Engineering Transfer Program
Program Review Final Report
Issued October 14, 2011
By ENGR Program SAC members
Mike Farrell
Greg Gerstner
Mike Kies
Gregg Meyer
Tara Nelson
Todd Sanders
Abstract:
During 2010-11 the ENGR SAC conducted a review of the Engineering Transfer program
consistent with the methodology set forth in the PCC Program Review Guide. As a result of
this work, assessment of the current state of the program is determined, and a strategic
plan for program improvements is suggested.
In summary, the program serves the community well but is challenged by an increase of
66% in the Student Full-time Equivalent enrollment (from 63 FTE to 103 FTE in four years),
the loss of full-time faculty, and student academic advising demands. The details of the
review outcomes and plans for improvement are contained in the body of this report.
Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
7.
8.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 3
Curriculum ............................................................................................................................... 4
Needs of Students and the Community: Are they changing? ............................................... 10
Faculty.................................................................................................................................... 11
Facilities and Support ............................................................................................................ 12
Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 14
Appendices ............................................................................................................................ 18
ENGR Advising Guides ............................................................................................................ 18
Core Outcome Mapping Matrix ............................................................................................. 32
Assessment- Professional Competency ................................................................................. 33
Assessment- Engineering Annual Report for Assessment of Outcomes ................................ 35
Assessment- Communication ................................................................................................. 37
Assessment Worksheet .......................................................................................................... 39
Survey of ENGR Students ........................................................................................................ 41
Full-Time vs. Part-Time IFTE for 2010-11................................................................................ 58
Tables
Table 1: Summary Of Course Changes ............................................................................................ 4
Table 2: College Core Outcome Assessment Results...................................................................... 9
2
1. Introduction
Portland Community College offers freshman and sophomore courses in chemical, civil,
computer, electrical, environmental, industrial, manufacturing and mechanical engineering
tailored to the needs of students transferring to Oregon State University, Oregon Institute of
Technology, Portland State University, University of Portland, George Fox University and
Washington State University-Vancouver. We also prepare students interested in other
disciplines or those planning to transfer to out-of-state schools.
The Engineering (ENGR) department SAC goals are to offer financial value, preparation for
university-level coursework, personal attention and encouragement, career guidance, industry
exposure, technical communication skills, and a curiosity for how and why the objects in our
world behave the way they do together with the tools to help make them better.
The Engineering SAC acknowledges the need for upgrading our own learning environment
including lab equipment, computers, and software. In addition to these tangible upgrades, we
are also seeking other methods of adapting our program to the changing needs of our students,
fluctuations in our economy, increasing expectations of accrediting agencies, and strengthening
values of PCC.
In conjunction with this program review, the Engineering SAC is providing cause for assessing
what we are doing well, where our efforts may be improved, and opportunities for taking on
new endeavors. Student survey feedback and informal conversations with our university
partners indicate our program is performing strongly. Analyzing transfer partners’ changes,
national trends, new context, perspective, and assessments has led us on a path towards
altering course sequences, changing curriculum plans and in one case discontinuing a class.
Furthermore, from a program perspective, we also see new opportunities such as encouraging
students to complete an Associate of Science Transfer degree (AS) at PCC before they fully
transition to university study. We believe this would lead to students gaining intermediate
3
employability and earning a sense of personal achievement, along with PCC benefiting from
improving upon its completion metrics in a very quantifiable manner.
2. Curriculum
The Engineering department’s first two years of engineering curriculum are very similar to the
first two years at every College and University in the US. The first years are purposely designed
to provide students with basic skills and analytical tools needed to solve the more complex
problems of the third and forth years of study. While the “core” curriculum of the first and
second years remains nearly constant, changes at PCC are being made based on transfer
partners changes, national trends, new context, perspective, and assessments. The list of these
changes at PCC is summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: Summary Of Course Changes
Course
ENGR171/
271
Change
New digital sequence
Reason
Complete freshman and
sophomore engineering options
at PSU
Status
Currently taught
ENGR 171 approved
ENGR 272 listed as
experimental, approval this year
ENGR221/
222/223
Reorder Electrical Circuits Track PSU and OSU course
Sequence and remove
offerings
Signals and Systems
Implemented
ENGR221/
222/223
Increase Matlab
component
Address a skill shortage of our
students going to PSU
Implemented
ENGR222/
223
Multi-week lab projects
Give classes a real world feel
and increase depth of
understanding
Implemented
ENGR212
Introduce conceptual
problems and projects
Provide real world problems and Implemented
concepts
ENGR101
Added sustainability to
curriculum
Introduce students to real world Change is currently implemented
problems
ENGR275
Remove course
Obsolete by ENGR271
New CCOGs approved by
Curriculum Committee
Needs to be done
4
Over the last few years the courses required for Electrical Engineers have undergone major
revisions. There have been new courses added and course content changed. ENGR 271, Digital
Logic Design, is a new course. With the addition of these courses, PCC now offers all first and
second year engineering courses for students planning to attend PSU or OSU.
The complete electrical circuits sequence was reordered, ENGR221/222/223, Electrical Circuits
I/II/III. This change was driven by changes made at PSU to realign their sophomore circuit’s
courses with the national trends. This change is a boon for PCC students as it allows us to more
closely match PSU and OSU in these courses and it allows more instructor/student contact time
for students to comprehend and learn to work with the basic circuit analysis tools that they will
need going forward.
Recent informal student surveys revealed a weakness in the Electrical Engineering courses. PSU
has an introduction course that focuses exclusively on the Matlab programming language.
PCC's introduction class does not have as heavy a focus on Matlab. Increasing PCC's focus on
Matlab in this class would help the Electrical Engineering students but would cause
misalignment with the Civil and Mechanical Engineering curriculums. It was decided to address
this problem in ENGR221/222/223. This sequence of classes now has an increased focus on
using Matlab to solve electrical problems.
Systems-level thinking is integrated into ENGR222/223. In this sequence the weekly lab
experiment has been replaced with more comprehensive and complex projects. The students
still have weekly lab time. However, now the experiment doesn't end in one week. The
students must build each week until a project is completed and a complete problem solved.
Student evaluations from ENGR222 indicate that they enjoyed the new lab projects. Most
students felt that they now had a better understanding of the topics. They also reported that
the projects are more interesting to work on than just weekly experiments that they typically
just tried to finish.
Application problems are introduced in ENGR212, Dynamics. These problems are designed to
place the field of dynamics in real world situations. Students are still being asked to solve
5
traditional dynamics problems. However, to understand to the dynamics problem the student
must first contextualize the problem to determine what dynamics rules need to be applied.
Both of these changes were made to encourage to students to think beyond the problem at
hand. We can encourage students to think/look outside the box and believe by doing so they
will be more complete engineers.
Engineering curriculums are extremely focused. Many of the college core outcomes are
routinely addressed in engineering by the very nature of the course. For a complete list how
individual courses rank see Appendix B. The ENGR courses at PCC are laying the groundwork
and providing students with the basic skills needed to become engineers. All of our courses
require a large amount of critical thinking. They also provide the fundamentals that will be
used in the professional world, and thus are rich in professional competence.
Engineers communicate with each other in using very specific engineering terminology. ENGR
courses at PCC provide students with the ability to communicate with other engineers using the
correct terminology. Many of our courses also have lab-based components that require reports
and presentations. These forms of communication not only strengthen communication skills
with other engineers but they also cultivate skills necessary for communication with other nonengineers that will be encountered in the work place.
We recognize that cultural awareness is important. Most of our courses are extremely
technical and do not focus on cultural awareness. Instructors are sensitive to the fact that
engineering continues to be a white/male dominated profession, and make efforts to create
classroom environments that are safe and welcoming for under-represented groups. Changes
are being made to ENGR262, Manufacturing Process, to include some discussion on cultural
awareness: specifically, how cultural aspects can positively or negatively affect procurement
and outsourcing operations.
Self-reflection and Community and Environmental Responsibility are addressed in ENGR101.
This course is designed as an introduction to engineering. It provides students with information
6
about the different engineering disciplines and types of problems that engineers solve.
Students are encouraged to use this information while deciding which discipline is correct for
them. While introducing students to engineering problem solving, the problem of climate
change is examined. Students do research and analyze various data on global warming.
ENGR101 also has a service learning component. Students have the option to earn extra credit
by volunteering at the Community Cycling Center.
Courses after ENGR101 focus on providing students with the technical skills needed to solve
engineering problems. While some information is provided on community, most of the
emphasis is making sure the students are competent with the basic tools. These tools form the
foundation for them to become successful engineers and be equipped to tackle the world’s
problems.
Over that last year we have been asked to formally evaluate how well we are teaching the
college core outcomes. Our complete plan through 2012 is provided in the appendix. Table 2
shows the results of these assessments. The formal assessment reports are included in
Appendices C-F.
We recently surveyed about 300 former ENGR students (Appendix G). We limited the survey to
students that would still be attending college or recently had earned their BS. The survey
ranged around a variety of topics concerning PCC and the ENGR program. We received
responses from 59 students; about 20% of the emails that we sent responded to the survey.
59% of the respondents stated that Quality of Instruction was a very important reason for them
selecting to attend PCC. 83% of the students responding agreed with the statement that they
were “satisfied with the overall education” at PCC. With respect to the statement, “The
Engineering classes I took at PCC prepared me for the academic rigors of a four-year
college/university,” only 12% disagreed.
7
Civil Engineering graduates from PSU do better than the national average on the Fundamentals
of Engineering (FE) exam. PSU recognizes that 40% of their civil engineering students come
from PCC and that PCC deserves recognition for their success on the FE exam.
The national trend is not to offer engineering courses over distance. This corresponds with
philosophies in other computation intensive programs as well, such as Math. While the Math
department offers some courses over distance modality, this stops with MTH251, Calculus I.
Like ENGR, MTH does not offer courses requiring calculus level skills in any distance modality.
ENGR101 is offered over Interactive Video Classroom (IVC). ENGR100 maybe be taken as an
online class. Beyond these two introductory courses all other courses are offered only in the
traditional style.
8
Table 2: College Core Outcome Assessment Results
Outcome
Method
Result
Critical Thinking
Students have to construct a
circuit to pass the final. The
final requires critical
thinking in that the circuit
will not work unless it
constructed correctly.
33 students are in
the sample. The
average grade on
the final was 93%,
the high was 95%,
and the low was
70%. All but 4 of
the students
received an 'A' on
the final.
Communication
Evaluate ENGR222 lab
The average score
reports. Analyze the
was 2.78 out of 4.
communication criteria in
the rubric. Specifically the
following criteria:
Introduction, Experimental
Procedure, Conclusions, and
Spelling/Grammar/Sentence
structure
Professional
Competency
In ENGR 101, students are
taught basic engineering
processes of problem
solving. Inherent in those
processes, is the GivenFind-Solution method which
is a stalwart building block
of professional engineering
competency. In order to
pass the homework portion
of the class, the student must
use basic engineering
problem-solving
methodologies. Homework
assignments will be graded
on completeness and format.
Homework grades will be
analyzed.
Overall homework
score was 66%.
This included
students who simply
did not do the
homework. When
these numbers are
thrown out the score
raises to 85%.
Notes/Changes
The true critical thinking aspect of this final
is in knowing when you are done. When is
your data collected and correct? The fact
that so many students received an A on this
final indicates that they have learned the
critical thinking skills emphasized in this
class.
It is our belief that this assessment does not
fully test our student’s ability to perform
critical thinking. In the future we will either
change this test or look at other work
samples that have require more critical
thinking. Specifically we could look at the
discussion of results in the lab reports that
are performed.
This score is lower than desired. The
ENGR SAC believes that good
communication skills need to be emphasized
in more classes. We need to try to infuse
communication skills into our classes.
This is not as good as expected. The
students that are doing the work are
succeeding. The SAC believes that we need
to do a better job of explaining to our
students the importance of professionalism.
We also need to do a better job of explaining
how presentation format relates to
professionalism.
9
3. Needs of Students and the Community: Are they changing?
The racial and gender demographics of ENGR students at PCC are similar to engineering
programs across the US. The age of the ENGR students, however, is not as 80% of our students
are between the ages of 21 and 40. Only 15% of our students are in the age range of 18 to 20
(there are very few recent high school graduates enrolled in the ENGR department). In 2009 –
2010, almost 80% of our students identified as “White, Non-Hispanic.” The second largest
ethnicity is “Asian/Pacific Islander” at 11%. Since the academic year 2007 to 2008 we have not
seen large changes in the ethnicity. Engineering is a predominately male dominated profession.
ENGR gender demographics are 20% female and 80% male, which is consistent with the
national average of college students (Engineering Workforce Commission, Engineering &
Technology). Similarly, the gender demographics of the engineering and engineering
technology faculty at PCC demonstrate similar ratios: there are only three (3) full time female
instructors out of 10. The number of students enrolled in the ENGR department continues to
increase, putting pressures on the resources students use to be successful. Student Full Time
Equivalent (FTE) for ENGR was 103 in 2009-2010. In 2005-06, the FTE was 63.
We understand that our student population has many commitments outside of the classroom.
To accommodate these students we offer many classes both during the day and evening.
While most of the ENGR classes are taught at the Sylvania campus ENGR 101 – Engineering
Fundamentals, the first required course of ALL students, is taught through IVC. ENGR 100 –
Exploring Engineering, which is an exploratory course for students considering engineering, is
offered both in-class and via distance learning.
In working with the students we have learned the needs of the students are related to the
academic availability of courses, the availability of support services (e.g. advising) and access to
financial assistance. In response to growing enrollments we’ve added additional sections to
ENGR classes. For example, most students take the consecutive classes, ENGR 211, ENGR 212
and ENGR 213 in the fall, winter and spring terms. Prior to 2008 – 2009 only one section of
each class was taught per term. In the fall of 2008 we had an increase in students registering
10
for ENGR 211 and added a second fall-term section. This year we still have additional sections
of ENGR 211, ENGR 212 and ENGR 213. Each class will be offered in multiple terms.
Increasing enrollments have increased the demand for ENGR student advising, which is only
available through ENGR faculty members. University partners and the degrees they offer are
varied and often complicated to understand and navigate properly. Therefore, students are
required, when entering the ENGR program (enrolling in ENGR 101), to meet with a faculty
advisor to get department approval. The increase in advising demands on faculty impacts the
availability of faculty for tutoring and other duties.
The increase in enrollments brings more students with financial needs. To support women in
engineering we offer a Society of Women in Engineering Scholarship through the PCC
Foundation. We are seeing an increase in student veterans. Fortunately, these students have
access to the GI bill to fund their education.
4. Faculty
The ENGR instructors include of both full-time and part-time faculty. No instructor has an
appointment associated solely with the ENGR Department. All full-time ENGR instructors teach
in either the CMET or the EET Department. The ENGR SAC has speculated that this may be one
of the few major PCC Departments in which there are no full-time instructors teaching only
ENGR courses.
In 2010-2011, the Full Time IFTE to Total IFTE ratio was 0.311 (Appendix H). The part-time
faculty compare well with the full-time instructors in terms of educational and experiential
backgrounds. There are both female and foreign-born ENGR instructors. The ENGR instructors
have a low turnover for both full-time and part-time instructors.
A Master’s of Science in Engineering or a Professional Engineering license (which implicitly
includes at least four years of engineering experience) is required to teach in the ENGR
Department with the exception of specific labs, surveying and Computer Aided Design (CAD)
courses. Due to a desire to be more flexible with demonstrated competencies, the Instructor
11
Qualifications were changed for specific lab, surveying and Computer Aided Design (CAD)
courses.
Todd Sanders has been working on a National Science Foundation grants, and on 100% full-time
release since 2009-2010. Recent funding will keep him on 100% release through 2014. Due to
his release time, Gregg Meyer was hired as a full-time temp for both ENGR and CMET for the
2010-2011 and 2011-2012. Therefore, the ENGR Department will be increasingly short-handed
without the continuing employment of another full-time CMET/ENGR instructor beyond 20112012.
Professional development amongst the ENGR faculty includes participation in Engineers
Without Borders – Portland Professional Chapter and Professional Engineering license
maintenance course work. ENGR instructors also do consulting work, including working with
Lake Oswego to evaluate the sustainability of engineering projects. These experiences are
brought into the classroom as up-to-date, real-world engineering experiences.
5. Facilities and Support
All ENGR classroom space, computer/technology, laboratory space and equipment is bought
and used in conjunction with the CMET and EET programs. This interdependency allows
resources to be shared amongst programs, optimizing resources, reducing costs and limiting
classroom, lab, activity and storage space needs (See EET and CMET Program reviews). One
benefit of this interdependency, anecdotally, is the equipment in the department tends to be
more modern that what is available to students at the local universities.
There is a recognized need by the department instructors to increase the amount of classroom
space and to increase the amount of available “board-space” for instructors and students to
work on problems. In addition, many campus classrooms’ podium locations inhibit the full
implementation of available board space. Two rooms we recommend as examples of welldesigned for our classroom activities are AM112 and SS104. Besides being well-designed, with
12
new overhead projector technology, these rooms are preferred by the students because the
rooms have multi-seat tables rather than individual desks. Individual desks are NOT LARGE
ENOUGH for students to have both notepaper and a textbook open simultaneously.
The Interactive Vide Classroom (IVC) technology is used for the ENGR 101 course. Because all
ENGR students are required to complete ENGR 101 demand is high as is the need for some
flexibility in scheduling for students who working. Therefore ENGR 101 lecture is broadcast
from Sylvania campus to Rock Creek, SE and Cascade campuses.
ENGR faculty depends heavily on the Desire2Learn and MyPCC Course Tools. Some faculty
members also implement the use of the H-drive resource and YouTube to aid in teaching.
Students (and faculty) find digital and online-based resources to be a significant part of course
activity. Moodle.org is an example of a resource instructors have indicated they would be more
willing to use if the college supported it.
To combat the extremely high costs of engineering text books, and the fact that the texts
update very often, most textbooks are on reserve in the Sylvania library. Students have often
mentioned the costs of the text books (Appendix G) as being a barrier to their progress.
Clerical and administrative support is shared among ENGR, CMET, EET, ARCH, CADD and ID & D.
This optimizes the use of the support and keeps overall costs down by sharing support. There is
no tutoring support (other than faculty provided) for ENGR students at the tutoring center.
Cohort learning is recommended by the faculty and used as a replacement for tutoring.
ENGR does its own advising, as does CMET and EET. EET and CMET have a Perkins Funded
advisor that is not allowed to do ENGR advising. However, many students are unsure if the
Career Technical Education (CTE) or transfer option is best for them, they cannot compare
13
these two options when talking with just one advisor. To gather information on both options,
students have to talk to two different people. Student informational requests are increasing,
which is creating the need for ENGR specific advisor support. In Section 7. Recommendation we
outline three options to address the advising issue including one that allows the current CMET
and EET advisor to provide ENGR advising support.
ENGR maintains a schedule of course offerings that supports student’s matriculation to PSU,
OSU; usually after spring quarter. Classes are offered in summers that have demand from
PSU/OSU bound students. These courses have strong enrollments. ENGR also, in general,
parallels their course offering at the same time as courses at the university partners.
7. Recommendations
The ENGR program serves its students very well in providing a high-quality, low-cost, accessible
educational option for lower-division engineering curriculum. There are, of course, areas in
which we could improve the program and its ability to effectively serve students pursuing BS
degrees in engineering.
We recommend that the ENGR department:
•
Expand engineering full-time faculty
•
Address the extra burden that student academic advising places on faculty
•
Update advising guides on an annual basis
•
Have instructional materials available for all ENGR courses
•
Offer new SolidWorks course by fall 2012
•
Advise students to earn the AS degree as well as prepare for Junior-level course work
Our first recommendation, and the one we feel would provide the greatest benefit in terms of
being able to serve our students, is that we expand the full-time engineering faculty to increase
the percentage of sections that are taught by full-time instructors. The single biggest challenge
we face in our ability to continue to provide a high-quality educational alternative is the lack of
14
full-time faculty and the resulting reliance on part-time faculty. In 2010-2011, less than onethird of the Instructor FTE in the ENGR program was full-time instructors (see Appendix H).
The first and most obvious problem presented by relying on part-time faculty is that it is simply
more difficult to provide consistently high-quality, effective teaching in the classroom. We are
extremely fortunate to have hard-working, dedicated, and capable part-time instructors
teaching courses in the ENGR program, and their efforts and the job they do on behalf of PCC’s
engineering students are very much appreciated. Even with these talented and dedicated parttime instructors, it is still more difficult to ensure consistency and quality.
A second problem presented by a small full-time faculty is that it can result in a lack of diversity
of professional expertise. Engineering is a very broad occupational description with a myriad of
specializations. Even within a particular engineering discipline, there are areas of
concentration. For examples, not all electrical engineers will be capable of effectively teaching
a digital class; similarly, not all civil engineers could effectively teach an environmental class.
For example, there is no full-time instructor who has taught Material Science, ENGR 231. A
similar situation exists with Manufacturing Processes, ENGR 262, and Introduction to Logic
Design (digital electronics) ENGR 171.
Our second recommendation is to address the ENGR academic advising burden. Full-time
faculty are responsible for all ENGR-related advising. Engineering advising is complicated
because the lower-division requirements for each engineering discipline are different; for
example, the engineering courses taken by an electrical engineer are very different than those
taken by a mechanical engineer. Further adding to the complicated nature of engineering
advising is the fact that each university has slightly different curriculum requirements, even for
the same engineering discipline. For example a PSU-bound civil engineering student will have
different lower-division requirements than one headed for OSU. For this reason PCC academic
advisors refer students to our office for advising. This system does work, but doing in-house
advising for all engineering students places a huge burden on faculty. Maintaining the advising
guides and assisting students with financial aid time frame extensions are other advising-
15
related activities that take instructors away from their teaching duties.
One solution would be to have a dedicated advisor for the ENGR program. The CMET and EET
programs have such an advisor. Another solution would be to expand the role of the CMET/EET
advisor to include advising for ENGR; the current advisor believes this would be feasible, but
the way this position is currently funded (through Perkins) does not allow her to advise ENGR
students. A third solution would be to provide some release time for instructors for advising.
Of these three options, we believe that having the current advisor’s role expanded to include
ENGR is the most feasible and would best serve our students.
Our third recommendation is to establish a plan that would ensure that ENGR advising guides
be updated on an annual basis. This important work must be done on an annual basis, and to
do so require that we develop a system that involves the entire ENGR SAC. ENGR enjoys a good
working relationship with our university partners. Our engineering advising guides are created
by us, but reviewed by each university for accuracy (see Appendix A for the advising guides).
This system could be improved by ensuring that this review happens on an annual basis, to
ensure the currency and accuracy of the advising guides. This is a large task, requiring the
coordination of information from each of the individual engineering programs of the half-dozen
or so universities with whom we work.
Our fourth recommendation is to work toward having instructional materials available for all 14
ENGR courses. Fiscal realities seem to point toward a continuing, if not increasing, reliance on
part-time instructors. One way to address this challenge is to have better instructional
materials available for part-time instructors; currently, we have good materials for some, but
not all, ENGR courses. Many times, ENGR part-time instructors have little or no teaching
experience (some of whom prove to be outstanding instructors!), and asking them to teach a
course with little more to go on than a CCOG is really too much to ask, especially of an
individual with limited teaching experience. Having a body of instructional materials for each
course, including a syllabus, homework assignments, lecture and lab materials, and sample
exams, would be extremely helpful, both in making the part-time instructor’s job easier, but
16
also in helping to ensure a greater degree of consistency in our course offerings.
Our fifth recommendation is to create and offer a course on the design software program
SolidWorks. Our Engineering Graphics course, ENGR 102, is an AutoCAD-based course. While
AutoCAD is still the program of choice for civil engineers, the mechanical engineering
community has moved toward solid modeling programs; many use a program called
SolidWorks. Our university partners have followed this trend. To better serve our mechanical
and manufacturing students, we plan to create and offer an ENGR SolidWorks course by fall,
2012. Because Solidworks is very demanding from a hardware standpoint: fast processors, lots
of RAM, and large monitors are desirable, infrastructure resources will be required.
Our last recommendation is that ENGR advisors recommend that students earn the Associate of
Science Transfer degree (AS)as well as prepare for Junior-level course work Most engineering
students do not seek a degree from PCC; rather, most work toward completing the coursework
required for the first and second years of their engineering discipline and transfer institution.
The advising guides list the courses that will enable students to transfer at the junior level; they
do not lead students toward a degree. Due to evolving requirements at the universities and
changing degree requirements at PCC, ENGR students can earn an AS degree at PCC by
completing the Health and Physical Education requirement. Students transferring to OSU will
be required to complete the Health and Physical Education requirement to attend OSU. We
plan to modify our advising to encourage ENGR students to seek an Associate of Science
degree. This will benefit both PCC and the students: for PCC, it will be possible to better assess
and document the completion rate of ENGR students, and for the students, earning a two-year
degree will provide a form of formal recognition of their accomplishment and hard work at PCC.
17
8. Appendix
A-ENGR Advising Guides
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
B- Core Outcome Mapping Matrix
Course #
Course Name
CO 1
CO 2
CO 3
CO4
CO 5
CO 6
4
4
4
2
4
4
3
2
4
2
4
2
3
1
4
1
4
2
Engineering
ENGR 101
Fundamentals
ENGR 102
Engineering Graphics
Engineering
GE 114
Programming
ENGR 171
Logic Design
3
2
4
2
4
2
ENGR 211
Statics
4
2
4
0
4
2
ENGR 212
Dynamics
3
2
4
0
4
2
ENGR 213
Strength of Materials
3
2
4
0
4
2
ENGR 221
Electrical Circuits I
3
2
4
2
4
2
ENGR 222
Electrical Circuits II
4
2
4
2
4
2
ENGR 223
Signals and Systems
4
2
4
2
4
2
ENGR 226
Plane Surveying
4
2
4
2
4
2
ENGR 231
Material Science
4
2
4
2
4
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
4
2
Manufacturing
ENGR 262
4
2
Processes
ENGR 275
Microprocessor Design
4
2
32
C- Assessment- Professional Competency
Engineering Annual Report for Assessment of Outcomes
Submitted: June 2011
SAC: ENGR: Engineering Transfer
Outcomes Assessed: Professional Competency
1. Describe changes that have been implemented towards improving students’ attainment of
outcomes that resulted from outcome assessments carried out in the previous academic
year.
(Information provided here may be referenced, inserted into or summarized in
Program Review 2.C.iii (for Core Outcomes) or 6.B.iii (for CTE Degree and
Certificate outcomes)
N/A
2. Identify the outcomes assessed this year, and describe the methods used. What were the
results of the assessment (i.e., what did you learn about how well students are meeting the
outcomes)?.
(information provided here may be referenced, inserted into or summarized in
Program Review 2.C.i& ii (for Core Outcomes) or 6.B.i & ii (for CTE Degree and
Certificate outcomes)
a. Describe the method(s) you used.
Students entering the ENGR program often erroneously equate getting the “right answer” with
professional competency. In reality, using accepted problem-solving methods and
communication standards (formats) is equally important.
In ENGR 101, students are taught basic engineering processes of problem solving. In order to
pass the homework portion of the class, the student must use basic engineering problem-solving
methodologies. Homework assignments are evaluated on the use of proper professional
methodology and on the use of the industry-standard solution format. By analyzing the
homework grades we are able to see progress in professionalism and documentation of proper
methodology.
The homework scores of 14 students from the fall of 2010 were analyzed.
b. Results: What did you learn?
33
The overall average for the class was 66%. It was observed that many of the students had simply
not done some of the homework assignments. If these missing assignments are thrown out of the
evaluation, then average jumps up to 85%. This shows that when students actually take the time
to perform the assignment they are following proper methodology and standard format. The
problem is that many are not taking the time to complete the assignments.
3. Identify any changes that should, as a result of this assessment, be implemented towards
improving students’ attainment of degree and certificate outcomes.
(Information provided here may be referenced, inserted into or summarized in
Program Review 2.C.iii (for Core Outcomes) or 6.B.iii (for CTE Degree and
Certificate outcomes)
Students seem to resist having to follow a prescribed method and format to homework. This
often manifests itself as simply not doing the homework when they get busy. We need to work
on emphasizing that these professional methodologies and formats are critical if their work is to
be perceived as professional in the workplace. While the format may seem cumbersome, the
skills learned in following the proper format will be used in the workplace.
These changes can be accomplished by faculty by explaining this to students at the start of class.
It will also help to give feedback using the key word “Professional.” Instructors should also
explain how the format can be used as an aid to study or give examples of how it is used in the
real world.
34
D- Assessment- Engineering Annual Report for Assessment of
Outcomes
Submitted: June 2011
SAC: ENGR: Engineering Transfer
Outcomes Assessed: Critical Thinking
1. Describe changes that have been implemented towards improving students’ attainment of
outcomes that resulted from outcome assessments carried out in the previous academic
year.
(Information provided here may be referenced, inserted into or summarized in
Program Review 2.C.iii (for Core Outcomes) or 6.B.iii (for CTE Degree and
Certificate outcomes)
N/A
2. Identify the outcomes assessed this year, and describe the methods used. What were the
results of the assessment (i.e., what did you learn about how well students are meeting the
outcomes)?.
(Information provided here may be referenced, inserted into or summarized in
Program Review 2.C.i& ii (for Core Outcomes) or 6.B.i & ii (for CTE Degree and
Certificate outcomes)
a. Describe the method(s) you used.
In ENGR 221 all students are given a laboratory final. In this final students are asked to rebuild
a circuit from a previous experiment. The student is responsible for determining when the data
from the final is complete and correct. This requires them to analyze their previous experiment
and duplicate its results. Students are expected to take measurements and reason/troubleshoot
until their previous results are duplicated.
Once the results are correct the student must demonstrate the measurement technique to the
instructor. The student must also demonstrate that he/she has evaluated the new data and that it
is correct. This is demonstrated by orally comparing previously taken data with the current data.
Proof must be given that the student knows what the previous data is, i.e. data table in lab
notebook. Students are asked questions such as “How do you know this is correct?” in the postlab interview with the instructor.
In Fall of 2010, 33 students were assessed in this method.
b. Results: What did you learn?
35
The average grade on the final was 93%, the high was 95%, and the low was 70%. All but 4 of
the students received an 'A' on the final. This shows that our students have learned to critically
evaluate lab data and understand when it is correct.
The lab final is designed to assess our student’s base level critical thinking; as so, it is given with
the expectation that students will do very well.
3. Identify any changes that should, as a result of this assessment, be implemented towards
improving students’ attainment of degree and certificate outcomes.
(Information provided here may be referenced, inserted into or summarized in
Program Review 2.C.iii (for Core Outcomes) or 6.B.iii (for CTE Degree and
Certificate outcomes)
This assessment demonstrates that our students are achieving a base level of critical thinking. It
may be useful to determine the degree to which our students are achieving higher levels of
critical thinking. This will require a more robust assessment method or a change to the lab final
in ENGR 221. The lab final can easily be made more critical-thinking based simply asking
deeper questions and requiring students to explain the theory of operation of the circuits.
36
E- Assessment- Communication
Engineering Annual Report for Assessment of Outcomes
Submitted: June 2011
SAC: ENGR: Engineering Transfer
Outcomes Assessed: Communication
1. Describe changes that have been implemented towards improving students’ attainment of
outcomes that resulted from outcome assessments carried out in the previous academic
year.
(Information provided here may be referenced, inserted into or summarized in
Program Review 2.C.iii (for Core Outcomes) or 6.B.iii (for CTE Degree and
Certificate outcomes)
N/A
2. Identify the outcomes assessed this year, and describe the methods used. What were the
results of the assessment (i.e., what did you learn about how well students are meeting the
outcomes)?.
(information provided here may be referenced, inserted into or summarized in
Program Review 2.C.i& ii (for Core Outcomes) or 6.B.i & ii (for CTE Degree and
Certificate outcomes)
a. Describe the method(s) you used.
In the Electric Circuits II course (ENGR 222), students write lab reports. Among others,
there are the following required sections in the reports: Introduction, Experimental
Procedure, Conclusions, and Spelling/Grammar/Sentence structure.
When the lab reports are graded, a rubric is used to assess the students’ work in these
areas. Scores can range from 1-4, with 1 being “Beginning or Incomplete” and 4 being
“Exemplary.”
Student scores on their lab reports for the above-mentioned criteria were use for the
assessment of the Communication Outcome.
b. Results: What did you learn?
37
The overall average score for the selected lab report sections was 2.78. Average scores
for individual sections ranged from 2.65 to 2.85.
For each report section assessed, the students’ scores ranged from 1 to 4. This confirms
that some students arrive in our classes with very good written communication skills,
where others arrive with skills that need much improvement.
These results were disappointing; our hope was that averages would exceed 3 (3 =
“Accomplished”). Our students are not gaining the technical proficiency in writing that
we would like them to have.
3. Identify any changes that should, as a result of this assessment, be implemented
towards improving students’ attainment of degree and certificate outcomes.
(Information provided here may be referenced, inserted into or summarized in
Program Review 2.C.iii (for Core Outcomes) or 6.B.iii (for CTE Degree and
Certificate outcomes)
Emphasize the importance of effective communication skills in all our courses, whenever
we can. Students often underestimate the importance of these skills, believing that
engineers only need to be competent on the technical side.
Many students received low marks for spelling and grammar. We feel that, with the tools
now available to students (spell checkers, etc.), this simply represents a lack of pride in
their work. Instructors should emphasize the importance of professionalism and pride in
all of the students’ work.
Consider adopting a prerequisite of WR 121 for all second-year ENGR courses. The
ENGR 101 course requires, at minimum, concurrent registration in WR 115. Other
ENGR courses do not have a writing prerequisite beyond this level.
Engineering courses are, of course, technical in nature, and there is often little time in
these courses to infuse much writing. However, we should explore ways to include some
writing in our courses that are traditionally exclusively calculation-based.
38
F- Assessment Worksheet
2010-2012 LDC/DE Assessment Plan Worksheet (optional)
Subject Area: ________ENGR_________________
Submit to learningassessment@pcc.edu by November 15, 2010
Cours(es), or other
setting in which
assessment will take
place:
Is there a
corresponding
course outcome?
Critical Thinking
ENGR 221 Lab Final
ENGR 221
 Use a variety of
analysis techniques
to solve and design
basic electrical
systems.
Communication
ENGR 222-223 Lab
write-ups
No
Professional
Competency
ENGR 101
Homework
Yes
 Apply basic
principles of
statistics, electricity
and mechanics in
engineering
problem solving.
Self Reflection
ENGR 101
Core Outcome
ENGR 101
 Explores the
ethical aspects of
engineering
Assessment approach
described
Students have to construct a
circuit to pass the final. The
final requires critical
thinking in that the circuit
will not work unless it
constructed correctly. The
Final Lab grade is dependent
upon the accurate
completion of the circuit.
In the Discussion section of
the Circuit lab write-ups,
students must effectively
communicated their results,
observations and
conclusions. Labs are
graded upon these criteria.
In ENGR 101, students are
taught basic engineering
processes of problem
solving. Inherent in those
processes, is the Given-FindSolution method which is a
stalwart building block of
professional engineering
competency. In order to
pass the homework portion
of the class, the student
must use basic engineering
problem-solving
methodologies. Homework
grades will be analyzed.
In ENGR 101, Students will
be asked to complete a
Learning Styles assessment.
This assignment will be
followed up by a visit from a
PCC Student Employment /
Cooperative Ed office
representative to help
explain the subtleties of
their results and how they
When will
assessment
take place?
2009-2010
2010-2011
2010-2011
2011-2012
39
ENGR 100
ENGR 100
 Determines if a
career in
engineering or
engineering
technology is
desirable, and, if so,
what discipline to
pursue.
No
Cultural Awareness
ENGR 262
can use this information to
learn more effectively.
In ENGR 100, Students
will be asked to
complete an online
Myers-Briggs
personality test. Upon
discovering their
“personality type”, they
will reflect on their
Type’s strength and
challenge areas with
respect to the field of
engineering.
In ENGR 262, the
curriculum will be
broadened to include
the many cultural
aspects that can
positively (or
negatively) influence
outsourcing operations.
2011-2012
Subsequent to this
material being
presented, the Office of
International Students
will host an in-class
student discussion
panel where non-US
students will share
information about their
respective cultures.
ENGR 262 students will
be encouraged to ask
probing cultural “Dos
and Don’ts” questions
to help prepare
themselves for working
in a global economy.
After the panel
discussion, the ENGR
262 students will be
issued a post-event
survey to assess what
knowledge they have
gained and identify
areas in need of further
inquiry.
40
G- Survey of ENGR Students
Survey of Portland Community College
Engineering Students (N=59)
Administered by the PCC Office of Institutional Effectiveness, Spring 2011
4.
5.
6.
Section I. Background Information
7.
In choosing to attend Portland Community College, to what extent were the
following reasons important?
8.
Reason for attending PCC: Flexibility of schedule
Not important
8 (14%)
Somewhat important 23 (39%)
Very important
no answer
28 (47%)
0 ( 0%)
9.
Reason for attending PCC: Location of classes
Not important
9 (15%)
Somewhat important 29 (49%)
Very important
no answer
21 (36%)
0 ( 0%)
10.
Reason for attending PCC: Cost of attending PCC
Not important
4 ( 7%)
Somewhat important
7 (12%)
Very important
no answer
48 (81%)
0 ( 0%)
11.
Reason for attending PCC: Class Size
Not important
15 (25%)
Somewhat important 22 (37%)
Very important
no answer
22 (37%)
0 ( 0%)
12.
13.
41
14.
15.
16.
17.
Reason for attending PCC: Access to instructors
Not important
7 (12%)
Somewhat important 26 (44%)
Very important
no answer
26 (44%)
0 ( 0%)
18.
Reason for attending PCC: Familiarity with PCC
Not important
34 (58%)
Somewhat important 18 (31%)
Very important
7 (12%)
no answer
0 ( 0%)
19.
Reason for attending PCC: Quality of instruction
Not important
6 (10%)
Somewhat important 18 (31%)
Very important
no answer
35 (59%)
0 ( 0%)
20.
Reason for attending PCC: The instruction is less formal
Not important
27 (46%)
Somewhat important 20 (34%)
Very important
no answer
10 (17%)
2 ( 3%)
21.
Reason for attending PCC: Ease of admission
Not important
19 (32%)
Somewhat important 28 (47%)
Very important
no answer
11 (19%)
1 ( 2%)
22.
23.
Section II. Your Experience at Portland Community College
24.
Experience at PCC: I am satisfied with the overall education I received at PCC.
Strongly Disagree
2 ( 3%)
Somewhat Disagree
2 ( 3%)
Neutral
4 ( 7%)
42
Somewhat Agree
22 (37%)
Strongly Agree
27 (46%)
no answer
2 ( 3%)
25.
Experience at PCC: PCC prepared me for my studies at a four-year
college/university.
Strongly Disagree
2 ( 3%)
Somewhat Disagree
4 ( 7%)
Neutral
5 ( 8%)
Somewhat Agree
18 (31%)
Strongly Agree
23 (39%)
Not Applicable
7 (12%)
no answer
0 ( 0%)
26.
Experience at PCC: PCC instructors are invested in my education.
Strongly Disagree
0 ( 0%)
Somewhat Disagree
4 ( 7%)
Neutral
6 (10%)
Somewhat Agree
17 (29%)
Strongly Agree
31 (53%)
Not Applicable
1 ( 2%)
no answer
0 ( 0%)
27.
Experience at PCC: My credits from PCC transferred seamlessly to a four-year
college/university.
Strongly Disagree
1 ( 2%)
Somewhat Disagree
2 ( 3%)
Neutral
5 ( 8%)
Somewhat Agree
9 (15%)
Strongly Agree
36 (61%)
Not Applicable
6 (10%)
no answer
0 ( 0%)
28.
Experience at PCC: The Engineering classes I took at PCC prepared me for the
academic rigors of a four-year college/university.
Strongly Disagree
3 ( 5%)
Somewhat Disagree
4 ( 7%)
Neutral
8 (14%)
Somewhat Agree
15 (25%)
Strongly Agree
22 (37%)
43
Not Applicable
7 (12%)
no answer
0 ( 0%)
29.
Section III. Your Experience at a Four-Year College/University
30.
What is the name(s) of the four-year college/university that you attend or plan to
attend?
31.
portland state university
Portland State University
PSU
Portland state university
Portland state University
Portland State: Grad studies
PSU
Portland State University PSU
PSU or OIT
Portland State University
Portland State University
Oregon State University
Portland State University
PSU
PSU
Portland State University
Portland State University
Portland State University
OSU
psu
Portland State University
Portland State University
psu
Portland State University
Oregon State University
Portland State University
Portland State University
Portland State University
Portland State University
Portland State University
OIT
Portland State University
Portland State University
PSU or UP
PSU
I already have an MS from Oregon State University.
Portland State University
PSU and then UW
Portland State University
44
Portland State University
Portland State University
Portland State University
psu
Portland state university
OIT
Portland State University
University of Portland
University of Texas, Austin
Oregon State University
Portland state University
Portland State University
PSU?
32.
What is your primary major, or your intended primary major, at the four-year
college/university?
civil (structural) engineering
Mechanical Engineering
computer engineering
Mechanical engineering
Mechanical Engineering
Graduate studies discipline switch to Mechanical Engineering from a BS in EE.
Electrical Engineering
mechanical engineering
Civil Engineering
Civil Engineering
Construction Management Engineering
Civil Engineering
environmental engineer
Civil Engineering
Civil Engineer
Mechanical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Civil Engineering
civil engineering
Mechanical Engineering
Civil Engineering
mechanical engr
Civil Engineering, seeking a Masters in Water Resource Engineering
Electrical and Computer Engineering
civil engineering
Environmental Engineering
Mecahnical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Mechanical Engineering
renewable energy engineering
Civil Engineering
Mechanical Engineering
Civil Engineering
Civil Engineering
Mechanical Engineering
45
Electrical Engineering
Civil Engineering
Mechanical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Mechanical Engineering
civil engineering
Mechanical engineering
Renewable Energy Engineering
Civil Engineering
Civil Engineering
Mechanical engineering
Mechanical Engineering
Civil engineering
Mechanical Engineering
EE
33.
Section IV. Your Feedback to the PCC Engineering Department
34.
What motivated you to pursue Engineering?
35.
personal reasons (im an international student)
Always been interested in engineering, love to build and create.
family
I like science and math and applying them. Engineering allows me to study physical
science in a laboratory setting and then put my research into practice in the field.
The love of Math and Science and how things work
Going to physics was too theoretical, Engineering is simply applied Physics.
A desire to do something rewarding and good for the planet.
An interest in how things work and are made along with liking math.
I have always been gifted with an understanding of mathematics and the sciences. I
chose engineering due to the higher income potential, greater expected job
availability, and a personal interest in understanding how things work. I chose Civil
46
Engineering specifically to have a personal impact on the sustainable future of the
world around us.
I was interested in transportation engineering, especially light rail and high-speed
rail projects.
To have the hands on experience and would like to challenge myself
I wanted to major in a field that paid well with just a four-year degree.
interest in math. interest in hydrology and natural systems
I have an aptitude and an interest.
I wanted to work in construction, but did not want to ruin my body doing it. I have
always loved math and science so engineering was a good fit for me.
A long history of interest in engineering
I like the idea behind engineering in that we are able to apply the knowledge that we
learn into an applied field.
i like bridges
Interest in math and science.
Looking for a meaningful career that encourages problem solving
Ability to help others using technical skills
Enjoyment of science and applied math
Was in healthcare but a dead-end position
[Name deleted] as advisor and instructor; all other CMET faculty continued to
provide encouragement as well.
Its seems like the most applicable profession to utilize my skills.
Many things including: Job availability in the area, job satisfaction, good pay.
I like to make new things. I chose electrical because I had an intuitive knowledge for
most things except electricity and programming, so I'm pursuing an education in
those things in order to more complete my intuitive knowledge resources. Basically, I
47
wanted to have more than one hammer.
I am interested in the type of work that civil engineers do, particularly in the field of
transportation.
Getting laid off after a year working at a dead-end job became a strong incentive to
go back to college. Engineering is a natural fit for me because I have strong math,
science, and problem-solving skills. Also, I am interested in those things! I settled on
Environmental Engineering because I thought the problems and solutions were the
most complex, multi-disciplinary, and creative (compared to the classical Civil
curriculum). Based on global trends, I expect that water resource management will
only become more important. An Enviromentnal Engineering degree positions me to
take advantage of those job opportunities.
My love of math, structure, art and organization. I crave to know how and why
things work.
I was motivated by a love of mathematics, and the possibility of a good job upon
graduation. I have always been interested in electricity and I thought an EE degree
would help me understand the "magic".
Interest in the sciences and mathematics and their real-world applications. Engineers
are involved in virtually every aspect of industry and the career choice is broad.
Engineering opens doors for future education or career choice.
Always have been an engineer
Over 30 years in working in the construction industry and a strong interest in
science.
I did well in math and was always interested in physics in highschool; I also knew an
engineer when I was growing up and it seemed like a neat job.
Through out my life I have always been curious about how things work. I enjoy
solving problems and figuring out puzzles. The combination of intellectual
stimulation, coordination with others, field work, work/life balance, compensation,
and impact on my community that engineering encompasses all make it a profession
I am committed to pursing.
An interest in problem solving, analysis, and water resources. And a desire to have a
secure career future.
I had a love for electricity every since I was young. Despite the hardships I am still
48
glad I chose this as my major
I am going back to school to get into the Construction Industry. I felt that PCC was a
good entry that still allowed me to work full time and take classes in the evening.
One thing that I really enjoyed about my experience with PCC is the one on one
contact that I had with my professors. I wasn't aware that I would enjoy that so
much, but I feel that it was rewarding for both parties.
I asked myself "What do you like to do and what are you good at?" The answers: I
am good at math and science, and I like making stuff. Sounded like engineering to
me and I heard they pay pretty well for it too. No-brainer.
My inrest in computers and how things work/making things better.
love the the field, good income.
Interest in the way things work
Prior work experience and the desire to earn a professional salary.
Challenging fun cateer
I love Math and Science. I was a framer/form setter for years and wanted to design
instead of build.
The ability to work at a career where employment opportunities exist and where a
person is treated with a certain measure of benevolence.
My interest in science and my family background.
My father is an electrical engineer and has a nice standard of living, so I thought I
would follow in his footsteps. Engineering is also pivotal to improving the globe's
standard of living. I liked math and science during my previous education before
college.
Hands on experience
I was originally planning to study either english or economics. However, in taking
required math courses, I found I had some talent in that area. I decided it would be
good to put that aptitude to use, and the only thing I could think of that sounded fun
was engineering.
49
My role model: my father
What suggestions do you have for the PCC Engineering department that will allow
them to improve their program? What would you say are the strengths and
weaknesses of the Engineering program at PCC?
36.
You have great engineers but need teaching training to better understand how to
transfer the knowledge.
PCC's engineering courses are just as rigorous as at a 4-year university. PCC also
has much smaller class sizes which helps regardless of who your professor is.
I believe PCC has much better lab course work than PSU. This is very important
because the purpose of the lab is to learn practical applications of what you are
learning in class. It is not very useful to know concepts without knowing what can be
used with those concepts.
Also it was easy to meet with the engineering faculty for questions on scheduling and
transferring.
PCC could use more established professors, professors who have or have had jobs at
large engineering companies, i.e. experienced engineers, not just engineers who look
up specifications.
kept hearing that the teacher in the true engineering course didnt know thier stuff
very well. so i waited and took most of the non core classes at PSU
Help students find research internships early on. Provide tutors that are accessible
for students. The strength of the PCC program is in the dedication of the professors
and being able to ask questions in a more informal setting.
The green sheets at PCC's engineering department do not match well with the blue
sheets at PSU. I ended up taking at least three classes that I did not need or want to
take.
I have taken most my classes at CCC and only taken two At PCC. The first class was
electrical circuits and that class was great. I don't think there are any teachers better
then [Name deleted]. He really seemed to want us to do well.
The second class I am currently taking is engineering 101. I am taking it at the S.E.
campus which is very convenient. BUT the equipment has only been 100% up and
working for the first class. Besides missing several classes do to technical problems
the class has been all right. The instructor does seem friendly and knowledgeable
and gives the impression that he wants us to do well. I do wonder how I would do in
the class without my previous classes taken. I wouldn't have a clue about forces and
vectors without physics. The book doesn't seem to give a lot of help on anything, but
a lot of information on many topics. The labs are not bad, but I was expecting to
learn a little more about Matlab. Programing in it is fun and educational but never
50
having used Matlab before I wonder how I could use it to solve complex math
problems.
Class sizes were excellent, instructor knowledge and interest was amazing, texts for
the most part were acceptable. I would suggest increasing the availability of classes
throughout the year, especially including the summer session. I would also limit the
available calculators to students within the engineering classes. As a Civil
Engineering student I am required to use an FE-approved calculator for exams and
tests http://www.ncees.org/Exams/Exam-day_policies/Calculator_policy.php If the
calculator regulations were imposed earlier, I would have had a more solid
understanding of differentiation and integration.
The Chemistry courses were not up to par at all. I really struggled in Environmental
Engineering this year because I was completely unprepared after taking CH 221 and
222 at PCC.
The Engineering courses specifically were excellent--great access to instructors,
covered a similar amount of material to PSU courses, and lots of resources.
PCC could improve the program by having a student chapter of ASCE or EWB--or
some other kind of student group led by a faculty member. That is really the only
thing lacking compared to PSU.
Strengths: excellent instructors. Weaknesses: not too many opportunities to explore
engineering outside of class such as engineering activities and clubs, etc.
labs with hands on exposure. student groups like EWB (Engineers without Border).
TUTORS!!! It was so hard to learn this material myself without anyone (besides the
teacher) and some of the part time teachers did not have office hours so it was really
hard sometimes, really overwhelming.
Make room for more activities like informal labs that are mandatory. Give the
students more time in activities for the amount of material that they have to learn.
Make the help sessions more available to students: hire more assistants and give
more lectures that make the material down to earth and accessible.
Your program is pretty solid. I think I learned the least amount in Dynamics, yet still
got a good grade. Maybe consider revising this course plan.
I feel like the projects that we work on aren't necessarily applied to real-life but my
knowledge on this subject is still limited. It feels like they are applying the
knowledge that we are learning but that having a real application to the field would
have a more profound effect on learning. At the four year level the projects that we
complete have application to real life and we are required to develop and design
electronic circuits on our own with a specific goal in mind. The projects are lengthier
in design and sometimes take the whole term to complete.
More up-to-date transfer information/requirements
51
focus less on hw and more and quizes and exams and things that cant be found on
cramster
I understand the difficulty of having to balance the quality of education with
students' demands (i.e., whining about grades) when striving to maintain enrollment
and establish an institution as worthwhile. However, I feel that the classes at PCC physics, calculus, and the engineering-specific courses - were incredibly lax. This is
especially apparent now that I am at PSU. I had my share of good and bad
professors at PCC, but I feel now that it was incredibly easy to get an A in any course
while barely trying. PSU's courses are far more rigorous; as someone who intends to
get a master's, I find that I have to review and relearn (or learn for the first time)
too many aspects of engineering. In particular, differential equations,
statics/strengths, and dynamics. A lack of rigor may get students in and out the
door, but it doesn't prepare.
Improvements: make the physical space more welcoming to all people. For me, that
means adding a women's restroom to the part of campus where most engineering
courses as held. Nothing says 'unwelcoming' like not having enough space for the
students in a class or not having an easy way to take care of human needs in the
limited time between classes/at breaks. Strengths: access to instructors, tutoring,
classmates to study with, building relationships - camraderie, diving right into
applied coursework. Job options in 2 years, can use to build toward BS pusuit, broad
focus w/focus on universally desired engineering skills and problem solving
approach. Weaknesses: number of CMET courses that can be tricky to transfer, if at
all. (Note: I educated myself early about transfer vs technical degree and don't
regret the path I chose.) Sometimes professionals aren't familiar with the AAS
degree and what that entails, that is, what a graduate can offer them/their
workplace.
PROS: Smaller classes, teachers with time for students, you get at least as much for
you money as you do at PSU
CONS: inferior labs, no research opportunities
For me, the teachers often make or break the class, and I've had good and bad
teachers at both PCC and PSU. A good teacher is more than someone who
understands the material. It seems like the ability to teach is often overlooked for
someone with experience in the field or a couple degrees.
Strengths: Instructors. I have had quite a few excelent engineering instructors at
PCC. To name a few, [Names deleted] and the physics instructors have done a fine
job as well preparing students for application; [Names deleted].
Strengths: Great teachers. They know the material and know how to teach it.
Weakness: -Limited availability of classes, several terms the only section offered was
6-8:30pm which is a difficult time for a single parent.
-The material is covered to fast. Nine chapters of Statics in 10 weeks does not lead
to good comprehension and retention. A recitation period on Mondays (after the
weekend to attempt problems) where the students can get additional instructor
52
assistance on homework problems and concepts in addition to a Wednesday/Friday
or Tuesday/Thursday lecture would help.
-Not a lot of hands on experience with the material. Labs are usually for the Techy
program, not the University Transfer.
A little more hands on for the electrical fundamentals courses. Get a project that
students can work on and build over the course of their electrical fundamentals
classes. Also, maybe slightly expand the breadth and, in some cases, the depth of
topics covered. For instance, when I started my 300 level electronics courses here at
OSU I hadn't yet worked with diodes, but all the other students had. It was an
immediate disadvantage.
The Statics, Dynamics and Strength of Materials courses taught at PCC were not
taught by regular instructors and for that reason, the course content seemed to
fluctuate quite a bit. I took the Statics course with Russell Eng, who did not cover,
among other things, the shear and moment diagram segment of this course, which is
a very crucial subject that came up in every structural course I took from then on
(Strength of Materials, Structural Analysis, Indeterminate Structures, Reinforced
Concrete Design, etc.). I have struggled in structural engineering related classes
because I have had to learn basic concepts and theory on my own that were never
covered in that Statics course. This is very disappointing, and in retrospect, I wish I
had taken that course at Portland State University.
I truly enjoyed my time at PCC and plan to take more classes there, including
languages and welding, in my, ahem, copious free time once I graduate (Spring
2011) and find a job. I thought the level of difficulty of the Physics, Chemistry,
Microbiology and Biology, Math, and Engineering classes was on par with classes I
took at PSU in my Junior and Senior years. I felt that all of my instructors were
talented, were interested in the students, and took their jobs to heart. Specific to the
Engineering classes, I would like to say that Mike (Statics) and Hamid (Mechanics,
Strength of Materials) really inspired my interest in engineering, made me feel
welcome in the discipline, and cemented my interest in pursuing this field.
Strengths: Great instructors who are willing to spend extra time with you one on
one. Class material is the same quality you would receive at a four year college.
Weaknesses: Some instructors are over qualified to the point that they cannot relate
to beginning students. On the other end, some instructors are new to the teaching
field and are not prepared to teach the material.
I really enjoyed my engineering classes at PCC. I feel like all my teachers, especially
Mike Farrell, have been very good at preparing students to move on to a four year
college. The one area that could be improved is teaching the software we use. We
learned the basics of Excel and Matlab in engineering 101, but I feel like Matlab
should be taught more than Excel. I was a year and a half in before I felt
comfortable with Matlab. I had a similar experience with Pspice and LTspice. First of
all, LTspice should be the primary spice program used because it is much more user
friendly. Secondly, it would be helpful to have a lab that really gets into how to use
LTspice. I have been using it for the past year and still don't know how to model my
53
own circuit elements.
Strengths: Students know well in advance what is expected of them and which
classes are available in the upcoming terms (program lay-out is nice).
Instructors are flexible.
Class hours are reasonable and meets most people's needs.
Weaknesses: ENGR231 - Material Science - should be re-done in some way; it covers
way too much foreign material for students to actually learn and apply (that's not
just my opinion). It is a good class and interesting, but seems too specific for a
general ME transfer degree. If anything, instructors should NOT be allowed to teach
with Power Point in this class.
Textbooks were rare and expensive
The engineering lab (AM 103) is top notch and a great place to study. The instructors
have no equal.
I think the strengths of the program are that it is so easy to get going and the
credits seem like they will transfer easily; also it is fairly cheap compared to a
university. Many of the classes are also very good.
The weaknesses are that some of the classes are only offered one or two terms a
year which can make scheduling difficult. The only other thing would be that it seems
that some of the professors, while maybe very good engineers, are not really
educated in how to teach; this can sometimes make things difficult in the teacher
being able to get the subject across to the students in an effective and organized
manner.
Please note I have previously attended both a community college and state
university in NY.
In comparison to my experience at my previous CC, PCC exceeded my expectations
for advising. Upon enrollment, I met with [Name deleted] and she did a great job of
making my options known and available. I essentially got on track and expect to be
going to PSU or UP as a junior this fall.
Now this may have been my own fault for not going and specifically asking these
questions of the engineering dept. but it would have been nice to have some help
before my transfer. I just found out- upon acceptance to PSU- that I missed my
chance to register for the MECOP/CECOP program. I would have appreciated the
dept. making some effort to make sure its students know about those opportunitiesand the deadlines.
I have had some great teachers for my engineering classes. But I think PCC needs to
work on the consistency of the professors as I have also had some that have been
less than acceptable.
Also, professor preference wouldn't be such a problem if there were more than one
option for a class. Which brings me to increasing the options. In talking to my peers,
I believe there is enough of a demand to offer more engineering classes during the
daytime. I realize we are probably in 'competition' with the CMET program for
professors and classrooms but I feel that the dept. has an equal responsibility to
make classes [other than CMET] available during different times.
54
The one area that I found challenging was the ability to seek out scholarships and
internships. Not being part of the traditional four year CE track I had to stumble
upon much of the information on those opportunities. Though much of this is
expected one internship program that I believe many PCC students miss out on due
to just not knowing about it is the MECOP/CECOP program. Since students need to
apply in the winter of their second year they do not have the opportunity to apply
once they transfer to a four year school and miss out on what is an incredible
opportunity. I encourage PCC to make a point to have instructor mention the
program to all of their students as I believe many PCC student would be competitive
in the program.
I took the statics, dynamics and strength of materials sequence. The Beer and
Johnson text would have been a much better choice as it seemed to be preferred by
the instructors and I ended up buying it anyway and it seemed like I spent a lot of
money on the two text books.
Pro:
PCC Engineering Dep. has the best intructors who have thick teaching skill, and work
with thier passionateness.
Con:
Instructors office hours aren't enough for all students whom need help. A tutor
should be nice. New instructors need to prepare lectures before come to class, and
please select the best textbooks to use for the courses.
The biggest strength the Engineering department has are its instructors. [Names
deleted] are the two instructors I have had for all my coursework in ENGR and they
worked with students and were really dedicated to my success. The courses are
really difficult in a sink or swim type of environment and I have managed to maintain
a good GPA in this program because of their dedication to helping me understand the
material.
The greatest weakness of the ENGR program is availability of classes. I will be
transferring to PSU in the fall and I will not have logic and microtech complete. This
means I will transfer as a Junior but still have to take freshman level coursework.
This will set me back a whole term and possibly disrupt my fall session of coursework
for the duration of my undergraduate program. I suggest PCC re-evaluate its pre-req
requirements for the ENGR courses and/or make the classes more available for
people who have completed the prereqs such as myself.
Overall, Engineering majors have seen a major decline over the years. Introductory
engineering courses have been known for causing students to switch majors to nonscience related degrees. Students who would have made meaningful contributions to
STEM get driven away due to difficult coursework and not having the help they need.
I have been lucky enough to have two amazing instructors in this program that have
helped me and my peers make it to this level. I wish the other departments for Gen
Ed Calculus were as good as the ENGR department. Where the Calculus teachers
made fun of me for struggling with the concepts the ENGR teachers have been
helpful and supportive all the way. This is the greatest strength of your department.
Taking ENGR at PCC, despite the mentioned availability of courses, has been a great
decision for my education.
55
No changes necessary, it was a great experience
I would say that the one suggestion would be to have the instructor be available for
more office hours. I realize that this is difficult as they need to have a life outside of
their job as well, but I really liked being able to meet with the professors.
I learned more about writing lab/technical reports in my 200 level physics classes at
PCC than in any of my classes at PSU. Kudos!! Keep it up!! Ray...I don't remember
his last name. I guess that's the physics dept anyway.
Engineering Drafting - ENGR 102? - A bit more about reading drawings would be
useful. I can read dimensions and such, but I had to research weld symbols, hole
callouts and some other things like that myself. Also, AutoCAD may be somewhat
useful for civil majors, but as an ME I haven't touched it since I started using
SolidWorks. Maybe at least an intro to parametric solid modeling would be good.
I think it would help many students if classes were schedule at different times, many
times I couldn't take a course I needed because all the engineering classes were
scheduled at the same time of the same day.
weekly homeworks is not recommended, u think of it from a different angle. its not
the more homeworks you give, the more better the students will be.
make the student love the class, the teacher,,give them break of homeworks every
week and week, give them a chance for extra credits,, offer at least one take home
test during the term...force him not to excuse him not loving the class...
Strengths: availability of instructors and small class sizes, which allow student to get
as much out of the program as they put into it.
Make meeting a university engineering advisor a requirement of engr 101 and
generally improve info about university requirements and transfer credits.
Engineering instructors are uniformly talented and seem quite dedicated to success
of the student.
More group projects. Stay up-to-date with 4 year class requitments. Over all pcc
does this but it is important and I know a few people who had problems. Hands on
projects would be great. Have past students talk to classes to give advice. Prepare
for time management better. Keep up with the awesome teachers!
Real world experience does not always translate to a quality professor. Some of the
more experienced professors have been the worst teachers. For the type of
education at PCC the real-world experience of the professor is not always necessary.
Preparedness, and good communication to the student(s) should be paramount.
56
I took Dynamics and Strength of Materials at PCC. The dynamics course was more
rigorous than anything I have taken at the Univ of Portland; the instructor was very
professional. My experience in strength of materials and with the rest of PCC was the
opposite. It was more difficult to register for classes at PCC than at PSU (which I had
attended previously). The secretary in the engineering office was officious and
patronizing--I was deeply offended a number of times I interacted with her. The
strength of materials teacher was also patronizing. In addition, she was ill prepared
for class and disorganized, making easy concepts difficult. (I took Geotech
Engineering at the UP and, in one week and one chapter from the Caduto book,
understood more about Mohr's circle than I had at PCC.) Additionally, I want to
express my concern with the long class sections. PCC's classes meet for one week
longer than other state universities and require more seat time (5hr/week) than
state schools (4hr/week) for the same credits. This would be valuable if additional
learning was taking place, but it just turns into another wasted hour with instructors
who take longer to convey less-well organized info. (Maybe the extra hour--if PCC is
set on it--could be devoted to problem solving or homework help.) Overall, PCC
combines the worst of both worlds: it treats students as if they are mentally deficient
(as one would treat a grade schooler) yet provides a, "harsher," less forgiving
environment than other state schools (with unbending policies, a lack of office hours,
a library that is closed on the weekends, unprofessional faculty and staff, more work
(e.g. seat hours) for less credit).
It would probably great if PCC could accommodate more for students who are
interested in doing internships.
The strengths of the engineering program at PCC are: predictable course format,
access to faculty, comparable academic rigor to a university, and small class sizes.
The weaknesses are: small electrical circuits lab, and old transfer advising sheets. It
wasn't the end of the world, but I had to take a lower-division SolidWorks class, and
manufacturing processes class that I was not aware of before I transferred.
I think PCC students should be more informed about how difficult it is to be
successful at a university. Students are lucky if they receive credit for their
homework.
The instructors I've had in the engineering department have ranged anywhere from
amazing to awful. I'd suggest monitoring the teachers closer, or finding a way to get
an accurate, untainted opinion from a teacher's students. As far as strengths though,
I think the different courses compliment each other nicely. That is, statics leads into
dynamics and strength of materials quite nicely.
More eavailablity to students in terms of planning their classes.
57
H- Full-Time vs. Part-Time IFTE for 2010-11
58
59