본문 바로가기 대메뉴 바로가기

뉴스센터

SBUNews
FITNews
Site-wide Search

Faculty

Dr. Hamid Hefazi’s contribution to the Maeil Business Newspaper Academic Misconduct Among University Students Violation of academic integrity by students is a real concern to university administrators around the world. Cheating, plagiarism, having someone else do the work, or using prohibited resources are some of the more common modes of academic dishonesty among students. However, falsification of records for admission, and cases of falsified research have been more the subject of recent media attention. A comprehensive survey of academic dishonesty in the US was conducted by the International Center for Academic Integrity over 12 years (2002-2015) among 70,000 students. This study found that 17 % of graduate students and 39% of undergraduates admitted having cheated at least once on a test. More importantly, only 39% of the respondents said it is not acceptable to cheat on tests or homework. The situation in Korean universities is similar. In a study conducted by Konkuk University in 2009, 35% of the undergraduate students surveyed reported that they have copied from another student or used a “cheat sheet “during a test. Another study (2015) at two veterinary schools in Seoul reported plagiarism and falsification by students ranging from 32% to 71%. Many researchers have studied and identified various factors that influence cheating. For example, students in small elite colleges have much lower rates of cheating (15-20 %) compared to large public universities where the rate can be as high as 75%. Other factors include age, gender, and grade point average (GPA). Older students, females, and students with higher GPAs are less likely to cheat. Students with excessive extracurricular activities are more probable to cheat according to some studies. The above-mentioned Konkuk university research found that classes that are taught by foreign professors reported fewer incidents of cheating. This might be partly due to the types of assignments and assessment methods that foreign professors employ as well as more emphasis on the importance of academic integrity issues. Race, nationality, and religion show little correlation with cheating. However international students in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia have a substantially higher rate of cheating. For example, A Wall Street Journal analysis of data from 14 public colleges in the United States during the 2014-2015 school year found that international students had five times more reports of cheating compared to their domestic counterparts. As online teaching becomes more prevalent, there is a perception among students and faculty that online teaching leads to more cheating. Working remotely may make it easier for students to use unauthorized resources such as cell phones, and the Internet or communicate with others during a test. The research on this topic is ongoing and somewhat inconclusive due to the availability of limited data for a comprehensive study. Addressing the problem of cheating in university classes requires a complex and multifaceted approach. First and foremost, the university administration has to take an active and decisive role. Studies indicate that having a clear code of conduct that is well communicated to students and enforced, is essential. The approach however has to go beyond enforcement and punishment. Faculty play an instrumental role in preventing cheating. For example, avoiding recycling exams and homework, developing the tests and their supervision by faculty, not delegating the task to t teaching assistants, assignments that require oral presentations, using subjective questions that require a written response, and using random questions in tests are among methods that can be used. Finally, creating a culture of integrity in the class by professors that includes, often talking about academic honesty, expecting high standards, being clear about expectations, and getting to know the students is paramount in order to educate responsible and ethical students. Click here to read the article
2022.10.24 Hits 702
Dr. Hamid Hefazi’s contribution to the Maeil Business Newspaper Academic Leadership Unlike the corporate world, which relies on formally trained managers and leaders, academic leaders typically come to their positions without such formal education or training. Historically, academic leaders go through a transformation from teachers/scholars to department chairs, to deans, to provosts, and presidents. It is during this transformation that they develop their leadership and management philosophies and styles. While at first glance this may seem unsettling, some studies of managers cite work experience, not the classroom, as the best training for developing management styles and leadership skills. In the majority of cases, educational managerial and leadership philosophies of academic unit leaders are the results of their experiences and career transitions, and sometimes in combination with some “self-training” and socialization in academic environments. In general, the definitions of an academic leader pertain to both leadership and management. Academic leadership issues have been widely researched and studied. Numerous articles, texts, and scientific journals such as the Journal of Academic Leadership have been produced to investigate and discuss the nature of the concept. However, despite this extensive literature, the term leadership, while frequently used, is neither consistently used nor uniquely defined. In general, some use the term to describe a collection of tasks or functions performed by individuals appointed to formal positions of responsibility within universities. Others use it to describe the qualities or characteristics of particular individuals who are recognized by others as being academic leaders. There is also the question of the difference between management and leadership. Leadership is distinctly different from management. While management focuses on budgets, tasks, and roles, leadership is about direction and vision. Academic leadership is an influence relationship. Leaders direct efforts toward future results. This influence relationship should be a two-way and non-coercive relationship that is based on interpersonal skills rather than organizational authority. However, this relationship is not an equal partnership since the parties do not provide the same level of expertise and outcome towards the goal. Leaders must articulate the vision, encourage, direct and inspire faculty and staff towards the desired future state, while faculty and staff must contribute with quality teaching, recognized research, and excellent service to all of the stakeholders. Managing an academic unit is no less challenging than leading it. There are generally different and sometimes conflicting ideas and interests about almost any decision and issue facing the academic unit. The main role of the manager is to build a participatory framework where major decisions are openly discussed and decided. Elements of this framework include fairness, transparency, and accountability. A potential drawback of a participatory approach is inefficiency. However, an effective manager must make certain that the process is not unnecessarily prolonged and once a decision is made, the organization moves forward. All of the above strategies require a commitment to excellence. Excellence has to be deeply embedded in the culture of the unit. However, excellence needs to be carefully defined in the context of the mission and capabilities of the institution. It is important to avoid the tendency of mimicking excellence in the sense of other, albeit elite, universities which have different missions and capabilities or serve different constituents. Finally building an academic organization, consisting of highly skilled professionals, which is dynamic and purposeful requires shared governance. The administration alone cannot bring all of the necessary elements to the table. Successful leadership builds a “participatory framework and continual commitments to the shared values, responsibilities and rewards of group leadership” (Polglase, Leadership is everyone’s business, Leadership 2003), which ensures that contributions of all parties, while maybe unequal in specifics, are channeled towards accomplishing the mutual intent. Click here to read the article
2022.06.20 Hits 656
Dr. Hamid Hefazi’s contribution to the Maeil Business Newspaper Engineering Ethics On a cold day on January 28, 1986, at 11:38 am, the Space Shuttle Challenger was launched from Kennedy Space Center. The mission designated as STS-51-L was the tenth flight of the Challenger. The orbiter broke apart 73 seconds into the flight, killing all seven crew members. A subsequent investigation by NASA determined that the technical cause of the accident was the failure of two redundant O-ring seals joining the solid rocket boosters (SBRs). On the surface, this appears to be an unfortunate accident where no malice was involved. Investigation however showed that a series of carless, sometimes self-serving, and unethical decisions were made by managers and engineers of NASA and Thiokol, the SBRs manufacturer, which led to this disaster. Several other notorious and high-profile incidents involving ethical failures such as disregarding public safety, environmental protection, fairness, honesty in research and testing as well as bribery, fraud, and conflicts of interest, on the part of engineers, have been documented in previous years. These problems have raised an important question for engineering educators. Engineers perform works that significantly impact the environment, and public safety, and also have major financial and economic consequences. These conflicting aspects sometimes present ethical dilemmas for engineers. Are engineering students trained and prepared for confronting and resolving such ethical dilemmas in their work? To address this challenge, led by the ABET (ABET.org) the body responsible for accrediting undergraduate engineering programs in the United States, engineering programs in the US are mandated to incorporate engineering ethics in their curricula. Professional ethics is primarily addressed by professional codes of ethics which are specific to each profession. Perhaps the most rigorous professional codes of ethics belong to the medical and legal professions. Engineering professional organizations also have their own codes of ethics. In the United States, these include the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE), the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) codes of ethics among many others. It is important to note that these codes are guidelines and do not cover every potential ethical dilemma that may be faced by an engineer. Their applications often require a subjective review of the problem. They also sometimes present apparent conflicts when applied to a problem. For example, one of the NSPE Fundamental Canons states that engineers should “hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public”. Professional Obligation section of the same code however states that “Engineers shall not disclose without consent confidential information concerning the business affairs or technical process of any present or former clients or employers or public body on which they serve”. The dilemma presented here is, for example, when Thiokol engineer Roger Boisjoly was aware of potential problems with the O-ring in the booster, was he ethically bound to disclose that to the public without the consent of his employer? Situations like that require students to develop ethical problem-solving skills. Elements of ethical problem solving include understanding both the factual and conceptual issues of the problem, identifying the moral principles to use, and developing a systematic approach to applying these principles. Most problems have a clear ethical answer. Safety health and welfare of the public clearly supersede the professional obligation of confidentiality to an employer. There are however situations when the answers are not as clear. Practicing engineers are well-advised to understand and follow relevant professional codes of ethics in order to protect society, themselves, and their employers from serious negative consequences. Engineering curricula must train students on the analytical skills that are required for addressing ethical questions that are faced by engineers. Click here to read the article
2022.04.19 Hits 897
An article published by Prof. Choi (MEC) was selected as a journal cov… MEC Professor Seungbok Choi’s article was selected as the cover page of a journal titled, Applications of Magnetorheological Fluid Actuator to Multi-DOF Systems: State-of-the Art from 2015 to 2021. Below is the cover story written by professor Choi: “This review article presents various multi-DOF application systems that utilize magnetorheological (MR) fluid actuators such as sandwich structures, dampers, mounts, brakes, and clutches. In the first part of this review article, recent research works related to MR sandwich structures, which have been extensively studied in the field of vibration and noise reduction and control, are discussed. In the latter part of this review, recently reported MR fluid actuators are classified by application field, and the features of newly proposed actuators are investigated. The application fields considered in this study include not only traditional automotive, aerospace, manufacturing, and civil engineering fields but also robotics, rehabilitation engineering, and haptic interfaces, which have recently received increasing attention.”
2022.03.04 Hits 797
Appointment of Dr. Hamid Hefazi as Provost Dr. Hamid Hefazi has been appointed Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs of SUNY Korea, effective February 9, 2022. The announcement was made by SUNY Korea President Arthur Lee. Dr. Hefazi joined SUNY Korea in 2019 as Professor and Chair of the Mechanical Engineering Department. Since he received his Ph.D. in Aerospace Engineering from the University of Southern California in 1985, Dr. Hefazi has been involved in a broad range of teaching, research, and academic administration activities. His more recent research works have been on the application of CFD in turbomachinery, aerodynamic design optimization, aeroacoustics, hydrodynamics, ship design, and advanced multidisciplinary design and optimization (MDO) methods. Dr. Hefazi has been the principal investigator for more than one-hundred externally funded research projects including projects sponsored by the US Office of Naval Research, NASA, US National Science Foundation, and the Boeing Company among others. Prior to joining SUNY Korea, he served as the head of the Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Departments at California State University and Florida Tech for a combined 19 years. Dr. Hefazi has also served as the director of several organizations and research labs including the Boeing Company's Technology Centre at California State University. He has received many awards including The US Department of Defense’s Nunn-Perry Award for 2005 and 2006 and the Boeing Company's Silver Eagle Award for innovation in 2006. He is a member of the US National Academy of Inventors and an Associate Fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). Hamid Hefazi has already contributed much in many areas of SUNY Korea operations during his short tenure at SUNY Korea: personnel and policy committee, faculty senate, grievance policy, faculty evaluation criteria and guidelines, etc. As the chief academic officer overseeing the curricular and faculty matters, he has much to contribute to the university.
2022.02.19 Hits 1131
Dr. Hamid Hefazi’s contribution to the Maeil Business Newspaper Engineering Education in South Korea by the Numbers During the past few decades, South Korea has experienced the highest economic growth in the shortest time ever seen in modern world history. This growth was accomplished by investing in Heavy and Chemical Industries (HCI) during the 1970s, followed by the development of high technology-focused industries. At the time, the country lacked adequate engineering educational institutions to support such growth. As a result, the main body of research institutions (such as the Korean Institute of Science and Technology), which provided support for high tech industries, consisted of researchers with Ph.D. training from abroad. The history of contemporary science and engineering education in Korea dates to the early 1900s. Ten engineering students on the college level graduated in 1918 and four more students in mathematics and physics graduated in 1919. The first Bachelor’s degrees, which consisted of one in physics, four in mechanical engineering, two in metallurgical engineering, five in electrical engineering, and two in chemical engineering were awarded in 1943. Today university education and research in Korea are quite diverse. The university entrance rate (percentage of high school graduates who enter higher education institutions) increased from 33% (1990) to 68.2 % (2014) and 71.5 % (2021). Despite this increase in rate, the university enrollment numbers have dropped from a peak of 2.13 million in 2014 to 1.93 million students in 2021. Korea's ranking with regard to published SCI journals went up from 34th (1990) to 12th (2015) out of 180 countries. In 2021, there were around 202 universities and 134 community colleges in Korea. There were also a large number of other higher education institutions such as industrial universities, graduate universities, and graduate schools that are unaffiliated with a university. One hundred sixty (160) universities offered at least one undergraduate engineering program. In 2019, more than 571,000 undergraduate students were enrolled in engineering programs. Computer Science and Engineering with 45,654 and Mechanical Engineering with 44,703 had the two highest enrollments. The population of Korea is approximately 16% of the US, however the number of undergraduate engineering students in Korea was 61% of 622,550 engineering students in the US. Similarly, more than 30,000 Master’s and 18,000 Ph.D. students were enrolled in engineering programs in Korea in 2019. These were 32% and 22 % respectively of those in the US. More than 81,300 BS engineering and computer science degrees were awarded in Korea in 2019. This was close to 42% of the 191,336 BS engineering degrees that were awarded in the US. In Korea, the highest percentage of degrees (12.5%) was awarded in mechanical engineering with computer science and engineering a close second at 12.1%. In the US. mechanical engineering and computer science comprised 22.5 % and 29% respectively of the total degrees. Engineering profession and education have historically been male-dominated and despite some progress in recent years, they continue to be so. For example, in the US, women earned 21.9 % of bachelor’s degrees, 26.7% of master’s degrees, and 23.6% of doctoral degrees in engineering in 2019. The disciplines where women earned over 40% of the bachelor’s degrees in were environment engineering, biological/agricultural engineering, and biomedical engineering. In Korea, in 2019, 23% (5, 18,745) of BS degrees were awarded to women. The highest percentage of engineering BS degrees awarded to women was in Architectural Engineering (41.5%) and the lowest in Mechanical Engineering (9.5%). The numbers for MS degrees awarded to women were 2,781 out of 13,722 (20%) and 507 out of 4,217 (12%) for Doctoral degrees. From 385,350 enrolled engineering undergraduates in Korea in 2019, about 1.5% or 5,860 were international students. The numbers for MS and Doctoral degrees were 2,599 out of 30,342 (8.5%) and 2,621 out of 17,986 (14.5%). Computer science and engineering and mechanical engineering are the two top choices for international students. Despite recent decreases in the numbers, US remains the top destination for international students. The number of international students in US universities dropped by 15% from a peak of 1.1 million in 2019 to 914000 in 2020/21. In 2019, About 21% or close to 230,000 of them were studying engineering. This represents 29% of over 795,000 students in undergraduate and graduate engineering programs in the US. In 2018, 10.5 %, 57.1% and 56.3% of BS, MS and Ph.D. engineering degrees in the US were awarded to international students. Over 39,000 Korean students studied in the US during the 2020/21 academic year. This is 12 % less than close to 49,800 in 2019/20 and represents close to 4.2% of the total international students in the US. Korea is ranked third after China and India. The influx of Korean students adds close to $2.3 billion to the US economy each year. During the past few decades, Korea has achieved eye-opening progress, producing significant quantitative growth and increased quality in engineering education. However, recent trends lead by the decline of the school-age population and the shift towards a creative economy calls for urgent qualitative and quantitative research focused on reform of universities to meet the needs of the country. Click here to read the article
2022.02.17 Hits 870
Prof. Choi (MEC) was elected as a Director of Secretariat of AASSA Dr. Seung-Bok Choi, Professor of Mechanical Engineering has been elected as a Director of Secretariat of AASSA (The Association of Academies and Society Sciences in Asia). His term is from January 1, 2022 to December 31, 2024. AASSA was launched in January 1, 2012 with 34 member Academies and Societies of science from 30 countries including Korea, Japan, China, Australia, Malaysia, India, Vietnam, Turkey, Uzbekistan and so forth. The principal objective of AASSA is to achieve a society in Asia and Australasia in which science and technology play a major role in the development of the region. As a Director of Secretariat, Dr. Choi arranges all forum and seminar to be organized by AASSA for scientists and technologists to discuss and provide advice on issues related to science and technology, research and development, and the application of technology for socio-economic development. He also plays a role of a liaison with The IAP (the world science academy network, Inter-Academy Partnership) and a financial manager of AASSA. Currently, Professor Choi is a fellow of two Korean academies: The Korean Academy of Science and Technology (KAST), and The National Academy of Engineering of Korea (NAEK). It is remarked that AASSA Secretariate is operated by KAST. Related Link: AASSA, KAST
2022.02.09 Hits 863
SUNY Korea Admissions’ Speech at Annual Conference of Korean Associati… SUNY Korea Admissions’ Speech at Annual Conference of Korean Association of International Educators in Jeju SUNY Korea Admissions was invited to speak at the 22nd Annual Conference of the Korean Association of International Educators at the Oriental Hotel in Jeju Island on January 13, 2022. KIM Kyuseok (Mick), admissions team leader, led the session themed as ‘Investor-Centered Strategies for Successful International Recruitment’, speaking about the international students and recruitment trend between the U.S. and South Korea, particularly in the context of the pandemicdriven transformation in the global higher education. He also discussed the value-centered approaches in international student recruitment and enrollment to maximize the return on investment from students’ and parents’ perspectives. It was the first opportunity for SUNY Korea, as the first and the most prominent American higher educational institution established in South Korea, to share its 10-year experiences and the ideas of innovating transnational higher education with the international educators and professionals of the Korean colleges at the conference. Read more
2022.01.27 Hits 887
Prof. Sunghyun Sean Lee had an interview with M-Economy News How to prepare to get a job in a Global Company-Based on the case in SUNY Korea Recently, Korean global companies are gradually increasing, and the companies’ globalization is accelerating. Korea's five largest groups such as Samsung, LG, SK, Hanwha, Naver, and Kakao, these big tech and bio companies are expanding into global companies. It is time to look back on whether Korean universities, which have changed their status as global companies, are still thinking of Korean enterprises as local companies and are providing easy job guidance to students. SUNY Korea is a school that has the strength in finding a job in global companies. Professor Sunghyun Sean Lee, the Team Leader of the SUNY Korea's Career Development Team, talked about what needs to be done to prepare for a job in a global company. Read More
2022.01.26 Hits 1029
Dr. Chihmao Hsieh’s contribution to the Maeil Business Newspaper AI and job interviews: Leveling the playing field Written by Chihmao HSIEH In the recent last few years, artificial intelligence has been implemented to handle some of the filtering processes involved in assessing job interviews. A growing number of companies is requiring job applicants to answer questions online via video camera, whereby computer programs then process the video clips and audio transcripts. Assessments of facial expressions, eye movements, voice intonation, and word choice are combined to come up with sets of scores for each applicant. For now, it appears that most of the companies using this technology are using it only for the initial cut, thus capable of filtering applications easily from tens of thousands to mere dozens. Some AI interview software works by having current employees answer the questions on video, and then evaluating the candidates on how well they match those employees. The criticism has been swift and wide-ranging. Besides the obvious criticisms related to tying voice intonation and facial expressions to personality or expected job performance, applicants also express unfairness about the unilateral nature of AI interviews, where applicants are unable to correct an AI’s perception in the same way that they can correct a human interviewer while face-to-face. Career development staff at universities lament that AI doesn’t know how to comprehend applicants’ value systems, or appreciate the work motivations stemming from their aspirations or passion. Researchers have found that AI systems are prone to making decisions that reflect racism or sexism, and have called to regulate AI to ensure transparency and accountability. AI also has severely limited ability to recognize humor, which is valuable within creative, entrepreneurial organizations. As a result, some companies such as Korea Airports Corp. have gotten rid of AI interviews because managers were unsure exactly how and what the AI were evaluating. Overall, policymakers have asked whether the cost savings offered by this technology are worth discounting this much of human value and dignity. As with many technological advances, there are tradeoffs in using AI to assess job interviews. At the surface, the cost savings are obvious and significant. As communication technology improves and more work goes remote, the physical boundaries of the workplace will open up. HR managers become less confined in recruiting from a local labor market, and companies can benefit from more candidates for each of their open positions. In processing all these extra applications, AI doesn’t suffer from fatigue or the broadest set of human biases. As many AI software chiefs have commented, AI’s purpose here is to complement human-led decisions, without substituting for them completely. Maybe we trust AI’s job placement ability in the future just as much as we trust Google’s search capability today. But let’s take a step back: the ultimate goal here is to accurately match job seeker to open position. We can design the system with two strategies. In a first scenario, we facilitate the assessment of job applications. That’s what AI technology currently offers to us. In a second scenario, we help job seekers to foster taste in all the large and small companies hiring around the world. But how? I suggest that technology should scrutinize companies, as much as companies want to scrutinize job applicants. For example, a system could collect 24-hour real-time electronic data of employee behaviors at companies, and offer scores of each company’s ability to manage and support communication and collaboration. It might track the daily actual communication between employees, use that data to score the quality and challenge of all workgroups’ actual goals and projects, and offer weekly scores regarding the company’s level of creativity and bureaucracy. In this way, the burden then falls on companies to be more transparent about the quality of their daily internal work environment and the worklife of employees, besides simply relying on technology that robotically sifts through hundreds of thousands of resumes and video interviews. These two strategies are not mutually exclusive. But the point is that we give some power back to job applicants and level the playing field. Although companies today have more applicants to choose from, applicants today also potentially have more companies to choose from. If a medium-sized company in the USA has opened up their boundaries to the world, then the world should also be able to identify and assess it. We need more employment policies and entrepreneurship acknowledging that job seekers deserve to identify the best companies that are fit for them, not just the other way around. Perhaps one day, job applicants can use AI to help them identify the thousands of companies around the world that are currently hiring, and then see a score that estimates the probability that they won’t like or are too talented for any given company. Companies could simultaneously get the chance to send a strong signal regarding the quality of their philosophy towards humanity. Perhaps some companies would be willing to pay for the rights to be certified in this kind of applicant-friendly system. They could be proud that they not only welcome shortlisted finalists to interview face-to-face at their offices, but that they are also confident and humble enough to respect job applicants in helping them decide whether their company is good enough for them in the first place. On the other hand, if job applicants paid a nominal subscription fee to use such AI, it would have the added benefit of helping companies to identify those job seekers that signal seriousness about their job hunt (as we might observe with LinkedIn’s subscription service today). These kinds of business models bring some balance back to the equation. If companies use AI job interview software to assess candidates but aren’t willing to share daily or weekly AI data regarding their own internal environment or their own company culture, then they are largely hypocritical. These kinds of issues regarding the direction of innovation weren’t matters of concern in the past. However, times are changing. As AI advances further and further, part of the system should still ensure that job candidates are valued with some basic standard of dignity, from a human perspective. But at the very least, candidates deserve to be on a similar playing field as companies. If that requires giving job applicants the power to leverage their own AI in assessing the desirability or fit of companies to work for, so be it. Note: News story regarding Korea Airports Corp dropping AI interviews: http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20211004000214 Click here to read the article
2022.01.13 Hits 770
Dr. Hamid Hefazi’s contribution to the Maeil Business Newspaper The Fourth Industrial Revolution and the Future of Engineering Education Written by Hamid Hefazi, PhD Professor & Chair, Mechanical Engineering Department Convergence and recent advances in numerous emerging technologies are referred to as the era of the “Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR). The term was first proposed in 2016 by Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF). 4IR has major social, cultural, political, and global implications. American writer Alvin Toffler, in his book “Future Shock” published in 1970, was among the first to predict and discuss many of these issues. Engineering is one of the most crucial professions for achieving the potentials of 4IR. In turn, it is also markedly impacted by it. Faced with tremendous opportunities and challenges that the 4IR presents, engineering educators must take a critical look at the current state of engineering education and answer a number of hard questions such as: What skill sets are required for future engineers? Do current engineering curricula adequately provide these skills? What is the appropriate balance between theory and practice in engineering education? Is a four-year curriculum adequate to educate engineers of the future? Who should become an engineer? These are difficult questions, for some of which there are no consensus answers. Several studies by prominent engineering organizations such as the US National Academy of Engineering and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers have addressed this topic. While some of their conclusions are different, they all strongly agree on the need for the development of certain attributes beyond the technical training of engineers. These skills which are referred to as “soft skills”, are considered as essential as technical skills. 4IR presents substantial growth in the scope and scale of problems that engineers need to address. For example, engineering knowledge is now applied to improving the quality of healthcare, the safety of food products, and the operation of financial systems. Many of these problems are multidisciplinary and require teams of experts to address them. The complexity of the problems also requires a “tool-based” approach, integrating advanced technologies such as Computational Methods, Machine learning, and Artificial Intelligence with traditional engineering disciplines. As former US secretary of education, Richard Riley noted: “We are currently preparing students for jobs that don’t yet exist, using technologies that haven’t been invented, in order to solve problems, we don’t even know are problems yet.” These challenges demand that engineering curricula go beyond traditional technical training. While it is safe to assume that future development in engineering will still be rooted in Mathematics and Physics, many other disciplines will be integrated with engineering. The intersection of biological sciences and engineering is already well established. However, the multidisciplinary nature of future problems is not limited to these areas. For example, understanding Cognitive Sciences play an important role in the engineering design process as well as the development of autonomous robots of the future. Understanding human psychology and human factors is an essential consideration in the development of space travel and space colonization. It is only by aligning teaching and learning methods with the skills such as lifelong learning, complex problem solving, critical thinking, and cognitive flexibility, we can ensure that today’s students will be able to advance in the future dynamic environment. Educating future engineers also needs integrating advanced tools in curricula and assigning complex problems that would require the synthesis of concepts from multiple disciplines, applying logical boundary conditions, and examining outcomes. Engineering work is also the link between social needs and commercial applications. Along with solving technical issues, engineers must also analyze the impact of the products they develop or the systems they design on the environment and on the people using them. In the 4IR era economy, the allure of employment in “big businesses” will be replaced by the success of new industries that start as home businesses. To thrive in such an economy, innovation, entrepreneurship, a global perspective, communication, and leadership skills are essential. Finally, attracting the right talent to engineering programs is essential for the future of the profession. The current approach requires that young students join an educational pathway that ultimately results in an engineering degree. If a student enrolled in the wrong math class in 7th grade, she will find it difficult to become an engineer. This approach deprives the profession of many potential talents. A more holistic approach is needed to identify those candidates who have the ability to acquire knowledge rather than those who have certain pre-requisites. In short, engineering education should focus on strong fundamentals in a wide range of sciences, the ability to acquire and use advanced technology, various softs skills, and most importantly the ability to acquire and apply new knowledge. It could be argued that it is extremely difficult to adequately include all of these elements in four-year engineering curricula. Therefore, the need for education beyond the Bachelor’s degree and technical specialization at the graduate level becomes inevitable. The American education system is perhaps the first to recognize these challenging requirements and attempt to address them to some level of success. Click here to read the article
2022.01.06 Hits 873
Dr. Chihmao Hsieh’s contribution to the Maeil Business Newspaper How can forthcoming changes in Korean educational policy serve a meaningful worklife? Written by two authors: Chihmao Hsieh, Associate Professor of Entrepreneurship, SUNY Korea Karl Wennberg, Professor of Education and Entrepreneurship, Stockholm School of Economics Education has been a focus in policy-making recently, as experts have called for a shift in the educational system amid forthcoming demographic changes and the “fourth industrial revolution”. This past summer, the Education Committee of Korea’s National Assembly approved a bill to install a new body tentatively called the ‘National Education Commission’ (국가교육위원회). The commission, scheduled to be launched next year, would be responsible for taking the lead in establishing a non-partisan long-term educational policy, while the Ministry of Education would carry out the policy’s goals and make any short-term administrative adjustments. Although education in Korea is culturally tied to anticipated job security and life satisfaction, this renewed focus on Korean education comes at a time when job satisfaction in Korea remains dubious. Between July-October 2020, the JoongAng Ilbo and Teamblind interviewed roughly 72,109 office workers from 9,371 local companies about their work, asking them about their welfare benefits, relationships with colleagues, trust among team members, and work autonomy. Seven out of ten workers in Korea suffered burnout over the preceding one-year period. While it is unsurprising that Korea still has one of the lowest worker productivities among the G20 countries, the data revealed that the two most important factors directly linked to the level of job satisfaction were the meaningfulness of work and the quality of relationships with bosses. We believe that any major educational reform should be designed this time for the long-run purpose of fostering job satisfaction. Ideally the government panel mentioned above will include businesspeople who respect education, alongside educators that respect organizational ‘best practices’ and the economy. Yet we still envision some tactics for educational reform that can support future job satisfaction in Korea. In order to develop a workforce that is more innovative and passionate for re-learning throughout working life, more effort should be put into combining critical thinking with transdisciplinary education. Such a prescription opens the door for unstructured problem-solving, and unfortunately, that’s when student performance assessment starts to become prohibitively subjective by Korean standards. One possible solution is to enlist high-tech companies with their expertise in Big Data and AI to help with assessment. For years, the ‘EdTech’ industry has worked on digital tools that assess knowledge, and these systems are not easy for students to ‘game’ and cheat on. Most importantly, these high-tech companies and educational providers must convince students’ parents that their assessment systems are legitimate. Even today, the meaningfulness of learning via concept acquisition is still emphasized less than rote memorization and standardized test taking. There could be more interaction between EdTech companies and parts of the educational system, designed to address students’ and parents’ potential concern. For example, some of our Swedish university students created a startup called ‘Sqore’ which was briefly the largest in the world for holding student talent competitions, later pivoting into an assessment/student selection service for graduate school programs and companies. Those organizations contracted with Sqore because they saw problem-solving competitions as a good way not only to assess “soft” skills like creativity and interdisciplinarity, but also as a way to market their company in recruiting the most talented students. Korea’s conglomerates could be enlisted to create more problem-solving competitions where winners are awarded with month-long or summer internships. Many large US-based companies as well as NASA have successfully used such ‘innovation competitions’ to attract talented and interested new employees. Such initiatives would send strong messages to both students and parents alike that grades should not be the sole obsession, and that the business world cares about critical and innovative thinking at all decision-making levels. Ideally, such competitions should focus less on narrowly specifying ‘ideal solutions’ or deliverables involving intellectual property, and more about assessing complementary measures of ability (e.g. creativity, interdisciplinary thinking, and communication skills). Lastly, students should be exposed to greater amounts of teamwork at all levels of Korean education, instead of excessive competition and rivalry. Transdisciplinary education ideally should involve combining instructors and students from multiple disciplines into a single classroom environment, and forming teams. Students are then exposed to teamwork environments which include unfamiliar situations, requiring them to develop curiosity. They would also learn about trust and trustworthiness, which are important for effective collaboration and team innovativeness. Of course, team-teaching is risky in Korean education if the instructors end up antagonizing each other’s authority in front of students during class. Teachers should instead take the opportunity to enhance their own learning and building interpersonal trust when interacting with each other. It is here where an instructor’s humility can be promoted to impress students. Certainly, there is no single ‘silver bullet’ for simultaneously improving student outcomes and job satisfaction in Korea. But we see these two as correlated objectives. Improving the educational system to allow for reputable AI-driven assessment solutions; showing parents and students that businesses care about critical thinking skill over test scores; and introducing transdisciplinary teamwork to students, can all naturally lead to a more meaningful, entrepreneurial, dynamic, and exciting career development experiences. Perhaps these three tactics could even be combined synergistically; for example, Korean EdTech companies could host transdisciplinary problem-solving team competitions. Overall, shouldn’t the focus be less about educational and training policy, and more about a broader learning policy? Read More
2021.11.12 Hits 747