Asee peer logo

Development And Implementation Of An Abet Ec2000 Assessment Program: Pros And Cons

Download Paper |

Conference

1999 Annual Conference

Location

Charlotte, North Carolina

Publication Date

June 20, 1999

Start Date

June 20, 1999

End Date

June 23, 1999

ISSN

2153-5965

Page Count

7

Page Numbers

4.188.1 - 4.188.7

Permanent URL

https://peer.asee.org/7576

Download Count

53

Request a correction

Paper Authors

author page

Nagy N. Bengiamin

Download Paper |

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

Session 1332

Development and Implementation of an ABET EC2000 Assessment Program: Pros and Cons

Nagy N. Bengiamin Electrical Engineering Department University of North Dakota Grand Forks, ND 58202

Abstract Challenges in implementing Engineering Criteria 2000 (EC2000) are addressed in this paper. Steps for establishing an effective assessment program are presented in their context of highlighting the pros and cons of the development process. The assessment matrix introduced in this paper has been applied to a moderate size electrical engineering program. Each of the determined learning outcomes is assessed via multiple tools to improve confidence in assessment findings. Although challenging to develop, the presented assessment program in this paper proved successful in enhancing the assessed educational program.

I. Introduction The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) Criteria 2000 emphasizes demonstrating that educational program outcomes have been accomplished and that graduates have attained the desired educational attributes. Of paramount significance is to demonstrate that the mission of the department and its program objectives have been determined based on input from the department’s constituencies. Multiple assessment instruments for each objective/ outcome must be determined and data gathering tools should provide sufficient information to support quantitative and qualitative analysis. An ongoing assessment program is expected to be in place such that the recommendations and results received from the data analysis can be used to improve the program and to enhance accomplishment of the desired objectives. An explicit plan for maintaining the assessment program must be established to facilitate effective loop closing on the assessment process.

ABET calls for the following eight evaluation criteria:1 (1) Students; (2) Program Educational Objectives; (3) Program Outcomes and Assessment; (4) Professional Component; (5) Faculty; (6) Facilities; (7) Institutional Support and Financial Resources; and (8) Program Criteria (discipline dependent). The challenge in the new criteria centers around establishing an effective assessment program. Therefore this paper will focus on Criteria 2-4 and 8 which constitute the new assessment initiative. ABET states the following a-k student learning attributes as a minimum for Criterion 3:1 (a) Ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering. (b) Ability to design and conduct experiments, and analyze and interpret data. (c) Ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs. (d) Ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams. (e) Ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems. (f) Understand professional and ethical responsibilities.

Bengiamin, N. N. (1999, June), Development And Implementation Of An Abet Ec2000 Assessment Program: Pros And Cons Paper presented at 1999 Annual Conference, Charlotte, North Carolina. https://peer.asee.org/7576

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: © 1999 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