Engineering Accreditation for the 21st Century: US, Global and Institutional Perspectives

1
Engineering Accreditation for the 21st Century
US, Global and Institutional Perspectives

• Dr. Raman Unnikrishnan, Dean and Professor
• California State University, Fullerton
• College of Engineering and Computer Science
• August 11, 2009

2
Agenda

• Introduction to ABET
• General Criteria
• Program Criteria
• Accreditation Action Statistics
• Selection of Team Chair and Program Evaluators
• Washington Accord
• Mentoring India
• Vietnam and ABET

3
Almost all of the information presented in this
talk related to ABET was obtained from public
sites of ABET. This source is gratefully
acknowledged. The information about Washington
Accord, likewise, is from public sources.
4

• A quest for continuous improvement

• Engineers Council for Professional Development
  (ECPD) 75 years ago
• In 1980, ECPD was renamed the Accreditation Board
  for Engineering and Technology or ABET to more
  accurately describe its emphasis on
  accreditation.
• In 2005, ABET formally changed its name from the
• Accreditation Board for Engineering and
  Technology to ABET, Inc.

5
Original Goals of ECPD

• The ECPDs original focuses were in the following
  areas
• Guidance Supplying information to engineering
  students and potential students.
• Training Developing plans for personal and
  professional development.
• Education Appraising engineering curricula and
  maintaining a list of accredited curricula.
• Recognition Developing methods where-by
  individuals could achieve recognition by the
  profession and the general public.

6
What Is ABET Accreditation? ABET accreditation
is assurance that a college or university program
meets the quality standards established by the
profession for which it prepares its students.
For example, an accredited engineering program
must meet the quality standards set by the
engineering profession. An accredited computer
science program must meet the quality standards
set by the computing profession.
7
ABET accredits postsecondary degree-granting
programs housed within regionally accredited
institutions.  ABET accredits programs only,
not degrees, departments, colleges, or
institutions.
8
(No Transcript)
9
Board of Directors The primary responsibilities
of the Board of Directors are to set policy and
approve accreditation criteria. Commissions The
commissions implement accreditation procedures
and decisions. Program Evaluators (PEVs)
Program evaluators, along with commissioners,
make up ABET's accreditation teams, which visit
and evaluate programs seeking accreditation.
10
Member Societies (These are the lead
organizations) CSAB Computer Science ASCE
Civil Engineering ASME Mechanical
Engineering IEEE Electrical Engineering,
Computer Engineering And others
11

• GENERAL CRITERIA FOR BACCALAUREATE LEVEL PROGRAMS
• Criterion 1. Students (Evaluation of performance,
  advising, curricular adherence)
• Criterion 2. Program Educational Objectives
  (based on the needs of the constituencies are
  they achieved?)
• Criterion 3. Program Outcomes
• Criterion 4. Continuous Improvement
• Criterion 5. Curriculum
• one year of a combination of college level
  mathematics and basic sciences (some with
  experimental experience)
• one and one-half years of engineering topics
• a general education component
• major design experience
• Criterion 6. Faculty (number and quality)
• Criterion 7. Facilities (Classroom and labs)
• Criterion 8. Support (Institutional)
• Criterion 9. Program Criteria (depends on the
  major)

12
Program Outcomes

• Engineering programs must demonstrate that their
  students attain the following outcomes
• an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics,
  science, and engineering
• an ability to design and conduct experiments, as
  well as to analyze and interpret data
• an ability to design a system, component, or
  process to meet desired needs within realistic
  constraints such as economic, environmental,
  social, political, ethical, health and safety,
  manufacturability, and sustainability
• an ability to function on multidisciplinary teams
• an ability to identify, formulate, and solve
  engineering problems
• an understanding of professional and ethical
  responsibility
• an ability to communicate effectively
• the broad education necessary to understand the
  impact of engineering solutions in a global,
  economic, environmental, and societal context
• a recognition of the need for, and an ability to
  engage in life-long learning
• a knowledge of contemporary issues
• an ability to use the techniques, skills, and
  modern engineering tools necessary for
  engineering practice.

13
ABET Terminology

• Deficiency A deficiency indicates that a
  criterion, policy, or procedure is not satisfied.
  Therefore, the program is not in compliance with
  the criterion, policy, or procedure.
• Weakness A weakness indicates that a program
  lacks the strength of compliance with a
  criterion, policy, or procedure to ensure that
  the quality of the program will not be
  compromised. Therefore, remedial action is
  required to strengthen compliance with the
  criterion, policy, or procedure prior to the next
  evaluation.
• Concern A concern indicates that a program
  currently satisfies a criterion, policy, or
  procedure however, the potential exists for the
  situation to change such that the criterion,
  policy, or procedure may not be satisfied.
• Observation An observation is a comment or
  suggestion that does not relate directly to the
  accreditation action but is offered to assist the
  institution in its continuing efforts to improve
  its programs.

14
ABET Actions
NGR (Next General Review) This action indicates
that the program has no deficiencies or
weaknesses. This action is taken only after a
comprehensive general review and has a typical
duration of six years. IR (Interim Report)
This action indicates that the program has one or
more weaknesses. The nature of the weaknesses is
such that an on-site visit will not be required
to evaluate the remedial actions taken by the
institution. A report focusing on the remedial
actions taken by the institution will be
required. This action has a typical duration of
two years. IV (Interim Visit) This action
indicates that the program has one or more
weaknesses. The nature of the weaknesses is such
that an on-site visit will be required to
evaluate the remedial actions taken by the
institution. This action has a typical duration
of two years.
15
ABET Actions
SC (Show Cause) This action indicates that the
program has one or more deficiencies. An on-site
visit will be required to evaluate the remedial
actions taken by the institution. This action has
a typical duration of two years. SE (Show Cause
Extended) -- This action indicates that
satisfactory remedial action has been taken by
the institution with respect to all deficiencies
and weaknesses identified in the prior SC action.
This action is taken only after an interim SC
evaluation. This action typically extends
accreditation to the next general review and,
thus, has a typical duration of either two or
four years. NA (Not to Accredit) -- This action
indicates that the program has deficiencies such
that the program is in continued non-compliance
with the applicable criteria. This action is
usually taken only after a SC evaluation or the
evaluation of a new, unaccredited program.
Accreditation is generally not extended as a
result of this action, except as specified in
Section II.F.9. T (Terminate) This action is
generally taken in response to a request by an
institution that accreditation be extended for a
program that is being phased out. The intent is
to p
16
ABET Actions
RE (Report Extended) This action indicates that
satisfactory remedial action has been taken by
the institution with respect to weaknesses
identified in the prior IR action. This action is
taken only after an IR evaluation. This action
extends accreditation to the next general review
and, thus, has a typical duration of either two
or four years. VE (Visit Extended) -- This
action indicates that satisfactory remedial
action has been taken by the institution with
respect to weaknesses identified in the prior IV
action. This action is taken only after an IV
evaluation. This action extends accreditation to
the next general review and, thus, has a typical
duration of either two or four years.
17
Relationship with shortcomings and Recommended
Actions
NGR There are no deficiencies and no weaknesses.
Concerns are OK. IR There are no deficiencies
but there is a weakness or two. The weaknesses
are such that they can be rectified and the
outcome communicated to ABET via a report.
Concerns are OK. IV There are no deficiencies
but there are multiple weaknesses. The weakness
or weaknesses are of nature that a visit is
needed to verify compliance. Concerns are
OK. Observations do not enter accreditation
actions
18
Post Visit Activities
1. Team Chair sends electronic copies of Short
Form to ABET Headquarters and the Editor. (3
Days) 2. Institution sends 7-day response to
Team Chair and Program Evaluators. In this
response, the institution should reply only to
errors of fact related to shortcomings listed on
the PAF forms that were given to the Dean at the
conclusion of the visit. (7 Days) 3. Team
Chair, in consultation with Program Evaluators,
edits the individual program Exit Interview
statements into a cohesive and consistent Draft
Statement and incorporates the Institution's
7-day response. (10 Days) 4. Team Chair sends
(a) copy of the proposed Draft Statement, (b) the
original completed PAF forms, and (c) original
short form to the designated EAC Editors and
ABET Headquarters. (14 Days)
19
Post Visit Activities
5. EAC Editor 1 edits the formatted Draft
Statement, reviews any changes with the Team
Chair, and forwards this with original PAF's and
original short form with the Editors recommended
action to the EAC Editor 2. (35 Days) 6. EAC
Editor 2 edits the Draft Statement in
consultation with the Editor 1 as appropriate,
indicates the EAC Chairs recommended action on
the original Short Form and sends to ABET
Headquarters. 7. ABET edits, formats, and sends
Draft Statement to the Institution with a letter
signed by the EAC Chair. 8. ABET sends a copy of
the Draft Statement and letter to the Team Chair
and Editors.
20
Post Visit Activities
9. Institution reviews Draft Statement and sends
due-process response to the EAC Chair within 30
days. Institution also sends copies to the Team
Chair, Editor, and ABET Headquarters. 10. Team
Chair revises the Draft Statement and PAF forms
in consultation with Program Evaluators to
reflect changes reported by the Institution in
the due-process response. 11. Team Chair sends
revised Draft Statement and updated original
Short Form and PAF forms to the EAC Editor. Only
the table portion of the PAF is included no
explanation of shortcomings pages are required.
(Within 2 Weeks after receiving the due-process
response) 12. EAC Editor 1 revises Draft
Statement, updates the original Short Form and
PAF forms in consultation with the Team Chair as
needed, and forwards revised Draft Statement and
updated original Short Form and PAF forms to the
EAC Editor 2.
21
Post Visit Activities
13. EAC Editor 2 edits Draft Statement and
updates the original Short Form and PAF forms in
consultation with the Editor as needed, and
forwards to ABET Headquarters. 14. ABET
Headquarters edits the Draft Statement for
presentation to EAC with a copy of the Short
Form. 15. EAC takes final action and makes final
revision to the Draft Statement. 16. ABET
Headquarters formats Final Statement and
transmits to the Institution with accreditation
letter signed by ABET President. 17. Institution
may appeal
22
Citations of Shortcomings Before and After Due
Process (2007-08 Data)
Data from 467 programs at 128 institutions
23
The Washington Accord
Goal Working Together to Advance Benchmarking
and Mobility in the Engineering Profession
24
Brief Background on the Washington Accord

• Originally signed in 1989 by 6 engineering
  education accrediting bodies from
• Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, United
  Kingdom United States
• Non-governmental agreement
• Emphasizes peer-review

25
Brief Background cont.

• Monitoring verification of signatories
  accreditation system every 6 years
• Developmental pathways for provisional admission
  (mature accreditors vs. emerging accreditors)
• Business Meeting of Signatories - every 2 years
• Full signatory status requires unanimous
  agreement

26
Washington Accord

• recognizes the substantial equivalency of
  accreditation systems to assess that the
  graduates of accredited programs are prepared to
  practice engineering at the entry level to the
  profession.

Therefore, the focus is on 4-year
(minimum) Undergraduate programs in engineering.
27
Recognition

• Licensure/registration of graduates from
  recognized programs rests with receiving
  country/jurisdiction
• Signatory encourages the licensing body in its
  own country to accept the substantial equivalence
  of engineering educational programs accredited by
  the other Signatories.
• Programs accredited prior to acceptance of
  accreditor as full Signatory - not recognized
• Facilitates international mobility for engineers
• Provisional status no recognition of programs
  by Signatories

28
Washington Accord

• SIGNATORIES
• Engineers Australia (1989) IPENZ (New Zealand
  -1989)
• Engineers Canada (1989) IES (Singapore 2006)
• HKIE (Hong Kong 1995) IEET (Chinese
  Taipei 2007)
• Engineers Ireland (1989) ECSA (South
  Africa 1999)
• JABEE (Japan - 2005) ECUK (UK
  1989)
• ABEEK (Korea 2007) ABET (USA 1989)
• PROVISIONAL STATUS
• ASIIN (Germany - 2003) BEM (Malaysia - 2003)
• NBA of AICTE (India - 2007) IE Sri Lanka (2007)
• RAEE (Russia 2007)

29
Current Developments

• Adoption of Exemplar for Graduate Attributes and
  Professional Competencies for Engineers,
  Technologists and Technicians
• Mentoring process for developing accreditation
  organizations
• Harmonized rules procedures for Washington
  Accord, Sydney Accord, Dublin Accord
• Several organizations throughout the world have
  expressed interest in joining the Washington
  Accord
• Joint secretariat to manage international accords
  and agreements

30
Current Issues Questions

• Managing changing standards degree levels among
  and between signatories
• Distance education
• Branch campuses across national boundaries

31
How do you measure success?

• Licensing jurisdictions, on the whole, recognize
  the Washington Accord
• Increasing interest in joining by existing
  accreditors
• Increasing interest in developing accreditation
  systems, within countries or regions
• Enhanced international recognition of home
  institutions
• Enhanced mobility of graduates

32

• Slides, once again, thanks to ABET!

33
Mentors findings

• Mentoring India (2009)
• dispassionate observations as friends of India
  and as professionals visiting here to help
  NBA/AICTE

34
Times of India (February 19, 2009)
35
Vietnam and ABET
36
Thank you very much!