Chabot College
Academic Program Review Report Year Three of the Program Review Cycle Final Summary Report ENGINEERING Submitted on 27‐Oct‐13 Bruce Mayer, PE Bruce Mayer, PE • ENGR_14-15.docx • Page 1
Appendix B2: “Closing the Loop” Assessment Reflections Course Semester assessment data gathered Number of sections offered in the semester Number of sections assessed Percentage of sections assessed Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion ENGR10 Fa11 1 per year 1 100% Spring2012 Bruce Mayer, PE (Only Instructor1) Form Instructions:  Part I: CLO Data Reporting. For each CLO, obtain Class Achievement data in aggregate for all sections assessed in eLumen.  Part II: CLO Reflections. Based on student success reported in Part I, reflect on the individual CLO.  Part III: Course Reflection. In reviewing all the CLOs and your findings, reflect on the course as a whole. PART I: COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOMES – DATA RESULTS CONSIDER THE COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE) (CLO) 1: CRITICAL THINKING ‐ ASSIGNMENT ENGR 10 ‐ Defined Target Scores* (CLO Goal) 2/3 (67%) of Students score 3 or better DESCRIBE THE ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF PRACTICING ENGINEERING IN TERMS OF THREE COMPONENTS: A) DESCRIBE THE GENERAL NATURE OF ETHICS, B) LIST ONE (OUT OF 3) OF THE GENERAL ETHICAL MODELS, C) THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF EXAMINERS OF ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING (NCEES) MODEL RULES FOR PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT NOTES THAT PRACTICING ENGINEERS HAVE ETHICAL OBLIGATIONS TO THREE MAJOR GROUPS OR PERSONS. LIST AT LEAST ONE THESE GROUPS OR PERSONS TO WHICH ENGINEERS ARE ETHICALLY OBLIGATED. JUL2011 75 % of (CLO) 2: CRITICAL THINKING ‐ ASSIGNMENT ENGR 10 ‐ students scores DESCRIBE THE ENGINEERING‐PRACTICE IN THREE MAJOR ENGINEERING FIELDS (E.G.: CHEMICAL, CIVIL, ELECTRICAL, 3 or better INDUSTRIAL, MATERIALS, MECHANICAL) ENGINEERING. INCLUDE AT LEAST TWO SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF PROJECTS, PRODUCTS, OR PROCESSES WHICH AN ENGINEER IN EACH OF THESE FIELDS MIGHT DESIGN. JUL2011 Actual Scores** (eLumen data) 49% scored 3 or better; 77.6% scored 2 or better. 81.6% of students scored 3 or better 1
B. Mayer Discussed general Student Learning with Engineering Colleagues from other CA Community Colleges during the “Teaching Techniques” segment of the annually attended California Engineering Liaison Council meeting. Ref: http://www.caelc.org/ Bruce Mayer, PE • ENGR_14-15.docx • Page 2
 If more CLOs are listed for the course, add another row to the table. * Defined Target Scores: What scores in eLumen from your students would indicate success for this CLO? (Example: 75% of the class scored either 3 or 4) **Actual scores: What is the actual percent of students that meet defined target based on the eLumen data collected in this assessment cycle? Bruce Mayer, PE • ENGR_14-15.docx • Page 3
PART II: COURSE‐ LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS A. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1: 1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? The students, at about ½ mastering the material, were not close to the 2/3 goal of substantial mastery. 2. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? I spend significant time on Engineering Ethics; stressing that Engineers have special responsibility, as technology creators & leaders, to behave ethically. I think that in this introductory course that students view engineering as making “BluePrints”, doing calculations, designing technical objects, and creating products for the better of human‐
kind. They do not seem to associate ethics with the day‐to‐day activities of engineering practice. B. Mayer B. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2: 1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? 81.6% of students scored 3 or better on this CLO; a very solid performance relative to the goal of 75% 2. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? I designed a special assignment wherein the students are asked to study, in detail, the different forms of engineering. They then write 1 paragraph reports on the different engineering disciplines. This has improved student performance in this area. Also I recruit GUEST SPEAKERS from several different engineering disciplines. Guest speakers, currently practicing or learning engineering, intensify student interest. The remarks from the Guest Speakers definitely contributed to the student’s ability to distinguish between the engineering disciplines. B. Mayer Bruce Mayer, PE • ENGR_14-15.docx • Page 4
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS 1. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions? Design of the Special Homework Assignment where‐in the students write their thoughts on the different engineering disciplines. This improved learning in this area. Design of The “Why‐and‐Where” FIRST Homework assignment. Students are asked to reflect on WHY they (might) want to become engineers. They are also asked to choose a TRANSFER UNIVERSITY. This assignment focuses the students on the GOAL of this survey course which is to provide every student with sufficient information to allow him/her to decide about engineering as a career. Continue to recruit practicing engineers and University Engineering‐Transfer Students to make the goal of become an engineer more real for the sometimes very‐young students. 2. Based on the current assessment and reflections, what course‐level and programmatic strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? What actions has your discipline determined might be taken as a result of your reflections, discussions, and insights? Strength is that for a survey class, guest speakers are a powerful learning tool. 3. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?  Curricular  Pedagogical ←  Resource based  Change to CLO or rubric  Change to assessment methods  Other:_________________________________________________________________ Bruce Mayer, PE • ENGR_14-15.docx • Page 5
Course Semester assessment data gathered Number of sections offered in the semester Number of sections assessed Percentage of sections assessed Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion ENGR11 Sp11 1 per year 1 100% Spring2012 Bruce Mayer, PE (Only Instructor2) Form Instructions:  Part I: CLO Data Reporting. For each CLO, obtain Class Achievement data in aggregate for all sections assessed in eLumen.  Part II: CLO Reflections. Based on student success reported in Part I, reflect on the individual CLO.  Part III: Course Reflection. In reviewing all the CLOs and your findings, reflect on the course as a whole. PART I: COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOMES – DATA RESULTS CONSIDER THE COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE) (CLO) 1 CRITICAL THINKING ‐ ASSIGNMENT ENGR 11 ‐ STUDENT ARE TO CREATE A DESIGN FOR TIDE‐POOL WAVE MAKER WHICH WILL GENTLY AGITATE A BENCHTOP MARINE Defined Target Scores* (CLO Goal) 3/4 (75%) of Students score 3 or better BIOLOGY TANK CONTAINING TIDE‐POOL ORGANISMS. STUDENTS WILL LEARN HOW CREATE A DETAILED AND JUSTIFIED CONCEPT‐
Actual Scores** (eLumen data) 83.8% of the student scored Three or better on the first design review. LEVEL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DESIGN AND PRESENT AND DEFEND THE DESIGN, CONCEPT BEFORE A KNOWLEDGEABLE AND SKEPTICAL AUDIENCE IN ENGINEERING PRACTICE THIS PRESENTATION IS KNOWN AS CRITICAL DESGIN REVIEW (CRDR) 3/4 (75%) of the 84.2% of the (CLO) 2: CRITICAL THINKING ‐ ASSIGNMENT ENGR 11 ‐ class scores 3 or student scored STUDENT ARE TO CREATE A DESIGN FOR TIDE‐POOL WAVE MAKER WHICH WILL GENTLY AGITATE A BENCHTOP MARINE better BIOLOGY TANK CONTAINING TIDE‐POOL ORGANISMS. STUDENTS Three or better on the Final Design Review. WILL LEARN HOW CREATE A DETAILED AND JUSTIFIED PRODUCTION‐READY DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DESIGN AND PRESENT AND DEFEND THE DESIGN, CONCEPT BEFORE A KNOWLEDGEABLE AND SKEPTICAL AUDIENCE IN ENGINEERING PRACTICE THIS PRESENTATION IS KNOWN AS FINAL DESIGN REVIEW (FDR) 2
B. Mayer Discussed general Student Learning with Engineering Colleagues from other CA Community Colleges during the “Teaching Techniques” segment of the annually attended California Engineering Liaison Council meeting. Ref: http://www.caelc.org/ Bruce Mayer, PE • ENGR_14-15.docx • Page 6
 If more CLOs are listed for the course, add another row to the table. * Defined Target Scores: What scores in eLumen from your students would indicate success for this CLO? (Example: 75% of the class scored either 3 or 4) **Actual scores: What is the actual percent of students that meet defined target based on the eLumen data collected in this assessment cycle? Bruce Mayer, PE • ENGR_14-15.docx • Page 7
PART II: COURSE‐ LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS C. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1: 3. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? At 83.8% success the students appear to be learning sufficiently well to exceed the goal. We need to keep up this fine performance. 4. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? Providing the students with clear descriptions of the schedule, “deliverables”, and SCORING RUBRIC gave the students strong indications on how to succeed on BOTH design reviews. D. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2: 3. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? At 84.2% success the students appear to be learning sufficiently well to exceed the goal. We need to keep up this fine performance 4. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? 84.2% of the student scored Three or better on the Final Design Review. This is very satisfying in that it is almost identical to that attained in the first design review. There was basically very strong learning of the design process demonstrated in both of these major reviews. Providing the students with clear descriptions of the schedule, “deliverables”, and scoring rubric gave the students strong indications on how to succeed on BOTH design reviews. Bruce Mayer, PE • ENGR_14-15.docx • Page 8
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS 4. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions? During every‐other class meeting show the schedule, and/or deliverables‐list. Also remind that the scoring rubric is posted to the course webpage 5. Based on the current assessment and reflections, what course‐level and programmatic strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? What actions has your discipline determined might be taken as a result of your reflections, discussions, and insights? That setting clear expectations is very motivating to the students. Also in this class students work in Teams, rather than individually. Within‐Team “Peer‐Pressure” might contribute to this strong performance. 6. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?  Curricular  Pedagogical ←  Resource based  Change to CLO or rubric  Change to assessment methods  Other:_________________________________________________________________ Bruce Mayer, PE • ENGR_14-15.docx • Page 9
Course Semester assessment data gathered Number of sections offered in the semester Number of sections assessed Percentage of sections assessed Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion ENGR22 Fall 2011 1 4 100 Spring 2012 Carolyn Slutz‐Baranouskas Form Instructions:  Part I: CLO Data Reporting. For each CLO, obtain Class Achievement data in aggregate for all sections assessed in eLumen.  Part II: CLO Reflections. Based on student success reported in Part I, reflect on the individual CLO.  Part III: Course Reflection. In reviewing all the CLOs and your findings, reflect on the course as a whole. PART I: COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOMES – DATA RESULTS CONSIDER THE COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE) (CLO) 1: EFFECTIVELY DESCRIBE THE SPACIAL SHAPE AND/OR FORM OF A MACHINED MECHANICAL OBJECT DEPICTED IN A 3‐
DIMENSIONAL PICTORIAL REPRESENTATION OF THE OBJECT. DESCRIBE THE HEIGHT, WIDTH, AND DEPTH (HWD) OF THE OBJECT. Actual Scores** Defined Target (eLumen data) Scores* (CLO Goal) 70% of the class The class of scores 3 or twenty had 8 better students who were ranked competent (3) and 12 who demonstrated accomplishment (4), consistent with this goal. 70% of the class A class of twenty scores 3 or scored (1) by 3 TERMINOLOGY TO IDENTIFY SIGNIFICANT FEATURES OF A better students, (2) by 4 MACHINED MECHANICAL OBJECT DEPICTED IN A 3‐DIMENSIONAL students, (3) by 6 PICTORIAL REPRESENTATION OF THE OBJECT. USE TECHNICAL students, and(4) TERMS RO DESCRIBE ROUNDED ENDS, DRILLED HOLES OF FLANGE, by 7 students. AND BOSS AROUND CENTER HOLE. with 35% below competency. (CLO) 2: USE CORRECT MECHANICAL ENGINEERING  If more CLOs are listed for the course, add another row to the table. * Defined Target Scores: What scores in eLumen from your students would indicate success for this CLO? (Example: 75% of the class scored either 3 or 4) **Actual scores: What is the actual percent of students that meet defined target based on the eLumen data collected in this assessment cycle? Bruce Mayer, PE • ENGR_14-15.docx • Page 10
PART II: COURSE‐ LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS E. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1: 5. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? 80% of students scored three or better, exceeding the 70% goal. We need to build on this success. 6. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? Learning to assess the height, width, and depth of an object is the first step towards form definition. Pivotal to success in engineering is the ability totrain yourself to look at parts in a totally different way. The steps to communicate graphically must be laid out methodically and systematically. Not every student who thinks he or she wants to be engineer will succeed. A student's performance in this class is a good indication as to whether they have the interest, intellect, and problem‐solving ability that the career requires. F. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2: 5. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? A class of twenty scored (1) by 3 students, (2) by 4 students, (3) by 6 students, and(4) by 7 students. with 35% below competency. This is an area the instructor has been striving to improve upon by adding an illustrated handout of feature terminology that is discussed with dimensioning. It has been added to the syllabus as a dedicated topic of discussion. 6. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? It has been a challenge as many students know English only as a second language. Learning the technical language of engineering is particularly difficult for them. Illustration and example reinforcement are being injected into course content to further improve this deficiency. Bruce Mayer, PE • ENGR_14-15.docx • Page 11
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS 7. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions? It is important to use technology and real world example to bring concepts alive for students. Their passions must be fed on a regular basis to retain their attention and participation. 8. Based on the current assessment and reflections, what course‐level and programmatic strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? What actions has your discipline determined might be taken as a result of your reflections, discussions, and insights? The typical community college student seems less and less prepared with the basic skills to become a good college student, let alone a good engineering student. The difference in abilities is getting broader and broader and the instructor must be more creative in bridging those gaps as quickly as possible before students fall through the cracks. 9. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?  Curricular  Pedagogical ←  Resource based  Change to CLO or rubric  Change to assessment methods  Other:_________________________________________________________________ Bruce Mayer, PE • ENGR_14-15.docx • Page 12
Course Semester assessment data gathered Number of sections offered in the semester Number of sections assessed Percentage of sections assessed Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion ENGR25 Fa10 & Sp11 & Fa11 1 per semester 3 100 Fall2011 Bruce Mayer, PE (Only Instructor) Form Instructions:  Part I: CLO Data Reporting. For each CLO, obtain Class Achievement data in aggregate for all sections assessed in eLumen.  Part II: CLO Reflections. Based on student success reported in Part I, reflect on the individual CLO.  Part III: Course Reflection. In reviewing all the CLOs and your findings, reflect on the course as a whole. PART I: COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOMES – DATA RESULTS Defined Target Actual Scores** Scores* (eLumen data) (CLO Goal) Fa10 = 54.5%. 2/3 (67%) of (CLO) 1: CRITICAL THINKING ‐ ASSIGNMENT class scored 3 or Sp11 = 87.5%. ENGR 25 ‐ GIVEN A DATA SET THAT CAN BE MODELED BY Fa11 = 65%. There better EITHER A POWER‐FUNCTION OR AN EXPONENTIAL‐FUNCTION is significant LINEARIZE THE DATA, AND THEN PERFORM A LINEAR REGRESSION variation term‐to‐
USING MATLAB OR EXCEL SOFTWARE TO DETERMINE THE term on this BEST‐CASE FITTING CONSTANTS M & B. APPLY THE FITTING topic. Overall we CONSTANTS TO THE ORIGINAL FUNCTION TO DETERMINE THE are close to the FITTING PARAMETERS M & B THAT APPLY TO THE POWER OR goal, but EXPONENTIAL FUNCTION MODEL improvement is needed. 80% of the class 80% of the class (CLO) 2: CRITICAL THINKING ‐ ASSIGNMENT scores 2 or better scores 2 or ENGR 25 ‐ USE MATLAB S SIMULINK INTERCONNECTED‐
better ICON BASED PROGRAMMING ENVIRONMENT TO CREATE A CONSIDER THE COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE) SIMULINK FEEDBACK DIAGRAM THAT PRODUCES A GRAPH OF THE NUMERICAL SOLUTION TO A NONLINEAR, NONHOMOGENEOUS, SECOND ORDER DIFFERENTIAL EQUATION 75% of the class Fa10 = 81.1%. (CLO) 3: CRITICAL THINKING ‐ ASSIGNMENT scores 3 or Sp11 = 75%. Fa11 ENGR 25 ‐ SOLVE BY HAND, USING DIFFERENTIAL CALCULUS, FOR AN INDEPENDENT VARIABLE THAT WILL better. OPTIMIZE/MINIMIZE/MAXIMIZE SOME DEPENDENT VARIABLE QUANTITY THAT RESULTS FROM THE ANALYSIS OF A REAL‐WORLD SITUATION‐SCENARIO  If more CLOs are listed for the course, add another row to the table. Bruce Mayer, PE • ENGR_14-15.docx • Page 13
= 75%. * Defined Target Scores: What scores in eLumen from your students would indicate success for this CLO? (Example: 75% of the class scored either 3 or 4) **Actual scores: What is the actual percent of students that meet defined target based on the eLumen data collected in this assessment cycle? Bruce Mayer, PE • ENGR_14-15.docx • Page 14
PART II: COURSE‐ LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS G. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1: 7. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? Fa10 = 54.5%. Sp11 = 87.5%. Fa11 = 65%. There is significant variation term‐to‐term on this topic. Overall we are close to the goal, but improvement is needed. 8. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? The students seem to get “stuck” at the beginning of the problem. Some students do not seem to fully understand the phrase “Linearize” in the context of the problem. H. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2: 7. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? Fa10 = 81.9%. Sp11 = 87.5%. Fa11 = 82.3%. Basically the goal has been met. The minimum score is set at 2 due to the unique nature of this particular topic. The students have not seen ANYTHING similar to the SimuLink topic in other classes. Becoming fully familiar with this topic takes much more time than that allowed by the course schedule. 8. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? In Sp11 we had an extra class meeting. This meeting was devoted entirely to the SimuLink topic through a detailed example. C. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 3: 1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? Fa10 = 81.1%. Sp11 = 75%. Fa11 = 75%. This topic is also covered in the PreReq course; Calculus‐I (MTH1 at Chabot). Students who failed to earn at least a 3 on this problem most likely did poorly on this topic in Calc‐I as well, and the ENGR25 Instructor’s methods failed to break this barrier. 2. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? Bruce Mayer, PE • ENGR_14-15.docx • Page 15
This CLO shows consistent performance. This is some evidence of solid preparation in the PreReq course More carefully explain the WhiteBoard example that I perform as a refresher on this topic. Also Keep repeating to the students when someone in a technical capacity uses the terms minimize/maximize/optimize, then the student should immediately think "Take the first derivative, and set it to ZERO" Bruce Mayer, PE • ENGR_14-15.docx • Page 16
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS 10. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions? More In‐Class Emphasis that the Exponential and Power Functions can be linearized using semilogarithmic and logarithmic‐logarithmic functions and graphs Try to work in more SimuLink Examples whenever the schedule permits. The more worked‐
examples, the better. The students are well prepared for this topic by the PreReq Course (Calc‐I = Chabot MTH‐1) and the ENGR25 instruction reinforces this mastery. 11. Based on the current assessment and reflections, what course‐level and programmatic strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? What actions has your discipline determined might be taken as a result of your reflections, discussions, and insights? The Sp11 results show that students can, indeed, master this topic. More In‐Class Emphasis that the Exponential and Power Functions can be linearized using semilogarithmic and logarithmic‐logarithmic functions and graphs Clear explanations of detailed examples has a positive impact on “brand new” subjects. Continue with board examples, and the emphasis that in engineering the word “Optimize” strongly implies taking the first mathematical derivative and setting it equal to zero. 12. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?  Curricular  Pedagogical ←  Resource based  Change to CLO or rubric  Change to assessment methods  Other:_________________________________________________________________ Bruce Mayer, PE • ENGR_14-15.docx • Page 17
Course Semester assessment data gathered Number of sections offered in the semester Number of sections assessed Percentage of sections assessed Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion ENGR36 Fall2012 1 1 100 Spring2013 Bruce Mayer, PE (Only Instructor) Form Instructions:  Part I: CLO Data Reporting. For each CLO, obtain Class Achievement data in aggregate for all sections assessed in eLumen.  Part II: CLO Reflections. Based on student success reported in Part I, reflect on the individual CLO.  Part III: Course Reflection. In reviewing all the CLOs and your findings, reflect on the course as a whole. PART I: COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOMES – DATA RESULTS Defined Target Actual Scores** Scores* (eLumen data) (CLO Goal) (CLO) 1: CRITICAL THINKING ‐ ASSIGNMENT ENGR 36 ‐ GIVEN 75% of Students Out of 18: 4 → 6 ea score 3 or A MECHANICAL SYSTEM THAT INCLUDES MULTIPLE FORCES 3 → 4 ea Better (PUSHES AND/OR PULLS) AND/OR MULTIPLE MOMENTS 2 → 6 ea (TWISTS) DETERMINE THE RESULTANT FORCE+COUPLE 1 → 2 ea CONSIDER THE COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE) SYSTEM COMPRISED OF A SINGLE‐FORCE (R) AND SINGLE‐
COUPLE (MR) (CLO) 2: CRITICAL THINKING ‐ ASSIGNMENT ENGR 36 ‐ ANALYZE A STATIC (NONMOVING), FORCE/MOMENT LOADED FRAME OR MACHINE (FM) USING NEWTONIAN MECHANICS TO DETERMINE UNKNOWN INTERNAL FORCE(S) AND/OR MOMENT(S) (CLO) 3: CRITICAL THINKING ‐ ASSIGNMENT ENGR 36 ‐ ANALYZE A STATIC (NONMOVING), FORCE/MOMENT LOADED STRUCTUAL TRUSS USING NEWTONIAN MECHANICS TO DETERMINE UNKNOWN INTERNAL FORCE(S) AND/OR MOMENT(S) 75% of Students Out of 18: score 3 or 4 → 6 ea Better 3 → 4 ea 2 → 5 ea 1 → 3 ea 75% of Students Out of 18: score 3 or 4 → 4 ea Better 3 → 6 ea 2 → 6 ea 1 → 2 ea 0 → 1 75% of Students Out of 18: (CLO) 4: CRITICAL THINKING ‐ ASSIGNMENT ENGR 36 ‐ score 3 or 4 → 10 ea CONSTRUCT THE SHEAR (V) AND BENDING‐MOMENT (M) Better 3 → 6 ea DIAGRAM FOR A TRANSVERSELY‐LOAD STRUCTURAL BEAM 2 → 1 ea 1 → 1 ea  If more CLOs are listed for the course, add another row to the table. * Defined Target Scores: What scores in eLumen from your students would indicate success for this CLO? (Example: 75% of the class scored either 3 or 4) Bruce Mayer, PE • ENGR_14-15.docx • Page 18
**Actual scores: What is the actual percent of students that meet defined target based on the eLumen data collected in this assessment cycle? Bruce Mayer, PE • ENGR_14-15.docx • Page 19
PART II: COURSE‐ LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS I. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1: 9. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? Students scored 10/18 = 55.5%. This is well below the goal of 75% 10. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? Students do well with the easier of the two issues, which is calculating the Resultant force. Most of the difficulties in determining the resultant moment (Mr) arises from a sign error. The typical sign errors  Running the position vector BACKWARDS (the vector runs FROM the pivot‐point TO the Force)  Commuting the Cross Product (M = rXF; NOT Fxr) J. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2: 9. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? Students scored 10/18 = 55.5%. This is well below the goal of 75% 10. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? Students often  Do NOT apply 2 or 3 force member analysis when they should OR  DO apply apply 2 or 3 force member analysis when they should NOT K. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 3: 11. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? Students scored 10/16 = 55.5%. This is slightly below the goal of 75% Bruce Mayer, PE • ENGR_14-15.docx • Page 20
12. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? Errors tend to creep into the analysis in two areas:  Failure to properly construct the Free Body Diagram for the pin  Making a wrong sign assignment for an unknown force. L. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 4: 13. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? Students scored 16/18 = 88.9%. This is well ABOVE the goal of 75% 14. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? The students are well prepared by their Calculus, Mechanical Physics, and ENGR25 classes. The quickly grasp the calculus relationship between Load, Shear, and Moment. PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS 13. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions? Based on discussions with colleagues in Phyics ENGR36 adopted the use of an OnLine HomeWork system called Mastering Engineering for the textbook used in this class. The students reported generally positive assessments of the OnLine Homework system. They particularly appreciated the real‐time feedback provided during the problem‐solving process. 14. Based on the current assessment and reflections, what course‐level and programmatic strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? What actions has your discipline determined might be taken as a result of your reflections, discussions, and insights? Continue the use of the “Mastering Engineering” OnLine HomeWork System. Adjust the mix of PowerPoint and WhiteBoard work toward more WhiteBoard problem solving demonstrations. Bruce Mayer, PE • ENGR_14-15.docx • Page 21
15. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?  Curricular  Pedagogical ←  Resource based  Change to CLO or rubric  Change to assessment methods  Other:_________________________________________________________________ Bruce Mayer, PE • ENGR_14-15.docx • Page 22
Course Semester assessment data gathered Number of sections offered in the semester Number of sections assessed Percentage of sections assessed Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion ENGR45 Sp 2011 1 Section Per Year 2 (2 years of data) 100 Fall 2011 Bruce Mayer, PE (Only Instructor) Form Instructions:  Part I: CLO Data Reporting. For each CLO, obtain Class Achievement data in aggregate for all sections assessed in eLumen.  Part II: CLO Reflections. Based on student success reported in Part I, reflect on the individual CLO.  Part III: Course Reflection. In reviewing all the CLOs and your findings, reflect on the course as a whole. PART I: COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOMES – DATA RESULTS Defined Target Actual Scores** Scores* (eLumen data) (CLO Goal) 70% of Students This was a small (CLO) 1: GIVEN TEMPERATURE AND DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT class; 7 students INFORMATION USE THE EQUATION FOR SOLID‐STATE DIFFUSION score 3 or total. On this CLO Better TO FIND THE EXPONENTIAL‐PREFACTOR, DO, AND ACTIVATION six students ENERGY, QD, FOR THE DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT. scored “4’s”, and one scored a “3”. Overall this was an excellent performance 70% of Students Six students took (CLO) 2: OUTCOME: score 3 or this assessment. GIVEN DATA RELATED TO A VOLUME‐WEIGHTED‐AVERAGE Five students MATERIAL PROPERTY USE THE RULE‐OF‐MIXTURE EQUATIONS TO Better scored a “2”, and DETERMINE THE AVERAGE MATERIAL PROPERTY OF A the other student MULTICOMPONENT MATERIAL scored a “1”. 70% of Students The Students (CLO) 3: OUTCOME: performed fairly GIVEN THE GEOMETERY, ELASTIC MODULUS, AND DATA TAKEN score 3 or Better well on this CLO. FROM STRESS‐STRAIN DIAGRAM FOR A SOLID MATERIAL Five of the six SPECIMEN DETERMINE THESE VALUES: (A) THE MAXIMUM LOAD scored “3’s”, THAT MAY BE APPLIED WITHOUT CAUSING PLASTIC while one student DEFORMATION, (B) THE MAXIMUM LOAD THAT MAY BE scored a “2” CONSIDER THE COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE) APPLIED WITHOUT CAUSING PLASTIC DEFORMATION, (C) THE MAXIMUM LOAD THAT MAY BE APPLIED WITHOUT TEARING APART THE SPECIMEN (CLO) 4: GIVEN POLYMER CRYSTALLINITY AND DENSITY DATA CALCULATE THE EXPECTED DENSITY FOR A 100% CRYSTALLINE POLYMER 70% of Students 4 of 6 students scored a “4”. One score 3 or student scored Better Bruce Mayer, PE • ENGR_14-15.docx • Page 23
“3”, and the remaining student scored “2” (CLO) 5: ANALYZE THE CLASSIC IRON‐CARBON ROOM‐PRESSURE 70% of Students Four of six student scored PHASE‐DIAGRAM TO DETERMINE FOURTEEN QUANTITIES WORTH score 3 or Better “4”. The 22 POINTS ON AN EXAM. FOR EXAMPLE INCLUDES: (I) PHASES remaining two PRESENT @ 2WT%C & 1300, (II) THE EUTECTIOD students scored TEMPERATURE, (III) WT%C @ THE EUTECTIOD TEMPERATURE, “2” (IV) THE PURE‐IRON MELTING TEMPERATURE, (V) MAXIMUM WT%C FOR SOLID SOLUBILITY IN THE GAMMA‐PHASE, (VI) WEIGHT‐FRACTION(S) OF ALL PHASE(S) PRESENT @ 3WT%C & 1000 °C  If more CLOs are listed for the course, add another row to the table. * Defined Target Scores: What scores in eLumen from your students would indicate success for this CLO? (Example: 75% of the class scored either 3 or 4) **Actual scores: What is the actual percent of students that meet defined target based on the eLumen data collected in this assessment cycle? Bruce Mayer, PE • ENGR_14-15.docx • Page 24
PART II: COURSE‐ LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS M. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1: 11. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? This was a small class; 7 students total. On this CLO six students scored “4’s”, and one scored a “3”. Overall this was an excellent performance. 12. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? Doing WhiteBoard examples, and emphasizing the logarithmic nature of the equations, results is students mastering this material N. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2: 15. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? Six students took this assessment. Five students scored a “2”, and the other student scored a “1”. Clearly these students did not have an adequate grasp of this material 16. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? The students seem of have had difficulties with the phrase “rule of mixtures” In the context of this assessment problem on the final exam. A better explanation of the fact that the students must determine to total volume, and then use that as the divisor of the PARTIAL volumes to arrive at the volume fractions. This topic was delivered in PowerPoint and textbook format only. From the results of CL1, a WhiteBoard Explanation/Example would seem to be a path to increased learning O. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 3: 17. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? The Students performed fairly well on this CLO. Five of the six scored “3’s”, while one student scored a “2”. Thus the class met the success criteria for this item. Bruce Mayer, PE • ENGR_14-15.docx • Page 25
18. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? The good news is that most students UNDERSTOOD the difference between temporary ELASTIC deformation, and permanent PLASTIC definitions. But some confusion still exists on this point. P. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 4: 19. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? 4 of 6 students scored a “4”. One student scored “3”, and the remaining student scored “2”. Thus the students on this CLO met the 70%@3 criteria for a successful overall outcome. 20. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? The current methods of PowerPoint explanations, along with TextBook reading and (more importantly) graded homework assignments look to be effective in producing student learning. Q. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 5: 21. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? Four of six student scored “4”. The remaining two students scored “2”. Generally a Good outcome, but showing some weakness 22. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? All students did well on Identifying phases present, but several had a difficult time identifying the “ProEutectic” phase. Bruce Mayer, PE • ENGR_14-15.docx • Page 26
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS 16. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions? Emphasize to students that deformation is FULLY reversible ONLY if the loading is within the elastic range. The current methods of PowerPoint explanations, along with TextBook reading and (more importantly) graded homework assignments look to be effective in producing student learning. All students did well on Identifying phases present, but several had a difficult time identifying the “ProEutectic” phase. 17. Based on the current assessment and reflections, what course‐level and programmatic strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? What actions has your discipline determined might be taken as a result of your reflections, discussions, and insights? Need to emphasize that deformation UNDER LOAD may produce of ONE or TWO results: 1) Elastic deformation within the elastic range of the material. This is completely REVERSIBLE. 2) a combination of ELASTIC and INELASTIC deformation. In this case ONLY the ELASTIC Component is reversible, leaving a “permanent set” due to the INelastic component. The Strength is that the current methods of fairly classical lecture‐discussion, followed by student‐
exercises appear to be effective. Continue with current methods, refining the explanations incrementally which the instructor tries to do in every class. Explain that the ProEuctectoid is the ROOM temperature stable phase that does transform when SOLID steel cools thru the transforming (of some phases) Eutectoid temperature The Strength is that the current methods of fairly classical lecture‐discussion, followed by student‐
exercises appear to be effective 18. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?  Curricular  Pedagogical ←  Resource based  Change to CLO or rubric  Change to assessment methods  Other:_________________________________________________________________ Bruce Mayer, PE • ENGR_14-15.docx • Page 27
Appendix C: Program Learning Outcomes Considering your feedback, findings, and/or information that has arisen from the course level discussions, please reflect on each of your Program Level Outcomes. Program: Engineering (AA [should be AS]) • from http://www.chabotcollege.edu/sloac/plo_results.cfm?program=Engineering (AA) _  PLO #1: ENGRINEERING STUDENTS SHALL DEMONSTRATE AN ABILITY TO APPLY KNOWLEDGE OF MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE, AND ENGINEERING. Ref: Outcome (a) from E001 10‐11 EAC Criteria 1‐
27‐10.pdf, DownLoaded from http://www.abet.org/forms.shtml#For_Engineering_Programs_Only 27Feb2010  PLO #2: ENGINEERING STUDENTS SHALL DEMONSTRATE 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. Ref: Outcome (c) from E001 10‐11 EAC Criteria 1‐
27‐10.pdf, DownLoaded from http://www.abet.org/forms.shtml#For_Engineering_Programs_Only 27Feb2010 What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions? Explain: Questions: Q1. How do I encourage students to dedicate more time and effort to mastering the course material? Q2. How do I make complicated material easier for students to understand? Q3. What can I do to improve the Engineering‐Problem‐Solving3 skills of students? Q4. How can I give to students more immediate (daily) feedback on their learning? Q5. How do I encourage students to stay‐current with the course‐material; i.e., what I do to ensure that the students stay on the course schedule? Q6. How can I assist students who missed occasional classes due to “life circumstances” such as illness, or unexpected changes in gainful‐employment work schedules, etc.? Q7. Is there anything I can do to INSPIRE students to greater learning and academic achievement? What program‐level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? Strengths revealed: SR1.
Students REALLY DO appreciate having the Instructors Lecture Notes, and access to course materials on the WebPage. Many times a student will printout the lecture‐slides and write on them his/her personal notes. SR2.
Engineering students appreciate the FULL suite of TRANSFER COURSES offered by Chabot. 3
An extremely important “Critical Thinking” skill within the Engineering Discipline Bruce Mayer, PE • ENGR_14-15.docx • Page 28
This full program often attracts students from nearby community colleges that do not offer all of the ELC4 recommended courses. SR3.
Transfer students who have returned to Chabot from the TRANSFER UNIVERSITY generally express gratitude for the RIGOR of the courses offered by Chabot as these courses well‐prepared them to handle the Upper Division course material at the university college/school of Engineering. SOME of the students who ultimately earned university Engineering Degrees have returned to Chabot to give advice to current students:  Thein Win ‐ Civil Engineer UCBerkeley  Jose Servanda – Mechanical Engineer, UCBerkeley  Garrick Bornkamp – Mechanical Engineer, UCDavis  Ishmael Ayesh – Civil Engineer, UCBerkeley  Koo Hyun Nam – Mechanical Engineer (Ph.D.), UCBerkeley  Krishnil Mani – Mechanical Engineer, CalPoly‐SLO  Lucas Huezo – Civil Engineer, UCBerkeley  Nicholas Vickers – Materials Engineer (M.S.) – CalPoly‐SLO  Phil Cutino – Mechanical Engineer, UCBerkeley  Melissa Quemada – Chemical Engineer, UCBerkeley  Robert Irwin – Mechanical Engineer, UCBerkeley  Robert Curry – Civil Engineer, CSU‐Sacramento  Emiliano Esparza – Civil Engineer, UCDavis  Jim Havercamp – Mechanical Engineer, UCBerkeley  Berhard Stonas – Mechanical Engineer (M.S.), San Jose State  Yong Yin Chuah – Engineering Management (M.S.)5, CSU‐EastBay  Joshua Merritt – Mechanical Engineer, the Ohio State University  Tomasz Jagoda – Mechanical Engineer, UC Santa Barbara  Robert Moore – Mechanical Engineer, UCBerkeley  Elijah Rosas – Mechanical Engineer, UCDavis  Baoying (Stephenie) Zhang – Chemical Engineer, UCBerkeley  Nic Celeste – Mechanical Engineer, San Francisco State University  Hoang Si Nguyen – Civil Engineer, UCBerkeley  Sangam Rawat – Mechanical Engineer, UCBerkeley  Zhiwei Huang – Mechanical Engineer, UCBerkeley  Huy Nguyen – Civil Engineer, UCDavis  George Greer – Civil Engineer, UCBerkeley  Artos Cen – Chemical Engineer, UCBerkeley  Cesar Urbaon  Joel Christensen  Phillip Swanson  Stephanie J. Siber  Branden Andersen 4
5
http://www.caelc.org/ Mr. Chuah also earned a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from UCDavis after transferring from Chabot Bruce Mayer, PE • ENGR_14-15.docx • Page 29
What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of students completing your program? Actions planned: AP1.
Offer, for ExtraCredit, in all classes a Take Home Quizi based on a presentationii describing the STUDY SKILLS of effective College/University students. Reflecting on incoming student preparation indicated that many students just did not recognize the substantial difference between HIGH‐SCHOOL studying and College/University Studying. Periodically UpDate and improve the Study‐
Skills Presentation/Quiz. AP2.
97+% of the instructor’s preparation course‐notes are in PowerPoint form. These notes are then made available on a “24/7” basis for students who missed class for any reason (c.f. Q6, above). The instructor’s PowerPoint notes are used for in‐Class lecture presentations. In effect, the instructor’s notes were made available to students as suggested in the “Share the Wealth” section of the fine video presentation “Reading Between Lives” by Chabot Instructor Sean McFarlandiii. Consider this comment from a Chabot English Instructoriv regarding the contents of Mr. McFarland’s production: “This video makes me ask the question, “What is the purpose of higher education? Why not give students the handout of a lecture?” Engineering ALWAYS gives students the “handout of the lecture” by posting it to the Engineering‐Course WebPage. However, one instructional‐faculty colleague pointed out that, in his experience, students respond better to “MultiMedia” presentations such as a combination of Screen (PowerPoint) and Board (Chalk or Marker) work than they do to “single media” forms such a pure‐board or pure‐PowerPoint formats. As a result, a concerted effort has been made by the Engineering Instructor to move from majority‐PowerPoint to a more balanced approach. AP3.
To help students stay current with the course material, give them immediate feedback, and encourage them to attend every class meetings the Engineering Instructor wrote DAILY “MiniQuizzes”. The “MQ’s” are 5 minutes in duration, are “pop” in that they may be administered at any time during the course period, and solved on the board immediately after collection. Pilot in the Engineering Mechanics course (ENGR36) the use of an OnLine Homework system that gives students immediate feedback and and solution “hints”. The plan is use Pearson Publishing’s Proven (see Figure 1) Mastering Engineering OnLine HomeWork System. AP4.
Do more detailed “Problem Solving” tutorials in the calculus‐based courses ENGR 25/36/43/45 to “model” how an Engineer might approach technical problems that are described by a combination of words and math. Make the tutorial notes available on the course webpage for student access. AP5.
Try to act as a CommunityCollege→UCBerkeley→Stanford role‐model for Chabot Engineering students. Continue to encourage students with the “If I can do it, then YOU can do it too…” mantra. I also bring back former students who have moved‐to, and through, the University Engineering college/school to provide more recent models of the success of, in this case, Chabot transfer students. See Figure 2. See also “Strengths revealed” Above. Bruce Mayer, PE • ENGR_14-15.docx • Page 30
Program: Engineering (Transfer Prep) from http://www.chabotcollege.edu/sloac/plo_results.cfm?program=Engineering (Transfer Prep)  PLO #1: PLO #1: ENGRINEERING STUDENTS SHALL DEMONSTRATE AN ABILITY TO APPLY KNOWLEDGE OF MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE, AND ENGINEERING. Ref: Outcome (a) from E001 10‐
11 EAC Criteria 1‐27‐10.pdf, DownLoaded from http://www.abet.org/forms.shtml#For_Engineering_Programs_Only 27Feb2010  PLO #2: PLO #2: ENGINEERING STUDENTS SHALL DEMONSTRATE 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. Ref: Outcome (c) from E001 10‐11 EAC Criteria 1‐
27‐10.pdf, DownLoaded from http://www.abet.org/forms.shtml#For_Engineering_Programs_Only 27Feb2010 What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions? Explain: : See Above discussion under Engineering AS program What program‐level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? Strengths revealed: See Above discussion under Engineering AS program What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of students completing your program? Actions planned: See Above discussion under Engineering AS program Bruce Mayer, PE • ENGR_14-15.docx • Page 31
Figure 1 – MASTERING ENGINEERING EFFECTIVENESS. Mean scores of midterm and
final exams with standard errors, academic years 2008 and 2009 (M.midterm and M.final
are with Mastering Engineering). Data From Colorado School of Mines6
6
http://www.pearsonhighered.com/resources/Pearson_Global_Whitepaper.pdf Bruce Mayer, PE • ENGR_14-15.docx • Page 32
Figure 2 • Excerpts from the Guest Lecture to the Chabot ENGR10 Course made by
Chabot Engineering Transfer Student Robert Moore.
Bruce Mayer, PE • ENGR_14-15.docx • Page 33
i
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/faculty/bmayer/ChabotEngineeringCourses/All_Courses_ENGR/College_Student_Study_Skill
s_Quiz_1010.doc
ii
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/faculty/bmayer/ChabotEngineeringCourses/All_Courses_ENGR/Study_Skills_for_Chabot_Co
llege_Students_1010.ppt
iii
http://facultyinquiry.net/2009/01/15/capturing-student-voices-reading-between-lives/
iv
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/accreditation/exhibits/Standard%20I%20B/B%201.8%20Discussion%20notes%20from%20Re
ading%20between%20the%20Lines%20discussions.%20Nov%202006%C3%AF%E2%82%AC%C2%A9/Readingvideodisc
DCnotes.pdf
Bruce Mayer, PE • ENGR_14-15.docx • Page 34