2012 Conference Building a Secure World Through International Education Feedback on transatlantic double degrees Evaluate-E and Adde Salem Projects Giancarlo

2012 Conference

Building a Secure World Through International Education

Feedback on transatlantic double

degrees

Evaluate-E and Adde Salem Projects

Giancarlo Spinelli

02/22/12

2012 Conference


Nowadays there is a flourishing of highly integrated curricula often

leading to the awarding of

• Joint Degreesand

• Double Degrees.

2012 Conference


We speak of double (or dual) degree project when each of the two Institutions involved awards its own (full fledged) degree to the candidate who fulfilled the prescribed requirements.

A joint degree project on the contrary leads to the awarding of a single degree issued by the Institutions involved.

2012 Conference


• The Double Degrees were originally designed as elite projects.

• A typical example is given by the Double Degrees of the T.I.M.E. Association (Top Industrial Managers for Europe) implemented since 1988.

2012 Conference


• Started in 1988.• At present 53 top level Universities are members of the T.I.M.E. Association.

• Almost 4000 Double Degrees at the Master level awarded in 22 years. More than 400 from PM

• A rigorous quality control of the process has been maintained.

2012 Conference


Nowadays

•Almost every European institution and many non-European ones offer double, and/or joint degrees.

2012 Conference


They are considered as “Top Products”

• That is why, when referring to quality in international exchanges, we Europeans very often quote:

– Number of Double Degrees agreements.

– Number of students involved.

2012 Conference


• Are these two parameters really relevant?

2012 Conference


There are reasons for concern

2012 Conference


• For example many Double Degrees are offered where the same workload is required as for a single degree.

• What is the difference with respect to an horizontal student mobility as in the ERASMUS program?

• For the Universities this practice is often justified by the legal obstacles (or complexities) of joint degrees.

2012 Conference


Will the job market consider those double degrees as a simple rubber stamping by the Universities?

2012 Conference


• These are reasons of great concern for some of us and, in particular, for almost all our US partners.

2012 Conference


•That is why, for example, the T.I.M.E. Association established a “T.I.M.E. label certificate” for its member Double graduates who:

Spent at least three semester at the host Institution.

Got at least 360 ECTS credits by the two member Institutions without any double dipping.

2012 Conference


Anyway,

assessment, feedback and a

common nomenclature are badly

needed since Double and Joint

Degrees are mushrooming almost

in a “wild” way (and European

Commission is strongly promoting

them).

2012 Conference


• We need the opinion of stakeholders more rapidly.

• Institutions have discussed these issues in many conferences.

• However, the points of view of other stakeholders like alumni and employers are often quoted in an anecdotal manner, not through a systematic study.

2012 Conference


These needs are addressed by the projects

EVALUATE-E

and

ADDE SALEM

2012 Conference


EVALUATE-EIt is an ATLANTIS project (policy oriented measures) supported by FIPSE and EC/EACEA

Partner Institutions:

Europe: Politecnico di Milano, Italy (Leader),TU Wien, Austria, Lund University, Sweden

U.S.A.: Virginia Tech (Leader), University of Kentucky

2012 Conference


Objective

Systematic feedback on transatlantic Double Degrees mainly in engineering.

2012 Conference


ADDE SALEM

It is an ERASMUS MUNDUS Action 3 project

2012 Conference


European Universities

• Politecnico di Milano (leader)• Lund University – Faculty of Engineering• Universidad Politécnica de Madrid• Instituto Superior Tecnico de Lisboa• Ecole Centrale Paris• Ecole Centrale de Lille• Ecole Centrale de Nantes• Budapest University of Technology and

Economy

2012 Conference


South American Universities

Argentina• Instituto Tecnologico de Buenos Aires• Universidad Austral

Brazil• Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro• Universidade de Sao Paulo

Chile• Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Santiago de Chile• Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria, Valparaiso

Colombia• Universidad del Norte, Barranquilla• Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotà

2012 Conference


Purpose

Enhancing attractiveness of highly integrated programmes with Europe avoiding brain drain.

The core of the project is a study of the needs of the South American job market and a feedback on designing new integrated programmes.

2012 Conference


ADDE SALEM project just started

EVALUATE-E project just finished

Let us see the general outcomes of EVALUATE-E

2012 Conference


Stakeholders

Actual students of Double Degrees

Alumni

Faculty and Administrators

Employers

2012 Conference


Actions

Survey questionnaires

Working conference

Focus Groups

Dissemination

2012 Conference


Surveys

Four questionnaires were designed, one for each category of stakeholders. Each questionnaire was focused on four areas:

Engineering-specific skills, General academic skills, Reflections on program, Demographics

2012 Conference


Steve Culver

Associate Director Office of Academic Assessment

Virginia Tech

Data Analysis

2012 Conference


Here very few examples only are shown.

For the detailed preliminary results of the survey see

Culver SM, Puri IK, Spinelli G, DePauw KK, and Dooley JE Collaborative Dual-degree Programs and Value Added for Students: Lessons Learned Through the Evaluate-E Project

(2011) in: Journal of Studies in International Education.

Another article will soon be published

2012 Conference


1. Students

2012 Conference


Engineering-specific skills % indicating change for the better

(somewhat better, better, much better)

appl yknowl id

probs

anal yze&

interpret

sol veprobs

syninf o

soc ial ,gl obalimpac t

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

2012 Conference


General Academic skills % indicating change for the better (somewhat better, better, or much

better)adapt

to newsit

thinkc r it ical

c reate&

maintainrel ate

probl emsol ve

eff ect ivecomm

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2012 Conference


Reflections on program % agreement

(somewhat agree, agree, or strongly agree)

More mrktabl e

commother

cul tures

moresc ientcol l abac rossdisc ip

moreoppor t

f orpubs

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2012 Conference


2. Faculties

2012 Conference


Engineering-specific skills % improvement

(somewhat better, better, or much better)

probsIND

syn inf o

Use skil l s

probl emsol ve

prodrepor ts

ethicalpr in

50%55%60%65%70%75%80%85%90%95%

100%

2012 Conference


General Academic skills % improvement


adaptto new

sit

retr ieveinf o

thinkc r it ical

probl emsol ve

f ormsol ut ion

40%45%50%55%60%65%70%75%80%85%90%

2012 Conference


Comparisons to other programs % agreement


More mrktabl e

commother

cul tures moresc ientcol l ab

in disc ip


more pubopps

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2012 Conference


3. Alumni

2012 Conference


Engineering-specific skills % agreeing they were well prepared (somewhat agree, agree, or strongly

agree)

appl yknowl

id probs

anal yze&

interpret

sol veprobs

syninf o

soc ial ,gl obalimpact

50%55%60%65%70%75%80%85%90%95%

100%

2012 Conference


General Academic skills % improvement


adaptto new

sit think

c r it icalc reate

& maintainrel ate

probl emsol ve

eff ect ivecomm

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2012 Conference


Comparisons to other programs % agreement


More mrktabl e

commother

cul turesmore

sc ientcol l ab

in disc ip


more pubopps

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2012 Conference


4. Employers

2012 Conference


Here are the four items that the Employersjudged as the most important

for successful performance in their company

(scale 1-not imp; 7-extremely imp)

Item Mean SD • Function effectively on multidisciplinary teams 6.19 1.2

• Solve previously defined & open-ended • engineering problems 5.81 1.2

• Understand the impact of engineering solutions• in a social and global context 5.63 1.2

• Identify and formulate engineering problems 5.62 1.3

2012 Conference


Length of degree program

The following question was asked to the employers.

“If a term is four months long, what is the extra time you believe would be appropriate for a dual-degree program at either the masters or doctoral level?”

2012 Conference


• The amazing (and reassuring) answers:–None (9%)–One term (13%)–Two terms (28%)–Three terms (38%)–Four terms (13%)

2012 Conference


FOCUS GROUPS

Stakeholders believe that collaborative programs add value.

Particular engineering skills and general academic skills are emphasized.

Emphasis on soft skills.

Not great demand for teaching ethics.

2012 Conference


Let me outline some criticalities to be taken into account in future studies on the subject

The majority of the outcomes are extremely positive …BUT…

2012 Conference


On the problem of Joint/Double Degrees, so far, at the University we have very often been self-referential.Many “data” on the reaction of the external world still come from anecdotal experiences.

Very often employers do not know what we are speaking of, but they emphasize their interest in particular skills and ask to measure them.

2012 Conference


University of Kentucky Meeting, September 25-27, 2011

Ray E. Van Dyke, External Evaluator

Summary of External Evaluation

2012 Conference


General recommendations

Clarify the terms Increase the N

Include the university as a stakeholder Develop methods to gather empirical

evidence – academic analytics Leadership of consortium should continue to

disseminate results of study Seek further funding to focus and extend this

workExplore further the notion of value-added and

marketability

2012 Conference


Broader recommendations

Determine the learning outcomes (skills/abilities, knowledge, and attitudes/beliefs) that students should gain from collaborative degree programs, specifically those outcomes that would probably not be addressed in traditional programs

Move beyond content, discipline-specific learning to engage in the big questions of our time such as energy, sustainability, poverty, etc.

2012 Conference


Study provided significant contributions to research on collaborative degrees

Not so much questions that were answered but questions that arose

The exploration of unexpected findings and questions from this study will provide important evidence that could be used to

continuously improve collaborative

Summary

2012 Conference


CONCLUDING

• More evaluation is needed

• More two-ways interaction with the world external to the University is needed.

• Tools for measuring the skills of the graduates could help.

2012 Conference


Thank you very much for your attention

2012 Conference


Session: Feedback on Transatlantic Joint and Double Degree: Evaluate-E Project

John H. YoppUniversity of KentuckyLexington

“Implications and Future Directions for Evaluate-E: Defining Degree

Profiles Through Tuning”

February 19-22, 2012JW Marriott, Washington, D.C.

February 22, 2012

2012 Conference


• Key goals of the Evaluate- Project of the Politecnico di Milano, Virginia Tech University, Lund University, Technical University of Vienna, and the University of Kentucky- sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education FIPSE Atlantis Program and the European Commission EU-US Cooperation in Higher Education and Vocational Training Program.1,2

2012 Conference


• Evaluate the effectiveness and added value of existing joint or double degree graduate engineering programs compared to conventional single degrees from three European universities and one U.S. university.

• Test the general assumptions that joint and double degree programs, despite usually being longer and more expensive, better prepare graduates to work in a global job market through programmatic interactions of a more discipline-relevant international experience with a highly integrated curriculum and research experience, leading to greater and better employment opportunities.

2012 Conference


Project Methodology

• Examine the strengths and weaknesses of these existing double and joint degrees versus the conventional single degree programs through surveys and focus group interviews with the four major stakeholders: enrolled students, recent graduates, faculty instructors and employers of the graduates of these programs.

• Use the findings from previous surveys and focus group studies on joint and double degrees to supplement and guide those of the Evaluate-E project.

• Lessons learned will be used to design future studies to determine the effectiveness and value-added dimensions of double and joint degrees.

2012 Conference


Previous & Current Survey and/or Focus-group Studies of Principal Stakeholders of Double and

Joint Degree Programs

Survey (S) and/or Focus Group Study (FG) Stakeholders Surveyed or Interviewed

European University Association: Developing Joint Masters Programmes for Europe Project (2002-2004)-S3

Directors of international program centers, and university administrators

EU-FIPSE ATLANTIS: Joint and Double Degree Programs in the transatlantic context (2208-09) S4

Faculty, international program administrators, students, and employers

CGS Graduate International Collaborative Project: NSF (2010)- S and FG5

Graduate deans from U.S. member schools and Canadian universities

EU-FIPSE ATLANTIS: Evaluate-E project for Engineering (2009-11)- S and FG2

Students and faculty in these programs, alumni of the programs, and employers of program graduates in Europe and the U.S.

Summary of Previous Surveys: Report to AIEA (2009)6

All stakeholders

2012 Conference


Lessons Learned & Implications for Future Directions from the Evaluate-E & Previous

Studies of Double and Joint Degrees1-6

Evaluate-E Study• Employer involvement as a key stakeholder in the creation of

double, joint, or single degrees is much less effective without prior definition and understanding of program goals and competencies and student learning outcomes that constitute the degree. The academic terms used in the surveys and focus group discussions were not fully understood by the employers.1,2,7

• “The benefits (value-added) of a dual (double) degree perceived by all the stakeholder groups related more to personal growth, communication and cross-cultural skills and less to subject matter and personal growth.” and “There is added value in experiencing a degree program in tow cultures.”2,7

• “There was no evidence provided by any of the stakeholders that participation in a double degree program increased a graduate’s employability.”7

2012 Conference


Previous Studies

• An analysis of the findings from previous studies and of the assumptions of the principal stakeholders found little research-based assessments of these assumptions to establish actual “value-added.”7

• Previous studies (unlike Evaluate-E) were not designed “to capture the structural characteristics of each program by degree type or discipline.”5

• Major challenges to creating transatlantic double and joint degrees include resolving the differences in degree requirements, defining course and research requirements, and recognition and transfer of credits.5

• Concerns of graduate faculty over awarding two degrees for one body of work. “There is no consensus on how institutions should address concerns about potential for double degrees to confer double credit for a single body of work.”5

2012 Conference


Key Questions Raised by these Studies and their Implications for Future Directions

• How can the concern about awarding double credit for one body of work be addressed?

• How can the “value-added” of double and joint degrees be created and demonstrated by the stakeholders involved?

2012 Conference


A proposed approach to establishing the “value-added” of joint and double degrees

Employ the Tuning Process developed in Europe in the “Tuning Educational Structures Europe” and “Competences in Recognition and Education (CoRe2)” Projects8 and now a Lumina Foundation-supported “Tuning USA” Project in the United States9,10 toDefine and Assess the Program Competences and Program Learning Outcomes of the Degree Profiles of the Double or Joint Degree.7

2012 Conference


Information Sources for Comparison of Tuning Processes in Europe (Bologna Process) and the

U.S.

• A Tuning Guide to Formulating Degree Programme Profiles (including programme compentencies and programme outcomes)

Publication of the competences in education and recognition project. J. Lokhoff, B. Wegewijso, K. Durkin (UKBARIC), R. Wagenaar, J. Gonzalez, A.K. Isaacs, L.F. Dona dalle Rose, and M. Gobbi (Tuning) Bilbao, Groninger, and the Hague-20108

• The Degree Qualifications Profile, defining degrees: A new direction for American higher education to be tested and developed in partnership with faculty, students, leaders, and stakeholders Lumina Foundation. 20119,10

2012 Conference


The Definitions of Degree Profiles from the European and U.S. Tuning Processes: The Basic Equivalencies7

2012 Conference


The European Tuning Process8

• “The Degree Profile is a very brief document, of around two pages, designed to convey the essential information about a specific degree programme. It locates the programme in the academic map of disciplines or thematic studies. The profile specifies the subject area or areas studied, identifies the level (first [bachelor], second [master], or third [doctoral] cycle) and indicates the special features that distinguish it from other, similar programmes.

• The degree profile describes in terms of competences and learning outcomes, what graduates will know, understand, and be able to do by the time they have successfully completed the programme.”8

2012 Conference


U.S. (Lumina) Degree Profile

• “A Degree Profile- or qualifications framework- illustrates clearly what students should be expected to know and be able to do once they earn their degrees- at any level. This degree profile thus proposes specific learning outcomes that benchmark the associate, bachelor’s, and master’s degrees- regardless of a student’s field of specialization.”

• “…the Degree Profile defines competences in ways that emphasize both the cumulative integration of learning from many sources and the application of learning in a variety of settings…”9,10

2012 Conference


Rationale for Employing the Tuning Process for Establishing the “Value-Added” Component of

International Double or Joint Degrees

• The Tuning Process is faculty-led and involves students, alumni, and employers of the degree holders defined in terms of degree profiles.

• The resultant degrees are clearly defined in terms of program competencies to be achieved and student learning outcomes, making the value-added components transparent.

• The Tuning Process is spreading from Europe rapidly to higher education institutions in other parts of the world. It is now a major project of the Lumina Foundation in the United States.

2012 Conference


• Defining student achievement in terms of student learning outcomes is the current practice in both Europe and the United States. It is a core requirement for institutional accreditation in the and is used for disciplinary accreditation and departmental reviews in the U.S.7

• The conference of European ministers at the Bologna Conference of 2009 in Leuven and Louvain-la-Neuve called for emphasis to be placed on degree qualifications in terms of student learning outcomes.7

• There is a close correspondence of the Generic Student Learning Outcomes from the Tuning processes with the “Essential Learning Outcomes” of the LEAP (Liberal Education & America’s Promise) initiative of the AAC&U (Association of American Colleges & Universities). These are commonly used by US colleges and universities in their reform of General Education. Tuning would identify this commonly assumed “missing component” in “Bologna degrees”. 7,11

2012 Conference


• “AAC&U warmly welcomes he recent decision of the Lumina Foundation for Education to create and test a “Degree Qualifications Profile that defines US degrees at the associate’s, bachelor’s, and master’s levels in terms of what students know, understand, and can do with their knowledge.” 12

• “AAC&U and (we trust) our 1,200 college and university members will work with Lumina in this game changing effort to set expected standards for the meaning of the degree.”12

• “Hundreds of colleges and universities already use AAC&U’s essential learning outcomes for their own work in curricular reform.” “The competencies articulated in the Degree Profile closely relate to AAC&U’s LEAP initiative’s essential learning outcomes. 12

2012 Conference


References

1. Yopp, J.H. 2011. Evaluting transatlantic dual and joint degree programs: Assuring and assessing their “value-added component (evaluate-E project as case study). NAFSA 2011 Annual Conference & Expo, Innovation and sustainability in international education. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, May 29-June3, 2011.

2. Culvier, S.M., Puri, I.K., Spinelli, G., DePauw, K., and Dooley, J. 2011. Collaborative Dual-Degree Programs and Value-Added for Students: Lessons Learned through the Evaluate-E Project. Studies in International Education XX(X): 1-21, (In press).

3. European University Association. (2002-2004) Developing Joint Master’s Programmes for Europe: Results of the Joint Master’s Project. Brussels, Belgium. www.eua.be/eua/jsp/en/upload/Joint_Masters_report.1087219975578.pdf.

4. Kuder, M. and Obst, D. 2009. Joint and Double Degree Programs in the Transatlantic Context: A Survey Report. www.iienetwork.org/file_depot/0-10000000/0-10000/1710/Folder/80205/TDP+Report_2009_Final21.pdf

5. Joint Degrees, Dual Degrees, and International Collaborations: A Report on the CGS Graduate International Collaborations Project 2010. Prepared by Denecke, D. and Kent, J. Council of Graduate Schools, Washington, D.C.

6. Yopp, J.H. 2009. Differing and Convergent Views and Practices Employed by U.S. and European Universities Regarding Joint and Double Degrees at the Doctoral Level. AIEA Annual Conference, International Education: Engaging Communities, Atlanta, GA.

7. Yopp, J.H. 2011. Determining the “Value-Added” of Joint and Double Degrees: Assumptions, Challenges, and a Proposed Approach. EAIE 2011 Annual Conference. Copenhagen, Denmark, September 15.

8. Lokhoff, J., Wegewij’s, B., Durkin, K., Wagenaar, R., Gonzalez, J., Isaacs, A.K., Dona dalle Rose, L.F., and Gobbi, M. 2010. A Tuning Guide to Formulating Degree Programme Profiles, Including Programme Competencies and Programme Learning Outcomes. Competences in Education and Recognition Project (CoRe2). Lifelong Learning Education and Culture. DG Bilbao, Groninger, and the Hague. Published by U. of Deusto. www.tuning.unideusto.org/tuningeu.

http://www.eua.be/eua/jsp/en/upload/Joint_Masters_report.1087219975578.pdf

http://www.iienetwork.org/file_depot/0-10000000/0-10000/1710/Folder/80205/TDP+Report_2009_Final21.pdf

2012 Conference


9. Lumina Foundation. 2011. The Degree Qualifications Profile- Defining degrees: A new direction for American higher education to be tested and developed in partnership with faculty, students, leaders, and stakeholders.

10.FAQ’s on Bologna and Tuning. Wwwluminafoundation.org/ourwork/tuning/Q_and_A-Bologna_and_Tuning.html.

11.The LEAP Vision for Learning. 2011. Outcomes, Practices, Impact, and Employers Views. Association of American Colleges and Universities.

12.Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) 2011. AAC&U statement on the Lumina Foundation for Education’s Proposed Degree Qualifications Profile. Approved, January 2011.

2012 Conference


• Research assistance was provided by Ms. Andrea O’Leary ([email protected]). Inquiries for this and related presentations may be addressed to the author or Ms. O’Leary.

• John H. Yopp ([email protected])

Documents

2012 Conference Building a Secure World Through International Education Feedback on transatlantic double degrees Evaluate-E and Adde Salem Projects Giancarlo