Manufacturing/Mechanical Engineering Technology
Mechanical Engineering Technology (MET)
Results of Assessment
2001-2002 (submitted 10/29/02)
Outcomes Assessed
- During the 2001-2002 academic year, outcome 6 "identify, analyze and
solve technical problems" was assessed using a special assessment exam
given to graduating MET seniors at the end of spring semester 2002. This
exam consisted of a battery of problems, prepared by the MET faculty, from
three core MET subjects areas, viz., mechanics, materials/machine design,
and thermal science. Students were allowed to select a specified minimum
number of problems from each subject area, and were given two hours to solve
the problems in each subject area. The exam was written and graded by the
MET faculty and administered in the Testing Center.
- All outcomes (1 to 11) were assessed during the 2001-2002 academic year
using an alumni survey. The survey queried 2001 graduates how important each
outcome is and how well the MET program prepared them to achieve that
outcome. A system was devised to provide a numerical value to the responses.
- In the spring semester of 2002, we began using a "course loop
action" instrument to assess outcomes 1 to 7. This instrument is a form
that facilitates a continuous improvement loop for all MET courses. The loop
actions are primarily driven by instructors’ observations, informal
in-class student surveys and written comments from formal course
evaluations.
Data Gathered
- For outcome 6, the data gathered were the scores from the assessment exam
for each subject area. The lowest score for a given subject was 45%, and the
highest score for a given subject was 83%. The average score across all
subject areas was 62%. In the case of the thermal sciences, scores were
higher for those subjects which were taken by the students most recently,
indicating a significant retention effect. No such retention effect was
evident in the other subject areas. The data was discussed among the MET
faculty the week of Oct. 21, 2002.
- Alumni surveys were sent to 2001 graduates about April 15, 2002. Responses
were received by May 15, 2002. For each of the 11 outcomes, the graduates
were asked two questions:
1. How important is this outcome to you as a graduate of WSU?
2. How well did WSU prepare you to achieve this outcome?
Five possible responses were allowed, ranging from not important/not
prepared to extremely important/extremely prepared. These five
responses were assigned numerical values of 1 through 5. Then, the preparation
response was subtracted from the importance response for each outcome.
If this difference falls between !1
and +1, no action for that outcome is warranted. If the difference falls
outside this range, action for that outcome is warranted. The survey responses
were discussed by the MET faculty September 2002.
- The course loop action instrument has yielded only preliminary data since
this instrument has been in place for less than one year. (All MET courses
are taught only once per year.) The purpose of this instrument is to assess
the MET program at the course level. Loop action forms were completed for
MET courses taught spring 2002. The kinds of data gathered at that time
primarily consist of ways to improve courses by adding laboratory
experiences, implementing more computer-based work, reviewing previously
learned material in an effort to improve retention of key concepts, and
moving exams to the testing center to give students additional time to
complete exams. The data gathered from the spring 2002 course loop action
forms will be implemented in the spring 2003 courses.
Changes Implemented/To Be Implemented
- The MET assessment exam has been administered only once to fewer than ten
students, so the sampling size is too small to draw any meaningful
conclusions at this time. The MET faculty have not as yet determined a
threshold score or scores on which to base program actions. We agreed that
one or two additional years of assessment exam data is required to take any
definitive actions.
- Without exception, responses to the alumni survey fell within the !1
to + 1 range, indicating that no action is required as far as the alumni
survey is concerned. However, all scores were greater than zero, indicating a
general state of under-preparation in all eleven outcomes. Again, the sampling
size was small, and the MET faculty agreed that some long term trends may
reveal themselves as this survey is administered to future graduates. It
should also be noted that this survey was administered to exiting seniors at
the end of spring semester 2002 with similar results.
- The course loop action instrument will be administered on an ongoing
basis, using the previous year’s data as feedback for the current year’s
courses. Because this instrument has only been used for one semester (spring
2002), few changes have been implemented. Computer-based projection systems
have been installed in every classroom in the ET building thereby
facilitating the enhancement of computer-based work. Also, some laboratory
equipment for our thermal science labs has recently been constructed and
will be used spring 2003 for the first time.
Outcomes To Be Assessed During 2002-2003
- As indicated in the MET assessment plan, outcomes 1 to 7 are evaluated
annually via a course loop action. One complete loop will have been
completed by the end of the 2002-2003 school year. At that time, the MET
faculty will feed the actions from the previous year into the beginning of
the loop for the next year. This feedback loop will be ongoing for every
course in the MET program.
- In the spring of 2003, all eleven outcomes will be assessed using the MET
alumni survey discussed above. We will pay particular attention to the sign
of the numbers to see if a general opinion of under-preparation still
exists.
- A formalized senior project evaluation process will be developed for
assessing outcomes 2, 4, 5 and 7.
- Long term retention of key material and concepts from previous courses
that are crucial for success in follow-on courses is critical for outcome 1,
demonstrating mastery of knowledge in the discipline. One of the assessment
measures for outcome 1 is in-class MET exams. Beginning spring 2003, the MET
faculty will begin to incorporate problems and questions in their MET exams
that are designed to improve students’ long-term retention. Methodologies
for accomplishing this are being discussed fall 2002.
Mission
Statement / Student
Learning Outcomes / Curriculum
Grid / Assessment
Plan / Contact Person
|
