abet pres to jica april2015 final - universitas...

Copyright © 2015 by ABET

Michael K. J. Milligan, PhD, PE, CAEExecutive Director

Chief Executive OfficerApril 2015

ABET Accreditation


22

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

Topics


3

Introduction to ABET


44

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

ABET is a Program AccreditorAlso Called “Specialized” Accreditor


55

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

Brief ABET History

ABET’s 34 Member Societies• 1.5 million individual members• Represent “the profession”• Board Members, Commissioners, Program Evaluators,

ABET Organizational Structure

Applied Science

Accreditation Commission

Computing Accreditation Commission

Engineering Accreditation Commission

Engineering Technology

Accreditation Commission

Program Evaluators

Program Evaluators

Program Evaluators

Program Evaluators

AccreditationCouncil

Industry AdvisoryCouncil

Academic AdvisoryCouncil

Global Council

Committees HQ Staff(Baltimore)Board of Directors

Accreditation Actions

Strategy & Governance


88

• Commissioners (Team Chairs (TCs))• Program Evaluators (PEVs)• Determine 100% of accreditation actions • Not financially compensated

Over 2,200 ABET Experts


99

• 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)

ABET is Engaged GloballyConsistent with ABET’s Mission & Vision


1010

• 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

ABET Accreditation StatisticsAs of 1 October 2014

CommissionU.S. Non-U.S.

Programs Institutions Programs InstitutionsASAC 73 55 1 1CAC 370 289 49 33EAC 2037 416 327 68ETAC 580 203 45 11


1111

AccreditationProcess


1212

• 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

Underlying Principles


1313

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

Accreditation ProcessGoverning Documents


1414

Accreditation Timeline18- to 20*-Month Process

JanuaryInstitution requestsreview of programs

February – MayInstitution prepares

self-evaluation (Program Self-Study

Report)

March – JuneTeam members assigned, dates set, Self-Study

Report submitted

September – DecemberVisits take place, draft statements written and

finalized following7-day response period

December – FebruaryDraft statements edited and sent

to institutions

February – AprilInstitutions respondto draft statement

and return to ABET

May – JuneNecessary changes

to statement,if any, are made

JulyCommission meets to take final action

AugustInstitutions notified

of final action

Year 1 Year 2

OctoberAccreditation status publically released

NovemberReadiness Review*

(if required)

* 18 + additional 2 months if readiness review required


1515

• 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

ABET Accreditation Process What Does It Involve?*

* Prior to engagement with ABET, program must have CQI process, assess student learning


1616

• Programs that are housed in an institution without any previously accredited program for a given commission (APPM II.E.6)

• Readiness Review Committee

Readiness Review Who is involved?


1717

• Background Information • Criterion 2: Program Educational Objectives • Criterion 3: Student Outcomes • Criterion 4: Continuous Improvement • Criterion 5: Curriculum • Criterion 6: Faculty• Program Criteria

Readiness ReviewWhat is required?


1818

Readiness ReviewPossible 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.


1919

• 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

Post-Readiness Review


2020

• 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)

ABET Program Evaluation Team


2121

ABET Evaluation Team

Team Chair

PEV 1 PEV 2 PEV 3 PEV 4

Academic program

Only link between academic programs and the commission are the PEVs

Academic program

Academic program

Academic program


2222

• 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

Evaluation


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


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.


2525

• 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

Assessment


2626

• 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

Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI)


27

ABET Criteria


ABET Criteria1. Students2. Program Educational Objectives3. Program (Student) Outcomes Specific to each program

4. Continuous Improvement5. Curriculum6. Faculty7. Facilities8. Support


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


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


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.


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 engineeringb) An ability to design and conduct experiments, as

well as to analyze and interpret datac) 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.


Criterion 3: EAC Student Outcomes (cont.)

d) An ability to function on multidisciplinary teamse) An ability to identify, formulate, and solve

engineering problemsf) An understanding of professional and ethical

responsibilityg) An ability to communicate effectivelyh) The broad education necessary to understand

the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context


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 issuesk) 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”)


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


Modifications to Criteria

Input from ABET Member Societies Major changes infrequent Annual updates Relatively minor changes

Public review & comment


43

TC and PEV Training Philosophy


4444

• 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!

Importance of Training


4545

Society assigns training mentor

Candidate attends program-specific training

(Optional)

PHASE III

Society approvesPEV for

assignment

Observer visit (optional)

Member Society selects

PEV Candidate

Candidate completes pre-work modules

online(~20 hours)

PHASE ICandidate

successfully completes pre-work modules

online

Candidate successfully

completes face-to-face training

Support Facilitators

Lead Facilitator

Candidate attends face-

to-face training

(1.5 Days)

PHASE II

Program Evaluator

Refresher Training

Becoming an ABET PEV


4646

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)

Training for Experienced PEVs


4747

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)

Team Chair Training


48

ABET Accreditation Experiences in Indonesia


4949

Bogor Agricultural University• 1 Program: ETAC, 2011

Institut Tekologi Bandung• 7 programs: 6 EAC, 1 CAC• 2009, 2010, 2012

Additional programs in 2015-16 cycle

ABET Accreditation in Indonesia


5050

Questions?


Thank you!

Michael K. J. Milligan, PhD, PE, CAEExecutive Director

Chief Executive [email protected]

www.abet.org