CUED Publications database

Comparison of international learning outcomes and development of engineering curricula

Alkhairy, A and Blank, L and Boning, D and Cardwell, D and Carter, WC and Collings, N and Hayhurst, A and Milne, W and Robinson, P and Seering, W and Sheppard, S and Smith, K and Stronge, B (2009) Comparison of international learning outcomes and development of engineering curricula. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings.

Full text not available from this repository.

Abstract

Various national and regional engineering accreditation bodies have developed sets of learning or program outcomes that serve as the foundation for the evaluation of curriculum quality. Some of the outcome structures are very broadly defined, leaving the details of curriculum design and the justification to the university and the accreditation evaluators. Other accreditation bodies define outcomes more thoroughly in topic and depth, with accreditation hinging on the general fit of the curriculum to these specifications. Most of these outcome structures have been developed and used as accreditation standards predominantly over the last decade. During this time, existing curricula are usually altered and upgraded (that is, 'retrofitted') to meet the outcomes requirements. However, new degree programs and new engineering colleges have the opportunity to use the relevant outcomes as design specifications. Such a design ensures quality, prepares the college for future accreditation evaluation, and can be tailored to meet the needs of students and prospective employers. This paper compares the outcomes structure and contents of several accreditation bodies, including the Engineering Council of the UK (EC UK ), EUR-ACE of the EU, and ABET of the USA. Similarities and differences between the outcomes of the bodies will be highlighted. The use of these accrediting standards as the basis of design specifications for engineering degrees at the Alfaisal University in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia will be presented. The designs for integrated BS, MS and PhD curricula were developed over a two-year period, based on the defined learning outcomes, by a committee comprised of the Founding Dean of Engineering and faculty from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), the University of Cambridge and independent reviewers. Example BS and MS curricula and their fit to the outcome specifications are described. © American Society for Engineering Education, 2009.

Item Type: Article
Subjects: UNSPECIFIED
Divisions: Div C > Materials Engineering
Div C > Engineering Design
Depositing User: Cron Job
Date Deposited: 17 Jul 2017 19:47
Last Modified: 02 Nov 2017 01:36
DOI: