2009
Guide to Rating ABET Professional Skills
Washington State University
College of Engineering and Architecture and the Center for Teaching, Learning and Technology
Name:_____________________________ Date: ______________ Type of Student Work:__________________
Check one: Faculty ___ Student ___ Professional in Field ___
Instructions:
a) Read and discuss the ABET skill definitions and criteria below with your rating group.
b) Skim the student work without making written comments to get a sense for how the student group addressed the ABET skill(s).
c) Review the student work again, marking passages where the skill(s) are exhibited, for example, “3f.” A given passage may
exhibit more than one skill simultaneously.
d) Circle descriptors in the criteria below that express how well the student work as a whole exhibit a given skill, such as ABET Skill
3f, “Students clearly frame the professional challenge and embedded issues.”
e) In the comment boxes, note the rationale for your rating. For example, “S7 did well on identifying professional challenges (score
of 4), but the student group did not build on her ideas,” or “The group did very well (score of 5) at framing the main issue, but
did not link it to ethical considerations (score of 1), so I averaged these to a score of 3 on Skill 3f.”
ABET Skill 3f. Understanding of professional and ethical responsibility
Students clearly frame the issue(s) raised in the scenario and begin the process of resolution. Students identify related ethical
considerations, such as health and safety, fair use of funds, and doing “what is right” for all involved. Students discuss who they
would need to communicate with to most effectively address the issue(s) (e.g., stakeholders: residents, workers, administrators,
the public, etc.).
1 ‐ Absent 2 ‐ Emerging 3 ‐ Developing 4 ‐ Competent 5 ‐ Effective 6 ‐ Mastering
Issue ID/Resolution
don’t adequately address them in proposed approaches to resolve the issue.
proposed approaches to resolve the
issue.
Students do not consider Students may consider perspectives of Students thoughtfully consider
Stakeholders
needs of the client/sponsor. stakeholders.
Students fail to consider how Students revisit and revise their
Students consider how other contexts understanding of the problem/issue(s)
ethical, global, or cultural, etc.
impact their understanding of the
contexts will influence the and the parameters.
problem/issue and their proposed
proposed approaches. approaches.
Students examine and weigh the impact
of all pertinent contexts to determine
the best approach.
Comments:
©2009—College of Engineering and Architecture and the Center for Teaching, Learning, & Technology
Washington State University www.ctlt.wsu.edu
Draft Rubric 4.28.2009
Contexts
Global: Students relate the issue or proposed approaches to larger global issues (such as globalization, world politics, etc.).
Economic: Students relate the issue or proposed approaches to trade and business concerns (such as project costs).
Cultural/Societal: Students relate the issue or proposed approaches to the needs of local, national, or ethnic groups affected by the issue.
Environmental: Students relate the issue or proposed approaches to local, national or global environmental issues (such as ozone depletion).
ABET Skill 3i. Recognition of the need for and ability to engage in life‐long learning
Students consider what needs to be learned (what they know and don’t know), create a plan to retrieve and organize data and
evidence. Students address biases and assumptions related to this data.
1 ‐ Absent 2 ‐ Emerging 3 ‐ Developing 4 ‐ Competent 5 ‐ Effective 6 ‐ Mastering
Students do not consider outside Students acknowledge outside sources, Students seek and evaluate outside
Sources/Knowledge Gaps/Biases
Students do not consider any Students show some recognition of Students clearly understand the import
contemporary issues. contemporary issues, as well as how they of considering contemporary issues
might relate to their understanding of and address them in their proposed
the problem/issue(s) and impact their approaches.
proposed approaches.
Comments:
©2009—College of Engineering and Architecture and the Center for Teaching, Learning, & Technology
Washington State University www.ctlt.wsu.edu