ABET - FAQ

To help Physics faculty in getting ready for ABET

(last revised 1/25/2006)

Email additional questions to jamcneil@mines.edu

1. What is ABET?

Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) is the single engineering program accrediting agency officially recognized by the US Dept. of Education. ABET only accredits programs, not institutions. There are 8 programs (including Engineering Physics) at CSM which are ABET accredited, and each are visited periodically (2000 was CSM's last general review). The outcome of the accreditation visit for each program will be either (1) accredited until next general review (6 years), (2) enough weaknesses or deficiencies so that an interim visit (or report) is required ( 3 years), or (3) not accredited. The starting point for the visit is the Engineering Physics Self-study Report discussed below.

2. On what criteria will the Engineering Physics program be assessed?

Over the past decade ABET has significantly reformed its accreditation process. The evaluation criteria, called Engineering Criteria 2000 (EC2000), addresses virtually every aspect of the academic enterprise. Of particular focus has been EC2000 Criterion 3: 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, and analyze and interpret data.

(c) an ability to design a system, component or process;

(d) an ability to function on multidisciplinary teams;

(e) an ability to identify, formulate and solve engineering problems;

(f) an understand 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 to engage in lifelong learning;

(j) a knowledge of contemporary issues;

(k) an ability to use modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.

EC2000 Criterion 4 (Professional Component) requires programs to have minimum levels of training in mathematics, basic science, engineering topics (engineering science and design), and a complementary general education component. The concept of "design" is especially critical. ABET defines design as "... the process of devising a system, component, or process to meet desired needs. Engineering design is a decision-making process (often iterative), in which the basic sciences, mathematics, and the engineering sciences are applied to convert resources optimally to meet these stated needs."

3. How are we expected to show EC2000 compliance?

ABET requires each accredited program to demonstrate that these criteria are met through a specific multi-tiered process. Within this process and of particular interest to the faculty are the processes for determining and verifying the achievement of the Educational Program Objectives and Program Outcomes consistent with EC2000.

(Note: Institutions are permitted to define their own terminology as CSM did in 2000. However, for 2006 CSM has decided to adopt ABET terminology.)

At the highest level the Educational Program Objectives are the general qualities expected of our graduates to meet the needs of our "constituents", some industry, graduate schools, research labs, and, for our state-supported institution, the Colorado Commission for Higher Education. The program must define its constituents and a process for responding to their evolving needs as well as document this process. Program objectives are assessed generally through "post-tassel" measures such as alumni and employer surveys. The Engineering Physics Educational Objectives are closely related to the CSM Future Graduate Profile. Here are the Engineering Physics Objectives as they appear in the CSM 2005/2006 Undergraduate Bulletin, p. 82:

1. All engineering physics graduates must have the factual knowledge and other thinking skills necessary to construct an appropriate understanding of physical phenomena in an applied context.

2. All engineering physics graduates must have the ability to communicate effectively.

3. Throughout their careers engineering physics graduates should be able to function effectively in society.

At the next level the Program Outcomes are the graduate's skills and knowledge that arise from the educational activities of the program which lead to the achievement of the Program Objectives. The Program Outcomes are generally assessed through traditional "pre-tassel" measures such as senior design reports, exams, written and oral reports, senior exit interviews, etc.

Engineering Physics Program Outcomes

Each Engineering Physics graduate will:

Outcome 1(a). have depth of understanding in the fundamental disciplines of physics: mechanics, electromagnetism, thermal and statistical physics, and quantum mechanics;

Outcome 1(b) understand a broad array of diverse physical phenomena in terms of fundamental concepts;

Outcome 1(c) be able to design and implement an experiment or theoretical study to understand a physical phenomenon in an applied context;

Outcome 1(d) be able to apply scientific understanding and models of thinking in engineering physics contexts;

Outcome 1(e) be able to use fundamental physics in the design of a component, system, or process;

Outcome 2(a)be able to write a well-organized, logical, scientifically sound physics research paper or engineering physics report;

Outcome 2(b) be able to present effectively a well-organized, logical, scientifically sound, and audience-appropriate oral report on an applied physics topic;

Outcome 2(c) be able to communicate and present information electronically including the appropriate use of multimedia modes of communication;

Outcome 3(a) be able to work effectively in teams and exercise leadership at appropriate times in their careers;

Outcome 3(b) understand and appreciate the human dimensions of their profession, including the diverse social, cultural, economic, and international aspects of their professional activities; and

Outcome 3(c) demonstrate high standards of ethical and professional integrity in the conduct of their professional activities.

In addition to Engineering Physics Program Outcomes, ABET requires programs also meet the so-called "Professional Component" criteria which in addition to the design component discussed above includes breadth topics such as mathematics, basic science, humanities topics, and engineering science. These requirements are generally met through the common core as well as humanities and engineering science electives. Since the Physics Department is responsible for the basic physics core, we also have ABET reporting responsibilities through the institutional component.

At the next level are the Curriculum (what is to be taught) and Instruction (how it is to be taught) which are designed and implemented by the faculty to meet the Program Outcomes. Traditionally this is a coordinated sequence of courses (other experiences such as field session, coop, and international exchanges are included). Each course has a set of course learning objectives which support the overall Program Outcomes in some particular way. Most of the Engineering Physics courses have obvious connections to the Program Outcomes; others are more subtle. The course learning objectives are assessed through the traditional instruments of exams and written and oral reports. A January 2003 Journal of Engineering Education paper entitled Designing and Teaching Courses to Satisfy the ABET Engineering Criteria, by R. M. Felder and R. Brent describes in detail how to design the courses to satisfy the ABET Engineering Criteria. Of particular importance is the use of measurable activities in defining the course learning objectives (see Section III of the JEE paper).

In Criteria II ABET further requires that there be some process for continuous program improvement which would work through an assessment and feedback process for each tier discussed above. At the course level the instructor's assessment data for course learning objectives are evaluated and specific recommendations for improvements (either within the specific course or in an earlier course) are made. These recommendations are addressed by the program faculty and the cycle repeated. (ABET calls this "closing the feedback loop".) At the next level the Program Outcomes are assessed using, primarily, the assessment of the senior design experience since this comes at the end of the student's academic career and incorporates almost all of the EC2000 criteria to some degree. The Department also conducts alumni surveys at the 5-year point. This and other course assessments are reviewed at the bi-annual faculty retreat where specific recommendations for improvements are made. An evaluation of this assessment data by the faculty, the Undergraduate Council, and Department Head leads to recommendations and actions which should improve the program. Finally, the Program Educational Objectives are assessed through post-tassel surveys and the report of the External Visiting Committee (whose makeup is designed to fit our "constituents"). Recommended actions based on these data close the final feedback loop.

4. When will this happen?

Each ABET-accredited program at CSM must submit a Self-study Report (SSR) by mid-June. The first draft of our SSR is due (appropriately enough) April 1. Faculty will be asked to assist in the preparation of various parts of the report, such as descriptions of improvements to their courses, as needed. The SSR contains information on all aspects of the program: students, faculty, institution, facilities, budgets, curriculum, external relations, and management. Next the EVPAA meets with ABET in July to fix a date for the visit. All eight ABET-accredited programs will be visited at once. Typically, the visit is scheduled for sometime in October. Before the visit, a sampling of 6-8 Engineering Physics graduates from the class of 2006 will be selected and their transcripts pulled for a detailed audit. We will have an opportunity to annotate the transcripts before they go to the ABET examiner for Engineering Physics. During the visit the ABET examiner will review the program in detail. Of particular interest to EC2000 will be documented demonstrations of closing the assessment-feedback loop.

5. What do I need to do?

To prepare for this visit:

a. Each faculty member should be familiar with ABET and their general philosophy and terminology of outcome-based management.

b. Each faculty member should be familiar with the Engineering Physics Objectives, Outcomes, and Assessment Matrix as published on the web.

c. Each course instructor should have a clear set of published course learning objectives. If it is a course with design content, the instructor should identify the design objectives along with appropriate evidence (i.e. samples of student work).

d. Each course instructor should collect assessment data which can in principle be evaluated to determine the degree to which the course learning objectives are being met.

e. Each course instructor should evaluate the assessment data relative to the course objectives and make recommendations for course improvement which might involve actions by instructor himself, faculty teaching other courses, the DH, or administration.

f. All of the above must be documented for external review by the ABET examiner. Faculty already carry out most of the above activities. The new feature is that now this all must be documented. For this purpose each instructor will be asked to maintain a Course Notebook which, for each term the course is offered, will contain: (1) Course syllabus with well-identified course learning objectives, (2) a sampling of assessment data including but not limited to: exams, quizzes, reports, student evaluations, etc., (3) a brief (or not) analysis and evaluation of the assessment data, (4) recommendations for course improvement, and (5) an action plan with follow-up record of actions. To help faculty in this activity a "Course Post-delivery Review" template has been created which is available from Barbara. An example from the Fall 1999 delivery of PH200 is also available as an example (Fall99 PHGN200 Post-delivery Review example). Instructors will be asked to provide summaries of their course improvements to be incorporated into the Self-Study Report.

Email additional questions to jamcneil@mines.edu