ABET CLO Mapper

How to Perform the Mapping

For each CLO provided by the user, do the following:

1. Identify the core cognitive action. What is the CLO asking students to do? Look for action verbs (analyze, design, solve, communicate, evaluate, etc.) and the domain they act upon.

2. Match against Student Outcome definitions, not just keywords. A CLO about "solving differential equations" maps to SO (1) not because it contains the word "solve" but because it involves applying principles of mathematics to formulate and solve engineering problems. A CLO about "presenting results to a review panel" maps to SO (3) because it requires communicating with a specific audience. Always reason from the substance of the outcome, not surface-level word overlap.

3. Assign one primary and zero or more secondary mappings. Most CLOs align strongly with one Student Outcome (the primary) and may touch on one or two others (secondary). A CLO that asks students to "design a heat exchanger considering cost and environmental constraints" has a primary mapping to SO (2) (engineering design with broad considerations) and a plausible secondary mapping to SO (1) (applying engineering principles to solve the underlying thermal problem).

4. Justify each mapping in one to two sentences. The justification must connect a specific phrase or concept in the CLO to a specific element of the Student Outcome definition. Reviewers read these justifications during accreditation visits; vague rationales like "this CLO is related to teamwork" do not hold up. Instead: "This CLO requires students to establish project milestones and coordinate deliverables across sub-teams, directly addressing SO (5)'s emphasis on planning tasks and meeting objectives within a collaborative environment."

Important Distinctions

• SO (1) vs. SO (6): Both involve analytical work. SO (1) is about applying known principles to solve problems (theory-driven). SO (6) is about designing experiments, collecting data, and interpreting results (empirically driven). A CLO about deriving a velocity profile from the Navier-Stokes equations is SO (1). A CLO about measuring pressure drop in a pipe and comparing results to predictions is SO (6).

• SO (2) vs. SO (1): SO (2) requires design — producing a solution that meets specified needs — with explicit consideration of broader factors (safety, economics, environment, etc.). If the CLO asks students to solve a well-defined problem with a known method, that is SO (1). If it asks them to make design choices among alternatives while weighing constraints, that is SO (2).

• SO (4) vs. SO (2): Both mention societal impact, but SO (4) centers on ethical reasoning and professional responsibility — recognizing dilemmas and making informed judgments. SO (2) centers on incorporating those factors into a design process. A CLO about evaluating the ethical implications of an engineering decision is SO (4). A CLO about designing a system that accounts for environmental regulations is SO (2).

• SO (7) is often secondary. Many CLOs implicitly require students to learn new tools or methods, but SO (7) should only be mapped when the CLO explicitly requires self-directed learning — for example, "independently learn a new simulation package" or "identify and study relevant technical literature to inform the project approach."

Edge Cases

• If a CLO is too vague to map confidently (e.g., "understand fluid mechanics"), flag it. Suggest a revision that uses a measurable action verb and a specific context, which will make the mapping clearer and also strengthen the CLO for assessment purposes.

• If a CLO maps to three or more Student Outcomes with roughly equal weight, it is probably trying to do too much. Flag this and suggest splitting it into two more focused CLOs.

• If no CLO in the course maps to a Student Outcome that the program expects this course to address, note the gap explicitly. This is critical information for accreditation preparation.

Output Format

Present results as a Markdown table followed by narrative justifications. Use this structure:

Alignment Table

Confidence levels:

• High: The CLO language directly and unambiguously addresses the Student Outcome.
• Medium: The mapping is reasonable but depends on interpretation of the CLO's scope or how the course implements it in practice.
• Low: The connection is tenuous. Flag for the instructor's review.

Narrative Justifications

After the table, provide a numbered section with one to two sentences per CLO explaining the rationale for each primary mapping. For any secondary mapping rated Medium or Low confidence, explain the reasoning and what additional information would resolve the uncertainty.

Coverage Summary

End with a brief summary listing:

• Which Student Outcomes are addressed by this course (with CLO numbers).
• Which Student Outcomes are NOT addressed. This is informational, not a deficiency — no single course is expected to cover all seven.
• Any CLOs that would benefit from revision for clearer alignment.

Example

Input CLO: "Students will be able to design a feedback control system for a specified plant that meets transient and steady-state performance requirements, considering robustness to parameter uncertainty."

Mapping:

• Primary: SO (2) — This CLO requires engineering design (designing a control system) to meet specified needs (performance requirements) with consideration of broader factors (robustness to uncertainty, which relates to reliability and safe operation).
• Secondary: SO (1) — The design process requires applying control theory principles (root locus, frequency response) and mathematics (transfer functions, stability criteria) to formulate and solve the underlying engineering problem.
• Confidence: High — The CLO explicitly names a design task with specified performance needs and a broader constraint.