MÜHENDİSLİK FAKÜLTESİ...MÜHENDİSLİK FAKÜLTESİ ABET 12 Mayıs 2014 ABET TAKVİMİ ABET ziyareti sonrası (Due Response Process) Exit meeting – Program Audit Forms: Ekim

MÜHENDİSLİK FAKÜLTESİ ABET 12 Mayıs 2014

MÜHENDİSLİK FAKÜLTESİ

2015 ABET DEĞERLENDİRME SÜRECİ

ÖNEMLİ KONULAR

ABET Symposium 2014

Fundamentals of Assessment Workshop

Advanced Assessment Workshop

12 Mayıs 2014


TOPLANTININ AMACI

2015 ABET Next General Review

akreditasyon sürecine hazırlanırken

önemli bazı konuların hatırlatılması


ODTÜ ve ABET

2009

2004

1994 1996

2001


ODTÜ ve ABET

• Tüm Bölümlerimiz en az iki kez ABET

tarafından ziyaret edildi:

3 kez: CHE, MINE, CE, EE, ME, METE

2 kez: AEE, CENG, ENVE, FDE, GEOE, IE,

PETE


TOPLANTININ AMACI

• Önceki değerlendirme süreçlerinde ifade edilen

eksiklikler/iyileştirme önerileri - hatırlatma

• ABET kapsamında yapılan değişiklikler

– Bölümlerimizle daha önce yazılı olarak paylaşılanlar

– Fakültemiz tarafından geniş katılım sağlanan Nisan

2014 ABET sempozyum ve çalıştaylarında

vurgulanan konular

• ABET akreditasyonu konusunda tecrübeli bir

kurumdan olası artan beklentilerin karşılanması,

sistematik olarak uygulanan, yerleşmiş bir sistemin

gösterilmesi gerekliliği


BİLGİLENDİRMELER - CD

3-4 Nisan 2014 ABET Symposium

5 / 6 Nisan 2014

Fundamentals of Program

Assessment Workshop

6 Nisan 2014

Advanced Program

Assessment Workshop


ÖNEMLİ DOKÜMANLAR

Most recent (2014-2015) versions of :

• Self Study Questionnaire (SSQ)

• Accreditation Policy and Procedure

Manual (APPM)

• Criteria for Accrediting Engineering

Programs (Criteria)

Shortcoming can be written due to lack of issues

from SSQ or APPM.


ABET TAKVİMİ

ABET ziyareti öncesi

Başvuru - Dekanlık: 15 Ocak 2015

Bölümlerin raporlarını Dekanlık’a sunmaları: 26 Ocak 2015

Raporların ön değerlendirmeden geçmesi: Şubat 2015

Raporların ön değerlendirme sonrası tamamlanması: 3 Nisan 2015

Fakülte raporunun hazırlanması: Nisan 2015

Fakülte raporu ile birlikte tüm raporların tamamlanması: 8 Mayıs 2015

Raporların basılması: Mayıs 2015

Raporların ABET’e gönderilmesi: 8 Haziran 2015

ABET ziyareti: Ekim 2015 (Pazar – Salı)


ABET TAKVİMİ

ABET ziyareti sonrası (Due Response Process)

Exit meeting – Program Audit Forms: Ekim 2015

7-day response by METU (errors of fact only): Ekim 2015

Draft Statement from ABET: Ocak-Şubat 2016

30-Day Due Response by METU: Şubat – Mart 2016

ABET Annual EAC Committee Meeting: Temmuz 2016

Final Statement from ABET: Ağustos 2016


From APPM Shortcoming What it means

Deficiency criterion, policy, or procedure is not satisfied. Therefore, the

program is not in compliance with the criterion, policy, or

procedure

Weakness 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

Concern 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

Observation a comment or suggestion that does not relate directly to the

current accreditation action but is offered to assist the

institution in its continuing efforts to improve its programs


From APPM Accreditation Action What it means Typical Duration

Next General Review No Deficiency, No Weakness 6 yrs

Interim Report One or more Weaknesses 2 yrs

Report Extended After an IR 2 or 4 yrs

Interim Visit One or more Weaknesses –

re-visit required

2 yrs

Visit Extended After an IV 2 or 4 yrs

Show Cause Report One or more Deficiencies 2 yrs

Show Cause Extended After a SC 2 or 4 yrs

Show Cause Visit One or more Deficiencies –

re-visit required

2 yrs


From Fri 9:15, Diana Briedis, Closing the Loop


RECENT ABET CHANGES

• Criterion 4 no longer requires that the

extent to which graduates attain Program

Educational Objectives be measured

• Criterion 2 still requires that the Program

Educational Objectives be periodically

reviewed to ensure that they are

consistent with the institutional mission

and constituency needs


Criterion 4 Change

• Be careful about the ADDED WORDS to the

criterion

– Regularly

– Appropriate

– Systematically utilized

• You have to document your evaluations &

decisions on assessment results


MAIN ISSUES

• A systematically utilized, well documented

(evidence-based) program assessment process

– Every 6 yrs is not a good cycle

– Assessing every course every semester is not

sustainable or recommended

• A good understanding of student strengths &

weaknesses

– General % success of Student Outcome attainment not

enough

– Show the level of attainment & how it changes in time


MAIN ISSUES

• Focus on how the assessment process

help improve the program

– Show how assessment help improve program

(close the loops – continuous improvement)

– If possible, for more than one-cycle since

2009 ABET visit

– Link them to improvement/change in Student

Outcome attainment




MAIN ISSUES

• Now, much more emphasis on

assessment & attainment of Student

Outcomes

• After all the assessment you are doing:

What are your students’ strengths and

weaknesses related to this SO?

Do the students know what outcomes are

expected of them?


MAIN ISSUES

Although not required, ABET strongly

recommends using PERFORMANCE

INDICATORS (PIs) for assessment of Student

Outcomes

– PIs vs. SOs

– Courses vs. PIs

Instead of our typical

– Courses vs. SOs

– PIs enable a clear definition of what each SO

mean for the program. Otherwise there is no

common view among faculty.


MAIN ISSUES

Cont. improvement ≠ Cont. Assessment

Choose a set of indicators for SOs

Select courses that provide info for indicators

Assess courses in a 2- or 3-yr cycle

You DO NOT have to set the same target of

achievement for all SOs.

Technical SOs can be more important

If you have numerous info sources for one SO, but

much less for another, then a lower target can be

set for the latter




SO Attainment via Performance

Indicators















WHAT ELSE IS IMPORTANT

APPM • ODTÜ – KKK programları da olan bölümlerin

Ankara kampüsündeki programın ABET

tarafından akredite olduğu ve diğerinin olmadığı

konusunda web sayfası ve basılı/elektronik

katalog bilgilerinde farkın çok açık ve net olması

gerekiyor.



APPM • ODTÜ – Ankara kampus kataloğunda PEO, SO

bilgileri basılı/elektronik katalog ve web sayfası

ile uyumlu, en güncel hali olmalı

• Tüm Bölümlerin en güncel APPM’e göre

aşağıdaki şekilde yazması gerekiyor:

“The *** engineering undergraduate program was

accredited by the Engineering Accreditation

Commission of ABET, http://www.abet.org.”



Program Criteria

• Program Criteria dokumanında birden fazla

bölümümüz programı için önemli olabilecek bazı

değişiklikler oldu. Bunların müfredat ile

karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenmesi çok kritik.


From Jeff Fergus

Accreditation Track, Thu 15:15


From Jeff Fergus



From Jeff Fergus



From Jeff Fergus



From Jeff Fergus



From Jeff Fergus



From Jeff Fergus



From Jeff Fergus



From Jeff Fergus


Facility


From Jeff Fergus



From Jeff Fergus



PREPARATION FOR SITE VISIT

• Team coming in 2015 may cite a shortcoming

for which the team in 2009 did not state as a

shortcoming, even though that process did

not change for the institution between 2009 to

2015.

• This is completely acceptable by ABET

• ABET says this is why an evaluator only

evaluates a program once!


ESPECIALLY GOOD TALKS

ABET 2014 SYMPOSIUM

• ACCREDITATION TRACK – on CD

Thu 15:15 “Preparing the Self-Study Report

for Engineering”, Jeff Fergus

Fri 9:15 “Demonstrating Compliance with

Criterion 4: Closing the Loop”, Diana Briedis


ÖZETLE

• Artik 3./4.kez denetime gelindigi icin

beklentiler daha yüksek olacak

• PEO attainment requirement ortadan

kalktığı için SO attainment önem kazanmış

durumda

• Ögrencilerin kazanımlarında zayıf ve güçlü

yönlerin net olarak belirlenmiş olması

bekleniyor (bkz. SO için indikatör kullanımı)


ÖZETLE

• Sistematik ve kanıt-bazlı bir değerlendirme

sisteminin yerleşmiş ve kullanılıyor olması

bekleniyor. Program iyileştirmelerinin

büyük oranda buna bağlı olması

bekleniyor.



• Please read:

– The previous Self Study Report prepared by

your Department in 2009

– The previous ABET Evaluation Report

prepared by the team after the site visit

• Please check out for valuable info:

http://www.abet.org/accreditation


TEŞEKKÜRLER

YOU DON’T HAVE TO BE BAD TO GET BETTER!


The Criteria

• Criterion 1: Students

• Criterion 2: Program Educational Objectives

• Criterion 3: Student Outcomes

• Criterion 4: Continuous Improvement

• Criterion 5: Curriculum

• Criterion 6: Faculty

• Criterion 7:Facilities

• Criterion 8: Support

• Criterion 9: Program Criteria


DEĞİŞİKLİKLER SON HALİ (2014-2015 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs)

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.


DEĞİŞİKLİKLER ÖNCEKİ HALİ (2011-2012 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs)

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 and effective

process, involving program constituencies, for the periodic review and

revision of these program educational objectives.


DEĞİŞİKLİKLER

YAPILAN DEĞİŞİKLİK HAKKINDA AÇIKLAMA

The change to Criterion 2 removes the requirement for a program to have a

process for the "review and revision" of its program educational

objectives (PEOs). The new language requires a documented process that is

systematically utilized and effective, involving the program's constituents, for

periodic review of the PEOs so that they remain consistent with the institution's

mission, the constituents' needs, and the criteria.



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 4. Continuous Improvement

The program must regularly use appropriate, documented processes for

assessing and evaluating the extent to which both the program educational

objectives and 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.


DEĞİŞİKLİKLER YAPILAN DEĞİŞİKLİK HAKKINDA AÇIKLAMA

The change to Criterion 4 removes the requirement for a program to

demonstrate graduate attainment of program educational objectives. This

change removes the stringent requirement for assessment of program

educational objectives as is required for a program's student outcomes.



Criterion 6. Faculty

The program must demonstrate that the faculty members are of sufficient

number and 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.



Criterion 6. Faculty

The faculty must be of sufficient number and must 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.


DEĞİŞİKLİKLER YAPILAN DEĞİŞİKLİK

Criterion 6. Faculty: The program must demonstrate that the faculty

membersmust beare of sufficient number and theymust have the

competencies to cover all of the curricular areas of the program.


YENİLİKLER

6 Kasım 2013 - ABET tarafından yayınlanan ALERT

1. Each ABET-accredited program must publicly state the

program educational objectives and student outcomes

2. Each ABET-accredited program must publicly post annual

student enrollment and graduation data per program

*** 2014 YILI BAŞINDAN İTİBAREN UYGULANMAK ÜZERE!


DEĞİŞİKLİKLER Program Criteria Changes

Bölümler kendi lisans programlarına etki edebilecek

değişikliklere muhakkak bakmalı.

Revisions to the following Program Criteria will be in effect for the

2014-15 review cycle.

– Electrical, Computer, Communications Engineering

– Environmental Engineering

– Mechanical Engineering

Revisions to the following Program Criteria are offered on first

reading for review and comment. See the Proposed Changes

Section of the EAC Criteria.

– Electrical, Computer, Communications Engineering

– Materials (1), Metallurgical (2), Ceramics (3) Engineering


From Jeff Fergus



From Jeff Fergus



From Jeff Fergus



From Jeff Fergus



From Jeff Fergus



From Jeff Fergus



From Jeff Fergus



From Jeff Fergus


Facility


From Jeff Fergus



From Jeff Fergus



Criterion 4 – Closing the loop

• Most important part of the Self-Study

Report

• Greatest number of shortcomings listed for

this Criterion!

• You HAVE TO show that some

improvements (especially major program

improvements) are tied to the assessment

data & evaluation of that data!


Criterion 4 from Program Criteria

• 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 4 from SSQ

• Continuous Improvement

• Describe how the results of evaluation processes for the

student outcomes and any other available information

have been systematically used as input in the

continuous improvement of the program. Describe

the results of any changes (whether or not effective) in

those cases where re-assessment of the results has

been completed. Indicate any significant future program

improvement plans based upon recent evaluations.

Provide a brief rationale for each of these planned

changes.


Criterion 4 Change

• Emphasis on new requirement of Cr 4

– Alumni survey, Employer survey no longer

mandatory

– BUT These are ‘program constituencies’ therefore we

need their input at some stage

– Industrial advisory board may need to meet more

frequently (e.g. 2 yrs) due to Criterion 2 changes

Instead of ATTAINMENT now

APPROPRIATENESS


From Thu 15:15, Karen Tarnoff, Preparing Effective Assessment Documentation






ASSESSMENT PROCESS

After all the assessment you are doing in your

program, can you answer the following question at

the end of the day:

WHAT ARE YOUR STUDENTS’

STRENGTHS & WEAKNESSES

RELATED TO THIS STUDENT OUTCOME?


ASSESSMENT PROCESS

1. We are not doing COURSE assessment,

but PROGRAM assessment!

2. Although not REQUIRED, ABET strongly

recommends using PERFORMANCE

INDICATORS (PIs) for assessment of Student

Outcomes

– PIs vs. SOs

– Courses vs. PIs

Instead of our typical

– Courses vs. SOs


From Thu 15:15, Kathy Faggiani, Assessment and the Big Bang


From Fundamentals of Program Assessment Workshop




From Fri 9:15, Fred DePiero, Sustainable Assessment Processes via Centralized Efforts







Assessment Methods







PI examples

• Writing measurable outcomes

• PEO SO PI

– Observable, measurable

– Shouldbe something you see demonstrated in

student work

– Sample Pıs


SO Attainment via Performance

Indicators



















ASSESSMENT PROCESS

3. THEN, they recommend using rubrics for

grading PIs so that across different

courses, even grading can be achieved

(inter-rater reliability)

4. SO assessment is best done in 3-yr

cycles

1. Collect

2. Evaluate

3. Implement


ASSESSMENT PROCESS - Example

• Course assessment in the context of a sustainable

improvement process (Zia Yamayee) suggested:

– Phase I: from last final statement to year of self study (4

years)

– Phase II: year of self study (1 academic year)

– Phase III: on site review (1 year)

• In phase I:

– Periodic review of PEOs (every 3 years)

– Assessment & evaluation of SOs (every other year)

– Identify & implement improvements (annual)

– Document (annual)


ASSESSMENT PROCESS

5. Overall course grades for assessment is

NOT a good idea

– homeworks, mid-term grades, etc. are OK


ASSESSMENT PROCESS

6. Do not try to collect data from ALL courses for

SO assessment. Choose your courses as to

how much each contribute to a PI or SO.

– In Advanced Assessment workshop, they showed a

mapping for courses vs. SOs & they normalized on

courses instead of SOs

– A course is not recommended to be used directly for

the assessment of the level of achievement of a SO.

(Use PIs which cover a number of courses)

– Do not use Pass/Fail type of scales in assessing

attainment of SOs or PIs in a course work


ASSESSMENT PROCESS

7. During SO assessment you can have time depth

– focusing on measurement of juniors and seniors more

than freshmen and sophomores. (see ppt by Elias

Nassar: Building and assessment and CI system)

– Show the level of attainment throughout the curriculum

– Select benchmark courses for assessment of SOs. Do

not overdo by selecting every related course every

semester Note: Initial assessment of SO for communication skill may not be made on ENG

101 courses, but instead Introduction to *** Engineering courses can be used for

this purpose!


ASSESSMENT PROCESS

8. Continuous improvement does not mean

continuous assessment!

– A three year assessment cycle is acceptable &

recommended because

• it is more sustainable

• Makes it much easier to involve faculty


ASSESSMENT PROCESS

9. You can give different level of attainment

targets for different SOs. They do not have to

be equal!

– Technical SOs can understandibly be more

important for the program

– For ex. a, b can have 90% as a target

– But for ex. k can have 60% as a target

– This is because technical ones can be more

important for you, or you may have more chances in

your program to evaluate/assess them.


ASSESSMENT PROCESS

10.Program evaluator will ask ‘So, what are the

strengths & weaknesses of your students

related to this student outcome?’

– You should have an answer for that and

using performance indicators (but not

necessarily courses) allows for that


ASSESSMENT PROCESS

11.Avoid a «stealth» assessment process.

Students should know they are being

assessed & they should be

knowledgeable about SOs & the level of

performance expected of them.

Students are «drinking from a fire-hose»

therefore they learn better if they know what’s

expected of them – the learning objectives


ASSESSMENT PROCESS

12.Typically largest number of shortcomings

are given from Criterion 4!



ASSESSMENT PROCESS

13. Make sure you have evidence of

assessment & evaluation

Make sure they are present in the folders

kept in the display area

Try to show the course materials for the most

recent offering. You do not need to archive all

the past material (Joe Turner, Thu 9:15)


ASSESSMENT PROCESS

14. It is advisable to have an even number of

scale for SO assessment :

• Bloom’s taxonomy

• EMAU

• Four column template

For example: 1. Exceeds standard (Excellent/exemplary)

2. Meets standard (Good/Satisfactory)

3. Progressing to standard (Fair/Developing)

4. Below standard (Poor/Unsatisfactory)


FACULTY

• All faculty needs to be involved at some

stage

• Evaluator will interview faculty and get a

feel of the assessment culture of the

program

– Typically Monday afternoon of the site visit


ABOUT ABET 2014 Symposium

• A CD is prepared which includes the

presentations of all talks in the ABET 2014

Symposium in Pittsburgh, PA, USA (3-4 April,

2014)

• CD also contains workbooks of

– Fundamentals of Program Assessment Workshop

– Advanced Assessment Workshop

– Other useful documents

• One CD is sent to each Department



AT THE SYPOSIUM

• ACCREDITATION TRACK

– Thu 9:15 "Demonstrating Compliance with

Criterion 4: Assessment and Evaluation", Joe

Turner

– Thu 15:15 “Preparing the Self-Study Report

for Engineering”, Jeff Fergus

– Fri 9:15 “Demonstrating Compliance with

Criterion 4: Closing the Loop”, Diana Briedis



AT THE SYPOSIUM

• PROGRAM ASSESSMENT TRACK

– Thu 9:15 ”How to Embed Measurable

Assessment Instruments into a CE Capstone

Design Course", Ivonne Santiago (invited)

– Thu 15:15 “Common Mistakes During the

Assessment Process”, Gloria Rogers

– Fri 9:15 “Sustainable Assessment Processes

via Centralized Efforts”, Fred DePiero (invited)



AT THE SYMPOSIUM


– Thu 15:15 "Preparing Effective Assessment

Documentation", Karen Tarnoff

– Fri 8:00 "Building an Assessment and

Continuous Improvement System: How to help

faculty with the initial steps", Elias Nassar

– Thu 14:00 "Course Assessment in the Context

of a Sustainale Continuous Improvement

Process", Zia Yamayee



AT THE SYMPOSIUM


– Fri 9:15 "Experiences Obtaining Data on

Student Outcomes from Capstone Design

Projects", John Schlup

• ACCREDITATION TRACK

– Fri 14:00 “The Engineering Body of

Knowledge”, Craig Musselman


GOOD TO READ

• A self-study template was prepared at

CalPoly that includes good examples of

presentation of results, etc. • Self-Study Template (Word doc)

Detailed instructions for writing the self-study; may serve

as outline of self-study report

http://www.academicprograms.calpoly.edu/accred_progrev/

ALSO

sites.google.com/site/selfstudycalpolyslo/

http://www.academicprograms.calpoly.edu/sites/academicprograms.wcms.calpoly.edu/files/documents/Program_Review/Self-Review/Self_study_template_updated.doc





GOOD TO READ

ABET Program Evaluator (PEV) Training

Documents

• http://www.abet.org/pev-candidate-

training/



• Course & assessment material display area is

VERY IMPORTANT

• The evaluator will study these on the Sunday

afternoon (13:30-onwards)

• It may be a good idea to arrange the display

materials according to Student Outcomes

(e.g.one folder per SO)

• Make it easy for the evaluator to find information

(both in report & display area)

• Have evidence from the last cycle at a minimum



Organize materials to allow an “audit” process

• Course materials should demonstrate any data

collected from student performance in the

courses

• Evaluator should be able to trace:

1. From data collection to evaluation

2. To use of evaluation results in determining whether

there is potential need for improvement

3. To any improvement action that was implemented



For currently accredited programs:

– Assessment data summaries

– Evaluations

– Use in identifying any potential improvements

since last ABET review should be in display area



• Although assessment is done for

departmental courses, if during the visit the

evaluator asks, then evidence should be

made available from other departments

– Physics, Math, English, etc.



• Team coming in 2015 may cite a

shortcoming for which the team in 2009

did not state as a shortcoming, even

though that process did not change for the

institution between 2009 to 2015.

• This is completely acceptable by ABET

• That is why an evaluator only evaluates a

program once!



• Must read:

– The previous Self Study Report prepared by

your Department in 2009

– The previous ABET Evaluation Report

prepared by the team after the Site Visit



• Early communication of the evaluator and

Team Chair with the Dean or Dept Chair

can allow the program to actually revise

some things

• A shortcoming may even be eliminated by

conducting such a process

(But this depends on the preference of the

Team Chair)


SUMMARY TIMELINE

Due Process (Post-Visit Activities)

• Exit Meeting: PAF (Program Audit Form)

given to Dean

– Specifies shortcomings and explanation

• Institution’s 7-Day Response

– Errors of fact only

• Draft Statement of Findings

–Prepared by team, edited at two levels, then

sent to the institution (early spring)


SUMMARY TIMELINE


• Institution’s Due Process Response

– Due within 30 days of receipt of draft

statement

– Programs are encouraged to solve problems

quickly

– Describe and document changes since the

visit


SUMMARY TIMELINE


• Final Statement

– Incorporates due process response

– Final Statement serves as the basis for the

commission (EAC for engineering programs)

action on accreditation at July meeting

– Final Statement and accreditation letter sent

by ABET to the institution (by August 31st )


From the talk

of Jeff Fergus

(Accreditation

Track,

Thu 15:15)


SUMMARY TIMELINE Timeline Process

July Report submission to ABET

October Team Visit

Jan-Feb Draft report from ABET team

~ March 30-day Due Response

July Accreditation decision

This timeline shows that a number of problematic

issues in a program can actually be eliminated if Team

Chair communicates this info to the Dept between

August/Sept until July of the next year

(special words like Deficiency, Weakness are avoided during

these discussions btw evaluator & Dept Chair)


SITE VISIT TIMELINE

Timeline Process

Saturday Arrival

Sunday

10:00 Campus arrival

10:00 – 12:30 Visit departments, laboratories,etc.

12:30 – 13:30 Lunch

13:30 – onwards Work on display materials

Monday Departmental visit

Tuesday Closing meeting and departure


ENGINEERING BODY OF

KNOWLEDGE

• A report prepared by a large group of

engineers (including professionals as well

as academicians) on capabilities of

engineers 30 categories...


ABET Accreditation outside the US

• ABET now accredits 324 programs at 64 institutions in

23 countries outside the US

• About program evaluators: