The document discusses the history and importance of ABET accreditation for engineering programs. It provides details on the founding and evolution of ABET from 1932 to present day. It outlines WSU's CEE department history with ABET accreditation and the review process. The document advocates for the importance of accreditation, describing how it ensures student learning and continuous improvement. It also explains ABET's education measures which are based on assessing student outcomes, objectives, and using data to drive program improvements. Recommendations are provided for faculty involvement in accreditation practices.
1. Aiding and
-ting
Presentation to the WSU CEE
Faculty
October 11, 2010
2. ABET and WSU CEE
Brief History of Accreditation
• Founded in 1932, as the Engineers' Council
for Professional Development
(ECPD), to fill a need identified by
professional engineering societies
(including ASCE) in the 1920s.
• The ECPD’s original focuses were in:
– Guidance: Supplying information to
engineering students and potential
students.
– Training: Developing plans for personal
and professional development.
– Education: Appraising engineering
curricula and maintaining a list of
accredited curricula.
– Recognition: Developing methods
whereby individuals could achieve
2 recognition by the profession and the
3. ABET and WSU CEE
Brief History of Accreditation
(cont’d)
• ECPD produced numerous guidance and
training publications since 1932.
• By 1947, ECPD had accredited 580
undergraduate engineering curricula at
133 institutions -- currently, ABET
accredits some 2,900 programs at more
than 600 colleges and universities
nationwide.
• In 1980, ECPD was renamed the
Accreditation Board for Engineering and
Technology (ABET) to more accurately
describe its emphasis on accreditation.
• ABET commissions currently accredit
Applied Science (ASAC), Computer
3
4. ABET and WSU CEE
Recent WSU CEE History
• The WSU CEE Department
was last awarded
accreditation based on a
Self-Study and ABET
Review in 2006.
• ABET awarded WSU CEE
accreditation status for
a six- year period (its
maximum award).
• ABET will review WSU CEE
again in 2012.
4
5. ABET and WSU CEE
Is Accreditation Really So
Important?
• Many US colleges and universities, such as Paul
Quinn College (Texas), Hiwassee College
(Tennessee) and Columbus University
(Mississippi), have been or are unaccredited
• Many employers who hire WSU CEE graduates
will probably never know, find out, nor care if
WSU CEE is accredited!
• Accreditation involves time and effort that we
cannot afford
• Accreditation or not, some students still flunk
classes
• ABET does not have the right to tell us
what/how to teach, what/how to test, etc. –
that is a professor’s prerogative!
• So, NO, accreditation is not that
5 important! … and, we should abandon any and
6. ABET and WSU CEE
Accreditation IS Important
• Accreditation:
– Proves that students are learning and achieving
program goals and course objectives
– Proves that WSU CEE engages in continuous
improvement of its course offerings to meet goals
and objectives
– Demonstrates that a WSU CEE education adequately
prepares its graduates for success in a Civil
Engineering profession
– Is an on-going effort that demonstrates
commitment, effort, and persistence by all faculty
and staff
• For some employers, a degree from an accredited
school is a key requirement for hiring
• Professional Engineer (PE) licensure requires a degree
from an ABET-accredited college or university
6
program
7. ABET and WSU CEE
ABET’s Education Measures
The ABET Process is founded on formal education best practices, which
include objectives-based learning, measurement, assessment, and
continuous improvement:
Measure:
CEE Student Outcomes*: What a Graduating CEE Student Are Graduates
MUST BE ABLE TO DO, called “A thru K”, with an additional Able to Do these
CEE-related Outcome “L” Things? IF
NOT, Take Prudent
Action!
CEE Course Objectives: What a
CEE Student MUST be able to Measure:
do as a result of completing the Are Students
CEE course (which support certain Able to Do these
CEE 4xxx overall Student Outcomes) Things?
IF NOT, Take
3xxx Prudent Action!
* ABET Renaming of “Program Outcomes”
7
8. ABET and WSU CEE
ABET’s Education Measures
Elements of the ABET Process mimic Donald Kirkpatrick’s
highly respected Four Levels of Learning Evaluation, which
measure:
1) Student Reaction - what they thought and felt
about each course (and about the overall
program)
2) Learning Gain – the increase in knowledge or
capability that resulted from each course (and
the overall program)
3) Behavior (Application of Learning) - extent of
behavior, capability, and
implementation/application
4) Results in the Field - the effects on the business
8 or environment resulting from the graduating
9. ABET and WSU CEE
ABET’s Education Measures
Elements of the ABET Process mimic Donald Kirkpatrick’s
highly respected Four Levels of Learning Evaluation, which
measure:
1) Student Reaction - what they thought and felt
about each course (and about the overall
program)
2) Learning Gain – the increase in knowledge or
capability that resulted from each course (and
the overall program)
3) Behavior (Application of Learning) - extent of
behavior, capability, and
implementation/application
4) Results in the Field - the effects on the business
9 or environment resulting from the graduating
10. ABET and WSU CEE
Level One and Level Two
Measures
Important to collect “Voice of the
1) Student Reaction - what they Customer” data, by means of a
thought and felt about each course evaluation. Can provide
good improvement suggestions.
course (and about the overall
program)
Critical proof of whether course
2) Learning Gain – the increase in objectives were met – especially
knowledge or capability that when results of
resulted from each course (and homework, quizzes, exams and
the overall program) labs, etc., are mapped to course
objectives
3) Behavior (Application of Learning) - extent
of behavior, capability, and
implementation/application
4) Results in the Field - the effects on the
business or environment resulting from
the student's performance
10
11. ABET and WSU CEE
1st Continuous Improvement “Feedback
Loop”
1) Student Reaction –
OPINIONS, SUGGESTIONS from latest
course offering
2) Learning Gain – PERFORMANCE DATA
FROM COURSE ACTIVITIES performed
during latest course offering
… and may Drive Changes to
Course
Objectives, Coursework, Quiz
zes/Tests, Presentation
Materials, etc.
11
12. ABET and WSU CEE
Level Three and Level Four Evaluation
1) Student Reaction– OPINIONS, SUGGESTIONS
from latest course offering
2) Learning Gain – PERFORMANCE DATA FROM
COURSE ACTIVITIES performed during latest Level of graduate
course offering
preparedness, evidenced by post-
graduation survey data, EIT exam
3) Behavior (Application of Learning) - results, and other metrics
extent of behavior, capability, and
implementation/application Level of on-the-job
4) Results in the Field - the effects on proficiency, evidenced by
the business or environment graduate/employer survey
resulting from the student's data, professional engineer
performance certifications, and other metrics
12
13. ABET and WSU CEE
2nd Continuous Improvement “Feedback
Loop”
1) Student Reaction– OPINIONS, SUGGESTIONS
from latest course offering
2) Learning Gain – PERFORMANCE DATA FROM
COURSE ACTIVITIES performed during latest
course offering
3) Behavior (Application of
Learning) – GRADUATE SURVEY, EIT
SCORES, etc.
4) Results in the Field –
EMPLOYEE/EMPLOYER SURVEY DATA,
PE EXAM SCORES, etc.
… and may Drive Changes to
Curriculum, Course Objectives, and/or
other collateral
13
14. Additional ABET Expectations
Attributes We MUST ALSO
Demonstrate/Prove
• Adherence to ABET Policies and Procedures
• ALL Faculty are Executing Education “Best
Practices” Identified by ABET
• We are providing timely academic advisement
to our students seeking an undergraduate
degree.
• As a Faculty, the Capability to Identify
Anomalies and Deficiencies in our own
Courses, Objectives, and Course Content , and
Take Corrective Action on Our Own
• As a Department, that we are
Measuring, Assessing, and Adjusting (as
Needed) the Quality of the overall CEE
14
Program, Overall Curriculum through Data
15. Recommendations
Semester-Long Faculty
Involvement
• Ensuring that Measurable Course
Objectives, aligned to Student Outcomes, are
Identified (ABET Coordinator and Faculty)
• Identifying how Course Objectives map to one or
more Student Outcomes (ABET Coordinator and
Faculty)
• Structuring Homework Questions, Projects, Quiz
Questions, Test Questions, and Lab Work, to Ensure
they are Relating to Course Objectives (Faculty)
– Emphasize the “Must Know/Do”, rather than the “Nice to Know”
• Begin Construction of the Course Assessment
Report (ABET Coordinator and Faculty)
– Don’t wait until the end of the semester; portions of the
report can be created
15
on an on-going basis!
16. Recommendations
Semester-Long Faculty
Involvement
1) Student Reaction– OPINIONS,
SUGGESTIONS from latest course
offering
2) Learning Gain Data COURSE
Collection – DATA
PERFORMANCE DATA
FROM COURSE ACTIVITIES
gathered during latest
course offering
16
17. Recommendations
Semester-End Assessment Report/Plan
+ Faculty
1) Student Reaction– Observations
OPINIONS, SUGGESTIONS
from latest course
offering (student evals)
Course
2) Learning Gain Data
Assessment
Collection – COURSE
DATA
PERFORMANCE DATA FROM
COURSE ACTIVITIES
gathered during latest + Assessment Data
course offeringon/Create Plan for
Discuss/Agree Review with ABET
Prudent Changes (if any) Coordinator
for NEXT Course Offering
17
18. Recommendations
Compiling Data from 2006-
Present
Please submit artifacts (that you have not yet
submitted to Dr. Heidtke or Dr. Miller) that may help
demonstrate that you have been following ABET
Accreditation Best Practices (2006-present), such as:
– IDEALLY! Any Course Assessment Report(s)
– Course Syllabi with Course Objectives
Identified
– Assignment/Quiz/Exam Samples and Scores
– Student Course Evaluations or Evaluation
Statistics
– Listing of Changes Made to a Course, and
Rationale for the change(s)
18
19. Recommendations
WSU CEE ABET Actions Going
Forward
We must execute actions that will demonstrate on an on-going basis that we
follow ABET’s Accreditation Best Practices. To support this, I recommend:
– SUBMIT Course Syllabus with Course Objectives to the ABET
Coordinator
– BEGIN Creation of the Course Assessment Report (Skeleton) with
help from the ABET Coordinator
– COMPILE student performance metrics (scores and
observations) for inclusion in Course Assessment Report (As
they become available)
– EXECUTE the Student Course Evaluation and supply results to
ABET Coordinator
– COMPILE the Course Assessment Report with help from the ABET
Coordinator
– MEET AND DISCUSS the Course Assessment Report with the ABET
Coordinator, and develop an action plan, as necessary, to make
adjustments to the course to improve course
19 objectives, measurement of objectives, student
Hello, my name is Kevin Zielinski and I am a Wayne State University graduate – acquiring Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in Civil Engineering in 1983 and 1984 respectively. During my professional career, with Electronic Data Systems, with General Motors, with SAE International, and with my adjunct teaching experience at Wayne State and Focus Hope, I have been directly involved in engineering- and information technology-related training development and delivery. Today I will be talking to you about 3 key questions that are pondered and studied by every conscientious education enterprise, from elementary schools, to corporate training programs, to colleges and universities around the world – “Are students learning?”, “Are they learning the right things?”, and “Are they learning well enough to be proficient later in their career?”. The title of my presentation, “Aiding and Abetting” is a reference to a crime involving complicity, but as you will see and hear, there is nothing criminal about studying these key questions about the education activities in the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, and in fact, you MUST be an accomplice in this process if we are going to be successful! The title is also a play on words, since ABET is the organization that asks these key questions of university engineering and other technical programs.
First, a brief history on engineering and technology accreditation… The organization we now call ABET got its start as the Engineer’s Council for Professional Development or ECPD, which was established by professional engineering societies concerned about the quality of counseling and education received by those entering different engineering professions. The ECPD focused on several important efforts: (1) supplying prospective students with information about each engineering profession, (2) developing education and training plans and curricula to ensure students acquired core skills, knowledge and experience, and (3) developing methods for recognition of those who excelled in educating students and who excelled in their engineering or technology profession.
The ECPD produced numerous informational and training publications in its early years – and began performing accreditation reviews of undergraduate engineering institutions, mainly in the US. By 1947, ECPD had accredited 580 undergraduate engineering programs at 133 institutions. That number has grown significantly since then – with over 2900 programs currently receiving accreditation. In 1980, ECPD officially changed its name to the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology or ABET, to more accurately state its mission. ABET is currently divided into 4 commissions, the Engineering Accreditation Commission or EAC that affects our department, as well as commissions for Applied Sciences, Computer Science, and for Technology.
ABET accreditation reviews are commonly performed using a combination of a department self-study – a formatted document that describes a department’s activities and performance – followed by an on-site review by an ABET volunteer. Most engineering an technology departments establish a department representative to coordinate accreditation efforts including internal process development, student performance data collection, and self-study document preparation.As many of you may recall, Dr. Tom Heidtke has been the most recent ABET Coordinator for the CEE Department. With the help of several members of the CEE faculty, Dr. Heidtke compiled the 2006 ABET Self-Study Report submitted to ABET for the department’s 2006 accreditation review. Though several minor deficiencies were identified, the Wayne State CEE Department received ABET’s maximum accreditation award – of course, we were awarded with accreditation, but also we were given a 6-year time period before our next accreditation review, which is coming up in 2012.
To play devil’s advocate – and perhaps identify some thoughts that you may be having about accreditation – I ask this key question…Is accreditation REALLY so Important? After all, many US and International colleges and universities are not accredited -- Paul Quinn College, Hiwassee College, Columbus University, to name but a few. Further, employers who hire Wayne State’s Civil and Environmental Engineering graduates might not care whether our program is accredited. On top of that, the process required for maintaining ABET’s accreditation, including the review itself, is a nuisance, requiring extra time and effort that no one has…and we all know that even with an accredited program, some of our students still don’t pay attention in class, still don’t study, don’t do their work, and flunk courses, so accreditation really means nothing if you have that kind of students! And perhaps most importantly, how can we as faculty – some tenured -- let ABET tell us how to teach, how to test, how to run our classes – these are sacred professor prerogatives! So, we might take these arguments against accreditation and say – it’s not worth the headache, and agree that it is just NOT that important, RIGHT???
But here is where the key questions that I mentioned earlier need to be asked – “Are students learning?”, “Are they learning the right things?”, and “Are they learning well enough to be proficient later in their career?” When we continue to ask these questions, and act accordingly in conducting our teaching activities, we are engaging in an on-going, continuously monitored, continuously improving, and VERIFIABLE effort to give our students the quality of education they need and deserve, and giving our profession and the public at-large, well-prepared civil and environmental engineers. This is why accreditation is indeed important. If that isn’t reason enough, be aware that some employers will not hire our graduates unless Wayne State is accredited, and Professional Engineer licensure requires a degree from an ABET-accredited college or university program. Lastly, over 2000 of the 2900 total ABET-accredited programs mentioned earlier are engineering programs – so accreditation is obviously important to many schools out there!By the way, a rumor has been circulating that the great Massachusetts Institute of Technology has engineering programs that are not accredited – but this is a false rumor, they ARE accredited.
In the ABET self-study process, and in the on-site visit, ABET is looking for several important elements. First and foremost, ABET will want to ensure that our engineering program as a whole has structured its curriculum and activities to support the achievement of 12 specific high-level engineering Student Outcomes, named “A” through “K”. I won’t review all of these outcomes, but for example, Student Outcome “A” relates to the use of mathematics, science and engineering to solve civil engineering problems. Outcome “B” involves the ability to conduct experiments and interpret experimental data, and Outcome “C” relates to the ability to perform civil engineering system, component and process design. Recognize that these outcomes are general skills, attributes and capabilities that our civil engineering profession – not just ABET –feels that undergraduate students should be attaining. If our department cannot show that we are doing our best to help students achieve these outcomes, ABET will likely demand actions to alleviate the discrepancies, and perhaps require another on-site accreditation review.Note also that civil and environmental engineering programs have an additional desired student outcome, called “L”, involving an understanding of civil engineering professional practice issues such as procurement of work, bidding versus quality-based contractor selection processes, addressing public safety concerns, and the importance of professional licensing and continuing education in the civil and environmental engineering fields.ABET wants to ensure that we are addressing these student outcomes with our required and elective curricula and within our course content. They will want to be certain that our course objectives support these outcomes, and that we are measuring achievement of these outcomes. If our gathered data indicate that we are not continually successful at achieving these outcomes, we must show that we are taking prudent corrective action, and evaluating any improvements made.
The process that ABET wants accredited programs to execute is very similar to the process I learned and used in corporate training environments at EDS and General Motors – namely, Don Kirkpatrick’s renowned Four Levels of Learning Evaluation. Kirkpatrick’s first level of evaluation involves Student Reaction. We often referred to Level One as “gathering smiley sheet data” because Level 1 evaluation data is captured by Student Surveys that attempt to determine how happy students were with the course -- for OPINIONS on – “Did you like the course?” “Do you THINK that you learned a lot?” “Do you think the textbook and course handouts were informative?”, and “Do you THINK that the course met its stated objectives?” Level 1 surveys are not perfect – they don’t measure whether students ACTUALLY learned, some students might be angry with the teacher and answer questions negatively – but surveys sometimes identify valid issues that require resolution, and may generate good suggestions for course or instructor improvement. Level 2 involves determining actual student performance, that is, “Did students actually learn, and learn well, what the course and its objectives promised?” I always perceived of Level 2 evaluation as most important for me as an instructor, because: (1) it is not based on student opinion – a student either knew a concept well and demonstrated that on a homework, quiz or test, or they did not know the concept well. Further, proper Level 2 evaluation forced us instructors to create quizzes and tests that were aligned with the course objectives. For example, to prove that a course objective “Students will be able to create a PERT diagram for a given project” was met, I had to make certain there were one or more homework, quiz or test questions requiring the creation of a PERT diagram. In Kirkpatrick’s model, Level 1 evaluations are performed at or near the end of a given course, while Level 2 evaluation data can be compiled over time.
Continuing with Kirkpatrick’s respected Four Levels of Learning Evaluation, Levels 3 and 4 are more difficult evaluations to make but still very important. These evaluations are conducted by an education department – not the instructor -- some time after the course is completed. Level 3 involves determining whether the graduating student was adequately prepared to apply or demonstrate course learning and behavior in real situations shortly after graduation. Level 4 attempts to measure the graduate’s success in the field, including some form of payback that the course or currriculum has generated for the performer, their business and/or their environment. Level 3 and 4 evaluations are very important but in corporate training circles, these evaluations are not often performed. ABET, however, does indeed expect accredited college and university programs to gather data on how well graduates were able to apply their learning – in how successful graduates are in attaining professional licensure, how employers of our graduates feel about their skills, preparation and capabilities, and other metrics.
So what do these four levels of evaluation mean to us? Well, first faculty must collect Voice of the Customer or VOC data – the customer being our students -- by means of student course evaluations. Second, each faculty member – whether Tenured, Full-Time, or Adjunct/Part-Time, must compile student performance data, mapped to the course objectives.
In the Kirkpatrick Model, an organization must analyze Level 1 and Level 2 data to determine whether there are any glaring deficiencies. If so, the organization may need to change objectives, coursework, course content, or other elements for the next course offering.
Some time after graduates leave the program, the organization must conduct Level 3 and Level 4 evaluation by gathering evidence of graduate preparedness, such as post-graduation surveys, EIT exam results, as well as employer survey data, and professional engineer certifications.
The Level 3 and 4 results may also identify one or more deficiencies that may drive prudent change to the curriculum, course objectives, and course content.
As I see it, this is a list of some additional attributes that we must demonstrate not just for the next ABET accreditation review – but for all our educational efforts going forward. First, we must adhere to the ABET policies and procedures from this day forward, because they make sense, not because we are being forced to implement them! That no one will be exempt – from Adjunct Faculty like me, to the most experienced tenured faculty members, we all must follow the ABET best practices because the ABET process makes great sense to ensure learning and successful graduates. We must continue to provide timely academic advising to students, so they are getting proper direction in discipline selection, course offering schedule, prerequisites, etc. Lastly, that as a faculty body and as a department, we are performing the necessary steps I have highlighted in this presentation, on our own, and as standard operating procedure -- not just when ABET reviews come along, or when the CEE ABET coordinator comes along with a reminder.
To get our internal ABET-related efforts kick-started again, I propose the following. Note that I understand that some of these tasks involve some effort on your part – but I have placed the ABET coordinator’s title on most of these items, to indicate that you will have help in performing most of these tasks: (1) we must ensure that Measurable Course Objectivesare Identified for each of our courses if they have not been already – I will work with you on that. (2) we must make certain our Course Objectives map to one or more of ABET’s A through L Student Outcomes – again, I will help you accomplish this. (3) We must structure homework Questions, Projects, Quiz Questions, Test Questions, and Lab Work, to Ensure they are Relating to Course Objectives – and you are ultimately responsible for this, with my assistance if you need it. (4) Together, we must begin creation of the Course Assessment Report – because we don’t want to wait until the end of the semester and let this drop off – besides, portions of the report can be created on an on-going basis throughout the semester, leaving just small work left at the end of the term!
Student performance information is one important element of the Course Assessment Report that can be compiled throughout a given semester. Within the Assessment Report, we will need to indicate: (1) what course objective(s) were being stressed on the given homework, quiz, project or test, and (2) student scores, to indicate how well the stressed objectives were met. Preferably, this data should be submitted to me as the information is generated throughout the term – by you or your grader.
Regarding Level 1 evaluation, we will need to make certain all faculty perform the student evaluation process, as dictated by the university, and ensure the ABET coordinator has access to this data for the Course Assessment Report. As this slide’s graphic indicates, each faculty member responsible for a given course should provide their thoughts and observations on the semester just ended. When these observations and all survey and performance data have been compiled, the faculty member shall meet with the ABET Coordinator to discuss whether any deficiencies or anomalies may have occurred, and create a plan to implement prudent changes to alleviate them.
Just one more request of you – I know many of you have submitted materials to Dr. Miller or Dr. Heidtke in the past…but I ask that you please submit any ABET-relateditems that you had NOT YET submitted for the period of 2006 to the present. That includes course assessment reports in a format laid out by Dr. Heidtke, your course syllabus, assignment/quiz or exam scores, student evaluation data, etc. I would also appreciate it if you could periodically update your curriculum vitae or CV, so it will be ready when the 2012 Self-study Report is being generated.
In summary, this is my proposed action plan. Feel free to pause this presentation to review these items. In the coming days, I will be incorporating any suggestions made by CEE faculty, and sending this in an email so you have a copy of the action plan and can start executing!
I thank you for reviewing this presentation, and I want to thank you in advance for Aiding and Abetting the CEE Department in its quest to maintain its accreditation and to maintain its overall program excellence!