short,pronounced ‘daydream’ in AsDutch. such, the been disbanded

the Delft Water Bike Technology since since https://www.fsteamdelft.nl DreamHall achieved and

has has

D:Dream TU Delft, Netherland

101 – European altitude riod, the three existingthe student riod,three Nuon Solar Team Solar Nuon , or team), set itself the challenge of being the first student team to reach space and has has and space reach to team student first the being of challenge the itself set team),

a place where students could reali could students where place a http://www.nuonsolarteam.nl/?lang=en team time building manager, student assistants and the organization of workshops to to workshops of organization the and assistants student manager, building time

- formalsupportto the

il Engineering and Geosciences and Engineering il CASE STUDY

Machines –

named the the named gave the university a lot of exposure. The spin The of exposure. lot a the gaveuniversity

ements,which were coveredby thenational press point for [prospective]and students lotaof students started toto comeDelft “ was established in 2010, with the a the with 2010, in established was –

ket Engineering ket Delft Water Delft Bike Technology Nuon Solar Team ( Nuon Formula Student team Delft (

APPENDIX E 100 101 102

majority of team members are bachelor are members team majority of full high; are members team among Workloads project. their on time teams with coaching and training in topics ranging from financial administration to fluid dynamics. The The dynamics. fluid to administration financial from ranging intopics training and coaching with teams be around to estimated is which sponsorship, by company complemented is support university Today, teams. the 10m across premises, a full a premises, two a each year, of the start At teams. the support Although autonomy has remained a core feature of the teams, from 2013 the university started to to started university the 2013 from teams, the of feature core a remained has autonomy Although more provide Roc alreadybroken the vehicle. This record was record This vehicle. DARE (the Another team, 134km/hr. of top speed bicycle recumbent reached a that Most were at a bachelor level of study. All brought highly ambitious goals, aimed considerably beyond beyond considerably aimed goals, ambitious highly brought All study. of level bachelor a at were Most the example, For students. master and undergraduate from expect might one what Team Theestablishment of the pitching were groups new student soon, Very campus. across teams the of visibility Although the hall was ‘owned’ by TU De TU by ‘owned’ was hall the Although university. the Advanced “ as designed was space was to become the permanent home for the teams and in 2009 was renamed the the renamed was 2009 in and the teams for home permanent the become was to space Together, teamsthe became knownthe as another and struggledto find a space in which workto on their vehicles. In 2007, after a number of the in space workshop a in residence took they campus, on spaces empty between moving of years Civ of Faculty Throughout pe this Student Formula the next two iterations of this biennial competition, in 2003 and 2005. Interviewees noted that these these that noted Interviewees 2005. and 2003 in competition, biennial this of iterations two next the achiev In 2001, much to the surprise of observers within an within observers of surprise the to much 2001, In team The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX E:

CASE STUDY – TU DELFT, NETHERLANDS 152

.” n A they they time time - team

.” ” In the coming coming the In ” . , it always seem to be to be italways seem , on reflectsDelft’s TU , to meet the growing Delft Formula Student Student Formula Delft working for something that something working for , That last couple of percent, of percent, couple last That time’ students typically devote at at devote typically students time’ year after year

–

and ”

DreamTeams . needed and select the ‘core’ full ‘core’ the select and needed

apart from their internationalpeers. The

with the other countries but also between teams ’’ the teams that have gone before them. beforeIn them. teams have gone that ’’ the

. – ity ity outdo Nuon Solar Team Solar Nuon DreamTeams DreamHall It is the students, together students, the is It

off’ approach in supporting but not directing theteams: “ - s

seated university culture of contributing to the wellbeing of the alumni provide advice where

- there is a tribal mental tribal a is there

and so they are intrinsically motivated. motivated. intrinsically are they so and

provide continuityand make to sure thattheylearn from experienceprevious

Many of the teams have focused on projects with a social development or or development social a with projects on focused have teams the of Many to with which the students have managed and directed these initiatives. In the the In initiatives. these directed and managed have students the which with

“

ing first in these international competitions international these in first ing .” TU Delft, Netherlands

– themselves blished by teams such as the the as such teams by blished have been phenomenally successful. Interviewees from outside the university noted noted university the outside from Interviewees successful. phenomenally been have DreamTeams

CASE STUDY

success factor is the teams’ motivation and engagement. Many interviewees attributed these these attributed interviewees Many engagement. and motivation teams’ the is factor success factor in their success is highthe levelscreativity of and thatambition the generate.teams

consistently com – 15 hours per week. week. per hours 15 – it is by and for the students. You don’t get credit points for participating. You don’t have have don’t You participating. for points credit get don’t You students. the for and by is it “ professorslooking over your shoulders. than bigger is difference the all makes it and motivation, intrinsic from comes win, you makes that is their consistent focus on renewal, rather than evolutionary development; most teams work on a a on work teams most development; evolutionary than rather renewal, on focus consistent their is

third DreamTeams rviewee feedback suggests that this has been fed by the significant successes achieved by the early by the thesuccesses significant byachieved has been fed thisthat rviewee feedback suggests month cycle, with 85% of the team newly appointed each year to start afresh with a new design. design. new with a start afresh year to each appointed newly team the of 85% with cycle, month - second you want to do better than last year’s guys, youwant to bethe best

APPENDIX E demand from new student teams to join the the join to teams student new from demand have believed them,inthey have trusted theythem andhave given themthe space to fly the for space second a develop to is looking university the years, Many also credited the university’s ‘hand university’s the credited also Many words of one: of words The autonomy the to qualities the words of one interviewee, “ interviewee, one of words the – A Inte “ to cohort each among desire ina resulting teams, advisory group of year, each member team first 12 Netherlands and wider society. wider and Netherlands There toappear be three factorsthat the set of paraplegics or a systemto cleanthe oceans of plastic. Thissocietal orientati deep the and base strong value through “ through place first in coming Delft mobility the increase to designed exoskeleton an of development the as such ambition, environmental The esta reputation the devote around 80 hours per week on their project, while other ‘part other while project, their on week per hours 80 around devote 10 least The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX E:

CASE STUDY – TU DELFT, NETHERLANDS 153 TU Delft significant significant

with , culture of of culture commissioned commissioned

- Much of this activity is is activity this of Much the

: e impact this has had in recent recent in had has this impact e many interviewees noted the noted the interviewees many om interviewsom with stakeholders to

: on learning - consistently highlighted. The first two two first The highlighted. consistently

each program was understood to bring bring to understood was program each

curricular activities, which operate relatively relatively operate which activities, curricular solid background in maths, mechanics and the among itsamong student population -

is distilled fr distilled is

a 6 campus. - tive and hands tive and ingmodel for its engineeringeducation. Instead, its Table ledextra - and off

all interviewees highlighted the technical rigor of the TU Delft

”;

ambition and leadership

engineering, science and design and science engineering, edby the student

TU Delft, Netherlands

promote – CASE STUDY

– years on student learning, both on both learning, student on years independently of the university; university; the of independently learning online and blended to approach pioneering a positiv the and learning online in strength growing university’s an ambitious student culture of initia of culture student an ambitious to seen was opportunities to apply their knowledge to real engineeringproblems. support and driven engineering fundamentals engineering of the integration each on placed weighting the although design, and science engineering, of blend a together discipline; by considerably varies curriculum the within deep disciplinary knowledge disciplinary deep “ with graduating students its with education, provides an overview of the key features of the university’s education and the structures and and structures the and education university’s the of features key the of overview an provides TU TU Delft’s approach educational

6 • • • • ducational innovation: ducational

APPENDIX E

TU Delft’s undergraduate programs. Table in included data it. The that support processes of e relate to qualities for which engineering education at the university has long been known; the third and theand third has been long known; the educationuniversity at relate qualities which engineering for to fourthillustrate its embrace capacity to change and harness ensure to TUDelft remainsthe at forefront All interviewees, from both within and outside the university, were asked to identify the distinguishing distinguishing the identify to asked were university, the outside and within both from interviewees, All features of TU Delft’s educational approach.Four werefeatures programs are characterized by their diversity. The 17 bachelor programs and 33 master programs at at programs master 33 and programs bachelor 17 The diversity. by their characterized are programs TU Delft designedare and delivered independentlyrelatively and considerable variation in curricular characteristics. common share they However, them. between exists pedagogy design and Unlike the other three institutions considered for case study evaluation in this MIT this in evaluation study case for considered institutions three other the Unlike single doesnotDelftoverarch report, offer a TU The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global E.3.

APPENDIX E:

CASE STUDY – TU DELFT, NETHERLANDS 154

”

. k Since ,

- campus. - one of the the of one

Through this this Through Places on

(TU Delft’s (TU

Over half of of half Over

will be distinct ‘profile ”; one ”;recent such in September 2017. September in

niversity. 97 OC Focus OC and an assignment in an assignment and

50k over two years to ; Described by one one by Described ” it brings the together

€ ,

stage process: completion of completion process: stage - 97 support system support students all afollow single trac or in Year 3 of study, limited limited study, 3 of in Year or Academy e Engineering

IndustrialDesign Engineering a four a test designed to evaluate evaluate designed to a test

; for all incoming students

” The” university offers speciala

. Aerospac Teaching

Extension School and campus course development; course campus based. - icular opportunities are offered for students to to students for offered are opportunities icular - mini MOOC young outstanding researchers outstanding young

led clubs and societies. and clubs led - ole in student learning at TU Delft. Delft. TU at learning in student ole introduced an annual prize for innovation in teaching teaching in innovation for prize annual an introduced driven approach, others have adopted active, student ents to particularspecialize in fields of interest.

- search groups or centers operate at the university. At university. the at operate or centers groups search based teaching.based - ngineering testsin mathematics and physics

; will offer:

shop for teaching shop for learningand support master stud - one support for teaching innovations, both online and on and online both innovations, teaching for support one - One key feature of the clubs is their independence from the the from independence their is clubs the of feature key One to introduce student selection

stop to

- - subscribed programs may seek permission from the government to government from the permission seek may programs subscribed school diploma and had chosen to study at the u - - ies iversity is also discussing the feasibility of introducing introducing of feasibility the discussing also is iversity lum, through student through lum, w with the establishment of the the of establishment the with w one un

on’ support for online or on or online for support on’ ociety. ociety. - centered, theoretically centered, - Facult The allow routes for routes allow Teaching Academy Teaching

professional workshopscourses, development UTQ and training; ‘hands one focused

to curricular activities play a crucial r a crucial play activities curricular

- subscribed programs were allocated through a national weighted lottery system. system. lottery weighted a national through were allocated programs subscribed - TU Delft • • • ered learning across the curriculum.For inexample, Introduction to Aeronautical E TU Delft, Netherlands

. . Keyfeatures of theTU Delft educational approach and – 6 is based almost completely on research achievement research on completely almost based is support innovative and evidence and innovative support re education engineering formal No the within present, mostbase research is educational individual undertaken by teachers in collaborations research educational the that anticipated was It LDE. the or 4TU the with universitywill gro Extra activities, on social focus some Although or society. club or more one in participate students their and engineering science and on focused are proportion a high pursuits, or other sports s application to university; withoutoperatemost any supervision, ortutoring involvement TU by Delft staff. support functions previously supplied by the by the supplied previously functions support teaching and learning supportcenter, originally established in2007). new The Delft, TU at promotion and appointment, academic that reported consistently Interviewees “ promotionroute fullto professorship “ for promotion on been has made of the basis of portfolio excellenceblended in researchboth recently The university education. and teachers which offers scheme, Fellowship Teaching as as a well disciplines. tracks’ or curr few level, minor master and the bachelor both At during from apart cohort, disciplinary their outside from individuals with work master electives. Mostof the multidisciplinary experiences available to students offeredare curricu the outside some while Faculty; by significantly varies practice pedagogical that reported Interviewees take a teacher cent more 50% than of the curriculumis project Academy. Teaching the launched Delft TU 2017, September In “ a as interviewee requisite secondary requisite over over however, 2016, deviseintroduce and own theirselection criteria. first new system, prospective willstudents be selected using the motivation for academic study engineering. aeronautical min the from aside that, reported consistently Interviewees “ studies: bachelor their during students to offered is choice sub specialist through choice more offered typically are students level, master the At Details its bachelor selected not Delft has TU policy, government Dutch the with line in and gained Historically, that population student prospective the of 20% the across from enrolled it intake;

Table Table

CASE STUDY

–

curricular curricular - Extra opportunities Educational Educational activities research recognition of of recognition teaching Reward and and Reward Teaching and and Teaching support learning Pedagogical Pedagogical approach Opportunities to to Opportunities across work disciplines Flexibility and and Flexibility choice student selection of student student ofselection intake Educational feature for Criteria APPENDIX E The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX E:

CASE STUDY – TU DELFT, NETHERLANDS 155 at

after -

year -

nor from elsewhere by interviewees interviewees by

.” With .” an they considered to to considered they

focuses the on

select a mi select a

shaped engineer’: engineer’: shaped - offeringthree a

88 program Curricular delivery is also supported supported also is delivery Curricular

. Students can opt to select a minor from within from within to selectminor opt a can Students . , the curriculum structure for which is Thereiscommon no first year; students This thereforesection but are encouraged to encouraged are but

elective space in the master program, program, master the in space elective

en their knowledge and skills). and knowledge their en Year 3 Year represents the horizontal bar of the ‘T’; barhorizontal the of represents the

an – utorial rooms. rooms. utorial Dutch. Studentinterviewees from across the (to (to broad - m design. m design. developingspecialist knowledge and research skills

developing foundational knowledge with integrative with integrative knowledge foundational developing One of these three programs has been selected as an an as selected been has programs three these of One

– deep of application the emphasizes that approach based - – showcase a sample curriculum for the purposes of this this of purposes the for curriculum sample a showcase

were askedto identify which the hardest and most intensive course at Delft at course intensive most and hardest the is home to 1400 bachelor students, 1200 master students and and students master 1200 students, bachelor 1400 to home is

nts are non are nts

or from abroad Aerospace Engineering Aerospace year master program. - represents the vertical stem of the ‘T’. vertical stem theof represents the ‘T’.

In order to order In – Aerospace Engineering, Industrial Design Engineering and and Engineering Design Industrial Engineering, Aerospace

long minor at the beginning of two ” - it is a policy not to have an underlying curriculum structure. We don't want want don't We structure. curriculum underlying an have to not policy a is it .

thebachelor program and

their disciplinary knowledge and skills) skills) and knowledge disciplinary their

engineeringdiscipline onentry totheir undergraduate studies. noted, “ noted,

TU Delft, Netherlands during

. – 103 19 chosen solving, design and teamworking skills teamworking and design solving, -

acceptance rate of 3:1, places onbachelor the program are also themost sought deptheducation at master level - - minor from another Dutch institution education is structured according to the Bologna 3+2 model, 3+2 Bologna the to according structured is education

, to a Figure Figure vel is devoted to project or lab work. This active approach is reflected in the design of the - CASE STUDY

– within a professional field field professional a within the broad education at bachelor level level bachelor at education broad the problem in the Curriculum design academic leader

Faculty of Aerospace Engineering Aerospace of Faculty TU Delft • • ted commonalityexists between the university’sprograms, at both the bachelor and master level. All bachelor All students semestertake a

APPENDIX E across TU Delft 103 deepen (to department home their

by a significant number of teaching assistants; for the bachelor program alone, the Faculty employs 15 15 employs Faculty the alone, program bachelor the for assistants; teaching of number significant by a assistants. teaching FTE Faculty’s learning spaces: the new ‘Fellowship Building’ contains no tiered lecture theatres, but rather 45 45 rather but theatres, lecture tiered no contains Building’ ‘Fellowship new the spaces: learning Faculty’s t several a and classrooms two studio spaces, project Thebachelorprogram takesactive, an project time at contact class of 40% example, For problems. engineering authentic to knowledge disciplinary le bachelor Together, bachelorthemaster programsdesignedand toare educatethe ‘T application university. the 70 FTE academic staff. Both the bachelor and master programs are taught exclusively in English; at the at in English; exclusively taught are programs master and bachelor the Both staff. 70 academic FTE enrolled stude the of 44% level, master “ as program the characterized university outlinedin The example of the university’s approach to curriculu to approach university’s the of example from programs master and bachelor from within and outsideDelft: TU Sciences. Building and Urbanism Architecture, TU Delft case study, therefore,interviewees identified consistently were programs Three university. the at practice best exemplify limi one As Faculties on structure a impose to specialize in their their in specialize from Apart The by a followed program bachelor The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global E.4.

APPENDIX E:

CASE STUDY – TU DELFT, NETHERLANDS 156

5 MSc thesis .

Control & THESIS PROJECT c MS The Master program closes with an individual Msc thesis project lasting nine months. internship 4 Flight Performance & Propulsion and curriculum at TU Delft TU at curriculum

minor / electives INTERNSHIP All Aerospace Engineering master students engage in a full-time 12-week internship. MASTER OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING program, students select to During the two year master such as specialize in one of six ‘tracks’, Operations 3 Engineering 3 3 BSc exams Aerospace PHASE 5: veriﬁcation & validation -- N/A -- DESIGN SYNTHESIS PROJECT At the close of the bachelor program, all Aerospace Engineering Students engage in a 10-week, full-time, team-based design project. 2 specialist aerospace specialist aerospace courses PHASE 4: & simulation test, analysis . Outline structure of the 19 design systems Figure PHASE 3:

basic engineering basic engineering science 1 MINOR Students may select a minor from within their Faculty, from across TU Delft or from another university, either in the Netherlands or abroad. design & PHASE 2: construction TU Delft, Netherlands

design and professional skills – PHASE 1: exploration 0 . CASE STUDY

– design project and construction’. In their design project, students are asked to design, build and test a light-weight wing box, drawing on their learning in a specialist courses in Aerospace Mechanics of Materials as well as a professional skills course on technical writing. EXAMPLE OF SEMESTER-LONG ACTIVITIES The second semester is focused on ‘design BACHELOR OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING BACHELOR OF AEROSPACE The ﬁve timetabled semesters of the bachelor program are each focused on the key phases of the design cycle BACHELOR OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING BACHELOR OF AEROSPACE APPENDIX E education art in engineering the state of The global APPENDIX E:

CASE STUDY – TU DELFT, NETHERLANDS 157 - (i) ests, ests, for

sets of of sets , with group of of group

innovative innovative

’, ’, asking and are

synthesis and and synthesis weighted -

lly ; , each, successive As its name sugg name its As ). Thesethree o Mars and and (v)

19 ; 19

writing) and associated professional

projects are strongly related related strongly are projects

project. project. theoretical aerospace courses – Figure Figure

three equa three : Figure Figure At the same time, students are are students time, same the At

for semesterthe

aircraft have a tail? a have aircraft . materials. -

For example, semester 1 focuses on on focuses 1 semester example, For and scientific comprises satellites, missions t missions satellites, . active and/orblended learning;

Design Synthesis why does an does why analysis &simulation the projects grow in complexity and call and complexity in grow projects the project space project Design Synthesis selected and trained students from the third the from students trained and selected one per semester (iv)

– year program (see (see program year

- time technical technical Each project is supported by courses in aerospace s workshops and courses in areas such as oral - Aerospace Materials

round 25 student teaching assistants support the the support teaching25 assistants student round curriculum curriculum

A structures and aero management. management. and - . and o s

elor program, week full week - spine around which the rest of the curriculum is built

within a dedicated dedicated a within foundational coursesin subjects such as mechanics,physics and poses the question ‘ question the poses development ifferent challenge: either a design problem or an original research original an or problem design a either challenge: ifferent

a 10 designproject

: : (iii) system design; in

The first three design projects are guided and tutored by a rm the by student teams. teams. student by focused focused on flyingformation

fo bachelor program bachelor

. The group is composed of of composed group is. The increasinglydelivered through

ntly throughout the three the throughout ntly Aerospace Engineering Aerospace Engineering , on , theon key steps that engineeran takes to designnewproduct a or system: projects TU Delft, Netherlands

– , the Student teams work teams Student . directed learning - (ii) conceptual design;

CASE STUDY , with, recent themes

courses in aerospace engineering and technology and engineering aerospace in courses – Introduction to to Introduction jectis designed tointegrate, apply andexplore some of the themes emerging from the that run concurre run that

specialist courses in aerospace engineering and technology and engineering aerospace in courses specialist aer aerodynamics, as such subjects in aerospace design projects design aerospace presentation oral as (such skills course sciences engineering basic which are calculus, ation’;the designproject brief Aerospace Engineering Aerospace bachelor level bachelor

• • • APPENDIX E plane plane concepts professional of suite a with provided project and engineering systems presentation, design question relating to system or mission design. All design. mission or system to relating question design practice to previous projects, as well as integrate their learning from across the preceding years of bachelor study. study. bachelor of years preceding the across from learning their integrate as well as projects, previous Each studentteam 10of takes on a d Thebachelorprogram culminates in individually explored as cycle, design the of stage each through work to students for calls project the Theprojectis supported theby students’two learning in aerospace engineering and technology courses: also offered skills trainingworkshops in studyskills and technicaldrawing. ‘explor tunnel. wind a in tested subsequently is which tail, a without aircraft an build and design to students Each pro specialist year of the bachelor and the master program master the and bachelor the of year project. each of grading and supervision design and/or professional skills. skills. professional design and/or assistants teaching student exploration; bach the through build they As validation. self increased students tackling one major design project each semester. As shown in in As shown semester. each project design major one tackling students turn in focuses, project The aerospace design At the the At courses requiredare: courses E.4.1. The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX E:

CASE STUDY – TU DELFT, NETHERLANDS 158 , -

scale scale - e final final e and given during

– where

eir eir

” , ed Space Flight Space course of 20 of course

course

research group. research discipline, selecting, for - with an individual MSc MSc individual an with evaluation, which is is which evaluation,

- Faculty Faculty . Taught by a Senior Air Seniorby. a Taught Safety and practicaltwo sessions, where

simulated in the physical world by by world the physical in simulated Building Aircraft , “

students take internships each year, year, each internships take students – All six tracks follow the same same the follow tracks six All

review of what they learn ’

. program ends program

considerable staff resources are are resources staff considerable corresponding corresponding aircraft factory setting over the

Energy

reflective - Forensic Engineering Forensic provides significant scope for student flexibility flexibility student for scope significant provides

The master

accident scene ‘

simulated n

is two years in duration. While all bachelor students students bachelor all While duration. in years two is It comprises eight lectures which take students through through students take which lectures eight comprises It

Across the Faculty, Faculty, the Across program program

Aerospace Engineering Aerospace with a comprises an internship and an MSc thesis project. The 12 The project. thesis MSc an and internship an comprises

40 – AerodynamicsWind & aircraft in a ion. Two weeks later, each student is asked to submit a field field a submit to asked is student each later, weeks Two ion.

and program

light light master program master

depth specialist research study or an expertdesign project withinthe - master program master In all, 300

TU Delft, Netherlands

Prior startingto the internship,students complete a self

– ms to apply their knowledge in the analysis of an accident scenario. In th In scenario. an accident of the analysis in knowledge their ms to apply a of themaster

linary specialism. linary of study comprises four components:

nurturing relationships with aerospace companies worldwide to support this large this support to worldwide companies with aerospace relationships nurturing CASE STUDY program. program.

. On . a self alsostudents completion, submit

ample,the Wind Energyprofile in the Aerodynamics &Wind Energytrack; time internship iscompulsory for all students and designed to immersethem in a real e. On entry, students select their specialist track from six options, which include include which options, six from track specialist their select students entry, On e. literature study, designed to prepare students for the MSc thesis project in Year 2. Year in project thesis MSc the for students prepare to designed study, literature – work in te in work -

s ex Delft; across from or beyondor withinFaculty, TU bethetaken ‘electives’ from which may a ‘core’ modules relating to students’ chosen specialist track; specialist ‘core’chosento students’ relatingmodules sub ina specialize further to able are students where ‘profiles’ thematic

Aerospace Engineering Aerospace

second year second first year Aerospace Engineering Aerospace • • • • APPENDIX E students’ discip students’ the internship, both technically and professionally. and technically both internship, the in an as either project, thesis complemented by an assessment made by their company supervisors at the midpoint of th of midpoint the at supervisors company their by made assessment by an complemented internship invested in in invested internship week full week environment. professional of which around80% will be taken abroad. weeks. weeks. The accident report.Another master electiveunder developmentis the VAN RV12 a build will students buildinga crash investigationsite scatteredwith airplane parts… ain greenarea onthe campus an hourto conduct their investigat student confronted are students of groups exam, Investigator for the Dutch Safety Board, the course is designed to nurture students’ ability to critically critically to ability students’ nurture to designed is course the Board, Safety Dutch the for Investigator problems. reviewperformance and failures examples real on drawing investigation, accident air an of step each One of the aerospace electives offered to students is is students to offered electives aerospace the of One The Aerospace Structures & Materials by the delivered and is managed Each structure. curricular followthe same studypathway, masterthe and choic E.4.2. The The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX E:

CASE STUDY – TU DELFT, NETHERLANDS 159 a

” pace pace , - ” It is an an is It ”

rsity’s global rsity’s global 9 . Engineering Engineering led curricula, - President for -

” ” . design Vice

– inengineering education. the Delft spirit. Delft the

d to d the the ointed to the accessibility and

ne leader in engineering education engineering in leader

osition papers such as andlater revisedin 2016

98 sly and be liste be and sly Each Each developmentwas seen to stand out for

’. 2014 teachers as well as university leaders and and leaders university as well as teachers a globalthought campus and worldwide. and campus - led culture thathas driven thecreation of the

- The majority of interviewees p

have been given targeted support when and where needed. needed. where and when support targeted given been have

–

, firstpublished in ‘current leaders’ and leaders’ ‘emerging leaders’ ‘current interviewee feedback suggested that three features of the TUDelft been advanced by influential p influential by advanced been nt communities on nt communities

he quality and professionalism of this initiative is recognized to be world be to is recognized initiative this of professionalism and quality he TU Delft, Netherlands

– centered educational approach established in a number of the university’s Faculties, Faculties, university’s the of number in a established approach educational centered n flourish. The quality of its students bearstestimony to the success of its approach. - d among the top 10 top 10 the d among CASE STUDY

– feature led activities and online learning learning online and activities led

- learning among stude among learning building the professional capabilities of its participants and supporting the unive the supporting and participants its of capabilities professional the building engineering education; reputation in suggested feedback Interview learning. online and inopen strength growing university’s the engineering advanced has domain this in support professional and dedicated Delft’s TU that Engineering. Eachcombines a strong grounding in the fundamentaldisciplines with opportunities for students to apply andcontextualize their learning; student visionary and ambitious the T DreamTeams. both in role crucial a plays it that suggests Delft TU beyond and within from Feedback leading. the design the Aeros and Engineering Design Industrial Environment, Built the and Architecture including Review comments concluding and if anyone, anywhere has a problem or has an idea, you just email it to [ to it email just you idea, an has or problem a has anywhere anyone, if Success factors Success

Education] and you’ll get a reply… it will be taken seriou taken be will it reply… a get you’ll and Education] “

ational practice.Key amongthese iswhat interviewees referred to “ as

• • • APPENDIX E Theeducational whichapproaches Delft for is TU internationally recognized student Strong, open and responsive leadership: responsive open and Strong, one: words of the In education. in leadership Delft’s TU of quality Three mechanisms in particular toappear criticalhave been to university’sthe educational successes, as outlinedin turn below. E.5.1. its quality and impact: and quality its In addition to its egalitarian culture, culture, egalitarian its to addition In leader ‘emerging an as apart it set portfolio educational position which has undoubtedly undoubtedly has which position World Changing Rapidly a in Education where creativity ca creativity where “ as reputation growing the university’s does too So managers. The egalitarian principles that inform this ethos are embedded in Dutch society and, society Dutch in embedded are this ethos inform that principles egalitarian The managers. environment an nurtured has Delft TU how described interviewees principles, with these consistent educ from emerge to approaches innovative and ideas new enables that inclusivity and openness of ethos across the university community, from students and TU Delft of forefront the at remain to it enabled have which factors of blend a from derives reputation Its The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global E.5.

APPENDIX E:

CASE STUDY – TU DELFT, NETHERLANDS 160 - ” ” . ” and -

” – . ucational ucational ons ons quickly a result,this d willing to to d willing , the university’s centered learning. The

- ” . The rapid success of TU

profile figures and up and figures profile campus students enrolled enrolled students campus - - led ideas. Many interviewees These innovati

- development and training

You are making something Before, you could be a star in ” to a potentiallylarge audience. DreamTeams

create the best possible product possible thebest create ou can make a fool of yourself yourself of fool a make can ou y enabled the community andnetwork

in a way that they hadn’t done before done hadn’t they that way a in – has centered learning among teaching staff

- in the design and production ofthe MOOCS:

been very consistentin saying the same

] has DreamHall as a asspace a for project

ent

is for the whole world … … world whole the for is

the change: educational campus , - p of pioneering teachers were acutely aware that the online online the that aware acutely were teachers pioneering p of towards student towards Presid out there for the world to see to world the for there out - Extension School

Feedback suggests that these experiences raised the status of of status the raised experiences these that suggests Feedback pedagogicalpractice wassignificantly advanced by theeffective

But thisBut

led teaching and towards active, student active, towards and teaching led

for on for -

this has not changed with the wind, with new management management new with wind, the with changed not has this

DreamHall off’ approach to supporting the

- – he Vice

on offer… I have not heard of anyone that has not had a positive positive a had not has that anyone of heard not have I offer… on

ty’s continued leadership in championing and building support for for support building and championing in leadership continued ty’s based based - environment, the groups leading each of these initiatives have also been been also have initiatives these of each leading groups the environment,

TU Delft, Netherlands

– such as providing the providing as such

based, active learning techniques in their own classrooms. classrooms. own in their techniques learning active based, – - have been critical. In particular In critical. been have

Following completion of these early MOOCs, this group of teachers started to experiment experiment to started teachers of group this MOOCs, early these of completion Following –

CASE STUDY

.” – MOOCS have brought a change in how people see their ateaching. people see MOOCSchangehow their in brought have the whole organization always wholeheartedly supported this initiative. We always wanted to be be to wanted always We initiative. this supported wholeheartedly always organization whole the flabbergasted by the support very easily. So you want to have help… It helps youreally thinkabout what you areteaching “ locally. only was it but education, shaming and blaming has It classroom. the of out goes that “ [T education. online in leading years 10 over repeatedly things country the for good and university the for good is learning online and open

I was I APPENDIX E education on campus and shifted attitudes attitudes shifted and campus on education one: of words the In more widely. sent ripples across campus; many among this group of teachers were high were teachers of this group among many campus; across sent ripples field. their in leaders research coming “ experience evidence with Thisengagement with evidence and professional support offeredby the group of teachers were understood to be particularly motivated to “ to motivated particularly be to understood were teachers group of and, consequently, engagedwith educational design principles “ Interview feedback suggested that this grou this that suggested feedback Interview “ be would developing were material they As profile. international strong a with materials flagship create to motivated were Many culture, away from traditional teacher traditional from culture, away agents of changewere the group of teachersengaged in theearly development of TUDelft’s MOOCs. Delft’s open and online education has not only enriched the lives of the off the of lives the enriched only not has education online and open Delft’s on its courses. It also appears tohave inspired supportedand a change in theuniversity’s ed The use of online learning as a tool a as learning online of use The open and online learning. In thewords of one: of teams to grow hasand supported a continuous stream of new student also commented on the universi For example, despite taking a ‘hands a taking despite example, For interventions workshops academic institutions. universityThe has been responsive to their changingneeds an their development. of each stage at them support in and invest champion, In TU Delft’s decentralized Delft’s TU In many in found constraints and regulatory structural the without creative be to freedom given the The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX E:

CASE STUDY – TU DELFT, NETHERLANDS 161 -

e .” th th the bright spots spots bright the wide changes. changes. wide - Industrial Design Design Industrial alsolikely to require a rograms focused almost almost rograms focused ” where “ where ”

, s is away from a largely

– coming up withthe The culture debateof open and have been driven from the the from driven been have

: – ou might not agree with the decision, you you decision, the with agree not might ou

taff. So you have to come up wi an approachthat wasendorsed by th

now stands at a crossroads, from which which from crossroads, a at stands now building

– - building approach has been used to to used been has approach building ” - rams in Faculties rams such in Faculties as even if y if even Faculty cooperation and institution and cooperation Faculty away from undergraduate p -

theprog –

seem to forget about …the societal or business context

–

” . eople who believe inchange Board say how things are going to things arebe. value I going how Board say

g and consensus and g [that]

a collection of islands and small kingdom small and islands of collection a scannin by the national government. government. national by the that it works it that -

s consuming, this deliberative approach results in decisions that are are that decisions in results approach deliberative this consuming, - e. For example, a number of interviewees characterized the university’s university’s the characterized interviewees of number a example, For e.

and the open and onlinelearning capacity up approachto reformis unlikely to be sufficient ifthese proposed ideas are

we continue until we have compromise have untilcontinue we we TU Delft, Netherlands

“ ttom

” In more recent years, the consensus the years, recent more In ” – . – on newof multidisciplinary, activelearning experiences. For many Faculties, these deep disciplinary knowledge and showing other showing and

DreamTeams engineers. It has exposed the entire university to many of the issues and challenges challenges and issues the of many to university entire the exposed has It engineers. ” and pedagogical practice varies considerably across the institution. Limited program program Limited institution. the across considerably varies practice pedagogical and ” , CASE STUDY

– scan: to look strategically at how engineering education can best adapt to the changing role of of role to the changing best adapt can education engineering how at strategically look to scan: centered approach, as well as curricular curricular well as as approach, centered - - I don't believe in a university where the where university a in believe don't I Challenges faced

tremendously that the university is owned by the academic s academic the by owned is university the that tremendously p the by happen will Change arguments. evidence “

APPENDIX E The realization reformsof the proposedin the university’s ‘vision’ document cultur Delft’s TU in step change As this suggests, a bo a suggests, this As implemented. successfully be to exclusively on “ on exclusively Theproposals would require also significant cross proposals would require significant educational change, both pedagogical pedagogical both change, educational significant require would proposals teacher Theuniversity isnow, however, turningat a point. Its draft vision statement presentsnumber of a choice and flexibility student the greater of introduction educationalincluding radical ideaschange, for and theintegrati connectivity appears to exist between Faculties and few structural changes have been imposed on on imposed been have changes structural few and Faculties between exist to appears connectivity mandated not were that teachers TU Delft referredto universitythe “ as scattered are Engineering outside and within both from interviewees Indeed, activity. of threads discrete separate, as up ground institutional structure; so too are many of its challenges. The three examples of best institutional institutional best of examples three The challenges. its of many are too so structure; institutional interviewees by identified consistently practice E.5.2. decentralized its with associated are approach educational Delft’s TU of successes the of Many more radical change can follow as the university takes its educational vision forward in the years to the years in forward vision educational its takes university the as follow can change more radical come. facing globalengineeringthe educationandcommunity, builthas a strong platform for institutionan Delft TU that clear is It priorities. educational its in shift wide horizon professional Many noted that, although time although that, noted Many “ population, university the across respected and trusted believein the process shared agreements agreements shared interviewed: those majority of A culture that supports horizon supports that A culture through made are decisions where environment is an It Delft. TU at engrained is deeply collaboration The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

APPENDIX E:

CASE STUDY – TU DELFT, NETHERLANDS 162 - seeks seeks profile profile

hindering only only and

sors in teaching is is teaching 97

leaders in

escribed as being being as escribed by by the profes n its culture of of culture its n

its new Teaching Academy Teaching new its ghted by more than half of interviewees interviewees half of than more by ghted

was the perceivedlack of recognition of teaching. In ” thus limiting the capacity of the university to deliver deliver to university the of capacity the limiting thus ” highli ,

–

ular reform. reform. ular n of the majority of those consulted was that the university “ university the that was consulted those of majority the n of with few lecturers actively engaged in external engineering education education engineering external in engaged actively lecturers few with

culture of shared ownership for the curriculum: in most cases, one or or one cases, most in curriculum: the for ownership shared of culture so annual appraisals will only talk about your research targets,

,” ” of candidates for promotion. Similarly, with TU Delft’s lecturers lecturers Delft’s TU with Similarly, promotion. for candidates of ” ” with limited coherence or integration between courses. courses. between integration or coherence limited with ” insular

e Open Online Courses Courses Online Open e TU Delft, Netherlands

– we still don't have a culture where education is seen to be anywhere near as important as important asanywhere to near isbe education seen culture where astill don't have we ” Perhaps for this reason, interview feedback pointed to a particular challenge faced by by faced challenge particular a to pointed feedback interview reason, this for Perhaps ” University Teaching Qualification Qualification Teaching University Delft Aerospace Rocket Engineering Engineering Rocket Aerospace Delft Erasmus and Delft Leiden, Massiv

lft staff seldom visit educational conferences, seminars or events outside TU Delft to either either to Delft TU outside events or seminars conferences, educational visit seldom staff lft ” . CASE STUDY

the research qualities research the your research group… –

” Many interviewees noted that this constrains career opportunities for teachers, by “ by teachers, for opportunities career constrains this that noted interviewees Many ”

. s TU De TU “ disseminate their best educational practice or harvest other from what are persons indoing the world UTQ DARE LDE MOOCS Acronyms used in TU Delft case study case Delft TU in used Acronyms fragmented and overstuffed fragmented and APPENDIX E engineering education. engineering quality engineering education suggests that TU Delft will be able to build upo build to able be will Delft TU that suggests education engineering quality thought global the among position its retain and change educational in engagement These and other challenges facethe universityitestablishes as high delivering of history its However, learning. and teaching in vision new its develop and pilot to two teachers take sole responsibility for the delivery of individual courses and have little oversight oversight little have and courses individual of delivery the for responsibility sole take teachers two across the rest of thecurriculum. As a result,curricula in some Faculties were d “ hardly discussed. a establishing in university the organized by research centers,line managementwas described as conducted“ of charge case was an outlier; the perceptio the outlier; was an case consider One individual was recently promoted to full professorship on a blended teaching and research and teaching blended a on professorship full to promoted recently was individual One this that suggested feedback interview However, pathway. potential’ ‘high specialist Delft’s TU through research side education on the step extra the taking staff from on its ambitious proposals for curric consulted, both internal and external to TU Delft TUto external and internal both consulted, “ one, of words the Another major challenge faced by the university university the by faced challenge major Another educational culture as “ as culture educational elsewhere: practice best or research pedagogical from learn to networks The global state of the art in engineering education art in engineering the state of The global

Sources of the images used on the cover of this report:

a. School of Engineering, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile b. Olin College of Engineering c. Chalmers University of Technology d. Human Power Team, TU Delft e. CSU Engineering, Charles Sturt University f. Aalborg University g. Singapore University of Technology and Design

h. Olin College of Engineering i. Massachusetts Institute of Technology j. UCL Engineering, University College London