MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292560135 · doi:10.1155/2022/1595126

Outcomes-Based Assessment and Lessons Learned in ABET-CAC Accreditation: A Case Study of the American University in the Emirates

2022· article· en· W4292560135 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMobile Information Systems · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Curriculum Development
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccreditationEmployabilityProcess (computing)Engineering managementQuality (philosophy)CommissionComputer scienceMedical educationEngineeringEngineering ethicsPolitical scienceMedicinePsychologyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABET accreditation is sought globally for engineering and technology academic programs due to the quality, added value, and competitiveness it adds to students, program, and the university locally, regionally, and globally. Aligning with its mission to prepare students as global citizens for future career aspirations and lifelong learning through quality teaching, the American University in the Emirates (AUE) focuses on outcome-based education to ensure the employability of graduates and hence soon realized the significance of the Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology-Computing Accreditation Commission (ABET-CAC) standard toward the Computer Science (CS) program. While pursuing ABET accreditation was challenging, the outcome was positive, and currently, the Computer Science Program, with its two specializations in Network Security and Digital Forensics is ABET-accredited. The process required support from all units within the institution and was a great learning experience for all stakeholders. ABET draws generic requirements to be fulfilled by a program seeking accreditation without a detailed procedure to achieve them. However, there is little information about achieving these requirements, especially criterion 4: continuous improvement, which most programs fail to comply with according to ABET. This study presented a comprehensive and reproducible methodology that addresses our successful efforts in aligning the CS program with ABET-CAC requirements by emphasizing criterion 4. This article reported the evaluation of Student Outcomes number one and two for the academic year 2020–2021 through a comprehensive framework. The framework showed data collection, data reporting and analysis, actions, and recommendations for the next academic cycle. The framework showed a mathematical model for calculating the Student Outcomes (SOs) attainment based on the mapped Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs). Finally, the recommendations were reported. We believe this article established a solid foundation that would be beneficial for insinuations pursuing ABET accreditation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.843
Threshold uncertainty score0.190

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it