ABET REFERENCE MATERIALS TABEE's ABET-PEV Training ... - COE · workshop that simulates an...
Transcript of ABET REFERENCE MATERIALS TABEE's ABET-PEV Training ... - COE · workshop that simulates an...
TABEE's ABET-PEV Training
Reference Materials Part I
“Training Workshop for ABET-inspired TABEE Program Evaluators”
Tuesday 2nd August 2016 The Berkeley Hotel, Bangkok
Council of Engineers, Thailand
Office of the Higher Education Commission
and ATPAC (Association of Thai Professionals in America and Canada)
Presented by Professor Dr. Taha F. Marhaba
and Professor Dr. Methi Wecharatana
New Jersey Institute of Technology
2016
ABET REFERENCE MATERIALS
2016
ABET REFERENCE MATERIALS NJIT CEE Department
ABET REFERENCE MATERIALS
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
Contents
Module 1: Welcome and Overview ............................................................................... 3 A. PROGRAM EVALUATOR TRAINING OVERVIEW ............................ 3 B. ONLINE TRAINING (PRE-WORK FOR FACE-TO-FACE
TRAINING) ...................................................................................................... 3 C. OUTPUTS FROM ONLINE TRAINING .................................................. 4 D. THE FACE-TO-FACE TRAINING ........................................................... 4 E. YOUR TRAINING MENTOR CONNECTION ........................................ 5 F. GETTING ASSIGNED TO YOUR FIRST SITE VISIT .......................... 5 G. BACKGROUND .......................................................................................... 5 What Is ABET? ............................................................................................................. 5 What Is Accreditation? .................................................................................................. 5 H. ABET VISION AND MISSION ................................................................. 6 ABET Vision ................................................................................................................. 6 ABET Mission ............................................................................................................... 6 I. ABET’S PHILOSOPHY OF OUTCOMES-BASED ACCREDITATION 6 J. WHO IS INVOLVED IN THE ABET ACCREDITATION PROCESS? 7 K. ABET CODE OF CONDUCT .................................................................... 8
Module 2: The Accreditation Process .......................................................................... 9 A. OVERVIEW OF ACCREDITATION PROCESS .................................... 9 B. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES .......................................................... 9 Member Societies ........................................................................................................ 9 Institutions .................................................................................................................10 Commissions ...............................................................................................................10 Visit Team ..................................................................................................................10 Team Chair .................................................................................................................10 Program Evaluators ...................................................................................................11 C. OVERVIEW OF ACCREDITATION CRITERIA ................................. 11 D. EXPLANATION OF TERMS................................................................... 12 E. DEFINITION OF LEVELS OF COMPLIANCE ................................... 13
Module 3: The Role of the Program Evaluator ......................................................... 13 A. PROGRAM EVALUATOR ROLES ........................................................ 13 B. ACTIVITIES BEFORE THE VISIT ....................................................... 14 Make Travel Arrangements ..........................................................................................15 Review the Self-Study Report ........................................................................................15 Applying the Criteria ....................................................................................................16 Team Chair ..................................................................................................................16 C. THE VISIT ................................................................................................. 17 D. ACTIVITIES THAT YOU WILL CONDUCT DURING THE VISIT . 17 E. A TYPICAL VISIT AGENDA .................................................................. 21
1
Sunday ........................................................................................................................21 Sunday Evening .........................................................................................................21 Monday Morning ........................................................................................................21 Monday Afternoon ......................................................................................................21 Monday Evening .........................................................................................................22 Tuesday Morning ........................................................................................................22 Tuesday Afternoon .....................................................................................................22 Draft Statement Outline ............................................................................................23 F. APPLYING THE CRITERIA: CONSISTENCY COUNTS ................... 24 G. AFTER THE VISIT .................................................................................. 24
Module 4: Continuous Quality Improvement of Student Learning ......................... 25 A. TERMS AND DEFINITIONS USED BY ABET ..................................... 25 B. REVIEW OF PROGRAM EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES ............... 25 C. ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION OF STUDENT OUTCOMES .... 26 D. HOW DO I KNOW IF A PROGRAM HAS AN ADEQUATE
CONTINUOUS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROCESS FOR STUDENT
LEARNING? ................................................................................................... 29
Module 5: Applying the Criteria ................................................................................ 30 A. CRITERIA APPLICATION BASICS ..................................................... 30 B. UNDERSTANDING THE CRITERIA .................................................... 30 C. COMMON ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH EACH CRITERION ........ 31 Students ......................................................................................................................31 Program Educational Objectives................................................................................31 Student Outcomes ......................................................................................................32 Continuous Improvement ..........................................................................................32 Curriculum .................................................................................................................33 D. THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS ................................................... 35 Pre-Visit ......................................................................................................................35 On Site ........................................................................................................................35 Post-Visit ....................................................................................................................35 E. EVALUATING A PROGRAM’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE
CRITERIA ...................................................................................................... 35 General Review Terminology vs. Action ....................................................................36 F. APPLYING THE CRITERIA: CONSISTENCY COUNTS ................... 37 G. SAMPLE SITUATIONS ........................................................................... 37 Situation #1 ................................................................................................................37 Situation #2 ................................................................................................................38 Situation #3 ................................................................................................................39
Module 6: The PEV Appraisal Process ...................................................................... 41 A. WHAT ARE THE ABET PEV COMPETENCIES? ............................... 41 B. WHAT IS THE PEV PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL PROCESS? ..... 43
Appendices .................................................................................................................. 45 Appendix A: Competency Model for Program Evaluators ............................ 45 Appendix B: Training Mentors ...................................................................... 49 Appendix C: Criteria for Crediting Engineering Programs .......................... 52
2
Appendix D: Accreditation Step by Step ....................................................... 55 Appendix E: Glossary ..................................................................................... 59 Appendix F: Introduction to Academia for Non-Academician ...................... 67 Appendix G: Transcript Analysis ................................................................... 68 Appendix H: ABET Accreditation Process .................................................... 70 Appendix I: Student Outcomes and Performance Indicators ...................... 71 Appendix J: continuous data collection process example .............................. 75 Appendix K: Team Chair Competency Model ................................................ 78
3
Module 1: Welcome and Overview
A. PROGRAM EVALUATOR TRAINING
OVERVIEW
Candidates who are selected for the ABET Program Evaluator Candidate (PEVC) Training
Program undergo three training processes:
1. Online Training (must be completed prior to the Face-to-Face Training): The online
modules include three proficiency assessments and a simulated program evaluation. The
online modules – which can be taken at your own pace – cover fundamental information
about ABET, the accreditation process, roles and responsibilities, and the general criteria
(criteria 1-8).
2. Face-to-Face Training: Face-to-Face Training is a one-and-a-half day experiential
workshop that simulates an accreditation visit.
3. Program Criteria Training: Training on program-specific criteria (criterion 9)
is provided by the member society with program area responsibility.
B. ONLINE TRAINING (PRE-WORK FOR FACE-
TO-FACE TRAINING)
The online Program Evaluator Candidate (PEVC) Training consists of six (6) online modules
designed to provide information about ABET, the accreditation process, the role of the Program
Evaluator (PEV), and PEV tasks prior to and during an accreditation visit. This training also
prepares you for the Face-to-Face Training. Included in the six (6) online training are three (3)
Proficiency Assessments at the end of Modules 3, 4, and 6. The results will automatically be
recorded and the correct responses sent to you via email.
The purpose of the online training is two-fold:
1. To review the fundamental aspects of the overall ABET Accreditation Process:
These materials are contextual, somewhat static in nature, and best learned
independently. During accreditation visits, you as a PEV are considered the face of
ABET and are required to know the contextual pieces of information.
2. To simulate what happens in preparation for an accreditation visit: In this portion,
you will complete several items that will be posted to the ABET Training Website and
reviewed by your Training Mentor, your ABET Member Society contact, and a Face-to-
Face Training Support Facilitator, much like that done by an accreditation visit Team
Chair.
4
C. OUTPUTS FROM ONLINE TRAINING
The following materials need to be completed and submitted according to the dates listed below:
Three (3) completed Proficiency Assessments
Program Evaluator Worksheet (Applicable to PEVCs affiliated with CAC and EAC)
Program Evaluator Report
You will learn more about completing and posting the Program Evaluator Worksheet and
Program Evaluator Report in Module 5: Applying the Criteria.
If the Proficiency Assessments, Program Evaluator Worksheet, and Program Evaluator Report
are not completed and posted by the due date, you will not be able to attend the Face-to-Face
Training. The important dates for each session are listed below:
April 30-May 1,
2016
May 14-15,
2016
June 4-5,
2016
Location Baltimore Baltimore Baltimore
Registration Closes March 11 March 25 April 15
Mentor Assigned March 18 April 1 April 22
Pre-Work Due April 1 April 15 May 6
Make Travel
Arrangements* April 4-8 April 18-22 May 9-13
*ABET’s Training Manager will contact you with instructions regarding travel and hotel
arrangements and ABET’s travel policy. Per ABET policy, we will only reimburse for
reservations made with the ABET travel agent.
D. THE FACE-TO-FACE TRAINING
The Face-to-Face Training consists of one-and-a-half days (Saturday and Sunday) of interactive
training as a simulated visit team, including an assignment on Saturday evening to be turned in
Sunday morning. The Face-to-Face Training is designed for two purposes:
1. To immerse you in the real-life situations and activities that occur during a site visit to a
university or college. The workshop uses and builds upon the online training pre-work
materials that you have completed.
2. To provide opportunities to demonstrate the PEV Competency Model, (See Appendix A)
Travel Reimbursement for Face-to-Face Training
ABET reimburses all appropriate travel expenses, providing the PEVC uses ABET’s travel
agent. Please log in to myABET to access information about travel and reimbursement policies
and procedures.
5
E. YOUR TRAINING MENTOR CONNECTION
Your ABET Member Society has assigned a Training Mentor to you. The Training Mentor is
available to answer questions and guide you through your learning process. Your Training
Mentor will work with you throughout the training process to:
Make an initial contact
Answer your questions in completing the online training pre-work
Support your learning through the Face-to-Face Training
Answer your questions after the Face-to-Face Training
For more information about Training Mentors, (See Appendix B).
Please Note: You should hear from your Training Mentor within a few days of receiving a notice
that you have been assigned a mentor. Please contact your ABET Member Society if you have
not heard from him or her.
F. GETTING ASSIGNED TO YOUR FIRST SITE
VISIT
Upon successful completion of PEVC Training, your ABET Member Society will assign you to
the PEV pool. Your Member Society may assign you for a visit in the upcoming cycle, based
upon the number of programs being visited. For more information, contact your Member
Society.
G. BACKGROUND
What Is ABET?
ABET is the recognized U.S.-based accreditor of college and university programs in applied
science, computing, engineering, and engineering technology.
What Is Accreditation?
In the United States, accreditation is a non-governmental, peer-review process that assures the
quality of the postsecondary education students receive. Educational institutions or programs
volunteer to undergo this review periodically to determine if certain criteria are being met.
(NOTE: Outside the United States, accreditation is not necessarily voluntary or non-
governmental. For more information, see the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO) website (http://en.unesco.org/) for more information on the
world’s post-secondary education systems and their quality assurance mechanisms.)
6
It is important to understand that accreditation is not a ranking system. It is an assurance that a
program or institution meets established quality standards. In addition, the role of ABET
accreditation is to provide periodic external assessment and evaluation in support of the
program’s continuous improvement process.
H. ABET VISION AND MISSION
ABET Vision
ABET is recognized as the worldwide leader in assuring quality and stimulating innovation in
applied science, computing, engineering, and engineering technology education.
ABET Mission
ABET serves the public globally through the promotion and advancement of education in
applied science, computing, engineering, and engineering technology. ABET:
Accredits educational programs.
Promotes quality and innovation in education.
Consults and assists in the development and advancement of education worldwide in a
financially self-sustaining manner.
Communicates with our constituencies and the public regarding activities and
accomplishments.
Anticipates and prepares for the changing environment and the future needs of
constituencies.
Manages the operations and resources to be effective and fiscally responsible.
I. ABET’S PHILOSOPHY OF OUTCOMES-BASED
ACCREDITATION
ABET’s accreditation procedures and processes historically have been intended for programs
that prepare graduates for entry into a profession appropriate to the program’s discipline. The
decision on the appropriate accreditation action for a program is made based on the extent to
which the relevant criteria for the program are met. It is the institution’s responsibility to
demonstrate how the program meets the relevant criteria.
ABET’s current accreditation processes are strongly oriented toward continuous quality
improvement (CQI) and outcomes-based accreditation.
An educational program CQI process should reflect a clear understanding of:
7
Mission
Constituents
Objectives
Outcomes
Processes (internal practice to achieve the outcomes)
Facts (data collection)
Evaluation (interpretation of facts) and
Action (feedback to support decision making and improve processes)
J. WHO IS INVOLVED IN THE ABET
ACCREDITATION PROCESS?
The accreditation process requires the participation of many individuals, institutions, and
organizations:
ABET
ABET’s member societies
Institutions and programs requesting accreditation
Team Chairs
Program Evaluators
Each of ABET’s member societies is invited to have representation on one or more of the four
ABET commissions, according to the curricular areas that the ABET Board of Directors assigns
to those societies.
The four ABET accreditation commissions are the:
Applied Science Accreditation Commission (ASAC);
Computing Accreditation Commission (CAC);
Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC); and the
Engineering Technology Accreditation Commission (ETAC).
The commissions are responsible for administering the ABET Accreditation Process, conducting
accreditation reviews, and determining accreditation actions (by vote of the entire membership),
based on the Accreditation Policies and Procedures Manual (APPM) and on the accreditation
8
criteria. The commissions are also responsible for the continuous review and enhancement of
criteria, policies and procedures.
For more information, see Accreditation Policies and Procedures Manual (APPM) and criteria.
(See Appendix C)
The Accreditation Council (AC) is comprised of leadership (Chair, Past Chair and Chair Elect)
from the four accreditation commissions. The Accreditation Council is responsible for improving
the effectiveness, efficiency, and uniformity of the accreditation process.
Changes to the accreditation criteria and to the Accreditation Policies and Procedures proposed
by the commissions and the Accreditation Council are approved by the ABET Board of
Directors.
You will learn more about how the ABET Criteria are based on CQI in Module 5: Applying the
Criteria and how it relates to assessing student learning in Module 4: Continuous Quality
Improvement of Student Learning.
Outcomes-based accreditation focuses on:
Learning, not teaching
Students, not faculty
Outcomes, not inputs or capacity
K. ABET CODE OF CONDUCT
ABET holds its staff and expert volunteers to the highest standards of conduct.
For your review, ABET’s Code of Conduct (Section IX of ABET Rules of Procedure) explicitly
describes behavior that is and is not acceptable when you participate in ABET activities.
9
Module 2: The Accreditation Process
A. OVERVIEW OF ACCREDITATION PROCESS
The entire program review process is typically 20 months long.
Step 1: The process begins in January of the first year, when the institution requests
accreditation for its programs.
Step 2: The site visit is usually conducted between September and December of the first year.
Step 3: After the visit, the team chair develops a Draft Statement to the institution by editing and
combining the material written by the Program Evaluators and adding material that applies to the
institution as a whole.
Step 4: The Draft Statement is reviewed by two editors from the respective commission and by
ABET headquarters staff for adherence to standards and consistency with other Draft Statements.
Step 5: The edited Draft Statement is sent to the institution, which has 30 days to respond.
Step 6: The team chair uses the response from the institution, with assistance from the PEV as
needed, to prepare the Final Statement, which again is edited and then provided to the full
Commission for action.
Step 7: Final accreditation decisions are made at the Summer Commission Meeting in July of
the second year.
Step 8: ABET notifies the institution of the final accreditation action in August of the second
year.
The steps listed above describe only the actual program review process. The entire accreditation
process (Overview of Accreditation Process) (See Appendix C) involves Continuous Quality
Improvement (CQI) processes by the program, as well as significant efforts to prepare a self
study and collect course and assessment materials.
B. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Member Societies
ABET is a federation of professional and technical societies. Member societies with curricular
responsibilities recruit, select, mentor, and assist in training qualified program evaluators who,
along with team chairs, comprise the teams assigned to accreditation visits. ABET member
societies also nominate individuals to the four ABET commissions (the Applied Science
Accreditation Commission, the Computing Accreditation Commission, the Engineering
Accreditation Commission, and the Engineering Technology Accreditation Commission) and
appoint individuals to the ABET Board of Directors.
10
Institutions
Institutions requesting an ABET review have significant responsibilities to complete before ABET’s Visit
Team arrives on site. Each program completes a Self-Study Report, which serves as the central document
the team relies on for the review. In the Self-Study Report, each program details how the ABET Criteria
are being met. Read the Accreditation Step-by-Step document (See Appendix D) for a detailed
description of the accreditation process from the institution’s point of view.
The institution hosts the site visit. On campus, institutions arrange for interviews and reviews of
display materials, facilities, equipment, and other observations that cannot be included in the
Self-Study Report.
After the visit, the institution has seven (7) days to report errors of fact in the visiting team’s
preliminary findings. After it receives the Draft Statement, the institution has 30 days to report
actions it has taken since the visit to address the team’s findings and improve the program.
This is the Due Process Response Period.
Commissions
Each of the member societies is invited to have representation on one or more of the four ABET
commissions, according to the curricular areas that those societies are assigned to by the ABET
Board of Directors. The four commissions are:
the Applied Science Accreditation Commission (ASAC);
the Computing Accreditation Commission (CAC);
the Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC); and
the Engineering Technology Accreditation Commission (ETAC).
The accreditation commissions are responsible for administering the ABET accreditation
process, based on the Accreditation Policies and Procedures Manual and on the accreditation
criteria, both of which are approved by the ABET Board of Directors. The commissions
recommend criteria, assign the team chairs of the visiting teams, and make final accreditation
decisions (by vote of the entire membership).
Visit Team
The visit team evaluates one or more programs at an institution against the ABET Criteria and
Accreditation Policies and Procedures. The visit team is composed of a team chair and at least
one program evaluator for each program being evaluated.
Team Chair
The team chair is a member of the commission (or, occasionally, a former member), appointed
by the Commission Executive Committee to lead the visit team. The team chair is the primary
11
contact with the institution. The team chair is responsible for contact with the dean of each
program being evaluated. He or she is involved in approving the composition of the visit team.
As the leader of the visit team, the team chair assembles the Draft Statement and the Final
Statement, and presents the findings to the ABET commission at the Summer Commission
Meeting in July.
The responsibilities of the team chair will vary depending on the size of the visit team. In
addition, team chairs may use different leadership approaches and organizational strategies to
ensure a successful visit. Some team chairs, for example, may conduct conference calls with
their team prior to the visit. Some may request an additional team meeting while on the visit.
Program Evaluators
Program evaluators (PEVs) are selected by their member societies to represent ABET on site
visits, where they work with a team of colleagues from other member societies. As an ABET
team member, the program evaluator’s role is to provide knowledge on professional practice,
professional preparation, and continuous improvement. The program evaluator also provides
sound judgment about how the program he or she is evaluating meets ABET’s Accreditation
Criteria.
One of the program evaluator’s most important responsibilities is to behave in an ethical and
professional manner and to uphold ABET’s Code of Conduct, in Section IX of the ABET Rules
of Procedure. It is particularly important to avoid any real or perceived conflicts of interest with
the institutions being evaluated. Program evaluators must disclose any real or perceived conflicts
and recuse themselves from discussions or decisions related to any associated issues. If you have
any questions about this, contact your team chair or ABET at [email protected] or 410-
347-7700.
To avoid being assigned as a PEV for a visit to an institution for which you have a conflict of
interest, it is important that you keep your list of conflicts current in your ABET profile. You
should update your profile whenever a new conflict of interest develops, but not later than mid-
spring of each year.
Special Note: Avoid any real or perceived conflicts of interest with the institutions being
evaluated. If you are not sure about a possible perception of a conflict of interest, contact your
team chair or ABET.
As a Program Evaluator, you will have responsibilities before, during, and after the site visit.
C. OVERVIEW OF ACCREDITATION CRITERIA
Programs must comply with the Criteria and ABET’s Accreditation Policies and Procedures
Manual to achieve accreditation. As a program evaluator, you are responsible for evaluating a
program’s compliance with the Criteria.
The Criteria are intended to:
12
Ensure the quality of educational programs.
Foster the systematic pursuit of quality improvement in educational programs.
Help develop educational programs that satisfy the needs of constituencies in a dynamic and
competitive environment.
It is the responsibility of the institution seeking accreditation of a program to demonstrate clearly
that the program meets the Criteria.
Please Note: To evaluate a program, it is critical that you thoroughly understand the Criteria and
how to apply them. (Note: In this training, we will only be addressing the General Criteria. Your
member society will cover program-specific criteria as needed.)
For more information, please see the Accreditation Policy and Procedure Manual and the
Accreditation Criteria.
D. EXPLANATION OF TERMS
ABET expert volunteers and staff should use consistent terminology. As a program evaluator, you will
need to know and use the following terms (Glossary) (See Appendix E)
Program Educational Objectives: Broad statements that describe what graduates are expected
to attain within a few years of graduation. Program educational objectives are based on the needs
of the program’s constituencies.
Student Outcomes: Statements that describe what students are expected to know and be able to
do by the time of graduation. These relate to skills, knowledge, and behaviors that students
acquire as they progress through the program.
Assessment: One or more processes that identify, collect, and prepare data to evaluate the
attainment of program educational objectives and student outcomes. Effective assessment uses
relevant direct, indirect, quantitative, and qualitative measures as appropriate to the objective or
outcome being measured. Appropriate sampling methods may be used as part of an assessment
process.
Evaluation: One or more processes for interpreting the data and evidence accumulated through
assessment practices. Evaluation determines the extent to which program educational objectives
and student outcomes are being attained. Evaluation results in decisions and actions regarding
program improvement.
If you are from industry, government, or private practice and would like more information on the
academic environment and terminology, you will want to review this Introduction to Academia for Non-
Academician (PDF) (See Appendix F)
13
E. DEFINITION OF LEVELS OF COMPLIANCE
When writing the Exit Statement for the program you will be evaluating, you will need to use a
variety of terms and statements to define levels of compliance (Accreditation Policy and
Procedures Manual II. G. 9. a. and Glossary.) ) (See Appendix E)
Findings of Concern: A Concern indicates that 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.
Findings of Weakness: A Weakness indicates that 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 review.
Findings of Deficiency: A Deficiency indicates a criterion, policy, or procedure is not satisfied.
Therefore, the program is not in compliance with the criterion, policy, or procedure.
Statements of Observation: An Observation is a comment or suggestion that does not relate
directly to the accreditation action but is offered to assist the institution in its continuing efforts
to improve its programs.
Statements of Strength: A Strength is an exceptionally strong, effective practice or condition
that stands above the norm, and has a positive effect on the program.
Please Note: You must fully understand what is required to meet the Criteria and the levels of
compliance. More will be covered in Module 5: Applying the Criteria.
Module 3: The Role of the Program Evaluator As a Program Evaluator, you have many roles. Most important, you are the face of ABET and
must follow ABET’s Code of Conduct and adhere to ABET’s Conflict of Interest Policy. As a
Program Evaluator, you are devoting your time and expertise to ensuring quality education for
students studying for entry into your profession.
A. PROGRAM EVALUATOR ROLES
14
ABET Representative: As a program evaluator, you are the face of ABET. You represent
ABET when conducting all accreditation-related activities, and the institution that you visit
judges ABET by your actions.
Evaluator: You have been selected as a program evaluator because you have subject matter
expertise in the discipline you will be evaluating. Every program evaluator on your team is
assigned a program to evaluate, based on the expertise he/she has in that program area.
Accepting a position on a visit team is a commitment to fulfill all the obligations required. The
role of the program evaluator is not to be the police, to look for “gotchas,” but rather to be a
partner with the institution in the improvement of the program.
Team Member: As a program evaluator, you also play the important role of team member. Your
interaction with your colleagues, particularly during team meetings, is crucial to an efficient and
successful visit. Being team-oriented is an important competency for all program evaluators.
A program evaluator’s responsibilities are to:
Complete the pre-visit work, including inspecting the materials provided by the institution.
Participate in a 2-4 day on-site review.
Evaluate information obtained according to ABET Criteria.
Prepare materials in a timely manner, including recommended accreditation action.
Provide visit materials to the team chair at the conclusion of the visit.
Complete performance appraisal forms. (This will be covered in Module 6.)
Submit expenses to ABET using the on-line expense system within 10 days of your site visit.
Assist the team chair, as requested, in review of the institution’s 30-day due process response and
development of the Final Draft Statement.
Important Note: Avoid any real or perceived conflicts of interest with the institutions being
evaluated. For more information, see ABET’s Code of Conduct, Conflict of Interest, and
Confidentiality Policies in the ABET Rules of Procedure.
B. ACTIVITIES BEFORE THE VISIT
You will have a significant number of tasks to complete prior to arriving on campus for the site
visit. Your thorough preparation before arriving on site is essential to an efficient and successful
site visit. In particular, your pre-visit analysis will enable you to identify additional information
you will need during the visit. Additional information requests must be given to the program well
in advance of the visit and should be coordinated with the team chair. Because this is a
collaborative process, you need to meet your obligations in a timely manner to allow the
institution to gather additional information in a reasonable time. If the program is already ABET-
15
accredited, the program evaluator will receive a copy of the previous final accreditation
statement for the program.
Here are some of the activities and deliverables you will need to complete prior to arriving on
campus:
Make Travel Arrangements
You are responsible for making your own travel arrangements in consultation with the team chair
and in alignment with the ABET Travel Policy. Travel arrangements should be made as soon as
the team chair communicates visit details, including overall schedule, hotel accommodations,
and transportation arrangements to and from the airport . All reasonable attempts should be made
to minimize travel costs. All travel must follow the ABET Travel Policy to be reimbursed.
Review the Self-Study Report
This is the primary document the institution prepares to demonstrate compliance with ABET
Criteria. Each program uses the Self-Study Questionnaire template appropriate to the
commission. These are found on the ABET website. While the majority of the program’s Self-
Study Report will be in paragraph format, a program may use tables, graphs, charts, and figures
to illustrate compliance. The Self-Study Questionnaire includes tables that a program is required
to complete along with prescribed formats for certain types of information like course
descriptions and faculty curriculum vita.
You must thoroughly review the Self-Study Report prior to arriving on site, and prior to pre-visit
conferences if scheduled by the team chair.
Transcript Analysis
As part of your review of the Self-Study Report, you will need to analyze transcripts. ABET
recognizes transcripts as the official record of student coursework. While summary sheets or
transcript checklists provided by the institution may be helpful for transcript analysis, the
transcript itself should be the key document analyzed. Procedures for doing this include:
Be sure that the transcripts identify the name (title) of the program in a way that clearly identifies
the program as an ABET-accredited program according to the institution catalog and other
documents and in a way that distinguishes it from any non-accredited programs with which it
could be confused by a potential employer. Identify any problems in this regard to your team
chair.
Make sure that the courses that are counted toward the degree are consistent with the published
requirements of the program. In cases where the transcript is for a graduate of an earlier
curriculum, the institution must provide a copy of the appropriate curriculum. The institution also
should provide justification for any variances, such as transfer credits or substitutions that are not
clearly documented on the transcripts.
16
Check to be sure that prerequisites are taken before each course that requires them and that the
course sequence on the transcript does not vary unreasonably from the recommended sequence. If
courses are taken out of sequence, check to see if there is an indication of difficulty for the
students in terms of the course grades. (If there are difficulties for students, then there could be a
problem with the mechanisms for advising and the enforcement of prerequisites. If there are no
problems, it could indicate prerequisite requirements that are not needed.)
Ensure that the number of transfer credits and the number of course substitutions are reasonable.
Request clarification for any apparent problems in the transcripts. Do your transcript analysis and
request clarifications soon enough to allow reasonable time for the institution to respond.
Read the guidelines for analyzing student transcripts based on commission. (See Appendix G)
Draft Plan for Visit
Your draft plan includes the questions and areas that require additional information based on
your review of the Self-Study Report. The draft plan helps you manage your time efficiently
when you are on site. Be sure to:
Convey your preferences and arrangements for interviews and meetings with faculty, students,
and others to your team chair prior to contacting the program head.
Tell your team chair about visits needed to supporting areas. (Team chairs usually coordinate
visits to supporting areas.)
Pre-Visit Forms
In Module 5 you will be provided with a variety of forms to help you walk through the self-study
report and conduct a preliminary review of a program’s compliance with the ABET criteria.
Applying the Criteria
Review the current ABET Criteria, the Self-Study Report, and any other materials sent by the
institution.
Assess areas of apparent strengths and shortcomings.
Make preliminary assessment of what ABET Criteria appear to be met or may not be met.
Team Chair
Follow up with the team chair regarding additional information you will need when you arrive on
site. Your team chair may direct you to communicate this information to the program
representative.
Always respond promptly to requests from your team chair.
Coordinate your travel plans with your team chair.
17
C. THE VISIT
The site visit enables ABET to assess factors that cannot be adequately addressed in the Self-
Study Report. These factors include the intellectual atmosphere, the morale of the faculty and
students, the caliber of the staff and student body, the facilities, and the outcome of the education
offered as evidenced by the character of the work performed.
Do not conduct interviews or share preliminary conclusions with the institution prior to the site
visit.
Your objectives while on site are to:
Make a qualitative assessment of factors that cannot be documented in the Self-Study Report.
Conduct a detailed examination of the materials compiled by the institution (this includes course
materials and assessment materials).
Provide the program with a preliminary assessment of its strong points and shortcomings.
Review facilities.
Important Note: Visiting teams should help the programs assess their strong points as well as
their weak points. You are not there only as an auditor but also as a consultant to assist the
program in its continuous improvement efforts.
D. ACTIVITIES THAT YOU WILL CONDUCT
DURING THE VISIT
Examine Assessment Materials
Assessment Materials are usually located with the course display materials. The purpose is to
corroborate the assessment plan for student outcomes that was provided in the Self-Study Report,
including ensuring that appropriate documentation exists for the various phases of the assessment
process.
Examine Course Materials
Evaluators will review samples of displayed course materials including course syllabi, textbooks,
example assignments and exams, and examples of student work, typically ranging from excellent
through poor (Accreditation Policy and Procedure Manual, Section II.G.6.b.(2)).
The display materials should be readily available throughout the visit. You should verify that:
The course is up-to-date and appropriate for the objectives of the program.
The course prerequisites are adequate.
The learning activities are appropriate for the course outcomes.
18
The graded work adequately assesses the course learning outcomes.
Note that it is unlikely that a problem with a single course would be enough evidence for a
Weakness or a Deficiency. Rather, the course materials should be used to corroborate potential
problems indicated elsewhere, such as suspected failure by some faculty members to remain
current, or should suggest potential problems that need to be corroborated by additional
evidence, such as an apparent lack of rigor sufficient to achieve the course learning outcomes.
Interview the Program Head
This is an opportunity to get a better feel for the program’s strengths and weaknesses and the
vision of its leadership for the future. Any issues that arose during your pre-visit preparation
should be discussed to ensure that you are aware of all appropriate facts and have planned
appropriate activities for further investigation. If a single program is being evaluated, the team
chair may decide to interview the program head.
It is preferable not to make requests that require substantial effort to satisfy during this meeting
(or at any time during the visit). Such requests should be made well in advance if your visit
preparation is adequate. However, do not hesitate to make requests for things that are really
needed to ensure a fair and complete review. It is advisable to discuss such requests with your
team chair if they are likely to require a substantial amount of work from the program’s staff.
You should also interview others with administrative duties (class scheduling, student advising,
transfer course evaluation, etc.) relative to the program. This does not include administrators at
the institutional level, whose visits are coordinated by the Team Chair. If the program head is not
the department chair or other administrative head over the program, then you also should
interview the administrative head. If more than one program under the administrative head is
being reviewed, you may wish to coordinate your interview with the program evaluator(s) for the
other program(s), perhaps even doing the interview simultaneously with the other PEV(s).
Interview Faculty Members
During the faculty interviews, you should try to get a feel for the philosophy of each faculty
member towards teaching; activities undertaken to maintain currency; level of understanding of,
and participation in, the assessment process and preparation for the visit; and the view of the
strengths and weaknesses of the program and its future direction.
Faculty members also can be a source of initial identification or corroboration for problems with
such aspects as the quality and maintenance of facilities (labs, classrooms, library, etc.). Faculty
attitudes regarding the work environment and their commitment to remaining at the institution
are also important in assessing the adequacy of institutional support to maintain program stability
during the potential period of accreditation.
There are many personal preferences regarding the best way to interview faculty members.
Ideally, it is best to interview faculty members in their offices (if private) on a one-on-one basis.
However, if the faculty is large or offices are not private, an alternative approach may be needed.
Individual appointments should last for at least 30 minutes. You should identify some of the
faculty you are especially interested in interviewing if you will not have time to interview all of
them. When selecting faculty to interview, consider those teaching courses for which you have
19
questions, those with laboratory responsibilities, length of service, and rank. This should all be
arranged before the visit and in consultation with your team chair.
Interview Students
Interviewing the students is often one of the most rewarding and enjoyable parts of the visit. The
level of satisfaction with, and enthusiasm for, the program can be a good indicator of the
program quality. In addition, students can provide important corroboration for such aspects as
the lack of adequate quality in certain courses, problems with advising, and the adequacy of
facilities (labs, classrooms, library, etc.).
As we know, however, the student perspective on the importance of certain courses and the
characteristics of the program is often quite different from the perspectives of the faculty and
administration. Although these perspectives can be valuable in getting a feel about the overall
quality of a program, it is important to keep in mind that students are not always in a good
position to judge the real value of an educational experience. Therefore, student complaints
should not result in a conclusion that there is a problem unless the problem can be corroborated
by more evidence that is more concrete.
There are many individual preferences for selecting the students to be interviewed as a group.
Ideally, the group will include a representative number of upper-level students and some other
students as well. The student interviews can be done during a scheduled class (the instructor
should not be present), but it is difficult to get a good representative sample from a single class.
On the other hand, if the student interview is held during an open meeting with voluntary
attendance, it can be difficult to get good representative attendance as well (or even good
attendance at all). In any case, the group to be interviewed should not be selected by the program
staff unless you ensure that those selected are a representative sample of the student body,
especially the upper-level students. You should allow at least 30 minutes for meeting with the
students.
Tour the Facilities
In touring the facilities, you want to ensure that they are sufficiently up-to-date and maintained to
support the needs of the program. You also want to be aware of safety and access issues. The
adequacy of the support staff is important, as is a mechanism for ensuring the continuing
adequacy through the period of accreditation. The following are typical support facility visits that
are conducted on an accreditation review visit. These visits may be done by the team chair or
may be assigned to PEVs by the team chair.
If more than one program is being visited, these activities may be coordinated among the
program evaluators and findings shared.
Visit the library. When you visit the library, you are primarily verifying the evidence in the Self-
Study Report: adequacy of the collection, availability of staff support, electronic access to
information and materials, etc. The adequacy of the resources is important to observe, and this is
difficult to determine from the Self-Study Report.
Visit one or more supporting departments. Supporting departments (mathematics, physics,
English, etc.) play an important role in the foundational preparation of students. In interviewing
20
the department chair or other departmental representative, you should try to get a feel for how
well the students of the programs that the team is reviewing do in the supporting courses and
whether there are any problems with the nature of the courses from the perspective of the
supporting department. If course materials have been provided in a course materials display area,
you should review these materials before going to visit the supporting department. If the materials
have not been arranged in advance, then you cannot expect to see much more than course
textbooks and syllabi for courses that are currently being offered.
Visit the career support center, placement office, cooperative education office, etc. The intent
of visits to offices such as these is to assess the level of support for students. You should inquire
about the support that is available and general procedures for students to obtain the support.
Sometimes you can assist the program, students, or faculty by identifying available support that is
not being used effectively in the program. Understaffed offices, inadequate facilities, or outdated
programs can indicate or corroborate problems that appear in assessment results, student or
faculty interviews, etc.
Write an Exit Statement
The Exit Statement has a prescribed format for each commission. The Exit Statement must
clearly identify each shortcoming relative to the ABET Criteria or Accreditation Policies and
Procedures.
Complete a Program Audit Form (PAF)
The PAF lists the shortcomings for a program. It normally is completed after the Exit Statement
is finished, and should use the same language as the Exit Statement in describing shortcomings.
Usually the text in the PAF is copied from the Exit Statement and pasted into the PAF. The PAFs
are given to the dean by the team chair at the conclusion of the Exit Meeting, and they serve as a
written summary of the team’s findings on the programs that were evaluated for accreditation.
Note that the PAF does not identify the recommended action on a program.
Debrief the Program Head
The debrief for the program head by the PEV is less formal than the exit meeting. There should
be sufficient discussion to ensure that the program head understands the shortcomings that have
been identified. Information that could be helpful in addressing the shortcomings can be
provided by the PEV, but care must be taken to avoid any impression of prescribing a solution.
Participate in the Exit Meeting
The purpose of the exit meeting is to communicate the team’s findings relative to all programs.
Following initial statements by the team chair, each PEV will read (verbatim) the Exit Statement
for the program evaluated by that PEV. The exit meeting is a formal report by the team. The
team chair serves as chair for the exit meeting, and only questions for clarification are permitted.
If you are asked by your team chair to respond to a question, you should be very careful not to
ramble, but focus on the observed facts that lead to the finding.
The team chair may modify this basic procedure as appropriate. For example, if the number of
programs reviewed is large, general information about each program and the program strengths
might be omitted from what is read at the exit meeting. Similarly, if there is a shortcoming that is
21
common to all programs, then the team chair may state that shortcoming in the introductory
remarks and each PEV would then omit that shortcoming from the reading of the PEV’s
statement. Finally, if there is more than one PEV for a program, the team chair will determine
what is to be read by each PEV.
E. A TYPICAL VISIT AGENDA
Sunday
During the initial team meeting, your responsibilities are to:
Review visit plan.
Provide initial Program Evaluator Visit Report and Program Evaluator Worksheet to the team
chair. Note: Your team chair may request these prior to the visit.
Discuss pre-visit assessment.
Review criteria, policy, and procedure changes.
You will also visit the program to:
Evaluate course materials (syllabi, texts, graded student work, etc.).
Evaluate assessment materials (results and analysis from surveys, etc.).
Conduct other visits (labs, etc.) as needed.
Sunday Evening
During the team meeting, your responsibilities are to:
Identify all potential Deficiencies, Weaknesses, and Concerns.
Work as a team to come to consensus and to ensure consistency about findings among programs.
Monday Morning
Team meets with president and/or dean and designated guests.
Meet with program head.
Meet with program faculty, students, and support staff.
Attend optional luncheon for team with institutional officials and guests.
Monday Afternoon
22
Continue meetings and interviews.
Visit facilities.
Visit supporting departments.
Monday Evening
During the team meeting, your responsibilities are to:
Report on findings relative to previously identified potential Deficiencies, Weaknesses, and
Concerns.
Discuss possible accreditation action.
Prepare draft of Program Audit Form (PAF) and exit statement.
Tuesday Morning
Provide draft of Program Audit Form (PAF) and exit statement to team chair.
Complete interviews and facilities visits not completed on Monday.
Brief program head on findings (informal debrief).
Team meeting (working lunch).
Tuesday Afternoon
Complete Program Audit Form (PAF) and exit statement:
Address each criterion for which there are findings.
Document facts, Deficiencies, Weaknesses, Concerns, and Observations.
Your statement must correlate with PEV Report and Program Evaluator Worksheet.
Provide team chair with PEV Visit Report, Program Evaluator Worksheet, and Program Audit
Form.
Update to reflect visit findings.
List persons interviewed.
Identify recommended accreditation action.
Add program exit statement.
23
Participate in exit meeting. Read your written exit statement, do not deviate, and do not ramble!
Please Note: During exit meeting, it is very important not to mention a proposed recommended
accreditation action!
As a Program Evaluator, your responsibilities include:
Identifying potential shortcomings by criterion.
Determining appropriate findings.
Selecting the key term that applies overall for each finding.
Providing evidence for each finding and the effect it has on the program in the exit statement and
Program Audit Form (PAF).
Discussing or recommending an accreditation action to the team only.
As a Program Evaluator, you should never:
Recommend solutions to shortcomings.
Be prescriptive in suggesting improvements.
Share the recommended accreditation action with anyone outside the team.
Draft Statement Outline
The Team Chair will combine the exit statements of all programs evaluated into a draft
statement. The draft statement will follow this outline:
Introduction
For each program
o Program Strengths
o Program Deficiencies
o Program Weaknesses
o Program Concerns
o Program Observations
After going through an editing process, the Draft Statement will be sent to the institution. The
institution then has 30 days to respond. This response is called the Due Process Response.
Please Remember To:
Explain all shortcomings.
24
Be consistent with ABET Criteria.
Provide evidence for each finding and the impact it has on the program as it relates to the ABET
Criteria.
Be consistent with all forms provided to the team chair.
F. APPLYING THE CRITERIA: CONSISTENCY
COUNTS
Accreditation actions must be consistent across all programs with similar shortcomings
(Weaknesses, Deficiencies) and across all institutions. As a PEV, it is essential that you compare
your findings with those of the other programs being evaluated at the institution and ensure that
different findings do not result from similar observations. The visit team should work together to
resolve potential differences in findings for situations that are the same or very similar.
Consistency is checked throughout the ABET Accreditation Process. The process is visually
illustrated in this graphic (PDF). (See Appendix H)
G. AFTER THE VISIT
Within ten (10) business days after the visit, you will need to:
Submit your expenses using the ABET on-line expense system, including scanning or copying all
receipts. The expense report will be sent to your team chair for approval by the system. Once
approved by the team chair, the system will forward your expense report to ABET headquarters
for payment.
Complete the online appraisal form for the Team Chair and Program Evaluators on your visiting
team.
ABET EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT POLICY: All travelers should be aware that only
persons who are authorized prior to visiting campuses or attending pertinent meetings and
activities will be reimbursed for their allowable and reasonable expenses. If there is a question on
reimbursements or allowable expenses, please seek guidance from your team chair or staff
liaison. It is ABET’s policy to reimburse reasonable expenses incurred by those individuals who
are authorized to attend specific visits. All expenses should be submitted within ten (10) working
days after returning from your trip. Failure to comply with the travel policy instructions will
delay the reimbursement of your expenses. Expenses submitted more than sixty (60) days after
the end of travel may not be reimbursed.
25
Module 4: Continuous Quality Improvement of Student Learning
The evaluation of a program’s compliance with each of the various features of the Program
Educational Objectives, Student Outcomes, and Continuous Improvement Criteria (Criteria 2, 3,
and 4) is an important element of ABET’s outcomes-based accreditation criteria and the
program’s continuous improvement processes. Although you will be reviewing many aspects of
the program visited, your evaluation of the program’s process for the assessment, evaluation, and
implementation of identified needed improvements relative to its stated program educational
objectives and student outcomes will be an important part of your work. This module will
provide you with information that will help you in the evaluation of these processes.
A. TERMS AND DEFINITIONS USED BY ABET
Unfortunately, there is no universally accepted set of terms used in the assessment field. The
table below defines the terms used in the ABET Criteria and defined in the Accreditation Policy
and Procedure Manual.
ABET Terms Definition
Program
Educational
Objectives
Program educational objectives are broad statements that describe what
graduates are expected to attain within a few years after graduation. Program
educational objectives are based on the needs of the program’s constituencies.
Student
Outcomes
Student outcomes describe what students are expected to know and be able to do
by the time of graduation. These relate to the knowledge, skills, and behaviors
that students acquire as they progress through the program.
Assessment
Assessment is one or more processes that identify, collect, and prepare data to
evaluate the attainment of student outcomes and program educational objectives.
Effective assessment uses relevant direct, indirect, quantitative, and qualitative
measures as appropriate to the objective or outcome being measured.
Appropriate sampling methods may be used as part of an assessment process.
Evaluation
Evaluation is one or more processes for interpreting the data and evidence
accumulated through assessment processes. Evaluation determines the extent to
which student outcomes and program educational objectives are being attained.
Evaluation results in decisions and actions regarding program improvement.
Programs may have adopted a specific language of assessment, which varies from the terms
above. It is also possible terminology will vary from one program to another within an
institution. If a program is using different terms, it is important it defines its terms in its self-
study and uses them consistently in its documentation for ABET. If the Self-Study does not
clearly indicate how terms are being used, this should be clarified before the visit.
B. REVIEW OF PROGRAM EDUCATIONAL
OBJECTIVES
26
Program educational objectives focus on what graduates are expected to attain within a few years
after graduation. Due to recent changes in the Criteria, it is no longer necessary to assess the
attainment of the program educational objectives but “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.”
The review of program educational objectives requires appropriate monitoring of the currency of
the objectives themselves. The currency of the program educational objectives should be
reviewed periodically. The time span will depend on the changing needs of the constituents and
mission of the program. Programs in dynamic and rapidly changing disciplines will need to have
more frequent monitoring cycles to be sure the program educational objectives are current and
the student outcomes will enable the attainment of the objectives.
Information on the needs of constituents for the development and revision of the program
educational objectives should be gathered in meaningful ways. Determining compliance with this
aspect of Criterion 2 will take informed judgment on the part of the evaluator.
C. ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION OF
STUDENT OUTCOMES
For student outcomes, the focus of the data collection is to answer the question, “Can the
program demonstrate the level to which students have attained the anticipated student
outcomes?” The evidence of student learning is then used to identify student strengths and
weaknesses related to each of the student outcomes for making decisions about how to improve
the program teaching/learning processes.
This evidence should be the product of faculty reviewing and/or observing student work related
to the program requirements. In preparation for reviewing a program’s processes related to
Criterion 4, Continuous Improvement, for student outcomes, it is important to understand several
principles of a well-constructed process to enable continuous improvement related to program-
level student learning.
1. The focus of Criterion 4 (continuous improvement) is on the assessment of the
program, not on the assessment of individual students. Assessment of the attainment
of student outcomes at the program level focuses on the performances of selected student
and graduate cohorts. A program faculty gains insights into how well it is developing its
outcomes through the evaluation of results from student outcome assessment for the
selected student cohort. In general, results are reported in terms of the percentage of
students in the student cohort who meet the program’s student outcomes targets. The
program’s interpretation of the results informs decision making for continuous
improvement purposes.
27
2. The focus of Criterion 4 (continuous improvement related to student outcomes) is on
the learning of students and not the assessment or evaluation of individual courses.
At the program level, assessment and evaluation should be focused on the learning that
has resulted from the experiences in the program by the time of graduation. The purpose
is to provide information on the program’s efficacy (its ability to achieve what it was
designed to achieve).
3. Student outcomes should be defined in order for faculty to have a common
understanding of the expectations for student learning and to achieve consistency
across the curriculum. Well-defined student outcomes also communicate to students
what learning will be expected as they progress through the program. Without agreed
upon definitions of the student outcomes, faculty may have widely varying
understandings of what constitutes performance of a given outcome. When faculty have
variable definitions of the student outcomes, it is almost impossible to determine the
extent to which a student cohort has attained the outcomes. One way to establish a
common and consistent understanding of what constitutes measurable performance of a
student outcome is for those faculty involved to develop a few performance indicators for
each student outcome. For further information on writing performance indicators, see the
BONUS reading Student Outcomes and Performance Indicators (PDF), (See Appendix I)
4. A program does not have to collect data on every student in every course to know
how well it is doing toward attaining student outcomes. In fact, a program does not
have to collect evidence of performance on every student. Because the focus of the
assessment activity is on the program and not individual students, it is important the
cohort used for data collection be representative of the range of students in the program
.If a sample is drawn from the cohort, it must include the same proportion of student
characteristics (e.g., grade averages, gender, diversity, etc.) that describe the program’s
student population. In programs that have a small graduation class, sampling may not be
appropriate. However, if data are collected on a specific student outcome only every three
years (see #5 below) a program would, in fact, be sampling regardless of cohort size as it
is not collecting data on every student who leaves the program.
5. To provide evidence of attainment of student outcomes by the time of graduation for
program reporting purposes, programs may choose to evaluate and report only data
collected in core upper-level courses. Although not required by the accreditation
criteria, a best practice is to sample from strategically selected core courses toward the
end of the curricular cycle (meaning those where the most representative sample of
student attainment of outcomes can be gathered).There are many reasons why programs
should collect data (baseline or other) in the lower-level courses over which they have
control for their continuous improvement, but for the most part it is sufficient to choose
from upper-level courses for ABET reporting purposes. In general, knowledge, skills, or
behaviors students demonstrate in lower-level courses are not as likely a result of the
program’s discipline-specific curriculum.
28
6. A program does not have to assess every outcome every year to know how well it is
doing toward attaining student outcomes. Collecting too many data on individual
students often leads to difficulty. This is certainly true if a program is requiring faculty
collect data in every course where student outcomes are being “covered.” Not only does
this make the data collection process cumbersome, but it also makes it almost impossible
to turn the data into useful information A viable alternative data-collection approach is to
use assessment cycles where, on a rotating basis, performance-indicator data for a portion
of the student outcomes are sampled from two, or preferably three, core upper-level
courses where the outcomes are “covered.” Using this approach produces evidence that
can be used for evaluation and decisions about actions that should be taken, and relieves
faculty of unnecessary data collection. Staggering the data collection over the six-year
accreditation cycle produces a continuous and systematic process. For an example of a
continuous data collection process see Appendix J.
7. The focus is continuous improvement based on information for decision-making, not
just data collection (i.e., data ≠ information).ABET accreditation criteria mandate
program faculty focus on continuous improvement using documented processes for
assessing and evaluating attainment of student outcomes. The faculty member time and
data collection requirements of these assessment processes should be consistent with day-
to-day operation of the program, and the faculty should maintain these processes of
assessment and subsequent evaluation across the interval between successive
accreditation visits. Assessment processes focusing on the continuous improvement of
the program produce results faculty and administration can systematically use in
meaningful ways.
The following are the underlying principles of continuous quality improvement of student
learning at the program level.
1. The focus of Criterion 4 (continuous improvement related to student outcomes) is on the
learning of students and not the assessment or evaluation of individual students.
2. The focus of Criterion 4 (continuous improvement related to student outcomes) is on the
learning of students and not the assessment or evaluation of individual courses.
3. Student outcomes should be defined in order for faculty to have a common understanding
of the expectations for student learning and to achieve consistency across the curriculum.
4. A program does not have to collect data on every student in every course to know how
well it is doing toward the attainment of student outcomes.
5. To provide evidence of attainment of student outcomes by the time of graduation for
program reporting purposes, programs may choose to evaluate and report only data
collected in courses towards the end of the curricular cycle.
29
6. A program does not have to assess every outcome every year to know how well it is
doing toward the attainment of student outcomes.
7. The focus is on continuous improvement based on information for decision-making.
D. HOW DO I KNOW IF A PROGRAM HAS AN
ADEQUATE CONTINUOUS QUALITY
IMPROVEMENT PROCESS FOR STUDENT
LEARNING?
Evidence of a CQI process would contain the following:
1. A timeline of repeated activities related to assessment and evaluation. Possible question:
“What is your data collection and evaluation timeline?”
2. Agreed upon definitions of student outcomes. (Identifying a few performance indicators
per outcome is an effective way to develop measurable definitions.) Possible question
for faculty: “How does your program define its student outcomes to ensure
consistent assessment across the curriculum?”
3. Systematic data collection focusing on performance related to the student outcomes.
Possible question: “Where do you collect the data that is evidence of student
learning?”
4. Systematic data collection ensuring coverage of each student outcome for the given
student cohort. Possible request: “Describe how the data being presented were
collected.”
5. Data collection and analysis providing information that enables faculty to identify
superior performance and opportunities for improvement related to the outcomes.
Possible question: “I see X% of your students have attained outcome Y. Were there
any notable positive or negative aspects of the students’ performance?”
6. An evaluation process clearly communicating to program faculty opportunities for
improvement in student learning. Possible request: “Describe how the proposed
actions improved student learning (or are anticipated to improve student learning)
related to the enhancement opportunities identified.
30
Module 5: Applying the Criteria You have reviewed many of the fundamentals of the ABET Accreditation Process. Now, you
will apply what you have learned in a series of exercises and in checks for understanding.
A. CRITERIA APPLICATION BASICS
ABET accredits educational programs leading to degrees. (ABET does NOT accredit
institutions, departments, or degrees.)
ABET defines an educational program as an integrated, organized experience that culminates in
the awarding of a degree. The program will have program educational objectives, student
outcomes, a curriculum, faculty, and facilities.
ABET does not dictate program names to an institution.
You can find a thorough explanation of the above in the Accreditation Policy and Procedure
Manual, Section II.E.
B. UNDERSTANDING THE CRITERIA
Using the Criteria to evaluate a program’s compliance begins with understanding the Criteria.
ABET criteria are based on the principles of continuous quality improvement. General Criteria
cover the following areas of an educational program:
Students
Program Educational Objectives
Student Outcomes
Continuous Improvement
Curriculum
Faculty
Facilities
Institutional Support
ASCE may also have additional criteria covering minimum standards for the program discipline
you will be evaluating. These are called “Program Criteria.” Note, there no longer is a Criterion
9, Program Criteria, in the General Criteria.
31
C. COMMON ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH EACH
CRITERION
The ABET Criteria are minimum standards you apply with judgment. Over the years, ABET has
identified common issues that may surface as you review a program’s Self-Study and make
observations during a visit for evidence of compliance.
The issues listed below for each criterion area are not exhaustive. You may identify additional
issues as you review the Self-Study. Additionally, some issues listed here may not by themselves
represent a shortcoming relative to the criteria, but rather may indicate a need to seek additional
information in order to determine whether there is a shortcoming. Remember each shortcoming
must refer to specific requirements in the criteria that are not fully met or potentially may not be
met in the future.
Students
Problems with student advising, including ineffective or inconsistent advising and a lack of
understanding of curricular requirements, especially if many options are available.
Ineffective monitoring, including no documentation of course substitutions or missing
prerequisites.
Problems with transfer process, including no documentation on acceptability of transfer credits.
Program Educational Objectives
Program educational objectives are not published or readily accessible to the public.
Program educational objectives are not related to institutional mission or are inconsistent with the
mission.
Program educational objectives are not consistent with the needs of the program’s various
constituencies.
Program educational objectives do not describe what graduates are expected to attain within a few
years after graduation.
There is no indication as to who are the program’s constituents.
There is no evidence the needs of the program’s constituents have been considered in the
formulation of the program’s educational objectives.
There is no process to periodically review and revise the program educational objectives.
32
There is no evidence of constituency involvement in the periodic review and revision of program
educational objectives.
Student Outcomes
Student outcomes are stated such that attainment is not measurable. (Note: Having student
outcomes whose attainment is not measurable is not by itself a violation of any criterion, but if
attainment of an outcome is not measurable then the extent to which it is attained may not be
appropriately evaluated, as required in Criterion 4.)
There is missing or incomplete justification as to how the student outcomes prepare graduates to
attain the program educational objectives.
The student outcomes do not reflect what the students should know and be able to do at the time
of graduation
There is no process to periodically review and revise the student outcomes. (ASAC, CAC, ETAC
only)
Continuous Improvement
Processes
The assessment and evaluation processes are not documented.
The program cannot demonstrate the processes do what they claim.
The assessment, evaluation, and improvement cycle is not complete.
Assessment
Indicators of student performance have not been defined and/or no a priori level of student
performance has been established. (Although there is no criteria requirement for performance
indicators or a priori levels of performance, without these or something equivalent it may be
difficult to appropriately evaluate the extent to which student outcomes are attained, and
additional information may be needed to determine the appropriateness of the evaluation process
for outcomes attainment.)
The program uses only anecdotal results (versus measured results).
The program relies only on course grades as assessment for one or more student outcomes. There
are many factors, rarely all relating to a single student outcome for the program, used to
determine a course grade. Thus the level of granularity of course grades relative to student
outcomes is almost always too coarse for course grades to be used as reliable indicators for
attainment of specific student outcomes.
There is an over-reliance on student self-assessment (e.g., surveys) as opposed to assessment
methods based on actual student performance. As a rule, student self-assessment of outcomes
33
attainment is considered much less reliable than attainment data from actual student performance
relative to each outcome.
Assessment data are being collected for only some outcomes
Evaluation
The data collected are not analyzed and used as input to a program improvement process.
The continuous improvement process appears to ignore evidence students are not attaining the
student outcomes at the expected level of student performance.
The evaluation of data does not provide the information needed to make program improvements.
Results
Program improvement plans are developed but not implemented.
There is no documentation of how the results of assessment and evaluation processes are used to
determine needed program improvements.
Results of the evaluation of student outcomes are not used to make needed improvements to the
student outcomes.
There is no evidence improvement efforts are being assessed and evaluated.
Keep in Mind: You do not have to be an expert on assessment. The program must provide
evidence that it has a working and effective system in place. Note, outcomes and continuous
improvement are linked closely together.
Curriculum
A program’s curriculum provides the foundation for entry into the profession. The curriculum
criterion varies among the commissions so the following issues related to this criterion may not
all be applicable to your commission.
Curriculum fails to meet credit hour requirements (if specified by criterion)
Quality of the culminating or integrating experience, comprehensive project, capstone or major
design experience (if required by the criterion)
No culminating experience
Several courses with elements of a comprehensive project but not identified as the culminating
experience
Multiple culminating courses or courses taught by different instructors that do not all satisfy the
requirements of the criteria
34
Culminating design experience not addressing multiple constraints and appropriate standards.
(EAC only)
Faculty
Insufficient number to support concentrations, electives, etc. or to maintain continuity and
stability
Poor faculty morale affecting the program
Lack of professional development
Excessive workloads
Retention / turnover rate
Heavy reliance on temporary faculty appointments or adjuncts, potentially jeopardizing program
stability
Insufficient responsibility and authority to improve the program
Facilities
Insufficient space
Overcrowded laboratories and classrooms
Laboratories – unsafe conditions, essential equipment inoperable, or lack of modern
instrumentation
Lack of software / hardware needed to support the curriculum
Institutional Support
Unstable leadership affecting programs
Dean and/or program head positions open or filled by interim appointments for an extended
period
Frequent turnover of university administration and unit leadership
Inadequate operating budget affecting acquisition and maintenance of laboratories and
appropriate equipment, faculty salaries, promotions, and professional development, or hiring and
retention of faculty and staff
Insufficient support staff, including teaching assistants, technicians for instructional laboratories,
machine shops, and laboratory services or administrative / clerical staff
35
D. THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS
Pre-Visit
Using the Program Evaluator Worksheet and Program Evaluator Visit Report specific to your
commission, you should be able to make a preliminary evaluation of the program based on your
review of the program’s Self-Study. You should make a list of those issues requiring further
investigation on site and discuss these with your team chair.
Please Note: Your draft visit plan should detail with whom you will visit on site to resolve any
issues with program compliance with criteria that are not answered to your satisfaction in the
Self-Study Report.
On Site
Once on site, you may revise your evaluation after conducting interviews with faculty members,
students, and administrators; reviewing documentation; and visiting facilities. You will share
your findings with your team members at team meetings on Sunday and Monday nights. This
will assist you in refining your recommended action. At the conclusion of the visit, you will
provide your team chair with the recommended action for your program and an Exit Statement to
support that action.
Post-Visit
The team chair develops the Draft Statement to the institution by combining and editing the
program exit statements from the program evaluators and adding material that applies to the
institution as a whole. Two editors and ABET’s headquarters’ staff review the Draft Statement
for adherence to standards and consistency with other statements. It is then sent to the institution,
which has 30 days to respond. The team chair uses the response from the institution to prepare
the Final Statement, which is edited again and then provided to the full commission for action. In
preparing the Final Statement, the team chair may consult with the program evaluators as needed
to determine whether there are any changes to the recommended accreditation action because of
the institution’s actions since the visit. Final accreditation decisions are made at the Summer
Commission Meeting in July.
E. EVALUATING A PROGRAM’S COMPLIANCE
WITH THE CRITERIA
To decide if a program complies with each criterion and to recommend an accreditation action,
follow these steps:
Identify issues by criterion. Remember you may find issues not listed in the Common Issues
Associated with Each Criterion section above.
36
Determine the appropriate finding.
Select the key term that applies for the finding. Base your decisions on the criteria, NOT on your
opinion. Consider the resulting recommended action. Is it consistent with the nature of the
shortcoming?
Explain each concern, weakness, and deficiency in relation to the specific criterion using wording
consistent with the definition of the shortcoming.
Recommend the accreditation action. Prior to the site visit, your team chair will ask you where
the program stands in overall compliance to ABET Criteria. Based on your preliminary review,
you will select one of the following potential actions as described in the Accreditation Policy and
Procedure Manual, Section II.G.12. This preliminary judgment may be revisited after you gather
more information during the campus site visit. Your available accreditation actions include:
o Next General Review (NGR)
o Interim Report (IR)
o Interim Visit (IV)
o Report Extended (RE)
o Visit Extended (VE)
o Show Cause Report (SCR)
o Show Cause Visit (SCV)
o Show Cause Extended (SE)
o Not to Accredit (NA)
o Terminate (T)
In The Accreditation Process, you read about Levels of Compliance, statements of compliance,
concern, weakness, and deficiency, as well as observations with regard to your findings when
evaluating a program. You can also find these in the Accreditation Policy and Procedure Manual,
Section II.G.9.a.(2).
General Review Terminology vs. Action
If the evidence supports a program Weakness for a given criterion, you must recommend either
an Interim Report or an Interim Visit action (if there is no Deficiency). Note, there is no
difference in severity for the IR and IV actions. The only difference is whether the adequacy of
the corrective action(s) can be determined based on a written report (with appropriate supporting
documentation), or whether a visit is required in order to assess the adequacy of the action(s).
37
If the evidence supports a program Deficiency for a given criterion, you must recommend a
Show Cause action if this is a re-review or a Not-to-Accredit action if this is an initial
review. Also, note Not-to-Accredit action can result from a show cause visit.
Please refer to chart below for reference:
Actions NGR IR IV SC NA
Definitions Next General
Review
Interim
Report Interim Visit
Show
Cause
Not to Accredit (only for
new programs)
Weakness? No Yes Yes — —
Deficiency? No No No Yes Yes
Duration (years) 6 2 2 2 —
F. APPLYING THE CRITERIA: CONSISTENCY
COUNTS
Accreditation actions must be consistent across all programs with similar shortcomings
(Weaknesses, Deficiencies) and across all institutions. As a PEV, it is essential you compare
your findings with those of the other programs being evaluated at the institutions and ensure
different findings do not result from similar observations. The visit team should work together to
resolve potential differences in findings for situations that are the same or very similar.
Consistency is checked throughout the ABET Accreditation Process.
G. SAMPLE SITUATIONS
What would you decide? Try out these sample situations. You want to determine the best
response given the information you are given.
Situation #1
You are a part of a team evaluating five programs at Bay State University. Four of the five
programs do not have their educational objectives published anywhere. As a result, the team
determines these four programs do not comply with the program educational objectives criterion,
and the team agrees to give those programs a deficiency with respect to this criterion. However,
the program you are evaluating has its program educational objectives published on its website
but not in the university catalogue nor in any of the departmental promotional materials handed
out to both enrolled and prospective students.
Select the best program evaluator and team response:
38
1. The program you are evaluating is not in compliance since the objectives are not published in
each location where prospective students and the public might look for them, and there needs to
be consistency among the actions taken for different programs at the same university. Therefore,
the team should agree to give the program a deficiency.
2. The team agrees you will discuss this with the program head to try to resolve the issues before the
team leaves the site. If the response of the program satisfactorily resolves the problem, you will
not report it in the Exit Statement or exit meeting.
3. The program is in partial compliance with the criterion but lacks the strength of full compliance
and the team agrees to give the program a weakness.
4. Since the objectives are published someplace and the criterion is silent on where the program
educational objectives need to be published, the program evaluator should consider this as a
concern at most and perhaps not mention it at all to the team.
Answer Key
1. This would not be appropriate because the criterion does not require the objectives be published
in all documents related to the program. Further, consistency among the program actions is not an
issue; different actions for different programs are appropriate if the characteristics that are the
basis for a decision are different.
2. This is not appropriate because all the relevant facts are known, and it is not appropriate to leave
without making decisions on all issues relative to the criteria.
3. This may be the best alternative, although if there is evidence the program’s website is the most-
referenced source of information about the program, then a Concern could be appropriate.
4. This could be appropriate if the website is clearly the primary source of information about the
program for prospective and current students. However, it should be mentioned to the team in any
case, especially given the other programs do not publish their objectives anywhere.
Note: It is not necessary the program educational objectives be published in every document
about the program, but they should be included in all documents that are readily used by the
public and by current and prospective students to obtain information about the program.
Situation #2
You are evaluating a program and its Self-Study indicates a significant portion of the student
outcomes assessment data will be made available during the site visit. Once on site, you find
these materials are neatly compiled statistical results of several assessment instruments – recent
teaching evaluations, an alumni survey, and employer interviews. These are claimed to support
39
the Continuous Improvement Criterion as evidence of an assessment process with documented
results.
Select the best program evaluator response:
1. Review the materials and identify trends in the responses that would suggest appropriate ways to
improve the program you are visiting; report these to the program chair.
2. Request the program provide an executive summary of the results, before you depart from the
site..
3. Request additional documentation of how the results of the surveys are applied in program
improvement. If such evidence is not available, discuss with the team chair and other team
members the option of citing the program as being deficient with respect to the Continuous
Improvement Criterion, as assessment results are not utilized for the continuous improvement of
the program. Suggest to the program chair that direct assessment of student work may provide the
most objective form of student outcomes assessment.
4. Tell the team chair the program will be cited for a Deficiency with respect to the criterion and
they face a probable Show Cause recommended action.
Answer Key
1. The program evaluator is not expected to engage in data analysis. It is up to the program faculty
members to make the case for their claims.
2. This approach may seem appropriate on the surface, but the most important issue in this case is
how the data are used. (See next option.)
3. This is the best first step. The program evaluator may find the program has used the data in some
way, but has not documented it.
4. This would be an appropriate action if the evaluator determines this is all that was done, there was
no serious attempt to use the data, and the faculty and program chair did not seem to be
committed to using the data in any manner. However, the recommended action should not be
mentioned explicitly.
Situation #3
The program you are visiting has in its Educational Objectives the program’s ability to prepare
its undergraduates for successful careers both in the traditional chemical process industry and in
the novel field of microelectronics. The faculty member’s CVs, in the Self-Study, indicate that
none of the faculty has expertise in the microelectronics area. After the faculty interviews, you
confirm this is the case and the faculty member in charge of teaching the advanced senior-level
course in micro-electronics processing has been learning the course material on the fly from a
new textbook in the area. Interviews with the students provide evidence the faculty member
teaching the microelectronics processing course is a favorite instructor. Students like the course
and find the material to be very easy. Consultation with the program head suggests the course
40
content has very little rigor for a senior-level course. You conclude the evidence indicates
coverage of microelectronics is weak at best.
Select the best Program Evaluator response:
1. As the Program Evaluator, you encourage the chairperson either to remove the objective from the
published information or to provide the faculty with development opportunities to enhance their
expertise in the microelectronics field. In the meantime, the program is cited with a weakness
because of the lack of strong compliance with the Faculty Criterion: The faculty . . . must have
the competencies to cover all of the curricular areas of the program. The faculty . . . must ensure
the proper guidance of the program and its evaluation and development.
2. In your Exit Statement, cite a deficiency for the Faculty Criterion and suggest that the
administration provide funds for hiring additional faculty members to provide expertise in the
microelectronics field.
3. You commend the chairperson for the program’s attempts at providing innovation in its
Educational Objectives. No weaknesses, concerns, or deficiencies need be cited.
4. Report, with respect to the Curriculum Criterion, a concern about the microelectronics
curriculum.
Answer Key
1. This may be the best response if the program evaluator believes the faculty member who is
teaching the course is committed and capable of developing the needed expertise quickly, with
the proper support. However, care should be taken to avoid appearing to prescribe any solution to
the problem.
2. This is an inappropriate response unless the program evaluator determines there are other factors,
such as local industry and/or the school administration, demanding the microelectronics option be
provided. However, care should be taken to avoid appearing to prescribe a solution to the
problem.
3. This is an unacceptable option in view of the findings of the program evaluator.
4. This is an unacceptable response in two ways. First, there is no explanation of the basis for this
concern. Second, it ignores the issue of faculty expertise as required by the Faculty Criterion and
the need for this emphasis in the program (constituency support indicated through Program
Educational Objectives Criterion).
41
Module 6: The PEV Appraisal Process
You are a Program Evaluator because you have met a set of minimum qualifications and exhibit
the characteristics, behaviors, and attitudes ABET has identified as vital to high-performing
Program Evaluators.
A. WHAT ARE THE ABET PEV COMPETENCIES?
The PEV Competency Model (See Appendix A) was developed with input from veteran Program
Evaluators, team chairs, and the ABET leadership. The competencies include characteristics,
behaviors, and attitudes highly regarded in the workplace as well. You will be evaluated on how
you demonstrate these core competencies, during your service as an ABET Program Evaluator.
The PEV Competencies are:
Technically Current
Effective at Communicating
Interpersonally Skilled
Team-Oriented
Professional
Organized
The ABET PEV Competency Model serves several purposes:
It informs PEVs and PEV candidates of expectations of Program Evaluators.
It serves as a tool for assessing candidates against the competencies.
It serves as a focus for training.
It provides standards for performance appraisal and enables continuous improvement feedback
for PEVs and member societies.
The PEV Competency Model has raised the bar for PEV performance and improved the
consistency of team evaluations. It is important for Program Evaluators, team chairs, member
societies, and program administrators and faculty to be familiar with the PEV Competency
Model and understand the expectations for each.
Technically Current
Demonstrates required technical credentials for the position.
42
Engaged in life-long learning and current in the field.
Demonstrates current knowledge of ABET General and Program Criteria and ABET policies and
procedures.
Effective at Communicating
Writes clearly and succinctly.
Presents concise oral briefings and easily conducts interviews.
Professional
Professional appearance.
Committed to contributing and adding value.
High integrity and ethical standards.
Follows ABET Code of Conduct
Interpersonally Skilled
Friendly and sets others at ease.
Listens and places input into context.
Open-minded and avoids personal bias.
Forthright – does not hold back what needs to be said.
Adept at pointing out strengths and shortcomings in non-confrontational manner.
Team-Oriented
Readily accepts input from team members.
Works with team members to reach consensus.
Values team success over personal success.
Organized
Is focused on meeting deadlines.
Focuses on critical issues and avoids minutia.
Displays take-charge initiative.
Takes responsibility and works under minimum supervision.
43
Summarizing, a Program Evaluator should:
be knowledgeable about current standards in his/her field; and about ABET Criteria, policies, and
procedures
have strong oral and written communication skills
be professional in appearance and actions
listen well, be open-minded and fair, and communicate clearly with the team
be a team player
do his/her part in completing required documents in a timely, complete manner
As you prepare for your visit keep these competencies in mind and allow them to guide you in
your preparation.
Please take a moment and review the Program Evaluator Competency Model. This document
contains specific information on the PEV competencies and desired proficiencies. It also covers
the application of the competencies and proficiencies, during a campus visit.
There is also a Team Chair Competency Model, (See Appendix K) which is used to select, train,
and evaluate Team Chairs.
B. WHAT IS THE PEV PERFORMANCE
APPRAISAL PROCESS?
ABET has a strong commitment to continuous improvement. Performance appraisals:
Evaluate against the PEV Competency Model.
Clearly communicate to the PEV what is expected.
Serve as a vehicle for professional development.
Serve as a tool for continuous improvement.
Your team chair, institution representatives, and fellow team members will appraise your
performance each time you are assigned to an accreditation evaluation team. Think of this as a
360-degree review designed to ensure decisions are not made on a single data point.
The performance appraisal forms are based on the competencies. Below are four forms:
Team Chair Appraisal of the Program Evaluator
44
Program Evaluator Appraisal of Program Evaluator (Peer-to-Peer)
Institution Appraisal of the Program Evaluator
Program Evaluator Appraisal of the Team Chair
These forms:
Describe how the competencies will be demonstrated during pre-visit activities and on the
campus visit.
Provide a set of clear rubrics and areas for actionable comments:
o 1 = needs improvement
o 3 = met expectations (The 3 rating is the benchmark. It is a good rating. There may not be an
opportunity to demonstrate a higher level of performance on all competencies in many/most
evaluations.)
o 5 = exceeded expectations
Once performance appraisal forms are completed and submitted, ABET compiles a report for
each program evaluator. These reports are sent to the appropriate commission executive
committee and your ABET member society. Reports will identify exceptional performers for
recognition – average score of 3 to 5 – and any program evaluators who need remediation or
removal – average score of below 3 or a 1 or 2 in any single competency area.
Both the commission executive committee and your member society will review your
performance report. If needed, your society will provide any additional input concerning your
performance. Finally, the commission executive committee will make a determination for
recognition, remediation, or removal. You will receive your performance appraisal results after
the Summer Commission Meeting. This timeline assures programs performance appraisals do
not influence accreditation actions.
45
Appendices
Appendix A: Competency Model for Program Evaluators
Program evaluators should meet the following minimum qualifications:
Demonstrated interest in improving education.
Current member (or willing to join) one of ABET’s technical and professional societies.
Formal education and degree appropriate to the field
Experience with accreditation processes and / or quality improvement processes.
Proficiency using word processing programs, spreadsheets, and PDF files.
Be willing to take the required program evaluator training courses
Meet any additional ASCE – American Society of Civil Engineers requirements as outlined
below:
Applicants must have:
A demonstrated interest in improving engineering education;
Current registration as a professional engineer in the United States;
At least 10 years of experience in the practice of engineering (e.g., in industry,
private practice, construction, engineering education);
A willingness to conduct visits and perform all associated activities in accordance
with ASCE and ABET requirements.
Membership in ASCE at the Member or Fellow grade.
For information about qualifications, training, and timeline, contact:
Dion Coward
703.295.6267
Experienced program evaluators interested in going on on-site reviews outside of the United
States must meet these additional qualifications:
Service as a program evaluator on at least four on-site reviews in the U.S.
Consistent record of meeting program evaluator performance expectations
46
Service as a program evaluator or team chair on at least one ABET on-site review in the last two
years
ABET Program Evaluator Competency Model
Successful program evaluators exhibit the knowledge, skills, and attitudes listed below in the
ABET Program Evaluator Competency Model and are evaluated against these competencies
after each assigned program evaluation.
Technically Current
Demonstrates required technical credentials for the position
Engaged in lifelong learning and current in their field
Able to apply technical knowledge to ascertain the level of conformance to program accreditation
requirements
Remains current in accreditation procedures and requirements
Effective at Communicating
Easily conducts face-to-face interviews
Writes clearly and succinctly
Presents focused, concise oral briefings
Interviews personnel to understand program operations
Writes succinct, criterion-centered statements of program strengths and weaknesses
Develops succinct findings for exit interview
Keeps team chair informed prior to and during the visit
Interpersonally Skilled
Friendly and sets others at ease
Listens and places input into context
Remains open-minded and avoids personal bias
Forthright, doesn’t hold back what needs to be said
Adept at pointing out strengths and weaknesses in nonconfrontational manner
47
Interviews and readily obtains input from faculty, administration, industry advisors, and students
Evaluates program against criteria within the context of the institution
Evaluates and constructively conveys program strengths and weaknesses
Team-Oriented
Readily accepts input from team members
Works with team members to reach consensus
Values team success over personal success
Compares program findings with those of other visitation team members to improve consistency
Looks for and listens to common issues across programs
Assists other team members as needed during the visit
Professional
Conveys professional appearance and demeanor
Is committed to contributing and adding value to the evaluation process
Considered a person with high integrity and ethical standards
Represents ABET and responsible technical society as a practicing professional
Willing to make observations to stimulate innovation and further the program’s efforts toward
continuous improvement
Shows professional respect for institution faculty and staff
Upholds ABET code of conduct at all times
Organized
Is focused on meeting deadlines
Focuses on critical issues and avoids minutia
Displays take-charge initiative
Takes responsibility and works under minimum supervision
48
Formulates preliminary program strengths and weakness assessment based upon review of
materials supplied prior to the visit
Focuses on critical findings, effectively cites supportive observations, relates to appropriate
criteria and suggests possible avenues to resolution
Submits high quality documentation to team chair on time
Makes difficult recommendations when appropriate
49
Appendix B: Training Mentors
SELECTION, QUALIFICATIONS, TRAINING,
AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Mentoring is the act of helping another learn.
From Managers as Mentors: Building Partnerships for Learning, Chip R. Bell
A Training Mentor is an experienced program evaluator assigned by an ABET member society
to a Program Evaluator Candidate (PEVC) to guide that candidate through the training process.
Training Mentor Selection
Training Mentors are nominated by the member society each fall. Nominations are reviewed by
the Accreditation Council Training Committee for currency and performance history. The
Training Committee also estimates the number of Training Mentors likely to be needed by the
member society. Any potential issues are discussed with the member society liaison. Otherwise,
the nominees are notified of their selection for training as a Training Mentor for the next training
cycle.
Minimum Qualifications for Mentor Selection
To ensure that all Training Mentors who are nominated are current in their experience with the
ABET criteria, policies and procedures, the Mentor must:
1. have participated in an accreditation review visit within the two most recent accreditation cycles;
AND
2. have received ratings of 3 or greater on all competencies on recent visits.
Training Mentor Capabilities
Program Evaluator Candidates will get the most out of their learning experiences when paired
with a Training Mentor who models the Program Evaluator competencies and represents the
organization well. Training Mentors should possess the following knowledge, skills, and
capabilities:
Able to model Program Evaluator Competencies (technically current, effective communicator,
interpersonally skilled, team oriented, professional, organized).
Able to apply experience as a PEV to answer questions for PEVC before, during, and
immediately after training.
50
Be current in and able to apply knowledge of outcomes based accreditation as well as
accreditation processes, procedures, and requirements.
Demonstrates a flexible style which facilitates different learning styles as well as backgrounds
and experiences (i.e. industry versus academia).
Able to bring experiences as Team Chair or Program Evaluator to help the PEVC learn how to
make appropriate judgments which represent ABET and member societies well.
Able to build trust and mutual respect in order to provide supportive relationship with PEVC.
Able to help PEVC understand roles and responsibilities of team members, team chair, and the
importance of being a team player.
Represents ABET and member societies well.
Shows professional respect for team chairs, member society liaisons, volunteers, and ABET staff.
Upholds ABET Code of Conduct at all time.
ABET Training Mentor Responsibilities
The Training Mentor plays a very important role in the learning cycle of the PEVC. The Training
Mentor is an advisor and resource to the PEVC before, during and immediately after Program
Evaluator training.
The Training Mentor responsibilities begin once the PEVC has been selected and notified of the
requirements for training. Following are the detailed responsibilities.
Online Training (Pre-work)
With regard to the required online training, Training Mentors must:
make contact with the PEVC in a timely manner after assignment.
be available to answer any questions regarding the online training (pre-work for the Face-to-Face
Training)
be familiar with the pre-work content and requirements
make contact with PEVC if pre-work deliverables have not been received three weeks prior to the
Face-to-Face Training.
discuss the PEVC’s preparation for training and readiness for a visit with their member society
liaison.
51
Face-to-Face Training
After the PEVC attends the Face-to-Face Training, the Training Mentor will debrief and
reinforce key learning from the training.
Training Mentor Training
One webinar will be held each year for selected Training Mentors.
All Training Mentors must participate in the webinar that describes the training process, the roles
and responsibilities of the Training Mentor, and answers questions the Training Mentors have
regarding the training process and their role.
52
Appendix C: Criteria for Crediting Engineering Programs
Effective for Reviews During the 2016-2017 Accreditation
Cycle
Incorporates all changes approved by the
ABET
Board of Delegates Engineering Area Delegation
as of
October 16, 2015
Engineering Accreditation Commission
ABET
415 N. Charles Street Baltimore,
MD 21201
Telephone: 410-347-7700 Fax: 443-552-3644
E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.abet.org
E001 10/20/2015
2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs
ii
Copyright © 2015 ABET Printed in the United States of America.
All rights reserved. No part of these criteria may be reproduced in any form or by any means without written permission from the publisher.
Published by: ABET
415 N. Charles Street Baltimore, MD 21201
Requests for further information about ABET, its accreditation process, or other activities may be addressed to the Director, Accreditation Operations, ABET, 415 N. Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21201 or to [email protected].
2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GENERAL CRITERIA FOR BACCALAUREATE LEVEL PROGRAMS 2 Students 3 Program Educational Objectives 3 Student Outcomes 3 Continuous Improvement 4 Curriculum 4 Faculty 4 Facilities 5 Institutional Support 5
GENERAL CRITERIA FOR MASTER’S LEVEL PROGRAMS 5
PROGRAM CRITERIA 8 Aerospace Engineering 8 Agricultural Engineering 8 Architectural Engineering 9 Bioengineering and Biomedical Engineering 10 Biological Engineering 10 Chemical, Biochemical, Biomolecular Engineering 11 Civil Engineering 11 Construction Engineering 12 Electrical, Computer, Communication(s), and Telecommunication(s) Engineering 12 Engineering, General Engineering, Engineering Physics, and Engineering Science 13 Engineering Management 14 Engineering Mechanics 14 Environmental Engineering 15 Fire Protection Engineering 15 Geological Engineering 16 Industrial Engineering 17 Manufacturing Engineering 17 Materials, Metallurgical, and Ceramics Engineering 18 Mechanical Engineering 18 Mining Engineering 19 Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering 19 Nuclear and Radiological Engineering 20 Ocean Engineering 20 Optics and Photonic 21 Petroleum Engineering 21 Software Engineering 22 Surveying Engineering 22 Systems Engineering 23
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CRITERIA 24
2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs
2
Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs
Effective for Reviews during the 2016-2017 Accreditation Cycle
Definitions
While ABET recognizes and supports the prerogative of institutions to adopt and use the terminology of their choice, it is necessary for ABET volunteers and staff to have a consistent understanding of terminology. With that purpose in mind, the Commissions will use the following basic definitions:
Program Educational Objectives – Program educational objectives are broad statements that describe what graduates are expected to attain within a few years of graduation. Program educational objectives are based on the needs of the program’s constituencies.
Student Outcomes – Student outcomes 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 as they progress through the program.
Assessment – Assessment is one or more processes that identify, collect, and prepare data to evaluate the attainment of student outcomes. Effective assessment uses relevant direct, indirect, quantitative and qualitative measures as appropriate to the outcome being measured. Appropriate sampling methods may be used as part of an assessment process.
Evaluation – Evaluation is one or more processes for interpreting the data and evidence accumulated through assessment processes. Evaluation determines the extent to which student outcomes are being attained. Evaluation results in decisions and actions regarding program improvement.
This document contains three sections:
The first section includes important definitions used by all ABET commissions.
The second section contains the General Criteria for Baccalaureate Level Programs that must be satisfied by all programs accredited by the Engineering Accreditation Commission of ABET and the General Criteria for Masters Level Programs that must be satisfied by those programs seeking advanced level accreditation.
The third section contains the Program Criteria that must be satisfied by certain programs. The applicable Program Criteria are determined by the technical specialties indicated by the title of the program. Overlapping requirements need to be satisfied only once.
----------------------------- These criteria are intended to assure quality and to foster the systematic pursuit of improvement in the quality of engineering education that satisfies the needs of constituencies in a dynamic and competitive environment. It is the responsibility of the institution seeking accreditation of an engineering program to demonstrate clearly that the program meets the following criteria.
I. GENERAL CRITERIA FOR BACCALAUREATE LEVEL PROGRAMS
All programs seeking accreditation from the Engineering Accreditation Commission of ABET must demonstrate that they satisfy all of the following General Criteria for Baccalaureate Level Programs.
2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs
3
Criterion 1. Students
Student performance must be evaluated. Student progress must be monitored to foster success in attaining student outcomes, thereby enabling graduates to attain program educational objectives. Students must be advised regarding curriculum and career matters.
The program must have and enforce policies for accepting both new and transfer students, awarding appropriate academic credit for courses taken at other institutions, and awarding appropriate academic credit for work in lieu of courses taken at the institution. The program must have and enforce procedures to ensure and document that students who graduate meet all 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.
Student outcomes are outcomes (a) through (k) plus any additional outcomes that may be articulated by the program.
(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
(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
(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.
2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs
4
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
The curriculum requirements specify subject areas appropriate to engineering but do not prescribe specific courses. The faculty must ensure that the program curriculum devotes adequate attention and time to each component, consistent with the outcomes and objectives of the program and institution. The professional component must include:
(a) one year of a combination of college level mathematics and basic sciences (some with experimental experience) appropriate to the discipline. Basic sciences are defined as biological, chemical, and physical sciences.
(b) one and one-half years of engineering topics, consisting of engineering sciences and engineering design appropriate to the student's field of study. The engineering sciences have their roots in mathematics and basic sciences but carry knowledge further toward creative application. These studies provide a bridge between mathematics and basic sciences on the one hand and engineering practice on the other. Engineering design is the process of devising a system, component, or process to meet desired needs. It is a decision-making process (often iterative), in which the basic sciences, mathematics, and the engineering sciences are applied to convert resources optimally to meet these stated needs.
(c) a general education component that complements the technical content of the curriculum and is consistent with the program and institution objectives.
Students must be prepared for engineering practice through a curriculum culminating in a major design experience based on the knowledge and skills acquired in earlier course work and incorporating appropriate engineering standards and multiple realistic constraints.
One year is the lesser of 32 semester hours (or equivalent) or one-fourth of the total credits required for graduation.
Criterion 6. Faculty
The program must demonstrate that the faculty members are of sufficient number and
2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs
5
they have the competencies to cover all of the curricular areas of the program. There must be sufficient faculty to accommodate adequate levels of student-faculty interaction, student advising and counseling, university service activities, professional
development, and interactions with industrial and professional practitioners, as well as employers of students.
The program faculty must have appropriate qualifications and must have and demonstrate sufficient authority to ensure the proper guidance of the program and to develop and implement processes for the evaluation, assessment, and continuing improvement of the program. The overall competence of the faculty may be judged by such factors as education, diversity of backgrounds, engineering experience, teaching effectiveness and experience, ability to communicate, enthusiasm for developing more effective programs, level of scholarship, participation in professional societies, and licensure as Professional Engineers.
Criterion 7. Facilities
Classrooms, offices, laboratories, and associated equipment must be adequate to support attainment of the student outcomes and to provide an atmosphere conducive to learning. Modern tools, equipment, computing resources, and laboratories appropriate to the program must be available, accessible, and systematically maintained and upgraded to enable students to attain the student outcomes and to support program needs. Students must be provided appropriate guidance regarding the use of the tools, equipment, computing resources, and laboratories available to the program.
The library services and the computing and information infrastructure must be adequate to support the scholarly and professional activities of the students and faculty.
Criterion 8. Institutional Support
Institutional support and leadership must be adequate to ensure the quality and continuity of the program.
Resources including institutional services, financial support, and staff (both administrative and technical) provided to the program must be adequate to meet program needs. The resources available to the program must be sufficient to attract, retain, and provide for the continued professional development of a qualified faculty. The resources available to the program must be sufficient to acquire, maintain, and operate infrastructures, facilities, and equipment appropriate for the program, and to provide an environment in which student outcomes can be attained.
II. GENERAL CRITERIA FOR MASTER’S LEVEL AND INTEGRATED BACCALAUREATE- MASTER’S LEVEL ENGINEERING PROGRAMS
2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs
6
Programs seeking accreditation at the master’s level from the Engineering Accreditation
Commission of ABET must demonstrate that they satisfy the following criteria,
including all of the aspects relevant to integrated baccalaureate-master’s programs or
stand-alone master’s programs, as appropriate.
2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs
7
Criteria Applicable to Integrated Baccalaureate-Master’s Level Engineering Programs
Engineering programs that offer integrated baccalaureate-master’s programs must meet
all of the General Criteria for Baccalaureate Level Programs and the Program Criteria
applicable to the program name, regardless of whether students in these programs
receive both baccalaureate and master’s degrees or only master’s degrees during their
programs of study. In addition, these programs must meet all of the following criteria.
If any students are admitted into the master’s portion of the combined program without
having completed the integrated baccalaureate portion, they must meet the criteria
given below.
Criteria Applicable to all Engineering Programs Awarding Degrees at the Master’s Level
Students and Curriculum
The master’s program must have and enforce procedures for verifying that each student
has completed a set of post-secondary educational and professional experiences that:
a) Supports the attainment of student outcomes of Criterion 3 of the general criteria for
baccalaureate level engineering programs, and
b) Includes at least one year of math and basic science (basic science includes the
biological, chemical, and physical sciences), as well as at least one-and-one-half years
of engineering topics and a major design experience that meets the requirements of
Criterion 5 of the general criteria for baccalaureate level engineering programs.
If the student has graduated from an EAC of ABET accredited baccalaureate program,
the presumption is that items (a) and (b) above have been satisfied.
The master’s level engineering program must have and enforce policies and procedures
ensuring that a program of study with specific educational goals is developed for each
student. Student performance and progress toward completion of their programs of
study must be monitored and evaluated. The program must have and enforce
procedures to ensure and document that students who graduate meet all graduation
requirements.
The master’s level engineering program must require each student to demonstrate a
mastery of a specific field of study or area of professional practice consistent with the
master’s program name and at a level beyond the minimum requirements of
baccalaureate level programs.
The master’s level engineering program of study must require the completion of at least
30 semester hours (or equivalent) beyond the baccalaureate program.
Each student’s overall program of post-secondary study must satisfy the curricular
components of the baccalaureate level program criteria relevant to the master’s level
program name.
2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs
8
Program Quality
The master’s level engineering program must have a documented and operational
process for assessing, maintaining and enhancing the quality of the program.
Faculty
The master’s level engineering program must demonstrate that the faculty members are
of sufficient number and that they have the competencies to cover all of the curricular
areas of the program. Faculty teaching graduate level courses must have appropriate
educational qualifications by education or experience. The program must have
sufficient faculty to accommodate adequate levels of student-faculty interaction,
student advising and counseling, university service activities, professional
development, and interactions with industrial and professional practitioners, as well as
employers of students.
The master’s level engineering program faculty must have appropriate qualifications
and must have and demonstrate sufficient authority to ensure the proper guidance of
the program. The overall competence of the faculty may be judged by such factors as
education, diversity of backgrounds, engineering experience, teaching effectiveness and
experience, ability to communicate, level of scholarship, participation in professional
societies, and licensure.
Facilities
Means of communication with students, and student access to laboratory and other
facilities, must be adequate to support student success in the program, and to provide
an atmosphere conducive to learning. These resources and facilities must be
representative of current professional practice in the discipline. Students must have
access to appropriate training regarding the use of the resources available to them.
The library and information services, computing and laboratory infrastructure, and
equipment and supplies must be available and adequate to support the education of the
students and the scholarly and professional activities of the faculty.
Remote or virtual access to laboratories and other resources may be employed in place
of physical access when such access enables accomplishment of the program’s
educational activities.
Institutional Support
Institutional support and leadership must be adequate to ensure the quality and
continuity of the program. Resources including institutional services, financial support,
and staff (both administrative and technical) provided to the program must be adequate
to meet program needs. The resources available to the program must be sufficient to
attract, retain, and provide for the continued professional development of a qualified
faculty. The resources available to the program must be sufficient to acquire, maintain,
and operate infrastructure, facilities, and equipment appropriate for the program, and to
provide an environment in which student learning outcomes can be attained.
2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs
9
III. PROGRAM CRITERIA Each program must satisfy applicable Program Criteria (if any). Program Criteria provide the specificity needed for interpretation of the general criteria as applicable to a given discipline. Requirements stipulated in the Program Criteria are limited to the areas of curricular topics and faculty qualifications. If a program, by virtue of its title, becomes subject to two or more sets of Program Criteria, then that program must satisfy each set of Program Criteria; however, overlapping requirements need to be satisfied only once.
PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR AEROSPACE
AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS Lead Society: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include "aerospace," "aeronautical," "astronautical," or similar modifiers in their titles.
1. Curriculum
Aeronautical engineering programs must prepare graduates to have a knowledge of aerodynamics, aerospace materials, structures, propulsion, flight mechanics, and stability and control. Astronautical engineering programs must prepare graduates to have a knowledge of orbital mechanics, space environment, attitude determination and control, telecommunications, space structures, and rocket propulsion. Aerospace engineering programs or other engineering programs combining aeronautical engineering and astronautical engineering, must prepare graduates to have knowledge covering one of the areas -- aeronautical engineering or astronautical engineering as described above -- and, in addition, knowledge of some topics from the area not emphasized. Programs must also prepare graduates to have design competence that includes integration of aeronautical or astronautical topics.
2. Faculty
Program faculty must have responsibility and sufficient authority to define, revise, implement, and achieve program objectives. The program must demonstrate that faculty teaching upper-division courses have an understanding of current professional practice in the aerospace industry.
PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR AGRICULTURAL
AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS Lead Society: American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers
These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include “agricultural,” “forest,” or similar modifiers in their titles.
2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs
10
1. Curriculum
The curriculum must include mathematics through differential equations and biological and engineering sciences consistent with the program educational objectives. The curriculum must prepare graduates to apply engineering to agriculture, aquaculture, forestry, human, or natural resources.
2. Faculty
The program shall demonstrate that those faculty members teaching courses that are primarily design in content are qualified to teach the subject matter by virtue of education and experience or professional licensure.
PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR ARCHITECTURAL
AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS Lead Society: American Society of Civil Engineers
Cooperating Society: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers
These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include "architectural" or similar modifiers in their titles.
1. Curriculum
The program must demonstrate that graduates can apply mathematics through differential equations, calculus-based physics, and chemistry. The four basic architectural engineering curriculum areas are building structures, building mechanical systems, building electrical systems, and construction/construction management. Graduates are expected to reach the synthesis (design) level in one of these areas, the application level in a second area, and the comprehension level in the remaining two areas. The engineering topics required by the general criteria shall support the engineering fundamentals of each of these four areas at the specified level. Graduates are expected to discuss the basic concepts of architecture in a context of architectural design and history.
The design level must be in a context that:
a. Considers the systems or processes from other architectural engineering curricular areas,
b. Works within the overall architectural design, c. Includes communication and collaboration with other design or construction
team members, d. Includes computer-based technology and considers applicable codes and
standards, and e. Considers fundamental attributes of building performance and sustainability.
2. Faculty
The program must demonstrate that faculty teaching courses that are primarily engineering design in content are qualified to teach the subject matter by virtue of
2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs
11
professional licensure, or by education and design experience. It must also demonstrate that the majority of the faculty members teaching architectural design courses are qualified to teach the subject matter by virtue of professional licensure, or by education and design experience.
PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR BIOENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL,
AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS Lead Society: Biomedical Engineering Society
Cooperating Societies: American Ceramic Society, American Institute of Chemical Engineers,
American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include “bioengineering,” “biomedical,” or similar modifiers in their titles.
1. Curriculum The structure of the curriculum must provide both breadth and depth across the range of engineering and science topics consistent with the program educational objectives and student outcomes. The curriculum must prepare graduates with experience in:
Applying principles of engineering, biology, human physiology, chemistry, calculus-based physics, mathematics (through differential equations) and statistics;
Solving bio/biomedical engineering problems, including those associated with the interaction between living and non-living systems;
Analyzing, modeling, designing, and realizing bio/biomedical engineering devices, systems, components, or processes; and
Making measurements on and interpreting data from living systems.
PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR
BIOLOGICAL AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS
Lead Society: American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Cooperating Societies: American Academy of Environmental Engineers and Scientists,
American Ceramic Society, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, American Society of Civil Engineers,
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Biomedical Engineering Society, CSAB, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
Institute of Industrial Engineers, and Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society
These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include “biological,” “biological systems,” “food,” or similar modifiers in their titles with the exception of
2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs
12
bioengineering and biomedical engineering programs.
1. Curriculum
The curriculum must include mathematics through differential equations, a thorough grounding in chemistry and biology and a working knowledge of advanced biological sciences consistent with the program educational objectives. The curriculum must prepare graduates to apply engineering to biological systems.
2. Faculty
The program shall demonstrate that those faculty members teaching courses that are primarily design in content are qualified to teach the subject matter by virtue of education and experience or professional licensure.
PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR CHEMICAL, BIOCHEMICAL, BIOMOLECULAR,
AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS Lead Society: American Institute of Chemical Engineers
These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include “chemical,” “biochemical,” “biomolecular,” or similar modifiers in their titles.
1. Curriculum
The curriculum must provide a thorough grounding in the basic sciences including chemistry, physics, and/or biology, with some content at an advanced level, as appropriate to the objectives of the program. The curriculum must include the engineering application of these basic sciences to the design, analysis, and control of chemical, physical, and/or biological processes, including the hazards associated with these processes.
PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR CIVIL
AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS Lead Society: American Society of Civil Engineers
These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include "civil" or similar modifiers in their titles.
1. Curriculum The curriculum must prepare graduates to apply knowledge of mathematics through differential equations, calculus-based physics, chemistry, and at least one additional area of basic science; apply probability and statistics to address uncertainty; analyze and solve problems in at least four technical areas appropriate to civil engineering; conduct experiments in at least two technical areas of civil engineering and analyze and interpret the resulting data; design a system, component, or process in at least two civil engineering contexts; include principles of sustainability in design; explain basic
2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs
13
concepts in project management, business, public policy, and leadership; analyze issues in professional ethics; and explain the importance of professional licensure.
2. Faculty
The program must demonstrate that faculty teaching courses that are primarily design in content are qualified to teach the subject matter by virtue of professional licensure, or by education and design experience. The program must demonstrate that it is not critically dependent on one individual.
PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR CONSTRUCTION
AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS Lead Society: American Society of Civil Engineers
These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include "construction" or similar modifiers in their titles.
1. Curriculum
The program must prepare graduates to apply knowledge of mathematics through differential and integral calculus, probability and statistics, general chemistry, and calculus-based physics; to analyze and design construction processes and systems in a construction engineering specialty field, applying knowledge of methods, materials, equipment, planning, scheduling, safety, and cost analysis; to explain basic legal and ethical concepts and the importance of professional engineering licensure in the construction industry; to explain basic concepts of management topics such as economics, business, accounting, communications, leadership, decision and optimization methods, engineering economics, engineering management, and cost control.
2. Faculty The program must demonstrate that the majority of faculty teaching courses that are primarily design in content are qualified to teach the subject matter by virtue of professional licensure, or by education and design experience. The faculty must include at least one member who has had full-time experience and decision-making responsibilities in the construction industry.
PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR
ELECTRICAL, COMPUTER, COMMUNICATIONS, TELECOMMUNICATION(S) AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS
Lead Society: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Cooperating Society for Computer Engineering Programs: CSAB
These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include “electrical,” “electronic(s),” “computer,” “communication(s),” telecommunication(s), or similar modifiers in their titles.
2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs
14
1. 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 curriculum must include probability and statistics, including applications appropriate to the program name; mathematics through differential and integral calculus; sciences (defined as biological, chemical, or physical science); and engineering topics (including computing science) necessary to analyze and design complex electrical and electronic devices, software, and systems containing hardware and software components.
The curriculum for programs containing the modifier “electrical,” “electronic(s),” “communication(s),” or “telecommunication(s)” in the title must include advanced mathematics, such as differential equations, linear algebra, complex variables, and discrete mathematics.
The curriculum for programs containing the modifier “computer” in the title must include discrete mathematics.
The curriculum for programs containing the modifier “communication(s)” or
“telecommunication(s)” in the title must include topics in communication theory and
systems.
The curriculum for programs containing the modifier “telecommunication(s)” must
include design and operation of telecommunication networks for services such as voice,
data, image, and video transport.
PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR
ENGINEERING, GENERAL ENGINEERING, ENGINEERING PHYSICS, ENGINEERING SCIENCE,
AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS Lead Society: American Society for Engineering Education
These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include “engineering (without modifiers),” “general engineering,” “engineering physics,” or “engineering science(s),” in their titles.
There are no program-specific criteria beyond the General Criteria.
2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs
15
PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT
AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS Lead Society: Institute of Industrial Engineers
Cooperating Societies: American Institute of Chemical Engineers, American Society of Civil Engineers, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers, Society of Manufacturing Engineers, and Society of Petroleum Engineers
These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include “management” or similar modifiers in their titles.
1. Curriculum
The curriculum must prepare graduates to understand the engineering relationships between the management tasks of planning, organization, leadership, control, and the human element in production, research, and service organizations; to understand and deal with the stochastic nature of management systems. The curriculum must also prepare graduates to integrate management systems into a series of different technological environments.
2. Faculty
The major professional competence of the faculty must be in engineering, and the faculty should be experienced in the management of engineering and/or technical activities.
PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR ENGINEERING MECHANICS
AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS Lead Society: American Society of Mechanical Engineers
These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include “mechanics” or similar modifiers in their titles.
1. Curriculum The program curriculum must require students to use mathematical and computational techniques to analyze, model, and design physical systems consisting of solid and fluid components under steady state and transient conditions.
2. Faculty
The program must demonstrate that faculty members responsible for the upper-level professional program are maintaining currency in their specialty area.
2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs
16
PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS Lead Society: American Academy of Environmental Engineers and Scientists
Cooperating Societies: American Institute of Chemical Engineers, American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, American Society of Civil
Engineers, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers,
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, SAE International, and Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration
These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include "environmental," "sanitary," or similar modifiers in their titles.
1. Curriculum The curriculum must prepare graduates to apply knowledge of mathematics through differential equations, probability and statistics, calculus-based physics, chemistry (including stoichiometry, equilibrium, and kinetics), an earth science, a biological science, and fluid mechanics. The curriculum must prepare graduates to formulate material and energy balances, and analyze the fate and transport of substances in and between air, water, and soil phases; conduct laboratory experiments, and analyze and interpret the resulting data in more than one major environmental engineering focus area, e.g., air, water, land, environmental health; design environmental engineering systems that include considerations of risk, uncertainty, sustainability, life-cycle principles, and environmental impacts; and apply advanced principles and practice relevant to the program objectives. The curriculum must prepare graduates to understand concepts of professional practice, project management, and the roles and responsibilities of public institutions and private organizations pertaining to environmental policy and regulations.
2. Faculty
The program must demonstrate that a majority of those faculty teaching courses that are primarily design in content are qualified to teach the subject matter by virtue of professional licensure, board certification in environmental engineering, or by education and equivalent design experience.
PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR FIRE PROTECTION
AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS Lead Society: Society for Fire Protection Engineers
These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include “fire protection” or similar modifiers in their title.
1. Curriculum
The program must prepare graduates to have proficiency in the application of science and engineering to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public from the impacts
2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs
17
of fire. This includes the ability to apply and incorporate an understanding of the fire dynamics that affect the life safety of occupants and emergency responders and the protection of property; the hazards associated with processes and building designs; the design of fire protection products, systems, and equipment; the human response and behavior in fire emergencies; and the prevention, control, and extinguishment of fire.
2. Faculty
The program must demonstrate that faculty members maintain currency in fire protection engineering practice.
PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR GEOLOGICAL
AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS Lead Society: Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration
These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include "geological" or similar modifiers in their titles.
1. Curriculum The program must prepare graduates to have:
(1) the ability to apply mathematics including differential equations, calculus- based physics, and chemistry, to geological engineering problems; (2) proficiency in geological science topics that emphasize geologic processes and the identification of minerals and rocks; (3) the ability to visualize and solve geological problems in three and four dimensions; (4) proficiency in the engineering sciences including statics, properties/strength of materials, and geomechanics; (5) the ability to apply principles of geology, elements of geophysics, geological and engineering field methods; and (6) engineering knowledge to design solutions to geological engineering problems, which will include one or more of the following considerations: the distribution of physical and chemical properties of earth materials, including surface water, ground water (hydrogeology), and fluid hydrocarbons; the effects of surface and near-surface natural processes; the impacts of construction projects; the impacts of exploration, development, and extraction of natural resources, and consequent remediation; disposal of wastes; and other activities of society on these materials and processes, as appropriate to the program objectives.
2. Faculty
Evidence must be provided that the program’s faculty members understand professional engineering practice and maintain currency in their respective professional areas. The program’s faculty must have responsibility and authority to define, revise, implement, and achieve program objectives.
2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs
18
PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR INDUSTRIAL
AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS Lead Society: Institute of Industrial Engineers
These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include “industrial” or similar modifiers in their titles.
1. Curriculum
The curriculum must prepare graduates to design, develop, implement, and improve integrated systems that include people, materials, information, equipment and energy. The curriculum must include in-depth instruction to accomplish the integration of systems using appropriate analytical, computational, and experimental practices.
2. Faculty
Evidence must be provided that the program faculty understand professional practice and maintain currency in their respective professional areas. Program faculty must have responsibility and sufficient authority to define, revise, implement, and achieve program objectives.
PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR MANUFACTURING
AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS Lead Society: Society of Manufacturing Engineers
These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include "manufacturing" and similar modifiers in their titles.
1. Curriculum
The program must prepare graduates to have proficiency in (a) materials and manufacturing processes: ability to design manufacturing processes that result in products that meet specific material and other requirements; (b) process, assembly and product engineering: ability to design products and the equipment, tooling, and environment necessary for their manufacture; (c) manufacturing competitiveness: ability to create competitive advantage through manufacturing planning, strategy, quality, and control; (d) manufacturing systems design: ability to analyze, synthesize, and control manufacturing operations using statistical methods; and (e) manufacturing laboratory or facility experience: ability to measure manufacturing process variables and develop technical inferences about the process.
2. Faculty
The program must demonstrate that faculty members maintain currency in manufacturing engineering practice.
2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs
19
PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR
MATERIALS (1), METALLURGICAL (2), CERAMICS (3) AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS
(1,2) Lead Society for Materials and Metallurgical Engineering Programs: The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society
(3) Lead Society for Ceramics Engineering Programs: American Ceramic Society
(1) Cooperating Societies for Materials Engineering Programs: American Ceramic Society, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, and American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (2) Cooperating Society for Metallurgical Engineering Programs: Society for Mining,
Metallurgy, and Exploration
(3) Cooperating Society for Ceramics Engineering Programs: The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society
These program criteria apply to engineering programs including "materials," "metallurgical," “ceramics,” “glass”, "polymer," “biomaterials,” and similar modifiers in their titles.
1. Curriculum The curriculum must prepare graduates to apply advanced science (such as chemistry, biology and physics), computational techniques and engineering principles to materials systems implied by the program modifier, e.g., ceramics, metals, polymers, biomaterials, composite materials; to integrate the understanding of the scientific and engineering principles underlying the four major elements of the field: structure, properties, processing, and performance related to material systems appropriate to the field; to apply and integrate knowledge from each of the above four elements of the field using experimental, computational and statistical methods to solve materials problems including selection and design consistent with the program educational objectives.
2. Faculty
The faculty expertise for the professional area must encompass the four major elements of the field.
PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR MECHANICAL
AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS Lead Society: American Society of Mechanical Engineers
These program criteria will apply to all engineering programs that include "mechanical" or similar modifiers in their titles.
1. Curriculum
The curriculum must require students to apply principles of engineering, basic science, and mathematics (including multivariate calculus and differential equations); to model, analyze, design, and realize physical systems, components or processes; and prepare students to work professionally in either thermal or mechanical systems while requiring topics in each area.
2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs
20
2. Faculty
The program must demonstrate that faculty members responsible for the upper-level professional program are maintaining currency in their specialty area.
PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR MINING
AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS Lead Society: Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration
These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include "mining" or similar modifiers in their titles.
1. Curriculum
The program must prepare graduates to apply mathematics through differential equations, calculus-based physics, general chemistry, and probability and statistics as applied to mining engineering problem applications; to have fundamental knowledge in the geological sciences including characterization of mineral deposits, physical geology, structural or engineering geology, and mineral and rock identification and properties; to be proficient in statics, dynamics, strength of materials, fluid mechanics, thermodynamics, and electrical circuits; to be proficient in engineering topics related to both surface and underground mining, including: mining methods, planning and design, ground control and rock mechanics, health and safety, environmental issues, and ventilation; to be proficient in additional engineering topics such as rock fragmentation, materials handling, mineral or coal processing, mine surveying, and valuation and resource/reserve estimation as appropriate to the program objectives. The laboratory experience must prepare graduates to be proficient in geologic concepts, rock mechanics, mine ventilation, and other topics appropriate to the program objectives.
2. Faculty
Evidence must be provided that the program faculty understand professional engineering practice and maintain currency in their respective professional areas. Program faculty must have responsibility and authority to define, revise, implement, and achieve program objectives.
PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR
NAVAL ARCHITECTURE, MARINE ENGINEERING, AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS
Lead Society: Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers
These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include “naval architecture” and/or “marine engineering” or similar modifiers in their titles.
1. Curriculum
The program must prepare graduates to apply probability and statistical methods to naval architecture and marine engineering problems; to have basic knowledge of fluid
2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs
21
mechanics, dynamics, structural mechanics, materials properties, hydrostatics, and energy/propulsion systems in the context of marine vehicles and; to have familiarity with instrumentation appropriate to naval architecture and/or marine engineering.
2. Faculty
Program faculty must have sufficient curricular and administrative control to accomplish the program objectives. Program faculty must have responsibility and sufficient authority to define, revise, implement and achieve the program objectives.
PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR NUCLEAR, RADIOLOGICAL,
AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS Lead Society: American Nuclear Society
These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include “nuclear,” “radiological,” or similar modifiers in their titles.
1. Curriculum
The program must prepare the students to apply advanced mathematics, science, and engineering science, including atomic and nuclear physics, and the transport and interaction of radiation with matter, to nuclear and radiological systems and processes; to perform nuclear engineering design; to measure nuclear and radiation processes; to work professionally in one or more of the nuclear or radiological fields of specialization identified by the program.
2. Faculty
The program must demonstrate that faculty members primarily committed to the program have current knowledge of nuclear or radiological engineering by education or experience.
PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR OCEAN
AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS
Lead Society: Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers Cooperating Societies: American Society of Civil Engineers
and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include “ocean” or similar modifiers in their titles.
1. Curriculum The curriculum must prepare graduates to have the knowledge and the skills to apply the principles of fluid and solid mechanics, dynamics, hydrostatics, probability and applied statistics, oceanography, water waves, and underwater acoustics to engineering
2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs
22
problems and to work in groups to perform engineering design at the system level, integrating multiple technical areas and addressing design optimization.
2. Faculty
Program faculty must have responsibility and sufficient authority to define, revise, implement, and achieve the program objectives.
PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR OPTICAL, PHOTONIC,
AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS
Co-Lead Societies: SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering or Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
These program criteria apply to all engineering programs that include "optical," "photonic," or similar modifiers in their titles.
1. 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 curriculum must prepare students to have knowledge of and appropriate laboratory experience in: geometrical optics, physical optics, optical materials, and optical and/or photonic devices and systems.
The curriculum must prepare students to apply principles of engineering, basic sciences, mathematics (such as multivariable calculus, differential equations, linear algebra, complex variables, and probability and statistics) to modeling, analyzing, designing, and realizing optical and/or photonic devices and systems.
2. Faculty
Faculty members who teach courses with significant design content must be qualified by virtue of design experience as well as subject matter knowledge.
PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR PETROLEUM
AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS Lead Society: Society of Petroleum Engineers
These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include "petroleum," "natural gas," or similar modifiers in their titles.
1. Curriculum
The program must prepare graduates to be proficient in mathematics through differential equations, probability and statistics, fluid mechanics, strength of materials,
2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs
23
and thermodynamics; design and analysis of well systems and procedures for drilling and completing wells; characterization and evaluation of subsurface geological formations and their resources using geoscientific and engineering methods; design and analysis of systems for producing, injecting, and handling fluids; application of reservoir engineering principles and practices for optimizing resource development and management; the use of project economics and resource valuation methods for design and decision making under conditions of risk and uncertainty.
PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR
SOFTWARE AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS
Lead Society: CSAB Cooperating Society: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include “software” or similar modifiers in their titles.
1. Curriculum
The curriculum must provide both breadth and depth across the range of engineering and computer science topics implied by the title and objectives of the program.
The curriculum must include computing fundamentals, software design and construction, requirements analysis, security, verification, and validation; software engineering processes and tools appropriate for the development of complex software systems; and discrete mathematics, probability, and statistics, with applications appropriate to software engineering.
2. Faculty The program must demonstrate that faculty members teaching core software engineering topics have an understanding of professional practice in software engineering and maintain currency in their areas of professional or scholarly specialization.
PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR SURVEYING
AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS
Lead Society: National Society for Professional Surveyors Cooperating Society: American Society of Civil Engineers
These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include "surveying" or similar modifiers in their titles.
1. Curriculum
The curriculum must prepare graduates to work competently in one or more of the following areas: boundary and/or land surveying, geographic and/or land information systems, photogrammetry, mapping, geodesy, remote sensing, and other related areas.
2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs
24
2. Faculty Programs must demonstrate that faculty members teaching courses that are primarily design in content are qualified to teach the subject matter by virtue of professional licensure or by educational and design experience.
PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR SYSTEMS
AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS
Co-Lead Societies: American Society of Mechanical Engineers, CSAB,
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Institute of Industrial Engineers,
ISA, International Council on Systems Engineering, or
SAE International
These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include “systems (without other modifiers)” in their title.
There are no program- specific criteria beyond the General Criteria.
25
2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs – Proposed Changes
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CRITERIA
The following section presents proposed changes to these criteria as approved by the ABET Board of Delegates and the Engineering Area Delegation on October 16/17, 2015, for a one-year first reading review and comment period. Comments will be considered until June 15, 2016. The ABET Board of Delegates and the Engineering Area Delegation will determine, based on the comments received and on the advice of the EAC, the content of the adopted criteria. The adopted criteria will then become effective following the ABET Board of Delegates and the Engineering Area Delegation Meetings in the fall of 2016 and will first be applied by the EAC for accreditation reviews during the 2017-18 academic year.
Comments relative to the proposed criteria changes should be addressed to: Director for Accreditation Operations, ABET, 415 N. Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21201 or to [email protected].
26
2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs – Proposed Changes
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO
CRITERIA FOR ACCREDITING ENGINEERING PROGRAMS DEFINITIONS,
GENERAL CRITERION 3 STUDENT OUTCOMES, AND
GENERAL CRITERION 5 CURRICULUM
Background
Graduates of programs accredited by the EAC must be prepared for professional practice
of engineering, and engineering is evolving to meet continually emerging demands.
Criterion 3, Student Outcomes, as published in Criteria for Accrediting Engineering
Programs was written 20 years ago in preparation for outcomes-based education. Over a
period of several years, the EAC Criteria Committee has been engaged in a review of
Criterion 3 and has sought input from a broad variety of sources concerning skills and
attributes needed for the professional practice of engineering. Based on the input
received, the EAC has developed this proposed revision to the Criteria for Accrediting
Engineering Programs. Revisions are proposed to Criterion 3, framing student outcomes
that address relevant topic areas and moving some items into Criterion 5, Curriculum.
Definitions and explanations currently placed in Criterion 5 were moved to a revised
introductory section to the Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs after the
harmonized ABET definitions and before Section I. General Criteria for Baccalaureate
Level Programs.
Based on feedback received and the recommendation of the EAC, the
Engineering Area Delegation may decide to extend the review and
comment period for one additional year. Likewise, due to the breadth
and complexity of the proposed changes and the impact to programs
demonstrating compliance with Criteria, a phase-in implementation
period may be recommended by the EAC to the Engineering Area
Delegation.
27
2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs – Proposed Changes
Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs
Effective for Reviews during the 20XX-20YY Accreditation Cycle
Definitions
While ABET recognizes and supports the prerogative of institutions to adopt and use the terminology of their choice, it is necessary for ABET volunteers and staff to have a consistent understanding of terminology. With that purpose in mind, the Commissions will use the following basic definitions:
Program Educational Objectives – Program educational objectives are broad statements that describe what graduates are expected to attain within a few years of graduation. Program educational objectives are based on the needs of the program’s constituencies.
Student Outcomes – Student outcomes 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 as they progress through the program.
Assessment – Assessment is one or more processes that identify, collect, and prepare data to evaluate the attainment of student outcomes. Effective assessment uses relevant direct, indirect, quantitative and qualitative measures as appropriate to the outcome being measured. Appropriate sampling methods may be used as part of an assessment process.
Evaluation – Evaluation is one or more processes for interpreting the data and evidence accumulated through assessment processes. Evaluation determines the extent to which student outcomes are being attained. Evaluation results in decisions and actions regarding program improvement.
This document contains three sections:
The first section includes important definitions used by all ABET commissions.
The second section contains the General Criteria for Baccalaureate Level Programs that must be satisfied by all programs accredited by the Engineering Accreditation Commission of ABET and the General Criteria for Masters Level Programs that must be satisfied by those programs seeking advanced level accreditation.
The third section contains the Program Criteria that must be satisfied by certain programs. The applicable Program Criteria are determined by the technical specialties indicated by the title of the program. Overlapping requirements need to be satisfied only once.
-----------------------------
These criteria are intended to assure quality and to foster the systematic pursuit of
improvement in the quality of engineering education that satisfies the needs of
constituencies in a dynamic and competitive environment. It is the responsibility of the
institution seeking accreditation of an engineering program to demonstrate clearly that
the program meets the following criteria.
28
2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs – Proposed Changes
These criteria are intended to provide a framework of education that prepares graduates to enter the professional practice of engineering who are (i) able to participate in diverse multicultural workplaces; (ii) knowledgeable in topics relevant to their discipline, such as usability, constructability, manufacturability and sustainability; and (iii) cognizant of the global dimensions, risks, uncertainties, and other implications of their engineering solutions. Further, these criteria are intended to assure quality to foster the systematic pursuit of improvement in the quality of engineering education that satisfies the needs of constituencies in a dynamic and competitive environment. It is the responsibility of the institution seeking accreditation of an engineering program to demonstrate clearly that the program meets the following criteria. The Engineering Accreditation Commission of ABET recognizes that its constituents may consider certain terms to have certain meanings; however, it is necessary for the Engineering Accreditation Commission to have consistent terminology. Thus, the Engineering Accreditation Commission will use the following definitions: Basic Science – Basic sciences consist of chemistry and physics, and other biological, chemical, and physical sciences, including astronomy, biology, climatology, ecology, geology, meteorology, and oceanography. College-level Mathematics – College-level mathematics consists of mathematics above pre-calculus level. Engineering Science – Engineering sciences are based on mathematics and basic sciences but carry knowledge further toward creative application needed to solve engineering problems. Engineering Design – Engineering design is the process of devising a system, component, or process to meet desired needs, specifications, codes, and standards within constraints such as health and safety, cost, ethics, policy, sustainability, constructability, and manufacturability. It is an iterative, creative, decision-making process in which the basic sciences, mathematics, and the engineering sciences are applied to convert resources optimally into solutions. Teams – A team consists of more than one person working toward a common goal and may include individuals of diverse backgrounds, skills, and perspectives. One Academic Year – One academic year is the lesser of 32 semester credits (or equivalent) or one-fourth of the total credits required for graduation with a baccalaureate degree.
Criterion 3. Student Outcomes
The program must have documented student outcomes that prepare graduates to attain the program educational objectives.
Student outcomes are outcomes (a) through (k) plus any additional outcomes that may be articulated by the program.
(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
(d) an ability to function on multidisciplinary teams
(e) an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems
29
2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs – Proposed Changes
(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
(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.
The program must have documented student outcomes. Attainment of these outcomes prepares graduates to enter the professional practice of engineering. Student outcomes are outcomes (1) through (7) plus any additional outcomes that may be articulated by the program.
1. An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems by applying
principles of engineering, science, and mathematics.
2. An ability to apply both analysis and synthesis in the engineering design process,
resulting in designs that meet desired needs.
3. An ability to develop and conduct appropriate experimentation, analyze and
interpret data, and use engineering judgment to draw conclusions.
4. An ability to communicate effectively with a range of audiences.
5. An ability to recognize ethical and professional responsibilities in engineering
situations and make informed judgments, which must consider the impact of
engineering solutions in global, economic, environmental, and societal contexts.
6. An ability to recognize the ongoing need for additional knowledge and locate,
evaluate, integrate, and apply this knowledge appropriately.
7. An ability to function effectively on teams that establish goals, plan tasks, meet
deadlines, and analyze risk and uncertainty.
Criterion 5. Curriculum
The curriculum requirements specify subject areas appropriate to engineering but do not prescribe specific courses. The faculty must ensure that the program curriculum devotes adequate attention and time to each component, consistent with the outcomes and objectives of the program and institution. The professional component must include:
(a) one year of a combination of college level mathematics and basic sciences (some with experimental experience) appropriate to the discipline. Basic sciences are defined as biological, chemical, and physical sciences.
(b) one and one-half years of engineering topics, consisting of engineering sciences and engineering design appropriate to the student's field of study. The engineering sciences have their roots in mathematics and basic sciences but carry knowledge
further toward creative application. These studies provide a bridge between mathematics and basic sciences on the one hand and engineering practice on the other. Engineering design is the process of devising a system, component, or process to meet desired needs. It is a decision-making process (often iterative), in which the basic sciences, mathematics, and the engineering sciences are applied to convert resources optimally to meet these stated needs.
(c) a general education component that complements the technical content of the curriculum and is consistent with the program and institution objectives.
Students must be prepared for engineering practice through a curriculum culminating in a major design experience based on the knowledge and skills acquired in earlier course work and incorporating appropriate engineering standards and multiple realistic constraints.
One year is the lesser of 32 semester hours (or equivalent) or one-fourth of the total credits required for graduation.
The curriculum requirements specify subject areas appropriate to engineering but do not prescribe specific courses. The curriculum must support attainment of the student outcomes and must include: (a) one academic year of a combination of college-level mathematics and basic sciences (some with experimental experience) appropriate to the program. (b) one and one-half academic years of engineering topics, consisting of engineering sciences and engineering design appropriate to the program and utilizing modern engineering tools. (c) a broad education component that includes humanities and social sciences, complements the technical content of the curriculum, and is consistent with the program educational objectives. Students must be prepared to enter the professional practice of engineering through a curriculum culminating in a major design experience based on the knowledge and skills acquired in earlier course work and incorporating appropriate engineering standards and multiple constraints.
55
Appendix D: Accreditation Step by Step
An overview of the typical path that a program takesto become ABET-accredited
THE 18 MONTH ACCREDITATION PROCESS
Are you ready for Accreditation?
Read through our key documents and consider
our Eligibility Requirements.
Focus on Assessment Planning.
Begin working on your preliminary Self-Study Reportto submit for your Readiness Review
(if required).
Step 1: Complete the Readiness Review by November 1
Readiness Review Completed
Begin Self-Study Report
1 year
before your On-Site Visit
Collect samples of student work, syllabi, textbooks, and sample assignments.
Complete your Readiness Review (if required) by November 1.
56
Step 2: Submit your Request for Evaluation by January 31
Submit Your Request for Evaluation
Year of your On-Site Visit
Submit your Request for Evaluation (RFE) by January 31 of the year of your program’s On-Site
Visit.
We will invoice your institution for the On-Site Visit, set a visit date, and form a review team
between April and May.
Step 3: Complete and submit your Self-Study Report by July 1
Submit Self-Study Report
Attend Institutional Representatives Day
Year of your On-Site Visit
Complete and submit your Self-Study Report to us no later than July 1.
The review team assigned to your program begins reviewing your Self-Study Report.
Attend the Institutional Representatives Day. Your program’s institutional representative is
invited to meet your review team chair at this annual event, held in Baltimore, MD, in July.
57
Step 4: The On-Site Visit takes place September – December
Schedule and Prepare for the On-Site Visit.
Undergo 1-3 day On-Site Visit
On-Site Visit
Prepare for your On-Site Visit. Finalize the visit schedule, arrange student and faculty interviews,
and, finally, set up rooms with display materials for the review team. You should begin planning
and preparation months in advance.
Your On-Site Visit typically lasts three days (usually Sunday through Tuesday). It includes a
review of your materials; interviews with students, faculty, staff, and administrators; and
concludes with an exit meeting, when the team will convey its findings.
Step 5: Due Process and the Accreditation Decision
Schedule and Prepare for the On-Site Visit.
Undergo 1-3 day On-Site Visit.
1 Week After the Visit
Provide the review team with any errors of fact resulting from the exit meeting.
2-3 months after the visit
Your institution receives the Draft Statement, a formal communication of your review
team’s findings.
3-4 months after the visit
58
During the 30-Day Due Process period your institution responds to any shortcomings
identified in the Draft Statement.
July
The ABET commissions meet to decide Accreditation Actions in July. At this meeting
your program’s accreditation is discussed and determined.
By August 31
Your program is formally notified of the accreditation action via the Final Statement to
the institution.
59
Appendix E: Glossary
Accord
An agreement among the bodies responsible for accrediting specific degree programs in each of
the signatory countries. Accords recognize the substantial equivalency of programs accredited by
each of these bodies and recommends that graduates of accredited programs in any of the
signatory countries be recognized by the other countries as having met the academic
requirements for entry-level practice. Accords are intended to improve technical education
worldwide and foster the mobility of students and graduates.
Accreditation
An assurance that a program or institution meets established quality standards. In the United
States, it is a non-governmental, voluntary peer-review process.
Accreditation Council (AC)
Council composed of the chair, chair-elect, and past chair of each of the ABET accreditation
commissions, as well as a chair who leads the council itself. The Accreditation Council
formulates and recommends to the ABET Board of Directors policies and procedures regarding
ABET accreditation processes, with particular emphasis on process improvement and process
uniformity across the commissions.
Accreditation Policy and Procedure Manual (APPM)
Document that spells out the policies and procedures that govern the ABET accreditation
process, almost always used with the accreditation criteria.
Applied Science Accreditation Commission (ASAC)
The commission that accredits programs leading to professional practice utilizing science,
mathematics, and engineering concepts as a foundation for discipline-specific practice, including
the recognition, prevention, and solution of problems critical to society. Examples of these fields
include geomatics, health physics, industrial hygiene, mapping and surveying, and safety. ASAC
accredits a program at the associate’s, bachelor’s, and master’s degree levels.
Assessment
One or more processes that identify, collect, and prepare data to evaluate the attainment of
program educational objectives and student outcomes. Effective assessment uses relevant direct,
indirect, quantitative, and qualitative measures as appropriate to the objective or outcome being
measured. Appropriate sampling methods may be used as part of an assessment process.
Associate’s
An undergraduate degree that is conferred upon completion of a two-year program of study; may
be earned at community colleges, technical schools, or bachelor’s degree-granting colleges and
universities.
Associate Member Society
An organization that participates in and contributes to the ABET community but is not a full
member of ABET. Associate member societies do not nominate members for the ABET
accreditation commissions or have voting rights on the ABET Board of Directors.
60
Bachelor’s
An undergraduate degree that is conferred upon completion of a three- to five-year program of
study; may be earned at technical schools, colleges, or universities.
Capstone
A culminating course that allows students who are nearing graduation to “put together” the
knowledge and skills they have acquired in their program and apply it to a major project or
assignment.
Commission
Entities within ABET that conduct the accreditation of educational programs; established by the
Board of Directors.
Commission Executive Committee
Committee consisting of the commission officers, members-at-large, public commissioner, and
the Board Liaison.
Competency
Knowledge, skill, or ability.
Comprehensive Review
A review team examines all aspects of a program to judge compliance with criteria and policies
and to help the program in recognizing its strong and weak points. The team interviews faculty,
students, administrators, and staff; examines materials and facilities; presents orally its factual
findings to the institution leadership; and provides to the dean a copy of the Program Audit Form
(PAF) for each program reviewed.
Computing Accreditation Commission (CAC)
The commission that accredits programs leading to professional practice across the broad
spectrum of computing, computational, information, and informatics disciplines. CAC accredits
a program at the bachelor’s degree level only.
Concern
Statement that a program currently satisfies a criterion, policy, or procedure, but the potential
exists for the situation to change such that the criterion, policy, or procedure may not be
satisfied.
Continuous quality improvement (CQI)
An approach based on evaluating a product or a process and on understanding the needs and
expectations of those who use or benefit from a product or a process.
Criteria
Standard on which a judgment or decision is based.
Dean
Senior leader of an academic unit or college.
61
Deficiency
Statement that a criterion, policy, or procedure is not satisfied. The program is not in compliance
with the criterion, policy, or procedure.
Degree Level
Tier of study, also called program level.
Associate’s – An undergraduate degree that is conferred upon completion of a two-year program
of study; may be earned at community colleges, technical schools, or bachelor’s degree-granting
colleges and universities.
Bachelor’s – An undergraduate degree that is conferred upon completion of a three- to five-year
program of study; may be earned at technical schools, colleges, or universities.
Master’s – A post-graduate degree that is conferred upon completion of one to three years of
course that demonstrates a mastery or high-order overview of a specific field of study or area of
professional practice; may be earned at colleges or universities.
Display Materials
Textbooks, course syllabi; sample student work including assignment and exams, ranging in
quality from excellent through poor, and assessment materials
Draft Statement
Compilation of program exit statements and institutional section of strengths, shortcomings,
and/or observations; written by the team chair after the visit and includes the institution’s seven-
day response; sent to the institution for due process response.
Due Process Response
The institution’s changes to the draft statement. After ABET provides the institution with a draft
statement, it has 30 days to correct errors of fact in the statement and report progress in
addressing shortcomings.
Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC)
The commission that accredits programs leading to the professional practice of engineering.
EAC accredits programs at the bachelor’s and master’s degree levels.
Engineering Technology Accreditation Commission (ETAC)
The commission that accredits programs that prepare bachelor’s degree graduates for careers as
engineering technologists and associate’s degree graduates for careers as engineering
technicians. ETAC accredits programs at the associate’s and bachelor’s degree levels. In 2012,
this commission’s name was formally changed from the Technology Accreditation Commission
(TAC) to the Engineering Technology Accreditation Commission (ETAC).
Editor
Member of the commission’s executive committee who reviews and edits Draft and Final
Statements to the institution.
62
Evaluation
One or more processes for interpreting the data and evidence accumulated through assessment
practices. Evaluation determines the extent to which program educational objectives and student
outcomes are being attained. Evaluation results in decisions and actions regarding program
improvement.
Exit Meeting
The conclusion of a review visit, when the review team presents orally its factual findings about
the programs it reviewed to institution’s leadership and answers clarifying questions.
Exit Statement
Statement of program strengths, shortcomings, and/or observations that the program evaluator
reads during the exit meeting.
Final Statement
Compilation of program statements and institutional section of strengths, shortcomings, and/or
observations that incorporates institutional due process responses and is the result of a second
editing cycle; sent to the institution with the final accreditation action voted upon by the
commission.
Institution
Higher learning organization that delivers one or more educational programs leading to degrees.
Institutional Representative
A faculty member, dean, department head, or other administrator who represents an educational
program.
Interim Report (IR)
This action indicates that the program has one or more weaknesses. The weaknesses are such that
a progress report to evaluate the remedial actions that the institution has taken will be required.
This action has a typical duration of two years.
Interim Visit (IV)
This action indicates that the program has one or more weaknesses. The weaknesses are such that
an on-site review to evaluate the remedial actions that the institution has taken will be required.
This action has a typical duration of two years.
International Observer
A representative from a non-U.S. higher education organization or educational program who
attends an ABET meeting or event to learn more about ABET activities rather than to actively
participate in the meeting or event.
Master’s
A post-graduate degree that is conferred upon completion of one to three years of course that
demonstrates a mastery or high-order overview of a specific field of study or area of professional
practice; may be earned at colleges or universities.
63
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
An agreement between ABET and a peer accrediting agency. An MOU provides a structure that
guides collaboration of organizations with ABET to facilitate implementation of quality
assurance organizations in other countries during their developmental period. Typical activities
conducted under these agreements are sharing of best practices, assisting organizations in their
development of accreditation processes, and providing training workshops for staff and
volunteers. MOUs do not extend to the recognition of programs or graduates.
Member Society
One of more than two-dozen professional and technical societies that comprise the federation
known as ABET.
Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA)
An agreement among organizations that accredit academic degree programs. These are
nongovernmental agreements that recognize the substantial equivalency of the organizations’
accreditation processes and the graduates’ preparedness to begin professional practice at the
entry level. The “mutual recognition” of accrediting systems is intended to improve technical
education worldwide and foster the mobility of students and graduates.
Next General Review (NGR)
This action indicates that the program has no deficiencies or weaknesses. This action is taken
only after a comprehensive general review and has a typical duration of six years.
Not to Accredit (NA)
This action indicates that the program has deficiencies such that the program is not in
compliance with the applicable criteria. This action is usually taken only after a SCR or SCV
review or the review of a new, unaccredited program. Accreditation is not extended as a result of
this action. This is the only action can be appealed.
Observation
A comment or suggestion that does not relate directly to the accreditation action but is offered to
assist the institution in its continuing efforts to improve its programs.
Online Program
An integrated, organized experience in which both students and instructors communicate via
their computers for all coursework, culminating in the awarding of a degree.
Program
An integrated, organized experience that culminates in the awarding of a degree.
Program Area
A curricular concentration or major.
Program Educational Objectives
Broad statements that describe what graduates are expected to attain within a few years of
graduation. Program educational objectives are based on the needs of the program’s
constituencies.
64
Program Evaluator (PEV)
A volunteer selected by his or her member society to represent ABET on visit team. They are
professionals from academe, industry, government, and private practice who care about
sustaining their respective professions through quality education.
Program Head
Administrative leader of an educational program.
Program Level
Tier of study, also called degree level.
Associate’s – An undergraduate degree that is conferred upon completion of a two-year program
of study; may be earned at community colleges, technical schools, or bachelor’s degree-granting
colleges and universities.
Bachelor’s – An undergraduate degree that is conferred upon completion of a three- to five-year
program of study; may be earned at technical schools, colleges, or universities.
Master’s – A post-graduate degree that is conferred upon completion of one to three years of
course that demonstrates a mastery or high-order overview of a specific field of study or area of
professional practice; may be earned at colleges or universities.
Provost
Senior academic officer of an institution.
Report Extended (RE)
This action indicates that the institution has taken satisfactory remedial action with respect to
weaknesses identified in the prior IR action. This action is taken only after an IR review. This
action extends accreditation to the Next General Review and has a typical duration of either two
or four years.
Request for Approval (RFA)
An institution outside of the U.S. wishing to have programs considered for accreditation or
reaccreditation must submit to ABET a Request for Approval not later than January 31 of the
calendar year in which the review is desired. The Request for Approval indicates that a country’s
accreditation agency approves ABET’s requested visitation and evaluation of the program(s)
Request for Evaluation (RFE)
An institution wishing to have programs considered for accreditation or reaccreditation must
submit to ABET a Request for Evaluation (RFE) not later than January 31 of the calendar year in
which the review is desired. The RFE must be signed by the institutional Chief Executive Officer
(President, Chancellor, Rector, or equivalent) and must be submitted with one official transcript
of a recent graduate for each program listed on the RFE. A separate RFE must be submitted for
each commission that will review any of the institution’s programs that year. Requests for
Evaluation are submitted online.
65
Review Team
A team that reviews against the criteria and accreditation policies and procedures one or more
programs at an institution. Composed of a team chair and at least one program evaluator for each
program area, with a minimum team size of three.
Show Cause (SC)
This action indicates that a currently accredited program has one or more deficiencies.
Show Cause Extended (SE)
This action indicates that the institution has taken satisfactory remedial action with respect to all
deficiencies and weaknesses identified in the prior SC action. This action is taken only after
either a SCR or SCV review. This action typically extends accreditation to the Next General
Review and has a typical duration of either two or four years.
Show Cause Report (SCR)
This action indicates that a currently accredited program has one or more deficiencies. The
deficiencies are such that a progress report to evaluate the remedial actions that the institution
has taken will be required. This action has a typical duration of two years. This action cannot
follow a previous SC action for the same deficiency.
Show Cause Visit (SCV)
This action indicates that a currently accredited program has one or more deficiencies. The
deficiencies are such that an on-site visit to evaluate the remedial actions that the institution has
taken will be required. This action has a typical duration of two years. This action cannot follow
a previous SC action for the same deficiency.
Self-Study Report
Primary document that a program prepares to demonstrate compliance with ABET criteria. The
Self-Study Report is prepared using the Self-Study Questionnaire: Template for the Self Study.
Seven-Day Response
The opportunity for programs that have recently undergone a review visit to examine the review
team’s findings and to correct errors of fact only; extensive revisions are reserved for the due
process response period.
Shortcoming
Area of non-compliance against the criteria; any deficiency, weakness, or concern.
Society Observer
A professional staff member or volunteer from an ABET Member Society who attends an ABET
meeting or event to learn more about ABET activities rather than to actively participate in the
meeting or event.
Student Outcomes
Statements that describe what students are expected to know and be able to do by the time of
graduation. These relate to skills, knowledge, and behaviors that students acquire as they
progress through the program.
66
Student Work Examples
Actual student work, such as completed homework assignments, tests, quizzes, lab reports, or
group projects, that have been graded. The work examples should span the grade range from
excellent to poor.
Strength
Exceptionally strong, effective practice or condition. A statement that describes what was
observed, what makes it stand above the norm, and how it impacts the program positively.
Substantial Equivalency
Accreditation systems have comparable standards, outcomes, and processes, though they may
not be identical. Can also mean that a program is comparable in content and educational
experience to others, but may differ in format or method of delivery. Substantial equivalency
implies reasonable confidence that the program has prepared its graduates to begin professional
practice at the entry level.
Team Chair (TC)
A commission member, or occasionally a former commission member, appointed by the
commission’s executive committee to lead a review team.
Technology Accreditation Commission (TAC)
Terminate (T)
This action is generally taken in response to an institution’s request that accreditation be
extended for a program that is being phased out. The intent is to provide accreditation coverage
for students remaining in the program.
Training Mentor
An experienced program evaluator assigned by an ABET member society to a Program
Evaluator Candidate (PEVC) to guide that candidate through the training process.
Transcript
Official record of student coursework.
Visit Extended (VE)
This action indicates that the institution has taken satisfactory remedial action with respect to
weaknesses identified in the prior IV action. This action is taken only after an IV review. This
action extends accreditation to the Next General Review and has a typical duration of either two
or four years.
Weakness
Statement that a program lacks strength of compliance with a criterion, policy, or procedure to
ensure that the quality of the program will not be compromised. Remedial action is required to
strengthen compliance with the criterion, policy, or procedure prior to the next review.
ABET 415 North Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21201 Phone +1.410.347.7700
67
Appendix F: Introduction to Academia for Non-Academician
68
Appendix G: Transcript Analysis
FOR ALL COMMISSIONS
Is the degree title on the transcript the same as the program name on the Request for
Evaluation (RFE) from the institution?
Were there transfer credits or credits for work in lieu of courses on the transcript? If
yes, are the policies that govern transfer credits or work in lieu of courses followed in the
self-study or available for review during the site visit?
Did the student complete all degree requirements on the institution’s degree plan for this
program?
Were all courses taken?
Were all courses passed as defined by the institution or program?
Did the student pass all prerequisite courses before taking a follow-on course?
Did the student satisfy all institutional and programmatic graduation requirements,
including:
Minimum grade point average?
Minimum credits at the institution?
General education requirements?
For Engineering (EAC) Transcripts
Did the student satisfy the EAC Program Criteria (if applicable)?
Did the student satisfy the requirements of General Criterion 5: Curriculum, including:
o One year of college-level mathematics and basic sciences (biological, chemical,
and physical; some with experimental experience)?
o One and one-half years of engineering topics?
o A general education component that complements the technical content and is
consistent with the program and institution objectives?
o A culminating major design experience based on knowledge and skills acquired in
earlier course work and incorporating appropriate engineering standards and
multiple realistic constraints?
69
For Engineering Technology (ETAC) Transcripts
Did the student satisfy the ETAC Program Criteria (if applicable)?
Did the student satisfy the requirements of General Criterion 5: Curriculum, including:
i. Sufficient mathematics so that the student can solve technical problems (associate-level
programs must include algebra and trigonometry; bachelor-level programs must include
the application of integral and differential calculus)?
ii. Technical content constituting one-third to two-thirds of the total credit hours in the
program?
iii. Physical and natural science content with laboratory experiences as appropriate to the
discipline?
iv. For baccalaureate programs, is there a capstone or integrating experience that develops
both technical and non-technical skills in solving problems?
70
Appendix H: ABET Accreditation Process
71
Appendix I: Student Outcomes and Performance Indicators
Student Outcomes and Performance Indicators Performance indicators are a means to focus on specific expectations of a program. They facilitate the curriculum delivery strategies, and assessment procedures. There is an important first step that must come before the development of performance indicators, and that is deciding on student outcomes. These are usually communicated to students in the program description, and are stated in terms that inform the students about the general purpose of the program and expectations of the faculty. The primary difference between student outcomes and performance indicators is that student outcomes are intended to provide general information about the focus of student learning and are broadly stated of the outcome, not measurable, while performance indicators are concrete measurable performances students must meet as indicators of achievement. Performance indicators are developed from program outcomes.
Sample student outcomes:
o Students will work effectively as a member of a team.
o Students can apply the principles of math and science to a technical problem.
o Students will have an appreciation for the need to
o Students will have effective communication skills. Performance indicators indicate what concrete actions the student should be able to perform as a result of participation in the program. Once program outcomes have been identified, the knowledge and skills necessary for the mastery of these outcomes should be listed. This will allow the desired behavior of the students to be described, and will eliminate ambiguity concerning demonstration of expected competencies. Performance indicators are made up of at least two main elements; action verb and content (referent). The expected behavior must be specified by name, using an observable action verb such as demonstrate, interpret, discriminate, or define. Sample performance indicators:
Students will know a professional code of ethics. (knowledge)
Students will be able to describe the problem solving process.(comprehension)
Students will solve research problems through the application of scientific methods. (application)
Cunningham, G. K. (1986). Educational and psychological measurement. New York: MacMillan Publishing.
72
McBeath, R. J., Ed. (1992). Instructing and evaluating in higher education: A guidebook for planning learning outcomes. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. COGNITIVE learning is demonstrated by knowledge recall and the intellectual skills: comprehending information, organizing ideas, analyzing and synthesizing data, applying knowledge, choosing among alternatives in problem-solving, and evaluating ideas or actions.
73
AFFECTIVE learning is demonstrated by behaviors indicating attitudes of awareness, interest, attention, concern, and responsibility, ability to listen and respond in interactions with others, and ability to demonstrate those attitudinal characteristics or values which are appropriate to the test situation and the field of study.
74
PSYCHOMOTOR learning is demonstrated by physical skills: coordination, dexterity, manipulation, grace, strength, speed; actions which demonstrate the fine motor skills such as use of precision instruments or tools, or actions which evidence gross motor skills such as the use of the body in dance or athletic performance.
75
Appendix J: continuous data collection process example
From Assessment Planning Flow Chart©2004, Gloria M. Rogers, Ph.D., ABET, Inc. ([email protected]) Copyright 2008
76
77
78
Appendix K: Team Chair Competency Model
Desired Competency: Technically Current
Desired Proficiency
Possesses technical credentials for the position
Fully knowledgeable about accreditation criteria, policies, and procedures
Application During Campus Visit
Possesses technical credentials for the position
Fully knowledgeable about accreditation criteria, policies, and procedures
Desired Competency: Effective Communicator
Desired Proficiency
Understands the importance of clear, timely communications with all parties involved in
the accreditation process
Able to clearly and tactfully communicate criterion-centered statements of finding and
observation both orally and in written form
Knowledgeable about standards for draft and final statement content and organization
Application During Campus Visit
Keeps the institution, the program evaluators, and ABET informed before, during, and
after the visit
Interacts with institutional personnel to gain understanding of institutional context
Writes clear, succinct, criterion-centered statements of finding conforming to the
timelines, formats and standards established by ABET and the relevant commission
Effectively communicates suggestions for continuous improvement
Desired Competency: Good Team Manager
Desired Proficiency
Able to build team cohesion and effectively manage team meetings and activities
Able to bring the team to consensus, exhibiting skill in finding common ground and
fostering cooperation
79
Able to diplomatically manage an effective exit meeting
Application During Campus Visit
Effectively manages interactions with and between team members
Identifies issues contributing to difference of opinion and guides the team in resolution of
these issues
Manages the exit interview diplomatically so that it proceeds at an orderly pace and is
conducted in the requisite time frame
Desired Competency: Professional
Desired Proficiency
Exhibits professional appearance and demeanor
Adheres to the highest standards of professional ethics and integrity
Committed to contributing to the accreditation process, adding value
Application During Campus Visit
Demonstrates respect for the institution, all institutional personnel, and the program
evaluators
Applies the relevant criteria with appropriate professional judgment
Effectively communicates constructive suggestions for continuous improvement
Upholds ABET’s Code of Conduct
Desired Competency: Organized and Responsive
Desired Proficiency
Focuses on meeting deadlines and communicating with all parties in a timely manner
(pre-visit, during the visit, and post-visit)
Acts effectively in managing visit logistics
Application During Campus Visit
Makes visit arrangements well in advance of the visit
Manages team activities so that the evaluation proceeds in an orderly manner
Completes and submits all required forms, draft and final statements in a timely manner
80
Desired Competency: Leadership
Desired Proficiency
Takes responsibility, facilitating constructive discussion and fostering closure
Exhibits adaptability and sound judgment
Fosters a team environment that is cohesive and well organized
Builds trust within the team and between the team and the institution
Application During Campus Visit
Fosters an environment in which team members can speak freely, demonstrating respect
for team members
Provides support for team members and establishes appropriate ground rules; helps team
members to succeed
Maintains an open mind but guides team deliberations so as to establish a decision-
making process that effectively deals with differences of opinion