Sutterer, K. G., & Robinson, M., & Hanson, J. H., & Reeves, M. C., & Twarek, A. B. (2012, June), Assessment of Student Outcomes Using Industry-Academia Assessment Teams   Paper presented at 2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, San Antonio, Texas. 10.18260/1-2--20990

\bibitem{asee_peer_20990}
  Sutterer, K. G., \& Robinson, M., \& Hanson, J. H., \& Reeves, M. C., \& Twarek, A. B. (2012, June), \emph{Assessment of Student Outcomes Using Industry-Academia Assessment Teams }
  Paper presented at 2012 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, San Antonio, Texas.
  10.18260/1-2--20990

Kevin G. Sutterer, Michael Robinson P.E., James H. Hanson, Michael C. Reeves P.E., and Andrew B Twarek P.E..  "Assessment of Student Outcomes Using Industry-Academia Assessment Teams ".  2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, San Antonio, Texas, 2012, June.  ASEE Conferences, 2012.  https://peer.asee.org/20990 Internet.  18 May, 2024

\bibitem{asee_peer_20990}
  Kevin G. Sutterer, Michael Robinson P.E., James H. Hanson, Michael C. Reeves P.E., and Andrew B Twarek P.E..
  "Assessment of Student Outcomes Using Industry-Academia Assessment Teams ".
  \emph{2012 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, San Antonio, Texas, 2012, June}.
  ASEE Conferences, 2012.
  https://peer.asee.org/20990 Internet.  18 May, 2024

@INPROCEEDINGS{asee_peer_20990
author = "Kevin G. Sutterer, Michael Robinson P.E., James H. Hanson, Michael C. Reeves P.E., and Andrew B Twarek P.E."
title = "Assessment of Student Outcomes Using Industry-Academia Assessment Teams "
booktitle = "2012 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition"
year = "2012"
month = "June"
address = "San Antonio, Texas"
publisher = "ASEE Conferences"
note = {https://peer.asee.org/20990}
number = {10.18260/1-2--20990}
}

TY  - CPAPER
AB  -                          Assessment of Student Outcomes Using                         Industry-Academia Assessment TeamsAbstract(school name’s) Department of Civil Engineering is using assessment teams comprised ofindustry professionals and faculty members working together to assess student outcomes forcontinuous improvement. This industry assessment is using one of two approaches. For the firstapproach, assessment of some student outcomes is performed by teams of four industry expertsduring (school name)’s annual Board of Advisors’ meeting. This assessment is conductedspecifically on senior capstone design reports from the prior academic year. In this approach,faculty members are available to answer questions about the students’ work and to receiveadvice, but not to assess. The department rates six different student outcomes using thisapproach.The second assessment approach is conducted on all other student work submitted forassessment of department-specific student outcomes. In a single year, this requires rating a totalof approximately 30 different sets of submissions from students. This assessment is facilitatedusing (school name)’s online electronic portfolio system to allow remote access and rating ofstudent work. Each industry professional is teamed with one faculty member to conduct rating ofstudent work submissions. The teams meet by phone and email regularly during each ratingsession to discuss the outcome criterion, student submissions, the rubrics for rating submissions,and inter-rater reliability. Upon completion of each rating session, the team provides thedepartment with an overview that includes advice for improving student learning and forcriterion or rubric revision, if appropriate.Permitting industry professionals to work directly with student submissions has accelerated thecontinuous improvement process in the department. External industry professionals are likely toapply an even higher standard of expectation to student work, and provide insights not readilyapparent to faculty members who are immersed daily in facilitating the learning process. Thishas resulted in a reduction in passing rates for some student work, thus fostering greater leaps inimprovement of learning in those outcomes. Team review of student work also facilitates greaterlevels of cooperation and communication between faculty members and industry colleagues,ultimately enhancing student learning.Findings will be reported as (1) a comparison of passing rate statistics before and after inclusionof industry raters (2) +/∆ reflections on the process by both industry and faculty raters, and (3)+/∆ reflection on the process by the administrator of the rating. We recommend that otherinstitutes consider use of industry raters for student outcomes because of the acceleratedcontinuous improvement and increased collaboration between industry and academia. Programsare cautioned that inclusion of industry raters adds another dimension to the planning thatincreases the administrative burden, and that passing percentages for student work will likelydecrease when industry raters are included.
AU  - Kevin G. Sutterer
AU  - Michael Robinson P.E.
AU  - James H. Hanson
AU  - Michael C. Reeves P.E.
AU  - Andrew B Twarek P.E.
CY  - San Antonio, Texas
DA  - 2012/06/10
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - Assessment of Student Outcomes Using Industry-Academia Assessment Teams 
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/20990
DO  - 10.18260/1-2--20990
ER  -