Accreditation is a process that requires programs to undergo comprehensive, periodic evaluations, and assures that the graduates are well-prepared and ready for advanced study and real-world employment. The department has started a systematic process for quality assurance applied to its undergraduate programs and also moved through the required stages that lead to accreditation.
The Chemical and Process Engineering (B.Eng.) program is accredited by the Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) of ABET, https://www.abet.org, under the commission's General Criteria and Program Criteria for Chemical, Biochemical, Biomolecular, and Similarly Named Engineering Programs.
The Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering (B.Eng.) program is accredited by the Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) of ABET, https://www.abet.org, under the commission's General Criteria and Program Criteria for Petroleum and Similarly Named Engineering Programs.
Our following comprehensive review will take place in 2025. At the department level, accreditation serves as a form of endorsement, indicating to potential students that their programs provide a valid, internationally recognised education. The hard work of our faculty members and collaborations with our constituencies were the key drivers to this achievement.
It is expected that graduates will attain the Program Educational Objectives (PEOs) within a few years of graduation, as established in consultation with key program constituencies. The department has developed a process that is systematically utilized to ensure that the program’s educational objectives remain consistent with the institutional mission and the program constituents’ needs. The level of involvement of the various constituencies is not the same because of their knowledge, experience, proximity, and availability. The program seeks input from the Industrial Advisory Board members once a year. The opinions of faculty regarding improving the PEOs could be given at any time. The input from the employers and alumni is sought through surveys. In addition, the PEOs may be improved whenever there is a new development in the profession, changes in the institutional mission and/or national policy.
All processes for regularly assessing and evaluating the extent to which the student outcomes are being attained are well documented. Quantitative data are obtained (i) directly from assessments administered by course instructors and (ii) indirectly from student exit surveys. Qualitative data are obtained from (iii) student-faculty liaison committee meetings, (iv) student exit interviews, (v) Students’ society activities records and (vi) Industrial Advisory Board (IAB) discussions. Results of evaluation processes for the student outcomes and any other available information are being systematically used as input in the continuous improvement of the program.
The department is gradually introducing a peer review of teaching methods that serves both formative and summative functions. The peer evaluation is conducted once a year, and two visits per course using two forms. The closure documents form emphasises the quality and relevance of course content and assessment, while the peer-observation form focuses on two components: (i) classroom instruction and presentation, and (ii) communication and engagement of students.
The responsibility for the department’s quality assurance framework rests with the Head of the department (HoD) in concert with the focus groups, faculty members, and the Departmental Board. If needed, feedback may be provided to instructors for improvement.
The quality assurance of the teaching process in the programs is a responsibility shared by all faculty members, different committees, as well as the HoD.