国际工程教育专业认证体系的发展与改革——基于《华盛顿协议》与欧洲工程教育专业认证体系的对比分析

Development and Reform Trend of International Engineering Education Accreditation Systems——Comparative Analysis Based on Washington Accord and European Engineering Education Accreditation Systems

国际工程教育专业认证形成以美国等为代表的《华盛顿协议》(WA)体系和以德、法等为代表的欧洲工程教育专业认证(EUR-ACE)体系两大阵营。本研究基于多维比较研究的视角,从历史沿革、组织结构、认证标准、认证程序、运行机制五个维度对EUR-ACE体系和WA体系进行对比分析;并以双体系典型参与国——俄罗斯为样例,对其发展现状、运行机制与典型特征作案例深度解析。研究结果显示:(1)WA体系和EUR-ACE体系坚持持续改进的基本工作逻辑,遵循组织体系日臻完善、认证范围不断扩大、国际化价值取向日益突显的演化规律;(2)建构决策层、管理层、服务层和执行层四级联动的组织架构,形成集合作、监管、协调为一体的组织运行机制;(3)EUR-ACE体系采取标签授权制,而WA体系实行成员组织授权制,二者均赋予相关认证机构认证高度自主权;(4)WA体系与多边协议相关联,强调各参与组织认证标准的等效性和可比性;而EUR-ACE体系各组织的认证标准更具全面性、灵活性。(5)作为两大认证体系的交叉成员组织,俄罗斯融合吸收二者的精髓,极大程度实现认证制度的特色化构建。借鉴两大体系成熟经验,指出未来我国工程教育专业认证体系建设与革新方向。

There are currently two international engineering education accreditation systems:the Washington Accord(WA)system represented by the United States and the European Engineering Education Accreditation(EUR-ACE)system represented by Germany and France.Based on the perspective of multidimensional comparative research,this paper performs a comparative analysis of EUR-ACE system and WA system from five dimensions:historical evolution,organizational structure,accreditation criteria,accreditation procedures and operation mechanism.Taking Russia as an example,an in-depth analysis on its development status,operation mechanism and typical characteristics were documented.The results show that:(1)WA system and EUR-ACE System adhere to the basic working principles of continuous improvement,and follow the evolution process of improving the organizational system,expanding the scope of accreditation and highlighting the international value orientation;(2)Build a four-level linkage organizational structure of decision-making level,management level,service level and execution level,and form an organizational operation mechanism with integrative cooperation,supervision and coordination;(3)The EUR-ACE system adopts the label authorization system,while the WA system implements the member organization authorization system,both of which give the relevant accreditation bodies a high degree of autonomy in accreditation;(4)WA system is related to multilateral agreements,emphasizing the equivalence and comparability of accreditation criteria of participating organizations;The accreditation criteria of various organizations of the EUR-ACE system are more comprehensive and flexible.(5)As a cross member organization of the two certification systems,Russia integrates and absorbs the essence of the two systems and realizes the characteristic construction of the accreditation system to a great extent.Based on the mature experience of the two systems,this paper also discusses future perspectives of the development and innovation of China’s engineering education accreditation.