SHIPMARTECH

Course upgrading needs report: Graphic representation of the results 

Workgroups

 

Summary of group upgrading needs

 

Course objectives 

Slight update for the course objectives to get course more comprehensive and to expand the topic.

 

Learning outcomes

 

Assessment

1. Upgrade to MSc level course assessment criteria will be upgraded
2. More practical work between lectures
3. Development of quiz guestions database in e-learning system

 

Assignments

1. Upgrade to MSc level course assessment criteria will be upgraded
2. Development of new assignments, bigger database for exercises
3. More practical assignements

 

Teaching methods

1. Developing e-learning
2. More multimedia content
3. To improve through the knowledge and the application of pedagogic aspects

 

Content

Additional topics to be included to the existing and courses which are under development from BSc course to the MSc.

 

Digital e-learning support

1. Developing e-learning: Moodle course development, employing BigBlueButton, MS Teams etc
2. Development of multimedia content

 

Resources

1. Main outcome: improvement of multimedia content
2. Industrial examples and industry partner guest lectures
3. Materials to be translated to the English

 

Industrial cases

Industrial cases and examples should be linked to the courses.

 

Availability in English

 

-- Tõnis Tõns (04.11.2021)

 

“Upgrading and Harmonization of Maritime Engineering Master’s Level Courses” (SHIPMARTECH)

Course upgrading needs analysis report

Background

In 2013, the EC adopted the LeaderSHIP 2020 initiative, outlining a strategic vision for the European maritime industry that is innovative, green, specialised in high tech markets, energy efficient, capable of diversifying into new markets. The Initiative brings out the priorities of the sector, the first priority being employment and skills. The Report also refers that there could be a common European maritime engineering degree, to strengthen the employability of graduates.

More attention should be given to the mutual recognition of degrees and harmonisation of certificates of EU graduates. Student mobility could be facilitated by tailoring educational programmes to address the diversification of the industry and the current and emerging knowledge requirements.

During the project SHIPMARTECH, the objective of which is upgrading and harmonisation of Master’slevel courses in Maritime Engineering/ Naval Architecture through cooperation of four universities in Estonia, Croatia, Greece, and Italy, international teams of lecturers will work together to upgrade and harmonise a set of MSc-level courses.

During Stage 1 of the project (March - July 2021), professors and lecturers mapped and analysed the development and upgrading needs of the MSc courses that were selected by project partners in project preparation phase. During the course development needs analysis, the needs regarding each of the courses to be upgraded and harmonised, i.e. which components have to be developed in each case, were assessed and defined. The potential upgrading components are:

1. Course objectives and learning outcomes
2. Content (topics, themes);
3. Assessment methods and criteria;
4. Assignments;
5. Teaching methods;
6. Application of industrial cases and/or examples;
7. Digital support and E-resources;
8. Internationalisation (availability in English)

An electronic development needs evaluation form was prepared, distributed between the project partners and completed by the teachers responsible for each course.

Mapping and analysing of the needs was carried out from March to July 2021. The first results of the analysis were presented by Tõnis Tõns, the TalTech project coordinator, at the project management meeting on July 22, 2021. A more detailed report with in-depth graphic presentation of the course development needs results was prepared by LTT2/Joint Staff Training Event 2 held in Naples, Italy on Nov. 3-5, 2021.

1. Results of the course development needs analysis

The analysis covered 18 courses of the 20 courses targeted (no feedback was received on two courses) that fall into three groups according to themes:

1. Automation Technology and Integrated Ship Systems (9 courses, 4-9 ECTS each, all partner HEIs are represented)
2. Ship Structural Design (7 courses, 4-9 ECTS each, all partner HEIs are represented)
3. Hydrodynamics (4 courses, 6-9 ECTS each, two partner HEIs – UNINA and TalTech are represented)

1.1. Prevailing trends of the areas to be developed

The analysis showed that the most dominant component that is underdeveloped is the availability of courses for international students: 17 courses out of 18 (94%) are meant for teaching/learning in a national language only and are not currently available in English, or only the study literature is in English. All these courses need to be made available in English.

Application of practical examples/cases from the industry is not represented enough: 16 courses (89%) including all courses of the Ship Structural Design group, have been mentioned as lacking this component.

E-learning support and digitalisation is required in case of 15 courses (83%), including all courses in the Ship Structural Design group. Adding/developing of learning resources was brought out also in 15 courses. In Hydrodynamics group, this component is underdeveloped in all courses. 

Content development is mentioned for 13 courses (72%), including all courses of Ship Structural Design.

Teaching methodology needs to be upgraded in 12 courses (67%), including all Hydrodynamicsrelated courses.

Assignments must be developed further in 11 courses (61%) that are distributed between all three course groups.

Course objectives, learning outcomes and assessment as the core of a course that are related to the respective curriculum objectives and learning outcomes, turn out be the components that need least changes. Each of these components was mentioned in six courses.

1.2. Upgrading of course objectives and learning outcomes

As the project deals with upgrading and harmonization of the already existing courses, course objectives and learning outcomes have been elaborated and fixed by each university, considering the objectives and outcomes of a concrete Master’s programme and the regulations set for such programmes, and so no major changes are envisaged. If a bachelor-level course is upgraded to a master’s course, respective changes need to be made.

Even though no need for major upgrades came out, it was mentioned that learning outcomes should be defined more precisely (Ship Structural Design courses) and some modifications could be made.

1.3. Developing of course content

Necessity for updating the course content, adding new topics, upgrading the topics already included to a higher level or towards a more detailed approach was mentioned. With making courses available for international students, content and theme areas have to be revised, „averaged“ and harmonised against/with each other. In case of courses that need upgrading from the BSc to the Master’s level topics that are more advanced need to be included.

Concrete content issues and topics needing attention were brought out for several target courses in all thematic groups.

1.4. Assessment and assignments

Need for moderate alterations in the assessment methods was mentioned by the lecturers of each thematic group except that of Hydrodynamics.

Upgrading of the assessment criteria with the requirements of the Master’s courses and adaptation/harmonisation of the assessment system and criteria within the courses targeted in the project was mentioned by the teachers of the Automation Technology and Integrated Ship Systems group.

More focus should be given to the practical assignments between lectures during the course. It was suggested that teachers of thematically similar courses should cooperate in developing data bases of test questions that could be shared and used in electronic tests by all partners. Questions can be used for compilation of electronic quizzes and tests that can be used as part of the final grading.

For several courses in Automation Technology and Integrated Ship Systems new and Ship Structural Design groups more/new assignments have to be prepared, including practical exercises and case studies. Exercises need to be intriguing and engaging. Also, databases or collections of (electronic) exercises equipped with an answer key or solutions need to be developed.

1.5. Teaching methods

The need for furthering of the e-learning and distance learning component in course development as well as of developing of the teaching competences in the respective methodology and didactics-related skills was brought out, as well as refreshing of IT, education technology and pedagogical/engineering pedagogy skills.

Wider use of problem-solving-based learning was mentioned in the context of improving teaching methods. In addition, combining short video lectures with traditional formats of teaching was suggested. Several concrete upgrade ideas related to certain courses were given.

1.6. Digital e-learning support and learning resources

The e-learning platforms the partners currently use are Moodle and/or MS Teams. Big Blue Button was also mentioned. However, there are courses that have no e-learning support yet and need to be upgraded, turning them into a 100% or a partially digital course. Digital testing and assessment via Moodle or other e-learning platforms need to be developed further.

E-learning resources (videos, presentations, lecture notes, readings, interactive exercises, virtual laboratories and experiments, etc.) and their specific content has to be developed and/or upgraded. Additional and new lectures and learning resources on the topics that have not been covered yet need to be prepared and equipped with instructions, guidelines, etc.

1.7. Industry cases

Industry cases and examples should be made part of the courses, but sometimes use of real-life cases can be problematic due to intellectual property rights, classified information and commercial secrets. Solutions to that have to be found. Another challenge can be the level of a course being too basic. In addition, including regular seminars and presentations held by industrial partners is important for establishing a better link with the industry.

1.8. Availability of courses for international students

The courses to be upgraded are currently taught in national languages with readings/books in English. In order to be able to attract International/exchange students, all courses and their digital support needs to be made available in English during the project.

2. Course upgrading needs by thematic work groups

2.1. Automation Technology and Integrated Ship Systems (9 courses, 4-9 ECTS each, all partner HEIs are represented)

1. Upgrading course content, learning outcomes, learning/teaching resources, and assignments according to the requirements of a Master’s programme.
2. Inclusion of industrial cases and examples in courses; establishing a better link with the industry (seminars, lectures etc.).
3. Digitalisation of the courses (e-support or 100% digital).
4. Making courses available in English for international students.

2.2. Hydrodynamics (4 courses, 6-9 ECTS each, UNINA and TalTech)

1. Finding solutions how to teach conducting model tests to students (with a very limited time).
2. Creation of a large shared database of test/exam exercises and tasks for electronic tests/exams.
3. Developing of assignments on validation of numerical model against model testing using a benchmark ship and on analysis of the flow and wake field and propulsion requirements of a project ship.
4. Adding introductory video lectures on different topics.
5. Refreshing of teaching methods with a focus on digital learning.
6. Adding new content and topics (e.g., direct positioning and role stabilization).
7. Inclusion of industrial cases and examples in courses; establishing a better link with the industry (seminars, lectures etc.).
8. Making lectures and seminars available in English.

2.3. Ship Structural Design (7 courses, 4-9 ECTS each, all partner HEIs are represented)

1. Adding new course content/topics related to Marine Technology (innovative propulsion systems, green shipping technologies; auxiliary machinery and related systems).
2. Refining learning outcomes.
3. In assessment, more emphasis on practical work and progress between lectures.
4. Developing a database of quiz/test questions and exercises and application of short quiz/test results for final grading.
5. Developing more assignments, including case studies.
6. Developing of teaching skills considering the needs of e-learning, distance learning, and problem solving-based learning.
7. Upgrading and adding new content and topics for Master’s level: factors in finite element analysis, examples of submodelling technique, application of FEM in maritime heritage studies, different materials incl. composites. FEMAP and LS-Dyna software, etc.; innovative propulsion systems.
8. Developing of e-learning support/e-course and e-learning components (e.g., videos) and assessment in Moodle and via other E-learning platforms.
9. Developing of additional lectures, videos, presentations; compilation of an addendum (textbook or guide) to the lectures.
10. Preparation of guest lectures by industry experts and adding updated examples of industrial applications/cases. Establishing a better link with the industry.
11. Making teaching and learning resources available in English.

SHIPMARTECH Intensive Study Programme. Student Feedback and Evaluation Analysis Report

During SHIPMARTECH Intensive Study Programme on 14-18 November 2023 in Tallinn, components and topics of four courses developed and upgraded as part of the project’s Intellectual Output creation were tested with a group of international students representing all project partners.

The four mini-courses lasted for one day each (8-9 academic hours). All universities were represented by 5 students, except the University of the Aegean (4 students) and University of Naples Federico II (10 students). The total number of students was 24 (15 1st cycle and 9 2nd cycle students).

After each mini-course, students were asked to complete an anonymous feedback questionnaire. We received 81 completed questionnaires (51 from MSc students, 30 from BSc students), meaning that the response rate of the students was 84%.

The questionnaire was partially built up on the student feedback and evaluation questionnaire applied in EU Interreg Central Baltic project „BOOSTED“ (2016-2019). The format and questions used in SHIPMARTECH IP were similar in case of each mini-course.

The overall evaluation to the mini-courses testing during the intensive programme was positive - the average total assessment grade given by students was 4.2 (out of max. 5).

Students were asked to assess on a 5-point scale how well they had achieved the learning outcomes (competences) stated in the course description. The total average of all four mini-courses was 3.85. The average scores for this aspect were almost equal for each course, being a bit higher (4.1) for the Materials and Structures course.

Other aspects that were asked to assess on a 5-point scale were

1. Course content/study materials (average of all courses 4.4)
2. Significance of the topics (total average 4.5)
3. Topics being interesting and exciting (total average 4.1)
4. Assignments being stimulating and challenging (total average 4.1)
5. Clarity of description of assignments and exercises (total average 3.9)
6. Amount and complexity of assignments (total average 4.1)
7. Teaching methods and communication with the professor (total average 4.3)
8. Group work and communication with other students (total average 4.4).

The Materials and Structures course received feedback that is somewhat more positive and higher scores for all aspects compared to the three other courses (total average of all aspects 4.6).

Respondents were asked to describe their main difficulties or challenges in each course. Overall, 50 comments were received. Shortage of time, lack of previous knowledge/not understanding the topic or new software well enough were mentioned more often. For some students it was difficult to study and communicate in English in a specific field. In a couple of comments students said that they could not understand the professor very well.

Students were also asked to make suggestions for developing and refining the course. They gave 31 comments where the most dominant recommendation was the need to reserve more time for introduction of the topics and the new software that is used. Some students mentioned that there could be fewer assignments and exercises, which also refers to the shortage of time. Students would also like to have more practical (and simple) examples.

Thus, we can conclude that when planning courses in English for international students whose native language is not English, to avoid misunderstanding and misinterpretations by learners, special attention

has to be paid to the clarity of instructions and explanations. The number, proportion and complexity of assignments and exercises has to be considered carefully.

The experience obtained in the intensive programme showed that studying and doing assignments in English under supervision of teachers whose style and methods are not familiar, tends to be more time consuming for Master's students also. Doing assignments takes more time than expected, so time planning and management has to be considered carefully.

Level of complexity of the exercises needs attention as well. Students mentioned in their comments that a course could start with simple examples and exercises, and progress with ones that are more complex. This basic principle should not be overlooked, because the knowledge, learning styles and academic backgrounds of learners in multinational student groups can vary considerably and more time may be needed for making a course run smoothly.

Mini-course 1. EXPERIMENTAL HYDRODYNAMICS

Questionnaires received - MSc students: 11, BSc students: 7

Overall student feedback was positive. Learning outcomes were achieved. The average grade given to the course was 4.2.

Master's students rated the course in general a bit more highly than the bachelor level students did. MSc students gave the highest score for teaching methods used and communication with the professor, other students and group work (average 4.7). They also rated highly the significance of course topics and the course content and study materials. MSc students gave lower grades (average 3.73 and 3.91, respectively) for the clarity of description of the assignments and exercises.

The BSc students rated the significance of topics the highest (4.8), while the teaching methods and communication with the professor, other students and group work as well as the course content and materials all scored 4.4 as the average. BSc students were also more critical about the clarity of description of the assignments and exercises (average 3.71) and their achieving of learning outcomes (average 3.14).

As the target group of the courses developed is Master's students, it is quite logical that 1st cycle students considered the course in general more difficult and they could not achieve the learning outcomes as successfully as the 2nd cycle students did. Both 1st and 2nd cycle students mentioned shortage of time as a challenge. Bachelor students mentioned that they did not know the topic and some students had difficulty with understanding and using terms in English. MSc students found it challenging to work with students whose English was poor. Communication in English in general was also mentioned as a challenge, which was rather surprising.

Both MSc and BSc students suggested that in the future the course could have a longer introduction to topics and more time and attention should be reserved for task explanation and clarity of instructions. MSc students wrote that checking answers and finding/explaining errors with the teacher could be useful.

Mini-course 2. OPTIMIZATION OF STRUCTURES

Questionnaires received - MSc students: 13, BSc students: 7

The overall student evaluation to the course was positive, with an average grade of 4.2. The learning outcomes were achieved. However, one MSc student gave a “one” (the lowest score) for that aspect. 

MSc students gave their highest score (average 4.46 for both) for the topics being interesting and exciting and for the group work and communication with other students. The latter received the highest average score (4.86) from the BSc students as well. BSc students' second highest score (average 4.43) was for the course content and study materials.

Somewhat lower scores were given for how interesting and stimulating the assignments were by MSc students (average 3.69), and for the topics being interesting/exciting and achieving of learning outcomes by BSc students (average 3.86 for both).

The main difficulty or challenge for all students was understanding the new software programmes and lack of previous knowledge of the topic. Students suggested that the software should be installed first and more time has be devoted to explaining new software. More examples given in specific maritime/naval context could also be added.

From the positive side, one of the students wrote that the professor had been able to present a complex topic in a simple and understandable way.

Mini-course 3. MATERIALS AND STRUCTURES

Questionnaires received - MSc students: 13, BSc students: 8

The course "Materials and structures" received the most positive student feedback compared to three other courses. The average grade for the whole course was 4.6, the average given by MSc students even higher - 4.8.

Learners claimed that they had achieved learning outcomes well. Students of both levels were equally satisfied with practically all components - course content; significance, interest/attractiveness/complexity of the course and assignments; teaching methods and communication with the professor and other students.

All eight Bachelor students gave the maximum grade "5" for assignments being stimulating and challenging.

As in two other courses, the students mentioned that getting used to the new software programme was challenging. Some BSc students lacked previous knowledge of the topic discussed. According to the students, this was a good course where a difficult topic was presented very well. Visuals, video and models helped to understand the concept. Students appreciated that the professor was not afraid to use the classic old-fashioned writing on board, because it helped students follow instructions and explanations even better. According to the feedback, no changes are needed. Perhaps there could be fewer tasks and more instructions on the use of software.

Mini-course 4. SHIP AUTOMATION

Questionnaires received - MSc students: 14, BSc students: 8

The overall feedback to the course was positive (average score 3.8). The learning outcomes were achieved (average 3.6).

Students of both cycles were more satisfied with the course content and the significance of topics (average grade 4.2 and 4.1, respectively). The average grades given to other aspects ranged between 3.07 (clarity of description of the assignments - MSc) and 3.87 (amount/complexity of assignment and teaching methods and communication with professors - BSc).

Students brought out that a proper introduction to the topic was missing, which made understanding the new topic of logic operations difficult. Lack of previous knowledge was a challenge for most of the students, as well as understanding the system and the professor. Some students would have needed more time to finish the assignments.

Students suggested that simulation software could be used to explain how the systems work. More focus on examples, starting from simple practical examples and moving to ones that are more complex, was mentioned. Students also wrote that part 1 could be left out to give more time for the digital logic part.

Feedback from the Final reports for students

On the last day of the IP, students were asked to complete a final report form reflecting their overall feedback and satisfaction with the Intensive Study Programme. The questionnaire was compiled according the Final Report Form for Students used in Erasmus Intensive Programmes in 2007-2013.

The questions were divided between 7 sections:

1. student details (optional);
2. identification of the IP and motivation to participate;
3. information about IP and support before and during IP;
4. recognition of the IP;
5. participation costs;
6. personal experience and evaluation of the IP;
7. recommendations for the IP organizers.

We received 22 questionnaires, four of which were anonymous (submission of the name and contacts was optional).

The most important factors that motivated students to participate were academic reasons (mean score/grade by students 4.63 of max. 5), career plans (4.45), European experience (4.4), and cultural aspects (4.31), but also language practice (4.09). All students had received information about the Intensive Study Programme at their universities (from teaching staff), or also from other students.

All participants had received adequate support before and during the Intensive Programme both from their home and host universities (mean score/grade 4.81 for both). 18 students out of 22 (82%) intended to transfer the 3 ECTS earned at IP at their home HEI, 2 students were not sure and 2 students had not responded at all.

Regarding the need to personally contribute to the travel, accommodation or other costs, 8 students (36%) mentioned that they had to support participation in the IP financially. In 4 instances students claimed that they had contributed to travel costs, in 2 instances to accommodation, in 3 instances to excursions, social programme or study materials.

The judgement of the overall academic/ learning outcomes of IP was positive (mean score/grade 4.04), and judgement of achieving personal outcomes was even higher (4.27). Students, in general, had not encountered any serious problems during IP; however, 10 students had had some minor issues. They mentioned language problems and difficulties in understanding completely new topics. Satisfaction with academic activities and pedagogical aspects of the IP was quite high (mean grade 4.13). Students were very satisfied with the capability and expertise of the professors (4.45), while on the other hand, they were somewhat more critical about the overall quality of teaching (3.86) and the equipment used (3.95).

The overall evaluation of the IP was 4.32, which correlated well with the feedback retrieved from the student reports that were filled in after each mini-course.

Students were asked to give their recommendations and ideas to the IP organisers. They mentioned that there could be examples and tasks that are more practical, and the assignments could be described better. Work could be less intense and the workdays could be shorter starting later (at 10 am) and there could be a familiarization event before the start of the academic programme.

And last but not least, several students wrote that the IP could have lasted longer than one week.

Appendices

• 24 Master’s level courses mandatory or elective courses in English
• 125 ECTS
• All courses have e-learning support (harmonized structure, format and visual identity) at the university’s digital learning platform
• 18 professors and lecturers from 4 partner universities participated in course development

COURSES DEVELOPED DURING THE SHIPMARTECH PROJECT

COURSE UPGRADING IN THE SHIPMARTECH PROJECT 

The course upgrading needs analysis of the SHIPMARTECH project that was carried out from March to July 2021 showed that the prevailing problem was the unavailability of courses for international students. 17 courses out of 18 (94%) were meant for teaching/learning in a national language only and were not available in English, or only the study literature was in English. During the project, all the courses were made fully available in English.

Application of practical examples or cases from the industry was not represented enough: nearly 90% of the courses(including all courses of the Ship Structural Design group), lacked this component. During the project, practical example/cases combined with a course project or technical report assignment was added to all Ship Structural Design courses and to most of the other courses also.

E-learning support and digitalisation was required in case of 83% of the courses, including all courses in the Ship Structural Design group. Adding and developing of learning resources was brought out also in 15 courses. In Hydrodynamics group, this component was mentioned as underdeveloped in all courses. During the project, e-support based on level 1 and level 2 of TalTech digital learning guidelines, was developed for each course. All the e-courses on have a harmonised setup, structure and visual appearance. Each course starts with a short introductory video and/or a course poster giving a graphic overview of the course, followed by „Lecture 0“ containing a course profile, a course syllabus and a student feedback questionnaire. Each course has exercises or quizzes for student self-testing and revision, guided readings, assignments, special software-based assignments or exercises, and other interactive or hands-on tasks performed online or offline.

Need for content development was mentioned for 13 courses (72%), including all courses of Ship Structural Design. Readings and lecture notes were either refreshed, replaced or added in all courses. In several courses, reading diaries and reading circle activities or assignments were added.

Teaching methodology needed to be upgraded in 12 courses (67%), including all Hydrodynamics related courses. During the project, attentions was given to facilitation of active learning methods and elements of interactive teaching/learning: student presentations, „help-desk“-type class activities, inverted classroom, reading circles, practical tasks for independent work, quizzes, etc. The proportion of lectures was reduced and the share of practical classes, tutorials and problem-based learning was increased. Digital teaching and learning methods and tools – online forum discussions, collaborative learning and group work, use of videos, specific software, multimedia solutions, etc. were encouraged.

Assignments had to be developed further in 11 courses (61%). Due to creation of e-support to each course, self-check quizzes and tests were included in courses. Assignments became more practical. Every course has a course project or technical report based on practical or simulation task based on real data. To make reading research articles or textbook chapters more beneficial, guided reading with reading circles and reading diaries was applied.

Course objectives, learning outcomes and assessment as the core of a course that are related to the  respective curriculum objectives and learning outcomes, turned out be the components that need least changes. However, a wider variety of assessment methods was introduced, combining course projects, technical reports, individual and group work assignments, but also student self- and peer-assessment, with traditional written and oral exams that are still widely used in South-European countries.

Training workshops and seminars at the Joint Staff Training Events online at the beginning of the project in January 2021 and face-to-face in Naples, Zagreb, and Kuressaare, as well as the Intensive Programme with students in Tallinn added inspiration and justification to upgrading the courses. 

SHIPMARTECH INTENSIVE STUDY PROGRAMME. SUMMARY OF STUDENT FEEDBACK AND EVALUATION

During SHIPMARTECH Intensive Study Programme on 14-18 November 2023 in Tallinn, components and topics of four courses developed and upgraded as part of the project’s Intellectual Output creation were tested with a group of international students representing all project partners. The mini-courses were „Experimental Hydrodynamics“, „Optimization of Structures“, „Materials and Structures“, and „Ship Automation“.

The four mini-courses lasted for one day each (8-9 academic hours). University of Zagreb and TalTech were both represented by 5 students, the University of the Aegean by 4 students and University of Naples Federico II had 9 students. The total number of students was 23 (14 1st cycle and 9 2nd cycle students).

After each mini-course, students were asked to complete an anonymous feedback questionnaire. The overall evaluation to the mini-course testing during the IP was positive - the average total assessment grade given by students was 4.2 (out of max. 5).

Students were asked to assess on a 5-point scale how well they had achieved the learning outcomes (competences) stated in the course description. The total average of all four mini-courses was 3.85. The average scores for this aspect were almost equal for each course, being a bit higher (4.1) for the Materials and Structures course. 

Other aspects that were asked to assess on a 5-point scale were

1. Course content/study materials (average of all courses 4.4)
2. Significance of the topics (total average 4.5)
3. Topics being interesting and exciting (total average 4.1)
4. Assignments being stimulating and challenging (total average 4.1)
5. Clarity of description of assignments and exercises (total average 3.9)
6. Amount and complexity of assignments (total average 4.1)
7. Teaching methods and communication with the professor (total average 4.3)
8. Group work and communication with other students (total average 4.4).

Students were asked to describe their main difficulties or challenges in each course. Shortage of time, lack of previous knowledge/not understanding the topic or new software well enough were mentioned more often. For some students it was difficult to study and communicate in English in a specific field.

Students were also asked to make suggestions for developing and refining each course. The predominant recommendation was the need to reserve more time for introduction of the topics and of the new software that is used. Some students mentioned that there could be fewer assignments and exercises, which also refers to the shortage of time. Students would also like to have more practical (and simpler) examples.

We can conclude that when planning courses in English for international students whose native language is not English, to avoid misunderstanding and misinterpretations by learners, special attention has to be paid to the clarity of instructions and explanations. The number, proportion and complexity of assignments and exercises has to be considered carefully.

Level of complexity of the exercises needs attention as well. Students mentioned in their comments that a course could start with simple examples and exercises, and progress with ones that are more complex. This basic principle should not be overlooked, because the knowledge, learning styles and academic backgrounds of learners in multinational student groups can vary considerably and more time may be needed for making a course run smoothly.

On the last day of the IP, students completed a final report form reflecting their overall feedback and satisfaction with the Intensive Study Programme.

The most important factors that motivated students to participate were academic reasons (mean score/grade by students 4.63 of max. 5), career plans (4.45), European experience (4.4), and cultural aspects (4.31), but also language practice (4.09). All students had received information about the Intensive Study Programme at their universities from teaching staff, or also from other students.

All participants had received adequate support before and during the Intensive Programme both from their home and host universities (mean score/grade 4.81 for both). 18 students out of 23 intended to transfer the 3 ECTS earned at IP at their home HEI.

The judgement of the overall academic/ learning outcomes of the IP was positive (mean score/grade 4.04), and judgement of achieving personal outcomes was even higher (4.27). Students had not encountered any serious problems during the programme, but 10 students had had some minor issues. They mentioned language problems and difficulties in understanding completely new topics. 

Satisfaction with academic activities and pedagogical aspects of the IP was quite high (mean grade 4.13). Students were very satisfied with the capability and expertise of the professors (4.45), while on the other hand, they were somewhat more critical about the overall quality of teaching (3.86) and the equipment used (3.95).

The overall evaluation of the IP was 4.32, which correlated well with the feedback retrieved from the student reports that were filled in after each mini-course.

Students were asked to give their recommendations and ideas to the IP organisers. They mentioned that there could be examples and tasks that are more practical, and the assignments could be described better. Work could be less intense and the workdays could be shorter, start later (at 10 am) and there could be a familiarization event before the start of the academic programme. And last but not least, several students wrote that the IP could have lasted longer than one week.

The Erasmus+ SHIPMARTECH project aimed at improving and standardizing Master’s-level courses in Marine Engineering/Naval Architecture across different universities. Initially, the quality of naval architecture courses varied between universities and they used different levels of electronic support. The project harmonized selected courses by bringing them to a similar level of electronic support and structure. This also meant making the quality and content of the courses more consistent between universities. In some cases, courses were upgraded to better incorporate modern e-learning tools.

The main motivation behind the project was the need to educate new engineers for the European shipbuilding industry. The industry is dynamic and competitive, with a high-tech future and a long-term positive perspective. However, to remain stable and competitive, it needs new young talented engineers to rejuvenate the industry and take competencies to a higher level. The SHIPMARTECH project aimed to address this need through cooperation between four universities, developing a set/repository of MSc-level online courses available in English to facilitate student mobility and address current and emerging knowledge requirements.

The SHIPMARTECH project began with an upgrading and harmonization needs analysis, followed by the preparation and testing of an online-hosted set/repository of the selected courses in English. The Intellectual Output was tested at an Intensive Programme with students from the partner universities, and feedback was collected and analyzed. This led to the preparation of this guide and a demo of the courses with sample materials on a physical carrier. The courses have been made available on the online learning platforms (Moodle, Federica) of the project partners. Two International Multiplier Events were organized to disseminate the results of the project, with a focus on cooperation and collaboration between the partner universities and the marine industry sector.

Four universities participated in the SHIPMARTECH project: Tallinn University of Technology in Estonia, University of Zagreb in Croatia, University of the Aegean in Greece, and University of Naples Federico II in Italy. 

This guide is intended to provide valuable insights and lessons learned from the SHIPMARTECH project to anyone who may be interested in undertaking a similar project in the future. By sharing our experiences, we hope to give others a head start and help them avoid some of the challenges we faced. Some of the key lessons we learned include the importance of identifying the e-learning platforms and technologies used by different countries and universities, taking into account the varying levels of students, and staying up-to-date with the latest advances and standards in didactic theory, particularly in relation to outcome-based learning. We hope that this guide will serve as both an encouragement and a helpful resource for those looking to embark on similar projects.

	Mihhail Afanasjev, Project Coordinator 2019-2020
	Tõnis Tõns, Project Coordinator 2021-2023

 

The course upgrading needs analysis of the SHIPMARTECH project that was carried out from March to July 2021 showed that the prevailing problem was the unavailability of courses for international students. 17 courses out of 18 (94%) were meant for teaching/learning in a national language only and were not available in English, or only the study literature was in English. During the project, all the courses were made fully available in English.   

Application of practical examples or cases from the industry was not represented enough: nearly 90% of the courses (including all courses of the Ship Structural Design group), lacked this component. During the project, practical example/cases combined with a course project or technical report assignment was added to all Ship Structural Design courses and to most of the other courses also.

E-learning support and digitalisation was required in case of 83% of the courses, including all courses in the Ship Structural Design group. Adding and developing of learning resources was brought out also in 15 courses. In Hydrodynamics group, this component was mentioned as underdeveloped in all courses. During the project, e-support based on level 1 and level 2 of TalTech digital learning guidelines, was developed for each course. All the e-courses on have a harmonised setup, structure and visual appearance. Each course starts with a short introductory video and/or a course poster giving a graphic overview of the course, followed by „Lecture 0“ containing a course profile, a course syllabus and a student feedback questionnaire. Each course has exercises or quizzes for student self-testing and revision, guided readings, assignments, special software-based assignments or exercises, and other interactive or hands-on tasks performed online or offline. 

Need for content development was mentioned for 13 courses (72%), including all courses of Ship Structural Design. Readings and lecture notes were either refreshed, replaced or added in all courses. In several courses, reading diaries and reading circle activities or assignments were added. 

Teaching methodology needed to be upgraded in 12 courses (67%), including all Hydrodynamics-related courses. During the project, attentions was given to facilitation of active learning methods and elements of interactive teaching/learning: student presentations, „help-desk“-type class activities,  inverted classroom, reading circles, practical tasks for independent work, quizzes, etc. The proportion of lectures was reduced and the share of practical classes, tutorials and problem-based learning was increased. Digital teaching and learning methods and tools – online forum discussions, collaborative learning and group work, use of videos, specific software, multimedia solutions, etc. were encouraged.

Assignments had to be developed further in 11 courses (61%). Due to creation of e-support to each course, self-check quizzes and tests were included in courses. Assignments became more practical. Every course has a course project or technical report based on practical or simulation task based on real data. To make reading research articles or textbook chapters more beneficial, guided reading with reading circles and reading diaries was applied. 

Course objectives, learning outcomes and assessment as the core of a course that are related to the respective curriculum objectives and learning outcomes, turned out be the components that need least changes. However, a wider variety of assessment methods was introduced, combining course projects, technical reports, individual and group work assignments, but also student self- and peer-assessment, with traditional written and oral exams that are still widely used in South-European countries. 

Training workshops and seminars at the Joint Staff Training Events online at the beginning of the project in January 2021 and face-to-face in Naples, Zagreb, and Kuressaare, as well as the Intensive Programme with students in Tallinn added inspiration and justification to upgrading the courses. 

During SHIPMARTECH Intensive Study Programme on 14-18 November 2023 in Tallinn, components and topics of four courses developed and upgraded as part of the project’s Intellectual Output creation were tested with a group of international students representing all project partners. The mini-courses were „Experimental Hydrodynamics“, „Optimization of Structures“, „Materials and Structures“, and „Ship Automation“.

The four mini-courses lasted for one day each (8-9 academic hours).  University of Zagreb and TalTech  were both represented by 5 students, the University of the Aegean by 4 students and University of Naples Federico II had 9 students. The total number of students was 23 (14 1st cycle and 9 2nd cycle students).

After each mini-course, students were asked to complete an anonymous feedback questionnaire. The overall evaluation to the mini-course testing during the IP was positive - the average total assessment grade given by students was 4.2 (out of max. 5).

Students were asked to assess on a 5-point scale how well they had achieved the learning outcomes (competences) stated in the course description. The total average of all four mini-courses was 3.85. The average scores for this aspect were almost equal for each course, being a bit higher (4.1) for the Materials and Structures course. 

Other aspects that were asked to assess on a 5-point scale were

1. Course content/study materials (average of all courses 4.4)
2. Significance of the topics (total average 4.5)
3. Topics being interesting and exciting (total average 4.1)
4. Assignments being stimulating and challenging (total average 4.1)
5. Clarity of description of assignments and exercises (total average 3.9)
6. Amount and complexity of assignments (total average 4.1)
7. Teaching methods and communication with the professor (total average 4.3)
8. Group work and communication with other students (total average 4.4).

Students were asked to describe their main difficulties or challenges in each course. Shortage of time, lack of previous knowledge/not understanding the topic or new software well enough were mentioned more often. For some students it was difficult to study and communicate in English in a specific field. 

Students were also asked to make suggestions for developing and refining each course. The predominant recommendation was the need to reserve more time for introduction of the topics and of the new software that is used. Some students mentioned that there could be fewer assignments and exercises, which also refers to the shortage of time. Students would also like to have more practical (and simpler) examples.

We can conclude that when planning courses in English for international students whose native language is not English, to avoid misunderstanding and misinterpretations by learners, special attention has to be paid to the clarity of instructions and explanations. The number, proportion and complexity of assignments and exercises has to be considered carefully.

The experience obtained in the intensive programme showed that studying and doing assignments in English under supervision of teachers whose style and methods are not familiar, is more time consuming for Master's students also. So, time planning and management has to be considered carefully.

Level of complexity of the exercises needs attention as well. Students mentioned in their comments that a course could start with simple examples and exercises, and progress with ones that are more complex. This basic principle should not be overlooked, because the knowledge, learning styles and academic backgrounds of learners in multinational student groups can vary considerably and more time may be needed for making a course run smoothly.

On the last day of the IP, students completed a final report form reflecting their overall feedback and satisfaction with the Intensive Study Programme.

The most important factors that motivated students to participate were academic reasons (mean score/grade by students 4.63 of max. 5), career plans (4.45), European experience (4.4), and cultural aspects (4.31), but also language practice (4.09). All students had received information about the Intensive Study Programme at their universities from teaching staff, or also from other students.

All participants had received adequate support before and during the Intensive Programme both from their home and host universities (mean score/grade 4.81 for both). 18 students out of 23 intended to transfer the 3 ECTS earned at IP at their home HEI.

The judgement of the overall academic/ learning outcomes of the IP was positive (mean score/grade 4.04), and judgement of achieving personal outcomes was even higher (4.27). Students had not encountered any serious problems during the programme, but 10 students had had some minor issues. They mentioned language problems and difficulties in understanding completely new topics. 

Satisfaction with academic activities and pedagogical aspects of the IP was quite high (mean grade 4.13). Students were very satisfied with the capability and expertise of the professors (4.45), while on the other hand, they were somewhat more critical about the overall quality of teaching (3.86) and the equipment used (3.95).

The overall evaluation of the IP was 4.32, which correlated well with the feedback retrieved from the student reports that were filled in after each mini-course.

Students were asked to give their recommendations and ideas to the IP organisers. They mentioned that there could be examples and tasks that are more practical, and the assignments could be described better. Work could be less intense and the workdays could be shorter, start later (at 10 am) and there could be a familiarization event before the start of the academic programme. And last but not least, several students wrote that the IP could have lasted longer than one week.

Ship Bouyancy and Stability. Computational Marine Hydrodynamics (TalTech, Mikloš Lakatoš)

Design of Ship Automation (University of the Aegean, Nikitas Nikitakos)

Automatic Management of Marine Plants (University of Naples Federico II, Flavio Balsamo) 

Exercise 1: Find connections between pneumatic and logic diagrams. Prepare a list of all the input and output signals. Hypothesize a possible structure of the control logic system. 

Structural Analysis (University of Zagreb, Smiljko Rudan)

HOW REALIABLE ARE STUDENTS’ EVALUATIONS OF TEACHING?

Amalia Vanacore, Dept. of Industrial Engineering, University of Naples Federico II

Student Evaluations of Teaching (SETs) is a widely used measure of teaching quality in higher education. However, the applicability of the SETs aimed at improving teaching quality has been controversial. SETs can provide quantifiable and comparable measures of teaching quality. It can help teaching staff to identify the areas needing improvement and encourage them to raise their standard of teaching and guides towards achieving more objective and broader base of assessment.

On the other hand, students’ ratings tend to be biased by satisfaction with their own grades. Thus, general reasons to be satisfied/dissatisfied are not necessarily related to the teaching quality. Several factors influence student satisfaction: personal characteristics (e.g. gender, age and nationality), logistic factors (e.g. course level or class size: the reliability increases with larger class sizes with more than 20 students), professor’s personality traits (students favour an entertaining performer), etc.

Students might tend to base their evaluations on a single professor characteristic and then generalize the opinion to all other, possibly unrelated, characteristics; or to give the same score to all items. This suggests that long questionnaires may be of little value. Also, high response rates help to achieve accurate teaching evaluations.

A new perspective is to investigate SETs reliability in terms of student’s repeatability, i.e. stability of students’ evaluations over different occasions (investigated by few researchers so far). What has not been investigated, but needs to be is student’s reproducibility - students’ ability to score consistently a given quality item with different rating scales.

The degree of student repeatability and reproducibility is assessed using the linear weighted version of uniform kappa coefficient (or Brennan-Prediger coefficient). It is a normalized difference between the observed proportion of agreement and that expected under the assumption of uniform chance measurements.

A case study that consisted of three supervised experiments in three evaluation sessions (E.I, E.II, E.III) was conducted at the Department of Industrial Engineering of the University of Naples Federico II. Only the students who participated in all sessions and rated all quality items were considered in the case study.

Students’ ratings about the perceived course quality were collected via three evaluation sheets: a Numeric Rating Scale, using a numeric scale with 11 categories whose grades range from 0 to 10; a Verbal Rating Scale, using a verbal 4-point scale with agreement grades: “strongly disagreeing with the statement”, “disagreeing with the statement”, “agreeing with the statement” and “strongly agreeing with the statement”; a Visual Analogic Scale, a bipolar (continuous) scale whose anchor points were “NO” and “YES”.

Case study results showed that the students who could be assumed substantially reliable assessors of teaching quality (both substantially reproducible and repeatable evaluations) were only 26 (50% of the ones involved in the case study), including 9 students participating in E.I (i.e. 53% of the students involved in E.I), 7 students participating in E.II (i.e. 39% of E.II students) and 10 students participating in E.III (i.e. 59% of E.III students). The obtained results question the validity of SETs. Although the assessment of teaching quality via SETs is a simple and economical procedure, universities should be cautious when using SETs as the basis for taking academic decisions.

Additional reading:  Vanacore, A., Pellegrino, M.S. How Reliable are Students’ Evaluations of Teaching (SETs)? A Study to Test Student’s Reproducibility and Repeatability. SocIndicRes146,77–89 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-018-02055-y 

Devloping Pedagogies for Learning and Teaching in International Maritime Postgraduate Courses

Jean-Baptiste R. G. Souppez, Senior Teaching Fellow and Learning Enhancer, Aston University, Birmingham; UK Principal Expert in Small Craft Structures, British Standards Institution; j.souppez@aston.ac.uk

Lessons learnt from the EMShip+ Erasmus Mundus Course in Advanced Design of Ships and Offshore Structures:

With a highly diverse group of International students with various backgrounds, it is important to understand how the students learn first, and then it is possible to devise the most suitable learning experiences to meet the key learning outcomes. Teachers should monitor their teaching practices to be able to improve them. 

EMship+ module survey had three areas of assessment: Scientific Content, Quality of Teaching and Level of English. Teachers used to identify areas of good practice, share them with colleagues, and offer a more harmonious approach across institutions and teachers. It was vital to show students how their feedback was acted on.

Harmonization and consistency

Partner universities have different grading systems: France/Belgium grades out of 20, with a higher score being better; Germany grades out of 6, with a lower score being better; UK grades out of 100%, with a higher score being better. Project HEIs agreed on equivalencies and lined up onto one institution’s system for all grades.

It is preferable to use a single Virtual Learning Environment for all students where all resources are made available. It is also vital to have a consistency of delivery, either face-to-face, blended, online synchronous/ asynchronous, etc.

Teachers should have clear feedback strategies and completion time, as well as be consistent in contact hours.

Three areas of further focus emerged: lecture capture, real world learning & CDIO, assessment and feedback. 

As an introductory activity (3 days before) micro-lecture capture with quizzes (Panopto) was used, followed later by a 2h synchronous event – a full lecture capture. As a concluding activity, a practical task (e.g. CAD) followed by Assessment Patchwork (consisting of several small components „stitched together“ ) with recorded walk-through explanation can be recommended.

Assessment and Benchmarking Tool (UK National Union of Students) was applied for assessment and feedback.  The scale of the tool has 10 principles (or components), with five levels to assess.

Use formative assessment and peer evaluation. There are several activities for self/peer feedback: quizzes with immediate score and feedback, exercises with solutions, interactive self-reflection, live polling activity, structured group discussion, small accessible challenge, peer-assessed presentation and others.

Additional reading:

Archer, Morley&Souppez, 2021: Real World Learning and Authentic Assessment. Souppez, 2018: Anchoring the Experience of Highly Diverse Students on the EMship+Master: All Aboard! Souppez, 2018: Innovative Use of Lecture Capture Technology in Undergraduate Yacht Design and Postgraduate Ship Design Courses. Souppez, 2017: Interdisciplinary Pedagogy: a Maritime Case Study.

Federica Web Learning: Innovative Multimedia Content for Higher Education  

Ruth Kerr, University of Naples Federico II, ruth.kerr@federica.eu 
Maddalena Molaro, University of Naples Federico II, maddalena.molaro@unina.it

Federica Web Learning is the University Centre for Innovation, Experimentation and Diffusion of Multimedia Learning at the University of Naples Federico II. Federica.eu is the leading platform in Europe for open access multimedia education. Several Italian Universities are partners of the Federica platform and use it to enhance and support online learning.

Federica has three learning environments for diverse audiences. The current course catalogue includes 350 MOOCs and the list is in continual expansion. There are also 250,000 text slides, 60,000 images, 15,000 videos, 100,000 links for more in-depth analysis and over 1.5 million study sessionsoffered via Federica. 

The focus is on competences: first, a student remembers, then he/she understands, applies, analyses, evaluates and finally is ready to create.

Designing a syllabus for each lesson, the teacher needs to think about:

1. Intended learning outcomes
2. Wide range of learning activities; interaction; 
3. Formative and summative assessment activities

It is important to know the 4Cs: communication, collaboration, creativity, critical thinking. The three stages of learning design include designing, development & implementation, and monitoring.

A lesson is a cohesive unit of content. Units of online learning should be short as not to overwhelm the learner. The units should also be modular and able to stand alone. The lesson could be divided into 2-3 units, each of which has a short introduction video (6-8 minutes)and 10-15 slides of text.

Assessments facilitate practice, feedback, and evaluation, enabling students to measure their progress towards the intended learning outcomes, providing feedback to guide the next steps.

There are different tools for learning assessment: Multiple choice or True/False quiz, Forum: discussion on the topics of the lesson / unit, Workshop: Peer review and/or teacher review of student work, Assignment: Student essays or other assignments that are uploaded to the platform for assessment, Simulations, Polls, etc.

Video plays a key role in online learning, but it requires careful planning. Consider an average of max. 30 minutes for the video part of the lesson, divided in 2-4 videos, 1 video per unit. Each unit has an introductory video. Video formats include captures in natural conditions (offices, studies, library etc), use of special sets which allow to add additional graphic elements during video editing, screen capture (e.g. software Camtasia), or self-recording mode.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF THE HIGHER-EDUCATION CLASSROOM:
CREATING SMOOTH TRANSITIONS TO EFFECTIVE TEACHING IN ENGLISH

Renata Geld, Associate professor, Center for Cognitive Science & Department of English,
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb
 

The talk raises some (mis)conceptions about internationalization and effective teaching in higher education. The participants are invited to share and discuss their attitudes and beliefs about particular aspects of HE teaching. For example, different courses/disciplines present considerably different challenges, teaching in L1 vs. teaching in L2/FL presents different challenges, I know what works best (what is effective) in my classroom irrespective of the language of instruction, I often reflect (think back) about my classes, teaching is all about good presentation and communication skills – if I can present successfully in English at an international conference, I can also teach successfully, students are experienced learners, they have mastered learning strategies and they do not need my guidance, the most important aspect of my teaching is making sure my content is organized, structured and presented well to/for my students, my students rarely have any questions after my lectures – this is a sign they are either uninterested and/or shy, or everything is clear, the subject matter I teach is (often) too complex for independent activities such as preparatory reading before classroom activities / lecture, etc. 

These and other beliefs are discussed as true or false for individual participants as well as from the scholarly angle about what effective education is in a fast changing and global world. Furthermore, the talk addresses specific requirements of an international classroom, for example, the importance of making the classroom environment inviting and conducive to learning. 

Also, it offers ways of establishing such an environment: a) create opportunities for informal interactions that decrease anxiety (teachers & students, and students & students); b) plan projects, group work and extracurricular activities based on peer-pairing (host students and international students); find time for establishing classroom ‘etiquette’ – e.g. ways of addressing professors and classmates, being respectful towards to each other /various cultural norms/, understanding ’house rules’ (getting in class on time, saying hello to each other, being ’present’).

Finally, the talk tackled some general aspects of effective teaching in HE, such as: flipped classrooms vs. teacher-centered classrooms with “ready-to-use content”; activities that motivate and foster self-regulation; assignments that promote effective (cognitive) learning strategies; classwork and homework (from retaining/remembering to understanding, applying, and evaluating); activities that motivate by identifying relevance of what is being taught; activities that motivate by promoting dialogue and collegiality.

Role of Assessment in Higher Education

Višnja Rajić, PhD, 
Faculty of Teacher Education, University of Zagreb

Assessment and evaluation of learning outcomes are a key element of curriculum. In higher education, the term assessment refers to the wide variety of methods or tools that educators (teachers) use to evaluate, measure, and document the learning progress, skill acquisition, or educational needs of students. Docimological models, approaches and solutions are shaped by the prevailing logical - philosophical theory that forms a specific pedagogical conception. It is due to this fact that former education practices used different models of evaluation and assessment.

The professional community has recognised student centred education and the constructivist approach to learning as theoretical starting points in the organisation of educational practice. Yet, these approaches require specific docimological models that are optimal in serving the needs of contemporary education. Within the world of assessments, there are three paramount ideologies at work: assessments for learning, assessments of learning, and assessment as learning.

These forms of assessments serve a distinct and powerful purpose, and it's important to understand how they play off one another and ultimately enhance instruction, intervention, and student achievement. Assessments of learning are typically administered at the end of a unit or grading period and evaluate a student’s understanding in a form of written or oral exam or a practical skill demonstration. The assessment of learning outcomes should consider student initial abilities (cognitive, psychomotor, or affective). It is from there that a teacher in higher education can follow learning outcomes and competence development, collecting data by oral, written, or self and peer-assessment. Since assessments has become integral to today's teaching, learning, and data-driven decision-making efforts, a lot of attention has been given to developing tools and strategies that enable objective and valid assessment that not only gives feedback on acquired learning outcomes but enables further learning. 

Assessments for learning and assessments as learning – assess a student’s comprehension and understanding of a skill or a lesson thought during the teaching process. To be able to better understand our task and comprehend assessment as learning and assessment for learning in a simple way we can approach assessment as a GPS. 

Teachers in higher education can use effective assessment strategies as a teaching GPS, or “global positioning system,” by finding out where students are located on the learning path. Teachers can then adjust instruction accordingly and help students to reach the next “mile- marker” on the road to success. In this way, teachers promote instead of merely judge or grade student success.

The educational process, even in higher education, can be designed to allow the teacher to assist students with asking these questions: “How am I doing?” leading to “Where am I going?” and finally, the question that will lead to ideas for developing appropriate instructional planning answers, “Where to next?” 

It is important to stress that for a good “global positioning” on any map we need the data from at least 3-4 satellites to be able to triangulate our exact position. In the arena of assessment in higher education this means that we need to cooperate with our colleagues to be able to find an exact “position” of our students’ abilities and further develop them thus ensuring competent young people ready to take on the labour market in these challenging times.

COLLABORATIVE LEARNING: PROVIDING FEEDBACK & ASSESSMENT PRACTICE

Sanja Kišiček, PhD, Assistant Professor, Center for Teacher Education,
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb
 

Keywords: Collaborative Learning, Peer-Assessment, Self-Assessment, Rubric-Rooted Assessment, Teaching and Learning Onlines

Collaborative learning is rooted in social constructivist learning theory and is an educational practice in which students interact with one another to achieve educational goals. With learning objectives clearly set, within assessment practices defined immediately upon task design and with assessment being rubric-rooted, students are encouraged to self-assess their own and each other’s progress, based on instructor guidance and input. Assessment as such becomes a valuable learning experience, with peer- and self-assessment being a pedagogical approach and a research proven practice.

This approach is based on the constructivist learning theory, which states that learners learn through experience and active engagement. In online learning environments educators often fall into a trap offering all technology can do, instead of asking themselves what the pedagogy needs first. Developing strong communication and collaboration skills across multiple cultures and backgrounds, as well as strong critical thinking skills are the pillars of creativity and innovation. Achieving this dynamic and establishing a venue for the exchange of ideas, pitching and persuasion – that is the true challenge of online and hybrid teaching and learning. This lecture outlines vast strategies for formative and summative assessment, task and rubric creation, product, progress and process criteria determination, giving and receiving feedback and backward design.

Online teaching and learning has hit us like a glacier during the pandemic. It is our role now to make the best out of it as committed educators who will not only survive in new circumstances, but thrive now and later on, when “new things become the new normal”. Adapting to the “new normal”, by blending approaches, by learning different strategies and by being flexible, we can make the new assessment practices sustainable in our classrooms, whether synchronous or asynchronous online.

INTERACTIVE LECTURING

Snježana Kereković, PhD, assistant professor
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Chair of  Technical Foreign Languages, University of Zagreb

The talk dealt with interactive lecturing, its definition, reasons for lecturing interactively and interactive lecturing techniques. Lectures are one of the most effective ways of delivering large amount of content to a variety of class sizes. Unlike traditional lectures where the student is a passive spectator of the course material being delivered by the teacher (teachers talk, students listen, and teachers take questions from students only if students would have some), interactive lectures include at least one opportunity for students to interact actively and directly with the teaching material through a specific learning task (D. Leshner & J. Obando, Rutgers University), i.e. students interact with the lecture content during the lecture. In interactive lectures there is an ongoing interaction with the students, i.e. a two-way student-and-teacher communication, which looks spontaneous, but is actually very planned (D. Good, Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning, Virginia Tech). 

Interactive lectures bring real benefits for students: students are engaged in the learning process taking personal responsibility for their own learning; students’ previous knowledge is activated; students apply the new knowledge immediately; students learn more in a setting in which they are active participants (deep learning leads to genuine understanding and long-term retention of knowledge); students’ interest and motivation are increased, and students develop the skills of critical and analytical thinking (higher-order thinking skills). The benefits for teachers include the immediate and valuable feedback on how well the students are learning that day as well as improved exam results due to the fact that the teacher facilitates the learning process. However, the challenges faced by teachers are manifold. Most students are used to the traditional, stand-and-deliver method of instruction, so there will always be students who are resistant or even negative to teacher’s efforts and who will always remain silent and passive. Also, interactive lectures may take longer to cover a topic than traditional lectures, so teachers might lose teaching time which may lead to a reduction in factual content delivered in a semester. 

The main interactive lecturing techniques relate to (1) establishing expectations for the lecture (e.g. communicating classroom policies and the rationale for such policies clearly; involving students in activities from the start of the course; providing clear directions for activities and the rationale why something is done); (2) getting to know the students (e.g. using an icebreaker type activity at the beginning of the course to get to know the students and the students to get to know each other; learning as many of the students’ names as possible; creating a comfortable and learning-focused environment; (3) non-verbal communication (e.g. eye contact, body language, moving throughout the room); (4) creating a culture of engagement (e.g. calling students by name, establishing an expectation that students should ask questions, creating opportunities for anonymous questions, asking students for feedback at the end of a lecture to get information regarding what they did not understand and to assess your lecture). 

The process of creating an interactive lecture consists of three stages: pre-instructional planning, designing tasks or activities for interactive segments, and structuring/preparing the lecture. In the first stage, the teacher establishes learning objectives with reference to the content and considers logistical issues (room size, equipment, seating arrangement). In the second stage, the teacher designs activities, such as engagement triggers and individual or group tasks (e.g. think-pair-share). Activities that promote the effective learning process and maintain motivation in an interactive lecture may be: starting a lecture with a question about the most important points of the lecture, brainstorming, interpreting graphs, making calculations and estimations, synthesising, solving a problem, applying a concept learned in the lecture, doing a quiz, simulations and role playing, and implementing the flipped classroom model.  The talk finished with an overview of skills a 21st century engineer should possess, which exemplified the complexity of performance expectations employers have for modern engineers. Interactive lectures may contribute to developing these skills among engineering students.

Višnja Rajić, PhD, 
Faculty of Teacher Education, University of Zagreb

Assessment and evaluation of learning outcomes are a key element of curriculum. In higher education, the term assessment refers to the wide variety of methods or tools that educators (teachers) use to evaluate, measure, and document the learning progress, skill acquisition, or educational needs of students. Docimological models, approaches and solutions are shaped by the prevailing logical - philosophical theory that forms a specific pedagogical conception. It is due to this fact that former education practices used different models of evaluation and assessment.

The professional community has recognised student centred education and the constructivist approach to learning as theoretical starting points in the organisation of educational practice. Yet, these approaches require specific docimological models that are optimal in serving the needs of contemporary education. Within the world of assessments, there are three paramount ideologies at work: assessments for learning, assessments of learning, and assessment as learning.

These forms of assessments serve a distinct and powerful purpose, and it's important to understand how they play off one another and ultimately enhance instruction, intervention, and student achievement. Assessments of learning are typically administered at the end of a unit or grading period and evaluate a student’s understanding in a form of written or oral exam or a practical skill demonstration. The assessment of learning outcomes should consider student initial abilities (cognitive, psychomotor, or affective). It is from there that a teacher in higher education can follow learning outcomes and competence development, collecting data by oral, written, or self and peer-assessment. Since assessments has become integral to today's teaching, learning, and data-driven decision-making efforts, a lot of attention has been given to developing tools and strategies that enable objective and valid assessment that not only gives feedback on acquired learning outcomes but enables further learning. 

Assessments for learning and assessments as learning – assess a student’s comprehension and understanding of a skill or a lesson thought during the teaching process. To be able to better understand our task and comprehend assessment as learning and assessment for learning in a simple way we can approach assessment as a GPS. 

Teachers in higher education can use effective assessment strategies as a teaching GPS, or “global positioning system,” by finding out where students are located on the learning path. Teachers can then adjust instruction accordingly and help students to reach the next “mile- marker” on the road to success. In this way, teachers promote instead of merely judge or grade student success.

The educational process, even in higher education, can be designed to allow the teacher to assist students with asking these questions: “How am I doing?” leading to “Where am I going?” and finally, the question that will lead to ideas for developing appropriate instructional planning answers, “Where to next?” 

It is important to stress that for a good “global positioning” on any map we need the data from at least 3-4 satellites to be able to triangulate our exact position. In the arena of assessment in higher education this means that we need to cooperate with our colleagues to be able to find an exact “position” of our students’ abilities and further develop them thus ensuring competent young people ready to take on the labour market in these challenging times.

COLLABORATIVE LEARNING: PROVIDING FEEDBACK & ASSESSMENT PRACTICE

Sanja Kišiček, PhD, Assistant Professor, Center for Teacher Education,
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb

Keywords: Collaborative Learning, Peer-Assessment, Self-Assessment, Rubric-Rooted Assessment, Teaching and Learning Online

Collaborative learning is rooted in social constructivist learning theory and is an educational practice in which students interact with one another to achieve educational goals. With learning objectives clearly set, within assessment practices defined immediately upon task design and with assessment being rubric-rooted, students are encouraged to self-assess their own and each other’s progress, based on instructor guidance and input. Assessment as such becomes a valuable learning experience, with peer- and self-assessment being a pedagogical approach and a research proven practice.

This approach is based on the constructivist learning theory, which states that learners learn through experience and active engagement. In online learning environments educators often fall into a trap offering all technology can do, instead of asking themselves what the pedagogy needs first. Developing strong communication and collaboration skills across multiple cultures and backgrounds, as well as strong critical thinking skills are the pillars of creativity and innovation. Achieving this dynamic and establishing a venue for the exchange of ideas, pitching and persuasion – that is the true challenge of online and hybrid teaching and learning. This lecture outlines vast strategies for formative and summative assessment, task and rubric creation, product, progress and process criteria determination, giving and receiving feedback and backward design.

Online teaching and learning has hit us like a glacier during the pandemic. It is our role now to make the best out of it as committed educators who will not only survive in new circumstances, but thrive now and later on, when “new things become the new normal”. Adapting to the “new normal”, by blending approaches, by learning different strategies and by being flexible, we can make the new assessment practices sustainable in our classrooms, whether synchronous or asynchronous online.

INTERACTIVE LECTURING

Snježana Kereković, PhD, assistant professor
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Chair of  Technical Foreign Languages, University of Zagreb

The talk dealt with interactive lecturing, its definition, reasons for lecturing interactively and interactive lecturing techniques. Lectures are one of the most effective ways of delivering large amount of content to a variety of class sizes. Unlike traditional lectures where the student is a passive spectator of the course material being delivered by the teacher (teachers talk, students listen, and teachers take questions from students only if students would have some), interactive lectures include at least one opportunity for students to interact actively and directly with the teaching material through a specific learning task (D. Leshner & J. Obando, Rutgers University), i.e. students interact with the lecture content during the lecture. In interactive lectures there is an ongoing interaction with the students, i.e. a two-way student-and-teacher communication, which looks spontaneous, but is actually very planned (D. Good, Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning, Virginia Tech). 

Interactive lectures bring real benefits for students: students are engaged in the learning process taking personal responsibility for their own learning; students’ previous knowledge is activated; students apply the new knowledge immediately; students learn more in a setting in which they are active participants (deep learning leads to genuine understanding and long-term retention of knowledge); students’ interest and motivation are increased, and students develop the skills of critical and analytical thinking (higher-order thinking skills). The benefits for teachers include the immediate and valuable feedback on how well the students are learning that day as well as improved exam results due to the fact that the teacher facilitates the learning process. However, the challenges faced by teachers are manifold. Most students are used to the traditional, stand-and-deliver method of instruction, so there will always be students who are resistant or even negative to teacher’s efforts and who will always remain silent and passive. Also, interactive lectures may take longer to cover a topic than traditional lectures, so teachers might lose teaching time which may lead to a reduction in factual content delivered in a semester. 

The main interactive lecturing techniques relate to (1) establishing expectations for the lecture (e.g. communicating classroom policies and the rationale for such policies clearly; involving students in activities from the start of the course; providing clear directions for activities and the rationale why something is done); (2) getting to know the students (e.g. using an icebreaker type activity at the beginning of the course to get to know the students and the students to get to know each other; learning as many of the students’ names as possible; creating a comfortable and learning-focused environment; (3) non-verbal communication (e.g. eye contact, body language, moving throughout the room); (4) creating a culture of engagement (e.g. calling students by name, establishing an expectation that students should ask questions, creating opportunities for anonymous questions, asking students for feedback at the end of a lecture to get information regarding what they did not understand and to assess your lecture). 

The process of creating an interactive lecture consists of three stages: pre-instructional planning, designing tasks or activities for interactive segments, and structuring/preparing the lecture. In the first stage, the teacher establishes learning objectives with reference to the content and considers logistical issues (room size, equipment, seating arrangement). In the second stage, the teacher designs activities, such as engagement triggers and individual or group tasks (e.g. think-pair-share). Activities that promote the effective learning process and maintain motivation in an interactive lecture may be: starting a lecture with a question about the most important points of the lecture, brainstorming, interpreting graphs, making calculations and estimations, synthesising, solving a problem, applying a concept learned in the lecture, doing a quiz, simulations and role playing, and implementing the flipped classroom model.  The talk finished with an overview of skills a 21st century engineer should possess, which exemplified the complexity of performance expectations employers have for modern engineers. Interactive lectures may contribute to developing these skills among engineering students.

THE CDIO APPROACH: ADVANTAGES OF IMPLEMENTING A PRE-EXISTING STANDARD

Mihhail Afanasjev, MSc, Lecturer, Programme Director,
Tallinn University of Technology Kuressaare College

One of the challenges of the SHIPMARTECH project is to ensure the quality and consistency of the courses across different institutions and contexts. To address this challenge, an explorative approach was selected at the beginning of the project. Work started with a comparison of existing course content and teaching methods. In this process, both differences and similarities were identified between the ways engineering subjects are taught in partner universities. To achieve the project goals, an effort was then made to highlight and strengthen the similarities, as well as to address and minimize the differences.

It is natural that the presentation, online aids, style, and methods of the courses would then gravitate towards some common standard. In some cases, like the teaching methods, the standard was not explicit. Rather, through joint training sessions and workshops, the participating lecturers could learn from eachother and adopt practical teaching methods from one another, later implementing these in their own teaching. This standard was therefore implicit and emerged organically.

In other cases, however, a common standard was indeed written down and adhered to. An example of an explicit standard is the layout and organisation of the online learning environments that host the various electronic study aids for each course.

Such in-project standards are a natural result of harmonization efforts. They are a good way to ensure consistency in meeting the project objectives. The larger goal, however, is to keep improving the study quality also after the end of the project. To achieve that, there are at least two different alternative choices: keep developing and expanding the SHIPMARTECH results into a wider standard, or adopt one that already exists.

As the SHIPMARTECH project went on, practical experience suggested that adopting a proven, existing standard is preferable. This is especially true if the goal is to ensure consistency across a wide array of engineering subjects in a university, not only maritime engineering subject as was the case in SHIPMARTECH. At the university level, the taught subject are diverse and often merit completely different approaches to instruction. Any effort to harmonize them should then be based on a comprehensive view of engineering education as a whole.

As the SHIPMARTECH project went on, practical experience suggested that adopting a proven, existing standard is preferable. This is especially true if the goal is to ensure consistency across a wide array of engineering subjects in a university, not only maritime engineering subject as was the case in SHIPMARTECH. At the university level, the taught subject are diverse and often merit completely different approaches to instruction. Any effort to harmonize them should then be based on a comprehensive view of engineering education as a whole.

One such quality framework is the CDIO framework (2). CDIO stands for Conceive-Design-Implement-Operate, which are the four phases of the engineering lifecycle. The CDIO approach is based on the idea that engineering education should be aligned with the authentic practice of engineering, and that students should develop not only technical knowledge and skills, but also personal, interpersonal, and professional competencies. The CDIO approach was initiated in 2000 by four leading engineering schools: MIT, Chalmers, Linköping, and KTH. Since then, it has grown into a worldwide network of more than 150 institutions that share a common vision and collaborate to improve engineering education.

The CDIO approach offers several benefits and advantages for engineering education programs. First, it provides a set of 12 standards that define the essential elements of a high-quality engineering program, such as learning outcomes, curriculum design, teaching and learning methods, assessment methods, faculty development, and continuous improvement. During their development, these standards were aligned with various national and international accreditation frameworks, such as ABET (3), or EUR-ACE (4). This is important for the universities participating in the SHIPMARTECH project, especially if they decide to implement the CDIO standard at a higher level. Then, it will be important that any adopted standard also complies with the existing national-level requirements for higher education.  

Third, CDIO provides a methodology that guides the implementation of the approach in a systematic and structured way. The methodology consists of five steps: setting the context and objectives; benchmarking existing programs; designing an integrated curriculum; implementing teaching and learning methods; and evaluating outcomes and processes. With a clear roadmap to implementation, less time can be spent on planning and choice of approach. Instead, more effort can go directly into the implementation itself: creation of new study materials, sharing new study methods to teachers, rearranging the study program to include the optimal balance of project- and problem-based study, and more.

In the CDIO context, there is also a community of practice that supports innovation and collaboration among engineering educators. The CDIO network organizes annual conferences, regional meetings, workshops, webinars, publications, and online resources that facilitate the exchange of ideas, experiences, best practices, and research results. This also ensures that the framework keeps pace with time and is regularly updated.

Although not the only such framework in existence, the CDIO approach has shown good promise to improve study quality if adopted methodically. During the training events in the SHIPMARTECH project, the partners received a first introduction into its structure, expected benefits, and process of adoption. By adopting the CDIO approach as a natural continuation of SHIPMARTECH, the project partners hope to improve the quality and consistency of the courses across different institutions and contexts.

REFERENCES:

1. Munroe, Randall. Standards. XKCD. [Online] 2011. https://xkcd.com/927.
2. Crawley, E., Malmqvist, J., Ostlund, S., Brodeur, D., & Edstrom, K. Rethinking engineering education. The CDIO approach. 2007.
3. Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology (ABET). Accreditation Criteria and Supporting Documents. [Online] 2013. http://www.abet.org/accreditation-criteria-policies-documents/.
4. The EUR-ACE Project. [Online] 2013. http://www.eurace.org/.

In Northern Europe, teaching is significantly more application-oriented compared to the theoretical teaching at South-European Universities.
South- European universities prefer oral examinations, while in North-Europe mostly written exams  and testing tools are used.

• Workload for a similar number of credit points can vary considerably between universities.
• Moodle tests and a  course projects can be used instead of traditional home assignments.
• Moodle tests are a great tool for self-assessment.
• Problem solving skills can be evaluated with a written exam or paper.
• To teach and encourage students to read research articles, student reading circles and diaries  are a good tool.
• Teaching staff at engineering faculties should cooperate more with colleagues from education institutes – there are many active learning and teaching methods that can be used in engineering courses, too.