A. Application of EAC Criteria

For 2012-13, EAC focus is on:

• Changes due to Harmonized Criteria
• Criterion 2, Criterion 3, and Criterion 4
• Accreditation Policy and Procedure
• Evaluating Master’s Level Engineering Programs  
• Statement writing

Harmonized Criteria: What Has Changed (in a nutshell)?

• Definition of Program Educational Objectives is modified
• Assessment and evaluation are still required, but have been moved from Criteria 2 and 3 to Criterion 4
• Criterion 4 explicitly requires data from evaluation of program educational objectives and student outcomes to be used for continuous improvement
• Important: Self-study and forms have changed! Be sure to use the forms in the current PEV Workbook! Some information that PEVs may have seen in previous years is no longer required

Criterion 2: Program Educational Objectives (PEOs)

• Definition
  PEOs “are broad statements that describe what graduates are expected to attain within a few years of graduation”
• Requirements
  Published and consistent with the mission of the institution, the needs of the program’s various constituencies, and these criteria 
  A documented and effective process, involving program constituencies, for the periodic review and revision of these PEOs

Criterion 2 Issues

• Do the published PEO’s satisfy the definition? Are they really broad statements that describe what the graduates are expected to attain within a few years of graduation?
• Does the program convince the team that the PEO’s are consistent with constituent needs?
• Is Is there a documented and effective process, involving program constituencies, for the periodic review and revision of PEOs? there a documented and effective review and revision process for incorporating the needs of the program’s constituencies?

Scenario 1: Are These PEOs?

Graduates of the program will have:

• A solid understanding of the basic principles of mathematics, science, and engineering and the technical competency to use the techniques, skills and modern tools for practice in engineering as well as for graduate education.
• The ability to work in a team and develop problem-solving skills that include oral and written communication skills to effectively communicate technical and professional information.

Are these broad statements that describe what graduates are expected to attain within a few years of graduation?

No, they are not really PEOs, but rather student outcomes.

Scenario 2: Are these PEOs?

Graduates of the culinary engineering program are expected within a few years of graduation to have:

• Established themselves as practicing professionals or engaged in advanced study in culinary engineering or a related area.
• Demonstrated their ability to work successfully as a member of a professional team and function effectively as responsible professionals.

Are they really broad statements that describe what graduates are expected to attain within a few years of graduation?

Yes, they describe what graduates are expected to attain a few years after graduation.

Criterion 2 FAQ

What if the PEOs really sound like a collection of student outcomes (instead of objectives)?

• If PEOs are not PEOs, there is a Criterion 2 shortcoming.

What if PEO’s are ambiguous or reflect student outcomes retooled to apply after graduation?

• The team must determine if they meet the intent of the criterion.

What if there is no process for determining the needs of the program’s constituents?

• If the PEOs do not incorporate constituents’ needs, there is a Criterion2 shortcoming.
 

Criterion 3: Student Outcomes (SOs) - Definition & Requirements

• Definition
  Student outcomes describe what students are expected to know and be able to do by the time of graduation (skills, knowledge, and behaviors)
• Requirements
  Student outcomes are (a) though (k) plus any additional ones articulated by the program.
  The program must have documented student outcomes that prepare the graduates to attain the PEOs

Criterion 3: Issues

• If the program has rewritten the student outcomes, but they do not include all of (a) through (k), there is a Criterion 3 shortcoming
• If the program does not show that documented student outcomes prepare the graduates to attain the PEOs, there is a Criterion 3 shortcoming
   

Criterion 4: Continuous Improvement

Criterion 4 says:

• The program must regularly use appropriate, documented processes for assessing and evaluating the extent to which both the PEOs and the SOs are being attained.
• The results of these evaluations must be systematically utilized as input for continuous improvement of the program.
• Other available information may also be used to assist in continuous improvement.

Criterion 4 Issues

• Are all PEOs and SOs (a) though (k) + being regularly assessed and evaluated?
• Do the assessment and evaluation processes allow the program to determine the extent of attainment of the PEOs and SOs?
• Are those results systematically utilized as input for the continuous improvement of the program?
• Note: Be sure to apply this criterion in a holistic sense. The process of assessment and evaluation needs to demonstrate the extent to which outcomes are attained, but there is no language that says (i) that all outcomes must be attained to the same degree, (ii) anything about a numeric scale measuring degree of attainment, or (iii) that the outcomes must be measured.

Criterion 4 FAQ

The program has been making changes, but none are related to assessment of PEOs and SOs results.

• If there isn’t evidence that these results are being used as input to the improvement process, there is a Criterion 4 shortcoming.

A program has rewritten the SOs and is assessing them, but their list does not include all of the Criterion 3 outcomes.

•  If a Criterion 3 (a-k) SO is not assessed there is a Criterion 4 shortcoming.

What about assessment data? What is adequate data?

• Does it all have to be objective/direct? (NO)
• Can it be subjective? (Some of it may be; but the evaluation should not be based only on subjective assessment)
• Is the observation or conclusion of course instructor adequate? (Depends on his or her basis for the observation.)
• Does evidence for each outcome have to be in the form of work the student has produced? (No, but the team needs to be convinced that the extent to which student outcomes are attained has been determined.) 

Accreditation Policy and Procedure

There are a number of APPM (Accreditation Policy and Procedure Manual) issues that require attention.

• II.A. Public Release of Accreditation Information By the Institution
  • II.A.1. Institutions are required to represent the accreditation status of each program accurately and without ambiguity. Programs are either accredited or not accredited. ABET does not rank programs.
  • II.A.6. Each accredited program must be specifically identified as “accredited by the _________ Accreditation Commission of ABET, http://www.abet.org.” 
   
• Number of graduates
  • II.E.5. To be eligible for an initial accreditation review, a program must have at least one graduate within the academic year prior to the academic year of the on-site review.
   
• II.E.4. Program names must meet ABET requirements.
  • The program name must be descriptive of the content of the program.
  • The program name must be shown consistently on transcripts of its graduates, in the institution’s electronic and print publications, and on the ABET Request for Evaluation (RFE).
  • If a program name implies specialization(s) for which Program Criteria have been developed, the program must satisfy all applicable Program Criteria.
  • A program may choose to have an option, or similar designation implying specialization within the program, reviewed as a separate program.
  • If a program name invokes review by more than one commission, then the program will be jointly reviewed by all applicable commissions.
   
• APPM II.G.6. Comprehensive Review - The review team will examine:
• II.G.6.b.(1) Facilities - to assure the instructional and learning environments are adequate and are safe for the intended purposes. Neither ABET nor its representatives offer opinions as to whether, or certify that, the institution’s facilities comply with any or all applicable rules or regulations pertaining to: fire, safety, building, and health codes, or consensus standards and recognized best practices for safety.

Note: In the past, safety-related shortcomings were cited under Criterion 7: Facilities. Current Criterion 7 does not address safety. Safety-related shortcomings should be cited under APPM II.G.6, not Criterion 7.

Evaluating Master’s Level Engineering Programs  

Only a few Master’s level engineering programs will be evaluated this year. If you are assigned to evaluate a Master’s level program, please request a copy of “FAQ for Master's Level Engineering Programs Seeking Accreditation” from the ABET Accreditation Department.
 

B. EAC Exit Statement Format

The exit statement for each program must follow a specified format. For example statements, see E70 Sample GR Statement and E71 Sample IV Statement in the PEV Workbook. The order of the parts of the statements is:

1. Introduction – Useful program statistics
2. Program Strengths
   Special, unique, or particularly conspicuous above the norm, usually only one or two strengths per program
3. Program Deficiencies
   In order by criterion, skip if no deficiencies
4. Program Weaknesses
   In order by criterion, skip if no weaknesses
5. Program Concerns
   In order by criterion, skip if no concerns
6. Program Observations
   Should not relate to criteria, keep to a minimum, skip if no observations

 Program Introduction

The General Description of the Program normally includes:

• Information about the program’s administrative location at the institution
• Information on the launch date of the program
• The date of its initial graduates
• Enrollment and faculty size
• Number of recent graduates

Reminder:

After the visit, all contact with the institution must be through the Team Chair. PEVs are not to contact the program/institution directly.

Please complete this short survey. Your feedback is important. Thank you!