First meeting of Working Group a barcelona, U

I SYNTHESIS OF ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY

THE WORKING GROUP A

1. 
   Introduction
   

The theme "Curricula in civil engineering education at undergraduate level" was defined in the original application for the Thematic Network Project EUCEET as one of the six themes of the project. At the first EUCEET Steering Committee meeting which took place in Paris in December 1998, it was decided to assign this theme to the Working Group A, which together with Working Groups B and C were planned to function in the first two years of the project.

Appointed as Chairman of the Working Group A, Prof. Iacint Manoliu from the Technical University of Civil Engineering of Bucharest prepared the Terms of reference for the WG A which were presented at the meeting of the EUCEET Executive Board held in Paris on 29 January 1999. Endorsed by the Executive Board, the Terms of reference (see Annex I) were then presented at the First EUCEET General Assembly in Barcelona. At the same time, the Chairman of the Working Group A prepared the draft of the Questionnaire needed for the survey on the civil engineering education at undergraduate level across Europe, having as a model the Questionnaire used previously for a similar purpose in the TNP EUPEN (European Physics Education Network) coordinated by Prof. Henrik Ferdinande (Universiteit Gent).

The Working Group A was formed and started to function at the Barcelona General Assembly. From its very first meeting, it became obvious the great interest of a large number of the academic partners toward the activities of the WG A. The representatives of the partner institutions, as they were nominated at the General Assembly, contributed with their presence and their active involvement between these meetings, expressing opinions and ideas on the Working Group’s activity, distributing and collecting the questionnaires and providing all necessary information about the national peculiarities of civil engineering education systems.

It was decided to have all meetings of the WG A connected with meeting of the Steering Committee. By this way, not only the members of the Working Group could attend the meetings of the WG A but also other colleagues, who brought their contribution to the discussion of various materials.

In the table I.1 is summarised the attendance of the five meetings by the members of the Working Group A. In the table I.2 is summarised the attendance of the same meetings by other participants in the project.

Table I.2

(landscape)

2. Meetings of Working Group A

As one could expect, a great deal of the activities required in order to accomplish the objectives of the WG A were undertaken by using electronic mail. No matter how useful was the virtual mobility, the working meetings of the Group proved to be extremely precious. Therefore, it is worth to summarise in what follows the topics under discussion and the decisions adopted at the meetings.

FIRST MEETING of the Working Group A

Barcelona, U.P. de Catalunya, 23 February 1999

• 
  The draft of the Questionnaire of Working Group A, prepared by Prof. Manoliu and distributed to the participants of the General Assembly in Barcelona was discussed, modified according to the opinions of participants and approved. The Chairman and his colleague Tudor Bugnariu assumed the task of giving the final form of the questionnaire (see Annex I), taking into consideration all changes adopted in the meeting, and to distribute it to all EUCEET partners by the end of March 1999 both by mail and e-mail.
  

• 
  The following members of the working group were nominated to serve as contact person of the WG in their respective country, in order to distribute the questionnaire and to collect the answers from as many institutions as possible outside the EUCEET network:
  

David Lloyd Smith for U.K.

Bruce Misstear for Ireland

Richard Kastner for France

Jörg Franke for Germany

Pedro Diez for Spain

Luis Lemos for Portugal

Jean - François Thimus for Belgium

Pericles Latinopoulos for Greece

Antal Lovas for Hungary

Vaclav Kuraz for Czech Republic

Josef Dicky for Slovakia

Tudor Bugnariu for Romania

Stanislaw Majewski for Poland

Vicentas Stragys for Lithuania

• 
  Participants agreed to set up 15 June 1999 as the deadline for the answers to the questionnaire.
  

• 
  Dr. David Lloyd Smith announced that the Department of Civil Engineering at Imperial College London is willing to host the next meeting of the working Group A. The meeting was called for Monday 26 July 1999 at Imperial College, London.
  

SECOND MEETING of the Working Group A

London, Imperial College, 26 July 1999

• 
  State-of-the-art of sent EUCEET questionnaire and of received answers was presented by the Chairman of Group A, Prof. Iacint Manoliu. The final form of the questionnaire, agreed at the meeting in Barcelona, was sent to all partners by post and, in the mean time, a template file and an example were sent by e-mail.
  

• 
  Conclusions drawn from the state-of-the-art:
  

- Out of a total number of 50 academic partners (42 in the first year and 8 beginning with the second year), only 30 answers were received before the meeting in London (27 from first year partners and 3 from second year partners). From other institutions in Europe, not partners in EUCEET, 36 answers were received. Thus, the total number of received answers was 66. Out of a total of 30 answers received from EUCEET partners, 26 were complete, from which 16 sent by e-mail and 14 by post. From 36 answers received from other institutions, 20 were complete, from which only 9 sent by e-mail. Generally, the lack of completeness of the answers referred to the second part of the questionnaire, regarding the curricula information.

- Until the meeting in London, several important countries represented in the EUCEET program did not send any answers to the questionnaire. Representatives attending the meeting promised to take appropriate measures.

- It was emphasised the importance of sending the completed answers by e-mail to the contact person in Bucharest (Assoc. Prof. Tudor Bugnariu) for easier treatment of data.

• 
  Prof. Iacint Manoliu made a proposal for curricular categories, as starting point for in-depth analysis concerning the European comparison among civil engineering curricula at undergraduate level:
  

- There were proposed 7 categories (A to G) based on curricular content and compulsory/optional disciplines: Basic Sciences; General Engineering Sciences; Specialised Engineering Sciences; In-depth Specialised Engineering Sciences; Economics and Management Studies; Humanities, Social Sciences and Languages; Field Work. For each category there were exemplified some important disciplines.

- It was agreed about this general classification, with some proposals (amendments) from Working Group members, concerning more suggestive titles for categories and the disciplines (subjects) assigned to each category. Because of the variety of final assessment (the Final Project), noticed from the received answers, this was introduced as a separate category.

- After discussions, the Working Group members agreed on the following final classification of the disciplines (subjects) in the curriculum at undergraduate level:

Table I.3

Category	Name of category	Examples of subjects
A	Basic Sciences	Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry
B	Engineering Sciences	Mechanics, Strength of materials, F.E.M., Computer science, Drawing-graphics
C	Core Civil Engineering Subjects	Statics, Dynamics, Hydraulics, Soil Mechanics, Fluid mechanics, Elasticity & Plasticity, Building materials, Surveying, Reinforced concrete, Hydrology
D	Engineering Specialisation	Steel structures, Reinforced concrete structures, Foundation Engineering, Earthquake engineering, Non-linear design of structures, Hydraulic systems in transitory regime, Hydraulic structures
E	Economics and Management subjects
F	Humanities, Social sciences, Languages and Physical Education
G	Field Work
H	Final Project

- It was agreed to ask each respondent to assign himself the subjects in the curriculum to the categories A … F specified above (based on already sent answers). Thus, to all partners (and to other institutions which already responded), an additional table will be sent by the end of September, containing the column required for this additional information.

• 
  Assoc. Prof. Tudor Bugnariu (T.U.C.E. Bucharest) presented an example of preliminary analysis, regarding the curricula structure and the organisation of studies.
  

- Three universities with a 5-year program and two universities with a 4-year program from five different countries were selected and tables and charts reflecting total number of teaching hours vs. categories, as mean value computed for selected answers, were presented.

- For each university in the selection, evolution of curricula content: total teaching hours vs. categories and academic year.

- For each academic year, the distribution of categories vs. teaching hours, as mean value per selected universities.

- For each university in the selection, total teaching hours vs. academic year.

- Finally, Assoc. Prof. Tudor Bugnariu presented some examples of prelimi-nary analysis regarding the organisation of studies based on 23 complete answers from first year partners. The main topics were related to: the formal duration in years; the official academic calendar; the inflow of students and entry requirements; mean typical age of students; mean percentage of female students; the student/academic stuff ratio; average success rate in the last academic year; the outflow of students; degree courses in other languages contained in the curriculum.

• 
  Discussions on data processing and the interpretation of the answers.
  

• 
  It was proposed and agreed to have the questionnaire completed with a question referring to the exchange of students (number of students received and sent by the institution in one academic year; duration of study period for the student mobility; learning agreement between the sending/receiving institutions; recognition of study period abroad, etc). Thus, a second questionnaire was adopted, containing these informations and the category assignment discussed before (see Annex I).
  

• 
  Prof. Gareth Jones from the Department of Physics, Imperial College, made a presentation on trends in European higher education, following the Bologna Conference and informed about the activities of the Thematic Network for Physics (EUPEN) in which he was involved.
  

• 
  Discussions on the future activity of the Working Group A in the period July 1999 - May 2000 (second EUCEET General Assembly).
  

- The following schedule was agreed:

30 September 1999 - Second questionnaire finalised and sent to all partners.

15 December 1999 - Deadline for receiving answers, for both first and

second questionnaires.

20 February 2000 - First draft on analysis of the answers received for the

questionnaires.

28-29 February 2000 - Third meeting of the Working Group A to discuss and

improve the draft of the analysis (I.N.S.A., Lyon).

18-20 May 2000 - Second General Assembly of EUCEET and the 4^th

meeting of Working Group A (Engineering College, Odense).

THIRD MEETING of the Working Group A

Lyon, I.N.S.A., 28 - 29 February 2000

• 
  Presentation of the Civil Engineering Department of I.N.S.A Lyon, by Prof. Jean-Marie Reynouard, Head of Department.
  

• 
  State-of-the-art of received answers to EUCEET questionnaires, presented by Assoc. Prof. Tudor Bugnariu. The list of received answers and a summary of the information were included in summarising tables.
  

• 
  Comments about the possible processing of the received data, regarding the first part of the questionnaire: organisation of studies. Assoc. Prof. Tudor Bugnariu presented cumulative tables and example tables with processed data.
  

• 
  Discussions on the presented tables. Opinions expressed by the Working Group members regarding their possibility to correct the answers. In this context, it was suggested that every partner should receive the cumulative table for a final assessing of the own answer.
  

• 
  State-of-the-art of received answers to the second questionnaire, about the assignment of disciplines to categories A to H as they were defined at the previous meeting, presented by Assoc. Prof. Tudor Bugnariu. Regarding the proposal to assign different codes to disciplines categories (in order to in-depth refinement of analysis), the general opinion was that the category assignment is enough for general processing, in order to emphasise the evolution of curricula between different study years and to asses the compatibility of curricula among various institutions.
  

• 
  Discussions on total contact hours assessment for each category, based on some examples. It was agreed that for the final report, all specialisation occurring in the last 1 - 2 years of a curriculum should be treated as separate answers.
  

• 
  Prof. Iacint Manoliu summarised the decisions adopted by the Working Group A and the future tasks until 31 August 2000, end of the second year of the project:
  

- Sending to all partners the cumulative tables referring to the first part of the questionnaire, to be checked - deadline 10 March 2000;

- Sending to all partners the tables with curricula subjects, with total contact hours per category, to be checked - deadline 10 March 2000;

- Receiving answers from all partners - deadline 31 March 2000;

- Preparing of draft reports on both part I and part II of the questionnaire, to be presented at the General Assembly in Odense, on 18 May 2000.

- Preparing the revised form of the reports for the part I and part II of the questionnaire, taking into consideration proposals and amendments made at the General Assembly in Odense.

- Meeting of Working Group's A core members in Prague on 20 - 22 July 2000, to discuss the revised form of the reports and to agree on the final form for publication and dissemination.

FOURTH MEETING of the Working Group A

Odense, Engineering College, 18 - 20 May 2000

• 
  State-of-the-art of activities of Working Group A, presented in the framework of the General Assembly of EUCEET. Presentation made by Prof. Iacint Manoliu and Assoc. Prof. Tudor Bugnariu.
  

• 
  Presentation of the main features of the higher education reform in Italy and its impact on Civil Engineering education, by Prof. Giovani Barla, from Politecnico di Torino.
  

• 
  Comments, questions and discussions.
  

FIFTH MEETING of the Working Group A

Prague, C.T.U., 20 - 22 July 2000

• 
  Results of data processing regarding the first part of the EUCEET questionnaire (organisation of studies), as they resulted from the received answers. The presentation was made by Assoc. Prof. Tudor Bugnariu.
  

• 
  Comments and discussions about the presented tables and charts. All common opinions where notified in order to be used in the Final Report of Working Group A.
  

• 
  Results of data processing regarding the second part of the EUCEET questionnaire (curricula structure, category assignment, etc.), presented by Assoc. Prof. Tudor Bugnariu.
  

• 
  Discussions on the presented tables and charts. Some members of the Working Group expressed their availability to do some other processing of the data, in order to get additional conclusions. In this context, it was suggested and agreed to send the whole database and the cumulative tables recorded on a CD to all members of the Working Group present at the meeting.
  

• 
  Discussions about the content and presentation of the National Reports on Civil Engineering Education.
  

• 
  Discussions about the content and editing form of the Final Report of Working Group A.
  

• 
  Prof. Iacint Manoliu summarised the decisions adopted by the Working Group A and the future tasks until 31 August 2000, end of the second year of the EUCEET project and 31 December 2000, when Reports produced by the Group should be sent to the publisher.
  

3. Outcomes and follow-up of the activities of Working Group A

The main outcomes of Working Group’s A activity are the completed answers to the questionnaires, received from institutions across Europe. All the responses received by e-mail (as attached files) built the EUCEET database, to be disseminated by CDs. The state-of-the-art of the received answers, in July 2000, before the last meeting in Prague, is summarised in table I.4.

As previewed in the Terms of reference, the Survey on Curricula in civil engineering education at undergraduate level, based on the responses to the comprehensive Questionnaire, gave to the Working Group A the possibility to produce two studies:

• 
  Study on the organisation of civil engineering education at undergraduate
  

level in Europe.

• 
  Study on the curricula structure for the first civil engineering degree in Europe.
  

The two studies are included in Sections II and III of this Report.

Efforts were made to extract from the received answers the most relevant data. However, there is still a tremendous amount of information worth to be presented and analysed, but for which room could not be available in this publication. In the attempt to better put into value this information, the members of the Working Group A decided to prepare in 2001 a special volume dedicated to civil engineering programmes and curricula in Europe which will comprise all National Reports sent by the members of the Group, complete curricula of various universities, lists of institutions offering civil engineering education and other pertinent information. The monograph, the first of this kind for civil engineering education worldwide, will represent a very good follow-up of the intense activity undertaken by the EUCEET Working Group A.