Clemson University

1
Employer Input for Program Improvement Inviting
Business to the Table
13th Annual SC AIR Conference Myrtle Beach, SC
February 22, 2000 Michael S. Leonard, Ph.D.,
P.E. Eleanor W. Nault, Ph.D. Clemson
University Describing Research Supported by
NSF Southeastern University and College Coalition
for Engineering Education
2
Presentation Overview

• Motivation
• Why seek employer input?
• Strategy
• Mix of overview and focused data collection
• Results
• Discoveries and challenges
• Use of Results
• Closing the loop

3
Motivation

• SC Legislation ACT 359 of 1996
• Performance Funding
• 7C2 Employers level of satisfaction with
  graduates who are interviewed for jobs...
• 7C3 The level of employers satisfaction with
  employees

4
Motivation

• Southern Association of Colleges and Schools
  (SACS)
• The institution must use a variety of means to
  evaluate student performance.
• The institution must evaluate the effectiveness
  of its instructional program by a variety of
  techniques which may includeassessment of the
  performance of graduates inemployment.

5
Motivation

• Accreditation Board for Engineering and
  Technology (ABET) Engineering Criteria 2000
  Criterion 3
• 
  
• Each engineering program must have an
  assessment process with documented results.
  Evidence that may be used to document assessment
  process results includes employer surveys

6
Strategies for Collecting Employer Inputs

• Possible information gathering approaches
  
  
• Self-administered questionnaires group, mail,
  e-mail, drop off
• Interviewer administered questionnaires
  telephone
• Interviewer administered questionnaires in
  person
• Open-ended interviews in person
• Focus groups/guided discussion sessions

7
Employer Response to Self Administered
Questionnaire

• Employers responses are typically very positive
• Some employers are pleased to be asked to share
  their opinions
• Many employers are hesitant to document anything
  negative about their employees
• Graduates are more likely to give permission to
  contact employers who are expected to provide
  positive responses
• Most employed graduates are doing good work

8
Roundtable Discussion on Ways to Gather Employer
Input

• Meeting of Employers of Engineering Graduates
  Hosted by IBM at Research Triangle Park, NC July
  28, 1999
• IBM Andersen Consulting
• DuPont Lockheed Martin

9
Roundtable Topics Discussed Consensus Reached

• Influence - Corporate culture has greater impact
  on employee than academic experience after
  approximately 18 months
• Indicators - Measures need to be as free as
  possible of personal motivation, corporate
  cultural impact, and economic marketplace
  supply/demand

10
Roundtable Topics Discussed Consensus
Reached (cont.)
Focus - Data gathering and analysis for program
improvement rather than ranking or comparing
schools Contact/Exchange - Identifying
communication links and contact persons is
critical. For companies represented, using
College Recruiting Manager would be most
appropriate.
11
Roundtable Topics Discussed Consensus
Reached (cont.)
Interface Points - Two areas Supervisor
impressions related to summer interns, co-op
students, and new full-time employees Recruiter
impressions related to campus interactions with
students
12
Strategies Surveillance-Level

• General Overview Strategies
• Self Administered Questionnaire
• FAX Survey
• Employer Satisfaction Survey

13
Results Self Administered Questionnaire

• Low response rate 4
• 3-year out undergraduates, selected
  Engineering majors
• Number
• Too few employer responses by some majors
• Differences by Major
• Statistical significant differences paired
  t-test

14
Strategy ResultsFAX Survey

• Employer Contact
• Faculty provide contact names of employers
• University Contact
• Faculty member and Graduate Students
  
  
• Clemson University response rates
• 1997 - 19 responses from 26 employers 73
• 1998 - 11 responses from 23 employers 48
• 1999 - 22 responses from 23 employers 96

15
Strategy Employer Satisfaction Survey
Campus Career Center Survey of Employers
Recruiters are asked to respond to the
question In comparison to other institutions,
how would you rank the preparation of Clemson
University students in knowledge, skills, and
abilities?
16
Results Employer Satisfaction Survey

• 22 Evaluations responding to the question were
  received by the Campus Career Center

• Rank Responses
• 5 (Highest) 4
• 4 12
• 3 3
• 2 1
• 1 (Lowest) 0
• N/A 2

17
Strategy Probing with Guided Discussions

• Probing based on surveillance-level input
  providing possible causes for concern/
  opportunity for enhancement
• Focus group/guided discussion sessions for
  employers conducted while they are on campus for
  student interactions/interviews

18
Testing Guided Discussions

• Evaluation of the strategy during the year
  2000
  
• Clemson Four disciplines participating -
  CME,
• CpE, EE, and IE focus group/guided discussion
• session scheduled at times of campus interviews
• Florida College-wide participation at least
  five focus group sessions conducted at time of
  campus career days
• Testing activity at Georgia Tech and NC AT also
  
• anticipated

19
Use of Results

• Formal Reports
• Accrediting Commissions SACS, ABET
• SC Commission on Higher Education
• State Legislature
• University Assessment Committee
• Other Uses
• Validated or refine findings with other
  strategies
• Program Assessment Coordinators share and
• discuss with department faculty to ensure
  on-going
• program improvement

20
Summary

• Employer response can provide unique insights
  into
• attitude and performance aspects of how well
  students are prepared for the workforce,
• how components of program curricula relate to
  targeted industries, and
• the likelihood of hiring additional graduates
• It is critical that the academic community
  continue to search for methods to enhance
  communication with industry colleagues concerning
  program graduates