advertisement
On TechRepublic: 19 words you don't want in your resume
Find Articles in:
all
Business
Reference
Technology
News
Sports
Health
Autos
Arts
Home & Garden
advertisement

Content provided in partnership with
ProQuest

Bridging diverse institutions, multiple engineering departments, and industry: A case study in assessment planning

Journal of Engineering Education,  Apr 1998  by McMartin, Flora,  Van Duzer, Eric,  Agogino, Alice

<< Page 1  Continued from page 7.  Previous | Next

For each course identified in the degree map, project leaders were asked to rate its emphasis on each assessed student learning ability and provide a description of classroom activities that supported that learning. The resulting course profiles produced a picture of the courses as they related to the student learning outcomes identified in Phase I.

In addition to the course profiles, a student survey provided another perspective on the level of emphasis of each course on the Synthesis abilities. Student surveys have long been used by the Synthesis Coalition-originally, they attempted to gauge student learning. During the 1996-1997 academic year the survey was converted to ask both faculty and students to describe their experience in a course (e.g., how much teamwork was included in the course?).

Most Popular Articles in Reference
The importance of understanding organizational culture
Credit card attitudes and behaviors of college students
What factors attract foreign direct investment?
Libraries Need Relationship Marketing - mutual interest marketing concept, ...
How to set performance goals: employee reviews are more than annual critiques
More »
advertisement

The results from this survey were related to the course profiles in a comprehensive matrix created for each degree program. This matrix identified each of the Synthesis Coalition's courses and listed the student/faculty emphasis ratings for each of the learning goals. Teams of project leaders from each campus used these matrices to identify the level of emphasis on particular abilities in each course. Faculty then decided which of the courses would be assessed, and assigned specific core learning tools that best fit those courses and abilities. By the time the campus teams had completed this exercise, they had developed a plan for assessment in their degree programs. (See Table 3.)

Campus control of this aspect of the process was critical to gaining consensus on the assessment plan. The faculty identified in these plans have committed to the ongoing use of the tools. This commitment came only as the participants began to see what they would gain from the assessment process.

At a departmental level, degree mapping is critical to deciding which courses provide good opportunities for assessment. Degree maps are tools that clearly illustrate how a curriculum works together (or doesn't work together) to accomplish the goals of a major or department. They provide departments with an opportunity to adjust courses that are not aligned with over-all department or college goals prior to assessing student learning. The mapping process also helps to guide the final selection of tools, timing of specific assessments, and the total assessment experience for each student. The last is particularly important in protecting students from being over-assessed.

VI. CHALLENGE: MAKING THE PLAN REALIMPLEMENTATION

Three factors are critical to the successful implementation of the assessment plans: provide faculty with sufficient planning time as well as time to learn about assessment, link the plan to other users (in this case ABET), and involve key campus administrators in the assessment process.

For the Synthesis Coalition, the most time consuming aspect of the process was developing consensus on the specific abilities it should assess. The assessment team's strategy was to focus participants' efforts around specific decision points: the who, what, how, and why of the plan. Early in the process these decision points were clearly outlined and communicated to the participating stakeholders. The assessment team carefully outlined the work of the participants around these points and scheduled meetings to coincide with academic "down-time" in order to reduce competing teaching and research demands on the participating faculty.