Foreward to the EFCE Bologna Recommendations

by the EFCE Scientific Vice-President

Europe's educational system is going through what may be its greatest change since the invention of the university in Italy in the eleventh century AD. This is particularly true for all the new degree programs that are being created within what is colloquially known as the "Bologna Process". The Bologna declaration in 1999 was the start of the introduction of a three cycle degree system in Higher Education in Europe. Nowadays many European universities have adopted this degree structure.

The document which follows is the culmination of many years' work to assist institutions delivering degrees in chemical engineering and their accrediting bodies. The Working Party on Education (WPE) of the European Federation of Chemical Engineering (EFCE) firstly carried out research to determine the contents of higher education in chemical engineering, and related disciplines such as applied chemistry and process engineering, throughout Europe. Further work was required to determine the minimum set of subjects required to define a course as chemical engineering and the level of achievement which might reasonably be expected at different levels. For example programmes comprising hardly any mention of subjects so fundamental for the profession as, for example, thermodynamics, fluid mechanics transport phenomena, separation techniques or reaction engineering, should not be recognised as chemical engineering, irrespective of the name of the course or the standing of the institution¹.

The outcome of this was a set of recommendations for first and second cycle in chemical engi-neering education aligned with the Bologna Process, published in 2005 . This was widely wel-comed and many bodies in different countries used the EFCE recommendations as a basis for their "new" chemical engineering curricula. Since this time, the Working Party has taken note of (and some members have been involved in) further developments in harmonization of European higher education. I should particularly note the Leuven Communiqué of April 2009, which included the statements: "We reassert the importance of the teaching mission of higher education institutions and the necessity for ongoing curricular reform geared toward the development of learning outcomes. ... Academics, in close cooperation with student and employer representatives, will continue to develop learning outcomes and international reference points for a growing number of subject areas." On national and international level many accreditation bodies also defined quality frameworks and learning outcomes for programmes in the field of engineering, including chemical engineering.

Now the EFCE has revised the recommendations in order to strengthen the outcome orientation, and has added a description of outcomes for the third cycle. Being aware of the various cultures in the European countries and wide variety of fields in which a chemical engineer may complete a doctorate, the third cycle is focussed on more general learning outcomes. However, these are considered in addition to the more specific first and second cycle proposals.

At this point a few words of comment seem appropriate:
The Federation has no intention to enforce any ready made teaching programmes on the institutions of higher learning, or to hinder the development of new concepts of study. The Working Party on Education is very much aware of and involved in new methods of education, and appreciates the new topic which may be legitimately brought into a chemical engineering course. Tables of course content and credits are given as exemplars, not requirements, and in any case only amount to two-thirds of the study time. However, we do not believe there is much which could be omitted from this core without bringing into question the validity of the course as a chemical engineering qualification. We also recognise that people may take other routes, e.g. by conversion from cognate disciplines, but should expect to achieve most of these core outcomes in their overall education.

It is hoped that these revised EFCE recommendations will help institutions of higher education to educate young chemical Engineers in all three cycles who are capable of solving those problems we will face in tomorrow's Europe.

Dr. Hermann J. Feise
EFCE Scientific Vice-President

-----------------------------------

¹ EFCE Bologna Recommendations 2005

² Communiqué of the Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education, Leuven and Louvain-la-Neuve, 28-29 April 2009: http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/conference/documents/Leuven_Louvain-la-Neuve_Communiqué_April_2009.pdf

Back to Bologna Recommendations