ABET proposes accreditation criteria revisions
- PDF / 237,859 Bytes
- 1 Pages / 585 x 783 pts Page_size
- 6 Downloads / 185 Views
ABET proposes accreditation criteria revisions
M
ore than 80 years ago, the Accreditation Board for Engineering Technology (ABET) was founded to ensure that new graduates had the skills needed to enter their profession. It began as the educational standard against which professional engineers in the United States were held for licensure. ABET accredits college and university programs in the disciplines of applied science, computing, engineering, and engineering technology at the associate, bachelor, and master degree levels. ABET is structured as a federation of 35 professional and technical societies, including MRS, ACerS, NICE, and TMS, that relies on 2200 volunteers supported by 33 full-time and 10 part-time staff. It accredits an academic program leading to a specific degree in a specific discipline. Members of the engineering area delegation from the materials community include Todd Hufnagel (MRS), professor of materials science and engineering, Johns Hopkins University; William Mullins (ACerS/NICE), program officer, structural materials, US Office of Naval Research; Ashok Saxena (TMS), provost, University of Arkansas; and Kristen Constant (WEPAN), Wilkinson Professor of Interdisciplinary Engineering and Chair, Iowa State University. The guiding principles of accreditation decisions are to ensure the quality of educational programs, to foster the systematic pursuit of quality improvement in educational programs, and to develop educational programs that satisfy the needs of constituents in a dynamic and competitive environment. There are eight ABET accreditation criteria, and each program has programspecific criteria: (1) Students (2) Program Educational Objectives (3) Student Outcomes (4) Continuous Improvement (5) Curriculum (6) Faculty (7) Facilities (8) Support.
Since 2008, the Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) has had ongoing discussions regarding the potential need to revise Criterion 3: Student Outcomes. The committee recognized that this criterion had not been reviewed since it was originally formulated in the mid-1990s in preparation for outcomes-based criteria. Over a period of several years, the EAC has been engaged in a process of review and improvement of Criterion 3, and has sought input from a broad variety of sources concerning skills and attributes needed for entry into the professional practice of engineering. The EAC used the input received and developed proposed revisions to the Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs. Revisions are to Criterion 3, framing student outcomes that address relevant topic areas, and moving some items into Criterion 5, Curriculum. Definitions and explanations currently in Criterion 5 were moved to a revised introductory section to the Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs. At the request of the task force, the EAC also surveyed program evaluators during the 2010–2011 cycle regarding the elements of Criterion 3 that led to citations of shortcoming. The data collected revealed that programs had the most difficulty determining the extent of
Data Loading...
