POTENTIAL IMPACT AND SIGNIFICANCE

We will provide engineering educators with a set of assessment tools and instruments from which they can make informed choices. These tools can be "customized" for implementation in a variety of settings, enabling faculty from various engineering programs to utilize them to help meet assessment requirements.

EC-2000, with its list of eleven required outcomes, has changed the accreditation focus from "what are you [the program] doing?" to "what are your students doing?" [12] A major requirement is the implementation of a "continuous improvement" system that enables these outcomes to be measured, evaluated, and the results fed back to the faculty in order for them to improve their educational processes. As a result, EC-2000 is causing the engineering education community to seek methodologies for on-going assessment specific to each program’s objectives. 

At the first Best Assessment Processes in Engineering Education (sponsored by NSF, ABET, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, and the Foundation and Gateway Coalitions) [13], the number of evolving approaches for evaluating engineering programs, as well as methodologies for measuring various student outcomes were apparent. Yet, two troublesome issues remained. Most of these "assessment" methods had not been fully evaluated; indeed, many had yet to be implemented. Second, engineering administrators in attendance voiced extreme concerned as how to organize, implement and maintain an effective assessment program, given their current severe resource constraints of time, manpower, and money.

Assessment is not the only concern. If there is to be a true "continuous improvement system," then relevant outcome information must be fed back to faculty in a timely manner. Not surprisingly, the existence of such feedback loops were concerns at both WPI and the University of Arkansas, the first two engineering programs evaluated under EC-2000 [14, 15]. These concerns have been repeated as additional programs underwent the pilot EC-2000 reviews. Also, there must be improvements to implement. We propose that many of these should come from the rich collection of curriculum innovations developed under NSF funding. Yet, if these innovations are to be implemented widely, then they first must be thoroughly assessed.