The following are being offered as 3-hour interactive workshops. These workshops have been designed to enable the presenters to engage the participants with more depth in the topic. Each workshop will be limited to 60.

80 Assessment of Capstone Engineering Design
Denny Davis, Washington State University
Steven Beyerlein, University of Idaho
Phillip Thompson, Seattle University
Kunle Harrison, Tuskegee University

This is a 3-hour workshop presented by faculty from the Transferable Integrated Design Engineering Education (TIDEE) consortium of schools. The workshop will focus on three assessment instruments, developed under National Science Foundation funding, derived from a conceptual model for design learning. The assessments have benefited from input from a diverse set of institutions. Participants will review the assessments, scoring rubrics, and student work. Participants will benefit from: Grasping a research foundation for design education that develops learners and solutions; Obtaining performance criteria for four areas of performance for engineering design; Receiving assessment instruments and scoring rubrics for design performance; and Realizing student performance measurable from design assessments.

81 Developing a Program Assessment Plan Using an Assessment Matrix
Barbara Olds, Colorado School of Mines

The goals of this session will be: 1) to describe the necessary steps for developing a program assessment plan which is capable of measuring student outcomes and using the results for program improvement, and 2) to help participants develop or improve their own plans using an assessment matrix which guides the planning and implementation process. ABET criterion 3 (program outcomes and assessment) is addressed in this session. I will briefly describe use of the assessment matrix which we have designed to help engineering faculty develop evaluation plans for their programs. Use of the matrix assures that each of the key steps in an effective evaluation plan is addressed: setting program educational objectives and student outcomes; selecting appropriate performance criteria; planning an implementation strategy; choosing appropriate assessment measures; setting a timeline for data collection and analysis; and providing timely feedback to interested stakeholders. After a brief overview of the matrix, the workshop will focus on working with faculty to help them begin developing or improving their own evaluation plans. Participants are encouraged to bring documents describing assessment plans at their institutions.

82 How to Define, Develop and Deliver an Ability-Based Metric System for Student Development and Continuous Curriculum Improvement
Larry Hanneman, Iowa State University

Throughout creating, validating, and deploying "Constituent-Created, Competency-Based, Accreditation-Aligned Assessment Tools for Engineering Experiential Education," we learned that this process and our assessment tools have application well beyond the experiential education workplace, engineering education, and continuous curriculum improvement. Learn how to design direct, quantitative measurements for Criterion 3 (a-k) and efficiently analyze "what to improve," "how to improve," and "where to improve." Explore the application of competency-based, formative assessment to curriculum improvement processes and enhancement of student development across the entire undergraduate experience. Topics to be addressed: Introduction to ability-based outcomes assessment; Development of quantitative ability-based metrics; Engaging constituents; Validating the tools; Collecting and analyzing ability-based assessment data; Deciding "what to improve," "how to improve" and "where to improve;" Using quantitative ability-based data to design qualitative data gathering; and Reducing cycle time and closing the loop.

83 Lessons Learned From Developing, Implementing and Evaluating an Integrated Departmental Assessment and Continuous Improvement Process
Gregory Kremer, Ohio University

The Ohio University Mechanical Engineering Department has developed an integrated assessment and continuous improvement process to address the spirit and letter of the ABET Criteria. After a successful ABET review in 2004 we expanded the process to include graduate and other departmental issues. Through handouts and group discussions, participants will see the development of the process, including successes, mistakes, and ideas for the future. Highlights include: Effective use of an industrial advisory board for program evaluation through participation in capstone design projects; An assessment plan based primarily on embedded course-level assessment, made possible by defining measurable course-level outcomes for each program outcome and implementing outcomes-based course design; Developing and assessing professional skills via performance reviews in the capstone design course; Using templates, 1-page forms, scheduled discussions to improve faculty involvement; and Enabling pervasive faculty discussions about using assessment results for program improvements.

84 Streamlining the Assessment Process with the Faculty Course Assessment Report
John Estell, Ohio Northern University

The Faculty Course Assessment Report (FCAR) presents a streamlined methodology that allows instructors to write assessment reports in a format that is conducive for use in ABET Criterion 3 program outcomes assessment in addition to performing traditional course outcomes assessment. This interactive presentation and workshop will introduce the FCAR format, demonstrate the construction and use of performance vectors for the measuring and reporting of assessment data, provide examples of actual FCARs, and illustrate several ways that FCARs can facilitate the assessment of program outcomes and the documentation of the closing-the-loop process. The workshop will include several exercises simulating typical FCAR-based assessment and evaluation processes.

85 Surveys: A Fundamental Tool in the Assessment Tool Box
Shannon Sexton, Rose-Hulman

Once you decide to engage in an assessment project, one of the tools you may choose to employ is a survey for data collection. While surveys provide many benefits, they may not always serve the intended purpose if designed incorrectly. This session will provide a basic background in survey development including how to begin, wording of questions, response format, and logistical considerations. Participants will be given an opportunity to work with examples of common surveys and are encouraged to bring a copy of a survey they would like to work on with them to this session.

86 Use of Bloom's Taxonomy in Developing and Measuring Achievement Levels for Outcomes
Richard O. Anderson, SOMAT Engineering, Inc.
Kenneth Fridley, The University of Alabama

This workshop will be a hands-on session devoted to developing an understanding of how utilization of Bloom's Taxonomy for the cognitive domain can assist in setting, describing, and measuring levels of achievement for program outcomes. The first portion of the workshop will familiarize the attendees with the terminology and format of this technique, and then demonstrate how this system has been successfully implemented with examples taken from the ABET/EAC Program Criteria for civil engineering. The second portion of the workshop will involve breakouts with small groups working on developing rubrics associated with actual outcomes and methods for measuring the level of ahchievement. The third portion of the workshop will have the attendees reconvene to discuss each group's rubrics and the lessons learned. It is expected the attendees will have the knowledge to implement this type of system in their own institution.

87 Using Targeted Assessments to Satisfy Achievement Program Outcomes
Henry Welch, Milwaukee School of Engineering
Deepti Suri, Milwaukee School of Engineering
Eric Durant, Milwaukee School of Engineering

The assessment plan for the Computer and Software Engineering programs at Milwaukee School of Engineering (MSOE) are in the process of transitioning from the "course transitivity" assessment approach to "targeted assessment" approach. The initial approach of course transitivity was based and focused on measuring student accomplishment of the course outcomes and relied on a cross-reference grid to transitively demonstrate the program-level outcomes. A shift in assessment strategy occurred when it became apparent that this relationship was too distant to effectively demonstrate the program-level outcomes. As courses evolved, the impact of these changes on the achievement of the program outcomes became increasingly difficult to track. This workshop will address the motivation and structure necessary to support the development of an infrastructure that targets specific areas of assessment within an engineering program. This workshop will also provide hands-on exercises in designing and targeting rubrics to support this assessment approach.