Giuliano Augusti Università "La Sapienza", Roma, Facoltà di Ingegneria Coordinator

1. Seminar at Online Educa Berlin 2004; 1 December 2004 Accreditation of Distance Learning in Higher Education – a European Approach ACCREDITATION OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION IN EUROPE:the EUR-ACE project(Accreditation of European Engineering Programmes and Graduates) Giuliano Augusti Università "La Sapienza", Roma, Facoltà di Ingegneria Coordinator giuliano.augusti@uniroma1.it eur-ace@ing.unifi.it

2. FEANI • SEFI • CESAER • EUROCADRES • ENQHEEI • ASIIN (DE) • C.T.I. (FR) EUR-ACE (Sept.2004/Dec.2005)Accreditation of European Engineering Programmes and GraduatesPartners • CoPI (IT) • UAICR (RO) • OdE (PT) • RAEE (RU) * • ECUK (UK) • I.E.I. (IE) • UNIFI (IT) * TEMPUS partner (EUR-ACE is the first project supported by the two EU programmes “SOCRATES” and “TEMPUS”) 2

3. (*) ESOEPE, the “European Standing Observatory for the Engineering Profession and Education” founded in 2000 by 8 bodies from academia and profession and later enlarged to several other members, is the background structure behind EUR-ACE. Let me begin with the definition of accreditation (of educational programmes) adopted byESOEPE (*) in 2001: Accreditation is the primary quality assurance process used to ensure the suitability of an educational programme as the entry route to the engineering profession. Accreditation involves a periodic audit against published standards of the engineering education provided by a particular course or programme. It is essentially a peer review process, undertaken by appropriately trained and independent panels comprising both engineering teachers and engineers from industry. The process normally involves both scrutiny of data and a structured visit to the educational institution. 3

4. Educational Systems in Europe are very different from each other, because of historical reasons. Consequently, significance and procedures for accreditation of engineering education vary greatly from one European country to the other. Three typical examples: Diversity within Europe: the present • in GB and IE, accreditation standards and procedures are the responsibility of professional Institutions, and Higher Education Institutes (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, a “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

5. However, engineers educated so differently have always been able to work together ...Why a coherent European accreditation system is now felt extremely useful, if not necessary?  • Increased (physical and “virtual”) mobility of engineers (also of engineering students, but this is another story); • New degrees …. ; • 1989European Directive not always satisfactorily applied, and the “Directive” taking such a long time for ratification by European institutions [and will it improve the situation?] However, quality assurance and accreditation procedures are being introduced, and in many cases are similar to each other. This gives us confidence that what EUR-ACE intends to do is not complete “madness”. 5

6. 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). The autonomy of HEIs makes this line impracticable (within many countries, HEIs are not “obliged” even to recognise each others’ degrees) and an ad-hoc European structure? Which future for Accreditation in Europe according to EUR-ACE ? 6

7. … and we should never forget that when something must be implemented in Europe, there is always a choice between two alternatives….. 7

8. 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. The future of Accreditation in Europe (2) 8

9. The European system must be built-up gradually, bottom-up, including and harmonizing existing accreditation systems. It may start from mutual recognition agreements between two or more countries. Model: Washington Accord ? O.K., but W.A. has worked well until it included only educational systems directly deriving from the “Anglo-Saxon” model. Thus, if we want a “European Accord”, we must refer to a well defined European model of engineering education. The future of Accreditation in Europe (3) 9

10. Such a European Model must be based on the EHEA (Bologna-Berlin) first-second cycle framework, duly adapted to Engineering Education: 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. They have has also stated that transnational recognition of engineering degrees at professional level has to be a primary goal. The future of Accreditation in Europe (4) The European Model 10

11. A well defined set of standards and procedures for an EEE accreditation system will be proposed. In accord with what has been stated before, these standards should be at the same time a “framework” for harmonizing existing practices and accrediting accreditation procedures and accreditation bodies (“meta-accreditation”) and a guideline for developing actual operative standards where at present they do not exist. EUR-ACE envisaged outputs (1)End of project: 31 December 2005 11

12. The proposed standards should also be flexible enough to accommodate national and subject differences but not “branch specific”: however, the feasibility may also be investigated of providing special standards for programmes addressed to meet specific and particular requirements. This will also open the door 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. EUR-ACE outputs (2) 12

13. The EUR-ACE project should also provide • recommendations on the body or structure that should administer the award of the quality European Accreditation labels, tentatively denoted: EUR-ACE(FC) & EUR-ACE(SC) • a draft financial plan indicating how the system can become self-supporting within five years, possibly through a gradual increase of the fees charged to the HEIs seeking the EUR-ACE label. EUR-ACE outputs (3) 13

14. After a review of criteria and standards already existing for FC and SC engineering degrees, a first set of Tentative EUR-ACE Standards and Procedures for the Accreditation of Engineering Programs has been discussed and approved by the Steering Committee on 25 November. A drafting panel is now editing the text in accord with the agreed outcomes of the discussion; the edited text will be put on the web by 15 December, and “testing” will immediately begin. First Stage of EUR-ACE work (1) (September-November 2004) 14

15. Contents: Preamble • Introduction • Table of general programme outcomes, differentiated between FC and SC degrees • Criteria and Quality Requirements for Accreditation • Requirements of the Accreditation Procedure • Annex: Template for Publication of Results A commentary will accompany the text. Tentative Standards 15

16. General Statements: The programmes fulfilling the requirements set in the Standards will obtain the appropriate European label, but if a set of National Standards already in force cover fully the requirements of these standards, the award of the European Label can be automatic. Accreditation of a SC programme is will be normally awarded to programmes in series with FC programmes, but can also be obtained by integrated programmes. Accreditation of an Engineering Educational Program is not to be automatically identified with recognition of the programme as allowing the immediate practice of the engineering profession. In some countries, further qualifications (e.g. a “State Exam”) and/or training periods may be required. Tentative Standards (2) 16

17. The Tentative Standards will be tested in several European countries in order to verify whether they • are compatible with existing Accreditation Standards and procedures, • could be used as a framework for writing new Standards, • could be used for accrediting programmes, • can then be the basis for a truly European system of accreditation of engineering educational programmes. Next Stage of EUR-ACE work plan:First Testing Stage (December 2004-February 2005) 17

18. Stage 3 (March-April)Revision: Tentative Standards modified [hopefully improved !] in accordance with the test results Stage 4 (May-November)Retesting:Revised Standards tested again and possibly used in pilot accreditations; consensus searched (hoping for convergence of the process) Stage 5 (December) Wrapping up:Final set of standards and procedures for an EEE accreditation system elaborated and transmitted to the EC DG EAC, together with the other planned outputs. Further Stages of EUR-ACE work plan:(March-December 2005) 18

19. 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 extension of the project into2006 in which the accreditation procedure and system identified by the project could betested in actual applications in and by interested HEIs. Implementation of EUR-ACE outcomes 19

20. I am well aware, as are all participants in the EUR-ACE project, that the task to which we committed ourselves is a quite difficult one. Many difficulties will come because of the multiple aims of the Standards to be proposed….. Another, perhaps the main, problem will be to get a widespread consensus of the European Engineering Community (Academic and Professional): also for this reason, even during the development of the project, we must and will seek advise and support by as many people, bodies, Institutions, Associations as possible... Closing considerations (1) 20

21. Therefore, we a) Ask all interested parties and stakeholders to examine the Tentative Standards, and verify whether they • are compatible with existing Accreditation Standards and procedures, • could be used as a framework for writing new Standards, • could be used for accrediting programmes; b) Solicit critical comments and suggestions for improvements; c) Will organizenational and regional workshops to which academic and non-academic parties will be invited. Closing considerations (2) 21

22. The Tentative Standards will be on the EUR-ACE web page at the address http://www.feani.org from 15 December 2004 Reactions, opinions, suggestions are solicitedfrom all interested parties and stakeholders, and will be taken into account in the revision stage. They should be e-mailed to FEANI and to me: giuliano.augusti@uniroma1.it eur-ace@ing.unifi.it Closing considerations (3) 22

23. Due to the very strict work plan and the deadlines we had to set ourselves in accord to the “Call for proposals”, within the first “testing stage” it is not possible to run “open Conferences, but we shall organize national (and possibly regional) workshops to which academic and non-academic parties will be invited The plan of these meetings is under development: please let me know if anybody is interested to be invited or promote a meeting. I ask also to be contacted by Universities and other HEIs that might be interested in participating to the second testing stage (May-Oct.’05) and/or, in 2006, in the possible pilot accreditations in accord to the proposed system. Closing considerations (4) 23

24. In this specific environment of people interested in accreditation of e-learning, and noting that the Tentative Standards do not specifically refer, but on the other hand do not exclude, e-learning, I would suggest that somebody verifies and adapt the Standards to distance programmes. Closing considerations (5) Thank you for your attention 24