A Process-Based Approach to ABET Accreditation: A Case Study of a Cybersecurity and Digital Forensics Program

ABET accreditation has become a well-known standard for academic programs not only in the U.S. but also across the globe. Instantiating the processes to systematically improve the quality of programs is a daunting task for higher education institutions. In this contribution, we provide a detailed process-based framework that can assist aspiring institutions to embed quality in their processes leading to ABET accreditation. Our contribution is a novel framework for a process-based approach to quality assurance, as most of the published literature is primarily concerned with the experience of ABET accreditation of a solitary program. However, in this paper, we have presented a generic framework that ABET aspiring programs can instantiate in their preparation for ABET accreditation. We have validated these processes in our successful ABET accreditation application of the Bachelor of Science in Cybersecurity and Digital Forensics program. Our existing ABET-accredited programs were following old ABET criteria and the Bachelor of Science in Cybersecurity and Digital Forensics program must apply based on the new criteria proposed by ABET. Another novelty of our contribution is that it is based on our work for the first application cycle for ABET cybersecurity-related programs, so the findings of our contribution may assist other aspiring cybersecurity related academic programs to well prepare in their ABET accreditation pursuit

Civil engineering program evaluator reflections: The most recent lessons learned

For the 2011-2012 ABET accreditation cycle, a number of changes across the criteria have impacted the way in which programs must approach their accreditation efforts.1 The most significant change is related to the reporting of assessment activities and their use for program improvement. For the first time this year, assessment results of program educational objectives and student outcomes are reported in Criterion 4, Continuous Improvement. Additionally, there have been changes to the former Criterion 9, Program Criteria. The Program Criteria is no longer numbered, but more importantly, contains some fairly significant changes impacting the assessment of student performance. The changes include no longer requiring programs to specifically incorporate the program criteria in their student outcomes and no longer requiring programs to assess the degree to which students are achieving the program criteria. The purpose of this paper is to capture the experiences of three Civil Engineering Program Evaluators who have visited programs with differing characteristics during this accreditation cycle. It takes the reader from initial contact with the program chair through review of the self study and student transcripts to the on-site visit and offers lessons learned on how to best meet the current ABET Criteria and prepare for an ABET visit

A review of literature on communication skills development (CSD) in the engineering curriculum

Engineering education has expanded recently to include emphasis on the development of some very specific non-technical attributes that match a strong technical base to produce well-rounded engineering graduates who are flexible and adaptable to suit the constantly developing and changing requirements of the workplace. These non technical skills include communication skills, the ability to function in teams, knowledge of societal and contemporary issues, development of global perspective, and ethics awareness. A great importance of these abilities to engineering education has emerged over the last decade even within the international and local scene. Within the Malaysian context, the Engineering Accreditation Council’s (EAC) Engineering Program Accreditation Manual(BEM, 2007) , outlines ten learning outcomes that encompasses both the technical and non technical skills which are considered essential for graduating engineers. Similarly, the Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology (ABET) Criterion 3 (ABET, 2000), outlines eleven criterion which targeted many of these as essential program outcomes in order for engineering programs to be accredited and which are seen as critical for the success in the twenty first century. Communication skills development(CSD) is one of the outcomes required by an undergraduate engineering program in the Engineering Accreditation Council (EAC) for Institutions of Higher Learning (IHL) in Malaysia as well as in the ABET Engineering Criteria 2000 (ABET, 2000). CSD is essential for an engineer who aspires to carry out his/her professional practice in the global arena and especially in the English language. With an increasingly global economy, the Malaysian education system must produce graduates who can communicate effectively in English. Otherwise, it would lose one of its vital selling points for foreign investors to ensure that skilled labor force are sufficient to support internationally competitive commerce and industry and to provide individuals with opportunities to optimize their potentials (Muhammad Rashid bin Rajuddin, 2006; Riemer, 2002)

Ten years of ABET EC 2000: One person\u27s reflections

ABET accreditation criteria changed substantially at the turn of the century changing from a prescriptive, curricular-based standard to an outcomes-based approach for accreditation. The new system named Engineering Criteria (EC) 2000 required engineering programs to consult with their constituencies to establish program objectives and outcomes that define what their graduates will attain several years after graduation and at the time of graduation, respectively. The accreditation process involves assessing the degree to which graduates are attaining these outcomes and objectives and using the results to make changes and continuously improve the program. Most engineering programs have now been through two cycles of accreditation under the new system. There have been some growing pains, adjustments, and changes to the accreditation process since it was initially implemented. This paper is in direct response to the session proposed by the CE Division of ASEE on the reflections of ABET over the past ten years from the perspective of program directors, program evaluators and members of the ASCE Committee on Curricula and Accreditation. This paper offers the perspectives and reflections from a full professor who has directed two different programs (Civil Engineering and Architectural Engineering) at two different locations through successful accreditation visits under this system. The author is also a seasoned program evaluator who has made ten ABET accreditation visits (one per year) to ten different CE and AE programs over the past decade

A Holistic Approach to Develop IS Curricula: Focusing on Accreditation and IT Certification

Introduction Information Systems (IS) are complex systems requiring both technical and organizational expertise for design, development, and management. Many academic institutions worldwide aim to generate an IS curriculum that produces graduates with solid foundation in IS and equipped with the skills that make them readily employable. However, all aspects of the computing fields including IS are faced with great pressure from industry to train students on specific IT technology and skills. As a result, university level IS curricula need frequent updating to answer the need of industry and to remain effective. The highly competitive Information Systems field requires universities and colleges to train students on the use of the latest technologies. Some academic institutions are redesigning their curricula to include IT certifications into their curricula. This process provides graduates with a solid foundation in IS and one or more IT certificate. Businesses today need college graduates to make an impact and become productive employees almost immediately after joining the work force. Information Systems (IS) programs are accredited by oversight bodies to determine whether the program provides quality education (Lidtke & Yaverbaum, 2003; Lunt, Lawson, Goodman, & Helps, 2002). Currently, ABET (Computing Accreditation Commission, 2004) is the accreditation body with responsibility for accrediting all programs in the computing field. The Computing Accreditation Commission (CAC) is responsible for the accreditation of IS programs. The IS 2002 model curriculum provides recommendation for the core IS curriculum to meet ABET criteria. While ABET specifies the 120 credit hours for the Bachelor degree, IS 2002 addresses 33 credit hours only. Currently, there is a move by a number of colleges and universities to form partnership with IT vendors such as Microsoft and Cisco to provide hands-on experience that prepares students for successful entry into the job market and to sit for Industry Certification exams (Houston, Blesse, & Herrod, 2005). Many employers are looking for IS graduates to acquire certification in addition to their Bachelor degree. IS graduates can demonstrate that they have the necessary skills to be productive by acquiring one or more appropriate IT certificates. The IEEE and ACM recognize the importance of the IT certifications and provide their members with over four hundred online courses leading to technical certifications. In this paper, an IS model curriculum that addresses accreditation requirements and certification needs is proposed. The model addresses all ABET criteria, which provide recommendations for general education (GE), IS environment, major core courses, major electives and general elective courses. The model curriculum uses the IS 2002 report (Gorgone, Davis, Valacich, Topi, Feinstein, & Longenecker, 2002) to implement the IS core courses. The model also provides a framework to integrate IT certification in IS courses at various levels of the curriculum. n example of how to use the proposed model curriculum is developed. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The second section lists the criteria for accrediting IS programs. The third section introduces the IS 2002 recommendations for curriculum development and addresses some of the implementations issues. The fourth section discusses the proposed comprehensive IS curriculum. The fifth and sixth sections discuss embedding IT certification into the IS curriculum. The seventh section presents an example of how to implement the model curriculum. Finally the eighth section is the conclusion. ABET Criteria for Accrediting IS Programs ABET, a recognized accreditor for college and university programs in applied science, computing, engineering, and technology, is a federation of 30 professional and technical societies representing these fields. Among the most respected accreditation organizations in the U.

CHANGES OF BAETE’S ACCREDITATION MANUAL FOR BACHELOR’S DEGREE PROGRAMS IN ENGINEERING IN BANGLADESH

Accreditation has recognized itself worldwide as the key appliance for quality assurance in engineering education, Beginning with the pioneering efforts of Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology ABET [14], USA, and countries are approaching under the shade of the Washington Accord [7]. Accreditation includes a two-stage process, self-assessment and peer evaluation; the essential changes are highlighted. In the last two decades, an explosive growth in the number of institutions offering engineering programs has been detected. This unprecedented growth obviously led to several problems with regard to quality of engineering education. In order to ensure the quality of engineering education, the Institution of Engineers, Bangladesh (IEB) to formulate the criteria or standards, by which individual programs in any engineering institution can be evaluated [5]. Bangladesh has engaged a big leap forward in the area of engineering education by becoming a provisional member of the Washington Accord through the Board of Accreditation for Engineering and Technical Education (BAETE) [3]. As per the requirement the Institution of Engineers, Bangladesh (IEB)  has revised the procedures and criteria of accreditation to bring it to international standards. The new procedures and criteria of accreditation came to effect from 1st January 2020. This paper presents the changed part of accreditation of the BAETE.  Article visualizations

A Brief History of Engineering Technology and a Case for Applied Engineering

This paper will present a brief history on Engineering Technology. It will then make the case why the four-year programs should be called “Applied Engineering.Cockrell School of Engineerin

Design and Implementation of Performance Metrics for Evaluation of Assessments Data

The objective of this paper is to design performance metrics and respective formulas to quantitatively evaluate the achievement of set objectives and expected outcomes both at the course and program levels. Evaluation is defined as one or more processes for interpreting the data acquired through the assessment processes in order to determine how well the set objectives and outcomes are being attained. Even though assessment processes for accreditation are well documented but existence of an evaluation process is assumed. This paper focuses on evaluation process to provide insights and techniques for data interpretation. It gives a complete evaluation process from the data collection through various assessment methods, performance metrics, to the presentations in the form of tables and graphs. Authors hope that the articulated description of evaluation formulas will help convergence to high quality standard in evaluation process

How the new architectural engineering program criteria differs from the new civil engineering program criteria

There are 17 ABET accredited architectural engineering (AE) programs in the country and over 200 civil engineering (CE) programs. To gain accreditation, a program must meet the ABET general criteria common to every engineering program and specific criteria that are unique to an individual program. The American Society of Civil Engineers is the lead professional society in this effort for both CE and AE programs. Recently the Civil Engineers rewrote and implemented the Civil Engineering ABET Program Criteria to incorporate changes in the ABET general criteria, the publication of the Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge I, and the work accomplished on ASCE Policy 465. This year, a subcommittee of the Architectural Engineering Institute Academic Council rewrote the ABET Program Criteria for Architectural Engineering (AE) Programs. In the process, the writers consulted many of the same documents used by the civil engineers and faced many of the same issues. On some of these issues, the AE community chose to follow the same path as the civil engineers and on other issues chose an alternative path. This paper examines the new AE Program criteria and reports on the issues and decisions that were made to create it. Comparisons are made with the existing program criteria and the new civil engineering program criteria. The issues include the recognized sub-disciplines of architectural engineering, the minimum degree of attainment in each sub-discipline, the role of architecture, the role of design, the need for flexibility to preserve the uniqueness of the various programs, and the minimum requirements for math, science and engineering fundamentals. The CE Division will hopefully benefit from seeing the similar challenges in developing program criteria faced by a totally different group and the decisions they reached