1
Design and implementation of multi-campus, modular master classes
2
in biochemical engineering
3
Niek Wuyts1, Dorine Bruneel2,6, Myriam Meyers3,6, Etienne Van Hoof3,4,6,
4
Leander De Vos5,6, Greet Langie4,6, Hans Rediers1,6,*
5 6
1
7
for Bioengineering Technology (CBeT), Department of Microbial and Molecular
8
Systems (M2S), KU Leuven - Campus De Nayer, Sint-Katelijne-Waver, Belgium
9
2
KU Leuven - Technology campus Ghent, Ghent, Belgium
10
3
KU Leuven – Technology campus Diepenbeek, Diepenbeek, Belgium
11
4
Leuven Engineering and Science Education Center (LESEC), KU Leuven, Leuven,
12
Belgium
13
5
KU Leuven - Technology campus Geel, Geel, Belgium
14
6
Faculty of Engineering Technology, KU Leuven, Heverlee, Belgium
Laboratory for Process Microbial Ecology and Bioinspirational Management, Center
15 16 17 18
* corresponding author:
19
Hans Rediers, KU Leuven – campus De Nayer, Jan De Nayerlaan 5, B-2870 Sint-
20
Katelijne-Waver, Belgium
21
Email:
[email protected]
22 23 24
25
Design and implementation of multicampus, modular masterclasses in
26
engineering
27 28
Abstract
29
The Master of Science in engineering technology: biochemical engineering, is
30
organized in KU Leuven at 4 geographically dispersed campuses. To sustain
31
Master’s programmes at all campuses, it is clear that a unique education profile at
32
each campus is crucial. In addition, a rationalization is required by increased
33
cooperation, increased exchange of lecturers and increased student mobility. To
34
achieve this, a multicampus education system for the Msc in engineering
35
technology: biochemical engineering was developed by offering modules that are
36
also available for students of other campuses. Such a module is primarily based
37
on the research expertise present at the campus. In the development, special
38
attention has been given to the optimal organization of the modules, evaluation,
39
required modifications of the current curricula, and the practical consequences
40
for students following the module at another campus Already in the first year of
41
implementation, around 30% of the students followed a multicampus module,
42
which indicates the potential success of the multicampus concept described here.
43 44
Keywords: multicampus; research modules, student mobility, master modules,
45
biochemical engineering
46 47
1. Introduction
48
In Flanders (Belgium), the 1-year Master’s programme in engineering technology:
49
biochemical engineering, is organized at 7 geographically dispersed campuses that
50
are part of three different universities, i.e. KU Leuven, Ghent University, and
51
Antwerp University. However, to sustain the Msc programme at all campuses, it
52
is clear that a unique education and research profile at each campus is crucial. In
53
addition, institutes of higher education are subject to intense changes: with
54
decreasing government funding they have to educate more students, in individual
55
flexible programs, and with an increasing variety of backgrounds (McNaught
56
2003). It is clear that a rationalization is required in which the use of human
57
resources and infrastructure is optimized. This can be accomplished by
58
establishing “Higher education consortia”, which can be defined as “multi-point
59
groupings of higher education institutions which have a limited amount of
60
members and where membership is restricted to particular institutions” (Beerkens
61
2002). In these so-called “Higher education consortia” there is an increased
62
cooperation among the campuses. An exemple of such an increased cooperation is
63
the organization of multicampus education in which there is an increased
64
exchange of lecturers and increased student mobility.
65
In this paper we describe the development of a multicampus programme
66
for the “Master of science in engineering technology: Biochemical Engineering”
67
and “Master of science in biosciences: food industry engineering”, in a higher
68
education consortium, consisting of 4 campuses of KU Leuven. The multicampus
69
programme consists of specialized and research-driven learning modules on one
70
campus that are also available for students of other campuses. Initially, only
71
students of the multicampus faculty of engineering technology are admitted, but in
72
a later stage this could be extended for students from other faculties or
73
universities. In addition, the driving forces, obstacles, and preconditions to
74
establish such a multicampus programme, the development process, and the
75
implementation of the multicampus programme as well as the future perspectives
76
are discussed.
77 78
2. Driving forces and obstacles for multicampus education
79
Improved performance and cost reduction are certainly major driving forces for
80
establishing cooperating consortia (Marra 2004). A study that inquired American
81
pharmacy colleges involved in multicampus education, also reported other reasons
82
for establishing a multicampus programme including (i) improved student
83
recruitment; (ii) improved retention of graduates in a certain area; (iii) better
84
coping with pressure from competing institutions; (iv) enhanced visibility of the
85
institution in industry; and (v) improved performance by pooling resources of
86
multiple institutions (Harrison, Congdon, and Di Piro 2010; Harman, and
87
Harman, 2003). Regarding the latter, Das and Teng (2000) also pointed to the
88
value creation potential of resources that are pooled together as one of the driving
89
forces for cooperation. In addition, multicampus education programmes can
90
provide a wider range of learning experiences (Kim, Kim, and Park 2005).
91
However, American pharmacy colleges also report some issues with
92
multicampus programs, such as difficult acclimation and student adjustment
93
(Harrison, Congdon, and Di Piro 2010). In this regard, it has been shown that the
94
proximity of the home city to the campus has a significant positive impact on the
95
persistence of first-year students (Williams, and Luo 2010). This is mainly
96
attributed to the fact that students at a college closer to their home city have a
97
better social support system. On the other hand, students attending a college far
98
from home may experience more difficulties in adjusting to the new environment
99
of the university compared to the local students (Pearson and Sutton 1999,
100
Schroeder and Swing 2005). Other issues related to multicampus programs are the
101
travel between the campuses, problems with effective distance-learning
102
technology, problems with standardizing operations between campuses, and the
103
inability to communicate effectively between campuses (Harrison, Congdon, and
104
Di Piro 2010). Indeed, a good relation between the campuses is crucial for a good
105
cooperation, and it is clear that the relation and communication among the
106
individuals of the consortium members play an important role (Beerkens and van
107
der Wende 2007). In addition, a high faculty workload due to multicampus
108
education was reported (Harrison, Congdon, and Di Piro 2010). Especially the
109
phase of development and implementation of the multicampus programme is
110
associated with an increased workload, in particular when teaching involves new
111
technologies, such as videoconferencing, blended learning, etc. (Samarawickrema
112
and Stacey 2007).
113 114
3. Complementarity and compatibility: preconditions for developing
115
multicampus education
116
Beerkens and van der Wende (2007) point to the many similarities between
117
international cooperation between firms and the cooperation within a higher
118
education consortium. Consequently, many of the concepts derived from a wide
119
range of studies on international cooperation between firms can be extrapolated to
120
the higher education consortia. For instance, from the “inter-organizational
121
diversity” point-of-view, it is stated that for effective collaboration in higher
122
education consortia, sufficient complementarity as well as sufficient compatibility
123
is required (Beerkens and van der Wende 2007, Parkhe 1991).
124
Sufficient complementarity implies the existence of complementary
125
resources and interdependencies, which enable joint learning among the partners.
126
In this regard “resources” should be interpreted in a broad sense, ranging from
127
research infrastructure and human resources (experts in a particular research
128
domain, as well as high-quality lecturers), to library collections and educational
129
resources (e.g. specialized courses or programmes). Moreover, the consortium has
130
to consist of members possessing resources which are strategically valuable for
131
the other members (Beerkens and van der Wende 2007).
132
On the other hand, the partners in a higher education consortium should be
133
sufficiently compatible, i.e. sufficiently similar in their organizational
134
characteristics. Inter-organizational differences are generally related to the
135
national context, differences in perceiving and thinking, and to historical
136
conformance of universities or institutes to their organizational structures,
137
procedures and routines (Beerkens and van der Wende 2007). Such organizational
138
differences also play an important role in the collaboration process and can
139
restrain the performance of cooperation (Buchel 2000). Moreover, it has been
140
stated that higher compatibility leads to higher performance of the consortium
141
(Beerkens and van der Wende 2007).
142
However, universities can deal with the institutional differences, by
143
providing information on the existing differences of the members in institutional
144
contexts. Subsequently, consortium members should get used to the institutional
145
context of other consortium members, through meetings, seminars or courses
146
(Beerkens and van der Wende 2007). In this regard, a study of Korean
147
multicampus medical education also pointed out that a good communication
148
between the partners is crucial for establishing a good partnership (Kim, Kim, and
149
Park 2005). In another study, the communication, but also coordination, and
150
rationalising academic activities were identified as the main challenges (Harman
151
2002). A step further in dealing with the institutional differences is to set up a
152
joint administrative structure (Beerkens and van der Wende 2007).
153 154
4. Development of the multicampus system
155
4.1 Establishing the higher education consortium
156
In order to develop and implement multicampus education in engineering
157
technology programmes in biochemical engineering, a higher education
158
consortium was established consisting of 4 university colleges in Flanders
159
(Belgium) that were initially associated to the KU Leuven and finally part of the
160
KU Leuven since october 2013: campus “De Nayer”, situated in Sint-Katelijne-
161
Waver; the “Technology campus” in Ghent; “campus Geel”, (Ms in biosciences:
162
food industry) in Geel; and “campus Diepenbeek”, situated in Diepenbeek
163
(Langie et al. 2013) (Figure 1).
164
[Figure 1 near here]
165
As mentioned above, the performance of higher education consortia will
166
be affected positively by the existence of complementarity and compatibility.
167
Regarding the compatibility between the campuses, it has to be guaranteed that all
168
students, regardless of which campus they have studied, have common core
169
knowledge and skills, and the proper foreknowledge enabling them to follow a
170
specialist module at another campus (Langie et al. 2013). To achieve this, the
171
curriculum of the first three semesters was attuned at the participating campuses.
172
In this way, the curriculum in the first three semesters is identical for all students,
173
regardless of the campus they attend (Langie et al. 2013). To examine the
174
compatibility in semester 4, 5 and 6 of the Bachelor programme, a common set of
175
learning paths for specific subject areas were defined: (i) analysis and monitoring;
176
(ii) process design and engineering; (iii) basic sciences; and (iv) biotechnological
177
processes. In addition, a learning path “general courses”, and “projects and
178
research” were introduced. At each campus, the weight of the different learning
179
paths in the curriculum was analysed, which enables the global comparison of the
180
curricula at the different campuses. Furthermore, a multicampus team of
181
specialists in the specific subject area has defined a fixed set of basic topics for
182
each learning path. These topics should be included in the programme at all
183
campuses, ensuring the common basic framework. For example, the learning path
184
‘process design and engineering’ consists of a defined set of basic topics,
185
including applied thermodynamics, physicochemistry, mass and heat transfer,
186
process control and simulation, chemical reaction engineering, and unit
187
operations, and accounts for a minimum of 14 ECTS points. The European Credit
188
Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) is a tool that helps to design, describe,
189
and deliver study programmes and award higher education qualifications. One
190
ECTS-point corresponds to 25-30 hours of work. This is in contrast with for
191
instance the US system, where semester credit hours (SCH) are assigned to a
192
specific course. Semester credit hours account for 15-16 contact hours per
193
semester. Nevertheless, by defining the basic topics for each learning path and
194
assuring a minimum number of ECTS points to these learning paths, a common
195
core curriculum of the “Bsc in engineering technology: chemistry” was defined,
196
accounting for 160 ECTS points. The remaining 20 ECTS points are a degree of
197
freedom, which can be used to enhance the specific profile of the campus.
198
It is clear from Figure 2 that the weight of the learning paths in the
199
participating Bachelor of science in engineering technology curricula is
200
comparable among the campuses. However, each campus has a specific focus. For
201
instance, at campus De Nayer more attention is given to “Process design and
202
engineering”, while the learning path “analysis and monitoring” is more important
203
at the Technology campus Ghent and campus Diepenbeek. Nevertheless, the
204
defined set of topics for each learning path guarantees a common core programme
205
in semesters 4-6 of the bachelor programmes, enabling the students to attain the
206
foreknowledge that is required to participate in a specialist module.
207 208
[Figure 2 near here]
209 210
The complementarity of the participating campuses is apparent on two
211
levels. First of all, the Msc programmes clearly reveal complementarity in
212
education, with each campus having its own focus (Figure 3). Moreover, the focus
213
in the Msc programme strongly correlates to the research activities on the campus.
214
Research at the Technology campus in Ghent is mainly focused on malting and
215
brewing technology, and to a lesser extent on meat production and rheology. The
216
research focus at De Nayer is microbial ecology of industrial processes. At
217
campus Geel, research activities are mainly focused on plant pathology and food
218
technology, while at campus Diepenbeek, research effort is put into molecular
219
diagnostics and applied chemistry.
220
[Figure 3 near here]
221
Secondly, we made an inventory of the resources available at the different
222
campuses, including research infrastructure, research expertise of the lecturers,
223
educational expertise, and didactic infrastructure (e.g. videoconferencing infrastructure).
224
Indeed, regarding research infrastructure, a high degree of complementarity was
225
observed. The Technology campus, for instance, possesses large-scale bioreactors (up to
226
500 l), while campus De Nayer disposes of a set of small-scale (1 l) bioreactors. By
227
working together, the campuses can thus provide infrastructure for small scale
228
experiments as well as for upscaling to semi-industrial scale, which points to the value
229
creation potential of pooling resources in a higher education consortium. Likewise,
230
some campuses possess elaborate analytical chemistry equipment, while other campuses
231
invested mainly in molecular biology infrastructure.
232
However, the fact that complementarity is present does not necessarily mean
233
that this is acknowledged or well-known, and that the complementary resources are
234
utilized and exploited (Beerkens and van der Wende 2007). In that regard there is
235
certainly a need for identification, dissemination and exploitation of complementary
236
resources, including the Msc programmes, human resources, research infrastructure, etc,
237
as described above. It is obvious that a better knowledge regarding the resources at
238
other campuses facilitates optimal use and exploitation in multicampus education, as
239
well as in research, which is already exemplified in several joint research projects.
240 241
4.2 Designing the concept of the multicampus programme
242
In designing the concept of the multicampus programme, a steering committee of the
243
consortium, which also comprised student representation, was installed. Clarification of
244
purposes and priorities, and adjustment of the organizational structures are important for
245
effective cooperation (Farquhar 2008). Therefore, the steering committee started with
246
deciding on the joint consortium objectives.
247
The main joint objective was to develop multicampus education, which is in the
248
benefit of the students. First, it was decided to offer a specialist and research-driven
249
learning module on each campus that is available for students of the three other
250
campuses. By offering specialized research-driven modules to the students, the
251
proposed multicampus programme is also a way of integrating research into engineering
252
education. Second, the steering committee decided on an accelerated/intensive course
253
of 6 ECTS credits, which is organized in the first 2 weeks of the second semester of the
254
academic year (i.e. approximately in the first half of February), with full time
255
availability at the research campus, and this for the following reasons: (i) it enables an
256
intense teaching method in which students are immersed in a specific research domain
257
during a residential retreat (Pritchard and MacKenzie 2011); (ii) the laboratory course
258
requires several subsequent days rather than a 1 day per week basis; and (iii) organizing
259
the modules in the second semester enables the students to attain additional
260
foreknowledge in the first semester that may be required to follow a specialized
261
intensive course. Third, considering the fact that the modules differ considerably
262
regarding content, didactic methods, learning outcomes, etc., the steering committee
263
decided that the evaluation of the modules should be adjusted to the needs of the
264
intensive course. In most modules, however, permanent evaluation is combined with a
265
classic exam, which is organized in the second exam period. And finally, also regarding
266
the admission requirements to the multicampus programme, a joint decision was made.
267
However, some of the joint objectives and priorities can only be achieved when
268
the proper adjustments in the organizational structures are executed. This requires inter-
269
organizational coordination and cooperation (Beerkens 2002), which was generally
270
initiated by the steering committee. For instance, the members of the steering committee
271
were responsible for informing the local administration regarding the organization of
272
the multicampus course, the organization of the exam, collecting the student’s grades
273
given at other campuses, and carrying out the necessary curriculum adjustments
274
enabling the implementation of the specialized intensive course . Curriculum
275
adjustments were also necessary to guarantee that the Msc students attain the required
276
foreknowledge enabling them to follow the specialized module. In addition,
277
implementing the multicampus programme into the current curricula also implied that
278
the schedules at the local campuses had to be adjusted. In addition, a common date was
279
fixed to organize the exam of each module. In this way, all students, irrespective of their
280
“home campus”, have to take the (same) exam of the module at the same date, and at
281
the campus where the module was organized. For the planning of the other exams, this
282
fixed date for the multicampus module exam, was taken into account by the local
283
administration.
284 285
4.3 Content of the multicampus specialist courses
286
After agreeing on the concept of the multicampus programme, an intensive course at
287
each campus was developed. The content was defined and appropriate education
288
methods were chosen. The content of the modules is primarily based on the research
289
expertise present at the campus: : (i) “Use of molecular biology and ecology in bio-
290
industrial processes” at campus De Nayer; (ii) “At the interface of chemistry, structure
291
and functionality of food stuff” at campus Geel; (iii) “Malting and brewing technology”
292
at Technology campus; and (iv) “Molecular diagnostics” at campus Diepenbeek (Table
293
1).
294
[table 1 near here]
295
296
At all campuses, the research modules are thought by a team of lecturers, mostly
297
consisting of active researchers. In this way, each lecturer can teach the topics that
298
belong to his or her expertise.
299 300
5. Implementation and improvement
301
The multicampus programme was implemented for the first time in the second
302
semester of the academic year 2013-2014. In the preceding year, possible
303
candidates, i.e. 3rd year Bachelor students were thoroughly informed regarding
304
the multicampus programme by a brochure and information sessions, to trigger
305
their interest in following an intensive course at another campus. Students were
306
also informed regarding additional costs. Although there is no additional fee for
307
following a module at the other campus, the possible expenses for traveling or
308
residential stay has to be borne by the students. Already in the first year of
309
implementation, the multicampus programme discussed here, was quite popular
310
since approximately 30% of the students’ population subscribed for a
311
multicampus module.
312
Once the multicampus programme is started, the performance of the higher
313
education consortium should be optimized by looking for a higher level of
314
complementarity and compatibility between partners (Beerkens and van der Wende
315
2007). This can be accomplished by relation management, i.e. the measures that the
316
consortium takes in order to improve communication, the creation of a stable and clear
317
organizational structure and the increase of commitment (Beerkens and van der Wende
318
2007). At the level of the multicampus programme, this will be primarily established in
319
the steering committee. In the first years after implementation, the participating students
320
will be consulted regarding the learning outcomes, the practical organization of the
321
modules, the concept of this type of multicampus programme, evaluation methods,
322
etc… Based on this information, the multicampus modules will be adjusted and
323
improved.
324
Another point of future improvement of the multicampus programme is to
325
increase the use of blended learning technology since one can increase students’
326
satisfaction in engineering courses when it’s properly implemented (Martínez-Caro and
327
Campuzano-Bolarin 2011). Nevertheless, it has to be borne in mind that “teaching with
328
technology” usually results in an increased workload (Samarawickrema and Stacey
329
2007). Furthermore, with an increased use of blended learning technology, the
330
evaluation method of the students participating a multicampus module, should be
331
adapted accordingly.
332
Obviously, the multicampus programme will be evaluated in detail in the first
333
years after implementation. First of all, students that have participated in the
334
multicampus programme will be inquired regarding the quality of the programme and
335
issues for improvement, because the student’s assessment of quality in teaching and
336
training, and the quality of the total student experience are important quality outcomes
337
(Wiers-Jenssen, Stensaker, and Grogaard 2002; Gallifa and Batallé 2010). In addition to
338
the student evaluation, staff members will also be inquired regarding their experiences
339
in the multicampus programme education and organization.
340 341
6. Conclusions
342
In this study, a multicampus programme was developed for the “Master of
343
Science in engineering technology: biochemical engineering” by offering an
344
intensive, modular course that is also available for students of the other campuses.
345
Such a module is primarily based on the research expertise present at the campus,
346
and comprises 10% of the total Msc curriculum. In developing this multicampus
347
education system, special attention has been given to the optimal organization of
348
the modules, the required modifications of the current curricula, the practical and
349
legal consequences for students following the module at another campus,…
350
The main advantage of this multicampus system is that Msc students are offered
351
a more diverse pallet of research-based modules in the Msc programme, which enables
352
a better match of the Msc programme with the student’s interests and future ambitions.
353
Harman (2002) also mentioned that expansion of course offerings has been beneficial
354
for students. In addition, students come into contact with other researchers and gain
355
hands-on experience with state-of-the-art research infrastructure that is not available at
356
the home campus. In this way, the proposed multicampus system is also a way of
357
integrating research into engineering education. And finally, during the project, it
358
became more and more clear that the participating campuses have complementary
359
research expertises, which already resulted in increased collaboration in several joint
360
research projects.
361
If the proposed multicampus programme proves to be successful, the concept can be
362
easily expanded with additional modules, or other Msc programmes could adopt the
363
concept. Already, the Master of Science in engineering technology: chemical
364
engineering of the same Consortium of Higher Education, have adopted the concept and
365
developed 3 additional modules: (i) “Acoustic processing”; (ii) “Treatment of waste
366
(water) through biological, oxidation and fermentation processes”; and (iii) “Material
367
and Energy Management”. Furthermore, the modules in the multicampus programme
368
could also be the start for a joint international programme and/or post-graduate trainings
369
for companies.
370
371
Acknowledgements
372
This work was supported by the “Onderwijsontwikkelingsfonds” of Association KU
373
Leuven under grant OOF2011/07. The authors would like to thank L. Appels, L. De
374
Cooman, L. Braeken, J. Claes, S. Craps, J. Verlinden, G. Aerts, and K. Willems for their
375
support.
376 377
References
378
Beerkens, Eric. 2002. “International inter-organisational arrangements in higher
379
education: Towards a typology.” Tertiary Education and Management, 8(4): 297-314.
380
Beerkens, Eric, and van der Wende, Marijk. 2007. “The paradox in international
381
cooperation: Institutionally embedded universities in a global environment.” Higher
382
education 53(1): 61-79.
383
Buchel, Bettina. 2000. “Framework of joint venture development: theory building
384
through qualitative research.” Journal of Management Studies 37(5): 637-661.
385
Das, Tushar Kanti, and Teng, Bing-Shen. 2000. “A resource-based theory of strategic
386
alliances.” Journal of Management 26(1): 31–61.
387
Farquhar, Robin H. 2008. “European universities and their international perspectives.”
388
Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), Carletan University, Ottowa-Canada.
389
(http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED504364.pdf).
390
Gallifa, Josep, and Batallé, Pere. 2010. “Student perceptions of service quality in a
391
multicampus higher education system in Spain.” Quality Assurance in Education 18(2):
392
156-170.
393
Harman, Kay. 2002. “Merging divergent campus cultures into coherent educational
394
communities: Challenges for higher education leaders.” Higher Education 44: 91–114.
395
Harman, Grant, and Harman, Kay. 2003. “Institutional mergers in higher education:
396
Lessons from international experience.” Tertiary Education and Management 9(1): 29-
397
44.
398
Harrison, Lauren C., Congdon, Heather B., and Di Piro, Joseph T. 2010. “The Status of
399
US Multicampus Colleges and Schools of Pharmacy.” American Journal of Pharmacy
400
Education 74(7): 1-6.
401
Kim, Yong Il, Kim, Ji Young, and Park, Gwi Hwa (2005). “Multicampus Medical
402
Education in Korea - Issues and Strategies for Emphasizing the Advantages.” Korean
403
Journal of Medical Education, 17(2): 135-149.
404
Langie, Greet, Bruneel, Dorine, Buijs, Jeroen, De Samblanx, Gorik, De Vos, Leander,
405
Van den Steen, Karel, Van Gysel, Ann, Van Ham, Geert, and Willems, Kris. 2013. “A
406
multicampus faculty in 6 cities: 1 common view and 6 distinctive features thanks to
407
learning paths.” Paper presented at the 41th SEFI Conference, Leuven, September 16-
408
20.
409
Marra, Mita. 2004. “Knowledge partnerships for development: what challenges for
410
evaluation?” Evaluation and Program Planning 27: 151-160.
411
Martínez-Caro, Eva, and Campuzano-Bolarín, Francisco. 2011. “Factors affecting
412
students’ satisfaction in engineering disciplines: traditional vs. blended approaches.”
413
European Journal of Engineering Education 36(5): 473-483.
414
McNaught, Carmel. 2003. “Innovation and change in higher education: managing
415
multiple polarities.” Perspectives 7(3): 76-82.
416
Parkhe, Arvind. 1991. “Interfirm diversity, organizational learning, and longevity in
417
global strategic alliances.” Journal of International Business Studies 22(4): 579–601.
418
Pearson, R.E. and Sutton, J.M. (1999). Rural and small town school counselors. Journal
419
of Research in Rural Education, 15(2), 90-100.
420
Pritchard, Jane, and MacKenzie, Jane. 2011. “The variation in academics’ experiences
421
of teaching in an intense study centre compared with their traditional university
422
settings.” Journal of Further and Higher Education 35(3): 339-353.
423
Samarawickrema, Gayani, and Stacey, Elisabeth. 2007. “Adopting Web‐Based Learning
424
and Teaching: A case study in higher education.” Distance Education 28(3): 313-333.
425
Schroeder, Charles C., and Swing, Randy L. 2005. “Balancing intellectual rigor with
426
intrusive personal support in the first year.” In Achieving and sustaining institutional
427
excellence for the first year of college, edited by Barefoot, Betsy O., Gardner, John N.,
428
Cutright, Marc, Morris, Libby V., Schroeder, Charles C., Schwartz, Stephen W., Siegel,
429
Michael J., Swing, Randy L., and Sam, Jones, 145-165. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
430
Wiers-Jenssen, Jannecke, Stensaker Bjorn, and Grogaard Jens B. 2002. “Student
431
satisfaction: towards an empirical deconstruction of the concept.” Quality in Higher
432
Education 8(2): 183-95.
433
Williams, James E., and Luo, Mingchu. 2010. “Understanding first-year persistence at a
434
micropolitan university: do geographic characteristics of students' home city matter?”
435
College Student Journal 44(2): 362-376.
436
TABLES
437
Table 1. Brief description of the research-driven intensive courses in the multicampus
438
programme
439 Name module
Institution
The use of
Campus
molecular biology
De Nayer
and ecology in
(Sint-
bio-industrial
Katelijne-
process
Waver)
At the interface of chemistry, structure and functionality of
Brief description
(Location)
State-of-the-art tools to study microbial ecology in industrial processes are discussed, followed by the use of genetic modification in biotechnology. In the practical course, students get hands-on experience in geno- and phenotyping of microorganisms en microbial communities Food chemistry and food structure and their
Campus Geel
relation with texture and rheology are discussed,
(Geel)
both from a theoretical as from a practical pointof-view
food stuff
All relevant aspects of malting and brewing are Malting and
Technology
discussed, ranging from quality and economical
brewing
Campus
aspects to flavour stability and process
technology
(Ghent)
engineering. Students get hands-on-experience on a pilot-scale brewing installation. The diagnostic tools that are currently used to
Molecular diagnostics
Campus Diepenbeek (Diepenbeek)
detect and identify microbial pathogens are discussed. Practical courses and exercises focus on development, validation and quality control of diagnostic tests
440
441
LEGENDS OF FIGURES
442 443
Figure 1.
444
The seven institutions of the KU Leuven Association which organize programmes in
445
Engineering Technology. The campuses involved in this study that organize the Msc
446
programme in biochemical engineering or the Msc programme in food industry
447
engineering are indicated with a red circle: “campus De Nayer” (Sint-Katelijne-Waver),
448
“campus Geel”, “Technology campus Ghent”, and campus Diepenbeek”.
449 450
Figure 2.
451
Comparison of learning paths in semesters 4, 5 and 6 of the Ba programmes in
452
Chemical Engineering Technology at campus De Nayer, Technology campus in Ghent
453
(Tech campus); and the campus in Diepenbeek. For each learnng path (“analysis and
454
monitoring”, “Process design and engineering”, “Basic sciences”, “Biotechechnological
455
processes”, “General courses”, and “Project and research”), the number of assigned
456
ECTS points is presented.
457 458
Figure 3.
459
Comparison of the Ms programmes in Biochemical Engineering Technology at campus
460
De Nayer, Technology campus in Ghent (Tech campus), and the campus at Diepenbeek.
461
For each subdomain (general courses, basic sciences, environmental technology,
462
applied chemistry, and red, white, green biotechnology), the number of assigned ECTS
463
points is presented.
464
