Abstract
ABSTRACT This article discusses the tension between quality assurance and quality enhancement in engineering education at a programme level. It acknowledges that accreditation has evolved for many years, but does not agilely support innovation or implement changes in educational programmes. Existing quality assurance systems, institutional collaboration networks, as well as new innovative quality enhancement models and processes are described, contrasted and synthesised. Quality enhancement is analysed based on its function as a source of inspiration and dissemination of good practice. The article reflects on a novel and more collaborative approach to quality enhancement, built on the foundations of specific pedagogical standards and rubrics (e.g. CDIO). One solution leading to real continuous quality enhancement could be flexible and agile evaluation processes. These are founded on measurement and rating frameworks and complemented with quality assurance for engineering education. Incremental enhancement is based on relevant needs identified collaboratively between programmes.
Highlights
Quality assurance and enhancement are very much in the focus of European higher education institutions (HEIs), e.g. Rosa and Amaral (2014)
One specific element of this article is to propose a shift from quality assurance and accountability to quality enhancement that is constantly present
According to the last factor, Gray, Patil, and Codner argue: This emphasis on Accountability, i.e., value for the money as measured by objective output data, has come with higher education institutions being given ”autonomy to do more with less”, and more importantly such policies suggest a breakdown of the trust that society has traditionally had in the quality and value of higher education. (Gray, Patil, and Codner 2009, 16)
Summary
Quality assurance and enhancement are very much in the focus of European higher education institutions (HEIs), e.g. Rosa and Amaral (2014). One specific element of this article is to propose a shift from quality assurance and accountability to quality enhancement that is constantly present. Amaral and Rosa (2010) argue that the accountability and quality requirement as seen by government is based on four factors: (i) massification of higher education, (ii) market regulation, (iii) new public management and (iv) a loss of trust in HEIs and their professors. According to the last factor, Gray, Patil, and Codner argue: This emphasis on Accountability, i.e., value for the money as measured by objective output data, has come with higher education institutions being given ”autonomy to do more with less”, and more importantly such policies suggest a breakdown of the trust that society has traditionally had in the quality and value of higher education. According to the last factor, Gray, Patil, and Codner argue: This emphasis on Accountability, i.e., value for the money as measured by objective output data, has come with higher education institutions being given ”autonomy to do more with less”, and more importantly such policies suggest a breakdown of the trust that society has traditionally had in the quality and value of higher education. (Gray, Patil, and Codner 2009, 16)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
