Assessing ABET ANSAC and EAC Learning Outcome (2) in Introductory Physics

The physics and engineering physics programs at Arkansas Tech University (ATU) are currently in the process of preparing to apply for ABET accreditation through the Applied and Natural Science Accreditation Commission (ANSAC) and Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC), respectively. These programs follow an “Introduce, Reinforce, Master” curriculum map as part of the assessment plan where each student learning outcome (SLO) is assessed in at least three courses of different levels, so that each SLO is assessed at each of the three levels (introduced, reinforced, and mastered). We seek to effectively assess, at the introductory level, the proposed ANSAC SLO (2) and the new EAC SLO (2) with a single project and rubric in our introductory physics courses. The primary difference between the SLO (2) from the two commissions is that the EAC is more specific in that students must apply “engineering design to produce solutions that meet specified needs with consideration of public health, safety, welfare, as well as global, cultural, social, environmental, and economic factors” whereas the ANSAC only requires that the design must meet “desired needs.” With this in mind, we have implemented a project that is completed by students at the end of the second semester of introductory physics where students are required to follow engineering design principles to design and build simple speakers that must meet given specifications. In this paper, we discuss the details of the student project specifications, the rubric developed to assess the student projects, and show select student projects from the first two cohorts assigned this project. Additionally, we will discuss changes that will be implemented to the assignment and assessment processes so that student learning of the skills and concepts required of SLOs will improve. Introduction Our department is relatively small, graduating 3-5 physics and engineering physics majors per year. We have five full-time and one half-time physics faculty members with a majority of our teaching load being service courses. Our department, specifically the engineering physics degree, is at an obvious recruiting disadvantage compared to the other engineering degrees offered at ATU because it is not currently ABET accredited. With the goal in mind to increase recruitment and retention and strengthening our program, we have been investigating seeking ABET accreditation through the Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) for the Engineering Physics program. Because ABET similarly offers accreditation for Physics programs through their Applied and Natural Science Accreditation Commission (ANSAC), we will also seek ABET accreditation for our Physics program. The decision to seek accreditation for both is feasible and practical because there is a significant amount of overlap between the curriculum for the Physics and the Engineering Physics programs as well as overlap between the EAC’s and ANSAC’s Criterion 3, Student Learning Outcomes [1]. In an effort to streamline assessment efforts for the two programs, while meeting the Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) from two different ABET commissions, it is our goal to determine performance indicators that will assess similar SLOs from the two commissions simultaneously. In this paper, we discuss an assignment that was created and assigned to students enrolled in the second semester of calculusbased physics with the goal of assessing all of the performance indicators associated with SLO (2) from both commissions at an appropriate level for an introductory course. An additional goal of adding the assignment to the introductory physics course is to increase student ownership of learning and therefore increase student learning. Literature has shown that project-based learning is one of the best ways to achieve this goal [2]. As such, the assignment created to assess SLO (2) at this level is a project where students are required to apply basic physics and engineering principles to build a simple speaker. The only change made to this course this semester was the addition of the project assignment. The course has a three credit hour “lecture” component and a one credit hour laboratory component. The project scores were incorporated as part of the lecture component of the course. This paper briefly discusses our department’s assessment plan and a description of the speaker project assignment, including how SLO (2) is assessed and sample student work. Physics and Engineering Physics assessment plan at Our University The assessment plans of most programs ATU rely on an "I, R, M” (introduce, reinforce, master) curriculum mapping. This type of curriculum matrix maps all of a program’s SLOs to the courses required for a degree, specifying in which courses the skills required of each learning outcome are first introduced, where the skills are reinforced, and where they should be mastered. See [3] for more information about this type of curriculum map. As an example, Table 1 is an excerpt from our Physics program curriculum map that illustrates in which courses three of our learning outcomes are introduced, reinforced, and mastered. For each SLO, performance indicators (measurable actions or knowledge) are assigned that are commensurate with each level. Course Learning Outcome 1 Learning Outcome 2 Learning Outcome 3 General Physics I Introduced Introduced General Physics II Introduced Modern Physics Reinforced Quantum Mechanics Reinforced Advanced Lab Mastered Reinforced Independent Research Mastered Mastered Table 1: Excerpt from our Physics Program’s curriculum alignment matrix. The student project reported here was assigned in the second semester of our Calculus-based Introductory Physics course (Physics II), to assess, at the "introduce" level, both SLO (2) from the ANSAC and SLO (2) from the EAC. The student learning outcomes from the two commissions are given in Table 2. At this level, it was decided that our department’s performance indicators for both commission’s learning outcome (2) should be: [Students should be able to] Apply design requirements, Identify safety and economic factors, and Recognize physics and engineering principles required to solve a problem. Learning outcome assessment Because our department utilizes the “I, R, M” curriculum mapping model for assessment, each SLO is assessed in a minimum of three different classes at the three different levels. Our department has identified one to three performance indicators per level. We will assess SLO (2) for both the EAC and ANSAC in Physics II (introduce), Electromagnetism (reinforce), and the Independent Research course (master). Table 3 gives all of the performance indicators at the Table 2: Learning Outcome (2) from ABET’s EAC and ANSAC “introduce” level and, as an example, one performance indicator for each of the “reinforce” and “master” levels. The speaker project was designed to assess all three of the “introduce” performance indicators in a single assessment. The revised Bloom’s Taxonomy was used as a reference in determining appropriate performance indicators, e.g., performance indicators at the "introduce" level should require a “remembering” or “understanding” level of learning [4]. The first performance indicator, "Apply design requirements," contains the verb "apply" which is typically associated with a higher Bloom's level but the simple design requirements of this project allow us to still assess at the introduce level. Each performance indicator is assessed in a pass/fail manner as either “meets expectations” or “does not meet expectations”. Performance indicator Assessed in Level Apply design requirements Physics II I Identify safety and economic factors Physics II I Recognize physics and engineering principles required to solve a problem Physics II I Apply engineering and physics principles to analyze a problem Electromagnetism R Develop realistic design requirements using physics and engineering principles Independent research M Table 3: Sample of our department’s performance indicators for EAC and ANSAC Student Learning Outcome (2), in which courses the performance indicators are assessed and the level they are assessed (Introduce (I), Reinforce (R), and Master (M)). The project and performance indicator assessment For this project, students were required to design and build a speaker with the only design requirements being that students must utilize the provided audio jack and the speaker must be audible when played from a cellphone. Students were allowed to use their phones and choice of music or the professor's phone and choice of music. The speakers were tested in front of the entire class on the last scheduled class day of the semester. In addition to presenting their working speakers to the class as a team, students were required to submit an individual written report on the day of testing. The projects were assessed based on successfully designing and building a working speaker and the content of their oral and written reports, as indicated by the project instructions given in Figure 1. The speaker project assignment was weighted to be 8% of the total overall grade for students in the course Engineering Accreditation Commission learning outcome (2) [Students should have] an ability to apply engineering design to produce solutions that meet specified needs with consideration of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as global, cultural, social, environmental, and economic factors Applied and Natural Science Accreditation Commission learning outcome (2) [Students should have] an ability to formulate or design a system, process, procedure or program to meet desired needs.