한국공학교육인증원

Section 1 General

Article 1 (General)

Pursuant to Article 2 of ABEEK Constitution, ABEEK shall conduct accreditation of programs in engineering in accordance with the following rules.

Section 2 Objectives of Accreditation

Article 2 (Definition)

The program implies but just one of possible degree programs that an administrative unit for engineering education could operate. ABEEK-accreditation of engineering programs assures that the graduates of accredited programs possess sufficient academic background for pursuing their professional career in engineering, computing and IT-related disciplines or engineering technology.
ABEEK determines evaluates whether engineering education programs and institutions satisfy the accreditation criteria.
ABEEK promotes new and innovative methods in engineering education, provides guidelines and consultation for educational programs.
ABEEK ensures that ABEEK-accredited engineering programs are recognized as t education programs that meet the minimum quality standard.

Article 3 (Eligibility)

Regular engineering education programs provided by higher education institutions offering associate’s degrees or higher, approved in accordance with National Higher Education Acts, are eligible for accreditation.

Article 4 (Unit of Accreditation, Accredited Program)

Accreditation is granted to an engineering education program operating a certification system with an independent curriculum, which will be called an accredited program, not to an academic institution or administrative unit. When an academic administrative unit operates multiple engineering education programs, each program must apply for accreditation separately.

Article 5 (Meaning of Accreditation)

“An engineering program is accredited” means that the program satisfies accreditation criteria set by ABEEK.

Section 3 Accreditation Criteria

Article 6 (Accreditation Criteria)

ABEEK shall establish Accreditation Criteria (KEC2015, KCC2015, and KTC2015) and administer accreditation evaluation based on these criteria. The Accreditation Criteria shall be applied with due discretion to reflect the specialization and differentiation amongst programs in engineering.
Accreditation Evaluation Guidelines based on respective Accreditation Criteria (KEC2015-Evaluation Guidelines, KCC2015-Evaluation Guidelines, and KTC2015-Evaluation Guidelines) shall be provided for greater consistency in accreditation evaluation process.
Accreditation Criteria shall be reviewed by the respective Accreditation Councils (Engineering Accreditation Council, Computing Accreditation Council, and Engineering Technology Accreditation Council) and ratified by the Board of Directors of ABEEK.
Accreditation Evaluation Guidelines shall be reviewed and ratified by the respective Accreditation Council.
The Accreditation Criteria Committee, Accreditation Councils (EAC, CAC, ETAC), Planning Committee, Glocal Committee, Engineering Education Research Center, and Administrative Department may collaborate in proposing accreditation criteria or accreditation evaluation guidelines. Academic Societies may advise on Program Criteria in their respective fields of specialization.
Accreditation criteria shall be reviewed every 5 years and amended if needed.
When establishing or amending accreditation criteria, the proposed draft shall be posted on the ABEEK website for 30 days to solicit opinions.
The new accreditation criteria shall be noticed one year prior to the date it takes effect.

Article 7 (Granting of Accreditation)

Accreditation shall be granted if a program in engineering is deemed to satisfy both the General Criteria and the Program Criteria as described in Article 6.
Accreditation shall not be granted unless the program provides students with the necessary education components for the development of their competencies as engineers. Here, “engineers” refers collectively to the field and professional practitioners in ngineering, computer science and information technology, and engineering technology.
The accreditation does not seek to needlessly homogenize engineering education through rigid application of Accreditation Criteria, but seeks to encourage innovation in engineering education. The accreditation seeks to accommodate diverse program delivery modes as long as they equip graduates with program learning outcomes stipulated in the Accreditation Criteria and requirements of engineering practice in respective fields of specialization.
Accreditation evaluation must ensure that not only quantitative elements but also qualitative elements are adequately taken into account.

Article 8 (Program Title)

An accredited engineering education program (hereinafter referred to as an accredited program) must indicate the major field of the program in its name and be clearly stated in the academic records of the program students and graduates.
When an academic administrative unit also operates programs with no accreditation system applied (hereinafter referred to as a non-accreditation program), they may decide on the program name and degree name to be clearly distinguishable ed from those of accreditation programs.
Students in an accreditation program may transfer to a non-accreditation program by following the relevant regulations (or guidelines) established by the program.
An educational institution operating an accreditation program seeking to change the name of program or degree during the period of accreditation must request the changes in an official document and must obtain an approval from ABEEK.
Programs undergoing division or merger may concurrently use the names of the program and degree before the change during the agreed-upon transition period. Once the transition is completed, only the names of the program and degree after the change shall be used.

Section 4 Accreditation Procedure and Accreditation Decisions

Article 9 (Accreditation Procedure)

Procedure to be followed during accreditation evaluation by ABEEK and subject institution/program shall be provided in a separate Accreditation Procedure document.

The types of accreditation evaluation include Initial Program Review (IPRv) conducted after graduates under a respective accreditation regime are produced, General Review (GRv) conducted every 6 years, Interim Review (IRv) conducted within 3 years, and Conditional Accreditation Review (CARv) based on conditional accreditation decision.
If accreditation evaluation is requested before graduates under a respective accreditation regime are produced, Provisional Review (PRv) can be administered. The details regarding provisional review are determined separately.

Article 10 (Accreditation Decisions)

Accreditation evaluation decisions are classified into Satisfaction (S), Concern (C), Weakness (W), and Defect (D):
1. S (Satisfaction): Satisfies the respective accreditation criterion,
2. C (Concern): Currently satisfies the accreditation criterion but with the prospect that the criteria may not be satisfied in the near future,
3. W (Weakness): The level of satisfaction of the accreditation criterion is low, and the quality of the program cannot be guaranteed. The shortcoming must be remedied prior to the next review, and
4. D (Deficiency): Accreditation criterion is not satisfied, and an immediate action to address the shortcomings is required.
The decisions on the accreditation evaluation include 'Next General Review (NGR)', 'Interim Report (IR)', 'Interim Visit (IV)', 'Conditional Accreditation Report (CAR)', 'CAV (Conditional Accreditation Visit)', 'Accreditation Extended (AE)', 'Conditional Accreditation Settled (CAS)', and 'Not-to-Accredit (NA)':
1. NGR (Next General Review): In the case of a program receiving no Deficiencies (D) and no Weaknesses (W) in the evaluation decision, accreditation is granted to the program for six(6) years until the next general review.
2. IR (Interim Report): In the case of a program receiving one or more Weaknesses (W) in the evaluation decision, accreditation is granted to the program for three(3) years. The program is required to submit an interim report before the expiration date, attesting improvements made on the Weaknesses, and receive a written evaluation.
3. IV (Interim Visit): In the case of a program receiving one or more Weaknesses (W) in the evaluation decision, accreditation is granted to the program for three(3) years. The program is required to submit an interim report before the expiration date, attesting improvements made on the Weaknesses, and receive a written evaluation as well as an interim visit.
4. CAR (Conditional Accreditation Report): In the case of a program receiving one or more Deficiencies (D), accreditation is granted to the program for three(3) years. The program is required to submit an interim report attesting improvements made on the Deficiencies and receive a written evaluation within a two-year period. If the Deficiencies are not improved in the written evaluation, accreditation shall be terminated after the expiration date.
5. CAV (Conditional Accreditation Visit): In the case of a program receiving Deficiencies (D), accreditation is granted to the program for three(3) years. The program is required to submit an interim report attesting improvements made on the Deficiencies and receive a written evaluation as well as an interim visit within a two-year period. If the Deficiencies are not improved in the written evaluation and the interim visit, accreditation shall be terminated after the expiration date.
6. AE (Accreditation Extended): Applicable to a program that received either IR, IV, or CAS. If the program improves all the shortcomings identified in the accreditation evaluation, accreditation is extended until the next general review.
7. CAS (Conditional Accreditation Settled): Applicable to a program that received CAR or CAV. The program is required to submit an interim report attesting improvements made on the Deficiencies and receive a written evaluation as well as an interim visit. If all the accreditation criteria are met, accreditation is granted to the program until the next general review or interim evaluation.
8. NA (Not-to-Accredit): When evaluating a program for the first time or in the case of conditional accreditation evaluation, program receiving one or more Deficiencies (D) shall not be accredited.
9. Despite the provisions of Article 10, Paragraph 2, if a program shows one or more Weaknesses (W) but no Deficiencies (D) in the evaluation decision, a decision of next general review (NGR) may still be granted based on a holistic assessment of the level of the Weaknesses.
Evaluation decisions for a preliminary evaluation are ‘Provisional Accreditation (PA)’ and ‘Not-to-Accredit (NA)’.
1. Provisional Accreditation (PA): If no Deficiencies (D) are present in the evaluation decision, Provisional Accreditation is granted for three(3) years. It can be converted to full accreditation by following an appropriate procedure when the first batch of the program graduates is produced. The first evaluation after the conversion must be a general review
2. Not-to-Accredit(NA): If one or more Deficiencies (D) are present in the evaluation decision, accreditation will not be granted.
The period of accreditation stipulated above may be adjusted to accommodate the scheduling of the institutions for evaluation.

Article 11 (Withdrawal)

For a program slated to receive "not-to-accredit" in its very first accreditation evaluation cycle , the program may opt for “withdrawal of accreditation application” instead. All records related to accreditation evaluation shall then be deleted.

Section 5 Maintenance and Record Keeping

Article 12 (Duration of Validity)

Accreditation is valid from March 1st of the year following the accreditation granted to February 28th of the final year of accreditation period, corresponding to the overall accreditation decision as described in Article 10. For a newly accredited program, accreditation is valid from January 1st of the year when the first certified graduates are produced to February 28th of the final year of the accreditation period, corresponding to the overall accreditation decision, provided that all graduates have completed educational courses in compliance with accreditation requirements and the program presents the achievement measurement results of program outcomes.
An educational institution wishing to operate accredited-program(s) until the expiration date granted in the previous accreditation review needs to submit a written request and obtain approval of ABEEK. The institution shall submit an annual report before the expiration date.
Even within the valid accreditation period, failure to submit the annual report may result in the accreditation being valid only for those certified graduates whose annual reports have been submitted.

Article 13 (Termination of Accreditation)

ABEEK will notify ‘suspension of accreditation’ to the program in the following cases, and accreditation will be suspended upon notification of decision. Accreditation suspension cannot be appealed.

Program notifies ABEEK of its intention to terminate accreditation status,
Program fails to submit written documents such as an annual report or a self-study report which demonstrates the program’s continued compliance
Program fails to prepare for on-site evaluation
Institution notifies ABEEK of the intention to terminate accreditation status for reasons other than those stipulated above.

Accreditation cycle is a reserved terminology used synonymously with accreditation duration.

Article 14 (Revocation of Accreditation)

ABEEK shall engage in continuous monitoring to ensure that accredited programs remain in compliance with the accreditation criteria throughout the accreditation period. For this purpose, ABEEK may require programs to submit annual reports and may notify them if they are found not to comply with the accreditation criteria. If a program fails to take appropriate remedial actions, ABEEK reserves the right to revoke accreditation by notifying the program accordingly. If required, ABEEK may conduct an on-site visit to verify the actions taken by the program.
The revocation of accreditation will take effect immediately after the decision is made. This revocation procedure is similar to a "not-to-accredit" action and can be appealed. Accreditation shall remain effective until the appeal procedure has been completed.

Article 15 (Retroactive Granting of Recognition by Ministry of Education)

The effectiveness of government recognition for engineering, computer and information (engineering), or engineering technology programs (hereinafter ‘engineering’) education programs accredited by ABEEK, before it is designated as an evaluation and accreditation organization for higher education programs, shall be retroactively granted upon completion of prescribed procedures.
The procedures for retroactive accreditation granting shall be provided separately.

Section 6 Public Release

Article 16 (Confidentiality of Information)

Evaluation reports produced following an on-site visit are reviewed by the institution and the respective Accreditation Committee of ABEEK.
ABEEK shall publish a list of accredited programs.
Information supplied by the institution for accreditation purposes will be confidential and will not be disclosed without authorization by the institution.

Article 17 (Release of Accreditation Information)

Educational institutions may disclose to students and parents, industry, and the general public that its engineering education program meets the accreditation standards.
All documents and records exchanged between ABEEK and educational institutions must be treated as confidential and delivered only to the person in charge of the relevant educational institution. However, ABEEK may use documents from educational institutions for research and education purposes.

nav

ABEEK Rules on Accreditation