SJSU Annual Program Assessment Form Academic … Annual Program Assessment Form Academic Year 2015-2016 ... MATH 30 Calculus I X ... MATE 25 Introduction to

SJSU Annual Program Assessment Form

Academic Year 2015-2016

Department: Biomedical, Chemical and Materials Engineering

Program: Chemical Engineering

College: Engineering

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

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

Program Accreditation (if any): ABET through 2016

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

Date of Report: August 1, 2016

Part A

List of Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs)

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

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

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

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

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

sustainability

4.) Ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams

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

6.) Understanding of professional and ethical responsibility

7.) Ability to communicate effectively

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

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

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

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

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

Alignment – Matrix of PLOs to Courses

1.0 (a)

2.0 (b)

3.0 ©

4.0 (d)

5.0 (e)

6.0 (f)

7.0 (g)

8.0 (h)

9.0 (i)

10.0 (j)

11.0 (k)

MATH 30 Calculus I X

CHEM 1A General Chemistry X X

GE (Area A1) Oral

Communications X

ENGL 1A Composition X

ENGR 10 X X X X X X

MATH 31 Calculus II X

CHEM 1B General Chemistry X X

PHYS 50 General Physics X

ENGL 1B Composition X

MATH 32 Calculus III X

PHYS 51 General Physics X X

AMS 1A American Civilization X

CE 99: Statics X

EE 98 Introduction to Circuits X

MATH 133A Differential X

Equations

MATE 25 Introduction to

Materials X X X

AMS 1B American Civilization X

CHEM 112A Organic Chemistry X

CHE 190 Transport Phenomena X X

CHE 162 Statistics and Analysis X X X

CHE 115 Industrial Chemical

Calculations X X X

ENGR 100W Engineering

Reports X

CHE 151 Process Engineering

Thermodynamics X X

ADV GE Area S (Self, Society &

Equality in the US)

Chem 112B Organic Chemistry X

CHEM 113A Organic Chemistry

Laboratory X X

CHE 160A Unit Operations I X X X X X

XXX 100+ Upper Division

Tech/Math Elective ** X X X X

CHE 161L Unit Operations

Laboratory X X X X X

XXX 100+ Upper Division Tech

Lab Elective (1 unit required) X X X

CHE 158 Reactor Design &

Kinetics X X X X X X X X

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

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

Chem 100+ Upper Division

Chemistry Elective ** X

CHE 185 Process Dynamics &

Control* X X X

Area V (Culture, Civilization &

Global Understanding)

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

CHE 162L Unit Operations

Laboratory X X X X X X X X

XXX 100+ Upper Division

Tech/Math Elective ** X X

2. Planning – Assessment Schedule

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

(program) outcomes are numbered one to eleven as listed in Part A above, with the number

after the decimal point identifying a performance indicator to define exactly what the students

must do to achieve the outcome. The course numbers listed across the top of the table can be

found in the above table. The courses to the left of the table are the junior courses and those

on the right are the senior courses. The assessment of each outcome can be found below in

part C of this report. Our annual assessment schedule includes the assessment of each outcome

each year.

Performance Criteria

11

5

19

0

15

1

16

0A

16

2

15

8

16

0B

16

1

16

1L

16

2L

16

5

18

5

10

0W

1.1

Analyze systems

through material and

energy balances

models 2

1.2

Specify operating

conditions for a heat

exchanger to meet

performance

requirements 3

1.3

Evaluate the design of

a non-isothermal

reactor for a chemical

process. 3

2.2

Analyze and interpret

data for chemical

reaction kinetics 3

2.3

Design an experiment

for a unit operation

experiment 3

2.4

Analyze and interpret

data for a unit

operation experiment 3

3.1

Design an isothermal

reactor for a chemical

process. 3

3.2

Complete process

operating risk analyses

for a plant and develop

inherently safe system

to minimize risk 3

3.3 Analyze, design and

evaluate mass transfer

processes for specific

3

applications

4.1

Function effectively on

multi-disciplinary

teams 3

5.1

Analyze a thermal

system for appropriate

heat transfer prediction 2

5.2

Compare alternative

reactor designs and

select the most

effective choice for a

given process 2

6.1

Students demonstrate

knowledge of code of

engineering ethics 1

6.2 Identify the ethical

issues in a case study 1

6.3

Students can design a

strategy to manage a

situation where an

employee/subordinate

commits a violation of

engineering ethics 3

7.1 Write effectively 3

7.2 Give an effective oral

presentation 3

8.1

Appraise the inherent

safety strategies

applied in an

experiment or process 2

8.2

Estimate the societal

impact of a project on

the surrounding

community 3

9.1

Evaluate a technical

process based on a

journal review article. 3

10.

1

Evaluate relative

technical and economic

merit for alternate

process configurations 3

11.

1

Use simulation

software to design a

unit operation to meet

specified performance

criteria. 2

11.

2

Use non-linear

regression to evaluate

kinetic mechanisms. 3

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

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

Blooms levels 5-6.

3. Student Experience

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

courses, a presentation is given to the students to explain the accreditation process and where

the various outcomes are assessed throughout the required curriculum. As the courses

progress, the faculty who are responsible for the individual outcomes may alert the students

(especially if the assessment instrument is not assigned for a grade) what the purpose of the

assignment is.

Part C

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

ChE 2013 Assessment Data on Student Outcomes 1-11

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

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

Performance criteria (level 2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

with some calculation errors.

Fall ‘15

assignment: problem on final in CHE 115 fall 2015

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






Fall ’15 problem: Methanol (liquid) and oxygen react in the presence of a biological catalyst to form

formaldehyde and liquid water.

CH3OH (l) + ½O2(g) --> HCHO(g) + H2O(l)

Methanol and DRY AIR at 250C are fed to the reactor that has a temperature maintained at 500C.

Assume the methanol and oxygen are fed at a stoichiometric ratio.

27 undergrads of 69 met the criteria of 60% correct, or 39%

Material Balance Problem

Problem II.

35 pts. Complete the material balances on this process

9 students of 69 met the criteria of 20 pts or higher (this was a challenging problem)

Or 13% met the criteria

100 mol/s Methane enters a furnace and is completely combusted with excess dry air. No fuel exits the

furnace in the offgas. The product gas leave the furnace and enter a condenser. The gas exits the

condenser at 300C and 1 atm.

a) 25 pts. If the flow of condensed liquid water from the condenser (product water from burning of methane) is 147.7 mol/s, calculate the excess air fed to the furnace.

Fuel

30 mol% ethane

70% methane

Product gas

Dry air (30% excess)

furnace

8000C

condenser Humid gas

250C, 1 atm

14.77 mol/s H2O(l)

250C

25 of 72 students met the 60% criteria, or 35%.

This result is clearly unacceptably low. In Fall of 2015 there were 80 students in the class which was

double the number from the previous time teaching the course. Due to the large enrollment the

primary instructor did not teach the 3 hour class sections. To address this, we have reclassified the

course as a standard 150 minutes per week course with C2 (primarily activity) class periods. The

enrollment cap for the course has been set at 40 per course and additional sections will be opened so

the problem solving can be better taught. Additional strategies for improving student problem-

solving skills will be implemented in Fall of 2016, such as “handouts with gaps” and Think-Aloud-

Paired-Problem-Solving” Lectures on the basic material will be delivered as video so the in-class

sessions will be problem solving with lecture-on-demand instruction.


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

performance requirements


Analyze different heat exchangers and use concepts related to heat transfer area, corresponding rate of

heat recovery, fluid outlet temperatures, overall heat transfer coefficients, to determine savings costs.

Assignment:

Grading rubric- Criteria 50 % of total points for an exam

Analysis (How many students met the criteria)

Fall '16 77 of 91 ChE students, out of 94 enrolled, met the criteria. The highest score out of 100 points

possible was 100, the lowest was 0 and the average was 73.

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

Most students that know the conceptual ideology behind the problem demonstrated satisfactory

competence. Some student errors may have occurred due to time limitations. There are currently no

recommendations.


Program Evaluation Component: 1.3 Evaluate the design of a non-isothermal reactor for a chemical

process.


The student can use the design equations in conjunction with the appropriate energy balance to solve non-

isothermal problems.

Assignment 1: Solve various aspects of non-isothermal reactor problems on midterm exam 2.

Grading rubric- Criteria 50% of total points (50 points /100)

Analysis

Fall ’15 55 of the 61 ChE students, out of 61 enrolled, met the criteria (90% of the students). The highest

score out of 50 points possible was 50, the lowest was 15 and the average was 38.5 (77%).

Assignment 2: Solve various aspects of non-isothermal reactor problems on final exam.

Grading rubric- Criteria 50% of total points (30 points / 100)

Analysis

Fall '15 58 of 60 ChE students, out of 61 enrolled, met the criteria, or 97%. The highest score out of 30

points possible was 30, the lowest was 13 and the average was 23 (76 .6%). One student did not attend

the final exam.

The average of the two assignments result in 93% of the students met the criteria

Recommendation

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

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

Program Evaluation Component: 2.2 Analyze and interpret data for chemical reaction kinetics


The student can derive rate expressions from kinetics mechanisms for homogeneous and/or heterogeneous

systems.

Assignment 1: Derive the rate expression from a mechanism.

Grading rubric- Criteria 50% of total points (30 points) on a homework problem.

Fall '15 56 of 61 ChE students, out of 61 students enrolled, met the criteria (92% of the students). The

highest score out of 30 points possible was 30, the lowest was 10 and the average was 22.3 (average

74.333%).

Recommendation

In general the students are meeting this criteria in a satisfactory manner. No changes are recommended at

this time.

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

Program Evaluation Component: 2.3 Design an experiment for a unit operation experiment (CHE

162L)


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

experimental objective(s).

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

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

experimental apparatus.

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

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

analysis.

Analysis

Spring '11 15 of 15 ChE students, out of 15 enrolled, met the criteria (100% of the students). The highest

score out of 300 points possible was 256.0, the lowest was 228 and the average was 240.5 (average was

80.2%).

Spring ’12 14 of 20 ChE students, out of 20 enrolled, met the criteria. The highest score out of 300 points

possible was 259.5, the lowest was 250 and the average was 237.6 (average was 79.2%).

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

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

Spring ’14 9 0f 9 ChE students, out of 9 students enrolled, met the criteria. The highest score out of 300

points possible was 271, the lowest was 288.5 and the average was 253.7 (average was 84.6%).

Spring ’15 30 of 33 ChE students, out of 33 students enrolled, met the criteria. The highest score out of

300 points possible was 272.5, the lowest was 223.5 and the average was 258.8 (average was 86.3%).

Recommendation

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

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

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

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

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

In Spring 2012 several students copied large parts of the experimental plan and thus all received only

50% of the total score which brought the average down significantly.

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

Program Evaluation Component: 2.4 Analyze and interpret data for a unit operation experiment (CHE

161L)


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

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

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

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

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

the test?

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

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

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

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

Analysis

Spring '11 14 of 14 ChE students who did the assignment, out of 15 enrolled, met the criteria. The highest

score out of 45 points possible was 45, the lowest was 28 and the average was 38.5 (average was 85.6%).

Spring ’12 15 of 20 ChE students, out of 20 enrolled, met the criteria. The highest score out of 25 points

possible was 22, the lowest was 6 and the average was 18.6 (average was 74.4%).

Fall ’12 12 of 12 ChE students, out of 12 students enrolled, met the criteria. The highest score out of 20

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


points possible was 10, the lowest was 10 and the average was 10 (average was 100 %). Five students did

not complete the assignment.

Fall ’15 52 of 52 ChE students, out of 55 students enrolled, met the criteria (100%). The highest score out

of 10 points possible was 10, the lowest was 10 and the average was 10 (average was 100 %). Three

students did not complete the assignment.

Recommendation:

In previous analyses it was found to be hard to assess this PEC adequately because different labs required

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

in the lecture portion. In Fall 2012, the lecture was moved to ChE 161L so the students would have more chance

to work on statistical analysis of data both semesters. This move was a result of previous assessment discussion

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

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

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

Program Evaluation Component: 3.1 (CHE 158 Liat Rosenfeld) Design an isothermal reactor for a

chemical process.


The student can solve simple single answer problems using the ideal reactor design equations mentioned,

including variable volume systems.

Assignment 1: Determine the volumes of ideal plug flow reactor (PFR) and ideal continuous stir tank

reactor (CSTR) to achieve desired conversion on midterm exam 1.

Grading rubric- Criteria 50% of total points (30 points / 100)

Analysis

Fall '15 54 of 61 ChE students met the criteria. The highest score out of 30 points possible was 30, the

lowest was 8 and the average was 22.8 (76%).

Recommendation

The students are meeting the criteria in a satisfactory manner. No changes need to be done.


Program Learning Outcome 3.2

Complete process operating risk analyses for a plant and develop inherently safe system to

minimize risk

Assignment: The homework assignment given was as follows: “Develop a piping and instrumentation

diagram for a typical shell and tube heat exchanger and explain why safety systems were implemented.”

Grading Criteria: The following questions comprised a grading outline. (1) Are there indicators,

controllers, transmitters, etc.? (2) Is there at least one PLC/loop? (3) Do all flows have a direction

(arrow)? (4) How does inherent safety minimize risk?

Point breakdown: Fulfill P&ID requirements discussed in lecture (45 pts), discussion of safety (35 pts),

and discussion of control strategies (20 pts). These total to 100 points, and a student must have

received a score of 70% to meet the criteria. Note that if a student did not discuss safety, that student

failed to meet the minimum of 70%.

Analysis/Result: The class size was 55 students. The table below shows the number and percentage of

students who did and did not meet the criteria.

Total

Did not submit assignment 0 (0.0%)

Did not meet criteria 6 (10.9%)

Did meet criteria 49 (89.1%)

Total 55 (100.0%)

Recommendations: Based on the numbers in the previous table, it is easy to conclude that more safety

needs to be incorporated into the design of equipment. The problem with this, however, is that the six

students that did not meet the criteria simply did not add any discussion to their piping and

instrumentation diagrams. Had the students included a safety discussion, as did their peers, they would

have most likely met the criteria. The outcome of this assignment shows a lack of comprehension by the

student(s), rather than not knowing how to evaluate safety concerns.

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

Program Evaluation Component (3.3): Analyze, design and evaluate mass transfer processes for

specific applications (CHE 160B)

Assignment(s) (level 3): Questions 2 on mid-term exam 1, which requires design for evaporator and

question

Grading rubric- Each calculation that is correctly done is given full credit. The solution is divided into






Minimum acceptable performance: 60% or greater on total score from questions on exam.

Analysis

Midterm I problem 96.3% of the students met the criteria (52 of 54 undergraduates)

Midterm II problem 1 17% of the students met the criteria (9 of 53 undergrads who took the exam)

Midterm I problem 3: 35% of the students met the criteria (13 of 54 students)

Final problem 1 and problem 2, design of distillation column and adsorption column using ProII and

excel, respectively, Problem 1 94.4% met the criteria and Problem 2 98% met the criteria.

Taking the average of all of the measurements, on average 68% of students met the criteria. Probably

most all of the students met the criteria some of the time but not all of the time. This should be improved

but we don’t currently have any instructor for this course in Fall 2016

Outcome: 4.0 Ability to function on multidisciplinary teams


Function effectively on multi-disciplinary teams

Assignment: The students were split into teams of five students at the beginning of the semester. Each

team was assigned (1) five memo reports, (2) an individual presentation describing the progress of the

project, one per team member, (3) a final group presentation, (4) a final design report, (5) and team, as

well as self, evaluations. This Learning Outcome describes number (5).

Criteria: The rubric below was used for team evaluations. Students who received a 75% (average of 3

out 4) or higher fulfilled the grading criteria. These students were said to be ‘accomplished’ in their

teamwork and beyond the classification of ‘beginning’ and /or ‘developing.’



Total




Total 55 (100.0%)

Recommendations: There are no recommendations for future teams. Each team is different and

requires its own subjective encouragement from the instructor.

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

Program Evaluation Component 5.2: Compare alternative reactor designs and select the most effective

choice for a given process (CHE 158 Liat Rosenfeld)


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

determine which is optimal for a given reaction.

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

for a given situation as a question in midterm 1.

Grading rubric- Criteria 50% of total points (30 point / 100)

Analysis

Fall '15 57 of 61 ChE students, out of 61 enrolled, met the criteria. The highest score out of 30 points

possible was 30, the lowest was 9.0 and the average was 23 (76.67 %).

Recommendation

Most students demonstrated satisfactory competence. No changes are recommended.

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

effective choice for a given process


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

determine which is optimal for a given reaction.

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

for a given situation.

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

problem or final exam problem

Analysis (How many students met the criteria)


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

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

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

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

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

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

Outcome: 6.0 Understanding of professional and ethical responsibility

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

projects


6.1 Students demonstrate knowledge of code of engineering ethics

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

midterm exam

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

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

is incorrect, the rest of the analysis becomes illogical.

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

So 100% met the criteria


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

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

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

TOTAL out of 20 pts

Question 1 (10 pts)

Answer the Question – 1pt

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

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

What are the possible legal issues? – 1pts

What are the possible ethical issues? -1 pts

What are the possible professional issues? – 1pts

What are the possible consequences of your choice? 1pt

Are you prepared for these consequences? – 1 pt

Clarity, Conciseness, writing - 1 pts

90% - 9 pts

80% - 8 pts

70%- 7 pts

Question 3 (3 pts)

Appropriate Ethical issue - 1 pts

Analysis – 1 pt

Writing – 1 pt

Question 4 (3 pts)

Appropriate professional issue - 1 pts

Analysis and NSPE – 1 pt

Writing – 1 pt

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

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

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

of the NSPE Engineering Code of Ethics.

Grading will be based on:

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

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

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


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

violation of engineering ethics

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

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

situatio

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

Outcome: 7.0 Ability to communicate effectively

Performance Criterion 7.1 Write effectively

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

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

meet the criterion.

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

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

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

the groups that only have 3 students.

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

The introduction section was effective 4 4

The objectives of this aspect of the project were clearly

presented 4 4

The presentation had an effective communication structure

and the logic of the project activity was clear 4 4

The presentation was effectively targeted to this audience 4 4

The conclusion section was effective 4 4

PRESENTATION STYLE

The presenter had a professional appearance

The presenter exhibited confident enthusiasm about the

subject material 3

The pace of the presentation was appropriate 4 4

The presenter enunciated clearly and spoke at an

appropriate volume 4 4

The presenter seemed relaxed in front of the audience

gestures by the presenter seemed natural. 4 4

The presenter interacted effectively and made good visual

contact with the audience 4

VISUAL AIDS

Slides were easy to read and designed with an interesting

format 4 8

Slides were relevant and communicated content effectively 4 8

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS 0

Presenter clearly understood the questions before

responding 4 4

Responses were concise and accurate 4 4

86

The numbers mean: 5 = Strongly Agree

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

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

Fall ’15 47 of 54 undergraduate students met the criteria. 87% met the criterion


Give an effective oral presentation

Assignment: Give an individual oral presentation for the team project. There were five key components

per project and five members per team, for a total of 11 teams/55 students. No student was allowed to

give two presentations and each student had to present, accounting for a portion of individual semester

grades. Each student was allowed 15 minutes for a presentation and 5 additional minutes for questions

and answers.

Criteria/Rubric: The rubric below was used for individual presentations. Students who received an 80%

(average of 4 out 5) or higher fulfilled the grading criteria. Instructor comments for technical content

and presentation style were given as they pertained to the individual presentations.



Total




Total 55 (100.0%)

Recommendations: There are no recommendations made for future individual presentations other than

the encouragement of instructors to give precise and complete recommendations to students to

enhance their presentation style and content.

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

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


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

Assignment: Determine how to sort various industrial and lab chemicals

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

Your lab contains the following chemicals.

Assume wt%

Phosphine Sulfuric acid 50% Calcium hydroxide Acetone Cobalt sulfide crystals

AZ P4903 photoresist Acetic Acid Hydrofluoric acid 10%

Ammonium perchlorate

glycerine

Arsine Hydrochloric acid 28-30%

Calcium carbonate pellets

Toluene

Sodium hydroxide pellets

NMP (N-Methyl-2-

pyrrolidone)

Hydrocyanic Acid Compressed Argon

Potassium permanganate

Benzene

Boron Trifluoride

Nitric acid 65%

Ammonium hydroxide 28-

30%

Hydrogen peroxide 30%

Nickel sulfide crystals

Liquid Nitrogen

Chromic Acid

Sodium chloride

Perchloric acid 60-65%

Methanol

Sulfuric acid 96%

Sodium hydroxide 50%

Liquid CO2

Methylene Chloride

Copper sulfate crystals

Silane Gas

Hydrofluoric acid 50%

Tetramethylammonium

hydroxide (TMAH) 25%

Ethanol

Shipley S1813 Photo Resist

Deadly gas Strong acid Strong base Organic Solvent Powder

chemical Weak acid Weak base/strong acid oxidizer flammable

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

etc…)

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

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

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

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



Estimate the societal impact of a project on the surrounding community

Assignment: Consider the societal and environmental impact of your plant design process. How will

your process impact the neighboring communities? (500 word essay response)

Criteria: Students had to receive a minimum score of 70% on the assignment to meet the criteria: (1)

discuss the social impact/implications, (2) discuss the environmental impact/ implications, and (3) how

both/either will influence the neighboring communities, where community was defined as

human/public-occupied space.



Total




Total 55 (100.0%)

It should be noted that the student that did not submit the assignment originally submitted the wrong

assignment and failed to resubmit the correct one in a timely manner.

Recommendations: Because all students who submitted the correct assignment fulfilled the criteria, no

recommendation are suggested.

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

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

and safely and what PPE to use when working with it

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


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

Assignment: Final exam - safety

Grading criteria 60% on final

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

Assignment:

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

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

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

Grading will be based on:

Article Choice (please include): 2pts

Introduction: 2 pts

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

other controls.: 3pts

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

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

may suggest controls.

Format: 1pt

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

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

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

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

Program Evaluation Component: Evaluate a technical process based on a journal review article


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

literature.

Assignment 1: Write a one-page critique of a reactor design or kinetics journal article.

Grading rubric- Criteria 50% of total points on a homework problem, total weight was 5% of the total

grade.

Fall '15, 56 of 56 ChE students who submitted the article critiques, out of 61 students enrolled, met the

criteria. The highest score out of 5 points possible was 5, the lowest was 3 and the average was 4.25 (85

%).

Recommendation

The students who attempted the assignment demonstrated satisfactory competence. No other changes are

recommended at this time.

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

Program Evaluation Component: Evaluate a technical process based on a journal review article


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

literature.

Assignment 1: Write a one-page critique of a reactor design or kinetics journal article.

Grading rubric- Criteria 50% of total points on a homework problem, total weight was 5% of the total

grade.

Fall '15, 56 of 56 ChE students who submitted the article critiques, out of 61 students enrolled, met the

criteria. The highest score out of 5 points possible was 5, the lowest was 3 and the average was 4.25 (85

%).

Recommendation




Evaluate relative technical and economic merit for alternate process configurations

Assignment: The assignment was to design a pressurized, high-temperature, lab-scale reactor and then

scale-up that reactor to full-scale as well as to estimate the costs of both apparatuses with additional

feed pumps.

Grading Criteria: Students were graded on the following components: pipe material, weight, and

schedule (thickness); reactor length and diameter; reactor wall thickness; reactor costs; and pump type,

number, and cost. Each student was required to achieve a minimum of 70%.



Total




Total 55 (100.0%)

Recommendations: It is recommended that more time is devoted to reactor design in the course. This

should be coupled with other process equipment like separation trains, heat exchangers, and fluid

conveyers (e.g. pumps, compressors, etc.). Proper scale-up should also be emphasized.

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

engineering practice

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

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

performance criteria. (11.1 in CHE 160A)

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

meet specified performance criteria.

Grading rubric- 80% or greater on laboratory assignment

Analysis

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

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

individually to ensure completion of the assignment

Recommendation

All students met this performance criterion. No changes needed

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

practice.

Program Evaluation Component: 11.2 CHE 158 Use non-linear regression to evaluate kinetic

mechanisms.


The student will be able to apply non-linear regression to evaluate the kinetic mechanism of various

chemical reactions from a given set of data points.

Assignment 1: Use non-linear regression to derive the rate expression from set of data points.

Grading rubric- Criteria 50% of total points (30 points) on a homework problem

Fall '15 59 of 61 ChE students, out of 61 students enrolled, met the criteria. The highest score out of 30

points possible was 30, the lowest was 12 and the average was 25.3 (average 84.333%).

Recommendation



In Fall 2013, 2014 and 2015, about six of the students went to the AIChE meeting in San Francisco as

part of the ChE Car Team and others helped volunteer. The exam was the week immediately following

the AIChE meeting and they weren’t quite prepared at exam time but did demonstrate proficiency on

subsequent homework problems that used this material.

No changes are recommended at this time.

12.

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

13. Proposed changes and goals (if any)

1) In ChE 115, practice problem solving active learning strategies such as TAPPS and handouts with

gaps to improve their learning of complex problem-solving skills

2) The increased enrollment that has resulted in the past five years has indeed attenuated the

students learning and abilities to achieve learning outcomes. We have started opening sections of

the junior courses to reduce the number of students and changed the course description to not

allow graduate students to teach the lab sections.

3) The various curricular changes that began in fall of 2014 for the 120 unit requirement are too

recent to be able to determine based on assessment measurements whether the student learning

outcomes have been affected. We will continue to collect data and try to observe trends.

4) We are struggling with the new upper division GE requirement and believe that we can cut out

two lower division engineering courses, CE99 and EE98 and replace the 5 units with a one unit

scheduled CHE course that includes introduction to chemical engineering problem solving, some

basic hands on experiences for chemical engineering and covers the types of solution methods

taught in CE99 and EE98. We plan to allow students to take either CE99+EE98 or the new one-unit

course.

Documents

SJSU Annual Program Assessment Form Academic … Annual Program Assessment Form Academic Year 2015-2016 ... MATH 30 Calculus I X ... MATE 25 Introduction to