Accreditation of Engineering Education in Turkey

1
Accreditation of Engineering Education in Turkey

• Prof. Dr. Bülent E. Platin
• Mechanical Engineering Department
• Middle East Technical University
• Ankara, Turkey
• 12th National Quality Conference
• 14 October 2003, Istanbul

2
Institutions Conducting Accreditation Activities
in Turkey

• ABET
• (Accreditation Board for Engineering and
  Technology, Inc.)
• Substantial Equivalency
• MÜDEK
• (Engineering Evaluation Board)
• Accreditation

3
ABET Activities in Turkey
4
ABET Activities and Engineering Programs in Turkey
5
MÜDEKEngineering Evaluation Board

• January 2001 Engineering Deans Council (EDC)
  established and working groups formed
• May 2001 March 2002 Working Group on the
  Evaluation of Engineering Education studies
• January 2002 National Accreditation System of
  Engineering Education accepted by EDS
• May 2002 MÜDEK established by EDS

6
MÜDEKEngineering Evaluation Board

• VISION
• To promote and improve engineering education for
  the purpose of advancing public welfare through
  the development of better-educated and qualified
  engineers

MISSION Organize and carry out a comprehensive
evaluation program of undergraduate engineering
programs leading to engineering degrees conducted
by schools, which are members of EDC
7
MÜDEK

• BASIC CHARACTERISTICS
• Autonomous management
• Evaluation based on objective criteria
• Openness, transparency ? ? confidentiality of
  info.
• Final authority in evaluation decisions
• Board and evaluation teams free of university
  administrators
• Board member renewal by a system with memory

8
MÜDEKs Structure
MÜDEK
9
MÜDEK Members

• Total eight members
• 4 faculty members from universities
• 1 representative from Turkish Chamber of
  Architects and Engineers (TMMOB)
• 1 representative from Turkish Quality Association
  (KalDer)
• 2 representatives from industry
• Deans as members of EDS could not serve as MÜDEK
  members or MÜDEK evaluators
• 2 year long term (maximum 3 consecutive terms)
• 3 members among them are
• Chair
• Vice-Chair (Chair of next term)
• Immediate past chair

10
MÜDEKEvaluation Teams

• A separate TEAM for each engineering school,
  whose programs will be evaluated
• TEAM CHAIR (MÜDEK member)
• At least one PROGRAM EVALUATOR for each program
  to be evaluated

11
Basic Characteristics of MÜDEK Evaluations

• EVALUATION not RANKING
• Evaluation of PROGRAMS not UNIVERSITIES, SCHOOLS,
  or DEPARTMENTS
• KNOWN (unclassified) evaluation CRITERIA and
  PROCESS based on DOCUMENTATION
• TRAINED evaluation TEAMS
• Team evaluation process ? DRAFT REPORT
• Final evaluation decision by MÜDEK ? FINAL REPORT

12
MÜDEK Evaluation Criteria

• Program educational objectives
• Program outcomes
• Curriculum
• Students
• Faculty members
• Facilities
• Institutional support and financial resources
• Criteria special to various programs

13
Program Educational Objectives

• Statements that describe the expected
  accomplishments of graduates during the first
  several years following graduation from the
  program.
• Must be consistent with the missions of the
  institution, school, and department.
• An ongoing system of assessment must be in place
  to measure the achievement, evaluation and
  modification of these objectives, with results
  reflected to the continuous improvement of the
  program.
• In their periodic (3-6 years) assessment,
  external constituencies like program graduates,
  employers, etc. must be involved.

14
Program Outcomes

• Statements that describe what students are
  expected to know or be able to do by the time of
  graduation from the program.
• They must be necessary to reach program
  educational objectives.
• An ongoing system of assessment must be in place
  to measure the achievement, evaluation and
  modification of these outcomes, with results
  reflected to the continuous improvement of the
  program.
• In their periodic (annual, every semester)
  assessment, internal constituencies like
  students, faculty staff, etc. must be involved.

15
MÜDEK Evaluation ProcessCalendar for 2003-2004
Evaluation Period

• Application to MÜDEK (Deans) 01 March 2003
• Preparation of Self-Evaluation reports (SER) and
  their submission to MÜDEK (Schools and
  Departments) 01 August 2003
• Review of SERs, requesting additional
  information from institutions (Evaluation Teams)
  September-October 2003
• 3-day visits to institutions (Evaluation Teams)
  November-December 2003
• Draft Reports (Evaluation Teams)
  January-February 2004
• Finalizing the evaluation decision (MÜDEK)
  March-June 2004

16
Phases of Evaluation Process

• Pre-visit activities
• Visit to institution
• Post-visit activities

17
Review Findings

• Strong points
• Weak points
• Deficiency A statement indicating that a
  criterion is not satisfied. Therefore, the
  program is not in compliance with the criteria.
• Weakness A statement indicating that a criterion
  is satisfied but lacks the strength of compliance
  that assures that the quality of the program will
  not be compromised prior to the next general
  review. Therefore, remedial action is required to
  strengthen compliance with the criteria.
• Concern A statement indicating that a criterion
  is currently satisfied however, the potential
  exists for this situation to change in the near
  future such that the criterion may not be
  satisfied. Therefore, positive action is required
  to ensure continued full compliance with the
  criteria.
• Observation A comment or suggestion which does
  not relate directly to the criteria being used
  for evaluation. It is offered to assist the
  institution in its continuing efforts to improve
  its programs.

18
Basic Evaluation Actions

• No deficiency or weakness ? Accreditation
  (extension for 6 years till next general review)
• No deficiency but some weaknesses ? Accreditation
  (conditional extension for 2 years with interim
  report or interim visit)
• Deficiency ? Show Cause (Review and visit will be
  repeated next year)
• Deficiency after Show Cause ? Not to accredit

19
MÜDEK

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