English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

An effective approach to the current expectations for ABET Outcomes Assessment is to view the associated indicators, measurements, and corrective action as a quality control (QC) system. This paper is a case study of how an IE program planned, designed, and implemented such a system consisting of 91 performance indicators, with measurement obtained via six distinct instruments. Measurement of these 91 indicators are captured at time intervals varying from semester-to-semester to every three years, and entered in archival spreadsheets, programmed to present the cumulative data in the forms of tables and line graphs. These informative graphs are reviewed annually by an Outcomes Assessment Committee, which rates each indicator into a status of red, yellow, or green. Red indicators call for immediate action, yellow indicators are to raise awareness in the department, and green indicators signal “no problems” at this time. Assessment Memos are written to the Curriculum Committee, Department Head, and individual faculty members who are responsible for a particular course, topic, or skill. Therefore the Assessment Memos serve a role analogous to Corrective Action Requests in industrial QC. The 91 performance indicators are linked to 17 outcomes adopted by the department. These 17 outcomes include the eleven ABET Criterion 3 a-k statements 1 , as well as six outcomes specific to the BSIE program at this institution. Each outcome has at least two indicators and the average number of indicators per outcome is five. At least one indicator must be directly measurable, and another must be indirect. These diverse indicators enables “triangulation” as the faculty view the performance of the program in a given outcome from multiple perspectives. In turn, outcomes map back to one or more program objectives, so that the department can evaluate its performance in meeting its stated program objectives. An innovative approach to obtaining “after graduation” evaluations of how well objectives are met by recent program graduates will also be revealed. We will explain how the QC-System Approach is fully compatible with ABET’s “two-loop” assessment and evaluation process 1 , which the department adopted in May 1999. The approach described above has been in operation for over seven years. This approach was fullydemonstrated in our 2000-2001 Self-Study, was reviewed by our program visitor for the Fall 2001 Accreditation Visit, and continues to produce useful information in a consistent and highly efficient way. Only ten hours per year of faculty/staff time are spent on data collection and entry, and five hours per year are spent on assessment. Students are involved in the time they devote to completing the senior exit interview, and taking the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) Exam. We have recently modified the performance indicators based on changes in the BSIE curriculum and the IE portion of the FE exam, and are preparing to present the results of the past six years of system utilization in another general review. We conclude by recommending such an approach as natural for any IE program, and certainly feasible for any engineering program.

A Qc Systems Approach To Ie Program Outcomes Assessment