June 26, 2011
June 26, 2011
June 29, 2011
22.1332.1 - 22.1332.12
The development of the ABET engineering accreditation criteria is a result, in part, of the call forprogram accountability in higher education. Departments and colleges of engineering have beendiligently working to comply with the accreditation criteria. Yet, in many cases, the degree ofactivity has not directly been proportional to the development of processes that can analyze thestrengths and weaknesses in student learning. It almost seems at times that issues of studentlearning and the concept of continuous program improvement related to student learning get lostin the rush to demonstrate the achievement of the ABET criteria. A critical problem is the greatdifficulty in the direct assessment of the criteria 3 “a through k” program outcomes, as they are acomplex collection of skills and knowledge students are expected to acquire over their course ofstudy required to earn a BS degree, and thus may be influenced by a great deal of subjectivity. Alack of consistency in the terminology of outcomes specification and assessment adds to thedifficulty.This paper will describe the alignment of the ABET program outcomes with course outcomesand learning outcomes aligned with the course outcomes. A process will be discussed forspecification of learning outcomes and continuous program improvement, and the courseoutcomes documented the achievement of the ABET “a to k” program outcomes. In our process,learning outcomes consist of What action will students take to acquire the content skills and knowledge? What are the skill and/or knowledge the students will acquire as a result of learning? What students will use to show what they have learned?The relationship between the learning outcomes, opportunities for student acquisition of skillsand knowledge, and the student work products that will be used to assess their acquired contentskills and knowledge will be considered.The paper will also include, from ChE undergraduate courses, specific examples of thespecification of learning outcomes and how the performance indicators were utilized in theassessment of student work products, and the application of continuous program improvement toidentify where students are having difficulties and strategies used to modify the course asnecessary.
Kimmel, H. S., & Perna, A. J., & Klotzkin, S., & Carpinelli, J. D., & Tomkins, R. P. (2011, June), Student Learning and the Continuous Program Improvement Process in a Chemical Engineering Program Paper presented at 2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Vancouver, BC. https://peer.asee.org/18364
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: © 2011 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