ABET Accreditation. Michael K. J. Milligan, PhD, PE, CAE. Executive Director Chief Executive Officer April Copyright 2015 by ABET

Transcription

1 ABET Accreditation Michael K. J. Milligan, PhD, PE, CAE Executive Director Chief Executive Officer April 2015

2 2 Topics Introduction to ABET The Accreditation Process ABET Criteria Training Philosophy The Accreditation Experience in Indonesia

3 3 Introduction to ABET

4 4 ABET is a Program Accreditor Also Called Specialized Accreditor Evaluates academic programs Not institutions, degrees, or courses AS, BS, MS levels Peer review process Practicing professionals (industry, academe, government) from ABET s member societies Focus: Quality assurance Ensures quality of educational experience Graduates ready to enter the profession Requires understanding of what students have learned, not necessarily what they were taught

5 5 Brief ABET History 1932 Engineers Council for Professional Development (ECPD) formed AIChE, AIME, ASCE, ASEE, ASME, IEEE, NCEES 1936 ECPD first evaluated engineering degree programs 1980 Name changed to Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) 1989 Washington Accord agreement signed 1995 Major criteria reform (Engineering Criteria 2000) 1997 Recognized by Council on Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) 1998 CSAB (computing accreditation) integrated into ABET 2007 Accreditation of programs outside the U.S. began 2011 IFEES, GEDC Membership

6 ABET s 34 Member Societies 1.5 million individual members Represent the profession Board Members, Commissioners, Program Evaluators,

7 ABET Organizational Structure Committees Board of Directors HQ Staff (Baltimore) Strategy & Governance Industry Advisory Council Academic Advisory Council Global Council Accreditation Council Accreditation Actions Applied Science Accreditation Commission Computing Accreditation Commission Engineering Accreditation Commission Engineering Technology Accreditation Commission Program Evaluators Program Evaluators Program Evaluators Program Evaluators

8 8 Over 2,200 ABET Experts Commissioners (Team Chairs (TCs)) Program Evaluators (PEVs) Determine 100% of accreditation actions Not financially compensated

9 9 ABET is Engaged Globally Consistent with ABET s Mission & Vision Accreditation (next slide) Assistance: MOUs with 16 national agencies Mutual Recognition Agreements Engineers Canada International Engineering Alliance (IEA) Washington Accord: Engineering (17 members) Sydney Accord: Engineering Technology (10) Dublin Accord: Engineering Technician (8) Seoul Accord: Computing (8 members) Participation in Global Organizations Global Engineering Deans Council (GEDC) Intl Federation of Engr Education Societies (IFEES)

10 10 ABET Accreditation Statistics As of 1 October 2014 Accredited 3,466 programs at 698 colleges & universities in 28 countries Non-U.S. Programs Accredited 420 programs at 87 institutions Uniform accreditation criteria, policies and procedures used for all visits, regardless of location Commission U.S. Non-U.S. Programs Institutions Programs Institutions ASAC CAC EAC ETAC

11 11 Accreditation Process

12 12 Underlying Principles Accreditation is voluntary Fair and impartial peer-review process Uniform criteria, policies, and procedures Failure to meet any criteria = loss of accreditation Comprehensive reviews required every 6 years The process of accreditation is evidence-based Evaluation focuses on the evidence provided that supports achievement of each criterion. Majority of evidence collected through assessment of student learning

13 13 Accreditation Process Governing Documents ABET Criteria for Accrediting Programs in Program Management Assessment Curriculum Resources and Support ABET Accreditation Policy and Procedure Manual (referred to as the APPM ) Eligibility for Accreditation Conduct of Evaluations Public Release of Information Appeals

14 14 Accreditation Timeline 18- to 20*-Month Process November Readiness Review* (if required) January Institution requests review of programs March June Team members assigned, dates set, Self-Study Report submitted December February Draft statements edited and sent to institutions May June Necessary changes to statement, if any, are made August Institutions notified of final action Year 1 Year 2 February May Institution prepares self-evaluation (Program Self-Study Report) September December Visits take place, draft statements written and finalized following 7-day response period February April Institutions respond to draft statement and return to ABET July Commission meets to take final action October Accreditation status publically released * 18 + additional 2 months if readiness review required

15 15 ABET Accreditation Process What Does It Involve?* Apply for ABET program review Readiness Review (if necessary) Programs prepare Self-Study Report Documents how the program meets criteria Prepared for Program Evaluator and Team Chair Team conducts program review Review the Self-Study Report and conduct the site visit Follow-on activities Respond to findings, if necessary * Prior to engagement with ABET, program must have CQI process, assess student learning

16 16 Readiness Review Who is involved? Programs that are housed in an institution without any previously accredited program for a given commission (APPM II.E.6) Readiness Review Committee

17 17 Readiness Review What is required? Background Information Criterion 2: Program Educational Objectives Criterion 3: Student Outcomes Criterion 4: Continuous Improvement Criterion 5: Curriculum Criterion 6: Faculty Program Criteria

18 18 Readiness Review Possible Recommendations Submit the program understands requirements for each criterion, and the reviewer has not identified any potential deficiencies for the program. Postpone the program understands most of the criteria requirements, but there are one or more potential deficiencies that the program may not be able to address or reduce the degree of the deficiency (to a weakness) prior to the July 1 submission. Not Submit the program does not seem to understand most of the criteria requirements, and there are apparent deficiencies that the program will definitely need more time to address beyond the immediate upcoming review cycle.

19 19 Post-Readiness Review Result of a Readiness Review Non-binding Confidential No influence of any formal review Outcome is provided as is; not further interpretation is available Resources ABET events ABET Foundation ABET online resources

20 20 ABET Program Evaluation Team Team Chair (+ Co-Chair for large teams) Assigned by commission leadership Program Evaluators: one for each program Assigned by professional societies Approved by team chair and institution No conflicts of interest with the institution Personal relationship, previous ABET visit, etc. Observers (sometimes) U.S. state licensing boards MOU/MRA partners Professional societies (PEVs in training)

21 21 ABET Evaluation Team Only link between academic programs and the commission are the PEVs Team Chair PEV 1 PEV 2 PEV 3 PEV 4 Academic program Academic program Academic program Academic program

22 22 Evaluation Examine Self Study & sample transcripts Campus Visit (3 days) Review materials (based on Self-Study Report) Tour facilities: laboratories, classrooms, library Interview faculty, staff, students Participate in team meetings Extensive discussions team-based decisions Write short report of findings Provide oral report of findings to institution

23 Definitions: Levels of Compliance Deficiency A criterion, policy, or procedure is NOT satisfied. Therefore, the program is not in compliance with the criterion, policy, or procedure Weakness A program lacks the strength of compliance with a criterion, policy, or procedure to ensure that the quality of the program will not be compromised. Therefore, remedial action is required to strengthen compliance with the criterion, policy, or procedure prior to the next evaluation

24 Definitions: Levels of Compliance Concern A program currently satisfies a criterion, policy, or procedure; however, the potential exists for the situation to change such that the criterion, policy, or procedure may not be satisfied. Observation A comment or suggestion which does not relate directly to the accreditation action but is offered to assist the institution in its continuing efforts to improve its programs.

25 25 Assessment The systematic collection, review, and use of information for improving student learning and development Integral to determining how well program is meeting objectives Direct/indirect, quantitative/qualitative, formative/summative, and objective/ subjective measures as appropriate to the outcome or objective being measured Evidence summarized and used in: Self-Study Report Continuous Quality Improvement Process

26 26 Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) ABET criteria developed on the principles of Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) On-going process to improve quality of students educational experience Systematic process: documented, repeatable Assess performance against criteria Take actions to improve program Accreditation is a part of CQI Verification that program meets certain level of quality

27 27 ABET Criteria

28 ABET Criteria 1. Students 2. Program Educational Objectives 3. Program (Student) Outcomes Specific to each program 4. Continuous Improvement 5. Curriculum 6. Faculty 7. Facilities 8. Support

29 Criterion 1: Students The quality and performance of students and graduates is an important success factor To determine success, the institution must evaluate, advise, and monitor students Policies and procedures must be in place and enforced for acceptance of transfer students and validation of courses taken elsewhere Assure that all students meet all program graduation requirements

30 Criterion 2: Program Educational Objectives The program must have published program educational objectives that are consistent with the mission of the institution, the needs of the program s various constituencies, and these criteria. There must be a documented, systematically utilized, and effective process, involving program constituencies, for the periodic review of these program educational objectives that ensures they remain consistent with the institutional mission, the program s constituents needs, and these criteria

31 Criterion 3: Student Outcomes The program must have documented student outcomes that prepare graduates to attain the program educational objectives. Narrow statements that describe what students are expected to know and be able to do by the time of graduation. These relate to the skills, knowledge, and behaviors that students acquire in their matriculation through the program.

32 Criterion 3: EAC Student Outcomes The program must demonstrate that their students attain the following outcomes: a) An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering b) An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data c) An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability.

33 Criterion 3: EAC Student Outcomes (cont.) d) An ability to function on multidisciplinary 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 h) The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context

34 Criterion 3: EAC Student Outcomes (cont.) 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 Plus any outcomes specific to field of study ( Program Criteria )

35 Criterion 4: Continuous Improvement The program must regularly use appropriate, documented processes for assessing and evaluating the extent to which the student outcomes are being attained. The results of these evaluations must be systematically utilized as input for the continuous improvement of the program. Other available information may also be used to assist in the continuous improvement of the program.

36 Criterion 5: Curriculum (EAC) Faculty must assure that the curriculum devotes adequate attention and time to each component, consistent with objectives of the program and institution. One year of combination of college-level mathematics and basic sciences appropriate to the discipline One and one-half years of engineering topics, consisting of engineering sciences and engineering design appropriate to the student s field of study

37 Criterion 5: Curriculum (EAC) General education component that complements technical content and is consistent with program and institutional objectives Students prepared for engineering practice through curriculum culminating in a major design experience Based on knowledge and skills acquired in earlier course work Incorporates appropriate engineering standards and multiple realistic constraints

38 Criterion 6: Faculty Sufficient number to achieve program objectives Competent to cover all curricular areas of program Authority for creation, delivery, evaluation, modification, and continuous improvement of the program

39 Criterion 7: Facilities Adequate to (safely) accomplish educational objectives and outcomes of the program EAC: Foster faculty-student interaction; encourages professional development & professional activities; and provide opportunities to use modern engineering tools

40 Criterion 8: Support Sufficient to attract, retain, and provide for continued professional development of faculty Sufficient to acquire, maintain, and operate facilities and equipment appropriate for the program

41 Program Criteria Each program must satisfy applicable Program Criteria Outcomes Curricular topics Faculty qualifications Must satisfy all Program Criteria implied by title of program Responsibility of the program seeking accreditation to demonstrate clearly that the program meets the criteria

42 Modifications to Criteria Input from ABET Member Societies Major changes infrequent Annual updates Relatively minor changes Public review & comment

43 43 TC and PEV Training Philosophy

44 44 Importance of Training TCs and PEVs are the Face of ABET Provide value to the program Quality of ABET s product Each program evaluated by a different PEV Consistency challenge Training is critical!

45 45 Becoming an ABET PEV PHASE I Member Society selects PEV Candidate Society assigns training mentor Candidate completes prework modules online (~20 hours) Candidate successfully completes prework modules online PHASE II PHASE III Candidate attends programspecific training (Optional) Lead Facilitator Candidate successfully completes faceto-face training Support Facilitators Candidate attends faceto-face training (1.5 Days) Program Evaluator Observer visit (optional) Society approves PEV for assignment Refresher Training

46 46 Training for Experienced PEVs Pre-Visit Preparation Training (online) Required prior to each evaluation Updates from previous cycle, Review code of conduct, conflict of interest policy, confidentiality policies Refresher Training (online) Must complete every 5 years or if no PEV service within past 2 years Review all aspects of evaluation Non-us Accreditation visits (online)

47 47 Team Chair Training New Team Chairs Roles and responsibilities Team management Statement writing Proficiency assessment Draft exercise (statement) Experienced Team Chairs Updates on various topics Held during Summer Commission Meetings Accreditation visits outside the U.S. (online)

48 48 ABET Accreditation Experiences in Indonesia

49 49 ABET Accreditation in Indonesia Bogor Agricultural University 1 Program: ETAC, 2011 Institut Tekologi Bandung 7 programs: 6 EAC, 1 CAC 2009, 2010, 2012 Additional programs in cycle

50 50 Questions?

51 Thank you! Michael K. J. Milligan, PhD, PE, CAE Executive Director Chief Executive Officer