Multidisciplinary Approaches: A Management Core for Applied Managment and Decision Science

The new management core curriculum was launched at South Dakota State University in 2012 designed for programs at the institution affiliated with decision sciences, applied management and economics. A task force of business and industry leaders working with faculty developed a set of key competencies for graduates from management-related programs. Based on those competencies, an ad hoc group of multidisciplinary faculty in the Colleges of Engineering, Agriculture and Biological Sciences, Education and Human Sciences, and Arts and Sciences designated a four-course sequence named the Management Core to address key elements of the competencies. The undergraduate Operations Management program, housed in the College of Engineering, is preparing for accreditation under ABET – Applied Sciences Accreditation Commission (ASAC) and has adopted the management core. The competencies developed by the external task force are reflected in the program educational outcomes. Department faculty accomplishes data collection on student outcomes and continuous improvement. Our challenge has been in working with departments in other colleges to design and execute an assessment plan for the courses in the Core that will meet divergent accreditation requirements. Philosophical differences on assessment, concerns about additional work to collect and organize outcome data, and faculty governance have been points of departure. To address these issues, a multidisciplinary Division of Economics and Management was formed which includes a Faculty Advisory Committee empowered to develop a framework for cross-disciplinary collaboration in course delivery and assessment. In recent weeks, engineering faculty have conducted workshops on outcome assessment and continuous improvement based on the ABET model for faculty in other colleges. This has produced better understanding of the assessment process and the value in well-designed outcome measures. This paper provides insight on the challenges and rewards of multidisciplinary curriculum development framed against ABET-ASAC accreditation requirements

ABET Self-Study Report for the Forest Engineering Program at SUNY ESF

In 1971, the Department of Forest Engineering at the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry (ESF) began offering a BS degree in Forest Engineering (FEG). The BS in Forest Engineering was first accredited by ABET in 1982. This document is the self-study that was submitted during the last Engineering Accreditation Commission review of the FEG program in 2006

Assessing Information Systems and Computer Information Systems Programs from a Balanced Scorecard Perspective

Assessment of educational programs is one of the important means used in academia for accountability, accreditation, and improvement of program quality. The assessment practices, guidelines, and requirements are very broad and vary widely among academic programs and from one institution to the other. In this paper, from the theoretical lenses of a strategic planning and management methodology, the Balanced Scorecard, we try to integrate various perspectives into a performance assessment framework for an educational assessment of computing and information systems. Particularly, based on the actual accreditation experience, we propose two assessment models: a conceptual model and a process model. This modeling approach addresses the critical conceptual elements required for educational assessment and provides practical guidelines to follow for a complete, smooth and successful assessment process. In addition, we present a set of robust tools and techniques, incorporated into the process steps, team work, and task-driven management process. We were successful in our accreditation efforts, and improved the quality of our computing and information systems programs by using these presented assessment methods. We share our views and thoughts in the form of lessons learned and suggested best practices so as to streamline program assessment and simplify its procedures and steps

Outcome-Based Engineering Education: A Global Report of International OBE Accreditation and Assessment Practices

Outcome-based education (OBE) is a paradigm in which instructional and assessment/ evaluation are explicitly designed for ensuring the attainment and mastery of predefined learning outcomes. OBE is now the underlying paradigm followed by global accreditation efforts such as the Washington Accord (ratified in 1989). The shift to OBE is so pronounced that some education experts identify the shift to outcome-based education and accreditation as one of the top 5 major changes of the last 100 years. OBE is starkly different from the previous content-based educational approaches in shifting the aim from covering the content to a student-centric mastery that is driven by exit-outcomes and educational objectives. And while OBE is often criticized for straitjacketing education, and resisted by hesitant faculty members suspecting additional burden, studies show that the OBE movement, on the whole, has helped in improving the educational standards and outcomes by helping ensure proper planning of curriculum and assessment and their alignment with the program objectives and desired outcomes. OBE is also flexible in the sense that it does not dictate the choice of specific education strategies or teaching methods. New OBE schemes have also diversified in response to early misgiving about OBE (related to excessive paperwork, and bean-counting-like auditing) and now admit diverse types of evidence (including qualitative and quantitative, formative and summative, formal and informal assessments). In this paper, we present—as a geographically dispersed set of academics from Pakistan, United Kingdom, United States of America, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia—a global international perspective on OBE accreditation standards, practices, and attitudes. We will trace the historical development leading to the great shift to OBE in recent times and also synthesize insights from our diverse transnational experience in meeting accreditation requirements in different countries

Report from the STEM 2026 Workshop on Assessment, Evaluation, and Accreditation

A gathering of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) higher education stakeholders met in November 2018 to consider the relationship between innovation in education and assessment. When we talk about assessment in higher education, it is inextricably linked to both evaluation and accreditation, so all three were considered. The first question we asked was can we build a nation of learners? This starts with considering the student, first and foremost. As educators, this is a foundation of our exploration and makes our values transparent. As educators, how do we know we are having an impact? As members and implementers of institutions, programs and professional societies, how do we know students are learning and that what they are learning has value? The focus of this conversation was on undergraduate learning, although we acknowledge that the topic is closely tied to successful primary and secondary learning as well as graduate education. Within the realm of undergraduate education, students can experience four-year institutions and two-year institutions, with many students learning at both at different times. Thirty-seven participants spent two days considering cases of innovation in STEM education, learning about the best practices in assessment, and then discussing the relationship of innovation and assessment at multiple levels within the context of higher education. Six working groups looked at course-level, program-level, and institution-level assessment, as well as cross-disciplinary programs, large-scale policy issues, and the difficult-to-name “non-content/cross-content” group that looked at assessment of transferable skills and attributes like professional skills, scientific thinking, mindset, and identity, all of which are related to post-baccalaureate success. These conversations addressed issues that cut across multiple levels, disciplines, and course topics, or are otherwise seen as tangential or perpendicular to perhaps “required” assessment at institutional, programmatic, or course levels. This report presents the context, recommendations, and “wicked” challenges from the meeting participants and their working groups. Along with the recommendations of workshop participants, these intricate challenges weave a complex web of issues that collectively need to be addressed by our community. They generated a great deal of interest and engagement from workshop participants, and act as a call to continue these conversations and seek answers that will improve STEM education through innovation and improved assessment. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DUE-1843775. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation

Report from the STEM 2026 Workshop on Assessment, Evaluation, and Accreditation

A gathering of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) higher education stakeholders met in November 2018 to consider the relationship between innovation in education and assessment. When we talk about assessment in higher education, it is inextricably linked to both evaluation and accreditation, so all three were considered. The first question we asked was can we build a nation of learners? This starts with considering the student, first and foremost. As educators, this is a foundation of our exploration and makes our values transparent. As educators, how do we know we are having an impact? As members and implementers of institutions, programs and professional societies, how do we know students are learning and that what they are learning has value? The focus of this conversation was on undergraduate learning, although we acknowledge that the topic is closely tied to successful primary and secondary learning as well as graduate education. Within the realm of undergraduate education, students can experience four-year institutions and two-year institutions, with many students learning at both at different times. Thirty-seven participants spent two days considering cases of innovation in STEM education, learning about the best practices in assessment, and then discussing the relationship of innovation and assessment at multiple levels within the context of higher education. Six working groups looked at course-level, program-level, and institution-level assessment, as well as cross-disciplinary programs, large-scale policy issues, and the difficult-to-name “non-content/cross-content” group that looked at assessment of transferable skills and attributes like professional skills, scientific thinking, mindset, and identity, all of which are related to post-baccalaureate success. These conversations addressed issues that cut across multiple levels, disciplines, and course topics, or are otherwise seen as tangential or perpendicular to perhaps “required” assessment at institutional, programmatic, or course levels. This report presents the context, recommendations, and “wicked” challenges from the meeting participants and their working groups. Along with the recommendations of workshop participants, these intricate challenges weave a complex web of issues that collectively need to be addressed by our community. They generated a great deal of interest and engagement from workshop participants, and act as a call to continue these conversations and seek answers that will improve STEM education through innovation and improved assessment. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DUE-1843775. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation

Investigating the tripartite aspects of transactional distance in a blended multimedia adult literacy programme

This study investigates the role of transactional distance in an Adult Basic Education and Training Level One (ABET L1) multimedia, blended learning programme. While empirical research acknowledges that dialogue assumes an important role in mediating the communicative chasm between adult learner and facilitator, how this is mediated through a blended multimedia methodology at ABET L1 , is not clear. This study attempts to investigate some of the complexities in this mediation. The study focused primarily on the interplay of dialogue in relation to programme structure, learner autonomy, and how these variables influenced adult learning. The study consisted of a cohort sample of 20 ABET Level 1 learners on a blended learning programme at a food production plant in Cape Town. A mixed methods approach incorporating both quantitative and qualitative instruments was used to answer the research questions. A range of data collection instruments, namely a survey, interviews, and observations, was utilized to gather and analyze the data. With a particular focus on dialogue, this approach allowed the study to investigate the influence and interaction of the tripartite variables of Transactional Distance Theory on adult learning at ABET L1 and the scope of transactional distance created by these interactions. Both quantitative and qualitative findings suggest that in the absence of constructive, meaningful dialogue and scaffolded learning practices, barriers to learning are accentuated in this blended learning environment and results in increased transactional distance. Findings from the data suggest that improved regular face-to-face facilitator contact throughout the programme could avert learner frustration and demotivation and thereby decrease transactional distance. General consensus is that dialogue plays a critical role in mediating adult learning. While multimedia approaches to blended adult learning in South Africa appear to provide appropriate and effective learning methodologies to address adult literacy education, the findings of this research study suggest that the complexity of literacy acquisition, particularly at ABET Level 1, requires much more than technological methods if literacy is to be seen in broader social and communicative terms. The findings of this study nevertheless remain anticipative that a synergistic and productive codependence can be negotiated between these loci. This particular learning environment could be improved by reassessing the interplay of dialogue, programme structure, and learner autonomy, hereby potentially reducing transactional distance by being cognizant that adult learning is not a homogenous enterprise unmindful of the nature of adult learners and the critical contexts of adult learning

Understanding STEM Learning Outcomes Using A Phenomenographic Approach

Today’s STEM professionals are called upon to meet the nation’s technical challenges with innovative technologies that push the boundaries of our current understanding and practices. While the total number of STEM graduates may be sufficient for the number of STEM jobs, many lack the specific competencies needed for practice, suggesting that science and engineering graduates may not be adequately prepared for careers in the STEM fields (U.S. Joint Economic Committee, 2012). Using a phenomenographical approach, the researcher interviewed 18 STEM professionals to understand the qualitatively different ways in which they gained the technical and professional competencies needed to be successful engineers and scientists. As students, each of the participants in the study participated in some type of experiential learning such as a problem-based learning class, makerspace, internship, or research. The study utilized Experiential Learning Theory and Social Cognitive Career Theory as the theoretical frameworks. The study did not directly assess the four stages of Kolb and Fry’s Experiential Learning Theory (Kolb & Fry, 1975), however, the analysis of the interviews confirmed that hands-on experiences result in improved technical and self-directed learning skills as described in the literature. Results of the study indicate that a wide range of relevant, hands-on experiences can improve a student’s ability to use math, science and engineering principles, problem-solve, and locate, organize and analyze data from multiple sources. In addition to internships, these types of experiences can take a variety of forms such as problem-based learning courses, makerspaces, research projects, design projects, and student clubs. However, the study also shows that some knowledge, skills and behaviors are only gained in the workplace or from background, contextual influences such as parents, siblings, sports teams, or scouts. Social Cognitive Career Theory contributed to the understanding of how participants learned the skills and competencies needed for practice. While useful, this model was insufficient and results of the study led to the development of a three-phase Social Cognitive Experiential Learning Model that describes how learning environments, types of problems, and interactions with others contribute to the learning process. Results of the study have implications for both academia and industry

ABET accreditation criteria, Outcome h and global competencies in engineering education

The dissertation focuses on one aspect of the accreditation process of engineering programs in the United States, which is conducted under the standards of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). Engineering programs seeking accreditation are required to comply with the so called Engineering Criteria 2000 (EC2000), which has been divided into eleven learning outcomes, labeled a through k. The dissertation addresses one of them, Outcome h , which specifically calls for the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context. ;The dissertation examines what engineering departments, from the Southern Regional Educational Board (SREB) area, are doing to comply with Outcome h requirements for accreditation. Thus the purpose of this study is to examine the approaches engineering departments are using to respond to the challenges posed by Outcome h, and what impact this has had in the acquisition of global competencies by engineering graduates, as perceived by chairs of their engineering programs.;The data obtained were analyzed using both inferential and descriptive statistics, which produced significant findings in understanding the situation of engineering departments after the implementation of criteria Outcome h. Although engineering departments have very similar ways of operating, there is no unanimity on what constitutes an adequate response to the challenge posed by Outcome h in engineering. The difficulty comes, in part, from the conceptual confusion about the meaning of international education for engineers and global awareness. However, some contradiction appears as to what constitutes the best way to acquire global competencies