Developing and assessing statewide competencies for engineering design

Journal of Engineering Education, Apr 1998 by Trevisan, Michael S, Davis, Denny C, Crain, Richard W, Calkins, Dale E, Gentili, Kenneth E

B. Faculty DeveedAssessments

A few faculty members who participated in workshops but were not part of the task force initially criticized the assessment results. Since only a small group of WSU faculty was responsible for developing the assessment, the data obtained were viewed by some as externally developed. Yet once we communicated the rationale and development process used, most faculty became supportive.

If other engineering programs are to realize the full potential of the approach used here, we suggest that faculty from all stakeholder groups be involved in the assessment development. This includes representation from both the community college system and four-year institutions across the state. Using faculty from WSU only for initial development was expedient and helped to get the assessment process started. Expanding the faculty base over time gains their buy-in, adds their valuable input, increases their acceptance of the accountability information, and increases their use of data for quality improvement.

C. Curriculum Development

The curriculum development process employed in the TIDEE project has effectively eliminated faculty concern about being held accountable for irrelevant or unclear expectations. This occurred because a broad group of faculty was intimately involved in the curriculum development process and, therefore, fully understands the design competencies and curriculum. In addition, since the development of the competencies is in part informed by their instructional experience, the design expectations and curriculum have direct relevance for faculty. Moreover, the clarity and relevance of the design expectations provides logical instructional boundaries and limits for program accountability, fostering faculty understanding and acceptance of their roles and responsibilities to ensure continuous improvement of the curriculum.

Engineering programs adopting the assessment process discussed in this paper are urged to consider the curriculum development feature as an essential element of the assessment process.

VII. FUTURE TASKS AND CHALLENGES

This project remains in a developmental, pilot phase. A solid draft of the first two-year student design competencies exists, as well as a means for measuring student attainment of these competencies. Additional work is required to refine the competencies and assessment measures, and to ensure that all faculty in the state understand their responsibilities for an integrated state-wide engineering design curriculum. Additionally, the subsequent two years of design education need to be fully defined, endorsed by the state, and assessed. Ideally, criteria for success at any point in the fouryear engineering education continuum must be established. Although these criteria exist implicitly among faculty, they must become explicit, public, and accepted by faculty and other program stakeholders in order to fully communicate design expectations and realistically hold programs accountable for results.

The next phase of the TIDEE project will begin in spring, 1998, by conducting a statewide workshop to prepare faculty to use the assessment data for program improvement. This process is designed to address Criterion 2(d) and Criterion 3, which require the use of assessment data for program feedback and improvement. Our strategy will begin by providing assessment results to faculty.2 Faculty will then be asked to consider the precise competencies assessed, tracing these competencies into particular courses, and examining whether the course content, course materials, and instructional approaches used in these courses are appropriate for helping students meet design expectations. If the results show that students are meeting a particular set of statewide expectations the instructional materials, strategies, and processes are maintained. When students do not meet particular performance expectations, faculty will be asked for their insights to explain student performance and perhaps consider alternative instructional and curricular strategies.