Action Project

At Rose-Hulman, we recognize that retaining our ABET accreditation is key to our core mission: to provide the world’s best undergraduate engineering, math, and science education in an environment of individual attention and concern. For that reason, we have devoted considerable effort and time to preparing for our ABET Re-accreditation visit. Preparation for re-accreditation has involved the following activities during the 2005-06 academic year: • Each engineering program under review wrote a Self Study Report that includes information about the program’s faculty, students, facilities/laboratories, and curriculum. The Self Study also describes the program’s assessment plan and show results from assessment of student learning outcomes. • In preparation for the October 22-24, 2006 on-site evaluation visit, programs have collected information from each required course in their curriculum. This evidence includes course syllabi, graded student work, and assessment results that demonstrate that program outcomes and objectives are being met. • The Institute must provide information (in the Appendix II portion of the Self Study document) that includes data regarding faculty experience, salary, institutional financial support, faculty teaching loads, and other information. • The Self Study Reports were then shipped to the team chairs of the Engineering Accreditation Commission and the Computer Accreditation Commission and to the evaluators who have been assigned to make the on-site evaluation visit to the campus.

Rose-Hulman Institute has chartered this Action Project to assure reaccreditation by ABET, Inc. In so doing, it has completed the important first phase of program self-studies and distributed these to the project team chairs and upcoming evaluators. The project update highlights the core components of the self-study which include course syllabi, graded student work and assessment reports. These materials demonstrate that both program outcomes and objectives are being met. Other pertinent information such as faculty experience, salaries, institutional financial support, and faculty teaching workloads were also included in the self-study. With this material the accrediting agency will be in position to recommend an action. The Institute is to be commended for its recognition of the core importance of being proactive to earn reaccreditation of its engineering programs. By so doing, Rose-Hulman emphasizes the AQIP criteria of helping students learn and measuring effectiveness as well as the AQIP value of foresight.

The following groups and individuals were involved in this project: • Engineering program department heads: these individuals were responsible for managing the preparation for the ABET site visit and assigning authors of the Self Study Reports. In several cases, the department head was the author of the report. • Department heads from mathematics, science, and the humanities and social sciences departments: while these programs and departments are not accredited by ABET, they provide services to engineering programs that allow their students to meet ABET requirements. For instance, the humanities and social sciences department facilitates data collection for student learning outcomes in our RosE Portfolio System (REPS) through their courses, while the mathematics and sciences departments offer courses to engineering students so they can meet ABET requirements for course hours in basic science and math. • Faculty in engineering programs: faculty in these programs served as authors of Self Study Reports, reviewers of those reports, collected data about program courses, wrote program outcomes, documented practices, and performed a host of other activities required to prepare for ABET Re-accreditation. • Staff in the Office of Institutional Research, Planning and Assessment: these staff managed data collection through REPS, compiled data, reported data to engineering programs, facilitated the Supergroup meetings, prepared the Institutional data portion of the Self Study Reports, and provided other services to support the work of engineering faculty.

To accomplish this Action Project, Rose-Hulman Institute included a representative group of faculty and administrators. Among these were department heads from math, science, and the humanities and social sciences departments. As such they addressed contributions made by their departments to the engineering programs. Other participants included the engineering faculty, representatives from the Office of Institutional Research, Planning and Assessment. The final self-study reports were an outcome of this collaboration, the end being the success of this phase of the Action Project. The AQIP values of involvement and collaboration are highlighted by this effort.

The evaluators from the Engineering Accreditation Commission and the Computer Accreditation Commission will be on our campus October 22-24, 2006. At that time, they will conduct the site visit that is one of the last stages in the re-accreditation process. While they are here, they will tour our laboratories, buildings, and other facilities. They will interview faculty, students, and staff. Finally they will review evidence of student learning in the form of course notebooks, transcripts, and student learning outcomes evidence drawn from our RosE Portfolio System. Once the site visit is completed, the EAC and CAC team chairs will submit their reports to ABET and to Rose-Hulman, determining the accreditation status of the nine programs under review. The status of our programs will determine the next steps that we have to take with this Action Project.

The Institute is aware that the next step to be taken will be dictated by the recommendations of the accrediting entity. Rose-Hulman should take comfort in the fact that they have planned wisely for the accrediting team visit and have provided comprehensive, quality materials to facilitate and ease the process.

Perhaps the most effective practice that emerged from our work on this Action Project was the formation of the ABET Supergroup, the inter-departmental group of faculty who were charged with writing their program’s Self Study Report. The Supergroup met weekly throughout the 2005-06 academic year. The purpose of the meetings was to allow individuals writing the reports to share information, ask questions, and review each other’s work. The Executive Director of the Office of Institutional Research, Planning and Assessment coordinated the meetings, facilitated discussions, and served as editor/reviewer for all Self Study Reports. Several important changes to the process of preparing Self Study Reports were made as a result of the Supergroup. First, authors of the Self Study Reports did not wait until close to the report deadline (July 7, 2006) in order to write their reports. Instead, the Dean of the Faculty required that the authors submit a draft to him early in 2005. This draft was then reviewed by the IRPA Executive Director. The authors then revised several times in the intervening months. As a result, reports were finished and shipped two weeks before the set deadline. Overall authors were very satisfied with the reports they prepared and the feedback they received. Second, the writing the report drafts demonstrated that the process could be made more efficient if there was “boilerplate” text for certain sections of the report that were common to all programs on campus. For instance, Criterion 1 of the Accreditation Summary asks that the program “describe how students are evaluated, advised, and monitored,” as well as “describe the processes and procedures used to enforce policies for the acceptance of transfer students.” In the case of advising and accepting transfer students, much of it is guided through Institute-wide activities and/or policies. All Rose-Hulman first year students are advised by Freshman Advisers, faculty who volunteer to perform this duty and are drawn from all academic departments. Thus, “boilerplate” was written to describe the Freshman Advising program, while the individual programs supplied their particular advising strategies that are used once a student rises to third quarter freshman status. With regard to transfer students, all programs at Rose-Hulman follow the Institute policy for transfer credit. This section was also composed, reviewed by the Supergroup, then used in common for all Self Study Reports. Third, the result of meeting, sharing information, and providing report sections in common was Self Study Reports that were very consistent across the different programs and disciplines.

Several effective practices were identified by the Institute during the conduct of this Action Project. Among these are: (1) effective inter-group work; (2) timely completion of assigned tasks; and, (3) use of boilerplate materials for standardization and ease of reading. These practices undoubtedly contributed to a comprehensive and successful preparation for the site visit.

There are two challenges associated with this Action Project. The first lies in the fact that our ABET Re-accreditation site visit will be followed 6 months later by the AQIP Quality Check visit (May 2-4, 2007). Some faculty may feel overtaxed having to prepare for a second accreditation visit within the same academic year. The administration (the Dean of the Faculty and the academic Department Heads) plans to prepare for this possibility by managing workloads appropriately. The second lies in the natural sense of relief that comes from completing an accreditation cycle successfully. Some faculty may feel that since the next ABET Re-accreditation visit is six years away, they can neglect the improvement processes that were established to meet ABET requirements. Again the President, the Dean, and the department heads plan to work diligently to keep the processes in place and functioning throughout the six-year cycle.

The two challenges associated with the Action Project are real ones. The first, "institutional fatigue" following such an intensive undertaking, and the second, the somewhat false "sense of relief" that follows such an accreditation review. Concerning institutional fatique, the Dean of the Faculty and Department Heads have an excellent plan to monitor and manage workloads. This will undoubted involve others in preparing for the AQIP visit.. The President, Dean and Department Heads have planned to keep the established improvement processes in the fore throughout the full accreditation cycle. This will maintain the Institute's hard work of preparing for and securing the reaccreditation, and most importantly, contribute to student success. It should be noted that a good prtion of the work undertaken to garner the reaccreditation will be useful and of intrest in the upcoming AQIP Quality Check visit.