1 / 42

Engineers Australia as a Professional Body

Visit Managers Workshop 24 Feb, 2006 OUTCOMES BASED ACCREDITATION SYSTEM Alan Bradley, Associate Director Accreditation, ENGINEERS AUSTRALIA AUSTRALIAN ENGINEERING ACCREDITATION CENTRE MELBOURNE. Engineers Australia as a Professional Body.

aerona
Télécharger la présentation

Engineers Australia as a Professional Body

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Visit Managers Workshop 24 Feb, 2006OUTCOMES BASED ACCREDITATIONSYSTEM Alan Bradley, Associate Director Accreditation,ENGINEERS AUSTRALIAAUSTRALIAN ENGINEERING ACCREDITATION CENTREMELBOURNE

  2. Engineers Australia as a Professional Body • Peak body providing unified representation of engineering professionals in Australia • 80,000 members, 10% overseas in 92 countries • Established in 1919 • Governed by elected Council and National Congress • International representation of the profession through bi-lateral and multi-lateral agreements and international accords/forums

  3. Engineers Australia - Recognised Occupational Categories – (corresponds with IEM categories)

  4. Engineers Australia Competency Based Assessment System • Published National Generic Competency Standards • STAGE 1 - For judgement on entry to the profession • to work in the engineering profession under guidance and supervision • aligns with education program accreditation system • STAGE 2 - For recognising experience and identifying the mature practitioner • to practise in a competent, independent and ethical manner

  5. Career progression pathways for professional engineers, engineering technologists, engineering officers

  6. Career progression pathways for professional engineers, engineering technologists, engineering officers Professional Development Graduate Member Fellow Student Membership Pathway Peer recognition of major responsibility & contribution Stage 1 Competency 3+ years of professional formation

  7. Career progression pathways for professional engineers, engineering technologists, engineering officers Professional Development Graduate Member Fellow Student Membership Pathway Peer recognition of major responsibility & contribution Stage 1 Competency 3+ years of professional formation Stage 2: Chartered Status;Registration Stage 3 Stage 1: Degree or Diploma Competency Pathway Leadership and Management Competencies Professional Formation via a Professional Development Program (PDP)

  8. Career progression pathways for professional engineers, engineering technologists, engineering officers Professional Development Graduate Member Fellow Student Membership Pathway Peer recognition of major responsibility & contribution Stage 1 Competency 3+ years of professional formation Stage 2: Chartered Status;Registration Stage 3 Stage 1: Degree or Diploma Competency Pathway Leadership and Management Competencies Professional Formation via a Professional Development Program (PDP)

  9. Stage 1 Competencies • Knowledge base • mathematics, sciences, engineering fundamentals • In depth technical competence • Engineering techniques and resources • modelling, characterisation, engineering tools, experimental practice • Engineering ability • complex problem solving, broad contextual understanding, internationalisation, sustainability systems approach, engineering design, projects, business acumen • Professional and personal • communication, information literacy, creativity & innovation, teamwork, leadership, management, lifelong learning, ethics, professional attitude

  10. Stage 1 - Individual Assessmentvia Generic Competency Standard • Defined areas of practice and career categories • Defined Competencies: • Knowledge base • Engineering ability • Professional attributes • Self analysis of education training and career episodes through a Competency Demonstration Report (www.engineersaustralia.org.au)

  11. OR - Alternatively • Stage 1 Competency is automatically assumed for a graduate of an accredited engineering education program at the appropriate occupational category

  12. Engineers Australia as an Accreditation Authority • National authority for professional accreditation of engineering education programs in Australia • In Higher Ed sector - 35 engineering schools - 330 accredited programs • 9 engineering schools offer engineering education programs at offshore campuses

  13. ENGINEERS AUSTRALIA ACCREDITATION CONTEXT

  14. WHY? Accreditation • To certify individual academic programs for delivery of STAGE 1 competencies within the National Generic Competency Standards framework • Guarantee to students of the professional standing and value of their degree • International comparability & graduate mobility • Setting standards of best practice • Public identification of programs - independently evaluated • Statement of requirements & necessary resources for provision of engineering education

  15. Basis of Accreditation • Accorded to individual programs • Encourages diversity and innovation • Assuring delivery of agreed graduate competencies • Requires providers to have in place their own education systems, performance indicators, measures and overall quality strategies • Evaluates rather than prescribes curriculum, educational methodology, policies, processes and practices • Governed by the Accreditation Board – constituted by EA Council

  16. Current Accreditation System - Evolution • Engineers Australia accountable for accreditation of professional engineering education programs for more than 40 years • Substantial revision of approach followed the 1996 Review of Engineering Education • New Council policy on accreditation - 1997 • First evaluations - 1998 • Review of process and release of ‘outcomes based’ Accreditation Manual - 1999 • First full cycle completed 2002 • Stage 1 Generic Competency Standards released September 2004 • Accreditation Management System for Professional Engineer programs released December 2004 • Accreditation Management System for Engineering Technologist programs finalised January 2007, ready for Sydney Accord review • Accreditation system for Engineering Officer programs developed in 2006 and applied to pilot accreditation project in Victoria

  17. INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT

  18. 3 Educational Accords operate under the International Engineering Agreements http://www.ieagreements.org • Washington Accord for ‘Professional Engineer’ programs - Engineers Australia a foundation signatory in 1989 and currently Chair of the Accord • Sydney Accord for ‘Engineering Technologist’ programs – Engineers Australia a foundation ‘transitional’ signatory in 2001 • Dublin Accord for ‘Engineering Officer’ programs

  19. Engineering Education Accords • Mutual recognition of accredited programs • Recognised ‘substantial equivalence’ of accreditation systems • Agreed framework of Graduate Attribute Profiles • 6-year monitoring and peer review cycle • Encouragement of best practice

  20. DEVELOPING AN OUTCOMES BASED APPROACH TO ACCREDITATION

  21. Engineers Australia Stage 1 Competency Standards - a key resource • Provide the criteria and performance indicators for direct assessment of individuals on a case by case basis • Provide a generic framework for education providers - developing a specification of graduate outcomes for a program in a specific discipline and targeting one of the 3 occupational categories • Stage 1 Competency Standards are compliant with the Graduate Profile Exemplars set by international agreement (see handouts) • Provide a framework for establishing accreditation criteria

  22. Approaches to Accreditation Direct monitoring of outcomes Assessment of graduate of graduate capabilities against Stage 1 Competency Standard • Fully prescriptive with qualitative assessment • Program structure • Program content • Assessment • Operating environment • Quality process • Engineers Australia Approach • Accreditation criteria includes inputs, process and content to assess the attainment of outcomes • Anticipates a systematic, ‘top-down’ approach to educational design, review and improvement • Encourages diversity and innovation

  23. Characteristics of an Outcomes Based Accreditation Approach • In conjunction with external stakeholders maintains a generic statement of required graduate outcomes • Builds and maintains evaluation criteria aligned with the generic outcomes statements • Recognises the diversity of job roles and career pathways • Judges the potential for a program to produce graduates that satisfy a predetermined specification of outcomes • Stimulates innovation and diversity in educational design • Internationally benchmarks criteria and practices • Closes the quality loop on its own processes and practices

  24. Objectives of the Engineers Australia Accreditation System • A consensus within our own engineering community of standards which encourage diversity and assure quality • Focuses on delivery of designated outcomes compliant with the Stage 1 Competency Standards • Requires providers to have in place their own education systems, performance measures and overall quality strategies • Non prescriptive on curriculum, educational methodology, policies • Accreditation criteria which evaluates the potential of the operating environment, the educational design and quality systems to deliver the designated outcomes • System regulated by the profession, recognised by international accords within the IEA framework • Voluntary not compulsory

  25. Evolution of the Accreditation Criteria Stage 1 National Generic Competency Standards Generic Attributes Operating Environment Rigorous educational design Quality systems Criteria for Program Evaluation Performance indicators

  26. State of Development - Engineers Australia’s Accreditation System • Professional Engineer outcomes-based system established in 1999and revised in 2004 – adopted December 2005 – currently preparing for ISO certification • Engineering Technologist accreditation system now in final form ready for Sydney Accord final review in 2007 • Engineering Officerpilot accreditations have been undertaken in 2006. Draft accreditation guidelines in place. Submission for provisional admission to Dublin Accord will proceed as next step

  27. DESIGN OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION PROGRAMSFostering an Outcomes Based Approach

  28. Expectations of Education Provider • Program specific objectives and graduate capabilities specification, fitting generic standards for graduate outcomes • Systematic, ‘top-down’ approach to education design and review • Tracking individual course learning outcomes and assessment measures • Engagement of the whole teaching team with the ‘big picture’ • Input from external and student stakeholders • Diversity of learning experiences and assessment processes - including exposure to professional engineering practice

  29. Program Outcomes Specification Objectives • relate to broad characteristics of a graduate - say 5 years into their career Targeted graduate capabilities and Performance indicators • enabling skills and knowledge • engineering application skills • personal and professional capabilities • technical competence

  30. Developing the Specification of Program Outcomes Stage 1 National Generic Competency Standards Generic Attributes IEM Model SPECIFICATION OF PROGRAM OUTCOMES Technical skills and knowledge Engineering application skills Underpinning skills and knowledge Stakeholder input and benchmarking • Educational objectives • Targeted graduate capabilities

  31. ‘Top-Down’ Educational Design • Clear specification of program outcomes • Systematic and holistic design and review cycle - mapping and tracking aggregated learning outcomes and assessment elements from individual academic units • Quality system - closing the loop on learning activities and assessment measures to ensure delivery of outcomes at program and academic unit level • Mapping alternative implementation pathways • Grading of learning experiences over duration of program to develop independent learning skills

  32. ‘Top-Down’ Educational Design (Cont) • Appropriate structural balance • underpinning, discipline specialist, experiential, engineering application, personal and professional skills development • Cohesive integration and balance of learning modes • laboratory and practical • projects • problem solving • assignments • design tasks • formative assessment • individual and team work • interface to professional engineering practice

  33. ‘Top-Down’ Educational Design (Cont) • Personal and professional skills development • integrated and cohesive approach • addressed by the curriculum as a whole • Dissemination to all stakeholders • educational design - objectives, philosophy, targeted outcomes, structure and elements, performance measures

  34. Outcomes Based Quality Framework Industry and professional body input Program specific - educational outcomes specification Benchmark data Mapping and tracking aggregation of learning outcomes and assessment Educational design and review process Student input & feedback Academic Unit Learning outcomes Closing the loop on learning outcomes, learning activities and assessment measures Learning activities Student Performance trends Assessmentsystems

  35. Student Exposure to Professional Engineering Practice • Key element of learning – integrated within the educational design • Includes: • site visits • work placement experience • case studies • industry projects • problem solving • presentations • adjunct teaching • Outcomes mapped and tracked as contributions towards the attainment of graduate outcomes • Ideally monitored using student self reflective processes

  36. Education Provider - Engagement with External Stakeholders • Input from industry employers, graduates and alumni • ‘Big picture’ role – setting, reviewing and monitoring process for assuring attainment of specific program objectives and graduate outcomes

  37. Engaging with Students as Stakeholders • Disseminating the big picture • Engendering a culture of accountability and responsibility for their own learning and development • Seeking input as partners to processes of review and Continuous Quality Improvement • Engagement through focus groups commissioned reviews, reports and presentations, and representation on review and planning forums • Recognising the educational value of engaging students in the quality system

  38. ENGINEERING EDUCATION IN AUSTRALIA- Analysis of Current Status

  39. Current Pressures on Australian Engineering Education • Changes in Primary and Secondary education • teachers, curriculum, and popularity of science and maths • Diminishing pool of qualified student applicants • Diminishing government funding levels • Climate of organisational rationalisation - loss of identity – the ‘Engineering School or Faculty’ • Industry influences - fluctuations in graduate demand, changing skill needs • Market driven, competitive environment • International student presence and offshore program management • University quality drive – focus on graduate outcomes • Engineers Australia – accreditation system influences – outcomes emphasis - encouraging diversity and innovation

  40. Observed Features and Innovations - Australian Engineering Education • Focus on exposing students to professional engineering practice • Strength of industry advisory input to educational design, review and improvement • Cooperative engineering education approaches, industry sponsored capstone projects • Technological enrichment of learning • Flexible learning options – distance delivery • Integrated learning strategies for development of wide ranging graduate capabilities • problem and project based learning • broad context, complex problem solving • team based activity • student reflective portfolio/journal – self assessment of professional development • Commitment to delivering generic capability targets in graduates • Some indication of moves towards a Bologna style 3+2 model

  41. Challenges and Opportunities for Further Improvement • Top-down, systematic approach to curriculum improvement and reform • Disseminating the ‘big-picture’ to students • Mapping and tracking the aggregation of learning outcomes and assessment measures • Innovation in assessment processes to close the loop on delivery of learning outcome targets • Engagement of the whole teaching team through strong program leadership • Engagement of students as stakeholders in the quality cycle • Exposure to professional practice as a ubiquitous part of the educational design • Meaningful advice from industry and benchmarking

  42. THANK YOU Alan B Bradley abradley@engineersaustralia.org.au

More Related