nyit annual program assessment report, may 2018 · nyit annual program assessment report, may 2018...

NYIT Annual Program Assessment Report, May 2018

1 May 15, 2018

Name of the program: BSc. Mechanical Engineering – Abu Dhabi Campus Year of assessment report: AY17-18 Date Submitted: May 2018 Prepared by: Dr. Shakib Farhat This report provides evidence that students are achieving end-of-program learning goals and that graduates are attaining achievement outcomes established by the program. 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 AY17-18. The BSME program at Abu Dhabi campus has the first cohort completing year three 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 2017/2018 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.

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.

f. Professional, ethical responsibility. 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 Faculty Course Assessment Reports (FCAR): 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.

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.

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


2 May 15, 2018

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

1. Program outcome a MENG 324 EENG 211

2. Program outcome c MENG 105

MENG 321 MENG 324

3. Program outcome g & f MENG 270

EENG 275

4. Program outcome k MENG 201 (Technical Literacy: MENG 270 Institutional outcome) MENG 321

EENG 275

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). FCARs for course and program outcomes are found in attachment 2. 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


3 May 15, 2018

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

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, c, g, f, k. ABET outcome a

Course EGMU Score APT Course Score

MENG 324 CO3 - CO6 Final Exam (2,7,1,0) 2.1

EENG 211 CO1 – CO6 Final Exam (5,9,3,0) 2.11

Cumulative EGMU for outcome a (7,16,4,0) = 2.11


4 May 15, 2018

ABET outcome c


MENG 105 CO-3, CO-4 Final (42,8,1,3) 2.65

MENG 324 Project (7,3,0,0) 2.7

MENG 321 CO1- CO2- CO3 Final (31,2,0,0) 2.94

Cumulative EGMU for outcome c (80,13,1,3) = 2.74

ABET outcomes g & f


MENG 270 Lab Reports (38,26,0,0) 2.6

EENG 275 Lab Reports (92,22,0,0) 2.81

Cumulative EGMU for outcomes g & f (130,48,0,0) = 2.73

ABET outcome k


MENG 201 Matlab Programming Project (7,2,0,2) 2.27

MENG 270 LabView Programming Project (5,2,1,0) 2.5

MENG 321 SolidWorks CAD (31,2,0,0) 2.94

EENG 275 LTSpice Simulation & Lab Test (10,4,0,0) 2.71

Cumulative EGMU for outcome k (53,10,1,2) = 2.72

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. For greater validation, APTs are selected from different course outcomes across program levels. Criterion k score is the cumulative EGMU for students’ attainment levels in four different professional programming and simulation software including skills gained in conducting experiments and operating lab equipment. The other criteria are also measured using more than one course with embedded assessments mapped to a specific criterion. This cross validation in measuring student attainment levels adds more reliability to the EGMU vector with reduced dependency on a single course. The lab component in the assessment strategies shows strong evidence that students working in groups tend to collect data individually. However, some report writing is completed by different members on rotation basis with some group members contributing to different aspects in the report. By the end of the semester, students working in groups would have completed at least one full-fledged report on their own. The “g” criterion score on communication and writing skills has increased by 49% for the same cohort indicating a solid learning gain in this criterion. This was due to the concerted effort between the engineering and the A & S faculty to intervene and provide more support to our students. Criterion “a” score on the applications of Math, Science, and Engineering has also increased by 16% compared to last year’s score for the same cohort of students. This could be attributed to the compounded knowledge gained this year in system simulations and programming. The embedded project component, simulation or analytical, added a great value to the student learning process. This is evidenced by the high scores for these components in various courses especially in the design criterion “c”. These individual projects, occasionally carried out in groups, are more involved and require individual research and simulation.


5 May 15, 2018

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

program learning goals.

More collaboration amongst internal stakeholders, A & S and Engineering schools to improve student learning skills.

Development of a rigorous rubric for individual presentation of projects to mitigate the issues related to group work.

Enhancement of project assessment tool.

In addition to embedded direct course assessment, expand assessment in multiple places to include indirect constituency-based assessment such as internship, advisory committees, and placements.

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

Year of

Assessment

Results

Brief Name of

Program

Learning Goal

Improvements Implemented

Based on Assessment Results

Impact of Improvements (report

reassessment results if available)

AY16-17 Criterion “a” Criterion “g”

Reference EGMU scores: a = 1.82 g = 1.89

Although criteria (a) and (g) were above the required 1.5 benchmark, they were in the C grade vicinity, and therefore need further attention to enhance Math applications and Report writing.

AY17-18 Criterion “a” on the applications of Math, Science, and Engineering. Criterion “g” on communication and writing skills.

Provided more tutorials and assignments in addition to a mix of assessments to include simulation studies. Worked closely with the faculty assigned to teach the technical communications course. Stronger emphasis on report writing and communication in engineering settings.

a = 2.11 (same cohort score) 16% increase in student attainment level for this criterion compared to last year’s score for the same cohort. Students produced good mathematical modelling of engineering systems. g = 2.81 (same cohort score) 49% increase for the same cohort indicating a solid learning gain in this criterion. Excellent reports were produced with marked improvement in technical communication skills.

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 2017 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 will graduate the first cohort next year.


6 May 15, 2018

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.



7 May 15, 2018

Attachment. 2

Faculty Course Assessment Report (FCAR) Program Outcome Version

MENG 105 Engineering Graphics

Fall 2017 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 Modifications made to the course:

No modifications were made to the course.

Course Outcome Assessment CO-1: Interpret technical notes and illustrations of various engineering disciplines. CO-2: Compute spacing and layouts of multiview drawings. CO-3: Apply rules of descriptive geometry to engineering problems. CO-4: Use AutoCAD to illustrate technical representations of data. CO-5: Visualize objects in two and three dimensional views.

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


ABET outcome c


MENG 105 CO-1 to CO-5 Final Exam (42,8,1,3) 2.65


8 May 15, 2018


MENG 270 Instrumentations and Measurements

Spring 2018

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

Modifications made to the course:


Course Outcome Assessment CO-1: Write a well-structured technical report, the means of solution and an appropriate conclusion. CO-2: Perform basic computer aided measurement and use interfacing sensors with electronic conditioning for data acquisition systems. CO-3: Perform temperature measurement using expansion methods and thermocouples. CO-4: Perform temperature measurement using dead-weight tester and manometer. CO-5: Use data acquisition system and write graphical programs in LabVIEW. Program Outcome Assessment

f. An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.

g. An ability to communicate effectively


ABET outcomes g & f


MENG 270 Lab Reports CO1 (38,26,0,0) 2.6

ABET outcome k


MENG 270 LabView Programming Project. CO2 & CO5

(5,2,1,0) 2.5


9 May 15, 2018


MENG 321 Introduction to Computer-Aided Design

Fall 2017

Catalog Description General overview of how CAD operates in a modern mechanical engineering design environment. Introduction to major commercial CAD software (Pro/E, Solidworks, NX, etc.) in relation to the production of two and three dimensional images of design concepts for machinery components. Introduction to finite element techniques for structural analysis. Includes hands-on experience in the use of CAD software packages for designing and analyzing mechanical components. Prerequisites: MENG 105



Course Outcome Assessment CO-1: Make a detail drawing that follows standard practices for features such as dimensions, through holes, connections, and radii. CO-2: Identify key tolerances associated with a part assembly and explain how to inspect parts to determine the degree to which the part matches the drawing. CO-3: Explode, animate, and render assemblies for use in illustrating and analyzing design features. Program Outcome Assessment c. An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as



ABET outcome c


MENG 321 CO1- CO2- CO3 Final (31,2,0,0) 2.94

ABET outcome k


MENG 321 SolidWorks CAD (31,2,0,0) 2.94


10 May 15, 2018


MENG 324 Vibration & System Dynamics

Spring 2018

Catalog Description

Mathematical modeling and analysis of lumped dynamic systems with mechanical elements. Topics: time domain solutions (with emphasis on one- and multi-degree-of-freedom vibration problems including free and forced vibration), computer simulation, block diagram representation, numerical methods and frequency domain solutions. Prerequisites: MENG 212, MATH 320 Co-requisite: None.



Course Outcome Assessment CO-1: Model mechanical systems: Translational and rotational.

CO-2: Model other types of dynamic systems.

CO-3: Solve free vibrations problems for single-degree-of-freedom systems.

CO-4: Solve harmonically forced vibrations problems for single-degree-of-freedom systems, including rotating

imbalance and base vibration.

CO-5: Solve arbitrarily forced vibrations problems for single-degree-of-freedom systems.

CO-6: Solve for multi-degree-of-freedom systems: natural modes and forced harmonically forced vibrations.

CO-7: Analyze and simulate dynamic systems with Matlab/SIMULINK Program Outcome Assessment a. An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering.

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


ABET outcome a


MENG 324 CO1 to CO6 Final Exam (2,7,1,0) 2.1

ABET outcome c


MENG 324 Project CO-7 (7,3,0,0) 2.7


11 May 15, 2018


EENG 211 Electric Circuits I

Fall 2017

Catalog Description

Properties of linear electric networks, mesh and nodal analysis, network theorems, solution of first order and second order circuits in the time domain are studied. Software packages, such as PSPICE, MATLAB and MATHCAD will be introduced. Prerequisite: MATH 170, PHYS 170 Corequisite: MATH 180, PHYS 180 Modifications made to the course:


Course Outcome Assessment CO-1: Solve for currents and voltages in dc circuits using the Kirchhoff equations CO-2: Solve for currents and voltages in multi-node, multi-mesh dc circuits using the Node-Voltage method or the Mesh-Current method CO-3: Find Thevenin and Norton equivalent circuits CO-4: Solve for transient currents and voltages in RL and RC circuits CO-5: Solve for transient currents and voltages in under, over or critically damped RLC circuits CO-6: Use Matlab to calculate and plot currents and voltages as functions of time CO-7: Use PSpice to solve for currents and voltages in multi-node, multi-mesh dc circuits CO-8: Use PSpice to solve for transient currents and voltages in RL and RC circuits CO-9: Use PSpice to solve for transient currents and voltages in under, over or critically damped RLC circuits Program Outcome Assessment a. An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering.

ABET outcome a


EENG 211 CO1 to CO6 Final Exam (5,9,3,0) 2.11


12 May 15, 2018


EENG 275 Electronics Lab

Spring 2018

Catalog Description

Laboratory work to complement lecture courses. Prerequisites: EENG 211 or EENG 212 or EENG 221 Modifications made to the course:


Course Outcome Assessment CO-1: Write a well-structured technical report, the means of solution and an appropriate conclusion. CO-2: Conduct the experiments listed in the table below using lab components and LTSpice simulation.

Topic

1 Properly Using Lab Equipment

2 Function Generator, Oscilloscope

3 Series Circuit and Parallel Circuits

4 Circuit Analysis

5 Circuit Theory

6 Time Domain vs. Frequency Domain

7 Diode Analysis

8 DC Power Supplies

9 MOSFET Amplifier

10 Bipolar Junction Transistor (BJT) Amplifier

11 Review

12 Practical Test

Program Outcome Assessment f. An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.

g. An ability to communicate effectively



13 May 15, 2018

ABET outcomes g & f


EENG 275 Lab Reports CO-1 (92,22,0,0) 2.81

ABET outcome k


EENG 275 LTSpice Simulation & Lab Test CO-2

(10,4,0,0) 2.71


14 May 15, 2018

Faculty Course Assessment Report (FCAR)

Program Outcome Version MENG 201

Engineering Programming Fall 2017

Catalog Description

This course provides an introduction to computer programming and develops skills in problem solving, algorithm development, and programming using software such as MATLAB. Topics include data types and storage, expressions and statements, program flow control, arrays, and functions. Matrix and vector operations are also introduced.



Course Outcome Assessment CO-1: List and describe the functional units that make up digital computers and how these units are manipulated by software. CO-2: Implement and apply programming constructs including assignments, flow control structures, and functions to develop algorithms. CO-3: Manipulate matrices and vectors using specialized functionality, including built in operators and package functions. CO-4: Plot technical data CO-5: Apply skills to develop algorithms to solve mathematical and engineering problems. Program Outcome Assessment k. An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practices.

ABET outcome k


MENG 201 Matlab Programming Project (7,2,0,2) 2.27


15 May 15, 2018

Attachment.2

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


16 May 15, 2018

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


17 May 15, 2018

Attachment.3

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

nyit annual program assessment report, may 2018 · nyit annual program assessment report, may 2018...

Documents