|
Program Educational Objectives I and II describe outcomes of student learning at the time they graduate. For identification purposes in our assessment system, we focus on outcomes in the following areas:
0. Nanostructure
1. Microstructure
2. Properties
3. Processing
4. Cost/Performance
5. Metals
6. Ceramics
7. Polymers
8. Electronic Materials
9. Composites
In addition, outcomes of student learning identified by ABET are also assessed:
(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
(d) an ability to function on multi-disciplinary 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 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.
These outcomes are linked to program objectives as follows:
| Program Objective |
Assessment Methods |
| 1. ( 0-9, a, c, f, h, i, g, k) |
course sampling, capstone course |
| 2. ( 0-9, a, b, e ,g, j, k) |
course sampling, senior exit survey |
| 3. (a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k) |
course sampling, college alumni survey tools |
| 4. ( 0-9, a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k) |
college alumni survey tool |
| 5. (a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k) |
college alumni survey tool |
Curriculum and Processes to Ensure Achievement of Objectives
Students who progress through the MSE curriculum at MSU learn the core of knowledge outlined in the first two program objectives. The core of knowledge that distinguishes MSE students from other engineers is identified as outcomes 0-9. An overview of the curriculum is provided schematically below, and the details can be found here (link to MSE curriculum). The underlined Sophomore courses (orange, top row) are prerequisites for Junior courses (red, second row). The MSE courses in the 44 credit core are identified by boxes with solid lines; dashed boxes represent courses that are outside of the core (18-27 cr). Arrows show the prerequisite tree for Junior level courses. Courses with blue font (bottom row) are strongly advised to be taken at the senior level, but courses with purple font are often taken during the Junior year.
Fall MSE Courses
Spring MSE Courses
Results Used to Improve Effectiveness of the Program
Students who progress through the MSE curriculum at MSU learn the core of knowledge outlined in the first two program objectives. The core of knowledge that distinguishes MSE students from other engineers is identified as outcomes 0-9. An overview of the curriculum is provided schematically below, and the details can be found here (link to MSE curriculum). The underlined Sophomore courses (orange, top row) are prerequisites for Junior courses (red, second row). The MSE courses in the 44 credit core are identified by boxes with solid lines; dashed boxes represent courses that are outside of the core (18-27 cr). Arrows show the prerequisite tree for Junior level courses. Courses with blue font (bottom row) are strongly advised to be taken at the senior level, but courses with purple font are often taken during the Junior year.
Feedback systems for the MSE Program
The Course Evaluation Form (CEF) feedback system accomplishes the outcome assessment of the MSE program. The gray arrows on the left side of the flow chart identify this part of the feedback process. Faculty fill out the course evaluation form after SIRS forms are returned to the department (SIRS: the student and instructional rating survey). Faculty subsequently use their grading records and student self assessment of learning from the SIRS supplemental question data to think about how student feedback should alter their teaching, as they fill out the CEF. Assessment of the 0-9 and a-k program outcomes are built into the CEF form, which has specific topics that are assessed and tracked quantitatively on the basis of instructor’s grading records. The MSE curriculum subcommittee evaluates all of the forms before it provides a draft CEF Summary document that identifies specific action items for faculty to implement that will benefit the program as a whole. The summary also contains inputs from a number of other sources, including student input from focus groups, input from the external advisory board, alumni, and input from faculty relevant to particular courses. The report is not complete until all faculty who taught undergrad courses have responded to action items identified in the draft report. The CEF Summary document is considered confidential to the MSE faculty, since it contains information that the public does not need to know. The timing of this process is shown in the following table that describes the process to evaluate Fall semester classes, which occurs during the spring semester, but a similar process occurs during the summer and fall semester for the prior spring semester courses (timing of these events are indicated by italicized months in parentheses).
Timing of MSE Curriculum/ABET Committee and Faculty Assessment of Outcomes
Timing |
Activity in Spring (Fall) |
Purpose |
Early January
(Late August) |
Final CEF Summary for prior Spring (Fall) classes distributed to faculty |
Remind faculty of needed action items they agreed to do. |
Late January
(Late May) |
Prior year’s CEF for a course is digitally distributed to assist faculty in completing CEF forms for Fall (Spring) semester after SIRS forms are returned to faculty. |
Faculty compare their grading records with student self assessment of learning to assess degree of success in student learning, and identify areas needing change or improvements. |
February
(Early June) |
MSE Curriculum subcommittee reviews CEFs to identify highlights and action items for each course. Other feedback is assessed and summarized into actions items |
Minimize amount of reading for rest of faculty. Document necessary changes and capture important ideas and results of other feedback inputs into institutional memory. Document changes that occurred and assess effect of change. |
March
(September) |
Draft CEF Summary circulated to MSE faculty as CONFIDENTIAL document (on paper). Faculty identify/commit to needed actions |
All faculty gain understanding of the state of the curriculum/program in a setting where their input is required. Hence they must read and think about it. |
March
(October) |
Highlights presented to External Advisory Board |
Obtain feedback from Advisory board on items that need its input, add action items to CEF summary as needed. |
Once or twice during AY |
Some type of student feedback forum is organized to obtain general student views (uses a list of questions to stimulate discussion). |
Capture student feedback that would not show up on SIRS forms, including questions specific to the year or to specific changes that were implemented, evaluated by MSE Curriculum subcommittee during next CEF review |
Every 2-3 years |
Send out alumni questionnaires to recent graduates |
College system provides too small of a response rate to provide statistically significant information. |
Late April
(November) |
Various input collected to finalize CEF Fall (Spring) summary. |
Used to remind faculty what they committed to, and to archive the state of the curriculum. |
The ABET course descriptions linked on the program accreditation page contain several types of information important for measuring outcomes. Each course generates student learning that satisfies the 0-9 and the a-k program outcomes. In addition, each course has specific course learning outcomes that focus on the course content. They are not yet written explicitly in terms of the 0-9 or a-k outcomes, though examples of how this link develops in student learning are provided in the syllabi. During AY04-05, the CEF process will be modified to become web-based, and the course learning outcomes that are assessed will be recast in terms of the 0-9 and a-k outcomes to establish a more direct path between program objectives and assessment of student learning.
|
