Surveyors´Curricula – The Contents of VA

1. Surveyors´Curricula – The Contents of VA Kirsi Virrantaus Helsinki University of Technology Chair of Commission 2

2. Problem of finding the best and most suitable curriculum • several universities develope VA and other e-learning applications • they want to open their university for global market, get new students/clients • from the clients´ point of view the problem is : ”how to find the best curriculum, either in virtual or real university?” – ”how to compare different curricula?”

3. FIG has the SEDBSurveying Educational Database • more than 400 educational programs • a real database accessible in Internet • descriptive and statistical data on universities • universities have pw:s to update their data • design is good and user interface is easy • formalized queries can be made • links to academic memebers are provided

4. However some problems exist(did you try SEDB ?) www.fig.net • the use of the SEDB reveals the shortcomings • the database is not up-to-date • a lot of information is missing • the motivation of the user is decreasing immediately when he/she realizes that information can not be relied on • universities do not update their data • the data contents does not reach the needs of the users – they require other information • database is not the correct way of describing VA !

5. Students and teachers need information on curricula • who are actually the users of SEDB? • 1. STUDENTS who search for a university in which they can spend a year • they need to know the profile of the subjects taught • they need to know in which topics the university has advanced programs • 2. TEACHERS who want to get references when they develope their own educational contents • they need detailed descriptions of courses

6. A quick analysis on the users´ requirements • LEVEL 1: general contact information is rquired • LEVEL 2: profiles on specializations and information on special strengths are required • LEVEL 3: detailed information on course contents are required • LEVEL 4: approaches to VA applications !

7. How SEDB could be developed, what else could be established • in the SEDB there is a lot of information • universities would offer more information • the SEDB should be redesigned in a way that • the data contents would be easily updated • the profile of each university could be easily outlined • the detailed information on courses and other educational principles could be easily achieved • theVA applications could be visited !

8. Levels of information provided and the possible solution • 1. LEVEL: contact/general info; SEDB • 2. LEVEL: showing the the main topics education - profiling each university according to these main topics; GUI to SEDB • 3. LEVEL: giving detailed information of courses; via home pages of universities • 4. LEVEL: providing access to VA; via home pages of universities, maybe via home page of COM 2 if coordination can be provided !!!

9. What we need for the practical implementations ? • suitable taxonomy of surveyors´ educational topics • active universities reflecting their educational programs to the model • updating procedures for the SEDB • a good user interface for the application

10. Taxonomies – selections of main educational topics • several approaches to surveyors´ curricula contents exist – some examples • Allan´s report • Scandinavian/European (CLGE meeting, presentation by Hans Mattsson) • Latin American (presentation by Pedro Cavero) • Asian (presentation by Liu Yanfang, PR China) • US (presentation by Jud Rouch) • Polish (presentation by Adamek and Kaminski)

11. Subjects in Allan´s report, (first made during the mid 90´s, now updated) • measurements • maps and GIS • law • planning and development • valuation • economic and real estate management • construction and cost control

12. Subjects in North American approach (combined from old and new, Rouch) • mathematics and science • photogrammetry • geodesy • land information systems • humanities and social science

13. Subjects in Latin American approach (Cavero) • basic • technology • land administration • property • economy • law • humanities

14. Subjects in the Polish approach (Adamek and Kaminski) • Geodesy, Astronomy, Geodetic Systems, trigonometry, Satellite Geodesy • Engineering Surveying, Urban Land Systems, Surveyingb in Forestry and Agriculture • Underground and mining surveying • Cadastre, LIS, Law, Economy • Cartography, Photogrammetry, RS, Topography • Mathematics, Physics, Geometry

15. Soil Sciences, Ecology, Environment. Sciences. Methodology in Geosciences • Surveying data processing, Computer sciences • Sociology, Languages, Sport

16. What to do with the different approaches • after having a collection of taxonomies we can make both an intersection and a union of them • an intersection means the ”core” subjects which are represented in all curricula • a union means a collection of all possible topics represented in any curricula

17. The core curriculum is not possible • in CLGE work it was found that surveyors´ curricula even in Europe are so different that the core curricula is impossible to create • if the widen the approach to the entire world the task is even more difficult

18. The collection of all topics • produces a long list of all kinds of topics without any preferences • can represent much more than only surveying field • needs generalization, organization and processing

19. Processing the list of subjects • 1. we list all possible fields of science and practise which are represented in any surveyors´ curricula in the world • 2. all universities are asked to make their profile according to the ”map of subjects” – to pick out from the list the subjects they represent • 3. universities can be then characterized according to the balance between different subjects and main fields of interest

20. Examples • a university can be • IT oriented having a lot of GIS courses and a strong co-operation with IT departments • remote sensing oriented • economy orineted with a lot of real estate economy courses and a link to university of economics • traditional – having all sectors in balance

21. In Mattssons report for CLGE • he found in Europe at least three different models: • the German model • the Swedish-Danish model • the Finnish-UK model • differences between these models were in the balance between some main topics

22. The three-part-model • also in the CLGE work professor Enemark introduced the so-called three-part-model • surveying and measurement • land management • geoinformation management • this three-part-model, if accepted could be one filter for our approach • also others: today professor Psarianos gave a set of different definitions of surveyors profiles !!!

23. How this can be implemented? • LEVEL 1: • contact information and general data maybe statistics • implementation by getting SEDB up-to-date • LEVEL 2: • profile of educational program • implementation by characterizing educational programs according to the 3PM/or other

24. LEVEL 3: • detailed information on curricula courses • implementation via the home pages of academic members • perhaps some process could be defined according to which also this information could be filtered into presentations, perhaps graphical ”map of curriculum”

25. LEVEL 4: access to Virtual Academies and other e –Learning applications • via the home pages of universities • via SEDB or COM 2 homepage • COM 2 tries to collect information on qualified applications and introdude them to FIG

26. Portal on Surveyors´ Education • the goal could be to develope a Portal on surveyors´ education • inlcluding access to • Virtual Academies • materials • SEDB • web sites of universities

27. We should discuss • what we can do before Washington • what should be done after Washington • how WG 2 Virtual Academy and WG 3 Surveyors´ Curricula should co-operate