An official website of the United States government
Most engineering programs in the United States are accredited by ABET under the guidelines known as EC-2000. The EC-2000 framework is broadly based on the continual quality management (CQM) movement in industry where programs are striving to constantly improve the quality of their output, in this case the skills of graduates. Broadly speaking, ABET evaluates engineering programs on eight different criteria; some are related to processes, some to resources, but those central to CQM are program educational objectives, that define hoped for long-term accomplishments of graduates, and outcomes which articulate what students can do when they graduate. Degree programs must convince ABET they have a documented and effective process to improve outcomes to gain accreditation. CQM of course is not the only framework by which educational development can be framed or measured. This paper explores ABET processes through the lens of the economist Amartya Sen’s capability approach, which is broadly applied in the developing world in areas of inequity, poverty, and human rights. The capability approach is often used when a focus on diverse individuals is desirable for understanding aspects of development. Central to Sen’s approach are capabilities and functionings. Capabilities are the resources and supports in an individual’s environment that provide opportunities to pursue a life they value. Functionings are what they actually become and do. Thus capabilities can be thought of as the potential for functionings; alternatively capabilities are opportunities and functionings are outcomes. This paper compares ABET’s accreditation criteria with a published set of capabilities in education. The comparison shows there are some areas where criteria overlap with capabilities, but also several areas where the overlap is low. The capabilities that aligned most with ABET criteria overlap with engineering epistemologies and a view of students as the ‘product’ of engineering education.
more »
« less
Micro-Scale Reorganization of Student Development in an Engineering Program using the Capabilities Approach
Context: As faculty of engineering degree programs in private liberal-arts universities in the United States the authors are structurally insulated from many immediate crises, but at the leading edge of other, more slowly evolving ones. These slow-motion crises are occurring in the education systems of many developing countries and can be classified as crises of economics, related to the cost and received value of a degree; crises of equity from ongoing and systemic disparities in educational outcomes; and crises of organization arising from contested visions of the purpose of higher education. While lacking the urgency of current water, food, energy, and climate crises, they are no less important since education is both a core capability and functioning for living a life one values. Methodology: To address these persistent and systemic issues this paper reports on an ongoing conceptual reorganization of a degree program using the capability approach. The reorganization entails shifting from the dominant outcomes-based paradigm of engineering education in the United States to an opportunity-based framework that prioritizes student development over human capital. We report on efforts over a two-year time frame to adapt the capability approach to the degree programs in a single engineering department. While much of the application of the capability approach in education has focused on the systemic or macro-scale, in this work we have adopted an ecological metaphor to work across scales, drawing from prior macro-scale work to inform change efforts at micro-scale of a single degree program. Several parallel efforts were required to align the program to a more capability informed model. One was to identify and articulate sets of capabilities across educational scales for a variety of stakeholders, following processes recommended by established capabilities scholars (Robeyns 2017, Walker 2008, Mathebula 2018). A set of potential capabilities were developed by drawing from multiple internal and external influencers of the program. These lists were then iteratively refined based on faculty feedback, ethnographic observations, and case studies before being vetted by student stakeholders using a Q-method approach (Simpson 2018). Another was to find ways to directly engage students with the capabilities-driven transformation structural changes to the curriculum were implemented to elicit reflection. Finally, to ground these efforts in prior student developmental work in engineering education, we revised a model of the capabilities approach that integrates social cognitive career theory (SCCT) (Lent et al. 2002). This model integrated existing educational outcomes with capabilities and functionings, explicating their relationships. The model also emphasized various pedagogical processes used in the degree program and connected them to student development in engineering using social cognitive career theory. Data collection involved modifications to previously validated instruments. Analysis: These development efforts are at a stage where data is still emerging, but have shown the viability of a capability approach as a tool for reconsideration of processes and mission of degree programs. As in other domains where the capability approach has been applied, many of the results emerge from the process itself as normative questions are fore fronted and addressed in a democratic fashion. As a case study in micro-scale application of the capability approach, this paper shows the viability of this framework to engender and assess the highly multidimensional effects the capability approach can have on student learning and well-being in higher education degree programs. This case study discusses ongoing reorganization of a degree program from an outcomes-based paradigm to an opportunity-based framework using the capability approach. Preliminary results show the capability approach is a viable framework for normative reconsideration of processes and missions of degree programs. This works informs use of the capability approach in a localized, small-scale implementation within higher education in the Unites States.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2022271
- PAR ID:
- 10628569
- Publisher / Repository:
- Human Development and Capability Association
- Date Published:
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Location:
- Kolkatta, India
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Most engineering programs in the United States are accredited by ABET under the guidelines known as EC-2000. The EC-2000 framework is broadly based on the continual quality management (CQM) movement in industry where programs are striving to constantly improve the quality of their output, in this case the skills of graduates. Broadly speaking, ABET evaluates engineering programs on eight different criteria; some are related to processes, some to resources, but those central to CQM are program educational objectives, that define hoped for long-term accomplishments of graduates, and outcomes which articulate what students can do when they graduate. Degree programs must convince ABET they have a documented and effective process to improve outcomes to gain accreditation. CQM of course is not the only framework by which educational development can be framed or measured. This paper explores ABET processes through the lens of the economist Amartya Sen’s capability approach, which is broadly applied in the developing world in areas of inequity, poverty, and human rights. The capability approach is often used when a focus on diverse individuals is desirable for understanding aspects of development. Central to Sen’s approach are capabilities and functionings. Capabilities are the resources and supports in an individual’s environment that provide opportunities to pursue a life they value. Functionings are what they actually become and do. Thus capabilities can be thought of as the potential for functionings; alternatively capabilities are opportunities and functionings are outcomes. This paper compares ABET’s accreditation criteria with a published set of capabilities in education. The comparison shows there are some areas where criteria overlap with capabilities, but also several areas where the overlap is low. The capabilities that aligned most with ABET criteria overlap with engineering epistemologies and a view of students as the ‘product’ of engineering education.more » « less
-
Longitudinal analysis of nationwide single and multi-institutional data shows the positive relationship between student educational outcomes and a diverse student population. Various position papers and empirical studies have raised awareness about the importance of diversity in higher education within the academic community and policy makers over the past half century. However, lack of participation by underrepresented students in higher education remains a chronic and multidimensional problem. Mitigating any particular factor and expecting broad based impact has not worked and will not work. The U.S. Department of education suggested some proven, over-arching principles for institutions of higher education to increase diversity, viz.: institutional commitment, diversity at all levels, outreach and recruitment, support services for students, and an inclusive campus environment. While some of these principles can only be addressed at the institutional level, a department or college can adopt scaled versions of these principles and influence the policies at the institutional level. This paper discusses the journey of a school of engineering towards developing strategies for improving equity, inclusion, and diversity in the graduate programs in engineering. In the process, this group of researchers articulated some critical issues that prevent diverse and economically disadvantaged undergraduate students from seeking a graduate degree in engineering. The authors have identified the following major reasons hindering students from pursuing a graduate degree: lack of financial support and resources, fear of the unknown, imposter syndrome, and family pressure to start earning as soon as possible. Each of these areas requires a targeted approach to help diversify the graduate engineering programs. A GVSU team comprised of administrators and faculty members sought to build a comprehensive program that incorporates all of the aforementioned structures and others. This paper describes the development strategy of such a program that culminated with an NSF (National Science Foundation) award.more » « less
-
This practice brief describes a model for pursuing student-led institutional change focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion. While the literature emphasizes the importance of student agency, most diversity and educational initiatives still tend to happen to or for students rather than in partnership with them. Meanwhile, student organizations and student activism are legitimately helping improve the university but amount to uncompensated labor. We highlight the Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Ambassador program, which engages undergraduate engineering students in efforts of student-led institutional change focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion in higher engineering education. Informed by Youth Participatory Action Research, we discuss the challenges and insights associated with five main aspects of the program: (1) monetary support, (2) student selection, (3) training, (4) mentored project work, and (5) impact and communication with the community. Finally, we provide implications from the Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Ambassador program for higher education and engineering education diversity support programs.more » « less
-
This research-to-practice paper describes an experiment designed to understand educational opportunities valued by students. Engineering education has, since the advent of ABET's EC-2000, operated using an outcomes-based paradigm predominantly focused on preparing engineers for the workforce. Engineering departments create curricula based on this paradigm that are more rigid than most other disciplines, thereby limiting the opportunities students have to explore beyond established curricular boundaries. The outcome-based paradigm limits students' agency in engineering education to pursue growth in unique, individual ways. Recognizing these challenges, the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department at Bucknell University is adapting Amartya Sen's Capability Approach, which emphasizes student agency. In contrast to top-down approaches to curriculum design that focus narrowly on students' mastery of defined content areas, we focus on enabling students to develop the abilities needed to live a life aligned with their values. Rather than ensuring students achieve mandated outcomes, the focus is on providing opportunities, which students actively choose to transform into achievements. This study sought to better understand the opportunities that students value. The department first created a capabilities list that classified several opportunities that are of potential importance in engineering education. To gather feedback from students in the department, we offered two focus groups to discuss our capabilities list and a follow-up survey to formally elicit student valuation of capabilities. In addition, we offered an experimental course that promoted an opportunity-based engineering education model that nurtures both academic and personal growth. Student reflections from this class were analyzed using inductive coding with multiple coders, categorizing portions of students' reflections that align with our capabilities list. This study reveals the opportunities students highly regard to be better equipped to live a life they value.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- The DOI is not currently available.
