OUTCOMES BASED ASSESSMENT OF
THE ENGINEERING PROGRAMS AT
QASSIM UNIVERSITY FOR ABET
ACCREDITATION
Sulaiman A. AlYahya
Al-Badrawy A. Abo El-Nasr
Dept. of Mechanical Engineering,
College of Engineering, Qassim University,
Buraydah, Saudi Arabia
syhya@qec.edu.sa, albadarwye@qec.edu.sa
Abstract—In this paper, a continuous improvement
process was developed and implemented in our
engineering programs at College of Engineering, Qassim
University, Saudi Arabia. The continuous improvement
plan was based on an integrated set of strategies aimed
at: establishing and implementing a structured process
that translates educational objectives into measurable
outcomes, and specifies feedback tracks for corrective
actions. As a result of setting of direct and indirect
measures, the programs can assess and evaluate the level
of achievement of the program outcomes during the
course of the educational process. These relate to the
skills, knowledge, and behaviors that students acquire in
their matriculation through the program. The
documentation of the continuous improvement process,
prepared by our engineering programs, describes two
intersecting assessment loops; slow and fast. The slow
loop refers to the process by which the program
examines its program outcomes. The fast loop refers to
the process by which we assess the degree to which our
students and graduates achieve the educational program
objectives developed in the slow loop.
The stages of developing and implementing the
objectives, outcomes and the assessment plan for the
engineering programs are presented. Preliminary results
from pilot implementations are also presented.
Improvements are already evident in the areas of
teaching effectiveness, assessment of student learning,
and involvement of all the constituencies. Based on these
procedures, the Accreditation Board for Engineering
and Technology (ABET) visit to our engineering
programs had achieved great success and all of the
programs have fully accredited on August 2010 and the
next visit to our engineering programs will be on 2016.
Keywords-Accreditation; Self Assessment; PEOs; POs;
Continuous Improvement; Soft skills
I.
INTRODUCTION
Engineering education is considered to be pivotal
in the development of modern societies. One way of
ensuring and demonstrating the high quality of
engineering education is through evaluation carried
out by accreditation bodies like ABET. In an effort to
improve and maintain the quality of engineering
education offered by its programs, the College of
Engineering at Qassim University initiated external
evaluations conducted by the ABET. This process was
planned initially to make sure that what our programs
offer, is equivalent to their peer programs worldwide,
in addition, to satisfy the graduates and society needs.
Accreditation, as it is known, is a voluntary certified
mechanism for engineering programs, administered by
recognized professional bodies [1]. It is also a positive
move towards securing professional legitimacy,
granting accredited engineering programs their
deserving honor and esteem through continued
professional development. Internationally, ABET has
been considered as one of the highly respected bodies
that lead this process.
In a major shift influenced by pressure from
industry and global competition, ABET has
introduced a new Engineering Criteria 2000 (EC
2000) [2], which address the effectiveness of
engineering education programs by focusing on an
assessment and evaluation process that assures the
achievement of a set of educational objectives and
outcomes. An important element of these criteria is
the establishment of a continuous improvement
process thorough outcomes assessment. Since then,
the old system of counting course credits was largely
abandoned and replaced by an outcomes-based
process. Outcomes based assessment process focuses
on what the students learned or what they actually can
do at the time of graduation. In its accreditation
criteria, ABET reaffirmed a set of "hard" engineering
skills while introducing a second, equally important,
set of six "professional or soft" skills. These latter
skills include communication, teamwork, and
understanding ethics and professionalism and
engineering within a global and societal context,
lifelong learning, and knowledge of contemporary
issues. Engineering schools must present evidence that
their graduates achieve reasonable levels of these
skills, in addition to technical discipline-specific
knowledge content [3]. Measuring student outcomes
and understanding the learning experience is critical
for continuous improvement and satisfying
accreditation agencies. Furthermore, the design and
implementation of the educational programs should be
harmonized to achieve the departments' mission and
the programs educational objectives and outcomes. On
the other side, the educational program promotes
continuous improvement to: enhance its ability to
satisfy the program's constituencies by meeting their
needs and enhance the students' achievement of the
program objectives and outcomes [4].
In fulfilling ABET criteria; many hurdles have
been faced in our engineering program: the most
difficult ones were the establishment of Program
Educational Objectives (PEOs) and Program
Outcomes (POs). This has gone through number of
trials and modifications made by the Programs
Committees (PCs) that were formed to prepare for
accreditation. Though, the ABET definitions [2] of
objectives as "broad statements that describe the
career and professional accomplishment ---", and
outcomes as "narrower statements that describe what
students are expected to know and be able to do ---"
seem to be simple and straightforward, nevertheless,
the PCs along with the main program constituencies
and in consultation with the Professional Advisory
Boards (PABs) kept revising and rephrasing the
objectives and outcomes each time it discovered that
there is a need for more elaboration and/or confusion
of the two criteria [5]. Professional expertise from
industry and the program alumni were the main tools
for the assessment of PEOs and POs, while faculty
and senior exit students assessed only the
POs. Assessment of PEOs and POs show normally the
strengths and weaknesses of the whole educational
process. Subsequently, continuous improvement
strategies were set to elaborate on the strengths and to
overcome the weaknesses. The improvement process
should describe also the available documentation
processes commonly used in making decisions
regarding program improvement. The implementation
of these strategies was made by revising the
curriculum, teaching methods, lab facilities … etc [5].
In this paper, the development process of the
PEOs, POs and the continuous improvement process
are presented. The difficulties encountered during this
process, in addition to the result of continuous
improvement conducted for mechanical engineering
(ME) program, are discussed. In the following, we
will focus only on the ME program as an example of
the undergraduate engineering programs of our
college.
II.
ME PROGRAM EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES
(PEOS)
In 2005, Qassim University has adopted a new
system called the Preparatory Year Program (PYP) in
which the new university students enrolled for one
complete academic year studying math, physics,
English language and other general courses before
they are eligible to admit to the scientific colleges. On
this basis, the College of Engineering decided to
modify its academic programs in order to be in
alignment with the new system and job market
requirements, taking into consideration, the
recommendations raised by the engineering
educational conference held by College of
Engineering, Qassim University in 2006. In 2006, the
Faculty of the ME department had revised the PEOs
of the undergraduate program and finalized them to
take a final form that published in different ways such
as the student handbook [6] and appears in the college
website [7] and in the student displaying boards in the
department building. This process occurred through a
series of faculty meetings along with the available
program constituencies including: expected employers
of our graduates, Faculty of the ME department,
Professional Advisory Boards, and University
Council, and work of several committees and subcommittees on program development. In addition, the
pioneer engineers in Saudi Arabia were asked for their
inputs on the suggested objectives. The PEOs are
developed to be consistent with the mission of the
College of Engineering, Qassim University, that stated
as: "The College of Engineering seeks to meet the
needs of the Saudi society and the region with
outstanding engineering programs in education,
research, and community service" [5,7] and in
accordance with the ABET accreditation criteria.
The ME Program Committee has finally
formulated the following objectives for the ME
program as follow. The ME graduates should:
1. Possess the skills and knowledge necessary for
work environment including design, installation,
operation, maintenance and inspection of
mechanical and energy systems.
2. Utilize information technology; data analysis; and
mathematical, computational, and modernexperimental techniques in solving practical
problems.
3. Fit in various working environments through
effective communication skills and the ability to
work in multidisciplinary teams.
4. Engage in life-long learning and gain skills to
promote professional development, and career
planning based on social and professional ethics.
It was planned to periodically collect and
document the needs and feedbacks of the program's
various constituencies regarding the program
objectives as will be outlined in section 5. Based on
these needs and feedbacks, the PEOs are evaluated to
check that the established objectives significantly
reflect the constituencies' needs.
III.
ME PROGRAM OUTCOMES (POS)
The ME program outcomes describe knowledge,
skills and ability of students by the time of their
graduation from ME department. These relate to the
skills, knowledge, and behaviors that students acquire
in their matriculation through the program. The POs
of the ME program support the PEOs and the College
mission. And as mentioned in the preceding section, in
2006 the College of Engineering took the opportunity
and adapted its academic programs in order to be
aligned with the new system that implemented in the
university. At that time, the educational outcomes for
the ME program were established by the Faculty of
ME department in consultation with the available
constituencies. Then, the ME department council
formulated the POs to be closely aligned to the ABET
Criterion 3 (a) through (k) outcomes [2]. In addition,
one extra technical outcome was added to the eleven
ABET outcomes. The POs were presented to various
constituent groups to get their comments and review.
The outcomes of ME program are published on the
college website [7] and listed in the student handbook
[6]. The outcomes of the ME Program are as below:
At the time of graduation, our students will have:
a. An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics,
science, and engineering;
b. An ability to design and conduct experiments, as
well as to analyze and interpret data;
c. An ability to design a system, component, or
process to meet desired needs within realistic
constraints;
d. An ability to function on teams;
e. An ability to identify, formulate, and solve
engineering problems;
f. An understanding of professional and ethical
responsibility;
g. An ability to communicate effectively;
h. The broad education necessary to understand the
impact of engineering solutions in a global,economic, environmental, and societal context;
i. A recognition of the need for, and an ability to
engage in, life-long learning;
j. A knowledge of contemporary issues;
k. An ability to use the techniques, skills, and
modern engineering tools necessary for
engineering practice; and
l. The ability to work professionally in both
thermal and mechanical systems areas including
the design and realization of such systems.
The program outcomes from (a) to (k) are in full
consistence with the stated ABET outcomes Criterion
3 [2], while program outcome (l) adopts the ME
specific criteria. It is planned to periodically evaluate
the POs and revise them if needed in order to
continuously improve their compatibility with the
program objectives and their achievability. The
process described in section 4 shows the methodology
of periodically evaluating, revising and improving the
program outcomes.
A.
Relationship of Program Outcomes to Program
Educational Objectives
A summary of the relationship between the
established outcomes and the objectives of the ME
program is shown in Table A.1 in Appendix A. In
order to quantify this relationship, three correlation
levels are used. A solid square indicates the strongest
correlation between a specific outcome and a given
educational objective. The next level of correlation,
marked by a half-filled square, represents lower level
correlation. An open square indicates no correlation.
As shown in the table, every PEO is correlated with at
least one program outcome with strong degree of
correlation.
B.
Relationship of Courses in the Curriculum to the
Program Outcomes
A summary of the relationship between the
curriculum courses and the established outcomes and
the ME program is shown in Tables A.2 in appendix
A. The data in this tables indicate the level of
contribution of courses in the ME curriculum to the
outcomes (a) – (k) and specific ME outcome (l). The
course syllabi in the self study reports [5,7] show
clearly that each course outcome fulfills part of the
requirements of the program outcomes.
IV.
THE CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT PROCESS
(CIP)
A.
Development and Implementation
The outcomes assessment process means here
that: "The systematic collection, review, and use of
information about educational programs undertaken
for the purpose of improving student learning and
development" [4]. In our programs, the continuous
improvement process was basically based on an
integrated set of strategies aimed at: establishing and
implementing a structured process that translates
educational objectives into measurable outcomes,
performance criteria and then specifies feedback
tracks for corrective actions, Figure 1 [8,9]. On the
basis of this understanding, the ME department
provides the necessary assessment training on the
plan, creating an assessment tools, and identifying and
reviewing key institutional practices to ensure that
they are aligned with the assessment process. The
conceptual model of the assessment plan used in the
department is shown in Figure 2. The process is
basically an application of the methodology known as
"Plan-Do-Check-Act" (PDCA). This plan describes
two interacting assessment loops. These are often
referred to as the "slow loop" and the "fast loop" [10].
The slow loop refers to the process by which the
department examines its program outcomes. During
the first few years of the assessment process (20062007), the ME department reviewed its program
outcomes and course outcomes each year. After the
first few years, the program and course outcomes
became an accurate reflection of the current program
objectives. The program outcomes and course
outcomes were then only reviewed and updated every
five years to reflect changes in the curriculum. The
PEOs and POs were reviewed by ME Program
Committee in spring 2006.
Performance Criteria
Learning Outcome
Program Educational Objective
The ME graduates should fit in various
working environments through effective
communication skills and the ability to
work in multidisciplinary teams.
An ability to
function on
team
 Research and gather
information
 Fulfill duties of team
roles
 Shares in work of team
 Listens to other
teammates
Figure 1 Transferring the educational objectives to outcomes and then to performance criteria.
The fast loop refers to the process by which we
assess the degree to which our students and graduates
achieve the educational program objectives developed
in the slow loop. Data are gathered at least once a
year. For each round in the fast loop, these data are
summarized by the Analysis Committee in a general
assessment report. The assessment results are then
reviewed by the ME Subject Committees and the
conclusions and recommendations drawn are added to
the report. These results and conclusions are then
presented to the ME Program Committee and then to
the ME faculty in special meeting for this purpose.
Implementation of changes in courses is discussed by
the Subject Committee members who are the course
coordinators in the required ME courses.
Recommended changes are then presented by the
course coordinator to the course caucus and discussed
in a caucus meeting. The course coordinator then
discusses the implementation of course changes with
the instructors of the course for that year. Some
recommendations that come from the assessment
report may be changes the curriculum. Curriculum
changes are discussed by the Subject Committees and
any specific curriculum change proposal is written and
submitted to the Program Committee for review
before being presented to the ME faculty for
endorsement. In the assessment plan, the fast loop has
been simplified and the terminology reduced to only
the essential phrases so that all faculty and
constituencies can easily understand the process.
It is planned to periodically evaluate the level of
achievement of the Program Outcomes and take
appropriate actions towards continuous improvement.
This process normally has the following steps:
a) Setting performance criteria,
b) Collecting data and measuring of the program
outcomes,
c) Reviewing,
analyzing
and
identifying
improvement actions,
d) Implementing the improvement actions, and
e) Evaluating the effectiveness of improvement
actions and changes.
B.
Achievement of Program Outcomes
1) Assessment Process
Over the course of every academic year,
substantial data are generated through our assessment
processes using the available assessment tools. The
methods used for measuring the achievement of the
program outcomes are classified into two categories in
which each one of the program outcomes must be
assessed by at least one direct and one indirect of the
following measures [5]:
a) Direct performance measures which include:
i. Student performance evaluations (exams,
quizzes, assignments, reports … etc.),
ii. Instructors evaluation report,
iii. Evaluation of the Graduation Project,
iv. Evaluation of the summer/co-op training, and
v. Outcomes Achievement Exam (a comprehensive
exam that consists of at least 150 questions and covers
all the courses in the curriculum and graduate should
take it by their graduation).
b) Indirect performance measures which include:
i. Surveys: students' surveys, exit students
surveys, and training surveys,
ii. Reports from the Professional Advisory
Board,
iii. Reports from the External Visitor, and
iv. Reports from the Student Advisory Board
2) Level of achievement for the program
outcomes (Assessment Criteria)
In the ME program, the level of achievement for
the program outcomes from (a) to (l) are assessed and
then evaluated against the following criteria [5]:
a) For the group of selected courses specified in
Table 1 (these specified courses are highly
correlated to the specified outcome), the
percentage of student passing the course is not
less than 60% and average final grade is not
less than 60%.
b) Mean rating* of the responses from the student
surveys regarding each outcome are not less
than 3.5 out of 5 for the courses specified in the
previous item "l".
c) Mean rating* of the responses from the senior
exit surveys regarding each outcome are not
less than 3.7 out of 5.
d) No negative comments are reported regarding
each outcome from the course instructors and
exam committees.
e) No negative comments are reported regarding
each outcome in the reports of the Students
Advisory Board, Professional Advisory Board
and External Visitor.
f) The average grading of the students Outcomes
achievement Exam regarding the questions
related to each outcome is not less than 2.4 out
of 4 (60%). This criterion is not applicable for
the outcomes d and g.
g) The feedback from rubrics analysis of
graduation project and summer training for the
graduated students regarding each outcome
are not less than 2.5 out of 5.
h) For the recent batch of graduate, the average
rate** calculated using rubric analysis of the
specified courses in Table 1 is not less than 2.5
out of 4.
* This rating for a grading scale of 5: Strongly Agree, 4: Agree, 3:
Uncertain, 2: Disagree, 1: Strongly Disagree.
** This rate is based on the credit hour and grade of each course
Mission
Program
Outcomes
Educational
Objectives
Assess and
Evaluate
Feedback for
Continuous
Improvement
Evaluation:
Interpretation
of Evidence
Measurable Performance
Criteria
Program
Constituencies
Assessment: Data Collection
and analysis
Educational
Practices/Strategies
Students
Graduates
Indirect Measures
Direct Measures
Figure 2 Flow chart of the continuous improvement process
TABLE 1
THE HIGHLY CORRELATED COURSES* CORRESPONDING
TO EACH PROGRAM OUTCOME
Program
Outcomes
a
b
c
d
e
Highly correlated
courses with each
POs
GE 104, GE 202,
ME 241, ME 251,
ME 463, GE 105
ME 383, ME 384,
ME 352, ME 363
ME 341, ME 441,
ME 472, ME 473,
ME 330, ME 372
ME 384, ME 464,
ME 352, ME 363
ME 362, ME 373,
ME 481, ME 372
Specified courses for
the recent graduate
batch
ME251, ME361,
ME372, ME341
ME352, ME361,
ME464, ME383
ME341, ME361,
ME441, ME461
ME341, ME352,
ME361, ME382
ME251, ME341,
ME361, ME371
ME 352, ME 371,
ME352, ME371,
ME 381, ME 380
ME382, ME383
ME 383, ME 384,
ME241, ME352,
g
ME 352, ME 363
ME464, ME362
ME 372, ME 471,
ME251, ME361,
h
ME 330, ME 360
ME471, ME331
ME 371, ME 382,
ME371, ME382,
i
ME 473, ME 351
ME498, PHYS104
GE 104, GE401, ME ME371, ME382,
j
380
ME498, GE401
ME 461, ME 464,
ME241, ME361,
k
GE 105, ME 330,
ME461, ME464
ME 380
ME 461, ME 464,
ME241, ME341,
l
ME 471,ME 473, ME ME361, ME372
481
* All the details regarding ME courses codes and title are
found in Table A.2
f
3) Results of the Assessment Process
To measure the achievement of the program
outcomes, the previous assessment criteria were
applied on the collected data. It is found that
significant achievement of the program outcomes
were obtained as in the following results [5]:
a) As shown in Table A.3, the percentage of
student passing the courses are more than 60%
and average final grades are more than 60%
for all the courses except for the courses ME
251, ME 362, and ME 472. These results
satisfy the first assessment criterion.
b) As shown in Figure 3. Mean rating of the
responses from the senior exit surveys
regarding each outcome are at least 3.9 out of
5 for the courses specified in Table 1.
c) No negative comments were reported
regarding the program outcomes from the
course instructor and graduation project exam
committees.
d) No negative comments were reported
regarding the program outcomes from the
Students Advisory Board Report and
Professional Advisory Board report. On the
other hand the External Visitor had some
comments regarding the written reporting
projects.
e) The rubrics analysis applied to the outcomes
achievement exam regarding the program
outcomes resulted in an average of 2.9 out of 4,
shown in Figure 4.
f) The feedback from rubrics analysis of
graduation project and summer training for the
graduated students regarding the program
outcomes resulted in an average of 2.93 out of
4, as demonstrated in Figure 5.
g) For the recent batch of graduates, the average
rate calculated using rubric analysis of the
specified courses in Table 1 is 2.83 out of 4, as
demonstrated in Figure 6.
Figure 4 The average rate of the rubrics analysis
applied to the outcomes achievement exam.
Figure 5 Feedback from rubrics analysis of
graduation project and summer training for the
recent batch of graduated students.
5
4
3
2
1
0
l
k
j
i h g f e d c b a
Figure 3 The mean rating of the responses from
the student surveys for each program outcome.
Figure 6 The average rate of the specified courses
in Table A.1 for recent batch of graduated students.
4) Closing the Assessment Loop and Final
Conclusion:
The ME Program Committee evaluated the
previous assessments and found that most of the
outcomes assessment results met or exceeded the
stated criteria. This is summarized in the following:
a) The percentage of student passing the course
and average final grade:
As it can be noticed from the tables under each
outcome, the percentage of student passing courses
and average final grades of courses are mostly higher
than the criteria (60%). The exceptions were courses
ME 251, ME 363 and ME 472. These courses will be
in focus in the next assessments to find out whether is
it a phenomenon or it was just an accidental case. It
worthily mentioned that, the final result for each
course is an accurate and direct judgment for the
achievement of the course outcomes, since through
each course there are accumulated steps of
assessments including quizzes, reports, oral
presentations, home works, midterm and final exams.
These assure that only students who passed the
courses have achieved the course outcomes.
b) Mean rating of the responses from the student
surveys:
The results of student's surveys for the selected
courses regarding each outcome are not less than 3.5
out of 5. However, for ME 341, ME 372, ME 351 and
ME 471, the planned criteria were not achieved. The
ME program committee decided not to take immediate
action and they will monitor these courses in the
coming semesters. In general, this proves that the
students were mostly satisfied about their achievement
of the program outcomes.
c) Mean rating of the responses from the senior
exit surveys:
The results of senior exit surveys demonstrated
under each outcome show that the mean ratings were
higher than 3.7. This prove that the graduate student
were fully satisfied about their achievement of the
program outcomes.
d) Instructors and exam committees feed backs:
The ME subject committees have reviewed the
feedbacks and reports from courses instructors. This
review ended to non substantial comments regarding
any of the planned outcomes. Some suggestions of
minor changes were only reported. These suggested
changes were only to improve the courses practicing
and management.
e)
Reports of Students Advisory Board,
Professional Advisory Board and External
Visitor:
The ME program committee has thoroughly
reviewed the reports from the Students Advisory
Board, Professional Advisory Board and External
Visitor. The review has ended to the conclusion that
these boards were mostly satisfied with the program
outcomes and their achievement. However, there was
a comment raised from the external visitor regarding
written reporting (outcome g). This comment was
previously observed by the ME faculty and a previous
action of adapting two new engineering design
courses, GE 211 and GE 213, was made. These
courses are planned to improve the student ability for
oral and written communications. Recently, all faculty
members and specially the graduation projects
supervisors were directed to give more consideration
of written reporting.
f) Average grading of the students outcomes
achievement exam:
For the conducted Outcomes Achievement
Exam, senior students optionally attended the exam.
The rubrics analysis used for assessment the outcome
achievement exams was resulted in average values
higher than or equal to 2.4. This means that all
students attended the exam were successfully
answered more than 60% of questions which measures
the ME program outcomes in holistic manner.
g) Graduation project and summer training for
the graduated students:
The analysis committee has assessed the
feedbacks from the faulty member who involved in
the graduation project and summer training regarding
the achievement of program outcomes for each
graduated student. On the basis of rubrics analysis the
committee has ended to the results demonstrated in
Figure 6. As shown in the figure the minimum average
of both graduation project and summer training
regarding each outcome were not less than 2.5 out of
4. This assures that our graduated students have
achieved the ME program outcomes.
i) Specified courses for the recent graduated
batch
The first batch from the ME program was
graduated at the end of Fall 2008 (February 2009). For
this batch, specified courses (shown in Table 1) have
been analyzed using rubric analysis. The analysis
results are shown in Figure 5 which indicates that the
outcome f has an average rate less than the required
criteria (2.4 out of 4). This result is also confirmed by
the previous action of offering the two new
engineering design courses, GE 211 and GE 213, and
Coop training in our new curriculum. This action is
supposed to improve the achievement of outcome f.
V.
ABET VISIT
The programs committees prepared the self study
reports (SSRs) of their programs and then submitted
them to ABET on July 2009. The SSRs of our
engineering
programs
showed
significant
achievements of the programs outcomes for students
and graduates. In December 2009, ABET team visited
the college and evaluated all the programs and
inspected the documents and facilities of the college
and the university. In their exit statement, the ABET
team stated that no observed weaknesses were found
and just three concerns were reported in the criteria:
1. Program Educational Objectives, 2. Curriculum,
and 3. Facilities
Corrective actions were made to fix the raised
concerns during the next semesters, right after the
ABET visit [11]. As result of these processes, all the
programs of the college of engineering has been
successfully accredited by ABET after receiving a
formal notification in August 2010. While College of
Engineering, Qassim University, is not the first to
embark on the accreditation path for its engineering
programs, the realization that it is a new one and it
was started since seven year indicates how much is the
effort that paid to reach this accomplishment. VI.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This paper presented the experiences gained in
developing and implementing a strategic plan that
include objectives, outcomes and continuous
improvement process that based on outcome-based
assessment for the engineering programs at the
College of Engineering, Qassim University. The
results of the application of both direct and indirect
measurements have provided significant evidences of
the improved teaching and learning. The above
detailed assessments gave good impression regarding
the achievement of the program outcomes. The
implementation of this outcome-based assessment
process has effected a definite change in curricular
content, facilities activities and assessment practices
that the students are experiencing. Corrective actions
have identified to address key issues such as program
objectives, facilities and increasing the math and basic
sciences in the curriculum. The application of these
strategies has achieved a significant success as evident
by a successful ABET site visit.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank all the faculty
members and staff of the College of Engineering at
Qassim University, Saudi Arabia, for their valuable
assistance in collecting and preparing the assessment
data and for the discussion of these data.
REFERENCES
[1]
D. DiBiasio and N.A. Mello, "Multilevel Assessment of
Program Outcomes: Assessing a Nontraditional Study
Abroad Program in the Engineering Disciplines", the
Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, Vol. 10, Fall 2004,
pp. 237-252.
[2] Engineering Accreditation Commission, Engineering Criteria
2000, Third Edition, Accreditation Board for Engineering
and Technology, Inc., Baltimore, MD, (1997).
[3] L.J. Shuman, M. Besterfield-Sacre, J. McGourty, "The ABET
"Professional Skills" – Can They be Taught? Can They Be
Assessed?", J. Engineering Education, Jan. 2005, pp.41-55.
[4] B. Abu-Jdayil, H. Al-Attar, M. Al-Marzouqi, "Outcomes
Assessment in Chemical and Petroleum Engineering
Programs", 3rd Int. Symposium for Engineering Education,
University College Cork, Ireland, 2010.
[5] "Self-Study Report", Mechanical Engineering Department,
College of Engineering, Qassim University, Saudi Arabia,
July 1, 2009.
[6] Student Handbook, College of Engineering, Qassim University, Buraidah, Saudi Arabia, 2009.
[7] College of Engineering, Qassim University, website:http://
www.qec.edu.sa/english/
[8] McGourty, J. "Strategies for developing, implementing, and
institutionalizing a comprehensive assessment process for
engineering education, Proceeding of the 28th Frontiers in
Education Conference, (1998), pp. 117-121.
[9] Rompelman, O., "Assessment of student learning: evolution
of objectives in engineering education and the consequences
for assessment, European Journal of Engineering Education,
Vol. 25 no. 4, (2000), pp. 339-350.
[10] Rogers, G.M., Assessment of student learning outcomes,
2007, http://www.abet.org/assessment. shtml#Assessment of
student learning outcomes.
[11] "Response to the draft statement of engineering accreditation
commission: Action taken to waive weaknesses documented
in the draft statement”, Mechanical Engineering Department,
College of Engineering, Qassim University, Saudi Arabia,
March 2010.
APPENDIX A
TABLE A.1
Program
Educational
Objectives
(PEOs)
MAPPING BETWEEN THE PEOS AND POS FOR THE ME PROGRAM
ME Program Outcomes
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
PEO# 1
PEO# 2
























PEO# 3












PEO# 4












 Strongly correlated,  Somewhat correlated,  Non-correlated
TABLE A.2
MAPPING OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING COURSES TO THE PROGRAM OUTCOMES: THE TABLE INCLUDES THE REQUIRED
AND ELECTIVE COURSES.
ME Program Outcomes
Elective courses in Major
Required courses in Major
Course Codes and Names
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
GE 104
Basics of Engineering Drawing












GE 105
Basics of Engineering
Technology












GE 201
Statics












GE 202
Dynamics












ME 241
Mechanical Drawing












ME 251
Materials Engineering












ME 330
Manufacturing Processes












ME 340
Mechanical Design-1












ME 343
Measurements and
Instrumentation












ME 351
Mechanics of Materials












ME 352
Mechanics of Materials Lab












ME 360
Mechanics of Machinery












ME 363
Mechanics of Machinery Lab












ME 371
Thermodynamics -1












ME 372
Thermodynamics – 2












ME 374
Heat and Mass Transfer












ME 380
Fluid Mechanics












ME 383
Thermo-fluid Laboratory -1












ME 384
Thermo-fluid Laboratory -2












ME 400
Senior Design Project












ME 467
System Dynamics and
Automatic Control












ME 468
System Dynamics and
Automatic Control Lab












ME 423
Renewable Energy












ME 425
Solar Energy












ME 431
Tool Manufacturing












ME 441
Mechanical Design -2












ME 453
Modern Engineering materials












ME 455
Corrosion Engineering












ME 462
Mechatronics












ME 463
Mechanical vibrations












ME 466
Robotics












ME 470
Thermal Power Plants












ME Program Outcomes
Course Codes and Names
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
ME 474
Refrigeration Engineering












ME 475
Air Conditioning












ME 480
Turbo Machinery












ME 482
Compressible Fluids












ME 483
Pumping Machinery












ME 490
Selected Topics in Mechanical
Engineering
The relation depends on the selected topics however it must be at least
strongly correlated to the outcomes j and l
 Course Codes are typical to those appeared in the ME Curriculum
 Strongly correlated,  Somewhat correlated,  Non-correlated
TABLE A.3
THE AVERAGE FINAL GRADES, PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS PASSING THE COURSE AND MEAN RATING FROM STUDENT
SURVEYS OF THE SELECTED COURSES.
Course
No. of students
studying the course
Average final
grade
Percentage of students
passing the course
Mean rating from
student surveys
GE 104
144
86
95.8
4.39
GE 105
76
73.7
98.6
4.06
GE 202
34
77.7
97.1
4.25
ME 241
52
81.6
97.2
4.12
ME 251
31
53.8
67.7
3.75
ME 351
35
72
94.5
N/A
ME 352
32
64.1
84.3
3.71
ME 330
13
80.3
100
3.69
ME 341
17
70
100
3.40
ME 360
18
83.8
100
N/A
ME 362
6
56.6
83.3
3.75
ME 363
11
81
100
4.27
ME 371
24
70.13
75
N/A
ME 372
7
70
85.7
3.14
ME 373
8
74.1
100
3.87
ME 380
14
74.1
92.8
4.29
ME 381
7
74.86
85
4.67
ME 384
6
72.1
100
4
ME 441
12
75
100
3.67
ME 461
14
71.6
92.8
4.57
ME 462
5
75
100
4.80
ME 463
11
81
100
4.4
ME 464
14
78.5
100
4.36
ME 471
6
65.6
66.6
N/A
ME 472
9
51.8
55.5
4.17
ME 473
10
80.1
100
3.87
ME 481
9
83.8
100
4
GE 401
15
72.7
93.3
4.50