Bioengineering - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 63
About This Presentation
Title:

Bioengineering

Description:

... technology, computing and applied science education in the United ... Applied Science AccreditationCommission. 61 accredited programs at 45 institutions ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:92
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 64
Provided by: B28168
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: 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
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com