A. Harmonized Criteria Review and Revisions for 2012-13

Major changes in criteria were summarized in Module 2 of this training; the following are supplemental explanations for ETAC program evaluators and team chairs and reminders of recent changes resulting from harmonized criteria adoption.

Criterion 1 – Students

• This criterion now addresses the awarding of academic credit for work experience.

Criterion 2 – Program Educational Objectives

• This criterion uses the phrase “review and revision” to clarify that it is referring to a process used by the program to ensure that its PEOs continue to be valid. “Review and revision” DOES NOT refer to the attainment of PEOs. (All requirements regarding the attainment of PEOs are now in Criterion 4.)

Criterion 3 – Program Outcomes

• Terminology has changed from ‘program outcomes’ to ‘student outcomes’ to reduce confusion with program educational objectives.
• Requires program to “have documented student outcomes,” but NO LONGER REQUIRES demonstration of attainment. (All requirements regarding the attainment of student outcomes are now in Criterion 4.)
• Student outcomes of a program “must include, but are not limited to” the learned capabilities (sometimes called ‘attributes’) specified in Criterion 3, so a program can have additional student outcomes.
• Program must have a process for the periodic “review and revision” of its student outcomes to insure that they continue to be valid and adequate. “Review and revision” DOES NOT refer to the attainment of student outcomes. (All requirements regarding the attainment of student outcomes are now in Criterion 4.).
• Most learned capabilities have been expanded with more explicit explanations of what is expected; some elements previously in Criterion 5 Curriculum are now in Criterion 3.
• The phrase “lifelong learning” has been replaced by “self-directed professional development.”
• Learned capabilities now distinguish between associate degrees and baccalaureate degrees by using the following phrases:
• “Broadly-defined activities” are those that involve a variety of resources, that involve the use of new processes, materials, or techniques in innovative ways, and that require a knowledge of standard operating procedures.
• “Narrowly-defined activities” are those that involve limited resources, that involve the use of conventional processes and materials in new ways, and that require knowledge of basic operating processes.
• Reference for this terminology: “International Engineering Alliance: Graduate Attributes and Professional Competencies” at http://www.washingtonaccord.org/GradProfiles.cfm  

Criterion 3 for Associate Degree

• Has been reduced to nine learned capabilities (a) through (i), which have been reworded and expanded.
• Does not require ‘application of creativity’ or ‘design’.
• Does not have a requirement relating to diversity or professional, societal, and global issues.

Technical Content

• Still has eleven learned capabilities (a) through (k), which have been reworded and expanded.

B. Harmonized Criteria Review and Revisions for 2012-13 (continued)

Criterion 4 – Continuous Improvement

Basic intent and requirements are unchanged, but this is now the ONLY CRITERION THAT REQUIRES THE ASSESSMENT OF ATTAINMENT of student outcomes and program educational objectives.

Criterion 5 – Curriculum

No longer specifies minimum total credit hours for degrees

Mathematics

The program must develop the ability of students to apply mathematics to the solution of technical problems.

• Associate degree programs will at a minimum include algebra and trigonometry at a level appropriate to the student outcomes and program educational objectives.
• Baccalaureate degree programs will include the application of integral and differential calculus or other mathematics appropriate to the student outcomes and program educational objectives.

Technical Content:

• Associate degree programs are not required to have capstone or other integrating experiences.
• Technical content must be between 1/3 and 2/3 of total credit hours.

Cooperative Education:

• If academic credit for cooperative education is used to satisfy a specific criteria requirement, then that credit must have an academic component. Otherwise, an academic component is not required.

Advisory Committee: 

This requirement is now located in Criterion 5; previously, it was in Criterion 8.

Criterion 6 – Faculty

The requirement regarding a professional development plan has been deleted; Criterion 8 now requires sufficient resources to provide for continued professional development of faculty.

Criterion 7 – Facilities

No substantive change

Criterion 8 – Support

The ETAC requirement for program advisory committee was relocated to Criterion 5.

C. Criteria and Policy Issues Arising During Accreditation Reviews

The following advice is based on issues found in recent Draft Statements, and it addresses criteria or policies where inconsistencies or misinterpretations have most often occurred:

Criteria in General

The 2012-13 ETAC criteria document contains eight Criteria: Criterion 1 through Criterion 8. Where possible, try to combine all issues for a given Criterion into a single finding. (e.g., try to avoid multiple findings that are based on different sections of the same Criterion.) The “degree of compliance” (expressed as a Deficiency, Weakness, or Concern) should be based on how well the overall Criterion (not just a piece of it) has been satisfied.

Criterion 2 – Program Educational Objectives

Please do not cite Criterion 2 in findings related to assessment of the achievement of PEOs. However, Criterion 2 does require that there be a process to examine PEOs to make sure that they continue to reflect the needs of constituencies.

Criterion 3 – Program Outcomes

ETAC does not require that a program use learned capabilities ([a-i] for AS, or [a-k] for BS) as its Student Outcomes. However, regardless of how its Program Outcomes are expressed, the program must show that the learned capabilities of Criterion 3 are specifically linked to its stated outcomes. 

Criterion 4 – Continuous Improvement

• The intent of this criterion is to ensure that the program (1) has processes in place to assess and evaluate how well it is achieving student outcomes and PEOs, and (2) has processes in place to use the results of that evaluation to improve.
• Criterion 4 does not require that a program achieve a particular level of attainment for its student outcomes or program educational objectives. It is the program’s responsibility to define acceptable performance. The program (not the PEV, not ABET criteria) defines “satisfactory” level of performance for each of [a-i] or [a-k]. “Satisfactory” should be based on what is needed to satisfy the needs of organizations being served by graduates.
• Student outcomes and Criterion 3 attributes refer to capabilities of students as a group, so assessment of attainment should be reported as such; the program does not have to show that every individual graduate has achieved an acceptable level of performance in student outcomes or in Criterion 3 learned capabilities (attributes).
• A PEV should not try to judge whether student performance is satisfactory in meeting student outcomes or Criterion 3 learned capabilities. The PEV’s responsibility is to determine how well the program itself has demonstrated that student performance is satisfactory according to the program’s own benchmarks. A Criterion 4 finding should not say students have—or have not—attained an outcome; rather, a Criterion 4 finding should say that the program has—or has not—demonstrated that graduates have attained the respective student outcomes.
• Likewise, a PEV should never attempt to use displays of student work or displays of raw assessment data to determine whether student outcomes have been met. It is the program’s responsibility to evaluate its own data and draw its own conclusions about achievement. It is the PEV’s responsibility to determine whether the program’s process for demonstrating achievement is credible and reliable. 
• APPM II.G.6.b.(2) Materials states that evaluators will review samples of displayed course materials including course syllabi, textbooks, example assignments and exams, and examples of student work, typically ranging from excellent through poor. A PEV should allocate sufficient time on Day “0” for a thorough review of display materials for determining whether the program’s process for demonstrating achievement is credible and reliable. Day “0” is the only time available during the visit in which sufficient time is available to focus on this primary evidence. At least two hours of focus time is usually needed; this provides the PEV with follow-up questions for program faculty on Day “1” and then deliberations with the TEAM.
• After this thorough review, the PEV is prepared to state that the program has—or has not—demonstrated that graduates have attained the respective student outcomes. If the PEV determines that the program has not demonstrated that graduates have attained the respective student outcomes, the PEV should be prepared to defend this action to the TC and the TEAM.

Criterion 6 – Faculty

This criterion has some requirements for individual faculty members and some for the faculty as a whole, so be careful in distinguishing between the two.

Criterion 7 – Facilities

Note that this criterion no longer refers to “equipment characteristic of that being used in the industry and practice being served by the program.” It now refers to equipment, facilities, etc that are necessary for students to “attain the student outcomes.”

Criterion 8 – Support

This criterion is often cited inappropriately in findings. If it is possible for a problem to be resolved without additional institutional support, then the finding is probably not a Criterion 8 issue. Focus findings on the resultant impact on the program, rather than assuming the issue is inadequate support; for example, do not write findings that require a program to hire additional personnel; write the finding based on what is not being accomplished, and let the institution decide whether to resolve it with additional personnel or resolve it by other means.

D. Policy Issues

Several issues based on the ABET Accreditation Policy and Procedure Manual (APPM) can be easily overlooked during an on-site visit.

Name of the Program 

The official name of the program is the name precisely as it appears on the Request for Evaluation (RFE); this is the exact name that should be used in all documents throughout the accreditation review.

Modes and Locations of Instruction 

Be aware of off-campus or remote offerings of the program. If it is possible for a student to take a significant amount of technical courses at sites (including the Internet) other than the home campus, then:

• these sites must be reviewed as part of the accreditation review, or
• the program must demonstrate how it assures that development of student outcomes at the remote site is equivalent to that at the home campus being reviewed.

Remote locations are sometimes omitted from the Request for Evaluation (RFE), so even if the RFE does not show remote sites, please check with the program as early as possible to determine if there are any.

NOTE: An accreditation team cannot choose to exempt a particular mode of delivery from being reviewed during an accreditation visit.

Options, Emphases, or other Alternate Paths to the Degree

• Be aware of options within a degree program. If a program is accredited, all possible routes to completion of that program must be reviewed by the accreditation team. The terms ‘option’, ‘emphasis’, ‘specialty’, and any other term indicating a sub-specialty each mean the same thing under ABET criteria.
•  If an accredited program has options, then all options must meet the criteria indicated by the official ABET name of the accredited program. A program must be reviewed under all program criteria that are invoked by the official ABET name.
• An option does not have to meet any additional program criteria if the name of the option does not appear in the official ABET name of the program or in the name of the program on transcripts.
• NOTE: An accreditation team cannot choose to exempt a particular ‘option’ from being reviewed during an on-site accreditation review.

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