Dr. Raman Unnikrishnan, Dean and Professor

California State University, FullertonCollege of Engineering and Computer

ScienceAugust 11, 2009

R. Unnikrishnan

Introduction to ABET

General Criteria

Program Criteria

Accreditation Action Statistics

Selection of Team Chair and Program Evaluators

Washington Accord

Mentoring India

Vietnam and ABET

R. Unnikrishnan

Almost all of the information presented in this talk related toABET was obtained from public sites of ABET. This source isgratefully acknowledged.

The information about Washington Accord, likewise, is frompublic sources.

R. Unnikrishnan

A quest for continuous improvement

R. Unnikrishnan

Engineer’s Council for Professional Development (ECPD) 75 years ago

In 1980, ECPD was renamed the Accreditation Board

for Engineering and Technology or ABET to more

accurately describe its emphasis on accreditation.

In 2005, ABET formally changed its name from the

“Accreditation Board for Engineering and

Technology” to ABET, Inc.

R. Unnikrishnan

The ECPD’s original focuses were in the following areas:

Guidance — Supplying information to engineering

students and potential students.

Training — Developing plans for personal and

professional development.

Education — Appraising engineering curricula and

maintaining a list of accredited curricula.

Recognition — Developing methods where-by individuals

could achieve recognition by the profession and the general

public.

What Is ABET Accreditation?

ABET accreditation is assurance that a college or university program meets the quality standards established by the profession for which it prepares its students. For example, an accredited engineering program must meet the quality standards set by the engineering profession. An accredited computer science program must meet the quality standards set by the computing profession.

R. Unnikrishnan

ABET accredits postsecondary degree-granting programs housed within regionally accredited institutions. 

ABET accredits programs only, not degrees, departments, colleges, or institutions.

R. Unnikrishnan

Structure

ABET is a federation of  28 professional and technical societies.

Individual members of these societies, practicing professionals from industry and academe - form the body of ABET through its program evaluators (PEVs), Board of Directors, and four accreditation commissions:

• Applied Science Accreditation Commission (ASAC)• Computing Accreditation Commission (CAC)• Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC)• Technology Accreditation Commission (TAC)

R. Unnikrishnan

Board of Directors The primary responsibilities of the Board of Directors are to set policy and approve accreditation criteria.

Commissions The commissions implement accreditation procedures and decisions.

Program Evaluators (PEVs) Program evaluators, along with commissioners, make up ABET's accreditation teams, which visit and evaluate programs seeking accreditation.

R. Unnikrishnan

Member Societies (These are the lead organizations)

CSAB: Computer Science

ASCE: Civil Engineering

ASME: Mechanical Engineering

IEEE: Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering

And others…

R. Unnikrishnan

R. Unnikrishnan

GENERAL CRITERIA FOR BACCALAUREATE LEVEL PROGRAMS

Criterion 1. Students (Evaluation of performance, advising, curricular adherence)Criterion 2. Program Educational Objectives (based on the needs of the constituencies; are they achieved?)Criterion 3. Program OutcomesCriterion 4. Continuous ImprovementCriterion 5. Curriculumone year of a combination of college level mathematics and basic sciences (some with experimental experience)one and one-half years of engineering topicsa general education componentmajor design experience

Criterion 6. Faculty (number and quality)Criterion 7. Facilities (Classroom and labs)Criterion 8. Support (Institutional)Criterion 9. Program Criteria (depends on the major)

R. Unnikrishnan

Engineering programs must demonstrate that their students attain the following outcomes:

a)an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineeringb)an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret datac)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 sustainabilityd)an ability to function on multidisciplinary teamse)an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problemsf)an understanding of professional and ethical responsibilityg)an ability to communicate effectivelyh)the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal contexti)a recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learningj)a knowledge of contemporary issuesk)an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.

Deficiency: A deficiency indicates that a criterion, policy, or procedure is not satisfied. Therefore, the program is not in compliance with the criterion, policy, or procedure.

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 evaluation.

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.

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.

ABET Terminology

R. Unnikrishnan

ABET Actions

NGR (Next General Review) – 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.

IR (Interim Report) – This action indicates that the program has one or more weaknesses. The nature of the weaknesses is such that an on-site visit will not be required to evaluate the remedial actions taken by the institution. A report focusing on the remedial actions taken by the institution will be required. This action has a typical duration of two years.

IV (Interim Visit) – This action indicates that the program has one or more weaknesses. The nature of the weaknesses is such that an on-site visit will be required to evaluate the remedial actions taken by the institution. This action has a typical duration of two years.

R. Unnikrishnan

ABET ActionsSC (Show Cause) – This action indicates that the program has one or more deficiencies. An on-site visit will be required to evaluate the remedial actions taken by the institution. This action has a typical duration of two years.

SE (Show Cause Extended) -- This action indicates that satisfactory remedial action has been taken by the institution with respect to all deficiencies and weaknesses identified in the prior SC action. This action is taken only after an interim SC evaluation. This action typically extends accreditation to the next general review and, thus, has a typical duration of either two or four years.

NA (Not to Accredit) -- This action indicates that the program has deficiencies such that the program is in continued non-compliance with the applicable criteria. This action is usually taken only after a SC evaluation or the evaluation of a new, unaccredited program. Accreditation is generally not extended as a result of this action, except as specified in Section II.F.9.

T (Terminate) – This action is generally taken in response to a request by an institution that accreditation be extended for a program that is being phased out. The intent is to p

R. Unnikrishnan

ABET Actions

RE (Report Extended) – This action indicates that satisfactory remedial action has been taken by the institution with respect to weaknesses identified in the prior IR action. This action is taken only after an IR evaluation. This action extends accreditation to the next general review and, thus, has a typical duration of either two or four years.

VE (Visit Extended) -- This action indicates that satisfactory remedial action has been taken by the institution with respect to weaknesses identified in the prior IV action. This action is taken only after an IV evaluation. This action extends accreditation to the next general review and, thus, has a typical duration of either two or four years.

R. Unnikrishnan

Relationship with shortcomings andRecommended Actions

NGR There are no deficiencies and no weaknesses. Concerns are OK.

IR There are no deficiencies but there is a weakness or two. The weaknesses are such that they can be rectified and the outcome communicated to ABET via a report. Concerns are OK.

IV There are no deficiencies but there are multiple weaknesses. The weakness or weaknesses are of nature that a visit is needed to verify compliance. Concerns are OK.

Observations do not enter accreditation actions

R. Unnikrishnan

Post Visit Activities

1. Team Chair sends electronic copies of Short Form to ABET Headquarters and the Editor. (+3 Days)

2. Institution sends 7-day response to Team Chair and Program Evaluators. In this response, the institution should reply only to errors of fact related to shortcomings listed on the PAF forms that were given to the Dean at the conclusion ofthe visit. (+7 Days)

3. Team Chair, in consultation with Program Evaluators, edits the individual program Exit Interview statements into a cohesive and consistent Draft Statement and incorporates theInstitution's 7-day response. (+10 Days)

4. Team Chair sends (a) copy of the proposed Draft Statement, (b) the original completed PAF forms, and (c) original short form to the designated EAC Editors and ABETHeadquarters. (+14 Days)

R. Unnikrishnan

5. EAC Editor 1 edits the formatted Draft Statement, reviews any changes with the Team Chair, and forwards this with original PAF's and original short form with the Editor’s recommended action to the EAC Editor 2. (+35 Days)

6. EAC Editor 2 edits the Draft Statement in consultation with the Editor 1 as appropriate, indicates the EAC Chair’s recommended action on the original Short Form and sends to ABET Headquarters.

7. ABET edits, formats, and sends Draft Statement to the Institution with a letter signed by the EAC Chair.

8. ABET sends a copy of the Draft Statement and letter to the Team Chair and Editors.

Post Visit Activities

R. Unnikrishnan

Post Visit Activities9. Institution reviews Draft Statement and sends due-process response to the EAC Chair within 30 days. Institution also sends copies to the Team Chair, Editor, and ABET Headquarters.

10. Team Chair revises the Draft Statement and PAF forms in consultation with Program Evaluators to reflect changes reported by the Institution in the due-process response.

11. Team Chair sends revised Draft Statement and updated original Short Form and PAF forms to the EAC Editor. Only the table portion of the PAF is included – no explanation of shortcomings pages are required. (Within 2 Weeks after receiving the due-process response)

12. EAC Editor 1 revises Draft Statement, updates the original Short Form and PAF forms in consultation with the Team Chair as needed, and forwards revised Draft Statement and updated original Short Form and PAF forms to the EAC Editor 2.

R. Unnikrishnan

Post Visit Activities

13. EAC Editor 2 edits Draft Statement and updates the original Short Form and PAF forms in consultation with the Editor as needed, and forwards to ABET Headquarters.

14. ABET Headquarters edits the Draft Statement for presentation to EAC with a copy of the Short Form.

15. EAC takes final action and makes final revision to the Draft Statement.

16. ABET Headquarters formats Final Statement and transmits to the Institution with accreditation letter signed by ABET President.

17. Institution may appeal

R. Unnikrishnan

R. Unnikrishnan

Criterion Deficiency Weakness ConcernBefore After Before After Before After

1. Students 3 0 14 1 51 282. Prog. Ed. Objectives 3 1 172 92 76 67

3. Outcomes & Assessment

2 1 125 84 96 85

3. Professional Component

7 0 28 11 37 30

3. Faculty 0 0 20 11 92 723. Facilities 0 0 18 7 57 483. Inst. Support &

Financials0 0 12 6 89 68

3. Program Criteria 1 1 28 18 33 25

Data from 467 programs at 128 institutions

R. Unnikrishnan

Goal: Working Together to Advance Benchmarking and Mobility in the Engineering Profession

Originally signed in 1989 by 6 engineering education accrediting bodies from:

Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, United Kingdom & United States

Non-governmental agreement

Emphasizes peer-review

R. Unnikrishnan

Monitoring & verification of signatories’ accreditation system every 6 years

Developmental pathways for provisional admission (mature accreditors vs. emerging accreditors)

Business Meeting of Signatories - every 2 years

Full signatory status requires unanimous agreement

R. Unnikrishnan

… recognizes the “substantial equivalency” of accreditation systems to assess that the graduates of accredited programs are prepared to practice engineering at the entry level to the profession.

R. Unnikrishnan

Therefore, the focus is on 4-year (minimum)Undergraduate programs in engineering.

Licensure/registration of graduates from recognized programs rests with receiving country/jurisdiction

Signatory encourages the licensing body in its own country to accept the substantial equivalence of engineering educational programs accredited by the other Signatories.

Programs accredited prior to acceptance of accreditor as full Signatory - not recognized

Facilitates international mobility for engineers

Provisional status – no recognition of programs by Signatories

R. Unnikrishnan

R. Unnikrishnan

SIGNATORIES

Engineers Australia (1989) IPENZ (New Zealand -1989)

Engineers Canada (1989) IES (Singapore 2006)HKIE (Hong Kong – 1995) IEET (Chinese Taipei –

2007)Engineers Ireland (1989) ECSA (South Africa – 1999)JABEE (Japan - 2005) ECUK (UK – 1989) ABEEK (Korea – 2007) ABET (USA – 1989)

PROVISIONAL STATUS

ASIIN (Germany - 2003)BEM (Malaysia - 2003)

NBA of AICTE (India - 2007) IE Sri Lanka (2007)

RAEE (Russia – 2007)

Adoption of Exemplar for Graduate Attributes and Professional Competencies for Engineers, Technologists and Technicians

Mentoring process for developing accreditation organizations

Harmonized rules & procedures for Washington Accord, Sydney Accord, Dublin Accord

Several organizations throughout the world have expressed interest in joining the Washington Accord

Joint secretariat to manage international accords and agreements

R. Unnikrishnan

Managing changing standards & degree levels among and between signatories

Distance education Branch campuses across national

boundaries

R. Unnikrishnan

Licensing jurisdictions, on the whole, recognize the Washington Accord

Increasing interest in joining by existing accreditors

Increasing interest in developing accreditation systems, within countries or regions

Enhanced international recognition of home institutions

Enhanced mobility of graduatesR. Unnikrishnan

Slides, once again, thanks to ABET!

R. Unnikrishnan

Mentoring India (2009)

dispassionate observations as friends of India and as professionals visiting here to help NBA/AICTE

R. Unnikrishnan

RUSH YEAR FOR NEW COLLEGES

States EngineeringExisting Fresh

Maharashtra 239 85

MP 161 50

Tamil Nadu 352 144

AP 527 176

Uttar Pradesh 241 83

Haryana 116 38

Across India 2388 886Source: AICTE (Fresh applications are colleges from 2009-10 academic year

R. Unnikrishnan

R. Unnikrishnan

R. Unnikrishnan