Home / Unique Assessments
Generally curricular grade giving assessments in an engineering curriculum are comprised of single or multiple questions and cover more than one performance criteria Programs may choose to a) develop new assessments and/or b) use the assessments available in their curriculum for the measurement of specific performance criteria related to their program outcomes. In the first method, additional resources and faculty time would be required to measure the performance criteria of interest. The second method may pose limitations on the number of performance criteria measured in a given time frame and the quality of data collected depending upon the availability of streamlining electronic tools or assessments which possess maximum relative coverage of a single performance criterion. The result of both methods is a comparatively small set of performance criteria finally measured in a given time frame by a program using assessments that may not have maximum relative coverage of the specified criteria. Measurement of program educational objectives, student learning outcomes and performance criteria would therefore be completed in comparatively longer cycles. This minimum number of performance criteria measured with comparatively fewer assessments and obviously lesser number of raters over a given time frame would render the program evaluation term review less comprehensive and result in a deficiency in the eventual realization of its PEOs.
Since grade giving assessments in an engineering curriculum are comprised of single or
multiple questions and cover more than one performance criteria, the total score of such an assessment is generally a sum total of individual scores obtained from grading multiple performance criteria corresponding to this assessment. Thus the assessment score does not actually reflect the grading results from a single performance criteria but rather a complex distribution of grading results from multiple performance criteria. Therefore the outcomes assessment data resulting from this approach is not realistic and does not reflect precise information relating to specific performance indicators or outcomes for quality improvement. To obtain realistic data for continuous improvement purposes one option available for faculty is to create a new set of assessments specifically for performance criteria, outcomes measurement. Several programs worldwide have chosen this approach for accreditation purposes but since it is tedious and requires additional faculty time, resources the programs generally collect minimal information for small set of outcomes, performance indicators which are not sufficient for the implementation of a comprehensive academic improvement process. This would finally result in programs spending additional resources for maintaining independent processes for accreditation and realistic continuous improvement.