An In-depth Comparative Study of Different ABET Accredited Computer Engineering Programs Using Self Assessment Reports

Universities all across the world give academic accreditation for degree programs significant attention. This makes sense given that accreditation not only improves the programs' content and delivery but also enables these institutions to recruit teachers and staff of the highest caliber. The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) is one reputable organization with the authority to accredit Engineering programs. A rising number of academic institutions are requesting ABET accreditation for their computing programs in an effort to raise the standard of their academic programs and student enrollment. This paper's additional value is that it serves as a road map for institutions and their management as they prepare to begin the process of accrediting their computing (or other) programs. The lack of information on the mechanics of implementation presents a problem because it leads to confusion and resource waste, especially in the early stages. Additionally, there is a dearth of literature accessible describing methodology and the use of effective accreditation strategies for computer programs. In light of this, it is necessary to record the methodology, instructional practices, and tactics used by various institutes as they work towards accreditation


INTRODUCTION
HIGHER education accreditation is a periodic process of collegial peer assessment.Institutionalbased and program-based accreditations are the two different categories.The achievement of the staff and students is generally the emphasis of institution-based accreditation [1].Depending on the discipline of the educational institution, programs may also receive national accreditation from organizations like ABET.Natural science, computer science and engineering programs are accredited by ABET, a non-profit, nongovernmental organization [2].The accreditation operations involve more than 2,200 volunteers from academia, government, and business.The program's preparation for graduates who can satisfy the demands of the relevant profession is guaranteed by ABET accreditation.The review procedure also confirms that students' educational experiences meet the industry standard for technical training.Obtaining ABET accreditation takes around a year.A Self Assessment Report (SAR) by the program, a peer review to gather data (accreditation visit), and a final determination (accreditation action) by the commission on the accreditation status are all parts of this procedure.By confirming that the curriculum has met the requirements for preparing graduates to enter the crucial sectors in the global workforce, ABET accreditation enhances the program's value.[3].Program criteria and general criteria are the two sets of requirements that ABET-accredited programs must meet.All programs that have been accredited by the relevant ABET commission must meet the General Criteria.These eight general requirements must all be met [4] 6. Faculty: This criterion focuses on the faculty's expertise, the extent to which they interact with and advise students, and their capacity to enhance the program.7. Facilities: This criterion deals with the availability of classrooms, libraries, offices, labs, tools, computing resources, and related equipment to promote student achievement of learning outcomes and to provide a learning environment.8. Institutional Support: This criterion is focused on the institutional services, funding, and personnel required to meet the program needs.This paper demonstrates and analyzes the details of 7 successful experiments to acquire ABET accreditation and compares the data recorded in their SARs.The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents the most important previous works related to this article.Section 3 explains the concept and structure of SARs.The research methodology is explained in Section 4 while the gathered data is presented and analyzed in Section 5. Finally, the most important remarks extracted from this work is abstracted in Section 6.

Related Works
The many research initiatives to improve the major academic accreditation fields are shown in Table 1 below.One direction is to assist other educational institution in meeting accreditation standards, so that many researchers have documented their ABET accreditation experience as discussed in [1][2][3][4].One of the crucial tasks to ensure that an academic program can achieve the desired student results is program assessment [5][6][7][8][9].Also, the COVID-19 epidemic and the adoption of remote tools and procedures for accrediting purposes have recently had an impact on accreditation activities in all sectors [10][11][12][13][14].
Finally, there are many studies in the education literature focusing on continuous improvement processes [15][16][17][18] and outcome based education [19][20][21][22].The majority of the mentioned references just briefly touch on one or two ABET criteria, such as the assessment process or continuous development, or they address the ABET accreditation experience in an abstracted manner.As a result, there is a gap in the body of knowledge regarding how to implement the different procedures in order to comply with the ABET requirements in a particular context.In light of this, it is obvious that a thorough description of planning and carrying out of the assessment process of symmetric programs in different universities is necessary, and that constitutes the main contribution of this work.Unlike other attempts, this study records the methodology, instructional practices, and tactics used by various institutes as they work towards accreditation and adopts a comprehensive strategy to offer recommendations on all crucial assessment process issues, including design, evaluation, and continual improvement.

Self Assessment Reports
The program Self Assessment Report (SAR) is the key document the program utilizes to certify compliance with all applicable ABET criteria and standards, according to ABET.The review team's assessment of whether the program satisfies the requirements for accreditation is based on the Self-Study.It covers all avenues for earning the degree, all modes of program-related education, and all options for distant study.As a result, the SAR serves as a crucial foundation for the development, implementation, and evaluation of proposed process changes [23][24][25].Evaluators are given a picture of a program's compliance with standards defined in criteria by the SAR's organizational structure.ABET offers a SAR template as a reference, however programs are free to employ extra and supplemental methods to present their programs to the evaluation panel in the best possible light.Although creativity and freedom of choice are permitted, programs frequently fall back on the ABET pattern [26][27][28][29][30]. Information that is routine and descriptive in character is referred to as Institutional/Program Data (I/PD).It is possible to create standardized forms and procedures for this kind of data.General reports on counts, categories, and conditions using I/PD data.Little to no interpretation is required to comprehend and Vol. 28, No. 2, September 2023, pp.226-236 assess this data without a proper data definition.For the evaluation of this data, acceptable criteria, ratios, and other measures may be employed.I/PD data can be reviewed and updated on a regular basis to reflect the state of the university [9].Assessment and Continuous Improvement Information and Data (A/CIID) refers to information that comes from evaluation procedures.This kind of reported data shows adherence to procedures and standards, as well as faculty ownership and involvement.A/CIID can be broken down into two categories: those that confirm the existence and application of an effective assessment and continuous improvement process, and those that detail how the data resulting from the process have been applied to enhance student learning in pursuit of the program's objectives [15][16][17][18].The mixed type of data currently gathered in the SAR is shown in Fig. 1.Data in this set may be owned and maintained by different people, be of various types, and be used by programs differently as well as by evaluators during accreditation.As a result, it is suggested that the SAR as a unified method of gathering, representing, and utilizing this data seems constrained.

Research Methodology
In this paper, we investigate the detailed information of 7 different computer engineering programs using their SARs, see Table 2.These SARs span over the last 10 years and represent the outcome of different approaches towards getting accreditation.The study plan involves comparing (objectively and subjectively) the different parameters in each criterion to show their convergence and divergence in dealing with accreditation requirements.

Data Presentation and Analysis
The compared data in this study is presented while dividing them into 12 Table (from Table 2 to Table 13).Each one of these tables abstracts the data of a certain ABET criterion.The following remarks could be extracted from this collection: 1.Although they all represent a computer engineering programs, there is a clear divergence among them in many aspects such as Program Educational Objectives (PEOs), study plan, curriculum, faculty, resources, regulations, Continuous Improvement Plan (CIP).Nevertheless, all these programs were eligible to get ABET accreditation.
2. These programs follow different approaches for criterion 4: data gathering, assessment and evaluation.These methods range from classical (extensive) model to light weight (capstone project) model.Also, different software assistance tools were used in different manners for data assessment and archiving.3. SARs mostly focused on continuous improvement plan which occupied about 50% of the report.4.There is a real need to enhance the classical methods and models in writing assessment reports in order to reflect a realistic picture about the analyzed programs.Modern multimedia and networking facilities could be utilized for this purpose.

Conclusions
An increasing number of academic institutes are applying for ABET accreditation of their computing programs in an effort to improve the quality of academic programs.An issue here is that there isn't much information available for implementation mechanics, which leads to misunderstanding and resource waste, especially in the early stages.Furthermore, there is a scarcity of literature accessible defining the concept and implementation of successful accreditation procedures for computer programs.With this in mind, there is a need to document the methodology, educational practices, and tactics used by various institutes on their path to accreditation.The most essential aspect in the context of ABET is the technique for analyzing and evaluating SOs, which serves as the foundation for continuous improvement initiatives.This problem is addressed in this paper by offering elaborate implementation details of methods and strategies for computer engineering programs pursuing ABET accreditation.

Table 5
Criterion 2: Program Educational Objectives

Table 12 :
Institutional Summary

Table 13 :
Program Enrollment and Personal