Is An Accreditation Seal Worth PDF

Quality Assurance in Education
“Is an accreditation seal worth the effort?”: Observations of programme accreditations

in Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland
Hanna Niemelä Taija Okkola Annikka Nurkka Mikko Kuisma Ritva Tuunila
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:11 30 September 2015 (PT)
Article information:
To cite this document:
Hanna Niemelä Taija Okkola Annikka Nurkka Mikko Kuisma Ritva Tuunila , (2014),"“Is an accreditation seal
worth the effort?”", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 22 Iss 3 pp. 226 - 239
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/QAE-01-2013-0007
Downloaded on: 30 September 2015, At: 00:11 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 28 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 144 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Gerardo Blanco-Ramírez, Joseph B. Berger, (2014),"Rankings, accreditation, and the international quest for
quality: Organizing an approach to value in higher education", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 22 Iss 1
pp. 88-104 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/QAE-07-2013-0031
Valerie Priscilla Goby, Catherine Nickerson, (2014),"Accreditation and assessment of learning in the UAE",
Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 22 Iss 3 pp. 212-225 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/QAE-05-2013-0023
Óscar Espinoza, Luis Eduardo González, (2013),"Accreditation in higher education in Chile:
results and consequences", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 21 Iss 1 pp. 20-38 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/09684881311293043
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:543713 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0968-4883.htm
QAE
22,3
“Is an accreditation seal worth
the effort?”
Observations of programme accreditations in
226 Lappeenranta University of Technology,

Finland
Received 25 January 2013
Revised 20 January 2014 Hanna Niemelä
3 April 2014 Department of Electrical Engineering,
Accepted 12 May 2014 Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland
Taija Okkola
Department of Industrial Management,
Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland
Annikka Nurkka
Administration Department,
Mikko Kuisma
Department of Electrical Engineering,
Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland, and
Ritva Tuunila
Department of Chemical Engineering,
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present observations of a EUR-ACE accreditation
process in a Finnish university. The study demonstrates the effects (benefits, effort and resources
required) of accreditation as seen by the university management and teaching staff.
Design/methodology/approach – The material of the study was gathered by conducting an
interview and questionnaire survey after the accreditation processes of six degree programmes at
Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland, in 2011.
Findings – Besides certain shared views, the survey reveals some differences in opinions between the
university management and the teaching staff: The management at all levels of the university valued
the significance of accreditations somewhat higher than the teaching staff. Most of the interviewees found
that accreditations have had an important effect on the curriculum work and thereby on the development of
teaching and education. However, the effects on single courses were considered less significant.
Research limitations/implications – The study focuses on one university with a limited
number of responses and one accreditation agency only (ASIIN, Germany).
Originality/value – The engineering degree programmes were the first ones to obtain a EUR-ACE
Quality Assurance in Education accreditation both in Finland and in the Nordic countries. Thus, the results have a novelty value for
Vol. 22 No. 3, 2014 Nordic universities and stakeholders in the education sector.
pp. 226-239
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited Keywords Education, Accreditation, Engineering, Degree programme, EUR-ACE
0968-4883
DOI 10.1108/QAE-01-2013-0007 Paper type Case Study
1. Introduction Observations of
In Europe, international accreditations of degree programmes are gaining popularity
not just among business schools but also in engineering education. In addition to the
programme
positive accreditation result, there are other equally important drivers for the accreditations
accreditation of degree programmes in universities. The accreditation seal may increase
the reputation of the degree programme, which may help in student recruitment and
promote the status of the current graduate students. Sometimes the most solid benefits 227
in the accreditation process are reached in learning and the resulting learning outcomes
(Welsh and Dey, 2002; Shupe, 2007). By an extensive self-assessment, the strengths and
weaknesses of the degree programme can be exposed, and furthermore, the
accreditation process enables thorough benchmarking of the programme. This provides
plenty of material to focus development activities and to define potential targets for
development. In addition to that, the results can be applied to quality assurance, as a
support for national and international benchmarking and in the description of the
substance of a degree programme in a standardised way.
1.1 Motivation and objectives of the study

Background. In Lappeenranta University of Technology (LUT), the decision to apply for
international accreditations for the degree programmes in engineering was made by the
university board in 2009. The objective was to assess the degree programmes against
international standards, but also to obtain instruments for international activities such
as student exchange and recruitment and collaboration with international partners,
both in the industry and university sectors.
Concurrently, LUT was preparing the accreditation of a degree programme in LUT
School of Business. Compared with engineering programme accreditations, there is a longer
and more established tradition in economics and business in Europe, where accreditations
have evolved into significant tools of quality assurance and image building. Against this
background and anticipating increasing interest in engineering, LUT considered it
beneficial to initiate the accreditation process of its engineering degree programmes.
The bachelor’s and master’s degree programmes in Chemical Engineering, Industrial
Management and Electrical Engineering were all accredited during the year 2011
by Akkreditierungsagentur für Studiengänge der Ingenieurwissenschaften, der
Informatik, der Naturwissenschaften, der Mathematik und der Lehrämter (ASIIN), e.V.
(ASIIN, 2012; Niemelä et al., 2012; Nurkka et al., 2012; Okkola et al., 2012; Turunen et al.,
2012). These six degree programmes were the first ones to obtain a EUR-ACE
accreditation both in Finland and in the Nordic countries[1]. Being pioneers in the
accreditation of engineering degree programmes in Finland, there was no previous
knowledge of any experiences of accreditation from other higher education institutions
in the country, nor did we have any comparisons or relevant publications available of
similar EUR-ACE cases in the Nordic context.
Motivation and objectives. The purpose of our survey at LUT was to investigate what
kind of influences the accreditations of degree programmes had on education and what
their practical implications were for the educational activities in the university. Further,
the target was to find out whether accreditation, or the preparation process, had an effect
on the university management and the everyday work of the academic staff.
The survey was considered highly relevant both for the authors of the paper and the
university staff in general, as most of the teaching staff in departments were involved in
QAE the accreditation preparations in one way or another. Therefore, it was necessary to
assess the outcomes and effects of the process. Obviously, accreditation of a degree
22,3 programme is a time- and resource-consuming undertaking as well as a significant
financial investment, the actual consequences of which have to be analysed from
different perspectives (Hockfield Malandra, 2009).
More specifically, the objectives of the survey were:
228 • to study whether the university considered the accreditation process to have an
impact on the management of education in the university;
• if yes, to show how the accreditation process was seen to have affected the degree
programme and what kind of actual changes it had produced; and finally
• to assess the benefits and drawbacks as well as threats and challenges of
programme accreditations as perceived by the university management and
teaching staff.
To this end, an interview and questionnaire survey was carried out at the university
after the accreditation processes of the aforementioned degree programmes at
Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland, in the autumn term of 2011. The
survey was conducted by interviews with the university management (all rectors,
deans, heads of the degree programmes, heads of study affairs ⫺ 15 in total) and by an
online questionnaire for the teaching staff (professors, associate professors, lecturers,
assistants, other personnel involved in teaching; the number of respondents 40 in total).
All members of the university management were interviewed, and the response rate of
the online questionnaire was approximately 25 per cent.
Although the study is limited to one university and one accreditation agency only,
the results are considered informative and useful for other universities considering
accreditation of their degree programmes. Further, other stakeholders involved in
quality assurance issues in the education sector may benefit from this case study.
1.2 Management of higher education in the modern university sector

Before we address the topic of accreditation in detail, we discuss certain characteristics
of the management of higher education and the modern operating environment of
universities both nationally and in general (cf. Uhomoibhi, 2009; Espinoza and Gonzales,
2013).
In Finland, university status is awarded by the state, which has traditionally been
considered to guarantee an adequate quality of higher education. Thus far, there have
been no extra-governmental education evaluation bodies in Finland, and unlike, for
instance, in business education, international accreditation bodies have played no major
role in the evaluation of higher engineering education. The universities have been
evaluated on a regular basis by the Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council
(FINHEEC, 2012a). Similarly, in the other Nordic countries, the quality of higher
education is primarily reviewed by national, governmental organisations, such as the
Swedish Higher Education Authority (Högskoleverket, 2011), the Norwegian Agency
for Quality Assurance in Education (NOKUT, 2009), the Accreditation Institution in
Denmark (ACE Denmark, 2012) and the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture in
Iceland (2006)). Furthermore, there have been international evaluations and assessment
exercises of individual Finnish universities with specific scopes of assessment (e.g., on
research or educational activities).
However, in addition to governmental supervision and national regulations of Observations of
different kinds, international evaluations, benchmarking and ranking lists are
becoming a norm in universities. International accreditation may also be considered an
programme
example of this trend. We may argue that the academic staff live and work under accreditations
increased evaluation and control (Deem, 1998).
Again, further challenges are brought by the fact that the present control systems in
universities are focusing not only on higher education but also on research activities at 229
the same time (Ministry of Education and Culture (2011); (2012)). In other words, the
academic staff faces a variety of requirements: they are expected to provide first-rate
education, simultaneously producing high-quality research and publications within
strict regulations and norms (FINHEEC, 2012a). In addition to the prevailing
regulations, new rules and control systems, for instance, related to finance were
introduced to the university sector (FINHEEC, 2012b). As a result, universities and their
units have to align their strategies and new kinds of incentive systems may be adopted.
Consequently, reforms of this kind may direct the methods and even the substance of the
work of the academic staff.
Furthermore, a national ministry of education and the international scientific
community are not the only important interest groups of a university: the current and
potential students are probably the key group focusing on the quality of education and
the degree programme. Potential employers of the graduates can also be mentioned as a
significant interest group of an educational institution.
Under the above-described challenges of the modern operating environment, it is
argued that accreditation provides viable tools for universities to assess and develop the
content and organisation of education. Our experience has shown that teamwork,
employee involvement and empowerment are important parts of the accreditation
process – we suggest that these features be utilised in the management of universities
into the future.
1.3 Accreditation: background and international objectives

Engineering education has a long tradition in Europe, but practices have varied between
countries (Coyle, 2009). There has not been a common, shared way to educate engineers.
Furthermore, in Europe, different countries have different quality assurance and
accreditation procedures (OECD, 2011; Espinoza and Gonzales, 2013), and until now,
there has not been a common European accreditation system. However, there is a need
for international, and in particular, academic recognition of engineering education. A
common accreditation standard is needed for the engineering field because mobility
(both physical and virtual) is increasing in engineering, there is growth of new degrees
(the objectives of which are not always well presented), and new educational institutions
and degree programmes are emerging.
With the objective of creating a common European quality label for engineering
degree programmes, the EUR-ACE project was initiated. The basis of the EUR-ACE
framework and accreditation lies in the Bologna process, the target being to establish a
decentralised Pan-European system, which accepts the differences and versatility of
engineering programmes (Saarinen, 2005; Augusti, 2007; Saarinen and Ala-Vähälä,
2007; Uhomoibhi, 2009; FINHEEC, 2012a and b). It is also emphasised that the
EUR-ACE accreditation is intended for programme, not institutional accreditation
(ENAEE, 2008).
QAE Against this background, the EUR-ACE accreditation was chosen at LUT when the
decision on the international accreditation of the engineering degree programmes was
22,3 made. Moreover, LUT actively promoted the accreditation of engineering education in
Finland and was proactive in various national development projects associated with the
evaluation and quality assurance of higher education. The results of the survey
presented in this paper serve these purposes also.
230
2. Conduct of the survey: interviews and online questionnaire
The effects of an accreditation process on the management and education of the six
degree programmes were studied by a qualitative and quantitative survey, conducted as
interviews with the university management and as an online questionnaire for the
teaching staff. The survey consisted of open-ended questions (three questions for the
management and four for the teaching staff) and 16 statements for all respondents.
In the interviews, the representatives of the university management answered three
open-ended questions (Table I) in a structured manner. First, there were two open-ended
questions about why the accreditation process was initiated at the university or at the
Open-ended questions
1. Why was the accreditation process initiated at the university or at the department? (only for the
management)
2. In your opinion, what kind of an overall influence does the accreditation have? (only for the
management)
3. What is the next objective with respect to the accreditation at your department or degree
programme?
4. Have you/your programme used ASIIN/EUR-ACE labels (for example in marketing) and how are
they used?
5. What kinds of future plans do you/does your programme have concerning the accreditation?
6. What challenges do you anticipate in the future?
Statements on the scale 1-5 or N/A: Please assess the effects of the accreditation on the following
issues (1 ⫽ not significant at all; 5 ⫽ highly significant)
1. Curriculum planning as a whole
2. Educational objectives (learning outcomes) of the degree programme
3. Study workload planning and planning of the study timetable
4. Educational content of the degree and curricular consistency, cumulative learning
5. Planning and implementation of a single course
6. Teaching methods, assessment and evaluation methods
7. Study guidance and counselling
8. Guidance and supervision of BSc and MSc theses
9. Deployment of feedback (from students, graduates, occupational life)
10. Development of the degree programme in the future
11. Quality assurance of the degree programme
12. Pedagogical leadership at the university
13. Development of teaching and education at the university
14. Valuation of teaching at the university
Table I.
Survey for the university Please assess the workload and importance of the accreditation on the scale 1-5
management and teaching 15. Workload caused by the accreditation process
staff 16. Importance of accreditation
department and what could be considered to be the overall influence of accreditation on Observations of
the university or department. As the interviewees represented the university
management who initially made the decision on the accreditation of degree
programme
programmes, they were capable of addressing the issue at a holistic level. The teaching accreditations
staff, that is, the respondents of the online questionnaire, answered the same open-ended
questions as the university management, but only the questions from 3 to 6.
By the 16 statements (Table I), the respondents were asked to evaluate the effects of 231
the accreditation, for example, on curriculum planning, learning outcomes, teaching
methods and implementation of courses, guidance and supervision, development of
programmes, pedagogical leadership and evaluation of teaching in the university. The
statements were assessed on the Likert scale (Fabbris, 2013; Di Napoli and Arcidiacono,
2013) from 1 to 5 (1 ⫽ not significant at all, 5 ⫽ highly significant) and N/A if the
statement was not relevant for the respondent. The survey also included statements
concerning the workload and overall importance of the accreditation on the same scale
1-5 (1 ⫽ not significant, 5 ⫽ highly significant). Besides these statements, the
deployment of ASIIN/EUR-ACE labels (ASIIN, 2012), future plans and challenges
concerning accreditation were enquired by open-ended questions.
3. Motivation and effects of accreditation: findings of the interviews and

the questionnaire
The motivation and effects of the accreditation of degree programmes were investigated in
the survey from the perspectives of the university management and teaching staff. The
responses to the open-ended questions and statements in the online questionnaire revealed
certain common views, but also slight differences in opinions between these two groups.
3.1 Application for accreditation: motivation and reasons as defined by the university
management
In the interviews with the university management, international activities and visibility
were the topics that received the highest number of references (9 interviewees of 15) as
reasons to apply for accreditation. The respondents considered accreditation to promote
the public image and international visibility of the university in the increasingly
international university sector. In this context, accreditation was seen as a tool to
enhance student exchange and recruitment. A further strong motivation behind the
decision to apply for accreditation was the opportunity to be the first Finnish and
Scandinavian university degree programmes to have international accreditation seals in
the field of engineering education. Moreover, the accreditation seals were found to
strengthen the public image of the university as an internationally recognised
educational institution and to promote opportunities for cooperation with the top
universities. Three of the interviewees mentioned development of teaching and
education as the motivation to apply for accreditation:
One of the important drivers for accreditation is certainly that when recruiting international
students, the degree programmes have to be structured so that they meet quality criteria of
some kind; therefore, we thought that having accreditation seals will definitely have an impact
as such.
When the degree programs gradually started to prepare for accreditation, genuine interest
arose in the topic, and we realised that it is a competitive asset to be at the forefront; on the
other hand, this provides an opportunity to benchmark ourselves against others.
QAE 3.2 Views of the university management and teaching staff on the effects of
accreditation
22,3 In the interviews, the management of the university, faculties and degree programmes
were asked about the impacts of accreditation. Most of the interviewees (11 of 15) were
of the opinion that accreditation had had an effect on the curriculum work and thereby
on the development of teaching and education. In the university, the attitudes towards
232 curriculum work have changed considerably, and also various elements of curriculum
work (learning outcomes, teaching methods, assessment of learning, study workload
calculation and management and the degree as a whole) have been taken into
consideration and adopted in the units in a new, more comprehensive way.
The attitudes towards curriculum work have totally changed. In a positive way.
The true meaning of the degree programme structure and the curriculum work has now
become clear, and the communal atmosphere at the department has increased. There was a
strong “doing together spirit” during the accreditation process, which is still alive and visible
in the curriculum work.
The teachers take now better care of what they teach.
As with other effects of accreditation, the interviewees mentioned the strengthened
internal cooperation and the improved self-esteem in the unit. Accreditation was
regarded as a guarantee for high quality and as a means to show that the degree
programme met the European standards. In addition, accreditations have attracted
positive attention in the discussions with international collaborative partners.
A competitive advantage; we are at the forefront; we have been able to demonstrate the quality
of our education. A further advantage is the cooperation between degree programmes at
Lappeenranta University of Technology. We have had an opportunity to work together, to
strive for common goals, to learn together, to search for information together. In addition, our
own “team”, the staff at the department, is now better welded together.
When we told about the accreditation of our degree programmes at a visit in an international
partner university, the reactions of our partners were positive.
The impacts of accreditation on certain aspects of the implementation of teaching and
education were investigated by statements in the interview and the online questionnaire
(Table I). The very same statements were presented both to the university management
in the interviews and in the online questionnaire for the teaching staff. The statements
were commented on the Likert scale from 1 to 5: 1 ⫽ not significant at all; 2 ⫽ a little
significant; 3 ⫽ significant; 4 ⫽ very significant; 5 ⫽ highly significant. The average
grades of the respondents to the open-ended questions and statements are given in
Table II.
The responses to the statements (Table II) revealed that the impact of accreditation
has been highest on the curriculum work as a whole (average 3.56 of all respondents),
study workload calculation, management and scheduling (3.46), setting the objectives of
the degree (3.44) and the development of the degree programmes in the future (3.41).
These findings were in line with the answers to the open-ended questions 1-2 mentioned
above. The accreditation also had some effect on the quality assurance of degrees (3.2),
development of education and teaching at the university (3.13) and the appreciation of
teaching at the university (3.09). The effects of accreditation were found to be lowest
(2.42-2.68) on planning and implementation of individual courses, teaching methods,
Average grade of responses
Observations of
All Teaching programme
respondents Management staff accreditations
Statements on the scale 1-5 (1 ⫽ not significant at all, 5 ⫽ highly significant)
1. Curriculum planning as a whole 3.56 4.08 3.32
2. Educational objectives (learning outcomes) of

the degree programme 3.44 3.79 3.29
233
3. Study workload planning and planning of the
study timetable 3.46 3.73 3.32
4. Educational content of the degree and
curricular consistency, cumulative learning 3.11 3.64 2.87
5. Planning and implementation of a single course 2.68 3.07 2.51
6. Teaching methods, assessment and evaluation
methods 2.62 3.07 2.42
7. Study guidance and counselling 2.42 2.85 2.21
8. Guidance and supervision of BSc and MSc
theses 2.58 2.93 2.41
9. Deployment of feedback (from students,
graduates, occupational life) 2.78 3.08 2.64
10. Development of the degree programme in the
future 3.41 3.87 3.20
11. Quality assurance of the degree programme 3.20 3.50 3.07
12. Pedagogical leadership at the university 2.68 3.08 2.51
13. Development of teaching and education at the
university 3.13 3.57 2.94
14. Valuation of teaching at the university 3.09 3.33 2.97
Workload and importance of the accreditation on the scale 1-5 Table II.
15. Workload caused by the accreditation process 3.74 4.33 3.45 Responses to the
16. Importance of accreditation 3.77 4.27 3.55 statements of the survey
assessment of learning outcomes and guidance and supervision of studies, assignments

and theses.
The most significant differences between the teachers’ responses in the degree
programmes in Chemical Engineering, Industrial Management and Electrical
Engineering were found in educational objectives of the degree programme, study
workload planning and workload caused by the accreditation process, the significance
of which was valued notably higher by Industrial Management; on the other hand,
curriculum planning as a whole, quality assurance of the degree programme,
educational content and valuation of teaching at the university were considered more
significant by Electrical Engineering. Chemical Engineering, instead, scored the
significance of the assessed themes lowest in 9 statements of 16, whereas the number of
lowest scores was smaller in the other degree programmes. These differences may
partly be explained by the different practices related to the organisation of the
curriculum and accreditation work at the departments. When considering quality
assurance and development of education, this certainly calls for joint effort towards
harmonisation in the everyday curriculum work and the possible reaccreditation phase.
To this end, cooperation is encouraged at all levels of the university. The university also
QAE provided support services, such as training and seminars on pedagogical issues and in
the quality assurance work (Table III).
22,3 All in all, the management at all levels of the university found the accreditation process
to be very significant for the university (average 4.27). The management of the
university, faculties and degree programmes valued the importance of accreditation
higher than the teaching staff. The teaching staff also considered accreditation
234 important (3.55), yet slightly less so than the university management.
3.3 Views of the university management and teaching staff on the future plans related
to accreditation
The university management was very unified in their opinion concerning the objectives
of accreditation. The common target is to carry out accreditations as extensively as
possible in the degree programmes of the university and the next stage to seek
accreditation for the university’s international Master’s degree programmes. A further
target was to better deploy the accreditation seals. Naturally, the development actions,
adjustments or corrections suggested or required by the accreditation organisation
would be carried out. It was considered important to retain the accreditation seals
Average grade of responses

Chemical Electrical Industrial
Engineering Engineering Management
Statements on the scale 1-5 (1 ⫽ not significant at all, 5 ⫽ highly significant)

1. Curriculum planning as a whole 3.22 3.57 3.25
2. Educational objectives (learning outcomes) of
the degree programme 3.22 3.11 3.46
3. Study workload planning and planning of the
study timetable 2.44 3.00 4.15
4. Educational content of the degree and
curricular consistency, cumulative learning 2.89 3.00 2.75
5. Planning and implementation of a single course 2.22 2.44 2.76
6. Teaching methods, assessment and evaluation
methods 2.11 2.44 2.62
7. Study guidance and counselling 2.00 2.38 2.27
8. Guidance and supervision of BSc and MSc
theses 2.56 2.44 2.27
9. Deployment of feedback (from students,
graduates, occupational life) 2.38 2.67 2.82
10. Development of the degree programme in the
future 3.22 3.11 3.25
11. Quality assurance of the degree programme 2.67 3.50 3.00
12. Pedagogical leadership at the university 2.22 2.75 2.58
13. Development of teaching and education at the
university 3.11 3.10 2.69
14. Valuation of teaching at the university 2.89 3.33 2.77
Table III.
Responses to the Workload and importance of the accreditation on the scale 1-5
statements of the survey 15. Workload caused by the accreditation process 3.22 3.10 3.92
by degree programmes 16. Importance of accreditation 3.44 3.63 3.54
achieved, and after the termination of the accreditation period, the degree programmes Observations of
would apply for reaccreditation. The university management at all levels had a strong
desire to prepare well for this process. Another further option may be to seek other
programme
(possibly more prestigious) accreditation alternatives. accreditations
3.4 Views of the university management and teaching staff on the challenges of
accreditation 235
The resources were considered to be the most significant challenge associated with
accreditation. The accreditation process and keeping the seal is time consuming and
laborious, and the resources allocated to the process were taken from the other academic
duties. This was also shown in the staff’s responses, where the extra workload caused
by the process was criticised. It was estimated at LUT that an accreditation of a
bachelor’s and a consecutive master’s degree programme may require up to 1,000-1500
hours of work. In total, considering the cost of working hours only, the price of an
accreditation process amounts to tens of thousands of euros per degree programme. In
addition, the accreditation seal (e.g. EUR-ACE and ASIIN) and the related costs were
typically a few thousand euros per degree programme. Moreover, the university
administrative staff at various levels were, in one way or another, involved in the
process, which called for further temporal and financial resources. Thus, the actual costs
of accreditation were considered high. Therefore, degree programmes considering
applying for accreditation should assess the long-term effects and costs of the process.
Also, the workload reported by the university staff (Table II) has to be taken into
consideration.
The public image established for the accreditation process over time was also
regarded as a possible challenge. According to some respondents, a threat may be that
an accreditation seal will not be so highly esteemed in the future if almost all universities
have a quality label. Some respondents were also worried about the permanence of the
accreditation system. From the perspective of accreditation, the reform and
development needs of degree programmes were also seen as a challenge: according to
the respondents, the accreditation seals should not prevent or delay any necessary
changes or improvements in the programmes.
A further threat is also seen in the possible scenario where the objectives set by the
Ministry of Education and Culture and the accreditation bodies may conflict at some
point in time. On the other hand, the respondents wished that the new good practices and
working methods that emerged and developed during the process will remain in the
future and the development work and good spirit can be maintained between the
accreditation and reaccreditation.
The considerations of the university management and staff concerning the
accreditation process are summarised in the SWOT analysis in Table IV.
4. Conclusions
This paper aims at demonstrating the observations and perceptions of accreditations in
a Finnish university. The study was conducted as an interview and questionnaire
survey after the accreditation of six degree programmes at Lappeenranta University of
Technology, Finland, in 2011.
The responses to the survey revealed that the management at all levels of the
university valued the significance of accreditation somewhat higher than the teaching
QAE Strengths Weaknesses
22,3
Modern and evaluated methods to assess and Time- and resource-consuming process
develop the curricula Unequal commitment of the staff
Internationally qualified and benchmarked Uncertainty of the future prospects of
degree programmes accreditations in the university
Asset to international cooperation and

236 recruitment
Team spirit and collaboration, even between
degree programmes and departments
Commitment of the university management
Opportunities Threats
International and national status Prevents true development

Valuable in marketing and recruitment Staff members see accreditation as a
Continuous evaluation and feedback to enhance top – down mandate
the degree programmes National specialities versus international
Table IV. Promotes pedagogical leadership and increases requirements; e.g., the status of BSc
SWOT analysis of the valuation of teaching degree
accreditation process Future status of accreditation unclear
staff. Most of the interviewees were of the opinion that accreditation has had an
important effect on the curriculum work and thereby on the development of teaching
and education. However, the effects on single courses were considered less significant.
The real effects and benefits of the accreditation work and seals were questioned in some
of the responses.
As with other effects of accreditation, the interviewees mentioned the strengthened
internal cooperation and the improved self-esteem in the units. Accreditation was
regarded as a means to show that the degree programmes met the European standards
and thereby promoted the international reputation of the university.
Again, the survey supported the notion that accreditation was a resource-consuming
process, which called for time and commitment from various people involved in
educational and administrative activities at the university. However, as one head of
degree programme put it:
The accreditation process has brought us together and made us rethink and elaborate on our
educational objectives, practices and learning outcomes in a more thorough way than ever
before. It has been an eye-opening experience, and increased our awareness of educational
aspects enormously. Thus, considering these benefits alone, the accreditation work has been
worth every penny.
Our accreditation seals have already raised interest among other universities, higher
education institutions, educational authorities, labour market organisations and other
stakeholders. For instance, our representatives have been invited to share their
experiences and tell about the accreditation work.
A national accreditation system (Engineering Program Review) provided by the
Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council was under development (FINHEEC,
2013), and our experiences were being heard in the process; our university
representatives participated in the FINHEEC’s steering committee for engineering Observations of
programme review and acted as expert members in reviews at pilot universities. Thus,
our work has already gained widespread attention at a national level.
programme
To sum up, the observations presented in this paper may be useful for other accreditations
universities deliberating on the application for international accreditation of their
degree programmes; they provide background information of the accreditation process
and its benefits and drawbacks as seen by the university management and teaching 237
staff. Moreover, the results were also informative for other stakeholders in the education
sector. Here, LUT actively promoted the accreditation of university degree programmes
and cooperated in national projects related to the evaluation and quality assurance of
higher education.
Note
1. [At the time of writing (April 2014), all the departments in engineering at LUT have received
accreditation for their BSc and MSc degree programmes. In addition, LUT School of Business
has the European Foundation for Management Development (EFMD)-accredited degree
programme.]
References
ACE Denmark (2012), “Accreditation – why and how?”, available at: http://akkr.dk/wp-content/
uploads/akkr/Accreditation_-_why_and_how__v2__web1.pdf (accessed 15 January 2014).
ASIIN e.V. (2012), “Accreditation seal of programme accreditation”, available at: www.asiin-
ev.de/pages/en/asiin-e.-v/programme-accreditation/accreditation-seal.php?lang⫽EN
(accessed 17 April 2012).
Augusti, G. (2007), “Accreditation of engineering programmes: European perspectives and
challenges in a global context”, European Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 32 No. 3,
pp. 273-283.
Coyle, E. (2009), Engineering Education in the US and the EU, Dublin Institute of Technology,
Dublin.
Deem, R. (1998), ““New Managerialism” and higher education: the management of performances
and cultures in universities in the United Kingdom”, International Studies in Sociology of
Education, Vol. 8 No. 1 pp. 47-70.
Di Napoli, I. and Arcidiacono, C. (2013), “The use of self-anchoring scales in social research: the
cantril scale for the evaluation of community action orientation”, in Davino, C. and
Fabbris, L. (Eds), Survey Data Collection and Integration, Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 73-85.
ENAEE Administrative Council (2008), “EUR-ACE framework standards for the accreditation of
engineering programmes”, available at www.enaee.eu/eur-ace-system/eur-ace-framework-
standards (accessed 17 April 2012).
Espinoza, O. and Gonzales, L. (2013), “Accreditation in higher education in Chile: results and
consequences”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 21 No. 1.
Fabbris, L. (2013), “Measurement scales for scoring or ranking sets of interrelated items”, in
Davino, C. and Fabbris, L. (Eds), Survey Data Collection and Integration, Springer,
Heidelberg, pp. 21-43.
FINHEEC The Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (2012a), “Enhancing quality. audits
in Finnish higher education institutions 2005-2012”, Publications of The Finnish Higher
Education Council 11: 2012, Helsinki, available at: www.kka.fi/files/1598/KKA_1112.pdf
(accessed 11 January 2013).
QAE FINHEEC The Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (2012b), “Evaluation of the Bologna
process implementation in Finland”, Publications of The Finnish Higher Education Council 6:
22,3 2012, Helsinki, available at: www.kka.fi/files/1471/KKA612Evaluation_Bologna_nettiin.pdf
(accessed 11 January 2013).
FINHEEC The Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (2013), “Standards and procedures for
FINHEEC’s engineering programme review in the 1st or 2nd cycle”, available at:
www.finheec.fi/files/1961/FINHEEC_engineering_programme_review_manual.pdf accessed
238 20 January 2014).
Hockfield Malandra, G. (2009), “Accountability and learning assessment in the future higher
education”, On the Horizon, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 57-71.
Högskoleverket (the Swedish National Agency for Higher Education) (2011), “The Swedish
national agency for higher education’s quality evaluation system 2011-2014”, Report 2011:3
R, available at: http://english.uk-ambetet.se/download/18.575a959a141925e81d113e8/
1103R-quality-evaluation-system-2011-2014.pdf (accessed 15 January 2014).
Ministry of Education and Culture, Finland (2011), “Laadukas, kansainvälinen, profiloitunut ja
vaikuttava yliopisto – ehdotus yliopistojen rahoitusmalliksi vuodesta 2013 alkaen
(High-quality, profilised and effective international university – Proposal for a reform of the
university financing model from 2013)”, Reports of the Ministry of Education and Culture,
Finland, available at: www.minedu.fi/OPM/Julkaisut/2011/liitteet/okmtr26.pdf (accessed
15 January 2013), (in Finnish).
Ministry of Education and Culture, Finland (2012), “Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriön asetus
yliopistojen perusrahoituksen laskentakriteereistä (182/2012)”, [Ministry of Education and
Culture Decree on the Calculation Criteria for Basic Funding of Universities (182/2012].
Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, Iceland (2006), “Accreditation of higher education
institutions according to article 3 of higher education Act no. 63/2006 no. 1067/2006”.
Niemelä, H., Viljainen, S., Kuisma, M., Silventoinen, P., Partanen, J. and Nurkka, A. (2012),
“Self-Assessment report for international accreditation – bachelor’s and master’s degree
programmes in electrical engineering”, Administrative publications (Hallinnon julkaisuja)
181, Lappeenranta University of Technology, available at: http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:
978-952-265-255-3 (accessed 8 January 2013).
Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance in Education (NOKUT) (2009), “Strategic plan, strategy
for the further development of NOKUT 2010-2014”, available at: www.nokut.no/Documents/
NOKUT/Artikkelbibliotek/Generell/Strategi/2010/Strategic%20Plan_en.pdf (accessed 15
January 2014).
Nurkka, A., Kuisma, M., Niemelä, H., Okkola, T. and Tuunila, R. (2012), “Akkreditoinnista tukea
koulutuksen vertailtavuuteen ja opetussuunnitelmatyöhön”, Yliopistopedagogiikka 2012,
Vol. 19, No 1, pp. 34-36 (in Finnish).
OECD (2011), “A tuning-AHELO conceptual framework of expected/desired learning outcomes in
engineering”, OECD Education Working Papers No. 60, OECD Publishing, available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5kghtchn8mbn-en (accessed 7 January 2013).
Okkola, T., Tyster, K., Jalkala, A., Tynninen, L., Pirttilä, T. and Nurkka, A. (2012),
“Self-assessment report for international accreditation – bachelor’s and master’s degree
programmes in industrial management”, Administrative publications (Hallinnon
julkaisuja) 185, Lappeenranta University of Technology, available at: http://urn.fi/URN:
ISBN:978-952-265-259-1 (accessed 8 January 2013).
Saarinen, T. (2005), ““Quality” in the Bologna Process: from “competitive edge” to quality
assurance techniques”, European Journal of Education, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 189-204.
Saarinen, T. and Ala-Vähälä, T. (2007), “Accreditation, the Bologna process and national Observations of
reactions: accreditation as concept and action”, Higher Education in Europe, Vol. 32 No. 4,
pp. 333-345. programme
Shupe, D. (2007), “Significantly better: the benefits for an academic institution focused on student accreditations
learning outcomes”, On the Horizon, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 48-57.
Turunen, I., Tuunila, R., Paakkunainen, M., Niemi, H. and Nurkka, A. (2012), “Self-assessment
report for international accreditation – bachelor’s and master’s degree programmes in 239
chemical engineering”, Administrative publications (Hallinnon julkaisuja) 186,
Lappeenranta University of Technology, available at: http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-
952-265-273-7 (accessed 8 January 2013).
Uhomoibhi, J.O. (2009), “The Bologna Process, globalisation and engineering education
developments”, Multicultural Education and Technology Journal, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 248-255.
Welsh, J.F. and Dey, S. (2002), “Quality measurement and quality assurance in higher education”,
Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 17-25.
About the authors

Hanna Niemelä is currently working as Associate Professor with the Department of Electrical
Engineering at Lappeenranta University of Technology. Her professional experience ranges from
translating to teaching and language consulting. Her fields of interest include electrical
engineering, scientific writing and special languages. Hanna Niemelä is the corresponding author
and can be contacted at: hanna.niemela@lut.fi
Taija Okkola was working as a development coordinator with the Department of Industrial
Management at LUT at the time of writing the paper. Her professional experience ranges from
marketing activities to university administration. Her fields of interest include industrial
management, development of university education and psychology.
Annikka Nurkka has been working as the Quality Manager at LUT since 2007. Her
professional experience ranges, in addition to quality management issues (e.g. audits and
accreditations), from Open University to e-learning and overall development of teaching and
university education.
Mikko Kuisma is currently working as Associate Professor in Applied Electronics with the
Department of Electrical Engineering at Lappeenranta University of Technology. Since 1995, he
has been working as a research engineer and lecturer in the field of electronics. His current
research areas include analogue signal processing, electronic sensors and academic curriculum in
higher education.
Ritva Tuunila is currently working as Associate Professor of Process Engineering with the
Department of Chemical Technology at Lappeenranta University of Technology. She has taught
mechanical process engineering courses for bachelor to postgraduate courses more than ten years.
Her fields of interests are particle technology, grinding processes and development of chemical
engineering education.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Is An Accreditation Seal Worth PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Is An Accreditation Seal Worth PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Quality Assurance in Education

“Is an accreditation seal worth the effort?”: Observations of programme accreditations

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

226 Lappeenranta University of Technology,

1.1 Motivation and objectives of the study

1.2 Management of higher education in the modern university sector

1.3 Accreditation: background and international objectives

3. Motivation and effects of accreditation: findings of the interviews and

2. Educational objectives (learning outcomes) of

assessment of learning outcomes and guidance and supervision of studies, assignments

Average grade of responses

Statements on the scale 1-5 (1 ⫽ not significant at all, 5 ⫽ highly significant)

Asset to international cooperation and

International and national status Prevents true development

About the authors

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Вам также может понравиться