Preparing for Accreditation Best Practices From Self-Assessment to Industry Collaboration

CONTENTS

The Washington Accord

The Accreditation Process

Building a Self-Assessment Approach

Building Industrial Relevancy

Collaboration With Industry Partners

Closing

ni.com/teach

Preparing for Accreditation2

This is an interesting point in history as two related global trends are impacting the next generation of engineers. Unemployment among youth from many countries around the world is rising, and there is a clear and significant shortage of workplace-ready skills to tackle the challenges of industry. Many see systematic skill development and global initiatives toward job creation as the solution to these problems.

Accreditation can verify that degree granting institutions meet a standard level of education, which is critical to assess the quality of, in this case, engineering programs. Accreditation can help students ensure that the program will prepare them for current and future industry needs.

Engineering and science students begin design, test, and research careers that require the skills to immediately tackle increasingly complex systems. Systems drive megatrends like mass industrial automation, autonomous vehicles, and 5G. Systems can also deliver solutions to societal challenges. Both educational institutions and employers need students to be competent in the skills needed for success in their fields.

So, how do accreditation bodies around the world help address this need for systematic development of skills? What strategies do schools use to prepare for that process?

ni.com/teach

Preparing for Accreditation3

The Washington AccordAccreditation groups across the globe include the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) in the United States, Engineering Council United Kingdom (ECUK), National Board of Accreditation (NBA) in India, and China Association for Science and Technology (CAST). These organizations are signatories of the Washington Accord, which forms a mutual recognition agreement to collectively establish the benchmark by which engineers can be measured globally. This creates a level of consistency to ensure schools prepare engineers for the work that industry demands.

George Peterson, the Washington Accord secretary, saw that the Internet would define the current market. He posed the question, “How do we build mutual understanding among nations about the quality of engineers who enter the globally connected workplace?” This accord agreement provided an answer to that question. He saw then what we see in 2018: teams of multidisciplinary and globally distributed engineers working toward urgent deadlines and increasingly ambitious outcomes. Regardless of location, we must have consistency in the knowledge and abilities of each of these team members.

As a key example, we look closer at ABET, a founding party of the Washington Accord that is building approaches to ensure consistency in core curriculum across each accredited university around the world.

The Accreditation ProcessAccreditation is a long process and often requires a significant amount of time from the faculty, staff, and university resources (see Table 1). This can be challenging for a group of educators and researchers that are also balancing various other requirements like student assessments, laboratories, grants, and publishing.

Table 1. ABET Accreditation Process

Accreditation Step What Happens

1 The submittal of a Readiness Review A small self-evaluation to ensure you are aligned with the process to warrant investment of resources

2 The submittal of a Request for Evaluation ABET asks for this if you pass step 1

3 The submittal of a Self-Study Report Create and organize a large document that evaluates your programs as a whole

4 The on-site visit ABET advisors visit your university

5 Renewing of accreditation Every six years repeat steps 3 and 4

Considering the experience of universities who have successfully completed the accreditation process, one major reccuring challenge is the self-assessment that identifies how a program meets all eight of ABET’s core criteria. Most programs spend a significant amount of time on the student outcomes criteria.

ni.com/teach

Preparing for Accreditation4

Student OutcomesThe criteria associated with student outcomes has changed in the 2019-2020 process. The table below shows both future and legacy outcomes.

Table 2. Student Outcomes

2019-2020 Outcomes 2017-2018 Legacy Outcomes

1 An ability to identify, formulate, and solve complex engineering problems by applying principles of engineering, science, and mathematics

A An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering

E An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems

2 An ability to apply engineering design to produce solutions that meet specified needs with consideration of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as global, cultural, social, environmental, and economic factors

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

3 An ability to communicate effectively with a range of audiences

G An ability to communicate effectively

4 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

F An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility

H The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context

J A knowledge of contemporary issues

5 An ability to function effectively on a team whose members together provide leadership, create a collaborative and inclusive environment, establish goals, plan tasks, and meet objectives

D An ability to function on multidisciplinary teams

6 An ability to develop and conduct appropriate experimentation, analyze and interpret data, and use engineering judgment to draw conclusions

B An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data

7 An ability to acquire and apply new knowledge as needed, using appropriate learning strategies

I A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in lifelong learning

Implied in 1, 2, 6 K An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice

Historically, a few of the legacy sub-criteria have confused or exasperated educators and administrators. Accreditation refers to these as “soft outcomes” and are meant to ensure that the curriculum aligns with modern industry needs.

One such soft outcome that will be built into the new sub-criteria 7 is: “(I) a recognition of the need for and an ability to engage in lifelong learning.”

Educators have been puzzled in the past by the creative license that can be taken with showing student compliance to such a description. ABET, as an example, is requiring that programs are more creative in some of their assignments to produce more creative and well-rounded engineers.

Another soft outcome that many find vague is: “(J) a knowledge of contemporary issues,” that in the future will require, “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.”

ni.com/teach

Preparing for Accreditation5

Building a Self-Assessment Approach Programs required to self-assess accomplish this in a variety of ways. This can lengthen the timeline for accreditation. Faculty must organize a unique method and convince their peers to implement the method into their curriculum correctly. Working with programs around the world, we have seen countless methods to help drive the self-assessment stage. We cover a few of these methods below.

Soft Outcomes Through Writing Assignments and Student Peer Reviews

One major US university recently completed a six-year accreditation renewal. Their approach was exhaustive in its method to build new quizzes and projects that were added to at least one class per engineering major. The goal was to provide clear and quantifiable outcomes that could measure each of those student outcomes. For the items that could not be immediately covered (for example, the soft outcomes), they added more creative approaches.

This university added writing assignments to have students articulate the process used in self-directed hands-on projects. The projects were designed to test the students’ understanding of modern engineering issues in the real world. These writing assignments further evaluated the students’ understanding of what it took to successfully develop products and solutions to address modern global problems.

Another unique outcome of adding writing assignments is that the student could comment in the papers on how they perceived they could apply their engineering skills in a broader context. This more reflective approach further connected their time in the classroom to the traditionally vague requirement of an, “ability to engage in lifelong learning.”

Finally, this university also used student peer evaluations to encourage students to look at their colleagues and lab mates as future engineers and think at greater depths about their, “ability to function on multidisciplinary teams,” and about their, “ability to communicate effectively.”

ni.com/teach

Preparing for Accreditation6

Measuring Soft Outcomes With a Rubric Approach Dr. Wear from the University of Washington (UW) in Tacoma writes about his time with the accreditation process in a paper titled, Getting ABET Accreditation Right the First Time. In this article, he discusses the various trials and tribulations his program faced as they tried to get their new program accredited. Some of the more significant challenges included:

■■ Maintaining funding for accreditation during program budget cuts

■■ Gaining the support from the deans and head administrators to organize the school

■■ Having the support and cooperation of all professors and teachers during the process

Their process began with meeting with an Industrial Advisory Board to gain suggestions on objectives, a critical step for them to understand the, “impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environment, and societal context,” and connect to their long-term goals of employability and skill development.

UW Tacoma settled on a method they thought best for their program. They used a rubric to clearly mark how they performed for each criterion across various courses, which also provided insight into gaps or opportunities in the courseware. The rubric example shown below outlines the curriculum in each row and then the outcomes in each column. In addition, each cell includes a description of how each class can reach its desired outcome.

Table 3. Example Rubric for Mapping Class Performance Against Outcomes

Class Student Outcomes (from Table 2)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Mechatronics X X X X X X X

Circuits X X X X X

Capstone X X X X X X X

Dr. Wear states, “… in designing our assessment method, we decided to treat the soft outcomes no differently than any other outcome.” This method gave a clear process to gather assessment criteria, but was ultimately subjective, which does leave some openness to interpretation. However, this meant that they did not need to implement all new material into their courses like the previously mentioned school. Instead Dr. Wear displayed how teachers can already evaluate students by obtaining outcomes from their everyday class work and laboratories.

Building Industrial RelevancyAn interesting criterion has also been, “an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice,” which is now integrated into criterion 1, 2, and 6.

Working with institutions around the world, we have seen that often in the accreditation process there is an acknowledgement of industrial hardware and software used in the program as a part of the self-assessment for courses. As we consider the various rubrics, peer evaluations, and written assignments, we have a unique opportunity using modern engineering tools that are common among learning, research, and industry to ensure that we can go further into the value of these techniques and skills.

ni.com/teach

Preparing for Accreditation7

At a course level, there is great value for the accreditation process as a driver toward having tools that can be incorporated into syllabus and curriculum (for example, labs and classes), for use in project-based learning opportunities (for example, creative self-determined designs and capstone projects), and finally to build student skills that are immediately available to drive employment.

Table 4 highlights the areas that are directly impacted by industry-relevant tools and areas that could be further supported with the right solution.

Table 4. Tools to Span Pedagogy and Industry

Student OutcomesValue to Integrate Tools That

Build on Industrial Skills

1 An ability to identify, formulate, and solve complex engineering problems by applying principles of engineering, science, and mathematics

✓

2 An ability to apply engineering design to produce solutions that meet specified needs with consideration of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as global, cultural, social, environmental, and economic factors

✓

3 An ability to communicate effectively with a range of audiences

4 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

5 An ability to function effectively on a team whose members together provide leadership, create a collaborative and inclusive environment, establish goals, plan tasks, and meet objectives

By using industrial tools, students can build skills that will immediately support teamwork in the workplace

6 An ability to develop and conduct appropriate experimentation, analyze and interpret data, and use engineering judgment to draw conclusions

✓

7 An ability to acquire and apply new knowledge as needed, using appropriate learning strategies

By using industrial tools, students will develop additional skills that support learning past the four-year degree

From an employer perspective, there is tremendous value in hiring graduates who have acquired these skills through hands-on, laboratory, and project-based activities. Some of the most successful accredited programs have been able to leverage industrial tools to drive outcomes around student success and engagement because students are:

1. Learning on industrially relevant tools that connect to the same types of tools used in industry

2. Developing a basis of skills and technique through coursework and laboratories

3. Building skills that will make them successful in current projects and upon graduation

ni.com/teach

Preparing for Accreditation8

Collaboration With Industry PartnersEducators and administrators often reach out to industrial partners in multiple ways. UW Tacoma was actively involved with industry through an advisory board, while other schools may look for insight into technology that it can apply to specific programs to support experimentation and curriculum.

There are many ways that industries can better partner with schools during the accreditation process. Some of the best practices include:

■■ Industrial advisory boards to connect educators with direct insights from hiring managers and leading industry innovators. Bringing the voice of thousands of employers to educators is tremendously impactful in ensuring that student outcomes align with the needs of the modern work place, namely soft skills like teamwork, critical thinking, and innovation. This relevancy is key, and we have seen our own executive leadership bring forth the opinion of 35,000+ global customers for the improvement and enhancement of educational programs. Examples of enhancement of educational programs by such participation of NI leadership on advisory boards includes: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Texas A&M University, Vanderbilt University, University of Colorado, and University of Virginia. The success of such engagements have supported the improvement of student satisfaction (University of Manchester), employability (University of Leeds), engagement and retention (University of Virginia), as well as modernizing curriculum (Tsinghua University).

■■ Curriculum is a significant element of the accreditation process, and there is an increasing need for partnership between industry and academia to provide the building blocks to make curriculum development easier, more impactful, and quicker to include industry tools in an effective manner. Industry partners have continued to increase the delivery of content that can support academics by reducing the effort to rapidly integrate new content into academic programs, which also helps ensure curriculum shows industrial relevancy. Some predeveloped teaching resources have been built by, or alongside, accredited programs (for example, University of Virginia, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology) as well as by leading companies focused on education (like Quanser). Such resources that align to various student outcomes have been curated by industry and are available at ni.com/teach.

■■ Industrially relevant technology solutions that can span teaching and industry have a huge value in delivering on student outcomes and bridging the gap between laboratory exercise and employment. When done correctly, this can ensure that any student can graduate from a program with both intuition and preparation for immediate success. One of the largest gaps historically has been bringing in industrial technology that may not be appropriately adapted for student usage. This can undermine the value of building the skills students need for future success with tools that are better suited to an industrial setting. The other extreme has been in tools that are only used in education, which may help drive relevant skill development and translate theory to practice, but do not appropriately build transferable skills for research and employment. Working alongside industrial partners can help define products that combine pedagogical features and are built upon an industrially relevant architecture; thereby, building knowledge in both the concept and a tool that the student can use in the future. We see this in laboratory platforms like NI Educational Laboratory Virtual Instrumentation Suite (NI ELVIS), myRIO, and myDAQ that are built upon the same technology used in advanced research and industry, but adapted specifically for student laboratory exercises and design.

ni.com/teach

Preparing for Accreditation9

■■ Engagement through industry and agency consortia also offers a unique opportunity to build more progressive engineering programs. Agencies such as the US Agency for International Development (USAID) engage in larger regional changes for engineering and science programs to modernize their approach and alignment with accreditation outcomes One example of such engagement is Arizona State University, USAID, and NI progressively improving the standards of engineering schools in countries like Vietnam (and in the future, in Laos and Cambodia). In this approach, the consortia developed the Higher Engineering Education Alliance Program (HEEAP) that trains lecturers and partner institution. This is a key chance to prepare faculty for the challenges of accreditation.

Such engagements, whether with NI or other industrial partners, are critical to further build support into the assessment process.

Closing Building out the self-assessment and going through the accreditation process is an involved, yet critical, requirement for engineering programs. Regardless of the approach, sustainability and scalability is an important thing to consider. Every 3-6 years (depending upon the accreditation process) requires another drive toward assessing the program, so the method of self-evaluation needs to be implemented permanently. This will be more productive in the future by building institutional knowledge to avoid wasting extra resources and time. We must also consider that the method be simple and effective. It should be malleable enough to incorporate the various changes that any accreditation process may make annually to its criteria and soft outcomes.

The accreditation process aims to push universities to continuously look to the future with a goal of bettering the world we live in. Universities continuously improve their programs to align with the needs of the world, and accreditation looks to ensure that we hold each new generation of engineers to a standard of knowledge that is consistent globally. The process can ensure that students have the skills and underlying employability to find a lucrative job or role, and tackle pressing, immense, and increasingly complex challenges.

Engineering programs are central to the creativity and innovation that will ultimately drive economic growth, as well as address the problems that might come with it. Global consistency on the proficiency and preparedness of the next generation of innovators helps ensure that we can build solutions to future challenges.

©2018 National Instruments. All rights reserved. National Instruments, NI, and ni.com are trademarks of National Instruments. Other product and company names listed are trademarks or trade names of their respective companies. 32188