2026 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Assessment and accreditation are foundational to computing and
engineering programs, ensuring educational quality, accountability,
and continuous improvement. Yet, despite decades of institutional
investment, faculty resistance to program-level assessment persists.
This resistance, rooted in perceptions of assessment as bureaucratic,
administratively imposed, and disconnected from pedagogy, continues to undermine sustainability and cultural adoption. This paper
reframes assessment within computing disciplines as a sociotechnical problem, requiring not only digital tools but also reimagined
faculty roles, incentives, and engagement frameworks.
Drawing from multi-year implementation experience with an
anonymized Canvas-integrated platform designed to automate
ABET-aligned computing assessment, this study examines how
automation alone cannot resolve persistent structural and cultural
barriers. While the system reduced faculty workload, improved data
integrity, and streamlined visualization using Tableau and Oracle
pipelines, some faculty still remained skeptical and not fully committed. This realization prompted the development of a new concep-
tual model, Minimum Viable Assessment (MVA), that integrates
the technical affordances of educational technology with cultural
principles of faculty autonomy, relevance, and transparency.
MVA is grounded in three design principles: (1) faculty-centered
participation, emphasizing reflection and ownership over compliance; (2) minimum viable complexity, focusing on lightweight, sustainable processes integrated within existing academic workflows;
and (3) cultural alignment, ensuring that assessment practices complement professional identity and disciplinary norms in computing.
The accompanying Conceptual Assessment Paradigm (CAP)
translates these principles into actionable strategies addressing common resistance factors such as time constraints, lack of incentives, skepticism about value, and perceptions of punitive or top-down control.
Through a synthesis of literature, case studies, and empirical
insights from system deployment, this paper contributes (1) a taxonomy of faculty assessment dichotomies, identifying impediments
and buy-in factors in computing education; (2) a validated model
linking assessment culture to adoption dynamics; and (3) a set of
practical, scalable strategies that departments can adopt without major administrative restructuring. These include transparent data
dashboards for outcome mapping, faculty-led “assessment days”
for peer collaboration, institutional recognition structures, and in-
clusive rubric co-design.
At this stage, the development of the Minimum Viable As-
sessment (MVA) framework and its technical infrastructure is
complete, and preliminary deployment within computing programs
has begun. Early observations are encouraging, showing smoother
assessment workflows and improved data consistency; however,
systematic evaluation of faculty experience and cultural impact
remains ongoing. Rather than reporting outcomes, this paper positions MVA as an evolving model for integrating assessment tech-
nology with institutional culture. The framework highlights how
combining automation, transparency, and faculty-centered design
can create more sustainable pathways for engagement without
imposing additional administrative burden.
The ongoing phase of this work focuses on structured evaluation
and refinement of the framework through faculty feedback and longitudinal analysis. As such, MVA should be viewed as a conceptual
and technical foundation; an adaptable architecture that balances
efficiency with reflection and autonomy in computing and engineering education. This position paper invites collaboration and
critique from the computing and engineering education community
to strengthen and extend the model. In alignment with ASEE CIT’s
mission areas of applied information engineering, systems integration, and computing education innovation, MVA offers a promising
direction for uniting educational technology, data systems, and academic culture to advance meaningful and sustainable assessment practice.