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

"AES Mission Statement, 2010-present

The mission of Aerospace Engineering Sciences is to provide quality education, including hands-on learning, and to conduct foremost research in aerospace engineering sciences. These goals are accomplished through fundamental and multidisciplinary research and by preparing aerospace engineering students to meet the needs of 21st-century society through the conception, design, and application of aerial and spacecraft systems.

AES Educational Objectives, 2010-present

During their first three to five years after graduation, Aerospace Engineering Sciences graduates will have:

  • Established themselves in professional careers or received a graduate degree;
  • Demonstrated ethical leadership, project management, and/or innovation; and
  • Played significant roles in the research and development of engineering systems and products.

Desired Outcomes

Students completing the undergraduate degree in aerospace engineering will be knowledgeable in the following areas:

  • the professional context of the practice of aerospace engineering and expectations of new graduates in aerospace engineering organizations, including an awareness of ethics issues, economics, and the business environment;
  • the history of aerospace engineering, providing a perspective on current events;
  • aerospace engineering as a highly multidisciplinary endeavor, requiring a systems perspective to integrate technologies and manage complexity; and
  • major principles and scientific methods underlying the technologies comprising aerospace vehicles and systems.

Upon graduation, students will have developed the following general skills and abilities:

  • written, oral, and graphical communication skills;
  • an ability to quantitatively estimate, model, analyze, and compute;
  • an ability to define and conduct experiments using modern laboratory instruments, and to interpret experimental results;
  • an ability to seek out and gather information, enabling independent and lifelong learning;
  • interpersonal and organizational skills that enable individuals to work effectively in teams and assume leadership positions;
  • an ability to identify needs, requirements, and constraints, and to design appropriate reliable engineering solutions;
  • an ability to formulate technical problems clearly, and to correctly apply appropriate methods and procedures for their solution;
  • an ability to program computers, and skills in the use of modern engineering analysis, simulation software, and operating systems; and
  • an ability to understand societal needs, business issues, and the ethical concerns and responsibility of the industry.”

These objectives and outcomes have not changed since our last ABET self-study in 2009.

During the last review period, what revisions, if any, have been made to your curriculum goals as stated in the CU course catalog? What is your schedule for such curriculum review?

Our objectives and outcomes have not changed since our last ABET self-study in 2009.

The AES department holds a 3⁄4 day undergraduate curriculum retreat every May on the Tuesday of finals week to review our curriculum. Specific details on the annual retreat can be provided upon request and specifics of the 2015 retreat are provided below.  In our 2015 retreat we covered the Dynamics and Control material.  As part of our continuing improvement process the AES department has the following annual curricular review calendar covering the four key thematic elements of our aerospace curriculum:

  • Year 1 – Thermodynamics and Fluids
  • Year 2 – Electronics and Software
  • Year 3 – Dynamics and Controls
  • Year 4 - Materials and Structures
  • Year 5 – Open (to address other curricular issues as necessary)
  • Year 6 – ABET self-study

Summarize the means you have employed to assess your success in attaining those curriculum goals.

The Aerospace Engineering Sciences Department Associate Chair for Undergraduate Studies is responsible for overseeing the operation of our undergraduate curriculum.  These duties include an annual assessment of the program.  The Associate Chair is the chair of the undergraduate curriculum and teaching committee which is formed every year and consists of tenure track faculty and instructors involved with the undergraduate curriculum in addition to the undergraduate advisors.  Participation on the committee generally rotates each year to engage a diversity of opinions. The undergraduate curriculum and teaching committee meets monthly during the academic year to address both the strategic vision of the undergraduate program and tactical issues that require timely resolution.  Every spring, on the Tuesday of finals week the AES department holds a ¾ day retreat to focus on the AES curriculum.  This retreat is coordinated by the Associate Chair and is structured to bring to closure, by faculty vote if necessary, undergraduate curriculum issues that were addressed during the preceding academic year and to develop a forward-looking plan for the next academic year to address developing issues.  Topics covered during the undergraduate portion of 2014-2015 retreat, held on May 6th 2015 included the Dynamics and Control curriculum review, near-term growth, and a discussion on options to handle the growing class sizes.

The college of engineering collects data for the department through a variety of surveys some of which are documented in this report. These surveys include:

  • Annual Senior Survey, conducted during students’ final semester on campus
  • Annual Post-Graduation Survey, conducted 6 months after graduation
  • Alumni Survey, conducted four years after graduation
  • Employer Survey, conducted every 3 years
  • Annual Freshman Survey (not documented in this report)
  • Annual Internship and Summer School Survey (not documented in this report)
  • Additional data are collected through the following methods:

The AES senior students meet on a voluntary basis to participate in an exit survey and program discussions organized by undergraduate student adviser Claire Yang at the end of the spring semester.

Every semester Comprehensive Course Assessment (CCA) evaluations are done by the department faculty in all required undergraduate courses. They pertain to the aerospace program’s K1-3 and A1-8 evaluation criteria, which map to the ABET 3a-k outcomes. The outcomes are discussed by the Curriculum and Teaching Committee (C&T) the following year and concerns are discussed at the annual retreat if necessary.

The department’s External Advisory Board (EAB) meets with the Aerospace Engineering Department every fall.  The academic focus of the meeting alternates between the undergraduate and graduate program every year.

During the month of October all Aerospace Engineering students are required to meet with their academic advisors before a registration hold for the spring semester will be lifted.  These meetings are often held in group settings as it is often the case that students have similar questions.  If students have more personal or sensitive questions, then a 1-on-1 meeting with a faculty advisor is scheduled.  During these group meetings the faculty receive feedback from the students.  The Associate Chair solicits this feedback from the faculty advisors for inclusion in the regular undergraduate committee discussion.

The Faculty Course Questionnaires (FCQs) administered by the University are also used to assess individual courses.  Every term, CU-Boulder students evaluate each of their courses and instructors using a standard questionnaire called the FCQ or Faculty Course Questionnaire. The results go to:

  • Individual instructors for use in improving their courses and teaching
  • Department chairs and deans for use in mentoring for professional development, course assignments and in promotion, salary, and tenure decisions
  • Students for use in course selection.

Results for the most recent years are available electronically on the web. Results are available in paper form in the Norlin Library Archives office.

The FCQ are utilized to evaluate the student impression of the course and instructor.  Key questions on the questionnaire are the standard questions:

  • Instructor effectiveness in encouraging interest
  • Intellectual challenge of course 
  • How much you learned in course 
  • and the optional questions
  • Students assumed responsibility for their learning
  • Students learned by participation  
  • Lab work was worthwhile
  • This class improved my understanding of the engineering profession
  • My confidence to succeed as an engineering student was enhanced
  • This course prepared me for a career in engineering.

Specify what actions you have taken as a result of employing your assessment protocols.

Dynamics & Control Curriculum Review:

A review of the dynamics and control curriculum was undertaken in the AY14-15 year, led by Dr. Eric Frew.  Overall it was found that the required material was still well covered, and the related classes are in good shape.  Particular issues were identified regarding the timing of math concepts (Laplace transforms).  An action item was taken to ensure that 2003 covers a simple overview of Laplace transforms that can be used, and referred to, in the follow on courses as well.

Software & Electronics Update (ASEN 3300):

The suggested revisions from the prior AY are being implemented.  It was decided that a 2-year plan was the best approach to replace outdated material, as well as introduce material such as using the Arduino Due prototyping board.

Freshman Software Class (CSCI 1320):

A new freshman software programming class was created with the help of the computer science department that meets the specific needs of aerospace majors.  Prior to this, the 1300 software classes were either too basic (teaching programming in Excel, etc.) or too advanced (jumping straight to C++ object oriented programming).  The new 1320 class covers about 2/3 Matlab, 1/3 C-programming.  The class examples are specific to aerospace applications, and ASEN provided an Aero graduate student as a TA.  This helped greatly with the class office hours.

Growth:

The UG program size continues to be a source of concern.  The enrollment in 2015 jumped to 485 student, where in 2012 we only had 309.  A discussion was held on identifying options to deal with large classes such as how to best use the TA's and graders, considering opening up additional lab sections, and how to set up lab group sizes.  Additional lab sections are often very challenging as the Integrated Teaching and Learning Lab (ITLL) availability is becoming very limited.  Further, the 2000 and 3000 level classes are growing to sizes that don't allow us to teach the course in our regular class room.  We were able to move some of the sophomore level courses to a larger room on campus, but this room is 15 min away from the engineering center.

2000-Level Classes:

With the continued large growth in sophomore level classes, the instructors of 2001, 2004 and 2002 provided feedback on how the classes were modified to streamline the teaching and grading process, and make these hands-on courses more scalable.  For example, 2001 and 2002 considered ways to better coordinate their exams.  The lab report lengths were reduced to 3 pages to ensure the students provide a precise and concise lab write-up without being overly verbose.  The latter can greatly lengthen the TA grading efforts beyond the grading hours that are covered.  Further, the labs of 2002 and 2012 were re-examined.  As the 2012 class was split off, some duplication in the lab goals were created.  This is now being addressed by moving the bottle Rocket Design lab to 2012 which requires a written report.  This is feasible because less time is now devoted to teaching Matlab, as the new CSCI 1320 class better covers this material in the freshman year.