MANUAL OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES FOR PROGRAM EVALUATORS

Transcription

1 ABET Computing Accreditation Commission MANUAL OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES FOR PROGRAM EVALUATORS

2 FOREWORD A significant part of the work of the Computing Accreditation Commission is carried out by teams of program evaluators, each of which visits an institution that has requested an evaluation of one or more their computing programs. As a member of such a team, you are acting on behalf of the entire computing community and carry a serious responsibility at a high professional level, and therefore, are expected to provide: Careful preparation and skill to determine all important relevant facts; Breadth of outlook and sympathetic understanding of the institution's objectives and the relation of these objectives to the environment in which the institution operates; Sound judgment exercised wisely, sympathetically and objectively; Encouragement, where appropriate; A full sense of responsibility to professional ideals, the welfare of the institution, the Computing Accreditation Commission, ABET, Inc., and yourself, as a professional and an individual. As a program evaluator, you must be prepared to give considerable time and effort to your evaluation visit, and in return, you will have a unique experience that is challenging, stimulating, enjoyable, and rewarding.

3 1.0 INTRODUCTION ABET, Inc. has delegated to the Computing Accreditation Commission (CAC) the responsibility for evaluating and taking accreditation actions on baccalaureate programs in computing. CAC depends on expert, volunteer, visiting teams to carry out the essential information gathering and primary evaluation tasks. These teams perform the crucially important and fundamental evaluation that is the basis of the CAC/ABET accreditation process. This Manual of Evaluation Procedures is intended to provide information that will help you participate effectively as a program evaluator representing CAC/ABET, on single, simultaneous, or joint visits to institutions. Simultaneous visits occur when CAC is evaluating a computing program under its auspices at the same time that another commission is evaluating a different program(s) at the institution. Joint visits are conducted by combined teams of CAC and EAC evaluators, who evaluate the same program for dual accreditation. The official objectives and criteria for accreditation are included in the document entitled Criteria for Accrediting Computing Programs (Criteria). The Criteria are continuously revised and updated to incorporate appropriate changes suggested by our constituency. The Criteria document can be downloaded from the ABET Web site. The guiding principle for ABET procedures and CAC Criteria is to assure that graduates of an accredited program receive a sound computing education. Only those programs leading to a baccalaureate degree in computing are within the scope of CAC/ABET. Other degree programs containing small amounts of computing, though they may provide a good educational experience for the student, are not eligible for CAC/ABET accreditation. However, CAC/ABET will always give sympathetic consideration to wellconsidered experimentation and educational innovation in computing programs. Such programs must demonstrate outcomes that meet or exceed the intent of the Criteria. The campus visit is an essential event in the accreditation process and is scheduled during the fall. When an institution submits a request for an evaluation (RFE) of one or more of its computing programs, it makes a major commitment of resources to complete a Self- Study Questionnaire and prepare the material needed by the visiting team for a full evaluation of the program(s). Several weeks prior to the visit, each team member will receive from the institution a copy of a completed Self-Study Questionnaire, appropriate catalogs, related literature, and a representative sample of transcripts of recent program graduates. Thorough familiarity with this material prior to the visit is important for team discussions of the Criteria-related aspects of the program being evaluated. This Manual should provide you with sufficient background, reference material, and operational information to function effectively as a CAC program evaluator (PEV). The following sections provide a detailed overview of how you should prepare for a campus visit, what activities you are expected to carry out during the visit, and what reports you should submit after the visit.

4 1.1 ACCEPTANCE AND COMMITMENT As a program evaluator you are committing to a significant amount of work, some of which must be done prior to the visit. Experienced PEVs spend the equivalent of one week, spread over a four to five week period, on activities associated with the campus visit. When you agree to serve as a PEV on a visiting team, you make a serious commitment to do the pre-visit work, participate in the campus visit, gather and analyze data, and prepare reports. You should agree to serve only if you can keep this commitment. Upon being assigned to a visiting team, most PEVs have found it helpful to inform their supervisors of their planned participation in a CAC accreditation visit (without identifying the institution to be visited). This may result in a greater appreciation of your commitment, and possibly lay the groundwork for assistance with conflicting time demands. Once set, the visit date should not be changed. Therefore, having accepted an assignment to a visiting team, it is extremely important that you make a firm commitment to be present and serve as a member of the team, since it is very difficult to obtain an effective replacement on short notice. Barring unforeseen circumstances, your commitment to a CAC visiting team should take precedence over most other demands on your time. The importance of carrying out your commitment cannot be stated strongly enough, and is rivaled only by your obligation to complete the required reports on time. The timely submission of these reports is a key element in a sequence of important events in the accreditation process. 1.2 CONFIDENTIALITY AND DISCRETION As a member of a CAC visiting team, you are participating in a confidential process and will handle sensitive material. ABET has found that the credibility of CAC accreditation is significantly improved when the review process is conducted with a high level of confidentiality and discretion. The information supplied by the institution is for the confidential use of CAC and its agents. This information cannot be disclosed to any others without the specific written authorization of the institution. All discussions of the visiting team are kept confidential within the team. The Visit Report Forms completed by each PEV are for CAC use only. Copies of C061CS CS Visit Report Form, for computer science programs, and C061IS IS Visit Report Form, for information systems programs, can be downloaded from the ABET Web site. It is permissible to use to communicate among team members. Although you will have an opportunity to share your general impressions of the program's strengths and weaknesses with officials at the institution, you should never discuss your recommendations for a specific accreditation action with anyone except other members of your team, or the two CAC editors assigned to review the team s

5 findings. You should not become a consultant to an institution you have visited until after the next CAC accreditation visit is made to that institution. A major reason is that you may be needed if the institution appeals the ABET accreditation action or takes other steps later. No member of the visiting team is ever authorized to comment on recommendations for accreditation except through regular CAC/ABET channels. A team member must not disclose to the institution the visiting team s recommendation, since it is possible that the final CAC accreditation action will be different from the team s recommendation. The final accreditation action can only be made by CAC. When the final CAC action differs significantly from the recommendations of individual team members, the reasons will be explained by CAC, as appropriate. The sensitivity of any accreditation action makes it essential to maintain a high level of confidentiality. ABET annually publishes an official list of accredited programs. ABET volunteers should reference this list when outside inquiries are made. There must be no comment given about any program that is not on the accredited list. ABET does not list the names of the programs evaluated that did not receive accreditation. This information is considered to be strictly CONFIDENTIAL. 2.0 STEPS OF THE ACCREDITATION PROCESS A CAC visit is made only at the request of an institution. Although important, the campus visit is only one step in a long and complex accreditation process. To completely understand this, you need to relate the events of the campus visit to all others in the accreditation process. Each fall, information relative to the CAC/ABET accreditation process is sent to regionally accredited institutions in the United States that offer baccalaureate programs in computing. Requests for evaluating computing programs for accreditation (RFEs) are accepted until the end of January. At this time, all RFEs, which fall within the scope of CAC, are confirmed, and any special factors relating to a visit are identified. The institution is notified of the acceptance of their RFE, and preparation for the visit begins. The following are major events in the typical accreditation cycle: February-June June-August The institution completes the Self-Study Questionnaire, The institution is asked to pay an evaluation fee by August and to submit the Self-Study by July 1. A team chair is appointed by CAC/ABET and approved by the institution. The team chair and the institution agree upon the dates of the visit. CSAB assigns PEVs for the visit, and the team chair contacts them to confirm their availability to serve on the team. Once the PEVs have agreed to serve, and the institution approves their membership on the team, the

6 institution mails copies of the Self-Study, catalogs, copies of student transcripts and other relevant information to each team member. September-November The campus visit takes place and the Visit Report Forms and Draft Statement are written. Campus visits should be scheduled sufficiently in advance, usually no later than November to allow submission of all reports within 30 days after the visit, but no later than 15 November. December-February January-April May July-August Two CAC Editors review the Visit Report Forms and Draft Statement as submitted by the Team Chair. After final approval by the CAC Chair, the Draft Statement is forwarded to the institution. The institution has 30 days to exercise its right of Due Process by responding to the Draft Statement, correcting any errors of fact or observation, and certifying any post-visit remedial actions. The team chair prepares a Final Statement by adding a due process response analysis to the Draft Statement and making any necessary changes to the existing Draft Statement. At its annual summer meeting, CAC votes on the final accreditation action. By August 15, the accreditation action and the Final Statement, incorporating the original findings, changes since the visit and due process, and any continuing concerns for future evaluation, is finalized and sent to the institution. Normally, the team chair of a visiting team is a current or past member of CAC. The team chair acts as the official CAC/ABET representative to the institution being visited and assumes responsibility for arranging the visit; confirming the other team members; working with the institution to make sure all the necessary information is available for evaluation by the team; leading the visit; and completing all reports for the team, including the Visit Report Forms, the Draft Statement for Review and Comment to the Institution, the Program Evaluation Audit Form, and the Short Form. By the start of the visit, PEVs must be familiar with the Self-Study and all related literature supplied by the institution. It is also important to review any previous reports and actions, if applicable, that were sent to the institution as a result of a previous CAC visit. When available, this material is supplied by ABET staff. The team chair must plan to attend the annual CAC accreditation meeting, usually held in July, where all findings are discussed and accreditation recommendations are made. At this meeting, each team chair presents their team s report. A thorough, open discussion of

7 the program follows, and the team chair is given the opportunity to explain the accreditation recommendations made by the visiting team. 3.0 TEAM ORGANIZATION AND VISIT ARRANGEMENTS As soon as the team chair has been notified by CAC/ABET of the institution to be visited, he/she contacts the institution to arrange a visit date. The PEVs are then contacted to determine their willingness and availability to serve. The team chair then contacts the institution to seek its approval of the membership of the visiting team and arranges the logistics of the visit. The selection of the team should be completed several weeks before the scheduled date of the visit, in order that the institution can send all necessary materials to the PEVs well in advance of the visit. There are several different visit formats, which are designed to be responsive to special circumstances or needs. The most common are accreditation visits, which are either joint or simultaneous with an EAC visiting team and CAC, or CAC Focused Visits. CAC/ABET carefully selects a balanced team to include program evaluators with diversified backgrounds, so that the computing program can be evaluated thoroughly and fairly. Modifications of the normal visiting team complement (one team chair and two PEVs) may be necessary for dual accreditation, focused visits, or when a single program offers several real (or implied) options through alternative course requirements, alternative elective choices, or alternative satellite campus locations. In such cases, the team chair has the responsibility to ensure adequate evaluation of all curricular possibilities within multiple programs and at all permissible campus locations. If a larger team is deemed necessary, the team chair should discuss the situation with the institution and with the CAC Chair for agreement on the total number of PEVs required to ensure an objective and thorough evaluation. Each PEV will receive a set of materials and forms from the team chair, from ABET, and from the institution. At a minimum this material will include copies of the Self-Study prepared by the institution, a set of transcripts of recent graduates of the program under evaluation, copies of the institution catalog, a tentative schedule for the visit, general information about the institution, and details about the lodging arrangements that have been made for the visiting team. Program evaluators must make their own travel arrangements. Arrival should be planned for the day before the visit to discuss and develop an action plan. Often, the team arrives on Saturday evening, reviews course display materials on Sunday afternoon, holds a Sunday evening organization meeting, and conducts the campus visit on Monday and Tuesday. In other instances, the team arrives on Wednesday evening and departs on Friday evening or Saturday. Normally the campus visit lasts two full days. Travel arrangements should allow enough time to complete all campus activities, hold an Exit Interview on the second day, which usually takes until 4:00 p.m., and leave adequate time to travel to the airport. Either the travel agency recommended by ABET Headquarters or a local travel agent

8 may be used to make airline reservations. CAC asks that attention be paid to timing restrictions and promotional offers that will offer the lowest available discounted fares. All extraordinary expenses, such as car rentals, should be coordinated with the team chair. Costs associated with emergency changes in plans are reimbursed by CAC, along with travel and living expenses. Team members who are employees of government agencies or state universities are encouraged to request a government rate at hotels or motels. The travel and expense (T&E) form included in your manual should be completed and forwarded to the team chair who will forward it to ABET Headquarters for review and payment. In addition, the assigned portion of the Draft Statement and the required Visit Report Form should be forwarded to the team chair as soon as possible, but no later than 14 days after the visit. While traveling on ABET business, team members are covered by two blanket ABET insurance policies, one for professional liability and one for accidents. ABET does not reimburse program evaluators for any trip insurance premiums. 4.0 TEAM RESPONSIBILITIES Program evaluators act as reporters, to record information about the institution and its programs, and as evaluators, to interpret that information to help CAC and the institution assess the program s strengths and weaknesses. A thorough and thoughtful review of all material contained in the institution's Self-Study and any other documentation supplied directly to you, is necessary for a professional evaluation. A CAC visit is designed to: Assess, qualitatively as well as quantitatively, factors that cannot be documented in a written questionnaire; e.g., the intellectual atmosphere, morale of the faculty, administration, support staff, caliber of the student body, character of student work performed, and all other intangible factors that cannot be assessed from a written description. Help the institution assess the strengths and weaknesses of its computing program(s). Examine in detail, the local institutional environment, and most importantly, the required display of course materials and student work, compiled by the institution. Program evaluators are also responsible for validating the Self-Study material and evaluating the overall quality of the program, by reviewing course materials, interviewing faculty, students and administrative staff, and observing laboratory and other support facilities. It is important to manage the limited time available to assure a complete and fair program evaluation.

9 During the initial Sunday meeting of the visiting team, the team chair will make or confirm assignments given to each PEV to evaluate specific parts of the program. By noon of the second day, the team should have reached a consensus on its recommended accreditation action (e.g. NGR, IR, IV, SC or NA). Members of the team must never disclose this recommendation to institution faculty, administrative staff, or students. Following the visit, each PEV will prepare a report covering his/her part of the Draft Statement. This report, along with their completed Visit Report Form must be forwarded immediately to the team chair so that the final report of the visit can be prepared. All reports and forms should be exchanged electronically. The team chair should complete and forward the visit report materials to the ABET office as soon as possible after the post-visit, 14-day response period, which provides the institution an opportunity to make any clarifications and minor corrections. Two CAC editors, drawn from the CAC Executive Committee, will then review and finalize the Draft Statement. The institution is then given 30 days to exercise its right to Due Process, and respond to the report findings. The Due Process Response should indicate the institution s perception of factual or observational errors, and all remedial actions that the institution has taken in response to observed deficiencies, weaknesses or concerns. A deficiency occurs when the Intent of a Category is not met. The resulting accreditation action possible is an NA or an SC. A weakness occurs when there are one or more concerns in a Category, which raises the issue of whether the institution can continue to meet the Intent of the Category for the entire period of accreditation. The resulting accreditation action is either an IV or an IR. A concern occurs when a Standard is satisfied but still has outstanding issues. However, the concern is not significant enough to cause the institution to fail to meet the Intent during the period of accreditation. If all Intents are met and there are no weaknesses, the resulting accreditation action is an NGR. This Due Process Response is sent to the team chair, to the editors, and to ABET Headquarters. The team chair may forward a copy to each of the PEVs for their evaluation and comment. Using this information, the team chair and editors prepare a final revised statement to the institution to be discussed for final accreditation action at the CAC annual summer meeting in July. Following this meeting, ABET prepares the Final Statement for mailing to the institution before August THE ACCREDITATION CRITERIA CAC/ABET has published Criteria to be used to evaluate programs in computing. The Criteria are designed to insure that an accredited program adequately prepares graduates for entry into the computing profession. The Criteria sets minimum standards for a program. The Categories for computer science are: I. Objectives and Assessments, II. Student Support,

10 III. Faculty, IV. Curriculum, V. Laboratories Computing Facilities, VI. Institutional Support and Financial Resources, and VII. Institutional Facilities. The Categories for information systems are: I. Objectives and Assessments, II. Students, III. Faculty, IV. Curriculum, V. Technology Infrastructure, VI. Institutional Support and Financial Resources, VII. Program Delivery, and VIII. Institutional Facilities. The Criteria in the Curriculum Category establish minimum requirements in mathematics, science, computing, humanities, and social sciences. The curriculum criteria are purposely stated in general terms so that each institution may decide the best way to prepare a student for a career in computing. Each team member must determine if the curriculum satisfies the Intent Statements of this Criteria Category. Team members must be very careful not to base their recommendations on a personal interpretation of the Criteria. ABET expects the team to apply the Criteria flexibly, and to be satisfied that the quality of the program meets the Intent Statements of the Criteria. The goal of ABET is to accredit programs that produce graduates with a background at least as comprehensive as the one identified in the Criteria. ABET has no desire to dictate detailed course content or coverage requirements. Each team member should carefully read and understand the Intent Statements of each Criteria Category, and the associated Standards. Careful preparation will make sure that any comments or recommendations made during the visit or in the visit report are consistent with the published Criteria. Personal opinions must not be introduced, since they may change the stated meaning or purpose of the Criteria. Perhaps the most difficult part of the visit process is the application of the published Criteria to the program being evaluated. Subsequent sections of this manual consider some of the major problems that may be encountered, and indicate how some of these problems can be handled. Several weeks in advance of the scheduled visit you will receive, from the institution, copies of the school catalog, the completed Self-Study Questionnaire, and a representative sample of transcripts of graduates from the most recent class. ABET also sends each program evaluator the latest copy of this manual, including the applicable CAC/ABET Criteria document. The pre-visit analysis applies the Criteria to the

11 information received from the institution. In the following sections, each of the Categories of the Criteria is considered, with indications of sources of information for analysis and the type of analysis that should be made prior to the visit. The Visit Report Form gives an excellent starting point for the pre-visit analysis. In fact, PEVs may want to start completing the form based on this preliminary analysis, although opinions may change based on the campus visit, and initial responses will need to be modified. The computer science Criteria is first addressed and then the Information system Criteria is addressed. 5.1 COMPUTER SCIENCE CATEGORIES I. OBJECTIVES AND ASSESSMENTS 1. Are the program's objectives documented somewhere other than in the Self- Study? 2. What types of surveys or other instruments are used to assess the program's objectives? Is the assessment process regularly repeated? 3. Do the program's objectives include expected outcomes for graduating students? How are these outcomes assessed? 4. Are the program's objectives aligned with the program s structure? 5. Is there any evidence that the results of assessments are seriously considered? II. STUDENT SUPPORT 1. Is the frequency of course offerings sufficient to allow a student to graduate in a timely fashion? 2. Are the computing courses structured to ensure effective interaction between faculty/teaching assistants and students in lower division courses and between faculty and students in upper division classes? 3. Do the students have regular access to advising on course selection, and on career expectations to guide their progress through the program? 4. Are students able to track their progress through the program? 5. How does the program insure that a student has met all the requirements for graduation before being granted a degree? Is there documentation of this process? Do the transcripts confirm that all requirements for graduation are met? III. FACULTY 1. Is there evidence that the faculty is qualified to teach the subject matter in the

12 curriculum and to develop and enhance the curriculum? 2. Are there a sufficient number of qualified faculty members assigned to the program to provide continuity and stability? 3. Is there evidence that faculty-teaching loads allow sufficient time for scholarly work and professional development, so that they can remain current in the discipline? 4. Are advising and other departmental assignments considered when faculty workloads are determined? 5. Is there a sense of faculty commitment and faculty unity? IV. CURRICULUM 1. Using the institution's catalogue as additional input, evaluate the institution's assessment of each course that it claims for satisfying the curriculum requirements. Verify the information provided in the Self-Study. Remember, the same content cannot be counted as satisfying more than one requirement. Example: if a course, or a portion of a course, satisfies a math requirement, then that same material cannot also satisfy a computing requirement. 2. Note any questionable courses that should be verified by examining the course materials and questioning faculty and students. 3. If there are no specific required courses dedicated to oral and written communications, and no course dedicated to the social and ethical implications of computing, then insure that coverage of each of these topics is included in the syllabi of other required courses. V. LABORATORIES AND COMPUTING FACILITIES 1. The judgment of the adequacy of the laboratory facilities must be made after viewing the facilities and listening to the student and faculty comments during the visit. 2. Does each student have adequate and reasonable access to the systems needed for each course? 3. Is the documentation for hardware and software readily accessible to faculty and students? 4. Do all faculty members have access to adequate computing facilities for class preparation and for scholarly activities? 5. Are there adequate support personnel to install and maintain the laboratories and computing facilities? 6. Is the instructional assistance provided in the laboratories and

13 computing facilities adequate? VI. INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES 1. Is there any evidence that sabbatical leaves, professional activities, and the general working environment are sufficient to attract and retain qualified faculty? 2. Is there evidence that the administration supports the goals of the program with support personnel, financial resources, and a working atmosphere that allows the department to function effectively? 3. Are the laboratory facilities and information retrieval capabilities adequately supported? 4. Is there evidence that adequate resources will remain in place throughout a period of accreditation? VII. INSTITUTIONAL FACILITIES 1. Does the library serve the computing program adequately, and is it staffed with professional librarians and other support personnel? 2. Does the library s technical collection have up-to-date textbooks, reference works, and publications of professional and research organizations, such as the IEEE Computer Society and the ACM? 3. Is there a system for locating and obtaining information electronically? 4. Are the classrooms adequately equipped for the courses taught in them? 5. Are the faculty offices adequately equipped to enable faculty members to meet their responsibilities to students and for their own professional needs? 5.2 INFORMATION SYSTEM CATEGORIES I. OBJECTIVES AND ASSESSMENTS 1. Are the program's objectives documented somewhere other than in the Self- Study? 2. Do the program's objectives include expected outcomes for graduating students? How are these outcomes assessed? 3. What types of surveys or other instruments are used to assess the program's objectives? Is the assessment process regularly repeated? 4. Are the program's objectives aligned with the program s structure? 5. Is there any evidence that the results of assessments are seriously considered? II. STUDENTS

14 1. Is the frequency of course offerings sufficient to allow a student to graduate in a timely fashion? 2. Are the computing courses structured to ensure effective interaction between faculty/teaching assistants and students in lower division courses and between faculty and students in upper division classes? 3. Do the students have regular access to advising on course selection, and on career expectations to guide their progress through the program? 4. Are students able to track their progress through the program? 5. How does the program insure that a student has met all the requirements for graduation before being granted a degree? Is there documentation of this process? Do the transcripts confirm that all requirements for graduation are met? III. FACULTY 1. Is there evidence that the faculty is qualified to teach the subject matter in the curriculum and to develop and enhance the curriculum? 2. How many faculty members hold a Ph.D. in information systems or a closely related area? 3. Is there evidence that the faculty members are current in the discipline? 4. Is there a sense of faculty commitment and faculty unity? IV. CURRICULUM 1. Using the institution's catalogue as additional input, evaluate the institution's assessment of each course that it claims for satisfying the curriculum requirements. Verify the information provided in the Self-Study. Remember, the same content cannot be counted as satisfying more than one requirement. Example: if a course, or a portion of a course, satisfies a math requirement, then that same material cannot also satisfy a computing requirement. 2. Note any questionable courses that should be verified by examining the course materials and questioning faculty and students. 3. If there are no specific required courses dedicated to oral and written communications, and no course dedicated to the social and ethical implications of computing, then insure that coverage of each of these topics is included in the syllabi of other required courses. V. TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE 1. The judgment of the adequacy of the laboratory facilities must be made after

15 viewing the facilities and listening to the student and faculty comments during the visit. 2. Does each student have adequate and reasonable access to the systems needed for each course? 3. Is the documentation for hardware and software readily accessible to faculty and students? 4. Do all faculty members have access to adequate computing facilities for class preparation and for scholarly activities? 5. Are there adequate support personnel to install and maintain the laboratories and computing facilities? 6. Is the instructional assistance provided in the laboratories and computing facilities adequate? VI. INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES 1. Is there any evidence that sabbatical leaves, professional activities, and the general working environment are sufficient to attract and retain qualified faculty? 2. Is there evidence that the administration supports the goals of the program with support personnel, financial resources, and a working atmosphere that allows the department to function effectively? 3. Are the laboratory facilities and information retrieval capabilities adequately supported? 4. Is there evidence that adequate resources will remain in place throughout a period of accreditation? VII. PROGRAM DELIVERY 1. Are there a sufficient number of qualified faculty members assigned to the program to provide continuity and stability? 2. Do full-time faculty oversee all course work and provide most of the classroom instruction? 3. Is there evidence that faculty-teaching loads allow sufficient time for scholarly work and professional development, so that they can remain current in the discipline? 4. Are advising and other departmental assignments considered when faculty workloads are determined? VIII INSTITUTIONAL FACILITIES 1. Does the library serve the computing program adequately, and is it staffed with

16 professional librarians and other support personnel? 2. Does the library s technical collection have up-to-date textbooks, reference works, and publications of professional and research organizations, such as the IEEE Computer Society and the ACM? 3. Is there a system for locating and obtaining information electronically? 4. Are the classrooms adequately equipped for the courses taught in them? 5. Are the faculty offices adequately equipped to enable faculty members to meet their responsibilities to students and for their own professional Much of the information for this section will have to be gathered during the visit. If additional information is needed in your pre-visit analysis you should ask the team chair to contact the institution. Once the pre-visit analysis has been completed, each PEV should list his/her perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of the program. In addition, a list of questions for discussion at the Sunday evening team meeting should be prepared. 6.0 CAMPUS VISIT The team's visit to the campus is the most important activity of the entire accreditation process. The true status of the program comes into view at this time. This section provides an overview of the important activities that must be completed during the visit and indicates some of the techniques that can be helpful in applying the Criteria. 6.1 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING The team will hold a planning meeting sometime, usually on Sunday, before the first official day on-campus. Since the visit requires two days of very intensive activity, it is very important that the assignments of each team member are clearly understood. These assignments will be based upon the team member s pre-visit analysis. There will always be a number of specific questions that must be answered and program areas that must be observed to see how well the activities described in the institution's Self-Study are actually implemented. At the start of the organizational meeting, the team chair will review the Criteria and how they apply to the program being visited. Next, the team chair will discuss any particular problem areas that may have been identified in discussions with the institution's administration. Each PEV will be asked to present their pre-visit evaluations and make recommendations on specific problem areas that should be investigated in further depth during the visit. Following this review the team chair will make (or reconfirm) team assignments. These assignments will specify individual responsibility for the different parts of the computing

17 program and supporting areas. Team members should visit their assigned supporting areas (such as the library and the computing facilities) and academic departments (teaching the non-computer subjects in the program) early enough to report their findings at the team meeting at the end of the first day. Following the team's discussion of their assignments, a tentative plan of action for carrying out the assignments within the planned visit schedule will be drawn up. It may be necessary to ask the institution s program chair to arrange appointments with specific individuals or to visit specific support facilities. 6.2 VISIT ACTIVITIES The pre-visit analysis will have answered many of the quantitative aspects that must be evaluated for accreditation. The visit enables team members to clarify outstanding questions about some quantitative items; and, more importantly, it gives the team an opportunity to evaluate non-quantitative items (e.g. faculty morale). You will find the schedule to be demanding. To conduct a satisfactory visit, you must work efficiently through a well-organized plan. The final review and evaluation of each of the Categories of the Criteria must be completed during the visit. The pre-visit analysis is supplemented by: On-site review and evaluation of the display of course materials Interviews with faculty Interviews with students Visits to, observations and evaluation of laboratory and computing facilities Visits to the library Evaluation of supporting disciplines 6.3 DISPLAY OF COURSE MATERIALS The institution will have prepared and displayed notebooks for the major courses in the program. These course notebooks will contain detailed syllabi, copies of handouts, notes, examinations, and other instructional materials supplied to the students, along with samples of student work (exams, homework, reports, etc.) of high, medium, and low quality. The course notebooks, along with copies of required texts, will be available throughout the visit. These materials will provide information which will help the team assess the qualitative aspects of the curriculum, such as, the depth and breadth of coverage, the use of appropriate prerequisites, and appropriate coverage of the core materials, etc. Each PEV is encouraged to use CAC Forms C62 Course Display Form, and C63 Additional Requirements Form, when reviewing the display of course materials. These forms can be downloaded from the ABET Web site.

18 6.4 FACULTY INTERVEIWS For a small program, the team should interview all faculty members who teach computing courses in the program. For a larger program, a subset of the faculty should be selected. This selection should include a balance of junior and senior faculty members, and should include those who can answer questions raised in the pre-visit analysis. In addition, faculty members who serve as Curriculum Committee Chairperson, Chief Advisor, Research Coordinator, Computing Facilities Coordinator, and Laboratory Coordinator should be included in the selection. Generally, at least 8-10 faculty should be interviewed. To be effective, most faculty interviews should take approximately 30 minutes. The faculty interviews should be conducted carefully, professionally and as objectively as possible. If the interview is felt to be a threat, either to the individual or the department, the faculty member will most likely be defensive or non-responsive. The purpose of this interview is to gather and evaluate facts and information related to the Criteria. The team is not there to judge or comment on any specific individual(s). No faculty member is ever quoted by name in the visit report or Draft Statement. The information conveyed by the faculty member will be used in the most constructive way possible. Therefore, the faculty member should be made to feel free to respond openly to all questions, such as if you were the program chair, what would you change first? The PEVs comportment and attitude in these interviews will significantly affect the faculty member s feelings about the validity of the CAC/ABET accreditation process. Hence, it is very important that no signs of bias or pre-conceptions are shown. Each PEV is encouraged to use the CAC Form C64 Faculty Interview Form when conducting faculty interviews. This form can be downloaded from the ABET Web site. 6.5 STUDENT INTERVEIWS A small group of 8-10 junior or senior-level students should be interviewed in a separate meeting room, usually near the end of the first day of the visit, for approximately 45 minutes. An alternative is to request time in one of the scheduled classes. However, if this is done, care must be taken not to offend the instructor by this invasion of his or her classroom. In either case, the session should begin with an explanation of the accreditation process and the reason for the meeting. Assurances that no one will be identified by name in any report will encourage an open discussion. Students should be encouraged to give their impressions of the aspects of the computing program related to the Criteria, including advising, the faculty, the curriculum, and the computing and library facilities. They should also be asked to comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the program. Each PEV is encouraged to use the CAC Form C65 Student Interview Form when

19 conducting student interviews. This form can be downloaded from the ABET Web site. 6.6 LABORATORY AND COMPUTING FACILITIES The pre-visit analysis provides a preliminary assessment of these facilities, but the critical aspects of evaluation depend on the knowledge the team gains during the visit. There is no better way to determine the adequacy of laboratory and/or computing facilities than to visit them while they are in use, and to ask the faculty and students who use them, and the computing staff who maintains them. Equipment should not be characterized as obsolete simply because it is older than equipment currently on the market. Older equipment that is well maintained and meets the objectives of the program may be completely acceptable. The tour of the facilities along with discussions with students and other appropriate personnel will help in the evaluation of the degree of support the institution gives to the program. It is important to determine if there are adequate provisions for repair and maintenance of laboratory, test, and computing equipment; if there is a plan for updating equipment regularly; and if there are adequate technicians, systems programmers, and other support personnel to operate the facilities properly. 6.7 LIBRARY One of the PEVs will be assigned the task of specifically evaluating the adequacy of the library in supporting the program, usually interviewing the institution s Head Librarian. An interview form and checklist of this evaluation should be used. The other team members can assist in this evaluation by asking, the faculty and students interviewed, if the library is meeting the program s needs. 6.8 SUPPORT DISCIPLINES As a member of the team you may be assigned to investigate one or more of the support disciplines. Either the dean or the department chair should be asked by the CAC team chair to make the appropriate arrangements. 6.9 EVENING OF THE FIRST DAY Normally, the team will have a Monday evening dinner, after which they will convene in a private meeting room. Often this will be held in the team chair s hotel room. The team members will review their findings for the day. The list of problem areas enumerated at the organizational meeting the previous evening will be reviewed against the day's findings. Unresolved and newly found problem areas will be assigned to team members for investigation the next morning. Some problems may suggest that the team chair work with the assigned PEV NOON OF THE SECOND DAY At a private working luncheon, the team reviews and resolves all outstanding problem

20 areas. The final accreditation recommendation will be decided and statements prepared by each team member briefly summarizing findings and recommendations relative to each of the Criteria Categories. Each member will prepare extensive notes or write out, in detail, what he or she plans to say at the Exit Interview. The recommended accreditation action is never reported at the Exit Interview. The team chair or the assigned team member reviews the strengths and weaknesses of each aspect of the program. The team s findings, reported during the Exit Interview, must be consistent with the findings that will be reported in the confidential written report to CAC/ABET EXIT INTERVIEW Sometime during the afternoon of the second day, the visiting team conducts an Exit Interview with the President/Chancellor of the institution, and any other institutional representatives that the President chooses, usually the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, the Dean of the relevant School or College, and the chair of the computing program. The CAC team chair presents an overview, and then each team member reports on his/her area of responsibility. It is most important not to let ordinary courtesy and congeniality leave a false impression that "all is well" if, in fact, the program has deficiencies, weaknesses or several concerns. CAC Forms C77 CS Exit Interview Template and C79 CS Draft Statement Template, for computer science programs, and C77 IS Exit Interview Template and C79 IS Draft Statement Template, for information systems programs, can be used when preparing for the Exit Interview. These can be downloaded from the ABET Web site. 7.0 AFTER THE VISIT Prior to the Exit Interview, each PEV prepares a brief written summary of the important findings made during the visit. The team chair will use this information, together with the team s conclusions about an appropriate accreditation action, to file a Short Form report with ABET Headquarters. This report will indicate the recommended accreditation action and summarize the important conclusions reached by the team. Following the visit, PEVs complete the Visit Report Forms that are provided for this purpose. Because of severe time constraints, it is very important to complete and submit this report electronically to the team chair by a date specified by the team chair, but usually no later than 14 days after the visit. The institution also has 14 days to submit additional information to the team chair to clarify any questions or to document any minor changes made to the program. This information will be considered in preparing the Draft Statement for Review and Comment to the institution, as if it were available at the time of the visit. Travel and expense (T&E) reports should be forwarded to the team chair at this time, who will then submit them to ABET Headquarters for reimbursement. T&E forms have been provided, and these should include receipts and other documentation, as required. 7.1 DRAFT STATEMENT TO THE INSTITUTION

21 The team chair will complete the team Visit Report Form as soon as all the PEV reports have been received. This report will integrate the findings of each team member into a single confidential report evaluating the program. The team chair will prepare the Draft Statement to the Institution based on the information in the team s Visit Report. This Draft Statement, after suitable editing by CAC editors, will be sent to the institution. It includes the findings of the visiting team and CAC/ABET opinion of the program's strengths and weaknesses. The information presented in the Draft Statement must provide the institution with a summary of how well the program being evaluated satisfies the CAC Criteria. The Draft Statement to the institution does not indicate the accreditation action that will be recommended by the visiting team or the CAC editors. It must be written, however, so that the information in the statement supports the recommended accreditation action. ABET allows the institution to respond to any findings that are thought to contain errors of fact or observation. It also allows the institution to describe any substantive remedial changes that have occurred since the visit. The team chair forwards the Draft Statement to the assigned editor for evaluation and comment. The editor is responsible for making each statement correct, consistent, and complete. The editor will depend on the information in the team s Visit Report Form and conversations with the team chair. Note that the editors do not have access to the institution s Self-Study, so your Visit Report form should not site pages in the Self- Study, but should explicitly state your findings. After the editing process, the Draft Statement is sent to the institution for its '"Due Process" response. 7.2 DUE PROCESS PROCEDURE The first formal notification that the institution receives of the results of the visit is the Draft Statement. The institution is told that this statement is based on all the material available to the visiting team. After reading and evaluating the contents of the Draft Statement, the institution has the following options: 1. Accept the statement without comment. 2. Indicate that the statement contains factual or observational errors. A detailed description of the perceived errors must be provided-in the response. 2. Indicate that one or more of the problems described in the statement have been addressed by a subsequent remedial action. A detailed description of how the problem was addressed, together with necessary documentation, must be provided. When a due process response is received, it is sent to the team chair for comment. Where appropriate, the team chair sends copies of the response to the other team members with a

22 request for their comments. After all responses have been collected, the team chair and the editor prepare a Final Statement to the institution. This revised statement, which may not necessarily include the changes suggested by the institution, is then forwarded to CAC for action. 7.3 THE ACCREDITATION ACTIONS Sometime during July, CAC meets to make accreditation actions on all of the programs visited during the given year. All members of CAC (including all team chairs) receive a copy of the Final Statement to the institution, prepared after completion of the due process procedure. During this meeting, the team chair makes an oral presentation to the CAC on the findings during the visit, the team's analysis of submitted materials, and the team s recommended accreditation action on the program. There are five accreditation actions that can be taken. They are: NGR Accredit the program for six years and revisit The program meets or exceeds the minimum standards in all Criteria Categories. On the next visit, the only actions normally permissible are SC, IV, IR, or NGR. The revisit must be preceded by a new Self-Study. IR Accredit the program for six years, with the requirement to file a status report at the end of the second year The program is accredited for a period of up to six years with the proviso that at the end of the second year, the institution will be required to file a report to the CAC describing actions taken in response to the weaknesses identified in the Final Statement to the institution. If the CAC Executive Committee finds that inadequate progress has been made in addressing these weaknesses, it may change the action at that point to SC or recommend an extension of accreditation for 2 or 4 years. Some factors that could justify a requirement for an annual report include: uncertainty about the program s financial status; pressing needs for additions to, or improvements in staff or equipment; a new or changing curriculum; and undue dependence upon a single individual. IV Accredit the program and a revisit in two years The program appears to satisfy all Criteria standards; however, weaknesses exist and the long-term viability of the program is not clear. Conditions indicate that major changes are possible in the near future that could have a serious negative impact on the program, and it will be necessary to verify continued compliance with the CAC Criteria in two years, with an Interim Visit. As result of this interim visit, the CAC may recommend a SC or an extension of accreditation for two or four more years. SC Accreditation is extended for one year and a visit should be scheduled for the upcoming academic year