SJSU Annual Program Assessment Form Academic Year 2014-2015 Department: Mechanical Engineering Program: BSME

advertisement
SJSU Annual Program Assessment Form
Academic Year 2014-2015
Department: Mechanical Engineering
Program: BSME
College: Engineering
Website: www.sjsu.edu/me
_ Check here if your website addresses the University Learning Goals.
Program Accreditation (if any): ABET
Contact Person and Email: Nicole Okamoto [email protected]
Date of Report: May 6, 2015
Introduction to the Mechanical Engineering Department
The Mechanical Engineering Department was formally established in 1958 and houses both BSME and
MSME programs. The BSME program is accredited through ABET (Accreditation Board for Engineering
and Technology).
The BSME curriculum consists of general education courses, 30 units of math/chemistry/physics, 60 units
of required major courses, and 9 units consisting of a capstone design course in the area of thermal/fluids,
mechatronics, or mechanical design, and 2 electives. The MSME program consists of two required
courses and courses chosen from one of the three focus areas. For a culminating experience, students
either complete a two-semester MS project or thesis or else take two extra electives and a comprehensive
exam for a total of 30 units. In Fall 2014 there were 693 BSME majors (exactly the same as in Fall 2013)
and 110 MSME students for a total of 366 FTES (up from 339.6 in Fall 2013).
Noted department strengths include a dedicated, highly qualified faculty including 8 full time faculty
members and a large number of adjunct faculty working in industry, a strategic location in the Silicon
Valley that allows for significant interaction with industry, and a hands-on educational program that has
been recognized both by our ABET evaluator and through numerous awards in design competitions.
1. List of Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs)
In the BSME program, we have both Program Education Objectives, which outline what we want out
graduates to have achieved 3-5 years after graduation, and Student Learning Outcomes, which outline
what we want our students to have achieved by the time they graduate.
Program Educational Objectives
The Program Educational Objectives for the Mechanical Engineering program are as follows:
Within a few years of graduation, our graduates are expected to:
1.
Apply engineering knowledge and skills to make positive impact on society through employment
in industry, advanced study, and/or public service;
2.
Communicate effectively and perform professionally in both individual and multi-disciplinary
team-based project environments;
3.
Be engaged in and continue to engage in lifelong self-directed learning to maintain and enhance
their professional skills;
4.
Determine and respond to ethical implications on issues such as public safety and intellectual
property protection, and also reflect on global and societal impacts of engineering solutions to
contemporary problems.
The Mechanical Engineering Program Educational Objectives (PEOs) have been developed to be
consistent with the mission of (a) San Jose State University (SJSU), (b) the College of Engineering and
(c) the Department of Mechanical Engineering. These PEO’s were chosen by the ME faculty after a
significant amount of discussion during faculty meetings, a faculty retreat, and via email. They were
developed based on faculty experience, evaluation of other ME programs throughout the country, and
ABET guidelines. The Department Advisory Council met in March 2011 to evaluate whether they
believed that these are the proper PEO’s for our department, and we also receive feedback from our
alumni through surveys administered every three years.
Student Learning Outcomes
By the time they graduate, our students are expected to have acquired the following:
a.
an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering.
b.
an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.
c.
an ability to design a system, component or process to meet desired needs within realistic
constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety,
manufacturability, and sustainability.
d.
an ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.
e.
an ability to identify, formulate and solve engineering problems.
f.
an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.
g.
an ability to communicate effectively.
h.
the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global,
economic, environmental, and societal context.
i.
a recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in, life-long learning.
j.
a knowledge of contemporary issues.
k.
an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering
practice.
The Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) are achieved primarily through the program curriculum, which is
designed to emphasize problem solving, design skills, communication skills, and experiential learning.
We expect that ME graduates have attained the abilities to achieve professional accomplishments in their
early engineering career through the knowledge and skills that they acquired from the program as outlined
by the SLOs. These gained abilities/skills from the program in turn will foster successful attainment of
the PEOs when alumni apply them in the workplace. These SLOs are the 11 outcomes required by our
accreditation agency, ABET. Table 1 shows the relationship between the PEOs and SLOs.
Table 4 in Section 3 demonstrates the measures used by the students to show achievement of the SLOs.
PEOs are assessed using surveys of alumni. The most recent survey closed on February 28, 2014 with 64
responses.
Table 1 Relationship between PEOs and SLOs
Student Learning Outcomes
PEO # 1
a
b
c



d
e
f
g
i
j
k



PEO # 2
h


PEO # 3

PEO # 4



2. Map of PLOs to University Learning Goals (ULGs)
Table 2 shows the relationship between the SLO’s and the University Learning Goals. The BSME SLO’s
show good overlap with all the ULG’s.
Table 2 Map of BSME Student Learning Outcomes to University Learning Goals
BSME Student Learning Outcomes
University
Learning Goal:
Specialized
Knowledge
a

b

Broad
Integrative
Knowledge
c
d
e




Intellectual
Skills





Applied
Knowledge





Social/Global
Responsibilities

f
g
h
i
j
k








3. Alignment – Matrix of PLOs to Courses
Table 3 shows where the BSME outcomes are covered and assessed, where H indicates a more coverage
and typically a higher level of expected proficiency compared to M, which indicates medium coverage.
Checks indicate coverage that is not assessed. Only required courses are included on this table. Table 4
lists the measures used for assessment.
Table 3 BSME Program – Outcome Matrix
Student Learning Outcomes
a
b
Engr 10


c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k



M






H

M
M
Engr 100W
ME 101
M
ME 106

ME 111
M
ME 113
M
ME 114
H
ME 115

ME 120
M
ME 130
M
ME 154

ME 195 A, B



M
M
H


M


M
H

H

H


M



H

M
M


H


M

H


H
H
H



H
M

H
M: Medium contribution H: High contribution  Skills relevant but not presently assessed
Table 4 Assessment Processes for Each SLO
Outcome 3a
ME 101 final exam
ME 111 homework assignment
ME 113 gateway quizzes
ME 113 final exam question
ME 113 final exam grade
ME 114 quiz
ME 120 homework assignments
ME 130 final exam question
Outcome 3b
ME 120 individual lab reports
ME 120 individual oral pres.
ME 120 group project report
Outcome 3c
ME 154 group design report
ME 154 homework assignment
ME 154 quizzes
ME 106 individual lab reports
ME 106 group project report
ME 195 group project reports
Outcome 3d
ME 106 term project reports
ME 106 performance eval. forms
ME 195 project topics
ME 195 performance evaluation forms
Outcome 3e
ME 111 homework assignment
ME 106 term project, mini-project
and lab exercises
ME 154 project
Outcome 3f
Engr 10 homework assignments
Engr 10 final exam questions
ME 195 quiz
ME 195 group project reports
Outcome 3g
ME 115 lab report
ME 120 individual oral pres.
ME 120 lab reports
Engr 100W exit exam
Engr 100W written assignments
ME 195 oral presentation
Outcome 3h
ME 113 papers
ME 195 group project reports
Outcome 3i
# of students involved with clubs
# of student competition awards
ME 111 group project reports
Engr 100W assignment
student survey
Outcome 3j
ME 111 group project reports
ME 113 exam questions
ME 113 papers
Engr 100W assignment
Outcome 3k
ME 106 individual lab reports
ME 113 assignment
ME 115 computer assignment
ME 154 assembly drawings
ME 154 assignment
ME 154 group design report
ME 154 presentation or DVD
4. Planning – Assessment Schedule
Our plan is to go through two complete assessment cycles of the undergraduate program before the next
ABET accreditation visit (six years from our last visit). The following schedule is being followed:
2011-12: Outcomes f, j
2012-13: b, d, g, h
2013-14: a, c, e, i
2014-15: k, f, j, b
2015-16: d, g, h, a
2016-17: c, e, i, k
Individual course instructors collect the data as listed in Table 4, and course coordinators analyze the
results. The ME Associate Chair coordinates the results at the end of each semester or academic year.
Based on the results and analysis, the Associate Chair and the department’s Undergraduate Studies
Committee work together to make recommendations for improvement. Improvements are implemented
the following year and then assessed again during the next assessment cycle – or the next year if there is a
serious deficiency.
All students in the BSME program must achieve a C- or better in each class in their major. Thus, this
grade is considered the minimum acceptable achievement for a student. Realistically, all students will not
achieve a C- or better for all assignments. Thus, all outcomes are assessed using assignments from
multiple classes. When one or two assignments are assessed, the goal is to have 100% of students achieve
the target level on at least one. If more assignments are assessed, the goal is 70% achievement. Over time
as the program improves, this goal of 70% achievement can be increased since truly the ideal is 100%
achievement of each assignment and outcome.
Since the PEOs represent the expectation of our graduates, they are assessed using surveys of alumni 3-5
years after graduation. A survey was just closed on February 28, 2014 with 64 responses, and another
survey will be sent out in Spring 2016 so that we will have a minimum of two rounds of surveys per 6year ABET assessment cycle. We also meet every semester with our Industrial Advisory Board to receive
feedback and recommendations for improvements from the employers of our graduates.
Assessment results for Spring and Fall 2014 are shown in Appendix A. Most assessment data area
collected at the end of the academic year and analyzed during the summer, so there is limited data from
Fall 2014.
5.
Student Experience
The BSME PEO’s and SLO’s are included on our department website. Students have some knowledge of
outcomes, but they are not included on most syllabi, and discussions are occasional, largely limited to the
capstone design and senior project courses. Feedback from alumni was incorporated into the development
of the outcomes but not current students. The faculty have been recommended to add ABET learning
outcomes to course syllabi.
Part B
6. Graduation Rates for Total, Non URM and URM students (per program and degree)
Table 5 Graduation Rates
First-Time Freshmen
Undergraduate Transfer
Fall 2008 Cohort: 6-Year Graduation Rate
Fall 2011 Cohort: 3-Year Graduation Rate
Program
Cohort
Size
Program
Grad
Rate
College
Grad
Rate
University
Grad Rate
Program
Cohort
Size
Program
Grad
Rate
College
Grad
Rate
University
Grad Rate
Total
URM
114
30
39.5%
10.0%
40.5%
22.8%
49.7%
40.9%
48
10
50.0%
40.0%
37.5%
36.0%
55.3%
55.2%
Non-URM
All others
72
12
51.4%
41.7%
47.8%
39.3%
53.3%
52.9%
29
9
55.2%
44.4%
38.2%
36.4%
54.9%
56.9%
Our graduation rates for first time freshman are lower than we would like; the numbers for underrepresented minorities are particularly troubling. The numbers for URMs are dominated by students of
Hispanic background. The 6-year graduation rate for them varies widely from year-to-year. The average
over the last five years has been 34% -- still low, but not nearly as bad as 10%.
The total graduation rate increases to 52.4% for the 8-year graduation rate for freshmen and 67.5% for the
5-year grad rate for transfer students (both based on final major, for the most recent year). Our students
are taking mostly math/science/general education in their first two years, so numbers based on final major
are more representative than first major, although for transfer students there is an insignificant difference.
These numbers show that while a high percentage of our students graduate, it is taking them longer than
we would like. It is our hope that the reduction in units for the undergraduate program – from 132 to 120
– will allow our students to graduate faster. From experience we believe that three main factors
contribute to the length of time that it takes our students to graduate. First, many of our students work and
thus must take reduced unit loads (not necessarily part time, but below the average 16 units/semester
shown on our four-year plan). Second, many of our students come in unprepared to take Math 30 in their
first semesters. Many need to take Math 19 Precalculus or remedial math or English courses, adding to
their time to graduation. And third, quite a few students change major in the first year or two,
particularly if they are doing poorly in Calculus. The 2nd Year (3rd Fall) Survival FTF Cohort data
shown in Table 7. The most recent data are not available, so the data from last year are printed here. The
higher graduation rates in this table indicate that much of our drop-off is in the first two years.
Table 7 Six-Year Graduation Rate for 2nd Year (3rd Fall) Survival FTF Cohort
Fall
1999
Number
Entering
Overall
Rate
Fall
2000
Fall
2001
Fall
2002
Fall
2003
Fall
2004
Fall
2005
Fall
2006
Fall
2007
27
25
29
26
41
47
16
36
47
74.10%
64.00%
86.20%
80.80%
80.50%
89.40%
81.20%
80.60%
68.10%
7. Headcounts of program majors and new students (per program and degree)
Tables 7, 8, and 9 provide the headcount of students in Fall 2014, the number of newly enrolled students
from 2009-2014, and the headcount from 2009-2014. Here we see the large influx in 2013 when
admissions were opened up. Fall 2012 numbers are lower due to a lower admittance and show rate, most
likely partially due to the announced impaction. Stability in numbers of students admitted – either a
relatively constant number or a steady increase – would give us a better ability to care for all of our
students than when we have the widely fluctuating numbers we have seen since 2012.
Table 7 BSME Headcount Fall 2014
Fall 2014
New Students
Continuing Students
FT Admit
Continuing
Total
New Transf
Total
Retn.Tranf
126
87
585
3
BS
85
87
517
3
MS
41
Returning
1
68
1
803
1
693
110
1
Table 8 Newly Enrolled BSME Students
Fall
Fall
Fall
Fall
2009
2010
2011
2012
1st Time Freshman
75
57
95
31
New Undergrad Transfer
40
44
50
23
Undergraduates
Trnst-Ugrd
Fall
2013
150
115
Fall
2014
85
87
Table 9 Headcount of BSME Majors
Fall
Fall
Fall
Fall
Fall
Fall
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
693
595
583
605
525
693
8. SFR and average section size (per program)
Table 10 shows the SFR and Table 11 the average headcount per section in ME courses in Fall 2014
Table 10 SFR in ME, College, and University courses
Fall 2014
ME SFR
College SFR
University SFR
Lower Division
25.3
26.4
31.0
Upper Division
28.4
27.0
25.5
Graduate Division
25.1
40.9
20.8
Table 11 Average Headcount per Section
Fall 2014
Lower Division
Subject Headcount per
Section
140.5
College Headcount per
Section
48.2
University Headcount per
Section
35.6
Upper Division
38.6
37.2
28.0
Graduate Division
17.9
31.6
15.8
The average headcount for lower division ME courses is based only on ME 20 and 30. There is a very
large 50-minute lecture for each of these classes followed by a smaller 2 ½ hour lab of about 25 students
each later in the week. The 140.5 headcount must only be counting the lecture portion of the classes. Our
SFR is higher than the university average for upper division and graduate students, which includes all of
our courses except for two, and our section size is larger at all levels.
9. Percentage of tenured/tenure-track instructional faculty (per department)
Although our percentage of FTEF is in line with college and university levels, as shown in Table 12, the
large number of lab courses that we run makes this percentage problematic. Required lab courses include
ME 20, 30, 106, 115, and 120, and elective lab courses include ME 168, 169, 190, 192, 250, and 285.
Developing, updating, and fixing lab equipment takes the effort of a full time faculty member – not to
mention the need to train TAs to run lab sections. The department will be adding two new tenure-track
faculty for the fall but has requested permission to search for two more.
Table 12 Percentage of Tenured/Tenure-Track Instructional Faculty
Fall 2014
ME FTEF #
ME FTEF %
College FTEF %
University FTEF %
Tenured/Tenure-track
5.2
43%
42.7%
42.8%
Not tenure-track
6.8
57%
57.3%
57.2%
12.0
100%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
Part C
10. Closing the Loop/Recommended Actions
The following recommendations were received from the 2013-14 Annual Report. These will be addressed
below.


PLOs: Please consider developing explicit outcome metrics to assess outcomes, instead of
relying on assignment grades. Please also consider communicating outcomes more explicitly
to students on appropriate syllabi.
Graduation rates: Efforts should continue to determine causes of attrition in the first two
years, and also in URM population.
a. PLOs: Please consider developing explicit outcome metrics to assess outcomes, instead of relying on
assignment grades. Please also consider communicating outcomes more explicitly to students on
appropriate syllabi.
Faculty have been asked to put ABET learning outcomes on their course syllabi, effective Fall 2015. They
will be reminded again shortly before the semester begins.
Some elements of outcomes can be assessed directly with an assignment or exam question grade. For
example, statistics (a sub-element of Outcome a) can easily be assessed with homework assignments on
that topic, a chemistry (another sub-element of Outcome a) is assessed with a final exam question.
However, other areas need a more comprehensive rubric. Project report grades include too many elements
and thus do not give complete information about achievement of outcomes. Such rubrics are already used
in some classes (see assessment results for ME 106 and 111 in the appendix) but need to be added to
others (ME 154 and 195b in particular). Course coordinators have been recommended to add these
rubrics.
In the long term, it would be helpful to move towards using Canvas rubrics for assessment where
appropriate. Right now we have many senior full time as well as part-time faculty who do not use Canvas.
An experiment in Fall 2014 to use Canvas for outcome assessment in one course with multiple instructors
failed for this reason. Going forward new faculty will be instructed in the use of Canvas rubrics for
assessment, so over the years we may see more automated assessment.
Right now the ME department collects an extremely large amount of data. The time has come for the
department’s Undergraduate Studies Committee to re-examine the data collected to pare it down,
determine where rubrics need to be developed, and work on automating some of the process using
Canvas.
b) Graduation rates: Efforts should continue to determine causes of attrition in the first two years, and also
in URM population.
The department would like to send out surveys of students who change major out of ME. We wish to
determine why students are leaving and what additional support could have helped them stay in ME (if
that would have been their desire). Without knowing the cause of the problem, it is difficult to fix.
Unfortunately, IEA said that they could not provide contact information or a list of names of students who
started as ME majors and later changed. However, it appears that the dean’s office may have some limited
information, so that is being pursued. If that does not provide sufficient information, in Summer 2015 we
plan to have our administrators go through the list of majors year-by-year to identify students who have
left the major that we can contact.
Anecdotally, the problem seems to be that “math and physics are hard”. Because there are no specific
admissions requirements to get into engineering majors, we see many that start unprepared, having to take
remedial math or pre-calculus before moving into Math 30. It is a very long haul for these students, and it
is not surprising that many drop out of the major in the first two years.
To address retention in the upper division, we have begun addressing student performance in ME 101
Dynamics this year. ME 101 is a required first–semester junior-level course for ME and CE students.
Poor achievement of the learning outcomes for this class can lead to failure in follow-on courses.
Significant resources for tutors have been devoted for this course, with a team of high-achieving seniors
and graduate students provided as a team to help students in any section of the course. In addition, a
common final exam has been added to provide more uniform assessment.
11. Assessment Data
In early summer 2014, assessment data from outcomes a, c, e, and i, from the 2013-14 academic year,
were analyzed. We are collecting data for the 2014-15 academic year to address SLO’s k, f, j, and b, but
only a limited amount of those results are available at this time. Results are included in Appendix A. The
tools used for assessment are given in Table 4. Additionally, we have performed one round of alumni
surveys since our last visit, in Spring 2014. Results were presented in our last annual report.
12. Analysis
All outcomes show promising results, but there is always room for improvement. The following
recommendations were made based on the assessment results for Spring and Fall 2014 that are in the
appendix.
Outcome 3a Analysis
Every course in the program has significant number of assignments relating to this outcome. Students
must achieve a minimum grade of C- in all technical courses to graduate. As a result, every student should
achieve this outcome by the time they graduate. However, the topic of how to improve the ability of our
students to apply math, in particular, to engineering systems continues to be a matter of discussion within
the department.
Analysis shows several areas for improvement.
1) Scores from ME 114, used to analyze differential equations, show that some students’ ability to
apply differential equations to an engineering system is lacking. It is recommended that review
material, with examples, be posted online for students in any section to use. In addition, it would
be good to get assessment data from ME 130 to get a broader picture of student achievement of
differential equations. However, the course coordinator for that class declined to provide data at
this time. Although not explicitly required by ABET, it would also be good to analyze student
achievement of linear algebra, but it was not possible to get data on this subject in ME 130 for the
same reason. The department’s Undergraduate Studies Committee should look into this issue,
possibly by moving this assessment to a different course like ME 147.
2) The department has been putting extra resources into helping students be successful in ME 101,
especially related to tutoring. Unfortunately, many students who need this tutoring the most do
not take advantage of it. The department is exploring the option of adding a 1-unit ME 101W
workshop course (similar to Math 30W) to help students who are struggling. This course would
be highly recommended for students with lower GPAs but not required.
3) Measures should be put in place to ensure that more students in ME 120 turn in the homework
assignment related to statistics.
4) The classes in which students apply chemistry the most are Chem 1a and MatE 25 Introduction to
Materials. Chemistry (in the traditional sense) is only a small part of ME 113, in which it is
currently assessed. It is recommended that the department try to get assessment data on the topic
of chemistry from MatE 25.
Outcome 3c Analysis
Our students are very “hands on”. They love design projects, and assessment results from ME 106, 154,
and 195b show that they do well on them. The only recommended improvement is to provide separate
rubrics, in addition to the very detailed final report evaluation rubric used in ME 195b, that help faculty in
ME 154 and 195b perform an assessment more directly linked to the learning objective.
Outcome 3e Analysis
The open-ended projects in ME 106, ME 111, and ME 154 (as well as ME 195a/b) illustrate that students
are able to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems, particularly since these projects are not
defined by the instructor but rather are chosen by the students themselves. Lately ME 111 has been
staffed largely by part-time instructors. The course coordinator for ME 111 will ensure that all instructors
understand that this problem (or one similar) must be included in every section every semester
Outcome 3i Analysis
The involvement in student clubs and the student success in design competitions are very promising. The
results of the project in ME 111 do not show achievement of the outcome. It is recommended that data
from Engr 100W be used, when it becomes available, to analyze student ability to solicit and learn new
material on their own.
13. Proposed changes and goals (if any)
A major goal for the 2014-15 academic year has been the hiring of new faculty. This process has
successfully concluded, with two new tenure-track faculty members planning to join us in the fall. We
have requested the authorization to search for two more new faculty members during the 2015-16
academic year.
Goals for the new year include
 Continued development of the Hybrid and Electric Vehicles Lab, under the leadership of Dr. Fred
Barez.
 Development of new labs in the areas of controls and thermal-fluids by our new tenure-track
faculty
 Potential expansion of the methods used with ME 101 to provide extra resources to students to
include ME 113 Thermodynamics.
 Investigation into the causes of our lower-than-desired 6-year graduation rate
Appendix A Spring 2014/Fall 2014 Assessment Data and Analysis
Outcome 3a -- an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering (Spring 2014)
ME graduates can:
1. Use math (calculus, differential equations, linear algebra) to solve ME problems.
2. Use science (chemistry, physics concepts) to solve ME problems
3. Use engineering principles (Newton’s laws, fluid mechanics, thermodynamics, heat transfer etc) to
solve ME problems
ME 101 Dynamics
ME 101 Dynamics is one of the courses used to assess Outcome 3a, an ability to apply knowledge of
mathematics, science and engineering. This course is well suited because it requires application of skills
in vector calculus, physics, and engineering mechanics, and all of these components are tested for
proficiency in exams. Accordingly, final exam scores are used as the quantitative metric for evaluating
level of success in achieving Outcome 3a. Evaluation in this summary is based on data from the Spring
2014 semester, in which there were two sections taught by two different instructors. A grade of C(after normalizing the two sections according to respective percentage scales) was considered passinglevel proficiency in both sections. In Section 01, 40 out of 65 students (69%) met or exceeded Cproficiency level. In Section 02, 30 out of 39 students (77%) demonstrated C- proficiency level.
ME 101 serves students from different majors, so to examine in greater detail data from the larger
section were divided according to major. In relative comparison there is a favorable observation that a
larger fraction of ME majors demonstrate proficiency.
Major
# of Students Avg. Final Exam Score Meets or Exceeds C-
Mechanical Engineering
30
78.1
23/30 = 77%
Civil Engineering
19
70.8
11/19 = 58%
Aerospace Engineering
12
71.9
9/12 = 75%
General Engineering
4
73.2
2/4 = 50%
Overall
65
74.5
40/65 = 69%
A possible contributor to the differences among majors is that Mechanical Engineering (ME) and
Aerospace Engineering (AE) majors must earn a C- or better in all required courses for the major,
whereas Civil Engineering (CE) majors and General Engineering (ENGR) majors must earn at least a 2.0
GPA in the major. So in effect a “D” grade in ME 101 can be considered “passing” for CE or ENGR
majors, whereas it is not considered passing for ME or AE majors. This requirement correlates with the
observation that a higher proportion of ME and AE majors met or exceeded the C- proficiency level.
In Fall 2014, the ME Department began placing a more emphatic premium on passing by instituting a
“gateway” requirement for ME 101. Under this policy, ME students must pass ME 101 with C- or better
within no more than two attempts, and failure to do so can mean disqualification from the ME major.
To help students more proactively, the ME Department expanded the use of peer tutoring beginning in
Fall 2014. It was observed by both Spring 2014 instructors that a key obstacle for students was
weakness in basic calculus, and accordingly an indexed library of video resources (e.g. from sources such
as Khan Academy) are being prepared to facilitate ease of reviewing calculus skills that are most
relevant to dynamics.
ME 113 Thermodynamics
For outcome 3a, we analyzed the following items

Gateway quiz on the First Law of Thermodynamics (application of physics)

Final exam question on mixtures (application of chemistry)

Final exam grade (application of engineering principles)
In this course, students take a “gateway quiz” on the application of the First Law of Thermodynamics.
Students much achieve a 70% or better to pass the class. The first quiz is given in class, and that score
factors into their grade for the class. If they do not achieve a 70%, they have three opportunities to take
different versions of the quiz online. While their scores on the online retakes do not factor into their
overall grade for the class, they must achieve a 70% or better on one of the quizzes before they take the
first midterm in order to pass the class. Fourteen students out of 60 scores lower than 70% on the first
quiz, but all achieved a 70% or better upon retaking a different version of the quiz online.
The last question on the final exam in F13, worth 19% of the total points, related to properties of
mixtures (application of chemistry). The average score on this problem was a 77% with 21% scoring
below a C- on this question, showing room for improvement.
The final exam in ME 113 is cumulative and is a good indication of the ability of the students to apply
the fundamentals of thermodynamics. It consists of theory questions from the Thermodynamics
Concept Inventory developed by professors at several universities (approx. 20%), short questions related
to environmental issues (approx. 8%) and the remainder consists calculation problems. Any student
receiving a course grade of D+ or lower must retake the class. Of the students who achieved the course
grade of C- or better, necessary to move on to ME 114 Heat Transfer, 88% received a C- or better on the
final exam. The average grade on the final exam was a C+ with a median grade of B-. Interestingly, the
fail rate (D+ or lower) for this instructor for ME 113 over approximately six years has consistently been
about 21%, but in Fall 2013 it was 13%. It may be that impaction has resulted in a stronger pool of
students.
ME 114 Heat Transfer
For this outcome we assessed the first quiz on the semester in which student must apply differential
equations. Students integrate a one-dimensional steady-state heat conduction equation in cylindrical
coordinates and apply boundary conditions to come up with an equation for temperature as a function
of position. Students struggle with this concept – both the integration and application of boundary
conditions. It is recommended that review material about differential equations be placed online to help
students achieve this concept better. In two semesters, 31% and 43% of students who passed the class
received lower than a C- on this first quiz. Scores on the first exam, which came later than the quiz,
showed some improvement in understanding but not what we would hope it to be.
ME 120 Experimental Methods
ME 120 has one 50 minute lecture and one three-hour laboratory session per week. There are six
directed experiments that give students hands-on experience with various sensors, test and
measurement instruments, and data acquisition hardware and software. Each directed experiment has a
set of instructions that introduces the background of the experiment, the instruments, and the
experimental procedure. The students work mostly in pairs to perform the experiments. Each student
must individually write a report that describes what was done and what was found (see the ME 120
course binder for samples).
In addition to the directed experiments, students work in teams to devise and carry out an open-ended
experiment of their own choice as a term project. The team documents the experiment and their
findings in a written report and presents it to their classmates in oral format using presentation
software.
Performance Analysis and Recommendations
The grade record of ME 120 for spring 2014 shows that, aside from those who received zero for failing
to turn in the assignment, no student scored less than 7/10 on Homework 5, which deals primarily with
statistics: mean, standard deviation, estimation of error, and expected likelihood estimation for
normally distributed measurement values (N=59 (43 non-zero), average = 8.86, standard deviation =
1.06). Based on these, it appears that the vast majority of students in ME 120 know how to apply basic
statistical concepts to measurements. The high number of individuals (16) who received a zero score on
this assignment, presumably because they did not turn it in, is somewhat troubling. An improvement for
the next course offering might be to make this assignment count more significantly in the final grade or
make it a ‘gateway’, where students must submit an attempt and must score above a threshold value in
order to pass the class.
The second laboratory experiment focuses on statistical process control applied to the measurement
diameter of centerless ground stainless steel rods. The grade record shows that all students who
performed the experiment and turned in a report (N= 59 (54 non-zero)) received 77/100 or higher on
their report. Based on these scores, it appears that the vast majority of students who performed the
experiment learned the concepts underlying statistical process control. An improvement for the next
course offering might be to make this experiment count more significantly in the final grade or make it a
‘gateway’, where students must submit a report and must score above a threshold value in order to pass
the class. It should be noted, however, that most of the students who did not turn in this report, did not
pass the class.
ME 120 appears to be satisfactorily addressing Outcomes 3a, especially in terms of coverage of
statistics. The situation could be improved by making sure that all students submit assignments covering
statistics at a threshold level.
Outcome 3a Summary
Every course in the program has significant number of assignments relating to this outcome. Students
must achieve a minimum grade of C- in all technical courses to graduate. As a result, every student
should achieve this outcome by the time they graduate. However, the topic of how to improve the
ability of our students to apply math, in particular, to engineering systems continues to be a matter of
discussion within the department.
Analysis shows several areas for improvement.
5) Scores from ME 114, used to analyze differential equations, show that some students’ ability to
apply differential equations to an engineering system is lacking. It is recommended that review
material, with examples, be posted online for students in any section to use. In addition, it
would be good to get assessment data from ME 130 to get a broader picture of student
achievement of differential equations. However, the course coordinator for that class declined
to do assessment.
6) The department has been putting extra resources into helping students be successful in ME 101,
especially related to tutoring. It is recommended that this practice continue.
7) Measures should be put in place to ensure that more students in ME 120 turn in the homework
assignment related to statistics.
8) The classes in which students apply chemistry the most are Chem 1a and MatE 25 Introduction
to Materials. Chemistry (in the traditional sense) is only a small part of ME 113, in which it is
currently assessed. It is recommended that the department try to get assessment data on the
topic of chemistry from MatE 25.
Outcome 3c -- an ability to design a system, component or process to meet desired needs within
realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety,
manufacturability, and sustainability (Spring 2014)
ME graduates can:
1. Based on an identified need, define a problem statement in engineering terms
2. Generate design concepts for a system, component or process and select the most suitable one
based on the constraints in economics, environmental, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability etc.
3. Develop design specifications (materials, geometry, operating parameters etc), perform analysis and
design verification
ME 106 Fundamentals of Mechatronics
ME 106 consists of two 50-minute lecture and one three-hour laboratory session per week. There are
nine directed laboratory exercises that give students hands-on experience with electronic test and
measurement instruments, electronic circuits and devices, sensors, actuators, microcontrollers, and
embedded software. Lab exercises are conducted in pairs and lead the students through discovery and
application of fundamental concepts in mechatronics. Each student must individually write a report that
describes what was done and what was found (see the ME 106 course binder for samples).
In addition to the directed laboratory exercises, students work in teams of two to five to design a
mechatronic system as a term project. The team documents their design and design process in a written
report and presents it in a project exhibition at the end of the semester.
Performance Analysis and Recommendations
The term project is the primary instrument that is used to assess Outcome 3c. The students are given a
very detailed guideline which explains the rationale for the assignment, lists the deliverables, and
suggests a process for completing the assignment. The basic idea is that students in teams of
approximately two to five must design a mechatronic device which is comprised of at least one sensor,
at least one actuator, mechanical components, and must be controlled by a microcontroller. Some
students also take ME 154 Mechanical Engineering Design in the same semester. ME 154 also requires
an open-ended design project that primarily emphasizes mechanism design, and students taking both
classes are encouraged to devise a project that satisfies requirements of both classes. The open-ended
nature of the term project in ME 106 unleashes significant and wide ranging creativity in what the
students design, and the project also directly addresses Outcome 3c.
The grade for the project is determined as a weighted sum of scores for the following sub-elements:




Concept (25%) The technical merits of the design, including, innovation, appropriate use of hardware and
software, and application of physical and engineering principles.
Implementation (25%) How well the concept was implemented in hardware, where the focus is on the
quality of workmanship and finished appearance.
Performance (25%) How well the project performed during the project exhibition.
Report and Video (25%) How complete and well-written the documentation of the design is. The key
criteria is, “How easy would it be for someone acquainted with Mechatronics to understand, reproduce,
and/or modify the design as documented?” (It was expected that each team would also produce two
short videos, one describing the project, and the other describing what was learned in the process.)
The report score is determined as a weighted sum of sub-scores for the Title Page, the Project Summary,
the Introduction, the description of the Design Requirements, the Design Details, the Outcome of the
project, the list of references, the source code, and appendices.
The score for each sub-element is based on a five-point scale, where:
1=
2=
3=
4=
5=
Unacceptable
Needs significant improvement
Acceptable
Good
Excellent
Table 1 summarizes the results from Spring 2014. 100% of the projects (32/32) were at a level of
Acceptable or higher for the overall project score. All of the projects (100%) demonstrated at least
Acceptable quality in the design concept. 84% (27/32) projects were Acceptable or better in terms of the
team being able to articulate the design requirements in the report for the mechatronic system that
they designed. 100% of the project reports earned Acceptable or better rating for the documentation of
the details of their design.
Table 1. Summary of term project scoring for ME 106 Spring 2014. The table shows the results of scoring the subelements of the project and the results for sub-scores for the project report.
Des
Reqs
Details
Outcome
4.42
3.56
3.92
4.45
0.85
0.69
1.21
0.80
5
5
5
5
2
3
2
3
32
30
31
31
100%
100%
94%
97%
# below
Acceptable
=
0
0
2
% below
Acceptable
=
0%
0%
6%
Statistic
Concept
Implem
Perf
Title
Summary
avg=
4.89
4.57
4.61
4.53
4.12
stdev=
0.30
0.50
0.76
0.72
max=
5
4
4
nonzero
min=
4
3
count at or
above
Acceptable
32
% at or
above
Acceptable
=
Intro
Ref
Source
Appendix
Video
Rollup
4.52
4.86
4.56
4.55
4.54
0.79
0.96
0.34
0.90
0.77
0.30
5
5
5
5
5
5
4.85
1
2
2
2
4
1
3
3.41
32
27
31
31
29
32
31
30
32
97%
100%
84%
97%
97%
91%
100%
97%
94%
100%
0
2
4
6
1
1
3
0
1
2
0
3%
3%
0%
16%
3%
3%
9%
0%
3%
6%
0%
The ratings of the Term Project reports suggest that Outcome 3c is being met in large part by ME 106.
It is noted that more emphasis should be given to having the students articulate the design
requirements in their report. The project guideline gives some rather general design requirements, but
the students could do a better job at generating specific requirements and comparing their results to
the requirements to close the design loop.
ME 154 Mechanical Engineering Design
ME154 was assessed in Spring 2014; 92 students were enrolled in this course, and one
unauthorized withdrawal occurred at the second half of the semester. Three components from
ME154 were evaluated for this assessment, namely, a group design project report, homework
assignments, and quizzes.
From a total of 26 group project reports, all student teams demonstrated an ability to design a
kinematic system to meet the desired needs with given constraints. The report scores range from
80 points to 93 points on a 100-point scale; the medium score is 87. This was an open-ended
project in which students had to develop their own project objectives and constraints and
determine a design that would allow them to achieve those objectives with the constraints.
There were 12 homework sets assigned to students in the ME154 class. The homework is worth
9% of the course grade. Out of 91 students, 83.5% achieved 70% or better in the homework and
extra credit total scores, and 16.5% below the threshold level of 70%.
In-class pop quizzes and an online quiz were given to students in ME154 class. Here 42% of the
students earned 70% or better in total quiz scores, 67% of the students achieved 60% or better in
quiz scores and 87% achieved 50% or better in quiz total scores. The quiz percentage was lower
than expectation level primarily due to two factors: the in-class quizzes were given at the
beginning of the class and many students showed up few minutes late and missed the quiz on
that day. Secondly, students did not review the materials covered in previous two lectures to
prepare for the pop quizzes. However, the online quiz alone has much better result than in-class
quiz.
The project report and homework show strong achievement of Outcome 3c although the quizzes
show room for improvement.
ME 195b Senior Design Project II
Our senior project sequence consists of one two-semester project. Students work on projects in groups
of 3-8 on problem definition, analysis, and design in the fall (ME 195a). The spring is devoted to
prototype construction, testing, and analysis of testing results (ME 195b). The students’ design skills
were evaluated through their senior project report using the detailed rubric attached in Appendix B.
The average score on the rubrics was an 85%, and no student team scored below a C-. For the class, 43%
received an A (excellent work), 33% a B (good work), and 24 % a C (acceptable work). Faculty members
closely mentor the students throughout the year, and students typically take strong ownership of their
projects. As a result, no student teams had unacceptable projects during the 2013-14 academic year.
These results are very promising. To provide more in-depth information, for the next assessment cycle,
it is recommended that an additional rubric that is directly tied to the learning outcome. This rubric
should evaluate the following elements:





Clear definition of the problem statement
Generation of several concepts and justification for the one selected
Development of detailed design specifications
Performance of engineering analysis (FEA, analytical methods, etc.)
Evidence of consideration of external constraints (economic, environmental, social, political,
ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, sustainability)
Outcome 3c Summary
Our students are very “hands on”. They love design projects, and assessment results from ME 106, 154,
and 195b show that they do well on them. The only recommended improvement is to provide separate
rubrics, in addition to the very detailed final report evaluation rubric used in ME 195b, that help faculty
in ME 154 and 195b perform an assessment more directly linked to the learning objective.
Outcome 3e -- an ability to identify, formulate and solve engineering problems (Spring 2014)
ME graduates:
1. Define and articulate the problem in engineering terms
2. Research and collect information pertaining to the problem
3. Develop a plan to tackle the problem
4. Draw on the pertinent subject knowledge/information and assess the accuracy of that information
5. Monitor their problem solving process, reflect on its effectiveness, and modify the process as needed
ME 111 Fluid Dynamics
A mini-research project is assigned at the end of this course, asking students to research any application
of fluid mechanics to a contemporary application. They work in groups of 3-5 comprised of mechanical
and civil engineering majors. Requirements of the assignment include: finding relevant articles written
within the past 10 years from the SJSU library databases and other sources, writing a joint technical
research report describing the importance of the contemporary application and the role of fluid
mechanics, and delivering an oral presentation to the class on their research project. The rubric used to
grade the assignment was common to all three sections, and specifically assesses the targeted learning
outcomes 3e, 3i, and 3j.
Benchmark Criterion: The benchmark criterion used to judge if student performance indicates if the
intended outcomes are being met is if more than 75% of the students in each section receive a grade of
70% or higher on the rubric items on this assignment. If this threshold is not achieved, the outcome is
deemed to not have been met.
Each student on each project team was rated on their ability to identify, formulate, and solve a fluid
mechanics problem as it related to their project, on a scale of 0 (no ability) to 4 (successfully framed a
fluid mechanics problem and analyzed it using theory taught in class). The data from one semester was
as follows:
0/4:
1/4:
2/4:
3/4:
4/4:
2%
14%
2%
4%
78%
Based on this data, 82% of the students met the criterion if receiving a score of 3/4 or higher in this
category. While one can always do better, Outcome 3e appears to have been met.
ME 106 Fundamentals of Mechatronics
There are many elements in ME 106 where students are challenged to identify, formulate, and solve
engineering problems. The term project (discussed earlier under 3c) and the lab exercises are the most
significant elements contributing to this outcome. The term project requires problem solving in
mechanical, electrical, and software realms. The summary of performance described in Table 1 seems to
indicate strong problem solving performance when it comes to a hands-on design challenge. The lab
exercises often require the students to debug hardware and software problems that crop up in the
course of the lab session. Lab 6 involves controlling the motion of the carriage salvaged from an ink-jet
printer and is one of the more challenging experiments from a problem-solving standpoint. In this
experiment, students must construct an interface between a microcontroller, two kinds of opto sensors,
a motor driver, and limit switches and develop a software program to run on the microcontroller that
will shuttle the carriage between the two opto sensors. The lab guidelines give rough schematic
diagrams of the set up, but the students are largely on their own for figuring out how to get it all
together and have it function properly. The scores for the lab report from Lab 6 provide a measure of
the ability of students to solve an engineering problem without a recipe.
The mean score on the report for Lab 6 was 34/40 or 85% (N=65) with a standard deviation of 3.91. 94%
scored better than 69% on this report. The performance of students on this lab assignment seems to
support a conclusion that ME 106 is doing a good job at helping students develop the ability to identify,
formulate, and solve mechatronic engineering problems.
ME 154
The term project from ME 154 is like-wise open-ended, where students define their own problems and
follow them through to evaluation of their chosen solution methods. This project is discussed under
Outcome 3c, and many of the same conclusions apply to Outcome 3e.
Outcome 3e Summary
The open-ended projects in ME 106, ME 111, and ME 154 (as well as ME 195a/b) illustrate that students
are able to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems, particularly since these projects are not
defined by the instructor but rather are chosen by the students themselves. Lately ME 111 has been
staffed largely by part-time instructors. The course coordinator for ME 111 will ensure that all
instructors understand that this problem (or one similar) must be included in every section every
semester
Outcome 3i -- a recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in, life-long learning (Spring 2014)
Recognition of the need for life-long learning: ME graduates:
1. Are willing and able to learn new material on their own.
2. Read articles / books outside of class materials.
3. Continue their education by attending student club meeting, campus workshops, seminars,
conferences or plan to go graduate school upon graduation.
An ability to engage in life-long learning:
1. Can access information effectively and efficiently from a variety of sources.
A survey of graduating seniors was performed to determine how involved they were in enhancing their
own education outside of the classroom. The results were as follows:

45% attended at least one engineering-related club activity in the year before graduation, with
an average of 0.57 activities per person

22% engaged in a design competition in the year before graduation, with an average of 0.29
competitions per person

32% attended other training/educational activities (such as short courses or educational
seminars not required for class) in the year before graduation, with an average of 0.63 activities
per person

70% had an internship or other engineering-related job while a student at SJSU

20% worked with a professor on a research project while a student at SJSU
Student Design Competition Results Spring 2014

Formula SAE team took 15th place out of 126 in an international competition in Michigan and
2nd place out of 28 in an international competition in Canada. In Canada, our team was the only
American team to make it to the finals (top four teams). The team’s world ranking jumped 59
places to 56 out of 509 teams.

In the ASME Regional Design Competition held at Cal Poly- SLO, our students took 1st and 2nd in
the oral competition and 1st and 2nd in the technical poster competition. The first place winner in
the oral competition is scheduled to compete in the international ASME competition in
November 2014.

A team of four students took second place in ASHRAE’s Design Calculations Competition, a very
competitive international competition related to HVAC.
The high numbers of students involved in clubs and the strong competition results are good indications
that our students are willing and able to seek out and learn information on their own. The high number
of students working engineering-related jobs has both very positive and some negative implications. We
are very happy that so many of our students are gaining work experience before they graduate.
However, this work also leads to fewer hours available for coursework. The College of Engineering, as
part of its new vision and roadmap, is exploring ways to connect our freshman more fully. As this
initiative move forward, we hope to see even more of our students involved in clubs earlier in their
educational careers.
ME 111 Fluid Dynamics
Each student on each project team discussed previously under Outcome 3e was also rated on their
ability to engage in lifelong learning by demonstrating the retrieval of at least one archival quality
publication and by synthesizing, thinking critically about, and evaluating the information contained
within, again on a scale of 0 to 4. The data for one semester is summarized below:
0/4: 0%
1/4: 8%
2/4: 44%
3/4: 14%
4/4: 36%
Based on this data, only 50% of the students received a score of 3/4 or better, and consequently, this outcome is
not met. This skill is introduced in much more detail in Engr 100W Engineering Reports, which students often take
concurrently with or after ME 111, so this result is not unexpected.
Outcome 3i Summary
The involvement in student clubs and the student success in design competitions are very promising.
The results of the project in ME 111 do not show achievement of the outcome. It is recommended that
data from Engr 100W be used, when it becomes available, to analyze student ability to solicit and learn
new material on their own.
Outcome 3j -- a knowledge of contemporary issues (Fall 2014)
ME graduates are able to:
1. Give examples of contemporary issues related to Engineering and Technology, and articulate a
problem statement or position statement for each.
2 Explain their relevancy to the present time.
3 Suggest reasonable/possible theories regarding the root causes of contemporary problems and
identify possible solutions to contemporary problems
ME 113 Thermodynamics
ME 113 was used to show that students have a knowledge of contemporary issues, in particular, global
warming and ozone depletion.
A “gateway” writing assignment is given in ME 113 after a lecture on global warming and ozone
depletion. In Spring 2015 this assignment related to President Obama’s recommended increased CAFÉ
Standards (Corporate Average Fuel Economy). Students must write a researched advocacy memo to a
congressman/woman or senator letting him or her know if they support the president’s increased fuel
economy requirements. Students who score below a 70% must revise and resubmit their essays to
achieve an acceptable score before they can pass the class (The best they can do after resubmission is a
70%). The average score after the first submission was an 84%, with 4% receiving an unacceptable score.
These students had to resubmit to pass the class.
On the first exam, students are also given two short questions related to the cause of ozone depletion.
86% of students had acceptable answers, showing at least a very basic understanding of how the
chlorine in Freon caused problems for the ozone layer.
Additional data for this area are being collected in Spring 2015 and will be analyzed in Summer 2015.
Appendix B Senior Project Report Evaluation Rubric
Team: _______
Names: _____________________________________________________ Date: _____________
Criteria
Title Page
2: Title is descriptive and specific; lists the entity for which the report was written, i.e., San José State University,
Charles W. Davidson College of Engineering, ME195B Senior Design Project II, name of professor, section
number, names of the team members, date of submission. No page number on title page.
1: Title is adequate but may be lacking in specificity, missing one of the required elements or mistake in: entity for
which presentation is being made, names of team members, date of presentation.
Abstract
5: Succinctly and specifically states: what was done, why and how it was done, and results (performance results).
4: For the most part abstract what/why was done, how it was done, and results, but lacks a little in terms of
specificity or quality of the summary.
3: Significantly lacking in description of what was done, why and how it was done, and results or missing one of the
requested elements of the abstract.
2: Missing one or two of the requested elements of the abstract.
1: Missing more than two of the requested elements of the abstract.
Acknowledgement
1: List of sponsors and/or professors, technicians, other students, friends and relatives who have supported or helped
the project.
Table of Contents
1: Includes titles of each section and subsection, and page numbers. Appears after Acknowledgement and before
List of Figures. Nicely formatted.
List of Figures
1: Includes caption of each table and page number that is consistent or matches the figure in the text.
List of Tables
1: Includes caption of each table and page number that is consistent or matches the table in the text.
Introduction Section (Chapter 1)
8: Fully and clearly describes what the project was all about, first in general (referring to the guideline to describe the
general goals and requirements), and then specifically, presenting the specific objectives that the design addresses.
Contains clear sketches, drawings, and/or photographs and verbiage that very clearly explains what the project is
all about. Includes a detailed, well-documented literature review
6: For the most part describes what the project was all about, but lacking a little in clarity or completeness. Contains
sketches, drawings, and/or photographs and verbiage that satisfactorily explains to someone unfamiliar with the
project what it is all about. Literature review is present but may completely thorough. Environmental, society,
and/or global impacts are discussed but not as completely as they could be.
4: Provides some introduction to the project, but may be missing general goals and requirements or specific goals
and requirements. Somewhat less than satisfactorily introduces the background and goals of the project. May be
Score
missing sketches, drawings, and/or photographs if verbiage compensates. Literature review and discussion of
environmental, societal, and/or economic impacts are sketchy.
2: Missing significant description to inform the reader about the background of the project. Literature review or
discussion of environmental, societal, and/or economic impacts may be missing.
Social Impacts
Note that this should not appear as a separate section but should be part of Chapter 1.
6: Global, social, environmental, political and/or health and safety issues thoroughly discussed, including issues
leading to a need for the project and those predicted to result from the project.
3: Effects are discussed, but the analysis is weak and only touches the surface.
Analytical Background (Chapter 2)
12: Thoroughly explains the engineering theory behind all major design decisions. Important equations included in
the text with additional details in appendices as needed.
8: Engineering theory behind most major decisions discussed. Some theory or equations may be missing, and
discussion may not be as thorough as it could be.
4: Theory behind some major design decisions is missing. Discussion is present but very incomplete.
Prototype Design (Chapter 3)
25: Pros and cons of several design concepts discussed. Simulations, theoretical calculations, and/or experiments
used to justify and optimize design. Detailed calculations and/or simulation results in appendices. Clear and
complete documentation of design through sketches, drawings, and/or photographs to clearly show design
details. Complete CAD drawings present in appendices.
20: Adequate but not excellent use of simulation and/or theoretical calculations to justify design. Some elements of
the design may not be optimized. Somewhat effectively uses sketches, drawings, and/or photographs to show
design and performance details. Minor omissions in CAD drawings.
15: Justification of design choices quite incomplete. Missing some information to fully document the design. Some
CAD drawings missing or poorly done.
10: Alternative design concepts missing. Limited justification of design. Missing significant amounts of information
to document the design, including multiple missing or poorly done CAD drawings.
5: Alternative design concepts missing. Almost no justification of design. Very inadequate documentation of the
design, including few CAD drawings.
Microcontroller and Electronic System Interface (Chapter 4)*
8: Use of microcontrollers and electronic components discussed and justified. Block diagram of electronic circuits
included. Appropriate use of data acquisition documented.
5: Adequate discussion of electronic elements included, but choice of components and data acquisition setup may not
be fully justified.
3: Use of some electronic elements and/or data acquisition setup may be poorly documented or missing.
Fabrication and Assembly (Chapter 5)
10: Bill of materials and table showing all costs included. Assembly method clearly documented, with drawings as
needed. Thorough discussion of challenges during construction and assembly. Data sheets in appendix.
7: A couple minor components may be missing from bill of materials and cost table. Adequate but not thorough
discussion of assembly method or construction challenges.
4: Poor documentation of assembly method. Discussion of challenges may be missing, along with multiple
components that should appear in the bill of materials, cost table, or data sheets.
Testing Results and Appendices (Chapter 6)
20: Testing setup completely tests all major aspects of design. Effective use of data acquisition, as needed.
Calculation of experimental uncertainty included, as needed. Testing results effectively presented using figures
and tables. Thorough analysis of how well the prototype meets the specifications/design criteria.
15: Testing setup completely tests most but not all major aspects of design. Effective use of data acquisition, as
needed. Calculation of experimental uncertainty included, as needed, but may not be as thorough as it could be.
Testing results effectively presented using figures and tables. Adequate but not thorough analysis of how well the
prototype meets the specifications/design criteria.
10: Testing setup tests some major aspects of design. Use of data acquisition, as needed, could be better. Calculation
of experimental uncertainty may be missing. Testing results presented using figures and tables but may not be
very clear. Discussion of how well the prototype meets the specifications/design criteria is limited .
5: Limited testing. Data acquisition and calculation of experimental uncertainty may be missing. Poor presentation
of testing results with little to no analysis.
Conclusions, and Recommendations for Further Work (Chapter 7)
5: Clear and complete conclusions and recommendations for further work; demonstrates that some thought was
given as to what worked well and/or did not work well. Recommendations are specific and show that some thought
was given toward what could be done to improve the design.
4: Clear conclusions, but recommendations for further work lack some specificity and/or substance.
3: Conclusions less than clear, recommendations for further work may lack some specificity and/or substance.
2: Conclusions or recommendations missing or poorly done.
1: Inadequate or missing conclusions and/or recommendations for further work.
Global Impacts
Note that this should not appear as a separate section but should be part of Chapter 7.
4: Clear discussion of how your project would need to change if implemented in a different country; if not at all,
clear discussion of why not; also a thorough discussion of health and safety effects of your project.
2: Discussion of these two issues is present but only touches the surface.
References
3: Properly cited in body of report and reference list, pertinent references. Shows that research was done.
2: References that are pertinent, but may be improperly cited. Shows that some research was done.
1: Few references or missing references, or obvious that no or little research was done.
Spelling, Grammar, Organization, Neatness
8: Report has no more than five grammar or spelling errors. Well organized with proper page numbering and correct
numbering of tables and figures (including figure captions located under figures and table titles located above
tables).
6: Report has no more than ten grammar or spelling errors OR page numbering incorrect OR numbering of tables
and figures incorrect.
4: Report has more than 15 grammar or spelling errors AND either page numbering incorrect OR numbering of
tables and figures incorrect.
/116
Total
*Points for this section may be varied as appropriate for a particular project.
Comments:
Download