EUR-ACE Accreditation Criteria for Second Cycle Engineering Programmes

1. EUR-ACE Accreditation Criteria for Second Cycle Engineering Programmes Ian Freeston EUR-ACE Label Committee University of Sheffield UK

2. EUR-ACE Accreditation Criteria for Second Cycle Engineering Programmes Ian Freeston EUR-ACE Label Committee Consultant, Engineering Council UK Emeritus Professor, University of Sheffield UK Director, Magstim Company Ltd Member, IET Accreditation Committee

3. EUR-ACE Accreditation Criteria for Second Cycle Engineering Programmes Ian Freeston EUR-ACE Label Committee Consultant, Engineering Council Emeritus Professor, University of Sheffield UK Director, Magstim Company Ltd Member, IET Accreditation Committee

4. Outline • Principles • Outline of criteria • Assessing level • Present status and activities • Conclusions

5. Principles • EUR-ACE Accreditation Framework Standards (EAFS) administered by ENAEE • Meta-accreditation; accredits agencies, not programmes • Threshold criteria for award of EUR-ACE Label to accredited programmes • Education standards for professional engineering status • First and Second Cycle and integrated programmes

6. Parallel Developments • Dublin Descriptors • ENQA Standard and Guidelines (ESG) • European Qualifications Framework for Life-long Learning (EQF) • European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) • EU Directive on Professional Qualifications • Washington and Sydney Accords

7. Content and Level • Accreditation of programmes includes assessment of Content, Level and resources, and a decision making process. • ENAEE assessment of resources and decision making follow standard practice. • ENAEE criteria for Content and Level are based on specified Programme Outcomes because: • respect existing teaching methods and traditions; • can accommodate new teaching methods; • are applicable to new technologies; • enable sharing of good practice.

8. Outline of EAFS • Programme Outcomes classified under six headings • Knowledge and understanding • Engineering analysis • Engineering design • Investigations • Engineering practice • Transferable skills • 21 Programme Outcomes for First Cycle, 19 for Second Cycle.

9. Outline of EAFS • Programme Outcomes classified under six headings • Knowledge and understanding • Engineering analysis • Engineering design • Investigations • Engineering practice • Transferable skills • 21 Programme Outcomes for First Cycle, 19 for Second Cycle.

10. Outline of EAFS • Programme Outcomes classified under six headings • Knowledge and understanding • Engineering analysis • Engineering design • Investigations • Engineering practice • Transferable skills • 21 Programme Outcomes for First Cycle, 19 for Second Cycle.

11. Outline of EAFS • Programme Outcomes classified under six headings • Knowledge and understanding • Engineering analysis • Engineering design • Investigations • Engineering practice • Transferable skills • 21 Programme Outcomes for First Cycle, 19 for Second Cycle.

12. Engineering Design Graduates should be able to realise engineering designs consistent with their level of knowledge and understanding, working in cooperation with engineers and non-engineers. The designs may be of devices, processes, methods or artefacts, and the specifications could be wider than technical, including an awareness of societal, health and safety, environmental and commercial considerations. Second Cycle graduates should have: an ability to use their engineering knowledge and understanding to design solutions to unfamiliar problems, possibly involving other disciplines; an ability to use creativity to develop new and original ideas and methods; an ability to use their engineering judgement to work with complexity, uncertainty and incomplete information.

13. Engineering Design Graduates should be able to realise engineering designs consistent with their level of knowledge and understanding, working in cooperation with engineers and non-engineers. The designs may be of devices, processes, methods or artefacts, and the specifications could be wider than technical, including an awareness of societal, health and safety, environmental and commercial considerations. Second Cycle graduates should have: an ability to use their engineering knowledge and understanding to design solutions to unfamiliar problems, possibly involving other disciplines; an ability to use creativity to develop new and original ideas and methods; an ability to use their engineering judgement to work with complexity, uncertainty and incomplete information.

14. Level • Level is specified by ‘consistent with their level of knowledge and understanding’. • Second Cycle Programme Outcomes under Knowledge and Understanding include: ‘critical awareness of forefront of their branch’ • This statement is consistent with Dublin Descriptors, but how should it be interpreted?

15. Identifying Level. • Two possible methods to identify level. • ENAEE develops statement of rules for identifying level B. ENAEE asks two questions of agencies What criteria do you use to decide level? How do you know that the graduates achieve this level? • What characteristics do we want from a method of evaluating level? I have used five possible characteristics; there may be more.

16. Relevance • Does the method assess what we want to assess? • A. Yes, in principle. If ENAEE rules are clear, and procedure is effective. • B. Yes, in principle. ENAEE Review Team need training and expertise.

17. Accuracy • Does the method assess what we want to assess sufficiently accurately? • A. Yes, in principle. Will depend on how clearly the ENAEE rules are specified. • B. Yes, in principle. Will depend on the expertise and training of the ENAEE Review Team in evaluating the evidence.

18. Consistency • Do different agencies interpret the ENAEE requirements in different ways? • A. Should be consistent. The same rules are applied to assessing the evidence in all circumstances. • B. Inconsistencies are possible. ENAEE Review Teams have to make judgements about the evidence based on interpreting the ENAEE requirements.

19. Flexibility • Is the method able to assess unusual and innovative programmes? • A. The prescribed rules and implementation will limit flexibility and could inhibit programme development. • B. Can accommodate new methods of teaching, and the introduction of new technologies into engineering.

20. Good Practice • Does the method promote the spread of good practice? • A. Limited, as the prescriptive rules and procedures will tend to inhibit new developments. • B. Yes, but ENAEE will need to develop a procedure for identifying and disseminating good practice.

21. Assessing Level • Preference for A or B (or a combination) depends on purposes of accreditation, which include: • Accurate assessment against standards for qualification or registration (A preferable); • Maintaining and developing engineering programmes and professional standards (B preferable); • Accountability to government and other financing agencies, and to society (A or B?); • Information to students about the standard of programmes (A or B?). • ENAEE uses a combination of A and B.

22. Present Status and Activities • Seven agencies authorised to award the EUR-ACE Label to accredited programmes: ASIIN, CTI, EC, EI, MŰDEK, OE, RAEE. • Over 400 programmes have the EUR-ACE Label. • EUR-ACE Spread: Italy, Lithuania, Romania, Switzerland. • ENAEE currently reviewing its procedures and documentation. • Informal discussions with IEA about comparability, and establishing a common glossary

23. Summary • EAFS is an over-arching framework for standards of engineering education. • Administered by ENAEE, a network open to all relevant organisations. • EUR-ACE label applies to a large and growing number of programmes in the EHEA. • Expressions of interest from several national accrediting agencies. • ENAEE is discussing comparability of standards with IEA.

24. Thank you Ian Freeston ifreeston@engc.org.uk Further information on www.enaee.eu