The WPl PLAN, adopted by the WPl faculty in 1970, strongly anticipates current thinking about student outcomes assessments by structuring degree requirements that mandate that students demonstrate their ability to perform professional functions embodied in ABET Criteria 2000, especially Criteria 3 and 4. The WPI faculty has also practiced both student and self evaluations of these outcomes through respectively grades and peer review (both departmental and campus-wide) of student performance

Durgin, William W.

Schachterle, Lance

English

DigitalCommons@CalPoly

Development of Outcome Assessments at WPIWilliam W.DurginLance SchachterleWorcester Polytechnic InstituteWorcester, MA 01609AbstractThe WPl PLAN, adopted by the WPl faculty in1970, strongly anticipates current thinking about studentoutcomes assessments by structuring degreerequirements that mandate that students demonstratetheir ability to peiform professional functions embodiedin ABET Criteria 2000, especially Criteria 3 and 4. TheWPI faculty has also practiced both student and selfevaluations of these outcomes through respectivelygrades and peer review (both departmental and campus-wide) ofstudent peiformance.IntroductionThe WPI PLAN, a project-based curriculumdeveloped over the past 25 years, includes degreerequirements which are, themselves, assessmentmeasures. Based on the mission of the Institute, facultydeveloped detailed educational objectives and created acurriculum based on those objectives. Furthermore, thefaculty created a system of ongoing evaluation thatdemonstrates the achievement of these objectives anduses the results to improve the effectiveness of theprogram.It may be useful to other institutions for us toreview the process by which WPI's assessment measureswere designed and adopted. Clearly, attaining wideacceptance within the community for the assessmentmeasures is crucial, yet it is also clear that suchacceptance will not be unanimous. Equally important issupporting faculty-wide ongoing review and evolution ofassessment measures, as we shall illustrate.Since assessment measures must be closelyassociated with desired outcomes, the outcomes must bestated. In 1987, the WPI faculty endorsed the followinggoals for our undergraduate program:0-7803-3348-9 © IEEE 584"to lead students to develop an excellent grasp offundamental concepts in their principal areas of study; tolay a foundation for life-long renewal of knowledge; togain a mature understanding of themselves; and, mostimportantly, to form a deep appreciation of theinterrelationships among basic knowledge, technologicaladvance, and human need. These principles are todaymanifest in the WPI PLAN, a unique, project-basedprogram which emphasizes intensive learningexperiences and direct application of knowledge."WPI Projects & Outcomes AssessmentThe degree requirements that principallyconstitute the project-based outcomes assessments arethree in number:The Humanities "Sufficiency " Project, which measureswhether the student has achieved a sufficient backgroundin a self-selected area of the Humanities or Arts to belikely to continue lifelong learning in that area;The "Interactive Qualifying Project" (or IQP) whichassesses the capacity of students to reflect on the impactsof science and/or technology on societal values andstructures; andThe "Major Qualifying Project" (or MQP) whichmeasures the ability of students to begin working onopen-ended professional problems at the level assumed ofsomeone beginning professional practice or graduateschool.Collectively, WPI believes these three projectsprovide students with a learning environment where theyhave rich opportunities to achieve the goals the facultyarticulated in 1987. In addition, these projects alsopromote the outcomes proposed by the new "ABETCriteria 2000," specifically as follows:"Engineering programs must demonstrate that theirgraduates have:.; FIE '96 Proceedings ~a....-a) an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics,science and engineering;b) an ability to design and conduct experiments, as wellas to analyze and interpret data;c) an ability to design a system, component or processto meet desired needs;d) an ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams;e) an ability to identify, formulate, and solveengineering problems;f) an understanding of professional and ethicalresponsibility;g) an ability to communicate effectively;h) the broad education necessary to understand theimpact of engineering solutions in a global/societalcontext;i) a recognition of the need for and an ability to engagein life-long learning;j) a knowledge of contemporary issues; andk) an ability to use the techniques, skills and modernengineering tools necessary for engineeringpractice."We will now review each degree requirementand how the faculty assess it.First, the Humanities "Sufficiency" project. TheWPI faculty believe strongly that every student shouldattain substantive understanding of the humanitiesthrough study in a sequence of thematically relatedcourses and project work. The experience was designedto allow students to acquire an understanding of howknowledge is obtained and expressed in a non-technicalarea. Students, with the support of advisors, select fivecourses where they must define a thematic or intellectualrelationship--for example, five courses dealing withaspects of history of science, or theater production, orcreative writing. They conclude their sequence of studyby writing, with a single faculty advisor, a final projectwherein they conduct independent study and a critical orresearch essay (or original work or performance).In this example, the outcome---substantiveunderstanding of the humanities--- was first agreed uponby the faculty. This outcome grew from frustration withtypical humanities distributions common in technicaleducation. The process by which the outcome was to beachieved could then be designed, as a five coursesequence with the independent project conducted as thesixth element. However, this is by no means the onlyavenue by which the outcome may be achieved. Theassessment measure is the final critical or research essay.Students are free to choose such advisors who, typically,develop areas in which they specialize.585Faculty assess the student achievement initiallyby reviewing the thematic coherence of the proposedsequence of courses, and then advising the student's finalessay or production. In turn, the faculty benchmark theirfunction as advisors by peer reviews of completed essays,which assess how well crucial goals like communicationsskills, articulating a clear and convincing argument, andshowing a level of interest which promises to lead tolifelong learning are achieved by the final essay (ABETCriteria b, f, g, h, i, and j above). Finally, the finalessays are available as open literature for review byanyone in the community.Another of the WPI degree requirements, theInteractive Qualifying Project, resulted from facultyconcern that students needed to develop appreciation ofthe inter-relationships of science, technology and society.The objective of the IQP is to enable graduates tounderstand, as citizens and professionals, how theircareers will affect the larger society of which they arepart. This project is the equivalent of three courses andis typically conducted in a small team setting under theguidance of one or more faculty advisors. Any facultymember can advise any undergraduate(s) in this projectactivity. As such, faculty, as a whole, clearly haveownership of the IQP and have developed an expectationthat everyone ought to participate.Interactive Qualifying Projects by definition areset in a societal context and are frequently pre-arrangedwith other organizations such as government agencies,museums, societies, and foundations. Students areexpected to prepare a proposal, conduct backgroundresearch, conduct the study, and prepare a written report.The faculty advisor works with the project teamthroughout the project, finally reading and evaluating thereport. Thus, the report itself is the outcome reflectingachievement of understanding of the inter-relationship oftechnology and society in an instance, that usually hasbroad implications.The three courses equivalence for the IQP is, infact, one of the principal reasons WPI adopted a sevenweek term basis for the academic schedule. Normally,students take three courses per term but clearly canpursue the entire IQP in one seven-week term whichprovides opportunity for off-campus project centers.Approximately one-third of WPI undergraduates takeadvantage of this opportunity to conduct their IQP's atestablished residential project centers in Washington,DC, San Francisco, Bangkok, London, Venice, PuertoRico and Costa Rico.Assessment of progress on IQP's occurs duringweekly meetings of the working team, which may includestudents, one or more faculty, and one or more liaisonsfrom organizations sponsoring the project. Students inmulti-term projects receive formative grades each term,as well as a final summative grade (which counts towardsWPI Honors.) Faculty peer review completed IQP'sbiennially, to measure how successfully the final reportsarticulate student outcomes in important institutionalgoals such as "forming a deep appreciation of theinterrelationships among basic knowledge, technologicaladvance, and human need" (from the WPI Goals), andABET Criteria c, d, f, g, h, i and j above.The final project-based degree requirement isthe Major Qualifying Project (MQP). Our faculty wantedto be sure that students demonstrate, in their major fieldof study, the application of the skills, methods, andknowledge of the discipline to the solution of a problemthat would be representative of the type to be encounteredat the beginning of one's career. Typically, small teamsare formed to focus the project work on a topic offered byindustry, the faculty, or the students themselves. Again,the course equivalence is three courses but usually spreadthroughout the year. Both the advisor and students mustbe in the same discipline, although multi-disciplinaryteams are frequently formed together with an advisinggroup of faculty from the represented disciplines.Students prepare a proposal delineating what,why, where, when, and how they will conduct the project.Frequently, MQP's involve engineering design so thatspecifications must be developed, the design conducted,and demonstration of achievement must be made. In thiscase, oral presentations are necessary in the weekly teammeetings and, often, at the project conclusion. Thereport, itself, is one of the outcomes reflecting theobjective. Additionally, written and oral communicationsare demonstrated as are other desired elements such asteamwork. Thus the MQP provides assessment onvirtually all of the ABET Criterion 3, as well as WPI'sown specific goals.To begin familiarizing students withprofessional expectations for reporting results oftechnical work in formal oral sessions, near the end ofevery year WPI schedules a "Project Presentation Day"where seniors (students normally wait to the final year totackle the MQP) present their results to audiencesconsisting of faculty, other students (especially juniorscontemplating the start of their own MQP's) andincreasingly, professionals from industries which sponsorMQP's on campus. These presentations are organizedwithin each department, and emulate professional586conferences with multiple sessions, formal chairs andtime keeping--and tough questions from the audienceabout "why didn't you think of...."As with the Interactive Qualifying Projects, theMajor Qualifying Projects are peer reviewed by faculty ona biennial periodicity. Feedback is thus provided toindividual faculty advisors such that quality ismaintained and improved. A sample of the most recentpeer review for the MQP is attached as Appendix A.ConclusionThe key to adoption of these assessmentmeasures was, first, the faculty recognition of objectivesand, second, the development of a curriculum whichachieved the outcomes. Clearly, faculty must haveownership of both the objectives and the curriculum.Once these elements are in place, the faculty mustestablish operational goals regarding specificexpectations associated with the completion of theseprojects. Once such metrics are established, feeding theresults of assessing both· student and faculty performance(respectively, student grades and faculty peer reviews)back into continuous improvement of the whole programcan become part of institutional culture.Appendix A -- Recommendations Made tothe Faculty as a Result of the Last MQP PeerReview (1995)• Student project advisor evaluations indicate thatstudents want the advisor to discuss expectations forperformance and for grading, early in the project.• Students and faculty should review faculty policy onteam projects, as stated in "Group Qualifying ProjectEfforts" (p. 29 in the current Catalog) for guidelines ofan "authorship page" specifying levels of contribution inall team-written reports.• Pressures on faculty time make advising MQP's ingroups of three more desirable than ever, in addition toproviding opportunities for students to learn how to worksuccessfully on teams.• Faculty should review and use as needed theinformation in the packet on the WPI Projects Program,which includes an overview (aimed at potential sponsors)as well as sample legal documents.• While significant progress has been made inproviding all MQP students with an opportunity topresent their results orally, not every departmentspecifically requires and schedules MQP oralpresentations for every student. This practice is stronglyencouraged.• Word processing has assisted in improving basiclevels of writing and revising, but many reviewersobserved projects which did not fully demonstrate thecritical thinking and writing skills increasingly importantfor students to succeed in tight job markets.• Virtually every department looked with some care atgrade distributions, which were self-reported as rangingfrom 88% A's to 58% A's. Some reviewers (not all)found their own analysis of grade distributions matchedthose awarded by the project advisors; others fearedgrade inflation was still at work, despite a clear faculty-voted policy on what the WPI grades A, B, and C mean(1996-97 Catalog, p. 169.)587

Development of Outcome Assessments at WPI

https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&amp;context=provost_schol

Development of Outcome Assessments at WPI

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@CalPoly