MECHATRONIC ENGINEERING ANNUAL PROGRAM
IMPROVEMENT REPORT
2003-05
California State University, Chico
Prepared by:
Gregory A. Kallio, Professor & Chair
Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, Mechatronic Engineering, and
Manufacturing Technology
California State University, Chico
Chico, CA 95929-0789
Mechatronic Engineering Annual Program Improvement Report 2003-05
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………………….. 3
1.
Program Mission ……………………………………………………………………
3
2.
Enrollment and Graduation Trends ………………………………………………… 3
II. ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAM OUTCOMES ………………………………………………… 5
1.
Program Outcomes Summary ………………………………………………………. 5
2.
Course-Program Outcomes Alignment ……………………………………………… 5
3.
Course-Embedded Assessment Metrics and Measures……………………………… 6
4.
Senior Exit Survey Results and Analysis……………………………………………. 8
5.
Proposed Actions from Outcomes …………………………………………………... 13
6.
Proposed Revision of Measures, Metrics, or Outcomes …………………………….. 13
III. ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAM EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES ………………………………. 14
1.
Educational Objectives Summary …………………………………………………… 14
2.
Alumni Survey Methodology and Results …………………………………………… 14
3.
Employer Survey …………………………..………………………………………… 16
4.
Advisory Board Feedback …………………………………………………………… 16
5.
Proposed Revisions to Educational Objectives ……………………………………… 17
IV. APPENDICES ……………………………………………………………………………… 18
A. Senior Exit Survey – Major Specific Instrument .…………………………………… 18
B. Alumni Survey Instrument ………………………………..…………………………. 20
2
Mechatronic Engineering Annual Program Improvement Report 2003-05
I.
INTRODUCTION
This document, Mechatronic Engineering Annual Program Improvement Report, provides a
summary of findings and actions resulting from implementation of the Mechatronic
Engineering Program Improvement Plan in effect at the time of this report. The report is
divided into two main sections, Assessment of Program Outcomes and Assessment of
Program Educational Objectives. While some detailed data are reported here, complete data
sets can be found in the assessment files in the file cabinet located in the Department
storeroom.
Program Assessment Reports normally address one academic year; however, this report
summarizes assessment data from three sequential semesters, Spring 2004, Fall 2004, and
Spring 2005, since a key assessment component (course embedded assessment) was not
fully implemented until midway through the 2003-2004 academic year. Data from two
complete years of graduating senior exit surveys and alumni surveys are provided.
1.
Program Mission
For reference, the current mission statement for the Mechatronic Engineering Program
is given here:
The Mechatronic Engineering Program has the primary mission of providing a highquality undergraduate engineering education with
i. A curriculum that is firmly grounded in engineering fundamentals
ii. A faculty that provides superior teaching and mentoring both in and out of the
classroom
iii. A faculty whose focus is undergraduate education
iv. Class sizes that encourage student participation
v. Project experiences that build on fundamentals and develop team skills
vi. Facilities and equipment that are readily accessible
vii. An environment that is conducive to learning and encourages students from
different genders and backgrounds
The faculty is committed to offer a broad undergraduate experience that will promote
professional growth and prepare students for a variety of engineering careers, graduate
studies, and continuing education.
2.
Enrollment and Graduation Trends
For reference, enrollment and graduation data for Mechatronic Engineering majors are
presented for Fall1996 through Spring 2005 in Figures 1 and 2. It is evident that
enrollment has increased steadily throughout most of this period since program
inception in 1996. The last two years appear to show a leveling off in the 90-100 major
range.
3
Mechatronic Engineering Annual Program Improvement Report 2003-05
100
83
79
Number of Majors
62
62
F00
S01
92
91
F03
S04
F04
93
84
80
60
92
77
57
60
44
40
46
37
35
18
20
11
0
F96
S97
F97
S98
F98
S99
F99
S00
F01
S02
F02
S03
S05
Semester
Figure 1. Mechatronic Engineering Program Enrollment, Fall 1996 through Spring 2005.
20
16
Number of Gradautes
15
11
11
10
7
5
3
2
2
2
98/99
99/00
00/01
0
97/98
01/02
02/03
03/04
04/05
Academic Year
Figure 2. Mechatronic Engineering Program Graduates, 1997-2005 Academic Years.
4
Mechatronic Engineering Annual Program Improvement Report 2003-05
II. ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAM OUTCOMES
1. Program Outcomes Summary
ABET’s Criterion 3 for Accrediting Engineering Programs prescribes that the program
must demonstrate that their graduates have achieved eleven specific proficiencies, also
known as outcomes (a-k). For the purposes of assessment, these ABET proficiencies
have been recast into eight Program Outcomes for Mechatronic Engineering at CSU,
Chico:
Mechatronic engineering graduates shall demonstrate the ability to:
A. Apply knowledge of math, science, and mechatronic engineering to formulate and
solve problems.
B. Conduct experiments, and analyze and interpret the resultant data.
C. Design components and systems to which integrate computers, sensors, and
actuators in mechanical systems to meet desired needs, and design experiments to
evaluate system performance with respect to specifications.
D. Use current industry standard engineering tools.
E. Communicate technical matters effectively in oral, written, and graphical form.
F. Function effectively as members of multi-disciplinary teams.
G. Understand their professional and ethical responsibilities, the impact of their
activities on society and the environment, and appreciate contemporary issues
facing society.
H. Use information resources and recognize the importance of continued learning.
These outcomes were assessed directly through course-embedded metrics. Indirect
assessment methods was based upon Senior Exit Survey results.
2.
Course-Program Outcomes Alignment
Table 1 shows how the required courses within the Mechatronic Engineering
curriculum align with the Program Outcomes. The categories of “Introduced”,
“Practiced”, and “Assessed” indicate the degree to which an outcome is related to each
course. Courses in which outcomes are “Assessed” include embedded, rigorous metric
and measuring procedures that individually test student achievement.
All required courses in Mechatronic Engineering contribute to the program outcomes to
some degree. Outcomes that are not heavily supported by courses include F, G, and H.
In particular, Outcome F: “function effectively as members of multi-disciplinary
teams”, is probably the weakest due to the multi-disciplinary requirement. Outcome F is
assessed in ME 238A/B, where students work on a year-long team project but not all
teams are multi-disciplinary. At most, these teams consist of ME and MECA students.
Outcome F is also assessed in ENGR 195 where one class project is done as a team and
may have some combination of CE, ECE, ME, and MECA students. If multidisciplinary teams are meant to include students from majors other than engineering,
then this outcome is not being satisfied.
5
Mechatronic Engineering Annual Program Improvement Report 2003-05
Table 1. Course-Program Outcomes Alignment Matrix
REQUIRED COURSES
PROGRAM OUTCOMES
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
MATH 7A,B,C,D – Calculus, Differential Eqns
CHEM 37 – General Chemistry (with lab)
PHYS 4A,B,C – Physics (with lab)
CE 35 – Statics
CE 101 – Strength of Materials
CE 121 – Engineering Economy and Statistics
ECE 85 – Log Design Fundamentals (with lab)
ECE 86 – Processor Architect/Assy Lang (with lab)
ECE 90 – Algorithms and Programs for Eng. (with lab)
ECE 95, 95L – Circuits and Devices (with lab)
ECE 97 – Simulation and Analysis Tools (with lab)
ECE 140 – Linear Circuits
ECE 145 – Electronics I (with lab)
ECE 146 – Electronics II (with lab)
ECE 186 – Digital Systems Design (with lab)
ECE 187 – System Architecture/Performance
ECE 188 – Computer Interface Circuits
ECE 236 – State Machine Design
ME 25 – Engineering Graphics
ME 45 – Materials Engineering (with lab)
ME 135 – Dynamics
ME 138 – Mechanical Engineering Design
ME 201 – Control System Design
MECA 238A – Mechatronic Eng. Design Project I
MECA 238B – Mechatronic Eng. Design Project II
ME 261 – Measurements & Instrumentation (with lab)
ENGR 195 – Lifelong Development for Engineers
General Education courses
KEY:
3.
Introduced
Practiced
Assessed
Course-Embedded Assessment Metrics and Measures
Table 2 gives the course metrics and measures for each embedded outcome, as well as
the percentage of students achieving each metric. Refer to the Mechatronic Engineering
Program Improvement Plan for details regarding the metrics, measures, and student
achievement statistics.
The Department has set a 100% compliance level on all course-embedded outcome
assessments. This requires that all Mechatronic Engineering majors achieve proficiency
in Program Outcomes B-H. Students that fail to achieve the course outcome metrics
(i.e., typically a grade of “C”) do not pass or complete that particular course. The course
instructor must assign either a failing grade (“F”) or an incomplete grade (“I”) in these
instances. As seen in Table 2, this situation arises frequently; in most cases, students
receive an incomplete grade and are given an opportunity to pass the metric during the
following semester.
6
Mechatronic Engineering Annual Program Improvement Report 2003-05
Table 2. Embedded Course Metrics and Measures with Results.
Outcome
B
C
C
C
D
D
E
E
E
F
F
F
G
H
H
Course
Measure
Conduct lab experiment
to validate design
Microcomputer design
ECE 186
project
Individual & group
ME 138
design projects (6)
MECA
Test Plan written report
238B
AutoCAD or SolidWorks
ME 25
tests (2) & final project
Data acquisition
ME 261
assignment using HP Vee
Sketching tests (3) and
ME 25 AutoCAD or SolidWorks
final project
MECA Oral presentations and
238B
written reports
Technical paper writing
ME 261
assignment
MECA Peer reviews, progress
238A
memos, meetings
MECA Individual contribution to
238B
project (overall)
Work on
ENGR 195
multidisciplinary team
ENGR 195 Weekly memos
ME 138 Group design projects (3)
Technical paper writing
ME 261
assignment
ECE 145
Metric
Grade of C or better
Grade of C or better
% of Students Achieving
S04
F04
S05
Not
88
96
measured
84
90
96
Average grade of C or better
100
Not taught
95
C grade or better
100
Not taught
94
Average grade of C or better
87
94
88
Grade of C or better
83
Not taught
93
Average grade of C or better
92
100
88
Average grade of C or better
100
Not taught
94
Grade of C or better
83
Not taught
93
Grade of C or better
Not taught
94
Not taught
Grade of C or better
100
Not taught
Not
measured
Pass one of two standards
100
100
100
Pass one of two standards
Average grade of C or better
100
100
100
Not taught
100
95
Grade of C or better
83
Not taught
93
The embedded measures used in these courses above are generally effective. The
minimum “C” grade metric represents a unified approach to the measurement of
Mechatronic Engineering outcomes. An overwhelming majority of students achieved
the standards for each outcome measured. This may imply that the metrics chosen are
too easy to achieve, however, a hidden factor is that some courses allow students to
repeat or revise the instrument used to measure an outcome. This is an effective way to
get students to work harder in achieving the outcome without the catastrophic effect of
repeating a class and/or delaying graduation. Proposed improvements to outcome
measure/metrics are included in Section 6.
The necessity of measuring a given outcome in multiple courses is questioned. This
occurs for Outcomes C, D, E, F, and H. In two cases (Outcome C and E), the multiple
measurements are needed since no one course addresses all aspects of the given
outcome. Outcome D is measured in two different courses for the purpose of sampling
several types of “current industry standard engineering tools”; these included AutoCAD
(now SolidWorks) in ME 25 and HP Vee in ME 261. The measurement of Outcome F
7
Mechatronic Engineering Annual Program Improvement Report 2003-05
in MECA 238A, MECA 238B, and ENGR 195 is deemed redundant. Likewise, multiple
measurements of Outcome H in ME 138 and ME 261 are thought to be excessive.
It is noted that no embedded course assessment exists for Program Outcome A. The
original rationale was that Outcome A would be measured by the Fundamentals of
Engineering Examination, but it is not known how many majors take this exam.
Furthermore, there are no plans to make the FE exam required for graduation (as it is
for Mechanical Engineering majors). It is proposed to embed assessment of Outcome A
in at least one required course.
4.
Senior Exit Survey Results and Analysis
The Mechatronic Engineering program, as well as all other programs in the College of
Engineering, Computer Science, and Construction Management (ECC), administer a
Senior Exit Survey that is designed to meet the evaluative needs that are a consequence
of implementing the ABET 2000 criteria. The results are tabulated annually in the
College document, ECC Assessment Report – Senior Exit Survey Results, Summary
Report and Evaluation. The surveys provide confidential information about student
plans after graduation, their perceptions about learning and their level of satisfaction
with various aspects of their education at CSU, Chico. In addition, the survey allows
individual programs to add major-specific questions and written comments that focus
on particular issues. The Major Specific instrument of the Senior Exit Survey is
contained in Appendix A, which is the same for both Mechanical (ME) and
Mechatronic (MECA) Engineering majors.
The survey contains 44 questions that all ECC seniors answer, 10 supplemental
questions that are specific to the ME and MECA programs, and space for written
comments. Questions 1-14 address student demographics and post-graduation plans;
they are not reported here. The responses reported here are divided into four groups: i)
educational satisfaction (questions 15-30), ii) program outcomes, based on ABET
Criterion 3a-k (questions 31-44), iii) major specific topics (questions 1-10), and iv)
written comments. These survey questions are summarized here:
Educational Satisfaction – At Chico State, how satisfied were you with the:
Q15. Quality of teaching by faculty in department
Q16. Quality of teaching by other faculty
Q17. Access to faculty in your department
Q18. Availability of courses in your department
Q19. Quality of courses in your department
Q20. Access to lab facilities and equipment
Q21. Quality of laboratories and equipment
Q22. Access to computer facilities
Q23. Quality of computer facilities
Q24. Academic advising from your major advisor
Q25. Academic advising from the Advising Office
Q26. Career advice from faculty in your department
Q27. Availability of General Education (GE) courses
8
Mechatronic Engineering Annual Program Improvement Report 2003-05
Q28. Quality of General Education (GE) courses
Q29. Overall quality of your education
Q30. Overall experience at Chico State
Program Outcomes – Based on your educational experience at Chico State, how well
prepared are you to:
Q31. Apply knowledge to solve problems
Q32. Design and conduct experiments
Q33. Analyze and interpret experimental data
Q34. Design component or system to meet needs
Q35. Function on multidisciplinary team
Q36. Identify, formulate, and solve technical problems
Q37. Communicate technical matters in writing
Q38. Communicate technical matters orally
Q39. Understand professional, ethical responsibilities
Q40. Understand contemporary issues facing society
Q41. Use modern tools and technology
Q42. Enter the workplace
Q43. Continued learning
Q44. Recommend major program to others
Major Specific - Based on your educational experience at Chico State, how well
prepared are to:
Q1. Produce a set of dimensioned engineering drawings
Q2. Communicate manufacturing needs to a technician
Q3. Create a Gantt chart for a project
Q4. Discuss tolerances on manufactured parts
Q5. Identify the critical path for a project
Q6. Develop a detailed project budget
Q7. Integrate a number of parts into a subsystem
Q8. Prepare a design review
Q9. Plan a test and verification program
Q10. Order parts from a vendor
The surveys were administered in May 2004 and May 2005 to 9 and 16 senior students,
respectively, in the MECA 238B capstone course. Most these students graduate in May;
a small fraction (typically less than 10%) graduate the following December. Survey
participation rate for this cycle was above 90%.
Figure 3 summarizes the educational satisfaction results for the current assessment
cycle and preceding academic years 2001-02 and 2002-03. While there are some yearto-year variations, general trends exist and clear satisfaction is reported in the majority
of categories. Particularly high levels of satisfaction are reported for access to faculty
and access/quality of computing facilities.
Indications of dissatisfaction are found in the areas of Quality of teaching by other
faculty (Q16), Academic advising from the Advising Office (Q25), Career advice from
faculty in your department (Q26), and Quality of GE courses (Q28). We know, from
9
Mechatronic Engineering Annual Program Improvement Report 2003-05
discussions with MECA students, that there exists dissatisfaction with the general
quality of teaching and curriculum in the Department of Electrical & Computer
Engineering (ECE). Specific problems candidly reported by students to the Chair are
outdated curriculum, poor teaching, deficient English-speaking skills among some
faculty, insufficient design content in key courses, course disorganization, and lack of
rigor. Since the MECA curriculum contains 33 required units from ECE, this must be
addressed immediately.
While most major-specific academic advising is done and should be done by ME
faculty, the University Advising Office often provides GE advising; this advising is
complicated by waivers and substitutions for ME majors that may not be articulated
well by the Advising Office staff. The staff includes part-time student help, who may
not be familiar with all nuances of these waivers and substitutions. Career advice from
our own faculty is notably lacking and needs to be addressed.
The quality of general education is problematic due to the large class sizes and subject
matter. ME majors may view these non-technical courses to be a diversion from their
primary professional interests and thus affects their level of engagement. The
department has little influence on the quality or availability of these courses.
Marginal satisfaction is reported for Quality of laboratories and equipment (Q21),
Academic advising from your major advisor (Q24), and Availability of GE courses
(Q27). Deficiency in laboratory equipment is primarily a resource problem; however, it
appears that academic advising by MECA faculty should be reviewed.
5
5.0 - Very Satisfied
Average Response
4
AY 2001-02
3
3.0 - Neutral
AY 2002-03
AY 2003-04
AY 2004-05
2
1
1.0 - Very
Dissatisfied
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Question Number
Figure 3. Senior Exit Survey - Educational Satisfaction Results, Mechatronic
Engineering, 2001-05.
10
Mechatronic Engineering Annual Program Improvement Report 2003-05
When comparing current assessment cycle data with that of 2001-2003, satisfaction
improvement is indicated in Access to computing facilities (Q22) and Quality of
computing facilities (Q23). This is probably due to the purchase of new computers and
software in our Computer-Aided Design Laboratory, and a new after-hours lab access
policy. Decreases in satisfaction are noted for Questions 15, 16, 19, 24, 25, 28, 29, and
30. Significance and reasons for these results are unknown at this time, except for those
previously mentioned.
Figure 4 summarizes the program outcomes results for the current assessment cycle and
preceding academic years 2001-02 and 2002-03. Responses indicate a high degree of
preparedness in all categories and give indirect measure of Program Outcomes
achievement. Marginal preparedness is reported for Understand contemporary issues
facing society (Q40). The only significant decrease is found in Recommend major
program to others (Q44); reasons for this result are unknown.
Figure 5 summarizes the supplemental major specific results for the current assessment
cycle and preceding academic years 2001-02 and 2002-03. The results indicate a
positive degree of preparedness in all categories, but some are marginal. The most
significant observation is that the 2004-05 results are lower in all categories compared
to the 2002-03 and 2003-04 results. This appears to indicate weakness in our graphics
course (ME 25) and capstone design course sequence (MECA 238A and MECA 238B),
since many of the questions relate to the learning objectives of these courses. The
lowest-scoring categories for AY 2004-05 are Create a Gantt chart for a project (Q3),
Discuss tolerances on manufactured parts (Q4), and Identify the critical path for a
project (Q5). It appears that these topics need more coverage in MECA 238A/B.
5
5.0 - Very
Well Prepared
5.0 - Strongly
Agree
3.0 - Neutral
3.0 - Neutral
Average Response
4
AY 2001-02
3
AY 2002-03
AY 2003-04
AY 2004-05
2
1.0 - Very
Unprepared
1.0 - Strongly
Disagree
1
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Question Number
Figure 4. Senior Exit Survey - Program Outcome Results, Mechatronic
Engineering, 2001-05.
11
Mechatronic Engineering Annual Program Improvement Report 2003-05
5
Very Well Prepared
Average Response
4
AY 2001-02
3
AY 2002-03
Neutral
AY 2003-04
AY 2004-05
2
1
Very Unprepared
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Question Number
Figure 5. Senior Exit Survey - Major Specific Results, Mechanical & Mechatronic
Engineering, 2001-05.
Written comments were solicited from students in this survey instrument, framed by the
request to “provide additional comments that will help the faculty to improve the
quality of the education”. As expected, comments were diverse in subject matter and
depth, but common threads were evident. Some written comments offered praise to the
quality of instruction and overall quality of the MECA program. Table 3 presents a
summary of the comments from AY 2003-04 and AY 2004-05 that addressed needed
improvements to the program.
Table 3. Senior Exit Survey - Summary of Written Comments, Mechatronic
Engineering, 2003-05.
Comment Topic
Improve EE curriculum and/or EE faculty instruction
Add true mechatronics courses that bridge EE-ME disciplines
Add topics in machine automation and robotics to curriculum
Add drawing standards and parts selection to curriculum
Improve communication between MEM and ECE departments
Some professors lack sufficient English-speaking skills
Thermal Packaging course covers too much for 2 units credit
Student is unhappy about the performance of a certain professor
Student feels he/she is not prepared for industry
No. of
Comments
8
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
12
Mechatronic Engineering Annual Program Improvement Report 2003-05
The overriding theme of the written comments is student dissatisfaction with both the
curriculum and teaching quality in ECE. Again, this feedback emphasizes the need for
immediate action. The need for courses that integrate mechanical, electrical, and
computer engineering is also noted.
5.
Proposed Actions from Outcomes
Based upon the foregoing results and analysis, the following actions are proposed to
improve the Mechatronic Engineering program:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Develop a plan for improving the EE courses taken by MECA students.
Develop a plan for improving teaching quality in the ECE Department.
Develop a plan for better integrating mechanical, electrical, and computer
engineering in the curriculum.
Work with University Advising Office to improve quality of advising.
Review effectiveness of MECA academic advising.
Develop a plan for upgrading laboratory equipment where applicable.
Provide resources within Department for students to explore career opportunities
and placement.
In May 2005, seven senior MECA students met with Chair Greg Kallio of MEM and
Chair Larry Wear of ECE to discuss ECE curriculum problems. The students critiqued
each ECE course in the MECA program and comments were recorded by Chair Wear.
This critique was communicated to the new ECE Chair Adel Ghandakly in Fall 2005.
6. Proposed Revision of Measures, Metrics, or Outcomes
From instructor input and faculty discussions, several revisions to the embedded
Program Outcomes assessment procedure are proposed:
•
Add course embedded assessment of Outcome A in one required course.
•
Simplify course embedded assessment by removing redundancies:
o Delete MECA 238A and 238B from embedded assessment of Outcome F
o Delete ME 138 from embedded assessment of Outcome H
•
In the replacement course for ME 25 (i.e., MECH 100), eliminate take-home
project as an outcome measure and replace with in-class assignments.
•
Devise better instruments to measure teamwork, Outcome F, in capstone design
course sequence (MECA 238A/B).
13
Mechatronic Engineering Annual Program Improvement Report 2003-05
III. ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAM EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES
1.
Educational Objectives Summary
In accordance with ABET Criterion 2, all graduates of the MECA program should
accomplish eight educational objectives within the first few years of professional
practice after leaving CSUC; some may be accomplished by the time of graduation.
Mechatronic engineering graduates will:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Be effective interdisciplinary engineers and problem solvers.
Be well-educated in the basic engineering sciences and fundamentals of
mechanical, electrical, and computer engineering.
Be able to use engineering tools that will enhance their productivity.
Be able to design, analyze, and test “intelligent” products or processes that
incorporate suitable computers, sensors, and actuators.
Be effective oral, written, and graphical communicators.
Be able to function effectively as members of multi-disciplinary teams.
Have an appreciation for the individual, society, and human heritage, and be aware
of the impact of their designs on humankind and the environment.
Be prepared for a variety of engineering careers, graduate studies, and continuing
education.
The objectives were last reviewed in December 2003 by the ME/MECA faculty and
Industrial Advisory Board. It was decided to split the former Objective 5 (which
addressed both communication and teamwork) into the current Objective 5
(communication) and Objective 6 (teamwork).
2.
Alumni Survey Methodology and Results
The department uses an Alumni Survey instrument, administered annually, to verify
that graduates with three to seven years of experience meet the Educational Objectives.
For this assessment period, two alumni surveys were conducted: i) alumni who
graduated during AY 1996-97 and AY 1999-2000, surveyed in Summer 2003; and ii)
alumni who graduated during AY 1997-98 and AY 2000-01, surveyed in Summer 2004.
A hardcopy or electronic survey was sent to alumni for whom addresses (email
included) were known. A copy of survey instrument is found in Appendix B. In
addition to demographics, fifteen survey questions (Q11-Q25) reflected the degree to
which the alumni considered that the Program Outcomes and Educational Objectives of
the program had been met. The questions asked for the degree of preparedness, ranging
from “Unprepared” to “Well Prepared” in five levels. These qualitative responses were
translated into quantitative scores 1-5.
Because the Educational Objectives are phrased in broad terms, the survey questions
were written more specifically and are thus similar to the Program Outcomes
statements. Table 4 shows the alignment between the fifteen survey questions and the
eight Educational Objectives. Figure 6 presents the survey results for this assessment
cycle. Only four responses were obtained – primarily due to the low number of MECA
14
Mechatronic Engineering Annual Program Improvement Report 2003-05
graduates during these years (no responses for 1996-1997 and 1997-98). Scores above
3.0 are deemed acceptable and all categories had average scores of 4.0 or higher. Thus,
no weak areas were detected from this survey.
Table 4. Alumni Survey – Educational Objectives Alignment.
Question Topic
Educational
Objective
Apply knowledge of math, science, engineering, and
technology to solve problems
Design and conduct experiments
Analyze and interpret experimental data
Design a component or system to meet desired needs
Function on a multidisciplinary team
Identify, formulate, and solve technical problems
Communicate technical matters in writing
Communicate technical matters orally
Communicate graphically
Understand professional and ethical responsibilities
Understand contemporary issues facing society
Use modern tools and technology
Enter the workplace
Continue learning
Change positions/companies/career as desired
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1,2
4
4
1,4
6
1
5
5
5
7
7
3,4
8
8
8
5
Well Prepared
Mean Response
4
3
Neutral
1999-2000/200001 grads
2
1
Unprepared
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Question Number
Figure 6. Alumni Survey Results for MECA Alumni Graduating AY 1999-2000
and AY 2000-2001; Total Reponses = 4.
15
Mechatronic Engineering Annual Program Improvement Report 2003-05
3.
Employer Survey
Prior to AY 2003-04, the department administered an alumni employer phone survey to
supervisors of the surveyed alumni. Due to the low number of alumni responses and
some reluctance from their supervisors to provide evaluations, the response rate was
deemed too small to produce significant assessment. Consequently, alumni employer
surveys were not conducted during this assessment cycle.
4.
Advisory Board Feedback
Three Industrial Advisory Board meetings took place during this assessment cycle:
December 2003, May 2004, and February 2005. Useful feedback from these meetings is
summarized below:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Educational Objectives for the MECA program were reviewed and revised to the
current form.
Board members served as judges for the Fall 2003 MECA 238A Critical Design
Review and offered constructive suggestions that pertained to the grading of the
presentations, design of test fixtures, and the up-front need for sponsored funding.
Board encouraged department to establish a method of tracking retention and
attempt to improve retention by using an organization like Tau Beta Pi to provide
tutoring to freshman and sophomores.
Board developed a list of items to help secure industrial sponsorship of senior
projects.
Board members gave presentations to faculty on their vision of mechanical and
mechatronic engineering in the current economy and desired skills for BS
graduates.
Board members see fundraising as critical to the future of engineering programs.
Board notes a disconnect between University career placement services and
ME/MECA programs; encourages department to improve connection or become
more proactive in helping place our own graduates in industry.
During the February 2005 meeting, the Board met with senior Mechatronic Engineering
(MECA) students to discuss the program. Observations and recommendations by the
Board were submitted to Dean Ken Derucher on March 1, 2005 and are summarized as
follows:
Observations
1.
The students had unusually harsh criticism of the ECE courses and faculty. This
included a lack of design content in ECE 186, poor teaching methods, unprepared
instructors, course coverage not aligned with catalog descriptions, and a feeling that
ECE faculty do not support the MECA program.
2.
MECA program has no real “home” and lacks autonomy.
3.
Little integration of mechanical and electrical engineering in MECA program.
16
Mechatronic Engineering Annual Program Improvement Report 2003-05
Recommendations
5.
1.
Create a study lounge area for MECA students.
2.
Add content to the MECA curriculum that better integrates software, controls,
mechanical, and electronic topics before the senior year. Consider a manufacturing
course that includes electronic circuit board fabrication.
3.
Fix the teaching problem in ECE. Consider hiring new faculty with mechatronic
expertise.
Proposed Revisions to Program Objectives
No revisions to the MECA program Educational Objectives are proposed at this time.
17
Mechatronic Engineering Annual Program Improvement Report 2003-05
Appendix A
Senior Exit Survey – Major Specific Instrument
18
Mechatronic Engineering Annual Program Improvement Report 2003-05
Graduating Senior Survey – Supplemental Questions
College of Engineering, Computer Science, and Technology, CSU Chico
Major:
CE
Graduation Date:
CIS
CM
CMPE
Semester:
CSCI
Spring
EE
Summer
ME
Spring 2005
MECA
MFGT
Fall
Other
2003
2004
Major Specific Questions – ME / MECA:
Based on your educational experience here at Chico State,
how well prepared are you to:
Preparation
Very
Unprepared
Very Well
Prepared
Q1. Produce a set of dimensioned engineering drawings
Q2. Communicate manufacturing needs to a technician
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Q3. Create a Gantt chart for a project
Q4. Discuss tolerances on manufactured parts
please answer these
Q5. Identify the critical path for a project
questions on scan form !
Q6. Develop a detailed project budget
Q7. Integrate a number of parts into a subsystem
Q8. Prepare a design review
Q9. Plan a test and verification program
Q10. Order parts from a vendor
In the space below, please provide additional comments that will help the faculty to improve the quality of
the education we provide.
Your responses will be kept confidential. Thank you for completing this survey and please stay in touch with us !
19
Mechatronic Engineering Annual Program Improvement Report 2003-05
Appendix B
Alumni Survey Instrument
20
Mechatronic Engineering Annual Program Improvement Report 2003-05
Mechanical Engineering Alumni Survey
Summer 2004
Dear Alumnus:
You can help us improve our program. Please take a few minutes to give us your reflections on your
educational experience at Chico State and your career. Your responses will be kept confidential. I also
encourage you to periodically log onto our website (www.csuchico.edu/mem) and help keep our alumni
database current. Thank you for completing this survey and please stay in touch.
Ron Roth, Department Chair
Name: __________________________________________ Graduation Date: _______________________
Home Address: __________________________________________________________________________
City: ____________________________________________ State: ____ Zip Code: _________________
Email: ___________________________________________ Phone: _______________________________
1. Current Employment
Your job title:___________________________________________________________________________
Employer:
___________________________________________________________________________
Supervisor: ___________________________________
Supervisor’s phone: _____________________
Supervisor’s title: _______________________________
Supervisor’s email: _____________________
2. Which of the following describe your primary job responsibilities? (check all that apply)
Analysis
Manufacturing
Sales
Design
Research and Development
Consulting
Testing
Quality/Reliability
Other – Describe:
Programming
Management
____________________________
3. Which of the following describe your primary business area? (check all that apply)
Energy Systems
Electronics or Optics
Transportation Systems
Machine/Mechanical Design
Automation or Control
Other – Describe:
Computer or Information Systems
Manufacturing Systems
____________________________
4. What is your annual salary?
Initially after graduation
Currently
<$40K
<$40K
$40-50K
$40-50K
$50-60K
$50-60K
$60-70K
$60-70K
$70-80K
$70-80K
>$80K
>$80K
1-5
6-10
11-20
21-30
>30
4
5
>5
4
5
>5
5. How many employees do you supervise?
0
6. How many different companies have you worked for since you graduated?
1
2
3
7. How many different positions have you held since you graduated?
1
2
3
8. What, if any, degrees have you completed since you obtained your BS degree in Mechanical Engineering?
Degree: __________ Major: _____________________
Institution: _____________________________________
9. Since you obtained your BS degree have you taken any professionally related:
yes
no where:
___________________________________________
Graduate courses
Short courses or in-house courses
yes
no description: ___________________________________________
Other professional training
yes
no description: ___________________________________________
21
Mechatronic Engineering Annual Program Improvement Report 2003-05
0. Did you take:
Fundamentals of Engineering (EIT) Exam?
Professional Engineering (PE) Exam?
yes – passed
yes – passed
yes - did not pass
yes - did not pass
Based on your Chico experience, how well prepared are you to:
11. Apply knowledge of math, science, engineering,
Well Prepared
and technology to solve problems
12. Design and conduct experiments
13. Analyze and interpret experimental data
14. Design a component or system to meet desired needs
15. Function on a multidisciplinary team
16. Identify, formulate and solve technical problems
17. Communicate technical matters in writing
18. Communicate technical matters orally
19. Communicate graphically
20. Understand professional and ethical responsibilities
21. Understand contemporary issues facing society
22. Use modern tools and technology
23. Enter the workplace
24. Continue learning
25. Change positions/companies/career as desired
no
no
Unprepared
26. What are the strengths of the Chico State Mechanical Engineering Program?
27. What are the weaknesses of the Chico State Mechanical Engineering Program?
28. Additional comments that will help us improve the quality of the education we provide would be appreciated?
Strongly Agree
Strongly Disagree
29. I would recommend the Chico State ME Program to others.
22