ABET Self-Study Report

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 selfstudy 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: training@abet.org Website: http://www.abet.org

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

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 TR-E-01 USU EAC Self-Study 3 January, 2015

BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. Contact Information Dr. Garrett H. Aloevera Department of Engineering College of Natural Science and Engineering Upper State University Upper State, Anystate Phone: (999) 123-4567 Fax: (999) 222-4567 Email: dean@upperstate.edu 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. TR-E-01 USU EAC Self-Study 4 January, 2015

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. TR-E-01 USU EAC Self-Study 5 January, 2015

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 mainframebased 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: TR-E-01 USU EAC Self-Study 6 January, 2015

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. TR-E-01 USU EAC Self-Study 7 January, 2015

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. TR-E-01 USU EAC Self-Study 8 January, 2015

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. TR-E-01 USU EAC Self-Study 9 January, 2015

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 TR-E-01 USU EAC Self-Study 10 January, 2015

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. TR-E-01 USU EAC Self-Study 11 January, 2015

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 Industrial representatives, Curriculum Committee meetings annually Available as frequently as needed employers, alumni 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 Alumni; strongly Spring, 2011 application of engineering principles; add PEO on leadership and ability to function in cross-functional teams supported by the Advisory Council Add global to the list of communities Employers Spring, 2012 in which our graduates will serve 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 TR-E-01 USU EAC Self-Study 12 January, 2015

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. TR-E-01 USU EAC Self-Study 13 January, 2015

Table 3.1 Program educational objectives and supporting student outcomes PEO 1 PEO 2 design of lead, work PEO 4 Program engineering and PEO 3 employed Outcomes solutions / communicate ethical engineering application in cross standards /graduate engineering principles functional teams programs 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 6. an ability to function on multidisciplinary teams 7. an understanding of X X X X X X X X X X X X X X PEO 5 lifelong learning experiences PEO 6 serve community X X X TR-E-01 USU EAC Self-Study 14 January, 2015

Program Outcomes 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 lifelong learning 11. a knowledge of contemporary issues 12. a willingness to assume leadership roles and responsibilities 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 X X X X X X X X X X X 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 TR-E-01 USU EAC Self-Study 15 January, 2015

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 Problem statement shows understanding of the problem 1. an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems Solution procedure and methods are defined. Problem solution is appropriate and within reasonable constraints Chooses a mathematical model of a system or process appropriate for required accuracy Applies mathematical principles to achieve 2. an ability to apply knowledge of analytical or numerical solution to model mathematics, science, and engineering 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 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 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 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 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 Recognizes participant roles in a team setting and fulfills appropriate roles to assure team success TR-E-01 USU EAC Self-Study 16 January, 2015

Student Outcome 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 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 Knows code of ethics for the discipline Able to evaluate the ethical dimensions of a problem in the discipline 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 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 Expresses an awareness that education is continuous after graduation Able to find information relevant to problem solution without guidance Identifies the current critical issues confronting the discipline Evaluates alternative engineering solutions or scenarios taking into consideration current issues 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 TR-E-01 USU EAC Self-Study 17 January, 2015

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 engineering practice. 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, X X social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability 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 X X context 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 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 TR-E-01 USU EAC Self-Study 18 January, 2015

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 X X to performance indicators Review mapping and identify where data will be X X collected 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 19 January, 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 4. Expt s & data 5. Design X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 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. 10. Lifelong learning X X X X X X 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. TR-E-01 USU EAC Self-Study 20 January 2015 2015

Student Outcome #1: ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems Where data Educational Method(s) of Performance Indicators are collected Strategies Assessment (summative) 1. Problem statement shows understanding of the problem 2. Solution procedure and methods are defined. 3. Problem solution is appropriate and within reasonable constraints EGR1010, EGR1015, EGR1011, EGR2010, EGR2015, EGR2020, EGR2040, EGR2060, EGR3010, EGR3013, EGR3030, EGR3050, EGR4090, EGR4092 EGR1010, EGR1015, EGR1011, EGR2010, EGR2015, EGR2020, EGR2040, EGR2060, EGR3010, EGR3013, EGR3030, EGR3050, EGR4090, EGR4092 EGR1010, EGR1015, EGR1011, EGR2010, EGR2015, EGR2020, EGR2040, EGR2060, EGR3010, EGR3013, EGR3030, EGR3050, EGR4090, EGR4092 Faculty assessment of design problem statement Senior Survey Faculty assessment of senior project plan Senior Survey Faculty assessment of senior design solution Senior Survey EGR 4090 On-line survey EGR 4090 On-line survey EGR 4092 On-line survey Length of assessment cycle (yrs) Year(s)/semester of data collection Target for Performance 3 years 2011, 2014 90% 3 years 2011, 2014 85% 3 years 2011, 2014 80% 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%. TR-E-01 USU EAC Self-Study 21 January 2015 2015

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. TR-E-01 USU EAC Self-Study 22 January 2015 2015

Figure 4.4. Trend line for Student Outcome #2: ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems Target = 90% 100% 94% 80% 60% 2009 2012 2015 Target = 85% 80% 80% 84% 80% 74% 68% Target 80% 84% 84% 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 reasonable constraints 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 TR-E-01 USU EAC Self-Study 23 January 2015 2015

Student Outcome #2: ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering Where data Length of Educational Method(s) of Performance Indicators are collected assessment Strategies Assessment (summative) cycle (yrs) 1. Chooses a mathematical model of a system or process appropriate for required accuracy 2. Applies mathematical principles to achieve analytical or numerical solution to model equations 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 EGR2010, EGR2015, EGR2020, EGR2040, EGR2060, EGR3010, EGR3013, EGR3030, EGR3050, EGR4090, EGR4092 EGR2010, EGR2015, EGR2020, EGR2040, EGR2060, EGR3010, EGR3013, EGR3030, EGR3050, EGR4090, EGR4092 Course project Senior surveys Faculty developed examination Senior surveys Project report analysis using rubric Senior surveys EGR3030 On-line survey EGR3030 On-line survey EGR4092 On-line survey Year(s)/semester of data collection Target for Performance 3 years 2011, 2014 90% 3 years 2011, 2014 90% 3 years 2011, 2014 85% 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%. TR-E-01 USU EAC Self-Study 24 January 2015 2015

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%). TR-E-01 USU EAC Self-Study 25 January 2015 2015

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% Target 85% 100% 84% 82% 88% 86% 82% 80% 76% 80% 78% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 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 TR-E-01 USU EAC Self-Study 26 January 2015 2015

Student Outcome #3: an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice. Where data Length of Year(s)/semester Method(s) of Target for Performance Indicators Educational Strategies are collected assessment of data Assessment Performance (summative) cycle (yrs) collection 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 EGR1010. EGR1015, EGR1011, EGR2010, EGR2015, EGR2020, EGR2040, EGR2060, EGR3030, EGR3050, EGR4090, EGR4092 EGR1010. EGR1015, EGR1011, EGR2010, EGR2015, EGR2020, EGR2040, EGR2060, EGR3030, EGR3050, EGR4090, EGR4092 Project report analysis using rubric Senior surveys Project report analysis using rubric Senior surveys EGR4092 On-line survey EGR4092 On-line survey 3 years 2011, 2014 90% 3 years 2011, 2014 90% 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%. TR-E-01 USU EAC Self-Study 27 January 2015 2015

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% 80% 85% 83% 86% 90% 90% 0% 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 TR-E-01 USU EAC Self-Study 28 January 2015 2015