slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Moshe Kam* and Michael Lightner** * Robert Quinn Professor and Head; Electrical and Computer Engineering, Drexel Univers PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Moshe Kam* and Michael Lightner** * Robert Quinn Professor and Head; Electrical and Computer Engineering, Drexel Univers

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 83

Moshe Kam* and Michael Lightner** * Robert Quinn Professor and Head; Electrical and Computer Engineering, Drexel Univers - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 91 Views
  • Uploaded on

Engineering Accreditation: Challenges and Opportunities. Moshe Kam* and Michael Lightner** * Robert Quinn Professor and Head; Electrical and Computer Engineering, Drexel University **Professor and Chair; Electrical, Computer, and Energy Engineering, University of Colorado, Boulder

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Moshe Kam* and Michael Lightner** * Robert Quinn Professor and Head; Electrical and Computer Engineering, Drexel Univers' - garran


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

Engineering Accreditation: Challenges and Opportunities

Moshe Kam* and Michael Lightner**

*Robert Quinn Professor and Head; Electrical and Computer Engineering, Drexel University

**Professor and Chair; Electrical, Computer, and Energy Engineering, University of Colorado, Boulder

Members of ABET Board of Directors

contact information
Contact Information

Moshe Kam

Robert Quinn Professor and Head

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering

3141 Chestnut Street

Philadelphia, PA 19104

kam@drexel.edu

contact information1
Contact Information

Michael Lightner

Professor and Chair

Department of Electrical, Computer, and Energy Engineering

College of Engineering and Applied Science

UCB 425

Boulder, CO 80309

lightner@colorado.edu

disclaimer
DISCLAIMER
  • The issues examined in this talk have been discussed by the IEEE Educational Activities Board, but do not represent the views of IEEE or IEEE-EAB, but only those of the presenters
  • 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
  • These slides have been compiled to present a rather complete story. The talk at the conference will use a subset of these slides.
a few words about ieee
A Few Words about IEEE
  • IEEE is the largest multinational professional engineering association in the world
    • 380,000 members in 160 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” but especially the steward of all areas intersecting electrical, electronic, computer, communication, power and energy engineering
early presidents
Early Presidents

Alexander G. Bell

Elihu Thomson

Charles Steinmetz

Frank Sprague

why is ieee interested in 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
why is ieee interested in accreditation1
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 2008
university degrees
University Degrees

Let us begin with a exploration of what it means and does not mean to get a university degree in engineering – specifically electrical

what does it mean to get a bsee from a university
What Does it Mean to Get a BSEE from a University?
  • First – it means you were accepted into the school
    • Around the world acceptance ranges from automatic to exceedingly difficult
  • Second – By the standards of the university you successfully completed the requirements for gaining a degree
  • Third – You will be associated with all the other graduates of the university and the reputation and accomplishments of the faculty and staff of the university
what does it not mean to get a bsee from a university
What Does it Not Mean to Get a BSEE from a University?
  • First – It does not necessarily mean that you are a good electrical engineer
  • Second – It does not necessarily mean that you will be good in design
  • Third – It does not necessarily mean you will be good in analysis
  • Fourth – It does not necessarily mean you will be a good employee
  • Fifth – It does not necessarily mean you are prepared for graduate education at any university other than that university – and it may not mean even that
but our university is a great university
“But Our University is a Great University!”
  • What can the previous slides mean?
  • We know our university is a great university and has a great electrical engineering department.
  • How do we know?
    • From the performance of graduates
    • From the reputation and research results of faculty and staff
  • We do not know it is great because of accreditation
outline
Outline
  • Accreditation Myths
  • Accreditation in Engineering, Computing and Technology
    • Definition, aims, uses and misuses, models
  • Building new accrediting bodies in the early 21st Century
accreditation myths
Accreditation Myths
  • Accredited Programs produced better graduates
    • NO, accreditation is, often, a statement of meeting minimum requirements
    • Accreditation does not, necessarily, address admission requirements
    • Accreditation is/should be voluntary and excellent programs may not choose to accredited
accreditation myths1
Accreditation Myths
  • Employers care whether a potential employee graduated from an accredited program
    • I have rarely had an employer tell me this was important or ask if the department was accredited.
    • Universities with great reputation rarely rely on accreditation as a credential
accreditation myths2
Accreditation Myths
  • Accreditation means that the program is ranked highly
    • There are 296 ABET accredited Electrical Engineering programs in the US
    • The ranking of programs and universities is entirely separate from the accreditation process – in most of the world
accreditation myths3
Accreditation myths
  • Faculty members are highly engaged in the accreditation process and are deeply honored by being part of an accredited program
    • Rarely true
    • Accreditation is often one more requirement on faculty time
      • While they may care deeply about education, innovation, better teaching and support for students, accreditation is an administrative activity – often with little perceived value
      • Accreditation has limited impact on faculty salary, research, promotion and tenure, publications, and professional reputation
    • Sometimes accreditation leads to more resources
      • But this is rare
so why accreditation
So Why Accreditation

We know the many things that accreditation is not – why do we have accreditation and what is its value?

Make no mistake, accreditation is valuable

outline1
Outline
  • Accreditation Myths
  • Accreditation in Engineering, Computing and Technology
    • Definition, aims, uses and misuses, models
  • Building a new accrediting body in the early 21st Century
a broad definition of accreditation
A Broad 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
value of accreditation
Value of Accreditation
  • Accreditation tells perspective students that a program meets minimum standards
  • Financial institutions may only choose to provide student loans for study at an accredited university
  • Students transferring between accredited programs can have some sense of equivalence – see Washington accord
  • Students with an accredited undergraduate degree from one country may/should receive better consideration in another country than a student from an unaccredited program
  • Accreditation provides/forces a periodic consideration of educational programs and provides outside benchmarks and evaluation
professional licensure
Professional Licensure
  • While accreditation concerns an educational program, licensure concerns the individual
  • Licensure may be a legal requirement in some engineering professions and in some countries/states
  • In many locales students who did not complete accredited programs face difficulties in getting licensed
accreditation and licensure
Accreditation and Licensure
  • In the US, students graduating from an accredited program can immediately sit for the Fundamentals of Engineering exam – the first step to licensure
    • Without an accredited degree there are work/experience requirements before an individual can sit for the beginning licensure exam
  • This connection between accreditation and the beginning of the licensure process is of significant value in many areas of engineering.
    • A great motivation for obtaining accreditation and graduating from a accredited program in those areas
operational definition of accreditation by chea us
Operational Definition of Accreditation by CHEA*(US)

* Council for Higher Education Accreditation

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

three major activities
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

the third step
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
challenges to the traditional definition 1
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
      • This is how accreditation first started
  • 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
challenges to the traditional definition 2
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 -While in most states engineers in industry are exempt from licensing laws for work done for their industrial employers, the engineer and the engineer's company may still be liable for unethical, unsafe, or illegal activities.
some clarifications
Some Clarifications
  • In the US various professions have accrediting bodies – engineering, law, music, journalism, medicine
  • These professional accrediting bodies look at specific programs – e.g., different engineering departments – not the entire university
  • In the US there are regional accrediting bodies that accredit the entire university.
    • Typically at the undergraduate level, but increasingly at the graduate level
    • Often professional accreditation will require this regional/general university accreditation
some clarifications1
Some Clarifications
  • While, in engineering, we discuss accrediting a specific engineering program this does involve other parts of the university
    • Teaching of mathematics, physics, chemistry, language, humanities, etc
    • Electives in other engineering and computer science departments
    • Availability of shared resources
      • Computing facilities, library facilities, labs, etc
  • As a result, where possible, engineering colleges like to have all their programs on the same accreditation cycle
    • Simply reduces the work required
looking forward traditions
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

the constituencies of an educational program
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

the various functions of accreditation 1
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
    • Regardless of accreditation, this is a questionable statement to make
the various functions of accreditation 2
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
misuse of accreditation
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
accreditation is not indispensable
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”
      • This is common with major US technology companies
    • Entry exams and interviews of graduates
      • This is common in the US, exams can be formal or informal
  • If accreditation is to survive it should be
    • Pertinent
    • Transparent
    • Fair
    • Economical
    • Adaptive to the business climate
the basic structure of the process accrediting body
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
a word of caution independence
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
the basic structure of the process program
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

interaction between accrediting body and program
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
two important caveats
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
looking forward implementation
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
selected accrediting bodies 1

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

selected accrediting bodies 2

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

selected accrediting bodies 3

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

China: Developing pilot accreditation aiming toward joining Washington Accord – organized through CAST

characteristics of accreditation 1
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
characteristics of accreditation 2
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
what are the factors that may be considered
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
potential consideration factors 2
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?
potential consideration factors 3
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
looking forward
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
level of specificity
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
level of specificity examples
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…
a two tier process
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
most of the work does not involve the accrediting body
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
different approaches and styles of 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

the minimal model
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
reflections on the minimal model
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
the regulatory model
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”
reflections on the regulatory model
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
the outcome based model
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
reflections on the outcome based model
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
a word of caution outcome based 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
the peer review model
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
reflections on the peer review model
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
the program club model
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)
reflections on the program club model
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”

key to success consistency and transparency
Key to Success: Consistency and Transparency
  • Criteria need to be clear and published
    • Ambiguities and potential for different interpretations need to be called 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
relationship between licensing and 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
      • Serious problem in the US since EC2000
engineering and computing licensing in 2007
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
      • NOT on school material
licensing and the first professional degree in engineering
Licensing and the First Professional Degree in Engineering

*The National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) is a national non-profit organization composed of engineering and surveying licensing boards representing all states and U.S. territories. NCEES develops, scores, and administers the examinations used for engineering and surveying licensure through the United States.

  • 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
outline2
Outline
  • Purpose
  • Accreditation in Engineering, Computing and Technology
    • Definition, aims, uses and misuses, models
  • Building a new accrediting body in the Early 21st Century
scope
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
desired final outcome
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

opportunities to learn from existing bodies
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)
opportunities to improve on the operations of existing accrediting bodies
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
new opportunities for accrediting bodies
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
who should govern the accrediting body
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

additional sources
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.