Megat Johari Megat Mohd Noor Universiti Teknologi Malaysia International Campus Kuala Lumpur 22 nd February 2010 2 nd EAC-MCED Dialogue.

Megat Johari Megat Mohd NoorUniversiti Teknologi Malaysia

International CampusKuala Lumpur

22nd 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 curriculum

Outcome based approachContinual quality improvementQuality management system

EAC Criteria

Program ObjectivesProgram OutcomesAcademic CurriculumStudentsAcademic & Support StaffFacilitiesQuality Management System

Universities Best Practices

Best Practices - CurriculumExtensive stakeholders involvementExternal examiner with adequate TORBalanced curriculum including assessment; cognitive, psychomotor & affective

Comprehensive benchmarking (including against WA attributes)

Considered seriously students’ workload distribution

Various delivery methods

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

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 evidence

Certification to ISO 9001/17025, OSHAS 18001

Best Practices - StaffHighly 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 outcomes

Remedial classes to bridge basic knowledge gaps

Current (not obsolete) laboratory equipment in appropriate number

High end laboratory equipmentEmphasis on safety

Accreditation Concerns

PEO & POSpecialisation 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

CurriculumBenchmarking; 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)

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

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 policy

Inadequate laboratory equipment / space / technician

Laboratory safetyErgonomics

Quality Management SystemFollow-up actions; slow or not visible

No monitoringGrading system (low passing marks)

Adhoc procedure (reactive)Financial sustainabilityIncomplete cycle (infancy)

Causes & Development

CausesTop 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 programIndustrial training – vacation (not to take up the

regular semester)WA-graduate attribute profile- Project Management

& FinanceWA- typically 4-5 years of study, depending on the

level of students at entryWA- (knowledge aspect) engagement in research

literaturePotential 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’s corrective 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 UniversitiesUNIMUTARUTMIIUMUNIMASUMSUSMUiTM

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 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 BLocal benchmarkingResponse at exit meetingEngineering technology

vs Engineering

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