Approximately 50 new undergraduate biomedical

Transcription

1 BME Education 1997 MASTER SERIES The ABCs of Preparing for ABET Accreditation Issues for Biomedical Engineering Programs Undergoing the Engineering Criteria Review Process JOHN ENDERLE, JOHN GASSERT, SUSAN BLANCHARD, PAUL KING, DAVID BEASLEY, PAUL HALE JR., AND DAYNE ALDRIDGE Approximately 50 new undergraduate biomedical engineering (BME) programs have been created within the past few years. Much of the impetus for this increase in new BME undergraduate programs at universities and colleges across the United States has been the funding support provided by The Whitaker Foundation. Another impetus is the driving force of industry. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, employment of biomedical engineers is expected to increase faster than the average for all occupations through 2010 [1]. Combined with excellent growth potential, B.S. degree candidates in BME are receiving starting offers averaging US$47,850 a year, and M.S. degree candidates are averaging US$62,600 a year. Still another driving force is the interest in the field by incoming freshman. An additional fortuitous turn of events is that an aging baby boomer population needs sophisticated healthcare that, in turn, increases the necessity for better medical devices and systems designed by biomedical engineers [1]. For an undergraduate BME degree program to gain accreditation, it must pass a thorough evaluation by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Inc. (ABET). Currently, 24 of the 98 programs listed at are accredited by ABET. ABET is the organization responsible for monitoring, evaluating, and certifying the quality of engineering, engineering technology, and engineering-related education in the United States. After almost a decade of effort, a new program review process, originally called Engineering Criteria 2000 (EC2000), was developed. EC2000 initiated a change from a prescriptive evaluation to one based on program-defined missions and objectives with an emphasis on outcomes. This has been good and bad news for existing BME programs that have had to reinvent their ABET procedures [2]-[3] and for new BME programs seeking accreditation for the first time. For new BME programs, this process has been both difficult and confusing and has resulted in a number of new programs not successfully gaining accreditation during their first visit. Between 1998 and 2000, programs could seek accreditation under the old, more prescriptive criteria or under the evolving, outcomes-based criteria called EC2000. In 2001, all programs seeking accreditation were required to utilize the new criteria, which since that time have been known simply as the engineering criteria (EC). This article provides guidance on planning, implementing, and accrediting BME programs. New programs are generally not as well connected to a previous infrastructure and an information database needed for the review process. Existing programs usually have a mindset and history for doing the pre-ec2000 preparation, which can also cause significant problems. Each author is a fully trained ABET evaluator and offers insights gained from experience on how to achieve a successful conclusion without providing any details about any programs visited. It should be noted that parts of this article are from presentations at ASEE meetings [2]-[3]. Since the ABET criteria provide only a minimum set of requirements, BME programs should not use this as a target but rather set their goals higher by including state-of the-art and real-world experiences that enrich the curriculum [4]. In general, a helpful strategy when preparing for a visit is to review each criterion and provide material that addresses each. Materials should clearly address the educational objectives and program outcomes, evaluate the assessment process, and demonstrate how assessment is used to improve the courses and the program. Wherever possible, documentation should be consistent across programs at a university. ABET ABET, Inc. is recognized by the U.S. Government as the accreditation organization for college and university programs in applied sciences, computing, engineering, and technology. Thirty-one professional and technical societies form the ABET federation, which has existed for over 70 years. There are over 2,500 programs that are accredited nationwide at over 550 institutions. ABET, like engineering programs, defines goals and objectives for accreditation, assesses the process, and continually issues improvements. Its vision is: ABET will provide world leadership to assure quality and stimulate innovation in engineering, technology and applied science education. The relatively new accreditation criteria for engineering programs, commonly referred to as EC, include many of the past requirements and also includes the practice of continuous improvement with input from constituencies, process focus, and outcome and assessment linked to objectives. The overall emphasis is to set the minimum knowledge level for entry into the engineering profession. The evaluation is based on student, faculty, facilities, institutional support, and finan- 122 IEEE ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY MAGAZINE /03/$ IEEE JULY/AUGUST 2003

2 cial resources linked to the program. Information about ABET EC and definitions are available at The Change in Criteria EC has created some degree of anxiety and anguish among those involved in the accreditation process. This apprehension was likely due to the association that EC has with assessment. Lyle Feisel related assessment to the five stages of grief described by Elizabeth Kubler-Ross in her book On Death and Dying [5]. In that book, Dr. Kubler-Ross identifies five stages a person undergoes upon learning of his or her impending death. Those stages are denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. Feisel added a sixth stage, enthusiastic involvement. The literature appears to emphasize the assessment aspects of EC, probably because it is perceived as a relatively new trend in engineering education. Aldridge and Benefield describe how ABET s Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) evaluators using the old criteria looked at details such as faculty members qualifications, curriculum details, and adequacy of the laboratory facilities [6]. They also describe how EC takes a broader approach, focusing on both resources and processes, and propose two feedback systems: educational objectives and learning outcomes. They also point out that the program must demonstrate a commitment to continuous improvement. However, Aldridge and Benefield s emphasis is on assessment. The ABET BME Program Requirements The ABET BME program criteria have been substantially simplified in EC to the following. Curriculum The structure of the curriculum must provide both breadth and depth across the range of engineering topics implied by the title of the program. The program must demonstrate that graduates have: an understanding of biology and physiology, and 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. A common approach that is used to meet this requirement is that a BME program includes a course in biology, a course in physiology, and a course in statistics. However, this is not the only approach; a program must simply demonstrate that students have an understanding of these topics, for example, through combination courses or other multitopic offerings. Mathematics up through differential equations must be required. Also, there must be a required laboratory course (either as a separate course or part of a lecture and laboratory course) that involves taking measurements and interpreting data, perhaps related to physiological models and/or statistical analysis. Knowledge of biomaterials-cellular-tissue engineering is essential to solve problems at the interface of engineering and biology as well as the interaction between living and nonliving systems. This can be easily accomplished with a course in biomaterials and tissue engineering. If a program does not include a biology course in the curriculum, evidence needs to be provided to show that all students in the program received the required biology background equivalent to a regular course taught in biology. Biology can be taught in a series of BME courses such as engineering biology and physiological modeling. Similar issues also relate to physiology and statistics. While current ABET program requirements do not contain the previously more prescriptive criteria on faculty size, in reality, those elements are still there but have been made more flexible according to the program s mission and objectives and its ability to provide both breadth and depth. As with all accredited engineering programs, BME programs must also meet the following curriculum elements: Mathematics and Basic Science 1 year (e.g., 32 credit hours in a 128 credit hour program) Engineering Topics 1 ½ years (e.g., 48 credit hours in a 128 credit hour program) General Education this component complements the technical content of the curriculum and is consistent with the program and institution objectives A culminating major design experience (senior year). Continuous Improvement, Educational Objectives, Program Outcomes Figure 1 illustrates the process of continuous improvement, an essential component for a successful program visit. Each institution and program is required to define its mission and educational objectives to meet the needs of its constituents, allowing for program differentiation from institution to institution. Constituency participation must be clearly demonstrated in continuous improvement. Educational objectives describe the expected accomplishments of graduates a few years after graduation. Educational objectives are written, approved, and publicized for external constituencies such as prospective students and their parents, graduate programs, medical and dental schools, and employers. Educational objectives should be consistent with the Educational Objectives Institutional Mission Assess and Evaluate Constituents Evaluation: Interpretation of Evidence and Data Program Outcomes Feedback for Continuous Improvement Measurable Performance Criteria Program Learning Practices/Strategies Assessment: Collection and Analysis of Evidence and Data Fig. 1. Assessment for continuous improvement. This illustration is based on an ABET training diagram. IEEE ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY MAGAZINE JULY/AUGUST

3 EC includes the practice of regular assessment studies and continuous improvement with input from the constituencies, process focus, and outcome and assessment linked to objectives. mission statement and be measurable with a process in place to review and update. Educational objectives may be written as expectations for all graduates to accomplish and/or as ones that a group of the graduates are expected to accomplish (i.e., graduates in a particular track, say premed, that are tied to medical schools). Many BME programs have difficulty expressing educational objectives in publicized materials as visits to some BME Web sites reveal. Some may use an expression such as To provide students with a foundation in science, mathematics and engineering. This type of statement does not describe the expected accomplishments of graduates a few years after graduation. Rather, an educational objective could be written as Our graduates will function at a technically competent level in formulating and solving problems in biomedical engineering. or Our graduates will have a thorough grounding in engineering fundamentals that prepares them for a successful career in biomedical engineering amid future technological changes. Program outcomes describe what all students are expected to know, do, or think by graduation. Program outcomes must embrace Criterion 3 (a) (k) and the BME program requirements. The achievement of program outcomes should prepare students for the achievement of educational objectives. Many programs have developed intentional strategies so that program outcomes may be achieved as well as educational objectives. Program outcomes need not be limited to those specified in the ABET criteria. Additional outcomes may be defined to allow for programs to distinguish themselves. Keep in mind that demonstration of the achievement of a program s outcomes should, by necessity, also demonstrate achievement of Criterion 3 (a) (k) and BME program requirements. A program s unique outcomes must be linked to the educational objectives to complete the continuous improvement loop, and both educational objectives and program outcomes should be measurable. For instance, a program outcome could be Biomedical engineering students will acquire the ability to apply fundamental principles in the areas of biochemical engineering, bioinstrumentation, biomaterials, biomechanics and bioinformatics. A strategy for achieving this outcome would be for all students to take a carefully chosen common core of BME courses. This example program outcome is easily linked to either of the example educational objectives. It also embraces Criterion 3(a) and (e) and some of the BME program requirements. A program must evaluate whether graduates are meeting the educational objectives using assessment processes to improve the program and demonstrate whether students are achieving the program outcomes before graduation. Through time, continuous improvement allows a program to demonstrate that graduates have achieved desired outcomes by measuring outcomes related to objectives and using these results to further develop and improve the curriculum through input from constituents. A program must collect data and document the process used to demonstrate that objectives and outcomes are being achieved. An example used at ABET Visitor Training Sessions to describe these terms is: Objective: Graduates will be able to communicate with people throughout the world. Outcome: Students must be able to speak 12 languages before graduation. Assessment: Students can speak only 10 languages. A new process is being put in place to increase the number of spoken languages by students. The next step in continuous improvement is to adopt learning practices and strategies. Assessment and evaluation must be an integral part of the development of learning practices and strategies including the selection of assessment methods/tools, who does the assessment, what will be done with the data, and who makes decisions about what to improve. Continuous improvement is by nature iterative, meaning that a program does not need to wait until the loop has been closed in order to act on evidence/data for adjustment of outcomes statements, performance criteria, or selection of assessment tools, for example. Assessment and Evaluation EC includes the practice of regular assessment studies and continuous improvement with input from the constituencies, process focus, and outcome and assessment linked to objectives. This is one of the major changes involved in the new criteria and one that causes the most anxiety among programs being evaluated. It should be noted that successful implementation of assessment and continuous improvement are not 124 IEEE ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY MAGAZINE JULY/AUGUST 2003

4 While there is much more flexibility in EC to incorporate local desires, the program still must meet basic minimum requirements for all engineering programs and applicable program criteria. done right before an ABET visit but must be a regular and ongoing part of the operation of the program. It is hoped that this process will encourage new and innovative approaches to engineering education and its assessment. Under EC, programs define the mission and objectives to meet the needs of the students, industry, and other important constituents. Objectives are tied to outcomes that are supported via assessment measures. The assessment process is one that improves the quality of the program (curriculum) through measurement and ensures that students achieve program outcomes before certification for graduation. Assessment is a faculty activity that should result in change such as adoption of new textbooks, teaching techniques, and laboratory procedures/experiments. It is not the responsibility of the program evaluator to discover the fruits of assessment; it is the responsibility of the program s faculty to demonstrate how assessment has been applied to further development and improvement. Assessment and continuous improvement require a plan of action. To demonstrate that graduates have achieved desired outcomes, some programs use student portfolios, collecting student work from the freshman year to the senior year using a WWW-based approach. This tool is useful in demonstrating that outcomes have been achieved. Another mechanism is to use national exams, such as the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) exam; this exam also allows for comparison among institutions. Some programs use an exit interview for all graduating students to provide important program feedback for assessment. This interview is in addition to course evaluations that are important metrics for a faculty member and course improvement. Course evaluations, however, are not adequate for assessment as faculty other than the course instructor and others (e.g., industrial clients helping assess senior design projects) need to be involved. To be an effective course assessment tool, the faculty should develop and use an assessment survey instrument in courses tied to program outcomes and Criterion 3 (a)-(k). After administering the assessment instrument, the faculty then need to review the survey results and implement changes, if necessary, to complete the continuous improvement process. However, it is important to keep in mind that surveys of students provide indirect measures of student learning. Good students tend to underestimate their abilities whereas poor students tend to overestimate their knowledge. Indirect measures can provide useful information about student perceptions whereas direct measures provide information about actual student learning. Some programs use specific test questions from a series of required courses as direct measures to assess accomplishment of program outcomes and Criterion 3 (a)-(k) by students in the program. To use this evaluation process, the faculty (note, not just the course instructor) must develop and evaluate the results and implement curriculum changes, if needed, based on the evaluation. For evaluation, some programs have tried to use student GPA or the fact that students have passed courses associated with program outcomes. Grades by themselves are not adequate for evaluation purposes since a student can pass a course, but not demonstrate that program outcomes associated with the course have been achieved (i.e., the student can fail the program outcomes part of the course and yet still pass the course). Alumni surveys that document professional accomplishments and career development are a useful tool that can be carried out over a period of years (say two and five years after graduation). Employer, graduate school, medical and dental school surveys, and placement of graduates are other important metrics of performance. Continuous improvement of the program is the ongoing responsibility of the faculty. This is evident by faculty meetings with this topic as the major theme or periodic faculty retreats. Creating a working advisory board from industry and former students is also another mechanism to provide feedback. Overall, it is the program s responsibility to demonstrate that assessment and continuous improvement have occurred in a clear and direct manner. It is a mistake to provide the evaluator with reams of data that have not been analyzed and used to determine whether it is necessary to make changes in the program. Preparation for an ABET Visit There are many sources that describe how an engineering program should approach assessment. McGourty, Sebastian, and Swart describe a five-step feedback process that can be used to develop an assessment program [7]. McGourty also suggests that an educational institution is a dynamic system and that successful integration of assessment and continuous improvement require a systems approach [8]. Awoniyi suggests the use of a template approach where a department creates files and the documents to fill it. He goes on to describe various templates and their relationship to assessment [9]. Olds and Miller develop a project evaluation matrix [10]. The matrix includes research questions, performance criteria, implementation strategies, assessment and evaluation methods, timeline, and audience. Many authors describe tools that can be used to do assessment. Owen, Scales, and Leonard describe a database for program outcomes [11]. Panitz is one of many who describe the IEEE ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY MAGAZINE JULY/AUGUST

5 use of student portfolios [12]. Johnson discusses techniques that can be used to create surveys [13]. Blanchard and McCord describe how a single team-based written project can be used to address multiple objectives and outcomes [14]. This approach can help reduce faculty workload when assessing the program. Although assessment and continuous improvement are significant aspects in the accreditation process, they are not the only components. There is still the challenging task of preparing for the actual accreditation visit. Avers points out that a discrete event approach to preparation for EC accreditation will not lead to satisfactory results [15]. In the past, it was not uncommon to prepare for accreditation and then forget about it. Under EC, the emphasis is on continuous improvement. Avers also makes the point that assessment is the responsibility of the faculty, not the ABET program evaluator. He suggests using process diagrams, avoiding attempts to overwhelm the visitor, and providing a clear path for the visitor [15]. The next section provides suggestions in the form of questions that should be easily answered by the program after reading the self-study report that is prepared for the accreditation visit. The questions are arranged according to the ABET EC [16] and should supplement the information requested by the EC Self-Study Questionnaire [17]. Self-Study Report The self-study report is written with input from the entire faculty of a BME program as a response to the criteria for accrediting engineering programs [16]. The self-study report, based on the Self-Study Questionnaire [17], is expected to be a qualitative assessment of the strengths and limitations of the program, including the achievement of institutional and program objectives and should involve broad and appropriate constituent groups in its preparation and process. The institution determines how it will conduct its self-study, and the accrediting body specifies the items to be addressed in the report, i.e., this Self-Study Questionnaire. The self-study report is not prepared by one person in a vacuum but must include the input from the faculty and students an essential component of EC. Before EC, it was possible for a single person to prepare the self-study report and for the site visit to be successful. This is no longer true. Usually, a self-study report prepared by a single faculty member results in an unsuccessful site visit as both faculty and students are uninvolved in the process. Many new and even existing programs believe that one person writing the self-study in the fourth or fifth year is sufficient for a successful ABET experience. This mechanism of preparing for an ABET visit no longer works with EC. A mistake that the faculty of some programs make is to believe that EC 2000 allows you to be whatever you want to be. While there is much more flexibility in EC to incorporate local desires, the program still must meet basic minimum requirements for all engineering programs and applicable program criteria. Some programs have tried to define very nonengineering topics as engineering topics. Some examples include using math courses and computer programming courses as engineering science courses. Others have stated an educational objective or program outcome and then not demonstrated in the self-study report that the objective or outcome has been achieved (e.g., we will be very biologically capable and not demonstrably incorporating biology into the program). Since the onus is now on the program to define itself within the ABET requirements to prove that they are, indeed, following the self-defined program objectives/outcomes and producing graduates who meet the outcomes expected by ABET Criterion 3 (a) (k), there is the necessity for a much greater buy in from industry and other constituents on what the program is, how it is run, and how it is assessed and modified by the faculty. While a program is not required to use the expressions educational objectives or program outcomes in the self-study report, the program should define its own terminology (e.g., goals) in light of these expressions. Actions to Correct Previous Shortcomings After initial accreditation, the next self-study report must address the shortcomings identified by the EAC during the previous general review and any interim reviews. It is important to list the shortcomings and describe what actions have been taken to address each shortcoming. The evaluator will definitely investigate whether each of the shortcomings has continued and worsened. If any have worsened, a concern might well be elevated to a weakness or a weakness elevated to a deficiency. EAC Criteria The remainder of this section presents each of the EC criteria along with a number of proposed questions. Those who prepare the self-study report should answer these questions. The questions listed are intended to provide a starting point that should provoke further discussion and questions among program faculty and students. Keep in mind that these questions are in addition to the input requested in the Self-Study Questionnaire [17]. Criterion 1. Students The institution must evaluate, advise, and monitor students to determine its success in meeting program objectives. Are there written procedures for advising students in each of the programs? Do the procedures include information as to how, when, and to what extent the students are advised? Is there a clearly defined procedure for evaluating transfer credit? Is there a clear procedure available for a student to check academic progress? Is there a faculty member who monitors progress of students in the program? During a visit, a program evaluator will meet with students and ask probing questions. If the students have problems, think of the impression their answers will have on the visitor. The following questions could be asked of students: Questions for lower division students in the major: What are the educational objectives and program outcomes? Do you know what you are expected (program outcomes) to know upon graduation? Are course objectives (educational outcomes) clearly defined? Are you receiving appropriate academic advising? Are faculty readily available? Do you have adequate access to computer facilities? 126 IEEE ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY MAGAZINE JULY/AUGUST 2003

6 Are the faculty involved in advising and/or monitoring your academic progress? What were you told about placement after graduation? Questions for upper division students: What are the educational objectives and program outcomes? Do you know what you are expected (program outcomes) to know upon graduation? Are course objectives (program outcomes) clearly defined? Did you and are you receiving appropriate academic advising? Are faculty readily available? How are the labs? Is equipment available? How are the computer facilities? Do you have adequate access to computer facilities? Are the faculty involved in advising and/or monitoring your academic progress? What are your placement prospects after graduation? Criterion 2. Program Educational Objectives Each engineering program for which an institution seeks accreditation or reaccredidation must have in place: (a) detailed published educational objectives that are consistent with the mission of the institution and these criteria. Are program educational objectives easy to find in university literature? Is the university s mission statement easy to find? Are the educational objectives for the program consistent with the mission of the university and do you explain how they are consistent? (b) a process based on the needs of the program s various constituencies in which the objectives are determined and periodically evaluated. Are there minutes from curriculum committee meetings? Are there documents that show any resulting changes? Is there a definition of your constituencies? Were your constituencies involved in defining and reviewing your objectives? Is the process overburdensome? (c) a curriculum and processes that ensure the achievement of these objectives. Are there clear statements as to what the students will be able to do? Are there processes to measure achievement of the graduates of the program? What mechanism or process exists to help faculty teach what is expected in the curriculum (course description, course coordinator, course outcomes, sequence outcomes)? (d) a system of ongoing evaluation that demonstrates achievement of these objectives and uses the results to improve the effectiveness of the program. Are there copies of the processes, results of the measurements, and examples of how they are being used to improve the program curriculum? Have the results of the surveys and descriptions of how the results are or will be used for continuous improvement been included in the self-study report? Is it clear that survey results have been used for curriculum improvements to better meet the objectives and outcomes? Criterion 3. Program Outcomes and Assessment Program evaluators have been told that it is the university s responsibility to demonstrate that the program is achieving its objectives and that the students are meeting the defined outcomes. In the past, student work was arranged by course with examples of high, average, and low. Due to time constraints, this arrangement will not allow an evaluator to verify that students are achieving defined outcomes, that program objectives have been met, or that a process for improvement is in place. Are materials arranged by objective and outcome? Are the processes used to measure achievement of each objective and outcome and the processes for improvement clearly defined and included with the materials? Have course objectives and associated student outcomes been developed for all courses and have they been include in all course syllabi? Is there a linkage between the measurement tools that are used to demonstrate that graduates have met (a) through (k) and the outcomes that are defined for the programs? Criterion 4. Professional Component The professional component requirement states that students must be prepared for engineering practice through the curriculum culminating in a major design experience based on the knowledge and skills acquired in earlier course work and incorporating engineering standards and realistic constraints that include most of the following considerations: economic; environmental; sustainability; manufacturability; ethical; health and safety; social; and political. Do you show that there are multidisciplinary teams in a major design experience? A multidisciplinary student team is formed by intention and not by accident. It should be made up of a variety of student backgrounds, perhaps from different tracks in a program. If multidisciplinary teams are not used in the major design experience, then evidence of multidisciplinary teams must be apparent elsewhere in the program. Does the curriculum meet or exceed the minimum requirement for engineering topics? Have the relationships among the professional components and the program goals been established? Does the professional component address appropriate standards and reasonable constraints? Is industry involved in the program by way of lectures and contributions in advisory boards? Do the students support either the IEEE EMBS society or have a BMES chapter? Major Design Experience. Engineering design is usually a course or series of courses that bring together concepts and principles that students learn in their field of study; it involves the integration and extension of material learned in their major toward a specific project. Design is an iterative, decisionmaking process involving problem solving for large-scale, IEEE ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY MAGAZINE JULY/AUGUST

7 Certainly, the role of and use of mission, objectives, outcomes, assessment, and continuous improvement are new to the accreditation process in ABET s EC. open-ended, complex, and sometimes ill-defined systems. It is not a course substitute for the deficiencies that exist in a program s curriculum. The emphasis of design is not on learning new material. Typically, there are no required textbooks for the design course, although having a textbook for the course allows for more thorough treatment. (See for several suggestions.) Most often, the student is exposed to system-wide synthesis and analysis, critique, and evaluation for the first time and applies previously learned material to meet a stated objective. Under the professional component of Criterion 4, students must be prepared for engineering practice through coursework incorporating economic, environmental, sustainability, manufacturability, ethical, health and safety, social, and political engineering standards and realistic constraints. Many BME programs include a senior year design course that covers these topics and may also include: working on teams, design process, planning and scheduling (timelines), technical report writing, proposal writing, patent searches, oral presentations, FDA regulations, liability, the impact of economic constraints, and marketing. One strategy for design is to use a yearlong design experience of two three-credit-hour courses. The first design course introduces students to the topics mentioned in the previous paragraphs. Further, each student in the first design course selects a project drafts specifications prepares a project proposal selects an optimal solution and carries out a feasibility study specifies components, conducts a cost analysis, and creates a timeline creates a paper design with extensive modeling and computer analysis. The second design course requires students to implement their design by completing a working model of the final product. Prototype testing of the paper design typically requires modifications to meet specifications. These modifications undergo proof of design using commercial software programs commonly used in industry. Each student in the course constructs and tests a prototype using modular components as appropriate conducts system integration and testing assembles the final product and field-tests the device writes a final project report presents an oral report using PowerPoint or presents a poster session. According to Criterion 3(d), each student in the program must show an ability to function on a multidisciplinary team. An ideal way to implement this requirement is to require multidisciplinary team projects in design. A multidisciplinary team project for BME programs is most easily accomplished via a project in which a student from each subspecialty is included on the team (e.g., biomechanics, biochemical, bioinstrumentation, biomaterial, biocomputing, etc.). A unique option for BME design projects is the National Science Foundation (NSF) program on design projects to aid persons with disabilities [18]. This program combines the academic requirement of a design experience with enhanced educational opportunities for students and improved quality of life for disabled individuals. Students and university faculty provide, through their normal ABET-accredited senior design class, engineering time to design and build a device or software for a person with disabilities, and the NSF provides funds, competitively awarded, for supplies, equipment, and fabrication costs for the design projects. Projects are described in an annual publication funded by the NSF (e.g., [19]). Research Projects and Design Projects. To satisfy Criterion 4, students are expected to engage in a culminating major design experience. Note carefully that this is not a research project. Also note that this is a culminating, senior-year course based on accumulated math, science, and engineering courses and not merely on overall completed credit hours and not a design course in the junior year or earlier. Programs that substitute the capstone senior-year design with a senior year research project or a junior-year design course risk losing or not achieving accreditation. This may be viewed as a deficiency in the program. A single deficiency in the program results in a show cause (SC) outcome for existing programs and a not to accredit (NA) for new programs. This action indicates that the program is not in full compliance. An on-site visit is required after an SC for existing programs to evaluate the actions taken by the institution to remove the deficiencies. This action has a typical duration of one year. If a program does not correct the deficiency after one year, then an existing program is given an NA outcome. This action indicates that a program has deficiencies such that the program is in continued noncompliance. The NA action is usually taken only after an SC evaluation or the evaluation of a new, unaccredited program. Accreditation is generally not extended as a result of this action. Criterion 5. Faculty Does the age of the faculty create a question about the program s ability to continue? If it does, is there a plan to assure program continuation? Are there sufficient faculty to conduct the program? 128 IEEE ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY MAGAZINE JULY/AUGUST 2003

8 Are the program s faculty qualified to teach the subjects they are assigned to teach? Are the faculty active professionally? Do the faculty have competencies to cover the taught materials? Criterion 6. Facilities Is there a strategic plan for the university? Is there a strategic plan for laboratory improvements? Are laboratories and laboratory equipment in need of modernization? If statements are made in the self-study, ask students and faculty it they agree with them. The program visitor will attempt to ascertain if the statements are correct and relevant to the accreditation. Are the facilities safe? Lack of laboratory safety plans can result in negative consequences. Criterion 7. Institutional Support and Financial Resources If statements are made about strong university support of the program in the self-study report, make sure that faculty and students agree with them. Examples of statements may include: The college of engineering provides the engineering programs with considerable financial support for recruiting quality faculty and students. There is steady and dependable support offered for the program offered. A lack of faculty or staff sufficient to offer the program or manage growth in the program is often the result of a problem with Institutional Support and Financial Resources. Dilapidated or unsafe facilities also point to Criterion 7. If statements are made, ask students and faculty it they agree with them. Again, the visitor will ask for elaboration. Criterion 8. Program Criteria Have graduates demonstrated that they have an understanding of the program specific required topics? Do program educational outcomes address the program specific requirements? Does each program s objectives include the additional outcomes necessary to meet this criterion. Final Questions Test the results of the preparation for the visit by placing yourself in the role of the program evaluator. Ask program faculty questions such as: What do you think of the assessment process? Have you been involved in developing the educational objectives? Have you been involved in developing the program outcomes? Has the curriculum changed as a result of assessment? Is there a process for curricular change? Are you involved in curriculum advising for students? Are you involved in any mentoring? What is the placement rate of your graduates in: Graduate school? Employment? Professional school? If general statements about the program or the university are made in the self-study report, ask the faculty if they agree with the statements. Fig. 2. Photograph of the materials provided to the program evaluator at Vanderbilt University. Notice clearly labeled material at the top of the bookcase related to a-k. Material in the lower part of the bookcase relates to course materials. The Program Visit Process The program evaluator actually begins preparing for the site visit well before the actual visit by reviewing the self-study report provided by the program. The program evaluator typically spends a few days thoroughly reviewing the information in the self-study report and completes the Program Report forms on the Curriculum Analysis, Transcript Analysis, Program Audit Form, and Faculty Analysis well before making the site visit. The purpose of this analysis is to identify areas that need further study during the visit. Unlike evaluation practices in the past, ABET now supports and encourages the program evaluators to contact the designated program prior to IEEE ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY MAGAZINE JULY/AUGUST

9 arriving on campus when there are questions concerning the self-study report, materials on the Web, or other information that is missing or confusing. The visit typically begins on Day 0 (Sunday) when the ABET evaluator team assembles. The team then travels on-campus to make an initial inspection of the course materials and documentation related to the program. The program evaluator reviews the course material against the criteria: Are the students achieving defined outcomes? Are program objectives being met? Is there a process for continuous quality improvement? Evidence that the criteria are satisfied is the responsibility of the program; it must be easily recognized and fully documented. Unless this information is clearly labeled (for example, see Figure 2, compiled by the BME Program at Vanderbilt University), it is extremely difficult for the program evaluator to confirm that the criteria have been met. For Criterion 3, one method is to organize material by course title and also separately by objective and outcome. Figure 3 shows a Web site created to assist the program evaluator. For Criterion 4, each of the items previously mentioned must be clearly identified. The program evaluator has only a few hours to review these materials, so every effort needs to be made by the program to make it as straightforward as possible. Once again, it is the program s responsibility to prove to the program evaluator that all criteria are satisfied; it is not the program evaluator s responsibility to have to hunt to find evidence or to do any analysis to form conclusions. During the evening of Day 0, the team assembles for dinner and reviews the previsit evaluations for each of the programs. Each program evaluator provides previsit forms to the team chair and discusses any difficulties encountered. Problems are usually discussed among the team members to assist program evaluators in resolving complex problems. On Day 1 (Monday), the team meets with the dean and the dean s invited guests. This often includes department/program heads and associate deans. The dean presents an update of the institution s implementation of ABET s EC, processes that are common to all units, and key outcomes and continuous improvement efforts. The program evaluator then meets with the program head to discuss educational objectives, involvement of constituencies, program-level processes, outcomes, and continuous improvement efforts. Throughout the day, the program evaluator meets with faculty and students to determine key strengths and shortcomings of the program. During the luncheon, various officials and guests of the institution are present to discuss the program and the institution. During the afternoon, the evaluators visit various support units on campus (e.g., the biology department, library, and computing center). The team then gathers for dinner that evening to discuss an updated assessment of the programs, assessments from support areas, and any issues arising from the Fig. 3. This figure shows a Web site created by the BME program at Vanderbilt University to assist the program evaluator. visit. Later in the evening, the program evaluator prepares a draft exit interview program statement. This statement addresses each of the first eight criteria, documenting deficiencies, weaknesses, concerns, and strengths. Suggestions for improvement are usually provided in this report. Also described are the evaluator s findings concerning evaluation and assessment processes in place for the unit and the use of processes to improve the effectiveness of the program. At the beginning of Day 2 (Tuesday), the team provides copies of the first draft of the exit interview program statement to the team chair. The program evaluator inspects classrooms, laboratories, and offices to assess the adequacy of allocated space, furnishings, and equipment available to students, faculty, and support staff (this activity is sometimes accomplished on Day 0). The program evaluator completes meetings with remaining institutional representatives. The draft exit interview program statement is revised based on any new findings, and then the program evaluator debriefs the program head. In this meeting, the evaluator clarifies any issues and describes program strengths and shortcomings. The ABET team reassembles for a private lunch and informally shares program findings. Each of the exit interview program statements is finalized. The program evaluator provides the team chair with a copy of the exit interview program statement and program report at the conclusion of the luncheon. The ABET team then gathers and conducts an exit interview with the institution president or designated stand-in and his or her guests. Conclusion Sir Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, One s mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimension. Is EC a new idea? To the engineering community it is relatively new, and it has likely stretched the minds of many an engineering educator. That is apparent by the multitude of papers written on the topic over the past few years. 130 IEEE ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY MAGAZINE JULY/AUGUST 2003

10 Will there be Feisel s added sixth stage of grief, enthusiastic involvement? That question is yet to be answered. However, just as for engineering programs, ABET must define goals and objectives for accreditation, assess the process, and continually improve. It appears that there is enthusiastic involvement by the members of ABET, and this will likely result in continuous improvement in the accreditation process. As a result, preparing for and meeting ABET s EC will likely be a moving target. However, if the questions presented in this article and those that evolve during the process can be answered after completing the self-study report, then the program evaluator and the program faculty will likely have an enjoyable and enlightening experience, and the minds of the program faculty and perhaps that of the program evaluator will never regain their original dimensions. EC has had a tremendous impact on the way faculty view the accreditation process. Certainly, the role of and use of mission, objectives, outcomes, assessment, and continuous improvement are new to the accreditation process in ABET s EC. This is true of all programs, however, and not just for bioengineering. For bioengineering, there are fewer requirements in EC than the previous criteria. This allows each institution to fully develop the BME program based on the needs of its constituents, such as local industries. As a result, a greater diversity and differentiation in programs will exist, offering students a greater selection in BME curricula across the United States. John D. Enderle received the B.S., M.E., and Ph.D. degrees in biomedical engineering and the M.E. degree in electrical engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York, in 1975, 1977, 1980, and 1978, respectively. After completing his Ph.D. studies, he became a senior staff member at PAR Technology Corporation, Rome, New York, from 1979 to From , Dr. Enderle was a faculty member in the Department of Electrical Engineering and coordinator for biomedical engineering at North Dakota State University (NDSU), Fargo, North Dakota. Dr. Enderle joined the National Science Foundation as program director for Biomedical Engineering and Research Aiding Persons with Disabilities Program from January 1994 through June In January 1995, he joined the faculty of the University of Connecticut (UConn) as professor and head of the Electrical and Systems Engineering Department. In June 1997, he became the director for the Biomedical Engineering Program at UConn. Dr. Enderle is a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), the current editor-in-chief of IEEE EMB Magazine, a past-president of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBS), EMBS conference chair for the 22nd Annual International Conference of the IEEE EMBS and World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering in 2000, Fellow of the American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering (AIMBE), an ABET program evaluator for bioengineering programs, a member of the American Society for Engineering Education and biomedical engineering division chair for 2005, and a senior member of the BME Society. Enderle was elected as a member of the Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering in 2003, with membership limited to 200 persons. He has also been a teaching Fellow at the University of Connecticut since His research interests include modeling physiological systems, system identification, signal processing, and control theory. John Gassert obtained his M.S. degree in electrical engineering in 1974 and his Ph.D. in biomedical engineering in 1995, both from Marquette University. Gassert is a Senior Member of the IEEE and an ABET EAC program evaluator for biomedical engineering and electrical engineering. In 1989 he joined the faculty at the Milwaukee School of Engineering and is currently a professor and vice chairman of the Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Department. He has developed and taught courses at both the graduate and undergraduate level in biomedical engineering, medical informatics, perfusion, electrical engineering, computer engineering, and electrical engineering technology. Prior to arriving at MSOE, Gassert spent 17 years in industry as a design engineer, a clinical engineer, and a consultant. Susan M. Blanchard received her A.B. in biology from Oberlin College in 1968 and her M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in biomedical engineering from Duke University in 1980 and 1982, respectively. She is currently a professor in the Department of Biomedical Engineering and the Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering at North Carolina State University, a Senior Member of the Biomedical Engineering Society, and a Fellow of AIMBE and the IEEE. She was president of the IEEE EMBS in 1996 and received the society s Service Award in She coauthored Introduction to Biomedical Engineering (Academic Press, 2000) with John D. Enderle and Joseph D. Bronzino. Paul H. King is an associate professor of biomedical engineering and mechanical engineering at Vanderbilt University. He received his B.S. and M.S. in engineering science from the Case Institute of Technology, Cleveland, Ohio in 1963 and 1965, respectively, and his Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee in He is a licensed professional engineer. His primary teaching responsibility at Vanderbilt is the capstone design course. David B. Beasley received his B.S. and M.S. degrees in agricultural and biological engineering from Mississippi State University in 1971 and 1973, respectively. He received his Ph.D. in agricultural engineering from Purdue University in Dr. Beasley s Ph.D. work at Purdue involved quantifying the impacts of land use and management on water quality in the Great Lakes basin. The ANSWERS water quality model was a direct result of his doctoral work. Today, that model continues to be used around the world. IEEE ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY MAGAZINE JULY/AUGUST

11 Dr. Beasley became a member of the faculty at the University of Arkansas from 1977 to 1978 and at Purdue University from 1978 to From , Dr. Beasley was the head of the Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department at the University of Georgia s Coastal Plain Experiment Station in Tifton. From November, 1991 through June, 1999 he served as head of the biological and agricultural engineering department at NC State. Dr. Beasley is a professor of biological and agricultural engineering at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, North Carolina. He is a registered professional engineer. He is listed in Who s Who in Science and Engineering and Who s Who in the South and Southwest. Dr. Beasley was an ABET evaluator for eight years and served as ASAE s liaison with the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) for two years. He has been a member of the Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) of ABET since Dr. Beasley has international experience in Australia, Moldova, Ukraine, Russia, Germany, Italy, Spain, Trinidad, Canada, and South Korea. Currently, he represents NC State University in international programs in the environmental area and is directly involved in exchanges with Rostock University in Germany and the Agrarian State University of Moldova. Paul N. Hale, Jr. is a professor of biomedical engineering and the associate dean for external programs at Louisiana Tech University in Ruston, Louisiana. His academic training is in industrial engineering (human engineering) and he has been active in biomedical engineering since the mid-1970s. Dr. Hale was the department head of biomedical engineering at Louisiana Tech from 1987 through 1996, and director of the Center for Biomedical Engineering and Rehabilitation Science from 1985 through Dr. Hale has been involved in biomedical engineering program accreditation activities since 1990, when he was named an ABET program evaluator for bioengineering programs. He is a member of the IEEE/Committee on Engineering Accreditation Activities and has chaired the Education Committee of the IEEE/Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. He is active in the IEEE, BMES, and the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE). Dr. Hale is a Fellow of the American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering and a Fellow of the American Society for Engineering Education. M. Dayne Aldridge received B.S. in electrical engineering from West Virginia University and his Ph.D. in electrical engineering from the University of Virginia. Dr. Aldridge was a member of the electrical engineering faculty at West Virginia University from 1968 until While at West Virginia University he founded the WVU Energy Research Center in 1978 and was director until Dr. Aldridge was at Auburn University from 1984 to While at Auburn he was professor of Electrical Engineering. He served as associate dean for research of the College of Engineering prior to In 1989 he became founding director of the Thomas Walter Center for Technology Management and was appointed as the Thomas Walter Eminent Scholar in Technology Management in He served in both capacities until In 1999 Dr. Aldridge became dean of the School of Engineering at Mercer University. Dr. Aldridge is a Fellow of IEEE, ASEE, and ABET and is a registered professional engineer. He is a past president of the IEEE Industry Applications Society. He was coprincipal investigator of the ABET Regional Faculty Workshops that were funded by the National Science Foundation, industry, and ABET. He received the IEEE Educational Activities Board Meritorious Achievement Award in Accreditation Activities in November Dr. Aldridge has served the Engineering Accreditation Commission of ABET in several capacities, including chair, and presently serves as adjunct accreditation director for engineering. Address for Correspondence: Dr. John D. Enderle, Program Director for Biomedical Engineering, University of Connecticut, Room 223 B, 260 Glenbrook Road, Storrs, CT USA. Phone: Fax: jenderle@bme.uconn.edu. References [1] Occupational Outlook Handbook, ed., U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Office of Occupational Statistics and Employment Projections, Available: [2] J.D. Enderle, ABET Criteria 2000 and Biomedical Engineering; Some Initial Evaluator Impressions, in Proc. ASEE Annual Conf. Exposition, St. Louis, MO, June 18-21, [3] J.D. Gassert, A View From Both Sides of ABET Criteria 2000; The Reviewed and the Reviewers, in Proc. ASEE Annu. Conf. Exposition, St. Louis, MO, June 18-21, [4] J.D. Enderle, K.M. Ropella, D.M. Kelso, and B. Hallowell, Ensuring that Biomedical Engineers are Ready for the Real World, IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Mag., vol. 21, pp , [5] L. Feisel, Accepting the Challenge, in How Do You Measure Success? Designing Effective Processes for Assessing Engineering Education. Washington, D.C.: ASEE Professional Books, 1998, pp [6] M.D. Aldridge and L.D. Benefield, Assessing a Specific Program, in How Do You Measure Success? Designing Effective Processes for Assessing Engineering Education. Washington, D.C.: ASEE Professional Books, 1998, pp [7] J. McGourty, C. Sebastian, and W. Swart, Developing a Comprehensive Assessment for Engineering Education, J. Eng. Educ., vol. 87, no. 4, pp , Oct [8] J. McGourty, Four Strategies to Integrate Assessment into the Engineering Education Environment, J. Eng. Educ., vol. 88, no. 4, pp , [9] S.A. Awoniyi, A Template for Organizing Efforts to Satisfy ABET EC2000 Requirements, J. Eng. Educ., vol. 88, no. 4, pp , [10] B.M. Olds and R.L. Miller, Assessing a Course or Project, in How Do You Measure Success? Designing Effective Processes for Assessing Engineering Education. Washington, D.C.: ASEE Professional Books, 1998, pp [11] C. Owen, K. Scales, and M. Leonard, Preparing for accreditation review under ABET engineering criteria 2000: Creating a database of outcome indicators for a variety of engineering programs, J. Eng. Educ., vol. 88, no. 3, pp , July [12] B. Panitz, Student portfolios, in How Do You Measure Success? Designing Effective Processes for Assessing Engineering Education. Washington, D.C.: ASEE Professional Books, 1998, pp [13] V.R. Johnson, Survey questionnaires, in How Do You Measure Success? Designing Effective Processes for Assessing Engineering Education. Washington, D.C.: ASEE Professional Books, 1998, pp [14] S.M. Blanchard and M.G. McCord, Use of a single team-based written project to address multiple objectives and outcomes for a biomedical engineering program, in Proc. ASEE Annu. Conf. Exposition, Nashville, TN, June 22-26, [15] C.D. Avers, Criteria 2000: Lessons learned, The Interface (Joint newsletter of the IEEE Education Society and the ASEE Electrical and Computer Engineering Division), no. 2, Aug [16] Engineering Criteria: Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs, Accreditation Board for Engineering Technology (ABET), Baltimore, MD, Nov. 2, Available: [17] Engineering Criteria: EAC Self-study Questionnaire, Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), Baltimore, MD, Aug. 7, Available: [18] J.D. Enderle, An overview on the National Science Foundation Program on Senior Design Projects to Aid Persons With Disabilities, Int. J. Eng. Educ., vol. 15, no. 4, pp , [19] J.D. Enderle and B. Hallowell, Eds., National Science Foundation 2001 Engineering Senior Design Projects to Aid Persons with Disabilities. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press, Inc., Available: IEEE ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY MAGAZINE JULY/AUGUST 2003