This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 10 October 2014, At: 19:02Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of EngineeringEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceee20

Competency-based models of learningfor engineers: a comparisonAlexander Luneva, Irina Petrovaa & Viktoria Zaripovaa

a Department of Information Systems, Astrakhan State University(ASU), Astrakhan, RussiaPublished online: 30 Jul 2013.

To cite this article: Alexander Lunev, Irina Petrova & Viktoria Zaripova (2013) Competency-basedmodels of learning for engineers: a comparison, European Journal of Engineering Education, 38:5,543-555, DOI: 10.1080/03043797.2013.824410

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2013.824410

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

European Journal of Engineering Education, 2013Vol. 38, No. 5, 543–555, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2013.824410

Competency-based models of learning for engineers:a comparison

Alexander Lunev, Irina Petrova* and Viktoria Zaripova

Department of Information Systems, Astrakhan State University (ASU), Astrakhan, Russia

(Received 27 July 2012; final version received 17 June 2013)

One of the goals of higher professional education is to develop generic student competencies across a varietyof disciplines that play a crucial role in education and that provide wider opportunities for graduates infinding good jobs and more chance of promotion. In this article a list of generic competencies developedin Russian universities is compared with a similar list developed by a consortium of Russian and Europeanuniversities (project TUNING-RUSSIA). Then there is a second comparison with a list of competenciestaken from the CDIO Syllabus. This comparison indicates the degree of similarity among the lists and thepossible convergence among universities all over the world. The results are taken from a survey carried outamong Russian employers, academics, and graduates. The survey asked to rate each listed competence byits importance and the degree of achieving goals in the process of the education.

Keywords: competencies; tuning; CDIO

Introduction

All Russian universities transitioned to a two-level (bachelor, master) curricular model in 2011,which necessitated the development of new curricula derived from competency-based learningmodels (McEvoy et al. 2005; Gonzalez and Wagenaar 2008).

Astrakhan State University (ASU) is a major university in the south of Russia. It is a classicaluniversity with a balanced selection of courses in the natural sciences, liberal arts, engineering,and pedagogical specialties. ASU established the goals of defining a common list of genericcompetencies for all areas of training, comparing it with known international models, carrying outan analysis of the priority and feasibility of these competencies in the university, and then definingteaching modules that can be implemented to support the development of these competencies infuture students.

Competencies are a dynamic combination of knowledge, understanding, skills, and abilities.The development of student competence is the aim of educational programmes. Competenciesare divided into ‘generic’ and ‘professional’. Generic competencies are essential because theyare exactly what graduates need to widen their opportunities for successful employment. Thus, itwas necessary to give maximum attention and effort to include these generic competencies andabilities in the offered programmes. It should be noted that generic categories of competence couldbe additionally specified in every subject area through the detailed profile of every competence,

*Corresponding author. Email: petrova@aspu.ru

© 2013 SEFI

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

02 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

544 A. Lunev et al.

but nevertheless all of them have some common core, which forms the personal skills of thegraduate.

A list of generic competencies confirmed by the experts from the European Union was devel-oped in 2010–2011 in the framework of the implementation of ASU’s international TEMPUSprogramme titled TUNING-RUSSIA (Tuning Russia project group 2010a, 2010b). The goal ofthis programme is to coordinate European and Russian models of education in eight differentsubject areas:

(1) ICT (Information and Communication Technologies),(2) Economics and Management,(3) Education,(4) Environmental Engineering,(5) Law,(6) Tourism,(7) Languages, and(8) Social work.

To test the completeness and reliability of the list of generic competencies, the authors alsostudied the experience of American universities. Especially interesting was the ‘The CDIO™INITIATIVE’ (http://www.cdio.org). The CDIO approach of engineering education improvement(Conceive, Design, Implement, Operate) was developed in the late 1990s at Massachusetts Instituteof Technology (MIT). It was developed with the cooperation of scientists, representatives ofindustry, and students. The CDIO Initiative (the international organisation) was founded in 2000by MIT, Chalmers University of Technology, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, and LinkopingUniversity. To date, more than 90 universities are part of the CDIO Initiative. The CDIO conceptis based on the premise that the graduates of Engineering University programmes should beready to conceive, design, implement, and operate complex engineering projects that create newtechnological devices and systems as finished products through team work. A four-level list ofcompetencies has been developed in the framework of the CDIO project (Crawley et al. 2011a,2011b).

This article compares the list of competencies developed by Russian and European universitieswith the CDIO list of competencies. It also describes the results of a survey of Russian universitygraduates, employers, and pedagogical staff. The importance of each competency was measured,along with a subjective estimate of the degree to which graduates of Russian universities hadachieved competence in each of the items.

TUNING-RUSSIA project, list of generic competencies

One of the more influential works related with the definition of generic competences for profes-sional education is the Tuning initiative, in which more than 175 European universities took partsince 2001 (Sanches et al. 2008). Tuning aims at consolidating agreement points, as a responseto the Bologna Declaration challenge. It includes universities from the European Union, LatinAmerica, Africa, the USA, and Russia (MPalma, de los Ríos, and Miñán 2011).

The TUNING-RUSSIA project, which is a programme of the EU’s TEMPUS programme,is a consortium of 16 universities, 12 of which represent various regions of Russia, and fourfrom Europe (Spain, the Netherlands, Ireland, and Italy) (Tuning Russia project group 2010c).This collaboration allows ASU to analyse various approaches to the principles of the BolognaProcess and the Tuning methodology. The 12 Russian universities range from technical to classical

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

02 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

European Journal of Engineering Education 545

disciplines. The 17th member of the project is the Association of Classical Universities of Russiathat represents 44 universities of Russia.

The project objectives are

• the promotion and sharing of the Tuning methodology experience among the academiccommunity and

• the implementation and development of the Tuning methodology at a number of Russianuniversities by organising TUNING Centers at the participating universities.

The participating universities are divided into Correspondence Groups that focus on specificareas of inquiry such as Economics and Management, Psychology and Pedagogic Education,Engineering Ecology, Jurisprudence, Tourism, and Ecology.

ASU is the Coordinator of the Correspondence Group on ICT. Other members of this Corre-spondence Group are the North Caucasus State Technical University, Moscow State Universityof Railway Engineering, Novgorod State University, Tver State University, N. I. LobachevskyState University of Nizhny Novgorod, and the L.N. Tolstoy State Pedagogical University in Tula.Alexander Rayon, a professor at the University of Deusto (Spain), is a group expert from the EU.ASU plans to open a TUNING Center in ICT on its campus in Astrakhan in the near future.

Under the project consortium the following steps were implemented:

(1) A list of 30 generic competencies for all nine Correspondence Groups was defined by anexpert board of Russian universities with EU experts and specialists led by the TUNINGAcademy at the University of Deusto.

(2) A list of subject competencies for each correspondence group was set based on a literaturereview, the recommendations of the Ministry of Education, the new generation standards, andthe existing European qualifications framework.

(3) Every member university in the Consortium carried out a questionnaire survey of teachers,employers, students, and graduates. Subjects evaluated the importance of each competencyand the degree to which they had attained proficiency in each competency. Survey resultswere analysed for each group of respondents.

Of particular interest is the list of generic competencies specific to Russia and its degree ofconcordance with the EU and the USA (Karavaeva et al. 2013). The greater the similarity of theselists, the more mobile Russian students would be to study in the EU and the USA.

The TUNING project divides competencies into two categories: generic and subject specific.Although Tuning fully acknowledges the importance of developing subject-specific knowledgeand skills as the basis for university degree programmes, it has highlighted the fact that timeand attention should also be devoted to the development of generic competencies or transfer-able skills. This last component is becoming more and more relevant for effective preparation ofstudents for their future role in society in terms of their employability and citizenship (Sancheset al. 2008; MPalma, de los Ríos, and Miñán 2011). This division corresponds with the approachbased on the third-generation Russian Federal State Educational Standards. In Tuning classifica-tion, generic competencies are further divided into three types: Instrumental, Interpersonal, andSystemic competencies.

(1) Instrumental competencies include:• cognitive (the ability to understand and use ideas and concepts),• methodological (the ability to manage the environment: time, education strategies, to make

decisions or solve problems),• technical (related to the use or management of technology, competencies in the ICT field),

and• language (oral and written communication and second-language skills).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

02 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

546 A. Lunev et al.

(2) Interpersonal competence means a person’s ability to express their feelings and to take stockof themselves, other people, and reality in general. It is divided into• social (interpersonal skills, teamwork, social interaction skills, social and ethical attitudes

and beliefs) and• communication competencies.

(3) Systems competencies include skills and abilities related to the systemic understanding ofphenomena and processes. They involve a combination of knowledge, understanding, andperception of the entire system on the basis of its interacting parts or elements – the abilityto plan changes for systems development and create new systems. Systems competencies arebased on instrumental and interpersonal competencies that should be taken into account inthe design of the educational process.

Table 1 shows the similarity of the two lists of competencies according to their rank. Inthe columns under ‘Competency number’ the list of Russian competencies is compared to the

Table 1. Results of the comparative analysis of Russian respondents (teachers, employers, and graduates) withthe European-Tuning model.

Competency number

Russia Europe Generic competencies in both European and Russian surveys

R1 E1 Ability for abstract thinking, analysis, and synthesisR2 E16 Ability to work in a teamR3 E13 Capacity to generate new ideas (creativity)R4 E14 Ability to identify, pose, and resolve problemsR5 E23 Ability to design and manage projectsR6 E2 Ability to apply knowledge in practical situationsR7 E6 Ability to communicate in a second languageR8 E7 Skills in the use of information and communications technologiesR9 E5 Capacity to learn and stay up-to-date with learningR10 E9 Ability to communicate both orally and in the written form in the native languageR11 E22 Ability to work autonomouslyR12 E15 Ability to make reasoned decisionsR14 E20 Appreciation of and respect for diversity and multiculturalismR15 E30 Ability to act with social responsibility and civic awarenessR16 E26 Ability to act on the basis of ethical reasoningR17 E29 Commitment to the conservation of the environmentR18 E19 Ability to communicate with non-experts about one’s fieldR19 E3 Ability to plan and manage timeR20 E27 Ability to evaluate and maintain the quality of work producedR21 E11 Ability to be critical and self-criticalR22 E10 Ability to search for, process, and analyse information from a variety of sourcesR23 E24 Commitment to safetyR24 E17 Interpersonal and interaction skillsR25 E8 Ability to undertake research at an appropriate levelR26 E4 Knowledge and understanding of the subject area and understanding of the profession

Generic competencies only in the Russian surveyR13 Ability for critical thinkingR27 Ability to resolve conflicts and negotiateR28 Ability to focus on qualityR29 Ability to focus on resultsR30 Ability to innovate

Generic competencies only in the European surveyE12 Ability to adapt to and act in new situationsE18 Ability to motivate people and move towards common goalsE21 Ability to work in an international contextE25 Spirit of enterprise, ability to take initiativeE28 Ability to show awareness of equal opportunities and gender issues

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

02 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

European Journal of Engineering Education 547

corresponding European-Tuning competencies. Near the bottom of the table are five competen-cies that were found only in the Russian lists and other five found only in the European respondents’lists. We can conclude, therefore, that 25 out of the 30 generic competencies shown in Table 1(83%) are common between the Russian and European lists of generic competencies. This degreeof similarity suggests that there is a possibility of convergence and mobility between Europeanand Russian educational programmes.

A comparison of the list of generic competencies in the TUNING-RUSSIA project with theCDIO Syllabus

The first tangible outcome of the CDIO Initiative is the CDIO Syllabus, a codification of con-temporary engineering knowledge, skills, and attitudes. The Syllabus essentially constitutes arequirements document for undergraduate engineering education (Bankel et al. 2003). Whilethere have been several versions of the CDIO Syllabus (Bankel et al. 2003) published, the versionreferred to below was released in 2011 (CDIO Syllabus v2.0) (Crawley et al. 2011b). A com-parison of the CDIO Syllabus with different National Standards and skills lists was reviewed bythe authors (Bankel et al. 2003; Chapman and O’Neill 2010; Chuchalin 2012; Malmqvist 2012;DOCET EQF – CDIO 2013) as well as a comparison of competencies within the TUNING project(Sanches et al. 2008; MPalma, de los Ríos, and Miñán 2011). A similar comparison was made bythe authors between the Generic Competencies Lists of the TUNING-RUSSIA project (TuningRussia\List of Generic Competences; Karavaeva et al. 2013) with the lists of generic skills com-petencies provided by the CDIO Syllabus v2.0 (Crawley et al. 2011b). The results are shown inTable 2.

Crawley et al. (2011b) pointed out that the term ‘invention’from the CDIO Syllabus v2.0 is onlyat the fourth level. This was done to emphasise the importance of the competence to engineers. Asa result, in the CDIO Syllabus v2.0 (Crawley et al. 2011b) the following changes were made:

• 4 – Add Innovation to the title• 4.2.2 – Change to Enterprise Stakeholders, Strategy, and Goals• 4.2.6 – Add New Technology Development and Assessment• 4.2.7 – Add Engineering Project Finance and Economics• 4.3.1 – Change to Understanding Needs and Setting Goals

This allowed the correlation of competence R3 ‘Capacity to generate new ideas (creativity)’(Tuning General Brochure 2006; Sanches et al. 2008) with points 4.2.2, 4.2.6, 4.2.7, and 4.3.1 ofthe CDIO Syllabus v2.0.

Crawley et al. (2011b) showed that a number of universities have noted that within the frame-work of the CDIO, only formal communication (writing, oral presentations) is studied. However,it is also necessary to teach students informal communication. This necessitated changes in theCDIO Syllabus v2.0 (Crawley et al. 2011b) in points 3.2.7–3.2.10. This change is reflected inTable 2 ‘Comparison of the generic competencies lists Russia–Europe-Tuning-CDIO’, wherecompetence R10 ‘Ability to communicate both orally and in written form in the native language’corresponds to the point 3.2 COMMUNICATIONS (3.2.3 Written Communication; 3.2.6 Oral

Presentation; 3.2.7 Inquiry, Listening, and Dialogue) of the CDIO Syllabus v2.0.We also compared the competence of R14 ‘Appreciation of and respect for diversity and mul-

ticulturality’ (Tuning General Brochure 2006; Sanches et al. 2008) with points 2.5 ETHICS,EQUITY, AND OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES (2.5.2 Professional Behaviour; 2.5.6 Trust andLoyalty) and 4.2 ENTERPRISE AND BUSINESS CONTEXT (4.2.1 Appreciating DifferentEnterprise Cultures; 4.2.5 Working in International Organisations) in the CDIO Syllabus v2.0

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

02 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

548 A. Lunev et al.

Table 2. Comparison of the generic competencies lists Russia–Europe-Tuning-CDIO.

N◦ Competence

Europe- Generic competencies in both

Russia Tuning European and Russian surveys CDIO

R1 E1 Ability for abstract thinking,analysis, and synthesis

2.3 SYSTEM THINKING

R2 E16 Ability to work in a team 3.1 TEAMWORKR3 E13 Capacity to generate new

ideas (creativity)4 CONCEIVING, DESIGNING, IMPLEMENTING, AND

OPERATING SYSTEMS IN THE ENTERPRISE, SOCIETAL,AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT – THE INNOVATIONPROCESS

4.2.2 Enterprise Stakeholders, Strategy, and Goals; 4.2.6 NewTechnology Development and Assessment; 4.2.7 EngineeringProject Finance and Economics; 4.3.1 Understanding Needs andSetting Goals

R4 E14 Ability to identify, pose, andresolve problems

2.1 ANALYTIC REASONING AND PROBLEM SOLVING

2.1.1 Problem Identification and Formulation2.1.5 Solution and Recommendation

R5 E23 Ability to design and manageprojects

4.4 DESIGNING

4.5 IMPLEMENTING (4.5.6 Implementation Management)4.6 OPERATING (4.6.1 Designing and Optimising Sustainable and

Safe Operations)R6 E2 Ability to apply knowledge in

practical situations2.1 ANALYTICAL REASONING AND PROBLEM SOLVING

R7 E6 Ability to communicate in asecond language

3.3 COMMUNICATIONS IN FOREIGN LANGUAGES

R8 E7 Skills in the use of informationand communicationstechnologies

3.2 COMMUNICATIONS (3.2.4 Electronic/MultimediaCommunication; 3.2.5 Graphical Communication)

R9 E5 Capacity to learn and stayup-to-date with learning

2.4 ATTITUDES, THOUGHT, AND LEARNING (2.4.6 LifelongLearning and Educating)

R10 E9 Ability to communicate bothorally and in the writtenform in the native language

3.2 COMMUNICATIONS (3.2.3 Written Communication; 3.2.6Oral Presentation; 3.2.7 Inquiry, Listening, and Dialogue)

R11 E22 Ability to work autonomously 2.4 ATTITUDES, THOUGHT, AND LEARNING (2.4.1 Initiativeand the Willingness to Make Decisions in the Face of Uncertainty)

R12 E15 Ability to make reasoneddecisions

2.1 ANALYTICAL REASONING AND PROBLEM SOLVING

R14 E20 Appreciation of andrespect for diversity andmulticulturality

2.5 ETHICS, EQUITY, AND OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES (2.5.2Professional Behaviour; 2.5.6 Trust and Loyalty)

4.2 ENTERPRISE AND BUSINESS CONTEXT (4.2.1Appreciating Different Enterprise Cultures; 4.2.5 Working inInternational Organisations )

R15 E30 Ability to act with socialresponsibility and civicawareness

2.4 ATTITUDES, THOUGHT, AND LEARNING (2.4.1 Initiativeand the Willingness to Make Decisions in the Face of Uncertainty;2.4.2 Perseverance, Urgency and Will to Deliver, Resourcefulness,and Flexibility)

2.5 ETHICS, EQUITY, AND OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES (2.5.1Ethics, Integrity, and Social Responsibility; 2.5.2 ProfessionalBehaviour)

R16 E26 Ability to act on the basis ofethical reasoning

2.5 ETHICS, EQUITY, AND OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES

R17 E29 Commitment to theconservation of theenvironment

2.3 SYSTEM THINKING (2.3.1 Thinking Holistically)

4.1 EXTERNAL, SOCIETAL, AND ENVIRONMENTALCONTEXT (4.1.1 Roles and Responsibility of Engineers; 4.1.2The Impact of Engineering on Society and the Environment;4.1.7 Sustainability and the Need for Sustainable Development)

(Continued).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

02 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

European Journal of Engineering Education 549

Table 2. Continued.

N◦ Competence

Europe- Generic competencies in both

Russia Tuning European and Russian surveys CDIO

4.5 IMPLEMENTING (4.5.6 Implementation Management)4.6 OPERATING (4.6.1 Designing and Optimising Sustainable and

Safe Operations; 4.6.6 Operations Management)R18 E19 Ability to communicate with

non-experts of one’s field3.2 COMMUNICATIONS (3.2.1 Communications Strategy; 3.2.7

Inquiry, Listening, and Dialogue; 3.2.8 Negotiation, Compromise,and Conflict Resolution; 3.2.9 Advocacy; 3.2.10 EstablishingDiverse Connections and Networking)

R19 E3 Ability to plan and managetime

2.4 ATTITUDES, THOUGHT, AND LEARNING (2.4.7 Time andResource Management)

R20 E27 Ability to evaluate andmaintain the quality ofwork produced

4.4 DESIGNING (4.4.6 Design for Sustainability, Safety,Aesthetics,Operability, and other Objectives)

4.5 IMPLEMENTING (4.5.1 Designing a SustainableImplementation Process; 4.5.6 Implementation Management)

4.6 OPERATING (4.6.4 System Improvement and Evolution; 4.6.6Operations Management)

R21 E11 Ability to be critical andself-critical

2.4 ATTITUDES, THOUGHT, AND LEARNING (2.4.4 CriticalThinking)

R22 E10 Ability to search for, process,and analyse informationfrom a variety of sources

2.2 EXPERIMENTATION, INVESTIGATION, AND KNOWL-EDGE DISCOVERY (2.2.2 Survey of Print and ElectronicLiterature)

R23 E24 Commitment to safety 2.5 ETHICS, EQUITY, AND OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES (2.5.1Ethics, Integrity, and Social Responsibility)

4.1 EXTERNAL, SOCIETAL, AND ENVIRONMENTALCONTEXT

R24 E17 Interpersonal and interactionskills

3.2 COMMUNICATIONS

3.3 COMMUNICATIONS IN FOREIGN LANGUAGESR25 E8 Ability to undertake research

at an appropriate level2.2 EXPERIMENTATION, INVESTIGATION, AND

KNOWLEDGE DISCOVERYR26 E4 Knowledge and understanding

of the subject area andunderstanding of theprofession

1 DISCIPLINARY KNOWLEDGE AND REASONING

Generic competences only in the Russian surveyR13 Ability for critical thinking 2.4 ATTITUDES, THOUGHT, AND LEARNING (2.4.4 Critical

Thinking)R27 Ability to resolve conflicts

and negotiate3.2 COMMUNICATIONS (3.2.7 Inquiry, Listening, and Dialogue;

3.2.8 Negotiation, Compromise, and Conflict Resolution)R28 Ability to focus on quality 4.4 DESIGNING (4.4.6 Design for Sustainability, Safety,Aesthetics,

Operability, and other Objectives)4.5 IMPLEMENTING (4.5.1 Designing a Sustainable

Implementation Process)4.6 OPERATING (4.6.4 System Improvement and Evolution; 4.6.6

Operations Management)R29 Ability to focus on results 4.3 CONCEIVING, SYSTEMS ENGINEERING, AND

MANAGEMENT (4.3.1 Understanding Needs and SettingGoals, 4.3.2 Defining Function, Concept, and Architecture,4.3.3 System Engineering, Modelling, and Interfaces, 4.3.4Development Project Management)

R30 Ability to innovate 2.4 ATTITUDES, THOUGHT, AND LEARNING (2.4.2Perseverance, Urgency and Will to Deliver, Resourcefulness, andFlexibility, 2.4.3 Creative Thinking)

4.2 ENTERPRISE AND BUSINESS CONTEXT (4.2.6 NewTechnology Development and Assessment)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

02 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

550 A. Lunev et al.

(Crawley et al. 2011b, 17). Engineers are working with foreign partners and in multinationalcompanies more and more frequently (Crawley et al. 2011b; DOCET EQF – CDIO 2013). Engi-neering work requires mobility. Engineers do not always work in the country where they graduated.Points 2.5.2, 2.5.6, and 4.2.5 were introduced in the CDIO Syllabus v2.0 to prepare students towork in a multicultural environment.

It is evident from Table 2 that all 25 generic competencies common between Russian and Euro-pean universities are reflected in the competencies from the CDIO Syllabus v2.0. We can conclude,therefore, that the graduate professional educational systems in Europe, Russia, and America for-mulate generic competencies in a similar way. This suggests fertile ground for collaboration andmobility among these universities.

Rating competencies by importance and the degree of student proficiency

It is necessary to keep close watch on society’s needs for generic and professional competencies.The development of student competence in accordance with social and economic needs is a prioritytask of educational programmes.

The concept of ‘competency’has appeared outside the system of higher education to characterisea person’s set of skills and abilities that are relevant to jobs in the labour market. The competencyapproach in Human Resources management is aimed at staff selection, evaluation, training, anddevelopment. Therefore, the language of competencies is appropriate to use in consultation anddialogue with employers and university graduates to determine the objectives of educationalprogrammes and the requirements for successful adaptation of graduates in the labour market.

In the framework of the TUNING-RUSSIA project, a questionnaire was developed anddistributed to the relevant target populations: employers, academics, and university graduatealumni. All 16 of the Russian universities in the TUNING project participated. In total, 358employers, 187 academics, and 1788 university graduates were polled. The survey covered eightdifferent subject areas: ICT, Economics and Management, Education, Environmental Engineer-ing, Law, Tourism, Languages, and Social Work. The questionnaires contained the list of the 30generic competencies in Table 1 identified by the Russian universities.

Subjects were asked to rate each competence according to

• the importance, in their judgement, of the competency for professional work in their field and• the degree to which respondents believed university graduates had achieved proficiency in the

skills and abilities required by that competency as a result of their educational programme.

The review was carried out in accordance with the Tuning Dynamic Quality Develop-ment Cycle (Tuning General Brochure 2006; Tuning Educational Structures in Europe 2012)requirements and 4-point rating scale was used, 1 (minimum) to 4 (maximum) (1 = none;2 = weak; 3 = considerable; 4 = strong).

Analysis of the competencies according to their importance and their level of achievementmakes it possible to identify the strong and weak points in university curricula, and therefore helpto reform educational programmes. The summary results of the questionnaire poll are shown inFigures 1 through 3.

All the competencies are rated in accordance with their degree of importance. The mean valuesof importance for each competency are found in the top line of Figures 1 through 3 for eachgroup of respondents. The average ratings on the 4-point scale across competencies for eachrespondent group are for academics, 3.43; employers, 3.41; and graduates, 3.38 (the top dottedlines). The competencies which received ratings below the average were considered less important

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

02 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

European Journal of Engineering Education 551

Figure 1. Summary diagram of the generic competencies’ assessment (Russian academics).

Figure 2. Summary diagram of the generic competencies’ assessment (Russian employers).

and, therefore, were not included in the subsequent analysis. The division of the competenciesinto above and below average is marked with a solid vertical line in the graph (Figures 1–3).

A comparison of Figures 1–3 shows that the sets of competencies that are rated above-averageimportance for employers and graduates are the same. Only two competences (R2 ‘Ability towork in a team’ and R27 ‘Ability to resolve conflicts and negotiate’) were rated by academics asbelow average (3.41 and 3.38, respectively). From Figure 1 you can see that the competencies

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

02 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

552 A. Lunev et al.

Figure 3. Summary diagram of the generic competencies’ assessment (graduates).

R2 and R27 immediately follow the solid vertical line, that is, estimates are slightly below average.There are two possible reasons for the ratings.

Having ‘students work in teams’ has not often been used in Russia until recently. Most studentsdo their coursework and final theses individually.

There is no such subject as ‘Conflictology’(conflict resolution) in curricula of engineering ornatural science degrees in most cases. In addition, because students normally work individuallyon projects there is a low need for conflict resolution skills.

Comparison of competencies with ratings of above-average importance, for the three groupsof respondents, is shown in Table 3. As a result, it can be concluded that all three groups ofrespondents consider the same set of skills as important. The two competencies (R2 and R27)estimated by academics are exceptions.

In order to understand which competencies additionally develop one should pay attention toFigures 1–3 again. The lower polyline in Figures 1–3 shows assessment of competencies fromeach group of respondents.

For the competencies with above-average importance levels, average ratings of student profi-ciency in the competencies were 2.88 for academics, 2.94 for employers, and 3.06 for graduates.The dotted line at the bottom of Figures 1–3 demonstrates the average level of competence.This analysis identifies competencies with below-average levels of proficiency attainment. Thissuggests that universities should upgrade or add training courses and modules that foster thesecompetencies. It is possible to introduce some specialised courses and modules to do this.

All three groups of respondents gave a very low assessment of the level of demonstrated abilityin competencies N◦ R19 – ‘Ability to plan and manage time’, N◦ R20 – ‘Ability to evaluateand maintain the quality of work produced’, and N◦ R28 – ‘Ability to focus on quality’. (Thislast competency received below-average assessments from employers and academics, though thegraduates rated it a bit above average.)

In order to increase proficiency levels in these competencies during the 2012/2013 academicyear at the ASU, a corrective course for all Master Programmes called ‘Lean Production and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

02 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

European Journal of Engineering Education 553

Table 3. Comparison of the generic competencies, received estimations on importance above an average, for threegroups of respondents.

Competency number ImportanceGeneric competencies in both

Russia Europe European and Russian surveys Employers Graduates Academics

R6 E2 Ability to apply knowledge in practical situations 3.70 3.66 3.76R29 Ability to focus on results 3.66 3.59 3.56R12 E15 Ability to make reasoned decisions 3.64 3.56 3.56R4 E14 Ability to identify, pose, and resolve problems 3.63 3.59 3.62R20 E27 Ability to evaluate and maintain the quality of work produced 3.63 3.5 3.48R28 Ability to focus on quality 3.63 3.53 3.52R26 E4 Knowledge and understanding of the subject area and

understanding of the profession3.62 3.56 3.66

R2 E16 Ability to work in a team 3.58 3.43 3.41R19 E3 Ability to plan and manage time 3.58 3.53 3.48R22 E10 Ability to search for, process, and analyse information from

a variety of sources3.58 3.52 3.57

R11 E22 Ability to work autonomously 3.55 3.53 3.58R10 E9 Ability to communicate both orally and in the written form

in the native language3.54 3.5 3.57

R8 E7 Skills in the use of information and communicationstechnologies

3.53 3.51 3.58

R9 E5 Capacity to learn and stay up-to-date with learning 3.48 3.44 3.62R27 Ability to resolve conflicts and negotiate 3.48 3.45 3.38R24 E17 Interpersonal and interaction skills 3.45 3.44 3.48

6 Sigma’ was introduced, aimed at the formation of skills and competencies in the area ofinnovative management.

The ‘Lean production +6 sigma’ Course, which was developed at the university, is focusedon deepening students’ knowledge in the field of modern industrial management and developingskills and competencies for professional participation in the development of tactics and strategy ofthe company, increasing its competitiveness. Methods of specific situations, analytical discussion,expert assessment, and business games are used as main forms and methods of education thatmeet the requirements of the CDIO Standard 8 (Teaching and learning based on active experientiallearning methods) (Malmqvist 2012).

According to the university graduates’ estimates (Figure 3), competencies N◦ 1 ‘Ability forabstract thinking, analysis, and synthesis’, N◦ 2 ‘Ability to work in a team’, and N◦ 4 ‘Knowledgeand understanding of the subject area and understanding of the profession’ have high importancebut a below-average level of proficiency at the university.

To improve this situation ASU developed a special course ‘Methods of Creativity in Engineer-ing’ that has been taught at ASU for the past 2 years to Master’s degree candidates in Engineeringin the Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics. This course uses student teams of three to fivepersons working on a project creating new technical devices or improving technical characteristicsof existing ones. These activities correspond to the ‘Conceive’ and ‘Design’ stages of the CDIOSyllabus v2.0.

A review of the effectiveness of the courses in developing the targeted competencies wasconducted in 2011 and 2012 (Lunev, Petrova, and Zaripova 2012).

Conclusion

In the field of university education there is a consistent global trend towards the integrationof national systems, the convergence of educational programmes and training cycles, and the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

02 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

554 A. Lunev et al.

formation of common approaches to assessing and maintaining the quality of education. Basedon the comparison between the TUNING Project list of competencies and the CDIO Syllabus v2.0list of competencies, it is possible to conclude that the European, Russian, and American highereducational systems formulate their generic competencies in a very similar way. This suggeststhat there are good prospects for convergence and collaboration between Russian universities anduniversities in Europe and the USA.

The survey of employers, academics, and graduates described above shows that all three groupsof respondents have similar perceptions of which competencies are important, especially whenwe look at those competencies that are rated as having higher-than-average importance. Thissurvey was also shown to be an effective method for identifying those competencies that needmore improvement. The two special master’s courses developed at ASU, ‘Lean Production and6 Sigma’ and ‘Creative Methods in Engineering’, were designed specifically to address the needfor more intensive training in several targeted competencies.

References

Bankel, J., K.-F. Berggren, K. Blom, E. F. Crawley, I. Wiklund, and S. Östlund. 2003. “The CDIO Syllabus –a Comparative Study of Expected Student Proficiency.” European Journal of Engineering Education 28 (3):297–315.

Chapman, E., and M. O’Neill. 2010. “Defining and Assessing Generic Competencies in Australian Universities: OngoingChallenges.” Education Research and Perspectives 37 (1): 105–123.

Chuchalin, A. I. 2012. “RAEE Accreditation Criteria and CDIO Syllabus: Comparative Analysis.” Proceedings of the 8thInternational CDIO Conference, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, July 1–4.

Crawley, E. F., J. Malmqvist, W. A. Lucas, and D. R. Brodeur. 2011a. “The CDIO Syllabus v2.0: An Updated Statementof Goals for Engineering Education.” http://www.cdio.org/files/document/file/m1-crawley2011allmit.pdf.

Crawley, E. F., J. Malmqvist, W. A. Lucas, and D. R. Brodeur. 2011b. “The CDIO Syllabus v 2.0. An Updated Statementof Goals for Engineering Education.” Proceedings of the 7th International CDIO Conference, Technical Universityof Denmark, Copenhagen, June 20–23.

DOCET EQF – CDIO. 2013. “A Reference Model for Engineering Education.” A guide for developing com-parable learning outcomes to promote international mobility (final report). Accessed January 8, 2013.http://www.eqfcdio.org/project-outcomes/cat_view/15-project-documents.

Gonzalez, Julia, and Robert Wagenaar, eds. 2008. Tuning Educational Structures in Europe: Universities’ Contributionto the Bologna Process: An Introduction. 2nd ed., 25–55. Bilbao: Publicaciones de la Universidad de Deusto.

Karavaeva, E. V., I. G. Teleshova, M. E. Uliyanova, and V. J. Echenike. 2013. “Applicability of the MethodologicalPrinciples of European Education at Russian Universities Russian Education & Society.” A Journal of Translations1 (4): 3–13.

Lunev, A., I. Petrova, and V. Zaripova. 2012. “Competence-Based Model of Learning for Engineers and the Futureof University Education.” Proceedings of the 2012 International CDIO Conference, QUT, Brisbane, July 1–4.http://www.cdio.org/files/document/file/competencebasedengineersfutureuniversityeducation.pdf

Malmqvist, J. 2012. “A Comparison of the CDIO and EUR-ACE Quality Assurance Systems.” International Journal ofQuality Assurance in Engineering and Technology Education 2 (2): 9–22. doi: 10.4018/ijqaete.2012040102.

McEvoy, G., J. Hayton, A. Wrnick, T. Mumford, S. Hanks, and M. Blahna. 2005. “A Competency-Based Model forDeveloping Human Resource Professionals.” Journal of Management Education 29 (3): 383–402.

MPalma, M., I. de los Ríos, and E. Miñán. 2011. “Generic Competences in Engineering Field: A ComparativeStudy Between Latin America and European Union.” Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 15 (2011):576–585.

Sanches, A. V., M. P. Ruiz, A. G. Olalla, G. M. Mora, J. A. Paredes, J. M. Otero, I. M. Ildefonso, and J. S. Eizaguirre. 2008.Competence-based Learning (A Proposal for the Assessment of Generic Competences). Bilbao, Spain: University ofDeusto.

Tuning Educational Structures in Europe. 2012. Quality Enhancement at Programme Level: The Tuning Approach.Accessed June 21, 2013. http://www.unideusto.org/tuningeu/quality-enhancement.html.

Tuning General Brochure. 2006. Introduction to Tuning. Tech. Rep. Brussels: European Union Directorate of Educationand Culture.

Tuning Russia project group. 2010a. “Tuning Russia\Competences.” Accessed July 23 2013. http://www.tuningrussia.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=68&Itemid=73&lang=en

Tuning Russia project group. 2010b. “Tuning Russia\List of Generic Competences.” Accessed July 23 2013.http://www.tuningrussia.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=69&Itemid=74&lang=en

Tuning Russia project group. 2010c. “Tuning Russia\Participants of the Tuning-Russia Project.” Accessed July 23 2013.http://www.tuningrussia.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=79&Itemid=100&lang=en

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

02 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

European Journal of Engineering Education 555

About the authors

Alexander Lunev is the Doctor of Economic Sciences, Professor, and Rector of ASU. His scientific objectives are LeanProduction Philosophy and its implementation into the educational process management at the university.

Irina Petrova is the Doctor of Technical Sciences, Professor, and Vice-Rector ofASU. Her scientific objectives are creationof informational systems to support engineering creativity and formation of the new Computer-Aided Innovation systems.

Viktoria Zaripova is the Candidate of Technical Sciences, Associate Professor at the ‘Information Systems’ Department(ASU). Her scientific objectives are the process of international integration of education, the study of educational systemsin different countries, and creation of informational systems to support engineering creativity.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

02 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014