a comparison of the cdio and eur ace quality assurance systems n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
A COMPARISON OF THE CDIO AND EUR-ACE QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEMS PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
A COMPARISON OF THE CDIO AND EUR-ACE QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEMS

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 17

A COMPARISON OF THE CDIO AND EUR-ACE QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEMS - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 170 Views
  • Uploaded on

A COMPARISON OF THE CDIO AND EUR-ACE QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEMS. Johan Malmqvist Chalmers University of Technology Göteborg, Sweden. Introduction. CDIO, as a general idea, aims to raise the quality of the educational programs that apply the concept

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'A COMPARISON OF THE CDIO AND EUR-ACE QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEMS' - niabi


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
a comparison of the cdio and eur ace quality assurance systems
A COMPARISON OF THE CDIO AND EUR-ACE QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEMS

Johan Malmqvist

Chalmers University of Technology

Göteborg, Sweden

introduction
Introduction
  • CDIO, as a general idea, aims to raise the quality of the educational programs that apply the concept
  • CDIO includes a number of components that can be classified as quality assurance tools
  • CDIO programs are also exposed to national schemes for accreditation and evaluation
  • International accreditation schemes are emerging, eg within the EU – CDIO adapters need to relate to these
  • The aim of this presentation is to compare CDIO with the EUR-ACE framework & discuss similarities and differences
outline
Outline
  • Introduction
  • CDIO quality assurance system components and process
  • Bologna process outcomes
  • EUR-ACE quality assurance system components and process
  • Comparison
  • Conclusions
a cdio based quality a ssurance aystem
A CDIO-based quality assurance aystem
  • CDIO syllabus – WHAT
  • CDIO standards – HOW
  • CDIO self-evaluation – HOW WELL
bologna process components
Bologna process components
  • Qualifications framework
    • 1st (bachelor), 2nd (master) and 3rd (doctor) cycles
  • ECTS credit system
  • Learning outcomes-based approach, eg Dublin descriptors and EQF characteristics
  • European standards for quality assurance proposed (ENQA, 2005)
  • General, applicable to all university education
  • Needs to complemented for particular fields and/or professional degrees
the eur ace standards
The EUR-ACE standards
  • A framework for the accreditation of engineering degree programmes in the European Higher Education Area.
  • The EUR-ACE standards comprise three main parts:
    • A set of programme outcomes for 1st and 2nd cycle engineering degrees.
    • Guidelines for programme assessment and accreditation.
    • A procedure for programme assessment and accreditation.
the eur ace syllabus my numbering
The EUR-ACE “syllabus”(my numbering)
  • Knowledge andUnderstanding
  • Engineering Analysis
  • Engineering Design
  • Investigations
  • Engineering Practice
  • Transferable Skills
  • 3.1 The ability to apply their knowledge and understanding to develop and realise designs to meet defined and specified requirements
mapping eur ace syllabus cdio syllabus
Mapping EUR-ACE syllabus – CDIO syllabus

All EUR-ACEreq’s are addressed

Additional CDIO syllabus elements

observations
Observations
  • The EUR-ACE syllabus lacks a structure rooted in a purpose, what do engineers do?
  • The “EUR-ACE engineer” is essentially a “design” or “analyst” engineer, while the CDIO syllabus also addresses Implementing and Operating – a “CDIO engineer” has a broader view
  • The CDIO syllabus differs between personal and interpersonal skills
  • Higher level of detail in the CDIO syllabus supports interpreting what is meant by high-level statements
  • The proficiency levels are “given” in the EUR-ACE syllabus, and in some cases differ significantly from the CDIO syllabus survey results
the eur ace accreditation standards
The EUR-ACE accreditation standards
  • Programme educational objectives consistent with … the needs of all stakeholders and … programme outcomes and the EUR-ACE programme outcomes for accreditation
  • A curriculum and related processes which ensure achievement of the programme outcomes
  • Academic and support staff, facilities, financial resources etc adequate to accomplish the programme outcomes
  • Appropriate forms of assessment which attest the achievement of the programme outcomes
  • A management system able to ensure the systematic achievement of the programme outcomes and the continual improvement of the programme
from categories to specific requirements
From categories to specific requirements

1.2 Educational Objectives

Are the programme educational objectives consistent with the mission of the Higher Education Institution (HEI) and with the needs of the interested parties (such as students, industry, engineering associations, etc.)?

  • Needs, Objectives and Outcomes
  • Educational Process
  • Resources and Partnerships
  • Assessment of the Educational Process
  • Management System

2.3 Learning Assessment

Have examinations, projects and other assessment methods, been designed to evaluate the extent to which students can demonstrate achievement of the learning outcomes of single modules and programme outcomes respectively throughout the programme and at its conclusion?

observations 1 2
Observations 1(2)
  • The EUR-ACE accreditation standards/criteria are “Whats”, ie they do not say how a particular criteria should be addressed
  • Many of the criteria are measurable, but there is no declaration of what is good (enough)
  • The CDIO standards are “Hows” which address about ¾ of the criteria
  • Criteria that lack corresponding CDIO standard include entrance requirements, organization, financial resources, throughput time and partnerships
observations 2 2
Observations 2(2)
  • Some CDIO standards (4, 5, 7 and 8) have no direct EUR-ACE correspondent. These standards refer to CDIO-specific curricular and teaching elements
conclusions
Conclusions
  • The CDIO syllabus is more logically structured and reflects a more encompassing view of engineering than EUR-ACE’s
  • The proficiency levels of the CDIO and EUR-ACE are difficult to compare, but there are some signs of differences
  • The CDIO standards provide “solutions” on how to work with about ¾ issues raised in a EUR-ACE accreditation.
    • Missing elements concerns, eg, financial resources, partnerships and decision-making
  • Four CDIO standards (4, 5, 7, and 8) define educational elements which are not explicitly discussed in EUR-ACE accreditation requirements
  • An evaluation process based on a rating scale, such as the CDIO self-evaluation model, is more useful for guiding a continuous improvement process than a threshold value scale, typical for an accreditation