|
30.5.2002
To the National Delegates of
Commission 2
To the Academic Members of FIG
To the Corresponding Members
Dear Colleagues
It is about a
month since the Washington Congress and I want to send you the last
Newsletter prepared by me. Commission 2 got a new Chair, professor Pedro
Cavero who will take care of the Commission for the next four years.
In this Newsletter I
will give you a brief overview on the activities in the Commission 2
during my time of office. You will find the complete formal report in
the documents of the Washington General Assembly, as well as on the web
site of our Commission, but in the following there is a short discussion
on the core issues.
Discussion on
the activities of Commission 2 during 1998-2002
FIG
Commission on Professional Education has been working primarily
on two topics: on
Surveyors Curricula around the world and on the development of
Virtual Academy on Surveying. On both of these themes we had active
working groups and in this short presentation I want to describe briefly
the achievements of them.
In addition to these
Commission 2 had also two other working groups: On Management Skills and
Professional Competencies that primarily finalized the tasks from the
previous period and The Working Group on Surveying Students the goal of
which was to attract young surveyors in the work of
FIG and for example to organize possibilities for students to
attend FIG congresses and working weeks.
Surveyors Curricula
has been an interesting and problematic topic and it took the first two
years, also for the working group, to realize how this topic could be
approached. Professor Jud Rouch (US) and professor Liu Yanfang (P.R.
China) have been working in this WG. Many attempts has been made by
several other people (like professor Allan and professor Mattsson) as
well as CLGE to generate a model or even a core curriculum of surveyors
educational contents. The problem is, however, that surveyors curricula
around the world are so different that it is very difficult or even
impossible to make a general model of the contents. It is impossible to
describe the curricula so that for example university teachers could
compare their own curriculum to others or, on the other hand, for
example students could find a foreign university where they would like
to study for a year. Also all descriptions on curricula contents are
outdated when they are printed and published.
In Commission 2 we
realized that more and more universities have their curriculum
documented on their web site and we found that the only realistic
solution also for our problem has to be based on Internet technology.
The result of this working group is the proposal and a prototype on a
Surveyors Educational Portal (SEP).
The main idea of the
Surveyors Educational Portal is the use of an automatic search engine
and a graphical user interface and by these tools enable the user to get
information on every curriculum that is documented on a web site. This
application makes it possible both to describe the curricula content and
also to find information based of certain keywords and specific needs.
We have developed a prototype on this idea at Helsinki University of
Technology, the prototype was demonstrated at Washington Congress and
the FIG Council also decided to give some funding for the project. The
Project Plan is in the appendix 2.
The Working Group on
Virtual Academy has organized a network of universities that are
developing Virtual courses in Surveying. Professors Henrik Haggren (FIN)
and Esben Munk Sorensen (DK) who were chairing the WG have also
organized a seminar last year, in Helsinki University of Technology,
Finland. This working group will continue its work also in the future.
These two topics Surveyors Educational Portal and Virtual Academy
are very closely connected to each other. Virtual Academy produce
contents to surveyors curricula and Portal enables a flexible entry to
the courses as well as other materials in Internet.
It has been a tradition
in Commission 2 to organize seminars in such countries where FIG
has not yet a very strong role or then for some other reason it has been
important to bring a FIG Symposium to a specific country.
During the last four
years Commission 2 organized seminars in China, in Wuhan Technical
University, 1998, as well as in Argentina, Rosario in 2000. The work
with Latin American counties has been a special responsibility of the
vice Chair of Commission, professor Pedro Cavero. His work in this field
will certainly continue during the coming four years.
In general Commission 2
has been active and co-operative. We had joint work with other
commissions, especially with Commission1. With Commission 9 we had a
joint Working Group on Education of Valuers.
Commission 2 has also participated in the work of the Task Force
on Under-represented Groups in Surveying.
Commission 2 organized
altogether 15 technical sessions in during the recent
period, altogether 55 oral presentations in different congresses.
In the commission meetings we typically had 15-25 participants.
Newsletters were published twice a year. All information
was also on our web site but newsletter were still mailed as
paper copies for all delegates.
XXII FIG International Congress
Washington, DC USA, April 19 –22, 2002
Marriott Wardman Hotel in Washington.In the following a short report
on the activities during the Washington Congress is given.
Commission 2 organized eight technical sessions with 30 technical
papers.
TS 2.1 Virtual Academy – Case Studies and Experiences, Monday 2.-3.30
pm
TS 2.2 Virtual Academy And Curricula Contents, Monday 4.-5.30 pm
TS 2.3 Teaching and Learning Methods and CPD, Tuesday 11. am -12.30 pm
TS 2.4 Virtual Academy and New Teaching and Learning Methods, Tuesday
2.-3.30 pm
TS 2.5 Surveying Core Curriculum, Tuesday 4.-5.30 pm
TS 2.6 Changes in Curricula, Thursday 11. am –12.30 pm
TS 2.7 Descriptions of Curricula, Thursday 2.-3.30 pm
TS 2.8 Different Aspects in Planning and Implementing Curricula,
Thursday 4.-5.30 pm
In addition to these we had joint sessions with Commission 9 on the
topics of Education of Valuers and The Task Force for Underrepresented
groups on Gender issues.
In the sessions we had participants from 15 to 46. Papers were
presented in a very professional way and they raised a lot of questions
and discussion. I want to mention that we also had students in the
audience and they also took part in the discussion.
Commission 2 had two Commission meetings with 27 and 16 participants
(see minutes in the appendix 1). The work of Working Groups was reported
as well as the work plan of the incoming chair was discussed. We also
organized a students meeting with 9 participants.
The main topics both in the sessions and meetings were:
- Virtual Academy
- Changing role of university teacher and the changing process of
learning
- Surveyors curricula contents and educational models.
We also discussed some actual topics like the relation between
research and teaching in universities as well as the university funding
systems in different countries.
It seems to bee generally accepted that surveyors curricula are
globally too different to be put in one model. However, it is important
to be able to compare them. It is necessary to keep curricula up-to-date
and that needs continuous interaction between science, practice and
education. Collaborative learning seems to be possible by networking and
the tool for networking is of course Internet.
In Virtual Academy we should not only concentrate on technical and
contextual matters but also the form of teaching, the didactic
abilities. Instead of broadening the education the contents should be
reduced and more emphasis should be put on the continuous learning
ability of the students.
In the development of Virtual Academies surveying teachers need
support. Teachers role is changing but he/she should not became a
programmer. The teacher should be a tutor or mentor who guides the
learning journey of the student.
Virtual Academy has several forms from global system into a virtual
academy of one university. Also the implementations are different. It is
very possible the best way of organizing virtual academy has not yet
been invented. I hope that Commission 2 will continue on the subject of
virtual academy as well as curricula content during the coming period.
Commission 2 also organized a students meeting during the Congress.
It is most important to get into contact with young surveyors and
especially students. We got very good and fresh ideas in that meeting.
It was decided to organize a students meeting during every working week
and congress in the future.
Commission 2 recognises the underestimated position of teaching
profession in universities. Research has got too strong emphasis in the
result evaluation models in university administration. Development of
educational materials and courses seem nowadays to give no merits to
professors. Commission 2 will work on this issue in the future. The
national associations could, for example, be the correct way to report
to the universities on the need of qualified teachers and educational
courses in the field of surveying.
Commission 2 decided also to continue the development of the
Educational Portal. The prototype of the graphical interface and the
search engine was demonstrated and the idea was accepted, also some
funding was given to the project. The project plan is in the appendix 2.
Commission 2 established a project the goal of which is to develop first
a test version of the system and finally implement the Educational
Portal for general use. This project will be reporting in the next FIG
Congress in Munich.
Acknowledgements
I hope the best success for the Commission 2 as well as for the new
Chair professor Pedro Cavero. I want to thank everybody who has been
working with me during the last years, the national delegates, all
working group chairs and members, the Vice Chair professor Pedro Cavero,
the Commission Secretary Mrs. Marjaana Laurema as well as Ms. Arzu
Çöltekin who regularily helped with updating the web site. I want to
thank everybody contributing to the technical sessions in Congresses,
all my colleagues in FIG – especially the colleague Chairs of
Commissions, as well as the past Chair of Commission 2 professor Stig
Enemark, who always supported me and never left me alone with problems
in the work in Commission 2. My special thanks go for FIG Director
Markku Villikka, who finally always took care about my work, by calling
and emailing, and who always was available for extra information and
help!We had many fruitful working sessions, several happy social moments
and last but not least – we have a lot of good memories to be saved for
the future life!Thank you all!
My warmest regards
Kirsi Virrantaus
Appendix 1
Commision 2 Meeting for National Delegates, Washington XXII Congress
Monday the 22nd of April, 2002, 9.00 – 10.30 Balcony D, Hotel Marriot
Wardman
MINUTES
1.Opening the meeting, Kirsi Virrantaus welcomed all participants to
the meeting
- list of participants was made, 27 participants present (see the
list of names)
- the agenda was accepted
2. Technical Sessions of the Congress were discussed
- sessions and chairs were checked, two more chairs were needed: for
TS 2.2 (Monday 4.-5.30) and TS 2.5 (Tuesday 4.-5.30)
- TS 2.1 Kirsi Virrantaus
- TS 2.2 - Pedro Cavero was available
- TS 2.3 Pedro Cavero
- TS 2.4 Henrik Haggrén
- TS 2.5 - Khagenda Thapa was available
- TS 2.6 Jud Rouch
- TS 2.7 Pedro Cavero
- TS 2.8 Kirsi Virrantaus
- speakers were checked, until this 18 speakers were confirmed their
presentation
- practical information was given about AV equipment; Kirsi
Virrantaus will bring her computer to every session
3. Minutes of the previous Com 2 meeting in Soul was delivered, no
discussion
4. Com2 Report to the 25th General Assembly was delivered, it is
also published in the Appendix of GA agenda, no discussion
5. Working Group work was presented
- WG1 Stig Enemark gave some words about WG1, that will now finish
with its work
- WG2 Henrik Haggren told about the activities of WG 2;
- in the Seminar on Virtual Academy in Otaniemi some good
applications were presented, some of them are also presented here
in Washington,
- the Report will be given in the Technical Session 2.1
- the work of the WG on VA will continue its work during the
next period
- Henrik emphasized that pedagogical expertise is needed in
developing the applications,
- in the administration of VAs there are two approaches, closed
systems for one university only and open worldwide systems – in
these the problems are different;
- other issues on the VA theme
- the payment system, either open access or a payment system
(David Rogers)
- how to test/examine students ?
- knowledge management will be the core in the future (Stig
Enemark, Bela Markus)
- WG3 Jud Rouch and Kirsi Virrantaus reported on activities on
Curricula,
- the Report will be presented TS in 2.2
- the final result of this WG is the Project Plan of Surveyors
Educational Portal, it will be presented to the FIG Council and we
hope that some funding will be give to the project; if so then
Kirsi Virrantaus will continue with SEP, first piloting and
testing and then finalising the application for Munich Congress
(the Project Plan was delivered)
- Arzu Çöltekin told about the prototype of SEP that is prepared
by her and presented in Washington Technical Session 2.2 ; because
no Internet was available the system could not to be demonstrated
as we have planned, however an oral presentation was given, also
some questions and a short discussion
- WG4 Pedro Cavero told some words about activities with students
- it is difficult for many reasons for attract students to FIG,
however we should always try to organize student low price
accommodation and low participation fees in the Congresses
- more information for students on FIG should be delivered,
Internet is a good medium
- during this Congress a Students meeting will be organized
6. Other planned events were introduced
Pedro Cavero gave information on the International Symposium
“Education and professionalism in Surveying”, October 3-5, 2002 in
Puerto Rico.
7. The Task Force for Underrepresented Groups in Surveying has
invited all interested persons to participate the work, the sessions and
meetings were mentioned
8. The 2nd Commission meeting during the Washington Congress was
informed, it will be
on Wednesday at 9. – 10.30 in the Commission room 8206, Pedro Cavero
will chair the meeting
9. The meeting was closed at 10.30.
Kirsi Virrantaus
3.5.2002
List on participants:
Henrik Haggrén, Raubie Raubenheimer, Katri Koistinen, Jean-Robert
Schneider, David Rogers, Frances Plimmer, Stig Enemark, Ulf Jensen, Ales
Cepek, Jean Yves Bourguignon, Arzu Çöltekin, Gert Steinkellner, Jud
Rouch, Khagenda Thapa, Kazimier Czaenecki, Pedro J. Cavero, Gary
Jeffress, Analia Argerich, Mike Besh, Stefan Willgalis, William Cely,
Bertold Witte, Joshua Greenfeld, Bela Markus, Leif Eidenstedt, Josef
Weigel, Kirsi Virrantaus
Because of the law on privacy protection the email addresses of
persons are not included in this document. The minutes will be published
on our web site. If you need to contact somebody, please ask for it
Commission 2 officers.
Appendix 2
Project proposal on “The Development of Surveying
Educational Portal, SEP”
1. Background of the
project plan
FIG Commission 2 has
been working on the concept of Educational Data Base for several years
and few versions of the EDB has been created. First implemented as a
file based workstation version, the most recent EDB is based on Access
–database and available in Internet. Several hundreds of surveying
curricula are there documented. The main problem with EDB is the
management of the updating procedure. It has been the problem since the
early versions. In Internet version the updating procedure was delivered
to the universities themselves. Universities have passwords and they are
expected to keep their data up-to-date. However, the question is about
hundreds of universities with changing personnel where the updating
procedure is a personal responsibility of nobody. The result is that the
updating is performed very poorly. On the other hand a database that is
not updated has no value.
As an improvement to
this situation Commission 2 has introduced a new distributed approach in
managing information on surveying curricula. This approach is based on
the web-pages of universities, the development of an automated search
engine and a graphical user-interface. A prototype of the Surveying
Educational Portal approach has been implemented and the plan for
further development has been made.
2. The prototype
The prototype of SEP
will be demonstrated at FIG Washington Congress, both in the Commission
meeting (Monday the 22nd of April, at 9.00 am in the Balcony
D) and in the Commission 2
Technical Session, presented by Ms. Arzu Çöltekin (TS 2.2, Monday the 22nd
of April, at 4 pm). The functionality of the prototype is quite limited
but it demonstrates the idea of having a graphical user interface
consisting of user defined or ready made model of the structure of the
curriculum. The prototype makes searches to web pages of selected
academic member universities. The search is based on certain keywords
and their morphemes. The result of the search is a graphical description
of the contents found and a verbal list of courses/publications etc. in
the selected university/all universities including the given keyword.
The prototype also gives the possibility of making the user´s own model
of curriculum, a user interface has been implemented for input of
university identity data, the model of the curricula with major
subjects, themes and their morphemes as well as the password.
The prototype has been
planned by Ms. Arzu Çöltekin, professor Henrik Haggren and professor
Kirsi Virrantaus from Helsinki University of Technology, the practical
implementation work was made by Mr. Yevgen Pavlov, Jyväskylä University.
The development of the prototype has been financed by The Helsinki
University of Technology and FIG Commission 2.
The prototype can now
be viewed in order to get the idea of the SEP. However the prototype can
not be used for real testing.
3. The project plan
The further development
of SEP can be made in the following steps:
-
Demonstrating of the prototype at FIG Congress in Washington, April
2002
-
Planning and implementation of the test version, ready before PC
meeting 2003
-
Testing the SEP, between PC 2003 and 2004
-
Making the plan of the final version
-
Implementing the final version
-
Launching the SEP at FIG Congress Munich, 2006.
3.1 Resources needed
The planning the first
prototype has been made by several people and in fragmented time slots,
however the pure coding took one working month and HUT invested 1000 €.
The next step, planning
and implementing the test version will be more demanding work and will
take 3 working months for programming and 2 months for planning. The
time required is, of course, dependent on the amount of functionality.
After testing the
technical planning and implementing the final version will take 5-8
working months, of course depending on the specified functionality of
the SEP.
3.2
Financing plan
Until this Commission 2
and Helsinki University of Technology have been financing the SEP
prototyping. The next stage will require some other funds also. The
costs of the next step 2 will be 10000 €.
After the testing phase
the final version will be implemented and the costs will be 10000€ -
15000€, depending on the functionality of the system.
3.3 Proposal
The proposal of
Commission 2 for the development of Surveying Educational Portal is
that:
-
Commission 2 WG 2 takes the leading role in the development of SEP, a
Task Force on Surveyors Educational Portal is established under the WG
2 (Virtual Academy) of Com 2.
-
The Task Force on SEP takes the responsibility of the previous plan.
-
FIG provides partially the
funding of the development of the test version (stage 2). The rest of
the costs will be financed by the funds applied from different
sources. The planning work can be mainly made by the Commission and
Task Force personnel without extra costs. The required funds are for
the programming work, the must be made by an experienced programmer.
-
The Task Force will apply money for the funding of the final version.
The potential sources are for example academic member universities.
The amount applied
from FIG for the implementation of the test version is 5000 €.
The rest will be
covered by Commission 2, Helsinki University of Technology and other
sources.
The main task for the
Task Force for SEP will be to find funding for the implementation of the
final version. The funding possibilities are international educational
organizations, EU etc.
It is most important
that FIG funds the development of the test version, because without
proper demonstrating of the advantages of
the system it is impossible to get positive feedback. We are sure
that when the idea and the technology can be demonstrated we will find
enough funding for the final implementation. Because most universities
have at the moment projects on Virtual Academy, this topics is actual
and universities might realize the advantage of co-operation among
surveying within this project. The project does not only make progress
in information delivery via Internet but also in more general way
supports communication and gives possibilities for curriculum
development.
Espoo 15.4.2002
Kirsi Virrantaus, Professor
Chair of FIG Commission 2
|
