The Analysis of the 2014 Accreditation Review Findings by the EAC : Focused on the Causes for Deficiencies

2014년 인증평가 결과 분석: EAC 프로그램의 결함 판정 사유를 중심으로

  • Kang, Sang Hee (Innovation Center for Engineering Education, Ajou University) ;
  • Song, Dong Joo (School of Mechanical Engineering, Yeungnam University)
  • 강상희 (아주대학교 공학교육혁신센터) ;
  • 송동주 (영남대학교 기계공학부)
  • Received : 2015.09.07
  • Accepted : 2015.09.22
  • Published : 2015.09.30

Abstract

This paper deals with analyzing accreditation findings and the causes for the deficiencies in the review by the EAC(Engineering Accreditation Committee) of ABEEK in 2014. For this purpose Final Statements of the 266 engineering education programs reviewed by the EAC of ABEEK in 2014 were analyzed on the basis of the each criterion. However, Accreditation Criterion 8(Program Criterion) was excluded in the analysis of the causes for the deficiencies since the program-specific requirements within areas of specialization might vary with the program criteria. As results of accreditation review by the EAC of ABEEK, Deficiency findings were 81 cases which made up 3.81% of total findings, Weakness findings were 1,679 which made up 78.91% of total findings, Concern findings were 124 cases which made up 5.83% of total findings, and Satisfaction findings were 244 cases which made up 11.47% of total findings. Deficiency and Weakness findings against which the relevant program must take actions for the improvement were 82.71% in all. The findings on program accreditation are made on the basis of the Accreditation Actions Guide. Accordingly, in view of formal logic in the accreditation review, the accreditation findings should comply with the Accreditation Actions Guide consistently. In this respect, the Deficiency findings in the accreditation review can be justified. So it is useful for a program or an institution which prepares for the accreditation review to check over the causes for the Deficiency against the Accreditation Actions Guide. On the other hand changeover in the accreditation policy of the ABEEK may be necessary. If the quality of the engineering education is improved continuously through the accreditation review, accreditation fulfills its purpose. To gain this end it is important to place higher value on the 'bigger picture' than on the minor details. In other words, "holistic" evaluation of evidence should form the basis of accreditation review.

Keywords

References

  1. 김문겸, 문일, 강상희(2009). "공학교육인증제의 기본 철학과 인증 현황", 화학연합, 제1권 제2호, 64-69.
  2. 송동주, 강상희(2012). "공학교육의 미래를 준비하는 현재: 공학교육인증제도", 인터넷정보학회지, 제13권 제3호, 17-25.
  3. (사) 한국공학교육인증원(2014). 2014년 인증평가 적용 공학교육인증기준 2005(KEC2005).
  4. (사)한국공학교육인증원(2013). 2014년도 KEC2005 인증평가판정가이드.
  5. (사)한국공학교육인증원(2015). 2015년 EAC/CAC 제1차 평가단장워크숍 자료.
  6. (사)한국공학교육인증원 인증규정. http://www.abeek.or.kr/htmls_kr/contents.jsp?menu_l=2&menu_m=214
  7. (사) 한국공학교육인증원(2014). 2015년 인증설명회 자료.
  8. Gray et al. 2009. Engineering Education Quality Assurance. A Global Perspective. Springer
  9. Spurlin et al, 2008. Designing Better Engineering Education Through Assessment. Stylus Publishing.
  10. Walessh, Stuart G. 2012. Engineering your Future. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.
  11. ABET Statistics: 2012-13 Accreditation Cycle. http://www.abet.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/13-AR-Stats-.pdf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering
  12. International Engineering Alliance(2014). Educational Accord Rules and Procedures. http://www.ieagreements.org/policies-and-procedures.cfm
  13. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering.