sjsu annual program assessment form academic year 2013-2014 · chem 1a general chemistry x ge (area...

SJSU Annual Program Assessment Form

Academic Year 2013-2014

Department: Biomedical, Chemical and Materials Engineering

Program: Chemical Engineering

College: Engineering

Website: http://bcme.sjsu.edu/

_ Check here if your website addresses the University Learning Goals. <If so, please provide the link.>

Program Accreditation (if any): ABET through 2016

Contact Person and Email: Claire Komives, [email protected]

Date of Report: March 1, 2014

Part A

List of Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs)

The student outcomes for the Chemical Engineering Program are the following:

1.) Ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering

2.) Ability to design/conduct experiments and analyze/interpret data

3.) Ability to design system, component or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints

such as economic, environmental, social, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability and

sustainability

4.) Ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams

5.) Ability to identify, formulate and solve engineering problems

6.) Understanding of professional and ethical responsibility

7.) Ability to communicate effectively

8.) Understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global/societal context

9.) Recognition of the need for and an ability to engage in life-long learning

10.) Knowledge of emerging and new technologies and contemporary social issues

11.) Ability to use the techniques, skills and modern tools necessary for engineering practice

1. Map of PLOs to University Learning Goals (ULGs)

Alignment – Matrix of PLOs to Courses

1.0 (a)

2.0 (b)

3.0 ©

4.0 (d)

5.0 (e)

6.0 (f)

7.0 (g)

8.0 (h)

9.0 (i)

10.0 (j)

11.0 (k)

MATH 30 Calculus I X

CHEM 1A General Chemistry X X

GE (Area A1) Oral

Communications X

ENGL 1A Composition X

ENGR 10 X X X X X X

Kinesiology X

MATH 31 Calculus II X

CHEM 1B General Chemistry X X

PHYS 70 General Physics X

ENGL 1B Composition X

MATH 32 Calculus III X

PHYS 71 General Physics X X

AMS 1A American Civilization X

CE 99: Statics X

Kinesiology X

EE 98 Introduction to Circuits X

MATH 133A Differential

Equations X

MATE 25 Introduction to

Materials X X X

AMS 1B American Civilization X

GE (E) Human Understanding

and Development

CHEM 112A Organic Chemistry X

CHE 190 Transport Phenomena X X

CHEM 161A Physical Chemistry X

CHE 162 Statistics and Analysis X X X

CHE 115 Industrial Chemical

Calculations X X X

ENGR 100W Engineering

Reports X

CHE 151 Process Engineering

Thermodynamics X X

ADV GE Area S (Self, Society &

Equality in the US)

Chem 112B Organic Chemistry X

CHEM 113A Organic Chemistry

Laboratory X X

CHE 160A Unit Operations I X X X X X

XXX 100+ Upper Division

Tech/Math Elective ** X X X X

CHE 161L Unit Operations

Laboratory X X X X X

CHEM 162L Physical Chemistry

Laboratory X X X

CHE 158 Reactor Design &

Kinetics X X X X X X X X

CHE 160B Unit Operations II X X X X X X X

CHE 161 Process Safety & Ethics X X X X X X

Chem 100+ Upper Division

Chemistry Elective ** X

CHE 185 Process Dynamics &

Control* X X X

Area V (Culture, Civilization &

Global Understanding)

CHE 165 Plant Design X X X X X X X X X X

CHE 162L Unit Operations

Laboratory X X X X X X X X

XXX 100+ Upper Division

Tech/Math Elective ** X X

2. Planning – Assessment Schedule

Once a year, we carry out the assessment according to this schedule. Note the student (program)

outcomes are numbered one to eleven as listed in Part A above, with the number after the decimal

point identifying a performance indicator to define exactly what the students must do to achieve the

outcome. The course numbers listed across the top of the table can be found in the above table.

The courses to the left of the table are the junior courses and those on the right are the senior

courses. The assessment of each outcome can be found below in part C of this report. Our annual

assessment schedule includes the assessment of each outcome each year.

Performance Criteria

11

5

19

0

15

1

16

0A

16

2

15

8

16

0B

16

1

16

1L

16

2L

16

5

18

5

10

0W

1.1

Analyze systems

through material and

energy balances

models 2

1.2

Specify operating

conditions for a heat

exchanger to meet

performance

requirements 3

1.3

Evaluate the design of

a non-isothermal

reactor for a chemical

process. 3

2.2

Analyze and interpret

data for chemical

reaction kinetics 3

2.3

Design an experiment

for a unit operation

experiment 3

2.4

Analyze and interpret

data for a unit

operation experiment 3

3.1

Design an isothermal

reactor for a chemical

process. 3

3.2

Complete process

operating risk analyses

for a plant and develop

inherently safe system

to minimize risk 3

3.3

Analyze, design and

evaluate mass transfer

processes for specific

applications 3

4.1

Function effectively on

multi-disciplinary

teams 3

5.1

Analyze a thermal

system for appropriate

heat transfer prediction 2

5.2

Compare alternative

reactor designs and

select the most

effective choice for a

given process 2

6.1

Students demonstrate

knowledge of code of

engineering ethics 1

6.2 Identify the ethical

issues in a case study 1

6.3

Students can design a

strategy to manage a

situation where an

employee/subordinate

commits a violation of

engineering ethics 3

7.1 Write effectively 3

7.2 Give an effective oral

presentation 3

8.1

Appraise the inherent

safety strategies

applied in an

experiment or process 2

8.2

Estimate the societal

impact of a project on

the surrounding

community 3

9.1

Evaluate a technical

process based on a

journal review article. 3

10.

1

Evaluate relative

technical and economic

merit for alternate

process configurations 3

11.

1

Use simulation

software to design a

unit operation to meet

specified performance

criteria. 2

11.

2

Use non-linear

regression to evaluate

kinetic mechanisms. 3

1,2 and 3 refer to levels of learning according to Bloom’s Taxonomy. Level 1 is up to level 2 in

Blooms, Level 2 on this table refers to levels 3-4 in Blooms and Level 3 on this table refers to

Blooms levels 5-6.

3. Student Experience

On the first day of CHE 115, which is the first required core course taken before the other courses, a

presentation is given to the students to explain the accreditation process and where the various

outcomes are assessed throughout the required curriculum. As the courses progress, the faculty

who are responsible for the individual outcomes may alert the students (especially if the assessment

instrument is not assigned for a grade) what the purpose of the assignment is.

Part B

6. Graduation Rates for Total, Non URM and URM students (per program and degree)

Academic Programs

First-time Freshmen: 6 Year Graduation Rates

New UG Transfers: 3 Year Graduation Rates

Grads : 3 Year Graduation Rates

Fall 2007 Cohort Fall 2010 Cohort Fall 2010 Cohort

Entering % Grad Entering % Grad Entering % Grad

Chemical Engineering Total 10 20.0% 17 41.2% 16 37.5%

URM 4 0.0% 6 16.7% 1 100.0%

Non-URM 5 20.0% 8 50.0% 11 27.3%

Other 1 100.0% 3 66.7% 4 50.0%

7. Headcounts of program majors and new students (per program and degree)

Fall 2013

New Students Cont. Students

Chemical Engineering

Degree 1st Fr. UG Transf New Creds 1st Grads UGs Creds

Total 32 47 0 18 113 0

BS 32 47 0 0 113 0

MS 0 0 0 18 0 0

8. SFR and average section size (per program)

Fall 2013

Course Prefix Course Level Student to Faculty Ratio (SFR)

Average Headcount per Section

CHE - Chemical Engineering Total 18.6 21.1

Upper Division 20.2 30.4

Graduate Division 13.1 7.2

9. Percentage of tenured/tenure-track instructional faculty (per department)

Fall 2013

% Tenured/Prob Tenured Probationary Temp Lecturer

Chemical and Materials Engineering

45.5% 3.692 5.8 1.149

Part C

1. Closing the Loop/Recommended Actions Changes based on evaluation of student outcomes.

ChE 2013 Assessment Data on Student Outcomes 1-11

Outcome: 1.0 Ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering

General Performance Criterion: Analyze systems through material and energy balances models

Performance criteria (level 2)

1.1 Solve a material balance on a process with a chemical reaction

Data collected in CHE 115, Industrial Chemical Calculations, Instructor Claire Komives

Grading strategy: Each calculation that is correctly done is given full credit. The solution is divided into

individual calculations. If an error is made early in the calculation but the remainder is correctly done,

they get credit for the correctly done calculations even though the numbers don't match the actual

solution. Students who fail to meet the criteria most often either don't know where to start or get stuck

early on, and so 60% represents a solution that has a lot correct in it and may be almost complete but

with some calculation errors.

Fall ’13

1.1a Solve a material balance with a chemical reaction: Problem 1 on final exam 26 of 36 got 60% or

higher correct, or 72%

1.1b Solve a material balance without a chemical reaction: Problem 3a on final exam evaporation of

water from a caustic solution. 21 of 36 met the criterion, or 58%

1.1c Solve an energy balance with a chemical reaction: Problem 2b on the final exam. 18 of 36 students

met the criterion, or 50%.

Recommendation: Members of the ChE Industrial Advisory Board met in Spring 2014 and agreed that

although the numbers were low for the students who achieved these outcomes, this was expected in

the Material and Energy Balance Course. The instructor will not modify the curriculum but will ensure

that the students performance continues to be acceptable for the necessary rigor of chemical

engineering.

Outcome: 1.0 Ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering

Program Evaluation Component (1.2): Specify operating conditions for a heat exchanger to meet

performance requirements (1.2 in CHE 160A)

Assignment(s): Series of short answer calculation and qualitative questions on Final Examination

Grading rubric- 55% or greater on total score from questions

Analysis

Spring '13 30 of 33 ChE students met the criteria. Most of the mistakes were made related to

determining the correct length with analyzing a multiple pass exchanger. Students in general understood

how to determine the length. They had difficulty with the complexity of envisioning a multiple pass

system.

Recommendation

Have students work more closely with hands on models that are passed around class and reinforce the

concepts of multiple pass exchangers with an in-class activity or online quiz.

Outcome: 2.0 Ability to design/conduct experiments and analyze/interpret data

0

5

10

15

# o

f S

tud

en

t

Score

Data for Student Performance in Heat Exchanger Analysis

Performance Criterion 2.2: Analyze and interpret data for chemical reaction kinetics

Performance criteria (level 3): The student can derive rate expressions from kinetics mechanisms for

homogeneous and/or heterogeneous systems.

Assignment 1: Derive the rate expression from a mechanism.

Grading rubric- Criteria 50% of total points which ranged from 16 to 65 points total on a midterm exam

or final exam problem

Fall ’13 29 of 33 ChE students, out of 33 students enrolled, met the criteria. The highest score out of 27

points possible was 27, the lowest was 9.5 and the average was 20.4 (average was 75.6%).

Performance Criterion 2.3: Design an experiment for a unit operation experiment

The student can develop a strategy to gather information and obtain data necessary in order to meet their

experimental objective(s).

Assignment 1: Design an experimental plan, including key equations with assumptions, and detailed

experimental matrix that will allow the student to achieve their experimental objectives using the given

experimental apparatus.

Grading rubric- Criteria 75% of total points on three experimental plans (100 points each) required prior

to the start of each experiment. The experimental plan grading rubric is included at the end of this

analysis.

Spring ’13 13 of 13 ChE students, out of 13 students enrolled, met the criteria. The highest score out of

300 points possible was 260, the lowest was 250 and the average was 254.2 (average was 84.7%).

Recommendation

In general, it did not seem like the students used the grading rubric to improve their scores. For instance,

they did not seem to check their individual rubric scores and determine which area(s) needed

improvement, nor which areas were assigned the most possible points. The rubric was handed out for the

student to analyze on their own. I propose going over the rubric with each team in person and see if this

helps them make more effective improvements. No other changes are recommended at this time.

Performance Criterion 2.4: Analyze and interpret data for a unit operation experiment


The student can analyze experimental data and reach conclusions substantiated by statistical analysis.

Assignment 1: Carry out a basic statistical analysis of the data collected.

a) Calculate the mean, variance, standard deviation, median, mode, and range from the data given.

b) Formulate appropriate null and alternative hypotheses for this data.

c) Test these hypotheses using 01.0=a and the one sample t-test. What you can conclude from

the test?

d) Find the P-value for the test. Explain what significance of the P-value

e) Construct a 99% confidence interval on the mean weight. What is your conclusion?

Make sure to use appropriate units and significant figures for your results

Grading rubric- Criteria 75% of the possible points for this problem.


points possible was 19, the lowest was 16 and the average was 17.5 (average was 87.5%)

Recommendation: In previous analyses it was found to be hard to assess this PEC adequately because different

labs required different analyses and some students did not perform the analysis adequately. So it became an in

class assignment in the lecture portion. In Fall 2012, the lecture was moved to ChE 161L so the students would

have more chance to work on statistical analysis of data both semesters. This move was a result of previous

assessment discussion to improve the curriculum. So this PEC is now analyzed in ChE 161L starting Fall 2012.

Outcome: 3.0 Ability to design system, component or process to meet desired needs

Performance Criterion 3.1 (CHE 158): Design an isothermal reactor for a chemical process.

Performance criteria (level 3) 3.1: The student can solve simple single answer problems using the

ideal reactor design equations mentioned, including variable volume systems.

Assignment 1: Find volume of ideal plug flow reactor and/or continuous stirred tank reactor to achieve

desired conversion on midterm exam 1.

Grading rubric/criteria 60% of total points which ranged from 40 to 50 points total on a midterm exam

problem


points possible was 18, the lowest was 5 and the average was 11 (average was 84.4%).

Recommendation In general the students are meeting this criteria in a satisfactory manner.

Course: CHE 160B; Instructor Claire Komives


3.3 Analyze, design and evaluate mass transfer processes for specific applications (CHE 160B)

Assignment(s):

Exam test question requiring design of unit operation process.

Grading rubric/criteria – Criterion is to get at least 60% correct (this is a C in the course).

Calculation errors – if the numbers are all correct but the value obtained is wrong (means punched it into

the calculator incorrectly) loss of 1 point

The problem is broken down to parts worth 3 or 5 points each. What is correctly calculated gets the full 3

or 5 points. If it is incorrect no credit is given. Conceptual errors lose 5 points, an error in looking up a

number or other “mistake” that is not a sign of misunderstanding a concept generally loses 3 points.

Analysis (How many students met the criteria)

Fall ‘13

Problem on the 2nd midterm to determine the height of an absorption column. 100% of the students met

the criteria (27 students).

Problem on final to analyse the permeate rate of an ultrafiltration system. 85% of the students met the

criteria (27 students).

Outcome: 4.0 Ability to function on multidisciplinary teams

Performance criteria (level 2) (CHE 160B)

Assignment(s):

Student teams are assembled based on their learning styles by the instructor at the beginning of the

course. Four team assignments are completed, involving the design of a scaled-up separation process

based on a published paper of small- or pilot-scale data. Teams of 3 (a few 4) are assembled and for each

project the three roles are as follows:

1) Fundamental equations; analytical solution where feasible

2) Simulation of process using Simsci ProII, Excel or matlab (mathcad, mathematica OK)

3) Take lead in preparing the report and present the design solution to the class.

Grading rubric/criteria – Criterion is to get at least a 3 for the overall average score.

Students complete the following rubric regarding each of their teammates due on the last day of the

semester in-class session. They are encouraged to be honest as the evaluation will have no impact on the

students’ grades, only if they turn in the rubric completed they will receive 2 extra credit points toward

their homework grades.

Numbers are assigned to the four levels: Beginning=1; Developing=2; Accomplished=3; Exemplary=4.

Acceptable level of performance is an average score of “Accomplished,” (or 3) determined by taking

averages of the input of each student on their performance on the team. The seven averaged scores are

then averaged to obtain an overall average performance. An overall average of 3.0 or higher meets the

criteria.

Contribute Beginning Developing Accomplished Exemplary

Research and

Gather

Information

Does not collect

any information

that relates to the

topic

Collects very little

information --

some relates to

the topic

Collects some

basic information

- most relates to

the topic

Collects a great

deal of

information -- all

relates to the

topic

Share

Information

Does not relay

any information

to teammates

Relays very little

information --

some relates to

the topic

Relays some basic

information --

most relates to

the topic

Relays a great

deal information -

- all relates to

topic

Take

Responsibility Beginning Developing Accomplished Exemplary

Fulfill Team

Role's and duties

Does not perform

any duties of

assigned team

role

performs very

little duties

Performs nearly

all duties

Performs all

duties of assigned

team role

Share Equally

Always relies on

others to do the

work

Rarely does the

assigned work --

often needs

reminding

Usually does the

assigned work --

rarely needs

reminding

Always does the

assigned work

without having to

be reminded

Value Other's

Viewpoints Beginning Developing Accomplished Exemplary

Listen to Other

Teammates

Is always talking -

- never allows

anyone else to

speak

Usually doing

most of the

talking -- rarely

allows others to

speak

Listens, but

sometimes talks

too much

Listens and

speaks a fair

amount

Cooperate with

Teammates

Usually argues

with teammates

Sometimes

argues Rarely argues

Never argues

with teammates

Make fair

decisions

Usually wants to

have things their

own way

Often sides with

friends instead of

considering all

views

Usually considers

all views

Always helps

team to reach a

fair decision


Fall ’13 80% of the 27 undergraduates completed the survey; 76% of the students met the criteria.

Recommendation (Is there something you can modify so that more of the students meet the criteria?)

In Fall ’14 I will add a brief presentation on teamwork on the first day of class to explain to the students

the importance of cooperation on the team assignments.

Outcome: 5.0 Ability to identify, formulate and solve engineering problems

Outcome: 5.0 Ability to identify, formulate and solve engineering problems

Program Evaluation Component: Analyze a thermal system for appropriate heat transfer prediction

(5.1 in ChE 190)

Assignment(s):

Thermal Network In-Class Dry lab assignment

i. Analyze a multiple layer cylinder for heat flux and rate of heat transfer. Draw and analyze the

proper thermal network

ii. Analyze a multiple layer wall. Design wall to meet thermal requirements based on material

selection and thickness.

Grading rubric- Criteria is 70%

Analysis for Quiz Assignment

Fall '13 36 of 37 ChE students met the criteria and demonstrated the ability to analyze a thermal circuit

(Figure 1) The one person that did not meet the criteria was an unexcused absence. All students that did

participate in the lab understood how to analyze a thermal network.

Recommendation

Overall the students meet PEC. Next year I will put more emphasis on design to challenge the students.

Performance Criterion 5.2 (CHE 158): Compare alternative reactor designs and select the most

effective choice for a given process


0

20

# O

f St

ud

en

ts

Scores

Thermal Network Lab

The student can evaluate different types of ideal reactor configurations, including multiple reactors, and

determine which is optimal for a given reaction.

Assignment 1: Analyze which type of reactor and which configuration (series or parallel) would be best

for a given situation.

Grading rubric- Criteria 50% of total points which ranged from 15 to 30 points total on a midterm exam

problem or final exam problem



points possible was 15, the lowest was 5 and the average was 12.5 (average was 83.3%).

Recommendation In general most students, especially if they attempted this problem, demonstrated

satisfactory competence. Some students seemed to have difficulty with time management. I propose

giving a homework assignment that students attend a time management and test taking skills workshop in

their earliest ChE or MatE courses, e.g. ChE 115 and MatE 25. In this way they would have exposure to

those skills twice. No other changes are recommended at this time.

Outcome: 6.0 Understanding of professional and ethical responsibility

Performance Criterion 6.1 (CHE 161) Apply engineering ethics and professionalism in conducting

projects


6.1 Students demonstrate knowledge of code of engineering ethics

Assignment: memorize the 6 Fundamental Canons of the NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers for the

midterm exam

20 points on their ethics midterm were tied to identifying a correct cannon and applying that cannon to

the situation presented (required an analysis starting with the appropriate NSPE cannon). If the cannon

is incorrect, the rest of the analysis becomes illogical.

Fall ’13: 40 out of 40 ChE students scored at least over 15 out of 20; lowest one score was 15.5 points.

So 100% met the criteria


6.2 Students can identify the ethical issues in an ethics case study.

Assignment 1: Identify from a fact pattern ethical issues for the midterm exam

Grading rubric – Criteria is to get at least 15 points.

TOTAL out of 20 pts

Question 1 (10 pts)

Answer the Question – 1pt

Basis for your Decision – 2 pts (discuss NSPE cannons and appropriate cannon)

How do you handle the situation? – 1pts – (best answer to be professional as possible)

What are the possible legal issues? – 1pts

What are the possible ethical issues? -1 pts

What are the possible professional issues? – 1pts

What are the possible consequences of your choice? 1pt

Are you prepared for these consequences? – 1 pt

Clarity, Conciseness, writing - 1 pts

90% - 9 pts

80% - 8 pts

70%- 7 pts

Question 3 (3 pts)

Appropriate Ethical issue - 1 pts

Analysis – 1 pt

Writing – 1 pt

Question 4 (3 pts)

Appropriate professional issue - 1 pts

Analysis and NSPE – 1 pt

Writing – 1 pt

Fall ’13 40 out of 40 ChE students met the criteria.

Assignment 2: Choose a current engineering ethical topic in a newspaper and prepare a 250-500 word

typed double spaced 12 point font Times New Roman paper discussing the issue from the point of view

of the NSPE Engineering Code of Ethics.

Grading will be based on:

Article Choice: 2 pts

Introduction: 2 pts Analysis w.r.t NSPE Code of Ethics: 3 pts Format: 2 pts Style: 1 pts The Assignment was out of 10 pts.

39 out of 40 students received at least a 7 or higher

One student received 4 because the assignment was handed in a late.


6.3 Students can design a strategy to manage a situation where an employee/subordinate commits a

violation of engineering ethics

Assignment: Question 2 on the midterm exam required identification, analysis and how to manage a

situation where the manager commits a violation of engineering ethics which is more difficult of a

situatio

Question 2 (3 pts) Appropriate Legal issue - 1 pts Analysis and conclusion – 1 pts Writing – 1 pts Fall ’13 40 of 40 ChE students met the criteria

Outcome: 7.0 Ability to communicate effectively

Performance Criterion 7.1 Write effectively

This outcomes is assessed in Engr 100W. The performance criterion is to achieve a 7 on the Writing

Skills Test. The students must obtain a score of 7 in order to pass the course, so 100% of the students

meet the criterion.

Performance Criterion 7.2 (CHE 160B) Give an effective oral presentation

Assignment: Give the oral presentation for the team project. Four projects are assigned in the semester

so each student gets a turn at giving the presentation. They can vote whoever can get a second try in

the groups that only have 3 students.

Grading criteria: Obtain at least a 4 average on the following rubric:

The introduction section was effective 4 4

The objectives of this aspect of the project were clearly

presented 4 4

The presentation had an effective communication structure

and the logic of the project activity was clear 4 4

The presentation was effectively targeted to this audience 4 4

The conclusion section was effective 4 4

PRESENTATION STYLE

The presenter had a professional appearance

The presenter exhibited confident enthusiasm about the

subject material 3

The pace of the presentation was appropriate 4 4

The presenter enunciated clearly and spoke at an

appropriate volume 4 4

The presenter seemed relaxed in front of the audience

gestures by the presenter seemed natural. 4 4

The presenter interacted effectively and made good visual

contact with the audience 4

VISUAL AIDS

Slides were easy to read and designed with an interesting

format 4 8

Slides were relevant and communicated content effectively 4 8

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS 0

Presenter clearly understood the questions before

responding 4 4

Responses were concise and accurate 4 4

86

The numbers mean: 5 = Strongly Agree 4 = Agree 3 = Slightly Agree 2 = Slightly Disagree 1 = Disagree 0 = Strongly Disagree Boxes that are blacked out are scored (except for subject headings) but do not impact the grade.

The target is 86 which is to AGREE (on average) with all of the statements.

Fall ’13 21 of 27 students met the criteria. 78% met the criterion

Outcome 8.0 Understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global/societal context

Performance Criteria 8.1-8.3 Assess safety aspect(s) of a chemical process


8.1 (Identify and) Summarize the hazards in a chemical process

Assignment: Determine how to sort various industrial and lab chemicals

10 points are to identify and describe the hazards in the process described in a group assignment

Your lab contains the following chemicals.

Assume wt%

Phosphine Sulfuric acid 50% Calcium hydroxide Acetone Cobalt sulfide crystals

AZ P4903 photoresist Acetic Acid Hydrofluoric acid 10%

Ammonium perchlorate

glycerine

Arsine Hydrochloric acid 28-30%

Calcium carbonate pellets

Toluene

Sodium hydroxide pellets

NMP (N-Methyl-2-

pyrrolidone)

Hydrocyanic Acid Compressed Argon

Potassium permanganate

Benzene

Boron Trifluoride

Nitric acid 65%

Ammonium hydroxide 28-

30%

Hydrogen peroxide 30%

Nickel sulfide crystals

Liquid Nitrogen

Chromic Acid

Sodium chloride

Perchloric acid 60-65%

Methanol

Sulfuric acid 96%

Sodium hydroxide 50%

Liquid CO2

Methylene Chloride

Copper sulfate crystals

Silane Gas

Hydrofluoric acid 50%

Tetramethylammonium

hydroxide (TMAH) 25%

Ethanol

Shipley S1813 Photo Resist

Deadly gas Strong acid Strong base Organic Solvent Powder

chemical Weak acid Weak base/strong acid oxidizer flammable

1. Please determine how you would sort them (i.e. by itself; fridge, oxidizer cabinet, acid cabinet

etc…)

2. Please note how to dispose of them as well (i.e. mention what waste container to place them in

when completed – organic waste, acidic waste, by itself, immediate pick-up etc…)

3. Please note what PPE you should have on hand in the lab (total for all chemicals).

Fall ’13 38 of 40 ChE students met the criteria.


8.2 Students can appraise the inherent safety strategies of a chemical process.

Assignment: Determine how to sort various industrial and lab chemicals and how to store them properly

and safely and what PPE to use when working with it

Fall ’13 39 of 40 ChE students met the criteria.


8.3 Students know (can restate) the essential principles of chemical process safety

Assignment: Final exam - safety

Grading criteria 60% on final

Fall '13 40 of 40 ChE students achieved above 60% on the final exam

Assignment:

Prepare a 250 to 500 max. word typed double spaced 12 point font Times New Roman paper on a safety

scenario, event or issue that is in the news discussing it using principles discussed in class (these being

the hazard/risk identification, administrative controls, the engineering controls and and other controls.)

Grading will be based on:

Article Choice (please include): 2pts

Introduction: 2 pts

Analysis w.r.t to the hazard/risk identification, administrative controls, the engineering controls and

other controls.: 3pts

This means that you may either identify the hazard/risks presented in the article or you may present an

article and point out the hazards/risks. You may also discuss the controls presented in the article, or you

may suggest controls.

Format: 1pt

Style (e.g. if it is poorly written I will deduct points for it): 2pt

Fall '13 38 of 40 ChE students achieved above 8 pts. One student handed the assignment in late and

received a 4. The other student did not hand in the assignment.

Outcome 9.0: Recognition of the need for and an ability to engage in life-long learning

Performance Criterion 9.1 (CHE 158): Evaluate a technical process based on a journal review article


The student will be able to locate and critique kinetics and reactor design articles published in the current

literature.

Assignment 1: Write a two-page critique of a reactor design journal article.

Grading rubric- Criteria 50% of total points on a either two or three 20 point homework problems

through the course of the semester



points possible was 58, the lowest was 4.0 and the average was 41.3 (average was 69%).


In general most students if they attempted this assignment, demonstrated satisfactory competence. Some

students did not turn in all the critiques because they were homework and not exam problems. I am going

to try giving them a higher point value to see if that encourages everyone to turn in the assignment. In

addition, I will give a make up for this particular assignment since the biggest problem seems to be

students turning in the critiques.

Program Outcome: 11.0 Ability to use the techniques, skills and modern tools necessary for

engineering practice

Outcome: 11.0 Ability to use the techniques, skills and modern tools necessary for engineering practice

Program Evaluation Component: Use simulation software to design a unit operation to meet specified

performance criteria. (11.1 in CHE 160A)

Assignment(s): Use PRO II Designer (SimSci) to design a multipass shell and tube heat exchanger to

meet specified performance criteria.

Grading rubric- 80% or greater on laboratory assignment

Analysis

Spring '14 All students scored 100% on this assignment. Students were not allowed to turn in an

assignment that did not meet all design criteria stated. The instructor worked with each student

individually to ensure completion of the assignment

Recommendation

All students met this performance criterion. No changes needed

Performance Criterion 11.2 (CHE 158): Use non-linear regression to evaluate kinetic mechanisms


The student can use statistical methods to fit kinetic data to rate expressions and to analyze the goodness

of fit.

Assignment 1: Analyze if rate expressions fit the given rate data well and determine if the data are good

enough to come to a conclusion regarding goodness of fit.

Grading rubric- Criteria 50% of total points from a midterm exam problem that ranged from 25 to 35

points



points possible was 25, the lowest was 6.5 and the average was 17.9 (average was 69%).


In general the students are meeting this criteria in a satisfactory manner. They are proficient at using the

non-linear equation solver as well as analyzing the statistics to determine if any of the models show a

good fit.

In Fall 2013, about six of the students went to the AIChE meeting in San Francisco as part of the ChE Car

Team and others helped volunteer. The exam was the week immediately following the AIChE meeting

and they weren’t quite prepared at exam time but did demonstrate proficiency on subsequent homework

problems that used this material.

No changes are recommended at this time.

12.

The table here shows the extent to which the students met the assessed outcomes for 2013.

Performance Criteria

11

5

19

0

15

1

16

0A

16

2

15

8

16

0B

16

1

16

1L

16

2L

16

5

18

5

10

0W

1.1

Analyze systems

through material

and energy

balances models 60%

1.2

Specify operating

conditions for a

heat exchanger

to meet

performance

requirements 91%

1.3

Evaluate the

design of a non-

isothermal

reactor for a

chemical

process. 94%

2.2

Analyze and

interpret data for

chemical

reaction kinetics 89%

2.3

Design an

experiment for a

unit operation

experiment 100%

2.4

Analyze and

interpret data for

a unit operation

experiment 100%

3.1

Design an

isothermal

reactor for a

chemical

process. 100%

3.2

Complete

process

operating risk

analyses for a

plant and

develop

inherently safe

system to

minimize risk 3

3.3

Analyze, design

and evaluate

mass transfer

processes for

specific

applications 92%

4.1

Function

effectively on

multi-disciplinary

teams

76% 3

5.1

Analyze a

thermal system

for appropriate

heat transfer

prediction 97%

5.2

Compare

alternative

reactor designs

and select the

most effective

choice for a

given process 97%

6.1

Students

demonstrate

knowledge of

code of

engineering

ethics

100%

6.2

Identify the

ethical issues in

a case study 98%

6.3

Students can

design a strategy

to manage a

situation where

an

employee/subord

inate commits a

violation of

engineering

ethics 100%

7.1 Write effectively 100%

7.2 Give an effective

oral presentation 78% 3

8.1

Appraise the

inherent safety

strategies

applied in an

experiment or

process 95%

8.2

Estimate the

societal impact

of a project on

the surrounding

community 3

9.1 Evaluate a

technical process

based on a

76%

journal review

article.

10.1

Evaluate relative

technical and

economic merit

for alternate

process

configurations 3

11.1

Use simulation

software to

design a unit

operation to

meet specified

performance

criteria. 100%

11.2

Use non-linear

regression to

evaluate kinetic

mechanisms. 76%

13. Proposed changes and goals (if any)

1) In ChE 160B, give the students the team evaluation rubric at the beginning of the course and

discuss it with them to introduce them to appropriate team function/behaviors.

2) In ChE 115, provide a set of notes for the students that is complete and has solved problems in it.

The set of notes given in Fall ’13 was on the first iteration. Improvements can be made to the

content to improve student learning.

3) The upper division labs, MATE 129 and CHE 194 will become (take one of them) as a required

elective option based on the assessment evaluation from the 2011 ABET review. This will come into

effect starting in 2015. It is anticipated that some of the outcomes will show higher performance

due to more rigorous lab skills.

4) The increased enrollment that has resulted in the past two years may show an effect on the

student outcomes performance which will require careful attention, especially in the senior courses.

5) The various curricular changes due to begin in fall of 2014 for the 120 unit requirement may also

result in deleterious impacts on the student outcomes. Courses particularly affected will be CHE 151

and the unit operations lab courses, CHE 161L and 162L courses, all of which will no longer have

Chem 161A as a required prerequisite, or Chem 162L as a prerequisite. We will keep a close watch

on the program outcomes from these courses.

sjsu annual program assessment form academic year 2013-2014 · chem 1a general chemistry x ge (area...

Documents