Evolution Of Assessment Within A Mechanical Engineering Technology Department

With a successful ABET accreditation recently behind us and a regional accreditation almost upon us; the Mechanical Engineering Technology Department of the School of Technology at Purdue University has experienced maturation of its assessment and continuous improvement activities. Namely, with our short history of what works versus what does not and with valuable input from other School of Technology departments, a shift appears to have taken place where focus and responsibility are concerned. Eight departments, which make up the School of Technology, have completed audits of department assessment processes. Feedback from these audits has provided encouragement for focusing on how individual courses support achieving the goals and objectives of our department, school, and university. While assessing student learning remains a key activity, it is no longer the sole focus it once was. Our department has also seen a shift from continuous improvement and assessment direction emanating from a single point, i.e. Continuous Improvement Committee, to becoming the responsibility of every departmental committee and faculty member. While our initial efforts have been discussed in similar settings before, we have since identified areas of growth in our philosophy towards assessment and improvement; areas that may be of interest to other Engineering Technology programs as they continue to expand their assessment and improvement activities. This paper will discuss the evolution of assessment philosophy and techniques within the Mechanical Engineering Technology Department and significant changes in how our department accomplishes assessment. Experiences of what activities have been beneficial to our efforts and which activities have not will be shared. This paper’s approach will be a points-to-ponder one rather than a how-to list. Additionally, consideration will be given to areas Engineering Technology programs might reflect on as they prepare in the future for both TAC-ABET and Regional accreditation reviews. That is, can one method of documentation efficiently satisfy both parties? I. Initial Assessment Activities A brief description of activities Mechanical Engineering Technology was involved in l998 follows. More detailed information is provided in a previous paper that this author coauthored. Continuous Improvement Committee (CIC). This committee was the starting point for most activities undertaken by the Mechanical Engineering Technology faculty. CIC responsibilities included recording and maintaining documentation efforts for visiting assessment teams, P ge 588.1 monitoring accreditation requirements, and dissemination of information related to continuous improvement and assessment to all department faculty members. This committee existed within the Mechanical Engineering Technology department from May 1994 through August 1999 and active committee membership consisted of Mechanical Engineering Technology faculty. University Wide North Central Assessment Effort. For over five years now, the Mechanical Engineering Technology department has had a representative on a School of Technology Assessment Committee. The School of Technology Assessment Committee is made of representatives from each of the school’s eight departments and is facilitated by a school administrator who also serves as the school’s representative to a university level North Central Assessment Committee. In the past the school committee has served as a forum for sharing ideas and suggestion between departments. The school committee also sponsored an information session on assessment methods which was open to all school faculty. Finally, the committee developed a model for all departments within the school to use as a standard for developing their own assessment system. Strategic planning. In order to allow faculty members to focus on planning and improving the operation of the Mechanical Engineering Technology department, a two-day retreat took place in Fall 1995. During the retreat, faculty members developed a list of concerns and recommended actions in seven key areas: 1. Student recruitment 2. Assessment how students learn 3. Modernizing equipment, facilities, and instructional technology 4. Distance learning and Purdue Statewide Technology (PST) development 5. Faculty professional development 6. Assessing teaching performance 7. At-risk students/remediation Another strategic planning retreat followed in Spring 1999 which included a status report of the department’s previous strategic plan (Fall 1995). New concerns were identified along with recommended actions in the following key areas: 1. Undergraduate programs 2. MET enrollment and MET’s professional appearance 3. Laboratories and equipment 4. Faculty opportunities for continued professional growth 5. MET graduates in the SOT Graduate Program 6. Efficiency of MET Department operations 7. MET’s use of classroom technology 8. Statewide Technology issues 9. Alumni and industry relations 10. Integrate continuous improvement process into all areas of MET Department. Establishing a time line for continuous improvement initiatives. From Fall 1995 through Fall 1998, the continuous improvement committee maintained a planning calendar of the Mechanical P ge 588.2 Engineering Technology department’s continuous improvement projects. While it was maintained the calendar helped to focus attention on projects and project deadlines, informed faculty of project status, and served as a measure of success in meeting department goals. Learning objectives project. All Mechanical Engineering Technology faculty participated in developing course learning objectives for each Mechanical Engineering Technology course. Objectives developed during this project improved upon earlier versions of course objectives because they were written to be measurable and thus used for assessing student learning.. Mechanical Engineering Technology faculty were encouraged to track student performance against the new learning objectives and identify improvement projects for student learning based on the measurements collected. Graduate exit survey. A graduate exit survey was issued at the end of each Spring semester beginning in 1996. The survey directs students to rate and comment on faculty, staff, course, equipment and facility effectiveness and/or success. Students are also asked to comment on the value of their education, co-op employment experience, and the strengths and weaknesses of the Mechanical Engineering Technology department. Results were shared on a confidential basis with each faculty member during fall planning meetings with the Mechanical Engineering Technology department head. Individual faculty teaching improvements. Individual improvements were encouraged. At several 1998 and 1999 faculty meetings, faculty members shared their continuous improvement experiences with other Mechanical Engineering Technology faculty to help individuals identify assessment methods that work for their course material and teaching environment. II. Current assessment activities A brief description of current Mechanical Engineering Technology activities follows. Figure 1 can be used to better visualize ways in which the Mechanical Engineering Technology department’s assessment focus has changed. Mechanical Engineering Technology Administrative Council. This committee was created by the Mechanical Engineering Technology acting department head in Fall 1998 and is made up of department committee chairs as well as other key department representatives including the department’s Continuous Improvement Coordinator. The committee charges are numerous but include providing leadership on integrating the continuous improvement process into all areas of the Mechanical Engineering Technology Department. University Wide North Central Assessment Effort. A North Central Accreditation visit was completed in November 1999. Since the focus of the university committee was to prepare the university for the accreditation visit, the committee’s future is uncertain. On the other hand, the School of Technology Assessment Committee has its own momentum and while preparing the school to meet the assessment criteria of North Central Accreditation was a committee charge, the committee has also developed a focus on meeting goals, making improvements and maintaining a forum where school departments can share experiences. It is quite likely the P ge 588.3 School of Technology Assessment Committee will continue to function in a supportive role for the near future. Figure 1. Comparison of past and current assessment focus in Mechanical Engineering Technology. Area 1998 and Prior 1999 and Future Preparation Up to MET Internal Audit Input From Other Departments Responsibility Continuous Improvement Committee MET Faculty Department Head MET Committee Chairs MET Faculty Source of ideas, methods Continuous Improvement Committee MET Faculty Areas of improvement Student Learning Recommendations from industry Student surveys MET Strategic Plan Assessment System Student Learning Recommendations from industry Student surveys Strategic planning. Building a strategic plan for Mechanical Engineering Technology based entirely on faculty input has had two major benefits. First, it has broadened communication and built consensus between faculty and administration in terms of identifying issues to improve the Mechanical Engineering Technology department and prepare it to meet future challenges. Secondly, it appears to have increased and focused faculty support towards department goals. Another strategic planning session is scheduled for Fall 2000. Establishing a time line for continuous improvement initiatives. The time line was discontinued “as such” however time constraints and goals have been included within the Mechanical Engineering Technology strategic plan and all plan action items have been transposed into committee and individual charges. Success at meeting these goals will be review