I received an email regarding the following:

Underlying Principles of Continuous Quality Improvement of Student Learning at the Program Level (ABET Criterion 4)

• Focus of the continuous improvement process (Criterion 4) is on the assessment of the program, not the assessment of individual students.
• Focus is on the cumulative learning of students and not the assessment of individual courses.
• Student outcomes should be defined in order for faculty to have a common understanding of the expectations for student learning and to achieve consistency across the curriculum.
• A program does not have to collect data on every student in every course to know how well it is doing toward the attainment of student outcomes.
• A program does not need more than one data point on each student in the program cohort to determine if the performance has been met.
• A program does not have to assess every outcome every year to know how well it is doing toward the attainment of student outcomes.
• The focus is on continuous improvement based on information for decision making.

The feedback from the email suggested that: "Please look carefully at the statement. I think our evaluators should be trained based on this principles. At the moment a lot of programmes are fed-up with evaluators who argue on small issues in each course outcomes. Please read this and discuss with or someone who can make a change at EAC."

My comment is you need to collect data to demonstrate. Why collect too much data when you only need the minimum data? What is important is that IHL must understand what they are doing and explain. Surely the EAC Panel can probe to see reliability. If IHL can demonstrate at the end of the programme that their graduates have the necessary outcomes that is fine. Where, When, What, Why measure those data should be clear. Similarly addressing Who and How.

If having probed that the OBE model and the data do not address the expected outcome, it is the prerogative of the Panel to note or to discuss. That is why EAC does not determine that is only ONE WAY of doing things.

IHL has to think and not to adopt blindly any models that are available. Implementing and measuring the effective of the system implement should lead to wealth of experience and improvement.There is no such thing as a perfect system that does not need improvement. If IHL realises this and act upon in a systematic manner, not only realised when pointed out by the EAC Panel, I shouldn't think IHL would be in a difficult situation.

Understanding do improve from time to time with implementation, both EC Panel and the IHL. Interpretation of clauses are refined. What may be acceptable 5 years ago may not be acceptable now. It is important that IHL ensures that the integrity of the system is maintained. Any changes must be addressed promptly and not waiting for the Accreditation decision.

However, overzealous panel imposing their views by virtue of their experience at their IHLs should not rule the day.

Megat Johari
12/4/11