Giuliano Augusti Università "La Sapienza", Roma, Facoltà di Ingegneria

1. ACCREDITATION OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION IN EUROPE:the EUR-ACE project(Accreditation of European Engineering Programmes and Graduates) Giuliano Augusti Università "La Sapienza", Roma, Facoltà di Ingegneria Coordinator, EUR-ACE Project giuliano.augusti@uniroma1.it eur-ace@ing.unifi.it

2. What is accreditation of an educational programme? The EUR-ACE definition: Accreditation of an engineering educational programme is the primary process used to ensure the suitability of that programme as the entry route to the engineering profession. Accreditation involves a periodic audit against the present standards of the engineering education provided by a particular course or program. It is essentially a peer review process, undertaken by appropriately trained and independent panels comprising both engineering academic staff and professional engineers from industry. The process normally involves both scrutiny of data and a structured visit to the educational institution. 2

3. What is the purpose of the EUR-ACE project? “… to propose a framework for setting up a European system for accreditation of engineering education at the First Cycle and Second Cycle level (as defined within the Bologna process)” In more general terms, to contribute to “…establish[ing] the European Higher Education Area by 2010, in which citizens can choose from a wide and transparent offer of high quality courses and benefit from smooth recognition procedures”…. … thanks also to the “adoption of a system of easily readable and comparable degrees” (as put by the 1999 Bologna declaration).” 3

4. Educational Systems in Europe are very different from each other, because of historical reasons. Consequently, significance and procedures for accreditation of engineering education vary greatly from one European country to the other. Three typical examples: Diversity within Europe: the present • in GB and IE, accreditation standards and procedures are the responsibility of professional Institutions, and Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) are only involved through the assessment of education programmes, although sometimes they have to adapt the curricula in order that their programmes be accredited; • in FR, since as early as 1934, “habilitation” is granted to engineering programmes and HEIs by the “Commission des Titres d'Ingénieur” (CTI), in which the academic world, the profession and the employers are represented on a parity basis; • in IT, like in some other “continental” countries, the conformity of an academic programme to rules set by the Ministry of Education (or another national authority) is seen as making an HE programme automatically accredited. 4

5. Nevertheless, engineers educated so differently have always been able to work together ... Why a coherent European accreditation system is now felt extremely useful, if not necessary? For several reasons, such as  • Increased (physical and “virtual”) mobility of engineers (also of engineering students, but this is another story); • New degrees, at several “levels” and with several “specializations”… • The 1989European Directive, which assured mobility and “freedom of establishment” of all professional within the EU, not always satisfactorily applied. [A new “Directive” expects approval by the European Parliament: when?] The EUR-ACE project moves in this direction. Such differences lead to confusion in the mutual recognition of academic and professional qualifications: consequently, difficulties still remain in the mobility and trans-national acceptance of engineers (and other professionals) 5

6. Hence, the “Socrates” Thematic Network H3E (Higher Engineering Education for Europe; 1996/99), avoided the word and named its Working Group 2: “Quality and Recognition in Engineering Education” SOME HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Up to a few years ago “accreditation”was a wordavoided in official European Education circles..... indeed, a word that many people did not like. But in that WG 2 we soon understood that, whatever term you use, effective “recognition” of education is impossible, at least in disciplines with a strong “professional” impact like engineering, without dialogue and cooperation between Academia, professional organizations, and bodies active in Accreditation and Quality Assurance ... 6

7. Thus, we invited several of such organizations and bodies to a workshop in The Hague, 3-5 December 1998. This was EWAEP First European Workshop on Accreditation of Engineering Programmes Indeed, the interplay and possible synergies between recognition for academic and professional purposes had been the object of an ad-hoc Working Group set up by the European Commission in 1994, whose final report was at the basis of a Commission Recommendation in December 1994. Two more Workshops followed: Paris, 18-19 June 1999: EWAEP-2 promoted and organised by Commission des Titres d’ Ingénieur and H3E-wg2 Darmstadt, January 2001:EWAEP-3 promoted and organised by Technische Universität Darmstadt and ESOEPE 7

8. Between EWAEP-2 and EWAEP-3, the representatives of six Associations signed (Paris, 9 September 2000) an Agreement “intended to build confidence in systems of accreditation of engineering degree programmes within Europe […] not [yet] intended to harmonise engineering programmes nor accreditation procedures, but simply to assist national agencies and other bodies in planning and developing such systems [and to] facilitate systematic exchange of know-how in accreditation and permanent monitoring of the educational requirements in engineering formation….” [because] the diversity of engineering degree programmes within Europe is a source of great strength [but], as professional engineers become more mobile, society seeks greater assurance of the quality and relevance of provision of engineering programmes: hence, some form of “accreditation” becomes a must. 8

9. Founding members [and signatories]: UK: Engineering Council [A.Ramsay] FR: Commission des Titres d’ Ingènieur [F.Tailly] DE: Akkreditierungsagentur für Studiengänge der Ingenieurwissenschaften und der Informatik ASII (now ASIIN)[K.Hernaut] PT: Ordem dos Engenhieros[J.M. Ferreira Lemos] IT: Collegio (now Conferenza) dei Presidi delle Facoltà di Ingegneria [A.Squarzoni] EU: Thematic Network “Enhancing European Engineering Education” E4 (now TREE) [C.Borri] This agreement was the founding charter of ESOEPE: European Standing Observatory for the Engineering Profession and Education 9

10. Société Européenne pour la Formation des Ingénieurs (SEFI) • Fédération Européenne des Associations Nationales d’Ingénieurs (FEANI) • Romanian National Council for Academic Assessment and Accreditation (CNEAA) • Union of Associations of Civil Engineers of Romania (UAICR) joined ESOEPE at EWAEP-3 in Darmstadt ESOEPE: further members • Institution of Engineers of Ireland (IEI) • Russian Association for Engineering Education (RAEE) • joined ESOEPE later 10

11. …ESOEPE will: • encourage participation by relevant bodies in as many European countries as possible, all on an equal basis, and to facilitate throughout Europe the development of good practices of Endorsement/ Validation/ Accreditation and the establishment of Agencies for that purpose. • facilitate voluntary agreements on accreditation of engineering educational programmes and recognition of engineering qualifications; • facilitate the development of standards on the competence requirements of graduate engineers. From the ESOEPE agreement: Purposes … 11

12. .... but things have evolved very rapidly in the last few years, in the context of the Bologna Process towards an harmonized European Higher Education Area.... Quality Assurance and Trans-national Accreditation of higher education have become key words.... Note the prudencein these statements dated 2000 12

13. TOWARDS THE EUROPEAN HIGHER EDUCATION AREA (EHEA) Communiqué of the meeting of European Ministers in charge of Higher EducationPrague, 19 May 2001 13

14. Ministers recognised the vital role that quality assurance systems play in ensuring high quality standards and in facilitating the comparability of qualifications throughout Europe. .... They emphasized the necessity of close European cooperation and mutual trust in and acceptance of national quality assurance systems. Further they encouraged universities and other higher education institutions to disseminate examples of best practice and to design scenarios for mutual acceptance of evaluation and accreditation/certification mechanisms. ... Promotion of European cooperation in quality assurance 14

15. .... The readability and comparability of European higher education degrees world-wide should be enhanced by the development of a common framework of qualifications, as well as by coherent quality assurance and accreditation/certification mechanisms and by increased information efforts..... [The Ministers] called for increased collaboration between the European countries ..... Promoting the attractiveness of the European Higher Education Area 15

16. REALISING THE EUROPEAN HIGHER EDUCATION AREA Communiqué of the Conference of Ministers responsible for Higher EducationBerlin, 19 Sept. 2003 16

17. ......Therefore, [the Ministers] agree that by 2005 national quality assurance systems should include: • A definition of the responsibilities of the bodies and institutions involved. • Evaluation of programmes or institutions, including internal assessment, external review, participation of students and the publication of results. • A system of accreditation, certification or comparable procedures. • International participation, co-operation and networking....... Realising EHEA, the European Higher Education Area 17

18. Guy HAUG : Quality assurance/accreditation in the emerging European higher education area: a possible scenario for the future The evaluation, improvement and certification of "quality" are a core constituent of the "Bologna process" of convergent reforms towards a coherent, compatible and competitive European higher education area. Yet, the articulation of a system or mechanism able to deal with this topic at European level, and the way leading to its emergence, remain surrounded with much confusion and doubt..... From a paper in the European Journal of Education(September 2003) 18

19. Transnational Evaluation and Accreditation Most evaluation and accreditation is carried out on a national or regional basis. It is expected that these local exercises will become more comparable and more European through the use of "an agreed set of standards, procedures and guidelines" and the involvement of foreign experts. In a limited number of cases there is scope for transnational evaluation and accreditation. For instance in highly internationalised fields of study like business and engineering or in cases where universities or sponsors (public or private) seek to obtain a label for reasons of branding or consumer protection. Integrated study programmes, like joint masters, obviously require a collaborative effort of the respective quality assurance agencies. From a February, 2004 paper by EC DG EACFROM BERLIN TO BERGEN: the EU Contribution (1) 19

20. The Commission supports the setting up and testing phase of transnational evaluation and accreditation. .... ENQA intends to organise more transnational evaluations of single, double and joint degrees. The Commission would welcome such proposals as well as proposals from subject specific professional organisations developing European Cooperation in Accreditation in fields like medicine or engineering. ..... From a February, 2004 paper by EC DG EACFROM BERLIN TO BERGEN: the EU Contribution (2) 20

21. Call for Proposals for Europe-wide Participation Projects contributing to the Realisation of the European Higher Education Area (Bologna Process) Directorate-General for Education and Culture These statements were followed by a SOCRATES-TEMPUS 21

22. The Bologna Declaration of June 1999 has put in motion a series of reforms needed to make European Higher Education more compatible and comparable, more competitive and more attractive for our own citizens and for citizens and scholars from other continents. The aim is to establish a European Higher Education Area by 2010, in which citizens can choose from a wide and transparent offer of high quality courses and benefit from smooth recognition procedures. Bologna reforms are carried out by higher education institutions, by regional and national governments. At European level, a series of “Participation Projects” are set up in order to monitor the process and test out new ideas........ In reply to the Call, the Commission would welcome proposals aiming to contribute to the realisation of the EHEA … in particular through the implementation of Participation Projects [for] • Developing European Cooperation in Accreditation in certain disciplines/professional fields of study. From the “Call for proposals”: 22

23. Date of issue of the “Call for proposals”: 5 March 2004; Deadline: 16 April 2004 The EUR-ACE project was presented on 16 April 2004 at 12.00 noon and approved in late August 2004. 23

24. FEANI • SEFI • CESAER • EUROCADRES • ENQHEEI • UNIFI/TREE 14 Partners • ASIIN (DE) • C.T.I. (FR) • I.E.I. (IE) • CoPI (IT) • OE (PT) • UAICR (RO) • RAEE (RU)* • ECUK (UK) * TEMPUS partner (EUR-ACE is the first project supported by the two EU programmes “SOCRATES” and “TEMPUS”) 24

25. EUR-ACEAccreditation of European Engineering Programmes and GraduatesOther Participating Institutions indicated in the application (1) 2. SEFI Instit. Members • SE: Lund University • CZ: C.T.U. Prague • HU: Univ. Miskolc • TK: Istanbul T.U. • AT: T.U.Wien 1. FEANI Nat. Members • Germany • Poland • The Netherlands • Spain • Finland • Denmark • Switzerland • Italy 25

26. 4. CLAIU 5. CRUI (IT) The list of the “Other Participating Institutions” can be modified: other Institutions can be added. They are expected to play a major role during the “testing stages” of the project. EUR-ACEAccreditation of European Engineering Programmes and GraduatesOther Participating Institutions indicated in the application (2) 3. EUROCADRES Nat. Members • Belgium • Czech Republic • Denmark • Finland • France • Ireland • Italy • Portugal • Romania • United Kingdom 26

27. EUR ACE Project Management Structure Project Board (PB) International Advisory Board One representative of each Partner 3 high level experts Financial and administrative Technical Structure Structure Treasurer Coordinator Steering Committee Ph. Wauters (Project Leader) 8 [Socrates] +1 [Tempus] accreditation specialists G. Augusti Support by the legal Technical support Technical support representative (each partner) (each partner) FEANI - Staff Staff Staff Additional support to the testing phase FEANI National Members, Technical and administrative assistance, SEFI institutional members, relations with other Socrates programmes EUROCADRES National Members UNIFI, International Relations Office - – 27

28. Duration: September 2004-December 2005. • Work programme in “five stages” • Final budget: "SOCRATES" part: € 454,419 total , of which € 300,000 co-financing by the Commission and € 154,419contribution by the 14 partners, mainly in Academic staff time; “TEMPUS" part:  € 46,900 total, of which € 38,300 co-financing by the Commission and € 8,600 contribution by RAEE, mainly in Academic staff time. Remember: EUR-ACE is the first project supported by the two EU programmes “SOCRATES” and “TEMPUS” EUR-ACEAccreditation of European Engineering Programmes and Graduates 28

29. 1.FEANI - Philippe WAUTERS 2.SEFI - Tornbjörn HEDBERG 3.CESAER - Jan GRAAFMANS 4.EUROCADRES - Pierre COMPTE 5.ENQHEEI - René-Fran. BERNARD 6.ASIIN - Iring WASSER 7.CTI - François TAILLY EUR-ACE Project Board: First meeting: London (ECUK), 2 September 2004 8.   IEI - Michael HILLERY 9.CoPI - Alfredo SQUARZONI 10. UNIFI - Claudio BORRI 11.OE PT- Sebastiao FEYO 12.UAICR - Iacint MANOLIU 13.RAEE - Oleg BOEV 14.EC UK - Jim BIRCH Chairman: Alan PUGH, Coordinator of ESOEPE PSC 29

30. 1.João Duarte Silva 2.Ian Freeston 3.Günter Heitmann 4.Michael Hillery 5.Antonio Salgado de Barros 6.J. M. Siwak 7.Alfredo Squarzoni 8.Iring Wasser 9. Alexander Chuchalin Chairman: Project Coordinator (Giuliano Augusti) EUR-ACE Steering Committee 30

31. Kruno Hernaut • (two more members to be nominated) EUR-ACE International Advisory Committee 31

32. By which path(s) an European Recognition/Accreditation/Certification system of Engineering Education can be built up? By an EU “Directive” (i.e. a European “law”)? Impossible (even if somebody might advocate it) because • autonomy of HEIs, that within many countries, are not “obliged” even to recognise each others’ degrees) • EHEA involves many more countries than EU and an ad-hoc European structure? Which future for Accreditation in Europe according to EUR-ACE ? 32

33. The assumption of the EUR-ACE project is that the present difficulties in recognition and mobility can only be overcome by reaching a European-wide consensus on standards required from engineering educational programmes, including assessment and QA measures, and by setting up a system for accrediting programmes, HE Institutions and graduates when such standards are achieved, not when bureaucratic rules are fulfilled. The future of Accreditation in Europe (2) 33

34. This European Accreditation system must be built-up gradually, bottom-up, including and harmonizing existing accreditation systems, and involving national and regional accreditation agencies. Can the model be the “Washington Accord” ? O.K., but note that W.A. has worked well until it included only educational systems directly deriving from the “Anglo-Saxon” model. Thus, if we want a “European Accord”, we must refer to a well defined European model of engineering education, based on the EHEA (Bologna-Berlin) first-second cycle scheme, duly adapted to Engineering Education. The future of Accreditation in Europe (3) 34

35. Indeed, throughout Europe, Higher Engineering Education systems are evolving (with some resistance from some more “traditional” Institutions) in the sense indicated by the Bologna Declaration, providing a “first cycle” and a “second cycle” degree. In two Workshops (Helsinki, 2003; Madrid, 2004) SEFI and CESAER have confirmed their willingness to contribute to the development of the Bologna process in Engineering Education, and in particular have stated that transnational recognition of engineering degrees at professional level has to be a primary goal. The future of Accreditation in Europe (4) The European Model 35

36. a well defined set of standards and procedures for an accreditation system of Engineering Education that should provide a quality European label, tentatively denoted: EUR-ACE(FC) & EUR-ACE(SC) EUR-ACE main output(to be provided by 31 December 2005) 36

37. Thus, EUR-ACE has reviewed criteria and standards already existing in Europe for FC and SC engineering degrees, then a first version of Tentative EUR-ACE Standards and Procedures for the Accreditation of Engineering Programmes has been prepared, discussed and approved by the EUR-ACE Steering Committee, andsince 13 December 2004is available on the EUR-ACE web page at the address http://www.feani.org This has concluded the first stage of the EUR-ACE work plan (September-November 2004) 37

38. These standards collect and harmonize existing documents of several European Accreditation Agencies and bodies, and intend to be at the same time a “framework” for accrediting accreditation procedures and accreditation bodies (“meta-accreditation”) and a guideline for developing actual operative standards where at present they do not exist. EUR-ACE Tentative Standards 38

39. Contents: Preamble • Introduction • Table of general programme outcomes, differentiated between FC and SC degrees • Criteria and Quality Requirements for Accreditation • Requirements of the Accreditation Procedure • Annex: Template for Publication of Results Tentative Standards 39

40. General Statements: The programmes fulfilling the requirements set in the Standards will obtain the appropriate European label, but if a set of National Standards already in force cover fully the requirements of these standards, the award of the European Label can be automatic. Accreditation of a SC programme is will be normally awarded to programmes in series with FC programmes, but can also be obtained by integrated programmes. Accreditation of an Engineering Educational Program is not to be automatically identified with recognition of the programme as allowing the immediate practice of the engineering profession. In some countries, further qualifications (e.g. a “State Exam”) and/or training periods may be required. Tentative Standards (2) 40

41. The Tentative Standards • refer only to first and second cycle programmes (FC and SC) and neither to any “short cycle” nor Doctoral (“third cycle”) programme; however, the SC label can be awarded to “integrated programmes”; • are not branch-specific, and therefore may need to be complemented by other requirements; • do not specifically refer, but on the other hand do not exclude, e-learning (distance learning) programmes (but perhaps some adaptation would be needed); • are intended for accreditation of educational programmes as a suitable “entry route to the engineering profession” (in accord to our definition), not of Institutions. Tentative Standards (3) 41

42. Typical options for HE systems 42

43. The Tentative Standards appear flexible enough to accommodate national and subject differences and to leave the door open to future developments, so that the proposed accreditation standards will not become a straightjacket but rather an incentive to continuously make improvements through incorporating best practice. We do not exclude that, in parallel to EUR-ACE, other systems may be created to provide special standards and “labels” for programmes addressed to meet specific and particular requirements, or for programmes that e.g. include research …. Tentative Standards (4) 43

44. “Tests” in several European countries are being conducted to verify whether the Tentative Standards • are compatible with existing Accreditation Standards and procedures, • could be used as a framework for writing new Standards, • could be used for accrediting programmes, • can then be the basis for a truly European system of accreditation of engineering educational programmes. Current Stage of EUR-ACE work plan:First Testing Stage (December 2004-February 2005) 44

45. Reactions, comments, opinions, suggestions on the Tentative Standards are being collected, and are solicitedfrom all interested parties and stakeholders: they will be taken into account in the revision stage. Most will be collected in meetings and workshops like this one, to which academic and non-academic parties are invited. Others comments can be e-mailed to: giuliano.augusti@uniroma1.it eur-ace@ing.unifi.it Current Stage of EUR-ACE work plan:First Testing Stage (December 2004-February 2005) 45

46. Stage 3 (March-April)Revision: Tentative Standards to be modified [hopefully improved !] in accordance with the test results; Stage 4 (May-November)Retesting:Revised Standards tested again and possibly used in pilot accreditations; consensus searched (hoping for convergence of the process); Stage 5 (December) Wrapping up:Final set of standards and procedures for an EEE accreditation system elaborated and transmitted to the EC DG EAC, together with the other planned outputs. Further Stages of EUR-ACE work plan(March-December 2005) 46

47. In these stages we shall also elaborate the other required outputs, namely: • precise indications on the procedure for the award of the EUR-ACE labels and on the body or structure that should administer it; • a draft financial plan indicating how the system can become self-supporting within five years, possibly through a gradual increase of the fees charged for the EUR-ACE label. Further Stages of EUR-ACE work plan(March-December 2005) 47

48. We have not yet started a formal discussion on these aspects, but I take a few points for granted: • national and regional accreditation agencies already active must be involved; • existing accreditation systems must not be overcome, but rather harmonized; • they will get an “added value” if they can provide a European label; • the developments of new national accreditation systems and agencies must be facilitated. Further Stages of EUR-ACE work plan(March-December 2005):the other outputs 48

49. … and in any case we must avoid the heavy bureaucracy too often implied by EU procedures … 49

50. Of course, any decisions on the actual implementation of the proposed accreditation procedure and system will not compete to the EUR-ACE project, but we have already forecast a possible extension of the project into2006 in which the accreditation procedure and system identified by the project could betested in actual applications in and by interested HEIs. Therefore, I already ask also to be contacted by Universities and other HEIs that might be interested in participating to the second testing stage (May-October 2005) and/or, in 2006, in the pilot accreditations. Implementation of EUR-ACE outcomes 50