Seeing the Forest for the Tree…
A View of the Function of the CAPAC Committee and the Accreditation Process
in the Chemical Engineering Program
Because of close involvement with complex issues, we sometimes loose the perspective necessary to
see the simple issues.
First, if one steps back and asks “What is the purpose of ABET accreditation” the simple answer is to
“assure that a program has the characteristics which will allow that program to graduate engineers
meeting the needs of the program’s principal constituents (industry, education, etc).”
These characteristics of the program can be divided into two elements:


Characteristics (quality) of the graduates of the program
Characteristics of the program itself
Therefore, the ABET periodic site review process examines the department’s “process of assessment” as
well as the “characteristics of the students”.
With regard to the quality of the students, ABET realizes that it would be impossible to learn about the
knowledge, skills and abilities possesses by the students graduating from the program, so they ask to
see “evidence” of those skills and abilities.
Similarly, the effectiveness and functioning of the departmental improvement process cannot easily be
assessed at the time of the visit, so they ask to see “evidence” of the changes made to the program in
the period of time between site visits.
Stepping back again to see the simple issues, the characteristics of a “healthy” program (process) would
be that the curriculum itself (the courses taught), the course subject matter (topical coverage) and the
fashion in which instruction occurs in the classroom would be dynamic and keeps pace with the ever
changing needs of industry and society and developing technology (for example, the importance of
computers). Examining a “healthy” program (with or without ABET) would reveal a continuous process
of improvement in individual courses and a thoughtful coordination of changes throughout the
curriculum. Thus, the distinguishing characteristic of a healthy program is one characterized by change,
not characterized by stasis*.
What ABET provides via so many of the rules and requirements is simply a means to establish a
mechanism for directing the changes which should be already occurring naturally in a healthy program
to those areas that (by criteria) need the most attention.
To back up for a moment… change should be ongoing and natural (experimentation with the program,
introduction of new topics, deletion of obsolete topics, appreciation of newly expressed needs of
constituents, changes in the global situation, etc.). More important, change should be considered
desirable and a “positive characteristic” of the program. The world is changing, the needs are changing,
and a healthy program is in tune with those changes and responds appropriately.
Thus, for example, business needs graduates who can clearly communicate using written skills (proper
recording of information for legal purposes, communication of progress to supervisors, identification of
areas of possible process improvement) yet in the world there has been a marked decrease in the
grammar and communicative skills of students entering the university. Hence, we should be able to
identify the changes and needs involved in this issue and develop ways to achieve desired levels of
proficiency in our students by changing our program and courses.
To back up again for a moment… the assessment data that we have been collecting was never intended
to show “we are ok” and that “we have no need to change” but rather “here is an area where change is
warranted”. There is nothing negative in this process. It was always understood from the beginning
that our program would be changing constantly if it was a healthy program.
Somehow that simplicity has been lost. When we see from an assessment activity that there is an
opportunity to improve (change the program to improve student skills and abilities) we first seek to
discredit the measurement or to worry (needlessly) that the perceived need doesn’t really exist.
Consider the CHEN2AA0 exam’s history. The department identified that the prototype idea from the
Mechanical Engineering Department merited implementation in our program and a considerable effort
was made to prepare a very useful tool to examine the students’ knowledge of basic math, chemistry,
calculus, physics, and material and energy balance concepts. A criterion was established to require
students to obtain a grade of 70% and that we expected 50% of our students to pass the exam the first
time it was taken and that we expect 80% of our students to pass the exam by the third time they take
it.
Initial observations were that many students who were taking the exam and had not passed it were not
improving their scores and therefore the “passing criterion” was changed to 60% to remove this
problem.
On the other hand, the data was available to show that changes should be made on a variety of levels
relating to student learning, retention of information, critical thinking skills, etc that were not acted on.
We have now given the exam 44 times and have yet to indentify and promote changes to improve our
program and courses based on this exam’s data.
It has been pointed out that perhaps we need to develop a “model or procedure of how to solve the
problem” should be developed to pinpoint the “perfect correction” that will solve the problem.
But from a (much) simpler point of view, the solution to the problem requires very obvious changes to
the program.
Students










do not come prepared to lectures having read required reading assignments
retain very little of what they hear in lecture
do not take effective notes during lecture
do not effectively review lecture notes after class
do not use “the homework experience” properly
cram before exams because they have not yet learned the material they will be tested on
do not effectively use the results of exam evaluations, quiz evaluations, etc.
will sit in lectures without really understanding what is being lectured on and make no attempt
to learn what is required and essential
receive a grade indicating “acceptable performance” (C or better) yet students do not possess
that characteristic
leave the course without meeting expected learning outcomes
This is not a problem where the subject matter in the course needs improving. This is not a problem
where the “soft A-K issues” are not being addressed adequately in our curriculum.
This is a learning crisis and this crisis is fundamental to the success of our program in being able to turn
out functional and even outstanding graduates.
If the data from 2AA0 indicated there was a problem in the lower levels of the program and if our
assessment data from graduating seniors indicated the program was effective in eliminating these
concerns, then we could turn to addressing other issues. But instead, our CHEN3AA0 results show
clearly that knowledge of basic chemical engineering concepts is not demonstrated by the majority of
our graduating seniors and that (in fact) many of the seniors have serious deficiencies in being able to
recall and correctly apply these concepts.
Thus, the focus of our efforts should be to examine the above listed “student characteristics” and
propose and implement all reasonable ideas to improve this situation.
Ideas to do this are not difficult to come up with. It has already been proposed that our exam format in
our “standard courses” leads students to the “cram to pass” mode of learning. Yet no action was taken
to implement changes to the “testing procedures” used by the faculty.
Stasis in a biological organism quickly results in the death of the organism. Let us hope we can regain
“mobility” and make changes to address “real issues”.
*stasis = a state in which there is neither motion nor development, often resulting from opposing forces
cancelling out each other