ABET outcome (d): An ability to function on multidisciplinary teams http://www.foundationcoalition.org Susan Haag, Jeff Froyd, Shantuan Coleman, Rita Caso "Coming together is a beginning; keeping together is progress; working together is success.” —Henry Ford I. Introduction The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET ) establishes criteria for accrediting engineering, technology, and computer science programs. In its Engineering Criteria, ABET established a set of student outcomes in Criterion 3. Institutions seeking accreditation may create their own sets of student outcomes that are supersets of the ABET student outcomes. For the set of student outcomes, each program must have processes that demonstrate that (1) program performance with respect to its outcomes is being assessed, (2) results of program evaluation are being used to develop and improve the program, and (3) results and processes are being documented. As a result, engineering faculty members must develop methodologies for assessing performance with respect to outcomes in competency in addition to developing new curriculum [1]. Need for these methodologies has created increased interest in developing and identifying relevant assessment instruments [2]. However, only a handful of tools and methodologies are publicly available [3,4]. Meeting ABET Engineering Criteria created significant challenges for almost every engineering program. Discovery Project The Foundation Coalition (FC), one of eight engineering education coalitions funded by the National Science Foundation, initiated a project to collect and organize materials on assessment and instruction related to the eleven student outcomes. Project team members included faculty and assessment directors from Arizona State University, the University of Alabama, Texas A&M University, and the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. During the study, the project team attempted to answer the following research questions: • Is there is a gap between demand and availability of materials to teach and assess each of the ABET a−k competencies? • What instructional and assessment materials are being used and have been used in engineering programs? • What instructional and assessment materials are available to engineering faculty members and programs? • How may project teams characterize and organize available instructional and assessment materials? The project found limited resources for both instruction and assessment of ABET a−k outcomes. In response, the FC is constructing a set of minidocuments related to assessment and instruction for the ABET student outcomes to assist individual and program efforts. For each student outcome, engineering programs must address the following questions: • What observable student performances would demonstrate competence in this particular area, i.e., what must students be able to do in order to satisfy the outcome? • How might evidence of student performance with respect to the outcome, while the student is still on campus [5], be acquired and analyzed in order to evaluate a program? • How might student performance with respect to the outcome be improved? That is, what types of instruction are likely to result in improved student performance and what meaningful learning experience can contribute to the development of these outcomes in undergraduate students [5]? The preceding questions are addressed by presenting (1) learning objectives, (2) assessment approaches, and (3) instructional approaches. Brief descriptions of the three items are provided for readers who may not be familiar with the terminology used in this document. Learning Objectives ABET student outcomes do not describe observable behaviors. Data can only be collected on observable behaviors; therefore, learning objectives are formulated for each outcome in order to describe desired observable student performance related to each outcome. This document offers sample objectives that might be associated with the outcome. Section III provides examples of learning objectives that have been culled from reviews of the literature. Assessment Approaches Moving from learning objectives to judgments regarding the degree to which the program is achieving its learning objectives requires relevant, appropriate, and informative data upon which judgments can be based. Prus and Johnson [6] described 15 different assessment methodologies, together with strengths and weaknesses for each methodology. There is no perfect assessment methodology, and evaluators often select multiple assessment methodologies to balance their strengths and weaknesses. Choice of the appropriate methodologies depends on many factors, including the goals and scope of the evaluation. For example, faculty members are usually interested in assessment of the courses that they are teaching as well as assessment of the program to meet the ABET accreditation criteria. Assessment approaches for course and program levels may differ, although there may be overlap. For each of the objectives described in Section III, this document provides approaches to obtaining data relative to one or more objectives for both the course and program levels. This document will identify when approaches could be applied at course or program levels.