1 / 97

Accreditation of Engineering, Technology and Computing Programs

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

effie
Download Presentation

Accreditation of Engineering, Technology and Computing Programs

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Accreditation of Engineering, Technology and Computing Programs Moshe Kam IEEE Vice President for Educational Activities First Edition – October 2007 Version 003

  2. Contact Information Moshe Kam Robert G. Quinn Professorand Department Head Drexel University Electrical and Computer Engineering 3141 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19101 kam@drexel.edu

  3. 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 non-governmental agency outside of IEEE

  4. 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. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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”

  8. Early Presidents Alexander G. Bell Elihu Thomson Charles Steinmetz Frank Sprague

  9. A few more recent Presidents Leah Jamieson Joseph Bordogna Michael Lightner Wallace Read

  10. 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

  11. 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 • About 500 volunteers • $2M/year in direct expenditures in 2007

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. Three Major Activities • The faculty, administrators, and staff of the institution or academic program conduct a self-study 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

  15. 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 • and other constituencies if appropriate

  16. 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. 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

  18. 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 • Fails to meet minimum requirements • Meets minimum requirements • Exceeds minimum requirements • Excels in meeting this criterion

  19. 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 • E.g., the industrial exemption in the United States

  20. 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

  21. 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

  22. 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

  23. The Various Functions of Accreditation (2) • Provide educational programs with opportunities for self-definition and self-reflection • and with feedback on program content and direction • Provide opportunities for continuous improvement of education programs

  24. Misuse of Accreditation • Coercion • 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

  25. 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 • Pertinent • Transparent • Fair • Economical • Adaptive to the business climate

  26. 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

  27. 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

  28. 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

  29. 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

  30. 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

  31. 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 • focus only on the few items that do not require face to face interaction

  32. 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

  33. 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

  34. 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

  35. 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

  36. 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

  37. 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

  38. 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?

  39. 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

  40. 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

  41. 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

  42. 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 open- ended 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…

  43. 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

  44. 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 self-study • This is often the most important outcome of the accreditation process

  45. Different Approaches and Styles of Accreditation • The Minimal Model • The Regulatory Model • The Outcome-Based Model • The Peer-Review model • The Program Club model

  46. 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

  47. 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

  48. 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”

  49. 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

  50. 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

More Related