Success criteria can be described in a variety of ways. The following are only two examples:
Example 1:
The project will be deemed successful once the following criteria have been met:
- The requirements identified by the various engineering and engineering technology disciplines in Phase I have been included in the engineering economic analysis curriculum.
- Engineering economic analysis material is permanently incorporated into courses such as senior design in each of the eight engineering departments and in the engineering technology program at Johnstown.
- The Engineering Economic Analysis Template is in place on the engineering economic analysis course web page and is being successfully applied.
- The eight engineering departments and the engineering technology program are satisfied with the integration of engineering economic analysis material throughout the engineering curriculum.
- The University of Pittsburgh’s ability to meet ABET outcomes for engineering school graduates has been increased. This includes outcomes such as students’ ability to “identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems” and to “understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context.”
The first four criteria can be measured by a survey of the Undergraduate Coordinators in the eight engineering disciplines and at Johnstown. ABET criteria (the fifth success criterion) are measured via customized surveys developed in Oakland and administered by the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs’ office and through the ABET self-assessment process where programs are required to assess their adherence to the ABET criteria. – Professors Kim LaScola Needy and Karen Bursic (Engineering)
Example 2:
To determine the degree of this project’s success, we will employ two “blind” readers, who will evaluate three sets of undergraduate essays: one from a composition class taught with traditional methods in the Fall of 2001 by Ms. Sullivan, one from the class taught with the innovations described above in the Fall 2002 by Ms. Sullivan and Dr. Poulakos, and one from a class taught in the Fall of 2002 by another writing instructor. Presuming an enrollment of 19 students per class, each “blind” reader will evaluate three essays (two revised essays and the final essay) from each student (thus a total of 171 essays). The evaluators will be using a graduated scale that yields numerical scores on such categories as language mechanics, organization, development of ideas, clarity, coherence, diction, and style.
In addition, we will employ two “blind” listeners/viewers, who will evaluate three sets of undergraduate video-taped oral presentations (three presentations per set): one from a public speaking class taught in the Spring of 2002, one from the class taught by Dr. Poulakos and Ms. Sullivan, and one taught in the Fall of 2002 by another instructor. Each “blind” listener/viewer will evaluate 171 video-taped presentations (two revised and the final presentation) using a graduated scale that yields numerical scores on the categories mentioned above, as well as such additional categories as oral fluency, poise, eye-contact, gestures, and the like.
Moreover, we will administer a survey to the class that uses the proposed innovations. In this survey, students will be asked to compare their experience of writing and speaking under the “innovative” conditions of the project with their experience of writing and speaking under other, more traditional methods. – Professor John Poulakos (FAS/Communication)
