Engineering Design Assessment Processes and Scoring Scales for Program Improvement and Accountability

Abstract

Assessment of student achievement in engineering design is an important part of engineering education and vital to engineering program accreditation. Systematic assessment of design is challenging yet necessary for program improvement. Programs with design distributed across the curriculum and with significant numbers of transfer students face special challenges in assessing students' design capabilities and providing meaningful feedback to improve design education. This manuscript presents an assessment process that supports effective transfer of design credits, feedback for improvement of design education, and evaluation of program success in design education. Mid‐program and end‐of‐program assessment strategies are included. Design scoring standards are presented to establish a basis for making performance comparisons within and among programs.

Investigating the Relative Importance of the Ceab Graduate Attributes: Study Design and Initial Findings

“…The outcomes-based pedagogy born out of the new CEAB accreditation criteria is meant to be a dynamic process: a continuous cycle of assessment and program improvement [8] [4]. To achieve effective outcomesbased education, it stands to reason that the stakeholders required to develop these outcomes should be cognizant of what these outcomes are.…”

“…Accredited engineering programs are now required to demonstrate that their students are competent in a number of areas [3] [4]. For Canadian accredited programs, the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB) has identified 12 graduate attributes that comprise a variety of skills, knowledge, attitudes, values, and behaviours [2] that students must show competence in by graduation.…”

The Engineering Design Log: A Digital Design Journal Facilitating Learning and Assessment (RTP)

“…Many engineering education researchers have recognized challenges associated with assessing the engineering design process and noted that further research and developments in this area are needed [17][18][19][20][21] . Engineering design process instruction and student activities are often complex, build on earlier instruction, benefit from multiple iterations, and cover multiple learning domains.…”

“…Engineering design process instruction and student activities are often complex, build on earlier instruction, benefit from multiple iterations, and cover multiple learning domains. As such, they are ideally evaluated with an assessment strategy that is largely performance-based, including some pre-and post-test measurements, both formative and summative data, and both quantitative and qualitative data 17,18,20 .…”

Work-In-Progress: Clinical Immersion and Team-Based Engineering Design

“…Design experiences are core to engineering education and result in deeper understanding for students to identify and solve problems. 1,2,3 These as well as practical aspects of eventual commercialization and healthcare intricacies are a necessary part of student training to meet health, medical device, and patient needs while also controlling costs. 4 Thus, to improve student learning and design capabilities, a training process occurred through a newly developed Clinical Immersion and Team-Based Design Program at Rowan University.…”