INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION =
AND
ITS IMPACT ON NSF/EEC
By
Win Aun=
g,
NSF/EEC
January=
5,
2005
Updated:
February 24, 2005
In this paper we recommend a possible EEC response to recent domestic =
and
international developments in engineering education and research. A review =
of
recent developments indicates an opportunity for EEC to enhance its role in
international engineering. The central objective of the enhanced EEC role i=
s to
enable the
Collaterally, thoughtfully planned and executed international
extended-stay exchanges developed as a part of joint research or joint degr=
ee
programs, inevitably will help
As nations’ funding capacity and performance capability in education and research increase, the mutual benefits that acc= rue from international cooperation can increase the quality and productivity of= the work being pursued by each nation, thereby increasing the potential for innovation. With tight budgets the name of the game for EEC programs in the foreseeable future, jointly funded programs give a realistic option for lev= eraged, continued progress. By carefully selecting joint projects based on quid pro= quo in terms of benefits, EEC funded grantees will have access to some of the t= op laboratories and researchers abroad. The addition of foreign students worki= ng on internationally linked U.S. projects will improve productivity and outcomes.
Recent U.S. workforce trends are leading to concerns a= bout the potential loss of U.S. world leadership in technological innovations. International cooperation in engineering education and research programs, by raising the quality and productivity of these programs, can help to allevia= te the problem.
Recent announcements by NSF/OISE have described the complementary role for all research divisions in supporting international cooperation. In accordance with that, EEC has a duty to enable PIs to carry= out joint research and to travel abroad to carry out collaborative work. Similarly, where foreign educators= and researchers can help to increase the quality and productivity of NSF funded domestic programs, EEC’s role is to facilitate such activities.
In the next section, we discuss the context for an international dimension in engineering education and research. The paper ne= xt shows why an EEC extension into the international arena is consistent with = the NSF Strategic Plan and, indeed, is mandated by it. Finally, we present recommended options for EEC’s extension into international engineering education and research.
B. THE CONTEXT FOR INTERNALIZATION OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND RESEARCH
In this section, we provide the domestic and international context for our recommendation for the extension of EEC’= ;s role in international engineering education and research. The discussion has several elements. Key international developments in science and technology = that impact engineering education are summarized. The U.S. standing in higher education relative to our principal trading partners are examined. Data available in surveys and indicators such as Science and Engineering Indicat= ors 2004 [1] are presented. We discuss what we call the ABET Imperative, one th= at enables U.S. engineering programs to meet the needs of key ABET accreditati= on criteria. We discuss the rationale from the standpoint of increasing the quality and productivity of U.S. programs through international linkages, a= nd summarize recent NSF development that argues for an enhanced EEC role in the international arena.
(i) &n=
bsp; International
Developments
There have been extensive developments in educati= on and research outside of the U.S. in recent years that merit our attention. = At the country-level, these developments are the result of the keen interest b= y an increasing number of other nations that see science and technology as an essential tool for economic development. The economic miracles achieved by Asian countries such as Taiwan, Korea, Singapore and China have convinced t= hese same nations to strive for continued economic growth based on technological innovations. Their achievements have also encouraged other nations to try t= o do likewise. A major beneficiary of this are the academic institutions, the cr= adle of the highly skilled human resources needed for innovations in today’= ;s technological world. The start of the 21st century has given the= se efforts a special impetus.
Among the myriad and multifaceted developments ta= king place around the world, it is possible to single out a few to illustrate the trend toward increased funding available overseas.
These opportunities include increased funding for education and research overseas by national governments. In Europe, these opportunities have been created by the Bologna Process; the establishment of Science Foundation Ireland; and funding for engineering education reform by private foundations such as Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation of Sweden.= In Russia, the state technical universities are emerging from their past isola= tion and are seeking international cooperation. In Latin America, the Organizati= on of American States has announced the implementation of the Summit of the Am= ericas Process to encourage the development of science and technology in the regio= n. In Asia, Japan’s academic system is undergoing a major redesign, privatizing all government-supported institutions, freeing them to pursue international cooperation and other market driven opportunities. Details are given in Appendix 1.
New opportunities are also being created through = the elevated level of performance and capability in many academic institutions overseas. Recent peer-reviewed publications based on curriculum innovations reported in the open literature show that many new ideas in engineering education are emerging outside the U.S., creating the opportunity for mutua= lly beneficial linkages to U.S. institutions through international cooperation.=
Samples of innovations in academic institutions in various parts of the world are now readily available. Many of these foreign innovations in teaching and learning have been reported in an annual “Innovations” book series published by the International Network for Engineering Education and Research. Summaries of the articles that are scheduled for publication in the 2005 book, and those that have appeared in= the 2004 and 2003 books are given in Appendix 2, Appendix 3 and Appendix 4, respectively.
(ii) =
Developments in the U.S.
In May 2004, the National Science Board released Science and Engineering Indicators 2004 [1] along with a press release [2]. According to the NSB, the U.S. remains a world leader in high technology an= d in R&D spending, but changes in workforce and economic outlook make the fu= ture uncertain. The NSB notes that, in the face of emerging attractive alternati= ves to the U.S. in the global S&E labor market, we are in a long distance r= ace to retain our leadership position. The NSB observes what it calls a “= critical problem” for the U.S. S&E labor force, caused by our own economic success that is leading to a heightened need for S&E personnel.
Data contained in [1] allow for benchmarking on workforce trends in the U.S. against our major international trading partne= rs. Information relating to science and technology and technology and engineeri= ng is examined in the following.
Degree Productions and Workforce Trends
The tabular data for up t= o the year 2000 on first university degrees awarded by a number of countries and regions have been reported by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD [3]. Data from this and other sources have been compiled = in [1] and are reproduced in Appendix 5. For the purpose of the present discussion, we have extracted the data from 30 countries and present them in Table 1. For the thirty countries of interest, in terms of all first degrees awarded, the U.S. is far in the lead with 1,253,121, followed by India (750,000), China (567,839), Russia (554,814), and Japan (542,314). For All S&E first degrees, the U.S. again ranks at the top with 398,622. Ranking next are Japan (359,019), China (337,352), Russia (216,017), and India (176,036). In Engineering, the top producers of first degrees in 2000 are C= hina (219,563), Japan (104,478), Russia (82,409), U.S. (59,536), South Korea (56,508). Germany ranks 6th with 36,319 and France is 7th with 34,293.
The data show that, in 20= 00, 14.945% of the students in S&E fields in the U.S. earned their first degrees in engineering. The numbers were much higher in China (65.08% in 20= 01), Japan (29.10% in 2001), South Korea (58.34% in 2000), Germany (55.74% in 20= 01), Taiwan (54.68% in 2001), Switzerland (53.69% in 2000), and Italy (48.35% in 2000).
Using the data in Table 1= , Table 2 has been constructed. It displays the first degrees awarded in engineerin= g as a ratio of all first degrees, S&E degrees, and the country’s 24-year-old population. China has the highest ratio of engineering first degrees to all first degrees. Next comes Hungary (2), Singapore (3), South Korea (4) and Finland (5). The U.S. is in 29th position, placing next to last among the 30 countries.
Hungary has the highest r= atio of engineering first degrees to all S&E first degrees, followed by China, Finland, Sweden and South Korea. The U.S. places last in the group of 30 countries or regions.
The nice showing by Hunga= ry in the above two rankings is repeated in the third set of data shown, namely, = the ratio of engineering first degrees to the total 24-year-old population. This ratio put Hungary at the top with Finland second. South Korea is third while Taiwan places fourth and Sweden is fifth.
In general, Scandinavian countries do quite well in these rankings, especially Sweden and Finland. A= lso doing well are Asian countries such as South Korea and Taiwan. Not all Asian countries do well, however, as illustrated by the ratios for Malaysia and Thailand both of which ranking essentially in the bottom half of the group = of 30. Differences in regional, cultural, and economic status do not explain m= ore students study engineering in some countries and not in others. In addition= to U.S., Thailand and Malaysia, other countries that do not do so well include India, Brazil, U.K., Canada and Spain, while countries that do relatively w= ell overall, in addition to Hungary, Taiwan, Finland, Sweden, South Korea, also include Germany, Italy, and Switzerland.&n= bsp;
Using the data from Table= 2, rankings of selected countries by percentage of students in S&E fields = who earned their first degrees in engineering are shown in Tables 3. Some of the countries that rank high are in Asia, Europe and North America and include strong economies as well as weaker economies on the rise, such as Hungary a= nd Mexico. Countries in Asia such as Malaysia and India are ranked low, as do = the U.S. and Canada. In fact, the U.S. ranks last at number 30.
Rankings of selected coun= tries by the number of degrees in engineering as a percentage of the 24-year populat= ion are indicated in Table 4. Nine out of ten top countries have strong economi= es. Countries that rank low include the U.S. and China.
Table 5 shows country ran= kings by number of degrees in engineering. Except for Russia, all of the seven top ranked nations are current economic powerhouses. As a small country/region, Taiwan stands out by its relative high ranking (10). Also noted for their h= igh rankings are Mexico and Hungary.
Concerns in the U.S.
The low proportion of eng= ineers produced in the U.S., relative to the total number of degrees or the S&E degrees, and to the available pool of 24-year-old population, is not the on= ly development that raises concern in the U.S. Even more alarming is the recent overall downward trend in the production of engineering degrees in the U.S. These developments are the reason why the NSB sounded an alarm last year, as noted previously. We examine the recent degree production trend next.
Data for S&E higher e= ducation presented in [1] are available mostly for up to year 2000 and in some cases= to 2002. In general, they indicate that research and doctorate-granting universities produce most of the undergraduate engineering degrees (78 perc= ent in 2000) and about half of the degrees in natural, agricultural, and social sciences. A higher percentage of baccalaureate recipients study science and engineering at research universities and selective liberal arts colleges than at other kinds of institutions. Historic= ally black colleges and universities and Hispanic-serving institutions are impor= tant sources of S&E bachelor's degrees earned by minority students. The fastest-growing major segment of higher education is community colleges. Enrollme= nt in U.S. S&E graduate education peaked at 435,700 in 1993, declined through 1998, and rose to near its record level by 2001. One in five S&E gradua= te students received primary support from the Federal Government in 2001. The ratio of bachelor's degrees in natural, agricultural, and computer sciences; mathematics; and engineering (NS&E) to the population cohort stood betw= een 4 and 5 per 100 for several decades but increased to 5.7 in the late 1990s. Over the past quarter-century, women and members of minority groups earned greater proportions of S&E bachelor's degrees, as the percentage of deg= rees earned by white students declined from 87 to 68 percent. Increasing numbers= of S&E doctoral degree recipients are women, minorities, or foreign; the s= hare of U.S. whites decreased from 71 percent in 1977 to 50 percent in 2001. Noncitizens accounted for most of the growth in U.S. S&E doctorates from the late 1980s through 2001.
The data in [1] further show that the annual S&E (science and engineering) bachelor’s degree awarded in the U.S. rose steadily from under 304,000 in 1977 to 398,622 in 2000 [1, p. 2-20], representing about 1/3 of all bachelor’s degrees awarded during this period. Though women earned 57% of all bachelor’s degrees in 2000, th= ey earned only 50% of the bachelor’s degrees in S&E majors. Thirty-s= even percent (37%) of the bachelor’s degrees earned by men were in S&E majors. From 1977 to 2000, the proportion of S&E degrees awarded to Asian/Pacific Islanders increased from 2% to 9%, while that for underrepresented minorities grew from 9% to 16%. In 2000, white students ea= rned 68% of the S&E bachelor’s degrees, dropping from 87% in 1977. The number of 2-year S&E associate degrees offered by community colleges ro= se from 26,000 in 1985 to 33,700 in 2000 [1, p. 2-19], also propelled by incre= ases in computer sciences, which accounted for 56% of the S&E associate degr= ees in 2000.
While the U.S. S&E data trend paints an encouraging picture, for engineering the story is somewhat different. The increases in S&E undergraduate degrees awarded referred to above are in computer sciences, biological/agricultural sciences, social sciences and psychology.= For engineering, the number of degrees awarded increased from 41,357 in 1977 to= a peak of 77,572 in 1985 [1, Table 2-22]. It then started a more or less stea= dy decline. The number remained steady at around 63,000 during 1991-1997. It declined again after that and was 59,536 in 2000, the last year for which information is available. This in only 76.7% of the 1985 level.
The number of master’s degrees awarded in engineering during the same period tells a similar story [1, Table 2-24]. In 1977, 15,167 master’s degrees were awarded in the U.S. in 1997. The number rose to 28,630 in 1995. It dropped to 25,736 in 2000, less than 90% = of the 1997 level.
For the Ph.D. degree, the number of earned degrees awa= rded by universities in the U.S. was 2,648 in 1977. It increased to a peak of 6,= 118 in 1997 and declined to 5,320 in 2000. In 2001, the number went back up to 5,502 [1, Table 2-16], still less than 90% of the level in 1997.
Curriculum Innovations = and Support
Since the mid-1980’s, U.S. institutions of higher learning have been reforming its curriculum in order to provide students wi= th a broader and more relevant education experience, and to introduce a interdisciplinary, industry-related focus, especially in engineering and associated disciplines. Innovative applications of technology-based instruc= tion have been an integral part of these efforts [5,6]. Strongly supporting them= are major professional engineering societies such as NAE and IEEE [7]. A drive toward creating diversity in the engineering professoriate has been aided by ABET accreditation criteria for engineering programs, in that overall facul= ty competence is judged using factors that include diversity of backgrounds, in addition to education, engineering experience, teaching experience, ability to communicate, level of scholarship, and others [8]. <= o:p>
Following are some of the recent U.S. innovations rela= ting to the above areas.
At Santa Clara University, Prof. Ruth Davis, stating t=
hat
engineers need to reach beyond a small circle of friends and family of
engineers. She outlines a process to involve students in community-based
projects and presents the results to-date [9]. At Western Michigan Universi=
ty,
Crumbaugh et al. at the college of engineering and the college of education
have teamed to help prepare science teachers in teaching the relevance of mathematics and science to K-12
students, particularly female students [10]. At the Mechanical
Engineering Department at San Diego State University, Impelluso and Bober h=
ave
reported that the Department has restructured its curriculum at both the co=
urse
and program levels to reflect an emphasis on real-world problem-solving and
learning-by-doing [11].=
At Minnesota State University, which has a small civil engineering program, an innovative expansion of the capstone design project experience has been ado= pted [12], while the evolving ocean environmental engineering option at the U.S. Naval Academy is now introducing students to research and design projects w= ith a global significance [13]. At North Carolina A&T University, based on scores obtained by students in the final exam of a course on Programming wi= th C++ in 2002, and comparing them with the same students’ GPAs two years later, Prof. Barbara Pioro concludes that by knowing a student’s scor= e on the programming problem part of an exam in a computer programming course, i= t is possible to estimate the student’s GPA two years later [14].
The= work by Cardella and Atman [15] deals with the students’ use of mathematics in engineering design. In the area of biomedical engineering, King [16] focuse= s on a teaching approach that, besides the technical contents of courses, gradua= tes will also acquire techniques and skills needed for engineering practice. To achieve this, a uniform programming language, Matlab, is adopted throughout= the undergraduate biomedical engineering curriculum. Diller and Martin [17] pre= sent an introductory biotransport course in which students are guided according = to the How People Learn (HPL) pedagogical model, developed through funding by = the ERC program at NSF.
To = increase student exposure to different cultures, faculty at Michigan State University have joined forces with faculty at the Volgograd State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering in Russia to develop a study-abroad engi= neering education program [18]. Recently, the curriculum has been expanded through collaboration with faculty experts on Russian culture and language, and is = now available to students on the entire campus as well as students in regional institutions. Fox et al. [19] describe a cross-cultural, international experiential course that has been adopted at Ind= iana University Purdue University Indianapolis. The course examines sustainabili= ty practices of international companies in Germany and the United States. Scott [20] highlights a unique experience in intercultural adaptation of an engineering design program from the Colorado School of Mines to the Petrole= um Institute at Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates.
Funding by government agencies has been instrumental in enabling these innovations in engineering and beyond, as in Bioinformatics = (1, p. 2-21).
Starting in FY 2005, NSF is selecting 5 emerging areas= of research and education as priority topics: Biocomplexity in the Environment, Human and Social Dynamics, Mathematical Sciences, Nanoscale Science and Engineering, and Workforce for the 21st Century [21]. The NSF Nanoscale Science and Engineering priority area will enhance formal and informal education in nanoscale science, engineering, and technology, by developing strong collaboration between science educators and nanoscale science and engineeri= ng researchers, and increasing the knowledge of advances in nanoscale research= and technology and their impact on society [22]. The area of Information Technology, funded as a priority area for the previous 5 years, has been dropped as such by NSF starting in FY 2005 [23]. Meanwhile, top venture cap= ital firms in Silicon Valley are beginning to look beyond traditional information technology and computing, for new ideas in areas such as new materials and alternative energy [24].
(iii) Inculcating= an International Perspective in Engineering Education and Research: The ABET Imperative
There has been much discussion recently about the n= eed for and the benefit of inculcating an international perspective in engineer= ing education and research. One driver of the discussion is ABET. A recent pape= r by Yurtseven [25] highlights this issue.
ABET EC=
2000
requires every graduate of ABET accredited engineering program to ha=
ve
skills listed under criteria 3(a) =
- 3(k) [8]. Many educators have addressed=
two
of these criteria, h and j, with activities designed to give students an
international perspective. These two criteria require that engineering prog=
rams
demonstrate that graduates have:
(h) The
broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions=
in
a global and societal context, and
(j) =
A
knowledge of contemporary issues.
Similarly, for engineering technology programs, one of= the requirements in Criterion 2 of the ABET TC 2000 stipulates that these progr= ams must demonstrate that graduates have [26]:
(j) &= nbsp; A respect for diversity and a knowledge of contemporary professional, societal and global issues.
Yurtseven [25], Dean of the Purdue School of Engineeri= ng and Technology at Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis, and ot= her leaders of engineering education have noted that these accreditation guidel= ines can serve as a useful framework to build effective international engineering and engineering technology programs. Several
such initiatives are identified by Yurtseven, including study abroad programs, programs with interchangeable courses, joint programs involving liberal arts, business and other disciplines.
(iv) &=
nbsp; Enhancing
Quality and Productivity in Engineering Education and Research
In times of tight budgets, international cooperation c= an be a boon since in many cases linking a domestic project with a related international effort will increase the total technical personnel commitment= to the project, without incurring significant additional costs. On the contrar= y, projects joined at the international level can lead to new ideas and innovations that are impossible to achieve within a domestic context. When people with different educational background and cultural perspectives inte= ract with each other they could raise creativity and innovations to unprecedented levels.
In recent years, driven by the recognition that technological innovations can lead to beneficial economic development, many nations have been increasing their investments in research and development. This is particularly case with Asian countries, such as China and Korea, wh= ich have expanded their R&D expenditures relative to their GDP [27]. The increased R&D investment, along with a parallel increased investment in research and education at academic institutions, by what used to be known as emerging economies has come at a time when almost all of the G-8 nations ha= ve invested in R&D at levels no higher than that at the early 1990’s. The implication is that the R&D capability of many so-called developing countries is rising in absolute terms and in comparison to that of the G-8 countries.
The increased investments in R&D means that technological innovation can no longer be the purview of= a few elite nations. The inevitable fallout is increased parity in education = and research between developed and developing nations, both in performance capability and in funding capacity. This is enhancing the prospects and pot= ential two-way benefits of joint activities in engineering education and research, creating a win-win situation in international cooperation. With the attainm= ent of mutual benefit in collaborative efforts, they are no longer confined wit= hin international assistance program supported by rich nations.
Carefully designed collaborative projects, therefore, = can lead to increased productivity and innovation, and to higher quality resear= ch and education efforts.
The ongoing internationalization of industrial R&D= is also propelling the interest for international cooperation in research and education on the part of many leading educational institutions [28].
The convergence of the two factors above has led many educators here and abroad to believe that international cooperation will be= the cornerstone for the next major advancement in engineering education and research [28].
(v) &=
nbsp; Recent
NSF Developments with International Implications
Recognizing the increasing importance of participation= in international science and engineering cooperation and partnerships as a way= of keeping abreast of important new insights and discoveries in science and engineering, in 1999 the National Science Board formed a Task Force on International Issues in Science and Engineering. The Task Force issued its Interim Report in 2000.
The NSB report contains the recommendation that "= NSF strengthen the coordination and management of U.S. international science and engineering research and education activities"; it also recommends that NSF "facilitate international collaboration in science and engineering research and education, particularly by younger scientists and engineers and with developing countries".
In 2002, the NSF Office of International Science = and Engineering (OISE) was formed. In 2004 OISE announced a new portfolio of activities [29]. These will emphasize planning visits and workshops, provid= ing international research experiences for small groups of undergraduates and/or graduate students and for doctoral dissertation research; international REU= s; East Asia and Pacific Summer Institutes for U.S. graduate students; Pan-American Advanced Study Institutes; and international postdoctoral fellowships.
Starting
in 2005, OISE will support a new program called "Partnerships for
International Research and Education." In this program, OISE will part=
ner
with the research directorates to co-fund proposals from researchers reques=
ting
supplementary funding to active awards for international activities, or pro=
vide
joint funding to new proposals submitted to the research divisions that hav=
e an
international dimension. Proposals maybe submitted to OISE or to the resear=
ch
divisions. Announced in December, 2004 through NSF 05-533, the program̵=
7;s
solicitation states [30]:
“Partnerships
for International Research and Education will enable U.S. institutions to
establish collaborative relationships with foreign groups or institutions in
order to advance specific research and education objectives and to make
possible a research effort that neither side could accomplish on its own.&n=
bsp;
As science and engineering become increasingly global, U.S. scientists and
engineers must be able to operate in teams comprised of partners from diffe=
rent
nations and cultural backgrounds. International partnerships are, and
will be, increasingly indispensable in addressing many critical global
scientific problems. The program is intended to catalyze a cultural
change in U.S. institutions by establishing innovative new models for
international collaborative research and education. It is also intended to
facilitate greater variety in student participation and preparation, and to
contribute to the development of a diverse, globally-engaged, science and
engineering workforce.”
“Science and
engineering are increasingly global. Cutting-edge research is being
conducted worldwide, and new ideas emerge from the intellectual interaction=
s of
people with diverse backgrounds. Consequently, U.S. scientists and
engineers and their institutions must be globally engaged and able to opera=
te
in teams comprised of partners from different nations and cultural
backgrounds. International partnerships are, and will be, increasingly
indispensable in addressing many critical global scientific and engineering
problems.”
“Partnerships
for International Research and Education awards will enable U.S. institutio=
ns
to develop longer-term, collaborative international research and education
programs with foreign partners. Successful proposals will describe
science and engineering research projects that are based on integrated and
synergistic international collaborations, and will explain how the
complementary strengths of the collaborating institutions will be used to
enable and sustain a longer-term program. Partnerships for Internatio=
nal
Research and Education will enable U.S. institutions to establish collabora=
tive
relationships with foreign groups or institutions in order to advance speci=
fic
research and education objectives and to make possible a research effort th=
at
neither side could accomplish on its own. The program is intended to
catalyze a cultural change in U.S. institutions by establishing innovative =
new
models for international collaborative research and education. It is also
intended to facilitate greater diversity in student participation and prepa=
ration,
and to contribute to the development of a diverse, globally-engaged, science
and engineering workforce.”
Con= cerning the topics and methods of collaboration, the OISE announcement further stat= es:
= 220;Globalization of research and career opportunities places importance on providing an international perspective to U.S. scientists and engineers early in their careers. Therefore, in addition to domestic research activities, a significant part of the collaborative project must involve U.S. participants working at foreign sites. The collaborative project should provide ma= ny participants with an international research experience in an academic, industrial or national laboratory, or other suitable setting. Use of information/communication technologies, networking, remote access of instrumentation and facilities, distance learning, and other means of remote interaction as well as development of innovative curricular activities with strong international content is encouraged to strengthen the international = dimensions of the project for those participants who travel abroad, as well as those w= ho do not.”
The anticipated funding level for this one-time solici= tation is $5M for 5 – 10 awards. Due date is March 5, 2005.
C. &nbs=
p; EEC
RESPONSE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NSF STRATEGIC PLAN
EEC's inclusion of an international scope in its funding portfolio is also consistent with the three core strategies of the = NSF Strategic Plan, as described below.
Develop Intellectual Capital: An education system that is informed by an international perspective will prepare studen= ts better for a career in the world marketplace. International cooperation in engineering education can also provide the cultural perspective that studen= ts need to become well-rounded engineer. International
cooperation also increases the efficiency and
productivity in the production of intellectual capital, by expanding the sc=
ope
of work and the number of personnel involved for each collaborating team, by
adding a unique perspective from another country, by sharing facilities and
equipment and human capital, and by leveraging financial resources. The
. .
Integrate Research and Education: The NSF empha= sis on integrating research and education is a new concept for much of our international partners, but it is a concept that deserves to be spread thro= ugh international cooperation. In recent years, it has started to gain recognit= ion by our international counterparts. The concept will be given emphasis and visibility under the proposed initiative. It is a truism that any given investigation will likely be framed with a main focus on either research or education. So far, the overwhelming majority of the topics for international cooperation supported by NSF fall in the research category. Since NSF fundi= ng for education is increasingly important, this is an opportune time to significa= ntly increase its role and visibility in funding international cooperation in the integration of research and education, with the focus on education, specifically engineering education. Extending support for the integration of research and education to involve international partnerships appears to be a logical next step. More than in research, international cooperation in engineering education must involve communication and dialog; hence issues t= hat are in need of addressing include problems posed by geographic separation, language, and cultural differences.
Promote Partnerships: In research, new international partnerships and linkages will be created and ongoing partnerships expanded under this initiative. While these are projects cente= red on engineering research topics, education will be a part of the overall eff= orts in consonance with existing NSF requirements. Recent dialogs in the international community have led to identification of several key topics in engineering education that are ripe for major breakthroughs through international collaborative efforts. Outlined in greater detail below, these include: innovative approaches for distance learning and digital libraries; innovative approaches to address multilinguism; innovative approaches to address international assurance of quality and standards; and establishing = and implementing assessment and evaluation standards. These and other factors h= ave encouraged many educators to consider working with their colleagues in other countries. The recent expansion of the European Union to include several countries from Eastern and Central Europe, along with China's economic refo= rm now anchored by her entry into WTO, is having a remarkable effect in stimulating the growth of international R&D, all in the last 1-2 years.= The emergence of new ideas is now no longer limited to a few elite nations. As evidence, witness the increasing number of companies in industrialized countries that have expanded marketing and R&D around the world. International cooperation in R&D is providing global companies with acc= ess to leading-edge fundamental developments, technologies, and fresh ideas.
D. =
CONCLUSION
AND RCOMMENDATION
Engineering educators are increasingly concerned = with international cooperation. The driving forces are the need to increase the quality, productivity and effectiveness of programs, to provide internation= al experiences for students, better opportunities for interaction with counter= parts abroad, and funding availability outside of the U.S. Recent trends in the production of engineering bachelor’s, master’s and Ph.D. degree= s in the U.S. are raising concerns on the ability of the U.S. to satisfy its workforce needs in order to maintain world leadership in technological innovations.
According to the NSB, = 220;The looming problem lies in the current trends that, if left unchecked, show the number of U.S. citizens qualified for science and engineering jobs will be level “at best”…At the same time, the nation may be unabl= e to rely on foreign citizens to fill the gap, either because of limits to entry= or because of intense foreign competition for those skills” [2].
International cooperation in engineering education and research can potentially contribute to alleviating the problem, owing to increased quid pro quo in international cooperation.
Carried out in coordination with OISE and other resear= ch divisions in NSF, an expanded role for EEC to support international coopera= tion within the special confines of engineering education and research is consis= tent with the requirements of the leadership role that EEC must play within ENG = on engineering education issues. It also conforms to the NSF Strategic Plan, a= nd current NSF approach of distributed responsibility for support of internati= onal activities in advancing innovations in the U.S. education and research enterprise.
Arguably, the products and services that engineers deal with have more immediacy and significance in the global context than most if not all other academic disciplines; hence, in general, engineers have speci= al needs to connect what they do to what goes on in the world marketplace.
Using scenario planning, the NAE study in engineering workforce needs for the year 2020 identifies key attributes needed by gradu= ates of 2020 [31]. As we strive design ways to accomplish them in the years ahea= d, we can learn from the thinking and experiences of our international partner= s of these issues. An example is the University of Montreal École de Technologie Supérieure (ETS). At a time when U.S. institutions are struggling to keep engineering enrollment up, perhaps there are a few tips = that ETS can give us. From a 1,100 students in 1989, it has grown to 5,000 today [32]. One of the unique features of ETS is its offering of a continuum of s= tudy options, ranging from certificate programs to bachelor’s, master̵= 7;s and Ph.D. studies. ETS maintains a close relationship with industry. About = 1/3 of the students are interns in over 700 companies, with each student receiv= ing an average of $10,000 per year. Collectively with institutions such as ETS, U.S. universities and colleges can be more successful in attaining their goals.
The newly announced OISE Partnership for International Science and Engineering Program fills a needed critical need = but only partially. To serve the U.S. science and engineering community, the anticipated $5M expenditure in the new program must be supplemented by investments from the research divisions. Indeed, OISE expects this, since it states in a “Dear Colleague” letter issued in June 2004:
“OISE, in partnership with NSF’s rese= arch directorates, will also continue to support international collaboration acr= oss the full range of NSF’s disciplinary programs and priority areas. Researchers may either include an international dimension in their proposal= s to these programs, or request supplementary funding to active awards for international activities by contacting the managing program officer for the= ir award” [16].
We recommend the following steps or options as EEC response.
1.&n= bsp; = ; Create a reserve account for EEC funds that support proposals for international activities to supplement ongoing awards.
2.&n= bsp; = ; Establish a new EEC program to support international activities including: international travel by grantee community; bi-national and/or multi-national workshops targeting strategic areas in research and education; and joint activities in research and education involving international cooperation.
3.&n= bsp; = ; Create a reserve staff travel account for internati= onal travel on a needs basis.
4.&n= bsp; = ; Propagate and disseminate the concept of integratio= n of research and education in international activities.
5.&n= bsp; = ; Disseminate the results of NSF funded projects to t= he international community so as to enable linkages.
6.&n= bsp; = ; Create a new page on the EEC website for items with international implications.
7.&n= bsp; = ; Encourage the support of international cooperation within existing EEC programs.
8.&n= bsp; = ; Sponsor an annual international conference/workshop= in the U.S. on engineering education and research. Such a conference will be t= he first of its kind, since existing conference deals with either education or research and not the two as an integrated entity.
9.&n= bsp; = ; Include sessions dealing with international issues = in EEC grantee conferences and workshops.
10.&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Send occasional news items by e-mail to EEC grantee community to provide updates on NSF activities related to international development.
11.&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Designate an EEC coordinator for International Activities.
12.&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Send a “Dear Colleague” letter from DD/= EEC to the EEC grantee community to announce the new EEC initiative(s) on international engineering as described above.
13.&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Coordinate with all AD/ENG, all other research divisions within ENG and CISE, and OISE in implementing the above recommendations.
1= . = National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2004. Natio= nal Science Foundation, Arlington, VA, 2004, Vol. 1, NSB 04-1; Vol. 2, NSB 04-1= A.
3.&n= bsp; = ; Organization for Economic Co-operation and Developm= ent, OECD, 2001, “First university degree in selected countries, by sex and field: 2000.” Table C16: http://www.nsf.= gov/sbe/srs/wmpd/tables/tabc-16.xls
4.&n= bsp; = ; Engineering Workforce Commission, “Bachelor's Degrees Awarded = in Engineering, by Sex, Race/Ethnicity, and Citizenship: 1990–2002.̶= 1; Table C8: http://www.ns= f.gov/sbe/srs/wmpd/sex.htm
5.&n= bsp; = ; National Academy of Engineering, “Workshop on Information Technology (IT)-Based Educational Materials”, Information Technology Compatibility Workshop, Henley Park Hotel, Washington, DC, November 8, 2002. http://www.nae.edu/nae/engeducom.nsf/weblinks/MCAA-5FSJU5?OpenDocument=
6.&n= bsp; = ; = Paul Penfield, Jr. and Richard C. Larson= , “Education Via Advanced Technologies,” IEEE Transactions on Education, Special Issue on the Application of Information Technologies to Engineering and Science Education," Vol.39, No. 3, August 3, 1996, pp. 436-443. htt= p://www-mtl.mit.edu/~penfield/pubs/IEEE-ed.html
7.&n= bsp; = ; John R. Reinert, “Educating Our Workforce With Technology Skills Needed To Compete in the 21st Century, “ Testimony = at Joint Hearings before the Technology Subcommittee of the Committee on Scien= ce and the Early Childhood, Youth and Families Subcommittee of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, United States House of Representatives, by President, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, United States= of America, March 24, 1998. http://www.= ieeeusa.org/policy/policy/1998/98mar24.html
8. =
ABET Evaluation Criteria – EAC. Available from
web:
9.&n=
bsp; =
;
R.E. Davis, “Community-based Learning Develops
Diverse Engineering Workforce,” Chap. 2, Innovations 2005 –
World Innovations in Engineering Education and Research, W. Aung, et al.
(eds.), Int. Network for Eng. Edu. and Research, Arlington, VA, pp. 7-16 (t=
o be
published: March, 2005).
10.&=
nbsp;
Carol Crumbaugh, Paul Vellom, Edmund Tsang, and And=
rew
Kline, “Western Michigan University’s Collaborative Effort to
Enhance K-16 STEM Teaching and Learning,” Chap. 3, Innovations 2005
– World Innovations in Engineering Education and Research, W. Aun=
g,
et al. (eds.), Int. Network for Eng. Edu. and Research, Arlington, VA, pp.
17-32 (to be published: March, 2005).
11. =
Thomas Impelluso And Marcie Bober, “Revitaliz=
ing
the Mechanical Engineering Curriculum: Challenges and Rewards,” Chap.=
8, Innovations
2005 – World Innovations in Engineering Education and Research, W.
Aung, et al. (eds.), Int. Network for Eng. Edu. and Research, Arlington, VA,
pp. 79-97 (to be published: March, 2005).
12. =
Karen C. Chou, W. James Wilde, and Saeed Moaveni,
“Integrating Major Design Experience throughout a Small Civil Enginee=
ring
Program – A 2-Year Assessment and Implementation,” Chap. 17,
13. =
Robert H. Mayer and Jennifer K. Waters, “A
Globally-oriented Curriculum in Ocean Environmental Engineering,” Cha=
p.
18, Innovations 2005 – World Innovations in Engineering Education =
and
Research, W. Aung, et al. (eds.), Int. Network for Eng. Edu. and Resear=
ch,
Arlington, VA, pp. 199-205 (to be published: March, 2005).
14. =
Barbara
T. Pioro, “Performance in an Introductory Computer Programming
Course: Scores, Self-assessment, and GPA,” Chap. 27, Innovations 2=
005
– World Innovations in Engineering Education and Research, W. Aun=
g,
et al. (eds.), Int. Network for Eng. Edu. and Research, Arlington, VA, pp.
305-326 (to be published: March, 2005).
15. = Monica E. Cardella and Cynthia J. Atman, “A Qualitative Study of the Role of Mathematics in Engineering Capstone Design= Projects: Initial Insights,” Chap. 29, Innovations 2005 – World Innovations in Engineering Education and Research, W. Aung, et al. (eds= .), Int. Network for Eng. Edu. and Research, Arlington, VA, pp. 347-362 (to be published: March, 2005).
16. = Michael R. King, “Adoption of a Uniform Compu= ting Platform in an Undergraduate Biomedical Engineering Program,” Chap. 3= 1, Innovations 2005 – World Innovations in Engineering Education and Research, W. Aung, et al. (eds.), Int. Network for Eng. Edu. and Research, Arlington, VA, pp. 381-390 (to be published: March, 2005).
17. = Kenneth R. Diller and H. Taylor Martin, “Integration of “How People Learn” and Knowledge Taxonomy Models of Instructional Organization: Example for Biotransport,” Chap. 32, Innovations 2005 – World Innovations in Engineering Education = and Research, W. Aung, et al. (eds.), Int. Network for Eng. Edu. and Resear= ch, Arlington, VA, pp. 391-403 (to be published: March, 2005).
18. = Thomas L. Maleck, Ronald S. Harichandran, David K. Prestel, Jason A. Merrill, Darren E. Mason and Vera V. Alishnikova, “U.S.-Russian Collaboration to Enhance Engineering Education, Research and Development of Internationally Recognized Programs in Russia,” Ch= ap. 36, Innovations 2005 – World Innovations in Engineering Education = and Research, W. Aung, et al. (eds.), Int. Network for Eng. Edu. and Resear= ch, Arlington, VA, pp. 443-457 (to be published: March, 2005).
19. = Elizabeth Coles, Patricia Fox, Stephen Hundley, Cla= udia Grossman And Ramana Pidaparti, “A Model for Global Sustainable Educat= ion in Engineering and Technology: An Interdisciplinary and Multicultural Approach,” Chap. 37, Innovations 2005 – World Innovations in Engineering Education and Research, W. Aung, et al. (eds.), Int. Network for Eng. Edu. and Research, Arlington, VA, pp. 459-468 (to be published: Ma= rch, 2005).
20. = Suzanne W. Scott, “Adapting Engineering Design Model to Middle Eastern Culture: The Colorado School of Mines Brings Engineering Design to the Petroleum Institute,” Chap. 38, Innovati= ons 2005 – World Innovations in Engineering Education and Research, W. Aung, et al. (eds.), Int. Network for Eng. Edu. and Research, Arlington, VA, pp. 469-480 (to be published: March, 2005).
21.&= nbsp; Rita R. Colwell, “Statement - President's FY = 2005 Budget Request for the National Science Foundation.” National Science Foundation, Febru= ary 2, 2004. http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/forum/colwell/rc040202fy05budget.htm
22.&= nbsp; National Science Foundation, “Nanoscale Scien= ce and Engineering Education (NSEE).” Program Solicita= tion, NSF 05-543. <= /span> http://www.nsf.= gov/pubs/2005/nsf05543/nsf05543.htm
23.&= nbsp; National Science Foundation, “Infor= mation Technology Research (ITR) for National Priorities.” Program Solicitation, <= span style=3D'mso-ansi-font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman"'>Document Number: NSF04012. http://www.nsf.gov/home/crss= prgm/itr/.
24.&= nbsp; Monica Gagnier (ed.), “New VC in the Valley,&= #8221; BusinessWeek, McGraw-Hill, January 31, 2005, p. 40.
2= 5. = H. Oner Yurtseven, "Impact of Accreditation on Internationalization of Engineering and Technology Education in the United States," Chap. 34, Innovations 2005 - World Innovations in Engineering Education and Research, W. Aung, et al. (eds.), Int. Network= for Eng. Edu. and Research, pp. 423-429 (to appear in March 2005).
26. = ABET Evaluation Criteria – TAC. Available from web:
27. = National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators – 2002. Arlington,&nb= sp; VA: National Science Foundation, 2002 (NSB 02-1), Vol. 1, pp. 4-45.<= /p>
28. = R. Altenkirch, et al., “What We Must Do Toget= her to Increase Quality and Productivity,” Chap. 1, Innovations 2003 – World Innovations in Engineering Education and Research, W. Aun= g, et al. (eds.), Int. Network for Eng. Edu. and Research, Arlington, VA, pp. = 1-12 (2003).
<=
span
style=3D'mso-list:Ignore'>29.&=
nbsp;
Kerri-Ann Jones, NSF/OISE, “Dear Colle=
ague
Letter”, NSF 04-034, June 17, 2004. Available: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2004/nsf04034/nsf040=
34.htm
30. = Program Solicitation, NSF 05-533, “Partn= erships for International Research and Education”, D= ecember 9, 2005. Available:
http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/= 2005/nsf05533/nsf05533.htm
31. &n= bsp; National Academy of Engineering, The Engineer of 2020: Vision of Engineering in t= he New Century. &= nbsp; The National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2004.
32=
. =
École
de Technologie Supérieure, http://www.etsmtl.ca/english/ets_in_numbers.=
html
|
First univer=
sity
degrees in science and engineering and |
|
|
|||||
|
24-year-old
population in selected locations: |
|
|
|
||||
|
2000 or most
recent year |
|
|
|
||||
|
(Data derived from [1] Append=
ix
Table 02-33) |
|
&n=
bsp; |
&n=
bsp; |
&n=
bsp; |
|||
|
|
A |
B |
C |
D |
C/A |
C/B |
C/D |
|
|
All first |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
university |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re=
gion/location |
degrees |
All S&E |
Engineering |
24-year-olds |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No. of Degrees |
|
|
|
|
|
Un=
ited
States |
1,253,121 |
398,622 |
59,536 |
3,703,000 |
4.75% |
14.94% |
1.61% |
|
In=
dia |
750,000 |
176,036 |
29,000 |
17,700,800 |
3.87% |
16.47% |
0.16% |
|
Ch=
ina
(2001) |
567,839 |
337,352 |
219,563 |
19,639,000 |
38.67% |
65.08% |
1.12% |
|
Ru=
ssia
(long) |
554,814 |
216,017 |
82,409 |
2,170,000 |
14.85% |
38.15% |
3.80% |
|
Ja=
pan
(2001) |
542,314 |
359,019 |
104,478 |
1,719,400 |
19.27% |
29.10% |
6.08% |
|
Fr=
ance
(s+l) |
275,316 |
116,160 |
34,293 |
762,200 |
12.46% |
29.52% |
4.50% |
|
Un=
ited
Kingdom |
274,440 |
95,179 |
20,284 |
696,600 |
7.39% |
21.31% |
2.91% |
|
Br=
azil |
245,401 |
78,049 |
18,072 |
3,300,000 |
7.36% |
23.15% |
0.55% |
|
So=
uth
Korea |
209,747 |
96,859 |
56,508 |
783,600 |
26.94% |
58.34% |
7.21% |
|
Sp=
ain
(s+l) |
207,578 |
65,813 |
15,460 |
637,200 |
7.45% |
23.49% |
2.43% |
|
Ge=
rmany
(s+l) (2001) |
178,618 |
65,163 |
36,319 |
892,800 |
20.33% |
55.74% |
4.07% |
|
It=
aly
(s+l) |
150,677 |
57,263 |
27,685 |
726600 |
18.37% |
48.35% |
3.81% |
|
Po=
land |
147,536 |
43,304 |
21,618 |
599,490 |
14.65% |
49.92% |
3.61% |
|
Me=
xico |
135,233 |
42,049 |
24,184 |
2,038,406 |
17.88% |
57.51% |
1.19% |
|
Th=
ailand |
119,288 |
31,168 |
10,878 |
1,179,200 |
9.12% |
34.90% |
0.92% |
|
Tu=
rkey
(short) |
118,882 |
49,069 |
15,593 |
1,318,000 |
13.12% |
31.78% |
1.18% |
|
Ta=
iwan |
117,430 |
48,624 |
26,587 |
385,894 |
22.64% |
54.68% |
6.89% |
|
Ca=
nada |
116,160 |
53,307 |
9,634 |
397,200 |
8.29% |
18.07% |
2.43% |
|
Au=
stralia
(s+l) |
112,745 |
29,859 |
9,537 |
269,200 |
8.46% |
31.94% |
3.54% |
|
Hu=
ngary
(s+l) |
46,978 |
21,684 |
16,936 |
165,200 |
36.05% |
78.10% |
10.25% |
|
Sw=
eden
(s+l) |
34,097 |
11,854 |
6,934 |
102,200 |
20.34% |
58.50% |
6.78% |
|
Is=
rael |
30,267 |
14,259 |
2,762 |
102,200 |
9.13% |
19.37% |
2.70% |
|
Cz=
ech Rep.
(s+l) |
25,544 |
11,034 |
4,308 |
174,400 |
16.87% |
39.04% |
2.47% |
|
Fi=
nland
(s+l) |
25,269 |
10,183 |
6,293 |
65,600 |
24.90% |
61.80% |
9.59% |
|
No=
rway
(s+l) |
22,421 |
4,860 |
1691 |
54,400 |
7.54% |
34.79% |
3.11% |
|
Sw=
itzerland
(s+l) |
19,028 |
6,145 |
3,299 |
76,600 |
17.34% |
53.69% |
4.31% |
|
Ir=
eland |
18,669 |
6,636 |
2,014 |
69,000 |
10.79% |
30.35% |
2.92% |
|
Ho=
ng Kong |
11,362 |
5,425 |
1,822 |
104,000 |
16.04% |
33.59% |
1.75% |
|
Ma=
laysia |
10,511 |
4,760 |
877 |
406,800 |
8.34% |
18.42% |
0.22% |
|
Si=
ngapore |
5,599 |
5,599 |
1,676 |
49,600 |
29.93% |
29.93% |
3.38% |
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p;
TABLE 2
Ranking
by Various Criteria of First University Degrees for Selected Country/Loca=
tion
|
|||||||
|
D=
ata from
Appendix 5 [1] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All first |
|
|
|
|
Rankings |
|
|
|
university |
|
No. of |
|
Eng./All |
Eng./ |
Eng./24- |
|
Re=
gion/location |
degrees |
All S&E |
24-year-old |
Engineering |
f=
irst
degrees |
S&E |
year-old |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Un=
ited
States |
1 |
1 |
3 |
4 |
29 |
30 |
23 |
|
In=
dia
(1990) |
2 |
5 |
2 |
8 |
30 |
29 |
30 |
|
Ch=
ina
(2001) |
3 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
26 |
|
Ru=
ssia
(long) (1999) |
4 |
4 |
5 |
3 |
15 |
13 |
11 |
|
Ja=
pan
(2001) |
5 |
2 |
7 |
2 |
9 |
22 |
6 |
|
Fr=
ance
(s+l) |
6 |
6 |
12 |
7 |
18 |
21 |
7 |
|
Un=
ited
Kingdomg (2001) |
7 |
8 |
14 |
13 |
27 |
25 |
17 |
|
Br=
azil
(1996) |
8 |
9 |
4 |
14 |
28 |
24 |
28 |
|
So=
uth
Korea |
9 |
7 |
11 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
3 |
|
Sp=
ain
(s+l) |
10 |
10 |
15 |
17 |
26 |
23 |
20 |
|
Ge=
rmany
(s+l) (2001) |
11 |
11 |
10 |
6 |
8 |
7 |
9 |
|
It=
aly
(s+l) |
12 |
12 |
13 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
10 |
|
Po=
land
(1996) |
13 |
16 |
16 |
12 |
16 |
10 |
12 |
|
Me=
xico |
14 |
17 |
6 |
11 |
11 |
6 |
24 |
|
Th=
ailand
(1995) |
15 |
18 |
9 |
18 |
21 |
14 |
27 |
|
Tu=
rkey
(short) |
16 |
14 |
8 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
25 |
|
Ta=
iwan
(2001) |
17 |
15 |
19 |
10 |
6 |
8 |
4 |
|
Ca=
nada |
18 |
13 |
18 |
19 |
24 |
28 |
21 |
|
Au=
stralia
(s+l) |
19 |
19 |
20 |
20 |
22 |
17 |
13 |
|
Hu=
ngary
(s+l) |
20 |
20 |
22 |
15 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
|
Sw=
eden
(s+l) |
21 |
22 |
24 |
21 |
7 |
4 |
5 |
|
Is=
rael |
22 |
21 |
25 |
25 |
20 |
26 |
18 |
|
Cz=
ech
Republic (s+l) |
23 |
23 |
21 |
23 |
13 |
12 |
19 |
|
Fi=
nland
(s+l) |
24 |
24 |
28 |
22 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
|
No=
rway
(s+l) |
25 |
29 |
29 |
28 |
25 |
16 |
15 |
|
Sw=
itzerland
(s+l) |
26 |
26 |
26 |
24 |
12 |
9 |
8 |
|
Ir=
eland |
27 |
25 |
27 |
26 |
19 |
19 |
16 |
|
Ho=
ng Kong
(1995) |
28 |
28 |
23 |
27 |
14 |
16 |
22 |
|
Ma=
laysia
(1990) |
29 |
30 |
17 |
30 |
23 |
27 |
29 |
|
Si=
ngapore
(1995) |
30 |
27 |
30 |
29 |
3 |
20 |
14 |
=
&nb=
sp; =
=
TABLE
3
=
who Earned their First Degrees in Engineering &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p;
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp;
Country =
&nb=
sp; Rankings =
&nb=
sp; Ranking
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; <=
span
style=3D'mso-bidi-font-size:14.0pt'>S&E Degrees =
Percentage of Eng./S&E
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp;
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp;
Hungary =
&nb=
sp;
China =
&nb=
sp; 3 &n=
bsp; =
;
2
Finland =
&nb=
sp;
Sweden =
&nb=
sp;
South Korea =
<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> 7 &n=
bsp; =
;
5
Mexico =
&nb=
sp;
Germany =
&nb=
sp;
Taiwan =
&nb=
sp;
------- =
&nb=
sp; ------- =
; &n=
bsp; =
; -------
Israel =
&nb=
sp;
Malaysia =
&nb=
sp;
Canada =
&nb=
sp;
India =
&nb=
sp; 5 &n=
bsp; =
; =
29
United States =
1 &n=
bsp; =
; =
30
=
&nb=
sp; =
TABLE 4
Ranking of Selected Countries by Percentage of Number of Degrees
in Engineering as Percent of 24-Year Old Population in Country
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp;
Country =
&nb=
sp; =
=
Ranking by Percent of
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Eng. Degrees/24-Year Old
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp;
Hungary =
&nb=
sp; =
=
1
Finland =
&nb=
sp; =
<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> =
2
South Korea =
&nb=
sp; =
=
3
Taiwan =
&nb=
sp; =
<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> =
4
Sweden =
&nb=
sp; =
=
5
Japan =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
6
France =
&nb=
sp; =
<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> =
7
Switzerland =
&nb=
sp; =
=
8
Germany =
&nb=
sp; =
=
9
Italy =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
10
------- =
&nb=
sp; =
<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> =
-------
United States =
&nb=
sp; =
=
23
China =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
26
Thailand =
&nb=
sp; =
=
27
Brazil =
&nb=
sp; =
<=
/span> =
28
Malaysia =
&nb=
sp; =
=
29
India =
&nb=
sp; =
=
30
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp;
TABLE 5
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp;
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp;
Country =
&nb=
sp; Rankings =
&nb=
sp; Ranking by No. of
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; S&E Degrees =
&nb=
sp; Degrees in Engineering
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp;
China =
&nb=
sp; 3 &n=
bsp; =
; <=
/span> =
1
Japan =
&nb=
sp; 2 &n=
bsp; =
; <=
/span> =
2
Russia =
&nb=
sp; 4 &n=
bsp; =
; <=
/span> =
3
United States =
<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> 1 &n=
bsp; =
; <=
/span> =
4
South Korea =
7 &n=
bsp; =
; <=
/span> =
5
Germany =
&nb=
sp; 11 =
&nb=
sp; =
=
6
France =
&nb=
sp; 6 &n=
bsp; =
; <=
/span> =
7
------- =
&nb=
sp; ------- =
; &n=
bsp; =
; =
-------
Taiwan =
&nb=
sp; 15 =
&nb=
sp; =
=
10
Mexico =
&nb=
sp; 17 =
&nb=
sp; =
=
11
Hungary =
&nb=
sp; 20 =
&nb=
sp; =
=
15
Spain =
&nb=
sp; 10 =
&nb=
sp; =
=
17
Sweden =
&nb=
sp; 22 =
&nb=
sp; =
=
21
APPENDIX
1
Recent development in several countries and regions around the world show that the= re is intense interest in S&T issues around the world. This has led to or will lead to new funding for academic institutions, creating new opportunities for collabora= tive partnerships. In this section, we provide a summary of key developments as samples and anecdotal evidence of the many exciting activities taking place. The list is not exhaus= tive, but it clearly shows that many nations are planning to play prominent roles= in science and technology.
The increased investment in research and educatio= n at academic institutions by many nations is motivated also by national interes= ts to prepare graduates for the demands of= the 21st century. In engineering education, many foreign institutions are implementing education objectives very similar to those in the U.S. In Europe, this is framed in p= art by the Bologna Declaration, a policy-level agreement signed by 29 European nations (now increasing to 35) at the Minister of Education level in 1999. Implemented through what is known as the Bologna Process [A1], its objectiv= es are to establish common education standards for European nations. The expre= ssed objectives of the Declaration are to enhance the mobility of graduates in employment. With a 10-year implementation time frame, and with more nations having signed on since 1999, the Bologna Declaration could be a major platf= orm for U.S. educators to contribute their experience and develop linkage at the formative stage. Many European institutions are looking to the U.S. experie= nce to help them hasten their own progress.
(ii) &=
nbsp; Recent
Development in Russia
For many years, the interaction and cooperation between Russian universities and those located abroad have been impeded by language, differing education systems, and politics. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union these barriers, though still are impediments, have begun to fall and = many leaders of academic institutions are looking for international linkages. No= w, many of these institutions have international exchange programs with universities abroad. Particularly noteworthy in this connection in engineering-related fields are the state technical universities. These institutions deal with education and research, as opposed to just research = (and development) as carried out by the research institutes under the jurisdicti= on of the Academy of Sciences.
In September 2004, for the first time, an international workshop was held in Russia with the main goal of developing international cooperation between the Russian state technical universities and institutio= ns abroad [A.2]. The Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation supported= the event. Professor Yury Chebotarevsky, Rector, Saratov State Technical Univer= sity (SSTU), Saratov, Russia, hosted the 3-day workshop.
Attendance was by invitation and about 30 participants participated in the workshop, including 11 rectors and 1 vice rector from 12 leading Russian state technical universities, and 9 foreign participants. The principal objectives o= f the workshop were: (1) to share information; and (2) to initiate discussion concerning interests and opportunities for interaction and cooperation betw= een Russian educators and academic institutions, and those located outside of Russia; and (3) to sign an agreement for future cooperation.
The agreement was called the Saratov Communiqué [A.3]. It outlines the approaches to and areas for future interaction between state technical universities in Russia and institutions abroad. One of the key approaches adopted is to hold future workshops patte= rned after the Saratov model. Such workshops will be held in different regions in Russia with the following four taking the lead:
1.&n= bsp; = ; Kranosjarsk State Technical University, Sergey Podlesny, Rector (September, 2006)
2. =
Ural State Technical University, Stanislav
Noboichenko, Rector (2007)
3.&n= bsp; = ; Taganrog State Radiotechnical University, Vladislav Zakharevich, Rector (2008)
4.&n= bsp; = ; Tomsk State Polytechnic University, Alexander Chuchalin, Vice Rector (2009)
In addition to future workshops in Russia, worksh= ops also will be held in countries that have an interest in working with the 15= 0+ state technical universities in Russia.
To continue the momentum built up in Saratov a number = of participants, including some of the rectors from Russia, are planning to me= et in Taiwan during iCEER-2005 in March 2005. Professor Yury Chebotarevsky and Prof. Shan-Hwei Ou are jointly organizing this activity. The dialog will be continued in July 2005 in Gliwice, Poland during ICEE2005. Professor Wojciech Zielinski, who attended the Saratov Workshop and is a signatory to= the Saratov Communiqué, is the General Chair of the conference.
The Saratov Communiqué outlines an agreement on= the approaches and areas for future cooperation involving Russian state technic= al universities and universities outside of Russia. As action items, the Communiqué points to two principal approaches that are summarized be= low.
(= a) = Program development and review workshops on enginee= ring education in USA and Russia. As noted previously, four Russian universities have agreed to host the first workshops.
(b)
1. = Innovative approaches for distance learning, digital libraries and quality management of university educational systems.
2. = Innovative approaches to address multilingualism.
3. = Innovative approaches to address international assurance of quality and standards.
4. = Establishing and implementing assessment and evalua= tion standards.
5. = Integration of research and education in internatio= nal partnerships.
6. = Innovations in resolving intellectual property issu= es.
7. = Innovations in institution-to-institution collabora= tion across international boundaries.
8. = Approaches to international accreditation and standards.
9. = Innovative approaches to international research-bas= ed student exchanges.
10. = Development of joint degree programs.
11. = University-industry cooperation in international cooperation.
12. = Collaboration in senior design projects.
13. = Establishment of international consortiums in resea= rch and education.
14. = Innovative e-Iearning delivery methodologies includ= ing synchronous shared learning and asynchronous shared learning.
(iii) &n=
bsp; Ireland
- Recent
Developments
Ireland is a country that bears watching as it embarks on a bold and aggressive plan to drive economic development through technological innovations. In many ways, Ireland’s current approach resembles that used 30 years ago by another small country, Taiwan, which le= d to what is known as the “Taiwan Miracle” in economic development.<= /p>
Ireland has 7 Universities and 14 Institutes of Technology. Asked why his company has chosen Ireland as a location for R&am= p;D, Robbie McAdam, Group Vice President, Analog Devices Inc., said: "There= are many contributing factors why Analog Devices set up in Ireland. The continu= ed availability of high-quality engineering and science graduates from Irish colleges has probably been the most critical success factor."
According to publicity brochure from the Irish Government, Ireland has the highest percentage (48%) of population worldwide that has attained at least tertiary education for persons 24-35. Tertiary-t= ype A survival rates for all education programs are very high in Ireland at over 80% (Tertiary-type A programs are largely theory based and are designed to provide sufficient qualifications for entry to advanced research programs a= nd professions with high skilled requirements, such as medicine, dentistry or architecture).
Dr. William Harris, who was AD/MPS at NSF and
currently Director General of Science Foundation Ireland (SFI), recently sa=
id:
“Ireland has a wealth of young talent ready to make science and
engineering the next great wave of Irish innovation.” His selection in
2001 by the President of Ireland as Director General of SFI underscores the
country's global vision and worldwide search for talents to help advance the
country's science and technology agenda. Thus, it is not surprising that the
SFI Board is populated by about a dozen easily recognizable world leaders in
science and engineering, including Mr. Eric Bloch, past NSF Director, and D=
r.
Kristina Johnson, currently Dean of Engineering at Duke University and a me=
mber
of the NSF/ENG Advisory Committee; see following link for a recent announce=
ment
by Duke University [A.4].
Ireland's recent economic progress has convinced = its Government that science, technology and innovation are central to the count= ry's continued economic and social suc= cess. The National Development Plan for 2000 - 2006 includes €2.5 billion for Research, Technology Development and Innovati= on. These funds are being used to enhance innovation and competitiveness as a m= eans to increase productivity and employment. Two of the major initiatives being pursued that target academic research and linkages are [A.5]:
(a) &= nbsp; The Higher Education Authority, which operates a Programme for Research in Third Level Institutes (PRTLI) to support strategic research by these institutes,= to increase the quality and relevance of graduate outputs and to support outstandingly qualified individual researchers and teams. In 2002, it dispe= nsed over €142 million towards the support of research personnel, and €170 million for support of equipment and buildings.
(b) Science Foundation Ireland (SFI), which is the agency for promoting excellence in scientific a= nd engineering research primarily at academic institutions. It was launched in 2001 and established as an independent agency in 2002. For the period 2001 = - 2006, SFI manages a fund of over €630 million targeting biotechnology and information and communicatio= ns technologies and related disciplines.
According to information issued by SFI, Ireland primarily relies on the EU Framework Programme as the primary mechanism for international cooperation between firms, universities and research institut= es based in Ireland and those located overseas. The 2001 bilateral science and technology agreement between Ireland and China has remained active and is b= eing followed up through exchange visits.
Information fro SFI shows that it is actively see= king proposals from overseas researchers who wish to carry out research in Irela= nd. Among the 2003 SFI highlights are [A.6]:
·= ; = It spent €234m on research investments= all based on international merit review.
·= ; = It recruited 128 researchers and their teams (more than 700 scientific or engineering researchers) to Ireland because of SFI. All awards recipients were selected based on international peer review= of proposals.
·= ; = It established the first SFI Centres for Science, Engineering and Technology.
·= ; = Twenty-three distinguished visiting research= ers were selected to come to Ireland for periods of up to one year. This program seeks to build links between Irish institutions and their counterparts arou= nd the world.
·= ; = Supported 21 major international scientific workshops and conferences to be held in Ireland.
·
<= o:p>
(iv) &=
nbsp; Sweden
– Recent Developments
In this section, we provide a summary and excerpts from [A.7, A.8] concerning the CDIO Initiative. In its vision and implementation, this education initiative resembles the NSF engineering education coalition= s, except that CDIO is international in scope. The main driving force is MIT b= ut the other participants are European institutions. The Knut and Alice Wallen= berg Foundation of Sweden provide funding.
CDIO started in 2000 with five universities. In additi= on to MIT from the U.S., there were three founding Swedish institutions: Chalm= ers University of Technology (Chalmers), Goteborg, the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, and Linkoping University (LiU), Linkoping. The= se four universities formed an international partnership with an ambitious pla= n to improve undergraduate engineering education in Sweden, the USA and worldwid= e.
The project aims to provide students with an
education that stresses engineering fundamentals set in the context of
Conceiving - Designing
The implementation of CDIO is directed at curricu= lum reform, improve teaching and learning, develop laboratories for experientia= l learning, and use assessment to improve the learning process. The initiative is desig= ned as an open architecture system to make it freely available to any and all schools that offer undergraduate engineering education, to enable them to t= ake CDIO methodologies, products and templates, and readily adapt and adopt the= m to their own programs. Within the context of CDIO, the four collaborating part= ners have chosen to implement the CDIO vision in four different professional are= as: KTH is developing its program in vehicle engineering; MIT in aerospace; Chalmers in mechanical engineering; and LiD in applied physics and electron= ics.
Each participating school has an overall CDIO director and at least one representative on each of the four theme areas. Student representatives from each school participate in the four theme area= s, as well as contribute as a separate student group. The four original CDIO collaborators maintain a steering committee of engineering deans and indust= ry representatives, which helps guide the Initiative and serves as liaison to = the Wallenberg Foundation. An external review board evaluates the project biennially.
The CDIO-based undergraduate engineering education features student projects complemented by internships in industry. Classroo= ms are networked. Robust assessment and evaluation processes are employed.
In assessment, the partner universities have enga= ged in creating learning objectives, assessing CDIO skills, course evaluation, = and program evaluation. Chalmers, KTH, and LiD have held faculty workshops on writing and classifying learning objectives. The team focused on communicat= ion and creative skills, as well as alternative assessments in mathematics. All four institutions have examined and described their procedures for end-of-course evaluations by students, and LiD and MIT initiated Web-based course evaluations. In the area of program evaluation, LiD implemented an approach called the Balanced Scorecard. Furthermore, MIT evaluated its prog= ram using ABET EC 2000.
In its second year, the original CDIO partners be= gan an outreach effort in order to encourage CDIO adoption by a select number of additional schools. The first school to join the original partners was the Technical University of Denmark (DTU), Copenhagen, Denmark. Other instituti= ons laying the groundwork for joining are located in Canada, Finland, Ireland a= nd the USA. In addition, the South African Ministry of Education has a high-ranking representative closely involved with the CDIO Initiative to explore the introduction of CDIO in that country. This diverse and growing collaboration will ensure the continued evolution and improvement of this project.
(=
v) Organization
of American States
The equivalent to the European Union (EU) in Latin America is the Organization of American States (OAS). A recent development = in the OAS is the implementation of the Summit of the Americas Process, which promotes and encourages the development of science and technology as a stra= tegy for development in the Americas.
In October 2004, Luigi R. Einaudi, Acting Secretary
General, Organization of American States, issued the report: "Science,
Technology, Engineering and Innovation for Development: A Vision for the
Americas in the Twenty First Century"; see [A.9].
Within OAS, the Office of Education, Science and
Technology (OEST) of the Organization of American States is responsible for
implementing the mandates emanating from the Summit of the Americas Process=
and
the ministerial-level meetings in science and technology. These mandates are
based on a recognition of the importance of science and technology to the
cultural and socioeconomic development of the Americas, and are implemented
through the project known as "Hemispheric Cooperation in the Developme=
nt
of Science and Technology Policy." The main objective is to generate
science and technology policies and strategies for the Americas in the prio=
rity
areas defined by the COMCYT - the Inter-American Committee on Science and Technology.
During 2003-2004, a series of workshops were held= to focus on areas for further development. The wide array of topics that emerg= ed as focus areas for further development deal with the promotion of S&T a= nd innovation in industry; issues for S&T development; social development;= and the "popularization" of S&T.
The S&T issues identified for consideration are: advanced networks and information infrastructure; biotechnology; clean technologies and renewable energy; and materials and nanotechnology. The following excerpted descriptions indicate the areas that are considered imp= ortant for future development [A.9]:
"In biotechnology, mechanisms to stimulate collaborative research; networking needs for the area; capacity building; education and communication needs; and strategies and policies are discussed and recommended topics of research include agriculture/aquaculture, health/human welfare, and the environment.
"In clean technology and renewable energies, spec= ific topics on which to focus hemispheric resources are addressed, as well as mechanisms for stimulating research collaborations; establishment of networ= ks for human resource training and skills building; activities for strengtheni= ng the infrastructure of the scientific community; and technical assistance to= the governments of the Americas for the generation of a strategy in this area.<= /p>
"In materials and nanotechnology, opportunit= ies for the advancement of economies and societies for the Americas with the development of an overall program in material research and nanotechnology a= re discussed. The important role played by advanced materials and nanotechnolo= gy in the development of scientific and technological policies and in increasi= ng competitiveness in the global economy is stressed."
Recommended ideas for policy proposals include: increased investment in S&T, engineering, and innovations in the Americ= as; collaborative efforts such as thematic networks and transnational laborator= ies; targeting scientific research to impact the entire region; national, international and regional collaboration; multidisciplinary research; and social impact of technology programs; strengthening national S&T strate= gies and S&T communities; helping to support and upgrade countries that are lagging in S&T; training and education; and developing cyberinfrastruct= ure and narrowing the digital divide internationally and within nations.
(vi) =
Japan, India, China
The government restructuring that started in the late 1990’s, described i= n a 1997 report by Aung [A.10], l= ed to the merger of the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture (Monbu= sho) with the Science and Technology Agency (STA) to form the Ministry of Educat= ion, S&T (MEXT) [A.11]. The interest in increasing industry-university-government cooperation has led to the establishment of a policy level Business-Academia-Go= vernment Summit, which met held for the third time in 2003 [A.12]. The discus= sion at the Summit provides a glimpse into what the policy makers in Japan consi= der as significant recent developments in S&T. These are:
1. =
The
focus on biotechnology and pharmaceuticals.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.&n= bsp; = ; Within the industrial clusters, the organization by companies and other entities into multi-sector collaborative “networks” known as the Cluster Programs, which provide critical financial support for riskier projects.
The
recent government reform [A.11] has led to what the Japanese Society for
Mechanical Engineers characterizes as “turmoil” in Japanese
higher education [A.13]. The academic reform law that took effect in April =
2004
introduces all universities on an open basis for domestic and international
competition. It also privatizes the universities that were previously entir=
ely
funded by the government. While these universities still receive government
funding, each has become autonomous, and all teaching and administrative st=
aff
has lost their status as civil servants. At the same time, the number of
applicants to colleges is decreasing, and there is concern about the lack of
motivation among young people for professional careers. In addition, a syst=
em
of evaluation of all institutions of higher education is being put into pla=
ce.
Japan’s 2005 budget places increased emphasi=
s on
competitive grants. It gives a 2.6% boost for direct research funding,
considerably higher than the 0.1% increase in overall government spending.
Universities, however, must rely more on grants to individual researchers to
pay for operating expenses.
Despite these changes, like = most industrialized nations, Japan’s academic institutions have been attracting an increasingly large numbers of international students. In 2003, there were 109,508 foreign students in Japan [A.14]. China supplied = the largest number of students at 70,814, followed by Korea (15,871), Taiwan (4,235), Malaysia (2,002), and Thailand (1,641). Of the total, 57,911 went = to universities/two-year-colleges/technical colleges, 21,233 to vocational schools, and 1,822 to special institutions for remedial work.
By co= ntrast, there is no such influx in India, but the presence of many top ranked universities and the recent boom in high technology R&D [28] have led to many new international partnerships in engineering education. An example is that announced last year, involving the Viterbi School of Engineering at USC and IIT Kharagour [A.15]. The partnership include four areas of collaboration: joint research, distance learning progr= ams, and student and faculty exchange, initially centering on IIT Kharagpur's Gu= pta School of Management, and involving programs in information technology/communication, biomedical technology and, especially, engineering management. Playing a key role is the Viterbi School’s Distance Educa= tion Network, a leading distance education facilities in engineering education.<= o:p>
A similar R&D =
boom
is taking shape in China, and companies the likes of General Motors Corp., =
Sun
Microsystems and EDS are establishing their R&D beachheads in cities li=
ke
Shanghai. In part to demonstrate their commitment to education and in part =
to
establish long-term relationships with the top universities, some of these
companies donating equipment for education uses. The above named companies,=
for
example, have donated computer-aided design, manufacturing and engineering
(CAD/CAM/CAE) software, hardware and training worth US$222 million to the
Shanghai Jiao Tong University (SJTU) in Shanghai [A.16]. The gifts from a
corporate alliance known as Partners for the Advancement of Collaborative
Engineering Education (PACE), http://www.pacepartners.org/. It was formed in
1999 to help provide future engineers from key institutions with the educat=
ion
and experience desired by each of the partnering corporations. PACE creates
opportunities for research, curriculum development, courseware development =
and
other forms of collaboration between GM, Sun Microsystems, EDS and academia=
.
PACE has made
contributions totaling more than US$1.2 Billion to 17 other universities in=
the
United States, Canada and Mexico.
Shanghai Jiao Tong
University is also one of the venues for a two-part U.S.-China workshop on
engineering education [A.17]. Held in Shanghai and China in October, 2002, =
the
workshop was attended by Edward Parrish, President of Worcester Polytechnic
Institute, and Stephen Director, Dean of Engineering at the University of
Michigan. Globalization issues and interdisciplinary engineering education =
were
among the topics in the agenda.
The hi=
gh
rankings achieved by South Korea in the production of bachelors degrees in =
science
and engineering have been previously noted. Behind this is the focused
attention of the Ministry of Education, to educate and train highly qualifi=
ed
people who will become leaders in the global information economy.
The
Ministry initiated reform in 1999 to address the challenges of the 21s=
t
century [A.18]. The reform is spearheaded through Brain =
Korea
21, a project with a budget of US$1.2 billion over seven years. Among i=
ts
objectives are the fostering of world-class universities, establishing
professional schools in critical areas, and creating a competitive environm=
ent
to achieve academic excellence.
Instead of grating
automatic tenure, universities in Korea are adopting a probationary period
before granting tenure to newly hired faculty, and a merit pay system is no=
w in
place. University programs are being strengthened and a system of instituti=
onal
evaluation is being put into effect. An online university is being establis=
hed. Internationally competitive gradua=
te
programs are being developed. The support of basic sciences is being
strengthened.
APPENDIX
2
In Australia, four universities in and around Melbourne have teamed up with the microelectronics industry to start a Master of Engineering in Microelectron= ic Engineering program, presently cooperatively delivered by Victoria Universi= ty and RMIT University (5). The program includes major industry-based projects undertaken by students with support from industry. Driven by the convergence occurring within the technology industry, the newly formed School of Information Sciences and Engineering at the University of Canberra has integrated three previously disparate courses (degree programs) into a unif= ied and coherent offering (6). The University of South Australia has also direc= ted its attention to industry, by starting an industry-based VLSI Design course (7). This learner-centric course is focused on development of skills for life-long learning and self-motivated learning, so students can adapt to changes in their professional career.
In = Taiwan, Tatung University has a senior capstone project course that is backed by industry (9), and that utilizes knowledge in thermodynamics, CAD/CAE, and integrated design methodology together with machine tool skills.
Inn= ovations in applying everyday digital appliances to teaching and learning are exemplified by the work of Sandnes et al. (10) in Norway. In dealing with t= he sometimes large numbers of e-mail inquiries from students in large classes = when a new project or assignment is published, these teachers have adopted the F= AQ (frequently asked questions) robot, which employs modern document classification technology borrowed from web mining to automatically classify and respond pseudo-automatically to student questions. Yong (11) at the University of Singapore has implemented a new e-Learning portal, called e-Learning Hub, which integrates “doing” into every step of the learning process. By combining various learning styles, e-Learning Hub pres= ents a learner-centered environment that makes learning more effective, efficien= t, meaningful, and joyful in a large class.
A c= ourse in Mechatronics Engineering has been used by faculty at Queen’s Universi= ty and the University of Victoria in Canada to solve what they call the Challe= nge Line Problem (14). Addressing pedagogical issues in working with two extrem= es in engineering, viz., involving students with highly constrained problems in which there is a clearly defined solution, and with open-ended problems that have multiple potential solutions or maybe no viable solution, the course m= oves in stages from the highly constrained extreme to the open-ended extreme, providing both a broad and stimulating learning experience for the students= .
At = the University of Botswana, Uziak, Gizejowski, and Foster (15) have employed the spreadsheet as a tool for use in a second year course on Strength of Materi= als.
Rec= ently, Lab-on-Web, the Internet enabled laboratory developed by the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, has adapted to Web Services standards= by means of Microsoft’s .NET framework, allowing for a stro= ng integration between backbone programs, web applications, and services such = as modern learning management systems (20).
In =
France,
Billaud, Geoffroy, and Zimmer (22) have developed the eLab platform for
electrical engineering education. This e-learning portal permits a wide ran=
ge
of experiments in electronics to be run via the Internet. In Greece, a virt=
ual
and remote laboratory platform in the field of robotics has been developed =
by
Tzafestas, Alifragis and Palaiologou (23). The system aims at enabling dist=
ance
training of students in realistic scenarios of robot manipulator programmin=
g.
The user interface is based on Java technologies and integrates concepts and
techniques from telerobotics and virtual reality. The work of Leu, Chao, =
Wen
and Wu (24) of Taiwan concerns a Multi-User
Micro Avionics System Laboratory, a general-purpose micromachining <=
span
style=3D'mso-fareast-language:ZH-TW;mso-bidi-font-style:italic'>facility designed to provide foundry service for
educational purposes.
Reg= arding teaching effectiveness and student learning, Low (25) of Singapore proposes= a new Action Assessment method, in which students will be “continuously assessed” over the span of the engineering program using specific elements for assessment. In the United Kingdom,= in computer science, a recent study undertaken by Benest, Carter and Chandler = (26) to identify learning preferences and personality biases of students show th= at computer scientists have different personality traits than both engineers a= nd scientists.
From Pakistan, Iqbal, Hashmi, and Nadeem (28) present the use of discovery-based learning strategies in a computer science course. In this, the teacher does= not deliver a formal lecture, but asks questions to help students find connecti= ons in their current knowledge. The process of acquiring knowledge becomes an exercise in formulating questions in order to solve a problem, and students find and establish relationships among facts on their own, increasing their level of understanding with no or little direct help from the teacher.
Con= cerning engineering design, at National Central University in Taiwan, a methodology= for capturing and tracing the development of novice engineering students engage= d in a yearlong creative design and implementation project has been developed (3= 0). The Setback Episode Based Analysis methodology reveals the complicated situations encountered as students faced roadblocks in the innovation proce= ss starting from creative product idea generation to its design and implementation.
As engineering programs worldwide increasingly focus on students’ abilit= y to function effectively on project teams and to communicate effectively, facul= ty are addressing the challenge of finding cost-effective ways of enabling students to acquire skills needed for collaborative work. Kvadsheim (33) of= the Oslo University College has developed a simple set of low-cost tools and procedures that may be employed by student project teams and their tutors in developing collaboration skills.
To = increase student exposure to different cultures, faculty at Michigan State University (MSU) have joined forces with faculty at the Volgograd State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering in Russia to develop a study-abroad engi= neering education program (36). Recently, the curriculum has been expanded through collaboration with faculty experts on Russian culture and language, and is = now available to students on the entire campus as well as students in regional institutions.
Sco= tt (38) of United Arab Emirates highlights a unique experience in intercultural adaptation of an engineering design program from the Colorado School of Min= es to the Petroleum Institute at Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates. Clara = Amelia de Oliveira (39) of the nation of Colombia deals with the thematic-based theoretical formulation that unifies terminology from complex modeling in informatics systems and from the philosophic domain. She applies these conc= epts to complex projects in engineering education and shows examples of applicat= ion from the international community, as an illustration of efforts in migratin= g to an integrative educational paradigm that can lead to a universal internatio= nal curriculum.
Chi= kuni, Peyton, and Weilbacher (40) describe a joint effort between institutions in Namibia, Zinbabwe and the U.S. to implement a Summer Institute for faculty development and continuous improvement held each summer during the past thr= ee years. The initiative brought together instructors and administrators from = the U.S. and Namibia. Participant-driven and project-based, the Institute encourages innovative approaches to problem-solving, and is assessment- and community-centered= . Its international scope renders it unique.
APPENDIX 3
Cover= ing topics ranging from curriculum changes to new, more effective approaches for teaching and learning, the thirty-nine chapters in this book showcase recent and ongoing developments in sixteen countries in engineering education.
These articles show that educators in many of these countries have similar intere= sts and share a common vision, namely, to produce highly qualified engineers in= the numbers needed for economic development in the respective countries. In pur= suit of this, educators are increasingly focusing on learning-based, student-centered pedagogical approaches. There is a widening recognition concerning the need to improve the quality and students’ experience in engineering education. New developments are being reported that deal with collaborative team-based as well as self-directed learning. As shown in the= se chapters, attention to outcomes assessment is now common in the world’= ;s leading institutions.
This = volume starts with a thought-provoking commentary by Bordogna (Chapter 1), a recognized and respected leader of engineering education in the U.S. Writing from the U.S. perspective, he emphasizes his belief that the pursuit of educating engineers is decisive to the future of the nation. Stating that science and engineering is inherently international, he also believes in the need to recruit into engineering more of the native talents. To make this happen, he says, we must render engineering careers more appealing to our y= oung people. This challenge will necessitate a new model of engineering education that is more suitable for a world continually transformed by new knowledge = and new technology, and educators must understand how to produce the “rig= ht engineer,” one who is an innovator, master integrator, holistic desig= ner, change agent, and more.
Writi= ng in a similar vein but in the context of Colombia, Caro (2) outlines the challenges and opportunities faced by the civil engineering profession in t= hat nation. She presents the current situation and discusses the needs and conc= rete actions needed to produce a modern civil engineering program in Colombia. <= /p>
Focus= ing on a new interactive knowledge model, Bourgeois and Badillo (3) of France examine the implications of information technology in knowledge transmissio= n, and conclude that the role of the instructor – the “pedagogue” – is crucial. In Israel, Waks and Moti (4)= explore aspects related to student creativity and conclude that both originality and innovation require sufficient disciplinary knowledge to work with.
Sever= al chapters in the book discuss new education programs and activities at speci= fic institutions, and reflect the manner in which these institutions have respo= nded to emerging opportunities. In Taiwan, there is the recognition that, to maintain the island’s international competitiveness, there must be cultivated high quality graduates in sufficient numbers. To this end, a new program in communications engineering education has been initiated (6,7) in= which new degree programs and new teaching laboratories are being developed that involve industrial, multi-institutional and international collaboration. Similarly, in Australia, a new Master’s degree program in microelectronics engineering has been developed collaboratively by four universities in the inner Melbourne area in Victoria (8).
From = the University of Auckland in New Zealand comes a report on development = of a multimedia-based learning system that delivers immersive projects via a vir= tual company environment (11). Based on a successful pilot delivery, <= /b>the University of Western Sydney in Australia recently implemented the online delivery of a course on design management. As described by Bohemia (12), the course is intended to develop students’ distance communication and virtual teamwork skills which are essential in today’s contemporary workplaces.
It is= clear from several chapters that educators around the world are increasingly faced with the challenges of teaching large classes. Often, this is the result of combining two or more classes into one, creating an atmosphere not conducive toward active participation by students. A solution adopted in Norway is to have students use mobile telephones to communicate with the instructor by dialing into a server and keying in their comments or questions, which are = then shown on strategically located projection screens and addressed by the instructor (13). In Singapore, the focus is on motivating student attendance at large classes, and instructors have implemented special techniques such as presenting well-balanced course materials tailored to learners’ performance that is monitored during and after a class by an adaptive feedback (14). The problem of scheduling hands-on laboratory experiments for large classes is eased by using online access to remote, physical laboratory equipment, as is done in Norway (16).
Often, education innovations are aimed at encouraging interactive learning, creati= ve problem-solving and hands-on manipulation. In Europe, nine educational inst= itutions in eight countries have collaborated to develop eMerge, an advance educatio= nal network infrastructure that permits dissemination of online laboratory experiments, which may be accessed by students (17). An interactive multime= dia course has been implemented to provide students at the Universidad Politécnica de Valencia in Spain with a self-learning tool that can = be used to get acquainted with equipment in a communications laboratory (20). Another study from the same university concerns the integration of theory a= nd laboratory classes, and the results of evaluation by students, in a course = on circuit and electronic system design (21).=
A gro= up at the University of Hannover, Germany, has developed a modular educational robotic toolbox that incorporates ease of experimentation with any kind of robot platform (22). At the Technical University of Catalonia in Spain, the cooperative learning method has been applied in a digital electronics course that involves the learning of theory, problem solution, project design, portfolio preparation and several examinations to assess the progress of the students (23).
The f= ocus on ABET Engineering Criteria 2000 has had worldwide ramification, leadi= ng to widening focus on learning-centered pedagogy and acceptance of learning assessment as an integral part of new pedagogical development, as illustrat= ed by recent work by Saliceti-Piazza et al. in Puerto Rico (25), Aziz in Australia (26), Gillet in Switzerland (28), and Böhne et al. in Germany (29).
Convi= nced that laboratory classes can be used to develop student learning of scientif= ic concept as well as organizational skills, educators in Spain (30) have identified eight characteristics or features that can be applied in class. A similar emphasis on applying learning strategies is featured in the work by Duque et al. (31) at the Universidad de los Andes in Colombia, in which strategies such as problem-based learning, teaching-for-understanding, virt= ual peer evaluation using the Internet, and hands-on laboratory classes have be= en employed in automatic control courses.
In Ca= nada, a group at the Research Center LICEF, TÉLUQ, Quebec, has developed a system for use in computer science education and research that simplifies t= he tasks of verification and execution of Grafcet, the French/European standard graphical tool (34). In addressing the difficulties associated with adopting technical language and terminology in non-English speaking countries, Jian = of Taiwan and and Sandnes of Norway (35) point out that students are a valuable and appropriate resource for discovering suitable terminology.
In a =
chapter
dealing with dynamic programming, Iqbal and Alvi of Pakistan (36) provide a
method that enables students to build graphical templates which help clarify
underlying concepts.
An ar=
ticle
from the University of Puerto Rico at Humacao discusses the roles of
undergraduate research and international cooperation in promoting the
participation of women in research and education (38). At Oslo
University College in Norway, the issue of student diversity is being addre=
ssed
because of a relatively large number of WIB students – students With
Immigrant Background (39).
To co= nclude this volume, Gruter et al. (40) address = the high failure rates and lack of student motivation and capabilities in apply= ing mathematics to real world problems. Working from Germany’s Hochschule Bremen, University of Allied Sciences, they present teleVISE, a Web-based tutoring system for mathematical modeling and reasoning.
APPENDIX 4
This volume contains thirty-two articles selected from eighty-two
submissions following peer review. The subjects covered by the thirty-three
chapters range from innovative disciplinary developments in multimedia le=
arning
and instruction, web-based learning, nanotechnology, mechatronics, and link=
ages
between K-12 and
engineering, and between art and engineering. Most papers dealing with
education innovations include results of evaluation of their effectiveness,=
and
most of these papers contain detailed descriptions of the approaches used, =
thus
enabling further development by others in the field. The trend toward apply=
ing
learning theories in engineering education is evident.
In the lead chapter, Altenkirch (Chapter 1) and eleven other
prominent members of the international engineering education and research
community join together to make the case for a major commitment by all
stakeholders in international cooperation. They assert that the next major
advancement in engineering education will come through international
cooperation. Next follows a guest commentary by Ilic (2) of Australia in wh=
ich
he refers to the adverse changes to the environment that are traceable to
society’s technological progress. He feels that engineers have a
responsibility to mitigate and minimise, if not completely eliminate, the
undesirable changes. From Canada, Rosen (4) outlines the challenges and opportun=
ities
facing engineering education in that country, and presents possible solutio=
ns
that emphasize several new focus areas including nanotechnology and alterna=
tive
energy systems. From the U.K., Benest, Booth and Pack (6) describe the desi=
gn
of a platform-independent delivery mechanism for on-line presentations th=
at may
be used live in lectures or during private study, but argue the case for
incorporating familiar techniques for teaching and learning.
As academic institutions in developing countries plan their indigen=
ous
accreditation sy=
stem,
they face several options. Writing from their experience as faculty and
administrators of The University of the West Indies, Imbert and Kochhar (7)
outline the four options available to them, indicating their preference for=
the
ABET ap=
proach.
In Switzerland, Gillet (11) uses web-based experimentation resource=
s to
provide flexible learning in selected pilot courses in engineering whereas,=
in
Greece, Antonidakis, Petrakis, Kaliakatsos, and Athanasaki-Michailidou (12)
have adopted an open distance learning ap=
proach
for students to conduct laboratory experiments in teams of two where one
student is physically located in the laboratory and the other is remote.
In a contribution from Colombia, for automatic control courses, Jor=
dan,
Martinez, Martinez, Olarte and Tamura’s chapter (18) indicates that m=
uch
progress has been made there in devising team-based, multidisciplinary
design-oriented projects involving remote control of laboratory experiments=
. Among the benefits cited by students are fairn=
ess,
and the saving of time and costs. In Hungary, a country where multinational
corporations have begun to establish research and development centers, the =
work
of Tuschak, Vajk, Bars, Hetthessy, Barta and Charaf (19) show that there is
strong interest in web-based instruction in control engineering.
Other chapters that deal with technology-based teaching and learning
include that by Rodrigo and Ferrando (20) of the Polytechnic University of
Valencia in Spain. Their chapter focuses on applying the time domain multip=
lex
technique for remotely controlled virtual laboratories. This is followed by the chapter jointly author=
ed by
Brunet and de Lafontaine from Canada and
Schilling from Germany (21) that focuses on collaborative efforts between t=
he
European Union an=
d Canada. These authors describe the design and implemen=
tation
of a virtual laboratory that allows for remotely controlled experiments in
aerospace engineering and
mechatronics. Academics from partner institutions can access the laboratory=
via
the Internet.
In Taiwan, Wu, Lin and Tsai (22) are concerned with distance learni=
ng and
circuit diagnostics in digital circuit laboratory courses. At the Catholic
University of Rio de Janeiro in Brazil, Fuks, Gerosa and Lucena (23) descri=
be
the AulaNet collaborative model in which all services are organized into the
topics of communication, coordination and cooperation. Using this learning
environment, they have developed a new course that seeks to get students to
learn to work in groups with information technology.
The article co-authored by I. Verner of Technion - Israel Institute=
of
Technology and D. Ahlgren of Trinity College in the U.S. (24) describes an
international contest for firefighting robots. These authors present the
results of a study on learning through contest-related activities, and disc=
uss
the value of this type of project for achieving outcomes.
From Australia, where there is keen interest in contextual learning=
and
a strong engagement in international cooperation, Ford and Barber=
(27)
have started to implement a Labweek for first year mechan=
ical
engineering students, in which ha=
nds-on
laboratory experience was substituted for normal classes. Using a somewhat
similar but more structured approach, their fellow countryman Snyder (28)
employs problem-based learning to=
develop
a course offered during the third year of a mechatronics degree program, a
course that consolidates a number of mechanical and electrical engine=
ering co=
ncepts.
Several chapters deal with new courses that involve students in
collaboration and
teamwork. Nortcliffe, Featherstone, Garrick and
Swift (30) of the Sheffield Hallam University in the United King=
dom
show that mutual assessment and instruction, which learning theorists
call “supplemental instruction”, can in principle provide a more
relaxed framework for the students’ learning experience, but in pract=
ice
is limited by students’ lack of teaching experience and by friction a=
nd
apprehension that could arise in the mutual assessment phase.
Daku
and Dief=
es-Dux
(31) of the University of Sasketchewan in Canada have implemented an on-line
self-learning tool used in teaching the basic concepts of MATLAB. The system incorporates
challenging and significant exercise problems, evaluates student solutions
thereto, and provides a measure of student performance. Especially notewort=
hy
here is the approach adopted for assessing student progress and performance=
for
on-line, self-learning programs.
APPENDIX
5
|
First university degrees in
science and engineering and ratio of first university degrees and =
|
||||||||
|
S&E degrees to 24-year=
-old
population in selected locations, by region: |
||||||||
|
2000 or most recent year |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
(Adapted from SEID2004, Ap=
pendix
Table 02-33 [1]) |
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All first |
|
|
|
|
Social/ |
|
|
|
|
university |
|
Natural |
computer |
Agricultural |
behavioral |
|
|
|
Re=
gion/location |
degrees |
All S&E |
sciencesa |
sciences |
sciences |
sciencesb |
Engineering |
24-year-olds |
|
|
Number |
|||||||
|
Al=
l regionsd |
7,438,071 |
2,838,044 |
699,110 |
177,387 |
106,601 |
847,920 |
1,007,026 |
74,233,401 |
|
Asiad |
2,528,607 |
1,176,103 |
275,969 |
23,810 |
42,316 |
356,203 |
477,805 |
46,635,694 |
|
Cambodiae |
2,905 |
525 |
106 |
125 |
68 |
148 |
78 |
157,000 |
|
China (2001) |
567,839 |
337,352 |
63,517 |
NA |
19,005 |
35,267 |
219,563 |
19,639,000 |
|
Hong Kong (1995) |
11,362 |
5,425 |
2,370 |
NA |
NA |
1,233 |
1,822 |
104,000 |
|
India (1990) |
750,000 |
176,036 |
147,036 |
NA |
NA |
NA |
29,000 |
17,700,800 |
|
Indonesia (1997) |
144,314 |
97,095 |
10,711 |
NA |
NA |
65,740 |
20,644 |
4,125,800 |
|
Japan (2001) |
542,314 |
359,019 |
14,192 |
4,965 |
14,084 |
221,300 |
104,478 |
1,719,400 |
|
Kazakstan (1995) |
45,536 |
13,252 |
6,779 |
NA |
NA |
952 |
5,521 |
290,600 |
|
Laos |
1,762 |
389 |
63 |
30 |
100 |
23 |
173 |
94,000 |
|
Malaysia (1990) |
10,511 |
4,760 |
1,685 |
NA |
NA |
2,198 |
877 |
406,800 |
|
Singapore (1995) |
5,599 |
5,599 |
2,103 |
NA |
NA |
1,820 |
1,676 |
49,600 |
|
South Korea |
209,747 |
96,859 |
13,427 |
9,299 |
5,859 |
11,766 |
56,508 |
783,600 |
|
Taiwan (2001) |
117,430 |
48,624 |
3,684 |
9,391 |
3,200 |
5,762 |
26,587 |
385,894 |
|
Thailand (1995) |
119,288 |
31,168 |
10,296 |
NA |
NA |
9,994 |
10,878 |
1,179,200 |
|
Middle Eastd |
422,908 |
143,092 |
35,889 |
11,987 |
10,435 |
43,496 |
41,285 |
3,874,135 |
|
Egyptf (1995) |
85,608 |
13,578 |
6,710 |
NA |
NA |
1,437 |
5,431 |
1,258,800 |
|
Iran |
69,211 |
33,625 |
6,016 |
3,301 |
4,785 |
9,542 |
9,981 |
1,371,000 |
|
Israel |
30,267 |
14,259 |
945 |
2,054 |
171 |
8,327 |
2,762 |
102,200 |
|
Jordan (1996) |
12,633 |
3,539 |
1,753 |
NA |
NA |
986 |
800 |
101,800 |
|
Lebanon |
11,990 |
3,030 |
674 |
418 |
28 |
1,433 |
477 |
63,200 |
|
Morocco (short) |
24,680 |
7,972 |
3,020 |
960 |
NA |
3,771 |
221 |
590,400 |
|
Morocco (long) |
3,598 |
1,228 |
7 |
151 |
427 |
38 |
605 |
NA |
|
Oman |
2,344 |
217 |
51 |
7 |
45 |
0 |
114 |
51,400 |
|
Palestine |
8,807 |
2,615 |
513 |
758 |
66 |
746 |
532 |
55,000 |
|
Qatar |
1,320 |
353 |
138 |
62 |
0 |
85 |
68 |
6,600 |
|
Saudi Arabia (1996) |
26,641 |
5,879 |
4,201 |
NA |
NA |
828 |
850 |
389,800 |
|
Syria (1995) |
16,600 |
4,530 |
1,398 |
NA |
NA |
NA |
3,132 |
342,600 |
|
Tunisia (1996) |
10,327 |
3,198 |
1,719 |
NA |
NA |
760 |
719 |
191,200 |
|
Turkey (short) |
118,882 |
49,069 |
8,744 |
4,276 |
4,913 |
15,543 |
15,593 |
1,318,000 |
|
Sub-Saharan Africad |
96,296 |
25,335 |
5,855 |
469 |
3,696 |
10,262 |
5,053 |
1,931,824 |
|
Eritrea |
790 |
360 |
70 |
46 |
74 |
11 |
159 |
67,000 |
|
Ethiopiaf |
17,579 |
3,664 |
264 |
233 |
1,404 |
536 |
1,227 |
1,152,400 |
|
Ghana |
7,122 |
2,951 |
916 |
0 |
362 |
1,177 |
496 |
376,800 |
|
Kenyaf |
15,620 |
3,870 |
1,120 |
71 |
1,494 |
445 |
740 |
627,000 |
|
Lesotho |
425 |
177 |
54 |
0 |
16 |
107 |
0 |
36,600 |
|
Madagascarf=
|
3,084 |
1,091 |
270 |
22 |
0 |
599 |
200 |
281,400 |
|
South Africa (1996) |
32,957 |
10,920 |
2,937 |
NA |
NA |
6,494 |
1,489 |
861,000 |
|
Tanzania |
4,208 |
1,071 |
NA |
87 |
299 |
88 |
597 |
650,800 |
|
Uganda |
15,301 |
1,591 |
294 |
56 |
121 |
816 |
304 |
426,200 |
|
Europed |
2,348,771 |
836,456 |
230,506 |
70,003 |
24,568 |
173,240 |
338,139 |
9,844,745 |
|
European Union |
1,330,025 |
477,973 |
112,797 |
60,763 |
16,738 |
107,746 |
179,929 |
4,903,035 |
|
Austria (short) |
1,662 |
744 |
0 |
46 |
0 |
0 |
698 |
92,400 |
|
Austria (long) |
13,470 |
4,434 |
752 |
476 |
236 |
1,057 |
1,913 |
NA |
|
Belgium (long) |
22,526 |
8,211 |
1,451 |
519 |
498 |
2,396 |
3,347 |
125,200 |
|
Denmark (1998) |
11,951 |
4,962 |
1,882 |
209 |
171 |
1,925 |
775 |
65,000 |
|
Finland (short) |
13,441 |
4,662 |
37 |
356 |
391 |
198 |
3,680 |
65,600 |
|
Finland (long) |
11,828 |
5,521 |
958 |
490 |
141 |
1,319 |
2,613 |
NA |
|
France (short) |
226,314 |
91,030 |
33,511 |
13,910 |
95 |
31,057 |
12,457 |
762,200 |
|
France (long) |
49,002 |
25,130 |
0 |
1,132 |
2,162 |
0 |
21,836 |
NA |
|
Germany (short) (2001)=
|
56,681 |
25,868 |
487 |
1,165 |
960 |
60 |
23,196 |
892,800 |
|
Germany (long) (2001)<=
span
style=3D'font-size:8.0pt;font-family:Arial;mso-fareast-font-family:"Arial=
Unicode MS"'> |
121,937 |
39,295 |
11,029 |
6,139 |
1,180 |
7,824 |
13,123 |
NA |
|
Greece (long) |
18,556 |
4,576 |
2,570 |
NA |
NA |
221 |
1,785 |
155,000 |
|
Iceland (short) |
1,318 |
354 |
72 |
58 |
9 |
122 |
93 |
4,200 |
|
Ireland |
18,669 |
6,636 |
2,231 |
1,405 |
196 |
790 |
2,014 |
69,000 |
|
Italy (short) |
11,568 |
3,729 |
147 |
740 |
102 |
59 |
2,681 |
726,600 |
|
Italy (long) |
139,109 |
53,534 |
8,738 |
4,087 |
1,243 |
14,462 |
25,004 |
NA |
|
Netherlands (short) |
66,932 |
17,586 |
2,185 |
1,278 |
1,336 |
5,461 |
7,326 |
187,000 |
|
Netherlands (long) |
2,877 |
607 |
52 |
57 |
75 |
0 |
423 |
NA |
|
Portugal (short) |
2,587 |
425 |
70 |
NA |
NA |
32 |
323 |
160,200 |
|
Portugal (long) |
23,482 |
7,823 |
1,895 |
NA |
NA |
3,685 |
2,243 |
NA |
|
Spain (short) |
87,464 |
23,302 |
0 |
4,606 |
3,236 |
0 |
15,460 |
637,200 |
|
Spain (long) |
120,114 |
42,511 |
10,908 |
4,404 |
1,503 |
13,975 |
11,721 |
NA |
|
Sweden (short) |
32,573 |
11,475 |
1,256 |
1,263 |
178 |
1,892 |
6,886 |
102,200 |
|
Sweden (long) |
1,524 |
379 |
0 |
0 |
53 |
278 |
48 |
NA |
|
United Kingdomg (2=
001) |
274,440 |
95,179 |
32,566 |
18,423 |
2,973 |
20,933 |
20,284 |
696,600 |
|
European Free Trade Associati=
on |
41,449 |
11,005 |
1,286 |
1,110 |
379 |
3,240 |
4,990 |
141,264 |
|
Norway (short) |
17,959 |
3,166 |
32 |
609 |
52 |
1,764 |
709 |
54,400 |
|
Norway (long) |
4,462 |
1,694 |
114 |
164 |
154 |
280 |
982 |
NA |
|
Switzerland (short) |
7,648 |
2,488 |
6 |
15 |
84 |
123 |
2,260 |
76,600 |
|
Switzerland (long) |
11,380 |
3,657 |
1,134 |
322 |
89 |
1,073 |
1,039 |
NA |
|
Central/Eastern Europe=
|
977,297 |
347,478 |
116,423 |
8,130 |
7,451 |
62,254 |
153,220 |
4,800,446 |
|
Albania (long) |
4,350 |
436 |
37 |
42 |
50 |
129 |
178 |
107,600 |
|
Armenia (long) |
10,206 |
1,343 |
NA |
NA |
335 |
NA |
1,008 |
51,600 |
|
Bulgaria |
20,166 |
4,798 |
43 |
409 |
205 |
3,906 |
235 |
122,400 |
|
Croatia |
8,847 |
3,003 |
465 |
486 |
309 |
216 |
1,527 |
64,000 |
|
Czech Republic (short)=
|
10,010 |
3,484 |
258 |
489 |
129 |
1,828 |
780 |
174,400 |
|
Czech Republic (long)<=
span
style=3D'font-size:8.0pt;font-family:Arial;mso-fareast-font-family:"Arial=
Unicode MS"'> |
15,534 |
7,550 |
821 |
1,660 |
939 |
602 |
3,528 |
NA |
|
Estonia |
2,272 |
289 |
37 |
21 |
9 |
87 |
135 |
20,000 |
|
Georgia |
19,797 |
4,824 |
995 |
170 |
446 |
110 |
3,103 |
79,600 |
|
Hungary (short) |
30,320 |
4,320 |
0 |
181 |
1,024 |
0 |
3,115 |
165,200 |
|
Hungary (long) |
16,658 |
17,364 |
516 |
369 |
635 |
2,023 |
13,821 |
NA |
|
Latvia (short) |
9,051 |
2,374 |
235 |
347 |
46 |
1,142 |
604 |
32,600 |
|
Latvia (long) |
9,114 |
1,695 |
183 |
217 |
48 |
833 |
414 |
NA |
|
Lithuania |
11,617 |
3,983 |
313 |
490 |
177 |
530 |
2,473 |
51,800 |
|
Macedoniaf<=
span
style=3D'font-size:8.0pt;font-family:Arial;mso-fareast-font-family:"Arial=
Unicode MS"'> |
3,180 |
943 |
147 |
182 |
94 |
68 |
452 |
37,800 |
|
Poland (1996) |
147,536 |
43,304 |
7,544 |
NA |
NA |
14,142 |
21,618 |
599,490 |
|
Romania (short) |
39,013 |
11,899 |
1,249 |
1,014 |
975 |
2,029 |
6,632 |
390,400 |
|
Romania (long) |
27,631 |
8,479 |
880 |
740 |
686 |
1,464 |
4,709 |
NA |
|
Russia (long) (1999) |
554,814 |
216,017 |
101,320 |
NA |
NA |
32,288 |
82,409 |
2,170,000 |
|
Serbia-Montenegrof |
12,545 |
4,477 |
601 |
378 |
579 |
323 |
2,596 |
159,600 |
|
Slovak Republic (short) |
5,226 |
851 |
29 |
242 |
29 |
76 |
475 |
82,430 |
|
Slovak Republic (long)=
|
14,903 |
4,630 |
367 |
693 |
736 |
232 |
2,602 |
NA |
|
Slovenia |
4,507 |
1,415 |
383 |
NA |
NA |
226 |
806 |
29,000 |
|
Americad |
1,907,776 |
622,870 |
140,020 |
64,961 |
24,274 |
259,393 |
134,222 |
11,628,603 |
|
North America |
1,531,958 |
500,391 |
97,532 |
64,569 |
23,268 |
219,134 |
95,888 |
6,491,403 |
|
Canada |
116,160 |
53,307 |
10,353 |
5,424 |
1,236 |
26,660 |
9,634 |
397,200 |
|
Costa Rica |
4,393 |
1,074 |
104 |
214 |
167 |
264 |
325 |
70,600 |
|
Cuba |
16,769 |
3,374 |
1,009 |
219 |
384 |
408 |
1,354 |
201,800 |
|
Mexico |
135,233 |
42,049 |
1,701 |
9,589 |
3,237 |
3,338 |
24,184 |
2,038,406 |
|
Nicaragua (1997) |
6,282 |
1,965 |
834 |
NA |
NA |
276 |
855 |
80,397 |
|
United States |
1,253,121 |
398,622 |
83,531 |
49,123 |
18,244 |
188,188 |
59,536 |
3,703,000 |
|
South America |
375,818 |
122,479 |
42,488 |
392 |
1,006 |
40,259 |
38,334 |
5,137,200 |
|
Argentina (1996) |
37,878 |
16,106 |
5,369 |
NA |
NA |
7,325 |
3,412 |
672,200 |
|
Bolivia |
15,341 |
5,115 |
563 |
392 |
1,006 |
997 |
2,157 |
148,000 |
|
Brazil (1996) |
245,401 |
78,049 |
32,556 |
NA |
NA |
27,421 |
18,072 |
3,300,000 |
|
Chile (1996) |
23,010 |
10,531 |
2,358 |
NA |
NA |
4,516 |
3,657 |
239,400 |
|
Colombia (1996) |
54,188 |
12,678 |
1,642 |
NA |
NA |
NA |
11,036 |
777,600 |
|
Oceaniad |
133,713 |
34,188 |
10,871 |
6,157 |
1,312 |
5,326 |
10,522 |
318,400 |
|
Australia (short) |
106,985 |
28,737 |
8,454 |
5,433 |
1,069 |
4,737 |
9,044 |
269,200 |
|
Australia (long) |
5,760 |
1,122 |
69 |
332 |
47 |
181 |
493 |
NA |
|
New Zealand (short) |
17,177 |
3,529 |
2,292 |
358 |
156 |
408 |
315 |
49,200 |
|
New Zealand (long) |
3,791 |
800 |
56 |
34 |
40 |
0 |
670 |
NA |
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
A.1 &n= bsp; Council of Europe, “The Europe of Cultural Cooperation – The Bologna Process”. Available: <= o:p>
A.2 W. Aung, “International Partnership Workshop on Engineering Education, September 16-19, 2004, Sarat= ov, Russia,” Trip Report. &nbs= p;
A.3 Saratov Communique in En=
glish,
signed on September 18, 2004 in Saratov, Russia. Available : http://www.ineer.org/ISCMeet/Welcome.htm#SARATOV<=
/span>
A.4 =
Duke
University Press Release, “Pratt Dean Kristina Johnson Named to Board=
of
Science Foundation Ireland”, August 5, 2003. Available from the web:<=
u>
&= nbsp; http://www.pratt.duke.ed= u/news/releases/index.php?story=3D111
A.5 STI Outlook 2002– Country Respons= e to Policy Questionnaire – Ireland. Available from the web: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/60/4/2762647.pdf
A.6 &n= bsp; The Irish Scientist, 2003 Year Book, “Science Foundation Ireland – Progress in 2003”. Available from the web:
&= nbsp; http://www.irishscientis= t.ie/2003/contents.asp?contentxml=3D03p14.xml&contentxsl=3Dis03pages.xs= l
A.7 &n= bsp; CDIO - Conceive, Design, Implement, Operate. Available on the web: http://www.cdio.org/index.html
A.8 Karl-Freder=
ik
Berggren, Doris Brodeur, Edward F. Crawley, Ingemar Ingemarsson, William T.=
G.
Litant, Johan Malmqvist & Sören Östlund, “CDIO: An International Initiative for
Reforming Engineering Education,” World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, 2003 UIC=
EE, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2003. Available: htt=
p://www.cdio.org/papers/cdio_international.pdf
A.9 Office of Education, Science and Technology, Department of
Integral Development Organization of American States, “Science, Technology, Engin=
eering
and Innovation for Development: A Visi=
on for
the Americas in the Twenty First Century,” Washington, D.C. October 18, 2004. <=
/span>Available:
=
http://www.science.oas.org/Ministerial/ingles/documentos/Document_00=
1.pdf
http://www.ineer.org/Special/JSPSReport97.htm
A.11 Kazuhiro Hayashi (trans=
lated
by Kazuko Shinohara), “A New
System for Promoting Science and Technology in Japan,” Report Memorandum #01-15, =
National
Science Foundation, Tokyo Regional Office, Tokyo, Japan, December 4, 2001. http://www.nsftokyo.org/rm01-15.html
A.12 Christopher A. Loretz, “Third Business-Academia-Government Summit,” Report Memorandum #04-01, National Science Foundation, Tokyo Regional Office. Toky= o, Japan, November 17, 2003. = http://www.nsftokyo.org/rm04-01.html
A.13 Akira Nagashima, “Perspective
in Engineering Education and the Role of JSME,” JSME News,<=
span
style=3D'font-size:10.5pt;font-family:CenturyOldStyle-Bold;color:white'> Vol. 15, No. 1, May 2004. <=
/span>http://www.jsme.or.jp/Eng=
lish/news07.pdf
A.14&nbs= p; Kazuko Shinohara, “More than 100,000 Foreign Students in Japan,” Report Memorandum #03-11, National Science Foundation, Tokyo Office. http://www.nsftokyo.org/rm= 03-11.html
A.15 USC
Announcement, “USC and IIT Join Forces on Opposite Sides of the
World,” April 4, 2004. http://=
viterbi.usc.edu/news/news/2004/2004_04_01_india.htm
A.16&nb=
sp; GM
Press Release, “PACE Program Globalizes with First Asia-Pacific
Deployment,” June 14, 2002. http:/=
/www.pacepartners.org/press_releases/14-jun-2002.html
A.17&nb=
sp; George
Mason University, “U.S.-China Cooperation Program in Science
Policy, Research, and Education.”
http://techcenter.gmu.edu/programs/science_trade_policy/us_china.htm=
l
A.19
A.20
A.21
= &= nbsp;
|
Ranking
of First University Degrees Awarded by Various Criteria |
|
|
|
||||
|
D=
ata from
Appendix 5 [1] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All first |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
university |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re=
gion/location |
degrees |
All S&E |
24-year-old |
Engineering |
&=
nbsp; |
|
|
|
|
A |
B |
C |
D |
D/A |
D/B |
D/C |
|
Ca=
mbodiae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Un=
ited
States |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In=
dia
(1990) |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ch=
ina
(2001) |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ru=
ssia
(long) (1999) |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ja=
pan
(2001) |
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Un=
ited
Kingdomg (2001) |
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Br=
azil
(1996) |
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fr=
ance
(short) |
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So=
uth
Korea |
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Po=
land
(1996) |
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In=
donesia
(1997) |
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It=
aly
(long) |
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Me=
xico |
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ge=
rmany
(long) (2001) |
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sp=
ain
(long) |
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Th=
ailand
(1995) |
16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tu=
rkey
(short) |
17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ta=
iwan
(2001) |
18 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ca=
nada |
19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Au=
stralia
(short) |
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sp=
ain
(short) |
21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eg=
yptf
(1995) |
22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ir=
an |
23 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ne=
therlands
(short) |
24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ge=
rmany
(short) (2001) |
25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Co=
lombia
(1996) |
26 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fr=
ance
(long) |
27 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ka=
zakstan
(1995) |
28 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ro=
mania
(short) |
29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ar=
gentina
(1996) |
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So=
uth
Africa (1996) |
31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sw=
eden
(short) |
32 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hu=
ngary
(short) |
33 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is=
rael |
34 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ro=
mania
(long) |
35 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sa=
udi
Arabia (1996) |
36 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mo=
rocco
(short) |
37 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Po=
rtugal
(long) |
38 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ch=
ile
(1996) |
39 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Be=
lgium
(long) |
40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bu=
lgaria |
41 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ge=
orgia |
42 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ir=
eland |
43 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gr=
eece
(long) |
44 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No=
rway
(short) |
45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Et=
hiopiaf |
46 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New
Zealand (short) |
47 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cu=
ba |
48 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hu=
ngary
(long) |
49 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sy=
ria
(1995) |
50 |
|
|
|
|
|
|