1

Phillip M. DrayerDepartment of Electrical Engineering

Lamar UniversityBeaumont Texas

ECEDHA MeetingHarley Myler

ABET Accreditation

"Criteria"

Criterion 1. StudentsCriterion 2. Program Educational ObjectivesCriterion 3. Program OutcomesCriterion 4. Continuous ImprovementCriterion 5. CurriculumCriterion 6. FacultyCriterion 7. FacilitiesCriterion 8. SupportCriterion 9. Program Criteria

Cop

yrig

ht ©

200

9 by

AB

ET,

Inc

.

3

June 10, 2009

What Does Criterion 2 Say?

The program must have in place:• Published PEO’s consistent with mission and

these Criteria • Process that periodically documents and

demonstrates that the PEO’s are based on the needs of the program’s constituencies

• An assessment and evaluation process that periodically documents and demonstrates the extent to which these objectives are attained

Cop

yrig

ht ©

200

9 by

AB

ET,

Inc

.

4

June 10, 2009

Criterion 2 Highlights1. The process needs to document and

demonstrate that the PEO’s are based on constituent needs – NOT “a process based on the constituents needs in which PEO’s are determined and evaluated” (the old language)

2. Requirement for assessment and evaluation is the same, but there is no longer language in Criterion 2 that requires that the results of the assessment and evaluation process be used for program improvement. (Program improvement is now in Criterion 4.)

Cop

yrig

ht ©

200

9 by

AB

ET,

Inc

.

5

June 10, 2009

Consistency IssuesCriterion 2:

– Do the published PEO’s meet the definition?– Does the program convince the team that the PEO’s

are based on constituent needs?• Notice that there is no language that insists on constituent

approval or involvement! • The program does need to convince the team that it has a

way of determining what the needs of its constituencies are.

– Is there an assessment and evaluation process in place that gives info about the extent to which PEO’s are attained by grads

Cop

yrig

ht ©

200

9 by

AB

ET,

Inc

.

6

June 10, 2009

Criterion 2 Problem in 08-09• Several instances in which programs were being

required to show how results of C2 or C3 assessment and evaluation processes were being used to improve the program.

• This reflects application of old criteria.

• That's not in C2 or C3 any more. C4 refers to results of C2 and C3 processes as possible sources of information upon which continuous improvement could be based.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

200

9 by

AB

ET,

Inc

.

7

June 10, 2009

Criterion 2 FAQ’s• What if the PEO’s really sound like outcomes

(instead of objectives?– If PEO’s are not PEO’s, there is a C2 shortcoming.

• What if PEO’s are ambiguous or reflect outcomes retooled to apply after graduation?– Team judgment – do they meet the intent of the

Criterion?• Is an assessment process for PEO’s that

considers predominately data based on accomplishments of current undergraduates adequate? – Probably not

Cop

yrig

ht ©

200

9 by

AB

ET,

Inc

.

8

June 10, 2009

What Does Criterion 3 Say?

• The program must demonstrate that (a) – (k) are attained

• Program outcomes are defined as (a) – (k) plus any additional ones articulated by the program

• Program outcomes must foster attainment of the PEO’s

• There must be an assessment and evaluation process that periodically documents and demonstrates the degree to which outcomes are attained

Cop

yrig

ht ©

200

9 by

AB

ET,

Inc

.

9

June 10, 2009

Important – for Criterion 3• The definition of program outcomes as being (a) – (k)

plus locally articulated ones– The program may not have its outcomes expressed as (a) – (k)

plus others. It may have just identified a set of outcomes. As long as the program has demonstrated attainment of (a) – (k) and its own outcomes, this element of the criterion is met.

• Requirement for assessment and evaluation is the same, but there is no language in Criterion 3 that results of the assessment process be applied to further development of the program. (Program improvement is now in Criterion 4.)

Cop

yrig

ht ©

200

9 by

AB

ET,

Inc

.

10

June 10, 2009

Criterion 3 Consistency Issues• Be sure to apply this criterion in a holistic sense• The process of assessment and evaluation needs to

demonstrate the degree to which outcomes are attained, but …– There is no language that says all outcomes must be

attained to the same degree– There is no language that says anything about a numeric

scale measuring degree of attainment– There is no language that says the outcomes must be

measured– There is nothing in Criterion 3 that says anything about

use of the assessment and evaluation information for program improvement

Cop

yrig

ht ©

200

9 by

AB

ET,

Inc

.

11

June 10, 2009

Criterion 3 FAQ’s

• What about assessment data? What is adequate data? – Does it all have to be objective/direct? (NO)– Can it be subjective? (Some of it may be; nothing

says it has to be)– Is the observation or conclusion of course instructor

adequate? (What was his or her basis for the observation?)

– Does evidence for each outcome have to be in the form of work the student has produced? (No, but the team needs to be convinced that outcome attainment has been demonstrated.)

Cop

yrig

ht ©

200

9 by

AB

ET,

Inc

.

12

June 10, 2009

What Does Criterion 4 Say?

“Each program must show evidence of actions to improve the program. These actions should be based on available information, such as results from Criterion 2 and Criterion 3 processes.”

• The improvements can be based on any available information!

Cop

yrig

ht ©

200

9 by

AB

ET,

Inc

.

13

June 10, 2009

Consistency Issues• The language of Criterion 4 simply insists on

evidence of action to improve the program.– Such actions could be stimulated by results of the C2

and C3 assessment and evaluation processes– But they could also be stimulated by other information

• The language of this Criterion does not require that the C2 and C3 information be used as the basis for program improvement. It suggests use of the results of C2 and C3 processes as sources of information for program improvement.