The Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) exam, part one of the two-part exam for licensure as a Professional Engineer (PE), can be used as an assessment tool for university engineering schools and their engineering libraries. By analyzing their engineering students' FE exam results, as provided by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES), university engineering libraries can assess their collections and determine if they meet the needs of their engineering students. This paper will provide a case study of how to use the NCEES Subject Matter Reports to evaluate engineering programs, departments, curriculums, courses, and library collections. More than 40,000 engineering seniors took the FE exam in 2019. As the only nationwide engineering exam for college seniors, the FE exam is an excellent resource for feedback on how well students meet the outcomes prescribed by selective Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Inc. (ABET) accreditation criteria. The NCEES offers institutions free reports that break down the performance of their students on the FE exam. These reports, called Subject Matter Reports, are useful for institutions to evaluate their departments over time, revising curriculums as necessary, and comparing their institution to their peer institutions. Distributed biannually each January and July, the reports provide in-depth analyses of how students performed on the FE exam relative to peers from other ABET-accredited programs who declared the same major and who chose the same discipline-specific exam. For assessment purposes, the focus of the exam is on performance in specific subjects rather than overall passing rates. An engineering program that requires all their students to take the exam, regardless of whether they require students to pass the exam to graduate, can use the exam results as a curriculum evaluation tool.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jean Bossart (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: