Bioengineering

1
Bioengineering Biomedical Engineering

• Education, Quality and Accreditation of Programs
• John Enderle
• University of Connecticut

2
Disclaimer

• John Enderle is a Commissioner on the ABET
  Engineering Accreditation Commission
• The remarks made in this presentation are mine
  (based mainly on ABET materials), and should not
  be construed as Official ABET Policy
• The Official Accreditation Policy and Procedure
  Manual and many other documents are located at
  http//www.abet.org.

3
Accreditation in the United States

• Opportunity for universities to voluntarily
  secure assessment of programs against profession
  set standards

on a six year cycle

• Responsibility of professions, not of
  universities themselves, as represented by
  professional societies

4
ABET

• Started in 1932 by 5 Societies
• Primary organization responsible for monitoring,
  evaluating, and certifying the quality of
  engineering, engineering technology, computing
  and applied science education in the United
  States
• Federation of 31 technical and professional
  societies representing over 1.8 million
  practicing professionals

5
ABET Governance
ABET Board
International Activities Committee
Engineering AccreditationCommission 1641
accredited programs at 337 institutions
Technology AccreditationCommission 684 accredited
programs at 234 institutions
Applied Science AccreditationCommission 61
accredited programs at 45 institutions
Computing AccreditationCommission 171 accredited
programs at 165 institutions
6
Engineering Accreditation Commission
Chair

• Executive Committee
• (4 Officers - 6 At-Large Members-1 Board Liaison
  (ex-officio))

AAEE 3 ACSM 1 AIAA 3 AIChE 4
ANS 2 ASAE 2 ASCE 5 ASEE 1 ASHRAE 1
ASME 5 BMES 1 CSAB 1 IEEE 6 IIE 4 NCEES 1 NICE 1
NSPE 1 SAE 1 SME 2 SME-AIME 2 SNAME 2 SPE 2 TMS 3
4 Officers 1 Board Liaison 1 Public
Member 54 Members, representing 23 Societies
34 From Educational Institutions 20
From Industry, Government, Private Practice
7
(No Transcript)
8
(No Transcript)
9
Washington Accord

• The Washington Accord was signed in 1989. It is
  an agreement between the bodies responsible for
  accrediting professional engineering degree
  programs in each of the signatory countries. It
  recognizes the substantial equivalency of
  programs accredited by those bodies, and
  recommends that graduates of accredited programs
  in any of the signatory countries be recognized
  by the other countries as having met the academic
  requirements for entry to the practice of
  engineering. The Washington Accord covers
  professional engineering undergraduate degrees.
  Engineering technology and postgraduate-level
  programs are not covered by the Accord.

10
Program Criteria BIOENGINEERING AND BIOMEDICAL
ENGINEERING PROGRAMS

• Lead Society
• Biomedical Engineering Society
• Cooperating Societies
• American Institute of Chemical Engineers,
• American Society of Agricultural Engineers,
• American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
• Institute of Electrical and Electronics
  Engineers,
• National Institute of Ceramic Engineers

11
Duties ofBMES Accreditation Activities Committee

• Coordinates all BMES activities related to
  accreditation of engineering and technology
  programs in Bioengineering and Biomedical
  Engineering
• Propose program evaluators for nomination by BMES
  to ABET
• Train program evaluators and review their
  performance
• Review program evaluator reports
• Propose BMES representatives and alternates for
  nomination to ABET Board of Directors and
  Commissions
• Propose, review, comment upon and facilitate
  development of program criteria for BMES approval
  and submission to ABET. This activity is
  performed in conjunction with Cooperating
  Societies

12
BMES Committee Member Functions

• Committee Chair Eric Guilbeau
• Assignment Coordinator Stan Napper
• Training Coordinators John Enderle and John
  Gassert
• Mentoring Coordinator John Gassert

13
BMES

• Responsible for reviews of 29 BME programs using
  approximately 20 program evaluators
• who must be initially recruited, selected, and
  trained
• annually assigned, mentored, monitored, and
  updated and
• episodically retrained
• In the next few years, as many as 70 new programs
  will be added.
• Also handles BME Technology Programs

14
Profile of Evaluators

• Half of the BME visits are made by
  industrial/government program evaluatorspracticin
  g professionals really make a contribution here
• Program evaluators generally have ten or more
  years of experience with significant
  accomplishments
• Academic program evaluators generally are full
  professors with tenure
• Industrial program evaluators generally have
  risen to project management based on demonstrable
  technical competence

15
Objectives of Accreditation

• Assure that graduates of an accredited
• program are adequately prepared to enter and
  continue the practice of engineering
• (2) Stimulate the improvement of
• engineering education
• (3) Encourage new and innovative
• approaches to engineering education
• and its assessment
• (4) Identify accredited programs to the
• public

16
ABET Accredits Programs

• Programs Lead to Degrees
• All Paths of Study Must be Accreditable
• A program is described by
• - Objectives
• - Outcomes
• - Curriculum
• Transcript is Primary Evidence of
• Degree

For purposes of accreditation review
17
Philosophy

• Institutions and Programs define mission and
  objectives to meet the needs of their
  constituents -- enable program differentiation
• Emphasis on outcomes -- preparation for
  professional practice
• Programs demonstrate how criteria and educational
  objectives are being met

18
Assessment Fundamentals
19
Continuous Quality Improvement

• A SYSTEMATIC PURSUIT OF EXCELLENCE
• AND SATISFACTION OF THE NEEDS OF CONSTITUENCIES
• IN A DYNAMIC AND COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT.

20
Foundation of CQI is Assessment

• Assessment of inputs process only establishes
  the capability or capacity of a program
• Assessment of outcomes determines what is done
  with that capability
• Outcomes assessment improves
• Institutional effectiveness
• Learning
• Accountability

21
(No Transcript)
22
Educational Objectives
Feedback for Continuous Improvement
Assessment for Continuous Improvement
23
Key Documents

• Program Self-Study
• Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs
  (current and proposed revisions)
• Accreditation Policy and Procedure Manual
• PEV Report (forms)

24
Self-Study Report

• A good program self-study should include
• A complete description of how and the extent to
  which the program satisfies each of the criteria
  requirements
• Students
• Program Educational Objectives
• Program Outcomes and Assessment
• Professional or Technical Component
• Faculty
• Facilities
• Institutional Support and Financial Resources
• Program Criteria

25
PEV Report

• Curriculum Analysis
• Transcript Analysis
• Faculty Analysis
• Program Evaluator Worksheet

26
Purpose of the PEV Report

• Documentation (evidence) backs up the statement
  to the institution
• Filling out the forms moves the evaluator through
  the criteria thoroughly

27
I. Basic Level Accreditation Criteria

• 1. Students
• 2. Program Educational Objectives
• 3. Program Outcomes and Assessment
• 4. Professional Component
• 5. Faculty
• 6. Facilities
• 7. Institutional Support Financial Resources
• 8. Program Criteria

28
Students Criterion 1

• The institution must evaluate, advise, and
  monitor students
• The institution must have and enforce policies
  for
• transfer students
• validation of courses taken for credit elsewhere
• The institution must have and enforce procedures
  to assure that all students meet program
  requirements

29
Issues for Criterion 1

• Problems with student advising (often cited with
  Criterion 5 - faculty)
• Advising ad hoc
• Ineffective and inconsistent advising
• Lack of understanding of curricular requirements
  especially if many options are available
• Ineffective monitoring
• Monitoring too ad hoc
• No documentation of course substitutions or
  missing prerequisites

30
Program Educational Objectives - Criterion 2

• Program Educational Objectives
• statements that describe the expected
  accomplishments of graduates during the first
  several years following graduation from the
  program
• Unique to the program and institution
• Consistent in all publications

31
Program Educational Objectives - Criterion 2

• Each program must have
• Detailed published educational objectives
• Process based on needs of constituencies in which
  objectives are determined and periodically
  evaluated
• A curriculum and processes that prepare students
  for achievement of the objectives
• A system of on-going evaluation that demonstrates
  achievement and uses results to improve the
  effectiveness of the program

32
Issues for Criterion 2

• Educational objectives not published or readily
  accessible to the public
• Limited or no constituency input
• No evidence of constituency input in objective
  setting or periodic evaluation
• Lack of faculty buy-in or support

33
Program Outcomes Assessment - Criterion 3

• Program outcomes
• Statements that describe what students are
  expected to know or be able to do by the time of
  graduation from the program
• The achievement of outcomes indicates that the
  student is equipped to achieve the program
  educational objectives
• ABET designated (a-k) included in some way

34
Program Outcomes and Assessment - Criterion 3

• Programs must demonstrate their graduates have
  outcomes a to k
• Programs must have an assessment process with
  documented results
• Evidence that the results of the assessment
  process are applied to the further development
  and improvement of the program

35
Program Outcomes

• Engineering programs must demonstrate that their
  graduates have
• a. An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics,
  science, and engineering appropriate to the
  discipline
• b. An ability to design and conduct experiments,
  analyze and interpret data
• c. An ability to design a system, component, or
  process to meet desired needs

36
Program Outcomes (continued)

• d. An ability to function on multi-disciplinary
  teams
• e. An ability to identify, formulate, and solve
  engineering problems
• f. An understanding of professional and ethical
  responsibility
• g. An ability to communicate effectively

37
Program Outcomes (continued)

• h. The broad education necessary to understand
  the impact of engineering solutions in a societal
  context
• i. A recognition of the need for, and an ability
  to engage in, life-long learning
• j. A knowledge of contemporary issues
• k. An ability to use the techniques, skills, and
  modern engineering tools necessary for
  engineering practice

38
Issues for Criterion 3

• No evidence demonstrating one or more outcomes
• Outcomes not assessed objectively (student
  performance)
• Anecdotal versus measured results
• Reliance on course grades as assessment of
  outcomes
• Over-reliance on self-assessment (e.g., surveys)

39
Professional Component Criterion 4

• Faculty must assure that the curriculum devotes
  adequate attention and time to each component,
  consistent with objectives of the program and
  institution
• Preparation for engineering practice
• Major design experience
• Subject areas appropriate to engineering

40
Professional Component Criterion 4

• Major Design Experience
• A culminating experience, based on knowledge and
  skills acquired in earlier coursework
• Must incorporate engineering standards and
  realistic constraints, including most of the
  following considerations

• Economic
• Environmental
• Sustainability
• Manufacturability

• Ethical
• Health and Safety
• Social
• Political

41
Professional Component

• Subject Areas
• One year of a combination of college-level
  mathematics and basic sciences (some with
  experimental experience) appropriate to the
  discipline
• One and one-half years of engineering topics,
  consisting of engineering sciences and
  engineering design appropriate to the students
  field of study
• A general education component that complements
  the technical content of the curriculum and is
  consistent with the program and institution
  objectives

42
Criterion 4 - Issues

• Quality of the major design experience
• No culminating experience - analysis or research
  instead of design several courses with elements
  of design
• Multiple capstone courses with widely varying
  quality
• Design experience does not address many of the
  constraints
• Engineering topics satisfied by electives, but
  advising doesnt assure adequate coverage

43
Faculty - Criterion 5

• Sufficient in number and competencies to cover
  all curricular areas
• Sufficient in number to accommodate adequate
  levels of student-faculty interaction, advising
  and counseling, service, professional
  development, and interactions with industrial and
  professional practitioners and employers
• Ensure proper guidance of the program and its
  evaluation, development, and improvement

44
Criterion 5 - Issues

• Sufficient in number and competencies to cover
  all curricular areas
• Do the faculty who teach engineering science have
  the education and experience to truly teach
  engineering.

45
Criterion 5 - Issues

• Is there a sufficient number to
• accommodate adequate levels of student-faculty
  interaction,
• advising and counseling,
• service,
• professional development,
• interactions with industrial and professional
  practitioners and employers

46
Criterion 5 - Issues

• Is there a sufficient number to
• Ensure proper guidance of the program
• Ensure proper evaluation, development, and
  improvement of the program
• To support concentrations, electives, etc.
• To provide student advising
• Poor faculty morale affecting program
• Lack of professional development
• Excessive workloads
• Retention/turnover rate

47
Criterion 5 - Issues

• Faculty Quality
• For teaching design (program criteria issues)
• Excessive reliance on adjuncts

48
Facilities - Criterion 6

• Classrooms, laboratories, and associated
  equipment must be adequate to accomplish program
  objectives and provide an atmosphere conducive to
  learning
• Opportunities to learn the use of modern
  engineering tools
• Computing/information infrastructure to support
  scholarly activities of the students and faculty
  and the educational objectives of the institution

49
Criterion 6 - Issues

• Insufficient Space
• Overcrowded laboratories and classrooms
• Laboratories
• Unsafe conditions
• Inoperable equipment
• Lack of modern instrumentation
• Lack of funds for upgrading (cited with Crit. 7)
• Computing/Information Infrastructure
• Lack of funds for upgrading (cited with Crit. 7)

50
Institutional Support and Financial Resources -
Criterion 7

• Institutional support, financial resources, and
  constructive leadership must be adequate to
  assure quality and continuity of the program
• Attract, retain, and provide for professional
  development of a well-qualified faculty
• Resources to acquire, maintain, and operate
  equipment and facilities
• Adequate support personnel
• Support of quality-improvement efforts

51
Criterion 7 - Issues

• Unstable leadership affecting programs
• Dean/Dept Chair positions open or filled by
  interim appointments for an extended period
• Frequent turnover of university administration
  and engineering school leadership
• Inadequate operating budget affecting
• Acquisition and maintenance of laboratories and
  computing equipment
• Faculty salaries, promotions, and professional
  development affecting hiring and retention

52
Program Criteria Criterion 8

• The ABET Criteria requires that each program must
  satisfy applicable Program Criteria.
• The ABET Program Criteria provide the specificity
  needed for interpretation of the basic level
  criteria as applicable to a given discipline.
• This is where we differentiate between
  Bio/Biomedical engineering and other engineering.

53
Program Criteria BIOENGINEERING AND BIOMEDICAL
ENGINEERING PROGRAMS

• The structure of the curriculum must provide both
  breadth and depth across the range of engineering
  topics implied by the title of the program.

54
Program Criteria BIOENGINEERING AND BIOMEDICAL
ENGINEERING PROGRAMS

• The program must demonstrate that graduates have
  
• an understanding of biology and physiology,
• the capability to apply advanced mathematics
  (including differential equations and
  statistics), science, and engineering to solve
  the problems at the interface of engineering and
  biology
• the ability to make measurements on and interpret
  data from living systems, addressing the problems
  associated with the interaction between living
  and non-living materials and systems.

55
Program Criteria BIOENGINEERING AND BIOMEDICAL
ENGINEERING PROGRAMS

• What constitutes an understanding of biology and
  physiology?
• Does a single course in biology?
• Does a single course in physiology?
• Does it have to be both biology and physiology?

56
Program Criteria BIOENGINEERING AND BIOMEDICAL
ENGINEERING PROGRAMS

• What constitutes a capability to apply advanced
  mathematics (including differential equations and
  statistics), science, and engineering to solve
  the problems at the interface of engineering and
  biology?
• Do courses in advanced mathematics, including
  differential equations and statistics, satisfy
  this requirement?
• The operative phrase is to solve the problems at
  the interface of engineering and biology.

57
Program Criteria BIOENGINEERING AND BIOMEDICAL
ENGINEERING PROGRAMS

• What constitutes an ability to make measurements
  on and interpret data from living systems,
  addressing the problems associated with the
  interaction between living and non-living
  materials and systems?
• Does the curriculum address the problems
  associated with the interaction between living
  and non-living materials and systems?

58
Levels of Criteria Compliance

• Key Terms
• Compliance satisfies or exceeds criterion
• Concern criterion is currently satisfied, but
  potential exists for non-satisfaction in the near
  future.
• Weakness criterion is satisfied, but lacks
  strength of compliance to assure the quality of
  the program will not be compromised prior to next
  general review.
• Deficiency criterion is NOT satisfied.

59
Possible Accreditation Actions

• NGR Next General Review
• IR Interim Report
• IV Interim Visit
• SC Show Cause
• RE Report Extended
• VE Visit Extended
• SE Show Cause Extended
• NA Not to Accredit

60
Terminology vs. ActionGeneral Review
 
61
More Information

• Reference material (www.abet.org)
• Accreditation Policy and Procedures
• 2003-04 Criteria
• Manual of Evaluation Process
• New Team Chair Training and other Recent
  Presentations
• Team Chair Workbooks (TCs only)
• Program Evaluator and Observer Workbooks

62
Web Resources

• Information for Program Evaluators
  (www.abet.org/info_prgs_eva.html)
• PEV Workbook
• All Program Evaluator forms and documents
• New white paper on Criterion 3 Guidelines from
  EAC ExCom
• Information for Programs and Institutions
  (www.abet.org/info_prgs.html)
• Self Study
• Case Study
• Deans Day/Team Chair Training Presentation

63
Discussion and Closure