ABET Acreditation

In this page you can find readings related to the ABET acreditation project. The repository is organized as follows:

• General Information
• Outcomes and attributes
• Assessment methods

Some documents may be placed in more than one section according to the topics they develop. This list of documents does not pretend to be fully comprehensive but it may point the reader to related material to improve the understanding of the accreditation process. Even though documents are listed without any special order, the most relevant ones for the accreditation process at Javeriana University and highlighted.

Authorized users of this wiki are welcome to add more material to complete this page. We strongly advice to add a short description for each document to ease the reading and the maintenance of the page.

• ABET web page http://www.abet.org/accreditation/ provides the general setting for the accreditation process. The reader can find in this site:
  • The importance of the accreditation process
  • Accreditation criteria
  • Policies and procedures

• Criteria for accreditation process for computer science may be found here
• A succinct description of the accreditation process and the general model of the assessment can be found in “R. Felder and R. Brent. Designing and Teaching Courses to Satisfy the ABET Engineering Criteria” (web-site). This paper also clarifies the terms and vocabulary associated to the ABET accreditation process.

• Student outcomes (A-K) are defined in a general way for all engineer program and they are available here
• Student outcomes can be defined in different ways according to the specific characteristics of the academic programs. Each program has to define precisely how the outcomes are understood. This helps to define an assessment methodology for courses. In the following list the reader can find different descriptions for the outcomes and they attributes:
  • CDIO: The CDIO syllabus (webpage, Syllabus document ) organizes the outcomes in a hierarchy of 3 levels giving a detailed description of what is expected from the student to achieve the goal (see Appendix B). Since the CDIO outcomes are not exactly the same as the ones defined in ABET, CDIO provides a matrix correlating both definitions (see Figure 4).
  • “Mary Besterfield-Sacre et al. Defining the Outcomes: A Framework for EC-2000”. (PDF). Describes the methodology to define outcome attributes. This paper relates learning taxonomies and outcomes attributes. It also presents a comprehensive description of the outcomes. Furthermore, in this page, a updated list of the attributes is available.
  • La universidad de los Andes defines here the attributes for each program outcome.
  • “N. Mourtos. A Sustainable, Systematic Process for Continuous Programme Improvement” (PDF) gives some examples of attributes of program outcomes and how to implement them in courses.
  • http://www.engr2.pitt.edu/~ec2000/ec2000_attributes.html (Outcomes and performance indicators according to Bloom's taxonomy).
  • This document presents an initial attempt to define the attributes for the Computer Science program at Universidad Javeriana Cali.
  • University of Delaware: College of Engineering characterizes here the levels of achievement of each outcome (follow the link of each outcome).
  • Iowa State University: Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering provides here a guide to interpret the outcomes and strategies to attain them.
  • Texas A&M University gives here a detailed description of the outcomes.
  • St. Cloud State University: Department of Mechanical & Manufacturing Engineering presents here a detailed description of the outcomes.
  • University of Nevada, Reno tailors the ABET outcomes to Comp. Science. This work is available here
  • State University of New York - Bonghampton: Department of Mechanical Engineering provides here a description of the program outcomes.
  • This document defines the modules to be evaluated by ICFES in the SaberPRO tests. The observable behaviors expected for each outcome are described.
  • Illinois Institute of Technology details here the outcomes for the BSc. in Computer Science.
  • California State Univ tailors the ABET outcomes to a computer science setting here.
  • The Appendix I in this document of the California State University describes the ABET outcomes for the computer science program. This document also provides the matrix of curricula integration.
  • The ACM Computer Science Curricula 2013 Strawman (Draft) states three levels of mastery for each knowledge area. These levels correspond to Knowledge (K), Application (A) and Evaluation (E). This may help to define course objectives and also to identify attributes in program outcomes.
  • Florida Institute of Technology gives here the definition of outcomes for the computer science program.
  • Ohio University, Measurable Course Outcomes to Support the Program Outcomes and Objectives (PDF): an example of outcomes and attributes from mechanical engineering.

• “D. Haws. Ethics Instruction in Engineering Education: A (Mini) Meta-Analysis” ( PDF): presents a survey on pedagogical approaches used to transfer an understanding of ethics to the student.

The assessment of the program and courses is the most critical phase in the accreditation process. Showing evidence of the attainment of the program objectives and outcomes leads to use indirect (e.g., surveys, reports, etc) and direct (e.g., student grades) evaluation instruments. The following documents show approaches to carry out this phase of the process.

• “R. Felder and R. Brent. Designing and Teaching Courses to Satisfy the ABET Engineering Criteria” (web-site) clarifies the terms and vocabulary associated to the ABET assessment process. The paper reports a comprehensive list of references related to this subject.
• “Assessment Tips with Gloria Rogers, Ph.D. Death By Assessment” ({{::abet:death-by-assessment.pdf|PDF}) gives practical tips to take into account in the assessment process. It reports on the balance between direct and indirect methods of assessment. It also gives a good guidance on how to make practical and effective the process.
• “Gloria Rogers. Do Grades Make the Grade for Program Assessment?” (available here) explains how much we can obtain from student's grades for the assessment of the program.
• The Computer Science Department at Iowa State University defines in PDF the approach to carry out the assessment of the program. The cycles of the assessment are described along with the instruments to evaluate the attainment of the objectives.
• “Grading vs. Assessment of Learning Outcomes: What’s the difference? ,Carnegie Mellon University,(available here) is a nice reflection on the differences between grading and assessment.
• “M. Trevisan et al. Designing Sound Scoring Criteria for Assessing Student Performance” (PDF) gives some advices on how to deal with performance assessment, more specifically, with the development of scoring criteria.

• Stanford University, Rubrics (PDF): Performance assessments require the use of a standardized scoring procedure usually involving a rubric. A rubric is a matrix that identifies the expected outcomes of performance on task with the respective levels of performance along those outcomes. This document gives a good example on how to build rubrics.
• Carnegie Mellon University: Final Assessment (PDF) gives an example of a Final Assignment rubric.

• Setting Up and Maintaining A Strong Industrial Advisory (Raymond Greenlaw). Practical advices to guide to work of the industry board.