Journal of Engineering Education Research (공학교육연구)

Korean Society for Engineering Education (한국공학교육학회)
권호 표지

The Analysis of the Causes for Weakness on the Basis of the 2015 Accreditation Review Findings by the EAC : Focused on the Criterion 3 Curriculum

2015년 공학교육인증평가의 미흡 판정 사유 분석: 인증기준 3 교과과정을 중심으로

  • Kang, Sang Hee (Center for Educational Policy Research, Seoul National University of Science & Technology) ;
  • Song, Dong Joo (School of Mechanical Engineering, Yeungnam University) ;
  • Kim, Jong Hwa (Department of Computer Engineering, Mokpo National University) ;
  • Lee, Kang woo (Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Dongguk University)
  • 강상희 (서울과학기술대학교 교육정책구센터) ;
  • 송동주 (영남대학교 기계공학부, 한국공학교육인증원) ;
  • 김종화 (목포대학교 컴퓨터공학과, 한국공학교육인증원 인증사업단) ;
  • 이강우 (동국대학교 컴퓨터공학과)
  • Received : 2016.12.27
  • Accepted : 2017.01.31
  • Published : 2017.01.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This paper deals with analyzing accreditation findings and the causes for the Weakness in the review by the EAC(Engineering Accreditation Committee) of ABEEK in 2015. As results of accreditation review by the EAC and CAC of ABEEK, Weakness findings were 697 cases which made up 56.94% of total findings. Deficiency and Weakness are considered to have been resolved only when the correction or revision has been implemented. The criterion which has the most Weakness findings in the 2015 accreditation review was the criterion 3 Curriculum. By the way the variety and quantity of the Weakness findings are so huge that the analysis of the causes for Weakness findings is focused on the Criterion 3 Curriculum. The findings on program accreditation are made on the basis of the Accreditation Actions Guide. Accordingly in view of formal logic in the accreditation review, the accreditation findings should comply with the Accreditation Actions Guide consistently. In this respect, the Weakness findings in the accreditation review can not be justified. On the other hand changeover in the accreditation policy of the ABEEK may be necessary. If the quality of the engineering education is improved continuously through the accreditation review, accreditation fulfills its purpose.

Keywords

References

  1. 강상희, 송동주(2015). "2014년 인증평가 결과 분석: EAC 프로그램의 결함 판정 사유를 중심으로", 공학교육연구, 18(5): 32-41.
  2. 김문겸, 문일, 강상희(2009). "공학교육인증제의 기본 철학과 인증 현황", 화학연합, 1(2): 20-23.
  3. 송동주, 강상희(2012). "공학교육의 미래를 준비하는 현재: 공학교육인증제도", 인터넷정보학회지, 13(3): 17-25.
  4. (사)한국공학교육인증원(2015). 2015년 인증평가 적용 공학교육인증기준 2015(KEC2015).
  5. (사)한국공학교육인증원(2015). 2015년 인증평가 적용 컴퓨터. 정보(공)학교육인증기준 2015(KCC2015).
  6. (사)한국공학교육인증원(2015). 2015년도 KEC2015 인증평가판정가이드.
  7. (사)한국공학교육인증원(2015). 2015년 EAC/CAC 제1차 평가단장워크숍 자료.
  8. (사) 한국공학교육인증원(2014). 2015년 인증설명회 자료.
  9. (사)한국공학교육인증원(2016). 인증규정. http://www.abeek.or.kr/htmls_kr
  10. Gray et al. 2009. Engineering Education Quality Assurance. A Global Perspective. Springer
  11. Spurlin et al, 2008. Designing Better Engineering Education Through Assessment. Stylus Publishing.
  12. Walessh, Stuart G. 2012. Engineering your Future. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.
  13. International Engineering Alliance(2014). Educational Accord Rules and Procedures. http://www.ieagreements.org/policies-and-procedures.cfm