1. ABET Program Evaluator Re-Training – Materials Engineering
Collect the pre-read assessment from all those who wish to become certified PEVs as verification that they read the pre-read on ABET history and organization. Those attending as institution representatives do not need to provide the assessment.
This presentation requires a minimum of 6 hours.
Maximum recommended number of participants is 40.
The room should be set for rounds of 6-8 people.
Audio visual equipment should include:
computer projector and screen, computer (if computer projector is unavailable, use overhead projector)
2 flip charts w/markers
microphone if room requires it
As the trainer, you should read through this guide thoroughly and review the instructions carefully for each interactive exercise.
Each attendee should have accomplished the following as a minimum prior to attending the training session. All documents are provided on the ABET web site under Accreditation/information for Program Evaluators.
Read the ABET history/organization pre-read and completed the brief assessment.
Read the following documents
appropriate current criteria,
current Accreditation Policy and Procedure Manual
current Self Study Questionnaire

2. Objectives of Accreditation
(1) Assure that graduates of an accredited program are adequately prepared to enter and continue the practice of engineering.
(2) Stimulate the improvement of engineering education.
(3) Encourage new and innovative approaches to engineering education and its assessment.
(4) Identify accredited programs to the public.

3. Role of ABET Accreditation
The role of ABET accreditation is to provide periodic external assessment and evaluation in support of the continuous quality improvement program of the institution.

4. Evaluator Role Evaluators are selected by their professional
society (TMS or NICE) to participate in the accreditation of engineering programs.
In this capacity they:
Represent the Materials Community and ABET on campus visits.
Work with a team of colleagues from other professional societies.

5. Evaluators Provide
As an ABET team member evaluators provide knowledge concerning:
Professional practice
Professional preparation
Continuous quality improvement

6. Evaluator Commitment Commitment is critical to a successful visit.
Exercise sound judgement.
Base all decisions on the criteria.
Do careful pre-visit preparation.
Perform on-site visit thoroughly.
Develop and communicate succinct conclusions.
Participate in team decisions.
Promptly submit all reports and forms.
When in doubt or when a question arises,
use the team chair as a resource.

7. What the Visit Team Produces
At the end of the visit…
Team submits a Visit Report
Basis for the Draft Statement to Institution
Criteria-based
All visit forms feed into this document
Includes statements of program strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, and concerns for each program based on documentation and observations from pre-visit and on-site
Trainer should have participants briefly review the draft statement immediately following this slide to see where the training is taking them – to the development of this document.
In addition, have participants open and quickly scan the PEV Report Form.

8. Important Expectations
Evaluators represent TMS/NICE and the EAC of ABET.
ABET accredits programs to the state and to the public that they satisfy the criteria.
Team effort—team decisions.
Confidentiality
Conflict of interest—every visitor should have signed a conflict-of-interest statement.
Observers
no evaluative statements to the institution.
exit interview—thank-you only.

9. Conflict of Interest ABET representatives will:
Behave in an ethical and professional manner.
Disclose real or perceived conflicts of interest.
Recuse themselves from discussions or decisions related to real or perceived conflicts of interest.
NOTE TO TRAINER:
Perceived Conflict of Interest is more difficult to define. Remind participants that it is not always how you see it but rather how someone else may view the connection. Cardinal Rule: When in doubt claim conflict of interest or seek guidance from ABET Headquarters. Every year ABET must deal with situations created when a PEV fails to follow this policy.
ABET Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Policy is located in the Accreditation Policy and Procedure Manual and is posted separately on the ABET web site.

10. Confidentiality
Do not discuss final conclusions with faculty, students, and others
Keep all materials until the July EAC meeting. At conclusion of accreditation process (August after visit) materials are to be destroyed
Information specific to the institution is to remain confidential without time limit
Institutional data are confidential except with written authorization of institution
ABET materials only released by ABET staff

11. Communication
Maintain open line of communication with the program head
Identify deficiencies as soon as possible
Discuss all issues with the program head at the debriefing
Do not discuss the recommended accreditation action with anyone except team members

12. General Visit Outline Pre-visit Communicate with Program Head.
Try not to surprise the program. Let them know about issues as soon a possible.
Give program opportunity to respond prior to visit.
Pose pre-visit questions in an appropriate manner. Clear questions, not dictatorially or confrontationally.
Keep the Team Chair in the loop on these communications.
Complete transcript analysis well before visit.
Complete curriculum analysis well before visit.
Create draft of exit statement before visit.

13. General Visit Outline (cont.)
Sunday –
Visit campus, review curriculum materials.
Evening: Share what was learned and plan for rest of visit.
Monday –
AM: Dean’s overview, PEV’s in departments.
Lunch with institutional officials.
PM: Support areas, PEV’s in departments.
Evening: Share findings, discuss issues, tentative conclusions; draft exit statements.
Tuesday –
Tie up loose ends.
Draft exit statements by late morning.
Debrief department heads before lunch. Discuss all issues.
Exit interview early afternoon. Read statement.

14. Visit Report and Forms Important forms – done by Tues AM
Program Evaluator Report—soft copy to Team Chair
Transcript & curriculum analyses (in Evaluator Report)
Level of Implementation (in Evaluator Report)
Exit Statement (in Evaluator Report)
Program Audit Form + Explanation of Shortcoming (two hard copies to Team Chair—one will be left with Dean—one soft copy to Team Chair)
Program Evaluator Worksheet—soft copy to Team Chair
Send copies of these forms to TMS or NICE

15. Program Evaluation: Campus Visit Details
Consistency—things to look for
Evaluation of the extent to which objectives are attained
Assessment process with results that demonstrates and measures outcomes
Program improvement (closing the loop)
Curricular and program issues
Faculty and students
As they relate to undergraduate education

16. Deliverables From each PEV, the team chair must have:
A recommended action relative to the program under review that is consistent with the team’s conclusions (remember, it is a TEAM recommendation)
A PAF that accurately reflects the team findings
An Exit Statement that will:
Be read verbatim in the Exit Meeting
Be used as the basis for construction of the draft statement to the institution

17. Program Audit Form (for GR or New) (We provide a copy to the institution at the Exit Meeting)
If heading doesn’t have the current visit year, you are using an old form!
Do not use old forms!! 17

18. Program Audit Form (for Interim Visit Evaluations) We provide a copy to the institution at the Exit Meeting for IV only
If the heading does not say
INTERIM VISIT
do not use it for an IV evaluation 18

19. Working Definition of Key Terms
Deficiency: assigned to any criterion, policy, or procedure that is totally or largely unmet.
Weakness: criterion, policy, or procedure is met to some meaningful extent, but compliance is insufficient to fully satisfy requirements.
Concern: criterion, policy, or procedure is fully met, but there is potential for non-compliance in the near future.
Observation: general commentary possibly, but not necessarily, related to criteria.

20. Limit Use of Key Terms
Use Key Term only in reference to overall evaluation of each criterion.
The Key Term (defined in the previous slides) is the overall assessment for the criterion as a whole, not the worst finding among the sub-areas on the worksheet. Do not, for example, give a deficiency to a program that lacks only a measurement for outcome 3(e).

21. Some other terms for same concept
(Typically used by ABET)
Definition
Some other terms for same concept
(could be used by programs)
Objectives
Broad statements that describe the career and professional accomplishments that the program is preparing graduates to achieve.
Goals, outcomes, etc.
Outcomes
Statements that describe what students are expected to know and able to do by the time of graduation. These relate to the skills, knowledge, and behaviors that students acquire in their matriculation through the program.
Objectives, standards, etc.
Assessment
Processes that identify, collect, use and prepare data that can be used to evaluate the achievement of program outcomes and educational objectives.
Evaluation
Processes for interpreting the data and evidence accumulated through assessment practices. Evaluation determines the extent to which program outcomes or program educational objectives are being achieved, and results in decisions and actions to improve the program.
NOTE TO TRAINER:
This table courtesy of Gloria Rogers emphasizes the diversity of terms in the field of outcomes assessment. There are many terms that are used interchangeably and the unwary PEV could get caught up early in confusion. This table is intended to assist the participant in understanding the need to clarify terms and how they are used when conducting a program evaluation. It is up to the program to define terms. The left hand column shows the terms as ABET uses them. The right hand column shows other terms that PEVs may encounter for the same definition.

22. Criteria Emphasis Practice of continuous improvement.
Input of constituencies
Process focus
Outcomes and assessment linked to objectives
Knowledge required for entry into the engineering profession.
Student, faculty, facilities, institutional support, and financial resources linked to program objectives. 13 13 26 19

23. Program Evaluation: Things to Look for
Evaluation of the extent to which objectives are attained
Assessment process with results that demonstrates and measures outcomes
Program improvement (closing the loop)
Curricular and program issues
Faculty and students
As they relate to undergraduate education

24. Programs with Shortcomings Prior to Due Process (2006/7)
Data reflect 260 programs involved in general reviews.

25. Materials Programs Shortcomings Prior to Due Process (2003 to 2008)
Data reflect review of 86 programs over 6 years
Note: Improvement new criteria in 2008

26. Materials Programs Strengths (2003 to 2008)
Data reflect review of 86 programs over 6 years
Note: Improvement new criteria in 2008

27. Consistency Checks EAC Consistency Committee: Final check EAC Meeting
ABET HQ: Accreditation Director
Editor 2 checks among all reports received
Editor 2
Director checks higher-level consistency
Editor 1 checks among all reports received
Editor 1
Professional Societies
Team Chair
Team Chair
Team Chair
Team Chairs check among evaluators
Team
Team
Team
Team
Team

28. What’s New in 2008
Training process - PAVE (partnership to advance volunteer excellence) required for new evaluators
No institutional shortcomings
Dual level accreditation
Criteria renumbering 

29. Applicable Criteria
In , the “Renumbered Criteria” apply – there are some differences from the Criteria that were applicable in !

30. Criteria Renumbering 2007-2008 2009-2010 # Criterion 1 Students 2
Program Educational Objectives 3
Program Outcomes 4
Continuous Improvement
Professional Component 5
Curriculum
Faculty 6
Facilities 7
Institutional Support 8
Support
Program Criteria 9

31. Criterion 1: Students The program must:
evaluate student performance, advise students, and monitor students’ progress – no change
have and enforce policies for acceptance of transfer students and validation of courses taken elsewhere – no change
have and enforce procedures to assure that all students meet all program requirements – no change
The Criterion is effectively unchanged – in , it was the institution that had responsibility.

32. Criterion 2: Program Educational Objectives
The program must have in place:
published PEO’s consistent with mission and these Criteria – no change
process that periodically documents and demonstrates that the PEO’s are based on the needs of the program’s constituencies – change here
an assessment and evaluation process that periodically documents and demonstrates the extent to which these objectives are attained – change here

33. Applicable Criteria
Use Criteria for Accreditation Cycle. These are the same as the renumbered criteria used in
If this is an interim visit, the criteria in effect at the time the prior shortcomings were identified should be used, unless it is to the program’s benefit to use the currently applicable ones, and it is the program’s choice. 33

34. Application & Interpretation of Criteria
In , EAC editors observed that:
Issues arose related to the linkage between Criterion 2, Criterion 3, and Criterion 4
Criterion 2 and new programs
Criterion 4 and new programs

35. What Does Criterion 2 Say?
The program must have in place:
Published PEO’s consistent with mission and these Criteria
Process that periodically documents and demonstrates that the PEO’s are based on the needs of the program’s constituencies
An assessment and evaluation process that periodically documents and demonstrates the extent to which these objectives are attained

36. Criterion 2 Highlights
The process needs to document and demonstrate that the PEO’s are based on constituent needs – NOT “a process based on the constituents needs in which PEO’s are determined and evaluated” (the old language)
Requirement for assessment and evaluation is the same, but there is no longer language in Criterion 2 that requires that the results of the assessment and evaluation process be used for program improvement. (Program improvement is now in Criterion 4.)

37. Consistency Issues Criterion 2:
Do the published PEO’s meet the definition?
Does the program convince the team that the PEO’s are based on constituent needs?
Notice that there is no language that insists on constituent approval or involvement!
The program does need to convince the team that it has a way of determining what the needs of its constituencies are.
Is there an assessment and evaluation process in place that gives info about the extent to which PEO’s are attained by grads

38. Criterion 2 Problem in 08-09
Several instances in which programs were being required to show how results of C2 or C3 assessment and evaluation processes were being used to improve the program.
This reflects application of old criteria.
That's not in C2 or C3 any more. C4 refers to results of C2 and C3 processes as possible sources of information upon which continuous improvement could be based.

39. Criterion 2 FAQ’s
What if the PEO’s really sound like outcomes (instead of objectives?
If PEO’s are not PEO’s, there is a C2 shortcoming.
What if PEO’s are ambiguous or reflect outcomes retooled to apply after graduation?
Team judgment – do they meet the intent of the Criterion?
Is an assessment process for PEO’s that considers predominately data based on accomplishments of current undergraduates adequate?
Probably not

40. What Does Criterion 3 Say?
The program must demonstrate that (a) – (k) are attained
Program outcomes are defined as (a) – (k) plus any additional ones articulated by the program
Program outcomes must foster attainment of the PEO’s
There must be an assessment and evaluation process that periodically documents and demonstrates the degree to which outcomes are attained

41. Important – for Criterion 3
The definition of program outcomes as being (a) – (k) plus locally articulated ones
The program may not have its outcomes expressed as (a) – (k) plus others. It may have just identified a set of outcomes. As long as the program has demonstrated attainment of (a) – (k) and its own outcomes, this element of the criterion is met.
Requirement for assessment and evaluation is the same, but there is no language in Criterion 3 that results of the assessment process be applied to further development of the program. (Program improvement is now in Criterion 4.)

42. Criterion 3 Consistency Issues
Be sure to apply this criterion in a holistic sense
The process of assessment and evaluation needs to demonstrate the degree to which outcomes are attained, but …
There is no language that says all outcomes must be attained to the same degree
There is no language that says anything about a numeric scale measuring degree of attainment
There is no language that says the outcomes must be measured
There is nothing in Criterion 3 that says anything about use of the assessment and evaluation information for program improvement

43. Criterion 3 FAQ’s What about assessment data? What is adequate data?
Does it all have to be objective/direct? (NO)
Can it be subjective? (Some of it may be; nothing says it has to be)
Is the observation or conclusion of course instructor adequate? (What was his or her basis for the observation?)
Does evidence for each outcome have to be in the form of work the student has produced? (No, but the team needs to be convinced that outcome attainment has been demonstrated.)

44. What Does Criterion 4 Say?
“Each program must show evidence of actions to improve the program. These actions should be based on available information, such as results from Criterion 2 and Criterion 3 processes.”
The improvements can be based on any available information!

45. Consistency Issues
The language of Criterion 4 simply insists on evidence of action to improve the program.
Such actions could be stimulated by results of the C2 and C3 assessment and evaluation processes
But they could also be stimulated by other information
The language of this Criterion does not require that the C2 and C3 information be used as the basis for program improvement. It suggests use of the results of C2 and C3 processes as sources of information for program improvement.

46. Exit Statement Format 2. etc.
INTRODUCTION—USEFUL PROGRAM STATISTICS
PROGRAM:
Strengths (special, unique or particularly conspicuous strengths) 1. 2.
Deficiencies (In order, only for those criteria where deficiencies exist)
1. XXX
2. etc.
Weaknesses (In order, only for those criteria where weaknesses exist) 1. YYY
2. etc.
Concerns (In order, where concerns exist)
1. ZZZ
Observations (do not have to relate to criteria)
1. etc.

47. Writing the Exit Statement
For each shortcoming – use the following structure for your statement of finding:
What is required:
Describe what criterion or policy is applicable.
Describe what that criterion or policy requires.
What was observed:
Describe what was observed.
Describe how your finding differs criterion or policy.
Negative impact:
Describe the negative impact it has on the students or the program (for D or W) or the potential future impact on the students or program (C)

48. What does your TC need in the exit statement you write?
The language must be clear:
“There is inadequate assessment of outcome 3(j).”
How does the program know why its assessment of student knowledge of contemporary issues is inadequate?
“There is incomplete evidence that students attain outcome 3(i).”
What is it that is incomplete about the evidence that students have a recognition of the need for and the ability to engage in life-long learning.
“It appears that outcome 3(h) is not fully assessed.”
Why did the team find that the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context is not fully assessed? What does “full assessment” mean?
The program has to understand what the shortcoming really is in order to fix it, the TC has to be able to explain the team recommendation, and later teams have to understand the issues

49. What Would Make it Clearer?
Instead of “There is inadequate assessment of outcome 3(j).”
The only mechanism used for assessment of student knowledge of contemporary issues is through administration of a survey instrument asking students whether they have knowledge of contemporary issues. This mechanism does not provide adequate information for determining the degree to which this program outcome is attained.
Instead of “There is incomplete evidence that students attain outcome 3(i).”
Although student grades in the “Introduction to the Profession” course were claimed as documentation and demonstration that students have recognition of the need for and an ability to engage in life-long learning, no clear links between the student grades and this outcome were established.
Instead of “It appears that outcome 3(h) is not fully assessed.”
Even though some anecdotal assessment of whether students do have the requisite broad general education was described in the self-study report, evidence shows only preliminary plans for the development of a systematic process for assessment and evaluation of this program outcome.

50. The language must support the team recommendation
If it is a D, the words have to clearly say that the criterion is totally or largely unmet
“there is no evidence that”
“there is no assessment and evaluation process”
“not all students are required to engage in a major design experience”

51. The language must support the team recommendation
If it is a W, the words have to clearly say that the criterion is met but that strength of compliance is lacking, and how it is lacking needs to be clear
“Assessment of outcomes 3(d), 3(f), 3(g), 3(h), and 3(i) appears to be ad hoc. Systematic assessment and evaluation of these outcomes would strengthen compliance with this criterion.” [supporting a recommended citation of a Criterion 3 weakness relative to strength of assessment and evaluation process]
“While the program has demonstrated that graduates are able to engage in most of the activities required by the Civil Engineering program criteria, the program has not clearly demonstrated that graduates are able to apply knowledge of physics, chemistry, and at least one additional area of science.” [supporting a recommended citation of a Criterion 9 weakness for a Civil program]

52. The language must support the team recommendation
If it is a C, the words have to clearly say that the criterion is met and indicate exactly what leads to the concern about the potential for future noncompliance
“It is clear that all of the criterion 3 outcomes are being assessed, but evaluation of some of the assessment data appears to be inconsistent. Unless evaluation of the extent to which outcomes are attained is carried out on a consistent basis, future compliance with this criterion may be jeopardized.” [supporting a recommended citation of a criterion 3 concern]
“Although all of the transcripts examined provided evidence that students meet all graduation requirements, the processes by which graduation requirements are audited prior to graduation appears to be ad hoc. This leads to concern that future compliance with this criterion may be jeopardized.” [supporting a recommended citation of a criterion 1 concern]

53. The PEV Competency Model and its Application
Your performance as a PEV will be evaluated against the PEV Competency Model. You are expected to be:
Technically current
Effective at communicating
Interpersonally skilled
Team-oriented
Professional
Organized
The evaluation forms are found on the ABET web site 53

54. Last Words Remember – this team is “the face of ABET”
The 4 big C’s go a long way in promoting a productive evaluation:
Courtesy
Consistency
Clarity
Confidentiality 54

55. Appendix A
Program Criteria for Materials, Ceramic, Metallurgical and Similarly Named Engineering Programs

56. Program Criterion 9
Each program must satisfy applicable Program Criteria
Curricular topics
Faculty qualifications
Current Program Criteria are on the ABET server (
Must satisfy all Program Criteria implied by title of program
NOTE TO TRAINERS: If there are NO applicable program criteria, the program need satisfy ONLY the general criteria. 32 45 46 37

57. Program Criteria for Materials, etc.
Materials engineering
Metallurgical engineering
Similarly named engineering programs
Same criteria for
Ceramics engineering

58. Materials Curriculum Graduates have:
ability to apply advanced science and engineering to materials systems implied by program modifier (ceramics, metals, polymers, composite materials, etc.)
integrated understanding of structure, properties, processing and performance of materials systems
ability to solve materials selection and design problems
ability to utilize experimental, statistical and computational methods consistent with program educational objectives.

59. Materials Faculty Faculty:
expertise must encompass the four major elements of the field – structure, properties, processing and performance.

60. Engineering Design for Materials Engineers
Appendix B
Engineering Design for Materials Engineers

61. ABET "Design" Requirements
Criterion 3 (b) "… design and conduct experiments …"
Criterion 3 (c) "… design a system, component or process …"
Criterion 5 "… curriculum culminating in a major design experience …"
Materials Criterion 9 "… graduates have the ability to solve materials selection and design problems …"
NOTE TO TRAINERS: If there are NO applicable program criteria, the program need satisfy ONLY the general criteria. 32 45 46 37

62. ABET Definition of Design
Criterion 5(b)
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 the stated needs.

63. White Paper on "Design"
Developed by University Materials Council (UMC) and TMS and NICE Accreditation Committees.
Provides guidance for consistent and constructive interpretation of materials design.
Available on TMS Accreditation web site.
Provides clarification and examples, does NOT supersede ABET criteria.
Programs have flexibility in specifying design experience, but must demonstrate that ABET criteria are met.

64. Materials Programs Materials programs are very diverse
Materials graduates have diverse career goals
Materials design
"design of"
"design with" materials
Breadth and flexibility needed in interpreting ABET design requirements for materials programs

65. "Design" for Materials Programs
May include:
design and evaluation of a material for a specific application;
reverse engineering and design of improvements involving materials;
design and evaluation or optimization of a materials processing method;
design of a method for determining, controlling, or selecting materials characteristics or properties;
performance of a series of documented and evaluated design/research activities throughout a student’s undergraduate program and continuing into the senior year with a culminating design experience;
other activities that would satisfy requirements for “design” in ABET Criteria 3 and 5.

66. "Realistic Constraints" in Materials Design
Realistic constraints can include:
Performance with cost/weight/environmental restrictions
Accuracy/precision in determining properties
Economic trade-offs
Health and safety concerns

67. Examples of Materials Design Activities
Design of method for determining materials process
Design of experimental equipment or characterization method
Design of materials fabrication or synthesis process
Computational design of materials
Reverse engineering design for material improvement

68. Research and Design
Opportunities for leveraging undergraduate research activity
Student research CAN be used for a design project.
Senior thesis CAN be adapted for a design project.
Research experience can be used to provide an appropriate design experience, BUT must be adapted to satisfy the ABET design criterion.
Examples:
The design of an experimental apparatus for a research project.
Stating the research objectives and presenting results in terms of realistic constraints.

69. PEV Competency Model and Evaluation Rubrics
Appendix C
PEV Competency Model and Evaluation Rubrics

70. The Competency Model: What is it?
The ABET PEV Competency Model is based on competency in six dimensions, requiring that PEV’s be:
Technically current
Effective at communicating
Interpersonally skilled
Team-oriented
Professional
Organized

71. Competency 1: Technically current
The desired proficiency -
Demonstrates the required technical credentials for the position
Engaged in lifelong learning and current in his or her field
Is applied during the campus visit –
Able to apply technical knowledge to ascertain the level of conformance to program accreditation requirements
Remains current in accreditation procedures and requirements
Assessed by TC, Team Colleagues, Dept Head

72. Competency 2: Effective at Communicating
The desired proficiency -
Easily conducts face-to-face interviews
Writes clearly and succinctly
Presents focused, concise oral briefings
Is applied during the campus visit –
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
Assessed by TC, Team Colleagues, Dept Head

73. Competency 3: Interpersonally skilled
The desired proficiency -
Friendly and sets others at ease
Listens and places input into context
Open-minded and avoids personal bias
Forthright, doesn’t hold back what needs to be said
Adept at pointing out strengths and weaknesses in a non-confrontational manner
Is applied during the campus visit –
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
Assessed by TC, Team Colleagues, Dept Head

74. Competency 4: Team-oriented
The desired proficiency -
Readily accepts input from team members
Works with team members to reach consensus
Values team success over personal success
Is applied during the campus visit –
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
Assessed by TC and Team Colleagues only

75. Competency 5: Professional
The desired proficiency -
Conveys professional appearance and demeanor
Committed to contributing and adding value to the evaluation process
Considered a person with high integrity and ethical standards
Is applied during the campus visit –
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’s code of conduct at all times
Assessed by TC, Team Colleagues, Dept Head

76. Competency 6: Organized
The desired proficiency -
Focuses on meeting deadlines
Focuses on critical issues and avoids minutia
Displays take-charge attitude
Takes responsibility and works under minimum supervision
Is applied during the campus visit –
Formulates preliminary program strength and weakness assessment based upon review of materials provided 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
Assessed by TC, Team Colleagues, Dept Head