Rick Lyles ASCE Committee on Curricula and Accreditation 23 May 2011

1. CC&A Report and Comments2011 National Civil Engineering Department Heads Conference, Madison, Wisconsin Rick Lyles ASCE Committee on Curricula and Accreditation 23 May 2011

2. …who am I and why am I standing here? • current chairperson of ASCE’s Committee on Curricula and Accreditation • former program evaluator (PEV) for programs in civil engineering • current ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) member (and team chair)

3. today’s topics… • what does CC&A do? • a general report on CC&A activities • civil engineering program criteria • Q and A

4. what does CC&A do? • deals w/accreditation-related issues • with staff, assigns program evaluators (PEVs) and observers for ABET visits to all architectural, civil, and construction engineering programs • evaluates all PEV and observer reports

5. more CC&A duties… • develop and maintain support materials for PEVs and others (e.g., the “commentary,” PEV instructions) • interpret program criteria (e.g., in response to questions)—limited to support regarding program-specific criteria (old ABET criterion 9)

6. more CC&A duties... • nominate ASCE folks for membership on the Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) to serve as team chairs • provide (discipline-based) mentors for PEV-wannabes who are going through ABET-sponsored training

7. even more CC&A duties... • Directions Newsletter (late summer)—targeted at PEVs and chairs • develop disciplinary-based training for ASCE PEVs • communication with other committees and groups (e.g., CE department chairs)—trying to keep abreast of changes!

10. ASCE’s Internal Accreditation Organization • ASCE’s ABET Board representatives (3 of 47) • ASCE’s Commissioners – EAC (6 of 66), TAC (3 of 48) • Committee on Curricula and Accreditation (8 regular members + reps) • Constituent committee of ASCE BOD level committee, Educational Activities Committee (EdAC) • Operational & Tactical focus • Charge: • Recruit, train (program criteria), assign, and assess ≈200 ASCE Program Evaluators • Maintain Program Criteria (Lead and cooperating society) • Includes representatives of EAC, Department Heads Council, ASEE • Committee on Technology Curricula and Accreditation (EdAC) • Accreditation Committee of CAP3 (Strategic focus) • Constituent committee of ASCE BOD level committee, CAP^3 • Charge: Influence ABET criteria and policies to advance the implementation of Policy Statement 465 • Includes representatives of ABET Board, EAC, EdAC, CC&A, CTC&A, Department Heads Council

11. CC&A general report summary of visits

12. CC&A general report further breakdown of 2011-12 visits for AE, CE, and ConE

13. CC&A general report from the ABET 2009 annual report • criteria 2 (program educational objectives) and 3 (program outcomes) continue to be the areas where there are the most shortcomings—based on CC&A experience, this trend continued in 2010 • not allowed to be very explicit w/things we saw in our PEV reviews

14. CC&A general report typical problems associated w/C2 and C3 (from ABET, CC&A concurrence) • not clear that processes based on needs of constituencies • confusion between objectives (C2) and outcomes (C3) • not clear that evaluation results are being used for improvement • inadequate evidence of achievement

15. CC&A general report the takeaway from this? • make sure criterion 2 PEO definition and process are okay! • for this year, make sure that you’re up to date with the criteria changes—not so big a deal in EAC • C3 note: program outcomes are now called student outcomes!

16. CC&A general report defer discussion on program criteria (old criterion 9) for a couple of minutes

17. CC&A general report PEV evaluations and issues • PEVs are routinely given feedback about their findings and can be asked to do remedial training • we are working on the fine line between “toeing the mark” and being over-zealous • as information, PEVs can be and are removed from circulation

18. CC&A general report PEV evaluations and issues (continued) • we review the docs that are submitted to ABET…we do not review “raw materials”—so, we don’t “see” all issues that may occur • we also see results of the ABET 360° evaluation comments and integrate those into our reviews as appropriate

19. CC&A general report communications/complaints from chairs, deans, and others… • if you have a problem, please let CC&A know—while this is typically going to be after the fact, it is important that we understand the institutions’ issues and concerns (and help fix future problems)

20. CC&A general report consistency can be an issue • consistency w/in team • consistency among teams at different institutions • checked by team chairs, then by editors, and by overarching committee

21. program criteria (ABET old C9) current/recent issues w/program criteria (old criterion 9) • additional basic science (note that the word basic is now in the criterion) • issues w/”professional practice” related to appropriate coverage • so, what is in the “program criteria?”

22. PROGRAM CRITERIA for CIVIL ENGINEERING—CURRICULUM The program must prepare graduates to apply knowledge of mathematics through differential equations, calculus-based physics, chemistry, and at least one additional area of basicscience, consistent with the program educational objectives; apply knowledge of four technical areas appropriate to civil engineering; conduct civil engineering experiments and analyze and interpret the resulting data; design a system, component, or process in more than one civil engineering context; explain basic concepts in management, business, public policy, and leadership; and explain the importance of professional licensure.

23. program criteria (ABET old C9) do these have to be treated as student (formerly program) outcomes (SOs)? • NO! we had been moving in the direction that these had to be SOs…not so now • COULD they be SOs…yes! if this is done, then they must be assessed as such

24. PROGRAM CRITERIA for CIVIL ENGINEERING—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.

25. program criteria (ABET old C9) a couple of examples of PEVs who may have been a little overzealous… • encountered an unlicensed faculty member teaching design but then had a talk w/that person…turns out there was experience and training…but still cited a shortcoming

26. program criteria (ABET old C9) another PEV who may have been a little overzealous… • very strict interpretation of “critically dependent” and apparently required a written plan for replacement…and cited a shortcoming

27. ASCE Committee on Curricula and Accreditation final quick words… Check out what is on-line and the CC&A Directions newsletter for “good stuff!” If you have issues or concerns, you need to have your voice heard. Get in touch with CC&A and/or work through your commissioners.

28. ASCE Committee on Curricula and Accreditation questions, comments, problems, issues? Note that there is an “Audience Discussion of Accreditation” at 4:00 (ABET staff, ABET board of directors member, EAC commissioners, CC&A)