J. Engg. Sc. Mgmt. Ed.

Vol-5 Issue-II (475479)

Journal of Engineering, Science & Management Education

A Review of NBAs Accreditation Criteria for Bachelors Degree Programmes in Engineering

1

D. Brahadeeswaran*1, M. A. Abdul Hakeem2 National Institute of Technical Teachers Training & Research, Chennai(TN), India. 2 MGU College of Engineering, Thodupuzha, Kerala, India. *E-mail : db@nitttrc.ac.in
Revised 24th January 2012 Accepted 07th May 2012

Article History : Received 08th October 2011

Abstract : India had witnessed an explosive growth in the number of institutions offering engineering programmes in the last two decades. This unprecedented growth obviously led to several problems with regard to quality of technical education. In order to ensure the quality of technical education, All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) has established the National Board of Accreditation (NBA) in 1994 to formulate the criteria or standards, by which individual programmes in any engineering institution can be evaluated. India has recently taken a big leap forward in the area of engineering education by becoming a provisional member of the Washington Accord on 20th June 2007. As per the requirement for becoming a full-fledged member of the Washington Accord, the National Board of Accreditation has revised the procedures and criteria of accreditation to bring it to international standards. The new procedures and criteria of accreditation came to effect from 1st January 2009. This paper presents a comparison of the revised system of accreditation of the NBA with the earlier system

Keywords: Engineering education; quality assurance; accreditation; programme objectives; programme outcomes. I INTRODUCTION Engineering education has reached high priority in recent years due to the rapid development in technology world over. India has been one of the pioneers of this development. The system of engineering education in India has become a formidable reservoir of technical expertise in terms of the magnitude of human resources and expertise available and of infrastructural facilities created over the last six decades. There has been a steep increase in the growth of engineering institutions in India in the last two decades. This unprecedented growth obviously led to several problems with regard to quality of engineering education. Improving quality of education offers exceptional benefits to the society. The accumulated knowledge and good skills that are relevant for economic and social development over time represent an important component of human capital. Investments made to improve educational quality yield future economic benefits in much the same way as an investment by an industry for quality rating that enhances its productivity and income. High quality of education equips learners with a diverse set of knowledge and skills that are relevant to the nation on one hand, and to attain levels of international recognition and reputation on the other [1]. II. ACCREDITATION OF ENGINEERING PROGRAMMES Quality remains an utmost concern for all engineering NITTTR, Bhopal, India, All rights reserved educators. A way to assure quality in engineering education system is by adhering to accreditation by a certified body. Accreditation of an engineering educational programme is the primary quality assurance process used to ensure the suitability of that programme as the entry route to the engineering profession [2]. Accreditation involves a periodic audit against the present standards of the engineering education provided by a particular programme. Accreditation is intended to provide degree-granting academic programmes with a credential. The credential can be used by the programmes and their constituencies the general public, students and prospective students, employers, industry, and governmental bodies to assess the quality of the programme and the extent to which it achieves its own goals as well as agreed-upon educational standards. The process of accreditation also serves to foster self-examination by educational institutions; to develop a dialog between constituents of educational programmes on content, methods, and outcomes; and to encourage continuous improvement of academic programmes. The value of the accreditation credential depends on the clarity of the description, which defines what it ascertains, the reputation and independence of the accrediting body, the fairness and transparency of the process leading to credential granting, and the time at which the credential was awarded. It has been experienced that credentials provided by nongovernmental bodies with a broad base of support by academia, professional associations, governmental agencies and industry

(475)

J. Engg. Sc. Mgmt. Ed. Vol-5 Issue-II (475479)

tend to be more valuable than those granted by governmentdominated bodies or bodies that are controlled by a single industry or a single corporation [3]. At its best, accreditation serves to encourage progress in higher education and increase adaptation of programmes and curricula to new developments in science, technology, and the marketplace. Accreditation can foster the development of more responsive and adaptive programmes, lead to superior pedagogical methods, and make education more exciting, effective, and relevant. At its worst, accreditation can serve as a vehicle to entrench old traditions, perpetuate rigid prescriptions that inhibit innovation and progress, and act as a sinkhole for programme resources that are devoted to overelaborative preparations for accreditation visits rather than to improvement of education. When misused, accreditation can become an intimidation tool in the hands of the establishment, a mechanism for pressing school administrations for resources, or a vehicle for political manoeuvring [3]. In order to ensure the quality of technical education in India, the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) has established the National Board of Accreditation (NBA). III THE NATIONAL BOARD OF ACCREDITATION The Indian Quality Assessment and Accreditation System for engineering education got off to a start with the setting up of National Board of Accreditation (NBA) in 1994, by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), to periodically conduct evaluation of technical institutions or programmes on the basis of guidelines, norms and standards specified by it. NBA is dedicated to building a technical education system, as vendors of human resources that will match the national goals of growth by competence, contributions to economy through competitiveness and compatibility to societal development. NBA provides the quality benchmarks targeted at global and national stockpile of human capital in all fields of technical education [4]. For NBA, accreditation means a process of quality assurance, giving credit where it is due for some clearly visible and demonstrable strategies of academic activities and objectives of the institutions, known to be honestly pursued and efficiently achieved by the resources currently available with a potential for continuous improvement in quality for effective growth. NBA is charged with the task of evolving a procedure for assessment of quality in the technical education sector in India on the basis of specified guidelines, norms, benchmarks and criteria. The basic objectives of accreditation are: To assist all the stakeholders in technical education (like parents, students, teachers, educational institutions, professional societies, potential employers, Government agencies) in identifying those institutions and their specific programmes which meet the norms, standards and other quality indicators specified from time to time. To provide guidelines to the technical institutions for the

desirable upgradation of existing programmes and for the development of new programmes. To encourage the maintenance of a standard of excellence and to stimulate the process of continual improvements in technical education in the country NBA aims to recognize and acknowledge the value addition in transforming the admitted raw student into a capable engineer having sound knowledge of fundamentals and acceptable level of professional and personal competence for ready employability in responsible engineering assignments [5]. IV EARLIER SYSTEM OF ACCREDITATION OF NBA As per the earlier system of accreditation which came into effect from 1st January 2004, the criteria and standards, by which individual programmes in any institution will be judged, have been carefully formulated so as to give a clear and transparent indication of the strengths and weaknesses of the programmes. These are classified into three indices that measure the quality of different aspects of the programmes, viz., Organization / Infrastructure Indices, Academic Performance Indices and Industry Interaction Indices. Eight criteria were evolved for the measurement of performance under these indices as shown in Table I. Various parameters were defined for assessing the quality of a programme under these criteria. Table I also shows the number of parameters assessed under each criterion. Table I Criteria And Parameters Used In The Earlier System of Accreditation
No. Criterion Weights No. of Parameters

Organization and Governance 80 8 Financial Resources, Allocation 70 4 and Utilization 3. Physical Resources 50 9 4. Human Resources: 200 9 Faculty & Staff 5. Human Resources: Students 100 4 6. Teaching Learning Processes 350 8 7. Supplementary Processes 50 7 8. Research & Development and 100 7 Interaction Effort Total 1000 56 Although NBA has taken into account international practices in arriving at these criteria and adapted them to suit Indian conditions, a few major deficiencies seem to have crept into the assessment of engineering education programmes based on these criteria [6]. They are: Assessment criteria are largely oriented to determine various parameters of the programmes / institutions related to AICTE approval process, rather than to evaluating programme outcomes, so necessary for their quality assessment. Inadequate importance given to curriculum structure, content, professional component, testing and achievement

1. 2.

(476)

A Review of NBAs Accreditation Criteria for Bachelors Degree Programmes in Engineering : D. Brahadeeswaran et al

in the criterion on teaching learning process, resulting in some gaps in its evaluation. The assessment criteria followed have many limitations, as colleges in India being generally of the affiliated type; do not have control on student admissions, academic calendar, curriculum, examination system, degree award and related activities. Absence of scientific / technical basis for giving proportional weights to different criteria and using the scores in such proportion to determine the accreditation status of a programme. Compliance of each criterion for deciding the accreditation status of a programme not given importance, leading to doubts over error-free certification of the status. Orientation / training of assessors to serve as experts in visiting teams inadequate, leading to doubts on their fairness and accuracy of giving marks at criterion / subcriterion levels. V THE WASHINGTON ACCORD

of provisional membership, if all other members unanimously agree to include the country as a full-fledged member. In 2008, India approached the Washington Accord for sending mentors for reviewing the accreditation system before being considered for full-fledged membership. Indias bid to become a fullfledged member of Washington Accord was not acceded to in 2009. However, as a special case, Indias provisional membership was extended for another two years. Being a full-fledged member of the Washington Accord ensures that Indian undergraduate engineering degrees would be accorded an equal status in all member countries and they are recognized as engineering degrees of high international standards. VI REVISED SYSTEM OF ACCREDITATION OF NBA As per the requirements for becoming a full-fledged member of the Washington Accord, NBA has revised the procedures and criteria of accreditation to bring them to international standards. The new procedures and criteria of accreditation came to effect from 1st January 2009. NBA has tightened the accreditation norms for engineering programmes, to help them eventually gain international recognition. As per the Evaluation Guidelines for NBA Accreditation of Undergraduate Engineering Programmes, for the accreditation of a programme, there will be both institute level evaluation and programme specific evaluation [8]. As part of internationalizing the accreditation system and to make it outcome based, NBA has defined the required objectives and outcomes for an undergraduate engineering programme. The whole of the revised system of accreditation centres on the following theme [8]. An engineering programme must ensure that its graduates understand the basic concepts of science and mathematics; have gone through one engineering field in depth to appreciate and use its methodologies of analyses and design; and have acquired skills for life-long learning. An engineering programme must therefore have a mission statement, which is in conformity with the mission statement of the organization. The mission must be translated into specific programme objectives and programme outcomes that are expected of the educational process. The outcomes of a programme must be measurable and must be assessed regularly through proper feedback for improvement of the programme. There must be a quality assurance process in place within the institute to make use of the feedback for improvement of the programme. The curriculum must be constantly refined and updated to ensure that the defined objectives and outcomes are achieved. Students must be encouraged to comment on the objectives and outcomes and the role played by the individual courses in achieving them. A. Programme Objectives The educational objectives of a programme are the statements that describe the expected achievements of graduates within

The Washington Accord is an international agreement, signed in 1989, among bodies responsible for accrediting engineering degree programs. It recognizes the substantial equivalency of programs accredited by those bodies and recommends that graduates of programs accredited by any of the signatory bodies be recognized by the other bodies as having met the academic requirements for entry to the practice of engineering [7]. The Washington Accord has the following basic terms of agreement in which the Signatories: Accept that accreditation procedures are comparable. Accept mutual monitoring. Accept one anothers accredited degrees from the date of admission as a full-fledged member. Agree to identify and encourage implementation of best practice. Accept that it applies to accreditations in home jurisdictions only. Accept the need to encourage licensing and registration authorities to apply the agreement. India, represented by National Board of Accreditation of All India Council for Technical Education, has taken a big leap forward in the area of engineering education by becoming a provisional member of the Washington Accord on 20th June 2007. Organizations holding provisional status have been identified as having qualification accreditation or recognition procedures that are potentially suitable for the purposes of the Accord; those organizations are further developing those procedures with the goal of achieving signatory status in due course. As per the provisions of the Washington Accord, a country becomes eligible for full-fledged membership after two years

(477)

J. Engg. Sc. Mgmt. Ed. Vol-5 Issue-II (475479)

first few years of their graduation from the programme. The programme objectives, may be guided by global and local needs, vision of the Institution, long term goals etc. For defining the Programme objectives the faculty members of the programme must continuously work with local employers, industry, Research and Development advisors, and the alumni. The objectives of a programme may be broadly defined under five categories: 1) Preparation: To prepare students to excel in postgraduate programmes or to succeed in industry / technical profession through global, rigorous education. 2) Core Competence: To provide students with a solid foundation in mathematical, scientific and engineering fundamentals required to solve engineering problems and also to pursue higher studies. 3) Breadth: To train students with good scientific and engineering breadth so as to comprehend, analyse, design, and create novel products and solutions for the real life problems. 4) Professionalism: To inculcate in students professional and ethical attitude, effective communication skills, teamwork skills, multidisciplinary approach, and an ability to relate engineering issues to broader social context. 5) Learning Environment: To provide student with an academic environment aware of excellence, leadership, written ethical codes and guidelines, and the life-long learning needed for a successful professional career. Within the five broad categories, each programme may define its own objectives appropriate for the specific discipline. A. Programme Outcomes The programme outcomes are the skills and knowledge, which the students have at the time of graduation. The outcomes essentially indicate what a student can do from subject-wise knowledge acquired during the programme. The outcomes may be programme specific within broad categories given in the following. Generally, the engineering programmes must demonstrate their graduates have following capabilities: Demonstrate knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering. Demonstrate an ability to identify, formulate and solve engineering problems. Demonstrate an ability to design and conduct experiments, analyse and interpret data. Demonstrate an ability to design a system, component or process as per needs and specifications. Demonstrate an ability to visualize and work on laboratory and multi-disciplinary tasks. Demonstrate skills to use modern engineering tools, software and equipment to analyse problems. Demonstrate knowledge of professional and ethical responsibilities.

Ability to communicate effectively in both verbal and written form. Understanding of impact of engineering solutions on the society and also will be aware of contemporary issues. Develop confidence for self-education and ability for lifelong learning. Participate and succeed in competitive examinations. The programme outcomes can vary slightly depending upon the discipline. However, the broad outcomes would be the same. While the total number of criteria has been kept at eight and the total weights at 1000, the names and weights of individual criteria are modified in this latest revision. The criteria and the number of parameters assessed under each criterion are shown in Table II. Table-II Criteria and Parameters used in the Revised System of Accreditation No. Criterion Weights No. of Parameters 1 Organization and Governance Resources, Institutional Support, 150 10 Development and Planning 2 Evaluation and Teaching 175 6 Learning Process 3 Students Entry and Outputs 150 6 4 Faculty Contributions 150 7 5 Facilities and Technical Support 75 4 6 Continuous Improvements 75 7 7 Curriculum 125 4 8 Programme Educational 100 5 Objectives Their Compliance and Outcomes Total 1000 49

VII EARLIER AND REVISED SYSTEMS A COMPARISON

The number of criteria and the total weights has been kept same at 8 and 1000 respectively in both systems. The number of parameters to be assessed has been reduced from 56 in the earlier system to 49 in the revised system. A new focus of outcome approach can be viewed in the revised system compared to the resource and process approach in the earlier system. More weight is given for students outputs and faculty contributions in Research and Development projects, Research publications, IPRs, consultancy work and interactions with outside world in the revised system of accreditation. Minimum qualifying marks are specified for 3 critical criteria in the earlier system and 4 criteria in the revised system. These minimum requirements are shown in Table III and Table IV respectively.

(478)

A Review of NBAs Accreditation Criteria for Bachelors Degree Programmes in Engineering : D. Brahadeeswaran et al

More weight is given to the Programme Level performance than the Institute Level performance, in the revised system of accreditation. The split up of points among Institute Level and Program Level parameters in both the systems are compared in Table V. Continuous Improvements is included as a new criterion in the revised system, for which marks are awarded based on the rate of improvement over three years rather than the absolute values in each year. This criterion facilitates institutions to work towards continuous performance improvement as performance improvement is a never ending process. Table- III Minimum Points Required for Individual Criterion in the Earlier System of Accreditation Criterion Criterion No. of on No. Parameters 4 Human Resources: Faculty & Staff 80 (out of 200) 5 Human Resources: Students 50 (out of 100) 6 Teaching Learning Processes 175 (out of 350)

Table- VI Grading Systems of NBA Accreditation System Total Points (out of 1000) > 750* 650 750* < 650 Earlier System Accredited for Accredited for Not 5 years 3 years Accredited > 750* > 600 < 600 Revised System Accredited for Provisionally Not 5 years Accredited for Accredited 2 years** * Should score minimum qualifying points for the criteria specified **The institution, after overcoming the weaknesses, may apply to upgrade their status CONCLUSIONS NBA is entrusted with the task of evolving a procedure for quality assessment in the engineering education sector and to assist the stakeholders in technical education to identify those institutes and their programmes which meet the quality benchmarks setup by international agencies. The process of accreditation is being reviewed periodically to make it reach the new global standards, so that many of the institutions will be accredited and India can become a full-fledged member of the prestigious Washington Accord. The system of accreditation should be continuously reviewed to enhance its validity, reliability and usability and bring it on par with international standards. References [1]. M. Anandakrishnan, Rationalizing the Rating Race, ISTE IFEES Asia Pacific Regional Conference , Bhubaneswar, India, 19-21 December 2008. [2]. ENAEE Mission General Policy Statement (2009). [Online]. Available: http://enaee.eu/the-enaee-network/ mission-of-the-network. [3]. IEEE Position Paper on Accreditation of Academic Programs in Engineering, Computing and Technology (2007).[Online].Available: http://www.ieee.org/ position_statements.html. [4]. (2011) The National Board of Accreditation website. [Online]. Available: http://www.nba-india.org/ [5]. Manual for NBA Accreditation (2004). [Online] Available: http://www.nba-aicte.ernet.in/accre/content.pdf. [6]. B. S. Sonde, Accreditation of Engineering Education Programmes in India: Issues and Concerns, Contemporary Issues in Engineering Education , Macmillan Publishers India Ltd., pp. 16-25, 2008. [7]. (2011) The Washington Accord website. [Online]. Available: http://www.washingtonaccord.org/Evaluation Guidelines for NBA Accreditation of Undergraduate Engineering Programmes (2009). [Online]. Available: http://www.nba-india.org/download/Evaluationguidelines. pdf

Table-IV Minimum Points Required for Individual Criterion in the Revised System of Accreditation Criterion Criterion No. of on No. Parameters 1 Organization and Governance, 100 (out of 150) Resources, Institutional Support, Development and Planning 2 Evaluation and Teaching 115 (out of 175) Learning Process 3 Students Entry and Outputs 100 (out of 150) 4 Faculty Contributions 100 (out of 150) Table-V Split up of Points Among Institute Level and Programme Level Parameters Total Points (out of 1000) Accreditation Institute Programme Institute /
System Level Level Programme Level

Earlier System 249 325 426 Revised System 325 675 Programme Educational Objectives and their mapping with outcomes, faculty expertise, and significant achievements are included as a new criterion in the revised system, which makes the revised system more outcome based. More weight is given for the curriculum contents, breadth, emphasis on laboratory and project work, curriculum updates to meet programme objectives and additional contents to bridge curriculum gaps, in the revised system. The Grading System (Accreditation Status) has been changed in the revised system and a comparison of the Grading Systems is shown in Table VI.

(479)