C o p y ri g h• Retain pre EC2000 standards on math, scientific and technical knowledge • Emphasize professional skills development • Ethical and contextual considerations •

Copyright © 2008 by ABET, Inc.

1

Michael K. J. Milligan, PhD, PE Executive Director, ABET, Inc. ASEE Engineer Deans Institute

13 April, 2010

Dialog with Engineering Deans


2

Introduction and Background • ABET: Executive Director: June 1, 2009 • Education: BS, MSE, PhD: Electrical Engr; MBA • Career Highlights:

– USAF (24 years): Ops, R&D, Academe (Faculty, Admin) – Industry: Aerospace Corp supporting NOAA, NASA – Professional Engineer, CO and MD

• IEEE Society – Senior Member, Vice Chairman of Pikes Peak Section, Faculty Advisor of USAFA Student Branch

• ABET Program Evaluator – Electrical, Computer Engineering (20042009)


3

Outline • (Quick) ABET Refresher • Improving Communications • Improving Quality • Additional Topics

– Criteria Harmonization – Distance Learning – Increasing Global Leadership – Benefits of EC2000 – Goals for 2010


4




5

ABET’s Vision To provide world leadership in assuring quality and in stimulating innovation in

• Applied Science • Computing • Engineering, and • Technology Education


6

ABET’s 30 Societies • Represent “the profession” • Develop program criteria • Board Reps, Commissioners • Recruit & assign evaluators

ABET’s 30 Societies • Represent “the profession” • Develop program criteria • Board Reps, Commissioners • Recruit & assign evaluators


7

Committees Board of Directors (30 Member Societies)

653 programs

225 institutions

Applied Science

73 programs

56 institutions

Computing

324 programs

263 institutions

Engineering

1948 programs

397 institutions

Technology

ABET Organization

Councils

ABET Headquarters

ABET Ex Comm

Program Evaluators (PEVs) Volunteers Prof Staff

Legend

1,500+ Volunteers*

672 programs

231 institutions

*Academe, Industry, Government

Accreditation Commissions (30 Member Societies)

DECIDES accreditation actions and implements accreditation policy

APPROVES accreditation policy and criteria

100% of accreditation decisions are made by volunteer representatives of ABET’s 30 societies

100% of accreditation decisions are made by volunteer representatives of ABET’s 30 societies


8




9

Engaging Academe § University Materials Council (Dept Heads) § University of Massachusetts Lowell, Engineering § NSF Engineering Education Awardees Conf § Plenary: “Innovation In Engineering Education”

§ Chair of ASEE Deans Council § Johns Hopkins University, Industrial Hygiene § Big 10+ Consortium Associate Deans, 31 March § ASEE Engineering Deans Council, 13 April


10

Feedback Frustration! • Accreditation Process

– Consistency of evaluations and evaluators • PEV’s interpretation of criteria; and focus on minor, irrelevant issues

• Mismatch between academe & industry PEVs – Criteria: “frequency of change too great”

• “Barrier to Innovation” • “ABET doesn’t listen to us” • No Fee Increase!


11




12

Quality of Evaluations • #1 complaint by deans & dept heads

– Consistency & quality of evaluations/evaluators • Standardized training for new evaluators • Need for standardized refresher training

– Task force developing online modules – Target date for initial delivery: June 2010 – Soliciting support by societies

• Implementation: frequency, enforcement, etc.


13

Quality of Evaluations

• Need institutional feedback –Evaluations and evaluator performance –Frank and specific –Things we did well –Suggestions for improvement


14

Academic Advisory Council • ABET has advisory councils

– Industrial Advisory Council – Accreditation Council

• Need for Academic Advisory Council – Formal channel of communications

• Proposed membership – Administrators (Deans/Assoc Deans/Dept Chairs) that represent home institutions of programs that ABET accredits


15

Academic Advisory Council • Membership of Academic Leaders

– 6 associated primarily with EAC programs • 3 nominated by ASEE Engineering Dean’s Council, 3 by ABET leadership

– 4 associated primarily with CAC programs • 2 nominated by the CRA, 2 by ABET leadership

– 4 associated primarily with TAC programs • 2 nominated by ASEE Engineering Technology Council, 2 by ABET leadership

– 2 associated primarily with ASAC programs; nominated by ABET leadership in consultation with ASAC and other constituent groups


16

Academic Advisory Council – 4 atlarge academic leaders nominated by ABET leadership to provide balance among institutional types and to ensure inclusion of community college administrators

– Three year terms with initial appointments adjusted to allow reasonable continuity.

– Term of appointment shall be limited to a maximum of six years.

• Meetings: Two per year – Kickoff meeting – ABET Annual Meeting , 2829 Oct 2010, Baltimore


17

Questions?


18


– Criteria Harmonization – Distance Learning – Benefits of EC2000 – Increasing Global Leadership – Goals for 2010


19

Criteria Harmonization • Goal: common criteria where possible

– Across 4 ABET commissions (EAC, TAC, CAC, ASAC) – Wording and interpretation, where intended meaning is the same

– Does NOT force commonality where differences are necessary and intentional

• Why Harmonize? – To help institutions – To help ABET volunteers – To help ABET staff

• Status: Activities ongoing, target 201112 cycle


20




21

Distance Learning • 2008 Task group on educational delivery

– Program criteria don’t need modification – Methodologies, resources are an issue

• Wide spectrum of online content – Webfacilitated – blended/hybrid – online

– ABET has accredited programs that have some online content (but none 100% online)

– Currently working with major online university to accredit program (computer information systems)

100% ~ 10%


22

• ASAC – Surveying and Mapping (BS), 96 100%

• CAC – Computer Information Systems (BS), 8690%, 96100%

• TAC – Construction Engineering Technology (BS), 96100%

• EAC – Chemical Engineering (BS), 8690% – Civil Engineering (BS), 9195% – Electrical Engineering (BS), 9195% – Mechanical Engineering (BS), 9195% – Systems Engineering (MS), 96100%

201011 Accreditation Activity Online Component (self identified)


23

Quality of Educational Experience

• Alternate Delivery Program Evaluated –100% online and “hybrid” programs –Visits completed last month –Sampling methods developed


24




25

25

What about Outcomesbased Criteria?


26

EC2000 • Adopted in 1997 • Focus on “what is learned” vs. “what is taught” • Assess and demonstrate student achievements of learning outcomes

• Retain preEC2000 standards on math, scientific and technical knowledge

• Emphasize professional skills development • Ethical and contextual considerations • Focus: Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) • Allow for innovation – program “uniqueness”


27

EC2000 • Are postEC2000 grads better prepared to enter the profession than preEC2000?

• Are we stimulating innovation in education?


28

EC2000 • Evidence –Center for Study of Higher Education, PSU

• Three year study • Examined two classes

–1994 vs. 2004 –Other

• Testimonial, Anecdotal

Exec Summary available at: www.abet.org


29

EC2000 • What does the PSU study say?

– Program curricula has changed considerably • Maintain math, basic & engineering science • More emphasis on professional skills & knowledge sets (learning outcomes “ak”)

– Learning Outcomes • 2004 grads better prepared than 1994 grads • Technical skill maintained • Better understanding of societal, ethics, global and professional issues, ability to apply engineering & group

• Innovation? – Barriers removed, but most programs have not responded as expected


30

EC2000 • What do institutions say?

– Outcomesbased accreditation is “better” • Focuses attention on educational experience • Increased emphasis on quality of teaching

– Faculty and administration • Self examination

– What are we doing, and why? – What types of graduates are we producing? – Who are our constituents? What do they need?

• Continuous Quality Improvement – “integrated in how we do business”


31

EC2000 • Outcomesbased accreditation

– Almost universally adopted throughout accreditation community • Specialized and institutional accreditors

– Internationally accepted as “the standard” • Mutual Recognition Agreements

– Washington, Seoul, Sydney & Dublin Accords


32




33

ABET International Activities


34

ABET’s Reach is Global Fundamental to ABET’s Mission

ABET Strategic Vision Provide world leadership in assuring quality and in stimulating innovation in

applied science computing, engineering,

and technology education.

ABET Strategic Vision Provide world leadership in assuring quality and in stimulating innovation in

applied science computing, engineering,

and technology education.


35

International Activities Fundamental to ABET’s Mission

• Consistent with ABET member societies’ global influence and leadership • 93% of ABET’s 30 societies have international members or affiliates

• Consistent with ABET member societies’ global influence and leadership • 93% of ABET’s 30 societies have international members or affiliates


36

Memoranda of Understanding and Letters of Intent Memoranda of Understanding and Letters of Intent Assist development of QA

Argentina Egypt Japan Chile China Chinese Taipei France Germany Israel Peru Spain Ukraine Western Hemisphere (Canada & Mexico) UNESCO (Latin America & Caribbean) GCREAS (Jamaica, Panama, Dominican Rep)


37

Substantially Equivalent Programs

Mexico Qatar Spain Oman Russia Turkey Peru Singapore UAE

• 77 Programs • 17 Institutions • Expire 2010/11/12

Comparable educational outcomes, but format or method of delivery may differ • Comparable educational experiences • Graduates have similar competencies • Non binding • Phase out by 2012


38 ABET Accredited Programs

Bahrain Chile Egypt Germany India Jordan Kuwait Mexico Oman UAE Qatar Saudi Arabia South Africa Turkey USA

• 2005: ABET BOD approved international accreditation • 68 nonUS Programs • (102 in 20092010 cycle) in addition to those listed: Peru, Kazakhstan, Spain, Philippines, Columbia • 201011: 100+


39

Canada 1,2,3,4

US 1,2*,3,4

UK 1,2,3,4

Ireland 1,2,3 Germany 1*

India 1*

South Africa 1,2,3

Sri Lanka 1* Singapore 1

Australia 1,3,4

New Zealand 1,2*,3

Malaysia 1

Hong Kong 1,3,4 Chinese Taipei 1,4

Japan 1,4 South Korea 1,4

Russia 1*

Mutual Recognition Agreements

1: Washington Accord (Engineering) 3: Sydney Accord (Technologists) 5: Canada 2: Dublin Accord (Technicians) 4: Seoul Accord (Computing)

* Provisional


40




41

Future Challenges

• International Strategy – Globalization drives increased international engagement

– Diversity of population • Shift in Educational Paradigms

– New pedagogy for future generations of students

– Increase of online delivery


42

Goals for 2010 • Focus on Improving Quality • Refine International Strategy • Increase Outreach

– Increase Relevancy, Brand Awareness – Proactive in “Stimulating Innovation in Technical Education”

– Annual Meeting – Increase PEV Pool


43

Questions?

Documents

C o p y ri g h• Retain pre EC2000 standards on math, scientific and technical knowledge • Emphasize professional skills development • Ethical and contextual considerations •