Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Ni*

Report
REGIONAL CONFERENCE - QUALITY MATTERS: QUALITY ASSURANCE
AT UNIVERSITIES IN THE REGION
International accreditation of engineering
studies and its impact on quality assurance
systems of Serbian technical faculties
M I L O Š N E D E L J K O V I Ć 1,
M I L A N M A T I J E V I Ć 2, Ž A R K O Ć O J B A Š I Ć 3, M I L A N R I S T A N O V I Ć 1
1
2F
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING FACULTY, UNIVERSITY OF BELGRADE,
BELGRADE, {MNEDELJKOVIC, [email protected]
ACULTY OF ENGINEERING SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF KRAGUJEVAC,
KRAGUJEVAC, [email protected]
3
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING FACULTY, UNIVERSITY OF NIŠ,
NIŠ, [email protected]
Introduction
2
 In this lecture some experiences from Tempus project
»International Accreditation of Engineering Studies« are
presented.
 Project will be active for one more year (grant extension).
International Accreditation of Engineering Studies
144856-TEMPUS-2008-RS-JPGR
Some basic data
about IAES project
3
Overall Project Goal
4
 The overall objective of IAES project is
 to
enhance the quality and relevance of
higher education in engineering area in
partner countries and
 to reach the integration of partner country
universities into the European university
system by international accreditation of
engineering studies.
144856-TEMPUS-2008-RS-JPGR: International Accreditation of Engineering Studies
Specific Project Goals
5
 Specific project goals are to accomplish:
 Internal quality assurance and enhancement mechanisms
based on the best international practice
 A new model of flexible curriculum structure taking into
account emerging interdisciplinary engineering areas and
enabling the recognition of new professional qualifications
 Improvement of laboratory, library, learning and teaching
facilities as well as development of partnership with
enterprises
144856-TEMPUS-2008-RS-JPGR: International Accreditation of Engineering Studies
Specific Project Goals (cont.)
6
 Specific project goals are also to accomplish:
Improvement of administrative/student services
including logistic support for university
internationalization
 Indispensable curriculum corrections
 International accreditation of at least two study programs
with the relevant international accreditation agencies

144856-TEMPUS-2008-RS-JPGR: International Accreditation of Engineering Studies
IAES project partners
7
 University of Belgrade
 Technische Universität
 Ministry of Education and





Science of Serbia (former
Ministry of Education and
Sports of Serbia)
University of Kragujevac
German University in Cairo
University of Niš
ASIIN Consult GmbH
Imperial College London






München
Universitat Politècnica de
Catalunya
University Karlsruhe (KIT)
Robotina d.o.o.
Mihajlo Pupin Institute
Informatika
Ivdam Process Control
d.o.o.
144856-TEMPUS-2008-RS-JPGR: International Accreditation of Engineering Studies
Motivation and some problems
8
Motivation for IAES project
9
 Project motivation: global society makes that it is very
important to educate relevant engineering professionals, that
can contribute most to making of the new values.
 As basic measure of such relevance, accreditation and quality
assessment could be taken, performed by the same agencies
that accredit the best European engineering universities.
 Such relevance also opens new prospective to our education,
based on the internationalisation of programs.
 Obvious question is what is necessary to be done so that our
engineering programmes could withstand same quality
assessment which is performed at, for example, Technical
University of Munich, one of the IAES project partners.
Problems, problems, problems...
10
 Years of political and economic crisis, unanswered question
whether knowledge is market good or public wealth,
financing which favours administrative quality criteria,
tolerance regarding “state in the field” have all led to
development of “entrepreneur model” in education, which
meets primarily short term expectations of clients (students
and/or parents) and HE institutions themselves (with incomes
depending of number of students) instead of fulfilling public
society needs.
 Not only that engineering education is not recognized as the
best possibility for society recovery, but it has not even
managed to explore new possibilities for interdisciplinary and
more flexible organization at all levels of studies.
 So at this moment Serbian engineering education it is not
sufficiently compatible with relevant engineering education
at the leading word universities.
ASIIN AND ABET CONCEPTS OF
ACCREDITATION AND STUDY
PROGRAMS EVALUATION
11
ASIIN and ABET
12
 ASIIN (http://www.asiin-ev.de/) and
ABET (http://www.abet.org/) are two
worldwide known accreditation
agencies for engineering studies, so
analysis of their requirements and
procedures for international
accreditation could be considered as
highly relevant.
 Mutual characteristic of these agencies
are mechanisms that should guarantee
objectivity and independence from
state and institutions which programs
are being accredited.
ABET (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology)
13
 ABET is more relevant in the USA and checks
whether HEI manages to prepare students in line
with standards of quality that have been
established for specific profession.
 ABET is proud of decades long tradition and
experience since it has been established in year
1932 by seven engineering societies, while
international accreditation boards exist since
1989 with the task to evaluate existence of
“significant equivalence” with international
programs.
 ABET is mostly interested in assessment of
learning outcomes and assurance of competencies
of former students entering professional practice.
ABET
14
 Therefore, ABET considers accreditation of study programs
that are already running, and initial condition for study
program accreditation is that there exists at least one
student that has finished program at least one year before
accreditation of it.
 Until January 31st accreditation requests can be submitted
for accreditation of programs that start until fall same year.
 Accreditation is granted for the period of maximally 6
years, and the procedure is that ABET commission after
assessment of self evaluation report, on site visit and
evaluation of processes and documentation, interviews
with students, lecturers and administration, makes
decision on program accreditation, with mandatory
recommendations what improvements are necessary.
ABET
15
 Contents and form of the study program evaluation report, as well as criteria for quality
assessment and accreditation of study program can be found at
http://www.abet.org/forms.shtml.
 For example, evaluation and On-Site visit with ABET evaluates:












Auspices, control, and organization of the institution housing the program
Educational programs offered and degrees conferred.
Maturity and stability of the institution and of the individual educational programs.
Basis of and requirements for admission of students.
Number of students enrolled in both the college or division as a whole and in the individual
educational programs.
Teaching staff and teaching loads.
Physical facilities - the educational plant devoted to the educational program.
Finances - investments, expenditures, sources of income.
Curricular Content
Representative samples of student work that reveal the spectrum of educational outcome.
Records of employment of graduates
Student support services appropriate to the educational and career needs of the students.
ABET accreditation process
16
ABET
17
 Criteria fulfilment assessment is relative since boundaries
of standards are pushed forward from year to year, but the
essence is that it is the dynamical process that follows
outcomes and methodology of the best engineering
universities in USA.
 In such highly competitive surrounding most of the HEIs
are focused on the recommendations what should be
improved within accreditation period.
 Specification of expenses can be found at
http://www.abet.org/request.shtml.
 It’s worth mentioning that ABET in its wider goals counts:



To identify to the public specific programs that meet minimum
criteria for accreditation.
To provide guidance for the improvement of the existing and
development of future educational programs in applied science,
computing, engineering, and technology areas.
To stimulate the improvement of applied science, computing,
engineering, and technology education.
ASIIN (Accreditation Agency for Degree Programmes in
Engineering, Informatics, the Natural Sciences and Mathematics)
18
 ASIIN methodology of quality assessment is to
somewhat larger extent based on administrative
checking and evaluation of internal quality
mechanisms compared to general and specific
standards, where program which is subject to
accreditation need not already be in realization.
 Although with somewhat more modest tradition, since
it has been established in year 1999, ASIIN represents
referent institution not only for Germany, where it
issues accreditations and ASIIN quality approvals, but
also for whole Europe since it is member of important
projects regarding quality of university education and
important member of coordinating processes for
European and world standards in the field of
accreditation.
ASIIN’s approach to assessment – procedural workflow
19
ASIIN
20
 By the concept of ASIIN, essential characteristics of study program are not





consequence of the best wishes or marketing campaign isolated from real
resources and mechanisms that provide for program accomplishment.
Exactly exploration of these relations among resources, internal quality
assurance mechanisms and characteristics and learning outcomes of study
program is the essence of ASIIN quality assessment procedures.
Mechanism of accreditation and quality assessment is detailed by
numerous documents presented at http://www.asiin-ev.de, while
expenses are variable, as are with ABET.
Important aspect of the process is the way in which reviewers commission
is assigned which evaluates fulfilment of the standards.
There is balance of the members from professional practice (1/3) and
from academic (1/3) and professional (1/3) engineering universities, all
with individual „veto“ right.
All members of all bodies are replaced every three years.
ASIIN and EUR-ACE label
21
 It is important to note that ASIIN is authorized by
ENAEE (European Network for the Accreditation of
Engineering Education) for issuing EUR-ACE® label
to engineering study programs in the process of
international accreditation.
 That is a prerequisite for program acceptance in so
called FEANI (The Fédération Européenne
d’Association Nationales d’Ingénieurs)
index.
Examples of different understanding
on standards fulfilment in
engineering education
22
KAPK, ASIIN, ABET
23
 National Accreditation Commission as early as in
2006 has formed so called “blue book” with
standards for accreditation and quality assessment
of HE institutions and their study programs.
 Similarity with relevant documents of foreign
agencies such as ASIIN (http://www.asiin-ev.de/)
and ABET (http://www.abet.org/) is obvious.
 Main differences are in methodology of quality
assessment and in recognition of standards
fulfilment.
 For example, standards concerning learning
outcomes are dominantly evaluated as part of the
text describing important characteristic of study
program which is checked by the reviewers and
KAPK to be in line with overall program logic.
Accreditation, labs, safety…
24
 In the case of international accreditation, question of fulfilment
of these standards is evaluated with much narrower tolerance.
 Starting point is what is asked from the student to pass the
exam (which questions were asked at the exams, what lab
exercises were necessary to be self performed, etc.) and on the
basis of that obtained learning outcomes are discussed.
 Learning methodology is based on problem oriented learning
which assumes that student is facilitated with appropriate lab
setup including place, hardware and software support and
coaching.
 Lab standards themselves with safety aspects (volatage levels
up to 50V etc.) are tolerated in our system in which material
aspect was always weak point.
Conclusion
25
Conclusion
26
 IAES Tempus project involved in its activities
members of the National Accreditation Board, deans,
members of the management and appropriate
commissions of the faculties and universities in
Serbia.
 Those activities were in line with preparations for
national external evaluation process of HE
institutions in Serbia, so its wider influence to
qualities of national engineering study programs is
foreseen.
 Mechanisms of quality assurance must guarantee
continuous improvement of study programs and
their relevance in global educational framework.
Result: two accredited programs
27
 Universities, direct IAES project users, have already
internationaly accredited two study programs which
involved improvement of quality assurance systems,
improvement of curricula structures and contents and
mostly rigorous self evaluation processes.
 Significant financial and administrative effort was
absolute necessity.
 Appropriate lab conditions for students, selection of
competent lecturers, fine tuning of curricula contents
and efficient demonstration of functional quality
assurance system were aspects that by our
experience needed most attention.
Where from here?
28
 Important perspectives of Serbian society are
in lifting of the overall educational level and in
building knowledge society, which assumes
highest possible standards of education.
 Although it is useful that foreign agencies
perform quality assessment and accreditation
of engineering studies, in long terms the most
important are:


Successful build up of internal quality mechanisms of
our technical faculties,
Attainment of necessary steps needed that National
Accreditation Commission (KAPK) ensures its
international reputation.
Thank you for your attention.
Questions and comments are welcome.
29

similar documents