Megat Johari Megat Mohd NoorUniversiti Teknologi Malaysia International Campus

Kuala Lumpur22nd February 2010

2nd EAC-MCED Dialogue

TopicsIntroductionBest PracticesConcernsCausesDevelopmentInvolvementFeedbackConclusion

Introduction

Objectives of AccreditationEnsure programmes attain standard comparable to global practice (pg 1 Sec 1.0 EAC Manual)

Ensure CQI culture (pg 1 Sec 1.0 EAC Manual)

Ensure graduates can register with BEM (pg 1 Sec

2.0 EAC Manual)

Ensure CQI is practiced (pg 1 Sec 2.0 EAC Manual)

Benchmark engineering programmes (pg 1 Sec 2.0

EAC Manual)

Accreditation Policy

Focus on outcomes and developed internal system (pg 4 Sec 5.1 EAC Manual)

Determining the effectiveness of the quality assurance system (pg 4 Sec 5.1 EAC Manual)

Compliance to criteria (pg 5 Sec 5.5 EAC Manual)

Minor shortcoming(s) – less than 5 years accreditation (pg 4 Sec 5.6 EAC Manual)

EAC Focus

Breadth and depth of curriculumOutcome based approachContinual quality improvementQuality management system

EAC Criteria

Program ObjectivesProgram OutcomesAcademic CurriculumStudentsAcademic & Support StaffFacilitiesQuality Management System

Universities Best Practices

Best Practices - Curriculum

Extensive stakeholders involvementExternal examiner with adequate TORBalanced curriculum including assessment; cognitive, psychomotor & affectiveComprehensive benchmarking (including against WA attributes)Considered seriously students’ workload distributionVarious delivery methods

Best Practices – System

Systematic approach to demonstrate attainment of program outcomesStaff training (awareness) on outcome based approachModeration of examination questions to ensure appropriate levelCourse CQI implemented

Best Practices – System

System integrity ensured by committed and dedicated staff Constructive leadershipComprehensive self assessment reportPlanned and monitored activities (PDCA)Well documented policies / procedures and traceable evidenceCertification to ISO 9001/17025, OSHAS 18001

Best Practices - Staff

Highly qualified academic staff (PhD/PE) with research and industry experienceStaff professional development and involvementStaff training (awareness) on outcome based approachResearch / industry experience that enhance undergraduate teachingAcademic staff in related discipline Ideal staff: student ratio (1:10 or better)

Best Practices – Students & Facilities

Awareness programs for students on outcomesRemedial classes to bridge basic knowledge gapsCurrent (not obsolete) laboratory equipment in appropriate numberHigh end laboratory equipmentEmphasis on safety

Accreditation Concerns

PEO & PO

Specialisation at undergraduate level (eg. BEng [Nanotechnology])Stakeholders involvement (eg. IAP); minimal and/or inappropriateProgram objectives (PEO); restatement of program outcomesProgram outcomes (PO); only cognitive assessment

CurriculumBenchmarking; limited to curriculum (virtual)No link between engineering courses and specialisationCourse outcomes mapping to PEO/PO; not well understood by academic staffDelivery method; traditional not embracing project/problem based (open-ended)

Curriculum

Courses devoid of higher cognitive levelTeam teaching not visible (not involved in planning nor summative evaluation)Industrial training (exposure); taking up a semester teaching time and/or conducted last

Assessment & EvaluationAssessment types and weightage; favour high grades or facilitate pass Depth (level) of assessment; not visible / appropriate (lack of philosophy)Examination questions; not challengingLack of summative evaluationMostly indirect assessement (simplistic direct assessment; grade=outcome)

Staff & FacilitiesVaried understanding of system (OBE)Academic staff; professional qualification / experience limited (mostly young academics) – issue of planning and recruitment policyInadequate laboratory equipment / space / technicianLaboratory safetyErgonomics

Quality Management SystemFollow-up actions; slow or not visibleNo monitoringGrading system (low passing marks)Adhoc procedure (reactive)Financial sustainabilityIncomplete cycle (infancy)

Causes & Development

Causes

Top management; not the driving force (delegation & accountability)Academic leadershipInadequate staff training or exposureAwareness of EAC requirementsUnclear policy, procedures and/or philosophyUnderstanding between engineering & technology

Development

Latest Development

3 PE (or equivalent) per program

Industrial training – vacation (not to take up the regular semester)

WA-graduate attribute profile- Project Management & Finance

WA- typically 4-5 years of study, depending on the level of students at entry

WA- (knowledge aspect) engagement in research literature

Potential merger of European-WA attributes leading to requirement of more advanced courses

EAC Professional Development

Submission to EAC (1-2 days); March 2010

Outcome based education (2-3 days); April 2010

Panel evaluators (3-4 days); May 2010

Evaluator refresher (1/2 - 1 day); May 2010

On-the-job training (accreditation visit)Customised workshop/coursesEAC 1st Summit & Forum Aug 2010, Kuching

ImprovementsDefer rejection for Application for Approval, and IHL will be called to discuss for resubmission

Response to Evaluators’ report would require IHL’scorrective action as well apart from correcting factual inaccuracies, and would be tabled at EAC meeting

Involvement

EAC Involvement

Accreditation RecognitionMentoringMutual recognition – CTI FranceNABEEAIEA (Washington Accord)FEIIC (EQAPS)

UniversitiesEvaluation PanelJoint Committee on StandardLocal BenchmarkingKnowledge Sharing (systems)Local & International ObserversEAC/Professional activitiesInterpreting WA graduate attributesIndustry SabbaticalInternational collaboration (research + academic)

Feedback

Feedback from UniversitiesUNIM

UTAR

UTM

IIUM

UNIMAS

UMS

USM

UiTM

Rated Poor (2/5)

Explanation by Panel chair (UNIM)

Interview session with lecturers (UNIM,UTM)

Interview session with students (UNIM)

Time keeping (UTM, USM)

Asking relevant question according to EAC Criteria (IIUM, USM)

Checking records (USM)

Commitment and cooperation during visit (IIUM)

Recapitulation from 1st Dialogue

Not fault finding (need to highlight strength)Sampling may not be representativeGiving adequate time to adjustwith changes to the ManualTime frame to obtain resultsPE definition to be opened to other Professional bodiesNo clear justification requiring PE (nice to have)Appoint suitable and “related discipline” evaluatorsAppoint non-PE academics

Usurping the power of senateMCED should be given the mandate to nominate academics to EACSpell out the Manual clearly (eg. benchmarking)Assessment of EAC evaluatorsFlexibility of Appendix BLocal benchmarkingResponse at exit meetingEngineering technology vsEngineering

Conclusion

ConclusionGreat potential in leading engineering educationQuality & competitive engineering educationContributing to greater goalsSharing of knowledge and practiceSystems approach outcome based educationParticipative and engaging rather than adversaryProfessional developmentFacilitating and developmental

Thank you