Assessment of Communication and Teamwork Skills in Engineering Technology Programs

Daniel K. Jones; Mohammed Abdallah

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Publication Date: June 23, 2013
Start Date: June 23, 2013
End Date: June 26, 2013
ISSN: 2153-5965
Conference Session: ETAC/ABET RELATED OUTCOME BASED ISSUES
Tagged Division: Engineering Technology
Page Count: 11
Page Numbers: 23.225.1 - 23.225.11
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--19239
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/19239
Download Count: 583

Paper Authors

biography

Daniel K. Jones P.E. SUNYIT

visit author page

Dr. Jones is Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering Technology and Chair of the Engineering Technology Department at SUNYIT in Utica, NY. He coordinates the ETAC/ABET accrediations processes. His technical interests include machine design, mechancial measurements, vibrations, instrumentation, and assistive technology for people with physical disabilities.

visit author page

author page

Mohammed Abdallah SUNYIT

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

Assessment of Communication and Teamwork Skills in Engineering Technology ProgramsRecently, institutions of higher education have acknowledged that an effective teaching/learningprocess must involve assessing and evaluating what and how much students are learning.Assessment and evaluation leads to improvements in the educational experiences.ETAC/ABET Criterion 3.B.e. and 3B.g. requires that graduates demonstrate effective skills inteamwork and communication. Therefore, the goal of this project was to develop consistent andefficient methods for assessment of students’ skills for different programs and instructors. Threeseparate rubrics have been developed to assess student outcomes in oral communication, writtencommunication, and teamwork. As an example, refer to the rubric for written communicationshown in Table 1 on the following page.When developing the rubrics, the goal was to limit each to one page with three to five conciseperformance indicators that captured the vital aspects of each student outcome. Eachperformance indicator was evaluated with performance levels on a scale of one to four. Eachperformance level contained a brief, thorough description of the expectations, clarifying thedifference between the performance levels.A pilot study was conducted during spring 2012 in upper-level courses computer, electrical, andmechanical engineering technology programs. Instructors provided scores in the three rubrics foreach student at the end of the semester in appropriate upper-level courses. For teamwork,students also evaluated their teammates confidentially using rubrics and written essays. Studentswere told in advance that their peer-assessment would remain confidential. They shared someperceptions of teamwork on paper that would otherwise not have been discussed in person withintheir groups. This helped to reveal the inner dynamics of the teams that may not have beenapparent from outside observations, providing more complete information for instructors toevaluate individual students.Results have been summarized and evaluated, and potential improvements have been identified.Pilot data and feedback from instructors indicate that the rubrics are very useful. Wheninstructors started using the rubrics, it took some initial time upfront to understand thedistinctions between the various performance levels. However, after some experience, the rubricsprovided a very rapid and efficient method of assessment. This investigation will continue duringthe 2012-13 academic year.Table 1. Rubric on Written CommunicationCourse: Date: Evaluator:Student Evaluated: Project Evaluated:Performance IndicatorStudentdemonstrated 1 – Not acceptable 2 - Below standards 3 - Meets standards 4 - Exemplary Scorethe ability to:a. Organize the Incomprehensible, Analysis is flawed or Clearly evaluates Documentation is content with extremely vague, inappropriate, findings, explains complete, clear, appropriate excludes data or unclear, vague, procedure, minor and appropriate, methodology presents findings does not question errors or omissions fully justifies without explanation findings findingsb. Identify and Little use of college- Lack of technical Use of skills from Advanced insight, explain the level skills, unclear content, proposed college courses, exceeds goals of topic with proposal, proposed goals are not fully proposed goals are project, focus on appropriate goals are not complete, focus on complete new technical addressed work of others understanding depthc. Write with Grammar errors, Misconstructions, Grammatically Excellent blend proper misspelling, unclear, difficult to correct, thorough of explanations language and misrepresents follow, some errors explanations, and illustrations, correct information, brief in formatting, straightforward full detail, no grammar punctuation, or grammar errors syntaxd. Provide Lack of adequate Limited use of Adequately shows Extensive use of graphical illustrations, illustrations, shows important concepts, a variety of illustrations irrelevant to topic, some of the most are labeled to illustrations from not labeled concepts, but not indicate relevance a range of all, incomplete sources, labels completely labelede. Utilize quality Does not collect Inadequate Identifies and Collects and quantity external background presents useful extensive of external information, research, limited sources, correctly relevant references irrelevant sources, use of external formatted and information from and resources plagiarism, sources, lacks referenced a wide range of dishonesty variety of sources, validates references

Citation
Format

Jones, D. K., & Abdallah, M. (2013, June), Assessment of Communication and Teamwork Skills in Engineering Technology Programs Paper presented at 2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Atlanta, Georgia. 10.18260/1-2--19239

TY  - CPAPER
AB  -               Assessment of Communication and Teamwork Skills in                       Engineering Technology ProgramsRecently, institutions of higher education have acknowledged that an effective teaching/learningprocess must involve assessing and evaluating what and how much students are learning.Assessment and evaluation leads to improvements in the educational experiences.ETAC/ABET Criterion 3.B.e. and 3B.g. requires that graduates demonstrate effective skills inteamwork and communication. Therefore, the goal of this project was to develop consistent andefficient methods for assessment of students’ skills for different programs and instructors. Threeseparate rubrics have been developed to assess student outcomes in oral communication, writtencommunication, and teamwork. As an example, refer to the rubric for written communicationshown in Table 1 on the following page.When developing the rubrics, the goal was to limit each to one page with three to five conciseperformance indicators that captured the vital aspects of each student outcome. Eachperformance indicator was evaluated with performance levels on a scale of one to four. Eachperformance level contained a brief, thorough description of the expectations, clarifying thedifference between the performance levels.A pilot study was conducted during spring 2012 in upper-level courses computer, electrical, andmechanical engineering technology programs. Instructors provided scores in the three rubrics foreach student at the end of the semester in appropriate upper-level courses. For teamwork,students also evaluated their teammates confidentially using rubrics and written essays. Studentswere told in advance that their peer-assessment would remain confidential. They shared someperceptions of teamwork on paper that would otherwise not have been discussed in person withintheir groups. This helped to reveal the inner dynamics of the teams that may not have beenapparent from outside observations, providing more complete information for instructors toevaluate individual students.Results have been summarized and evaluated, and potential improvements have been identified.Pilot data and feedback from instructors indicate that the rubrics are very useful. Wheninstructors started using the rubrics, it took some initial time upfront to understand thedistinctions between the various performance levels. However, after some experience, the rubricsprovided a very rapid and efficient method of assessment. This investigation will continue duringthe 2012-13 academic year.Table 1. Rubric on Written CommunicationCourse:                   Date:                   Evaluator:Student Evaluated:                       Project Evaluated:Performance IndicatorStudentdemonstrated       1 – Not acceptable         2 - Below standards     3 - Meets standards     4 - Exemplary      Scorethe ability to:a. Organize the   Incomprehensible,           Analysis is flawed or   Clearly evaluates     Documentation is   content with   extremely vague,            inappropriate,          findings, explains    complete, clear,   appropriate    excludes data or            unclear, vague,         procedure, minor      and appropriate,   methodology    presents findings           does not question       errors or omissions   fully justifies                  without explanation         findings                                      findingsb. Identify and      Little use of college-   Lack of technical       Use of skills from    Advanced insight,   explain the       level skills, unclear    content, proposed       college courses,      exceeds goals of   topic with        proposal, proposed       goals are not fully     proposed goals are    project, focus on   appropriate       goals are not            complete, focus on      complete              new   technical         addressed                work of others                                understanding   depthc. Write with        Grammar errors,          Misconstructions,       Grammatically         Excellent blend   proper            misspelling,             unclear, difficult to   correct, thorough     of explanations   language and      misrepresents            follow, some errors     explanations,         and illustrations,   correct           information, brief       in formatting,          straightforward       full detail, no   grammar                                    punctuation, or                               grammar errors                                              syntaxd. Provide           Lack of adequate         Limited use of          Adequately shows      Extensive use of   graphical         illustrations,           illustrations, shows    important concepts,   a variety of   illustrations     irrelevant to topic,     some of the             most are labeled to   illustrations from                     not labeled              concepts, but not       indicate relevance    a range of                                              all, incomplete                               sources,                                              labels                                        completely                                                                                            labelede. Utilize quality   Does not collect         Inadequate              Identifies and        Collects   and quantity      external                 background              presents useful       extensive   of external       information,             research, limited       sources, correctly    relevant   references        irrelevant sources,      use of external         formatted and         information from   and resources     plagiarism,              sources, lacks          referenced            a wide range of                     dishonesty               variety of                                    sources, validates                                              references
AU  - Daniel K. Jones P.E.
AU  - Mohammed Abdallah
CY  - Atlanta, Georgia
DA  - 2013/06/23
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - Assessment of Communication and Teamwork Skills in Engineering Technology Programs
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/19239
DO  - 10.18260/1-2--19239
ER  -