AC 2008-2966: A FRAMEWORK FOR SUBSTANTIAL ABET ACCREDITATION OF AN INTERNATIONAL CIVIL ENGINEERING PROGRAM Suleiman Ashur, Indiana University - Purdue University Fort Wayne Khaled El-Sawy, United Arab Emirates University Essam Zaneldin, Indiana University Purdue University Fort Wayne Page 13.41.1 Page © American Society for Engineering Education, 2008 A Framework for Substantial ABET Accreditation of an International Civil Engineering Program Abstract The United Arab Emirates University (UAEU) is the national university of the United Arab Emirates. The UAEU is the largest public university in the country, serving about 14,000 students. The College of Engineering offers B.S. degrees in civil, computer, electrical, mechanical engineering, chemical, and petroleum engineering. The paper presents the framework developed for preparing the Civil Engineering program for substantial ABET accreditation. The paper discusses all direct and indirect program outcomes and a summary of the process to achieve these outcomes. In addition, the paper focuses on the major steps toward developing and achieving the curriculum assessment of the program. The paper will present the major step in integrating the program assessment tools by a comprehensive and sophisticated spreadsheet that lists all the curricula and course outcomes of each course in the program. It automatically imports the individual course outcome into the spreadsheet and provides outcome indices on whether program objectives and outcomes achieved or not. Discussion on challenges for developing and achieving the program outcomes will present. Recommendations and lessons learned from this process to help other Civil Engineering programs in general and international program in particular in achieving accreditation will be presented. Page 13.41.2 Page Introduction The United Arab Emirates University (UAEU) like other international universities in developing countries is striving to improve the quality of higher education by several means. One approach is being used successfully is international accreditation of their academic institutions. In Turkey, for example, the universities purse accreditation by either the English institutional accreditation system, FEANI or the American Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET)1. The choice in the UAE was to pursue ABET accreditation as a vehicle to meet its standards and improve the engineering higher education in the country. However, the new ABET 2000 criteria for accreditation made the process more demanding by shifting the focus of accreditation from “teaching” to “learning.” 2 In addition, achieving an effective outcome assessment plan and meeting ABET’s Engineering Criteria 2000 requires flexibility from the faculty member to learn and apply the new process and adjust to continues nature of the new criteria 3. One factor of concern to faculty members is that working load at international universities is cumbersome. The faculty members are required to teach a minimum of 12 credit hours, conduct scholarly research and do services. Research and good teaching are two critical elements that influence faculty annual evaluation and promotion. The work requirement without any major incentives for faculty members makes it very hard to actively participate in the assessment process. Therefore, it is very important to make the process as simple and systematic as possible to encourage faculty to actively participating in the assessment plan. In addition, the process should be efficient and effective for assessing course and program outcomes. The UAEU is the national university of the United Arab Emirates. The UAEU is the largest public university in the country, serving about 14,000 students. The College of Engineering offers B.S. degrees in six engineering programs (civil, computer, electrical, mechanical engineering, chemical, and petroleum) with ABET substantial equivalency recognition 4. The Civil Engineering programs as well as other programs were scheduled for ABET review in 2004. At the beginning, the assessment process is centralized and developed by the college. Therefore, each department shall adapt the process. However, faculty members found the process to be overly complicated and time-consuming. It was decided to change the process to be effective and not to increase the workload of the faculty 2 and conduct the process at the department level while reporting the process to the college committee for quality control purposes. Framework for the Program Assessment The department educational outcomes were adopted to be the same as ABET outcomes. Table 1 maps the relationship between the program outcomes and program educational objectives for the department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the UAEU. The Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering has established a well defined process for outcomes assessment in order to ensure that its graduates achieve the program educational objectives. Figure 1 presents the framework of the process established for the program outcomes assessment. 13.41.3 Page Selecting the tools for assessment is very critical. Some argue for the use of direct tools like exams and homework; others like the indirect tools of conducting surveys. However a balance of effective direct and indirect tools should be used. A recent study to evaluate assessment tools for computer science found that exit surveys, external advisory panels and alumni surveys are used the most in this area 5. Probably programs in computer science prefer this method because of the time and effort needed by other assessment tools. The process used in the civil engineering program at UAEU is to adopt eight assessment tools to assess the program outcomes. These eight assessment tools are divided into direct and indirect tools. The direct tools include Curriculum Assessment, Exit Exam, and Capstone Course. The indirect tools include Internship Advisor Survey, Industrial Advisory Board Survey, Students Exit Interview, Alumni Survey, and Employer Survey. The objective of this paper is to present in details the framework developed for the curriculum assessment. Figure 1: CE Program Outcome Assessment Framework Page 13.41.4 Page Table 1: Relationship between Program Outcomes and Program Educational Objectives CE Program CE Program Educational Objectives Outcomes* 1. Graduate students with knowledge of engineering principles and theories necessary for application in civil engineering projects. A, J 2. Develop students’ capabilities towards innovation and creativity in C, E engineering design. 3. Develop students’ computer skills to a highly competent level. K 4. Enhance students’ ability to communicate effectively. G 5. Enable students to conduct experimental work effectively. B 6. Enable students to improve their team-working skills, and to achieve life-long learning habits. D, I 7. Help students to develop a positive attitude towards ethical, social, and environmental issues relevant to the engineering profession. F, H * ABET 6 outcomes are: Engineering programs must demonstrate that their students attain the following outcomes: (a) an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering (b) an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data (c) an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability (d) an ability to function on multidisciplinary teams (e) an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems (f) an understanding of 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, economic, environmental, and societal context (i) a recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning (j) a knowledge of contemporary issues (k) an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice. Curriculum Assessment The curriculum assessment process cumulates the individual contribution from all courses in the CE program to the program outcomes in order to assess the contribution of the entire curriculum to the program outcomes. The flowchart of this process is outlined in Figure 2. By mapping the program outcomes to the program objectives, as shown in Table 1, recommendations could be made at the end of the process to improve the program outcomes as well as the program educational objectives. The process then starts all over again, and continues on. The following 13.41.5 Page sections describe the assessment process in more details and present illustrative examples. Figure 2: CE Curriculum Assessment Framework Course Assessment Forms The process starts by developing the Course Syllabus (Form 1). The course syllabus contains the course outcomes mapped to the program outcomes. The measure for assessment is the Course Assessment Form (CAF) (Form 2-a) where the course objectives and outcomes are listed and mapped to the program outcomes, as shown in Figure 3. The form lists three performance measures: students (S), Faculty (F), and Quantitative (Q). A) Measuring Course Outcomes The course outcomes are measured using three indices: Student Assessment, Faculty Assessment, and Quantitative Assessment. 13.41.6 Page Student Assessment of the Course: By the end of each semester, students evaluate the course using the Students Assessment