ABET Mid-term Self Study
Program Education Objectives and Student Outcomes
Assessment and Continuous Improvement Report
for the period 2008-2012
Prepared by the Faculty of the Department of Chemical Engineering
I. Department Mission:
The Department of Chemical Engineering at Tennessee Technological University (TTU) adopted the
following Mission Statement in 2007:
To prepare relevant and adaptive chemical engineers in state-of-the-art areas by
emphasizing real world problem solving and critical thinking skills.
This mission statement is reviewed every two to three years by the Department’s Board of Advisors and
has been the guiding focal point for programmatic continuous improvement. While the Department has
not seen the need to change this Mission, it will once again be reviewed in April, 2013 at our scheduled
Board of Advisor’s meeting in full view of the College of Engineering’s (COE) new mission and vision
statements.
The following Program Educational Objectives and Students Learning Outcomes and Assessment Tools
are guidelines for the Continuing Improvement of the BS in Chemical Engineering.
II. Program Educational Objectives and Student Outcomes:
The TTU Chemical Engineering curriculum is specifically designed to prepare students for either a
professional career in the Southeastern US regional chemical process industries and/or simultaneously to
prepare students who will choose to pursue graduate studies in engineering or other professional studies,
e.g. medicine, law, business, pharmacy. Our overall Program Educational Objectives were redesigned
throughout academic 2007-2008. The redesign process involved use of faculty consensus management
techniques, and multiple faculty meetings and retreats dedicated to discussion of the undergraduate
curriculum. The feedback of our BOA and other constituencies was incorporated into this redesign
process. The Program Educational Objectives are designed to guide curriculum development, to be
measurable statements of purpose, and to advertise our curriculum intent to our constituency. Program
Educational Objectives:
Within roughly five to seven years after graduation, our graduates will:
•
1
Program Goal 1: Be recognized as real-world problem solvers1: the graduates of our
program will obtain positions such as plant process engineer, design engineer, group leader,
production engineering, sales engineer.
RWPS – Real world problem solving as it relates to both design and experimentation has been addressed.
Changes to our curriculum including the distributed lab integration have addressed both design and
experimentation nicely. A “problem solving formalism” sequence was introduced early in the curriculum with an
assessment strategy to establish a baseline from which we can assess progress later in the curriculum.
•
Program Goal 2: Be recognized as critical thinkers: the graduates of our program will
demonstrate that they consistently make informed decisions through a process wherein they
utilize critical thinking skills.
•
Program Goal 3: Continue their formal education: the graduates of our program will
demonstrate that they have continued their education beyond the BS through some form of
professional development (not necessarily leading to another degree) or will have graduated from
a professional school with an MS, PhD, MD, JD or similar degree.
•
Program Goal 4: Work at the frontiers in ChE: the graduates of our program will utilize and
apply technologies such as bio materials, nano- and micro-systems, multi-scale analysis,
informatics, group dynamics and, multi-media.
Our ABET Students Outcomes (SO) are articulated as follows:
Every student will demonstrate…
a- an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering,
b- an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data,
c- an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs,
d- an ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams,
e- an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems,
f- an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility,
g- an ability to communicate effectively,
h- the broader education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in global and
societal context,
i- a recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning,
j- a knowledge of contemporary issues,
k- an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering
practice.
The Chemical Engineering uses a selected numbers of courses to assess these Student Outcomes and
an effective mapping has been identified in Table 1 (Appendix) , i.e. the “Articulation Matrix” for
Assessment..
III. Assessments:
The Department of Chemical Engineering uses the following set of Assessment Tools (AT):
A- Program Educational Objectives 1-4:


Alumni Survey (three year cycle);
Employer Survey (three year cycle):
B-Students Learning Outcomes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
FE Exam Results: SLO a-k.
Student Senior Survey/Chair Debriefing of Students: SLO a-k.
Capstone Design Outcomes and External Project – CHE 4410 and 4420, SLO a-k.
Capstone Lab Outcomes and External Project – CHE 4240, SLO a-k.
Course-Level (Assessments) of Selected Courses: in CHE 2011, 3121, and 4210., SLO a-k.
Co-Op Performance Assessment
Critical Assessment Test (CAT)
C-Special Tools:



ChE External Advisory Board, BOA, (Annually), Program Educational Objectives and SLO a-k
Other Feedback: Faculty studies, Introduction and Evaluation of new and more effective
learning approaches. Program Educational Objectives and SLO a-k
Monitoring: Retention and Diversity.
Notably, AT No. (6) and (7), co-op Performance Assessments and CAT, respectively, were
included in our line-up since 2008. The CAT, however, is still in the “experimental” stage and thu
far has only been used one time. The results are very promising, see discussion in Section V and
Section VI. Furthermore, the inclusion of metrics No. (6) and (7) are the direct outcome of the last
ABET self-study that indicated that:
IV. Rationale for Outcomes and Assessments (Process for Data
Analysis)
A- Program Educational Objectives:

Alumni Surveys: (Sent out to graduates of the TTU CHE program at a 3 yrs.-cycle). Program
Educational Objectives 1-4. Similar in nature to the employer surveys, the alumni surveys contain
questions directly related to the attainment of Program Educational Goals and Student Outcomes.
Written comments are also collected and coded as strengths or weaknesses and discussed in
faculty meetings. The conclusions are archive in the Department minutes and explicitly share with
the Undergraduate Program Coordinator for potential improvement actions. (See Section VI).

Employer Surveys: (3yr Cycle) –Program Educational Objectives 1-4. These Surveys contain
questions related directly to the attainment of Program Educational Goals and Student Outcomes.
Written comments are also collected and coded as strengths or weaknesses and discussed in
faculty meetings and with the Undergraduate Program Coordinator (UPC) for implementation of
improvement actions (See Section VI).
B- Student Outcomes:
1. FE Exam (Each Semester) Student Outcomes a-k. While not a complete assessment tool in
itself, the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) exam does provides an objective, nationallynormalized testing of certain engineering, math, and science topics, as well as the ability to
analyze, formulate, and solve engineering problems. Consequently, the FE exam can be a useful
measure of Student Outcomes of the program. Results and analyzed and feedback in provided to
faculty and UPC for improvement actions (See Section VI).
2. Senior Exit Interview Written Survey/Chair Debriefing: (Annually) Student Outcomes a-k The
survey/debriefing provides the opportunity for student feedback (anonymously) or directly to the
Chair on the different aspects of the program learning outcomes, including ChE curriculum, and
the student's experiences while at TTU. In addition, a number of (survey or direct ) questions are
directly related to specific Program Educational Objectives. Items identified for Actions for
Improvement are discusses with faculty and UPC (See Section VI).
3. External Review of Senior (Capstone) Design Projects (Each Semester) Student Outcomes ak. External evaluators are used to accessing the quality of the Senior Design Projects and
providing feedback on the capstone design course, and by extension of the ChE Program itself.
The evaluators ask questions of the team members and provide feedback on the technical quality
of the projects and oral presentations. In addition, the evaluators are given copies of each
group’s reports (Project Proposal, Design Analysis Report, Engineering Drawings, and the Final
Written Report). The external evaluators are requested to review and evaluate the project reports
and offer debriefing to the instructor who document these and feedback to the faculty and UPC
for implementation of improvement actions (See Section VI).
4. Capstone Lab and External Project Assessments (Annually) - ChE 4240. Each year, the
Capstone Lab are assessed by both the instructor and (periodically) by invited judges (usually
from industry) that provide an overall assessment of the relevance and practically of the different
project.
5. Course Level Assessment: (Annually or every other year).The Department uses selected
courses to learn about student performance in the different levels of the curriculum: ChE 2011,
ChE 3111, ChE 3121, and ChE 4210. Both indicator trends for a number of years or at each
course are used to feedback the program.
6. Co-OP Report Assessment: (Semi or annually) The Department uses the reports directly written
by the student supervisor at the co-op plant to learn about important student competences.
Reports are reviewed by the Chair and or the Designee Faculty to extract valuable feedback.
7. Critical Thinking (CT) – (New)The relationship between problem solving and critical thinking
needs to be established in the minds of the students. This needs to be done concomitant with the
above stated efforts to improve problem solving skills. A “critical thinking formalism” was
introduced along with the “problem solving” strategies early in the curriculum. Teamwork
formalisms were also introduced and are now reinforced throughout the curriculum at many
points.” The test for this tool is the Critical Assessment Test (CAT).
C- Special Tools:
V.

ChE External Advisory Board, BOA, (Annually) Student Outcomes a-k. The ChE External
Advisory Board (BOA) consists of approximately 8-10 members, selected primarily for employers
of our students and other related industries. The main purpose of this board is an advisory one; it
is not intended as a fund-raising mechanism. Specifically, the board provides input and feedback
on various curricular and accreditation matters (ABET, SACS, THEC Graduate Program Review).
Some Board members also regularly serve as the External Evaluators for the Senior Design
Projects. Key selected items and then discussed among faculty and UPC for potential Actions for
Improvement (See Section VI).

Other Feedback: The Department conducts student-based studies of key aspects detected by
the assessment tools, introduces new learning approaches to engineering education and
evaluate them both qualitative and quantitative and uses the feedback to improve the learning
outcomes and Program Educational Objectives.. While not an exact measure of educational
objective attainment, this type of feedback is very useful in gauging how our program graduates
are perceived in terms of academic preparation, technical capabilities, and overall quality, as well
as what determines the demand for our students from an employment perspective. Furthermore,
it allows the faculty to introduce important innovative learning approaches and, an opportunity to
constant assess Program Educational Objectives. Section V offers examples of studies
conducted in the period and Section VI comments on Improvement Actions.
Results
Alumni and Employer Surveys.
For each indicator, a rubric or target performance level has been established. These indicators are
gathered on a three year cycle and a complete analysis is performed and summarized in a Program
Educational Objectives Continuous Improvement Report (POCIR). The last three year cycle ended in
2011 (2008-2011) with survey results gathered in early 2012, see Attachment I, letter to alumni with
request to forward to their employer.
Table 1 summarizes the results of the Program Educational Objectives surveys, refer to Attachments II
and III, Alumni and Employer Survey Results for 2008-2012 Assessment period. Table 1 summarizes the
survey findings without giving the detail found in Attachments II and III. At the time of the assessment,
35 of 177 related questions (note that some questions relate to more than one metric and so fewer than
177 actual questions were asked and scored) were used to identify areas in which program
improvements might be made. These metrics are assessed on a three-year cycle at which time a
complete analysis is made and recorded in our Program Outcomes Continuous Improvement Report
(POACIR). Table 1 reflects the general findings. (See Appendix for details). Surprisingly, the results are
similar to those from the previous assessment period despite intensive actions taken by the faculty to
make course-level and programmatic changes to address those areas needing attention. Once again, it
appears that TTU CHE alumni indicate that they are not engaged in problem solving activities at the
levels nor using the formalisms expected of highly efficient real-world problem solvers. Similarly, both
employers and alumni indicate that select areas associate critical thinking skills might be improved
including a need to extend knowledge to design applications in the context of critical thinking improving
student understanding of global and societal issues and the extent to which such are considered in
decision making processes, reducing the disconnect between contemporary issues and professional
work related behaviors, improving teamwork skills and strengthening the link between critical thinking
and experimentations.
Table 1. Map of metrics and findings for ABET Program Educational Objectives Assessment
(2008-2012 Assessment and Evaluation Period)
ABET Program Educational Objectives [rubric]!
Metric
1. RWPS
2. CT
3. CFE
4.
FChE
1, Our alumni are not
connected with their
technical community
through the AIChE
for example, they do
not attend
professional
meetings for
development, they
do not utilize archival
resources, read
trade journals or
even use the internet
as a resource.
No
action
require
d
Same as above
No
action
require
d
3-Year Cycle
Employer
Survey
Alumni
Survey
No action required
1. Extending knowledge
to design applications
in the context of
critical thinking must
be emphasized.
2. There appears to be
a disconnect between
global and societal
issues and the extent
to which such are
considered in
decision making
processes.
1. Translation, synthesis
and extension of
knowledge to
applications via design
as suggested by the very
strong mapping to PO c
for design.
2. To a lesser extent we
should focus on problem
solving skills as they
relate to experimental
design and analysis as
indicated by the weaker,
yet present, mapping to
our PO b for
1. There is a
disconnect between
contemporary issues
and professional
work related
behaviors.
2. There is some
evidence that
teamwork needs to
be strengthened.
3. To a lesser extent,
the link between
critical thinking and
experimentation
needs to be
experimentation.
strengthened.
In most cases, we have chosen to use a two-level rubric, i.e. we desire 75% of respondents to select a
given response as being indicative of positive. If between 50 and 74% select that response we flag it for
“notice,” and if fewer than 50%, we flag it for “attention (action required).” Similarly, for numeric scores, a
desired (at rubric) score is given (i.e. 4), an average response of >75% of that score is above rubric,
between 50 and 75% is at the “notice” level and below 50% is at the “attention” level. The Question Nos.
listed are for those assessment/survey questions that are below the “attention” level.
Learning Outcome No. 1 – FE Exam Results
Because Professional Engineering (PE) is not emphasized by the chemical engineering community at
large, either academic (research) or industrial, only a small number of CHE students self-select to take
the exam. At TTU this number is extremely variable, however, efforts to increase these numbers appears
to be having an effect. Since 2010, the number of students self-selecting to take the exam has
quadrupled. Efforts to encourage students to take the exam were implemented in CHE 4910, Ethics, and
professional engineering is frequently mentioned in other courses to heighten the awareness of this
professional option. Figure 1 summarizes the TTU CHE pass rate since 2007. Pass rates are also
extremely variable and the low pass rate prior to 2008 was noted in our prior self-studies to be a concern.
As mentioned above, the 2008 ABET action items were to focus on FE exam performance. Since 2008,
the overall performance (pass rates) have improve significantly, and so these outcomes seem to indicate
that continuous improvement efforts are have a positive impact on student outcomes thus far. Pass
rates, however, remain well below national levels and so remain a concern.
Figure 1. TTU CHE FE exam pass rates compared to the national average for CHE.
Subject specific outcomes, refer to Appendix (See Figures 1a-f), are likewise variable and performance is
mixed. In general, performance is at or below the national averages, echoing the overall pass rates. No
specific subject areas are particularly worse than others; however, engineering economics and fluid
mechanics might be targeted since both appear to be consistently lower than national averages. Other
areas are more variable and some are nominally at national level, e.g. ethics, mechanics, chemistry (pm),
and heat transfer (last three years in particular).
Learning Outcome No. 2 – Student Senior Survey /Chair Debriefing of Students.
During this period, the Department Chair met with senior Students in an informal de-briefing session with
an open and candid ex-change forum. This is used to debrief students on their overall view of their
experience in the program: Course experience, Co-op experience, experience with the Math, Physic,
Chemistry and Biology courses is extensively discussed. The Chair takes only notes that are discussed
with faculty and UPC for further actions. In general, the students find the experience satisfactory and
rewarding; however the following items have been identified as key concerns:
a- Students are concerned with the used of several adjuncts in the different courses. They believe
that this is not efficient for the coordination of the different course contents.
b- The presence of larger classes in the program compared to the previous cycles has surfaced as a
concern for the students,
c- Students suggested that new design software be used to perform calculation in the design
course. They suggested the one provided by ASPEN.
d- Students indicated that the fixed computer laboratory was both inefficient and insufficient for the
needs of the computational aspects of the program.
Learning Outcome No. 3 – Capstone Design Outcomes and External Project Assessments
CHE 4410: Process Design I. Student outcomes information was collected from course-level assessment
reports for the period 2006 to 2011. Design is evaluated using performance metrics c (design), d
(teamwork), e (formulation), h (societal context) and k (engineering tools) as described in Section II.
Reported data on all assessment metrics are compared here. Two methods were used to illustrate
student performance:
(1) An Overall Performance metric (refer to Figure 2) was computed by dividing the class average
scores for each metric by a rubric score of 70%. Therefor, 70% was set as an indicator of
minimum acceptable performance. This minimum score corresponds to an Overall Performance
value of 1 (one).
(2) An Overall Achievement metric (refer to Table 2) was computed by dividing the number of
students achieving a threshold minimum rubric by the number of students in the course. This
metric indicates the fraction of students not achieving some minimum level of competency. The
minimum competency threshold was taken to be a score of 65%.
1.6
1.4
Desired Minimum Performance Level
Overall Performance
1.2
Criterion 3c
1.0
Criterion 3d
0.8
Criterion 3e
Criterion 3h
0.6
Criterion 3k
0.4
0.2
0.0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Figure 2. Plot of Overall Performance metric as a function of time (academic year) for each major
assessment criterion2.
For all the reported years both the Overall Performance metrics are above rubric, indicating that on the
average students are performing above the minimum expected level and that all students are above the
minimum expected level of competency. The Overall Achievement metric similarly shows that all but a
few students meet the minimum threshold for competency. In the few cases where the students
performed below this minimum level, summative (final) letter grades of D or F were made for the course.
Table 2. Overall Achievement metric as a function of time for each major course metric.
2006*
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Overall Achievement
Metric c Design
Rubric
NA
65
65
65
65
65
Number of Students
NA
18
16
18
35
39
Number Meeting Rubric
NA
18
16
17
34
39
Fraction Meeting Rubric
NA
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
Metric d Teams
Rubric
NA
65
65
65
65
65
Number of Students
NA
18
16
18
35
39
Number Meeting Rubric
NA
18
16
17
34
36
Fraction Meeting Rubric
NA
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
Metric e Formulation
Rubric
NA
65
65
65
65
65
Number of Students
NA
18
16
18
35
39
Number Meeting Rubric
NA
18
16
17
34
39
Fraction Meeting Rubric
NA
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
Metric h Global Impact
Rubric
NA
65
65
65
65
65
Number of Students
NA
18
16
18
35
39
Number Meeting Rubric
NA
18
16
17
34
39
Fraction Meeting Rubric
NA
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
Metric k Tools
Rubric
NA
65
65
65
65
65
Number of Students
NA
18
16
18
35
39
Number Meeting Rubric
NA
18
16
17
34
39
Fraction Meeting Rubric
NA
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
*This rubric was not applicable in 2006.
ChE 4420: Process Design II: Students are clearly performing above the target rubric level against all
criteria. Final course presentations are assessed by a panel of judges that typically include faculty from
2
As in other cases, when the target was met consistently, it was decided to collect the data every two years. The
next will be 2013 and it will be reported in the next cycle. Debriefing of students was used as a monitor tool.
within CHE but other than the instructor, faculty from within TTU, but other than CHE and invited
reviewers from industry. Reviewer’s score against a rubric that explicitly identified the major and minor
course outcomes and so the overall course score directly reflects the respective major course outcomes,
b, c, d and e.
Learning Outcome No. 4 – Capstone Lab Outcomes and External Project Assessments
Refer to Figure 3. Students are clearly performing above the target rubric level against all criteria. Final
course presentations are assessed by a panel of judges that typically include faculty from within CHE but
other than the instructor, faculty from within TTU, but other than CHE and invited reviewers from industry.
Reviewer’s score against a rubric that explicitly identified the major and minor course outcomes and so
the overall course score directly reflects the respective major course outcomes, b, c, d and e.
Figure 3. Plot of Overall Performance metric as a function of time (academic year) for each major
assessment criterion3.
Summary of Course-Level Continuous Improvement
Refer to Table 3: Changes since 2008 in CHE 4240 primarily reflect revision of the CHE curriculum
particularly revision of the Program Objectives/Goals as of 2008 which state that our graduates will be
“real-world problem solvers.” To this end, the course not only emphasizes experimental design, but
incorporates elements of equipment design, improvement and/or modification for a targeted purpose.
Departmental facilities for this reason are deliberately general-purpose and are frequently reconfigured by
3
Since there was a consistent meeting of targets, in 2009 was decided to collect data every two years. The next
period will be reporting data for 2013.
student teams to serve the purpose of their experiment. Elements of proposing, safety and application
are included in all assessments and are directly mapped to the Departmental Outcomes/Goals to develop
real-world problem solving and critical thinking skills.
One element that is particularly deficient at this time is computer related real-time data acquisition and
control. At the Department moves towards complete deployment of its mobile learning environment
(MoLE-SI), a strategy to enhance laboratory facilities to incorporate general-purpose instrumentation
toolkits will be investigated. At this time, significant investment in Vernier instrumentation has been made
including instrumentation kits for temperature, CO 2 and humidity analysis have been made. A much
broader range of instruments are also available to our students through the extensive investment in the
TTU Oakley STEM Center. Utilization of more of these instruments is a priority action for 2013 and
beyond.
Table 3. Overall Performance metric as a function of time for each major course criterion.
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Overall Performance
Outcome a Knowledge
Rubric
70
70
70
70
70
70
Student Performance
100
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Performance Indicator
1.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Outcome b Experimentation
Rubric
70
70
70
70
70
70
Student Performance
90
95
97
NA
89
NA
Performance Indicator
1.3
1.4
1.4
NA
1.3
NA
Outcome c Design
Rubric
70
70
70
Student Performance
NA
99
97
Performance Indicator
NA
1.4
1.4
70
0.0
70
70
89
NA
1.3
NA
Outcome d Teams
Rubric
70
70
70
70
70
70
Student Performance
89
94
97
NA
88
NA
Performance Indicator
1.3
1.3
1.4
NA
1.3
NA
Outcome e Formulation
Rubric
70
70
70
70
70
70
Student Performance
NA
93
97
NA
87
NA
Performance Indicator
NA
1.3
1.4
NA
1.2
NA
Outcome g Communication
Rubric
70
70
70
70
70
70
Student Performance
89
93
96
NA
87
NA
Performance Indicator
1.3
1.3
1.4
NA
1.2
NA
Outcome k Tools
Rubric
70
70
70
70
70
70
Student Performance
89
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Performance Indicator
1.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Learning Outcome No. 5 – Course-Level (Assessments) of Selected Courses.
Course-level assessments are detailed in the CLACIR reports filed at the end of every term in which they
are taught and in the three-year Overview reports. The following are summaries for each of the relevant
courses assessed during this period. These courses are selected to complement AT 3 and AT 4. The
Department uses a blend of both quantitative, qualitative assessments to learn about student
performance and trends and propose improvement action for the program.
CHE 2011: Chemical and Biomolecular Process Analysis – The responsible faculty provided exams or
projects that were explicitly assessed for content on Learning Outcome, b, e and f. Learning Outcome f
was added as a major criterion in 2010 as the result of continuous improvement feedback.
Refer to Figure 4 (a) & (b): Student performance for CHE 2011 is indicated in the form of an “achievement
indicator” computed and plotted as a function of time (academic year). The achievement indicator is the
extent to which course rubric scores were met. An achievement indicator of 1.0 indicates that the class’
mean score on that criterion meets the rubric. The following figures suggest that while the average
student performance (Overall Performance) hovering at about the rubric, the individual student
achievement (Overall Achievement) has changes significantly since 2006. As a result of the observed
below rubric performance in 2006, significant course modifications were made, particularly to improve
student performance against Learning Outcome e (problem formulation and solution). Since 2006, good
progress has been made to improve student achievement, see discussion below, Summary of CourseLevel Continuous Improvement.
1.6
Desired Minimum Performance Level
Overall Performance
1.4
1.2
1.0
Criterion 3b
0.8
Criterion 3e
0.6
Criterion 3f
0.4
0.2
0.0
2006
2007
2008
2009
Academic Year
(a)
2010
2011
1.6
1.4
Desired Minimum Performance Level
Overall Achievement
1.2
1.0
Criterion 3b
0.8
Criterion 3e
0.6
Criterion 3f
0.4
0.2
0.0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Academic Year
(b)
Figure 4. Overall performance (a) and achievement (b) of students in CHE 2011
measured against course rubrics for ABET Learning Outcomes b, e and f 4.
CHE 3121- Transfer Science II: Fluid Mechanics: During the period 2011-2012, the Department
conducted review of this courses by using two different type of assessment: a- For the Spring 2011
Quantitative (Please see CHE 3121 Report of Results, Appendix) and b- For the Spring 2012, the
Department Implemented a “Qualitative Assessment” in order to determine students reception to the new
approach the High Performance Learning Environment Approach, Hi-PeLE. Please see Figure 2
Appendix for a brief overview about the Hi-PeLE Learning and Thinking System. Below (see Table 4), a
brief summary of results can be found: For more details, see Attachment V, Appendix.
Quantitative:
Table 4: Summary of Results for ChE 3121 (Spring 2011). Further Details are included in the Appendix
Course Outcomes (Rubric)
Outcome
a
b
c
d
e
Course
(68%-100%) 99% 100% 99% 100% 99%
Averaged
f
g
h
i
j
k
85% 99%
The course performed in the average score range of 68%-100% with a general average of 84%. The
general performance is considered uniform across program outcomes with a difference of 1% between
the highest scores. The exception is criterion 3j “knowledge of contemporary issues” that is 4 points
below the nearest score. This may indicate that more examples during lecture should be included and
4
The faculty decided to modify the transport sequence and implement this new sequence before collecting
additional data. The implementation with the data collection will start in 2013 and it will be reported in the next
cycle (see Section VI).
better assessment need to be planned. With this only exception the general performance is well balanced
across criteria.
This year several project experiences were introduced to integrate lab and lecture in a more consistent
and progressive way. These actions seem to work very well with the set of accumulative assessment
utilized. Notice that criteria b and e have nearly perfect scores in the average.
This semester it was formally required to demonstrate the use of modern tools in the form of the software
COMSOL Multiphysics. Theoretical models were run against experimental results for comparison and
analysis. Team work is mandatory in this course and continues to be an important practice as requested
the BOA (2001-2006). Results were closely monitored in extra class sessions. New software and
applications were introduced to demonstrate modern engineering practices. This course used classroom
environment defined under the MOLE-SI project (see Section VI) and implemented for the first time active
learning techniques to integrate lab and lecture.
Qualitative5:
The case study was centered on the use of Hi-PeLE Learning and Thinking Systems (see Figure 2,
Appendx) to understand better the student’s perception of the approach since the Department is working
to the implementation in all courses of the curriculum. The major findings of this study are summarized as
follows:
a- Students, in general, seem to find the Hi-PeLE Approach very helpful and effective in educating
them on innovation-based approaches for technology-based disciplines.
b- Students seem to be supportive of a more general implementation provided that such
implementation start early in the program and advances progressively in the curriculum.
c- Students recommended training all faculty of the department in order for the implementation to
become effective.
CHE 4210: Chemical Reaction Engineering: This is a very important course for the ChE Curriculum.
Quantitative Assessment for 2011 and 2012 are included below: The required elements of this course
were scored in accordance with the grading proportions: (2011) 90 minute exam (2x) 35%; Final exam
20%; Homework 20%; Project/Labs 20%; Attendance 5% and (2012) Quizzes 20%; 90 minute exam
(x2) 30%; Final Exam 20%, Homework 5%; Porjects/Labs 20% and Attendance 5%. Statistical analyses
of the normalized student grade distributions are as follows:
Fall 2011: Please see Figure 5, below. The performance target of >70% for each element was met by the
majority of the class. The notable exceptions were the outliers in the homework element and the large
grade distribution from the final. For major Criterion 3.b, c and f the students were required to perform two
labs, as illustrated by the lab report rubrics above (5.1). Requirements for the labs included (1) managing
the team dynamic, (2) literature search, (3) pre-lab write up, (4) development of lab procedure, (5) safety
assessment, (6) maintaining a lab notebook, (7) perform experiment, (8) final presentation to class, and
(9) report. The 1st lab, in which the students made fudge as a team, was intended to allow the students to
interact with one another, access each other’s lab skills and critical thinking ability. For the 2nd lab, each
team performed an experiment addressing some critical aspect of reaction kinetics. The peer results track
well with those of the course instructor. The students final lab scores are >70%. Criterion 3.c (an ability to
design a system, components, or process to meat desired needs within realistic constraints such as
economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability)
is illustrated below:
5
This study constituted the basis a Master Science Thesis in Curriculum and Instruction: See Lacy Loggins, Master
Degree in Curriculum and Instruction, TTU, 2012.
The targeted minimum of 70% for the 1st quartile in the boxplots was met for the stoichiometric analysis
(Q1-0.75, Avg-0.85) and was slightly below for the temperature dependant Van’t Hoff problem (Q1-0.675,
Avg-0.825). The batch reactor problem showed that the majority of the class understood the system well
(Avg-1), while some students did not grasp the concept (Q1-0.5).
Figure 5: Results for ChE 4210: Chemical Reaction Eng. (2011)
Fall 2012: Statistical analyses of the normalized student grade distributions are shown in Figure 6 below.
The performance target of >70% for each element was met by the majority of the class. The notable
exceptions were the outliers in the homework element and the large grade distribution from the final. For
major Criterion 3.b, c and f the students were required to perform two labs, as illustrated by the lab report
rubrics. Requirements for the labs included (1) managing the team dynamic, (2) literature search, (3) prelab write up, (4) development of lab procedure, (5) safety assessment, (6) maintaining a lab notebook, (7)
perform experiment, (8) final presentation to class, and (9) report. The 1st lab, in which the students
made fudge as a team, was intended to allow the students to interact with one another, access each
other’s lab skills and critical thinking ability. For the 2nd lab, each team performed an experiment
addressing some critical aspect of reaction kinetics. The students final lab scores are >70%.
Figure 6 Results for the ChE 4210; Chemical Reaction Eng. (2012)
Criterion 3.c (an ability to design a system, components, or process to meat desired needs within realistic
constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety,
manufacturability, and sustainability) is illustrated in Figure YY, below. The targeted minimum of 70% for
the 1st quartile in the boxplots was not met for the stoichiometric analysis in 2012 (Q12010-0.7, Q120110.78, and Q12012-0.625). However, improvements were observed for the batch reactor and temperature
dependent Van’t Hoff problem; (Q12010-0.5, Q12011-0.63, and Q12012-0.75) and (Q12010-0.6,
Q12011-0.74, and Q12012-0.89), respectively.
Figure 7: Tracking Results for Criterion 3c-Design (2010-2012)
Learning Outcome No. 6 – Co-op Performance Assessments
Every semester, 5-10 % of students from TTU’s Chemical Engineering department are involved in
the co-op program. After each term, the employers are required to assess their student’s performance
against a series of metrics that correlate to the ABET Learning Outcomes. The assessments from 2008 to
2012 were tabulated and analyzed to find trends in the various categories and with respect to time refer to
Attachment IV for detailed summary of Co-op Assessment data. The results of this analysis show no
appreciable change with time, but that the scores were fairly consistent for the last four year assessment
period. The highest scoring categories were in “demonstrate the ability to work independently” and “work
effectively with other employees,” showing students consistent ability to work both on their own and in
teams. Overall, the scores were above our rubric target of 4.0 at a 4.14 average, with 1 being the lowest
and 5 being the highest. These results suggest that, in general, employers agree that Chemical
Engineering students in the co-op program are meeting the ABET Learning Outcomes criteria.
Learning Outcome No. 7 – Critical Thinking Assessment Test (CAT)
Students taking CHE 2011, Introduction to Chemical and Biological Engineering Analysis, in 2009 and
2010 were assessed for critical thinking skills as part of Learning Outcome No. (7). At the same time, as
part of CHE’s continuous improvement process based on the ABET 2008 self-study findings, CHE
implemented new critical thinking skills activities in CHE 2011 and the Mobil Learning Environment
System Infrastructure MoLE-SI, a mobile computer platform that enables the CHE faculty to seamlessly
integrate computer-based learning with their Hi-PeLE (High Performance Learning Environment)
classroom and laboratory activities. Of particular interest to CHE was the impact that the MoLE-SI
platform could have in enhancing the learning process, more specifically critical thinking skills. Thus, the
TTU developed Critical Thinking Assessment Exam (CAT) was used as an assessment instrument 6.
6
TTU-CAT-TEST: http://www.tntech.edu/cat/home/.
The CAT Instrument is designed to assess a broad range of skills that faculty across the country feel are
important components of critical thinking and real world problem solving. The test, designed to be
interesting and engaging for students, has question, all of which are derived from real world situations.
Most of the questions require short answer essay responses and a detailed scoring guide, grader training
and multiple graders helps insure good scoring reliability. While various assessment designs are possible,
a pre and post exam strategy was used in this 2009-2010 CHE pilot study. Notably, post-course
outcomes are null when no critical thinking skills are improved, i.e. learning the course subject matter is
irrelevant to the outcome.
Prior to the pre- and post-CAT tests, 38 students were introduced to critical thinking workshops and
activities. After these activities, a pre-CAT exam was given. MoLE-SI was introduced to the students
afterwards and used to include technology as a tool for problem solving during class sessions. At the
very end of the term, the group was again assessed for critical thinking skills using the TTU CAT Exam
(post-exam). An additional control group of 26 students who was not exposed to the MoLE-SI learning
environment, post-course only, was also assed for their critical thinking skills. The study resulted in the
experimental test group having statistically significant improvement in critical thinking skills at a moderate
level. The experimental group also scored better than control group, but not at the 95% confidence level.
While the mobile aspects (very appealing to students) of MoLE-SI over traditional models (where fixed
computer laboratories are the key environment used) were a major driving force behind the initiative,
there are other motivations related to improving of students’ learning efficiency. Also, the scalability of
MoLE-SI that could facilitate a future expansion of the model to other areas of the college or even
campus-wide and the adoption/use of MoLE-SI for facilitating distance learning and collaborative-based
learning courses are all excellent motivations. All of these characteristics could help enable the 21 st
Century Renaissance Engineers Mission and Vision of the TTU College of Engineering. Other benefits
include the possibility to foster a green culture among students with a wireless and paperless
environment that will help foster environmental sensitivity among students.
VI. Modifications and Continuing Improvement: Program Changes due
to Assessments.
Here actions taken for Improvement of the Program Educational Objectives (1-4) and Student Outcomes
(a-k) are discussed. In general, the overall message of the data for the different assessment tools
indicates at a minimum that a level of “Satisfactory” has been attained for all Program Educational
Objectives and Student Learning Objectives. However, these same tools also indicated a number of
areas that will benefit with possible program improvement during this time period, which will now be
addressed in this section. For clarity of discussion, the actions have been grouped into the following
“Improvement Categories”, which have been numbered I thru IV for identification/reference purposes
only:




Improvement Category I: Actions taken in order to Increase Diversity of (Technical) Learning
Opportunities for Students.
Improvement Category II: Actions Taken in order to Increase the Critical Thinking Skills in
Students.
Improvement Category III. Action taken to expand the ability of student to work at the Frontier in
Chemical Engineering.
Improvement Category IV: Actions taken to increase the use of Technology-based Methods.
Improvement Category I: Actions taken in order to Increase Diversity of Learning Opportunities for
Students.
Description: In the previous cycle and based on feedback for the ChE BOA and Chair Briefs from Seniors
indicated that students have concerned about the technical learning opportunities. Student’s feeling was
that the program lack of formal and informal opportunities for “current” technological areas of relevance in
the market. Monitoring of the situation by using the same assessment tools and feedback indicated that
students still needed more diversified options.
Action 1: Based on this feedback the Department conducted an in depth study and select the
“Biomolecular Engineering Concentration” for implementation in 2007. The impact of this implementation
can be seen in the figure below.
ChE Fall Enrollment
300
258
250
200
150
BS
MS
100
74
PhD
50
20
0
11
13
0
2002
6
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
Figure 8- Enrollment Progression in the Undergraduate and Graduate
Program in Chemical Engineering (2002-2012).
As mentioned above, the concentration started in 2007 with one student. Currently the concentration
enrolled 85+ students being the fastest growing concentration within the College of Engineering and the
only one of this type within the State of Tennessee. All Program Educational Objectives and Student
Learning Objectives are the same as described for the BS- Chemical Engineering and the students
received the transcript with the name “Concentration in Biomolecular Engineering,” i.e. BIOMOL
Concentration. The impact of this concentration is clearly seen in the enrollment of the undergraduate
program shown in Figure XX, below. Chemical Engineering has increased the enrolment in approximately
247% from the year 2002. There is a clear inflection point at the time of the implementation of the
BIOMOL Concentration. The figure also shows the strategy used by the department to maintain the
enrollment of graduate students by focusing on the PhD and de-emphasizing the MS. This approach has
helped with the reduced number of permanent faculty that the department has. This concentration has an
important effect in students enrolled in undergraduate research (approximately 10% of the students are
conducting research within the different groups directed by faculty). See additional remarks in section VI
of the report.
Action 2: The presence of the BIOMOL Concentration allows the offering of the ChE 4661 Biotransport
Processes and this was also implemented as a “Senior Elective” of both concentrations, i.e. the regular
and the BIOMOL concentrations. Recent evaluations of the course indicated high acceptance and
excellent performance of the students.
Improvement Category II: Actions Taken in order to Increase the Critical Thinking Skills in Students.
Description: Results related to the ChE 2011 indicate an improvement towards the target; however the
analysis of the exam’s results and projects evaluation indicate a potential lack of critical thinking skills.
This type of indication was found also in ChE 4410 and ChE 4420, particularly in the selection of project
design conditions.
Action 1: A group of faculty conducted a “coordination study” among different courses and the sequence
that is shown below was selected as a potential group of courses to monitor and assess in order to
improve critical thinking skills.





Transfer Science 0: Calculus-based mass balance
Transfer Science I: Radiation and Diffusive Heat Transfer
Transfer Science II: Fluid Mechanics
Transfer Science III: Mass and Combined Transport Processes
Transfer Science IV: Chemical Reaction Engineering
This effort is view as well as part of the continuous improving efforts in the Chemical Engineering
program. This is a new and more pedagogically coordinated sequence for the transport phenomena used
in a chemical engineering program. This provides a very “student learning-center” platform and
preliminary feedback from the students seems to be quite welcomed by them 7. Notably, the transfer
Science “0” and Transfer Science IV: Chemical Reaction Engineering are now part of this new integrated
sequence. Also, the improvement in the assessment tool for ChE 2011 could be related to this improved
sequence.
Action 2: The Department of Chemical Engineering Faculty based on analysis of data for the ChE 2011:
Transfer Science “0” (See Section V). This results led to the study, discussion and agreement by the
faculty to modified both ChE 1510 (Computer Experiences), ENGR 1210, and ChE 2011 to a new subsequence of two 3 credits courses that has now a “progressive” approach to the introduction of students
to the “Transfer of Knowledge” from math and physics courses . The new modified courses are shown
below in Table 5:
Table 5: New sequence of courses to better integrate students into the Chemical Engineering
Curriculum: “Transfer of Knowledge Skills” is the key behind this new sequence .
Existing Course
Credit Hours
ENGR 1210 – Intro to
Engineering
1
New Course
Credit Hours
3 (2 + 1 lab)
3 (2 + 1 lab)
CHE 1510 – Computer
Applications in Chemical
Engineering
1 (1 lab)
CHE 1510 – Chemical and
Biological Engineering
Analysis and Scaling I
CHE 2011 – Intro to
Chemical and Biological
Engineering Analysis
4 (3 + 1 lab)
CHE 2011 – Chemical and
Biological Engineering
Analysis and Scaling II
Totals
6
6
The New (Modified) Transport Sequence will be implemented starting in Fall 2013 and Assessment data
will be collected for analysis and identification of improvement options/actions.
7
The department conducts periodically direct debriefing with students of the different courses involved in the sequence and a formal
“qualitative study” (conducted by a MS Student in Education) was performed in Spring 2012. Results indicated a very favorable
reception by students of the Transfer Science II: Fluid Mechanic Course. (Please see Lacy Loggins, MS Thesis, Office of Research
and Graduate Studies, TTU, 2012 Graduation). A quantitative study is being conducted (Spring 2013) for the ChE 1510 in order to
assess performance of the students based on different learning approaches. This study is in collaboration with the TTU Department
of Curriculum Instruction. ChE 1510 is the “feeder” to the Transfer of Science Sequence shown above.
Improvement Category III: Action taken to expand the ability of student to work at the Frontier in Chemical
Engineering.
Description: The Dpt. of Chemical Engineering Program Educational Objectives focuses on three pillars
for the education of the future chemical engineers, i.e. hands-on, team-based learning and critical thinking
approaches. Strong support from the ChE BOA and feedback from employers indicated the important role
played by these three pillars. After discussion and analysis the following actions were selected to
enhance the quality of these three pillars.
Action 1: The department has developed an anchoring pedagogical model for increasing critical thinking
skills, hands-on, and team-based learning approaches, i.e.
the High Performance Learning
Environments (Hi-PeLE) System (see Figure 2, Appendix); this was highlighted by the National Science
Foundation during one of the ERC-NSF Annual Meeting (2009) as one of the best practices in place to
achieve engineers along the lines of the NAE 2020 Model 8. The department selected three key courses to
start implementing this system: ChE 2011; ChE 3111; and ChE 3121. In addition, ChE 4661 was also
added as a testing course representative of the “Technical Electives”. The assessment of the IDEA
evaluation data, for example, for the CHE4661 Course is shown below:
As summarized in Table 6, the diagnostics indicated that the course activities typically led to “higher” or
“much higher” scores in these areas when comparisons were made to 1) all courses in the IDEA
Database, 2) “classes [in the IDEA Database] in the same broad discipline as this class” (IDEA
Discipline), and 3) “with all classes that used IDEA at your institution” (TTU column). In summary, this set
of data show a promising trend in the various aspects critically important for the Program Educational
Objectives, i.e. Critical Thinking Skills, Resourceful Skills, and Team-Based learning skills. It is also
important that students taking this course were also part of the transport sequence indicated in Action 1 of
Improvement Category II, above9
Improvement Category IV: Actions taken to increase the use of Technology-based Methods.
Description: During this period, the Chair of the Department during debriefing the students (see Section
V) found that they were not pleased with the current (at that time) computational facility. Lack of computer
spaces (in the fixed ChE computer lab) and insufficient access to required software were cited as key
problems. In order to address these concerns, the Department of Chemical Engineering took the following
action.
Action 1: Development and Implementation of a new Mobile Learning System Infra-Structure (MoLE-SI,
see Figure 9) to increase the use of advance technology in the delivering methods as well as to increase
the access to advance software. This platform is unique within the USA College of Engineering and, to
the best of our knowledge; the first one of this type. The platform has three key elements identified in the
figure below:
The platform was entirely developed in Chemical Engineering and now has been implemented across the
program. In addition, the department of Electrical and Computer Engineering and the Department of
Engineering technology at TTU are implementing this platform. The assessment indicate in the CAT AT of
Section V indicate a very favorable increase in the critical thinking skills and recent debriefing of students
indicate that MoLE-SI has resolved all the concerns related to computer applications.
8
Please see P. E. Arce, “The Composer-Style Engineer: A New Paradigm in Engineering Education” at:
http://www.erc-assoc.org/annmtg/2009_meeting_files/BSIII%20Educating%20Arce.pdf
9
The Team-based skill aspects were analyzed further in an invited presentation at the ASEE National Meeting held
in Vancouver, CA (See J. Biernacki, ASEE National Proceedings).
Table 6. Summary of Adjusted Scores from Select Evaluation Items
on IDEA-Based Evaluation of Biotransport Course10
Progress
IDEA
IDEA
IDEA Assessment Item
Database
Discipline
Score
25. Acquiring skills in working
with others as a member of
a team
26. Developing creative
capacities (writing,
inventing, designing,
performing in art, music,
drama, etc.)
29. Learning how to find and
use resources for
answering questions or
solving problems
31. Learning to analyze and
critically evaluate ideas,
arguments, and points of
view
10
60
4.6
Higher
55
4.2
Similar
62
4.4
Higher
62
4.6
Higher
63
Much
higher
63
Much
higher
66
TTU
61
Higher
56
Higher
59
Much
higher
Higher
71
63
Much
higher
Much
higher
Please see R. Sanders et. al. Journal of Chemical Engineering Education (2012, Revised draft in progress).
Figure 9: Key Elements of the MoLE-SI Computational Platform
Appendix
Table 1: Mapping of Different Courses to Student Outcomes.
Figure 1a-f: FE Results for Subject Specific
Figure 2: Hi-PeLE Learning and Thinking System.
Attachment I: Letter Sent to Alumni for Requesting Survey Input
Attachment II: Alumni Survey 2008-2012 ABET Assessment Period
Attachment III: Employer Survey 2008-2012 ABET Assessment Period
Attachment IV: Co-op Assessment Results 2008-2012 ABET Assessment Period
Attachment V: Course-Level Assessment and Continuous Improvement Report (ChE
3121, 2011).
Table 1. Analysis of course content for Student Outcomes. [Currently being used].
Course
No.
Description
Required/
Elective
(R/E)
CHE 2011 Chem and Biol Eng. Anal (JJB)
Thermo of Chem. Proc. (HS)*
CHE 3010
CHE 3111
Cond., Rad., Diff. (RS)*
CHE 3121
Fluid Dynamics (PEA)
CHE 4210
Kinetics (CR-Y)
CHE 4240
Capstone Lab (HS)
CHE 4410
Capstone Design I (JJB)
CHE 4420
Capstone Design II (JJB)
CHE 4910
Senior Seminar (RS)*
1
Life-long-learning
2
Contemporary issues
*Courses not used for mid-term reporting purposes
Red
Blue
Orange
Purple
Orange, Accent 6
Yellow
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
a Know
b Exp.
c Design
d Teams
e Formulate
f Ethics
a
Kno
w.
m
m
m
m
b
Exp.
M
M
M
m
M
m
m
c
Desi
gn
m
M
M
M
M
Light Green
Dark Red
Light Blue
Dark Blue
Grey
Mapping to Student Outcomes*
d
e
f
g
h
i1
Tea Formu Ethi Com Glob LL
ms
late
cs
m.
al
L
m
M
m
M
m
m
M
M
m
m
m
M
M
m
m
M
M
m
m
M
M
M
m
m
M
M
m
m
g Comm.
h Global
i1LLL
j2 Cont.
k Tools
j2
Cont
.
k
Tools
m
m
m
m
m
M
M
m
Figure 1a. FE Exam results for CHE TTU students, morning portion (am), for mathematics, statistics, chemistry and computer
Figure 1b. FE Exam results for CHE TTU students, morning portion (am), for ethics, engineering economics, mechanics and strength
of materials, Series 1 is TTU CHE Student Performance, Series 2 is the National Average.
Figure 1c. FE Exam results for CHE TTU students, morning portion (am), for material properties, fluid mechanics, electricity and
magnetism and thermodynamics, Series 1 is TTU CHE Student Performance, Series 2 is the National Average.
Figure 1d. FE Exam results for CHE TTU students, afternoon portion (pm), for material properties, fluid mechanics, electricity and
magnetism and thermodynamics, Series 1 is TTU CHE Student Performance, Series 2 is the National Average.
Figure 1e. FE Exam results for CHE TTU students, afternoon portion (pm), for material properties, fluid mechanics, electricity and
magnetism and thermodynamics, Series 1 is TTU CHE Student Performance, Series 2 is the National Average.
Figure 1f. FE Exam results for CHE TTU students, afternoon portion (pm), for material properties, fluid mechanics, electricity and
magnetism and thermodynamics, Series 1 is TTU CHE Student Performance, Series 2 is the National Average.
Attachment I
Tennessee Tech
UNIVERSITY
College of Engineering  Department of Chemical Engineering
Box 5013  Cookeville, TN 38505-0001  (931-372-3297  Fax (931-372-6352
January 5, 2012
Dear CHE Graduate:
Once every three years, the Department of Chemical Engineering at Tennessee Technological
University (TTU) is obligated to survey our alumni for accreditation assessment purposes. This
assessment cycle we must survey alumni that graduated between 2003 and 2007, you are among
a list of 83 that meet this criterion. Please take a bit of time to respond to this important survey
even if you responded once before.
Why should you bother with this survey? Accreditation is extremely important to our current
students, future students and our alumni. Accreditation is a “seal of approval” that says that our
program meets standards that are required for Professional Engineering Licensure, employment
in some cases and graduate schools in many cases, for example. ABET, the accreditation agency
in the United States, mandates that engineering programs prove that their graduates meet selfdefined Program Educational Objectives. Our Program Education Objectives state that:
Within roughly five to seven years our graduate population will collectively exhibit the following
traits:

Be real-world problem solvers (RWPS): the graduates of our program will obtain
positions such as plant process engineer, design engineer, group leader, production
engineering, sales engineer.

Be critical thinkers (CT): the graduates of our program will demonstrate that they
consistently make informed decisions through a process wherein they utilize critical
thinking skills.

Have continued their formal education (CFE): our graduates will demonstrate that
they have continued their education beyond the BS through some form of professional
development (not necessarily leading to another degree) or will have graduated from a
professional school with an MS, PhD, MD, JD or similar degree.

Be working at the frontiers in ChE (FChE): graduates from our program will utilize
and apply technologies such as bio materials, nano- and micro-systems, multi-scale
analysis, informatics, group dynamics and, multi-media.
We have design a survey to help to distinguish if we are meeting these objectives. Without your
assistance, we have no way to assess our performance. There are two things we need you to do:
1. Go to the following web link and complete the Alumni Survey:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/D2222VL
We need your input by February 7, 2012. Your response is anonymous.
2. Give a copy of this e-mail to your immediate supervisor and request that he/she
completes the Employer Survey as well. Explain how important this activity is and
follow-up to be sure that it gets done. We need your help. The Employer Survey is
found at:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/D2KXX7D
We need their input by February 7, 2012. Their response is anonymous, does not indicate
their company name or your name.
All is well here, we have made many milestones these past few year. We are now averaging
about 220 undergraduate students in Chemical Engineering, our students continue to command
jobs with top companies and we are actively implementing new strategies for improving Student
Outcomes including our new Mobile Learning Environment-Systems Infrastructure (MoLE-SI),
a Chemical Engineering lead initiative that allows all of our students to access engineering
software anywhere that a wireless connection is available. To read more exciting news about
Chemical Engineering at TTU, visit us at: http://www.tntech.edu/che/home/.
Thank you for taking a bit of time to help us out.
Best wishes for the New Year,
Joseph J. Biernacki, DRE, PE
Professor and University Distinguished Faculty Fellow
Department of Chemical Engineering ABET Coordinator
Attachment II
Alumni Survey 2008-2012 ABET Assessment Period
KN
Mapping to PEO
Question No. RWPS CT
CE
ChEF
a
EXP DSN
b
c
TM FRM ETH COM GBL LLL CNT TLS
d
Mapping to PO
e
f
g
h
Rubric
i
j
Score
k
Response
Rate
About Real World Problem Solving
Since graduateion I have held a job that might be described as (pick as many as apply):
Question No. RWPS
CT
CE
ChEF
a
KN
1
b
c
EXP DSN
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
Rate
TM FRM ETH COM GBL LLL CNT TLS
X
>75%
82%
Have you received any recognition (i.e. award, promotion, bonus) for a problem solving effort?
Question No. RWPS CT
CE
ChEF a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
KN
2
EXP DSN
>25
CT
Rate
TM FRM ETH COM GBL LLL CNT TLS
X
Question No. RWPS
65%
When addressing my job duties I routinely (select as many as apply):
CE
ChEF a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
KN
3.1
X
3.2
X
3.3
X
3.4
X
3.5
X
3.6
X
3.7
X
3.8
X
3.9
X
3.10
X
3.11
X
3.12
X
X
3.13
X
X
3.14
X
3.15
X
3.16
X
3.17
X
EXP DSN
17:17
Yes (please explain, i.e. award, promotion, bonus), No
Rate
TM FRM ETH COM GBL LLL CNT TLS
X
<25%
47%
17:17
>75%
88%
17:17
X
>75%
47%
17:17
X
>75%
47%
17:17
<25%
77%
17:17
>75%
41%
17:17
X
>75%
77%
17:17
X
>75%
88%
17:17
X
>75%
59%
17:17
X
>75%
18%
17:17
X
>75%
88%
17:17
X
>75%
71%
17:17
X
>75%
65%
17:17
>75%
71%
17:17
<25%
35%
17:17
<25%
18%
17:17
>50
24%
17:17
X
X
X
X
14:17
Process EngineerDesign Engineering; Group Leader; Production Engineer; Sales
Engineer; Plant Manager; Project Engineer; Research Engineering; Research Scientist;
Quality Engineering; Quality Manager; Senior Engineer; Lawyer; Medical Doctor; other
(define)
X
X
X
Do data/information gathering with little analysis
Use my science, mathematics and engineering skills
Design processes, systems or devices
Do creative work (i.e. invent, imagine, establish a vision, etc.)
Arriving at conclusions through a process of elimination
Manage people
Formulate or define a project, problem or process
Formulate a solution strategy
Analyze experimental or process data
Design experiments
Draw conclusions based on reason and evidence
Use literature or other archival resources
Extend my knowledge into new contexts or learning new things
Use computational resources (i.e. computer models)
Find others who can solve problems for me
Sell products to other
Consider how decisions relate to relevant issues in the news
Based on the requirements of your job, indicate the level of value you place on your T T U CHE training in the following areas:
Question No. RWPS
CT
CE
ChEF
a
KN
4.1
X
4.2
X
4.3
X
4.4
X
4.5
X
4.6
X
4.7
X
4.8
X
4.9
X
4.10
X
4.11
X
4.12
X
4.13
X
4.14
X
4.15
X
4.16
X
4.17
X
4.18
X
4.19
X
4.20
X
4.21
X
4.22
X
4.23
X
4.24
X
4.25
X
4.26
X
4.27
X
4.28
X
4.29
X
4.30
X
4.31
X
4.32
X
4.33
X
b
c
EXP DSN
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
X
4
4.47
17:17
4
3.47
17:17
NA
3.12
17:17
4
3.76
17:17
NA
2.24
17:17
4
4.35
17:17
4
4.29
17:17
4
4.18
17:17
4
4.06
17:17
NA
3.12
17:17
4
3.00
17:17
4
3.88
17:17
4
3.18
17:17
4
4.06
17:17
4
3.53
17:17
4
3.82
17:17
X
4
3.88
17:17
X
4
4.06
17:17
X
4
4.35
17:17
X
4
4.24
17:17
4
4.24
17:17
4
4.12
17:17
3
3.00
16:17
4
4.35
17:17
4
4.00
17:17
NA
4.18
17:17
3
3.35
17:17
NA
3.71
17:17
4
4.41
17:17
4
4.35
17:17
4
4.18
17:17
4
3.41
17:17
4
4.12
17:17
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Rate
TM FRM ETH COM GBL LLL CNT TLS
X
X
Knowledge of science, mathematics and engineering principles
Experimental design and analysis
The Humanities (literature, writing, speech, etc.)
Design of processes, systems or devices
The arts
Teamwork
Formulation of problems and methodologies
Ethics
Communications
Social and Behavioral Sciences
Global and societal contexts
Life-long-learning
Contemporary issues
Computers and related technologies (tools)
Broad general subject mater
Professional work-related skills
Articulating yourself using the written language
Articulating yourself orally
Thinking critically and analytically
Being quantitative when analyzing problems
Using computers and information technology
Working with others
Voting, locally, state or nationally
Learning independently and effectively
Solving real-world problems
Developing personal ethics and values
Contributing to your community
Practical skills necessary to obtain employment
Defining and solving problems
Working cooperatively in a group
Ability to understand mathematical concepts
Understanding global environmental concerns
Understanding/applying scientific principles and methods
Based on the requirements of your job, indicate the extent to which you feel that your training at T T U has prepared you in the following areas:
Question No. RWPS
CT
CE
ChEF
a
KN
5.1
X
5.2
X
5.3
X
5.4
X
5.5
X
5.6
X
5.7
X
5.8
X
5.9
X
5.10
X
5.11
X
5.12
X
5.13
X
5.14
X
5.15
X
5.16
X
5.17
X
5.18
X
5.19
X
5.20
X
5.21
X
5.22
X
5.23
X
5.24
X
5.25
X
5.26
X
5.27
X
5.28
X
5.29
X
5.30
X
5.31
X
5.32
X
5.33
X
b
c
EXP DSN
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
X
4
4.47
17:17
4
4
17:17
NA
3.76
17:17
4
3.76
17:17
NA
3
16:17
4
4.44
16:17
4
4.29
17:17
4
4.06
17:17
4
4.12
17:17
NA
3.53
17:17
4
3.24
17:17
4
4.18
17:17
4
3.41
17:17
4
4.29
17:17
4
3.65
17:17
4
4.06
17:17
X
4
4.18
17:17
X
4
4.18
17:17
X
4
4.41
17:17
X
4
4.35
17:17
4
4.41
17:17
4
4.53
17:17
3
2.8
15:17
4
4.24
17:17
4
4
17:17
NA
4
16:17
3
3.41
17:17
NA
3.69
16:17
4
4.24
17:17
4
4.44
16:17
4
4.41
17:17
4
3.53
17:17
4
4.18
17:17
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Rate
TM FRM ETH COM GBL LLL CNT TLS
X
X
Knowledge of science, mathematics and engineering principles
Experimental design and analysis
The Humanities (literature, writing, speech, etc.)
Design of processes, systems or devices
The arts
Teamwork
Formulation of problems and methodologies
Ethics
Communications
Social and Behavioral Sciences
Global and societal contexts
Life-long-learning
Contemporary issues
Computers and related technologies (tools)
Broad general subject mater
Professional work-related skills
Articulating yourself using the written language
Articulating yourself orally
Thinking critically and analytically
Being quantitative when analyzing problems
Using computers and information technology
Working with others
Voting, locally, state or nationally
Learning independently and effectively
Solving real-world problems
Developing personal ethics and values
Contributing to your community
Practical skills necessary to obtain employment
Defining and solving problems
Working cooperatively in a group
Ability to understand mathematical concepts
Understanding global environmental concerns
Understanding/applying scientific principles and methods
About Communications
I am a confident speaker.
Question No. RWPS
CT
CE
ChEF
a
KN
b
c
EXP DSN
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
Rate
TM FRM ETH COM GBL LLL CNT TLS
6
X
4
4.18
51:51
4
4.29
51:51
Agree, disagree, neutral
I am a confident writer.
Question No. RWPS
CT
CE
ChEF
a
KN
b
c
EXP DSN
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
Rate
TM FRM ETH COM GBL LLL CNT TLS
7
X
Agree, disagree, neutral
How frequently are you required to give oral presentations:
Question No. RWPS
CT
CE
ChEF
a
KN
b
c
EXP DSN
d
e
f
8
Question No. RWPS
g
h
i
j
k
X
CT
Rate
TM FRM ETH COM GBL LLL CNT TLS
IO
53%M ONTHLY+
How frequently must you preprare any form of written communication?
CE
ChEF a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
KN
EXP DSN
51:51
Weekly, monthly, a few times a year, once a year or less
Rate
TM FRM ETH COM GBL LLL CNT TLS
9
X
IO
94%M ONTHLY+
51:51
Weekly, monthly, a few times a year, once a year or less
Formal written communications typically take the following forms (rank order).
Question No. RWPS
CT
CE
ChEF
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
Rate
10.1
X
IO
44%
16:17
Lengthy reports
10.2
X
IO
59%
16:17
One page executive summaries
10.3
X
IO
50%
16:17
Brief reports (2-5 pages)
10.4
X
IO
50%
16:17
business memos with minimal detail
When preparing an oral presentation I typically (select all that apply):
Question No. RWPS
CT
CE
ChEF
a
KN
b
c
EXP DSN
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
Rate
TM FRM ETH COM GBL LLL CNT TLS
11.1
X
>75%
88%
17:17
11.2
X
>75%
65%
17:17
11.3
X
<25%
24%
17:17
11.4
X
>75%
88%
17:17
11.5
X
<25%
6%
17:17
11.6
X
>75%
82%
17:17
11.7
X
<25%
35%
17:17
11.8
X
>75%
77%
17:17
11.9
X
<25%
0%
17:17
11.10
X
>75%
59%
17:17
11.11
X
>75%
82%
17:17
11.12
X
>75%
82%
17:17
11.13
X
<25%
35%
17:17
11.14
X
<25%
53%
17:17
11.15
X
NA
6%
17:17
11.16
X
<25%
29%
17:17
11.17
X
>75%
65%
17:17
Outline my thoughts and include an outline slide
Think about a title for my presentation
Detail the information on each slide so my audience has everything they need
Minimize the information on each slide (i.e. 2-4 thoughts in bullet form)
Use small but readable fonts permitting considerable detail on each slide
Use larger fonts with less information on each slide
Use detailed images for clarity
Use simple but illustrative images for clarity
Figure that I’ll spend about 15 seconds on each slide
Consider the length of time I have an allocate about 1 slide per minute
Think about how my presentation might be delivered beforehand
Think about how my presentation might be received beforehand
Use many fonts and colors to emphasize things
Use slideshow automation/animation for emphasis
Frequently include video or audio
Am nervous about presenting
Feel confident that I can be articulate
When preparing a written document I typically (select as many as apply):
Question No. RWPS
CT
CE
ChEF
a
KN
b
c
EXP DSN
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
Rate
TM FRM ETH COM GBL LLL CNT TLS
12.1
X
>75%
71%
17:17
12.2
X
<25%
12%
17:17
12.3
X
<25%
0%
17:17
12.4
X
>75%
100%
17:17
12.5
X
>75%
65%
17:17
12.6
X
<25
6%
17:17
12.7
X
<25%
12%
17:17
12.8
X
>75%
71%
17:17
Outline my thoughts before I begin
Procrastinate as long as possible before beginning
Wait until the last minute
Consider the audience I am writing to
Include an executive summary or abstract
Have writers block
Put all the detail into an appendix
Utilize a proof reader/editor
About Critical Thinking
When solving problems, I frequently utilize the following forms of inquiry to arrive at a solution (select as many as apply):
Question No. RWPS
CT
CE
ChEF
a
KN
13.1
X
13.2
X
13.3
X
X
13.4
X
X
13.5
X
13.6
X
13.7
X
13.8
b
c
EXP DSN
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
Rate
TM FRM ETH COM GBL LLL CNT TLS
X
>75%
100%
17:17
<25%
24%
17:17
<25%
41%
17:17
>75%
100%
17:17
>75%
88%
17:17
<25%
53%
17:17
X
<25%
53%
17:17
X
X
<25%
35%
17:17
13.9
X
X
<25%
12%
17:17
13.10
X
X
>75%
47%
17:17
13.11
X
>75%
100%
17:17
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ask questions [3b]
find someone who can figure things out
call a vender
use my base knowledge (of science, engineering or mathematics) [3a]
explore the evidence [3]
use my intuition or gut feelilngs
rely on the opinion of others
use trial and error
align with the consensus viewpoints
utilize statistical methods [3b]
use reason and logic [3b]
When solving problems, I frequently consider (select as many as apply):
Question No. RWPS
CT
CE
ChEF
a
KN
14.1
X
14.2
X
14.3
X
14.4
X
14.5
X
14.6
X
14.7
X
b
c
EXP DSN
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
Rate
TM FRM ETH COM GBL LLL CNT TLS
X
X
>75%
41%
17:17
<25%
59%
17:17
<25%
29%
17:17
>75%
100%
17:17
X
>75%
18%
17:17
X
>75%
29%
17:17
IO
47%
17:17
X
X
X
The global context (i.e. how decisions effect society) [3h]
How decisions may affect my career
How long it will take to get a correct answer
What additional information I might need [3i]
How decisions might related to things in the news [3j]
How a solution may impact on economics and the economy [3h, 3j]
The morality of a particular solution [3f]
When considering informqtion of any form, how frequently do you (select as many as apply):
Question No. RWPS
CT
CE
ChEF
a
KN
b
c
EXP DSN
15.1
X
15.2
X
X
X
15.3
X
X
15.4
X
X
15.5
X
X
15.6
X
15.7
X
15.8
X
15.9
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
Rate
TM FRM ETH COM GBL LLL CNT TLS
X
>75%
41%
17:17
>75%
88%
17:17
>75%
82%
17:17
>75%
71%
17:17
>75%
65%
17:17
>75%
82%
17:17
>75%
59%
17:17
X
>75%
47%
17:17
X
X
>75%
77%
17:17
15.10
X
X
>75%
47%
17:17
15.11
X
X
>75%
47%
17:17
15.12
X
X
>75%
47%
17:17
X
X
X
X
Make correct inference based on the information
Gather evidence to support a hypothesis. [3b]
Consider alternative explanations (hypotheses). [3b, 3e]
Use evidence to support a hypothesis. [3b]
Dig for additional evidence to supports a hypothesis
Consider the certainty of the evidence. [3a]
Assess the validity of a hypothesis in more than one way. [3e]
Use experiments to test a hypothesis. [3b]
Check if conclusions are supported. [3b]
Look for multiple supportable hypotheses. [3a, 3e]
Project the supported hypothesis (the theory) into some useful practice. [3c]
Extend the newly supported theory beyond the original context. [3a, 3c]
About Life-Long-Learning
How frequently do you use the following resources (frequently, infrequently, never)?
Question No. RWPS
CT
CE
ChEF
a
KN
b
c
EXP DSN
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
Rate
TM FRM ETH COM GBL LLL CNT TLS
16.1
X
X
4
3.71
17:17
16.2
X
X
4
3.21
16:17
16.3
X
X
4
3.13
17:17
Professional Internet Resources
Trade Journals, i.e. Chemical Engineering Progress (CEP)
Research Journals, i.e. Chemical Engineering Science
Are you a member of the AIChE or other professional society?
Question No. RWPS
CT
CE
ChEF
a
KN
17
b
c
EXP DSN
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
Rate
TM FRM ETH COM GBL LLL CNT TLS
X
X
>75%
41%
17:17
Yes, no
How frequently do you attend a professional conference (convention or meeting or a professional organization)?
Question No. RWPS
CT
CE
ChEF
a
KN
18
b
c
EXP DSN
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
Rate
TM FRM ETH COM GBL LLL CNT TLS
X
X
4
3.65
17:17
Yes more than one a year, yes yearly, yes once, never
Have you taken any professional short courses since graduateion (i.e. courses offered by a professional society such as the AIChE)?
Question No. RWPS
CT
CE
ChEF
a
KN
19
b
c
EXP DSN
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
Rate
TM FRM ETH COM GBL LLL CNT TLS
X
X
>75%
29%
17:17
never, one every five years, one every two year, more frequently
Have you plan to pursue your Professional Engineering License by taking either the EIT or PE since graduation?
Question No. RWPS
CT
CE
ChEF
a
KN
20
b
c
EXP DSN
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
Rate
TM FRM ETH COM GBL LLL CNT TLS
X
X
>50%
59%
17:17
Yes the EIT, yes the PE, No
Have you attended any professiona related college courses since graduation (any professional courses business, science, engineering, mathematics, law, medicine, etc.)?
Question No. RWPS
CT
CE
ChEF
a
KN
21
Question No. RWPS
X
CT
22
23
f
g
h
i
j
k
Rate
>40%
47%
EXP DSN
X
Yes BS, Yes MS, Yes PhD, Yes MBA, Yes MD, Yes Law, Yes Other, No
Rate
>40%
29%
k
17:17
Rate
TM FRM ETH COM GBL LLL CNT TLS
X
IO
81%
Does the company you work for value the Professional Engineering license?
CE
ChEF a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
EXP DSN
17:17
TM FRM ETH COM GBL LLL CNT TLS
X
X
CT
e
Does the company you work for value continuing education?
CE
ChEF a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
KN
24
EXP DSN
X
CT
d
TM FRM ETH COM GBL LLL CNT TLS
X
KN
Question No. RWPS
c
Have you received an additional or advanced degree since graduation?
CE
ChEF a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
KN
Question No. RWPS
b
EXP DSN
17:17
% Saying yes
Rate
TM FRM ETH COM GBL LLL CNT TLS
X
IO
50%
16:17
% Saying yes
About Frontiers in Chemical Engineering
How frequently do you specify the use of technologies based on:
Question No. RWPS
CT
CE
ChEF
a
KN
b
c
EXP DSN
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
Rate
TM FRM ETH COM GBL LLL CNT TLS
25.1
X
3
2.71
17:17
25.2
X
3
2.38
17:17
25.3
X
3
2.43
17:17
25.4
X
3
3.40
17:17
Bio materials
Nano-materials
Micro-systems (MEMS)
Wireless communications
How frequently do you utilize methodologies or strategies based on:
Question No. RWPS
CT
CE
ChEF
a
KN
b
c
EXP DSN
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
Rate
TM FRM ETH COM GBL LLL CNT TLS
26.1
X
2.5
2.41
17:17
26.2
X
2.5
2.8
16:17
26.3
X
2.5
3
16:17
26.4
X
2.5
2.69
16:17
26.5
X
2.5
2.5
16:17
26.6
X
2.5
2.6
16:17
26.7
X
2.5
2.75
16:17
26.8
X
2.5
2.47
16:17
26.9
X
2.5
2.44
16:17
26.10
X
2.5
2.33
16:17
26.11
X
2.5
2.13
16:17
26.12
X
2.5
1.94
16:17
26.13
X
2.5
2.47
16:17
26.14
X
2.5
2.63
16:17
26.15
X
2.5
2.53
16:17
Informatics (collection and organization of information using computers...)
Statistical Process Control [3b]
Multi-scale analysis [3k]
Multi-media [3g]
Group dynamics [3d]
Sustainable Development [3h]
Green Engineering Practices [3h]
Computational Design (i.e. flow sheet simulation) [3k]
Distance Communications (i.e. teleconferencing) [3g]
Heat and Material Balance [3c, 3e]
Unit Operations Approach [3c, 3e]
Process Flowsheets [3c]
Correlations (i.e. for heat, mass, momentum transfer)
Tables or Correlative Charts (i.e. nomographs)
Transport Phenomena [3k]
What type of computer technology do you use (select as many as apply)?
Question No. RWPS
CT
CE
ChEF
a
KN
b
c
EXP DSN
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
Rate
TM FRM ETH COM GBL LLL CNT TLS
27.1
X
IO
29%
17:17
27.2
X
IO
18%
17:17
27.3
X
IO
12%
17:17
27.4
X
IO
100%
17:17
27.5
X
IO
0%
17:17
27.6
X
IO
0%
17:17
27.7
X
IO
0%
17:17
27.8
X
IO
12%
17:17
27.9
X
IO
0%
17:17
27.10
X
IO
6%
17:17
27.11
X
IO
18%
17:17
27.12
X
IO
6%
17:17
27.13
X
IO
12%
17:17
27.14
X
IO
6%
17:17
27.15
X
IO
29%
17:17
27.16
X
IO
0%
17:17
ASPEN
ChemCad
Other process simulator (specify)
Excel
Maple
FEMLAB
MathCad
MatLab
Mathematica
Other high-level interface (specify)
FORTRAN
BASIC
C++
Other programming language (specify)
Programmable calculator
None
Does the compuany you work for utilize or produce produces related to (select as many as apply):
Question No. RWPS
CT
CE
ChEF
a
KN
b
c
EXP DSN
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
Rate
TM FRM ETH COM GBL LLL CNT TLS
28.1
X
>40%
60%
5:17
28.2
X
>40%
20%
5:17
28.3
X
>40%
20%
5:17
28.4
X
>40%
60%
5:17
Bio materials
Nano-materials
Micro-systems (MEMS)
Wireless communications
Attachment III
Employer Survey 2008-2012 ABET Assessment Period
Question No. RWPS
Question No. RWPS
1.1
X
1.2
1.3
1.4
Mapping to PEO
Mapping to PO
CT
CE
ChEF a
b
c
d
e
f
g
About Program Educational Objectives
CT
CE
ChEF
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
h
i
j
k
X
X
X
About the Respondents
You are:
ChEF a
b
c
d
Question No. RWPS CT
CE
e
f
g
h
i
2.1
2.2
2.3
How familiar are you with TTU CHE gradautes hired between 2003 and 2007?
Question No. RWPS CT
CE
ChEF a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
3
j
j
Rubric
Score
>75%
>75%
>75%
>75%
75%
100%
100%
75%
Rate
4:4
4:4
4:4
4:4
IO
IO
IO
0%
75%
50%
Rate
4:4
4:4
4:4
IO
4
Rate
4:4
k
k
Response
Rate
A human resources employee and do not directly supervise TTU CHE graduates
The immediate supervisor or manager of one or more TTU CHE graduate
very familiar (4) to not at all (1).
About Real World Problem Solving
Our company employs TTU Chemical Engineering (CHE) graduates in jobs that might be described as (pick as many as apply):
Question No. RWPS
4
CT
CE
ChEF
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
X
Rate
>75%
100%
4:4
Process EngineerDesign Engineering; Group Leader; Production Engineer; Sales
Engineer; Plant Manager; Project Engineer; Research Engineering; Research
Scientist; Quality Engineering; Quality Manager; Senior Engineer; Lawyer;
Medical Doctor; other (define)
Our T T U employees have received various recognitions since their initial employment with our company (i.e. award, promotion, bonus) for a problem sovling effort.
Question No. RWPS
5
X
CT
CE
ChEF
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
Rate
>75%
100%
4:4
Yes/No
Question No. RWPS
CT
When addressing their job duties TTU CHE graduates (select as many as apply):
CE
ChEF a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
6.1
X
X
6.2
X
6.3
X
X
6.4
X
X
6.5
X
6.6
X
6.7
X
6.8
X
6.9
X
6.10
X
6.11
X
50%
4:4
>75%
100%
4:4
>75%
75%
4:4
>75%
100%
4:4
<25%
50%
4:4
>75%
75%
4:4
X
>75%
100%
4:4
X
>75%
75%
4:4
X
>75%
100%
4:4
X
>75%
50%
4:4
X
>75%
100%
6.12
X
4:4
X
>75%
100%
6.13
X
4:4
X
>75%
50%
6.14
X
4:4
>75%
75%
6.15
X
4:4
<25%
50%
6.16
X
4:4
<25%
0%
6.17
X
4:4
>50
0%
4:4
X
X
X
X
Rate
<25%
X
X
X
Did data/information gathering with little analysis
Used my science, mathematics and engineering skills
Designed processes, systems or devices
Did creative work (i.e. invent, imagine, establish a vision, etc.)
Was required to arrive at conclusions through a process of elimination
Managed people
Formulated or define a project, problem or process
Formulated a solution strategy
Analyzed experimental or process data
Designed experiments
Was required to draw conclusions based on reason and evidence
Used literature or other archival resources
Extended my knowledge into new contexts or learning new things
Used computational resources (i.e. computer models)
Was asked to fined others who could solve problems for me
Learned about selling products to other
I was required to consider how decisions relate to relevant issues in the news
Based on the requirements of jobs T T U CHE graduates hold in your company, indicate the level of value you place on the following areas of training in the following areas:
Question No. RWPS
7.1
X
7.2
X
7.3
X
7.4
X
7.5
X
7.6
X
7.7
X
7.8
X
7.9
X
7.10
X
7.11
X
7.12
X
7.13
X
7.14
X
7.15
X
7.16
X
7.17
X
7.18
X
7.19
X
7.20
X
7.21
X
7.22
X
7.23
X
7.24
X
7.25
X
7.26
X
7.27
X
7.28
X
7.29
X
7.30
X
7.31
X
7.32
X
7.33
X
CT
CE
ChEF
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
X
5.00
4:4
IO
4.50
4:4
IO
3.00
4:4
IO
4.00
4:4
IO
2.00
4:4
IO
4.75
4:4
IO
4.50
4:4
IO
4.50
4:4
IO
5.00
4:4
IO
3.00
4:4
IO
3.50
4:4
IO
4.25
4:4
IO
3.00
4:4
IO
4.00
4:4
IO
3.50
4:4
IO
4.50
4:4
X
IO
4.50
4:4
X
IO
4.75
4:4
X
IO
4.75
4:4
X
IO
4.75
4:4
IO
4.25
4:4
IO
4.75
4:4
IO
2.25
4:4
IO
4.50
4:4
IO
5.00
4:4
IO
4.75
4:4
IO
3.50
4:4
IO
4.50
4:4
IO
5.00
4:4
IO
4.75
4:4
IO
4.50
4:4
IO
3.00
4:4
IO
4.75
4:4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Rate
IO
X
X
Knowledge of science, mathematics and engineering principles [3a]
Experimental design and analysis [3b]
The Humanities (literature, writing, speech, etc.)
Design of processes, systems or devices [3c]
The arts
Teamwork [3d]
Formulation of problems and methodologies [3e]
Ethics [3f]
Communications [3g]
Social and Behavioral Sciences
Global and societal contexts [3h]
Life-long-learning [3i]
Contemporary issues [3j]
Computers and related technologies (tools) [3k]
Broad general subject mater [3h]
Professional work-related skills [AIChE]
Articulating yourself using the written language [3g]
Articulating yourself orally [g
Thinking critically and analytically [3a, 3b, 3e]
Being quantitative when analyzing problems [3e]
Using computers and information technology [3k]
Working with others [3d]
Voting, locally, state or nationally [3j]
Learning independently and effectively [3i]
Solving real-world problems [3b, 3e]
Developing personal ethics and values [3f]
Contributing to your community [3h, 3i]
Practical skills necessary to obtain employment [AIChE]
Defining and solving problems [3e]
Working cooperatively in a group [3d]
Ability to understand mathematical concepts [3a]
Understanding global environmental concerns [3h, 3j]
Understanding/applying scientific principles and methods [3a]
Based on the requirements of jobs that T T U CHE graduates had in your company, indicate the level of preparedness you observed in the following areas of training:
Question No. RWPS
8.1
X
8.2
X
8.3
X
8.4
X
8.5
X
8.6
X
8.7
X
8.8
X
8.9
X
8.10
X
8.11
X
8.12
X
8.13
X
8.14
X
8.15
X
8.16
X
8.17
X
8.18
X
8.19
X
8.2
X
8.21
X
8.22
X
8.23
X
8.24
X
8.25
X
8.26
X
8.27
X
8.28
X
8.29
X
8.3
X
8.31
X
8.32
X
8.33
X
CT
CE
ChEF
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
X
4.33
3:4
4
3.67
3:4
NA
3.67
3:4
4
4
3:4
NA
3.33
3:4
4
4
3:4
4
4.33
3:4
4
4
3:4
4
4.33
3:4
NA
3.67
3:4
4
3.33
3:4
4
4
3:4
4
3.33
3:4
4
4
3:4
4
3.67
3:4
4
4
3:4
X
4
4.33
3:4
X
4
3.33
3:4
X
4
4.33
3:4
X
4
4
3:4
4
4
3:4
4
4
3:4
3
3.33
3:4
4
4.33
3:4
4
4.33
3:4
NA
4.33
3:4
3
3.67
3:4
NA
4.33
3:4
4
4.33
3:4
4
4.33
3:4
4
4.33
3:4
4
3.33
3:4
4
4.33
3:4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Rate
4
X
X
Knowledge of science, mathematics and engineering principles [3a]
Experimental design and analysis [3b]
The Humanities (literature, writing, speech, etc.)
Design of processes, systems or devices [3c]
The arts
Teamwork [3d]
Formulation of problems and methodologies [3e]
Ethics [3f]
Communications [3g]
Social and Behavioral Sciences
Global and societal contexts [3h]
Life-long-learning [3i]
Contemporary issues [3j]
Computers and related technologies (tools) [3k]
Broad general subject mater [3h]
Professional work-related skills [AIChE]
Articulating yourself using the written language [3g]
Articulating yourself orally [g
Thinking critically and analytically [3a, 3b, 3e]
Being quantitative when analyzing problems [3e]
Using computers and information technology [3k]
Working with others [3d]
Voting, locally, state or nationally [3j]
Learning independently and effectively [3i]
Solving real-world problems [3b, 3e]
Developing personal ethics and values [3f]
Contributing to your community [3h, 3i]
Practical skills necessary to obtain employment [AIChE]
Defining and solving problems [3e]
Working cooperatively in a group [3d]
Ability to understand mathematical concepts [3a]
Understanding global environmental concerns [3h, 3j]
Understanding/applying scientific principles and methods [3a]
About Communications
TTU CHE gradautes are effective speakers.
Question No. RWPS
CT
CE
ChEF
a
b
c
d
e
f
9
g
h
i
j
k
X
Rate
4
3.25
4
4.25
4:4
Agree, disagree, neutral
TTU CHE graduates are effective writers.
Question No. RWPS
CT
CE
ChEF
a
b
c
d
e
f
10
g
h
i
j
k
X
Rate
4:4
Agree, disagree, neutral
How frequently are you required to give:
Formal written communications in your company typically take the following forms (select as many as apply):
Question No. RWPS
11.1
CT
CE
ChEF
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
X
h
i
j
k
IO
75%
Rate
4:4
Lengthy reports
11.2
X
IO
50%
4:4
One page executive summaries
11.3
X
IO
100%
4:4
Brief reports (2-5 pages)
11.4
X
IO
75%
4:4
business memos with minimal detail
About Critical Thinking
T T U CHE graduates employed by your company frequently utilize the following forms of inquiry to arrive at problem solutions (select as many as apply):
Question No. RWPS
CT
12.1
X
CE
ChEF
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
12.2
X
12.3
X
X
12.4
X
X
12.5
X
12.6
X
<25%
0%
4:4
12.7
X
X
<25%
50%
4:4
12.8
X
X
<25%
0%
4:4
12.9
X
X
>75%
75%
4:4
12.10
X
>75%
100%
4:4
12.11
X
>75%
0%
4:4
12.12
X
<25%
50%
4:4
12.13
X
<25%
50%
4:4
12.14
X
>75%
100%
4:4
12.15
X
X
>75%
25%
4:4
12.16
X
X
>75%
25%
4:4
12.17
X
IO
25%
4:4
X
X
X
Rate
>75%
100%
4:4
<25%
75%
4:4
<25%
50%
4:4
>75%
75%
4:4
stated incorreclty
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ask questions [3b]
find someone who can figure things out
call a vender
use my base knowledge (of science, engineering or mathematics) [3a]
explore the evidence [3b]/ use my intuition or gut feelilngs
rely on the opinion of others
use trial and error
align with the consensus viewpoints
utilize statistical methods [3b]
use reason and logic [3b]
The global context (i.e. how decisions effect society) [3h]
How decisions may affect my career
How long it will take to get a correct answer
What additional information I might need [3i]
How decisions might related to things in the news [3j]
How a solution may impact on economics and the economy [3h, 3j]
The morality of a particular solution [3f]
When considering information of any form, which of the following typicy the way that T T U CHE gradautes work (select as many as apply):
Question No. RWPS
CT
CE
ChEF
a
b
13.1
X
13.2
X
X
13.3
X
X
13.4
X
13.5
X
13.6
X
13.7
X
13.8
X
13.9
c
X
d
e
X
f
g
h
i
j
k
Rate
>75%
100%
4:4
>75%
100%
4:4
>75%
100%
4:4
X
>75%
100%
4:4
X
>75%
100%
4:4
>75%
100%
4:4
>75%
100%
4:4
X
>75%
75%
4:4
X
X
>75%
75%
4:4
13.10
X
X
>75%
75%
4:4
13.11
X
X
>75%
100%
4:4
13.12
X
X
>75%
50%
4:4
X
X
X
X
Make correct inference based on the information, i.e. is global warning real, do
people really get sick from low-level industrial pollution such as Hg in the food
supply, etc. [3a, 3e]
Gather evidence to support a hypothesis. [3b]
Consider alternative explanations (hypotheses). [3b, 3e]
Use evidence to support a hypothesis. [3b]
Dig for additional evidence to supports a hypothesis with alternative information.
Consider the certainty of the evidence. [3a]
Assess the validity of a hypothesis in more than one way. [3e]
Use experiments to test a hypothesis. [3b]
Check if conclusions are supported. [3b]
Look for multiple supportable hypotheses. [3a, 3e]
Project the supported hypothesis (the theory) into some useful practice. [3c]
Extend the newly supported theory beyond the original context. [3a, 3c]
About Life-Long-Learning
How frequently do TTU graduates use the following resources (frequently, infrequently, never)?
Question No. RWPS
CT
CE
ChEF
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
Rate
14.1
X
4
3.25
4:4
14.2
X
4
2.75
4:4
14.3
X
4
2.50
4:4
Professional Internet Resources
Trade Journals, i.e. Chemical Engineering Progress (CEP)
Research Journals, i.e. Chemical Engineering Science
Have frequently do TTU grads in your company attended a professional meeting or conference while you were a student at TTU?
Question No. RWPS
CT
CE
ChEF
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
15
j
k
Rate
X
3
2.50
4:4
Yes more than one a year, yes yearly, yes once, never
Have the T T U CHE graduaes employed by your company taken any professional short courses since they became employed by you (i.e. courses offered by a professional
society such as the AIChE?
Question No. RWPS
CT
CE
ChEF
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
16
j
k
Rate
X
3
2.75
4:4
never, once every few years, yearly, more frequently than once a year
Have the T T U graduates employed by your company pursued Professional Engineering License by taking either the EIT or PE since graduation?
Question No. RWPS
CT
CE
ChEF
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
17
j
k
Rate
X
>50%
50%
4:4
Yes the EIT, yes the PE, No
Have the T T U CHE graduates employed by your company attended any profession related collage courses since becoming employed by your (any professional courses
business, science, engineering, mathematics, law, medicine, etc.)?
Question No. RWPS
CT
CE
ChEF
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
18
i
j
k
X
Rate
>40%
50%
4:4
Yes BS, Yes MS, Yes PhD, Yes MBA, Yes MD, Yes Law, Yes Other, No
Have the T T U CHE graduates employed by your company received an additioanl or advande degree since becoming employed by you?
Question No. RWPS
CT
CE
ChEF
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
19
i
j
k
X
Rate
>40%
50%
IO
75%
IO
50%
4:4
Yes BS, Yes MS, Yes PhD, Yes MBA, Yes MD, Yes Law, Yes Other, No
Express the extent to which your company values continuing education.
Question No. RWPS
CT
CE
ChEF
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
20
i
j
k
X
Rate
4:4
Yes BS, Yes MS, Yes PhD, Yes MBA, Yes MD, Yes Law, Yes Other, No
Does your company value the Professional Egnineering license for CHE's?
Question No. RWPS
CT
CE
ChEF
a
b
c
d
e
21
f
g
h
i
j
k
X
Rate
4:4
Yes BS, Yes MS, Yes PhD, Yes MBA, Yes MD, Yes Law, Yes Other, No
About Frontiers in Chemical Engineering
Question No. RWPS
CT
CE
Does your company utilize or prodce producs related to:
ChEF a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
Rate
22.1
X
IO
25%
4:4
22.2
X
IO
0%
4:4
22.3
X
IO
0%
4:4
22.4
X
IO
50%
4:4
Question No. RWPS
How frequently do TTU CHE graduates utilize methodologies or strategies based on:
CT
CE
ChEF a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
Bio materials
Nano-materials
Micro-systems (MEMS)
Wireless Communications
Rate
23.1
X
3
2.75
4:4
23.2
X
3
3.25
4:4
23.3
X
3
2.75
4:4
23.4
X
3
2.25
4:4
23.5
X
3
3.00
4:4
23.6
X
3
2.00
4:4
23.7
X
3
2.25
4:4
23.8
X
3
2.50
4:4
23.9
X
3
3.25
4:4
23.10
X
IO
3.75
4:4
23.11
X
IO
3.75
4:4
23.12
X
IO
4.00
4:4
23.13
X
IO
3.50
4:4
23.14
X
IO
3.75
4:4
23.15
X
3
3.25
4:4
Informatics (collection and organization of information using computers)
Statistical Process Control [3b]
Multi-scale analysis [3k]
Multi-media [3g]
Group dynamics [3d]
Sustainable Development [3h]
Green Engineering Practices [3h]
Computational Design (i.e. flow sheet simulation) [3k]
Distance Communications (i.e. teleconferencing) [3g]
Heat and Material Balance [3c, 3e]
Unit Operations Approach [3c, 3e]
Process Flowsheets [3c]
Correlations (i.e. for heat, mass, momentum transfer)
Tables or Correlative Charts (i.e. nomographs)
Transport Phenomena [3k]
Attachment IV
Co-op Assessment Results 2008-2012 ABET Assessment Period
Co-op Assessment
Figure AIV.1 – Average Co-op Assessment scores as a function of time.
Figure AIV.2 –Co-op Assessment scores for question (a) as a function of time.
Figure AIV.2 –Co-op Assessment scores for question (b) as a function of time.
Figure AIV.2 –Co-op Assessment scores for question (c) as a function of time.
Figure AIV.2 –Co-op Assessment scores for question (d) as a function of time.
Figure AIV.2 –Co-op Assessment scores for question (1) as a function of time.
Figure AIV.2 –Co-op Assessment scores for question (2) as a function of time.
Figure AIV.2 –Co-op Assessment scores for question (3) as a function of time.
Figure AIV.2 –Co-op Assessment scores for question (4) as a function of time.
Figure AIV.2 –Co-op Assessment scores for question (5) as a function of time.
Figure AIV.2 –Co-op Assessment scores for question (6) as a function of time.
Figure AIV.2 –Co-op Assessment scores for question (7) as a function of time.
Figure AIV.2 –Co-op Assessment scores for question (8) as a function of time.
Figure AIV.2 –Co-op Assessment scores for question (RO) as a function of time.
Figure AIV.2 –Co-op Assessment scores for question (AL) as a function of time.
Figure AIV.2 –Co-op Assessment scores for question (OP) as a function of time.
Attachment V:Course-Level Assessment and Continuous Improvement Report
Department of Chemical Engineering
Tennessee Technological University
Report for CHE 3121 Transfer Science II: Fluid Mechanics for the Spring 2011 academic term, 4
credit hrs.
Instructor Coordinator: Mario A. Oyanader
Lecturer Instructor:
Soondeuk Jeung
Guest Instructor:
Pedro Arce
Syllabus Information
1. Objective(s):
(from Undergraduate Catalog – 2007-2008) Theory of mass and momentum conservation principles.
Experimental studies of fluid mechanics. Design and operation of systems involving fluids with application
to fluid flow and fluid property measurements
2. Course Outcomes
Outcomes have been mapped to ABET Criterion 3. Students will demonstrate:
(a) an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering (minor)
(b) an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.
(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.
(d) an ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams
(e) an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems (Major)
(j) knowledge of contemporary issues. (minor)
(k) an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering
practice. (minor)
3. Course Requirements
A. Quizzes & Homework
B. In class Exams
C. Final Exam
D. Lab Experiences
E. Professionalism
10%
30%
20%
30%
10%
The textbooks adopted for this course are:
Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics, by Munson, Young and Okiishi, 5th Ed., John Wiley & Sons Inc., New
York, 2006.
Transport Phenomena by R. Byron Bird, Warren E. Stewart and Edwin N. Lightfoot, 2nd Ed., John Wiley
& Sons Inc., New York, 2002.
4. Map of Course Requirements to Course Outcomes
Course
Requirement
A
B
C
D
Course Outcomes (Points per course requirements)
a
2
6
5
2
b
c
12
2
6
3
2
d
e
10
4
14
10
2
f
g
h
i
j
k
2
4
2
2
10
E
5. Map of Course Requirements to Program Outcomes
Course
Requirement
A
B
C
D
E
[% ]
Course Outcomes (% of course requirements)
a
b
2%
6%
5%
2%
0%
15
0%
0%
0%
12%
0%
12
c
d
e
2% 0% 4%
6% 0% 14%
3% 0% 10%
2% 10% 2%
0% 0% 0%
13 10 30
f
g
h
i
j
k
0%
0%
0%
0%
10%
10
2%
4%
2%
2%
0%
10
Assessment Summary
6. Performance of Students against Program Outcomes
All course requirements were assessed considering the following set of course outcomes: criteria 3
including a, b, c, d, e, j, and k. A performance rubric of average grade between 70% and 95% was
expected. The individual student assessment shows that all students, with only one exception (68%), met
all rubrics for all course objectives. Two students showed behavior above rubric.
Course Outcomes (Rubric)
Outcome
a
b
c
d
e
Course
(68%-100%) 99% 100% 99% 100% 99%
Averaged
f
g
h
i
j
k
85% 99%
7. Interpretation of Assessment Results
The course performed in the average score range of 68%-100% with a general average of 84%. The
general performance is considered uniform across program outcomes with a difference of 1% between
the highest scores. The exception is criterion 3j “knowledge of contemporary issues” that is 4 points
below the nearest score. This may indicate that more examples during lecture should be included and
better assessment need to be planned. With this only exception the general performance is well balanced
across criteria.
This year several project experiences were introduced to integrate lab and lecture in a more consistent
and progressive way. These actions seem to work very well with the set of accumulative assessment
utilized. Notice that criteria b and e have nearly perfect scores in the average.
This semester it was formally required to demonstrate the use of modern tools in the form of the software
COMSOL Multiphysics. Theoretical models were run against experimental results for comparison and
analysis.
8. Feedback from Program Outcomes (PO) Assessment
Team work is mandatory in this course and continues to be an important practice as requested the BOA
(2001-2006). Results were closely monitored in extra class sessions.
New software and applications were introduced to demonstrate modern engineering practices.
This course used classroom environment defined under the MOLSI project and implemented for the first
time active learning techniques to integrate lab and lecture.
9. Feedback from Program Educational Objectives (PEO) Assessment
Emphasis was given to reinforce PEOs, for example:
Students were trained in acting as design engineer, group leader, and production engineering
(1- Be recognized as real-world problem solvers).
Students were challenged to search for data, cover it in information and make informed decision using critical thinking (2-Be
recognized as critical thinkers).
When relevant, students were encouraged to visualize thru their project the need for advanced studies and /or professional
development (3- the graduates of our program will demonstrate that they have continued their education).
Student were strongly encourage to engage design project that entailed current real-world problem (4-Be work at the frontiers in
ChE)
10. Suggested Plan of Action with Implementation Dates ( )
All previous year suggested actions were implemented.
No current suggestions are pending.
11. Are the Suggested Planned Actions Major or Minor (Explain)
No current suggestions are pending.
12. Suggested Review Process
No current suggestions are pending.
12. Suggested Review Process
No current suggestions are pending.
13. Agreed Upon Plan of Action
No current suggestions are pending.
Responsible Individual Signature: