Impact of the Washington Accord Membership on in

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

PopulaPopulationtion:: 2255 Mi Millllioionn 20 Public Universities in Malaysia

Universiti Malaysia Perlis Kubang Gajah, Perlis Universiti Utara Malaysia Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS) Sintok, Kedah Sepanggar Bay, Sabah Universiti Sains Malaysia Universiti Malaysia Trengganu Minden, Pulau Pinang Kuala Terengganu, Terengganu Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris Tanjung Malim, Perak Universiti Malaysia Pahang Universiti Islam Antarabangsa (UIA) Kuantan, Pahang Gombak, Selangor Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia Universiti Teknologi MARA(UiTM) Nilai, Negeri Sembilan Shah Alam, Selangor Universiti Malaya (UM) Kuala Lumpur Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS) Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) Kota Samarahan, Sarawak Serdang, Selangor Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) Bangi, Selangor Skudai, Johor

Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Universiti Teknologi Tun Hussein Onn Melaka Batu Pahat, Johor

5 Engineering Degree Programmes in Malaysia

T Y P E O F N U M B E R N O . O F IN S T IT U T IO N S 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 Estimated annual total 2. Nottingham University intake : 10,000 students 3. Curtin University About 20% of them go to 4. Swinburne University UTM 6 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 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

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. 2. Malaysia 3. Germany 4. 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. 2 nd 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.

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 18 1. Culture of Quality Assurance

• Change towards quality assurance based on the outcomes approach • Continuous quality improvement (CQI) • Frameworks for Academic Quality Assurance

s

, S S e c , , t K K v tor e i K K a P’s P’s .. J J he he

K in K s ct … , , d Staff nd nd nt c e ’s ’s e a a J J oor mi A A K to t to K c , , Par K K t de s s J J c

Obj ’ ’ a

, , s

c A A s s e ’ ’ i A nce K K al TD tr TD

Subje s K K n u s o

i Ind t ec t es omplia n n Sp i e l duca e tm nd c nd m e E i Out q a e l m

m a s c s s e e

t a

t e c nt t c e t ion t e m .. rs O’ e e dua m ibu o .. … .. ramm r a e itut u E t r c tt … … o

Gr P A

t

Ins qui

c , d C Progr e ­5 s r ­5 s n Prog O O LO­5 a E Subje P

O’ P P rt , t o

c holder s p ­4 ­ e

p O O 4 k LO­4 e

E c Subje P a u y n t LO’ P it a l t s PT ur c J t s t s

c Qua s n A ­3 ­3 bje LO­3 O O Subje u E P P eme n s n t e ag

c ­2 ­2 O O LO­2 P l twe

Subje E a g Man P e EM ion s s be e /B s

t

odi c ofe ­1 ­1 EAC B Pr O O hips LO­1 P E Subje P ions t a CUSTOMERS, PRORGRAME PROGRAMME SUBJECT STAKEHOLDERS, LEARNING Rel EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES CONSTITUENTS OBJECTIVES OUTCOMES

k o ec

D h n s C n Pla io

l s ct

A y

ona i e s v loyer ve

s i

y ur e s

e mp at e s v

r el /e l te g o ur

a prof i n s

p d ev

i bodi & r tr g g M M g dua l n s om o f a n se r lio f u i m in in o fr a o gr a n n h f le ea r r /c t Ind c b L j b r e St UT Info o o ea ea v o

ea i r r L L t P T ­ P P c n ept/ E i A D

k

s

r s ent g

io ls

,

l es s g t o tc

ol in m

l al h ion

t cts ki y t o t tf e a l in L e n i ion a e j S n t es st ac n r w o ua s a io e l r r & m n ion c o o r e v Por a ,t p hods it r r li p s u t s v T t ea e dit p r r e s, e eri Week

a ing L ad u om in r n m me ­ r Co zz n i co me Ou Tr c a r Ap E Obs T u a co q In Ge Pee a Ex Le r nd l

ve ed

E F E

y

f nt le g e or als pport a

e . n v gue s

i h i

y g h taf ofs o n on c i v lo ur c n s r l su lt t a a anu ­S s d um a o e si

OB o Pr u s Te c r tf r a di

r l M / le e

por p h nt icati l a d t gram e ac i Do m ent if n ting r Po i ing r se a Ap ro c Advi w amm / f g to i ude a ec g m i

r g n P i HRD n m Vis n b i t us g St i h M es e Sp h Exte i h c meet C o m d c T c r a e ut a a l a n P b U Te nage Ac I o Te t Te rib

a

y Pr A e y

t e

e M r Att y v v la e ing e

v t ine

ur it s

a

n Sur s m s n ud emp y a a ’ le O’ t i Sur r x a T li O it jia E l g c K e ja l g a bi P L g Sty T iji a a a mi g Gradu /Ex in g g n

y P g S in y r n n r ing de T i i en M n t t a en r app P c a Ent P Exte A UT Set Set M Emplo Le

Assessment, review Implementation Planning Stage and evaluation stage Stage COMPETENCIES FOR MALAYSIAN ENGINEERS (From Accreditation Manual) A A b ilit y t o a c q u ir e a n d a p p ly k n o w le d g e o f e n g in e e r in g f u n d a m e n t a ls .

B H a v in g t h e c o m p e t e n c y in t h e o r e t ic a l a n d r e s e a r c h e n g in e e r in g .

C H a v in g c o m p e t e n c y in a p p lic a t io n a n d p r a c t ic a l o r ie n t e d e n g in e e r in g .

D A b ilit y t o c o m m u n ic a t e e f f e c t iv e ly , n o t o n ly w it h e n g in e e r s b u t a ls o w it h t h e c o m m u n it y a t la r g e .

E H a v in g in ­ d e p t h t e c h n ic a l c o m p e t e n c e in a s p e c if ic e n g in e e r in g d is c ip lin e .

F A b ilit y t o u n d e r t a k e p r o b le m id e n t if ic a t io n , f o r m u la t io n a n d s o lu t io n .

G A b ilit y t o u t ilis 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 lu a t e o p e r a t io n a l p e r f o r m a n c e .

H A b ilit y t o f u n c t io n e f f e c t iv e ly a s a n in d iv id u a l a n d in a g r o u p w it h t h e c a p a c it y t o b e a le 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 iv e t e a m m e m b e r .

I H a v in g t h e u n d e r s t a n d in g o f t h e s o c ia l, c u lt u r a l, g lo b a l a n d e n v ir o n m e n t a l r e s p o n s ib ilit ie s a n d e t h ic s o f a p r o f e s s io n a l e n g in e e r a n d t h e n e e d f o r s u s t a in a b le d e v e lo p m e n t .

J R e c o g n is in g t h e n e e d t o u n d e r t a k e lif e lo n g le a r n in g , a n d p o s s e s s in g / a c q u ir in g t h e c a p a c it y t o d o s o .

K A b ilit y t o d e s ig n a n d c o n d u c t e x p e r im e n t s , a s w e ll a s t o a n a ly s e a n d in t e r p r e t d a t a .

L H a v in g t h e k n o w le d g e o f c o n t e m p o r a r y is s u e s .

M 22H a v in g t h e b a s ic e n t r e p r e n e u r ia l s k ills . M A S ND T

ISS P­Obj and Programme Outcomes A K I I E NS ON HOLDER

T • Curriculum Design (structure, I T

UT 3 CO­PO mapping etc) • Provide resources I ONA ’S • Determine Performance Criteria 1. CQI for assessment NE and Level strategies L

E • Teaching Activities to achieve 2. CQI for curriculum DS Course Outcomes design, resources, 2 criteria and teaching activities 3. CQI for P­Obj and PO Assessment Methods/Process/Tools 4. CQI for out­of­class Collect Data activities

1 S F E T E A DB K E HOLDER A CK

Analyse and Report Data S

Determine the Gap F RO S

M

4 Complying EAC­BEM CQI Requirement using FKA­UTM CQI Model 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

A. Apply knowledge of engineering fundamentals 54.3 36.0 4.0 5.7

B. Competent in theory and 47.4 38.9 8.1 5.7 research

C. Competent in application and 52.4 33.6 8.3 5.7 practice D. Communicate effectively 49.5 32.7 12.1 5.7

E. Competent in specific 48.8 35.5 10.0 5.7 engineering discipline

48.1 35.8 10.4 5.7 mes F. Engineering problem solving o c t u G. Engineering systems approach 55.7 28.9 9.7 5.7 O e H. Teamwork 55.7 28.9 9.7 5.7 mm a r g I. Understand professional, social 8.5 o 51.2 34.6 5.7 r and ethical responsibilities P J. Lifelong learning 49.3 36.5 8.5 5.7

K. Design and conduct 42.4 38.4 13.5 5.7 experiments

L. Knowledge of contemporary 47.9 36.5 10.0 5.7 issues

M. Basic entrepreneurial skills 24.4 46.2 23.7 5.7

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percentage The Future of Engineering Educat30i on in Malaysia, Satisfactory Neutral Not Satisfactory Did Not Respond 2006 Employer expectations on attributes

A . A pp l y k n o w le d ge o f e ng in e e ri ng f un da m e n t a ls 83.6 8.5 2.1 5.7

B . C o m pe t e n t i n t h e o ry a nd 73.2 17.8 re s e a rc h 3.3 5.7

C . C o m pe t e n t in a pp l ic a t i o n a nd p ra c t i c e 85.5 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 86.7 5.9 1.7 5.7 s e E . C o m pe t e n t in s p e c if ic 82.5 9 .5 2.4 m e n gi ne e ri n g dis c ipl ine 5.7 o c t F . E ng in e e ri ng p ro ble m s o lv i ng 84.6 6.4 3.3 5.7 u O G . E ng ine e ring s ys t e m s a p pro a c h 78.9 e 12.1 3.3 5.7 m H . T e a m wo rk m 85.1 6.6 2.6 5.7 a r I . U n de rs t a nd p ro f e s s io na l, s o c ia l g 80.3 3.1 a nd e t h ic a l re s po n s i bil it ie s 10.9 5.7 o r

P J . Lif e l o ng le a rn i ng 80.1 12.1 2.1 5.7

K . D e s ig n a nd c o nd uc t 74.6 14.7 5.0 5.7 e x pe rim e n t s

L . K n o w le d ge o f c o n t e m po ra ry 75.4 15.9 3.1 5.7 is s u e s

M . B a s ic e nt re pre ne uri a l s k i lls 57.6 28.0 8.8 5.7

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percentage

The Future of Engineering Im p o r tan t Ne u tral No t Im p o rtan t Did No t Re s p on d Educat31i on in Malaysia, 2006 Mean Gap btw perception and expectation (An index to show the degree of deficiency for each attribute, from employers’ view) on i

t 1.0C0 ommunication skills Engineering problem 0.92 0.94 p solving skills e Teamwork

c 0.90 r 0.79 0.81 0.82 e 0.80 0.75 0.74 P 0.70 0.69 0.68 & 0.70 0.67 n o p 0.60 i 0.57 a t 0.60 a G t c n 0.50 a pe e x

M 0.40 E

n

e 0.30 e w

t 0.20 e

B 0.10

0.00 A B C D E F G H I J K L M Programme Outcom es Practical component Systems Approach

From The Future of Engineering Education in Malaysia, 32 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 [email protected] 44