Asee peer logo

Student Learning Assessment And The Abet Student Outcomes Criteria: "Good News/Bad News"

Download Paper |

Conference

1996 Annual Conference

Location

Washington, District of Columbia

Publication Date

June 23, 1996

Start Date

June 23, 1996

End Date

June 26, 1996

ISSN

2153-5965

Page Count

4

Page Numbers

1.396.1 - 1.396.4

Permanent URL

https://peer.asee.org/6297

Download Count

40

Request a correction

Paper Authors

author page

Gloria Rogers

Download Paper |

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

Session 2313

Student Learning Assessment and the ABET Student Outcomes Criteria: “Good News/Bad News”

Gloria Rogers Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology

Introduction

In recent years there has been criticism from the engineering education community of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) accreditation process. The criteria were often seen as fostering a “bean counting” process which did not allow for differences among programs and discouraged innovative approaches to engineering education. ABET has responded by undertaking a process which has led to the “drastic downsizing of the criteria and are-orientation of its accreditation philosophy. ”1 This has resulted in Engineering Criteria 2000 which has been published and distributed for review and comment for the next two years. That’s the good news. Unfortunately, few engineering colleges are prepared to deal with the challenge of providing evidence in a systematic way which validates student achievement in the areas defined by “Criterion 3. Program Outcomes. ” That’s the bad news. This paper will compare the previous ABET criteria to the new proposed criteria and illustrate a process which can be used in the development of a plan to assess student outcomes.

What has changed?

Afler examining the criteria which was developed for the 1996-97 accreditation cycle, a comparison was made with the proposed “Criteria 2000. ” Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between the current and proposed student outcomes criteria. Although not exhaustive, one can see that the basic expectations for student outcomes has not changed significantly. However, it is clear that what has changed is the focus of the process of accreditation. Figure 2 illustrates the basic differences which have been identified in the approach that ABET will be using to determine a program’s accreditation status. ABET is now putting the responsibility for developing the metrics used to determine student outcomes on the individual engineering program. This means that the assumption will no longer be that if an institution does certain things (i.e., checks off certain boxes) the outcomes will be assumed and the criteria met. Engineering programs will need to consider the following for each student outcome:

® what indicators will be used to define whether or not the outcomes are being achieved F what is being done to achieve the outcomes (e.g., classroom/laboratory practice or requirements) ® what assessment methods are being used

This will require each engineering program to have in place an assessment program that provides assessment for the evaluation of student outcomes.

?$ii~~ 1996 ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings ‘.%,yyyL+?

Rogers, G. (1996, June), Student Learning Assessment And The Abet Student Outcomes Criteria: "Good News/Bad News" Paper presented at 1996 Annual Conference, Washington, District of Columbia. https://peer.asee.org/6297

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: © 1996 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