June 15, 2019
June 15, 2019
October 19, 2019
Educational Research and Methods
External influences to schools of engineering have resulted in important curriculum changes. Over the two decades, the influence of the Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology (ABET) has driven the introduction of new and revised teaching and assessment methods to develop student outcomes stipulated by its criteria. In addition, the influence of industry has reinforced the importance of competency-based learning.
Embracing a competency-based curriculum posed the challenge of collecting evidence of outcome attainment. To this end, most institutions have implemented centralized assessment frameworks to demonstrate that future engineers have the abilities to succeed in the workplace. However, it is still unknown whether or not the collection of evidence for outcome attainment may trigger actions that result in improved teaching and learning. Concerning this issue, some researchers argue that students and teachers have not been adequately involved in outcome assessment. Students are commonly treated as consumers rather than active agents of their learning, while teachers are basically subject to unreliable feedback (mostly coming from rating scales). Consequently, evidence-based curriculums changes do not usually consider the perspectives of the most relevant curriculum stakeholders (i.e. teachers and students).
To understand how teachers and students engage with outcome assessment and curriculum decision-making, we are developing a case study about a continuous improvement process implemented between 2015 and 2017 at a large and selective school of engineering in Chile. To illustrate the mechanisms used to engage both stakeholders, to-date we have conducted 12 semi structured interviews and we have analyzed 124 documents to triangulate qualitative information collected from different data sources. This paper presents a work in progress by sharing the results obtained from the analysis of 97 outcome assessment plans developed by 57 teachers. Findings show different levels of engagement across time, as variations in the details and in the use of different type of assessment tools. Future work will analyze the perspectives of teachers and students on their involvement in the continuous improvement process. It will also focus on anticipating tensions between internal and external stakeholders concerning curriculum decision-making.
Hilliger, I., & Celis, S., & Pérez-Sanagustín, M., & Baier, J. (2019, June), Work in Progress: Engaging Engineering Teaching Staff in Continuous Improvement Process Paper presented at 2019 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition , Tampa, Florida. 10.18260/1-2--33612
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: © 2019 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