Accreditation of Engineering, Technology and Computing Programs - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Accreditation of Engineering, Technology and Computing Programs PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 21e94a-ODYxZ



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Accreditation of Engineering, Technology and Computing Programs

Description:

Homogenizing higher education. Control competition. Limit ... Accreditation is not meant to homogenize the education system. IEEE EAB on accreditation ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:66
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 98
Provided by: IEE449
Learn more at: http://accreditation.org
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Accreditation of Engineering, Technology and Computing Programs


1
Accreditation of Engineering, Technology and
Computing Programs

Moshe Kam IEEE Vice President for Educational
Activities
First Edition October 2007
Version 003
2
Contact Information
  • Moshe Kam
  • Robert G. Quinn Professor and Department Head
  • Drexel University
  • Electrical and Computer Engineering
  • 3141 Chestnut Street
  • Philadelphia, PA 19101
  • kam_at_drexel.edu

3
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

4
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

5
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

6
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

7
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

8
Early Presidents
Alexander G. Bell
Elihu Thomson
Charles Steinmetz
Frank Sprague
9
A few more recent Presidents
Leah Jamieson Joseph Bordogna Michael
Lightner Wallace Read
10
Why is IEEE interested in Accreditation?
  • Because it is in IEEEs stated mission
  • Because accreditation has significant impact on
    the content of the curriculum in IEEEs fields of
    interest
  • And hence on the future of the profession
  • Because IEEEs involvement introduces the voice
    of the profession and its practitioners into the
    decision making process of educational
    institutions

11
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

12
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

13
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

14
Three Major Activities
  • The faculty, administrators, and staff of the
    institution or academic program conduct a
    self-study using the accrediting organizations
    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

15
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

16
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

17
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

18
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

19
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

20
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

21
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

22
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

23
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

24
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

25
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

26
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

27
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

28
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

29
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

30
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

31
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

32
Selected accrediting bodies (1)
For additional details see www.Accreditation.org
  • 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

33
Selected accrediting bodies (2)
For additional details see www.Accreditation.org
  • 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

34
Selected accrediting bodies (3)
For additional details see www.Accreditation.org
  • Singapore Institution of Engineers Singapore
  • South Africa Engineering Council of South Africa
  • United Kingdom Engineering Council United
    Kingdom
  • United States ABET

35
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

36
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

37
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

38
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?

39
Potential Consideration Factors (3)
  • Support services
  • Do the programs 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

40
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

41
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

42
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

43
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

44
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

45
Different Approaches and Styles of Accreditation
  • The Minimal Model
  • The Regulatory Model
  • The Outcome-Based Model
  • The Peer-Review model
  • The Program Club model

46
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

47
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

48
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

49
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

50
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

51
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

52
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

53
Collection of Data
54
Use of Data for Improvement
55
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

56
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

57
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)

58
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

59
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

60
Accreditation and Licensing
61
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

62
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

63
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

64
Outline
For additional details see www.Accreditation.org
  • 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

65
Purpose
For additional details see www.Accreditation.org
  • 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

66
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

67
For additional details see www.Accreditation.org
68
  • 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

69
  • By virtue of the Washington Accords
    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
70
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

71
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
72
Recent additions (2007)
  • ABEEK (Republic of Korea)
  • IEET (Chinese Taipei)

73
Provisional Members
Source Presentation by George Peterson to EAB,
November 2006
74
(No Transcript)
75
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
76
Upgrading
  • Increasing scope of the agreement
  • Introduction of new members
  • Improving operations


77
Other Agreements
  • The Bologna Declaration
  • Lisbon convention
  • MERCOSUR
  • Western Hemisphere Initiative

78
Additional Agreements
For additional details see www.Accreditation.org
79
The Bologna Declaration (1999)
  • 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.
  • Signed by ministers of education of 29 European
    countries

80
Two Cycles 3(22)
  • 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

81
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
  • FPDMaster of Science

82
Some ramifications of the Bologna Process to
Engineering Education (2)
  • Potentially differences between interpretations
    and weight of the Bachelor of Science Degree in
    Engineering
  • FPDB.Sc. Or M.Sc.?
  • Questions about mobility of engineers between
    Europe and the rest of the world

83
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

84
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

85
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

86
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

87
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)

88
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

89
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

90
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

91
Possible structure of a new accrediting body
92
Member Assembly
Board of Directors
STAFF
Engineering
Computing
Technology
COMMISSIONS
Program Evaluators
93
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

94
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

95
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

96
Questions or Comments?
97
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.
About PowerShow.com