Search

Since Engineering Criteria 2000 (EC 2000) was first introduced as the standard for American engineering education programs, most discussion in the literature has focused on how to assess Outcomes 3a-3k (specific outcomes or abilities engineering students must acquire as defined by the Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology) and relatively little has concerned how to equip students with the skills and attitudes specified in those outcomes. This paper seeks to fill this gap. Following an overview of EC 2000 and an attempt to clarify the confusing array of terms that it has introduced into the accreditation process, the paper addresses two primary questions: (1) How can learning objectives, learning assessment methods, and instructional techniques for individual courses be formulated to address each of the Criterion 3 outcomes? and (2) What might be done at the program and individual course levels to raise the level of achievement of the outcomes? In the procedure recommended in the paper, once a program faculty has defined the program educational objectives, outcomes, and outcome indicators, it should: (1) identify the core (required) courses that address the outcomes; (2) define observable learning objectives for each core course that address the relevant program outcomes; and (3) select methods to assess the objectives. (Observable objectives involve action verbs like list, explain, calculate, model, design, and critique, as opposed to more abstract words like learn, understand, and appreciate. Some objectives can be assessed using written problem-solving tests; others cannot.) The courses should then be taught so as to maximize the likelihood that students capable of achieving the objectives will in fact do so. The paper provides resources to support this process, including illustrative learning objectives and instructional methods that address Outcomes 3a-3k. The methods suggested in the paper have all been used extensively and are well supported by educational research. (Evidence for this claim is provided by numerous references cited in the paper.) The intention is for course instructors to browse through the suggestions and select learning objectives and teaching and assessment methods that address their program outcomes and are compatible with their teaching philosophies and levels of experience. As time goes by, they should periodically review their assessment results, revisit the suggestions, and consider modifying their teaching and assessment methods in an effort to improve the level of achievement of the objectives. Appended are: Illustrative Learning Objective for EC 2000 Outcomes 3a-3k; Teaching Methods that Address Outcomes 3a-3k; Cooperative Learning Methods that address outcomes 3a-3k; and Problem-Based Learning Methods that Address Outcomes 3a-3k. (Contains 91 references.) (Author/YDS)

SUCCEED (Southeastern University and College Coalition for Engineering Education)is an 8-campus coalition of engineering schools formed in 1992 under the sponsorship of the National Science Foundation. In 1997, members of SUCCEED's faculty development and program assessment teams designed a faculty survey of instructional practices and attitudes regarding the climate for teaching on the Coalition campuses. The respondents were asked about the frequency with which they used various teaching techniques (including active learning, team homework, and technology-assisted instruction), their involvement in faculty development programs, and the effects of those programs on their teaching. They were also asked to rate the importance of teaching quality to themselves, their colleagues, and their department, college, and university administrators and in the faculty reward system in their campus. The survey was first administered late in 1997 and a modified version was administered late in 1997. (A third administration will take place in the spring of 2002.) The 1999 survey was sent by e-mail to 1621 faculty e-mail addresses, and a follow-up survey was sent a month later to non-respondents. After blank surveys and duplicates were eliminated from the returns, 586 valid and usable surveys remained, a return rate of 36%. Of those, 75 were excluded from most analyses (except for demographic summaries) because the respondent had not taught undergraduates in the prior 3 years. The demographic profile of the respondents closely matched that of the full faculty with respect to sex, rank, position, engineering discipline, and participation in SUCCEED-sponsored activities. This report summarizes results from the 1999 administration of the survey and itemizes significant differences among groups (sex, rank, position, years of service, SUCCEED involvement, prior attendance at teaching seminars, and Carnegie classification). When possible, the data are compared with the data from the 1997 survey administration to examine changes in faculty teaching practices and attitudes in the intervening 2 years. Survey instrument and survey summary by institution are appended. (Contains 73 tables and 12 figures.) (Author/MM)