1

Mechanical Engineering Student Learning Outcome Assessment Report

1. Department/Program Mission

As published in the current Undergraduate Catalog and on the department website (http://mae.mst.edu/department/deptprofile/), the department’s mission statement is:

We will provide a rigorous, productive, and relevant academic learning environment for students, faculty, and staff in the Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department by continually focusing on our core missions of teaching, research, and service.

We will ensure that graduating students are well-educated and sufficiently prepared in the fundamentals of mechanical and aerospace engineering practice and science, such that they have the ability to solve open-ended problems in these disciplines and the capabilities required in order to become competent, productive, and well-rounded professionals.

We will emphasize scholarship, graduate education, and the development of new knowledge and skills in the traditional areas associated with mechanical and aerospace engineering. Additionally, we will develop cross-cutting multi-disciplinary efforts such that we are widely recognized by local, national, and international research and business communities as respected leaders in research, innovation, and discovery.

We will render meritorious service to our profession through active participation and engagement in service activities in our professional communities at all levels (local, national, and international), as well as in fulfilling campus and departmental governance, outreach, and service activities.

In addition to the department’s mission statement, the following Program Educational Objectives are defined for the mechanical engineering program. These objectives are consistent with the program’s assessment agency, ABET, and are published in the Undergraduate Catalog and on the department’s website (http://mae.mst.edu/department/accreditation09/).

The Mechanical Engineering program seeks to prepare its graduates for the following early career and professional accomplishments in their employment by industry, government agencies, academia, or private practice:

• Demonstrated engineering competence, successfully contributing within their

career fields with increasing levels of responsibility and influence.

2

• Continuous growth in knowledge and capability, within the Mechanical Engineering field as well as across interdisciplinary boundaries.

2. Student Learning Outcomes (SLO) Campus-Wide Student Learning Outcomes: Programs must demonstrate that their graduates have:

I. an ability to communicate effectively both orally and in writing. II. an ability to think critically and analyze effectively.

III. an ability to apply disciplinary knowledge and skills in solving critical problems.

IV. an ability to function in diverse learning and working environments. V. an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.

VI. an awareness of national and global contemporary issues. VII. a recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in, life-long learning.

3. Mapping Between Campus Learning Outcomes and ME Program Outcomes

The ME program has for many years been assessing program outcomes based on ABET terminology. The current ME program outcomes are specified below. Students graduating from this program should have: (a) an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering (b) an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret

data (c) an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within

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

(d) an ability to function on multidisciplinary teams (e) an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems (f) an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility (g) an ability to communicate effectively (h) the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions

in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context (i) a recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning (j) a knowledge of contemporary issues (k) an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for

engineering practice (l) an ability to work professionally in both thermal and mechanical systems areas

The Campus Learning Outcomes and the ME Program Outcomes are very compatible. To avoid duplication of effort and confusion of assessment processes, the ME program

3

will continue to assess and document the ME Program Outcomes. Table 1 shows the correlation between the two sets of outcomes. Five of them are almost exact matches. Two of the Campus Learning Outcomes are addressed by multiple ME Program Outcomes. By satisfying the ME Program Outcomes, the Campus Learning Outcomes will inherently be satisfied.

Table 1. Correlation of Campus Learning Outcomes to ME Program Outcomes

Campus

Learning Outcome Corresponding

ME Program Outcome I g II b, e III a, c, e, k IV d V f VI j VII i

4

4. Curriculum Mapping to Program Outcomes Table 2 shows a correlation between specific Mechanical Engineering courses in the curriculum and the Outcomes. A similar correlation is given for Non-ME required courses in Table 3. This correlation is particularly important in addressing any assessed weaknesses in specific Outcomes, by indicating which parts of the curriculum are most directly relevant in affecting the particular Outcome. This table demonstrates that the majority of the required courses are expected to contribute to multiple Outcomes, and each Outcome is to be satisfied by many different courses.

Table 2. Correlation of Curriculum with Outcomes ME Required Courses

Required Courses a b c d e f g h i j k l

ME 2653 Intro to Manufacturing Process x x x x x x x ME 2360 Dynamics x x x x ME 2761 Intro to Design x x x x x x x x x x x ME 3708 Machine Design x x x x x x x x x ME 3411 Linear Systems in ME x x x x x x ME 3313 Machine Dynamics x x x x x ME 2519 Thermodynamics x x x x x x x ME 3521 Applied Thermodynamics x x x x x x x x ME 3525 Heat Transfer x x x x x x ME 3131Thermofluid Mechanics I x x x x x x x x ME 4840 Mech. Instrument. Lab x x x x x x x x x ME 4842 ME Systems Lab x x x x x x x x x ME 4761 Engineering Design x x x x x x x x x x x x ME 4479 Auto. Control of Mech. Systems x x x x x ME 4480 Control Systems Lab x x x x x x x x x x

5

Table 3. Correlation of Curriculum with Outcomes Non-ME Required Courses

Associated Student Outcomes

Courses a b c d e f g h i j k l

CE 2200 Statics x x x x CE 2210 Mechanics of Materials x x x x CE 2211 Materials Testing x x x x x x x Chem 1310 General Chemistry x x x Chem 1319 General Chemistry Lab x x x Chem 1100 Intro to Lab Safety/Hazard Materials x x CSc 1971 Intro to Programming Methodology x x x CSc 1981 Program Methodology Lab x x x EE 2800 Electrical Circuits x x x EMgt 1100 Practical Concepts for Technical Mgrs. x x x x x x x x

EMgt 1210 Economic Analysis of Eng. Projects x x x x FE 1100 Study & Careers in Engineering x x x x x x x IDE 1720 Intro to Engineering Design x x x x x x x x x x x Math 1214 Calculus I for Engineers x x x Math 1215 Calculus II for Engineers x x x Math 2222 Calculus w/Analytic Geometry III x x x Math 3304 Elementary Differential Equations x x x Math 3108 Linear Algebra I x x x Met 2110 Metallurgy for Engineers x x x x Phys 1135 Engineering Physics I: Mechanics x x x x x Phys 2135 Engineering Physics II x x x x x Stat 3113 Applied Engineering Statistics x x x x x x

5. Methods/Instruments and Administration

The annual department assessment cycle (shown in Figure 1) calls for two specific reports to be generated annually in order to:

(1) Document the assessment data (2) Identify and pursue action items required to improve outcomes attainment The department Assessment Oversight Committee (AOC) is responsible for collecting and organizing the assessment data into an Assessment Data Report (Report 1). This report provides a summary of the assessment data that were collected for the undergraduate mechanical and aerospace engineering programs over the previous year.

6

The faculty reviews and discusses the data each fall in a dedicated Annual Assessment Meeting. Action items for the upcoming year are generated. Prior year action items are reviewed, modified, or closed.

Figure 1. Annual Department Assessment Cycle

The ME program utilizes multiple assessment instruments to assess the outcomes. The primary assessment instruments are (a) direct measurements from specific course assignments, (b) a graduating senior exit exam, and (c) the Fundamentals of Engineering exam. Indirect survey instruments of graduating seniors are also used as checkpoints. The assessment data is collected each semester, and compiled once per year.

7

Table 4 shows the ME Program Outcomes subdivided into more specific measurable performance criteria. Also shown in the table for each performance criteria are the direct assessment instrument and the acceptable performance metric. For a given outcome to be considered achieved, all performance metrics must be met for all of the performance criteria associated with the outcome.

8

Table 4. Direct Measures of Outcomes for Mechanical Engineering

Outcome Performance Criterion Assessment Instrument Performance Metric

a an ability to apply knowledge of

mathematics, science, and engineering

a.1 Ability to apply algebra, trig, calculus, and

ordinary differential equations in modeling engineering problems.

Exit Exam, problems come from math courses.

Exit Exam: Average score ≥ 70%

a.2 Ability to identify and apply pertinent principles of science to engineering

applications.

Exit Exam, problems from chemistry and physics courses.

Exit Exam: Average score ≥ 70%

a.3

Ability to apply the fundamental concepts of each of the engineering topics including

thermodynamics, heat transfer, fluids, machine design, dynamics, and controls.

Exit Exam, problems come from ME 2360, 2519, 3131, 3313, 3411, 3525,

3708, 4479 Exit Exam Average score ≥ 70%

b an ability to design and conduct

experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.

b.1 Ability to design an experiment to measure a certain concept or phenomena

ME 4842 grade on design of experiment assignment Average score ≥ 70%

b.2 Ability to acquire, analyze and interpret experimental data

ME 4842 grade on last experiment report Average score ≥ 70%

c

an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet

desired need within realistic constraints such as economic,

environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety,

manufacturability, and sustainability

c.1 Ability to formulate a problem statement ME 4761, Design review, score based on rubric Average score ≥ 3 out of 4

c.2 Ability to generate conceptual design solutions ME 4761, Design review, score based on rubric Average score ≥ 3 out of 4

c.3 Ability to bring a final design to realization ME 4761, Design review, score based on rubric Average score ≥ 3 out of 4

c.4 Ability to recognize and address realistic constraint issues.

ME 4761, Design review w/input from industry evaluators, score based on

rubric Average score ≥ 3 out of 4

d ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams

d.1 Actively participates in and effectively contributes to team assignments

ME 4761 peer evaluation, score based on rubric Average score ≥ 3 out of 4

d.2 Ability to lead and/or follow as appropriate in a team setting.

ME 4761 peer evaluation, score based on rubric Average score ≥ 3 out of 4

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

Ability to identify, formulate, and solve an appropriate mathematical model that

represents and engineering problem from a descriptive statement.

Exit Exam, word problems from a.3 courses

Exit Exam: Average score ≥ 70%

9

Outcome Performance Criterion Assessment Instrument Performance Metric

f an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility

f.1 Recognizes the ethically salient features of dilemmas and can suggest options for the ethical resolution of dilemmas.

Exit Exam, questions from ethics professor Average score ≥ 70%

f.2 Familiarity with the Code of Ethics for Engineers as published by NSPE.

Exit Exam, questions from Code of Ethics Average score ≥ 70%

g an ability to communicate effectively

g.1 Effectively communicates in oral presentations. ME 4842, oral report, score based on rubric Average score ≥ 70%

g.2 Effectively communicates in written technical reports. ME 4842, grade on last lab report Average score ≥ 70%

h

the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context.

h.1 Ability to relate engineering issues within an historical context. Exit Exam, questions from H/SS faculty Average score ≥ 70%

h.2 Ability to critically analyze the impacts of engineering solutions in global, economic, environmental, and societal contexts.

Exit Exam, questions from H/SS faculty Average score ≥ 70%

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

i.1 Recognizes the value of pursuing advanced educational opportunities. Senior exit survey, intention 50% of students "expect to

pursue advanced education"

i.2 Recognizes the value of engagement with the technical community. Senior exit survey, intention

50% of students "expect to engage with technical community"

i.3 Ability to conduct literature survey or background study to pursue a given project.

ME 4761, Design review, score based on rubric

90% of students score ≥ 2

j a knowledge of contemporary issues

j.1 Demonstrates awareness and knowledge of critical contemporary issues relevant to engineering. Exit Exam, questions from H/SS faculty Average score ≥ 70%

j.2 Demonstrates awareness of current affairs at the national and global level.

Exit Exam, questions from current news items Average score ≥ 70%

10

Outcome Performance Criterion Assessment Instrument Performance Metric

k

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

k.1 Ability to use modern software packages in modeling and solving engineering problems.

(ME 2519, 3313, 3411, 3525, or 4480), grade on specific assignments Average score ≥ 70%

k.2 Ability to acquire experimental data using data acquisition and instrumentation. ME 4840, grade on final project Average score ≥ 70%

k.3 Ability to use CAD software. ME 2761, pass rate on CAD proficiency exam Average score ≥ 70%

l an ability to work professionally in both thermal and mechanical systems areas.

l.1 Ability to apply fundamental concepts from thermodynamics, heat transfer, and fluids.

Exit Exam, collective score on problems from ME 2519, 3131, and 3525 Average score ≥ 70%

l.2 Ability to apply fundamental concepts from machine design, dynamics, and controls.

Exit Exam, collective score on problems from ME 3313, 3411, 3708, and 4479 Average score ≥ 70%

11

6. Findings

Tables 5 through 8 provide a summary of the data collected from the assessment instruments from the past several years.

Table 5: Mechanical Engineering Program: Exit Exam Summary

AY 2013-2014 AY 2014-2015 AY 2015-2016 AY 2016-2017 Category %>50% Avg %>50% Avg %>50% Avg %>50% Avg

Dynamics 81.82 59.89 81.95 61.34 85.71 67.98 87.63 65.66 Machine Design 72.73 53.75 74.63 57.2 77.55 60.33 75.27 56.25 Controls 72.73 54.47 50.24 47.89 45.92 45.07 68.82 53.18 Mathematics (a.1) 86.45 66.16 82.93 63.54 86.73 67.47 88.71 66.47 Fluids 73.64 54.2 79.51 57.93 77.55 55.48 71.51 54.84 Thermo 41.82 42.2 42.93 45.73 53.06 48.04 54.84 47.98 Heat Transfer 10 27.39 22.44 32.8 22.45 30.23 15.05 31.12 Physics (a.2) 70.06 54.33 65.37 53.17 71.43 57.27 69.89 56.85 Performance Criteria f.1 85.95 73.81 85.85 74.96 87.76 75.51 87.10 74.91 Performance Criteria f.2 45.34 49.81 41.46 48.78 54.08 55.78 41.94 49.64 Performance Criteria h.1 36.79 42.72 77.56 68.78 60.2 56.8 82.26 72.04 Performance Criteria h.2 37.74 44.81 77.56 70.24 72.45 63.61 73.66 65.23 Performance Criteria j.1 17.63 25.67 64.88 59.51 44.9 49.32 66.67 63.08 Performance Criteria j.2 70.41 47.03 97.56 75.61 87.86 63.01 91.94 67.47 Mechanical Systems (l.2) 69.6 54.24 64.88 54.39 68.37 55.98 76.88 57.62 Thermal Systems (l.1) 15.87 40.5 36.1 45.52 33.67 45.08 37.63 45.12 Combination (a.3) 38.32 47.37 51.22 49.96 52.04 50.53 59.68 51.37

Overall 65.45% 52.64% 65.85% 54.31% 66.33% 55.13% 74.19% 55.49%

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

AY 2014 AY 2015 AY 2016 AY 2017

Overall Averages

Percent greater than 50

Average

12

Table 6: Mechanical Engineering Program: FE Exam Results (May 2015 – May 2017)

FE Exam November 2014 May 2015 November 2015 May 2016 November 2016 May 2017

S&T Nat’l % Delta S&T Nat’l %

Delta S&T Nat’l % Delta S&T Nat’l %

Delta S&T Nat’l % Delta S&T Nat’l %

Delta Number of test participants 79 1707 111 3105 83 2194 97 3626 91 2316 97 4070

Number who passed 58 1452 77 2564 59 1744 76 2906 71 1976 80 3188

Overall Pass Rate 73.42 85.06 -11.64 69.37 82.58 -15.99 71.08 79.49 -10.57 78.35 80.14 -2.24 78.022 85.32 -7.30 82.474 78.33 5.29

Subject Titles S&T % Nat’l %

% Delta S&T % Nat’l

% %

Delta S&T % Nat’l %

% Delta S&T % Nat’l

% %

Delta S&T % Nat’l %

% Delta S&T % Nat’l

% %

Delta Mathematics 65.33 70.00 -4.67 66.67 70.67 -5.66 64.67 69.33 -6.73 66.00 69.33 -4.81 62.00 68.00 -6.00 68.00 68.00 0.00

Probability and Statistics 66.67 70.00 -3.33 62.67 66.67 -6.00 62.67 66.67 -6.00 62.00 66.67 -7.00 57.33 66.00 -8.67 62.67 64.00 -2.08

Computational Tools 64.67 73.33 -8.67 60.00 74.00 -18.92 66.67 72.67 -8.26 68.00 72.00 -5.56 69.33 72.67 -3.33 70.00 71.33 -1.87

Ethics and Professional Practice 77.33 78.67 -1.33 74.00 77.33 -4.31 76.67 76.67 0.00 76.67 76.67 0.00 76.67 76.67 0.00 77.33 76.67 0.87

Engineering Economics 72.00 68.00 4.00 67.33 71.33 -5.61 63.33 67.33 -5.94 72.00 68.67 4.85 68.00 65.33 2.67 73.33 67.33 8.91

Electricity and Magnetism 67.33 73.33 -6.00 71.33 74.00 -3.60 67.33 70.67 -4.72 67.33 68.67 -1.94 63.33 69.33 -6.00 76.00 68.67 10.68

Statics 64.00 67.33 -3.33 62.00 65.33 -5.10 66.00 66.00 0.00 64.67 64.67 0.00 61.33 64.67 -3.33 66.67 64.67 3.09

Dynamics, Kinematics, and Vibrations 63.33 66.67 -3.33 62.00 64.67 -4.12 60.67 64.67 -6.19 60.67 64.00 -5.21 61.33 64.00 -2.67 64.00 62.67 2.13

Mechanics of Materials 62.00 66.00 -4.00 61.33 64.00 -4.17 62.00 63.33 -2.11 64.67 63.33 2.11 62.00 62.67 -0.67 61.33 62.00 -1.08

Material Properties and Processing 62.00 66.00 -4.00 64.00 64.67 -1.03 62.00 65.33 -5.10 64.67 65.33 -1.02 60.67 64.67 -4.00 63.33 64.00 -1.04

Fluid Mechanics & Fluid Machinery 62.67 68.67 -6.00 62.00 66.00 -6.06 62.67 65.33 -4.08 64.00 65.33 -2.04 60.00 64.67 -4.67 62.67 64.00 -2.08

Thermodynamics 60.00 64.00 -4.00 61.33 62.67 -2.13 59.33 62.67 -5.32 60.67 62.00 -2.15 59.33 62.00 -2.67 63.33 62.67 1.06

Heat Transfer 60.67 66.00 -5.33 57.33 64.00 -10.42 59.33 63.33 -6.32 60.00 64.00 -6.25 58.67 60.00 -1.33 62.67 64.67 -3.09

Measure, Instrumentation and Controls 60.67 63.33 -2.67 61.33 61.33 0.00 61.33 60.67 1.10 66.67 62.67 6.38 58.67 61.33 -2.67 66.67 62.00 7.53

Mechanical Design and Analysis 60.67 60.67 0.00 60.00 60.67 -1.10 62.00 61.33 1.09 62.00 62.00 0.00 60.67 61.33 -0.67 64.67 61.33 5.43

Average 64.62 68.13 -3.51 63.56 67.16 -5.22 63.78 66.40 -3.90 65.33 66.36 -1.51 62.62 65.56 -2.93 66.84 65.60 1.90

65.00

70.00

75.00

80.00

85.00

90.00

Nov-14 May-15 Nov-15 May-16 Nov-16 May-17

Pass Rate

National S&T

55.00

60.00

65.00

70.00

Nov-14 May-15 Nov-15 May-16 Nov-16 May-17

Perc

enta

ge

Average of All Topics

National S&T

13

Table 7: Mechanical Engineering Program: Student Program Quality Assessment

(Fall 2014 – Spring 2017)

Question F2014 S2015 F2015 S2016 F2016 S2017

1a 2.12 1.99 2.27 2.25 2.07 2.40 1b 1.89 1.52 1.87 1.84 1.66 2.20 1c 2.34 2.01 2.42 2.25 2.19 2.51 2 2.29 2.27 2.33 2.27 2.53 2.57 3 2.43 2.53 2.61 2.67 2.87 2.84 4 2.09 2.25 2.42 2.33 2.43 2.58 5 2.87 2.94 2.87 2.81 2.97 3.01 6 2.49 2.70 2.75 2.58 2.78 2.77 7 2.99 2.82 3.18 3.06 3.09 3.22 8 2.78 2.70 2.85 2.77 2.61 2.94 9 2.94 2.80 2.86 2.61 2.72 2.72

Average 2.47 2.41 2.58 2.50 2.54 2.71

12 (i1) 68% 72% 69% 69% 60% 13 (i2) 40% 46% 42% 28% 28%

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00Program Qual i ty Sur vey

1a

1b

1c

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

14

Table 8: Mechanical Engineering Program: Student Self-Assessment of Achieving the Program Outcomes (Graduating Seniors, Fall 2014 – Spring 2017)

Outcome F2014 S2015 F2015 S2016 F2016 S2017 Average

a 2.96 3.10 3.07 3.07 3.02 3.14 3.02 b 2.82 2.75 2.82 2.81 2.84 2.83 2.89 c 2.46 2.52 2.55 2.32 2.56 2.61 2.63 d 3.12 3.07 3.07 2.91 3.06 3.07 3.11 e 2.99 3.02 3.10 3.06 3.03 3.06 3.03 f 2.89 2.97 3.07 3.07 2.92 3.07 2.97 g 3.00 3.06 2.96 3.11 3.03 2.94 3.04 h 2.71 2.59 2.70 2.57 2.60 2.59 2.65 i 3.07 3.05 3.00 3.11 3.03 3.06 3.02 j 2.33 2.07 2.25 2.08 2.16 2.20 2.26 k 2.74 2.86 2.77 2.81 2.76 2.88 2.84 l 2.53 2.55 2.55 2.78 2.34 2.77 2.68

2.80 2.80 2.83 2.81 2.78 2.85 2.84

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

F2014 S2015 F2015 S2016 F2016 S2017

Outcomes

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

i

j

k

l

15

7. Continuous Improvement Changes Several representative examples of the continuous improvement process are described below. 7.1 Techniques, Skills, and Modern Engineering Tools Assessed Need Outcome k has consistently met the target Performance Metric. However, the essence of the outcome is to be up-to-date and ready for engineering practice. Accordingly, attention is always warranted toward keeping current with the techniques, skills, and tools used in the curriculum. Four of these areas will be described in this section, namely FEA in ME 4761, data acquisition in ME 4840, GD&T, and MATLAB. Implemented Changes FEA in ME 4761 – Students in the capstone design course regularly needed to implement FEA and motion simulation in their projects. Some of them had taken elective courses for training, but many had not. Initially, special sessions on computer simulations and animation were provided in class time. Beginning with Spring 2013, video tutorial modules were developed to streamline the process, and allow the students to access it at the point in the project when they needed it. Data Acquisition in ME 4840 – Students now purchase a National Instruments MyDAQ data acquisition system in the ME 4840 Mechanical Instrumentation lab. They are also introduced to LabVIEW programming including code writing to collect data with their data acquisition board. They gain proficiency as they continue to use these tools in ME 4842 and ME 4480 labs. GD&T – Anecdotal evidence from students coming back from co-op experiences indicated a need for some exposure to Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing (GD&T). An introduction to this topic was added to ME 2761 Intro to Design in Fall 2013, with a followup in ME 3708 Machine Design in Spring 2014. Computational Software MATLAB – Exit interviews and surveys with the graduating seniors since 2008 had indicated the students felt a need to be better trained in MATLAB. A survey of some industry representatives was conducted to determine the perceived needs with regard to programming languages. The faculty initiated a discussion with the Computer Science department, leading to a survey of the engineering programs with regard to the programming courses. In 2014, a programming course based on MATLAB was introduced, and the ME faculty approved a curriculum change to include the new MATLAB course as an option for the programming requirement. Assessed Effect Observations of performance metrics for Outcome (k) have been steady with perhaps a slight increase. Students seem quite happy with the introduction of each of these tools. They describe them as practical for their needs.

16

7.2 Impact of Engineering in a Contemporary and Historical Context Assessed Need Outcome j has consistently measured relatively low, both in the Exit Exam questions and in students’ self-assessment. Looking more closely at the Performance Criteria, the students seem to be weakest in j.1, “awareness of critical contemporary issues relevant to engineering,” with somewhat higher scores in j.2, “awareness of current affairs at the national and global level.” Related to j.1 is h.1, “engineering issues within a historical context”, which also measures consistently lower than desired. Implemented Changes In the Fall 2012 annual faculty assessment meeting, this issue was discussed. Since then the questions on the Exit Exam pertinent to contemporary issues have been modified each semester to gain insight as to the nature of the students’ awareness of contemporary issues. It was found that students do have a reasonable awareness of relatively “common knowledge” items, such as the identity of major political figures, history of the “Manhattan Project,” and recent disasters. Their awareness is significantly less for topics that have significant importance to engineering, but that were not as broadly publicized for a sustained period. Examples include the mars rover landing, the Keystone pipeline, and news related to energy sources (e.g. fracking, coal regulations). It is thought that most students do not make deliberate effort to get news through watching news reports, reading newspapers, or browsing news online, but instead absorb news from various quick exposures and references. Accordingly, methods of putting appropriate news in front of the students are being considered. A Reuters scrolling newsfeed is played continuously on some of the video monitors in the building. However, observation indicates students do not spend much time looking at the monitors. Options for displaying newsfeeds in certain classrooms between classes are being evaluated. A pilot test of this was implemented in one junior-level course, and results indicated students did take note of some of the information in the newsfeeds if they were targeted topics that the students deemed to be interesting. In the Fall 2013 annual faculty assessment meeting, an action item was approved to have a special committee examine issues of global and contemporary issues. The committee was charged with developing potential curricular and extracurricular recommendations to improve the students’ awareness of these issues. The committee reported back to the faculty in April 2014. Some of the recommendations included the following: • Improved use of video monitors (location and content), both in the building and in

classrooms • Look for existing short interesting video content on contemporary engineering topics

(e.g. NASA video explaining Mars landing) • Ensure that at least one of the seminar topics in ME 4761 capstone design course is

relevant to one of the current engineering challenges

Assessed Effect The expectation is that it will be challenging to prove any change in the outcome through the limited number of questions on the Exit Exam. However, the students’ own perception of their exposure and awareness of contemporary issues should be measurable on the

17

Graduating Senior Outcomes Survey. So far, no significant change has been observed, but it is noted that the implementation is still relatively limited. 7.3 Global Studies Assessed Need Performance criteria h.2 and j.2 include awareness and functionality at a global level. These criteria have consistently shown plenty of room for improvement, both in the Exit Exam questions and in students’ self-assessment. In October of 2012, one of the most notable discussion items at the Constituent Advisory Council meeting was the increasing need for engineers to be prepared to function in a global environment. The employers emphasized their desire to hire graduates with broader cultural mindset and experiences. Implemented Changes In the August 2013 faculty retreat, options were discussed for incorporating more opportunities for global exposure into the curriculum. In the Fall 2013 annual faculty assessment meeting, an action item was approved to have a special committee examine issues of global and contemporary issues. The committee was charged with developing potential curricular and extracurricular recommendations to improve the students’ awareness of these issues. A curriculum change in Fall 2015 targeting the free electives includes an option for a course on the Global Studies Minor list to be used to satisfy the breadth elective. It is thought that many students will choose this option. In fact, a recent discussion with a graduating senior class indicated that many of the students would be interested in taking a foreign language course if the curriculum encouraged it. Assessed Effect The curriculum changes were effective for the Fall 2015 catalog year, so it would be 2019 before students reach graduation with the new requirements. The expectation is that it will be challenging to prove any change in the outcome through the limited number of questions on the Exit Exam, and the multi-faceted aspects of the issues. It will, however, be insightful to examine the participation rates in the activities, and to survey the participants in the activities regarding their perceptions.

7.4 Lab Development Assessed Need The Graduating Senior Program Quality Survey has consistently shown low ratings on the lab equipment, particularly in ME 4842 and ME 4480. Perhaps the most relevant Student Outcome is Outcome (b), which rates reasonably high on both the direct assessment and the students’ self-assessment. The assessed need is therefore based not so much on a problem with an outcome, but more on the obvious need to upgrade aging lab equipment to maintain a quality program. In 2012, the department’s Strategic Plan identified lab upgrades and enhancements as a priority goal.

18

Implemented Changes In 2011, a department initiative was undertaken as part of the Strategic Plan to create one new $100K instructional laboratory facility each year for five years. Lab facilities resulting from this initiative include the Incompressible Fluid Dynamics Lab, the Turbine Technologies Lab Station, the Dynamics and Control Lab, and the Kinematics and Power Machinery Lab. Assessed Effect Since 2013, the Graduating Senior Program Quality Survey has indicated a significant increase in the evaluations of the labs. 7.5 Improving Learning of Concepts Assessed Need The Exit Exam emphasizes fundamental concept questions. Student scores have been substantially weaker than expected on the engineering subjects. Discussions with students indicate they are more confident with problem solving than with concept questions. The Exit Exam results may be an indication that the students are learning to mimic problem-solving steps without gaining a solid understanding of the concepts. Implemented Changes Dr. Kumar applied for and received a mini-grant to study ways of impacting the concept understanding in the fluids course, ME 3131. The plan includes posting conceptual problems on Blackboard, and using a higher percentage of concept-oriented homework assignments. Instructional demonstration labs were developed and implemented as homework assignments. Assessed Effect Assessment data from ME 3131 has been gathered between 2014 and 2018. Potential effects on the Exit Exam has so far not been measureable. 7.6 Quality of Student Performance in Department Assessed Need The student body at Missouri S&T has an outstanding average ACT score of approximately 28. In general, the students are very capable, with strong potential. However, the faculty noted several factors indicating a need and an opportunity to improve the quality of the student performance in the department, particularly at the lower end. Action Item C.1 in the department’s Strategic Plan called attention to this need and opportunity for improvement. The rate of poor performance or failure for the department courses has been tracked, and has generally been higher than desirable (e.g. around 19 percent for 200-level required courses in 2011-12). The number of students on probation or deficiency status was also deemed to be high (generally around 18 percent from 2008 through 2012). Since the department has for over a decade had a high and growing student to faculty ratio, it was an excellent time to increase the expectations for students to enter and stay in the program.

19

Implemented Changes A new admissions policy was implemented for students applying from the freshmen engineering program, starting in the fall of 2013. The policy increased the GPA expectation to 2.5, and established a new math/science GPA expectation of 2.25. The policy includes an appeal process. The goal of the policy is to redirect the applicants that are most likely to struggle in the program. Accordingly, considerable study of the data was made of students that ended up on deficiency status, and what their characteristics were at the point of application to the program. It pointed to the need for the math/science GPA, and the proper levels for the GPA requirements, to accomplish the goal. The number of applicants denied admission has been relatively low, but it is thought that marginal students are choosing not to apply, and there has been a positive effect on the efforts made by the freshmen interested in entering the program. Assessed Effect The percentage of weak performances in the 2000-level required ME courses (counting Ds, Fs, and withdrawals) decreased from 18.9% in 2011-12, to 17.3% in 2012-13, to 13.4% in 2013-14. With a broad range of courses, including multiple sections and multiple instructors, there is no reason to suspect a significant change in rigor of the courses over this time. The percentage of students on probation or deficiency status from 2008 through 2017 dropped from a relatively flat 18 percent to 10 percent. Theoretically, an improvement in the quality of student performance in the program might be expected to improve the results in almost any of the direct measure assessments. However, due to the multiplicity of other factors affecting those measurements, it is not likely that a change in assessed outcomes can be attributed directly to these policy changes.

7.7 Targeting the Free Electives Toward the Outcomes Assessed Need The ME curriculum included six credit hours of free electives. Evaluation of students’ degree audits indicated that these hours were being filled with a wide variety of courses, many of which could not readily be attributed to having any expected impact on the student outcomes. Implemented Changes The faculty decided to give some direction to the elective hours. A curriculum change was implemented in the Fall 2014 catalog year. The intent of the adopted plan is to allow some flexibility to meet individual student goals (including such things as minors and emphasis areas), while also generally addressing something relevant to the student outcomes and a career in engineering. The curriculum change converts the six hours of free electives into two electives, defined as follows: (1) 3-hour technical elective within the fields of engineering, math, statistics, science, or

computer science. (2) 3-hour breadth elective from any of the following

20

(a) engineering, math, statistics, science, computer science, business, or information systems technology

(b) any course in the list of approved electives for the Global Studies Minor (c) any combination of credit for experience from co-op, special problems, research,

or design team Assessed Effect This curriculum change was effective Fall 2014, with incoming freshmen. These students will start graduating in 2018. Effects of this curriculum change will undoubtedly be difficult to specifically measure since students will take a variety of paths in filling the electives. A study of which electives they choose will be insightful and may lead to a more directed assessment of impact on certain outcomes.