2004 Outcome Action Reviews
Action Review for Outcome (a) Apply knowledge of math, science, and engineering
Previous Curriculum Action Review Summary
• There was no specific Curriculum Action specified at the end of 2003 for Outcome (a) during 2004.
Curriculum Review Summary
• Outcome (a) scores increased from 2003  to 2004.
• Outcome (a) score variation among the three metrics decreased from 2003 to 2004
•  Outcome (a) assessment indicates improving student performance but statistical variation in the assessment process has not been established.
•  No Action is needed at this time.
Code	Curriculum Action Title	Curriculum Action Brief Description
N
Previous Assessment Process Action Review Summary
• Seeking better instruments for Outcome (a) were suggested as an Assessment Process Action at the end of 2003 for Outcome (a) during 2004. Instruments were the specific target, not metrics.
Assessment Process Review Summary
• The instruments for Outcome (a) seem to be functioning better than thought at the end of 2003.  The Assessment Process Action for 2004 in retrospect was not a significant need; however, there remains an interest in moving to more objective measures of student performance using somewhat standardized Instruments.
• A method of using the FE Exam results for the assessment of many of the Outcomes, including (a) has been developed and implemented.
•  The use of questions on MET 320 and MATH 373 final exams is being considered for implementation.  More objective measures are needed.
Code	Assessment Process Action Title	Assessment Process Action Brief Description
A	Better Assessment of Outcome (a)	Develop more objective instruments to assess Outcome (a).
Action Review for Outcome (b) Design and conduct experiments analyze and interpret data and information
Previous Curriculum Action Review Summary
No actions needed.
Curriculum Review Summary
Student performance has increased considerably from 2003.
Code	Curriculum Action Title	Curriculum Action Brief Description
N
Previous Assessment Process Action Review Summary
No actions needed.
Assessment Process Review Summary
• Process does a good job of tracking student ability to conduct experiments at the sophomore level.  Design of experiments does not seem to be addressed adequately by the instrumets used.  It is suggested that more senior lab classes should be used.
Code	Assessment Process Action Title	Assessment Process Action Brief Description
W	Use more Senior Lab Classes	More senior lab classes need to be assessed to better track design of experiments: Outcome (b).
Action Review for Outcome (c) Optimally select material and design materials treatment and production processes
Previous Curriculum Action Review Summary
No Curriculum Action needs were stated for Outcome (c ) in 2004.
Curriculum Review Summary
• Students continue to perform well.
• No  Curricular Action is needed.
Code	Curriculum Action Title	Curriculum Action Brief Description
N
Previous Assessment Process Action Review Summary
There was no previous Assessment Process Action needed for 2004
Assessment Process Review Summary
• Assessment instruments appear to be working well but additional methods are likely to improve assessment.
Code	Assessment Process Action Title	Assessment Process Action Brief Description
A	Develop Better Instruments for Outcome (c )	Outcome (c ) assessment could be improved by adding additional instruments such as a survey or exit exam.
Action Review for Outcome (d) Function well on teams
Previous Curriculum Action Review Summary
• There were no Curriculum Actions Needed for 2004.
Curriculum Review Summary
• Students are performing very well in teams.
• There is no Curriculum Action Needed for 2005
Code	Curriculum Action Title	Curriculum Action Brief Description
N
Previous Assessment Process Action Review Summary
• Seeking better instruments for Outcome (d) were suggested as an Assessment Process Action at the end of 2003 for Outcome (d) during 2004. Instruments were the specific target, not metrics.
Assessment Process Review Summary
• The instruments for Outcome (d) seem to be functioning adequately at the end of 2003.  There remains an interest in moving to more objective (relative to faculty assessment) measures of student performance perhaps using student's self-reported teaming experience.
Code	Assessment Process Action Title	Assessment Process Action Brief Description
A	Better Assessment of Outcome (d)	Develop student-reported score assignment instruments of team experience to assess Outcome (d).
Action Review for Outcome (e) Identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems
Previous Curriculum Action Review Summary
No Curriculum Action needs were stated for Outcome (e ) for 2004.
Curriculum Review Summary
Student performance appears to be at a satisfactory level.  A slight decrease is noted compared to the previous two years.
Code	Curriculum Action Title	Curriculum Action Brief Description
N
Previous Assessment Process Action Review Summary
• There was no previous Assessment Process Actions needed for 2004.
Assessment Process Review Summary
• Assessment instruments appear to be working well with consistent agreement between instruments.
Code	Assessment Process Action Title	Assessment Process Action Brief Description
N
Action Review for Outcome (f) Know professional and ethical responsibilities and practices
Previous Curriculum Action Review Summary
Meshing Ethics across the curriculum was a required Curriculum  Action.  This has been implemented in MET 310, MET design, and emphasized in Material Advantage meetings.  Ethics canons have also been broadcast on the department's Daktronics board.
Curriculum Review Summary
The outcome summary of ABET criterion (f) for 2004 indicated an increase in student performance.  The number of assessments increased from 2 to 32.
Code	Curriculum Action Title	Curriculum Action Brief Description
N	No action needed	Scores were greatly improved as was the number of metrics
Previous Assessment Process Action Review Summary
No items specifc to Assessment Process Action Review for ABET criterion (f) were noted.
Assessment Process Review Summary
The FE Exam was only taken by one student.  If few students are consistently taking the exam, its inclusion in the assessment process may not be appropriate
Code	Assessment Process Action Title	Assessment Process Action Brief Description
W	FE Exam Numbers	The number of students taking the FE Exam is small.
Action Review for Outcome (g) Communicate effectively
Previous Curriculum Action Review Summary
•Report Rewriting (g) – The program faculty will redouble their efforts to require more effort in writing “perfect” reports.  This is expected to replace total report quantities submitted with higher quality.  The premise of this action is that students gain more writing skill by focused effort on a high-quality work rather than a more diffuse effort with less faculty feedback.  Dr. Kellar will periodically require faculty reports on progress on this action item from all program faculty members.
•Seminar Series – The faculty believe that students will gain a better understanding of professional behavior, the need for honed communication skills, and better interaction and assimilation skills through a more active seminar series offered by a combination of off-campus invited speakers and presentations by their peers.   Dr. Kellar will appoint a faculty member to complete this task.
Curriculum Review Summary
• Outcome (g) scores remained at a high performance level.
Code	Curriculum Action Title	Curriculum Action Brief Description
N	No Action
Previous Assessment Process Action Review Summary
•There was no specific Assessment Process Action specified at the end of 2003 for Outcome (g) during 2004
Assessment Process Review Summary
• there was a discussion on the need to develop new instruments to assess outcome (g) beyond course work but no action was deemed necessary.
Code	Assessment Process Action Title	Assessment Process Action Brief Description
N	No Action
Action Review for Outcome (h) Know engineering's global societal context
Previous Curriculum Action Review Summary
Greater coordination of ABET criteria (h) and (i) within MET 321 and MET 310.
Curriculum Review Summary
Scores stayed essentially constant from 2003 to 2004, but the number and type of review was increased and incuded more than senior design. The students performed well.
Code	Curriculum Action Title	Curriculum Action Brief Description
W	Watch coordination	Coordinate Outcomes (h) and (i) within MET 321 and MET 310.
Previous Assessment Process Action Review Summary
No Assessment Process Action was suggested.
Assessment Process Review Summary
Assessment Process seems to be working well.
Code	Assessment Process Action Title	Assessment Process Action Brief Description
N
Action Review for Outcome (i) Engage in life-long learning
Previous Curriculum Action Review Summary
• Coordination of life-long learning (i) instruments in MET 310 and MET 321..
Curriculum Review Summary
• Life-long Learning  - Dr. Han has implemented a writing assignment designed to assess cognitive development level.  This has been correlated to life-long learning behaviors.  The assignment is designed to elicit from each student responses that target the gates needed to determine their cognitive development.  Dr. Howard will repeat this in the alternate-year MET 321 course.  Additionally, students will be required to write a personal/professional development plan and present it to their peers in MET 321.
• The average increased from 3.5 (2003) to 3.8 (2004).  No score variation was given in 2004.
Code	Curriculum Action Title	Curriculum Action Brief Description
A	Coordination MET 310 and 321,	The importance of life-long learning will be enhanced by FC modules in MET 310 and 321 (Han and Howard).
Previous Assessment Process Action Review Summary
Coordination MET 310 with MET 321with for cognitive assessment
Assessment Process Review Summary
Dr. Han completed this during the Spring 2004 presentation of MET 310.   It will be continued in MET 321 spring 2005 by Dr. Howard.
Code	Assessment Process Action Title	Assessment Process Action Brief Description
N
Action Review for Outcome (j) Know contemporary issues
Previous Curriculum Action Review Summary
• There were no specific Curriculum Action items concerning (j) from the previous review cycle.
Curriculum Review Summary
• The mean for this outcome was virtually unchanged from 2003 to 2004.
Code	Curriculum Action Title	Curriculum Action Brief Description
N	No Actions.
Previous Assessment Process Action Review Summary
• There were no specific Assessment Process Action items concerning (j) from the previous review cycle.
Assessment Process Review Summary
• There is a need to develop an Online Senior Survey as an instrument to assess outcome (j) and broaden instruments inventory beyond MET 321 and 310 if additional instrument can be identified.
Code	Assessment Process Action Title	Assessment Process Action Brief Description
A	New metric development	Seek new instruments for the Outcome.
Action Review for Outcome (k) Use engineering techniques, skills, and tools
Previous Curriculum Action Review Summary
There was no specific Curriculum Action specified at the end of 2003 for outcome (k) during 2004.
Curriculum Review Summary
• Outcome (k) scores decreased slightly from a 2003 to 2004.
•Outcome (k) score variation among the three metrics decreased somewhat from 2003 to 2004.
Code	Curriculum Action Title	Curriculum Action Brief Description
N
Previous Assessment Process Action Review Summary
A lab equipment quiz was recommended to improve outcome (k).
Assessment Process Review Summary
•The determination of whether the skills assessed with Outcome (k) using the existing WebCT on-line quiz and tutorial administered to juniors and seniors is still not yet determined.  Dr. Stone is heading up this work.
• There is concern that the MET 440 instrument is inadequate.
• There is concern that assessment of sophomores is inadvisable.
Code	Assessment Process Action Title	Assessment Process Action Brief Description
W	Higher level of Skills in MET 440	Choose a different 440 lab assignment for future assessment.
W	Sampling sophomores in MET 220	Met 220 instrument appears adequate, the only concern is that it involves sampling of Sophomores who might not have fully developed their engineering skills.