Feedback from students, alumni and their employersWerawan Manakul

e3 Program Coordinator

A seminar in commemoration of the 10th anniversary of the English Engineering Education program (e3)

Hokkaido University

What you will hear from this talk

• about e3

• alumni whereabouts

• their bosses’ opinions

• alumni and students’ opinion

From EGPSEE to e3

• Took 8 years from ideas to establishment

• Established in 2000 by 6 Divisions in Socio-Environmental Engineering Group as “English Graduate Program in Socio-Environmental Engineering” or EGPSEE

• Expanded in 2007 to cover 5 more Divisions in Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science groups, renamed “English Engineering Education” or e3

• Next month, remaining Division of Applied Physics joins

About e3 program

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

815

21 21 22 23 2834 39

4854

8

1412 15

1928

29 2223

31

36

Doctor Master

Scholarships allocated annually by MEXT2000-6: 6 master, 6 doctoral2007-present: 7 master, 7 doctoral

Students and source of funding

Per country

China 25

Bangladesh 10

Indonesia, Japan 7

Malaysia, Philippines,Sri Lanka, Thailand

4

Cambodia, Korea, Pakistan 3

Colombia, Egypt 2

Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Ethiopia, Guatemala, India, Iran, Jordan, Nepal, Uganda, Vietnam and Zimbabwe

1

TOTAL 90

MEXT-e338%

MEXT-emb14%MEXT-

others3%

CSC13%

AUN/SEED-Net5%

JICA2%

Other scholarships

3%Self-support

22%

Courses offered

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

6 6 6 6 816 17 19 19 19

4041 41 42 49 47

4251 54

62 62

66

common e3 only

37% of e3 courses are now common courses for both Japanese and e3 students

110 persons

54 M.Eng.degrees

78 Ph.D.degrees

Person/ country

Japan 15

Thailand 13

Indonesia 12

Nepal 10

Philippines 9

Sri Lanka 6

Bangladesh, Vietnam 5

Egypt, Korea 4

Colombia 3

China, Ethiopia, Mongolia, Pakistan, Russia, Zimbabwe

2

Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Brunei, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Iran, Macedonia, Nigeria, Paraguay, Peru, Poland

1

TOTAL 110

No. of degrees awarded and No. of graduatesas of March 2010

Headline news7 Japanese and 25 Chinese students enroll in e3 now. China is expected to take over Japan as No. 1 in the number of e3

graduates soon. It has already become No. 1 in the number of students

Questionnaire survey

• through email

• same questionnaire for alumni and students

• alumni provide employer’s name and email address

• e3 contact employers directly

Alumni

• 15 out of 110 are Ph.D. students in the program, therefore “alumni” in this report refers to the remaining 95 graduates.

• Out of these 95 alumni, 4 have invalid email addresses.

• Out of 91 alumni with valid email addresses, 66 (72%) responded to the questionnaire.

Alumni grouping

• Since the program underwent restructure many times, alumni and students are grouped into 6 research groups where supervisors belong:

Architectural Engineering [AE]

Civil Engineering [CE]

Environmental Engineering [EE]

Resources Engineering [RE]

Materials Science and Engineering [MS]

Mechanical Engineering [ME]

Alumni response rate

Alumnicontacted

Alumni responded

Architectural Engineering [AE] 13 9 (69%)

Civil Engineering [CE] 44 38 (86%)

Environmental Engineering [EE] 25 11 (44%)

Resources Engineering [RE] 13 7 (53%)

Materials Science [MS] 1 1 (100%)

Mechanical Engineering [ME] - -

Alumni whereabouts

66Other country

41%

Home country59%

27

Immigration 4%

Employment56%

Further studies33%

Others7%

Work profile after graduation

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

AE CE EE RE MS

Returned to former organization

Did not return to former organization

Returned but left after sometime

First employment

Among those who worked before joining e3 program, 40% returned to former organization

13% returned but left after sometime

9 38 11 7 1

Employer profile

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

AE CE EE RE MS

Others

Self-employed

Public/state enterprise

Private enterprise

International organization

Government agency

Educational institution

56% of alumni work in educational institution

9 38 11 7 1

Responsible areas of alumni from different groups

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

AE CE EE RE MS

Others

Construction/maintenance

Production

Teaching

Design

Consultancy

Administration

Project implementation

Management

Research and development

9 38 11 7 1

Alumni whose work includes these areas

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Research and development

Teaching

Management

Project implementation

Consultancy

Design

Administration

Construction/maintenance

Production

Others

Personal benefit obtained after graduation

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

AE-A

CE-A

EE-A

RE-A Job opportunities

Personal network

Status recognition

Getting a Ph.D. does not mean much for Civil Engineering graduates in terms of job opportunities

Employers’ survey

• Out of 66 alumni responded, 4 are Ph.D students elsewhere, 5 are PD here (66 – 9 = 54)

• Out of 54 alumni in the work force, 34 (63%) provided boss’ names

• Out of 34 bosses, 23 (67%) responded

• Except one, all know alumni for more than 2 years

• 50% are of same nationality with alumni

Employers’ profile

Academic 35%

Research institute

13%

Private companies

52%23

2

4 4

9

3

less than 100 101-500 501-1,000 1,001-5,000 above 5,000

Questions asked

• Relevant engineering knowledge needed• Use of techniques, skills and modern engineering tools necessary

for engineering practice• Understand professional and ethical responsibility• Communication skills• Technical writing skills• Speaking before audience• Applied research• Critical thinking• Independent work• Defining and solving problems• Teamwork• Leadership (responsible actions, decision making)• Understand other people and appreciate their point of view• Environmental awareness

Choice of answers

• In evaluating individual alumni, 4 choices: very dissatisfied, dissatisfied, very satisfied, satisfied

• In comparing alumni with graduates from other universities, 5 choices: significantly better, better, no difference, poorer, much poorer

Employers’ level of satisfaction

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Very satisfied

Satisfied

UnsatisfiedNeutral

Competence of e3 graduates vs graduates from other institutions

0% 50% 100%

Leadership (responsible actions, …

Speaking before an audience

Communicating skills

Technical writing skills

Understand professional and …

Relevant engineering knowledge …

Environmental awareness

Understand other people and …

Independent work (planning, …

Team work

Defining and solving problems

Use of techniques, skills and …

Critical thinking

Applied research

Significantly better Better No difference Poorer Did not specify

e3 graduates are better in 10 out of 14 qualifications and skills

6 areas with some weakness are soft skills

Should we be satisfied?

Unanswered questions

• Out of 66 alumni responded, 4 are Ph.D students elsewhere, 5 are PD here (66 – 9 = 54)

• Out of 54 alumni in the work force, 34 (63%) provided boss’ names

• Out of 34 bosses, 23 (67%) responded

• Except one, all know alumni for more than 2 years

• 50% are of same nationality with alumni

Why 20 alumni did not provide boss’ names?Why 11 bosses did not respond?

Student response rate

• Out of 78 students, 54 (69%) responded to the questionnaire.

• Compared to alumni, out of 91 alumni with valid email addresses, 66 (72%) responded. Alumni response rate is higher by 3%.

Distance makes the heart grow fonder

Response rate by research group

Alumnicontacted

Alumni responded

Studentscontacted

Students responded

Architectural Engineering [AE] 13 9 (69%) 5 3 (60%)

Civil Engineering [CE] 44 38 (86%) 26 17 (65%)

Environmental Engineering [EE] 25 11 (44%) 9 5 (55%)

Resources Engineering [RE] 13 7 (53%) 11 9 (81%)

Materials Science [MS] 1 1 (100%) 12 10 (83%)

Mechanical Engineering [ME] - - 15 9 (60%)

Lowest response rates:alumni = 33%, students = 20%

come from Japanese

Note: Response from MS alumni (1) is grouped together with studentsA = alumni; S = students

How did you find e3 academic standard?

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

AE-A

AE-S

CE-A

CE-S

EE-A

EE-S

RE-A

RE-S

MS

ME Very good Satisfactory

Poor

Too much dependent on individual professors’ standard, no benchmark

Some courses are below graduate level

Lack of teaching skills and English proficiency hamper standard

Lack of international components (viewpoints, discussion ability by professors)

Standard relies on publications

Better now than in the past

Were you satisfied coursework content?

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

AE-A

AE-S

CE-A

CE-S

EE-A

EE-S

RE-A

RE-S

MS

ME Yes Not really

No

Too few relevant courses

Good framework but quality of contents vary depending on professors’ preparation

Some courses are not comprehensive

Course content based on professors’ research disregard of course goal

Lack of seriousness in teaching and grading in some courses

Better now than in the past

Were you satisfied with coursework relevancy?

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

AE-A

AE-S

CE-A

CE-S

EE-A

EE-S

RE-A

RE-S

MS

MEYes

Yes Not really More practical side or real-life applications should be added

Courses lack specific purpose for overall curriculum

Too much focus on research

Too basic, not challenging enough

Title and content sometimes don’t match

Better now than in the past

How would you rate e3 teaching quality?

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

AE-A

AE-S

CE-A

CE-S

EE-A

EE-S

RE-A

RE-S

MS

ME Satisfactory

Poor

Very good

Unable to teach properly due to poor English

Good professors are indeed very good but are minority

Young professors are better

Style of teaching and teaching materials must be improved

Should focus on teaching basic/ fundamental theories aside from own research

More interaction with students needed

Needs improvement!

Qualifications of academic staff?

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

AE-A

AE-S

CE-A

CE-S

EE-A

EE-S

RE-A

RE-S

MS

MEWell qualified

Very practical

Very theoretical

Lack teaching experience

Lack practical experience

Marginally qualified

If passing mark is set at 60%, all pass but ….

% Students and alumni who voiced concern

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

AE-A

AE-S

CE-A

CE-S

EE-A

EE-S

RE-A

RE-S

MS

ME Marginally qualified

Lack practical experience

Lack teaching experience

Lack of teaching experience ranked highest at 13%

General attitude of majority of course instructors?

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

AE-A

AE-S

CE-A

CE-S

EE-A

EE-S

RE-A

RE-S

MS

ME Encouraging and helpful throughout

Sometimes helpful

Indifferent

Indifference is an issue of the past?

Level of research guidance from supervisor

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

AE-A

AE-S

CE-A

CE-S

EE-A

EE-S

RE-A

RE-S

MS

ME Assisted in every possible way

Took active interest and gave continuous guidance

Took cursory interest and gave occasional guidance

Slightly concerned and gave scarce guidance

Indifferent and did not care at all about the work

Did not specify

More supervisors (89%) give research guidance than in the past (77%)OR

More students are less capable?

Flexibility given in term of research topics

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

AE-A

AE-S

CE-A

CE-S

EE-A

EE-S

RE-A

RE-S

MS

ME Very satisfied Satisfied

Unsatisfied

Did not specify

Reason for “unsatisfied”

Topic differed from what was agreed prior to joining the program

Supervisor’s guidance on research

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

AE-A

AE-S

CE-A

CE-S

EE-A

EE-S

RE-A

RE-S

MS

ME Very satisfied

Unsatisfied

SatisfiedAlmost all alumni and students are satisfied with supervisors’ guidance.

Let’s forget about the unhappy one!

Satisfied with research in terms of practical applicability

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

AE-A

AE-S

CE-A

CE-S

EE-A

EE-S

RE-A

RE-S

MS

MEVery satisfied

Suggestions

Supervisor should look into the applicability of research in the viewpoint of business and academic. (Be balanced for both ways.)

Exposure to applied field-scale research projects to supplement the lab-based/ computer-modeling-based research.

Opportunity to select own research.

Very satisfied

SatisfiedUnsatisfied

Found the program useful in terms of developing

professional knowledge?

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

AE-A

AE-S

CE-A

CE-S

EE-A

EE-S

RE-A

RE-S

MS

ME

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

AE-A

AE-S

CE-A

CE-S

EE-A

EE-S

RE-A

RE-S

MS

ME

Not useful

Found the program useful in terms of developing technical knowledge?

Very useful Useful

Ways to improve• Should provide opportunity to teach undergraduates, interact with

researchers in Japan and abroad• Courses should focus more on practical aspects• Provide specific lectures on topics needed for research

Very useful Useful

Applicable areas of knowledge and skills gained from the program

Research and development

45%

Management9%

Teaching16%

Development planning

11%

Design11%

Construction6%

Production2%

0 10 20 30 40 50

Research and …

Teaching

Management

Project implementation

Consultancy

Design

Administration

Construction/mainten…

Production

Others

For program improvements

• Workshop for alumni every 2-3 years

• Make sure that instructors possess a high level of English

• More active and contentful networking with alumni

• Incentives for Japanese students to join the program

• Have a similar program in undergraduate with more Japanese students and employ e3 students as TA.

• Recruit more young professors with years of experience overseas

• Improve professors’ teaching skills, quality of teaching materials

• There should be a quality assurance committee for teaching

• Assist in job hunting

For faculty improvement

• Faculty should hold international reputation which is vital for student future career

• Faculty should experience teaching overseas• International competition for faculty recruitment• Faculty should have good English skills from recruitment

stage• Provide training in teaching at internationally reputed

university• Should stop thinking in the Japanese style• Individual professors' standard problem should be solved as

early as possible• More interaction among professors

For maintaining contact with e3

• Professors should be enthusiastic in communicating with their former students

• Updating the program issues frequently through e-mail

• Updating information about alumni

• Organize joint symposium with alumni universities in different countries

• Newsletter

• Invite alumni to make presentation from time to time

• On-line blog

General comments

• Students should be encouraged to acknowledge the support of e3

program whenever they publish papers and make presentations. This is also a way to build up group reputation.

• Redesign curriculum to have more specific, coherent courses for each division

• Not all the students enroll in Masters level would be interested in further research based study. So the program should focus more on comprehensive practice based study to make a balance so that e3

could have best reputation for achievement of alumni in professional field.

• Increased interaction between Japanese and e3 students• Increase international staff• Invite alumni to give lectures• Beside graduate degree, the program should organize short term

courses in specific fields

Conclusion

• Alumni are rated well by their boss

• Alumni and students are not completely satisfied with the academic standard due to lack of standard

• Faculty are well qualified in research but many lack teaching experience/skills and English proficiency

• Curriculum lacks focus and international standard

• Active interaction with alumni can help promote the program and enhance program quality

Assignments

• e3 courses lack international flavor and standard, how should we deal with this?

• e3 educational quality relies on individual faculty standard, should we continue like this? If no, how should we deal with this matter. If yes, how do we ensure individual faculty standard?

• e3 alumni are now all over the world, how do we make use of this international network to enhance our program?

Let’s share a dream that one day, instead of English Engineering Education, e3 will be referred to as

Excellent Engineering Education program!

Announcement

Name two professors whose course was the best among the courses you took

21 votes, 19 votes, 2

8 votes, 1

7 votes, 26 votes, 1

5 votes, 4

4 votes, 2

3 votes, 7

2 votes, 17

1 vote, 220 vote, 108

48%

91% 86%70% 73% 70%

Prof NF (7 votes) Prof NI (7 votes) Prof TS (8 votes) Prof SK (9 votes) Prof TI (9 votes) Prof TU (21 votes)

Students who took these professor's course and returned the questionnaire

53%63% 61%

75% 71%

95%

Prof Naoyuki Funamizu

Prof Norihiro Izumi Dr Tsumoto Sato Prof Shunji Kanie Prof Toshifumi Igarashi

??

Votes received from these students

Professor Tamon Ueda