Colorado School of Mines
Annual Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes Report
For Academic Year 2013-14 Undergraduate Programs
The purpose of assessment is to promote excellence in student learning and educational practices by
fostering a campus culture of self-evaluation and improvement. The annual assessment report enables
CSM to document engagement in continuous improvement efforts. Provide responses to the following
questions/items and email this completed document to kmschnei@mines.edu by September 26. Feel free
to expand the tables below as needed.
The Assessment Committee will provide written feedback in response to the department annual report,
using this rubric as the basis for their feedback.
Department/Program: Chemical and Biological Engineering/Chemical Engineering B.S. degree, and
Chemical and Biochemical Engineering B.S. degree*
Person Submitting This Report: Tracy Gardner
Phone: x3846
Email address: tgardner@mines.edu
1. Describe your assessment plan (list not only the activities completed in the past year, but your
entire ongoing plan.)
Note: We use the same 5 assessment methods for all 15 of our outcomes, so rather than list the methods
all 14 times I will list the methods more generally here and you can use the matrix in question 3 to see how
the particular courses and assessment methods map to the individual outcomes.
Student Outcome 1 (1.1): At the time of graduation, our Chemical Engineering graduates will be
able to apply knowledge of math, chemistry, biology, physics, and engineering to identify, formulate, and
solve chemical engineering problems (ref. ABET Criteria 3a and 3e).
Student Outcome 2 (1.2): At the time of graduation, our Chemical Engineering graduates will be
able to apply knowledge of rate and equilibrium processes to identify, formulate, and solve chemical
engineering problems (ref. ABET Criteria 3a and 3e).
Student Outcome 3 (1.3): At the time of graduation, our Chemical Engineering graduates will be
able to apply knowledge of unit operations to identify, formulate, and solve chemical engineering
problems (ref. ABET Criteria 3a and 3e).
Student Outcome 4 (1.4): At the time of graduation, our Chemical Engineering graduates will
demonstrate an ability to use the computational techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools
necessary for chemical engineering practice (ref. ABET Criterion 3k).
Student Outcome 5 (1.5): At the time of graduation, our Chemical Engineering graduates will be
able to analyze the economic profitability of chemical engineering processes and systems. (ref. ABET
criteria 3c and 3h).
Student Outcome 6 (2.1): At the time of graduation, our Chemical Engineering graduates will be
able to design and conduct experiments of chemical engineering processes or systems (ref. ABET
criterion 3b).
1
Student Outcome 7 (2.2): At the time of graduation, our Chemical Engineering graduates will be
able to analyze and interpret experimental data from chemical engineering experiments (ref. ABET
criterion 3b).
Student Outcome 8 (2.3): At the time of graduation, our Chemical Engineering graduates will be
able to design a process or system to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as time,
economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and
sustainability. (ref. ABET criterion 3c).
Student Outcome 9 (2.4): At the time of graduation, our Chemical Engineering graduates will be
able to function effectively on a multi-disciplinary team (ref. ABET criterion 3d).
Student Outcome 10 (3.1): At the time of graduation, our Chemical Engineering graduates will
demonstrate an awareness of professional and ethical responsibility (ref. ABET criterion 3f).
Student Outcome 11 (3.2): At the time of graduation, our Chemical Engineering graduates will
demonstrate an ability to communicate effectively orally and in writing (ref. ABET criterion 3g).
Student Outcome 12 (3.3): At the time of graduation, our Chemical Engineering graduates will
demonstrate an understanding of the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic,
environmental, and societal context (ref. ABET criterion 3h).
Student Outcome 13 (3.4): At the time of graduation, our Chemical Engineering graduates will
demonstrate recognition of the need for and an ability to engage in self-education and life-long learning
(ref. ABET Criterion 3i).
Student Outcome 14 (3.5): At the time of graduation, our Chemical and Biochemical
Engineering graduates will demonstrate an understanding of contemporary issues (ref. ABET Criterion
3j).
Student Outcome 15 (4.1): At the time of graduation, or Chemical and Biochemical Engineering
graduates will be able to apply knowledge of bioprocessing methods including fermentation and biofuel
production (ref. ABET Criterion 3a, 3e, and 3j).
Direct assessment
measure(s)/method(s)
Final exams and/or projects in
appropriate courses (see matrix
in question 3 for mapping of
which materials are assessed
for which outcomes)
Performance
criteria
Student scores on
relevant problems on
scale from 0 to 4
average 2.5 or higher
FE exam results for outcomes
1, 2, and 5
Average student
scores in each area
are > 70%
2
Population/sample/
recruitment
strategies
All students taking
particular course
All students who
take the FE exam –
approximately 15%
of our students?
Frequency/timing of
assessment
These materials are
assessed every
time the course is
taught (once per
year)
October and April
each year the exam
is given, we get
results 6-8 weeks
later
Population/sample/
recruitment
strategies
All students just
finishing particular
course
Indirect assessment
measure(s)/method(s)
Course evaluations –
Performance
criteria
>70% of student
responses to direct
questions about their
abilities are positive
Alumni Survey
>50% of responses to
related questions
(see attached survey
for question/outcome
mapping) are 3 or
higher
Alumni (this recent
survey went to 10
years of graduates;
2001-2010)
Plan to do survey
every 5-6 years
Senior exit survey
>50% of responses to
related question(s)
(see attached survey)
are positive
All graduating
seniors
Every May and
December
Undergraduate Education
Advisory Council course review
Council agrees
student outcome is
being met
Group of ~20 local
alumni/employers
of our graduates
Meets once per
year in Spring
(April)
Recruiter/Employer Survey
>70% positive
responses to
question(s) about
given outcome
Employers and
recruiters of our
current graduates
Plan to survey
every ~5 years
3
Frequency/timing of
assessment
Every time course
is taught (once per
year)
2. Map your assessment methods to your outcomes.
(I did measures here rather than methods, as the specific measures give more information than just the
methods, and can be easily mapped back to the methods using the answers in 1.)
Recruiter survey
x
x
x
x
x
x
Student outcome 2
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Student outcome 3
Student outcome 4
x
x
Student outcome 5
x
x
Student outcome 6
x
x
x
x
Student outcome 7
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Student outcome 9
x
x
x
Student outcome 10
x
x
x
x
x
x
Student outcome 12
x
x
x
Student outcome 13
x
x
x
Student outcome 14
x
x
x
Student outcome 8
Student outcome 11
x
x
x
x
Student outcome 15
x
4
Teamwork evaluation forms
(peer and Prof.)
Alumni survey
Student outcome 1
FE exam results
Senior exit survey
CHEN 460, 461 final exams
and projects
Senior design final reports
(rubric)
U.O. lab and senior design
oral reports (rubric)
U.O. lab written reports
(rubric)
CHEN 308 project (rubric)
CHEN 357, 375, and 418
final exams (rubric)
Table 1
x
3. Map the student outcomes to courses and to the ABET outcomes. You may use check marks or
designate P=primary emphasis and S=secondary emphasis. If your assessment plan only includes
the ABET outcomes and you have no additional outcomes, you do not need to complete table #3.
CHEN375
CHEN403
CHEN418
x
x
x
x
x
x
Student outcome 2
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Student outcome 3
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Student outcome 4
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Student outcome 5
Student outcome 6
x
x
Student outcome 7
x
x
Student outcome 8
Student outcome 9
x
x
Student outcome 11
x
Student outcome 12
x
Student outcome 13
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
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Student outcome 14
x
x
Student outcome 15
x
Table 3
Student outcome 1
Student outcome 2
Student outcome 3
Student outcome 4
Student outcome 5
Student outcome 6
Student outcome 7
Student outcome 8
Student outcome 9
x
x
x
x
Student outcome 10
x
x
A
x
x
x
B
C
ABET Outcomes
D E F G H
x
x
x
I
J
K
X
x
CHEN461
CHEN358
x
CHEN460
CHEN357
x
CHEN430
CHEN308
x
CHEN421
CHEN307
x
CHEN402
CHEN202
Student outcome 1
312/313
CHEN201
Courses
BELS101
Table 2
x
x
x
x
x
5
x
Student outcome 10
Student outcome 11
Student outcome 12
Student outcome 13
Student outcome 14
Student outcome 15
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
4. Identify the assessment activities that your program has implemented in the past year.
Direct assessment methods:
Student work evaluations, FE exam, career center reports
Indirect assessment methods:
Course evaluations, senior exit surveys, recruiter surveys, peer and professor evaluations in field
session
5. Describe how you have shared assessment results with faculty. Describe how faculty have
used assessment results to improve student learning, including the specific actions you have
taken or will take to facilitate students’ attainment of the student learning outcomes. (ABET
Criterion 4C.)
When deficiencies are noted, this information is shared with the entire faculty via discussions at staff
meetings and, when necessary, subcommittees are formed to address problems. In some cases, the
faculty teaching the course or courses that are most amenable to modifying to address the problem
are consulted and changes made to courses directly. In other cases, new courses are offered to
address needs that are not met with the existing course offerings. An example of this is that we
modified our Chemical Process Principles (CBEN 202) and Thermodynamics Laboratory (CBEN 358)
courses in January of 2013 to be more self-paced, and further modified 358 with addition of video
tutorials in January of 2014 to address issues students had. The first year we developed tutorials so
that the students could learn the computer programs on their own time, and we implemented
competency exams and midterm evaluations as well. The second year we implemented video
tutorials (screencasts) and TA computer instruction to help with CBEN 358, though CBEN 202
seemed to run fine with just the tutorials. In this case the changes were made by the instructing
professor with assistance of instructors who have taught the course in the past and assistance from
the department management. We have also been working in subcommittees to redesign our course
offerings into a single degree with optional courses for specialty tracks similar to those offered in
Chemistry and MME. We are still working on this curriculum redesign.
Table 4
Mechanisms for sharing
assessment results with
faculty:
Staff meetings, subcommittees (standing subcommittees in the
department include Undergraduate Affairs, Graduate Affairs, Research
Affairs, and Awards committees; others are formed as needed) and
their reports to the faculty, and faculty retreats when necessary.
6
Table 5
Action #1 taken:
CBEN 201
Date action taken:
Basis for this action:
Student outcomes
impacted:
Specific assessment
measure(s) that motivated
action (if not described
above):
Measurement/assessment
of the impact of the action
that was taken:
Action #2 taken:
Date action taken:
Basis for this action:
Student outcomes
impacted:
Specific assessment
measure(s) that motivated
action (if not described
above):
Measurement/assessment
of the impact of the action
that was taken:
Assigned and assessed student teams in CBEN 201 using CATME.
Spring 2014
Ad hoc groups could be improved based on literature and the tools on
catme.org. Worked well in CBEN 210 in Fall 2013, so applied in
CBEN 201 in Spring 2014.
9, 10, 11
See “Basis for this action” above.
CATME team maker and assessment tools provided data on the
effectiveness of each student team. Most (>90%) of the teams were
well-functioning.
Biomedical Engineering Minor was created and passed UGC and
Senate and Intro to Biomedical Engineering, Biology of Behavior,
(and MCAT prep) courses were piloted
Fall 2013 and Spring 2014 (and Fall 2014 – planned in Spring 2014)
To provide more of what students who are interested in being “Premed” want and need to get into medical school.
1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14, 15
None
21, 21, and 9 students took these courses, respectively. Will take
time to learn how many students per year enroll in the BME minor
and to see if MCAT outcomes and medical school acceptances
increase.
Action #3 taken:
CBEN 201
Used YouTube problems from previous semesters and students
wrote new YouTube problems in CBEN 201.
Date action taken:
Basis for this action:
Spring 2014
Known efficacy of incorporating visuals to provide additional
information for the students to better understand concepts.
1
Student outcomes
impacted:
Specific assessment
measure(s) that motivated
action (if not described
above):
Measurement/assessment
of the impact of the action
that was taken:
From collecting problems completed in class and observing students
during class time, it was noted that they were not understanding the
material as well as we would like for them to.
Collected problems showed good understanding of course concepts.
Certain common errors or misconceptions were noted and addressed
during future class periods. Provided excellent pre/post semester
example to show students what they have learned by assigning same
problem during Class 1 and Class 40. Students could not complete
most of the questions during Class 1, but could during Class 40, and
they were able to identify intentionally placed errors/misconceptions
in problem statements at the end.
7
Action #4 taken:
CBEN 201
Date action taken:
Basis for this action:
Student outcomes
impacted:
Specific assessment
measure(s) that motivated
action (if not described
above):
Measurement/assessment
of the impact of the action
that was taken:
Action #5 taken:
CBEN 201
Date action taken:
Basis for this action:
Student outcomes
impacted:
Specific assessment
measure(s) that motivated
action (if not described
above):
Measurement/assessment
of the impact of the action
that was taken:
Action #6 taken:
CBEN 201
Date action taken:
Basis for this action:
Student outcomes
impacted:
Specific assessment
measure(s) that motivated
action (if not described
above):
Measurement/assessment
of the impact of the action
that was taken:
Action #7 taken:
CBEN 358
Used Just in time teaching techniques refreshing material based on
instant grading of homework completed on Sapling Learning in CBEN
201.
Spring 2014
Literature showing effectiveness of this technique in non-engineering
courses.
1, 4
None – just applying best practices. This provided additional practice
problems in class for students to work in groups and allowed the
faculty to oversee the in class work and answer questions.
Survey at end of semester showed students like revisiting the hardest
homework problems. Not clear if this specific action improved student
learning, as other actions were also taken to improve instruction.
Used Echo Smart Pen technology to record quiz and homework
solutions including rubrics in CBEN 201.
Spring 2014
More senses engaged improves potential for learning (based on brain
science literature).
1, 4
Again, none – applying best practices.
Similarly here, the impact of this particular change not clear. We
tracked the number of downloads of talking pdfs in Blackboard.
Usage statistics and end of semester survey results of students can
be provided.
Used prototype interactive (unprintable) textbook titled Fundamentals
of Material and Energy Balances by Liberatore.
Spring 2014
As for action #4, more senses engaged improves potential for
learning (based on brain science literature).
1,4
Again, none – applying best practices.
We tracked the number of students who purchased the book
($10/student) and conducted end of semester surveys and
comments. Feedback was generally positive on cost and novelty of
book. Missing components were corrected in revision for future
semesters.
Made video tutorials for teaching the ASPEN software and added
them to a CBEN 358 YouTube channel. Specific videos were
referenced through links on Blackboard.
8
Date action taken:
January 2014
Basis for this action:
Students did not do as well in CBEN 358 with the tutorials alone in
Spring 2013, so we added these to support the administration of the
workbook material.
3, 4
Student outcomes
impacted:
Specific assessment
measure(s) that motivated
action (if not described
above):
Measurement/assessment
of the impact of the action
that was taken:
Described above.
Student ratings of Aspen workbook usefulness and quality were
compared between Spring 2013 (before creation of videos) and
Spring 2014. Workbook material ratings improved from an average
score of 3.3/5 in Spring 2013 to 3.7/5 in Spring 2014.
Action #8 taken:
CBEN 368
Asked students to give PowerPoint presentations of self-selected
paper studied during semester
Date action taken:
Spring 2014
Basis for this action:
Alumni surveys consistently indicate students do not have enough
experience giving presentations.
Student outcomes
impacted:
Specific assessment
measure(s) that motivated
action (if not described
above):
Measurement/assessment
of the impact of the action
that was taken:
11
Alumni surveys, recruiter surveys
12 students took this class. Feedback about their presentation skills
compared to others who did not take the course will be sought.
Action #9 taken:
CBEN 398
Date action taken:
Asked students to design an electrochemical energy conversion
device based on literature values.
Spring 2014
Basis for this action:
Student outcomes
impacted:
Specific assessment
measure(s) that motivated
action (if not described
above):
Measurement/assessment
of the impact of the action
that was taken:
To make their project more relevant to real research.
1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14
Action #10 taken:
CBEN 698
Developed a new class covering topics in polymer science, colloids,
and liquid crystals based on the textbook Soft Matter Physics by
Masao Doi. This is part of a larger departmental set of actions to
increase offerings at the 6xx level.
None.
28 students took this class. The students all earned a B or better on
this exercise.
9
Date action taken:
Basis for this action:
Student outcomes
impacted:
Specific assessment
measure(s) that motivated
action (if not described
above):
Measurement/assessment
of the impact of the action
that was taken:
Action #11 taken:
CBEN 210
Date action taken:
Basis for this action:
Student outcomes
impacted:
Specific assessment
measure(s) that motivated
action (if not described
above):
Measurement/assessment
of the impact of the action
that was taken:
Action #12 taken:
CBEN 375
Date action taken:
Basis for this action:
Student outcomes
impacted:
Specific assessment
measure(s) that motivated
action (if not described
above):
Measurement/assessment
of the impact of the action
that was taken:
Spring 2014
Course had been offered once before, and previous version focused
exclusively on colloids rather than the broad topic of soft matter.
(Not an undergraduate course, so doesn’t map to outcomes listed
above.)
See above.
Exams and term papers on topics in soft matter. Term papers
covered a wide variety of subjects within the broad topic of soft
matter. The departmentally agreed upon proposed learning objectives
were met.
Students were asked to analyze simple engineering machines and
integrate them into power cycles and refrigeration devices.
Spring 2014
A challenge in teaching this course is motivating students with
different technical backgrounds and goals to care, because the
course is composed of roughly 1/3 each Civil Engineers, Chemical
Engineers, and Engineering Physics students. Sophomore Chemical
Engineers and Physics students tend to believe and care about
thermodynamics; the challenge is to convince Civil Engineering (CEs)
seniors that thermodynamics will have application in their careers.
Our approach was to apply the first and second thermo laws to simple
engineering machines in which students believe (valves, pumps,
compressors, exchangers, and turbines) and then to combine the
simple machines into power and refrigeration cycles that CEs,
ChemEs, and Physicists know they will use.
1, 3, 4 – for Physicists, Chemical, and Civil Engineers
Student feedback from previous years
111 students took this course. Several specifically designed exam
questions were used to assess student learning gains.
115 students were taught in one large section instead of breaking into
2 sections.
Spring 2014
To see if claims that teaching in one large section is as good as
breaking into smaller sections once the class size gets above some
number (somewhere between 45 and 70 seems to be the cutoff
according to some faculty).
All, or maybe none specifically
None.
Student overall GPA was comparable to that for the same course in
years past – i.e. not statistically different. However, the faculty
member teaching the course concluded that she would prefer to
break the class up into smaller sections and teach twice for the same
10
credit in the future once class size exceeds what would fit in a
“normal classroom”. Even using many in-class problems, pen-based
technology in the students’ hands, and a TA and 2 graders to help
support interactive teaching methods, the instructor felt students had
an easier time disengaging in the large stadium-style classroom than
they would in AH 330 or AH 340, for instance, and that this
disengagement is enough of a detractor to make it worth teaching the
same material twice in one day.
6. Describe any changes that you are planning to make in your assessment plan for next year.
Table 6
Planned changes:
As mentioned above, a big change we are planning to make in the
department is to offer only one degree with specialty tracks. This will directly
affect our assessment plan as well. We don’t anticipate changing the basic
format or process of our assessment plan, but as the discussion on the
degree(s) progresses, the details of the assessment plan will likely change
somewhat too. It is unclear at this point exactly how that will evolve. As far
as the measures we use to assess our PEO’s and SO’s, and the frequency of
our assessments go, we do not anticipate changes. The performance criteria
will likely be tightened, as they are perhaps too easily met at the current
levels.
7. Describe how you have used the feedback from the assessment committee in response to last
year’s report to improve your assessment efforts.
Table 7
Use of committee’s
feedback:
(See below)
Last Year’s Comments: The outcomes are specific, measurable, and reasonable. The committee wondered if you
were creating extra work by assessing outcomes in addition to the ABET outcomes? You certainly can do what
works best for your department, but you may want to consider assessing the ABET a-k outcomes directly rather
than assessing 15 outcomes
Response:
We may change this and just address the ABET a-k outcomes directly instead. We will make this decision after we
revamp the program structure to a single degree. Thanks for the suggestion – less work is always better! (As long
as we can get what we need out of the assessment, of course.)
Last Year’s Comments: Your plan includes multiple direct and indirect measure of student learning so that faculty
can determine if students are achieving the student learning outcomes. This approach is consistent with best
practices. You have identified performance criteria for the outcomes, which should enable you to determine if
students are achieving learning outcomes and attaining the objectives. Defining five primary assessment methods
as the basis of your assessment plan is a reasonable approach. Your plan appears to be manageable and
sustainable over the long term.
11
Last year we indicated that it was not clear to the committee if the course evaluations that you reference as part of
your assessment plan are the ‘standard’ School-wide course evaluation forms or if you have developed forms that
are specific to the learning outcomes for your programs. One again we are asking for clarification.
Response:
The course evaluations referred to are the “standard” school-wide course evaluations. In some courses instructors
administer other course evaluation forms, but the instructors use those independently to improve their own
courses and that is not department managed. Changes arising in courses due to feedback on those forms would
come up on the “actions taken” in Table 5 above as well.
Last Year’s Comments: You have implemented a variety of direct and indirect assessment methods on an ongoing
basis, which is commendable. It appears there is department-wide involvement in your assessment efforts; thank
you for convening a faculty retreat to discuss curriculum and assessment.
Resoponse:
You’re welcome! And thank you back.
Last Year’s Comments: The program has made several changes to the curriculum and we applaud you for your
dedication to enhancing and supporting students’ learning. The changes have been informed by multiple
assessment methods, which is consistent with best practices. There appears to be ongoing discussion and use of
assessment information for the improvement of student learning outcomes. We commend you for your work in
this regard.
Response:
Thank you.
*Note that one report is provided here for both the CHEN and CBEN degrees. This report is all
inclusive and would technically be for the CBEN degree, whereas that for the CHEN degree
would be the same but with the references to Student Outcome 15 and CHEN 460 and 461
courses removed. For the rest, our assessment plan, measures, etc. are the same. Hopefully
next year there will just be one degree and this statement will not be necessary!
12