Accreditation of Engineering Educational Programmes: EURACE and ENAEE

1
Accreditation of Engineering Educational
ProgrammesEUR-ACE and ENAEE

• Giuliano Augusti
• Coordinator, EUR-ACE project
• giuliano.augusti_at_uniroma1.it
• eur-ace_at_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
  dIngénieur (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
To remedy to this was the motivating point of
theEUR-ACE project(EURopean ACcredited
Engineer) September 2004 March 2006
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.
4
5
EUR-ACE project(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 a Template 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 developed on the basis of criteria and
  procedures used in countries with existing
  accreditation systems of Engineering Education.
• Describe the learning outcomes (programme
  outcomes) of engineering programmes.
• Are presented as qualifications required by
  graduates to enter a career in the engineering
  profession.
• Distinguish between First Cycle (FC) and Second
  Cycle Graduates, but do not use the terms
  Bachelor and Master.
• Are compatible with the Dublin Descriptors.
• Are compatible with the Washington 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) alternat
ively, 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 to add the EUR-ACE label in their
  accreditation certificates
• This will give an added value to the national
  accreditation.
• Thus, rather than recognizing each others
  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 FEANI RAEE (RU) SEFI
CoPI (IT) UNIFI/TREE Engineers Ireland
EUROCADRES OE (Ordem...) (PT) EC (UK) UAICR
(RO) CTI (FR) IDA (DK) ASIIN (DE) FOTEP
(CH)
25
26
Presentation of results 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
??????? ??????? ?? ????????

• from Giuliano Augusti
• giuliano.augusti_at_uniroma1.it
• eur-ace_at_ing.unifi.it
• Tel. [phone]
• www.feani.org (EUR-ACE)