Transcript ACCREDITATION OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION IN EUROPE …

ACCREDITATION OF ENGINEERING
EDUCATION ON A CONTINENTAL SCALE:
the EUR-ACE project
(Accreditation of European Engineering
Programmes and Graduates)
Giuliano Augusti
Università "La Sapienza", Roma, Facoltà di Ingegneria
Coordinator, EUR-ACE Project
[email protected]
[email protected]
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.
Notwithstanding some slight differences, this definition is
generally accepted in the engineering community, but …
3
… 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
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
whose differences lead to much confusion in the mutual
recognition of academic and professional qualifications:
consequently, difficulties still remain in the mobility and transnational acceptance of engineers (and other professionals).
5
It is indeed true that engineers, even if educated differently,
have always been able to work together ...
But a coherent European accreditation system
is 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
6
situation?]

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-ACE
Accreditation of European Engineering Programmes and Graduates
Other Participating Institutions indicated in the application (1)
1. FEANI Nat. Members
 Germany
 Poland
 The Netherlands
 Spain
 Finland
 Denmark
 Switzerland
 Italy
2. SEFI Instit. Members
 SE: Lund University
 CZ: C.T.U. Prague
 HU: Univ. Miskolc
 TK: Istanbul T.U.
 AT: T.U.Wien
10
EUR-ACE
Accreditation of European Engineering Programmes and Graduates
Other Participating Institutions indicated in the application (2)
3. EUROCADRES Nat. Members
4. CLAIU
 Belgium
 Czech Republic
5. CRUI (IT)
 Denmark
 Finland
The list of the “Other
 France
Participating Institutions”
 Ireland
can be modified: Institutions
 Italy
can be added / cancelled.
 Portugal
They are expected to play a
 Romania
major role during the
 United Kingdom
“testing stages” of the
project.
11
EUR-ACE Project Management Structure
Project Board (PB)
International Advisory
Board
One representative of each Partner
Financial and administrative
Structure
Treasurer
Ph.Wauters
Technical Structure
Coordinator
Steering Committee
(Project Leader)
8 [Socrates] +1 [Tempus]
accreditation specialists
G. Augusti
Support by the legal
representative
FEANI Staff
Technical and administrative assistance,
relations with other Socrates programmes
UNIFI, International Relations Office
-
3 high level experts
Technical support
(each partner)
Staff
Additional support to the testing phase
FEANI National Members,
SEFI institutional members,
EUROCADRES National Members
12
EUR-ACE Project Board:
First meeting: London (ECUK), 2 September 2004
1. FEANI - Philippe WAUTERS
8. IEI - Michael HILLERY
2. SEFI - Tornbjörn HEDBERG
9. CoPI - Alfredo SQUARZONI
3. CESAER - Jan GRAAFMANS
10. UNIFI - Claudio BORRI
4. EUROCADRES - Pierre COMPTE 11. OE PT- Sebastiao FEYO
5. ENQHEEI - René-Fran. BERNARD 12. UAICR - Iacint MANOLIU
6. ASIIN - Iring WASSER
13. RAEE - Oleg BOEV
7. CTI - François TAILLY
14. 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-ACE
Accreditation 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 “AngloSaxon” 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
EUR-ACE main output
(to be provided by 31 December 2005)
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)
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 Stage 1: September-December 2004
First Draft Standards & Procedures
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 Programmes
was 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 2: Dec. 2004 - Feb. 2005
First 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.
To solicit and collect such comments, several
meetings and workshops attended by academic
and non-academic parties were organized.
26
EUR-ACE Stage 2: Dec. 2004 - Feb. 2005
First 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
EUR-ACE Stage 3: March-April 2005 (current)
Refinement of Standards & Procedures
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.

29
EUR-ACE Stage 4: May-October 2005
Second Testing Stage
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:
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
EUR-ACE Stage 4: May-October 2005
Second Testing Stage (3)
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 EURACE project).
(Note that the previous experience of the HEIs involved
in these trials may be greatly different from one
32
another, but we shall try and cover all possibilities.)
EUR-ACE Stage 4: May-October 2005
Second Testing Stage (4)
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 5: November-December 2005
Conclusions and wrapping up
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).

34
EUR-ACE Tentative Standards
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.
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
35
contribute to the EUR-ACE project.
Tentative Standards
Contents (first version):
Preamble
1. Definition of Accreditation
2. Programme outcomes
Table 1: Academic Programme Outcomes
Table 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
Typical options for European HE systems
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
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
Tentative Standards (4)
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
The other EUR-ACE outputs
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
Implementation of EUR-ACE outcomes
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.
42
Final considerations
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….
43
Большое спасибо за
внимание
[email protected]
Санкт-Петербург
ЛЭТИ
Москва
МИСиС
Таганрог ТРТУ
Томск
ТПУ
Комсомольск-наАмуре КнАГТУ