Student learning outcomes: alumni, graduating seniors and incoming freshmen

Regan, Thomas M.; Schmidt, Joel

doi:10.1109/fie.1999.840319

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Team issues are hard to teach, as data from previous work suggests, yet are critical to NPD success. While Hey's analysis focused on students' reflections on the course at the end of the semester, alumni perspectives are also an important part of assessing how well courses and programs prepare students for their future careers [7][8][9]. To better understand how well the UC Berkeley NPD graduate course prepares its students for jobs in innovation and design, this paper presents a qualitative and quantitative analysis of 21 in-depth interviews conducted with alumni from the NPD course.…”

Section: Detc2007-34456mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Prior work [7][8][9][10][11] surveyed alumni to obtain feedback on engineering curricula and educational experiences at a higher level, but focused primarily on entire degree programs rather than on individual courses. Students are typically surveyed or interviewed immediately upon exiting a course or program, but not after they have been in industry for some time.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Longitudinal Study of Learning Outcomes in a New Product Development Class

Cobb

Agogino

Beckman

2007

Volume 4: ASME/IEEE International Conference on Mechatronic and Embedded Systems and Applications and the 19th Reliability, STR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reports on a longitudinal study of lessons learned from a graduate-level New Product Development course taught at the University of California at Berkeley, comparing lessons learned by students during the course with alumni perceptions one to ten years after graduation. Previous research on student learning outcomes in New Product Development (NPD) found that on the last day of class students identify working in multifunctional teams and understanding user needs as their most important lessons learned. This study raises the question of whether or not students maintain the same emphasis on learning outcomes once they have moved on to careers in industry. To answer this question, we conducted 21 in-depth interviews with alumni who took the course between 1995–2005 and are now working in industry. A qualitative and quantitative analysis of the alumni interviews reveals that former students still highly value what they learned about team work and understanding user needs, but see more value in tools for concept generation, prototyping, and testing after gaining work experience. The results reaffirm the value of engaging students in multidisciplinary design projects as a vehicle for developing the professional skills needed in today’s competitive new product development environment.

show abstract

Section: Detc2007-34456mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Longitudinal Study of Learning Outcomes in a New Product Development Class

Cobb

Agogino

Beckman

2007

Volume 4: ASME/IEEE International Conference on Mechatronic and Embedded Systems and Applications and the 19th Reliability, STR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Feedback, however, cannot wait for a six-year accumulation even with small numbers, so a three-year cycle has been adopted by the outcomes assessment committee of the Hofstra Engineering faculty. (Different schools have opted for other alumni samples, from two years [10] to five years [11] apart, or all graduates in a ten-year interval [12], or even all living graduates [4]. The size of the target population is dictated not only by assessment considerations but also by the cost of conducting the survey.)…”

Section: The Alumni Surveymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although Scales, et al, [2] found that engineering schools tend to rank alumni surveys below exit interviews and capstone design courses as sources of information on educational achievements, the heightened interest that EC 2000 places in outcomes assessment has caused engineering programs to craft surveys that provide feedback to strengthen programs to make them responsive to the needs of their constituents. Early pioneers in this approach include Marquette University [3], Columbia University [4], the University of Pittsburgh [5], and the University of Maryland [6], among others. The presumption, of course, is that graduates of a program with a certain amount of postgraduate experience will have gained a perspective that allows them to reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of that program.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Alumni Survey as an Effective Assessment Tool for Small Engineering Programs

Puerzer¹,

Rooney

2002

J of Engineering Edu

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An alumni survey can be crafted which will evaluate even a small engineering program's success in imparting the abilities enumerated in the Engineering Criteria 2000 (EC 2000) guidelines. The core of the survey consists in its analysis of alumni ranking of both the importance of, and preparation in, the eleven key desired outcomes. Its originality lies in its establishing certain threshold percentages in the difference in perception of importance and preparation which indicate a level of under‐preparedness demanding immediate attention, so that the survey can function as an objective assessment tool. The responses of specific aggregates can also be analyzed in this manner, providing insight on the different perspectives of alumni by degree program, career path, and other demographic groupings.

show abstract

A Curricular Review Process For Systematic Continuous Improvement

Gershenson¹,

Hailey²,

Batty³

et al.

2001 Annual Conference Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes a novel process for curriculum planning, assessment, and improvement. The process is quantitative but allows faculty freedom to innovate. The review process is sufficiently flexible that it can be applied to many engineering programs. The curricular review process is split into cycles corresponding to the various programmatic levels, i.e., validating courses, assessing outcomes, appraising attributes, and evaluating objectives, each with its own review cycle period. The review process provides a formal way of closing the feedback loops at all programmatic levels from the course level to the objective level. The review results are easily documented and can be used to ensure continuous improvement. Results are tabulated in three systems of matrices. Importance matrices are used to show the relative importance of goals at each programmatic level. Measurement matrices document the level of performance at each programmatic level relative to a set of benchmarks. Correlation matrices are used to correlate the goals from one programmatic level to the next. While other assessment methods may use something similar to our measurement matrices, the use of correlation matrices is unique to this curricular review process. The correlation matrices are used to see if the goals of each level are correct. The matrices are used in the corrective action process to adjust the relative importance of goals and to insert or delete possible new goals. Examples of implementation of the curricular review process are provided.

show abstract

Student learning outcomes: alumni, graduating seniors and incoming freshmen

Cited by 3 publications

References 2 publications

Longitudinal Study of Learning Outcomes in a New Product Development Class

Longitudinal Study of Learning Outcomes in a New Product Development Class

The Alumni Survey as an Effective Assessment Tool for Small Engineering Programs

A Curricular Review Process For Systematic Continuous Improvement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About