Accreditation in the West Indies - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Accreditation in the West Indies PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 24b06a-OTBlM



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Accreditation in the West Indies

Description:

Building an Accrediting Body in the Caribbean. Organizational Meeting. Chandrabhan Sharma ... and practitioners from the Caribbean. Member in the Washington ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:44
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 74
Provided by: ieee5
Category:

less

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

Title: Accreditation in the West Indies


1
Building an Accrediting Body in the Caribbean

Organizational Meeting Chandrabhan Sharma The
University of the West Indies Moshe Kam IEEE
Educational Activities
April 2008 San Juan, Puerto Rico
Version 001
2
Welcome and Introductions
3
Introduction and General Aims
4
History of Recent Efforts
Objectives and Goals
  • March 2006 initial discussions of the future of
    accreditation in the University of the West
    Indies
  • April 2007 IEEE holds an accreditation workshop
    in UWI
  • September 2007 IEEE holds an accreditation
    training workshop in Port of Spain
  • Followed by a meeting of potential participants
    on the creation of a new accrediting body

5
Emergent Consensus
Objectives and Goals
  • There is enough interest in creating an
    accrediting body for engineering, technology and
    computing in the Caribbean
  • The overall objective is high-quality, impartial
    and recognized body that will become part of the
    Washington Accord
  • We will start with programs provided in English

6
Scope
Objectives and Goals
  • ETC(?) programs provided in English in the
    Caribbean
  • An effort requiring 3-6 years
  • and the consent and participation of all major
    constituencies
  • The accrediting body will replace all accrediting
    activities currently conducted by external
    agencies

7
Desired Final Outcome
Objectives and Goals
  • A fully functional stable accrediting body
    operating wherever there is a higher education
    institute in the Caribbean
  • Run by educators and practitioners from the
    Caribbean
  • Member in the Washington Accord

8
This Meeting Desired Outcomes
Objectives and Goals
  • Agreement on establishment of a new accrediting
    body
  • Develop a declaration during or after the
    meeting
  • Establishment of an expanded Founding Committee
    with subcommittees on
  • Accreditation model and accreditation process
  • Administrative structure and finances
  • Dissemination, implementation and rollout
  • Establishment of preliminary timetable and
    milestones

9
Possible Dangers
Objectives and Goals
  • Not enough interest
  • Failure to include all major stakeholders
  • Especially industry
  • Poor finances
  • Competition/meddling by outside accrediting
    bodies
  • Political infighting

10
The Plan and Objectives of this Meeting
Objectives and Goals
  • including participant expectations

11
Proposed Agenda Monday AM
Objectives and Goals
12
Proposed Agenda Monday PM
Objectives and Goals
13
Breakout Groups
Objectives and Goals
  • Accreditation model and accreditation process
  • Administrative structure and finances
  • Dissemination, implementation and rollout

14
Proposed Agenda Tuesday AM
Objectives and Goals
15
Proposed Agenda Tuesday Late AM/PM
Objectives and Goals
16
Parameters that Need to be Determined (1)
Objectives and Goals
  • Why are we doing this?
  • What is wrong in the current situation?
  • Why can we not rely on external accrediting
    bodies (IET, ABET)?
  • Who wants to do this?
  • Supporters inside and outside the region
  • What are the main impediments/ opposition/
    obstacles?

17
Parameters that Need to be Determined (2)
Objectives and Goals
  • Scope
  • Engineering/ engineering technology/ computing/
    applied science?
  • Schools and programs
  • BS? MS? Other degrees?
  • Number of evaluators and other volunteers needed
  • Accreditation philosophy
  • Administration and governance
  • How do we guarantee impartiality?

18
Parameters that Need to be Determined (3)
Objectives and Goals
  • Role of governments
  • Relationships with existing laws
  • Legal status and standing
  • Institutional licensing
  • Regional accreditation?
  • Role of Industry
  • As participants, as financial contributors

19
Parameters that Need to be Determined (4)
Objectives and Goals
  • Role of professional societies
  • And who they are
  • Role of international organizations
  • Role of external organizations and individuals
  • In governance of the accrediting body
  • As evaluators and team chairs

20
Parameters that Need to be Determined (5)
Objectives and Goals
  • How much will this cost to establish?
  • How much will this cost to maintain?
  • Mock budget

21
Parameters that Need to be Determined (6)
Objectives and Goals
  • How do we achieve buy-in?
  • Whose buy-in is needed?
  • How do we phase the new accrediting body in?
  • Time table and Milestones
  • Opportunities for collaboration

22
What Parameters or Issues Have We Missed?
Objectives and Goals
23
Charging the Breakout Groups
Breakout group charge
24
Accreditation Model and Accreditation Process
Breakout group charge
25
Accreditation Model and Accreditation Process (1)
Breakout group charge
  • Scope
  • Which programs? Which degrees?
  • Accreditation philosophy
  • Available options (pros and cons)
  • Two most likely approaches to pursue
  • Relationship with licensing
  • Desired, expected

26
Accreditation Model and Accreditation Process (2)
Breakout group charge
  • Governance
  • Who is sitting in decision making capacity?
  • Who is advising and observing?
  • Functional (non-administrative) structure

27
Accreditation Model and Accreditation Process (3)
Breakout group charge
  • Structure
  • Board of Directors
  • Commission(s)
  • Appeals committees?
  • Criteria, accreditation manuals
  • Training
  • Advisory Boards
  • International participation
  • The role of regional accreditation and
    institutional licensing

28
Administrative Structure and Finances
Breakout group charge
29
Administrative Structure and Finances (1)
Breakout group charge
  • What is the administrative structure needed for
    the support staff?
  • How much will the accrediting body cost?
  • Administrative staff
  • Training
  • Governance
  • Accreditation activities
  • External evaluators/ advisors/ participants
  • Transportation and communications

30
Administrative Structure and Finances (2)
Breakout group charge
  • Who will pay for the activities of the
    accrediting body?
  • Schools
  • Professional associations (who?)
  • Governments
  • Industry (who? How would we reach them?)
  • What legal entity does the new accrediting body
    constitute?

31
Administrative Structure and Finances (3)
  • Mock budget
  • To start the organization
  • To maintain the organization

32
Dissemination, Implementation and Rollout
Breakout group charge
  • Focus on TRAINING and EVALUATOR POOL

33
Training and Evaluator Pool (1)
Breakout group charge
  • Who will serve as evaluator?
  • Who makes the selection?
  • Who will serve as team chair?
  • How do we guarantee impartiality and rotation?
  • What is the role of evaluators from outside the
    Caribbean?
  • And how will they be trained?

34
Training and Evaluator Pool (2)
Breakout group charge
  • What is the size of the evaluator pool?
  • Do we pay evaluators for their work?
  • What staff support would be needed?
  • How do we assess evaluators?
  • Including mentoring, feedback and removal

35
Training and Evaluator Pool (3)
Breakout group charge
  • How do we start? Who will conduct the first
    training?
  • Who is responsible for training in the steady
    state?
  • The accreditation body? The professional
    associations?
  • Mock budget for training
  • Initial, steady state

36
Structure and Principles of Operation
  • Moshe Kam
  • IEEE Educational Activities Board
  • Committee on Global Accreditation Activities

37
What does an accrediting body do? (1)
  • Establishes and maintains regulations for
    accreditation
  • Criteria and procedures
  • Establishes and maintains an administrative
    structure to support the accreditation process
  • A pool of program evaluators
  • Decision maker and committee structure
  • Communication tools

38
What does an accrediting body do? (2)
  • Accepts and acts upon requests for accreditation
  • Reviews and assesses self study and other
    preparatory documents
  • Organizes and conducts accreditation visits
  • Reviews recommendation of evaluator teams on
    accreditation action
  • Makes and announces accreditation outcomes

39
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

40
What is required of an accrediting body?
  • Based on the requirements of the Council on
    Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA)

41
Recognition Standards the AB
  • Advances academic quality
  • Demonstrates accountability
  • Encourages, where appropriate, self-scrutiny and
    planning for change and for needed improvement
  • Employs appropriate and fair procedures in
    decision making
  • Demonstrates ongoing review of accreditation
    practices
  • Possesses sufficient resources

42
Requirements from the Accrediting Body (1)
  • A majority of the institutions and programs
    accredited by the organization grant higher
    education degrees
  • The recognition process will place increasing
    emphasis on the effectiveness of accrediting
    organizations in assuring academic quality of
    institutions or programs
  • AB is non-governmental

43
Requirements from the Accrediting Body (2)
  • AB accredits institutions that have legal
    authority to confer higher education degrees
  • AB accredits institutions or programs at
    generally accepted higher education levels

44
Written Public Procedures
  • AB has written procedures that describe,
    officially and publicly
  • the organizations decision-making processes,
    policies, and procedures that lead to
    accreditation actions
  • the scope of accreditation that may be granted
  • evaluative criteria (standards or
    characteristics) used
  • levels of accreditation status conferred

45
Self Evaluation, Visits, Independence
  • AB has procedures that include a self-evaluation
    by the institution or program and on-site review
    by a visiting team, or has alternative processes
    that were determined to be valid
  • AB demonstrates independence from any parent
    entity, or sponsoring entity, for the conduct of
    accreditation activities and determination of
    accreditation status

46
AB is Operational
  • AB is operational, with more than one completed
    accreditation review, including
  • action by the accreditation decision-making body
    at each degree level, or for each type of program
  • identified in the statement of proposed
    recognized scope of accreditation

47
AB Needs to Demonstrate
  • a clear statement of proposed scope of
    accreditation activity
  • a clear statement of the accrediting
    organizations purposes and why those purposes
    are in the public interest
  • a description of the accrediting organization and
    its activities
  • the quality, pertinence, and value of those
    activities
  • the ways in which those activities serve higher
    education and the public interest

48
AB must demonstrate that the statement of
proposed scope
  • addresses the types of institutions, the programs
    to be reviewed, degree levels, and the geographic
    boundaries of accreditation activity
  • is consistent with organizational mission
    statements, charters, bylaws, candidacy
    requirements, and other requirements for
    accreditation and affiliation
  • and the accrediting organization has had
    consultation with appropriate constituencies

49
Who should govern the accrediting bodies?
  • 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

50
ABETs Corporate Structure
.
Member Societies
Board of Directors
Industrial Advisory Board
Executive Committee
COMMISSIONS
Applied Science
Engineering
Technology
Computing
Program Evaluator Teams
51
The Structure of JABEE
52
Possible Structure (1)
  • Member Assembly
  • Meets every year or every other year
  • Board of Directors
  • 9 members
  • 3 professional associations
  • 3 academia
  • 3 industry representatives

53
Possible Structure (2)
  • Accreditation Commissions
  • Engineering
  • Computing
  • Technology
  • Program evaluators and Team Chairs

54
Staff
  • Executive Director
  • Director of Accreditation and Training
  • Assist Staff (2-3)

55
Member Assembly
Board of Directors
STAFF
Engineering
Computing
Technology
COMMISSIONS
Program Evaluators
56
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

57
Accreditation Models
58
Different Approaches and Styles of Accreditation
  • The Minimal Model
  • The Regulatory Model
  • The Outcome-Based Model
  • The Peer-Review model
  • The Program Club model

59
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

60
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

61
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

62
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

63
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

64
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

65
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

66
Collection of Data
67
Use of Data for Improvement
68
The Peer Review Model
  • A coalition of schools organizes in group of
    peers
  • Schools select their peers and all bi-directional
    selections are accepted
  • 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

69
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 come 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 painful

70
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

71
Reflection 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 painful
  • High maintenance

72
A Note on the Use of Information Technology
  • In general accrediting bodies have been slow to
    make full use of modern information technology
  • If program data is displayed, updated and
    analyzed automatically significant efforts can be
    saved
  • The new accrediting body should strive for
    maximal review and data processing that are
    automatic and continuous

73
Questions or Comments?
About PowerShow.com