Comment

#

1.       Be sure you can demonstrate that a continuous improvement process is in place and that changes have been made as a result of assessment

9

2.       Establish an ABET committee with representation from each department for the purpose of coordinating and sharing best practices; meet regularly

8

3.       Collect minimal information to get maximum results – be sure it is sustainable; effective and not burdensome

5

4.       Develop clearly stated goals and objectives, mission statements, etc.

4

5.       Have good documentation, which gives the evaluator a good feel for what is going on in the program (minutes, memos, etc.)

4

6.       Critique each others work/hold mock review

4

7.       Start early

3

8.       Get faculty buy-in (if possible early in the process)

3

9.       Use multiple assessment tools, don’t rely on too few measures, preferably 2 measures for each outcome

3

10.   Be sure to develop primary sources of data and don’t just rely on secondary sources (e.g., surveys)

3

11.   Align your outcomes closely with ABET 3a-k and provide a mapping for ABET reviewers, but o.k. to put in your own words

3

12.   Be sure your self-report is well-done and speaks for itself

3

13.   Require annual review of assessment progress at degree program level

3

14.   We encourage faculty to become ABET evaluators

3

15.   Move in the direction of course based assessment and don’t rely too much on surveys

2

16.   Make it simple for the reviewers – don’t overwhelm with too much information and organize well

2

17.   Use a flowchart to show entire assessment process

2

18.   Use Online Assessment Tracking System (OATS) or other website on which every program must demonstrate learning objectives/outcomes, methods for assessment, data collected, actions taken, feedback loop closed, etc.

2

19.   Hired a staff person who helped with the assessment process and workshops and the compilation of survey data

1

20.   Review previous ABET reports to see where problems were in the past

1

21.   Collect student work and use the richer pieces (e.g., student projects and senior design reports) to get several types of information

1

22.   Develop a mapping that shows how your course outcomes match to your program outcomes.

1

23.   Don’t start taking measures until you are sure what you want to measure and know that you will use it

1

24.   Hold an assessment fair at which faculty can be exposed to and trained on different assessment tools.

1

25.   Conduct longitudinal studies and track a cohort of students across entering freshmen, mid-curriculum, exiting seniors.

1

26.   Do a good job on the first day of the visit – you may not even need a second day

1

27.   Use standard templates whenever possible

1

28.   Make sure that all course descriptions have learning outcomes and that you have a mechanism to measure these outcomes.  Make faculty responsible for their own course assessments and ensure they address identified weaknesses.

1

29.   Conduct interviews of small groups of students and the junior and senior level

1

30.   Having faculty members fill out a self-evaluation form at the end of every semester

1

31.   Prepare faculty, students and staff in advance of the ABET program evaluators’ visit

1

32.   If you say you are going to do something, be sure to do it!  ABET will check to make sure that you did what you said you would do

1

33.   Focus the college wide data, help the programs to focus on their self-studies and provide a framework for them to conduct their assessments

1

34.   Strong industrial advisory boards is a critical ingredient at the department level

1

35.   Invite knowledgeable experts to come talk with faculty about ABET matters – typically people who understand assessment very well

1

36.   Get in touch with your Program Evaluators early and be responsive in providing them with any material they need

1

37.   No advice to offer – we are at the beginning of this new scheme for doing things and what we have mostly done so far is promise what we will do in the future

1

Comment

#

1.       Extremely successful – all programs have received Next General Review

4

2.       Very successful – nearly all of our programs have received Next General Reviews

12

3.       Reasonably successful – a number of our programs have received Next General Review

2

4.       Mixed review – several of our programs made Next General Review, but several had interim reports required

3

5.       Not successful – have had multiple interim visits and interim reports and very few programs that have made Next General Review on their first review

1

6.       First EC2000 review is coming up in next year or so, so unsure of success with new criteria yet

4

7.       Unable to be/refused to be specific

1

Comment

#

1.       College coordinated team of ABET coordinators which met frequently to share best practices

17

2.       College coordinated and/or administered various surveys (generation, mailing, collection and analysis) including alumni, senior, employer

15

3.       College completed the Appendix II document (common material at college level)

10

4.       Programs have to be the primary responsible party, because they are what is being evaluated, not the college – most work was done at the program level

8

5.       College gathers data from and/or assesses core courses and general education courses (math, physics, chemistry, etc.)

6

6.       College attempted  to figure out what level of detail is required to assess 3a-k outcomes

2

7.       College worked one-on-one with departments/programs to make sure they were ready for the visit

2

8.       College coordinated with Career Services to obtain data re: interns, co-ops, and career placement

2

9.       College enforces some standards with respect to common documentation/templates (faculty resumes, courses syllabi, etc.)

2

10.   College helped the programs to get organized/coordinated

2

11.   Office at institute level performs central assessment and analysis

2

12.   College coordinated team of staff members who do ABET analysis work, which met frequently to share best practices

1

13.   College does quality control on self-studies

1

14.   College coordinates overall ABET visit

1

15.   College computing services group will be implementing an automated prompting, scheduling and tracking tool for assessment of course outcomes

1

16.   College is developing software that takes our course grades data base and computes a GPA for 3a-k based on the percent of course that is involved in each criterion and the GPAs that were obtained – but may not fly with ABET since grades aren’t always deemed to be a good indicator

1

17.   College oversees co-op survey of employers

1

18.   College assesses cross-department programs that don’t have a home

1

19.   College conducted longitudinal studies

1

20.   College analyzed FE exam data on behalf of the departments/programs and distributed results

1

21.   College established intermediate deadlines at the college level which every program needed to meet

1

22.   College has an educational psychologist who makes sure that departments are gathering information they really want and will really use and that action takes place as a result of information gathered

1

23.   College provided some funding to pilot new assessment tools

1

24.   Believe that the College should have centralized more than they did

1

Comment

#

1.       No, we let the departments and programs do whatever they wanted to do – they are the best judge of what is needed (most shared information about their best practices with other programs)

20

2.       Yes, we employed a systematic approach, but allowed for some customization within the departments or programs

3

3.       Yes, we employed a systematic approach across the college and encourage everyone to do many things in a similar way; programs populate templates with data

1

4.       Used a common template for the self-studies

3

5.       Moving in the direction of more consistency with the next ABET cycle

2

6.       All programs were required to meet specific deadlines

1

7.       Used consistent vocabulary with a glossary that explained terms

1

8.       College provided a common philosophy – do what makes sense for your program and think secondarily about what ABET will want

1

Comment

#

1.       Outcomes are what the student can do at graduation; objectives are what the students can accomplish several years later

9

2.       Outcomes are near-term; objectives are long-term

2

3.       Outcomes are what you can measure as students leave and up to 3 years out.  Objectives are at a higher level, are more difficult to measure and are what we want our graduates to be known for collectively.  Objectives are more likely to show up a few years out.

2

4.       Outcomes are what we measured students on; objectives are high-level.  If student met outcomes, by definition they met objectives

1

5.       Outcomes are skills that students have when they leave here.  Objectives are more general and difficult to measure

1

6.       Objectives are what the faculty wants to teach; outcomes are what we expect the students to learn

1

7.       Program outcomes are more like goals and unmeasureable as such; you need to figure out how to measure them, which may require breaking them down into component pieces

1

8.       Outcomes are all campus-based, and based on what the students can do when they graduate; objectives are practice-based, and based on what the graduates can do after they have begun to practice the profession

1

9.       Outcomes (3a-k) are a body of knowledge defined by industry, professional societies, etc.  Program criteria (8) are defined by professional organizations.  Objectives (2) are defined by programs considering what is important to their program and in their environment

1

10.   Outcomes are what a recruiter would use to assess your students skills when making a hiring decision; objectives are what a recruiter would use to tell whether they could use your students in their organization

1

11.   Very confusing – our definitions don’t match ABET’s definitions, but we are sticking with them because we have been measuring against them for several years

1

12.   Don’t think new ABET definition of objectives is appropriate – still trying to figure it out.  It is not our role as academics to guarantee what our students will do down the road or what they will accomplish in their career – perhaps we are reading it too restrictively and it should be interpreted as the difference between measuring potential vs. what the students have actually done with their education

1

13.   This is a weakness of ABET because it has not been well-communicated

1

14.   ABET is now providing better documentation on this topic

1

15.   Never thought about it

1

16.   No relevant response to this question

1

17.   Don’t ask me because ABET has changed their approach to this since we went through our last review.

1

18.   Still confused on this matter/Don’t know/Can’t recall difference

4

Comment

#

1.       Going to industry for their feedback – mainly through the advisory boards

20

2.       Use alumni surveys

18

3.       Used surveys with industry/employers (with varying degrees of success – those who were successful attributed this to good established relationships with industry, several said this was not an effective measure as it was too difficult to get good data; one even called it an abysmal failure!)

9

4.       Gather data or conduct focus groups with key constituents (students, alumni, employers, faculty, etc.)

4

5.       We don’t measure objectives directly.  We map department outcomes to department objectives – if the students have met the outcomes, we have met the objectives

4

6.       Job placement information

3

7.       Graduate school track record

3

8.       Obtain information from recruiters

2

9.       Be sure to have objectives listed in the catalog and on the website

2

10.   Number of students who have obtained their PE

1

11.   Use Career Services (or some similar type of group) to collect information about where students are going

1

12.   Invite faculty to provide feedback, suggesting changes to objectives

1

13.   We chose our objectives in line with the strength of the program; objectives were chosen to fit what we were already doing

1

14.   Use course evaluations

1

15.   Can be done on a longer time frame and not evaluated every year

1

16.   We keep getting information from ABET on what won’t work to measure this, but insufficient guidance on what will work!

1

17.   Be sure to define your constituents first – who will care?

1

Comment

#

1.       Course work examples (carefully displayed and collected at strategic points during their studies)

11

2.       Use embedded course-based measures such as online simulations, test questions, lab reports, etc.

7

3.       FE exam data

7

4.       Senior surveys

7

5.       Surveys with students

5

6.       Capstone/senior design courses/projects (some have industry evaluators, too)

5

7.       Portfolios (mainly for smaller schools, smaller programs, or where portfolios make sense for the students – e.g., Graphic Design)

4

8.       Align your outcomes closely with ABET 3a-k and provide a mapping for ABET reviewers

4

9.       Alumni surveys

3

10.   Obtained information from instructors re: what their courses covered and how well their course met certain criteria

3

11.   Obtained information from instructors re: preparation of students in specific areas in which we are interested.

2

12.   Plot importance of outcome to student on one axis of graph and plot how well program did on other access – window of opportunity lies where it is high importance, but didn’t perform well

2

13.   Faculty are performing the measurements regularly and as an expected part of their work

2

14.   Believe course grades are a legitimate way to measure, which ABET doesn’t necessarily agree with

2

15.   Surveyed our industrial advisory board/gathered information from employers

2

16.   Employer surveys

1

17.   GRE exam results and admission to grad school at respected institutions

1

18.   Information from placement center re: # of interviews students have had, positions taken, salaries offered

1

19.   Be sure to have at least two assessment techniques for each outcome, one direct and one indirect

1

20.   We measured course outcomes and then mapped them to program outcomes and then to objectives

1

21.   Interviews with juniors and/or seniors

1

22.   Still hashing this out – no agreement reached yet

1

Comment

#

1.       Use the capstone/senior design project to demonstrate some of these items

7

2.       We ask students/interview students to see if they understand this information

6

3.       We ask students/interview students to see if they believe they are getting sufficient exposure to these topics and understand them

6

4.       We have various courses that seek to teach these softer criteria; collect course work from these (e.g., intro to Engineering, other courses)

5

5.       Use general education courses to demonstrate some of these items

4

6.       Rely on alumni surveys

4

7.       Discussions with faculty reveal where these softer criteria are being addressed in their coursework – be sure they understand they are responsible for certain outcomes

3

8.       Made it clear to ABET in which courses we taught these topics (use a matrix to show courses against criteria)

3

9.       Our weakest point/little to show in way of hard results

3

10.   Must start by defining what you mean by these softer criteria for a particular program

2

11.   Rely on feedback from our employers

2

12.   Rely on feedback from co-op and/or internship program

2

13.   We conduct focus groups to gather information on the softer criteria

1

14.   We have seminar courses that invite external speakers to speak to the students about these subjects – we can show exposure

1

15.   The real key here is to thoughtfully develop the measures for these criteria – what does it take to be a life-long learner? What are the contemporary issues for this program?

1

16.   You can merge the measurements to allow for easier evaluation – have students practice oral presentations while talking about ethics

1

17.   Our EPICS (Engineering Projects in Community Service) program helps us demonstrate some of this

1

18.   We do team project checks in some of our courses to measure how well students are meeting softer criteria

1

19.   When we prioritized outcomes, these were prioritized on the low end; therefore, we don’t measure them specifically

1

Comment

#

1.       We determine if students/alumni use the internet for research or can conduct self-directed learning (e.g., through library)

4

2.       We ask if alumni have pursued additional degrees or certifications

4

3.       We ask if alumni take additional classes (e.g., continuing ed) or in-house training

4

4.       We ask if students/alumni subscribe to publications/journals/newspaper

3

5.       We ask if students/alumni are members of any professional group

2

6.       W ask if students/alumni are publishing/working with a professor

1

7.       We ask if students/alumni participate in co-ops or internships

1

8.       We ask if students/alumni attend conferences

1

9.       We ask if they have tutored an engineering student

1

10.   Teach life-long learning in undergrad engineering seminar required for all students graduating within the next year.  Students required to develop a life-long learning plan as part of course – evaluate results

1

11.   Ensure that students have been exposed to the concept (understand need to participate in professional societies, attend conferences, pursue additional education).

1

Comment

#

1.       We have a required course in ethics – (one respondent mentioned that it is co-taught between engineering and Department of Philosophy)

2

2.       Ethics component on FE exam

1

3.       Summer ethics workshop for faculty about how to incorporate ethics into their courses – about 1/3 of faculty have attended, are paid for 1 week of pay to attend

1

Comment

#

1.       Yes, it is required and we compensate them

0

2.       Yes, it is required by one or more of our departments and they do not compensate them

2

3.       Not required, but definitely encouraged and we do compensate students who pass it (not just take it)

2

4.       Not required, but definitely encouraged; we do not compensate students

5

5.       Not required, and we do not compensate them

10

6.       Not required, not sure if compensated

5

7.       Becoming a PE is enough of an inducement for the Civil students

3

8.       We hold review sessions/tutorials to help prepare students

3

9.       We hold information session to inform students about FE

1

10.   We do a prep test for the FE exam which students can take for free

1

11.   We would help the student pay if finances were an issue for him/her

1

12.   Depends on the department

1

13.   Don’t know/not certain

2

Comment

#

1.       No, we don’t use portfolios (too much work to manage)

15

2.       Started to use them, but too much work, don’t use them now

2

3.       One program uses portfolios because the faculty does such a poor job of gathering the necessary data

1

4.       Some programs/departments used some portfolios, but not used in any consistent sense and not attempt to gather data longitudinally

1

5.       Some programs/departments use portfolios if it makes sense for them to do so (especially if students can benefit from doing so – such as computer or graphic art or if it is a very small program)

6

6.       Yes, we use portfolios in many of our programs/departments

1

7.       Yes, we use portfolios in all of our programs/departments

3

8.       We collect work from faculty

1

9.       We collect work from students

1

10.   Student must agree to have work collected for them

1

Comment

#

1.       Yes, we use senior surveys – unwilling, unable, or did not provide a copy

16

2.       Yes, we use senior surveys and I am happy to provide a copy or reference you to our website to pull a copy

11

3.       No, we had low response rates, so now we interview a random sample of our graduating seniors

1

4.       Our surveys were web-based

7

5.       Students must “check out” through their department to graduate (referred to variously as a senior audit or degree audit) and we require they fill out a survey at that time

5

6.       We also do exit interviews with students

5

7.       Students were offered a some sort of incentive (e.g., school memorabilia, graduation invitations, etc.) for completing the survey

5

8.       Use EBI surveys, administered in classes

3

9.       Used to use EBI, moved in direction of in-house university survey

2

10.   We also use surveys at freshmen level

2

11.   We reminded students to complete the form, but it was not required

2

12.   Survey was a required assignment in a senior capstone or senior seminar course

2

13.   Response rate was good

2

14.   Surveys conducted in a classroom had the best response

1

15.   Voluntary, but students asked to complete survey when they pick up their caps and gowns

1

16.   We also use surveys at mid-curriculum level

1

17.   Our surveys are course based surveys – one for every course because we wish to identify weaknesses in course outcomes

1

Comment

#

1.       Yes, we use alumni surveys – unwilling, unable, or did not provide a copy

15

2.       Yes, we use alumni surveys and I am happy to provide a copy or reference you to our website to pull a copy

11

3.       No, not yet – too few alumni, but will use in the future

1

4.       Recommend 1 and 3 year window out

2

5.       Recommend a 1 year window out

1

6.       Recommend a 2 year window out

1

7.       Recommend a 3-5 year window out

1

8.       Recommend a 1,2,3,5 year window out

1

9.       Select 3 students from each of the last 5 years for a total of 15 being interviewed each year

1

10.   We survey a group all at once (e.g., graduates from 1997-2003)

1

11.   Response rate of less than 10% (or very low) with no inducements

3

12.   Response rate placed between 10-30% with no inducements

11

13.   Response rate placed between 30-45% with no inducements

3

14.   Response rate of 35% with an inducement of a drawing for football tickets

1

15.   Response rate is nearly 60% with no inducements beyond stressing importance (to the college and the value of their degree) of completing and returning survey

1

16.   Response rate has changed over time – 23% first year, 19% second year (return envelope and stamp sent), 25% (drawing for football tickets), 30% (when we went to web-based)

1

17.   Not sure of response rate – but no inducements were used

2

18.   One department tried sending a crisp one dollar bill, not sure with what success

1

19.   May begin using inducements in the future to boost response rate (e.g., tickets to football game)

1

20.   Finding the right faculty member to send the alumni survey is key

1

21.   Tell seniors that they will see this survey in a few years and why it is important to return it

1

22.   We don’t conduct this survey every year

2

23.   Web-based surveys were used

5

24.   Alumni survey is sent out at campus level

5

25.   Use EBI data, mainly at the college level

2

26.   Alumni advisory board is being used to gather this information

1

Comment

#

1.       Provide feedback on/help refine program objectives

19

2.       Provide feedback on/help refine program outcomes

8

3.       They provide feedback on our curriculum, advise on curriculum changes

7

4.       They review our assessment data

6

5.       Meet with students in small groups to gather data about the program

4

6.       Attend some/all of our senior design/projects presentations and provide feedback or help grade

4

7.       Provide feedback on what graduates need to know to be prepared for jobs with their companies

3

8.       Asked for feedback on self-study

2

9.       Advisory Board is required to write a report about their findings and this goes to the Dean and Department Chair

2

10.   Not much of a role at this time

2

11.   Varies by department/program – can’t provide specifics

2

12.   They suggest actions which we might pursue to address issues that show up in assessment data

1

13.   They provide a reality check – e.g., told us not to bother with employer surveys as we wouldn’t get good participation because there was nothing in it for the employers

1

14.   Periodically they attend student classes

1

15.   Subset of advisory board came in and held a mock review

1

16.   Helpful at a global level, not so helpful with the details

1

17.   Sometimes involved in various continuous improvement processes

1

18.   Include some advisory board members at the Monday lunch during the ABET visit

1

19.   Ask for feedback from our advisory board about how our graduates compare with graduates from other schools, but they are better at telling us what skills they are looking for

1

Comment

#

1.       Use curriculum committee or undergrad committee to take action; keep minutes

13

2.       Require an annual (or periodic) report with an assessment component, which provides a centralized archive of information re: assessment

9

3.       Assessment committee/ABET coordinator looks at the data that is collected and decides what action to take.

8

4.       Departments/programs are provided with data that is collected centrally and they can decide what actions to take – allows for comparison with other departments/programs

3

5.       Fear this will be an issue with next ABET review; most difficult area

3

6.       Keep minutes of meetings and track outcomes

2

7.       Items which need attention are discussed with our advisory board

2

8.       Items which need attention are discussed at the faculty retreat

2

9.       Keep good records; documenting decisions made and follow-up

2

10.   Maintain an annual log, documenting program outcomes, how assessed, what we discovered and action we took to address any problems that were identified.  Later we measure what subsequent information we gather to confirm the decisions we made

2

11.   Can’t ensure – you just use leadership to guide the effort/have good intentions

2

12.   We show we gave consideration to all feedback received – but we don’t take all feedback, as it may be biased and not in the long term best interests of the students

1

13.   Annual program review meetings within each department (could be within curriculum committee or ABET coordinating committee)

1

14.   Annual college-level discussion of ABET at Undergrad Studies committee

1

15.   Faculty assess courses, either individually or in groups, in combination with curriculum committee review

1

16.   Require faculty to note on course approval forms which ABET criteria are being addressed by the course

1

17.   Higher level courses can provide feedback to lower level courses about how well prepared students are to take their courses

1

18.   Advisory Board reports provide insights and may result in additional work being done to address issues that are raised

1

19.   We have outside visitors that evaluate our preparation and point out if we are not using a feedback loop to incorporated the knowledge gained from the assessment process

1

20.   Require action plans as a result of identified problems

1

21.   There must be a systematic process in place; anecdotal evidence will not be deemed sufficient by ABET

1

22.   This is an issue I am trying to get our departments/programs to focus on

1

Comment

#

1.       The Dean, Associate/Assistant Deans led in the ABET process and are supportive and active participants and provide top down direction and leadership

10

2.       Engage at faculty meetings (but not well-attended in all cases)

6

3.       Faculty retreats

5

4.       Training sessions/workshops with faculty

3

5.       Get Department Chairs on board and then the Department Chairs can take the lead with their faculty and set the tone

3

6.       The assessment committee is one way to engage faculty

3

7.       The assessment committee communicates assessment results to the entire faculty

2

8.       Mock site visits were used

2

9.       Provided faculty with a limited amount of information they were asked to read

2

10.   Faculty were extensively involved in developing outcomes and objectives

2

11.   The repetition method:  Send lots of email to faculty/tell them over and over again

2

12.   ABET coordinating committee is a subset of the Undergrad Studies committee

1

13.   Work to involve those faculty who are interested and understand the value of assessment

1

14.   Send faculty to ABET workshops and have them come back and train others

1

15.   Faculty get an assessment update at least once/semester

1

16.   Faculty are engaged in writing course descriptions in a common format, providing vitae, etc.

1

17.   Faculty are involved in providing materials for the portfolio

1

18.   Provide encouragement and enforce deadlines

1

19.   We are a newer faculty and created program with ABET in mind, so it has not been difficult to engage the faculty

1

20.   One-on-one coaching

1

21.   We win the faculty over by showing we are addressing specific problems in the curriculum (e.g., students not well prepared in math)

1

22.   Do playful things to engage faculty – like give lollipops for those who get their assessment information completed on time

1

23.   We are useful to faculty who want us to help them acquire information they need for writing proposals and we have a fairly large assessment effort underway

1

24.   We win the faculty over with innovative things we do in the curriculum

1

25.   It is difficult to maintain the momentum between visits

1

26.   We pointed to past failures (interim visits and interim reports), which was a way to demonstrate how bad it could be!

1

27.   Didn’t try to involve faculty; sought to minimize their involvement and keep them focused on research and teaching

1

28.   Tried newsletters; but they didn’t work

1

29.   Everyone understands the importance, but nobody wants to do anything about it

1

Comment

#

1.       Yes, we have ABET coordinators and their compensation depends upon the department/program (some yes/some no)

12

2.       Yes, we have ABET coordinators, but they tend to do this work as part of a larger role for which they are compensated in one way or another (e.g., Associate Chair, Department Chair)

6

3.       Yes, we have ABET coordinators and they receive course relief or course forgiveness

4

4.       Yes, we have ABET coordinators but they do not receive compensation

4

5.       Yes, we have ABET coordinators, but their main compensation is goodwill, appreciation and/or lunch

3

6.       Yes, we have ABET coordinators and they receive summer pay

2

7.       Yes, we have ABET coordinators and they are provided with additional administrative/staff support

2

8.       Yes, we have ABET coordinators and I am not sure if they are compensated

2

9.       No, we do not have ABET coordinators

0

10.   May be assigned in lieu of bringing in research contracts

2

11.   Suggest using older tenured faculty whose research efforts are winding down – may have more time to give to this

1

12.   It is better to use tenured faculty in this role, so they are not worried about the effect of their participation on tenure decisions

1

Comment

#

1.       North Central; no linkages

5

2.       North Central; used some ABET information for the North Central effort

4

3.       North Central; used some North Central information for ABET review

2

4.       Middle States; no linkages

1

5.       Middle States; used some Middle State information for ABET review

1

6.       Middle State; no direct linkages, but Middle States is becoming more focused on assessment/best practices than ever before

1

7.       Southern Association of Colleges and Schools; seek to make linkages where possible, what we produce for one can be used for the other

3

8.       Southern Association of Colleges and Schools; SACS is now focused more on outcomes assessment so will provide opportunity for more linkages in the future

2

9.       Southern Association of Colleges and Schools; linkage info not provided

1

10.   Western Association of Schools and Colleges; no direct linkages

1

11.   Western Association of Schools and Colleges; moving towards assessment based accreditation so there is starting to be more commonality

1

12.   Accreditation of Western Universities; no direct linkages

1

13.   Northwest Association of Universities and Colleges; we do attempt to coordinate between the two; use ABET data for Northwest

1

14.   Some schools have successfully made this connection

1

15.   Not sure about the answer to this question

2

Comment

#

1.       Articles by Gloria Rogers

4

2.       Check out NSF website and their sponsored coalitions (Foundation, Succeed, Greenfield, etc.)

3

3.       Journal of Engineering Education

3

4.       ABET published material such as criteria document and Policies and Procedures Manual or their website

3

5.       Articles by Daina Briedis (Michigan State)

2

6.       Articles or book by Trudy Banta (IUPUI)  Building a Scholarship of Assessment

2

7.       Rose-Hulman best practices documents/proceedings

2

8.       JEE 92:1, page 7-25, year 2003, “Designing and Teaching Courses to Satisfy the ABET Engineering Criteria” by Richard Felder and Rebecca Brent

1

9.       Check out the ASEE regional conference on line

1

10.   Barbara Olds and Ron Miller (Colorado School of Mines) have written several articles

1

11.   International Journal of Engineering Education (Volume 18, Issue 2 in 2002)

1

12.   The Green Paper (Aerospace) and the White Paper

1

13.   Book by James O. Nichols, “The Departmental Guide and Record Book for Student Outcomes Assessment and Institutional Effectiveness”

1

14.   Accreditation of Engineering Programs, A NEEDHA White paper

1

15.   Criteria 2000: Lessons Learned, by C.D. Avers

1

16.   Proven Skills:  The New Yardstick for Schools”, IEEE Spectrum, September 2000

1

17.   Liberal Education Division of ASEE put out a white paper on “Recommendations for liberal education in engineering” – presented at ASEE in June 2002

1

18.   Check the web

1

19.   Nothing comes to mind

6

Comment

#

1.       Rose-Hulman conference

13

2.       ASEE conference and workshops

10

3.       ABET annual conference in October

9

4.       ABET Dean’s Day in July before review

5

5.       ABET workshops

4

6.       FIE conference

4

7.       ABET Program Evaluator training

3

8.       AAHE conference

2

9.       Professional society workshops (e.g., NEEDHA, now ECEDHA)

2

10.   SIE conference (FIE?)

1

11.   NSF sponsored conferences

1

12.   Assessment Institute at IUPUI in November

1

13.   Trudy Banta’s conference

1

14.   Anything by Daina Breidis

1

15.   Association for Institutional Research national conference – assessment track – www.airweb.org

1

16.   Haven’t attended any conferences in this area

2

Comment (Bold indicates interviewed in this survey)

#

1.       Gloria Rogers, Rose-Hulman

7

2.       Barbara Olds, Colorado School of Mines (in DC right now)

4

3.       Ron Miller, Colorado School of Mines

2

4.       Trudy Banta, IUPUI

2

5.       Daina Breidis, Michigan State

2

6.       Eleanor Nault, Clemson

2

7.       Dick Seagrave, Iowa State

2

8.       People at ABET (various people mentioned including Kate Aberle, Ellen Stokes, Dan Hodge, Bob Herricks)

2

9.       Ira Jacobson, formerly at Embry-Riddle, former officer of EAC

2

10.   Joseph Hoey, Georgia Tech

2

11.   Neal Armstrong, UT Austin

1

12.   Mary Besterfield-Sacre, University of Pittsburgh

1

13.   Patricia Daniels, Seattle University

1

14.   Ron DeLyser, University of Denver

1

15.   Michael Steven Leonard, Clemson – moved to University of New Mexico

1

16.   Jack Lohman (editor of ASEE Journal)

1

17.   John Lorenz, Kettering

1

18.   Rob Pangborn and Linda Strauss, Penn State

1

19.   Sarah Pfatteicher, University of Wisconsin

1

20.   Dr. Narayan Rao, University of Illinois

1

21.   Joni Spurlin, North Carolina State

1

22.   People in larger field of assessment including Peter Ewell, Thomas Angelo, Alexandra Astin

1

23.   No one/no one else comes to mind outside of college/school

9

Comment

#

1.       Consider using a mock reviewer

2

2.       Insufficient attention has been paid to ownership of lower division courses

1

3.       To the extent that you can demonstrate that you are taking steps to improve your faculty’s teaching skills, or improve their effectiveness in the classroom, that is important to show the visitor. 

1

4.       Take advantage of resources that are available on your particular campus.

1

5.       I am interested in Exam Café which is a practice tool for the FE exam.  A faculty member can create a piece of an FE exam focusing on a particular topic area.  You can use the results of this for accreditation, and because it is sort of a mock-FE exam, it allows students to see how they would do on the real FE exam.  The cost for students to take this mock exam is very low.  Check out their website at www.ppiexamcafe.com .

1

6.       People concerned about ABET fall into two categories – faculty (who either accept and try to find the most efficient way to deal with ABET or they hate ABET), and the Assessment community.  In this last group, there are many who are well-intentioned, but they see assessment as an academic exercise in its own right.  This latter group talks a lot about what it takes to provide valid assessment tools, many of which require the dedication of enormous amounts of resources.  It boils down to an optimization problem – how do you trade off assessment investment against lab/curricular investments? 

1

7.       Many of the evaluators at ABET are NOT from research intensive universities; we sometimes suspect that they think we don’t care about education or that they think “we’re going to take them down a notch and we’ll show them how rigorous we can be about education”.   There is a big concern about whether or not you can get a fair assessment from someone who is not from a similar institution.  At research institutions, education is not the only driver and our visitors need to understand that not all of our resources can be directed to education.

1

8.       Because we were unable to predict where problems would arise, we decided that it would be best to start off by figuring out what made sense for our institution and then secondly, try to demonstrate the link to the ABET criteria.  This is important, because you can’t assure that you will be able to convince ABET no matter what you do! 

1

9.       Current ABET criteria have not made things easier – it forces you to be more thoughtful. But it is much more painful now and I’m not sure that it is that much better in terms of the results.

1

Comment

#

1.       Be sure you can demonstrate that a continuous improvement process is in place and that changes have been made as a result of assessment

9

2.       Establish an ABET committee with representation from each department for the purpose of coordinating and sharing best practices; meet regularly

8

3.       Collect minimal information to get maximum results – be sure it is sustainable; effective and not burdensome

5

4.       Develop clearly stated goals and objectives, mission statements, etc.

4

5.       Have good documentation, which gives the evaluator a good feel for what is going on in the program (mi