Asee peer logo

Assessment Of Program Outcomes For Abet Accreditation

Download Paper |

Collection

2009 Annual Conference & Exposition

Location

Austin, Texas

Publication Date

June 14, 2009

Start Date

June 14, 2009

End Date

June 17, 2009

ISSN

2153-5965

Conference Session

Outstanding Contributions to Mechanical Engineering Education

Tagged Division

Mechanical Engineering

Page Count

12

Page Numbers

14.258.1 - 14.258.12

Permanent URL

https://peer.asee.org/4603

Download Count

76

Request a correction

Paper Authors

biography

Hakan Gurocak Washington State University, Vancouver

visit author page

Hakan Gurocak is Director of School of Engineering and Computer Science and Associate
Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Washington State University Vancouver. His research interests are robotics, automation, fuzzy logic, technology assisted distance delivery of laboratory courses and haptic interfaces for virtual reality. Dr. Gurocak is an ABET Program Evaluator for mechanical engineering.

visit author page

biography

Linda Chen Washington State University Vancouver

visit author page

Dr. Xiaolin Chen is an Assistant Professor in the School of Engineering and Computer Science at Washington State University Vancouver. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Cincinnati and her M.S. and B.S. from Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China. Her research interests include computational mechanics, finite element and boundary element methods, modeling and characterization of advanced materials, biological structures and micro-electro-mechanical systems.

visit author page

biography

Dave Kim Washington State University, Vancouver

visit author page

Dr. Dave (Dae-Wook) Kim is an Assistant Professor of School of Engineering and Computer Science at Washington State University Vancouver. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Washington, Seattle, and his M.S. and B.S. at Sungkyunkwan University, Korea. His teaching and research interests include manufacturing processes, composite materials, and mechanical behavior of engineering materials.

visit author page

biography

Amir Jokar Washington State University, Vancouver

visit author page

Amir Jokar has been an Assistant Professor in the School of Engineering and Computer Science at Washington State University Vancouver since Fall 2005 . His general research area is in thermal/fluid sciences with background in micro/mini-channels, thermal systems design, two-phase flow, and electronics cooling.

visit author page

Download Paper |

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

ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAM OUTCOMES FOR ABET ACCREDITATION

Abstract In EAC Criterion 3, ABET requires the degree program to demonstrate to the extent each program outcome is met. One of the main challenges is the development of measurable learning outcomes. This paper presents an overview of defining a set of performance criteria for each program outcome to convert the program outcomes into measurable learning outcomes. It then focuses on a weighted average approach to assemble assessment data for analysis. The assessment approach presented in the paper can be a good model for new institutions or programs seeking ABET accreditation. It can also provide ideas for existing programs that have already been through previous assessment cycles.

I. Introduction The Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) publishes an accreditation criteria document annually1. The document lists nine criteria to be met by the program for successful accreditation. Criterion 3 “Program Outcomes” is one of the most challenging criteria. Recent statistics by ABET indicated that about 35% of the 59 programs evaluated at 20 institutions in 2007 had shortcomings in Criterion 32. Program outcomes are statements that describe what students are expected to know and be able to do by the time of graduation. They relate to the skills, knowledge and behaviors that students acquire in their matriculation through the program. In this criterion, ABET requires the program to demonstrate “the degree to which the program outcomes are attained” by the program1. This is challenging because it requires a good mix of direct and indirect assessment of student performance, systematic data collection, assembly, analysis and evaluation. Furthermore, the program must demonstrate that there is a continuous improvement process in place. For new programs or existing programs, transition to this new outcomes-based approach can be difficult. At many institutions the program outcomes are assessed using various rubrics. Course content is mapped directly to the program outcomes and student grades are used to show the level of achievement of the program outcomes. Faculty course assessment reports are used to measure and document the program outcomes3,4,5. Capstone courses are where culminating projects are given to the students. Therefore, sometimes these courses are used either to assess all program outcomes or a subset of them using rubrics for oral presentations, report writing and teamwork6,7. The development of measurable learning outcomes is the most crucial aspect of any assessment process8. Curriculum maps showing how the program outcomes are addressed across a curriculum or within given courses can demonstrate that certain types of materials are presented to the students. But these maps do not provide evidence of student learning of the desired skills. Furthermore, surveys and course grades are not, by themselves or collectively, acceptable methods for documenting achievement of outcomes since they provide evidence of either student opinions, or of generalized student achievement across potentially broad areas of study.

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: © 2009 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