Session: 10-03-01: Globalization of Engineering, Study Abroad Education, Engineering Accreditation, Curricular Reforms and Revisions, ABET Programs Assessment, Continuous Education and Ethical Dimensions

Paper Number: 167080

Back to the Meat Slicer: A Vertically Integrated, Thinly Cut Salami Framework for ABET Student Outcome Assessment 

The change in ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) Criterion 3 from 11 program outcomes (POs) to 7 student outcomes (SOs) in 2017 was a significant shift from simpler statements to more complex, compound statements of outcomes akin to unsliced salami.  ABET EAC provided documentation mapping the old POs to the new SOs to assist programs during the transition.  Unfortunately, the mapping did not precisely define the new words being introduced in the SOs.  The lack of definition on much of the terminology used in the SOs left engineering programs with the task of interpreting the words to build a framework to assess the SOs.  ABET workshops and training materials later emphasized adopting performance indicators (PIs), which can be evaluated at different levels of cognitive learning to bridge the broad, complexly worded SOs with concrete statements of performance which can be measured.  Utilization of measurable PIs are the first slice of the student outcome salami which are essentially the program’s interpretations of the broadly worded SOs (SO-PIs).  This study presents a reproducible framework for assessing SOs which further subdivides the PIs into elements (SO-PI-Es).  Thus, the each PI has set of specific elements which will directly be assessed in program courses.  Each element is a very specific measurable ability which students must demonstrate.  Each SO-PI-E is embedded vertically in program courses to assess achievement of the elements at three different cognitive levels: introduction, reinforcement, and emphasis.  A common rubric developed for each SO-PI-E is used by every instructor of the course(s) where the SO-PI-E is embedded to evaluate student performanance.  The individual course instructor has the freedom to develop the assignment(s) which will be used to the assess the SO-PI-E using the common rubric, but the instructor must clearly highlight in the assignment(s) where the SO-PI-E is being evaluated. The utilization of elements, which are directly tied to performance indicators, and performance indicators which are directly tied to student outcomes, permits specific identification of strengths and weaknesses in student performance. Specific weaknesses can be addressed by making curriculum changes in the next course offerring through the continuous improvement process.  The calculation methodology developed and presented herein identifies the weakness in an element but does not necessarily result in an overall weakness in student attainment of the associated PI or SO.  Results are presented using data collected over a four-semester period which shows the level of attainment of the student outcomes, performance indicators, and elements (SO-PI-Es).

Presenting Author: Jeffrey Marchetta University of Memphis

Presenting Author Biography: Jeffrey G. Marchetta, is a Professor and Undergraduate Program Coordinator in Mechanical Engineering at The University of Memphis. He specializes in the design and analysis of fluid-thermal systems, and he has research interests in astronautics, energy efficiency, and sustainability. He has been a recipient of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Abe Zarem Award for Distinguished Research in Aeronautics and the Educator Award in Astronautics. Dr. Marchetta has served as the Director of the Tennessee 3-Star Industrial Training and Assessment Center (ITAC) satellite at the University of Memphis since 2008, a program sponsored by the Department of Energy. He earned his Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering, Master’s degree in Mechanical Engineering, and his Ph.D. in Engineering from the University of Memphis.

Authors:

Jeffrey Marchetta University of Memphis
John Hochstein University of Memphis