Paper Authors

Abstract

NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract

Session 2149

TC2K–Lessons Learned from Evaluation Visits

Timothy L. Skvarenina School of Technology, Purdue University

Abstract The author has participated in two Technology Criteria 2000 (TC2K) accreditation visits and has found a general lack of understanding about how to prepare for a TC2K visit. This paper provides some insights into the TC2K requirements, focusing on the revised 2004 criteria, and suggestions that may help with developing a program for a department. Suggestions include ideas for development of the Educational Objectives and Program Outcomes, preparation of the self-study report, course outlines, the assessment process , and arrangement of the display materials. The opinions expressed in this paper are solely those of the author and should not be considered to represent an official ABET position.

Introduction With the adoption of TC2K for accreditation the Technology Accreditation Commission (TAC) of ABET requires accredited programs to define objectives and outcomes and to prove to the visitor that they are being met and that the program is being continually improved. TAC conducted TC2K pilot visits in 2001, which were followed by a two-year phase in for the new criteria. Institutions were able to choose to be accredited with the old or new criteria in 2002 and 2003; however, all accreditation visits by TAC will use TC2K beginning in 2004. In addition, the TC2K have been reorganized and modified for 2004.1 The new TC2K includes eight criteria:

1. Program Educational Objectives 2. Program Outcomes 3. Assessment and Evaluation 4. Program Characteristics 5. Faculty 6. Facilities 7. Institutional and External Support 8. Program Criteria

The Self-Study instructions2 provide guidance as to what must be included in the Self-Study report and the display materials, but experience from two visits has provided a number of lessons. In the next sections, we’ll consider the criteria and offer some suggestions to help make your visit go more smoothly.

Criteria 1 to 3 Criteria 1, 2, and 3 are closely related and form the heart of the continuous improvement process with

“Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright 2004, American Society for Engineering Education”

• Citation

• Format
  • APA
  • APA - LaTeX bibitem
  • MLA
  • MLA - LaTeX bibitem
  • Bibtex
  • EndNote - RIS

Skvarenina, T. (2004, June), Tc2 K–Lessons Learned From Evaluation Visits Paper presented at 2004 Annual Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah. 10.18260/1-2--13124