Procedures Manual – Higher Education · [9] AMS-TPL-313 Staff CV pro forma 1.4.2 Engineers Australia References [10] Engineers Australia Stage 1 Competencies for Engineering Associate

AccreditationManagementSystem

ProceduresManual–HigherEducation

AMS-MAN-11

Version1.0

AccreditationManagementSystemProceduresManual–HigherEducation Date:16July2018AMS-MAN-11 Version:1.o

UnrestrictedDistribution ©EngineersAustralia Page2of44

TableofContents1. Introduction 4

1.1 Purpose 41.2 Scope 41.3 DefinitionsandAcronyms 4

1.3.1 Definitions 41.3.2 Acronyms 6

1.4 References 71.4.1 AccreditationManagementSystemReferences 71.4.2 EngineersAustraliaReferences 71.4.3 OtherReferences 7

2. AccreditationContext 82.1 AustralianProfessionalContext 82.2 InternationalContext 92.3 AustralianHigherEducationContext 9

3. BasicsofAccreditation 113.1 Background 113.2 GeneralReviews 123.3 IntroducingNewPrograms 133.4 ChangestoExistingPrograms 143.5 AlternativeModesofStudyandImplementationPathways 143.6 RemoteCampus,DistanceModeandOffshoreImplementations 153.7 ArticulationontheBasisofAdvancedStanding 153.8 DiscontinuationofPrograms 163.9 PublicationofAccreditationStatusandTerm 163.10 PublicisingofAccreditationOutcomesbyEducationProviders 16

4. ProcedureforaGeneralReview 174.1 RequestforAccreditation 174.2 SchedulingofAccreditationGeneralReviews 174.3 SubmissionoftheSelf-studyReport 174.4 SelectionandApprovaloftheEvaluationPanel 174.5 UseofNon-visitingConsultantsonEvaluationPanels 184.6 RolesofEngineersAustraliaOfficers 194.7 PanelObservers 194.8 Pre-visitTeleconference 204.9 VisitSchedule 204.10 InitialFace-to-FaceMeetingoftheEvaluationPanel 204.11 CampusVisit 214.12 ActivitiesAssociatedWiththeCampusVisit 224.13 DraftVisitReportandSchoolResponse 234.14 FinalVisitReportandBoardDecisions 23

5. PreparationofMaterialforaGeneralReview 255.1 Structure,ContentandStandardoftheSelf-studyReport 255.2 InitialSubmissionofDocumentation 26



5.3 InformationtobeavailableforInspectionduringthePanelVisit 275.4 DocumentTemplates 29

6. VisitProcedure 306.1 VisitSchedule 306.2 MainVenue 306.3 PanelMembers 306.4 OpeningSessionwiththeSeniorLeadershipTeam 316.5 ExitMeetingwiththeSeniorLeadershipTeam 316.6 MeetingswithProgramLeaders 316.7 MeetingswithAcademicStaff 326.8 LaboratoryandTeachingFacilitiesInspection 326.9 MeetingwithTechnicalandAdministrationStaff 326.10 InspectionofStudentWorkandOtherDocumentation 336.11 MeetingswithStudents 336.12 MeetingswithGraduatesforProgramsunderConsiderationforTransitiontoFullAccreditation(asrequired) 336.13 ExternalStakeholders–AdvisoryCommittees,GraduatesandEmployers 336.14 MeetingwiththeProvider’sChiefExecutiveOfficeorRepresentative 346.15 GeneralAvailabilityofLeadershipTeamMembers 346.16 PanelAmenity 34

7. IntroducingNewProgramsandProgramAmendments 357.1 NewProgramImplementationonanEstablishedCampus 35

7.1.1 ConsiderationofProvisionalAccreditation 357.1.2 TransitiontoFullAccreditation 36

7.2 NewProgramImplementationforaRemoteorOffshoreCampus 377.3 ProgramAmendment 38

8. AlternativeImplementationPathways 398.1 EvaluatingAlternativeImplementationPathways 398.2 Offshore,RemoteCampusandExternalImplementationPathways 408.3 ArticulationontheBasisofAdvancedStanding 41

AppendixExampleVisitSchedule 42



PROCEDURESMANUAL–HIGHEREDUCATION

1. Introduction

1.1 Purpose

The purpose of this document is to articulate the accreditation procedures of EngineersAustralia pertaining to the accreditation of engineering programs that prepare studentengineersforentrytoprofessionalpractice,atthelevelsofEngineeringAssociate,EngineeringTechnologist,andProfessionalEngineer.

The Procedures Manual is prepared primarily for, but not limited to, public and privateEducationProvidersinthehighereducation(HE)sectorthatseekaccreditationofengineeringeducation programs. All stakeholders in accreditation are likely to have an interest in thisdocument.

1.2 Scope

This Procedures Manual addresses curriculum-based programs for all categories of theengineeringteam,namely:

• EngineeringAssociate

• EngineeringTechnologist

• ProfessionalEngineer

However, the accreditation standards for programs delivered in a competency-basedframeworktypicalofcompetency-basedprograms(atthelevelofEngineeringAssociateonly)providedintheVocationalEducationandTraining(VET)sectorarenotwithinthescopeofthisdocument.

1.3 DefinitionsandAcronyms

1.3.1 DefinitionsAccreditation–anevaluationandreviewprocesstodetermineifaneducationprogram

meetsdefinedstandardsofquality.Withinthisdocument‘accreditation’appliestotheprocessesusedbyEngineersAustralia,unlessotherwisespecified

AccreditationOutcome–theapprovedstatusofaccreditationofaspecificprogram

Chartered– chartered status is theaccreditationof an individual qualifiedprofessionalbasedonanassessmentofthatperson’sprofessionalcompetencies



EducationProvider(Provider)–theinstitutionresponsibleforthedesignanddeliveryofaneducationprogram,whetherintheHEorVETsector

Entry toPracticeEducationProgram–aprogramthat isdesigned todeliver the initial(Stage 1) professional competencies expected of a graduate when first enteringprofessional practice; entry to practice programs provide the formal educationbasisforlaterdetermininganindividual’sRegistrationandCharteredstatus

Evaluation Panel (Panel) – a small group of experienced professionals appointed toundertake the evaluation of a program against the accreditation criteria(sometimesalsoknownasanAccreditationPanel)

FieldofEngineeringPractice–ascopeofprofessionalcompetencerelatingtoadefinedfieldofapplicationinthepracticeofengineering

InterimReport–aresponsesubmittedbytheEducationProviderontheactionstakentoaddressmandatoryrequirementssetforConditionalAccreditation

General Review – an accreditation evaluation of all of the accredited programs of anestablished Education Provider, normally conducted on site and scheduled on afive-yearcycle

Graduate Capabilities – the learning outcomes demonstrated by graduates andincorporatingtheStage1Competenciesforthespecifiedprogram

Outcomes-based Accreditation – uses an outcomes-oriented graduate capabilitiesstandard against which the program is considered for accreditation; it does notspecifythemeansbywhichthesestandardsaremet,givingtheEducationProviderfreedominthedesignandimplementationoftheprogram

Program–adefinedcourseofstudyleadingtotheawardofaspecificqualification(someprovidersmayusetheterm“Course”)

ProvisionalAccreditation–maybeaccordedtoaprogrambeforeithasbeencompletedby any students or learners; at the request of the provider, the programwill befurtherevaluatedaftercompletionbyoneormorecohorts

QualityManagement–defineshowanorganisationmeetsandmaintainsitsobjectives

Recognised Program – a program accredited by a signatory of an InternationalEducationalAccord,andinconsequence,isdeemedtobesubstantiallyequivalenttoAustralianprogramsaccreditedforentrytothesameoccupationalcategory

Registration–theoutcomeofanindependentevaluationofanindividual’sachievementand maintenance of professional standards prescribed for membership of acommunityofprofessionals

RiskManagement – considers the effect of uncertainty on the likely attainment of anorganisation’sobjectives(comparewithQualityManagement)

Self-study Report – a quantitative and qualitative account submitted by an Education



Provider in advance of the evaluation of a program that addresses how theprogrammeetstheapplicableaccreditationstandardsandcriteria,andcoveringallapplicablemethodsofprogramdeliveryandall possiblepathways leading to theawardofthequalification(alsoreferredtoasthe‘AccreditationSubmission’)

Special Review – an accreditation evaluation that occurs outside the scheduled of thefive-year cycleofGeneralReview fora specificpurpose, suchas considerationofnewprograms,orconsiderationofprogramsfortransitionfromProvisionaltoFullAccreditation.SpecialReviewsmaybeconductedwithoutanon-campusvisit.

Specified Learning Outcomes – the educational outcomes specified for a program,incorporating the Stage 1 Competencies (equivalent to ‘Target LearningOutcomes’)

Stage 1 Competency Standard – the current Engineers Australia outcomes-orientedgraduate attributes standard for commencing professional practice in eachoccupationalcategory

Threshold Standards – a minimum set of standards that must be met to achievecertification of some sort (accreditation in this case); they are not used todeterminelevelsofexcellence

UndifferentiatedProgram–aneducationprogramthat isdeliveredat severaldifferentlocations under a common award title, achieved using the samemethodologiesandprocessesatalllocations

UnitOutcomes – the learning outcomes specified at the level of a unit/course/subjectwithintheprogram

1.3.2 Acronyms

AAEE AustralasianAssociationforEngineeringEducation

ACED AustralianCouncilofEngineeringDeans

AQF AustralianQualificationsFramework

EA EngineersAustralia

EA EngineeringAssociate

ENAEE EuropeanNetworkforAccreditationofEngineeringEducation

ET EngineeringTechnologist

HE HigherEducation

IEA InternationalEngineeringAlliance

PA ProfessionsAustralia

PE ProfessionalEngineer



PPIR ProfessionalPerformance,InnovationandRisk

SSR Self-studyReport

TEQSA TertiaryEducationQualityStandardsAuthority

UA UniversitiesAustralia

VET VocationalEducationandTraining

1.4 References

1.4.1 AccreditationManagementSystemReferences

[1] AMS-POL-01 AccreditationPrinciples

[2] AMS-STD-10 AccreditationCriteria–HigherEducationPrograms

[3} AMS-MAN-10AccreditationCriteriaUserGuide–HigherEducation

[4] AMS-HBK-01EngineeringHandbook(underdevelopment)

[5] AMS-TPL-310AccreditationSubmission(Self-studyReport)

[6] AMS-TPL-300TableofProgramsOfferedforAccreditation

[7] AMS-TPL-311AdmissionsandEnrolments

[8] AMS-TPL-312EngineeringSchoolAcademicStaffProfile

[9] AMS-TPL-313StaffCVproforma

1.4.2 EngineersAustraliaReferences

[10] EngineersAustraliaStage1CompetenciesforEngineeringAssociate

[11] EngineersAustraliaStage1CompetenciesforEngineeringTechnologist

[12] EngineersAustraliaStage1CompetenciesforProfessionalEngineer

[13] EngineersAustraliaCodeofEthics

[14] ProfessionalPerformance,InnovationandRisk(PPIR)

1.4.3 OtherReferences

[15] Universities Australia and Professions Australia: Joint Statement of PrinciplesforProfessionalAccreditation,March2016

[16] International Engineering Alliance: Graduate Attributes and ProfessionalCompetencies,Version3,21June2013

[17] IEAandENAEE:BestPracticeinAccreditationofEngineeringProgrammes:AnExemplar,April2015



2. AccreditationContext

2.1 AustralianProfessionalContext

EngineersAustralia publishesAustralianEngineeringCompetencyStandards that define thecompetenciesexpectedofengineeringprofessionalsatthreestagesoftheprofessionalcareercycle, namely at entry-to supervised practice (Stage 1), independent practitioner (charteredengineer)(Stage2),andexecutivelevel(Stage3).CompetencyStandardsaretheprofession'sexpressionoftheknowledgeandskillbase,engineeringapplicationabilities,andprofessionalskills,valuesandattitudesthatmustbedemonstratedbyengineeringprofessionals.

The Standards are defined for the occupational categories of Professional Engineer,Engineering Technologist and Engineering Associate. They are reviewed and updated on aregular basis (every five years). They are developed andmaintained through Australia-wideconsultationwith industryandacademicstakeholders,andarebenchmarked internationally.OnlytheStage1Standardisrelevanttoeducationalprogramaccreditation.

TheStage 1CompetencyStandard for eachoccupational category (Refs [10-12] and theEAwebsite)representstheprofession’sexpressionofgenericattributesthatareexpectedofearlycareerprofessionals.EachStandardcontains16ElementsofCompetency,groupedundertheheadingsofKnowledgeandSkillBase,EngineeringApplicationAbility,andProfessionalandPersonal Attributes. Each element is expanded with a comprehensive set of attainmentindicators that provide insight into the depth andbreadth of ability expected. EachStage 1Competency Standard is compliant with the corresponding graduate attribute exemplarestablishedbytheEducationalAccordsoperatedwithintheInternationalEngineeringAlliance(Ref[16]),discussedbelow.

TheEAStage1CompetencyStandardsareusedintwoways:

• forassessmentofthequalificationsandexperienceofindividualswithouteitheranEAaccreditedqualificationoraqualificationrecognisedasequivalentundertheapplicableIEAEducationalAccord

• asthegenericstatementofgraduatecapabilitiesforaccreditedprogramsdesignedforentry topractice in the threedefinedoccupations.All thegraduatesofanaccreditedprogramaredeemedtohaveattainedatleastthresholdlevelcompetenceinalloftheelementsofcompetencydefinedintheStage1Standard.

Thus the Stage 1 Competency Standards are applied in Engineers Australia’s accreditationprocess as the definition of generic program targeted graduate outcomes. An EducationalProvidermustdemonstratethatanaccreditedprogramdeliversthegenericoutcomes inthespecifiedFieldofPracticeorengineeringdiscipline.TheStandardsdonotdefinecurriculumor pedagogy; rather, they underpin an Outcomes-Based learning design approach forengineering education providers to address the current and emerging needs of globallycompetitive engineering practice. As a generic statement of graduate outcomes, each



StandardalsosatisfiestheacademicrequirementsoftheAustralianQualificationsFramework(seesection2.3).

2.2 InternationalContext

EAisamemberofthreeeducationalaccordsandfourprofessionalrecognitionagreementsofthe International Engineering Alliance (IEA). The signatories of each Educational Accordmutuallyrecognisetheaccreditationoutcomesoftheothersignatoryagencies.Thiscanonlybe done when the accreditation standards and processes of each signatory jurisdiction aredeterminedtobe“substantiallyequivalent”.TheAccordstowhichEngineersAustraliaisafullsignatoryare:

• WashingtonAccord–atthelevelofProfessionalEngineer

• SydneyAccord–atthelevelofEngineeringTechnologist

• Dublin Accord – at the level of Engineering Associate (also known in the IEA asTechnician)

Signatory statusofanAccordsconfers certainbenefits,namely internationalbenchmarking,mutual recognitionofqualifications,andgraduatemobilitybetweenmembercountries,withmanyflow-onbenefits.Continuingstatus inanAccord issubject tosatisfactorypeer-review,currently on a six-year cycle. Maintaining signatory status places some constraints on theaccreditationprocessesoperatedbyEngineersAustralia.

2.3 AustralianHigherEducationContext

In the HE sector, Australian universities and some other providers have the right to offerdiploma, associate degree and degree programswithout any further external reference (so-called ‘self-accrediting’ institutions).OthereducationprovidersofferingHEprogramsarenotself-accreditingandarerequiredtohavetheirprogramsaccreditedbyCommonwealthorstateagenciespriortoofferingthemtostudents.AllHEprovidersarerequiredtocomplywiththeCommonwealthHigher Education Standards that are regulated and audited by the TertiaryEducationStandardsQualityAgency(TEQSA).

Indesigningprogramsandawardingqualificationsalleducationalprovidersmustcomplywiththe Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF). The AQF is the national framework forregulatedqualificationsinAustralianeducationandtraining.Inasingledocument,itprovideslearningoutcomesdescriptorsofknowledge,skillsandapplicationofknowledgeandskillsforeach of 10 qualification levels, from certificates to doctorates. The AQF covers both HE(curriculum-based)qualifications,andcompetency-basedprogramsofferedbytheVETsector.

The AQF accommodates the diversity of purposes of Australian post-school education andtraining. Its outcomes-based qualification descriptors support access to qualifications andpathways between them, to assist individuals to move between different education andtraining sectors and between those sectors and the labourmarket. The AQF is intended tosupport individuals’ lifelong learning goals, and enhance their national and international



mobility.TheAQFisbenchmarkedwithotherinternationalqualificationframeworks.

The AQF is a reference for professional accreditation agencies such as Engineers Australia.Accordingly,EngineersAustraliahastakenintoaccounttheeducationallevelsoftheAQFandhasdeterminedthattheprofessionalcategoriesthatitconsidersforaccreditationofentry-to-practiceprogramsarealignedasfollows:

• ProfessionalEngineer–AQFLevels8and9(BachelorHonoursandMasterDegrees)

• EngineeringTechnologist–AQFLevel7(BachelorDegree)

• EngineeringAssociate–AQFLevel6(AdvancedDiplomaandAssociateDegree)

Not allMaster degreeprograms are eligible for accreditation; onlyMaster degreeprogramsthatareentry-to-practiceprogramscanbeaccredited(Reference[1],Section7).



3. BasicsofAccreditation

3.1 BackgroundEngineersAustraliaaccreditsnamedengineeringeducationprograms,notgenericdegreeordiploma award titles, nor organisational entities such as universities, faculties or schools.Individual educationprograms are considered for accreditation at oneof threeoccupationallevels - Professional Engineer, Engineering Technologist or Engineering Associate, inaccordancewiththedefinedStage1CompetencyStandardfortheirgraduates.

EA considers engineering education programs for accreditation at the request of theEducationalProviderofferingaparticularprogramor rangeofprograms.EAaccreditation isvoluntary,notobligatory.Nevertheless,EAworkswitheacheducationprovidertoensurethat,onceaccredited,aprogramisre-evaluatedonafive-yearcycle.

Anengineeringeducationprogramisdefinedasasequence(course)ofstudywithinaspecificdisciplineorfieldofspecialisation,withuniquelydefinededucationaloutcomes,andaclearlyidentifiedqualificationtitle.Asingleprogrammayincorporatedifferentmodesofstudy(full-time, part-time, off-campus). A single program may have alternative pathways, includingalternative campuses and articulation arrangements. In accreditation, all of theimplementationpathwaysforaparticularprogrammustbepresentedforevaluation.Programcontent is likely tobedeliveredbyawide varietyofmethods, includingon-lineand ‘flippedclassroom’(or ‘blendedlearning’)aswellasby lectures,tutorialandworkshops,andthroughlaboratories,projectsandcasestudies.

EA undertakes accreditation of Education Provider’s programs with constructive intent andspiritofprofessionalpartnership.Theaccreditationevaluationprocess isoneofpeer-review,andencouragementofeffectiveeducationalinnovationthatcontributestoenhancedgraduateperformance. That said, the accreditation of engineering programs is governed by theEngineers Australia Accreditation Principles (AMS-POL-01) document (Reference [1]. Theprinciplesareconsistentwith:theUniversitiesAustralia/ProfessionsAustraliaJointStatementofPrinciples forProfessionalAccreditation (Reference [15]; the IEAGraduateAttributes andProfessionalCompetencies(Reference[16]);andIEA/ENAEEBestPracticeinAccreditationofEngineering Programmes (Reference [17]). The accreditation function is managed by theAustralian Engineering Accreditation Centre, led by the National Manager Accreditation.AccreditationdecisionsaremadebytheEAAccreditationBoard.

Program accreditation is a process of peer-evaluation against the EA Accreditation Criteria(Ref[2]).Thecriteriaapplytoallthreequalificationlevels,andincorporatetherelevantStage1CompetencyStandard.The15criteriaagainstwhicheachprogramisevaluatedaregroupedinthree categories: the Academic Program (AP), the Operating Environment (OE), and theQualitySystems(QS). Ingrantingaccreditation,eachcriterionmustbesatisfied,atleastatathreshold level. Accredited programs are not ranked ormerit-graded. The normal period ofaccreditation for established programs is five years, identified by the calendar year of thecommencingcohortofgraduates.



The following sections provide summaries of the procedures that apply at various stages ofaccreditation.

3.2 GeneralReviews

Sofaraspossible,accreditationreviews(alsoknownasEvaluationReviews)arescheduledbythe Accreditation Centre (in consultation with the particular Education Provider) so that allprograms offered by the Provider are evaluated concurrently at intervals of five years. ThisevaluationprocessisreferredtoasaGeneralReview.However,theEducationProvidermustformally submita request toEA identifying theprogramorprograms forwhich it is seekingaccreditation.

Should EA be unable to schedule a General Review to re-evaluate established accreditedprogramswithin a five-year period, or should a school be unable to undertake a scheduledreview forgood reason, theirexistingaccreditationstatuswillnormallybeextended foronefurthercalendaryear.Whereaprogramisscheduledforclosure,accreditationcannormallybeextendedfromyeartoyearforalimitedtime.

EA will acknowledge the accreditation request by issuing a date for submission of themandatorySelf-studyReportandconfirming thedateof theevaluationvisit.TheSelf-studyReport provides the Evaluation Panel with the Education Provider’s self-review against theAccreditation Criteria (Reference [2]). Guidelines for preparing the Self-study Report aredetailedseparatelyinSection5ofthisdocument.

The Accreditation Board appoints an independent Evaluation Panel comprising DisciplineExpertstocovertheprogramsandfieldsofpracticetobeevaluated.Thesepanelmembersaresenioracademicandindustrypractitioners.

TheEvaluationPanelmeetsbyteleconferencesome3-5weekspriortothevisittodiscussitsinitial findings, based on the contents of the Self-study Report. The Panel provides ateleconference report for the Education Provider to advise on matters of concerns and toidentifyanyadditionaldataorinformationthatisrequired.Thescheduleforthepanelvisitisconfirmedaftertheteleconference(seeSection6).

Following the visit to the Education Provider, the Evaluation Panel drafts its formal VisitReport.Thisincludes,foreachprogram,itsfindingsagainsttheaccreditationcriteriabasedonthe Self-study Report and the visit, and recommendations on accreditation (including anyconditions), commendations,and recommendations for improvement.Prior toconsiderationbytheAccreditationBoard,adraftofthereport(withoutrecommendations)isreleasedtotheEducation Provider for correction of any factual errors and identification of anymatters ofmajor concern. The amended report (including the panel’s recommendations) is thenconsideredbytheAccreditationBoardwhich finalises thedecisionsonaccreditationandthefinal report. The term of accreditation is normally set one year later than the next plannedGeneral Review as a safeguard against possible processing delays associated with the nextreview.

TherangeofpossibleaccreditationoutcomesissetoutinSection4.14.WheretheBoardsets



conditions on accreditation, the report to the Education Provider will include mandatoryrequirement(s) on which actionmust be taken. The Providermust submit, by the specifieddate,an InterimReportontheactionstakentoEA.OfficersoftheAccreditationCentrewillthenevaluatethisreport(consultingwiththePanel,asnecessary)andmakerecommendationstotheBoardtoeitherremovetheconditions,orrequiretheProvidertotakefurtheraction(s)andsubmitafurtherreport.

FulldetailsoftheprocessforaGeneralReviewareprovidedinSection4ofthisdocument.Itshouldalsobenoted thatSpecialReviewsmaybe scheduled forparticularpurposesdistinctfrom and separate to the General Review cycle. The corresponding processes andrequirementswouldbeareadaptedfromthosefortheGeneralReview,butmay,forexample,notrequireacampusvisitbyafullEvaluationPanel.

3.3 IntroducingNewPrograms

In order to satisfy TEQSA’s requirement for notification to international students of theprofessional accreditation status of programs, Education Providers are required to adviseEngineers Australia of their intention to introduce a new program. This will normally beundertaken as soon as internal institutional approval has been obtained for the program’sintroduction, andmust be provided prior to commencement of the first cohort of students.New programsmay be considered for EA accreditation in a General Review, or offered forconsiderationinaSpecialReview.

Given the strong focus on graduate outcomes, a new program cannot be given fullaccreditationuntilaftertheemergenceofthefirstgroupofgraduates.Toprovidetheschoolanditsstudentswithreasonablereassurance,ProvisionalAccreditationmaybeaccordedonthebasisofcompliancewiththecriteriatotheextentpossibleatthetimeoftheevaluation.AnewprogramisconsideredforFullAccreditationwhenitreachescompletion(i.e.graduationofitsfirstsizeableintakeofstudents).

Consideration for Provisional Accreditation should normally be undertaken during the firstyear of operation of a new program. The EA evaluation will often require a campus visit.Documentationrequirementsanddetailsofprocessesfortheaccreditationofnewprogramsare provided in Section 7 of this document. It is important to seek Full Accreditation for aprogram as soon as practicable once the first representative cohort of graduates hascompletedtheprogram.

For successful transition to Full Accreditation, the school must provide satisfactorydocumented responses to any recommendations made in the report of the ProvisionalAccreditationevaluationpanel.TheEvaluationPanelmustalsobeabletoinspectsamplesofstudents’ assessed work (such as final-year projects), and have access to a representativegroupofgraduatingstudents.

Atthevery latest,FullAccreditationshouldbesoughtatthenextscheduledGeneralReviewfollowingtheemergenceofgraduates.

Where evidence of compliance with the criteria is clear, Full Accreditation will be accorded



fromthestartdatethatappliedforProvisionalAccreditation,thusassuringtherecognitionofallgraduatesforbothEngineersAustraliamembershipandsubstantialequivalenceintheIEAEducationAccords.

3.4 ChangestoExistingPrograms

Thetermsofaccreditationprovideforon-goingdevelopmentofstructureandcontentandtheexpectationofcontinuingimprovement.Itisnormallybeexpectedthatsuchamendmentsliewithin the framework of the educational outcomes specification (program objectives andtargetedgraduatecapabilities),approvedaspartoftheaccreditationprocess.

Wheremajoramendmentstoanaccreditedprogramarebeingproposed,suchasanythatwillresultinchangestotheprogramtitleorformalprogramobjectivesand/orgraduatecapabilitytargets, Engineers Australia must be notified in writing of such changes prior to theirimplementation.

In considering suchmajor changes theAccreditation Boardwill decidewhether tomaintaincontinuing Full Accreditation or whether to consider the revised program for ProvisionalAccreditation. Ineithercase, thestatusofaccreditationwillneedtobere-affirmedoncethefirst cohort of students has graduated from the revised program. Further details on theconsiderationofprogramchangesareprovidedinSection7ofthisdocument.

3.5 AlternativeModesofStudyandImplementationPathways

EngineersAustraliaencourages innovativeapproachestoprogramdesign, leadingto flexiblelearningoptionsforstudentsandtheprovisionofnewengineeringeducationproducts.

Alternativeon-campusstudymodesarecommonlyofferedtostudentswithinasingleprogramdefinitionandaward title.Studentswithon-campusenrolmentmay takeunitsof study thatare delivered on-line. A single program implementation may also allow optional major orminor study sequences, elective units of study, alternative project/thesis options,workplacelearningoptions,andstudentexchangechannels.

Inaddition, studentsmaybeadmitted toaprogramwithadvancedstandingon thebasisofpriorHEorVETstudies.

Irrespective of the pathway taken to graduation, the named programmust be designed tomeet the stated objectives and deliver the same educational outcomes. For a program tomaintainongoingaccreditation,allpathwaysmustbeindividuallyevaluatedandeachpathwaymust meet the accreditation criteria concurrently. The accreditation processes for thealternativepathwaysandstudymodesarethuscoupled.

Thecasesofprogramimplementationatmultiplecampusesandbyexternal(distance)modeare discussed in the next section: suffice it to state here that a program with the samequalification title cannot be accredited at any one location unless it is accredited forimplementationatalllocations.

Accreditationofalternative implementationpathwaysandflexibility inteachingandlearningarediscussedinmoredetailinSection8ofthisdocument.



3.6 RemoteCampus,DistanceModeandOffshoreImplementations

Increasingly, engineering Education Providers are offering programs at Australian locationsotherthanthehomecampus,offshorelocations,andindistancemode.Suchofferingsmaybealternative implementations of a program already established on an Education Provider’shome campus and are thus undifferentiated in specified outcomes and award title.Alternatively, program offerings may be quite separate to programs offered on the homecampus and are thus fully differentiated from the home programs with respect to theirspecifiedobjectivesandawardtitles.

Evaluationofprogramsimplementedremotelyfromthehomecampuswouldnotnormallybecarriedoutat the same time for logistical reasons.Thismeans thataccreditation reviewsofalternative implementations of a particular program on separate campuses would not besynchronised.Forundifferentiatedprograms,theimplementationateachcampuswillrequireaseparateGeneralReviewcycle,althoughtheaccreditationoutcomeateachlocationwillbelinkedwith the on-going accreditation of all other implementations of the program at thattime. The term of accreditation at each campus will of course be limited to that for theindividualreviewcyclesetforthatcampus.

The implementation of engineering programs by externalmode (distance) educationwouldnormally be part of a General Review. Students enrolled in this study mode should haveequivalent learningexperiences to thoseof on-campus students, includingaccess to the fullrangeofexperimentalandprojectwork.Thelattermayrequiresomeon-campusattendance.

The IEA Education Accords now recognise accreditation of programs that are offered indifferentiatedorundifferentiatedformbyaProviderthat isheadquartered inthe jurisdictionofasignatory,butaredeliveredatalocationoutsideofthenationalorterritorialboundariesofthatsignatory. In thecaseofanAustralianengineeringschool implementingaprogramatalocationwithinthejurisdictionofanothersignatorytoanIEAAccord,accreditationevaluationof the offshore offering would be initiated by Engineers Australia, but may be undertakencollaboratively with the signatory associated with the country of delivery. The offshoreprogramimplementationmustsatisfytheaccreditationcriteriaofbothsignatoriesinordertobeautomaticallyrecognisedbytheAccord.Inthecaseofanundifferentiatedprogramofferedoffshore, this implementationmust be accredited by EA in order for on-shore accreditationstatustobemaintained.

Moredetailedguidelinesfortheaccreditationofremotecampus,distance-based,andoffshoreimplementationscanbefoundinSection8ofthisdocument.

3.7 ArticulationontheBasisofAdvancedStanding

GuidelinesfortheaccreditationofarticulationpathwayscanalsobefoundinSection8ofthisdocument. Where agreed academic credit for a particular articulation route exceeds theequivalentof50%ofthestudyprogram,thedesignatedpriorlearningprogramwillneedtobeseparatelyandformallyevaluatedaspartoftheaccreditationprocess.



3.8 DiscontinuationofPrograms

EngineersAustraliamustbenotifiedofanyintentiontodiscontinueanaccreditedprogramorindividual implementation of a program, togetherwith arrangements for providing ongoingteachingtocurrentlyenrolledstudents.Aterminatingyearwillbedeterminedtoconcludetheaccreditationterm.Thiswillnormallycorrespondwiththelastyearofintakeofstudentstotheprogram,thuscoveringtherecognitionofthisfinalenrolledcohort.

3.9 PublicationofAccreditationStatusandTerm

Engineers Australia publishes two lists on its website for each Educational Provider andqualificationlevel.

The first isa listingofcurrentlyaccreditedprograms (designatedby theirqualificationtitles)that includes, for each program, the start date for accreditation, as accorded by theAccreditationBoard.Thisisthecalendaryearofthefirstintakeofstudentstotheaccreditedprogram and named qualification. The status of accreditation is identified as F (for FullAccreditation) andP (forProvisionalAccreditation).The listingalso states theyear inwhichthenextGeneralReviewisscheduled.

Thesecond list isofdiscontinuedprograms.The terminatingyear for these is the last (mostrecent)yearofintakeofstudentswhomaybeeligibletograduatefromthenamedprogram

Whereastudent iscontinuallyenrolled inafullyaccreditedengineeringprogram,andwheresuch enrolment overlaps at least partially with the published term of accreditation, oncequalifying for the named award, the student will be deemed to have graduated from theaccreditedprogram.

3.10 PublicisingofAccreditationOutcomesbyEducationProviders

EducationProvidersinvariablypublishstatementstotheeffectthatcertainoftheirprogramsareaccreditedbyEngineersAustralia.TheProviderisresponsibleforensuringtheaccuracyofsuch statements, and in particular, must avoidmaking statements whichmight be read asimplyingthatcertainprogramsareaccreditedwhereitisnotthecase.

Accreditation visit reports are confidential between Engineers Australia and the EducationProvider,and shouldnotbepublished. If a report is required tobedisclosed forany reason,then itshouldbereproducedinfullandbothEngineersAustraliaandtheEducationProvidershouldbenotified.Excerptstakenoutofcontextarespecificallynotauthorised.



4. ProcedureforaGeneralReview

ThefollowingsequenceofstepsnormallyappliestotheGeneralReviewprocess.TheGeneralReviewwillevaluatethe full rangeofeligibleengineeringprogramsofferedbytheparticularEducation Provider, normally on a five-year cycle. The General Review is undertaken by anEvaluationPanel(alsoknownasanAccreditationPanel)appointedbytheAccreditationBoard.

4.1 RequestforAccreditation

For an Educational Provider that has programs that are already accredited, the EAAccreditationCentrewillissueanearlyreminderthatre-accreditationisdue,andrequesttheProvider to submit a formal request for re-accreditation (see Section 4.2) and make thenecessarypreparations.TheProvidermayincludenewprogramsintheirrequest.Atemplate(Reference[6])isprovidedfortheProvider.

Inthecaseofnewprograms(otherthanthosethatare included inaGeneralReview),majoramendments to existing accredited programs and for the introduction of alternativeimplementationsofexistingprograms,suchasatremoteoroffshorecampuses,theEducationProviderneedstoadviseEngineersAustraliaandrequestaccreditation.Suchrequestsmaybesubmittedatanytimebutitshouldbeborneinmindthataccreditationactivitiesarescheduledonacalendar-yearbasis,anditmaybenecessarytoscheduleaSpecialReview.

4.2 SchedulingofAccreditationGeneralReviews

The EA Accreditation Centre commences preparation of the annual Accreditation MasterSchedule not later than July of the year prior to the calendar year of review. EducationProvidersshouldsubmittheirrequestsforaccreditationbyJuly/Augustoftheyearbeforethereview.TheAccreditationCentrewillnegotiatewiththeEducationProvideratargetdatefortheevaluationvisit,andanagreeddateforthereceiptoftheSelf-studyReport(alsoreferredtoasanAccreditationSubmission,aSelf-assessmentReport,orSelf-evaluationReport)fromtheengineeringschool.

4.3 SubmissionoftheSelf-studyReport

TheEducationProvidermustsubmitacomprehensivedocumentthatexplicitlyaddressestheaccreditation criteria (Reference [2]) and provides prima facie evidence that the criteria aremet.GuidelinesonthepreparationoftheSelf-studyReportarecontainedinSection5ofthepresentdocument.TheSelf-studyReport is requiredeightweekspriortothescheduledvisitand should be provided to the Operations Manager, Accreditation. Unless specificallyrequested,thisdocumentmustbeprovidedinelectronicformat.EAwillthenmaketheSelf-studyReportavailabletoeachmemberoftheEvaluationPanel.

4.4 SelectionandApprovaloftheEvaluationPanelTheAccreditationBoardappointstheEvaluationPanel,comprisingthefollowingmembership:



• Chair

• Core team (including the Chair) of typically two to ten Discipline Experts asmembers, chosen for their broad experience of engineering and their ability toevaluate thegeneric programoutcomes andquality systems. The core teamwillincludeatleastonememberwithextensiveacademicexperienceandonememberwith extensive experience of employing engineering graduates in practicesituations.TheBoardaimstoattainreasonablegenderbalance.

• EngineersAustraliaOfficer(s)

ThecompositionoftheEvaluationPanelwillbesuchthattheaggregatedexperienceprofileofmembersadequatelycoverstherangeofprogramspecialisationstargetedforconsiderationinthereviewprocess.EAoperatesaConflictofInterestPolicyinitsselectionofPanelmembers,to ensure independence from theProvider under evaluation.TheEducationProviderwill beadvisedofthecompositionoftheEvaluationPanelpriortothevisit(ordesktopreviewifavisitisnotconsiderednecessary).

4.5 UseofNon-visitingConsultantsonEvaluationPanels

OnoccasionsEAwill include inthecoreteam,oneormorenon-visitingDisciplineExpertsorConsultants. This may occur where particular supplementary expertise is required in aspecialist fieldofengineeringpractice toprovide furtheradviceand input to thepreparationanddecisionmakingprocesses.

ANon-visitingConsultantwouldbeexpectedto:

• Read the submission documents and educational program details appropriate totheirfieldoftechnicalexpertise

• Highlight any particular issues to do with delivery, teaching resources, qualitysystems,aswellasthestructureandcontentoftheprogramsunderconsideration

• Participateinanypre-visitteleconferenceheldbytheEvaluationPanel

• Contributetothedevelopmentofanissuesandquestionspaperinpreparationforthevisit

• Be available to respond by teleconference or telephone, to issues the EvaluationPanel may wish to raise during its final private session on campus, determiningrecommendationsandformulatingthevisitreport

• Bewilling to review and comment on draft versions of the Panel’s visit report asrequested

Thenamesofanynon-visitingPanelmemberswillbeincludedinthePanellistprovidedtotheEducationProvider.



4.6 RolesofEngineersAustraliaOfficers

TheNationalManager,Accreditationhas responsibility for theoverall accreditation functionand provides the primary interface between the Education Provider and the AccreditationBoard. Engineers Australia has also appointed a number of accreditation Visit Managers,working under the leadership of the National Manager, who are competent in themanagementoftheaccreditationvisitprocess.TheNationalManagermayalsoonoccasionsfulfill the Visit Manager role when required. The Operations Manager, Accreditation takesresponsibilityfortheoperationalimplementationofvisitplanningandmanagementonbehalfoftheNationalManager.

Foreachaccreditationvisit,theAccreditationBoardassignsanaccreditationVisitManagertofacilitate the work of the Evaluation Panel, principally to ensure that the publishedaccreditation principles (Reference [1]), accreditation standards and supporting user guide(References [2] and [3]) and accreditation procedures (this document) are appropriatelyapplied.TheVisitManageralsoprovidesaresourcetothePanel,andnormallyparticipatesasaPanel member, and as a Discipline Expert where the background and qualifications of theincumbentareappropriate.TheVisitManagerisalsothepointofcontactwiththeEducationProvidertoensurethatthepanel’srequestsforfurtherinformationaremet.TheVisitManagerhasresponsibilityfordraftingthevisitreport,onbehalfofthepanel,butwithinputfrompanelmembers,andforfinalisingthereportincollaborationwiththePanelChairandallmembersofthePanel..

The Accreditation ProjectManager is responsible for logistics associatedwith the visit, andmay participate in the visit in support of the Evaluation Panel when required, providing alogisticssupportfunction.

4.7 PanelObservers

Fromtime to timeEngineersAustralia receives requests fromotherAustralianandoverseasaccreditingbodies,includingotherAccordsignatories,wishingtohaveobserversparticipateintheevaluationprocessesofEngineersAustraliaaccreditationpanels.Similarly, requestsmayarisefromthehostEducationProvider,wishingtoappointaninternalorexternalobservertotheevaluationprocessesinordertousetheprocessforexampleaspartofawiderreviewbytheEducationProvideroftheengineeringschooland/oritsprograms.AllsuchobserversmustbeapprovedbytheAccreditationBoard,andalsobythehostEducationProvider.

Thefollowingprotocolappliesforobserversjoiningcampusvisitpanels.

• Observers are welcome to attend all interactive sessions the panel has with theleadership team, the staff, students and external stakeholders, as well as panelprivate sessionswhere a panel is viewing teachingmaterials and studentworkorformulatingitsfindingsandrecommendations

• Duringallinteractivesessions,observersareaskedtorefrainfromaskingquestionsorparticipatingatallinthediscussion



• ObserversarewelcometospeakprivatelywitheitherthepanelChair,VisitManagerorNationalManager,Accreditationatanytime,ifaviewpointistobeexpressedoraquestionorrequestistobemade

• The panel Chair has the right to ask observers to vacate any specific session if apanelfeltthatthiswasnecessary

• Observers must agree to keep all discussion and details of decision-making inconfidence,andreturnassociateddocumentationattheconclusionofthevisit

4.8 Pre-visitTeleconference

Thepanelwillnormallymeetby teleconferencesome3-5weeksprior to thescheduledvisit.Thepurposeof this teleconference is toprovideanopportunity forpanelmembers to sharetheir initial findings after consideration of the Self-study Report and supportingdocumentation.Italsoenablesthepaneltocollectivelyidentifymatterstargetedfordetailedinvestigationduringthecampusvisit,andtoidentifyanyadditionaldataormaterialsthatmaybe required inorder to facilitate theevaluationprocess.Thepanelwillalsodiscuss thedraftscheduleforthevisitproceedings.

AbriefteleconferencereportwillbenormallybecompiledbytheAccreditationVisitManager,recordinganyissuesofconcern,keymatterstobeaddressedduringthevisitandanyrequestby the panel for additional supporting information. The report contains a standard list ofmaterials, including students’ assessedwork andminutes of relevant committees, etc., thatshouldbeavailabletothepanelduringthevisit (SeeSection5.4).TheteleconferencereportwillbesentbytheAccreditationCentretotheengineeringschoolforadviceandforresponseto the request for additional information.Wherepossible, theadditional informationwill bedistributedtopanelmemberspriortothevisit.

4.9 VisitSchedule

IncludedwiththeteleconferencereportwillbeadraftVisitScheduledetailingvarioussessionsandactivitiesproposedforthevisit.AtypicalVisitScheduleforaGeneralReviewwiththreeprogramareasisprovidedintheAppendixofthisdocument.

The schedule will be subsequently finalised by the Accreditation Project Manager innegotiationwith theengineering school, andusually in consultationwith theVisitManager.Theengineeringschoolwillbeaskedtoappendtothefinalvisitschedulethevenuedetailsforeach session and a listing of the names, titles and affiliations of members of the seniorleadership team, the academic staff and the external constituents who will be attendingsessionswiththepanel.

4.10 InitialFace-to-FaceMeetingoftheEvaluationPanel

AprivatemeetingoftheEvaluationPanelisnormallyheldatthestartofthecampusvisit.ThismeetingincludesarefresherbriefingpresentationtopanelmembersbytheVisitManager,and



enables the panel: to consider any additional supporting information submitted by theProvider; to finalise strategic questions for eachof the visit sessions; and to start to look atstudents’assessedworkandothermaterialprovided.

4.11 CampusVisit

The campus visit normally extends over 2 - 3 days and involves (with the exception of non-visitingpanelmembers)allmembersoftheEvaluationPanel.Overall,thecampusvisitenablesthe panel to evaluate the Educational Provider’s performance against the AccreditationCriteria, foreachprogram.Thevisit sessionsenablestaffmembers, students,graduatesandother stakeholders to explain and elaborate on matters of concern (to the panel). These,togetherwiththematerialstabledandfacilitiesviewed,providefurtherevidenceforvalidationandevaluationoftheclaimsmade,againsttheaccreditationcriteria,intheSelf-studyReport.

Morespecifically,thekeyfunctionsofthecampusvisitareto:

• AssessanddiscusstheeffectivenessoftheacademicprogrammanagementsystemandqualityassuranceprocessesdescribedintheSelf-studyReport

• Evaluatethetoneandcalibreofthestaff,studentsandgraduates,theeducationalculture and the scholarship of teaching and learning, the interaction betweenteaching and research and the linkages with professional engineering practice inindustry

• Evaluate the approach to educational design and review, and in particular theengagementofindustryandotherstakeholderinputtotheseprocesses

• Evaluateanddiscussformativeandsummativeassessmentprocessesbyexaminingsupportmaterials, assessment tasks, sample examination scripts and examples ofassessedstudentwork,moderationprocesses

• Evaluate the capacity of the program to deliver appropriate enabling skills andknowledge, in-depth technical competence, personal and professional skills,engineering application skills, laboratory and practical learning and exposure toprofessionalpractice,asdefinedforeachprogram

• AssessanddiscussaspectsoftheoperatingenvironmentdescribedintheSelf-studyReport – in particular, institutional support for the educational programs, theacademicstaffprofile,physicalfacilitiesandresources,fundingandstudentprofiletrendsandstrategicmanagement

• Evaluateotherfactorsthatrelatetotheaccreditationcriteria,butarenotclearlyoradequatelypresentedintheSelf-studyReport

• Inform the senior officer/s representing the Education Provider of the Panel’sprincipal findings. At the conclusion of the visit, the panel Chair outlines thecommendations, recommendations on accreditation, and recommendations forimprovement that it intends tomake to theAccreditationBoard.ThepanelChair



explains that these points are not definitive at this stage, and that theBoardwillmakethedecisionsontheserecommendationsandthefinalformofthereport.TheVisitManageroutlinesthelikelytimingforcompletionofthedraftreport.Thiswillinclude an opportunity for the Provider to see – and comment on – the Panel’sfindingsindraft(seesection4.13)priortoconsiderationbytheAccreditationBoard.

4.12 ActivitiesAssociatedWiththeCampusVisit

ThecampusvisitschedulewillbedevelopedspecificallyforeachGeneralReview.Thiswilltakeaccountof theuniquecharacteristicsassociatedwiththeEducationProvider, itsengineeringschoolandprograms.

MostcampusvisitswillhoweverfollowareasonablystandardpatternofactivitiesandincludeformalinterviewsessionsforthefullEvaluationPanelwith:

• theseniorleadershipteamoftheengineeringschool

• the leadership teamsof the individualacademicprograms (usually inbroaddisciplinegroupings)

• external constituents including members of the industry advisory body, arepresentationofemployersandgraduatesoftheprograms

The Evaluation Panel also welcomes the opportunity to meet briefly with the EducationProvider’sChiefExecutive(orseniorrepresentative)asascheduledpartofthevisitprogram.

For evaluation of discipline-specific programs within a multi-discipline General Review, thePanelwillinvariablysubdivideintodiscipline‘sub-panels’formeetingswithacademicteachingstaffandstudentsfromallyearsoftheprogramsunderconsideration,andfortoursoffacilitiesincludinglaboratories,learningstudios,workshopsandlearningresourcecentres.

Whereaprogram isunderconsideration for transition fromProvisionalAccreditationstatus,specificsessionsmayneedtobearrangedforsub-panelstointerviewarepresentativesampleofgraduates.

ThePanelmustbeabletovieweducationalmaterials,studentworkanddocumentaryrecordsof the educationalmanagement system and quality assurance processes. If these are to beprovidedonlyinelectronicform,allPanelmembersmustbefurnishedwithelectronicaccess,andnotrelyoneducationalnetworkssuchasEduroam.

Section 5.4 of this document details the list ofmaterials that should bemade available forinspection during the visit. Representative examples of teaching materials, assessmentinstrumentsandgradedstudentworkarerequested.

In addition, prime documentation associated with teaching and learning planning, review,managementandquality improvementalsoshouldbemadeavailable.Studentandgraduateoutcomes and perceptions survey data pertaining to the programs should also be provided,togetherwithinformationonactionstakenasaresultoffindings.Thereshouldberecordsofformalmeetingproceedings, followupactionrecords,andstakeholder interaction(including



anystakeholdersurveysofgraduateemployability,etc).

4.13 DraftVisitReportandSchoolResponse

Assoonaspossibleafterthevisit,andnormallywithin6-8weeks,areportisdraftedbytheAccreditationVisitManager,inconjunctionwiththePanelChairandallmembersofthePanel.ThedraftreportisbasedontheevaluationoftheSelf-studyReport,thePanel’sfindingsduringthevisit,andanyadditionaldocumentationprovidedbytheschoolandreceivedbythepanelas part of any requested post-visit follow up. The draft report contains the Panel’srecommendationsonaccreditation,includinganyconditionsandcorrespondingrequirementsonwhichtheProvidermusttakeactionandreport,andrecommendationsforimprovementforsubsequentconsiderationbytheEducationProvider.

The first draft of this report is peer-reviewed by another Visit Manager for coverage andconsistency with other visit reports. After any necessary suitable revision, the NationalManager,Accreditationreleasestheseconddraft–butwithouttherecommendations–totheEducation Provider. The Education Provider has twoweeks from the date of receipt of thedraftreport,toprovideawrittenresponse.Thisislimitedtocorrectionofanyerrorsoffactandfor brief comment on any issue which the school feels the Panel may have seriouslymisunderstood. It is not anopportunity to submit further substantial documentationunlessthisisrequested.

4.14 FinalVisitReportandBoardDecisions

The draft report (including the Panel’s recommendations) is then finalised by the VisitManager, noting the Education Provider’s response and if necessary incorporating it in full.ThisisforwardedfortheBoard’sconsiderationatitsnextmeeting.

Foreachprogramevaluated,theBoardmaydecideto:

• AccordorrenewFullAccreditationforafiveyearperiodwithoutconditions

• AccordorrenewFullAccreditationforfiveyears,subjecttoCondition(s)thataresetoutinthereportasmandatoryreportingrequirement(s).Inacceptingthisdecision,theschoolagreestoprovidespecifiedinformationortotakespecifiedactionsandreportontheminanInterimReport,withinaspecifiedperiodnormallywithinoneyear. If the agreement is not honoured, or if the Interim Report is judged to beinappropriateorinadequate,theBoardhastherighttoamenditsdeterminationonaccreditation at that time and optionally require the conduct of a mid-termevaluationvisit

• AccordorrenewFullAccreditationforaperiodoflessthanfiveyearsandtorequireafollowupsubmissionandpossiblyavisitattheendofthisperiodtoconsideron-goingaccreditationoftheparticularprogram

• For a new program or a program that has been substantially revised, accordProvisionalAccreditationwithafurtherreviewoftheprogramtooccurassoonas



possible followingcompletionof thestudyprogramby the first sizeable intakeofstudents.MaintainingProvisionalAccreditationmayalsobesubject toConditionsandreportingrequirements(s).

• Suspend accreditation for a limited term and during such time the EducationProvider be asked to address issues of substance raised by the Board withcontinuing accreditation to be considered by the Board on the basis of reportedoutcomes

• Declineorwithdrawaccreditation;insuchcase,afurtherapplicationisnotnormallyconsideredwithintwoyears

The decision of the Accreditation Board, together with the final report, is then sent to theeducationprovider.

TheProvidermayappealagainstadecisionnot toaccordaccreditation.TheappealmustbemadeinwritingtotheChiefExecutiveofEngineersAustraliawithintwoweeksofreceivingthedecision,andmuststatethegroundsonwhichitisbased.TheprocessisdescribedfurtherinReference[1],Section5.8.



5. PreparationofMaterialforaGeneralReview

TheEducationProvidermustprovidedocumentaryevidence toestablish its claim that eachprogramsatisfies theAccreditationCriteria (Reference[2])anddeliversgraduateswhomeettherelevantEAStage1CompetencyStandard(References[10–12]).ThefollowingadvicehasbeenpreparedtoassisttheEducationalProviderwiththepreparationoftheSelf-studyReport,andprovisionoftheinformationthatshouldbeavailabletotheEvaluationPanelnotlaterthanthe commencement of the visit. This document must be read in conjunction with theAccreditationCriteriaUserGuide–HigherEducation(Reference[3]).

5.1 Structure,ContentandStandardoftheSelf-studyReport

TheSelf-studyReportshouldfollowtheformofthetemplate(Reference[5])providedontheEA Accreditation website. It will include an introductory section with primary contactinformationandtheprogramslistedintheaccreditationrequest.Thisshouldbefollowedbyabrief report on specific actions taken in response to the recommendation for improvementstatedinthepreviousaccreditationvisitreport.

The bulk of the Self-study Report will be a succinct and coherent self-analysis, reportingagainstthecriteriaforaccreditation.Eachcriterionmustbeaddressedinadefinitivemannerand be sufficient for the Evaluation Panel to form a reasonable judgement on attainmentagainst each accreditation criterion. The Accreditation Criteria document (Reference [2]),suggests items of evidence for the attainment for each criterion. While each and everycriterionmustbeaddressed,itisnotexpectedthattheSelf-studyReportwillrespondindetailtoeveryindividualitemofsuggestedevidence.

The accreditation process is fundamentally focused on the education processes andeducationalmanagementsystemsthatareinplace.Accordingly,muchofthedocumentationanddata requested should alreadyexist: preparing theSelf-studyReport shouldnot requirespecific research. A good submission may well provide self-analysis against the criteria foraccreditation in an overview format, with pointers to attached evidence and other supportmaterial.Forexample,eachprogramspecification(requiredaspartofCriterionAP1)islikelytoincludereferencetotheEducationProvider’spublicstatementsontheprogram’spurposeandcontent.

ItisgenerallypreferredthattheSelf-studyReportisprovidedasastand-alonedocumentwithsupporting appendices providing the substantiating material in a systematically indexedfashion. Inmostcasesitwillbeappropriatetoprovidethefullsetofdocumentsinelectronicform, rather than inhard copy; thedocumentationwill thenbe sharedwithPanelMembersusingEngineersAustralia’sdocumentsharingapplication.

Inreportingagainstthecriteriacoveringthe‘OperatingEnvironment’andthe‘QualitySystems’,a single, unified faculty or school-based analysis may well be appropriate. This will beparticularly so where a consistent operating management framework is maintained for allprogramstreams.Inreportingagainstthecriteriadealingwith‘AcademicPrograms’,theremay



becommonmanagementframeworks,butitwilloftenbeappropriateforthereporttobranchout into sub-sections that analysing each individual program (or program group) separatelyagainst each criterion in this category. Anymaterial variations in themanagement systemsimplementedintheschoolsordepartmentsinalargefacultyorschoolshouldbereported.

The Panel may request further information relevant to the criteria, after the PanelTeleconference and during the visit. It will be helpful if the Self-study Report indicates, inrelation to each criterion, any further evidence that may be available in addition to thatprovided.

The Self-study Report should be as concise as effectiveness demands. Typically, addressingthecriteriaassociatedwiththeOperatingEnvironmentandQualitySystems,oftencommontoallprogramsinanengineeringschool,wouldbeexpectedtobeintherangeof20-40pages.Typically, the textwould also referenceProvider policies and other documents thatmay beincluded inAppendices,oraswebsite links.Thepresentationof thespecification,mappings,curriculumandassessmentofeach individualprogramwouldbeexpectedtobe less than15pages in length. Supporting Unit Outlines or Guides would typically be made availableelectronicallyinAppendicestotheSelf-studyReport,andbeuploadedtotheEAAccreditationdocumentsharingapplication.

It is essential that the Self-study Report includes unambiguous data on enrolment andgraduation numbers for each program for recent years, presented as in the EA template(Reference [7]). Graduation numbers are particularly important for programs up forconsideration for transition to Full Accreditation. In addition, the Self-study Report shouldinclude,inresponsetospecificcriteria:annualstudentsuccessandretentionrates,asdefinedin the national Higher Education data sets, to which Providers routinely respond; relevantgraduateperceptionsandemploymentdata; academic staffprofile and shortCVs (includingpart-timeguestsfromindustrywhomakesubstantivecontributionstotheacademicprogram),intheformsspecifiedinReferences[8-9].

5.2 InitialSubmissionofDocumentation

InadditiontotheSelf-studyReportanditsAppendices,theEducationProvidershouldsubmit:

• TheEducationProvider’sCalendarorequivalent

• The Handbook, Calendar supplement, or other official publication relating to theengineeringschool,andcontainingthepublicstatementsofprogramdetails

• Majorcurrentitemsofpromotionalliteratureconcerningengineeringprogramsand/orwebsitereferencestotheseitems

Documentation should be receivedby theEAAccreditationCentre eightweeks prior to thescheduledforthestartofthevisit.TheAccreditationOfficewillmakeallofthedocumentationavailabletoEvaluationPanelmembers.



5.3 InformationtobeavailableforInspectionduringthePanelVisit

TheSelf-studyReport,includingitsAppendicesandweblinks,andotherinformationoutlinedaboveshouldprovidethePanelwithalargeproportionofthedocumentaryevidence(mostlyin electronic forms) required to make its judgments of the program(s) against theAccreditationCriteria.

Itishelpful,neverthelessforhardcopiesofthefollowingtobeavailableatthecommencementofthevisit:

• Copiesofallcurrentpromotionalliteraturerelevanttotheprograms

• A list showing thename/sof the staffmember/s currently responsible for deliveryofeachunitofstudy(includingcoreunitstaughtfromoutsideengineeringmathematics,scienceandmanagement)ineachprogram

• Anyschooland/orresearchannualreports

Ifnotalready supplied, thePanel shouldbeprovidedwithaccess (inhardcopyorelectronicform)to:

• Thecompletesetofcurrentapprovedunitoutlines/guidesforeachprogramandyearlevel,asdistributedtostudents

• The provider’s and/or engineering school’s Human Resource Policy documents,including:

o Appointmentandtenure(anexampleofselectioncriteriawouldbewelcome)

o Promotion(anexampleofpromotioncriteriawouldbewelcome)

o Professional development – as an engineering academic and professionaleducator

o Supervisionandstaffcounselling

o Appointment,training,supervisionandcounsellingofsessionalstaff

o Anymerit-basedrewardsystems

ThePanelwillneedtobeconfidentthattheschool’sstudentrecordsmanagementsystemisfitfor purpose. The Panel would not expect access to the system, but may request to seeexamples of examinations committee and related policies, procedures and outcomes,includingqualificationtranscriptsandtestamurs.

The following table lists the range of materials that must be available for inspection, asrequested to the school in the pre-visit teleconference report. These materials enable thePaneltomorecompletelyunderstandandtriangulatetheevidenceprovidedintheSelf-studyReportandduringthePanelsessions.



Material Purposeofinspection

Recordsofschool/programteachingteammeetings,programdesignandreviewmeetings,meetingsoftheExternalAdvisoryCommitteeandanyotherindustryadvisorybodies,LearningandTeaching/EducationCommitteemeetings,QualityCommitteemeetings,programannualreviewreports.(Note1)

Totracktheprocessesofeducationaldesign,reviewandcontinuousimprovementattheprogramandschoollevels.

Student-StaffConsultativeCommitteemeetingsandotherstudentfeedbackmechanisms,recordstrackingoutcomes/actionsfromsurveyfeedback,includingtheCEIsurveyinstrument.(Note1)

Todeterminetheextentofstudentfeedback,andhowitisused,withstudentsaspartofthecontinuousimprovementprocess

Thefullrangeofassessmentinstrumentsandstudentresponses-includingexaminations,assignmentwork,tests,laboratoryandpracticalwork,projects.(Notes2,3,4)

Totrackstudentcapabilitydevelopment(throughstudentwork);totracktheaggregationoflearningoutcomes(throughunitguides).

Agoodrepresentationofmajorprojectanddesignreportsrepresentingtheoutcomesofintegratedlearningeventsisessential.Anindicationofassessedperformancestandardshouldbeprovidedforallexamplesofsubmittedwork.(Notes2,3,4)

Totrackthestudents’developmentingroupworkandmajorprojectwork.

Arepresentativerangeofgradedfinalyeardesignprojectsandtheses.(Notes2,3,4)

Tojudgethestandardofcapstoneactivities;toassistindeterminingthatfinalyearstudentsareabletoundertakeindividualandgroupmajorprojectwork;thattheyarereadyfortheprofessionalworkplace.

Examplesofworkexperiencereportsandotherdocumentsthatverifystudents’exposuretoprofessionalpractice.(Notes2,3)

Toassistindeterminingthestudents’exposuretoprofessionalpractice(throughouttheprogramandthroughworkplacement).

Submittedoutcomesofreflectivepractices,undertakenbystudents.(Notes2,3)

Todeterminewhetherthestudentsareabletobeselfcritical,andhavereflectedonthevalueoftheirlearningexperiencesandtheirfuturecareersasprofessionalengineers.

Notes:1. Foraprovisionalaccreditation,examplesinuseforotherprogramswithintheschool/departmentmaybe

usedtodemonstratethesystemsalreadyinplace.

2. Foralldisplayedmaterialitisexpectedthatexamplesofstudents’workwillbedrawnjustfromthemostrecentcalendaryear.



3. Foraprovisionalaccreditation,examplesofstudentworkmaybelimited.Forfullaccreditation,itisexpectedthatthisworkwillbemadeavailable.

4. Thegradeindicatedonapieceofgradedstudentworkshouldindicatethegradeawardedforthatpieceofwork–nottheoverallgradethestudentearnedinthesubject.

Wherematerial listed above is to beprovided to thePanel electronically, it is essential thateachPanelmemberhasadedicatedlog-in,sothattheycanusetheirowndevice,orhasaccesstoadedicatedterminalsetupfortheiruse.Ineithercase,accesstotherequestedinformationmustbestraightforward,reliableanduser-friendly.

5.4 DocumentTemplates

Templates supporting the Self-study Report are available on the website of the EngineersAustraliaAccreditationCentre.

AMS-TPL-310AccreditationSubmission(Self-studyReport)-Reference[5]

AMS-TPL-300TableofProgramsOfferedforAccreditation-Reference[6]

AMS-TPL-311AdmissionsandEnrolments-Reference[7]

AMS-TPL-312EngineeringSchoolAcademicStaffProfile-Reference[8]

AMS-TPL-313StaffCVproforma-Reference[9]



6. VisitProcedure

The visit procedure ismanaged by Engineers Australia, with key inputs from the EducationProvider.ThissectionelaboratesonseveralpartsofSection4ofthisdocument.

6.1 VisitSchedule

AdraftvisitscheduleispreparedbyEngineersAustralia(seeSection4.9)inclosecollaborationwiththeProvider.Anexampledraftscheduleforamulti-programGeneralReviewisincludedatanAppendixtothisdocument.

The Education Provider will be asked to review the draft schedule, mark any proposedchanges,andaddvenuedetailsforeachsession,andthenamesofparticipantsfortheprincipalsessions.Aswellasthemeetingsessions,theschedulemustcontainanumberofPanelprivatesessions during which materials can be inspected, Panel findings can be discussed, andpreliminaryrecommendationscanbecompiled.

6.2 MainVenue

Adedicatedvenue(‘homeroom’) is requiredfortheEvaluationPanel forthedurationofthevisit; as many as possible of the interview sessions will be conducted in this venue. TheEvaluationPanelwillbeanxioustominimisetimelostintransitbetweenscheduledsessions.Itisrequestedthatthedisplayeddocumentationandstudentmaterials(Section5.4)arewithinthisvenueorcloseby,andareavailableforthedurationofthevisit.

Thehomeroom–andmeetingtable–andmustbesufficientlylargeforeachPanelMembertohaveadequate tablespace tospreadaconsiderableamountof referencedocumentation,aswellasfortheschool’srepresentativestoparticipateintheinterviewsessions.

ThefollowingarerequestedtobemadeavailabletothePanelinthehomeroom:

• Electronicaccesstoprovidermaterials,asmayberequired;allpanelmembersshouldbe able to view the materials on their platforms, or on platforms supplied by theEducationProvider(notethatnotallpanelmemberswillhaveaccessviaEduroam)

• Dataprojectorandscreen,preferablysetupforusewithacomputerprovidedbytheProvider-thismustbereadilyavailableforthePanelonarrivalatthehomeroom

ThePanelshouldalsohaveaccesstoaprinter.Frequently,anyprintingrequiredbythePanelisundertaken in a school office, with the requiredmaterial being held on the VisitManager’smemorystick.

6.3 PanelMembers

The panel composition is determined by the EA Accreditation Board, based on the list ofprogramsofferedforevaluation(Section4.4).AtthestartofthevisitthePanelhasaprivatebriefingsession(Section4.10)thatinvariablyrequiresthedataprojector.



6.4 OpeningSessionwiththeSeniorLeadershipTeam

Thevisit properbeginswithameetingwith theSeniorLeadershipTeamof theengineeringschool.Theattendeesareexpectedtoinclude(allowingforappropriateprovidertitles):

• DeanofEngineering

• AssociateDean(TeachingandLearning)

• QualityAssuranceOfficer(TeachingandLearning)

• HeadsofEngineeringDepartments

• ExecutiveOfficerand/orBusinessManager

• FacultyExecutiveOfficer

• AnyotherkeystaffthattheFacultywishestobeincluded

ThePanelChairformallyopensthesession,andtogetherwiththeVisitManager,explainsthecontextsforaccreditationprocessandvisit.

TheChairtheninvitestheDeanofEngineeringtoprovideaverybriefoverviewpresentation,inparticular highlighting the education approach and strategic directions of the school. Thisopening presentationmust be strictly limited to 15minutes to allow adequate time forPanel questions and discussion. Ideally, an electronic copy of the presentation should beprovidedtotheVisitManagerpriortothecompletionofthevisit.

ThePanelwillfollowupwithrelevantquestions.Thesearelikelytobeofbroadcoverageandstrategic matters, rather than on specific program offerings. Specific issues of interest willinclude educational design, resourcing/funding models in place, review and continuousimprovement processes, educational leadershipwithin the school, quality systems, researchand industry interaction, industry advisorymechanisms, and the broad objectives, targetedoutcomesandstructureoftheprograms.

6.5 ExitMeetingwiththeSeniorLeadershipTeam

TheExitMeetingheldattheconclusionofthevisitisnormallyheldwiththeSeniorLeadershipTeamtoprovideanopportunityforthepaneltopresentaverybriefindicationofitsprogresstowards the recommendations it intendstomaketo theAccreditationBoard.Thissession isintendedtoconveyinformationtotheProviderofhowthepanelviewsprogresstodate,andisnotseenasanopportunityforfurtherdiscussionandinput.(SeeSections4.11and4.13)

6.6 MeetingswithProgramLeaders

In these sessions the panel has detailed discussion with those staff members (ProgramLeaders/Conveners), with specific accountability for leadership of the program design andimplementation (including the academic teaching teams) for each of the programs underdiscussion. Members of the Senior Leadership Team not involved in direct programleadershipshouldnotbeinattendance.



IntrackingtheconceptionandperformanceoftheprogramsagainsttheAccreditationCriteria,thepanelwillbeparticularlyinterestedtoexploreaspectssuchas:

• Programobjectivesandgraduateoutcometargets

• Educationaldesign

• Qualitysystems

• Detailedcurriculumcontent

• Benchmarking

• Professionalpracticeexposure

• Industryadvisoryinput

• Trackingstudents’genericcapabilitydevelopment

• Settingstandardsoftechnicalcompetence

• Businessandmanagementskillsdevelopment

• Mathematicsskilldevelopment

• Engineeringdesign,complexproblemsolvingandprojectskillsdevelopment

• Studentinputtotheprocessesofcontinuingimprovement

• Quantumandqualityoflaboratoryandpracticallearning

6.7 MeetingswithAcademicStaff

ThePanel(usuallyasasmallsub-panelofDisciplineExperts)meetswithallfull-timeacademicteaching staff involved in delivery of each program (or program group), including thoseexternaltotheSchoolsandresponsibleforsupportingcontent.TheProgramLeadersshouldnotbe inattendance,unless theyareundertakingsignificantprogramteachingandarenotthelinemanageroftheacademicstaff.

The sub-panel members will lead discussion on aspects of educational design, curriculumstructure and content, delivery, student assessment and performance evaluation, aswell asotheraspectsofqualityassurancetotriangulateagainsttheaccreditationcriteria.

ThePanelwillnotrecordthenamesofthestaffattendingthesemeetings.

6.8 LaboratoryandTeachingFacilitiesInspection

The Panel (usually as separate sub-panels)must be able to inspect laboratories, workshop,studio and project spaces, and other relevant learning support facilities relevant to theprogramorgroupofprogram.Keytechnicalsupportstaffaswellaskeyteachingstaffshouldbeavailableduringthetourfordiscussionandquestioning.

6.9 MeetingwithTechnicalandAdministrationStaff

An informalmorningorafternoontea is requestedwith technicalandadministrativestaffoftheSchools.Panelmemberswillspeakinformallywithstaff,takingtheopportunityofgaining



afurtherperspectiveonbroad,educationalsupportissues.

6.10 InspectionofStudentWorkandOtherDocumentation

In Section 5.3 it is noted that certain information is requested to beprovided for inspectionwhenthePanelisonsite.TheopportunityforthePaneltovieweducationalmaterials,studentwork, quality assurance processes and other documentation not included in the Self-studyReport is a key element of the evaluation process during the visit and Education ProvidersshouldtakeparticularcaretoensurethattheinformationisreadilyavailabletothePanel.

6.11 MeetingswithStudents

ThePanelmustmeetwithrepresentativegroupsofenrolledstudentsineachoftheprogramsunderconsideration.Studentsfromallyearlevelsandalternativepathwaysshouldbepresentbutwithahigherrepresentationfromthose inthesenioryears.Thereshouldbefemaleandmalestudentsandarepresentationofinternationalstudents.

The sub-panel for each program group will lead the discussion. Staff should not be inattendance at these student sessions. The focus of the questions will be on studentperceptionsandlearningexperiencesandstudentinputandinvolvementintheoverallqualityprocesses. It is expected that 20-25 student representatives would attend each of thescheduled sessions. The Panel will not record the names of students, but will record thenumbersineachprogramandyearofstudy.

6.12 MeetingswithGraduatesforProgramsunderConsiderationforTransitiontoFullAccreditation(asrequired)

ProgramsunderconsiderationfortransitionfromProvisionalAccreditationstatusataGeneralReview may have allocated time for meeting(s) of the relevant sub-panel(s) to interview arepresentativegroup(s)ofrecentgraduates.Atleastfivegraduatesforeachprogramshouldbeinattendance.TheAccreditationCentreandVisitManagerwilldiscusswiththeEducationProvider whether the timing of the visit, with respect to the availability of graduates andgraduates’assessedwork,allowsforsuchameeting.Ifitdoestakeplace,itisquiteinorderforsomeofthegraduatestophoneintoateleconferencetorespondtothesub-Panel’squestions.Suchteleconferencesessionsmaybearrangedtobeshortlyafterthevisit,andreportedwithintheVisitReport.(AlsoseeSection7.1.2.)

6.13 ExternalStakeholders–AdvisoryCommittees,GraduatesandEmployers

ThismeetingistoprovidethePanelwithanopportunitytointeractwithexternalstakeholdersand direct recent beneficiaries (graduates) of each program. The stakeholders will includeprogrambased industryadviserstotheschoolandforspecificprograms,arepresentationofemployersandarepresentationofgraduates/alumnifromrecentyears.AninformalmeetingissuggestedtomaximisetheexchangesbetweentheexternalstakeholdersandthePanel.Themeeting greatly assists the Panel to gain understanding of industry engagement with the



programs and its perceptions of students and graduates, and the experiences of recentgraduates.

Aclearlistingofthenamesandaffiliationsofexternalconstituentsisrequested.Participantsshould be identified with name badges to help the panel in addressing individuals. It isrequestedthatthevenueissuitableforeffectiveinformalconversation.

The leaderof theengineering school (suchas theDean)will normallyhost this session, andhaveasmallnumberofhisseniorcolleaguespresent.ItisappropriatefortheDeantoinvitethe panel Chair to introduce themembers of the Evaluation Panel, explain the context andpurposeofthismeeting,andthanktheexternalstakeholdersfortheirattendance.

6.14 MeetingwiththeProvider’sChiefExecutiveOfficeorRepresentative

Thepanelgreatlyvaluesashortmeeting(ofapproximately20-30minutes)withtheProvider’sCEO (e.g. Vice Chancellor) or nominee, other than the Dean of Engineering, primarily toexplore issues of a strategic nature, including the positioning of engineering within theinstitution’s profile and mission, and related matters of academic staffing and staffdevelopment, physical resources, student profile trends, strategic planning, budget process,research and industry links and quality systems. The Dean may attend the meeting if sodesiredbytheCEO.

6.15 GeneralAvailabilityofLeadershipTeamMembers

HeadsofSchoolandProgramLeadersshouldbeavailableduringtimesofprivatemeetingsofthePanel,inordertorespondtoanyspecificqueriesorconcernsthatmayarise.

6.16 PanelAmenity

It isrequestedthat lightsandwichlunches,teaandcoffeebemadeavailableforthePanelatthedesignatedPrivatePanelsessionslistedontheVisitSchedule.Panelmemberswillusuallyworkprivatelyoverlunchandotherbreaks.

The Accreditation Project Officer will liaise with the Provider about local transportationoptionsforthePaneltransfersbetweentheaccommodationvenueandthecampus.ThiswillbeatEA’scost.



7. IntroducingNewProgramsandProgramAmendments

7.1 NewProgramImplementationonanEstablishedCampus

An established school of engineering may choose to introduce a new program within thecontext of an existing operating framework and established quality systems alreadyconsideredbyEngineersAustraliaaspartofthemostrecentGeneralReviewofprograms.ThismayincludeoperationontheProvider’shomecampusandotherestablishedcampuses.

Where the new program is in a pioneering field of engineering, or where an establishedEducationalProvideriscontemplatingtheestablishmentofanewengineeringschool,advicemight be sought from the Accreditation Board. In such cases, the Board may appoint anexperiencedperson to respondtoquestions,ormaysuggestpersonswhomaybeconsulteddirectly.

Provisionofsuchadviceexpresslydoesnotconstituteanyguaranteeofultimateaccreditation.Further, the Board or any of its members will not involve themselves in any way in theengagementofconsultants,orinanyotheractivecontributiontoprogramdesign.

Wherethe intention istoseekaccreditationforanewprogram,EngineersAustraliamustbenotifiedinwritingpriortocommencementofthefirststudentcohort.ThisisrequiredtosatisfyTEQSA’srequirementfornotificationtointernationalstudentsofanycurrentandprospectiveprofessional accreditation status of all programs. It is suggested that this notification beinstigatedat the time theproposal is submitted forapproval through theProvider’s internalprogramapprovalprocesses.

Formalapplication forProvisionalAccreditationof thenewprogramshouldbemadeduringthe first yearof operation. For an establishedprovider in ‘good standing’, thismay coincidewith aGeneralReview.Otherwise, and for a newprovider in engineering, considerationwilltaketheformofaSpecialReview.

Theevaluation forProvisionalAccreditation isdiscussedfurther inSection7.1.1. It shouldbenotedthatinmostcases,theEvaluationPanelwillmakerecommendationsintendedtoassisttheProvidertocompletethedetaileddesignandimplementationofthewholeprogram.

A new program cannot be considered for Full Accreditation until the first, sizeable, regularcohort of students has graduated. The evaluation process for transition from ProvisionalAccreditationtoFullAccreditationstatusisdiscussedinSec7.1.2.

7.1.1 ConsiderationofProvisionalAccreditation

Irrespectiveofwhether theEAevaluation is undertakenat aGeneral orSpecialReview, theProviderwillneed to submitadequatedocumentation.TheSelf-studyReport forProvisionalAccreditationshouldbedevelopedagainsttheAccreditationCriteriadefinedinReference[2]andfollowtheGuidelinesprovidedinReference[3].

AnewproviderwouldneedtoprovideacomprehensiveSelf-studyReportcoveringallcriteria.



The Self-study Report from an established provider in ‘good standing’ (meaning that allprogramsofferedbytheschoolwereaccreditedatthelastGeneralReviewwithoutsignificantdifficulty) should not, in general, duplicate material already submitted for the most recentGeneralReview,butmaymakereferencetoanyappropriatematerial inthesedocuments. Inmost instancesthecriteriadealingwiththeOperatingEnvironmentandtheQualitySystemswillhavebeensubstantiallyaddressedinthemostrecentGeneralReviewsubmission.Itisonlynecessary to respond to individual criterionwhere circumstancesor issuesaredifferentiatedfor the new program or where changes in the environment have occurred since the mostrecentGeneralReview.

For all providers, to cover theAcademicProgramcriteria, itwill benecessary todevelopanappropriate response addressing the specific objectives, educational outcomes, qualificationtitle, structure, content, implementation details and professional practice exposure issuesincorporatedinthenewprogram.Aclearrationaleforthenewprogramshoulddemonstratesappropriate consultation with industry, and other research that has established projecteddemandforgraduates.

Foranewprograminawell-establishedschoolingoodstanding,ProvisionalAccreditationofanewprogrammaybeconsideredon thebasisofaSpecialReview,undertakenasaDesktopassessmentof theSelf-studyReport.Otherwise,and inmostcases, theAccreditationBoardwill requireaPanelVisit toconsiderthenewprogram.Thiswouldnormallyoccur inthefirstyear of operation, where a sizeable cohort of students has been enrolled. The Board hasdiscretiontodeterminewhetherandwhenaVisitisrequired.

Inevaluatinganewprogram,theEvaluationPanelwill invariablymakerecommendationstoassist theengineeringschool todevelopand implementaprogramthathas thepotential tomeettherequirementsforFullAccreditation,oncegraduateshavecompletedtheprogram.

7.1.2 TransitiontoFullAccreditation

AsnotedpreviouslyanewprogramcannotbeaccordedFullAccreditationbeforeithasbeenfully implemented and at least one substantive (representative) cohort of graduates hascompletedtheprogram.EAshouldbeadvisedinwritingoncethiscohortentersitsfinalyearofstudy.Anupdateon theSelf-studyReport forProvisionalAccreditation shouldbeprepared,againrespondingtotheaccreditationcriteriabyaddressinganychangesincircumstancesandthe experiences and outcomes arising from the full implementation of the program. It isparticularly important that thenewSelf-studyReport reports indetail theactions takenandprogressmadeonany recommendations in theProvisionalAccreditation reportprovidedbythepreviousEvaluationPanel.

Thekeyconsiderations for the transition toFullAccreditation (whetherundertakenduringaGeneralRevieworSpecialReview)willbe thePanel’sevaluationof theEducationProvider’sSelf-study Report and documented responses to recommendationsmade in the ProvisionalAccreditation, thequalityofassessedstudentwork in the latter studyyearsof theprogram,andtheoutcomesofdiscussionwithgraduates.



Attheverylatest,applicationFullAccreditationshouldbemadeatthenextscheduledGeneralReview following the emergence of the first graduates This would allow for a scheduledmeetingfortheseandmorerecentgraduates(seeSection6.12).

By agreement with the Accreditation Centre, assessment could be undertaken at thecompletion of the final semester of study of the first graduating cohort, provided sufficientaccess canbeprovided to representative examplesof assessed final year studentwork, andalsotoarepresentativegroupofgraduatingstudents.

Whereconsiderationhas tobeundertakenasaSpecialReviewtheAccreditationCentrewillmakesuitablevisitarrangements.WhereFullAccreditationisconsideredinbetweenGeneralReview visits and the school is in good standing, a visit by one senior Panel member (perprogramorprogramgroup)maybesufficient.Theevaluationmaybepossiblewithoutavisit,providingadequateteleconference(s)canbesetupwithgraduates.

In other cases, particularly for consideration of a set of new programs offered by a newengineeringschool,aFullPanelvisitwillbenecessary.

The reportedoutcomeof this evaluationprocess, like that of aGeneralReview,will includerecommendations on accreditation (including any conditions and mandatory reportingrequirements),commendations,andrecommendationsforimprovement.

7.2 NewProgramImplementationforaRemoteorOffshoreCampus

For an established offshore campus or one that is remote from the home campus, withaccredited professional engineering programs already in place, the accreditation of a newprogramofferingshouldfollowtheguidelinesdetailedin7.1above.

Where the new offering is a fresh implementation of a program already established andaccreditedatthehomecampusoratothercampuses(i.e.anundifferentiatedoffering),thenthedocumentationforbothprovisionalandsubsequentlyfullaccreditationmaywellbuildondocumentationalreadysubmittedpreviouslyforimplementationsoftheprogramelsewhere.

Whereanestablishedprogramonthehomecampusistobenewlyimplementedataremoteoroffshorecampus,orwhereanewprogramistobeintroducedforthefirsttimeataremoteor offshore campus, the Accreditation Board will normally require a visit to occur forconsiderationofProvisionalAccreditation.

Whereanewremotecampusoroffshoreoperation is firstbeingestablishedandProvisionalAccreditation is to be considered for the first program offerings, the submitted Self-studyReportwillneedtobemorecomprehensivethanthatexpectedforjustanewprogramofferingwithinanestablishedoperatingenvironment.TheSelf-studyReport in thiscasewillneed torespond to all aspects of the accreditation criteria, with particular attention to the sectionsdealing with the quality systems and the operating environment. It is critical that thesubmission analyses all aspects of the development, delivery and management of theprogram, and in particular any differentiating features associated with the new operatingenvironment.



7.3 ProgramAmendment

Engineers Australia should be informed in writing of significant changes to established,accredited programs and to the operating environment within an engineering school. Thetermsofaccreditationencourageongoingdevelopmentofprogramstructuresandcontent.

Changes to program structure and content within the existing specification of educationalobjectives and targeted graduate outcomes are welcomed and expected within theaccreditation cycle as part of the process of continuing quality improvement. The providershouldensurethatallchangesarewithintheaccreditationguidelines,suchthatprogramandtheengineeringschoolasawholecontinuetocomplywiththeaccreditationcriteria.EngineersAustralia will monitor program amendments through any written advice received from theEducationProvider.

Formal reviews of changes will normally occur at the next scheduled General Review ofprogramsbyEngineersAustralia,butinsomeinstancesaSpecialReviewmayberequired.

Where a proposed program amendment involves a change to the program title, or to theoverall specification of educational objectives or targeted graduate outcomes, EngineersAustralia should be notified in writing prior to implementation of the change. Under suchmajorchanges,theAccreditationBoard,oncesatisfiedthattheaccreditationcriteriacontinuetobemet,willmakeadecisiononwhethertocontinuethecurrentaccreditationstatusortoaccordProvisionalAccreditationtoanessentiallynewprogramdefinition.



8. AlternativeImplementationPathways

8.1 EvaluatingAlternativeImplementationPathways

There are widespread demands for flexible approaches to program structural design anddelivery.Firstly,itshouldbenotedthatEngineersAustraliaencouragesinnovationinprogramdesign and flexibility in teaching and learning methods that enhance students’ learning.Secondly,students’canexpecttohaveanumberofoptionswithintheirprograminordertoenablethemtoexpresstheirengineeringinterests.Thirdly,Providersmaychoosetoofferanestablishedornewprograminarangeofstudymodes,suchasfull-time,part-time,external(off-campusordistance)orinadualorcombineddegreestructure.

Introducingflexibilityinteachingandlearningmethodologiesisanintrinsiccomponentoftheprogramdesignandimplementation.EAexpectsthatallprogramspresentedforaccreditationwillbestudentandlearning-centred,andwilluseawidevarietyofmethodstoensuredeliveryof the target graduate capabilities, including on-line and ‘flipped classroom’ (or ‘blendedlearning’)aswellasbylectures,tutorialandworkshops,andthroughlaboratories,projectsandcase-studies.On-campusstudentsmaybeabletochoosetotakesomeunitsinexternalmode.For accreditation purposes, evaluation of this area of flexibility is against the AcademicProgramcriteriathatmustbeaddressedforeachprogram.

Thesecondareaofflexibilityisalsointrinsictoasingleprogramdesign.Inthesenioryearsofmostprogramsstudentscanexpecttochooseamongstmajorandminorstudysequences(intechnical and non-technical specialisms), elective units of study, an optional cooperativemode,alternativedesignandresearchproject(thesis)optionsandtopics,workplacelearningoptions, andopportunities to studyabroad. For accreditation,byproviding information thataddresses theAcademic Program criteria, the Providermust demonstrate to the EvaluationPanelthatacrossthesevariations,theprogrammaintainsitsintegrityanddeliversthetargetgraduatecapabilities.

The third area of flexibility is likely to be manifested by strongly different implementationpathwayswithinacommonprogramdefinition,nameandqualificationtitle.Thesepathwaysmaybedistinguishedbyadvertisedstudymode (full-time,part-time,external)or in ‘dual’or‘combined’ degree structures.Eachalternativepathwaywill normallybedesigned todeliverthesameeducationaloutcomes.

For a program to maintain ongoing accreditation, all implementation pathways must beindividually evaluated and each pathwaymustmeet the accreditation criteria concurrently.Theaccreditationprocessesforthealternativepathwaysarethuscoupled.

Alternative implementation pathways, such as all those operated from the Provider’s homecampus,maybeconsideredforaccreditationsimultaneously,normallyataGeneralReview.

On the other hand, the consideration for accreditation of alternative implementationpathwaysmay be staggered in time. Thiswould normally be the case for examplewhere aparticularprogramhasoneimplementationpathwayatthehomecampusandanalternative



pathwayofferedataremoteAustraliancampusorthroughanoffshoreoperation.ThisareaisdiscussedfurtherinthenextSection.

An Education Provider can always choose to have alternative offerings evaluated foraccreditation as separately defined programs. This most certainly will be the case where aparticular award is available by two or more different program pathways and settings,involving substantially different curricula, staff, or facilities, and potentially differenteducationaloutcometargets. In thesecases itwouldbeexpectedthat thetitleof theawardwouldbeclearlydifferentiatedonthebasisoftherespectiveprogramofstudyfollowed.Theaccreditation processes for this program of studywould not be coupled to that on anothercampus.

WheretheAccreditationBoardhasreasontobelievethatdifferentroutestoacommonawarddiffer substantially in their compliance with the criteria for accreditation, it may decide toevaluate themas separateprograms.Thiswouldnormallybeamatter for consultationwiththeEducationProvider,andwould requirediscussiononcleardifferentiationof titles for theresultingprogramsandassociatedawards.

8.2 Offshore,RemoteCampusandExternalImplementationPathways

In thespecificcaseofdevelopinganoffshorecampus, remotecampusorexternal (distance-based) offering of a program already established in a home campus setting, an educationalinstitutionwouldneedtofirmlydecidebetweenthefollowingapproaches.

a) Undifferentiated case: Each offering is manifested as an alternative implementationpathway within a single program definition, and with a unified set of targetededucationaloutcomes.Theaccreditationcriteriamustbe satisfied simultaneously forbothimplementationsoftheprogramthroughseparateevaluationprocesses.Aunifiedprogram title and award title would normally apply for all implementations of theprogram.

b) Differentiatedcase:Theoffshore,remotecampusorexternalofferingisidentifiedasaseparate program with unique educational outcomes perhaps leading to a similarawardasthehomecampusprogram.Eachprogramwouldbeindependentlyaccreditedin itsownrightand in thiscaseprogramtitlesandawardtitleswouldbeexpectedtodistinguish separateprogram implementationson thehomeandoffshoreor regionalcampuses.

Under normal circumstances, separate accreditation visits and unsynchronised accreditationreview cycleswould apply for offshore, remote campus andhome campusofferings.Wherethe separateofferings are alternative implementationsof the sameprogramas in a) above,then confirming Full Accreditation on one campus reaffirms ongoing Full Accreditation atothercampuses(uptotheendoftheindividualaccreditationcycleineachcase).

TheWashingtonAccordinitsRulesandProceduresrecognisesaccreditationofprogramsthatare offered in differentiated or undifferentiated form by a provider, headquartered in thejurisdiction of a signatory, but delivered at a location outside of the national or territorial



boundariesofthatsignatory.InthecaseofanAustralianengineeringschoolimplementinganundifferentiated program at a location within the jurisdiction of another signatory to theAccord, accreditationof theoffshoreofferingwouldbe initiatedbyEngineersAustralia, butmaybeundertakencollaborativelywiththesignatoryassociatedwiththecountryofdelivery.In this case the offshore program implementationmust satisfy the accreditation criteria ofboth signatories in order to be automatically recognised by the Accord. The offshoreimplementation of an undifferentiated programmust be fully accredited by EA in order tomaintaintheon-shoreaccreditationstatus.

Distance-basedimplementationpathwayswouldnormallybeevaluatedaspartoftheGeneralReviewofanEducationProvider’shomecampusprograms.

8.3 ArticulationontheBasisofAdvancedStanding

Where a Provider’s admission and/or articulation rules allow students to be granted explicitcredit for prior learning for up to a maximum of up to half of a full-time undergraduateengineeringprogram,itistheresponsibilityoftheEducationProvidertomaintainpoliciesandpracticesfortheformalevaluationofsuchprior learningonacase-by-casebasis.Undersuchcircumstances,articulationrouteswillnotbeevaluatedasseparateimplementationpathways.The policies and practices established by the engineering Education Provider for assessingpriorlearningwillhoweverbeconsideredwithintheoverallaccreditationprocess.

Incaseswherespecificadvancedstandingagreementsallowtransfer fromothereducationalinstitutionsor learning circumstances into the engineeringprogram, and inparticularwherepotentialacademiccreditexceedstheequivalentofhalfofthefull timestudyduration,thenthe defined prior learning sequence will be considered as an alternative implementationpathwaywithintheengineeringprogramdefinition.Underthesecircumstancesthefulldetailsof this implementation pathwaywill be subject to evaluation by the Accreditation Board inaccordancewiththeaccreditationcriteria.

A number of Australian universities have negotiated feeder or twinning programs withoffshore institutions. Where the final half (or more) of the program duration must becompletedat theAustraliancampus, the feederarrangement isconsideredtobepartof thehomeprogram.Where less thanhalfof the full-timeduration is takenat thehomecampus,Engineers Australia expects to identify and accredit the feeder route as an alternativeimplementationpathwaywithinthedefinitionofthehostprogram.Inthislattercaseavisittotheoffshorefeederinstitutionislikelytobenecessary.

An Education Provider requesting accreditation for entry-to-practice Masters degrees(Reference [1], Section 7) must ensure that students admitted are adequately prepared forpostgraduatestudy.Inparticular,theProvidermustdemonstratesoundpoliciesandpracticesfor the award of credit for prior learning thatwill ensure that the graduates of theMastersdegreewillhaveexperiencedadequate thedepthandbreadthofengineering studyandcandemonstrategraduateoutcomescommensuratewiththeStage1CompetencyStandard.



AppendixExampleVisitSchedule

Panelmembers

DE1-academic(Chair)

DE-Industry DE-Academic DE-Industry DE-Industry DE-AcademicDE-AcademicVisitManager

Sub-panelcoverage

Civil,Construction,Environmental

Mechanical,Mechatronics&Robotics

Electrical,Telecommunications

DAY1

1430-1630 PRIVATEPANELBRIEFINGWITHACCESSTOTEACHINGMATERIALS,ASSESSEDSTUDENTWORKANDQAMATERIALS

1630-1730 MEETINGWITHSENIORLEADERSHIPTEAM

DAY2

0830-0915 MEETINGWITHPROGRAMLEADERSHIPTEAM-ELECTRICALANDTELECOMMUNICATIONS

0915-1000 MEETINGWITHPROGRAMLEADERSHIPTEAM-CIVIL,CONSTRUCTIONANDENVIRONMENTAL

1000-1100 PRIVATEPANELSESSIONWITHACCESSTOTEACHINGMATERIALS,ASSESSEDSTUDENTWORKANDQAMATERIALS

1100-1145 MEETINGWITHPROGRAMLEADERSHIPTEAM-MECHANICAL,MECHTRONICS,ROBOTICSANDMECHATRONICS

1145-1245MEETINGWITHACADEMIC

STAFFMEETINGWITHACADEMICSTAFF MEETINGWITHACADEMICSTAFF


1400-1500MEETINGWITHBACHELORS

STUDENTSMEETINGWITHBACHELORS

STUDENTSMEETINGWITHBACHELORSSTUDENTS


1600–17002MEETINGWITHMASTERS

STUDENTSANDGRADUATESMEETINGWITHMASTERS

STUDENTSANDGRADUATESMEETINGWITHMASTERSSTUDENTSAND

GRADUATES

1700-1830INFORMALMEETINGWITHEXTERNALSTAKEHOLDERS(includesrefreshments)

ExternalAdvisoryBoardmembers,employersandgraduates,selectedmembersoftheSeniorLeadershipTeam

1930-2130 PRIVATEPANELWORKINGDINNER

DAY3


0900-1000 TOUROFFACILITIES TOUROFFACILITIES TOUROFFACILITIES


1045-1115 MEETINGWITHADMINISTRATIONANDTECHNICALSTAFF(includesmorningtea)

1115-1445

PRIVATEPANELSESSIONWITHACCESSTOTEACHINGMATERIALS,ASSESSEDSTUDENTWORKANDQAMATERIALSsupplementarymeetingswithindividuals(arrangedasnecessary)

compilationoffindingsteleconferencewithNationalManager,Accreditation

1500-1530 3MEETINGWITHVICECHANCELLORANDDEPUTYVICECHANCELLOR(ACADEMIC)

1530-1545 PANELPRIVATESESSION

1545-1615 EXITMEETINGWITHSENIORLEADERSHIPTEAM

Notes: 1.DEdenotesDisciplineExpert2.ThesessionforMastersstudentsandgraduatesistocoverconsiderationoftransitionofanewprogramfromProvisionaltoFullAccreditation3.IdeallythesessionwiththeViceChancellorwouldhavebeenscheduledearlierInDay3



AMSHierarchyforthisDocument

POLICY Statementofaccreditationprinciples

AMS-POL-01 AccreditationPrinciples

STANDARDS Standardsagainstwhichcomplianceisevaluated

EAStage1 CompetencyStandards(seeEngineersAustraliawebsite) AMS-STD-10 AccreditationStandard–HigherEducation AMS-STD-20 AccreditationStandard–VET

MANUALS Instructionsforaccreditation

AMS-MAN-10 AccreditationCriteriaUserGuide–HigherEducationThisdocument AMS-MAN-11 ProceduresManual–HigherEducation

AMS-MAN-20 AccreditationCriteriaUserGuide–VET AMS-MAN-21 ProceduresManual–VET

HANDBOOK Contextualinformationonprofessionalpractice

AMS-HBK-01 EngineeringHandbook(underdevelopment)

TEMPLATES Documentswithspecifiedformatandstructure

AMS-TPL-310 AccreditationSubmission(SelfStudyReport) AMS-TPL-300 TableofProgramsOfferedforAccreditation AMS-TPL-311 AdmissionsandEnrolments AMS-TPL-312 EngineeringSchoolAcademicStaffProfile AMS-TPL-313 StaffCVproforma

PRACTICENOTES

Informationabout,andexamplesof,goodaccreditationpractice

Various Seewebsite(underdevelopment)



RevisionHistoryDate Version Description Approved

16July2018 1.0 Firstrelease EGM,ProfessionalStandards&Practice