enhancing engineering education in europe (e4) socrates ii thematic network ing.unifi.it/tne4

1

Enhancing Engineering Education in Europe (E4)

SOCRATES II Thematic Networkwww.ing.unifi.it/tne4www.ing.unifi.it/tne4

Università degli Studi di FirenzeCo-ordinating and contracting Institution

2

1. Introduction1. Introduction

CONTRACTING INSTITUTION:CONTRACTING INSTITUTION: Università degli Studi di Firenze

www.unifi.it

TN PRESIDENT & LEGAL REPRESENTATIVETN PRESIDENT & LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE:: Prof. Claudio BORRI, Università degli Studi di Firenze

[email protected]

TN CO-ORDINATORTN CO-ORDINATOR Prof. Francesco MAFFIOLI, Politecnico di Milano

[email protected]

PresentationPresentationE4

3


• Goal:Goal: To enhance the European dimension in Higher Engineering Education

• DisciplineDiscipline: Higher Engineering Education (06.0)

• Countries involvedCountries involved: all 15 EU Member States plus BG, EE HU, LT, MT, NO, PL, RO, RU, SK, TK and CH (eligible as well as non-eligible countries included)

• Institutions involvedInstitutions involved: 112 Institutions/Organisations which have signed a bilateral agreement

PresentationPresentationE4

4

Countries InvolvedCountries Involved

AT 3

BE 12

BG 2

CH 4

DE 11

DK 3

EE 1

ES 6

FI 4

FR 16

GR 2

HU 3

IE 1

IT 8

LT 2

LU 1

MT 1

NL 3

NO 1

PL 5

PT 5

RO 3

RU 1

SE 4

SK 1

TK 1

UK 8

TOTAL 112


27 COUNTRIES

E4

5

2. General 2. General purposes and purposes and toolstools to enhance the compatibility of the many diverse routes

to the status of Professional Engineer which exist in Europe;

to facilitate greater mobility of skilled personnel and

integration of the various situations throughout Europe;

to give a wider visibility of examples of and recommendations for good practice, in order to allow recognition based on mutual understanding and respect;

to reach all potentially relevant players in EE in Europe through effective dissemination actions taking advantage of traditional (e.g. conferences), as well as more modern (e.g. internet) tools;

to involve the professional and industrial organisations directly;

General PurposesGeneral PurposesE4

6

a set of Activities with a balance between study type and experimental actions, so that E4 could be regarded as an experimental laboratory for EE;

a simple management structure, taking into account the changes characterising Socrates II with respect to Socrates I;

a strict coordination of the various activities in order to

enhance the cohesion of the whole project;

a strong attention given to the dissemination phase, in order to reach all potentially relevant actors in EE in Europe;

a direct involvement of the professional world;

a strong link with other initiatives and TN’s in similar fields in order to take advantage of cross-fertilisation opportunities.

ToolsTools2. General 2. General purposes and purposes and toolstools

E4

7

5 Activities

Activity 1 - Employability Through Innovative Curricula

Activity 2 - Quality Assessment and Transparency for Enhanced Mobility and Trans-European Recognition

Activity 3 - Engineering Professional Development for Europe

Activity 4 - Enhancing the European Dimension

Activity 5 - Innovative Learning and Teaching Methods

E4 Project Project StructureStructure

8

3 Transversal Actions

T.A. 1 – Web site conception & management

T.A. 2 - Electronic bulletin, publications, glossary

T.A. 3 – Organisation of conferences

International Advisory Board3 high level experts

E4 Project Project StructureStructure

9

The main outcomes of E4 have been collected in 6 volumes to be soon published:

Volume A: Introductory bookVolume B: Glossary and Tuning ReportVolume C: Activity 1Volume D: Activity 2Volume E: Activities 3 and 4Volume F: Activity 5

(The contents of the 6 Volumes, plus other relevant documents, will be included in an attached CD-Rom.)

E4 Final Final PublicationsPublications

10

Activity 1: Employability Through Innovative Curricula

E4 ACTIVITY 1 ACTIVITY 1

11

A set of guidelines for core profiles of two-tier curricula in Engineering is one of the main

outcomes of this Activity.

E4 ACTIVITY 1 ACTIVITY 1 OutputsOutputs

12

ACTIVITY 1 ACTIVITY 1 Guidelines for Guidelines for Core ProfilesCore Profiles

Guidelines for Core Profiles of Two Tier Curricula

(Summary)

The guidelines refer to two already elaborated main factors of influence:

- the implication of the Bologna Declaration with an expressed policy of shaping the education systems in a such a way that increased student migration, cooperation and interchanges will become a natural aspect of European integration;

- the increasing complexity of the engineering world with rapid technical development, new emerging branches, internationalisation of research, development, business and production.

E4

13


European integration (Bologna Declaration)

The two tier system appears to be generally recognised, even though there are differences and exceptions. It is reasonable to assume that this system will be the dominant structure of engineering courses, and that student migration should be adapted to such a system. For reference purposes a 3 + 2 system is assumed for the Bachelor and Master level courses. The Ph.D. level is not included in the discussions.

One agreed aim is to facilitate student mobility. To remove practical obstacles to such mobility some basic requirements must be met:- the academic levels of courses must correspond to each other;- the knowledge base must cover identical or corresponding areas;- students must be able to communicate in their environment;- institutions must remove formal obstacles to student migration;

- degrees awarded must be recognised in all European countries.

E4

14


Internet Education

The Internet will increase in importance and will form the base for new and enhanced teaching methods as well as new types of courses and new ways of obtaining degrees. The guidelines do not analyse these trends in depth, but recognise the importance of considering the possibilities and effects that Internet will have in the future. Students and institutions will be required to master the challenges of Internet.

E4

15


Language Communication

Discussions on language are sometimes difficult, and have a tendency to trigger national feelings, historical attitudes, and policies. Internationally there is, however, a very clear trend of accepting English as the commun language of education. Developments in the computer world, the world of publications, international conferences, international industry and business, also show a factor common to all of them: English is accepted as the only common world language. Recognising this as a fact, educators should evaluate which consequence this will have for engineering education. One obvious conclusion is that all engineers must be able to use English as a working language. An open question is whether all engineering courses should be conducted using English as a common language.

E4

16


New Areas of Education

Industry and companies require an increasing degree of specialisation. The traditional engineering fields have given birth to a multitude of new areas such as: environmental engineering, micro system engineering, bioengineering, product development engineering, marine engineering, nuclear engineering, etc. Another trend is to combine and/or supplement engineering education with other fields of study like business, product development, export engineering, human resource development, and international relations.These trends will most likely continue, and will represent new challenges and possibilities for the educational systems.

E4

17


Purpose of the Core Profile Guidelines

In order to form a common basis for European EE “guidelines for engineering core profiles” have been elaborated. The guidelines describe the qualities expected from a European engineer of 2010, and the requirements that his/her educators should use as a base for the formation. The profiles do NOT give a detailed list of subjects, hours, etcetera in the traditional way of describing a curriculum, but try to follow a learning outcomes approach by stating which qualities and academic abilities the student should possess at the end of certain degree programmes. The student is at the centre. How courses are organised and conducted is left to each institution, as long as the student fulfils the requirements at the end. The core profile forms a basis for improved awareness and a reference, but it is also a recommendation. The following factors are considered.

E4

18


University Planning

The core profile is a reference for university planners. The acceptance of the core profile will contribute to shape the curricula in accordance with the intentions of the Bologna Declaration. There will, however, still be ample room for different approaches and national differences, which are still desired. The aim is to create a path for student migration with as few obstacles as possible.

E4

19


Life-long Learning

Engineers of tomorrow will face an increasing demand on their ability to adjust to new technology, new environments, and new types of jobs. This could be described as an ability and an acceptance that life long learning is a natural course of events. Hence the core profile must prepare the student for this aspect of his/her future career.

(see also Activity 3)

E4

20


Accreditation of the Curricula

Accreditation will be carried out by different bodies, and in different ways. The core profile is intended to form a common reference for accreditation bodies. Even though it does not cover any full course program, it should be used as a basic reference that must be met by all courses. Accreditation should be carried out by the national education and engineering authorities, but international agreement should be reached as a basis to the recognition of university degrees in all countries.

(see also Activity 2)

E4

21


Core profile definition

The core profile is the ensemble of courses and knowledge that forms the professional profile of the student. The core courses and requirements must show the difference between engineering and non-engineering studies in the first place, and between various engineering specialisations in the second place. Hence the core should consist of some general requirements needed to define EE and some detailed requirements enough to distinguish between particular specialities. The core courses should be provided by each University as parts of its curricula.

E4

22


Engineering Profiles

Traditionally different types of engineers have received their education in institutions giving them different profiles. One such clear distinction can be drawn between the “Fachhochschule” and Universities in Germany, and between previous “Polytechnics” and Universities in the UK. Other countries have similar arrangements.

The guidelines do not address the differences inherent in such profiles. A true core must be common for all profiles, but must leave space for the diversity that will be and should be part of the institutional characteristics. The core is a reference for a threshold or minimum level which should be fulfilled by all profiles of engineering education.

E4

23


Some institutions incorporate periods of practical training as part of the university courses. One may question for example if a 4 year course is really a full 4 years, if several months or even one year are allocated to practical training or internship. However, it may contribute in a significant way to the outcomes and the profile of a degree. These guidelines do not define the workload, duration or contents of a university year of study. With reference to the 3 + 2 years used as reference, these are years of study defined as such by any university in accordance with the Bologna declaration and would correspond to a minimum of 180 ECTS credits for the first cycle degree and additional 120 ECTS credits for the achievement of a second cycle degree.

E4

24


Summing up

Specifications in these guidelines are outcomes oriented, and focus on the skills, abilities, potentials and personality of the graduate. Teaching/Learning arrangements and methods provided to generate these outcomes must remain within the responsibility of the relevant institution and can be based on an increasing range of innovative approaches as already described.

Therefore, the proposed core prfiles do not contain:- a detailed list of subjects and topics which must be taught;- a specification of how many hours must be devoted to different subjects;- a specification of how the university should arrange its inputs to the students.

E4

25


The work of Activity 1 on curriculum development issues has been guided by the intention to contribute to the establishment of a European Higher Education Area, by addressing crucial aspects of harmonisation, compatibility and comparability, and to the enhancement of EE by encouraging diversity and innovative solutions to deal with a range of changing demands. Creative competitiveness and the strive for specific profiles of engineering qualifications on a high level of quality must be accompanied by the attempt to make diversity and quality transparent on the basis of common terminology. Thematic Networks still contribute to tackle these challenges by the promotion of innovative approaches and by collecting examples good practices.

E4

26

ACTIVITY 1ACTIVITY 1

A1: Employability through Innovative CurriculaA1: Employability through Innovative Curricula

Promoter:

Günter [email protected]

Technische Universität BerlinGermany

E4

27

Activity 2: Quality Assessment and Transparency for Enhanced Mobility

and Trans-European Recognition

E4 ACTIVITY 2ACTIVITY 2

28

The main outcome of this Activity is a Volume in three parts(Volume B of the E4 6-book collection):

1. Accreditation and Recognition in European Engineering (Rapporteur: Giuliano Augusti): a up-to-date survey on recognition and accreditation practices in 23 European countries.

2. Quality Assurance in Engineering Education on a National and European Scale (Rapporteur: Muzio Gola): an overview of evaluation mandate, focus and procedures in the light of quality and quality assurance, accreditation, responsibility, with particular reference to higher education and examples drawn from a number of European evaluation models.

3. New trends on Evaluation and Recognition (Rapporteur: Alfredo Soerio): an illustration, based on case studies, of emerging trends for the evaluation and accreditation of initial and continuing education programme.

E4 ACTIVITY 2ACTIVITY 2OutputsOutputs

29

Volume B Part 1:

1. Accreditation and Recognition in European Engineering (Rapporteur: Giuliano Augusti): a up-to-date survey on

recognition and accreditation practices in 23 European countries.

E4 ACTIVITY 2ACTIVITY 2Survey on RecognitionSurvey on Recognition

30

Volume B Part 2:

2. Quality Assurance in Engineering Education on a National and European Scale (Rapporteur: Muzio Gola): an overview of evaluation mandate, focus and procedures in the light of quality and quality assurance, accreditation, responsibility, with particular reference to higher education and examples drawn from a number of European evaluation models.

Some recommendation have been elaborated and are summarised in the following

E4 ACTIVITY 2ACTIVITY 2QA RecommendationsQA Recommendations

31

Statements Regarding Evaluation: a Proposal for the Debate

Identifying the “minimum set” of evaluation requirements suitable for Programmes of the first and second level, common to all countries and to all scientific sectors, appears to be a reasonable and achievable objective. Such “minimum set” could stimulate discussion about what constitutes good quality within higher education and support the development of a common methodological framework and common quality criteria for comparative international evaluations within higher education programmes.

For the sake of clarity and to stimulate a lively debate, the statements are strictly geared to the needs of the learning process, i.e., not inclusive of all the many and various requirements mentioned in the literature on quality and evaluation of higher education.


32

Basic Policy of a Study Programme

A study Programme should be evaluated on the basis of its ability to put into effect a policy focusing - clearly and distinctly - on the external and internal “efficacy” of the learning process: - specify worthwhile learning goals- enable most students to achieve the established objectives.

According to a policy of this sort, quality must be interpreted in terms of: - relevance of the purpose (fitness of purpose)- fitness for purpose with a special accent on “transformation”

The “efficiency” criterion or, in other words, the cost awareness, should be seen as a constraint affecting the implementation of the policy, not as a policy in itself.


33

The Focus of the Judgement 1

The instruments of the external evaluation are: - indicators with summative functions: in particular: indicators of intake, progression, success of the student and of the graduate - experts’ judgements: with both summative and formative functions, on the aspects and factors required by the model.

The organisational system, which is highly variable from one case to another and is always developed over several levels (Programme, Faculty, University), should be left in a free format and should be evaluated ex-post, in terms of its suitability to support those actions having a bearing on the internal and external efficacy of the Programme.


34

The Focus of the Judgement 2

Thus, it is sufficient to ensure that the following indications are provided for each aspect / factor envisaged by the model: - it must be absolutely clear which person or committee is responsible for the policy, the quality and the execution of all educational matters relating to a given study programme - that those responsible discharge their duties competently and on time- that each action is documented in a pertinent and accessible manner.

In other words, that the effectiveness of an organisational system is evidenced by the description of the actions and their documented effects, factor by factor.


35

Changing the Philosophy of the Self-evaluation Report

It is proposed to discard the logic and practice of periodic “evaluation reports” and adopt a logic of on-going monitoring: it is desirable that each Programme be required to maintain an “information model” that collects and updates the quantitative parameters and the qualitative descriptions enabling the external examiners (with special regard to: academic authorities, third parties, external evaluators...) to formulate an informed judgement. This “information model”, which preferably should be made known to the public, can be flanked by a “self-evaluation supplement” discussing the strengths and weaknesses; in many documents it is claimed that this analysis is a necessary preliminary condition for external evaluation.

E4 ACTIVITY 2 ACTIVITY 2 QA RecommendationsQA Recommendations

36

The Structure of the Information Model

A comparative examination of the evaluation checklists has shown that the different items to be considered can be grouped into four key “aspects” or “dimensions” of the evaluation:

- Requirements and objectives- Teaching and learning- Learning resources- Monitoring, analysis, review

An appropriate quality assurance mechanism will be present if these four aspects are kept under control in an effective manner by the Programme. Each “aspect” is clarified through a certain number of “factors” to be treated separately (even though it would be very helpful to consider their interconnections). The “factors” together with their “key aspects” represent the “minimum set” needed for the evaluation model.


37

The Information Model Contents of the : a) RequirementsThe first aspect of the model is indicated as “Requirements and objectives” instead of “Aims and objectives” to underscore the fact that in order to determine the occupational roles for which students are being trained it is also necessary to investigate the needs of the external parties concerned. In some instances, it is possible to stipulate a veritable alliance with the world outside the university as a valuable aid to overcome deep-seated habits and to increase public awareness of the logic underlying the Programme. In order to determine the requirements it is therefore necessary to clearly identify the parties concerned. Needless to say, it would be a mistake to push this attempt beyond reasonable limits for the sake of formal compliance. A traditional Programme that refers to well consolidated professional roles needs not be motivated by specific market surveys; the opposite is true for a Programme relating to new, evolving professions.


38

Educational Objectives

The translation of the “requirements” factor into “educational objectives” is performed by the university; it uses the know-how and the language of training specialists; it consists essentially of harmonising the knowledge building processes and learning outcomes that meet the requirements.This is the point at which it is necessary to reflect critically on the strategies, make choices, clearly express justifications for the chosen priorities. The best guide currently available for the formulation of learning outcomes is provided in the “Benchmarking Statements” by the QAA. This document could be adopted as the starting point for the definition of educational objectives, in terms of contents and levels.


39

Teaching, Assessment Methods

Once the educational objectives of the Programme have been identified and deployed as specific objectives of the individual courses of study, the teacher is provided with great freedom of action as to the methods to be employed in order to achieve them and to ascertain whether they have been achieved. Nor could it be otherwise, considering that the teacher is by definition the professional possessing the competencies that qualify him/her for this function.


40

Breaking down the “Factors” into their Constituent “Elements”

A working description of the factors is provided by breaking them down into their “elements”; an overview of the evaluation modes, such as those mentioned in chapter 2 supplies many interesting indications. An example: the “examination and assessment methods” factors can be broken down into elements such as - Does the assessment process enable learners to demonstrate achievement of the intended outcomes?- Are there criteria that enable internal and external examiners to distinguish between different categories of achievement?- Can there be full confidence in the security and integrity of assessment procedures?Does the assessment strategy have an adequate formative function in developing student abilities?


41

External Judgement

The external examiners shall formulate their judgement based on the contents of the “information model” and, if made available, also on those of the “self-evaluation supplement”. Their judgement shall take into account the indicators and the documents mentioned in the information model and, finally, shall use meetings and discussions. Final judgement will be expressed by factors, and shall be expressed, in a “summative” manner, by selecting an ordinal category from a set. It is a good idea to add comments or statements with a “formative” function. Of great interest for its conciseness is the approach adopted in Estonia, where the individual requirements are articulated in statements expressing a desirable treatment of each factor or element. Example: " Responsibilities for each area are formulated clearly".


42

Volume B Part 3:

3. New trends on Evaluation and Recognition (Rapporteur: Alfredo Soerio): an illustration, based on case studies, of emerging trends for the evaluation and accreditation of initial and continuing education programme.

E4 ACTIVITY 2ACTIVITY 2Case StudiesCase Studies

43


A2: Quality Assessment and A2: Quality Assessment and Transparency for Enhanced Mobility Transparency for Enhanced Mobility

and Trans-European Recognitionand Trans-European Recognition

Promoters: Giuliano [email protected]

Università di Roma “La Sapienza”, Italy

Alfredo [email protected]

Universidade do Porto, Portugal

E4

44


Activity 3: Engineering Professional Development for

Europe

E4

45

ACTIVITY 3ACTIVITY 3E4

Continuing Professional Development (CPD),was the object of Activity 3.

CPD is of course strictly related toContinuing Engineering Education (CEE), and

Activity 3 took advantage very strongly of the CEE Working Group of SEFI, as an essential

forum for inspiration and discussion.

One of the most important aspects to realise is that there is not a solution suitable for all

cases. Moreover the CPD market appears, as other service markets, to run faster than the

suppliers.

46

ACTIVITY 3ACTIVITY 3E4

The mission of Activity 3 was itemised as follows:

•monitoring actions already established within

European projects, as well as in individual universities, professional associations, companies and other organisations;

•collecting examples of good practice in the development of continuing education opportunities for engineers;

•assessing the role of research as a component of continuing engineering education;

•producing guidelines for the development of good continuing professional development initiatives in Engineering faculties;

•helping to develop a learning culture in industry.

In the following are reported some of the recommendations worked out by Activity 3

47

ACTIVITY 3ACTIVITY 3RecommendationsRecommendations

E4

In the following are reported some of the Recommendations on

Continuing Engineering Education Managementelaborated by Activity 3

and included in Volume E of the E4 6-book collection

(1) Recommendations on “Demand Analysis”

•Understand Business Processes and Strategy of your

Customers; •Get to Know your Customers;•Know Technical Trends;•What the Competitors do not Deliver;•Competences to be Developed.

48


E4

Recommendations on Continuing Engineering Education Management

(2)

Recommendations on “Product Design” For a good design of a CEE package, one should:

•Precisely Identify the Competence Needs of the Client.

•Choose an Adequate Price.•Define Right Content.•Assure Staff Competence.

49


E4

Recommendations on Continuing Engineering Education

Management (3)

Recommendation on Marketing

•Know the market;•Obtain a good quality in the content of the course

(and , if so, try it to be certified somehow);• Increase society-university interaction;•Networking and co-operating with other providers.

50


E4

Recommendations on Continuing Engineering Education

Management (4)

Recommendation on “Sharing ODL Material”

• Adaptation of the materials;• Clear protocol/contract;• Modular design & top-down design.

51


A3: Engineering Professional A3: Engineering Professional Development for EuropeDevelopment for Europe

Promoter:

Patricio [email protected]

Universidad Politecnica de ValenciaSpain

E4

52

Activity 4: Activity 4: Enhancing the European Enhancing the European DimensionDimension


53


The role of the Internationalisation

Despite the great success of ERASMUS Programme in increasing the mobility of graduate students in Europe, the awareness of the necessity of introducing a European Dimension for all engineering students is not yet as widely accepted and understood as it should be. Among other aspects, it is felt that this need can be satisfied only introducing elements of internationalisation culture into the formation one receives at home.

E4

54


Activity 4 had two sides:

- one devoted to identify these elements and how to incorporate them into an already crowded curriculum;

- the other one devoted to design actions to facilitate students mobility, trying to remove hindrances on it and proposing initiatives to stimulate it (like the so-called JEEP Teams introduced by H3E).

E4

55


Four lines of actions were identified: · to study the structure of the European work

environment, in order to assess the real needs;· to identify tools for introducing the international

component in Higher Engineering Education;· to study current hindrances to international

employability;· to establish and study projects targeted to

international teams of students, akin to the JEEP Teams.

The main outcomes of Activity 4 are collected in a report included in Volume E of the E4 6-book collection

E4

56


Following the stated mission, this Report is articulated as follows:

- The real needs of industry;- Internationalisation of Universities;- Project Teams;- Register of courses given in foreign languages

across Europe (this aspect was identified only during the last year of E4);

- Annex 1 with the main characteristics of ECTS;- Annex 2 with enquiry form for going on

constructing the Register mentioned above.

E4

57


A set of guidelines for setting up international project teams complete the work done by this

Activity.

The recommendations include valuable reflections on:• Size and Composition of Teams; • Institutional Links; • Level of Project; • Travel by Students; • Institutional Commitment;

E4

58


A4: Enhancing the European DimensionA4: Enhancing the European Dimension

Promoters:

Brian [email protected]

University of SurreyUnited Kingdom

Jean-Pierre [email protected]

Université d’AngersFrance

E4

59

Activity 5: Innovative Learning and Activity 5: Innovative Learning and Teaching MethodsTeaching Methods


60


Activity 5 provided a significant basis for further discussion of EE and its challenges in the future of e-learning by offering examples, for example, of a virtual campus, good practices, trans-national and online courses.

4 main themes were recognised and 4 Special Interest Groups (SIGs) established, each with its own co-ordinator. Future plans for each of these themes were also outlined.

E4

61


During the three years of E4,

Activity 5 developed its own web site : http://virtual.hut.fi/E4_Action5/

All results of Activity 5 are available on this web site.

The main outcomes of Activity 5 are also

collected in a report in book form (Volume F of the E4 6-book collection).The CD-ROM version of the report of Activity 5

includes a great amount of hyperlinks.

E4

62


Content of Volume F (The Activity 5 book) (1)

- Presentation of the working methods;- Discussion of the themes in which Activity 5 has been

articulated: - study of virtual university initiatives in Europe;- good practices in the use;

- support of new teaching and learning technologies, - training for engineering teachers and facilitation of

ODL-ICT in teaching and learning, - experiences of net-based and trans-national courses.

- Students’ views on new learning challenges. - Conclusions;- Recommendations.

E4

63


Content of Volume F (The Activity 5 book) (2)

The four Annexes report:- main activities;- active members-institutions;- the methodology for benchmarking national e-learning

strategies;- survey of virtual campus and virtual university activities in

Europe

It must be emphasised that a lot more can be found on the web site of Activity 5, part of it reflected in the CD-Rom

attached to the full set of books of E4.

E4

64


A5: Innovative Learning and A5: Innovative Learning and Teaching MethodsTeaching Methods

Promoter:

Matti [email protected]

Helsinki University of TechnologyFinland

E4

65

The Glossary ad-hoc Task ForceThe Glossary ad-hoc Task ForceThe Tuning Engineering Synergy GroupThe Tuning Engineering Synergy Group

Volume B contains two other important outcomes of E4obtained by two specially appointed task groups:

E4

Glossary of Terms Relevant for Engineering Education:an essential tool for anybody reading or writing about Engineering Education, aimed at explaining and unifying the terms used. It will be kept up-to-date on the E4 web site and be inherited by TREE: all suggestions are welcome.Tuning Educational Structures in Europe: Report of the Engineering Synergy Group: the evolving Engineering Education is compared with the process of “harmonisation” in other fields of European Higher Education

66

HEADQUARTERSHEADQUARTERS(also of the new (also of the new “T.R.E.E.” Network)“T.R.E.E.” Network)

International Relations OfficeInternational Relations OfficeUniversità degli Studi di Firenze

Facoltà di Ingegneria

Via di S. Marta, 3I-50139 Firenze, Italy

Tel: ++39.055.4796543Fax: ++39.055.4796544

E-mail: [email protected]@ing.unifi.it

E4

67

E4 WEB SITEE4 WEB SITE

http://www.ing.unifi.it/tne4http://www.ing.unifi.it/tne4

E4

68

Большое спосибо Большое спосибо за внимания!за внимания!

[email protected]

enhancing engineering education in europe (e4) socrates ii thematic network ing.unifi.it/tne4

Documents

volume d

volume e

various activities

volume f

ittne4universit degli

experimental actions

european dimensionactivity

europe e4socrates