General Education Annual Course Assessment Form
Course Number/Title: ENGR 100W "Engineering Reports on the Earth and Environment"
GE Areas: Z and R
Results reported for AY: Spring 2012 # of sections: 13 sections
# of instructors: 6 instructors
Course Coordinator: Dr. Jeanne Linsdell
E-mail: JeanneLinsdell@aol.com
Department Chair: Dr. Ahmed Hambaba, General Engineering College: College of Engineering
Part 1: To be completed by the course coordinator:
(1)
What SLO(s) were assessed for the course during the AY?
Each semester we highlight three of the ENGR100W Student Learning Objectives. The following were
selected for Spring 2012. Every semester we study Area Z, LO 1.
Area Z: Written Communication
1. Z SLO 1: Students shall be able to refine the competencies established in Written Communication IA
and IB as summarized by the WRC. (Students technical writing skills shall improve throughout ENGR
100W.)
2. Z SLO 3: Students shall be able to organize and develop essays and documents for both professional
and general audiences, including appropriate editorial standards for citing primary and secondary sources.
Area R: Earth and Environment
3. R SLO 3: Students will be able to apply a scientific approach to answer questions about the earth and
environment.
Other: Ethics*
a) Students should be able to develop a well-reasoned response to an ethical problem in engineering
and/or about the earth and environment.
b) Students should be able to demonstrate an understanding of the ways that ethical concerns and
responsible practices play a role in professional interactions within the community of engineers
and between the community of engineers and the public at large.
(2) What were the results of the assessment of this course? What were the lessons learned from the
assessment?
Direct Measurement:
1. Z SLO 1 Performance criteria set at 70%, minimum percentage of students who should reach
performance criteria.
Properly addressing their audience and using proper documentation:
Audience memo lab – 84% passed with a score of 70% or higher.
Technical proposal--89% passed with a score of 70% or higher.
Persuasive professional formal letter--87% of the students met this.
Technical instructions--79% of the students met this.
Journal Article Analysis – 81% passed with a score of 70% or higher.
2. Z SLO 3 Performance criteria set at 80%, minimum percentage of students who should reach
performance criteria
Interview with a Professional Engineer -- 100% passed with a score of 80% or higher.
California Hydrogen Infrastructure in California (in-class follow-up to speaker)--95% passed
with a score of 70% or higher.
Picarro's gas measurement devices--73% passed with a score of 70% or higher.
2. R SLO 3 Performance criteria set at 70%, minimum percentage of students who should reach
performance criteria:
Response paper on CAFE standards– 92% passed with a score of 70% or higher.
3. Other
Ethics
Response paper on waste management/anaerobic digestion--87% passed with a score of 70% or
higher.
Response paper on renewable energies--91% passed with a score of 70% or higher.
Performance criteria set at 70%, minimum percentage of students who should reach
performance criteria:
Nuclear Energy Case Study--89% passed with a score of 70% or higher.
From the Spring 2012 Assessment Journal:
Planned and Implemented: The Course Coordinator conducts regular meetings and corresponds through
weekly emails with the E100W team. (She also serves on the university Writing Requirements
Committee.) Our meetings are to share best practices, writing strategies, environmental resources,
problem-solving techniques, textbook selection, evaluate GreenTalks, plus develop writing prompts and
assessments of the Student Learning Objectives. We also meet in regard to the Exit Exam (planning,
preparing, writing the questions, evaluating the results). To ensure consistent implementation and
assessment across all sections, all instructors use the same syllabus.
(3) What modifications to the course, or its assessment activities or schedule, are planned for the
upcoming year? (If no modifications are planned, the course coordinator should indicate this.)
Planned for next semester: Our GreenTalk Speaker Series provides the substance for many of the in-class
writings and discussions; we continue to invite practicing engineers and biologists from industry planning
for speakers who deal with up-to-date environmental issues. Although attendance is high, we planned to
have sign-ups from time to time, to monitor participation. We had sign-up sheets on 4 occasions; these
were given to the instructors to assist in keeping attendance high. Next semester we plan on sign-ups for a
random 6 presentations. Students complained about the high cost of the Wright environmental text. After
meeting with publishers and reviewing a number of texts we are returning to the Cunningham
environmental text in fall 2012 for specialized chapters at half the cost.
Overall Comments
 We require a minimum of 11,000 words, and agree that students received ample assignments.
 On these 11,000 words, every instructor provided detailed feedback.
 Instructors used a combination of rubrics and marking errors plus margin comments. One instructor
is experimenting with a paperless class, providing detailed feedback through Track Changes on D2L.
She plans to use Canvas, if available, in the fall.
 The Exit Exam analysis shows.
 324 students enrolled
 1.0 improvement (on a scale of 0 - 12)
When comparing student Writing Skill Test scores (taken before enrollment in ENGR 100W)
with their Exit Exam scores (graded on a scale of 0-12), the average score went up 1.0. This
proves improvement, however scores went up 1.2 the previous 2 semesters. We believe this was
due to the low enrollment in 90W for weak writers, and some changes in faculty. We will focus
on bringing this up even further in the fall.
 35 failed the Exit Exam
 23 passed the Exit Exam after having passed 100A (This is much better pass rate than 96SLLD)
 20 failed the Exit Exam after having passed 100A
Part 2
To be completed by the department chair (with input from course coordinator as appropriate): (4) Are all
sections of the course still aligned with the area Goals, Student Learning Objectives (SLOs), Content,
Support, and Assessment? If they are not, what actions are planned? YES