Impact of the Washington Accord Membership on Engineering Education in Malaysia Khairiyah Mohd. Yusof, PhD Shahrin Mohamed, PhD Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
INSPIRING CREATIVE AND INNOVATIVE MINDS Outline • General overview of engineering education and accreditation in Malaysia • Impact of the Washington Accord in Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) – The good and the not­so­good • Overall impact of the WA in Malaysia
Malaysia Population: 25 Million
Population: 25 Million 20 Public Universities in Malaysia Universiti Malaysia Perlis
Kubang Gajah, Perlis
Universiti Utara Malaysia
Sintok, Kedah
Universiti Sains Malaysia
Minden, Pulau Pinang
Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS)
Sepanggar Bay, Sabah
Universiti Malaysia Trengganu
Kuala Terengganu, Terengganu
Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris
Tanjung Malim, Perak
Universiti Islam Antarabangsa (UIA)
Gombak, Selangor
Universiti Teknologi MARA(UiTM)
Shah Alam, Selangor
Universiti Malaya (UM)
Kuala Lumpur
Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM)
Serdang, Selangor
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM)
Bangi, Selangor
Universiti Teknikal Malaysia
Melaka
5 Universiti Malaysia Pahang
Kuantan, Pahang
Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia
Nilai, Negeri Sembilan
Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS)
Kota Samarahan, Sarawak
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM)
Skudai, Johor
Universiti Teknologi Tun Hussein Onn
Batu Pahat, Johor
Engineering Degree Programmes
in Malaysia
TYPE O F
IN S T I T U T IO N S
NUMBER
NO. OF
P R O G R A M M E S P U B L IC 1 4 2 2 4 P R IV A T E 9 4 5 Including 4 Foreign Branch Campuses: 1. Monash University 2. Nottingham University 3. Curtin University 6 4. Swinburne University
Estimated annual total intake : 10,000 students About 20% of them go to UTM Accreditation of Engineering Programs in Malaysia
• Rapidly growing engineering education sector both in public and private universities • Need to maintain standards and quality • Jurisdiction of Board of Engineers Malaysia (BEM) through its standing committee: Engineering Accreditation Council (EAC). • 2003 – EAC Malaysia admitted as Provisional Member of the Washington Accord 7 Historical Perspective of Engineering
Accreditation in Malaysia
2009 EAC Malaysia admitted as full Member of Washington Accord
2006 Outcome­based Accreditation Manual
2003 EAC Malaysia admitted as Provisional Member of Washington Accord
2000 establishment of the Engineering Accreditation Council (EAC) comprising of
BEM, IEM, LAN and PSD
1996 LAN (National Accreditation Board) established to ensure quality of
private institution of higher learning
1967 BEM was established to register Professional Engineers
­ joint accreditation with IEM
1959 initiated by IEM modeled after UK and Australia
1957 by Public Services Department (PSD) for
admission to the Public Service
8 From Basri (2009)
Part 1 of Handout The Washington Accord and Outcome­based Education (OBE) • Please gloss over Part 1 of the handout for about 30 seconds • In 2 minutes, please turn to the person next to you and take turns explaining what you understand about the WA and OBE
A MULTINATIONAL AGREEMENT FOR THE MUTUAL RECOGNITION OF ENGINEERING DEGREES Among member countries: § substantial equivalency of accreditation systems. § graduates prepared to practice engineering at the entry level
Provisional Members (2003)
1. Japan
2. Malaysia
3. Germany
4. Singapore
SIGNIFICANCE Of the WASHINGTON ACCORD MEMBERSHIP An endorsement that the engineering education system has demonstrated a strong, long­term commitment to quality assurance in producing engineers ready for industry practice in the international scene.
Implications of Malaysia’s Washington Accord Application : 1. Complete revision of Accreditation Manual l Outcome­based since 2005 2. Multiple training programmes for:­ – Universities – Accreditation panel members (evaluators) – EAC members 3. Culture of Quality Assurance at national level
13 Impact of the Washington Accord in Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM)
UTM in Skudai, Johor
11/13/2009 15 UTM City Campus Kuala Lumpur in
early 2000
11/13/2009 16 Faculty of Chemical and Natural Resources
11/13/2009 17 Shift Towards Outcome­based Approach in
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM)
2009 2nd cycle of accreditation for engineering programs based on OBE. Training on
rigorous research in engineering education initiated. 3rd RCEE in 2010.
2008 Start of PhD in engineering education program
2007 Proposal for PhD in engineering education. 2nd RCEE. Collaboration with
more experts.
2006 Establishment of the Academic Quality Assurance Unit. All programs
converted to outcome­based because of MQA. Training of internal auditors.
2005 Accreditation of engineering programs in UTM based on the outcome­
based approach. RCEE – funding to invite international experts in eng educ
2004 Outcome­based curricula for all engineering programs in UTM to
prepare for accreditation in 2005.
18 2003 EAC Malaysia admitted as Provisional Member of Washington
Accord. Set up CTL in UTM. TOT for OBE and T&L techniques.
Conference on Engineering Education
2002 Begin to disseminate of info on outcome­based approach
and alternative teaching approaches among academic admin
1. Culture of Quality Assurance • Change towards quality assurance based on the outcomes approach • Continuous quality improvement (CQI) • Frameworks for Academic Quality Assurance
Relationships between subject LO’s, PO’s, PEO’s and compliance to the
stakeholders
CUSTOMERS,
STAKEHOLDERS,
CONSTITUENTS
Professional
Bodies eg
EAC/BEM
Quality
Assurance
JPT
Institutional
requirements eq
Graduate
Attributes
Industries
Parents
….. etc
PRORGRAME PROGRAMME
EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES
OBJECTIVES
PEO­1
PEO­2 PEO­3 PEO­4 PEO­5 ….. etc
TDA’s, KJ’s, KP’s,
KK’s, JKA and JKKS
Programme Educational Objectives PO­1 SUBJECT
LEARNING
OUTCOMES
Subject
LO­1
PO­2 Subject
LO­2
PO­3 Subject
LO­3
PO­ 4 PO­5 ….. etc
Subject
LO­4
Subject
LO­5
TDA’s, KJ’s, KP’s,
KK’s, JKA and JKKS
Programme Specs ….. etc
Course Outlines Management support and commitment
Subject coordinator,
Academic Staff
Initial OBE Framework in UTM
Assessment, review and evaluation stage Employability survey
Entry/Exit Survey
Learning Style Survey
Academic auditing
External examiner
Implementation Stage Sijil Pengajaran Pengajian Tinggi PTK Planning Stage Setting PEO’s Students­Staff
meeting/dialogue
Traditional
methods Industrial/employers
survey
graduate survey
External advisor
Exams, projects, quizzes,test etc
Visiting Profs
report
Peer evaluations
Observations
Learning Portfolios
Info from professional
bodies
Customer survey
HRD Programmes Traditional Approach
Teaching with Tech. Academic Advising Teaching Approach Teaching Portfolio Problem based learning E­Learning At UTM / faculty level
Program Specification Setting LO’s Mapping Template Documented Manuals UTM Graduate Attributes Incorporating Generic Skills in T & L Course Outlines Weekly course notes Management support and commitment Problem & Proj based Learning Check
Actions
Active/coorporative Learning Do
Teaching Portfolio Dept/Staff level
E­Learning
Plan
COMPETENCIES FOR MALAYSIAN ENGINEERS (From Accreditation Manual) A A b i li t y t o a c q u i r e a n d a p p l y k n o w l e d g e o f e n g i n e e r i n g f u n d a m e n t a l s . B H a v i n g t h e c o m p e t e n c y i n t h e o r e t i c a l a n d r e s e a r c h e n g i n e e r i n g . C H a v i n g c o m p e t e n c y i n a p p l i c a t i o n a n d p r a c t ic a l o r i e n t e d e n g i n e e r i n g . D A b i li t y t o c o m m u n i c a t e e f f e c t iv e l y , n o t o n l y w i t h e n g i n e e r s b u t a l s o w it h t h e c o m m u n i t y a t l a r g e . E H a v i n g i n ­ d e p t h t e c h n i c a l c o m p e t e n c e i n a s p e c i f i c e n g i n e e r i n g d i s c i p l i n e . F A b i li t y t o u n d e r t a k e p r o b l e m i d e n t if i c a t i o n , f o r m u l a t i o n a n d s o l u t i o n . G A b i li t y t o u t i l i s e a s y s t e m s a p p r o a c h t o d e s ig n a n d e v a l u a t e o p e r a t i o n a l p e r f o r m a n c e . H A b i li t y t o f u n c t i o n e f f e c t iv e l y a s a n i n d i v i d u a l a n d i n a g r o u p w i t h t h e c a p a c i t y t o b e a l e a d e r o r m a n a g e r a s w e ll a s a n e f f e c t i v e t e a m m e m b e r . I H a v i n g t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e s o c i a l , c u l t u r a l , g l o b a l a n d e n v i r o n m e n t a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t ie s a n d e t h i c s o f a p r o f e s s i o n a l e n g i n e e r a n d t h e n e e d f o r s u s t a i n a b l e d e v e l o p m e n t . J R e c o g n is in g th e need to u n d e rta k e p o s s e s s i n g / a c q u i r i n g t h e c a p a c i t y t o d o s o . K A b i li t y t o d e s i g n a n d c o n d u c t e x p e r i m e n t s , a s w e l l a s t o a n a l y s e a n d in t e r p r e t d a t a . L H a v i n g t h e k n o w l e d g e o f c o n t e m p o r a r y i s s u e s . M 22 H a v i n g t h e b a s i c e n t r e p r e n e u r i a l s k i l ls .
li f e l o n g le a r n in g , a n d STAKEHOLDER’S NEEDS AND INSTITUTIONAL MISSION P­Obj and Programme Outcomes • Curriculum Design (structure, CO­PO mapping etc) • Provide resources • Determine Performance Criteria and Level • Teaching Activities to achieve Course Outcomes 3 2 Assessment Methods/Process/Tools Collect Data 1. CQI for assessment strategies 2. CQI for curriculum design, resources, criteria and teaching activities 3. CQI for P­Obj and PO 4. CQI for out­of­class activities Analyse and Report Data Determine the Gap
4 Complying EAC­BEM CQI Requirement using FKA­UTM CQI Model FEEDBACKS FROM STAKEHOLDERS 1 23 2. Strategies and Support Systems
Implications to Change •Need to understand what is OBE. •Need to specify program educational objectives. •Need to specify learning outcomes. •Need to revise curriculum. •Need to change teaching, assessment, and evaluation method. •Need to start documenting evidences on OBE. •Need to send staff for training on OBE. •Need to resist disagreement from faculty members. •Etc, etc, etc…
Some Strategies for Implementation • Changes in curricula and instructional methods – Directly targeted towards program owners – dept heads, deputy deans and deans in the initial stage – Workshops on crafting curricula based on OBE • Awareness programs – University level seminars given by external speakers – Faculty level seminars – Conferences • Core groups and champions – Training of trainers by external experts – Meetings and discussions to provide support • Training programs – Regular training offered on OBE, curricula development, T&L methods • Performance appraisal and reward system – Still lacking ­ quite general – Encourage research and publication in engineering education
Impact on Academic Staff: Coping with change
Initial Resistance from Academic Staff • • • • • Washington Accord = American imperialism? OBE – Order of British Empire? Why change? Things are fine the way they are… What’s the evidence that this is better? The “Western Imperialists” just want to distract us from doing our research • Too much work, we have more important things to do… • We are university lecturers – we are not school teachers… • WIIFM – what’s in it for me?
3. Curricula Change • Outcome­based approach since 2004 – Comprehensive & systematic list of outcomes • Include professional skills, sustainability, ethics, etc • Involvement of stakeholders (national survey shown in Part 2 of handout notes) – Board of Engineers – Industries – Government agencies • Acceptance on the need to change – but what and how? • Available funding for training – university and national level
Employer views on attributes of graduates Programme Outcomes A. Apply knowledge of engineering fundamentals B. Competent in theory and research C. Competent in application and practice 54.3 36.0 4.0 5.7 47.4 38.9 8.1 5.7 52.4 33.6 8.3 5.7 D. Communicate effectively 49.5 32.7 12.1 5.7 E. Competent in specific engineering discipline 48.8 35.5 10.0 5.7 48.1 35.8 10.4 5.7 F. Engineering problem solving G. Engineering systems approach H. Teamwork I. Understand professional, social and ethical responsibilities J. Lifelong learning K. Design and conduct experiments L. Knowledge of contemporary issues 28.9 9.7 5.7 55.7 28.9 9.7 5.7 51.2 34.6 8.5 5.7 49.3 36.5 8.5 42.4 38.4 47.9 10% 20% 10.0 5.7 23.7 5.7 46.2 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Percentage The Future of Engineering 30 Education in Malaysia, 2006
Satisfactory Neutral Not Satisfactory 5.7 13.5 5.7 36.5 24.4 M. Basic entrepreneurial skills 0% 55.7 Did Not Respond 100% P ro g r am m e O u tco m e s Employer expectations on attributes A . A p p l y k n o w l e d ge o f e ng in e e r i ng f u n da m e n t a l s 83 .6 8 .5 2 .1 5.7 B . C o m pe t e n t i n t h e o r y a nd r e s e a r c h 7 3.2 17 .8 3.3 5 .7 C . C o m p e t e n t i n a p p l ic a t i o n a nd p r a c t i c e 8 5.5 6 .6 2.1 5 .7 D . C o m m u ni c a t e e f f e c t i v e ly 8 6.7 5.9 1.7 5 .7 E . C o m pe t e n t in s p e c if i c e n gi n e e r i n g d i s c i p l i n e 8 2.5 F . E ng in e e r i ng p ro b l e m s o lv i ng 84 .6 6 .4 3.3 5.7 G . E n g i n e e r i n g s ys t e m s a p pr o a c h 7 8.9 12 .1 3 .3 5.7 H . T e a m wo r k 8 5.1 6.6 2.6 5.7 I . U n de rs t a n d p r o f e s s i o na l, s o c ia l a n d e t h ic a l r e s po n s i b i l i t ie s 80 .3 1 0.9 3.1 5 .7 J . L i f e l o n g le a r n i ng 80 .1 12 .1 2 .1 5.7 K . D e s ig n a nd c o n d uc t e x p e r im e n t s 7 4.6 14 .7 5 .0 5.7 L . K n o w l e d g e o f c o n t e m p o r a r y i s s u e s 7 5.4 15 .9 3.1 5 .7 M . B a s i c e nt r e p r e ne ur i a l s k i ll s 5 7.6 2 8.0 0% 10 % 2 0% 3 0% 9 .5 40 % 50 % 6 0% 7 0% 80 % 2 .4 8 .8 90 % Percentage The Future of Engineering 31 Education in Malaysia, 2006
Im p o r tan t Ne u tr al No t Im p o r tan t Did No t Re s p on d 5.7 5.7 10 0% Mean Gap btw perception and expectation Between Expectation & Perception Mean Gap (An index to show the degree of deficiency for each attribute, from employers’ view) Communication skills 1.00 Engineering problem solving skills 0.94 0.92 0.90 Teamwork 0.81 0.82 0.79 0.80 0.75 0.74 0.70 0.68 0.69 0.67 0.70 0.60 0.57 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 A B C D E F G H I J K L M Progr am m e Outcom e s Practical component 32 Systems Approach From The Future of Engineering Education in Malaysia, 2006
3. Delivery Change • Shift towards student­centered, rather than teacher­centered learning – Greater awareness on innovation in T&L techniques – Contextualized learning • Implementation of various forms of assessment required, esp for soft skills – Still not clear­cut for some skills • Efforts to align outcomes, instruction and assessment • Change encouraged at the administrative level • Still lots of questions and best practices to find a balance between effectiveness and work load
4. Research in Engineering Education • Eliminate the impression that its status is “lower” than engineering research • Crucial need for research in the area • PhD in Engineering Education • Training for rigorous research in Engineering Education • Collaboration between engineering and social science­ based lecturers • RCEE 2010 will be held in conjunction with Conference on Research in Higher Education • Funding…
Re: yahoo!!! End of CPBL project................ by KHAIRUNISSA SYAIRAH BINTI AHMAD SOHAIMI AK090069 ­ Monday, 12 October 2009, 06:30 PM salam Yes we have already the end of the project, I feel so relaxed but sometime I miss with all the busy time with my teammates. The most significant about this project is I learn to build my confidence and also teach me how to produce a product. Now, I knew that is not easy to produce a product. But with five M, that is become easier and really helps my team and I organize and plan what have to do to produce the product. Many things that need to be considered, the method and money are the toughest part for my team and me to do it. Lot of things, many things that have been my team and I do changes. One of them is I become closer with my classmates. I really feel comfortable and match with all of them. I become more confident to talk and give my ideas in any discussion even in English and static courses. So lot of impacts of this project in my life in utm. I think that is all that I can say.
Re: Finally feel more relieve... by CHIEW SIOW SAN AK090029 ­ Friday, 9 October 2009, 01:11 AM I had learnt a lot from this PBL project.. I learnt the basic information to do a plant design, the way to thinking when designing a plant, format to do a standard report, and other else. However the most significant thing that i had learnt is undoubtedly, the teamwork. I realized that it is hard to have a good teamwork.When different people work together, many conflicts may occur and if we did not manage it well, it will lead to non unity of the team. Our team have such a problem and thanks to Dr, who advice us to put down the emotion and do the project first. No matter who right who wrong, we should know that our main purpose is to do the project well and we should be professional to work together to put our emotion aside. Actually i cant say that i already manage it well, i am still learning. It just good to realize that i have this kind of problem so that i can improve it. another thing that i have learnt is to do things early. We tend to rush the project every time and make the project comes out ugly. We always regret it but still repeat it next time. However i am glad that we have improve in part 3 and we manage to finish it before dateline, in the way that we all satisfied with the project(although we still the last team to finish the project that night). I realize that even we did not have time to do the project, we should have short meeting to discuss the concept of the project first to make our work later easier because each of us is clear about the project. We did a lot of short meeting for part 3 to discuss the way to do the report, because we really confused about the requirement in part 3. And luckily from this we know better about part 3 and not getting confused again when doing the project. so we really should do a lot of preparation before we start to do the project, especially to restate the problem, it is because if we are wrong from the first step,the whole things will be ruined.
The Not So Good • Partial accreditation (2 or 3 years) for ALL programs since 2007 – Perception of public on quality of engineering education • More work/hassle – just get it done, without really embracing the philosophy • Hard evidence required by EAC not always available • Overboard in assessment and CQI – Surveys, surveys, surveys – what do they mean? Are they properly designed? – Reducing students outcomes attainment to numbers – what do they really mean? Getting too detailed!!! • Objectivist view of learning distorting constructivist efforts?
Overall Impact in Malaysia • Closing the gap between major universities and newer ones • Accountability • Graduates marketable and globally accepted • Training in T&L for lecturers – Compulsory for new academic staff • Providing examples and best practices to MQA
Conclusion • Overall positive impact on engineering education • Pressure needed from the top to move forward to overcome the “if it’s not broken why fix it” mentality to move out of comfort one • Still a lot of work needs to be done… like proper study on the impact of the WA on engineering education
The 3 rd Regional Conference on Engineering Education (RCEE 2010) and Conference on Research in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education in Kuching, Sarawak in May 2010
Thank You for your kind attention… 11/13/2009 khairiyah@fkkksa.utm.my
44