2010-2011 Annual Assessment Report - Chemical Engineering Program

The curriculum goals of the unit, as currently stated in the catalog or other departmental documents, are as follows: (from the catalog)

Mission Statement

"The Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering at the University of Colorado seeks to instill in its students an education in the principles and practice of chemical engineering that will serve a broad and dynamic range of career paths and provide a foundation for lifelong professional growth."

Program Educational Objectives

The department prepares our graduates to make significant contributions in many diverse areas.  Specifically, within three to five years our graduates will:

• be recognized as academic and industrial leaders in a multitude of chemical engineering or related fields;
• demonstrate the relevant technical, critical thinking, and problem solving skills and creativity required to solve challenging and open-ended problems;
• work and communicate with a diverse group of individuals in interdisciplinary areas;
• exhibit high ethical standards and moral responsibility necessary to safely protect public health and the environment and be knowledgeable of contemporary issues that face modern society;
• demonstrate an interest in and the pursuit of life-long learning and possess the versatility necessary to adapt to a rapidly changing professional environment by applying their skills to new and developing technologies.

Student Outcomes

At the time of graduation, our graduates will demonstrate:

• an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering.
• an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data. 
• 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.
• an ability to function on multidisciplinary teams.
• an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.
• an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.
• the appropriate written and verbal communication skills required to communicate effectively.
• the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context.
• a recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in, life-long learning.
• a knowledge of contemporary issues.
• an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.”

Are these goals still accurate/current or do they need to be revised?  What is the unit’s schedule for reviewing the curriculum goals?

Schedule for Reviewing Curriculum Goals

The Program Educational Objectives and the Student Outcomes were revised during the spring of 2010 at the annual meeting of the department’s Undergraduate Education Advisory Council (UEAC) meeting.  The UEAC is a group comprised of alumni from the department, employers of our graduates, and current undergraduate students.  UEAC members offered critical advice and guidance into how the outdated objectives and outcomes could be modified.  In addition, input from the last 5 years’ worth of alumni surveys was combined with UEAC members’ suggestions to create the new Program Educational Objectives and Student Outcomes (reflected above).  In May of 2010 the faculty of the Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering approved the new objectives and outcomes.  In general, objectives and outcomes are analyzed in detail every 3 years.  If necessary, modifications are made at this time.  The UEAC also offers important recommendations as to where our undergraduate curriculum should be headed.  These recommendations are implemented on an annual basis in the form of modifications to curriculum goals, as well as course syllabi and course goals.  Feedback related to curriculum goals is also sought from graduating seniors and alumni in regularly administered surveys as explained below.

During the last review period, how has the department/program assessed how well it has accomplished its curriculum goals?

The Department of Chemical & Biological Engineering conducts several assessment procedures that measure to what extent the curriculum goals (Program Educational Objectives and Student Outcomes) have been met.  Program Educational Objectives are broad statements that describe expectations of our students several years after graduation.  Student Outcomes are defined as accomplishments and abilities of students at the time of graduation.  The curriculum is designed such that attainment of the Student Outcomes will likely lead to attainment of Program Educational Objectives.  Regular assessment methods exist to measure attainment of objectives as well as outcomes.

Program Educational Objectives

The Department has in place a process for evaluating to what extent the Program Educational Objectives are met.  The program relies on surveys of our alumni (Alumni Survey) as well as surveys of employers of our graduates (Employer Survey).  At the conclusion of each academic year, the Alumni Survey is sent to alumni who graduated roughly 4 years prior.  The Employer Survey is sent out in January of every third year; this was last administered during the spring of 2011.  In addition to the Alumni and Employer Surveys, the UEAC meets every spring and some of these members may have had experience working with graduates of our program, so this information is used as well.  The Undergraduate Committee compiles survey results and compares the results to the targets that were previously set.  In this way, the committee can identify areas of weaknesses and synthesize recommendations for the faculty.  Finally, changes are implemented to address these areas of weakness.

Alumni Survey

Approximately 4 years after graduation from the ChE program, alumni are asked questions that relate directly to the Program Educational Objectives.  We have utilized the ChE Alumni Survey results to roughly measure the extent to which our objectives are being attained and to evaluate if there are any main issues with attainment of the objectives by our graduates.

Employer Survey

A college-level Employer Survey was implemented for the first time in the spring semester of 2008 and most recently administered in the spring semester of 2011.  This survey was administered to employers of our graduates, many of which have worked with the employees for roughly 3-5 years.  The Employer Survey gives us an idea of how well the program is preparing our graduates to attain the Program Educational Objectives.  Questions are asked that directly relate to the objectives and the information we gain from this survey is very important in evaluating to what extent our objectives are being met.

UEAC Meeting

Members of the Undergraduate Education Advisory Council (UEAC) represent both alumni (typically over 2/3 of the members are alumni) and employers of our graduates.  While the UEAC members may not have hired or may not currently manage or work with our graduates, the majority of the members represent employers of our graduates – it is these types of employers for which we are preparing our graduates to work.  Occasionally, the UEAC members may manage or oversee some of our graduates, but this is rare.  If our UEAC members do have experience working with our graduates, we question them informally related to attainment of objectives and document this in the UEAC minutes.

Student Outcomes

The department’s Continuous Improvement Policy outlines the procedures in place that ensure the implementation of feedback and attainment of Student Outcomes at multiple levels.  The policy is based on the collection and evaluation of several types of course and student data followed by recommendations and changes at the course and curriculum level to guarantee a high quality engineering education.  Student Outcomes stem from the Program Educational Objectives and the outcomes are satisfied when the individual course outcomes are met. 

The department relies on 5 primary sources to obtain qualitative (perceptive) and quantitative (numerical) data related the attainment of Student Outcomes at the time of graduation.  Each of these is discussed in detail below.

• Faculty Course Questionnaires (FCQs) (qualitative)
• Senior Survey Results (qualitative)
• Undergraduate Education Advisory Council (UEAC) review of course dossiers (qualitative)
• Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) Exam results (quantitative)
• Course-level outcomes assessment (quantitative)

Faculty Course Questionnaires

Beginning in the fall of 2010, course-assigned Student Outcomes were assessed on course FCQs.  In addition to other questions asked on the FCQ related to course learning goals and instructor availability, etc., students are asked to evaluate each of the course-assigned Student Outcomes.  For example, if a specific course is assigned Student Outcome C (an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability) then there is a question on the FCQ that reads “This course improved my 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.”

Senior Survey

The Senior Survey (Senior exit survey) provides invaluable information related to the abilities of our students at the time of graduation and this information relates directly to our program outcomes.  Like the FCQ results (above), the Senior Survey provides perceptive information about how well a student feels he or she has met each of the Student Outcomes.  Based on our changes to the Student Outcomes, the Senior Survey questions were modified and these changes showed up on the May 2011 Senior Survey. 

Undergraduate Education Advisory Council

The Undergraduate Education Advisory Council (UEAC) is a diverse external group of alumni and employers that meets at least once a year to review the undergraduate curriculum.  In addition, current undergraduate students are present for the UEAC meetings.  Once a year (usually in the spring), one third of the core courses of the CHEN and CBEN curricula are extensively reviewed.  Students who have taken these courses recently are encouraged to attend in order to provide course- and instructor-specific feedback.  UEAC members and students peruse the course dossiers and, with the help of students who have taken the course under review, evaluate qualitatively the extent to which the course-specific outcomes were met.

Specifically, UEAC members and students complete a course evaluation form in which the course-specific Student Outcomes are assessed.  It is helpful to have students available because many times material may be incomplete and it can be difficult to ascertain to what extent each of the course-assigned outcomes has been met.  This is another perceptive assessment measure but does not evaluate quantitatively how well students are measuring up nor does it allow direct comparison to students of other colleges and universities.  Nevertheless, we can obtain quite a bit of useful information from the UEAC member comments and dossier reviews.

FE Exam

The Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) Exam is a standardized exam administered to students across the nation.  While the exam is not required of our students, we strongly encourage them to take the exam and the department pays a portion of the exam fee.  The results of the FE Exam are very important because they show how our students perform on a standardized exam and the results also indicate how well our students do compared to other students in chemical engineering across the nation.  Results of the FE Exam can be used to address shortcomings in our curriculum by providing direct evidence that one or more of our course outcomes is not being met. 

Course-Level Outcomes Assessment

Most of the data relating to attainment of Student Outcomes discussed so far is more perceptive in nature.  That is, students or an evaluating group score each outcome based on how well they think they know a topic or how well they may have been taught a subject area.  However, this has little relation to their actual ability to make a calculation based upon an equation, ability to write a report or give an oral presentation, or evaluate the implications of a certain engineering solution or technical innovation on society, among others.  Beginning in the Fall of 2010, the department implemented a “course-level outcomes assessment” process. 

The course-level outcomes assessment process occurs annually.  Specifically, each course is assessed in detail via this process at least once every 3 years, or twice during each 6-year ABET cycle.  The process starts when an instructor identifies 3-5 key topics or learning goals that directly relate to one of the course-assigned Student Outcomes.  Then, assessment mechanisms are defined for each of these topics or goals.  For example, this might be an exam problem that tests the student’s ability to derive or use an equation, a homework problem in which the student must design a heat exchanger given constraints, a written or oral report, or even a team evaluation at the end of the semester to evaluate each student’s ability to work on teams.  The second step is for the instructor to set targets that he/she expects students to attain.  Typically, on a scoring rubric between 0 and 4, the target is that 80% of the students receive a 3 or 4 out of 4.  The third step is to assess those measures and to quantify each student’s performance relative to a rubric.  Next, the instructor evaluates the assessment scores and compares the attained scores to the target scores that were set forth initially.  Finally, the instructor makes changes to his or her course such that the next time the course is taught, the problem areas or weaknesses related to the Student Outcomes are better addressed.

At the conclusion of each academic year, results of the outcome assessment process are analyzed by the Undergraduate Committee and a letter grade (A through F) is assigned to each Student Outcome.  Those outcomes earning an A or B are not assessed via course-level outcomes assessment for another 3 years, although a B score results in minor suggestions offered to the instructor with no required corrective action.  A grade of C requires assessment in two years and a grade of D requires assessment the next year.  In both C and D cases, corrective action is required immediately – the instructor must specify corrective actions taken to improve learning of that outcome in his/her course and must analyze the results of the corrective action.  A grade of F results in major re-thinking of how that outcome can be addressed in a specific course.

What has the department/program concluded with respect to the outcomes of its undergraduate curriculum?

The results of the assessment processes discussed in (2) above have led to several conclusions related to the program goals (Program Educational Objectives and Student Outcomes).  The results of the assessment processes are discussed here.

Attainment of Program Educational Objectives

Alumni Survey Results

Some of the main conclusions of the 2010 Alumni Survey results (administered in the summer of 2010) and their relationship to Program Educational Objectives are summarized here:

Approximately 4 years after graduation:

• 59% of our graduates say their primary occupation is a job and 32% of our graduates say their primary occupation is pursuing graduate or professional studies.
• 37% of our graduates supervise others.
• 45% of our graduates have taken or are currently taking additional professional or graduate training.
• 62% of graduates plan to or have obtained professional licensure, registration, or some other professional certification.
• Of the five Program Educational Objectives, alumni agree that four of the objectives are appropriate and are being met.  The exception is Objective 3 (work and communicate with a diverse group of individuals in interdisciplinary areas), with 16% of graduates disagreeing that this objective is being met.  However, 89% of alumni say that they work with and communicate with a diverse group of individuals in interdisciplinary areas either weekly or daily.
• Interestingly, none of the respondents are part owners of a business or are currently employed in management positions.
• 63% of alumni are faced with ethical and moral decisions in their line of work weekly or daily.
• Alumni working in industry feel that an education at CU gives students the tools to succeed and prepares students to be well-rounded in their careers.
• Alumni feel that students would benefit from improved opportunities in interdisciplinary research as well as real world experience, such as internships and cooperative work experiences.

Employer Survey Results

Some of the main conclusions of the 2011 Employer Survey results (administered in the spring of 2011) and their relationship to Program Educational Objectives are summarized here:

Employers of our graduates felt that:

• In all areas surveyed, employers felt that our students were at least as strong as graduates from other colleges.  In many areas, employers rated our graduates much better than graduates from other colleges.
• Our graduates were perceived to do best (>30% of employers rated the performance of our graduates in the following areas much better than other colleges) in ability to function on multidisciplinary teams; ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern tools necessary for engineering practice; and ability to “hit the ground running.”
• Employers noted that it is always important to emphasize real world projects and internships to our students.

Overall Summary of Objectives Attainment

Alumni and Employer Survey questions were analyzed and a summary of our graduates’ attainment of the objectives is summarized below.

Objective 1

Our graduates are employed in a multitude of chemical engineering or related fields (22% non-renewable energy, 6% renewable energy, 6% microelectronics, 22% pharmaceutical, 17% medicine, 28% other). However, while 37% of graduates surveyed supervise the work of others, few alumni have made their way into leadership and management roles four years after graduation.

Objective 2

Employers rate the technical and problem solving skills of our graduates highly.  In all areas surveyed, at least 93% of survey respondents rated the ability of our graduates as equal to or better than graduates of other colleges.  This objective is perhaps the one that our graduates are meeting to the greatest extent.

Objective 3

Our graduates find themselves needing to work with and communicate with a diverse group of individuals in interdisciplinary areas quite frequently (89% of alumni work with and communicate with a diverse group of individuals in interdisciplinary areas either weekly or daily).  Employers feel that the communication skills of our graduates are above average as compared to graduates of other colleges and universities.  While the vast majority of graduates felt that they were well-prepared in terms of communication skills (with a diverse group of individuals in interdisciplinary areas), a minority of 16% felt less well-prepared.  However, when rating how well alumni felt their education at CU Boulder prepared them in the area of written and verbal communication skills required to communicate effectively, only 5% rated this as “not very well” – all others rated this category as being achieved “moderately”, “very” or “extremely” well.

Objective 4

The majority of employers of our graduates (93%) rate the ability of our graduates related to understanding professional and ethical responsibilities and contemporary issues to be equal to or higher than graduates from other colleges and universities.    100% of graduates surveyed felt that this objective is being met (100% agreed, strongly agreed, or very strongly agreed).  Interestingly, 21% of graduates felt that the program does not prepare graduates well (i.e., at the time of graduation) in the area of contemporary issues.

Objective 5

Employers strongly feel that our graduates have a good ability to learn and apply new information, with 93% rating our graduates as good as or better than graduates of other colleges on the dimension of recognizing the need for, and ability to engage in, life-long learning.  All alumni respondents believed that this objective is being met moderately, very or extremely well several years after graduation. 

Attainment of Student Outcomes

Faculty Course Questionnaire Results

Students were asked questions on the FCQs that are directly related to the Student Outcomes that are assigned to each course.  Scores are based upon students’ perception of how well a particular outcome was addressed in that course.  Results have been investigated in detail for the spring and fall 2011 terms and the results are shown in the following table (student outcomes can be found on page 3):

	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K
CHEN 1211 Chemistry for Engineers	4.0
CHEN 1300 Intro to Chemical Engineering						5.3		4.9		N/A
CHEN 2120 Material & Energy Balances	5.1
CHEN 2810 Biology for Engineers
CHEN 3010 Applied Data Analysis		4.9									4.8
CHEN 3130 Junior Lab		4.8		4.6			4.5
CHEN 3200 Fluids					5.1
CHEN 3210 Heat Transfer					5.2
CHEN 3220 Separations & Mass Transfer			5.0
CHEN 3320 Thermodynamics	4.9
CHEN 4090 Senior Seminar						5.0		5.0	5.0	4.8
CHEN 4130 Senior Lab		5.0		4.7		5.1
CHEN 4330 Kinetics	4.1				4.0
CHEN 4440 Materials OR CHEN 4460 Polymer Engineering	4.5
CHEN 4520 Design			5.2			5.0				5.3	5.2
CHEN 4530 Design Project			5.8	N/A			N/A	5.4
CHEN 4570 Control					4.5

The results indicate the average of student responses out of a possible score of 6.0.  “N/A” indicates that the results are not yet available, but that the outcome is assigned to the corresponding course.  Targets for FCQ results are 5.0 to 6.0 for all outcomes in all courses.  In light of the FCQ results, it is clear that students perceive that several of the Student Outcomes are not reaching our target in a number of courses.  It is important to note, however, that these perceptual results do not measure actual attainment and abilities of students on actual outcome-related problems, and that no measure was rated below a 4.0.

Senior Survey Results

Exiting graduates (Dec ’10 & May ‘11) were surveyed relative to the ABET criteria matrix on their CU academic training to prepare them for the workplace.  In general, the responses were positive. 

Results of the senior survey as they relate to Student Outcomes are summarized in the following table.  Respondents were asked to “please reflect on these and assess the extent to which these goals have been achieved in your education.” Scale: (1-None, 2-Poorly, 3-Somewhat, 4-Adequately, 5-Extensively).  Shown in the table are the percentage of scores that were 4 (adequately) and 5 (extensively).  Targets are >80% scoring a 4 or 5 for each outcome.

	Score
An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering	100%
An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data	96%
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	94%
An ability to function on multidisciplinary teams	79%
An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems	94%
An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility	94%
The appropriate written and verbal communication skills required to communicate effectively	78%
The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context	78%
A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning	91%
A knowledge of contemporary issues	66%
An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice	92%

As can be seen from the Senior Survey results, most outcomes are scored favorably.  Only one topic, “a knowledge of contemporary issues” falls significantly below the target of 80%.  However, “multidisciplinary teamwork”, “written and verbal communication”, and “the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions” outcomes fall slightly below the target. 

Overall, students were very satisfied with their choice of major (4/5.0) and their experiences here at CU (4.3/5.0) and were satisfied with the College of Engineering and Applied Sciences (4.1/5.0).  While students were very satisfied with their staff advisor (4.3/5.0), they were less satisfied with their faculty advisor (3.5/5.0).  The department continually reassesses advising scores and has made several changes over the years in an attempt to find the right balance between staff and faculty advising.

In the open-response section, the following were topics that graduates felt were extremely valuable aspects of students’ experiences in the ChBE program:

• Teamwork and working in groups
• Computer skills
• Design projects in which teams worked with real companies
• Strong work ethic and problem solving skills
• Workshops and in-class activities
• Development of critical thinking skills
• Undergraduate research experiences and opportunities
• Internships

In the open-response section regarding areas that needed improvement, the exiting graduates suggested the following:

• Real world experience
• Advising system
• Business skills
• Better labs and experiments
• Availability of computers
• Quality of professors; professors with no teaching experience
• Class sizes are too large

With respect to plans for after graduation, 70% of students intend to enter the workforce, 18% plan to attend graduate school, 3% plan to go to medical, nursing, or dental school, 6% are uncertain, and 3% are doing something “other”.  Of the 25 students who had begun their job search at the time of the survey, 13 of them had been offered jobs and 11 had intended on accepting the positions. 

On the free response section of the Senior Survey, common comments related to the program include:

• Students truly appreciated their experiences in the design class and knowledge gained in this course was super valuable in preparing them for their future job.
• Other valuable aspects of the chemical engineering education include: cooperative study opportunities, current events, group work, undergraduate research, and guest speakers.
• Aspects of the program that need improvement include: the program should offer more electives, focus better on ethics and economics, job placement is poor, multidisciplinary teamwork needs more emphasis, and there is a need for more real-world examples of chemical engineering early on in the curriculum.

Undergraduate Education Advisory Council Findings

Each course in the curriculum is reviewed in detail by the UEAC every three years. Students are present at the meetings.  UEAC members interview the students and ask questions related to scope and coverage of course-related material.  In this way, important industrial perspectives on a particular course are brought to the attention of the Undergraduate Committee.  Presented below are the results of the last two years’ meetings (they were initiated in the spring of 2009).

Recommendations/Findings of the UEAC, Spring 2010

Three ChE undergraduate course dossiers, including sample student work, were evaluated by the Undergraduate Education Advisory Council as well as upper-level undergraduate students in April, 2010. Evaluation scores relative to the ABET matrix are provided.  In addition, the following key findings and recommendations were made.  These results have been provided to the faculty teaching these courses in the fall of 2010 and spring of 2011, with a request to report on changes/improvements made.

Chemistry for Engineers (CHEN 1211/CHEM 1221) received an ABET score of 2.5/4.0, indicating that this course needs improvement.  Students of the course complained that the homework was too easy and homework solutions are provided in a solution manual that is easily accessible to students.  Because students don’t actually work through the problems (answers/solutions provided), little learning ensues.  Students also indicated that the quizzes were inconsistent in format since they were created by TAs and labs could be improved by emphasizing more experimental design.  On the positive side, clicker questions were evaluated highly. 

Senior Seminar (CHEN 4090) received an overall ABET score of 3.0/4.0.  Some improvement can be made to this course.  Students and UEAC members recommended that there be more emphasis on societal consequences of engineering and that students have connections to industrial professionals during their senior year.  UEAC members felt that the recognition for life-long learning needs expansion, perhaps with a textbook on the subject.  Finally, it was recommended that a field trip be implemented and students should be taught the value of business cards.

The first semester of Design (CHEN 4520) received an excellent overall ABET score (3.85/4.00).  While the UEAC members and students agreed that the course conveys a great deal of content and the instructors were lauded for their efforts at developing such a high-level course, students and UEAC members strongly agreed that the course covers too much material.  As a result, instead of walking away with a good understanding of a few key concepts/topics, students end up with a vague understanding of many topics – like “drinking from a fire hose.”  Students enjoyed the book.  Suggestions and recommendations included the coverage of business plans in the course (at least briefly), less emphasis on cost estimation, and safety related to academia.

Recommendations/Findings of the UEAC, Spring 2011

Six ChBE undergraduate course dossiers, including sample student work, were evaluated by the Undergraduate Education Advisory Council as well as upper-level undergraduate students in April, 2011. Evaluation scores relative to the ABET matrix are provided.  In addition, the following key findings and recommendations were made.  These results have been provided to the faculty teaching these courses in the fall of 2011 and spring of 2012, with a request to report on changes/improvements made.

Introduction to Chemical Engineering (CHEN 1300) received an ABET score of 3.0/4.0.  Improvement can be made in this course.  More emphasis is needed in the following areas: cross-disciplinary research of ChemE’s, diverse options available in ChBE, internship opportunities, and the introduction of a wider range of engineering roles in industry.  Furthermore, students wanted to see more faculty give presentations on their research, as only a handful of faculty were able to participate.  On the positive side, students appreciated the egg drop and noted that the class sparked interest in chemical engineering.

Material and Energy Balances (CHEN 2120) received a perfect ABET score of 4.0/4.0.  Some areas for improvement, nevertheless, include: vapor-liquid equilibrium was confusing as presented in class, the team project was end-loaded too much, students felt that the team homework could have been more closely monitored and the homework should be turned in individually.  On the positive side, students commented on the strength of the instructor, helpfulness of the office hours, and example problems in class were great.

Heat Transfer (CHEN 3210) received an ABET score of 3.0/4.0.  Improvements could be made in the areas of: radiation, example problems, group homework needs to be re-evaluated, and better emphasis on applications of heat transfer.  Students commented that the course was laid out well and had a good sequence to it.

Design Project (CHEN 4530) received a relatively low ABET score of 2.88/4.0.  This may be in part due to the fact that the normal instructor was on sabbatical.  Students commented on the inconsistency and diversity of the projects – some were very simple and unrelated to chemical engineering while others were very difficult.  The multidisciplinary nature of the teams should be improved to incorporate aspects such as business, marketing, etc.  A strength of the course was the simulation tools taught to the students.

Control (CHEN 4570) received an exceptionally low ABET score of 1.75/4.0.  On the negative side, students and UEAC members commented that: there was too much focus on math, there needs to be a greater focus on basic control strategies for a variety of unit operations, there should be a greater focus on practical applications and less on theory/math, safety needs to be highlighted more, and it would be desirable to have one or more guest lecturers or an instructor from industry teach the course.

Biological Engineering Lab (CHEN 4810) received an ABET score of 3.5/4.0.  Improvements could be made in the following areas: de-emphasize lab technique and cover in another course, add a protein stability experiment, HPLC should be added, separate into two courses (upstream and downstream processes), and a need for more modes of experimentation.  On the positive side, members and students felt that the team leader role was excellent, teamwork was covered well, there is a good balance of the peer review and individual reports, and meeting with the instructor was valuable.

FE Exam Results

The tables below summarize the FE Exam results for ChE and ChBE students as a whole for the last 5 years (April 2007 through April 2011).  There is the occasional student (1-2 students) each October who takes the exam, but these results are thrown out simply because there aren’t enough students taking the exam to obtain any meaningful correlations. 

The AM (morning) section of the FE Exam has typically asked more general questions pertaining to the general engineering field.  Some of the AM topics do not directly address the Student Outcomes of our program.  These include topics such as statics, dynamics, engineering mechanics, and electricity and magnetism.  All other AM topics can be directly related to Student Outcomes.  The PM (afternoon) section of the FE Exam is specific to chemical engineering.  All PM topics relate directly to the Student Outcomes.  The relationship among AM and PM topics to Student Outcomes is clearly defined in the following tables.

CHEN Trens: AM	Apr '07	Apr '08	Apr '09	Apr '10	Apr '11
Overall Pass Rate	8.5	-0.6	5.3	-5.8	13.5
Mathematics	3.0	1.0	3.0	2.0	1.0
Probability & Statistics	9.0	9.0	-1.0	8.0	4.0
Chemistry	3.0	1.0	1.0	-1.0	2.0
Computers	4.0	1.0	3.0	-4.0	5.0
Ethics and Business Practice	2.0	3.0	1.0	-9.0	5.0
Engineering Economics	-12.0	-13.0	-12.0	-19.0	-10.0
Statics	N/A	N/A	3.0	-4.0	5.0
Dynamics	N/A	N/A	6.0	-7.0	5.0
Engineering Mechanics (S&D)	-3.0	2.0	N/A	N/A	N/A
Strength of Materials	-9.0	-1.0	-6.0	-3.0	1.0
Material Properties	6.0	0.0	-1.0	3.0	5.0
Fluid Mechanics	3.0	4.0	-8.0	7.0	7.0
Electricity and Magnetism	-3.0	2.0	-5.0	-2.0	0.0
Thermodynamics	4.0	4.0	-2.0	6.0	4.0

 

CHEN Trends: PM	Apr '07	Apr '08	Apr '09	Apr '10	Apr '11
Overall Pass Rate	8.5	-0.6	5.3	-5.8	13.5
Chemistry	3.0	2.0	-2.0	-2.0	4.0
Material/Energy Balances	4.0	5.0	-3.0	1.0	4.0
Chem. Thermodynamics	-3.0	-3.0	1.0	5.0	7.0
Fluid Dynamics	1.0	-4.0	-4.0	0.0	-1.0
Heat Transfer	-4.0	5.0	2.0	3.0	6.0
Mass Transfer	-8.0	0.0	0.0	6.0	2.0
Chemical Reaction Engineering	0.0	5.0	14.0	-1.0	7.0
Process Design/Economic Optimization	4.0	-1.0	8.0	-1.0	6.0
Computer Usage in Chemical Engineering	5.0	-1.0	2.0	11.0	15.0
Process Control	15.0	-5.0	16.0	6.0	11.0
Safety, Health, and Environment	8.0	2.0	16.0	2.0	-2.0

The difference between percentage of our students passing questions on each topic area and the percentage of all students nationally passing questions on each topic area is known as “delta” (Δ) and these are shown in the tables.  Target values on the FE Exam for each topic is to exceed the national average by at least 3% (delta > +3%).  Problem areas, in which students performed at least 3% lower than the national average, are indicated in red.  Engineering economics has always been an area with which our graduates have struggled as well as strength of materials.

Course-Level Outcomes Assessment

The course-level outcomes assessment procedures were implemented starting in the fall of 2010.  Consequently, we have limited information related to this but some conclusions have been drawn and are summarized here:

• Students in CHEN 1300 Introduction to Chemical Engineering are meeting expectations with respect to Student Outcomes (f), (g), and (j).
• Students in CHEN 4530 Design Project are meeting expectations with respect to Student Outcomes (c), (g), and (k).
• Students in CHEN 4570 Control are meeting expectations with respect to Student Outcome (e) but abilities of students in this course are far below expectations in Student Outcome (c) – 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.  Perhaps this Student Outcome is not consistent with the goals of the course; an effort should be made to identify whether this outcome should be assigned to this course.

Overall Summary of Outcomes Attainment

The five different assessment methods discussed above have been analyzed in detail and a general “temperature” of how well the outcomes are being met has been developed.  Some general conclusions related to attainment of Student Outcomes are summarized here:

• Most Student Outcomes are being addressed at target values (meeting or exceeding expectations).
• Most of the “soft skills” [Student Outcomes (h), (i), and (j)] could be improved.
• Achievement of Student Outcome (c) – an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability – is, in general, below expectations.
• Attainment of Student Outcomes (k), (l), and (m) are below expectations.
• UEAC members have consistently noted that too much material is being taught in our Design series and that the program should consider reassessing the outcomes and scope of these courses.

What changes in the curriculum or in major requirements have occurred as a result of your assessment of the undergraduate program?

Several changes have occurred as a result of the assessment processes and these are summarized below

Curriculum Updates

There were no major curriculum changes to the chemical and biological engineering degree in 2011.

Improvement to Advising Practices

The department has continued to look at ways in which advising practices can be improved.  Recent improvements include:

• A full time advisor was hired who devotes much of her time to student advising. This staff member holds regular open advising hours during the semester, attends college advising meetings, and is very knowledgeable of advising practices.
• Senior-level audit late in the semester before they graduate to verify that they will be completing the requirements during their last semester.  We use our audit checklist to do this and this process has identified for several students a course or two that needed to be taken for graduation.

New Faculty Hires

No new faculty hires were made during 2011.