2

nd

EAC-MCED Dialogue

Megat Johari Megat Mohd Noor UniversitiTeknologi Malaysia International Campus Kuala Lumpur 22 nd February 2010

Topics

 Introduction  Best Practices  Concerns  Causes  Development  Involvement  Feedback  Conclusion

Introduction

Objectives of Accreditation

 Ensure programmes attain

standard

comparable to

global

practice (pg 1 Sec 1.0 EAC Manual)  Ensure

CQI culture

(pg 1 Sec 1.0 EAC Manual)  Ensure graduates can

register with BEM

(pg 1 Sec 2.0 EAC Manual)  Ensure

CQI

is practiced (pg 1 Sec 2.0 EAC Manual) 

Benchmark

EAC Manual) engineering programmes (pg 1 Sec 2.0

Accreditation Policy

 Focus on

outcomes

and developed

internal system

(pg 4 Sec 5.1 EAC Manual)  Determining the

effectiveness

quality

assurance system

of the (pg 4 Sec 5.1 EAC Manual) 

Compliance

to criteria (pg 5 Sec 5.5 EAC Manual)  Minor

shortcoming

(s) –

less than 5 years

accreditation (pg 4 Sec 5.6 EAC Manual)

EAC Focus

 Breadth and depth of curriculum  Outcome based approach  Continual quality improvement  Quality management system

EAC Criteria

 Program Objectives  Program Outcomes  Academic Curriculum  Students  Academic & Support Staff  Facilities  Quality Management System

Universities Best Practices

Best Practices - Curriculum

 Extensive stakeholders involvement  External examiner with adequate TOR  Balanced curriculum including assessment; cognitive, psychomotor & affective  Comprehensive benchmarking (including against WA attributes)  Considered seriously students’ workload distribution  Various delivery methods

Best Practices – System

 Systematic approach to demonstrate attainment of program outcomes  Staff training (awareness) on outcome based approach  Moderation of examination questions to ensure appropriate level  Course CQI implemented

Best Practices – System

 System integrity ensured by committed and dedicated staff  Constructive leadership  Comprehensive self assessment report  Planned and monitored activities (PDCA)  Well documented policies / procedures and traceable evidence  Certification to ISO 9001/17025, OSHAS 18001

Best Practices - Staff

 Highly qualified academic staff (PhD/PE) with research and industry experience  Staff professional development and involvement  Staff training (awareness) on outcome based approach  Research / industry experience that enhance undergraduate teaching  Academic staff in related discipline  Ideal staff: student ratio (1:10 or better)

Best Practices – Students & Facilities  Awareness programs for students on outcomes  Remedial classes to bridge basic knowledge gaps  Current (not obsolete) laboratory equipment in appropriate number  High end laboratory equipment  Emphasis on safety

Accreditation Concerns

PEO & PO

 Specialisation at undergraduate level (eg. BEng [Nanotechnology])  Stakeholders involvement (eg. IAP); minimal and/or inappropriate  Program objectives (PEO); restatement of program outcomes  Program outcomes (PO); only cognitive assessment

Curriculum

 Benchmarking; limited to curriculum (virtual)  No link between engineering courses and specialisation  Course outcomes mapping to PEO/PO; not well understood by academic staff  Delivery method; traditional not embracing project/problem based (open-ended)

Curriculum

 Courses devoid of higher cognitive level  Team teaching not visible (not involved in planning nor summative evaluation)  Industrial training (exposure); taking up a semester teaching time and/or conducted last

Assessment & Evaluation

 Assessment types and weightage; favour high grades or facilitate pass  Depth (level) of assessment; not visible / appropriate (lack of philosophy)  Examination questions; not challenging  Lack of summative evaluation  Mostly indirect assessement (simplistic direct assessment; grade=outcome)

Staff & Facilities

 Varied understanding of system (OBE)  Academic staff; professional qualification / experience limited (mostly young academics) – issue of planning and recruitment policy  Inadequate laboratory equipment / space / technician  Laboratory safety  Ergonomics

Quality Management System

 Follow-up actions; slow or not visible  No monitoring  Grading system (low passing marks)  Adhoc procedure (reactive)  Financial sustainability  Incomplete cycle (infancy)

Causes & Development

Causes

 Top management; not the driving force (delegation & accountability)  Academic leadership  Inadequate staff training or exposure  Awareness of EAC requirements  Unclear policy, procedures and/or philosophy  Understanding between engineering & technology

Development

Latest Development

 3 PE (or equivalent) per program  Industrial training – vacation (not to take up the regular semester)    WA-graduate attribute profile- Project Management & Finance WA- typically 4-5 years of study, depending on the level of students at entry WA- (knowledge aspect) engagement in research literature  Potential merger of European-WA attributes leading to requirement of more advanced courses

EAC Professional Development

 Submission to EAC (1-2 days); March 2010  Outcome based education (2-3 days); April 2010  Panel evaluators (3-4 days); May 2010  Evaluator refresher (1/2 - 1 day); May 2010  On-the-job training (accreditation visit)  Customised workshop/courses  EAC 1 st Summit & Forum Aug 2010, Kuching

Improvements

  Defer rejection for Application for Approval, and IHL will be called to discuss for resubmission Response to Evaluators’ report would require IHL’s corrective action as well apart from correcting factual inaccuracies, and would be tabled at EAC meeting

Involvement

EAC Involvement

 Accreditation  Recognition  Mentoring  Mutual recognition – CTI France  NABEEA  IEA (Washington Accord)  FEIIC (EQAPS)

Universities

         Evaluation Panel Joint Committee on Standard Local Benchmarking Knowledge Sharing (systems) Local & International Observers EAC/Professional activities Interpreting WA graduate attributes Industry Sabbatical International collaboration (research + academic)

Feedback

Feedback from Universities

        UNIM UTAR UTM IIUM UNIMAS UMS USM UiTM

Rated Poor (2/5)

       Explanation by Panel chair (UNIM) Interview session with lecturers (UNIM,UTM) Interview session with students (UNIM) Time keeping (UTM, USM) Asking relevant question according to EAC Criteria (IIUM, USM) Checking records (USM) Commitment and cooperation during visit (IIUM)

Recapitulation from 1

st

Dialogue

        Not

fault finding

(need to highlight strength)

Sampling

may not be representative Giving adequate time to

adjust

with changes to the Manual Time frame to obtain

results

PE definition to be

opened other Professional

bodies to No clear justification

requiring PE

(nice to have) Appoint suitable and

“related discipline”

evaluators Appoint

non-PE

academics         Usurping the power of

senate

MCED should be given the mandate to

nominate academics

to EAC Spell out the Manual

clearly

benchmarking)

Local

benchmarking (eg.

Assessment

of EAC

evaluators Flexibility

of Appendix B Response at

exit meeting Engineering technology

vs Engineering

Conclusion

Conclusion

 Great potential in leading engineering education  Quality & competitive engineering education  Contributing to greater goals  Sharing of knowledge and practice  Systems approach outcome based education  Participative and engaging rather than adversary  Professional development  Facilitating and developmental

Thank you