Upload
verity-meghan-cunningham
View
225
Download
4
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Megat Johari Megat Mohd NoorUniversiti Teknologi Malaysia
International CampusKuala Lumpur
22nd February 2010
2nd EAC-MCED Dialogue
Objectives of AccreditationEnsure programmes attain standard
comparable to global practice (pg 1 Sec 1.0 EAC Manual)
Ensure CQI culture (pg 1 Sec 1.0 EAC Manual)
Ensure graduates can register with BEM (pg 1 Sec 2.0 EAC Manual)
Ensure CQI is practiced (pg 1 Sec 2.0 EAC Manual)
Benchmark engineering programmes (pg 1 Sec 2.0 EAC Manual)
Accreditation Policy
Focus on outcomes and developed internal system (pg 4 Sec 5.1 EAC Manual)
Determining the effectiveness of the quality assurance system (pg 4 Sec 5.1 EAC Manual)
Compliance to criteria (pg 5 Sec 5.5 EAC Manual)
Minor shortcoming(s) – less than 5 years accreditation (pg 4 Sec 5.6 EAC Manual)
EAC Focus
Breadth and depth of curriculum
Outcome based approachContinual quality improvementQuality management system
EAC Criteria
Program ObjectivesProgram OutcomesAcademic CurriculumStudentsAcademic & Support StaffFacilitiesQuality Management System
Best Practices - CurriculumExtensive stakeholders involvementExternal examiner with adequate TORBalanced curriculum including assessment; cognitive, psychomotor & affective
Comprehensive benchmarking (including against WA attributes)
Considered seriously students’ workload distribution
Various delivery methods
Best Practices – System
Systematic approach to demonstrate attainment of program outcomes
Staff training (awareness) on outcome based approach
Moderation of examination questions to ensure appropriate level
Course CQI implemented
Best Practices – System
System integrity ensured by committed and dedicated staff
Constructive leadershipComprehensive self assessment reportPlanned and monitored activities (PDCA)Well documented policies / procedures and traceable evidence
Certification to ISO 9001/17025, OSHAS 18001
Best Practices - StaffHighly qualified academic staff (PhD/PE) with
research and industry experienceStaff professional development and
involvementStaff training (awareness) on outcome based
approachResearch / industry experience that enhance
undergraduate teachingAcademic staff in related discipline Ideal staff: student ratio (1:10 or better)
Best Practices – Students & Facilities
Awareness programs for students on outcomes
Remedial classes to bridge basic knowledge gaps
Current (not obsolete) laboratory equipment in appropriate number
High end laboratory equipmentEmphasis on safety
PEO & POSpecialisation at undergraduate level (eg. BEng [Nanotechnology])
Stakeholders involvement (eg. IAP); minimal and/or inappropriate
Program objectives (PEO); restatement of program outcomes
Program outcomes (PO); only cognitive assessment
CurriculumBenchmarking; limited to curriculum (virtual)
No link between engineering courses and specialisation
Course outcomes mapping to PEO/PO; not well understood by academic staff
Delivery method; traditional not embracing project/problem based (open-ended)
Curriculum
Courses devoid of higher cognitive level
Team teaching not visible (not involved in planning nor summative evaluation)
Industrial training (exposure); taking up a semester teaching time and/or conducted last
Assessment & EvaluationAssessment types and weightage; favour high grades or facilitate pass
Depth (level) of assessment; not visible / appropriate (lack of philosophy)
Examination questions; not challengingLack of summative evaluationMostly indirect assessement (simplistic direct assessment; grade=outcome)
Staff & FacilitiesVaried understanding of system (OBE)Academic staff; professional qualification / experience limited (mostly young academics) – issue of planning and recruitment policy
Inadequate laboratory equipment / space / technician
Laboratory safetyErgonomics
Quality Management SystemFollow-up actions; slow or not visible
No monitoringGrading system (low passing marks)
Adhoc procedure (reactive)Financial sustainabilityIncomplete cycle (infancy)
CausesTop management; not the driving force (delegation & accountability)
Academic leadershipInadequate staff training or exposureAwareness of EAC requirementsUnclear policy, procedures and/or philosophyUnderstanding between engineering & technology
Latest Development
3 PE (or equivalent) per programIndustrial training – vacation (not to take up the
regular semester)WA-graduate attribute profile- Project Management
& FinanceWA- typically 4-5 years of study, depending on the
level of students at entryWA- (knowledge aspect) engagement in research
literaturePotential merger of European-WA attributes leading
to requirement of more advanced courses
EAC Professional Development
Submission to EAC (1-2 days); March 2010
Outcome based education (2-3 days); April 2010
Panel evaluators (3-4 days); May 2010
Evaluator refresher (1/2 - 1 day); May 2010
On-the-job training (accreditation visit)Customised workshop/coursesEAC 1st Summit & Forum Aug 2010, Kuching
ImprovementsDefer rejection for Application for Approval,
and IHL will be called to discuss for resubmission
Response to Evaluators’ report would require IHL’s corrective action as well apart from correcting factual inaccuracies, and would be tabled at EAC meeting
EAC Involvement
Accreditation RecognitionMentoringMutual recognition – CTI FranceNABEEAIEA (Washington Accord)FEIIC (EQAPS)
UniversitiesEvaluation PanelJoint Committee on StandardLocal BenchmarkingKnowledge Sharing (systems)Local & International ObserversEAC/Professional activitiesInterpreting WA graduate attributesIndustry SabbaticalInternational collaboration (research
+ academic)
Rated Poor (2/5)
Explanation by Panel chair (UNIM)Interview session with lecturers (UNIM,UTM)Interview session with students (UNIM)Time keeping (UTM, USM)Asking relevant question according to EAC
Criteria (IIUM, USM)Checking records (USM)Commitment and cooperation during visit
(IIUM)
Recapitulation from 1st Dialogue
Not fault finding (need to highlight strength)
Sampling may not be representative
Giving adequate time to adjust with changes to the Manual
Time frame to obtain results
PE definition to be opened to other Professional bodies
No clear justification requiring PE (nice to have)
Appoint suitable and “related discipline” evaluators
Appoint non-PE academics
Usurping the power of senate
MCED should be given the mandate to nominate academics to EAC
Spell out the Manual clearly (eg. benchmarking)
Assessment of EAC evaluators
Flexibility of Appendix BLocal benchmarkingResponse at exit meetingEngineering technology
vs Engineering
ConclusionGreat potential in leading engineering
educationQuality & competitive engineering educationContributing to greater goalsSharing of knowledge and practiceSystems approach outcome based educationParticipative and engaging rather than
adversaryProfessional developmentFacilitating and developmental