SWECEDHA 2003 Electrical Engineering Arizona State University ABET Accreditation Visit Nov. 2 nd -4 th, 2003

SWECEDHA 2003 Matrix for Implementation Assessment ASU

SWECEDHA 2003 Determine educational objectives UG Committee Spring 1998; EE Retreat May 1998 Establish Indicators that Objectives are Being Achieved Determine How Outcomes will be Assessed Determine How Outcomes will be Achieved Determine Outcomes Required to Achieve Objectives Evaluate/Assess Input from Constituencies Formal Instruction Student Activities EE Retreat May 1998; UG Committee Fall 1998 EE Retreat May 1998; UG Committee Fall Assessment ECE301EEE490 ASU Senior Survey IAC Meetings Fall 1999 May, Nov May, Nov CEAS Committee 1999, 2000, 2001 Student Advisory EESAC 11/1999 EESAC 4/2000 EESAC 11/2001 EE Retreat Jan Jan Evaluate Assessment Spring, Fall 1999 UG Committee Assessment of Program Outcomes 3/02 Course Objectives: Spring, Fall 1999 EE Retreat Jan Jan Assessment Fall00: All EEE 3XX, EEE490, EEE/CSE120, EEE/CSE226 ASU Senior Survey 2001 Assessment All EEE 3XX, EEE490, EEE/CSE120, EEE/CSE226 ASU Senior Survey CEAS Survey Alumni Survey 2000, 2001

SWECEDHA 2003 EE EC2000 Department Process EE Dept. Office Collection of data Organization of data Archive of data Undergrad Comm. Evaluation of general data Area Chairs Affect change in specific course objectives Faculty Implement course objectives in curriculum Course Assessment Online student-faculty surveys EE Industry Advisory Council EE Student Advisory Council ASU Senior Survey CEAS Senior Survey Alumni Survey EE Dept. Office Implement changes In operations (recruiting, advising, diversity, placement, etc. Undergrad Comm. Recommendations Operations Curriculum Course Comms. Evaluation of course Data Portfolios Course Portfolios ECE488/489 Student Portfolios

SWECEDHA 2003 EE Course Subcommittees Composed of course instructors, pre & post course instructors and faculty outside area Each subcommittee meets annually to review: 1.Objectives and outcomes template 2.Syllabus 3.Instructor end-of-semester reports 4.Student web-based surveys (pre and post) 5.Grade distribution 6.Laboratory experiments, if applicable Sends 1-2 page report to EE UG Committee Reports received for 75% of classes for 2001

SWECEDHA 2003 Course Competency Questions

SWECEDHA 2003 UG Outcomes Assessment EE UG Committee was broken into subcommittees to assess each of the ABET and EE program-specific outcomes SubcommitteeASU EE SpecificABET Morrell & ChakrabartiA.1 – A.43(j) GoodnickB.1 – B.2, D.2 Grondin & BirdC.1 – C.43(i) Heydt & KimE.1 – E.33(a) & 3(e) Higgins & DiazE.4 – E.53(b), 3(c), 3(k) Holbert & ThorntonD.1, B.33(d), 3(f), 3(g), 3(h)

SWECEDHA 2003 Mission/Vision Mission and Vision Statements for the EE Dept., CEAS, and ASU ConstituentsConstituent Input via Meetings, Retreats, etc. UG Objectives Undergraduate Program Goal, Objectives, Outcomes and Curriculum Also includes CEAS college Objectives and Outcomes Results/ChangesA summary of results and changes made Status Reports Periodic status reports, presentations and mileposts on the undergraduate program assessment Assessment Assessment data and analysis for undergraduate program Course Object Course Objectives and Outcomes for EE courses; Undergraduate Curriculum Also includes mapping of course objectives to program & ABET objectives Course AssessCourse Assessment Data and Results (by semester) Resources ABET Criteria; Definitions; Templates; Links (CEAS, ABET); etc. Overview (Website Contents)

SWECEDHA 2003 ABET Review Comments Should be assessing objectives directly, as well as outcomes Surveys are 2 nd order metrics, not sufficient in and of themselves Operational definition of objectives are what students should be able to accomplish 5 years out Operational definition of outcomes are what students are capable of upon graduation

SWECEDHA 2003 ABET Review Comments Course curriculum committee’s are what ‘saved bacon’ for EE during review- Continuous process evidenced which involved all faculty at a minimal level Assessment website was important in documenting a continuous improvement process involving the constituencies of the department (industry, students, and faculty). No weaknesses, deficiencies or concerns cited in exit interview.