Accreditation Process. The Engineering Education Accreditation Body must publish appropriate policies and procedures to provide clear and sufficient information as guidance for engineering programs seeking accreditation. These policies and procedures should include at least the following elements: (1) Documents to be provided by engineering programs The Engineering Education Accreditation Body must require engineering programs seeking accreditation to conduct and a full self‐review process and submit a report documenting outcomes of the self‐review. The self‐review process must answer whether the engineering program fulfils requirements set out by the accreditation body. Specifically, the engineering program must provide sufficient evidence, through appropriate and diverse assessment means, to demonstrate that it fulfils the accreditation body’s requirement on engineering graduate outcomes. The accreditation team will deliver preliminary findings from reviewing the report and verify their findings through the accreditation visit. (2) Composition of accreditation team The engineering education accreditation team should consist of at least two persons, preferably more, representing a balance of relevant experience and expertise as well as employment orientation, academics or industry. All members of the accreditation must be sufficiently trained and competent for conducting the review process. Conflict of interest is a critical issue in the accreditation process and must be taken into account in assembling the engineering education accreditation team. Each member of the accreditation team must submit a statement indicating partiality prior to his/her nomination. (3) Duration of accreditation visit The engineering education accreditation visit should last at least two days to allow sufficient time for documentation review and the interviews. (4) Structure of the accreditation visit The engineering education accreditation visit should include the following elements: 1. Preliminary meeting of the accreditation team prior to the visit to identify what information is to be obtained during the visit; 2. Meeting with educational institution’s administrators; 3. Meeting with head of engineering program; 4. Meeting with academic staff members; 5. Meeting with support staff members; 6. Meeting with students; 7. Meeting with alumni; 8. Meeting with employers/industry/professional engineering organisation’s representatives; 9. Visit of facilities; 10. Review of engineering project work, final papers and other documents (with regard to the standards and modes of assessment as well as to the learning outcomes of the students); 11. Feedback of the accreditation team at the end of the visit. (5) Verification and validation of the report by the accreditation agency/commission The engineering education accreditation body must provide a written report to the engineering program at the conclusion of the accreditation process. This report should state clearly the findings of the accreditation team in terms of concerns, weakness, and deficiency of the engineering education program. This information will not only support the delivery of accreditation decision but also directions for continuous improvement of the engineering education program. (6) Decision on accreditation The engineering education accreditation body must have a fair process to deliver accreditation decisions. The decision‐making process needs to be transparent and those who are involved in the process must make informed decisions based on findings of the accreditation teams. The accreditation decision must clearly define the period of validity (the duration of which should not exceed a maximum of six years) and whether it refers to year of entry or year of graduation. After the limited validity of the accreditation has expired, the program must be submitted for re‐ accreditation. The accreditation decisions must be communicated clearly in written statement to the program. (7) Publication of accreditation decisions The engineering education accreditation body must make the accreditation decisions available to the public, normally through publishing list of accredited engineering education programs on its website or on printed materials. Engineering education programs fail to received accredited status are normally not published. (8) Procedures of appeals The engineering education accreditation body must have policies and procedures of appeals to ensure the rights of the engineering programs seeking accreditation when error in facts and/or error in procedures happen which causes the engineering programs receive unfavourable decisions. Appropriate conflict of interest procedures must be considered during the appeal process.
Appears in 1 contract
Sources: Accord
Accreditation Process. The Engineering Technologist Education Accreditation Body must publish appropriate policies and procedures to provide clear and sufficient information as guidance for engineering technologist programs seeking accreditation. These policies and procedures should include at least the following elements:
(1) Documents to be provided by engineering technologist programs The Engineering Technologist Education Accreditation Body must require engineering technologist programs seeking accreditation to conduct and a full self‐review process and submit a report documenting outcomes of the self‐review. The self‐review process must answer whether the engineering technologist program fulfils requirements set out by the accreditation body. Specifically, the engineering technologist program must provide sufficient evidence, through appropriate and diverse assessment means, to demonstrate that it fulfils the accreditation body’s requirement on engineering technologist graduate outcomes. The accreditation team will deliver preliminary findings from reviewing the report and verify their findings through the accreditation visit.
(2) Composition of accreditation team The engineering education Engineering Technologist Education accreditation team should consist of at least two persons, preferably more, representing a balance of relevant experience and expertise as well as employment orientation, academics or industry. All members of the accreditation must be sufficiently trained and competent for conducting the review process. Conflict of interest is a critical issue in the accreditation process and must be taken into account in assembling the engineering education accreditation team. Each member of the accreditation team must submit a statement indicating partiality prior to his/her nomination.
(3) Duration of accreditation visit The engineering education accreditation visit should last at least two days to allow sufficient time for documentation review and the interviews.
(4) Structure of the accreditation visit The engineering education accreditation visit should include the following elements:
1. Preliminary meeting of the accreditation team prior to the visit to identify what information is to be obtained during the visit;
2. Meeting with educational institution’s administrators;
3. Meeting with head of engineering technologist program;
4. Meeting with academic staff members;
5. Meeting with support staff members;
6. Meeting with students;
7. Meeting with alumni;
8. Meeting with employers/industry/professional engineering organisation’s representatives;
9. Visit of facilities;
10. Review of engineering technologist project work, final papers and other documents (with regard to the standards and modes of assessment as well as to the learning outcomes of the students);
11. Feedback of the accreditation team at the end of the visit.
(5) Verification and validation of the report by the accreditation agency/commission The engineering education accreditation body Engineering Technologist Education Accreditation Body must provide a written report to the engineering technologist program at the conclusion of the accreditation process. This report should state clearly the findings of the accreditation team in terms of concerns, weakness, and deficiency of the engineering education program. This information will not only support the delivery of accreditation decision but also directions for continuous improvement of the engineering education program.
(6) Decision on accreditation The engineering education accreditation body Engineering Technologist Education Accreditation Body must have a fair process to deliver accreditation decisions. The decision‐making process needs to be transparent and those who are involved in the process must make informed decisions based on findings of the accreditation teams. The accreditation decision must clearly define the period of validity (the duration of which should not exceed a maximum of six years) and whether it refers to year of entry or year of graduation. After the limited validity of the accreditation has expired, the program must be submitted for re‐ accreditationre‐accreditation. The accreditation decisions must be communicated clearly in written statement to the program.
(7) Publication of accreditation decisions The engineering education accreditation body Engineering Technologist Education Accreditation Body must make the accreditation decisions available to the public, normally through publishing list of accredited engineering education programs on its website or on printed materials. Engineering education programs Programs fail to received accredited status are normally not published.
(8) Procedures of appeals The engineering education accreditation body Engineering Technologist Education Accreditation Body must have policies and procedures of appeals to ensure the rights of the engineering programs seeking accreditation when error in facts and/or error in procedures happen which causes the engineering programs receive unfavourable decisions. Appropriate conflict of interest procedures must be considered during the appeal process.
Appears in 1 contract
Sources: Accord