Transcript GETTING TO KNOW ABET ACCREDITATION

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
 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.
R. Unnikrishnan
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.
R. Unnikrishnan
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.
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
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
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
Post Visit Activities
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.
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
Criterion
1.
2.
Students
Prog. Ed. Objectives
3.
Outcomes &
Assessment
Professional
Component
Faculty
Facilities
Inst. Support &
Financials
Program Criteria
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
Deficiency
Before
After
3
0
3
1
Weakness
Before
After
14
1
172
92
2
1
125
84
96
85
7
0
28
11
37
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
18
12
11
7
6
92
57
89
72
48
68
1
1
28
18
33
25
Data from 467 programs at 128 institutions
R. Unnikrishnan
Concern
Before
After
51
28
76
67
Goal: Working Together to
Advance Benchmarking and
Mobility in the Engineering
Profession
R. Unnikrishnan
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.
Therefore, the focus is on 4-year (minimum)
Undergraduate programs in engineering.
R. Unnikrishnan





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 - 2005)
ECUK (UK – 1989)
ABEEK (Korea – 2007)
ABET (USA – 1989)
PROVISIONAL STATUS
ASIIN (Germany - 2003)
NBA of AICTE (India - 2007)
RAEE (Russia – 2007)
R. Unnikrishnan
BEM (Malaysia - 2003)
IE Sri Lanka (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
States
Engineering
Maharashtra
MP
Tamil Nadu
Existing
239
161
352
Fresh
85
50
144
AP
Uttar Pradesh
Haryana
527
241
116
176
83
38
Across India
2388
886
Source: AICTE (Fresh applications are colleges from 2009-10 academic year
R. Unnikrishnan
R. Unnikrishnan
R. Unnikrishnan