ABET update & Major initiatives

1. ABET update & Major initiatives Joseph L. Sussman, Ph.D., F.ASME ABET Managing Director–Accreditation/CIO National Civil Engineering Department Heads Conference White Plains, New York June 2012

2. ABET Accreditation Activities • Accredited 3192 programs at 660 colleges & universities in 23 countries (As of Oct 1, 2011) • October 2006 – Accreditation outside the US approved by ABET Board • Uniform accreditation criteria, policies and procedures used for all visits, regardless of location • Coordinated with national authority/accrediting agency • Currently accredited 268 programs at 55 institutions in 22 countries outside US

3. Computing Accreditation Commission Engineering Accreditation Commission Technology Accreditation Commission Applied Science Accreditation Commission 2140 accredited programs at 442 institutions [ce:252 con:14 arch:17] 632 accredited programs at 216 institutions 365 accredited programs at 291 institutions 70 accredited programs at 53 institutions Organizational Structure Committees Accreditation Council ABET Board Industry AdvisoryCouncil Academic AdvisoryCouncil Global Council

4. ABET’s 31 Societies

5. ABET’s Role in Globalization • Assist nations in developing their accreditation systems • Provide guidance in the implementation of continuous quality improvement in engineering education in other countries • Work with regions with similar educational systems to develop a regional quality assurance system • Promote and develop bilateral and multilateral recognition agreements • Assist in mobility of technical professionals

6. Accreditation Enhancements • Improved consistency/better training for PEVs and TCs • Harmonization of general criteria, forms and processes across commissions • Improving efficiency – Upgrading accreditation management system • Developing PEVs from outside the US

7. Harmonization Criteria Common to all Commissions Criterion 1 (Students) Criterion 2 (PEO) Criterion 4 (CQI) Criterion 7 (Facilities) Criterion 8 (Support) Commission Specific Criteria Criterion 3 (Outcomes) Criterion 5 (Curriculum) Criterion 6 (Faculty) Program Criteria

8. Harmonization2 six-year cycles after EC2000 introduced by EAC • The criteria and self-study questionnaire templates for all four ABET accreditation commissions have been harmonized • All criteria have same number and name (Students, Program Educational Objectives, Curriculum, etc.) • The wording of many criteria are identical • The self-study questionnaire templates are similarly harmonized to reduce institutional workload

9. Recent Self Study Improvements • Institutional appendix is the same across all commissions/all disciplines.  One institutional appendix can be used by all programs submitting a Self-Study in the same review cycle. • Harmonization across commissions with questions that are directly related to evidence of criteria compliance

10. Recent Self Study Improvements • Design allows for certain portions to use same or similar wording for joint visits • Special instructions providing Self Study guidance for Joint Commission Evaluations and 2+2 Engineering Technology programs • Submission welcomed electronically via data stick/CD/DVDeliminating need to print volumes • Removed information and tables that provided no useful data for demonstrating compliance

11. Recent Self Study Improvements • No longer asked to provide explicit list of program expenditures for travel, equipment, professional development • Revised institutional appendix requiring only information and data necessary to judge compliance with criteria; No longer asked to provide ranges of program faculty salaries by academic rank

12. Recent Self Study Improvements CAUTION, PLEASE • Our ABET HQ experience with self-study correspondence suggests we should not overstate the impact of harmonization on preparation of the self-study reports.

13. Recent Self Study Improvements CAUTION, PLEASE • Most programs (even in same institution) have significantly different contexts in which they operate. • Sections 1-6 of Appendix D is the only part that should normally be identical. • Responses to Criterion 4 may need to be significantly different … even when the programs claim they all use the "same" assessment and evaluation processes.

14. Recent EAC Criteria Changes • Definition of Program Educational Objective • Removed reference to “career and professional accomplishments” • Now: “Program educational objectives are broad statements that describe what graduates are expected to attain within a few years of graduation. Program educational objectives are based on the needs of the program’s constituencies. “

15. Student Outcomes • Criterion 3 now require Student Outcomes (rather than Program Outcomes) • The list of (a) through (k) must be used to assess and evaluate the program (even if you listed them differently)

16. Assessment and Evaluation • All assessment and evaluation requirements moved to Criterion 4 • Criterion 2 still requires involvement of constituencies relative to Program Educational Objectives

17. Program Criteria • Some program criteria have been edited to reduce potential confusion with respect to program curriculum requirements (they were being viewed as requiring additional student outcomes under Criterion 3.) • Program criteria address ONLY curriculum and faculty requirements • Programs may add outcomes but are not required

18. Overview2 six-year cycles after EC2000 introduced by EAC • EAC remains aware of questions and concerns raised regarding Criteria 2, 3 and 4 and is in the process of considering different paths of resolution • Withhold becoming too critical of our experience of the past 10-15 years … pause and remember: • not only how we got to where we are • the positive results that have been realized during this time 18

19. Overview2 six-year cycles after EC2000 introduced by EAC • EC2000 was a response to demands from industry that our engineering accreditation criteria be changed to assure graduates are better prepared for practice, e.g. • to have good communication skills • demonstrate ability to work on teams • be more aware of industry standards and regulatory requirements • become generally more aware of good design processes and practices 19

20. Overview2 six-year cycles after EC2000 introduced by EAC • EC2000 was also a response to engineering deans and faculty demands to: • allow programs greater flexibility in curriculum design • remove highly prescriptive curriculum requirements • EC2000 responded to these demands by requiring each program faculty to: • develop relationships directly with employers, alumni, and others who could “educate” the faculty about what program graduates are expected to do after graduation via Criterion 2 20

21. Overview2 six-year cycles after EC2000 introduced by EAC • Today all engineering programs have such relationships and we see the results in many ways including the quality of design projects, with many being closely tied to industry. • Before EC2000 most industry advisory groups operated at the dean’s level and were viewed as fund raising tools 21

22. Overview2 six-year cycles after EC2000 introduced by EAC • ABET member societies have boldly taken the lead in the introduction of “outcomes based assessment” of technology programs • This is now the preferred approach by accreditors in virtually all disciplines here in the U.S. and abroad 22

23. Getting Out in Front • Make sure your Program Educational Objectives address the needs of employers and the graduates • When data are gathered from students or gathered relative to what graduates knew at the time of graduation to show attainment, there will be a shortcoming • The most common problem is PEOs being written as Student Outcomes

24. Pay Attention to ONLY the Data Needed • Faculty and/or staff fail to put adequate attention to what data need to be gathered to assess and evaluate, especially for Student Outcomes • Common mistake is to gather much, much more data than needed • Failure to logically evaluate data prevents reasonable conclusion that an objective or outcome is being attained

25. Faculty Must be Involved • Many large programs hand-off all assessment activities to a staff person (some qualified, some not) • Program Evaluators look for faculty knowledge of processes and results • Experience shows that most (preferably all) faculty members must be involved for the requirements of Criterion 4 to be fully met.

26. Be Prepared … the Program Evaluator Will Be • Scour the ABET website for useful information available to all who are willing to look • (www.abet.org) • Review Program Evaluator refresher training to find a list of common shortcomings associated with each criterion • (www.abet.org/pev-refresher-training/)

28. Be Up To Date … the Team Chair Will Be • Scour the ABET website for useful information available to all who are willing to look • (www.abet.org) • Review the website Accreditation section to learn about important changes to Criteria and Accreditation Policy and Procedure • (www.abet.org/keep-up-with-accreditation-changes/)

30. Why Become an ABET Volunteer? • Individual professional development • Contribute to professional technical education program delivery • Ensure global program quality • Gain best practice experience from programs other than one’s own • Influence academic conversation and relationship with industry

31. Program Evaluator (PEV) Competency Model

32. What Is a Competency Model? • A set of behaviors that encompass the knowledge, skills, and abilities of highly successful Program Evaluators

33. Competencies of Program Evaluators • Technically Current • Effective Communicators • Professional • Interpersonally Skilled • Team-Oriented • Organized

34. How is the ABET PEV Competency Model Used? • Recruiting • Informs nominators and candidates of expectations • Selection • Allows assessment of candidates against minimum criteria and competencies • Training • Focuses on the competencies needed for PEV success • Performance Appraisal • Provides standards that enable continuous improvement Competency models are standard practice in the industries served by ABET programs.

35. ABET HQ Update: AMSAccreditation Management System • High costs to maintain interoperability • Difficulties in accessing data in a timely manner • A shortage of legacy programmer and key knowledge skills • Inflexible and hard to adapt for rapid business changes

36. ABET HQ Update: AMS 2.0 and ABET Quality Management System • Designing new data hub/file structures • Documenting departmental processes • Describing interdepartmental workflow • Developing performance metrics • Analyzing process performance • Designing management system for flexibility, ease of use, scalability, platform neutrality, stability

37. ABET HQ Update: AMS 2.0 for PEVs and Programs • Designing new on-line self study to assist Programs as they prepare for accreditation visit • Developing a Draft and Final Statement Application for PEV, Editor and ABET HQ staff workload reduction

38. Academic Advisory Council • AAC established to enhance ABET BOD communications with the academic community and gain insight from the faculty and administrators who oversee ABET-accredited programs

39. AAC Membership

40. AAC Objectives 2011-12 • Consider impact of procedures and criteria on review efficiency and the burden placed on institutions. In particular examine and discuss the following: • Section “II.G.6. Comprehensive Review” of the 2011-12 Policies and Procedures Manual, • Harmonized self-study template (per request of ABET), • Roles of program educational objectives and student outcomes, • Scaling review expectations to match program size. • Examine pros and cons of different review cycles • Consider at a high level how ABET’s processes can be a real and perceived driver for innovation in higher education.

41. AAC Objectives 2011-12 • Provide opinion on fee structures to the ABET Finance Committee (per request of ABET). • Formulate options regarding candidate accreditation status of new programs. • Meet with the IAC and identify issues of common interest. • Monitor and assess progress regarding evaluation team consistency • Provide recommendations for various accreditation policies and matters that may come before the BoD

42. Don’t Hesitate to Reach Out Dr. Joe Sussman ABET Managing Director – Accreditation jsussman@abet.org (410) 347 – 7733

43. Thank You For Your Attention