Asee peer logo

Using The Design Paradigm As A Strategy For Curriculum Enhancement

Download Paper |

Conference

2008 Annual Conference & Exposition

Location

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Publication Date

June 22, 2008

Start Date

June 22, 2008

End Date

June 25, 2008

ISSN

2153-5965

Conference Session

Design: Content and Context

Tagged Division

Educational Research and Methods

Page Count

24

Page Numbers

13.1362.1 - 13.1362.24

Permanent URL

https://peer.asee.org/4248

Download Count

36

Request a correction

Paper Authors

author page

Donald McEachron Drexel University

biography

Fred Allen Drexel University

visit author page

Auxiliary Assistant Professor, School of Biomedical Engineering, Science and Health Systems, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 19104

visit author page

biography

Elisabeth Papazoglou Drexel University

visit author page

Assistant Professor, School of Biomedical Engineering, Science and Health Systems, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 19104

visit author page

biography

Mustafa Sualp Drexel University

visit author page

Manager of Information Technology, School of Biomedical Engineering, Science and Health Systems, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 19104

visit author page

Download Paper |

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

Using the Design Paradigm as a Strategy for Curriculum Enhancement

Abstract

Revisions in the criteria for accreditation of engineering programs by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), especially with regard to Criterion 3: Program Outcomes and Assessment, have the potential to significantly enhance engineering education. Several factors may inhibit these revisions from reaching this potential. Among these are the tendency of faculty to view assessment as means to the end of obtaining ABET accreditation and the recent tendency to view students as customers within a continuous quality improvement (CQI) paradigm. While neither viewpoint is entirely incorrect, when these perspectives dominate curriculum review, many of the advantages of true curricular assessment and quality improvement are lost. We believe it to be more advantageous to regard students as products within an engineering design and manufacturing paradigm when developing assessment and improvement processes for curricula.

In this paper, we will show how we have used the engineering design paradigm, coupled with ABET requirements, to develop an assessment and feedback approach that maps performance criteria in such a manner as to allow timely intervention at an individual student as well as programmatic level. We will demonstrate how to decompose student learning outcomes into performance criteria at a resolution geared for intervention rather than just assessment. Finally, we will describe a Web-based knowledge management system called AEFIS (Academic Evaluation, Feedback and Intervention System) which manages the data in such a way as to maximize the ability to provide continuous quality improvement while minimizing additional faculty labor.

Introduction

‘Is this going to be on the test?’ is a question faculty instructors often hear from students, usually asked with the hope of a negative response. It is also one of those questions which most instructors would rather avoid, implying as it does that the student has accepted learning as simply a means to passing tests for gaining a good GPA, and has forsaken a broader understanding of education. Consequently, one should learn as little as required and not waste time on items not being directly tested. Considered in this light, the student’s question makes perfect sense. From the faculty perspective, examinations are mechanisms of evaluating student progress towards the ultimate goals of obtaining knowledge, skills and wisdom. If only, faculty often lament, students would focus their attention on the real goal of learning the material, good GPAs would result as a natural consequence. Thus, students would both achieve the learning outcomes set by the faculty and a good GPA simultaneously.

Ironically, faculty who deal with this problem of student perspectives on an ongoing basis often seem to consider the issues of continuous quality improvement (CQI), assessment and accreditation from the same attitude as the student described above. Rather than approach the

McEachron, D., & Allen, F., & Papazoglou, E., & Sualp, M. (2008, June), Using The Design Paradigm As A Strategy For Curriculum Enhancement Paper presented at 2008 Annual Conference & Exposition, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. https://peer.asee.org/4248

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: © 2008 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