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

J. Malmqvist (2009). A COMPARISON OF THE CDIO AND EUR-ACE QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEMS. 15.

2009 5th International CDIO Conference, Singapore Polytechnic, Singapore

D3.1.pdf

In a CDIO programme, the CDIO syllabus, standards, and self-evaluation model constitute the core components of the programme’s quality assurance system.

At the same time, CDIO programmes are also evaluated by national standards. A CDIO programme needs a quality assurance system which also fulfils these national requirements, and that is able to produce the evidence and documentation needed for a national evaluation with minimal additional effort. Efficient execution of this task requires understanding of the similarities and differences between the CDIO and national quality assurance systems.

In this paper, we consider the emerging European standards for accreditation of engineering programmes, the EUR-ACE standards. We account for a comparison between the CDIO syllabus and the EUR-ACE counterpart, the programme outcomes, and by the CDIO standards and EUR-ACE accreditation criteria, identifying similarities and differences. A discussion is conducted on the pros and cons of a rating scale-based system for continuous improvement and a threshold-based accreditation model.

The paper concludes that:

• The CDIO syllabus reflects a more encompassing view of engineering than EUR-ACE’s, by considering the full product/system/process lifecycle, including the implementing and operating life phases. The proficiency levels of the CDIO and EUR-ACE are, however, difficult to compare.

• The EUR-ACE accreditation requirements are extensive and include elements not addressed in the CDIO framework, eg concerning financial resources and decisionmaking. The CDIO standards provide “solutions” on how to work with about ¾ of the issues raised in a EUR-ACE accreditation.

• Four of the 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 continuous improvement than a threshold value scale, such as used in a EUR-ACE accreditation.

Authors (New):

Johan Malmqvist

Pages:

Affiliations:

Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden

Keywords:

Quality Assurance

CDIO

EUR-ACE

Engineering education

Year:

2009

Reference:

Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology, Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs: Effective for Evaluations during the 2000-2001 Accreditation Cycle, 2000. Available at http://www.abet.org. :

Högskoleverket, Utvärdering av utbildningar till civilingenjör vid svenska universitet och högskolor – fulltextversion (Evaluation of “Civilingenjör” Degree Programs at Swedish Universities), Rapport 2006:8 R, Högskoleverket, Stockholm, Sweden, 2006.:

Crawley, E. F., Malmqvist, J., Brodeur, D. R, Östlund, S. Rethinking Engineering Education – The CDIO Approach, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2007. :

Malmqvist, J., Relation between the Dublin Descriptors and Program Goal Statements based on the CDIO Syllabus, Technical Report, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, 2006. :

Malmqvist, J., Edström, K., Gunnarsson, S. Östlund, S., “The Application of CDIO Standards in the Evaluation of Swedish Engineering Degree Programmes”, World Transactions of Engineering and Technology, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 361-364, 2006. :

Malmqvist, J., Sadurskis, A., “Quality Assurance of Engineering Education in Sweden”, Book chapter forthcoming in Engineering Education Quality Assurance – A Global Perspective, Patil, A. S., Gray, P. (Eds.), Springer-Verlag, 2009.:

ENAEE (European Network for Accreditation of Engineering Education), EUR-ACE Framework Standards for the Accreditation of Engineering Programmes, http://www.enaee.eu/pdf/EURACE_Framework_Standards_20110209.pdf, 2008, accessed on May 4, 2009. :

Crawley, E., The CDIO Syllabus - A Statement of Goals for Undergraduate Engineering Education, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2001. Available at http://www.cdio.org. :

Enelund, M, Bankel, J., The Mechanical Engineering Programme at Chalmers University of Technology – Application for appointment as Centre of Excellent Quality in Higher Education, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden, 2008.:

European Commission: DG Education and Culture, The European Qualification Framework for Lifelong Learning (EQF), Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxemburg, 2008. :

ENQA (European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education), Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area, 2nd Ed., 2007, Helsinki, Finland. Available at http://www.enqa.eu/pubs.lasso. :

Bankel, J., Berggren, K.-F., Blom, K., Crawley, E., Wiklund, I., Östlund, S., “The CDIO Syllabus - A Comparative Study of Expected Student Proficiency”, European Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp 297-315, 2003. :

Ministry of Education and Research. Higher Education Ordinance, SFS 1993:100, with amendments up to SFS 2006:1054, Stockholm, Sweden, 2006. :

on December 9, 2018 - 17:16 Tyrone Machado

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

Navigation

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

Share this content.