Transcript PRO-EAST Workshop Rome, 9 – 11 May 2007 Promotion and

PRO-EAST Workshop Rome, 9 – 11 May 2007
Promotion and Implementation of EUR-ACE Standards
Two Cycles of European Engineering
Education:
Dublin Descriptors, FQ-EHEA, EQF - LLL and
EUR-ACE Standards
Günter Heitmann, Technical University Berlin
SEFI, E4/TREE, EUR-ACE
1. Need for qualitative standards in the Bologna Process
and the two European Frameworks for Qualifications
2. EUR-ACE standards and its relation to European Framework
Standards
3. Improving curricula and teaching / learning arrangements by
orientation on Framework Standards
Three central aims of the Bologna Declaration of 1999:
- a system of comparable and readible degrees
- a system based on two main cycles
- quality assurance with a view to developing comparable criteria and
methodologies
Second Cycle Degree SCD
Second Cycle Program
(Master)
Minimum 3 years
First Cycle Degree FCD
Hard Standard:
(~ 5 years)
Soft Standard
SCP
(Bachelor)
First Cycle Program
FCP
Typical options for European HE systems 2007
Short **
Integrated **
Consecutive *
Doctorate
Postgraduate
(Third Cycle) Study
~ 3 Years
3 - 4 Years
Graduate school *
TCD
Long
Doctorate
SCD
Graduate
(Second Cycle) Study
FCD
4 - 5 Years
Undergraduate
(First Cycle) Study
Undergraduate
(First Cycle) Study
3 - 4 Years
3 - 4 Years
Long
Study Programme
Short
Study Programme
3 - 4 Years
Fig. 1:
1 - 2 Years
~ 5 Years
Typical options for Higher Education Systems.
*
**
Options compatible with the Bologna declaration
Traditional in continental Europe
Source: G. Augusti
1. Need for qualitative standards in the Bologna process

For comparability and recognition of degrees as well as quality assurance in the
common European Higher Education Area (EHEA) by 2010 not only structural
and quantitative (cycles, ECTS, credits for cycles) but also qualitative reference
points turned out to be necessary;

The Bologna-Bergen Follow-up Conference 2005 adopted the Framework for
Qualifications of the EHEA ( FQ – EHEA) including the „Dublin Descriptors“ as
outcomes oriented qualitative level indicators for higher education;

In addition the European Commission in 2006 adopted a European Qualifications
Framework for Lifelong Learning (EQF – LLL) with 8 levels including the 3
Bologna cycles with the bachelor, master and doctorate level but slightly different
indicators;
BERLIN COMMUNIQUE (2003):
„Ministers encourage the member States to elaborate a framework of
comparable and compatible qualifications for their higher education
systems, which should seek to describe qualifications in terms of
workload, level, learning outcomes, competences and profile. …
Within such frameworks, degrees should have different defined
outcomes. »
The shift from Input to Outcomes as main challenge:

Outcomes can be addressed either as programme outcomes
or more specifically as student learning outcomes with regard to programmes,
modules or other kinds of learning situations;

Definition of learning outcomes:
Statement of what a learner is expected to know, understand and/or be able to
do at the end of a period of learning;

Learning outcomes can be phrased in different terms and be more or less
comprehensive, besides knowledge and skills also covering competences and
attitudes.
Expected advantages of outcomes orientation:
1) increase of transparency for different groups of customers,
2) stronger emphasis on student learning and competence achievement,
3) facilitation of recognition and mobility,
including recognition of prior and experiential learning,
4) better alignment and integration of teaching, learning and assessment
and of education, practice and life long learning
5) improvement of quality assurance,
6) increase of accountability
Bologna Process: The Framework for Qualifications of the European
Higher Education Area
(Bergen 2005)

Based on the three cycles and degree levels with the possibility to introduce an
intermediate level within the first cycle (short cycle);

Quantitative descriptors in terms of ECTS Credits for the first and second
cycle; the third cycle not specified in terms of ECTS Credits;

Adoption of the „Dublin Descriptors“ for the Framework for Qualifications of
the EHEA (FQ – EHEA) as the generic outcomes based qualitative indicators
for each degree level and the short cycle.
The „Dublin Descriptors“ as shared qualitative indicators
(Joint Quality Initiative, 2005)

First proposed by the Joint Quality Initiative ( see:
http://www.jointquality.org ) in March 2003 focused on the first and
second cycle level, 2005 enhanced by the doctorate and short cycle
level descriptors;

Generic descriptors of required outcomes in 5 areas:
1. Knowledge and understanding
2. Application of knowledge and understanding
3. Making judgements
4. Communication
5. Learning skills
Dublin Descriptors: Knowledge and Understanding

Qualification that signify completion of the first cycle are awarded to
students who:
- have demonstrated knowledge and understanding that builds upon and
extends their general secondary education, and is typically at a level
that, whilst supported by advanced textbooks, includes some aspects
that will be informed by knowledge of the forefront of their field of study;

Qualification that signify completion of the second cycle are awarded
to students who:
– have demonstrated knowledge and understanding that is founded
upon and/or enhances that typically associated with the first cycle, and
that provides a basis or opportunity for originality in developing and /or
applying ideas, often within a research context;
Dublin Descriptors: Application of Knowledge

Qualification that signify completion of the first cycle are awarded to
students who:
- can apply their knowledge and understanding in a manner that indicates
a professional approach to their work or vocation, and have
competences typically demonstrated through devising and sustaining
arguments and solving solving problems in their field of study;

Qualification that signify completion of the second cycle are awarded
to students who:
– can apply their knowledge and understanding and problem solving
abilities in new or unfamiliar environments within broader (or
multidisciplinary) contexts related to their field of study;
Dublin Descriptors: Making judgements

Qualification that signify completion of the first cycle are awarded to
students who:
- have the ability to gather and interpret relevant data (usually within their
field of study) to inform judgements that include reflection on relevant
social, scientific or ethical issues;

Qualification that signify completion of the second cycle are awarded
to students who:
– have the ability to integrate knowledge and handle complexity, and
formulate judgements with incomplete or limited information, but that
include reflecting on social and ethical responsibilities linked to the
application of their knowledge and judgements;
Dublin Descriptors: Communication

Qualification that signify completion of the first cycle are awarded to
students who:
- can communicate informations, ideas, problems and solutions to both
specialist and non-specialist audiences;

Qualification that signify completion of the second cycle are awarded
to students who:
– can communicate their conclusions, and the knowledge and rationale
underpinning these, to specialists and non-specialist audiences clearly
and unambiguously;
Dublin Descriptors: Learning skills

Qualification that signify completion of the first cycle are awarded to
students who:
- have developed those the learning skills that are necessary for them to
continue to undertake further study with a high degree of autonomy;

Qualification that signify completion of the second cycle are awarded
to students who:
– have the learning skills to allow them to continue to study in a manner
that may be largely self-directed or autonomous.
Functions of the Framework for Qualifications of the EHEA

FQ-EHEA supposed to be an „overarching framework“ and reference for
current or future national qualifications frameworks;

The national frameworks by referring to the European ones should allow to assign
national qualifications to the Bologna levels and facilitate comparability and
recognition;

The European and National Frameworks are not understood as prescriptive for
programme development but seem to have respective implications;

Discipline and subject specific standards like EUR-ACE and national ones should
aim in general to comply with the generic framework standards.
The European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning
(EQF – LLL)

The EQF – LLL comprises 8 levels covering both vocational training and
university level education and training;

The EQF is also a „framework of framework“ as national frameworks and
qualification systems should refer to it by 2009;

It is based on learning outcomes, described in terms of knowledge, skills and
competence, it shall facilitate the recognition of prior and experiential learning;

Levels 6, 7 and 8 compare to the three Bologna cycles, level 5 to a short cycle in
higher education or respective programmes in further vocational or continuing
education;

Legislative co-decision procedures under way in the Eur. Parliament in 2007
The European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning:
EQF – LLL Standards for level 6 (bachelor) and level 7 (master)

Knowledge:
level 6: advanced knowledge of a field of work or study, involving a critical
understanding of theories and principles;
level 7: highly specialised knowledge, some of which is at the forefront of
knowledge in a field of work or study, as the basis for original thinking; critical
awareness of knowledge issues in a field and at the interface between different
fields;
The European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning:
EQF – LLL Standards for level 6 (bachelor) and level 7 (master)

Skills:
level 6: advanced skills, demonstrating mastery and innovation, required to
solve complex and unpredictable problems in a specialised field of work or
study;
level 7: specialised problem-solving skills required in research and/or
innovation in order to develop new knowledge and procedures and to integrate
knowledge from different fields;
The European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning:
EQF – LLL Standards for level 6 (bachelor) and level 7 (master)

Competence:
level 6: manage complex technical or professional activities or projects, taking
responsibility for decision-making in unpredictable work and study contexts,
take responsibility for managing professional development of individuals and
groups;
level 7: manage and transform work or study contexts that are complex,
unpredictable and require new strategic approaches,
take responsibility for contributing to professional knowledge and practice
and/or for reviewing the strategic performance of teams;
2. EUR-ACE Standards and its relation to European Framework
Standards

EUR-ACE standards with regard to expected Programme Outcomes have been
derived primarily from requirements at the „entry into the profession“ and not just
from „academic“ requirements, taking appropriate standards in various European
countries into account;

Dual level: According to the Bologna system of cycles the expected outcomes are
defined as generic outcomes for the first cycle degree (EUR-ACE bachelor) and for
the second cycle degree (EUR-ACE master), with the first cycle degree already
providing „employability“ and an entry into the engineering profession;

The outcomes oriented EUR-ACE Standards aim to satisfy also the level descriptors
of the Framework for Qualifications (FQ) of the EHEA but are necessarily more
specific;

They are supposed to function as a sectoral „framework of frameworks“, namely
with regard to the quality and/or accreditation standards of national agencies
devoted to engineering programmes;
EUR-ACE Standards for Programme Outcomes

EUR-ACE standards for programme outcomes are generic for engineering and focus
on 6 areas of graduate attributes and competence achievement:
- Knowledge and Understanding: FCD: 4, SCD: 2 outcomes are specified,
- Engineering Analysis: FCD: 3, SCD: 4 outcomes specified;
- Engineering Design: FCD: 2, SCD: 3 outcomes specified;
- Investigations: FCD: 3, SCD: 4 outcomes specified;
- Engineering Practice: FCD: 4, SCD: 3 outcomes specified;
- Transferable Skills: FCD: 5, SCD: 7 outcomes specified;

For the First Cycle Degree (FCD), the EUR-ACE-Bachelor, 21 outcomes are
required and need to be addressed and achieved by the programme applying for the
EUR-ACE label, the Second Cycle Degree (SCD), the EUR-ACE Master, requires
23 outcomes;
EUR-ACE Standards for Programme Outcomes

EUR-ACE outcome standards are usually phrased in terms of „ability to ...“
statements; they need to be further specified by the accreditation agencies or
programme provider with regard to engineering branches;

Example: Engineering Design - First Cycle graduates should have:
- the ability to apply their knowledge and understanding to develop and realise
designs to meet defined and specified requirements;
- an understanding of design methodologies, and an ability to use them;
Second Cycle graduates should have:
- an ability to use their knowledge and understanding to design solutions to
unfamiliar problems, possibly involving other disciplins;
- an ability to use creativity to develop new and original ideas and methods;
- an ability to use their engineering judgements to work with complexity, technical
uncertainty and incomplete information;
Implementation of EUR-ACE Standards and some open questions

Are the EUR-ACE outcome standards appropriate and comprehensive enough, in
particular to achieve a first degree quality compatible with global standards
(Washington Accord) and the European Frameworks for Qualifications?

Do all 21 EUR-ACE Programme Outcomes for the First Cycle Degree or all 23 for
the Second Cycle Degree need to be addressed by national accreditation standards
and respectively achieved by the programme providers before a EUR-ACE label can
be awarded?

Is it necessary to introduce different levels of attainment with regard to the required
outcomes and do we need respective shared performance or outcomes indicators?

How can a EUR-ACE appropriate outcomes assessment be implemented by
programme providers and evaluated by National Agencies and external reviewers?

How can or should EUR-ACE standards be improved? Need for a special Quality
Assurance System within National Agencies and ENAEE?
3. Improving Curricula and Teaching/Learning arrangements by
orientation on Framework Standards

Outcomes and competence based Qualification Frameworks and the
EUR-ACE accreditation requirements are only reference points;

Accreditation Agencies as well as programme providers may want to go
beyond the described minimum standards;

Faculty and teaching staff has to get involved in discipline, branch,
programme, subject and module related specification of learning
objectives and intended learning outcomes;

A comprehensive process of alignment of programme planning,
teaching/learning arrangements, an appropriate outcomes assessment and
feed-back for continuous quality improvement is needed;

Programme providers have to make evident and the external reviewers
(peers) have to evaluate whether required outcomes are achieved.
ABET - Evaluation &
Assessment Cycles
“2-loop Process”
Determine educational
objectives
Input from
Constituencies
Determine Outcomes
Required to Achieve
Objectives
Evaluate
Evaluate Objectives/
Objectives
Assess Outcomes
Determine How
Outcomes will be
Achieved
Formal Instruction
Student Activities
Determine How
Outcomes will be
Assessed
Establish Indicators
for Outcomes to Lead
to Achievement
of Objectives
assessment
criteria
define
Individual
students
are guided by
Intended
Learning
Outcomes
predefined by
designed to
produce
Learning
Aligned
assessment
tested by
supported by
which also
produce
some of
which are
are guided by
through
appropriate
learning activities
become
included
in
unintended but
valued learning
outcomes
CONSTRUCT
used to
design
identifies need
to modify
may
identify
Emergent
learning
outcomes
LTSN UK: Constructive Alignment Concept map / Houghton/Biggs
Thanks for your attention.
Waiting for questions and comments:
[email protected]