SJSU Annual Program Assessment Form
Academic Year 2013-2014
Department: Biomedical, Chemical and Materials Engineering
Program:
Chemical Engineering
College: Engineering
Website: http://bcme.sjsu.edu/
_ Check here if your website addresses the University Learning Goals. <If so, please provide the link.>
Program Accreditation (if any): ABET through 2016
Contact Person and Email:
Claire Komives, Claire.Komives@sjsu.edu
Date of Report:
March 1, 2014
Part A
List of Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs)
The student outcomes for the Chemical Engineering Program are the following:
1.) Ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering
2.) Ability to design/conduct experiments and analyze/interpret data
3.) Ability to design system, component or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints
such as economic, environmental, social, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability and
sustainability
4.) Ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams
5.) Ability to identify, formulate and solve engineering problems
6.) Understanding of professional and ethical responsibility
7.) Ability to communicate effectively
8.) Understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global/societal context
9.) Recognition of the need for and an ability to engage in life-long learning
10.) Knowledge of emerging and new technologies and contemporary social issues
11.) Ability to use the techniques, skills and modern tools necessary for engineering practice
1. Map of PLOs to University Learning Goals (ULGs)
Alignment – Matrix of PLOs to Courses
MATH 30 Calculus I
CHEM 1A General Chemistry
GE (Area A1) Oral
Communications
ENGL 1A Composition
ENGR 10
Kinesiology X
MATH 31 Calculus II
CHEM 1B General Chemistry
PHYS 70 General Physics
ENGL 1B Composition
MATH 32 Calculus III
PHYS 71 General Physics
AMS 1A American Civilization
CE 99: Statics
Kinesiology X
1.0
(a)
2.0
(b)
X
X
X
3.0
©
4.0
(d)
5.0
(e)
6.0
(f)
7.0
(g)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8.0
(h)
9.0
(i)
10.0
(j)
11.0
(k)
EE 98 Introduction to Circuits
MATH 133A Differential
Equations
MATE 25 Introduction to
Materials
AMS 1B American Civilization
GE (E) Human Understanding
and Development
CHEM 112A Organic Chemistry
CHE 190 Transport Phenomena
CHEM 161A Physical Chemistry
CHE 162 Statistics and Analysis
CHE 115 Industrial Chemical
Calculations
ENGR 100W Engineering
Reports
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CHE 151 Process Engineering
Thermodynamics
X
ADV GE Area S (Self, Society &
Equality in the US)
Chem 112B Organic Chemistry
X
CHEM 113A Organic Chemistry
Laboratory
CHE 160A Unit Operations I
X
X
XXX 100+ Upper Division
Tech/Math Elective **
X
CHE 161L Unit Operations
Laboratory
X
X
X
X
CHEM 162L Physical Chemistry
Laboratory
CHE 158 Reactor Design &
Kinetics
CHE 160B Unit Operations II
CHE 161 Process Safety & Ethics
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Chem 100+ Upper Division
Chemistry Elective **
X
CHE 185 Process Dynamics &
Control*
X
X
Area V (Culture, Civilization &
Global Understanding)
CHE 165 Plant Design
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
CHE 162L Unit Operations
Laboratory
X
XXX 100+ Upper Division
Tech/Math Elective **
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.2
2.3
2.4
3.1
3.2
Analyze systems
through material and
energy balances
models
Specify operating
conditions for a heat
exchanger to meet
performance
requirements
2
3
Evaluate the design of
a non-isothermal
reactor for a chemical
process.
3
Analyze and interpret
data for chemical
reaction kinetics
3
Design an experiment
for a unit operation
experiment
3
Analyze and interpret
data for a unit
operation experiment
3
Design an isothermal
reactor for a chemical
process.
Complete process
operating risk analyses
for a plant and develop
inherently safe system
to minimize risk
3
3
100W
185
165
162L
161L
161
160B
158
162
160A
151
190
Performance Criteria
115
2. Planning – Assessment Schedule
Once a year, we carry out the assessment according to this schedule. Note the student (program)
outcomes are numbered one to eleven as listed in Part A above, with the number after the decimal
point identifying a performance indicator to define exactly what the students must do to achieve the
outcome. The course numbers listed across the top of the table can be found in the above table.
The courses to the left of the table are the junior courses and those on the right are the senior
courses. The assessment of each outcome can be found below in part C of this report. Our annual
assessment schedule includes the assessment of each outcome each year.
3.3
4.1
5.1
5.2
Analyze, design and
evaluate mass transfer
processes for specific
applications
3
Function effectively on
multi-disciplinary
teams
Analyze a thermal
system for appropriate
heat transfer
prediction
Compare alternative
reactor designs and
select the most
effective choice for a
given process
3
2
2
Students demonstrate
knowledge of code of
engineering ethics
1
6.2
Identify the ethical
issues in a case study
1
6.3
Students can design a
strategy to manage a
situation where an
employee/subordinate
commits a violation of
engineering ethics
3
6.1
7.1
Write effectively
7.2
Give an effective oral
presentation
8.1
Appraise the inherent
safety strategies
applied in an
experiment or process
8.2
9.1
10.
1
3
3
2
Estimate the societal
impact of a project on
the surrounding
community
Evaluate a technical
process based on a
journal review article.
Evaluate relative
technical and
economic merit for
alternate process
3
3
3
configurations
Use simulation
software to design a
unit operation to meet
specified performance
criteria.
11.
1
2
Use non-linear
regression to evaluate
kinetic mechanisms.
11.
2
3

1,2 and 3 refer to levels of learning according to Bloom’s Taxonomy. Level 1 is up to level 2 in
Blooms, Level 2 on this table refers to levels 3-4 in Blooms and Level 3 on this table refers to
Blooms levels 5-6.
3. Student Experience
On the first day of CHE 115, which is the first required core course taken before the other courses, a
presentation is given to the students to explain the accreditation process and where the various
outcomes are assessed throughout the required curriculum. As the courses progress, the faculty
who are responsible for the individual outcomes may alert the students (especially if the assessment
instrument is not assigned for a grade) what the purpose of the assignment is.
Part B
6. Graduation Rates for Total, Non URM and URM students (per program and degree)
Academic Programs
Chemical Engineering
First-time Freshmen: 6
Year Graduation Rates
New UG Transfers: 3 Year
Graduation Rates
Grads : 3 Year
Graduation Rates
Fall 2007 Cohort
Fall 2010 Cohort
Fall 2010 Cohort
Entering
% Grad
Entering
% Grad
Entering
% Grad
Total
10
20.0%
17
41.2%
16
37.5%
URM
4
0.0%
6
16.7%
1
100.0%
Non-URM
5
20.0%
8
50.0%
11
27.3%
Other
1
100.0%
3
66.7%
4
50.0%
7. Headcounts of program majors and new students (per program and degree)
Fall 2013
New Students
Chemical
Engineering
Cont. Students
1st Fr.
UG Transf
New Creds
1st Grads
UGs
Creds
Total
32
47
0
18
113
0
BS
32
47
0
0
113
0
MS
0
0
0
18
0
0
Degree
8. SFR and average section size (per program)
Fall 2013
Student to
Faculty
Ratio
(SFR)
18.6
Average
Headcount
per Section
Upper Division
20.2
30.4
Graduate Division
13.1
7.2
Course Prefix
Course Level
CHE - Chemical Engineering
Total
21.1
9. Percentage of tenured/tenure-track instructional faculty (per department)
Fall 2013
% Tenured/Prob
Tenured
Probationary
Temp Lecturer
45.5%
3.692
5.8
1.149
Chemical and Materials
Engineering
Part C
1. Closing the Loop/Recommended Actions
Changes based on evaluation of student outcomes.
ChE 2013 Assessment Data on Student Outcomes 1-11
Outcome: 1.0 Ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering
General Performance Criterion: Analyze systems through material and energy balances models
Performance criteria (level 2)
1.1 Solve a material balance on a process with a chemical reaction
Data collected in CHE 115, Industrial Chemical Calculations, Instructor Claire Komives
Grading strategy: Each calculation that is correctly done is given full credit. The solution is divided into
individual calculations. If an error is made early in the calculation but the remainder is correctly done,
they get credit for the correctly done calculations even though the numbers don't match the actual
solution. Students who fail to meet the criteria most often either don't know where to start or get stuck
early on, and so 60% represents a solution that has a lot correct in it and may be almost complete but
with some calculation errors.
Fall ’13
1.1a Solve a material balance with a chemical reaction: Problem 1 on final exam 26 of 36 got 60% or
higher correct, or 72%
1.1b Solve a material balance without a chemical reaction: Problem 3a on final exam evaporation of
water from a caustic solution. 21 of 36 met the criterion, or 58%
1.1c Solve an energy balance with a chemical reaction: Problem 2b on the final exam. 18 of 36 students
met the criterion, or 50%.
Recommendation: Members of the ChE Industrial Advisory Board met in Spring 2014 and agreed that
although the numbers were low for the students who achieved these outcomes, this was expected in
the Material and Energy Balance Course. The instructor will not modify the curriculum but will ensure
that the students performance continues to be acceptable for the necessary rigor of chemical
engineering.
Outcome: 1.0 Ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering
Program Evaluation Component (1.2): Specify operating conditions for a heat exchanger to meet
performance requirements (1.2 in CHE 160A)
Assignment(s): Series of short answer calculation and qualitative questions on Final Examination
Grading rubric- 55% or greater on total score from questions
Analysis
Spring '13 30 of 33 ChE students met the criteria. Most of the mistakes were made related to
determining the correct length with analyzing a multiple pass exchanger. Students in general understood
how to determine the length. They had difficulty with the complexity of envisioning a multiple pass
system.
Recommendation
Have students work more closely with hands on models that are passed around class and reinforce the
concepts of multiple pass exchangers with an in-class activity or online quiz.
Data for Student
Performance in Heat
Exchanger Analysis
# of Student
15
10
5
0
Score
Outcome: 2.0 Ability to design/conduct experiments and analyze/interpret data
Performance Criterion 2.2: Analyze and interpret data for chemical reaction kinetics
Performance criteria (level 3): The student can derive rate expressions from kinetics mechanisms for
homogeneous and/or heterogeneous systems.
Assignment 1: Derive the rate expression from a mechanism.
Grading rubric- Criteria 50% of total points which ranged from 16 to 65 points total on a midterm exam
or final exam problem
Fall ’13 29 of 33 ChE students, out of 33 students enrolled, met the criteria. The highest score out of 27
points possible was 27, the lowest was 9.5 and the average was 20.4 (average was 75.6%).
Performance Criterion 2.3: Design an experiment for a unit operation experiment
The student can develop a strategy to gather information and obtain data necessary in order to meet their
experimental objective(s).
Assignment 1: Design an experimental plan, including key equations with assumptions, and detailed
experimental matrix that will allow the student to achieve their experimental objectives using the given
experimental apparatus.
Grading rubric- Criteria 75% of total points on three experimental plans (100 points each) required prior
to the start of each experiment. The experimental plan grading rubric is included at the end of this
analysis.
Spring ’13 13 of 13 ChE students, out of 13 students enrolled, met the criteria. The highest score out of
300 points possible was 260, the lowest was 250 and the average was 254.2 (average was 84.7%).
Recommendation
In general, it did not seem like the students used the grading rubric to improve their scores. For instance,
they did not seem to check their individual rubric scores and determine which area(s) needed
improvement, nor which areas were assigned the most possible points. The rubric was handed out for the
student to analyze on their own. I propose going over the rubric with each team in person and see if this
helps them make more effective improvements. No other changes are recommended at this time.
Performance Criterion 2.4: Analyze and interpret data for a unit operation experiment
Performance criteria (level 2)
The student can analyze experimental data and reach conclusions substantiated by statistical analysis.
Assignment 1: Carry out a basic statistical analysis of the data collected.
a) Calculate the mean, variance, standard deviation, median, mode, and range from the data given.
b) Formulate appropriate null and alternative hypotheses for this data.
c) Test these hypotheses using a = 0.01 and the one sample t-test. What you can conclude from
the test?
d) Find the P-value for the test. Explain what significance of the P-value
e) Construct a 99% confidence interval on the mean weight. What is your conclusion?
Make sure to use appropriate units and significant figures for your results
Grading rubric- Criteria 75% of the possible points for this problem.
Fall ’13 12 of 12 ChE students, out of 12 students enrolled, met the criteria. The highest score out of 20
points possible was 19, the lowest was 16 and the average was 17.5 (average was 87.5%)
Recommendation: In previous analyses it was found to be hard to assess this PEC adequately because different
labs required different analyses and some students did not perform the analysis adequately. So it became an in
class assignment in the lecture portion. In Fall 2012, the lecture was moved to ChE 161L so the students would
have more chance to work on statistical analysis of data both semesters. This move was a result of previous
assessment discussion to improve the curriculum. So this PEC is now analyzed in ChE 161L starting Fall 2012.
Outcome: 3.0 Ability to design system, component or process to meet desired needs
Performance Criterion 3.1 (CHE 158): Design an isothermal reactor for a chemical process.
Performance criteria (level 3) 3.1: The student can solve simple single answer problems using the
ideal reactor design equations mentioned, including variable volume systems.
Assignment 1: Find volume of ideal plug flow reactor and/or continuous stirred tank reactor to achieve
desired conversion on midterm exam 1.
Grading rubric/criteria 60% of total points which ranged from 40 to 50 points total on a midterm exam
problem
Fall ’13 33 of 33 ChE students, out of 33 students enrolled, met the criteria. The highest score out of 18
points possible was 18, the lowest was 5 and the average was 11 (average was 84.4%).
Recommendation In general the students are meeting this criteria in a satisfactory manner.
Course: CHE 160B; Instructor Claire Komives
Performance criteria (level 3)
3.3 Analyze, design and evaluate mass transfer processes for specific applications (CHE 160B)
Assignment(s):
Exam test question requiring design of unit operation process.
Grading rubric/criteria – Criterion is to get at least 60% correct (this is a C in the course).
Calculation errors – if the numbers are all correct but the value obtained is wrong (means punched it into
the calculator incorrectly) loss of 1 point
The problem is broken down to parts worth 3 or 5 points each. What is correctly calculated gets the full 3
or 5 points. If it is incorrect no credit is given. Conceptual errors lose 5 points, an error in looking up a
number or other “mistake” that is not a sign of misunderstanding a concept generally loses 3 points.
Analysis (How many students met the criteria)
Fall ‘13
Problem on the 2nd midterm to determine the height of an absorption column. 100% of the students met
the criteria (27 students).
Problem on final to analyse the permeate rate of an ultrafiltration system. 85% of the students met the
criteria (27 students).
Outcome: 4.0 Ability to function on multidisciplinary teams
Performance criteria (level 2) (CHE 160B)
Assignment(s):
Student teams are assembled based on their learning styles by the instructor at the beginning of the
course. Four team assignments are completed, involving the design of a scaled-up separation process
based on a published paper of small- or pilot-scale data. Teams of 3 (a few 4) are assembled and for each
project the three roles are as follows:
1) Fundamental equations; analytical solution where feasible
2) Simulation of process using Simsci ProII, Excel or matlab (mathcad, mathematica OK)
3) Take lead in preparing the report and present the design solution to the class.
Grading rubric/criteria – Criterion is to get at least a 3 for the overall average score.
Students complete the following rubric regarding each of their teammates due on the last day of the
semester in-class session. They are encouraged to be honest as the evaluation will have no impact on the
students’ grades, only if they turn in the rubric completed they will receive 2 extra credit points toward
their homework grades.
Numbers are assigned to the four levels: Beginning=1; Developing=2; Accomplished=3; Exemplary=4.
Acceptable level of performance is an average score of “Accomplished,” (or 3) determined by taking
averages of the input of each student on their performance on the team. The seven averaged scores are
then averaged to obtain an overall average performance. An overall average of 3.0 or higher meets the
criteria.
Contribute
Beginning
Developing
Accomplished
Exemplary
Research and
Gather
Information
Does not collect
any information
that relates to the
topic
Collects very little
information -some relates to
the topic
Collects some
basic information
- most relates to
the topic
Collects a great
deal of
information -- all
relates to the
topic
Share
Information
Does not relay
any information
to teammates
Relays very little
information -some relates to
the topic
Relays some basic
information -most relates to
the topic
Relays a great
deal information - all relates to
topic
Take
Responsibility
Beginning
Developing
Accomplished
Exemplary
Fulfill Team
Role's and duties
Does not perform
any duties of
assigned team
role
performs very
little duties
Performs nearly
all duties
Performs all
duties of assigned
team role
Share Equally
Always relies on
others to do the
work
Rarely does the
assigned work -often needs
reminding
Usually does the
assigned work -rarely needs
reminding
Always does the
assigned work
without having to
be reminded
Value Other's
Viewpoints
Beginning
Developing
Accomplished
Exemplary
Listen to Other
Teammates
Is always talking - never allows
anyone else to
speak
Usually doing
most of the
talking -- rarely
allows others to
speak
Listens, but
sometimes talks
too much
Listens and
speaks a fair
amount
Cooperate with
Teammates
Usually argues
with teammates
Sometimes
argues
Rarely argues
Never argues
with teammates
Make fair
decisions
Usually wants to
have things their
own way
Often sides with
friends instead of
considering all
views
Usually considers
all views
Always helps
team to reach a
fair decision
Analysis (How many students met the criteria)
Fall ’13 80% of the 27 undergraduates completed the survey; 76% of the students met the criteria.
Recommendation (Is there something you can modify so that more of the students meet the criteria?)
In Fall ’14 I will add a brief presentation on teamwork on the first day of class to explain to the students
the importance of cooperation on the team assignments.
Outcome: 5.0 Ability to identify, formulate and solve engineering problems
Outcome: 5.0 Ability to identify, formulate and solve engineering problems
Program Evaluation Component: Analyze a thermal system for appropriate heat transfer prediction
(5.1 in ChE 190)
Assignment(s):
Thermal Network In-Class Dry lab assignment
i.
Analyze a multiple layer cylinder for heat flux and rate of heat transfer. Draw and analyze the
proper thermal network
ii.
Analyze a multiple layer wall. Design wall to meet thermal requirements based on material
selection and thickness.
Grading rubric- Criteria is 70%
Analysis for Quiz Assignment
Fall '13 36 of 37 ChE students met the criteria and demonstrated the ability to analyze a thermal circuit
(Figure 1) The one person that did not meet the criteria was an unexcused absence. All students that did
participate in the lab understood how to analyze a thermal network.
# Of Students
Thermal Network Lab
20
0
Scores
Recommendation
Overall the students meet PEC. Next year I will put more emphasis on design to challenge the students.
Performance Criterion 5.2 (CHE 158): Compare alternative reactor designs and select the most
effective choice for a given process
Performance criteria (level 2)
The student can evaluate different types of ideal reactor configurations, including multiple reactors, and
determine which is optimal for a given reaction.
Assignment 1: Analyze which type of reactor and which configuration (series or parallel) would be best
for a given situation.
Grading rubric- Criteria 50% of total points which ranged from 15 to 30 points total on a midterm exam
problem or final exam problem
Analysis (How many students met the criteria)
Fall ’13 32 of 33 ChE students, out of 33 students enrolled, met the criteria. The highest score out of 15
points possible was 15, the lowest was 5 and the average was 12.5 (average was 83.3%).
Recommendation In general most students, especially if they attempted this problem, demonstrated
satisfactory competence. Some students seemed to have difficulty with time management. I propose
giving a homework assignment that students attend a time management and test taking skills workshop in
their earliest ChE or MatE courses, e.g. ChE 115 and MatE 25. In this way they would have exposure to
those skills twice. No other changes are recommended at this time.
Outcome: 6.0 Understanding of professional and ethical responsibility
Performance Criterion 6.1 (CHE 161) Apply engineering ethics and professionalism in conducting
projects
Performance criteria (level 1)
6.1 Students demonstrate knowledge of code of engineering ethics
Assignment: memorize the 6 Fundamental Canons of the NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers for the
midterm exam
20 points on their ethics midterm were tied to identifying a correct cannon and applying that cannon to
the situation presented (required an analysis starting with the appropriate NSPE cannon). If the cannon
is incorrect, the rest of the analysis becomes illogical.
Fall ’13: 40 out of 40 ChE students scored at least over 15 out of 20; lowest one score was 15.5 points.
So 100% met the criteria
Performance criteria (level 1)
6.2 Students can identify the ethical issues in an ethics case study.
Assignment 1: Identify from a fact pattern ethical issues for the midterm exam
Grading rubric – Criteria is to get at least 15 points.
TOTAL out of 20 pts
Question 1 (10 pts)
Answer the Question – 1pt
Basis for your Decision – 2 pts (discuss NSPE cannons and appropriate cannon)
How do you handle the situation? – 1pts – (best answer to be professional as possible)
What are the possible legal issues? – 1pts
What are the possible ethical issues? -1 pts
What are the possible professional issues? – 1pts
What are the possible consequences of your choice? 1pt
Are you prepared for these consequences? – 1 pt
Clarity, Conciseness, writing - 1 pts
90% - 9 pts
80% - 8 pts
70%- 7 pts
Question 3 (3 pts)
Appropriate Ethical issue - 1 pts
Analysis – 1 pt
Writing – 1 pt
Question 4 (3 pts)
Appropriate professional issue - 1 pts
Analysis and NSPE – 1 pt
Writing – 1 pt
Fall ’13 40 out of 40 ChE students met the criteria.
Assignment 2: Choose a current engineering ethical topic in a newspaper and prepare a 250-500 word
typed double spaced 12 point font Times New Roman paper discussing the issue from the point of view
of the NSPE Engineering Code of Ethics.
Grading will be based on:
Article Choice: 2 pts
Introduction: 2 pts
Analysis w.r.t NSPE Code of Ethics: 3 pts
Format: 2 pts
Style: 1 pts
The Assignment was out of 10 pts.
39 out of 40 students received at least a 7 or higher
One student received 4 because the assignment was handed in a late.
Performance criteria (level 3)
6.3 Students can design a strategy to manage a situation where an employee/subordinate commits a
violation of engineering ethics
Assignment: Question 2 on the midterm exam required identification, analysis and how to manage a
situation where the manager commits a violation of engineering ethics which is more difficult of a
situatio
Question 2 (3 pts)
Appropriate Legal issue - 1 pts
Analysis and conclusion – 1 pts
Writing – 1 pts
Fall ’13 40 of 40 ChE students met the criteria
Outcome: 7.0 Ability to communicate effectively
Performance Criterion 7.1 Write effectively
This outcomes is assessed in Engr 100W. The performance criterion is to achieve a 7 on the Writing
Skills Test. The students must obtain a score of 7 in order to pass the course, so 100% of the students
meet the criterion.
Performance Criterion 7.2 (CHE 160B) Give an effective oral presentation
Assignment: Give the oral presentation for the team project. Four projects are assigned in the semester
so each student gets a turn at giving the presentation. They can vote whoever can get a second try in
the groups that only have 3 students.
Grading criteria: Obtain at least a 4 average on the following rubric:
The introduction section was effective
4
4
The objectives of this aspect of the project were clearly
presented
4
4
The presentation had an effective communication structure
and the logic of the project activity was clear
4
4
The presentation was effectively targeted to this audience
4
4
The conclusion section was effective
4
4
PRESENTATION STYLE
The presenter had a professional appearance
The presenter exhibited confident enthusiasm about the
subject material
3
The pace of the presentation was appropriate
4
4
The presenter enunciated clearly and spoke at an
appropriate volume
4
4
The presenter seemed relaxed in front of the audience
gestures by the presenter seemed natural.
4
4
The presenter interacted effectively and made good visual
contact with the audience
4
VISUAL AIDS
Slides were easy to read and designed with an interesting
format
4
8
Slides were relevant and communicated content effectively
4
8
Presenter clearly understood the questions before
responding
4
4
Responses were concise and accurate
4
4
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS
0
86
The numbers mean:
5 = Strongly Agree
4 = Agree
3 = Slightly Agree
2 = Slightly Disagree
1 = Disagree
0 = Strongly Disagree
Boxes that are blacked out are scored (except for subject headings) but do not impact the grade.
The target is 86 which is to AGREE (on average) with all of the statements.
Fall ’13 21 of 27 students met the criteria. 78% met the criterion
Outcome 8.0 Understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global/societal context
Performance Criteria 8.1-8.3 Assess safety aspect(s) of a chemical process
Performance criteria (level 2)
8.1 (Identify and) Summarize the hazards in a chemical process
Assignment: Determine how to sort various industrial and lab chemicals
10 points are to identify and describe the hazards in the process described in a group assignment
Your lab contains the following chemicals.
Assume wt%
Phosphine
Sulfuric acid 50%
Calcium hydroxide
Acetone
Cobalt sulfide crystals
AZ P4903 photoresist
Acetic Acid
Hydrofluoric acid 10%
Ammonium perchlorate
glycerine
Arsine
Hydrochloric acid 28-30%
Calcium carbonate pellets
Toluene
Sodium hydroxide pellets
NMP (N-Methyl-2pyrrolidone)
Hydrocyanic Acid
Compressed Argon
Potassium permanganate
Benzene
Boron Trifluoride
Nitric acid 65%
Ammonium hydroxide 2830%
Hydrogen peroxide 30%
Nickel sulfide crystals
Liquid Nitrogen
Chromic Acid
Sodium chloride
Perchloric acid 60-65%
Methanol
Sulfuric acid 96%
Sodium hydroxide 50%
Liquid CO2
Methylene Chloride
Copper sulfate crystals
Silane Gas
Hydrofluoric acid 50%
Tetramethylammonium
hydroxide (TMAH) 25%
Ethanol
Shipley S1813 Photo Resist
Deadly gas
Strong acid
Strong base
Organic Solvent
Powder
chemical
Weak acid
Weak base/strong acid
oxidizer
flammable
1. Please determine how you would sort them (i.e. by itself; fridge, oxidizer cabinet, acid cabinet
etc…)
2. Please note how to dispose of them as well (i.e. mention what waste container to place them in
when completed – organic waste, acidic waste, by itself, immediate pick-up etc…)
3. Please note what PPE you should have on hand in the lab (total for all chemicals).
Fall ’13 38 of 40 ChE students met the criteria.
Performance criteria (level 3)
8.2 Students can appraise the inherent safety strategies of a chemical process.
Assignment: Determine how to sort various industrial and lab chemicals and how to store them properly
and safely and what PPE to use when working with it
Fall ’13 39 of 40 ChE students met the criteria.
Performance criteria (level 1)
8.3 Students know (can restate) the essential principles of chemical process safety
Assignment: Final exam - safety
Grading criteria 60% on final
Fall '13 40 of 40 ChE students achieved above 60% on the final exam
Assignment:
Prepare a 250 to 500 max. word typed double spaced 12 point font Times New Roman paper on a safety
scenario, event or issue that is in the news discussing it using principles discussed in class (these being
the hazard/risk identification, administrative controls, the engineering controls and and other controls.)
Grading will be based on:
Article Choice (please include): 2pts
Introduction: 2 pts
Analysis w.r.t to the hazard/risk identification, administrative controls, the engineering controls and
other controls.: 3pts
This means that you may either identify the hazard/risks presented in the article or you may present an
article and point out the hazards/risks. You may also discuss the controls presented in the article, or you
may suggest controls.
Format: 1pt
Style (e.g. if it is poorly written I will deduct points for it): 2pt
Fall '13 38 of 40 ChE students achieved above 8 pts. One student handed the assignment in late and
received a 4. The other student did not hand in the assignment.
Outcome 9.0: Recognition of the need for and an ability to engage in life-long learning
Performance Criterion 9.1 (CHE 158): Evaluate a technical process based on a journal review article
Performance criteria (level 2)
The student will be able to locate and critique kinetics and reactor design articles published in the current
literature.
Assignment 1: Write a two-page critique of a reactor design journal article.
Grading rubric- Criteria 50% of total points on a either two or three 20 point homework problems
through the course of the semester
Analysis (How many students met the criteria)
Fall ’13 25 of 33 ChE students, out of 33 students enrolled, met the criteria. The highest score out of 60
points possible was 58, the lowest was 4.0 and the average was 41.3 (average was 69%).
Recommendation (Is there something you can modify so that more of the students meet the criteria?)
In general most students if they attempted this assignment, demonstrated satisfactory competence. Some
students did not turn in all the critiques because they were homework and not exam problems. I am going
to try giving them a higher point value to see if that encourages everyone to turn in the assignment. In
addition, I will give a make up for this particular assignment since the biggest problem seems to be
students turning in the critiques.
Program Outcome: 11.0 Ability to use the techniques, skills and modern tools necessary for
engineering practice
Outcome: 11.0 Ability to use the techniques, skills and modern tools necessary for engineering practice
Program Evaluation Component: Use simulation software to design a unit operation to meet specified
performance criteria. (11.1 in CHE 160A)
Assignment(s): Use PRO II Designer (SimSci) to design a multipass shell and tube heat exchanger to
meet specified performance criteria.
Grading rubric- 80% or greater on laboratory assignment
Analysis
Spring '14 All students scored 100% on this assignment. Students were not allowed to turn in an
assignment that did not meet all design criteria stated. The instructor worked with each student
individually to ensure completion of the assignment
Recommendation
All students met this performance criterion. No changes needed
Performance Criterion 11.2 (CHE 158): Use non-linear regression to evaluate kinetic mechanisms
Performance criteria (level 3)
The student can use statistical methods to fit kinetic data to rate expressions and to analyze the goodness
of fit.
Assignment 1: Analyze if rate expressions fit the given rate data well and determine if the data are good
enough to come to a conclusion regarding goodness of fit.
Grading rubric- Criteria 50% of total points from a midterm exam problem that ranged from 25 to 35
points
Analysis (How many students met the criteria)
Fall ’13 25 of 33 ChE students, out of 33 students enrolled, met the criteria. The highest score out of 26
points possible was 25, the lowest was 6.5 and the average was 17.9 (average was 69%).
Recommendation (Is there something you can modify so that more of the students meet the criteria?)
In general the students are meeting this criteria in a satisfactory manner. They are proficient at using the
non-linear equation solver as well as analyzing the statistics to determine if any of the models show a
good fit.
In Fall 2013, about six of the students went to the AIChE meeting in San Francisco as part of the ChE Car
Team and others helped volunteer. The exam was the week immediately following the AIChE meeting
and they weren’t quite prepared at exam time but did demonstrate proficiency on subsequent homework
problems that used this material.
No changes are recommended at this time.
12.
1.1
Analyze systems
through material
and energy
balances models
60%
100W
185
165
162L
161L
161
160B
158
162
160A
151
190
Performance Criteria
115
The table here shows the extent to which the students met the assessed outcomes for 2013.
1.2
1.3
2.2
2.3
2.4
3.1
3.2
3.3
4.1
Specify operating
conditions for a
heat exchanger
to meet
performance
requirements
91%
Evaluate the
design of a nonisothermal
reactor for a
chemical
process.
94%
Analyze and
interpret data for
chemical
reaction kinetics
89%
Design an
experiment for a
unit operation
experiment
100%
Analyze and
interpret data for
a unit operation
experiment
100%
Design an
isothermal
reactor for a
chemical
process.
100%
Complete
process
operating risk
analyses for a
plant and
develop
inherently safe
system to
minimize risk
3
Analyze, design
and evaluate
mass transfer
processes for
specific
applications
92%
Function
effectively on
multi-disciplinary
teams
76%
3
5.1
5.2
Analyze a
thermal system
for appropriate
heat transfer
prediction
Compare
alternative
reactor designs
and select the
most effective
choice for a
given process
6.1
Students
demonstrate
knowledge of
code of
engineering
ethics
6.2
Identify the
ethical issues in
a case study
6.3
Write effectively
7.2
Give an effective
oral presentation
8.1
Appraise the
inherent safety
strategies
applied in an
experiment or
process
9.1
97%
100%
98%
Students can
design a strategy
to manage a
situation where
an
employee/subord
inate commits a
violation of
engineering
ethics
7.1
8.2
97%
100%
100%
78%
95%
Estimate the
societal impact
of a project on
the surrounding
community
Evaluate a
technical process
based on a
3
3
76%
journal review
article.
10.1
11.1
11.2
Evaluate relative
technical and
economic merit
for alternate
process
configurations
Use simulation
software to
design a unit
operation to
meet specified
performance
criteria.
Use non-linear
regression to
evaluate kinetic
mechanisms.
3
100%
76%
13. Proposed changes and goals (if any)
1) In ChE 160B, give the students the team evaluation rubric at the beginning of the course and
discuss it with them to introduce them to appropriate team function/behaviors.
2) In ChE 115, provide a set of notes for the students that is complete and has solved problems in it.
The set of notes given in Fall ’13 was on the first iteration. Improvements can be made to the
content to improve student learning.
3) The upper division labs, MATE 129 and CHE 194 will become (take one of them) as a required
elective option based on the assessment evaluation from the 2011 ABET review. This will come into
effect starting in 2015. It is anticipated that some of the outcomes will show higher performance
due to more rigorous lab skills.
4) The increased enrollment that has resulted in the past two years may show an effect on the
student outcomes performance which will require careful attention, especially in the senior courses.
5) The various curricular changes due to begin in fall of 2014 for the 120 unit requirement may also
result in deleterious impacts on the student outcomes. Courses particularly affected will be CHE 151
and the unit operations lab courses, CHE 161L and 162L courses, all of which will no longer have
Chem 161A as a required prerequisite, or Chem 162L as a prerequisite. We will keep a close watch
on the program outcomes from these courses.