Student outcomes are assessed and evaluated on an annual basis through a predefined process. This yearly cycle reaches its culmination with an all-day ABET Retreat, during which the department faculty thoroughly review all assessment data. The primary objectives of this retreat are to determine the extent to which student outcomes are being achieved, assess the effectiveness of ongoing improvement initiatives, and devise action items for continuous improvement based on the assessment results and potential enhancements to student outcomes. Furthermore, the program's educational objectives and the department's mission statement are subject to review and possible modifications, guided by discussions and consensus among the faculty. All full-time departmental staff participates in the annual assessment and evaluation process by actively participating in the ABET Retreat and serving on one of three working committees.

Every year, an overview of assessment results is shared with the AE Industry Board and student representatives during the department's annual Industry Board Meeting. The AE program has been following the outcome-based education approach to obtain future ABET accreditation. This approach aligns with ABET's accreditation requirements and has been implemented over the past few years. Under this approach, the program faculty are responsible for establishing Student Outcomes (SOs) for their courses, evaluating students' achievements at the end of the course, and suggesting improvements for their courses. Additionally, various surveys are conducted to collect feedback from both students and staff members. Recently, the program has transitioned to ABET's updated criteria, which have been in effect for the past year, in response to the changing ABET requirements. Overall, these activities and efforts have played crucial roles in upholding the high quality of education provided by our program.

The success of the AE program relies on several factors: the student's enrollment, their interaction with the academic supervisor for guidance, and their ongoing academic progress tracked through the Ibn El-Haytham system. Additionally, during the student's last two semesters, they participate in an interview with the academic supervisor for career advising. To measure the achievement of Student Outcomes (SOs), the AE Program employs various processes. These processes are designed to ensure efficient and effective data collection, as well as evaluation methods that contribute to continuous improvement. To accomplish these objectives, the program conducts two types of assessments: direct and indirect. Surveys are utilized for indirect assessment, while direct assessment relies on evaluations based on student coursework.

To ensure effective assessment both now and in the future, the program faculty have proposed and implemented an ambitious assessment process, as outlined in Figure 1. However, for the current reporting, only assessments that rely on course marks (work) and course surveys are being utilized. The remaining assessment tools depicted in Figure 1 will be implemented as needed in the future.

The direct assessment of outcomes typically relies on coursework and utilizes a variety of tools, such as final exams, midterm exams, quizzes, projects, laboratory work, assignments, presentations, and reports. The specific assessment tools, however, vary from course to course. To prepare for the assessment and evaluation of our courses and program, the entire program faculty, along with assistant staff members and students, conducted a series of brainstorming meetings called the ABET Retreat. During these meetings, they discussed various issues related to the accreditation process. These issues encompassed a range of topics, including but not limited to:

For our indirect assessment, we conduct various surveys. The Course Student Survey is administered towards the end of each course. To collect the desired outcomes, formal written surveys are given to students after AE courses. These surveys are conducted by faculty members in their respective classes and ABET retreat sessions. Additionally, Alumni and Industrial Board surveys are periodically conducted at the end of each academic year to assess program eligibility the indirect assessment occurs every semester.

Table 1 shows the connections between student results and the aforementioned evaluation methods. Five or more tools are used to evaluate each result. This method avoids over-correcting any potential data inconsistencies in a certain academic year and enables the department to assess student achievements from several angles. The Continuous Improvement Committee must collaborate with the relevant faculty and personnel to prepare and deliver a plan for corrective action to the AE faculty within sixty days after the department's ABET Retreat if a goal achievement level is not attained. The team will have access to copies of all data during the site visit.

The AE program employs various tools and processes to assess and evaluate the achievement of its Student Outcomes (SOs). These processes are utilized to gather essential data required for the assessments. Subsequently, evaluation takes place by interpreting the data to determine the level of success in achieving the outcomes. The outcomes of both the assessment and evaluation processes are ultimately utilized to enhance the program continuously. The steps involved in the assessment, evaluation, and feedback for the program's continuous improvement follow the following approach:

Assessment tools for measuring student outcomes (SOs) can be classified as either direct or indirect methods of data collection. Direct assessment of SOs typically involves evaluating coursework, while indirect assessment relies on surveys. During this step, it is necessary to design survey forms and formulate appropriate questions to gather specific and relevant data. Once the data is collected, it is analyzed and compared to pre-determined performance indicators, which constitute the evaluation process. The evaluation focuses on assessing the extent to which the data aligns with the established targets. This analysis serves as the driving force behind continuous improvement processes.