Program Planning Committee Report to the Provost December 18, 2007
Degree of Bachelor of Science and Masters Degree in Mechanical Engineering
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department
AY 2006-2007 cycle
The Program Planning Committee (PPC) commends the Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
Department on the experience and expertise of the ME faculty and their efforts to acquire state of
the art equipment for the engineering labs from their local industry contacts. The PPC also
commends the ME program for an excellent academic program which prepares students for
employment in Silicon Valley and beyond.
The department has made some important progress toward program assessment. The BSME
undergraduate program assessment process is grounded in Program Educational Objectives
(PEOs) while the graduate program assessment process utilizes Graduate Program Educational
Objectives (GPEOs). The department has developed an extensive list of student learning
objectives for the undergraduate program and graduate program. The department has conducted
student opinion surveys exit interviews of student acquisition of Lifelong Learning Skills,
communication skills, and student impressions of whether or not they had acquired new
knowledge and abilities. However, having reviewed department assessment reports, the PPC has
some concerns about the department’s methods for assessing student achievement on these
objectives. Presently there is primarily a focus on assessing student opinions of their learning
experience versus a direct assessment of learning objectives. The assessment of the MS projects
and thesis GPEOs comes very close to direct assessment. However, direct assessment of
undergraduate student performance on the learning objectives is a requirement for program
planning and for WASC accreditation.
The PPC recommends working with Nikos Mourtos to develop direct assessment methods that
will satisfy both WASC and ABET. The College Assessment Facilitator, Minnie Patel or
Ahmed Hambaba, or the University Director of Assessment, Jackie Snell, can also assist in
designing assessment methods that will satisfy accreditation agencies. Assessment
recommendations made by AVP Robert Cooper and the Board of General Studies for GE courses
would be good guidelines to follow for the department’s major courses as well.
The final step in the program planning process is a meeting with the Provost (or her designee),
the Vice Provost for Academic Budgets and Planning, the AVP of Undergraduate Studies, the
AVP of Graduate Studies, the Dean, and the Department Chair. The department should contact
Janette Pamintuan in the Office of Undergraduate Studies to schedule the final meeting.
The following suggested agenda items for the meeting with the Provost or her designee are
culled from suggestions given in the self-study, by the external reviewer and/or by the college
committee:
 Direct assessment of undergraduate student performance on Student Learning Objectives.
 Discuss interest of College Committee and Department regarding the need for resources
related to new faculty hiring, hiring of an additional administrative support person, and
Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering
page 1 of 8

an hiring of an additional technical support person, that are absent from the ABET and
Dean’s comments.
Discuss planning for the entire Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department.
If the Department would like to propose other issues, please discuss them with your Dean who
can forward the revised agenda to Janette Pamintuan, so that the items can be added to the
agenda.
The Program Planning Committee recommends acceptance of the self-study. The self-study
provided a good examination of the issues for subsequent reviewers. The next program review
for the Mechanical Engineering program is scheduled for AY 2012- 2013.
Program Planning Committee Members
Marina Aminy
Arlene Asuncion
Mary Calegari
Peter Chua
Elaine Collins
Bob Cooper
Thuy Le
Bill Nance
Dan Perales
Chris Pollett
Jacqueline Snell
Pam Stacks
Gary Stebbins
Patricia Stroh
Marlene Turner
Ashwini Wagle
Cc:
Fred Barez, Chair, Mechanical Engineering
Belle Wei, Dean, Engineering
Ahmed Hambaba, Associate Dean, Engineering
Ping Hsu, Associate Dean, Engineering
Michael Kaufman, Chair, Curriculum and Research
Bob Cooper, AVP Undergraduate Studies
Pam Stacks, AVP Graduate Studies
Bill Nance, Vice-Provost
Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering
page 2 of 8
Appendix: Summary of the Program Planning Report for Masters Degree in Mechanical
Engineering
Self-Study – AY 2006-2007
Program Summary
The MAE Department offers the Bachelor of Science and the Master of Science Degree in
Mechanical Engineering. The undergraduate program focuses on Mechanical Design,
Mechatronics, and Thermal/Fluids. The graduate program offers the Mechanical Engineering
Design, Controls and Manufacturing Systems, and the Thermal/fluid Systems Engineering areas
of specialization. The mechanical engineering program had a steady increase in enrollment from
2001 to 2006 where it peaked at approximately 475 undergraduates and 120 graduate students.
There is sufficient demand for the Mechanical Engineering degree as a result of the program’s
location in Silicon Valley. The program offers students the option of focusing on thermal/fluids,
mechanical design, or mechatronics through the choice of 12 technical elective credit hours.
Both of the undergraduate degrees are accredited by the Accreditation Board for Education and
Technology (ABET). The undergraduate program last underwent ABET review in 2005.
The faculty consists of 10 full-time; tenure-track and several part-time members. The full-time
faculty have doctoral degrees from some the most highly regarded universities in the world. Five
of the faculty are professionally registered. The faculty also have excellent ties with local
industry. Indeed, the faculty industry contacts have resulted in the acquisition of modern
equipment for the engineering labs.
The BSME undergraduate program assessment process is grounded in Program Educational
Objectives (PEOs) while the graduate program assessment process utilizes Graduate Program
Educational Objectives (GPEOs). The objectives are also compared to 11 program outcomes. For
each outcome there is a designated outcome champion. The faculty members in the Department
serve as the outcome champions for the eleven Outcomes. . Outcome champions may meet with
course coordinators and instructors of the courses involved in their outcome, discuss their findings
and make recommendations for course improvements. Two outcome indicators are used to assess
student attainment of program outcomes: (a) course performance ratings based on graded student
work and (b) student surveys.
Based on the undergraduate assessment data for selected courses, the ME Program satisfies all
outcomes except 3f (an understanding of professional and ethical responsibilities). The outcome
satisfaction also indicates that the PEO for the undergraduate ME Program are met except PEO
#4 (understanding of ethical issues). As a result of the outcomes assessment, several
improvements have been implemented since the 2005 ABET visit, to ensure that ME students
acquire the highest possible level of the skills defined under each outcome. These improvements
are listed below:
1.
Students design experiments (in four courses).
2.
Team skills are taught and assessed formally (in four courses).
3.
Students tackle (i.e. identify, formulate, and solve) open ended problems (in four courses)
Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering
page 3 of 8
4.
Students study the ASME Code of Ethics and discuss in class safety, ethics, and liability
issues in engineering (in two courses).
5.
Students research, present, and discuss in class contemporary engineering applications
and their impact in a global and societal context (outcomes 3h, 3j) (in four courses)
The MAE Department has defined five Graduate Program Educational Objectives (GPEO) and
validated by the Department Advisory Committee. The GPEO were assessed in Fall 2005 by
examining the MS project and thesis reports from AY 04 05. The evaluation criteria were
developed to address the GPEO. Though majority of the reports satisfied the GPEO, the
following recommendations were made to the Department to address the findings.
1. Although the level of mathematics and science may vary from project to project, students are
expected to use graduate level mathematics and science in their analysis or modeling. In the
Design area, students should be encouraged to be more explicit about the relevant
mathematics and science.
2. The Department should organize a presentation on literature search and review every
semester.
3. By the end of the 1st month, in ME295A and ME299, students should be required to take the
online tutorials offered by the SJSU Library, such as Info Power.
4. By the end of the 1st month, in ME295A and ME299, students document and present a
literature review related to their project / thesis.
5. The Graduate Coordinator and Study Committee Faculty Advisors will ensure that the topic
area selected by their students is appropriate for the degree and is supported by the courses
taken by the student.
6. On the Project Proposal Form, a line should be added to indicate the area of specialization.
7. The MAE Department should develop a uniform M.S. Project Report guideline. One idea
may be to simply adopt the University guidelines for thesis.
8. Students should seek a committee chair and appropriate committee members in their field of
study. Once the committee is established, it should not be changed without consent of the
committee members. Faculty should advise students in their area of expertise.
External Reviewer Report – February 23, 2007
The external reviewer, Dr. Ronald A. Hess of the University of Cincinnati, reviewed the
program’s goals and had the following comments and recommendations:
 Stimulate ME students' interest in pursuing mechatronics as their focus area. This goal builds
upon an existing strength in the Department and fits nicely within the needs of surrounding
industry.
 Add one additional faculty member in the area of mechatronics, since one professor plans to
retire within two years.
 The educational requirements of employment in the technical sector of Silicon Valley ensure
student demand for the programs offered by the
 The MAE Department scores high marks based on the ability of MAE faculty to equip
engineering labs with state of the art equipment obtained by gifts from industry.
Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering
page 4 of 8
 Program should be cognizant that although traditionally, engineering programs do not provide
service courses to the campus as a whole, this may be changing as accreditation agencies such
as the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) encourage non technical majors
to expand their background by taking a limited number of broad interest engineering courses.
 MAE faculty are active in their individual fields of expertise, their technical societies, and
contribute frequently to technical conferences and archival journals.
 With its emphasis on accommodating students who hold part time employment, and in the
case of graduate study, full time employment, San Jose State occupies a unique position in the
academic Silicon Valley community.
 The thesis should be encouraged for more students since it is probably more advantageous to
the faculty adviser in terms of research productivity and for students who may wish to pursue
a PhD at a Research 1 institution.
 The Aerospace Engineering program felt that ME faculty may be advising Aerospace
Engineering students on projects/theses that would better be advised by the Aerospace faculty.
 In terms of staff support, the current complement of one office staff member and one
technical staff member appears far too low.
 Graduate students were unanimous in their appreciation of the industry ties that the program
had developed. They commented on the quality of the lecturers, and were appreciative of the
current and past industrial experience that these lecturers brought to the MAE program.
 There were a few comments expressing a concern that some graduate classes were too much
like a review of undergraduate material.
 Industry connectivity is a strong point, both in terms of the College and Department.
 the detailed outcomes assessment that is part of the ABET review criteria ensures that
measurable guidelines are in place. Indeed, absence of measurable guidelines can have serious
repercussions to continued accreditation of engineering programs.
Overall Program Strengths
 Excellent Department leadership
 Energetic faculty and lecturers, dedicated to the program
 Undergraduate students appreciation of the efforts of the faculty
 Strong ties with industry, particularly at graduate level
 Well established program assessment tools
Overall Possible Areas for Improvement
 Increasing staff and technical support
 Establishing the importance of the machine shops in achieving Department educational goals
 Increasing research infrastructure for young faculty
Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering
page 5 of 8
 Resolving thesis/project advising issues with Aerospace Engineering faculty and increasing
the support of the Aerospace Engineering program
Chair’s response to Outside Reviewer – April 30, 2007.
 The comments expressed by faculty from the Aerospace Program should be voided as they do
not pertain to the ME Program.
 It is the wish of the program to hire an additional technician but the department is not
authorized to hire a second technician
College of Engineering Committee – Undated
The COE Program Planning Review Committee has recommendations for the ME undergraduate
and graduate program as listed below:
BS Program in Mechanical Engineering
The COE Program Planning Review Committee has recommendations for the ME undergraduate
program as listed below:
1. Expand the mission statement to include the preparation of ME undergraduate students for
graduate study.
2. Streamline the procedure of approving course equivalency for General Education (GE) and
International Equivalent College Credit.
3. Hire one additional administrative staff member.
4. Hire one additional lab technician.
MS Program in Mechanical Engineering
1. Evaluate ME core graduate courses to include more contemporary and appropriate topics.
2. Encourage those graduate students who wish to pursue doctoral study to consider thesis
options instead of project options.
3. ME faculty should concentrate more on ME project/thesis
Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering
page 6 of 8
Dean’s response to College Committee– September 4, 2007.

The department must pay special attention to curricular development and should address the
students’ expressed concern that some graduate classes were too much like a review of
undergraduate material.

The department should provide faculty with the necessary infrastructure to support faculty
research, teaching, and service.
Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) comments - 2005.
ABET Noted the following in its review of the ME undergraduate program.
Programs Strengths
 The faculty members possess doctoral degrees from well known institutions and five are
professionally registered.
 The faculty members show great enthusiasm for the program and are readily available to
students outside the classroom.
 The student body is bright and very diverse and add a rich dimension to in class discussions.
 Students commented very favorably on the strong hands on curriculum and the availability of
the faculty.
 The facilities supporting the program are excellent. The teaching laboratories possess the
modern equipment needed to provide first class, hands on experiences for students. The
college maintains eight computer labs that are equipped with modern computers loaded with
software appropriate to support both stems of the mechanical engineering program.
 Over the past 10 years the program faculty has received 10 NSF grants to enhance laboratory
experiences in the curriculum. The department chair has also secured equipment donations
from corporate friends of the department.
 There appears, to be exceptionally good cooperation between the aerospace and the
mechanical engineering faculty members in the department.
Program Observation
The assessment process is well organized and appears to run well. Substantial reliance is placed
on student grades in particular assignments related to specific outcomes to determine if an
outcome is achieved. A metric used to assess whether an outcome is achieved is that all students
must achieve a minimum grade on these assignments (typically between 60 and 70 percent).
There is not a well defined specification for what level of student performance is required to
achieve a score in this range. Two faculty members grading the same student work could assign
very different grades, with different perceptions of outcome achievement. The program is
encouraged to consider providing more specific grading guidelines to increase the reliability of
the outcomes assessment process.
Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering
page 7 of 8
Due Process response: The program faculty is developing a more specific grading guideline to
address the reliability of the outcome assessment process. The EAC acknowledges the efforts
made by the program in response to this observation.
Department Thirty-Day Response to ABET – 2005
RESPONSE:
Following the comments received at the review period, new ideas were discussed and have
already been implemented in this Spring 2006 semester to address, in specific, the matter of two
faculty members teaching and grading same subject yet achieving the same outcome. The
program faculty is developing a more specific grading guideline to address the reliability of the
outcome assessment process.
Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering
page 8 of 8