accreditation of engineering education on a continental scale: the eur-ace project (accreditation of...
TRANSCRIPT
ACCREDITATION OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION ON A CONTINENTAL SCALE:
the EUR-ACE project (Accreditation of European Engineering
Programmes and Graduates)
Giuliano AugustiUniversità "La Sapienza", Roma, Facoltà di Ingegneria
Coordinator, EUR-ACE Project
Tomsk, 2 April 2005
The EUR-ACE project was presented in response to a
Call for Proposals for Europe-wide Participation Projects
contributing to the Realisation of the European Higher Education Area (Bologna Process)
issued on 5 March 2004 by the
European Commission
Directorate-General for Education and Culture (DG EaC)
SOCRATES-TEMPUS Unit
2
What is accreditation of an educational programme? The EUR-ACE definition:
Accreditation of an engineering educational programme is the primary process used to ensure the suitability of that programme as the entry route to the engineering profession.
Accreditation involves a periodic audit against the present standards of the engineering education provided by a particular course or program. It is essentially a peer review process, undertaken by appropriately trained and independent panels comprising both engineering academic staff and professional engineers from industry. The process normally involves both scrutiny of data and a structured visit to the educational institution.
3
Notwithstanding some slight differences, this definition is generally accepted in the engineering community, but …
… significance and procedures for accreditation of engineering education vary greatly from one European country to the other.
Three typical examples within the EU founding countries:
in GB and IE, accreditation standards and procedures are the responsibility of professional Institutes: Universities and Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are only involved through the assessment of education programmes, although sometimes they have to adapt the curricula in order that their programmes be accredited;
in FR, since as early as 1934, “habilitation” is granted to engineering programmes and HEIs by the “Commission des Titres d'Ingénieur” (CTI), in which the academic world, the profession and the employers are represented on a parity basis;
in IT, like in some other “continental” countries, the conformity of an academic programme to rules set by the Ministry of Education (or another national authority) is seen as making an HE programme automatically accredited.
4
whose differences lead to much confusion in the mutual recognition of academic and professional qualifications: consequently, difficulties still remain in the mobility and trans-national acceptance of engineers (and other professionals).
The “Bologna Process”, started in 1998 and now involving 40 countries, is working towards the establishment (in 2010) of “the European Higher Education Area …, in which citizens can choose from a wide and transparent offer of high quality courses and benefit from smooth recognition procedures”….… thanks also to the “adoption of a system of easily readable and comparable degrees”.But in practice the process has not involved yet any change or coordination of the professional accreditation procedures
5
It is indeed true that engineers, even if educated differently, have always been able to work together ...
But a coherent European accreditation systemis now felt extremely useful, if not necessary. Why ?
For several reasons, such as Increased (physical and “virtual”) mobility of engineers
(also of engineering students, but this is another story);
New H.E. Institutions and new degrees, at several “levels” and in several “specializations”, sometimes not understandable … The 1989 European Directive, which assured mobility and “freedom of establishment” of all professional within the EU, not always satisfactorily applied.
[Since quite a few years, a new “Directive” expects approval by the European Parliament: will it be able to improve the situation?] 6
Indeed, as put in a February, 2004 paper by EC DG EaC“FROM BERLIN TO BERGEN: the EU Contribution”
while “most evaluation and accreditation is [still] carried out on a national or regional basis, it is expected that these local exercises will become more comparable and more European through the use of "an agreed set of standards, procedures and guidelines" and the involvement of foreign experts,while in a number of cases there is [already] scope for transnational evaluation and accreditation, e.g. in highly internationalised fields of study like business and engineering or in cases where universities or sponsors (public or private) seek to obtain a label for reasons of branding or consumer protection.
7
What is then the purpose of the EUR-ACE project?
In order to contribute to overcome the difficulties in the mutual recognition of academic and professional qualifications, and facilitate the mobility and trans-national acceptance of engineers
EUR-ACE will “propose a framework for setting up a [single] European system for accreditation of engineering education at the First Cycle and Second Cycle level (as defined within the Bologna process)”
and will thus contribute to establishing the European Higher Education Area ….
8
14 Partners
FEANI SEFI CESAER EUROCADRES ENQHEEI UNIFI/TREE
ASIIN (DE) C.T.I. (FR) I.E.I. (IE) CoPI (IT) OE (PT) UAICR (RO) RAEE (RU)* ECUK (UK)
* TEMPUS partner (EUR-ACE is the first project supported by the two EU programmes “SOCRATES” and “TEMPUS”) 9
EUR-ACEAccreditation of European Engineering Programmes and Graduates Other Participating Institutions indicated in the application (1)
2. SEFI Instit. Members SE: Lund University CZ: C.T.U. Prague HU: Univ. Miskolc TK: Istanbul T.U. AT: T.U.Wien
1. FEANI Nat. Members Germany Poland The Netherlands Spain Finland Denmark Switzerland Italy
10
EUR-ACEAccreditation of European Engineering Programmes and Graduates Other Participating Institutions indicated in the application (2)
4. CLAIU
5. CRUI (IT)
The list of the “Other Participating Institutions” can be modified: Institutions can be added / cancelled.They are expected to play a major role during the “testing stages” of the project.
3. EUROCADRES Nat. Members Belgium Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Ireland Italy Portugal Romania United Kingdom
11
EUR-ACE Project Management Structure
Project Board (PB)One representative of each Partner
TreasurerPh.Wauters
Coordinator(Project Leader)
G. Augusti
Steering Committee 8 [Socrates] +1 [Tempus] accreditation specialists
Support by the legal
representative
FEANI -
Staff
Technical support
(each partner)
Staff
Technical support
(each partner)
Staff
International AdvisoryBoard3 high level experts
Additional support to the testing phase
FEANI National Members,
SEFI institutional members,
EUROCADRES National Members
Financial and administrativeStructure
Technical Structure
-
Technical and administrative assistance,
relations with other Socrates programmes
UNIFI, International Relations Office
12
EUR-ACE Project Board: First meeting: London (ECUK), 2 September 2004
1. FEANI - Philippe WAUTERS2. SEFI - Tornbjörn HEDBERG3. CESAER - Jan GRAAFMANS4. EUROCADRES - Pierre COMPTE5. ENQHEEI - René-Fran. BERNARD6. ASIIN - Iring WASSER7. CTI - François TAILLY
8. IEI - Michael HILLERY9. CoPI - Alfredo SQUARZONI10. UNIFI - Claudio BORRI11. OE PT- Sebastiao FEYO12. UAICR - Iacint MANOLIU13. RAEE - Oleg BOEV14. EC UK - Jim BIRCH
Chairman: Alan PUGH, Coordinator of ESOEPE PSC
13
EUR-ACE Steering Committee
1. João Duarte Silva
2. Ian Freeston
3. Günter Heitmann
4. Michael Hillery
5. Antonio Salgado de Barros
6. J. M. Siwak
7. Alfredo Squarzoni
8. Iring Wasser
9. Alexander Chuchalin
Chairman: Project Coordinator (Giuliano Augusti)
14
EUR-ACE International Advisory Committee
Kruno Hernaut Christian Thune, Chairman of ENQA (*) Rolf Heusser, Chairman of ECA (*)
(*) to be confirmed
15
EUR-ACEAccreditation of European Engineering Programmes and Graduates
Duration: September 2004-December 2005. Five “stages” (described in the following). Budget:
"SOCRATES" part (13 partners): € 454,419 total , of which € 300,000 co-financing by the Commission and € 154,419 contribution by the 14 partners, mainly in Academic staff time;
“TEMPUS" part (1 partner): € 46,900 total, of which € 38,300 co-financing by the Commission and € 8,600 contribution by RAEE, mainly in Academic staff time.
Remember: EUR-ACE is the first project supported by the two EU programmes “SOCRATES” and “TEMPUS” 16
Which future for Accreditation in Europe according to EUR-ACE ?
By which path(s) an European Recognition/Accreditation/Certification system of Engineering Education can be built up?
By an EU “Directive” (i.e. a European “law”)?
Impossible (even if somebody might advocate it) because autonomy of HEIs, that within many countries, are
not “obliged” even to recognise each others’ degrees)
EHEA involves many more countries than EU
and an ad-hoc European structure?
17
The future of Accreditation in Europe (2)
The assumption of the EUR-ACE project is that the present difficulties in recognition and mobility can only be overcome by reaching a European-wide consensus on standards required from engineering educational programmes, including assessment and QA measures,
and by setting up a system for accrediting programmes, HE Institutions and graduates when such standards are achieved, not when bureaucratic rules are fulfilled.
18
The future of Accreditation in Europe (3)This European Accreditation system must be built-up gradually, bottom-up, including and harmonizing existing accreditation systems,and involving national and regional accreditation agencies.
Can the model be the “Washington Accord” ? O.K., if we mean how the W.A. was built and is run;but note that W.A. has worked well until it included only educational systems directly deriving from the “Anglo-Saxon” model.
Thus, if we want a “European Accord”, we must refer to a well defined European model of engineering education,based on the EHEA (Bologna-Berlin) first-second cycle scheme, duly adapted to Engineering Education.
19
The future of Accreditation in Europe (4) The European Model
Indeed, throughout Europe, Higher Engineering Education systems are evolving (with some resistance from some more “traditional” Institutions) in the sense indicated by the Bologna Declaration, providing a “first cycle” and a “second cycle” degree.
In two Workshops (Helsinki, 2003; Madrid, 2004) SEFI and CESAER have confirmed their willingness to contribute to the development of the Bologna process in Engineering Education, and in particular have stated that
transnational recognition of engineering degrees at professional level has to be a primary goal.
20
a well defined set of standards and procedures for an accreditation system of Engineering Education
that should provide a quality European label, tentatively denoted:
EUR-ACE(FC) & EUR-ACE(SC)
EUR-ACE main output(to be provided by 31 December 2005)
21
EUR-ACE other outputs (1)(to be also provided by 31 December 2005)
Template for publishing the results of the evaluation / accreditation procedures.
Specific and detailed proposals on the make-up and terms of reference of the organisation that should run the award of the European Accreditation labels and on how to set it up initially and maintain its existence in the long run.
Draft financial plan indicating how the system can become self supporting within five years.
EUR-ACE other outputs (2)(to be also provided by 31 December 2005)
Suggestions on the establishment of an appropriate consultation system for future developments in order to guarantee that the accreditation system will facilitate the introduction of positive innovations into educational programmes and curricula. Indications on the formulation of branch-specific requirements. Database on accreditation procedures in Europe, in synergy with Line A of the Socrates Thematic Network TREE. Database on European-accredited engineering programmes, as a development of the present FEANI Index.
Planned Stages of EUR-ACE work plan
Stage 1: September-December 2004
First Draft Standards & Procedures
Stage 2: December 2004-February 2005
First Testing stage
Stage 3: March-April 2005 (current)
Refinement of Standards & Procedures
Stage 4: May-October 2005
Second Testing stage
Stage 5: November-December 2005
Conclusions and wrapping up
EUR-ACE begun his work by reviewing criteria and standards already existing in Europe for FC and SC engineering degrees, and compiling a background document
Overview: Accreditation Procedures and Criteria for Engineering Programmes is Europe.
Then a first version of Tentative
EUR-ACE Standards and Procedures for the Accreditation of Engineering Programmeswas prepared, discussed and approved by the Steering Committee.
The two documents were made available on 13 December 2004 on the EUR-ACE web page at the address
http://www.feani.org
25
EUR-ACE Stage 1: September-December 2004 First Draft Standards & Procedures
EUR-ACE Stage 2: Dec. 2004 - Feb. 2005First Testing Stage
European HEIs and other stakeholders of Engineering Education throughout Europe were asked to provide comments, opinions, suggestions and in particular to state whether in their opinion the Tentative Standards
were compatible with existing Accreditation Standards and procedures,
could be used for accrediting programmes and/or as a framework for writing new Standards,
could then be the basis for a truly European system of accreditation of engineering educational programmes.
26
To solicit and collect such comments, several meetings and workshops attended by academic and non-academic parties were organized.
EUR-ACE Stage 2: Dec. 2004 - Feb. 2005First Testing Stage (2)
One of such meetings, promoted and organized by
Federal Service on Supervision in Higher Education and Science (Rosobrnadzor) of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation
and Russian Association for Engineering Education (RAEE)
was held in Moscow on 4 February 2005,
and attended by about 90 peoples from several Universities and services.
Information is available on the RAEE Accreditation Center web site
www.ac-raee.ru
27
The conclusions of the Moscow Seminar were (in English): The enhancement of professional education quality in Russia needs
joint efforts of higher education institutions, industry, academy, professional societies and state bodies as well as development of international cooperation.
Improvement of the national system for assurance and evaluation of professional education quality should be implemented by means of the state accreditation of higher educational institutions and state and public professional accreditation of education programmes.
Standards and procedures for the accreditation of engineering programmes elaborated within the EUR-ACE project including comments and suggestions of the discussions can be considered as proposals for the development of a common European evaluation system for engineer education quality in the context of the Bologna process.
The Russian Association for Engineering Education and other associations of HEIs and educational establishments should continue their participation in the elaboration of the common European criteria and procedures for the evaluation of engineering education quality taking into consideration traditions of the Russian engineering education and boost activity on development of national public accreditation system for engineering programmes. 28
The EUR-ACE Project Board and Steering Committee met in Lisbon on 11-12 March: the comments directly received or provided in public meetings during Stage 2 were distributed; the Steering Committee has immediately started the revision of the “EUR-ACE Tentative Standards and Procedures”: a meeting for approving the new version, to be made available on the web at the end of April, has been convened for 25 April in Bruxelles; the planning of Stage 4 has also begun. Moreover, in this Stage the coordinator will elaborate and submit to discussion a first draft scheme on how to organize and run the European accreditation procedure.
EUR-ACE Stage 3: March-April 2005 (current)Refinement of Standards & Procedures
29
The (revised) “EUR-ACE Standards and Procedures” will be again “tested” by soliciting further comments and suggestions from interested parties; running pilot accreditations in several countries.
Two groups of such trial accreditations can be distinguished:
EUR-ACE Stage 4: May-October 2005 Second Testing Stage
30
EUR-ACE Stage 4: May-October 2005 Second Testing Stage (2)
• ASIIN (DE)• C.T.I. (FR)• I.E.I. (IE)• CoPI (IT)• OE (PT)• UAICR (RO)• RAEE (RU)*• EC-UK (UK)
will conduct the first group of trial accreditations (the “core” group) in parallel to actual accreditations, either already planned or convened just for this testing.The accreditation team (to which an outside EUR-ACE observer will be added whenever possible) will use both “national” and EUR-ACE Standards, checking in particular similarities and differences between the two, and whether the same accreditation decision would be attained by the two procedures. 31
In trial accreditations in countries other than the 8 of the first group (tentatively, DK, FI, LT, NL, SE, TR), only the EUR-ACE Standards will be used
but one of the 8 EUR-ACE “accrediting” partners, will provide his set of operative instructions (lacking so far an agreed EUR-ACE set) and follow the accreditation procedure, giving all necessary instructions and advice on the preparation of documents and visit, participating in the visiting team (which should normally include another outsider and a national).
This sort of procedure should give useful indications on the model for introducing accreditation of engineering programmes into countries where such procedures do not exist at present (one of the main suggestions that should come out of the EUR-ACE project).
(Note that the previous experience of the HEIs involved in these trials may be greatly different from one another, but we shall try and cover all possibilities.)
32
EUR-ACE Stage 4: May-October 2005 Second Testing Stage (3)
During Stage 4 we shall also finalize the other required outputs, and in particular:
precise indications on the procedure for the award of the EUR-ACE labels and on the body or structure that should administer it;
a draft financial plan indicating how the system can become self-supporting within five years, possibly through a gradual increase of the fees charged for the EUR-ACE label.
33
EUR-ACE Stage 4: May-October 2005 Second Testing Stage (4)
A draft of the final EUR-ACE outputs, prepared by the Steering Committee taking account of the indications collected in Stage 4, will be:
submitted to the International Advisory Board;
approved by the Project Board, already convened for 17 November;
presented at the CoPI-UNIFI Workshop “Present and future challenges for Engineering Education in Europe” (Florence, 18-19 November);
edited, finalized and submitted to the European Commission, D.G. ”Education and Culture”, by the project deadline (31 December 2005).
EUR-ACE Stage 5: November-December 2005 Conclusions and wrapping up
34
Let me conclude with some comments on our Standards.
They do not “invent” anything, but collect and harmonize existing documents of several European Accreditation Agencies and bodies;
They intend to be at the same time a “framework” for accrediting accreditation procedures and accreditation bodies (“meta-accreditation”) and a guideline for developing actual operative standards where at present they do not exist.
35
EUR-ACE Tentative Standards
A Russian translation of the (first version of the) Tentative Standards has been prepared by the Accreditation Center of RAEE: I want to thank them for their very active contribute to the EUR-ACE project.
Tentative Standards
Contents (first version):
Preamble
1. Definition of Accreditation
2. Programme outcomesTable 1: Academic Programme OutcomesTable 2: Personal Programme Outcomes(each Table differentiated between FC and SC graduate)
3. Criteria and Quality Requirements for Accreditation
4. Accreditation Procedure - Requirements
5. Template for Publication of Results 36
Tentative Standards (2)
General Statements:
The framework has been designed to be applied to the accreditation of both First Cycle and Second Cycle programmes within the Bologna process, in which an accredited Second Cycle programme would normally be in series with a First Cycle programme. However the use of programme outcomes means that the framework is also applicable to the accreditation of integrated programmes.It is intended that if, in a particular country, established accreditation standards cover fully the requirements proposed in this framework, then the award of the European label will be automatic.Although professional recognition of the engineering titles is considered as the ultimate goal of accreditation labels, these cannot be considered automatically equivalent to professional recognition. To practice the engineering profession, further qualifications (e.g. State exams) and/or training may be required in some countries. 37
FCD
SCD
TCD
Consecutive *
Undergraduate (First Cycle) Study
3 - 4 Years
Graduate (Second Cycle) Study
1 - 2 Years
Postgraduate (Third Cycle) Study
3 - 4 Years
Fig. 1: Typical options for Higher Education Systems. * Options compatible with the Bologna declaration ** Traditional in continental Europe
Undergraduate (First Cycle) Study
3 - 4 Years
Long Doctorate
4 - 5 Years
Long Study Programme
~ 5 Years
Doctorate
~ 3 Years
Short Study Programme
3 - 4 Years
Short ** Integrated ** Graduate school *
Typical options for European HE systems
38
Tentative Standards (3)
Note that the Tentative Standards refer only to first and second cycle programmes (FC
and SC) and neither to any “short cycle” nor Doctoral (“third cycle”) programme; however, the SC label can be awarded to “integrated programmes”;
are not branch-specific, and therefore may need to be complemented by other requirements;
do not specifically refer, but on the other hand do not exclude, e-learning (distance learning) programmes (but perhaps some adaptation would be needed);
are intended for accreditation of educational programmes as a suitable “entry route to the engineering profession” (in accord to our definition), not of Institutions. 39
The Tentative Standards appear flexible enough to accommodate national and subject differences
and to leave the door open to future developments, so that the proposed accreditation standards will not become a straightjacket but rather an incentive to continuously make improvements through incorporating best practice.
We do not exclude that, in parallel to EUR-ACE, other systems may be created to provide special standards and “labels” for programmes addressed to meet specific and particular requirements, or for programmes that e.g. include research ….
40
Tentative Standards (4)
The other main EUR-ACE output will be a document with indications on the procedure for the award of the EUR-ACE labels and on the body or structure that should administer it.This document has not been drafted yet, but I feel that an agreement among the EUR-ACE partners is already emerging on some basic points:
national and regional accreditation agencies already active must be involved;
existing accreditation systems must not be overcome, but rather harmonized;
they will get an “added value” if they can provide a European label;
the developments of new national accreditation systems and agencies must be facilitated. 41
The other EUR-ACE outputs
Of course, any decisions on the actual implementation of the proposed accreditation procedure and system will not compete to the EUR-ACE project,
but we have already forecast a possible prolongation of the project into 2006 in which the accreditation procedure and system identified by the project could be tested in actual applications in and by interested HEIs.
Implementation of EUR-ACE outcomes
42
All participants in the EUR-ACE project are well aware of the difficulties of the task to which we committed ourselves.
Many difficulties will come because of the multiple aims of the Standards to be proposed,
and perhaps some from jalousies and competition between established agencies…..
The main instrument to overcome such difficulties is to get a widespread consensus of the Academic and Professional Engineering Community throughout Greater Europe:
this is what we are trying to achieve….
Final considerations
43
Москва МИСиС
Томск ТПУ
Санкт-Петербург ЛЭТИ
Комсомольск-на- Амуре КнАГТУТаганрог ТРТУ
Большое спасибо за внимание