template for self-study report - 2011-12 - abet · tr-e-01 usu eac self-study 2 january, 2015 abet...

INTRODUCTION

This document is an example of a self-study for a fictitious institution, Upper State

University. Any similarities in the self-study descriptions with existing institutions

or programs are coincidental. Program evaluator training participants and other

readers should recognize that, as abbreviated learning documents, the Pre-Work self-

study and student transcripts DO NOT contain the following:

Institutional catalog information and promotional brochures and literature

Complete faculty qualification and workload information (Tables 6-1 and 6-

2)

All appendix information.

The required number of student transcripts; only three samples are provided

Additional transcript analysis aides that may be provided by the institution

Program evaluators should refer to the EAC self-study guidelines (www.abet.org) to

learn what is to be included in the full complement of required pre-visit materials.

Note: Based on the degree title, “Engineering,” there is no applicable program

specific criterion. This program is only evaluated under the General Criteria

and the Accreditation Policy and Procedure Manual.

ABET 415 North Charles Street

Baltimore, MD 21201

Phone: 410-347-7000

Fax: 410-625-2238 Email: [email protected]

Website: http://www.abet.org

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.abet.org/

TR-E-01 USU EAC Self-Study 2 January, 2015

ABET

Self-Study Report

for the

Engineering Program

at

Upper State University

Upper State, Anystate

July 1, 2015

CONFIDENTIAL

The information supplied in this Self-Study Report is for the confidential use of ABET and its authorized agents, and

will not be disclosed without authorization of the institution concerned, except for summary data not identifiable to a

specific institution.


Table of Contents

BACKGROUND INFORMATION .................................................................................... 4

CRITERION 1. STUDENTS ............................................................................................. 6

CRITERION 2. PROGRAM EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES ...................................... 10

CRITERION 3. STUDENT OUTCOMES ...................................................................... 12

CRITERION 4. COUTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT ....................................................... 18

CRITERION 5. CURRICULUM ..................................................................................... 54

A. Program Curriculum ....................................................................................... 54

B. Course Syllabi ................................................................................................. 59

CRITERION 6. FACULTY .............................................................................................. 67

CRITERION 7. FACILITIES .......................................................................................... 73

CRITERION 8. INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT ............................................................... 76

CRITERION 9. PROGRAM CRITERIA. 85

Appendix A – Course Syllabi ........................................................................................... 80

Appendix B – Faculty Vitae .............................................................................................. 81

Appendix C – Equipment .................................................................................................. 82

Appendix D – Institutional Summary ............................................................................... 83

Signature Attesting to Compliance .................................................................................... 95


BACKGROUND INFORMATION

A. Contact Information Dr. Garrett H. Aloevera

Department of Engineering

College of Natural Science and Engineering


Upper State, Anystate

Phone: (999) 123-4567

Fax: (999) 222-4567

Email: [email protected]

B. Program History The Engineering program at Upper State University is a general engineering program that

serves the regional economy of Northern Upper State, Anystate, USA. The program has been

in existence since 1978. Significant changes to the program include the offering of two

additional options as of Fall, 2010 – Chemical Engineering and Electrical Engineering. These

have been added to the existing Civil Engineering and Mechanical Engineering options

bringing the number of options to four.

The last general review was held October 11-13, 2009. Significant changes to the program

since the last visit include the hiring of eight new full time Engineering faculty

members. No significant changes have been made to the curriculum. Changes in response to

a shortcoming identified in the previous visit are described in Section F below.

C. Options The degree conferred is the B.S. in Engineering with options in one of four areas: Civil

Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, and Mechanical Engineering.

The option is noted on the student transcript, but is not indicated on the degree conferred.

Options are not required.

D. Program Delivery Modes The Engineering program is offered in the day mode with courses offered in traditional

lecture/laboratory style. Occasionally a course is offered in the evening. There is no significant

distance education or web-based component in the program. All students are required to spend

a minimum of one semester in a cooperative education or internship position.

mailto:[email protected]


E. Program Locations All elements of the program are offered on the Upper State University campus. No portion of

the program is offered elsewhere.

F. Deficiencies, Weaknesses or Concerns from Previous Evaluation(s) and the Actions

Taken to Address Them In the 2009-10 accreditation visit, the Final Statement cited a Concern in Criterion 6 Faculty .

The relevant section of the Final Statement is quoted below and the actions taken are described:

Criterion65. Faculty

“In the area of program faculty, Criterion 6 requires sufficient faculty to accommodate

adequate levels of professional development. While the program presently appears to have

sufficient faculty, there is evidence that the opportunity to engage in faculty development

programs either within or outside of the university is decreasing.”

The Engineering program budget was expanded to include additional funds for faculty travel

for the purposes of professional enhancement and development. All engineering faculty

members receive an annual stipend of at least $1,500 to support travel to professional meetings.

As much as possible, the travel is intended to be associated with the presentation of a poster or

paper.

In the semester following the campus visit, all engineering faculty participated in several

campus workshops including “Technology in the Classroom” and “Problem-Based Learning.”

Several attended “brown bag” luncheon seminars sponsored by the USU Teaching and

Learning Center. This practice continues to date. Two of our faculty members have leadership

roles in regional sections of their professional societies.

G. Joint Accreditation The program is not jointly accredited and is not seeking joint accreditation by more than one

commission.


GENERAL CRITERIA

CRITERION 1. STUDENTS

A. Student Admissions All Upper-State University (USU) freshman engineering students are admitted and dually

enrolled in the Undergraduate University Division (UUD) and the College of Natural Science

and Engineering (CNSE). The following requirements must be met for admission:

1. Cumulative high school grade point average of 2.5 or higher on a 4.0 point scale

2. Ranked in the top half of high school graduating class

3. SAT composite score of at least 950 or ACT composite of 20 or above.

Exceptions to these standards may be made on an individual basis and are reviewed by the

Admissions Office. Those who are admitted on an exception basis may be required to take

remedial work during their first year at Upper State University. Credits in remedial courses

are not applied to graduation requirements.

B. Evaluating Student Performance Two files are maintained for each upper-level student, one in the Associate Dean’s office and

one in the advisor’s office. The files contain all grade sheets, transfer credit evaluations, course

schedule planning sheets, records of advisor conferences, etc. The files are used mainly as a

documents repository, as most of the actual student and course information is located in

electronic sources.

Databases: Both advisors and students are able to assess their progress toward the degree using

a web-based Degree Auditing System (DAS). DAS is also able to produce an unofficial

transcript or technical grade point average calculation report for students. For advisors, support

staff, and administrators, DAS allows queries of student data using a variety of parameters and

data reporting and sorting choices. DAS obtains its data from the university’s mainframe-

based Student Information Report System (SIRS) which houses all course- and student-related

data for all USU students and courses (up to 30 years back). All academic advisors, authorized

staff, and administrators have access to all SIRS information.

The course registration system interfaces with SIRS and DAS to ensure that prerequisites are

met. A student is not permitted to register for a course unless all prerequisites identified in

SIRS are met or the instructor teaching the course approves an override of the system.

Academic advisors work closely with faculty and the Office of Student Placement to connect

students to co-curricular opportunities such as cooperative education, internships, and study

abroad. These students often have special scheduling considerations and academic advisors

help students devise a plan to complete degree requirements in a timely manner.

Warning Systems: There are several layers of academic warning systems functioning at USU

and in the College of Natural Science and Engineering:


1) Freshman Early Warning system Freshmen who are earning less than a 2.0 grade in certain common freshman courses are

sent Early Warning e-mail messages from the Registrar’s Office. The academic advisor

then follows up with phone calls, e-mail messages, and individual appointments to discuss

strategies for improvement.

2) Academic Standing of Undergraduate Students (ASUS) Students who have less than a 2.00 cumulative grade point average are placed on probation.

After several terms on probation, students may be recessed or dismissed, depending on

their specific combination of grades and probationary terms. Also, students who earn a 1.0

in one term, with six or more credits, are recessed regardless of prior GPA.

3) College of Natural Science and Engineering Academic Actions Complementing the ASUS, the CNSE takes additional measures for academic warning

before students become eligible for university probation and warns students when their

term grade point average falls below 2.00. Students who have a term GPA below 2.00 are

notified that they must have a term average above 2.00 in the next term, or be removed

from the college. Students with two consecutive terms below 2.00, but who are still in good

standing with the university (cumulative GPA > 2.00) are notified that they are no longer

eligible to continue in Engineering, but may change to another major. Students who are

recessed, dismissed, or declared not eligible to continue may appeal those actions to the

college’s Office of the Associate Dean for Undergraduate Studies.

C. Transfer Students and Transfer Courses Junior-level transfers are limited to very high-achieving applicants. Transfer admissions are

limited to about 50 students per year for the Engineering program (about 10% of enrollment).

Potential transfer students apply via the regular USU admissions process. Requirements for

direct transfer admission to the USU CNSE as a junior are

1) Completion of at least 56 semester credits.

2) Completion of at least Calculus I, II and III, Chemistry, Physics I and II, and a computing

course. Students with more course work completed than the minimum are given priority.

3) A minimum grade point average of 3.00 is required for consideration. International

students must have a 3.50 minimum grade point average.

4) A maximum of 50 external transfer students per year may be admitted.

There are no formal articulation agreements with other institutions, with the exception of the

Minority Advancement Program participants at Upper State Community College. Qualified

students (10 per year maximum) continuing to meet the established requirements of this

program are granted admission and scholarships to USU.

The evidence that the procedures for admitting transfer students are working lies in the fact

that transfer admission is very limited and competitive, and that (after an initial adjustment for

some) transfer students generally proceed through to their degree with the same success as

those who start as freshmen.

http://www.admis.msu.edu/


Students presenting courses for transfer credit include not only transfer students but also USU

students who take courses at other institutions in the summer. To ensure integrity, students

who take transfer courses are required to have an official transcript sent directly from the other

institution to USU’s Transfer Credit Evaluation Office.

The Transfer Credit Evaluation Office in the Admissions Office evaluates all courses taken at

other institutions and posts equivalent USU courses to the student’s record. For courses and

institutions where transfers are common and recurring, the equivalencies are determined by

review in the program offering the equivalent course. Where equivalencies are uncertain, the

credit evaluation office may post general credit under the program code, and the student may

request review by presenting the course description and syllabus to the program to change the

general credit to specific course credit. Only those credits earned at institutions accredited by

one of the regional accrediting agencies will be considered for transfer.

Course work assigned a passing grade below 2.00 (1.00 - 1.99) on a 4.00 scale may be

recognized in transfer if the overall grade point average from the institution at which a set of

grades was earned is 2.00 or higher. Students transferring from two-year institutions such as

community or junior colleges may present a maximum of one-half the number of credits

required for the bachelor's degree. Usually 60 semester credits are the maximum allowed.

International students who have attended officially recognized tertiary institutions may receive

transfer credit for work completed.

D. Advising and Career Guidance Student advising is conducted through the Office of the Associate Dean for Undergraduate

Studies in the College of Natural Sciences and Engineering (CNSE). In addition to its

importance in career counseling, advising helps assure that B.S. graduates have completed the

curriculum of the engineering program. The core engineering curriculum and the electives are

the key elements in meeting program educational objectives since UallU of the educational

objectives are addressed and student outcomes are achieved through the curriculum.

Specifically, the curriculum provides a thorough base of mathematics, physical science,

computing foundations, laboratory experience, and applications experience which prepares

students to apply engineering problem-solving principles to a variety of contemporary

problems. In addition, the curriculum provides the general education necessary to identify the

effect of design and implementation decisions in the broader societal context. The rigorous

curriculum is the foundation to the graduate’s ability to function as a practicing professional

or graduate student.

The CNSE employs a professional full-time academic advisor for the engineering program.

The advisor has a Master’s degree and is a member of a professional advising association.

Engineering advising is done separately from the other CNSE students, but the engineering

advisor works closely with the 10 academic advisors for the other CNSE students. The CNSE

Advising Coordinator and other CNSE advisors also assist with routine advising when needed.

All students first meet their advisor at the required Freshman Orientation Program before

starting classes. Further advising is available upon request, but not mandatory, and students

are ultimately responsible for planning their academic programs and meeting degree

requirements.


In addition to helping undergraduates plan their academic program, the academic advisor

maintains student records, certifies seniors for graduation, and uses e-mail to communicate

important academic and professional information to students. The advisor is a member of the

Engineering Curriculum Committee and participates in curriculum planning and in various

assessment and evaluation processes. Several feedback tools used in the program (year-end

surveys, Senior Exit Interview, and Alumni Survey) have indicated a very high level of student

satisfaction with the advising process.

The CNSE engineering advisor provides some basic career guidance, referring students to

faculty members when appropriate. Faculty members are available to students for career

guidance when requested.

Students have several options for receiving special academic or personal assistance. The

Learning Center offers several sessions throughout the academic year on topics including study

skills, test-taking, reading for comprehension, time management, and stress control. First-year

students, in particular, are encouraged to take advantage of these opportunities.

The college’s Office of Student Placement supports students in their professional development

and internship placement. The service offers seminars and assistance in resume writing,

interview skills, job searches, and career information. The office maintains job postings for

cooperative education internships and sponsors and coordinates the annual Career Fair.

E. Work in Lieu of Courses Upper State University Engineering students are encouraged to spend a minimum of one

semester in a cooperative education or internship position. The work experience is listed on

the student transcript, but no credit or grade is assigned.

F. Graduation Requirements A senior audit is conducted in the semester after a CNSE student attains 100 credits. At that

time, the student’s record is reviewed for progress toward the B.S. in Engineering degree, any

transfer credits that still need to be evaluated, documentation of waivers (substitutions), and

completion of electives. Students are not required to meet with the advisors, but are strongly

encouraged by e-mail and phone messages, when necessary. When a student applies for

graduation, the student record is reviewed by staff at several layers. The record is finally

submitted for certification by the Associate Dean. Any degree deficiencies are reported to the

Registrar’s Office.

G. Transcripts of Recent Graduates Transcripts from three May 2015 graduates are submitted along with this self-study report.

Additional information concerning transfer credit evaluation is attached to the transcript. The

degree, degree status, major, and minor are specified in the transcript header on the first page.


CRITERION 2. PROGRAM EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES

The Engineering program at Upper State University has accepted and implemented the use of the

term “objectives” as described in the ABET Engineering Criteria for 2015-16. Hence, the program

educational objectives are broad statements that describe what the faculty of the Engineering

program at Upper State University are preparing graduates to attain within a few years after

graduation.

A. Mission Statement

Institutional Mission In its one hundred-year history, Upper State University has been a leader in educating the

people of this state. In continuation of this rich tradition, Upper State University maintains its

commitment to advancing knowledge and serving a worldwide society. Upper State University

is committed to providing access to quality education and expert knowledge, to promoting

scholarship and problem solving to address the needs of a global society, to advancing diversity

both on our campus and within the community, and to making people matter.

College of Natural Science and Engineering (CNSE) Mission Statement

The CNSE will produce applied science, engineering, engineering technology, and computing

graduates who are able to integrate theoretical knowledge and practical application as

productive citizens in an ever-changing technological world. The CNSE graduate will have

the skills to be a productive member of the community, to work in an interdisciplinary

framework, and will have an appreciation of the effect of their work on the global society.

The university mission statement is published in the on-line undergraduate catalog

(www.usu.edu/ugcatalog), in university brochures, in recruiting literature, and is posted in

various display cases around campus. The college mission statement is likewise published in

the on-line undergraduate catalog (www.usu.edu/ugcatalog), in college brochures, in recruiting

literature, and is posted in the college’s buildings in various display cases.

B. Program Educational Objectives The program educational objectives (PEOs) support the missions of the institution and of the

college. The program educational objectives are published in our on-line undergraduate

catalog (Hwww.usu.edu/ugcatalogH), in college brochures, in recruiting literature, and are posted

in our building in various display cases. The PEOs for the Upper State University Engineering

Program are as follows:

The Engineering Program at USU expects the graduates within a few years of graduation to

attain the following:

1. be effective in the design of engineering solutions and the practical application of

engineering principles

2. effectively lead, work and communicate in cross functional teams

3. conduct themselves with high standards of ethics

4. be successfully employed in an engineering or related field, or accepted into graduate

programs

http://www.usu.edu/ugcatalog




5. expand their knowledge and capabilities through continuing education or other

lifelong learning experiences

6. serve their communities, whether locally, nationally, or globally.

C. Consistency of the Program Educational Objectives with the Mission of the Institution

If the program educational objectives are achieved then the program will have produced

graduates who are successful professionals and also good citizens. That is, the program will

provide a quality education based on expert knowledge that enables its graduates to be

successful problem solvers in a global society.

D. Program Constituencies

The principal constituencies of the Engineering program are the

Engineering faculty,

current Engineering students,

alumni,

major donors, and

employers.

Each of these constituencies is a stakeholder in the educational processes in the engineering

program. The Engineering faculty has the academic responsibility for the curriculum and for

education of the students. The program and curricula they administer is a major means of

accomplishing all of the program’s objectives. The engineering students are included as a

program constituency because their input is valuable feedback for program improvement and

because they are the direct beneficiaries of an effective educational process. Alumni are the

“products” and strong supporters of the academic program. Their careers demonstrate the

accomplishment of the PEOs. Alumni often become the major donors who play advisory roles

and provide financial support for scholarships and endowments that directly affect students in

their education. Employers desire to hire well-educated undergraduate engineering students,

and graduates who accomplish all of the PEOs are a clear benefit to their employers. In

summary, each of these constituencies has a vested interest in the success and continued

improvement of the engineering program at Upper State University and the proper direction of

the program through its educational objectives.

E. Process for Revision of the Program Educational Objectives The overall process to determine and approve the current version of the program educational

objectives (PEOs) began in the summer of 2010. A first draft of the PEOs was presented in

early fall by the Engineering Curriculum Committee—a representative body of faculty,

advisors, and students. All Engineering faculty members were invited to edit the proposed

PEOs; about 50 percent of the faculty responded, which is a good response level for the survey

approach used in this exercise. The second draft was presented to the Engineering Advisory

Council (industrial and alumni advisory board) for comments. While on campus for the fall

semester Career Fair (November, 2010), ten representatives of major employers participated

in a lunchtime focus group during which the PEOs were evaluated and discussed. Copies of

the PEOs were distributed to the employer representatives about two weeks in advance of the

focus group meeting. Given the input from all of these sources, the final version of the PEOs

was approved by a unanimous vote of the engineering faculty in April, 2011.


Since the initial development of our PEOs, they have been evaluated again each time the

alumni survey is administered, during the annual Engineering Advisory Council meetings, in

the last Engineering Curriculum Committee meeting of the academic year, as part of the senior

exit interview, and biannually in employer focus groups. Whether the evaluation of PEOs

suggests a need for their revision or not, Table 2-1 summarizes the scheduling of constituent

input to PEOs.

Table 2-1 Summary of Constituent Input to PEOs

Input Method Schedule Constituent

Alumni survey Every three years Alumni 2-5 years out

Employer focus group Every two years during

Career Fair

Employers (and recruiters);

some are alumni

Senior exit interview Annually Students; retrospective

discussion of PEOs and

their intended career paths

Advisory Council discussions As needed—available

annually

Industrial representatives,

employers, alumni

Curriculum Committee

meetings

Available as frequently as

needed

Faculty and students

PEOs are documented as part of the assessment process in a web-based database. The

program’s ABET coordinator also maintains assessment records on the program’s server. The

coordinator, the chairperson, and the chair of the Curriculum Committee have direct access to

these files.

Since the original 2008 version of the program educational objectives, the changes in Table

2-2 have been proposed, discussed, and approved:

Table 2-2 Summary of Recent Changes to PEOs

Modification Proposing

Constituency Approval Date

Expand first PEO to include practical

application of engineering principles;

add PEO on leadership and ability to

function in cross-functional teams

Alumni; strongly

supported by the

Advisory Council

Spring, 2011

Add “global” to the list of communities

in which our graduates will serve

Employers Spring, 2012

Various grammatical and stylistic

modifications

Curriculum Committee Various

CRITERION 3. STUDENT OUTCOMES

A. Student Outcomes

The twelve student outcomes for the Engineering program at Upper State University are listed

below. They encompass all of the ABET EAC Criterion 3 outcomes. As recommended by our


faculty, they have been reorganized slightly into a logical grouping of knowledge and skills.

In addition, we have added an outcome related to leadership. We have also adopted the

Engineering Criteria definition of outcomes as narrower statements that describe what students

are expected to know or be able to do by the time of graduation from our program.

1. an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems

2. an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering

3. an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for

engineering practice.

4. an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret

data

5. 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

6. an ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams

7. an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility

8. an ability to communicate effectively, both orally and in writing

9. the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in

a global, economic, environmental, and societal context

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

11. a knowledge of contemporary issues

12. a willingness to assume leadership roles and responsibilities

B. Relationship of Student Outcomes to Program Educational Objectives

The manner in which the student outcomes support the program educational objectives is

shown in Table 3.1 below. In this table, each outcome is associated with those program

educational objectives it supports.


Table 3.1 Program educational objectives and supporting student outcomes

Program

Outcomes

PEO 1

design of

engineering

solutions /

application

engineering

principles

PEO 2

lead, work

and

communicate

in cross

functional

teams

PEO 3

ethical

standards

PEO 4

employed

engineering

/graduate

programs

PEO 5

lifelong

learning

experiences

PEO 6

serve

community

1. an ability to

identify,

formulate, and

solve engineering

problems

X

X

X

2. an ability to

apply knowledge

of mathematics,

science, and

engineering

X

X

3. an ability to use

the techniques,

skills, and

modern

engineering tools

necessary for

engineering

practice.

X

X

4. an ability to

design and

conduct

experiments, as

well as to

analyze and

interpret data

X

X

5. an ability to

design a system,

component, or process to meet

desired needs

within realistic

constraints …

X

X

6. an ability to

function on

multi-

disciplinary

teams

X

X

X

7. an understanding of

X X X


Program

Outcomes

PEO 1

design of

engineering

solutions /

application

engineering

principles

PEO 2

lead, work

and

communicate

in cross

functional

teams

PEO 3

ethical

standards

PEO 4

employed

engineering

/graduate

programs

PEO 5

lifelong

learning

experiences

PEO 6

serve

community

professional and

ethical

responsibility

8. an ability to

communicate

effectively, both orally and in

writing

X

X

X

X

9. the broad

education

necessary to

understand the

impact of

engineering

solutions in a

global,

economic,

environmental, and societal

context

X

X

X

10. a

recognition of

the need for, and

an ability to

engage in life-

long learning

X

X

11. a knowledge of

contemporary

issues

X

X

12. a willingness to

assume

leadership roles

and

responsibilities

X

X

X

X

Each of the student outcomes mentioned above have been defined by a few high level

indicators so that they can be communicated to students, integrated into the curriculum and

measured in a consistent and reliable manner. Table 3.2 shows performance indicators for

each outcome for the Engineering program. Since engineering faculty members only have a

direct influence on the courses taught within our program, the integration of student outcomes

is guaranteed in the EGR courses alone. Student study in math and basic sciences enhances


achievement of outcomes, but engineering faculty members have no consistent ability to

influence change in courses taught outside of our program.

Table 3.2 Student outcomes and performance indicators Student Outcome Performance Indicators

1. an ability to identify, formulate, and solve

engineering problems

Problem statement shows understanding of

the problem

Solution procedure and methods are

defined.

Problem solution is appropriate and within

reasonable constraints

2. an ability to apply knowledge of

mathematics, science, and engineering

Chooses a mathematical model of a system

or process appropriate for required

accuracy

Applies mathematical principles to achieve

analytical or numerical solution to model

equations

Examines approaches to solving an

engineering problem in order to choose the

more effective approach

3. an ability to use the techniques, skills, and

modern engineering tools necessary for


Selects appropriate techniques and tools

for a specific engineering task and

compares results with results from

alternative tools or techniques

Uses computer-based and other resources

effectively in assignments and projects

4. an ability to design and conduct experiments,

as well as to analyze and interpret data

Observes good lab practice and operates

instrumentation with ease

Determines data that are appropriate to

collect and selects appropriate equipment,

protocols, etc. for measuring the

appropriate variables to get required data

Uses appropriate tools to analyze data and

verifies and validates experimental results

including the use of statistics to account

for possible experimental error

5. 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

Produces a clear and unambiguous needs

statement in a design project

Identifies constraints on the design

problem, and establishes criteria for

acceptability and desirability of solutions

Carries solution through to the most

economic/desirable solution and justifies

the approach

6. an ability to function on multi-disciplinary

teams

Recognizes participant roles in a team

setting and fulfills appropriate roles to

assure team success


Student Outcome Performance Indicators

Integrates input from all team members and makes decisions in relation to

objective criteria

Improves communication among

teammates and asks for feedback and uses

suggestions

7. an understanding of professional and ethical

responsibility

Knows code of ethics for the discipline

Able to evaluate the ethical dimensions of

a problem in the discipline

8. an ability to communicate effectively, both

orally and in writing

Writing conforms to appropriate technical

style format appropriate to the audience

Appropriate use of graphics

Mechanics and grammar are appropriate

Oral: Body language and clarity of speech

enhances communication

9. the broad education necessary to understand

the impact of engineering solutions in a

global, economic, environmental, and

societal context

Evaluates conflicting/competing social

values in order to make informed decisions

about an engineering solution.

Evaluates and analyzes the economics of

an engineering problem solution

Identifies the environmental and social

issues involved in an engineering solution

and incorporates that sensitivity into the

design process

10. a recognition of the need for, and an ability to

engage in life-long learning

Expresses an awareness that education is

continuous after graduation

Able to find information relevant to

problem solution without guidance

11. a knowledge of contemporary issues

Identifies the current critical issues

confronting the discipline

Evaluates alternative engineering solutions or scenarios taking into consideration

current issues

12. a willingness to assume leadership roles and

responsibilities

Expresses a willingness to take on

leadership responsibility

Demonstrates the ability to monitor team

progress and make suggestions when

needed

Engages team members in problem

solution


CRITERION 4. CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT

A. Student Outcomes The assessment of student outcomes is done on a six year cycle. The cycle that was used for

the current ABET cycle is illustrated in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1. Data collection cycle for 2009-14

Student Outcome 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

1. an ability to identify, formulate, and solve

engineering problems

X

X

2. an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics,

science, and engineering

X

X

3. an ability to use the techniques, skills, and

modern engineering tools necessary for


X

X

4. an ability to design and conduct experiments,

as well as to analyze and interpret data X

X

5. 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

X

X

6. an ability to function on multi-disciplinary

teams X

X

7. an understanding of professional and ethical

responsibility X

X

8. an ability to communicate effectively, both

orally and in writing

X

X

9. the broad education necessary to understand

the impact of engineering solutions in a

global, economic, environmental, and societal

context

X

X

10. a recognition of the need for, and an

ability to engage in life-long learning

X

X

11. a knowledge of contemporary issues X X

12. a willingness to assume leadership roles and

responsibilities

X

X

Although data is only collected every three years, there is activity which is taking place on

each outcome each year. The cycle of activity is shown in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2. Cycle of activity for each student outcome over 6 year period


Activity for each Student Outcome Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 Yr 6

Review of performance indicators that define the

outcome X

X

Review the map of educational strategies related

to performance indicators X X

Review mapping and identify where data will be

collected X X

Develop and/or review assessment methods used

to assess performance indicators

X

X

Collect data X X

Evaluate assessment data including processes X Report findings X Take action where necessary X

Each outcome has been mapped to the engineering courses and is depicted in Table 4.3. This

map was used to make decisions about where the summative data would be collected.

TR-E-01 USU EAC Self-Study 20 January 2015 2015

Table 4.3. Outcomes Mapping for EGR Courses

Outcome 1010 1015 1011 2001 2010 2015 2020 2040 2060 3001 3010 3013 3030 3050 4001 4090 4092

1. Eng problem

solving X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

2. Math, science, eng knowledge

X X X X X X X X X X X

3.Eng. Tools X X X

X X X X X

X X

X X

4. Expt’s & data X X X X X

5. Design X X X

X X X X X X

X X

6. Teams

(x-disc.)

X X

X X

X X

7. Ethics and Prof. X X X X X X X X

8. Comm. Skills Oral Oral &

written

Oral &

written Oral &

written Oral &

written

Written Oral &

written

9. Global, econ,

env, and societal

contxt.

X X

X

X X

X

10. Lifelong

learning X

X

X

X

X

X

11. Contemp.

Issues

X X

X

X

X

X

X

12. Leadership

X X

X X

X

Results for each student outcome are reported separately in the following tables and all supporting documentation will be available

in the ABET resource room at the time of the visit. Each table represents the activity for the current ABET accreditation cycle.

Each outcome table includes performance indicators, courses and/or co-curricular activities (educational strategies) that provide

students an opportunity to demonstrate the indicator, where summative data are collected, timetable, method of assessment and the

performance target. Each table is followed by a graph showing the results with a three cycle trend line.


Student Outcome #1: ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems

Performance Indicators Educational

Strategies

Method(s) of

Assessment

Where data

are collected

(summative)

Length of

assessment

cycle (yrs)

Year(s)/semester

of data collection

Target for

Performance

1. Problem statement shows

understanding of the

problem

EGR1010, EGR1015,

EGR1011, EGR2010,

EGR2015, EGR2020,

EGR2040, EGR2060,

EGR3010, EGR3013,

EGR3030, EGR3050,

EGR4090, EGR4092

Faculty

assessment

of design

problem

statement

EGR 4090

3 years

2011, 2014

90%

Senior

Survey

On-line

survey

2. Solution procedure and

methods are defined.

EGR1010, EGR1015,

EGR1011, EGR2010,

EGR2015, EGR2020,

EGR2040, EGR2060,

EGR3010, EGR3013,

EGR3030, EGR3050,

EGR4090, EGR4092

Faculty

assessment

of senior

project plan

EGR 4090

3 years

2011, 2014

85%

Senior

Survey

On-line

survey

3. Problem solution is

appropriate and within


EGR1010, EGR1015,

EGR1011, EGR2010,

EGR2015, EGR2020,

EGR2040, EGR2060,

EGR3010, EGR3013,

EGR3030, EGR3050,

EGR4090, EGR4092

Faculty

assessment

of senior

design

solution

EGR 4092

3 years

2011, 2014

80%

Senior

Survey

On-line

survey

Assessment Results (direct measures) 2011: For summative assessment (end of program), the decision was made to focus on the

direct assessment for all indicators. Summative data for Indicators #1 and #2 were collected in the Engineering Design I course

(EGR 4090) where students are asked to develop their statement of the problem and project planning documentation. For Indicator

#3 the assessment was completed in the second semester design course (EGR 4092) as a part of the final assessment of the course.

The percent of students who demonstrated each of the criteria were as follows: Indicator #1-80%; Indicator #2-80%; and Indicator

#3-84%.


Evaluation and Actions 2012: The assessment results were reviewed by the faculty who are responsible for the Senior Design

sequence. A presentation was made at the faculty retreat which was held in August of 2012. Although the students are making

progress from the previous assessment in 2008 on Indicator #1 (up from 74%) there was still concern that their problem statements

did not reflect an adequate understanding of what was expected. The decision was made to provide them some examples of both

poor and well-written problem statements and require them to do an analysis of the difference. They would then be asked to do a

self-assessment of how well their problem statements reflected what they identified in the well-written statements and submit their

analysis with their problem statement. In a review of the results of Indicator #2 it was determined that the students were performing

significantly better than the previous assessment (68%) and that the faculty would continue to monitor the students progress in the

following year (2012-13). This improvement was attributed to the fact that the faculty had implemented a two-session sequence in

EGR4090 on project planning with direct feedback to students in the planning process using the rubric used to assess Indicator #2.

Faculty members are satisfied that students are meeting the expectations for Indicator #3. The use of industry-based problems with

industry mentors has improved the performance of students in the quality of their solutions and their ability to recognize the

constraints that affect their solutions.

Second-Cycle Results (direct measures) 2014: This cycle of summative data was taken in the same courses as the 2011 cycle.

Based on the actions taken as a result of the 2012 evaluation process, the following results were found: Indicator #1 up 14% (94%);

Indicator #2 up 4% (84%); and Indicator #3 was the same (84%). Faculty will discuss their findings at the August 2015 faculty

retreat and report the findings at the time of the ABET site visit.


Figure 4.4. Trend line for Student Outcome #2: ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems

Display materials available at time of visit in the ABET resource room:

Rubrics used by faculty to assess the indicators

Indicator #1 sample problem statements documentation

Indicator #2 project planning guide

Senior survey questions with results and faculty evaluation of results

Minutes of faculty retreat where actions were taken in 2011 and 2015

Target = 90% 2009 2012 2015

Target = 85%

100% 94% Target 80%

80% 80% 84% 80% 84% 84%

80% 74%

68%

60%

40%

20%

0%

1. Problem statement shows understanding of

the problem

2. Solution procedure and 3. Problem solution is methods are defined. appropriate and within



Student Outcome #2: ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering


Strategies

Method(s) of

Assessment

Where data

are collected

(summative)

Length of

assessment

cycle (yrs)

Year(s)/semester

of data collection

Target for

Performance

1. Chooses a mathematical EGR2010, EGR2015,

EGR2020, EGR2040,

Course

project EGR3030

3 years

2011, 2014

90%

model of a system or EGR2060, EGR3010,

Senior

surveys

On-line

survey

process appropriate for EGR3013, EGR3030,

required accuracy EGR3050, EGR4090,

EGR4092

2. Applies mathematical

principles to achieve

analytical or numerical

solution to model

equations

EGR2010, EGR2015,

EGR2020, EGR2040,

EGR2060, EGR3010,

EGR3013, EGR3030,

EGR3050, EGR4090,

EGR4092

Faculty

developed

examination

EGR3030

3 years

2011, 2014

90%

Senior

surveys

On-line

survey

3. Examines approaches to

solving an engineering

problem in order to

choose the more

effective approach

EGR2010, EGR2015,

EGR2020, EGR2040,

EGR2060, EGR3010,

EGR3013, EGR3030,

EGR3050, EGR4090,

EGR4092

Project report

analysis

using rubric

EGR4092

3 years

2011, 2014

85%

Senior

surveys

On-line

survey

Assessment Results (direct measures) 2011: For the summative assessment (end of program), the decision was made to focus on

the faculty’s direct assessment for all indicators. Summative data for Indicator #1 were collected in the Applied Math (EGR3030)

course. In this course students are given a project which requires them to choose the mathematical models which are appropriate

for a specific problem. For Indicator # 2 faculty created an examination which required students to apply mathematical principles

to model equations to achieve solutions. Faculty recorded student performance on the exam. For Indicator # 3, faculty used a project

report rubric to analyze the project report for evidence of consideration of multiple approaches. The percent of students that

demonstrated each criterion were as follows: Indicator #1-76%; Indicator #2-82%; and Indicator #3-86%.


Evaluation and Actions 2012: The assessment results were evaluated by the faculty at a retreat held in August of 2012. Based on the

analysis of the results, the faculty recommended additional formative assessment, asking faculty members teaching EGR2060, EGR3013,

and EGR3030 to provide the students specific feedback on Indicators #1 & #2 and document specific areas of strength and weakness

related to the Indicators. In 2011 this information will be used to strengthen the delivery of content and the development of

assignments. Faculty did not take any action on Indicator #3 as the target was met.

Second-Cycle Results (direct measures) 2014: The second cycle summative data was again taken in the EGR3030 for Indicators

# 1 & #2 and EGR4092 for Indicator #3. Based on actions taken as a result of the 2010 evaluation process, the following

improvements were seen in 2013: Indicator #1 up 8% (84%); Indicator #2 up 6% (88%), Indicator #3 down 4% (82%).


Target 85%

Figure 4.5. Trend line for Student Outcome #2: ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering

2008 2011 2014 Target = 90% Target = 90%

100% 84% 82% 88% 86% 82%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

80% 76% 80% 78%

1. Chooses a mathematical model of a system or process

2. Applies mathematical principles to achieve analytical

3. Examines approaches to solving an engineering

appropriate for required or numerical solution to model problem in order to choose accuracy equations the more effective approach

Display materials available at time of visit in the ABET resource room:

Indicator #1, course assignment and samples of student work

Indicator #2, copy of examination and samples of graded student work

Indicator #3, project guidelines, rubric, and samples of student project reports

Senior survey questions and results with faculty evaluation

Results of 2012 formative assessment project and report to faculty

Minutes of faculty retreat where actions were taken in 2012


Student Outcome #3: an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.

Performance Indicators

Educational Strategies Method(s) of

Assessment

Where data

are collected

(summative)

Length of

assessment

cycle (yrs)

Year(s)/semester

of data

collection

Target for

Performance

1. Selects appropriate

techniques and tools for

a specific engineering

task and compares

results with results

from alternative tools

or techniques

EGR1010. EGR1015,

EGR1011, EGR2010,

EGR2015, EGR2020,

EGR2040, EGR2060,

EGR3030, EGR3050,

EGR4090, EGR4092

Project report

analysis

using rubric

EGR4092

3 years

2011, 2014

90%

Senior

surveys

On-line survey

2. Uses computer-based

and other resources

effectively in

assignments and

projects

EGR1010. EGR1015,

EGR1011, EGR2010,

EGR2015, EGR2020,

EGR2040, EGR2060,

EGR3030, EGR3050,

EGR4090, EGR4092

Project report

analysis

using rubric

EGR4092

3 years

2011, 2014

90%

Senior

surveys

On-line survey

Assessment Results (direct measures) 2011: Summative data were collected in the Senior Design II Course (EGR4092). For the

summative assessment (end of program), the decision was made to focus on the faculty’s direct assessment of student performance

on the senior project report using rubrics for both indicators. Faculty analyzed the project report for evidence of achievement on

each indicator. The percent of the students that demonstrated each criterion were as follows: Indicator #1 - 85%; Indicator #2 -

90%.

Evaluation and Actions 2012: The assessment results were evaluated by the faculty at a retreat held in August of 2012. Indicator

#1: Based on the analysis of the results, the faculty decided not to take further action but to monitor student progress through the

next cycle of data collection. Indicator #2: Faculty members were satisfied that the program was achieving the desired outcome and

it was recommended not to make any changes at this time.

Second-Cycle Results (direct measures) 2014: The second cycle data was again taken in the Engineering Design II course. The

results were consistent with previous findings: Indicator #1 -2% (83%); Indicator #2 – consistent at 90%.


Figure 4.6. Trend line for Student Outcome #3: an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for

2008 2011 2014

Target = 90% Target = 90%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

80%

85%

83%

86% 90%

90%

1. Selects appropriate techniques and tools for a specific engineering task and compares results with results from alternative tools or

techniques

2. Uses computer-based and other resources effectively in assignments and projects

engineering practice

Display materials available at the time of the visit in the ABET resource room:

Project report guidelines that define expectations for performance

Rubric for scoring Indicators with sample of project reports

Senior survey questions and results

Minutes of Engineering Curriculum Committee where recommendations were made 2012

Minutes of faculty retreat where actions were taken, 2012


Student Outcome #4: an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.


Strategies

Method(s) of

Assessment

Where data

are collected

(summative)

Length of

assessment

cycle (yrs)

Year(s)/semester

of data collection

Target for

Performance

1. Observes good lab practice

and operates

instrumentation with ease

EGR1015, EGR2015,

EGR2060, EGR3013,

EGR4090

Observations

(rubrics) EGR3050

3 years

9 2012

90%

Senior

Surveys

On-line

survey

2. Determines data that are

appropriate to collect and

selects appropriate

equipment, protocols, etc.

for measuring the

appropriate variables to get

required data

EGR1015, EGR2015,

EGR2060, EGR3013,

EGR4090

Lab report

(rubrics) EGR3050

3 years

2009, 2012

85%

Senior

surveys

On-line

survey

3. Uses appropriate tools to

analyze data and verifies

and validates experimental

results including the use of

statistics to account for

possible experimental error

EGR1015, EGR2015,

EGR2060, EGR3013,

EGR4090

Lab report

(rubrics) EGR3050

3 years

2009, 2012

75%

Senior

surveys

On-line

survey


the faculty’s direct assessment for all indicators. Summative data for Indicators #1, #2, and #3 were collected in the Fluid Mechanics

and Lab (EGR3050) course. In this course students completed four experiments where they were required to develop laboratory

reports. The scoring rubric for Indicator #1 was completed by the Laboratory Teaching Assistants to assess student performance

through observations; rubrics for Indicators # 2 and #3 were completed by the faculty. The percent of the students that demonstrated

each criterion were as follows: Indicator #1-78%; Indicator #2-72%; and Indicator #3-66%.

Evaluation and Actions 2010: The assessment results were evaluated by the faculty at a retreat held in August of 2010. Based on

the analysis of the results, the faculty recommended additional formative assessment asking faculty members teaching Circuit Theory

and Lab (EGR2040) and Engineering Electronics and Lab (EGR2016) to provide the students the rubrics for Indicators #2 & #3 and

give them formal feedback making their scores a part of the grade where appropriate. For Indicator #1, Laboratory Teaching


Assistants were asked to attend a seminar on how to observe students in the laboratory and complete the rubric for lab practices and

the use of instrumentation. Based on results, faculty members were asked to provide the scoring rubrics with the appropriate lab

assignments so students could see how they would be evaluated.

Second-Cycle Results (direct measures) 2012: The second cycle summative data was again taken in the EGR3050 course for all

indicators. Based on actions taken as a result of the 2008 evaluation process, the following improvements were seen in 2010:

Indicator #1 up 10% (88%); Indicator #2 up 6% (78%), Indicator #3 up 4% (70%).

Evaluation and Actions 2013: During the August 2013 department retreat, the faculty members teaching the laboratory courses

appointed a committee to review the scoring rubrics for clarity. The committee will also meet with the Laboratory Teaching

Assistants to review the rubrics for Indicator #1. Their findings will be reported to the laboratory course faculty who will make

recommendations to the program faculty. As a result of these deliberations, minor adjustments were made in the scoring rubrics for

clarity.


Figure 4.7. Trend line for Student Outcome #4: an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.


Indicator #1, #2, #3 laboratory assignment sheets with rubrics and samples of lab reports for summative assessment

Sample of laboratory reports and results from 2010 formative assessments

Copies of revised rubrics as a result of 2013 actions


Minutes of Engineering Laboratory sub-committee meetings where recommendations were made 2013

Minutes of faculty retreat where actions were taken in 2010, 2013

Target = 85% Target 75%

2006 2009 2012 Target = 90%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

88% 82% 78%

78%

62% 72% 66% 70%

58%

1. Observes good lab practice 2. Determines data that are 3. Uses appropriate tools to and operates instrumentation appropriate to collect and analyze data and verifies and

with ease selects appropriate validates experimental results equipment, protocols, etc. for including the use of statistics measuring the appropriate to account for possible

variables to get required data experimental error


Student Outcome #5: 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


Strategies

Method(s) of

Assessment

Where data

are collected

(summative)

Length of

assessment

cycle (yrs)

Year(s)/semester

of data collection

Target for

Performance

1. Produces a clear and

unambiguous needs

statement in a design

project

EGR1010, EGR1015,

EGR1011, EGR2020,

EGR2040, EGR2060,

EGR3010, EGR3013,

EGR3050, EGR4090,

EGR4092

Design

project rubric

EGR4090

3 years

2009, 2012

85%

Senior

surveys

On-line

survey

2. Identifies constraints on the

design problem, and

establishes criteria for

acceptability and

desirability of solutions

EGR1010, EGR1015,

EGR1011, EGR2020,

EGR2040, EGR2060,

EGR3010, EGR3013,

EGR3050, EGR4090,

EGR4092

Design

project rubric EGR4090

3 years

2009, 2012

85%

Senior

surveys

On-line

survey

3. Carries solution through to

the most

economic/desirable

solution and justifies the

approach

EGR1010, EGR1015,

EGR1011, EGR2020,

EGR2040, EGR2060,

EGR3010, EGR3013,

EGR3050, EGR4090,

EGR4092

Design

project rubric EGR4092

3 years

2009, 2012

85%

Senior

Survey

On-line

survey


the faculty’s direct assessment for all indicators. Summative data for Indicators #1 and #2 were collected in the Engineering Design

I (EGR4090) course. For Indicator #3, data were taken in the second semester design sequence (EGR4092) where the design project

was completed. The scoring rubrics to assess student performance in both courses were completed by the faculty. The percent of

the students that demonstrated each criterion were as follows: Indicator #1 - 76%; Indicator #2 - 68% and Indicator #3-80%.


#1: Based on the analysis of the results, the faculty recommended requiring students to write needs statements with their design

project in their Freshman Seminar (EGR1001). Examples will be provided by faculty. They were also encouraged to provide


students feedback using the rubric to see if there were common areas of weakness in student performance that should be emphasized

with students in later courses. Indicator #2: Based on the results, faculty members were asked to provide the scoring rubrics with

the design project requirements outline so they could see how they would be evaluated. Students were also provided with some

examples of well-developed criteria for project acceptability. On Indicator #3, the faculty found that students did an acceptable job

on developing economic solutions but had difficulty justifying their approach. It was decided to emphasize this in the first course

in the design sequence (EGR4090) with some good examples. Faculty integrating this outcome into their courses agreed to review

their assignments to identify were students were given opportunities to discuss these issues and to make student’s performance on

the assignments, using the rubric, a portion of the overall grade for the unit.

Second-Cycle Results (direct measures) 2012: The second cycle data was again taken in the EGR4090 course for Indicators #1

and #2, and EGR4092 course for Indicator #3. Based on actions taken as a result of the 2010 evaluation process, the following

improvements were seen in 2012: Indicator #1 up 10% (86%); Indicator #2 up 12% (80%) and Indicator #3 unchanged (80%).

Evaluation and Actions 2013: During the August 2013 department retreat, the faculty agreed that significant progress had been

made on the first two indicators. All faculty members who are teaching in the design sequence will review the rubrics and a

module will be integrated into EGR4090 to deal with Indicator #3. Overall, the faculty is satisfied with student performance on

this outcome.


Figure 4.8. Trend line for Student Outcome #5: An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within

realistic constraints such as economic, environment, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability.


Indicator #1 assignment sheet with rubrics and samples of needs statements

Indicator #2 design project guidelines, assignment sheets with rubrics and samples of constraints statements and criteria

for solutions

Indicator #3 design project guidelines, scoring rubric and sample design projects


Minutes of Engineering Curriculum Committee where recommendations were made 2010, 2013


Target = 85% Target = 85% Target=85%

2006 2009 2012

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

76% 86%

80%

62% 62% 68%

80% 80% 72%

1. Clear and unambiguous needs statement

2. Identifies constraints and establishes criteria for

acceptability and desirability of solutions

3. Most economic/desirable solution and justifies the

approach


Student Outcome #6: ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.

Performance

Indicators

Educational

Strategies

Method(s) of

Assessment

Where data

are collected

(summative)

Length of

assessment

cycle (yrs)

Year(s)/semester

of data collection

Target for

Performance

1. Recognizes

participant roles in

a team setting and

fulfills appropriate

roles to assure

team success

EGR1011, EGR2001,

EGR2060, EGR3001,

EGR4090, EGR4092

Peer

evaluations EGR4092

3 years

2009, 2012

90%

Faculty

evaluations EGR4092

Senior surveys On-line survey

2. Integrates input

from all team

members and

makes decisions in

relation to

objective criteria

EGR1011, EGR2001,

EGR2060, EGR3001,

EGR4090, EGR4092

Peer

evaluations EGR4092

3 years

2009, 2012

90%

Faculty

evaluations EGR4092


3. Improves

communication

among teammates

and asks for

feedback and uses

suggestions

EGR1011, EGR2001,

EGR2060, EGR3001,

EGR4090, EGR4092

Peer

evaluations EGR4092

3 years

2009, 2012

90%

Faculty

evaluations EGR4092


Faculty

evaluations

EGR4092


Assessment Results (direct measures) 2009: Summative data were collected in EGR4092, Engineering Design II course. For the

summative assessment (end of program), the decision was made to focus on the faculty evaluations as the primary assessment data.

The rubrics were completed by the faculty member who coached each team. The percent of the sample that demonstrated each

performance indicator were as follows: Indicator #1 - 72%; Indicator #2 - 65%; Indicator #3 - 62%.


the analysis of the results, the faculty members who were implementing teaming in their courses were asked to provide the teaming


evaluation rubrics to students with the course assignments where the students were provided opportunities to demonstrate their

teaming skills as defined by the criteria. A sub-committee of the Engineering Curriculum Committee was assigned to meet and

review the performance indicators. The sub-committee recommended not making any changes at this time. Faculty integrating

teaming skills agreed to review their assignments to be sure that students were given adequate opportunities to demonstrate the

performance identified for teaming and to make student’s performance on the indicators a part of their grade for the activity. The

Teaching/Learning Center was also asked to provide a seminar for the faculty on how to integrate effective teaming into the

classroom.

Second-Cycle Results (direct measures) 2012: The second cycle data was again taken in the EGR4092 senior-design course.

Faculty coaches who worked with each team completed the teaming rubrics. Based on actions taken as a result of the 2007 evaluation

process, the following improvements were seen in 2011: Indicator #1 – +12% (84%); Indicator #2 - +7% (72%); Indicator #3 -

+13% (75%).

Evaluation and Actions 2013: During the August 2013 department retreat, the faculty agreed that, although progress was made on

all performance indicators, the Engineering Curriculum Committee was asked to review all the performance indicators related to

teaming. The Teaching/Learning Center was asked to provide the program some feedback on the performance indicators and provide

other examples of teaming performance indicators that might be more representative of desired teaming skills. We will also ask

each faculty member who integrates teaming into the classroom to review the teaming opportunities to be sure that students are

provided adequate feedback on their performance. These will be discussed with the Engineering Advisory Council.

Recommendations were discussed at the spring 2014 department retreat.


Figure 4.9. Trend line for Student Outcome #6: ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.


Rubric used to score teaming skills


Student (peer) evaluation results (using same rubric as faculty)


Minutes of faculty retreat where actions were taken, 2010, 2013

Target = 90% 2006 2009 2012

100%

84%

80% 72% 72% 75%

62% 65%

62%

60% 58%

50%

40%

20%

0%

Recognizes participant roles in a team setting and fulfills appropriate

roles to assure team success

Integrates input from all team members and makes decisions in

relation to objective criteria

Performance Indicator

Improves communication among teammates and asks for feedback

and uses suggestions

Per

cen

t o

f co

ho

rt d

em

on

stra

tin

g in

dic

ato

r


Student Outcome #7: an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.

Performance

Indicators

Educational Strategies Method(s) of

Assessment

Where data are

collected

(summative)

Length of

assessment

cycle (yrs)

Year(s)/semester

of data collection

Target for

Performance

1. Knows code of

ethics for the

discipline

EGR1010, EGR1015,

EGR2001, EGR3001,

EGR3013, EGR4001,

EGR4090, EGR 4092

Locally

developed exam EGR3001

3 years

2009, 2012

80%


2. Able to evaluate

the ethical

dimensions of a

problem in the

discipline

EGR1010, EGR1015,

EGR2001, EGR3001,

EGR3013, EGR4001,

EGR4090, EGR 4092

Case study

review/rubric EGR4092

3 years

2009, 2012

70%

Senior surveys

On-line survey

Assessment Results (direct measures) 2009: Summative data were collected in EGR3001. For the summative assessment (end of

program), the decision was made to focus on the faculty’s direct assessment using a locally developed examination as the primary

assessment data for both indicators. The assessment of Indicator #1 was done in course EGR3001 after a review of material covered

earlier in the program. Because the indicator is at the “knowledge” level, a multiple choice/true-false exam was given to see how

well the student had learned the material. For Indicator #2, a case study was chosen from

http://ethics.tamu.edu/ethicscasestudies.htm and was used in the EGR4092 class. The scoring rubrics were completed by the

faculty. The percent of the students that demonstrated each criterion were as follows: Indicator #1 - 66%; Indicator #2 - 58%.


#1: Based on the analysis of the results, the faculty members who were introducing and/or reinforcing the code of ethics in their

courses were asked to reinforce the importance of knowing the code of ethics for the discipline. They were also encouraged to

review the scores to see if there were any common items missed and to reiterate the areas where students’ performance was weak.

Indicator #2: Faculty members were asked to provide the scoring rubrics to students with the case study so they could see how they

would be evaluated. A sub-committee of the Engineering Curriculum Committee was assigned to meet and review the performance

indicators to be sure that they were appropriate. The Engineering Advisory Committee was also asked to provide feedback. It was

recommended not to make any changes at this time. Faculty integrating ethics agreed to review their assignments to be sure that

students were given adequate opportunities to learn the codes in the context of the discipline and to make student’s performance on

the exam an adequate portion of the overall grade for the unit.

http://ethics.tamu.edu/ethicscasestudies.htm


Second-Cycle Results (direct measures) 2012: The second cycle data was again taken in the EGR3001 for Indicator #1 and

EGR4092 for Indicator #2. Based on actions taken as a result of the 2008 evaluation process, the following improvements were

seen in 2010: Indicator #1 – +10% (74%); Indicator #2 - +12% (70%).

Evaluation and Actions 2013: During the August 2013 department retreat, the faculty agreed that adequate progress had been

made on both of the indicators and no further action would be taken at this time. However, at the end of the 2016 assessment cycle

for ethics if the trend continues upward the committee will review whether or not the targets should be raised in an effort to

continually improve the program’s activity in this area.


Figure 4.10. Trend line for Student Outcome #7: An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility


Indicator #1 exam

Indicator #2 ethics case study

Rubric for scoring ethics case study




Target = 80%

Target = 70%

74%

2006 2009 2012

100%

80%

66% 70%

60% 60%

58% 52%

40%

20%

0%

1. Knows code of ethics 2. Evaluate the ethical dimensions of a problem in the discipline


Student Outcome #8: an ability to communicate effectively, both orally and in writing


Strategies

Method(s)

of

Assessment

Where data

are collected

(summative)

Length of

assessment

cycle (yrs)

Year(s)/semester

of data collection

Target for

Performance

1. Writing conforms to

appropriate technical

style format appropriate

to the audience

EGR1010, EGR1011,

EGR2001, EGR3001,

EGR3050, EGR4090,

EGR4092

Project

report

(rubrics)

EGR4090

3 years

2010, 2013

80% Senior

surveys On-line survey

2. Appropriate use of

graphics

EGR1010, EGR1011,

EGR2001, EGR3001,

EGR3050, EGR4090,

EGR4092

Project

report

(rubrics)

EGR4090

3 years

2010, 2013

85%

Senior


3. Mechanics and grammar

are appropriate

EGR1010, EGR1011,

EGR2001, EGR3001,

EGR3050, EGR4090,

EGR4092

Project

report

(rubrics)

EGR4090

3 years

2010, 2013

70%

Senior

surveys On-line Survey

4. Oral: Body language and

clarity of speech

enhances

communication

EGR1010, EGR1010,

EGR1011, EGR2001,

EGR3001, EGR3050,

EGR4092

Presentation

(rubrics) EGR3001

3 years

2010, 2013

75%

Senior

Surveys On-line Survey


the faculty’s direct assessment for all indicators. Summative data for Indicators #1, #2, and #3 were collected in the Engineering

Design I (EGR4090) course. In this course students were asked develop a concept paper that included a search of the literature and

preliminary sketches. This course was chosen because students complete the project independently and the program could get a

clearer picture of student written communication skills. For Indicator #4, data were taken in the Junior Seminar course (EGR3001)

where they were asked to develop a life-long learning plan and give an individual oral presentation to the class. The scoring rubrics

to assess student performance in both courses were completed by the faculty. The percent of the students that demonstrated each

criterion were as follows: Indicator #1-72%; Indicator #2-68%; Indicator #3-62%; and Indicator #4-64%.


Evaluation and Actions 2011: The assessment results were evaluated by the faculty at a retreat held in August of 2011. Indicators

#1-3: Based on the analysis of the results, the faculty recommended more formative assessment asking faculty members teaching

EGR1011, EGR2001 and EGR3001 to provide the students the writing rubrics (Indicators #1-3) and give them formal feedback

making their scores a part of the grade for the writing assignment. Indicator #4: Based on the results, faculty members were asked

to provide the scoring rubrics with the presentation assignment so students could see how they would be evaluated. Students will

also be asked to rate other students giving presentations to reinforce what was important about an oral presentation. Faculty in other

courses where students give oral presentations also agreed to provide the rubric to students and provide students with feedback. The

Teaching/Learning Center will also give a program seminar to the faculty on how to integrate oral presentations into the classroom.

Second-Cycle Results (direct measures) 2013: The second cycle summative data was again taken in the EGR4090 course for

Indicator #1, 2 and 3, and EGR3001 course for Indicator #3. Based on actions taken as a result of the 2009 evaluation process, the

following improvements were seen in 2010: Indicator #1 up 10% (82%); Indicator #2 up 8% (74%), Indicator #3 up 8% (70%) and

Indicator #4 up 2% (66%).

Evaluation and Actions 2014: During the August 2014 department retreat, the faculty agreed that although progress had been made

on the all indicators there was still work to be done. All faculty members who are teaching in courses where students have a writing

and or presentation assignment will review the rubric for clarity. Their findings will be reported to a sub-committee of the faculty

who will evaluate the rubric. Each faculty member in a course with a communications assignment will stress the importance of

communication skills and provide students with the rubrics. In selected classes, students will be given formative feedback and their

scores on the rubric will be made part of their grade.


Figure 4.11. Trend line for Student Outcome #8: an ability to communicate effectively, both orally and in writing


Indicator #1, #2, #3 assignment sheets with rubrics and samples of written materials for summative assessment

Indicator#1,# 2, #3 sample assignments and results from a sample of formative assessments

Indicator #4 assignment sheets with rubrics and sample of videos of oral presentations for summative assessment




Target = 80% Target=85%

Target = 70% Target 75%

2007 2010 2013

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

72% 82%

65% 74%

62% 68% 62% 70% 68% 66%

54% 64%

1. Appropriate 2. Appropriate use of 3. Mechanics and 4. Oral: Body language technical style format graphics grammar are and clarity of speech

appropriate to the appropriate enhances audience communication


Student Outcome #9: the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic,

environmental, and societal context


Strategies

Method(s) of

Assessment

Where data

are collected

(summative)

Length of

assessment

cycle (yrs)

Year(s)/semester

of data collection

Target for

Performance

1. Evaluates

conflicting/competing

social values in order to

make informed decisions

about an engineering

solution.

EGR1011, EGR2001,

EGR3001, EGR3050,

EGR4001, EGR4092

Case-study

rubric

EGR3001

3 years

2010, 2013

75%

Senior

surveys

On-line

survey

2. Evaluates and analyzes

the economics of an

engineering problem

solution

EGR1011, EGR2001,

EGR3001, EGR3050,

EGR4001, EGR4092

Senior design

rubric

EGR4092

3 years

2010, 2013

80%

Senior

surveys

On-line

survey

3. Identifies the

environmental and social

issues involved in an

engineering solution and

incorporates that

sensitivity into the design

process

EGR1011, EGR2001,

EGR3001, EGR3050,

EGR4001, EGR4092

Senior design

rubric EGR4092

3 years

2010, 2013

75% Senior

survey

On-line

survey


the faculty’s direct assessment for all indicators. Summative data for Indicator #1 was collected in response to a case study in the

Junior Seminar, EGR3001. For Indicators #2 and #3, students were asked to integrate both social values and environmental and

social issues in setting the context for their design projects. The scoring rubrics to assess student performance were completed by

the faculty. The percent of the students that demonstrated each criterion were as follows: Indicator #1 - 72%; Indicator #2 - 75%

and Indicator #3-65%.



#1: Based on the analysis of the results, the faculty members using the rubric in EGR4001 were satisfied that students were provided

adequate opportunity to demonstrate competence. They were also encouraged to review the rubric to see if there were common

areas of weakness in student performance that should be emphasized with students. Indicator #2: Faculty members were asked to

provide the scoring rubrics with the assignment outline so they could see how they would be evaluated. Overall, the faculty believed

students were making progress. On Indicator #3, the faculty decided to emphasize the importance of the consideration of

environmental issues in design as a part of the Senior Seminar course (EGR4001) leading to the Engineering Design course

(EGR4092). The Engineering Advisory Committee was also asked to provide feedback on the indicators for this outcome. It was

recommended to only do these things at this time. Faculty integrating this outcome into their courses agreed to review their

assignments to be sure that students were given adequate opportunities to discuss these issues and to make student’s performance

on the assignments a portion of the overall grade for the unit.

Second-Cycle Results (direct measures) 2013: The second cycle data was again taken in the EGR3001 course for Indicator #1

and EGR4092 course for Indicators #2 and #3. Based on actions taken as a result of the 2009 evaluation process, the following

improvements were seen in 2012: Indicator #1 up 5% (77%); Indicator #2 up 5% (80%) and Indicator #3 up 5% (70%).

Evaluation and Actions 2014: During the August 2014 department retreat, the faculty agreed that adequate progress had been

made on all of the indicators and no further action would be taken at this time. However, at the end of the 2016 assessment cycle

for this outcome, if the trend continues upward the committee will review whether or not the targets should be raised in an effort to

continually improve the program’s activity in this area.


Figure 4.12. Trend line for Student Outcome #9: the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a

global, economic, environmental, and societal context.


Indicator #1 case study with rubrics and course assignment






Target = 75%

Target=80% Target = 75%

80%

2007 2010 2013

100%

80% 77% 72% 75%

70%

60% 65% 65%

60% 55%

40%

20%

0%

1. Evaluates 2. Evaluates and analyzes the 3. Identifies the conflicting/competing social economics of an engineering environmental and social

values problem solution issues involved


Student Outcome #10: a recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning


Strategies

Method(s) of

Assessment

Where data

are collected

(summative)

Length of

assessment

cycle (yrs)

Year(s)/semester

of data collection

Target for

Performance

1. Expresses an awareness

that education is

continuous after

graduation

EGR1010, EGR2001,

EGR3001, EGR4001

Essay

(rubrics) EGR4001

3 years

2010, 2013

80%

Senior


2. Able to find information

relevant to problem

solution without guidance

EGR1010, EGR2001,

EGR3001, EGR3030,

EGR4001, EGR4092

Design report

(rubrics) EGR4092

3 years

2010, 2013

85% Senior



the faculty’s direct assessment for all indicators. Summative data for Indicators #1 were collected in the Senior Seminar course

(EGR4001). In this course students were asked write a paper that described where they thought they would be in 10 years after

graduation and what the steps would be to get there. A rubric was used to score their responses related to Indicator #1. For Indicator

#2, the faculty scored the student design reports in Engineering Design II (EGR4092) to identify the quantity and quality of the

resources used. The percent of the students that demonstrated each criterion were as follows: Indicator #1-86%; Indicator #2-84%.


the analysis of the results, the faculty was satisfied that the students met the outcome. In the 2011 data-collection cycle, if the trend

upwards continues, faculty will re-evaluate the targets and also review the performance indicators.

Second-Cycle Results (direct measures) 2013: The second cycle summative data was again taken in the EGR 4001 course for

Indicator #1, and EGR4092 course for Indicator #2. Based on actions taken as a result of the 2009 evaluation process, the following

improvements were seen in 2012: Indicator #1 up 6% (92%); and, Indicator #2 up 10% (94%).

Evaluation and Actions 2013: During the August 2014 department retreat, the faculty discussed the need to raise the target on both

indicators. Beginning with the next cycle of data collection, the targets for Indicators #1 and #2 will be 95%. The faculty also


appointed a two-faculty sub-committee to look at some peer-programs to see if they are using similar performance indicators to see

if the number of indicators should be expanded to include other attributes. It was also decided to make this a topic of discussion

with the Engineering Advisory Council.


94%

Figure 4.13. Trend line for Student Outcome #10: recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning


Indicator #1 - essay assignment sheets with rubrics and samples of essays for summative assessment

Indicator #2 – rubrics used for scoring with tally sheet. Samples of design reports will be available.




Target=80%

2007 2010 2013

100% 92% 86%

Target = 85%

84%

80% 78% 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

1. Awareness that education is continuous after graduation

2. Find information relevant to problem solution without guidance


Student Outcome #11: a knowledge of contemporary issues


Strategies

Method(s)

of

Assessment

Where data

are collected

(summative)

Length of

assessment

cycle (yrs)

Year(s)/semester

of data collection

Target for

Performance

1. Identifies the current

critical issues confronting

the discipline

EGR1011, EGR2001,

EGR2040, EGR3001,

EGR3013, EGR4001,

EGR4092

Essay EGR4001 3 years

2010, 2013

70% Senior


2. Evaluates alternative

engineering solutions or

scenarios taking into

consideration current

issues

EGR1011, EGR2001,

EGR2040, EGR3001,

EGR3013, EGR4001,

EGR4092

Case study EGR4001

3 years

2010, 2013

70%

Senior

surveys

On-line survey


the faculty’s direct assessment for all indicators. Summative data for Indicator #1 were collected in the Senior Seminar course

(EGR4001). In this course students were asked to identify the critical issues confronting the discipline with a rationale for why they

believed the issues were important. A rubric was used to score their responses. For Indicator #2, the students were given a case

study which they discussed in a group. They were then asked individually to evaluate the alternative solutions proposed and how

they addressed current issues in the discipline. Faculty used a rubric to score their responses. The percent of the students that

demonstrated each criterion were as follows: Indicator #1-60%; Indicator #2-55%.


the analysis of the results, the faculty determined that more emphasis was needed to be made on contemporary issues earlier in the

program. Sophomore Seminar (EGR2001) will provide a speaker from a professional society who is active in industry to talk with

the students about contemporary issues in the discipline. Students will also be asked to write an essay based on the presentation and

be provided feedback on their performance using the scoring rubric. This activity will be repeated with a second speaker in the

Junior Seminar (EGR3001).

Second-Cycle Results (direct measures) 2013: The second cycle summative data was again taken in the EGR4001 course for

Indicator #1, and EGR4092 course for Indicator #2. Based on actions taken as a result of the 2010 evaluation process, the following

improvements were seen in 2011: Indicator #1 up 18% (78%); and, Indicator #2 up 15% (70%).


Evaluation and Actions 2014: During the August 2014 department retreat, the faculty discussed the results and determined that

the program was meeting expectations in regards to this outcome. It was decided to continue the addition of outside speakers in

EGR2001 and EGR3001. It was decided that the targets for Indicators #1 and #2 will remain the same through the next cycle of

data collection. It was also decided that the Engineering Advisory Council would be asked to review the student performance and

the indicators.


Figure 4.14. Trend line for Student Outcome #11: knowledge of contemporary issues


Indicator #1 - essay assignment sheets with rubrics and samples of essays for summative assessment

Indicator #2 – case study with rubrics used for scoring with tally sheet. Samples of responses will be available.




Target=70%

2007 2010 2013

100%

80%

Target=70% 78% 70%

60% 55% 60% 58% 55%

40%

20%

0%

1. Identifies the current critical issues confronting the discipline

2. Identifies the current critical issues confronting the discipline


B. Continuous Improvement

This information is included in each outcome table.

C. Additional Information There will be a student outcomes notebook in the ABET resource room which will contain all

assessment instruments and rubrics if they were used to assess the outcome. There will also

be minutes from the meetings where the evaluation was done and recommendations for action

were determined. All of the student outcomes information and data are kept digitally on the

intranet for review by the faculty. Each outcome is maintained separately and the faculty can

download all the relevant assessment materials (e.g., performance indicators, rubrics if they

are used to score student performance, previous evaluations, recommendations for

improvement, etc.).


CRITERION 5. CURRICULUM

A. Program Curriculum The curriculum for the Engineering program at Upper State University has been designed by

the faculty to produce a graduate broadly acquainted with tools and principles that would be

used in the engineering field. While designed to develop the essential knowledge, skills, and

abilities needed for professional practice or graduate study, the curricular structure of the

program, coupled with the integrated influence of liberal arts studies equips our students with

a holistic educational experience that is designed to prepare students to succeed in a world

characterized by rapidly developing technology, growing complexity, and globalization. The

curriculum aligns with the program educational objectives through its direct support of the

student outcomes. Student outcomes map directly into program educational objectives.

The Upper State University Engineering curriculum builds from basic to advanced courses,

has a logical prerequisite tree, and balances semester loads among various technical and

general education courses. All students take a common engineering core and then “invest”

their elective engineering courses in one of four options, civil, chemical, electrical or

mechanical engineering.

The Engineering curriculum has been deliberately designed in five categories of courses:

1. General Engineering: These courses are common to most undergraduate engineering

students and instruct students in general engineering methods. They provide the

introduction to engineering fundamentals and complement the mathematics and basic

sciences that precede or are taken concurrently with these courses. The general

Engineering courses rapidly establish the context of the mathematics and basic sciences

that students must take, but have trouble appreciating. A relatively recent addition to

the curriculum is the two-course sequence for freshmen. These provide a good

outreach to the USU student body, and help freshmen understand the potential of an

engineering career. Rudimentary graphics and design skills are also presented in the

second course.

2. Basic Mathematics and Science: Students in the undergraduate program at Upper State

University are required to complete extensive coursework in mathematics, chemistry,

biosciences, and physics. The mathematics sequence (four courses, 12 credits plus

probability and statistics) includes calculus through differential equations and an

applied math course in engineering. The science requirement includes chemistry (two

lecture/lab courses, 6 credits) and physics (8 credits). The university requires a

bioscience course of all of its undergraduates. Most engineering students take BIO

1000: Introduction to Biology and Biochemistry. Biological sciences are becoming

more important in all engineering fields.

3. Professional Courses: These courses specifically address the professional component

described in this section. The goal of these courses is to provide a transitional

experience from the classroom to the workplace. The Engineering faculty strongly


believes that these courses provide our students with the best preparation for their

careers. The relatively diverse educational background has led to 95% hiring rate for

our graduates. The faculty believes that this is good evidence that the curriculum

prepares our students for the workforce and the marketplace and that we are achieving

our program educational objectives.

In addition to technical subject material, the professional courses provide a wealth of

instruction enabling students to be well prepared professionally as well as technically

for engineering practice. In accordance with our program educational objectives and

desired student outcomes, the faculty invest in professional development of our

students through emphasis throughout the curriculum on communication skills (both

oral and written), problem-solving skills, ability to function on multidisciplinary teams,

ability to use modern computing tools (libraries, world-wide web, process simulation

and computer-aided design tools, and personal computers), lifelong and independent

learning, ethics, and awareness of societal and global issues. Discussion of these issues

begins in the freshmen courses. The seminar courses in each year of the curriculum

emphasize engineering as a profession—writing, career options, ethics, global and

societal technological issues, and teamwork. The laboratory courses provide extensive

experience in data analysis, group work, in preparing written and oral reports, and in

discussing ethics and safety. The design sequence prepares students professionally for

practice via extensive solution of open-ended problems, teamwork, written and oral

communication of reports, use of modern computing tools, and lifelong learning (use

of library resources, world-wide web).

4. Engineering Proficiency (Option): These courses build on the general engineering

courses and provide the student with depth in a particular concentration or sub-

discipline. Engineering proficiency courses are available in civil, chemical, electrical

and mechanical engineering. Engineering elective credits are “spent” on these courses.

Although historically all of our students have chosen one of these options, there is no

requirement for students to pursue an option, and they are free to select their

engineering electives from the total elective offering.

5. Core Education Courses: These are largely university requirements, but also support

engineering student outcomes. These courses provide the student with the knowledge

and skills required to appreciate the global perspective of engineering and to be

prepared in technical communications. One of the courses is co-taught by the

Engineering faculty (WTL 2060). They also include courses to broaden the horizons

of the student and provide opportunities for service learning.

6. Experiential Learning: The CNSE Office of Student Placement assists students who

seek a summer internship or cooperative education position. No academic component

is reviewed in this program, but the surveys are monitored for satisfactory performance

by our students.

Alignment with Program Educational Objectives and Student Outcomes


The curriculum aligns with the program educational objectives through its direct support of

the student outcomes. Student outcomes map directly into program educational objectives as

described on the section on Criterion 3.

As shown in Tables 3.1, and 4.8, each program educational objective is related to at least one

student outcome and each student outcome is addressed in more than one course in the

curriculum. This provides students with the opportunity to develop and enhance the

knowledge and skills represented by the student outcomes in multiple situations and

engineering applications.

Satisfaction of Curriculum Requirements The section below describes how the Engineering Program satisfies or exceeds the following

Criterion 5 requirements. The information is also available in Table 5-1 Curriculum.

a) One year of a combination of college-level math and basic sciences (some with

experimental experience) appropriate to the discipline.

Course Title Credits

MTH 1032 Calculus I 3

MTH 1033 Calculus II 3

MTH 2034 Differential Equations 4

MTH 2035 Probability and Statistics 4

MTH 3030 Applied Math (1 credit towards math) 1

CEM 1041 Chemistry I and Lab 3

CEM 1042 Chemistry II and Lab 4

PHY 1083 Physics for Scientists and Engineers I 4

PHY 1084 Physics for Scientists and Engineers II 4

BIO 1000 Intro to Biology and Biochem + Lab 4

TOTAL 34


b) One and one-half years of engineering topics, consisting of engineering sciences and

engineering design appropriate to the student’s field of study.

Course Title Credits

EGR 1010 Freshmen Engineering Seminar (1 of 2 cr) 1

EGR 1015 Intro to Technical Computing (2 of 3 cr) 3

EGR 1011 Freshmen Graphics & Design 3

EGR 2010 Statics 3

EGR 2015 Computing Tools of Engineers 2

EGR 2020 Dynamics 3

EGR 2001 Sophomore Seminar 1 (out of 2)

EGR 1 Engineering Elective 3

EGR 2040 Circuit Theory and Lab 4

EGR 3013 Structural Analysis 3

MTH 3030 Applied Math 2 (out of 3)

EGR 3030 Thermodynamics 3

EGR 2060 Engineering Electronics and Lab 4

EGR 3050 Fluid Mechanics and Lab 3

EGR 3010 Materials Science 3

EGR 3001 Junior Seminar 1


EGR 4090 Engineering Design I 3


EGR 4001 Senior Seminar 1


EGR 4092 Engineering Design II 3


TOTAL 60

c) A general education component that complements the technical content of the curriculum

and is consistent with program and institution objectives.

World Thought and Language (6 courses) 18

Technical Communications (1 course) 2

General Elective (1 course) 3

Business Elective (1 course) 3

TOTAL 26

Options In response to constituency requests for more flexibility and professional focus in the

curriculum, the Engineering program began offering options in 1) chemical engineering (Fall,

2012), 2) civil engineering (Fall, 2010), 3) mechanical engineering (Fall, 2010), and 4)

electrical engineering (Fall, 2012). These options are available to students wishing to pursue

an area of specialization in their degree. Options are not required. Completing the Bachelor of

Science degree in engineering with an option does not require more than 126 credits, since the


option requirements are generally designed to be fulfilled by directed selection of elective

courses. Upon completion of the required courses for one of these options, certification appears

on the student’s official transcript.

Chemical Engineering Electives

EGR 2021 Material and Energy Balances 3 EGR 3022 Heat Transfer 3

EGR 3024 Mass Transfer and Separations 3

EGR 4060 Unit Operations Laboratory 3

EGR 4081 Reaction Engineering 3

Civil Engineering Electives (Environmental)

EGR 2033 Principles of Environmental Engineering 3 EGR 2034 Soil Mechanics 3

EGR 3033 Environmental Chemistry + Lab 3

EGR 4032 Water and Wastewater Treatment 3

EGR 4034 Applied Hydraulics 3

Mechanical Engineering Electives

EGR 3042 Mechanics of Deformable Solids 3 EGR 3044 Heat Transfer + Lab 3

EGR 4008 Control Systems 3

EGR 4042 Mechanical Vibrations 3

EGR 4044 Mechatronic System Design 3

Electrical Engineering Electives

EGR 2052 Digital Logic Fundamentals 3 EGR 3056 Circuit Theory II 3

EGR 4045 Microprocessors and Digital Systems 3

EGR 4056 VLSI Design 3

EGR 4058 Introduction to Signal Processing 3

Design in the Curriculum Design is integrated throughout the curriculum as shown in Table 5-1 Curriculum. In addition

to delivering the base of general engineering knowledge, methods, and problem-solving skills

required for engineering practice, many of the courses in the curriculum typically include an

open-ended design project pertinent to the specific course material. Thus, beyond simple

completion of exams and assignments, students are continually building their competence in

integrating and applying basic science, mathematics, and principles to actual engineering

practice via solution of open-ended, in-depth design problems.

The two senior capstone project courses encompass concepts and practice principles from

earlier courses. The practice projects throughout the curriculum emphasize good engineering

practice, awareness of engineering standards, consideration of ethics and effect on society, and

design according to realistic constraints. The first practice course is taken by all engineering

majors; the second course is taught in four sections allowing students to conclude their option


studies (civil, chemical, electrical, mechanical) in a capstone practice experience as well. The

second course differs from the first in that there is one major project supervised by faculty and

a professionally practicing advisor. The student (or student team) presents their project

concept to groups of Advisory Council members and their peers. When student numbers are

large relative to the number of Advisory Council members involved, the presentations are done

in the form of a poster session.

Table 5-1 describes the plan of study for students in the Upper State University Engineering

program including information on course offerings in the form of a recommended schedule by

year and term along with average section enrollments for all courses in the program over the

two years immediately preceding the visit. Figure 5-1 is a flowchart illustrating the

prerequisite structure of the CNSE Engineering program’s required courses. Upper State

University operates on a semester system.

Course displays will be made available in the ABET resource room at the time of the visit.

These displays will contain textbooks, course handouts, syllabi and examples of student work

that demonstrate the course-specific outcomes and other content of various components of the

curriculum.

B. Course Syllabi

Course syllabi are included in Appendix A.


Table 5.1. Curriculum

Engineering Program

Course

(Department, Number, Title)

List all courses in the program by term starting with first term of

first year and ending with the last term of the final year.

Indicate

Whether

Course is

Required,

Elective, or a

Selective

Elective by an

R, an E or an

SE2

Curricular Area (Credit Hours)

Last Two

Terms the

Course was

Offered:

Year and,

Semester, or

Quarter

Average

Section

Enrollment

for the Last

Two Terms

the Course

was Offered1

Math &

Basic

Sciences

Discipline

Specific

Topics

General

Education

Other

EGR 1010 Freshman Engineering Seminar R 1() 1 Fall, 2013 105

Fall, 2014 110

MTH 1032 Calculus I and Lab R 3 Fall, 2013 25 per section

Fall, 2014 25 per section

CEM 1041 Chemistry I and Lab R 3 Fall, 2013 300

Fall, 2014 230

EGR 1015 Introduction to Technical Computing R 2 1 Fall, 2013 105

Fall, 2014 110

PHY 1083 Physics I and Lab R 4 Fall, 2013 300

Fall, 2014 230

WTL 1001 History and the Modern World R 3 Fall, 2013 25 per section


EGR 1011 Freshman Graphics and Design R 3() Spring, 2014 100

Spring, 2015 105


Course




Indicate

Whether

Course is

Required,

Elective, or a

Selective

Elective by an

R, an E or an

SE2


Last Two

Terms the

Course was

Offered:

Year and,

Semester, or

Quarter

Average

Section

Enrollment

for the Last

Two Terms

the Course

was Offered1

Math &

Basic

Sciences

Discipline

Specific

Topics

General

Education

Other

MTH 1033 Calculus II R 3 Spring, 2014 225

Spring, 2015 255

CEM 1042 Chemistry II and Lab R 4 Spring, 2014 230

Spring, 2015 150

PHY 1084 Physics II and Lab R 4 Spring, 2014 300

Spring, 2015 150

WTL 1020 Critical Writing for Engineers and Scientists R 3 Spring, 2014 25 per section

Spring, 2015 25 per section

EGR 2010 Statics R 3 Fall, 2013 99

Summer, 2014 25

Fall, 2014 90

MTH 2034 Diff Equations R 4 Fall, 2013 230

Summer, 2014 50

BIO 1000 Introduction to Biology and Biochemistry and Lab R 4 Fall, 2013 350

Fall, 2014 325

EGR 2015 Computing Tools of Engineers R 2 Fall, 2013 99

Fall, 2014 115


Course




Indicate

Whether

Course is

Required,

Elective, or a

Selective

Elective by an

R, an E or an

SE2


Last Two

Terms the

Course was

Offered:

Year and,

Semester, or

Quarter

Average

Section

Enrollment

for the Last

Two Terms

the Course

was Offered1

Math &

Basic

Sciences

Discipline

Specific

Topics

General

Education

Other

WTL 2040 Literature, Philosophy, and Creativity R 3 Fall, 2013 25 per section


EGR 2020 Dynamics R 3() Spring, 2014 99

Summer, 2015 35

Spring, 2015 80

MTH 2035 Probability and Statistics R 4 Spring, 2014 155

Spring, 2015 145

WTL 2060 History of Technology R 3 Spring, 2014 25 per section


EGR 2001 Sophomore Seminar R 1 1 Spring, 2014 99

Spring, 2015 115

Engineering Elective SE 3 Spring, 2014 Varies

Spring, 2015 Varies

EGR 2040 Circuit Theory and Lab R 4() Fall, 2013 148

Fall, 2014 136

EGR 3013 Structural Analysis R 3() Fall, 2013 148

Fall, 2014 136


Course




Indicate

Whether

Course is

Required,

Elective, or a

Selective

Elective by an

R, an E or an

SE2


Last Two

Terms the

Course was

Offered:

Year and,

Semester, or

Quarter

Average

Section

Enrollment

for the Last

Two Terms

the Course

was Offered1

Math &

Basic

Sciences

Discipline

Specific

Topics

General

Education

Other

EGR 3030 Thermodynamics R 3 Fall, 2013 148

Fall, 2014 136

MTH 3030 Applied Math R 1 2 Fall, 2013 150

Fall, 2014 120

COM 2010 Technical Communications R 2 Fall, 2013 30 per section


EGR 2060 Engineering Electronics and Lab R 4() Spring, 2014 136

Spring, 2015 148

EGR 3050 Fluid Mechanics and Lab R 3() Spring, 2014 136

Spring, 2015 148

EGR 3010 Materials Science R 3() Spring, 2014 136

Spring, 2015 103

Summer, 2015 45

EGR 3001 Junior Seminar R 1 Spring, 2014 136

Spring, 2015 156

WTL 3000 World Literature R 3 Spring, 2014 25 per section



Course




Indicate

Whether

Course is

Required,

Elective, or a

Selective

Elective by an

R, an E or an

SE2


Last Two

Terms the

Course was

Offered:

Year and,

Semester, or

Quarter

Average

Section

Enrollment

for the Last

Two Terms

the Course

was Offered1

Math &

Basic

Sciences

Discipline

Specific

Topics

General

Education

Other


Spring, 2015 Varies

EGR 4090 Engineering Design I R 3() Fall, 2013 88

Fall, 2014 101

ECN 4035 Engineering Economics R 3 Fall, 2013 101

Fall, 2014 150

WTL 3010 Contemporary Issues in Technology R 3 Fall, 2013 25 per section


Business Elective E 3 Fall, 2013 Varies

Fall, 2014 Varies

Engineering Elective SE 3 Fall, 2013 Varies

Fall, 2014 Varies

EGR 4001 Senior Seminar R 1 Spring, 2014 88

Spring, 2015 101

EGR 4092 Engineering Design II R 3() Spring, 2014 88

Spring, 2015 101


Course




Indicate

Whether

Course is

Required,

Elective, or a

Selective

Elective by an

R, an E or an

SE2


Last Two

Terms the

Course was

Offered:

Year and,

Semester, or

Quarter

Average

Section

Enrollment

for the Last

Two Terms

the Course

was Offered1

Math &

Basic

Sciences

Discipline

Specific

Topics

General

Education

Other


Spring, 2015 Varies


Spring, 2015 Varies

General Elective E 3 Spring, 2014 Varies

Add rows as needed to show all courses in the curriculum.

OVERALL TOTAL CREDIT HOURS FOR THE DEGREE 34 60 26 6

PERCENT OF TOTAL 26.98% 47.62% 20.63% 4/76%

1. For courses that include multiple elements (lecture, laboratory, recitation, etc.), indicate the average enrollment in each element.

2. Required courses are required of all students in the program, elective courses are optional for students, and selected electives are

courses where students must take one or more courses from a specified group.

Instructional materials and student work verifying compliance with ABET criteria for the categories indicated above will be required

during the campus visit.


First Year Fall

Figure 5.1: Flowchart of Prerequisites

EGR 1015 MTH 1032 CEM 1041 PHY 1083

First Year Spring

EGR 1011 MTH 1033 CEM 1042 PHY 1084

Second Year Fall

EGR 2015 EGR 2010 MTH 2034

Second Year Spring

EGR 2001 EGR 2020 MTH 2035

Third Year Fall

EGR 3013 EGR 3030

Third Ye

EGR 2060 EGR 3050 EGR 3010

Fourth Year Fall

Fourth Y

ECN 4035

EGR

Elect.

Prerequisite Link Corequisite Link

Elect. EGR

Elect.

EGR

Elect. EGR 4001 EGR 4092

COM 2010

WTL 1020

WTL 2040

WTL 2060

EGR 1010 WTL 1001

BIO 1000

EGR

Elect.

MTH 3030

EGR 3001 WTL 3000

BUS Elect. WTL 3010

EGR 2040

ar Spring

EGR 4090

ear Spring


CRITERION 6. FACULTY

A. Faculty Qualifications

Faculty members come from a wide variety of backgrounds and bring experience from

education, research, and industry. Several faculty members are currently consultants with

industry. All but the adjunct faculty hold earned Ph.D. degrees. Eight of the faculty members

have significant industrial experience, and nine are active with sponsored research programs.

All faculty members are members of at least one professional society related to engineering.

Drs. Young and Zanzibar are the most recent hires (Fall, 2014). They will be participating in

the National Effectiveness in Teaching Institute (NETI) workshop in the coming year. All

faculty members with civil engineering backgrounds are registered professional engineers, as

are four other faculty members.

Given the university’s emphasis on serving the world-wide community, the diversity of the

faculty is a strength of our program. Faculty members represent several different countries

and nationalities, thus strengthening the global perspective of the program. All Engineering

faculty members possess excellent oral and written communication skills. These attributes

are considered in the hiring process.

See Table 6-1 and the faculty resumes in Appendix B for more information on faculty

qualifications.

B. Faculty Workload The normal teaching load is two courses per semester. The program chairperson teaches one

course per semester. There are no advisees assigned to faculty. See Table 6-2 for a summary

of faculty workload.

C. Faculty Size Since the last ABET visit, the number of faculty members in Engineering has grown. Eight

new faculty members all with full-time appointments in Engineering have been hired. The

Engineering faculty is sufficient to cover all of the required EGR courses and each of the

elective courses, with at least two faculty members capable of teaching each course.

Faculty Member Competency Area

Activeeti Chemical

Aloevera* Mechanical

Begone Civil

Boseman Civil

Bytes Electrical/computing

Capacitenz Electrical

Deenamik Mechanical

Enterneat Electrical/computing

Fehred Electrical


Georgia Mechanical

Hyderstatik Mechanical

Komposeet Civil/Structures/Composite materials

Masheen Mechanical

Reaktoria Chemical

Seement Civil

Tempracheer Chemical

Wiki Freshmen design

Xyber Electrical/computing

Young Freshman design

Zanzibar Chemical *Program chairperson

Ten adjunct faculty members from local industry are available to help with teaching

responsibilities. All of the core courses are offered at least once a year, and all of the elective

courses are offered once a year. Some of the EGR courses are offered in the summer to

accommodate cooperative education and internship students.

Interactions with Students, Student Advising and Counseling. As described in Criterion 1, full

time academic advisors conduct the majority of student advising. However, faculty interact

closely with students in career decisions and advising, they direct independent research

students, and employ NSF Undergraduate Research, minority and other undergraduate

research students in their laboratories. Program faculty members also advise very active

student chapters of the professional societies (ASCE, ASME, AIChE, IEEE). All faculty

members maintain an open-door policy for student office hours and consultation.

University Service. Program service activities are extensive. Our faculty members lead or

participate in twelve college or university committees. A significant number of our faculty

members are also involved in outreach programs to the local schools and communities. They

participate through Upper State University sponsored activities (summer institutes, math and

science camps, open house, job-shadowing activities, etc.) and through their own initiatives

(math/science conferences for elementary school girls, other outreach programs in K-12

classrooms, science fair sponsorships).

Professional Development. In addition to sponsored research and industrial consulting, our

faculty members are active in professional society activities. Five are very active in ABET,

serving as program evaluators or commissioners. Several lead divisions of their professional

societies. Program faculty members chair two NIST committees.

Interaction with Industry. Some of our faculty members consult for industry and are actively

involved in proposal reviews and panels. Industrial representatives are frequently invited as

guest lecturers in many of the undergraduate classes.


D. Professional Development All Engineering faculty members are expected to maintain currency in their discipline through

scholarly and professional development activities. Engineering faculty participate in a wide

range of professional societies including ASCE, ASME, AIChE, IEEE, ASEE, and others.

International study opportunities for undergraduate students have been provided by our faculty

who have developed or facilitated exchange programs in Russia, England, Mexico, Australia,

and Puerto Rico. All of our faculty members have participated in the workshops conducted by

our Teaching & Learning Center (TLC); some have even conducted these workshops. Others

participate regularly in special workshops and conferences sponsored by such organizations as

ASEE, NSF, ABET, and others. See the faculty resumes in Appendix B for more information

on individual faculty members.

Since professional development is required for faculty tenure and promotion decisions, faculty

members are assisted and encouraged in these activities with an annual, individual professional

development fund. The amount has varied over the past six years, but has generally fallen

between $1500 and $2000 annually. The funding is provided by the university. In addition,

many faculty members have funded research programs, in which they involve undergraduate

researchers. See the faculty resumes in Appendix B for the professional development activities

for each faculty member.

Faculty evaluations are based on how each faculty member supports the educational mission

of the program, the college, and the university. As required by the Upper State University

Faculty Handbook, evaluations are conducted annually in the following ways:

Teaching Portfolio: Each faculty member assembles a teaching portfolio that includes

examples of student work, records of assessment, and retrospective analysis of means of

improvement. Student evaluations are also included in the record, as are, when appropriate,

special awards and student letters.

Review of teaching by The Teaching and Learning Center: Each faculty member is required

to conduct a conference with a TLC consultant every three years. The consultant conducts a

direct classroom observation and then discusses his/her observations with the faculty member.

If suggestions for improvement are made, the teaching portfolio includes this information and

the tracking of how attempts at improvement were made.

Annual Review: Each faculty member completes an annual report on all university activities—

teaching, research, and service. The format is prescribed, and the teaching portfolio is also

included in this package. The chairperson discusses the annual report with each faculty

member and uses the review to make decisions on merit-pay changes.


E. Authority and Responsibility of Faculty All program changes originate in the Engineering Curriculum Committee. The program

faculty approves changes and forwards them to the College Curriculum Committee. All

changes must originate in the program. The program faculty is responsible for evaluating the

program. Some assistance is obtained from the Office of Instructional Technology to maintain

our web-based surveys. All EGR courses are taught by full-time faculty members in the

program.


Table 6.1. Faculty Qualifications

Engineering Program [Note- Partial Display – Institution will list all faculty]

Faculty Name

Highest Degree

Earned- Field and

Year

Ran

k 1

Type

of

Aca

dem

ic

Appoin

tmen

t2

T, T

T,

NT

T

FT

or

PT

4

Years of

Experience

Pro

fess

ional

Reg

istr

atio

n/

Cer

tifi

cati

on

Level of Activity

H, M, or L

Govt.

/Ind. P

ract

ice

Tea

chin

g

This

Inst

ituti

on

Pro

fess

ional

Org

aniz

atio

ns

Pro

fess

ional

Dev

elopm

ent

Consu

ltin

g/s

um

mer

work

in i

ndust

ry

Activeeti , Peter Ph.D. (2000) ASC T FT 3 8 4 H H M

Fehred, Michael Ph.D. (1990) F T FT 10 10 7 PE (VA) H H H

. . . .

. . . .

Young, Oliver Ph.D. (2012) AST TT FT 1 1 1 H H L

Instructions: Complete table for each member of the faculty in the program. Add additional rows or use additional sheets if

necessary. Updated information is to be provided at the time of the visit.

1. Code: P = Professor ASC = Associate Professor AST = Assistant Professor I = Instructor A = Adjunct O = Other

2. Code: TT = Tenure Track T = Tenured NTT = Non Tenure Track

3. The level of activity, high, medium or low, should reflect an average over the year prior to the visit plus the two previous

years at the institution


Table 6.2. Faculty Workload Summary

Engineering Program [Note – Partial Listing – Institution will list all faculty]

Faculty Member (name)

PT

or

FT1

Classes Taught (Course No./Credit Hrs.) Term and

Year2

Program Activity Distribution3

% of Time

Devoted

to the

Program5

Teaching

Research or

Scholarship

Other4

Activeeti , Peter FT ET 3050 (3) SP/15; ET 3024 (3) F/14 & SP/15; ET 4092 (ChE option section) (3) SP/12

25% 65% 10% 100%

Fehred, Michael FT ET 1015 (3)F/13 & F/14; ET 2040 (4) F/13;

ET 3056 (3)SP/14 & SP/15

30% 60% 10% 100%

. . . .

. . . .

Young, Oliver FT ET 1010 (1); F/13 & F/14; ET 1011 (3) SP/14 & SP/15

ET 2020 (3); SU/15

20% 70% 10%

100%

1. FT = Full Time Faculty or PT = Part Time Faculty, at the institution

2. For the academic year for which the self-study is being prepared.

3. Program activity distribution should be in percent of effort in the program and should total 100%.

4. Indicate sabbatical leave, etc., under "Other."

5. Out of the total time employed at the institution.


CRITERION 7. FACILITIES

A. Offices, Classrooms and Laboratories

Each faculty member has a private office that is approximately 10’x10’. The office equipment

includes standard desk, chair, bookcases, small table and two chairs for meeting with students.

Each faculty member has a workstation, printer, and laptop with network and local printer

access.

All Engineering classes are held in the Natural Sciences Building. All classrooms are equipped

with projectors for computer-based material as well as with whiteboards. Network access is

available in all classrooms as well. Laptop computers are available to faculty if needed, but

faculty members normally use their own laptops for this purpose. The classrooms are adequate

for the needs of the program.

The program operates four teaching laboratories (two electronics laboratories, a fluid

mechanics laboratory, and a materials science laboratory) and two general-purpose

laboratories. The two electronics laboratories, the fluid mechanics lab, and the materials

science lab have appropriate equipment and analysis devices including oscilloscopes, circuit

design kits, wave form generators, balances, testing equipment, hardness and tensile testing

machines, an electron microscope, wind tunnels, a viscometer, flow meters, pumps, pool

devices, and valves. Laboratories in the options have heat exchangers, a distillation column, a

countercurrent heat exchanger, control systems, universal testing equipment, various sieves,

hydrometer analysis equipment, refrigeration systems, analytical balances, an autoclave, a fuel

cell, and a fermenter. The necessary glassware and analysis equipment are available in a

centralized supplies storage room. Safety equipment is inspected and up-to-date.

The two rooms used for computer courses have 30 networked Windows-based student stations

and one instructor station in one and 45 networked Windows-based computers and an

instructor station in the other. All software needed for basic course work is installed on all

computers. Both rooms have a ceiling-mounted computer projector and projection screens.

Appendix C contains a listing the major pieces of equipment used by the program in support

of instruction.

B. Computing Resources The university Office of Computing and Communication Technology (CCT) operates ten

computing laboratories for the benefit of all USU students. These laboratories contain

Windows-based computers with a standard set of basic software, plus printers and scanners.

All computers are connected to the CCT network, which allows high-speed access to the

internet. CCT also provides high-speed computing facilities, including access to both local

(medium scale) and regional supercomputing facilities for approved users.

The Office of Instructional Technology (OIT) licenses many of the current software packages

that are used extensively throughout the curriculum, including MATLAB, MathCAD,


CADCAM, ASPEN, NX Unigraphics, Fluent, PCSpice, Spark Toolkit 7.1, and others.

Faculty requests for additional software purchases are granted regularly with appropriate

justification.

The Engineering program computing facilities are available from 7am until midnight Monday-

Thursday, 7am until 6pm Friday, 9am until 6pm Saturday, and noon until midnight on Sunday.

Most students have laptops or residence computers, and they can access course management

software and perform many remote operations 24/7. There have been no complaints from the

students concerning access or support.

Each faculty member has a desktop workstation (Windows, Mac or Sun, as preferred), a printer

and a laptop. There also is a high speed printer and a scanner near the faculty office area that

is on the local network. This is sufficient to support the scholarly and professional activities

of the faculty.

C. Guidance Each student working in a university laboratory must attend a safety seminar once a year and

pass the safety exam based on the seminar. The safety seminar covers safe work practices,

good laboratory practices, personal protective equipment, safety equipment, electrical safety,

chemical safety, waste handling, and emergency evacuation. Students are provided

demonstrations of specific equipment by qualified technical staff or faculty prior to performing

laboratory work. Qualified technical staff or faculty must be present at all times that students

are in the laboratory; students are not allowed to work alone in any laboratories.

D. Maintenance and Upgrading of Facilities The 1960s Engineering Building was renovated in 1985 and again in 2002-2003 to include

major modernization of all classrooms and student laboratories. The building has twenty

classrooms, ten laboratories, and one large auditorium. Part of a $100/semester student fee is

dedicated to computer and laboratory modernization. Over the past several years, the funds

have been used mainly for computer upgrading and installation of a wireless network in the

building.

Computing hardware in the program labs and offices is replaced according to a schedule, with

a maximum replacement cycle of three years for computing equipment. Major software

upgrades are made on a schedule determined by the ascertained stability of the new software

and the academic calendar (avoiding major upgrades during an academic term). Software

upgrades to repair faults are installed as soon as feasible after they are released. The

replacement plan for the hardware and software in the program’s laboratories is included in

Appendix C.

New hardware and software are purchased as needed to support the program within the normal

budget process. If the regular program budget will not support the acquisition then a request

is made during the next normal annual budget process. Emergency funds for short-term repairs

may be made as a special request to the dean’s office.


In general, the program has been able to develop and maintain good labs to support the

program. The need for additional equipment or upgrades is determined from student and

faculty feedback and during planning for new or modified courses.

The program has one full-time technician for laboratory support, and he also has six student

assistants who provide support. The level of support is, in general, better than adequate,

although as in any academic setting there may be times, such as the first and final weeks of a

semester, when there is more work to be done than can be completed as quickly as desired.

E. Library Services The Engineering and Technology library is in a facility shared with the Natural Science library.

The library contains at least one copy of every textbook used in ET courses, plus an excellent

collection of classical and standard texts in various areas of engineering. The library subscribes

to the print versions of the full set of publications from the ASCE, ASME, AIChE and IEEE.

There also are several electronic subscriptions. Requests for additional publications are

submitted to the library liaison, and the annual budget for engineering publications acquisition

is adequate to maintain an up-to-date collection.

The catalog of library resources is online and accessible from the university computing

network to university employees and students. In addition to several electronic repositories of

publications, there also are search engines that identify resources that are available from a

variety of sources.

The library is a member of state and regional consortia for sharing resources. Print material

that is not available locally normally can be obtained through inter-library loan within one or

two days.

F. Overall Comments on Facilities The Upper State University Office of Physical Plant performs annual safety audits of each

building. The audits include offices, classrooms, laboratories, storage and shipping areas,

and building utilities (electricity, water, sewer, heat/ac, elevators, fire, etc.). Each program

must maintain records of maintenance and calibration of equipment owned by and used by

the program. This includes office equipment (copiers, fax machines, scanners, and printers)

and laboratory equipment. The Engineering program administrative assistant and laboratory

technician are responsible for maintaining this documentation. Deficiencies found with

respect to the building and utilities are the responsibility of the Office of Physical Plant;

deficiencies found with respect to program equipment are the responsibility of the program.

Level 1 deficiencies must be addressed within 7 days; level 2 within 30 days; and level 3

within 180 days.

To ensure Engineering laboratories are safe, the program laboratory technician performs

random safety audits of each laboratory throughout each semester. Reports are provided to the

responsible faculty member with a copy to the program chairperson.


CRITERION 8. INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT

A. Leadership As described earlier, the program is part of the College of Natural Science and Engineering.

The responsibility for leadership of the program lies with the program chairperson, Dr.

Aloevera. Dr. Alovera has been chairperson for one year. Prior to that Dr. Seement served as

interim chairperson for two years while the search for a chairperson was being conducted. The

previous chairperson, Dr. Geek, left the university after serving as chair from 2010-12.

The chairperson is supported by an administrative assistant, an accounting technician, and

student workers for reception service and general assistance during normal office hours. The

program chairperson has a 50% reduction in normal teaching load. Student records and other

general student services are provided by the dean’s office as well as some general assistance

and coordination for administrative functions.

The Engineering Curriculum Committee is responsible for identifying improvements to the

curriculum. The Committee meets at least once a semester to review assessment results of the

previous semester and to recommend improvements to the curriculum. All recommendations

for changing program educational objectives, student outcomes, or courses are considered by

and voted upon by all full-time faculty members. The approved changes are then forwarded

to the College Curriculum Committee for review and approval before going to the Provost.

The Dean of the College of Natural Science and Engineering, Dr. Deanly, is responsible for all

faculty hiring, budget allocations, and policy matters within the College. As the chief academic

officer of the university, the Provost has the final approval of academic actions as the final step

of the required academic governance and approval process. Except when over-riding budgetary

restrictions have been in place, historically all academic and curricular proposals from

Engineering have been approved by the Provost.

B. Program Budget and Financial Support Upper State University and its academic colleges operate on a fiscal year dating from July 1 to

June 30. The college and all of its programs use a “zero-based budget” concept. The three

main flows of college support for undergraduate education are based on 1) the size of faculty,

2) the educational programs and number of students in the programs (largely return of student

fee money), and 3) special allocations for updating laboratories and computing facilities. The

third item, not part of the zero-based process, is an annual budgeting item that is part of

Planning and Program Review (PPR) process. This allocation comes directly from the

university. Other cash flows include return of overhead and special allocations for faculty

hiring.

In the spring of each year the dean prepares a document called the Planning and Program

Review (PPR) document which describes and justifies the college’s request for new funds,

both for recurring expenses and one-time expenses. The dean is not required to justify the

existing base budget; the PPR process is essentially focused on new funds. The request is

submitted to the Provost of the University.


In late spring or early summer, the college and program budgets are finalized for the following

year. This budgeting approach facilitates identification and prioritization of requirements and

allocation of resources. The engineering program has had good success in obtaining funds for

undergraduate laboratory upgrades, computer facilities for faculty, and start-up requests for

new faculty.

Each Engineering course is supported by a half-time teaching assistant and a grader. The

exception to this is the seminar courses, which do not have a teaching assistant or a grader.

In lieu of these, faculty members who teach seminar courses are provided with office staff

assistance for managing student papers and grade entry. Laboratory courses have one

teaching assistant per laboratory section for the purpose of laboratory safety and guidance.

The buildings, offices, and other infrastructure are maintained as part of the University’s

maintenance plan and is managed at the University level.

Laboratory budget requests are submitted by program faculty with responsibilities for the

laboratories on an annual basis as part of the PPR process. Emergency funds for short-term

repairs are provided by the dean’s office. These “emergency” funds vary in amount up to

$1000. Each student pays a $100 “laboratory fee” each semester, and these funds are used to

support acquisition and maintenance of laboratory facilities and equipment.

Upper State University has a long and solid history of strength in undergraduate education,

which will continue to be emphasized as a hallmark of our institution by the current

administration. The level of support has enabled undergraduate instruction to remain an

important element of faculty responsibilities. Sufficient funds have been provided for support

of teaching assistants, program staff, facilities, and equipment.

C. Staffing

Program Staff. The Engineering program has excellent support personnel. An office

supervisor, five office staff members, and five part-time undergraduates effectively support

the faculty and the Engineering program. One full-time technician is charged with

maintaining the equipment in all of the common labs (excluding the labs operated by CCT)

and works under the direct supervision of the program chairperson. Upper State University

has competitive salaries and benefits. There have not been any problems attracting or

retaining program staff over the last five years.

Advising. Most undergraduate advising for course selection is done by the professional

advising staff. The Office of the Associate Dean for Undergraduate Studies in the College of

Natural Sciences and Engineering (CNSE) provide strong support for student monitoring and

advising activities.

Institution Support Staff. The Office of Instructional Technology (OIT) supports faculty

computing activities. Staff members associated with OIT also support program assessment

through the installation and maintenance of our web-based surveys.


Student job placement activities are supported by Ms. Sophie Brown, a Career Services Field

Consultant. She frequently presents workshops in resume-writing, interviewing, and consults

regularly with students conducting job searches. Ms. Brown is also a frequent presenter in the

seminar courses. The Career Services and Placement office operates at the university level and

provides a broad spectrum of career advising and career exploration services. Ms. Brown is

our local contact to that office.

The Cooperative Education and Internships program is administered and coordinated by Dr.

Georgia Atlanta. Dr. Atlanta interacts directly with the students and employers involved in the

co-op program for the entire college. Her office also coordinates annual college career fairs.

In summary, excellence in undergraduate instructions and modern facilities enable student

learning and their achievement of good levels of performance in all of the student outcome

areas. This further enables them to achieve the program educational objectives once they

graduate. The feedback we have obtained thus far demonstrates that the engineering

administration, faculty, staff, and students have been successful in this area.

D. Faculty Hiring and Retention Upper State University has competitive salaries and benefits, and a standard sabbatical

program. There have not been any problems attracting or retaining faculty over the last five

years.

Process for Hiring New Faculty The Dean of the College of Natural Sciences and Engineering is responsible for the staffing of

all teaching and research positions within the approved budget of the College. National

advertising is required for all tenure-track or tenured faculty positions. The Dean appoints a

search committee for each open tenure-track or tenured faculty position. The majority of

members of the search committee are from the program. Faculty members from other

programs within the College, administrators, staff, and students may be included on the search

committee as appropriate. The search committee’s charge is to identify, screen, and interview

qualified candidates. The search committee presents its recommendation to the Dean, who

will choose from the candidates and make an offer of employment.

Strategies to Retain Current Qualified Faculty Upper State University believes the faculty is the heart of a strong undergraduate program and

seeks to retain all qualified faculty through professional development, a transparent tenure and

promotion process, a sabbatical program, administrative support staff and student graders,

attractive facilities, and competitive benefits (health and life insurance, retirement planning,

etc.).


E. Support of Faculty Professional Development There is travel support for each faculty member to attend one professional meeting each year.

Additional support can be requested for travel to present a paper at a professional meeting.

Course-release buyouts are possible from grant funds. The department has averaged one

conference paper each year per faculty member and one journal paper every two years.

Most planning for professional development occurs during the annual review process during

the early spring of each year. At this time the individual faculty members and the dean agree

on activities that will be emphasized during the upcoming year. Depending on the needs and

availability of funds, the dean also commits resources. At the following year’s annual review,

an accounting for results based on mutual commitments made at the previous annual review is

held between the dean and the faculty member.

CRITERION 9. PROGRAM CRITERIA

There are no program criteria for an Engineering program.


APPENDICES

Appendix A – Course Syllabi

See PEV Training On-Line Module 3, Before the Visit, for samples of faculty vitae.


Appendix B – Faculty Vitae

See PEV Training On-Line Module 3, Before the Visit, for samples of faculty vitae.


Appendix C – Equipment

Classroom Instructional Resources

All classes are held in the Natural Sciences Building. All classrooms are equipped with projectors

for computer-based material as well as with whiteboards. Network access is available in all

classrooms as well. Laptop computers are available to faculty if needed, but faculty members

normally use their own laptops for this purpose.

Computing Laboratories Available to all USU Students

The university Office of Computing and Communication Technology (CCT) operates ten

computing laboratories for the benefit of all USU students. The table below lists the locations of

the labs and the number of computers available in each lab.

Laboratory Location Number of Computers

Library Ground Floor 60

Library Second Floor 40

Student Union 40

Natural Sciences Building 30

College of Business 50

Computing Commons Lab 1 40



Computing Commons Lab 4A 60

Computing Commons Lab 4A 60

Total Number of Computers 440

These laboratories contain Windows-based computers with a standard set of basic software, plus

printers and scanners. All computers are connected to the CCT network, which allows high-speed

access to the internet.

All computing laboratory facilities are available from 7am until midnight Monday-Thursday, 7am

until 6pm Friday, 9am until 6pm Saturday, and noon until midnight on Sunday.

CCT also provides high-speed computing facilities, including access to both local (medium scale)

and regional supercomputing facilities for approved users.

Most students have laptops or residence computers, and they can access course management

software and perform many remote operations 24/7.

Additional program laboratory information will be provided in each program’s ABET resource

room during the visit.


Appendix D – Institutional Summary

1. The Institution

a. Name and address of the institution


Upper State, Anystate 10101

b. Name and title of the chief executive officer of the institution

Dr. David Morrison, President

c. Name and title of the person submitting the self-study report.

Dr. Margaret T. Deanly, Dean, College of Natural Science & Engineering.

d. Name the organizations by which the institution is now accredited and the dates of the

initial and most recent accreditation evaluations.

Upper State University is accredited by The Higher Learning Commission North Central

Association of Colleges and Schools. The initial accreditation was granted in 1957. The

most recent accreditation evaluation was conducted in 2008 and extends to 2018b.

2. Type of Control Description of the type of managerial control of the institution, e.g., private-non-profit, private-

other, denominational, state, federal, public-other, etc.

Upper State University is a state-supported university, governed by a Board of Trustees,

elected by the voters of Anystate.

Educational Unit Describe the educational unit in which the program is located including the administrative

chain of responsibility from the individual responsible for the program to the chief executive

officer of the institution. Include names and titles. An organization chart may be included.

The College of Natural Science & Engineering, led by Dr. Margaret T. Deanly, is comprised

of eight departments which provide eight undergraduate programs. The Department of

Applied Science, chaired by Dr. Mark T. Begone, provides the BS degree program in Applied

Science. The Department of Computing, chaired by Dr. Martha S. Allbright, provides the BS

degree program in Computing. The Department of Engineering, chaired by Dr. Garrett H.

Aloevera, provides the BS degree program in Engineering. The Department of Engineering

Technology, chaired by Dr. Robert Georgia, provides the BS degree program in Engineering

Technology. The Department of Mathematics, chaired by Dr. Stephanie Trigg, provides the

BS degree program in Mathematics. The Department of Biology, chaired by Dr. Valerie Flora,

provides the BS degree program in Biology. The Department of Chemistry, chaired by Dr.

Marcus Molecule, provides the BS degree program in Chemistry. The Department of Physics,

chaired by Dr. Ben Bridges, provides the BS degree program in Physics.


Dr. Deanly, Dean of the College of Natural Sciences & Engineering, reports to Dr. Joyce

Holmes, Provost, who in turn reports to President David Morrison.

See Figures D.1 and D.2 for the college and university organization charts.

Upper State University College of Natural Sciences & Engineering

Figure D.1. Upper State University College of Natural Sciences & Engineering Organization

Chart

CNSE Dean

M. Deanly

Admin Assist

S. Frazer

Dept of A. Science Dept of Biology

M. Begone V. Flora

Dept of Chemistry Dept of Computing

M. Molecule M. Allbright

Dept of Engr

G. Aloevera

Dept of Engr Tech

R. Georgia

Dept of Math

S. Trigg

Dept of Physics

B. Bridges

Assoc Dean, UG

Studies

G. Hite

Public & Alum

Relations

L. Groves

Coop Ed &

Internships

C. Cooper

Student Advising

E. Joshi

Office of Student

Placement

G. Morris



Figure D.2. Upper State University Organization Chart

3. Academic Support Units List the names and titles of the individuals responsible for each of the units that teach courses

required by the program being evaluated, e.g., mathematics, physics, etc.

The Applied Science, Computing, Engineering, and Engineering Technology programs are

supported by the following Upper State University academic units:

Biology, Dr. Valerie Flora, Chairperson

Business, Dr. James Botline, Dean

Chemistry, Dr. Marcus Molecule, Chairperson

Economics, Dr. Joan Marks, Chairperson

Liberal Arts, Dr. Michael Shakes, Dean

Mathematics, Dr. Stephanie Trigg, Chairperson

Physics, Dr. Ben Bridges, Chairperson

4. Non-academic Support Units List the names and titles of the individuals responsible for each of the units that provide non-

academic support to the program being evaluated, e.g., library, computing facilities, placement,

tutoring, etc.

Board of Trustees

President

D. Morrison

VP Finance & Ops

F. Porter

Provost

J. Holmes

Business Ops

J. Karrot

Human Resources

D. Eagle

Planning & Budgets

K. Shepherd

College of Business

J. Botline

College of

Education

W. Edward

College of Natural

Science & Engr

M. Deanly

College of Nursing

B. Ross

Residential Life

K. Charles

Physical Plant

L. Ritenour

Admissions &

Registrar

M. Butler

Career Svc &

Placement

S. Nichols

Library

N. Read

Instructional

Technology

W. Thomas

Teaching &

Learning Ctr

J. Schuler


The Applied Science, Computing, Engineering, and Engineering Technology programs are

supported by the following non-academic units:

Admissions, Ms. Marjorie Butler, Director

Career Services and Placement, Mr. Sam Nichols, Director

Cooperative Education and Internship Program, Ms. Carol Cooper, Director

Computer and Communication Technologies (CCT), Mr. Nick Byte, Director

Library, Dr. Nancy Read, Head Librarian

Office of Instructional Technology (OIT), Dr. William Thomas, Director

Teaching and Learning Center (TLC), Dr. Joseph Schuler, Director

5. Credit Unit It is assumed that one semester or quarter credit normally represents one class hour or three

laboratory hours per week. One academic year normally represents at least 28 weeks of

classes, exclusive of final examinations. If other standards are used for this program, the

differences should be indicated.

One semester credit represents one class hour or three laboratory hours per week. The Fall

semester runs the equivalent of 15 weeks, excluding final exam week. The Spring semester,

excluding final exam week, runs 15 weeks minus one day for the observance of the Martin

Luther King, Jr. holiday.

The Applied Science and Computing programs require 120 total credit hours to graduate,

making one year equal to 30 credits. The Engineering program requires 126 total credit hours

to graduate, making one year equal to 31.5 credits. The Engineering Technology program

requires 125 total credit hours to graduate, making one year equal to 31.25 credits.

6. Tables See the following tables for program enrollment and degree data, and personnel data for each

program undergoing evaluation.


Table D.1. Program Enrollment and Degree Data

Applied Science

Academic

Year

Enrollment Year

Tota

l

Under

gra

d

Tota

l

Gra

d

Degrees Awarded

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Associates Bachelors Masters Doctorates

2014-15 FT 25 24 24 21 3 97 21

PT 4 8 12

2013-14 FT 26 24 22 25 7 102 23

PT 3 3 6

2012-13 FT 22 21 23 27 6 99 25

PT 1 1 4 6

2011-12 FT 31 27 26 20 1 105 16

PT 2 2 4

2010-11 FT 30 24 25 23 5 107 18

PT 2 1 3

Give official fall term enrollment figures (head count) for the current and preceding four academic years and undergraduate

and graduate degrees conferred during each of those years. The "current" year means the academic year preceding the fall

visit.

FT--full time

PT--part time



Computing

Academic Year

Enrollment Year Tota

l

Under

gra

d

Tota

l

Gra

d

Degrees Awarded


2014-15 FT 38 35 33 31 5 142 32

PT 5 11 16

2013-14 FT 39 32 30 32 7 140 31

PT 2 4 8 14

2012-13 FT 35 31 30 30 6 132 26

PT 2 5 6

2011-12 FT 43 35 32 30 13 153 29

PT 2 3 5

2010-11 FT 36 33 32 27 16 149 28

PT 1 3 4

Give official fall term enrollment figures (head count) for the current and preceding four academic years and undergraduate and

graduate degrees conferred during each of those years. The "current" year means the academic year preceding the fall visit.

FT--full time

PT--part time



Engineering

Academic Year


l

Under

gra

d

Tota

l

Gra

d

Degrees Awarded


2014-15 FT 103 95 92 84 11 385 80

PT 2 8 25 35

2013-14 FT 99 93 91 87 12 382 76

PT 1 2 3 23 29

2012-13 FT 97 88 86 85 14 370 70

PT 1 4 9 14

2011-12 FT 118 84 87 81 22 392 68

PT 2 1 8 11

2010-11 FT 115 88 85 79 26 393 66

PT 1 2 5 8

Give official fall term enrollment figures (head count) for the current and preceding four academic years and undergraduate

and graduate degrees conferred during each of those years. The "current" year means the academic year preceding the fall

visit.

FT--full time

PT--part time



Engineering Technology

Academic Year


l

Under

gra

d

Tota

l

Gra

d

Degrees Awarded


2014-15 FT 101 97 90 86 11 385 78

PT 2 8 25 35

2013-14 FT 99 94 91 88 10 382 73

PT 1 2 3 23 29

2012-13 FT 90 88 86 85 14 363 65

PT 1 4 9 14

2011-12 FT 118 82 84 76 22 382 63

PT 1 2 5 8

2010-11 FT 105 88 85 75 20 373 64

PT 1 2 8 11

Give official fall term enrollment figures (head count) for the current and preceding four academic years and undergraduate and

graduate degrees conferred during each of those years. The "current" year means the academic year preceding the fall visit.

FT--full time

PT--part time


Table D.5. Personnel

Applied Science

Year1: 2014-15

Report data for the program being evaluated.

1 Data on this table should be for the fall term immediately preceding the visit. Updated

tables for the fall term when the ABET team is visiting are to be prepared and presented to

the team when they arrive.

2 For student teaching assistants, 1 FTE equals 20 hours per week of work (or service). For

undergraduate and graduate students, 1 FTE equals 15 semester credit-hours (or 24 quarter

credit-hours) per term of institutional course work, meaning all courses — science,

humanities and social sciences, etc. For faculty members, 1 FTE equals what your

institution defines as a full-time load.

3 Persons holding joint administrative/faculty positions or other combined assignments

should be allocated to each category according to the fraction of the appointment assigned

to that category.

4 Specify any other category considered appropriate, or leave blank.

HEAD COUNT FTE2

FT PT

Administrative3 0.5 0.5

Faculty (tenure-track) 7.5 7.5

Other Faculty (excluding student

Assistants)

4 1.0

Student Teaching Assistants 8 4.0

Student Research Assistants

Technicians/Specialists 1

Office/Clerical Employees 2

2 3.0

Others4



Computing

Year1: 2014-15












to that category.


HEAD COUNT FTE2

FT PT

Administrative3 0.5 0.5

Faculty (tenure-track) 7.5 7.5


Assistants)

6 1.5





3 3.5

Others4



Engineering

Year1: 2014-15












to that category.


HEAD COUNT FTE2

FT PT

Administrative3 0.5

Faculty (tenure-track) 19.5


Assistants)

8 2.0




1.0


6 5.0

Others4



Engineering Technology

Year1: 2014-15












to that category.


HEAD COUNT FTE2

FT PT

Administrative3 0.5

Faculty (tenure-track) 19.5


Assistants)

7 1.75




1.0


5 4.5

Others4


Signature Attesting to Compliance

By signing below, I attest to the following:

That Upper State University Applied Science, Computing, Engineering, and Engineering

Technology programs have conducted an honest assessment of compliance and has provided

a complete and accurate disclosure of timely information regarding compliance with ABET’s

Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs to include the General Criteria and any

applicable Program Criteria, and the ABET Accreditation Policy and Procedure Manual.

Margaret T. Deanly

Dean’s Name (As indicated on the RFE)

Margaret T. Deanly June 28, 2015

Signature Date

template for self-study report - 2011-12 - abet · tr-e-01 usu eac self-study 2 january, 2015 abet...

Documents