Title: Bioengineering
1Bioengineering Biomedical Engineering
- Education, Quality and Accreditation of Programs
- John Enderle
- University of Connecticut
2Disclaimer
- 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.
3Accreditation 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
4ABET
- 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
5ABET 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
6Engineering 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)
9Washington 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.
10Program 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
11Duties 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
12BMES Committee Member Functions
- Committee Chair Eric Guilbeau
- Assignment Coordinator Stan Napper
- Training Coordinators John Enderle and John
Gassert - Mentoring Coordinator John Gassert
13BMES
- 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
14Profile 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
15Objectives 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
16ABET 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
17Philosophy
- 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
18Assessment Fundamentals
19 Continuous Quality Improvement
- A SYSTEMATIC PURSUIT OF EXCELLENCE
- AND SATISFACTION OF THE NEEDS OF CONSTITUENCIES
- IN A DYNAMIC AND COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT.
20Foundation 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)
22Educational Objectives
Feedback for Continuous Improvement
Assessment for Continuous Improvement
23Key Documents
- Program Self-Study
- Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs
(current and proposed revisions) - Accreditation Policy and Procedure Manual
- PEV Report (forms)
24Self-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
25PEV Report
- Curriculum Analysis
- Transcript Analysis
- Faculty Analysis
- Program Evaluator Worksheet
26Purpose of the PEV Report
- Documentation (evidence) backs up the statement
to the institution - Filling out the forms moves the evaluator through
the criteria thoroughly
27I. 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
28Students 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
29Issues 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
30Program 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
31Program 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
32Issues 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
33Program 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
34Program 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
35Program 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
36Program 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
37Program 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
38Issues 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)
39Professional 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
40Professional 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
41Professional 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
42Criterion 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
43Faculty - 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
44Criterion 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.
45Criterion 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
46Criterion 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
-
47Criterion 5 - Issues
- Faculty Quality
- For teaching design (program criteria issues)
- Excessive reliance on adjuncts
48Facilities - 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
49Criterion 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)
50Institutional 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
51Criterion 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
52Program 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.
53Program 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.
54Program 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.
55Program 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?
56Program 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.
57Program 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?
58Levels 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.
59Possible 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
60Terminology vs. ActionGeneral Review
61More 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
62Web 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
63Discussion and Closure