Paper Authors

Abstract

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

Implementing EC2000 – Perspectives from Both Sides of the Assessment Trench Abstract

As implementation of Engineering Criteria 2000 (EC2000) has matured so have the expectations of program assessment as viewed by many ABET - EAC program evaluators. Most engineering programs are preparing or have just completed a second visit under the new criteria and find that assessment practices considered acceptable for the first EC2000 visit no longer are. Surprises at this point are clearly not appreciated. ABET’s current concern with the EC2000 accreditation process is to make program evaluations consistent, while programs are concerned with developing assessment programs that meet ABET’s expectations but at the same time are sustainable. The process remains episodic for many programs while the intention of EC2000 is to make program assessment systematic. As both an ABET evaluator, and the individual with administrative responsibilities for accrediting five engineering programs at California State University, Chico, the author offers suggestions to help develop a clear framework for assessment activities and to help make the process sustainable. Examples of annual timelines for collection, evaluation, and overall reporting strategies based on the author’s experience are offered.

Introduction

Assessment of student learning outcomes has become a fundamental part of the framework for American higher education in the 21st century. Regional accreditation agencies as well as the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) are highlighting the importance of assessing student learning outcomes. Problems encountered with early EC2000 assessment programs were noted in a study initiated by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) titled Initial Assessment of the Impact of ABET/EC2000 Implementation Using Mechanical Engineering Programs as the Pilot Study Group 1. That study lauded the extensive initial involvement of faculty in defining educational objectives, and the participation of program Advisory Boards to name a few. It also noted the shortcomings of certain assessment techniques, the failure of initial employer survey methods, and expressed concern regarding the strain that EC2000 appeared to place on program resources. In 2002 ABET commissioned a comprehensive study published in 2006, titled Engineering Change: A Study of the Impact of EC2000 2. Through careful evaluation of surveys of educators, employers, and engineering graduates, the study documents the overall positive impact that EC2000 implementation has had on engineering education. While the impact on engineering program graduates is clearly positive, it does not change the perspective of many faculty that on-going assessment programs represent a great deal of work that at times does not have an apparent connection with program improvement. In an early ABET newsletter, a column by Gloria Rogers titled “How Are We Doing?” summarized her expert opinion of our overall success in implementing EC2000 3. In her evaluation, engineering programs overall earned a “D” grade for program assessment for a number of reasons, including a slow migration from indirect to direct methods, citing that many programs continue to rely heavily on student surveys instead of direct measures of student learning. Further, Rogers pointed out that many EC2000 implementers jump from a pre-defined set of outcomes, namely ABET (a)-(k), to collecting mounds of data, without a faculty consensus on what body of evidence constitutes achievement of a given outcome within a given program.

• Citation

• Format
  • APA
  • APA - LaTeX bibitem
  • MLA
  • MLA - LaTeX bibitem
  • Bibtex
  • EndNote - RIS

Ward, M. (2007, June), Implementing Ec2000 – Perspectives From Both Sides Of The Assessment Trench Paper presented at 2007 Annual Conference & Exposition, Honolulu, Hawaii. 10.18260/1-2--2725