Council of Engineering Technology
TAC 2000 Information
For those of you not on the ETD listserver, the following e-mail was received from Fred W. Emshousen, TAC Chair, with news on the proposed changes to the TAC 200 criteria. It is posted here for your information.
TO: Engineering Technology Community
FROM: Fred W. Emshousen, TAC Chair
DATE: June 11, 1998
SUBJECT: Revised Draft Criteria
The Long-Range Criteria Committee has persisted with diligence this year in its efforts to
prepare new draft criteria for consideration by the Technology Accreditation Commission.
A number of initiatives have been taken to encourage review and comment by the
engineering technology community of the proposed draft which was distributed last summer.
The committee has carefully reviewed the comments, critiques, and recommendations
received to date. Recently they met and revised the draft to accommodate the
specifics and nature of the feedback and it is enclosed for your information. This
revised draft will be presented to the Technology Accreditation Commission in July as the
report of the committee.
There will be an opportunity at the ASEE Summer Annual Meeting for engineering technology
educators to have firsthand discussions of this revised draft. Therefore, in order
to make every effort to gain the maximum input from the engineering technology community,
I encourage your attendance at the sessions designated for this issue at the ASEE Summer
Annual Meeting. Additionally, comments are encouraged which can be sent to ABET
headquarters to the attention of Dan Hodge, Accreditation Director. It is our hope
that the TAC will benefit from further comment by the engineering technology community
which this distribution may elicit and further demonstrate the TAC's genuine commitment to
seeking guidance from the community in this endeavor.
Proposed Criteria for Accrediting Engineering
Technology
Programs
ABET accreditation is a voluntary process that helps to assure graduates of an accredited
program are prepared for careers in engineering technology. The process also aims to
stimulate the improvement of engineering technology education, encourage new and
innovative approaches to engineering technology education, and identify accredited
programs to the public.
Individual engineering technology programs rather than institutions are accredited.
Programs may be accredited at the associate degree level or at the baccalaureate
level. Differential criteria are specified where appropriate. In order for a program
to be accredited, all routes to completion of the program must be accreditable.
ABET accreditation means that a program falls within the set of desirable characteristics
established by ABET and its member bodies (the engineering societies). The criteria
are intended to accommodate program creativity and variability. Programs are
encouraged to adopt innovative procedures and approaches that meet the criteria and
improve the program.
The statement presented here is proposed for implementation beginning in 2001.
Criterion 1. Students and Graduates
An engineering technology program is expected to prepare graduates who:
a. demonstrate an appropriate mastery of the knowledge, techniques, skills and modern
tools of their disciplines,
b. apply current knowledge and adapt to emerging applications of mathematics, science,
engineering and technology,
c. conduct, analyze and interpret experiments and apply experimental results to improve
processes,
d. apply creativity in the design of systems, components or processes appropriate to
program objectives,
e. function effectively on teams,
f. identify, analyze and solve technical problems,
g. communicate effectively,
h. recognize the need for and possess the ability to pursue lifelong learning,
i. understand professional, ethical and social responsibilities,
j. recognize contemporary professional, societal and global issues and are aware of and
respect diversity, and
k. have a commitment to quality, timeliness and continuous improvement.
Criterion 2. Program Characteristics
EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES
The program content should provide an integrated educational experience designed to
develop the ability to apply pertinent knowledge to the solution of problems in the
engineering technology specialty of the graduate. The orientation of the technical
specialization should be manifested by faculty qualifications, program content, and
business and industry guidance.
CURRICULUM
Curricular requirements specify subject areas appropriate to engineering technology but do
not prescribe specific courses or number of credit hours. The engineering technology
faculty will assure that the curriculum devotes adequate attention and time to each
component, consistent with the objectives of the program and institution.
The technical content should focus primarily on the applied aspects of science and
engineering aimed at preparing graduates for practice in that portion of the technological
spectrum closest to product improvement, manufacturing,
construction and engineering operational functions.
Communications
The ability to plan, organize and prepare effective written and oral technical reports is
required. Graduates are expected to have the interpersonal skills required to work
effectively in teams. Graduates also need to be familiar with the literature of
their technology and encouraged to use it as a principal means of staying abreast of the
state of the art in their field.
Competence in this curricular area is normally achieved by a combination of instruction in
communications topics and by incorporating communications exercises into the technical
content of the program.
Mathematics
Algebra and trigonometry are the foundation mathematics for an associate degree program;
an introduction to higher level mathematics is also required. Calculus is the
mathematics foundation for baccalaureate programs. Students must demonstrate proficiency
in the application of the foundation mathematics in solving problems in technical course
work.
Physical and Natural Science
The required basic sciences portion of an engineering technology program may include
physics, chemistry, and the life and earth sciences in accordance with specific program
needs. Laboratory work, including experimentation, observation, measurement and
documentation is required.
Social Sciences/Humanities
Course work in this area is required and is intended to give students a broad perspective
to support their technical education. This component should supply an understanding
of diversity and the global and societal impacts of technology.
Technical Content
The technical content of a program is composed of a technical core and technical
specialties arranged with a logical progressive structure. Course work that provides the
core technical knowledge is prerequisite to higher level course work. Programs must
include capstone or other integrating experiences that draw together diverse elements of
the program.
The technical content must include elements in which the student acquires the skills,
knowledge, methods, procedures, and techniques associated with the discipline. Laboratory
course work, experiments, projects, and related activities should clearly reflect the
orientation of the program. Students are expected to become thoroughly familiar with the
use and operation of analytical or measurement equipment common to the discipline.
Student competence in the use of standard design practices, tools and techniques
suited to the discipline is required. Competence in computer applications
appropriate to the discipline and degree level is expected of all graduates and includes
the use of software for solving technical problems within technical courses.
Cooperative education used to satisfy curricular requirements requires an academic
component evaluated by the program faculty.
Criterion 3 Faculty
Institutions must demonstrate that the number and quality of the faculty are sufficient to
provide program continuity, proper frequency of course offerings and breadth of
perspective across the academic discipline. The overall competence and effectiveness of
the faculty are manifested by such factors as formal education, industrial experience,
professional certification, up-to-date knowledge of the subject matter, teaching
experience, teaching effectiveness, technical currency, publication and scholarly
activity, participation in professional societies, ability to communicate, extracurricular
support for student activities and similar attributes as appropriate to the goals of the
program.
QUALIFICATIONS
Faculty must have suitable educational backgrounds for the fields in which they teach.
A master's degree in engineering or engineering technology is considered to be the
appropriate terminal degree. A master's degree in an analytical field
closely-related to the program is also satisfactory. In associate degree programs,
professional registration combined with a closely-related baccalaureate degree is
acceptable.
The institution must demonstrate that faculty in the program are technically current and
have at least three years of industrial experience relevant to the field of instruction.
The institution must demonstrate that its program for professional development of
faculty is appropriate, well-planned, adequately-funded and effective.
QUANTITY AND LEADERSHIP
The institution must demonstrate that the number of faculty are adequate to support the
program. A program is expected to have a minimum of one full-time equivalent (FTE)
qualified faculty, plus one FTE additional qualified faculty for each two years of
curriculum offered. If a properly staffed program shares at least 50% of its
technical course work with a second program, the second program must have a minimum of one
FTE additional qualified faculty. Each program must have effective leadership through a
full-time faculty member with defined leadership responsibilities for the program.
EXCEPTIONS
In cases of exceptions to this criterion, it is incumbent upon the institution to
demonstrate the equivalence of leadership, faculty qualifications and faculty
effectiveness.
Criterion 4. Facilities
Adequate facilities and financial support are required for each program. Classrooms,
laboratories and associated equipment to accomplish the program objectives are essential
to provide an atmosphere conducive to learning.
Laboratory equipment, computers and software should be of the type that would be
encountered in industry and practice. Computing and information infrastructures,
including ready access to Internet resources and other electronic information
repositories, must be in place to support the scholarly activities of the students and
faculty and the educational objectives of the institution. Equipment catalogs,
professional magazines, journals and manuals of industrial processes and practices should
be available and used by technology students in addition to traditional library reference
material.
Criterion 5. Institutional and External Support
The institution must demonstrate that the administration is effective in the selection,
supervision and support of the faculty; selection and supervision of the students;
operation of the facilities for the benefit of the faculty and students; and
interpretation of the college to members of the profession and to the public.
Institutional support includes providing financial resources and
constructive leadership to assure the quality and continuity of the engineering technology
program. This includes resources sufficient to attract, retain and provide for the
continued professional development of a well-qualified faculty. Similarly, sufficient
resources to acquire, maintain, update and operate facilities and equipment appropriate
for the program, including adequate support personnel and institutional services, are
necessary. Procedures for student selection and advisement are required, and the
institution must maintain procedures to assure that every graduate has met all curricular
requirements. Procedures to assist students in finding employment upon graduation
are required.
An accredited program should incorporate guidance and support from the organizations that
ultimately will employ its graduates; therefore, an industrial advisory committee is
required. The committee should periodically review program offerings and content,
and provide direction about current and future needs of industry.
Criterion 6. Assessment
Programs must have written goals that as a minimum focus on the student body served,
employer expectations, resource allocation and other factors affecting the program.
Programs are required to have plans for continuous improvement and evidence that
the results are applied to further development and improvement of the program.
Each program is required to demonstrate achievements through various methods including
student outcomes assessment and employer feedback. Typical evidence may consist of
student portfolios including project work and activity based learning; results of
integrated curricula experiences; nationally-normed subject content examinations; recent
graduate surveys that demonstrate graduate satisfaction with employment including career
development activities, mobility opportunities, and appropriate job title; and employer
surveys that demonstrate satisfaction with recent graduates. Programs also must
demonstrate that their graduates are readily accepted into the workforce and are prepared
for continuing education.
Criterion 7. Program Criteria
Where applicable, each program must satisfy program criteria that amplify these general
criteria and provide the specificity needed for a given discipline. If a program, by
virtue of its title, becomes subject to two or more sets of program criteria, then that
program must satisfy the program criteria of each. ABET discourages the
proliferation of engineering technology program titles because different titles for
essentially the same program may be confusing to the public, students and employers.
Comments
on the Proposed Criteria
from
the TAC Long Range Criteria Committee
Introduction
The purpose of this document is to provide background and insight into the deliberations
of the Long Range Criteria Committee as we drafted new criteria for use in accrediting
engineering technology programs on behalf of the Technology Accreditation Commission of
ABET. The TAC charged the committee to "Develop a criteria for engineering
technology that will meet the needs and desires of the engineering technology community
for the future." In support of this objective, the committee endeavored to
write criteria that are shorter, simpler, more focused on continuous improvement, and with
greater emphasis on outcomes than are the current criteria. The new criteria
continue to provide guidance for essential inputs and processes with emphasis on improved
quality, program effectiveness and creativity. Overall, it is hoped that these
criteria will foster innovation and make accreditation attractive to additional programs
while continuing to ensure that graduates meet expected professional standards.
While the new criteria support the same goals for engineering technology as the existing
criteria, there are distinct differences. One change is the absence of
"philosophical" statements (i.e., objectives or rationale for a particular
criteria element) currently in the TAC criteria. Much of the abbreviation in the proposal
comes from removing statements that are not criteria.
The document's organization has been set up with each important facet of the evaluation
covered in a separate section. The structure was created with seven topics that map
relevant portions of the current TAC criteria into the new format. The focus of the
criteria moved from the current strong attention to program elements to a view that also
considers student and graduate characteristics.
There has been significant sentiment for eliminating as much "bean counting" as
possible. For example, the second criterion is concerned with program
characteristics and continues to specify curricular elements, but without mandating how
many credit hours must be attached to each one. Although a considerable amount
of structure remains, there should be much more room for customization and innovation.
The committee envisions a much different accreditation process using the new criteria than
exists currently. The same strict quantitative rules that now help to make the
evaluation process easier can also severely limit program flexibility. The new
process will necessarily have to consider the balance of strengths and weaknesses rather
than relying on a checklist for decision making. We fully recognize that this aspect
will have to be managed carefully and will require considerable training for evaluators,
programs and institutions to be successful. In the spirit of simplicity and balance, the
committee did not envision the use of the code words "require",
"recommend", or "suggest" to convey some level of necessity for
corrective action. Likewise, we did not intend to imply different levels of
importance by the use of the various words "must", "should",
"shall", etc., in the criteria. The expectation is that programs will use
the advice from the review to make improvements. All of the criteria are important
or they would not be listed; none of the elements in isolation should be used to
disqualify an otherwise worthwhile program.
Additional insight into each of the new criterion is summarized below:
Criterion 1. Students and Graduates
This section was strongly influenced by its counterpart in EAC 2000 and is unchanged from
the draft circulated in 1997 except for minor editing for clarity. This section has
engendered few substantive comments in the review process. One point that was made
several times was that these attributes would be very difficult to address in the course
of a self-study or campus visit. Clearly, the commission and professional societies
will need to develop effective approaches to this problem for training sessions.
Criterion 2. Program Characteristics
The primary intent when drafting this section was to keep the applied nature of the
Engineering Technology Curriculum as we know it today completely intact. Therefore
much of the language from the existing criteria was used in the descriptions of each
component section. A component outline similar to the existing curriculum topic
outline was utilized in drafting the new criteria. When describing each component, an
attempt was made to describe the expectations as accurately as possible without
introducing numerical requirements. In addition, several of the phrases from the
currently accepted definitions for engineering technology were incorporated into the
descriptive text. To continue the overall "spirit of simplicity",
differential criteria for 2-yr. and 4-yr. programs was minimized. Finally, Criterion
2 was written to match the format and tone of the remainder of the document.
Criterion 3 Faculty
Based on commentary received by the committee during the public review, we revised
proposed Criteria 3 to include more guidance on faculty size and credentials. The
committee tried to keep the intent of the current criteria, but did some rewording
and shortening of the text. The committee felt that much of the text in the current
criteria is actually philosophy and procedures, which tend to make the criteria confusing.
We felt that criteria would be clarified if philosophy and procedures resided in a
separate document.
The tone of the proposed Criteria 3 is reflected in the opening sentence, which
states that institutions must show they have an adequate faculty to serve the program,
rather than showing only that they meet the numbers and credentials in the
criteria. However, numerical specifications have been added in portions of the
criteria where the committee felt them to be most useful. In developing and revising
Criteria 3, the committee avoided the term "basic credentials" to reduce
confusion between proposed criteria and current criteria. Compared to current
criteria, the wording has also been softened to allow institutions more latitude in
demonstrating effectiveness of faculty not meeting the specified characteristics. Rather
than devise wording to address specific categories of faculty, such as adjunct faculty,
faculty at remote sites, etc., the committee simplified the wording and wrote the proposed
criteria with the intent that it apply to all faculty in a program. Similarly,
the committee chose not to define what minimum proportion of faculty were to meet
credentials, but wrote the criteria to define the desirable characteristics of all faculty
in a program. We also included, in a more prominent sense than it enjoys in
the current criteria, the flexibility to allow the institution to demonstrate
equivalent effectiveness in situations where faculty do not appear to meet the
letter of the criteria.
The committee considered addressing other issues such as better defining
"industrial" experience, or more specifically defining how closely related to
the teaching field the faculty degrees should be; however, it was felt that
these issues related to faculty could be best left to program criteria developed by the
societies.
Criterion 4. Facilities
This section contains, in summary form, the thoughts regarding facilities which currently
appear in TAC/ABET criteria V.K. It is reworded and shorted to reflect the
style of the new proposed criteria. The importance of computing and the Internet is
emphasized in this update.
Criterion 5. Institutional and External Support
As with the rest of the document, this section attempts to state the principles
contained in the existing criteria more succinctly. Material was extracted from current
areas V.H. (Administration), V.J. (Industrial Advisory Committee) and V.K. (Financial
Support and Facilities). Little public comment has been received on this portion of
the proposed criteria.
Criterion 6. Assessment
Much this section comes from current criteria elements found in V.K.1. ("written
goals", "demonstrate achievement"), V.K.2. ("continuous
improvement" ) and V.I. (Satisfactory Employment). Examples of various means of
satisfying the criteria are provided to help clarify its intent.
Criterion 7. Program Criteria
None of the public comments received to date reference Criterion 7; apparently, it hasn't
been a major concern. The draft version, dated 7/24/97, contained a sentence
limiting program criteria to curricular topics. Upon further discussion and
comparison with the EAC Criteria 2000, the committee opted to remove this qualification.
Instead we expect to rely on the concept that the program criteria amplify
the general criteria and provide specificity but will not weaken or change the intent of
the general criteria.