INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND
ITS IMPACT ON NSF/EEC

A White Paper

By

Win Aung,
NSF/EEC

January 5,
2005

Updated:
February 24, 2005

A.        BACKGROUND

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 is to
enable the U.S. engineering
education and research community to participate more effectively in the global
arena and, through international cooperation, increase the quality,
productivity, and impact of the U.S.
engineering research and education enterprise.

Collaterally, thoughtfully planned and executed international
extended-stay exchanges developed as a part of joint research or joint degree
programs, inevitably will help U.S.
partner institutions to disseminate the U.S.
education model to a larger pool of local students, gaining their goodwill and
interest in the U.S.,
its history, culture and its people.

As nations’ funding capacity and performance
capability in education and research increase, the mutual benefits that accrue
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 leveraged,
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 top
laboratories and researchers abroad. The addition of foreign students working
on internationally linked U.S. projects will improve productivity and
outcomes.

Recent U.S. workforce trends are leading to concerns about
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 alleviate
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 next
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 Indicators
2004 [1] are presented. We discuss what we call the ABET Imperative, one that
enables U.S. engineering programs to meet the needs of key ABET accreditation
criteria. We discuss the rationale from the standpoint of increasing the
quality and productivity of U.S. programs through international linkages, and
summarize recent NSF development that argues for an enhanced EEC role in the
international arena.

(i)        International
Developments

There have been extensive developments in education
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 by 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 these
same nations to strive for continued economic growth based on technological
innovations. Their achievements have also encouraged other nations to try to do
likewise. A major beneficiary of this are the academic institutions, the cradle
of the highly skilled human resources needed for innovations in today’s
technological world. The start of the 21st century has given these
efforts a special impetus.

Among the myriad and multifaceted developments taking
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 isolation
and are seeking international cooperation. In Latin America, the Organization
of American States has announced the implementation of the Summit of the Americas
Process to encourage the development of science and technology in the region.
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 mutually
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 and in
R&D spending, but changes in workforce and economic outlook make the future
uncertain. The NSB notes that, in the face of emerging attractive alternatives
to the U.S. in the global S&E labor market, we are in a long distance race
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 partners.
Information relating to science and technology and technology and engineering
is examined in the following.

Degree Productions and
Workforce Trends

The tabular data for up to 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 China
(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 2000,
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 2001),
Japan (29.10% in 2001), South Korea (58.34% in 2000), Germany (55.74% in 2001),
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 engineering 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 ratio 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 Hungary 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. Also
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 more
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 well
overall, in addition to Hungary, Taiwan, Finland, Sweden, South Korea, also
include Germany, Italy, and Switzerland.

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 and
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 countries by
the number of degrees in engineering as a percentage of the 24-year population
are indicated in Table 4. Nine out of ten top countries have strong economies.
Countries that rank low include the U.S. and China.

Table 5 shows country rankings 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 high
rankings are Mexico and Hungary.

Concerns in the U.S.

The low proportion of engineers
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 only
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 education
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 percent
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. Historically
black colleges and universities and Hispanic-serving institutions are important
sources of S&E bachelor's degrees earned by minority students. The
fastest-growing major segment of higher education is community colleges. Enrollment 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 graduate
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 between
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 degrees
earned by white students declined from 87 to 68 percent. Increasing numbers of
S&E doctoral degree recipients are women, minorities, or foreign; the share
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, they
earned only 50% of the bachelor’s degrees in S&E majors. Thirty-seven
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 earned
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 rose
from 26,000 in 1985 to 33,700 in 2000 [1, p. 2-19], also propelled by increases
in computer sciences, which accounted for 56% of the S&E associate degrees
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 steady
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 awarded
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 with 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 instruction
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 faculty
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].

Following are some of the recent U.S. innovations relating
to the above areas.

At Santa Clara University, Prof. Ruth Davis, stating that
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 University,
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 have
reported that the Department has restructured its curriculum at both the course
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 adopted
[12], while the evolving ocean environmental engineering option at the U.S.
Naval Academy is now introducing students to research and design projects with
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 with
C++ in 2002, and comparing them with the same students’ GPAs two years
later, Prof. Barbara Pioro concludes that by knowing a student’s score on
the programming problem part of an exam in a computer programming course, it 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] focuses on
a teaching approach that, besides the technical contents of courses, graduates
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] present
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 engineering
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 Indiana
University Purdue University Indianapolis. The course examines sustainability
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 Petroleum
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 engineering
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 capital
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 need
for and the benefit of inculcating an international perspective in engineering
education and research. One driver of the discussion is ABET. A recent paper by
Yurtseven [25] highlights this issue.

ABET EC 2000
requires every graduate of ABET accredited engineering program to have
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 programs
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 programs
must demonstrate that graduates have [26]:

(j)        A
respect for diversity and a knowledge of contemporary professional, societal
and global issues.

Yurtseven [25], Dean of the Purdue School of Engineering
and Technology at Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis, and other
leaders of engineering education have noted that these accreditation guidelines
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)       Enhancing
Quality and Productivity in Engineering Education and Research

In times of tight budgets, international cooperation can
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 contrary,
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 interact
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, which
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 have
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 potential
two-way benefits of joint activities in engineering education and research,
creating a win-win situation in international cooperation. With the attainment
of mutual benefit in collaborative efforts, they are no longer confined within
international assistance program supported by rich nations.

Carefully designed collaborative projects, therefore, can
lead to increased productivity and innovation, and to higher quality research
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)        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, providing
international research experiences for small groups of undergraduates and/or
graduate students and for doctoral dissertation research; international REUs;
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 partner
with the research directorates to co-fund proposals from researchers requesting
supplementary funding to active awards for international activities, or provide
joint funding to new proposals submitted to the research divisions that have an
international dimension. Proposals maybe submitted to OISE or to the research
divisions. Announced in December, 2004 through NSF 05-533, the program’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.
As science and engineering become increasingly global, U.S. scientists and
engineers must be able to operate 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 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 interactions of
people with diverse backgrounds.  Consequently, U.S. scientists and
engineers and their institutions must be globally engaged and able to operate
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. institutions
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 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.  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 preparation,
and to contribute to the development of a diverse, globally-engaged, science
and engineering workforce.”

Concerning
the topics and methods of collaboration, the OISE announcement further states:

“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 many
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 who
do not.”

The anticipated funding level for this one-time solicitation
is $5M for 5 – 10 awards. Due date is March 5, 2005.

C.        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 students
better for a career in the world marketplace. International cooperation in
engineering education can also provide the cultural perspective that students
need to become well-rounded engineer. International

cooperation also increases the efficiency and
productivity in the production of intellectual capital, by expanding the scope
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 dawning of the 21st century
also led many universities to seek ways to broaden their engineering
education systems. Universities are seeking to ensure that their graduates
possess the new knowledge base that is the foundation of new technologies.
Since the economies of nations are increasingly interconnected, these
institutions are also seeking to ensure that their graduates possess the broad
education needed to be successful engineers. Through international
partnerships, these institutions seek to improve their own offerings, and gain
recognition through international accreditation. These factors are leading to
increased scientific and engineering capabilities in many developing nations,
creating increased opportunities for mutually beneficial international
cooperation.

. .

Integrate Research and Education: The NSF emphasis
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 through
international cooperation. In recent years, it has started to gain recognition
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 funding for
education is increasingly important, this is an opportune time to significantly
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 that
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 centered
on engineering research topics, education will be a part of the overall efforts
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 have
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 reform
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 access
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 international
experiences for students, better opportunities for interaction with counterparts
abroad, and funding availability outside of the U.S. Recent trends in the
production of engineering bachelor’s, master’s and Ph.D. degrees 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, “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 unable 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 research
divisions in NSF, an expanded role for EEC to support international cooperation
within the special confines of engineering education and research is consistent
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, and
current NSF approach of distributed responsibility for support of international
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 special
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 graduates
of 2020 [31]. As we strive design ways to accomplish them in the years ahead,
we can learn from the thinking and experiences of our international partners 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 study
options, ranging from certificate programs to bachelor’s, master’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 receiving
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 research
directorates, will also continue to support international collaboration across
the full range of NSF’s disciplinary programs and priority areas.
Researchers may either include an international dimension in their proposals to
these programs, or request supplementary funding to active awards for
international activities by contacting the managing program officer for their
award” [16].

We recommend the following steps or options as EEC
response.

1.
Create a reserve account for EEC funds that support
proposals for international activities to supplement ongoing awards.

2.
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.
Create a reserve staff travel account for international
travel on a needs basis.

4.
Propagate and disseminate the concept of integration of
research and education in international activities.

5.
Disseminate the results of NSF funded projects to the
international community so as to enable linkages.

6.
Create a new page on the EEC website for items with
international implications.

7.
Encourage the support of international cooperation
within existing EEC programs.

8.
Sponsor an annual international conference/workshop in
the U.S. on engineering education and research. Such a conference will be the
first of its kind, since existing conference deals with either education or
research and not the two as an integrated entity.

9.
Include sessions dealing with international issues in
EEC grantee conferences and workshops.

10.
Send occasional news items by e-mail to EEC grantee
community to provide updates on NSF activities related to international
development.

11.
Designate an EEC coordinator for International
Activities.

12.
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.
Coordinate with all AD/ENG, all other research
divisions within ENG and CISE, and OISE in implementing the above
recommendations.

REFERENCES

1.
National
Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2004. National
Science Foundation, Arlington, VA, 2004, Vol. 1, NSB 04-1; Vol. 2, NSB 04-1A.

2.
National
Science Foundation, “United States Still Leads in Science and
Engineering, but Uncertainties Complicate Outlook,” Press Release, May 4,
2004. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-05/nsf-uss043004.php

3.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development,
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.
Engineering Workforce Commission, “Bachelor's Degrees Awarded in
Engineering, by Sex, Race/Ethnicity, and Citizenship: 1990–2002.”
Table C8: http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/wmpd/sex.htm

5.
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.
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. http://www-mtl.mit.edu/~penfield/pubs/IEEE-ed.html

7.
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 Science
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:

http://www.abet.org

9.
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 (to be
published: March, 2005).

10.
Carol Crumbaugh, Paul Vellom, Edmund Tsang, and Andrew
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. Aung,
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, “Revitalizing
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 Engineering
Program – A 2-Year Assessment and Implementation,” Chap. 17, Innovations
2005 – World Innovations in Engineering Education and Research, W.
Aung, et al. (eds.), Int. Network for Eng. Edu. and Research, Arlington, VA,
pp. 185-198 (to be published: March, 2005).

13.
Robert H. Mayer and Jennifer K. Waters, “A
Globally-oriented Curriculum in Ocean Environmental Engineering,” Chap.
18, Innovations 2005 – World Innovations in Engineering Education and
Research, W. Aung, et al. (eds.), Int. Network for Eng. Edu. and Research,
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 2005
– World Innovations in Engineering Education and Research, W. Aung,
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 Computing
Platform in an Undergraduate Biomedical Engineering Program,” Chap. 31, 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 Research,
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,” Chap.
36, Innovations 2005 – World Innovations in Engineering Education and
Research, W. Aung, et al. (eds.), Int. Network for Eng. Edu. and Research,
Arlington, VA, pp. 443-457 (to be published: March, 2005).

19.
Elizabeth Coles, Patricia Fox, Stephen Hundley, Claudia
Grossman And Ramana Pidaparti, “A Model for Global Sustainable Education
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: March,
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, Innovations
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.
Rita R. Colwell, “Statement - President's FY 2005
Budget Request for the National Science Foundation.”  National Science Foundation, February 2,
2004. http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/forum/colwell/rc040202fy05budget.htm

22.
National Science Foundation, “Nanoscale Science
and Engineering Education (NSEE).” Program Solicitation, NSF 05-543.   http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2005/nsf05543/nsf05543.htm

23.
National Science Foundation, “Information
Technology Research (ITR) for National Priorities.” Program Solicitation, Document
Number: NSF04012.   http://www.nsf.gov/home/crssprgm/itr/.

24.
Monica Gagnier (ed.), “New VC in the Valley,”
BusinessWeek, McGraw-Hill, January 31, 2005, p. 40.

25.
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:

http://www.abet.org

27.
National Science Board, Science and Engineering
Indicators – 2002. Arlington,
VA: National Science Foundation, 2002 (NSB 02-1), Vol. 1, pp. 4-45.

28.
R. Altenkirch, et al., “What We Must Do Together
to Increase Quality and Productivity,” Chap. 1, Innovations 2003
– World Innovations in Engineering Education and Research, W. Aung,
et al. (eds.), Int. Network for Eng. Edu. and Research, Arlington, VA, pp. 1-12
(2003).

29.
Kerri-Ann Jones, NSF/OISE, “Dear Colleague
Letter”, NSF 04-034, June 17, 2004. Available: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2004/nsf04034/nsf04034.htm

30.
Program Solicitation, NSF 05-533, “Partnerships
for International Research and Education”, December
9, 2005.  Available:

http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2005/nsf05533/nsf05533.htm

31.       National
Academy of Engineering, The Engineer of 2020: Vision of Engineering in the
New Century.           The
National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2004.

32.
École
de Technologie Supérieure, http://www.etsmtl.ca/english/ets_in_numbers.html

TABLE
1

First university
degrees in science and engineering and

24-year-old
population in selected locations:

2000 or most
recent year

(Data derived from [1] Appendix
Table 02-33)

A

B

C

D

C/A

C/B

C/D

All first

university

Region/location

degrees

All S&E

Engineering

24-year-olds

No. of Degrees

United
States

1,253,121

398,622

59,536

3,703,000

4.75%

14.94%

1.61%

India

750,000

176,036

29,000

17,700,800

3.87%

16.47%

0.16%

China
(2001)

567,839

337,352

219,563

19,639,000

38.67%

65.08%

1.12%

Russia
(long)

554,814

216,017

82,409

2,170,000

14.85%

38.15%

3.80%

Japan
(2001)

542,314

359,019

104,478

1,719,400

19.27%

29.10%

6.08%

France
(s+l)

275,316

116,160

34,293

762,200

12.46%

29.52%

4.50%

United
Kingdom

274,440

95,179

20,284

696,600

7.39%

21.31%

2.91%

Brazil

245,401

78,049

18,072

3,300,000

7.36%

23.15%

0.55%

South
Korea

209,747

96,859

56,508

783,600

26.94%

58.34%

7.21%

Spain
(s+l)

207,578

65,813

15,460

637,200

7.45%

23.49%

2.43%

Germany
(s+l) (2001)

178,618

65,163

36,319

892,800

20.33%

55.74%

4.07%

Italy
(s+l)

150,677

57,263

27,685

726600

18.37%

48.35%

3.81%

Poland

147,536

43,304

21,618

599,490

14.65%

49.92%

3.61%

Mexico

135,233

42,049

24,184

2,038,406

17.88%

57.51%

1.19%

Thailand

119,288

31,168

10,878

1,179,200

9.12%

34.90%

0.92%

Turkey
(short)

118,882

49,069

15,593

1,318,000

13.12%

31.78%

1.18%

Taiwan

117,430

48,624

26,587

385,894

22.64%

54.68%

6.89%

Canada

116,160

53,307

9,634

397,200

8.29%

18.07%

2.43%

Australia
(s+l)

112,745

29,859

9,537

269,200

8.46%

31.94%

3.54%

Hungary
(s+l)

46,978

21,684

16,936

165,200

36.05%

78.10%

10.25%

Sweden
(s+l)

34,097

11,854

6,934

102,200

20.34%

58.50%

6.78%

Israel

30,267

14,259

2,762

102,200

9.13%

19.37%

2.70%

Czech Rep.
(s+l)

25,544

11,034

4,308

174,400

16.87%

39.04%

2.47%

Finland
(s+l)

25,269

10,183

6,293

65,600

24.90%

61.80%

9.59%

Norway
(s+l)

22,421

4,860

1691

54,400

7.54%

34.79%

3.11%

Switzerland
(s+l)

19,028

6,145

3,299

76,600

17.34%

53.69%

4.31%

Ireland

18,669

6,636

2,014

69,000

10.79%

30.35%

2.92%

Hong Kong

11,362

5,425

1,822

104,000

16.04%

33.59%

1.75%

Malaysia

10,511

4,760

877

406,800

8.34%

18.42%

0.22%

Singapore

5,599

5,599

1,676

49,600

29.93%

29.93%

3.38%

TABLE 2

Ranking
by Various Criteria of First University Degrees for Selected Country/Location

Data from
Appendix 5 [1]

All first

Rankings

university

No. of

Eng./All

Eng./

Eng./24-

Region/location

degrees

All S&E

24-year-old

Engineering

first
degrees

S&E

year-old

United
States

1

1

3

4

29

30

23

India
(1990)

2

5

2

8

30

29

30

China
(2001)

3

3

1

1

1

2

26

Russia
(long) (1999)

4

4

5

3

15

13

11

Japan
(2001)

5

2

7

2

9

22

6

France
(s+l)

6

6

12

7

18

21

7

United
Kingdomg (2001)

7

8

14

13

27

25

17

Brazil
(1996)

8

9

4

14

28

24

28

South
Korea

9

7

11

5

4

5

3

Spain
(s+l)

10

10

15

17

26

23

20

Germany
(s+l) (2001)

11

11

10

6

8

7

9

Italy
(s+l)

12

12

13

9

10

11

10

Poland
(1996)

13

16

16

12

16

10

12

Mexico

14

17

6

11

11

6

24

Thailand
(1995)

15

18

9

18

21

14

27

Turkey
(short)

16

14

8

16

17

18

25

Taiwan
(2001)

17

15

19

10

6

8

4

Canada

18

13

18

19

24

28

21

Australia
(s+l)

19

19

20

20

22

17

13

Hungary
(s+l)

20

20

22

15

2

1

1

Sweden
(s+l)

21

22

24

21

7

4

5

Israel

22

21

25

25

20

26

18

Czech
Republic (s+l)

23

23

21

23

13

12

19

Finland
(s+l)

24

24

28

22

5

3

2

Norway
(s+l)

25

29

29

28

25

16

15

Switzerland
(s+l)

26

26

26

24

12

9

8

Ireland

27

25

27

26

19

19

16

Hong Kong
(1995)

28

28

23

27

14

16

22

Malaysia
(1990)

29

30

17

30

23

27

29

Singapore
(1995)

30

27

30

29

3

20

14

TABLE
3

Ranking of Selected
Countries by Percentage of Students in S&E Fields

who Earned their First Degrees in Engineering

Country                               Rankings                                 Ranking

S&E Degrees                         Percentage of Eng./S&E

Hungary                                     20
1

China                                           3
2

Finland                                       24
3

Sweden                                     22
4

South Korea                                7
5

Mexico                                      17
6

Germany                                    11
7

Taiwan                                       15
8

-------                                    -------                                      -------

Israel                                         21                                           26

Malaysia                                    30                                           27

Canada                                      13                                           28

India                                           5                                            29

United States                              1                                            30

TABLE 4

Ranking of Selected Countries by Percentage of Number of Degrees

in Engineering as Percent of 24-Year Old Population in Country

Country                                                Ranking by Percent of

Eng. Degrees/24-Year Old

Hungary
1

Finland
2

South Korea
3

Taiwan
4

Sweden
5

Japan                                                                     6

France
7

Switzerland
8

Germany
9

Italy
10

-------
-------

United States
23

China
26

Thailand
27

Brazil
28

Malaysia
29

India
30

TABLE 5

Ranking of Selected Countries by Number of Degrees in Engineering

Country                                Rankings                                 Ranking by No. of

S&E Degrees                          Degrees in Engineering

China                                           3
1

Japan                                           2
2

Russia                                          4
3

United States                               1
4

South Korea                                7
5

Germany                                    11
6

France                                         6                                                    7

-------                                     -------
-------

Taiwan                                       15
10

Mexico                                      17
11

Hungary                                    20
15

Spain                                        10
17

Sweden                                    22
21

APPENDIX
1

International Context

Recent
development in several countries and regions around the world show that there
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 collaborative
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 exhaustive,
but it clearly shows that many nations are planning to play prominent roles in
science and technology.

(i)        The
Bologna Process

The increased investment in research and education at
academic institutions by many nations is motivated also by national interests 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 part
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 objectives
are to establish common education standards for European nations. The expressed
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 platform
for U.S. educators to contribute their experience and develop linkage at the
formative stage. Many European institutions are looking to the U.S. experience
to help them hasten their own progress.

(ii)       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. Now,
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 jurisdiction
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 institutions
abroad [A.2]. The Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation supported the
event. Professor Yury Chebotarevsky, Rector, Saratov State Technical University
(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 of the
workshop were: (1) to share information; and (2) to initiate discussion
concerning interests and opportunities for interaction and cooperation between
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 patterned
after the Saratov model. Such workshops will be held in different regions in
Russia with the following four taking the lead:

1.
Kranosjarsk State Technical University, Sergey
Podlesny, Rector (September, 2006)

2.
Ural State Technical University, Stanislav
Noboichenko, Rector (2007)

3.
Taganrog State Radiotechnical University, Vladislav
Zakharevich, Rector (2008)

4.
Tomsk State Polytechnic University, Alexander
Chuchalin, Vice Rector (2009)

In addition to future workshops in Russia, workshops
also will be held in countries that have an interest in working with the 150+
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 meet
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 technical
universities and universities outside of Russia. As action items, the
Communiqué points to two principal approaches that are summarized below.

(a)
Program development and review workshops on engineering
education in USA and Russia. As noted previously, four Russian universities
have agreed to host the first workshops.

(b)       Joint support of
future collaborative activities. Examples of topics include:

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 evaluation
standards.

5.
Integration of research and education in international
partnerships.

6.
Innovations in resolving intellectual property issues.

7.
Innovations in institution-to-institution collaboration
across international boundaries.

8.
Approaches to international accreditation and
standards.

9.
Innovative approaches to international research-based
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 research
and education.

14.
Innovative e-Iearning delivery methodologies including
synchronous shared learning and asynchronous shared learning.

(iii)      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 led to
what is known as the “Taiwan Miracle” in economic development.

Ireland has 7 Universities and 14 Institutes of
Technology. Asked why his company has chosen Ireland as a location for R&D,
Robbie McAdam, Group Vice President, Analog Devices Inc., said: "There are
many contributing factors why Analog Devices set up in Ireland. The continued
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-type
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 and
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 said:
“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 Dr.
Kristina Johnson, currently Dean of Engineering at Duke University and a member
of the NSF/ENG Advisory Committee; see following link for a recent announcement
by Duke University [A.4].

Ireland's recent economic progress has convinced its
Government that science, technology and innovation are central to the country's
continued economic and social success.
The National Development Plan for 2000 - 2006 includes
€2.5 billion for Research, Technology Development and Innovation.
These funds are being used to enhance innovation and competitiveness as a means
to increase productivity and employment. Two of the major initiatives being
pursued that target academic research and linkages are [A.5]:

(a)        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 dispensed
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 and
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 communications
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 institutes
based in Ireland and those located overseas. The 2001 bilateral science and
technology agreement between Ireland and China has remained active and is being
followed up through exchange visits.

Information fro SFI shows that it is actively seeking
proposals from overseas researchers who wish to carry out research in Ireland.
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 researchers
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 around
the world.

·
Supported 21 major international scientific
workshops and conferences to be held in Ireland.

·
Established the SFI Fellows-Research
Professorship program to assist Irish research institutions in attracting
outstanding scientists.

(iv)       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 coalitions,
except that CDIO is international in scope. The main driving force is MIT but
the other participants are European institutions. The Knut and Alice Wallenberg
Foundation of Sweden provide funding.

CDIO started in 2000 with five universities. In addition
to MIT from the U.S., there were three founding Swedish institutions: Chalmers
University of Technology (Chalmers), Goteborg, the Royal Institute of
Technology (KTH), Stockholm, and Linkoping University (LiU), Linkoping. These
four universities formed an international partnership with an ambitious plan to
improve undergraduate engineering education in Sweden, the USA and worldwide.

The project aims to provide students with an
education that stresses engineering fundamentals set in the context of
Conceiving - Designing - Implementing - Operating, hence the name “CDIO”. The overall
goals of CDIO are to educate students to master a working knowledge of
technical fundamentals; lead in the creation of new products and systems; and
understand the strategic value of research.

The implementation of CDIO is directed at curriculum
reform, improve teaching and learning, develop laboratories for experiential learning,
and use assessment to improve the learning process. The initiative is designed
as an open architecture system to make it freely available to any and all
schools that offer undergraduate engineering education, to enable them to take
CDIO methodologies, products and templates, and readily adapt and adopt them to
their own programs. Within the context of CDIO, the four collaborating partners
have chosen to implement the CDIO vision in four different professional areas:
KTH is developing its program in vehicle engineering; MIT in aerospace;
Chalmers in mechanical engineering; and LiD in applied physics and electronics.

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 areas,
as well as contribute as a separate student group. The four original CDIO
collaborators maintain a steering committee of engineering deans and industry
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. Classrooms
are networked. Robust assessment and evaluation processes are employed.

In assessment, the partner universities have engaged
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 communication
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 program
using ABET EC 2000.

In its second year, the original CDIO partners began
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 institutions
laying the groundwork for joining are located in Canada, Finland, Ireland and
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 strategy
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 Development
of Science and Technology Policy." The main objective is to generate
science and technology policies and strategies for the Americas in the priority
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 emerged
as focus areas for further development deal with the promotion of S&T and
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 important
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, specific
topics on which to focus hemispheric resources are addressed, as well as
mechanisms for stimulating research collaborations; establishment of networks
for human resource training and skills building; activities for strengthening
the infrastructure of the scientific community; and technical assistance to the
governments of the Americas for the generation of a strategy in this area.

"In materials and nanotechnology, opportunities
for the advancement of economies and societies for the Americas with the
development of an overall program in material research and nanotechnology are
discussed. The important role played by advanced materials and nanotechnology
in the development of scientific and technological policies and in increasing
competitiveness in the global economy is stressed."

Recommended ideas for policy proposals include:
increased investment in S&T, engineering, and innovations in the Americas;
collaborative efforts such as thematic networks and transnational laboratories;
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 strategies
and S&T communities; helping to support and upgrade countries that are
lagging in S&T; training and education; and developing cyberinfrastructure
and narrowing the digital divide internationally and within nations.

(vi)
Japan, India, China

The
government restructuring that started in the late 1990’s, described in a
1997 report by Aung  [A.10], led to
the merger of the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture (Monbusho)
with the Science and Technology Agency (STA) to form the Ministry of Education,
S&T (MEXT) [A.11]. The interest in increasing
industry-university-government cooperation has led to the establishment of a
policy level Business-Academia-Government
Summit, which met held for the third time in 2003 [A.12]. The discussion
at the Summit provides a glimpse into what the policy makers in Japan consider
as significant recent developments in S&T. These are:

1.         The
focus on biotechnology and pharmaceuticals.

2.
The growing number of university-based
intellectual property centers and technology-licensing offices (TLOs) (see
[A.10] for background information).

3.
The handling and management of
intellectual property emerging from the academic sector and from extramural
collaborations (see [A.10]).

4.
“Knowledge (Intelligent)
Cluster” and “Industrial Cluster” programs, supported by the
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) and the
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), respectively, to promote regional
development of S&T research and development and competitiveness.

5.
The MEXT Intelligent Cluster Program,
which provides almost US$ 500,000 to each of more than a dozen regions to
kindle innovative university-industry-government collaborative research.

6.
The METI Industrial Cluster Program,
which invests about US$ 350 million in 19 regions designated as
“industrial clusters” based on existing technological
competitiveness.

7.
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 entirely
funded by the government. While these universities still receive government
funding, each has become autonomous, and all teaching and administrative staff
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 system
of evaluation of all institutions of higher education is being put into place.

Japan’s 2005 budget places increased emphasis 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 contrast,
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 programs,
and student and faculty exchange, initially centering on IIT Kharagpur's Gupta
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 Education
Network, a leading distance education facilities in engineering education.

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 like
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 education
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 high
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 qualified
people who will become leaders in the global information economy.

The
Ministry initiated reform in 1999 to address the challenges of the 21st
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 its
objectives are the fostering of world-class universities, establishing
professional schools in critical areas, and creating a competitive environment
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 now in
place. University programs are being strengthened and a system of institutional
evaluation is being put into effect. An online university is being established.  Internationally competitive graduate
programs are being developed. The support of basic sciences is being
strengthened.

APPENDIX
2

World Innovations in Teaching
and Learning Reported in 2005

The following is a summary of
global innovations in teaching and learning published by authors from countries
other than the U.S. in 2005, in an upcoming book entitled: “Innovations
2005: World Innovations in Engineering Education and Research” [A.19].
Reflecting the collaborative base of much of the work being reported, the 41
articles came from 91 authors. Authorship came from 15 countries: Australia,
Botswana, Brazil, Canada, Greece, Namibia, Norway, Pakistan, Portugal, Russia,
Sweden, R.O.C. (Taiwan), United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, and USA.
Providing peer review comments were more than 260 reviewers from over forty
countries.

The book includes a description of
a nationwide learning initiative in Taiwan for nanoscience and
technology. It incorporates education programs for elementary and high schools, the general public, and universities and
colleges (Chap. 4).

In
Australia, four universities in and around Melbourne have teamed up with the
microelectronics industry to start a Master of Engineering in Microelectronic
Engineering program, presently cooperatively delivered by Victoria University
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 unified
and coherent offering (6). The University of South Australia has also directed
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.

Innovations
in applying everyday digital appliances to teaching and learning are
exemplified by the work of Sandnes et al. (10) in Norway. In dealing with the
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 FAQ
(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 presents
a learner-centered environment that makes learning more effective, efficient,
meaningful, and joyful in a large class.

In Portugal, Sampaio et al. (12)
deal with applying virtual reality to make it possible for civil engineering
students in construction subjects to visualize and interact with the construction
process, and access quantitative and qualitative information at each
construction stage. At Chalmers University in Sweden recent advances in
research in fluid mechanics have been integrated into teaching (13). Advanced
topics in computational fluid dynamics, such as Large Eddy Simulations that
were rarely taught in scheduled classes in the past, are now incorporated into
a Master’s degree program.

A course in
Mechatronics Engineering has been used by faculty at Queen’s University
and the University of Victoria in Canada to solve what they call the Challenge
Line Problem (14). Addressing pedagogical issues in working with two extremes
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 moves
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 Materials.

Recently,
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 strong
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 range
of experiments in electronics to be run via the Internet. In Greece, a virtual
and remote laboratory platform in the field of robotics has been developed by
Tzafestas, Alifragis and Palaiologou (23). The system aims at enabling distance
training of students in realistic scenarios of robot manipulator programming.
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 facility designed to provide foundry service for
educational purposes.

Regarding
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 that
computer scientists have different personality traits than both engineers and
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 connections
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.

Concerning
engineering design, at National Central University in Taiwan, a methodology for
capturing and tracing the development of novice engineering students engaged in
a yearlong creative design and implementation project has been developed (30).
The Setback Episode Based Analysis methodology reveals the complicated
situations encountered as students faced roadblocks in the innovation process
starting from creative product idea generation to its design and
implementation.

As
engineering programs worldwide increasingly focus on students’ ability to
function effectively on project teams and to communicate effectively, faculty
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 engineering
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.

Scott (38)
of United Arab Emirates highlights a unique experience in intercultural
adaptation of an engineering design program from the Colorado School of Mines
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 concepts
to complex projects in engineering education and shows examples of application
from the international community, as an illustration of efforts in migrating to
an integrative educational paradigm that can lead to a universal international
curriculum.

Chikuni,
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 three
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

World Innovations in Teaching
and Learning Reported in 2004

The following is a summary of
global innovations in teaching and learning published by authors from countries
other than the U.S. in 2004 in a book entitled: “Innovations 2004: World
Innovations in Engineering Education and Research” [A.20].

Covering
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 interests
and share a common vision, namely, to produce highly qualified engineers in the
numbers needed for economic development in the respective countries. In pursuit
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 these
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 young
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 “right
engineer,” one who is an innovator, master integrator, holistic designer,
change agent, and more.

Writing in a
similar vein but in the context of Colombia, Caro (2) outlines the
challenges and opportunities faced by the civil engineering profession in that
nation. She presents the current situation and discusses the needs and concrete
actions needed to produce a modern civil engineering program in Colombia.

Focusing on a
new interactive knowledge model, Bourgeois and Badillo (3) of France
examine the implications of information technology in knowledge transmission,
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.

Several
chapters in the book discuss new education programs and activities at specific
institutions, and reflect the manner in which these institutions have responded
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 virtual
company environment (11). Based on a successful pilot delivery, 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, creative
problem-solving and hands-on manipulation. In Europe, nine educational institutions
in eight countries have collaborated to develop eMerge, an advance educational
network infrastructure that permits dissemination of online laboratory
experiments, which may be accessed by students (17). An interactive multimedia
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 and
laboratory classes, and the results of evaluation by students, in a course on
circuit and electronic system design (21).

A group 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 focus on
ABET Engineering Criteria 2000 has had worldwide ramification, leading
to widening focus on learning-centered pedagogy and acceptance of learning
assessment as an integral part of new pedagogical development, as illustrated
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).

Convinced
that laboratory classes can be used to develop student learning of scientific
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, virtual
peer evaluation using the Internet, and hands-on laboratory classes have been
employed in automatic control courses.

In Canada, a
group at the Research Center LICEF, TÉLUQ, Quebec, has developed a
system for use in computer science education and research that simplifies the
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 article
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 addressed
because of a relatively large number of WIB students – students With
Immigrant Background (39).

To conclude
this volume, Gruter et al. (40) address the
high failure rates and lack of student motivation and capabilities in applying
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

World Innovations in Teaching
and Learning Reported in 2003

The following is a summary of
global innovations in teaching and learning published by authors from countries
other than the U.S. in 2003. The papers were published in a book entitled:
“Innovations 2003 – Worldwide Innovation in Engineering Education
and Research” [A.21]. The book is the second in a new archival
series started in 2002 by the International Network for Engineering Education
and Research (iNEER). The purpose of the series is to chronicle the
exciting, ongoing innovations in engineering education and research worldwide,
much of which having been accomplished through collaborative efforts.

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 learning
and instruction, web-based learning, nanotechnology, mechatronics, and linkages
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 applying
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 which
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 opportunities
facing engineering education in that country, and presents possible solutions
that emphasize several new focus areas including nanotechnology and alternative
energy systems. From the U.K., Benest, Booth and Pack (6) describe the design
of a platform-independent delivery mechanism for on-line presentations that 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 indigenous
accreditation system,
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 approach.

In Switzerland, Gillet (11) uses web-based experimentation resources 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 approach
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, Jordan,
Martinez, Martinez, Olarte and Tamura’s chapter (18) indicates that much
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 fairness,
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 multiplex
technique for remotely controlled virtual laboratories. This is followed by the chapter jointly authored by
Brunet and de Lafontaine from Canada and
Schilling from Germany (21) that focuses on collaborative efforts between the
European Union and Canada. These authors describe the design and implementation
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 learning and
circuit diagnostics in digital circuit laboratory courses. At the Catholic
University of Rio de Janeiro in Brazil, Fuks, Gerosa and Lucena (23) describe
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 discuss
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 mechanical
engineering students, in which hands-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 engineering concepts.

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 Kingdom
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 practice
is limited by students’ lack of teaching experience and by friction and
apprehension that could arise in the mutual assessment phase.

Daku
and Diefes-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 noteworthy
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, Appendix
Table 02-33 [1])

All first

Social/

university

Natural

computer

Agricultural

behavioral

Region/location

degrees

All S&E

sciencesa

sciences

sciences

sciencesb

Engineering

24-year-olds

Number

All 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)

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 (2001)

274,440

95,179

32,566

18,423

2,973

20,933

20,284

696,600

European Free Trade Association

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)

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

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      Council
of Europe, “The Europe of Cultural Cooperation – The Bologna
Process”. Available:

http://www.coe.int/t/e/cultural_co-operation/education/higher_education/activities/bologna_process/default.asp

A.2      W. Aung, “International
Partnership Workshop on Engineering Education, September 16-19, 2004, Saratov,
Russia,” Trip Report.

A.3      Saratov Communique in English,
signed on September 18, 2004 in Saratov, Russia. Available : http://www.ineer.org/ISCMeet/Welcome.htm#SARATOV

A.4      Duke
University Press Release, “Pratt Dean Kristina Johnson Named to Board of
Science Foundation Ireland”, August 5, 2003. Available from the web:

http://www.pratt.duke.edu/news/releases/index.php?story=111

A.5      STI Outlook 2002– Country Response to
Policy Questionnaire – Ireland. Available from the web: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/60/4/2762647.pdf

A.6      The
Irish Scientist, 2003 Year Book, “Science Foundation Ireland –
Progress in 2003”. Available from the web:

http://www.irishscientist.ie/2003/contents.asp?contentxml=03p14.xml&contentxsl=is03pages.xsl

A.7      CDIO
- Conceive, Design, Implement, Operate. Available on the web: http://www.cdio.org/index.html

A.8      Karl-Frederik
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 UICEE, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2003. Available: http://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, Engineering
and Innovation for Development: A Vision for
the Americas in the Twenty First Century,” Washington, D.C. October 18, 2004. Available:

http://www.science.oas.org/Ministerial/ingles/documentos/Document_001.pdf

A.10    Win
Aung, February 3, 1998, “University-Industry Cooperation for Technology Innovation in
Japan,” A Report Prepared under a JSPS Invitation Fellowship, November 19
- December 5, 1997.

http://www.ineer.org/Special/JSPSReport97.htm

A.11    Kazuhiro Hayashi (translated
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. Tokyo,
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, Vol. 15, No. 1, May 2004. http://www.jsme.or.jp/English/news07.pdf

A.14    Kazuko
Shinohara, “More than 100,000 Foreign Students in Japan,” Report
Memorandum #03-11, National Science Foundation, Tokyo Office. http://www.nsftokyo.org/rm03-11.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    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    George
Mason University, “U.S.-China Cooperation Program in Science
Policy, Research, and Education.”
http://techcenter.gmu.edu/programs/science_trade_policy/us_china.html

A.18    John C.
Weidman, and Namgi Park, “Recent Trends and Developments in Education
in the Republic of Korea,” World Education News and Reviews, Vol.
15, Issue 3, May/June, 2002. http://www.wes.org/ewenr/02may/feature.htm

A.19    Win Aung, Robin King, Jerzy
Moscinski, Shan-Hwei Ou, Luis Manuel Sanchez Ruiz (eds.), Innovations 2005:
World Innovations in Engineering Education and Research, Int. Network for
Eng. and Res. (iNEER), Potomac, MD. ISBN 0-9741252-2-9, ISSN 1553-9911. To
appear March, 2005.

A.20    Win Aung, Robert Altenkirch,
Tomas Cermak, Robin King, Luis Manuel Sanchez Ruiz (eds.), Innovations 2004:
World Innovations in Engineering Education and Research, Int. Network for
Eng. and Res. (iNEER), Potomac, MD, 2004. ISBN 0-9741252-1-0.

A.21    Win Aung, Michael H.W.
Hoffmann, Ng Wun Jern, Robin King, Luis Manuel Sanchez Ruiz (eds.), Innovations
2003: World Innovations in Engineering Education and Research, Int. Network
for Eng. and Res. (iNEER), Potomac, MD, 2003. ISBN 0-9741252-0-2.

Ranking
of First University Degrees Awarded by Various Criteria

Data from
Appendix 5 [1]

All first

university

Region/location

degrees

All S&E

24-year-old

Engineering

A

B

C

D

D/A

D/B

D/C

Cambodiae

United
States

1

India
(1990)

2

China
(2001)

3

Russia
(long) (1999)

4

Japan
(2001)

5

United
Kingdomg (2001)

6

Brazil
(1996)

7

France
(short)

8

South
Korea

9

Poland
(1996)

10

Indonesia
(1997)

11

Italy
(long)

12

Mexico

13

Germany
(long) (2001)

14

Spain
(long)

15

Thailand
(1995)

16

Turkey
(short)

17

Taiwan
(2001)

18

Canada

19

Australia
(short)

20

Spain
(short)

21

Egyptf
(1995)

22

Iran

23

Netherlands
(short)

24

Germany
(short) (2001)

25

Colombia
(1996)

26

France
(long)

27

Kazakstan
(1995)

28

Romania
(short)

29

Argentina
(1996)

30

South
Africa (1996)

31

Sweden
(short)

32

Hungary
(short)

33

Israel

34

Romania
(long)

35

Saudi
Arabia (1996)

36

Morocco
(short)

37

Portugal
(long)

38

Chile
(1996)

39

Belgium
(long)

40

Bulgaria

41

Georgia

42

Ireland

43

Greece
(long)

44

Norway
(short)

45

Ethiopiaf

46

New
Zealand (short)

47

Cuba

48

Hungary
(long)

49

Syria
(1995)

50