Feedback on ABET Process

1
Feedback on ABET Process Ali H. Sayed Chair,
Electrical Engineering, UCLA ECEDHA Annual
Meeting, March 2009
2
ABET REVIEW (FALL 2006)

• Our EE program was reviewed by ABET during
• fall 2006 and received accreditation for 6 years.
  

3
ACCREDITATION REVIEWS

• Periodic program evaluations are a healthy (but
  costly) exercise because they motivate
  departments to stay alert and focused.
• Accreditation is also a good motivator for
  regular curricular updates and revisions.
• AT UCLA EE, the ABET process has kept the faculty
  engaged in continual evaluation of our UG
  curriculum.

4
OBJECTIVES vs. OUTCOMES

• Program Educational Objectives (PEOs) are broad
  
• statements that describe the career and
  professional
• accomplishments that the program is preparing its
  
• graduates to achieve.
• Program Outcomes are narrower statements that
• describe what students are expected to know and
  be
• able to do by the time of graduation. These
  relate to
• the skills, knowledge, and behaviors that
  students
• acquire in their matriculation through the
  program.

5
TYPICAL ASSESSMENT MECHANISM
The evaluation of the Program Educational
Objectives (what we accomplish) is expected to be
tied to the evaluation of the Program Outcomes
(what we teach). ? But how meaningful is this
exercise?
6
Example SELF-STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE

• 2.E Process for Establishing Program Educational
  Objectives
• Describe the process that periodically
  documents
• and demonstrates that the Program
  Educational
• Objectives are based on the needs of the
• program's various constituencies.

3.C Relationship of Program Outcomes to PEOs
Describe how the Program Outcomes lead to the
achievement of the Program Educational
Objectives.
7
EVALUATION OF PEOs

• Contrived Example for a fictitious University A
• PEO1 Graduates of our program will succeed in
• graduate school or in technical careers.
• Metric 90 of graduates will be either in
  graduate
• school or in industry positions.
• Assessment you find out that 70 are in graduate
  
• school or industry and 30 are high school
  teachers.
• What does this mean from the accreditation
  perspective?

8
EVALUATION OF PEOs

• Contrived Example Continued. Possible Options
• Modify the curriculum to discourage students
• from becoming high school teachers!?
• Reduce the 90 figure to a more realistic goal
  of
• 60.
• Either way, the PEO will likely be met and ABET
• will be satisfied.
• But how does this make my educational program
  stronger?

9
STUDENT LEARNING

• The emphasis should not be on training students
  to pursue graduate school or succeed in industry.
  
• Accreditation should not
  promote views that limit student possibilities
• Students should be able to achieve whatever
  their imagination, creativity, and ambition will
  take them to.
• It is not up to the university
  to limit student possibilities through a set of
  pre-defined PEOs.

10
STUDENT LEARNING

• There is a distinction between educating students
  and training students.
• Universities educate students.
• More focus should be placed on the Program
  Outcomes and the fundamentals.
• If the foundations are taught well, then
  students will be able to pursue their dreams with
  confidence and drive.

11
STUDENT LEARNING

• ABET needs to find how assessment of the Program
  Educational Objectives can lead to meaningful
  improvement of a program.
• Major emphasis should be on
• Assessing the learning of fundamentals in class
• Assessing learning across the curriculum
  (integration)
• Independent thinking and self-learning (design)
• Communication skills and presentations

12
PROGRAM EVALUATORS

• Program evaluations should not depend on the
  opinion of one single evaluator. Personal
  experiences and preferences can bias the outcome
  greatly.
• Consider a committee of evaluators (say 3)
  but there are cost issues involved.
• Evaluators can be from industry, government, or
  academia. Their experiences are usually vastly
  different and they tend to emphasize almost
  orthogonal priorities.
• This issue can be addressed if programs are
  evaluated by committees with at least one member
  from academia. ABET training of evaluators is
  not enough having experience in actual
  curriculum development is critical.

13
ABET VISITS

• The format of the ABET visit is unconventional,
  rigid, and stressful unnecessary barriers are
  placed between the ABET team and the programs.
  Evaluation visits should be a two-way learning
  process should be an exercise in open-minded
  discussion about best practices
• Departments can learn from best practices
  transmitted to them by the evaluator and the
  evaluator can learn from listening to the point
  of view of faculty and educators.

• There should be some transparent evaluation of
  the amount
• of effort that programs spend in preparation
  for
• accreditation (assessment, collection of
  material,
• faculty time, staff time, reporting)
  cost-benefit analysis.