Engineering Education Policymaking in Cross-National Context : A Critical Analysis of Engineering Education Accreditation in China
Engineering Education Policymaking in Cross-National Context : A Critical Analysis of Engineering Education Accreditation in China
复制标题
跨国背景下的工程教育政策制定:对中国工程教育认证的批判性分析
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2014
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Qin Zhu
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Qin Zhu
在制定支持教育未来工程师以满足国内需求并实现全球流动的政策时，中国决策者使用的一个主要策略是“政策借用”。然而，这种方法的一个主要挑战是，中国政策制定者没有深刻反思中国与政策借用国之间的文化差异。本文探讨了中国工程教育的一个特殊方面-即工程教育认证-并质疑中国在制定和实施认证政策方面的高度务实的做法。本文认为，从历史上看，这种实用主义的方法是最好的理解与儒家思想和中国马克思主义的影响。此外，我们注意到，务实的做法从两个方面塑造了决策过程。首先，由于缺乏一个预先存在的认证模型，务实的方法作为决定采用ABET的认证框架作为可操作的“启动模板”的基础，但没有完全挑战ABET的基本思想，概念和假设。其次，通过对中美两国工程教育认证协会（CEEAA）、ABET等相关机构发布的政策文件、报告和评论的比较，本文发现，中国的政策制定者以务实的态度为基础，对ABET认证过程进行了一系列的“修改”，以确保所产生的政策与社会主义意识形态相一致。这些修改的理由也进行了讨论，包括如何从社会主义意识形态的角度来证明它们是合理的。本文借鉴教育批判理论和比较教育政策问题研究的相关方法，指出了中国实用主义教育政策研究的一些重要局限性或弱点，如校际不平等、思想教育与专业教育的紧张关系以及自主决策面临的挑战。最后，本文提出了一些政策建议，包括讨论中国背景下工程教育决策中最突出的历史文化因素。本文的主要读者包括对比较教育研究、工程教育政策制定和中国工程教育当前趋势等主题感兴趣的工程教育工作者和工程研究学者。
In creating policies that support educating future engineers to meet both domestic needs and enable global mobility, a major strategy used by Chinese policymakers is “policy borrowing.” Yet one major challenge with this approach is that Chinese policymakers have not deeply reflected on the cultural differences between China and the countries from which they are borrowing policy. This paper examines a particular aspect of engineering education in China – namely engineering education accreditation – and interrogates China’s highly pragmatic approach in developing and implementing accreditation policies. This paper argues that historically this pragmatic approach is best understood in relation to influences from both Confucianism and Chinese Marxism. Additionally, we observe that the pragmatic approach shaped the policymaking process in two ways. First, given the lack of a pre-existing accreditation model, the pragmatic approach served as the basis for the decision to adopt ABET’s accreditation framework as an actionable “startup template,” but without fully challenging ABET’s fundamental ideas, concepts, and assumptions. Second, by comparing policy documents, reports, and commentaries released by CEEAA (Chinese Engineering Education Accreditation Association), ABET, and other related agencies in the United States and China, this paper shows that the pragmatic approach was employed by Chinese policymakers as the basis for making a series of “revisions” to the ABET accreditation process to ensure that the resulting policies are aligned with socialist ideology. The rationale for these revisions is also discussed, including how they are justified from a socialist ideological perspective. Drawing on critical theories of education and related methods of studying comparative education policy issues, this paper points out some important limitations or weaknesses in China’s pragmatic approach, such as intercollegiate inequalities, tensions between ideological education and professional education, and challenges to autonomous accrediting. The paper closes with some policy recommendations, including a discussion of historical-cultural factors most salient for engineering education policymaking in the Chinese context. The main audience for this paper includes engineering educators and engineering studies scholars interested in topics such as comparative educational research, engineering education policymaking, and current trends in Chinese engineering education.