80-Minute Mini Workshops

The following will be offered as 80-minute miniature workshops.

     denotes a 10th Anniversary Presenter or Co-Presenter

     denotes an Invited Presenter or Co-Presenter

Most ABET-accredited programs have settled into an acceptance of the program improvement-based criteria. But how useful are the assessment processes that have been developed? Do they provide information needed to truly improve programs, or are we simply going through the motions? To help answer these and other questions, ABET outcomes need to be described in specific ways: “What does the outcome look like in our program?” “How will we know it when we see it?” These detailed descriptors are performance criteria. They provide a basis by which to assess attainment of program outcomes, and, in this way, also support the design of assessment instruments. This presentation will discuss the development of performance criteria that help change assessment data into useful information. The presentation will be based on the work recently done at the author’s institution and the involvement of faculty in her program.

Learning outcomes: Participants will 1) understand how to develop performance criteria for ABET outcomes; 2) gain perspective on how faculty may be involved in this process; 3) understand how performance criteria are used in assessment processes; 4) recognize the difference between assessment "data" and "information."

Return to the complete program details

Assessing creative expertise is a challenge the Savannah College of Art and Design embraces. Using theory-based interviews of faculty from our nationally top-ranking Industrial Design program, we constructed a direct assessment system grounded in faculty expertise and adaptable to creative problem-solving in STEM fields. This mini-workshop begins with departmental goals: (1) fostering innovations that serve user needs and (2) improving assessment reliability, stabilizing standards, and enabling students to reliably anticipate expert assessments of their work. We then briefly describe Integrated Assessment Theory (IAT)—a cognitive science basis for assessing competence, performance, transformation, and innovation. Next, we present the developmental rubrics for industrial design generated by the theory-based faculty interviews. The bulk of the workshop will focus on hands-on participant learning of (1) conducting IAT interviews of experts, (2) rating student work using the IAT rubrics for industrial design, and (3) continually improving program assessment through data analysis and critique.

Learning outcomes: 1) To learn to code creative problem solving in STEM fields using theoretically-defined, multi-dimensional rubrics. 2) To learn to adapt an interview and rubric definition process based on an Integrated Assessment Theory to specific STEM disciplines.

Return to the complete program details

A rubric is a tool for assessing performance on a task. If desired, the rubric can be developed to provide quantitative assessment. It lists the criteria important for evaluation, and it distinguishes between levels of performance in each criterion. Rubrics can be a tremendous asset to the instructor and students. Therefore, this session covers how these tools can help the instructor, how these tools can help the students, how to develop rubrics, and what resources are available for developing rubrics.

Learning outcomes: Attendees will learn a variety of types of rubrics. Attendees will learn a variety of uses for rubrics. Attendees will learn how to create a rubric for assessment of student learning. Attendees will learn several resources to help in developing rubrics.

Return to the complete program details

The session begins by outlining the way in which the Engineering Technologies Department at DTCC uses community service design projects to provide a broad student learning outcomes measure for AAS degree programs in architecture, CADD, civil, construction management, and mechanical design. Specifics will be given regarding project selection, the logistics of involving multiple courses into one design project, definition of project deliverables, constructing appropriate grading rubrics linked the program intended outcomes and criteria, involving the Department's Industrial Advisory Committee in evaluating student projects, and incorporating results into an on-going continuous improvement plan. Several sample student project reports will be circulated to provide tangible examples. The session participants will then be broken into working groups to discuss how similar approaches are currently used or could be integrated their programs/departments/colleges. Participants will have an opportunity to discuss and summarize the ideas generated by the individual groups and to address question/suggestions that were raised.

Learning outcomes: General criteria for the selection of community service/capstone projects. Defining clear project deliverables to the students that help ensure the intended outcomes measures are manifest in the final project presentation. Constructing and implementing appropriate grading rubrics. Tracking, evaluating and implementing findings into a continuous improvement plan.

Return to the complete program details

An assessment plan will be presented that defines a successful plan for Outcome/Objective assessment. The following assessment software and tools will be reviewed: WEAVE, ClassAct, NCEES results, and Graded. Presentation will be a road map to developing a successful assessment.

Learning outcomes: Participants will learn how to prepare for visit. Participants will learn how to apply available tools (commercial and open source).

Return to the complete program details

In this session we present (a) a streamlined assessment and evaluation process, (b) performance criteria/indicators for assessing “ABET engineering program outcomes a- k”, and (c) a mix of direct and indirect assessment methods. Then we focus on how assessment of a General Education program can be used in the overall improvement process for engineering programs. We present both national standardized and locally developed course-embedded tools for assessment of relevant ABET engineering program outcomes. We will illustrate how data from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) provides information about the ABET outcomes. Angelo’s cost/benefit value system guides our faculty designed, course-embedded assessment process. Examples of direct assessment of student learning in general education courses will be given. Participants will apply Angelo’s cost/benefit analysis to their institutional situation to determine the value of partnering with their general education program, and to help them plan a strategy for an effective partnership.

Learning outcomes: Participants in this session will: 1) review the assessment process and the value of both direct and indirect methods; 2) examine the relationship between General Education and Engineering Program Outcomes; 3) relate national standardized tools available for assessment of general education programs (NSSE) to engineering program outcomes; 4) review the value of faculty developed, course-embedded processes; 5) use Angelo’s cost/benefit system to determine the value of various methods; 6) determine how they can use their institution’s assessment of its general education program to assist with assessment of their engineering programs.

Return to the complete program details

Colleges of Engineering have developed a variety of processes to encourage participation in program assessment but generally find it difficult to achieve real acceptance among the faculty. Frequently, those processes are not standardized and are disconnected. What does an effective program assessment system look like? How do you transform assessment initiatives to form a program assessment system that creates value? What organizational structures and support are needed? Answers to these questions are fundamental to creating a successful program assessment system. In this session, you will learn about essential components of an assessment system and the need to establish a quality assurance process for the assessment activities. You will also examine essential support activities and web technologies to facilitate assessment planning and reporting. The session identifies the types of structures and the kinds of support that are essential to make the system work, going beyond simply requiring faculty to do it.

Learning outcomes: 1) Gain a clear understanding of program assessment concepts; 2) Gain a clear understanding of the elements of an effective program assessment process and the important role of the quality assurance component; 3) Become knowledgeable about key organizational components needed to successfully implement program assessment and how various elements on campus can be integrated to provide that support; 4) Become knowledgeable about the types of support that help make assessment easier for the doers; 5) Develop a better understanding of an assessment “system” and how to guide their colleges toward a more systemic approach to assessment; 6) Develop ideas on how to create value out of the assessment process.

Return to the complete program details

Anyone who has been tasked with designing and implementing an assessment system has quickly discovered that assessment isn’t necessarily a popular idea or activity among faculty and administrators, nor is it a task that can be successfully completed by the steward alone. For many stewards, these realizations come only after having accepted the task. Thus, the steward’s attention turns not only to building an assessment system, but also to surviving the process and maintaining one’s popularity among colleagues. This session will identify common mistakes that are made during the development and implementation of assessment systems and will engage participants in a discussion regarding how those mistakes can be avoided so that the process is as painless and successful as possible for everyone involved. Special attention will be devoted to defining the steward’s role and engaging constituencies that can facilitate the process and thereby ease the steward’s load.

Learning outcomes: Participants will 1) identify common mistakes made by assessment stewards and determine which ones they have made or are in danger of making; 2) devise approaches for avoiding common mistakes or correcting mistakes already made; 3) concisely define their role as an assessment steward; and 4) identify and define the role of key constituent groups and develop approaches to gain their involvement.

Return to the complete program details

Using open-source software tools, a web-based quantitative course and program assessment environment has been implemented in the ECE department at Portland State University. Quantitative course-to-program outcome mapping, normalized to student credit hours, enables the automatic collation of course outcome data into meaningful program assessment data. Following a discussion of the design philosophy of quantitatively linking course rubrics, metrics and outcomes to program outcomes, the implementation of the program assessment framework will be explained. The data collection flow, processing and report generation will be described and demonstrated in detail. And, last but not least, to close the feedback loop on program assessment, survey results are used to calibrate and validate both the program outcomes and the quantitative assessment results. Through surveys, program outcomes are evaluated in terms of relevance and relative importance. Numerical assessment data is calibrated through comparison with survey responses regarding performance.

Learning outcomes: Understand the quantitative course-to-program outcome mapping philosophy. Understand the importance of designing course assessment tools with program assessment in mind. Gain a better understanding of the capabilities of an open-source software-based program assessment framework.

Return to the complete program details

The Software and Computer Engineering programs at Milwaukee School of Engineering have been using the “targeted assessment” approach to measure and demonstrate program outcome achievement since 2004. In this approach, discrete elements, called “targeted assessments” are embedded in selected courses throughout the curriculum, the results of which are analyzed and applied to continuing program improvement. It has been the authors’ experience that this assessment approach has been fairly resilient to curriculum changes. As new topics are introduced or allocated across courses, making necessary adjustments to a small number of identified assignments or tasks requires reduced effort as compared to maintaining potentially complex transitivity relationships between course and program outcomes. This approach also results in a more streamlined annual review process. This workshop will address the motivation and structure necessary to support the development of an infrastructure that targets specific areas of assessment within an engineering program.

Learning outcomes: Why embedded assessments are desirable. How to embed student outcome assessments. How to develop embedded assessments. How to incorporate embedded assessments in the larger assessment picture.

Return to the complete program details

The Student Assessment of their Learning Gains (SALG) is a flexible online survey template assessment tool currently used by more than one thousand undergraduate instructors and 60,000 students. In this survey (designed by Elaine Seymour, the University of Colorado) students assess gains in their understandings and skills by estimating the degree to which course components (e.g. activities, resources, tests) enabled their learning. The National Science Foundation (NSF) recently provided funds to modernize the website, revise and add instruments for faculty, departments, and programs, and conduct research about SALG usage. Presenters will 1) provide an overview of the SALG survey’s rationale and structure, 2) present validity research on how the SALG has been used for both formative (results for improvements) and summative assessment at the instructor and departmental accreditation levels (faculty involvement), and 3) show how instructors and departments can use the SALG online (use of technology to support assessment).

Learning outcomes: 1) Participants will learn about the rationale and structure of the SALG. 2) Participants will become familiar with validity research about the SALG. 3) Participants will understand how the SALG is best used for formative and summative assessment purposes. 4)Participants will gain a working knowledge of how to use the SALG website.

Return to the complete program details

Since the project began in 1997, the RosE Portfolio System has enabled faculty and staff at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology to collect, assess, and evaluate student learning outcomes. Developed on our campus and now in its third version, the RosE Portfolio (winner of the 2007 CHEA Award) allows for the collection of authentic evidence of student learning and provides mapping of that evidence to defined program and institutional outcomes. The purpose of this session will be to engage participants in a review of the latest implementation of the system, now within the context of the Angel Learning Management System (LMS). The session will also cover the issues related to gaining faculty buy-in for a portfolio assessment process.

Learning outcomes: 1) to learn the rudiments of the RosE Portfolio System and its related processess; 2) to recognize the issues related to faculty support for an electronic portfolio assessment system; 3) to become familiar with the requirements for implementing a portfolio system for the purpose of program outcomes assessment.

Return to the complete program details