A Comparison of the CDIO and EUR-ACE Quality Assurance Systems

Abstract

The CDIO approach intends to raise the quality of engineering education programs, world-wide. Thus, CDIO includes a number of quality assurance (QA) tools such as the CDIO Standards, Syllabus and self-evaluation model. CDIO programmes are also evaluated by external standards. Therefore, a CDIO programme needs a quality assurance system that fulfils external requirements and that is able to produce the necessary evidence and documentation with minimal additional effort above and beyond the CDIO QA components. Efficient execution of this task requires understanding the similarities and differences between the CDIO and external quality assurance systems, in this case, the European Accreditation of Engineering Programmes (EUR-ACE) system. This article compares and contrasts these two QA approaches, in particular the CDIO Syllabus and the EUR-ACE programme outcomes and the CDIO Standards and EUR-ACE accreditation criteria. Also considered are he pros and cons of a continuous improvement rating scale based system and a threshold-based accreditation model.