Civil and Environmental Engineering Department
State of Program Learning Outcomes
I. BS in Civil and Environmental Engineering
1. Program Evaluation
Criterion 1 - Comprehensive List (of Program Learning Outcomes – PLOs)
Rank: Highly Developed
Reasoning: The Civil and Environmental Engineering (CEE) department adopted the list of ABET
Outcomes A though K as the set of CEE Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs). This is a reasonable,
appropriate, and comprehensive list of learning outcomes to provide important knowledge, skills, and
values to students in the CEE program. The ABET Outcomes are the national standards dictated by the
accreditation agency (ABET) which spans the university learning goals. The CEE Faculty has agreed on
explicit criteria for assessing students’ level of mastery of each outcome. The Program Learning
Outcomes are presented in Table 1.
Criterion 2 - Assessable Outcomes
Rank: Highly Developed
Reasoning: Outcomes A though K describe how students can demonstrate their learning. Faculty
members have agreed on explicit criteria statements, such as rubrics, and have identified examples of
student performance at 3 levels for each outcome. The assessment criteria for each Outcome are
presented in Table 2.
Criterion 3 – Alignment (Matrix of PLOs to Courses)
Rank: Highly Developed
Reasoning: The CEE curriculum is explicitly designed to provide students to develop increasing
sophistication with respect to each outcome. Pedagogy, grading, the curriculum, relevant student support
services, and co-curriculum are explicitly and intentionally aligned with each of the Outcomes A through
K. Curriculum map indicates increasing levels of proficiency. Table 3 presents the list of CEE courses
assessed for each Outcome and the learning capacity level for each of the courses associated with the
Outcomes.
Criterion 4 - Assessment Planning
Rank: Highly Developed
Reasoning: The CEE faculty developed explicit plans for assessing each outcome. The program has a
fully articulated, sustainable, multi-year assessment plan that describes when and how each outcome will
be assessed and how improvements based on findings will be implemented. The plan is annually
examined and revised, as needed.
Criterion 5 - The Student Experience
Rank: Highly Developed
Updated: 7/28/2016
1
Reasoning: Students are well well-acquainted with Program Outcomes A though K which are posted on
the department’s notice board on the hallway outside of the department’s office as well as on the
department’s website. Program policy calls for inclusion of outcomes in all course syllabi, and they are
readily available in other program documents. Table 4 presents the Learning Outcomes mapped to
University Learning Goal.
Criterion 6 - Graduation Rates for Total, Non URM and URM Students
Rank: Emerging
From Table A1, the Total, Non URM and URM six-year graduation rates for undergraduate students
who entered the program in 2007 were 42.3%, 49.1% and 22.7%, respectively. The department is
implementing strategies to improve graduation rates, such as advising, early connection of new students
to the program and the new 120-unit program.
Criterion 7 - Headcounts of Program Majors and New Students
Rank: Developed
From Table A2, our undergraduate headcount in Fall 2013 was 519. Our program has seed significant
increase in the number of applicants over the pas years. This shows that increasing demand for the
program. However, past experience shows that the demand for our program is highly dependent on the
economy of the Bay Area (the electronic industries). We tend to have high demand for our program
when the Bay Area electronic industries are not doing well.
Criterion 8 - SFR and Average Section Size
Rank: Developed
From Table A3, SFR for our lower division courses in Fall 2013 was 23.1 and 20.5 for our upper
division undergraduate courses with an average of 21.8. The department will study the significant of this
number and any needed improvement.
Criterion 9 - Percent of Tenured/Tenure-Track Instructional Faculty
Rank: N/A
Information on the percent of Tenured/Tenure-Track Instructional Faculty is presented on Table A4.
The department has 8 full-time faculty members which includes the Chair and two tenure-track faculty
members. Therefore, the department has high dependence on part-time instructional faculty members.
Closing the Loop/Recommended Action
The Civil and Environmental Engineering Department faculty sees Program Assessment is a very process
for program improvement. In our assessment process, we note areas (both assessment process and
curriculum planning and delivery) that need improvement and we make sure that the noted improvements
are implemented and assessed to close the loop of any recommended action.
Assessment Data
The data collected include course assessment reports that are prepared and submitted to the department by
individual course instructor. The report presents students’ performance on examination problems that
were used to assess course objectives that address various PLOs. Course assessment reports for each
Updated: 7/28/2016
2
Outcome are summarized by Outcome Champion and submitted to the department in the form of
“Outcome Champion Report”.
Analysis
The department has developed a process for evaluating the achievement PLOs. For a course objective to
be considered as achieving an associated PLO, 70% of the class must score at least 70% or higher on an
examination problem that is used for assessing student learning. The Outcome Champion reports presents
a summary of student performance in each of the courses that support an Outcome. At least one faculty
meeting is used to discuss each Outcome Champion report to decide on any assessment or curriculum
improvement that may be needed in any of the courses that support an Outcome.
Proposed Changes and Goals (if any)
The department continuously updates our assessment process and curriculum based on results of our
assessment work.
Table 1 Undergraduate Program Learning (PLOs)
Outcome A
Outcome B
Outcome C
Outcome D
Outcome E
Outcome F
Outcome G
Outcome H
Outcome I
Outcome J
Outcome K
Outcome L
STUDENT OUTCOMES
Graduates have an ability to apply knowledge of engineering, mathematics through
differential equations, probability and statistics, calculus-based physics, chemistry, and
one additional area of science.
Graduates have an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and
interpret data in more than one civil engineering area.
Graduates have an ability to design a civil engineering system, component, or process
to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental,
social political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability.
Demonstrate ability as a member of a team to lead, interact, communicate in a
professional manner with other members on the team and contribute disciplinespecific input to a multi-disciplinary team.
Graduates have an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems in
technical areas appropriate to civil engineering.
Graduates have an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.
Graduates have an ability to communicate effectively.
Graduates have the broad education necessary to understand the impact of
engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental and social context.
Graduates have a recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in, life-long
learning and working towards professional licensing.
Graduates have knowledge of contemporary issues.
Graduates have an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools
necessary for engineering practice.
Graduates can explain key concepts, and problem-solving processes used in business,
public policy, and public administration.
Updated: 7/28/2016
3
Table 2 – Performance Criteria for each PLO
PLOs
(See Table 1)
Outcome A
Outcome B
Outcome C
Outcome D
Outcome E
Outcome F
Outcome G
Outcome H
Outcome I
Outcome J
Outcome K
Outcome L: Graduates can
explain key concepts and
problem-solving processes
used in business, public
policy, and public admission
Updated: 7/28/2016
Performance Criteria
Performance Criterion A1: Demonstrate an ability to use mathematics through differential equations, statistics, probability theory, calculusbased physics, and chemistry to perform engineering calculations and solve engineering problems.
Performance Criterion B1: Demonstrate an ability to design and conduct experiments through collecting data, analysis and interpreting data
using graphs, tables and reports to present data, compare data to theoretical predictions, and make conclusions and recommendations about
the phenomena tested, with ability to operate test equipment.
Performance Criterion C1: Demonstrate an ability to perform civil engineering component and system design to meet defined constraints.
Performance Criterion D1: Demonstrate an ability as a member of a team, to lead, interact, communicate in a professional manner with other
members on the team and contribute discipline-specific input to a multi-disciplinary team.
Performance Criterion E1: Demonstrate an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems in the following civil engineering
areas: Environmental, Geotechnical, Structural, Transportation, and Water Resources.
Performance Criterion F1: Demonstrate an ability to analyze and evaluate a situation in which personal or professional ethics are involved.
Performance Criterion F2: Demonstrate knowledge of codes, standards and regulations.
Performance Criterion G1: Demonstrate an ability to give an oral, individual, or group presentation that is organized and uses effective
visuals.
Performance Criterion G2: Demonstrate an ability to convey technical information through the use of visual instruments such as data plots,
graphs, calculations, drawings and equations, and write well-organized reports that are grammatically correct, properly formatted, and
convey a specific concept.
Performance Criterion H1: Demonstrate an ability to identify economic, environmental and social impacts (both benefits and costs) of
engineering projects.
Performance Criterion I1: Demonstrate knowledge of various civil engineering professional organizations, the recognition of the need for
participation in professional societies, professional meetings, advanced education, application of self-learning, and ability to explain the
importance of professional licensing.
Performance Criterion J1: Demonstrate an ability to identify and analyze information related to contemporary issues, such as current codes,
the environment, traffic, and new technologies that may be associated with engineering projects and practices.
K1: Demonstrate an ability to use computer programs and computer skills to organize and present information, to analyze problems, and to
design components and systems.
Performance Criterion L1: Demonstrate an ability to identify the basic concepts of various project delivery systems in construction, the
fundamental concepts of construction cost estimating and scheduling techniques, the basic concepts of owner-engineer-contractor
relationships, public policy and administration related to civil engineering practice.
Performance Criterion L2: Demonstrate an ability to implement the basic concepts of minimizing life-cycle costs, and the principle of using
engineering economics for selecting public sector projects.
4
Table 3. CEE Courses Assessed for each Outcome at Specific Learning Capacity Level
Required
Courses/Outcomes
CE 8
CE 20
CE 95
CE 112
CE 120
CE 121
CE 130
CE 131
CE 140
CE 150
CE 160
CE 162
CE 170
CE 181
CE 190
CE 192


A
A1
B
B1
C
C1
D
D1
Program Outcomes
E
F
G
H
E1 F1 F2 G1 G2 H1
I
I1
J
J1
K
K1
2
3
L
L1
L2
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
1, 2, and 3 indicate learning capability levels
The following learning capacity levels were used:
o Level 1: Not Meet Expectations,
o Level 2: Meets Expectations, and
o Level 3: Exceeds Expectations.
Updated: 7/28/2016
5
A: An ability to apply knowledge of engineering,
mathematics through differential equations, probability
and statistics, calculus-based physics, chemistry, and
one additional area of science.
X
X
B: An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well
as to analyze and interpret data in more than one civil
engineering area.
X
X
C: An ability to design a civil engineer system,
component, or process to meet desired needs within
realistic constraints such as economic, environmental,
social, political, ethical, health & safety,
manufacturability, and sustainability.
X
X
D: An ability to function as a member of a multidisciplinary team, with the ability to explain the role of a
leader.
X
E: An ability to identify, formulate, and solve
engineering problems in technical areas appropriate to
civil engineering.
X
X
X
F: An understanding of professional and ethical
responsibility.
X
X
X
G: An ability to communicate effectively.
X
H: The broad education necessary to understand the
impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic,
environmental and social context.
X
I: A recognition of the need for, and an ability to, engage
in life-long learning and working towards professional
licensing.
X
X
X
X
J: Knowledge of contemporary issues.
X
X
X
X
K: An ability to use the techniques, skills and modern
engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.
X
X
X
X
L: An ability to explain key concepts and problemsolving processes used in business, public policy, and
public administration.
Updated: 7/28/2016
Social and Global
Responsibilities
Applied Knowledge
Intellectual Skills
Broad Integrative
Knowledge
PLO/ULG
Specialized Knowledge
Table 4. PLOs Mapped to University Undergraduate Learning Goals
X
X
6
II. MS in Civil and Environmental Engineering
1. Program Evaluation
Criterion 1 - Comprehensive List (of Graduate Program Learning Outcomes
Rank: Highly Developed
Reasoning: Our graduate program mission statement is the graduate Program Educational
Objectives (PEOs), which objectives are broad statements that describe the career and
professional accomplishments that the program is preparing the graduates to achieve. The PEOs
are posted on the department’s information board and the department’s website,
www.engr.scu.edu/civil. The graduate PEOs are:
PEO 1: Prepare students for their professional careers and licensure by strengthening
their knowledge in their specialization (depth) and extending their skills and
knowledge base (breadth).
PEO 2: Provide students advanced proficiencies for professional practice to enable
them to advance in the licensing process and equip them for advancement in
their career.
PEO 3: Improve students’ research skills and prepare them for further graduate study.
PEO 4: Provide students with experience and skills for multi-disciplinary and crossCE disciplinary practice.
The CEE department adopted four Graduate Program Outcomes which were derived from ABET
program criteria. The four Graduate Program Outcomes are:
By the end of the program, students should be able to:
1. Apply advanced concepts, theory and analysis for problem solving;
2. Synthesize and integrate necessary engineering concepts into engineering
solution process;
3. Apply modern tools for computations, simulations, analysis and design;
4. Communicate effectively.
The Four Graduate Program Outcomes (POs) are aligned with the PEOs and are assessed in
individual graduate courses. Alignment of the graduate Program Educational objectives with the
graduate Program Outcomes is presented in Table 5.
Criterion 2 - Assessable Outcomes
Rank: Developed
Reasoning: The four Graduate Program Outcomes (POs) describe how students can demonstrate their
learning and the CEE faculty members have agreed on explicit rubrics for each outcome.
Updated: 7/28/2016
7
Criterion 3 – Alignment (Matrix of Graduate POs to Courses)
Rank: Developed
Reasoning: The CEE curriculum is designed to provide opportunities for students to learn and to develop
increasing sophistication with respect to Program Outcomes 1 through 4. Table 6 presents the list of CEE
graduate courses assessed for each PO for our last program review.
Criterion 4 - Assessment Planning
Rank: Developed
Reasoning: The program has a reasonable, multi-year assessment plan that identifies when each outcome
will be assessed. The plan explicitly includes analysis and implementation of improvements. The plan is
annually examined and revised, as needed.
Criterion 5 - The Student Experience
Rank: Emerging
Reasoning: Students are well-acquainted with Graduate Program Outcomes which are posted on the
department’s notice board on the hallway outside of the department’s office as well as on the
department’s website. Table 7 presents the Graduate Program Outcomes mapped to University Learning
Goal.
Criterion 6 - Graduation Rates for Total, Non URM and URM Students
Rank: Emerging
From Table A1, the Total, Non URM and URM three-year graduation rates for graduate students who
entered the program in 2010 were 67.3%, 63.0% and 50.0%, respectively.
Criterion 7 - Headcounts of Program Majors and New Students
Rank: Developed
From Table A2, our graduate headcount in Fall 2013 was 145. Our program has seed significant
increase in the number of applicants over the pas years. This shows that increasing demand for the
program. However, past experience shows that the demand for our program is highly dependent on the
economy of the Bay Area (the electronic industries). We tend to have high demand for our program
when the Bay Area electronic industries are not doing well.
Criterion 8 - SFR and Average Section Size
Rank: Developed
From Table A3, SFR for our graduate courses in Fall 2013 was 24.4. The department will study the
significant of this number and any needed improvement.
Criterion 9 - Percent of Tenured/Tenure-Track Instructional Faculty
Rank: N/A
Information on the percent of Tenured/Tenure-Track Instructional Faculty is presented on Table A4.
The department has 8 full-time faculty members which includes the Chair and two tenure-track faculty
members. Therefore, the department has high dependence on part-time instructional faculty members.
Updated: 7/28/2016
8
Closing the Loop/Recommended Action
The Civil and Environmental Engineering Department faculty sees Program Assessment is a very process
for program improvement. In our assessment process, we note areas (both assessment process and
curriculum planning and delivery) that need improvement and we make sure that the noted improvements
are implemented and assessed to close the loop of any recommended action.
Assessment Data
The data collected include course assessment reports that are prepared and submitted to the department by
individual course instructor. The report presents students’ performance on examination problems that
were used to assess course objectives that address various POs. Other assessment data included MS exit
exam performance and survey questions for our graduate students on various aspects of our graduate
program.
Analysis
The department has developed a process for evaluating the achievement POs. For a course objective to be
considered as achieving an associated PO, 80% of the class must score at least 80% or higher on an
examination problem that is used for assessing student learning.
Proposed Changes and Goals (if any)
The department continuously updates our assessment process and curriculum based on results of our
assessment work.
Updated: 7/28/2016
9
Table 5: PEOs Relationships to POs
PEOs
Program Outcomes POs
PO 2
PO 3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PO 1
X
X
X
X
PEO 1
PEO 2
PEO 3
PEO 4
PO 4
X
X
Table 6. Matrix Showing the Alignment of Graduate Courses to Graduate Program Outcomes
Courses
POs
PO 1
PO 2
PO 3
PO 4
CE 210
CE 212
X
X
X
CE 234
CE 237
CE 220
X
X
X
CE 221
CE 222
CE 223
CE 224
CE 225
CE 226
X
X
X
CE 271
CE 272
CE 273
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Courses
POs
PO 1
PO 2
PO 3
PO 4
CE 239
CE 244
CE 246
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CE 255
CE 260
CE 261
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CE 270
X
X
X
X
Courses
POs
PO 1
PO 2
PO 3
PO 4
CE 250
CE 274
CE 275
CE 276
CE 277
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Updated: 7/28/2016
10
1. Apply advance concepts, theory and analysis for
problem solving.
X
X
X
2. Synthesize and integrate necessary engineering
concepts into engineering solution process.
X
X
X
3. Apply modern tools for computations, simulations,
analysis and design.
X
X
X
4. Communicate effectively.
X
X
Social and Global
Responsibilities
Applied Knowledge
Intellectual Skills
Broad Integrative
knowledge
Graduate POs / ULG
Specialized knowledge
Table 7. Graduate Program Outcomes (POs) Mapped to University
Undergraduate Learning Goals (ULGs)
X
Appendices
Table A1 Undergraduate Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs)
Table A2 Performance Criteria for each PLO
Table A3 CEE Courses Assessed for each Outcome at Specific Learning Capacity Level
Table A4 PLOs Mapped to University Undergraduate Learning Goals
Table A5 PEOs Relationships to POs
Table A6 Matrix Showing the Alignment of Graduate Courses to Graduate Program Outcomes
Table A7 Graduate Program Outcomes (POs) Mapped to University Undergraduate Learning
Goals (ULGs)
Updated: 7/28/2016
11
Table A1. Graduation Rates for Total, Non URM and URM Students by
Program
Note: URM = African-American, Hispanic, and Americam-Indians; Non-URM = White and Asian/Pacific Islander; Other = Other and Foreign
First-time Freshmen: 6
Year Graduation Rates
Academic Programs
Civil/Envir.Engineering
Fall 2007 Cohort
New UG Transfers: 3 Year
Graduation Rates
Fall 2010 Cohort
Grads : 3 Year
Graduation Rates
Fall 2010 Cohort
Entering
% Grad
Entering
% Grad
Entering
% Grad
Total
78
42.3%
38
39.5%
49
67.3%
URM
22
22.7%
13
15.4%
10
50.0%
Non-URM
53
49.1%
18
44.4%
27
63.0%
Other
3
66.7%
7
71.4%
12
91.7%
Table A2. Headcount of Program Majors and New Students by Programs and Degree
Note: 1st Fr. = First-time Freshmen; Transf = Transfer Students; UGs = Undergraduate Students; Creds = Credential Students; Grads = Graduate Students
Fall 2013
New Students
Civil Engineering
Cont. Students
Total
1st Fr.
UG Transf
New Creds
1st Grads
UGs
Creds
Grads
UGs
Creds
Grads
Total
91
57
0
57
371
0
88
519
0
145
BS
91
57
0
0
371
0
0
519
0
0
MS
0
0
0
57
0
0
88
0
0
145
Degree
Updated: 7/28/2016
12
Table A3. SFR (Exhibit 3) and Average Headcount per Section (Exhibit 2) by Course Prefix
Fall 2013
Student to
Faculty Ratio
(SFR)
Average
Headcount per
Section
Total
21.7
29.1
Lower Division
23.1
45.6
Upper Division
20.5
30.3
Graduate Division
24.4
17.9
Course Prefix
Course Level
CE - Civil/Env
Engineering
Table A4. Percentage of Full-time Equivalent Faculty (FTEF) for tenured/tenure-track instructional faculty by Department
Fall 2013
% Tenured/Prob
Civil & Environmental
Engineering
Updated: 7/28/2016
33.6%
Tenured
3.467
Probationary
10.332
Temp Lecturer
1.756
13