1. Engineering Accreditation: Challenges and Opportunities
Moshe Kam* and Michael Lightner**
*Robert Quinn Professor and Head; Electrical and Computer Engineering, Drexel University
**Professor and Chair; Electrical, Computer, and Energy Engineering, University of Colorado, Boulder
Members of ABET Board of Directors

2. Contact Information
Moshe Kam Robert Quinn Professor and Head Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering 3141 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA

3. Contact Information
Michael Lightner Professor and Chair Department of Electrical, Computer, and Energy Engineering College of Engineering and Applied Science UCB 425 Boulder, CO

4. DISCLAIMER
The issues examined in this talk have been discussed by the IEEE Educational Activities Board, but do not represent the views of IEEE or IEEE-EAB, but only those of the presenters
Material is provided for illustrative purposes only
Description of various rules and regulations are made in general descriptive terms and are not intended for operational or legal use
Material is not purported to represent the official policy of any accrediting body or any other governmental or non-governmental agency
These slides have been compiled to present a rather complete story. The talk at the conference will use a subset of these slides.

5. A Few Words about IEEE
IEEE is the largest multinational professional engineering association in the world
380,000 members in 160 countries
A 501(c)3 organization in incorporated in New York
Originally concentrating on power engineering and communications, IEEE at present spans technical interests across the spectrum of technology
From nanotechnology to oceanic engineering
In many respects IEEE has become “the steward of Engineering” but especially the steward of all areas intersecting electrical, electronic, computer, communication, power and energy engineering

6. Early Presidents Alexander G. Bell Elihu Thomson Charles Steinmetz
Frank Sprague

7. Why is IEEE interested in Accreditation?
Because it is in IEEE’s stated mission
Because accreditation has significant impact on the content of the curriculum in IEEE’s fields of interest
And hence on the future of the profession
Because IEEE’s involvement introduces the voice of the profession and its practitioners into the decision making process of educational institutions

8. Why is IEEE interested in Accreditation?
IEEE considers accreditation a strategic objective and supports accrediting bodies worldwide
The IEEE BoD allocates funds and human resources to accreditation on an annual basis
About 500 volunteers
>$2M/year in direct expenditures in 2008

9. University Degrees
Let us begin with a exploration of what it means and does not mean to get a university degree in engineering – specifically electrical

10. What Does it Mean to Get a BSEE from a University?
First – it means you were accepted into the school
Around the world acceptance ranges from automatic to exceedingly difficult
Second – By the standards of the university you successfully completed the requirements for gaining a degree
Third – You will be associated with all the other graduates of the university and the reputation and accomplishments of the faculty and staff of the university

11. What Does it Not Mean to Get a BSEE from a University?
First – It does not necessarily mean that you are a good electrical engineer
Second – It does not necessarily mean that you will be good in design
Third – It does not necessarily mean you will be good in analysis
Fourth – It does not necessarily mean you will be a good employee
Fifth – It does not necessarily mean you are prepared for graduate education at any university other than that university – and it may not mean even that

12. “But Our University is a Great University!”
What can the previous slides mean?
We know our university is a great university and has a great electrical engineering department.
How do we know?
From the performance of graduates
From the reputation and research results of faculty and staff
We do not know it is great because of accreditation

13. Outline Accreditation Myths
Accreditation in Engineering, Computing and Technology
Definition, aims, uses and misuses, models
Building new accrediting bodies in the early 21st Century

14. Accreditation Myths Accredited Programs produced better graduates
NO, accreditation is, often, a statement of meeting minimum requirements
Accreditation does not, necessarily, address admission requirements
Accreditation is/should be voluntary and excellent programs may not choose to accredited

15. Accreditation Myths
Employers care whether a potential employee graduated from an accredited program
I have rarely had an employer tell me this was important or ask if the department was accredited.
Universities with great reputation rarely rely on accreditation as a credential

16. Accreditation means that the program is ranked highly
Accreditation Myths
Accreditation means that the program is ranked highly
There are 296 ABET accredited Electrical Engineering programs in the US
The ranking of programs and universities is entirely separate from the accreditation process – in most of the world

17. Accreditation myths
Faculty members are highly engaged in the accreditation process and are deeply honored by being part of an accredited program
Rarely true
Accreditation is often one more requirement on faculty time
While they may care deeply about education, innovation, better teaching and support for students, accreditation is an administrative activity – often with little perceived value
Accreditation has limited impact on faculty salary, research, promotion and tenure, publications, and professional reputation
Sometimes accreditation leads to more resources
But this is rare

18. So Why Accreditation
We know the many things that accreditation is not – why do we have accreditation and what is its value?
Make no mistake, accreditation is valuable

19. Outline Accreditation Myths
Accreditation in Engineering, Computing and Technology
Definition, aims, uses and misuses, models
Building a new accrediting body in the early 21st Century

20. A Broad Definition of Accreditation
Formal recognition of an educational program by an external body on the basis of an assessment of quality
An evaluation process in which an objective group (accrediting body) examines an educational program to ensure that it is meeting minimum standards established by experts in the field
The outcome of the process is binary: program is either accredited or not accredited

21. Value of Accreditation
Accreditation tells perspective students that a program meets minimum standards
Financial institutions may only choose to provide student loans for study at an accredited university
Students transferring between accredited programs can have some sense of equivalence – see Washington accord
Students with an accredited undergraduate degree from one country may/should receive better consideration in another country than a student from an unaccredited program
Accreditation provides/forces a periodic consideration of educational programs and provides outside benchmarks and evaluation

22. Professional Licensure
While accreditation concerns an educational program, licensure concerns the individual
Licensure may be a legal requirement in some engineering professions and in some countries/states
In many locales students who did not complete accredited programs face difficulties in getting licensed

23. Accreditation and Licensure
In the US, students graduating from an accredited program can immediately sit for the Fundamentals of Engineering exam – the first step to licensure
Without an accredited degree there are work/experience requirements before an individual can sit for the beginning licensure exam
This connection between accreditation and the beginning of the licensure process is of significant value in many areas of engineering.
A great motivation for obtaining accreditation and graduating from a accredited program in those areas

24. Operational Definition of Accreditation by CHEA* (US)
Accreditation in higher education is defined as a collegial process based on self- and peer assessment for public accountability and improvement of academic quality
[Peers = group of peer faculty and staff, professionals, and public members]
Peers assess the quality of an institution or academic program and assist the faculty and staff in improvement
* Council for Higher Education Accreditation

25. Three Major Activities
The faculty, administrators, and staff of the institution or academic program conduct a self-study using the accrediting organization’s set of expectations about quality (standards, criteria) as their guide
A team of peers, selected by the accrediting organization, reviews the evidence, visits the campus to interview the faculty and staff, and writes a report of its assessment, including a recommendation to the commission of the accrediting organization

26. The third step…
Guided by a set of expectations about quality and integrity, the commission
reviews the evidence and recommendation
makes a judgment
communicates the decision to the institution
and other constituencies if appropriate

27. Challenges to the Traditional Definition (1)
Should the accreditation be done by an “external body”?
Is it possible to conduct accreditation by peer groups
E.g., peer institutions
This is how accreditation first started
Should the result of accreditation be binary?
Some groups in Europe have called for providing evaluation in four categories with respect to every criterion
Fails to meet minimum requirements
Meets minimum requirements
Exceeds minimum requirements
Excels in meeting this criterion

28. Challenges to the Traditional Definition (2)
Should we strive to meet minimum standards rather than achieving continuous improvement and excellence?
Will the current system of accreditation be useful to industry in the long term?
The mobility of labor has challenged traditional credentials
The ECE industry had already rejected the licensing process
E.g., the industrial exemption in the United States -While in most states engineers in industry are exempt from licensing laws for work done for their industrial employers, the engineer and the engineer's company may still be liable for unethical, unsafe, or illegal activities.

29. Some Clarifications
In the US various professions have accrediting bodies – engineering, law, music, journalism, medicine
These professional accrediting bodies look at specific programs – e.g., different engineering departments – not the entire university
In the US there are regional accrediting bodies that accredit the entire university.
Typically at the undergraduate level, but increasingly at the graduate level
Often professional accreditation will require this regional/general university accreditation

30. Some Clarifications
While, in engineering, we discuss accrediting a specific engineering program this does involve other parts of the university
Teaching of mathematics, physics, chemistry, language, humanities, etc
Electives in other engineering and computer science departments
Availability of shared resources
Computing facilities, library facilities, labs, etc
As a result, where possible, engineering colleges like to have all their programs on the same accreditation cycle
Simply reduces the work required

31. Looking Forward: Traditions
The trends we observe in accreditation will challenge traditional models
It is unlikely that over-prescriptive accreditation models will survive
It is unlikely that models that are based solely on minimum thresholds will survive

32. The Constituencies of an Educational Program
Past, present and prospective students
Prospective employers
Other bodies of higher education
Licensing bodies
Government
The public at large

33. The Various Functions of Accreditation (1)
Provide constituencies of the educational program with a guarantee that an educational program…
meets (minimum) standards
continues to evolve in order to incorporate best practices
Put a stamp of approval on graduates – they are ready to practice
Raises the issue of First Professional Degree in Engineering
Regardless of accreditation, this is a questionable statement to make

34. The Various Functions of Accreditation (2)
Provide educational programs with opportunities for self-definition and self-reflection
and with feedback on program content and direction
Provide opportunities for continuous improvement of education programs

35. Misuse of Accreditation
Coercion
The process needs to be voluntary
Disciplinary action
Ranking and comparison of schools
Controlling the school
Serving the interests of one constituency on the expense of others
Homogenizing higher education
Control competition
Limit enrollments

36. Accreditation is not indispensable…
Industry can replace accreditation by other mechanisms of quality assessment
University rankings by academic bodies
University rankings by the popular press
Internal lists of “acceptable institutions”
This is common with major US technology companies
Entry exams and interviews of graduates
This is common in the US, exams can be formal or informal
If accreditation is to survive it should be
Pertinent
Transparent
Fair
Economical
Adaptive to the business climate

37. The Basic Structure of the Process: Accrediting Body
Accrediting body defines its accreditation philosophy and publishes criteria and process
Accrediting body identifies and trains program evaluators
Bodies that recognize accrediting bodies require proof of decision independence
The funding mechanism and accreditation decisions should be independent

38. A Word of Caution: Independence
In several instances, IEEE observed loss of independence of accrediting bodies
In all of these cases, the accrediting body was discredited
Schools preferred foreign accrediting bodies over the local one
It is not clear whether government controlled accrediting bodies will be recognized in the future by international accords

39. The Basic Structure of the Process: Program
Program studies accrediting body literature
Program collects required material and verifies presumption of accreditability
Program requests an accreditation visit
Program gets organized to provide information to accrediting body and visiting team
Self study

40. Interaction Between Accrediting Body and Program
Mutual agreement on visiting team
Agreement on dates and logistics
Within published guidelines
Pre-visit communications
Accrediting visit and preliminary reporting
Post-visit communications
Report preparation and determination of outcome
Post-report communications – possible appeals

41. Two important caveats
The accreditation visit is supposed to provide “no surprises”
All concerns that program evaluators have on the basis of submitted data are supposed to be discussed ahead of the visit
On site visit focuses on the accreditation criteria and their implementation
This is not the time for ‘free advice’ or planning of the program future by the visiting group

42. Looking Forward: Implementation
At present most accreditation bodies operate on 5-7 year cycles
A series of “dramatic events” followed by long periods of low or no activity
Elaborate visits requiring significant preparation
It is possible to design a much simpler process that takes advantage of progress in information technology
Information is posted and updated continually
Visits are shorter
focus only on the few items that do not require face to face interaction

43. Selected accrediting bodies (1)
For additional details see
Selected accrediting bodies (1)
Engineers Australia
Engineers Ireland
Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board of the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers
France: Commission des Titres d'Ingénieur
Germany: ASIIN
Hong Kong Institution of Engineers

44. Selected accrediting bodies (2)
For additional details see
Selected accrediting bodies (2)
Japan: Japan Accreditation Board for Engineering Education
Korea: Accreditation Board for Engineering Education of Korea
Malaysia: Board of Engineers Malaysia
Mexico: Council of Accreditation of the Education of Engineering
New Zealand: Institution of Professional Engineers of New Zealand

45. Selected accrediting bodies (3)
For additional details see
Selected accrediting bodies (3)
Singapore: Institution of Engineers Singapore
South Africa: Engineering Council of South Africa
United Kingdom: Engineering Council United Kingdom
United States: ABET
China: Developing pilot accreditation aiming toward joining Washington Accord – organized through CAST

46. Characteristics of Accreditation (1)
Voluntary
Performed by an external agency
Based on the locale of the program
Uses representation of all major constituencies
Government inspection is not Accreditation
Based on clear published standards
Evaluative – not regulatory
It is not the place of the visiting team to provide the visited program with detailed prescriptions and methodology

47. Characteristics of Accreditation (2)
Requires continuous maintenance
Binary (at present, in most cases)
Cognizant of program objectives and goals
One size does not fit all
Accreditation is not meant to homogenize the education system

48. What are the Factors That May be Considered?
Content of the curriculum
Is there enough exposure to discrete mathematics?
Size and skill base of the faculty
Does a Computer Science program have individuals who are trained in Artificial Intelligence?
Morale and governance of the faculty

49. Potential Consideration Factors (2)
Facilities
Does the Microwave Laboratory in an EE program have a Spectrum Analyzer?
Admission criteria
Do the admission criteria ensure that incoming students have the basic skills required to attend the program?

50. Potential Consideration Factors (3)
Support services
Do the program’s computing facilities enjoy professional system administration?
Graduate placement
Do the majority of the program graduates find gainful professional employment within 6 months of graduation?
Budgets and expenditures

51. Looking Forward…
Many of the traditional factors required a site visit for verification
A model that considers most of the factors on line is now possible
Accreditation may become continuous rather than a discrete event
Shift from reaching the minimum to continuous improvement

52. Level of Specificity
The degree to which criteria are defined in terms of numerical goals or specific coverage methodologies
The degree of specificity depends on the accreditation model
The general trend in the last 10 years is away from specifics

53. Level of Specificity: Examples
Non-specific
A computer science program needs to show that graduates were exposed to the principles of database organization and have used this knowledge in open- ended exercises and projects
Specific
A computer science program will include at least 24 hours on in-class instruction on databases which includes: database models (at least 3 hours); relational models (at least 1 hour)…
A minimum of two 6-hour laboratory exercises on databases must be included. These exercises include…

54. A Two-Tier Process
Usually accreditation of engineering, computing and technology programs relies on a “general accreditation” of the institution
Another accrediting agency ascertains compliance with laws and regulations, basic fiscal solvency, and preservation of human rights
If the first tier is missing, the “technical” accreditation needs to include it
This may be a challenge for new accrediting bodies

55. Most of the Work Does Not Involve the Accrediting Body
Program must establish mechanism to collect data on its activities
Program must establish mechanism to use data to reaffirm or reform its activities
Program must undergo a thorough self-study
This is often the most important outcome of the accreditation process

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

57. The “Minimal Model”
Ascertains basic characteristics of the school and program
Often numeric and law-based
Does the school satisfy basic legal requirements?
Does the school have enough budget, infrastructure and reserves to conduct the program?
Ascertains existence of the fundamental basics in the school and program
Physical conditions, size and skill base of the faculty, coverage of basic topics in the curriculum
Provides a prescription for a minimal core and very general parameters for the rest of the curriculum

58. Reflections on the Minimal Model
It is easy to install and maintain as long as it adheres to the “minimal” philosophy
Not a bad way to start an accrediting body
Does not encourage continuous improvement
The biggest danger is “mission creep”
More and more requirements

59. The Regulatory Model Requires strict adherence to a core curriculum
E.g., defines the minimum requirements for a Software Engineering curriculum
Specifies parameters for the rest of the curriculum
E.g., at least 6 credit hours of post WWII history
Often involving direct prescriptions of curriculum and faculty composition
E.g., “at least three faculty in manufacturing are required if the body of students exceeds 120”

60. Reflections on the Regulatory Model
Makes the accrediting process uniform and potentially fair
Criteria are unambiguous and often numeric
Difficult to establish and update
Leads to endless strife over what the “core” means
Relatively easy to maintain
The key to success is adherence to clear rules
Was shown to stifle innovation and creativity in the curriculum
This was the philosophy of the pre-2000 ABET model

61. The Outcome-Based Model
Prescribes a “small” core and basic requirements
Prescribes basic parameters for the goals of the program
But does not specify the specific goals of the program
Focuses on the goals and objectives of the program
E.g., to maximize the number of graduates who continue to Medical or Law school
E.g., to maximize the number of graduates who become program managers in the construction industry
Requires evidence of measurement of goals
Requires evidence of using the measurements to feed a quality improvement process

62. Reflections on the Outcome-Based Model
Provides for significant diversity in goals and objectives
Very different from the regulatory model
Puts a lot of responsibility and risk in the hands of the program leaders
E.g., some programs may try to achieve goals that are unattainable
Sophisticated and hard to evaluate
Very difficult to avoid complaints on inconsistent evaluations
This is the basic philosophy of the current ABET EC2000 and TC2000 criteria
Though implementation does not always follow the philosophy

63. A Word of Caution: Outcome-Based Accreditation
While outcome-based accreditation is the most popular paradigm for accreditation, it is not problem-free
The prescriptive nature with respect to course content can be replaced by a prescriptive process with respect to assessments
Too much data may be collected and analyzed in order to prove that methods were assessed
Adherence to the process by zealous program evaluators may cause strong disagreements about methodology
E.g., the debate about Direct Assessment

64. Goal Evidence Graduates are ready to enter the workforce
Collection of Data
Goal
Evidence
Graduates are ready to enter the workforce
Placement figures of recent graduates
Programs develops future leaders of industry
Statistically-valid evidence of leadership positions for graduates of the last 20 years
Programs provides the Province with computer scientists needed to accomplish national R&D goals
Evidence that graduates settle in the Province and maintain employment in Computer Science
Program serves students who wish to gain engineering background before they develop careers in medicine or law
Evidence that graduates turn to practice of law and medicine in statistically meaningful numbers

65. Use of Data for Improvement
Evidence
Use of Evidence
Employer survey indicates graduates have difficulties using modern computing tools for control
Junior class in Control Systems now includes a section and lab on symbolic computation for control
Percentage of students who choose graduate school is dropping
Department commissions a survey of recent graduates to understand their new post-graduation profile
Graduation rates are dropping; exam grades in mathematics are dropping
Department institutes an “entrance exam” in mathematics. Low achievers are directed to remedial classes.

66. The Peer Review Model
A coalition of schools organizes in group of peers
Schools select their peers
Members from other constituencies are added
Government, Industry, professional associations
The peer groups conduct the review in evaluator teams
Model requires an arbitrator and facilitator
Ideally a professional association

67. Reflections on the Peer Review Model
This is the way accreditation was done in the US in the early 20th Century
E.g., Princeton and Johns Hopkins came to visit the College of Engineering at Drexel University in 1904
Difficult to organize
Considered less confrontational and more collegial
Risk a drift in the direction of unpublished mandates
Risks clashes of philosophies and program rivalry
Selection/acceptance of peers may be complicated

68. The “Program Club” Model
Group of peer institutions create a “program club”
Use a common website for communication
Programs that wish to join create a website with requested information
Programs report continually on progress and experimentation in education
New ideas are discussed and tried by members of the club
Few on-site visits (possibly during an annual conference)

69. Reflections on the “Program Club” Model
Continuous accreditation model
Difficult to organize
Considered less confrontational and more collegial
Risks clashes of philosophies and program rivalry
Selection/acceptance of peers may be complicated
“High maintenance”

70. Key to Success: Consistency and Transparency
Criteria need to be clear and published
Ambiguities and potential for different interpretations need to be called out and addressed
Terminology needs to be defined
Visit and reports should follow the criteria closely
Findings and conclusions should use the criteria and the established terminology

71. Accreditation and Licensing

72. Relationship Between Licensing and Accreditation
Accreditation is provided to educational programs
A license is provided to individuals
Graduation from an accredited program is often a condition for licensing
Licensing exams are often based on model curricula of accrediting bodies
Serious problem in the US since EC2000

73. Engineering and Computing Licensing in 2007…
Licensing of engineering and computing professionals is perceived to be “broken” in many countries
Not a needed credential in many disciplines
Poor enforcement
Further weakening due to massive redistribution of labor among markets in the early 2000s
One possible solution - the Canadian model
Licensing = graduation from an accredited program PLUS testing on safety, professionalism and ethics
NOT on school material

74. Licensing and the First Professional Degree in Engineering
At present there is debate in the US and Europe about “the first professional degree in engineering”
The US National Academy of Engineering and several European organizations appears to favor a Master of Science degree
In Europe this view follows adoption of the Bologna Process
The NCEES* (USA) wants B.S. degree plus 30 semester credits
No consensus among professional organizations
*The National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) is a national non-profit organization composed of engineering and surveying licensing boards representing all states and U.S. territories. NCEES develops, scores, and administers the examinations used for engineering and surveying licensure through the United States.

75. Outline Purpose Accreditation in Engineering, Computing and Technology
Definition, aims, uses and misuses, models
Building a new accrediting body in the Early 21st Century

76. Scope
Building new accrediting bodies provides an opportunity to use about 80 years of experience with existing bodies
Buy-in needed from
Professional Associations and leaders of the profession
Academic institutions and the faculty
Industry, especially employers of engineers and technologists
Governmental bodies and regulators

77. Desired Final Outcome
A fully functional stable accrediting body, operating with clear rules and regulations, and with a transparent and simple structure
Reputation for independence in accreditation decisions
Membership of the accrediting body in the appropriate mutual recognition accords

78. Opportunities to learn from existing bodies…
Structure and basic processes
Criteria
Methodology
especially self studies and outcome-based techniques
Development of constituency coalitions
Decision independence
“independence from any parent entity, or sponsoring entity, for the conduct of accreditation activities and determination of accreditation status” (CHEA 2007)

79. Better use of information technology and automation
Opportunities to improve on the operations of existing accrediting bodies
Better use of information technology and automation
A more continuous and smooth process
Experimentation with less centralized models
The Peer Review and Coalitional models

80. New opportunities for accrediting bodies…
Development and provisions of tools for continuous reporting, assessment and improvement
Creation and maintenance of a registries
of engineers, computer scientists, and technologists

81. Who should govern the accrediting body?
Professional associations
Academic institutions
Industry
Institutions from the three sectors should be invited to become Members of the accrediting body
Voting Members in the annual/bi-annual assembly of Members
Governments should be invited to observe and advise

82. Thank you! Questions or Comments?

83. Additional Sources Presentations in EAB workshops on accreditation
Esp. by Lyle Feisel, see
Public domain information provided by ABET Inc., EUR-ACE, the Washington Accord website, CHEA
Mostly from the organizations’ web sites
J.W. Prados, G. D. Peterson, and L.R. Lattuca: “Quality Assurance of Engineering Education through Accreditation: The Impact of Engineering Criteria 2000 and Its Global Influence,” Journal of Engineering Education, pp , January 2005.
Prof. Dr. Dirk Van Damme (Ghent University, Belgium). Accreditation in global higher education. The need for international information and cooperation. Outline of IAUP approach. May 2000.