MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) are the edu-cational buzzwords of 2012. New trends in higher educa-tion are poorly reported in the international press until elite institutions in the United States adopt them, so there has been frenzied reporting on MOOCs in 2012. We begin by tracing the five year devel-opment of MOOCs before taking a longer historical per-spective on the introduction of new educational technolo-

gies.

MOOCs have already bifur-cated into two types of cours-es, which are known as cMOOCs and xMOOCs. They are so distinct in peda-gogy that it is confusing to designate them by the same term (Hill, 2012). Here we focus particularly on the more recent xMOOCs that domi-nated the news in 2012 and we note the diverging ap-proaches already apparent within this group (Armstrong, 2012). After reviewing com-pletion rates in early xMOOCS courses we look at the business model in play and point up some of its am-biguities. Although xMOOCs dominate the news, we also look at smaller-scale e Learn-ing partnerships involving

more modest institutions that are at least making money and getting students to degrees. We end the descriptive section with a short commentary on

MOOCs platforms.

In the final part of the pa-per we bring together, un-der the headings of quality and completion rates, certi-fication, pedagogy and purpose, some of the myths about xMOOCs and the paradoxes that must be resolved. Finally we look at the hopeful possibilities that xMOOCs will open up as the current contradic-tions are addressed. What is MOOCs? Even during the week that this paper was being written the Wik-ipedia definition of MOOCs evolved. On Sept. 16, 2012 Wikipe-dia defined a MOOC as “a course where the partici-pants are distributed and course materials are also dispersed across the web’, adding that “this is possible only if the course is open, and works significantly better if the course is large. The course is not a gather-ing, but rather a way of

connecting distributed in-structors and leaned across a common topic or field of discourse’ By Sept. 20th, the defini-tion had become: ‘a MOOCs is a type of online course aimed at large-scale participation and open ac-cess via the web. MOOCs are a recent development in the area of distance educa-tion, and a progression of the kind of open education ideals suggested by open educational resources. Though the design of and participation in a MOOC may be similar to college or University courses, MOOCs typically do not offer credits awarded to paying students at schools. However, assessment of learning may be done for certification’ (Wikipedia, 2012b)

Volume 2, Issue 1

Making sense of MOOCs, Musing

in a Maze of Myth, Paradox and Possibility

By: Sir John Daniel

February, 2013

I N T E R N A T I O N A L F E D E R A T I O N O F E N G I N E E R I N G E D U C A T I O N S O C I E T I E S

The Global Bulletin

of Engineering Education

SPEED President, David Delaine, receives the prestigious Fulbright

Scholar Award to work in Sao Paulo, Brazil with GEDC Executive Com-

mittee member Dean of Engineering, Jose Roberto Cardoso, and colleagues of University of Georgia.

Please visit: http://www.sefi.be/ifees/?p=94

3 (Continues on Page 2)

P a g e 2

Letter of gratitude to IFEES Community

Dear Colleagues,

Warm greetings from Kazakhstan National University. It is my

great pleasure to inform all of you that the Workshop on “current

issues of artificial intelligence and robotic systems” successfully

held on 23-25 January, 2013 at KazNU. Distinguished professors

of Bridgeport University and the University of Arkansas at Little

Rock conducted a Workshop at the highest level of

professionalism and showed high commitment to their work. All

the participants found it to be very informative and obtained

valuable experience.

I highly appreciate your great contribution to the effective

realization of KIUCEE project by recommending and recruiting the

best experts standing at the pinnacle of knowledge in artificial

intelligence and robotic systems. I have every confidence that

this kind of collaborative arrangements will be of benefit to all of

us. And I am happy that we have started such a cooperation that

promises further rewards from our working partnership.

Please, accept once again my sincere gratitude for your great

support, leadership and contribution to the realization of our joint

project.

Yours sincerely,

Rector Galym Mutanov

Rector of Al-Farabi Kazakh National University

(http://www.kaznu.kz/en/4807/page)

T h e G l o b a l B u l l e t i n

o f E n g i n e e r i n g E d u c a t i o n

Delaine receives Fulbright Scholar Award

IFEES and GEDC Secretariat is proud to share that David Delaine, Ph.D., an important student leader for several years and current president of SPEED, IFEES member, has received the pres-tigious Fulbright Scholar Award to work in Sao Paulo, Brazil with GEDC Executive Committee member Dean Jose Roberto Cardoso as well as colleagues at University of Georgia. Delaine’s

project will be focused in the field of STEM Education.

According to David: “Engagement will transform STEM education into an inviting field in which all members of society are interested to participate. Boundary spanners, or knowledge brokers between the community and academy are integral in facilitating engagement. Here, uni-versity and community perceptions are evaluated before and after a Scientist- in - the - Class-room outreach program is introduced. Through the combination of established indicators of uni-versity engagement the Universidade de São Paulo (USP) and local community are studied in an evaluation of faculty and community perceptions of engagement prior to and after interven-tion. Assessment of the intervention results in values of impact on students. This 16-month

study is performed in conjunction with support from USP and other agencies.”

We are proud of David’s accomplishment and IFEES community wishes him all the best as he departs for Brazil next month.

For further information on SPEED, please visit: http://www.worldspeed.org/

V o l u m e 2 , I s s u e 1

Korean Society for Engineer-ing Education (KSEE)—established in 1993 with the dual mission of cultivating engineering education and to facilitate associated technolo-gy transfer—has hosted its annual KSEE conference (19th KSEE Annual Confer-ence) over November 22-23 in Ilsan, Korea (situated with-in the greater metropolitan Seoul area). In keeping with its renewed internal agenda over the last two years for globalization/internationalization, KSEE invitations were extended to many dignitaries and organi-

zations around the world.

The 19th KSEE Annual Con-ference featured numerous domestic sessions co-supported by our affiliated organizations (DAECK, NAEK, ABEEK) and was spearheaded by “Global Engi-neering Education Forum”—entitled “Challenges of Glob-al Engineering Educa-tion” (November 22)—with the following domestic digni-taries speaking on their re-spective visions and issues pertaining to engineering edu-cation: Dr. Kim, Young-Gil (President, ABEEK), Dr. Lee, Heisook (Director, Center for Women in Science, Engineer-ing and Technology, Korea) and Moon Kyum Kim (President, KSEE) as well as the following international speakers who had reciprocat-ed in kind to KSEE’s special invitations providing their respective global visions and

issues pertaining to engineer-ing education: Prof. David Radcliffe (Purdue University, USA), Prof. Hajime Fujita (JSEE, Japan) and Dr. Jose Carlos Quadrado (President, IFEES; President, ISEL, Por-tugal). This year’s Global En-gineering Education Forum was completed with “KSEE Outreach and International Cooperation” (November 23) with the following internation-al representatives speaking on issues of their respective spe-cialties: Dr. Mohd Fadzil Daud* (SEEM, Malaysia), Mr. Yoichi Kemmochi* (JSEE, Japan), Mr. Ryan Campbell (Univ. of Washing-ton, USA) and keynote session by Ms. Lueny Morell (HP

Labs, USA).

The 19th KSEE Annual Con-ference—which further con-sisted of DAECK Annual Workshop, NAECK presenta-tions, ABEEK presentations (which included presentations by Sydney/Dublin Accord-bound ETAC), meetings of various engineering societies, and various presentations on topics of K-12 Education, Creative Interdisciplinary Ed-ucation, Engineering Ethics, Engineering Communication, Public Service, Teaching Methodology, Women in En-gineering and Intellectual Property—was complemented this year by Engineering Edu-cation Festa (E2 Festa) 2012 as sponsored by Korea’s Inno-vation Centers, the highlight of which was the Capstone

Design Fair in which 274 teams from Korea and 16 teams from abroad showed their ingenious college-level projects—hosted various exhi-bitions by college engineering clubs, engineering organiza-tions and high school stu-dents—who, in focusing with the on-going job fair and job-consultation services, present-ed many of their respective results—in a generally festive atmosphere featuring snacks, music, media/illustrative/

animation arts and fashion.

In 2011—in reaching out to both the East and the West—KSEE formalized its relations with MOU’s, Japanese Socie-ty for Engineering Education (JSEE) and Society of Engi-neering Education Malaysia (SEEM) and sought to send our largest delegations and representations ever to events and meetings hosted by Inter-national Federation of Engi-neering Education Societies (IFEES), Association for the Engineering Education in South East Asia and the Pacif-ic (ASEESEAP) and Ameri-can Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), who had contributed financially to this

year’s KSEE meeting.

Myongsook Susan Oh, D.Sc.,

IFEES Vice President for Asia

and Australia

P a g e 3

The 19th KSEE Annual Conference and

Engineering Education, November 22-23, 2012

“...The 19th KSEE

Annual Conference

featured numerous

domestic sessions co-

supported by our

affiliated organizations

(DAECK, NAEK, ABEEK)

and was spearheaded

by “Global Engineering

Education Forum”—

entitled “Challenges

of Global Engineering

Education” (November

22)—with the following

domestic dignitaries

speaking on their

respective visions and

issues pertaining to

engineering

education…”

The Dubai Convention Bu-reau a division of the Depart-ment of Tourism and Com-merce Marketing (DTCM), yesterday held a press confer-ence to announce winning the bid to host the “World Engi-neering Education Forum” in the Emirate of Dubai, which is scheduled to be held under the patronage of His High-ness Sheikh Hamdan bin Mo-hamed bin Rashid al Mak-toum, the Crown Prince of Dubai, from 3-6 December, 2014. During the press conference, which was held at the Jumeirah Creekside Hotel, DCB and the American Uni-versity in Dubai (AUD) en-tered into a local host agree-ment with the aim to collabo-ratively organize the event. The Agreement was signed in the presence of H.E. Khalid Ahmed Bin Sulayem, Direc-tor General of DRCM, Elias Bou Saab, Executive Vice President of the American University in Dubai, Dr. John Beynon, Chair Elect of the Global Engineering Deans Council, Dr. Hans J. Hoyer, Executive Secretary of the Global Engineering Deans

Council and Co-Chair of WEEF 2014, Dr. Jose Carlos Quadrado, President of the International Federation of Engineering Edu-cation Societies (IFEES), and H. E. Engineer Essa Al—Maidoor, Director General of the Dubai Health Authority and President of the UAE Society of Engineers accompanied by Dr. Alaa Ashmawy, WEEF 2014 Co-Chair and Dean of the School of Engineering, American Univer-sity in Dubai. The Terms of the agreement stipulate the responsi-bilities of each party in relation to the preparation of the organi-zation of the World Engineering Education Forum, as well as specifying the tasks of each par-ty in order to ensure the success of this important event. The agreement also states that the official opening ceremony of the Forum and its associated social activities will be sponsored by

the Dubai Convention Bureau.

Commenting on the agreement, H. E. Khalid Bin Sulayem said, “The World Engineering Educa-tion Forum, which attracts over 1500 participants from over the world, is an international event and a unique gathering of re-nowned figures in the field of engineering, as well as those

who work in engineering

education.”

Bin Sulayem stressed that such events

and activities

constitute real platform to promote the tourism sector in the emirate of Dubai, “There is no doubt that the Dubai Conven-

P a g e 4

Dubai Convention Bureau and American

University in Dubai seal local host agreement

T h e G l o b a l B u l l e t i n

o f E n g i n e e r i n g E d u c a t i o n

H. E. Khalid Bin

Sulayem said, “The

World Engineering

Education Forum,

which attracts over

1500 participants

from over the world,

is an international

event and a unique

gathering of

renowned figures in

the field of

engineering, as well

as those who work in

engineering

education.”

continually seeks to attract and host important events in line with DTCM strategy. DCB aim is to promote Dubai’s position as a favorite and pre-eminent tourist destination at various levels by focusing on incentives travel, conferences, exhibitions, and spe-cial—events markets, thereby boosting the prospects of the Emirate’s economic growth,” he

remarked.

Commenting on the collaboration, Elias Bou Saab said: “The Ameri-can University in Dubai, is de-lighted to work with the Dubai Convention Bureau in hosting and organizing this important forum, which aims to enhance coopera-tion between various engineer-ing—related education parties and associations. It also aims to bring together the highest quality engi-neering-education processes available throughout the world to secure the global supply of engi-neering graduates. The forum will help strengthen the role of mem-ber organizations in terms of their abilities to support universities, colleges and students, as well as enhance communication between engineering Dean Alaa Ashmawy stated that “WEEF 2014 objective is to bring together the highest quality of engineering graduates and international companies look-ing for under-trainee engineers,” Bou Saab added. H.E. Engineer Essa Al Maidoor said, “ Such global events will further enhance the presence of Dubai on the academic arena in general and engineering in partic-ular, and open the door for future agreements between several par-ties in Dubai and the World that will serve engineering education in the UAE, and provide jobs for engineering graduates in the

country.

V o l u m e 2 , I s s u e 1

The Quality of Engineering Education in Central Asia (QUEECA) project was launched at a kick off meeting in Menaggio, Italy, from November 26-29. QUUECA is a tempus project which will establish and implement a system of quality assurance of Engi-neering Education in Central Asia. The Intended outcome of the project is the pre-professional accreditation of engineering programs satisfying the standards for the awards of EUR-ACE

quality label.

The three– year QUEECA initiative is led by IFEES founding president, Clau-dio Borri of the University of Florence. The QUEECA consortium includes European partners from Italy, Germa-ny, Belgium, Portugal and UK and Central Asian partners from Kazakh-stan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Ta-jikistan. Several IFEES member soci-eties will be involved in the project including SEFI, ENAEE, ISEL, ASEE

and KazSEE.

Elisa Guberti Head of International Relations

University of Florence Italy

P a g e 5

Inauguration of

QUEECA Project

Save the date: OEB 2013 will take place

from December 4 – 6, 2013 Mark your calendars now to ensure you don’t miss out on the

largest global e-learning conference for the corporate, educa-

tion and public service sectors. We will provide you with

more information about the 19th edition of ONLINE EDU-

CA BERLIN in due course. In the meantime, join us on Face-

book, LinkedIn and Twitter to keep up to date with confer-

ence developments and take part in discussions on e-learning

developments throughout the world.

For more information please visit: http://www.online-

educa.com/

The 2013 CDIO Academy Hosted by the Skolkovo Tech - MIT Initiative

The CDIO Academy is an opportunity for engineering students to showcase their

design-implement projects, meet their peers from engineering programs around

the world, and participate in workshops and plenary sessions presented by prom-

inent leaders in engineering education. The CDIO Academy is held each year at

the international CDIO conference. The Skolkovo Tech - MIT Initiative, a col-

laboration to launch and develop the Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technol-

ogy in Moscow, will host the 2013 CDIO Academy. Moreover, the inaugural

class of 20 Skolkovo Tech MSc. students will help to organize the 2013 CDIO

Academy. In engineering programs that have adopted a CDIO approach, stu-

dents play an active role in their education. Programs emphasize the use of de-

sign projects, open-ended problems, and group work because these methods en-

courage students to engage actively in their education. This type of work also

develops skills beyond technical knowledge, such as communication and team-

work, creative and critical thinking, engineering reasoning and problem solving.

A CDIO approach also attempts to put engineering education into a broader con-

text. The role of engineers in society goes beyond the ability to design products,

processes, and systems. Engineers must be

aware of the social and environmental impact of their work and their ethical re-

sponsibilities. For more Information Please visit: http://laspau.org/cdio2013/

On September 26, 2012, IIDEA facilitators from MIT’s Teaching and Learn-ing Laboratory offered a half-day workshop to attendees at the Annual Meeting of the International Society for En-gineering Education (IGIP). The workshop, entitled “Developing the Tea ching Skills of Graduate Students and Post-docs”, drew 27 at-tendees from a variety of institutions in the region. The two facilitators were Jennifer DeBoer and Darshita (Dipa) Shah, postdoctoral associate and associate direc-tor, respectively, of the Teaching and Learning La-boratory at the Massachusetts

Institute of Technology.

The four-hour workshop be-gan with a description of a teaching certification pro-gram designed to develop and enhance the teaching skills of graduate students and post-doctoral associates pursuing academic careers. Partici-pants heard specifically about the MIT Teaching Certificate Program – an eight session program consisting of 16 total contact hours where participants are exposed to the educational literature and best practices in teaching, and given the practical tools to design and deliver a course. The MIT program covers topics identified as key for its constituents: Stu-dents as Learners, You as Teacher; Designing a Course and Constructing a Syllabus; Interactive Teaching & Ac-tive Learning; Planning and Presenting a Lecture; Con-structing Effective Assign-ments; Teaching in a Multi-cultural Classroom; Articulat-ing Your Teaching Philoso-phy; and Video-recorded

Microteaching Sessions. IIDEA workshop participants considered how objectives might be similar or different for their own institutions. They identified the main ob-jectives of a teaching certifi-cate program in their region, accounting for the needs of aspiring and new faculty in

the area.

TLL IIDEA workshop partic-ipants then discussed how they might re-design or aug-ment the example certificate program or programs that already exist in their respec-tive contexts in order to meet the identified needs of their stakeholders. The facilitators also presented different con-siderations for formative and summative program evalua-tion. DeBoer and Shah again used MIT’s certificate pro-gram as an example, demon-strating tools that were used both during and after the pro-gram for different levels of evaluation in order to meet the needs of various stake-

holders.

At the end of the working session, attendees were able to discuss and receive feed-back on concrete ways in which they could improve teacher training for future faculty in their contexts. Attendees were supported in thinking about concrete steps they could take to incorporate or improve the use of online tools in their own teaching, and they created short “action plans” articulating their goals and strategies. These action plans were based on previous workshop practices of the Student Platform for Engi-neering Education Develop-

ment (SPEED).

Through their participation in

the workshop, attendees gained a network of motivat-ed and engaged peers in IGIP as well as a concrete plan in hand to implement upon re-turn to their home institu-tions. This workshop was geared towards staff from university teaching and learn-ing centers and those interest-ed or involved in graduate student/postdoctoral associate professional development. Attendees had the opportuni-ty to discuss how they might re-design/augment the teach-ing certification program to better suit the needs of aspir-ing and new faculty in their region. Action plans were diverse, addressing a range of environments, histories, and political realities in which to support skill development for future faculty. For example, while one participant in the Czech Republic discussed ways in which she could make a small step towards changing the culture of engi-neering pedagogy in her insti-tution by working with mentees to encourage the development of their teaching skills, another participant outlined her plan to translate concepts covered in the workshop to her new online teaching certificate program for STEM professors at an institution in Canada. A meeting of IIDEA leader-ship present with IGIP lead-ership covered possibilities for future workshops that take advantage of IGIP’s

expertise and leadership in

engineering pedagogy and training. Continued IIDEA presence at the IGIP annual

conferences was discussed.

Sessions’ Feedback Reports

P a g e 6

International Institute for Developing Engineering Academics (IIDEA)

Post - Workshop Report, Overview

T h e G l o b a l B u l l e t i n

o f E n g i n e e r i n g E d u c a t i o n

and Outcomes assessment

summary:

Participants were generally pleased with the workshop, noting the importance of the topic (teaching skills for engineering faculty and future faculty). They noted the challenges of imple-menting a workshop with a spec-trum of comfort levels with Eng-

lish. Participants in the workshop included a large contingent repre-senting a major research universi-ty in Russia. Their institution has had a long history of providing a long curriculum of accredited training in pedagogy for science and engineering faculty. They shared insights gained from their experiences and discussed new developments in teaching pro-grams with the other diverse at-

tendees.

Participants represented engineer-

ing teachers already interested in

incorporating thoughtful peda-

gogy and already open to peda-

gogical training for engineering

faculty. Their challenge, though,

will be to implement a teacher

training program in a larger insti-

tutional context that may not be as

favorable to a focus on teaching

quality. Besides hearing about

MIT TLL’s program as an exam-

ple, participants forged connec-

tions with motivated colleagues

who will serve as resources as

they implement their action plans

for teacher training development.

For example, a representative of a

new institution in Canada will be

leading the design and implemen-

tation of their new teacher train-

ing program, which will be con-

ducted largely online. IIDEA/MIT

TLL facilitators will continue to

collaborate and to learn from her

work providing this training in an

online context.

For more information please visit:

http://www.sefi.be/iidea/

Lueny Morell

and Jennifer DeBoer

V o l u m e 2 , I s s u e 1 P a g e 7

IFEES GLOBAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO ENGINEERING EDUCATION

IFEES was established in 2006 following a process of consultation among engineering education leaders globally. It was conceptual-

ized to establish effective engineering education processes of high quality around the world to assure a global supply of well-prepared

engineering graduates, to strengthen member organizations and their capacity to support faculty and students and to attract corporate

participation, helping to connect engineering graduates with international corporations that have a pressing need for well-trained engi-

neers who can work and have the attributes to be effective in a global environment. There are 45 members including associations,

corporations and student organizations representing over 40 countries and there are ongoing discussions with new organizations and

corporations that promise to increase the overall membership this year. The IFEES Secretariat recently moved to Marquette University

and has a full time staff of two professionals. The Secretariat works in close partnership with its volunteer leaders throughout the world.

IFEES is proud of its successful role in catalyzing the formation of the Global Engineering Deans Council which also operates under the

same legal umbrella and Secretariat. The membership of the GEDC, formed in 2008, has grown dramatically and is expected to grow

and already includes several regional chapters globally. There are close to 200 deans associated in one way or another with the GEDC.

Its leadership structure resembles that of IFEES where the President and Chair of IFEES/GEDC works with their respective Executive

Committees and the IFEES/GEDC Secretary General/Executive Secretary. While IFEES is a federation of individual organizations, GEDC

represents individual engineering deans. Both have corporate members. Almost two-thirds of the IFEES/GEDC Secretariat’s financial

resources stem from the GEDC.

IFEES recently catalyzed the formation of the International Institute for the Formation of Engineering Academics (IIDEA) and will serve

as the “faculty capacity building” arm of IFEES. Several workshops have already been offered and others are being planned for 2013

and beyond. IIDEA has two voluntary co-directors who primarily have other responsibilities, a board of advisors and is supported by the

IFEES and SEFI Secretariats.

There have been several global events in which IFEES and GEDC co-located their respective annual events keeping in mind a broad

common theme and objectives thereby facilitating the interactions, dialogue, mutual learning between its respective members. This

was particularly successful during the WEEF 2010 Singapore and WEEF 2012 Buenos Aires. In 2011 both organizations met in differ-

ent venues as will happen again in 2013. However, both organizations will again co-locate for WEEF 2014 Dubai and hopefully also for

2015 (most likely Italy). In addition to IFEES’ role leading to the formation of the GEDC and IIDEA, IFEES has also played a role in the

formation of the Indo-US Collaborative for Engineering Education (IUCEE) and is currently supportive of numerous global initiatives and

events related to engineering education in Africa, Central Asia, the Middle East. Increasingly, we see a trend in which IFEES and the

GEDC collaborate closely and are now also weaving IIDEA in this process as we see in Africa, Central Asia and other places. The extent

to which both IFEES and GEDC will continue to develop activities that will strengthen each organization's objectives will only enhance

the world of engineering education. While we realize that the focus of IFEES is primarily on strengthening its member organizations and

contributing to the formation of new organizations, the key thrust of the GEDC will be its individual deans and their ability to influence,

strengthen their respective individual colleges of engineering at a local and national level.

IFEES is also proud to be a leading architect of the creation of the Student Platform of Engineering Education Development, also

known as SPEED, and a co-host of the annual Global Student Forum (GSF), a venue which has emerged as one of the world’s premier

engineering conferences. GSF is the major event of SPEED and is perhaps the only global engineering students’ conference. SPEED

competitions connect industrial corporations with talented students and the financial support to students provided by this organization

is on the rise. SPEED leaders are part of the IFEES leadership structure.

Hans J. Hoyer, Ph.D., IFEES Secretary General,

GEDC Executive Secretary

(Continued from page 1)

Because of emerging nature of the concept and the differ-ent interests at work, both Wikipedia entries carried the disclaimer that: ‘this article appears to be written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by rewriting pro-motional content from a neu-tral point of view and remov-ing any inappropriate exter-nal links’ (Wikipedia,

2012a,b).

We shall describe the short history of MOOCs since the term emerged in 2007, alt-hough many courses around the world exhibited some of these characteristics much

earlier.

The term MOOC originated in Canada. Dave Cormier and Bryan Alexander coined the acronym to describe an open online course at the Universi-ty of Manitoba designed by George Siemens and Stephen Downes. The course, Con-nectivism and Connective Knowledge, was presented to 25 fee-paying students on campus and 2,300 other stu-dents from the general public who took the online class free of charge (Wikipedia,

2012a).

The title itself evokes the aim of the course, which was to follow Ivan Illich’s injunc-tion that an educational sys-tem should ‘provide all who want to learn with access to available resources at any time in their lives; empower all who want to share what they know to find those who want to learn it from them;

and, finally furnish all who want to present an issue to the public with the opportuni-ty to make their challenge known’ (Illich, 1971). In this spirit ‘all the course content was available through RSS feeds, and learners could par-ticipate with their choice of tools: threaded discussions in Moodle, blog posts, Second Life and synchronous online meetings’ (Wikipedia,

2012a).

We quote Illich to emphasize that the xMOOCs attracting media attention today, which are ‘at the intersection of Wall Street and Silicon Val-ley’ (Caulfield, 2012), appear to have scant relation to those pioneering approaches. The earlier tradition of what Sie-mens (2012) calls cMOOCs continues (see Cormier, 2010) but the focus of atten-tion has moved to xMOOCs that are far from Illich’s ide-als. Surprisingly perhaps, those who coined the term MOOCs and continue to lead much Web discussion about them draw little attention to this change. Stephen Downes)1 (2012) comments wistfully: ‘I was not surprised at all that once (the MOOC format) proved successful it would be adopted by the Ivy League (who would receive credit for its ‘discovery’) because this follows a well-established pattern in our field’. Perhaps the originators of cMOOCs believe that with time the movement will be drawn back to some of their methods and philosophy and

indeed, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) is beginning, timidly, to enrich its xMOOCs in this

way.

No doubt the delayed reac-tion of the first movers is partly because the new wave of xMOOCs is so recent. Early in 2012 Stanford Uni-versity offered a free, chunked course on Artificial Intelligence online and about 160,000 people signed up. One of the faculty members involved, Sebastian Thrun, went on to found Udacity, a commercial start-up that helps other universities to offer xMOOCs (Meyer, 2012). MIT (2011) an-nounced MITx at the end of 2011 for a launch in spring 2012. MITx has now mor-phed into edX with the addi-tion of Harvard and UC Berkeley (edX, 2012). Since then similar initiatives from other well known US univer-sities have come thick and fast. There seems to be a herd instinct at work as universi-ties observe their peers join-ing the xMOOCs bandwagon and jump on for fear of being left behind. At this writing Coursera, another for-profit

xMOOC start-up, already

claims nearly 1.4m registra-tions and will offer 200 courses in late 2012 with 33 partner institutions, of which the large majority are in the US (Lewin, 2012a; DeSantis, 2012). To read the full arti-cle please visit: http://www.gedcouncil.org/sites/default/files/MOOCs,%

20Sir%20John%20Daniel.pdf

1. http://www.downes.ca/

P a g e 8

Making Sense of MOOCs: Musings in a Maze of Myth,

Paradox and Possibility By: Sir John Daniel, Ph.D.

T h e G l o b a l B u l l e t i n

o f E n g i n e e r i n g E d u c a t i o n

Stephen Downes

(2012) comments

wistfully: ‘I was not

surprised at all that

once (the MOOC

format) proved

successful it would

be adopted by the

Ivy League (who

would receive credit

for its ‘discovery’)

because this follows

a well-established

pattern in our field’.

V o l u m e 2 , I s s u e 1

P a g e 9

Achieving excellence in engineering

education: the ingredients of successful change, By: Ruth Graham, March, 2012

wide range of examples of cur-ricular reform from across the world, offering a high-level view of the features associated with successful and unsuccessful change. Secondly, six examples were selected from those identi-fied through the expert inter-views to investigate in detail how significant educational re-form can be achieved. The six case studies are all highly-regarded, selected to provide a spectrum of drivers for reform, change strategies, levels of am-bition, geographical locations and stages in the change process (see box right). A further 117 individuals were consulted for these case studies. Through its detailed focus on how funda-mental change has been achieved, the report challenges some assumptions about the ingredients of success. - Widespread lasting change is rarely the product of incremental reform. Rarely, for example, did a successful redesign of one component of the curriculum provide the springboard for a course-by-course diffusion of proven good practice. As this suggests, knowing how faculty execute successful change with-in a single course or module provides only limited insight

into how to

undertake broader educational reform. - Successful programs of reform are rarely informed by evidence demonstrating the efficacy of a particular educational approach. Instead, successful changes typi-cally involve the development and adoption of a new approach, developed in-house. Although it may be influenced by existing examples of good practice, it is

deliberately designed to be distinct and developed to fit the priorities, resource constraints and student de-

mographic of the host institution.

The features relate to the questions of why, what, who and how of educa-

tional form.

2.1. Why? The context for successful

change

In most cases of successful change, there is a clear sense of shared pur-pose among both senior management and faculty, grounded in a widespread acknowledgement that educational reform is unavoidable. This impera-tive for change is typically triggered by one of the following scenarios:

(Continues on Page 10)

A series of reports from The Royal Academy of Engineering (The Royal Academy of Engi-

neering, 2006, 2007, 2010)1 has

demonstrated that change in undergraduate engineering edu-cation is urgently needed to en-sure graduates remain equipped for the new and complex chal-

lenges of the 21st century.

However, the necessary trans-formation in the structure and delivery of undergraduate provi-sion has yet to take place across the Higher Education sector. There is a growing appreciation that the slow pace of change reflects the difficulties of cata-lysing and sustaining education-al reform within engineering departments and schools. The case for reform is recognized; the challenge is to make it hap-pen. The pressing issue for engi-neering education is not whether

but how to change.

The report turns the spotlight on this issue. It examines how posi-tive change can be achieved across the engineering curricu-lum, looking specifically at how reform can be initiated, imple-mented and sustained within engineering departments and

schools.

The report draws on the experi-ences of those involved in major programs of engineering educa-tion reform across the world with the aim of distilling the common features of success and

failure. A two stage study was

conducted between January and October 2011. Firstly, inter-views were conducted with 70 international experts from 15 countries, each with first-hand experience of curriculum change in engineering. The in-terviews provided insight into a

Asian Engineering Deans’ Summit,

Seoul, South Korea, May 7-8, 2013

The Objective of this regional Summit is to bring together East Asian Engineering Deans and will leverage their collective strengths for the advancement of engineering educa-tion, research and service to the East Asian Community through three core items: Grand Challenges of Engineering Research; Best Practices of Quality Education of Engineer-ing; Institutional Collaboration. For further Information please contact Jaiyong Lee, Yonsei University,

South Korea: jyl@yonsei.ac.kr

(Continues from Page 9)

- A significant threat to the continued operation of the undergraduate program, typi-cally related to major prob-lems in recruitment, retention and employability. The prob-lems are sufficiently serious to be recognized by a wide cross-section of faculty; in some cases, university man-agement also demand funda-mental reform to ensure the long—term survival of the program and department. Changes triggered under these circumstances appear to be the most likely to produce successful outcomes. The vast majority (around 70-80 percent) of the examples of change described by the par-ticipants in the study fall into

this category.

- Externally-imposed re-forms, such as mandatory changes in national accredita-tion criteria or a university re-structuring. In responding to these changes, senior man-agement within the depart-ment/ school decide to take the opportunity to implement more fundamental education-al reform. Around 10 percent of the examples of change included in the study fall into

this group.

- An established culture of innovation within the depart-ment/school. In these cases, a high proportion of faculty already hold a sense of col-lective responsibility and vision for the undergraduate programs. Such circumstanc-es appear to be among the few where existing innova-tion and an engagement with engineering education re-search are important influ-ences on the change process.

Relatively few (5-10) exam-ples of change described by study participants fall into this category. There appears to be one set of circumstances, almost exclu-sively U.S. based, where suc-cessful systemic change is not associated with wide-spread engagement by facul-ty. This is where the change process has benefitted from significant external funding. Such awards often bring ex-ternal prestige, financial inde-pendence and the ability to ‘buy out’ faculty time. These factors all help to minimize

faculty resistance to change.

There appears to be one set of circumstances, almost exclu-sively U.S. based, where suc-cessful systemic change is not associated with wide-spread engagement by facul-ty. This is where the change process has benefited from significant external funding. Such awards often bring ex-ternal prestige, financial inde-pendence and the ability to buy out faculty time. There factors all help to minimize

faculty resistance to change.

Other Common contexts are shared by successful change programs. They are much more likely to involve faculty with industry experience or newly hired faculty, often replacing those retiring. In addition, the leaders of suc-cessful curriculum—wide change have often experi-enced failure in previous at-tempts to make isolated changes at the course level, from which they concluded that “change needed to be radical and widespread for it

to stick.”

Conclusion and Recommen-

dations:

Its findings point to the diffi-

culties experienced by the

‘lone champions’ who are

currently driving reform in

engineering schools and de-partments, where changes often prove limited and short-term. The evidence points instead to the importance of departmental leadership and widespread faculty engage-ment in a process of reform which is informed, coherent

and ambitious.

The calls for change in engi-neering education are grow-ing. These will only become

more urgent as engineering

graduates are called to oper-ate in an increasingly global-ized and complex environ-ment. At the same time, edu-cational change in engineer-ing is becoming more chal-lenging in many regions of the world. Many of the study participants pointed to a re-cent retrenchment in the mo-mentum for change, triggered by national government cuts and an increasing emphasis on international research rankings. In such an environ-ment, long-term strategic educational change is likely to be increasingly difficult to achieve. The study suggests some ways forward. For en-gineering schools and de-partments, it provides a set of guidelines for curriculum

reform.

To read the full report please

visit this link:

http://www.gedcouncil.org/publications/features-

successful-change

P a g e 1 0

Achieving Excellence in Engineering Education: the ingredients of

successful change

T h e G l o b a l B u l l e t i n

o f E n g i n e e r i n g E d u c a t i o n

“A significant threat

to the continued

operation of the

undergraduate

program, typically

related to major

problems in

recruitment, retention

and employability”

- Ruth Graham

V o l u m e 2 , I s s u e 1

P a g e 1 1

Strategic Issues Facing Public Universities

By: Clayton Daniel Mote, Jr., Ph.D.*

waves of accelerating changes in many different arenas – information, economic, financial, environmental, security, energy, disease, food, and water to name a few – research uni-versities find themselves standing on the curl of all these waves and trying to not get “rolled” by them. The dyna-mism of this new environment neces-sitates a public university’s strategic vision be re-framed frequently be-cause its underpinning mission and service responsibilities, opportunities and challenges are changing continu-ously and often significantly. Change

cannot be ignored. For instance none of the top-ten U.S. employment op-portunities in 2010 existed in 2004, and most of the key strategic issues facing U.S. society today were not primary a decade earlier either. With increasing responsibilities to global societies comes the obligation to rec-ognize and serve their rapidly chang-ing realities. Today the ivory tower is

not visible in the rear view mirror.

Accelerating change results in a short-ening time horizon for response wheth-er we speak of business decisions, product life cycles, employment op-portunities, disasters, or research op-portunities. The connectivity that links talent, markets, finance, manufactur-ing, research, development, service and education globally has expanded opportunities for industries, universi-ties and individuals alike. There are diminishingly few national companies remaining. And where people earlier

migrated at great personal risk to opportunities for a better life, today those with talent can often ‘migrate through cyberspace’ to opportuni-ties. This globally connected socie-ty requires the higher education systems that serve it to be strategi-

cally global too.

Universities are designed to not change rapidly. University cultures and governance processes slow response to change even while change is accelerating in surround-ing society. This reality challenges university leadership to be presci-ent about change so that the uni-

versity can be less buffered by it.

Strategic Issue #1 The combination of global connectivity and acceler-ating change will increasingly cre-ate abrupt disruptions. Universities must develop the mindset and pro-cesses to respond to disruptive change. Please visit the following

website to read full academic paper:

http://www.gedcouncil.org/sites/default/files/FINAL%20Strategic%20Issues%20Facing%20Public%

20Universities.pdf

* President of the National Academy of Engineering, USA; Former Presi-dent of the University of Maryland, College Park, United States,

(1998-2010).

Introduction

An ‘Ivory Tower’ enclave isolated from the ‘real world’ was a com-mon, (though annoying) characteri-zation of a university when I was a student. But a consequence of being “outside” of society was that univer-sities were largely left alone when deciding how to serve their intrinsic mission to discover, create and dis-seminate knowledge. Students had to adjust to university rules, and schedules were largely chosen to serve university needs. Under the heading of “be careful of what you wish for”, university responsibil-ities have broadened steadily overtime on both new and old frontiers so that services provid-ed to students, industry, commu-nities, the nation, even interna-tionally – services to society broadly - now rank along side teaching and research as primary university responsibilities. With the passing of the ivory tower into the historical record and the shifting of public university re-sponsibilities and financial sup-port towards serving societal needs, comes a diminution of

imagination inspired study.

B. GLOBAL DRIVERS OF

THE UNIVERSITY VISION

Predicting the future is futile. However, Oliver Wendell Holmes advised “The great thing in this world is not so much where we stand, as in what di-rection we are moving.” He said “in what direction”, and not “where we are moving”. Let’s highlight the ‘global drivers’ of our direction and use them to foretell ‘strategic issues’ that public research universities will

face in the next decade.

Global Driver 1. Accelerating

change

With our world society experiencing

Selected photos; World Engineering Education Forum

(WEEF, October 15-18, 2012),

Buenos Aires, Argentina,

Page 12 The Global Bulletin of Engineering Education

Michael Milligan, ABET Executive Director Erik De Graaff, IFEES Vice President for Europe & M.E.

Paul Gilbert, CEO of Quanser and IFEES Supporter

Roelf Sandenbergh, GEDC Member

Page 13 The Global Bulletin of Engineering Education

Myongsook Susan Oh, IFEES Vice President for Asia & Australia Robert H. Bishop, GEDC Member

Stephany Farrell, IFEES Executive Committee Member (2012-2014)

Xavier Fouger, Dassault Systèmes Representative Paul S. Peercy, GEDC member

Suggested articles and international events’ links:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/education/public-universities-to-offer-free

-online-classes-for-credit.html?ref=education&_r=1&

www.laspau.harvard.edu

http://laspau.org/cdio2013/

http://www.gedcouncil.org/news/airbus-and-gedc-launch-award-encourage-more-

diversity-engineering-programs-universities-worldwi

http://www.gedcouncil.org/news/tom-katsouleas-who-says-online-courseware-

will-cause-death-universities

Academic Papers:

Torbica, Z. M. (2011) Conference Keynote Speech: "Construction Industry: In

Need of Radical Transformation?" Sixth International Conference on Construction

in the 21st Century (CITC-VI, "Construction Challenges in the New Decade," July 5-

7, 2011, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Yiotis, A.G., Salin, D., Tajer, E.S., and Yortsos, Y.C., Drying of a Porous Medium in

the Presence of Gravity: Part I. Analytical Results, Phys. Rev. E., in press (Vol. 85,

No. 4), URL: http://link.aps.org/doi/10/1103/PhysRevE.85.046308, DOI:

10.1103/PhysRevE.85.046308

Chen, M., Yortsos, Y.C., and Rossen, W., A Pore-Network Study of the Mechanisms

of Foam Generation in Porous Media. Rev., E., 73 (2), n 3, id. 036304 (2006).

J.E. Spurlin, S.A. Rajala, and J.P. Lavelle, Constructing and Sustaining Effective-

Assessment of Engineering Education, Stylus Publishing, LLC, 2007.

S. A. Rajala, "Video Signal Processing," Handbook for Electrical Engineers: Cir-

cuits, Signals, and Speech and Image Processing, CRC Press, 3rd edition, 2006.

Morell, Lueny, A Proven Model to Re-engineer Engineering Education in Partner-

ship with Industry, World Engineering Education Conference, Buenos Aires, Octo-

ber, 2012.

Bidanda B., Shuman L.J., Thomes K., & Arisoy O., Adapting Engineering Course-

work for Increased Global Relevance., Proceedings of the Annual Conference of

the American Society for Engineering Education, Salt Lake City, June 2005.

Jose Carlos Quadrado, Ph.D.

IFEES President (2012-2014)

Hans J. Hoyer, Ph.D.

IFEES Secretary General

Peter M. Tase

International Programs

Assistant

International Federation of

Engineering

Education Societies

Headquartered @ Marquette University

College of Engineering

1515 W. Wisconsin Ave.

Milwaukee, WI, 53233

We are on the Web:

www.ifees.net