Asee peer logo

Abet Ec 2000 Evaluation Of The Aeronautical Engineering Program At The United States Air Force Academy

Download Paper |

Conference

2003 Annual Conference

Location

Nashville, Tennessee

Publication Date

June 22, 2003

Start Date

June 22, 2003

End Date

June 25, 2003

ISSN

2153-5965

Conference Session

Aerospace Engineering Curriculum

Page Count

18

Page Numbers

8.149.1 - 8.149.18

Permanent URL

https://peer.asee.org/12264

Download Count

24

Request a correction

Paper Authors

author page

George Havener

Download Paper |

Abstract
NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract

Session 3202

ABET EC2000 Evaluation of the Aeronautical Engineering Program at the United States Air Force Academy

A. George Havener and D. Neal Barlow

Department of Aeronautics United States Air Force Academy

Abstract

Results from the recent ABET visit and evaluation of the aeronautical engineering program at the United States Air Forcer Academy are presented. The ABET visit occurred on 3-5 Nov, 2002, under EC 2000 criteria and was rated Next General Review with a few observations stated. The purpose of this paper is to present the process used by the Aeronautics Department (DFAN), and to describe its effectiveness and impact on the program. Much of the information presented here in extracted from our 350 page Self Study Report, accessible at, http://www.usafa.af.mil/dfan/ ABET_selfstudy. Copies of the Gateway Examination and the Comprehensives Examination, which are pre and post student program assessment instruments, plus other detailed information, can be requested from neal.barlow@usafa.af.mil.

Introduction

In preparing for our first program evaluation under ABET EC-2000, our first issue was to understand the EC 2000 criteria, particularly the elements and requirements of Criteria 2 and 3. The aeronautical engineering program at USAFA has been ABET accredited NGR since 1973, so our initial reaction to EC 2000 was: “we’re already doing all these things, so all we need to do now is change how we document our work, right?” And, “this is just TQM coming around again, right?” Wrong! In fact, while we regularly conducted internal reviews of courses, and loosely assessed our graduates with an end-of-program examination, the assessment features now in place, and those that we believed we needed to have a successful ABET review under EC 2000, did not exist before 1998. Specifically, our program lacked definition of program objectives and educational outcomes. Aside from anecdotes, we had very little useful data to back-up our opinions. We had no identifiable external group of advisors to help us determine the performance of our graduates, or to help us define our program objectives. Courses in our curriculum lacked well defined educational outcomes, and little was being done to formally evaluate program effectiveness, the educational benefit to our graduates, and the professional benefit to the Air Force.

Things are different now. We have six program objectives that have been developed jointly with, and are regularly evaluated with our Engineering Program Advisory Council (EPAC). Our six program objectives are:

Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright ©2002, American Society for Engineering Education 1

Havener, G. (2003, June), Abet Ec 2000 Evaluation Of The Aeronautical Engineering Program At The United States Air Force Academy Paper presented at 2003 Annual Conference, Nashville, Tennessee. https://peer.asee.org/12264

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: © 2003 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