2nd EAC-MCED Dialogue
Megat Johari Megat Mohd Noor
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia International Campus
Kuala Lumpur
22nd February 2010
Topics
 Introduction
 Best Practices
 Concerns
 Causes
 Development
 Involvement
 Feedback
 Conclusion
Introduction
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)
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 approach
 Continual quality improvement
 Quality management system
EAC Criteria
 Program Objectives
 Program Outcomes
 Academic Curriculum
 Students
 Academic & Support Staff
 Facilities
 Quality Management System
Universities Best Practices
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
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 leadership
 Comprehensive self assessment report
 Planned and monitored activities (PDCA)
 Well documented policies / procedures and
traceable evidence
 Certification to ISO 9001/17025, OSHAS 18001
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)
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
Accreditation Concerns
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
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)
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 & 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)
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
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)
Causes & Development
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
Development
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
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
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
Involvement
EAC Involvement
 Accreditation
 Recognition
 Mentoring
 Mutual recognition – CTI France
 NABEEA
 IEA (Washington Accord)
 FEIIC (EQAPS)
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)
Feedback
Feedback from Universities
 UNIM
 UTAR
 UTM
 IIUM
 UNIMAS
 UMS
 USM
 UiTM
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 B
Local benchmarking
Response at exit meeting
Engineering technology vs
Engineering
Conclusion
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
Thank you