4'3 IEEEs letter to ABET

1
4.3 IEEEs letter to ABET The Participation
Project Educational Activities Board 18 February
2006 Scottsdale, AZ USA
David Baker and Moshe Kam
2
Introduction

• IEEE is pleased to provide feedback
• IEEE supports the aims of the PPR.
• We share the beliefin
• The need to elevate the quality of program
  evaluators (PEVs)
• Improve the quality of the training
• Establish evaluation criteria that foster
  continuous improvement.

3
ABET Board of Directors participation

• IEEE recommends that the ABET Board of Directors
  (BoD) discuss the PPR and the October 2005 report
  in some detail.
• We recommend against piecemeal future approval of
  elements of the PPR without discussion of the
  whole project and its long term effects.

4
Reflection of minority views in October 2005
report

• IEEE participants in PPR discussion groups
  expressed strong reservations about some of the
  proposed recommendations.
• However, the final document speaks in one voice
  on all matters, and provides the false impression
  of consensus or even unanimity.
• Minority views and areas of debate and
  disagreement should be highlighted, not
  suppressed, so that the BoD be made aware of them
  and can probe them further.

5
The competency model

• The October 2005 report has done an excellent job
  in identifying the skills and characteristics
  desired in a good program evaluator.
• The competency model clearly articulates these
  desired PEV qualities and represents a major
  positive development.
• The recommendations to use the competency model
  in the recruitment, selection, training and
  evaluation of PEVs are generally good.

6
Changes to Existing Society Processes and
Centralization

• A major shift in responsibilities from the
  societies to the ABET staff and commissions1.
• This policy shift should be clearly identified
  and discussed by the ABET BoD and the societies
  to assure that is desirable.
• Among the potential detriments is the cost it
  would be very expensive for ABET to implement the
  reports centralized approach.
• 1 The term ABET Headquarters appears in the
  document 40 times in 28 pages.

7
Cost

• No basis to the claim that proposal is cost
  neutral

8
Training Proposal

• The recommended training proposal in the October
  2005 report has two purposes.
• Training of new PEVs
• Development of an elaborate new ABET driven
  gateway within the selection process, in
  addition to the existing society-managed gateway.
• Existing, successful training programs are
  planned to be discontinued
• To solve the problems of small societies
• To crate a perfect PEV

9
Additional issues

• One size fits all
• Longer face to face training sessions
• No provision for on-line training
• Mentoring, continuing education
• Access to training limited to prospective PEVs