International Accreditation
Many different colleges and programs at UOB are subject to outside accreditation and they must meet rigorous standards by professional bodies to show that our graduates meet the credentials for their fields. The objective of the QAAC’s accreditation activities is to ensure that all educational programming provided by UOB meets or exceeds the levels of quality prescribed by international accrediting bodies. The center plays many roles in these accreditation processes to ensure new accreditations are secured and existing accreditations are maintained on a timely, efficient basis, including monitoring institutional compliance with accreditation requirements on an ongoing basis.
Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Inc. (ABET)
ABET is a non-profit and non-governmental accrediting agency for academic programs in the disciplines of applied science, computing, engineering, and engineering technology. ABET is a recognized accreditor in the United States (U.S.) by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation.
ABET accreditation provides assurance that a college or university program meets the quality standards established by the profession for which the program prepares its students. ABET accredits post secondary programs housed in degree-granting institutions which have been recognized by national or regional institutional accreditation agencies or national education authorities worldwide.
During the academic year 2009-2010, the following international accreditation activities were realized:
College of Engineering programs (6 programs) were accredited in September 2009 by the Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology in the USA, (ABET INC.), the largest and well known accrediting agency for engineering, technology, and Applied Sciences programs in the United States and the world.
College of IT programs (3 programs) submitted their Self-Study Reports to ABET and are ready for review process during October 2010.
College of Engineering (6 programs) and College of IT / Computer Engineering (1 program) will be going through the second cycle of accreditation by ABET in October, 2014.
National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB)
At the October 2010 meeting of the Board of Directors of the National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB), the board accepted the report of Visit Two regarding the substantial equivalency application for the B.S. in Architecture program offered by the Department of Civil Engineering & Architecture of the College of Engineering of the University of Bahrain. In his letter to Dr. Adnan Al Tamimi, the Chairman of the Department, the president of NAAB congratulated the university on completing this step in the process for achieving the substantial equivalency designation.
The National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB) is the sole agency authorized to accredit professional degree programs in architecture in the United States. The mission of the NAAB is leadership in, and the establishment of, educational quality assurance standards to enhance the value, relevance, and effectiveness of the architectural profession. The accrediting process is intended to verify that each accredited program substantially meets those standards that, as a whole, comprise an appropriate education for an architect.
The NAAB occasionally evaluates programs outside the U.S. to determine if they are “substantially equivalent” to NAAB-accredited programs. The term “substantial equivalency” identifies a program as comparable in educational outcomes in all significant aspects, and indicates that it provides an educational experience meeting acceptable standards, even though such program may differ in format or method of delivery.
The designation of “substantial equivalency” of degree programs in architecture requires the completion of three important steps:
Determination of eligibility to apply for substantial equivalency by any one of the following individuals that will visit the program: the NAAB president, executive director, or associate executive director (Visit One).
Preparation and submission of an Architecture Program Report (APR) to be scrutinized on the spot by a visiting NAAB team of two: one educator, one practitioner (Visit Two), In order to designate the “substantially equivalent” status to the program, a comprehensive final visit by a four-person NAAB team: one educator, one practitioner, one regulator, and one student. (Visit Three).
Upon the positive report received from the executive director of NAAB after her visit to the University of Bahrain on May 28-30, 2008, the ‘program’ has successfully completed the first step. As part of the process, Dr. Mohamed Yusuf Al Koheji, Secretary of the Department NAAB Committee, has participated in the NAAB accreditation team as an official observer that visited the University of Oklahoma in the U.S. on 07-11 March, 2009. The experience he has gained from this visit has substantially contributed to the Department’s preparations for the Visit Two. Upon completing these steps, NAAB decided to proceed with the ‘second visit’ to the University of Bahrain which took place on 29 May-2 June, 2010..
Since the second step in the designation of “substantial equivalency” has now been successfully concluded, the B.S. in Architecture program offered by the Department of Civil Engineering & Architecture of the College of Engineering of the University of Bahrain is currently preparing for Visit Three that can be scheduled minimum a year after the second visit.
The third visit had been scheduled to be in 2014. This visit is the final visit upon which substantial equivalency is obtained.
Council for Interior Design Accreditation (CIDA)
The Interior Design Program at the College of Engineering is applying for accreditation by the Council for Interior Design Accreditation (CIDA). CIDA founded in 1970, is an international non-profit organization that accredits post secondary interior design education programs in the United States and Canada. The voluntary accreditation process uses internationally recognized educational standards to review programs. As detailed in the Accreditation Manual, the accreditation process involves the following primary steps:
1. Request for Review
2. Determining Program Readiness
3. Preparing the Program Analysis Report (PAR)
4. Site Visit
5. Visiting Team Report
6. Accreditation Decision
A program seeking re-accreditation is not required to submit an application form or fee. Otherwise, the program prepares for a re-accreditation visit as it would for an initial accreditation visit. CIDA’s accreditation process is intended to facilitate continual program development. Therefore, a program should review its previous Accreditation Report when preparing for a re-accreditation visit to assess its progress since the last site visit.
Steps In the Accreditation Process
1. Request for Review
CIDA will review an educational program only upon invitation by the institution granting the culminating degree. The initial request that CIDA conduct an accreditation review must come from the chief executive officer of the institution or an institutional administrator authorized to act on behalf of the chief executive officer. Formal application may be made according to the program’s schedule for seeking accreditation; however, application materials must be submitted a year or more prior to an intended site visit date.
2. Determining Program Readiness
Success in seeking accreditation is dependent on the program’s ability to demonstrate achievement of CIDA standards. For this reason, programs are encouraged to undertake a thorough self-study, in which the program examines itself in relation both CIDA standards and to its own educational goals. Upon completion of the self-study, the program emerges with a view of its own strengths as well as gaps in its educational program and actions necessary to fill those gaps. The self-study process may also help frame a strategy for future program improvements.
CIDA provides Guidance for Self-study (section III of the Accreditation Manual) to assist programs in organizing self-study efforts, and periodically conducts workshops to assist programs interested in seeking accreditation.
3. Preparing the Program Analysis Report (PAR)
Interior design programs seeking accreditation must complete the Program Analysis Report (PAR), the self-study evaluation form that communicates to CIDA the results of the program’s internal analysis of its strengths and any gaps in education it might have identified in relation to meeting CIDA standards. The PAR provides background and context for reviewing the program and serves as a “roadmap” for CIDA’s site visit team, especially in reviewing student work. It contains background and context for understanding the environment in which the program operates and any unique relationships that might have an impact on the program.
4. Site Visit
CIDA requires a three-day on-site review by a visiting team to determine whether a program meets its standards for interior design education. A significant element in this peer review process is evaluating student work to determine achievement levels as a indicator of the adequacy of the required curriculum. Student learning is a primary gauge of educational quality, and so is evaluated for demonstration of knowledge, understanding, ability, skills, appropriate application, and competency. Additional factors considered by the visiting team include: academic and professional qualifications of the faculty in relation to the purposes and objectives of the program; adequacy of the facilities for the educational program; administrative structure of the program and its relationship to the institution as a whole; and program assessment methods and the program’s continued development and improvement as a result of assessment. A program is evaluated based on what is in place at the time of the site visit. New evidence, intended to demonstrate compliance with CIDA standards, is not considered after the site visit. The visiting team consists of three members (at least one educator and one practitioner).
5. Visiting Team Report
The visiting team drafts the Visiting Team Report (VTR) before the visit is concluded. Once it is submitted to CIDA, two primary reviewers from the Accreditation Commission along with accreditation staff work with the visiting team to finalize the report. CIDA submits the VTR to the interior design program coordinator for review to check for technical and content accuracy. Content concerns are forwarded to the visiting team, and the team may make changes or write a response based on program concerns. It is the right of the program seeking accreditation to review CIDA’s Visiting Team Report for accuracy. The program coordinator must acknowledge receipt of the VTR in writing. If the program finds any misrepresentations in the report or any errors of fact, the coordinator must submit a written response, or rebuttal, to the CIDA office. The program response will be appended to the VTR and circulated to all readers of the report.
6. Accreditation Decision
The VTR is then reviewed by a group of peer CIDA site visitors who comment on the accreditation status proposed by the visiting team in relation to the findings presented in the report. The PAR, VTR, the program response, team comments regarding program concerns (if any), and feedback from the site visitor reader group are considered by the Accreditation Commission. Based on this information, the Accreditation Commission makes a final decision on accreditation status for the program. Decisions regarding accreditation status must be unanimous and require a quorum of five members. The Accreditation Commission may, at its discretion, elaborate on or clarify evaluative comments contained in the VTR. The final report resulting from the Accreditation Commission’s action is based on the VTR and is the Accreditation Report.
The Accreditation Commission meets a minimum of twice a year for the purpose of reviewing programs for accreditation. If the Accreditation Commission determines the program is in compliance with its standards, the program is awarded accreditation for six years. The Accreditation Report may identify areas that require further development or are of concern. All accredited programs must submit a written Progress Report on areas identified as having deficiencies three years from the time of the accreditation decision. The Accreditation Commission may also require an interim on-site review as a condition of accredited status in order to monitor the program’s progress toward improving weaknesses identified at the time of the last accreditation review and the program’s continued compliance with standards. An interim visit is required in addition to a Progress Report if areas for improvement identified from the last accreditation review require on-site evaluation to ensure that the quality of the educational program is being sustained and is not jeopardized by further decline. A program that is determined not to be in compliance with Council for Interior Design Accreditation standards will be denied accreditation. In this case, the Accreditation Commission has identified major weaknesses with respect to important aspects of the educational program, which are identified in the Accreditation Report.