TABEE's ABET-PEV Training

Reference Materials Part I

“Training Workshop for ABET-inspired TABEE Program Evaluators”

Tuesday 2nd August 2016 The Berkeley Hotel, Bangkok

Council of Engineers, Thailand

Office of the Higher Education Commission

and ATPAC (Association of Thai Professionals in America and Canada)

Presented by Professor Dr. Taha F. Marhaba

and Professor Dr. Methi Wecharatana

New Jersey Institute of Technology

2016

ABET REFERENCE MATERIALS

2016

ABET REFERENCE MATERIALS NJIT CEE Department

ABET REFERENCE MATERIALS

TABLE OF

CONTENTS

Contents

Module 1: Welcome and Overview ............................................................................... 3 A. PROGRAM EVALUATOR TRAINING OVERVIEW ............................ 3 B. ONLINE TRAINING (PRE-WORK FOR FACE-TO-FACE

TRAINING) ...................................................................................................... 3 C. OUTPUTS FROM ONLINE TRAINING .................................................. 4 D. THE FACE-TO-FACE TRAINING ........................................................... 4 E. YOUR TRAINING MENTOR CONNECTION ........................................ 5 F. GETTING ASSIGNED TO YOUR FIRST SITE VISIT .......................... 5 G. BACKGROUND .......................................................................................... 5 What Is ABET? ............................................................................................................. 5 What Is Accreditation? .................................................................................................. 5 H. ABET VISION AND MISSION ................................................................. 6 ABET Vision ................................................................................................................. 6 ABET Mission ............................................................................................................... 6 I. ABET’S PHILOSOPHY OF OUTCOMES-BASED ACCREDITATION 6 J. WHO IS INVOLVED IN THE ABET ACCREDITATION PROCESS? 7 K. ABET CODE OF CONDUCT .................................................................... 8

Module 2: The Accreditation Process .......................................................................... 9 A. OVERVIEW OF ACCREDITATION PROCESS .................................... 9 B. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES .......................................................... 9 Member Societies ........................................................................................................ 9 Institutions .................................................................................................................10 Commissions ...............................................................................................................10 Visit Team ..................................................................................................................10 Team Chair .................................................................................................................10 Program Evaluators ...................................................................................................11 C. OVERVIEW OF ACCREDITATION CRITERIA ................................. 11 D. EXPLANATION OF TERMS................................................................... 12 E. DEFINITION OF LEVELS OF COMPLIANCE ................................... 13

Module 3: The Role of the Program Evaluator ......................................................... 13 A. PROGRAM EVALUATOR ROLES ........................................................ 13 B. ACTIVITIES BEFORE THE VISIT ....................................................... 14 Make Travel Arrangements ..........................................................................................15 Review the Self-Study Report ........................................................................................15 Applying the Criteria ....................................................................................................16 Team Chair ..................................................................................................................16 C. THE VISIT ................................................................................................. 17 D. ACTIVITIES THAT YOU WILL CONDUCT DURING THE VISIT . 17 E. A TYPICAL VISIT AGENDA .................................................................. 21

1

Sunday ........................................................................................................................21 Sunday Evening .........................................................................................................21 Monday Morning ........................................................................................................21 Monday Afternoon ......................................................................................................21 Monday Evening .........................................................................................................22 Tuesday Morning ........................................................................................................22 Tuesday Afternoon .....................................................................................................22 Draft Statement Outline ............................................................................................23 F. APPLYING THE CRITERIA: CONSISTENCY COUNTS ................... 24 G. AFTER THE VISIT .................................................................................. 24

Module 4: Continuous Quality Improvement of Student Learning ......................... 25 A. TERMS AND DEFINITIONS USED BY ABET ..................................... 25 B. REVIEW OF PROGRAM EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES ............... 25 C. ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION OF STUDENT OUTCOMES .... 26 D. HOW DO I KNOW IF A PROGRAM HAS AN ADEQUATE

CONTINUOUS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROCESS FOR STUDENT

LEARNING? ................................................................................................... 29

Module 5: Applying the Criteria ................................................................................ 30 A. CRITERIA APPLICATION BASICS ..................................................... 30 B. UNDERSTANDING THE CRITERIA .................................................... 30 C. COMMON ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH EACH CRITERION ........ 31 Students ......................................................................................................................31 Program Educational Objectives................................................................................31 Student Outcomes ......................................................................................................32 Continuous Improvement ..........................................................................................32 Curriculum .................................................................................................................33 D. THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS ................................................... 35 Pre-Visit ......................................................................................................................35 On Site ........................................................................................................................35 Post-Visit ....................................................................................................................35 E. EVALUATING A PROGRAM’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE

CRITERIA ...................................................................................................... 35 General Review Terminology vs. Action ....................................................................36 F. APPLYING THE CRITERIA: CONSISTENCY COUNTS ................... 37 G. SAMPLE SITUATIONS ........................................................................... 37 Situation #1 ................................................................................................................37 Situation #2 ................................................................................................................38 Situation #3 ................................................................................................................39

Module 6: The PEV Appraisal Process ...................................................................... 41 A. WHAT ARE THE ABET PEV COMPETENCIES? ............................... 41 B. WHAT IS THE PEV PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL PROCESS? ..... 43

Appendices .................................................................................................................. 45 Appendix A: Competency Model for Program Evaluators ............................ 45 Appendix B: Training Mentors ...................................................................... 49 Appendix C: Criteria for Crediting Engineering Programs .......................... 52

2

Appendix D: Accreditation Step by Step ....................................................... 55 Appendix E: Glossary ..................................................................................... 59 Appendix F: Introduction to Academia for Non-Academician ...................... 67 Appendix G: Transcript Analysis ................................................................... 68 Appendix H: ABET Accreditation Process .................................................... 70 Appendix I: Student Outcomes and Performance Indicators ...................... 71 Appendix J: continuous data collection process example .............................. 75 Appendix K: Team Chair Competency Model ................................................ 78

3

Module 1: Welcome and Overview

A. PROGRAM EVALUATOR TRAINING

OVERVIEW

Candidates who are selected for the ABET Program Evaluator Candidate (PEVC) Training

Program undergo three training processes:

1. Online Training (must be completed prior to the Face-to-Face Training): The online

modules include three proficiency assessments and a simulated program evaluation. The

online modules – which can be taken at your own pace – cover fundamental information

about ABET, the accreditation process, roles and responsibilities, and the general criteria

(criteria 1-8).

2. Face-to-Face Training: Face-to-Face Training is a one-and-a-half day experiential

workshop that simulates an accreditation visit.

3. Program Criteria Training: Training on program-specific criteria (criterion 9)

is provided by the member society with program area responsibility.

B. ONLINE TRAINING (PRE-WORK FOR FACE-

TO-FACE TRAINING)

The online Program Evaluator Candidate (PEVC) Training consists of six (6) online modules

designed to provide information about ABET, the accreditation process, the role of the Program

Evaluator (PEV), and PEV tasks prior to and during an accreditation visit. This training also

prepares you for the Face-to-Face Training. Included in the six (6) online training are three (3)

Proficiency Assessments at the end of Modules 3, 4, and 6. The results will automatically be

recorded and the correct responses sent to you via email.

The purpose of the online training is two-fold:

1. To review the fundamental aspects of the overall ABET Accreditation Process:

These materials are contextual, somewhat static in nature, and best learned

independently. During accreditation visits, you as a PEV are considered the face of

ABET and are required to know the contextual pieces of information.

2. To simulate what happens in preparation for an accreditation visit: In this portion,

you will complete several items that will be posted to the ABET Training Website and

reviewed by your Training Mentor, your ABET Member Society contact, and a Face-to-

Face Training Support Facilitator, much like that done by an accreditation visit Team

Chair.

4

C. OUTPUTS FROM ONLINE TRAINING

The following materials need to be completed and submitted according to the dates listed below:

Three (3) completed Proficiency Assessments

Program Evaluator Worksheet (Applicable to PEVCs affiliated with CAC and EAC)

Program Evaluator Report

You will learn more about completing and posting the Program Evaluator Worksheet and

Program Evaluator Report in Module 5: Applying the Criteria.

If the Proficiency Assessments, Program Evaluator Worksheet, and Program Evaluator Report

are not completed and posted by the due date, you will not be able to attend the Face-to-Face

Training. The important dates for each session are listed below:

April 30-May 1,

2016

May 14-15,

2016

June 4-5,

2016

Location Baltimore Baltimore Baltimore

Registration Closes March 11 March 25 April 15

Mentor Assigned March 18 April 1 April 22

Pre-Work Due April 1 April 15 May 6

Make Travel

Arrangements* April 4-8 April 18-22 May 9-13

*ABET’s Training Manager will contact you with instructions regarding travel and hotel

arrangements and ABET’s travel policy. Per ABET policy, we will only reimburse for

reservations made with the ABET travel agent.

D. THE FACE-TO-FACE TRAINING

The Face-to-Face Training consists of one-and-a-half days (Saturday and Sunday) of interactive

training as a simulated visit team, including an assignment on Saturday evening to be turned in

Sunday morning. The Face-to-Face Training is designed for two purposes:

1. To immerse you in the real-life situations and activities that occur during a site visit to a

university or college. The workshop uses and builds upon the online training pre-work

materials that you have completed.

2. To provide opportunities to demonstrate the PEV Competency Model, (See Appendix A)

Travel Reimbursement for Face-to-Face Training

ABET reimburses all appropriate travel expenses, providing the PEVC uses ABET’s travel

agent. Please log in to myABET to access information about travel and reimbursement policies

and procedures.

5

E. YOUR TRAINING MENTOR CONNECTION

Your ABET Member Society has assigned a Training Mentor to you. The Training Mentor is

available to answer questions and guide you through your learning process. Your Training

Mentor will work with you throughout the training process to:

Make an initial contact

Answer your questions in completing the online training pre-work

Support your learning through the Face-to-Face Training

Answer your questions after the Face-to-Face Training

For more information about Training Mentors, (See Appendix B).

Please Note: You should hear from your Training Mentor within a few days of receiving a notice

that you have been assigned a mentor. Please contact your ABET Member Society if you have

not heard from him or her.

F. GETTING ASSIGNED TO YOUR FIRST SITE

VISIT

Upon successful completion of PEVC Training, your ABET Member Society will assign you to

the PEV pool. Your Member Society may assign you for a visit in the upcoming cycle, based

upon the number of programs being visited. For more information, contact your Member

Society.

G. BACKGROUND

What Is ABET?

ABET is the recognized U.S.-based accreditor of college and university programs in applied

science, computing, engineering, and engineering technology.

What Is Accreditation?

In the United States, accreditation is a non-governmental, peer-review process that assures the

quality of the postsecondary education students receive. Educational institutions or programs

volunteer to undergo this review periodically to determine if certain criteria are being met.

(NOTE: Outside the United States, accreditation is not necessarily voluntary or non-

governmental. For more information, see the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and

Cultural Organization (UNESCO) website (http://en.unesco.org/) for more information on the

world’s post-secondary education systems and their quality assurance mechanisms.)

6

It is important to understand that accreditation is not a ranking system. It is an assurance that a

program or institution meets established quality standards. In addition, the role of ABET

accreditation is to provide periodic external assessment and evaluation in support of the

program’s continuous improvement process.

H. ABET VISION AND MISSION

ABET Vision

ABET is recognized as the worldwide leader in assuring quality and stimulating innovation in

applied science, computing, engineering, and engineering technology education.

ABET Mission

ABET serves the public globally through the promotion and advancement of education in

applied science, computing, engineering, and engineering technology. ABET:

Accredits educational programs.

Promotes quality and innovation in education.

Consults and assists in the development and advancement of education worldwide in a

financially self-sustaining manner.

Communicates with our constituencies and the public regarding activities and

accomplishments.

Anticipates and prepares for the changing environment and the future needs of

constituencies.

Manages the operations and resources to be effective and fiscally responsible.

I. ABET’S PHILOSOPHY OF OUTCOMES-BASED

ACCREDITATION

ABET’s accreditation procedures and processes historically have been intended for programs

that prepare graduates for entry into a profession appropriate to the program’s discipline. The

decision on the appropriate accreditation action for a program is made based on the extent to

which the relevant criteria for the program are met. It is the institution’s responsibility to

demonstrate how the program meets the relevant criteria.

ABET’s current accreditation processes are strongly oriented toward continuous quality

improvement (CQI) and outcomes-based accreditation.

An educational program CQI process should reflect a clear understanding of:

7

Mission

Constituents

Objectives

Outcomes

Processes (internal practice to achieve the outcomes)

Facts (data collection)

Evaluation (interpretation of facts) and

Action (feedback to support decision making and improve processes)

J. WHO IS INVOLVED IN THE ABET

ACCREDITATION PROCESS?

The accreditation process requires the participation of many individuals, institutions, and

organizations:

ABET

ABET’s member societies

Institutions and programs requesting accreditation

Team Chairs

Program Evaluators

Each of ABET’s member societies is invited to have representation on one or more of the four

ABET commissions, according to the curricular areas that the ABET Board of Directors assigns

to those societies.

The four ABET accreditation commissions are the:

Applied Science Accreditation Commission (ASAC);

Computing Accreditation Commission (CAC);

Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC); and the

Engineering Technology Accreditation Commission (ETAC).

The commissions are responsible for administering the ABET Accreditation Process, conducting

accreditation reviews, and determining accreditation actions (by vote of the entire membership),

based on the Accreditation Policies and Procedures Manual (APPM) and on the accreditation

8

criteria. The commissions are also responsible for the continuous review and enhancement of

criteria, policies and procedures.

For more information, see Accreditation Policies and Procedures Manual (APPM) and criteria.

(See Appendix C)

The Accreditation Council (AC) is comprised of leadership (Chair, Past Chair and Chair Elect)

from the four accreditation commissions. The Accreditation Council is responsible for improving

the effectiveness, efficiency, and uniformity of the accreditation process.

Changes to the accreditation criteria and to the Accreditation Policies and Procedures proposed

by the commissions and the Accreditation Council are approved by the ABET Board of

Directors.

You will learn more about how the ABET Criteria are based on CQI in Module 5: Applying the

Criteria and how it relates to assessing student learning in Module 4: Continuous Quality

Improvement of Student Learning.

Outcomes-based accreditation focuses on:

Learning, not teaching

Students, not faculty

Outcomes, not inputs or capacity

K. ABET CODE OF CONDUCT

ABET holds its staff and expert volunteers to the highest standards of conduct.

For your review, ABET’s Code of Conduct (Section IX of ABET Rules of Procedure) explicitly

describes behavior that is and is not acceptable when you participate in ABET activities.

9

Module 2: The Accreditation Process

A. OVERVIEW OF ACCREDITATION PROCESS

The entire program review process is typically 20 months long.

Step 1: The process begins in January of the first year, when the institution requests

accreditation for its programs.

Step 2: The site visit is usually conducted between September and December of the first year.

Step 3: After the visit, the team chair develops a Draft Statement to the institution by editing and

combining the material written by the Program Evaluators and adding material that applies to the

institution as a whole.

Step 4: The Draft Statement is reviewed by two editors from the respective commission and by

ABET headquarters staff for adherence to standards and consistency with other Draft Statements.

Step 5: The edited Draft Statement is sent to the institution, which has 30 days to respond.

Step 6: The team chair uses the response from the institution, with assistance from the PEV as

needed, to prepare the Final Statement, which again is edited and then provided to the full

Commission for action.

Step 7: Final accreditation decisions are made at the Summer Commission Meeting in July of

the second year.

Step 8: ABET notifies the institution of the final accreditation action in August of the second

year.

The steps listed above describe only the actual program review process. The entire accreditation

process (Overview of Accreditation Process) (See Appendix C) involves Continuous Quality

Improvement (CQI) processes by the program, as well as significant efforts to prepare a self

study and collect course and assessment materials.

B. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Member Societies

ABET is a federation of professional and technical societies. Member societies with curricular

responsibilities recruit, select, mentor, and assist in training qualified program evaluators who,

along with team chairs, comprise the teams assigned to accreditation visits. ABET member

societies also nominate individuals to the four ABET commissions (the Applied Science

Accreditation Commission, the Computing Accreditation Commission, the Engineering

Accreditation Commission, and the Engineering Technology Accreditation Commission) and

appoint individuals to the ABET Board of Directors.

10

Institutions

Institutions requesting an ABET review have significant responsibilities to complete before ABET’s Visit

Team arrives on site. Each program completes a Self-Study Report, which serves as the central document

the team relies on for the review. In the Self-Study Report, each program details how the ABET Criteria

are being met. Read the Accreditation Step-by-Step document (See Appendix D) for a detailed

description of the accreditation process from the institution’s point of view.

The institution hosts the site visit. On campus, institutions arrange for interviews and reviews of

display materials, facilities, equipment, and other observations that cannot be included in the

Self-Study Report.

After the visit, the institution has seven (7) days to report errors of fact in the visiting team’s

preliminary findings. After it receives the Draft Statement, the institution has 30 days to report

actions it has taken since the visit to address the team’s findings and improve the program.

This is the Due Process Response Period.

Commissions

Each of the member societies is invited to have representation on one or more of the four ABET

commissions, according to the curricular areas that those societies are assigned to by the ABET

Board of Directors. The four commissions are:

the Applied Science Accreditation Commission (ASAC);

the Computing Accreditation Commission (CAC);

the Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC); and

the Engineering Technology Accreditation Commission (ETAC).

The accreditation commissions are responsible for administering the ABET accreditation

process, based on the Accreditation Policies and Procedures Manual and on the accreditation

criteria, both of which are approved by the ABET Board of Directors. The commissions

recommend criteria, assign the team chairs of the visiting teams, and make final accreditation

decisions (by vote of the entire membership).

Visit Team

The visit team evaluates one or more programs at an institution against the ABET Criteria and

Accreditation Policies and Procedures. The visit team is composed of a team chair and at least

one program evaluator for each program being evaluated.

Team Chair

The team chair is a member of the commission (or, occasionally, a former member), appointed

by the Commission Executive Committee to lead the visit team. The team chair is the primary

11

contact with the institution. The team chair is responsible for contact with the dean of each

program being evaluated. He or she is involved in approving the composition of the visit team.

As the leader of the visit team, the team chair assembles the Draft Statement and the Final

Statement, and presents the findings to the ABET commission at the Summer Commission

Meeting in July.

The responsibilities of the team chair will vary depending on the size of the visit team. In

addition, team chairs may use different leadership approaches and organizational strategies to

ensure a successful visit. Some team chairs, for example, may conduct conference calls with

their team prior to the visit. Some may request an additional team meeting while on the visit.

Program Evaluators

Program evaluators (PEVs) are selected by their member societies to represent ABET on site

visits, where they work with a team of colleagues from other member societies. As an ABET

team member, the program evaluator’s role is to provide knowledge on professional practice,

professional preparation, and continuous improvement. The program evaluator also provides

sound judgment about how the program he or she is evaluating meets ABET’s Accreditation

Criteria.

One of the program evaluator’s most important responsibilities is to behave in an ethical and

professional manner and to uphold ABET’s Code of Conduct, in Section IX of the ABET Rules

of Procedure. It is particularly important to avoid any real or perceived conflicts of interest with

the institutions being evaluated. Program evaluators must disclose any real or perceived conflicts

and recuse themselves from discussions or decisions related to any associated issues. If you have

any questions about this, contact your team chair or ABET at accreditation@abet.org or 410-

347-7700.

To avoid being assigned as a PEV for a visit to an institution for which you have a conflict of

interest, it is important that you keep your list of conflicts current in your ABET profile. You

should update your profile whenever a new conflict of interest develops, but not later than mid-

spring of each year.

Special Note: Avoid any real or perceived conflicts of interest with the institutions being

evaluated. If you are not sure about a possible perception of a conflict of interest, contact your

team chair or ABET.

As a Program Evaluator, you will have responsibilities before, during, and after the site visit.

C. OVERVIEW OF ACCREDITATION CRITERIA

Programs must comply with the Criteria and ABET’s Accreditation Policies and Procedures

Manual to achieve accreditation. As a program evaluator, you are responsible for evaluating a

program’s compliance with the Criteria.

The Criteria are intended to:

12

Ensure the quality of educational programs.

Foster the systematic pursuit of quality improvement in educational programs.

Help develop educational programs that satisfy the needs of constituencies in a dynamic and

competitive environment.

It is the responsibility of the institution seeking accreditation of a program to demonstrate clearly

that the program meets the Criteria.

Please Note: To evaluate a program, it is critical that you thoroughly understand the Criteria and

how to apply them. (Note: In this training, we will only be addressing the General Criteria. Your

member society will cover program-specific criteria as needed.)

For more information, please see the Accreditation Policy and Procedure Manual and the

Accreditation Criteria.

D. EXPLANATION OF TERMS

ABET expert volunteers and staff should use consistent terminology. As a program evaluator, you will

need to know and use the following terms (Glossary) (See Appendix E)

Program Educational Objectives: 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.

Student Outcomes: Statements that describe what students are expected to know and be able to

do by the time of graduation. These relate to skills, knowledge, and behaviors that students

acquire as they progress through the program.

Assessment: One or more processes that identify, collect, and prepare data to evaluate the

attainment of program educational objectives and student outcomes. Effective assessment uses

relevant direct, indirect, quantitative, and qualitative measures as appropriate to the objective or

outcome being measured. Appropriate sampling methods may be used as part of an assessment

process.

Evaluation: One or more processes for interpreting the data and evidence accumulated through

assessment practices. Evaluation determines the extent to which program educational objectives

and student outcomes are being attained. Evaluation results in decisions and actions regarding

program improvement.

If you are from industry, government, or private practice and would like more information on the

academic environment and terminology, you will want to review this Introduction to Academia for Non-

Academician (PDF) (See Appendix F)

13

E. DEFINITION OF LEVELS OF COMPLIANCE

When writing the Exit Statement for the program you will be evaluating, you will need to use a

variety of terms and statements to define levels of compliance (Accreditation Policy and

Procedures Manual II. G. 9. a. and Glossary.) ) (See Appendix E)

Findings of Concern: A Concern indicates that a program currently satisfies a criterion, policy,

or procedure. However, the potential exists for the situation to change such that the criterion,

policy, or procedure may not be satisfied.

Findings of Weakness: A Weakness indicates that a program lacks the strength of compliance

with a criterion, policy, or procedure to ensure that the quality of the program will not be

compromised. Therefore, remedial action is required to strengthen compliance with the criterion,

policy, or procedure prior to the next review.

Findings of Deficiency: A Deficiency indicates a criterion, policy, or procedure is not satisfied.

Therefore, the program is not in compliance with the criterion, policy, or procedure.

Statements of Observation: An Observation is a comment or suggestion that does not relate

directly to the accreditation action but is offered to assist the institution in its continuing efforts

to improve its programs.

Statements of Strength: A Strength is an exceptionally strong, effective practice or condition

that stands above the norm, and has a positive effect on the program.

Please Note: You must fully understand what is required to meet the Criteria and the levels of

compliance. More will be covered in Module 5: Applying the Criteria.

Module 3: The Role of the Program Evaluator As a Program Evaluator, you have many roles. Most important, you are the face of ABET and

must follow ABET’s Code of Conduct and adhere to ABET’s Conflict of Interest Policy. As a

Program Evaluator, you are devoting your time and expertise to ensuring quality education for

students studying for entry into your profession.

A. PROGRAM EVALUATOR ROLES

14

ABET Representative: As a program evaluator, you are the face of ABET. You represent

ABET when conducting all accreditation-related activities, and the institution that you visit

judges ABET by your actions.

Evaluator: You have been selected as a program evaluator because you have subject matter

expertise in the discipline you will be evaluating. Every program evaluator on your team is

assigned a program to evaluate, based on the expertise he/she has in that program area.

Accepting a position on a visit team is a commitment to fulfill all the obligations required. The

role of the program evaluator is not to be the police, to look for “gotchas,” but rather to be a

partner with the institution in the improvement of the program.

Team Member: As a program evaluator, you also play the important role of team member. Your

interaction with your colleagues, particularly during team meetings, is crucial to an efficient and

successful visit. Being team-oriented is an important competency for all program evaluators.

A program evaluator’s responsibilities are to:

Complete the pre-visit work, including inspecting the materials provided by the institution.

Participate in a 2-4 day on-site review.

Evaluate information obtained according to ABET Criteria.

Prepare materials in a timely manner, including recommended accreditation action.

Provide visit materials to the team chair at the conclusion of the visit.

Complete performance appraisal forms. (This will be covered in Module 6.)

Submit expenses to ABET using the on-line expense system within 10 days of your site visit.

Assist the team chair, as requested, in review of the institution’s 30-day due process response and

development of the Final Draft Statement.

Important Note: Avoid any real or perceived conflicts of interest with the institutions being

evaluated. For more information, see ABET’s Code of Conduct, Conflict of Interest, and

Confidentiality Policies in the ABET Rules of Procedure.

B. ACTIVITIES BEFORE THE VISIT

You will have a significant number of tasks to complete prior to arriving on campus for the site

visit. Your thorough preparation before arriving on site is essential to an efficient and successful

site visit. In particular, your pre-visit analysis will enable you to identify additional information

you will need during the visit. Additional information requests must be given to the program well

in advance of the visit and should be coordinated with the team chair. Because this is a

collaborative process, you need to meet your obligations in a timely manner to allow the

institution to gather additional information in a reasonable time. If the program is already ABET-

15

accredited, the program evaluator will receive a copy of the previous final accreditation

statement for the program.

Here are some of the activities and deliverables you will need to complete prior to arriving on

campus:

Make Travel Arrangements

You are responsible for making your own travel arrangements in consultation with the team chair

and in alignment with the ABET Travel Policy. Travel arrangements should be made as soon as

the team chair communicates visit details, including overall schedule, hotel accommodations,

and transportation arrangements to and from the airport . All reasonable attempts should be made

to minimize travel costs. All travel must follow the ABET Travel Policy to be reimbursed.

Review the Self-Study Report

This is the primary document the institution prepares to demonstrate compliance with ABET

Criteria. Each program uses the Self-Study Questionnaire template appropriate to the

commission. These are found on the ABET website. While the majority of the program’s Self-

Study Report will be in paragraph format, a program may use tables, graphs, charts, and figures

to illustrate compliance. The Self-Study Questionnaire includes tables that a program is required

to complete along with prescribed formats for certain types of information like course

descriptions and faculty curriculum vita.

You must thoroughly review the Self-Study Report prior to arriving on site, and prior to pre-visit

conferences if scheduled by the team chair.

Transcript Analysis

As part of your review of the Self-Study Report, you will need to analyze transcripts. ABET

recognizes transcripts as the official record of student coursework. While summary sheets or

transcript checklists provided by the institution may be helpful for transcript analysis, the

transcript itself should be the key document analyzed. Procedures for doing this include:

Be sure that the transcripts identify the name (title) of the program in a way that clearly identifies

the program as an ABET-accredited program according to the institution catalog and other

documents and in a way that distinguishes it from any non-accredited programs with which it

could be confused by a potential employer. Identify any problems in this regard to your team

chair.

Make sure that the courses that are counted toward the degree are consistent with the published

requirements of the program. In cases where the transcript is for a graduate of an earlier

curriculum, the institution must provide a copy of the appropriate curriculum. The institution also

should provide justification for any variances, such as transfer credits or substitutions that are not

clearly documented on the transcripts.

16

Check to be sure that prerequisites are taken before each course that requires them and that the

course sequence on the transcript does not vary unreasonably from the recommended sequence. If

courses are taken out of sequence, check to see if there is an indication of difficulty for the

students in terms of the course grades. (If there are difficulties for students, then there could be a

problem with the mechanisms for advising and the enforcement of prerequisites. If there are no

problems, it could indicate prerequisite requirements that are not needed.)

Ensure that the number of transfer credits and the number of course substitutions are reasonable.

Request clarification for any apparent problems in the transcripts. Do your transcript analysis and

request clarifications soon enough to allow reasonable time for the institution to respond.

Read the guidelines for analyzing student transcripts based on commission. (See Appendix G)

Draft Plan for Visit

Your draft plan includes the questions and areas that require additional information based on

your review of the Self-Study Report. The draft plan helps you manage your time efficiently

when you are on site. Be sure to:

Convey your preferences and arrangements for interviews and meetings with faculty, students,

and others to your team chair prior to contacting the program head.

Tell your team chair about visits needed to supporting areas. (Team chairs usually coordinate

visits to supporting areas.)

Pre-Visit Forms

In Module 5 you will be provided with a variety of forms to help you walk through the self-study

report and conduct a preliminary review of a program’s compliance with the ABET criteria.

Applying the Criteria

Review the current ABET Criteria, the Self-Study Report, and any other materials sent by the

institution.

Assess areas of apparent strengths and shortcomings.

Make preliminary assessment of what ABET Criteria appear to be met or may not be met.

Team Chair

Follow up with the team chair regarding additional information you will need when you arrive on

site. Your team chair may direct you to communicate this information to the program

representative.

Always respond promptly to requests from your team chair.

Coordinate your travel plans with your team chair.

17

C. THE VISIT

The site visit enables ABET to assess factors that cannot be adequately addressed in the Self-

Study Report. These factors include the intellectual atmosphere, the morale of the faculty and

students, the caliber of the staff and student body, the facilities, and the outcome of the education

offered as evidenced by the character of the work performed.

Do not conduct interviews or share preliminary conclusions with the institution prior to the site

visit.

Your objectives while on site are to:

Make a qualitative assessment of factors that cannot be documented in the Self-Study Report.

Conduct a detailed examination of the materials compiled by the institution (this includes course

materials and assessment materials).

Provide the program with a preliminary assessment of its strong points and shortcomings.

Review facilities.

Important Note: Visiting teams should help the programs assess their strong points as well as

their weak points. You are not there only as an auditor but also as a consultant to assist the

program in its continuous improvement efforts.

D. ACTIVITIES THAT YOU WILL CONDUCT

DURING THE VISIT

Examine Assessment Materials

Assessment Materials are usually located with the course display materials. The purpose is to

corroborate the assessment plan for student outcomes that was provided in the Self-Study Report,

including ensuring that appropriate documentation exists for the various phases of the assessment

process.

Examine Course Materials

Evaluators will review samples of displayed course materials including course syllabi, textbooks,

example assignments and exams, and examples of student work, typically ranging from excellent

through poor (Accreditation Policy and Procedure Manual, Section II.G.6.b.(2)).

The display materials should be readily available throughout the visit. You should verify that:

The course is up-to-date and appropriate for the objectives of the program.

The course prerequisites are adequate.

The learning activities are appropriate for the course outcomes.

18

The graded work adequately assesses the course learning outcomes.

Note that it is unlikely that a problem with a single course would be enough evidence for a

Weakness or a Deficiency. Rather, the course materials should be used to corroborate potential

problems indicated elsewhere, such as suspected failure by some faculty members to remain

current, or should suggest potential problems that need to be corroborated by additional

evidence, such as an apparent lack of rigor sufficient to achieve the course learning outcomes.

Interview the Program Head

This is an opportunity to get a better feel for the program’s strengths and weaknesses and the

vision of its leadership for the future. Any issues that arose during your pre-visit preparation

should be discussed to ensure that you are aware of all appropriate facts and have planned

appropriate activities for further investigation. If a single program is being evaluated, the team

chair may decide to interview the program head.

It is preferable not to make requests that require substantial effort to satisfy during this meeting

(or at any time during the visit). Such requests should be made well in advance if your visit

preparation is adequate. However, do not hesitate to make requests for things that are really

needed to ensure a fair and complete review. It is advisable to discuss such requests with your

team chair if they are likely to require a substantial amount of work from the program’s staff.

You should also interview others with administrative duties (class scheduling, student advising,

transfer course evaluation, etc.) relative to the program. This does not include administrators at

the institutional level, whose visits are coordinated by the Team Chair. If the program head is not

the department chair or other administrative head over the program, then you also should

interview the administrative head. If more than one program under the administrative head is

being reviewed, you may wish to coordinate your interview with the program evaluator(s) for the

other program(s), perhaps even doing the interview simultaneously with the other PEV(s).

Interview Faculty Members

During the faculty interviews, you should try to get a feel for the philosophy of each faculty

member towards teaching; activities undertaken to maintain currency; level of understanding of,

and participation in, the assessment process and preparation for the visit; and the view of the

strengths and weaknesses of the program and its future direction.

Faculty members also can be a source of initial identification or corroboration for problems with

such aspects as the quality and maintenance of facilities (labs, classrooms, library, etc.). Faculty

attitudes regarding the work environment and their commitment to remaining at the institution

are also important in assessing the adequacy of institutional support to maintain program stability

during the potential period of accreditation.

There are many personal preferences regarding the best way to interview faculty members.

Ideally, it is best to interview faculty members in their offices (if private) on a one-on-one basis.

However, if the faculty is large or offices are not private, an alternative approach may be needed.

Individual appointments should last for at least 30 minutes. You should identify some of the

faculty you are especially interested in interviewing if you will not have time to interview all of

them. When selecting faculty to interview, consider those teaching courses for which you have

19

questions, those with laboratory responsibilities, length of service, and rank. This should all be

arranged before the visit and in consultation with your team chair.

Interview Students

Interviewing the students is often one of the most rewarding and enjoyable parts of the visit. The

level of satisfaction with, and enthusiasm for, the program can be a good indicator of the

program quality. In addition, students can provide important corroboration for such aspects as

the lack of adequate quality in certain courses, problems with advising, and the adequacy of

facilities (labs, classrooms, library, etc.).

As we know, however, the student perspective on the importance of certain courses and the

characteristics of the program is often quite different from the perspectives of the faculty and

administration. Although these perspectives can be valuable in getting a feel about the overall

quality of a program, it is important to keep in mind that students are not always in a good

position to judge the real value of an educational experience. Therefore, student complaints

should not result in a conclusion that there is a problem unless the problem can be corroborated

by more evidence that is more concrete.

There are many individual preferences for selecting the students to be interviewed as a group.

Ideally, the group will include a representative number of upper-level students and some other

students as well. The student interviews can be done during a scheduled class (the instructor

should not be present), but it is difficult to get a good representative sample from a single class.

On the other hand, if the student interview is held during an open meeting with voluntary

attendance, it can be difficult to get good representative attendance as well (or even good

attendance at all). In any case, the group to be interviewed should not be selected by the program

staff unless you ensure that those selected are a representative sample of the student body,

especially the upper-level students. You should allow at least 30 minutes for meeting with the

students.

Tour the Facilities

In touring the facilities, you want to ensure that they are sufficiently up-to-date and maintained to

support the needs of the program. You also want to be aware of safety and access issues. The

adequacy of the support staff is important, as is a mechanism for ensuring the continuing

adequacy through the period of accreditation. The following are typical support facility visits that

are conducted on an accreditation review visit. These visits may be done by the team chair or

may be assigned to PEVs by the team chair.

If more than one program is being visited, these activities may be coordinated among the

program evaluators and findings shared.

Visit the library. When you visit the library, you are primarily verifying the evidence in the Self-

Study Report: adequacy of the collection, availability of staff support, electronic access to

information and materials, etc. The adequacy of the resources is important to observe, and this is

difficult to determine from the Self-Study Report.

Visit one or more supporting departments. Supporting departments (mathematics, physics,

English, etc.) play an important role in the foundational preparation of students. In interviewing

20

the department chair or other departmental representative, you should try to get a feel for how

well the students of the programs that the team is reviewing do in the supporting courses and

whether there are any problems with the nature of the courses from the perspective of the

supporting department. If course materials have been provided in a course materials display area,

you should review these materials before going to visit the supporting department. If the materials

have not been arranged in advance, then you cannot expect to see much more than course

textbooks and syllabi for courses that are currently being offered.

Visit the career support center, placement office, cooperative education office, etc. The intent

of visits to offices such as these is to assess the level of support for students. You should inquire

about the support that is available and general procedures for students to obtain the support.

Sometimes you can assist the program, students, or faculty by identifying available support that is

not being used effectively in the program. Understaffed offices, inadequate facilities, or outdated

programs can indicate or corroborate problems that appear in assessment results, student or

faculty interviews, etc.

Write an Exit Statement

The Exit Statement has a prescribed format for each commission. The Exit Statement must

clearly identify each shortcoming relative to the ABET Criteria or Accreditation Policies and

Procedures.

Complete a Program Audit Form (PAF)

The PAF lists the shortcomings for a program. It normally is completed after the Exit Statement

is finished, and should use the same language as the Exit Statement in describing shortcomings.

Usually the text in the PAF is copied from the Exit Statement and pasted into the PAF. The PAFs

are given to the dean by the team chair at the conclusion of the Exit Meeting, and they serve as a

written summary of the team’s findings on the programs that were evaluated for accreditation.

Note that the PAF does not identify the recommended action on a program.

Debrief the Program Head

The debrief for the program head by the PEV is less formal than the exit meeting. There should

be sufficient discussion to ensure that the program head understands the shortcomings that have

been identified. Information that could be helpful in addressing the shortcomings can be

provided by the PEV, but care must be taken to avoid any impression of prescribing a solution.

Participate in the Exit Meeting

The purpose of the exit meeting is to communicate the team’s findings relative to all programs.

Following initial statements by the team chair, each PEV will read (verbatim) the Exit Statement

for the program evaluated by that PEV. The exit meeting is a formal report by the team. The

team chair serves as chair for the exit meeting, and only questions for clarification are permitted.

If you are asked by your team chair to respond to a question, you should be very careful not to

ramble, but focus on the observed facts that lead to the finding.

The team chair may modify this basic procedure as appropriate. For example, if the number of

programs reviewed is large, general information about each program and the program strengths

might be omitted from what is read at the exit meeting. Similarly, if there is a shortcoming that is

21

common to all programs, then the team chair may state that shortcoming in the introductory

remarks and each PEV would then omit that shortcoming from the reading of the PEV’s

statement. Finally, if there is more than one PEV for a program, the team chair will determine

what is to be read by each PEV.

E. A TYPICAL VISIT AGENDA

Sunday

During the initial team meeting, your responsibilities are to:

Review visit plan.

Provide initial Program Evaluator Visit Report and Program Evaluator Worksheet to the team

chair. Note: Your team chair may request these prior to the visit.

Discuss pre-visit assessment.

Review criteria, policy, and procedure changes.

You will also visit the program to:

Evaluate course materials (syllabi, texts, graded student work, etc.).

Evaluate assessment materials (results and analysis from surveys, etc.).

Conduct other visits (labs, etc.) as needed.

Sunday Evening

During the team meeting, your responsibilities are to:

Identify all potential Deficiencies, Weaknesses, and Concerns.

Work as a team to come to consensus and to ensure consistency about findings among programs.

Monday Morning

Team meets with president and/or dean and designated guests.

Meet with program head.

Meet with program faculty, students, and support staff.

Attend optional luncheon for team with institutional officials and guests.

Monday Afternoon

22

Continue meetings and interviews.

Visit facilities.

Visit supporting departments.

Monday Evening

During the team meeting, your responsibilities are to:

Report on findings relative to previously identified potential Deficiencies, Weaknesses, and

Concerns.

Discuss possible accreditation action.

Prepare draft of Program Audit Form (PAF) and exit statement.

Tuesday Morning

Provide draft of Program Audit Form (PAF) and exit statement to team chair.

Complete interviews and facilities visits not completed on Monday.

Brief program head on findings (informal debrief).

Team meeting (working lunch).

Tuesday Afternoon

Complete Program Audit Form (PAF) and exit statement:

Address each criterion for which there are findings.

Document facts, Deficiencies, Weaknesses, Concerns, and Observations.

Your statement must correlate with PEV Report and Program Evaluator Worksheet.

Provide team chair with PEV Visit Report, Program Evaluator Worksheet, and Program Audit

Form.

Update to reflect visit findings.

List persons interviewed.

Identify recommended accreditation action.

Add program exit statement.

23

Participate in exit meeting. Read your written exit statement, do not deviate, and do not ramble!

Please Note: During exit meeting, it is very important not to mention a proposed recommended

accreditation action!

As a Program Evaluator, your responsibilities include:

Identifying potential shortcomings by criterion.

Determining appropriate findings.

Selecting the key term that applies overall for each finding.

Providing evidence for each finding and the effect it has on the program in the exit statement and

Program Audit Form (PAF).

Discussing or recommending an accreditation action to the team only.

As a Program Evaluator, you should never:

Recommend solutions to shortcomings.

Be prescriptive in suggesting improvements.

Share the recommended accreditation action with anyone outside the team.

Draft Statement Outline

The Team Chair will combine the exit statements of all programs evaluated into a draft

statement. The draft statement will follow this outline:

Introduction

For each program

o Program Strengths

o Program Deficiencies

o Program Weaknesses

o Program Concerns

o Program Observations

After going through an editing process, the Draft Statement will be sent to the institution. The

institution then has 30 days to respond. This response is called the Due Process Response.

Please Remember To:

Explain all shortcomings.

24

Be consistent with ABET Criteria.

Provide evidence for each finding and the impact it has on the program as it relates to the ABET

Criteria.

Be consistent with all forms provided to the team chair.

F. APPLYING THE CRITERIA: CONSISTENCY

COUNTS

Accreditation actions must be consistent across all programs with similar shortcomings

(Weaknesses, Deficiencies) and across all institutions. As a PEV, it is essential that you compare

your findings with those of the other programs being evaluated at the institution and ensure that

different findings do not result from similar observations. The visit team should work together to

resolve potential differences in findings for situations that are the same or very similar.

Consistency is checked throughout the ABET Accreditation Process. The process is visually

illustrated in this graphic (PDF). (See Appendix H)

G. AFTER THE VISIT

Within ten (10) business days after the visit, you will need to:

Submit your expenses using the ABET on-line expense system, including scanning or copying all

receipts. The expense report will be sent to your team chair for approval by the system. Once

approved by the team chair, the system will forward your expense report to ABET headquarters

for payment.

Complete the online appraisal form for the Team Chair and Program Evaluators on your visiting

team.

ABET EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT POLICY: All travelers should be aware that only

persons who are authorized prior to visiting campuses or attending pertinent meetings and

activities will be reimbursed for their allowable and reasonable expenses. If there is a question on

reimbursements or allowable expenses, please seek guidance from your team chair or staff

liaison. It is ABET’s policy to reimburse reasonable expenses incurred by those individuals who

are authorized to attend specific visits. All expenses should be submitted within ten (10) working

days after returning from your trip. Failure to comply with the travel policy instructions will

delay the reimbursement of your expenses. Expenses submitted more than sixty (60) days after

the end of travel may not be reimbursed.

25

Module 4: Continuous Quality Improvement of Student Learning

The evaluation of a program’s compliance with each of the various features of the Program

Educational Objectives, Student Outcomes, and Continuous Improvement Criteria (Criteria 2, 3,

and 4) is an important element of ABET’s outcomes-based accreditation criteria and the

program’s continuous improvement processes. Although you will be reviewing many aspects of

the program visited, your evaluation of the program’s process for the assessment, evaluation, and

implementation of identified needed improvements relative to its stated program educational

objectives and student outcomes will be an important part of your work. This module will

provide you with information that will help you in the evaluation of these processes.

A. TERMS AND DEFINITIONS USED BY ABET

Unfortunately, there is no universally accepted set of terms used in the assessment field. The

table below defines the terms used in the ABET Criteria and defined in the Accreditation Policy

and Procedure Manual.

ABET Terms Definition

Program

Educational

Objectives

Program educational objectives are broad statements that describe what

graduates are expected to attain within a few years after graduation. Program

educational objectives are based on the needs of the program’s constituencies.

Student

Outcomes

Student outcomes describe what students are expected to know and be able to do

by the time of graduation. These relate to the knowledge, skills, and behaviors

that students acquire as they progress through the program.

Assessment

Assessment is one or more processes that identify, collect, and prepare data to

evaluate the attainment of student outcomes and program educational objectives.

Effective assessment uses relevant direct, indirect, quantitative, and qualitative

measures as appropriate to the objective or outcome being measured.

Appropriate sampling methods may be used as part of an assessment process.

Evaluation

Evaluation is one or more processes for interpreting the data and evidence

accumulated through assessment processes. Evaluation determines the extent to

which student outcomes and program educational objectives are being attained.

Evaluation results in decisions and actions regarding program improvement.

Programs may have adopted a specific language of assessment, which varies from the terms

above. It is also possible terminology will vary from one program to another within an

institution. If a program is using different terms, it is important it defines its terms in its self-

study and uses them consistently in its documentation for ABET. If the Self-Study does not

clearly indicate how terms are being used, this should be clarified before the visit.

B. REVIEW OF PROGRAM EDUCATIONAL

OBJECTIVES

26

Program educational objectives focus on what graduates are expected to attain within a few years

after graduation. Due to recent changes in the Criteria, it is no longer necessary to assess the

attainment of the program educational objectives but “There must be a documented,

systematically utilized, and effective process, involving program constituencies, for the periodic

review of these program educational objectives that ensures they remain consistent with the

institutional mission, the program’s constituents’ needs, and these criteria.”

The review of program educational objectives requires appropriate monitoring of the currency of

the objectives themselves. The currency of the program educational objectives should be

reviewed periodically. The time span will depend on the changing needs of the constituents and

mission of the program. Programs in dynamic and rapidly changing disciplines will need to have

more frequent monitoring cycles to be sure the program educational objectives are current and

the student outcomes will enable the attainment of the objectives.

Information on the needs of constituents for the development and revision of the program

educational objectives should be gathered in meaningful ways. Determining compliance with this

aspect of Criterion 2 will take informed judgment on the part of the evaluator.

C. ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION OF

STUDENT OUTCOMES

For student outcomes, the focus of the data collection is to answer the question, “Can the

program demonstrate the level to which students have attained the anticipated student

outcomes?” The evidence of student learning is then used to identify student strengths and

weaknesses related to each of the student outcomes for making decisions about how to improve

the program teaching/learning processes.

This evidence should be the product of faculty reviewing and/or observing student work related

to the program requirements. In preparation for reviewing a program’s processes related to

Criterion 4, Continuous Improvement, for student outcomes, it is important to understand several

principles of a well-constructed process to enable continuous improvement related to program-

level student learning.

1. The focus of Criterion 4 (continuous improvement) is on the assessment of the

program, not on the assessment of individual students. Assessment of the attainment

of student outcomes at the program level focuses on the performances of selected student

and graduate cohorts. A program faculty gains insights into how well it is developing its

outcomes through the evaluation of results from student outcome assessment for the

selected student cohort. In general, results are reported in terms of the percentage of

students in the student cohort who meet the program’s student outcomes targets. The

program’s interpretation of the results informs decision making for continuous

improvement purposes.

27

2. The focus of Criterion 4 (continuous improvement related to student outcomes) is on

the learning of students and not the assessment or evaluation of individual courses.

At the program level, assessment and evaluation should be focused on the learning that

has resulted from the experiences in the program by the time of graduation. The purpose

is to provide information on the program’s efficacy (its ability to achieve what it was

designed to achieve).

3. Student outcomes should be defined in order for faculty to have a common

understanding of the expectations for student learning and to achieve consistency

across the curriculum. Well-defined student outcomes also communicate to students

what learning will be expected as they progress through the program. Without agreed

upon definitions of the student outcomes, faculty may have widely varying

understandings of what constitutes performance of a given outcome. When faculty have

variable definitions of the student outcomes, it is almost impossible to determine the

extent to which a student cohort has attained the outcomes. One way to establish a

common and consistent understanding of what constitutes measurable performance of a

student outcome is for those faculty involved to develop a few performance indicators for

each student outcome. For further information on writing performance indicators, see the

BONUS reading Student Outcomes and Performance Indicators (PDF), (See Appendix I)

4. A program does not have to collect data on every student in every course to know

how well it is doing toward attaining student outcomes. In fact, a program does not

have to collect evidence of performance on every student. Because the focus of the

assessment activity is on the program and not individual students, it is important the

cohort used for data collection be representative of the range of students in the program

.If a sample is drawn from the cohort, it must include the same proportion of student

characteristics (e.g., grade averages, gender, diversity, etc.) that describe the program’s

student population. In programs that have a small graduation class, sampling may not be

appropriate. However, if data are collected on a specific student outcome only every three

years (see #5 below) a program would, in fact, be sampling regardless of cohort size as it

is not collecting data on every student who leaves the program.

5. To provide evidence of attainment of student outcomes by the time of graduation for

program reporting purposes, programs may choose to evaluate and report only data

collected in core upper-level courses. Although not required by the accreditation

criteria, a best practice is to sample from strategically selected core courses toward the

end of the curricular cycle (meaning those where the most representative sample of

student attainment of outcomes can be gathered).There are many reasons why programs

should collect data (baseline or other) in the lower-level courses over which they have

control for their continuous improvement, but for the most part it is sufficient to choose

from upper-level courses for ABET reporting purposes. In general, knowledge, skills, or

behaviors students demonstrate in lower-level courses are not as likely a result of the

program’s discipline-specific curriculum.

28

6. A program does not have to assess every outcome every year to know how well it is

doing toward attaining student outcomes. Collecting too many data on individual

students often leads to difficulty. This is certainly true if a program is requiring faculty

collect data in every course where student outcomes are being “covered.” Not only does

this make the data collection process cumbersome, but it also makes it almost impossible

to turn the data into useful information A viable alternative data-collection approach is to

use assessment cycles where, on a rotating basis, performance-indicator data for a portion

of the student outcomes are sampled from two, or preferably three, core upper-level

courses where the outcomes are “covered.” Using this approach produces evidence that

can be used for evaluation and decisions about actions that should be taken, and relieves

faculty of unnecessary data collection. Staggering the data collection over the six-year

accreditation cycle produces a continuous and systematic process. For an example of a

continuous data collection process see Appendix J.

7. The focus is continuous improvement based on information for decision-making, not

just data collection (i.e., data ≠ information).ABET accreditation criteria mandate

program faculty focus on continuous improvement using documented processes for

assessing and evaluating attainment of student outcomes. The faculty member time and

data collection requirements of these assessment processes should be consistent with day-

to-day operation of the program, and the faculty should maintain these processes of

assessment and subsequent evaluation across the interval between successive

accreditation visits. Assessment processes focusing on the continuous improvement of

the program produce results faculty and administration can systematically use in

meaningful ways.

The following are the underlying principles of continuous quality improvement of student

learning at the program level.

1. The focus of Criterion 4 (continuous improvement related to student outcomes) is on the

learning of students and not the assessment or evaluation of individual students.

2. The focus of Criterion 4 (continuous improvement related to student outcomes) is on the

learning of students and not the assessment or evaluation of individual courses.

3. Student outcomes should be defined in order for faculty to have a common understanding

of the expectations for student learning and to achieve consistency across the curriculum.

4. A program does not have to collect data on every student in every course to know how

well it is doing toward the attainment of student outcomes.

5. To provide evidence of attainment of student outcomes by the time of graduation for

program reporting purposes, programs may choose to evaluate and report only data

collected in courses towards the end of the curricular cycle.

29

6. A program does not have to assess every outcome every year to know how well it is

doing toward the attainment of student outcomes.

7. The focus is on continuous improvement based on information for decision-making.

D. HOW DO I KNOW IF A PROGRAM HAS AN

ADEQUATE CONTINUOUS QUALITY

IMPROVEMENT PROCESS FOR STUDENT

LEARNING?

Evidence of a CQI process would contain the following:

1. A timeline of repeated activities related to assessment and evaluation. Possible question:

“What is your data collection and evaluation timeline?”

2. Agreed upon definitions of student outcomes. (Identifying a few performance indicators

per outcome is an effective way to develop measurable definitions.) Possible question

for faculty: “How does your program define its student outcomes to ensure

consistent assessment across the curriculum?”

3. Systematic data collection focusing on performance related to the student outcomes.

Possible question: “Where do you collect the data that is evidence of student

learning?”

4. Systematic data collection ensuring coverage of each student outcome for the given

student cohort. Possible request: “Describe how the data being presented were

collected.”

5. Data collection and analysis providing information that enables faculty to identify

superior performance and opportunities for improvement related to the outcomes.

Possible question: “I see X% of your students have attained outcome Y. Were there

any notable positive or negative aspects of the students’ performance?”

6. An evaluation process clearly communicating to program faculty opportunities for

improvement in student learning. Possible request: “Describe how the proposed

actions improved student learning (or are anticipated to improve student learning)

related to the enhancement opportunities identified.

30

Module 5: Applying the Criteria You have reviewed many of the fundamentals of the ABET Accreditation Process. Now, you

will apply what you have learned in a series of exercises and in checks for understanding.

A. CRITERIA APPLICATION BASICS

ABET accredits educational programs leading to degrees. (ABET does NOT accredit

institutions, departments, or degrees.)

ABET defines an educational program as an integrated, organized experience that culminates in

the awarding of a degree. The program will have program educational objectives, student

outcomes, a curriculum, faculty, and facilities.

ABET does not dictate program names to an institution.

You can find a thorough explanation of the above in the Accreditation Policy and Procedure

Manual, Section II.E.

B. UNDERSTANDING THE CRITERIA

Using the Criteria to evaluate a program’s compliance begins with understanding the Criteria.

ABET criteria are based on the principles of continuous quality improvement. General Criteria

cover the following areas of an educational program:

Students

Program Educational Objectives

Student Outcomes

Continuous Improvement

Curriculum

Faculty

Facilities

Institutional Support

ASCE may also have additional criteria covering minimum standards for the program discipline

you will be evaluating. These are called “Program Criteria.” Note, there no longer is a Criterion

9, Program Criteria, in the General Criteria.

31

C. COMMON ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH EACH

CRITERION

The ABET Criteria are minimum standards you apply with judgment. Over the years, ABET has

identified common issues that may surface as you review a program’s Self-Study and make

observations during a visit for evidence of compliance.

The issues listed below for each criterion area are not exhaustive. You may identify additional

issues as you review the Self-Study. Additionally, some issues listed here may not by themselves

represent a shortcoming relative to the criteria, but rather may indicate a need to seek additional

information in order to determine whether there is a shortcoming. Remember each shortcoming

must refer to specific requirements in the criteria that are not fully met or potentially may not be

met in the future.

Students

Problems with student advising, including ineffective or inconsistent advising and a lack of

understanding of curricular requirements, especially if many options are available.

Ineffective monitoring, including no documentation of course substitutions or missing

prerequisites.

Problems with transfer process, including no documentation on acceptability of transfer credits.

Program Educational Objectives

Program educational objectives are not published or readily accessible to the public.

Program educational objectives are not related to institutional mission or are inconsistent with the

mission.

Program educational objectives are not consistent with the needs of the program’s various

constituencies.

Program educational objectives do not describe what graduates are expected to attain within a few

years after graduation.

There is no indication as to who are the program’s constituents.

There is no evidence the needs of the program’s constituents have been considered in the

formulation of the program’s educational objectives.

There is no process to periodically review and revise the program educational objectives.

32

There is no evidence of constituency involvement in the periodic review and revision of program

educational objectives.

Student Outcomes

Student outcomes are stated such that attainment is not measurable. (Note: Having student

outcomes whose attainment is not measurable is not by itself a violation of any criterion, but if

attainment of an outcome is not measurable then the extent to which it is attained may not be

appropriately evaluated, as required in Criterion 4.)

There is missing or incomplete justification as to how the student outcomes prepare graduates to

attain the program educational objectives.

The student outcomes do not reflect what the students should know and be able to do at the time

of graduation

There is no process to periodically review and revise the student outcomes. (ASAC, CAC, ETAC

only)

Continuous Improvement

Processes

The assessment and evaluation processes are not documented.

The program cannot demonstrate the processes do what they claim.

The assessment, evaluation, and improvement cycle is not complete.

Assessment

Indicators of student performance have not been defined and/or no a priori level of student

performance has been established. (Although there is no criteria requirement for performance

indicators or a priori levels of performance, without these or something equivalent it may be

difficult to appropriately evaluate the extent to which student outcomes are attained, and

additional information may be needed to determine the appropriateness of the evaluation process

for outcomes attainment.)

The program uses only anecdotal results (versus measured results).

The program relies only on course grades as assessment for one or more student outcomes. There

are many factors, rarely all relating to a single student outcome for the program, used to

determine a course grade. Thus the level of granularity of course grades relative to student

outcomes is almost always too coarse for course grades to be used as reliable indicators for

attainment of specific student outcomes.

There is an over-reliance on student self-assessment (e.g., surveys) as opposed to assessment

methods based on actual student performance. As a rule, student self-assessment of outcomes

33

attainment is considered much less reliable than attainment data from actual student performance

relative to each outcome.

Assessment data are being collected for only some outcomes

Evaluation

The data collected are not analyzed and used as input to a program improvement process.

The continuous improvement process appears to ignore evidence students are not attaining the

student outcomes at the expected level of student performance.

The evaluation of data does not provide the information needed to make program improvements.

Results

Program improvement plans are developed but not implemented.

There is no documentation of how the results of assessment and evaluation processes are used to

determine needed program improvements.

Results of the evaluation of student outcomes are not used to make needed improvements to the

student outcomes.

There is no evidence improvement efforts are being assessed and evaluated.

Keep in Mind: You do not have to be an expert on assessment. The program must provide

evidence that it has a working and effective system in place. Note, outcomes and continuous

improvement are linked closely together.

Curriculum

A program’s curriculum provides the foundation for entry into the profession. The curriculum

criterion varies among the commissions so the following issues related to this criterion may not

all be applicable to your commission.

Curriculum fails to meet credit hour requirements (if specified by criterion)

Quality of the culminating or integrating experience, comprehensive project, capstone or major

design experience (if required by the criterion)

No culminating experience

Several courses with elements of a comprehensive project but not identified as the culminating

experience

Multiple culminating courses or courses taught by different instructors that do not all satisfy the

requirements of the criteria

34

Culminating design experience not addressing multiple constraints and appropriate standards.

(EAC only)

Faculty

Insufficient number to support concentrations, electives, etc. or to maintain continuity and

stability

Poor faculty morale affecting the program

Lack of professional development

Excessive workloads

Retention / turnover rate

Heavy reliance on temporary faculty appointments or adjuncts, potentially jeopardizing program

stability

Insufficient responsibility and authority to improve the program

Facilities

Insufficient space

Overcrowded laboratories and classrooms

Laboratories – unsafe conditions, essential equipment inoperable, or lack of modern

instrumentation

Lack of software / hardware needed to support the curriculum

Institutional Support

Unstable leadership affecting programs

Dean and/or program head positions open or filled by interim appointments for an extended

period

Frequent turnover of university administration and unit leadership

Inadequate operating budget affecting acquisition and maintenance of laboratories and

appropriate equipment, faculty salaries, promotions, and professional development, or hiring and

retention of faculty and staff

Insufficient support staff, including teaching assistants, technicians for instructional laboratories,

machine shops, and laboratory services or administrative / clerical staff

35

D. THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

Pre-Visit

Using the Program Evaluator Worksheet and Program Evaluator Visit Report specific to your

commission, you should be able to make a preliminary evaluation of the program based on your

review of the program’s Self-Study. You should make a list of those issues requiring further

investigation on site and discuss these with your team chair.

Please Note: Your draft visit plan should detail with whom you will visit on site to resolve any

issues with program compliance with criteria that are not answered to your satisfaction in the

Self-Study Report.

On Site

Once on site, you may revise your evaluation after conducting interviews with faculty members,

students, and administrators; reviewing documentation; and visiting facilities. You will share

your findings with your team members at team meetings on Sunday and Monday nights. This

will assist you in refining your recommended action. At the conclusion of the visit, you will

provide your team chair with the recommended action for your program and an Exit Statement to

support that action.

Post-Visit

The team chair develops the Draft Statement to the institution by combining and editing the

program exit statements from the program evaluators and adding material that applies to the

institution as a whole. Two editors and ABET’s headquarters’ staff review the Draft Statement

for adherence to standards and consistency with other statements. It is then sent to the institution,

which has 30 days to respond. The team chair uses the response from the institution to prepare

the Final Statement, which is edited again and then provided to the full commission for action. In

preparing the Final Statement, the team chair may consult with the program evaluators as needed

to determine whether there are any changes to the recommended accreditation action because of

the institution’s actions since the visit. Final accreditation decisions are made at the Summer

Commission Meeting in July.

E. EVALUATING A PROGRAM’S COMPLIANCE

WITH THE CRITERIA

To decide if a program complies with each criterion and to recommend an accreditation action,

follow these steps:

Identify issues by criterion. Remember you may find issues not listed in the Common Issues

Associated with Each Criterion section above.

36

Determine the appropriate finding.

Select the key term that applies for the finding. Base your decisions on the criteria, NOT on your

opinion. Consider the resulting recommended action. Is it consistent with the nature of the

shortcoming?

Explain each concern, weakness, and deficiency in relation to the specific criterion using wording

consistent with the definition of the shortcoming.

Recommend the accreditation action. Prior to the site visit, your team chair will ask you where

the program stands in overall compliance to ABET Criteria. Based on your preliminary review,

you will select one of the following potential actions as described in the Accreditation Policy and

Procedure Manual, Section II.G.12. This preliminary judgment may be revisited after you gather

more information during the campus site visit. Your available accreditation actions include:

o Next General Review (NGR)

o Interim Report (IR)

o Interim Visit (IV)

o Report Extended (RE)

o Visit Extended (VE)

o Show Cause Report (SCR)

o Show Cause Visit (SCV)

o Show Cause Extended (SE)

o Not to Accredit (NA)

o Terminate (T)

In The Accreditation Process, you read about Levels of Compliance, statements of compliance,

concern, weakness, and deficiency, as well as observations with regard to your findings when

evaluating a program. You can also find these in the Accreditation Policy and Procedure Manual,

Section II.G.9.a.(2).

General Review Terminology vs. Action

If the evidence supports a program Weakness for a given criterion, you must recommend either

an Interim Report or an Interim Visit action (if there is no Deficiency). Note, there is no

difference in severity for the IR and IV actions. The only difference is whether the adequacy of

the corrective action(s) can be determined based on a written report (with appropriate supporting

documentation), or whether a visit is required in order to assess the adequacy of the action(s).

37

If the evidence supports a program Deficiency for a given criterion, you must recommend a

Show Cause action if this is a re-review or a Not-to-Accredit action if this is an initial

review. Also, note Not-to-Accredit action can result from a show cause visit.

Please refer to chart below for reference:

Actions NGR IR IV SC NA

Definitions Next General

Review

Interim

Report Interim Visit

Show

Cause

Not to Accredit (only for

new programs)

Weakness? No Yes Yes — —

Deficiency? No No No Yes Yes

Duration (years) 6 2 2 2 —

F. APPLYING THE CRITERIA: CONSISTENCY

COUNTS

Accreditation actions must be consistent across all programs with similar shortcomings

(Weaknesses, Deficiencies) and across all institutions. As a PEV, it is essential you compare

your findings with those of the other programs being evaluated at the institutions and ensure

different findings do not result from similar observations. The visit team should work together to

resolve potential differences in findings for situations that are the same or very similar.

Consistency is checked throughout the ABET Accreditation Process.

G. SAMPLE SITUATIONS

What would you decide? Try out these sample situations. You want to determine the best

response given the information you are given.

Situation #1

You are a part of a team evaluating five programs at Bay State University. Four of the five

programs do not have their educational objectives published anywhere. As a result, the team

determines these four programs do not comply with the program educational objectives criterion,

and the team agrees to give those programs a deficiency with respect to this criterion. However,

the program you are evaluating has its program educational objectives published on its website

but not in the university catalogue nor in any of the departmental promotional materials handed

out to both enrolled and prospective students.

Select the best program evaluator and team response:

38

1. The program you are evaluating is not in compliance since the objectives are not published in

each location where prospective students and the public might look for them, and there needs to

be consistency among the actions taken for different programs at the same university. Therefore,

the team should agree to give the program a deficiency.

2. The team agrees you will discuss this with the program head to try to resolve the issues before the

team leaves the site. If the response of the program satisfactorily resolves the problem, you will

not report it in the Exit Statement or exit meeting.

3. The program is in partial compliance with the criterion but lacks the strength of full compliance

and the team agrees to give the program a weakness.

4. Since the objectives are published someplace and the criterion is silent on where the program

educational objectives need to be published, the program evaluator should consider this as a

concern at most and perhaps not mention it at all to the team.

Answer Key

1. This would not be appropriate because the criterion does not require the objectives be published

in all documents related to the program. Further, consistency among the program actions is not an

issue; different actions for different programs are appropriate if the characteristics that are the

basis for a decision are different.

2. This is not appropriate because all the relevant facts are known, and it is not appropriate to leave

without making decisions on all issues relative to the criteria.

3. This may be the best alternative, although if there is evidence the program’s website is the most-

referenced source of information about the program, then a Concern could be appropriate.

4. This could be appropriate if the website is clearly the primary source of information about the

program for prospective and current students. However, it should be mentioned to the team in any

case, especially given the other programs do not publish their objectives anywhere.

Note: It is not necessary the program educational objectives be published in every document

about the program, but they should be included in all documents that are readily used by the

public and by current and prospective students to obtain information about the program.

Situation #2

You are evaluating a program and its Self-Study indicates a significant portion of the student

outcomes assessment data will be made available during the site visit. Once on site, you find

these materials are neatly compiled statistical results of several assessment instruments – recent

teaching evaluations, an alumni survey, and employer interviews. These are claimed to support

39

the Continuous Improvement Criterion as evidence of an assessment process with documented

results.

Select the best program evaluator response:

1. Review the materials and identify trends in the responses that would suggest appropriate ways to

improve the program you are visiting; report these to the program chair.

2. Request the program provide an executive summary of the results, before you depart from the

site..

3. Request additional documentation of how the results of the surveys are applied in program

improvement. If such evidence is not available, discuss with the team chair and other team

members the option of citing the program as being deficient with respect to the Continuous

Improvement Criterion, as assessment results are not utilized for the continuous improvement of

the program. Suggest to the program chair that direct assessment of student work may provide the

most objective form of student outcomes assessment.

4. Tell the team chair the program will be cited for a Deficiency with respect to the criterion and

they face a probable Show Cause recommended action.

Answer Key

1. The program evaluator is not expected to engage in data analysis. It is up to the program faculty

members to make the case for their claims.

2. This approach may seem appropriate on the surface, but the most important issue in this case is

how the data are used. (See next option.)

3. This is the best first step. The program evaluator may find the program has used the data in some

way, but has not documented it.

4. This would be an appropriate action if the evaluator determines this is all that was done, there was

no serious attempt to use the data, and the faculty and program chair did not seem to be

committed to using the data in any manner. However, the recommended action should not be

mentioned explicitly.

Situation #3

The program you are visiting has in its Educational Objectives the program’s ability to prepare

its undergraduates for successful careers both in the traditional chemical process industry and in

the novel field of microelectronics. The faculty member’s CVs, in the Self-Study, indicate that

none of the faculty has expertise in the microelectronics area. After the faculty interviews, you

confirm this is the case and the faculty member in charge of teaching the advanced senior-level

course in micro-electronics processing has been learning the course material on the fly from a

new textbook in the area. Interviews with the students provide evidence the faculty member

teaching the microelectronics processing course is a favorite instructor. Students like the course

and find the material to be very easy. Consultation with the program head suggests the course

40

content has very little rigor for a senior-level course. You conclude the evidence indicates

coverage of microelectronics is weak at best.

Select the best Program Evaluator response:

1. As the Program Evaluator, you encourage the chairperson either to remove the objective from the

published information or to provide the faculty with development opportunities to enhance their

expertise in the microelectronics field. In the meantime, the program is cited with a weakness

because of the lack of strong compliance with the Faculty Criterion: The faculty . . . must have

the competencies to cover all of the curricular areas of the program. The faculty . . . must ensure

the proper guidance of the program and its evaluation and development.

2. In your Exit Statement, cite a deficiency for the Faculty Criterion and suggest that the

administration provide funds for hiring additional faculty members to provide expertise in the

microelectronics field.

3. You commend the chairperson for the program’s attempts at providing innovation in its

Educational Objectives. No weaknesses, concerns, or deficiencies need be cited.

4. Report, with respect to the Curriculum Criterion, a concern about the microelectronics

curriculum.

Answer Key

1. This may be the best response if the program evaluator believes the faculty member who is

teaching the course is committed and capable of developing the needed expertise quickly, with

the proper support. However, care should be taken to avoid appearing to prescribe any solution to

the problem.

2. This is an inappropriate response unless the program evaluator determines there are other factors,

such as local industry and/or the school administration, demanding the microelectronics option be

provided. However, care should be taken to avoid appearing to prescribe a solution to the

problem.

3. This is an unacceptable option in view of the findings of the program evaluator.

4. This is an unacceptable response in two ways. First, there is no explanation of the basis for this

concern. Second, it ignores the issue of faculty expertise as required by the Faculty Criterion and

the need for this emphasis in the program (constituency support indicated through Program

Educational Objectives Criterion).

41

Module 6: The PEV Appraisal Process

You are a Program Evaluator because you have met a set of minimum qualifications and exhibit

the characteristics, behaviors, and attitudes ABET has identified as vital to high-performing

Program Evaluators.

A. WHAT ARE THE ABET PEV COMPETENCIES?

The PEV Competency Model (See Appendix A) was developed with input from veteran Program

Evaluators, team chairs, and the ABET leadership. The competencies include characteristics,

behaviors, and attitudes highly regarded in the workplace as well. You will be evaluated on how

you demonstrate these core competencies, during your service as an ABET Program Evaluator.

The PEV Competencies are:

Technically Current

Effective at Communicating

Interpersonally Skilled

Team-Oriented

Professional

Organized

The ABET PEV Competency Model serves several purposes:

It informs PEVs and PEV candidates of expectations of Program Evaluators.

It serves as a tool for assessing candidates against the competencies.

It serves as a focus for training.

It provides standards for performance appraisal and enables continuous improvement feedback

for PEVs and member societies.

The PEV Competency Model has raised the bar for PEV performance and improved the

consistency of team evaluations. It is important for Program Evaluators, team chairs, member

societies, and program administrators and faculty to be familiar with the PEV Competency

Model and understand the expectations for each.

Technically Current

Demonstrates required technical credentials for the position.

42

Engaged in life-long learning and current in the field.

Demonstrates current knowledge of ABET General and Program Criteria and ABET policies and

procedures.

Effective at Communicating

Writes clearly and succinctly.

Presents concise oral briefings and easily conducts interviews.

Professional

Professional appearance.

Committed to contributing and adding value.

High integrity and ethical standards.

Follows ABET Code of Conduct

Interpersonally Skilled

Friendly and sets others at ease.

Listens and places input into context.

Open-minded and avoids personal bias.

Forthright – does not hold back what needs to be said.

Adept at pointing out strengths and shortcomings in non-confrontational manner.

Team-Oriented

Readily accepts input from team members.

Works with team members to reach consensus.

Values team success over personal success.

Organized

Is focused on meeting deadlines.

Focuses on critical issues and avoids minutia.

Displays take-charge initiative.

Takes responsibility and works under minimum supervision.

43

Summarizing, a Program Evaluator should:

be knowledgeable about current standards in his/her field; and about ABET Criteria, policies, and

procedures

have strong oral and written communication skills

be professional in appearance and actions

listen well, be open-minded and fair, and communicate clearly with the team

be a team player

do his/her part in completing required documents in a timely, complete manner

As you prepare for your visit keep these competencies in mind and allow them to guide you in

your preparation.

Please take a moment and review the Program Evaluator Competency Model. This document

contains specific information on the PEV competencies and desired proficiencies. It also covers

the application of the competencies and proficiencies, during a campus visit.

There is also a Team Chair Competency Model, (See Appendix K) which is used to select, train,

and evaluate Team Chairs.

B. WHAT IS THE PEV PERFORMANCE

APPRAISAL PROCESS?

ABET has a strong commitment to continuous improvement. Performance appraisals:

Evaluate against the PEV Competency Model.

Clearly communicate to the PEV what is expected.

Serve as a vehicle for professional development.

Serve as a tool for continuous improvement.

Your team chair, institution representatives, and fellow team members will appraise your

performance each time you are assigned to an accreditation evaluation team. Think of this as a

360-degree review designed to ensure decisions are not made on a single data point.

The performance appraisal forms are based on the competencies. Below are four forms:

Team Chair Appraisal of the Program Evaluator

44

Program Evaluator Appraisal of Program Evaluator (Peer-to-Peer)

Institution Appraisal of the Program Evaluator

Program Evaluator Appraisal of the Team Chair

These forms:

Describe how the competencies will be demonstrated during pre-visit activities and on the

campus visit.

Provide a set of clear rubrics and areas for actionable comments:

o 1 = needs improvement

o 3 = met expectations (The 3 rating is the benchmark. It is a good rating. There may not be an

opportunity to demonstrate a higher level of performance on all competencies in many/most

evaluations.)

o 5 = exceeded expectations

Once performance appraisal forms are completed and submitted, ABET compiles a report for

each program evaluator. These reports are sent to the appropriate commission executive

committee and your ABET member society. Reports will identify exceptional performers for

recognition – average score of 3 to 5 – and any program evaluators who need remediation or

removal – average score of below 3 or a 1 or 2 in any single competency area.

Both the commission executive committee and your member society will review your

performance report. If needed, your society will provide any additional input concerning your

performance. Finally, the commission executive committee will make a determination for

recognition, remediation, or removal. You will receive your performance appraisal results after

the Summer Commission Meeting. This timeline assures programs performance appraisals do

not influence accreditation actions.

45

Appendices

Appendix A: Competency Model for Program Evaluators

Program evaluators should meet the following minimum qualifications:

Demonstrated interest in improving education.

Current member (or willing to join) one of ABET’s technical and professional societies.

Formal education and degree appropriate to the field

Experience with accreditation processes and / or quality improvement processes.

Proficiency using word processing programs, spreadsheets, and PDF files.

Be willing to take the required program evaluator training courses

Meet any additional ASCE – American Society of Civil Engineers requirements as outlined

below:

Applicants must have:

A demonstrated interest in improving engineering education;

Current registration as a professional engineer in the United States;

At least 10 years of experience in the practice of engineering (e.g., in industry,

private practice, construction, engineering education);

A willingness to conduct visits and perform all associated activities in accordance

with ASCE and ABET requirements.

Membership in ASCE at the Member or Fellow grade.

For information about qualifications, training, and timeline, contact:

Dion Coward

dcoward@asce.org

703.295.6267

Experienced program evaluators interested in going on on-site reviews outside of the United

States must meet these additional qualifications:

Service as a program evaluator on at least four on-site reviews in the U.S.

Consistent record of meeting program evaluator performance expectations

46

Service as a program evaluator or team chair on at least one ABET on-site review in the last two

years

ABET Program Evaluator Competency Model

Successful program evaluators exhibit the knowledge, skills, and attitudes listed below in the

ABET Program Evaluator Competency Model and are evaluated against these competencies

after each assigned program evaluation.

Technically Current

Demonstrates required technical credentials for the position

Engaged in lifelong learning and current in their field

Able to apply technical knowledge to ascertain the level of conformance to program accreditation

requirements

Remains current in accreditation procedures and requirements

Effective at Communicating

Easily conducts face-to-face interviews

Writes clearly and succinctly

Presents focused, concise oral briefings

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

Interpersonally Skilled

Friendly and sets others at ease

Listens and places input into context

Remains open-minded and avoids personal bias

Forthright, doesn’t hold back what needs to be said

Adept at pointing out strengths and weaknesses in nonconfrontational manner

47

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

Team-Oriented

Readily accepts input from team members

Works with team members to reach consensus

Values team success over personal success

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

Professional

Conveys professional appearance and demeanor

Is committed to contributing and adding value to the evaluation process

Considered a person with high integrity and ethical standards

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 code of conduct at all times

Organized

Is focused on meeting deadlines

Focuses on critical issues and avoids minutia

Displays take-charge initiative

Takes responsibility and works under minimum supervision

48

Formulates preliminary program strengths and weakness assessment based upon review of

materials supplied 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

49

Appendix B: Training Mentors

SELECTION, QUALIFICATIONS, TRAINING,

AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Mentoring is the act of helping another learn.

From Managers as Mentors: Building Partnerships for Learning, Chip R. Bell

A Training Mentor is an experienced program evaluator assigned by an ABET member society

to a Program Evaluator Candidate (PEVC) to guide that candidate through the training process.

Training Mentor Selection

Training Mentors are nominated by the member society each fall. Nominations are reviewed by

the Accreditation Council Training Committee for currency and performance history. The

Training Committee also estimates the number of Training Mentors likely to be needed by the

member society. Any potential issues are discussed with the member society liaison. Otherwise,

the nominees are notified of their selection for training as a Training Mentor for the next training

cycle.

Minimum Qualifications for Mentor Selection

To ensure that all Training Mentors who are nominated are current in their experience with the

ABET criteria, policies and procedures, the Mentor must:

1. have participated in an accreditation review visit within the two most recent accreditation cycles;

AND

2. have received ratings of 3 or greater on all competencies on recent visits.

Training Mentor Capabilities

Program Evaluator Candidates will get the most out of their learning experiences when paired

with a Training Mentor who models the Program Evaluator competencies and represents the

organization well. Training Mentors should possess the following knowledge, skills, and

capabilities:

Able to model Program Evaluator Competencies (technically current, effective communicator,

interpersonally skilled, team oriented, professional, organized).

Able to apply experience as a PEV to answer questions for PEVC before, during, and

immediately after training.

50

Be current in and able to apply knowledge of outcomes based accreditation as well as

accreditation processes, procedures, and requirements.

Demonstrates a flexible style which facilitates different learning styles as well as backgrounds

and experiences (i.e. industry versus academia).

Able to bring experiences as Team Chair or Program Evaluator to help the PEVC learn how to

make appropriate judgments which represent ABET and member societies well.

Able to build trust and mutual respect in order to provide supportive relationship with PEVC.

Able to help PEVC understand roles and responsibilities of team members, team chair, and the

importance of being a team player.

Represents ABET and member societies well.

Shows professional respect for team chairs, member society liaisons, volunteers, and ABET staff.

Upholds ABET Code of Conduct at all time.

ABET Training Mentor Responsibilities

The Training Mentor plays a very important role in the learning cycle of the PEVC. The Training

Mentor is an advisor and resource to the PEVC before, during and immediately after Program

Evaluator training.

The Training Mentor responsibilities begin once the PEVC has been selected and notified of the

requirements for training. Following are the detailed responsibilities.

Online Training (Pre-work)

With regard to the required online training, Training Mentors must:

make contact with the PEVC in a timely manner after assignment.

be available to answer any questions regarding the online training (pre-work for the Face-to-Face

Training)

be familiar with the pre-work content and requirements

make contact with PEVC if pre-work deliverables have not been received three weeks prior to the

Face-to-Face Training.

discuss the PEVC’s preparation for training and readiness for a visit with their member society

liaison.

51

Face-to-Face Training

After the PEVC attends the Face-to-Face Training, the Training Mentor will debrief and

reinforce key learning from the training.

Training Mentor Training

One webinar will be held each year for selected Training Mentors.

All Training Mentors must participate in the webinar that describes the training process, the roles

and responsibilities of the Training Mentor, and answers questions the Training Mentors have

regarding the training process and their role.

52

Appendix C: Criteria for Crediting Engineering Programs

Effective for Reviews During the 2016-2017 Accreditation

Cycle

Incorporates all changes approved by the

ABET

Board of Delegates Engineering Area Delegation

as of

October 16, 2015

Engineering Accreditation Commission

ABET

415 N. Charles Street Baltimore,

MD 21201

Telephone: 410-347-7700 Fax: 443-552-3644

E-mail: accreditation@abet.org Website: www.abet.org

E001 10/20/2015

2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs

ii

Copyright © 2015 ABET Printed in the United States of America.

All rights reserved. No part of these criteria may be reproduced in any form or by any means without written permission from the publisher.

Published by: ABET

415 N. Charles Street Baltimore, MD 21201

Requests for further information about ABET, its accreditation process, or other activities may be addressed to the Director, Accreditation Operations, ABET, 415 N. Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21201 or to accreditation@abet.org.

2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

GENERAL CRITERIA FOR BACCALAUREATE LEVEL PROGRAMS 2 Students 3 Program Educational Objectives 3 Student Outcomes 3 Continuous Improvement 4 Curriculum 4 Faculty 4 Facilities 5 Institutional Support 5

GENERAL CRITERIA FOR MASTER’S LEVEL PROGRAMS 5

PROGRAM CRITERIA 8 Aerospace Engineering 8 Agricultural Engineering 8 Architectural Engineering 9 Bioengineering and Biomedical Engineering 10 Biological Engineering 10 Chemical, Biochemical, Biomolecular Engineering 11 Civil Engineering 11 Construction Engineering 12 Electrical, Computer, Communication(s), and Telecommunication(s) Engineering 12 Engineering, General Engineering, Engineering Physics, and Engineering Science 13 Engineering Management 14 Engineering Mechanics 14 Environmental Engineering 15 Fire Protection Engineering 15 Geological Engineering 16 Industrial Engineering 17 Manufacturing Engineering 17 Materials, Metallurgical, and Ceramics Engineering 18 Mechanical Engineering 18 Mining Engineering 19 Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering 19 Nuclear and Radiological Engineering 20 Ocean Engineering 20 Optics and Photonic 21 Petroleum Engineering 21 Software Engineering 22 Surveying Engineering 22 Systems Engineering 23

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CRITERIA 24

2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs

2

Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs

Effective for Reviews during the 2016-2017 Accreditation Cycle

Definitions

While ABET recognizes and supports the prerogative of institutions to adopt and use the terminology of their choice, it is necessary for ABET volunteers and staff to have a consistent understanding of terminology. With that purpose in mind, the Commissions will use the following basic definitions:

Program Educational Objectives – 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.

Student Outcomes – Student outcomes describe what students are expected to know and be able to do by the time of graduation. These relate to the skills, knowledge, and behaviors that students acquire as they progress through the program.

Assessment – Assessment is one or more processes that identify, collect, and prepare data to evaluate the attainment of student outcomes. Effective assessment uses relevant direct, indirect, quantitative and qualitative measures as appropriate to the outcome being measured. Appropriate sampling methods may be used as part of an assessment process.

Evaluation – Evaluation is one or more processes for interpreting the data and evidence accumulated through assessment processes. Evaluation determines the extent to which student outcomes are being attained. Evaluation results in decisions and actions regarding program improvement.

This document contains three sections:

The first section includes important definitions used by all ABET commissions.

The second section contains the General Criteria for Baccalaureate Level Programs that must be satisfied by all programs accredited by the Engineering Accreditation Commission of ABET and the General Criteria for Masters Level Programs that must be satisfied by those programs seeking advanced level accreditation.

The third section contains the Program Criteria that must be satisfied by certain programs. The applicable Program Criteria are determined by the technical specialties indicated by the title of the program. Overlapping requirements need to be satisfied only once.

----------------------------- These criteria are intended to assure quality and to foster the systematic pursuit of improvement in the quality of engineering education that satisfies the needs of constituencies in a dynamic and competitive environment. It is the responsibility of the institution seeking accreditation of an engineering program to demonstrate clearly that the program meets the following criteria.

I. GENERAL CRITERIA FOR BACCALAUREATE LEVEL PROGRAMS

All programs seeking accreditation from the Engineering Accreditation Commission of ABET must demonstrate that they satisfy all of the following General Criteria for Baccalaureate Level Programs.

2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs

3

Criterion 1. Students

Student performance must be evaluated. Student progress must be monitored to foster success in attaining student outcomes, thereby enabling graduates to attain program educational objectives. Students must be advised regarding curriculum and career matters.

The program must have and enforce policies for accepting both new and transfer students, awarding appropriate academic credit for courses taken at other institutions, and awarding appropriate academic credit for work in lieu of courses taken at the institution. The program must have and enforce procedures to ensure and document that students who graduate meet all graduation requirements.

Criterion 2. Program Educational Objectives

The program must have published program educational objectives that are consistent with the mission of the institution, the needs of the program’s various constituencies, and these criteria. There must be a documented, systematically utilized, and effective process, involving program constituencies, for the periodic review of these program educational objectives that ensures they remain consistent with the institutional mission, the program’s constituents’ needs, and these criteria.

Criterion 3. Student Outcomes

The program must have documented student outcomes that prepare graduates to attain the program educational objectives.

Student outcomes are outcomes (a) through (k) plus any additional outcomes that may be articulated by the program.

(a) an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering

(b) an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data

(c) an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability

(d) an ability to function on multidisciplinary teams (e) an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems (f) an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility (g) an ability to communicate effectively

(h) the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context

(i) a recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning (j) a knowledge of contemporary issues

(k) an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.

2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs

4

Criterion 4. Continuous Improvement

The program must regularly use appropriate, documented processes for assessing and evaluating the extent to which the student outcomes are being attained. The results of these evaluations must be systematically utilized as input for the continuous improvement of the program. Other available information may also be used to assist in the continuous improvement of the program.

Criterion 5. Curriculum

The curriculum requirements specify subject areas appropriate to engineering but do not prescribe specific courses. The faculty must ensure that the program curriculum devotes adequate attention and time to each component, consistent with the outcomes and objectives of the program and institution. The professional component must include:

(a) one year of a combination of college level mathematics and basic sciences (some with experimental experience) appropriate to the discipline. Basic sciences are defined as biological, chemical, and physical sciences.

(b) one and one-half years of engineering topics, consisting of engineering sciences and engineering design appropriate to the student's field of study. The engineering sciences have their roots in mathematics and basic sciences but carry knowledge further toward creative application. These studies provide a bridge between mathematics and basic sciences on the one hand and engineering practice on the other. 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 these stated needs.

(c) a general education component that complements the technical content of the curriculum and is consistent with the program and institution objectives.

Students must be prepared for engineering practice through a curriculum culminating in a major design experience based on the knowledge and skills acquired in earlier course work and incorporating appropriate engineering standards and multiple realistic constraints.

One year is the lesser of 32 semester hours (or equivalent) or one-fourth of the total credits required for graduation.

Criterion 6. Faculty

The program must demonstrate that the faculty members are of sufficient number and

2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs

5

they have the competencies to cover all of the curricular areas of the program. There must be sufficient faculty to accommodate adequate levels of student-faculty interaction, student advising and counseling, university service activities, professional

development, and interactions with industrial and professional practitioners, as well as employers of students.

The program faculty must have appropriate qualifications and must have and demonstrate sufficient authority to ensure the proper guidance of the program and to develop and implement processes for the evaluation, assessment, and continuing improvement of the program. The overall competence of the faculty may be judged by such factors as education, diversity of backgrounds, engineering experience, teaching effectiveness and experience, ability to communicate, enthusiasm for developing more effective programs, level of scholarship, participation in professional societies, and licensure as Professional Engineers.

Criterion 7. Facilities

Classrooms, offices, laboratories, and associated equipment must be adequate to support attainment of the student outcomes and to provide an atmosphere conducive to learning. Modern tools, equipment, computing resources, and laboratories appropriate to the program must be available, accessible, and systematically maintained and upgraded to enable students to attain the student outcomes and to support program needs. Students must be provided appropriate guidance regarding the use of the tools, equipment, computing resources, and laboratories available to the program.

The library services and the computing and information infrastructure must be adequate to support the scholarly and professional activities of the students and faculty.

Criterion 8. Institutional Support

Institutional support and leadership must be adequate to ensure the quality and continuity of the program.

Resources including institutional services, financial support, and staff (both administrative and technical) provided to the program must be adequate to meet program needs. The resources available to the program must be sufficient to attract, retain, and provide for the continued professional development of a qualified faculty. The resources available to the program must be sufficient to acquire, maintain, and operate infrastructures, facilities, and equipment appropriate for the program, and to provide an environment in which student outcomes can be attained.

II. GENERAL CRITERIA FOR MASTER’S LEVEL AND INTEGRATED BACCALAUREATE- MASTER’S LEVEL ENGINEERING PROGRAMS

2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs

6

Programs seeking accreditation at the master’s level from the Engineering Accreditation

Commission of ABET must demonstrate that they satisfy the following criteria,

including all of the aspects relevant to integrated baccalaureate-master’s programs or

stand-alone master’s programs, as appropriate.

2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs

7

Criteria Applicable to Integrated Baccalaureate-Master’s Level Engineering Programs

Engineering programs that offer integrated baccalaureate-master’s programs must meet

all of the General Criteria for Baccalaureate Level Programs and the Program Criteria

applicable to the program name, regardless of whether students in these programs

receive both baccalaureate and master’s degrees or only master’s degrees during their

programs of study. In addition, these programs must meet all of the following criteria.

If any students are admitted into the master’s portion of the combined program without

having completed the integrated baccalaureate portion, they must meet the criteria

given below.

Criteria Applicable to all Engineering Programs Awarding Degrees at the Master’s Level

Students and Curriculum

The master’s program must have and enforce procedures for verifying that each student

has completed a set of post-secondary educational and professional experiences that:

a) Supports the attainment of student outcomes of Criterion 3 of the general criteria for

baccalaureate level engineering programs, and

b) Includes at least one year of math and basic science (basic science includes the

biological, chemical, and physical sciences), as well as at least one-and-one-half years

of engineering topics and a major design experience that meets the requirements of

Criterion 5 of the general criteria for baccalaureate level engineering programs.

If the student has graduated from an EAC of ABET accredited baccalaureate program,

the presumption is that items (a) and (b) above have been satisfied.

The master’s level engineering program must have and enforce policies and procedures

ensuring that a program of study with specific educational goals is developed for each

student. Student performance and progress toward completion of their programs of

study must be monitored and evaluated. The program must have and enforce

procedures to ensure and document that students who graduate meet all graduation

requirements.

The master’s level engineering program must require each student to demonstrate a

mastery of a specific field of study or area of professional practice consistent with the

master’s program name and at a level beyond the minimum requirements of

baccalaureate level programs.

The master’s level engineering program of study must require the completion of at least

30 semester hours (or equivalent) beyond the baccalaureate program.

Each student’s overall program of post-secondary study must satisfy the curricular

components of the baccalaureate level program criteria relevant to the master’s level

program name.

2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs

8

Program Quality

The master’s level engineering program must have a documented and operational

process for assessing, maintaining and enhancing the quality of the program.

Faculty

The master’s level engineering program must demonstrate that the faculty members are

of sufficient number and that they have the competencies to cover all of the curricular

areas of the program. Faculty teaching graduate level courses must have appropriate

educational qualifications by education or experience. The program must have

sufficient faculty to accommodate adequate levels of student-faculty interaction,

student advising and counseling, university service activities, professional

development, and interactions with industrial and professional practitioners, as well as

employers of students.

The master’s level engineering program faculty must have appropriate qualifications

and must have and demonstrate sufficient authority to ensure the proper guidance of

the program. The overall competence of the faculty may be judged by such factors as

education, diversity of backgrounds, engineering experience, teaching effectiveness and

experience, ability to communicate, level of scholarship, participation in professional

societies, and licensure.

Facilities

Means of communication with students, and student access to laboratory and other

facilities, must be adequate to support student success in the program, and to provide

an atmosphere conducive to learning. These resources and facilities must be

representative of current professional practice in the discipline. Students must have

access to appropriate training regarding the use of the resources available to them.

The library and information services, computing and laboratory infrastructure, and

equipment and supplies must be available and adequate to support the education of the

students and the scholarly and professional activities of the faculty.

Remote or virtual access to laboratories and other resources may be employed in place

of physical access when such access enables accomplishment of the program’s

educational activities.

Institutional Support

Institutional support and leadership must be adequate to ensure the quality and

continuity of the program. Resources including institutional services, financial support,

and staff (both administrative and technical) provided to the program must be adequate

to meet program needs. The resources available to the program must be sufficient to

attract, retain, and provide for the continued professional development of a qualified

faculty. The resources available to the program must be sufficient to acquire, maintain,

and operate infrastructure, facilities, and equipment appropriate for the program, and to

provide an environment in which student learning outcomes can be attained.

2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs

9

III. PROGRAM CRITERIA Each program must satisfy applicable Program Criteria (if any). Program Criteria provide the specificity needed for interpretation of the general criteria as applicable to a given discipline. Requirements stipulated in the Program Criteria are limited to the areas of curricular topics and faculty qualifications. If a program, by virtue of its title, becomes subject to two or more sets of Program Criteria, then that program must satisfy each set of Program Criteria; however, overlapping requirements need to be satisfied only once.

PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR AEROSPACE

AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS Lead Society: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include "aerospace," "aeronautical," "astronautical," or similar modifiers in their titles.

1. Curriculum

Aeronautical engineering programs must prepare graduates to have a knowledge of aerodynamics, aerospace materials, structures, propulsion, flight mechanics, and stability and control. Astronautical engineering programs must prepare graduates to have a knowledge of orbital mechanics, space environment, attitude determination and control, telecommunications, space structures, and rocket propulsion. Aerospace engineering programs or other engineering programs combining aeronautical engineering and astronautical engineering, must prepare graduates to have knowledge covering one of the areas -- aeronautical engineering or astronautical engineering as described above -- and, in addition, knowledge of some topics from the area not emphasized. Programs must also prepare graduates to have design competence that includes integration of aeronautical or astronautical topics.

2. Faculty

Program faculty must have responsibility and sufficient authority to define, revise, implement, and achieve program objectives. The program must demonstrate that faculty teaching upper-division courses have an understanding of current professional practice in the aerospace industry.

PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR AGRICULTURAL

AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS Lead Society: American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers

These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include “agricultural,” “forest,” or similar modifiers in their titles.

2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs

10

1. Curriculum

The curriculum must include mathematics through differential equations and biological and engineering sciences consistent with the program educational objectives. The curriculum must prepare graduates to apply engineering to agriculture, aquaculture, forestry, human, or natural resources.

2. Faculty

The program shall demonstrate that those faculty members teaching courses that are primarily design in content are qualified to teach the subject matter by virtue of education and experience or professional licensure.

PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR ARCHITECTURAL

AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS Lead Society: American Society of Civil Engineers

Cooperating Society: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers

These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include "architectural" or similar modifiers in their titles.

1. Curriculum

The program must demonstrate that graduates can apply mathematics through differential equations, calculus-based physics, and chemistry. The four basic architectural engineering curriculum areas are building structures, building mechanical systems, building electrical systems, and construction/construction management. Graduates are expected to reach the synthesis (design) level in one of these areas, the application level in a second area, and the comprehension level in the remaining two areas. The engineering topics required by the general criteria shall support the engineering fundamentals of each of these four areas at the specified level. Graduates are expected to discuss the basic concepts of architecture in a context of architectural design and history.

The design level must be in a context that:

a. Considers the systems or processes from other architectural engineering curricular areas,

b. Works within the overall architectural design, c. Includes communication and collaboration with other design or construction

team members, d. Includes computer-based technology and considers applicable codes and

standards, and e. Considers fundamental attributes of building performance and sustainability.

2. Faculty

The program must demonstrate that faculty teaching courses that are primarily engineering design in content are qualified to teach the subject matter by virtue of

2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs

11

professional licensure, or by education and design experience. It must also demonstrate that the majority of the faculty members teaching architectural design courses are qualified to teach the subject matter by virtue of professional licensure, or by education and design experience.

PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR BIOENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL,

AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS Lead Society: Biomedical Engineering Society

Cooperating Societies: American Ceramic Society, American Institute of Chemical Engineers,

American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include “bioengineering,” “biomedical,” or similar modifiers in their titles.

1. Curriculum The structure of the curriculum must provide both breadth and depth across the range of engineering and science topics consistent with the program educational objectives and student outcomes. The curriculum must prepare graduates with experience in:

Applying principles of engineering, biology, human physiology, chemistry, calculus-based physics, mathematics (through differential equations) and statistics;

Solving bio/biomedical engineering problems, including those associated with the interaction between living and non-living systems;

Analyzing, modeling, designing, and realizing bio/biomedical engineering devices, systems, components, or processes; and

Making measurements on and interpreting data from living systems.

PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR

BIOLOGICAL AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS

Lead Society: American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Cooperating Societies: American Academy of Environmental Engineers and Scientists,

American Ceramic Society, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, American Society of Civil Engineers,

American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Biomedical Engineering Society, CSAB, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,

Institute of Industrial Engineers, and Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society

These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include “biological,” “biological systems,” “food,” or similar modifiers in their titles with the exception of

2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs

12

bioengineering and biomedical engineering programs.

1. Curriculum

The curriculum must include mathematics through differential equations, a thorough grounding in chemistry and biology and a working knowledge of advanced biological sciences consistent with the program educational objectives. The curriculum must prepare graduates to apply engineering to biological systems.

2. Faculty

The program shall demonstrate that those faculty members teaching courses that are primarily design in content are qualified to teach the subject matter by virtue of education and experience or professional licensure.

PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR CHEMICAL, BIOCHEMICAL, BIOMOLECULAR,

AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS Lead Society: American Institute of Chemical Engineers

These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include “chemical,” “biochemical,” “biomolecular,” or similar modifiers in their titles.

1. Curriculum

The curriculum must provide a thorough grounding in the basic sciences including chemistry, physics, and/or biology, with some content at an advanced level, as appropriate to the objectives of the program. The curriculum must include the engineering application of these basic sciences to the design, analysis, and control of chemical, physical, and/or biological processes, including the hazards associated with these processes.

PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR CIVIL

AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS Lead Society: American Society of Civil Engineers

These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include "civil" or similar modifiers in their titles.

1. Curriculum The curriculum must prepare graduates to apply knowledge of mathematics through differential equations, calculus-based physics, chemistry, and at least one additional area of basic science; apply probability and statistics to address uncertainty; analyze and solve problems in at least four technical areas appropriate to civil engineering; conduct experiments in at least two technical areas of civil engineering and analyze and interpret the resulting data; design a system, component, or process in at least two civil engineering contexts; include principles of sustainability in design; explain basic

2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs

13

concepts in project management, business, public policy, and leadership; analyze issues in professional ethics; and explain the importance of professional licensure.

2. Faculty

The program must demonstrate that faculty teaching courses that are primarily design in content are qualified to teach the subject matter by virtue of professional licensure, or by education and design experience. The program must demonstrate that it is not critically dependent on one individual.

PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR CONSTRUCTION

AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS Lead Society: American Society of Civil Engineers

These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include "construction" or similar modifiers in their titles.

1. Curriculum

The program must prepare graduates to apply knowledge of mathematics through differential and integral calculus, probability and statistics, general chemistry, and calculus-based physics; to analyze and design construction processes and systems in a construction engineering specialty field, applying knowledge of methods, materials, equipment, planning, scheduling, safety, and cost analysis; to explain basic legal and ethical concepts and the importance of professional engineering licensure in the construction industry; to explain basic concepts of management topics such as economics, business, accounting, communications, leadership, decision and optimization methods, engineering economics, engineering management, and cost control.

2. Faculty The program must demonstrate that the majority of faculty teaching courses that are primarily design in content are qualified to teach the subject matter by virtue of professional licensure, or by education and design experience. The faculty must include at least one member who has had full-time experience and decision-making responsibilities in the construction industry.

PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR

ELECTRICAL, COMPUTER, COMMUNICATIONS, TELECOMMUNICATION(S) AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS

Lead Society: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Cooperating Society for Computer Engineering Programs: CSAB

These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include “electrical,” “electronic(s),” “computer,” “communication(s),” telecommunication(s), or similar modifiers in their titles.

2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs

14

1. Curriculum

The structure of the curriculum must provide both breadth and depth across the range of engineering topics implied by the title of the program.

The curriculum must include probability and statistics, including applications appropriate to the program name; mathematics through differential and integral calculus; sciences (defined as biological, chemical, or physical science); and engineering topics (including computing science) necessary to analyze and design complex electrical and electronic devices, software, and systems containing hardware and software components.

The curriculum for programs containing the modifier “electrical,” “electronic(s),” “communication(s),” or “telecommunication(s)” in the title must include advanced mathematics, such as differential equations, linear algebra, complex variables, and discrete mathematics.

The curriculum for programs containing the modifier “computer” in the title must include discrete mathematics.

The curriculum for programs containing the modifier “communication(s)” or

“telecommunication(s)” in the title must include topics in communication theory and

systems.

The curriculum for programs containing the modifier “telecommunication(s)” must

include design and operation of telecommunication networks for services such as voice,

data, image, and video transport.

PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR

ENGINEERING, GENERAL ENGINEERING, ENGINEERING PHYSICS, ENGINEERING SCIENCE,

AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS Lead Society: American Society for Engineering Education

These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include “engineering (without modifiers),” “general engineering,” “engineering physics,” or “engineering science(s),” in their titles.

There are no program-specific criteria beyond the General Criteria.

2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs

15

PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT

AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS Lead Society: Institute of Industrial Engineers

Cooperating Societies: American Institute of Chemical Engineers, American Society of Civil Engineers, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Institute of Electrical and

Electronics Engineers, Society of Manufacturing Engineers, and Society of Petroleum Engineers

These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include “management” or similar modifiers in their titles.

1. Curriculum

The curriculum must prepare graduates to understand the engineering relationships between the management tasks of planning, organization, leadership, control, and the human element in production, research, and service organizations; to understand and deal with the stochastic nature of management systems. The curriculum must also prepare graduates to integrate management systems into a series of different technological environments.

2. Faculty

The major professional competence of the faculty must be in engineering, and the faculty should be experienced in the management of engineering and/or technical activities.

PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR ENGINEERING MECHANICS

AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS Lead Society: American Society of Mechanical Engineers

These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include “mechanics” or similar modifiers in their titles.

1. Curriculum The program curriculum must require students to use mathematical and computational techniques to analyze, model, and design physical systems consisting of solid and fluid components under steady state and transient conditions.

2. Faculty

The program must demonstrate that faculty members responsible for the upper-level professional program are maintaining currency in their specialty area.

2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs

16

PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR ENVIRONMENTAL

AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS Lead Society: American Academy of Environmental Engineers and Scientists

Cooperating Societies: American Institute of Chemical Engineers, American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, American Society of Civil

Engineers, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers,

American Society of Mechanical Engineers, SAE International, and Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration

These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include "environmental," "sanitary," or similar modifiers in their titles.

1. Curriculum The curriculum must prepare graduates to apply knowledge of mathematics through differential equations, probability and statistics, calculus-based physics, chemistry (including stoichiometry, equilibrium, and kinetics), an earth science, a biological science, and fluid mechanics. The curriculum must prepare graduates to formulate material and energy balances, and analyze the fate and transport of substances in and between air, water, and soil phases; conduct laboratory experiments, and analyze and interpret the resulting data in more than one major environmental engineering focus area, e.g., air, water, land, environmental health; design environmental engineering systems that include considerations of risk, uncertainty, sustainability, life-cycle principles, and environmental impacts; and apply advanced principles and practice relevant to the program objectives. The curriculum must prepare graduates to understand concepts of professional practice, project management, and the roles and responsibilities of public institutions and private organizations pertaining to environmental policy and regulations.

2. Faculty

The program must demonstrate that a majority of those faculty teaching courses that are primarily design in content are qualified to teach the subject matter by virtue of professional licensure, board certification in environmental engineering, or by education and equivalent design experience.

PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR FIRE PROTECTION

AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS Lead Society: Society for Fire Protection Engineers

These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include “fire protection” or similar modifiers in their title.

1. Curriculum

The program must prepare graduates to have proficiency in the application of science and engineering to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public from the impacts

2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs

17

of fire. This includes the ability to apply and incorporate an understanding of the fire dynamics that affect the life safety of occupants and emergency responders and the protection of property; the hazards associated with processes and building designs; the design of fire protection products, systems, and equipment; the human response and behavior in fire emergencies; and the prevention, control, and extinguishment of fire.

2. Faculty

The program must demonstrate that faculty members maintain currency in fire protection engineering practice.

PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR GEOLOGICAL

AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS Lead Society: Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration

These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include "geological" or similar modifiers in their titles.

1. Curriculum The program must prepare graduates to have:

(1) the ability to apply mathematics including differential equations, calculus- based physics, and chemistry, to geological engineering problems; (2) proficiency in geological science topics that emphasize geologic processes and the identification of minerals and rocks; (3) the ability to visualize and solve geological problems in three and four dimensions; (4) proficiency in the engineering sciences including statics, properties/strength of materials, and geomechanics; (5) the ability to apply principles of geology, elements of geophysics, geological and engineering field methods; and (6) engineering knowledge to design solutions to geological engineering problems, which will include one or more of the following considerations: the distribution of physical and chemical properties of earth materials, including surface water, ground water (hydrogeology), and fluid hydrocarbons; the effects of surface and near-surface natural processes; the impacts of construction projects; the impacts of exploration, development, and extraction of natural resources, and consequent remediation; disposal of wastes; and other activities of society on these materials and processes, as appropriate to the program objectives.

2. Faculty

Evidence must be provided that the program’s faculty members understand professional engineering practice and maintain currency in their respective professional areas. The program’s faculty must have responsibility and authority to define, revise, implement, and achieve program objectives.

2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs

18

PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR INDUSTRIAL

AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS Lead Society: Institute of Industrial Engineers

These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include “industrial” or similar modifiers in their titles.

1. Curriculum

The curriculum must prepare graduates to design, develop, implement, and improve integrated systems that include people, materials, information, equipment and energy. The curriculum must include in-depth instruction to accomplish the integration of systems using appropriate analytical, computational, and experimental practices.

2. Faculty

Evidence must be provided that the program faculty understand professional practice and maintain currency in their respective professional areas. Program faculty must have responsibility and sufficient authority to define, revise, implement, and achieve program objectives.

PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR MANUFACTURING

AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS Lead Society: Society of Manufacturing Engineers

These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include "manufacturing" and similar modifiers in their titles.

1. Curriculum

The program must prepare graduates to have proficiency in (a) materials and manufacturing processes: ability to design manufacturing processes that result in products that meet specific material and other requirements; (b) process, assembly and product engineering: ability to design products and the equipment, tooling, and environment necessary for their manufacture; (c) manufacturing competitiveness: ability to create competitive advantage through manufacturing planning, strategy, quality, and control; (d) manufacturing systems design: ability to analyze, synthesize, and control manufacturing operations using statistical methods; and (e) manufacturing laboratory or facility experience: ability to measure manufacturing process variables and develop technical inferences about the process.

2. Faculty

The program must demonstrate that faculty members maintain currency in manufacturing engineering practice.

2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs

19

PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR

MATERIALS (1), METALLURGICAL (2), CERAMICS (3) AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS

(1,2) Lead Society for Materials and Metallurgical Engineering Programs: The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society

(3) Lead Society for Ceramics Engineering Programs: American Ceramic Society

(1) Cooperating Societies for Materials Engineering Programs: American Ceramic Society, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, and American Society of Mechanical

Engineers (2) Cooperating Society for Metallurgical Engineering Programs: Society for Mining,

Metallurgy, and Exploration

(3) Cooperating Society for Ceramics Engineering Programs: The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society

These program criteria apply to engineering programs including "materials," "metallurgical," “ceramics,” “glass”, "polymer," “biomaterials,” and similar modifiers in their titles.

1. Curriculum The curriculum must prepare graduates to apply advanced science (such as chemistry, biology and physics), computational techniques and engineering principles to materials systems implied by the program modifier, e.g., ceramics, metals, polymers, biomaterials, composite materials; to integrate the understanding of the scientific and engineering principles underlying the four major elements of the field: structure, properties, processing, and performance related to material systems appropriate to the field; to apply and integrate knowledge from each of the above four elements of the field using experimental, computational and statistical methods to solve materials problems including selection and design consistent with the program educational objectives.

2. Faculty

The faculty expertise for the professional area must encompass the four major elements of the field.

PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR MECHANICAL

AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS Lead Society: American Society of Mechanical Engineers

These program criteria will apply to all engineering programs that include "mechanical" or similar modifiers in their titles.

1. Curriculum

The curriculum must require students to apply principles of engineering, basic science, and mathematics (including multivariate calculus and differential equations); to model, analyze, design, and realize physical systems, components or processes; and prepare students to work professionally in either thermal or mechanical systems while requiring topics in each area.

2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs

20

2. Faculty

The program must demonstrate that faculty members responsible for the upper-level professional program are maintaining currency in their specialty area.

PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR MINING

AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS Lead Society: Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration

These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include "mining" or similar modifiers in their titles.

1. Curriculum

The program must prepare graduates to apply mathematics through differential equations, calculus-based physics, general chemistry, and probability and statistics as applied to mining engineering problem applications; to have fundamental knowledge in the geological sciences including characterization of mineral deposits, physical geology, structural or engineering geology, and mineral and rock identification and properties; to be proficient in statics, dynamics, strength of materials, fluid mechanics, thermodynamics, and electrical circuits; to be proficient in engineering topics related to both surface and underground mining, including: mining methods, planning and design, ground control and rock mechanics, health and safety, environmental issues, and ventilation; to be proficient in additional engineering topics such as rock fragmentation, materials handling, mineral or coal processing, mine surveying, and valuation and resource/reserve estimation as appropriate to the program objectives. The laboratory experience must prepare graduates to be proficient in geologic concepts, rock mechanics, mine ventilation, and other topics appropriate to the program objectives.

2. Faculty

Evidence must be provided that the program faculty understand professional engineering practice and maintain currency in their respective professional areas. Program faculty must have responsibility and authority to define, revise, implement, and achieve program objectives.

PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR

NAVAL ARCHITECTURE, MARINE ENGINEERING, AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS

Lead Society: Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers

These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include “naval architecture” and/or “marine engineering” or similar modifiers in their titles.

1. Curriculum

The program must prepare graduates to apply probability and statistical methods to naval architecture and marine engineering problems; to have basic knowledge of fluid

2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs

21

mechanics, dynamics, structural mechanics, materials properties, hydrostatics, and energy/propulsion systems in the context of marine vehicles and; to have familiarity with instrumentation appropriate to naval architecture and/or marine engineering.

2. Faculty

Program faculty must have sufficient curricular and administrative control to accomplish the program objectives. Program faculty must have responsibility and sufficient authority to define, revise, implement and achieve the program objectives.

PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR NUCLEAR, RADIOLOGICAL,

AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS Lead Society: American Nuclear Society

These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include “nuclear,” “radiological,” or similar modifiers in their titles.

1. Curriculum

The program must prepare the students to apply advanced mathematics, science, and engineering science, including atomic and nuclear physics, and the transport and interaction of radiation with matter, to nuclear and radiological systems and processes; to perform nuclear engineering design; to measure nuclear and radiation processes; to work professionally in one or more of the nuclear or radiological fields of specialization identified by the program.

2. Faculty

The program must demonstrate that faculty members primarily committed to the program have current knowledge of nuclear or radiological engineering by education or experience.

PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR OCEAN

AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS

Lead Society: Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers Cooperating Societies: American Society of Civil Engineers

and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include “ocean” or similar modifiers in their titles.

1. Curriculum The curriculum must prepare graduates to have the knowledge and the skills to apply the principles of fluid and solid mechanics, dynamics, hydrostatics, probability and applied statistics, oceanography, water waves, and underwater acoustics to engineering

2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs

22

problems and to work in groups to perform engineering design at the system level, integrating multiple technical areas and addressing design optimization.

2. Faculty

Program faculty must have responsibility and sufficient authority to define, revise, implement, and achieve the program objectives.

PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR OPTICAL, PHOTONIC,

AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS

Co-Lead Societies: SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering or Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers

These program criteria apply to all engineering programs that include "optical," "photonic," or similar modifiers in their titles.

1. Curriculum The structure of the curriculum must provide both breadth and depth across the range of engineering topics implied by the title of the program. The curriculum must prepare students to have knowledge of and appropriate laboratory experience in: geometrical optics, physical optics, optical materials, and optical and/or photonic devices and systems.

The curriculum must prepare students to apply principles of engineering, basic sciences, mathematics (such as multivariable calculus, differential equations, linear algebra, complex variables, and probability and statistics) to modeling, analyzing, designing, and realizing optical and/or photonic devices and systems.

2. Faculty

Faculty members who teach courses with significant design content must be qualified by virtue of design experience as well as subject matter knowledge.

PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR PETROLEUM

AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS Lead Society: Society of Petroleum Engineers

These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include "petroleum," "natural gas," or similar modifiers in their titles.

1. Curriculum

The program must prepare graduates to be proficient in mathematics through differential equations, probability and statistics, fluid mechanics, strength of materials,

2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs

23

and thermodynamics; design and analysis of well systems and procedures for drilling and completing wells; characterization and evaluation of subsurface geological formations and their resources using geoscientific and engineering methods; design and analysis of systems for producing, injecting, and handling fluids; application of reservoir engineering principles and practices for optimizing resource development and management; the use of project economics and resource valuation methods for design and decision making under conditions of risk and uncertainty.

PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR

SOFTWARE AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS

Lead Society: CSAB Cooperating Society: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include “software” or similar modifiers in their titles.

1. Curriculum

The curriculum must provide both breadth and depth across the range of engineering and computer science topics implied by the title and objectives of the program.

The curriculum must include computing fundamentals, software design and construction, requirements analysis, security, verification, and validation; software engineering processes and tools appropriate for the development of complex software systems; and discrete mathematics, probability, and statistics, with applications appropriate to software engineering.

2. Faculty The program must demonstrate that faculty members teaching core software engineering topics have an understanding of professional practice in software engineering and maintain currency in their areas of professional or scholarly specialization.

PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR SURVEYING

AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS

Lead Society: National Society for Professional Surveyors Cooperating Society: American Society of Civil Engineers

These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include "surveying" or similar modifiers in their titles.

1. Curriculum

The curriculum must prepare graduates to work competently in one or more of the following areas: boundary and/or land surveying, geographic and/or land information systems, photogrammetry, mapping, geodesy, remote sensing, and other related areas.

2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs

24

2. Faculty Programs must demonstrate that faculty members teaching courses that are primarily design in content are qualified to teach the subject matter by virtue of professional licensure or by educational and design experience.

PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR SYSTEMS

AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS

Co-Lead Societies: American Society of Mechanical Engineers, CSAB,

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Institute of Industrial Engineers,

ISA, International Council on Systems Engineering, or

SAE International

These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include “systems (without other modifiers)” in their title.

There are no program- specific criteria beyond the General Criteria.

25

2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs – Proposed Changes

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CRITERIA

The following section presents proposed changes to these criteria as approved by the ABET Board of Delegates and the Engineering Area Delegation on October 16/17, 2015, for a one-year first reading review and comment period. Comments will be considered until June 15, 2016. The ABET Board of Delegates and the Engineering Area Delegation will determine, based on the comments received and on the advice of the EAC, the content of the adopted criteria. The adopted criteria will then become effective following the ABET Board of Delegates and the Engineering Area Delegation Meetings in the fall of 2016 and will first be applied by the EAC for accreditation reviews during the 2017-18 academic year.

Comments relative to the proposed criteria changes should be addressed to: Director for Accreditation Operations, ABET, 415 N. Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21201 or to accreditation@abet.org.

26

2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs – Proposed Changes

PROPOSED REVISIONS TO

CRITERIA FOR ACCREDITING ENGINEERING PROGRAMS DEFINITIONS,

GENERAL CRITERION 3 STUDENT OUTCOMES, AND

GENERAL CRITERION 5 CURRICULUM

Background

Graduates of programs accredited by the EAC must be prepared for professional practice

of engineering, and engineering is evolving to meet continually emerging demands.

Criterion 3, Student Outcomes, as published in Criteria for Accrediting Engineering

Programs was written 20 years ago in preparation for outcomes-based education. Over a

period of several years, the EAC Criteria Committee has been engaged in a review of

Criterion 3 and has sought input from a broad variety of sources concerning skills and

attributes needed for the professional practice of engineering. Based on the input

received, the EAC has developed this proposed revision to the Criteria for Accrediting

Engineering Programs. Revisions are proposed to Criterion 3, framing student outcomes

that address relevant topic areas and moving some items into Criterion 5, Curriculum.

Definitions and explanations currently placed in Criterion 5 were moved to a revised

introductory section to the Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs after the

harmonized ABET definitions and before Section I. General Criteria for Baccalaureate

Level Programs.

Based on feedback received and the recommendation of the EAC, the

Engineering Area Delegation may decide to extend the review and

comment period for one additional year. Likewise, due to the breadth

and complexity of the proposed changes and the impact to programs

demonstrating compliance with Criteria, a phase-in implementation

period may be recommended by the EAC to the Engineering Area

Delegation.

27

2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs – Proposed Changes

Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs

Effective for Reviews during the 20XX-20YY Accreditation Cycle

Definitions

While ABET recognizes and supports the prerogative of institutions to adopt and use the terminology of their choice, it is necessary for ABET volunteers and staff to have a consistent understanding of terminology. With that purpose in mind, the Commissions will use the following basic definitions:

Program Educational Objectives – 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.

Student Outcomes – Student outcomes describe what students are expected to know and be able to do by the time of graduation. These relate to the skills, knowledge, and behaviors that students acquire as they progress through the program.

Assessment – Assessment is one or more processes that identify, collect, and prepare data to evaluate the attainment of student outcomes. Effective assessment uses relevant direct, indirect, quantitative and qualitative measures as appropriate to the outcome being measured. Appropriate sampling methods may be used as part of an assessment process.

Evaluation – Evaluation is one or more processes for interpreting the data and evidence accumulated through assessment processes. Evaluation determines the extent to which student outcomes are being attained. Evaluation results in decisions and actions regarding program improvement.

This document contains three sections:

The first section includes important definitions used by all ABET commissions.

The second section contains the General Criteria for Baccalaureate Level Programs that must be satisfied by all programs accredited by the Engineering Accreditation Commission of ABET and the General Criteria for Masters Level Programs that must be satisfied by those programs seeking advanced level accreditation.

The third section contains the Program Criteria that must be satisfied by certain programs. The applicable Program Criteria are determined by the technical specialties indicated by the title of the program. Overlapping requirements need to be satisfied only once.

-----------------------------

These criteria are intended to assure quality and to foster the systematic pursuit of

improvement in the quality of engineering education that satisfies the needs of

constituencies in a dynamic and competitive environment. It is the responsibility of the

institution seeking accreditation of an engineering program to demonstrate clearly that

the program meets the following criteria.

28

2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs – Proposed Changes

These criteria are intended to provide a framework of education that prepares graduates to enter the professional practice of engineering who are (i) able to participate in diverse multicultural workplaces; (ii) knowledgeable in topics relevant to their discipline, such as usability, constructability, manufacturability and sustainability; and (iii) cognizant of the global dimensions, risks, uncertainties, and other implications of their engineering solutions. Further, these criteria are intended to assure quality to foster the systematic pursuit of improvement in the quality of engineering education that satisfies the needs of constituencies in a dynamic and competitive environment. It is the responsibility of the institution seeking accreditation of an engineering program to demonstrate clearly that the program meets the following criteria. The Engineering Accreditation Commission of ABET recognizes that its constituents may consider certain terms to have certain meanings; however, it is necessary for the Engineering Accreditation Commission to have consistent terminology. Thus, the Engineering Accreditation Commission will use the following definitions: Basic Science – Basic sciences consist of chemistry and physics, and other biological, chemical, and physical sciences, including astronomy, biology, climatology, ecology, geology, meteorology, and oceanography. College-level Mathematics – College-level mathematics consists of mathematics above pre-calculus level. Engineering Science – Engineering sciences are based on mathematics and basic sciences but carry knowledge further toward creative application needed to solve engineering problems. Engineering Design – Engineering design is the process of devising a system, component, or process to meet desired needs, specifications, codes, and standards within constraints such as health and safety, cost, ethics, policy, sustainability, constructability, and manufacturability. It is an iterative, creative, decision-making process in which the basic sciences, mathematics, and the engineering sciences are applied to convert resources optimally into solutions. Teams – A team consists of more than one person working toward a common goal and may include individuals of diverse backgrounds, skills, and perspectives. One Academic Year – One academic year is the lesser of 32 semester credits (or equivalent) or one-fourth of the total credits required for graduation with a baccalaureate degree.

Criterion 3. Student Outcomes

The program must have documented student outcomes that prepare graduates to attain the program educational objectives.

Student outcomes are outcomes (a) through (k) plus any additional outcomes that may be articulated by the program.

(a) an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering

(b) an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data

(c) an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability

(d) an ability to function on multidisciplinary teams

(e) an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems

29

2016-2017 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs – Proposed Changes

(f) an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility

(g) an ability to communicate effectively

(h) the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context

(i) a recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning

(j) a knowledge of contemporary issues

(k) an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.

The program must have documented student outcomes. Attainment of these outcomes prepares graduates to enter the professional practice of engineering. Student outcomes are outcomes (1) through (7) plus any additional outcomes that may be articulated by the program.

1. An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems by applying

principles of engineering, science, and mathematics.

2. An ability to apply both analysis and synthesis in the engineering design process,

resulting in designs that meet desired needs.

3. An ability to develop and conduct appropriate experimentation, analyze and

interpret data, and use engineering judgment to draw conclusions.

4. An ability to communicate effectively with a range of audiences.

5. An ability to recognize ethical and professional responsibilities in engineering

situations and make informed judgments, which must consider the impact of

engineering solutions in global, economic, environmental, and societal contexts.

6. An ability to recognize the ongoing need for additional knowledge and locate,

evaluate, integrate, and apply this knowledge appropriately.

7. An ability to function effectively on teams that establish goals, plan tasks, meet

deadlines, and analyze risk and uncertainty.

Criterion 5. Curriculum

The curriculum requirements specify subject areas appropriate to engineering but do not prescribe specific courses. The faculty must ensure that the program curriculum devotes adequate attention and time to each component, consistent with the outcomes and objectives of the program and institution. The professional component must include:

(a) one year of a combination of college level mathematics and basic sciences (some with experimental experience) appropriate to the discipline. Basic sciences are defined as biological, chemical, and physical sciences.

(b) one and one-half years of engineering topics, consisting of engineering sciences and engineering design appropriate to the student's field of study. The engineering sciences have their roots in mathematics and basic sciences but carry knowledge

further toward creative application. These studies provide a bridge between mathematics and basic sciences on the one hand and engineering practice on the other. 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 these stated needs.

(c) a general education component that complements the technical content of the curriculum and is consistent with the program and institution objectives.

Students must be prepared for engineering practice through a curriculum culminating in a major design experience based on the knowledge and skills acquired in earlier course work and incorporating appropriate engineering standards and multiple realistic constraints.

One year is the lesser of 32 semester hours (or equivalent) or one-fourth of the total credits required for graduation.

The curriculum requirements specify subject areas appropriate to engineering but do not prescribe specific courses. The curriculum must support attainment of the student outcomes and must include: (a) one academic year of a combination of college-level mathematics and basic sciences (some with experimental experience) appropriate to the program. (b) one and one-half academic years of engineering topics, consisting of engineering sciences and engineering design appropriate to the program and utilizing modern engineering tools. (c) a broad education component that includes humanities and social sciences, complements the technical content of the curriculum, and is consistent with the program educational objectives. Students must be prepared to enter the professional practice of engineering through a curriculum culminating in a major design experience based on the knowledge and skills acquired in earlier course work and incorporating appropriate engineering standards and multiple constraints.

55

Appendix D: Accreditation Step by Step

An overview of the typical path that a program takesto become ABET-accredited

THE 18 MONTH ACCREDITATION PROCESS

Are you ready for Accreditation?

Read through our key documents and consider

our Eligibility Requirements.

Focus on Assessment Planning.

Begin working on your preliminary Self-Study Reportto submit for your Readiness Review

(if required).

Step 1: Complete the Readiness Review by November 1

Readiness Review Completed

Begin Self-Study Report

1 year

before your On-Site Visit

Collect samples of student work, syllabi, textbooks, and sample assignments.

Complete your Readiness Review (if required) by November 1.

56

Step 2: Submit your Request for Evaluation by January 31

Submit Your Request for Evaluation

Year of your On-Site Visit

Submit your Request for Evaluation (RFE) by January 31 of the year of your program’s On-Site

Visit.

We will invoice your institution for the On-Site Visit, set a visit date, and form a review team

between April and May.

Step 3: Complete and submit your Self-Study Report by July 1

Submit Self-Study Report

Attend Institutional Representatives Day

Year of your On-Site Visit

Complete and submit your Self-Study Report to us no later than July 1.

The review team assigned to your program begins reviewing your Self-Study Report.

Attend the Institutional Representatives Day. Your program’s institutional representative is

invited to meet your review team chair at this annual event, held in Baltimore, MD, in July.

57

Step 4: The On-Site Visit takes place September – December

Schedule and Prepare for the On-Site Visit.

Undergo 1-3 day On-Site Visit

On-Site Visit

Prepare for your On-Site Visit. Finalize the visit schedule, arrange student and faculty interviews,

and, finally, set up rooms with display materials for the review team. You should begin planning

and preparation months in advance.

Your On-Site Visit typically lasts three days (usually Sunday through Tuesday). It includes a

review of your materials; interviews with students, faculty, staff, and administrators; and

concludes with an exit meeting, when the team will convey its findings.

Step 5: Due Process and the Accreditation Decision

Schedule and Prepare for the On-Site Visit.

Undergo 1-3 day On-Site Visit.

1 Week After the Visit

Provide the review team with any errors of fact resulting from the exit meeting.

2-3 months after the visit

Your institution receives the Draft Statement, a formal communication of your review

team’s findings.

3-4 months after the visit

58

During the 30-Day Due Process period your institution responds to any shortcomings

identified in the Draft Statement.

July

The ABET commissions meet to decide Accreditation Actions in July. At this meeting

your program’s accreditation is discussed and determined.

By August 31

Your program is formally notified of the accreditation action via the Final Statement to

the institution.

59

Appendix E: Glossary

Accord

An agreement among the bodies responsible for accrediting specific degree programs in each of

the signatory countries. Accords recognize the substantial equivalency of programs accredited by

each of these bodies and recommends that graduates of accredited programs in any of the

signatory countries be recognized by the other countries as having met the academic

requirements for entry-level practice. Accords are intended to improve technical education

worldwide and foster the mobility of students and graduates.

Accreditation

An assurance that a program or institution meets established quality standards. In the United

States, it is a non-governmental, voluntary peer-review process.

Accreditation Council (AC)

Council composed of the chair, chair-elect, and past chair of each of the ABET accreditation

commissions, as well as a chair who leads the council itself. The Accreditation Council

formulates and recommends to the ABET Board of Directors policies and procedures regarding

ABET accreditation processes, with particular emphasis on process improvement and process

uniformity across the commissions.

Accreditation Policy and Procedure Manual (APPM)

Document that spells out the policies and procedures that govern the ABET accreditation

process, almost always used with the accreditation criteria.

Applied Science Accreditation Commission (ASAC)

The commission that accredits programs leading to professional practice utilizing science,

mathematics, and engineering concepts as a foundation for discipline-specific practice, including

the recognition, prevention, and solution of problems critical to society. Examples of these fields

include geomatics, health physics, industrial hygiene, mapping and surveying, and safety. ASAC

accredits a program at the associate’s, bachelor’s, and master’s degree levels.

Assessment

One or more processes that identify, collect, and prepare data to evaluate the attainment of

program educational objectives and student outcomes. Effective assessment uses relevant direct,

indirect, quantitative, and qualitative measures as appropriate to the objective or outcome being

measured. Appropriate sampling methods may be used as part of an assessment process.

Associate’s

An undergraduate degree that is conferred upon completion of a two-year program of study; may

be earned at community colleges, technical schools, or bachelor’s degree-granting colleges and

universities.

Associate Member Society

An organization that participates in and contributes to the ABET community but is not a full

member of ABET. Associate member societies do not nominate members for the ABET

accreditation commissions or have voting rights on the ABET Board of Directors.

60

Bachelor’s

An undergraduate degree that is conferred upon completion of a three- to five-year program of

study; may be earned at technical schools, colleges, or universities.

Capstone

A culminating course that allows students who are nearing graduation to “put together” the

knowledge and skills they have acquired in their program and apply it to a major project or

assignment.

Commission

Entities within ABET that conduct the accreditation of educational programs; established by the

Board of Directors.

Commission Executive Committee

Committee consisting of the commission officers, members-at-large, public commissioner, and

the Board Liaison.

Competency

Knowledge, skill, or ability.

Comprehensive Review

A review team examines all aspects of a program to judge compliance with criteria and policies

and to help the program in recognizing its strong and weak points. The team interviews faculty,

students, administrators, and staff; examines materials and facilities; presents orally its factual

findings to the institution leadership; and provides to the dean a copy of the Program Audit Form

(PAF) for each program reviewed.

Computing Accreditation Commission (CAC)

The commission that accredits programs leading to professional practice across the broad

spectrum of computing, computational, information, and informatics disciplines. CAC accredits

a program at the bachelor’s degree level only.

Concern

Statement that a program currently satisfies a criterion, policy, or procedure, but the potential

exists for the situation to change such that the criterion, policy, or procedure may not be

satisfied.

Continuous quality improvement (CQI)

An approach based on evaluating a product or a process and on understanding the needs and

expectations of those who use or benefit from a product or a process.

Criteria

Standard on which a judgment or decision is based.

Dean

Senior leader of an academic unit or college.

61

Deficiency

Statement that a criterion, policy, or procedure is not satisfied. The program is not in compliance

with the criterion, policy, or procedure.

Degree Level

Tier of study, also called program level.

Associate’s – An undergraduate degree that is conferred upon completion of a two-year program

of study; may be earned at community colleges, technical schools, or bachelor’s degree-granting

colleges and universities.

Bachelor’s – An undergraduate degree that is conferred upon completion of a three- to five-year

program of study; may be earned at technical schools, colleges, or universities.

Master’s – A post-graduate degree that is conferred upon completion of one to three years of

course that demonstrates a mastery or high-order overview of a specific field of study or area of

professional practice; may be earned at colleges or universities.

Display Materials

Textbooks, course syllabi; sample student work including assignment and exams, ranging in

quality from excellent through poor, and assessment materials

Draft Statement

Compilation of program exit statements and institutional section of strengths, shortcomings,

and/or observations; written by the team chair after the visit and includes the institution’s seven-

day response; sent to the institution for due process response.

Due Process Response

The institution’s changes to the draft statement. After ABET provides the institution with a draft

statement, it has 30 days to correct errors of fact in the statement and report progress in

addressing shortcomings.

Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC)

The commission that accredits programs leading to the professional practice of engineering.

EAC accredits programs at the bachelor’s and master’s degree levels.

Engineering Technology Accreditation Commission (ETAC)

The commission that accredits programs that prepare bachelor’s degree graduates for careers as

engineering technologists and associate’s degree graduates for careers as engineering

technicians. ETAC accredits programs at the associate’s and bachelor’s degree levels. In 2012,

this commission’s name was formally changed from the Technology Accreditation Commission

(TAC) to the Engineering Technology Accreditation Commission (ETAC).

Editor

Member of the commission’s executive committee who reviews and edits Draft and Final

Statements to the institution.

62

Evaluation

One or more processes for interpreting the data and evidence accumulated through assessment

practices. Evaluation determines the extent to which program educational objectives and student

outcomes are being attained. Evaluation results in decisions and actions regarding program

improvement.

Exit Meeting

The conclusion of a review visit, when the review team presents orally its factual findings about

the programs it reviewed to institution’s leadership and answers clarifying questions.

Exit Statement

Statement of program strengths, shortcomings, and/or observations that the program evaluator

reads during the exit meeting.

Final Statement

Compilation of program statements and institutional section of strengths, shortcomings, and/or

observations that incorporates institutional due process responses and is the result of a second

editing cycle; sent to the institution with the final accreditation action voted upon by the

commission.

Institution

Higher learning organization that delivers one or more educational programs leading to degrees.

Institutional Representative

A faculty member, dean, department head, or other administrator who represents an educational

program.

Interim Report (IR)

This action indicates that the program has one or more weaknesses. The weaknesses are such that

a progress report to evaluate the remedial actions that the institution has taken will be required.

This action has a typical duration of two years.

Interim Visit (IV)

This action indicates that the program has one or more weaknesses. The weaknesses are such that

an on-site review to evaluate the remedial actions that the institution has taken will be required.

This action has a typical duration of two years.

International Observer

A representative from a non-U.S. higher education organization or educational program who

attends an ABET meeting or event to learn more about ABET activities rather than to actively

participate in the meeting or event.

Master’s

A post-graduate degree that is conferred upon completion of one to three years of course that

demonstrates a mastery or high-order overview of a specific field of study or area of professional

practice; may be earned at colleges or universities.

63

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

An agreement between ABET and a peer accrediting agency. An MOU provides a structure that

guides collaboration of organizations with ABET to facilitate implementation of quality

assurance organizations in other countries during their developmental period. Typical activities

conducted under these agreements are sharing of best practices, assisting organizations in their

development of accreditation processes, and providing training workshops for staff and

volunteers. MOUs do not extend to the recognition of programs or graduates.

Member Society

One of more than two-dozen professional and technical societies that comprise the federation

known as ABET.

Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA)

An agreement among organizations that accredit academic degree programs. These are

nongovernmental agreements that recognize the substantial equivalency of the organizations’

accreditation processes and the graduates’ preparedness to begin professional practice at the

entry level. The “mutual recognition” of accrediting systems is intended to improve technical

education worldwide and foster the mobility of students and graduates.

Next General Review (NGR)

This action indicates that the program has no deficiencies or weaknesses. This action is taken

only after a comprehensive general review and has a typical duration of six years.

Not to Accredit (NA)

This action indicates that the program has deficiencies such that the program is not in

compliance with the applicable criteria. This action is usually taken only after a SCR or SCV

review or the review of a new, unaccredited program. Accreditation is not extended as a result of

this action. This is the only action can be appealed.

Observation

A comment or suggestion that does not relate directly to the accreditation action but is offered to

assist the institution in its continuing efforts to improve its programs.

Online Program

An integrated, organized experience in which both students and instructors communicate via

their computers for all coursework, culminating in the awarding of a degree.

Program

An integrated, organized experience that culminates in the awarding of a degree.

Program Area

A curricular concentration or major.

Program Educational Objectives

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.

64

Program Evaluator (PEV)

A volunteer selected by his or her member society to represent ABET on visit team. They are

professionals from academe, industry, government, and private practice who care about

sustaining their respective professions through quality education.

Program Head

Administrative leader of an educational program.

Program Level

Tier of study, also called degree level.

Associate’s – An undergraduate degree that is conferred upon completion of a two-year program

of study; may be earned at community colleges, technical schools, or bachelor’s degree-granting

colleges and universities.

Bachelor’s – An undergraduate degree that is conferred upon completion of a three- to five-year

program of study; may be earned at technical schools, colleges, or universities.

Master’s – A post-graduate degree that is conferred upon completion of one to three years of

course that demonstrates a mastery or high-order overview of a specific field of study or area of

professional practice; may be earned at colleges or universities.

Provost

Senior academic officer of an institution.

Report Extended (RE)

This action indicates that the institution has taken satisfactory remedial action with respect to

weaknesses identified in the prior IR action. This action is taken only after an IR review. This

action extends accreditation to the Next General Review and has a typical duration of either two

or four years.

Request for Approval (RFA)

An institution outside of the U.S. wishing to have programs considered for accreditation or

reaccreditation must submit to ABET a Request for Approval not later than January 31 of the

calendar year in which the review is desired. The Request for Approval indicates that a country’s

accreditation agency approves ABET’s requested visitation and evaluation of the program(s)

Request for Evaluation (RFE)

An institution wishing to have programs considered for accreditation or reaccreditation must

submit to ABET a Request for Evaluation (RFE) not later than January 31 of the calendar year in

which the review is desired. The RFE must be signed by the institutional Chief Executive Officer

(President, Chancellor, Rector, or equivalent) and must be submitted with one official transcript

of a recent graduate for each program listed on the RFE. A separate RFE must be submitted for

each commission that will review any of the institution’s programs that year. Requests for

Evaluation are submitted online.

65

Review Team

A team that reviews against the criteria and accreditation policies and procedures one or more

programs at an institution. Composed of a team chair and at least one program evaluator for each

program area, with a minimum team size of three.

Show Cause (SC)

This action indicates that a currently accredited program has one or more deficiencies.

Show Cause Extended (SE)

This action indicates that the institution has taken satisfactory remedial action with respect to all

deficiencies and weaknesses identified in the prior SC action. This action is taken only after

either a SCR or SCV review. This action typically extends accreditation to the Next General

Review and has a typical duration of either two or four years.

Show Cause Report (SCR)

This action indicates that a currently accredited program has one or more deficiencies. The

deficiencies are such that a progress report to evaluate the remedial actions that the institution

has taken will be required. This action has a typical duration of two years. This action cannot

follow a previous SC action for the same deficiency.

Show Cause Visit (SCV)

This action indicates that a currently accredited program has one or more deficiencies. The

deficiencies are such that an on-site visit to evaluate the remedial actions that the institution has

taken will be required. This action has a typical duration of two years. This action cannot follow

a previous SC action for the same deficiency.

Self-Study Report

Primary document that a program prepares to demonstrate compliance with ABET criteria. The

Self-Study Report is prepared using the Self-Study Questionnaire: Template for the Self Study.

Seven-Day Response

The opportunity for programs that have recently undergone a review visit to examine the review

team’s findings and to correct errors of fact only; extensive revisions are reserved for the due

process response period.

Shortcoming

Area of non-compliance against the criteria; any deficiency, weakness, or concern.

Society Observer

A professional staff member or volunteer from an ABET Member Society who attends an ABET

meeting or event to learn more about ABET activities rather than to actively participate in the

meeting or event.

Student Outcomes

Statements that describe what students are expected to know and be able to do by the time of

graduation. These relate to skills, knowledge, and behaviors that students acquire as they

progress through the program.

66

Student Work Examples

Actual student work, such as completed homework assignments, tests, quizzes, lab reports, or

group projects, that have been graded. The work examples should span the grade range from

excellent to poor.

Strength

Exceptionally strong, effective practice or condition. A statement that describes what was

observed, what makes it stand above the norm, and how it impacts the program positively.

Substantial Equivalency

Accreditation systems have comparable standards, outcomes, and processes, though they may

not be identical. Can also mean that a program is comparable in content and educational

experience to others, but may differ in format or method of delivery. Substantial equivalency

implies reasonable confidence that the program has prepared its graduates to begin professional

practice at the entry level.

Team Chair (TC)

A commission member, or occasionally a former commission member, appointed by the

commission’s executive committee to lead a review team.

Technology Accreditation Commission (TAC)

Terminate (T)

This action is generally taken in response to an institution’s request that accreditation be

extended for a program that is being phased out. The intent is to provide accreditation coverage

for students remaining in the program.

Training Mentor

An experienced program evaluator assigned by an ABET member society to a Program

Evaluator Candidate (PEVC) to guide that candidate through the training process.

Transcript

Official record of student coursework.

Visit Extended (VE)

This action indicates that the institution has taken satisfactory remedial action with respect to

weaknesses identified in the prior IV action. This action is taken only after an IV review. This

action extends accreditation to the Next General Review and has a typical duration of either two

or four years.

Weakness

Statement that a program lacks strength of compliance with a criterion, policy, or procedure to

ensure that the quality of the program will not be compromised. Remedial action is required to

strengthen compliance with the criterion, policy, or procedure prior to the next review.

ABET 415 North Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21201 Phone +1.410.347.7700

67

Appendix F: Introduction to Academia for Non-Academician

68

Appendix G: Transcript Analysis

FOR ALL COMMISSIONS

Is the degree title on the transcript the same as the program name on the Request for

Evaluation (RFE) from the institution?

Were there transfer credits or credits for work in lieu of courses on the transcript? If

yes, are the policies that govern transfer credits or work in lieu of courses followed in the

self-study or available for review during the site visit?

Did the student complete all degree requirements on the institution’s degree plan for this

program?

Were all courses taken?

Were all courses passed as defined by the institution or program?

Did the student pass all prerequisite courses before taking a follow-on course?

Did the student satisfy all institutional and programmatic graduation requirements,

including:

Minimum grade point average?

Minimum credits at the institution?

General education requirements?

For Engineering (EAC) Transcripts

Did the student satisfy the EAC Program Criteria (if applicable)?

Did the student satisfy the requirements of General Criterion 5: Curriculum, including:

o One year of college-level mathematics and basic sciences (biological, chemical,

and physical; some with experimental experience)?

o One and one-half years of engineering topics?

o A general education component that complements the technical content and is

consistent with the program and institution objectives?

o A culminating major design experience based on knowledge and skills acquired in

earlier course work and incorporating appropriate engineering standards and

multiple realistic constraints?

69

For Engineering Technology (ETAC) Transcripts

Did the student satisfy the ETAC Program Criteria (if applicable)?

Did the student satisfy the requirements of General Criterion 5: Curriculum, including:

i. Sufficient mathematics so that the student can solve technical problems (associate-level

programs must include algebra and trigonometry; bachelor-level programs must include

the application of integral and differential calculus)?

ii. Technical content constituting one-third to two-thirds of the total credit hours in the

program?

iii. Physical and natural science content with laboratory experiences as appropriate to the

discipline?

iv. For baccalaureate programs, is there a capstone or integrating experience that develops

both technical and non-technical skills in solving problems?

70

Appendix H: ABET Accreditation Process

71

Appendix I: Student Outcomes and Performance Indicators

Student Outcomes and Performance Indicators Performance indicators are a means to focus on specific expectations of a program. They facilitate the curriculum delivery strategies, and assessment procedures. There is an important first step that must come before the development of performance indicators, and that is deciding on student outcomes. These are usually communicated to students in the program description, and are stated in terms that inform the students about the general purpose of the program and expectations of the faculty. The primary difference between student outcomes and performance indicators is that student outcomes are intended to provide general information about the focus of student learning and are broadly stated of the outcome, not measurable, while performance indicators are concrete measurable performances students must meet as indicators of achievement. Performance indicators are developed from program outcomes.

Sample student outcomes:

o Students will work effectively as a member of a team.

o Students can apply the principles of math and science to a technical problem.

o Students will have an appreciation for the need to

o Students will have effective communication skills. Performance indicators indicate what concrete actions the student should be able to perform as a result of participation in the program. Once program outcomes have been identified, the knowledge and skills necessary for the mastery of these outcomes should be listed. This will allow the desired behavior of the students to be described, and will eliminate ambiguity concerning demonstration of expected competencies. Performance indicators are made up of at least two main elements; action verb and content (referent). The expected behavior must be specified by name, using an observable action verb such as demonstrate, interpret, discriminate, or define. Sample performance indicators:

Students will know a professional code of ethics. (knowledge)

Students will be able to describe the problem solving process.(comprehension)

Students will solve research problems through the application of scientific methods. (application)

Cunningham, G. K. (1986). Educational and psychological measurement. New York: MacMillan Publishing.

72

McBeath, R. J., Ed. (1992). Instructing and evaluating in higher education: A guidebook for planning learning outcomes. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. COGNITIVE learning is demonstrated by knowledge recall and the intellectual skills: comprehending information, organizing ideas, analyzing and synthesizing data, applying knowledge, choosing among alternatives in problem-solving, and evaluating ideas or actions.

73

AFFECTIVE learning is demonstrated by behaviors indicating attitudes of awareness, interest, attention, concern, and responsibility, ability to listen and respond in interactions with others, and ability to demonstrate those attitudinal characteristics or values which are appropriate to the test situation and the field of study.

74

PSYCHOMOTOR learning is demonstrated by physical skills: coordination, dexterity, manipulation, grace, strength, speed; actions which demonstrate the fine motor skills such as use of precision instruments or tools, or actions which evidence gross motor skills such as the use of the body in dance or athletic performance.

75

Appendix J: continuous data collection process example

From Assessment Planning Flow Chart©2004, Gloria M. Rogers, Ph.D., ABET, Inc. (grogers@abet.org) Copyright 2008

76

77

78

Appendix K: Team Chair Competency Model

Desired Competency: Technically Current

Desired Proficiency

Possesses technical credentials for the position

Fully knowledgeable about accreditation criteria, policies, and procedures

Application During Campus Visit

Possesses technical credentials for the position

Fully knowledgeable about accreditation criteria, policies, and procedures

Desired Competency: Effective Communicator

Desired Proficiency

Understands the importance of clear, timely communications with all parties involved in

the accreditation process

Able to clearly and tactfully communicate criterion-centered statements of finding and

observation both orally and in written form

Knowledgeable about standards for draft and final statement content and organization

Application During Campus Visit

Keeps the institution, the program evaluators, and ABET informed before, during, and

after the visit

Interacts with institutional personnel to gain understanding of institutional context

Writes clear, succinct, criterion-centered statements of finding conforming to the

timelines, formats and standards established by ABET and the relevant commission

Effectively communicates suggestions for continuous improvement

Desired Competency: Good Team Manager

Desired Proficiency

Able to build team cohesion and effectively manage team meetings and activities

Able to bring the team to consensus, exhibiting skill in finding common ground and

fostering cooperation

79

Able to diplomatically manage an effective exit meeting

Application During Campus Visit

Effectively manages interactions with and between team members

Identifies issues contributing to difference of opinion and guides the team in resolution of

these issues

Manages the exit interview diplomatically so that it proceeds at an orderly pace and is

conducted in the requisite time frame

Desired Competency: Professional

Desired Proficiency

Exhibits professional appearance and demeanor

Adheres to the highest standards of professional ethics and integrity

Committed to contributing to the accreditation process, adding value

Application During Campus Visit

Demonstrates respect for the institution, all institutional personnel, and the program

evaluators

Applies the relevant criteria with appropriate professional judgment

Effectively communicates constructive suggestions for continuous improvement

Upholds ABET’s Code of Conduct

Desired Competency: Organized and Responsive

Desired Proficiency

Focuses on meeting deadlines and communicating with all parties in a timely manner

(pre-visit, during the visit, and post-visit)

Acts effectively in managing visit logistics

Application During Campus Visit

Makes visit arrangements well in advance of the visit

Manages team activities so that the evaluation proceeds in an orderly manner

Completes and submits all required forms, draft and final statements in a timely manner

80

Desired Competency: Leadership

Desired Proficiency

Takes responsibility, facilitating constructive discussion and fostering closure

Exhibits adaptability and sound judgment

Fosters a team environment that is cohesive and well organized

Builds trust within the team and between the team and the institution

Application During Campus Visit

Fosters an environment in which team members can speak freely, demonstrating respect

for team members

Provides support for team members and establishes appropriate ground rules; helps team

members to succeed

Maintains an open mind but guides team deliberations so as to establish a decision-

making process that effectively deals with differences of opinion