slide1 l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
ABET Program Evaluator Re-Training – Materials Engineering PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
ABET Program Evaluator Re-Training – Materials Engineering

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 76

ABET Program Evaluator Re-Training – Materials Engineering - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 921 Views
  • Uploaded on

ABET Program Evaluator Re-Training – Materials Engineering Objectives of Accreditation (1) Assure that graduates of an accredited program are adequately prepared to enter and continue the practice of engineering. (2) Stimulate the improvement of engineering education.

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 'ABET Program Evaluator Re-Training – Materials Engineering' - jacob


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

ABETProgram Evaluator

Re-Training – Materials Engineering

objectives of accreditation
Objectives of Accreditation

(1) Assure that graduates of an accredited program are adequately prepared to enter and continue the practice of engineering.

(2) Stimulate the improvement of engineering education.

(3) Encourage new and innovative approaches to engineering education and its assessment.

(4) Identify accredited programs to the public.

role of abet accreditation
Role of ABET Accreditation

The role of ABET accreditation is to provide periodic external assessment and evaluation in support of the continuous quality improvement program of the institution.

evaluator role
Evaluator Role
  • Evaluators are selected by their professional
  • society (TMS or NICE) to participate in the accreditation of engineering programs.
  • In this capacity they:
    • Represent the Materials Community and ABET on campus visits.
    • Work with a team of colleagues from other professional societies.
evaluators provide
Evaluators Provide
  • As an ABET team member evaluators provide knowledge concerning:
  • Professional practice
  • Professional preparation
  • Continuous quality improvement
evaluator commitment
Evaluator Commitment
  • Commitment is critical to a successful visit.
  • Exercise sound judgement.
  • Base all decisions on the criteria.
  • Do careful pre-visit preparation.
  • Perform on-site visit thoroughly.
  • Develop and communicate succinct conclusions.
  • Participate in team decisions.
  • Promptly submit all reports and forms.
  • When in doubt or when a question arises,
  • use the team chair as a resource.
what the visit team produces
What the Visit Team Produces

At the end of the visit…

  • Team submits a Visit Report
    • Basis for the Draft Statement to Institution
    • Criteria-based
    • All visit forms feed into this document
    • Includes statements of program strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, and concerns for each program based on documentation and observations from pre-visit and on-site
important expectations
Important Expectations
  • Evaluators represent TMS/NICE and the EAC of ABET.
  • ABET accredits programs to the state and to the public that they satisfy the criteria.
  • Team effort—team decisions.
  • Confidentiality
  • Conflict of interest—every visitor should have signed a conflict-of-interest statement.
  • Observers
    • no evaluative statements to the institution.
    • exit interview—thank-you only.
conflict of interest
Conflict of Interest
  • ABET representatives will:
  • Behave in an ethical and professional manner.
  • Disclose real or perceived conflicts of interest.
  • Recuse themselves from discussions or decisions related to real or perceived conflicts of interest.
confidentiality
Confidentiality

Do not discuss final conclusions with faculty, students, and others

Keep all materials until the July EAC meeting. At conclusion of accreditation process (August after visit) materials are to be destroyed

Information specific to the institution is to remain confidential without time limit

Institutional data are confidential except with written authorization of institution

ABET materials only released by ABET staff

communication
Communication

Maintain open line of communication with the program head

Identify deficiencies as soon as possible

Discuss all issues with the program head at the debriefing

Do not discuss the recommended accreditation action with anyone except team members

general visit outline
General Visit Outline
  • Pre-visit
    • Communicate with Program Head.
      • Try not to surprise the program. Let them know about issues as soon a possible.
      • Give program opportunity to respond prior to visit.
      • Pose pre-visit questions in an appropriate manner. Clear questions, not dictatorially or confrontationally.
    • Keep the Team Chair in the loop on these communications.
    • Complete transcript analysis well before visit.
    • Complete curriculum analysis well before visit.
    • Create draft of exit statement before visit.
general visit outline cont
General Visit Outline (cont.)
  • Sunday –
    • Visit campus, review curriculum materials.
    • Evening: Share what was learned and plan for rest of visit.
  • Monday –
    • AM: Dean’s overview, PEV’s in departments.
    • Lunch with institutional officials.
    • PM: Support areas, PEV’s in departments.
    • Evening: Share findings, discuss issues, tentative conclusions; draft exit statements.
  • Tuesday –
    • Tie up loose ends.
    • Draft exit statements by late morning.
    • Debrief department heads before lunch. Discuss all issues.
    • Exit interview early afternoon. Read statement.
visit report and forms
Visit Report and Forms
  • Important forms – done by Tues AM
    • Program Evaluator Report—soft copy to Team Chair
      • Transcript & curriculum analyses (in Evaluator Report)
      • Level of Implementation (in Evaluator Report)
      • Exit Statement (in Evaluator Report)
    • Program Audit Form + Explanation of Shortcoming (two hard copies to Team Chair—one will be left with Dean—one soft copy to Team Chair)
    • Program Evaluator Worksheet—soft copy to Team Chair
  • Send copies of these forms to TMS or NICE
program evaluation campus visit details
Program Evaluation:Campus Visit Details
  • Consistency—things to look for
    • Evaluation of the extent to which objectives are attained
    • Assessment process with results that demonstrates and measures outcomes
    • Program improvement (closing the loop)
    • Curricular and program issues
    • Faculty and students
      • As they relate to undergraduate education
deliverables
Deliverables

From each PEV, the team chair must have:

A recommended action relative to the program under review that is consistent with the team’s conclusions (remember, it is a TEAM recommendation)

A PAF that accurately reflects the team findings

An Exit Statement that will:

Be read verbatim in the Exit Meeting

Be used as the basis for construction of the draft statement to the institution

program audit form for gr or new we provide a copy to the institution at the exit meeting
Program Audit Form (for GR or New)(We provide a copy to the institution at the Exit Meeting)

If heading doesn’t have the current visit year, you are using an old form!

Do not use old forms!!

slide18
Program Audit Form (for Interim Visit Evaluations)We provide a copy to the institution at the Exit Meeting for IV only

If the heading does not say

INTERIM VISIT

do not use it for an IV evaluation

working definition of key terms
Working Definition of Key Terms
  • Deficiency: assigned to any criterion, policy, or procedure that is totally or largely unmet.
  • Weakness: criterion, policy, or procedure is met to some meaningful extent, but compliance is insufficient to fully satisfy requirements.
  • Concern: criterion, policy, or procedure is fully met, but there is potential for non-compliance in the near future.
  • Observation: general commentary possibly, but not necessarily, related to criteria.
limit use of key terms

Limit Use of Key Terms

Use Key Term only in reference to overall evaluation of each criterion.

The Key Term (defined in the previous slides) is the overall assessment for the criterion as a whole, not the worst finding among the sub-areas on the worksheet. Do not, for example, give a deficiency to a program that lacks only a measurement for outcome 3(e).

criteria emphasis
Criteria Emphasis
  • Practice of continuous improvement.
    • Input of constituencies
    • Process focus
    • Outcomes and assessment linked to objectives
  • Knowledge required for entry into the engineering profession.
  • Student, faculty, facilities, institutional support, and financial resources linked to program objectives.
program evaluation things to look for
Program Evaluation:Things to Look for
  • Evaluationof the extent to which objectives are attained
  • Assessment process with results that demonstrates and measures outcomes
  • Program improvement (closing the loop)
  • Curricular and program issues
  • Faculty and students
    • As they relate to undergraduate education
programs with shortcomings prior to due process 2006 7
Programs with Shortcomings Prior to Due Process (2006/7)

Data reflect 260 programs involved in general reviews.

materials programs shortcomings prior to due process 2003 to 2008
Materials Programs Shortcomings Prior to Due Process (2003 to 2008)

Data reflect review of 86 programs over 6 years

Note: Improvement new criteria in 2008

materials programs strengths 2003 to 2008
Materials Programs Strengths (2003 to 2008)

Data reflect review of 86 programs over 6 years

Note: Improvement new criteria in 2008

consistency checks
Consistency Checks

EAC Consistency Committee: Final check

EAC Meeting

ABET HQ: Accreditation Director

Editor 2 checks among all reports received

Editor 2

Director checks higher-level consistency

Editor 1 checks among all reports received

Editor 1

Professional Societies

Team Chair

Team Chair

Team Chair

Team Chairs check among evaluators

Team

Team

Team

Team

Team

what s new in 2008
What’s New in 2008
  • Training process - PAVE (partnership to advance volunteer excellence) required for new evaluators
  • No institutional shortcomings
  • Dual level accreditation
  • Criteria renumbering 
applicable criteria
Applicable Criteria
  • In 2009-2010, the “Renumbered Criteria” apply – there are some differences from the Criteria that were applicable in 2007 -2008!
criterion 1 students
Criterion 1: Students

The program must:

  • evaluate student performance, advise students, and monitor students’ progress – no change
  • have and enforce policies for acceptance of transfer students and validation of courses taken elsewhere – no change
  • have and enforce procedures to assure that all students meet all program requirements – no change

The Criterion is effectively unchanged – in 2007-2008, it was the institution that had responsibility.

criterion 2 program educational objectives
Criterion 2: Program Educational Objectives

The program must have in place:

  • published PEO’s consistent with mission and these Criteria – no change
  • process that periodically documents and demonstrates that the PEO’s are based on the needs of the program’s constituencies – change here
  • an assessment and evaluation process that periodically documents and demonstrates the extent to which these objectives are attained – change here
applicable criteria33
Applicable Criteria

Use Criteria for 2009-2010 Accreditation Cycle. These are the same as the renumbered criteria used in 2008-2009

If this is an interim visit, the criteria in effect at the time the prior shortcomings were identified should be used, unless it is to the program’s benefit to use the currently applicable ones, and it is the program’s choice.

application interpretation of criteria
Application & Interpretation of Criteria

In 2008-09, EAC editors observed that:

Issues arose related to the linkage between Criterion 2, Criterion 3, and Criterion 4

Criterion 2 and new programs

Criterion 4 and new programs

what does criterion 2 say
What Does Criterion 2 Say?

The program must have in place:

Published PEO’s consistent with mission and these Criteria

Process that periodically documents and demonstrates that the PEO’s are based on the needs of the program’s constituencies

An assessment and evaluation process that periodically documents and demonstrates the extent to which these objectives are attained

criterion 2 highlights
Criterion 2 Highlights

The process needs to document and demonstrate that the PEO’s are based on constituent needs – NOT “a process based on the constituents needs in which PEO’s are determined and evaluated” (the old language)

Requirement for assessment and evaluation is the same, but there is no longer language in Criterion 2 that requires that the results of the assessment and evaluation process be used for program improvement. (Program improvement is now in Criterion 4.)

consistency issues
Consistency Issues

Criterion 2:

Do the published PEO’s meet the definition?

Does the program convince the team that the PEO’s are based on constituent needs?

Notice that there is no language that insists on constituent approval or involvement!

The program does need to convince the team that it has a way of determining what the needs of its constituencies are.

Is there an assessment and evaluation process in place that gives info about the extent to which PEO’s are attained by grads

criterion 2 problem in 08 09
Criterion 2 Problem in 08-09

Several instances in which programs were being required to show how results of C2 or C3 assessment and evaluation processes were being used to improve the program.

This reflects application of old criteria.

That's not in C2 or C3 any more. C4 refers to results of C2 and C3 processes as possible sources of information upon which continuous improvement could be based.

criterion 2 faq s
Criterion 2 FAQ’s

What if the PEO’s really sound like outcomes (instead of objectives?

If PEO’s are not PEO’s, there is a C2 shortcoming.

What if PEO’s are ambiguous or reflect outcomes retooled to apply after graduation?

Team judgment – do they meet the intent of the Criterion?

Is an assessment process for PEO’s that considers predominately data based on accomplishments of current undergraduates adequate?

Probably not

what does criterion 3 say
What Does Criterion 3 Say?

The program must demonstrate that (a) – (k) are attained

Program outcomes are defined as (a) – (k) plus any additional ones articulated by the program

Program outcomes must foster attainment of the PEO’s

There must be an assessment and evaluation process that periodically documents and demonstrates the degree to which outcomes are attained

important for criterion 3
Important – for Criterion 3

The definition of program outcomes as being (a) – (k) plus locally articulated ones

The program may not have its outcomes expressed as (a) – (k) plus others. It may have just identified a set of outcomes. As long as the program has demonstrated attainment of (a) – (k) and its own outcomes, this element of the criterion is met.

Requirement for assessment and evaluation is the same, but there is no language in Criterion 3 that results of the assessment process be applied to further development of the program. (Program improvement is now in Criterion 4.)

criterion 3 consistency issues
Criterion 3 Consistency Issues

Be sure to apply this criterion in a holistic sense

The process of assessment and evaluation needs to demonstrate the degree to which outcomes are attained, but …

There is no language that says all outcomes must be attained to the same degree

There is no language that says anything about a numeric scale measuring degree of attainment

There is no language that says the outcomes must be measured

There is nothing in Criterion 3 that says anything about use of the assessment and evaluation information for program improvement

criterion 3 faq s
Criterion 3 FAQ’s

What about assessment data? What is adequate data?

Does it all have to be objective/direct? (NO)

Can it be subjective? (Some of it may be; nothing says it has to be)

Is the observation or conclusion of course instructor adequate? (What was his or her basis for the observation?)

Does evidence for each outcome have to be in the form of work the student has produced? (No, but the team needs to be convinced that outcome attainment has been demonstrated.)

what does criterion 4 say
What Does Criterion 4 Say?

“Each program must show evidence of actions to improve the program. These actions should be based on available information, such as results from Criterion 2 and Criterion 3 processes.”

The improvements can be based on any available information!

consistency issues45
Consistency Issues

The language of Criterion 4 simply insists on evidence of action to improve the program.

Such actions could be stimulated by results of the C2 and C3 assessment and evaluation processes

But they could also be stimulated by other information

The language of this Criterion does not require that the C2 and C3 information be used as the basis for program improvement. It suggests use of the results of C2 and C3 processes as sources of information for program improvement.

exit statement format
INTRODUCTION—USEFUL PROGRAM STATISTICS

PROGRAM:

Strengths (special, unique or particularly conspicuous strengths)

1.

2.

Deficiencies (In order, only for those criteria where deficiencies exist)

1. XXX

2. etc.

Weaknesses(In order, only for those criteria where weaknesses exist) 1. YYY

2. etc.

Concerns(In order, where concerns exist)

1. ZZZ

2. etc.

Observations (do not have to relate to criteria)

1. etc.

Exit Statement Format
writing the exit statement
Writing the Exit Statement
  • For each shortcoming – use the following structure for your statement of finding:
    • What is required:
      • Describe what criterion or policy is applicable.
      • Describe what that criterion or policy requires.
    • What was observed:
      • Describe what was observed.
      • Describe how your finding differs criterion or policy.
    • Negative impact:
      • Describe the negative impact it has on the students or the program (for D or W) or the potential future impact on the students or program (C)
what does your tc need in the exit statement you write
What does your TC need in the exit statement you write?

The language must be clear:

“There is inadequate assessment of outcome 3(j).”

How does the program know why its assessment of student knowledge of contemporary issues is inadequate?

“There is incomplete evidence that students attain outcome 3(i).”

What is it that is incomplete about the evidence that students have a recognition of the need for and the ability to engage in life-long learning.

“It appears that outcome 3(h) is not fully assessed.”

Why did the team find that the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context is not fully assessed? What does “full assessment” mean?

The program has to understand what the shortcoming really is in order to fix it, the TC has to be able to explain the team recommendation, and later teams have to understand the issues

what would make it clearer
What Would Make it Clearer?

Instead of“There is inadequate assessment of outcome 3(j).”

The only mechanism used for assessment of student knowledge of contemporary issues is through administration of a survey instrument asking students whether they have knowledge of contemporary issues. This mechanism does not provide adequate information for determining the degree to which this program outcome is attained.

Instead of“There is incomplete evidence that students attain outcome 3(i).”

Although student grades in the “Introduction to the Profession” course were claimed as documentation and demonstration that students have recognition of the need for and an ability to engage in life-long learning, no clear links between the student grades and this outcome were established.

Instead of“It appears that outcome 3(h) is not fully assessed.”

Even though some anecdotal assessment of whether students do have the requisite broad general education was described in the self-study report, evidence shows only preliminary plans for the development of a systematic process for assessment and evaluation of this program outcome.

the language must support the team recommendation
The language must support the team recommendation

If it is a D, the words have to clearly say that the criterion is totally or largely unmet

“there is no evidence that”

“there is no assessment and evaluation process”

“not all students are required to engage in a major design experience”

the language must support the team recommendation51
The language must support the team recommendation

If it is a W, the words have to clearly say that the criterion is met but that strength of compliance is lacking, and how it is lacking needs to be clear

“Assessment of outcomes 3(d), 3(f), 3(g), 3(h), and 3(i) appears to be ad hoc. Systematic assessment and evaluation of these outcomes would strengthen compliance with this criterion.” [supporting a recommended citation of a Criterion 3 weakness relative to strength of assessment and evaluation process]

“While the program has demonstrated that graduates are able to engage in most of the activities required by the Civil Engineering program criteria, the program has not clearly demonstrated that graduates are able to apply knowledge of physics, chemistry, and at least one additional area of science.” [supporting a recommended citation of a Criterion 9 weakness for a Civil program]

the language must support the team recommendation52
The language must support the team recommendation

If it is a C, the words have to clearly say that the criterion is met and indicate exactly what leads to the concern about the potential for future noncompliance

“It is clear that all of the criterion 3 outcomes are being assessed, but evaluation of some of the assessment data appears to be inconsistent. Unless evaluation of the extent to which outcomes are attained is carried out on a consistent basis, future compliance with this criterion may be jeopardized.” [supporting a recommended citation of a criterion 3 concern]

“Although all of the transcripts examined provided evidence that students meet all graduation requirements, the processes by which graduation requirements are audited prior to graduation appears to be ad hoc. This leads to concern that future compliance with this criterion may be jeopardized.” [supporting a recommended citation of a criterion 1 concern]

the pev competency model and its application
The PEV Competency Modeland its Application

Your performance as a PEV will be evaluated against the PEV Competency Model. You are expected to be:

Technically current

Effective at communicating

Interpersonally skilled

Team-oriented

Professional

Organized

The evaluation forms are found on the ABET web site

http://www.abet.org/pev.shtml

last words
Last Words

Remember – this team is “the face of ABET”

The 4 big C’s go a long way in promoting a productive evaluation:

Courtesy

Consistency

Clarity

Confidentiality

appendix a

Appendix A

Program Criteria for Materials, Ceramic, Metallurgical and Similarly Named Engineering Programs

program criterion 9
Program Criterion 9
  • Each program must satisfy applicable Program Criteria
    • Curricular topics
    • Faculty qualifications
  • Current Program Criteria are on the ABET server (www.abet.org)
  • Must satisfy all Program Criteria implied by title of program
program criteria for materials etc
Program Criteria for Materials, etc.
  • Criteria for
    • Materials engineering
    • Metallurgical engineering
    • Similarly named engineering programs
  • Same criteria for
    • Ceramics engineering
materials curriculum
Materials Curriculum
  • Graduates have:
    • ability to apply advanced science and engineering to materials systems implied by program modifier (ceramics, metals, polymers, composite materials, etc.)
    • integrated understanding of structure, properties, processing and performance of materials systems
    • ability to solve materials selection and design problems
    • ability to utilize experimental, statistical and computational methods consistent with program educational objectives.
materials faculty
Materials Faculty
  • Faculty:
    • expertise must encompass the four major elements of the field – structure, properties, processing and performance.
appendix b

Appendix B

Engineering Design for Materials Engineers

abet design requirements
ABET "Design" Requirements
  • Criterion 3 (b) "… design and conduct experiments …"
  • Criterion 3 (c) "… design a system, component or process …"
  • Criterion 5 "… curriculum culminating in a major design experience …"
  • Materials Criterion 9 "… graduates have the ability to solve materials selection and design problems …"
abet definition of design
ABET Definition of Design
  • Criterion 5(b)
    • Engineering design is the process of devising a system, component, or process to meet desired needs. It is a decision-making process (often iterative), in which the basic sciences, mathematics, and the engineering sciences are applied to convert resources optimally to meet the stated needs.
white paper on design
White Paper on "Design"
  • Developed by University Materials Council (UMC) and TMS and NICE Accreditation Committees.
  • Provides guidance for consistent and constructive interpretation of materials design.
  • Available on TMS Accreditation web site.
  • Provides clarification and examples, does NOT supersede ABET criteria.
  • Programs have flexibility in specifying design experience, but must demonstrate that ABET criteria are met.
materials programs
Materials Programs
  • Materials programs are very diverse
  • Materials graduates have diverse career goals
  • Materials design
    • "design of"
    • "design with" materials
  • Breadth and flexibility needed in interpreting ABET design requirements for materials programs
design for materials programs
"Design" for Materials Programs

May include:

  • design and evaluation of a material for a specific application;
  • reverse engineering and design of improvements involving materials;
  • design and evaluation or optimization of a materials processing method;
  • design of a method for determining, controlling, or selecting materials characteristics or properties;
  • performance of a series of documented and evaluated design/research activities throughout a student’s undergraduate program and continuing into the senior year with a culminating design experience;
  • other activities that would satisfy requirements for “design” in ABET Criteria 3 and 5.
realistic constraints in materials design
"Realistic Constraints" in Materials Design
  • Realistic constraints can include:
    • Performance with cost/weight/environmental restrictions
    • Accuracy/precision in determining properties
    • Economic trade-offs
    • Health and safety concerns
examples of materials design activities
Examples of Materials Design Activities
  • Design of method for determining materials process
  • Design of experimental equipment or characterization method
  • Design of materials fabrication or synthesis process
  • Computational design of materials
  • Reverse engineering design for material improvement
research and design
Research and Design
  • Opportunities for leveraging undergraduate research activity
    • Student research CAN be used for a design project.
    • Senior thesis CAN be adapted for a design project.
  • Research experience can be used to provide an appropriate design experience, BUT must be adapted to satisfy the ABET design criterion.
  • Examples:
    • The design of an experimental apparatus for a research project.
    • Stating the research objectives and presenting results in terms of realistic constraints.
appendix c

Appendix C

PEV Competency Model and Evaluation Rubrics

the competency model what is it
The Competency Model:What is it?
  • The ABET PEV Competency Model is based on competency in six dimensions, requiring that PEV’s be:
    • Technically current
    • Effective at communicating
    • Interpersonally skilled
    • Team-oriented
    • Professional
    • Organized
competency 1 technically current
Competency 1: Technically current
  • The desired proficiency -
    • Demonstrates the required technical credentials for the position
    • Engaged in lifelong learning and current in his or her field
  • Is applied during the campus visit –
    • Able to apply technical knowledge to ascertain the level of conformance to program accreditation requirements
    • Remains current in accreditation procedures and requirements
  • Assessed by TC, Team Colleagues, Dept Head
competency 2 effective at communicating
Competency 2: Effective at Communicating
  • The desired proficiency -
    • Easily conducts face-to-face interviews
    • Writes clearly and succinctly
    • Presents focused, concise oral briefings
  • Is applied during the campus visit –
    • Interviews personnel to understand program operations
    • Writes succinct, criterion-centered statements of program strengths and weaknesses
    • Develops succinct findings for exit interview
    • Keeps team chair informed prior to and during the visit
  • Assessed by TC, Team Colleagues, Dept Head
competency 3 interpersonally skilled
Competency 3: Interpersonally skilled
  • The desired proficiency -
    • Friendly and sets others at ease
    • Listens and places input into context
    • Open-minded and avoids personal bias
    • Forthright, doesn’t hold back what needs to be said
    • Adept at pointing out strengths and weaknesses in a non-confrontational manner
  • Is applied during the campus visit –
    • Interviews and readily obtains input from faculty, administration, industry advisors, and students
    • Evaluates program against criteria within the context of the institution
    • Evaluates and constructively conveys program strengths and weaknesses
  • Assessed by TC, Team Colleagues, Dept Head
competency 4 team oriented
Competency 4: Team-oriented
  • The desired proficiency -
    • Readily accepts input from team members
    • Works with team members to reach consensus
    • Values team success over personal success
  • Is applied during the campus visit –
    • Compares program findings with those of other visitation team members to improve consistency
    • Looks for and listens to common issues across programs
    • Assists other team members as needed during the visit
  • Assessed by TC and Team Colleagues only
competency 5 professional
Competency 5: Professional
  • The desired proficiency -
    • Conveys professional appearance and demeanor
    • Committed to contributing and adding value to the evaluation process
    • Considered a person with high integrity and ethical standards
  • Is applied during the campus visit –
    • Represents ABET and responsible technical society as a practicing professional
    • Willing to make observations to stimulate innovation and further the program’s efforts toward continuous improvement
    • Shows professional respect for institution faculty and staff
    • Upholds ABET’s code of conduct at all times
  • Assessed by TC, Team Colleagues, Dept Head
competency 6 organized
Competency 6: Organized
  • The desired proficiency -
    • Focuses on meeting deadlines
    • Focuses on critical issues and avoids minutia
    • Displays take-charge attitude
    • Takes responsibility and works under minimum supervision
  • Is applied during the campus visit –
    • Formulates preliminary program strength and weakness assessment based upon review of materials provided prior to the visit
    • Focuses on critical findings, effectively cites supportive observations, relates to appropriate criteria, and suggests possible avenues to resolution
    • Submits high quality documentation to team chair on time
    • Makes difficult recommendations when appropriate
  • Assessed by TC, Team Colleagues, Dept Head