Continuous Improvement of Academic Programs (and Satisfying ABET Along the Way): The Elizabeth Judson Memorial Symposium: Best Practice in Program Improvement
Sponsored by: MS&T Organization
Program Organizers: Jeffrey Fergus, Auburn University
Tuesday 8:00 AM
October 18, 2011
Room: E160A
Location: Greater Columbus Convention Center
Session Chair: William Hammetter, Sandia National Laboratory; Ronald Gibala, University of Michigan
8:00 AM Invited
Avoiding Pitfalls Regarding Criteria 2 and 3 in an ABET Visit: Thomas Bieler1; 1Michigan State University
The accreditation process for engineering programs expects that assessment and feedback systems are in place and functioning in a documented way to insure that academic programs are responsive to the needs of their constituents. In the past decade, implementation of these processes has been problematic for many programs, sometimes leading to the need for interim reports between the 6 year review cycle. Some of the common pitfalls that programs experience in developing effective processes to meet ABET expectations in criteria 2 and 3 (and the feedback systems that support these criteria in criterion 4) will be discussed. The ABET definitions of “objective” and “outcome” are often a source of confusion for programs as they work through their outcomes, objectives, and assessment strategies. These perspectives will be shared on the basis of 10 years of experience as an ABET program evaluator, and active membership on the TMS Accreditation Committee.
8:40 AM
Continuous Improvement as an Integral Part of a Department’s Work: Amy Moll1; 1Boise State University
In 2004, Boise State started a new program in Materials Science and Engineering. The assessment and review of program outcomes was incorporated into our initial curriculum discussions, ABET review is an integral part of the department’s work. Instructors collect and review student work every semester, and the review of outcomes is an annual event that informs our curriculum discussions and continuous improvement priorities. The faculty members and instructors in the department see the process as a valuable part of their role in providing a quality education to our students. Our process for assessment and continual improvement will be reviewed with a focus on minimizing paperwork and optimizing program improvement. This talk intends to provide ideas on how to convert the ABET requirements from a burden to an integral part of the department’s work.
9:00 AM
Restructuring a Curriculum in the Spirit of Continuous Improvement
: R. Allen Kimel1; Gary L. Messing1; Christopher Muhlstein1; David J. Green1; Venkatraman Gopalan1; James Runt1; Zi-Kui Liu1; 1Penn State University
The Department of Materials Science and Engineering at Penn State University is in the process of a major curriculum revision that officially began in the summer of 2010. That summer, a workshop was organized, engaging several constituencies, to discuss and institute an action plan to address department enrollment, curriculum agility, student academic freedom in course selection, and faculty teaching efficiency, to mention a few. Out of this workshop, different task forces were created to review every course while another task force explored basic fundamental questions such as 'What is the Departmental Philosophy of Materials Science and Engineering?'. These task force activities were conducted while exploring departmental data, contrasting with peer-university data across the USA and gathering real-time feedback from MatSE stakeholders. The curriculum revision is scheduled for implementation in the fall semester of 2012; this oral presentation will be a summary of the lessons learned from our journey.
9:20 AM
Student Input about the Strength of Ceramic Curriculums at Universities Nationwide: Examining Educational Strengths and Weaknesses in Materials Science and Engineering: Erica Marden1; 1American Ceramic Society's President's Council of Student Advisors
The ACerS President’s Council of Student Advisers is currently composed of 24 student delegates from 17 Universities. From students in programs strictly dedicated to ceramics, to programs with ceramics specialties, to materials programs which do not specialize, this diverse combination of viewpoints and experiences results in a comprehensive student perspective on ceramics education. Student responses to a survey distributed to universities across the country will be presented alongside data gathered in October 2010. The various strengths and weaknesses of these programs will be discussed in addition to suggesting changes to help ceramics programs better prepare students for jobs in industry, research and academia. Maintaining the harmony between courses focused on research and courses focused on industry applications will also be discussed. This perspective on ceramics education will serve to connect the perceptions of students to the needs of industry and to address any misconceptions on important aspects of the field.
9:40 AM Break
10:00 AM
ABET: Good or Evil? Your Chance to Bite Back!: Steve Yalisove1; 1University of Michigan
ABET is an acronym that often evokes extreme emotions in faculty and department chairs. There is a long history of a perceived polemic against excellent programs after many ABET visits based on irritating nit-picking of irrelevant assessment metrics. What magnifies these perceptions to a tempestuous frenzy is the simple fact that ABET is focussed on minimal standards while excellent programs focus on maximal standards. There is a fresh new order at ABET that is working tirelessly to address these issues head-on. New attitudes, procedures and processes have been developed that will permit ABET to evolve to a higher state of consciousness that does not compete with real, maximal outcomes and innovation in engineering education. These efforts will be presented and time will be allotted for feedback that WILL be passed along to the ABET board of directors at their meeting, two weeks after MS&T.
10:40 AM Panel Discussion Individuals involved in the accrediation process, including ABET staff and representatives from the mateirals community, will discuss current practices for program improvement in materials-related academic programs.