Bente Nørgaard

Una Beagon

Jenny Koponen

Klara Kövesi

Orcid K Kövesi

Students'

Keywords: Engineering (STEM) universities, teaching structures, teaching practices, pedagogical and didactic approaches, students' perception

INTRODUCTION

Engineering education, in general, is very focused on how to develop the skills and competencies of engineering students, as new expectations and requirements emerge even faster each year. Concepts such as Industry 4.0, which requires competencies in digitisation and the UN's 17 SDG goals which provides a framework for sustainability, are both concepts which require universities to continuously develop their educational programmes. To meet this dynamic, it is important that universities not only pursue 'what to teach' but also progress their pedagogical and didactic methods by also pursuing 'how to teach'. Engineering institutions in Europe apply different pedagogical and didactic methods, which are reflected in the learning activities that are organised for the students. These activities provide students with different experiences in terms of both approaching their learning and their ultimate achievement.

The aim of this study is to shed light on the following questions: What are students' perceptions of the different teaching structures and teaching practices which are provided by European engineering universities and how do students encounter these different teaching approaches.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Understanding engineering students' perceptions of their teaching and learning experiences is an important issue in order to develop efficient, attractive and motivational engineering programmes. According to a study by Korte and Smith [1:12] engineering 'students often reported their most important learning occurred in labs and small group discussion sessions, as well as in study groups'. These teaching and learning experiences in small classroom settings not only encourages active learning but also offers opportunities for direct feedback. They also enhance contact and strengthen the social relationship between students and their lecturers by developing positive emotions and a good classroom atmosphere [START_REF] Hartikainen | Engineering students' perceptions of teaching: teacher-created atmosphere and teaching procedures as triggers of student emotions[END_REF]. In their study, Klegeris and Hurren [START_REF] Klegeris | Impact of problem-based learning in a large classroom setting: student perception and problem-solving skills[END_REF] investigated the impact of using PBL (Problem Based Learning) approaches in a large classroom setting and found a significant positive effect on students' motivation to attend and participate in the classwork.

As highlighted by Parpala [START_REF] Parpala | Exploring the experiences and conceptions of good teaching in higher education: Development of a questionnaire for assessing students' approaches to learning and experiences of the teaching-learning environment[END_REF], students' positive experiences of their teaching and learning environment results in a positive influence on deep learning approaches and negatively on surface learning approaches. However, we have to highlight that there are important disciplinary differences between students' perceptions of the concept of 'good learning'. In STEM disciplines, the analysis of students' best learning experiences showed that students more often refer to their motivation and emotions rather than the content or environment used in their learning [START_REF] Nørgaard | European engineering students' perception of learning and teaching activities[END_REF] confirming the importance of social relations in engineering education [START_REF] Hartikainen | Engineering students' perceptions of teaching: teacher-created atmosphere and teaching procedures as triggers of student emotions[END_REF].

Tayebi et al. [START_REF] Tayebi | Analysis on the lack of motivation and dropout in engineering students in Spain[END_REF] noted that having a poor relationship with professors is one of the major reasons that students drop out in engineering. The top two reasons were the difficulty of engineering studies and poor grades. Their study revealed that 46% of students have thought about abandoning their engineering studies. This is most 50th Annual Conference in September 2022 553 likely related to the commonly recognised difficulty of undertaking engineering studies (identified as the first cause of students' dropout). Salas-Morera et al. [START_REF] Salas-Morera | Factors affecting engineering students' dropout: A case study[END_REF], report that several pedagogical and organisational factors increase the likelihood of students abandoning their engineering studies. These include; inadequate class timetables or planning of exams, overloaded and long syllabi with too many targeted activities, the high level starting point of many courses and difficult exams.

It is widely recognized that university-industry collaboration is highly beneficial for developing engineering students' industry oriented professional competences. The implementation of PBL practices at the project level through partnership with industry seems to be a well-adapted and efficient way to create an emerging learning environment in engineering education. Surprisingly, based on a recent meta-analysis by Chen et al. [START_REF] Chen | Forms of implementation and challenges of PBL in engineering education: a review of literature[END_REF], there are relatively few studies reported in the academic literature with collaboration between university and industry at the project level.

METHODOLOGY

This study has an explorative approach with the aim to explain students' perception of educational and pedagogical approaches applied at various STEM universities in Europe. The work is intended as a feasibility study on students' perceptions, behaviour, and preferences from which concepts and hypotheses can be drawn up for more comprehensive research. It was conducted as part of an Erasmus + research project on the future of engineering education, the A-STEP 2030 [START_REF] Nørgaard | Mapping of Existing Practices and Diverse Pedagogical Approaches[END_REF] [START_REF] Nørgaard | Report on the Methodological Framework of New Pedagogical Approaches[END_REF]. The data was collected through an online survey using the software, SurveyXact. It was ethically approved by Aalborg University and disseminated through the Board of European Students of Technology (BEST) network.

The survey was divided into three main parts. The first part focussed on demographic variables which depicted the students. The second part of the survey included two open-ended questions related to students' experiences in the classroom. These two questions are not part of the analysis presented in this paper. The third part contained questions that sought answers to students' perceptions of learning activities and their study structure. There were 351 respondents to the survey, however 303 completed the demographic information only and 108 completed all questions on the survey. It appeared that the 303 students became stuck in the open-ended question part of the survey and did not move on. However, 108 responses were determined to be valid for the analysis.

In total there were a vast range of Universities represented in the survey from 31 identified countries in Europe (11 from Other). Twenty four European nationalities were identified with 80 (26%) respondents indicating "Other" which denotes non-European nationality. Although the survey was circulated around students within the BEST (Board of European Students of Technology) groups, 56% of respondents identified as female, which is not representative of the gender split within STEM programmes in general. The age of respondents ranged from under 18 to over 34, but 75% of the respondents were included within the 20-24 (inclusive) age bracket. A range of disciplines of study were included, made up of 25% from computer science, 50th Annual Conference in September 2022 554 25% other and the remainder from the main branches of engineering disciplines, maths and science. Students were quite evenly spread from first year to sixth year, with the majority of respondents in third or fourth year.

As this study has a quantitative approach the data will be analysed using statistical methods such as percentages, averages, and correlations to show the diversity of students' perceptions of educational and pedagogical approaches.

RESULTS

Teaching Approaches

In the survey students evaluated the proportion of different teaching approaches used in their degree programme. The four teaching approaches offered for selection included: (1) the proportion of lectures in large groups, (2) small group teaching, (3) laboratory work and (4) project work.

In the survey, the response options were presented as %-categories, divided into 11 response options. In the analysis, the response options were re-coded into new categories to indicate more clearly the students' evaluations. The responses in the categories 70-80% and above were combined. The results of this category is presented in the Table 1.

Although in the survey, students were able to select the proportions within 10% graduations, for simplicity, the responses are presented here by considering how many students reported the percentage of their studies in each of these teaching approaches as 70-80% or more. So, for example, responses were counted where a student indicated that at least 70% of their programme was made up of lecturing in large groups, or teaching in small groups, or so on. 23.0% (n=26) of the respondents indicated that they have 70% or more of their studies as lectures in large groups. This can be considered as a large amount especially as the majority of the respondents were 3rd and 4th year students. At the end phase of an engineering programme, learning should happen mainly in real learning environments instead of lectures in large groups.

7.1% (n=8) of the respondents indicated that 70% or more of their study programme is teaching in small groups. Again, this is a small number especially considering the study phase of the respondents. This is also aligned with the responses connected to lectures in large groups.

50th Annual Conference in September 2022 555 2.7% (n=3) of the respondents said they have 70% or more of their study programme as laboratory exercises. Conversely, 9.7% (n=11) said they do not have laboratory exercises at all in their studies. This is an alarming result in a STEM discipline where it is well known that students benefit from laboratory work in applying theory into practice.

7.1% (n=8) of the respondents indicated that project work made up 70% or more of their studies, which is a surprisingly small number again, considering STEM as the discipline and especially when project work is understood to be a good pedagogical choice and the main teaching approach of some universities. 4.4% (n=5) said they do not have project work at all in their studies. STEM professionals work typically in projects in industry which attests that students should have project work learning environments and experiences in their studies.

Overall, in relation to teaching approaches, the respondents typically had lectures in large groups compared with small group teaching, laboratory work and project work as indicated in Figure 1.

Study Projects

In relation to study projects, the time frame of a study project typically lasted for 1-3 weeks (mode). This category represented 25.9% (n=29) of the respondents. This can be considered as a short time period from the perspective of the development of expertise. The short time period then requires that separate projects in different modules are pedagogically aligned to support the overall learning objectives and development of expertise of the students.

The survey also collected information in relation to the percentage of projects undertaken in collaboration with industry. 48.1% (n=52) of the respondents indicated that they do not have projects in collaboration with industry/business at all (Fig. 2). This is a confounding finding for a STEM survey, especially considering engineering as a discipline. It is evident from prior research, contemporary theories of learning 50th Annual Conference in September 2022 556 and their pedagogical implications that STEM and engineering education benefit from a close connection to real learning environments in the form of industry collaboration.

Impact of Teaching Approaches

The final question asked students about attendance and how often they skip a class because of the way it is taught. Overall, 90.7% (n=92) of the respondents indicated that they skip at least some learning activities because of the way they are taught (Fig. 3). In fact, 65.7% (n=71) respondents indicated that they skip up to 40% of classes as a result of the way they were taught. This study sought to investigate students' perceptions of the different teaching structures and teaching practices and their resulting impact. It is clear that there is a diverse range of practices across Universities in Europe, but what is surprising is that although it is well known that small group and laboratory work are effective teaching practices, 23% of respondents still noted that they have at least 70% of their teaching in lectures in large groups. This is particularly concerning as the majority of respondents were in the latter years of their programmes (3rd and 4th year).

Perhaps more concerning still is that despite an acknowledgement in the education literature about the importance of real life projects and industry collaboration, 48.1% of respondents have no industry project collaboration at all.

However, the most illuminating aspect of this study was the finding that 90.7% of respondents indicated that they choose to skip a particular class because of the way is it taught. This is a wake up call to engineering and STEM educators to show the direct impact that their teaching approach has on student engagement not only in the classroom, but in bringing the students to the classroom in the first place.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to acknowledge the members of BEST (Board of European Students of Technology) for their help in the data collection. Authors also acknowledge their colleagues from the project A-STEP 2030 by the Erasmus+ programme of the European Union, for their constructive feedback.

Fig. 1 .

 1 Fig. 1. Percentage of students responding that at least 70% of their studies is in each mode of learning

Fig. 2 .

 2 Fig. 2. Extent of Collaboration with industry Fig. 3. Percentage of students who skip class 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Table 1 .

 1 Percentage of respondents indicating that at least 70% of their studies use each teaching approach (Response categories 70-80% and above combined).

	Teaching approach	Number of respondents (n)	%
	Lectures in large groups	26	23.0
	Teaching in small groups	8	7.1
	Lab exercises	3	2.7
	Project work	8	7.1

This work was supported by EU Erasmus + and funded under call number 2018-1-FR01-KA203-047854. The European Commission support for the production of this publication does not constitute an endorsement of the contents which reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.


Dr Hassen Aziza

Dr Pascal Taranto

DATA MANAGEMENT: DISPLAY, PROCESS & MONITOR SOCIAL SCIENCE & ENGINEERING VALUE DATA: COMMUNITIES MANAGEMENT Connected device -IoT Collaborative platform

Self-calibrating IoT MultI-sensor platform to Leverage citizen's Empowerment in air pollution.

Objective & Outcomes

Objective

Tackle the major problem of atmospheric pollution in urban environment

Outcomes

Produce accurate environment data and provide groundbreaking solutions for IoT technology in air sensors Process data and provide groundbreaking citizen-oriented interface for monitoring pollution Value data and provide in the follow-up an integrated solution tailored for each city and ready for business, to foster behaviors changes on local and global scale 5/31/22 Context 4 SMILE is a Social and Human Science-oriented project. SMILE is based on the concept of "Empowerment", that is the process that enables individuals to become aware of their capacity to act and to gain access to more power and control over their lives.

" behavior changes"

Participative science and open science

Nudges and crypto-currency

LIVING LABs public-private-citizen partnership

Limitations of mobile commercial sensor devices

Problem: sensor drift Significant part of commercial sensor technologies is sold without initial individual calibration to reduce cost. After deployment, calibration done on a regular basis is needed, otherwise the device will be just a personal gadget drifting over time.

Solution: "in situ" calibration of sensors

The calibration process will leverage on government or private reference equipments. the breakthrough consists of the capacity of the connected sensor to integrate techniques (both software and hardware*) for calibrating sensors dynamically to compensate their drift over time. A route-to-market will be planned to provide European cities with the SMILE solution. A business model will be established to provide European cities with a complete solution tailored to their specific needs. Outdoor Air Quality Index

Main parameters

  Mobile commercial sensor devices • Low-cost but not accurate • Not connected • The "World Before" solution (individualist) Government reference equipment • Accurate but Expensive • Not mobile • Limited in number The collective solution lies between the two: It retains the mobility and the low cost on the one hand and the precision of the measurements on the other hand *Patented technique (SATT Sud-Est)

Confidentielü

  Passage de l'objet à proximité d'une station fixe devices accurate ! Dynamic calibration of sensors deployed in the field Sensors remain in the electronic device. No extraction of the sensors from the devices followed by a recalibration in the laboratory is required (prohibitive on the scale of a distributed sensor network) 10 When the low-cost mobile sensor is co-located with reference instruments A drift compensation is operated in real time Extension of the measurement accuracy of reference equipments at any point in the urban space, using a dynamic network of : Interconnected et self-calibrating devices ü Providing real-time mapping and analysis of air quality at the street level 12 SMILE solution in a pilot city ü Marseille City and the "Métropole" Aix-Marseille Provence Deployment of the SMILE solution to the creation of a start-up ü SAAT Sud-Est support

Cell phone App

Collaborative platform (data sharing and analysis)

Geo localized data Outline


Klara Kövesi
email: klara.kovesi@ensta-bretagne.fr

Greet Langie

Anne Gardner

Anikó Jennifer Griffiths

A Kálmán

M Ruth-Polmear

INTERNATIONAL PRACTICE OF CAPACITY BUILDING IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION: A COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY

Keywords: capacity building, teaching staff's professional development, comparative study

Capacity building is a corner stone for having well prepared and effective teaching staff in engineering education. Despite the importance of capacity building in engineering education, there is relatively little research on this topic. In this paper, we address this gap by reporting on an international comparative study on capacity building practices in university-level engineering education. We examine how capacity building is organised in seven European institutions (in Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Sweden, UK) and Australia, based on institutional education policies and practices. We compare the preparation of teaching staff, their initial training, and continuing capacity building activities throughout their careers. To do this, we applied a qualitative approach, collecting data through (1) a structured questionnaire answered by the members of the SEFI SIG on Capacity building and (2) written notes produced during an international workshop on capacity building at the 2021 SEFI conference. We then conducted a comparative case study, exploring similarities and differences between incentives for permanent academic staff to engage in capacity building, how capacity building is organised, and at what point in their careers staff engage in it. Our findings indicate very diverse approaches, rules and practices as well as different obstacles and challenges for engineering education. The outcomes of our study can be used by policy makers to inform capacity building practices and engineering education in HEIs (Higher Education Institutions), and our questionnaire provides a tool for monitoring and reporting practices throughout the sector.

INTRODUCTION

Accelerated technological development, population growth and environmental change lead to constant changes in the sociotechnical landscapes in which engineers operate. These changes necessitate responsiveness in engineering education to prepare students for the shifting realities of the workforce and society at large. As the purveyors of technical content and professional socialization, engineering educators play a key role. Changing expectations for engineering graduates and developments in cognitive science have emphasized the need for educators and institutions to engage in capacity building [START_REF] Adams | Reframing Professional Development: A Systems Approach to Preparing Engineering Educators to Educate Tomorrow's Engineers[END_REF]. Capacity building, also known as pedagogical training or professional development, is an important mechanism for improving engineering education [START_REF] Jamieson | Innovation with Impact: Creating a Culture for Scholarly and Systematic Innovation in Engineering Education[END_REF]. Academic staff who participate in capacity building are more likely to use active learning pedagogies and studentcentered approaches [START_REF] Lattuca | Professional Development, Departmental Contexts, and Use of Instructional Strategies[END_REF], and the adoption of such evidence-based practices improves learning and student outcomes [START_REF] Sorcinelli | Why now is the time for evidence-based faculty development[END_REF].

In this study, we collected and analysed data regarding the ways in which capacity building (pedagogical training) is organised for permanent academic staff at nine institutions that offer engineering programs. Employing an exploratory, comparative approach, we address the following research questions (RQs):

RQ1

What are the incentives for permanent academic staff to engage in pedagogical training?

RQ2

How is this pedagogical training organised (who designs and delivers the provision, and how tailored to a specific discipline is the training)?

RQ3

At what point in their careers, and how frequently, do permanent academic staff engage in pedagogical training?

LITERATURE REVIEW

The notion of capacity building has been defined as 'the process through which individuals, organizations and societies obtain, strengthen and maintain the capabilities to set and achieve their own development objectives over time' [5:5].

Even though capacity building has been shown to benefit staff development and student learning, research in the United States has shown that participation is generally low and that most engineering educators continue to learn by trial and error [START_REF] Boice | Advice for New Faculty Members[END_REF]. Further, most capacity building opportunities in the United States are organised by social scientists (having no, or little, engineering background and teaching expertise) for a campus-wide audience and without discipline-specific examples and practices [START_REF] Felder | Engineering Instructional Development: Programs, Best Practices, and Recommendations[END_REF]. Consequently, 'there is generally neither a meaningful incentive for engineering faculty members to participate in instructional development nor meaningful reward for any improvements in teaching that may result from their participation' [7:90-91]. Perceptions of incentives and barriers can vary depending on the different roles academic staff have in their institutions; According to Sabagh and Saroyan's [START_REF] Sabagh | Professors' perceived barriers and incentives for teaching improvement[END_REF] comparative study, there are significant differences between permanent and non-permanent (tenured and non-tenured) academic staff's continuous engagement in capacity building for pedagogical improvement. In particular, non-permanent academic staff are more influenced by institutional cultures, which are often perceived as unsupportive of teaching excellence compared to research due to, for example, perceptions of a lack of appreciation, professional rewards and support for teaching activities and development.

Permanent academic staff identified high workload and lack of time as the main barriers to engage in capacity building. However, in their study, Felder et al. [7:90] identified several incentives for engaging in capacity development, including institutions placing high value on teaching, teaching improvement activities, selfmotivation, efficiencies of time, and teaching evaluation [see also [START_REF] Graham | Teaching Cultures Survey[END_REF].

Another challenge in capacity building is the lack of time and incentives for sharing results and effective practices, unlike in research where there are clear and relevant incentives for sharing results [START_REF] Holmberg | The university and transformation towards sustainability: The strategy used at Chalmers University of Technology[END_REF]. Furthermore, even when staff have an individual interest in teaching improvement activities, high requirements for research productivity can prevent academic staff from dedicating effort and time for it.

The challenges for academic staff to engage in capacity building are different during early-, mid-and late-career stages [START_REF] Felder | Engineering Instructional Development: Programs, Best Practices, and Recommendations[END_REF]. Therefore capacity building programmes need to ensure relevance throughout academics' entire careers. Provision of capacitybuilding opportunities for early-career academic staff is crucial for an institution's education performance as these educators often provide the majority of undergraduate and practical courses, thus playing a significant role in students' education [START_REF] Fong | Examining the impact of four teaching development programmes for engineering teaching assistants[END_REF]. Contrarily, if there is no required initial training (e.g., teaching certificates) for new academic staffor only limited opportunities for participating in adequate professional development programmes -, early-career staff are forced to resort to developing their teaching skills through trial and error, based on their personal experience and with limited efficiency.

METHODOLOGY

To explore similarities and differences in capacity building practices across institutions, we developed and distributed a survey among the members of the Special Interest Group of SEFI focusing on Capacity Building (https://www.sefi.be/activities/special-interest-groups/capacity-building/). The following 9 institutions are considered in this study: (1) Budapest University of Technology and Economics (Hungary), (2) ENSTA Bretagne (France), (3) Hamburg University of Technology (Germany), (4) KU Leuven (Belgium), ( 5) LAB University of Applied Sciences (Finland), ( 6) University College London (UK), ( 7) University of Technology Sydney (Australia), (8) Umeå University (Sweden) and ( 9) Vrije Universiteit Brussel (Belgium).

The survey was designed based around qualitative data and arising themes from a preliminary discussion in the SIG meeting at the 2021 SEFI conference covering capacity building approaches at 7 of the included institutions. We developed four multiple-choice questions with response alternatives that covered all scenarios we identified during the preliminary discussion. For each question, we also included two For each question, it was possible to select multiple answers. The survey (See Appendix) was administered through a web survey tool.

RESULTS

The findings of the study are presented in the following three sub-sections, directly related to the three research questions (see above).

Incentives

To gather information regarding the reasons why staff engage in pedagogical training, we asked: "What incentives do permanent academic staff at your institution have to engage in pedagogical training?" Response items are related to three types of incentives: (1) formal requirements (mandatory for all/part of the permanent academic staff or required for promotion), (2) formal incentives (wage setting or noneconomic incentives, such as diploma or awards) and ( 3) informal incentives (valued by colleagues, students or others outside of the institution). The exact wording of the response items can be found in the Appendix.

Figure 1. Overview of responses concerning incentives

The responses to this question indicate that all three types of incentives are used at the included institutions, but that informal incentives may occur slightly more often than formal requirements or formal incentives (Figure 1). Six institutions provide informal incentives, such as (1) opportunities for teachers to meet for stimulating pedagogical discussions, supportive networks, opportunities to meet pedagogical experts, (2) support for dealing with teaching challenges and saving time, (3) recognition by colleagues and university leadership, and (4) intrinsic motivation. 3 institutions provide only informal incentives and only one respondent indicated that their institution has both formal requirements, formal incentives, and informal incentives.

Organisation

Participants were asked about the ways in which pedagogical training is organised at their institutions. We asked two separate questions to explore this aspect of pedagogical training. The first aimed to explore the level within the institution where pedagogical training is designed and delivered. Response items for this question included organisation at the national/regional, institutional, faculty, or departmental level (see Appendix). 7 of the 9 participants indicated that pedagogical training at their institutions is organised in a top-down manner, by a pedagogical development centre or other entity at their institution (Figure 2). 3 of these participants also indicated that faculties organise additional training for their teachers. Free text answers related to this item further indicate that training at the faculty level tends to be organised in a bottom-up manneras a response to pedagogical challenges experienced by the faculties' staff. One participant indicated that pedagogical training at their institution is organised at a national level. Thus, 3 of the included institutions appear to combine top-down and bottom-up approaches to pedagogical development, while 5 institutions only employ top-down approaches. One participant indicated that no pedagogical training is offered at their institution at any level. The second question focused on the level of discipline specificity with which pedagogical training is organised: "How is pedagogical training organised across different faculties/disciplines at your institution?". Response items for this question included options indicating ( 1) multidisciplinary (open to staff from all faculties/disciplines), (2) disciplinary (tailored to staff from a specific faculty/discipline), and (3) generic monodisciplinary (offered to staff from one faculty/discipline, but not tailored to their disciplines) approaches.

Participants' responses indicate that the majority of the included institutions (n=8) employ multidisciplinary approaches, often combined with monodisciplinary or generic monodisciplinary approaches. One institution was categorized as not offering any pedagogical training.

DISCUSSION

Our results indicate a diversity of approaches, rules, policies and practices related to capacity building. This is in line with findings from other studies: even research focusing on just research-intensive institutions within a single country (UK) have found that "job titles, expectations, development opportunities, reward systems and careers structures of educators vary widely across institutions" [START_REF] Fung | Rewarding educators and education leaders in research-intensive universities Higher Education Academy[END_REF]. It would be valuable to explore possible reasons for, and effects of, this diversity, as it may indicate both strengths (e.g., that many capacity building programmes are developed in context-sensitive approaches) and weaknesses (e.g., that many capacity building programmes are developed ad hoc and without clear aims and strategies).

Our analysis of incentives for engaging in capacity building activities shows that no institution in our study solely offers formal incentives; these are always coupled with either formal requirements, which may indicate commitment from senior leadership, or with informal incentives such as peer esteem and networks, which may indicate an environment where good practice and engagement with pedagogical development is valued locally. We have also observed a relatively low overlap between formal requirements and informal incentives, which raises questions about whether and how they are related. Are there any systematic differences in how formal requirements and informal incentives are organised across contexts? Could formal requirements decrease rather than strengthen a culture in which pedagogical training is valued by students and colleagues? Or do institutions that lack a strong tradition of valuing pedagogical training resort to formal requirements to increase participation and the perceived value of training activities?

In our analysis of how pedagogical training is organised, we noted that some institutions combine top-down and bottom-up approaches, while others only seem to employ top-down approaches. It would be interesting to explore opportunities and challenges that may arise when institutions in different contexts employ either or both of these approaches and the reasons for their decisions to do so. This may be related to Felder et al.'s [START_REF] Felder | Engineering Instructional Development: Programs, Best Practices, and Recommendations[END_REF] conclusion that there is no meaningful perceived incentive for engineering educators to participate in capacity building organised at institutional level where there is a lack of discipline-specific examples.

Further, our results indicate that permanent academic staff, on average, engage in pedagogical training less than once a year. We also found that staff at most of the included institutions primarily engage in pedagogical training during their first five years of employment. These findings suggest that continuous pedagogical development may not be adequately valued or prioritised at some of the included institutions. More specifically, it appears that pedagogical training is often deemed necessary/desirable for junior academics, but that senior staff do not need to continue developing their pedagogical skills.

50th Annual Conference in September 2022 387 Finally, we observed the following potential relationships between dimensions explored in this study: (1) If pedagogical training is not valued throughout the organisation and as part of permanent academic staff members' careers, informal incentives will likely be weaker. It may also be that the relationship with the incentives on offer may change over an individual's career or that the opportunities for engagement with relevant capacity building decrease as careers progress.

(2) In our sample, we noticed that institutions with monodisciplinary approaches have 'formal' requirements and institutions with frequent engagement in pedagogical training have 'formal' incentives or requirements. We therefore suggest that future research should explore any potential relationships between the ways in which pedagogical training is enforced or valued through different forms of incentives, how pedagogical training is organised in terms of disciplinary approaches and levels of organisation, the frequency with which permanent academic staff engage in it, and at what stages in their careers they do so. We expect that both large-scale, quantitative analyses and in-depth qualitative studies will be needed to better understand the role of capacity building for improving engineering education practice.

Limitations

Due to the complexity and large variety in institutional organisation of capacity building, interpreting the results has been challenging. More in-depth research will be needed to explore nuances, for example regarding different groups of academic staff. It should also be noted that all participating institutions are active members of SEFI, with staff who engage in the Capacity Building SIG, which may have influenced their experiences of and knowledge about how capacity building is organised at their institutions.

Also, in a written comment, one participant added an option we had not included in our survey: pedagogical training is also regularly organised in a decentralized manner, for example by the institution's digital learning team. This is likely the case in other institutions as well and should be taken into account in future studies.

Finally, participants may have relied on different interpretations of "permanent academic staff". For example, "permanent" can be interpreted more narrowlyas staff who have obtained tenure, or more broadlyas staff with other types of longterm contracts. There are also distinctions to be made around academic staff on research and teaching tracks and those on teaching and scholarship tracks.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, our study has taken a snapshot of capacity building for engineering educators at nine institutions across seven European countries and Australia. It offers preliminary data and a framework for studying and monitoring capacity building across institutions which can be used to inform policy makers and create a common understanding of activity across the sector. This is particularly important at this time, since the expectations of staff at all levels in organisations related to their own and colleagues' future engagement with education are changing. The international Teaching Cultures Survey [START_REF] Graham | Teaching Cultures Survey[END_REF], for example, indicates an expectation 50th Annual Conference in September 2022 388 from university staff at all levels that reward and recognition for quality teaching will increase.

50th

  Annual Conference in September 2022383 open-ended alternatives ("other", "comments") to allow participants to enter responses that had not previously emerged. Finally, we added an additional openended question ("comments") at the end of the survey. Participants were required to respond to all multiple-choice questions, but open-ended questions were optional.

  For only one institution, no incentives or requirements were reported. More specifically, the results indicate that formal requirements are in place at only 4 of the included institutions. Formal incentives were identified for 3 institutions, two of which also have formal requirements. Examples of formal incentives are: (1) including criteria related to wage setting or promotion, or (2) pedagogical awards and diploma. In total, formal requirements and/or formal incentives were identified for five institutions.

Figure 2 .

 2 Figure 2. Overview of responses concerning organizational levels

Figure 3 .

 3 Figure 3. Overview of responses concerning organizational approaches

We intend to follow up on this study with a larger, explanatory mixed methods study, including more institutions and an in-depth investigation of incentives and motivation related to participation in capacity building. We welcome other engineering education scholars to join our group and projects.