【在学报卷首，编者对每一篇文章作了 Introduction。以上是编者对本文说的一
Chinese Education and Society, vol. 42, no. 1, January/February 2009, pp.105-112. © 2009 M.E. Sharpe, Inc. All rights reserved.
ISSN 1061-1932/2009 ＄9.50+0.00. DOI 10.2753/CED1061-1932420109
9
Bi Jiaju
Engineering Accreditation in China
The Progress and Development of China’s Engineering AccreditationA Good Start
Among engineering degree programs at the bachelor’s level in China, civil engineering was the first one accredited in accordance with a professional programmatic accreditation system comparable to that of international practice. Launched in 1994, the accreditation of civil engineering aimed high and toward international standards and featured the following characteristics. First, the Ministry of Construction (MoC), now the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development (MoHURD), attached great importance to programmatic accreditation, holding to the guiding principle: “to establish by all means an engineering accreditation system that follows international practice.” Second, the National Board of Civil Engineering Accreditation (NBCEA) is composed of senior scholars in engineering education and senior practicing engineers; therefore it is a very professional authority. Third, Every effort was made to ensure that the accreditation criteria is equivalent to internationally recognized standards, that the accreditation procedure correspond to international practices, and that the criteria and procedures published were strictly followed in the implementation. Fourth, as the civil engineering programmatic accreditation system was initially established, its linkage with the engineer registration system was already _________________
Translation © 2009 M.E. Sharpe, Inc., from the Chinese text, Bi Jiaju, “Zhongguo gongcheng zhuanye renzheng jinru wenbu fazhan jieduan.” Translated by Ted Wang.
Bi Jiaju is a professor of engineering mechanics and researcher in the Institute of Higher Educational Research of Tongji University. E-mail: jjbic@online.sh.cn.
taken into consideration. Last, the Board maintained close communication and cooperation with its international peers. Accreditation experience at the international level was thoroughly studied, digested and then absorbed in combination with Chinese culture so as to build up the professional accreditation system in China.
The NBCEA went on smoothly in the first few years. During two rounds of accreditation campaigns in 1995 and 1997, civil engineering programs in eighteen higher education institutions nationwide were accredited.
The results have proven that professional programmatic accreditation with international comparability has a prominent effect. The NBCEA accreditation has played a positive role in the reform of professional education, the improvement of teaching and learning administration, the construction of teaching force, the improvement of teaching and learning infrastructure, and the cultivation of students’ creative thinking and practice. It has thus enhanced the quality of education and guaranteed the competency of graduates from the accredited programs trained in the civil engineering field. In the meantime, the NBCEA accreditation has also strengthened the connection and cooperation between engineering education and the engineering profession, accumulated experience for extending the professional programmatic accreditation system into other engineering fields, and impelled the establishment and development of engineer registration system in China(Bi, Chen, and He 2006).
Both the MoC and the NBCEA attach great importance to international exchange and cooperation. They have been in close contact with overseas engineering organizations such as the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE), Institution of Structural Engineers (IStructE) and the Joint Board of Moderators (JBM) of the institutions in Great Britain. Since 1993, China and Great Britain have unfolded a series of exchange activities (Bi 2004b, 2005). Based on these activities, both parties have gradually gained comprehensive and in-depth understanding of each other, fostered consensus on the major aspects of professional education and accreditation, and laid down the foundation of mutual recognition.
In May 1998, the MoC signed an agreement entitled “Mutual Recognition of First Degree Courses Accreditation”（Bi 1996,1998）with the ICE and the IStructE of Great Britain. During the same period of time, National Administration Board of Structural Engineer Registration (NABSER) of China also signed the Agreement for Mutual Recognition of Structural Engineers Examination, valid for 5 years, with the British IStructE. During the term of this agreement, 119 registered Chinese structural engineers passed the examinations in Great Britain and obtained full membership in the British IStructE, and 96 full members of the British IStructE also passed the examinations in China and obtained the credentials of Chinese registered structural engineers. However, it was a pity that this agreement was not renewed.
By 1997, four of the six professional programs under the jurisdiction of the MoC had established their professional accreditation systems (Table 1). This was groundbreaking among all the industrial ministries in China and laid a foundation for national engineering programmatic accreditation in the future.
_____________________________________________________________________ Table 1
Civil and Construction Engineering Accreditation
Program Starting year of accreditation No. of programs that have applied for accreditationa
Programs that have been accreditedb _______________________ No. % Architecture 1991 39 33 18.3 Civil engineering 1994 50 45 12.1 Urban planning 1997 19 13 9.8 Construction management 1997 21 18 6.9 Building environment and service engineering 2001 19 18 12.9
Water and wastewater
engineering 2003 19 14 13.2
Source: Department of Personnel and Education, Ministry of Construction, People’s Republic of China.
Notes: a Including colleges and universities that submitted their application in July 2007 and are waiting for the results in June 2008. b As of June 2007.
Exploration and Adjustment
Since 1997, on the basis of the efforts mentioned earlier, engineering accreditation of all programs in China has been put on the agenda, including the following tasks. First, professional programmatic accreditation should be extended to other engineering fields. Second, a national accreditation committee should be established. Third, this national committee, as the representative of Chinese engineering accreditation, should keep in touch with the Washington Accord, deepen mutual understanding, and improve the quality of engineering accreditation in China, so that eventually it will become a signatory organization of the accord and achieve the mutual recognition of bachelor’s degrees in engineering with other signatory organizations. Fourth, the relation between engineering programmatic accreditation and the engineer registration system should be tightened. That is, in accordance with international practices, the educational qualification of a registered engineer should be a degree granted by an
accredited program of bachelor’s degree in engineering. If the applicants do not hold such degrees, they would have to prove that they have met the equivalent academic level by satisfying required conditions (Bi 2004a).
Nevertheless, some intellectual and organizational issues within China must be solved before the above tasks are carried out and accreditation is developed. The first issue is the divergence of viewpoints. Some people hold that engineering programmatic accreditation is unnecessary to engineer registration. It does not matter whether the program or institution where the applicant was trained has been accredited, so long as the applicant passes the registration examination. This point of view largely neglects the educational qualification in engineer registration, and thus muffles the enthusiasm of colleges and universities in programmatic accreditation.
The second issue is the innate deficiency of the engineering profession and engineering education in China. For a long period of time, China has not had systems of engineer registration or professional programmatic accreditation in engineering. Engineering societies in China have always been no more than learning societies. There are only some engineering societies of specialized subjects but not one umbrella general engineering organization. It has not been until recent years that engineering and engineering education circles in China began to think about much of the common practices of engineering programmatic accreditation system and engineer registration system in the world, as well as international mutual recognition.
It requires discussion and adjustment process to solve the intellectual and organizational issues so that we can explore an approach suitable to the Chinese context. The issues in dispute mainly include the following: Is engineering programmatic accreditation necessary in China? Is the accreditation related to engineer registration and if so how? Which existing authority should administer the accreditation or is it necessary to establish a new organization? Both discussion and adjustment are indispensable. Nevertheless, these took too long and time just flew by from the end of the last century to the beginning of this century. Engineering programmatic accreditation in China, which actually started in a timely enough fashion, developed very slowly during this period of time. In the meantime, however, Japan, South Korea, Singapore and Chinese Taipei have finalized their accreditation systems and gained international recognition by becoming signatories of the Washington Accord between 2005 and 2007. Some other countries are also actively striving for it.
This should be a lesson that we need to learn earnestly. Since then, facts have also proven that the only way out is to carry out the reform and opening-up policy. The reform would go nowhere without opening up; thus opening up must be put into effect in the reform, and both depending on human agency.
generally, civil and construction engineering accreditation continues to develop steadily under the guidance of the MoC. The number of programs with established programmatic accreditation system is now six (See Table 1). The accreditation system and its implementation have been continuously improved. By July 2007, 141 civil and construction programs in 53 higher education institutions, which constituted around 15 percent of programs of its kind nationally, had been accredited. The accreditation committees continued to maintain communication with their counterparts in the United States, Great Britain, Singapore, South Korea and Hong Kong and had signed mutual recognition agreements with some of them.
Turning Point and Expectations
In 2004, the situation began to take a turn for the better. A working group for National Registration for Engineers was formed, led by the Ministry of Personnel and co-led by the China Association for Science and Technology (CAST), the Ministry of Education (MoE), the MoHURD and the Chinese Academy of Engineering. Consequently in 2006, pilot engineering accreditation was started. Guided by MoE and CAST, it involved the cooperation of eighteen units including the Chinese Academy of Engineering and some industrial ministries. A National Expert Committee for Programmatic Accreditation of Engineering Education (“National Committee”) and subcommittees for several engineering programs were established. The members of the National Committee were appointed by MoE from senior scholars and engineers. Moreover, a Supervision and Arbitration Committee for Programmatic Accreditation of Engineering Education was also established under MoE. The National Committee has prescribed the targets of programmatic accreditation in engineering education as follows: to further enhance the quality of engineering education, to establish a programmatic accreditation system that is linked up to the engineer registration system, to attract the extensive participation of industry, to improve the applicability of graduates from engineering programs to industrial domains, and to engage Chinese engineering education in the global community so as to achieve international mutual recognition. The National Committee drafted a complete set of accreditation documents, including the guidelines for pilot accreditation, accreditation criteria, selection and training of visiting team members, guidelines and code of conduct for the visiting teams, guidelines for the institutions and programs, and so on (National Experts Committee of Engineering Education Accreditation 2008). From 2006 to 2007, in addition to the field of civil and construction engineering, the National Committee conducted pilot accreditation of another nine programs in twenty-six institutions , with experts from abroad and Hong Kong in the visiting teams. The programs covered include mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, chemical engineering, computer engineering, hydraulic engineering, food engineering, mining engineering, environmental engineering, and road and transportation engineering. The pilot accreditation was initially a success in that it shifted the focus from self-evaluation of the education system in the past to outside evaluation, resorted to a student-centered approach, laid emphasis on practice in teaching and learning,
respected the independence and authority of institutions and valued the learning outcomes of the students. . The pilot accreditation will continue in 2008.
The programmatic accreditation committees of the six programs in civil and construction engineering will be integrated into the framework of national engineering accreditation in the future. They will become subcommittees under the National Committee and, with its experiences accumulated over the years, continue to contribute to the engineering accreditation in China. In 2007, sponsored by the MoHURD, a research team across seven organizations and institutions, including Tongji University, was formed in an attempt to improve the engineering accreditation system. The research team will conduct further research on evaluation, accreditation and registration both at home and abroad, and then advance detailed policy recommendations on improvement of the accreditation system in civil and construction engineering, expansion of the accreditation coverage and integration of programmatic accreditation and engineer registration. The National Committee has also started the initial contact with the Washington Accord.
Obviously, in the past two years, China has made great strides in the engineering programmatic accreditation, and is moving onto the “fast lane” to catch up with international practice. The task is arduous and the road ahead is still long for engineering programmatic accreditation and engineer registration in China. Based on the analysis and studies, I put forward the following suggestions.
1. Explain and widely publicize the importance of engineering accreditation on various occasions and through various media.
At present, all the stakeholders—engineering education，engineering profession, governments, students, parents and the public—lack knowledge about professional programmatic accreditation. The connection between programmatic accreditation in institutions on the one hand and the quality of engineering education and the engineer registration system on the other is not recognized. In order to obtain extensive support for accreditation, engineering accreditation should be delivered and explained in a complete and convincing manner through conferences, training programs, mass media, and the Web site and brochures of the National Committee.
2. Use learning outcomes of students as the most direct quality criteria
Since the end of last century, many countries, including the United States and Great Britain, regard students’ learning outcomes as an important aspect of quality criteria in the reform of accreditation. Furthermore, the learning outcomes have also been listed as important quality criteria in national academic degree standards, higher education missions and curricula in institutions. In order to improve the quality of engineering education in China and to connect the programmatic accreditation with
the international community, we should introduce the concept of learning outcomes into higher education as well as its evaluation and accreditation. Learning outcomes of students and graduates should be listed as important accreditation criteria, and institutions should provide evidence in the self-evaluation of the extent to which the learning outcomes of their graduates have met the stated program target. Therefore it is necessary to mobilize resources, in a timely manner, to conduct research in practice and lay the foundation for setting the accreditation criteria, engineering degree standards, engineering curricula and the training process. In the meantime, institutions of higher education should actively explore and exchange ways to evaluate learning outcomes, which will be a sooner-or-later step in Chinese higher education.
3. Defend the independence of evaluation and accreditation
Independence is one of the important requirements of an external quality assurance agency; that is, it must be able to operate independently. According to the European Higher Education Area , “agencies should be independent to the extent that they have autonomous responsibility for their operations and that the conclusions and recommendations made in their reports cannot be influenced by third parties such as higher education institutions, ministries or other stakeholders”(European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education 2005). The American Council of Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) has put it even more clearly that“the accreditation organization authorized by CHEA must be nongovernmental and that the accreditation organization demonstrates independence from any parent entity, or sponsoring entity, for the conduct of accreditation activities and determination of accreditation status” ( Council for Higher Education Accreditation 2006). The accreditation organizations in engineering education in China must manage to be independent first before they can secure a foothold and gradually establish credibility in the world.
4. Clear up the misunderstanding of both programmatic accreditation and registration examination
Engineer licensure is a high-level and professional qualification that is different from technical-based certification. According to international practices, in general, there is a three-part requirement to obtain engineering licensure: education, work experience (or professional development) and examination (or review).
Registration examination is designed to test the applicant’s command of knowledge, skills, norms and manuals as well as the application ability so as to prove whether the applicant has achieved the entry level of engineer.
The programmatic accreditation is a regular evaluation system consisting of internal education quality assurance system and external evaluation by peers and professionals. In accordance with the basic principles of modern quality management and quality culture, professional accreditation is a long-term process and carried out
through the whole education process and covering all aspects of education, to continuously guarantee and improve the quality of education in institutions. It guarantees that, during a four-year study at an accredited program or institution, students receive quality education, develop professional ability and creativity, and take to heart the professional ethics that will become life-long attributes of an engineer of excellence.
Programmatic accreditation and registration examination are of totally different natures with completely different functions. They are both indispensable and irreplaceable for the requirements of engineer licensure, yet they supplement each other. From the international viewpoint, programmatic accreditation should be a prerequisite of registration examination. Generally, compared with the applicants who graduated from accredited programs, those from unaccredited programs or institutions usually have to face additional requirements in the exam contents and the time constraints before taking the examination.
References
Bi, Jiaju. 1996. “Engineering Accreditation and Registration for Professional Engineers in China.” QA Newsletter, no. 12. International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE).
————. 1998. “First Mutual Recognition Agreements in Engineering between UK and China.” QA Newsletter, no. 16. International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE).
————. 2004a. “A Blueprint of Making Engineering Education in China in Line with International Practice.” In Proceedings of China-U.S. Bilateral Seminar on Engineering Education for a Global Economy. Beijing: Tsinghua University Press.
— — ——. 2004b. “The Situation and Problems of Engineering Accreditation in China.” Paper presented at the third ASEE International Colloquium on Engineering Education, Tsinghua University, Beijing (September).
— — — —. 2005. “The Past, Present and Mission of Engineering Programmatic Evaluation in China.” Higher Education Development and Evaluation, no. 1:40-42. Bi, Jiaju; Yiyi Chen; and Minjuan He. 2006. “To Establish a System of Engineering Programmatic Evaluation and Improve the Quality of Engineering Education.” China Higher Education, no. 1:48-50.
Council for Higher Education Accreditation. 2006. Recognition of Accrediting Organizations, Policy and Procedures. Washington, DC.
European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education. 2005. Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area. Helsinki.
National Expert Committee of Engineering Education Accreditation. 2008. Handbook for Accreditation of Engineering Education. Beijing.
