Surveying Different Student Outcome Assessment Methods for ABET Accredited Computer Engineering Programs

In an effort to improve the quality of their academic programs and graduates, an increasing number of academic institutions are obtaining Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) accreditation for their computer engineering programs. This paper acts as a guide for managers and institutions as they get ready to start the accreditation process for their programs. There is an issue with the lack of knowledge regarding the mechanics of implementing student outcome evaluation methodologies since it causes confusion and resource waste, especially in the beginning. Furthermore, there is a paucity of literature available that discuss the methodology and the use of successful accrediting techniques for computer engineering programs. Given this, it is important to document the approaches, teaching techniques, and strategies employed by various computer engineering departments as they pursue accreditation. To the best of our knowledge, such information is not publicly available in published form, although there are fee-based training courses by ABET that provide instruction on how to approach this topic. Here, we investigate the detailed information of five different computer engineering programs and two other related programs using their self-assessment reports (SARs). These SARs span over the last 10 years and represent the outcome of different approaches toward getting accreditation. The study plan involves comparing (objectively and subjectively) the different parameters of the student outcome assessment (criterion 4) to show their convergence and divergence in dealing with accreditation requirements. We found that the selection of an assessment method depends on the goals and context of the educational program. Factors such as the learning outcomes to be assessed, the level of detail needed, available resources, and the preferences of instructors and students should be taken into account. A program may opt to use multiple assessment methods to attain a more thorough and precise evaluation of student outcomes. Ultimately, the most effective approach is one that is customized to the program's specific needs and situation.