Tc2 K: A Successful Working Model For Continuous Improvement
- Conference
- Location
-
Chicago, Illinois
- Publication Date
-
June 18, 2006
- Start Date
-
June 18, 2006
- End Date
-
June 21, 2006
- ISSN
-
2153-5965
- Conference Session
- Tagged Division
-
Engineering Technology
- Page Count
-
14
- Page Numbers
-
11.1194.1 - 11.1194.14
- DOI
-
10.18260/1-2--1155
- Permanent URL
-
https://peer.asee.org/1155
- Download Count
-
516
Paper Authors
David Cottrell University of North Carolina-Charlotte
DR. DAVID S. COTTRELL is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Engineering Technology, University of North Carolina at Charlotte. He graduated from the United States Military Academy in 1978 and retired in 2000 after more than 22 years of service with the US Army Corps of Engineers. Studies at Texas A&M University resulted in an MS Degree in Civil Engineering in 1987 and a PhD in 1995. He is a registered Professional Engineer and has taught courses in statics, dynamics, mechanics of materials, graphic communications, engineering economy, and construction planning, scheduling, estimating, and management.
Bruce Gehrig University of North Carolina-Charlotte
DR. BRUCE GEHRIG brings over 15 years of industry experience and 6 years of university level teaching experience to the program. His academic preparation includes three degrees in civil engineering including a M.S. in water quality and water/wastewater treatment processes and a Ph.D. in water resources planning and management and the delivery of public works projects. He is a licensed professional engineer in both Colorado and North Carolina.
Anthony Brizendine University of North Carolina-Charlotte
DR. ANTHONY BRIZENDINE currently serves as Department Chair and Professor, Department of Engineering Technology, University of North Carolina at Charlotte. His academic degrees include a B.S. in Civil Engineering Technology (Summa Cum Laude) from Bluefield State College, a M.S. in Civil Engineering from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, and a Ph.D. in Civil Engineering, West Virginia University. He is a Registered Professional Engineer and continues to pursue professional endeavors which focus in areas of Geotechnical Engineering (earth structures/risk analysis/probabilistic modeling/finite element analysis), Continuous Improvement/Outcomes Assessment, and educational pedagogy.
Abstract
NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract
TC2K: A Successful Working Model for Continuous Improvement
Introduction
The Department of Engineering Technology at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte (UNCC) has developed and implemented a comprehensive program leading to an academic environment of continuous improvement consistent with the ABET Technology Criteria 2000 (TC2K).1 This paper describes the practices, policies, and procedures that supported the evolution of a relevant set of program objectives and outcomes and the development of an integrated, comprehensive infra-structure for assessment, evaluation, and improvement. Further, to address outcomes assessment and evaluation, this paper examines continuous improvement in the Civil Engineering Technology (CIET) Program within the Department of Engineering Technology. Finally, the paper will discuss the practical implementation of the continuous improvement process.
There have been many papers published in the last few years on the topic of assessment as it relates to TC2K. Experts have long debated the pros and cons of assessment at the course level versus program level assessment and the potential for linking student achievement directly to program outcomes2,3,4,5,6 This paper proposes a systemic approach to assessment that links program outcome assessment to course assessment that is currently fully implemented and functioning at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte (UNCC) in the Department of Engineering Technology. Having obtained the highest certification of “Next General Review” during the recent ABET visit in Fall, 2005, this successful methodology recognizes the need for collective as well as individual faculty assessment, evaluation, and input. It provides a mechanism that synchronizes and integrates the actions between the college, the department, and individual faculty. As the primary student interface, faculty provide the foundational student performance assessment data by participating in the Individual Course Assessment Process (ICAP). This process reviews performance criteria in selected courses in light of their mapped support to specific program outcomes. Nevertheless, assessment employs multiple techniques and methods to “triangulate” performance, and this paper will provide a comprehensive look at ICAP as well as the other techniques that support continuous improvement. It will address the formal communication techniques and channels established to integrate activities across organizational boundaries, and it will describe an infrastructure that effectively engages staff and faculty and program constituencies in the continuous improvement planning and implementation. The Engineering Technology Department program represents a successful, holistic approach to systematically assess, evaluate, and improve the Department’s efforts in achieving program objectives and outcomes. The program at UNCC represents an approach to TC2K that not only works but that provides an example for other programs challenged with either transforming or sustaining the continuous improvement mode expected by TC2K.
Cottrell, D., & Gehrig, B., & Brizendine, A. (2006, June), Tc2 K: A Successful Working Model For Continuous Improvement Paper presented at 2006 Annual Conference & Exposition, Chicago, Illinois. 10.18260/1-2--1155
ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2006 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015