Accreditation Board For Engineering And Technology Research Articles

Enhancing Civil Engineering Education and ABET Criteria through Practical Experience

The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) has adopted a revised set of criteria for accrediting engineering programs. Nevertheless, as in the past, civil engineering departments will be required to demonstrate proficiency in specific subject areas which are included in the ABET program criteria. This paper investigates how civil engineering students at Lamar University improved their understanding of various subject areas required by ABET and listed in the Program Criteria for Civil and Similarly Named Engineering Programs and the General Criteria (professional component) by being involved with cooperative, part-time, and summer work experiences. In particular, the findings suggest that both undergraduate and graduate students believe that three areas have been greatly enhanced with engineering work. They include structural engineering, project management/scheduling and estimating, and teamwork. In addition, undergraduates perceive that their understanding of health and safety issues and ethical considerations has also increased. In contrast, graduate students believe that their knowledge of hydraulics, hydrology, and water resources, constructability, and economic factors has been enhanced by civil engineering work experiences.

Use of Subject‐specific FE Exam Results in Outcomes Assessment

AbstractEngineering programs seeking accreditation are required by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) to document their continuous program improvement efforts and their outcomes. In this paper, we propose the subject‐specific results of the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) Examination as one of the metrics suitable for assessing the outcomes of such efforts in individual courses. Statistical approaches appropriate for analyzing the FE Exam results and some caveats about their use are discussed. The application of this approach in the hydraulic engineering area of our program is illustrated.

Mechanical Engineering Curricula: A Baseline Study for the Future Effects of ABET EC2000

The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) is recognized by the US Department of Education as the sole agency responsible for accreditation of educational programs leading to degrees in engineering, engineering technology, and related engineering areas. Starting in 2001, engineering programs are being accredited under the new Engineering Criteria 2000 (EC2000). The philosophy of Engineering Criteria 2000 is to allow institutions and programs to define their mission and objectives to meet the needs of their constituents and enable program differentiation. Emphasis is placed on continuous improvement of programs based on the input of constituents and a process that links outcomes and assessment to program objectives. This paper is a preliminary study of selected mechanical engineering programs to discern the impact of EC2000 on curriculum development. Data on the layout and composition of mechanical engineering curricula for nine schools in the United States with PhD programs and nine schools without PhD programs are presented. This research establishes a baseline for these mechanical engineering programs at the beginning of EC2000 implementation. A follow-on study in two to three years in envisioned. This follow-on study will compare results and identify any significant changes in curricula as the EC2000 assessment process matures.

Electrical and computer engineering curriculum assessment via senior miniproject

Traditionally, senior capstone projects have been used for comprehensive student assessment. Other mechanisms exist for engineering course assessments, such as teacher/course evaluations, homework and test results, student office visits, and senior exit interviews. Each of these methods has weaknesses if the primary objective is curriculum improvement. The new Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) Engineering Criteria 2000 (EC-2000) accreditation process requires new methods to allow for continuous program improvement. This paper discusses the six-week miniproject for senior students in the Electrical and Computer Engineering program at Bradley University. Use of the miniproject to steer the curriculum design content has been in place for eleven years. The evaluation results have been used successfully to implement course, laboratory, and curriculum modifications. The paper discusses the project, its costs, evaluation procedures, curriculum modifications and improvements, and use of the project in the EC-2000 accreditation process.

The nuts and bolts of accreditation

Every fall many engineering students are informed that Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) will be visiting our campus. They will want to meet with some of the students. Some of you may have been selected to meet with ABET representatives during a visit to your campus. No doubt you learned about the objectives of accreditation and the process of accreditation. But most students have not had this opportunity and may not be aware that ABET is involved with accreditation of engineering, engineering technology, computing and applied science programs in the United States. This article is aimed at explaining accreditation procedures to those who are not familiar with ABET and the accreditation process. While the focus of this article is on accreditation of engineering programs, the procedures for technology and applied science programs are very similar.

Course in Professional Practice Issues

The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) and practitioners recognize professional practice issues as important in undergraduate civil engineering education. This paper describes a creative approach for incorporating professional practice issues into the civil engineering curriculum through a course entitled “Civil Engineering Practice.” This course has the following advantages: (1) It encourages active learning via activities as opposed to a traditional seminar; (2) forms long-term teaching partnerships with engineering professionals; (3) offers a venue where important yet distinct topics can be presented systematically; (4) provides the local engineering community with the opportunity to share its accomplishments and to further continuing education credits; (5) reinforces the professional practice elements of the capstone design project; and (6) supplies structured time where students can interact with potential employers and vice-versa. The course feedback from students, faculty, en...

A capstone design project to meet the needs of the changing power systems industry and satisfy new accreditation standards

Currently, two motivators are effecting change in power systems education. First, the industry's transition to a more competitive environment is requiring changes in the content and pedagogy of power systems education. Second, engineering education as a whole is seeking to modify its curriculum to reflect a better balance between science and education in order to better meet the needs of industry. These curricular changes are largely a result of revised Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) accreditation requirements. In response to these changes, new curriculum and analysis tools were developed for a power systems capstone design course. The project integrates market economics and socio-political considerations with transient stability analysis and transmission planning. A power systems analysis package and an economic analysis tool were developed for use with this project. Student evaluations of the course in which the project was implemented indicate that the curriculum successfully addresses a broad range of ABET accreditation criteria.

Outcomes Assessment of Engineering Writing at the University of Washington

AbstractEffective writing skills are crucial for engineers, and engineering programs have always struggled with how to prepare their students for the writing they will do as professionals. Now, programs must also show the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) that they have clear educational outcomes for engineering communication and have a process for assessing student performance on those outcomes. At the University of Washington, we have spent the last five years developing an outcomes‐based assessment program for engineering writing. In spring 2001, the first round of writing assessment was completed. The assessment indicated that most of our students are competent in the outcomes we have developed. It also uncovered several weak areas, particularly in regard to working with sources and to adequately stating and supporting the purpose of the writing. We will be addressing these areas with additional instruction in the stand‐alone technical writing courses taken by engineering students. The process described in this paper could be helpful for other engineering programs preparing for ABET accreditation visits.

Turning Students into Professionals: Types of Knowledge and ABET Engineering Criteria

AbstractIn order to implement the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) engineering criteria, it is important for engineering educators to understand different types of knowledge and how these types relate to the outcomes described in Criterion 3. This paper first provides a heuristic for framing a program's educational objectives by identifying exemplars of the types of engineers a program seeks to graduate. Three sections then follow, each addressing categories of knowledge: tacit knowledge, four types of knowledge that can either be tacit or explicit, and knowledge created and shared in teams. Examples of the relationship of traits of knowledge to the outcomes in Criterion 3 are provided. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of how these types of knowledge are imbued in engineering students at the University of Virginia, as well as suggestions for additional ways in which they could be infused into engineering curricula.

The integration of ABET and CSAB

On November 3, 2001, the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) and the Computing Sciences Accreditation Board (CSAB), two US-based accreditation agencies, were officially integrated into a single agency. This action is the result of many dedicated professionals' engaged in many hours of work and discussions over a period of eight years. It has happened because these professionals and the two organizations share the fundamental belief that students, faculty, educational institutions, the professions, industry, and the global community will be better served by a single organization having accreditation responsibility for educational programs in engineering, technology, computing, and applied sciences. This article discusses the historical background of engineering accreditation and the activities leading to the proposal for the integration of ABET and CSAB. The integration transition period from 1998-2001 is discussed and future directions outlined.

ABET Program Criteria: Review and Assessment for a Civil Engineering Program

AbstractRecently, the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) sponsored programs to recommend changes for the engineering curriculum. In addition, various other studies, such as that conducted by the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), investigated methods to strengthen undergraduate education.The present investigation is based on a study of Lamar University civil engineering undergraduate and graduate students as well as practicing alumni. The findings suggest that all three groups, practicing engineers as well as undergraduate and graduate students, perceive that some subject areas are more important than others. For example, greater than 40% of each group identified four subject areas that presently receive or should receive a high level of coverage in the civil engineering curriculum. They include: mathematics through calculus and differential equations; structural and geotechnical engineering; and major design experience or course. In addition, more than 40% of the undergraduates and practicing engineers also perceive that hydraulics/hydrology/water resources presently receive or should receive a high level of coverage. In contrast, graduate students and practitioners also believe that construction management/surveying, and structural/materials and hydraulics laboratories receive or should receive a high level of coverage. These results suggest strong support for the traditional technical aspect of engineering. In addition, they may be interpreted as positive reinforcement for the Engineering Criteria 2000 program requirements. Nevertheless, all three groups rate professional practice issues at a relatively lower percentage. The foregoing are among the various subjects that have been included in the Civil and Similarly Named Engineering Program Criteria that have been adopted by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) as criteria that must be considered in order to satisfy the requirements of an accredited civil engineering degree.

Turning students into ethical professionals

At the engineering school of the University of Virginia, a primary responsibility is turning students into ethical professionals, Three Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) Engineering Criteria (EC 2000 outcomes are a primary focus of this effort. The three relevant ABET EC 2000 outcomes are: "f", which requires students to demonstrate an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility; "h", which requires an understanding the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context; and "j", which asks for knowledge contemporary issues. These outcomes are broad. In order to create more specific outcomes, it is important to talk about the types of knowledge and skills students need to acquire in order to become ethical practitioners. The work presented establishes a framework, dividing the knowledge that engineering students need into four categories, based loosely on M. Adler's Paiadeia principles (1982).

Innovative Curriculum on Electronic Materials Processing and Engingeering

Recognizing that the traditional engineering education training is often inadequate in preparing the students for the challanges presented by this industry's dynamic environment and insufficient to meet the empoyer's criteria in hiring new engineers, a new curriculum on Semiconductor Manufacturing is instituted in the Chemical Engineering Department at UCLA to train the students in various scientific and technologica areas that are pertinenet to the microelectronics industries. This paper describes this new mutidisciplinary curriculum that provides knowledge and skills in semiconductor manufacturing through a series ofcourses that emphasize on the application of fundamenta engineeering disciplines in solid-state physics, materials science of semiconductors, and chemical processing. The curriculum comprises three major components:(1)a comprehensive course curriculum in semiconductor manufacturing; (2) a laboratory for hands-on training in semiconductor device fabrication; (3) design of experiments. The capstone laboratory course is designed to strengthen students’ training in “unit operatins” used in semicounductor manufacturing and allow them to practice engineering principles using the state-of-the-art experimental setup. It comprises the most comprehensive training(seven photolithographic steps and numero0us chemical processes)in fabricating and testing complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) devices. This curriculum is recentyaccredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology(ABET).

Professional Program Criteria for Civil Engineering Curriculums

The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) has adopted a revised set of accreditation criteria that is designed to ensure that graduates of accredited programs are prepared to enter the practice of engineering. The proposal also specifies that engineering programs must demonstrate that their graduates have an understanding of professional practice issues in addition to proficiency in specific subject areas that are tabulated in the civil engineering program criteria. The findings of this study indicate that engineering undergraduate and graduate students as well as practitioners perceive that four subject areas are of great importance for civil engineers: structural engineering, hydraulics/hydrology/water resources, engineering design, and mathematics through calculus and differential equations. In contrast, one area, chemistry, received lower ratings. Data suggest that the majority of subjects included in the civil engineering program criteria are considered by students and practitioners to have generally the same level of importance and should be included in the curriculum at an above average level. In particular, 81% of the subject areas included in the ABET civil engineering program criteria are rated by both students and practitioners with a composite score 3.1. This may be interpreted as strong support for the Engineering Criteria 2000 program requirements.

Group Dynamics in Projects: Don't Forget the Social Aspects

As faculty members, we have the opportunity to serve as references for our students. One of the questions potential employers invariably ask is, “How well does the student work with others?” The practicing engineer must have the knowledge required to function as a member of a team, combining each individual's expertise with the skills of others on the team. Numerous organizations, most notably the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), have put an emphasis on the need to prepare engineers to work in such an environment. To address this need, we have instituted a series of projects, joining graduate industrial and systems engineers and undergraduate civil engineers, focusing on statistical applications in civil engineering. The courses chosen to pilot this program allow us to explore the hierarchical issues in project management and give us a multidisciplinary setting for potential projects. This paper discusses the issues of teamwork, leadershi...

Failure of Constructed Facilities in Civil Engineering Curricula

The responses to a survey of engineering course contents are summarized. In 1998, a questionnaire was sent to 238 Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) -accredited universities and 62 ABET-accredited civil engineering (CE) technical colleges across the United States. The questionnaire focused on the inclusion of failure awareness of constructed facilities in the CE education curriculum. Of the 300 questionnaires sent, 112 were returned. Survey results reveal that, although a majority of colleges recognize the importance and need of providing failure analysis topics in CE courses, they also feel the undergraduate curriculum to be already crowded. In addition, the respondents say that ABET should not establish an accreditation requirement regarding the subject. However, 37% of the colleges say that three or more lectures should be given on failure analysis, either integrated throughout the course or given in series all at once. More than half of the respondents believe that condition assessment and maintenance of constructed facilities is a topic that should be included in the CE undergraduate curricula. The cover letter and questionnaire from the survey are appended.

Grouping in the Dark

What College Students Learn from Group Projects More and more college and university faculty are assigning students to work in groups to solve real-world or simulated problems (Gamson, 1994). The trend toward classroom teamwork has been stimulated by students, prospective employers of college graduates, accrediting agencies, and educators who advocate learning. Many students, particularly the growing population of returning adults, appreciate interactive experiences (Watkins, 1990). As companies rely more on to improve productivity (Schilder, 1992), they also emphasize the need for college graduates to be skilled in teamwork and effective communication (Coleman, 1996). Accrediting agencies also stress the importance of group experiences for students. New criteria established by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), for example, require engineering programs to demonstrate that graduates have an ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams and an ability to communicate effectively (ABET, 1997). Seve ral educators who have investigated the benefits of peer group experiences for elementary and secondary school students also advocate that college students collaborate as they learn (Bosworth & Hamilton, 1994; Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1991, 1998). The umbrella term collaborative learning refers to a variety of instructional practices that encourage students to work together as they apply course material to answer questions, solve problems, or create a product (Smith & MacGregor, 1992). Research conducted with college students indicates that participation in group projects promotes students' academic achievement, persistence in college, and positive attitudes about (Springer, Stanne, & Donovan, 1997). Students are more likely to attain positive outcomes from group experiences when instructors provide students with information and guidance about how to work together (Bosworth & Hamilton, 1994). The types of guidance instructors should provide are specified clearly by proponents of cooperative learning such as Johnson and Johnson (1994) and Slavin (1983) who maintain that group work will enhance more than individual work only if instructors structure assignments to meet specific conditions. These conditions include providing instruction about interpersonal skills, encouraging positive interdependence among students, making individual goal achievement dependent upon attainment of group goals, and encouraging students to reflect on the group process (Johnson & Johnson, 1994; Slavin, 1983). With proper guidance, students will hold all members accountable for group performance, support each others' learning, share leadership, and monitor their efforts to improve the group's performance. When instructors fail to provide such guidance, Johnson and Johnson (1994) argue that students will not hold other group members accountable, have little commitment to other group members' learning, work alone as much as possible, only recognize a team leader appointed by the instructor, and fail to assess the quality of the group's progress. The conditions for group in higher education settings rarely meet the standards advocated by scholars. Few faculty have either extensive experience working in groups themselves or formal training about how to manage groups. As a result, many well-intentioned faculty assign group projects without providing students the information and guidance prescribed by advocates. A survey conducted with participants in group projects at a single university found that many students had negative reactions to group experiences. Students were particularly frustrated when they believed that the instructor had poor group skills or shirked responsibility for helping the groups (Fiechtner & Davis, 1984-85). The survey also revealed that many students, nevertheless, perceived that some of their group experiences were positive. …

Preparing Students for Engineering Design & Practice

AbstractIn 1995, the American Society of Civil Engineers sponsored an Education Conference to recommend changes for the Civil Engineering educational program. In addition, various other studies, such as that conducted by the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), investigated methods to strengthen undergraduate education.The present investigation of Lamar University students and alumni suggests that both practicing engineers and undergraduate/graduate students perceive that 2 design considerations or constraints presently have been and should be incorporated into the engineering design sequence at a high level. They include Engineering Codes and Standards, and Manufacturability (Constructability). In contrast, both students groups and practitioners rate two other design constraints: Social Ramifications, and Political Factors, at a relatively lower score. The foregoing design constraints are among those that have been adopted by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) as criteria that should be considered in the major design experience or course in order to satisfy the requirements of an accredited engineering degree.

New developments in accreditation

Recently several changes have occurred in accreditation. This panel will address four major changes: the new guidelines for accreditation on Computer Science programs, the integration of the Computing Sciences Accreditation Board (CSAB) and the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), the developments in software engineering accreditation, and the developments in accreditation of programs in computer information sciences/information systems science.This panel will discuss these recent and their potential impacts. These areas may see considerable change from the submission of the proposal for a panel and the time that panel convenes in San Antonio.

Engineering Design and Communication: A Foundational Course for Freshmen

In the past four years, Northwestern University has radically reoriented its approach to teaching communication to engineering students. Previously, the engineering school had a two-quarter communication requirement: students typically took an expository writing course and an oral course such as public speaking—often at the end of their undergraduate career. In 1994, however, the engineering school proposed a change. Prompted by new accreditation requirements from ABET (the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology) and other curricular innovations for the freshman year, the school planned to introduce a two-quarter design course for freshmen—and asked Northwestern’s Writing Program to explore the possibility of integrating the writing requirement into this course. 1 Although the initial impetus for this collaboration was simply to create “space” in the curriculum for the new course, the writing faculty saw potential in the proposal. As experienced writing teachers and communication consultants, we believed that a combined writing and engineering course could give students a deeper understanding of the role that writing plays in engineering. Such a course could also provide a strong foundation in communication for students to build upon during their remaining three years. However, we were also aware of the threats that face communication instruction in an integrated course. 2 Students and the engineering faculty were likely to see engineering design as the real focus of the course and see communication or writing as a skills set with a handmaiden’s status. It was also likely that design would receive most of the classroom time and attention. For communication to become integral and not an add-on, the course would need to be truly interdisciplinary: students should not only learn the fundamentals of design and communication, they should also see how their combined knowledge of both fields will make them better designers and better communicators. Engineering Design and Communication: A Foundational Course for Freshmen