SJSU Annual Program Assessment Form
Academic Year 2014-2015
Department: Graduate Extended Studies: General Eng
Program: Off Campus Programs: MSE in Battery Technology
College: Engineering
Website: http://engr-extendedstudies.sjsu.edu/
X Check here if your website addresses the University Learning Goals. http://engrextendedstudies.sjsu.edu/assessment/
Program Accreditation (if any):
Contact Person and Email: Shahab Ardalan, shahab.ardalan@sjsu.edu
Date of Report: June 3, 2015
Part A
1. List of Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs)
By the end of the program, students should be able to demonstrate:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
2.
Demonstrated an understanding of fundamental knowledge of engineering analysis.
Demonstrated an understanding of fundamental knowledge of systems engineering.
Demonstrated an understanding of battery principles.
Demonstrated an understanding of concepts and key components of renewable system.
Demonstrated skill to develop design battery and battery control systems
Be able to communicate effectively, in both oral and written forms
Map of POs to University Learning Goals (ULGs)
This table shows the relationship between the Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs) and the University
Learning Goals (ULGs). The map shows good coverage of four of the five ULG' s. The last goal, related
to social and global responsibility, is not explicitly covered in the Educational Outcomes. However,
good design is not done in a vacuum and must address social and/or global needs. The department
may consider re-writing one of the Educational Outcomes to explicitly consider global and social
responsibility next year.
ULG/PLO
Specialized
Knowledge
PLO 1
PLO 2
✔
PLO 3
PLO 4
✔
PLO 5
✔
PLO 6
✔
Broad
Integrative
Knowledge
✔
✔
Intellectual
Skills
✔
✔
Applied
Knowledge
✔
Social/Global
Responsibilities
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
3. Alignment – Matrix of PLOs to Courses
The following table provides a map of Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs) to the program’s courses.
Students also take several electives. For culminating experience, students take MS projects (EE 295A/B).
PLOs
Courses
ENGR-261
ENGR-262
ENGR-263
PLO1
✔
PLO2
✔
ENGR-264
ENG-200W
✔
✔
PLO3
✔
✔
✔
PLO4
✔
✔
✔
PLO5
✔
✔
✔
PLO6
ENGR-265
✔
✔
PLOs
Courses
ENGR-201
ENGR-203
✔
✔
PLO1
ENGR-206
✔
PLO2
✔
PLO3
✔
PLO4
PLO5
ENGR295A
ENGR295B
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
PLO6
4. Planning – Assessment Schedule
This is a cohort-style program. The students in the same cohort should take courses together. The
instructor of each course is required to generate a CAJ. At the end of each academic year, the
Program Assessment Coordinator generates a Program Assessment Report based on the CAJs and
other assessment activities, e.g., faculty and student surveys, informal discussion, etc.
Course
ENGR 261
ENGR 206
ENGR 264
ENGR 201
ENGR 265
ENGR 200W
ENGR 263
ENGR 203
ENGR 262
ENGR 295A
ENGR 295B
Fall
2014
X
Spring
2015
Summer
2015
Fall
2015
3
Spring
2016
Summer
2016
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
5. Student Experience
The MSE PLOs are included in the program website. Students have some knowledge of outcomes, but
they are not included on most syllabi, and discussions are occasional, largely limited to the MS project
courses. Feedback from alumni was incorporated into the development of the outcomes but not current
students.
Part B
<The following items 6-9 will be provided by the IEA office by March 1 every year. The departments are
welcome to obtain the data on their own, and/or to report other relevant data for their particular
programs if deemed important.>
6. Graduation Rates for Total, Non URM and URM students (per program and degree)
<These numbers can be obtained for your program from the IEA website at
http://www.iea.sjsu.edu/ under Retention/Graduation. URM stands for Under-Represented
Minorities. In some cases, the number of students who choose to report their ethnicity is too small
to compute a reliable number, so please check if this is the case before interpreting. The university
targets for first-time freshmen 6-yr graduation rates set by the Chancellor’s Office are 51.6%, 47.8%,
and 53.2%, for total, URM and Non-URM populations, by 2015-2016. The university targets for
transfer and graduate students are not specifically published, but generally improvement is
expected here too. >
N/A
7. Headcounts of program majors and new students (per program and degree)
<The headcount of majors in your program can be found at the IEA website at
http://www.iea.sjsu.edu/Assessment/ProgRev/default.cfm by major and concentration under your
program name. The number of students entering your program can be found under Applied,
Admitted, Enrolled on the same page. A robust and/or increasing enrollment provides evidence of
demand for your program. >
N/A
8. SFR and average section size (per program)
<The student-to-faculty ratio (SFR) and the average headcount per section can be found at the IEA
website at http://www.iea.sjsu.edu/Courses/default.cfm#Prefix under your department name. SFR
and average section sizes provide some measure of cost-effectiveness and faculty load. The values
can be compared to the college and/or university averages, or a comparable program at another
university, if applicable. Any SFR ratios or average section sizes that are either much bigger or
smaller than average should be explained and or addressed.>
N/A
9. Percentage of tenured/tenure-track instructional faculty (per department)
<This percentage can be calculated with information on the IEA website at
http://www.iea.sjsu.edu/Faculty/default.cfm#Dept under your department name. Under
Instructional Faculty - Full Time Equivalent Faculty (FTES) - by Tenure Status, the FTEF in each
category is listed for each semester. Take the sum of tenured and probationary FTEF, and divide by
total FTEF. In 2012, SJSU’s ratio was 53.1%, and we rank 20/23 of all of the CSUs. The highest ratios
in the CSU system are 70.6%.>
N/A
Part C
10. Closing the Loop/Recommended Actions
The following actions have been implemented in Fall 2015:
Action-1:
Add a topic on new generation of the battery technology in ENGR-262
Status: Completed.
11. Assessment Data
Each course in this program is required to generate a Course Assessment Journal (CAJ). PLOs are
assessed by at least one of these courses. A set of Course Learning Objectives (CLOs) has been assigned
to each course. The course instructor(s) generates the CAJ. The data presented in CARs is the main
contributor to address the achievement of PLOs. The CAJs collectively address achievement of PLOs and
also recommend actions. The two course assessment journals are attached as appendixes
12. Analysis
Data will be assessed at the end of Summer 2016 on final MSE projects and analyzed according to
PEOs.
13. Proposed changes and goals (if any)
Proposal 1: ENGR-261, it is general course and covers different topics related to battery
technology including two labs. It was observed that teaching the material in an 8-week course
may result in missing one of the CLO. The proposal is to move that CLO to ENGR-262 and
adjust the content of ENGR-261.
Proposal 2: ENGR-206, students had very similar expectations and similar academic
background. Based on the feedback from students, the amount of engineering calculation was
more than their expectation as a graduate course. The proposal is to reduce the amount of
engineering calculation and add more economical and environmental analysis for the different
sources of the energy.
Appendix-A
CJA: ENGR-261 (ENG 297E)
COURSE ASSESSMENT JOURNAL
Degree Program:
Course:
Course Instructor:
Cohort Name:
Engr 297E
Term/Dates:
Fall 2014
Ken Damon
Today’s Date:
2/2/2015
Reviewed by Academic
Program Coordinator Initials
& Date:
AP Coordinator Name:
POLICIES
CoE_ES_F10_1- Course Assessment Journal (CAJ)
Course Assessment Journal (CAJ) must be submitted by the course instructor within the same term as the course
offering. If not, the Course Assessment Journal will be voided.
CoE_ES_F05_2 – Course Assessment Consulting Payment
Course Assessment Consulting Payment for ES faculty members who are tenure-track or tenured faculty:
o
o
Will be processed in Winter or Summer semesters only
If faculty teaches during the Fall or Spring, the Course Assessment Consulting Payment will be
processed the following semester, Winter or Summer, respectively.
CoE_ES-F05_3 - Course Assessment Consulting Payment
Course Assessment Consulting Payment for ES faculty members who are Lecturers A, B, C or D:
o
Course Assessment Consulting Payment will be processed for the semester that he/she teaches
_________________________________________________________________________
Please list the Course Learning Objectives (CLO) here: Example listed in italics below.
1.) Understanding of the basic concept of the cell
2.) Understanding concept of electrochemistry
3.) Basic understanding of next generation batteries
4.) Understanding of the operation of lithium ion cell manufacturing
1. Direct Measurement: For each CLO, please set the performance criteria. This is the percentage at
which a student demonstrates satisfactory proficiency. The performance criteria should not be less
than 70%. Using the results of the direct assessment (performance) data that was collected
(through HW, exam questions, etc.) show the percentage of students who reached the performance
criteria. Make sure to analyze and discuss discrepancies in Section 3 (Findings and Analysis).
Examples in italics below.
CLO # 1
Performance criteria set at 70%, minimum percentage of students who should reach
performance criteria: 70%
For the two tests combined the average exam score was 87% for this objective.
Test 1: 81% of students scored greater than 70%
Test 2: 94% of students scored greater than 70%
CLO # 2
Performance criteria set at 70%, minimum percentage of students who should reach
performance criteria: 70%
For the two tests combined the average exam score was 76% for this objective.
Test 1: Did not include questions regarding CLO#2
Test 2: 69% of students scored greater than 70%
CLO # 3
Performance criteria set at 70%, minimum percentage of students who should reach
performance criteria: 70%
CLO#3 was not addressed in either exam
CLO # 4
Performance criteria set at 70%, minimum percentage of students who should reach
performance criteria: 70%
For the two tests combined the average exam score was 80% for this objective.
Test 1: 63% of students scored greater than 70%
Test 2: 88% of students scored greater than 70%
2. Indirect Measurement: This section contains two parts: a) CLO survey results, b) qualitative
feedback (eg. student focus groups). Examples in italics below.
a) CLO Results
In the survey, students were asked to give a letter (A to E) to measure how important each CLO was
and whether they felt they had learned and achieved the CLO. Please convert the A to E
measurement into numeric scores of 5 to 1 (respectively). If there is a difference of over 1 pt,
between Part I and Part II, please address in Section 3 (Findings and Analysis)
Part I – importance of course topic
Part II – portion learned and
achieved
CLO # 1
4.5
4.1
CLO # 2
4.1
3.3
CLO # 3
3.9
3.3
CLO # 4
3.9
4.2
* in this example, as Part II is more than 1 pt lower than Part I, it should be explained in Section 3
(Findings and Analysis)
b) Qualitative Feedback
Informal group discussion was held with students four times during the 8 week course. Topics
discussed included: course material, pace of course, teaching effectiveness, etc. Students generally
felt that 8 weeks was fast and that work load was very large. Majority of students found material to
be challenging and relevant to current job or could use knowledge for future projects. A good
portion of students appeared to have inadequate preparation in math (more specifically,
trigonometry, calculus, vector algebra and complex number manipulations). As a result, the course
objective has been scaled down so students would not fall behind in the short 8 week course.
3. Findings and Analysis: Provide an analysis of the data collected for Direct and Indirect Measurement.
a) Direct Measurement Findings and Analysis
CLO # 1
No findings
CLO # 2
69% of students scored a 70% here. Recommend broadening topic to include
electromotive series and ties to battery equations
CLO # 3
No questions !!! Topic not covered due to time constraint. Recommend adding one
lecture specifically on new technology
CLO # 4
No findings
b) Indirect Measurement Findings and Analysis
CLO # 1
This CLO was rated as Very Important to students (4.8), but the score of 3.7 indicates that
they did not learn or achieve this topic adequately. This may be due to the rushed nature
of the course.
CLO # 2
Recommend adding electromotive series and tying this closer to cell chemistry
CLO # 3
Students ranked their interest higher than knowledge. Recommend adding one lecture
on this topic
CLO # 4
Students ranked their knowledge higher than interest. This is the part of the course that
can reduced to allow focus on new topics
c) Other Findings and Analysis (eg. Discrepancies between a) & b) above)
CLO # 1
No Findings
CLO # 2
No Findings
CLO # 3
No Findings
CLO # 4
No Findings
4. Actions: What actions were planned and/or implemented to address the findings from collected
data? Actions taken can include revising course content, test revision, projects. Example in italics
below.
CLO #2 Planned
Add electromotive series and more redox reactions for actual cells. Tie to material
selection for cell
CLO #2
Implemented?
Will be in effect for the next course.
CLO 3 Planned
Add lecture on next generation cells
CLO # x
Implemented?
Will be in effect for next course
5. Comments: This is the first time this course was offered. In general I believe the offering was
within expectations. Feedback from this survey will help to make the course better when offered
again
Appendix-B
CJA: ENGR-206
COURSE ASSESSMENT JOURNAL
Degree Program:
MSE
Cohort Name:
Battery Tech
ENGR 206
Term/Dates:
01/05 – 03/02 2015
Course Instructor:
François Rongere
Today’s Date:
03/29/2015
AP Coordinator Name:
Anna Kurpiewska
Reviewed by Academic
Program Coordinator Initials
& Date:
Course:
POLICIES
CoE_ES_F10_1- Course Assessment Journal (CAJ)
Course Assessment Journal (CAJ) must be submitted by the course instructor within the same term as the course
offering. If not, the Course Assessment Journal will be voided.
CoE_ES_F05_2 – Course Assessment Consulting Payment
Course Assessment Consulting Payment for ES faculty members who are tenure-track or tenured faculty:
o
o
Will be processed in Winter or Summer semesters only
If faculty teaches during the Fall or Spring, the Course Assessment Consulting Payment will be
processed the following semester, Winter or Summer, respectively.
CoE_ES-F05_3 - Course Assessment Consulting Payment
Course Assessment Consulting Payment for ES faculty members who are Lecturers A, B, C or D:
o
Course Assessment Consulting Payment will be processed for the semester that he/she teaches
_________________________________________________________________________
Please list the Course Learning Objectives (CLO) here: Example listed in italics below.
1. The ability to identify and discuss the benefits of each source of energy
2. The ability to model and analyze each source of energy
3. The ability to present and discuss the technical, economic and environmental aspects associated with
each source of energy
4. The ability to understand how energy is transformed from natural sources to usage and how the
different components of the energy systems interact.
2. Direct Measurement: For each CLO, please set the performance criteria. This is the percentage at
which a student demonstrates satisfactory proficiency. The performance criteria should not be less
than 70%. Using the results of the direct assessment (performance) data that was collected
(through HW, exam questions, etc.) show the percentage of students who reached the performance
criteria. Make sure to analyze and discuss discrepancies in Section 3 (Findings and Analysis).
The mid-term and final tests were organized by source of energy corresponding to the plan of the
class. The table below describes how much of each CLO was tested for each section. The last line
represents the percentage of students reaching 70% on each section.
Nuclear
Geothermal
Hydro
Solar
Bio-mass
Bio-Fuels
Tide
Wave
0.36
0.64
-
0.15
0.31
0.54
0.38
0.62
0.53
0.47
0.08
0.58
0.08
0.25
0.07
0.77
0.15
-
0.07
0.53
0.20
0.20
0.06
0.12
0.24
0.59
0.25
0.13
0.50
0.13
0.44
0.13
0.44
0.13
0.60
0.27
0.19
0.81
0.40
0.60
Nb over 70%
100%
92%
85%
62%
77%
69%
100%
92%
92%
92%
92%
85%
46%
Electric
Vehicle
Wind
CLO1
CLO2
CLO3
CLO4
Electric
systems
Fossil fuels
Final
Introduction
Midterm
The performance for each CLO is inferred from these results. All CLOs have a performance criterion
of 70%.
CLO1
CLO2
CLO3
CLO4
93%
77%
93%
81%
2. Indirect Measurement: This section contains two parts: a) CLO survey results, b) qualitative
feedback (eg. student focus groups). Examples in italics below.
a) CLO Results
In the survey, students were asked to give a letter (A to E) to measure how important each CLO was
and whether they felt they had learned and achieved the CLO. Please convert the A to E
measurement into numeric scores of 5 to 1 (respectively). If there is a difference of over 1 pt,
between Part I and Part II, please address in Section 3 (Findings and Analysis)
CLO1
CLO2
CLO3
CLO4
Part I - Importance of the Topic
4.6
4.3
4.5
4.5
Part II - Portion Learned and Achieved
4.6
4.1
4.3
4.5
b) Qualitative Feedback
Informal discussions were regularly held with students. They recognized that the class was
demanding with weekly homework assignment and a lot of materials to go through but were eager
to learn. They were mostly interested in understanding the development status of technologies, their
fundamental limitations and how they can compare with each other. They were less interested in the
engineering calculations. The class was adjusted to this focus by decreasing the importance of the
CLO#2.
3. Findings and Analysis: Provide an analysis of the data collected for Direct and Indirect Measurement.
a) Direct Measurement Findings and Analysis
CLO # 1
Students did very well on this CLO that was the basics of the class.
CLO # 2
Lower performance on this CLO is driven by two factors:
-
CLO # 3
CLO # 4
Heavier in engineering calculations, this topic was less appealing for the
students,
- A bias is created by the Mid-term and Final Tests since the section with the most
focus on CLO#2 were placed at the end. Most of students have done better on
first sections because of time limitation.
Students did better on this CLO than they rated their own learning. It unfolds an
opportunity for future classes to increase the focus on economic and environmental
aspects of each energy source.
The lower score observed in the tests may be due to the bias explained above with more
emphasis of this topic at the end of the final test.
b) Indirect Measurement Findings and Analysis
Overall, the students achieved more on topics that were more important for them. The class fitted
well their expectations. Nevertheless, CLO # 3 reveals an opportunity for future classes to increase
the focus on economic and environmental aspects of each energy source.
c) Other Findings and Analysis (eg. Discrepancies between a) & b) above)
None.
4. Actions: What actions were planned and/or implemented to address the findings from collected
data? Actions taken can include revising course content, test revision, projects. Example in italics
below.
CLO #3 Planned
Increase economic and environmental analysis of the different sources of energy.
CLO #2
Implemented
Reduced engineering calculations.
CLO #3 Planned
Invite a speaker to engage more discussions about comparing energy sources.
5. Comments:
In this class, students had very similar expectations and similar academic background. They worked
well together and showed strong interest in the presented topics. The format of the class, with 6.5
hours on Saturdays was challenging; variation in activities was critical to maintain students’
attention in the classroom.