Lance Schachterle

Outcomes Assessment and Accreditation in US Engineering Formation.

SUMMARY American higher education is characterized by enormous program and quality diversity among the 3842 institutions (1998 data) with two- or four-year programs (of which 319 institutions have one or more engineering programs). Sharp distinctions emerge along several axes: funding (private vs public), size (hundreds to tens of thousands of students) and mission (research vs teaching). Recently the accreditation organizations for universities broadly and for engineering specifically have addressed this diversity by moving to outcomes-based assessments. Rather than judging student performance in terms of classes passed, institutions must (1) define their distinctive mission, (2) design a curriculum to help students achieve these goals, (3) assess student learning outcomes according to both institutional and professional criteria, and (4) create a culture of continuous improvement to belter align steps (1) and (2). Adoption of similar procedures may help European engineering institutions to measure progr...

A code of ethics for robotics engineers

The future of robotics engineering is in the hands of engineers and must be handled to ensure the safety of all people and the reputation of the field. We are in the process of developing a code of ethics for professional robotics engineers to serve as a guideline for the ethical development of the field. This document contains the current version of this code and describes the methodology used in developing it.

Literature and technology

The essays in this collection argue that literature from the middle ages to the present has been shaped -- thematically, formally, and materially -- by technology, and in the most practical sense technologies have also been transformed by their depiction in particular texts.

Projects in Undergraduate Engineering Education in America.

SUMMARY A survey of engineering educators in the US was conducted to ascertain actual practice regarding the delivery of engineering projects in the curriculum. The survey focused only on project experiences carrying significant academic credit that are free-standing elements of the curriculum; that is, they are not associated with or part of a course. Inquiries covered: the degree to which such activities meet requirements for graduation, accreditation and/or professional licensure; the extent of involvement of off-campus professionals in the conduct of the project, and in its support and its evaluation and assessment; the size and make-up of student teams in such activities, and the preparation and evaluation techniques used for team efforts; and the degree to which faculty members act as advisors or teachers. This paper briefly describes what is meant generally by the project mode of instruction in engineering education in the US, and describes the breadth of pedagogy in the current delivery of enginee...

Faculty governance embraces outcomes assessment

Outcomes assessment of student learning typically originates with academic administrations, because they have the resources for gathering and analyzing data and usually are responsible for preparing for accreditation visits. However, for such assessment to be really effective as well as sustained, faculty buy-in is crucial. This paper describes four steps which led to responsibility at WPI for undergraduate outcomes assessment being shifted from the administration only to the faculty as well. The paper provides background on each of these steps to help other institutions in normalizing assessment work within the faculty/administrative nexus, and discusses the work to date of the faculty subcommittee formed to oversee outcomes assessment.

Sustaining a university-wide approach to comprehensive outcomes assessment

In the late 1960s the senior faculty at WPI (Worcester Polytechnic Institute) developed a project-based curriculum, which later lent itself very well to assessing learning outcomes. Well before outcomes assessment became widely discussed and practiced, WPI faculty had begun to assess the outcomes of these projects to determine their pedagogical effectiveness. This growing culture of assessment prepared WPI to respond comparatively quickly to the emphasis in the 1990s that accrediting organizations began to make on assessing learning outcomes. This paper concludes with seven recommendations for a sustainable institution-wide assessment program: involve the faculty early on; balance top down and bottom up; create a campus-wide steering committee; involve faculty governance; establish an early success and build on strength; stress the differences between assessing student learning and grading students; and be politically aware and set reasonable expectations.

Quality Assurance in Engineering Education in the United States

In USA there is not a federal system of higher education, but a diverse and independent nation-wide set of public and private institutions. Consequently, for the last 100 years, Quality Assurance in US higher education has been performed not by the federal government but by the voluntary regional and disciplinary accrediting agencies such as the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET 2008). Through the involvement of their members these agencies set standards (most recently Engineering Criteria 2000) and then use these standards as part of a peer-review process to accredit engineering education programs. Engineering Criteria (2000) focuses considerable attention on student learning and, while it has been in effect for less than a decade, early studies point to its success in improving engineering education. The experience of Worcester Polytechnic Institute in three ABET accreditation cycles (1996, 2002, 2008) is used to illustrate the impact of EC2000.

What was learned-outcomes assessment under Criteria 2000 at WPI

Six Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI), USA, engineering programs were evaluated under Criteria 2000 during a pilot accreditation visit in 1996. The WPI PLAN consists of degree requirements focused on the achievement of outcomes related to those of Criteria 2000. The mapping of degree requirement outcomes to the elements of the Criteria hinged on the translation of student performance metrics and their interpretation. Not suprisingly, substantial effort was necessary to ensure the identification of all elements of Criteria 2000, including the applicable Program Criteria in the academic program outcomes.

Development of outcome assessments at WPI

The WPI PLAN, adopted by the WPI faculty in 1970, strongly anticipates current thinking about student outcomes assessments by structuring degree requirements that mandate that students demonstrate their ability to perform professional functions embodied in ABET Criteria 2000, especially Criteria 3 and 4. The WPI faculty has also practiced both student and self evaluations of these outcomes through respectively grades and peer review (both departmental and campus-wide) of student performance.