nyit annual program assessment report, june 2017

NYIT Annual Program Assessment Report, June 2017

1 June 3, 2017

This report provides evidence that students are achieving end-of-program learning goals and that graduates are attaining achievement outcomes established by the program. Name of the program: BSc. Mechanical Engineering – Abu Dhabi Campus Year of assessment report: AY16-17 Date Submitted: June 2017 Prepared by: Dr. Shakib Farhat The Statement of Program Learning Goals and Curricular Matrix are available at: http://www.nyit.edu/planning/academic_assessment_plans_reports. I. Annual Program Learning Assessment:

1. GOALS: List program learning goals that have been assessed in AY16-17. The BSME program at Abu Dhabi campus has concluded two years of its offering with the first cohort completing year two major courses. Collection of data and evidence to assess program outcomes are reported. This exercise requires the assessment of a set of ABET (a)-(k) criteria. The detailed list of ABET student outcomes SOs is shown attachment 1. The ME department has an assessment process in place for the program to ensure continuous improvement on all of these SOs. One direct method is based on Faculty Course Assessment Reports (FCARs) which are submitted by the faculty for each course they teach in the fall and spring semesters. The faculty developed a cyclical model of assessment in which a different set of program outcomes is assessed each year. These outcomes will be reassessed to measure the learning gain over a given interval. In 2016/2017 academic year, the Mechanical Engineering faculty at Abu Dhabi campus will be assessing the following program outcomes:

a. An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering.

b. An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data

d. An ability to function effectively in a team.

e. An ability to identify, formulate and/or solve engineering problems.

g. An ability to communicate effectively.

k. An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practices.

2. METHOD: Describe the method of assessment and attach measurement instruments (e.g., rubric,

exam items, scoring guide for a particular task, supervisor evaluation form, and standardized assessment tool).

The assessment process has both course embedded and constituency based assessment tools. The course embedded assessment is the Faculty Course Assessment Reports (FCAR) which are the primary tools used to assess the program and learning outcome achievement.

At end of each semester, for each course offered, ME faculty are required to submit two Faculty Course Assessment Reports (FCAR): One for learning outcomes and one for program outcomes. The FCAR requires each faculty member

to identify course specific learning outcomes (LO’s) for his/her course and to establish appropriate performance tasks (APT’s) with appropriate documentation to assess to what extent the learning outcomes are being met. These APTs may be quizzes, exam questions, reports, projects, presentations, etc. Each student’s APT is then scored with the method shown below, to create an EGMU Vector for that specific learning outcome and a corresponding assessment metric.

http://www.nyit.edu/planning/academic_assessment_plans_reports


2 June 3, 2017

Each faculty member is required to satisfy a minimum set of program outcomes (POs) for his course as established by the ME department. This is accomplished by using a subset of the appropriate performance tasks (APT’s) used to satisfy the LO’s. Faculty members are required to show what part of each APT is being used to form a metric for the program outcome with appropriate documentation. FCARs for learning and program outcomes are found in attachment 2.

In this academic year, the following courses are chosen to assess program outcomes:

1. Program outcome a MENG 240 2. Program outcome b MENG 270 3. Program outcome d MENG 270 4. Program outcome e MENG 212 5. Program outcome g MENG 270 6. Program outcome k MENG 105

RUBRIC FOR ASSESSMENT The EGMU Vector is obtained as follows: 3 Demonstrates a complete and accurate understanding of the important concepts Excellent 2 Applies appropriate strategy or concepts with no significant errors Good 1 Displays an incomplete understanding of the important concepts and has some notable misconceptions; makes a number of errors when performing important strategies or skills but can complete a rough approximation of them Minimal 0 Demonstrates severe misconceptions about the important concepts; makes many critical errors Unsatisfactory. For example, a typical EGMU vector for a class with 19 students in which the APT was the third problem of the first exam might be (8, 9, 1, 1) which would signify that 8 students demonstrated a complete and accurate understanding, while 9 students applied appropriate strategies etc. The average score in this case being 43/19 = 2.26 which is Good. As a minimum, an EGMU score of 1.5 for each (PO) is required. This value was chosen because it represents a grade of C or Satisfactory (2.0). Interpretation of Program Outcomes/ABET SOs:

a. An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering. Interpretation: Uses Math & Engineering to quantify and analyze results.

b. An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.

Interpretation: Develops and carries out experiments following standard procedures. c. An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such

as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability. Interpretation: Is able to use technical, computer, and mathematical principles to develop alternative designs taking into consideration economic, health, safety, social, and environmental issues, codes of practice, and applicable laws.

d. An ability to function effectively in a team. Interpretation: Is prepared for group meetings with clearly formulated ideas and contributes a fair share to the project

workload

Shares credit for success and accountability for team results

Shares information and provides assistance to/with others

Is able to assume a designated role in the group


3 June 3, 2017

Values alternative perspectives and encourages participation among all team members

Remains non-judgmental when disagreeing with others/seeks conflict resolution

e. An ability to identify, formulate and/or solve engineering problems. Interpretation:

Can relate theoretical concepts to practical problem solving and demonstrates creative synthesis and defense for the solution (solution is correct and checked in other ways when it can be)

Uses appropriate resources to locate information needed to solve problems

Effectively integrates new information with previous knowledge problems

f. Professional, ethical responsibility. Interpretation: works in teams to perform experiments and collect data individually for report writing.

g. Communication.

Interpretation: Demonstrates writing skills through subjective component of lab report grading.

h. The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context. Interpretation: Makes informed judgments with consideration to the impact of engineering solutions in global settings.

i. A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in, life-long learning.

Interpretation: Recognizes the ongoing need for additional knowledge for continuous learning.

j. A knowledge of contemporary issues. Interpretation: Locates, evaluates, integrates, and applies contemporary issues to engineering problems.

k. Knowledge and tools. Interpretation: Ability to operate laboratory equipment and/or use of software programs independent of instructor involvement.

3. ANALYSIS: Report assessment results per learning criteria (e.g., per row of rubric, subset of test items,

components of a learning task).

The following FCARs show that the students have met the program outcomes criteria a, b, d, e, g, k. The courses selected for addressing the criteria are MENG 240, MENG 270, MENG 212, and MENG 105. Although criteria (a) and (g) are above the required 1.5 benchmark, they are in the C grade vicinity, and therefore need further attention on Math applications and Report writing. ABET outcome a

MENG 240 EGMU Score Average CO-1 – CO-3 Test #1 (4,2,4,1) 1.82

Bench mark for Outcome a (4,2,4,1) 1.82 (EG = 54.5%)

ABET outcome b MENG 270 EGMU Score Average

CO-2, CO-3, CO-4,CO-5 (79,74,11,0) 2.05 Bench mark for Outcome b (79,74,11,0) 2.05 (EG = 93%)


4 June 3, 2017

ABET outcome d MENG 270 EGMU Score Average

CO-2, CO-3, CO-4 (57,42,5,0) 2.16 Bench mark for Outcome d (57,42,5,0) 2.16 (EG = 95%)

ABET outcome e

MENG 212 EGMU Score Average CO-1Test #1 (10,1,0,0) 2.91

CO-2Test #1 and Test #2 (10,1,0,0) 2.91 CO-3 and CO-4Test #3 (7,2,2,0) 2.45

CO-5, CO-6 and CO-7Final Exam (3,4,3,1) 1.82 Bench mark for Outcome e (30,8,5,1) 2.52 (EG = 86%)

ABET outcome g

MENG 270 EGMU Score Average CO-1 Lab Reports (126,107,3,6) 1.89

Bench mark for Outcome g (126,107,3,6) 1.89 (EG = 96%) ABET outcome k

MENG 105 EGMU Score Average CO-1 Final Exam Question #2 (15,1,1,0) 2.82

CO-2 Final Exam Question #3 (9,6,2,0) 2.41 CO-3Final Exam Question #4 (16,0,1,0) 2.88

Bench mark for Outcome k (40,7,4,0) 2.71 (EG = 92%)

4. INTERPRETATION: Provide an interpretation of student strengths and weaknesses for a given program

learning outcome.

All program outcomes criteria evaluated for this academic year are above the required 1.5 benchmark. However, (a) and (g) criteria have the potential to move in both directions, positively or negatively. Since this is the first set of measurements taken for this cohort, an action plan is needed to improve students’ skills in report writing and the applications of Math and Science. In percentage form, criteria (a) has 54.5% indicator on the Excellent and Good vector. This is further evidence that more work is needed to improve this criterion. Criterion (g), which is related to Communications outcome, shows good 96% on the EG vector, but an overall EGMU of 1.89. Further analysis using the rubric on assessing lab reports (Attachment.3), show that students have weaknesses in the Summary and Discussion elements of lab reports. The project components in some courses show strong evidence that students working in groups tend to repeat the erroneous analysis of other classmates, despite having their own data.

Overall, the students gave positive comments on all courses. Students faced problems in submitting their

assignments on time because the AUTOCAD license was not available in the Engineering block for the first 7

weeks of the semester. The AUTOCAD license was available in the Interior Design block but only a few

computers were functional. However, things settled down once AUTOCAD license was purchased for the

Engineering Block and students managed to submit all their assignments and projects. Similarly, the hardware

and the software of National Instruments (LabVIEW), had clearance issues with the local customs resulting in


5 June 3, 2017

some delay in the delivery of the experiments.

5. IMPROVEMENTS - PLANNED: Identify planned actions for improving student achievement of assessed

program learning goals.

Although, the students achieved the targeted learning outcomes, additional improvement of the course can further enhance student learning. It has been observed that most students have issues with understanding and interpreting basic questions. If the level of students’ English Language writing, reading and speaking skills can be improved; students may score higher grades. Also, improvement in mathematical skills is required. It is conspicuous that students have forgotten most of their basic first year mathematics fundamentals. Collaboration between the Engineering Department, the English Language Department, and the Mathematics Department is vital for the improvement of the students’ interpretation skills. More instructions of technical writing skills should be taught in the class in the future. An oral exam component to the projects may mitigate the issues related to group work.

II. Summary of Improvements Made in Response to Assessment Results in the past few years:

This being the first assessment report for the engineering cohort, no historic data is available to show evidence of improvement.

III. Brief Description of Faculty Engagement in the Current Annual Assessment Report:

The assessment committee, comprising myself and Dr. Afaq Altaf, had two program meetings this year. The first meeting was held in Fall 2016 to identify program outcomes for data gathering and evidence collection on student attainment levels. The second meeting was held early in the Spring semester to discuss the data gathered from the first semester with a focus on criteria showing tendencies of falling below target.

IV. Annual Program Achievement Goals:

Not applicable, program is midway to graduating the first cohort.


6 June 3, 2017

Attachment.1

ABET Student Outcomes (SOs)

a. An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering.

b. An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.

c. An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as

economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability.

d. An ability to function effectively in a team.

e. An ability to identify, formulate and/or solve engineering problems.

f. An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.

g. An ability to communicate effectively.

h. The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic,

environmental, and societal context.

i. A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in, life-long learning.

j. A knowledge of contemporary issues.

k. An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practices.


7 June 3, 2017

Attachment. 2

Faculty Course Assessment Report (FCAR) Program Outcome Version

MENG 105 Engineering Graphics

Fall 2016 Catalog Description This course is an introduction to the current graphic representational tools such as AutoCAD as well as free-hand sketching exercises. Problems using descriptive geometry are chosen to develop recognition and development skills in areas such as: orthographics, pictorials, auxiliaries, sections, intersections and developments. The practical applications are illustrated in projects using screws, fasteners, welds gears, cams, pipes and electrical conventions. Prerequisites: None. Co-requisites: None

Grade Distribution:

A A- B+ B B- C+ C C- D+ D F

6 0 5 0 3 1 2 0 0 0 0

Modifications made to the course:

No modifications were made to the course.

Course Outcome Assessment CO-1: Apply rules of descriptive geometry to engineering problems. This outcome is covered by the following task(s): Assignment #3: EGMU (15,0,1,1) score 2.82 CO-2: Use AutoCAD to illustrate technical representations of data. This outcome is covered by the following task(s): Project: EGMU (9,6,2,0) score 2.41 CO-3: Visualize objects in two and three dimensional views. This outcome is covered by the following task(s): Assignment #4: EGMU (16,0,1,0) score 2.88

Program Outcome Assessment k. An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practices. CO-1, CO-2, CO-3.

ABET outcome k

EGMU Score Average

CO-1 Final Exam Question #2 (15,1,1,0) 2.82

CO-2 Final Exam Question #3 (9,6,2,0) 2.41

CO-3Final Exam Question #4 (16,0,1,0) 2.88

Bench mark for Outcome k (40,7,4,0) 2.71


8 June 3, 2017


MENG 211 Engineering Mechanics I: Statics

Fall 2016

Catalog Description This course is an introduction to Statics of particles, forces in the plane and space, equivalent force systems, equilibrium of rigid bodies in two and three dimensions, analysis of structures, friction, distributed forces, centroids, centers of gravity and area moments of inertia. Prerequisites: Phys-170, Math-180 (PHY 4012, MATH 3031) Co-requisites: None

Grade Distribution:


5 0 3 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 1



Course Outcome Assessment CO-1: The ability to solve the forces in multi-force members such as in frames and machine elements. This outcome is covered by the following task(s): Assignment #7 and Final Exam Question #2: EGMU (20,2,2,4) score 2.36 CO-2: The ability to determine the location of centers of areas and centroids of composite areas and also of three dimensional shapes. This outcome is covered by the following task(s): Assignment #9 and Final Exam Question #3: EGMU (22,1,3,2) score 2.54 CO-3: The ability to calculate the area moments of inertial of common geometric and composite shapes. This outcome is covered by the following task(s): Assignment #10 and Final Exam Question #4: EGMU (24,0,2,2) score 2.64

Program Outcome Assessment

a. An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering. CO-1, CO-2, CO-3. All assignments and exam questions involved the application of mathematics, science and engineering.

e. An ability to identify, formulate and/or solve engineering problems. CO-1, CO-2, CO-3. Students had to relate theoretical concepts to practical problem solving and locate information to solve problems.

k. An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practices. CO-1, CO-2, CO-3. Students had to use relevant techniques and skills to solve problems.

ABET outcome a, e, k

EGMU Score Average

CO-1 Assignment #7 and Final Exam Question #2

(20,2,2,4) 2.36


9 June 3, 2017


(22,1,3,2) 2.54


(24,0,2,2) 2.64

Bench mark for Outcomes a, e, k (66,3,7,8) 2.51


10 June 3, 2017


CSCI 120 Programming I

Fall 2016

Catalog Description This course provides basic skills in problem solving and object-oriented programming using a high-level language such as C++. Topics include algorithm development, simple data types, expressions and statements, program flow control structure, objects, methods and arrays. Prerequisites: Knowledge of Algebra. Co-requisites: None

Grade Distribution:


1 2 1 1 0 0 3 2 1 5 0



Course Outcome Assessment CO-1: Read a problem description and design an algorithm to solve the problem. Project section (a), and Final Exam Question #8: EGMU (36,18,6,0), score 1.875 CO-2: Develop programs by implementing algorithms in C++ language. Final Exam Question #3: EGMU (15,14,1,0), score 1.87 CO-3: Use C++ I/O facilities to read input from the keyboard and display output on the screen. Project section (a): EGMU (30,12,0,0), score 2.625 CO-4: Develop applications that use conditional, branching and loops statements. Project section (d): EGMU (30,12,0,0), score 2.625 CO-5: Define C++ classes and methods and instantiate objects to solve practical problems. Final Exam Question #9: EGMU (24,2,2,0), score 1.75 CO-6: Design and implement applications using object-oriented programming concepts. Project section (e): EGMU (30,12,0,0), score 2.65 CO-7: Develop programs using different sort/search algorithms. Project section (e): EGMU (30,12,0,0), score 2.56

Program Outcome Assessment

c. An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as

economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability. CO-1,

CO-3, CO-4, CO-6, CO-7

d. An ability to function effectively in a team. CO-1 to CO-7.


11 June 3, 2017

ABET outcome c EGMU Score Average

CO-1, CO-3, CO-4, CO-6, CO-7 (156,66,6,0) 2.85 Bench mark for Outcomes c (156,66,6,0) 2.85

ABET outcome d

EGMU Score Average CO-1 – CO-7. Projects and exercises were completed in teams of two students.

(195,82,9,0) 2.55

Bench mark for Outcomes d (195,82,9,0) 2.55


12 June 3, 2017


MENG 240 Thermodynamics

Spring 2017 Catalog Description Review of dimensions, units and fundamental concepts; Study of First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics; Application to fluid dynamic processes; Energy conversion cycles; Reversed cycles; concepts of exergetic analysis. Prerequisites: PHYS 225, CHEM 107, MATH 260. Co-requisites: None. Grade Distribution:


3 1 1 2 1 0 1 2 0 0 0

Modifications made to the course: No modifications were made to the course. Course Outcome Assessment CO-1: The ability to use the metric and British unit systems. This outcome is covered by the following task(s): Test #1: EGMU (4,2,4,1) score 1.82 CO-2: The ability to identify the unique vocabulary associated with Thermodynamics. This outcome is covered by the following task(s): Test #1: EGMU (4,2,4,1) score 1.82 CO-3: The ability to apply the concept of energy and its various forms and energy conversion efficiencies. This outcome is covered by the following task(s): Test #1: EGMU (4,2,4,1) score 1.82 CO-4: The ability to apply the concept of working fluid, the physics of pure substance and phase-change processes and use of Thermodynamic tables. This outcome is covered by the following task(s):Test #1: EGMU (4,2,4,1) score 1.82 CO-5: The ability to apply First Law of Thermodynamics and general energy balance; conservation of mass principle and analysis of steady-flow processes and engineering devices. This outcome is covered by the following task(s):Test #1 and Final Exam: EGMU (9,5,6,2) score 1.95 CO-6: The ability to apply the concept of entropy, entropy generation, degradation of energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This outcome is covered by the following task(s):Test #2 and Final Exam: EGMU (9,10,2,1) score 2.23 CO-7: The ability to evaluate the performance of gas power cycles, including Carnot, Stirling, and Ericson and other energy conversion cycles. This outcome is covered by the following task(s): Final Exam: EGMU (5,3,2,1) score 2.09 Program Outcome Assessment a. An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering. CO-1 – CO-3 Test #1 required the application of mathematics, science and engineering. e. An ability to identify, formulate and/or solve engineering problems. CO-3 – CO-5, CO-7


13 June 3, 2017

Test #1 and Final Exam required students to relate theoretical concepts to practical problem solving and locate information to solve problems.

j. A knowledge of contemporary issues. CO-6 – CO-7 Test #2 and Final Exam required students to have knowledge of contemporary issues.

k. An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practices. CO-4 – CO-7

ABET outcome a

EGMU Score Average

CO-1 – CO-3 Test #1 (4,2,4,1) 1.82 Bench mark for Outcomes a (4,2,4,1) 1.82

ABET outcome e

EGMU Score Average CO-3 – CO-5 Test #1 (4,2,4,1) 1.82

CO-7Final Exam (5,3,2,1) 2.09 Bench mark for Outcomes e (9,5,6,2) 1.95

ABET outcome j

EGMU Score Average

CO-6 Test #2 (4,7,0,0) 2.36 CO-7Final Exam (5,3,2,1) 2.09

Bench mark for Outcomes j (9,10,2,1) 2.23 ABET outcome k

EGMU Score Average CO-4 and CO-5Test #1 (4,2,4,1) 1.82

CO-6 Test #2 (4,7,0,0) 2.36 CO-7Final Exam (5,3,2,1) 2.09

Bench mark for Outcomes k (13,12,6,2) 2.09


14 June 3, 2017


MENG 212 Engineering Mechanics II: Dynamics

Spring 2017 Catalog Description This course is an introduction to Basic concepts and fundamental laws of dynamics such as absolute and relative motion, work, energy, impulse momentum; Kinematics and kinetics of a particle, or rigid bodies; Central force motion; Impact; Advanced topics. Prerequisites: MENG 211, MATH 260. Co-requisites: None. Grade Distribution:


5 0 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0

Modifications made to the course: No modifications were made to the course. Course Outcome Assessment CO-1: The ability to analyze linear motion of particles. This outcome is covered by the following task(s): Test #1: EGMU (10,1,0,0) score 2.91 CO-2: The ability to analyze curvilinear motion of particles using rectangular components; tangential and normal components; as well as radial and transverse components. This outcome is covered by the following task(s): Test #1 and Test #2: EGMU (21,1,0,0) score 2.95 CO-3: The ability to apply Newton’s 2nd Law, principles of linear and angular momentum, and principle of impact and momentum conservation. This outcome is covered by the following task(s): Test #3: EGMU (7,2,2,0) score 2.45 CO-4: The ability to apply principle of work and energy. This outcome is covered by the following task(s): Test #3: EGMU (7,2,2,0) score 2.45 CO-5: The ability to describe rigid body motion in translation and rotation and apply the concept of instantaneous center. This outcome is covered by the following task(s): Final Exam: EGMU (3,4,3,1) score 1.82 CO-6: The ability to apply Newton’s 2nd Law for rigid bodies – translational and rotational motion. This outcome is covered by the following task(s): Final Exam: EGMU (3,4,3,1) score 1.82 CO-7: The ability to use momentum and energy principle for rigid body dynamics. This outcome is covered by the following task(s):Final Exam: EGMU (3,4,3,1) score 1.82 Program Outcome Assessment a. An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering. CO-1 – CO-7. All tests and exam questions

involved the application of mathematics, science and engineering. e. An ability to identify, formulate and/or solve engineering problems. CO-1 – CO-7. Students had to relate theoretical

concepts to practical problem solving and locate information to solve problems.


15 June 3, 2017

k. An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practices. CO-1 – CO-7. Students had to use relevant techniques and skills to solve problems.

ABET outcome a, e, k

EGMU Score Average CO-1Test #1 (10,1,0,0) 2.90

CO-2Test #1 and Test #2 (10,1,0,0) 2.90 CO-3 and CO-4Test #3 (7,2,2,0) 2.45

CO-5, CO-6 and CO-7Final Exam (3,4,3,1) 1.82 Bench mark for Outcomes a, e, k (30,8,5,1) 2.52


16 June 3, 2017


MENG 221 Strength of Materials

Spring 2017 Catalog Description This course is an introduction to stresses and strains in members under the actions of axial and shearing forces, bending and twisting moments; transformations of stress and strain; principal stresses; combined stresses; pressure vessels; deflection of beams; statically indeterminate problems; columns. Prerequisites: MENG 211, MATH 180. Co-requisites: None. Grade Distribution:


5 0 1 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0

Modifications made to the course: Students preferred using the textbook “Mechanics of Materials” by R.C. Hibbeler. Therefore, the instructor assigned problems from R.C. Hibbeler. The instructor recommends changing the textbook to “Mechanics of Materials” by R.C. Hibbeler as it is easier for the students to follow and understand. Course Outcome Assessment CO-1: The ability to solve axially loaded members for stresses ad deflections in statically determinate or indeterminate cases. This outcome is covered by the following task(s): Test #1: EGMU (6,4,1,0), score 2.45 CO-2: The ability to solve torsionally loaded shafts for stresses and deflections in statically determinate or indeterminate cases. This outcome is covered by the following task(s): Test #1: EGMU (6,4,1,0), score 2.45 CO-3: The ability to solve beams under bending for stresses. This outcome is covered by the following task(s): Test #2: EGMU (5,0,1,5), score 1.45 CO-4: The ability to solve transversely loaded beams for internal shear forces and bending moments and to develop shear and bending diagrams. This outcome is covered by the following task(s): Test #2: EGMU (5,0,1,5), score 1.45 CO-5: The ability to solve for the stresses in beams with combined axial and transverse loads. This outcome is covered by the following task(s): Final Exam: EGMU (10,1,0,0), score 2.91 CO-6: The ability to determine plane stress and strain, state of stress of a solid subject under combination of loadings. This outcome is covered by the following task(s): Final Exam: EGMU (10,1,0,0), score 2.91 Program Outcome Assessment a. An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering. CO-1 – CO-6. All tests and exam questions

involved the application of mathematics, science and engineering.


17 June 3, 2017

e. An ability to identify, formulate and/or solve engineering problems. CO-1 – CO-6. Students had to relate theoretical concepts to practical problem solving and locate information to solve problems.

ABET outcome a, e

EGMU Score Average CO-1 and CO-2Test #1 (6,4,1,0) 2.45

CO-3 and CO-4Test #2 (5,0,1,5) 1.45 CO-5 and CO-6 Final Exam (10,1,0,0) 2.91

Bench mark for Outcomes a, e (21,5,2,5) 2.27


18 June 3, 2017


MENG 270 Instrumentations and Measurements

Spring 2017

Catalog Description Introduction to measuring techniques in mechanical engineering. Analysis of experimental data with emphasis on accuracy, errors, and uncertainty. Mechanical, electrical, pneumatic, hydraulic and optical instruments are used in the experiments performed, and their design, function, and limitations are studied. Prerequisites: Physics 170. Co-requisites: None

Grade Distribution:


6 2 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



Course Outcome Assessment CO-1: Write a well-structured technical report, the means of solution and an appropriate conclusion. Assessment of this outcome is based on the rubric in attachment 3. EGMU (126,107,3,6), score 1.89 CO-2: Perform basic computer aided measurement and use interfacing sensors with electronic conditioning for data acquisition systems. Final Exam #6 including labs. EGMU (30,12,0,0), score 2.625 CO-3: Perform temperature measurement using expansion methods and thermocouples. Simulation of thermistors. EGMU (12,24,0,0), score 2.25 CO-4: Perform temperature measurement using dead-weight tester and manometer. Final Exam Question #5 + Lab. EGMU (15,6,5,0), score 1.62 CO-5: Use data acquisition system and write graphical programs in LabVIEW. EGMU (22,32,6,0), score 2.125 Program Outcome Assessment

a. An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering. CO-2

b. An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data. CO-2, CO-3, CO-4, CO-5.

d. An ability to function effectively in a team. CO-2, CO-3, CO-4.

f. An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.

g. An ability to communicate effectively. CO-1

k. An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practices. CO-3,

CO-4, CO-5


19 June 3, 2017

ABET outcome a EGMU Score Average

CO-2 (30,12,0,0) 2.62 Bench mark for Outcome a (30,12,0,0) 2.62

ABET outcome b, f

EGMU Score Average

CO-2, CO-3, CO-4,CO-5 (79,74,11,0) 2.05 Bench mark for Outcome b (79,74,11,0) 2.05

ABET outcome d

EGMU Score Average

CO-2, CO-3, CO-4 (57,42,5,0) 2.16 Bench mark for Outcome d (57,42,5,0) 2.16

ABET outcome g

EGMU Score Average CO-1 Lab Reports (126,107,3,6) 1.89

Bench mark for Outcome g (126,107,3,6) 1.89 ABET outcome k

EGMU Score Average CO-3, CO-4, CO-5 (49,62,11,0) 2.54

Bench mark for Outcome k (49,62,11,0) 2.54


20 June 3, 2017

Attachment.3

RUBRIC FOR ASSESSING LAB REPORTS

3

Excellent

2

Good

1

Minimal

0

Unsatisfactory

Abstract/Summary Abstract contains

reference to all major

aspects of carrying out the

experiment and the

results, well-written

Abstract references most of

the major aspects of the

experiment, some minor details are missing

Abstract misses one or more

major aspects of carrying out the experiment or the results

Several major aspects of the

experiment are missing,

student displays a lack of

understanding about how to

write an abstract

Introduction Introduction complete and

well-written; provides all

necessary background

principles for the experiment

Introduction is nearly

complete, missing some minor points

Some introductory

information, but still missing some major points

Very little background

information provided or information is incorrect

Experimental procedure

Well-written in paragraph

format, all experimental

details are covered

Written in paragraph format,

important experimental details

are covered, some minor details missing

Written in paragraph format,

still missing some important

experimental details

Missing several important

experimental details or not

written in paragraph format

Results: data, figures, graphs, tables, etc.

All figures, graphs, tables

are correctly drawn, are

numbered and contain titles/captions.

All figures, graphs, tables are

correctly drawn, but some

have minor problems or could still be improved

Most figures, graphs, tables

OK, some still missing some

important or required features

Figures, graphs, tables

contain errors or are poorly

constructed, have missing

titles, captions or numbers, units missing or incorrect, etc.

Discussion All trends and data

comparisons have been

interpreted correctly and

discussed, good

understanding of results is

Almost all of the results have

been correctly interpreted and

discussed, only minor improvements are needed

Some of the results have been

correctly interpreted and

discussed; partial but

incomplete understanding of

Very incomplete or incorrect

interpretation of trends and

comparison of data indicating

a lack of understanding of


21 June 3, 2017

conveyed results is still evident results

Conclusions All conclusions have been

clearly made, student

shows good

understanding

All conclusions have been drawn, could be better stated

Conclusions regarding major

points are drawn, but many

are misstated, indicating a

lack of understanding

Conclusions missing or missing the important points

Spelling, grammar, sentence structure

All grammar/spelling

correct and very well-written

Less than 3 grammar/spelling errors, mature, readable style

Occasional grammar/spelling

errors, generally readable with

some rough spots in writing

style

Frequent grammar and/or

spelling errors, writing style is rough and immature

Appearance and formatting

All sections in order, well-formatted, very readable

All sections in order,

formatting generally good but could still be improved

Sections in order, contains the

minimum allowable amount of

handwritten copy, formatting is

rough but readable

Sections out of order, too

much handwritten copy, sloppy formatting


22 June 3, 2017

Attachment.4

Relationship between courses at ME department and ABET Outcomes a-k

nyit annual program assessment report, june 2017

Documents