Quality Improvement in a College of Engineering Instructional Program

Benefield, Larry D.; Trentham, Landa L.; Khodadadi, Karen; Walker, William F.

doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.1997.tb00266.x

Cited by 24 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This affirms the importance of the ABET competencies for professional practice. Our minimum mean rating of 3.3 on a 5-point scale falls in the range of lowest mean ratings for any ABET competency in other survey studies (2.5 to 3.9 on a 5-point scale) (Bankel et al, 2003;Benefield et al, 1997;Evans et al, 1993;Koen & Kohli, 1998;Lang et al, 1999;Lattuca et al, 2006;National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE), 1992;Saunders-Smit, 2008;Shea, 1997).…”

Section: Significance Of Differences In Importance Ratingsmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…These studies have used surveys that asked respondents to rate (or rank) the importance of each competency in a list. Of the 19 "importance" studies published since 1990, thirteen included a balance of technical and professional competencies (ASME, 1995;Bankel et al, 2003;Benefield, Trentham, Khodadadi, & Walker, 1997;Evans, Beakley, Crouch, & Yamaguchi, 1993;Koen & Kohli, 1998;Lang, Cruse, McVey, & McMasters, 1999;Lattuca, Terenzini, & Volkwein, 2006;National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE), 1992;Nguyen, 1998;Saunders-Smit, 2008;Shea, 1997;Turley, 1992;World Chemical Engineering Council, 2004) while six included only professional competencies (de Jager & Nieuwenhuis, 2002;Donahue, 1997;Kemp, 1999;Meier, Williams, & Humphreys, 2000;Sardana & Arya, 2003;Scott & Yates, 2002). A balanced inclusion of both technical and professional competencies is essential to inform the design of entire curricula.…”

Section: Needed: Graduates' Opinions To Inform the Design Of Curriculamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Which ABET Competencies Do Engineering Graduates Find Most Important in their Work?

Passow

2012

J of Engineering Edu

267

204

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUNDABET-accredited engineering programs must help students develop specific outcomes (i.e., competencies). Faculty must determine the relative emphasis among the competencies. Yet, information is sparse about the relative importance of each competency for professional practice. PURPOSE (HYPOTHESIS)This study synthesizes opinions of engineering graduates about which competencies are important for professional practice. DESIGN/METHODA survey asked undergraduate alumni of a large public university in the Midwest to rate the importance of the ABET competencies in their professional experience. Responses included descriptions of education, post-graduate work environment, and demographics. Protected, post-hoc, all-pairwise multiple comparisons determined patterns in the importance ratings, for the aggregate, and for descriptive subgroups. RESULTSThe lowest-rated competency's mean rating was 3.3 out of 5. Graduates of 11 engineering majors rated a top cluster of competencies (teamwork, communication, data analysis, and problem solving) significantly higher than a bottom cluster (contemporary issues, design of experiments, and understanding the impact of one's work). Importance ratings of five other competencies fell in an intermediate cluster in which importance was statistically tied to either the top or bottom cluster, depending on work environment or academic discipline-not demographics. The clusters were stable over time, that is, over seven survey administrations (1999)(2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005), years since graduation (0, 2, 6 & 10), and graduation year (1989)(1990)(1991)(1992)(1993)(1994)(1995)(1996)(1997)(1998)(1999)(2000)(2001)(2002)(2003). CONCLUSIONSGraduates across engineering disciplines share a pattern of importance for professional practice among the ABET competencies that is statistically significant, consistent across demographic variables, and stable over time. This pattern can inform faculty decisions about curriculum emphasis within and across engineering disciplines.

show abstract

Section: Significance Of Differences In Importance Ratingsmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Needed: Graduates' Opinions To Inform the Design Of Curriculamentioning

confidence: 99%

Which ABET Competencies Do Engineering Graduates Find Most Important in their Work?

Passow

2012

J of Engineering Edu

267

204

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly, an engineering curriculum task force study rated effectiveness in communicating ideas as second in importance only to problem-solving skills (Evans, Beakley, Crouch, & Yamaguchi, 1993). Another recent industry survey (Benefield, Trentham, Khodadaki, & Walker, 1997) included communication skills as one of the top five key success factors for engineers. Alumni agree.…”

Section: The Gap Between Workplace Demands and Graduate Skillsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technical Communication Instruction in Engineering Schools

Reave

2004

Journal of Business and Technical Communication

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This survey of 73 top-ranked U.S. and Canadian engineering schools examines initiatives that engineering schools are taking to improve communication instruction for their students. The survey reveals that 50% of the U.S. schools and 80% of the Canadian schools require a course in technical communication. About 33% of the schools utilize some form of integrated communication instruction, and another 33% offer elective courses in communication. Just 10 schools have created engineering communication centers to provide additional individualized coaching and feedback for their students. The most comprehensive preparation that engineering schools provide is a communication-across-the-curriculum approach that combines these instructional methods to offer concentrated instruction, continual practice, situated learning, and individualized feedback.W orkplace and alumni surveys show that communication skills are essential to success in engineering practice, yet much of the instruction provided in engineering schools is not clearly related to these practice needs. To examine initiatives that engineering schools are taking to improve communication instruction for their students, including required courses in technical communication, integrated instruction, elective courses, and engineering communication centers, I surveyed 73 top-ranked U.S. and Canadian engineering schools. The survey reveals that about 50% of the U.S. schools and 80% of the Canadian schools require a course in technical communication. About 33% of the schools I surveyed utilize integrated instruction, in which communication specialists and engineering professors collaborate to provide communication instruction within engineering courses. Another 33% provide more advanced 452

show abstract

“…For example, the College of Engineering at Auburn University has developed a plan to assess the quality of their instructional programs, designing various assessment tools for that purpose. 5 But regardless of how the assessment plan is developed, an effective plan must start with the identification of specific goals and objectives, definition of performance criteria, followed by the data collection methods and tools, and, finally, the elaboration of feedback mechanisms. Data collection requires the development of assessment instruments or tools focused for appropriate audiences.…”

Section: Outcomes Assessment Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

Making a Partnership Work: Outcomes Assessment of the Manufacturing Engineering Education Partnership

Ramírez

Lamancusa

Zayas‐Castro

et al. 1998

J of Engineering Edu

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes the summative assessment strategy of the Manufacturing Engineering Education Partnership (MEEP). Since 1994, three universities, Penn State, University of Washington and University of Puerto Rico at Mayagüez, in collaboration with Sandia National Laboratories, have been working together to develop a new, practice‐based curriculum and physical facilities for product realization and manufacturing. The overall outcome is the development at each participating institution of what we call The Learning Factory. In addition to reviewing the project's four major tasks and deliverables, we present the assessment plan, its principal elements, and the tools used for qualitative evaluation. Finally, the paper highlights some of the assessment results and reviews some of the elements that made this partnership a success. The assessment strategy presented in this paper could be used as a model for similar multi‐institutional, multi‐task projects.

show abstract

Quality Improvement in a College of Engineering Instructional Program

Cited by 24 publications

References 1 publication

Which ABET Competencies Do Engineering Graduates Find Most Important in their Work?

Which ABET Competencies Do Engineering Graduates Find Most Important in their Work?

Technical Communication Instruction in Engineering Schools

Making a Partnership Work: Outcomes Assessment of the Manufacturing Engineering Education Partnership

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About