We are preparing for ABET and CSAB accreditation
of our CSE program; the actual accreditation visit will take
place during the fall of 1999. A key requirement of the
ABET2000 criteria is a good set of evaluation/feedback mechanisms
for various aspects of the program, as well as documented processes to
implement these mechanisms.
The first mechanism we propose is an
on-line exit survey that all CSE
majors will be required to complete before they file for graduation.
This survey will give us feedback from students who are near
completion of the program about the importance of the various
objectives of the program and how well each of these objectives was
met. In other words, it will allow us to obtain student feedback at
the program level rather than just at the level of individual
courses. The results of this survey will be discussed by the
Undergrad Studies committee during Spring quarter of each
year and preliminary ideas for changes, if any, at the program level
will be proposed for possible consideration and implementation during
the following academic year(s). The exit survey is available at
http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/~weide/abet/surveys/program-objectives/
The second mechanism we propose has three components. First, coordinators of individual courses will obtain feedback from individual instructors of the course on such questions as
The second component of the proposed mechanism requires coordinators of courses in a given group to interact with each other to ensure that the individual courses in the group fit together well, as they were presumably meant to. This interaction will enable the group to identify any potential problems, as well as possibilities for improvements to the courses in the group. Course coordinators should also check with coordinators of any other courses that their courses serve as pre-reqs, and take into account any problems their courses may have in that respect when considering possible changes in the courses.
The final component requires coordinators of a given group of courses to present to the Curriculum Committee and perhaps the Undergrad Studies Committee, an evaluation of their group of courses and suggestions for changes. This is intended to be a `status report' on the given group of courses and how it fits the overall program. Detailed changes to individual courses will most likely be proposed and implemented by individual course coordinators and instructors based on reactions from various people (including student reps on the committees) during the different steps of this activity.
The first two components, the interactions between course coordinator and instructors of a course, and the interactions between coordinators of courses in a given group, will most likely be on-going activities, carried out via e-mail and face-to-face discussions; course coordinators are requested to keep at least some minimal documentation (preferably electronic) of these interactions so committee members and others can follow the rationale of any proposals for changes. In any case, the interaction between the coordinator of a course and its instructors should take place at least once a year; and the interaction between coordinators of different courses in a group, at least once every two years. The third component, the presentation to the Curriculum Committee by the coordinators of the given group of courses, will take place at least once every two years for each group. At the start of each year, the CC chair will get in touch with the various groups that will be expected to give reports on their respective groups during that year, and schedule these presentations.
This mechanism does require some additional work, especially on the part of course coordinators. But we believe that most of the activities required are already being carried out for most groups of courses if in a somewhat arbitrary and irregular fashion. The mechanism, if approved and implemented as outlined above, will replace this by a well defined and documented process (as required by ABET2000).
The implementation of the mechanism involving instructors, coordinators, and course groups for evaluating and evolving the curriculum, will also begin in Winter '99. Two groups will be identified for making `status report' presentations on their particular group of courses, during Winter; two more groups will be identified for presenting their status reports during Spring '99.
One of the running themes in ABET2000 is `continuous improvement'. So programs are expected to learn from past experience and move on to bigger or least better things. So, assuming that the two mechanisms proposed above are approved and implemented, that will probably not be the end of the story. In the UGSC we have briefly talked about two additional possibilities. First, rather than have a single `exit-survey' at the end of the program, it may be useful to have one or perhaps two `mid-stream-surveys'. Something like this is already being done at the end of CIS321; this is being done by Bruce and Tim as part of their work in the software spine; UGSC will try to learn from the results of their work to see if either Bruce & Tim's survey or something along those lines would be useful.
Another idea we have discussed in the UGSC is that of conducting exit interviews of a random sample of students. Such interviews will allow us to get more detailed feedback than would the on-line survey that we have proposed. The downside is that such interviews would have to be conducted by appropriately trained people and would require a substantial commitment of resources. We will probably revisit the question of exit-interviews once we gain some experience with using the on-line exit-surveys so we can decide where additional feedback would be most useful.