Assessment in the Department of Civil Engineering - Amini


Published on

Published in: Education, Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

Assessment in the Department of Civil Engineering - Amini

  1. 1. Assessment Plan Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering Farshad Amini, Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE Professor & Chair, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering January 22, 2010
  2. 2. Accreditation Body <ul><li>Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology – Engineering Accreditation Commission (ABET-EAC) </li></ul>
  3. 3. Assessment Plan <ul><li>Our assessment plan is very rigorous. </li></ul><ul><li>Assessment of program outcomes </li></ul><ul><li>Assessment of achievement of program educational objectives (program outcomes) </li></ul><ul><li>Assessment of assessment </li></ul><ul><li>Assessment of implementation of improvements </li></ul><ul><li>Assessment of quality of data </li></ul>
  4. 4. Assessment of Program Outcomes <ul><li>2004-2005 Assessment Cycle </li></ul><ul><li>2005-2006 Assessment Cycle </li></ul><ul><li>2006-2007 Assessment Cycle </li></ul><ul><li>2007-2008 Assessment Cycle </li></ul><ul><li>2008-2009 Assessment Cycle </li></ul><ul><li>2009-2010 Assessment Cycle </li></ul>
  5. 5. Developing a Culture of Assessment <ul><li>During the initial assessment process, a Department Assessment Committee (DAC), consisting of full-time faculty members, was formed. This committee generally met weekly or bi-weekly to discuss the various aspects of the assessment process, and recommend course of action. Our experience indicates that the formation of the DAC, at the start of the department and for a new Program, has been very effective in implement ting a structured and systematic assessment plan. </li></ul>
  6. 6. Developing a Culture of Assessment <ul><li>First, the Chair of the Department Assessment Committee (DAC) analyzes the raw data and provides a summary with analysis to the full-time faculty. </li></ul><ul><li>Next, full-time faculty discuss the results at a Department meeting and decides if corrective action is needed based on the results. </li></ul><ul><li>Finally, faculty meet at the end of the academic year to review assessment results as a conglomeration. A majority of the corrective measures resulted from the overall review and not specifically from a single assessment measurement. </li></ul>
  7. 7. Department Mission <ul><li>The mission of the Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering is to achieve excellence in education, research, and public and professional service. The Department will: </li></ul><ul><li>Provide a forward-looking, learner-centered and intellectually stimulating civil engineering educational experience that inspires students to reach for the highest levels of intellectual attainment and growth throughout their lives; </li></ul><ul><li>Provide a scholarly and professional environment and make significant contributions to the advancement of knowledge in civil engineering; and </li></ul><ul><li>Engage in meaningful service activities that enhance the public’s understanding and perception of civil engineering issues for the betterment of society and particularly in an urban environment. </li></ul><ul><li>The Department will pursue its mission within an environment that embraces integrity, respect, trust, openness, fairness, performance, and accountability. </li></ul>
  8. 8. Civil Engineering Program Mission Statement <ul><li>The mission of the Civil Engineering Program is to prepare students for professional careers in civil engineering in the global society, and for life-long learning and continuous development in the profession through a comprehensive curriculum emphasizing basic engineering principles and fundamentals, practical design applications, communication skills, critical thinking, teamwork, laboratory skills, and professional and ethical issues. </li></ul>
  9. 9. Civil Engineering Program Primary Constituents <ul><li>Graduates/alumni of the Program </li></ul><ul><li>Current students of the Program </li></ul><ul><li>Employers of our graduates </li></ul><ul><li>The JSU Civil Engineering Program faculty </li></ul>
  10. 10. Program Educational Objectives (Program Outcomes) <ul><li>The JSU Civil Engineering Program will: </li></ul><ul><li>Prepare our graduates to meet employer expectations for competent professional, and ethical practice. </li></ul><ul><li>Prepare our graduates to pursue advanced studies in civil engineering or other fields. </li></ul><ul><li>Prepare our graduates to adopt and continuously practice life-long learning and continuing education. </li></ul>
  11. 11. Program Outcomes <ul><li>Outcome A: an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering. </li></ul><ul><li>Outcome B: an ability to design and conduct civil engineering experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data. </li></ul><ul><li>Outcome C: an ability to design a civil engineering system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability. </li></ul><ul><li>Outcome D: an ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams. </li></ul><ul><li>Outcome E: an ability to identify, formulate, and solve civil engineering problems. </li></ul>
  12. 12. Program Outcomes <ul><li>Outcome F: an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility. </li></ul><ul><li>Outcome G: an ability to communicate effectively. </li></ul><ul><li>Outcome H: the broad education necessary to understand the impact of civil engineering solutions in global, economic, environmental and societal contexts. </li></ul><ul><li>Outcome I: recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning. </li></ul><ul><li>Outcome J: a knowledge of contemporary issues necessary for engineering practice. </li></ul><ul><li>Outcome K: an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools </li></ul>
  13. 13. Process for Modifications of Student Learning Outcomes <ul><li>Our continuous improvement plan incorporates a very rigorous systematic and structured process and is based on a two-loop process – one focusing on a strategic level, and the other on a more tactical level. The strategic loop is an evaluation of Program Objectives in three-year cycles. These are the foundations of the program, and are not changed frequently. The strategic loop includes evaluation and assessment of Objectives, input from constituencies, and determining/revising Objectives. The results of this assessment are then used for program improvement. The tactical loop focuses on an annual process of review and improvement based on assessment of Program Outcomes. The tactical loop, performed by the faculty, involves determining/revising Program Outcomes required to achieve Objectives, determining how the Outcomes are achieved, determining how outcomes are assessed, establishing indicators, and implementing Program changes. </li></ul>
  14. 14. Assessment Process
  15. 15. Goals for Program Outcomes <ul><li>The Civil Engineering faculty set the goals (levels needed) for each program outcome. </li></ul><ul><li>For Outcomes A, B, C, E and K, the goal was set to be 2.5, while for Outcomes D, F, G, H, I and J, the goal was set as 3.0 </li></ul>
  16. 16. Assessment Instruments <ul><li>Course Embedded Assessment </li></ul><ul><li>Departmental Advisory Board Evaluation of Senior Design Project </li></ul><ul><li>Faculty Evaluation of Senior Design Project </li></ul><ul><li>Exit Interview </li></ul>
  17. 17. Course-Embedded Assessment <ul><li>In this assessment, an instrument (classroom assignment, project, exam, etc.) was chosen to address a program outcome in a benchmark course. The performance criteria were given by the instructor. The student’s works were evaluated by the instructor to determine the degree to which the works demonstrate achievement of the designated outcome. All students participated in the assessment process. The instructor documented the results of the assessment of outcome to determine: </li></ul><ul><li>whether students’ performance meet the faculty’s expectations for the outcome; </li></ul><ul><li>whether the course needs to be modified to improve the program; and </li></ul><ul><li>whether an action is recommended to improve the program. </li></ul>
  18. 18. Faculty Evaluation of Senior Design Project <ul><li>The Civil Engineering faculty evaluate the Capstone Design Projects based on the final design report, oral presentation, as well as the students’ performance throughout the whole design process. </li></ul>
  19. 19. DAB Evaluation of Senior Design Project <ul><li>The DAB’s evaluation consisted of two parts: evaluation of the written design reports and evaluation of the oral presentation of the students’ designs. Two evaluation forms that cover the eleven program outcomes were used in the evaluations. The results were sorted by outcomes. </li></ul>
  20. 20. Exit Interview <ul><li>An Exit Interview is conducted by the Department with the graduating senior students. The interview covered evaluations for the overall qualities of faculty, assistance, facilities, professional services provided by the Department and for all the 11 program outcomes. </li></ul>
  21. 21. Major Areas of Improvements Needed (Analysis and Evaluation of Assessment) <ul><li>The low rating for Outcome D came from students’ weakness in taking responsibility, attitudes, and valuing other team members. </li></ul>
  22. 22. Major Areas of Improvements Needed (Analysis and Evaluation of Assessment) <ul><li>Outcome G—an ability to communicate effectively—was broken down into two components in the assessment process: (1) oral presentation and (2) written communication. While the students performed satisfactorily with all the oral presentations in both course-embedded assessments and Capstone Design projects, their technical writing skills were found very weak as exhibited in the written assignments, laboratory and field trip reports, and Capstone Design reports. The students’ writing skills in format, flow, terminology, technical language, presentation of data by graphs and tables, discussion of findings and recommendations, and citations need significantly improvement. </li></ul>
  23. 23. Major Areas of Improvements for 2009-2010 Academic Year <ul><li>Improvement No. 1 – Increasing Teamwork Projects in Courses. In addition to the Capstone Design projects in CIV 410 and CIV 411, all laboratory courses including CIVL 310, CIVL 330. CIVL 340, CIVL 380, and CIVL 421 will emphasize teamwork skills through lectures and team-oriented laboratory activities. The Outcome 21—Teamwork and Outcome 22—Attitudes in the newly published “Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for the 21st Century” (BOK2) will be explained and implemented in the team projects. Team work performance will be a part of the grading. In addition, the knowledge about teamwork will continue to be addressed in CIV 461 Professional & Ethical Issues in Civil Engineering. </li></ul>
  24. 24. Major Areas of Improvements for 2009-2010 Academic Year <ul><li>Improvement No. 2 – Progressive Training on Technical Writing. </li></ul><ul><li>A systematic and progressive training on technical writing will be implemented throughout the Civil Engineering curriculum. </li></ul>
  25. 25. Assessment of Effectiveness of Implementation of Improvements <ul><li>The effectiveness of the improvements implemented was evaluated using a survey form. </li></ul>
  26. 26. Lessons Learned <ul><li>Careful planning during the initial stages of the Program development is the key to a successful assessment. The establishments of a Department Advisory Board and Department Assessment Committee during the initial stages of the Program have proven to be very effective. The planning must be flexible enough to accommodate Program changes, and should adopt various features of any assessment plan that are appropriate to that particular program at the institution. The planning must then be followed by systematic implementations. </li></ul>
  27. 27. THE END