The ABET Process and the ECE community

1

First, a Few Numbers

…which may indicate that the ABET accreditation process has been increasingly harder for programs to manage…

2

EAC ACTIONS 1997-2007

3

NGR IR IV SC NA 1997 80% 10% 7% 2% 1% 1998 77% 12% 9% 3% 1% 1999 78% 11% 8% 3% 1% 2000 66% 22% 11% 1% 1% 2001 72% 13% 14% 1% 1% 2002 68% 21% 11% 1% 0% 2003 77% 17% 5% 1% 0% 2004 71% 20% 7% 1% 1% 2005 72% 22% 5% 1% 0% 2006 65% 26% 9% 0% 0% 2007 65% 30% 5% 0% 0%

http://abet.org/Linked%20Documents-UPDATE/Stats/07-AR%20Stats.pdf

4

http://abet.org/Linked%20Documents-UPDATE/Stats/07-AR%20Stats.pdf

EAC ACTIONS 1997-2007

5

Collectively, we are not getting better at this

http://abet.org/Linked%20Documents-UPDATE/Stats/07-AR%20Stats.pdf

EAC ACTIONS 1997-2007

Now… a Few Theses…

6

Main Theses (1)

(1) The focus of the ABET review process has shifted from Outcomes to the Assessment Process– It is questionable whether this provides our

students with better education

(2) The value of accreditation is questioned– By industry

• as demonstrated by industry's actions

– By programs that worry about Return on Investment 7

Main Theses (2)

(3) The complexity of the ABET evaluation process encourages wholesale adoption of Program Outcomes a-k – variations and additions make life harder– the result is less diversity

• exactly the opposite of EC2000’s intent

(4) The fact that ABET is a monopoly is a problem

8

Main Theses (3)

(5) There are significant opportunities to simplify and automate the review process– make it continuous and transparent using

information technology

(6) Opportunities of the ECE academic community to be heard by ABET go unused

9

Thesis 1: The focus…has shifted from Outcomes to the Assessment Process

Criterion 2. Program Educational Objectives • Each program for which an institution seeks accreditation or

reaccreditation must have in place: • (a) published educational objectives that are consistent with

the mission of the institution and these criteria • (b) a process that periodically documents and demonstrates

that the objectives are based on the needs of the program's various constituencies

• (c) an assessment and evaluation process that periodically documents and demonstrates the degree to which these objectives are attained.

10

“This criterion is “touchy feely”, i.e., more qualitative than the others…”ECEDHA March 2008 ABET Workshop

Thesis 1: The focus…has shifted from Outcomes to the Assessment Process

• Most identifies weaknesses are due to Criterion 2– Reports to the ABET BoD in November 2007 and

November 2008

• Increasingly, schools are hiring assessment consultants or adding assessment staff in Colleges of Engineering– Was the emergence of this “industry” envisioned?

11

Letter of the Consortium of Associate Deans of the Big Ten Plus Consortium of Engineering Schools (June 2007)• …the use of assessment tools is a choice left

to the institutions…but an evaluator will penalize a program if they have used a method that the evaluator thinks is inappropriate. (This experience comes across as, "We won't tell you the right way to do it, but we'll be the first to tell you if you're doing it wrongly).

12

June 2007 “Big 10” Letter (2)

• Neither faculty nor evaluators commonly are experts in learning assessment, so this situation runs the risk of putting programs at the mercy of chance pairings with evaluators. This stifles innovation, as faculty may then stick only with "tried and true" methods with which some previous evaluator had declared compliance.

13

June 2007 “Big 10” Letter (2)

• For solutions to the moving target problem, we urge the EAC to be deliberate in the pace at which they make changes to the Criteria. We also urge the EAC to articulate more clearly how to interpret Criteria wording and its expectations of good practice in complying with them.

14

Some related thoughts…

• If criterion 2 disappeared, who will miss it?

• If criterion 2 disappeared, will it harm engineering education?

• How about returning the focus to OUTCOMES and not to ASSESSMENT PROCESSES??

15

Thesis 2: The value of accreditation is questioned

• Industry is “voting with its feet”– Little support for program evaluators– Absent “at the table” of ABET’s BoD– Industry does not participate in sustaining ABET– Industry's influence on ABET’s policies is indirect– The role of licensing in ECE is diminished and diminishing

• Meantime in Academia…– Engagement in the process is often limited to few faculty

and members of the staff– Persistent questions on ROI 16

Some related thoughts…• If ABET disappeared, who will miss it?

• If ABET disappeared, what alternative quality control and evaluation is our community likely to adopt?

• If we were to start a new accrediting body for Engineering now, will it look like ABET?

• The answers to these questions may help us understand where

ABET should move

17

Thesis 3: The…process encourages wholesale adoption of Program Outcomes a-k

• “We have adopted ABET a-k as our program outcomes” – Iowa State University ECPE www.eng.iastate.edu/hlc/ecpeoutcomes.asp

• “The ABET “a-k” outcomes, as adopted by the Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, are highlighted…” – North Dakota State University Survey

http://www.ndsu.edu/fileadmin/ime/Assessment_files/IE_M-GraduationSeniorsExitInterviewSurvey.pdf

• We have adopted the ABET a-k…outcomes as our Materials Science and Engineering Program Outcomes – Self Study Report OSU – MSE Department

http://www.matsceng.ohio-state.edu/ug/abet/05_ABET_MSE.pdf

• Purdue: https://engineering.purdue.edu/ECE/Academics/Undergraduates/ProgramObjectivesandOutcomes

• Drexel: http://www.ece.drexel.edu/Mission.html

18

Some related thoughts

• We seem to have achieved the exact opposite of what EC2000 tried to achieve– Uniformity rather than Diversity

• As long as demonstrating compliance with outcomes is so expensive, it will not be possible to address this issue– Back to Criterion 2, I think

19

Thesis 4: ABET is a Monopoly

• One wonders if competition would…– Improve responsiveness to constituents– Increase the circle of consistencies

• Currently major stake holders are professional associations and the reviewed institutions

• Where are industry, government and students?

– Provide plurality of methods and approaches– Encourage processes that are more efficient – Reduce costs

20

Thesis 5: There are significant opportunities to simplify and automate the review process

• There are very few issues that still require on site visit and face-to-face interviews

• Pertinent data can be made available on-line and update automatically

• There are opportunities to transform the process form a discrete dramatic event every few years to a truly continuous process

21

Thesis 6: Opportunities of the ECE academic community to be heard by ABET go unused

• IEEE has three representatives on the ABET Board of Directors– They are recommended by and work closely with the

IEEE Educational Activities Board

• The IEEE Educational Activities Board operates the Accreditation Policy Council – Recommends policies and actions to EAB and IEEE BoD

• IEEE has an official policy about accreditation

22

Do you know these fellows?

23

Michael LightnerMoshe KamBruce Eisenstein

IEEE Representative Directors to the Board of Directors of ABET

Questions or Comments

24