Dr. Raman Unnikrishnan, Dean and Professor California State University, Fullerton College of Engineering and Computer Science August 11, 2009 R. Unnikrishnan.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 Outcomes-Based Accreditation of Engineering Programmes L.S. “Skip” Fletcher.
Advertisements

As presented to the Global Colloquium on Engineering Education Deborah Wolfe, P.Eng. October 2008 The Canadian Process for Incorporating Outcomes Assessment.
© JABEE 2013 Japan Accreditation Board for Engineering Education Washington Accord And International Engineering Alliance Dr Yasuyuki AOSHIMA Executive.
Assessment of Undergraduate Programs Neeraj Mittal Department of Computer Science The University of Texas at Dallas.
1 Graduates’ Attributes : EMF, EUR-ACE and Federal Educational Standards Alexander I. Chuchalin, Chair of the RAEE Accreditation Board Graduates’ Attributes.
ABET-ASAC Accreditation Workshop ABET Criteria and Outcomes Assessment
Gateway Engineering Education Coalition Engineering Accreditation and ABET EC2000 Part II OSU Outcomes Assessment for ABET EC200.
ABET PRIMER What is ABET, What Does ABET Do, How Do We Do Well With ABET.
© Copyright CSAB 2013 Future Directions for the Computing Accreditation Criteria Report from CAC and CSAB Joint Criteria Committee Gayle Yaverbaum Barbara.
1 A pupil from whom nothing is ever demanded which he cannot do, never does all he can. John Stuart Mill.
1 UCSC Computer Engineering Objectives, Outcomes, & Feedback Tracy Larrabee Joel Ferguson Richard Hughey.
ABET Introduction of ABET to CE 203 Tim Ellis, Ph.D., P.E.
What You Need to Know About ABET Accreditation
ABET Engineering Criteria 2000 To maintain ABET accreditation, Engineering Departments must demonstrate that all of their graduates have the following.
DIPOL Quality Practice in Training at İstanbul Technical University Maritime Faculty Dr.Banu Tansel.
ABET Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology
What is ABET Accreditation and Why Should I Care?
Washington Accord Graduate Attributes: A Metric for the Quality of Engineering Education Worldwide Dr. Malcolm J. Reeves, FEC, FGC, P.Eng., P.Geo. Chair.
Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology - is a non governmental organization that accredits post secondary educational organizations in : 1)
A Possible SE 685 Project Automated Reviewers’ Report For ABET (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology)
ABET Accreditation Status CISE IAB MeeertingJanuary 24, CEN program fully ABET-accredited (in 2006) until 2012: no concerns, no weaknesses, no deficiencies.
ABET Accreditation (Based on the presentations by Dr. Raman Unnikrishnan and W. J. Wilson) Assoc. Prof. Zeki BAYRAM EMU Computer Engineering Dept. 14 January.
CHEN Program Assessment Advisory Board Meeting June 3 rd, 2012.
OUTCOME BASED LEARNING- CONTINUES IMPROVEMENT. Motivation  PEC??  Continues Improvement.
OBE Briefing.
ABET’s coming to Rose! Your involvement Monday, Nov 5, 2012.
AL-QADISIYIA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING SELF ASSESSMENT REPORT Submitted by SAR committee.
Overview of the Department’s ABET Criterion 3 Assessment Process.
IHEQN Conference October 2006 IHEQN “AND NEVER THE TWAIN SHALL MEET”? CASE STUDY OF COLLABORATION 1. Engineers Ireland and University College Cork Denis.
The “Fundamentals” of Accreditation Quality Assurance in Educational Programs Lyle D. Feisel Chair, IEEE Com. on Global Accreditation Activities Dean Emeritus.
GLOBAL ACCREDITATION TRENDS Russel C. Jones. Ph.D., P.E. World Expertise LLC USA and UAE.
1 Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering MDR (18 th -27 th November 2013) -MDR Deliverables clearly defined? -Individual team member MDR deliverables.
 Introduction Introduction  Contents of the report Contents of the report  Assessment : Objectives OutcomesObjectivesOutcomes  The data :
Accreditation of Engineering Education in Turkey Prof. Dr. Bülent E. Platin Mechanical Engineering Department Middle East Technical University Ankara,
Copyright © 2009 by ABET, Inc. 1 Dave Holger, ABET President-Elect ASEE Global Colloquium on Engineering Education October 14, 2009 Budapest, Hungary ABET.
ABET 2000 Preparation: the Final Stretch Carnegie Institute of Technology Department Heads Retreat July 29, 1999.
1 A pupil from whom nothing is ever demanded which he cannot do, never does all he can. John Stuart Mill.
Supporting ABET Assessment and Continuous Improvement for Engineering Programs William E. Kelly Professor of Civil Engineering The Catholic University.
Cross Cutting Initiatives - Education William E. Kelly Professor of Civil Engineering The Catholic University of America.
ABET is Coming! What I need to know about ABET, but was afraid to ask.
CEN ABET Mini- Retreat March 4, CEN ABET Mini-Retreat Agenda: –State of the Assessments –Discussion on loop closings. –CSE Program Objectives/Outcomes.
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering MDR Report.
B - 1 October 2004 Eric Guilbeau, PhD  Department Chair, ASU, has overseen 4 visits to ASU (2 BME, 1 ChE, 1 Mat’ls Eng)  Lead 1 PEV visit (Bioengineering)
Copyright © 2011 by ABET, Inc. and TMS 1 December 2, 2008 ABET Update UMC Meeting April 6, 2015 San Francisco, CA Chester J. Van Tyne
Copyright © 2014 by ABET Proposed Revisions to Criteria 3 and 5 Charles Hickman Managing Director, Society, Volunteer and Industry Relations AIAA Conference.
ABET Accreditation Status CISE IAB MeeertingOctober 6, CEN program fully ABET-accredited (in 2006) until 2012: no concerns, no weaknesses, no deficiencies.
HU113_Assignment31 HU113: Technical Report Writing Prof. Abdelsamie Moet Teaching Assistant: Mrs. Rana El-Gohary Fall 2012/13 Pharos University in Alexandria.
CEN Faculty MeetingMarch 31, ABET Accreditation Brief history. –1980’s: faculty qualifications sufficed. –1990s: quality of courses, materials, and.
Gateway Engineering Education Coalition Background on ABET Overview of ABET EC 2000 Structure Engineering Accreditation and ABET EC2000 – Part I.
CISE IAB MeetingOctober 15, ABET Accreditation Brief history. –1980’s: faculty qualifications sufficed. –1990s: quality of courses, materials, and.
Mutual Recognition of Engineering Educational Programs in the Washington Accord Andrew M. Wo Deputy CEO, Institute of Engineering Education Taiwan (IEET)
Preparing for ABET visit Prof. Dr. Lerzan Özkale Management Engineering Head of Department November 2010.
1 Assessment of Undergraduate Programs Neeraj Mittal Department of Computer Science The University of Texas at Dallas (UTD) January 22, 2016.
University of Utah Program Goals and Objectives Program Goals and Objectives Constituents U of U, COE, ASCE, IAB Constituents U of U, COE, ASCE, IAB Strategic.
Engineering programs must demonstrate that their graduates have the following: Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) ETP 2005.
ABET ACREDITATION By: Elizabeth Rivera Oficina de Acreditación.
Funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed are those of the authors and do.
ABET Accreditation College of IT and Computer Engineering
EMU Computer Engineering Dept.
College of Computer Science OBE Implementation on Curriculum Revisions
2012 Capstone Design Conference Amin Karim, DeVry University
ABET Requirements and Procedures
ABET Accreditation Visit
Proposed Revisions to Criteria 3 and 5
Department of Computer Science The University of Texas at Dallas
Assessment and Accreditation
CE 220 Professionalism A pupil from whom nothing is ever demanded which he cannot do, never does all he can. John Stuart Mill.
Neelam Soundarajan Chair, Undergrad Studies Comm. CSE Department
OUTCOME BASED EDUCATION – AN INTRODUCTION
EMU Computer Engineering Dept.
Presentation transcript:

Dr. Raman Unnikrishnan, Dean and Professor California State University, Fullerton College of Engineering and Computer Science August 11, 2009 R. Unnikrishnan

Introduction to ABET General Criteria Program Criteria Accreditation Action Statistics Selection of Team Chair and Program Evaluators Washington Accord Mentoring India Vietnam and ABET R. Unnikrishnan

Almost all of the information presented in this talk related to ABET was obtained from public sites of ABET. This source is gratefully acknowledged. The information about Washington Accord, likewise, is from public sources. R. Unnikrishnan

A quest for continuous improvement R. Unnikrishnan  Engineer’s Council for Professional Development (ECPD) 75 years ago  In 1980, ECPD was renamed the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology or ABET to more accurately describe its emphasis on accreditation.  In 2005, ABET formally changed its name from the “Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology” to ABET, Inc.

R. Unnikrishnan The ECPD’s original focuses were in the following areas:  Guidance — Supplying information to engineering students and potential students.  Training — Developing plans for personal and professional development.  Education — Appraising engineering curricula and maintaining a list of accredited curricula.  Recognition — Developing methods where-by individuals could achieve recognition by the profession and the general public.

What Is ABET Accreditation? ABET accreditation is assurance that a college or university program meets the quality standards established by the profession for which it prepares its students. For example, an accredited engineering program must meet the quality standards set by the engineering profession. An accredited computer science program must meet the quality standards set by the computing profession. R. Unnikrishnan

ABET accredits postsecondary degree-granting programs housed within regionally accredited institutions. ABET accredits programs only, not degrees, departments, colleges, or institutions. R. Unnikrishnan

Structure ABET is a federation of 28 professional and technical societies. Individual members of these societies, practicing professionals from industry and academe - form the body of ABET through its program evaluators (PEVs), Board of Directors, and four accreditation commissions: Applied Science Accreditation Commission (ASAC) Computing Accreditation Commission (CAC) Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) Technology Accreditation Commission (TAC) R. Unnikrishnan

Board of Directors The primary responsibilities of the Board of Directors are to set policy and approve accreditation criteria. Commissions The commissions implement accreditation procedures and decisions. Program Evaluators (PEVs) Program evaluators, along with commissioners, make up ABET's accreditation teams, which visit and evaluate programs seeking accreditation. R. Unnikrishnan

Member Societies (These are the lead organizations) CSAB: Computer Science ASCE: Civil Engineering ASME: Mechanical Engineering IEEE: Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering And others… R. Unnikrishnan

GENERAL CRITERIA FOR BACCALAUREATE LEVEL PROGRAMS Criterion 1. Students (Evaluation of performance, advising, curricular adherence) Criterion 2. Program Educational Objectives (based on the needs of the constituencies; are they achieved?) Criterion 3. Program Outcomes Criterion 4. Continuous Improvement Criterion 5. Curriculum  one year of a combination of college level mathematics and basic sciences (some with experimental experience)  one and one-half years of engineering topics  a general education component  major design experience Criterion 6. Faculty (number and quality) Criterion 7. Facilities (Classroom and labs) Criterion 8. Support (Institutional) Criterion 9. Program Criteria (depends on the major)

R. Unnikrishnan Engineering programs must demonstrate that their students attain the following outcomes: a)an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering b)an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data c)an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability 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.

Deficiency: A deficiency indicates that a criterion, policy, or procedure is not satisfied. Therefore, the program is not in compliance with the criterion, policy, or procedure. 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 evaluation. 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. 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. ABET Terminology R. Unnikrishnan

ABET Actions NGR (Next General Review) – 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. IR (Interim Report) – This action indicates that the program has one or more weaknesses. The nature of the weaknesses is such that an on-site visit will not be required to evaluate the remedial actions taken by the institution. A report focusing on the remedial actions taken by the institution will be required. This action has a typical duration of two years. IV (Interim Visit) – This action indicates that the program has one or more weaknesses. The nature of the weaknesses is such that an on-site visit will be required to evaluate the remedial actions taken by the institution. This action has a typical duration of two years. R. Unnikrishnan

ABET Actions SC (Show Cause) – This action indicates that the program has one or more deficiencies. An on-site visit will be required to evaluate the remedial actions taken by the institution. This action has a typical duration of two years. SE (Show Cause Extended) -- This action indicates that satisfactory remedial action has been taken by the institution with respect to all deficiencies and weaknesses identified in the prior SC action. This action is taken only after an interim SC evaluation. This action typically extends accreditation to the next general review and, thus, has a typical duration of either two or four years. NA (Not to Accredit) -- This action indicates that the program has deficiencies such that the program is in continued non-compliance with the applicable criteria. This action is usually taken only after a SC evaluation or the evaluation of a new, unaccredited program. Accreditation is generally not extended as a result of this action, except as specified in Section II.F.9. T (Terminate) – This action is generally taken in response to a request by an institution that accreditation be extended for a program that is being phased out. The intent is to p R. Unnikrishnan

ABET Actions RE (Report Extended) – This action indicates that satisfactory remedial action has been taken by the institution with respect to weaknesses identified in the prior IR action. This action is taken only after an IR evaluation. This action extends accreditation to the next general review and, thus, has a typical duration of either two or four years. VE (Visit Extended) -- This action indicates that satisfactory remedial action has been taken by the institution with respect to weaknesses identified in the prior IV action. This action is taken only after an IV evaluation. This action extends accreditation to the next general review and, thus, has a typical duration of either two or four years. R. Unnikrishnan

Relationship with shortcomings and Recommended Actions NGRThere are no deficiencies and no weaknesses. Concerns are OK. IRThere are no deficiencies but there is a weakness or two. The weaknesses are such that they can be rectified and the outcome communicated to ABET via a report. Concerns are OK. IVThere are no deficiencies but there are multiple weaknesses. The weakness or weaknesses are of nature that a visit is needed to verify compliance. Concerns are OK. Observations do not enter accreditation actions R. Unnikrishnan

Post Visit Activities 1. Team Chair sends electronic copies of Short Form to ABET Headquarters and the Editor. (+3 Days) 2. Institution sends 7-day response to Team Chair and Program Evaluators. In this response, the institution should reply only to errors of fact related to shortcomings listed on the PAF forms that were given to the Dean at the conclusion of the visit. (+7 Days) 3. Team Chair, in consultation with Program Evaluators, edits the individual program Exit Interview statements into a cohesive and consistent Draft Statement and incorporates the Institution's 7-day response. (+10 Days) 4. Team Chair sends (a) copy of the proposed Draft Statement, (b) the original completed PAF forms, and (c) original short form to the designated EAC Editors and ABET Headquarters. (+14 Days) R. Unnikrishnan

5. EAC Editor 1 edits the formatted Draft Statement, reviews any changes with the Team Chair, and forwards this with original PAF's and original short form with the Editor’s recommended action to the EAC Editor 2. (+35 Days) 6. EAC Editor 2 edits the Draft Statement in consultation with the Editor 1 as appropriate, indicates the EAC Chair’s recommended action on the original Short Form and sends to ABET Headquarters. 7. ABET edits, formats, and sends Draft Statement to the Institution with a letter signed by the EAC Chair. 8. ABET sends a copy of the Draft Statement and letter to the Team Chair and Editors. Post Visit Activities R. Unnikrishnan

Post Visit Activities 9. Institution reviews Draft Statement and sends due-process response to the EAC Chair within 30 days. Institution also sends copies to the Team Chair, Editor, and ABET Headquarters. 10. Team Chair revises the Draft Statement and PAF forms in consultation with Program Evaluators to reflect changes reported by the Institution in the due-process response. 11. Team Chair sends revised Draft Statement and updated original Short Form and PAF forms to the EAC Editor. Only the table portion of the PAF is included – no explanation of shortcomings pages are required. (Within 2 Weeks after receiving the due-process response) 12. EAC Editor 1 revises Draft Statement, updates the original Short Form and PAF forms in consultation with the Team Chair as needed, and forwards revised Draft Statement and updated original Short Form and PAF forms to the EAC Editor 2. R. Unnikrishnan

Post Visit Activities 13. EAC Editor 2 edits Draft Statement and updates the original Short Form and PAF forms in consultation with the Editor as needed, and forwards to ABET Headquarters. 14. ABET Headquarters edits the Draft Statement for presentation to EAC with a copy of the Short Form. 15. EAC takes final action and makes final revision to the Draft Statement. 16. ABET Headquarters formats Final Statement and transmits to the Institution with accreditation letter signed by ABET President. 17. Institution may appeal R. Unnikrishnan

CriterionDeficiencyWeaknessConcern BeforeAfterBeforeAfterBeforeAfter 1. Students Prog. Ed. Objectives Outcomes & Assessment Professional Component Faculty Facilities Inst. Support & Financials Program Criteria Data from 467 programs at 128 institutions

R. Unnikrishnan Goal: Working Together to Advance Benchmarking and Mobility in the Engineering Profession

Originally signed in 1989 by 6 engineering education accrediting bodies from:  Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, United Kingdom & United States Non-governmental agreement Emphasizes peer-review R. Unnikrishnan

 Monitoring & verification of signatories’ accreditation system every 6 years  Developmental pathways for provisional admission (mature accreditors vs. emerging accreditors)  Business Meeting of Signatories - every 2 years  Full signatory status requires unanimous agreement R. Unnikrishnan

… recognizes the “substantial equivalency” of accreditation systems to assess that the graduates of accredited programs are prepared to practice engineering at the entry level to the profession. R. Unnikrishnan Therefore, the focus is on 4-year (minimum) Undergraduate programs in engineering.

 Licensure/registration of graduates from recognized programs rests with receiving country/jurisdiction  Signatory encourages the licensing body in its own country to accept the substantial equivalence of engineering educational programs accredited by the other Signatories.  Programs accredited prior to acceptance of accreditor as full Signatory - not recognized  Facilitates international mobility for engineers  Provisional status – no recognition of programs by Signatories R. Unnikrishnan

SIGNATORIES Engineers Australia (1989) IPENZ (New Zealand -1989) Engineers Canada (1989) IES (Singapore 2006) HKIE (Hong Kong – 1995) IEET (Chinese Taipei – 2007) Engineers Ireland (1989) ECSA (South Africa – 1999) JABEE (Japan ) ECUK (UK – 1989) ABEEK (Korea – 2007)ABET (USA – 1989) PROVISIONAL STATUS ASIIN (Germany )BEM (Malaysia ) NBA of AICTE (India )IE Sri Lanka (2007) RAEE (Russia – 2007)

 Adoption of Exemplar for Graduate Attributes and Professional Competencies for Engineers, Technologists and Technicians  Mentoring process for developing accreditation organizations  Harmonized rules & procedures for Washington Accord, Sydney Accord, Dublin Accord  Several organizations throughout the world have expressed interest in joining the Washington Accord  Joint secretariat to manage international accords and agreements R. Unnikrishnan

 Managing changing standards & degree levels among and between signatories  Distance education  Branch campuses across national boundaries R. Unnikrishnan

 Licensing jurisdictions, on the whole, recognize the Washington Accord  Increasing interest in joining by existing accreditors  Increasing interest in developing accreditation systems, within countries or regions  Enhanced international recognition of home institutions  Enhanced mobility of graduates R. Unnikrishnan

Slides, once again, thanks to ABET! R. Unnikrishnan

 Mentoring India (2009)  dispassionate observations as friends of India and as professionals visiting here to help NBA/AICTE R. Unnikrishnan

RUSH YEAR FOR NEW COLLEGES StatesEngineering ExistingFresh Maharashtra23985 MP16150 Tamil Nadu AP Uttar Pradesh24183 Haryana11638 Across India Source: AICTE (Fresh applications are colleges from academic year R. Unnikrishnan