Salt Lake City, Utah
June 23, 2018
June 23, 2018
July 27, 2018
A large civil engineering department undertook a curriculum project based on concerns of conceptual gaps and redundancies in the degree program and a desire to holistically incorporate the outcomes from the American Society of Civil Engineer’s (ASCE) Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for the 21st Century: Preparing the Civil Engineer for the Future, 2nd Edition (BOK2). The process resulted in a comprehensive curriculum map, where each program learning outcome is explicitly connected to courses in the curriculum at one of three levels: “I” for when outcome is first introduced, “R” when outcome is being reinforced, and “D” when outcome is demonstrated and subject to a summative assessment. This process, including notable curriculum changes and lessons learned, has been reported in prior publications.
This paper presents the process for implementing the curriculum changes and continuous assessment process, including challenges and lessons learned. Based on the identified course program learning outcomes, individual course worksheets were developed to identify what student work-products, such as homework assignments or exams, would be collected to assess each outcome. The first assessment cycle includes 7 courses evaluated in Spring 2017 and 7 courses currently under evaluation during Fall 2017. The courses range from sophomore level through senior design courses, so assessment results include courses where program learning-outcomes are first introduced to courses where they are demonstrated. Instructors of courses being assessed collect student work-products from randomly selected students. As enrollment in courses vary greatly, the number of students whose work will be utilized must represent at least 10% of the total student enrollment, with a minimum of 5 students being utilized for smaller sections. An assessment team consisting of representatives from each specialty area as well as student representatives assess the work utilizing rubrics developed for each learning outcome.
A mixed-methods approach is used to evaluate this first cycle of implementation and assessment. Qualitative results include an evaluation of faculty reception and engagement during the individual course assessment. Quantitative metrics of the process include comparing expected vs. actual/measured: (a) courses evaluated in a given semester; (b) student artifacts; and (c) program learning outcomes demonstrated mastery. Based on the results of this first implementation cycle, refinements for the second implementation cycle are developed and discussed.
Brumbelow, K., & Barroso, L. R., & Fowler, D., & Kaihatu, J. M., & Rodriguez Chavarria, V. S. (2018, June), Lessons Learned from the First Round of Course Assessments After Curriculum Restructure Based on ASCE BOK2 Paper presented at 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition , Salt Lake City, Utah. 10.18260/1-2--30764
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: © 2018 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