International Initiatives

1
International Initiatives

• Mutual Recognition Agreements
• Substantial Equivalency Recognition
• Memoranda of Understanding
• Consultations
• Workshops / Seminars

George D. Peterson Executive Director ABET, Inc
Prepared for IEEE/ Educational Activities
Board November 17, 2006
2
ABET Vision Statement

• ABET will provide world leadership in assuring
  quality and in stimulating innovation in applied
  science, computing, engineering, and technology
  education.

3

• How do we develop a shared understanding of the
  quality of engineers, engineering technologists,
  engineering technicians who enter practice in the
  globally connected workplace?

We Build Bridges toward Mutual Recognition of the
Substantial Equivalence of Engineering Education
4
Building Bridges
Slope
Span
5
Building Bridges-the role of mutual recognition
agreements

• The ABUTMENTS
• The National Systems of Quality Assurance
• The SPAN
• Scope and Capacity of Operation
• The SLOPE
• At what level are the National Systems?

6
Building Bridges
7
The Abutments

• The National Systems of Quality Review and
  Quality Assurance
• They dont have to be the same but they must be
  capable having their processes, policies,
  procedures and standards compared

8
span
9
The Span

• The framework which defines the mode and scope
  of its operation
• Membership Criteria, Quality Assurance
  Monitoring and Verification, Appeals, Compliance,
  Peer Review, Voluntary, Non Governmental.

10
slope
11
The Slope

• Unlikely that the national systems will be at
  exactly the same level
• Are the National Systems capable of delivering
  what is claimed?
• Is the delivered product close enough?
• Must make judgments on what is an acceptable
  difference

12
And these Bridges must be Maintained, Repaired
and Upgraded
13
International Initiatives

• Mutual Recognition Agreements
• Substantial Equivalency Recognition
• Memoranda of Understanding
• Consultations
• Workshops / Seminars

14
Mutual Recognition Agreements

• Addresses program accreditation or recognition,
  not licensure or registration
• Accreditation Systems Substantially Equivalent
• Comparable educational experiences
• Graduates have similar competencies
• Verification required at regular intervals
• (no less than 6 years)
• Important for global mobility, registration and
  professional practice

15
Washington Accord

• recognizes the substantial equivalency of
  accreditation systems to assess that the
  graduates of accredited programs are prepared to
  practice engineering at the entry level to the
  profession

16

• By virtue of the Washington Accords
  affirmation of substantial equivalence among its
  members, the signatories have come to acknowledge
  generally accepted, globally relevant attributes
  that graduates from accredited engineering
  programs are expected to possess.
• This acknowledgement of substantial equivalence
  has the potential for facilitating mobility of
  practicing engineers across country boundaries.

17
Washington Accord Signatories

• SIGNATORY COUNTRIES
• Engineers, Australia
• Canadian Council of Professional Engineers
• Institution of Engineers Singapore
• Hong Kong Institute Institution of Engineers
• Engineers Ireland
• Japan Accreditation Board for Engineering
  Education
• Engineers, New Zealand
• Engineering Council of South Africa
• Engineering Council, United Kingdom
• ABET, Inc.
• Provisional Members
• GERMANY ASIIN (2003)
• MALAYSIA BEM (2003)
• Korea ABEEK (2005)
• Russia RAEE (2005)
• Taiwan IEET (2005)

18
United
Canada
Kingdom
Germany
Canada
Ireland
Korean Republic
United States
Japan
Taiwan
Hong Kong
Malaysia
Singapore
Australia
South Africa
New
Zealand
Washington Accord Provisional Signatories
Washington Accord Signatories
19
Maintenance

• Signatories routinely observe each others
  processes
• Mandatory review of each signatory at regular
  intervals
• Every two years there is a general review of the
  agreement

20
Upgrading

• Increasing scope of the agreement
• Introduction of new members
• Improving operations

• Benchmarking

21
ASEE Global Colloquium on Engineering
EducationOctober 9, 2006Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
www.asee.org

• Graduate Attributes and Professional Competency
  Profiles for the Engineer, Engineering
  Technologist, and Engineering Technician
• George D. Peterson ABET, Inc,
• Hu Hanrahan, Engineers Council of South Africa

22
Graduate Attributes

• Academic Education
• Knowledge of Engineering Sciences
• Problem Analysis
• Design/Development of Solutions
• Investigation
• Modern Tools Usage
• Individual and Team Work
• Communication
• The Engineering in Society
• Ethics
• Environment and Sustainability
• Project Management and Finance
• Life Long Learning

23
Range of Problem Solving

• Range of Conflicting Requirements
• Depth of Analysis Required
• Depth of Knowledge Required
• Familiarity of Issues
• Level of Problem
• Extent of Stakeholder Involvement and Level of
  Conflicting Requirements
• Consequences
• Interdependence
• Requirement Identification

24
Depth of Knowledge Required
Can be solved using limited theoretical
knowledge, but normally requires extensive
practical knowledge
Requires knowledge of principles and applied
procedures or methodologies
Requires in-depth knowledge that allows a
fundamentals-based first principles analytical
approach
25
Modern Tool Usage Differentiating
Characteristic Level of understanding of the
appropriateness of the tool
Apply appropriate techniques, resources, and
modern engineering tools to well-defined
engineering activities, with an awareness of the
limitations
Select and apply appropriate techniques,
resources, and modern engineering tools,
including prediction and modelling, to broadly
defined engineering activities, with an
understanding of the limitations
Create, select and apply appropriate techniques,
resources, and modern engineering tools,
including prediction and modelling, to complex
engineering activities, with an understanding of
the limitations
26
The Washington Accord is not a perfect
marriage-it is a structure built out of what was
available. Over the years it has been subject to
various stresses but the original design has
proved to be robust and capable of having a bit
of bracing tacked on when necessary. Further
modifications can be made and are under active
discussion- with the aim of making engineers
globally recognized. Jim Birch, ECuk
27
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

• Promotes cooperation between accrediting
  organizations to
• Collaborate in the professional development of
  evaluators and faculty
• Exchange information about best practices in
  promoting quality assurance
• Explore the feasibility of mutual recognition
  based on the collaboration, exchange and
  assessment of respective accreditation systems

28
Memoranda of Understanding

• Ministry of Higher Education Ukraine (1991)
• CACEI Mexico (1994)
• UNESCO - Latin America (1995)
• CONEAU - Argentina (l997)
• Commission des Titres dIngenieur - France (1998)
• Japan Accreditation Board for Engineering
  Education - Japan (l999)
• ASIIN - Germany (2001)
• Ordem dos Engenheiros - Portugal (2001)
• ICACIT Peru - (2003)
• Institute for Engineering Education, Taiwan
  (2004)
• Accreditation Board for Engineering Education
  Korea (2005)
• Council Of Higher Education, Israel (2006)
• Chinese Association of Science and Technology
  (2006)
• Acredita CI Chile (pending)

29
Western Hemisphere Initiative

• collaboration in development of engineering
  education between ABET and quality assurance
  organizations in South and Central America
• Original Partners
• ABET - United States
• CACEI Mexico
• CHEA United States
• CEAB Canada
• New Member
• ICACIT - Peru

30
Technical Assistance

• Quality Assurance Systems
• Guidance with criteria development
• Faculty training and development
• Consultants
• Conduct seminars / Workshops
• General information on accreditation
• Informal advice to university on general
  conditions of the program(s)

31
International Faculty Workshops

• Purpose
• To share ABETs best practices and lessons
  learned to help reshape curricular and
  instructional approaches
• International Faculty Workshops on Continuous
  Program Improvement
• April, 2002, Istanbul Technical University,
  Turkey
• December, 2003, National University of Singapore
• October, 2006, Russian Association for
  Engineering Education

32
International System Development Workshops

• Japan Accreditation Board for Engineering
  Education (JABEE) 2000
• Accreditation Board for Engineering Education
  Korea (ABEEK) 2003

33
Substantial Equivalency

• comparable in program content and educational
  experience, but such programs may not be
  absolutely identical in format or method of
  delivery.
• It implies reasonable confidence that the
  graduates possess the competencies needed to
  begin professional practice at the entry level.

34
Substantial Equivalency Recognition

• Chile Germany
• Kuwait Mexico
• The Netherlands Peru
• Qatar Russian Federation
• Saudi Arabia Singapore
• Spain Sultanate of Oman
• Turkey United Arab Emirates
• 14 Countries 145 Programs

35
(No Transcript)
36
(No Transcript)