June 26, 2011
June 26, 2011
June 29, 2011
Electrical and Computer
22.1614.1 - 22.1614.14
Using Direct Assessment to Resolve TAC/ABET Criterion 3 Program OutcomesAbstract:Colleges and universities across the nation value the importance of accreditation, which providestwo fundamental purposes for an institution: assuring the quality of the institution or itsprograms and to assist in the improvement of the institution or programs through the self-studyprocess. The comprehensive process for producing a self-study report provides an opportunityfor an institution or program to review its goals and expectations, as well as identify studentstrengths and weaknesses. By providing a process to identify weaknesses with respect to studentattainment of student learning outcomes, institutions or programs are better able to makenecessary improvements, as well as understand their institutional or program strengths.The Computer Engineering Technology (CET) program, in CET department, at New York CityCollege of Technology/CUNY is accredited by the Technology AccreditationCommission/Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (TAC/ABET). TheTAC/ABET is the world leading accreditation organization in engineering and engineeringtechnology programs. When a program is accredited by TAC/ABET, it communicates to aninstitution’s constituencies that the program has met the quality standards established by theABET professions. This paper details the assessment process developed by the program, withthe support of the college’s Assessment and Institutional Research office, in response to aprogram weakness identified by ABET with respect to ABET Criterion 3 Program Outcomes.The focus of the assessment process was on developing and administering reliable and validdirect methods to assess student outcomes. The direct methods of assessment, based on the list ofdirect measures recognized at the 2008 TAC Commission Summit, developed by the CET facultyincluded tests, constructed with a test blueprint, and performance appraisals with scoring rubrics.These direct assessment measures provided evidence of student strengths and weaknesses.Furthermore, CET faculty found the interpretation of the data much easier with these measuresof assessment. The assessment process developed for the program not only included thetraditional summative approach, but also included formative assessment within the overallContinuous Quality Improvement (CQI) model. The inclusion of formative assessment withinthe overall CQI model provides an opportunity for early intervention for program-level attrition.Specifically, this paper provides information regarding assessment planning, the assessmentprocess, the development of assessment instruments, and the challenging encountered by thedepartment and should provide information that will benefit other engineering and engineeringtechnology programs seeking accreditation or re-accreditation.
Cumming, T. L., & Heng, I., & Tsang, R. (2011, June), Using Direct Assessment to Resolve TAC/ABET Criterion 3 Program Outcomes Paper presented at 2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Vancouver, BC. 10.18260/1-2--18547
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