當(dāng)前位置：Home?>?Accreditation?>?Accreditation Procedure
Policy and Procedure of Engineering Education Accreditation
This document specifies the accreditation procedures, supervision, and arbitration process for conducting engineering education accreditation, as well as related avoidance, confidentiality, and other disciplinary requirements.
This document applies to engineering education accreditation of engineering programs awarding bachelor’s degree with four-year full time study at higher education institutions.
The contents of the following documents constitute indispensable provisions of the document by normative references in the text. For dated references, only the version corresponding to the date applies to this document; for undated references, the latest version (including all amendments) applies to this document.
T/CEEAA 001 Engineering Education Accreditation Criteria.
The following terms and definitions apply to this document.
Executive body of the CEEAA General Assembly. Council directs and organizes accreditation activities; establishes the engineering education accreditation system; determines the composition of the Academic Committee, the Accreditation Decision Advisory Committee, and the Program Accreditation Sub-committees.
Supervising organization of the CEEAA General Assembly. Board of Supervisors oversees the work of the Council, subordinate committees, and members; oversees the work of the Secretariat and its members; oversees accreditation work and ensures its integrity and fairness; receives appeals and complaints related to accreditation decisions or the accreditation process raised by applicant institutions, conducts investigations, and makes final decisions; receives complaints related to the engineering education accreditation process from the society, conducts investigations, and takes appropriate action.
CEEAA General Assembly Office. Secretariat implements engineering education accreditation work under the direction of the Council, including accepting request for evaluation, organizing on-site?visit, and reviewing accreditation decisions; guides Program Accreditation Sub-committees in carrying out the accreditation, etc.; stipulates and implements accreditation work plan, coordinates the accreditation process with related organizations; assists the Academic Committee in formulating and revising working documents related to engineering education accreditation; organizes academic research and communications; organizes engineering education accreditation information service and publicity; organizes international communication and cooperation in accreditation work; organizes accreditation training, and performs related duties assigned by the Council. The Secretariat also serves the Board of Supervisors, the Academic Committee, and the?Accreditation Decision Advisory Committee.
Branch of CEEAA. Program Accreditation Sub-committees organizes and implements engineering education accreditation in appropriate categories under the direction of the Council; formulates and revises complementary program criteria and relevant working documents for its category; nominates candidates for accreditation evaluators in its category; organizes training programs for accreditation evaluators in its category; appoints review team to conduct on-site?visit; drafts relevant accreditation reports, documents, and proposed decisions for the?Accreditation Decision Advisory Committee; addresses relevant Council matters.
Branch of the CEEAA. Academic Committee advises on accreditation work; formulats and revises accreditation documents such as accreditation policies and criteria; reports to the Council for adoption; provids academic support for engineering education accreditation; recognizes evaluator qualifications; directs and organizes academic activities, etc.
Branch of the CEEAA. Accreditation Decision Advisory Committee reviews accreditation reports and proposals for accreditation decisions of Program Accreditation sub-committees?under the direction of the Council and reports to the Council.
The self-study is the self-evaluation of status and educational quality that the program conducts under the direction of its institution in accordance with T/CEEAA 001.
The on-site?visit / virtual reviw is conducted by a review team appointed by the Program Accreditation Sub-committees to perform assessment and evaluation of the program under review for accreditation, verify the authenticity and accuracy of the self-study?report, and examins relevant issues arised from self-study report review.
4.1.1.1 Engineering education accreditation is granted voluntarily by institutions.
4.1.1.2 Four-year undergraduate programs of full-time normal higher education institutions that meet the following requirements can apply for accreditation:
1. Established in accordance with Ministry of Education regulations;
2. Have at least 3 years of graduates prior to the academic year when request for evalution occurs;
3. Authorized to award a bachelor of engineering degree.
4.1.1.3 If the new program has less than three years of graduates due to the change in program name, CEEAA will decide if they meet the requirements according to the connotation of their program.
4.1.1.4 The institution to which the program belongs must agree to meet the accreditation requirements and pay the costs associated with accreditation.
The request for evaluation should be submitted to the Secretariat by the institution to which the program belongs.
Upon receipt of the request for evaluation, the Secretariat reviews the request forms in conjunction with the appropriate Program Accreditation Sub-committees. The most critical issue to be reviewed is whether the institution is qualified in principle to apply for accreditation. The Secretariat may ask the institution to answer questions or provide additional materials as necessary.
According to the results of the review, CEEAA makes one of the following decisions and take the appropriate action.
1. Accept the request and ask the program to conduct a self-study.
2. Reject the request and explain the reasons to the institution to which requested program belongs. The institution may reapply for accreditation if it meets the basic requirements.
The institution to which the program with the accepted request belongs should sign the assignment contract and authorize CEEAA to process the accreditation.
The program should prepare the self-study?report based on T/CEEAA 001 and submit it to CEEAA.
The Program Accreditation Sub-committees?should review the self-study?report submitted by the program seeking accreditation. The most important item to review is whether the program has met the requirements of T/CEEAA 001.
The Program Accreditation Sub-committees should make one of the following decisions according to the result of the review and?take the appropriate action：
a) Move to the next phase of on-site visit and creat a schedule for on-site visit.
b) Modify the self-study?report according to requirements. The Program Accreditation Sub-committee?should make the decision as in item a) if the report meets the requirements after the amendment or otherwise make the decision as in item c).
c) Suspend the accreditation process. The Program Accreditation Sub-committee?explains the reasons to the program and its institution. The program and its institution may reapply for accreditation if it meets the requirements of T/CEEAA 001.
The on-site visit should be conducted in accordance with T/CEEAA 001.
The duration of the on-site visit should not exceed 3 days. The on-site visit should not fall during the vacation time. In case of force majeure or special work requirements, a virtual review or virtual plus on-site review may be arranged.
Program Accreditation Sub-committees?appoints review team according to regulations, distribute the self-study?report to the review team four weeks in advance, and notify the program and its institution of the visit date two weeks in advance.
The review?team?should carefully review the self-study?report prior to the visit.
The visit?process is as follows:
1. Preparatory meeting of the review team. Upon arrival at the campus where the program under review for accreditation locates, the review team holds an internal meeting to confirm the schedule for the visit and the evaluation process.
2. Entrance meeting. The review team presents the purpose, requirements, and detailed schedule of the visit to the administrative officers of the institution and relevant departments,?and exchange information with the institution and program.
3. Tours and investigations. The review team has a tour of experimental conditions, library, and other teaching facilities; reviews graduate design (theses) in progress, student examination papers, experimental reports, exercise reports, schoolwork, and other student projects; observe student instruction, experiments, exercises, and extracurricular activities; visits sites and internships that reflect the quality of instruction and student abilities.
4. Interview. The review team meets with relevant persons, including on-campus students and alumni, academic staff, facility directors, officers in appropriate administrative departments, academic and instructional staff in respective college or department, and employers of graduates, as appropriate.
5. Exit meeting. The review team presents an exit statement of strengths, shortcomings, and/or observations at the end of the on-site visit.
The on-site visit report should include the following contents:
1. The basic information about the program under review;
2. The exminations on the issues arised from the review of self-study report;
3. The description of the extent to which the program has met the accreditation criteria, focusing on the shortcomings identified during the on-site visit?and the issues that need to be addressed and require action for improvement.
The review team submits the on-site visit?report and related documents to the Program Accreditation Sub-committees within 15 days after the on-site visit.
The Program Accreditation Sub-committees send a copy of the on-site visit report to the institution to which the program under accreditation belongs for comments. Upon receipt of the on-site visit report, the institution should review the issues identified in the report and provide feedback to the Program Accreditation Sub-committees within 15 days. If the institution does not respond within 15 days, it will be considered a no appeal.
The institution may share the on-site visit report within the campus, but must not share it publicly prior to the formal accreditation decision.
Program Accreditation Sub-committees holds a plenary meeting to review the self-study?report, the on-site visit report, and the institution's feedback.
Program Accreditation Sub-committees propose an accreditation decision based on extensive discussion by anonymous vote. At least 2/3 (including 2/3) of the commissioners should attend the plenary meeting to vote, and the accreditation decision shall be adopted by the affirmative vote of more than 2/3 (including 2/3) of those present. Discussion of the proposal and the result of the vote in the Program Accreditation Sub-committees?should be kept confidential.
There are three types of decision proposals in engineering education accreditation:
1. Accredited with a validity period of 6 years;
2. Accredited with a validity period of 6 years (conditional);
3. Failed.
The Program Accreditation Sub-committees prepare the engineering education accreditation report in accordance with the commissioners' discussions and voting results. The report describes the accreditation decision proposal and voting results. The engineering education accreditation report is submitted to the Accreditation Decision Advisory Committee for review along with the self-study?report, on-site visit report, and institutional feedback.
The Accreditation Decision Advisory Committee holds a plenary meeting to review proposed accreditation decisions and accreditation reports submitted by Program Accreditation Sub-committees. If the Advisory Committee on Accreditation Decisions disagrees with the proposed decisions, it may request the Program Accreditation Sub-committees to reconsider the proposed accreditation decisions within a specified period of time, or adjust the proposed decisions directly.
The Accreditation Decision?Advisory Committee reviews accreditation decision proposals in accordance with consensus. The Accreditation Decision Advisory Committee conducts an anonymous vote if there are differing opinions. At least 2/3 (including 2/3) of the Commissioners should attend the plenary meeting to vote, and the accreditation decision shall be adopted by the affirmative vote of more than 2/3 (including 2/3) of those present.
When reviewing proposals for accreditation decisions, the Accreditation Decision?Advisory Committee may invite members of the Program Accreditation Sub-committees to attend the plenary meeting for defense as needed.
The Council holds a plenary session to hear the Accreditation Decision Advisory Committee review process on accreditation decision proposals and accreditation reports. The Council votes on the accreditation decision proposals. The Board of Supervisors should be invited to participate in the plenary session.
The Council holds an anonymous vote to approve the accreditation decision. The vote is effective only if at least 2/3 (including 2/3) of the Commissioners attend the plenary meeting. The accreditation decision shall be confirmed with more than 2/3 (including 2/3) approval of those present.
If the Council does not approve the proposal for accreditation decision, the Accreditation Decision Advisory Committee should reconsider the proposal according to the established procedure. After reconsidering, the Accreditation Decision Advisory Committee submits a new proposal for an accreditation decision to the Council. If the new proposal is still?not approved, the Council makes the final accreditation decision directly.
Accreditation decisions and accreditation reports approved by the Council shall be sent to the institutions concerned within 15 days. If the institutions disagree with?the decision, they may appeal to the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors makes the final decision.
CEEAA publishes the accreditation decisions approved by the Council or the Board of Supervisors.
There are three types of accreditation decisions in engineering education accreditation:
1. Accredited with a validity period of 6 years;
2. Accredited with a validity period of 6 years (conditional);
3. Failed.
In addition, the program with the decision " Accredited with a validity period of 6 years (conditional)" needs to submit improvement reports in the third year. Certain decisions on retention or termination are made based on the improvement status. The programs with "Failed " can reapply for accreditation one year later.
The institutions to which the accredited programs belong should investigate the concerns and weaknesses identified in the accreditation report and take appropriate action for improvement.
4.6.2.1 The institution to which the accredited pogram with decision of "Accredited with a validity period of 6 years" should make improvements within the validity period and submit an improvement report to CEEAA in the third year. The improvement report will be an essential reference in the next cycle of accreditation.
4.6.2.2 The institutions to which the accredited pogram with decision of "Accredited with a validity period of 6 years (conditional)" should make improvements item by item according to the concerns and shortcomings in the accreditation report and submit an improvement report to CEEAA in the third year.
CEEAA organizes the appropriate Program Accreditation Sub-committees and Accreditation Decision Advisory Committee to review the improvement reports and make one of the following decisions:
1. Maintain validity period;
2. Terminate validity period;
3. On-site review required.
CEEAA removes programs with the “Terminate validity period” decision from the list of accredited programs.
If the institute fails to submit the continuous improvement report on time, the Secretariat shall notify it of the deadline for submission. If the institute fails to submit the report after the deadline, the validity of the accreditation shall terminate.
If the accredited program makes significant changes in the curriculum, faculty, supporting conditions, etc., during the accreditation validity period, it must immediately submit a request to the Secretariat for re-evaluation of the changes. If the program is re-accredited, it may maintain the previous accreditation validity period; otherwise, the validity period of the previous accreditation terminates. Re-accreditation follows the previous accreditation process, but may be simplified depending on the situation.
CEEAA may randomly select some programs within the validity period of accreditation to conduct a return visit, if needed, to examin the improvement of accredited programs. The return visit follows the previous accreditation process.
If the accredited program wishes to continue the accreditation period, it should apply for a renewing accreditation at least one year before the accreditation period expires.
Formal documents related to accreditation work, the list of accredited programs, and accreditation decisions shall be made public.
The Board of Supervisors monitors the accreditation work by observing the accreditation process, randomly reviewing the qualifications of program evaluators, and attending the plenary meeting of the Council. The Board of Supervisors should spot-check a certain proportion of the accreditation work each year and promptly detect and deal with problems found during the accreditation process.
The Board of Supervisors has the right to investigate and dismiss program evaluators or members of accreditation organizations who violate relevant regulations. The Board of Supervisors reports to the Council and revoke the qualifications of such evaluators or members if necessary. If the evaluators or members do not comply with the laws, the Board of Supervisors refers the case to the judiciary.
The accreditation organizations, accreditation review teams, evaluators, and the institutions to which programs under accreditation belong should cooperate with the Board of Supervisors and provide it with necessary work support.
If the institution to which the program under accreditation disagrees with the accreditation decision, it has the right to appeal to the Board of Supervisors within 30 days of receiving the decision. The institution is deemed to accept the decision if the appeal is not filed within the time limit.
The institution should submit the appeal in writing and provide detailed reasons and relevant documents in support of the appeal.
The Board of Supervisors shall submit a proposal to uphold or modify the previous accreditation decision within 60 days of the appeal receipt. The proposal of the Board of Supervisors shall be the final decision, binding on the institution and the Council. CEEAA will announce the final decision.
The social agencies or individuals who object to the accredited programs or to the accreditation organizations, review teams, and evaluators may file complaints with the Board of Supervisors. Agency complaint reports need to bear the official stamp, and individual complaint reports need to be signed with their real name. The Board of Supervisors does not accept anonymous complaints. The Board of Supervisors shall maintain confidentiality for agencies and individuals.
The Board of Supervisors investigates individuals or units associated with the complaints. Individuals or units under suspicion are required to respond in writing to the issues involved and provide certification documentation.
After reviewing the reported problems, the Board of Supervisors proposes a follow-up and publicize.
All members of CEEAA accreditation organizations who have a significant relationship with the institution to which the accrediting program belongs must avoid accreditation work. Evaluators who have a substantial relationship with the institution to which the accrediting program belongs shall not be a review team member or participate in any activity during the on-site visits. The members of the CEEAA accreditation organizations, the members of the?review teams, and the institution to which the accrediting program belongs takes the initiative to propose the person and reason for the recusal during the accreditation work.
Members of the CEEAA accreditation organizations and the members of the review teams must keep the secrets of the accreditation work and do not share internal discussions or other confidential information. Materials submitted by the program and institution should not be made public unless official permission has been granted.
All members of CEEAA accreditation organizations and all members of review teams must strictly adhere to relevant accreditation policies and conduct accreditation work fairly and objectively.
The accrediting program and its institution need to ensure the authenticity and originality of the materials in the self-study?report, relevant documents, and teaching materials, and do not fabricate or falsify information. The accrediting program and its institution should not engage in any activity that violate the impartiality of the accreditaiton.