Accreditation Workshop - Part 1

Accreditation Workshop - Part 1
28 February 2014 Islamabad Er. Professor Dr. Kai Sang LOCK Washington Accord Mentor to PEC A seminar organized by Pakistan Engineering Council

Professor Kai Sang LOCK, PhD PEng
Profession: Professional Consulting Engineer Adjunct Professor: Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD) Part-time: Expert Witness; Arbitrator; Adjudicator; Mediator Past appointment: National University of Singapore (1980 – 1997) Leadership in Profession Past President Institution of Engineers, Singapore Board Member, Professional Engineers Board, Singapore Vice President, ASEAN Academy of Engineering & Technology Accreditation Background Chairman, Engineering Accreditation Board, Singapore ( ) Chair, WA monitoring team to ABET Chair, WA monitoring team to ABEEK Chair, WA monitoring team to S. Africa WA mentor to PEC WA mentor to NBA, India Program Evaluator, Team Chair, Group Chair Faculty member preparing for accreditation

As a Professional Engineer

Mentoring visit to India Mentoring visit to Pakistan
Chair of Washington Accord Review Team to South Korea

Presentation Coverage
Part 1: Outcomes-based Accreditation System, Criteria and Process Part 2: Implementing Outcomes-based Assessment & Preparing for Program Accreditation

Outcomes-based Accreditation System, Criteria and Process
Part 1 Outcomes-based Accreditation System, Criteria and Process

What is Accreditation? The process of external quality review used in higher education to scrutinize colleges, universities, and higher education programs for quality assurance and quality improvement. Success results in an accredited institution and/or program.

Two types of academic accreditation
Institutional accreditation evaluates overall institutional quality, but does not focus on a given academic program. Program Accreditation evaluates an individual program of study, rather than an institution as a whole. This type of accreditation is granted to a specific program.

Objectives of accreditation (1)
Recognition for professional registration; Prestige of program being accredited; International mobility of academic qualifications benchmarked to meet the standards of mutual or international agreements, including the Washington Accord; Grants, finance and other support for accredited program;

Objectives of accreditation (2)
Transfer of credits between accredited programs To assist stakeholders as well as potential students and their parents, professional societies, and potential employers, in identifying specific engineering programs that meet the minimum criteria for accreditation; To provide feedback to the educational institutions for the improvement and development of educational programs.

Accreditation Function
Accreditation is normally voluntary Accreditation involves: an evaluation of engineering education programs offered by the institution, and a judgment against stipulated criteria in accordance with the respective accreditation policy and criteria. An accredited engineering education program is judged as providing satisfactory preparation for graduates to enter the profession in the entry level of engineering practice.

Quality assurance Accreditation is not a ranking system.
It is an assurance that a program or institution meets established quality standards. The role of accreditation is to provide periodic external review in support of the program's continuous improvement process.

Overview of Accreditation System

Nature of Accrediting Body
Statutory / Government body, e.g. a division of ministry of education Engineers Registration Board, e.g. PEC, BEM Professional/Learned Engineering Institution, e.g. Institution of Engineers, Singapore, Hong Kong Institution of Engineers Independent Accreditation Board, e.g. ABET, ABEEK

Organization and composition of Accreditation Board/Committee
Embedded within registration board/professional institution? Independent accreditation body?

Key Attributes of a good accreditation board
Independent Key stakeholders representation Good governance Transparent Clear policy and requirements Accreditation criteria Accreditation procedure

Key Attributes of a good accreditation board
Competent, well-trained program evaluators Effective and efficient accreditation visits Professional decision making process Oversight, appeal Benchmark with highest international standards Commitment to CQI Sustainable

International Scene Washington Accord Sydney Accord Dublin Accord
Seoul Accord ENAEE – EUR-ACE Label (NABEEA) Network of Accreditation Bodies for Engineering Education in Asia

Outcomes-based Accreditation System

Traditional Approach for Quality Assurance of Engineering Programmes
Focused on the input & process quality The criteria for accreditation may typically include the following list: Organization and governance Financial resources Physical resources and facilities Faculty and staff Student intake quality Teaching – learning process Co-curricular and extra-curricular activities Student services & counseling Research & Development Industrial interaction

Outcomes-based Approach for Engineering Programme Accreditation
Knowledge and competencies profiles Graduate attributes which form the student learning outcomes: Engineering knowledge Problem analysis Design/development of solutions Investigation Modern tool usage The engineer and society Environment and sustainability Ethics Individual and team work Communications Project management and finance Life-long learning

Gloria M. Rogers – Developing Sustainable Program Assessment Processes

Institution Vision & Mission
Figure 1 – Continuous Quality Improvement Process in Outcome-based Accreditation Other feedback mechanisms Institution Resources, Teaching & Learning Environment Stake-holders PEO SLO SLO Delivered SLO Curriculum & Course Modules Other Curricular & Extra- Curricular Activities Graduates Working In industry SLO Course Module 2 Individual Course Learning Outcomes 1 Course Assessment & Evaluation by Course Lecturer Institution Vision & Mission SLO Course Module 1 1 Course Assessment & Evaluation by Course Lecturer 2 SLO Assessment & Evaluation by Management/Accreditation Committee 3 PEO Assessment & Evaluation (Surveys, Interviews, etc) by Management/Accreditation Committee Continuous Quality Improvement

Continuous Quality Improvement Process within Outcomes-based Accreditation
Loop (1) - involvement of the course teacher in the continuous quality improvement process – fast response Loop (2) - achievement of SLO at the programme level is evaluated at the exit point Loop (3) - achievement of the programme education objectives from inputs and feedbacks from the stakeholders, e.g. industry employers and alumni

Fallacies, Misconception
Student intake qualification not so important as only outcomes matter Undifferentiated programs: same curricula and same exam papers  same outcomes Accelerated program: duration (no. of years) of study not important Physical infrastructure & laboratories may be replaced by computer simulations Lack of interaction with professors & fellow students - acceptable

Challenges in OBA Implementation
Challenges to the accreditation boards include: Setting high standards to differentiate graduate attributes (learning outcomes) between engineering degree programmes and engineering technology programmes Aligning required knowledge profile and graduate attributes to international benchmarks, such as those of WA Communicating clearly to education providers of the standards and requirements of OBA

Challenges to the accreditation boards include: Training programme evaluators to be well-verse with standards, procedure and requirements of OBA Instituting a system of continuous quality improvement mechanism within the accreditation board Compromising on standards when subject to external pressure

Challenges to the education providers include: Understanding clearly the requirements, procedure and policy of OBA Setting appropriate PEO and SLO which are relevant, measurable and meeting OBA requirements Avoiding low outcome standards Obtaining support from top management to institute outcomes-based teaching and learning Buying-in from faculty on the benefits of OBA and securing their commitments to implement the continuous quality improvement mechanism, particularly at individual course module

Challenges to the education providers include: Training faculty on assessment and evaluation methods which support OBA Instituting the continuous quality improvement mechanism as illustrated in Figure 1, and having the people and resources to monitor and effect the CQI loops Obtaining support and feedbacks from the stakeholders Having champions to lead, implement and prepare for OBA Giving due recognition for contribution to OBA

Accreditation Criteria

Accreditation Criteria
11 criteria in Singapore’s EAB Accreditation Manual Mission & Programme Educational Objectives Student Learning Outcomes Curriculum and Teaching Processes Students Faculty members Facilities & learning environment Institutional support & financial resources Governance Interaction between institution & industry Research & development Specific Programme criteria

Graduate Attributes Graduate attributes form a set of individually assessable outcomes indicative of the graduate's potential competency. Attributes expected of graduate from an accredited programme - expected capability appropriate to the type of programme. The graduate attributes are intended to assist outcomes-based accreditation criteria.

Complex problems (A requirement of WA)
Involve wide-ranging or conflicting technical, engineering and other issues Have no obvious solution and require abstract thinking, originality in analysis to formulate suitable models Requires research-based knowledge much of which is at, or informed by, the forefront of the professional discipline and which allows a fundamentals-based, first principles analytical approach Involve infrequently encountered issues Are outside problems encompassed by standards and codes of practice for professional engineering Involve diverse groups of stakeholders with widely varying needs Have significant consequences in a range of contexts Are high level problems including many component parts or sub-problems

Accreditation Process

Evaluators and selection process
A 3-member Evaluation Team to evaluate each programme: An academic – preferably from overseas Familiar with curriculum, teaching processes, faculties, facilities, learning environment A senior member from related industry Technically competent in the field, practising professional A member familiar with EAB’s accreditation system Remains current with accreditation procedures and requirements, engineering professional

Conflict of interest Definition of possible conflict of interest:
have financial or personal interest in the university; or have or have had a close, active association with the programme or faculty/school in the university. Close or active association are, for example: Employment,as staff or consultant; Attendance, as student at the faculty/school; Receipt of honorary degree from the faculty/school; Membership of a board of the university or any committee advising on the programme being accredited.

Confidentiality of information
Information provided by University and derived from evaluation process, including reports by EAB, should be classified as confidential They should not be released to any unauthorised persons except with written permission from the University IES have signed Non-Disclosure Agreements with university: Accreditation documents are classified as confidential Use the information provided for the purpose of the specific evaluation exercise only Do not share any of the given information with any party outside of the evaluation team

Major focus Quality assurance processes, including internal reviews
Entry standards for admission of students Qualifications, enthusiasm, workload of faculty Facilities Industry participation

Major focus Undergraduate degree in engineering
equivalent to a 4-year full-time course Title of a programme as shown on graduate’s certificate and transcript All modes of delivery have to satisfy the accreditation criteria full-time on-campus evening or part-time

Explaining possible accreditation decisions

Terminology Observation – a comment or suggestion not affecting accreditation decision; is to assist improvement process Concern – indicates criterion, policy or procedure is met, but situation could potentially exists for criterion, policy or procedure not to be met in near future Weakness – criterion, policy or procedure met substantially, but lacks strength of compliance; remedial action to strengthen compliance is necessary before next evaluation Deficiency – criterion, policy or procedure is not met Recommendation - aspects which are suggestions rather than mandatory requirements Requirement - items requiring follow-up action as a condition of accreditation

Possible accreditation decisions
Full accreditation - for maximum of 5 years: Possible even when there are some concerns If weaknesses are not severe, need to indicate: whether the adequacy of the corrective action(s) can be determined on the basis of a written report (with appropriate supporting documentation); or whether a follow-up review visit is required in order to assess the adequacy of the action(s)

Full accreditation but for a shorter term, say 2 to 3 years: If weaknesses are severe If deficiencies are not severe Need to indicate: Whether corrective action(s) can be determined on the basis of a written report (with appropriate supporting documentation); or whether a follow-up review visit is required in order to assess the adequacy of the action(s)

Not to be accredited If deficiencies are severe When one or more of EAB’s 11 criteria are not met Requirements in order to achieve accreditation should be specified

Processes after the on-site accreditation visit

Post-visit activities
Discuss key points to be included in report (if possible, before foreign members depart) Secretary to draft report Team members to review report through Submit report to EAB Consistency Committee Team members to review any comments and changes by EAB Consistency Committee Submit final draft report to university for comments on errors of fact Submit final report to EAB Secretary EAB to meet and decide on recommendation by Evaluation Team (likely to be 2 to 4 months after visit) EAB Secretary will notify Team Members/Secretary of decision of EAB

Washington Accord – An Overview

Introduction The Washington Accord was formed in 1989
International agreement among bodies responsible for accrediting engineering degree programs. It recognizes the substantial equivalency of programs accredited by those bodies and recommends that graduates of programs accredited by any of the signatory bodies be recognized by the other bodies as having met the academic requirements for entry to the practice of engineering.

Signatories Signatories have full rights of participation in the Accord Qualifications accredited or recognised by other signatories are recognised by each signatory as being substantially equivalent to accredited or recognised qualifications within its own jurisdiction.

WA Signatories Australia - Represented by Engineers Australia (1989)
Canada - Represented by Engineers Canada (1989) Chinese Taipei - Represented by Institute of Engineering Education Taiwan (2007) Hong Kong China - Represented by The Hong Kong Institution of Engineers (1995) Ireland - Represented by Engineers Ireland (1989) Japan - Represented by Japan Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (2005) Korea - Represented by Accreditation Board for Engineering Education of Korea (2007) Malaysia - Represented by Board of Engineers Malaysia (2009) New Zealand - Represented by Institution of Professional Engineers NZ (1989) Russia - Represented by Association for Engineering Education of Russia (2012) Singapore - Represented by Institution of Engineers Singapore (2006) South Africa - Represented by Engineering Council of South Africa (1999) Turkey - Represented by MUDEK (2011) United Kingdom - Represented by Engineering Council UK (1989) United States - Represented by Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (1989)

Provisional Status Bangladesh - Represented by Board of Accreditation for Engineering and Technical Education China - Represented by China Association for Science and Technology India - Represented by National Board of Accreditation Pakistan - Represented by Pakistan Engineering Council Philippines - Represented by Philippine Technological Council Sri Lanka - Represented by Institution of Engineers Sri Lanka

Provisional Status Organisations holding provisional status have been identified as having qualification accreditation or recognition procedures that are potentially suitable for the purposes of the Accord; These organisations are further developing those procedures with the goal of achieving signatory status in due course; Qualifications accredited or recognised by organisations holding provisional status are not recognised by the signatories.

RECOGNITION OF EQUIVALENCY OF ACCREDITED ENGINEERING EDUCATION PROGRAMS
Agreement on criteria, policies and procedures used by the signatories in accrediting engineering academic programs are comparable; Accreditation decisions rendered by one signatory are acceptable to the other signatories; Implementation of, best practice, as agreed from time to time amongst the signatories, for the academic preparation of engineers; Mutual monitoring and information exchange, including: regular communication and sharing of information concerning their accreditation criteria, systems, procedures, manuals, publications and lists of accredited programs; invitations to observe accreditation visits; and invitations to observe meetings of any boards and / or commissions responsible for implementing key aspects of the accreditation process, and meetings of the governing bodies of the signatories.

Obligations Each signatory will make every reasonable effort to ensure that the bodies responsible for registering or licensing professional engineers to practice in its country or territory accept the substantial equivalence of engineering academic programs accredited by the signatories to this agreement. The Accord applies only to accreditations conducted by the signatories within their respective national or territorial boundaries.

Duties of signatories Participate in WA general meetings and workshops
To be reviewed every six years Provide evaluators for Review of other signatories Review of provisional members applying to be signatory Mentor provisional members

Road to Signatory of Washington Accord

Admission of new signatories
The admission of new signatories to the Accord will require the unanimous approval of the existing signatories. Preceded by a prescribed period of provisional status, during which the accreditation criteria and procedures established by the applicant, and the manner in which those procedures and criteria are implemented, will be subject to comprehensive examination. Applicants for provisional status must be nominated by two of the existing signatories, and will be accepted only through a positive vote by at least two-thirds of the existing signatories.

Path to become a WA signatory
Must have robust accreditation system in place – accreditation body with authority in the jurisdiction, preferable NGO with support of all stake-holders Accreditation Board/Agency should be independent, autonomous, good governance, sustainable Competent board members, evaluators – transparent appointment, no-conflict of interest First apply for admission as a Provisional Member (PM) Mentors assigned to help PM to gain substantial equivalence: Accreditation standard to the Graduate Attributes Policies and processes to be substantially equivalent Reviewers to evaluate PM for admission to signatory All existing signatories must agree 100% for admission of PM as signatory

Applying to Become a Signatory
During the period of Provisional status, it shall be open to all signatories to visit the applicant at their own cost, but this is neither a requirement nor part of the review process. When the applicant requests, WA will assign three signatories as Reviewers to examine and report on the applicant system and to recommend to the signatories, when they are satisfied that the Requirements for becoming a signatory are met.

3. The Reviewers will evaluate the systems of the applicant. 4. Reviewers must consider whether the accreditation/recognition system is well established (normally with at least one program having gone through a full accreditation/recognition cycle and being re-evaluated) and a substantial proportion of its programmes offered have been evaluated under the system as described. organisations holding provisional status may seek guidance from their mentors (if any) and WA management committee as to how soon during their granted period of provisional status they might apply for review.

5. The Reviewers must ensure that they observe visits to a representative cross-section of institutions, and also observe the accreditation/recognition process for a range of decisions. 6. The expected characteristics of an accreditation/ recognition system and criteria for accreditation/ recognition, including the attributes expected of engineering graduates. If an applicant’s system appears on paper to be substantially equivalent to those of the relevant Accord, tests of the system in operation might then be:

Is the accreditation/recognition system similar in methods and means of delivery to the systems of other signatories? Has a clear definition of academic quality in the context of its mission Is non-governmental Accredits/recognises programs at institutions that have legal authority to confer higher educational degrees/qualifications Has official, written policies and procedures that are available to the institutions and to the public Has a process that includes a self-evaluation by the institution and the program seeking accreditation/recognition Has an on-site review by a visiting team comprised of peers Demonstrates independence from any parent organization or entity in its policy-setting and decision-making process Publishes or makes available to the public a list of accredited/recognised programs Requires a periodic review of accredited/recognised programs

Is there a clearly defined and published scope of activity for the organisation?
What degree programs/qualifications are recognized (undergraduate, graduate,)? Are there geographic bounds? What disciplines are recognized (engineering, engineering technology, computing, etc.)?

Does the organisation demonstrate the use of appropriate and fair procedures in decision making?
Is the organisation subject to interference from professional organisations, societies, special interest groups or government? Within the accrediting/recognising organization, is there a separation of those who establish accreditation/recognition policy and those who make accreditation/recognition decisions? Has written standards, criteria, policies and procedures for the evaluation of programs. Are these publicly available? Is there a process for public comment or review? Accreditation visits are conducted in accordance with the documentation Applies standards and criteria in a consistent and fair manner from institution to institution, program to program and year to year.

Does the organisation demonstrate the use of appropriate and fair procedures in decision making?
Provides a written report to the institution that clearly distinguishes between actions required for accreditation/recognition and actions recommended for academic program improvement. Visit reports provide sufficient detail for the Accreditation/ Recognition Board (or equivalent) to make informed decisions whether or not to accredit particular programs, or to impose conditions The Board demonstrates a capacity to make difficult decisions in a way likely to be beneficial to the engineering community in the longer term Has a process for appealing adverse accreditation/recognition decisions Has a clear conflict of interest policy for all involved in the accreditation/ recognition process including visiting teams, accreditation/recognition decision-makers and policy-makers Are the procedures capable of addressing unusual circumstances in a perceptive way, and is this illustrated in practice?

Does the organisation have the capacity to conduct accreditation/recognition activities on an ongoing basis? Has sufficient staff and financial resources to implement and sustain an effective accrediting/ recognising process How is the organisation financed? What is the outlook for financial viability? Has an effective process for the recruitment, selection, training & evaluation of program evaluators/visitors How are evaluators selected? Are there written training materials? What is process for evaluation? Does the visiting team pool include engineering practitioners as well academicians Conducts periodic self-review to improve its standards, criteria, policies and procedures.

Does the operating documentation focus attention on the fundamental criteria for accreditation/recognition? The required graduate attributes are documented in a way that is clearly evident to the educational provider concerned, and the required attributes are substantially equivalent to the Accord exemplar The criteria translate into procedures that evaluate in depth the outcomes of each program and how they are assured

Ultimately As an overarching test, is the outcome standard, as evaluated by existing signatories during live observation and interaction, consistent with that represented by Washington Accord? i.e. of substantial equivalence.

Singapore University of Technology and Design
[This is our standard cover slide.]

SUTD East Coast Campus

Publicly funded. Globally connected. Boldly designed.
“[SUTD] is a university which is linked up with MIT and Zhejiang University in China and these are very eminent institutions. These linkages will provide the students with not only a very high quality academic input, but also connections to two vibrant economies – the United States with its entrepreneurial and dynamic economic culture and China, a vibrant emerging economy.” Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong Publicly funded. Globally connected. Boldly designed. Not a conventional university. “We’re trying to provide an environment [in SUTD] where boundary-crossing is the norm. Crossing boundaries between disciplines, crossing boundaries between countries, and crossing boundaries between the university and industry.” Prof Susan Hockfield, President, MIT “It is the destiny of the 21st century. If you want to be a world-class university, you have to have international collaborations.” Prof Yang Wei, President, Zhejiang University

Accreditation Workshop - Part 1

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Accreditation Workshop - Part 1"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Accreditation Workshop - Part 1

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Accreditation Workshop - Part 1"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback