Faculty-Driven Assessment Spurs Curricular Decision-making (School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science)

Key principles of effective program-level assessment include intentionally aligning activities and measures with program-level student learning outcomes (SLOs) and engaging faculty in meaningful reflection and decision-making. When these elements are in place, assessment becomes more than a reporting requirement—it becomes a tool for continuous improvement that supports student learning and curricular coherence.

The School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science offers a strong example of this kind of intentional, faculty-driven program assessment. As part of its ABET-accredited continuous improvement process, the school collects and analyzes direct evidence of student learning across its five degree programs and three locations (Pullman, Everett, and Bremerton) on a set of unified learning outcomes with performance indicators tailored to each degree program, in targeted courses across the curriculum. The school’s Assessment Committee dedicates nearly two weeks at the end of each spring semester to reviewing student deliverables collected throughout the academic year. This includes evaluating student work using shared rubrics and performance indicators aligned to specific SLOs. The committee’s work is systematic and collaborative, involving multiple raters, norming, and reconciliation processes to ensure consistency and reliability.

One example of this process in action comes from the assessment of EE 321 (Electrical Circuits II), a requirement for Electrical Engineering and Computer Engineering majors, which contributes to the evaluation of SLO 1: the ability to identify, formulate, analyze, and solve complex engineering problems using principles of engineering, computing, science, and mathematics. Faculty collected samples of student exams and applied a structured rubric aligned to performance indicators for this outcome. Two evaluators independently rated each sample on a four-point scale, using quarter-point increments, and calculated average scores to determine whether students met the benchmark of 2.5. This approach provided a detailed and representative view of student performance, with faculty noting that the inclusion of exam-based evidence “painted a much fuller picture” of students’ abilities. The results highlighted persistent challenges with students’ foundational math skills—an issue directly tied to their ability to meet SLO 1. In response, the program reactivated ENGR 107, a previously dormant course designed to strengthen applied math skills through real-world engineering problems. The findings also led to a broader college-level discussion about the general math preparation of the incoming students and on ways to upskill them at the right time. This targeted curricular change reflects a clear example of using direct assessment data to inform action and support student learning.

Faculty engagement is central to the school’s approach. Each year, the school holds a one-day faculty retreat that includes faculty from each campus/location—Pullman, Everett, and Bremerton. During this retreat, the Assessment Committee presents the previous year’s assessment results, and faculty engage in discussion and provide input on SLOs, curriculum, and assessment findings. This retreat serves as a key venue for shared reflection and decision-making. Beyond the retreat and end-of-year review, the Assessment Committee interacts with faculty throughout the academic year—particularly those teaching courses targeted for assessment. This includes coordinating the collection of student work, clarifying assessment expectations, and supporting alignment with program outcomes. Faculty are not only involved in reviewing data but also in making decisions based on assessment findings, such as the reactivation of ENGR 107.

Programs looking to strengthen their own assessment practices may find inspiration in this model. The use of shared rubrics, structured faculty review processes, and multi-campus coordination offers a replicable framework for aligning assessment with learning outcomes and fostering faculty ownership. For more information on strategies for using assessment to inform curriculum, see ACE’s Quick Guide to Using Assessment to Inform Decision-making (PDF) and Use of Assessment Toolkit. ACE is also available to consult with programs interested in developing similar practices; contact us for more information.