Accreditation of Engineering Programs in Turkey: M

1
Accreditation of Engineering Programs in Turkey
MÜDEK Initiative

• A. Erbil PAYZIN
• Member, Engineering Evaluation Board (MÜDEK)
• Quality Evaluation in Higher Education Workshop
• May 10th, 2004, Istanbul Bilgi University

2
Outline

• How it all started
• MÜDEK An initiative for accreditation of
  engineering programs in Turkey
• First impressions way ahead

3

• How It all Started
• A Brief History of Accreditation of Engineering
  Programs In Turkey

4
Stage 1 ABET Evaluations

• 1994 2 eng. programs from METU applied to ABET
  and obtained Substantial Equivalency status
• 1994-2003 41 engineering programs from 4
  universities (METU, Bilkent, Bogaziçi Univ., ITU)
  obtained Substantial Equivalency from ABET

5
ABET Evaluation vs Potential Need
ABET Evaluation TURKEY KKTC Total (2003)
Universities 4 70
Engineering Faculties 11 87
Program types 20 48
No. of programs 41 506
6
STAGE 2 National System for Accreditation of
Engineering Programs

• Jan 2001 Engineering Deans Council (Mühendislik
  Dekanlari Konseyi-MDK) established
• Deans of engineering faculties in state private
  universities in Turkey and the Turkish Republic
  of Northern Cyprus (KKTC).
• 87 members as of 2003
• Jan 2002 Engineering Deans Council (MDK)
  decision for establishing National Accreditation
  System for Engineering Education
• May 2002 Engineering Evaluation Board
  (Mühendislik Degerlendirme Kurulu-MÜDEK) formed
  by MDK

7

• MÜDEK
• An Initiative for Accreditation of Engineering
  Programs in Turkey

8
MÜDEK(Mühendislik Degerlendirme
Kurulu)Engineering Evaluation Board

• A non-governmental initiative for accrediting
  engineering programs in Turkey
• Initiated by Engineering Deans Council on May
  2002
• An independent body which periodically renews a
  portion of its members by itself

9
MÜDEKEngineering Evaluation Board

• Objectives
• Develop and run a detailed program for evaluating
  (accrediting) engineering programs of MDK member
  faculties which grant engineering degree to
  their graduates
• Main Tasks
• Evaluation (accreditation) of engineering
  programs
• Selection and training of evaluators
• Providing information and training to program
  chair persons and staff members on program
  evaluation
• Reviewing and updating the program evaluation
  criteria

10
MÜDEK Membership

• Total of 8 members
• 4 academicians
• 1 TMMOB (Union of Chambers of Turkish Engineers
  and Architects) representative
• 1 KalDer (Turkish Society for Quality)
  representative
• 2 industry representatives
• Voluntary duty
• MDK members may not be MÜDEK members
• 2 years serving term (max. 3 consecutive terms)
• 3 of the members chairman, assistant chairman
  (chairman elect), previous chairman

11
MÜDEK Evaluations

• Non-governmental
• Voluntary
• Outcomes based objective accreditation criteria
• Self-assessment Self-study by the institution
  and program
• Peer-review (Evaluation Teams)
• On-site evaluation
• Periodic re-evaluation
• (maximum 6 yrs.)

12
MÜDEK Evaluation Criteria

1. Students
2. Program Educational Objectives
3. Program Outcomes and Assessment
4. Professional Component
5. Faculty
6. Facilities
7. Institutional Support and Financial Resources
8. Program Specific Criteria

13
Criteria 2 Program Educational Objectives

• Criterion 2, program educational objectives are
  intended to be statements that describe the
  expected accomplishments of graduates during the
  first several years following graduation from the
  program.
• Each engineering program for which an institution
  seeks accreditation or reaccreditation must have
  the following in place
• (a) detailed published educational objectives
  that are consistent with the mission of the
  institution and these criteria
• (b) a process based on the needs of the program's
  various constituencies in which the objectives
  are determined and periodically evaluated
• (c) a curriculum and processes that prepare
  students to ensure the achievement of these
  objectives
• (d) a system of ongoing evaluation that
  demonstrates achievement of these objectives and
  uses the results to improve the effectiveness of
  the program.

14
Criteria 3 Program Outcomes and Assessment

• Criterion 3, program outcomes are intended to be
  statements that describe what students are
  expected to know or be able to do by the time of
  graduation from the program.

15
Criteria 3 Program Outcomes and Assessment
(Contd)

• Engineering programs must demonstrate that their
  graduates have
• (a) an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics,
  science, and engineering
• (b) an ability to design and conduct experiments,
  as well as to analyze and interpret the resulting
  data
• (c) an ability to design a system, component, or
  process to meet desired needs
• (d) an ability to function on multi-disciplinary
  teams
• (e) an ability to identify, formulate, and solve
  engineering problems
• (f) an understanding of professional and ethical
  responsibility
• (g) an ability to communicate effectively
• (h) the broad education necessary to understand
  the impact of engineering solutions in a global
  and societal context
• (i) a recognition of the need for, and an ability
  to engage in life-long learning
• (j) a knowledge of contemporary issues
• (k) an ability to use the techniques, skills, and
  modern engineering tools necessary for
  engineering practice.

16
Criteria 3 Program Outcomes and Assessment
(Contd)

• Each program must have an assessment process with
  documented results.
• The assessment process must demonstrate that the
  program outcomes, including those listed above,
  are being measured.
• Evidence must be given that the results are being
  applied to the further development and
  improvement of the program.

17
MÜDEK Organization
MÜDEK
Training Working Group
18
MÜDEKEvaluation Teams

• One TEAM is formed for each faculty running the
  programs to be evaluated.
• TEAM LEADER has to be a MÜDEK Member
• At least one EVALUATOR for each program to be
  evaluated

19
MÜDEK Program Evaluators

• Program evaluators are selected among people
  known for their competency in their specialty
  areas.
• Program evaluator candidates have to attend
  program evaluator training workshops.
• Program evaluators serve on a voluntary basis.
• MDK members can not serve as program evaluators.
• Teams are formed from a pool of evaluators.
• Conflict of interest issues are addressed during
  the appointment of evaluators to teams.

20
TYPICAL EVALUATION CYCLE

• Jan Institutions express intent for evaluation
• Jan-Aug Institutions prepare and submit
  self-study reports for programs to be evaluated
• Sept-Oct Teams formed evaluations start
• Nov-Dec Site visits (3 days)
• Jan-Feb Teams prepare evaluation reports
• March-June MÜDEK concludes evaluation process
  and takes accreditation decisions

21
MÜDEK Evaluation Activities
2003 (eval. in process) 2004 (expected applications)
No. University 2 4
No. of Eng. Faculties 2 4
Types of Eng. Programs 6 7
No. of Eng. Programs 7 13
22

• First Impressions Way Ahead

23
First Impressions

• MÜDEK evaluation process is viewed as a vehicle
  for genuinely increasing quality of engineering
  education
• Self Study Report (process) acts as an important
  tool for
• continuous quality improvement in engineering
  programs
• motivating constituencies
• External evaluation results are considered as
• constructive feedback for quality improvement
• leverage for resource allocations needed for
  these improvements

24
What is Next?

• MÜDEK needs to be institutionalized (association)
• MÜDEK needs to be recognized as the national
  accreditation body for engineering programs (by
  governmental authorities)
• MÜDEK has to seek international recognition
  (e.g., Washington accord)

25
MÜDEK

• http//mudek.me.metu.edu.tr/
• THANK YOU