Programme Outcomes Assessment Models in Engineering Faculties

Mohammad, Abdul Wahab; Zaharim, Azami

doi:10.5539/ass.v8n16p115

Cited by 15 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Beside these typical assessment models a new program outcomes assessment model focusing on performance criteria for each program outcome. The researcher discouraged the use of grades as performance indicators (Mohammad and Zaharim, 2012). A continuous improvement program based on outcomes based education comprised of student's outcomes assessment tools have been developed and implemented by Sekhar, C. R. et all.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Continuous quality improvement (CQI) framework: A case of industrial engineering department

Sikander¹,

Aziz²,

Wasim³

et al. 2017

IJCRSEE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Continuous quality improvement (CQI) framework: A case of industrial engineering department

Sikander¹,

Aziz²,

Wasim³

et al. 2017

IJCRSEE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Apparently, this requirement is now compulsory for all engineering programs (Mohammad and Zaharim, 2012). Accordingly, streamlining the assessment process across all courses within an engineering program will significantly assist in producing assessment data that reflect consistency, transparency, versatility and accountability; these elements are certainly conducive to a successful accreditation journey.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advanced application for direct assessment of course and program learning outcomes in engineering higher education

Omar

Ismail

2018

Int. j. adv. appl. sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Problem solving curricula form an essential part of the higher engineering education, which is in line with the nature of the profession, skills and attitudes of engineers. This fact renders direct assessment of learning outcomes in the engineering education an indispensable process, although not completely sufficient by itself. Consistent with the problem solving nature of the discipline, direct assessment of learning outcomes in this instance ought to be quantificational, as this paper in fact aims to contribute considerably to the overall process of assessing learning outcomes, compared with indirect assessment tools. The research method of this paper offers a set of three EXCEL-VBA applications that have been precisely designed to assess learning outcomes at course and program levels for engineering university students. The paper also describes the comprehensive algorithm of the applications and formulas used, so that other educational institutes and academics can readily reproduce. The results of the research applications provide a platform of input and output that is easy and quick to use, flexible, versatile and comprehensive in nature. Numerous assessments in the form of assignments, quizzes, major exams, projects, presentations, portfolios and final exams can be accommodated, with flexibility in the critical input parameters, such as criterion of achievement and weight of each assessment instrument. As soon as learning outcomes of all courses can be assessed, the output can readily be fed into a second application to determine the performance of students at a program or departmental level. As a conclusion, applications can be implemented by instructors to determine the performance of their students, both numerically and graphically, against established learning outcomes.

show abstract

“…Well-defined performance criteria for course and program levels 6. A digital database of specific PIs [25] classified as per Bloom's revised 3 domains of learning and their associated levels (according to the 3-Level Skills Grouping Methodology) 7. Unique Assessments mapping to one specific PI [37] 8.…”

Section: Methodology For Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With some adjustments, a new 3-Level Skills Grouping Methodology was developed for each learning domain with a focus on grouping activities which are closely associated to a similar degree of skills complexity. Performance indicators should be specific to collect precise learning outcomes information related to various course topics and phases of a curriculum, while addressing various levels of proficiency of a measured skill [11,25,26,29,37,42,43] Design of COs and their PIs was meticulously completed by using appropriate action verbs and subject content, thus rendering the COs, their associated PIs, and assessments at a specific skill level-elementary, intermediate or advanced. Figure 4 shows an example from a civil engineering course.…”

Section: Outcomes Assessment Model and Abet Sos For Program Accrmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In an example shown in Figure Therefore, a specific CO can be used to map to multiple ABET SOs using several specific PIs, different assessments, and cover multiple domains of the revised Bloom's taxonomy [37] . In an OBE model, assessments related to specific PIs measure the level of teaching and learning achievement and help outline future actions related to course delivery, syllabus, teaching and learning strategies for CQI [10,11,12,14,25,31,41,45] . By performing an exhaustive design and classification exercise of several hundred specific PIs related to COs and ABET SOs for the Electrical Engineering (EE), Mechanical Engineering (ME) and Civil Engineering (CE) programs, the Faculty of Engineering has observed that ABET SOs exhibit relevance and coverage of the revised Bloom's learning domains as shown in Table 1.…”

Section: Abet Sos Coverage Of Bloom's 3 Domains By Measurement Of mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Engineering Program Evaluations Based on Automated Measurement of Performance Indicators Data Classified into Cognitive, Affective, and Psychomotor Learning Domains of the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy

Hussain¹,

Mak²,

Addas³

2016 ASEE Annual Conference &Amp; Exposition Proceedings

146

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

He has received specialized Quality Leadership Training at LSI Corporation and received an award LSI Corporation Worldwide Operations Review 1999 for his significant contributions to the Quality Improvement Systems. At LSI Wajid was the PE in charge of the world famous APPLE IPOD 2000-2001 processor WW qualification/production. Over the years Wajid has managed several projects related to streamlining operations with utilization of state of the art technology and digital systems.This has given him significant experience working with ISO standard quality systems.He is a specialist on ABET accreditation procedures and was appointed by the Dean of Engineering, KFUPM, Hafr Al Batin campus to lead the intensive effort of preparing the EEET program for the ABET Evaluators Team site visit in 2013. EEET received excellent comments for the display materials presented by Dr. Subal Sarkar ABET team chair which was managed to completion by Wajid. He is Digital Integrated Quality Management Systems Expert for Automated Academic Student Outcomes based Assessments MethodologyHe has taught several courses on electronics, microprocessors, electric circuits, digital electronics and instrumentation. He has conducted several workshops at the IU campus and eslewhere on Outcomes Assessment best practices, OBE, EvalTools R 6 for faculty, E learning with EvalTools R 6 for students, ABET accreditation process.He is a member of SAP Community, ISO 9001, Senior Member IEEE, IEEE Qatar, ASEE and REED MEP professionals International & Middle East.Dr. Fong K. Mak P.E., Gannon University Abstract: This research references past work which indicates that the major driving force of outcomes assessment initiatives in engineering institutions has been regional and specialized accreditation standards. Continuous quality improvement and accreditation-based activity at various engineering institutions remain as relatively isolated processes, with realistic continuous quality improvement efforts maintaining minimal reference to learning outcomes assessment data measured for accreditation. The lack of utilization of digital technology and appropriate methodologies supporting the automation of outcomes assessment further exacerbate this situation. Furthermore, learning outcomes data measured by most institutions is rarely classified into all three domains of the revised Bloom's taxonomy and their corresponding categories of the levels of learning. Generally institutions classify courses of a program curriculum into three levels: introductory, reinforced and mastery. The outcomes assessment data is measured for mastery level courses in order to streamline the documentation and effort needed for an effective program evaluation. A major disadvantage of this approach is that it does not facilitate early remediation of performance failures because necessary outcomes information related to deficient teaching and learning mechanisms is measured only for mastery level courses. A holistic approach for continuous quality improvement in academic learning would requi...

show abstract

Programme Outcomes Assessment Models in Engineering Faculties

Cited by 15 publications

References 2 publications

Continuous quality improvement (CQI) framework: A case of industrial engineering department

Continuous quality improvement (CQI) framework: A case of industrial engineering department

Advanced application for direct assessment of course and program learning outcomes in engineering higher education

Engineering Program Evaluations Based on Automated Measurement of Performance Indicators Data Classified into Cognitive, Affective, and Psychomotor Learning Domains of the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About