Accreditation of Engineering Educational Programmes: EUR-ACE and ENAEE

1. Accreditation of Engineering Educational Programmes:EUR-ACE and ENAEE Giuliano Augusti Coordinator, EUR-ACE project giuliano.augusti@uniroma1.it eur-ace@ing.unifi.it 1 www.feani.org (EUR-ACE)

2. Background The so-called “Bologna Process” aims at creating by 2010 the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) based on “a system of easily readable and comparable degrees”. Thanks to this “readability” of degrees, and the application of appropriate Quality Assurance procedures, the Bologna process should essentially lead to a “de facto” recognition of Higher Education degrees for academic purposes. A similar process should develop also with regard to recognition for professional purposes, but it is much slower and has not involved yet any change or coordination of national systems. Procedures for professional “licensing” still vary very much from one European country to the other, and create great confusion in the mutual recognition of academic and professional qualifications. 2

3. Examples of National “Accreditation” Systems Note: the word “accreditation”, used in the USA since the ‘30s, did not find its way into European literature and official documents up to very recent years… • France: Since 1934 the ‘Commission des Titres d’Ingénieur’ (CTI) grants the ‘habilitation’ to appropriate engineering programmes; • Italy (and other countries): A programme is considered “automatically accredited” if it conforms to the rules set by the Ministry of Education (or another national authority); • UK and Ireland: Professional Engineering Institutions are licensed to carry out accreditation. 3

4. An accreditation system accepted on the continental scale does NOT exist in Europe. This fact, notwithstanding the prestige of many National systems and of some Academic titles, in a global job market puts the European engineer in a objectively weak position, when confronted with the many existing international recognition agreements. To remedy to this was the motivating point oftheEUR-ACE project(EURopean ACcredited Engineer)September 2004 – March 2006 4

5. EUR-ACEproject(EURopean ACcredited Engineer)supported by the European Commission (DG EaC) within the SOCRATES and TEMPUS programmes Aims • ensure consistency between existing national “engineering” accreditation systems; • add European “label” to accreditation; • introduce “accreditation” in other countries; and thus • Improve quality of education • Facilitate trans-national recognition • Facilitate (physical and virtual) mobility 5

6. Context • Bologna Process: European Higher Education Area - European Qualifications Framework - ‘Dublin’ Descriptors (ratified by the 2005 Bergen Ministerial Conference) • Different national requirements for recognition of engineering professionals New Directive 2005/36/EC ”on the recognition of professional qualifications” (September 2005) • Washington Accord: mutual recognition of accredited engineering degrees in a group of 8+ countries Several similar accords are developing in Asia, Latin America, … 6

7. Accreditation of an Engineering Education Programme(according to EUR-ACE) • Result of a process to ensure suitability of programme as entry route to profession • Periodic assessment against accepted standards • Peer review of written and oral information by trained and independent panels including academics and professionals • Accreditation of programme, not of Department or University • Accreditation of education, not of whole formation Quality of accredited degrees guaranteed at all “levels” 7

8. EUR-ACE Partners 6 European Engineering Associations/Networks FEANI, SEFI, CESAER, EUROCADRES, ENQHEEI, UNIFI/TREE (+ CLAIU as “Participating Organization”) 8 National Associations/Agencies active in Engineering Accreditation ASIIN (Germany), CTI (France), EC (UK), Engineers Ireland, CoPI (Italy), OE (Portugal), UAICR (Romania), RAEE (Russia) Contracting Partner: FEANI www.feani.org (EUR-ACE) 8

9. main Outputs A1) EUR-ACE Framework Standards for the Accreditation of Engineering Programmes (including aTemplate for Publishing Results) A2) Organization and Management of the EUR-ACE Accreditation System: a proposal A3) Financial Plan to start the EUR-ACE system B1)Overview: Accreditation Procedures and Criteria for Engineering Programmes in Europe C1) Commentary on A1 A1 & C1: also in French, Italian, German, Russian All EUR-ACE documents available on the website www.feani.org (click on the EUR-ACE logo) 9

10. A1) EUR-ACE Framework Standards • Have been developedon the basis of criteria and proceduresused in countries with existing accreditation systems of Engineering Education. • Describe the learning outcomes (programme outcomes)of engineering programmes. • Are presented as qualificationsrequired by graduates to entera career in the engineering profession. • Distinguish between First Cycle (FC) and Second Cycle Graduates, but do not usethe terms “Bachelor” and “Master”. • Are compatible with the Dublin Descriptors. • Are compatible with theWashington Accord Graduate Attributes. 10

11. Programme Outcomes The EUR-ACE Standards specify the Programme Outcomes that must be satisfied for accreditation. • Valid for all branches of engineering and all profiles • Distinct between First and Second Cycle programmes, as defined in the European Qualification Framework • Applicable also to “integrated programmes”, i.e. programmes that are designed to progress directly to a Second Cycle degree • Describe what is to be achieved but not how • Can accommodate national differences of educational and accreditation practice 11

12. Six categories of Programme Outcomes • Knowledge and Understanding • Engineering Analysis • Engineering Design • Investigations • Engineering Practice • Transferable (personal) Skills For each category, the EUR-ACE Framework Standards list the Outcomes of First Cycle and Second Cycle Graduates. 12

13. Some Features of EUR-ACE approach (1) The EUR-ACE Framework Standards are intended to be used in the design and evaluation of programmes in all branches of engineering and all different profiles. No restriction is implied or intended by the Framework in the design of programmes to meet the specified Programme Outcomes. For example the requirements of several Programme Outcomes could be satisfied within a single module or unit (such e.g. as a project work). Moreover, the proposed system is compatible with other systems requiring additional and/or specialized competencies. 13

14. Some Features of EUR-ACE approach (2) Although the Framework is expressed in terms of accrediting degree programmes, it can be used for the accreditation of Agencies that accredit (or intend to accredit) engineering programmes, provided their rules and Standards are consistent with the Framework (meta-accreditation); alternatively, it can be used as a guideline for drafting Standards and Procedures for new Agencies. 14

15. Some Features of EUR-ACE approach (3) Programme Outcomes describe in general terms the capabilities required of graduates from accredited engineering programmes but do not prescribe how they are realised: 1)They must be interpreted to reflect the specific demands of different branches, cycles and profiles. 2) HEIs retain the freedom to formulate programmes with an individual emphasis and character, including new and innovative programmes, and to prescribe conditions for entry into each programme. 15

16. Some Features of EUR-ACE approach (4) • Integrated programmes (by definition,programmes that lead directly to a second-cycle degree) have to satisfy the Outcomes at the second cycle level. • Graduation from an accredited degree does not imply that engineering formation is complete: many national systems require e.g. a “state exam” and/or training periods. • Hence, the Framework Standards do not use the term “engineer” ( “engineering graduate”). 16

17. Therefore, the EUR-ACE Standards include some basicrules for the Accreditation Procedure Where there is an established national accreditation system which fulfil the stated Programme Outcomes, it will be accepted by the European System, provided the procedure meets appropriate quality conditions. • HEI submits self-assessment document • Accreditation team of at least 3 persons visits HEI to evaluate evidence • “International” team is recommended • EUR-ACE “Guidelines” for HEI and accreditation team • Team recommends decision to Accrediting Agency 17

18. Implementing EUR-ACE (Document A2) KEY POINTS of the EUR-ACE proposal: • NOT an European Directive • NOT an European Accreditation Board • Accreditation awarded by (present and future) National (or Regional) Agencies • A group formed by the participating Agencies authorizes the award of the EUR-ACE label • Mutual recognition of the EUR-ACE label by the participating Agencies • Each HEI is free to choose the Accrediting Agency, but behavioural rules should avoid direct competitions 18

19. Implementing EUR-ACE (2) • National and regional accreditation agencies already active will continue their work • Each Agency in the EUR-ACE system will be asked to satisfy appropriate “Quality requirements” and a “Code of Good Practice”, in line with the ENQA Standards. • If their accreditation procedures satisfy the EUR-ACE Framework Standards the Agency will be authorized toadd the EUR-ACE label in their accreditation certificates • This will give an added value to the “national” accreditation. • Thus, rather than recognizing each other’s accreditations as in the “Washington Accord”, all participating agencies will recognize a common European (EUR-ACE) label, distinct between FC (  Bachelor) and SC ( Master) degrees. 19

20. Implementing EUR-ACE (3) difficulties and obstacles • The educational systems of the members of the Washington Accord (except two “provisional members”) derive directly from the “Anglo-Saxon” model, while the European system will have to cover very diverse educational models. • In particular, short- and long-cycle engineering study programmes remain essentially in parallel in many countries, while programmes leading directly to SC degrees (“integrated programmes”) still form a great part of European engineering education. • Moreover, in several countries (e.g. the Netherlands) there are different “profiles” (one more “theoretical”, one more practical) of engineering degrees, even at the FC level. 20

21. Implementing EUR-ACE (4)overcoming the difficulties The outcome assessment approach allows to take a flexible attitude and, while regarding the EHEA First-Second Cycle framework as the basic “Bologna” model, include the accreditation of “integrated programmes” at the SC level Provided a degree programme satisfies the required outcomes at either FC or SC level, the definition of the “profile” becomes almost irrelevant with regard to its “suitability as entry point to the engineering profession” In any case, the Outcomes should be interpreted to reflect the specific demands of different branches, cycles and profiles 21

22. How to run the EUR-ACE system ? SOME HISTORICAL BACKGROUND In Paris on 9 September 2000) the representatives of six Associations signed an Agreement “intended to build confidence in systems of accreditation of engineering degree programmes within Europe […], […] to assist national agencies and other bodies in planning and developing such systems [and to] facilitate systematic exchange of know-how in accreditation and permanent monitoring of the educational requirements in engineering formation….” 22

23. How to run the EUR-ACE system ? (2) The Paris agreement was the founding charter of ESOEPE: European Standing Observatory for the Engineering Profession and Education Founding members UK: EC FR: CTI DE: ASII (now ASIIN) PT: OE (Ordem...) IT: CoPI EU: E4 (now TREE) Later members EU: FEANI EU: SEFI RO: CNEAA RO: UAICR RU: RAEE IE: IEI 23

24. How to run the EUR-ACE system ? (3) In 2004. ESOEPE has been instrumental in preparing and submitting the EUR-ACE project application ESOEPE has now been transformed from an “observatory” into a non-profit Association 24

25. Official birth date: 8 February 2006 First General Assembly: 30 March 2006 Founding members: FEANIRAEE (RU) SEFICoPI (IT) UNIFI/TREE Engineers Ireland EUROCADRESOE (Ordem...) (PT) EC (UK) UAICR (RO) CTI (FR) IDA (DK) ASIIN (DE) FOTEP (CH) 25

26. Presentation ofresults and perspectives • Moscow, today. • Budapest, 4 March 2006: Lecture at 7WCEE • Bruxelles, 31 March 2006: Workshop on the occasion of the “Launch of two quality labels in Higher Education” by the European Commission [DG EaC] 26

27. EUR-ACE follow-up (1) • Thus, on 31 March 2006 the EUR-ACE project will be concluded. • Then, the EUR-ACE system should be gradually implemented. • EUR-ACE Document A3 is a financial plan for running the system and making it self-supporting in five years: this plan includes the need of some initial outside financial support. • To secure this financial (and also “political”) support, we intend to present new projects within the TEMPUS and SOCRATES programmes, including the first actual EUR-ACE accreditations. 27

28. EUR-ACE follow-up (2) On 15 February, a project proposal has been presented within the TEMPUS programme: PROmotion and implementation of the EUR-ACE Standards [ PRO-EAST ] • Grant applicant Institution: UNIFI • Other Consortium members: RAEE,FEANI, CoPI, SEFI • Project coordinator: Oleg Boev • Deputy coordinator for EU: Giuliano Augusti • External experts: Iring Wasser, Ian Freeston, … This project will last 12 months and include: • dissemination of the EUR-ACE results • the first EUR-ACE accreditations in the Russian Federation 28

29. EUR-ACE follow-up (3) • We expect a “Call for proposals” under the SOCRATES programme within April 2006. • ENAEE will present a proposal together with some of its member Associations • including in particular the Accreditation Agencies partners of the EUR-ACE project, that thus will be the first to implement the European Accreditation system in the SOCRATES area … 29

30. Большое спасибо за внимание from Giuliano Augusti giuliano.augusti@uniroma1.it eur-ace@ing.unifi.it Tel. (+39)06.4458.5155 www.feani.org (EUR-ACE)