The curriculum goals of the unit, as currently stated in the catalog or other departmental documents, are as follows: (from the catalog)
“The objectives of the undergraduate program were revised by a vote of the CEAE faculty in April 2011 to improve the ability to quantitatively measure whether our alumni had achieved these goals.
The program objectives for the Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering are that within five years:
- Graduates will be successfully employed in engineering, science, or technology careers
- Graduates are assuming management or leadership roles
- Graduates will engage in continual learning by pursuing advanced degrees or additional educational opportunities through coursework, professional conferences and training, and/or participation in professional societies
- Graduates will pursue professional registration or other appropriate certifications
- Graduates will be active in civic engagement”
There are 14 educational outcomes to be achieved by CVEN graduates. The first 13 of these outcomes map closely to the ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) Criterion 3 A-K outcomes, and the 14th outcome is a program specific criterion for civil engineering programs:
- an ability to explain basic concepts in management, business, public policy, and leadership
What is the unit’s schedule for reviewing the curriculum goals?
The Joint Evaluation Committees (JECs) in the Department of Civil, Environmental, & Architectural Engineering review these goals when they meet. There are multiple JECs in CEAE representing each sub-discipline and each meets on a 3-year rotating basis. The JEC is composed of at least three practicing engineers from disciplines covered by the particular JEC (preferably with experience employing program graduates), at least one faculty member from each discipline covered by the particular JEC, and at least one current undergraduate student from the discipline covered by the particular JEC. The construction engineering and management (CEM) and geotechnical engineering JECs met in spring 2011. The findings and recommendations of the JECs were communicated to the Curriculum Committee who has the responsibility for recommending curriculum changes for approval by the department faculty as a whole. The Department Executive Committee and Chair are responsible for allocating teaching, facilities and material resources to implement changes.
During the last review period, how has the department/program assessed how well it has accomplished its curriculum goals?
A number of assessment instruments are administered by the College of Engineering & Applied Science that gather data relevant to CVEN. These assessment tools, dates applied since the previous annual assessment report, and assessment targets are:
- Freshman Survey (spring 2011) – general program
- Senior Survey (data from December 2010 and May 2011 graduates) – assessment of program outcomes
- Post-Graduation Surveys (given to alumni approximately 6 months after they graduate; data from May/Aug 2010 and December 2010 available in this cycle) – assessment of program outcomes
- Alumni Surveys (data from summer 2011 surveys of 2006 graduates) – assessment of program objectives
- Internship Surveys (fall 2011) – assessment of program outcomes
- Employer Survey (spring 2011) – assessment of alumni toward achievement of outcomes / objectives
In addition, all graduating students are required to take the national Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) exam. The results of this exam are released approximately 6 months later, so the fall 2010 and spring 2011 results are available. These results help us assess both our program outcomes and objectives.
The Faculty Course Questionnaires (FCQs) administered by the University are also used to assess individual courses. In spring 2008 and onward, questions related to the program outcomes were added to the FCQs for selected required courses. These data help us assess which specific courses are helping us meet our program outcomes.
Joint Evaluation Committees (JECs), described above, assess and evaluate the program objectives, courses in subspecialty curriculum, and outcomes. In the 2010/2011 academic year the construction engineering and management (CEM) and geotechnical engineering JECs met as previously stated.
In addition, the curriculum committee in CEAE meets at least monthly and assesses the program. The curriculum committee reviews the feedback from the JECs, and independently reviews FE exam information and other assessment data.
What has the department/program concluded with respect to the outcomes of its undergraduate and (and if applicable, graduate) curriculum?
We have concluded that the CVEN program is strong, with appropriate objectives and outcome goals that are being met and serve our students and the profession. The senior design course is very successful. The large student enrollment in upper division CVEN courses that include both AREN and EVEN majors, continues to be a concern. However, the number of incoming first year students into CVEN has declined over the past few years and this enrollment decrease will reach the upper division courses in a couple of years before we see additional growth.
The specific data that has been collected and reviewed by our program is summarized below.
Freshman Survey
In spring 2011 there were 13 CVEN students who responded to the freshman survey; this represents about 38% of the first year CVEN majors, a response rate that was similar to the overall response rate for the College of 30% (221 students).
The students were somewhat certain of their major (average 3.85 on 5 pt scale).
A positive finding is that the students reported that their understanding of engineering as a career increased from 3.15 before they enrolled to 3.85 “now” (after about 5 to 7 months; on a 5 pt scale where 1 = not at all clear and 5 = very clear). This increase may be due to content that the students learned in their Introduction to Civil Engineering class, CVEN 1317 (which 7 students reported taking) or Introduction to Engineering course, GEEN 1500 (which 4 students reported taking). Another positive finding was that the students overall rated the quality of their experiences in the College of Engineering fairly high, ranging from 2.83 (tutoring) to 4.17 (BOLD staff) on seven different aspects (on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5=high).
The top items that students reported would make their experience in Engineering more satisfying were: more free electives (69%) and more help/review sessions (46%). We are aware that our curriculum in CVEN is highly constrained. This is primarily due to the need to impart the knowledge and skills requirements of both ABET and the 24 program criteria proposed by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Body of Knowledge in the 4-year curriculum of 128 credits. Students have some flexibility by self-selecting 4 of 5 areas of proficiency, an area of concentration, technical electives which may be taken outside the department and even outside engineering, and social science & humanities electives in their degree program. In a faculty retreat in May 2011, we discussed ways to add flexibility for our students. This discussion will continue in 2011/2012 among the curriculum committee and eventually the faculty at large.
Senior Survey
Data from December 2010 and May 2011 graduates are available, with 15 and 47 respondents, respectively. This represents a response rate of 100% and 80% of the graduating seniors, respectively. Note that some respondents did not complete the entire survey, so the number of responses on individual questions may be lower. The most significant points are summarized below.
There was high satisfaction with the CVEN major overall, averaging 3.93 and 4.07 in Dec. 2010 and May 2011. This is similar to the previous year’s results which averaged 3.9. [students respond on a 5-point Likert scale, where 4 = very satisfied]
There was adequate satisfaction with various aspects of the curriculum (the CVEN curriculum logical sequencing and continuity of courses in the major, availability of required courses in the major, availability of electives, etc.) ranging from 3.13 to 4.19 on 5.0 scale (3 = satisfied, 5 = extremely satisfied). The average satisfaction with “availability of electives” had increased from ~2.9 in previous semesters.
Students rated the importance of all the ABET criteria as 3.8 to 4.8 (3=moderate, 4=very, 5=extremely), indicating they understood the importance of these criteria. The lowest rated item was the newly added outcome “explain concepts in business, public policy, and leadership” which was rated as 3.87 – 3.89.
Students rated the achievement of all the ABET criteria as 3.0 to 4.5 (3=moderately, 4=very, 5=extremely), indicating they felt adequately prepared. The highest rated aspects based on a weighted average of the 2 semesters of responses of 4.26-4.10 were the ability to: identify, formulate and solve engineering problems; ability to apply knowledge of math, science, and engineering; ability to function on a multi-disciplinary team; and ability to collect, analyze, and interpret data. Students feel at least moderately prepared in all areas, so no significant weaknesses were identified.
Satisfaction with the capstone design course continued to be strong. For “My (major) capstone/senior design project reinforced the concepts I learned in my College of Engineering education” the ratings were 4.02 (May) and 3.67 (Dec). For “My (major) capstone/senior design project prepared me for an engineering career “ the average response was 3.89 (May) and 3.47 (Dec.). (5=strongly agree, 4=agree; 3=neither, 2=disagree; 1=strongly disagree)
As a strong indicator that many of our students are embracing lifelong learning, 77% and 100% in May 2011 and December 2010, respectively, stated that they planned to pursue professional licensing or other professional certification; only 2% and 0%, respectively, said no (the others were not sure). Of the May 2011 graduates, 23% had applied to and/or been accepted to graduate school. Of the students not attending graduate school right away, also; 42% and 25% of May 2011 and December 2010 graduates, respectively, had plans to attend graduate school in the future. Regardless of whether they planned to attend graduate school, the students felt well prepared, averaging 3.8 and 4.3 in May 2011 and December 2010, respectively (on a 5-point scale where 3 = prepared, 4 = well prepared).
Post-Graduation Surveys
Respondents in 2010 who were surveyed about 6 months after graduation included 17 graduates (3 completed the BS/MS). Two students (12%) had already completed an advanced degree (the BS/MS students), 2 (12%) were currently attending graduate school, 9 (53%) were considering attending graduate school in the future; only 4 individuals (24%) indicated no interest in pursuing an advanced degree. This indicates that some of our alumni were actively engaging in lifelong learning. Most of the alumni indicated that their primary occupation was a job (13, 76%), with 2 unemployed and looking for a job (12%).
The average satisfaction with their job was 3.4 (on a scale of 5 maximum), with 57% satisfied for now, 21% very satisfied, and 14% extremely satisfied. The students indicated that their jobs were strongly related to their major, averaging 3.4 (3= some relation, 4=much relation, 5=completely related to major). Only 1 of the alumni (6%) indicated that they did not plan to pursue professional licensing or certification. The most commonly stated license being pursued was a PE in civil engineering (82%) and LEED certification (41%). The undergraduate civil engineering curriculum is geared to graduate school, employment and certification, which seems appropriate given the career paths indicated in this survey. Generally high success in employment of post graduates is indicated.
Alumni Surveys
In summer 2011, 21 graduates from 2006 responded to the alumni survey, although only 15 fully completed the survey (a 29% response rate). Of 15 respondents, 93% were employed, with 3 stating that their primary occupation was attending graduate school (20%). None indicated that they were unemployed. Most were working in structural engineering (25%) and construction engineering and management (25%), followed by water resources engineering (13%), environmental engineering (6%), and transportation engineering (6%); 25% reported “other”. Five alumni (33%) were taking graduate classes and/or had already completed a graduate degree; an additional 3 alumni were considering graduate school while 7 (47%) reported no plans toward graduate school. With regards to professional licensing and registration, 7 had already obtained it, 4 planned to, and only 3 said no. This included 10 earned/planning to earn a PE in Civil Engineering or Environmental Engineering, and 2 earning/plans to earn LEED certification. We appear to continue to meet our objective of preparing students for professional careers and/or graduate school in civil engineering.
The 2011 alumni respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with three statements related to the program objectives; 17 to 18 individuals answered these questions, which are used for ABET-related assessment With regards to “successfully employed in an engineering, science, or technology related career”, the average agreement was 3.94 out of 5. 83% agreed or more with this statement. On the statement “I am active in civic engagement” the average rating was 3.11, with 72% at some level of agreement with this statement. These first two areas meet our target for 70% of more of our alumni in agreement. For the question “I have become registered as a professional engineer” 67% disagreed with this statement, which matches the PE results reported above. The minimum time after a BS degree that an individual is allowed to sit for the PE exam is 4 years, so it is not surprising that many of the alumni only 5 years after graduation are not yet PEs. However, only 20% said there were not planning to pursue licensure or certification, so we are meeting our goal.
The alumni were asked to rate the extent to which their felt the five CVEN program objectives were appropriate. The average ratings for 4 of the objectives ranged from 3.35 to 3.94 on a 5 point scale (5 = very strongly agree). The objectives with strong agreement were: graduates will pursue professional registration or other appropriate certifications; graduates will be successfully employed in engineering, science, or technology careers; graduates will engage in continual learning or additional educational opportunities; and graduates are assuming management or leadership roles. Additional support that we are meeting these 4 objectives can be found from other survey questions. For pursuit of professional registration or certifications, 20% of alumni had no plans. Our target was 70% or more alumni would be meeting this objective, so we exceeded our goal. In terms of successful employment, the extent to which our graduates indicated that they had received promotions or other career advancement, the average rating was 3.38 (3=moderate extent, 4=great extent); 0% responded “not at all”. This provides support that we are meeting that objective. For engagement in continual learning, all of the respondents were engaging in two or more forms of learning (i.e. 93% internet, 53% in-house training, 53% technical books, 47% other technical literature). For the assumption of management or leadership roles, alumni indicated that they regularly exerted leadership in their present job, with an average rating of 3.93 (out of 5, where 3=moderate extent, 4=great extent); none indicated “not at all”. Further, 57% indicated that they currently supervise the work of others; an average of 5 people each.
The outcome with weaker agreement was “graduates will be active in civic engagement”, with an average rating of 2.88; 18% indicated a low extent of agreement that this objective was appropriate. As an interesting counterpoint, all alumni indicated that they felt they were benefiting society – an average rating of 3.53, including 33% rating as a great extent (=4) and 13% rating a very great extent (=5).
There was strong satisfaction with choice of major (average 4.0 on 5 point scale, very satisfied) and strong feeling that their engineering education contributed to their success (3.9 on 5 pt scale, 4=high). Half of the respondents indicated that they participate in professional societies at a local, regional, national, or international level, with 1 a committee member and 1 in an “other” leadership role. Of the respondents, 53% had attended 1-10 professional conferences, with 33% considered attending, and only 13% had no plans. This combined with the earlier data on pursuit of graduate studies indicates generally strong pursuit of lifelong learning by our graduates.
Overall, the alumni survey data did not indicate any weaknesses in the program.
Internship Surveys
The fall 2011 internship/summer school survey (which asked questions about summer 2011 internships) had 42 respondents majoring in CVEN. Of the respondents, 33% primarily worked at an engineering internship/co-op, 33% worked at a job not considered an internship, and 29% attended summer school/study abroad/online courses (most students indicated 2 summer activities). Only 7% indicated that they couldn’t find an internship or co-op at all, and an additional 7% stated that they couldn’t find an engineering internship or co-op. This indicates good placement of students into engineering work or academic pursuits in the summer.
Employer survey
On the spring 2011 employer survey, 46 of the respondents were interested in hiring CVEN majors. In addition, these same employers hired mechanical engineering majors (57%), architectural engineering majors (46%), environmental engineering majors (43%), and electrical engineering majors (43%), in addition to other disciplines. The majority of the industries represented by the employers were consulting engineering firms (26%) and construction (26%). Of the employers that hire CVEN majors, only 65% had hired engineering graduates from CU. When these individuals rated the quality of CU engineering graduates (regardless of major) relative to graduates from other colleges, the average ratings on 24 different factors ranged from 3.36 to 3.85 (on a 5-point Likert scale where 3=about the same as other colleges and 4=somewhat better than other colleges). The strongest ratings for the CU graduates (with ratings from 3.83 to 3.85) were: ability to apply knowledge of math, science, and engineering; ability to design and conduct experiments; ability to analyze and interpret data; understanding the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, and societal context; and recognition of the need for and an ability to engage in life-long learning. The data indicate that for the ABET-related outcomes CU graduates are similar to or slightly better than their peers.
FE exam
In fall 2010, a total of 22 CU CVEN students took the FE exam. The overall pass rate was 91%, which is higher than the national average for CVEN students of 69%. This pass rate is the highest for CU CVEN students since the 91% pass rate in Fall 2004. Almost all of the CU students took the general-civil AM-PM exam sequence, with only 1 taking the general-environmental version of the exam. There were none of the 13 topics on the general exam in the AM session with weak performance (based on CU students more than 4% below nationwide peers on percentage of correct answers to questions). CU students performed better than the nationwide CVEN average on 11 of 13 topics on the general exam in the morning. The weakest CU topic compared to the national average CVEN student performance was dynamics, where CU students answered 3% fewer questions correctly. On the afternoon subject exam in Civil Engineering, CU students were somewhat weak in only 1 of the 9 topic areas; 2% below nationwide peers on questions related to transportation.
In spring 2011, 38 CVEN students from CU took the FE exam. The overall pass rate was 84%, which was higher than the national average for CVEN students that semester of 78% passing. Almost all of the CU students took the general-civil exam AM-PM sequence; 1 student took the general-environmental exam. CU students were not more than 3.8% below their national peers on any topic; the weakest performance was on strength of materials. For the Civil Engineering afternoon exam questions, there were 4 topic areas of concern: structural analysis and structural design with CU students 6% below national peers, transportation with CU students 7% below national peers, and materials with CU students 13% below national peers. The current curriculum in CVEN allows students to select 4 of 5 proficiency topics, and therefore some students may not reach the structural design courses (since only the structural analysis course is required for all students). The structures JEC recommended developing and offering a materials course; this idea is still being explored.
Student ratings of courses on FCQs
Questions were added to the FCQs that students complete at the end of each course asking them to rate 20 different statements regarding the ABET A-K outcomes and civil engineering program specific criteria. These questions were added to almost all required undergraduate CVEN courses. Students rated on a scale of 1 to 6 or not applicable (NA) statements such as “the course improved my ability to design and conduct experiments.” In fall 2010 and spring 2011, 16 required CVEN courses, the 6 possible proficiency courses, and 10 concentration courses were rated by students (with some courses rated in both fall and spring). The students use a scale of 0 (not applicable) to 6. Averaging the student ratings for all of the required courses together, students rated ABET A (knowledge of math, science, and engineering) and E (ability to solve engineering problems) the highest, at 4.8. The lowest rated items were ability to make effective oral presentations (average 2.0/6), the role of the leader and leadership principles and attitudes (CVEN-specific criteria; average 2.8/6), an understanding of business, public policy (CVEN-specific criteria; average 2.9/6), and written communication (2.9/6). However, since every criterion was rated at least 4.8 or better in one or more courses, the curriculum adequately covers all of the accreditation criteria.
JEC reviews
The construction engineering and management (CEM) JEC met on February 16, 2011. Prior to the day-long meeting at CU, the faculty prepared an extensive self-study document. The 12 individuals who served on the JEC committee included 5 CU faculty/senior instructors, 4 individuals working in the CEM industry for consultants and contractors, and 3 CU students (2 senior civil engineering students and 1 former AREN student currently in the master’s program). The committee first reviewed the program objectives and outcomes, but did not have any specific comments. There were 8 recommendations from the JEC, which related to the CVEN and/or AREN curriculum: reduce class size, increase CEM faculty, provide structured internships, provide in-class lab time, develop CEM classroom space, maintain or expand surveying experience, teach management skills, and integrate safety into the curriculum. The CEM faculty discussed these issues, and determined that two items could be accommodated within existing courses (management and safety). Some changes recommended by the CEM JEC might impact non-structures emphasis areas, such as expanding surveying/geomatics. This recommendation was in direct opposition to the structures JEC the previous year that recommended removing that course requirement. After a discussion in the curriculum committee, it was decided to retain the current course. Other comments cannot be readily accommodated due to resource limitations.
The geotechnical engineering JEC met on February 4, 2011. The seven committee members included 3 industry members (CDOT and 2 consultants), 2 CU faculty members, 1 CU BS student, and 1 CU BS/MS student. The JEC carefully reviewed all of the undergraduate geotechnical courses and had 10 comments. The faculty determined that most of these issues could be accommodated within the existing courses (for example, expansive soils information will be enhanced in CVEN 3708 and CVEN 4728). The other two issues related to use of student assessments (the JEC recommended semi-annual review; and the faculty felt this is already occurring on an ad hoc basis) and the low response rates of geotechnical specialists on the alumni survey (which the CU faculty can do little about).
Faculty
New faculty who began their appointments in fall 2010 through summer 2011 include:
- Shideh Dashti, Geotechnical Engineering and Geomechanics Group
Faculty who retired or left in fall 2010 through summer 2011 were:
- Ken Strzepek, Hydrology, Water Resources & Environmental Fluid Mechanics
- William Yearsley, Construction Engineering & Management
- Brent Protzman, Building Systems Group
Curriculum issues
Curriculum issues are also discussed by the faculty at large. All changes in the courses that comprise the curriculum must be approved by the faculty.
What changes in the curriculum or in major requirements have occurred as a result of your assessment of your undergraduate program?
The primary curriculum change that was made was to start requiring all students in the structures concentration to take both reinforced concrete design and steel design. This change was made based on recommendations from the structures JEC. The change officially goes into effect in the catalog starting with the incoming students in fall 2011; however, all students were being strongly encouraged to immediately comply with this requirement.
The increased assessment data that is available from the College-wide surveys and the outcomes assessments by the students at the end of our courses helps the JECs to accurately assess our program. The JECs also review FE exam data and examples of student work during their review activities. There has been strong support of the JECs for the current curriculum that provides students fundamentals in all six sub-discipline areas of CVEN, allows students to select four areas of proficiency, and then a single concentration. The JECs have also been very supportive of the current capstone design course in civil engineering.