PHILIPPINE TECHNOLOGICAL COUNCIL

PHILIPPINE TECHNOLOGICAL COUNCIL
INTEGRATED CASEE MODULES Presented at the COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION CHED Auditorium, HEDC Bldg, CP Garcia Ave.,Diliman, Quezon City October 23-25, 2014

PTC CASEE: INTEGRATED CASEE MODULES**
by the PHILIPPINE TECHNOLOGICAL COUNCIL (PTC) ACCREDITATION AND CERTIFICATION BOARD FOR ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (ACBET) V2014.1 This is the 5th revision done on this training module. ________________________________ * PTC CASEE – PTC Certification and Accreditation System for Engineering Education

MODULE OBJECTIVES To introduce PTC, PTC CASEE and OBE and their importance to the overall continuous quality improvement of engineering education towards international recognition and competitiveness; To prepare participants to assume leading roles in the preparation of engineering programs for accreditation under PTC CASEE; and To prepare participants to assume effective roles of program accreditation leader and/or program evaluator under PTC CASEE.

MODULE OUTCOMES After completing the integrated modules, the participant should be able to: Explain and articulate the features of PTC CASEE and its importance to the continuous quality improvement of engineering programs; Participate in the preparation of Self Study Report and the educational program that comply with the requirements of program accreditation under PTC CASEE; and Function effectively as evaluation team member or team leader during the accreditation review of engineering programs in accordance with PTC CASEE.

CASEE MODULES CASEE MODULE TITLE DURATION CASEE 101
INTRODUCTION TO CASEE AND OBE 1 day 1.5 days CASEE 102 CASEE FOR PROGRAM EVALUATORS CASEE 103 CASEE FOR SELF STUDY REPORT PREPARERS CASEE 104 CONDUCTING PROGRAM ACCREDITATION REVIEWS CASEE 105 LEADING PROGRAM ACCREDITATION REVIEWS 2 days

MODULE OUTLINE Intro to PTC, PTC Program Accreditation and International Recognition under the Washington Accord Intro to CQI, OB Education and OB Accreditation PTC CASEE – Criteria, Policies and Procedures Self-Study Report (SSR) Guidelines: Preparing for Accreditation Conducting Accreditation Reviews Leading Accreditation Reviews (LAR) : Accreditation Review Site Visit LAR: Findings, Findings Classification and Reporting LAR: Accreditation Decision Process and Final Accreditation Reporting

INTRODUCTION PTC PTC MEMBERS PTC ADVOCACIES ROLES OF THE APO/PEO
ROLES OF HEI CONTEXT OF ENGINEERING PRACTICE AND EDUCATION PTC WASHINGTON ACCORD INITIATIVE AND ENGINEERING REGISTERS

PHILIPPINE TECHNOLOGICAL COUNCIL
Umbrella organization of the 13 national engineering organizations Registered with the SEC since 1981 A focal point for collective advocacies of engineering professionals Experienced with Mutual Recognition Arrangements such as APEC Engineer Register, ASEAN Engineering Register, and now, ASEAN Chartered Professional Engineers. Maintains active memberships and networking with international and regional engineering bodies such as the Intl Engg Alliance , ASEAN Federation of Engg Org’ns (Founding Member), FEIAP, WFEO, and the NABEEA Recognized by CHED under the MOA and CMO 37 Series of as the accreditation body for engineering education in accordance with international standards such as Washington Accord. One of four (4) Councils of all APOs under the PRC. This is short introduction of PTC and its origins, mandates, and past and current involvements.

PTC MEMBERS Society of Aerospace Engineers of the Philippines
Philippine Society of Agricultural Engineers Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers Philippine Institute of Chemical Engineers Institute of Integrated Electrical Engineers of the Phil. Institute of Electronic Engineers of the Philippines Geodetic Engineers of the Philippines Philippine Institute of Industrial Engineers Philippine Society of Mechanical Engineers Society of Metallurgical Engineers of the Philippines Philippine Society of Mining Engineers Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers Philippine Society of Sanitary Engineers

MAJOR ADVOCACIES OF PTC
PROMOTE CONTINUOUS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT OF ENGINEERING PROGRAMS AND ENGINEERING GRADUATES FOSTER THE MOBILITY OF ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS ACROSS NATIONAL BOUNDARIES (NOT ONLY FOR A SELECT FEW BUT FOR MAJORITY OF OUR ENGINEERING GRADUATES) FOSTER THE INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION OF ENGINEERING PROGRAMS AND THE QUALIFICATIONS OF ENGINEERS RECOGNITION OF ENGINEERING PROGRAMS STAGE 1 - RECOGNITION OF GRADUATE QUALIFICATIONS AT ENTRY LEVEL STAGE 2 - RECOGNITION OF PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS AT INDEPENDENT PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE LEVEL, e.g., APEC ENGR, ASEAN ENGR, ASEAN CHARTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGR, INTERNATIONAL PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER So what is PTC and your APO doing together or aiming to do together? We would like to foster and improve the mobility of each one of our members across national boundaries. For us practicing engineers present in this Convention, we are afforded only to enter Stage 2 and become ASEAN, APEC or Int. Prof Engineers if we so desire with, of course, with our seven years of experiences, two years of which is must be of substantial charge. For those who are yet to enter college or are in college, they can still hope to enter Stage 1 and immediately gain substantial mileage in mobility , if only they could graduate from an accredited engineering program to the requirements of Washington Accord. The above is the crux of what PTC and your APO/EPOs are doing together these months and years – to gain recognition of our engineering programs which could translate to recognition of the educational qualifications of our engineering graduates at entry level of practice and eventually the recognition at Stage 2.

ROLES OF ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS (APOs/EPOs)
IN SUPPORT OF THESE ADVOCACIES, APO/EPOs: ACT AS “GUARDIANS” OF QUALITY OF EDUCATION AND ENGINEERING PRACTICE SIT IN THE PTC BOARD OF TRUSTEES SIT IN THE PTC ACCREDITATION BOARD SIT IN THE ENGINEERING ACCREDITATION COMMISSION NOMINATE PROGRAM EVALUATORS AND HELP PTC MAINTAIN REGISTRY OF PEvs ENCOURAGE ENGINEERS TO REGISTER UNDER THE APEC, ASEAN & ACPE REGISTRIES

ROLES OF HEI Implement OBE in accordance with CMO 37 Series 2012
Submit (voluntarily) the engineering program for accreditation under CASEE Maintain accreditation status for continuing recognition.

THE TWO “PUSH” INITIATIVES
OBE BY CHED/HEIs OBA BY PTC

CONTEXT OF ENGINEERING PRACTICE AND EDUCATION

FIVE COMPETITIVE FORCES IMPACTING PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE & EDUCATION*
THREATS OF GLOBALIZATION/MRAs (COMPETITION) Local Practice BUT of Global Standards, Cross Border Practice INDUSTRIES/ COMMUNITIES (SERVICE CUSTOMERS) Growth - Vertical & Horizontal Value Recognition High Speed Technological Changes Complex & Multiple Constraints Considerations Transnational Range of Issues Beyond Traditional Knowledge & Skills EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS (SUPPLIERS) Quality vs. Quantity Traditional Education vs. “OBE” Technico-Economic Viability – Profitability FILIPINO ENGINEER Attitude towards Engg OTHER PROFESSIONS (ALTERNATIVE SERVICES) Substitute Services (e.g. Robots) and Shift of Profession

CONTEXT OF ENGINEERING PRACTICE AND EDUCATION -1
ENGINEERING – INTEGRATION & INNOVATION Needs SOCIETY AND NATURE SCIENCE Resources and Needs Theories ENGINEERING Tools Products & Benefits TECHNOLOGY Needs Source: Unesco Report on Engineering, Nov 2010

GLOBAL DIMENSIONS OF ENGINEERING PRACTICE
ENGINEERING PRACTICE ACROSS NATIONAL BOUNDARIES IS INCREASING, e.g. ASEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY 2015 TO BE INTERNATIONALLY MOBILE IS BECOMING A MUST IN AN COMPLEX SITUATION, QUALITY OF ENGINEERING PRACTICE BECOMES A GLOBAL CONCERN GOOD LOCAL ENGINEERING RELIES ON GLOBAL QUALITY ENGINEERING COMPETENCE - NEED FOR BENCHMARKING THEREFORE, GLOBAL STANDARDS OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND GLOBAL PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE AT ALL STAGES OF PROFESSIONAL LIFE CYCLE ARE ESSENTIAL! _________ Hun Hanrahan – The Washington Accord Graduate Attributes, IEA, Sept 2011 Engineering practice is becoming more and more global and cutting through national boundaries without let up. One engineer’s design work done in the Philippines could be transmitted via internet to a Australian central design house located somewhere in Africa and integrated into other design works done by other engineers from New Zealand and the USA and other parts of the world to create an overall design for an industrial plant or a big infrastructure. Under this scenario a number of issues and concerns arise: Will the designs fit together into an overall design? What if the engineers used different engineering standards in their design? How are the quality of designs assessed and evaluated for acceptance? Did the engineers who are multi-racial, multi-disciplinary, multi-lingual, understand the specifications required by the clients? Did they communicate effectively with each other? Can we expect a civil engineer from one country to have the same capabilities as a civil engineer in another both w

SO WHAT ARE REQUIRED OF NEW ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL?
POSSESS A KNOWLEDGE PROFILE – DEPTH AND BREADTH BASIC KNOWLEDGE – DEEP GROUNDING TECHNOLOGY CHANGES FAST - FAST AND CONTINUAL LEARNING CAPABLE OF PROBLEM-SOLVING – ABILITY TO SOLVE COMPLEX PROBLEMS USING SKILLS AND MODERN TOOLS OF THE PROFESSION, AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATIONS SUCH FACTORS AS ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY, SOCIETAL NEEDS, ETC. ETHICAL PRACTICE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS MEMBER OR LEADER OF TEAMS.

CONTEXT: ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL LIFECYCLE
TIMELINE PROGRAM OBJECTIVES, STUDENT OUTCOMES, GRADUATE ATTRIBUTES GLOBAL PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER COMPETENCY PROFILE INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION ASEAN, APEC, IntPE IEA DEFINITION STAGE 1 STAGE 2 ACCREDITED PROGRAM, e.g. BS Engg TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE INDEPENDENT PRACTICE In the context of the engineering professional lifecycle, the need to meet the global standard for engineering education and professional competency could be illustrated in the diagram. At the culmination of his academic exposure (BS Engg), the graduate is expected to have develop the knowledge, skills and attitudes (graduate attributes) and therefore achieve program outcomes that would enable him to enter the initial phase (Stage 1) of engineering practice. Such initial phase requires the graduate engineer to continue learning fast and gain experience to eventually enter independent professional practice (Stage 2), by which time he could be granted recognition under the various engineering registers. Meet Standard for Engineering Education Observe Code of Conduct & Maintain Professional Competence ENTRY TO PRACTICE Meet Standard for Professional Competency NATIONAL DEFINITION

PURPOSE OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION
COMPETENCIES REQUIRED FOR INDEPENDENT PRACTICE IN A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING ROLE TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE K-S-A BASE TO BUILD THE KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND ATTRIBUTES BASE IN AN ENGINEERING GRADUATE

LOGICAL ROUTE TO RECOGNITION & MOBILITY
INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION OF ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS (ENGG REGISTERS) INTERNATIONAL MOBILITY INCREASINGIN MOBILITY IN PRACTICE AND EDUCATION STAGE 2 APEC ENGR, INTL PE, ASEAN ENGR.,ACPE STAGE 2: INDEPENDENT PRACTICE LEVEL PROF. COMPETENCIES CONTINUING EDUCATION & TRAINING IN PRACTICE CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING IN PRACTICE ENABLE US TO GAIN THE COMPETENCIES REQUIRED FOR INDEPENDENT PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE STAGE 1 STAGE 1: ENTRY LEVEL TO PRACTICE & ADV. EDUCATION RECOGNITION OF PROGRAMS (ACCREDITATION) KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, AND, OTHER ATTRIBUTES (WASHINGTON ACCORD) ENGINEERING EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM DELIVERY

NEED TO DO – BACK TO ADVOCACY
ENGINEERING EDUCATION: AIM FOR GLOBAL QUALITY STANDARD OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION GLOBAL QUALITY OF ENGINEERING GRADUATES ENGINEERING PRACTICE: AIM FOR GLOBALLY-BENCHMARKED PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE AND ETHICAL PRACTICE RECOGNITION OF QUALIFICATIONS : OBTAIN STAGE 1 – QUALIFICATIONS AT ENTRY LEVEL STAGE 2 – QUALIFICATIONS AT INDEPENDENT PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE LEVEL Looking at benchmarking and international recognition

INTERNATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION, ACCREDITATION AND PRACTICE
PRACTICE AND REGISTRY ACCREDITATION NETWORKS ACCREDITATION AGREEMENTS INTERNATIONAL REGISTERS FORUM & ORGANIZATIONS ENAEE (2006) (European Network for Accreditation of Engineering Education) EUR-ACE (2006) European Accredited Engineer EURO ENGINEER (EUR-ING) REGISTER FEANI (European Federation of National Engineering Associations – 29 countries) INTERNATIONAL ENGINEERING ALLIANCE (IEA) 3 ACCORDS 3 REGISTERS WASHINGTON ACCORD (1989) INTERNATIONAL PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS ENGINEERING MOBILITY FORUM (EMF – 2000) SYDNEY ACCORD (2001) APEC ENGINEER REGISTER APEC ENGINEERS COORDINATING COMMITTEE (2000) If we look at all the international arrangements concerning recognition of engineering programs and engineering graduates qualifications, we can see what PTC is trying to drive at. RED - arrangements where PTC is currently active. BLUE – arrangements which PTC is expected to be playing active roles to ensure mobility and recognition not only for engineers but also for all members of an engineering team (engineers, engineering technologists, and eventually technicians). Please note that the MRA speaks not only of engineers but engineering services. DUBLIN ACCORD (2002) REG. FOR ENGG TECHNOLOGISTS ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGISTS MOBILITY FORUM SEOUL ACCORD (2008) NABEEA (2007) FEIAP (1978) FEIAP GUIDELINES ASEAN ENGINEERING REGISTER (AER) AFEO ASEAN FEDERATION OF ENGG ORG. ASEAN CHARTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGR MRA MUTUAL RECOGNITION ARRANGEMENT (2005)

PTC PROGRAMS FOR ENHANCING ENGINEERS’ MOBILITY
ENGINEER’S LIFECYCLE STAGE /TIME FRAME DESCRIPTION/ LEVEL OF PRACTICE PROGRAM FOR RECOGNITION OF QUALIFICATIONS STAGE 2 7 YEARS, 2 YEARS OF WHICH SUBSTANTIAL CHARGE INDEPENDENT PRACTICE LEVEL APEC ENGINEER REGISTER (2003 IEA) ASEAN ENGINEER REGISTER (2001 AFEO) ASEAN CHARTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER (2012 MRA G-TO-G) STAGE 1 0-7 YEARS FROM GRADUATION ENTRY TO PRACTICE LEVEL WASHINGTON ACCORD (NEW GRADUATES) – ENGG PROGRAMS (2013) FEIAP (NEW GRADS)-PROGRAMS (2008) ASSOCIATE ASEAN ENGINEER (2001 AFEO)

STAGE 1 - RECOGNITION OF QUALIFICATIONS AT ENTRY LEVEL
RECOGNITION OF ENGINEERING PROGRAMS : ACCREDITATION RECOGNITION OF QUALIFICATIONS RIGHT AFTER GRADUATION : MEASURE OF ACADEMIC PREPARATIONS KNOWLEDGE SKILLS ATTRIBUTES PTC way….

PTC WASHINGTON ACCORD INITIATIVE

PTC-WAI Recognition of Qualifications at Stage 1 –Entry Level
Membership to the Washington Accord (WA) Establishment and implementation of a 3rd party, independent, engineering professional-led certification and accreditation system for engineering education (CASEE) Acceptance by WA Full signatories of “Substantial Equivalence” of CASEE and Accreditation Decisions and Decision Systems Benefits: Recognition of Academic Qualifications of Graduates from Accredited Engineering Programs by WA member jurisdictions STATUS: Provisional Membership : June 19, 2013 Full Membership Process : June June 2015

STAGE 2 - RECOGNITION OF QUALIFICATIONS AT INDEPENDENT PRACTICE LEVEL
APEC Engineer Register ASEAN Engineer Register ASEAN Engineer ASEAN Technologist* ASEAN Technician* ASEAN Chartered Professional Engineer Register International Professional Engineer Register* (IPER-IEA) Euro-Ing* How do one qualify and register under the above? * No membership yet

INTRO TO CQI, OB EDUCATION AND OB ACCREDITATION
MODULE OUTLINE Intro to PTC, PTC Program Accreditation and International Recognition under the Washington Accord INTRO TO CQI, OB EDUCATION AND OB ACCREDITATION PTC CASEE – Criteria, Policies and Procedures Self-Study Report (SSR) Guidelines: Preparing for Accreditation Conducting Accreditation Reviews Leading Accreditation Reviews (LAR) : Accreditation Review Site Visit LAR: Findings, Findings Classification and Reporting LAR: Accreditation Decision Process and Final Accreditation Reporting

OVERALL FRAMEWORK FOR CONTINUOUS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT OF ENGINEERING PROGRAMS
This presentation focuses on the PTC programs, specifically Washington Accord Initiative, that impact on the quality of educational qualifications and preparations of engineering graduates. For PTC programs dealing with recognition of qualifications at professional practice such as those of the APEC and the ASEAN Engineer Registers, please consult your APO/PEO or PTC itself.

OVERALL FRAMEWORK FOR QUALITY
SOCIETAL NEEDS, ADVANCING TECHNOLOGIES, STUDENT’S ENROLMENT HUMAN AND MATERIAL RESOURCES, ETC TEACHING & LEARNING FACILITATION, ASSESSMENT & EVALUATION METHODS, CURRICULUM DESIGN, ETC GRADUATE ATTRIBUTES, STUDENT OUTCOMES PROGRAM OBJECTIVES, ENGINEERING EDUCATION SYSTEM (OBE) INPUTS OUTPUTS There are two major national programs on continuous quality improvement and recognition of educational qualifications at the tertiary educational level in which PTC is involved, namely: a) the setting up of outcomes-based education for engineering in the various higher educational institutions as provided for in CMO 37 S 2012 of the CHED, and, b) the CMO SER. 2012 ACCREDITATION SYSTEM (CASEE) (CRITERIA, POLICIES, PROCEDURES)

KEY WORDS - 1 OBE – an educational delivery system that emphasizes learning outcomes, assessment and evaluation, and continuous quality improvement rather than detailed curricular specifications (ref. Engineering Criteria 2000 or EC2000). “Top-Down” vs. “Piece-Together” ACCREDITATION – a process for assessing and evaluating whether or not the educational delivery system and program meets specified standard of educational quality, e.g., WA GA & CP

KEY WORDS - 2 Assessment – one or more processes to identify, collect, and prepare data to evaluate the attainment of student outcomes and program educational objectives. Effective assessment uses relevant direct, indirect, quantitative and qualitative measures as appropriate to the objective or outcome being measured. Evaluation – one or more processes for interpreting the data and evidence accumulated through assessment processes. Evaluation determines the extent to which student outcomes and program educational objectives are being attained. Evaluation results in decisions and actions regarding program continuous quality improvement.

KEY WORDS - 3 Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI):
A periodic feedback process for changing any aspect of a program whereby formal results from assessment and evaluation and other informal observations are utilized in the formulation of the changes, with expected higher degrees of attainment of program educational objectives and higher degrees of attainment of student outcomes.

OUTCOMES-BASED EDUCATION IN ENGINEERING

TRAD E. VS. OBE OBE TRAD. E INPUTS EDUCATION DELIVERY SYSTEM OUTPUTS
PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE PROFILES, PROGRAM EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES, STUDENT OUTCOMES (WHAT STUDENT KNOW AND CAN DO- PERFORMANCE) OBE OUTCOMES-FOCUSED CURRICULUM, STUDENT LEARNING-FOCUSED TEACHING METHODS, ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION STUDENT’S POTENTIAL TO COMPLETE PROGRAM AND ACHIEVE OUTCOMES INPUTS EDUCATION DELIVERY SYSTEM OUTPUTS STUDENT’S ENROLMENT HUMAN AND MATERIAL RESOURCES, ETC CURRICULUM, TEACHING METHODS COMPLETION RATES, TEST RESULTS, TRAD. E

Traditional Education
Instructions of facts - inputs Assumes that these “inputs” when delivered and completed will lead to “education (?)” e.g., In a swimming course, one normally thinks first about: swimming styles, body motions, safety guidelines, breathing techniques Perhaps the bigger question after the course: - Is the student able to swim in water effectively and safely? Dedication of Resources Facilities, classrooms, libraries, offices Faculty and support staff Scholarships

Improving Quality in a “Traditional Education” Setting
Increase instructions (e.g., add courses) Increase resources (facilities, scholarships, operational budget)

CHANGING CONTEXT OF LEARNING
Teaching  Learning Teacher-Centered Activities  Student-Centered Activities Processes  Outcomes (shift of focus) Discipline-specific  All around development Institutional Learning  Life-long Learning

OUTCOMES-BASED EDUCATION
an educational delivery system that emphasizes learning outcomes, assessment and continuous quality improvement rather than detailed curricular specifications (Ref. Engineering Criteria 2000 or EC2000 of US ABET).

Students Learn Successfully Accomplishing Results (Outcomes)
OBE PARADIGM WHAT & WHETHER Students Learn Successfully vs. WHEN & HOW They Learn Something Accomplishing Results (Outcomes) vs. Providing Services All Students Emerge From The System As Genuinely Successful Learners

OBE’S TWO PURPOSES SUCCESS FOR ALL STUDENTS AND STAFF:
Ensure that all students are equipped with the knowledge, competence, and qualities needed to be successful after they exit the educational system Structuring and operating the educational system so that those outcomes can be achieved and maximized for all students. Source: W.G. Spady, Outcomes-based Education: Critical Issues and Answers.

OBE’S THREE KEY ASSUMPTIONS
All students can learn and succeed, but not on the same day in the same way. Successful learning promotes even more successful learning Schools control the conditions that directly affect successful student learning

THE FOUR BASIC PRINCIPLES OF OBE
Clarity of focus about outcomes - Culminating exit outcomes as the focus. Students know what they are aiming for. Expanded Opportunity - Cater for individual needs and differences, for example, expansion of available time and resources so that all students succeed in reaching the exit outcomes. Consistent, high expectations of success - Expect students to succeed by providing them encouragement to engage deeply with the issues they are learning and to achieve the high challenging standard set (Spady, 1994). Designing Down - Design curriculum backward by using the major outcomes as the focus, linking and aligning all planning, teaching and assessment decisions directly to these outcomes

RELEVANT QUESTIONS – OBE APPROACH
MAIN CONCERN: Outcomes. What Are The Desirable Qualities Of The Graduates From Your Programme(s) And Subject(s)? What Knowledge And Skills You Want And Expect Your Students To Demonstrate? What Level Of Performance Should They Demonstrate To Be Able To Excel In Their Prospective Role Of Entry-level Professionals? Same Topics - Different Outcomes

TRENDS Shift towards outcomes-based learning and accreditation (Washington Accord – EC2000) CHED is shifting to Outcomes-based Education (Ref. CMO 37 Series 2012 dated September 11, 2012) Accreditation bodies – local and international - are moving towards outcomes-based accreditation (See same CMO 37 S.2012) PTC engineering accreditation uses outcomes-based criteria

SO HOW DO WE SHIFT TO O-B-E?

PROGRAM EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES CONTINUOUS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT (CQI)
OBE FLOW CHART ANALYSIS ASSESSMENT PROGRAM EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES CONTINUOUS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT (CQI) ANALYSIS ASSESSMENT PROGRAM OUTCOMES CONTINUOUS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT (CQI) ANALYSIS ASSESSMENT COURSE OUTCOMES CONTINUOUS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT (CQI) MISSION, VISION, CONTITUENCIES

OBE FRAMEWORK VISION AND MISSION PROGRAM EDUC. OBJECTIVES
CONTINUOUS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT CONSTITUENCES’ INPUTS STUDENT OUTCOMES INPUTS (CURRICULUM RESOURCES, ETC TEACHING AND LEARNING STRATEGIES AND ACTIVITIES ASSESSMENT, EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS

ADOPTING OUTCOMES-BASED APPROACH TO STUDENT LEARNING
Define clearly what students should be able to do on completing their course of study (exit intended learning outcomes) Design the curriculum, teaching, learning and assessment to enable students to achieve the intended learning outcomes (alignment) Collect data on students’ achievement of learning outcomes (outcomes assessment) Use outcome assessment data to inform further development and enhancement of the programme/subject (continuous improvement)

PTC - MAJOR STEPS FOR IMPLEMENTING OUTCOMES-BASED EDUCATION
Establish degree Program Educational Objectives (PEO) Establish Student Outcomes (SO) for the degree program Frame curriculum to achieve the SOs and PEOs Establish teaching and learning processes Assess and evaluate objectives and outcomes Use results of evaluations to adjust courses/curriculum/system to improve the quality of education Periodically go to 1.

SETTING PROGRAM EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES (PEO)
Degree program educational objectives are broad statements that describe what graduates are expected to attain a few years after graduation. PEOs need to be measurable and are based on the needs of the program’s identified constituencies. The PEOs must be consistent with the mission and vision of the institution. Assessment must be gathered from alumni and employers to measure degree of achievement. Assessment data must be evaluated to determine the degree of achievement of PEOs. PEOs reviewed regularly.

SETTING DESIRED STUDENT OUTCOMES (SO) - 1
Student outcomes (SO) specify what students are expected to know and be able to do by the time of graduation. SOs relate to the skills, knowledge, and behaviors that students acquire as they progress through a baccalaureate degree program. SOs need to be measurable.

SETTING DESIRED STUDENT OUTCOMES (SO) - 2
Specified student outcomes must foster the attainment of the degree program objectives by the graduates. Graduates must possess the attributes of the student outcomes by the time of graduation. Graduates are expected to build on the foundation as they progress with their professional lives. Assessment – data must be gathered from students to obtain information about the degree of achievement of student outcomes. Evaluation – assessment data must be evaluated to determine the degree of achievement of student outcomes.

PTC STUDENT OUTCOMES - 3 There are the “a to l” outcomes provided for in the PTC Certification and Accreditation System for Engineering Education (CASEE) Culled from and aligned with the Washington Accord Graduate Attributes of 2009 A program may add more outcomes or may modify the PTC outcomes but must make sure that the “a to l” are addressed.

ESTABLISH TEACHING AND LEARNING PROCESSES AND STRATEGIES
Coordinate the setting up of syllabi of courses to encompass the assigned student outcomes in designing the learning and teaching processes. Incorporate the assessment of student outcomes in the course so that student outcomes can be evaluated for the class as a whole.

TEACHING AND LEARNING STRATEGIES
Focus on LEARNING rather than teaching Student learn if they THINK. Engage student to THINK Facilitate and encourage thinking by PROCESSES used to engage students with the CONTENT See big picture – help students LINK subjects Help students LEARN how to LEARN

Continuous Quality Improvement
Assess objectives Evaluate objectives Assess outcomes Evaluate outcomes Revise courses, curriculum/system, based one evaluations of SOs and PEOs . Revise courses/ curriculum/ system

Student and teachers will collaborate to achieve objectives and outcomes

OB ACCREDITATION

OVERALL FRAMEWORK GRADUATE ATTRIBUTES, PROGRAM OBJECTIVES,
SOCIETAL NEEDS, ADVANCING TECHNOLOGIES, STUDENT’S ENROLMENT HUMAN AND MATERIAL RESOURCES, ETC TEACHING & LEARNING FACILITATION, ASSESSMENT & EVALUATION METHODS, CURRICULUM DESIGN, ETC GRADUATE ATTRIBUTES, PROGRAM OBJECTIVES, STUDENT OUTCOMES ENGINEERING EDUCATION DELIVERY SYSTEM (OBE) INPUTS OUTPUTS ACCREDITATION SYSTEM (CASEE) (CRITERIA, POLICIES, PROCEDURES)

ACCREDITATION A process for assessing and evaluating whether or not the educational delivery system and program meets specified standard of educational quality, i.e., PEOs and SOs are continually achieved.

ACCREDITATION – MEASURE OF QUALITY
COMPLIANCE (Presence and Consistency of Implementation) Regulatory Requirements (Basic) PTC Criteria, Policies and Procedures Graduate Attributes - delivery Criteria (General + Special) Policies and Procedures Results – Objectives, Outcomes Institution-specific Mission and Vision, Program Objectives and Student Outcomes and other Educational Delivery System Elements Accreditation generally seeks to establish ability of the educational program to meet requirements. The requirements are embodied in the PTC Accreditation Criteria, policies and procedures which are included in the PTC Certification and Accreditation System for Engineering Education (CASEE). Other requirements as maybe formulated by regulatory bodies must be complied with as a pre-condition to accepting request for accreditation under the PTC CASEE.

COMPONENTS OF AN ACCREDITATION SYSTEM AND WA REQUIREMENTS
Washington Accord requires: Substantial Equivalence to WA Graduate Attributes Substantial Equivalence to Signatories’ Practices STANDARD (Purpose, Attributes) ACCREDITATION CRITERIA (Outputs, Inputs) ACCREDITATION PROCESS LIST OF ACCREDITED PROGRAMS CASEE has been established such that its elements are substantially equivalent to those of the members of Washington Accord. CASEE’s student outcomes have been significantly based on the Washington Accord Graduate Attributes and that the Accreditation Criteria were substantially culled from various accreditation systems of several major members of Washington Accord. The Accreditation process has been patterned substantially after that of the US ABET and Engineers Australia. Basically the CASEE has to be measured against the ff: Must have standards of qualifications to be achieved by the engineering program – graduate attributes exemplar, purpose of program, etc. Accreditation criteria against which the inputs and outputs to and from the engineering programs are assessed and evaluated Accreditation processes – must meet “substantial equivalency” with the other members Accreditation policy – pertaining and governing the standards, criteria and the processes and procedures of accreditation ACCREDITATION POLICY Sydney Accord – Engineering Technology disciplines Seoul Accord - Computing & IT-related disciplines _________ Hu Hunrahan. “The Washington Accord Graduate Attributes” , Sept 2011

PTC CASEE – Criteria, Policies and Procedures
MODULE OUTLINE Intro to PTC, PTC Program Accreditation and International Recognition under the Washington Accord Intro To CQI, OB Education And OB Accreditation PTC CASEE – Criteria, Policies and Procedures Self-Study Report (SSR) Guidelines: Preparing for Accreditation Conducting Accreditation Reviews Leading Accreditation Reviews (LAR) : Accreditation Review Site Visit LAR: Findings, Findings Classification and Reporting LAR: Accreditation Decision Process and Final Accreditation Reporting

PTC Certification and Accreditation System for Engineering Education (PTC-CASEE)
Is outcomes-based accreditation

PTC HAS ESTABLISH ITS ACCREDITATION SYSTEM
CASEE (Certification and Accreditation System for Engineering Education) has been established and implemented by PTC: Policies Criteria Processes PTC has been re-organized to implement CASEE - ACBE, EAC, RPEv PTC and the APO/PEO needs you as Program Evaluators/Team Leaders for the accreditation of the engineering program of your expertise

Why should the APO/PEOs be Involved in Engineering Education Accreditation?
APOs/PEOs want Filipino Engineers to be globally competitive, APOs/PEOs want their members to practice at a high quality level, APOs/PEOs want their entry level members to have a professional profile comparable to corresponding profiles of international competitors, APOs/PEOs have a vested interest in the education of entry-level engineers

Why PTC in Engineering Education Accreditation?
PTC, as the umbrella organization, can more efficiently represent the APOs/PEOs in their new mission to be involved, moreso, lead in engineering education accreditation, High quality engineering education accreditation is becoming a prerequisite to qualifying to ASEAN and APEC Engineer Registries for which PTC is the lead NGO in the Philippines.

Philippine Technological Council (PTC)
PTC is the umbrella organization of professional engineering societies in the Philippines It has developed a Certification and Accreditation System for Engineering Education (CASEE) It is the sole body recognized by the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) to certify and accredit engineering programs offered by Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs) in the country in accordance with WA.

PTC Certification and Accreditation System for Engineering Education (CASEE)
PTC-CASEE is a system of criteria and standards, policies, processes and procedures by which the quality of an engineering educational program that leads to a bachelor of science degree in a specific field of engineering is assessed and evaluated. PTC created an organizational structure for implementing CASEE for the accreditation of engineering programs.

Getting to know the PTC-ACBET-EAC-RPEv Structure
PTC – Philippine Technological Council ACBET – Accreditation and Certification Board for Engineering and Technology EAC – Engineering Accreditation Commission RPEv – Register of PTC-ACBET-EAC Program Evaluators PEv – Program Evaluators

FUNCTIONAL DIVISIONS OF PTC, ACBET AND EAC
BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND OFFICERS ACBET Owns, establishes, improves, and maintains the Accreditation and Certification Policies, Procedures, Criteria and Standards, Guidelines, and other Accreditation and Certification Instruments Acts as the applicant signatory to education accords and mobility forums (Washington Accord, APEC Engr, Engrs Mobility Forum, etc.) Approves and certifies accreditation Manages the day-to- day operations of ACBET & EAC Acts as Secretariat to ACBET during Regular and Special Meetings Authorized by PTC Implements the PTC Policies, Procedures, Criteria, Guidelines and and Standards for the accreditation of engineering programs Recommends changes to the above PTC policies, procedures, criteria, guidelines and standards Decides and Endorses to PTC all Accreditation Cases & Recommendations BOARD OF ADVISERS 15 members max. Provides the pool of program evaluators/accreditors from which accreditation team members (ATM) are selected Source of accreditation team chairs (ATC) who will eventually comprise the EAC Carry out the accreditation procedures Evaluates and deliberates on accreditation cases Recommends to ACBET Peer review system Future structure for computing and technology EAC - Engineering Accreditation Commission ADRC - Accreditation Dispute Resolution Committee PARP - Peer Accreditation Review Panel ENGINEERING ACCREDITATION COMMISSION EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S OFFICE TAC CAC PARP REGISTER OF PROGRAM EVALUATORS ADRC

ACCREDITATION ORGANIZATIONS AND FUNCTIONS
LEVELS OF DECISION PTC OWNS AND MAINTAINS CASEE ESTABLISHES ACCREDITATION POLICIES AND STRATEGIC PLANS FINAL DECISION ON ACCREDITATION CASES ACBET IMPLEMENTS AND MANAGES ACCREDITATION POLICIES, CRITERIA, PROCESSES RECOMMENDS IMPROVEMENTS TO CASEE RECOMMENDS ACCREDITATION ACTIONS RECOMMENDED OPTIONS ON ACCREDITATION CASES (YES OR NO) EAC/ PROGRAM EVALUATION TEAM IMPLEMENTS ACCREDITATION REVIEWS RECOMMENDS SPECIFIC ACCREDITATION ACTIONS ON CASES REPORTS ON ACCREDITATION REVIEW VISITS AND FINDINGS

Accreditation and Certification Board for Engineering and Technology (ACBET)
ACBET is a creation of PTC to implement program accreditation ACBET has created the Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) to carry out the details of engineering program accreditation Additional commissions for Computing and Technology are planned PTC makes final accreditation decisions based on ACBET/EAC recommendations

Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC)
EAC is a creation of PTC-ACBET (P-ACBET) EAC members serve as Team Chairs (TC) on engineering accreditation reviews and site visits A TC preliminary report to a HEI program is reviewed by the EAC Exec com EAC en banc makes an accreditation recommendation to be submitted to ACBET. ACBET submits its recommendation to PTC. Members of the site team are selected from the Register of Program Evaluators (RPEv)

Register of Program Evaluators (RPEv)
A Program Evaluator (PEv) is a member of one of the member engineering organizations of PTC in good standing. A PEv for a specific engineering program must be a member of the engineering organization assigned for the specific engineering field. The RPEv is a data base listing of PEv’s who have completed PTC training for PEv’s Members of TC for a site visit must be selected from the RPEv and some should be from the industry The RPEv database includes the PEv name, engineering organization affiliation, date of training completion, conflicts of interest, and HEI programs visited with dates.

PTC CASEE

MAJOR COMPONENTS OF CASEE
GRADUATE ATTRIBUTES AND COMPETENCY PROFILE EXEMPLARS ACCREDITATION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ACCREDITATION CRITERIA ACCREDITATION PROCESSES AND REPORTS SELF STUDY REPORT GUIDELINES ORGANIZATION

GRADUATE ATTRIBUTES AND COMPETENCY PROFILE EXEMPLARS
PTC has adopted the Washington Accord Graduate Attributes and Competency Profile Exemplar (WA GA-CPE) as benchmarked reference graduate attributes for accredited engineering programs. PTC has adopted student outcomes “a) to l)” that are aligned with those of the WA GA-CPE

WA GRADUATE ATTRIBUTES
KNOWLEDGE-ORIENTED 1. Using engineering knowledge SKILL-ORIENTED GROUP Modern Tool Usage Individual and Teamwork Communication Project/Engineering Management Defined Knowledge Profile PROBLEM-SOLVING SKILL GROUP Problem analysis Design/development of solutions Investigations ATTITUDE-ORIENTED GROUP The Engineer in Society Environment and Sustainability Ethics Life-long learning Defined Level of Problem Solving

Graduate Attributes for Engineers (From Washington Accord)
Engineering Knowledge Apply knowledge of mathematics, science, engineering fundamentals and an engineering specialization to the solution of complex engineering problems Problem Analysis Identify, formulate, research literature and analyze complex engineering problems reaching substantiated conclusions using first principles of mathematics, natural sciences and engineering sciences. Design/ development of solutions Design solutions for complex engineering problems and design systems, components or processes that meet specified needs with appropriate consideration for public health and safety, cultural, societal, and environmental considerations.

Graduate Attributes Investigation
Conduct investigations of complex problems using research-based knowledge and research methods including design of experiments, analysis and interpretation of data, and synthesis of information to provide valid conclusions Modern Tool Usage Create, select and apply appropriate techniques, resources, and modern engineering and IT tools, including prediction and modelling, to complex engineering activities, with an understanding of the limitations The Engineer and Society Apply reasoning informed by contextual knowledge to assess societal, health, safety, legal and cultural issues and the consequent responsibilities relevant to professional engineering practice.

Graduate Attributes for Engineers
Environment and Sustainability Understand the impact of professional engineering solutions in societal and environmental contexts and demonstrate knowledge of and need for sustainable development. Ethics Apply ethical principles and commit to professional ethics and responsibilities and norms of engineering practice. Individual and Team Work Function effectively as an individual and as a member or leader in diverse teams and in multi-disciplinary settings.

Graduate Attributes for Engineers
Communication Communicate effectively on complex engineering activities with the engineering community and with society at large, such as being able to comprehend and write effective reports and design documentation, make effective presentations, and give and receive clear instructions. Project Management & Finance Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of engineering and management principles and apply these to one’s work, as a member and leader in a team, to manage projects and in multidisciplinary environments Life long Learning Recognize the need for, and have the preparation and ability to engage in independent and life-long learning in the broadest context of technological change.

MAJOR ACCREDITATION POLICIES:
Accreditation is voluntary. Accreditation review will be undertaken by PTC only upon confirmation of the request from the HEI. Program submitted for accreditation must have complied substantially with any and all government regulatory requirements. Accreditation is substantially industry-led, independent of institutions providing engineering programs. Conflict of interest is highlighted among those involved in any accreditation activity.

How can an accreditation system demonstrate “substantial equivalency” to WA requirements?
What are the five (5) major elements of an OBE that PTC CASEE is looking for in an education delivery system?

PTC CASEE

MAJOR COMPONENTS OF CASEE
Graduate Attributes and Competency Profile Exemplars Accreditation Policies and Procedures Accreditation Processes Accreditation Criteria Self Study Report Guidelines Organization

MAJOR ACCREDITATION PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES
Accreditation Review And Visit Procedures Accreditation Decision Review And Approval Procedures Accreditation Reporting Procedure

OVERVIEW OF THE ACCREDITATION PROCESS
INSTITUTION AND PROGRAM PTC-ACBET-EAC SUBMIT APPLICATION RECEIVE APPLICATION SEND OUT CRITERIA AND SELF STUDY REPORT (SSR) GUIDELINES SUBMIT SELF STUDY REPORT FORM TEAM (TEAM CHAIR+1 PEv/PROGRAM) REVIEW SELF-STUDY REPORT ON-SITE VISIT BY REVIEW TEAM PROVIDE PRELIM ORAL STATEMENT REPLY WITHIN 7 DAYS SEND DRAFT REVIEW STATEMENT REPLY WITHIN 30 DAYS ACCREDITATION RECOMMENDATION ACCREDITATION DECISION ACCEPT OR APPEAL DECISION NOTIFY ACCREDITATION DECISION

PTC-ACBET-EAC Criteria
9 General Criteria I Specific Program Criteria II Policy and Procedures III

ACCREDITATION CRITERIA
9 GENERAL CRITERIA: PROGRAM EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES STUDENT OUTCOMES STUDENTS FACULTY AND SUPPORT STAFF CURRICULUM FACILITIES AND LEARNING ENVIRONMENT LEADERSHIP AND INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT EXTENSION SERVICE, COMMUNITY-ORIENTED PROGRAMS AND INDUSTRY-ACADEME LINKAGE CONTINUOUS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT SPECIFIC PROGRAM CRITERIA: FACULTY

Application of General Criteria
All 9 general criteria apply to each engineering program with engineering in its title.

Definition of Terms Used in Criteria
Program Educational Objectives 1 Student Outcomes 2 Assessment 3 Evaluation 4 Continuous Quality Improvement 5

Definitions Program Educational Objectives Program educational objectives are broad statements that describe what graduates are expected to attain three to five years after graduation. Program educational objectives are based on the needs of the program’s constituencies.

Definitions Student Outcomes
Student outcomes specify what students are expected to know and be able to do by the time of graduation. These relate to the skills, knowledge, and behaviors that students acquire as they progress through the program.

Definitions Assessment
Assessment is one or more processes that identify, collect, and prepare data to evaluate the attainment of student outcomes and program educational objectives. Effective assessment uses relevant direct, indirect, quantitative and qualitative measures as appropriate to the objective or outcome being measured. Appropriate sampling methods may be used as part of an assessment process.

Definitions Evaluation
Evaluation is one or more processes for interpreting the data and evidence accumulated through assessment processes. Evaluation determines the extent to which student outcomes and program educational objectives are being attained. Evaluation results in decisions and actions regarding program continuous quality improvement.

Definitions Continuous Quality Improvement
Continuous Quality Improvement is a periodic feedback process for changing any aspect of a program whereby formal results from evaluation and other informal observations are utilized in the formulations of the changes, with expected higher degrees of attainment of program educational objectives and higher degrees of attainment of student outcomes.

The SELF STUDY REPORT GUIDELINES

The Self Study Report (SSR)
The SSR is a document prepared by the HEI to document and demonstrate that the program meets all the PTC criteria and other accreditation requirements as espoused in the policies and procedures of accreditation. The SSR provides a quantitative and qualitative assessment and evaluation of the strengths and limitations of the program. It is prepared for each engineering program being submitted for review, signed by the HEI-authorized officer.

Self Study Report… continued 2
The purposes of the SSR: To explain the extent to which the program meets applicable PTC accreditation criteria and policies. To provide sufficient information for a thorough on-site review of the program. It is necessary that the SSR: Address all methods of instructional delivery used for the program, All possible paths that students may take to completion of the degree, and All remote offerings available to students in the program.

PTC provides SSR Guidelines for the preparation of the SSR for engineering programs of HEIs. The Chapters of the SSR are keyed to the corresponding PTC Accreditation Criteria. In the event of a possible question of interpretation between the PTC SSR Guidelines and the PTC Accreditation Criteria, the PTC Accreditation Criteria shall prevail.

The primary purpose of the new accreditation system for engineering in the Philippines is to assure high quality of engineering education that will enable entry-level engineering professionals to be globally competitive. PTC has been admitted as provisional member of the Washington Accord in June 2013, which means that: The accreditation system appears to be conceptually similar to those of the Washington Accord signatories PTC has filed its application for full signatory status on June 10, 2014 and is awaiting WA team evaluation visit in due time.

The Philippine Technological Council - Washington Accord Initiative (PTC-WAI)

The PTC-Washington Accord Initiative
A program being undertaken by PTC that: Fosters quality of engineering education and engineering graduates through the establishment and implementation of an independent certification and accreditation system for engineering education (CASEE); Pursues international recognition of engineering programs and graduate engineers through membership with the Washington Accord; Recognized and supported by CHED

The PTC-WAI : Washington Accord
What is the Washington Accord? It is an independent agreement among group of signatories for the mutual recognition of engineering programs. Benchmarking standards for engineering education The Washington Accord Graduate Attributes represent the generally agreed reference for accredited programs Benchmarking accreditation policies and processes

THE PTC-WAI : MUTUAL RECOGNITION
Mutual Recognition of accredited engineering programs means that: Their accreditation criteria, policies and procedures have been verified comparable Accreditation decisions made by one signatory are acceptable to the other signatories, and that Recognition applies only to accreditations conducted within the signatory’s national or territorial boundaries, except: Offshore programs offered by university with programs accredited in home territory A designated signatory accredits in developing countries where there is no capacity to operate an accrediting body Recognition means that the academic qualifications of the graduates from the accredited engineering program substantially meet the requirements for entry to practice of engineering.

WASHINGTON ACCORD: MEMBERSHIP STATUS
Signatory: A body entitled to fully participate in the Accord, enjoys the same rights and obligations as all other signatories. The body must be: Independent of the academic institutions delivering accredited or recognized programs within their jurisdiction. An authority, agency or institution representative of the engineering profession that has statutory or recognized professional authority to accredit programs designed to satisfy the academic requirements for admission to the practicing engineering community within the jurisdiction Requires unanimous votes from existing signatories to be admitted as full signatory Provisional Status: A body that has demonstrated that it has an accreditation/recognition system conceptually similar to signatories Has none for the rights or duties of signatories Requires 2/3 votes from existing signatories to achieve provisional status

REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSION TO WA
The accreditation system and processes are substantially equivalent to those of the other signatories of the Accord, and The graduate outcomes standard applied for accreditation is substantially equivalent to that of the Accord (as illustrated by the Accord graduate attributes exemplar).

CRITICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR JOINING WA
A signatory must be the sole accreditation body (against international standards such as WA) for engineering education within the jurisdiction A signatory must be independent of the higher educational institutions offering engineering degree programs A signatory must represent the engineering profession in the jurisdiction or territory

WA: Steps to Membership
Application for Signatory status will be preceded by a prescribed period of Provisional Status Applicants for provisional status must be nominated by two signatories (who have usually mentored the applicant) Acceptance as provisional by 2/3 majority of signatories Admission requires that the body has an accreditation system Substantial equivalence is not required for provisional status: the provisional may need to develop criteria, policies and procedures Mentoring continues during provisional status

WA: Becoming a Full Signatory
Normal minimum period as provisional is two years A provisional that is ready to apply for signatory status requests a verification visit Application must be supported by two signatories Visit must demonstrate substantial equivalence of: Accreditation standard to the Graduate Attributes Policies and processes to be substantially equivalent Visit report is considered at a general meeting Admission of a new signatory requires unanimous approval

CURRENT WASHINGTON ACCORD SIGNATORIES
Australia - represented by Engineers Australia (1989) Canada – represented by Engineers Canada (1989) United Kingdom – represented by Engineering Council UK (1989) United States – represented by ABET (1989) New Zealand – represented by Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand (1989) Ireland – represented by Engineers Ireland (1989) Hong Kong – represented by The Hong Kong Institution of Engineers (1995) South Africa – represented by Engineering Council South Africa (1999) Japan – represented by Japan Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (2005) Singapore –represented by Institution of Engineers Singapore (2006) South Korea – represented by Accreditation Board for Engineering Education Korea (2007) Chinese Taipei – Institution of Engineering Education Taiwan (2007) Malaysia – represented by the Board of Engineers Malaysia (2009) Turkey – represented by MUDEC (2011) Russia – represented by RAEE (2012) India – represented by National Accreditation Board (2013) Sri Lanka - represented by Institution of Engineers Sri Lanka (2013) **Provisional Members – PRChina, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Peru, Philippines

Timetable of Washington Accord Initiative
June PTC at IEA-Washington Accord Meeting in Taipei, Taiwan February PTC Certification and Accreditation System for Engineering Education in place August Training for PTC-ACBET-EAC-PEvs February Released PTC-ACBET-EAC Criteria and Self Study Report Guidelines June Initial Information filed with International Engineering Alliance – WA at Sydney Nov PTC-ACBET-EAC start of accreditation visits to HEI engineering programs February 2013 – Provisional Membership final application filed with nominations from Engineers Australia & IEE Taiwan June 2013 – Presentation and Deliberations on Provisional Membership by WA Committee. PTC admitted as Provisional Member June 2014 – Filed application for upgrading to Full Signatory June 2015 – Presentation and Deliberations on Full Signatory Membership (if WA team visit completed by Nov-Dec 2014)

PTC CASEE – CRITERIA, POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
MODULE OUTLINE Intro to PTC, PTC Program Accreditation and International Recognition under the Washington Accord Intro To CQI, OB Education And OB Accreditation PTC CASEE – CRITERIA, POLICIES AND PROCEDURES SELF-STUDY REPORT (SSR) GUIDELINES: PREPARING FOR ACCREDITATION Conducting Accreditation Reviews Leading Accreditation Reviews (LAR) : Accreditation Review Site Visit LAR: Findings, Findings Classification and Reporting LAR: Accreditation Decision Process and Final Accreditation Reporting

SPECIFIC TOPIC OBJECTIVES
To thoroughly understand the requirements indicated in the PTC-ACBET Criteria To calibrate Program Evaluators in preparation for accreditation activities. To help the administration and staff of the HEI prepare the SSR.

MODULE OUTCOMES Upon completion of the module, the participant is expected: To be able to explain the PTC-ACBET accreditation criteria, policies and procedures. To understand the requirements of the SSR and be able to prepare a part or the whole of SSR. To know the mechanics of accrediting an engineering education delivery process and be able to participate in an accreditation review.

The PTC-ACBET-EAC Criteria
9 General Criteria II Specific Programs Criteria III Policy and Procedures

Definition of Terms Used in the Criteria
1 Program Educational Objectives 2 Student Outcomes 3 Assessment

Definition of Terms Used in the Criteria
4 Evaluation 5 Continuous Quality Improvement

Definitions Progress Educational Objectives
These are broad statements that describe what graduates are expected to attain three (3) to five (5) years after graduation. These are based on the needs of the program’s constituencies.

Definitions Student Outcomes
Specify what students are expected to know and be able to do by the time of graduation. These relate to the skills, knowledge, and behaviors that students acquire as they progress through the program.

Definitions Assessment
One or more processes that identify, collect, and prepare data to evaluate the attainment of student outcomes. Effective assessment uses relevant direct, indirect, quantitative and qualitative measures as appropriate to the objective or outcome being measured. Appropriate sampling methods may be used as part of an assessment process.

Definitions Evaluation
One or more processes for interpreting the data and evidence accumulated through assessment processes. It determines the extent to which student outcomes and program educational objectives are being attained. The evaluation results are made as basis for decisions and actions regarding program continuous quality improvement.

Definitions Continuous Quality Improvement
A periodic feedback process for changing any aspect of a program whereby formal results from evaluation and other informal observations are utilized in the formulation of changes. It is aimed at higher degrees of attainment of program educational objectives and student outcomes.

1 2 3 The 9 General Criteria Program Educational Objectives
Student Outcomes 2 Students 3

4 5 6 The 9 General Criteria Curriculum Faculty and Support Staff
Facilities and Learning Environment 6

7 8 9 The 9 General Criteria Leadership and Institutional Support
Extension Service, Community-oriented Programs, Industry-Academe Linkage 8 Continuous Quality Improvement 9

Application of Criteria
All 9 general criteria apply to each engineering program with engineering in its title

Specific Program Criteria Examples
Chemical Engineering 1 Metallurgical Engineering 2 Electrical Engineering 3

What Specific Program Criteria Cover
Curriculum Faculty These are in addition to the General Criteria 4 and 5

Details of the PTC-ACBET-EAC 9 General Criteria

Criterion 1: Program Educational Objectives
There must be documented and published program educational objectives (PEO) PEOs are consistent with the mission and vision of the institution. PEOs shall reflect the particular field(s) of engineering practice and the associated area(s) of specialization, the desired characteristics and/or capabilities of the graduates after a few years of their career following graduation, the anticipated career destinations of graduates and the needs of the appropriate external constituencies.

Criterion 1: PEO’s continued
A formal and documented process to develop and review/ change of the PEO’s is in place. The review process shall be periodic and shall ensure and demonstrate that the objectives are based on the needs of the program’s various stakeholders. External stakeholders’ inputs are critical to the development, review and monitoring process of the objectives.

Criterion 2: Student Outcomes (SO)
The program must have established and documented student outcome. Process for formulation, review and revision of SO Deployment process Student outcomes foster the attainment of the program education objectives by the graduates The program must demonstrate that the graduates possess the attributes of the student outcomes at the time of graduation Performance Indicators for each SO shall be formulated/monitored.

Criterion 2: SO’s continued
Student outcomes are outcomes enumerated as (a) to (l). There may be other student outcomes specified under Section II on Specific Program Criteria. Ability to apply knowledge of mathematics and science to solve engineering problems. Ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data. Ability to design a system, component, or process to meet the desired needs within realistic constraints in accordance with standards.

Criterion 2 –SO’s continued 2
ability to function on multidisciplinary teams ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems. Understanding of professional and ethical responsibility. Ability to communicate effectively. Broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context.

Criterion 2: SO’s continued 3
Recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning. Knowledge of contemporary issues. Ability to use techniques, skills and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice. Knowledge and understanding of engineering and management principles as a member and leader in a team, to manage projects and in multidisciplinary environments.

Criterion 3: Students Students admitted to the program must
have the educational background to undertake the engineering degree courses and have a reasonable prospect of achieving the student outcomes. Policies and processes must be in place and enforced for Admissions, transfers, progression, retention, student progress monitoring and performance evaluation, student advising on curricular and career matters, guidance and support, academic exchange, promotion and graduation and ensure that the students continually achieve desired learning outcomes. Program must ensure and document that all students who are promoted or graduated meet all the requirements for promotion or graduation.

Criterion 3: Students’ continued 2
NOTES: Policies must be documented. Process and procedures are also documented. Provide supporting report/ data on applicable items. Provide list of documented procedures, as applicable. Ensure that student continually achieve desired learning outcome.

Criterion 4: Faculty and Support Staff
There must be a sufficient number of competent faculty to cover all of the curricular areas of the program and to assure adequate levels of student-faculty interaction and student advising. Faculty must have the appropriate academic qualifications and professional competencies needed to assure the continuity and stability of the program.

Criterion 4: F&SS continued
The program must not be critically dependent on an individual; the faculty must be involved in implementation and decisions of the program The program must have professional development opportunities for the faculty to participate in research, scholarly work, professional development activities and industrial interaction. The program must establish an evaluation method to determine the educational contributions of each faculty member and to provide it to the faculty members involved in the program. The evaluation of educational contributions must be implemented in accordance with the method.

Criterion 4: F&SS continued 2
There must be a sufficient number of technical, laboratory and support staffs to ensure that there is a satisfactory level of technical support in shops, maintenance of equipment, management of laboratories and general support. The technical, laboratory and support staffs must have adequate qualifications and experience to assure the quality of the program. There must be adequate staff development.

Criterion 5: Curriculum
EAC does not specify a minimum of credit hours on any of the following areas: Normally there should be one year of mathematics and basic science and one and one half years of engineering science including design and research. There must be sufficient coverage to ensure achievement of student outcomes. The curriculum must cover the following six (6) areas: Mathematics and basic sciences: The study of mathematics and basic sciences is fundamental in understanding the physical world in relation to engineering. It will serve as a foundation to the engineering theories and principles.

Criterion 5: Curriculum.. continued 2
Engineering Sciences: have roots in the mathematical and physical sciences, and where applicable, in other basic sciences but extend knowledge and develop models and methods in order to lead to engineering applications and solve engineering problems. Engineering Design and Synthesis: the creative, iterative and often open-ended process of conceiving and developing components, systems and processes. Design requires the integration of engineering, basic and mathematical sciences, working under constraints, taking into account economic, health and safety, social and environmental factors, codes of practice and applicable laws, and standards in the field. Students must be prepared for engineering practice through a curriculum culminating in a major design experience based on the knowledge and skills acquired in earlier course work and incorporating appropriate engineering standards and multiple realistic constraints.

Criterion 5: Curriculum..continued 3
4) Complimentary Studies: Disciplines outside engineering which are essential for professionalism and ethics. Studies are selected from political science, economics, effective communication, literature, history, art, philosophy, psychology, ethics, etc.

Criterion 5: Curriculum...continued 4
Laboratory and Field Work: Courses should be supported by meaningful laboratory work, well coordinated with the lecture material and supported with relevant up-to-date equipment. Practical training: Exposure of the students to industry, which puts theory into practice.

Criterion 6: Facilities and Learning Environment
Classrooms, offices, laboratories, and associated equipment must be adequate to support the attainment of the student outcomes and to provide an atmosphere conducive to learning. Modern tools, equipment, computing resources, and laboratories appropriate to the program must be available, accessible, and systematically maintained and upgraded to enable students to attain the student outcomes and to support program needs.

Criterion 6: F& LE.. continued
Students must be provided appropriate guidance regarding the use of the tools, equipment, computing resources, and laboratories available to the program. The library services and the computing and information infrastructure must be adequate to support the scholarly and professional activities of the students and faculty.

Criterion 7: Leadership and Institutional Support
Institutional support and leadership must be adequate to ensure the quality and continuity of the program. Resources including institutional services, financial support, and staff (both administrative and technical) provided to the program must be adequate to meet the program needs. The resources available to the program must be sufficient to attract, retain, and provide for the continued professional development of a qualified faculty. The resources must be sufficient to acquire, maintain, and operate infrastructures, facilities, and equipment appropriate for the program, and to provide for the environment in which student outcomes can be attained.

Criterion 8: Extension Service, Community-oriented Programs, and Industry-Academe Linkage
The program shall provide non-degree educational service such as short courses on new technologies and new professional topics, to assists engineers from industry in keeping abreast of new developments in the field. Some short courses may provide summaries of findings from the research of the faculty. New courses may be developed with collaboration from industry and engineering societies.

Criterion 8: ESCOP & IAL..continued
Community-Oriented Programs There shall be evidence that students and student organizations have programs to assist communities. Possible projects may involve assistance to high school students on potential science/engineering fairs. Community assistance may involve helping design low-cost computing, low-cost access to the internet, and general utilization of their technological expertise. Dialogs with the communities to determine their needs should be explored first.

Criterion 8: ESCOP & IAL..continued
Industry-Academe Linkage There must be regular active participation from industry in planning and defining program educational objectives, student outcomes and curricula to ensure that these are relevant and up-to-date with societal and professional requirements. There should be faculty/student industry exposure through internships, industry visits, collaborative projects under professionals in industry and industry-based final year projects.

Criterion 9: Continuous Quality Improvement
There must be a recorded process for assessment and evaluation of the student outcomes. There must be a recorded process for assessment and evaluation of program education objectives.

Criterion 9: CQI…continued
There must be evidence that results of the evaluation of student outcomes and results of the evaluation of program educational objectives are utilized as inputs to the process for continuous quality improvement such as changes in course syllabi, curriculum, and any other aspect of the program to improve the degrees to which student outcomes and program educational objectives are achieved. There shall be feedback to and from all concerned stakeholders on the achievement of the graduates. These shall be maintenance of a Continuous Quality Improvement program with adequate supporting resources.

What Specific Program Criteria Cover
Curriculum Faculty The provisions are in addition to the nine (9) General Criteria applicable to all engineering programs

Specific Program Criteria: Examples
Chemical Engineering Civil Engineering Electrical Engineering Electronic Engineering Mechanical Engineering Metallurgical Engineering Etc.

The SELF STUDY REPORT GUIDELINES

The Self Study Report (SSR)
The SSR is a document prepared by the HEI to document and demonstrate that the program meets all the PTC criteria and other accreditation requirements as espoused in the policies and procedures of accreditation. The SSR provides a quantitative and qualitative assessment and evaluation of the strengths and limitations of the program being submitted for review to the PTC, ACBET and the EAC. Prepared for each engineering program being submitted for review, signed by the HEI-authorized officer.

The purpose of the SSR is to explain the extent to which the program meets applicable PTC accreditation criteria and policies. The SSR will provide sufficient information for a thorough on-site review of the program. SSR necessarily address all methods of instructional delivery used for the program, all possible paths that students may take to completion of the degree, and all remote offerings available to students in the program

PTC provides Guidelines for the Preparation of the SSR for engineering programs of HEIs. The Chapters of the SSR are keyed to the corresponding PTC Accreditation Criteria. In the event of a possible question of interpretation between the PTC SSR Guidelines and the PTC Accreditation Criteria, the PTC Accreditation Criteria shall prevail.

Submission and Distribution of SSR
The SSR and supplemental materials shall be submitted as follows: Hard-bound SSR Report, 3 complete sets. A soft copy of the SSR and supplemental materials shall be submitted on pdf read-only files. No hot-linked references allowed. submission is not permitted Mixed submission (hard bound and soft copies) not allowed Above should be submitted at least sixty (60) calendar days prior to the targeted dates of review visit

Background Information
Contact information Program History Organization Delivery modes Locations

I. GENERAL CRITERIA

Criterion 1: Program Educational Objectives
Vision and Mission Statement Provide the institutional vision and mission statements. Discuss its relationship to PEO. Program Educational Objectives List the PEOs List the program constituencies and discuss how the PEO meets the needs of constituencies. Process of formulation, review and revision of the PEO. Assessment tools/ methods Deployment process of PEO

Workshop 1: SSR for PEO Form groups among the participants Workshop:
Write the section on the PEO per SSR Guidelines Develop the PEOs Develop the Assessment Tools Presentation

Criterion 2: Student Outcomes
List the student outcomes Indicate where it is documented Process for the formulation, review and revision Deployment process of SOs Performance Indicators for each of SO Relationship of SO to PEO Explain how SO prepare graduates to attain the PEO.

Workshop 2: Preparation of SSR for SO
Form groups from among the participants. Workshop: Write the SSR section on the SOs per SSR Guidelines Develop the Performance Indicators per SO Develop the Rubric for the SO Presentation

Criterion 3: Students A. Student Admission Policy
Process for accepting new students Summarize requirements Orientation/ evidence of orientation/ Emphasis on OBE, PEO and SO Data and profile

Criterion 3: Students…..p2
B. Evaluating Student Performance Policy Summarize the process for evaluating student performance Evaluation procedures Evaluation report/ data/ Data analysis/ Improvement Actions Include a discussion of how SOs are included in the evaluation of student performance

Monitoring Student Progress Policy Summarize the process for monitoring student progress Include documented information on how the program ensures that student pre-requisites and exceptions are handled Include discussion on how monitoring ensures that the schedule of courses for each semester or term for each student takes into account an appropriate progression of learning towards the student outcomes Monitoring data/ Data analysis/ Improvement action

D. Transfer Students and Transfer Courses Policy Summarize the requirements and process for accepting transfer students and transfer credits Monitoring data/ Data analysis/ Improvement action

E. Advising and Career Guidance Policy Summarize the process for advising and providing career guidance to students, on career paths for the profession associated with the program Include information on how the students are advised, who provides the advising program Monitoring data/ Data analysis/ Improvement action

Policy/ procedures/ data on the following: Work in lieu of courses Graduation requirements Transcript of recent graduates Academic exchange, if any

Criterion 4: Faculty and Support Staff
A. Faculty Qualifications Policy Describe the qualifications of the faculty and how they are adequate to cover all the curricular areas of the program. Include the composition, size, credentials, and faculty experience Complete ACGS-02 Table 4-1. Show at least two faculty members capable of teaching the major course Include faculty Resumes in Appendix B.

Criterion 4: Faculty and Support Staff...p2
Faculty Workload Policy Complete ACGS-02, Table 4-2, Faculty Workload Summary and describe this information in terms of workload expectations or requirements.

Criterion 4: Faculty and Support Staff….p3
Faculty Activities Discuss the adequacy of the size of the faculty Policy Describe the extent and quality of faculty involvement in; i. Interaction with students ii. Monitoring of student progress iii. Advising and career guidance iv. University service activities Professional development Interactions with industrial and professional practitioners including including employers of students Data in regards to the attainment of relevant SO

Criterion 4: Faculty and Support Staff..p4
Professional Development Policy Training Needs Analysis/ Procedures Professional development plan for 2013 (previous) and 2014 Development plan status Describe the faculty professional development activities, in accordance with the institution professional development program Data/ improvement actions Samples of Attainment of relevant SO

Authority and Responsibility of Faculty Describe the role played by the faculty with respect to the guidance of the program and in the implementation of the processes for the assessment, evaluation and continuing improvement of the program Signed documented job descriptions or responsibilities of faculty

Describe the adequacy of support staff Include description of the workload Signed documented job descriptions or responsibilities Description of staff development Development plan for 2013 and 2014 Development plan status

Criterion 5: Curriculum
Program Curriculum Complete Table 5-1 Describe how the curriculum and its associated prerequisite structure support the attainment of student outcomes. Attach a flowchart or worksheet that illustrates the prerequisite structure of the program’s required courses. Describe how the curriculum aligns with PEO. For each curricular area, describe how your program meets the specific requirement.

Criterion 5: Curriculum….p2
Program Curriculum Describe the major design experience that prepares students for engineering practice. Incorporate appropriate engineering standards and multiple design constraints. Describe the industry-academe linkage, such as OJT to satisfy curricular requirements. Describe the academic component of this experience and how the program evaluates this. Describe the adequacy of laboratory courses in the curriculum. Include a discussion of class sizes, number of identical experimental set-ups, and number of students in an experiment group. Describe the materials (course syllabi, textbooks, sample student work, etc) which will be available for review during the visit.

Criterion 5: Curriculum….p3
Course Syllabi In Appendix A, include a syllabus for each course. For required courses with multiple sections that do not use a common syllabus, include a syllabus for each of the different sections.

Workshop 3: SSR for Criteria No. 3, 4 & 5
Form groups from among the participants Assign one criterion per group Workshop: Write the corresponding sections of the SSR for Criteria No. 3, 4 & 5 Presentation

Criterion 6: Facilities and Learning Environment
OFFICES Summarize each of the program’s facilities in terms of the ability to support the attainment of PEOs and SOs and to provide an atmosphere conducive to learning. Offices (such as administrative, faculty, clerical, and teaching assistants) and any associated equipment that is available there. Classrooms and associated equipment Laboratory facilities including those computers and the associated tools and equipment that support instruction. Include those facilities used in the program even if they are not dedicated to the program. State time of use. Discuss instruction on safety practices and safety environment Indicate adequacy of the number of identical set-ups, typical class size and number of students per group. Provide Appendix C for the list of Equipment.

Criterion 6: Facilities and Learning Environment…p2
COMPUTING RESOURCES Describe any computing resources (workstations, servers, storage, networks including software licenses. Include a discussion of the accessibility of university-wide resources available to students such as student housing, library, off-campus..etc. State the hours when these are open to students Asses the adequacy of these facilities to support the scholarly and professional activities of the students and faculty in the program.

GUIDANCE Policy Describe how the students are guided regarding the use of the tools, equipment, computing resources and laboratories, including instructions on safety practices. MAINTENANCE AND UPGRADING OF FACILITIES Describe the policies and procedures for maintaining and upgrading the tools, equipment, computing resources and laboratories.

LIBRARY SERVICES Describe and evaluate the capability of the library Describe the adequacy of library’s technical collection Adequacy of the process by which the faculty may request the library to order books or subscription The library’s system for locating and obtaining electronic information

OVERALL COMMENTS ON FACILITIES Describe how the program ensures the facilities, tools and equipment used in the program are safe for the intended purposes.

Criterion 7: Leadership and Institutional Support
Describe the leadership of the program and how it is involved in decision Discuss the adequacy to ensure the quality and continuity of the program. Provide the organizational Chart and function description.

Criterion 7: Leadership and Institutional Support….p2
PROGRAM BUDGET AND FINANCIAL SUPPORT Describe the process used to establish the program’s budget and provide evidence of continuity of institutional support. Include sources of financial support. Describe how the institution supports teaching in terms of graders, teaching assistants, teaching workshops, etc. Describe how resources are provided to acquire, maintain and upgrade the infrastructures, facilities and equipment used. Assess the adequacy of the resources for the students to be able to attain the SOs.

Criterion 7: Leadership and Institutional Support….p3
STAFFING Describe the adequacy of the staff and institutional services provided to the program. Discuss methods used to retain and train staff. FACULTY HIRING AND RETENTION Describe the process for hiring of new faculty. Describe strategies used to retain current qualified faculty. SUPPORT OF FACULTY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Describe the adequacy of support for faculty professional development. Describe how are these planned and supported.

Criterion 8: Extension, Community-Oriented Programs & Industry-Academe Linkage
EXTENSION SERVICE Describe non-degree educational services such as short courses on new technologies and new professional topics, to assist engineers from industry in keeping abreast of new developments in the field. The course may be the result of research by the faculty. New course may be developed with collaboration from industry and engineering societies.

Criterion 8: Extension, Community-Oriented Programs & Industry-Academe Linkage..p2
Provide evidence that students and student organizations have programs to assist communities not only as an avenue for societal service but also to gain understanding of the impact of engineering solutions to local context. Possible projects may involve assistance to high school students on potential science/ engineering fairs. Community assistance may involve helping design low-cost computing, low-cost access to the internet. Dialog with the communities to determine their needs should be explored first.

Criterion 8: Extension, Community-Oriented Programs & Industry-Academe Linkage..p3
Describe regular active participation from industry in planning and defining PEOs, SOs and curricula to ensure that these are relevant and up-to date with societal and professional requirements. Describe faculty/ student-industry exposure through internships, industry- visits, collaborative projects under professionals in industry, and industry- based final year project.

Workshop 4: SSR for Criteria No. 6, 7 & 8
Form groups from among the participants Assign a criterion to a group (2 groups for 1 criterion) Workshop: Write the corresponding sections of the SSR for Criteria No. 6, 7, & 8 Presentation

Criterion 9: Continuous Quality Improvement
This section of SSR should document your processes for regularly assessing and evaluating the extent to which SOs and PEOs are being attained. It should describe how the results of these evaluations are being utilized to effect continuous improvement of the program.

Criterion 9: Continuous Quality Improvement….p2
STUDENT OUTCOMES Performance Indicators List and description of assessment processes (exam questions, student portfolio, oral exam, project presentation, national-normed exam, departmental exam, etc) List and description of the evaluation processes for each of the student outcomes The frequency with which these assessment and evaluation processes are carried out. The expected satisfactory level of attainment for each of the student outcomes. Summaries of the results of the evaluation process and an analysis illustrating the extent to which each of the student outcomes is attained. Documentation and maintenance of results.

PROGRAM EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES List and description of assessment processes (employer survey, graduate surveys, focus groups, industrial advisory committee meetings, etc) List and description of the evaluation processes for each of the PEOs The frequency with which these assessment and evaluation processes are carried out. The expected satisfactory level of attainment for each of the PEOs Summaries of the results of the evaluation process and an analysis illustrating the extent to which each of the PEOs is attained. Documentation and maintenance of results.

CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT Describe how the results of evaluation processes for the PEOs and SOs and any other available information have been used as input in the CI of the program. List and describe recent program improvements. MAINTENANCE OF CQI PROGRAM Discuss how the CQI program is maintained including a description of how records are kept. A discussion of resources needed for the maintenance of the program

Workshop 5: SSR for Criteria No. 9 - CQI
Form groups from among the participants Workshop: Write the corresponding section of the SSR for Criterion No. 9 Demonstrate assessment /evaluation of data Demonstrate CQI Presentation

II. SPECIFIC PROGRAM CRITERIA
Describe how the program satisfies any applicable specific program criteria.

APPENDICES APPENDIX A – Course Syllabi APPENDIX B – Faculty Vitae
APPENDIX C – List of Equipment APPENDIX D – Institutional Summary Notes: Details requirements are indicated in SSR Guideline and are self-explanatory.

THANK YOU

INTEGRATED CASEE MODULES
CONDUCTING PROGRAM ACCREDITATION REVIEWS LEADING PROGRAM ACCREDITATION REVIEWS

OVERVIEW OF THE ACCREDITATION PROCESS
INSTITUTION AND PROGRAM PTC-ACBET-EAC SUBMIT APPLICATION RECEIVE APPLICATION SEND OUT CRITERIA AND SELF STUDY REPORT (SSR) GUIDELINES SUBMIT SELF STUDY REPORT FORM TEAM (TEAM CHAIR+1 PEv/PROGRAM) DESK-TOP REVIEW OF SELF-STUDY REPORT ON-SITE VISIT BY REVIEW TEAM PROVIDE PRELIM ORAL STATEMENT REPLY WITHIN 7 DAYS SEND DRAFT REVIEW STATEMENT REPLY WITHIN 30 DAYS ACCREDITATION RECOMMENDATION ACCREDITATION DECISION ACCEPT OR APPEAL DECISION NOTIFY ACCREDITATION DECISION

Code of Ethics for Accreditation Decision Makers
The Code of Ethics is contained in its entirety in the PTC Policy and Procedures Manual Its most important part is the avoidance of conflicts of interest on the part of all accreditation makers, starting from the Program Evaluators in a site visiting Team, members of the EAC, members of ACBET, and members of PTC Board of Trustees

Site Visit Team Norms PEv’s represent PTC and their APO/EPO.
PEv’s evaluate engineering programs to assure they satisfy PTC ACBET Criteria. Team Effort – Team decision Always practice rules on confidentiality. Conflict of Interest issues should be settled prior to the visit.

Confidentiality PEv’s will not discuss conclusions with faculty, students, and other parties. PEv’s will keep all materials until the PTC semi-annual meeting. Upon conclusion of accreditation, all materials will be returned to PTC for shredding. Information specific to any institution shall remain confidential without time limit. Institutional data are confidential unless given written authorization by the institution. PTC-ACBET materials are to be released only by the ACBET Staff.

Site Visit Team Communication Norms
Maintain an open line of communication with the Department Head Identify deficiencies as soon as possible Discuss issues with the Department Head before the HEI briefing Do not discuss recommended accreditation action except with team members

MAJOR PROCESSES OF PROGRAM ACCREDITATION REVIEW
Pre-visit Preparations for Accreditation Desk Top Accreditation Review (DTAR) Program Accreditation Review Site Visit Post-Program Accreditation Review Visit Accreditation Actions and Decisions

Pre-visit Preparations for Accreditation
Organize the Program Evaluation Team (PET) Team Chair – 1 Deputy Team Chair – 1 Program Evaluator – 1 per program Agree with the HEI on the accreditation visit dates HEI submits the Self Study Report for each program HEI provides samples of Transcript of Records per PET requirements. EDO provides Program Evaluator Report Forms to PET.

DESK TOP PROGRAM ACCREDITATION REVIEW (DTAR)
RFE is received by EDO. Review of Program Evaluator Report Forms Conducting the DTAR Accomplishing the forms Generating the DTAR Reports Feedback to HEI

Program Evaluator’s Report
Consists of the following: Program Evaluator Worksheet Program Audit Form (PAF) The Report Form which consists of: Basic Information Sheet Curriculum Analysis Transcript Analysis Recommended Accreditation Action Exit Statement Refer to sample of forms

Program Evaluator’s Worksheet
Expanded version of the PAF. Used during the desk top review Used and completed during the site visit. Observations and notes are written on this form Summaries are entered into the PAF. It is submitted as part of the Program Evaluator’s Report.

Program Audit Form (PAF)
PAF summarizes the Team assessment of program being reviewed PAF has two parts which are: Program Audit Summary - Summarizes the team’s identification of shortcomings with respect to criteria. Detailed Explanation of Shortcoming Refer to the Forms

Program Audit Summary Refer to the form.
Indicates the overall assessment of findings for each criterion Classification of findings Deficiency – indicates that criterion, policy or procedure is not in compliance. Weakness – indicates that a program lacks the strength of compliance to ensure that the quality of the program will not be compromised. Concern – indicates that a program currently satisfies, however, the potential exist that criteria, policy or procedure may not be satisfied.

Detailed Explanation of Shortcomings
Refer to the form. Shortcomings in each criterion are stated. In writing the shortcoming, state the following: What is required? Identify which criterion or policy is applicable. Describe what the criterion or policy requires. What was observed? Describe the observation Describe how it violates the criterion or policy.

Conducting DTAR PET prepares the required forms, transcript of records and SSR. TC discusses the DTAR process. PEV conducts Curriculum Analysis by filling-up the required form. PEV conducts Transcript Analysis by filling-up the required form. PET reviews the SSR against the PEW. PET writes observations, concerns and items to be verified. Accomplish the PAF for initial findings.

Conducting Curriculum Analysis
Purpose : To verify compliance to the required courses/ number of hours. To be conducted prior (DTAR) and verify during the visit. Refer to SSR for DTAR. Check the six aspects of the curriculum particularly math and basic sciences and engineering sciences. Check culminating design experience considering multiple constraints and using standards. Record observations on PEW. Refer to the form

Conducting Transcript Analysis
Purpose: To verify compliance to pre-requisites requirement. Conduct before or during DTAR. Check math and basic sciences. Check engineering sciences and design. Check complementary studies. Check if prerequisites were observed. Check graduation requirements. Record observations on PEW. Refer to the form. After the analysis, what? Conclusions? Shortcomings?

Review of the SSR-DTAR After the analysis, what? Conclusions?
Use the PEW for the notes. Use the ACGS-01 and ACGS-02 as reference documents vs SSR. Take note of the strengths of the program and institution. Indicate findings or observations on the PEW that require clarification or verification before or during the visit. TC clarifies with the institution as needed. TC and PEVs accomplish the initial PAF. After the analysis, what? Conclusions? Shortcomings?

Deciding on Overall Classification of Finding
Each criterion has several sub-criteria. Possibilities : All sub-criteria are complied (no shortcoming). One or more sub-criteria have shortcomings. All of sub-criteria have shortcomings. PET has to deliberate/ decide on the overall shortcoming classification of the criterion.

Site Visit Process 3 days
PET members are booked in hotel or equivalent near the HEI, a day before the visit. PTC brings his own computer and printer. Prepare site visit process outline

Typical Site Visit Schedule
Day 0 Visit Campus, review curriculum materials Visit laboratories, computer facilities, libraries Evening meeting by the team to share findings and to plan next day activities.

Site Visit Schedule Day 1
In the morning: Dean’s overview, PEv’s visit the departments Lunch with the institutional officials In the afternoon: Support Areas, PEv’s continue visit in departments. Evening: Share findings, draft exit statements

Site Visit Process Outline
Day 2 Tie up loose ends Draft exit statements in the morning Debrief department heads before lunch Exit meeting in the afternoon.

Program Accreditation Visit
Opening meeting Conducting the Program Accreditation Review Accomplishing the Program Audit Forms Generating the Exit Statement Exit Meeting

Opening Meeting HEI attendees are the VPs, Dean, Department Chair, Support Department Chair or representative, Primary contact person Team Chair leads the opening meeting. Message from the HEI Team Chair explains the procedures of the accreditation visit review. Team Chair provides the schedule of activities for the day.

Conducting the Program Accreditation Review
Ways to conduct Review of SSR, supporting documents and verification of implementation. Group interview ( ex. Students, professors, support staff…etc) Individual interview Verification of actual implementation Verification of “concern items” as noted during the DTAR. Use the Program Evaluator Worksheet in taking down notes during the review. If there is a non-compliance on an input requirement, make further query on its relevance to student outcome. Decision factor is either the SO is achieved or not.

Review of Process/ Policy/ Procedures
Policy is documented, thus check for documentation. Processes and procedures are normally documented. Check for documentation. Key words for mandatory documentation : Shall be or must be documented Process Audit Approach may be employed For every process, there is/ are inputs and corresponding outputs. For the output, check for the data and for relevant outcome. PDCA approach may be employed also. Again, check for SO affected.

Conducting Group Interview
Groups are as follows: Students Professors Support Staff Program Chairs Industry Advisory Board Before the interview, prepare questions/checklist, if necessary. Ensure questions are focused on how the achievement of the SOs are being supported Take notes of key information shared by the interviewees. From the interview notes, check the veracity of inputs. Workshop Typical issues that you may have to ask: Involvement of the personnel in the major activities of the programs Knowledge of functions and relevance of function to the attainment of SOs

Workshop 6: Generating Set of Questions
Form groups from among the participants Workshop Activity: Generate a set of questions for a set of personnel to be interviewed Presentation Typical issues that you may have to ask: Involvement of the personnel in the major activities of the programs Knowledge of functions and relevance of function to the attainment of SOs

Accomplishing the Program Audit Summary
Program Evaluator fills-up the form accordingly. PET deliberates of SHORTCOMING CLASS if Deficiency, Weakness or Concern. Overall classification of shortcoming is indicated under the “Exit meeting” column. If criterion has no shortcoming, leave it blank. This form is left to HEI.

Deciding on Overall Classification of Finding
Each criterion has several sub-criteria. Possibilities : All sub-criteria are complied (no shortcoming). One or more sub-criteria have shortcomings. All of sub-criteria have shortcomings. PET has to deliberate/ decide on the overall shortcoming classification of the criterion.

WORKSHOP 7: CLASSIFYING SHORTCOMINGS - INDIVIDUAL AND OVERALL
Form groups from among the participants Workshop: Case situation is as provided. Determine the overall class of shortcoming. Presentation

Accomplishing the Detailed Explanation of Shortcomings
Program Evaluator fills-up the form accordingly. Each shortcoming should have 3 components: The applicable part of the criterion, using the exact language of the criteria, The observed fact that is not consistent with the requirement, The negative impact of the inconsistency or potential inconsistency. The accomplished form is to be left at HEI.

WORKSHOP 8: ACCOMPLISHING THE DETAILED EXPLANATION OF SHORTCOMING
Form groups from among the participants Workshop: Case study as provided Write the Statement of Shortcoming on the prescribed form Presentation

Generating Exit Statement Report
General format of the statement should be as follows: General description of the program Strengths Shortcomings Observations Shortcoming should be in the order of (1) Deficiency, (2) Weakness and (3) Concern. Include all shortcomings for one criterion under the most stringent shortcoming. Observations do not relate to finding relative to criteria, policy or procedures. Must not appear to be prescriptive. The Team Chair may read the Exit Statement Report during the Exit meeting.

Exit Statement Report – General Description
Program’s administrative location at the institution Its enrollment and faculty size Number of recent graduates Launch date of the program and date of its initial graduates Accreditation granted to the program

Exit Statement Report – Strength
Three components of program’s strength: The observed facts that represent the strength, What makes it stand out above the norm, What positive effect it has on the program. Normally based on SSR and actual observation during the visit.

Workshop 9: Writing Exit Statement Report
Form groups from among the participants Workshop: Consider previous exercises. For general description and strength, you may make assumptions. Forms: Exit Statement Report form, PAF

Exit Meeting To be opened/ facilitated by the Team Chair (TC)
TC provides the agenda of the Exit Meeting and the guidelines. Program Evaluator reads his/ her Exit Statement Report. TC explains the Due Process for the shortcomings. 7-day response 30-day response Message from the HEI TC leaves copy of Program Audit Forms (Program Audit Summary and Detailed Explanation of Shortcomings) to Program Chairs. TC closes the meeting. This Exit meeting is NOT a forum of argument. Note: Prior the Exit meeting, TC discusses findings with Program Chair to give them time to correct

Post-Accreditation Review
Accreditation Decision Process Due Process Draft Statement Report Final Statement Report Accreditation Action

Accreditation Decision Process
HEI is granted a DUE PROCESS. TC generates DSR based on 7-day response report. TC submits to EAC the DSR for review and revision as necessary. EDO submits the DSR to HEI. HEI generates 30-day response report in reference to accomplished Program Audit Form Report and DSR. TC reviews the 30-day response report, generates the FSR and submits to EAC. In this stage, TC may downgrade the classification of finding. (ex. From weakness to concern) EAC reviews the FSR and revises in agreement with accordingly. EAC recommends for the Accreditation Action to ACBET. ACBET reviews the Accreditation Action in reference to FSR. ACBET meets with EAC for concern. ACBET approves the Accreditation Action. ACBET recommends to PTC Board the review and approval of Accreditation Action. PTC Board approves. Accreditation Action Statement sends to HEI.

DUE-PROCESS 7-DAY RESPONSE (calendar day)
To be applied for ERROR OF FACT ONLY. Support with evidence the claim as error of fact. The response will be the basis of Draft Statement Report (DSR) generation Response is in electronic format. 30-DAY RESPONSE (calendar day) Response on valid shortcoming (not error of fact) Formulate action plans or corrective actions for each shortcoming. Cycle time starts after the receipt of DSR. Will be the basis of Final Statement Report (FSR) Response in electronic format Responses impacts Accreditation Term

Draft Statement Report (DSR)
TC with his/ her Program Evaluators reviews/ incorporates the response on 7-day response report. TC generates the DSR and submit to EDO. In case, the response included shortcoming which is NOT error of fact, do NOT consider it. EDO reviews the DSR for documentation errors. EAC reviews the DSR and coordinates with PET for changes, as necessary. Letter of Transmittal and Draft Statement Report are sent by EDO to HEI thru the Contact person. PDF copy will be sent also HEI. Target turn-around time = 2 weeks

Final Statement Report (FSR)
TC with his/ her Program Evaluators reviews/ incorporates the response from the 30- day response report of HEI, if any. TC reviews relevance of corrective actions. TC generates the FSR and submit to EDO. EDO reviews the DSR for documentation errors. EDO submits the FSR to Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) for review. EAC reviews the finding classification and the corrective actions. EAC provides inputs to PET for revision as necessary. PET revises FSR as necessary. EAC recommends Accreditation Action. EAC approves the revised FSR and submits to ACBET (thru EDO) for endorsement of the recommended Accreditation Action. ACBET endorses the recommended Accreditation Action to PTC Board for approval. PTC communicates the FSR with Accreditation Action to HEI’s Contact person.

Accreditation Actions
NGR WR WV WE DR DV DE NA NGR The program has no deficiencies or weaknesses. Is given after a Comprehensive General Review Typically done every six years.

NGR WR WV WE DR DV DE NA WR (Weakness – Report) The program has no deficiencies but has one or more weaknesses. Weaknesses are such that a progress report on the remedial actions taken by the institution will be required. Action has a typical duration of two years.

NGR WR WV WE DR DV DE NA WV (Weakness-Visit) The program has no deficiencies but has one or more weaknesses. Weaknesses are such that an on-site visit to evaluate the remedial actions taken by the institution will be required. Action has a typical duration two years duration.

NGR WR WV WE DR DV DE NA WE (Weakness-Extension) Refers to the satisfactory remedial action taken by the institution with respect to a WR or WV action. Action taken after a WR or WV review. Extends accreditation to the next General Review. Action has a typical duration of two to four years.

NGR WR WV WE DR DV DE NA DR (Deficiency-Report) Currently-accredited program has one or more deficiencies normally found after an Interim Review or CGR. Deficiencies are such that a progress report to evaluate the remedial actions taken by the institution is required. Action cannot follow a previous DR or DV action for the same Deficiency(ies). Action has a typical duration of two years.

NGR WR WV WE DR DV DE NA DV (Deficiency-Visit) Currently-accredited program has one or more deficiencies normally found after an WR, WV or CGR review. Deficiencies are such that on-site visit to evaluate the remedial actions taken by the institution is required. Action has a typical duration of two years. This action cannot follow a previous DR or DV action for the same Deficiency(ies).

NGR WR WV WE DR DV DE NA DE (Deficiency-Extension) Indicates that satisfactory remedial actions have been taken by the institution with respect to deficiencies and weaknesses identified in the prior DR or DV action. Action taken only after either a DR or DV review. Action typically extends accreditation to the next General Review. Action has a typical duration of either two or four years.

NGR WR WV WE DR DV DE NA NA (No Accreditation) Program has deficiencies such that the program is not in compliance with applicable criteria and, therefore, no accredited could be granted. Action is usually taken after a review of a previously unaccredited program or after DR or DV review of a currently accredited program. Accreditation of previous DR or DV action is not extended as a result of this action.

Accreditation Actions in Diagram
NGR Un- accredited Program Initial Review ? WR WV

OPEN FORUM

THANK YOU

Multi-Campus Site Visit Process Outline
Day 0 – Campus 1 Visit Campus 1, Review curriculum materials Visit Laboratories, computing facilities, library Evening – share findings, plan

Day 1 Dean’s overview for all campuses, PEv’s in departments Lunch with institutional officials Afternoon: Campus 1 Support Areas, PEv’s in departments Evening – share findings, plan

Day 2 Morning: Campus 1 Tie up loose ends Draft exit statements Lunch Afternoon: Campus 2 Visit, Review Curriculum materials. Visit laboratories, Computing facilities, Library Evening – share findings, plan

Day 3 Campus 2 PEv’s in departments, Support Areas Lunch Afternoon: Tie up loose ends Evening – share findings, plan

Site Visit Process Outline
Day 4 at Campus 1 Tie up loose ends Draft exit statements in the morning Debrief department heads before lunch Exit meeting in the afternoon for both campuses

Exit Meeting Outline Each PEv reads a preliminary statement regarding program’s strengths and shortcomings (if any). The Team Chair formally closes the visit. Program Audit Form (PAF) copy is left with the institution. This is not a forum for arguments on findings.

PHILIPPINE TECHNOLOGICAL COUNCIL

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "PHILIPPINE TECHNOLOGICAL COUNCIL"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

PHILIPPINE TECHNOLOGICAL COUNCIL

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "PHILIPPINE TECHNOLOGICAL COUNCIL"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback