Peer Evaluation of Master Programs: Closing the Quality Circle of the CDIO Approach?

A quality assurance project was conducted within the framework of the Nordic Five Tech Alliance (N5T), a strategic alliance of the five leading technical universities in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. The project concerned the development of a common quality enhancement tool for conducting peer evaluations of educational programs to enable their further development and close the quality circle. In addition, the project will contribute to the consolidation of the N5T alliance by facilitating contacts between faculty members and providing them with an in-depth knowledge of the study programs within their field at another N5T institution. The article describes the quality enhancement tool in detail, its contribution to the development of the involved programs, and how international peer evaluation can contribute to closing the quality circle. Finally, it assesses the value of the approach to contribute to the creation of long-term relationships in educational networks.

[1]  J. I. Reppun.  Peer Review , 2014, MTZ worldwide.

[2]  Johan Malmqvist,et al.  Rethinking Engineering Education - The CDIO Approach , 2007 .

[3]  D. Westerheijden,et al.  International Aspects of Quality Assurance with a Special Focus on European Higher Education , 2001 .

[4]  Catherine Ashcraft,et al.  Deliberative Democratic Evaluation: Successes and Limitations of an Evaluation of School Choice , 2005, Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education.

[5]  Ernest R. House,et al.  Deliberative democratic evaluation , 2000 .

[6]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity , 1998 .

[7]  Frank Fischer,et al.  The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning , 1993 .

[8]  M. Grant,et al.  Communities of practice. , 2020, Health progress.

[9]  Guy Haug,et al.  Quality Assurance/Accreditation in the Emerging European Higher Education Area: a possible , 2003 .

[10]  Peter J. Gray,et al.  CDIO Standards and Quality Assurance: From Application to Accreditation , 2012, Int. J. Qual. Assur. Eng. Technol. Educ..

[11]  Peter J. Gray,et al.  The Background of Quality Assurance in Higher Education and Engineering Education , 2009 .

[12]  F. Marton,et al.  The University of Learning. Beyond Quality and Competence in Higher Education. , 2013 .

[13]  Christina Rozsnyai,et al.  Quality Assurance Before and After ‘Bologna’ in the Central and Eastern Region of the European Higher Education Area with a Focus on Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland , 2003 .

[14]  E. Wenger.  Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity , 1998 .

[15]  Donald F. Westerheijden,et al.  Systemic adaptation to a changing environment: Towards a next generation of quality assurance models , 2002 .

[16]  Peter Munkebo Hussmann,et al.  Peer Evaluation of Master Programs: Closing the Quality Circle of the CDIO Approach? , 2011, Int. J. Qual. Assur. Eng. Technol. Educ..

[17]  Bruce Jennings,et al.  Counsel and Consensus: Norms of Argument in Health Policy , 1993 .

[18]  L. Harvey.  A History and Critique of Quality Evaluation in the UK. , 2005 .

[19]  Taina Saarinen,et al.  ‘Quality’ in the Bologna Process: from ‘competitive edge’ to quality assurance techniques , 2005 .

[20]  E. Boyer.  Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate , 1990 .

[21]  Li Qiu-lian.  Optimizing the Quality Assurance System of Fulfillment Ability Training on the Basis of CDIO Concept in Engineering Education , 2013 .