1 / 29

1. TECHNO TN MEETING Brussels, February 13th-14th 2004

1.Bologna Process: The Aims and Tools 2.Disadvantages and Challenges 3. Positions from the Universities and Colleges in charge of Engineering Education and Research 4. Experiences from the Implementation and Problems to be solved 5.Contributions of the Thematic Netw

tevin
Download Presentation

1. TECHNO TN MEETING Brussels, February 13th-14th 2004

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. 1. TECHNO TN MEETING Brussels, February 13th-14th 2004 Engineering Education and the Bologna Process: The/An academic point of view Günter Heitmann Technical University Berlin, TN E4

    2. 1.  Bologna Process: The Aims and Tools 2.  Disadvantages and Challenges 3. Positions from the Universities and Colleges in charge of Engineering Education and Research 4. Experiences from the Implementation and Problems to be solved 5.  Contributions of the Thematic Networks to the Bologna Process

    3. 1. The Bologna process and its central aims Development of a common European Higher Education Area in order to: support convergence and comparability, in due course recognise diversity as a European value and strive for transparency, facilitate academic and professional mobility as a contribution to quality, promote internationalisation and global competitiveness, raise quality and contribute to economic growth, enhance the European Integration, maintain cultural heritage and wealth.

    4. Conflicting aims: - Unity in diversity or: Diversity as Europe`s wealth - Convergence: Harmonisation facilitates recognition and mobility

    5. Bologna: The 6 objectives (1999): 1) Adoption of a system of easily readable and comparable degrees 2) Adoption of a system essentially based on two main cycles 3) Establishment of a credit system 4) Promotion of mobility 5) Promotion of European cooperation in quality assurance 6) Promotion of the European dimension in HE

    6. : PRAGUE COMMUNIQUE (2001): 7) Life Long Learning as an essential element of the EHEA 8) Active involvement of Higher Education Institutions and the Students 9) Promoting the Attractiveness of the European Higher Education Area

    7. BERLIN COMMUNIQUE (2003): 10) Doctoral Level as the third cycle in the Bologna Process 11) Closer links between EHEA and the European Research Area In addition priorities in the next 2 years: quality assurance, two-cycle system, recognition issues; acceleration of implementation, stock taking

    8. 2. Disadvantages and Challenges: Bologna started as politically driven, top down process with minor involvement of the Higher Education Institutions, The envisaged consecutive structure was contradictionary to traditional continental European structures and experience, The Bologna Process functions as a frame not for European Integration but for different national interests

    9. Main Challenge: The two cycles No qualitative denominators like level descriptors or degree standards, but formal ones like credits no distinction of profiles, no discipline or subject specific differentiations, no recognition of different entry levels and /or selectivity, different traditions not taken into account. Results so far: Increased diversity, mobility reduced, employability of graduates and professional recognition of first degree partly uncertain, quality development threatened

    10. Other Challenges: Implementation of new Quality Assurance Systems, in particular Accreditation, ECTS Credits and Modularisation, Ensuring Attractivity and Comparability, Quality and Employability

    11. 3. Positions of the Engineering Education Community: The Helsinki Communication of CESAER/SEFI keep integrated programmes to a second cycle master level in addition to consecutive ones; develop multiple profiles, specific qualities of the existing, application-oriented first cycle degrees must be safe-guarded with bridges to second cycle programmes being provided; don`t stick to ECTS as the only degree denominator: criteria for degrees in engineering should be based on learning outcomes and on competence rather than on student workload; respect and support the autonomy of Universities and allow special profiling and selectivity.

    12. No regulation of the doctorate! Improve links to the European Research Area but don`t regulate the doctorate programmes and degrees, Promote transnational networks, also in the field of doctorates, for improvement of quality, mobility, global international attractiveness and competitiveness.

    14. 4. Results and Experiences from the Implementation Process: General observations: Trend 3 Report Experiences from Germany

    15.   Cycles and levels: Bachelors (Red = 180 ECTS Bachelors, White = 240 ECTS Bachelors)   Traditional United Kingdom, Ireland, Malta Established Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Turkey In Consolidation Czech Rep., Slovak Rep., Finland, Bulgaria, Poland, Portugal, Cyprus Newly introduced Netherlands, Italy, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Belgium, France, Spain, Hungary Separate tracks Romania, Greece, Croatia, Slovenia

    16. Cycles and Levels: Master Degrees of 60-120 ECTS credits Austria, Belgium-Fl, (Belgium-Wa), Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Rep., Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, (Greece), Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Malta, Netherland, Norway, Poland, (Portugal), Romania, Slovakia, Sweden, Switzerland, UK

    17. Bologna process: a success story ? In many ways and superficially: yes, with regard to various aims not or not yet: e.g. comparability and transparency not achieved to the necessary amount, horizontal mobility obviously reduced, problems with professional recognition and employability, One reason: The implementation is still primarily driven by strong national political, but also institutional interests

    19. Problems and reasons influencing the implementation process: Continuously strong national interests, solutions and strategies Uncertainties among students and employers Influence of institutional interests Lack of commonly agreed quality standards Diversity in legal frames Role of resources and funding

    20. Germany as an example: Started with Bachelor/Master 1998 before Bologna in order to increase international attractiveness Government first wanted to keep the binary structure of Universities and Fachhochschulen in connection with the consecutive structure; But permitted Fachhochschulen to introduce the same degrees as the Universities; Started with the Bachelor/Master Programmes as a complementary system to tradional Degrees (Dipl-Ing., Magister, State Examinations) and continues to do so; Government hopes for positive results in terms of reduced funding

    21. Germany as an example: Universities and Fachhochschulen are still reluctant to replace the old system of integrated programmes but offer a wide range of additional programmes with bachelor/master degrees: The figures: Out of 9355 undergraduate programmes 1517 (16.2 %) are in engineering; Out of 951 programmes at Fachhochschulen only 157 are bachelor degrees (16.5 %), out of 550 at University only 89 (16,2% ) finish with a bachelor degree; Regarding post-graduate programmes: From 1.811 in total 387 (21,4 %)are in engineering, 173 at Fachhochschulen (156 / 40,3% Master Degree Level), 210 at Technical Universities (150/ 38,8% Master of Science Degrees)

    22. 5. Contributions of the TN: Problems to be solved Qualitative Parameters needed in order to develop and describe „European“ degrees in engineering: e.g. level descriptors, common cores, intended learning outcomes in terms of competences, outcomes oriented accreditation standards; Facilitation of mobility and academic recognition e.g. by improving the ECTS, developing transparency of programmes and courses/modules, increasing transnational joint programmes and transparent quality assurance;

    23. Contributions of the TN: Professional recognition Contributions to professional recognition by developing globally recognized quality labels on all degree levels, but namely the first degree, respective accreditation standards and procedures and continuous quality assurance; organize active involvement in the development of a European Qualifications Framework and the specification of Dublin Descriptors; Cooperate in developing ESOEPE;

    24. Contributions of the TN: Curriculum Development Promote and introduce curriculum development and revision approaches which start from clear profile specifications and respective learning objectives and intended outcomes, provide arrangements for active and problem-based learning and apply an appropriate system of outcomes assessment Develop transnational and joint European programmes in innovative subject areas with strong links to research and industry;

    26. The “Joint Quality Initiative Descriptors” Masters graduates can apply their knowledge and understanding, and problem solving abilities in new or unfamiliar environments within broader contexts; have the ability to integrate knowledge and handle complexity, and formulate judgements with incomplete or limited information, but that include reflecting on social and ethical responsibilities linked to the application of their knowledge and judgements; can communicate their conclusions, and the knowledge and rationale underpinning these, to specialists and non-specialist audiences clearly and unambiguously; have the learning skills to allow them to continue to study in a manner that may be largely self-directed or autonomous.

    27. Quality Assurance: Criteria for Programmes Goals for core competences are clear and realistic Goals are developed considering the needs of the labour market Goals include development of generic skills Content is consistent with goals Subject related competences are achieved through compulsory subjects Programme characterised by progression Assessments enable learners to demonstrate achievement of learning outcomes

    28. ABET Program Outcomes (a - k)

    29. Join us at: E4 Dissemination Conference at TU Berlin, May 7th and 8th, 2004 Innovations in Engineering Education: Challenges, Concepts and Good Practice guenter.heitmann@tu-berlin.de http://www.tu-berlin.de/fb2/TUB_E4_Colloquium

More Related