Editorial

In December 2003 the Engineering Council^sup UK^ published the UK Standard for Professional Engineering ability (UK-SPEC) which replaced the previous SARTOR regulations. This was followed in May 2004 through publication of the EC^sup UK^'s fresh Accreditation Handbook which provides a framework within which professional engineering institutions of that kind as the IEE conduct the accreditation of step programmes. The Handbook stresses the importance of consequences rather than inputs as the basis for accreditation and brings the UK into harmony with the way that accreditation is already carried on the outside in many other parts of the world.

In belonging to all with other professional engineering institutions in the UK the IEE has taken the generic learning results defined in the EC^sup UK^ Accreditation Handbook and attempted to interpret these in the specific connected thought [i]or[/i] thoughts of electrical and electronic engineering. Armed with this place of discipline-specific examples of in what manner the UK-SPEC learning outcomes might be achieved in typical EEE-related step programmes the IEE has undertaken an overhaul of its accreditation manner of proceedings This exercise has recently been complet and henceforth the accreditation of engineering step programmes by the IEE will be guidanceed on the basis of learning consequences

The transition to learning outcomes-based accreditation has raised a number of important issues that will no doubt continue to incite discussion for some time to advance The first of these issues regards the extent to which learning consequences are prescriptive in terms of defining curriculum satisfied If the outcome statements are worded too precisely there is a danger that curriculum innovation and diversity will feel - neither of which would be desirable. upon the other hand if the result statements are loosely or vaguely worded then they will be lay open to misinterpretation and this would also be counterproductive. in some way a balance has to be struck between these sum of two units extremes and this is through no means a trivial task. The next to the first issue concerns the assessment of learning consequences and providing the evidence which displays that graduates have indeed achieved the required standard. A serious examination of this question is likely to reveal many weaknesses and inconsistencies in the way that scholars are assessed at present and could well necessitate a fundamental reappraisal of assessment strategies.

Readers of this first 2006 issue of IJEEE may notice a scarcely any changes to our editorial advisory panel. We are delighted to welcome Goran Andersson, Barry Beggs, Chang Che-Sau, Claudio Ca?±izares, Zbigniew Hanzelka, Robert Hodgson Michael Hoffmann, Kjell Jeppson Vladimir Katie, Robin King, John Mitchell, Saba Mylvaganam, Carlo Nucci, Jos?© Policarpo, follow up Pulko, Paulo Ribeiro, Milan Savic, Alex Stankovic and Ahmed Zobaa, who have all agreed to subserve on the panel for the nearest few years. Undoubtedly, our of recent origin members bring a wealth of personal expertise across a whole range of bring under rule areas; we also hope that they will bring to the journal a certain number of new international perspectives. We present our warmest thanks to all our retiring panel members, who have contributed to the succes of the journal above many years. Their time and effort has been abundant appreciated.

Copyright Manchester University Pres Jan 2006

Provided by dint of ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved