This paper presents comparisons of three peer evaluation instruments tested among students in undergraduate engineering classes: a single‐item instrument without behavioral anchors, a ten‐item instrument, and a single‐item behaviorally anchored instrument. Studies using the instruments in undergraduate engineering classes over four years show that the use of behavioral anchors significantly improves the inter‐rater reliability of the single‐item instrument. The inter‐rater reliability (based on four raters) of the behaviorally anchored instrument was 0.78, which was not significantly higher than that of the ten‐item instrument (0.74), but it was substantially more parsimonious. The results of this study add to the body of knowledge on evaluating students' performance in teams. This is critical since the ability to function in multidisciplinary teams is a required student learning outcome of engineering programs.

A review of prerequisites often reveals that reasons for requiring a prerequisite may no longer prevail due to curriculum or course changes. Based on a study of a curriculum bottleneck unrelated to required mastery, the prerequisite structure in Clemson University's General Engineering curriculum (the common firstyear curriculum for all engineering students) was changed so that Calculus I could be taken in the second semester. Student record analysis shows both the magnitude of the bottleneck prior to the policy change and the effect on student enrollment practices after the policy change. Longitudinal studies show a statistically significant improvement in retention in engineering adding to the body of evidence that indicates that it is important to retention that students start college mathematics at a level for which they are prepared.

As a result of ABET's EC 2000 Criterion 3, outcome (d), "an ability to function on multidisciplinary teams" 1 this multi-university research team has focused its attention on teamwork and how it is assessed. Teamwork in engineering is often assessed using a peer evaluation instrument. It is not always clear, however, what characteristics of teamwork these instruments, or the students, are evaluating. In preparation for this multi-year NSF-supported project, the team reviewed peer evaluation literature and instruments. The research team has an ambitious assessment plan that will help develop an instrument that is easy to use and yet meaningful for both faculty and students.