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 Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This paper describes a spreadsheet based matrix method to quantify the performance of an educational program and its various courses against criteria set forth by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). Inputs to the spreadsheet are: student learning outcomes for each course, connection of these outcomes to the ABET criteria, student scores in various classroom assessment activities, and the credit hours of each course. This approach generates performance profiles for all courses and aids in the identification of their strengths and weakness and of the whole program. The matrix method becomes an integral part of a continuous improvement plan. Introduction The goals of an educational program and the characteristics of the program graduates have been analyzed and annotated extensively. However, meaningful and quantified assessment of a program and or its courses has been a challenge to educational programs for a long time (Rogers 2004). The Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) and the Technology Accreditation Commission (TAC) of ABET has listed in their TC2K criteria, the desired attributes of program graduates as outcomes (a)-(k) in Criterion 3 for Engineering programs, and outcomes (a)–(k) in Criterion 2 for Engineering Technology programs. Our discussion in this report will be centered on the outcomes (a)–(k) of Criterion 2 of the TAC which are analogous to the outcomes (a)-(k) Criterion 3 of the EAC. ABET also requires that these attributes of the program graduates be demonstrated through the use of multiple instruments of assessment. Suitable methods of quantification of these attributes and changes or improvement in these indicators through time is left up to individual programs. Most commonly, student grades have been used as one of the quantitative indicators of the success of a program and a measure of the quality of its graduates. However, the suitability of student grades as a valid tool is questionable.(Rogers 2003) In this paper we present a method by which the data on student performance (not their grades per se) in the classroom is transformed into quantitative indicators of course performance and in turn the course performance indicators are converted to highlight the strong and weak points of the program along the ABET criteria. The approach suggested here is just one method of evaluating courses and programs. As mentioned before, additional assessment methods, the so called triangulation method, should be utilized to meet the requirements of the ABET guidelines (Bennett et. al. 2004, Blandford et al 2003). P ge 10923.1

Matrix Based Approach To Assessment Of An Educational Program Along Abet Criteria