ACCREDITATION OF ENGINEERING PROGRAMS IN THE PHILIPPINES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE WASHINGTON ACCORD AND

THE NECESSITY OF OUTCOMES-BASED EDUCATION

Francis Aldrine A. Uy, Ph.D. Danilo C. Terante, Ph.D.2
Dean, School of Civil, Environmental and Geological Engineering, Mapua Institute of Technology
2

Associate Professor, Civil Engineering Department, Gokongwei College of Engineering De La Salle University, Manila

Abstract: The Philippine Technological Council (PTC), the body of engineering professional organizations in the country has led the initiative for the achievement of global mobility for our Filipino engineers through the Washington Accord membership program. It is the sole organization recognized by the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) to be the sole signatoryapplicant and representative of the Philippine jurisdiction to the Washington Accord. The body created the PTC Accreditation and Certification Board for Engineering and Technology (P-ACBET) which is charged with the mandate to implement policies, procedures and process for the certification and accreditation of engineering programs. In addition to this, Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) under the P-ACBET was created. EAC main function is to undertake the assessment and evaluation of engineering program and recommends certification and accreditation of the said program to the P-ACBET and to PTC. This paper emphasizes the role of Accredited Professional Organizations (APO) in forming and supporting the P-ACBET and EAC. The paper discusses the accreditation criteria set by PTC in accordance with the terms and conditions of Washington Accord. Lastly, the paper presents the necessity of adopting Outcomes-Based Education (OBE) for programs to comply with criteria and standards. It is the aim of this paper to guide members of educational institutions in their preparation for accreditation. The role of the professional organization and industry in supporting programs under a successful OBE system is also presented.

Key words: accreditation, Washington Accord, education, outcomes-based education

BACKGROUND

WASHINGTON ACCORD

Accreditation of programs in universities and colleges is an important activity for the continuous quality improvement of education. This ensures compliance to policies and minimum requirements set by the various government agencies that were created to ensure quality education. We are entering new era of open economy and global competition not only of products but services. The Filipino engineer is recognized around the world to be very competent and a leader but without global recognition we will be restricted to compete only within the boundaries of our country and have to face not only fellow local engineers but foreign engineers freely coming in to add to difficulties in our professional practice.

The Washington Accord was signed in 1989. It is an agreement between the bodies responsible for accrediting professional engineering degree programs in each of the signatory countries. It recognizes the substantial equivalency of programs accredited by those bodies, and recommends that graduates of accredited programs in any of the signatory countries be recognized by the other countries as having met the academic requirements for entry to the practice of engineering. The Washington Accord covers professional engineering undergraduate degrees. The licensing or registration of professional engineers is not covered directly or in full by the Washington Accord.

However, the academic requirements which are part of licensing or regulation requirements are covered by the Accord. Signatories have full rights of participation in the Accord; qualifications accredited or recognized by other signatories are recognized by each signatory as being substantially equivalent to accredited or recognized qualifications within its own jurisdiction. Membership in the Washington Accord is one of the requirements for admission to the IntPE Register. The criteria for membership are academic achievement that is substantially equivalent to that of a graduate holding an engineering degree accredited under the terms of the Washington Accord and an acceptable system of accreditation that is national in scope, keyed to global engineering practice, outcomes-based & CQIpromoting, industry-linked, independent of schools and led by professional engineering societies. There are 15 country members of the Washington Accord are Australia, Canada, Chinese Taipei, Hong Kong China, Ireland, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, Turkey, United Kingdom and United States that is represented by Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). The signatories have full rights to participate in the Accord. There are also organizations holding provisional status. This organizations have been identified as having qualification accreditation or recognition procedures that are potentially appropriate for the purposes of the Accord; these organizations are further developing procedures with the goal of achieving signatory status in due time; qualifications accredited or recognized by organizations holding provisional status are not recognized by the signatories. These are Bangladesh, Germany, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. It is the aim of the Philippines through PTC to apply for this status until first quarter of 2013 and hopefully be confirmed under provisional status by 2nd or 3rd quarter or 2013. After provisional status, professional organizations and universities and colleges should further work hard and cooperate to achieve the status of full signatory that will result to global mobility for Filipino engineers.

CHED CMO NO. 36 SERIES OF 2012

CHED just recently issued CMO No. 36 series of 2012 that is on Policies, Standards and Guidelines in the Establishment of Outcomes-Based Education (OBE) system in Higher Education Institutions offering Engineering Programs. The purpose of the CMO is to transform engineering education into outcomes-based education to meet the demands of global standard and equivalency. This CMO supports the aim for global mobility for our Filipino engineers. The CMO also stated the role of PTC for Philippines to acquire membership in the Washington Accord. The general standards on establishing an OBE system requires a framework that has the following components: Mission and Vision Program Educational Objectives Program Outcomes Curriculum Map Outcomes-based Teaching and Learning (OBTL) Program Assessment and Evaluation Continuous Quality Improvement

In Section 8 of the CMO, CHED states that all engineering programs offered in universities and colleges should fully comply with all the requirements within a non-extendable period of five years after the date of effectivity.

OUTCOMES-BASED EDUCATION

Outcomes-based Education (OBE) triggered so much interest in our country in the past few years. This interest was brought about by initiatives of various academic institutions through accreditation and forums. National or regional conferences and seminars have been conducted but instead of bringing enlightenment to academic institutions, they brought more confusion and misunderstanding. The main reason is that they have presented OBE only to promote accreditation and is limited to engineering. OBE should not be taken as a requirement for accreditation but Accreditation as fruit or reward of OBE.

Why do we need to discuss OBE? International Professional Registries require completion of a program that is certified by an outcomes-based promoting accreditation system;
Fig. 1 International Accreditation and Registries Chart (Vea, 2009)

Engineering Education Agreements (Accord) around the world promotes OBE;

CHED have embraced and promoted OBE initially for engineering programs but soon will be moving forward with other disciplines;

be successful. Figure 2 states these four principles, known in shorthand form as: Clarity of Focus, Expanded Opportunity, High Expectations, and Design Down.

Local accreditation is moving towards OBE; Philippines through PTC will be applying for As these four principles can be applied in many ways to achieve OBEs purposes, it makes little sense to think of schools having to implement THE ONE MODEL of OBE. Many implementation options are available. However, successful OBE practitioners apply the principles in four ways: consistently, systematically, creatively, and

Washington Accord membership, the system requires OBE; Other schools have already taken their own initiatives to gain mobility and recognition for their graduates like ABET accreditation. ABET requires OBE; In an open economy and a smaller world, Global Mobility for Professional Practice needs to be realized (Practice without Borders); OBE is not only for Higher Educational Institutions but Basic Education where it started. Outcomes-based education was first called masterly learning. It requires acquisition of cognitive, affective and psychomotor skills under appropriate conditions. It was soon known to be competency-based education that aims to acquire group of skills that bring about competence in a specific field which is assessed against pre-set benchmarks defined by industry. It soon was presented as outcomesbased education that aims to demonstrate acquired generic skills in different contexts that are assessed against pre-set criteria agreed upon by stakeholders. Outcomes-based education basically requires us to focus and organize all programs and activities around the clearly defined set of outcomes we want our students to demonstrate when they leave the school. These set of outcomes are usually defined by stakeholders like the industry. In an outcomes-based education, what the students know and can demonstrate is far more important than when, how and where they learn it.

simultaneously. These criteria for applying the principles contribute directly to a systems effectiveness. In particular, the creative application contributes to a systems capacity to innovate and expand the range of OBE implementation possibilities, which enhances the OBE concept and stimulates continued refinement and evolution.

OUTCOMES-BASED EDUCATION: CRITICAL ISSUES AND ANSWERS

Fig. 2 OBEs Power Principles (Spady and Uy, 2012)

This is to provide a glimpse on the OBE book that will soon be published for the Philippines. The book is primarily authored by Dr. William Spady the internationally This first principle is the most important and fundamental of the four. Nothing can proceed in an authentically outcomebased way without it. Figure 1.4 captures the meaning and spirit of this principle in a series of two-word phrases that indicate how clarity of focus guides instructional planning The implementation of an effective OBE do around four clear principles of decision making and action. These four principles are the heart of OBE. Working together, they strengthen the conditions enabling students and teachers to and delivery. First, clarity of focus helps educators establish a clear picture of the learning they want students to exhibit in a performance demonstration. Second, student success on this demonstration becomes the top priority for instructional

recognized father of OBE with contributions from the author, Dr. Uy, and other OBE advocate in the country.

planning and student assessment. Third, the clear picture of the desired outcome is the starting point for curriculum, instruction, and assessment planning and implementation, all of which must perfectly match (or align with) the targeted outcome. And fourth, the instructional process in the classroom begins with the teacher, sharing, explaining, and modeling the outcome on day one and continually thereafter, so that the no surprises philosophy of OBE can be fully realized. This enables students and their teacher to work together as partners toward achieving a visible and clear goal.

Operational

Principles,

Performance

Standards,

and

Curriculum Access and Structuring are all significant aspects of providing and expanding students opportunities for learning and success. Each of these dimensions is described below.

Fig. 4 Expanded Opportunity (Spady and Uy, 2012)

Simply stated, high expectations means increasing the level of challenge to which students are exposed and raising the standard of acceptable performance, they must reach to be called finished or successful. As noted in Figure 1.6, OBE systems have applied this principle to three distinct
Fig. 3 Clarity of Focus (Spady and Uy, 2012)

aspects of school practice: standards, success quotas, and curriculum access.

At its most basic level, expanded opportunity requires staff to give students more than one chance to learn important things and to demonstrate that learning. Initially, those who implemented OBE applied this approach to small segments of learning that students could accomplish in relatively short amounts of time. But the definition of outcomes and their demonstration has expanded dramatically over the past decade, which has forced a rethinking of the entire concept of opportunity and how it is structured and implemented in schools. At least five dimensions of opportunity now seen directly relevant to this question, and time is only one of them. The five dimensions are listed in Figure 4. As the figure clearly suggests, Time, Methods and Modalities,
Fig. 5 Dimensions of High Expectations (Spady and Uy, 2012)

Design down means staff begin their curriculum and instructional planning where they want students to ultimately end up and build back from there. This challenging but powerful process becomes clear when we think of outcomes as falling into three broad categories: culminating, enabling, and discrete. Culminating outcomes define what the system wants all students to be able to do when their official learning experiences are complete. In fully developed OBE systems, the term culminating is synonymous with exit outcomes. But in less fully developed systems, culminating might apply to what are called program outcomes and course outcomes. Enabling outcomes are the key building blocks on which those culminating outcomes depend. They are truly essential to students ultimate performance success. Discrete outcomes, however, are curriculum details that are nice to know but not essential to a students culminating outcomes. The design down process is governed by the Golden Rules shown in Figure 1.7 and uses the terms just defined. At its core, the process requires staff to start at the end of a set of significant learning experiences its culminating point and determine which critical learning components and building blocks of learning (enabling outcomes) need to be established so that students successfully arrive there. The term mapping back is often used to describe the first golden rule. The second rule states that staff must be willing to replace or eliminate parts of their existing programs that are not true enabling outcomes.

PREPARING FOR P-ACBET ACCREDITATION

The Philippine Technological Council (PTC), the body of engineering professional organizations in the country has led the initiative for the achievement of global mobility for our Filipino engineers through the Washington Accord membership program. It is the sole organization recognized by the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) to be the sole signatory-applicant and representative of the Philippine jurisdiction to the Washington Accord. The body created the PTC Accreditation and Certification Board for Engineering and Technology (P-ACBET) which is charged with the mandate to implement policies, procedures and process for the certification and accreditation of engineering programs. In addition to this, Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) under the P-ACBET was created. EAC main function is to undertake the assessment and evaluation of engineering program and recommends certification and accreditation of the said program to the P-ACBET and to PTC. 6.1 Criteria The general criteria for baccalaureate level programs are the following: 1. Program Educational Objectives 2. Student Outcomes 3. Students 4. Faculty and Support Staff 5. Curriculum 6. Facilities and Learning Environment 7. Leadership and Institutional Support 8. Extension, Community -Oriented Programs and IndustryAcademe Linkage 9. Continuous Quality Improvement 6.2 List of Programs There are about 15 engineering programs that may apply for accreditation. 1. Aeronautical Engineering 2. Agricultural Engineering 3. Chemical Engineering 4. Civil Engineering 5. Computer Engineering 6. Electrical Engineering 7. Electronics Engineering 8. Geodetic Engineering

Fig. 6 Design Down (Spady and Uy, 2012)

9. Industrial Engineering

10. Marine Engineering 11. Mechanical Engineering 12. Metallurgical Engineering 13. Mining Engineering 14. Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering 15. Sanitary Engineering 6.3 Role of Professional Organizations The professional organizations have a big role to play in the PTC accreditation system. Each professional organization has the duty to safeguard the reputation of the accreditation system through the proactive participation of program evaluators coming from its membership. The program evaluators shall represent the organization during accreditation activities. Thus, there is a need to educate and develop members of the organization with industry and academe experience. The composition of the EAC should represent both industry and academe. There should be enough pool of program evaluators who will conduct visit to universities and colleges. The pool of program evaluators should have an active participation within the organization in ensuring quality and globally recognized Civil Engineering education. CONCLUSION Currently we are trying to set the stage for our Filipino engineers to be able to fairly compete in an open economy. Goods and services shall compete in global scale and standard. Our professional organizations should proactively take the lead in achieving quality and globally recognized engineering education through accreditation. Universities and colleges should immediately adopt an OBE system to comply with the accreditation requirements. The government through CHED should provide adequate resource in the attainment of our Washington Accord membership. Let global mobility be our binding thread and together let us provide a good future to the next generation of Filipino engineers.

REFERENCES Spady W. and Uy F.A.A. (2012). Outcomes-Based Education: Critical Issues and Answers Uy, F.A.A. (2009).Outcomes-Based Education and Accreditation for the Generation of Global Filipino Engineers Proceeding in the PICE 35th National Convention held at CAP John Hay Trade and Cultural Center, Baguio City Navalta (2009), Orientation On Abet Non-Domestic Accreditation, Mapua Institute of Technology Manila, Philippines Vea, R.B. (2009), Membership in the Washington Accord The Art of Deanship, Far Eastern University, Manila, Philippines G. Rogers (2003). Lessons Learned: Things I Wish I had Known . . ., Communications Link, ABET Inc. G. Rogers (2003). Assessment: Could You Please Repeat the Question? Communications Link, ABET Inc. G. Rogers (2003). Assessment: The Ultimate OpenEnded Design Problem, Communications Link, ABET Inc. CHED CMO No. 36 series of 2012 that is on Policies, Standards and Guidelines in the Establishment of OutcomesBased Education (OBE) system in Higher Education Institutions offering Engineering Programs PTC Criteria for the Accreditation of Engineering Programs in the Philippines

ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors acknowledge the PICE board of directors and conference committee for providing the opportunity to present this very important topic during the organizations national convention. We are at the dawn of an open economy where not only goods shall compete but also services in a global scale. Together with the celebration of our 75th year, let us join hands and aim for global mobility to all our great Filipino Civil Engineers.