Charlotte, North Carolina
June 20, 1999
June 20, 1999
June 23, 1999
4.563.1 - 4.563.9
UNDERSTANDING AND IMPLEMENTING ABET ENGINEERING CRITERIA 2000 Gerald S. Jakubowski, W. Thomas Calder Loyola Marymount University
The Engineering Accreditation Commission of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology has established new criteria for the accreditation of engineering programs. The new criteria, called Engineering Criteria 2000, are significantly different from the old criteria. In the past, the accreditation criteria focused almost entirely on resources and curriculum. In contrast, EC 2000 is a remarkably shorter, less prescriptive, much broader document that also focuses on processes and outcomes.
EC 2000 has eight criteria which apply to undergraduate engineering programs. Two of these, Criterion 2, Educational Program Objectives, and Criterion 3, Program Outcomes and Assessment, are central to the reform of engineering education. Focusing on academic processes, Criteria 2 and 3 require, among other things, that each program have in place a system of ongoing evaluation that demonstrates the achievement of educational objectives and program outcomes and applies the results to continuous improvement. This requirement for continuous improvement represents the most critical difference between the old criteria and EC 2000, and may well be the most difficult requirement for engineering programs to meet.
This paper discusses some of the new ABET requirements and the academic processes they call for, presents a model established at Loyola Marymount University which integrates these processes into a system for continuous improvement, comments on quality teaching and continuous improvement, and reviews some lessons learned from early attempts to implement EC 2000.
Processes: Linked, interactive sets of activities which, taken together, comprise a system of continuous program development, assessment and improvement.
Program Constituency: A group of people with common expectations of an educational program.
Constituencies’ Needs: Benefits which a program’s constituencies expect to realize in return for their investments in an educational program.
Program Educational Broad statements consistent with institutional missions and based on
Calder, W. T., & Jakubowski, G. W. (1999, June), Understanding And Implementing Abet Engineering Criteria 2000 Paper presented at 1999 Annual Conference, Charlotte, North Carolina. https://peer.asee.org/8008
ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 1999 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015