Transcript Accreditation of Engineering, Technology and Computing

Accreditation of
Engineering, Technology
and Computing Programs
Moshe Kam
IEEE Vice President for Educational Activities
First Edition – October 2007
Version 003
Contact Information
Moshe Kam
Robert G. Quinn Professor and Department Head
Drexel University
Electrical and Computer Engineering
3141 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19101
[email protected]
2
IEEE EAB on accreditation
DISCLAIMER
 This presentation was prepared by the IEEE Educational
Activities Board for a broad, general discussion of
accreditation of engineering, computing, and technology
 Material is provided for illustrative purposes only
 Description of various rules and regulations are made in
general descriptive terms and are not intended for
operational or legal use
 Material is not purported to represent the official policy of
any accrediting body or any other governmental or nongovernmental agency outside of IEEE
3
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Outline
 Purpose
 Accreditation in Engineering,
Computing and Technology
• Definition, aims, uses and misuses,
models
 Mutual recognition agreements
 Building new accrediting bodies in
the early 21st Century
4
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Outline
 Purpose
 Accreditation in Engineering,
Computing and Technology
• Definition, aims, uses and misuses,
models
 Mutual recognition agreements
 Building new accrediting bodies in
the early 21st Century
5
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Purpose
 To provide an overview of the
accreditation process
 To present different models and
principal trends
 To review existing international
agreements and accords in the area of
accreditation
6
IEEE EAB on accreditation
A Few Words about IEEE
 IEEE is the largest multinational professional
engineering association in the world
• 367,000 members in 150 countries
• A 501(c)3 organization in incorporated in New York
 Originally concentrating on power engineering
and communications, IEEE at present spans
technical interests across the spectrum of
technology
• From nanotechnology to oceanic engineering
 In many respects IEEE has become “the steward
of Engineering”
7
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Early Presidents
Alexander G. Bell
8
Elihu Thomson
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Charles Steinmetz
Frank Sprague
A few more recent Presidents
Leah Jamieson Joseph Bordogna Michael Lightner Wallace Read
9
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Why is IEEE interested in
Accreditation?
 Because it is in IEEE’s stated mission
 Because accreditation has significant impact on
the content of the curriculum in IEEE’s fields of
interest
• And hence on the future of the profession
 Because IEEE’s involvement introduces the
voice of the profession and its practitioners into
the decision making process of educational
institutions
10
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Why is IEEE interested in
Accreditation?
 IEEE considers accreditation a
strategic objective and supports
accrediting bodies worldwide
• The IEEE BoD allocates funds and
human resources to accreditation on
an annual basis


11
About 500 volunteers
$2M/year in direct expenditures in 2007
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Outline
 Purpose
 Accreditation in Engineering,
Computing and Technology
• Definition, aims, uses and misuses,
models
 Mutual recognition agreements
 Building a new accrediting body in
the early 21st Century
12
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Operational Definition of
Accreditation by CHEA (US)
 Accreditation in higher education is defined as a
collegial process based on self- and peer
assessment for public accountability and
improvement of academic quality
 [Peers = group of peer faculty and staff,
professionals, and public members]
 Peers assess the quality of an institution or
academic program and assist the faculty and
staff in improvement
13
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Three Major Activities
 The faculty, administrators, and staff of the
institution or academic program conduct a selfstudy using the accrediting organization’s set of
expectations about quality (standards, criteria)
as their guide
 A team of peers, selected by the accrediting
organization, reviews the evidence, visits the
campus to interview the faculty and staff, and
writes a report of its assessment, including a
recommendation to the commission of the
accrediting organization
14
IEEE EAB on accreditation
The third step…
 Guided by a set of expectations
about quality and integrity, the
commission
• reviews the evidence and
recommendation
• makes a judgment
• communicates the decision to the
institution

15
and other constituencies if appropriate
IEEE EAB on accreditation
A Broader Definition of
Accreditation
 Formal recognition of an educational program
by an external body on the basis of an
assessment of quality
 An evaluation process in which an objective
group (accrediting body) examines an
educational program to ensure that it is meeting
minimum standards established by experts in
the field
• The outcome of the process is binary: program is
either accredited or not accredited
16
IEEE EAB on accreditation
A Broader Definition of
Accreditation
 Formal recognition of an educational program
by an external body on the basis of an
assessment of quality
 An evaluation process in which an objective
group (accrediting body) examines an
educational program to ensure that it is meeting
minimum standards established by experts in
the field
• The outcome of the process is binary: program is
either accredited or not accredited
17
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Challenges to the Traditional
Definition (1)
 Should the accreditation be done by an “external
body”?
• Is it possible to conduct accreditation by peer groups

E.g., peer institutions
 Should the result of accreditation be binary?
• Some groups in Europe have called for providing
evaluation in four categories with respect to every
criterion




18
Fails to meet minimum requirements
Meets minimum requirements
Exceeds minimum requirements
Excels in meeting this criterion
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Challenges to the Traditional
Definition (2)
 Should we strive to meet minimum standards
rather than achieving continuous improvement
and excellence?
 Will the current system of accreditation be
useful to industry in the long term?
• The mobility of labor has challenged traditional
credentials
• The ECE industry had already rejected the licensing
process

19
E.g., the industrial exemption in the United States
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Looking Forward: Traditions
 The trends we observe in accreditation
will challenge traditional models
 It is unlikely that over-prescriptive
accreditation models will survive
 It is unlikely that models that are based
solely on minimum thresholds will
survive
20
IEEE EAB on accreditation
The Constituencies
of an Educational Program
 Past, present and prospective students
 Prospective employers
 Other bodies of higher education
 Licensing bodies
 Government
 The public at large
21
IEEE EAB on accreditation
The Various Functions of
Accreditation (1)
 Provide constituencies of the educational
program with a guarantee that an
educational program…
• meets (minimum) standards
• continues to evolve in order to incorporate
best practices
 Put a stamp of approval on graduates –
they are ready to practice
• Raises the issue of First Professional Degree
in Engineering
22
IEEE EAB on accreditation
The Various Functions of
Accreditation (2)
 Provide educational programs with
opportunities for self-definition and selfreflection
• and with feedback on program content and
direction
 Provide opportunities for continuous
improvement of education programs
23
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Misuse of Accreditation

Coercion
•
24
The process needs to be voluntary

Disciplinary action

Ranking and comparison of schools

Controlling the school

Serving the interests of one constituency
on the expense of others

Homogenizing higher education

Control competition

Limit enrollments
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Accreditation is not
indispensable…
 Industry can replace accreditation by other
mechanisms of quality assessment
•
•
•
•
University rankings by academic bodies
University rankings by the popular press
Internal lists of “acceptable institutions”
Entry exams and interviews of graduates
 If accreditation is to survive it should be
•
•
•
•
•
25
Pertinent
Transparent
Fair
Economical
Adaptive to the business climate
IEEE EAB on accreditation
The Basic Structure of the
Process: Accrediting Body
 Accrediting body defines its accreditation
philosophy and publishes criteria and
process
 Accrediting body identifies and trains
program evaluators
 Bodies that recognize accrediting bodies
require proof of decision independence
• The funding mechanism and accreditation
decisions should be independent
26
IEEE EAB on accreditation
A Word of Caution: Independence
 In several instances, IEEE observed loss of
independence of accrediting bodies
 In all of these cases, the accrediting body was
discredited
• Schools preferred foreign accrediting bodies over the
local one
 It is not clear whether government controlled
accrediting bodies will be recognized in the
future by international accords
27
IEEE EAB on accreditation
The Basic Structure of the Process:
Program
 Program studies accrediting body literature
 Program collects required material and verifies
presumption of accreditability
 Program requests an accreditation visit
 Program gets organized to provide information
to accrediting body and visiting team
 Self study
28
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Interaction Between Accrediting
Body and Program
 Mutual agreement on visiting team
 Agreement on dates and logistics
• Within published guidelines
 Pre-visit communications
 Accrediting visit and preliminary reporting
 Post-visit communications
 Report preparation and determination of outcome
 Post-report communications – possible appeals
29
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Two important caveats
 The accreditation visit is supposed to
provide “no surprises”
• All concerns that program evaluators have on
the basis of submitted data are supposed to
be discussed ahead of the visit
 On site visit focuses on the accreditation
criteria and their implementation
• This is not the time for ‘free advice’ or
planning of the program future by the visiting
group
30
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Looking Forward:
Implementation
 At present most accreditation bodies
operate on 5-7 year cycles


A series of “dramatic events” followed by long
periods of low or no activity
Elaborate visits requiring significant preparation
 It is possible to design a much simpler
process that takes advantage of progress
in information technology
• Information is posted and updated continually
• Visits are shorter

31
focus only on the few items that do not require face
to face interaction
IEEE EAB on accreditation
For additional details see www.Accreditation.org
Selected accrediting bodies (1)
 Engineers Australia
 Engineers Ireland
 Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board of
the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers
 France: Commission des Titres d'Ingénieur
 Germany: ASIIN
 Hong Kong Institution of Engineers
32
IEEE EAB on accreditation
For additional details see www.Accreditation.org
Selected accrediting bodies (2)
 Japan: Japan Accreditation Board for
Engineering Education
 Korea: Accreditation Board for Engineering
Education of Korea
 Malaysia: Board of Engineers Malaysia
 Mexico: Council of Accreditation of the
Education of Engineering
 New Zealand: Institution of Professional
Engineers of New Zealand
33
IEEE EAB on accreditation
For additional details see www.Accreditation.org
Selected accrediting bodies (3)
 Singapore: Institution of Engineers Singapore
 South Africa: Engineering Council of South
Africa
 United Kingdom: Engineering Council United
Kingdom
 United States: ABET
34
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Characteristics of Accreditation (1)
 Voluntary
 Performed by an external agency
• Based on the locale of the program
• Uses representation of all major constituencies

Government inspection is not Accreditation
 Based on clear published standards
 Evaluative – not regulatory
• It is not the place of the visiting team to provide the visited
program with detailed prescriptions and methodology
35
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Characteristics of Accreditation (2)
 Requires continuous maintenance
 Binary (at present, in most cases)
 Cognizant of program objectives and goals
• One size does not fit all
• Accreditation is not meant to homogenize the
education system
36
IEEE EAB on accreditation
What are the Factors That May
be Considered?
 Content of the curriculum
• Is there enough exposure to discrete
mathematics?
 Size and skill base of the faculty
• Does a Computer Science program have
individuals who are trained in Artificial
Intelligence?
 Morale and governance of the faculty
37
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Potential Consideration Factors (2)
 Facilities
• Does the Microwave Laboratory in an
EE program have a Spectrum
Analyzer?
 Admission criteria
• Do the admission criteria ensure that
incoming students have the basic
skills required to attend the program?
38
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Potential Consideration Factors (3)
 Support services
• Do the program’s computing facilities enjoy
professional system administration?
 Graduate placement
• Do the majority of the program graduates find
gainful professional employment within 6
months of graduation?
 Budgets and expenditures
39
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Looking Forward…
 Many of the traditional factors required a
site visit for verification
 A model that considers most of the
factors on line is now possible
 Accreditation may become continuous
rather than a discrete event
• Shift from reaching the minimum to
continuous improvement
40
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Level of Specificity
 The degree to which criteria are
defined in terms of numerical goals
or specific coverage methodologies
 The degree of specificity depends
on the accreditation model
• The general trend in the last 10 years is
away from specifics
41
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Level of Specificity: Examples
 Non-specific
• A computer science program needs to show that
graduates were exposed to the principles of database
organization and have used this knowledge in openended exercises and projects
 Specific
• A computer science program will include at least 24
hours on in-class instruction on databases which
includes: database models (at least 3 hours); relational
models (at least 1 hour)…
• A minimum of two 6-hour laboratory exercises on
databases must be included. These exercises
include…
42
IEEE EAB on accreditation
A Two-Tier Process
 Usually accreditation of engineering, computing
and technology programs relies on a “general
accreditation” of the institution
 Another accrediting agency ascertains
compliance with laws and regulations, basic fiscal
solvency, and preservation of human rights
 If the first tier is missing, the “technical”
accreditation needs to include it
• This may be a challenge for new accrediting bodies
43
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Most of the Work Does Not Involve
the Accrediting Body
 Program must establish mechanism to
collect data on its activities
 Program must establish mechanism to
use data to reaffirm or reform its
activities
 Program must undergo a thorough selfstudy
• This is often the most important outcome of
the accreditation process
44
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Different Approaches and Styles
of Accreditation
 The Minimal Model
 The Regulatory Model
 The Outcome-Based Model
 The Peer-Review model
 The Program Club model
45
IEEE EAB on accreditation
The “Minimal Model”
 Ascertains basic characteristics of the school and
program
• Often numeric and law-based


Does the school satisfy basic legal requirements?
Does the school have enough budget, infrastructure and
reserves to conduct the program?
 Ascertains existence of the fundamental basics in the
school and program
• Physical conditions, size and skill base of the faculty,
coverage of basic topics in the curriculum
 Provides a prescription for a minimal core and very
general parameters for the rest of the curriculum
46
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Reflections on the
Minimal Model
 It is easy to install and maintain as long as it
adheres to the “minimal” philosophy
 Not a bad way to start an accrediting body
 Does not encourage continuous improvement
 The biggest danger is “mission creep”
• More and more requirements
47
IEEE EAB on accreditation
The Regulatory Model
 Requires strict adherence to a core curriculum
• E.g., defines the minimum requirements for a Software
Engineering curriculum
 Specifies parameters for the rest of the curriculum
• E.g., at least 6 credit hours of post WWII history
 Often involving direct prescriptions of curriculum
and faculty composition
• E.g., “at least three faculty in manufacturing are required
if the body of students exceeds 120”
48
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Reflections on the Regulatory Model
 Makes the accrediting process uniform and
potentially fair
• Criteria are unambiguous and often numeric
 Difficult to establish and update
• Leads to endless strife over what the “core” means
 Relatively easy to maintain
• The key to success is adherence to clear rules
 Was shown to stifle innovation and creativity in
the curriculum
• This was the philosophy of the pre-2000 ABET model
49
IEEE EAB on accreditation
The Outcome-Based Model
 Prescribes a “small” core and basic requirements
 Prescribes basic parameters for the goals of the program
• But does not specify the specific goals of the program
 Focuses on the goals and objectives of the program
• E.g., to maximize the number of graduates who continue to
Medical or Law school
• E.g., to maximize the number of graduates who become
program managers in the construction industry
 Requires evidence of measurement of goals
 Requires evidence of using the measurements to feed a
quality improvement process
50
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Reflections on the
Outcome-Based Model
 Provides for significant diversity in goals and objectives
• Very different from the regulatory model
 Puts a lot of responsibility and risk in the hands of the
program leaders
• E.g., some programs may try to achieve goals that are
unattainable
 Sophisticated and hard to evaluate
• Very difficult to avoid complaints on inconsistent evaluations
 This is the basic philosophy of the current ABET EC2000
and TC2000 criteria
• Though implementation does not always follow the
philosophy
51
IEEE EAB on accreditation
A Word of Caution:
Outcome-Based Accreditation
 While outcome-based accreditation is the most popular
paradigm for accreditation, it is not problem-free
 The prescriptive nature with respect to course content
can be replaced by a prescriptive process with respect
to assessments
 Too much data may be collected and analyzed in order
to prove that methods were assessed
 Adherence to the process by zealous program
evaluators may cause strong disagreements about
methodology
• E.g., the debate about Direct Assessment
52
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Collection of Data
Goal
53
Evidence
Graduates are ready to enter the
workforce
Placement figures of recent
graduates
Programs develops future
leaders of industry
Statistically-valid evidence of
leadership positions for
graduates of the last 20 years
Programs provides the Province
with computer scientists needed
to accomplish national R&D
goals
Evidence that graduates settle in
the Province and maintain
employment in Computer
Science
Program serves students who
wish to gain engineering
background before they develop
careers in medicine or law
Evidence that graduates turn to
practice of law and medicine in
statistically meaningful numbers
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Use of Data for Improvement
Evidence
54
Use of Evidence
Employer survey indicates
graduates have difficulties
using modern computing
tools for control
Junior class in Control
Systems now includes a
section and lab on symbolic
computation for control
Percentage of students who
choose graduate school is
dropping
Department commissions a
survey of recent graduates to
understand their new postgraduation profile
Graduation rates are
dropping; exam grades in
mathematics are dropping
Department institutes an
“entrance exam” in
mathematics. Low achievers
are directed to remedial
classes.
IEEE EAB on accreditation
The Peer Review Model
 A coalition of schools organizes in group of
peers
• Schools select their peers
• Members from other constituencies are added

Government, Industry, professional associations
 The peer groups conduct the review in evaluator
teams
 Model requires an arbitrator and facilitator
• Ideally a professional association
55
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Reflections on the
Peer Review Model
 This is the way accreditation was done in the US in the
early 20th Century
• E.g., Princeton and Johns Hopkins came to visit the
College of Engineering at Drexel University in 1904
 Difficult to organize
 Considered less confrontational and more collegial
 Risk a drift in the direction of unpublished mandates
 Risks clashes of philosophies and program rivalry
 Selection/acceptance of peers may be complicated
56
IEEE EAB on accreditation
The “Program Club” Model
 Group of peer institutions create a “program club”
• Use a common website for communication
 Programs that wish to join create a website with
requested information
 Programs report continually on progress and
experimentation in education
 New ideas are discussed and tried by members of
the club
 Few on-site visits (possibly during an annual
conference)
57
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Reflections on the
“Program Club” Model
 Continuous accreditation model
 Difficult to organize
 Considered less confrontational and more collegial
 Risks clashes of philosophies and program rivalry
 Selection/acceptance of peers may be complicated
 “High maintenance”
58
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Key to Success:
Consistency and Transparency
 Criteria need to be clear and published
• Ambiguities and potential for different
interpretations need to be flagged out and
addressed
• Terminology needs to be defined
 Visit and reports should follow the
criteria closely
• Findings and conclusions should use the
criteria and the established terminology
59
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Accreditation and Licensing
60
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Relationship Between Licensing
and Accreditation
 Accreditation is provided to
educational programs
 A license is provided to individuals
• Graduation from an accredited
program is often a condition for
licensing
• Licensing exams are often based on
model curricula of accrediting bodies

61
Serious problem in the US since EC2000
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Engineering and Computing
Licensing in 2007…
 Licensing of engineering and computing
professionals is perceived to be “broken” in
many countries
• Not a needed credential in many disciplines
• Poor enforcement
• Further weakening due to massive redistribution of
labor among markets in the early 2000s
 One possible solution - the Canadian model
• Licensing = graduation from an accredited program
PLUS testing on safety, professionalism and ethics

62
NOT on school material
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Licensing and the First
Professional Degree in Engineering
 At present there is debate in the US and Europe
about “the first professional degree in engineering”
 The US National Academy of Engineering and
several European organizations appears to favor a
Master of Science degree
• In Europe this view follows adoption of the Bologna
Process
 The NCEES (USA) wants B.S. degree plus 30
semester credits
 No consensus among professional organizations
63
IEEE EAB on accreditation
For additional details see www.Accreditation.org
Outline
 Purpose
 Accreditation in Engineering,
Computing and Technology
• Definition, aims, uses and misuses,
models
 Mutual recognition agreements
 Building new accrediting bodies in
the early 21st Century
64
IEEE EAB on accreditation
For additional details see www.Accreditation.org
Purpose
 Mutual recognition agreements establish
acceptance of accreditation decisions of
one accrediting body by another
 Foster mobility of professionals
 Provide recognition to accrediting bodies
• As well as quality control
65
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Caution: who recognizes whom
 Mutual recognition agreements are
between accrediting bodies, not states or
governments
 It is possible, for example, that
• an accrediting body will recognize that
graduates from programs recognized by
another accrediting body are ready to
practice at an entry level…
• But the State/Government would NOT
66
IEEE EAB on accreditation
For additional details see www.Accreditation.org
67
IEEE EAB on accreditation
 An agreement between accrediting bodies on
mutual recognition of program accreditation
• Does not cover licensure and registration
 Recognizing the substantial equivalency of
accreditation systems of organizations holding
signatory status, and the engineering education
programs accredited by them
 Establishing that graduates of programs
accredited by the accreditation organizations of
each member nation are prepared to practice
engineering at the entry level
68
IEEE EAB on accreditation
“By virtue of the Washington Accord’s affirmation of
substantial equivalence among its members, the
signatories have come to acknowledge generally
accepted, globally relevant attributes that graduates
from accredited engineering programs are expected
to possess.
This acknowledgement of substantial equivalence
has the potential for facilitating mobility of practicing
engineers across country boundaries.”
69
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Source: Presentation by George Peterson to EAB, November 2006
More on the Washington Accord
 Signatories may exchange observers
to annual meetings or accreditation visits
 Verification required at regular intervals
(no more than 6 years)
 Bilateral agreements by individual signatories not
recognized by other signatories
 Recently – accreditation “outside the home territory” is
also recognized
70
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Washington Accord Signatories
 Engineers, Australia
 Canadian Council of
Professional Engineers
71
 Japan Accreditation Board
for Engineering Education
 Engineers, New Zealand
 Institution of Engineers
Singapore
 Engineering Council of
South Africa
 Hong Kong Institute of
Engineers
 Engineering Council, United
Kingdom
 Engineers Ireland
 ABET, Inc.
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Source: Presentation by George Peterson to EAB, November 2006
Recent additions (2007)
 ABEEK (Republic of Korea)
 IEET (Chinese Taipei)
72
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Provisional Members
73
ASIIN
Germany
2003
BEM
Malaysia
2003
RAEE
Russia
2005
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Source: Presentation by George Peterson to EAB, November 2006
74
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Maintenance
 Signatories routinely observe each
others processes
 Mandatory review of each signatory
at regular intervals
 Every two years there is a general
review of the agreement
75
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Source: Presentation by George Peterson to EAB, November 2006
Upgrading
 Increasing scope of the agreement
 Introduction of new members
 Improving operations
76
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Other Agreements
 The Bologna Declaration
 Lisbon convention
 MERCOSUR
 Western Hemisphere Initiative
77
IEEE EAB on accreditation
For additional details see www.Accreditation.org
Additional Agreements
Name
78
Area/Focus
ENAEE
Europe
Engineering for the
Americas
South and Central
America
APEC Engineer
Agreement
Asia Pacific
Sydney Accord
Engineering Technology
Dublin Accord
Engineering technicians
IEEE EAB on accreditation
The Bologna Declaration (1999)
 Signed by ministers of education of
29 European countries
Adoption of a system of easily readable and
comparable degrees
 common terminology and standards

Adoption of a system essentially based on two
main cycles, undergraduate and graduate….

79
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Two Cycles: 3+(2+2)



80
Access to the second cycle shall require
successful completion of first cycle studies,
lasting a minimum of three years
The degree awarded after the first cycle
shall also be relevant to the European labour
market as an appropriate level of
qualification
The second cycle should lead to the master
and/or doctorate degree
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Some ramifications of the Bologna
Process to Engineering Education (1)
 Potential ambiguity about the duration
and scope of studies toward the Bachelor
of Science Degree
• In some countries a 4-year B.Sc. degree is
considered the First Professional Degree
(FPD) in Engineering
• In other countries a 3-year B.Sc. Degree is
considered a pre-engineering degree

81
FPD=Master of Science
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Some ramifications of the Bologna
Process to Engineering Education (2)
 Potentially – differences between
interpretations and weight of the
Bachelor of Science Degree in
Engineering
• FPD=B.Sc. Or M.Sc.?
 Questions about mobility of engineers
between Europe and the rest of the world
82
IEEE EAB on accreditation
A Complementary Approach Registry
 In several parts of the world accrediting bodies
and regulatory agencies have established an
engineer registry
 The registry recognizes engineers who have
graduated from programs accredited by a
recognized body
 Process makes it easier to verify credentials
• Can be perceived as being in competition with
licensing/registration
83
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Outline
 Purpose
 Accreditation in Engineering,
Computing and Technology
• Definition, aims, uses and misuses,
models
 Mutual recognition agreements
 Building a new accrediting body in
the Early 21st Century
84
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Scope
 Building new accrediting bodies provides
an opportunity to use about 80 years of
experience with existing bodies
 Buy-in needed from
• Professional Associations and leaders of the
profession
• Academic institutions and the faculty
• Industry, especially employers of engineers
and technologists
• Governmental bodies and regulators
85
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Desired Final Outcome
 A fully functional stable accrediting body,
operating with clear rules and
regulations, and with a transparent and
simple structure
 Reputation for independence in
accreditation decisions
 Membership of the accrediting body in
the appropriate mutual recognition
accords
86
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Opportunities to learn from
existing bodies…
 Structure and basic processes
 Criteria
 Methodology
• especially self studies and outcome-based techniques
 Development of constituency coalitions
 Decision independence
• “independence from any parent entity, or sponsoring entity,
for the conduct of accreditation activities and determination
of accreditation status” (CHEA 2007)
87
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Opportunities to improve on the operations
of existing accrediting bodies
 Better use of information technology and
automation
 A more continuous and smooth process
 Experimentation with less centralized
models
• The Peer Review and Coalitional models
88
IEEE EAB on accreditation
New opportunities for accrediting
bodies…
 Development and provisions of
tools for continuous reporting,
assessment and improvement
 Creation and maintenance of a
registries
• of engineers, computer scientists, and
technologists
89
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Who should govern the
accrediting body?
 Professional associations
 Academic institutions
 Industry
 Institutions from the three sectors should be
invited to become Members of the accrediting
body
 Voting Members in the annual/bi-annual
assembly of Members
 Governments should be invited to observe and
advise
90
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Possible structure of a new
accrediting body
91
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Member Assembly
Board of Directors
STAFF
COMMISSIONS
Engineering
Computing
Technology
Program Evaluators
92
IEEE EAB on accreditation
How should the accreditation
body be financed?
 Participation fees
• From professional associations and industry
 Accreditation fees
• From participating institutions
 Grants and gifts
• For special projects and research
93
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Stakeholders
 Academic institutions
• Presidents, provosts, chancellors, deans
 Industry
• Major employers of engineers, computer scientists,
and technologists
 Professional associations
• Local, local sections of transnational organizations,
transnational organizations with local sections
 Governments
• Ministries of education and industry, accreditation
oversight bodies
 Other Civic Organizations
94
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Possible dangers
 Not enough interest
 Failure to include all major stakeholders
• Especially Industry
 Poor finances
 Lack of decision independence
 Competition/meddling by outside accrediting bodies
 Political infighting
95
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Questions or Comments?
96
IEEE EAB on accreditation
Additional Sources
 Presentations in EAB workshops on accreditation
• Esp. by Lyle Feisel, see www.ieee.org/education
 Public domain information provided by ABET Inc., EUR-ACE,
the Washington Accord website, CHEA
• Mostly from the organizations’ web sites
 J.W. Prados, G. D. Peterson, and L.R. Lattuca: “Quality
Assurance of Engineering Education through Accreditation:
The Impact of Engineering Criteria 2000 and Its Global
Influence,” Journal of Engineering Education, pp. 165-184,
January 2005.
 Prof. Dr. Dirk Van Damme (Ghent University, Belgium).
Accreditation in global higher education. The need for
international information and cooperation. Outline of IAUP
approach. May 2000.
97
IEEE EAB on accreditation