International Engineering Education Accreditation for Sustainable Career Development: A Comparative Study of Ship Engineering Curricula between China and UK

Abstract

Higher education accreditation within the Washington Accord has played a crucial role in advancing the global recognition of engineering training, greatly benefiting the professional sustainability of graduates. However, the existence of substantial disparities in higher engineering education systems among countries poses challenges for international engineering education accreditation, primarily due to information asymmetry. To address this issue, this study focuses on a comparative analysis of representative undergraduate programs in the field of ship engineering from the Ocean University of China in China and the University of Southampton in the UK. By examining the curriculum systems in the field of ship engineering in both countries, this study aims to shed light on the variations and similarities between the two. Moreover, the study delves into the specific example of the “Marine Engineering English” module to illustrate how an independent module can effectively fulfill the requirements for international recognition in higher engineering education accreditation while also serving the curriculum system. Serving as a significant practical case within the framework of the Washington Accord, this research provides valuable insights for the establishment of engineering education curriculum systems that are aligned with international standards. Ultimately, its findings hold considerable significance for promoting the international recognition of engineering education and fostering sustainable professional development for graduates.

1. Introduction

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has championed the critical role of engineering in achieving sustainable development [1], and established the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development [2] between 2005 and 2014, followed by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [3], which aim to achieve long-term sustainable development by 2030. In addition to the sustainable development of industrial production, it is imperative to prioritize the sustainable development of talent, who play a pivotal role in serving the industry [4]. However, this aspect has not received the necessary attention [5]. Education is widely recognized as a key component in effectively implementing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) [6,7]. Given engineering’s significant influence on the attainment of the SDG [8], this discipline is widely recognized as a pivotal discipline that effectively tackles the challenges of sustainable development while driving progress towards a sustainable future [9,10]. More importantly, in light of engineers’ status as invaluable assets in industrial societies, the pursuit of sustainable development among these professionals takes center stage in talent cultivation. It should be noted that higher engineering education, characterized by its elevated standards and advanced level, serves as a cornerstone for fostering such sustainable professional growth [11]. The International Engineering Alliance (IEA) [12] assumes a pivotal role in facilitating the international recognition of engineering competencies nurtured through higher engineering education across diverse nations. Established in 1998, the IEA operates as a coalition comprising multiple international agencies that are responsible for engineering education accreditation. Its primary objectives encompass enhancing the professional caliber and capabilities of engineers, fostering the formulation and implementation of global engineering education standards, and safeguarding the quality and reputation of engineers worldwide. The IEA accreditation system encompasses three prominent engineering education accreditation agreements, namely the Washington Agreement [13], Sydney Agreement [14], and Dublin Agreement [15], each dedicated to promoting mutual recognition in international engineering education and ensuring the attainment of globally recognized engineering qualifications by graduates.

With member entities spanning the globe, including major industrially developed nations and internationally acclaimed engineering education leaders, the IEA has made substantial contributions to fostering international reciprocity in undergraduate and advanced engineering education. Figure 1 illustrates the divergent vocational qualifications targeted by these three principal engineering education accreditation agreements.

The Washington Agreement, which was established in 1989, focuses primarily on undergraduate engineering education and the subsequent career development of graduates. It holds the distinction of being the earliest-established agreement and boasts the largest number of member units, affording it significant advantages in terms of its scope of influence and international recognition. China signed an agreement to join the Washington Agreement in 2016 [16].

Table 1. Comparison of selected signatory members and accreditation standards under the Washington Accord.

Country/Region	Joining Year	Accreditation Standard	Main Contents
US	1989	EC2000 [17]	Students Program Educational Objectives Graduate Attributes Continuous Improvement Curriculum Faculty Facilities Institutional Support Program Criteria
UK	1989	AHEP 4th Edition [18]	Graduate Attribute Standard (6 General Learning Outcomes) Science and mathematics Engineering analysis Design and innovation The Engineer and society Engineering practice
AUS	1989	AMS-MAN-10 [19]	(a). School Operational Environment: Organizational Structure Faculty, Culture Facilities Funding (b). Program Educational Objectives Program Structure and Implementation Framework Curriculum Engineering Practice (c). Quality System
CHN	2016	EEAC [20]	(a). General Criteria: Students Program Educational Objectives Graduate Requirements Continuous Improvement Curriculum Faculty Support Conditions (b). Program-Specific Criteria

provides a comparison of the main contracting members and accreditation standards within the Washington Agreement.

The accreditation requirements have shaped the education on sustainability in the engineering discipline [4]. To be more specific, the international accreditation of engineering education under the Washington Agreement system and the establishment of the marine engineering discipline on this basis hold great practical significance for the sustainable career development of graduates. Adhering to the standards of the engineering education accreditation system is not only a crucial measure of graduates’ capabilities [21], but also a key foundation for achieving cross-border recognition of their academic qualifications. Marine engineering, as an integral part of the maritime field, requires graduates to possess expertise in marine engineering, ship science, and technology, as well as the ability to think independently and respond effectively to emergencies.

The Engineering Council UK, as one of the founding members of the Washington Agreement, serves as the guiding body for engineering education accreditation. The accreditation of marine engineering education is carried out by IMarEST (Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology), a branch of the Engineering Council UK. The IMarEST engineering education accreditation aims to ensure that marine engineering graduates possess widely recognized professional qualities and abilities on a global scale. Educational institutions are required to undergo various assessments to ensure that their teaching quality, faculty, curriculum, laboratory facilities, and other aspects meet the standards for training qualified engineering professionals. The accreditation upheld by the Washington Agreement has gained significant international recognition and adoption. Prestigious universities specializing in marine engineering, such as the University of Strathclyde, University of Southampton (UOS), University of Newcastle, University College London, and University of Plymouth, have successfully obtained international accreditation from IMarEST. Similarly, in China, leading universities in marine engineering education, including the Ocean University of China (OUC) (2018), Harbin Engineering University (2019), Ningbo University (2020), Dalian Maritime University (2021), and Jiangsu University of Science and Technology (2022), have also obtained IMarEST’s international engineering education accreditation in recent years. The attainment of these accreditations enables graduates to acquire internationally recognized qualifications, thereby enhancing their competitiveness in employment and providing them with global career development opportunities. International accreditation holds immense significance for individual graduates, while also establishing a foundation and guarantee for sustainability in engineering education.

This study presents a detailed comparison of the undergraduate engineering education in the shipbuilding field between China and the UK. The research specifically selects the four-year undergraduate marine engineering (BEng) program from OUC and three-year undergraduate ship science (BEng) program from the UOS as representative case studies, which all received the IMarEST engineering education accreditation. The objective of this study is to compare the curriculum structures of these case studies, analyze the similarities and differences in undergraduate engineering education between China and the UK, and explore their respective characteristics and advantages in engineering talent development. Additionally, using the “Marine Engineering English” module as an example, this study provides a comprehensive explanation of how an independent course can meet the accreditation requirements and align with the overall curriculum framework. This study serves as an important practical case in the transnational accreditation of engineering education within the framework of the Washington Accord. It offers valuable insights for the design of engineering education curriculum systems under the Washington Accord and holds significant implications for promoting the international mutual recognition of engineering education and facilitating the sustainable career development of graduates.

The specific novel contributions in this article can be summarized as follows:

• Summarizing and analyzing the differences and similarities between Chinese and British Ship Engineering courses. Although the main frameworks of ship engineering courses in China and the UK show variations, their core objectives remain focused on meeting the fundamental professional competencies required in the field of ship engineering.
• Providing examples and experiences of course reform in China to align with international accreditation systems. This serves as a valuable guide for other universities seeking international accreditation for their specialized programs.
• Emphasizing the importance of students’ international development by offering practical experiences that enable graduates to obtain internationally recognized qualifications. This international recognition of students’ education is a significant asset for graduates in achieving sustainable careers in a cross-national context, promoting diversity and sustainability in their career paths.

2. Methods

2.1. Accreditation Standards

The essence of international engineering education accreditation lies in evaluating whether the engineering curriculum system can achieve the desired “graduate learning outcomes.” Each member country develops and implements accreditation standards within the Washington Accord framework. In the UK, IMarEST Engineering Education International Accreditation follows the Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes (AHEP), 4th edition [18], as the implemented accreditation standard, with the latest version released on 31 December 2021.

2.2. Curriculum System Design Framework

The essential requirement for international accreditation of a given curriculum system is to establish a comprehensive quality management system that is focused on learning outcomes. A curriculum system that meets international accreditation standards for engineering education should exhibit the following key characteristics:

(1)

Student-Centric Approach: Students are the central focus of the teaching system, and their achievement of learning outcomes (i.e., graduate abilities) serves as the primary objective of the curriculum system;

(2)

Clear Teaching Objectives: Well-defined teaching objectives should be established to reflect the unique disciplinary characteristics of the major;

(3)

Well-Structured Curriculum: A well-designed curriculum system should encompass all the necessary components to enable graduates to achieve their desired abilities;

(4)

High-Quality Teachers and Resources: The curriculum system should be supported by experienced and skilled teachers, as well as appropriate software and hardware resources, ensuring the effective delivery of teaching and maintaining a high level of instruction;

(5)

Continuous Feedback and Improvement: Regular feedback on learning outcomes throughout the teaching process allows for continuous improvement in graduates’ abilities.

It is important to note that the ultimate goal of the curriculum system is to develop graduates’ abilities. Thus, all aspects of the curriculum system, including its design, teaching activities, and resource allocation, should serve this purpose. The curriculum, as the fundamental component of teaching, plays a vital role in supporting the attainment of learning outcomes. Figure 2 provides an overview of the system framework, which includes the following elements:

(1)

Students;

(2)

Programme amis;

(3)

Learning outcomes;

(4)

Feedback and improvement;

(5)

Pragramme structure;

(6)

Teaching staff;

(7)

Supporting condition.

Overall, adhering to these principles and incorporating them into the curriculum system is crucial for achieving the desired learning outcomes and meeting the international accreditation standards for engineering education.

3. Materials

This study aims to conduct a comparative analysis of the undergraduate program curriculum systems in the field of ship engineering between China and the UK, with a specific focus on engineering majors. The selected courses represent prominent examples and have received accreditation from the IMarEST engineering education accreditation system.

In the case of China, the research focuses on the marine engineering major at OUC, which is widely recognized for its specialization in marine-related disciplines. This major follows a four-year undergraduate program, providing a comprehensive educational foundation for students. In the UK, the study includes the three-year undergraduate ship science (BEng) major at the UOS in England, known for its exceptional expertise in marine engineering. This program equips students with the necessary knowledge and skills to excel in the field of ship engineering. Statistical analysis has been deemed an effective method to compare the undergraduate curricula between different countries [21]. Through an in-depth analysis, we aim to identify the similarities and differences in the undergraduate engineering education approaches employed by both countries. Furthermore, we seek to explore the distinctive characteristics and advantages of each country in nurturing and cultivating engineering talent within the ship engineering domain.

3.1. Curriculum Scheme of Marine Engineering (BEng) of OUC

The marine engineering program at OUC spans a duration of four years, and

Table 2. Curriculum Scheme of Marine Engineering (BEng) of OUC [22].

Academic Year	No.	Module Name	Type	Total Required Credit Points	Credit Points	Lecture	Practice	Private	Total	Assessment Method
										Exam	Coursework	Others
Year 1	1	Basics of Law	Compulsory	46	3	48		96	144	70	30
	2	Entrance Training			1		32	32	64			100
	3	Chinese Modern History			2	32		64	96	50		50
	4	Advanced Mathematics II 1			6	96		192	288	75	25
	5	College Chemistry			2	32		64	96	70	30
	6	Introduction to Military Science			2	32		64	96	60		40
	7	Introduction of Marine Engineering			0.5	8		16	24	20	80
	8	Descriptive Geometry and Mechanical Drawing			4	64		128	192	75	25
	9	College English I			2	32		64	96	75	25
	10	College English II			2	32		64	96	75	25
	11	College English III			2	32		64	96	75	25
	12	College English IV			2	32		64	96	75	25
	13	Extended College English Level A Series			2	32		64	96	50	50
	14	Physical Education I			1	4	28	32	64	30		70
	15	Physical Education II			1	4	28	32	64	30		70
	16	Physical Education III			1	4	28	32	64	30		70
	17	Physical Education IV			1	4	28	32	64	30		70
	18	Current Situation and Policy I			0.5	16		16	32			100
	19	Advanced MathematicsII2			0.5	16		16	32	75	25
	20	College Physics II1			4	64		128	192	70	30
	21	College Physics Experiment 1			1.5		48	48	96			100
	22	C Programme Design			4	48	32	128	208	75		25
	23	Computer Aided Drawing			1		32	32	64	20	30	50
Year 2	24	Politics I	Compulsory	48.5	3	48		96	144	70		30
	25	Metalworking Practice			4		64	64	128	10		90
	26	Politics II			3	32		96	128	50	50
	27	Politics III			3	32		96	128	50	50
	28	Linear Algebra			3	48		96	144	70	30
	29	College Physics II 2			4	64		128	192	70	30
	30	College Physics Experiment 2			1.5		48	48	96			100
	31	Theoretical Mechanics			4	64		128	192	90	10
	32	Engineering Thermodynamics			2.5	32	16	80	128	82	18
	34	Introduction to Naval Architechture and Ocean Engineering			2	32		64	96	90	10
	35	Current Situation and Policy II			0.5	16		16	32			100
	36	Probability and Statistics			4	64		128	192	80	20
	37	Ship Drawing			1		32	32	64	90	10
	38	Mechanics of Materials			3	46	4	96	146	80	20
	39	Engineering Fluid Mechanics			3	46	4	96	146	90	10
	40	Mechanism and Machine Theory			2.5	32		80	112	70	30
	41	Electrical and Electronic Engineering			4	64		128	192	100
	42	Electrical and Electronic Experiments			0.5		16	16	32			100
	33	Interchangeability and Measuring Technique	Optional	-	2	29	6	64	99	100
Year 3	43	Recognition Practice	Compulsory	31	2		32	64	96	20		80
	44	Electrical and Electronics Practice			1		16	32	48	15		85
	45	Ship Design			2	32		64	96	90	10
	46	Mechanical Design			2.5	32	16	80	128	65	15	20
	47	Heat Transfer			3	46	4	96	146	70	30
	49	Theory of Automatic Control			2	32		64	96	80	20
	50	Engineering Measurement Technology			3	44	8	96	148	80		20
	51	Calculation Method and Its Application			1		32	32	64		40	60
	52	Engineering Material and Fundamental of Mechanical Manufacture			2.5	32	16	80	128	70	15	15
	53	Marine Power Plant			3	48		96	144	80	20
	54	Marine Diesel Engine			3	48		96	144	90	10
	55	Marine Auxiliary Machinery			3	48		96	144	90	10
	56	Marine Electrical Equipment and System			3	48		96	144	90	10
	48	Ocean Engineering Environment	Optional	-	2	32		64	96	20	30	50
	57	Hydraulic and Pneumatic Transmission			3	44	8	96	148	80	20
	58	Management of Industrial Enterprise			1.5	16	16	48	80	85	15
	59	Communication and Engineering Writing			1		32	32	64		50	50
Year 4	60	Manufacturing Practice	Compulsory	26.5	4		64	64	128			100
	61	Design Project for Marine Power Plant			2		32	64	96			100
	63	Marine Engineering Automation			2	32		64	96	90	10
	64	Marine Engineering Professional English			1.5	16	16	48	80	50	35	15
	67	Marine Auxiliary machinery Experiments			1		16	16	32		90	10
	68	Diesel Engine Disassembling Experiments			1		16	16	32		90	10
	69	Internal Combustion Engine Principle Experiments			1		16	16	32		90	10
	71	Graduate Practice			2		32	64	96		80	20
	72	Graduate project (Paper or Design)			12		144		144			100
	62	Development and application of ocean renewable energy	Optional	-	2	32		64	96		60	40
	65	Technology of Marine Engineering Equipment			3	40	6	96	142		35	65
	66	Ship Management			2	32		64	96	70	30
	70	Energy Management System Design			1		32	32	64		85	15

presents a comprehensive list of the major modules. The module design follows a coherent structure that unfolds over the module of the program. In the first year, particular emphasis is placed on foundational public modules, encompassing subjects such as law, mathematics, foreign language, physics, chemistry, and various other general education subjects. As students progress into the second year, the curriculum transitions to focus primarily on imparting fundamental knowledge and skills in the professional domain. The third and fourth years predominantly feature advanced professional modules, providing students with a specialized understanding of the field.

3.2. Curriculum Scheme of Ship Science (BEng) of UOS

The ship science (BEng) program at the UOS follows a structured three-year curriculum, and a comprehensive list of the key modules can be found in

Table 3. Curriculum Scheme of Ship Science (BEng) of UOS [23,24,25].

Academic Year	No.	Module Name	Type	Total Required CATS	CATS Points	Lecture	Tutorial	Practice	Private	Assessment Method
										Exam	Coursework	Others
Year 1	1	An Introduction to Engineering Design	Compulsory	120	30	27		38	235	100
	2	Basic Naval Architecture			15	41	15		94	100
	3	Electrical and Electronics Systems			15	58			92	100
	4	Engineering Mathematics Workshop			0	0	144		0	100
	5	Mathematics for Engineering and the Environment			15	1			149	100
	6	Mechanics, Structures and Materials			30	69	15	12	204	100
	7	ThermoFluids			15	40	46		64	100
Year 2	8	Engineering Management and Law	Compulsory	120	15	36		2	112			100
	9	Hydrodynamics			15	36			123	60	40
	10	Materials and Structures			15	36	10	6	98	65	35
	11	Mathematics for Engineering and the Environment Part II			15	48			102	100
	12	Ship Design and Economics			15	24			126	60	40
	13	Ship Resistance and Propulsion			15	35	7		108	70	30
	14	Ship Structural Design and Production			15	24	9	24	93	73	27
	15	Systems Design and Computing for Ships			15	9		40	101	50	50
Year 3	16	Individual Project	Compulsory	120	30	10	20		270		90	10
	17	Marine Craft Concept Design			15	16			134	100
	18	Marine Engineering			15	28	5	1	116	25	75
	19	Marine Hydrodynamics			15	27			123	70	30
	20	Marine Structures			15	26		10	114	70	30
	21	Ship Manoeuvring and Control			15	36		3	111	70	30
	22	Finite Element Analysis in Solid Mechanics	Optional		15	36			114	50	50
	23	Management Science for Engineers			15	24	10		116	70		30
	24	Manufacturing and Materials			15	24	12	3	111	70	30
	25	Yacht and High Performance Craft			15	18	3	4	125	80	20

. The module design adheres to a systematic approach, where the first year primarily focuses on laying the groundwork through major foundational modules.

3.3. Curriculum Scheme Comparision of Ship/Marine Engineering (BEng) between China and UK

In order to demonstrate the representativeness of the selected courses from OUC and UOS, we conducted a survey of universities in China and the UK that offer ship/marine engineering majors. The comparative results are presented in

Table 4. Comparison of the module of ship/marine engineering in China and UK typical universities.

Country	University	Module Numbers	Module Credits	Stages
China	Ocean University of China	70	152	4
	Ningbo University [26]	72	164	4
	Guangdong Ocean University [27]	78	160	4
UK	University of Southampton	25	360	3
	University of Plymouth [28]	19	360	3
	Newcastle University [29]	23	360	3

. The comparative analysis reveals that the ship engineering programs in the two nations operate under distinct systems, yet institutions within the same country share similar module structures and credit allocations. As a result, this paper selects the Ocean University of China (OUC) and the University of Southampton (UOS) as representative examples of ship engineering in China and Britain, respectively. These choices lend a certain degree of representativeness and persuasiveness to our research, enabling us to draw meaningful insights and conclusions from the comparison.

4. Comparative Analysis Results and Discussion

According to Figure 2, the curriculum of marine engineering (BEng) of the OUC is comprised of a majority of compulsory modules, supplemented by a limited number of elective modules, totaling 168 credit points (comprising 155.5 points for compulsory modules and 12.5 points for optional modules). The program’s overall class hours amount to 7774, including 1910 lecture hours, 1000 practice hours, and 4864 self-study hours.

For the ship science (BEng) curriculum of the UOS, it is found that, as students progress into the second and third years, the curriculum transitions to encompass specialized professional modules tailored to the field of study. The range of modules is constituted by a majority of compulsory subjects and supplemented by a select number of elective modules, resulting in a total credit score of 360 points. The program entails a total of 4203 class hours, distributed among various instructional formats. This includes 729 lecture hours, which provide theoretical foundations, 143 h of practical sessions to foster hands-on skills, and 3035 private study hours to facilitate self-directed learning and the consolidation of knowledge.

Figure 3 and Figure 4 show the allocation of teaching hours in marine engineering (BEng) of the OUC and ship science (BEng) of the UOS. Each module has been meticulously counted and is presented.

In general, the ship science (BEng) program at the UOS follows a shorter academic system and offers a smaller number of modules. However, each module within the program entails a greater number of hours and can function independently as a cohesive unit. Unlike the marine engineering (BEng) program at the OUC, the ship science (BEng) program at Southampton University does not concentrate on law, mathematics, and physics public modules in the first year. Instead, these subjects are dispersed throughout both the first and second years, with there being a relatively smaller proportion of the total class hours dedicated to public modules. In contrast, the marine engineering (BEng) program at the OUC provides a greater number of specialized modules, forming a comprehensive module grouping system. Additionally, a significant portion of the first year is dedicated to public modules, covering various subject areas.

Figure 5 presents a comprehensive comparison of the assessment methods employed in ship science (BEng) at the UOS and marine engineering (BEng) at the OUC. At the OUC, the assessment method for courses predominantly comprises exams, accounting for 71.32% of the assessment weightage, followed by coursework at 23.08%, and other categories at 5.60%. In contrast, the assessment method at the UOS places greater emphasis on tests, constituting 49.40% of the assessment weightage, while coursework comprises 22.40%, and other categories account for 28.19%. This comparative analysis highlights the divergent approaches to evaluating student performance in the two programs.

Figure 6 presents a comparative analysis of the distribution of teaching hours between marine engineering (BEng) at the OUC and ship science (BEng) at the UOS. The proportion of teaching hours allocated to marine engineering (BEng) at the OUC is 24.81%, which is slightly higher than the 17.34% allocated to ship science (BEng) at the UOS. Notably, ship science (BEng) at the UOS assigns a higher proportion of teaching hours to private study. The most significant disparity lies in the allocation of practice hours, which accounts for 12.82% in marine engineering (BEng) at the OUC, while in ship science (BEng) at the UOS, practice represents 3.40% and tutorial accounts for 7.04% of the teaching hours. This discrepancy can be attributed to the OUC’s inclusion of a greater number of experimental, internship, and practical training modules, whereas the UOS has incorporated specialized tutorial modules to facilitate student learning.

Overall, the distribution of teaching hours in undergraduate engineering programs in China and the UK demonstrates both similarities and differences, which reflect distinct curriculum design principles in the respective educational systems. Firstly, Chinese engineering programs prioritize structured instruction, resulting in a reduced duration of private study, whereas British engineering programs emphasize self-guided learning through a greater allocation of private study hours. Secondly, engineering programs in China place a significant emphasis on practical experience, which is evident in the inclusion of numerous laboratory experiments, internships, and practical training modules. In contrast, UK engineering programs have dedicated teaching modules in the form of tutorials, which are typically integrated into lecture modules in China.

China’s course clusters offer in-depth specialization and a comprehensive foundation, while the UK’s large course system fosters self-directed learning and a diverse range of skills. Both approaches have their advantages, depending on the students’ learning preferences and goals. The differences in the course structures of marine engineering programs in China and the UK can be inspiring to one another, as they represent different approaches to education with unique advantages. These differences can offer valuable insights and opportunities for improvement in both systems.

From China’s perspective: The UK’s large course approach can inspire Chinese educators to explore more flexible and student-centered learning methods. Allowing students to have more autonomy in course selection and self-directed learning can promote creativity, critical thinking, and a deeper sense of ownership in their education. Emphasizing the UK’s focus on self-discipline and self-learning can encourage Chinese educators to find ways to foster these qualities in their students. Developing students’ ability to take initiative and responsibility in their learning can enhance their long-term success and adaptability in a rapidly changing world.

From the UK’s perspective: China’s course clusters could inspire UK educators to consider a more specialized and comprehensive approach to certain disciplines. Providing detailed and thorough curriculum frameworks may help students in the UK to gain deeper expertise in specific fields, which could be advantageous for certain industries and professions. Learning from China’s emphasis on foundational subjects like foreign languages, physical education, and mathematics could encourage UK educators to review and strengthen the foundational aspects of their courses. A solid foundation can better prepare students for advanced studies and professional challenges.

Overall, cross-cultural exchanges of educational practices can stimulate innovative thinking and improvements in both systems, ultimately benefiting students’ learning experiences and skill development. By embracing the strengths of each other’s approaches, educational institutions can create more effective and well-rounded programs for their students.

5. Practical Research under the Framework of International Engineering Education Accreditation

Designing a curriculum that aligns with international accreditation requirements is crucial for achieving mutual recognition in engineering education. The AHEP framework, as defined by IMarEST in the UK, sets standards for engineering education with the ultimate aim of producing graduates who meet the training level required for the “Chartered Engineer” career development goal recognized by the British Engineering Society. These standards outline six general requirements for student learning outcomes (LO) at the undergraduate level. In China, the implementation of the “Engineering Education Accreditation Standards” domestically, in line with the Washington Agreement, ensures substantial equivalence with the above-mentioned requirements. Consequently, the curriculum objectives share the same connotations between the two accreditation systems. However, due to differences in the implementation rules of Chinese and English accreditation standards, it is crucial to develop course outlines and construct courses within the accreditation framework to meet international accreditation standards and undergo accreditation review.

5.1. Curriculum Design for the Single Module

The essence of accreditation lies in aligning the syllabus with the Output Standards Matrix. Failure to reform the frontline curriculum or adhere to the accreditation requirements in terms of curriculum objectives, content, methods, and assessments would hinder the achievement of accreditation goals. Moreover, international accreditation standards prioritize the attainment of students’ abilities as the primary evaluation criterion. The focus is not solely on completing input-based tasks but rather on demonstrating the output that reflects students’ abilities. Consequently, establishing teaching approaches that effectively reflect students’ ability output becomes another significant consideration in constructing international accreditation curriculum standards.

In light of these considerations, this project aims to conduct a systematic study of the IMarEST international accreditation standard in the UK, with a specific focus on the “Marine Engineering English” course. The goal is to develop a comprehensive set of practical case studies that exemplify closed-loop quality standards for the curriculum system. These standards will be achieved through course construction, student abilities, and adherence to international accreditation standards. This course is part of the OUC curriculum reform, which aims to align with international accreditation standards and enhance the internationalization of the curriculum. Its instructional objective is to provide English-taught modules in a Chinese-language context, which is not available within the UK’s educational system. By using this course as an example, the article emphasizes how internationalized education under the Chinese system can achieve LOs through teaching specialized knowledge, thus serving as a bridging course under the international accreditation framework. “Marine Engineering English” is a compulsory course for students majoring in marine engineering, and the corresponding graduate capabilities it supports are illustrated in Figure 7.

5.2. Teaching Design for the Single Module

To meet the basic requirements of understanding cutting-edge technologies in marine engineering, enhancing foreign language and international communication skills, and promoting lifelong learning abilities, the teaching process of this module needs to be carefully designed. As illustrated in Figure 8, the following methods are employed in the instructional process of this module. Firstly, the selection of teaching materials is integrated with the latest technologies to enhance students’ understanding of the most up-to-date information, development status, and trends in marine engineering, fostering their international perspectives. Secondly, an “Individual Presentation” segment is organized, employing small group collaboration and topic-based assignments with moderate restrictions. This approach combines open discussions and debates to enhance students’ abilities in literature research, information retrieval, foreign language proficiency, communication, cooperation, and competition. Additionally, the inclusion of an all-English course paper further strengthens students’ skills in literature research and English writing. Furthermore, the module is delivered in English with supplementary explanations in Chinese, striking a balance between cultivating students’ English proficiency and comprehension abilities, while also fostering their professional English listening and reading skills.

In the context of curriculum instruction, it is of the utmost importance to integrate the cultivation of sustainable development competencies within the applied teaching methodologies. This encompasses the incorporation of essential skills such as active learning [30,31], critical thinking, self-awareness, and problem-solving abilities [32]. Moreover, it also necessitates the encouragement of multi-dimensional thinking, diverse approaches, and the development of independent learning skills [33]. In addition, it is beneficial to carry out the teaching activities on the basis of the student-centered principle [34]. Such inclusion of sustainable development abilities in teaching practices enhances the overall effectiveness and academic value of the curriculum. Therefore, for practical implementation, we have designed the following speech topics:

(1)

Introduction of marine engineering:

• Different types of ships;
• Different types of marine engine and its application;
• Different types of marine diesel engine and its application.

(2)

Principle of marine diesel engine:

• The differences between diesel engine and gasoline engine—A review study;
• The differences between two-stroke and four-stroke diesel engine.

(3)

The turbocharging technology;

(4)

Heat exchanger—different types and its application on shipboard.

Figure 9 presents a sample of the grading criteria utilized during the speech teaching process. The scoring criteria distinguishably assess the students’ learning outcomes (LO) to evaluate their genuine attainment of abilities.

5.3. Practical Results and Discussion

Figure 10 presents the grades obtained during the speech teaching process in the “Marine Engineering English” module. In practice, the majority of the students demonstrated commendable performances, with an overall normalized average score of 80.59% representing their average achievement. However, it is worth noting that the students exhibited weaker performance in the “fluency of expression” aspect, as indicated by a normalized average score of 70.11%. This highlights the specific area of weakness in the course, namely “foreign language and technical communication skills” corresponding to the “5.b” category of the Output Standards Matrix. Nonetheless, despite this observation, the students still reached a satisfactory level of proficiency in this aspect. By employing such concrete teaching practices and evaluating students’ academic performances in terms of learning outcomes (LO), this module effectively supports the attainment of the Output Standards Matrix within the entire curriculum development system.

6. Perspective in Promoting Sustainability in Engineering Education

The research comparing the course structures of marine engineering programs in China and the UK have played a role in promoting sustainability in engineering education itself in the following ways:

• Global Perspective: By examining and comparing the educational approaches of two countries, the research highlights the importance of adopting a global perspective in engineering education. Promoting an international outlook can encourage collaboration, knowledge exchange, and the incorporation of best practices from different educational systems to enhance sustainability in engineering education.
• Curriculum Innovation: This research’s findings can inspire educators to reconsider and update their curriculum to address sustainability challenges and developments in the field of engineering. By identifying the strengths and weaknesses of different educational models, institutions can design courses that encompass sustainable practices and prepare students to tackle environmental and societal issues in their future careers.
• Sustainability Integration: This research may encourage the integration of sustainability principles across different courses within engineering programs. By emphasizing sustainability-related topics throughout the curriculum, students can develop a holistic understanding of the impact of engineering on the environment and society, leading to more responsible and sustainable engineering practices.
• Cross-Cultural Learning: By understanding the educational practices of different countries, educators can promote cross-cultural learning experiences for students. Encouraging international exchanges, collaborative projects, and learning from diverse perspectives can foster a deeper appreciation for sustainable engineering solutions that transcend geographical boundaries.
• Professional Development: This research’s insights into different accreditation systems and educational standards can guide engineering institutions in aligning their programs with international requirements. This can enhance the recognition and mobility of graduates on the global stage, promoting a sustainable and skilled workforce in the engineering industry.

Overall, the research comparing Chinese and British marine engineering courses can contribute to the ongoing efforts to make engineering education more sustainable by encouraging adaptation, innovation, and a broader view of sustainability’s importance in shaping the future of engineering practices.

7. Conclusions

The research findings of this study highlight the significant impact of higher education accreditation on the professional sustainability of graduates. This study aims to objectively compare and analyze the undergraduate ship engineering programs offered by the Ocean University of China and the University of Southampton. Through a comprehensive examination of their curriculum structures, this research identifies both similarities and differences between the two countries’ programs. Moreover, this study presents the case of the “Marine Engineering English” module as an exemplar, demonstrating how an independent module can meet international recognition requirements in higher education engineering accreditation while aligning with the broader curriculum framework. The key conclusions drawn from this research are as follows.

Ship engineering programs in China and the UK exhibit distinct differences in their curriculum structures. However, their core objectives remain focused on meeting the fundamental professional competencies required in the field of ship engineering. The implementation of module teaching activities based on the Output Standards Matrix effectively supports students in achieving their learning outcomes.

The differences in curriculum approaches between China and the UK can inspire mutual learning. Chinese programs’ emphasis on practical aspects and extensive practical training can inspire UK educators to consider incorporating more hands-on learning experiences. Conversely, the UK’s encouragement of self-directed study and tutorial-style teaching may prompt Chinese institutions to explore more student-centered and independent learning methods.

These findings provide valuable insights for sustainability and aid institutions seeking to align engineering programs with international accreditation standards. Future research focusing on long-term graduate follow-ups can further enhance graduates’ career sustainability and foster continuous improvement in engineering education.