Evaluation of Engineering Criteria 2000 EC2000: Survey Results

1
Evaluation of Engineering Criteria 2000 (EC2000)
Survey Results Educational Activities Board 18
February 2006 Scottsdale, AZ USA
Elena Gerstmann, Ph.D., CAE Director, Strategic
Research Planning Corporate Strategy
Communications e.gerstmann_at_ieee.org
2
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.
• The revolution of EC2000 was its focus on what
  is learned rather than what is taught. At its
  core was the call for a continuous improvement
  process informed by the specific mission and
  goals of individual institutions and programs.
  Lacking the inflexibility of earlier
  accreditation criteria, EC2000 meant that ABET
  could enable program innovation rather than
  stifling it, as well as encourage new assessment
  processes and subsequent program improvement.

Source http//www.abet.org/the_basics.shtml
http//www.abet.org/history.shtml 12 February 2006
3
Background

• Almost all ABET accredited engineering programs
  have been reviewed using the EC2000 criteria, so
  in 2005, IEEE Education Board sought to measure
  the attitudes of the Electrical and Computer
  Engineering community to the new process.
• How is EC2000 working?
• ABET commissioned a study from Penn State

4
Sample and Demographics

• Sample -- 574 individuals from 325 institutions
• 271 (47.2) responded
• 226 (39.4 of the original sample) of the 271
  reported they had enough involvement in EC2000 to
  respond.
• Results are based on these 226 respondents.
• These 226 respondents represent 189 different
  schools (or in some cases departments within
  schools).
• The vast majority are serving as Chairs of ECE
  Departments.
• Little or no differences in results were found
  when analyzed by job category, size of school or
  whether the school offered graduate degrees.

5
Areas Explored

• Demographics and descriptors of the respondent
  and the respondents academic program including
  level of involvement with previous visit
• The impact that EC2000 has had on the
  respondents institution and program, as well as
  opinions on the impact of EC2000 on the
  profession and on engineering education in
  general
• The tools used by the respondents institution
  for assessment and tracking, their mode of use,
  and their relative effectiveness and
• The effort invested in preparation for
  accreditation and on the return on investment
  perceived by the respondent and the respondents
  institute

6
Assessment Tools Used to Assess Program Success
Exams (e.g., Fundamentals of Engineering exam),
faculty input (e.g., retreats, committees)
Percent saying Yes to using method and Yes
that method helped improve their program,
respectively.
7
Assessment Tools Used to Assess Program Success
Questions on five-point scale, from strongly
disagree (1) to strongly agree (5), not worth the
effort (1) to well worth the effort(5), and very
poor (1) to very good(5), respectively.
8
Assessment Tools Used to Assess Program Success
Questions on five-point scale, from strongly
disagree (1) to strongly agree (5), not worth the
effort (1) to well worth the effort(5), and very
poor (1) to very good(5), respectively.
9
Effects of EC2000 on Institution
Five point scale -- strongly disagree (1) to
strongly agree (5)
10
Effects of EC2000 on Institution
Five point scale -- strongly disagree (1) to
strongly agree (5)
11
Lukewarm agreement with EC2000 is much
preferable to the prior accreditation process.
Average 3.12
12
Less than neutral agreement with EC2000 made the
accreditation process fairer than it was before.
Average 2.76
13
Written Comments (Like Dislike)

• Positive less bean counting
• Negative frustration with inconsistency with
  different accreditation teams received
  conflicting feedback from different visits and/or
  visitors

14
Conclusions

• Strong opinions
• Very strong consensus that EC2000 requires a
  great deal more effort than the prior process
• Clear that EC2000 is creating change but the
  value of EC2000 isnt clear
• Did not think their professors are becoming
  better educators or their students are more
  relevant to the industry

15
Next Steps

• Summarize results in a paper
• By 15 March 2006
• Distribute results to participants who requested
  copies
• (Penn State likely to release its paper have a
  press release)