geomatics-05-00002

geomatics-05-00002

Geomatics 2025, 5(1), 2; doi:10.3390/geomatics5010002

Article

Lessons Learned from the LBS2ITS Project—An Interdisciplinary Approach for Curricula Development in Geomatics Education

Günther Retscher 1,*, Jelena Gabela ¹ and Vassilis Gikas ²

¹

Department of Geodesy and Geoinformation, TU Wien—Vienna University of Technology, 1040 Vienna, Austria

²

School of Rural, Surveying and Geoinformatics Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, 157 80 Athens, Greece

*

Correspondence: guenther.retscher@tuwien.ac.at

Citation: Retscher, G.; Gabela, J.; Gikas, V. Lessons Learned from the LBS2ITS Project—An Interdisciplinary Approach for Curricula Development in Geomatics Education. Geomatics 2025, 5, 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/geomatics5010002

Academic Editor: Antonio Vettore

Received: 6 October 2024 / Revised: 20 December 2024 / Accepted: 26 December 2024 / Published: 30 December 2024

Abstract

The LBS2ITS project, titled “Curricula Enrichment Delivered through the Application of Location-Based Services to Intelligent Transport Systems”, is a collaborative initiative funded by the Erasmus+ program of the European Union. The primary objectives of the project were twofold: to develop new curricula and modernize existing programs at four universities in Sri Lanka. This effort was driven by the need to align educational offerings with the rapidly evolving fields of Location-Based Services (LBSs) and Intelligent Transport Systems (ITSs). A key feature of the LBS2ITS project is its interdisciplinary approach, which draws on expertise from a range of academic disciplines. The project has successfully developed curricula that integrate diverse fields such as geomatics, cartography, transport engineering, urban planning, environmental engineering, and computer science. By blending these perspectives, the curricula provide students with a holistic understanding of LBSs and ITSs, preparing them to address complex, real-world challenges that span multiple sectors. In this paper, the curriculum development and modernization process is detailed, with a particular focus on the two key phases: teacher training and curriculum development. The teacher training phase was crucial in equipping educators with the skills and knowledge necessary to deliver the new and updated courses. This phase also provided an opportunity for teachers to familiarize themselves with the latest trends and technologies in LBSs and ITSs, ensuring that they could effectively convey this information to students. The development phase focused on the creation of the curriculum itself, ensuring that it met both academic standards and industry needs. The curriculum was designed to be flexible and responsive to emerging technologies and methodologies, allowing for continuous improvement and adaptation. Additionally, the paper delves into the theoretical frameworks underpinning the methodologies employed in the project. These include Problem-Based Learning (PBL) and Problem-Based e-Learning (PBeL), both of which encourage active student engagement and foster critical thinking by having students tackle real-world problems. The emphasis on PBL ensures that students not only acquire theoretical knowledge but also develop practical problem-solving skills applicable to their future careers in LBSs and ITSs. Furthermore, the project incorporated rigorous quality assurance (QA) mechanisms to ensure that the teaching methods and curriculum content met high standards. This included regular feedback loops, stakeholder involvement, and iterative refinement of course materials based on evaluations from both students and industry experts. These QA measures are essential for maintaining the relevance, effectiveness, and sustainability of the curricula over time. In summary, the LBS2ITS project represents a significant effort to enrich and modernize university curricula in Sri Lanka by integrating cutting-edge technologies and interdisciplinary approaches. Through a combination of innovative teaching methodologies, comprehensive teacher training, and robust quality assurance practices, the project aims to equip students with the skills and knowledge needed to excel in the fields of LBSs and ITSs.

Keywords:

location-based services (LBSs); intelligent transport systems (ITSs); Erasmus+; capacity building in higher education; teacher training; curricula development and modernization

1. Introduction

Curricula Enrichment delivered through the Application of Location-Based Services to Intelligent Transport Systems is an Erasmus+ Capacity Building in Higher Education project funded by the European Union delivered for four Sri Lankan universities (abbreviated as LBS2ITS). The key action of the project is cooperation for the purpose of innovation and the exchange of good practices in higher education of geomatics, transport engineering, urban planning, and computer science. The project activities started in 2021 and were completed at the end of 2024.

At the time of writing the proposal in 2019/2020, Sri Lanka was in the middle-income category. The country was focusing on long-term strategic and structural development challenges for the transition to an upper middle-income country. This has changed first due to COVID-19 and second due to the worst economic and political crisis in 70 years that started in April 2022. During the last decade, the immediate priority of national physical development has raised pressing mobility issues in the western region of Sri Lanka (27% of the SL population and >50% of GDP). In response to these issues, the “The National Physical Planning Policy and the Plan 2050, 2018”, expedites actions aligned into four ‘development corridors’, which aim to connect all seaports and airports by expressways and improved high-speed railway links to serve at least 60% of the country’s population. Consequently, efficient, affordable, and reliable transportation along these corridors has been identified as a national priority.

These goals are even more important now that Sri Lanka is facing, in addition to food and drug shortages, fuel shortages that immobilized the country. To ensure a sustainable transport system and mobility, a good Intelligent Transport System (ITS) and Location-Based Services (LBSs) are necessary. More than ever, good engineers with up-to-date knowledge and experience working on good technology are crucial in Sri Lanka’s recovery and development to previous goals. This is also in line with the “National Physical Development Policy and the Plan 2050, 2018” of Sri Lanka, which is to “update the country’s workforce by disseminating knowledge to maintain ongoing developments to the state-of-the-art smart transportation standards as practiced by developed and well-organized cities”.

Thus, the LBS2ITS project focused on regional cooperation to build capacity in Sri Lanka as well as international cooperation. The European project partners are (1) the Department of Geodesy and Geoinformation, Vienna University of Technology (TUW) as coordinator, (2) the Faculty of Transport and Traffic, Dresden University of Technology (TUD), and (3) the School of Rural and Surveying Engineering, National Technical University of Athens (NTUA). The universities of the Sri Lankan partner country are (4) the Faculty of Geomatics, Sabaragamuwa University of Sri Lanka (SUSL), (5) Departments of Town and Country Planning and Civil Engineering, University of Moratuwa (UoM), (6) the Faculty of Technology, University of Sri Jayawardhanapura (USJ), and (7) the Faculty of Computing, General Sir John Kotewaa Defense University (KDU). Their background lies either in geomatics, urban planning, transport engineering, environmental engineering, or computer science.

The chosen approach in the project for curricula development was executed mainly in two phases—training and development. The training phase did not only focus on the materials and teaching but also introduced the teachers to new pedagogic methods, e-learning, and quality assurance (QA) in teaching. The development phase focused on the learning outcome definition, material development, and holding the pilot courses before the end of the project’s lifetime. This phase also adapted the materials of the existing courses at each institution that needed modernization. This approach is in line with a statement in Parashar and Parashar [1]: “Curriculum overall can be viewed as a composite whole, including the learner, the teacher, teaching and learning methodologies, anticipated and unanticipated experiences, outputs, and outcomes possible within a learning institution”.

In this paper, we will detail both phases of curriculum development and the educational and theoretical reasoning for introducing certain methods. We will also introduce Problem-Based (e-)Learning (PBeL), a pedagogic method we first published in [2]. Lastly, we will provide an explanation of our comprehensive and integrated approach to the curricula development and modernization that, in addition to cooperation between diverse project partners, includes consultations with various Sri Lankan government, education, and private stakeholders.

Section 2 firstly introduces and provides background information about the four Sri Lankan partners and their respective universities they belong to. The following Section 3 defines the topics of this project, LBSs and ITSs, and provides some background knowledge. Section 4 and Section 5 go into the core of the paper, which are the two phases of the curricula development. Firstly, in Section 4, the results of a survey of the existing courses at the four Sri Lankan partner universities are presented in Section 4.1. The implementation of PBL plays a significant role in this respect (see Section 4.2), followed by the QA in teaching in Section 4.3. Section 4.4 presents the six train-the-teachers (TTT) courses held in the project. In Section 5, firstly the pre-requisites for curricula development are summarized in Section 5.1, followed by the development of an ontology in Section 5.2 and the role of the stakeholders and external experts in Section 5.3. Finally, the last section concludes the paper and discusses 13 questions and their answers learned through the gained experiences in the LBS2ITS project (Section 6).

2. Introduction of the Sri Lankan Partner Universities

In this section, the specializations and backgrounds of the four Sri Lankan partners in their respective universities are introduced. From this brief discussion, the need for including LBS and ITS education in their curricula has been identified.

The first partner is the Sabaragamuwa University of Sri Lanka (SUSL), located inland in Belihuloya. Since its founding in 1996, SUSL has grown to become a flagship, known for the excellence of its teaching, research, and service to local, national, and international communities. More than 4000 students studying across all the disciplines in agriculture, applied sciences, geomatics, management, medicine, social sciences, languages, and technology, in undergraduate courses and postgraduate courses. The Faculty of Geomatics is the main partner, which introduced the BSc in Surveying Sciences degree program in 1997. This was the first time in the history of the university system in Sri Lanka that such a degree program was introduced by a university, fulfilling a much-felt need of the country. The broad objective of the program is to make the recipient graduate a person with academic qualifications and technical expertise to practice the sciences of Earth and Space measurements. The degree program is a four-year course leading to the only such degree awarded in Sri Lanka. Five specialization schemes, such as surveying and geodesy, land management, hydrographic surveying, remote sensing, and GIS, fulfill the demands of the present-day spatial science industry. These programs have been accredited by both local and foreign professional institutions, including RICS, FIG, and IBSC-IHO. Starting from 2017, the faculty is offering the Master of Surveying Science degree, and about 60 candidates have been enrolled at present and are continuing their studies.

Presently, the faculty consists of two departments: (1) Department of Surveying and Geodesy (SUGEO) and (2) Department of Remote Sensing and GIS (RSGIS). Both departments of the faculty were established in 2004, which makes them two of the youngest departments of SUSL. The two departments jointly conduct the first five semesters of the degree program as a foundation course, and within the next three semesters, offer three areas of specialization as (1) surveying and geodesy, (2) cartography and GIS, and (3) photogrammetry and remote sensing.

The University of Moratuwa (UOM), Sri Lanka, as a second partner, is an independent state university located at Katubedda, Moratuwa. UOM consists of five faculties, namely architecture, engineering, information technology, business, and graduate studies, with 19 academic departments offering 11 Bachelors degree programs to students selected by the University Grants Commission (UGC), and 56 postgraduate programs together with MSc, Phil, and PhD research-based postgraduate degrees. The university has an undergraduate student population of around 7700. Two departments serve as project partners, i.e., the Department of Town and Country Planning and the Transport Engineering Group of the Department of Civil Engineering.

The BSc in Town and Country Planning (BSc.T & CP) degree is offered by the Department of Town and Country Planning (established in 1973), which is administratively located within the faculty of architecture at UOM. This department is the only provider of specialist town and country planning education in Sri Lanka, both at undergraduate and postgraduate levels. This has consequent strategic significance to the university in an era of rapid urbanization in Sri Lanka. The department also offers two master’s programs: Master of Environmental Planning and Master of Spatial Planning, Management, and Design. These degrees trace their origins to the establishment of the department with a similar student cohort to the original diploma program.

The Transport Engineering Group is an integral part of the Department of Civil Engineering. It is comprised of academic staff who have obtained post-graduate qualifications in different areas of transportation engineering that include traffic engineering, highway engineering, and transport planning. It is a leading academic group in transport and highway engineering within Sri Lanka. The group is responsible for conducting lectures, practical sessions, and research for civil engineering undergraduate students. The group also conducts two postgraduate courses: M.Eng./PG Diploma in Highway and Traffic Engineering and M.Sc./PG Diploma in Transportation.

The third partner belongs to the University of Sri Jayewardenepura (USJ). Situated in the heart of Colombo, USJ boasts of a long and glorious history, having been established in 1959 at Gangodawila. Formerly known as Vidyodaya Pirivena, USJ was the essence of the revival of Sri Lankan education. It is the second oldest university in Sri Lanka and the first university established in independent Ceylon. Today, the university stands strong with eight faculties: faculty of humanities and social sciences, faculty of applied sciences, the faculty of management studies and commerce, the faculty of medical sciences, the faculty of graduate studies, the faculty of engineering, the faculty of technology, and its latest addition, the faculty of allied health sciences. The university is home to over 12,000 undergraduates and over 1000 postgraduate students. It is considered the largest university in terms of student population in Sri Lanka.

The Government of Sri Lanka introduced the technology stream to the Sri Lankan school system in 2013 as a strategy of harnessing the talents of youth to capture the advantage of relevant emerging technologies to drive the economy by providing an education that embraces competencies to satisfy the needs of the nation. USJ had come forward accepting to establish the first-ever faculty of technology in a Sri Lankan university to support this government initiative. The faculty of technology is comprised of three major departments, named the Department of Biosystems Technology, the Department of Engineering Technology, and the Department of Information and Communication Technology. The faculty of technology is offering three degree programs, named Bachelor of Biosystems Technology Honours, Bachelor of Engineering Technology Honours, and Bachelor of Information and Communication Technology. All three departments are offering different modules that utilize GIS and remote sensing concepts. The main partners in the LBS2ITS project come from the group of environmental engineering. They deal with air pollution monitoring; sensors for positioning, navigation, and mapping of pollution; spatial analysis of pollution sources; as well as modeling and GIS-based decision support systems for air quality risk assessment.

The fourth partner is from the General Sir John Kotelawala Defence University (KDU). This university was initially established as the “General Sir John Kotelawala Defence Academy” by the Parliamentary Act No 68 of 1981, and subsequently it was elevated to university status by the amendment Act No 27 of 1988, thereby empowering it to award bachelor’s and postgraduate degrees in defence studies. KDU is a member of the Association of Commonwealth Universities (United Kingdom) and maintains necessary standards for educating and grooming officer cadets to meet the challenges of modern defence management. KDU is open for civil students who wish to continue their higher studies in the fields of engineering, law, management, social sciences, and IT. Officers with exceptional performance in reputed universities/institutions can pursue postgraduate studies in accordance with the requirements of the service to which they belong. Civil professionals are also offered a place at postgraduate studies to excel in and study a postgraduate degree in their related field of expertise.

The Faculty of Computing (FOC) of KDU is the first Computing Faculty established in the Sri Lankan state university system dedicated to offering a broad range of five computing degree programs named Bachelor of Science (Hons) in Computer Science (CS), Computer Engineering (CE), Software Engineering (SE), Information Technology (IT), and Information Systems (ISs). It provides an appropriate understanding of theoretical and algorithmic foundations to cutting-edge developments in intelligence systems, artificial intelligence (AI), LBS, computer vision, software engineering, GIS, and other areas in the computing domain. Further, these programs generally intend to prepare students with skills of designing and implementing software solutions, devising new ways to use computers, and developing effective ways to solve computing problems as computing scientists. In addition to sound fundamental knowledge, students must possess systems thinking, the ability to analyze business problems, communication skills, and teamwork skills in face-to-face and virtual settings. All of these five degree programs have been designed in accordance with ACM/IEEE international guidelines and the requirements of the Sri Lanka Qualification Framework.

Both in 2018 and 2019, a two-day workshop for students of SUSL covering the topics of LBS and PNT was held. The first author of this paper was involved from the beginning. The need for education in LBS in Sri Lanka was identified throughout this student training. This then led to the cooperation within the LBS2ITS project, and the project proposal was prepared and submitted.

3. Background of the Two Main Project Topics

This section will briefly describe and connect the two main topics of the LBS2ITS project, i.e., LBSs and ITSs.

LBSs refer to applications that leverage the geographic location of a user to enhance or personalize a service [3]. These are typically mobile applications, such as those on smartphones, that provide context-aware information, tailored to both the user’s location and the specific context of the device. Various terms like “location-aware”, “location-related”, and “location services” are also commonly used to describe LBS [3]. As information and communication technologies (ICT) continue to integrate seamlessly into daily life, 4A services (anytime, anywhere, for anyone, and anything) are being developed to support societal and environmental goals. According to the white paper of Huang et al. [4], LBS provide numerous opportunities, particularly in areas like traffic management and urban planning, but they also introduce challenges such as privacy concerns, ethical issues, and legal complications that need to be addressed.

The transportation sector has been one of the primary fields for the application of LBS. These services are used extensively for driver assistance, passenger information systems, and vehicle management. One of the most well-known examples of LBSs is car navigation systems, which offer real-time traffic data and way-finding guidance to drivers. These systems often rely on crowd-sourced traffic and road information to provide real-time navigation support, alerting drivers to conditions such as congestion, road closures, and accidents.

Beyond traditional car navigation, LBS and tracking technologies have become integral to vehicle fleet management and logistics, streamlining the tracking of goods and vehicles over long distances. These applications enhance operational efficiency and reduce costs for logistics companies by optimizing routes and monitoring the location of vehicles in real time.

Recent advancements in LBS have expanded their use beyond navigation and fleet management. Emerging applications now focus on more comprehensive services, such as driver assistance systems, pedestrian guidance, and passenger support. For example, LBS applications are being developed to help users locate available on-street parking, deliver safety alerts, and provide multi-modal routing options that incorporate various forms of transport, such as buses, trains, and bicycles. These systems are designed to promote more sustainable and efficient mobility solutions, encouraging behaviors that reduce carbon emissions and contribute to greener, healthier urban environments.

Furthermore, LBS are being applied to foster more active forms of mobility, such as walking and cycling, by providing navigation and guidance tailored to pedestrians and cyclists. These services not only enhance the convenience of urban transport but also support environmental goals by encouraging lower carbon footprints and more sustainable modes of travel. Given the growing importance of LBS in transportation and urban planning, these topics are a major focus in LBS education. Courses related to LBS emphasize pedestrian and vehicle navigation, guidance systems, and the broader impact of these technologies on urban mobility and environmental sustainability.

In summary, LBS have evolved to become indispensable tools in various sectors, particularly transportation. Their ability to integrate real-time information and location-based data has revolutionized navigation, vehicle management, and urban mobility. As these technologies continue to advance, LBS education increasingly focuses on preparing students to develop and implement innovative solutions that contribute to a more connected, efficient, and environmentally responsible future.

ITS are designed to provide innovative solutions for various modes of transportation and traffic management to enhance the overall efficiency, safety, and user experience within transport networks. By leveraging advanced technologies, ITS applications enable users to make more informed decisions, promoting safer, more coordinated, and ’smarter’ use of transportation infrastructure. Although the definition of ITS has evolved over time, its core objective remains the same: to improve the safety, efficiency, and sustainability of transport systems.

Auer et al. [5] describe ITSs as ’operational systems of various technologies that, when combined and managed, improve the operating capabilities of the overall system.’ This combination of technologies includes tools like sensors, data analytics, and communication networks that work together to optimize transport operations and address the challenges of modern mobility, such as congestion, safety, and environmental impact.

ITS is increasingly viewed as a critical component of the wider concept of smart cities, which integrate information and communication technologies (ICT) to create more sustainable, livable, and efficient urban environments [6]. Within the framework of smart cities, ITS plays a pivotal role in optimizing transport systems and improving urban mobility. For instance, smart street lighting systems can be integrated with ITSs to prioritize traffic flows, reduce energy consumption, and improve safety. Similarly, ITSs can enable emergency services to avoid congested areas, ensuring faster response times and more efficient service delivery.

The applications of ITSs are wide-ranging, addressing various aspects of urban and inter-urban mobility. Some examples include the following:

Bicycle-friendly infrastructure: Smart lighting systems designed specifically for cyclists help to improve safety and visibility, particularly in urban areas.

Emergency services routing: ITS helps emergency vehicles navigate through busy areas by providing real-time traffic information and route optimization, reducing delays in critical situations.

Safer journeys for children: ITS applications can be used to create safer routes for children traveling to and from school, using real-time monitoring and route planning to avoid hazardous areas or high-traffic zones.

Route planning and charging station selection: For electric vehicles, ITS systems provide real-time information on traffic conditions, the availability of charging stations, and optimal routes, helping to extend range and reduce anxiety related to vehicle battery life.

Car sharing and ride-hailing services: ITS supports the optimization of shared mobility services by providing dynamic routing, real-time demand predictions, and efficient fleet management.

Street lighting optimization: Smart lighting systems adjust brightness levels based on traffic conditions and time of day, improving safety while reducing energy consumption.

ITSs also support a variety of additional applications that contribute to the sustainability and quality of life within smart cities. For example (see, e.g., [7]):

Public transport optimization: Technologies such as real-time passenger information, electronic ticketing, and predictive analytics for tramways and electric buses are improving the efficiency and attractiveness of public transport systems.

Pedestrian and bicycle routing: ITS can offer customized routing options for pedestrians and cyclists, encouraging more sustainable forms of transport by providing the safest and most convenient paths.

Air pollution and environmental monitoring: ITS technologies can integrate air quality sensors and pollution monitoring systems to provide real-time data on environmental conditions, informing both commuters and city planners about the impact of transportation on air quality.

Traffic management systems: Real-time traffic monitoring and data analytics help manage congestion, predict traffic patterns, and optimize the flow of vehicles, contributing to more efficient transport networks.

Waste and water management: Smart cities often integrate ITSs with broader environmental management systems, using sensors and data to optimize waste collection routes or monitor water quality in urban areas.

In summary, ITSs play a crucial role in transforming transport networks by integrating cutting-edge technologies that improve the safety, efficiency, and sustainability of mobility systems. As cities continue to embrace smart technologies, ITS will be instrumental in supporting the development of more resilient, environmentally friendly, and user-centric transportation solutions. These systems are not only foundational to the operation of smart cities but also have a significant impact on the quality of life by promoting safer, cleaner, and more efficient mobility options for all residents.

It is quite obvious from the high-level descriptions of LBS and ITS that both concepts are connected and the combination of the two is capable of improving city mobility and overall the quality of life in cities. Parashar and Parashar [1] stated that “the interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, or holistic approaches in engineering courses are a positive step, and curricular transformations and research are moving towards innovations”. It is clear that a single discipline cannot offer a holistic solution to the problem at hand (i.e., LBS and ITS). As mentioned in Section 1, the LBS2ITS project approaches the curricula development in these two areas from multiple disciplines, including geomatics, surveying, cartography, GIS, urban planning, transport engineering, environmental engineering, and computer science.

4. Phase 1: Teacher Training

The first phase of the curricula development is the teacher training phase. This phase has three main goals—introducing the new pedagogic method, coming up with a common QA in the teaching questionnaire, and training the teachers in various topics related to LBSs and ITSs.

4.1. Survey of Existing Courses at the Partner Universities

As mentioned in Section 1 and Section 3, four Sri Lankan universities are involved in the project and five departments from those four universities. All five departments represent a different discipline—geomatics, urban planning, transport engineering, computer science, and environmental engineering. Six train-the-teachers (TTT) courses were held throughout the project. Consequently, to plan for the content of these six TTT courses, a survey was conducted at our project partners on courses they are currently teaching at their respective institutions and how they would like to modify them in the course of the LBS2ITS project. Survey questions are given in Figure 1.

A list of topics that require further development from the LBS2ITS project was produced based on question 23 in the survey shown in Figure 1. There were 81 topic entries for 28 surveyed courses (note that some courses are interested in more than one topic). Rather than offering the topics to respondents, they were free to enter any topic. All 81 entries were classified into seven general topics as shown in Figure 2. The percentages reflect the scale of interest for each topic. The general topics are shown in Figure 2, and more detailed topics of interest for modernization and development in the LBS2ITS project are as follows:

Transport planning

Sustainable urban transport planning;

Regional road and railway infrastructure networks;

Logistics corridors.

Smart cities

Smart city mobility;

Smart infrastructure.

LBS

LBS in ITS;

Applications for environmental impact identification;

Social media analytics;

Individual carbon footprint reduction strategies;

Land use and accessibility interaction models.

Positioning, Navigation and Timing (PNT) applications

Multi-sensor positioning;

Alternative PNT;

Smartphone positioning;

Low-cost sensors for positioning.

Geovisualization

Data/Spatial analysis

Interdisciplinary study project

Having defined the topics of interest for the four Sri Lankan partner universities, we proceeded with the first phase for the curricula development, and the six TTT courses were held. The following three sections delve into more detail.

4.2. Problem-Based Learning (PBL) and e-Learning

The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated a swift shift to distance learning and e-learning in higher education. The LBS2ITS project aimed to elevate education in LBS through innovative e-learning and PBL methodologies. This summary delves into the project’s efforts to align teaching with learning outcomes and discusses the concept of Problem-Based e-Learning (PBeL) introduced in Retscher et al. [2] as a means of integrating e-learning and PBL. In addition, insights from a workshop introducing these advancements and their theoretical underpinnings are shared.

LBS2ITS focuses on updating its courses to incorporate interactive e-learning and PBL techniques, guided by Bloom’s taxonomy to address various levels of cognitive engagement. The project aims to create a comprehensive learning environment centered around LBS applications in ITS. A workshop was conducted to introduce these developments and propose the concept of PBeL, emphasizing the seamless integration of e-learning and PBL methodologies. The workshop provided valuable insights into the implementation of PBeL and its potential to enhance geomatics education. Participants engaged in discussions on the theoretical foundations of PBeL and its practical implications for course development. The integration of e-learning and PBL was seen as essential for creating dynamic and interactive learning experiences, aligning with the evolving needs of modern education.

Thus, the LBS2ITS project represents a significant step towards modernizing education through PBeL. By integrating e-learning and PBL methodologies, the project aimed to create a dynamic and immersive learning environment that fosters active engagement and deep learning. PBeL holds promise for shaping the future of geomatics education, catering to the diverse needs of students and aligning with emerging trends in distance learning and pedagogy.

4.2.1. Implementation of Blooms’ Taxonomy in LBS2ITS

A central aspect of the endeavor to apply PBL is the implementation of Bloom’s taxonomy [8] to align teaching with learning outcomes effectively. The taxonomy’s verbiage and elements are depicted in Figure 3. In this section, insights into the application of Bloom’s taxonomy within the LBS2ITS project are provided, focusing on how active verbs from the taxonomy are utilized to stimulate various levels of thinking. By leveraging Bloom’s taxonomy, the project aimed to enhance the effectiveness of LBS education and promote deeper learning experiences among students.

Due to the implementation of innovative pedagogical approaches such as e-learning and PBL, this initiative is the utilization of Bloom’s taxonomy, a widely recognized framework for classifying educational objectives. In the LBS2ITS project, Bloom’s taxonomy serves as a guiding framework for course development and instructional design. The taxonomy’s six levels of cognitive engagement—remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating—are mapped onto active verbs that represent specific learning outcomes [9]. For example, activities aimed at the ‘remembering’ level may involve recalling facts or definitions, while those targeting the ‘analyzing’ level may require students to break down complex concepts or data sets.

Each level of Bloom’s taxonomy is integrated into the curriculum in a structured manner, ensuring that students engage with increasingly complex cognitive tasks as they progress through the course. For instance, introductory modules may focus on lower-level cognitive skills such as remembering and understanding, while advanced modules challenge students to apply, analyze, evaluate, and create knowledge within the context of real-world applications. The implementation of Bloom’s taxonomy in the LBS2ITS project was facilitated by interactive e-learning materials, PBL scenarios, and hands-on exercises that encourage active participation and critical thinking. By aligning course objectives with Bloom’s taxonomy, educators can design learning experiences that promote deeper understanding, problem-solving skills, and practical application of LBS concepts.

This implementation underscores the commitment to enhancing the quality and effectiveness of LBS education. By aligning teaching with desired learning outcomes and promoting progressive cognitive engagement, educators can empower students to develop essential skills and competencies in the LBS field. Moving forward, continued integration of Bloom’s taxonomy will be integral to the ongoing evolution and improvement of LBS education within the framework of the LBS2ITS project.

Figure 4 summarizes the differences between PBL and classical teaching [10]. As can be seen from the figure, in traditional teaching, instructors typically deliver lectures to impart knowledge, which students are expected to memorize and apply to predefined examples. During examinations, students are evaluated based on their ability to recall and reproduce the taught material. In contrast, PBL diverges from this conventional approach by placing students at the forefront of their learning journey. In PBL, students commence by identifying a problem, either assigned by the instructor or independently discovered. They then embark on a process of inquiry, seeking out theoretical knowledge relevant to addressing the identified problem. This experiential learning approach allows students to contextualize their understanding and engage in active problem-solving throughout the learning process.

Thus, classical teaching often follows a linear and instructor-centric format, with a focus on content delivery and rote memorization. Students may passively receive information without necessarily understanding its practical applications or relevance. In contrast, PBL fosters critical thinking, collaboration, and self-directed learning skills. By immersing students in real-world problems, PBL encourages them to explore interdisciplinary perspectives, analyze complex scenarios, and develop innovative solutions. Moreover, the assessment criteria differ between classical teaching and PBL. While traditional methods may prioritize factual recall and regurgitation, PBL assessments emphasize the application of knowledge, problem-solving abilities, and the demonstration of critical thinking skills. In PBL assessments, students are evaluated not only on their final solutions but also on their process, including their ability to identify relevant information, formulate hypotheses, and justify their reasoning. Overall, Figure 4 highlights the transformative nature of PBL in education, emphasizing its student-centered, inquiry-based approach compared to the more traditional, instructor-driven methods. Through PBL, students not only acquire knowledge but also develop essential skills and competencies necessary for success in diverse professional contexts.

4.2.2. Problem-Based Learning Versus Project-Based Learning

Both Project-Based Learning (PjBL) and Problem-Based Learning (PrBL) courses are centered around student engagement. However, there are distinctions between the two approaches. In PjBL courses, teachers typically define the problem and action steps, while in PrBL courses, students primarily take on this responsibility. Figure 5 illustrates the differences and shared elements between the two approaches, highlighting the teacher’s role as a guide and mentor, with students at the center in both scenarios. In terms of real-world connections, either the teacher (in PjBL) or the students (in PrBL) define and identify the action steps of the problem. To achieve learning outcomes, students usually create a product in PjBL, such as an LBS application, whereas in PrBL, multiple solutions are generated. This aligns with Bloom’s taxonomy steps discussed in Section 4.2.1.

In the field of geomatics, most courses are PjBL-oriented, as exemplified by the ‘Location-based Services’ (LBS) course at TU Wien, Austria. However, a shift towards PrBL was made based on student evaluation results and feedback. While theoretical input is provided by lecturers, students in the PrBL mode define problems, analyze literature, propose methodological concepts, and collaborate on developing solutions. Assessment in both PjBL and PrBL courses involves teacher evaluation and self-assessment based on project deliverables, exams, and presentations. The transition to PrBL mode has been positively received, as evidenced by anonymous student evaluations. In the master’s course on LBS at TU Wien, this transition has been made in a successful implementation in the last decade. Students are welcome to define their assignment topics for the course evaluation. Further information about the student feedback for the course on LBS at TU Wien is provided in [12].

4.2.3. Problem-Based Learning Cycle

PBL as a learning method needs to be implemented in several steps that make up a PBL cycle. The PBL cycle common to much of the literature can be found in Figure 6 and was first presented in the previous paper by Retscher et al. [2]. Although this is not equally defined by all authors, the majority of literature lists some common steps as shown in Figure 6. The steps in Figure 6 have been compiled based on [13,14,15].

The PBL process always starts with the problem. Consequently, the first step of the PBL process is the definition of the problem. In this step, learners are provided with a problem that is then analyzed, clarified, and all unknown terms are defined. In some literature, like [14], it is said that the problem must never be imposed by the teacher. However, the students need to find a problem that is appropriate to the curriculum of the course. In other literature, such as in [15], a high-level problem is given by the teacher, which leaves some freedom for students to define it more explicitly. The former example requires more independence from the students than the latter. However, if students do not have sufficient knowledge of relevant real-world problems, the former may provide a better idea of what is expected.

Having defined the problem, the students can start with the second phase, which is brainstorming. In this instance, a priori knowledge of the students is crucial. The self-awareness of the students is necessary so that they are aware of their current state of knowledge and is an important part of independent learning. The students need to share ideas and see if they can solve the problem with the existing knowledge.

Based on the previous step where the students defined the a priori knowledge available in the group, the students need to analyze the problem. The analysis is built on the collection of independent ideas within the group, based on which different aspects of the problem can be defined and structured. Based on these discussions, the hypotheses can be defined [13].

In the fourth phase of the PBL cycle, students need to define learning objectives with the guidance of the teacher. When the students agree on the learning issues [14], they can define new knowledge that is necessary to solve a problem [15]. The teacher is not an active participant in the discussion but is helping students by asking questions, helping students to stay focused on the problem to be solved, and supporting the discussion. The process of figuring out the new knowledge that needs to be acquired to solve a problem is another crucial element of the PBL that will lead the students to the goal of becoming lifelong learners. Ref. [15] writes that “the dilemma between what I know and what I am missing or need to learn, is the essence of PBL”.

One of the longer phases of the PBL cycle is the fifth phase, where students engage (individually or in a group) in the self-guided study. To achieve the learning outcomes defined in the previous stage, students seek out the learning materials and resources and begin research [14]. In this phase, the teacher helps students to find different books, journal papers, lectures, conference papers, online courses, webinars, reports, experts in the field, etc. In this phase, the students can start developing their research skills [14] and further their independence. By nature of the self-guided study, the learning is personalized to the learner as they are free to choose any medium that will help them learn.

In the sixth phase of the PBL cycle, the students exchange and synthesize the newly acquired knowledge. Furthermore, the students solve the problem and report the solution back to the class. This phase should be the longest of the PBL process [14]. In addition to the other soft skills like presentation and writing skills, the research skills are further developed in this phase.

The seventh phase is an important part of the PBL process and further development of the self-awareness and independent learning skills for the students. In this phase, students and teachers assess the PBL process as well as themselves.

4.2.4. Practicalities for the Implementation of the PBL Cycle in Engineering

Although present since the 1970s, PBL started to be applied in engineering education only recently [16]. When it comes to advantages and disadvantages, the literature has recorded many. The main advantages are the independence of students, the self-awareness of students, the fact that students become lifelong learners, and that their knowledge is rooted in real-world problems. Furthermore, the integration of theoretical knowledge and practical knowledge is better than with classical teaching. Perrenet et al. [17] noted a very important drawback of PBL when it comes to engineering education. On the example of mechanical and biomedical engineering, these authors concluded that some classical teaching methods are necessary for engineering education. This includes classical lectures and practical classes, which are necessary due to the hierarchical structure of the engineering knowledge, where missing basic concepts can affect the success of the PBL. A similar conclusion was made in our study [16], where we analyzed the application of PBL in geodesy, geoinformatics, and transport engineering. We saw that, depending on the stage of the students’ education, PBL can be implemented without any need for classical teaching methods if the students are in the finishing stages of their degree program or with the need for many theoretical lectures if the students are beginners.

To overcome the clear drawback of PBL when it comes to engineering education, we proposed the PBeL concept in Retscher et al. [2]. In it, a combination of PBL with distance and e-learning was conceptualized based on the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic, where distance learning was a necessity. Primarily, this concept proposes that the need for theoretical lectures and practical exercises is addressed through the offering of webinars and lectures on e-learning platforms. This way, the students that already have appropriate a priori knowledge do not have to listen to the lectures again in the classroom, and students that do not have this knowledge can acquire it through distance learning.

However, the research of PBL implementation in geomatics engineering is still in its infancy, and not many published articles can be found. Some of the published research in the area is [2,16,18,19,20]. Confirmed by the results of the student feedback, we have progressed further and made significant impact due to experiences gained in the LBS2ITS project.

4.3. Quality Assurance (QA) in Teaching

The second important workshop in the LBS2ITS project was held on the topic of QA in teaching. The main aim was to develop a common questionnaire that will be used to develop an app-based solution for QA. QA in teaching has become an important topic in higher education. Ref. [21] analyzed the emergence of research of QA in higher education. In their analysis, they demonstrated that the number of authors and the publication rate have been linearly growing since 1996.

Internal methods of QA in teaching are valuable in improving the universities’ mission of teaching and learning. Tavares et al. [22] analyzed data from an online survey given to all Portuguese private and public higher education institutions in 2014/2015. In their survey, they looked at the academic perspective. They have found that academics acknowledge the contribution of the QA to an increased awareness of teaching quality issues. However, this has had only a limited impact on the improvement in teaching. A possible explanation, identified by these authors, could be the lack of pedagogic training given to academics. Another issue identified by the responders is the increased bureaucracy (i.e., non-academic) workload.

As indicated in [22], the impact of QA surveys on teaching quality could be greater if the teachers have pedagogic training. The LBS2ITS project addressed this by training academics on the PBL pedagogic method (as presented in Section 4.2). When the second phase of the curricula development started, PBL and PBeL methods were the key to the approach for the curricula development in the project.

As part of the QA workshop given for the LBS2ITS project, we presented the current QA in teaching methods at each of the partner universities. In our workshop, we addressed the issue of not putting too much non-academic workload on teachers and also increasing the number of students who participate in QA. From experience, partners who offered the most interactive and easiest way (e.g., digital) for students to respond to the survey have gotten the highest percentage of students who participated. One of the outcomes of the LBS2ITS project was the development of an app-based solution for QA in teaching. The aim of this approach was to make it easier for students to do it on their smartphone devices or computers and to encourage more students to do it. Furthermore, this decreased the non-academic workload of the teachers as they saw only the results they could use to improve their teaching. The app-based QA solution will now be used by all partner universities, firstly in the pilot courses evaluation. The app offers not only evaluation capabilities at the end of a semester but also during the term. It is possible to use the app even for each lecture held.

In the QA workshop, we also conceptualized a common questionnaire that will be given to all students of our partners. The answers to all questions will be rating answers as shown in Table 1. The rating is similar to the grading system of the students. The common questionnaire is shown in Table 2. The table shows that the students will be rating the lecturer, lectures, and the materials, and their relationship with the lecturer, and they will provide an overall course evaluation. Many of the questions shown in the table also address the pedagogic method based on which the lecturers will be able to adapt their approach. An additional questionnaire was developed for courses that contain practical or field-based exercises. This questionnaire is shown in Table 3.

4.4. LBS2ITS Train-the-Teachers (TTT) Courses

Following the training on pedagogic and QA methods, six train-the-teachers (TTT) intensive courses were held where the teachers were introduced to topics relating to LBS and ITS. Some lecturers of the partner universities were firstly trained for the topics of these TTT courses, and the learning materials were quite new for them. These topics are the core of this project and will provide an overview of the field from the perspective of multiple disciplines as indicated in Section 1. The topics have been carefully chosen based on the needs of the Sri Lankan partners as presented in the survey in Section 4. The topic choices were also informed by the expertise of the European partners and their view of what is necessary for improving the education of LBS and ITS. Furthermore, Sri Lankan stakeholders, such as private company owners or government officials, and Sri Lankan policies, such as the “National Physical Development Policy and the Plan 2050” (see Section 1), impacted the chosen topics for the TTT courses. The titles of the TTT courses were as follows:

Training on transport system planning for smart cities;

Training on estimation theory and processing of spatial data;

Training on data and models in transportation;

Training on LBS and multimedia cartography;

Training on alternative PNT technologies; and

Training on smartphone positioning techniques for indoor and outdoor localization.

The first course, i.e., transport system planning for smart cities, was given by TUD. The goal was to train lecturers in terms of domain knowledge of transportation planning and traffic engineering. The course discussed goals, visions, challenges, and emerging trends in transport. The topics ranged from strategic sustainable urban mobility plans and functional street network classification to design principles for safe, efficient, and livable streets. The group work covered three topics—15-minute city, next-generation public transport in Colombo, Sri Lanka, and street design standards.

The second TTT course, i.e., estimation theory and processing of spatial data, was held online as a webinar given by TUW. The goal was to introduce the teachers to some statistical basics of data analysis and to estimation theory. The participants learned about measurement deviations (random, systematic, and gross errors), probability density functions, variance–covariance propagation, different error distributions and hypothesis testing, the Gauss Markov Model, and the Kalman Filter. Many practical exercises related to the lectures were performed by the participants using the programming language Octave.

This was followed by the third course, i.e., data and models in transportation, which was given by TUD. The course provided an introduction to data analysis and visualization with the programming language R. It also provided an introduction to transport modeling in MATSim. An agent-based transport simulation in Sri Lanka and transport behavior analysis for different scenarios were run.

Then, the LBS and multimedia cartography course was given by TUW. The course was conceptualized to offer the answers to why-what-how questions. It answered the questions of why it is important to teach students about LBS and cartography, what can be taught to students and how the teaching of these topics can be performed. This concept also offered an opportunity for the teachers to have insight into how they should approach curricula development in the next stage of the project.

Alternative PNT technologies were the topics of the fifth TTT course, which was given by NTUA and TUW Universities cooperatively. This course mainly dealt with Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSSs) and their applications in all disciplines involved in the LBS2ITS project. The basic concept of PNT, coordinate systems and frames, GNSS concept and positioning techniques, positioning and navigation techniques for LBS, and alternative PNT (i.e., multi-sensor and cooperative) were presented. The participants learned how to collect, pre-process, and process GNSS data with the GNSS receivers purchased as part of the LBS2ITS project. Practical observations were carried out at the campus of the host university, SUSL, in Belihuloya, Sri Lanka.

Finally, smartphone positioning techniques for indoor and outdoor localization was the last TTT course that was given in this project together from TUW and NTUA Universities. A large range of topics was covered in this course, ranging from localization and tracking of mobile devices with GNSS, ubiquitous smartphone localization, indoor user localization, Wireless Fidelity (Wi-Fi) positioning, vision-based positioning, inertial navigation using smartphone sensors, sensor integration, fusion techniques, etc.

The smartphone positioning course officially concluded the teacher training phase of the project, and the development phase officially started right after it.

5. Phase 2: Development

The next phase of the project relates to the development of the teaching materials, the development of the new courses and the modernization of existing courses before the end of the project. Currently, this stage is nearly completed and the teaching of the pilot courses has started in the new academic year at the four Sri Lankan universities. In this section, we will focus mainly on the development of new courses and our chosen approach.

5.1. Pre-Requisites for Development

Like the previous teacher training phase, this phase also requires workshops. The development phase included one workshop on the topic of ‘Core curricula course modules development’. The aim of this workshop was to define all new courses, and competence matrices with respect to competence types for them. In this workshop, learning outcomes for all courses were defined, as well as the lesson plan, PBeL implementation, etc. Figure 7 demonstrates how the entire project flows from the first phase through the second phase to the development of new courses.

5.2. Ontology for Curricula Development

Bussemaker et al. [23] implemented an ontology-based approach for chemical engineering curriculum development. As shown in Figure 8 from [23], they defined three high-level classes of concepts—Module for modules/courses, Learning Outcomes for learning outcomes, and Topic for the topics covered in the courses. The figure also shows that all three concepts are logically connected through the object properties such as has Learning Of. The workshop on the curricula development held as part of this project covered the first two ontology concepts shown in the figure. A systematic approach similar to the one shown in [23] was adapted to the LBS and ITS education. Furthermore, the topics of each course were defined based on the knowledge of teachers and the new knowledge acquired in the teacher training phase.

Bussemaker et al. [23] demonstrated a comprehensive use of the ontology-based approach for developing chemical engineering curricula. Their work laid the foundation for organizing curriculum content through a structured, semantic framework, providing clarity and alignment between different educational components. Specifically, as depicted in Figure 8, they identified the three aforementioned primary high-level classes of concepts essential for curriculum design: Module, representing the individual courses or modules within the curriculum; Learning Outcomes, representing the targeted learning outcomes students are expected to achieve; and Topic, representing the specific subject matter or themes covered within the courses.

The figure further illustrates the interrelationships between these concepts, which are formalized using object properties such as has Learning Of, establishing logical connections that ensure coherence between topics, learning outcomes, and course modules. For example, the has Learning Of relationship links a module to the learning outcomes it supports, providing an explicit structure for educators to ensure that the course content aligns with the intended educational objectives. These logical mappings form a critical part of the ontology, promoting consistency and transparency in curriculum design.

In addition to theoretical development, Bussemaker et al.’s [23] approach was practically implemented in our workshop focusing on curriculum development, which covered the first two ontology concepts, namely Module and Learning Outcomes, providing educators with hands-on experience in applying these principles to their course design.

Building on this ontology-based framework, a similar systematic methodology was adapted for developing curricula in other fields, including LBS and ITS education. In these contexts, the ontology was extended to incorporate the unique aspects of these fields, ensuring the alignment of course topics with emerging trends and technologies. Furthermore, the topics covered in each course were carefully defined, taking into account both the existing expertise of educators and the new knowledge they acquired during teacher training sessions. This adaptive approach ensured that the curricula remained current, responsive to new developments, and aligned with the professional growth of the teaching staff. Thus, the ontology-based approach facilitated a structured and dynamic framework for curriculum development across multiple disciplines.

Each partner university will decide which modules they want to introduce to their institutions within the frame of the LBS2ITS project. The learning outcomes for each course were defined based on Bloom’s taxonomy as aforementioned in Section 4.2.1.

5.3. Role of Stakeholders and External Experts

Figure 7 highlights the crucial role that external stakeholders played in shaping the curriculum development process. This collaborative approach was instrumental in ensuring that the newly developed curricula were both relevant to Sri Lanka’s national priorities and sustainable in the long term. Input from these stakeholders, which included representatives from industry, government, and society, helped to align the curriculum with the broader needs and challenges of the country. Their involvement ensured that the educational programs not only met academic standards but also addressed real-world demands, making them more impactful for the Sri Lankan context.

Stakeholders provided key insights into the skills and knowledge required in various sectors, ensuring that the curriculum was grounded in the needs of the country’s industries and governmental bodies. By integrating this feedback, the curriculum was tailored to meet local economic, technological, and societal demands. This strategy aligns with the perspectives of Parashar and Parashar [1], who emphasized that several factors, such as political, social, economic, technological, and environmental considerations, shape curriculum design. They argued that curricula must be developed with careful consideration of the specific context in which they will be delivered, a principle that was fundamental to the LBS2ITS project.

Within the LBS2ITS project, external stakeholders served as members of the project’s Advisory Board, a diverse group representing various sectors such as government organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), private industry, and other educational institutions. Their primary role was to offer strategic guidance, ensuring that the curriculum remained aligned with Sri Lanka’s national development goals and that it addressed current and future industry trends. By doing so, the project aimed to create a curriculum that not only responded to the country’s immediate needs but also positioned graduates for success in a rapidly evolving job market. As outlined in Section 1, the Advisory Board’s input was pivotal in ensuring that the topics covered were relevant to Sri Lanka’s growth trajectory, contributing to both the employability of graduates and their potential to add value to Sri Lankan society.

Additionally, the involvement of stakeholders also supported the broader goal of fostering a curriculum that would enable graduates to contribute effectively to national development initiatives. By aligning the educational content with the needs of industries and government sectors, the project sought to bridge the gap between academic training and professional demands. This approach was not only geared towards enhancing the employability of graduates but also towards ensuring that they were well-prepared to tackle the specific challenges facing Sri Lanka, thereby contributing to the country’s socio-economic and technological advancement. Through this ongoing collaboration, the LBS2ITS curriculum was crafted to remain relevant, adaptable, and beneficial to both students and the broader society.

Furthermore, the newly developed curricula at the four partner universities are currently undergoing an extensive review process by three independent external experts from various parts of the world. These experts bring a global perspective to the evaluation, ensuring that the curricula are not only locally relevant but also meet international standards of excellence. Their role goes beyond a surface-level assessment; they conduct a thorough review that encompasses every aspect of the curriculum, from the course structure to the fine details of individual syllabi.

This meticulous review includes a comprehensive analysis of the content and objectives of each course, ensuring that the learning outcomes align with both the academic goals of the institutions and the practical demands of the industries involved. Furthermore, the experts delve into the teaching and learning materials provided to students, scrutinizing whether these resources effectively support the educational objectives and whether they are pedagogically sound. This includes evaluating the appropriateness and quality of textbooks, case studies, assignments, and other instructional tools that play a critical role in the students’ learning experience.

By engaging external experts with diverse academic and professional backgrounds, the project seeks to ensure that the curricula not only meet the specific needs of the Sri Lankan context but also adhere to global benchmarks. The involvement of these experts helps to guarantee that the courses are of high quality, addressing current trends and technological advancements in the respective fields. Their feedback is invaluable in refining the curricula, ensuring that students receive a well-rounded education that prepares them for both local and international job markets.

Moreover, this rigorous evaluation process highlights the project’s commitment to continuous improvement and quality assurance. By incorporating external reviews, the curricula are subject to objective scrutiny, which helps to identify any gaps or areas for enhancement. This proactive approach ensures that the educational programs remain dynamic, adaptive to new developments in the field, and responsive to both academic and industry expectations. Through this ongoing collaboration with international experts, the partner universities aim to deliver educational programs that not only meet the current needs of their students but also equip them with the skills and knowledge necessary for future challenges.

The pilot courses developed as part of this project are set to be launched in the 2024 academic year, with implementation beginning at the time of writing of this contribution. These courses mark a significant milestone in the curriculum development process, serving as the first real-world application of the newly designed educational programs. After the first semester, comprehensive evaluations will be conducted, with feedback collected from students to assess the effectiveness of both the course content and its delivery.

These initial course evaluations will play a critical role in shaping the future of the program. Students’ insights and experiences will be carefully analyzed to identify strengths, areas for improvement, and potential gaps in both the teaching methodologies and learning materials. This feedback will serve as the foundation for further refinement of the courses, enabling educators to make informed adjustments that enhance the overall learning experience.

Based on the evaluation results, the teaching and learning materials will undergo iterative improvements to ensure they remain relevant, engaging, and aligned with students’ needs. Additionally, the feedback will help to fine-tune the pedagogical approaches used in delivering the courses, ensuring that they cater to diverse learning styles and promote deeper understanding of the subject matter. This continuous improvement cycle is integral to the project’s overarching goal of delivering high-quality, dynamic educational programs.

Moreover, the pilot phase provides an opportunity to assess how well the courses are preparing students for real-world challenges, particularly in alignment with industry and societal demands. The outcomes of this initial phase will guide ongoing curriculum adjustments, ensuring that the educational programs not only achieve academic goals but also equip students with the practical skills and knowledge needed for future employment and societal contribution.

In essence, this iterative process of evaluation and refinement highlights the project’s strong commitment to a student-centered approach in curriculum development. By actively integrating student feedback and continuously refining both course content and teaching strategies, the project ensures that the educational experience remains relevant, engaging, and responsive to learners’ needs. The insights gained from the pilot courses will provide invaluable guidance for future iterations, shaping the evolution of the curricula and contributing to their long-term success and sustainability.

A key element in this process is the incorporation of PBL, which will play a vital role in shaping both the delivery and effectiveness of the courses. PBL shifts the focus from passive learning to active student engagement, encouraging learners to take an active role in problem-solving, critical thinking, and collaboration. By presenting students with real-world problems that mirror challenges they are likely to face in their future careers, PBL enhances their ability to apply theoretical knowledge to practical scenarios. This pedagogical approach not only helps students develop a deeper understanding of the subject matter but also fosters essential skills such as teamwork, communication, and adaptability. The iterative course evaluations will provide an opportunity to assess the effectiveness of PBL within the curriculum, ensuring that it is integrated in a way that maximizes student engagement and learning outcomes.

By embedding PBL, and especially PBeL, into the framework of continuous improvement, the project not only enhances the quality of the educational programs but also prepares students to thrive in complex, real-world environments. This approach ensures that the curriculum remains dynamic, aligned with industry needs, and supportive of students’ long-term personal and professional development.

6. Conclusions

This paper offers a systematic overview of how the LBS2ITS project approached curricula modernization and development. The end products of the project were the pilot courses and modernized existing courses at four Sri Lankan universities. With this, the LBS2ITS project aimed to introduce Sri Lankan partners to the methods of curricula development, new pedagogic methods, e- and distance learning, QA methods, and modern topics of LBS and ITS to ensure the production of good engineers with up-to-date knowledge who will be life-long learners. These engineers will be crucial in Sri Lanka’s recovery and development. This goal of the project is in line with the Sri Lankan “National Physical Development Policy and the Plan 2050, 2018”. In this policy, Sri Lanka wants to “update the workforce of the country by disseminating knowledge to maintain the ongoing developments to the state-of-the-art smart transportation standards as practised by developed and well-organised cities”.

From the experiences gained, some lessons can be generalized and used by anyone. This paper offers a step guide for the approach to curricula development in geomatics or any engineering discipline by finding answers to questions:

Are students content with courses currently offered at your institution? To assess student satisfaction, regular feedback mechanisms like surveys, focus groups, or course evaluations are essential. Are students engaged with the course material? Do they feel the curriculum is relevant to their career goals? Gathering data on aspects such as course difficulty, teaching methods, and overall satisfaction can help determine if courses meet student expectations and identify areas for improvement.

Are your students easily employed following graduation? Employment rates post-graduation are a critical indicator of the effectiveness of the educational programs. Tracking employment statistics, in terms of both job placement and relevance to the students’ field of study, will highlight whether the courses provide the necessary skills and qualifications that employers seek. If employment rates are low, it may indicate a need to revise the curriculum to better align with industry needs.

What knowledge is currently needed in the industry job positions? Understanding the skills and knowledge that are in demand in the current job market is essential for curriculum relevance. This can be achieved through industry partnerships, advisory boards, and regular consultation with employers. Are companies looking for technical skills, problem-solving abilities, digital literacy, or specialized knowledge in certain areas? Identifying these trends ensures that your graduates remain competitive.

What will be needed in future for the development of the country/region/city? As industries evolve, so do the skills and knowledge required for regional development. Are there emerging sectors, such as renewable energy, smart technologies, or digital infrastructure, that could drive growth in the future? Considering long-term socioeconomic trends and technological advancements will help ensure your institution is preparing students for future challenges, rather than simply meeting current demands.

Do you want to develop new or modernize the existing courses? It is essential to evaluate whether current offerings are keeping pace with industry changes or if new courses are needed to address gaps in the curriculum. This might involve modernizing existing courses to incorporate emerging technologies or developing entirely new programs in response to new industry sectors or academic advancements.

What are the topics you need to introduce/modernize? Once the need for course development or modernization is identified, the next step is to pinpoint specific topics. These could range from adding new technological competencies, such as AI (Artificial Intelligence) or data science, to updating soft skills like leadership and communication that are increasingly important in multidisciplinary and global work environments.

Do these topics cover multiple disciplines? Many emerging challenges in society, industry, and academia require knowledge across multiple fields. For example, courses on sustainable development might require expertise in engineering, economics, environmental science, and public policy. Identifying whether your course topics span multiple disciplines can help break down academic silos and foster interdisciplinary learning.

Can you cooperate with experts from other disciplines to come up with a set of topics? Collaboration across departments or faculties can enrich course development. By working with experts from various fields, one can create a more holistic curriculum that addresses complex, real-world problems from multiple perspectives. Such collaboration also broadens students’ learning experiences, preparing them for interdisciplinary work environments.

What are the learning outcomes of the new/modernized course? Clearly defined learning outcomes are critical for shaping the curriculum and guiding both instructors and students. These outcomes should specify the skills, knowledge, and competencies that students are expected to gain by the end of the course. Aligning these with industry needs and academic standards will help ensure the course’s relevance and effectiveness.

How will you deliver the course to students? Course delivery methods can significantly affect learning outcomes. Will the course be delivered through traditional face-to-face instruction, online learning platforms, or a hybrid model? One should consider what teaching methods, such as lectures, workshops, practical sessions, or PB, will best facilitate learning, as well as the logistical feasibility of these methods.

Do you need to do any training in new pedagogic methods? If the course delivery includes innovative or non-traditional teaching methods (like flipped classrooms, e-learning, or project-based learning), instructors may need professional development to effectively implement these approaches. Teacher training is crucial to ensuring that new pedagogical methods are used to their fullest potential, maximizing student engagement and learning outcomes.

Do you need to use any new technology to deliver courses (i.e., e-learning)? With the increasing reliance on technology in education, it’s important to consider whether your institution has the technological infrastructure and expertise required to support modern learning environments. Do you need to invest in learning management systems (LMS), virtual labs, video conferencing tools, or other digital resources? And are both faculty and students comfortable using these technologies?

How can you improve your course, course content, and content delivery based on the students’ and stakeholders’ feedback? Feedback from students, faculty, and industry stakeholders should be a continuous source of improvement for courses. Using structured feedback mechanisms, such as surveys, course evaluations, and focus groups, one can regularly assess what works and what does not. Iterative adjustments to the content, teaching methods, and assessment strategies based on this feedback will ensure that the courses remain dynamic, effective, and aligned with both student needs and industry expectations.

By addressing these questions, institutions can stay agile and responsive in the evolving landscape of education and industry, ensuring that students are equipped with the necessary skills and knowledge to thrive in a competitive job market.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.R. and J.G.; methodology, G.R. and J.G.; investigation, G.R. and J.G.; resources, G.R. and J.G.; writing—original draft preparation, G.R. and J.G.; writing—review and editing, G.R., J.G. and V.G.; visualization, G.R. and J.G.; project administration, G.R.; funding acquisition, G.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Acknowledgments

This paper is an extended and updated version of the conference paper presented at the International Conference on Geomatics Education—Challenges and Prospects (ICGE22), Hong Kong SAR, China, 2023, and was published in the ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, X-5/W1-2023, 667. The authors acknowledge the funding for the project 618657-EPP-1-2020-1-AT-EPPKA2-CBHE-JP from the Erasmus+ Capacity Building in Higher Education program. This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

Parashar, A.K.; Parashar, R. Innovations and Curriculum Development for Engineering Education and Research in India. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 56, 685–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Retscher, G.; Gabela, J.; Gikas, V. PBeL– A Novel Problem-Based (e-)Learning for Geomatics Students. Geomatics 2022, 2, 76–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Küpper, A. Location-Based Services: Fundamentals and Operation; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Oxford, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]

Huang, H.; Gartner, G.; Krisp, J.M.; Raubal, M.; Van de Weghe, N. Location based services: Ongoing evolution and research agenda. J. Locat. Based Serv. 2018, 12, 63–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Auer, A.; Feese, S.; Lockwood, S.; Vann Easton, A. History of Intelligent Transportation Systems. U.S. Department of Transportation, Publication Number: FHWA-JPO-16-329. 2021. Available online: https://www.its.dot.gov/history/pdf/HistoryofITS_book.pdf (accessed on 30 November 2024).

Kołodziej, J.; Hopmann, C.; Coppa, G.; Grzonka, D.; Widłak, A. Intelligent Transportation Systems – Models, Challenges, Security Aspects. In Cybersecurity of Digital Service Chains: Challenges, Methodologies, and Tools; Kołodziej, J., Repetto, M., Duzha, A., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 56–82. [Google Scholar]

bIoTope Team. Building and IoT Open Innovation Ecosystem for Connected Smart Objects: Overview. 2023. Available online: https://biotope-project.eu/overview (accessed on 21 March 2023).

Bloom, B.S.; Engelhart, M.D.; Furst, E.J.; Hill, W.H.; Krathwohl, D.R. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals; David McKay Company: New York, NY, USA, 1956. [Google Scholar]

Forehand, M. Bloom’s Taxonomy—From Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and Technology. 2005. Available online: https://www.d41.org/cms/lib/IL01904672/Centricity/Domain/422/BloomsTaxonomy.pdf (accessed on 24 March 2023).

Gabela, J.; Retscher, G. Interdisciplinary Approach to Curricula Development in Geomatics Education: Erasmus+ LBS2ITS Project. In Proceedings of the ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, X-5/W1-2023, International Conference on Geomatics Education—Challenges and Prospects (ICGE22), Hong Kong, China, 10–12 May 2023; pp. 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Abdullah, J.; Mohd-Isa, W.N.; Samsudin, M.A. Virtual reality to improve group work skill and self-directed learning in problem-based learning narratives. Virtual Real. 2019, 23, 461–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Gartner, G.; Binn, A.; Retscher, G.; Gabela, J.; Gikas, V.; Schmidt, M.; Wang, W. From Project-based to Problem-based Learning in Engineering Disciplines: Enhancing Cartography and Geomatics Education. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Higher Education Advances (HEAd’22), Universitat Politecnica de Valencia, Valencia, Spain, 15–17 June 2022; pp. 423–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Mc Tierna, K.; Leahy, M.; Walsh, I.; Sloane, P.; Smith, M. The ‘Triple Jump’ Assessment in Problem Based Learning: An Evaluative Method Used in the Appraisal of both Knowledge Acquisition and Problem Solving Skills. Case 19. In Case Studies of Good Practices in Assessment of Student Learning in Higher Education; O’Neill, G., Huntley-Moore, S., Race, P., Eds.; AISHE: Dublin, Ireland, 2007; pp. 116–119. Available online: http://www.tara.tcd.ie/handle/2262/60450 (accessed on 30 November 2024).

Vázquez, V.N.; Aveleira, O.J.L.; Pérez, P.N.; Leyva, R.A.R. Project Based Learning to Enhance Environmental Education through Automobile Mechanics. J. Probl.-Based Learn. 2019, 6, 76–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Božić, B.; Pejić, M.; Tucikešić, S. Project oriented problem based learning: The first experiances of using this approach at the study program of Geodesy and geoinformatics. Tehnika 2020, 75, 23–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Gabela, J.; Retscher, G.; Gartner, G.; Binn, A.; Gikas, V.; Spyropoulou, I.; Gerike, R.; Ratnayake, R.; Jayasinghe, A.; Perera, L.; et al. Overview of the PBL in Geodesy, Geoinformatics and Transport Engineering Education. In Proceedings of the XXVII FIG Congress, Warsaw, Poland, 11–15 September 2022. [Google Scholar]

Perrenet, J.C.; Bouhuijs, P.A.J.; Smits, J.G.M.M. The Suitability of Problem-based Learning for Engineering Education: Theory and practice. Teach. High. Educ. 2000, 5, 345–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Taboada, M.F.; Martínez, M.; Rodríguez Pérez, J.; Sanz Ablanedo, E. Problem Based Learning (PBL) and E-learning in geodetic engineering, cartography and surveying education in the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) frame. A case study in the University of Leon (Spain): Experiences and results. In Proceedings of the XXIII FIG Congress, Munich, Germany, 8–13 October 2006. [Google Scholar]

Božić, B.; Pejić, M.; Tucikešić, S. Project oriented Problem Based Learning—The first experiences of using this approach at the study program of Geodesy and geoinformatics. Tehnika 2020, 74, 23–28. [Google Scholar]

Höhle, J. Project-based learning in geomatics at Aalborg University. In Proceedings of the Tools and Techniques for E-learning: Proceedings of the ISPRS Working Group VI/1–VI/2, Potsdam, Germany, 1–3 June 2005. [Google Scholar]

Steinhardt, I.; Schneijderberg, C.; Götze, N.; Baumann, J.; Krücken, G. Mapping the quality assurance of teaching and learning in higher education: The emergence of a specialty? High. Educ. 2017, 74, 221–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Tavares, O.; Sin, S.; Videira, P.; Amaral, A. Academics’ perceptions of the impact of internal quality assurance on teaching and learning. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 2017, 42, 1293–1305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Bussemaker, M.; Trokanas, N.; Cecelja, F. An ontological approach to chemical engineering curriculum development. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2017, 106, 927–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Figure 1. Existing courses survey.

Figure 1. Existing courses survey.

Figure 2. Survey result: topics that require development from the project.

Figure 2. Survey result: topics that require development from the project.

Figure 3. Bloom’s taxonomy’s verbiage and elements.

Figure 3. Bloom’s taxonomy’s verbiage and elements.

Figure 4. PBL versus classical teaching methods (according to [11]).

Figure 4. PBL versus classical teaching methods (according to [11]).

Figure 5. Problem-Based Learning (PrBL) versus Project-Based Learning (PjBL) (source: [12]).

Figure 5. Problem-Based Learning (PrBL) versus Project-Based Learning (PjBL) (source: [12]).

Figure 6. PBL cycle.

Figure 6. PBL cycle.

Figure 7. LBS2ITS approach to curricula development.

Figure 7. LBS2ITS approach to curricula development.

Figure 8. High-level ontology from [23].

Figure 8. High-level ontology from [23].

Table 1. Answers to the questionnaire.

Table 1. Answers to the questionnaire.

Strongly Agree | Agree | Neutral | Disagree | Strongly Disagree
5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1

Table 2. Common feedback form.

Table 2. Common feedback form.

Evaluation of the lecturer
1 | Qualification of the lecturer was sufficient
2 | The lecturer was confident in teaching the subject matter
3 | Lecturer was punctual (Lecturer was present at the correct time)
4 | Lecturer motivated me to do my best of ability
Evaluation of the Lectures and Materials
5 | Evaluation criteria were adequately described at the beginning
6 | Lectures and tutorials were well structured and useful to understand the subject
7 | Workload of this module was reasonable
8 | The topics were substantially covered in the class
9 | The continuous assessments were designed to help me learn
10 | Supplementary learning materials were available and helpful
Evaluation of Lecturer–Student Interaction
11 | Lecturer facilitated and encouraged active discussions with students
12 | Lecturer commended the students’ responses
13 | Self-study was encouraged
Overall Evaluation
14 | Overall satisfaction with this module
15 | How beneficial was this module to sharpen your skills
16 | Intended learning outcomes of the course were achieved

Table 3. Practical/field-based course modules (optional).

Table 3. Practical/field-based course modules (optional).

Evaluation of the Practical Task
1 | Adequate theoretical knowledge to perform the practical task was obtained from lectures
2 | The task was well organised
3 | The task cards were helpful in acquiring an understanding of the task
4 | Adequate time was allocated for the task
5 | Adequate facilities (equipment, software etc.) were allocated for the task
Evaluation of the Instructor
6 | The instructor expressed ideas clearly
7 | The instructor encouraged students to ask questions
8 | The instructor carefully answered questions raised by students
9 | Useful feedback was received from the instructor regarding my work in field
10 | The instructor was readily available for consultation with students during practical class hours
11 | Rate the practical task
12 | Did you achieve your expected outcomes from this task?

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Check ACS Ref Order

Check Foot Note Order

Check CrossRef

Check DTD & PMC Style

Check Links