Cross-institutional assessment with a customized Web based survey system

As an increasing number of engineering schools address the requirements of EC 2000, the need for a mechanism to routinely elicit student self-assessments and evaluations and to facilitate both tracking and benchmarking is apparent. Many, if not most, engineering programs simply do not have sufficient expertise, time, and funds to conduct the requisite program assessments. To meet this need, researchers at the University of Pittsburgh School of Engineering, with funding by the Engineering Information Foundation and the National Science Foundation, have developed the Pitt On-line Student Survey System (Pitt OS/sup 3/) to facilitate EC 2000 assessment and benchmarking. The purpose of pitt-OS/sup 3/ is to allow multiple engineering schools to conduct "customized, " routine program evaluations using EC 2000 related web-based survey instruments. The current battery of instruments in the system includes, but not limited to: Freshman Pre, Freshman Post, Sophomore, Junior, Senior Exit, and Alumni. Since its inception during the spring 2000, five engineering schools have adopted Pitt OS/sup 3/. This paper provides an overview of the system, its use, and its logistical and cost benefits. As more schools participate, the potential for providing benchmarking reports will be addressed.

[1]  C. Atman,et al.  Self-assessed confidence in EC-2000 outcomes: a study of gender and ethnicity differences across institutions , 2000, 30th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. Building on A Century of Progress in Engineering Education. Conference Proceedings (IEEE Cat. No.00CH37135).

[2]  M. Besterfield-Sacre,et al.  Changes in freshman engineers' attitudes-a cross institutional comparison: what makes a difference? , 1996, Technology-Based Re-Engineering Engineering Education Proceedings of Frontiers in Education FIE'96 26th Annual Conference.

[3]  Cynthia J. Atman,et al.  Engineering Student Attitudes Assessment , 1998 .

[4]  Cynthia J. Atman,et al.  Characteristics of Freshman Engineering Students: Models for Determining Student Attrition in Engineering , 1997 .

[5]  Cynthia J. Atman,et al.  Three Approaches To Outcomes Assessment: Questionnaires, Protocols, And Empirical Modeling , 1997 .

[6]  Mary Besterfield-Sacre,et al.  Three approaches to outcomes assessment , 1997 .

[7]  Richard W. Morshead.  Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Handbook II: Affective Domain , 1965 .

[8]  M. Besterfield-Sacre,et al.  First term probation: models for identifying high risk students , 2000, 30th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. Building on A Century of Progress in Engineering Education. Conference Proceedings (IEEE Cat. No.00CH37135).

[9]  Cynthia J. Atman,et al.  Comparing entering freshman engineers , 1999 .

[10]  Richard L. Porter,et al.  A New “Contact-Based” First Year Engineering Course* , 1998 .

[11]  C. Atman,et al.  Comparing Entering Freshman Engineers: Institutional Differences In Student Attitudes , 1999 .

[12]  B. Bloom,et al.  Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain , 1966 .