A COMPARISON OF THE CDIO AND EUR-ACE QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEMS

1
A COMPARISON OF THE CDIO AND EUR-ACE QUALITY
ASSURANCE SYSTEMS

• Johan Malmqvist
•  
• Chalmers University of Technology
• Göteborg, Sweden

2
Introduction

• CDIO, as a general idea, aims to raise the
  quality of the educational programs that apply
  the concept
• CDIO includes a number of components that can be
  classified as quality assurance tools
• CDIO programs are also exposed to national
  schemes for accreditation and evaluation
• International accreditation schemes are emerging,
  eg within the EU CDIO adapters need to relate
  to these
• The aim of this presentation is to compare CDIO
  with the EUR-ACE framework discuss similarities
  and differences

3
Outline

• Introduction
• CDIO quality assurance system components and
  process
• Bologna process outcomes
• EUR-ACE quality assurance system components and
  process
• Comparison
• Conclusions

4
A CDIO-based quality assurance aystem

• CDIO syllabus WHAT
• CDIO standards HOW
• CDIO self-evaluation HOW WELL

5
Bologna process components

• Qualifications framework
• 1st (bachelor), 2nd (master) and 3rd (doctor)
  cycles
• ECTS credit system
• Learning outcomes-based approach, eg Dublin
  descriptors and EQF characteristics
• European standards for quality assurance proposed
  (ENQA, 2005)
• General, applicable to all university education
• Needs to complemented for particular fields
  and/or professional degrees

6
The EUR-ACE standards

• A framework for the accreditation of engineering
  degree programmes in the European Higher
  Education Area.
• The EUR-ACE standards comprise three main parts
• A set of programme outcomes for 1st and 2nd cycle
  engineering degrees.
• Guidelines for programme assessment and
  accreditation.
• A procedure for programme assessment and
  accreditation.

7
The EUR-ACE syllabus(my numbering)

• Knowledge andUnderstanding
• Engineering Analysis
• Engineering Design
• Investigations
• Engineering Practice
• Transferable Skills

• 3.1 The ability to apply their knowledge and
  understanding to develop and realise designs to
  meet defined and specified requirements

8
Mapping EUR-ACE syllabus CDIO syllabus
9
Observations

• The EUR-ACE syllabus lacks a structure rooted in
  a purpose, what do engineers do?
• The EUR-ACE engineer is essentially a design
  or analyst engineer, while the CDIO syllabus
  also addresses Implementing and Operating a
  CDIO engineer has a broader view
• The CDIO syllabus differs between personal and
  interpersonal skills
• Higher level of detail in the CDIO syllabus
  supports interpreting what is meant by high-level
  statements
• The proficiency levels are given in the EUR-ACE
  syllabus, and in some cases differ significantly
  from the CDIO syllabus survey results

10
Proficiency levels
11
The EUR-ACE accreditation standards

• Programme educational objectives consistent with
  the needs of all stakeholders and programme
  outcomes and the EUR-ACE programme outcomes for
  accreditation
• A curriculum and related processes which ensure
  achievement of the programme outcomes
• Academic and support staff, facilities, financial
  resources etc adequate to accomplish the
  programme outcomes
• Appropriate forms of assessment which attest the
  achievement of the programme outcomes
• A management system able to ensure the systematic
  achievement of the programme outcomes and the
  continual improvement of the programme

12
From categories to specific requirements
1.2 Educational Objectives Are the programme
educational objectives consistent with the
mission of the Higher Education Institution (HEI)
and with the needs of the interested parties
(such as students, industry, engineering
associations, etc.)?

• Needs, Objectives and Outcomes
• Educational Process
• Resources and Partnerships
• Assessment of the Educational Process
• Management System

2.3 Learning Assessment Have examinations,
projects and other assessment methods, been
designed to evaluate the extent to which students
can demonstrate achievement of the learning
outcomes of single modules and programme
outcomes respectively throughout the programme
and at its conclusion?
13
Comparison EUR-ACE accreditation standards
CDIO standards
Guidelines for Accreditation Criteria to be assessed Requirements CDIO standard
1. Needs, Objectives and Outcomes 1.1 Needs of the Interested Parties Have the needs of the interested parties (such as students, industry, engineering associations, etc.) been identified? 1, 2
1. Needs, Objectives and Outcomes 1.2 Educational Objectives Are the programme educational objectives consistent with the mission of the Higher Education Institution (HEI) and with the needs of the interested parties (such as students, industry, engineering associations, etc.)? 2
1. Needs, Objectives and Outcomes 1.3 Programme Outcomes Do the programme outcomes cover the EUR-ACE programme outcomes for accreditation? 2
1. Needs, Objectives and Outcomes 1.3 Programme Outcomes Are the programme outcomes consistent with the programme educational objectives? 1, 2
14
Observations 1(2)

• The EUR-ACE accreditation standards/criteria are
  Whats, ie they do not say how a particular
  criteria should be addressed
• Many of the criteria are measurable, but there is
  no declaration of what is good (enough)
• The CDIO standards are Hows which address about
  ¾ of the criteria
• Criteria that lack corresponding CDIO standard
  include entrance requirements, organization,
  financial resources, throughput time and
  partnerships

15
Observations 2(2)

• Some CDIO standards (4, 5, 7 and 8) have no
  direct EUR-ACE correspondent. These standards
  refer to CDIO-specific curricular and teaching
  elements

16
CDIO self-evaluation process EUR-ACE accreditation process
Internal evaluators External accreditation team
Internal goals External goals
Voluntary Compulsory
Evaluation with respect to rating scale Threshold
Yearly Six-year intervals
Limited amount of data Comprehensive amount of data
17
Conclusions

• The CDIO syllabus is more logically structured
  and reflects a more encompassing view of
  engineering than EUR-ACEs
• The proficiency levels of the CDIO and EUR-ACE
  are difficult to compare, but there are some
  signs of differences
• The CDIO standards provide solutions on how to
  work with about ¾ issues raised in a EUR-ACE
  accreditation.
• Missing elements concerns, eg, financial
  resources, partnerships and decision-making
• Four CDIO standards (4, 5, 7, and 8) define
  educational elements which are not explicitly
  discussed in EUR-ACE accreditation requirements
• An evaluation process based on a rating scale,
  such as the CDIO self-evaluation model, is more
  useful for guiding a continuous improvement
  process than a threshold value scale, typical for
  an accreditation