Estell, J. K., & Williams, S. M. (2011, June), Program Educational Objectives: What Constitutes Sufficient Assessment?  Paper presented at 2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Vancouver, BC. 10.18260/1-2--18523

\bibitem{asee_peer_18523}
  Estell, J. K., \& Williams, S. M. (2011, June), \emph{Program Educational Objectives: What Constitutes Sufficient Assessment?}
  Paper presented at 2011 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Vancouver, BC.
  10.18260/1-2--18523

John K. Estell and Stephen M. Williams.  "Program Educational Objectives: What Constitutes Sufficient Assessment?".  2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Vancouver, BC, 2011, June.  ASEE Conferences, 2011.  https://peer.asee.org/18523 Internet.  27 Jul, 2024

\bibitem{asee_peer_18523}
  John K. Estell and Stephen M. Williams.
  "Program Educational Objectives: What Constitutes Sufficient Assessment?".
  \emph{2011 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Vancouver, BC, 2011, June}.
  ASEE Conferences, 2011.
  https://peer.asee.org/18523 Internet.  27 Jul, 2024

@INPROCEEDINGS{asee_peer_18523
author = "John K. Estell and Stephen M. Williams"
title = "Program Educational Objectives: What Constitutes Sufficient Assessment?"
booktitle = "2011 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition"
year = "2011"
month = "June"
address = "Vancouver, BC"
publisher = "ASEE Conferences"
note = {https://peer.asee.org/18523}
number = {10.18260/1-2--18523}
}

TY  - CPAPER
AB  -   Program Educational Objectives: What Constitutes Sufficient Assessment?AbstractIn the "2010-2011 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs," ABET defines the term"Program Educational Objectives" as "broad statements that describe the career and professionalaccomplishments that the program is preparing the graduates to achieve." Under the proposedharmonized criteria, expected to be applied by the EAC for accreditation actions during the2011-2012 academic year, this definition has been modified to: "Program educational objectivesare broad statements that describe what graduates are expected to attain within a few years aftergraduation. Program educational objectives are based on the needs of the program’sconstituencies." There have been considerable difficulties observed in attempting to assess theachievement of the program educational objectives, as evidenced in the 2008 ABET AnnualReport. In its analysis of accreditation actions and trends, this Report cites both Criterion 2(Program Educational Objectives) and Criterion 3 (Program Outcomes) as “. . . the areas inwhich there are the most shortcomings (deficiencies, weaknesses, and concerns).” The Reportgoes on to state that “Common shortcomings related to these two criteria included the following:inadequate evidence that the process in which the objectives are determined and periodicallyevaluated is based on the needs of constituencies (Criterion 2); confusion between the definitionof program educational objectives (Criterion 2) and program outcomes (Criterion 3); inadequateevidence of using the results of evaluation of objectives (Criterion 2) and/or assessment ofoutcomes (Criterion 3) to improve the program; and inadequate evidence demonstratingachievement of objectives (Criterion 2) or outcomes (Criterion 3).” Furthermore, when examinedover the ten year period 1997 to 2007, the rate of NGR actions taken by the ABET EngineeringAccreditation Commission fell from 78% to 67%.A plenary session at the 2009 Electrical and Computer Engineering Department HeadsAssociation (ECEDHA) Annual Meeting focused on determining suggestions for improving theABET accreditation process.. Subsequently, four subcommittees were formed and charged withgathering data and reporting findings at the 2010 ECEDHA Annual Meeting. The subcommitteefor determining what constitutes sufficiency for assessment readily concluded that Criterion 2was the area in greatest need of attention. To acquire meaningful data, a survey of electrical andcomputer engineering department heads was conducted in December 2009. The survey wasdesigned to solicit responses regarding what constitutes sufficient assessment for programeducational objectives. Elements of the survey included perceived efficacy of the components ofCriterion 2, assessment modes and response rates for Criterion 2, and program modificationsresulting from Criterion 2 assessment, in both quantitative and qualitative formats. The resultsfrom this survey provided a clear indication that there is a disconnect between programevaluators and self-study authors. Additionally, the results demonstrated a lack ofcomprehension of ABET terminology on the part of the institutions. Finally, the survey resultscall into question the validity of alumni data as a means for assessing program educationalobjectives. The results from this survey will be presented, along with recommendations forimproving this portion of the ABET assessment and accreditation process.  
AU  - John K. Estell
AU  - Stephen M. Williams
CY  - Vancouver, BC
DA  - 2011/06/26
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - Program Educational Objectives: What Constitutes Sufficient Assessment?
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/18523
DO  - 10.18260/1-2--18523
ER  -