Engineering Accreditation for the 21 st Century: US, Global and Institutional Perspectives

1. Engineering Accreditation for the 21st Century: US, Global and Institutional Perspectives Dr. Raman Unnikrishnan, Dean and Professor California State University, Fullerton College of Engineering and Computer Science August 11, 2009

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

3. 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.

4. A quest for continuous improvement • 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.

5. Original Goals of ECPD • 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.

6. 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.

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

9. 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.

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

11. 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 withexperimental 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)

12. Program Outcomes Engineering programs must demonstrate that their students attain the following outcomes: an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data 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 an ability to function on multidisciplinary teams an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility an ability to communicate effectively the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context a recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning a knowledge of contemporary issues an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.

13. ABET Terminology • 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.

14. 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.

15. 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

16. 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.

17. Relationship with shortcomings and Recommended Actions NGR There are no deficiencies and no weaknesses. Concerns are OK. IR There 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. IV There 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

18. Post Visit Activities 1. Team Chairsends electronic copies of Short Form to ABET Headquarters and the Editor. (+3 Days) 2. Institutionsends 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 Chairsends (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)

19. Post Visit Activities 5. EAC Editor 1edits 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 2edits 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. ABETedits, formats, and sends Draft Statement to the Institution with a letter signed by the EAC Chair. 8. ABETsends a copy of the Draft Statement and letter to the Team Chair and Editors.

20. Post Visit Activities 9. Institutionreviews 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 Chairrevises the Draft Statement and PAF forms in consultation with ProgramEvaluators to reflect changes reported by the Institution in the due-process response. 11. Team Chairsends 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 1revises 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.

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

22. Citations of Shortcomings Before and After Due Process (2007-08 Data) Data from 467 programs at 128 institutions

23. The Washington Accord Goal: Working Together to Advance Benchmarking and Mobility in the Engineering Profession

24. Brief Background on the Washington Accord • 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

25. Brief Background cont. • 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

26. Washington Accord … 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. Therefore, the focus is on 4-year (minimum) Undergraduate programs in engineering.

27. Recognition • 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

28. 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 - 2005) ECUK (UK – 1989) ABEEK (Korea – 2007) ABET (USA – 1989) PROVISIONAL STATUS ASIIN (Germany - 2003) BEM (Malaysia - 2003) NBA of AICTE (India - 2007) IE Sri Lanka (2007) RAEE (Russia – 2007) Washington Accord

29. Current Developments • 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

30. Current Issues & Questions • Managing changing standards & degree levels among and between signatories • Distance education • Branch campuses across national boundaries

31. How do you measure success? • 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

32. Slides, once again, thanks to ABET!

33. Mentor’s findings • Mentoring India (2009) • dispassionate observations as friends of India and as professionals visiting here to help NBA/AICTE

34. Times of India (February 19, 2009)

35. Vietnam and ABET

36. Thank you very much!