accreditation of engineering, technology and computing programs
DESCRIPTION
Accreditation of Engineering, Technology and Computing Programs. Moshe Kam IEEE Vice President for Educational Activities. First Edition – October 2007. Version 003. Contact Information. Moshe Kam Robert G. Quinn Professor and Department Head Drexel University - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Accreditation of Engineering, Technology and Computing Programs
Moshe KamIEEE Vice President for Educational Activities
First Edition – October 2007
Version 003
IEEE EAB on accreditation2
Contact Information
Moshe KamRobert G. Quinn Professor and Department Head
Drexel University
Electrical and Computer Engineering
3141 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19101
IEEE EAB on accreditation3
DISCLAIMER
This presentation was prepared by the IEEE Educational Activities Board for a broad, general discussion of accreditation of engineering, computing, and technology
Material is provided for illustrative purposes only
Description of various rules and regulations are made in general descriptive terms and are not intended for operational or legal use
Material is not purported to represent the official policy of any accrediting body or any other governmental or non-governmental agency outside of IEEE
IEEE EAB on accreditation4
Outline
Purpose Accreditation in Engineering,
Computing and Technology• Definition, aims, uses and misuses,
models
Mutual recognition agreements Building new accrediting bodies in
the early 21st Century
IEEE EAB on accreditation5
Outline
Purpose Accreditation in Engineering,
Computing and Technology• Definition, aims, uses and misuses,
models
Mutual recognition agreements Building new accrediting bodies in
the early 21st Century
IEEE EAB on accreditation6
Purpose
To provide an overview of the accreditation process
To present different models and principal trends
To review existing international agreements and accords in the area of accreditation
IEEE EAB on accreditation7
A Few Words about IEEE
IEEE is the largest multinational professional engineering association in the world • 367,000 members in 150 countries• A 501(c)3 organization in incorporated in New York
Originally concentrating on power engineering and communications, IEEE at present spans technical interests across the spectrum of technology• From nanotechnology to oceanic engineering
In many respects IEEE has become “the steward of Engineering”
IEEE EAB on accreditation8
Early Presidents
Alexander G. Bell Elihu Thomson Charles Steinmetz Frank Sprague
IEEE EAB on accreditation9
A few more recent Presidents
Leah Jamieson Joseph Bordogna Michael Lightner Wallace Read
IEEE EAB on accreditation10
Why is IEEE interested in Accreditation?
Because it is in IEEE’s stated mission
Because accreditation has significant impact on the content of the curriculum in IEEE’s fields of interest• And hence on the future of the profession
Because IEEE’s involvement introduces the voice of the profession and its practitioners into the decision making process of educational institutions
IEEE EAB on accreditation11
Why is IEEE interested in Accreditation?
IEEE considers accreditation a strategic objective and supports accrediting bodies worldwide
• The IEEE BoD allocates funds and human resources to accreditation on an annual basis
About 500 volunteers $2M/year in direct expenditures in 2007
IEEE EAB on accreditation12
Outline
Purpose Accreditation in Engineering,
Computing and Technology• Definition, aims, uses and misuses,
models
Mutual recognition agreements Building a new accrediting body in
the early 21st Century
IEEE EAB on accreditation13
Operational Definition of Accreditation by CHEA (US)
Accreditation in higher education is defined as a collegial process based on self- and peer assessment for public accountability and improvement of academic quality
[Peers = group of peer faculty and staff, professionals, and public members]
Peers assess the quality of an institution or academic program and assist the faculty and staff in improvement
IEEE EAB on accreditation14
Three Major Activities
The faculty, administrators, and staff of the institution or academic program conduct a self-study using the accrediting organization’s set of expectations about quality (standards, criteria) as their guide
A team of peers, selected by the accrediting organization, reviews the evidence, visits the campus to interview the faculty and staff, and writes a report of its assessment, including a recommendation to the commission of the accrediting organization
IEEE EAB on accreditation15
The third step…
Guided by a set of expectations about quality and integrity, the commission • reviews the evidence and
recommendation• makes a judgment• communicates the decision to the
institution and other constituencies if appropriate
IEEE EAB on accreditation16
A Broader Definition of Accreditation
Formal recognition of an educational program by an external body on the basis of an assessment of quality
An evaluation process in which an objective group (accrediting body) examines an educational program to ensure that it is meeting minimum standards established by experts in the field• The outcome of the process is binary: program is
either accredited or not accredited
IEEE EAB on accreditation17
A Broader Definition of Accreditation
Formal recognition of an educational program by an external body on the basis of an assessment of quality
An evaluation process in which an objective group (accrediting body) examines an educational program to ensure that it is meeting minimum standards established by experts in the field• The outcome of the process is binary: program is
either accredited or not accredited
IEEE EAB on accreditation18
Challenges to the Traditional Definition (1)
Should the accreditation be done by an “external body”?• Is it possible to conduct accreditation by peer groups
E.g., peer institutions
Should the result of accreditation be binary?• Some groups in Europe have called for providing
evaluation in four categories with respect to every criterion
Fails to meet minimum requirements Meets minimum requirements Exceeds minimum requirements Excels in meeting this criterion
IEEE EAB on accreditation19
Challenges to the Traditional Definition (2)
Should we strive to meet minimum standards rather than achieving continuous improvement and excellence?
Will the current system of accreditation be useful to industry in the long term?• The mobility of labor has challenged traditional
credentials• The ECE industry had already rejected the licensing
process E.g., the industrial exemption in the United States
IEEE EAB on accreditation20
Looking Forward: Traditions
The trends we observe in accreditation will challenge traditional models
It is unlikely that over-prescriptive accreditation models will survive
It is unlikely that models that are based solely on minimum thresholds will survive
IEEE EAB on accreditation21
The Constituencies of an Educational Program
Past, present and prospective students
Prospective employers
Other bodies of higher education
Licensing bodies
Government
The public at large
IEEE EAB on accreditation22
The Various Functions of Accreditation (1)
Provide constituencies of the educational program with a guarantee that an educational program… • meets (minimum) standards• continues to evolve in order to incorporate
best practices
Put a stamp of approval on graduates – they are ready to practice• Raises the issue of First Professional Degree
in Engineering
IEEE EAB on accreditation23
The Various Functions of Accreditation (2)
Provide educational programs with opportunities for self-definition and self-reflection • and with feedback on program content and
direction
Provide opportunities for continuous improvement of education programs
IEEE EAB on accreditation24
Misuse of Accreditation
Coercion• The process needs to be voluntary
Disciplinary action
Ranking and comparison of schools
Controlling the school
Serving the interests of one constituency on the expense of others
Homogenizing higher education
Control competition
Limit enrollments
IEEE EAB on accreditation25
Accreditation is not indispensable…
Industry can replace accreditation by other mechanisms of quality assessment• University rankings by academic bodies• University rankings by the popular press• Internal lists of “acceptable institutions” • Entry exams and interviews of graduates
If accreditation is to survive it should be• Pertinent • Transparent• Fair• Economical • Adaptive to the business climate
IEEE EAB on accreditation26
The Basic Structure of the Process: Accrediting Body
Accrediting body defines its accreditation philosophy and publishes criteria and process
Accrediting body identifies and trains program evaluators
Bodies that recognize accrediting bodies require proof of decision independence• The funding mechanism and accreditation
decisions should be independent
IEEE EAB on accreditation27
A Word of Caution: Independence
In several instances, IEEE observed loss of independence of accrediting bodies
In all of these cases, the accrediting body was discredited• Schools preferred foreign accrediting bodies over the
local one
It is not clear whether government controlled accrediting bodies will be recognized in the future by international accords
IEEE EAB on accreditation28
The Basic Structure of the Process: Program
Program studies accrediting body literature Program collects required material and verifies
presumption of accreditability
Program requests an accreditation visit
Program gets organized to provide information to accrediting body and visiting team
Self study
IEEE EAB on accreditation29
Interaction Between Accrediting Body and Program
Mutual agreement on visiting team
Agreement on dates and logistics• Within published guidelines
Pre-visit communications
Accrediting visit and preliminary reporting
Post-visit communications
Report preparation and determination of outcome
Post-report communications – possible appeals
IEEE EAB on accreditation30
Two important caveats
The accreditation visit is supposed to provide “no surprises”• All concerns that program evaluators have on
the basis of submitted data are supposed to be discussed ahead of the visit
On site visit focuses on the accreditation criteria and their implementation• This is not the time for ‘free advice’ or
planning of the program future by the visiting group
IEEE EAB on accreditation31
Looking Forward: Implementation
At present most accreditation bodies operate on 5-7 year cycles
A series of “dramatic events” followed by long periods of low or no activity
Elaborate visits requiring significant preparation
It is possible to design a much simpler process that takes advantage of progress in information technology• Information is posted and updated continually• Visits are shorter
focus only on the few items that do not require face to face interaction
IEEE EAB on accreditation32
Selected accrediting bodies (1)
Engineers Australia
Engineers Ireland
Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board of the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers
France: Commission des Titres d'Ingénieur
Germany: ASIIN
Hong Kong Institution of Engineers
For additional details see www.Accreditation.org
IEEE EAB on accreditation33
Selected accrediting bodies (2)
Japan: Japan Accreditation Board for Engineering Education
Korea: Accreditation Board for Engineering Education of Korea
Malaysia: Board of Engineers Malaysia
Mexico: Council of Accreditation of the Education of Engineering
New Zealand: Institution of Professional Engineers of New Zealand
For additional details see www.Accreditation.org
IEEE EAB on accreditation34
Selected accrediting bodies (3)
Singapore: Institution of Engineers Singapore
South Africa: Engineering Council of South Africa
United Kingdom: Engineering Council United Kingdom
United States: ABET
For additional details see www.Accreditation.org
IEEE EAB on accreditation35
Characteristics of Accreditation (1)
Voluntary
Performed by an external agency• Based on the locale of the program• Uses representation of all major constituencies
Government inspection is not Accreditation
Based on clear published standards
Evaluative – not regulatory• It is not the place of the visiting team to provide the visited
program with detailed prescriptions and methodology
IEEE EAB on accreditation36
Characteristics of Accreditation (2)
Requires continuous maintenance
Binary (at present, in most cases)
Cognizant of program objectives and goals• One size does not fit all• Accreditation is not meant to homogenize the
education system
IEEE EAB on accreditation37
What are the Factors That May be Considered?
Content of the curriculum• Is there enough exposure to discrete
mathematics?
Size and skill base of the faculty• Does a Computer Science program have
individuals who are trained in Artificial Intelligence?
Morale and governance of the faculty
IEEE EAB on accreditation38
Potential Consideration Factors (2)
Facilities• Does the Microwave Laboratory in an
EE program have a Spectrum Analyzer?
Admission criteria• Do the admission criteria ensure that
incoming students have the basic skills required to attend the program?
IEEE EAB on accreditation39
Potential Consideration Factors (3)
Support services• Do the program’s computing facilities enjoy
professional system administration?
Graduate placement• Do the majority of the program graduates find
gainful professional employment within 6 months of graduation?
Budgets and expenditures
IEEE EAB on accreditation40
Looking Forward…
Many of the traditional factors required a site visit for verification
A model that considers most of the factors on line is now possible
Accreditation may become continuous rather than a discrete event• Shift from reaching the minimum to
continuous improvement
IEEE EAB on accreditation41
Level of Specificity
The degree to which criteria are defined in terms of numerical goals or specific coverage methodologies
The degree of specificity depends on the accreditation model• The general trend in the last 10 years is
away from specifics
IEEE EAB on accreditation42
Level of Specificity: Examples
Non-specific• A computer science program needs to show that
graduates were exposed to the principles of database organization and have used this knowledge in open- ended exercises and projects
Specific• A computer science program will include at least 24
hours on in-class instruction on databases which includes: database models (at least 3 hours); relational models (at least 1 hour)…
• A minimum of two 6-hour laboratory exercises on databases must be included. These exercises include…
IEEE EAB on accreditation43
A Two-Tier Process
Usually accreditation of engineering, computing and technology programs relies on a “general accreditation” of the institution
Another accrediting agency ascertains compliance with laws and regulations, basic fiscal solvency, and preservation of human rights
If the first tier is missing, the “technical” accreditation needs to include it• This may be a challenge for new accrediting bodies
IEEE EAB on accreditation44
Most of the Work Does Not Involve the Accrediting Body
Program must establish mechanism to collect data on its activities
Program must establish mechanism to use data to reaffirm or reform its activities
Program must undergo a thorough self-study• This is often the most important outcome of
the accreditation process
IEEE EAB on accreditation45
Different Approaches and Styles of Accreditation
The Minimal Model
The Regulatory Model
The Outcome-Based Model
The Peer-Review model
The Program Club model
IEEE EAB on accreditation46
The “Minimal Model”
Ascertains basic characteristics of the school and program• Often numeric and law-based
Does the school satisfy basic legal requirements? Does the school have enough budget, infrastructure and
reserves to conduct the program?
Ascertains existence of the fundamental basics in the school and program• Physical conditions, size and skill base of the faculty,
coverage of basic topics in the curriculum
Provides a prescription for a minimal core and very general parameters for the rest of the curriculum
IEEE EAB on accreditation47
Reflections on the Minimal Model
It is easy to install and maintain as long as it adheres to the “minimal” philosophy
Not a bad way to start an accrediting body
Does not encourage continuous improvement
The biggest danger is “mission creep”• More and more requirements
IEEE EAB on accreditation48
The Regulatory Model
Requires strict adherence to a core curriculum• E.g., defines the minimum requirements for a Software
Engineering curriculum
Specifies parameters for the rest of the curriculum• E.g., at least 6 credit hours of post WWII history
Often involving direct prescriptions of curriculum and faculty composition• E.g., “at least three faculty in manufacturing are required
if the body of students exceeds 120”
IEEE EAB on accreditation49
Reflections on the Regulatory Model
Makes the accrediting process uniform and potentially fair• Criteria are unambiguous and often numeric
Difficult to establish and update• Leads to endless strife over what the “core” means
Relatively easy to maintain• The key to success is adherence to clear rules
Was shown to stifle innovation and creativity in the curriculum• This was the philosophy of the pre-2000 ABET model
IEEE EAB on accreditation50
The Outcome-Based Model
Prescribes a “small” core and basic requirements
Prescribes basic parameters for the goals of the program• But does not specify the specific goals of the program
Focuses on the goals and objectives of the program• E.g., to maximize the number of graduates who continue to
Medical or Law school• E.g., to maximize the number of graduates who become
program managers in the construction industry
Requires evidence of measurement of goals
Requires evidence of using the measurements to feed a quality improvement process
IEEE EAB on accreditation51
Reflections on the Outcome-Based Model
Provides for significant diversity in goals and objectives• Very different from the regulatory model
Puts a lot of responsibility and risk in the hands of the program leaders• E.g., some programs may try to achieve goals that are
unattainable
Sophisticated and hard to evaluate• Very difficult to avoid complaints on inconsistent evaluations
This is the basic philosophy of the current ABET EC2000 and TC2000 criteria• Though implementation does not always follow the
philosophy
IEEE EAB on accreditation52
A Word of Caution: Outcome-Based Accreditation
While outcome-based accreditation is the most popular paradigm for accreditation, it is not problem-free
The prescriptive nature with respect to course content can be replaced by a prescriptive process with respect to assessments
Too much data may be collected and analyzed in order to prove that methods were assessed
Adherence to the process by zealous program evaluators may cause strong disagreements about methodology• E.g., the debate about Direct Assessment
IEEE EAB on accreditation53
Goal Evidence
Graduates are ready to enter the workforce
Placement figures of recent graduates
Programs develops future leaders of industry
Statistically-valid evidence of leadership positions for graduates of the last 20 years
Programs provides the Province with computer scientists needed to accomplish national R&D goals
Evidence that graduates settle in the Province and maintain employment in Computer Science
Program serves students who wish to gain engineering background before they develop careers in medicine or law
Evidence that graduates turn to practice of law and medicine in statistically meaningful numbers
Collection of Data
IEEE EAB on accreditation54
Evidence Use of Evidence
Employer survey indicates graduates have difficulties using modern computing tools for control
Junior class in Control Systems now includes a section and lab on symbolic computation for control
Percentage of students who choose graduate school is dropping
Department commissions a survey of recent graduates to understand their new post-graduation profile
Graduation rates are dropping; exam grades in mathematics are dropping
Department institutes an “entrance exam” in mathematics. Low achievers are directed to remedial classes.
Use of Data for Improvement
IEEE EAB on accreditation55
The Peer Review Model
A coalition of schools organizes in group of peers • Schools select their peers • Members from other constituencies are added
Government, Industry, professional associations
The peer groups conduct the review in evaluator teams
Model requires an arbitrator and facilitator• Ideally a professional association
IEEE EAB on accreditation56
Reflections on the Peer Review Model
This is the way accreditation was done in the US in the early 20th Century• E.g., Princeton and Johns Hopkins came to visit the
College of Engineering at Drexel University in 1904
Difficult to organize
Considered less confrontational and more collegial
Risk a drift in the direction of unpublished mandates
Risks clashes of philosophies and program rivalry
Selection/acceptance of peers may be complicated
IEEE EAB on accreditation57
The “Program Club” Model
Group of peer institutions create a “program club”• Use a common website for communication
Programs that wish to join create a website with requested information
Programs report continually on progress and experimentation in education
New ideas are discussed and tried by members of the club
Few on-site visits (possibly during an annual conference)
IEEE EAB on accreditation58
Reflections on the “Program Club” Model
Continuous accreditation model
Difficult to organize
Considered less confrontational and more collegial
Risks clashes of philosophies and program rivalry
Selection/acceptance of peers may be complicated
“High maintenance”
IEEE EAB on accreditation59
Key to Success: Consistency and Transparency
Criteria need to be clear and published• Ambiguities and potential for different
interpretations need to be flagged out and addressed
• Terminology needs to be defined
Visit and reports should follow the criteria closely• Findings and conclusions should use the
criteria and the established terminology
IEEE EAB on accreditation60
Accreditation and Licensing
IEEE EAB on accreditation61
Relationship Between Licensing and Accreditation
Accreditation is provided to educational programs
A license is provided to individuals• Graduation from an accredited
program is often a condition for licensing
• Licensing exams are often based on model curricula of accrediting bodies
Serious problem in the US since EC2000
IEEE EAB on accreditation62
Engineering and Computing Licensing in 2007…
Licensing of engineering and computing professionals is perceived to be “broken” in many countries• Not a needed credential in many disciplines• Poor enforcement• Further weakening due to massive redistribution of
labor among markets in the early 2000s
One possible solution - the Canadian model• Licensing = graduation from an accredited program
PLUS testing on safety, professionalism and ethics NOT on school material
IEEE EAB on accreditation63
Licensing and the First Professional Degree in Engineering
At present there is debate in the US and Europe about “the first professional degree in engineering”
The US National Academy of Engineering and several European organizations appears to favor a Master of Science degree• In Europe this view follows adoption of the Bologna
Process
The NCEES (USA) wants B.S. degree plus 30 semester credits
No consensus among professional organizations
IEEE EAB on accreditation64
Outline
Purpose Accreditation in Engineering,
Computing and Technology• Definition, aims, uses and misuses,
models
Mutual recognition agreements Building new accrediting bodies in
the early 21st Century
For additional details see www.Accreditation.org
IEEE EAB on accreditation65
Purpose
Mutual recognition agreements establish acceptance of accreditation decisions of one accrediting body by another
Foster mobility of professionals
Provide recognition to accrediting bodies• As well as quality control
For additional details see www.Accreditation.org
IEEE EAB on accreditation66
Caution: who recognizes whom
Mutual recognition agreements are between accrediting bodies, not states or governments
It is possible, for example, that • an accrediting body will recognize that
graduates from programs recognized by another accrediting body are ready to practice at an entry level…
• But the State/Government would NOT
IEEE EAB on accreditation67
For additional details see www.Accreditation.org
IEEE EAB on accreditation68
An agreement between accrediting bodies on mutual recognition of program accreditation• Does not cover licensure and registration
Recognizing the substantial equivalency of accreditation systems of organizations holding signatory status, and the engineering education programs accredited by them
Establishing that graduates of programs accredited by the accreditation organizations of each member nation are prepared to practice engineering at the entry level
IEEE EAB on accreditation69
“By virtue of the Washington Accord’s affirmation of substantial equivalence among its members, the signatories have come to acknowledge generally accepted, globally relevant attributes that graduates from accredited engineering programs are expected to possess.
This acknowledgement of substantial equivalence has the potential for facilitating mobility of practicing engineers across country boundaries.”
Source: Presentation by George Peterson to EAB, November 2006
IEEE EAB on accreditation70
More on the Washington Accord
Signatories may exchange observers to annual meetings or accreditation visits
Verification required at regular intervals (no more than 6 years)
Bilateral agreements by individual signatories not recognized by other signatories
Recently – accreditation “outside the home territory” is also recognized
IEEE EAB on accreditation71
Washington Accord Signatories
Engineers, Australia
Canadian Council of Professional Engineers
Institution of Engineers Singapore
Hong Kong Institute of Engineers
Engineers Ireland
Japan Accreditation Board for Engineering Education
Engineers, New Zealand
Engineering Council of South Africa
Engineering Council, United Kingdom
ABET, Inc.
Source: Presentation by George Peterson to EAB, November 2006
IEEE EAB on accreditation72
Recent additions (2007)
ABEEK (Republic of Korea) IEET (Chinese Taipei)
IEEE EAB on accreditation73
Provisional Members
ASIIN Germany 2003
BEM Malaysia 2003
RAEE Russia 2005
Source: Presentation by George Peterson to EAB, November 2006
IEEE EAB on accreditation74
IEEE EAB on accreditation75
Maintenance
Signatories routinely observe each others processes
Mandatory review of each signatory at regular intervals
Every two years there is a general review of the agreement
Source: Presentation by George Peterson to EAB, November 2006
IEEE EAB on accreditation76
Upgrading
Increasing scope of the agreement
Introduction of new members
Improving operations
IEEE EAB on accreditation77
Other Agreements
The Bologna Declaration
Lisbon convention
MERCOSUR
Western Hemisphere Initiative
IEEE EAB on accreditation78
Additional Agreements
Name Area/Focus
ENAEE Europe
Engineering for the Americas
South and Central America
APEC Engineer Agreement
Asia Pacific
Sydney Accord Engineering Technology
Dublin Accord Engineering technicians
For additional details see www.Accreditation.org
IEEE EAB on accreditation79
The Bologna Declaration (1999)
Signed by ministers of education of 29 European countries
Adoption of a system of easily readable and comparable degrees
common terminology and standards
Adoption of a system essentially based on two main cycles, undergraduate and graduate….
IEEE EAB on accreditation80
Two Cycles: 3+(2+2)
Access to the second cycle shall require successful completion of first cycle studies, lasting a minimum of three years
The degree awarded after the first cycle shall also be relevant to the European labour market as an appropriate level of qualification
The second cycle should lead to the master and/or doctorate degree
IEEE EAB on accreditation81
Some ramifications of the Bologna Process to Engineering Education (1)
Potential ambiguity about the duration and scope of studies toward the Bachelor of Science Degree
• In some countries a 4-year B.Sc. degree is considered the First Professional Degree (FPD) in Engineering
• In other countries a 3-year B.Sc. Degree is considered a pre-engineering degree
FPD=Master of Science
IEEE EAB on accreditation82
Some ramifications of the Bologna Process to Engineering Education (2)
Potentially – differences between interpretations and weight of the Bachelor of Science Degree in Engineering • FPD=B.Sc. Or M.Sc.?
Questions about mobility of engineers between Europe and the rest of the world
IEEE EAB on accreditation83
A Complementary Approach - Registry
In several parts of the world accrediting bodies and regulatory agencies have established an engineer registry
The registry recognizes engineers who have graduated from programs accredited by a recognized body
Process makes it easier to verify credentials• Can be perceived as being in competition with
licensing/registration
IEEE EAB on accreditation84
Outline
Purpose Accreditation in Engineering,
Computing and Technology• Definition, aims, uses and misuses,
models
Mutual recognition agreements Building a new accrediting body in
the Early 21st Century
IEEE EAB on accreditation85
Scope
Building new accrediting bodies provides an opportunity to use about 80 years of experience with existing bodies
Buy-in needed from• Professional Associations and leaders of the
profession• Academic institutions and the faculty• Industry, especially employers of engineers
and technologists• Governmental bodies and regulators
IEEE EAB on accreditation86
Desired Final Outcome
A fully functional stable accrediting body, operating with clear rules and regulations, and with a transparent and simple structure
Reputation for independence in accreditation decisions
Membership of the accrediting body in the appropriate mutual recognition accords
IEEE EAB on accreditation87
Opportunities to learn from existing bodies…
Structure and basic processes
Criteria
Methodology • especially self studies and outcome-based techniques
Development of constituency coalitions
Decision independence• “independence from any parent entity, or sponsoring entity,
for the conduct of accreditation activities and determination of accreditation status” (CHEA 2007)
IEEE EAB on accreditation88
Opportunities to improve on the operations
of existing accrediting bodies
Better use of information technology and automation
A more continuous and smooth process
Experimentation with less centralized models• The Peer Review and Coalitional models
IEEE EAB on accreditation89
New opportunities for accrediting bodies…
Development and provisions of tools for continuous reporting, assessment and improvement
Creation and maintenance of a registries • of engineers, computer scientists, and
technologists
IEEE EAB on accreditation90
Who should govern the accrediting body?
Professional associations Academic institutions Industry
Institutions from the three sectors should be invited to become Members of the accrediting body
Voting Members in the annual/bi-annual assembly of Members
Governments should be invited to observe and advise
IEEE EAB on accreditation91
Possible structure of a new accrediting body
IEEE EAB on accreditation92
Member Assembly
Board of Directors
Engineering Computing TechnologyCOMMISSIONS
Program Evaluators
STAFF
IEEE EAB on accreditation93
How should the accreditation body be financed?
Participation fees • From professional associations and industry
Accreditation fees • From participating institutions
Grants and gifts• For special projects and research
IEEE EAB on accreditation94
Stakeholders
Academic institutions• Presidents, provosts, chancellors, deans
Industry• Major employers of engineers, computer scientists,
and technologists Professional associations
• Local, local sections of transnational organizations, transnational organizations with local sections
Governments• Ministries of education and industry, accreditation
oversight bodies Other Civic Organizations
IEEE EAB on accreditation95
Possible dangers
Not enough interest
Failure to include all major stakeholders• Especially Industry
Poor finances
Lack of decision independence
Competition/meddling by outside accrediting bodies
Political infighting
IEEE EAB on accreditation96
Questions or Comments?
IEEE EAB on accreditation97
Additional Sources
Presentations in EAB workshops on accreditation• Esp. by Lyle Feisel, see www.ieee.org/education
Public domain information provided by ABET Inc., EUR-ACE, the Washington Accord website, CHEA• Mostly from the organizations’ web sites
J.W. Prados, G. D. Peterson, and L.R. Lattuca: “Quality Assurance of Engineering Education through Accreditation: The Impact of Engineering Criteria 2000 and Its Global Influence,” Journal of Engineering Education, pp. 165-184, January 2005.
Prof. Dr. Dirk Van Damme (Ghent University, Belgium). Accreditation in global higher education. The need for international information and cooperation. Outline of IAUP approach. May 2000.