nav

메뉴

공학교육의 품질향상과
인증졸업생의 국제적 위상 확보

전체열기 전체닫기

ABEEK Accreditation Procedure

Section 1 General
Article 1 (Objectives)

Pursuant to Article 9 of ABEEK Rules on Accreditation, ABEEK Accreditation Procedure contained herein prescribes detailed rules of procedure to be followed by ABEEK and the subject institution/program in engineering during accreditation evaluation.

Section 2 Procedures
Article 2 (Procedure)

Accreditation evaluation involves ABEEK executing the following six sub-procedures in a sequential order, as further qualified in Section 3 below:

  1. (Annual Plan and Preparation) Planning of and preparation for the upcoming accreditation evaluation cycle,
  2. (Program Selection and Evaluation Team) Selection of institution/program to be evaluated and formation of evaluation team,
  3. (Program Self-Study Report) Submission of Self-Study Report by program,
  4. (Pre-Visit Evaluation and On-Site Evaluation) Procedures on Pre-Visit Evaluation and On-Site Evaluation,
  5. (Moderation & Consistency-Checks, Accreditation Decision) Filing of Responses, Preliminary Review Statements; consistency of Accreditation Decisions via Moderation & Consistency-Checks; Accreditation Decision, and
  6. (Follow-Up) Follow-up procedures
Section 3 Sub-Procedures
Article 3 (Annual Plan and Preparation)
  1. Accreditation evaluation is carried out over a one-year period. Prior to the start of the accreditation evaluation cycle, the Annual Plan for the upcoming accreditation evaluation cycle, which commences with the receipt of application from institution/program and terminates with notification of accreditation decision, is prepared.
  2. In the Annual Plan, a determination is made as to the number of institutions/programs to be evaluated during the upcoming accreditation evaluation cycle, the makeup of the accreditation evaluation teams, and the schedule for the training of program evaluators.
  3. The Annual Plan is made public by holding at least one public announcement meeting.
  4. At the public announcement meeting, the Accreditation Criteria, Accreditation Evaluation Guidelines, procedure, and time schedule as applicable for the upcoming accreditation evaluation cycle are announced.
  5. As part of the associated preparation, all necessary documents and forms are distributed whereupon the subsequent reception of the completed application form from an institution/program formally initiates the corresponding accreditation evaluation cycle for the subject institution/program.
Article 4 (Program Selection and Composition of Evaluation Team)
  1. Programs to be evaluated shall be selected according to the Annual Plan, as described in Article 3.
  2. Programs which apply for their first accreditation evaluation shall be selected for accreditation evaluation by following prescribed selection criteria.
  3. Accredited programs shall be selected for accreditation evaluation one year prior to the year of expiration.
  4. Programs divided or combined shall undergo a General Review for the next scheduled accreditation evaluation.
  5. Each evaluation team for an institution is composed of a Team Chair and Program Evaluators. Two Program Evaluators for General Review and one Program Evaluator for Interim Review or Conditional Accreditation Review are normally assigned per program. Program Evaluators shall be appointed from those who have completed Program Evaluator Training for the current accreditation evaluation cycle.
  6. If needed, the evaluation team may include Deputy Team Chair and/or Assistant.
  7. The evaluation team may include, with the permission of the host institution and the program, one or more Observers from members of ABEEK, governmental institutions, industries, international organizations, and foreign accrediting bodies.
  8. Upon submission of an initial list of potential Program Evaluators (for each program, three times the eventual number of Program Evaluators) to the institution for review, the institution may request certain designated candidates to be excluded from the list by submitting a written reason(s) for such request.
  9. If the reason(s) provided for exclusion is deemed justifiable, the designated candidates are excluded from the final list of potential Program Evaluators from which Program Evaluators are then commissioned.
  10. Team Chair and Deputy Team Chair may also serve as Program Evaluator.
Article 5 (Self-Study Report by Program/Institution)
  1. ABEEK provides a list of facts and document forms to be filled in by institution /programs applying for accreditation evaluation.
  2. Prior to accreditation evaluation, faculty of the institution/program performs self-evaluation in accordance with the relevant ABEEK criteria, rules and procedures, and submits Self-Study Report.
  3. Self-Study Report contains facts as required by ABEEK as well as any other relevant information and explanations prepared by the faculty.
  4. In the case of General Review, institution/program shall self-evaluate all review items in the accreditation criteria.
  5. In the case of Interim Review, institution/program shall self-evaluate deferred shortcomings and Weaknesses cited in the previous General Review.
  6. In the case of Conditional Accreditation, the program shall self-evaluate Deficiencies or Weaknesses cited in the previous General Review or Interim Review, respectively.
Article 6 (Pre-Visit Evaluation and On-Site Visit)
  1. The accreditation evaluation can be segmented into Pre-Visit Evaluation based upon written documents including a Self-Study Report submitted by the program, and the subsequent On-Site Evaluation conducted during On-Site Visit of the subject institution /program examining additional materials, information and data provided on-site.
  2. If a Self-Study Report submitted by the institution/program is deemed unfit for Pre-Visit Evaluation by the Evaluation Team, ABEEK may request revision of a Self-Study Report.
  3. Accreditation criteria and guidelines, including ABEEK Rules and Procedures on Accreditation, are made public, and the Evaluation Team performs evaluation of the Self-Study Report submitted by the institution/program based on these published documents.
  4. Based on the review of the Self-Study Report, the evaluation team may request additional written facts/explanations from the subject institution/program. The Evaluation Team may also request additional documents to be on display during On-Site Visit.
  5. The institution/program may submit additional written facts/explanations or, if submission is not feasible, present them during On-Site Evaluation.
  6. The Evaluation Team shall present all evaluation results accompanied by the basis for the results in written document form.
  7. The Evaluation Team may hold meetings to ensure consistency and fairness of the evaluation results before and after On-Site Visit.
  8. A Team Chair shall write a Pre-Visit Evaluation Report based on pre-visit evaluation of Self-Study Report and deliver it to the institution/program prior to On-Site Visit.
  9. During On-Site Visit, the Evaluation Team may address those items described as critical during Pre-Visit Evaluation as well as those requiring on-site verification (such as results of operation of the program and curriculum, educational environment, the faculty and student morale, adequate funding and facilities, etc.. On-Site Evaluation is also intended to verify that all facts stated in the Self-Study Report are true and accurate. Detailed guidelines for On-Site Evaluation are provided in a separate “ABEEK Guidelines for Pre-Visit Evaluation and On-Site Evaluation”.
Article 7 (Moderation & Consistency-Checks and Accreditation Decision)
  1. After On-Site Visit, the following sequence of steps shall be taken to help ensure consistency in evaluation and accreditation decision:
    1. Evaluation Team submits various Evaluation Forms to Accreditation Committee
    2. Evaluation Team drafts Pre-visit Evaluation Report and submits it to Accreditation Committee
    3. Evaluation Team drafts On-site Evaluation Report.
    4. “Accreditation Consistency Committee on Program Criteria” moderates shortcomings in Program Criteria
    5. Evaluation Team submits Draft On-site Evaluation Report to Accreditation Committee
    6. Accreditation Committee convenes the meeting of “Accreditation Consistency Committee on Draft On-site Evaluation Report”
    7. Accreditation Committee convenes the meeting of “Accreditation Consistency Committee across Institutions and Accreditation Cycles”
    8. Evaluation Team completes On-site Evaluation Report for submission to the subject program
    9. Subject program submits its “Response to On-site Evaluation Report”
    10. Accreditation Council makes final arbitration on accreditation decisions
  2. Detailed guidelines for consistency-checking and reaching of accreditation decisions are provided in a separate “ABEEK Guidelines for Consistency-checking and Accreditation Decisions”.
Article 8 (Follow-Up)
  1. ABEEK shall be responsible for safeguarding any information and documentation produced during accreditation process. As stipulated in Rules on Accreditation, ABEEK shall comply with all need-to-know access to information.
  2. Members of the Evaluation Team shall not use information concerning subject institution and program obtained in their present capacities for purposes other than those needed in the discharging of responsibilities as members of the Evaluation Team.
ajax-loader