2 nd EAC-MCED Dialogue

1. 2nd EAC-MCED Dialogue MegatJohariMegatMohdNoor UniversitiTeknologi Malaysia International Campus Kuala Lumpur 22nd February 2010

2. Topics • Introduction • Best Practices • Concerns • Causes • Development • Involvement • Feedback • Conclusion

3. Introduction

4. Objectives of Accreditation • Ensure 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)

5. Accreditation Policy • Focus on outcomes and developed internal system (pg 4 Sec 5.1 EAC Manual) • Determining the effectiveness of the quality assurancesystem(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)

6. EAC Focus • Breadth and depth of curriculum • Outcome based approach • Continual quality improvement • Quality management system

7. EAC Criteria • Program Objectives • Program Outcomes • Academic Curriculum • Students • Academic & Support Staff • Facilities • Quality Management System

8. Universities Best Practices

9. Best Practices - Curriculum • Extensive stakeholders involvement • External examiner with adequate TOR • Balanced curriculum including assessment; cognitive, psychomotor & affective • Comprehensive benchmarking (including against WA attributes) • Considered seriously students’ workload distribution • Various delivery methods

10. Best Practices – System • Systematic approach to demonstrate attainment of program outcomes • Staff training (awareness) on outcome based approach • Moderation of examination questions to ensure appropriate level • Course CQI implemented

11. Best Practices – System • System integrity ensured by committed and dedicated staff • Constructive leadership • Comprehensive self assessment report • Planned and monitored activities (PDCA) • Well documented policies / procedures and traceable evidence • Certification to ISO 9001/17025, OSHAS 18001

12. Best Practices - Staff • Highly qualified academic staff (PhD/PE) with research and industry experience • Staff professional development and involvement • Staff training (awareness) on outcome based approach • Research / industry experience that enhance undergraduate teaching • Academic staff in related discipline • Ideal staff: student ratio (1:10 or better)

13. Best Practices – Students & Facilities • Awareness programs for students on outcomes • Remedial classes to bridge basic knowledge gaps • Current (not obsolete) laboratory equipment in appropriate number • High end laboratory equipment • Emphasis on safety

14. Accreditation Concerns

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

16. Curriculum • Benchmarking; limited to curriculum (virtual) • No link between engineering courses and specialisation • Course outcomes mapping to PEO/PO; not well understood by academic staff • Delivery method; traditional not embracing project/problem based (open-ended)

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

18. Assessment & Evaluation • Assessment types and weightage; favour high grades or facilitate pass • Depth (level) of assessment; not visible / appropriate (lack of philosophy) • Examination questions; not challenging • Lack of summative evaluation • Mostly indirect assessement (simplistic direct assessment; grade=outcome)

19. Staff & Facilities • Varied understanding of system (OBE) • Academic staff; professional qualification / experience limited (mostly young academics) – issue of planning and recruitment policy • Inadequate laboratory equipment / space / technician • Laboratory safety • Ergonomics

20. Quality Management System • Follow-up actions; slow or not visible • No monitoring • Grading system (low passing marks) • Adhoc procedure (reactive) • Financial sustainability • Incomplete cycle (infancy)

21. Causes & Development

22. Causes • Top management; not the driving force (delegation & accountability) • Academic leadership • Inadequate staff training or exposure • Awareness of EAC requirements • Unclear policy, procedures and/or philosophy • Understanding between engineering & technology

23. Development

24. 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

25. 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/courses • EAC 1st Summit & Forum Aug 2010, Kuching

26. Improvements • Defer rejection for Application for Approval, and IHL will be called to discuss for resubmission • Response to Evaluators’ report would require IHL’s corrective action as well apart from correcting factual inaccuracies, and would be tabled at EAC meeting

27. Involvement

28. EAC Involvement • Accreditation • Recognition • Mentoring • Mutual recognition – CTI France • NABEEA • IEA (Washington Accord) • FEIIC (EQAPS)

29. Universities • Evaluation Panel • Joint Committee on Standard • Local Benchmarking • Knowledge Sharing (systems) • Local & International Observers • EAC/Professional activities • Interpreting WA graduate attributes • Industry Sabbatical • International collaboration (research + academic)

30. Feedback

31. Feedback from Universities • UNIM • UTAR • UTM • IIUM • UNIMAS • UMS • USM • UiTM

32. 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)

33. Recapitulation from 1st Dialogue • Not fault finding (need to highlight strength) • Sampling may not be representative • Giving adequate time to adjust with changes to the Manual • Time frame to obtain results • PE definition to be opened to other Professional bodies • No clear justification requiring PE (nice to have) • Appoint suitable and “related discipline” evaluators • Appoint non-PE academics • Usurping the power of senate • MCED should be given the mandate to nominate academics to EAC • Spell out the Manual clearly (eg. benchmarking) • Assessment of EAC evaluators • Flexibility of Appendix B • Local benchmarking • Response at exit meeting • Engineering technology vs Engineering

34. Conclusion

35. Conclusion • Great potential in leading engineering education • Quality & competitive engineering education • Contributing to greater goals • Sharing of knowledge and practice • Systems approach outcome based education • Participative and engaging rather than adversary • Professional development • Facilitating and developmental

36. Thank you