Abstract
Dual-degree programs are intended to prepare graduates to work in a global job market by providing more extensive international experiences, thus enhancing their employability. These programs typically take longer to complete and cost more, yet there is little documentation regarding their effectiveness. This study was designed to examine strengths and weakness of a sample of existing formalized programs at the graduate level in engineering through surveys and focus groups with four key stakeholder groups: students currently enrolled in dual- or joint-degree programs, faculty teaching in those programs, alumni who have recently graduated from those programs, and employers who have either hired alumni from these programs or are in a position to hire future graduates. Results indicate that all stakeholder groups were positive about these programs, and there is demand for them among students though gains were indicated in personal dimensions (e.g., self-reliance) rather than professional ones. In addition, employers were unclear about what dual-degree programs were and did not tend to view graduates as more marketable. Further study with more diverse groups is indicated.
Keywords
Over a decade ago, the World Conference on Higher Education called for the expansion of higher education globally because of the “unprecedented demand for and [need for] a great diversification in higher education” (UNESCO, 1998). Given increasing global integration through economics, communications, politics, and transportation, educators and policy makers also have focused on the internationalization of higher education (Pickert, 1992). Studies, such as those by van der Wende (1997), document the large increase in providing internationalized curricula in economics and business studies, the humanities, and the social sciences. These increases are also occurring in other fields, particularly in engineering (see Gereffi, Wadhwa, Rissing, & Ong, 2008; Gill, Kreisel, & Verma, 2009; Goncalves & Olguin, 2010; Huang, 2007).
In fact, considerable literature (Knight, 2004; Shore & Groen, 2009; van Damme, 2001; van der Wende, 2001) has developed documenting strategies for activating and enhancing international partnerships in higher education.
Reporting on a 2008 survey of 180 higher education institutions across the United States and the European Union, Kuder and Obst (2009) highlight the increasing attention paid just to transatlantic cooperation. They note that the majority of these institutions indicate that they plan to develop more international, collaborative degree programs. The key motivations for launching such programs not only are to add international exposure for students but also do appear to revolve around advancing the internationalization of the campus and for raising the international visibility and prestige of the institution. So far, these interactions typically involve short-term exchanges among faculty or brief study-abroad opportunities for students. There are also a few existing transatlantic dual-degree and other such collaborative programs that are certificate programs or ad hoc programs designed to meet particular needs.
By the late 1980s, educational mobility in Europe became a particular focus, triggered by the programs of the European Commission attempting to create a European awareness that went beyond country boundaries. European countries committed themselves to the “Bologna process” for the harmonization of European curricula in higher education by 2010. This process began with the Sorbonne declaration (1998), followed by the Bologna declaration (1999), the Prague communiqué (2001), Berlin communiqué (2003), Bergen communiqué (2005), London communiqué (2007), Leuven and Louvain la Neuve communiqué (2009), Budapest and Vienna declaration on the European Higher Education Area (2010).
As a result, highly integrated projects were begun as part of a further step toward cooperation among educational institutions to facilitate students’ entry into a global European job market. This interest in formal collaborative degree programs is expanding rapidly. An administrator at the University of Washington was quoted in a New York Times article in February 2008 that she was receiving overseas program proposals every week: “It’s almost like spam.” To maximize possible benefits of more formal agreements (i.e., dual- or joint-degree programs), it is important to first evaluate how such established intra-European programs are working and what guidance they may be able to provide to the development of other collaborative degree projects.
As international and transnational attempts to globalize education have developed, new terms and definitions for these activities have arisen. As Knight (2008) has pointed out, the terminology has grown as much as the activity. Joint and double degrees, for instance, are a part of this globalization: “integrating international, intercultural, and global dimensions into the goals, major functions, and delivery of higher education at both institutional and national levels” (Knight, 2004, p. 11). Vocabulary surrounding internationalization activities include cross-border education, global education, concurrent programs, certificate programs, study abroad, intercultural education, cooperative education, overseas education, transatlantic education, and bi- or multilateral agreements. In short, several terms are used by universities to characterize their international collaborations (Council of Graduate Schools [CGS], 2010). Confusion regarding these terms may ultimately hinder increased global cooperative efforts in higher education (Knight, 2008).
The development of joint and dual degrees presents a more formal framework for collaborations. Dual-degree programs are undergraduate or graduate degrees in the same or similar subject area awarded by two or more institutions to students who have met the degree completion requirements for all participating institutions. Joint degrees are those programs where one degree is granted by two or more institutions. Because of curricular differences and various logistic issues, the more common of these two formal degree structures is the dual-degree program (Obst, 2008).
Although the specifics of these programs vary depending on the collaborators, their overarching objective has been to better prepare graduates to work in a global job market by imparting a more profound and extensive international awareness to them. An implicit assumption is that doing so enhances their employability. These programs often involve higher education partnerships and consortia across multiple countries. Europe is the recognized leader in promoting and organizing such programs (Knight, 2008), in part because they are seen as a way to develop the European Higher Education Areas (EHEA) and to improve Europe’s competitiveness in the global work force. European institutions have already produced several thousand graduates who are productively employed, particularly in engineering, with careers spanning several years. For example, in the last 22 years, the partners of the Top Industrial Managers for Europe Association (T.I.M.E.) have already awarded more than 3,000 double degrees.
As these programs develop and mature, to keep from becoming a marginal activity (as were study-abroad programs in the 1970s), they will need to demonstrate an “added value” (Campbell & van der Wende, 2000). With a trend toward increasing quality assurance in educational circles and as resource allocation choices become more difficult, such collaborative international study programs will have to demonstrate their utility to become more integrated into the higher education policy debate. There is, then, the question of whether these degrees add value above the typical single-institution degree. For example, these programs often take longer than a typical degree and may also cost more. Do students in these programs believe they are more employable? Do they have a greater international awareness? Do employers view applicants who possess a dual-degree differently from those who possess only a single-institution degree?
Research regarding descriptions and effectiveness of dual-degree programs has typically derived from survey data collected from institutional representatives. For instance, Girotti (2010) used an online survey to gather opinions of more than 100 administrators of joint-degree programs. In its report on joint degrees, dual degrees, and international collaborations, the CGS (2010) relied on a 17-question electronic survey completed by university administrators. These data were augmented by focus group data collected by CGS consultants and staff members with a sample of university deans. In addition, responses to Obst’s (2008) online survey of transatlantic degree programs came from administrators at institutions on both sides of the Atlantic.
What is unique about the study discussed herein is that the particular needs and impressions of employers, alumni as they seek jobs, and academic programs, represented through both faculty and students, are included as central to a description of these programs as well as the investigation of what value is added to a program through such collaborations. The integrated recognition of these four stakeholder groups—employers, alumni, students, and faculty—as sources of information for improvement of collaborative programs is an important perspective of this work. In addition, rather than a survey of practices conducted on the program level with institutional representatives, this project involved both detailed surveys and probing focus groups to gather the perceptions of the four groups. In this context, we report on the lessons learned through the “Evaluate-E” project sponsored jointly by the U.S. Department of Education FIPSE Atlantis program and the European Commission EU-US Cooperation in Higher Education and Vocational Training Program.
The Evaluation Process
This study was designed to gather both quantitative and qualitative data that would inform practitioners and policy makers interested in exploring the strengths and weaknesses of existing formalized programs at the graduate level in engineering. The quantitative data came from results of a web-based survey administered to samples from the four primary stakeholder groups: students currently enrolled in dual- or joint-degree programs, faculty who are teaching in such programs, alumni who have graduated from such programs, and employers who have either hired alumni from these programs or are in a position to hire future graduates.
Results of this survey were then reviewed by a group of educators and administrators involved in international collaborations from the United States, Europe, and South America. Based on their analysis and review of the survey, structured focus group protocols were developed for each of the four stakeholder groups. Using these protocols, four focus groups were held to gather qualitative, contextual data to add to the picture formed by the quantitative survey results. Final conclusions and discussions derive from the use of the survey data, the focus group data, and the evaluation of information from the international educators group.
Survey Development and Administration
The first step in this process was to develop a web-based survey that was easily available to the four stakeholder groups. Initial drafts of the survey were developed by assessment and survey specialists working with administrators and graduate faculty from the United States, Italy, Germany, and Sweden, who were heavily involved in international collaborations. After several iterations and review by two graduate students, a final form of the survey was agreed on.
The survey for each stakeholder group was divided into four content areas: engineering-specific skills, general academic skills, reflections on their program, and demographics of the respondent. Engineering-specific skills were taken to be those established by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) as student outcomes to be demonstrated in programs accredited by this organization. These items relate to design, analysis, functioning effectively in teams, and other constructs. Where possible, the language used by ABET was also the language used on the survey. For instance, “the ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering principles to engineering problems” is an outcome as listed by ABET and an item on the survey.
Students responding to this section of the survey were asked their perceived improvement (on a 7-point scale) in each of these skills since enrolling in the program. Faculty members were asked the typical level of improvement (on a 7-point scale) for a student in their program. Alumni were asked to indicate their level of preparation (on a 7-point scale) on graduating from their program. Employers were asked how important (on a 7-point scale) each of these skills was for successful performance in their company.
The second section of the survey also consisted of Likert-type items that provided closed-ended responses from the four different stakeholder groups. This section consisted of 13 general academic skills items. These items are also important outcomes for engineering students but they are generally seen more broadly as essential skills identified as an outgrowth of collegiate-level education. The Association of American Colleges and Universities (2007) identifies these as “essential learning outcomes” in College Learning for the New Global Century.
Students responding to this section of the survey were asked their perceived improvement (on a 7-point scale) in each of these skills since enrolling in the program. Faculty members were asked the typical level of improvement (on a 7-point scale) for a student in their program. Alumni were asked to indicate their level of preparation (on a 7-point scale) on graduating from their program. Employers were asked how important (on a 7-point scale) each of these skills was for successful performance in their company.
The third survey section asked respondents to focus on aspects of the program, including its emphasis on ethics, active learning, use of case studies, and increased opportunities. Ethics has become an increasingly important educational area, particularly in engineering programs, as they relate to engineering leadership, globalization, and emerging technologies (Colby & Sulliman, 2008). Active learning and the use of case studies have also been identified as effective educational tools used in highly rated educational programs (Prince, 2004). As marketability is increasingly becoming an issue in several economic contexts, one item in this section specifically asked about respondents’ perceptions of whether students were more marketable because of their participation in this program. For this section, students, faculty members, and alumni were asked their perceived agreement (on a 7-point scale) with each of these program descriptors. It was assumed that employers would not be familiar with the details of the program and so were not asked to respond to this set of questions.
The fourth section of the survey included demographic items appropriate to the stakeholder group. For example, students were asked their gender, age, previous degrees, home institution. Faculty members were asked their degree program in which they were teaching their home institution, their employment status, academic rank, and primary duty (administrator, teacher, researcher). Alumni were asked about their current employment situation, length of time in current position, gender, previous degrees, and home institution. They were also asked six additional questions related to personal and professional job satisfaction, whether actively involved in professional societies, whether the dual degree helped them obtain their job, and whether they would recommend the program to others. Employers were asked their current job title, years working at the current company, years in current position, and number of employers supervised. In addition, employers were asked six additional items to rate graduates of this program on a 6-point scale in terms of ethical decision making, effective leadership, international perspective, communication skills, and teamwork skills. They were also asked their perceptions of how much longer a dual-degree program should take and whether it had greater value than a conventional degree.
After several reviews of the instrument by the project team and subsequent approval from the Virginia Tech Institutional Review Board (IRB), representatives from cooperating institutions disseminated the survey link through email to members of appropriate groups. A month after the initial solicitation, a follow-up reminder email was sent by each representative of the cooperating institutions to their respective populations. For the purposes of the survey, students were defined as those participating in international collaborative dual-degree programs. Alumni were those who had graduated from international collaborative dual-degree programs. Faculty members were those who were aware of or who participate through their teaching, service, or administration in dual-degree programs. Employers were those who had either hired or were likely to hire graduates of these programs.
Survey Results
After one initial email and a follow-up to identified members of the four stakeholder groups, 40 faculty members teaching in the programs, 45 alumni of those programs, 14 students currently in programs, and 32 employers of graduates of participating programs responded. These low numbers provide a slight glimpse of attitudes regarding dual-degree programs but limit the conclusive statements that can be made regarding these programs. Nevertheless, the results illustrate circumstances where all four stakeholder groups tend to be in agreement.
The Student Group
Fourteen students currently enrolled in a collaborative degree program responded to the survey. Of these, most (79%) were male, 22- to 25-years old (79%), and listed the Politecnico di Milano (57%) and Virginia Tech (36%) as their primary institutions, with smaller numbers from Lund University and the Technical University of Vienna. Most (64%) indicated that they were planning to study at their home institution first and then transfer to the foreign institution as opposed to moving back and forth between home and foreign institution (29%). Students were mostly enrolled in three different engineering fields: mechanical engineering, computer engineering, and computer science.
The Faculty Group
Forty faculty members responded to the survey, and, of these, 90% reported being employed full-time. As an indication of the evolving culture of higher education, 50% identified themselves as being researchers and 45% as teachers. Most (53%) were professors, with 28% at the rank of associate professor, 8% at assistant professor, and 13% at lecturer/instructor. Thirty-eight percent indicated their home institution as Lund University, with another 35% from the Politecnico di Milano, and 13% from Virginia Tech. Other institutions represented included the University of Kentucky and the Technical University of Vienna. The faculty represented many different engineering fields, with 15% in mechanical engineering and 8% in nanoscience and in chemical engineering; others represented included bioengineering, electrical engineering, computer science, mathematical engineering, and aerospace engineering.
The Alumni Group
Of the 45 alumni who responded to the survey, 33% indicated they held an industry job, 27% were currently unemployed, 22% were either self-employed or working in a consulting firm, and 18% were working in a government agency. Of those who were working, 29% had been in their current position less than 1 year, 33% 1 to 2 years, 27% 2 to 5 years, and 11% more than 5 years. Only 11% of those responding were female; 89% were from the Politecnico di Milano. Most (56%) started study at their home institution and then went to the foreign institution, 38% moved back and forth more frequently between home and foreign institution as they completed their studies.
When asked their level of agreement on a 7-point Likert-type scale, 98% agreed (either somewhat agreed, agreed, or strongly agreed) that they would recommend the dual-degree program to others, 96% felt that the dual-degree program had “helped me obtain my current position,” and 87% were “personally satisfied” with their job. Nearly 96% agreed with the statement that a collaborative engineering graduate degree where students study on a campus in Europe and a campus in the United States would have greater value than a typical conventional engineering degree. As dual-degree programs require more time to complete than a single-university degree, employers were asked what extra time would be appropriate to complete a dual-degree program either at the master’s or doctoral level. In response, 27% said one term, 44% said two terms, 11% said three terms, and 9% said four or five terms. Nine percent indicated that no extra time would be appropriate.
The Employer Group
Of the 18 employers who responded to the survey, only 28% of them had employed a graduate of one of these collaborative programs. Half of the respondents indicated their job title was “manager” and half had been in their current position for more than 3 years.
When asked their level of agreement on a 6-point Likert-type scale, 82% agreed (either somewhat agreed, agreed, or strongly agreed) that graduates of this program were effective leaders and 83% agreed that graduates of this program have better developed team work skill than graduates of other degree programs. They also felt that graduates were more willing to communicate with those from cultures other than their own (78%) and they felt that graduates of this program would have an international perspective regarding their professional practice (89%). Most importantly, 67% felt that graduates of this program “are preferable to graduates of programs that do not have an international component.” More than 83% agreed with the statement that a collaborative engineering graduate degree where students study on a campus in Europe and a campus in the United States would have greater value than a typical conventional engineering degree. As dual-degree programs require more time to complete than a single-university degree, employers were asked what extra time would be appropriate to complete a dual-degree program either at the master’s or doctoral level. In response, 17% said one term, 28% said two terms, 33% said three terms, and 11% said four terms. Eleven percent also indicated that no extra time would be appropriate.
Table 1 provides a comparison of the average responses of each group regarding the individual items in each of the survey sections. Shown is the mean and standard deviation for each stakeholder group for each item. In addition, the resulting F statistic of the one-way ANOVA demonstrates whether the stakeholders differed on that item. Means were then compared through Dunnett’s post hoc tests. Where a statistically different (p < .05) response is demonstrated, the statistically different mean is marked with a superscript “a” in the table. These means are based on 7-point Likert-type scale responses with 1 being the least positive and 7 being the most positive. Though the wording of each item is changed slightly to make it appropriate for each stakeholder group, the core of the stem item is the same and thus allows for the comparison of such responses.
Average Responses of Each Stakeholder Group to Survey Items
Note: N = 131. ASCE = American Society of Civil Engineers. NA = not applicable.
The statistically different mean, where a statistically different (p < .05) response is demonstrated.
This set of questions was not asked of the employer group.
Significant at the .05 level. **Significant at the .01 level.
As shown in Table 1, for each of the engineering-specific skills indicated in the first section of the survey, students, faculty, and employers had consistent and similar averages. For instance, for the “ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering principles to engineering problems,” on scale of 1 to 7, students’ average response was 5.43, faculty was 5.8, and employers were 5.59, all indicating very positive responses. The alumni group, with a mean of 1.64, was statistically different (p < .05) from the others as indicated through Dunnett’s post hoc test. This lower trend for alumni is consistent throughout this first section indicating their belief, as opposed to the others, that little value-added accrues as a result of the dual degree. These differences may be due, in part, to the fact that more than 25% of the alumni group reported being currently unemployed. We assume that this group also includes very recent graduates. In the second section of the survey on general academic skills (critically thinking, effective communication, etc.), there is little difference among the stakeholders. In fact, the typical average is between 5 and 6 (the most positive response), indicating the positive perceptions of all the stakeholders regarding the dual degree.
The only area where the majority of respondents in each stakeholder group indicated negative ratings were those items dealing with ethics, such as knowledge about an “engineer’s core values and their relationship to effective ethical leadership,” students’ “ability to understand and effectively discuss ethical issues in engineering,” and “textbooks and course materials in my program often cover ethical issues.” These low ratings in regard to ethics and ethics education echo the findings of reports (e.g., Drake, Griffin, Kirkman, & Swann, 2005) in more traditional engineering programs. Though ethics has become a concern for many in engineering education (Jonassen, Shen, Marra, Cho, Lo, & Lohani, 2009; Newberry, 2004), there are still many concerns about what students are not learning and what they are not taking with them into their professional careers.
Review of the Survey Data by International Educators
An Evaluate-E Working Conference was organized at Virginia Tech in July 2010 to further understand these issues. Its main purposes were to deliberate on the definitions of dual-degree programs offered in the literature and utilized by different countries’ systems and to review survey findings in light of those reexamined definitions. Of particular concern was to collect information that could be used to inform the design of such programs. Participants at this conference came from Europe (Italy, Sweden, Austria), South America (Argentina, Chile, Columbia), and the United States. These representatives divided themselves into discussion groups according to stakeholder group: student and alumni issues, faculty issues, and employer issues. From each of these groups came suggestions for guiding questions for the focus groups. These questions were then reviewed by all the attendants when the groups came back together. One concern of this review group was the same as noted in the CGS (2010) publication, that a lack of common definitions posed a challenge when studying collaborative degrees. A particular issue with either the wording on the email solicitation or on the survey itself was that “transatlantic,” “international,” and “collaborative” were used more often than “dual” or “joint degree.” The group came to the consensus that even these terms are not as clear as we would wish because definitions varied from country to country. Especially difficult, they felt, was the ability of students or employers to understand subtle differences in how such programs are organized. The group noted that gathering more information about these programs and perceptions of their effectiveness would aid in developing more specific terminology that would more accurately describe these collaborations.
Another language issue was related to the ABET language identifying important outcomes in the engineering skills section of the survey. Vague terms, such as “lifelong learning,” “accompanying professional issues,” and “designing and conducting engineering experiments,” might not have been clear to many stakeholders and may have produced inconsistencies in interpretations across the stakeholder groups. Language was also an issue noted in regard to the general academic skills section and to the program reflections section. The review group felt that many respondents would not be able to separate “think critically and reason analytically” from “problem solve and reason quantitatively.” In addition, they felt that some pedagogical terms would be just misunderstood jargon to employers, students, and alumni. Reviewers questioned, for example, whether “active learning” was a term that was understood by all the stakeholder groups.
From these discussions came strong support for the preplanned focus groups as a follow-up to the surveys and the development of protocols to guide these focus groups. It was agreed that specific questions related to marketability or extra knowledge related to participation in these programs would be asked. Also, how did students and employers particularly know about these programs? In addition, they were also interested in exploring the disadvantages of such programs: Was the extra time a problem? How about cost? What about language barriers? A guided protocol was developed by the international review group for each of the stakeholders to guide the focus groups.
Focus Groups
Focus groups were conducted to provide more qualitative, contextual information from the various stakeholder groups. The distinct advantage of this approach is the open-response format, which allows participants to frame their own experiences and provide deeper levels of meaning and connections that cannot be made through a closed-ended, web-based survey (Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990).
Four focus groups were organized through the International Programs Office at the Politecnico di Milano in Milan, Italy. The Politecnico has a long history of participation in dual-degree programs from both European Union and non–European Union institutions and has numerous graduates of dual-degree programs, now employed in Italy and elsewhere, and so provided a convenient venue for this research. The focus groups were organized by stakeholder group and guided by the protocol developed by the international review group. Where possible, questions were designed to be common across all four groups to allow for triangulation and comparison. At the beginning of each focus group, the project was explained to participants and they were asked to review and sign an informed consent form approved by the Virginia Tech IRB. They were also asked to complete a brief demographic sheet to help provide the researchers with a better picture of the participants. Each focus group was audio-recorded; these recordings were then listened to by two researchers and the moderator to derive major themes and areas of emphasis. Following are the results triangulated by the two researchers and moderator of each focus group.
Student Focus Group
Six students participated in the student focus group. Five were male, one female; their ages ranged from 23 to 26. All six were master’s students and enrolled in a dual-degree engineering program (e.g., Mathematical Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Computing Systems Engineering, or Aerospace Engineering). Two had their home institution in France, three in Italy, and one in Slovenia. In all cases, the Politecnico di Milano was one of the two institutions from which they would be obtaining a degree. Countries represented by at least one of the degree programs in which students were enrolled included France, Italy, Slovenia, Belgium, and Sweden. Students had heard about the program through their international education offices on their campuses, either through announcements or by someone coming to their classes.
Students were asked why they were participating in a dual-degree program. All of them indicated that their primary motivation was to travel and to experience another culture. Their motivation was not job oriented. In fact, two of the students said they were not interested in what jobs might be on the market and which ones they might best qualify for. They were interested in pursuing the degree “for other reasons.” Most of the students noted that they were enrolled in the dual-degree program instead of the ERASMUS program, which the students described as simply “an excuse to party in another country.” (The vast majority of European universities take part in ERASMUS which was established in 1987. In fact, more than 2.2 million students have participated; http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-programme/doc80_en.htm) The students in the focus group reflected a distinct identity as part of a dual-degree program rather than being part of the ERASMUS experience, though several of them admitted that, early in their programs, they partied with the ERASMUS group before they took their immersion experiences more seriously.
Students in the focus group felt that, because they were by themselves in a new institution rather than with a group, they had to interact with individuals in the new culture and to use the language. Two of the male students felt that learning the language was also beneficial in “dating” and finding members of the opposite sex “to hang out with.” Aside from their romantic enhancements, students talked about the need to be self-reliant in this new situation as something that truly contributed to who they were now. They felt more self-confident and felt that “they could do it” and they “were proud” of how they had handled themselves. They felt they had become more adaptable, were more resilient, and had more self-confidence because they had navigated educational hurdles in another country and language. As one student bluntly stated, the experience had helped “separate him from his mother.”
According to the students, the dual-degree program required extra time and money. Most of the students seemed to know the amount of extra time required, though a couple of students had experienced difficulties with courses and scheduling and were taking even longer (1-2 terms) than they expected to pursue the degrees. The students relied principally on parents and family for the extra money. They indicated that certain grants were available but these did not cover all of the extra expenses and sometimes the funds did not come in a timely fashion. Despite these issues of time and money, all of the students believed that the program had so far been worth the effort and time invested. They reiterated the increased language skills and learning in a different culture. They also stressed the lifelong skills of self-reliance and confidence that they felt they had acquired through their program participation.
Employer Focus Group
Three of the four employers who participated in the focus group were human resource managers and one was a controller; their time spent with their current companies varied from 6 months to 25 years. Three companies were based in Italy; one was based in Germany. Of the four, one had hired graduates of dual- or double-degree programs. When asked about their perceptions of dual-degree programs, it became clear that the employers were unsure about what exactly constituted a dual-degree program. They indicated that the dual degree noted on applicants’ resumes would attract their attention and lead them to believe that an individual was extremely motivated and a hard worker. They also stated that their companies would “perhaps” remunerate them a little more to start with. As the discussion continued, all of the employers felt that there would be specific benefits from graduating from a program where a student had to take courses over a long period in two different countries. They felt that a more global perspective, greater flexibility, and a higher self-confidence would result.
When asked if a “diploma supplement,” an official document that describes in a detailed manner all the activities (such as coursework, research experiences, and internships) undertaken by a graduate, be helpful in evaluating them as prospective employees, the employer representatives were unsure. They all agreed that that kind of paperwork was not always sent forward and something referred to in every interview. One employer felt it was analogous to a typical transcript with courses and grades that many hiring individuals would not study in-depth.
These employers also indicated a level of reticence in hiring dual-degree-program graduates. For their purposes, they wanted to hire employees who would be competent in their jobs and likely to stay for a long period of time, if needed. The employers felt that dual-degree program graduates might be looking for jobs that required more travel and included more complicated and challenging tasks than they could offer. They were afraid of retention issues, that is, that once such candidates were employed by their companies, they would get bored and leave for other opportunities earlier than a typical graduate might. This would be exacerbated if the potential dual-degree candidate felt that the beginning remuneration was not as high as it should be or that the promotion ladder was not as quick as the candidate had hoped for. When asked if a dual-degree holder might be at a disadvantage in applying for certain jobs, three of the four employers thought that there could be situations where that was so. They also indicated that the dual degree was, in their minds, a new phenomenon and so the advantage to students was that they were a novel and rare commodity. They might thus have to overcome the disadvantage that not many employers might fully know their particular strengths that they had developed by virtue of participating in dual-degree programs. At the end of the focus group, all of the employers said that they had learned more about dual-degree programs and understood their benefits much better than when they had arrived. They also thought that stronger relationships between universities and employers would help educate both groups as to employers’ needs and the students’ strengths. One of the employers mentioned that more accessible websites would be helpful.
Faculty Focus Group
Eight engineering faculty members from the Politecnico di Milano participated in the faculty focus group. Five of the eight had been at the Politecnico at least 15 years, with two of those having at least 30 years of service. In addition, faculty members reported having teaching experience in the United States, Spain, Belgium, and France. The different engineering fields they represented included Mechanical, Aerospace, Energy, Structural, Biomedical, Materials, and Mathematical. Of the 8, 7 were professors and one was an assistant professor. All had at least 2-years experience with dual-degree programs. When asked about their percentage of time in terms of teaching, research, and administration, all participants indicated a teaching percentage between 20% and 40%. They were more likely to indicate more time spent on research (3 indicated 60% of their time as research) and 6 of the 8 noted that at least 30% of their time was devoted to administration. These faculty members had first become involved with dual-degree programs due to their natural interest in international collaborations as well as their belief that students would have a better education by experiencing engineering across two cultures. For some of the faculty members, their administrative positions made it easier for them to become involved in dual-degree programs.
All the faculty members present stated that the dual-degree program was beneficial to students. They spoke of increased global competence, language skills, more opportunities in other cultures and at other universities, and increased life and working experience. They believed that students would have exposure to flexible learning strategies and to diverse research areas and foci. They felt that graduates of such programs would experience an increased self-confidence and independence and become more marketable because of the program. When asked if students were indeed more marketable, they indicated that it seemed very likely but they admitted that they had no real data to support that perception.
They pointed out that the global economy is “necessitating programs such as the dual degree” to keep students and universities competitive. When asked if the students also felt this way and that was why they entered such a program, all faculty members agreed that the students entering the program used emotional rather than logical criteria when they applied for admission. For instance, they felt that students wanted to travel and experience another culture rather than obtain an academic benefit. Two of the faculty members noted that some students believed that on entering the program, they would learn differently and be taught from different approaches in a foreign culture.
Alumni Focus Group
Six alumni were present for the alumni focus group. All were Italian, male and their ages ranged from 28 to 39. As part of their dual-degree programs, all of the students had some of their degree work at the Politecnico di Milano in common. The other degree work came from Spain, Sweden, France, and the United States. Two students had graduated primarily in management engineering, one in industrial and engineering management, one in civil engineering, one in structural engineering, and one in energy engineering. Two indicated they were project managers at their companies, two were junior design engineers, and two were in assistant professor positions, one at the Politecnico and another at the University of Brescia in Italy. When asked how they had become involved in their dual-degree program, several of the graduates noted that their professors had first talked about the programs in their classes and also recommended it to certain students. Two participants pointed out how the international programs office at the Politecnico suggested these programs as an alternative to a more limited foreign exchange program, and one student found out about the dual-degree program while in a foreign exchange program.
When asked why they enrolled in the dual-degree program, participants felt that it would be a chance to study abroad, to enhance their language skills, and seemed a more interesting alternative to existing foreign-language programs. Two of the participants were also drawn by the reputation or quality of the school at which the other degree would be offered.
Alumni reported that the personal growth opportunities afforded to them through the program increased their language skills, broadened their awareness of international issues, and increased their general open-mindedness (what one referred to as mental flexibility), social skills, and confidence. They believed that they now had an increased ability to be flexible and effective in many different contexts and could solve diverse problems more effectively. They felt that “problem-solving processes” are different in similar academic programs in different countries and felt that the need to appreciate these differences had added to their educations by forcing them to view problems and their solutions in different ways. They also felt that these differences made the dual-degree program more difficult because students had to adjust from thinking in one way to another.
Despite these perceived personal advancements, they all felt that there was no real increase in their marketability in the job market because employers did not understand what a dual-degree program was. A couple of the participants felt that, despite their affirmative statements, engineering employers have yet to value cultural experience like those obtained by students through a dual-degree program. Participants did feel that the confidence they had gained might have made them into better interviewees and thus contributed to their being hired in their first positions. Once hired, they believed the skills acquired from the program lead to a higher ceiling in the workplace and may have increased their “velocity to higher positions.” When pressed about how they would know whether their advancement was due to the dual degree as opposed to just their personal skills or engineering training, they admitted that this was difficult to sort out. Two of the alumni felt that overall the experiences “were very valuable,” but they still were not sure that the benefits of the program after graduation had balanced the costs of extra time in the program.
Conclusions
In the process of collecting information regarding dual-degree programs through a survey and through focus groups addressed to particular stakeholders—students, alumni, faculty, and employers—we found that the language used to describe and label collaborative programs can influence the responses of those involved in the research. As described in the CGS (2010) publication, there are several terms used by universities to characterize their work with other institutions. These terms include “transatlantic,” “international,” “collaborative,” “joint degree,” and “dual degree.” In some cases, a program has been labeled with at least three of these adjectives. In addition, the meanings of these terms vary from country to country and institution to institution. As noted previously by Knight (2008), the lack of a common vocabulary poses a severe challenge while describing and studying the effectiveness of these programs. Our survey and focus group results show that those closely associated with a program (students, faculty, and recent alumni) tend to agree on what their programs are about. However, employers who participated in our study and who were not directly involved in the instructional delivery in the programs were unclear about the purpose, the curriculum, and the issues involved in a dual-degree program. For example, only half the employers knew about the diploma supplement, and of those who knew about it, none had seen one and most believed that its contents would not affect their interview process. Consequently, one conclusion derived from our work is that stronger collaborations need to be formed with industry partners and these collaborations should go beyond simple luncheon meetings or site visits. It is clear that higher education institutions need to provide more information and communicate better with workplace partners to engage them in our curricular matters. One place to begin may be looking at program details and use of websites (as noted by one employer) through the eyes of a community-based advisory committee.
A second conclusion of this study is that although there is student demand for such programs and an overall perception that they will become more marketable, the benefits of a dual degree perceived by all of the stakeholder groups related more to personal growth, communication skills, and cross-cultural skills and less to subject matter or professional knowledge growth. The added value comes directly from experiencing a degree program in two cultures. For example, students particularly feel that they become more self-reliant and confident having had to immerse themselves in a foreign culture. Alumni who had completed a dual-degree program also reported that they had learned that people of different cultures approach problem solving differently and that understanding this perspective also added value to their educational program. These findings echo the transformative learning of female educators studied by Hamza (2010). All of the stakeholder groups note the extralanguage capabilities of students and their perceived ability to move around in different cultures. On a professional engineering level, students, alumni, and faculty appreciate that the faculties at different institutions may also have differing approaches to solving problems.
A third conclusion of this study is that there was no evidence provided by any of the stakeholders that participation in a dual-degree program increased a student’s marketability. From an employer’s perspective, it may be quite the opposite. Employers noted that such programs seemed to call for ambitious students who might turn out to be more frequent job changers as they pursue their careers. For this reason, employers might be less likely to hire dual-degree program graduates. In addition, alumni had found jobs that they liked but most were unclear whether the dual degree had helped them obtain these jobs or was the reason for their professional advancement. Consequently, the positive indicators of value are based more on anticipations and perceptions rather than on objective criteria.
Though all participants in this study had strong, positive feelings along these dimensions, they could provide few concrete examples or little empirical evidence to support their claims. Students often provided anecdotal information and stories to help offer examples of what they meant, but actual evidence of the value added, particularly in terms of professional skills, to their experiences is rather slim. This lack of evidence may be due in part to the lack of information provided to employers regarding dual degrees and the relatively small number of students participating in such degree programs.
Using multiple methods of investigation provided a well-documented picture of participants’ perceptions of dual-degree programs. The survey provided overarching areas of interest and the focus groups provided for a closer investigation of those areas, allowing the lived experience of the stakeholders to surface (Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990). This information provides a clearer picture of the pros and cons of dual-degree programs than have broader surveys (e.g., Girotti, 2010; Obst, 2008) completed only by program administrators. However, there are small numbers of respondents as well in this study, and with a majority from Italy, these results cannot be seen as representative of respondents from the countries represented. Given the sample limitations of this study, more research is called for that examines collaborative degree programs around the world, not just in Europe, and includes degree programs other than engineering. With these extended efforts, it is also important to include the voices of all stakeholders involved in our educational processes.
Footnotes
The authors thank Hans Kaiser and Andreas Zemann (Technical University of Vienna), Per Warfinge and Christina Grossman (Lund University of Technology), and John Yopp and G. T. Lineberry (University of Kentucky) for helping to disseminate the surveys and for stimulating discussions. Francesca Fogal (Politecnico Di Milano) played an important logistical role. The authors also thank Tanner Bateman (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University) for his work with the data. Associate partners of the program are ICE (Italian Institute for Foreign Trade), ambrosetti SpA, SOREN Srl, Associazione Laureati and Career Service of the Politecnico di Milano, Lexmark International, and Cummins Inc.
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Education FIPSE Atlantis Program through Grant No. P116J090083.