This section presents the analysis of the outcomes assessment process in the self-study report of 2002 and how the current process was designed. After the previous ABET visit the Computer Engineering Steering Committee decided to change the instruments used for outcomes assessment for the following reasons:

1.      Transcript analysis is based on course grades which are global measurements of all the course outcomes and do not provide an individual outcome achievement measurement.

2.      Seniors surveys provide information about the perception of students on outcome achievement but are not direct measures of actual outcome achievement.

3.      Alumni and employer surveys are more suitable for educational objectives assessment than to individual outcome achievement along the program.

4.      Although the NCEES FE Examination may be used for outcome assessment of seniors, it does not provide information about progress along the program and is more appropriate for benchmarking. Also, in 2002 there was no examination for Computer Engineering.

5.      Have a unified assessment method and process for all the programs in the Department.

The faculty of the Department commissioned the Quality Improvement and Accreditation coordinators of the Electrical Engineering and the Computer Engineering programs to propose an assessment process that would:

1.      Solve the shortcomings found in the outcomes assessment process used until 2002.

2.      Measure directly outcome level of achievement in the courses.

3.      Become instruments to validate program interventions such as curricular reforms, new courses, new pedagogic strategies, course restructuring.

4.      Minimize the burden on faculty.

The coordinators analyze several assessment approaches shown in Table 1 which also summarizes the pros and cons of each alternative. On October 27, 2005 these alternatives were presented to the Department that chose a combination of alternatives (4) and (5), i.e., course material-based assessment and NCEES FE examination.

1. Analysis of Assessment Alternatives

Alternative	Pros	Cons
Student Portfolios	·        Unified assessment for all students and all academic terms. ·        Comprehensive	·        Manageable with small student populations. ·        How do we store and organize such a large amount of portfolios?
Periodic comprehensive tests	·        Standardized ·        Unified assessment for all students and all academic terms ·        Professional licensure could be one of the tests ·        What if student passes the outcome assessment but fails the course or vice versa?	·        How do we assess criteria d, g and i? ·        How and when would we give them? ·        How can we motivate students to take them seriously? ·        Who designs the tests? ·        Standardized tests measure how well students learned information but may not demonstrate how well they solve problems
Cornerstone and capstone courses	·        Comprehensive ·        Assessment instruments could be more standardized than in content courses (no need to come up with new questions for tests or exams)	·        What are the cornerstone courses? ·        Do we have any? ·        We need to identify candidate courses ·        We may need to create cornerstone courses and that would require a major curricular reform
Course material-based assessment	·        We may already have many necessary elements and evidence materials ·        Probably the smallest additional burden on faculty. ·        Allows student progress monitoring ·        Allows multiple measures of each outcome	·        Need to do a mapping between materials and outcomes ·        How to determine sample materials and sample size? ·        Not comprehensive
Professional Licensure test (NCEES FE Examination)	·        Almost comprehensive ·        Can be used for comparative analysis with rest of the nation ·        Shows outcomes of the whole program	·        Does not allow assessment of outcomes d, g and i. ·        Only one point measurement and does not let us see how students develop skills to achieve outcomes ·        Long response time to any curricular changes

 

Once the assessment method was chosen some other issues related to the assessment process were also decided:

1.      Cycles of assessment for courses would be established.

2.      There is no need to be exhaustive of course material, just representative of course outcomes.

3.      Mapping of course material and educational outcomes would be necessary and require collaboration of course instructor.

4.      The measurement of outcome achievement would directly use course material and outcome mapping as provided by course instructor.

5.      There is no need to assess every course every semester, except when the faculty or the Steering Committee would deem it necessary.

6.      Not all sections of a course need to be assessed. Assessment plan will establish cycle of sections assessment to minimize burden on faculty members and distribute assessment load as evenly as possible.

7.      The professional licensure examination would be used as a component of summative assessment and benchmarking.

8.      The assessment results would be sent to area committees for review and final results send to steering committees to take corrective actions when needed.

The assessment process is shown in Figure 1.