DRAFT [FINAL] STATEMENTMINORUNIVERSITY

Accreditation Board For Engineering And Technology

ENGINEERING ACCREDITATION COMMISSION

Draft and Final Statement Formats

For 2005-06 Interim Visits and Interim Reports

MinorUniversity

INSTRUCTIONS

Introduction and Discussion of Statement Construct

[THE ORDER FOR LISTING SHORTCOMINGS IS THAT OF THE ORIGINAL REPORT. IF IT WAS AN INSTITUTIONAL WEAKNESS IN THE ORIGINAL REPORT, LIST IT UNDER INSTITUTIONAL WEAKNESSES IN THIS REPORT. THE CURRENT FINDING DOES NOT DICTATE THE POSITION OF THE FINDING FOR THIS REPORT.]

The Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) has evaluated the [program list] engineering program(s) at [NAME OF INSTITUTION] relative to shortcomings identified during the 2003-04 [INSERT APPROPRIATE YEARS] general EAC review [FOR INTERIM REVIEW FOLLOWING A PREVIOUS INTERIM ACTION INSERT: shortcomings remaining after the 2003-04 interim review].

[THIS PARAGRAPH IS USED IN THE DRAFT STATEMENT ONLY.] This statement is a draft summary of the EAC interim evaluation. [IF THERE IS AN INSTITUTIONAL SECTION, INCLUDE: The first part covers the overall institution and its engineering operation; the second covers the individual engineering program(s).] [FOR INTERIM VISITS ONLY INCLUDE: This draft statement reflects any corrections of factual errors provided by MinorUniversity in its 14-day response. Information included with the 14-day response will be considered during due process.]

[THIS PARAGRAPH IS USED IN THE FINAL STATEMENT ONLY] This statement is the final summary of the EAC interim evaluation. It includes information received during due process, including information submitted with the 14-day response, if any. [IF THERE IS AN INSTITUTIONAL SECTION, INCLUDE: The first part of the statement covers the overall institution and its engineering operation; the second covers the individual engineering program(s).] Its format allows the reader to discern both the original visit [or report review] findings and subsequent progress made during due process.

A program’s accreditation action will be (use “is” in final statement) based upon the findings summarized in this statement. Actions will (delete “will” in final statement) depend on the program’s range of compliance or non-compliance with the criteria. This range can be construed from the following terminology:

  • Deficiency: A criterion is not satisfied. Therefore, the program is not in compliance with the criteria and immediate action is required.
  • Weakness: A criterion is satisfied but lacks the strength of compliance that assures that the quality of the program will not be compromised prior to the next general review. Therefore, remedial action is required to strengthen compliance with the criteria.
  • Concern: A criterion is currently satisfied; however, the potential exists for this situation to change in the near future such that the criterion may not be satisfied. Therefore, action is required to ensure continued full compliance with the criteria.
  • Observation: A comment or suggestion that does not relate directly to the accreditation action but is offered to assist the institution in its continuing efforts to improve its programs.

INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES

Institutional Strengths [optional for interim visits, not included for interim reports]

1.Special, unique, or particularly conspicuous strengths.

2.

Institutional Deficiencies (In numerical order, only for those criteria in which deficiencies were noted in the previous evaluation.)

1.Criterion W. Criterion TitleCite the previously identified deficiency and describe it in italics; use specific wording indicating that the citation is from the previous review, such as, “The previous review cited…” The previous statement may be either quoted directly or summarized.

Summarize findings of the visit or report.

A.For Draft Statement (Team Chairs Only)

For Interim Visit / For Interim Report
Insert bullet for 14-day response and provide summary; indicate response, including “none”
/ N/A
Insert bullet—“The deficiency remains unresolved.” / Insert bullet—“The deficiency has been resolved.” / Insert bullet—“The deficiency is now cited as a weakness (or concern).”
Continue / End of commentary for Criterion W / Continue / Continue

B.For Final Statement (Team Chairs only)

For Interim Visit or Interim Report
Insert bullet for Due Process Response and provide summary; indicate response, including “none”
Insert bullet—“The deficiency remains unresolved.” / Insert bullet—“The deficiency has been resolved.” / Insert bullet—“The deficiency is now cited as a weakness (or concern).”
Insert “boilerplate” language for each unresolved shortcoming. “The deficiency (or weakness, but not concern) remains and will be the focus of the next review. In preparation for the review, the EAC anticipates…”

2.Criterion X. Criterion TitleRepeat as above for any additional deficiencies.

Institutional Weakness(es) (In numerical order of criteria, only for those criteria in which weaknesses were noted in the previous evaluation.)

1.Criterion Y. Criterion TitleCite the previously identified weakness and describe it in italics. Use specific wording indicating that the citation is from the previous review, such as, “The previous review cited…” The previous statement may be either quoted directly or summarized.

Summarize findings of visit or report.

A.For Draft Statement (Team Chairs only)

For Interim Visit / For Interim Report
Insert bullet for 14-day response and provide summary; indicate response, including “none”
/ N/A
Insert bullet—“The weakness remains unresolved.” / Insert bullet—“The weakness has been resolved.” / Insert bullet—“The weakness is now cited as a concern (or deficiency).”
Continue / End of commentary for Criterion Y / Continue / Continue

B.Final Statement (Team Chairs only)

For Interim Visit or Interim Report
Insert bullet for Due Process Response and provide summary; indicate response, including “none”

Insert bullet—“The weakness remains unresolved.” / Insert bullet—“The weakness has been resolved.” / Insert bullet—“The weakness is now cited as a concern (or deficiency).”
Insert “boilerplate” language for each unresolved shortcoming. “The weakness (or deficiency, but not concern) remains and will be the focus of the next review. In preparation for the review, the EAC anticipates…”

2.Criterion Z. Criterion TitleRepeat format as above for any additional weaknesses.

Institutional Concern(s) (Institutions may choose whether to address previous concerns during an interim review. Comments should be provided in numerical order, only for those criteria in which concerns were both noted in the previous evaluation and have been addressed by the institution.)

1.Criterion XX. Criterion TitleCite the previously identified concerns in italics using specific wording indicating that the citation is from the previous review. The previous statement may be either quoted directly or summarized. Summarize findings of visit or report.

A.For Draft Statement (Team Chairs only)

For Interim Visit / For Interim Report

Insert bullet for 14-day response and provide summary; indicate response, including “none” / N/A
Insert bullet—“The concern remains unresolved.” / Insert bullet—“The concern has been resolved.”
Continue / End of commentary for Criterion XX / Continue

B.Final Statement (Team Chairs only)

For Interim Visit or Interim Report
Insert bullet for Due Process Response and provide summary; indicate response, including “none.”

Insert bullet—“The concern remains unresolved.” / Insert bullet—“The concern has been resolved.”

Institutional Observations

1.List observations in order, typically without reference to criteria.

PROGRAM A

Follow the same outline and format as for the institutional section: Introduction, Strengths, Deficiencies, Weaknesses, Concerns, and Observations. In the Introduction, please provide information about the program that will help the next program evaluator understand the context of the statement comments (e.g., program size, number of faculty, recent changes in administration).

PROGRAM B

Etc.

1

DRAFT (OR FINAL) STATEMENTMINORUNIVERSITY

Accreditation Board For Engineering And Technology

ENGINEERING ACCREDITATION COMMISSION

MINORUNIVERSITY

Bay Town, ME

DRAFT (FINAL) STATEMENT

Visit Dates: October xx-yy, 20zz

[OR FOR INTERIM REPORTS: Report submitted: insert date]

Introduction

The Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) has evaluated the rocket engineering program at Minor University relative to shortcomings identified during the 2003-04 general EAC review [FOR INTERIM REVIEW FOLLOWING A PREVIOUS INTERIM ACTION INSERT: shortcomings remaining after the 2003-04 interim review].

[THIS PARAGRAPH IS USED IN THE DRAFT STATEMENT ONLY.] This statement is a draft summary of the EAC interim evaluation. [IF THERE IS AN INSTITUTIONAL SECTION, INCLUDE: The first part covers the overall institution and its engineering operation; the second covers the individual engineering program(s).] [FOR INTERIM VISITS ONLY INCLUDE: This draft statement reflectsany corrections of factual errors provided by MinorUniversity in its 14-day response. Information included with the 14-day response will be considered during due process.]

[THIS PARAGRAPH IS USED IN THE FINAL STATEMENT ONLY] This statement is the final summary of the EAC interim evaluation. It includes information received during due process, including information submitted with the 14-day response, if any. [IF THERE IS AN INSTITUTIONAL SECTION, INCLUDE: The first part of the statement covers the overall institution and its engineering operation; the second covers the individual engineering program(s).] Its format allows the reader to discern both the original visit [or report review] findings and subsequent progress made during due process.

A program’s accreditation action will be (use “is” in final statement) based upon the findings summarized in this statement. Actions will (delete “will” in final statement) depend on the program’s range of compliance or non-compliance with the criteria. This range can be construed from the following terminology:

  • Deficiency: A criterion is not satisfied. Therefore, the program is not in compliance with the criteria and immediate action is required.
  • Weakness: A criterion is satisfied but lacks the strength of compliance that assures that the quality of the program will not be compromised prior to the next general review. Therefore, remedial action is required to strengthen compliance with the criteria.
  • Concern: A criterion is currently satisfied; however, the potential exists for this situation to change in the near future such that the criterion may not be satisfied. Therefore, action is required to ensure continued full compliance with the criteria.
  • Observation: A comment or suggestion that does not relate directly to the accreditation action but is offered to assist the institution in its continuing efforts to improve its programs.

Institutional Strengths

1.The college seeks to provide a broad-based, value-sensitive educational experience for its graduates, and the college is particularly commended for recruiting and enrolling outstanding high school graduates.

2.The College of Engineering has instituted an engineering fee that is paid by all of its junior- and senior-level students. This regular source of income strengthens the budget for computing and laboratory facilities and for modern engineering software.

Rocket Engineering

Program

Introduction

Rocket engineering is one of five programs in the College of Engineering. The program has eighty-five undergraduates and five faculty members.

Program Weaknesses

1.Criterion 1. StudentsThe previous review cited poor accessibility and poor operation of student academic and curricular advising. A transcript review showed that courses were often taken out of sequence and, in a few cases, a required course was not taken, due to poor communication between the advisors and the students.

The increase to five full-time faculty members and the hiring of a professional advisor have greatly improved the accessibility and operation of student advising. A transcript analysis showed that students took all program courses in prerequisite order. Student survey results showed that students recognize the improvement.

  • The weakness is resolved.

2.Criterion 2. Program Educational ObjectivesThe 2002-03 review noted that the program had published educational objectives that were based on the input of the program constituencies. However, the program evaluated achievement of objectives and made improvements in the program on an ad hoc basis only. A systematic process is required by Criterion 2d.

During the campus visit [in the interim report], the program faculty described a process that is in place that will demonstrate achievement of objectives, the results of which will be used for program improvement. However, the process is not yet complete, since survey results are still being analyzed.

  • The weakness remains.
  • Due-process response: The EAC acknowledges receipt of a report describing both the results of alumni and employer surveys and the program improvements that are to be implemented based on these results. Two changes have been made to courses offered in the spring semester. Based on the program's success with the previous ad hoc process, it is expected that program improvements will result from these and other proposed changes.
  • This shortcoming is now cited as a concern.

3.Criterion 3. Program Outcomes and AssessmentThe previous review identified the absence of documented assessment results for several of the (a)-(k) outcomes—specifically for the outcomes pertaining to lifelong learning, contemporary issues, and professional and ethical responsibility. Although student grades in the “Introduction to the Profession” course were claimed as documentation and measurement of these outcomes, no clear links between the student grades and the individual outcomes were established. No evidence was available that student grades used in this manner were an effective tool for identifying areas for improvement.

The program has implemented an evaluation process in which student reports and presentations in two courses are scored for attributes demonstrating lifelong-learning skills, understanding of professional and ethical responsibility, and knowledge of contemporary issues. Faculty and an industrial advisor do the scoring. The program has established a baseline for expectations on student performance in future evaluations.

  • The weakness is resolved.

1