June 14, 2015
June 14, 2015
June 17, 2015
26.790.1 - 26.790.14
A new longitudinal analysis for ABET accreditation of a new BME program: formative vs summativeassessmentThis paper presents an innovative methodology for the assessment of a new Biomedical Engineering(BME) program. Biomedical engineering programs are quite new in the engineering educational system.To date, in the state of Pennsylvania there are only six programs that have been accredited by ABET.While the guidelines of ABET are quite general and applicable to a variety of programs with differentfocuses, the scarcity of published data on BME specific programs poses a significant challenge on thepreparation and assessment of program specific requirements. Another rather significant challenge isthe limited number of students graduating from a brand new program that does not give sufficientstatistical power to confirm the reliability of the assessment process.To obviate these limitations we design a longitudinal analysis for the assessment process that can helpunderstand if any improvement occurs from the freshman and sophomore year (formative assessment),where concepts are introduced, to junior and senior years (summative assessment), where the conceptsare reiterated and assessed again. By having a formative and summative assessment it is possible toevaluate if improvement occurs within the cohort, allowing for the redaction of a continuousimprovement plan.The XXX University BME program has instituted a common assessment rubric for each ABET outcome a-kadding one additional program specific outcome. The same rubric is used by each professor to assess thecorresponding outcome that is pertinent to his/her course. The rubrics have a different number ofperformance indicators (or dimensions) to allow for a comprehensive tool that describes multiple facetsof the outcome to be assessed. The performance indicators of each rubric were built in view of theperformance indicators of each engineering course in the program. Each outcome specific rubric wasagreed upon the faculty and calibrated on a “senior” level of intellectual maturity. The assignments weredesigned specifically to satisfy each dimension of the rubric and consisted in questions or problemspresented to the students in midterms and final exams/projects. The four levels of the rubrics are:Unsatisfactory, Marginal, Satisfactory, and Outstanding. We set the goal of the program to have allstudents at a satisfactory level at the time of graduation. Having a rubric calibrated at “senior level” wefound that most of the outcomes at the formative level reach a marginal outcome. This was expected asthe idea is to observe if there exist learning trends between formative and summative levels whereconcepts are introduced, internalized and reinforced.
Piovesan, D., & Vernaza, K. M. (2015, June), Formative vs. Summative ABET Assessment: A Comprehensive Graphic Representation for a New BME Program Paper presented at 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle, Washington. 10.18260/p.24127
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: © 2015 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