Developing and Assessing Statewide Competencies for Engineering Design

Abstract

An assessment system was developed and piloted in Washington state to evaluate the engineering design competence of community college transfer students and continuing students at Washington State University (WSU) and the University of Washington (UW). A multiple measured approach was employed consisting of a multiple-choice assessment, a team design performance assessment, and an essay, each administered to junior level students at WSU and UW. These assessments covered important design and design-related outcomes valued by the engineering community in Washington and expected of junior level engineering students. Scoring criteria were developed by engineering faculty for the team design and essay components. The assessment results provide faculty and other decision makers at community colleges and fouryear institutions with data they need to determine the extent to which students are meeting design competency expectations. Moreover, the approach described in this paper illustrates how institutions can productively address the ABET Engineering Criteria 2000 requirements by developing the assessment support that engineering educators need to make informed programmatic decisions and achieve continuous quality improvement. I. OVERVIEWUnderscoring the connection between assessment and quality engineering education, the Joint Task Force on Engineering Education Assessment recently issued a report on the importance of program assessment in the pursuit of program improvement. 1This report provides a framework for developing a comprehensive, systematic program assessment plan. The task force highlights the use of assessment data by program decision makers and stakeholders as a means of understanding engineering education programs, determining whether program objectives are being met and taking action to make programmatic changes when necessary.Of immediate interest and concern for many engineering educators, is the dramatic change in engineering accreditation requirements reflected in ABET Engineering Criteria 2000. 2With the dual goals of fostering high academic achievement and accountability, ABET has rejected the detailed program description and counting approach to accreditation in favor of a competency-based approach, requiring the establishment of program objectives, measures to assess the achievement of the objectives, and use of assessment data for program improvement. In this new accreditation environment, program assessment will be a critical task for engineering educators. II. PURPOSEThis paper has three purposes. First, the paper describes a unique program assessment approach other programs might emulate, which will in part meet the programmatic assessment requirements addressed in ABET Engineering Criteria 2000 and called for by the Joint Task Force on Engineering Education Assessment. In particular, Criterion 2 calls for engineering programs to systematically develop curriculum and objectives, evaluate the extent to which objectives were achieved, and use the data to improve program effectiveness.2 Th...

Outcomes Assessment and the Faculty Culture: Conflict or Congruence?

“…• Faculty participates in deciding the initial vision and intent for the O/A system as a formal faculty action • Compose the O/A team inclusively: recruit respected faculty; represent all key factions and views • Discuss issues, one-on-one with de facto faculty leaders, at the outset of "planning the planning process" and at intervals during system development • Hold one or more faculty retreats, to initiate O/A development and at formative stages • Especially in large faculties, form small, short-term groups to work on a bounded sub-set of the system development activities • Use appropriate communications to keep faculty and administrators informed as system development progresses: meetings, focus groups, newsletter, e-mail, department homepage • Constantly seek input from colleagues, especially on the tough policy issues • Seek formal faculty approval of the emerging O/A system at key milestones (essential when establishing scope of O/A system, department goals, objectives, performance criteria) • Provide training in assessment for faculty [22] • Get formal faculty approval of final O/A system under established faculty procedures 3) Convince Colleagues on Their Own Terms: By this effort, resistance to change can be overcome, individualistic attitudes can be accommodated, and the perception of unwanted outside opinions can be circumvented.…”

Board # 116 : Collaborative Research: From School to Work: Understanding the Transition from Capstone Design to Industry

“…Centers such as the Center for Engineering Teaching and Learning (CELT) and Transferable Integrated Design Engineering Education (TIDEE), as well as individual researchers, have addressed a range of issues in capstone education, including students' design practices [16][17][18][19][20] , design cognition [21][22][23][24] , the role of reflective practice 25 , course outcomes and assessment [26][27][28][29][30] , course design [31][32][33][34] , pedagogical practices 7,14,15,[35][36][37][38][39] , faculty beliefs 40 , and transfer from earlier courses 41,42 . This research has explored not only systematic design processes but also professional skills and design thinking, decision-making, divergent and convergent questioning, system integration, and iteration.…”

Enhancing Scoring Reliability In Mid Program Assessment Of Design

“…A three-component assessment is used to monitor student design capabilities at mid-program 5 . The first component is a set of short-answer constructed response (SCR) tasks that assess students' foundational knowledge about the design process, teamwork and design communication.…”