Ingenieur Vol.81 January-March 2020 | Page 49

Attributes reflect acceptable minimum standards for “quality engineering education”. How many Qualifying Requirements for Accreditation? The graduate attributes provide a point of reference for jurisdictions to describe the outcomes of substantially equivalent qualification – prescribed in (e.g. Malaysia’s) BEM/EAC Engineering Programme Accreditation Manual [Version 2017], wherein seven criteria for accreditation have been identified. One could ask the question – are these seven criteria all the necessary qualifying requirements? What about a shared and/or universal understanding on the implementation of OBE? The author believes that an understanding of WA’s OBE approach is important; indeed crucial, for both sides of the accreditation equation, i.e. the IHL, the owner of programme, on the one hand, and on the other – the PRA’s Engineering Education Accreditation Council (EEAC) nominated Accreditation Panel that accredits the BEM/EAC Engineering Programme. Therefore, PRAEEAC should have eight qualifying requirements (made up of a “demonstration of an understanding of the WA-OBE approach” plus the BEM/EAC seven criteria – as an example). Understanding the WA-OBE approach puts everyone on the same page – the datum, on which every assessable outcome is gauged and objectively measured. We cannot afford to have more than one datum to come out with results of PREEEAC (e.g. BEM/EAC) qualifying criteria. Having said this, there is more than one way of assessing outcomes, and no one can dictate which is the correct way as long that a logical mapping of the Programme Learning Outcomes (PLOs) to the WA’s 12 POs has been developed. Furthermore, it must be understood by all that the process is always a work in progress as Continual Quality Improvements (CQIs) will be initiated to improve the BEM/EAC Engineering Programme to better meet prevailing expectations at the time. Having an “on the same page” understanding of the OBE approach provides a datum line from where assessments have a “common measure or calibration”. Programme assessment to gauge attainment of Outcomes The WA-OBE accreditation process is a peerto-peer qualitative assessment or objective measurement process to gauge attainments of graduate attributes. Though the process is important, it is the outcome of the process that is assessed. Assessment is NOT an audit. The OBE Process is a qualitative framework and is not an ISO Standard. The Self-Assessment Report (SAR) was developed by using OBE centric methods to conform to PRAEEAC’s or (EAC’s) Qualifying Requirements. The SAR was subjected to a “desktop study” before the Assessment Panel’s Visit. When the visit was carried out, the SAR was deemed to be in order, namely it had been developed in accordance with the OBE approach and conformed to the PRAEEAC’s seven criteria. Assessments are based on the Panel’s verifications, (or what it was able to obtain by way of attestations, statements or commitments made in the SAR) which are then used to arrive at the Visit’s Elicited Findings report. This was based on a “Big Picture” approach whereby there was a triangulation of all verified and attested data that the panel was able to gather during the course of its visit. Based on an “all-considered and balanced” evaluation of findings of an assessment, the panel makes a unanimous recommendation for either an “A”, or a “P”, or a “D” or “F” award – with considered justification. If there is a dissenting view among the panel members so that they are unable to reach a unanimous recommendation, this has to be resolved before the “Exit Meeting” with Programme Owner/IHL. Good time keeping An accreditation visit to an IHL takes a lot of resources on the part of Programme Owner to satisfy the needs of a Panel Visit. The schedule, which is part of prescribed PRAEEAC’s procedures, and is known to both IHL and the Panel, must be adhered to in order to not disrupt unnecessarily 47