Mechanical Engineering Curricula:  A Follow Up Study For The Future Effects Of Abet Ec2000

Wayne Whiteman

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2008 Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Publication Date: June 22, 2008
Start Date: June 22, 2008
End Date: June 25, 2008
ISSN: 2153-5965
Conference Session: Accreditation Issues
Tagged Division: Mechanical Engineering
Page Count: 14
Page Numbers: 13.879.1 - 13.879.14
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--3102
Permanent URL: https://strategy.asee.org/3102
Download Count: 373

Request a correction

Paper Authors

biography

Wayne Whiteman Georgia Institute of Technology

visit author page

Wayne E. Whiteman is a Senior Academic Professional and Director of the Office of Student Services in the Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology. He received his BS degree from the United States Military Academy in 1979, a master’s degree from MIT in 1987, and a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from Georgia Tech in 1996. Whiteman is a retired Colonel in the U.S. Army and completed 24 years of active military service. He served on the West Point faculty from 1987 to 1990, and 1998 to 2003. He has been at Georgia Tech since 2003.

visit author page

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract
NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract

Mechanical Engineering Curricula: A Follow-up Study for the Future Effects of ABET EC2000

Abstract

The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) is recognized by the U.S. Department of Education as the sole agency responsible for accreditation of educational programs leading to degrees in engineering, engineering technology, and related engineering areas. In the late 1990s, engineering programs began transitioning to a new Engineering Criteria 2000 (EC2000). By 2001, all engineering programs were required to be accredited under the new criteria. The philosophy of Engineering Criteria 2000 is to allow institutions and programs to define their mission and objectives to meet the needs of their constituents and enable program differentiation. Emphasis is placed on continuous improvement of programs based on the input of constituents and a process that links outcomes and assessment to program objectives. This current paper is a follow-up study to a preliminary study conducted by the author in 2000 that looked at the initial effects of ABET EC2000. The earlier study examined selected mechanical engineering programs to discern the impact of EC2000 on curriculum development during the initial implementation phase of the new criteria. Data on the layout and composition of mechanical engineering curricula for nine schools in the United States with Ph.D. programs and nine schools without Ph.D. programs was presented and is updated in this current work. Current results are also compared to a study by Robert E. Mates from the State University of New York at Buffalo entitled a Survey of Undergraduate ME Programs, conducted in 1987. The conclusions identify changes that have occurred in mechanical engineering curricula as the EC2000 assessment process has matured.

Introduction

This paper is a follow-up study to a preliminary study conducted in 2000 of selected mechanical engineering programs to discern the impact of the Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology’s new Engineering Criteria 2000 (EC2000)1 on curriculum development.2 The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) is recognized by the U.S. Department of Education as the sole agency responsible for accreditation of educational programs leading to degrees in engineering, engineering technology, and related engineering areas. All engineering programs were required to be accredited under the new EC2000 starting in the fall of 2001. The philosophy of EC2000 is to allow institutions and programs to uniquely define their mission and objectives to meet the needs of their constituents and enable program differentiation. Emphasis is placed on continuous improvement of programs based on the input of constituents and a process that links outcomes and assessment to program objectives.

The earlier research established a baseline for selected mechanical engineering programs at the beginning of EC2000 implementation. This follow-on study compares results with the data from the paper in 2000 and identifies any changes in curricula as the EC2000 assessment process has matured. The current results are also compared to a study by Robert E. Mates from the State University of New York at Buffalo entitled a Survey of Undergraduate ME Programs, conducted in 1987.3

Citation
Format

Whiteman, W. (2008, June), Mechanical Engineering Curricula: A Follow Up Study For The Future Effects Of Abet Ec2000 Paper presented at 2008 Annual Conference & Exposition, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 10.18260/1-2--3102