Monographs in Engineering Education Excellence
University of South Carolina College of Engineering and Information Technology
Gateway Engineering Education Coalition
Edward Ernst, University of South Carolina, Monographs Editor
A Continuous Quality Improvement System: An On-going
Assessment Process within the College of Engineering and
Information Technology at U.S.C.
Susan D. Creighton
Edward W. Ernst
Joseph H. Gibbons
Charles W. Brice
Francis A. Gadala-Maria
Jed S. Lyons
Anthony Steve McAnally
University of South Carolina
Number 4, December 2000
1
Monographs in Engineering Education Excellence
Edward Ernst, University of South Carolina, Monographs Editor
A Continuous Quality Improvement System: An On-going Assessment Process within the College
of Engineering and Information Technology at U.S.C.
By:
Susan D. Creighton
Edward W. Ernst
Joseph H. Gibbons
Charles W. Brice
Francis A. Gadala-Maria
Jed S. Lyons
Anthony Steve McAnally
Published by the College of Engineering and Information Technology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC
29208. Address editorial correspondence to Edward Ernst, 3A12 Swearingen Engineering Center, University of
South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208; (803) 777-9017; Ernst@engr.sc.edu.
2
Contents
Page
Preface
4
Background
6
College Assessment Infrastructure
8
College-Wide System
10
Assessment Plan
13
Assessment Methods
15
Quality Review Process
23
Program Assessment Structures and Processes
Mechanical Engineering Program
Chemical Engineering Program
Civil Engineering Program
Electrical Engineering Program
Computer Engineering Program
25
29
35
42
50
57
Appendices
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
Assessment Plan
Senior Survey
Senior Survey reports (sample)
Course Survey
Course Survey reports (sample)
Alumnae/Alumni Survey
Alumnae/Alumni Survey reports (sample)
Faculty/Staff Surveys
Faculty/Staff Survey reports (sample)
Entering Student Survey
Entering Student Survey reports (sample)
Performance Assessment Instrument
Mid-Course Evaluation
Education Outreach Survey
Professional Communication Center Assessment Report
Longitudinal Student Tracking Report (sample)
Bates House Project Report
Template for Documenting Assessment Progress
3
64
69
75
118
121
128
135
173
181
196
201
223
230
234
236
242
251
260
Preface
Monographs in Engineering Education Excellence is a series of publications dealing with
innovations in engineering education introduced at the University of South Carolina, with the
support of the Gateway Engineering Education Coalition. The series seeks to make the information
and ideas in the reports more accessible to engineering educators. It is hoped that other institutions
will find the reports useful and adaptable to their own educational mission.
The Monographs in Engineering Education Excellence series includes a variety of
genrestheses, dissertations, and technical reports, but all have the common objective of
rethinking, reshaping, and revitalizing engineering education. This monograph, A Continuous
Quality Improvement System: An Ongoing Assessment Process within the College of Engineering
and Information Technology at U.S.C., discusses the college-wide assessment and CQI system
developed to ensure the educational programs of the college are achieving the expectations held
for them. The monograph presents examples and details regarding the tools, policies, processes,
and procedures that have been developed and implemented in the college. These assessment/CQI
efforts have evolved with support from the Gateway Engineering Education Coalition.
A broad agreement on the need for systemic educational reform exists within the
engineering education community so those programs can provide the activities necessary to
develop graduates who meet the new standards for the 21st century. The reform movement
encourages more diversity in classroom practices that move instruction from a traditional lecture to
structured activities reflecting what engineers do in the workplace. These initiatives promote
changes in classroom practices to reflect the knowledge, skills, and abilities required by engineers
to conceptualize, articulate, and implement a solution for engineering problems. The reform
movement also advocates that engineering curricula incorporate a variety of teaching methods to
involve students in active learning, design projects, technology use, and multidisciplinary teams.
Outcomes-based assessments, in the form of design projects, portfolios, and model construction,
enable faculty to link student competencies with the expectations of the workplace.
Believing in the need for change and recognizing that engineering is part of the growing
national trend toward increased accountability, many accrediting organizations as well as national
and state funding agencies, such as the National Science Foundation, have taken leadership roles in
defining new parameters for engineering education. The paradigm shift is clearly evident in the
new criteria adopted by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) which
promote the use of outcomes assessment as the measuring tool for institutional and program
evaluation. The stated goals of the ABET accreditation include: (1) providing graduates of
accredited programs who are adequately prepared to enter the engineering profession; (2)
stimulating the improvement of engineering education; and (3) encouraging new and innovative
approaches to engineering education.
To achieve these objectives, the ABET Engineering Criteria 2000 stipulate that individual
programs must have and have published educational objectives consistent with the mission of their
institution. Programs must evaluate the success of students in meeting program objectives using
appropriate assessment methodologies. The ABET criteria also require engineering programs to
include a continuous quality improvement process. In this model, the program evaluation process
documents progress towards achievement of objectives established by the engineering program
and uses this information to improve the program.
Moreover, the criteria require that programs demonstrate student outcomes of such
complex skills as the ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret
4
data, the ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs and an ability to
communicate effectively. Types of evidence advocated by ABET to document these student
outcomes include portfolios, design projects, nationally normed subject content examinations, and
alumnae/alumni and employer surveys.
Criterion 2 of the ABET Engineering Criteria 2000 mandates a system that continually
evaluates the programs to determine if program objectives are met and if they meet the needs of
the program’s constituencies. The college developed and implemented a college-wide
infrastructure with supporting policies, procedures, personnel and assessment tools to ensure the
permanency and effective operation of the system.
The college-wide assessment system is linked with the continuous quality improvement
processes initiated within each USC engineering program - Chemical, Civil, Computer, Electrical
and Mechanical engineering. Together, the college-wide assessment processes and the program
assessment processes comprise the USC COEIT Continuous Quality Improvement System.
The college-wide infrastructure provides the coordination and collaboration efforts needed
to facilitate: (1) continuous cycles of program improvement; (2) the attainment of college goals
and objectives; and (3) the achievement of state-level and accreditation agency performance
indicators. The structure supports the personnel and resources necessary to maintain the flow of
data, information and evaluation results through the system. It also serves as the focus for the
triangulation and synthesis of data from different constituencies and various reports.
5
Background
Numerous reports over the past ten years have outlined the attributes that engineering
graduates need to possess in the 21st century workplace [1]. The engineering education culture is
shifting from one emphasizing individual specialization, compartmentalization of knowledge and a
research-based faculty reward structure to one that values integration and specialization,
teamwork, educational research and innovation. Institutions of higher education now focus on
student outcomes or performance-based models of instruction that strive to measure what students
have learned and what they can do [2]. Outcomes assessment examines the results of the
education process by asking to what extent students have accomplished the objectives of their
discipline.
There is broad agreement of the need for systemic educational reform within the
engineering community so those programs can provide the activities necessary to develop
graduates who meet the new standards for the next century. The reform movement encourages
more diversity in classroom practices that move instruction from a traditional lecture to structured
activities reflecting what engineers do in the workplace. These initiatives promote changes in
classroom practices to reflect the knowledge, skills, and abilities required by engineers to
conceptualize, articulate, and implement a solution for engineering problems. The reform
movement also advocates that engineering curricula incorporate a variety of teaching methods to
involve students in active learning, design projects, technology use, and multidisciplinary teams.
Outcomes-based assessments, in the form of design projects, portfolios, and model construction,
enable faculty to directly link student competencies with the expectations of the workplace.
Believing in the need for change and recognizing that engineering is part of the growing
national trend toward increased accountability, many accrediting organizations as well as national
and state funding agencies, such as the National Science Foundation, have taken leadership roles in
defining new parameters for engineering education. The paradigm shift is clearly evident in the
new criteria adopted by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) which
promote the use of outcomes assessment as the measuring tool for institutional and program
evaluation. The stated goals of the ABET accreditation include: (1) providing graduates of
accredited programs who are adequately prepared to enter the engineering profession; (2)
stimulating the improvement of engineering education; and (3) encouraging new and innovative
approaches to engineering education [3].
To achieve these objectives, the ABET Engineering Criteria 2000 stipulates that individual
programs must have published educational objectives consistent with the mission of their
institution. Programs must evaluate the success of students in meeting program objectives using
appropriate assessment methodologies. The ABET criteria also require engineering programs to
include a continuous quality improvement process. In this model, the program evaluation process
provides documentation of progress toward achievement of objectives established by the
engineering program and uses this information to improve the program.
In addition, the criteria require that programs demonstrate student outcomes of such
complex skills as the ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret
data, the ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs and an ability to
communicate effectively. Types of evidence advocated by ABET to document these student
6
outcomes can include portfolios, design projects, nationally normed subject content examinations,
focus groups, and surveys of alumnae/alumni, students and/or employers.
7
College Assessment Infrastructure
As engineering classroom practices change, the evaluation of student development and
program effectiveness must align with the new ABET emphases. Criterion 2 of the Criteria 2000
specifies that programs must have published educational objectives that are consistent with the
mission of the institution. It also mandates a system that continually evaluates to determine if
program objectives are met and if they meet the needs of the program’s constituencies. To this
end, the University of South Carolina College of Engineering and Information Technology
(COEIT) developed and implemented a college-wide infrastructure with supporting policies
procedures, personnel and assessment tools to ensure the permanency and effective operation of
the system.
The college-wide assessment system is linked with the continuous quality improvement
processes initiated within each USC engineering program - Chemical, Civil, Computer, Electrical
and Mechanical engineering. Together, the College-wide assessment processes and the program
assessment processes comprise the USC COEIT Continuous Quality Improvement System. Both
parts of this system are integrated within the College Strategic Plan. As seen in Figure 1, this plan
connects the College to its institution through the statement of University of South Carolina’s
vision, mission and goals.
USC Vision, Mission, Goals
COEIT Vision, Mission, Goals
Program
Assessment
Systems
College-wide
Assessment
System
COEIT Strategic Plan
Figure 1. Overview of COEIT Continuous Quality Improvement System
The purpose of the continuous quality assessment system is to continually assess the needs
of the program’s various constituencies to ensure that the programs are achieving expectations as
described by the objectives and to evaluate how effectively each program and the College have
moved toward achieving stated mission and goals. Assessment processes show faculty, staff,
administrators and others where improvements seem to be appropriate and guide the
implementation of change within each program and college-wide service areas. Changes are
monitored and re-evaluated to determine what improvement has been realized. Thus, the system is
an ongoing evaluation of the effectiveness of the College and its programs.
8
The following sections will discuss both the College-wide system and the program systems.
Examples and details will be given regarding the tools, policies, processes, and procedures that
have been developed and implemented at USC COEIT to ensure the institutionalization of the CQI
System.
Note. This monograph is a snapshot of the status at the end of the spring Semester, 2000. The
CQI processes are relatively new and continue to change.
9
College-wide System
The College-wide infrastructure provides the coordination and collaboration efforts needed
to facilitate: (1) continuous cycles of program improvement; (2) the attainment of college goals
and objectives; and (3) the achievement of state-level and accreditation agency performance
indicators. The structure supports the personnel and resources necessary to maintain the flow of
data, information and evaluation results through the system. It also serves as the focus for the
triangulation and synthesis of data from different constituencies and various reports.
The comprehensive character of the college-wide assessment structure is evident in the
following diagram.
Mission & Goals

University

College

Department
ABET Criteria
Departmental
Committee
Proposed Program
Objectives & Outcomes
Department
Faculty
Approved Program
Objectives & Outcomes
Constituencies

Students

Alumni

Employers

Industry Board

Faculty
Center for Engineering
Education Excellence
Team
Department
Chairs
Results
Assessment
Department
Committee






Students
Alumni
Employers
Faculty
Staff
Others
Faculty
Plan
Assessment
Director
College
Executive
Committee
Curricula
Figure 2. College-Wide Assessment Infrastructure
The diagram shows the integration of state and institutional parameters within the system.
It also highlights the linking of college assessment processes to its departmental programs. A
more comprehensive view of the departmental assessment processes within this continuous loop
system is discussed in a later section.
The personnel and processes of the college-wide assessment infrastructure, however, are
the focus of this diagram. The College-wide infrastructure consists of several formal, key
components: College Executive Committee, Center for Engineering Education Excellence, the
Center for Engineering Education Excellence Team, Assessment Director, Departmental
Assessment/Education Committees and its various constituencies.
10
A brief overview will outline the responsibilities of each component and provide insight
into how these personnel and committees interact to produce a continuous quality improvement
process.
Executive Committee
The Executive Committee is composed of the Dean, Associate Deans, Departmental
Chairpersons and the Center for Engineering Education Excellence Director. This committee
meets at two-week intervals and provides oversight and decision-making duties for the College.
Center for Engineering Education Excellence
The Center for Engineering Education Excellence is an interdisciplinary organization of
individuals who collaborate in the effort to promote self-study, innovation and reform within the
College. The staff and support personnel involved in the Center include: the Director for the
Center; a Program Coordinator, the Assessment Director, the Director of the Professional
Communications Center and the Ethics Coordinator.
The mission of the Center includes all the major parts of engineering education:
undergraduate, graduate, and research; and promotes meaningful integration of engineering
education. The educational goal of the Center is to graduate students that understand the
technology content of engineering as well as the social, political, ethical, environmental and
economic context.
The objectives for the Center have both an internal and an external thrust. These objectives
include:







Development of students as engineering professionals with the motivation, capability and knowledge
base for career-long learning
Emphasize effective teaching/learning strategies for all types of students
Promote effective and (time) efficient student/faculty interaction
Enhance the continuous quality improvement process (CQI) within the College
Serve the engineering education community by encouraging innovation and reform
Increase the visibility of USC to the engineering education community
Provide a channel for learning about innovation in engineering education at other schools
Center for Engineering Education Excellence Management Team
The Center for Engineering Education Excellence Team provides the opportunity for
collaboration among the programs, discussion of issues, planning activities, and making
recommendations for college-wide initiatives. The committee consists of a Chairperson (Director
of the Center), the Assessment Director, the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, the Director for
the Professional Communications Center, the Ethics Coordinator, and one faculty representative
from the Chemical, Civil, Computer, Electrical and Mechanical programs. The biweekly
committee meetings serve as one focal point for the distribution and discussion of report findings
and information. Committee members then share this information with the appropriate committees
within their individual departments.
11
The members of the Center for Engineering Education Excellence Team have been the
primary personnel involved with the initial organization and maintenance of the assessment
structure. Meeting on a weekly basis, the team addressed a range of issues relating to the
implementation of a continuous improvement program. Substantive tasks accomplished by the
Committee include:
-
restatement of the College’s mission
articulation of an assessment process within each program
development of educational objectives for each program
development of objectives for each course within each program
determination of some assessment methods and metrics to measure the objectives and
outcomes
development of a faculty workload policy
discussion regarding survey results (Senior Exit Survey, Course Survey, etc.)
review and feedback of each college-wide survey or assessment technique
wrote self-study reports for the ABET accreditation review
participated in the ABET accreditation review
Program Assessment Committees
The Program Assessment Committees include three to five faculty members within each
program and serve as the focus for problem solving, innovation and program change. Each
program has articulated an assessment structure and process to collect and/or review data and
information that is related to their student outcomes and course objectives. In general, each
department designated responsibility for addressing assessment data and/or topics to one or more
committees within their attachments. A more extensive discussion of the continuous quality
improvement processes for the degree programs follows in later sections.
Director of Assessment
The Director of Assessment position was created to develop and implement the overall
college-wide assessment infrastructure, processes, and procedures for maintaining a continuous
quality improvement program, and, to provide technical support to the faculty implementing
assessment processes in each degree program. Having a full-time person to direct and support
assessment activities was an important step because it increased the flow of information among
faculty and staff across disciplines resulting in an increased ownership of student learning
outcomes and a heightened sense of responsibility towards its graduates. The sharing of ideas,
information and evaluation results enhanced communication between the administration and the
faculty and staff members.
12
Assessment Plan
The Director of Assessment developed a three-year plan to guide the implementation and
evaluation of the continuous quality improvement process and to establish timeframes, action
strategies and a budget for the system. The assessment program plan set objectives, outcomes,
criteria and a timeframe that established the framework for a continuous quality
review/improvement system. The goals of this program are fourfold:
1) to present conclusions regarding the overall outcomes of the student’s academic and
extracurricular engineering performance for use in decision making by faculty,
program chairs and administration;
2) to present results about programs, activities, etc. in order to improve the programs;
3) to enhance understanding and appreciation of formative and summative evaluation;
and
4) to contribute to the general body of knowledge with regard to evaluation of
undergraduate engineering programs.
An example from this plan is given in the following section. Objective 1 provides for the
overall assessment system for the College. See Appendix A for the complete Assessment Plan.
Assessment Plan
Program Objectives and Strategies
Objective 1:
Develop and implement an assessment program that provides processes and procedures for the continuous evaluation
of student performance and satisfaction, faculty performance and satisfaction and stakeholder input into the
educational system.
Action Strategies & Timeframes:
1.
Monitor the processes and procedures developed and implemented to evaluate assessment data provided to
each program and the executive committee.
(4/00; 4/01;4/02;4/03;4/04)
2.
On an annual basis, each department will review and make recommendations for improvement based on
assessment data collected to address each program outcome as part of the continuous quality review program.
(Center for Engineering Education Excellence Team) (6/00;6/01;6/02;6/03;6/04)
3.
The Director of Assessment will prepare the annual Quality Review Program Report indicating the extent to
which the action plans were implemented and achieved by each department, the feasibility of the time frames
and recommendation for improving the process. (10/00; 10/01;10/02;10/03;10/04)
13
Outcomes:
A. Outlining each major step in the assessment process that will occur within the program, each program
will submit written procedures to be reviewed by the Dean.
B. Each program will submit written procedures.
C. On an annual basis, each department will provide a written summary report of findings (outcomes),
results, actions taken, consequences, and recommendations verifying the assessment process has
completed the annual cycle and specifying problems and solutions.
D. The Director of Assessment will summarize results and recommendations of the Center for Engineering
Education Excellence Team; then prepare a synopsis of the annual review indicating assessment
measures analyzed, outcomes, recommendations, changes implemented, and the evaluation results of the
changes.
E. The Executive Committee will discuss and prioritize action strategies recommended as a result of the
annual program review.
Resources:
The Director of Assessment position
An educational research graduate assistant
A work-study student assistant
The assessment plan provides a comprehensive outline of all of the tasks related to the
Director of Assessment position. In addition, this plan also details the College instruments to be
implemented and the methodology to be used to ensure that ongoing assessment and evaluation is
undertaken by the degree programs. Use of the Strategic Plan for the College of Engineering and
Information Technology is one way in which the degree program assessment processes are
continually monitored, revised and evaluated. Departmental and college objectives and outcomes
are modified annually to address new priorities or pursuits. The annual Quality Review Program
Report is incorporated within the Strategic Plan.
14
Assessment Methods
The Director of Assessment has also identified and developed college-wide assessment
tools for use in the continuous quality improvement system. A number of instruments, processes
and procedures were developed and implemented to collect data that can be used to evaluate the
effectiveness of the USC College of Engineering and Information Technology and its programs as
well as student learning and growth. In addition, the Director of Assessment provided a Student
Longitudinal Tracking System, coordinated the implementation of Employer Focus Groups,
interviewed students and faculty members, assisted instructors with the evaluation of
teaching/learning objectives for specific courses, and developed evaluation measures for
examining the impact of the Professional Communications Center. A few of the important
college-wide assessment instruments developed and utilized thus far in the assessment process are
discussed in the following sections.
Senior Survey
Students graduating from the College of Engineering and Information Technology
complete a survey requesting information about their undergraduate college experience and their
judgment regarding specific engineering skills and abilities. The four-page survey obtains
information in the following areas:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
overall ratings of students’ engineering education
life-long learning indicators
assessment of specific college services
opportunity for students to make recommendations
evaluation of ABET skills and competencies
useful experiences
extracurricular activities
plans for graduate education
employment information
demographic information including transfer status
A copy of the survey is found in Appendix B. A Graduate Placement Sheet also
accompanies the distribution of the survey; this assessment form requests an address for future
mailings and employment and/or graduate school information. Students are given separate
envelopes to return the Placement Sheet so that their anonymity will be maintained if they choose.
Administrative Procedures
Several methodologies have been utilized since the 1998 Spring Semester to administer the
survey and the data sheet to graduating seniors. During the first three semesters, the College
initiated a procedure that featured the use of graduating seniors from each program to distribute
and collect the surveys from students in their program. The use of paid student assistants
encouraged participation and resulted in a return rate of approximately 80 percent. As a result of
this more personalized approach, seniors began to learn of the importance of this type of
information to the College. During recent semesters, the College has experimented using other
15
distribution and retrieval methodologies. The one that appears to be the most successful in
producing the highest return rate and quality responses is having the instrument administered
during a particular course in each program. The Chemical, Civil, Computer, Electrical and
Mechanical programs have a senior-level course comprised of graduating seniors. Given at the
end of the semester, this procedure captures an even greater percentage of the graduating seniors
and assures a more uniform administration of the assessment instruments.
Reporting
The Director of Assessment prepares a tabular listing of responses giving frequencies and
percentages for the total results and the breakdowns for each degree program. An additional
summary report giving an analysis of the overall results and a synopsis of program differences, if
any accompanies the listing of results. An example of each report is given in Appendix C.
Course Survey
The Course Survey assessment instrument is administered to students enrolled in all
undergraduate and graduate courses taught within the College each semester. Administration of
the form is required for all courses, including APOGEE (long distance education/continuing
education) and other graduate courses, enrolling five or more students.
The first seven items on the survey are those mandated by the state legislature. The
wording and the options of these seven items are reproduced as requested by the state law. On a
regular basis, the College scores on these items are reported to the Office of Institutional Planning
and Assessment; data are then forwarded to the Commission on Higher Education. Other items on
the survey were developed and approved by the Center for Engineering Education Excellence
Team.
The Course Survey was administered for the first time at the end of the 1997 Fall Semester
and has been revised several times to accommodate changes within the College and to improve the
quality of the survey items. The revised survey is a two-sided Scantron sheet having four sections.
Students provide course and instructor data in the first section. The second includes 23 items
structured in a Likert-type format. Alternatives for most of the items follow a 5-point scale
ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” with the midpoint as “neutral” response.
Two items use “very poor” to “excellent” response patterns and one item includes a 4-point scale
with a “very dissatisfied” to “very satisfied” response pattern. The third area provides space for
instructors to add up to 12 additional questions. The last section contains three short answer
questions providing students with the opportunity to make their own observations and comments
regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the course. A copy of this survey is given in Appendix
D.
Administrative Procedures
Each faculty member receives packets that include course surveys and student and faculty
instructions for survey completion. Memos to the students and faculty outline coding instructions
for adding the instructor identification, course and section number to the scanning process as well
as survey dissemination, collection and retrieval information. Surveys are received in the Student
16
Services Office where they are sorted, coded, counted, aligned and sent to Computer Services for
scanning. Student data are analyzed and reported using a database and program written with the
SAS (Statistical Analysis System) statistical software.
Reporting
Each semester, a tabular report listing the frequencies, percentages, means and standard
deviations for each item alternative is generated for each faculty member. In addition to listing the
faculty member’s total for each section, the report lists the departmental and college totals. The
Director of Assessment also prepares a brief summary of the overall college results. Both reports
are distributed to all College instructors. A more comprehensive report is prepared for the
Executive Committee and members of the Center for Engineering Education Excellence Team.
This report contains the frequencies, percentages, means and standard deviations for each item
alternative for each program and the college totals. A copy of each type of report is located in
Appendix E.
Alumnae/Alumni Survey
During the 1998 fall semester, the College of Engineering developed an Alumnae/Alumni
Survey to obtain information from graduates who have been attending school or working for the
past three years. The survey asks alumnae/alumni to evaluate several aspects of their
undergraduate program and their present career position. The five-page instrument obtains
information regarding the following topics:
Employment information
Satisfaction with career, salary, etc.
Continuing education
Rating of undergraduate experience
Rating competency level for particular skills
Rating importance of particular skills
Positive aspects of engineering program
Influential professors to professional development
Recommendations for improvement of educational experience
Professional development
Demographic information
A copy of the Alumnae/Alumni Survey (for graduates after three years) is included in Appendix F.
Administrative Procedures
The Assessment Director used the USC database of records to obtain student addresses for
each mailing of the survey. The Alumnae/Alumni Survey is administered once a year to students
who graduated three years prior to that date; this schedule was chosen because it allows graduates
an average time period to complete a graduate degree or to become established in the workplace.
The first mailing of this survey, to students who graduated in 1995 was completed during March
1999; approximately 22 percent of the surveys were returned for an insufficient or incorrect
17
address. A second mailing, using alternative addresses if appropriate was completed during the
first week of May 1999. The second administration of the Alumnae/Alumni Survey took place in
November 1999 with a follow-up mailed in March 2000; surveys were mailed to 1996 graduates.
Inaccurate addresses continued to be a problem in reaching COEIT alumnae/alumni. The third
administration of the Alumnae/Alumni Survey for 1997 graduates was completed during July
2000. Alumnae/alumni survey data has been input and analyzed using SAS software.
Reporting
The Director of Assessment prepares a tabular listing of responses giving frequencies and
percentages for the total results and the breakdowns for each program. An additional summary
report giving an analysis of the overall results and a synopsis of program differences, if any,
accompanies the listing of results. An example of each report is given in Appendix G. Copies of
each report are mailed to each Executive Committee member and each Center for Engineering
Education Excellence Team member. Additional personnel receiving reports include a
representative from Development, Career Services and Student Services departments.
Faculty and/or Staff Survey
An initial Faculty and Staff Survey was administered during May of the 1999 Spring
Semester addressing the following areas: (1) College goals and planning; (2) College-industry
interaction; (3) College administration/leadership and communication; (4) College-wide services;
(5) funding priorities (6) awareness of programs at aspirant institutions.
In April 2000, an alternative Faculty Survey was administered within the college to capture
data similar to information requested from seniors and alumnae/alumni. This revised faculty
survey elicited responses to questions concerning:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
the amount of experience students received on 21 skills
the level of competency achieved by USC engineering students on 21 skills
the extent to which reform learning/teaching strategies are incorporated within the
classroom
the level of student input for course improvement
the improvement of the engineering education experience
the use of different assessment tools within a course
the professional development activities for faculty
A copy of each survey is located in Appendix H.
Administrative Procedures
Faculty surveys were mailed to each full-time faculty member within the College of
Engineering and Information Technology. A cover letter, containing instructions for the return of
18
the survey and an explanation of the importance of the requested information, and a labeled return
envelope was provided within the survey packet. At the end of two weeks, an email was sent to all
professors reminding them to complete and return the survey as soon as possible; an electronic
copy of the survey was attached to the email.
Reporting
A tabular report listing the frequencies and percentages for each item alternative is
generated for each program as well as college totals. The Director of Assessment also prepares a
brief summary of the overall college results. Both reports are distributed to the Executive
Committee and the Center for Engineering Education Excellence team members. A copy of each
type of report is located in Appendix I.
Entering Student Questionnaire
An Entering Student Questionnaire was developed to provide specific information for
administration personnel involved with student marketing and recruitment. The primary emphasis
of this survey was determining why students chose to come to USC, to what other colleges they
applied and the reasons that were important in their decision to attend the College of Engineering.
Students are also asked to provide information about their academic background in math,
chemistry, physics and writing. The survey also captures information about computer ownership,
usage and training. A copy of this survey is found in Appendix J.
Administrative Procedures
Entering Student Questionnaires are administered once per year in the fall semester. These
surveys are distributed to each faculty member teaching one of the freshmen engineering courses.
Surveys are administered and collected by these instructors. Emails are sent instructors alerting
them in advance that surveys are planned and as reminders when they should be returned to the
Assessment Office. Data is entered and analyzed using SAS software.
Reporting
A tabular report is prepared that lists frequencies and percentages where appropriate and
provides student responses to open-ended questions. The Director of Assessment also writes a
summary report that analyzes and summarizes significant trends, themes and findings from the
student response data. Reports are distributed to the Executive Committee, Student Services, the
Development Officer and the Center for Engineering Education Excellence team members.
19
Performance Assessment Instrument for an Oral Presentation
A number of other assessment instruments have been developed for use by faculty
members within the classroom to evaluate specific instructional objectives. A performance
assessment handout listing course task expectations and an evaluation rubric for use with a senior
level course using oral presentations is the first of several instruments to be developed and
implemented during the 1998 Spring Semester. A copy of the handout is given in Appendix L.
Midterm Evaluation
A copy of a midterm evaluation survey is found in Appendix M. This form was developed
for use in the Electrical and Computer Engineering sections to provide immediate feedback to the
instructors regarding student perceptions of their progress and the overall effectiveness of the
faculty member in achieving course objectives.
Educational Outreach
A survey designed to elicit information about ways to evaluate effectiveness and to
improve the presentations was developed for use with the “E2 – Everyday Engineering” program.
This is a school outreach effort that targets elementary, middle school and high school students.
The Coordinator of this program creates and presents science-based learning activities in South
Carolina area classrooms. A copy of this survey is found in Appendix N.
Professional Communications Center – Data Base and Evaluation of Impact
The Director of Assessment, in collaboration with the Director of the Professional
Communications Center, planned several qualitative and quantitative methodologies to assess the
impact of the writing center upon the students and faculty within the College of Engineering. A
computer database and computer programs have been developed and implemented to obtain a
more accurate reflection of the student/faculty consultations during each semester. Reports are
generated each semester and at the end of the year; the tabular report for 1999 is found in
Appendix O. This data collection effort examines the number of contacts occurring within the
Center and individual classrooms involving PCC personnel. The data input also indicates the types
of writing issues for which students and faculty seek assistance and the amount of time personnel
spend with clients.
Student Longitudinal Tracking System
In collaboration with the University’s Institutional Planning and Assessment Office, the
College of Engineering assisted with the design and implementation of a Longitudinal Student
Tracking System that incorporates all of the necessary elements to study student trends from
admission through graduation and beyond. The goal of this system is the availability of a college20
wide mechanism that will provide data for faculty and administrators to enable them to
continuously monitor and improve the quality of their programs.
To initiate the creation of the Longitudinal Student Tracking System, the College of
Engineering developed a set of research questions and companion tables to specify the variables
requested in the database and to show how the relationships among these variables might be
displayed. A total of 36 research questions were enumerated, and, some of these are listed below.
1.
How many students were enrolled in each cohort (1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95) for each of
the following subgroups: total engineering students, first-time freshmen, and transfer students showing
ethnicity and gender for each subgroup?
2.
How many students in each cohort graduated as of June 1998 showing distributions for each of the following
subgroups: total students, first-time freshmen, and transfer students with breakdowns by ethnicity and gender
for each subgroup?
3.
How many students in each cohort graduated in Engineering as of June 1998 showing distributions for each
of the following subgroups: total students, first-time freshmen, and transfer students with breakdowns by
ethnicity and gender for each subgroup?
4.
What are the average cumulative GPA’s of graduates within each cohort who received an Engineering degree
showing the distributions for the following subgroups: total engineering students enrolled, first-time
freshmen, transfer students with breakdowns by ethnicity and gender?
Using the College of Engineering research request as a guide, Planning and Assessment
personnel downloaded student data from various USC mainframe systems to compile the
Longitudinal Student Tracking component. This new database includes student data from the
1990-91 cohort to the 1997-98 cohort and incorporates 677 variables of interest. Variables can be
grouped into the following six categories: admissions data (SAT scores, rank, entry status, etc.);
demographic information (gender, ethnicity, etc.); academic performance indicators (grades in
courses, GPA, etc.); graduation statistics; retention; and withdrawal rates. A copy of a report
developed using some initial longitudinal student tracking data is located in Appendix P.
Evaluation of The Bates House Living-Learning Community
During the 1999 fall semester, freshmen students in The College of Engineering and
Information Technology were offered the opportunity to participate in a unique Living-Learning
Community program developed in collaboration with the USC Housing Department. The
Engineering Community in Bates House is an on-campus residential community designed to
enrich the educational environment for first-year engineering students. Development of this
concept was based on research documenting the benefits of students living in learning
environments that foster student-faculty interaction and student peer relationships strengthened by
involvement with each other both in and out of the classroom.
21
More specifically, goals of the Engineering Community in Bates House are:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
To increase the retention rate of these freshmen by creating a learning environment
that maximizes their potential for success
To incorporate active learning strategies and increased academic support to increase
academic performance indicators such as the student’s grade point average (GPA);
To develop professional attitudes and to emphasize experiential learning by
encouraging student involvement in the community and the professional
engineering organizations;
To develop and implement the use of new technologies, such as laptop computers,
that can be applied in the classroom to enhance education program delivery;
To provide early design and teamwork experience to enhance student motivation
and learning and to develop leadership, communication and problem solving skills.
The increases in retention and academic performance are primarily long-term research
questions. The Bates House project students will be tracked during their subsequent years at USC
collecting course grades and GPA data each semester. Retention figures for this group of students
will be tabulated with overall results available at the end of the first, second and fourth years of the
project.
A group of engineering students with similar academic backgrounds will be randomly
selected for use as a control group to provide a criterion for judgment of program success.
Retention rates, course grades and GPA data will be collected for this group of students each
semester from 1999-2000 through the 2002-2003 academic years. Control and experimental
groups will be compared to determine if the additional academic support and activities given the
Bates House students yields improved performance and retention within the College. A summary
of the initial results of the project is located in Appendix Q.
22
Quality Review Process
Feedback from the departments to the ABET/Gateway Committee concerning
improvements undertaken within programs as a result of evaluation information is a key feature of
the continuous quality assessment loop within the College. Although college-wide efforts provide
specific pieces of student and faculty feedback, departments are also responsible for determining
the additional assessment activities needed to evaluate their individual objectives. Within each
Department, the survey results and reports are analyzed and discussed within the formal
assessment structure and procedures adopted for program improvement. Each departmental
committee reports the changes, modifications, and/or strategies they expect to follow to accentuate
positive findings and provide corrective measures for the areas in need of attention.
The review process is a key component in linking the College-wide System with the
Program Assessment Systems. It is also the means for initiating modifications and the framework
for reporting on those changes and the subsequent results. The following figure highlights the
committees and procedures utilized within the COEIT CQI System.
Executive Committee
Assessment Director
Assessment Plan
Assessment Tools
Center for Engineering
Education Excellence
Feedback
Data Analysis
Data Collection
Center Team
Recommendations
College Priorities
College Executive
Committee
Reports
Constituencies
Seniors, Alumnae
Feedback/Goodwill
Programs
Program Priorities
Program
Improvement
Plans/Report;
Annual
Assessment
Analysis/Report;
COEIT Strategic
Plan
Figure 3. CQI Review Process
The Director of Assessment prepares tabular and summary reports for each assessment tool
utilized within the College-wide System. As indicated above, all reports are generated and
distributed to all the College Executive committee and the Center for Engineering Excellence
Team. Findings are discussed at meetings of both of these committees.
23
The Program Chairpersons provide each faculty member with an electronic or hard copy of
the summary and the tabular report of the results. Within each program, the results are analyzed
and discussed within the formal assessment structure adopted for program improvement. Each
program committee makes recommendations and initiates changes within the curriculum. As part
of the strategic planning function each year, the programs include a report explaining the changes,
modifications, and/or strategies they followed to accentuate positive findings and provide
corrective measures for the areas in need of attention. Members of the Center for Engineering
Education Excellence Team report and discuss these conclusions at committee meetings
throughout the year. The same procedures are followed for the findings from each survey
administration.
24
Program Assessment Structures and Processes
The assessment and continuous quality improvement processes implemented within the
COEIT are both college-wide and departmentally focused. The program assessment systems are
driven by the college-wide infrastructure; it provides the foundation necessary to generate and
disseminate findings and reports for the College. More important, this infrastructure generates the
coordination and collaboration efforts needed to facilitate program improvement.
The departments have responsibility for the educational programs; thus, implementation of
the assessment processes is focused on the departments and the education programs. The
departmental systems are comprised of on-going, institutionalized processes with the elements
repeated at regular intervals to assure fresh assessment data and appropriate improvement plans.
In preparation for the development of the individual program assessment plans, the Center
for Engineering Excellence Team and the Executive Committee participated in the review and
modification of the statements specifying the College vision, mission, goals and objectives. The
document adopted by the College on November 27, 1998 is included in the following paragraphs.
Vision Statement
The College of Engineering and Information Technology will be a national model for
innovation and responsiveness in addressing the engineering education, economic development
and lifelong learning needs of the state.
Mission Statement
The mission of the College of Engineering and Information Technology is to serve the
engineering and technology needs of South Carolina through our programs of education, research,
and outreach.
Goals and Objectives of the College
1. Meet the educational needs of South Carolina industry, our students and the engineering
profession.
2. Support the economic development of our state and create new opportunities.
3. Be recognized as a learning community of students, faculty, and staff that develops student
motivation and capability for learning that enhances their careers and lives.
4. Provide an environment that encourages individual intellectual curiosity and freedom and
motivates students to meet high academic and ethical standards.
5. Be recognized for research and scholarship and assist the university in its aspiration to
become an AAU institution.
6. Develop a supportive climate that attracts and supports a diverse group of faculty, staff, and
students.
25
7. Be recognized as a college committed to becoming better and more productive and to
continuous improvement in its education, research, and outreach mission.
Training and Preparation
During the development process, faculty members from each program also attended a
workshop conducted by Jack McGourty on October 9, 1998 to assist faculty members in the
development of objectives and outcomes as well as planning strategies and actions needed to
implement their program objectives. Templates of each step in the assessment process were
distributed to attendees who worked in groups to practice writing objectives and outcomes. In
addition to the workbooks provided by the Gateway Coalition, members of the Center for
Engineering Excellence Team also received the booklet entitled “Stepping Ahead: An Assessment
Plan Development Guide” written by Gloria M. Rogers and Jean K. Sando with funding from the
National Science Foundation and the Foundation Coalition. Examples of the template used by the
faculty members are located in Appendix R. The Assessment Director provided each department
with guidelines to assist in the implementation of their individual systems; programs utilized the
following outline in their preparations. This document is included in the following section.
Recommended Procedures for Articulating and Documenting Assessment Processes
August 1998
Overview
In preparation for our upcoming ABET accreditation visit in November 1999, we need to develop and implement a
system of ongoing evaluation. This system must demonstrate that the outcomes important to the mission of the
institution and the objectives of each program are being measured, analyzed, and reported. Most important, the system
must document strategies for improvement, based on the assessment results, and provide methods for the evaluation of
the implemented modifications. These are concurrent and continual processes occurring each semester. The ultimate
goal of this system is to examine and enhance the College of Engineering’s effectiveness.
Four areas, as identified by the Commission on Higher Education, are key elements to this evaluation process:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
the improvement of teaching and learning
the personal development of the students
institutional improvement
accountability
Departmental Assessment System
Each department must design and implement a structure and a process for managing the ongoing assessment of
their programs. The design should incorporate a flexible system and a process that provides for a continuous flow of
data collection, analysis and reporting. This feedback loop for quality improvement should involve broad and
appropriate constituent groups in its process and should document all activities concerning its procedures. It is also
important to document how results of the assessment instruments are used within each program.
26
The assessment processes implemented within each area should address all levels and types of infrastructure that
impact the program’s capability of meeting its outcomes. The following list of items and questions is intended to act as
a starting point for each department to articulate a process for managing the ongoing assessment of their program
objectives. Documentation of the policy/procedures, as well as the ongoing implementation of the assessment process
is critical (committee minutes, written recommendations, written summaries of outcomes, etc.).
1.
Create a management structure within the department to conduct program assessment. (Ex. Faculty
committee, all faculty, etc.) Document the work of this structure. (Meeting minutes, agendas, progress
reports, handouts, etc.)
2.
Define a process by which the management structure (composed of all of the faculty or a committee of
faculty) collects data, discusses data, makes recommendations and reports findings.
Who will receive information? Why? Articulate how/when findings will be discussed.
What happens with this information at the program/department level?
3.
Identify the assessment techniques, tools and strategies that will be used to collect the information for
the evaluation.
Relate these to the program objectives. Provide time frames. What? How? When? Why?
4.
Articulate and document the assessment outcomes.
What are the findings? How well do they measure the objectives?
To what extent were objectives achieved?
5.
Provide conclusions and recommendations.
Determine how these recommendations will be implemented and subsequently evaluated.
What are the recommendations?
How will they be implemented?
What are the follow-up procedures? When?
What was the outcome of the change that was implemented?
6.
Articulate the process for feeding back information to the faculty members, constituencies, the program
and the college. The feedback loop should also provide information regarding how actions will be
taken and the steps that will be used to re-evaluate program progress each year.
College Level Activities
A number of college-wide instruments and processes will be developed/revised, implemented and maintained to
collect data that will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of our overall effectiveness, each degree program and
student learning and growth. Information from these studies will be provided to each program, but programs must also
determine what additional assessment activities are needed to evaluate their individual objectives.
Utilizing the document given above as well as the other documents and training provided,
departments developed Assessment Plans that would fit within the structures of their program
discipline or created new structures to incorporate evaluation processes. Next, departments
developed processes to collect or receive data, analyze and interpret findings and determine
27
recommendations for no change or adjustments within the system. Departments were also expected
to determine feedback channels and to develop performance criteria for determining if program
objectives were met. The programs provide an annual evaluation of the continuous quality
improvement process within their area that indicates the extent to which objectives were achieved,
how this result was determined and follow-up plans for monitoring each adjustment. The
assessment plans developed by each program within the College are presented in the following
sections.
28
Mechanical Engineering Program
Mission and Goals
The mechanical engineering curriculum provides a strong foundation in the basic and
applied sciences and in the liberal arts, with increasing emphasis on mechanical engineering topics
in the junior and senior years. A two-semester capstone senior design experience gives the student
opportunities to integrate and apply the knowledge and skills learned throughout the mechanical
engineering curriculum.
To support the university and college goals and include an emphasis on excellence among
our regional peers, the Department of Mechanical Engineering has adopted the following mission
statement:
The mission of the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of
South Carolina is to provide students with a sound mechanical engineering
education, advance the understanding and application of scientific principles,
enhance economic development, and improve the quality of life of our citizens
through teaching, research and outreach programs.
Consistent with this mission and to prepare students for successful careers in engineering,
the Department of Mechanical Engineering maintains an academic program with the following
program educational objectives:
(1)
(2)
(3)
To educate students to apply mathematics, science and engineering principles to
solve mechanical engineering problems;
To develop the student's professional skills that enable a successful career; and
To provide the student with the broad education necessary to practice engineering
in a global and societal context.
Objectives and Outcomes
The department has made a deliberate connection between these three program objectives and 15
specific program learning outcomes so that our success at achieving the program objectives can be
determined in part by assessing the degree to which the outcomes are reached by our graduates.
Our objectives and outcomes are listed in Table 1 below.
Table 1
Objectives and Outcomes for the Mechanical Engineering Program
Objective 1: To educate the student to apply mathematics, science and engineering principles to solve
mechanical engineering problems.
Supporting Outcomes:
(1.1)
The graduates shall have the ability to analyze, design and realize mechanical and thermal systems.
(1.2)
The graduates shall have the ability to use contemporary computation techniques and tools.
29
(1.3)
(1.4)
(1.5)
(1.6)
The graduate shall have competence in design of experiments, experimental practices and data
interpretation.
The graduates shall have the ability to apply mathematics through linear algebra, multivariate calculus and
differential equations.
The graduates shall have the ability to apply statistical methods to analyze and interpret data.
The graduates shall have an understanding of the chemistry and physics that are fundamental to mechanical
engineering.
Objective 2: To develop the student's professional skills that enable a successful career.
Supporting Outcomes:
(2.1)
The graduates shall have the ability to perform engineering economic analyses.
(2.2)
The graduates shall have the ability to plan, schedule and execute engineering projects.
(2.3)
The graduates shall have effective oral and written communication skills.
(2.4)
The graduates shall have an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.
(2.5)
The graduates shall have the ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.
(2.6)
The graduates shall have an understanding of and the ability to engage in life-long learning.
Objective 3: To provide the student with the broad education necessary to practice engineering in a global
and societal context.
Supporting Outcomes:
(3.1)
The graduates shall have an appreciation for the role of engineering in modern society.
(3.2)
The graduates shall have an appreciation for literature, fine arts and humanities.
(3.3)
The graduates shall have in one foreign language the ability to comprehend the topic and main ideas on
familiar subjects.
Program Management Structure
Each educational objective has associated with it a set of specific, measurable learning
outcomes. This creates a two-part procedure for the continuous improvement of the program. The
first part is to determine the program outcomes that are necessary and sufficient to achieve the
program objectives. The second part of the continuous improvement process is to determine
achievement of the various program outcomes. A management structure for the assessment
process, as documented below, and a two-part process of outcomes assessment facilitate
improvement of the curriculum.
The management of the undergraduate program assessment process is carried out by the
department chair, three of the department's standing committees and three program area
assessment teams as shown in the organizational chart diagrammed in Figure 4.
30
Department Chair
Computing Committee
Facilities Committee
Safety Committee
Undergraduate Committee
Design and Manufacturing Program Area Team
Mechanics and Materials Program Area Team
Thermo-Fluids and Engr Analysis Program Area Team
Figure 4. Management structure for Mechanical Engineering undergraduate program improvement
All faculty participate in one of three program area assessment teams: Thermal-Fluids and
Engineering Analysis; Mechanics and Materials; and Design and Realization. Each team includes
faculty members who teach courses in those general areas. These teams support the assessment
process though course and curriculum evaluation and improvement.
The Undergraduate Committee is responsible for undergraduate courses and curriculum
assessment and improvement, for coordinating the activities of the three program area teams (see
Figure 4), and for handling undergraduate student petitions. This committee's membership is
appointed by the Department Chair and consists of at least one member from each program area
team.
The Computing Committee responsibilities include ensuring that the computational
resource infrastructure is adequate to support the delivery of the undergraduate program. The
Facilities Committee involvement consists of the management of teaching laboratory space.
Additional departmental committees are involved on an as-needed basis. The management
structure enables the program and course improvement processes shown schematically in Figure 5.
31
Program
Objectives
and
Outcomes
Course
Objectives &
Strategies
Undergraduate
Committee
Program
Change?
Disseminate
Results
Program
Strategies
and
Indicators
Program
Assessment
Results
Program Area
Teams
Course
Assessment
Data
Program
Change?
No
Yes
No
Yes
Revised
Strategies
and
Indicators
Course
Change?
Program
Assessment
No
Course
Assessment
Yes
Department
Faculty
No
Revised
Objectives,
Strategies &
Indicators
Program
Implementation
Change
Approved?
Course
Implementation
Undergraduate
Committee
Yes
Program Strategies
and Indicators
No
Change
Approved?
Yes
(a)
Course Objectives,
Strategies &
Indicators
(b)
Figure 5. The continuous quality improvement process: (a) program outcomes assessment and program improvement,
and (b) course objectives assessment and course improvement.
The first loop (a) shows the program assessment process. Program strategies are the
curriculum and courses that lead to the student outcomes. The program indicators are the
assessment measures and levels of performance desired. The second loop (b) summarizes the
process of establishing and assessing course objectives, strategies and indicators and making course
improvements. These loops are discussed below.
Program Improvement Process
The Department Chair reviews all results from the assessment instruments and determines
the areas on each survey or report that are within the responsibilities of the departmental
committees. The Chair asks the appropriate departmental committee to analyze the information and
determine the appropriate response. The committee prepares a written response that is presented at
a Department Faculty meeting. If changes are needed, the committee will prepare and make a
32
motion at a called Department Faculty meeting. Recommendations requiring coordination at the
College level will be reported to the Executive Committee by the Chair or his designee.
For example, the college-wide survey information from the student course evaluations and
senior exit survey are distributed and addressed in the following manner. The Department Chair
receives the departmental results. For results dealing with instructor performance, the Chair is
responsible for counseling faculty to make improvements. All results dealing with course content
go to the Undergraduate Committee. When appropriate, the Undergraduate Committee involves the
appropriate Program Area Team of faculty to determine the proper course of action.
The committee prepares a written report for the Chair by the end of the following semester.
Any recommendations needing faculty approval are to be made at a faculty meeting. The
recommendations consist of the problem statement, the planned activity, personnel requested for the
activity, resources needed and a time schedule for accomplishing the activity. The Chair is
responsible for providing the appropriate resources to facilitate implementation of the
recommendations. The Undergraduate Committee reexamines recommendations on an annual basis
and provides the Chair with a report outlining the impact (what was implemented, how successful it
was, what could not be implemented and why) of the activity.
Course Improvement Process
The second loop in Figure 5 shows the process by which individual courses are periodically
reviewed. The Program Area Teams are primarily responsible for reviewing and improving
individual courses in the curriculum. The primary assessment instruments for this process are the
Course Portfolios and results from the Course Surveys that are provided by the course instructor.
Changes to course objectives and strategies require approval of the Undergraduate Committee. If
the Program Area Team finds that a curriculum or course description change is required, then
faculty and university-level approval will be obtained in accordance with the process outlined in
the first loop of figure 5.
Outcomes Assessment
The Mechanical Engineering Department began formalizing its assessment plan in the
1997-1998 academic year. The assessment measures included in the plan and the status of their
implementation are shown in Table 2 below. A summary of how the assessment measures used in
1999 related to the program outcomes is presented in Table 3.
33
Table 2
Methods used to ensure achievement of the program outcomes and to obtain results to improve the effectiveness of
the program
ASSESSMENT MEASURES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Prior to
1997



Graded Coursework
USC Foreign Language Test
Course Surveys
Graduating Senior Exit Surveys
Alumni Survey
Senior Design Advisor Survey
Senior Design Student Survey
Senior Laboratory Student Survey
Course Portfolio Assessment
Employer Survey
Longitudinal Tracking Research
Implementation Year
199719981998
1999












19992000











Table 3
Relationship between assessment measures used in 1999 and Mechanical Engineering program outcomes
1.1. analyze, design and realize
1.2. computation techniques
1.3. design and interpret experiments
1.4. apply linear algebra to calculus
1.5. apply statistical methods to data
1.6. understand chemistry and physics
2.1. engineering economic analyses
2.2. plan and execute projects
2.3. oral and written communications
2.4. professional responsibility
2.5. multi-disciplinary teams
2.6. life-long learning
3.1. engineering in modern society
3.2. literature, arts, humanities
3.3. foreign language
























Senior Laboratory
Student Survey
Senior Design Student
Survey
Senior Design Advisor
Survey
Alumni Survey
Senior Exit Survey
Course Survey
USC Foreign Language
Test
Program Outcomes
Graded Coursework
Program Assessment Tools










34


















Chemical Engineering
Mission and Goals
The mission statement of the Department of Chemical Engineering was developed with the
aid of the Industrial Advisory Board in 1989, and was first published in the 1993-1994 Annual
Report. The mission statement reads as follows:
“We will develop high quality chemical engineers by continuously improving our undergraduate and graduate
programs. We will conduct world class research and innovative teaching, providing an environment for
professional development, and be an effective resource for industry, government, and academia.”
Program educational objectives are the broad characteristics or features that describe the
attributes that our Bachelor of Science graduates obtain through our program. Faculty members in
the Department of Chemical Engineering established, reviewed and improved program objectives
and published them in the University of South Carolina Undergraduate Studies Bulletin. The two
educational objectives for the Chemical Engineering program are given below:
1. Provide the student with a thorough grounding in mathematics, chemistry, and in
chemical engineering subjects.
2. Prepare the student for a professional career or graduate studies in chemical
engineering and other fields.
Objective 1 refers primarily to that technical content of the curriculum that broadly defines
Chemical Engineering education, as established by current chemical engineering practice in
industry, and as articulated by the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE):
“The program must demonstrate that graduates have: thorough grounding in
chemistry and a working knowledge of advanced chemistry such as organic, inorganic,
physical, analytical, materials chemistry, or biochemistry, selected as appropriate to the
goals of the program; working knowledge, including safety and environmental aspects, of
material and energy balances applied to chemical processes; thermodynamics of physical
and chemical equilibria; heat, mass, and momentum transfer; chemical reaction
engineering; continuous and stage-wise separation operations; process dynamics and
control; process design; and appropriate modern experimental and computing techniques.”
Objective 2 refers primarily to those additional skills, experiences, perspectives, and
training that transcend and unify the undergraduate curriculum so that the student is prepared for a
professional career after graduation. Specifically, our Bachelor of Science graduates should be
able to succeed in a career in chemical engineering (including, for example, employment in a
manufacturing plant, engineering design firm, or consulting firm). Furthermore, some of our
students may wish to pursue graduate studies in chemical engineering, or to pursue other
professional careers (such as medicine, business, or law).
35
Objectives and Outcomes
Table 4
List of program educational objectives and outcomes for Chemical Engineering
EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES
EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES
1. Provide the student a
thorough grounding in
mathematics, chemistry, and
chemical engineering
subjects.
1. Ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, chemistry, and
engineering in chemical engineering practice.
2. Understanding of chemical engineering science fundamentals.
3. Ability to design a chemical engineering system, unit, or chemical
process to meet desired needs.
4. Ability to design and conduct laboratory experiments, as well as to
analyze and interpret data using factorial design methods.
5. Ability to use chemical process simulators and other techniques,
skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for chemical engineering
practice.
2. Prepare the student for a
professional career in the
chemical process industries or
graduate studies in chemical
engineering and other fields.
6. Ability to present technical material through oral presentations with
visual aids.
7. Ability to present technical material including analysis and
conclusions through technical reports.
8. Ability to work in multi-functional teams.
9. Ability to find information and to learn independently.
10. Understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.
11. Awareness of economic, political, and social issues.
12. Ability to comprehend the topics and ideas of familiar subjects in a
foreign language.
Management Structure
The constituents and other stakeholders in the Department of Chemical Engineering monitor
the results of our program, and assist in the improvement our undergraduate program through
planning, assessment, and recommendations. Improving our program requires establishing
processes along with defining roles for the participants in those processes. The stakeholder
organization for the Chemical Engineering program has evolved over the course of several years,
principally since 1987. These individuals and committees, shown in Table 5, comprise the
infrastructure necessary for the continuous quality improvement process within the Department of
Chemical Engineering.
36
Table 5
Stakeholder Organization within the Department of Chemical Engineering




Department of Chemical Engineering
Chair
Faculty
 Undergraduate Curriculum Committee (est. 1995)
 Faculty Search Committee
 Laboratory Committee (est. 1994)
 T&P Committee
 Co-op Coordinator (est. 1997)
ECHE Industrial Advisory Board (IAB, est. 1987)
Undergraduate chemical engineering students
 Lower Division
 Upper Division
 AIChE Student Chapter
The Department Chair performs several important functions for program assessment and
improvement. These activities are itemized below:






Schedules all faculty meetings and prepares agenda items including
student petitions and suggestions for improving the undergraduate curriculum.
Reviews all course evaluations and discusses these with individual faculty members
as part of their written annual review
Appoints members to the various departmental committees
Keeps abreast of curriculum developments in the Chemical Engineering Profession
and at peer institutions
Meets each year with the department chairs from other Chemical Engineering
Departments in the Southeast
Prepares an annual report that is submitted to the Dean of the College of
Engineering
The Undergraduate Curriculum Committee is charged with the continuous improvement of
the undergraduate curriculum. For example, faculty members on this committee consider such
issues as rearranging the curriculum, modifying prerequisites, adding a new elective course, etc.
Program Improvement Processes
The specific processes for monitoring and improving our program objectives and the
involvement of the various participants in those processes are outlined in Table 6. The table
provides a summary of the specific processes we use, identifies the primary leader responsible for
scheduling and assuring that the process takes place, the participants (including committees and
offices as described above), and the primary documentation of the various processes.
37
Table 6
Monitoring and Improving Program Educational Objectives: Processes, Leaders, Participants, and Documentation
Process
IAB meetings (est. 1987)
Leaders
Dean and Dept.
Chair
Participants
Chair, faculty, students,
industrial members of
the advisory board
Strategic planning day
(est. 1987)
Course review sessions
(est. 1994)
Dept. Chair
Faculty, facilitator from
Industry
Faculty
Southeast dept. heads
meeting
Senior surveys (est. 1998)
SE Dept. Heads
Dept. Chair
Assessment
office/COE
AIChE
Dept. Chair
Assessment
office/COE
Dept. Chair
Dept. Chair, faculty,
alumni
Faculty, students
Faculty
Faculty, AIChE, ASEE,
other professional
society
Faculty
AIChE initial placement
survey
Alumnae/Alumni survey
(est. 1998)
Student advising (est.
1989)
AIChE, ASEE, or other
professional
society
meeting/pubs
Faculty Meetings
Dept. Chair
Chair
Dept. Chair, faculty,
students
Faculty, students
Documentation
IAB Minutes;
Annual Report;
State of Dept.
notes
Planning day
minutes
Files for courses;
UG Student
Handbook
Report
Summary report
Summary table for
AIChE
Summary report
Student’s files
Various minutes of
the ECHE
meetings
Faculty meeting
minutes
Strategic Planning Day - Established in 1987, faculty members discuss long-range plans and
strategies, and discuss major issues facing the department. The meeting concludes with a set of
action items and recommendations for further study and possible action. One of the Industry
Advisory Board members, who also attend this retreat, provides a professional staff person to
facilitate the day’s activities. Minutes of the meeting provide a permanent record that is kept on
file in the department office.
Course Review Sessions - At least once each year, but typically twice each year, the Chemical
Engineering faculty hold a “Course Review” meeting. These meetings were instituted in 1994.
The purpose of these sessions is for the faculty to review the course syllabi, exchange ideas on
teaching innovations, and to review the performance of students in our courses. At these meetings,
the faculty members review the performance of students in the chemical engineering courses and
gain an overall perspective on students’ understanding of chemical engineering science
fundamentals. Because chemical engineering courses require knowledge of mathematics, science,
and general engineering, these reviews provide the faculty an opportunity to assess whether the
students are adequately prepared to perform well in chemical engineering courses. The Course
Reviews also provide a forum for discussing prerequisites, performance of students in team
settings, availability and suitability of computers and software, recent initiatives from industry and
the chemical engineering profession, etc. The notes and materials from the course review sessions
are kept on file in the department office.
38
Senior Surveys - Within ECHE, the faculty members receive a copy of the summary and the
tabular report of results, and the faculty members analyze and discuss these results at faculty
meetings, Advisory Board meetings, or Planning Days as necessary. The Department takes
internal action and institutes corrective measures when improvements are needed. The Department
also notes positive findings and endeavors to maintain positive processes and approaches.
AIChE Initial Placement Survey - The national headquarters of AIChE distributes a survey asking
academic departments to report the initial placement of their Bachelor of Science graduates.
Categories of placement include industrial (materials, biotechnology, chemicals, fuels, etc.),
government (federal, state, local), graduate school, returned overseas, unknown employment, other
employment, and unemployed. The data are collected from graduating students directly or through
faculty and staff. This report provides the faculty with an ongoing record of the success of
students in placement, and trends in placement and is kept on file in the department office.
Alumnae/Alumni Survey – This survey was initially administered in the Fall 1998 semester to
1995 College of Engineering graduates. The Alumnae/Alumni survey is given to graduates who
have been working or attending graduate/professional school for three years. A report analyzing
and synthesizing the survey findings are distributed to each program by the COEIT Office of
Assessment.
Student Advising -All Chemical Engineering undergraduate students are assigned a Department of
Chemical Engineering faculty academic advisor. Students are required to meet with their advisor a
minimum of one time per semester, during the two Advising Weeks scheduled by the COE. At this
time advisors review the students files, which contain an updated, unofficial transcript, list of
courses currently being taken, and forms for tracking the student’s progress toward completing
Lower Division, Upper Division, and humanities/social studies requirements. The faculty advisor
checks grades for acceptable progress including meeting course prerequisites. These meetings also
provide an opportunity for the advisor and the student to discuss the profession in general,
including possible co-op and summer intern opportunities. This meeting is also an opportunity for
them to discuss the student’s career objectives and the objectives and educational outcomes of the
ECHE program. The results of this process, including transcripts, are documented in the student’s
file.
Additional Assessment Methodologies
For ease of reference, the following table summarizes the various assessment methods
utilized to obtain quantitative and qualitative data for each outcome.
39
Table 7
Assessment Method and Process
Method of Assessing & Insuring
Achievement of Objective
COSM monitors math, science
prerequisites and grades
Advising: Monitor prerequisites,
progress
Individual course assignments and
evaluation of homework, exams,
projects, experiments, oral
presentations, written reports, or
design projects
Faculty Course Review Days
End of semester student course
evaluations
Senior Survey
Student confidential evaluations of
team members’ performance
Data Associated with Assessment Method
Location of Data
Student grades in all math & science courses;
transcripts
Student transcripts, advising files, upper and
lower division course requirements, degree
checks
Student or team work, instructor grades &
comments
Student files/UG
Student Services
Student files/UG
Student Services
Course-specific notes including syllabi and
recommendations for improvement
Tabulations and statistical summaries of student
responses; student written comments
Student responses to directed questions
Student confidential evaluation forms
ECHE Office
ECHE Department/
Faculty member
records
ECHE Office
ECHE Office
ECHE Department/
Faculty member
records
Improving Program Effectiveness
Quality improvement processes for the Department of Chemical Engineering have been
utilized extensively and effectively for identifying and implementing changes that are designed to
improve the overall effectiveness of the program in achieving its educational objectives. The
following table lists many of the needs that have been identified by our constituents, the actions
that have been taken, and the changes in our program that have resulted. The table also shows
which processes have been involved in identifying and implementing changes. All of the items are
documented in the minutes and summary reports mentioned above.
40
Table 8
Documented Changes and Improvements Resulting From Quality Improvement Processes
Improvement Needed
Process(es) Involved
Action(s)
Result(s)
Growth in number of faculty
to maintain quality of program
with increased research
Increased practical experience
and desirability of our
graduates to industry
IAB, Strategic
Planning Day
Five-year plan written
IAB, Strategic
Planning Day,
faculty/student
advising
Faculty to better understand
the curriculum and the
input/output skills of students;
communicate expectations to
students
More flexibility in chemistry
sequence
Course Review
Day
More engineering electives
desired
Student advising;
professional
society
Course review
days; student
advising; faculty
meetings
Course review
days; professional
societies; IAB;
student advising
Appointed co-op coordinator,
educated faculty on co-op
program, increased emphasis on
co-op during advising;
developed curriculum flow
sheets for co-op students
Input/output skills discussed &
articulated; UG Handbook
written and updated annually;
established UG Curriculum
Committee
Changed required 2-semeseter
Physical Chemistry sequence to
2 semesters of advanced
Chemical Electives; developed
list of acceptable electives
Changed Dynamics (ENGR 210)
from required to elective course
Faculty increased from 7 to 14 from
1987 to 1997; 1 new faculty hire for
Fall 99
Number of co-op participants
increased from 8 (AY96-97) to 26
(AY 97-98) and18 (AY 98-99)
Prerequisite sequence causing
heavy burdens in junior/senior
year; interference w/ capstone
design & safety
Lab courses need to provide
reinforcement of
fundamentals and more
structured approach to writing
and oral presentations
Students interested in
environmental issues
Professional
society; IAB;
student advising
Student advising;
faculty meetings;
professional
society
Revised ENGR prerequisites;
rearranged courses; moved
ECHE 550 to junior year
Established UO Committee; rewrote UO Lab Manual and
restructured course
Created new course (ENGR 540)
as allowed engineering elective
41
Faculty better understand the
curriculum and expectations of
students; better coordination across
the curriculum
2 semesters of elective chemistry
available; students are taking
electives
Students have one additional
engineering elective course; students
are taking additional electives
More flexibility and fewer hours in
the senior year
Clearly defined educational, writing,
and speaking objectives; more
structured course; several new
experiments added; UO Lab
manager hired
Offered course two times since 1995
Civil Engineering Program
Mission and Goals
The Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering developed its five-year strategic
plan in November 1995. In order to support the University and College missions, the CEE
Department adopted the following mission statement.
The mission of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering program is to:

Provide quality and essential education to undergraduate and graduate students
through formal classes and supporting life-long learning through continuing
education short courses and workshops.

Encourage and support research that will contribute to the competence and
professional development of the faculty and broaden the body of engineering
knowledge and methods.

Provide service to the college and university, local, state and federal governments,
and private industry, and supporting professional organizations and society.
Objectives and Outcomes
Table 9
Civil Engineering Program Objectives and Outcomes
OBJECTIVES
1.
Provide an education in which the
students will be able to integrate
fundamental mathematics and science
concepts to understand and solve civil
engineering problems.
OUTCOMES
(Small letters = ABET criteria)
(Capital letters = ASCE Program criteria)
1.1 The graduates will have the ability to apply
mathematics through vector calculus and
differential equations to solve engineering
problems. (a, e, k – A)
1.2 The graduates will have the ability to apply
probabilistic and statistical methods to analyze and
interpret data. (a, e, k – A)
1.3 The graduates will have the ability to apply an
understanding of calculus-based physics and
general chemistry to solve engineering problems.
(a, e, k – A)
42
2.
Provide an education in which the
students acquire and apply broad-based
knowledge of fundamental principles in
a minimum of four discipline areas of
civil engineering to the solution of
complex practical engineering problems.
2.1 The graduates will have the ability to identify,
formulate and solve engineering problems within
the environmental, geotechnical, structural and
water resources discipline areas. (a, e, k – A, B)
2.2 The graduates will have the ability to analyze and
design civil engineering systems. (c, e, j, k – B, D)
2.3 The graduates will have the ability to design and
conduct experiments, and to analyze and interpret
data within the various civil engineering
disciplines. (b, j, k – C, B, D)
3.
Provide a broad education that prepares
the students for the future challenges of
the Civil Engineering profession.
3.1 The graduates will have an appreciation for the
role of engineering in history and modern society.
(h, j)
3.2 The graduates will have an appreciation for
literature, fine arts, and humanities. (g, h, j)
3.3 The graduates will have the ability to comprehend
the topics and ideas of familiar subjects in a
foreign language. (h)
4.
Provide an education that develops
business and other professional skills
necessary to practice engineering.
4.1 The graduates will have the ability to plan,
schedule and execute engineering projects. (k, d, g
– D, E)
4.2 The graduates will have the ability to perform
engineering economic analyses. (k – D, E)
4.3 The graduates will have the ability to function on
multi-disciplinary teams. (d – D, E)
4.4 The graduates will develop oral and written
communication skills. (g – E)
4.5 The graduates will have an understanding of
professional and ethical responsibility. (f – E)
4.6 The graduates will have the ability to engage in
life-long learning. (I – E)
4.7 The graduates will have the ability to use modern
tools and techniques to solve engineering
problems. (k)
Management Structure
As shown in the following organizational chart (Figure 6), the management structure of the
Department is facilitated by the Department Chair, an Undergraduate Program Director, and four
sub-disciplinary Program Coordinators.
43
Department Chair
Undergraduate Program Director
Undergraduate Program Committee
Environmental
Program
Structures
Program
Geotechnical
Program
Water Resources
Program
Figure 6. Organization Chart
The Undergraduate Program Director is responsible for student advising, student
enrollment, and awards and scholarships. The Undergraduate Program Committee is responsible
for the undergraduate program, courses, and curriculum assessment and improvement. Except
for the College-wide committees that have been described in previous sections, the following
table outlines additional department and college offices and committees that support the
Department’s operations and help facilitate the continuous quality improvement of the program.
44
Table 10
Supporting Assessment Infrastructure for the Civil Engineering Program
Type of
Committee
Committee/
Principal Responsibility
Organization
Advisory Committee
Standing
Program coordinators advise the Department Chair on all
issues pertaining to the operation of the department.
Undergraduate Program
Director and
Undergraduate Program
Committee
Standing
The director is responsible for student advising, student
enrollment, and awards and scholarships. The committee is
the caretaker of all assessment processes for the undergraduate
curriculum.
Strategic Planning
Committee
Graduate Program Director
and Graduate Studies
Committee
Ad Hoc
Student Advisory
Committee
Coordinator of Community
Activities
Industrial Advisory Board
Standing
Undergraduate Curriculum
Committee
Ad Hoc
Partnership Board
Twice per
year
Engineering Career
Services
Two full-time
College
positions
Charged to review and revise the Department’s 1995 Strategic
Five-year Plan.
The Director is responsible for graduate student advisement,
evaluation of applications, clearing students for a degree,
coordination of examinations, and nomination of graduate
students for awards and fellowships. The committee is directly
involved in all aspects of the graduate program.
Advises Department Chair about special concerns of students
and provides input concerning the curriculum.
The coordinator is responsible for facilitating service projects
for undergraduate students.
Advise and help the department improve the program. The
committee meets twice per year and provides expertise to
improve the department in the areas of research, curriculum.
Placement, and fund raising.
Charged to review, revise and update the curriculum to prepare
CEE undergraduates for engineering practice in the 21 st
century.
Comprised of individuals who have achieved leadership roles
in industry and engineering from around the state and nation.
Advise and help the college improve the programs. The board
provides expertise to improve the college in the areas of
research, curriculum, placement, and fund raising.
This office is a branch of the University Career Services office.
Engineering Career Services is the liaison between our
programs and prospective employers from industry and
government. Engineering Career Services is also responsible
for locating companies that wish to employ co-op students and
summer interns.
Standing
Standing
Standing
Assessment System Overview
The Civil Engineering Program Assessment System was adopted in the 1998-99 academic
year. The assessment process captures the Two-Loop Model (shown below) proposed by ABET
(EC2000) by applying continuous quality improvement to the development and assessment of
program objectives and outcomes.
45
The left-hand loop describes the establishment, assessment and continuous quality
improvement of the program objectives. A two-part evaluation procedure for the program
objectives is based on the relationship of the measurable program outcomes to the program
objectives. The first part is to determine the program outcomes that are necessary and sufficient to
achieve the program objectives. This is an integral part of the process of establishing and
periodically evaluating the program objectives described earlier and includes input from the
program's constituencies.
The second part of the evaluation procedure for the program objectives is to determine
achievement of the various program outcomes. The CEE Department has adopted assessment
measures that include:









Instructor grades
Faculty evaluation of course portfolios
Course survey
Senior exit survey
Alumni survey
Employer focus groups/ employer survey
Summary of the FE Exam Results (Report 5)
Transcript analysis and student advising
Industrial Advisory Board (IAB) input
46
The following assessment schedule has been adopted to evaluate data from these assessment
measures.
Table 11
Schedule for assessment methodologies within the Civil Engineering Program
Assessment Instrument
Frequency
Source
Action
Senior Survey
Semester
College
Alumni Survey
Annual
College
FE Exam Summary
Semiannual
State/College
Semester
College/students
Summarize, review
UGPC*, save
Summarize, review
UGPC, save
Summarize, review
UGPC, save
Summarize, review
chairperson
Semester
Department/
instructors
Review by UGPC, save
Semester
Department/
instructors
Save
Course Survey
(Student
Evaluation
Instructor and Course)
Course Portfolio
(Course
evaluation
improvement )
Instructor Grades
(Evaluation of Students)
of
and
by
by
by
by
* UGPC- Undergraduate Program Committee
A schematic of the annual assessment processes within the Civil Engineering Program is
presented below.
LEVEL
INPUT
RESPONSE
Constituent Formal
Assessment Input
Department Chair
Initial Qualitative Review
Undergraduate
Program Committee
Qualitative Review,
Evaluation of
Assessment Data,
FEEDBACK
Constituents
Action as Required
Evaluate in Context
of Department
Action as Required
Evaluate in Context
of Programs
Dissemination of Data
Sub-disciplinary
Programs
Evaluation of
Assessment Data
47
Individual Faculty
Portfolio
Evaluation of
Assessment Data
Action as Required
Modify Course
Informal Anecdotal
Student Input
Figure 7 CEE Assessment Process
Results Used to Improve Program Effectiveness
The process to annually review the program’s objectives and outcomes includes soliciting
input from the IAB, students, alumnae/alumni and employers. Mechanisms for obtaining and
analyzing this input are being phased-in. The CEE Assessment System comprises the following
steps:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Develop objectives with constituents
Publish objectives
Acquire data
Interpret data
Improve program/curriculum
Improve measurement tools
Modify program objectives and/or outcomes
Report to constituents
Review input from constituents
Formal assessment input is generated at a number of constituent sources and introduced to the
department through the Chair. Initially, the Chair reviews this information qualitatively to ensure a
level of continuity throughout the department and to maintain confidentiality when necessary. The
Chair then disseminates the filtered assessment data to the Undergraduate Program Committee for
qualitative review and dissemination to the appropriate sub-disciplinary Program Coordinators.
Each Program Coordinator reviews and disseminates the data to the appropriate faculty members
within the program for individual evaluation. The individual faculty may also receive anecdotal
assessment information from students.
Evaluation of the assessment data as it passes through each level of the department may
result in a record of recommended strategies and actions to be implemented at one of three levels.
The Department Chair and/or the Undergraduate Program Committee may recommend an action
based upon how the assessment data relate to the departmental program objectives. At another
level, the Program Coordinators, program members, and individual faculty may recommend an
action depending on how the assessment data relates to the sub-disciplinary program goals and
objectives. The last level involves actions by the individual faculty based on how the assessment
data and/or anecdotal student information relate to the course; an action at this level will result in
modification of the course portfolio.
48
Annually, the Undergraduate Program Committee meets to review the assessment results
and recommendations and provide an executive summary of the impact of the assessment
judgments to the Department Chair. The Undergraduate Program Committee may also
recommend changes to the educational objectives of the department, which will go to the
Department Chair for consideration by the Department Faculty. Recommendations, such as course
or curriculum changes, requiring coordination or approval at the college or university level, will be
reported through the Department Chair to the appropriate committee according to University
policies and procedures.
The achievement of the program objectives is assessed at various levels:

Each student’s achievement of the course objectives is evaluated by graded performance on
examinations, homework, projects, presentations, etc. Course portfolios are maintained by the
faculty. The portfolios contain information such as the course syllabi, course objectives, other
administrative material, and examples of student work.

Using feedback from the students, instructors evaluate each course to verify that it meets the
requirements within the curriculum and program. These evaluations are also available in the
course portfolio.

Through the Undergraduate Program Committee, faculty members evaluate the curriculum to
determine the extent to which program objectives have been achieved.

The evaluation by the various constituencies provides a measure of program effectiveness in
meeting their individual needs.
49
Electrical Engineering
Mission and Goals
The Department of Electrical Engineering has, as its mission, to:

Provide undergraduate and professional education through programs that prepare students
for the workplace, stress the development of the total person, and begin a process of
lifelong learning.

Provide graduate education and training in the skills of advanced research.

Contribute to the base of technical knowledge by conducting research and scholarship and
by disseminating the results of those programs.

Support the engineering professions by service in the appropriate professional
organizations.

Serve the needs of the state and region by appropriate outreach programs and by support
for industrial development.
The first bullet of the mission statement is the focus of the present discussion because it targets
undergraduate education. The undergraduate component specifies three key areas: preparation for
the workplace, development of the total person, and lifelong learning. Three broadly stated goals
were derived from our mission statement. For each goal, faculty members developed program
objectives and student learning outcomes.
Objectives and Outcomes
The program objectives are intended to drive the development of specific desired outcomes.
The program goals, objectives, outcomes, and strategies and actions are listed in the following
section. The letter(s) in parenthesis cross-indexes to the EC2000 Criterion 3 paragraph a-k.
GOAL 1: Broad Undergraduate Education
Objective 1.: The student will develop an awareness of the world around us as necessary to
practice engineering in a global economy
Desired Outcome 1.1: The student will develop a career plan that recognizes current
trends in engineering.
Strategies and Actions: The student will place a written discussion of how current
events might affect her or his career plan in the career-planning portfolio (g,h,i,j)
Objective 2: The student will study arts, humanities, foreign language, science and
mathematics
Desired Outcome 2.1: The student will successfully complete the required science and
mathematics curriculum.
Strategies and Actions: The student will successfully complete the courses (a, h)
50
Desired Outcome 2.2: The student will successfully complete the humanities
curriculum.
Strategies and Actions: The student will successfully complete the courses (h)
GOAL 2: Engineering Skills Showing Breadth and Depth
Objective 3: The student will actively participate in a broad educational experience in the
fundamentals of engineering with emphasis on electrical engineering
Desired Outcome 3.1: The student will maintain a portfolio that documents his/her
academic career. The student will maintain documentation in the portfolio that
demonstrates a clear plan for successful negotiation of the curriculum.
Strategies and Actions: The portfolio will be examined each semester as part of the
advisement process. A checklist will be maintained by the department to ensure
that all requirements are met. The student is responsible for maintaining the
portfolio. (g, h, i, j, k)
Desired Outcome 3.2: The student will demonstrate an ability to apply knowledge of
mathematics, science and engineering.
Strategies and Actions: Many of the courses in engineering support this; however,
each of the EE core courses (211, 212, 221, 222, 331, 351 and 371) are sufficient to
demonstrate this ability. The student must successfully complete all these courses
to graduate. (a)
Desired Outcome 3.3: The student will demonstrate an ability to design and conduct
experiments, including analyzing and interpreting data.
Strategies and Actions: The EE laboratory courses (201, 301, 401, 402) require the
student to design and conduct a wide variety of experiments, to analyze the results
and to draw conclusions. The student who successfully completes 402 has
demonstrated this ability. (b)
Desired Outcome 3.4: The student will demonstrate an ability design a system, device
or process to meet desired needs.
Strategies and Actions: The junior and senior EE laboratory courses (301, 302, 401,
402) require the student to perform elements of design. The capstone laboratory
sequence 401 and 402 require that two designs be put to test in hardware. (c)
Desired Outcome 3.5: The student will demonstrate an ability to identify, formulate
and solve engineering problems.
Strategies and Actions: The capstone laboratory sequence 401-402 requires the
student to solve a problem, beginning at the level of identifying the nature of the
problem, formulating a solution to it, constructing appropriate hardware and
software, testing the system, and reporting results. (e, k)
Objective 4: The student will study, in depth, one or more areas of electrical engineering.
Desired Outcome 4.1: The student will plan which elective courses he or she will take.
Strategies and Actions: In the advisement process, the second-semester junior
students will create a plan for elective courses and place it in their career-planning
51
portfolios. The senior students will maintain a current plan document in their
portfolios. (g, h, i)
Desired Outcome 4.2: The student will successfully complete the elective courses
specified by the curriculum.
Strategies and Actions: The student will successfully complete the elective courses.
(a, e, k)
GOAL 3: Professional Skills
Objective 5: The student will demonstrate abilities to communicate effectively and to work
as a productive member of teams.
Desired Outcome 5.1: The student will demonstrate an ability to function on multidisciplinary teams.
Strategies and Actions: The student will work on multidisciplinary teams in the
following courses: EECE 221, EECE 401-402. In the latter two, the student will
perform a multidisciplinary design on a team with Computer Engineering students.
(d)
Desired Outcome 5.2: The student will demonstrate an ability to communicate
effectively.
Strategies and Actions: Throughout the laboratory sequence, the student will be
graded on communication (both written and oral skills). Students who successfully
complete the laboratory sequence will demonstrate this ability. In particular, the
ECE Writing Center introduces writing styles in EECE 201. Writing Center
consultants, the laboratory Teaching Assistants, and the instructor meet at the end
of each term to review reports and quiz results, and to make recommendations for
changes the following semester. (g)
Desired Outcome 5.3: The student will demonstrate an understanding of professional
and ethical responsibility.
Strategies and Actions: A reflective writing exercise on engineering professional
ethics will be included in the senior laboratory sequence (f, g). An elective course
Ethics in Science and Engineering is offered by the Philosophy department, which
also may be used to demonstrate this ability.
Objective 6: The student will demonstrate the ability to engage in career-long professional
development.
Desired Outcome 6.1: The student will demonstrate the ability to build on previous
experience and to begin work in a new field.
Strategies and Actions: The laboratory sequence requires the student to solve
problems requiring knowledge beyond that covered in the curriculum course work.
52
Program Management Structure
Overview of the Assessment Process
The educational objectives are the primary forcing functions for desired outcomes and for
strategies and actions. The desired outcomes flow directly from the objectives, the strategies
and actions flow from the desired outcomes, the curriculum and other learning experiences
flow from the strategies and actions, and the actual outcomes are produced by the students as
they progress through the curriculum and other experiences. Finally, an assessment process is
used to measure the actual outcomes, which are compared to the desired outcomes. Corrective
actions are taken whenever there are serious differences between the desired and actual
outcomes, thus closing the continual quality improvement loop.
The figure below shows a high-level view of the continual quality improvement loops. The
loop on the left shows setting educational objectives using input from constituencies or
stakeholders, while the loop on the right shows setting desired outcomes based on the
objectives, designing curriculum, and measuring the actual outcomes. Note that the block in
the middle has several functions, but its main function is to tie the two loops together so that
the system works coherently.
Determine outcomes
required to achieve
objectives
Determine
educational
objectives
Determine
strategies and
actions to achieve
desired outcomes
Evaluate /
Assess
Input from
constituencies
Measure actual
outcomes
Formal instruction
and other
student experience
Figure 8. Diagram showing assessment loops.
A graphical view of the process for setting desired outcomes and measuring actual
outcomes is given in the figure below, which draws a formal analogy to a closed-loop control
Figure 8. Diagram showing assessment loops.
53
system. Of course, this analogy should not be stretched too far, since the students and faculty
are people and not mechanisms, but it is helpful in presenting the concepts of desired and
actual outcomes. The desired outcomes are compared, using some metrics, to the actual
outcomes, and corrective actions are taken to make the actual outcomes track the desired
outcomes.
Mission
Desired
Metrics
Goals &
Objectives
Desired
Outcomes
Measures
and Metrics
+
Actual
Outcomes

-
External
Assessment
Information
Strategies
and Actions
Measured
Outcomes
Measures
and Metrics
Figure 9 Analogy between continual quality improvement loop and closed-loop control system.
Equally important is a conceptual framework for the continual quality improvement. We
have been using the Capability Maturity Model [Paulk et al., "Capability Maturity Model,
Version 1.1," IEEE Software, Vol. 10, No. 4, July 1993, pp. 18-27], described by CarnegieMellon Software Institute for assessment of software developers' processes, as such a
conceptual framework for the evaluation of our academic processes. Figure B-3 shows the
maturity levels of a hypothetical process. There is empirical evidence, at least in the case of
software developers, that processes at a maturity level of 3 or above tend to stay at a high level,
while those that are lower tend to fall back to a lower level. Thus, our goal is to strive to
improve the maturity level of all the key academic processes to reach a level of 3 or higher.
Continual process improvement
5. Optimizing
Measure process and product
Establish a standard process
Establish project management controls
4. Managed
3. Defined
2. Repeatable
1. Initial
Figure 10. The Capability Maturity Model
54
Assessment System Procedures
The department chair has the primary responsibility to collect and disseminate assessment data
to the departmental faculty members. The department analyzes findings from the Course Survey,
the Senior Survey, the Alumnae/Alumni Survey, Employer Focus Groups, Faculty Surveys, the
Entering Student Questionnaire and information from Student Longitudinal Tracking Studies.
Each semester, the students are asked to provide input by completing Course/Instructor
Evaluations, which provide immediate input to faculty concerning course-level objectives. The
senior students are surveyed just before graduation, which provides useful summary assessment
data. Recent alumni are surveyed to provide a longer-range view of the program.
Each year, the Electrical Engineering Program Committee, consisting of all faculty members
associated with the Electrical Engineering curriculum, reviews the Electrical Engineering
curriculum. This committee meets every semester, and more often if the Program Chair calls a
meeting, to discuss the curriculum ensuring that faculty members allocate sufficient time to each
subject area. This review determines the extent to which supporting outcomes have been achieved
during that academic year.
The challenge is to make ideas of continual improvement work in an environment where one
major constituency, the faculty itself, defends the idea of academic freedom with great vigor. It is
our intention, then, to maintain fairly strict control over a subset of the required courses in our
undergraduate curriculum, especially the laboratory sequences. In fact, this control already exists,
and we merely exploit it for our purposes. Also included will be the required introductory
sophomore and junior courses. This control will guarantee that the needed material will be
covered, that all students will have the needed variety of experiences in and out of the classroom,
and that faculty will still have great freedom in the advanced courses and electives.
Notwithstanding this freedom, all faculty and all courses will be expected to use the quality
improvement ideas; there will simply be less reliance on the elective courses to meet program
objectives and more reliance on the controlled subset.
The Department Chair calls a meeting of the faculty to (initially) establish, review and revise
the educational objectives. This meeting takes place at least once each academic year near the end
of the Spring Semester, but each semester if more rapid changes are indicated (at the discretion of
the chair). At this meeting the faculty and the chair may submit proposed changes to the
educational objectives. The chair may inform the faculty of administrative constraints (e.g.
budgetary constraints) and present results of student surveys, alumni surveys, senior exit surveys,
and discussions with the industrial advisory board and information from recruiters, industrial
contacts, and the state government. The proposed changes are discussed and approved by vote of
the faculty.
In addition to the instruments mentioned previously, the Electrical Engineering Department
also utilizes various other assessment methodologies. Some of these are discussed in the following
paragraphs.
Career Planning Portfolio - The student maintains the portfolio and it is reviewed, during
the advisement period, by the department staff member assigned to advisement. We are just
55
beginning the institution of this portfolio system, and there will undoubtedly be changes, but those
changes will flow from our outcomes assessment process in a natural way over time.
The EE Writing Center - The EE Writing Center is also an important mechanism for
creating and maintaining assessment tools. Since its inception in the fall of 1995, the center has
been actively participating in EECE 201 students' writing and communication skills. These
assessment tools include: essay prompts that ask students to write about a learning experience;
primary trait scoring sheets; and questionnaires for students designed to gather information about
the writing instruction in the course.
Capstone Design Project - This is the rite of passage for the entire program. Each team
(typically four students) is given the current IEEE specifications for the autonomous robot. They
are responsible for: (1) managing a team, (2) designing and realizing a vehicle that meets
specifications, (3) managing a budget, and (4) a formal report on the project. The teams will
provide any parts and components required for the project. Teamwork, communications, and
project management are stressed throughout the term. Project teams are required to have regularly
scheduled meetings among themselves. Special meetings may be held with the laboratory
instructors.
56
Computer Engineering Programs
The Department of Computer Science and Computer Engineering has, as its mission, to:

Provide undergraduate and professional education through programs that prepare students
for the workplace, stress the development of the total person, and begin a process of
lifelong learning.

Provide graduate education and training in the skills of advanced research.

Contribute to the base of technical knowledge by conducting research and scholarship and
by disseminating the results of those programs.

Support the engineering professions by service in the appropriate professional
organizations.

Serve the needs of the state and region by appropriate outreach programs and by support
for industrial development.
The first bullet of the mission statement targets undergraduate education and is the focus
of the present discussion. The undergraduate component specifies three key areas: preparation for
the workplace, development of the total person, and lifelong learning. Three broadly stated goals
were derived from our mission statement. They are listed below.
GOAL 1: Broad Undergraduate Education
GOAL 2: Engineering Skills Showing Breadth and Depth
GOAL 3: Professional Skills
For each goal, faculty members developed program objectives. The Computer Engineering
Program outcomes are listed below. Each educational objective is listed, followed by the desired
outcomes associated with that objective, followed by the strategies and actions used to obtain that
outcome. The letter in parenthesis cross-indexes to the EC2000 Criterion 3 paragraph a-k.
Objective 1.: The student will develop an awareness of the world around us as necessary to
practice engineering in a global economy
Desired Outcome 1.1: The student will develop a career plan that recognizes current
trends in engineering.
Strategies and Actions: The student will place a written discussion of how current
events might affect her or his career plan in the career-planning portfolio (g, h, i, j)
Objective 2: The student will study arts, humanities, foreign language, science and
mathematics
Desired Outcome 2.1: The student will successfully complete the required science and
mathematics curriculum.
57
Strategies and Actions: The student will successfully complete the courses (a, h)
Desired Outcome 2.2: The student will successfully complete the humanities
curriculum.
Strategies and Actions: The student will successfully complete the courses (h)
Objective 3: The student will actively participate in a broad educational experience in the
fundamentals of engineering with emphasis on electrical and computer engineering
Desired Outcome 3.1: The student will maintain a portfolio that documents his/her
academic career. The student will maintain documentation in the portfolio that
demonstrates a clear plan for successful negotiation of the curriculum.
Strategies and Actions: The portfolio will be examined each semester as part of the
advisement process. A checklist will be maintained by the department to ensure
that all requirements are met. The student is responsible for maintaining the
portfolio. (g, h, i, j, k)
Desired Outcome 3.2: The student will demonstrate an ability to apply knowledge of
mathematics, science and engineering.
Strategies and Actions: Many of the courses in engineering support this; however,
each of the ECE core courses (211, 212, 221, 222, 331, 351 and 371) are sufficient
to demonstrate this ability. The student must successfully complete all these
courses to graduate. (a)
Desired Outcome 3.3: The student will demonstrate an ability to design and conduct
experiments, including analyzing and interpreting data.
Strategies and Actions: The ECE laboratory courses (201, 301, 403, 404) require
the student to design and conduct a wide variety of experiments, to analyze the
results and to draw conclusions. The student who successfully completes 404 has
demonstrated this ability. (b)
Desired Outcome 3.4: The student will demonstrate an ability design a system, device
or process to meet desired needs.
Strategies and Actions: The junior and senior ECE laboratory courses (301, 403,
404) require the student to perform elements of design. The capstone laboratory
sequence 403 and 404 require that two designs be put to test in hardware. (c)
Desired Outcome 3.5: The student will demonstrate an ability to identify, formulate
and solve engineering problems.
Strategies and Actions: The capstone laboratory sequence 403-404 requires the
student to solve a problem, beginning at the level of identifying the nature of the
problem, formulating a solution to it, constructing appropriate hardware and
software, testing the system, and reporting results. (e, k)
Objective 4: The student will study, in depth, one or more areas of computer engineering.
Desired Outcome 4.1: The student will plan which elective courses he or she will take.
Strategies and Actions: In the advisement process, the second-semester junior
students will create a plan for elective courses and place it in their career-planning
58
portfolios. The senior students will maintain a current plan document in their
portfolios. (g, h, i)
Desired Outcome 4.2: The student will successfully complete the elective courses
specified by the curriculum.
Strategies and Actions: The student will successfully complete the elective courses.
(a, e, k)
Objective 5: The student will demonstrate abilities to communicate effectively and to work
as a productive member of teams.
Desired Outcome 5.1: The student will demonstrate an ability to function on multidisciplinary teams.
Strategies and Actions: The student will work on multidisciplinary teams in the
following courses: EECE 221, EECE 401-402. In the latter two, the student will
perform a multidisciplinary design on a team with Computer Engineering students.
(d)
Desired Outcome 5.2: The student will demonstrate an ability to communicate
effectively.
Strategies and Actions: Throughout the laboratory sequence, the student will be
graded on communication (both written and oral skills). The students who
successfully completes the laboratory sequence will have demonstrated this ability.
In particular, the EE Writing Center introduces writing styles in EECE 201.
Writing Center consultants, the laboratory Teaching Assistants, and the instructor
meet at the end of each term to review reports and quiz results, and to make
recommendations for changes the following semester. (g)
Desired Outcome 5.3: The student will demonstrate an understanding of professional
and ethical responsibility.
Strategies and Actions: A reflective writing exercise on engineering professional
ethics will be included in the senior laboratory sequence (f, g). An elective course
Ethics in Science and Engineering is offered by the Philosophy department, which
also may be used to demonstrate this ability.
Objective 6: The student will demonstrate the ability to engage in career-long professional
development.
Desired Outcome 6.1: The student will demonstrate the ability to build on previous
experience and to begin work in a new field.
Strategies and Actions: The laboratory sequence requires the student to solve
problems requiring knowledge beyond that covered in the curriculum course work.
(i)
59
Assessment System
The process for establishment, review and revision of the educational objectives is shown
graphically as the left-hand loop in the following diagram.
Determine
educational
objectives
Determine outcomes
required to achieve
objectives
Determine
strategies and
actions to achieve
desired outcomes
Evaluate /
Assess
Input from
constituencies
Measure actual
outcomes
Formal instruction
and other
student experience
Figure 11 Diagram Showing Assessment Loops
Two continual
quality improvement loops:
left side shows process for setting educational
The Department Chair calls a meeting of the faculty to (initially) establish, review and
objectives;
right side
shows
process
for
revise the educational objectives.
This meeting
takes
place at least
oncesetting
each academic year
near
the
end
of
the
Spring
Semester,
but
each
semester
if
more
rapid
changes
are indicated (at
desired
outcomes
and
measuring
actual
outcomes
the discretion of the chair). The University Board of Trustees has given primary responsibility
for the curriculum to the faculty; thus the faculty associated with the program must approve
changes to the educational objectives. At this meeting the faculty and the chair may submit
proposed changes to the educational objectives. The chair may inform the faculty of
administrative constraints (e.g. budgetary constraints) and present results of student surveys,
alumni surveys, senior exit surveys, and discussions with the industrial advisory board and
information from recruiters, industrial contacts, and the state government. The proposed
changes are discussed and approved by vote of the faculty.
Each semester, the students are asked to provide input by completing Course/Instructor
Evaluations, which provide immediate input to faculty concerning course-level objectives. The
senior students are surveyed just before graduation, which provides useful summary
assessment data. Recent alumni are surveyed to provide a longer-range view of the program.
The department chair has the primary responsibility to collect this information and present it to
the faculty, as described above.
60
Program Management Structure
Overview of the Assessment Process
The educational objectives are the primary forcing functions for desired outcomes and for
strategies and actions. The desired outcomes flow directly from the objectives, the strategies
and actions flow from the desired outcomes, the curriculum and other learning experiences
flow from the strategies and actions, and the actual outcomes are produced by the students as
they progress through the curriculum and other experiences. Finally, an assessment process is
used to measure the actual outcomes, which are compared to the desired outcomes. Corrective
actions are taken whenever there are serious differences between the desired and actual
outcomes, thus closing the continual quality improvement loop.
A graphical view of the process for setting desired outcomes and measuring actual
outcomes is given in the figure below, which draws a formal analogy to a closed-loop control
system. Of course, this analogy should not be stretched too far, since the students and faculty
members are people and not mechanisms, but it is helpful in presenting the concepts of desired
and actual outcomes. The desired outcomes are compared, using some metrics, to the actual
outcomes, and corrective actions are taken to make the actual outcomes track the desired
outcomes.
Mission
Desired
Metrics
Goals &
Objectives
Desired
Outcomes
Measures
and Metrics
+
Actual
Outcomes

-
Strategies
and Actions
External
Assessment
Information
Measured
Outcomes
Measures
and Metrics
Figure 12 Analogy between continual quality improvement loop and closed-loop control system.
Equally important is a conceptual framework for the continual quality improvement. We
have been using the Capability Maturity Model [Paulk et al., "Capability Maturity Model,
Version 1.1," IEEE Software, Vol. 10, No. 4, July 1993, pp. 18-27], described by CarnegieMellon Software Institute for assessment of software developers' processes, as such a
conceptual framework for the evaluation of our academic processes. Figure B-3 shows the
maturity levels of a hypothetical process. There is empirical evidence, at least in the case of
software developers, that processes at a maturity level of 3 or above tend to stay at a high level,
while those that are lower tend to fall back to a lower level. Thus, our goal is to strive to
improve the maturity level of all the key academic processes to reach a level of 3 or higher.
61
Continual process improvement
5. Optimizing
Measure process and product
Establish a standard process
Establish project management controls
4. Managed
3. Defined
2. Repeatable
1. Initial
Figure1-3. The Capability Maturity Model
Assessment System Procedures
The department chair has the primary responsibility to collect and disseminate assessment data
to the departmental faculty members. The department analyzes findings from the Course Survey,
the Senior Survey, the Alumnae/Alumni Survey, Employer Focus Groups, Faculty Surveys, the
Entering Student Questionnaire and information from Student Longitudinal Tracking Studies.
Each semester, the students are asked to provide input by completing Course/Instructor
Evaluations, which provide immediate input to faculty concerning course-level objectives. The
senior students are surveyed just before graduation, which provides useful summary assessment
data. Recent alumni are surveyed to provide a longer-range view of the program.
Each year, the Computer Science and Computer Engineering Program Committee, consisting
of all faculty members associated with the Computer Science/Computer Engineering curriculum,
reviews the Computer Science and Computer Engineering curriculum. This committee meets
every semester, and more often if the Program Chair calls a meeting, to discuss the curriculum
ensuring that faculty members allocate sufficient time to each subject area. This review
determines the extent to which supporting outcomes have been achieved during that academic
year.
The challenge is to make ideas of continual improvement work in an environment where one
major constituency, the faculty itself, defends the idea of academic freedom with great vigor. It is
our intention, then, to maintain fairly strict control over a subset of the required courses in our
undergraduate curriculum, especially the laboratory sequences. In fact, this control already exists,
and we merely exploit it for our purposes. Also included will be the required introductory
sophomore and junior courses. This control will guarantee that the needed material will be
covered, that all students will have the needed variety of experiences in and out of the classroom,
and that faculty will still have great freedom in the advanced courses and electives.
Notwithstanding this freedom, all faculty and all courses will be expected to use the quality
62
improvement ideas; there will simply be less reliance on the elective courses to meet program
objectives and more reliance on the controlled subset.
The Department Chair calls a meeting of the faculty to (initially) establish, review and revise
the educational objectives. This meeting takes place at least once each academic year near the end
of the Spring Semester, but each semester if more rapid changes are indicated (at the discretion of
the chair). At this meeting the faculty and the chair may submit proposed changes to the
educational objectives. The chair may inform the faculty of administrative constraints (e.g.
budgetary constraints) and present results of student surveys, alumni surveys, senior exit surveys,
and discussions with the industrial advisory board and information from recruiters, industrial
contacts, and the state government. The proposed changes are discussed and approved by vote of
the faculty.
Assessment Methodologies
In addition to the instruments mentioned previously, the Computer Science and Computer
Engineering Department also utilizes various other assessment methodologies. Some of these are
discussed in the following paragraphs.
Career Planning Portfolio - The student maintains the portfolio and it is reviewed, during
the advisement period, by the department staff member assigned to advisement. We are just
beginning the institution of this portfolio system, and there will undoubtedly be changes, but those
changes will flow from our outcomes assessment process in a natural way over time.
The EE Writing Center - The EE Writing Center is also an important mechanism for
creating and maintaining assessment tools. Since its inception in the fall of 1995, the center has
been actively participating in EECE 201 students' writing and communication skills. These
assessment tools include: essay prompts that ask students to write about a learning experience;
primary trait scoring sheets; and questionnaires for students designed to gather information about
the writing instruction in the course.
Capstone Design Project - This is the rite of passage for the entire program. Each team
(typically four students) is given the current IEEE specifications for the autonomous robot. They
are responsible for: (1) managing a team, (2) designing and realizing a vehicle that meets
specifications, (3) managing a budget, and (4) a formal report on the project. The teams will
provide any parts and components required for the project. Teamwork, communications, and
project management are stressed throughout the term. Project teams are required to have regularly
scheduled meetings among themselves. Special meetings may be held with the laboratory
instructors.
63
Appendix A
Assessment Plan
64
College of Engineering and Information Technology Assessment Plan
Assessment Program Objectives and Strategies
Objective 1:
Develop and implement an assessment program that provides processes and procedures for the continuous evaluation
of student performance and satisfaction, faculty performance and satisfaction and stakeholder input into the
educational system.
Action Strategies & Timeframes:
1.
Monitor the processes and procedures developed and implemented to evaluate assessment data provided to each
department and the executive committee. (4/00; 4/01;4/02;4/03;4/04)
2.
On an annual basis, each department will review and make recommendations for improvement based on
assessment data collected to address each program outcome as part of the continuous quality review program.
(ABET/Gateway Committee) (6/00;6/01;6/02;6/03;6/04)
3.
The Director of Assessment will prepare the annual quality review program report indicating the extent to which
the action plans were implemented and achieved by each department, the feasibility of the time frames and
recommendation for improving the process. (10/00; 10/01;10/02;10/03;10/04)
Outcomes:
A. Written procedures will be submitted by each department and the executive committee outlining each
major step in the assessment process that occurs within the department.
B. On an annual basis, each department will provide a written summary report of findings (outcomes),
results, actions taken, consequences, and recommendations verifying the assessment process has
completed the annual cycle and specifying problems and solutions.
C. The Director of Assessment will summarize results and recommendations of the ABET/Gateway
Committee; then prepare a synopsis of the annual review indicating assessment measures analyzed,
outcomes, recommendations, changes implemented, and the evaluation results of the changes.
D. The Executive Committee will discuss and prioritize action strategies recommended as a result of the
annual program review.
Resources:
The Director of Assessment position – college-funded
An educational research graduate assistant
A work-study student assistant
Objective 2:
Develop and implement a set of evaluation instruments that assess performance and satisfaction levels for all key
stakeholders for the continuous quality improvement program. (students, parents, alumni, faculty, staff, administration,
industry, employers, partnership board and other legislative bodies.)
65
Action Strategies & Timeframes:
1.
The Director of Assessment will administer the following instruments by June 2000: Alumnae/Alumni
Survey (3 year), Employer Survey and/or Focus Groups, Partnership Board Evaluation (if needed), Faculty
Survey, Staff Survey, Withdrawal Survey, and the Senior Survey. (6/00;6/01;6/02;6/03;6/04)
2. Refine and improve evaluation processes and procedures developed to administer and retrieve evaluation
instruments. (10/00; 10/01;10/02;10/03;10/04)
3. Analyze, summarize and provide written and oral reports of the results from the evaluation
(assessment) instruments. (1/00-12/00; 1/01-12/01;1/02-12/02; 1/03-12/03; 1/04-12/04)
Outcomes:
A.
B.
C.
The Director of Assessment will distribute survey results to all of the appropriate constituencies.
(See distribution list.)
The Director of Assessment will publish appropriate articles in newspapers and journals of survey
outcomes.
The Director of Assessment will make presentations at designated conferences and seminars
outlining lessons learned from the continuous quality improvement program.
Resources:
Envelopes, letterhead paper, paper, labels
Copies
Postage
Code sheet development
Code sheets
$700.00
$600.00
$400.00
$800.00
$700.00
Objective 3:
Create, implement, and generate reports from the development and utilization of a ten-year student longitudinal
tracking system based upon USC admissions, registration, and graduation data tapes.
Action Strategies & Timeframes:
1.
2.
Determine types of reports to be generated and the time frames for each; specify structure of each
report. (2/00)
Pull data, verify accuracy, and compile designated reports. (9/00, 11/00)
Outcomes:
A.
B.
Distribute tables/reports of the Student Longitudinal Study Results to Executive Committee
and Departments.
Write summary report describing findings within each report.
Resources:
Computer time at Computer Services
Paper and copies
$200.00
$100.00
Objective 4:
Design and implement, analyze and report results from Bates House Living and Learning Community project.
66
Actions Strategies:
1.
2.
Design and implement assessment methodology for evaluating Engineering 101; report results.
Design and implement assessment methodology for analyzing the control and experimental group
for the Bates House project; report results.
Outcomes:
A.
Write a report analyzing and summarizing results of the Bates House initiative.
Resources:
Paper, copies, video tape, binders, etc.
$300.00
Objective 5:
Provide technical support and assistance (assessment methodology, practices, techniques, etc.) to faculty within the
College of Engineering.
Actions Strategies:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Analyze and report end of course survey data, pre-post attitude data and skills/competencies matrix data for
EMCH 467.
Analyze and report data for the EECE 201 Survey.
Analyze and report data for the ECHE 460 or 461 Survey.
Analyze and report data for other courses as needed.
Outcomes:
A.
Provide a report analyzing and summarizing results of each assessment
initiative.
Resources:
Paper, copies, video tape, binders, etc.
$100.00
Objective 6:
Design and implement assessment methodologies to measure the impact of the Professional Communications Center.
Action Strategies:
1.
2.
3.
Determine and prioritize four research projects to assess written and oral communications.
Obtain necessary faculty support and assistance with the research projects.
Collect and analyze data, summarize findings, create a written report (12/00)
Outcomes:
A. Produce an annual report that reviews progress in the implementation of speech and writing skills with the
College curriculum.
B. Provide appropriate course survey statistics to the Institutional Planning and Assessment Office
67
Resources:
Writing Center Consultants to grade pre and post surveys.
Student Assistants to administer and collect surveys.
$300.00
Objective 7:
Devise, implement and evaluate a system for the continuous evaluation of course instruction.
Action Strategies:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Modify and administer the College of Engineering and Information Technology Course Survey.
Modify and refine the policies and procedures for the implementation of the course evaluation.
Generate and distribute faculty reports. (2/00) (7/00)
Analyze and report results of the college-wide course survey administration each semester. (2/00 and 7/00)
Outcomes:
A. Produce reports for faculty and administration regarding the results of each administration of the college-wide
course survey.
B. Provide appropriate course survey statistics to the Institutional Planning and Assessment Office.
Resources:
Students to code and organize sheets before sending to Computer Services.
Purchase code sheets
Scanning of code sheets
$165.44/M Total Price $827.20
$200.00
68
Appendix B
Senior Survey
69
College of Engineering
and Information Technology
Senior Survey:
An Assessment of Student’s
Experiences and Opinions
Return surveys to:
College of Engineering
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
Student Services
Swearingen Building
Senior Survey
70
May 1999
1.
Would you recommend a University of South Carolina engineering education to a friend or relative?

2.
3.
Not
Satisfied
A Little
Satisfied


Undecided
Satisfied
Very
Satisfied



How would you rate your preparation to obtain a job after graduation? Please mark the box that best
describes your opinion.
Somewhat
Satisfactory

Undecided

Satisfactory

Very
Satisfactory

How would you rate your preparation to become a contributing member of society? Please mark the
box that best describes your opinion.
Not
Satisfactory

5.
 Maybe
No
How would you rate your overall satisfaction with your preparation to become an engineer? Please
mark the box that best describes your opinion.
Not
Satisfactory

4.

Yes
Somewhat
Satisfactory

Undecided

Satisfactory

Very
Satisfactory

What kinds of publications ( besides textbooks) do you usually read? (for example, Newsweek, The
State, Journal of Engineering Education, etc.)
How often do you read these materials?
What kinds of news or information-type programs do you watch or listen to on a regular basis?
__________________________________________________________________________________________
6.
Please indicate your degree of satisfaction with each of the following services or features of the College
of Engineering and Information Technology. If any item listed is not relevant to your situation, circle
the number six (6) for “Does Not Apply.”
Features:
Information on career/job opportunities in your area
Value of general advisement services received
Advisor’s knowledge of your program requirements
Value of assistance provided by Student Services staff
Comfort and appropriateness of classrooms
Overall conditions of laboratories
Availability and condition of computers
Availability and condition of lab equipment
Teaching Assistants treat students respectfully
Teaching Assistants display a clear understanding of
the subject matter
Very
Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
Very
Satisfied
Does Not
Apply
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
71
7.
Below are listed some skills and competencies that engineering graduates should have. Please provide
us with your opinion about the amount of experience you received in your coursework regarding these
skills. Also indicate your satisfaction with the level of competency you have achieved as a result of your
USC education. For each item please circle the number in the column appropriate to your answer.
Competencies
Amount of Experience
Too
Little
Adequate
Engineering terms, principles and theories
Advanced mathematics (calculus & above)
Chemistry and/or physics
1
1
1
Liberal Arts (English, history, economics,
business, etc.)
Level of Competency
Too
Much
Completely
Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Satisfied
Completely
Satisfied
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
1
2
2
3
3
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
1
1
2
2
3
3
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
An ability to apply:
An ability to:
Identify, formulate, and solve engineering
problems
Design a system, component, or process to
meet desired needs and quality
Use the computer as a tool for analysis &
design
Function on multi-disciplinary or crossfunctional teams
Function in culturally and ethnically diverse
environments
Communicate orally, informally, and in
prepared talks
Communicate in writing - technical reports,
memos,
proposals, etc.
Use computer software for professional
communications
Design and conduct experiments
Analyze and interpret data
An understanding of:
Professional and ethical responsibilities
Environmental aspects of engineering practice
The practice of engineering on a global scale
The impact of engineering solutions in a global
and
societal context
The need for engaging in life-long learning
Basic knowledge of industry practices and
standards
Contemporary issues
72
8.
What courses, experiences, teachers, professional organizations, or learning activities did you find most
useful in helping to prepare you for becoming an engineering professional?
9.
What recommendations would you make to improve the educational experience for future engineering
students at USC?
Extracurricular Activities or Service
10.
Did you have an internship with an engineering company? _____ yes
_____ no
If yes, where? ___________________________________________________
11.
Did you participate in a Co-op program?
_____ yes
_____ no
If yes, where? ___________________________________________________
12.
Did you work while going to school?
If yes, how often?
_____ yes
_____ no
_____ part-time (20 hours or less per week)
_____ part-time (20-30 hours per week)
_____ part-time or full-time (more than 30 hours per week)
73
Graduate Education
13.
Are you planning to attend graduate school?
_____ yes
_____ no
_____ maybe
If yes, in what field?______________________________________
If yes, in which University do you plan to enroll? ___________________________________________
Employment Information
14.
Have you accepted a position at this time?
_____ yes
_____ no
If yes, what is the name of the company or organization? _____________________________________
If yes, what is your job title? ______________________________________________
15.
Did you participate in career planning in the Career Services Office? ______ yes
______ no
Demographic Information:
16.
When did you enroll at USC? ____________________
17.
Did you transfer from another college or university?
_____ yes
_____ no
If yes, what was the transfer institution? _________________________________
18.
What is your major?
Please circle.
Chemical
Electrical
19.
What is your cumulative GPA (grade point average) __________________
20.
What is your gender?
21.
What is your ethnicity? Please circle.
Please circle.
Civil/Environmental
Mechanical
Male
Caucasian
Asian/Pacific Islander
Female
African-American
Hispanic
Native American
Other
Thank you for completing this survey!
74
Computer
Appendix C
Senior Survey Reports
(sample)
75
University of South Carolina
College of Engineering and Information Technology Senior Survey
May 1999
1.
Would you recommend a University of South Carolina engineering education to a friend or relative?
College
Yes
49 (65.3%)
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
2.
3.
8
10
4
5
21
88.9%)
77.8%)
36.4%)
41.7%)
70.0%)
9 (12.0%)
0
0
2
6
1
Maybe
( 0.0%)
( 0.0%)
(18.2%)
(50.0%)
( 3.3%)
17 (22.7%)
1
2
5
1
8
(11.1%)
(16.7%)
(45.5%)
( 8.3%)
(26.7%)
How would you rate your overall satisfaction with your preparation to become an engineer? Please mark the box
that best describes your opinion.
Not
Satisfied
A Little
Satisfied
College
2 ( 2.7%)
7 ( 9.5%)
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
1
4
( 0.0%)
( 0.0%)
( 0.0%)
(16.7%)
( 0.0%)
Satisfied
Very
Satisfied
5 ( 6.8%)
54 (73.0%)
6 ( 8.1%)
0
0
1
2
2
7 (77.8%)
10 (83.3%)
7 (63.6%)
7 (58.3%)
23 (79.3%)
2
2
1
0
0
Undecided
( 0.0%)
( 0.0%)
(18.2%)
( 8.3%)
(13.8%)
( 0.0%)
( 0.0%)
( 9.1%)
(16.7%)
( 6.9%)
(22.2%)
(16.7%)
( 9.1%)
( 0.0%)
( 0.0%)
How would you rate your preparation to obtain a job after graduation? Please mark the box that best describes
your opinion.
Not
Satisfactory
4.
(
(
(
(
(
No
Somewhat
Satisfactory
Undecided
Satisfactory
Very
Satisfactory
16 (21.9%)
College
3 ( 4.1%)
6 ( 8.2%)
8 (11.0%)
40 (54.8%)
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
0
0
0
2
1
0
1
1
2
2
1
0
3
1
3
4
7
5
5
18
( 0.0%)
( 0.0%)
( 0.0%)
(16.7%)
( 3.4%)
( 0.0%)
( 9.1%)
( 9.1%)
(16.7%)
( 6.9%)
(11.1%)
( 0.0%)
(27.3%)
( 8.3%)
(10.3%)
(44.4%)
(63.6%)
(45.5%)
(41.7%)
(62.1%)
4
3
2
2
5
(44.4%)
(27.3%)
(18.2%)
(16.7%)
(17.2%)
How would you rate your preparation to become a contributing member of society? Please mark the box that best
describes your opinion.
Not
Satisfactory
Somewhat
Satisfactory
Undecided
Satisfactory
Very
Satisfactory
College
1 ( 1.4%)
3 ( 4.1%)
3 ( 4.1%)
45 (60.8%)
22 (29.7%)
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
1
0
1
2
7
7
5
9
20
(
(
(
(
(
0.0%)
0.0%)
0.0%)
8.3%)
0.0%)
( 0.0%)
( 0.0%)
( 0.0%)
( 0.0%)
(10.3%)
76
( 0.0%)
( 11.1%)
( 0.0%)
( 8.3%)
( 6.9%)
(58.3%)
(77.8%)
(45.5%)
(75.0%)
(69.0%)
5
1
6
1
4
(41.7%)
(11.1%)
(54.5%)
( 8.3%)
(13.8%)
5.
What kinds of publications do you read? (for example, Newsweek, The State , Journal of Engineering Education,
etc.) How often do you read these materials?
Chemical:
Engineering Textbooks (everyday)
The State, Sports Illustrated, Chemical Engineering Progress (twice a week)
The State, Maxim
The State, Sports Illustrated, Reader’s Digest (daily)
The State (daily)
Wall Street Journal (weekly)
Chemical Engineering Progress, Cosmopolitan, The State (weekly)
The State, Aiken Standard, Chemical Engineering Progress, AICHE Journal (daily or monthly depending on distribution)
Everything, all the time, and I’m not kidding. (Not so much hard-core engineering stuff, but lots of current events.)
(weekly)
Civil:
Wall Street Journal, The State (once or twice a week)
Time, Journal of American Water Works (once a month)
The State (everyday)
Wall Street Journal (daily)
Newsweek, The State, Civil Engineering (about once a month)
Scientific American, Newsweek, National Geographic, Time (monthly)
The State (everyday), ASCE Engineering Journal (whenever I receive it)
ASCE News, The State, Popular Mechanics (once a month)
The State, Civil Engineering, P. O. B. (3 or 4 times a week)
Engineering News Record (weekly)
The State, Newsweek, Reader’s Digest (whenever published)
The State, The Gamecock (2-3 times a week)
Computer:
Potentials
The State, PC Gaming (weekly)
Network Magazine, Byte (weekly)
Augusta Chronicle, U. S. News, Newsweek (daily, weekly, per issue frequency)
Potential, Network Magazine, NT System, Enterprise Management, IT Professional, Kiplinger Report (every time a new
subsription arrives)
Spectrum (once a month)
IEEE Spectrum, The State (3-7 days per week0
The State, Newsweek, IEEE Magazines, Gamecock (3 or more times a week)
The State, IEEE Potentials, Online Publications,
None
Paper (weekly), books (when I need them)
Electrical:
Midnight Engineering, Circuit Cellar, Popular Electronics (as they are published)
IEEE Potentials, The State (once a week)
The State, Newsweek, Time (every week)
Blank
Time, Gamecock, Newsweek, Technology Related Systems (all the time)
Popular Science, IEEE Spectrum, PC week (weekly or monthly)
Augusta Newspaper (everyday)
None
The State, National Geographic, Popular Science (weekly)
Blank
The State (weekly), Muscle Media, Muscle and Fitness (monthly)
None
Mechanical:
77
Time, Mechanical Engineering (every week)
The State, Wall Street Journal (daily)
The State (at least once a week)
Mechanical Engineering, The State, Time (once a month)
ASME, Gamecock (once a week)
The State, ASME Journal, USA Today (everyday)
The State, Mechanical Engineering Magazine (a few times a week)
ASME, Journal Pressure Vessels (monthly)
Newsweek, ASME Journals, Sports Illustrated (every week)
ASME Journal (monthly)
ASME (monthly), Fox News (daily)
Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Various Magazines, Mechanical Engineering (every week or issue)
The State, USA Today, Sports Illustrated (almost daily)
Computer Magazine, The State (frequently)
None
The State, Time, Car and Driver (once per week)
Machine Design (biweekly)
The State (everyday)
Blank
The State, Wall Street Journal (once a day)
The State, Wall Street Journal, Popular Science, Soldier of Fortune, Playboy, Penthouse, The Gamecock, Air and Space,
Omni (often)
Mechanical Engineering (daily)
The State, Reader’s Digest, Newsweek (everyday-monthly)
The State, The Gamecock, Easyrider (daily)
The State, The Gamecock, ASME Mechanical Engineering (daily)
Engineering text book (non stop for the last four years)
Newspaper (daily), Sports Illustrated, Men’s Journal (monthly)
The State (2-4 times a week)
Technical Journals (weekly)
USA Today (daily), Newsweek (weekly)
What kinds of news programs do you watch or listen to on a regular basis?
Chemical:
News Radio, CNN, Nightly News
None
CNN, Dateline, MSNBC
NBC News, Paul Harvey
WIS News, NBC Nightly News, The Today Show
Evening News
NBC, CNN
Local News, National News, CNN, Weather Channel
National news
Civil:
20/20, Dateline
The Today Show
Local and National News, CNN
Local News
None
PBS Radio, NPR
TLC, Discovery, A & E, All Sports Programs
The Learning Channel
Headline News
Sci Fi Channel, Discovery Channel
Radio, News on various stations
78
Local News Channel
Computer:
CNN
MSNBC
CNN
History Channel, The Learning Channel
Newsweek, 60 Minutes
Daily News
Local News, CNN, Headline News, Dateline NBC
The News, Radio
MSNBC, CSPAN
Blank
Discovery Channel
Electrical:
Discovery Channel, TLC
ABC News, CNN, Hardball
CNN, Local News
Local and National News
All kinds of news from any source
Rush Limbaugh, Fox News Channel, Channel 10 Local News
Local News, MNBC
None
CNN, Local and Network News
Blank
CNN
None
Mechanical:
20/20, 60 Minutes, Dateline, CBS Evening News
WIS News, NBC News, Dateline, CNN, Discovery Channel, History Channel
News, The Learning Channel, The Discovery Channel
Dateline, Local News
Nightline
Local and National News
CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, All Local News
CNBC
48 Hours, Good Morning America, National Geographic Explorer, Dateline
60 Minutes
Rush Limbaugh, Oliver North
CNN
Headline News
Blank
None
Evening News
Blank
CNN, NBC News
Nightline, 20/20, AM Radio
Nightly News, CNN
ESPN News, CNN, Sports Radio
Nightly News
NBC News, WIS TV, CNN, Radio Clips
Sports Talk Radio, ESPN, CNN
Evening News
Blank
Local News
79
CNN, Nightline, MTV 15/15
Evening News
Discovery Channel, Science Programs
6.
Please indicate your degree of satisfaction with each of the following “environmental” features of the College of
Engineering. If any item listed is not relevant to your situation, circle the number six (6) for “Does Not Apply.”
Features:
Information on career/job opportunities in
your area
College
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
Value of general advisement services
received
College
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
Advisor’s knowledge of your program
requirements
College
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
Value of assistance provided by Student
Services staff
College
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
Comfort and appropriateness of classrooms
College
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
Very
Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
Very
Satisfied
10 ( 13%)
0 ( 0%)
2 (17%)
2 (18%)
1 ( 8%)
1 ( 3%)
Does Not
Apply
1
0
0
0
1
0
(
(
(
(
(
(
1%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
8%)
0%)
13
1
2
3
3
4
( 17%)
(11%)
(17%)
(27%)
(25%)
(13%)
11
2
1
1
0
7
(15%)
(22%)
( 8%)
( 9%)
( 0%)
(23%)
37
6
6
4
7
13
(49%)
(67%)
(50%)
(36%)
(58%)
(43%)
5
0
1
0
3
1
( 7%)
( 0%)
( 8%)
( 0%)
(25%)
( 3%)
14
0
1
5
3
5
(19%)
( 0%)
( 8%)
(46%)
(25%)
(17%)
14
0
1
5
3
5
(19%)
( 0%)
( 8%)
(46%)
(25%)
(17%)
33
7
6
1
3
15
(44%)
(78%)
(50%)
( 9%)
(25%)
(50%)
8
2
2
0
0
4
(11%)
(22%)
(17%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
(13%)
1
0
1
0
0
0
(1%)
(0%)
(8%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
1
0
0
0
0
1
(
(
(
(
(
(
1%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
3%)
6
0
0
1
3
2
( 8%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 9%)
(25%)
( 7%)
14
0
2
4
3
5
(19%)
( 0%)
(17%)
(36%)
(25%)
(17%)
36
5
8
5
4
13
(48%)
(56%)
(67%)
(46 %)
(33%)
(43%)
18
4
5
1
2
9
(24%)
(44%)
(17%)
( 9%)
( 17%)
(30%)
0
0
0
0
0
0
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
3
0
0
0
1
2
(
(
(
(
(
(
4%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
8%)
7%)
0
0
0
0
0
0
(
(
(
(
(
(
0%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
16
0
2
7
1
6
(21%)
( 0%)
(17%)
(64%)
( 8%)
(20%)
39
4
8
3
9
15
(
(
(
(
(
(
52%)
44%)
67%)
27%)
75%)
50%)
17
5
2
1
1
7
(23%)
(56%)
(17%)
( 9%)
( 8%)
(23%)
0
0
0
0
0
0
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
2
0
0
1
1
0
( 3%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 9%)
( 8%)
(0%)
4
1
1
0
0
2
( 5%)
(11%)
( 8%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 7%)
7
0
0
4
0
3
( 9%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 36%)
( 0%)
(10%)
47 ( 63%)
6 ( 67%)
9 ( 75%)
5 ( 46%)
10 ( 83%)
17 ( 57%)
15
2
2
1
1
8
(20%)
(22%)
(17%)
( 9%)
( 8%)
(27%)
0
0
0
0
0
0
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
Overall conditions of laboratories
80
3 ( 4%)
0 ( 0%)
1 ( 8%)
1 ( 9%)
0 ( 0%)
0 ( 0%)
College
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
Availability and condition of computers
College
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
Availability and condition of lab equipment
College
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
Teaching Assistants treat students
respectfully
College
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
Teaching Assistants display a clear
understanding of the subject matter
College
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
6
0
0
1
3
2
( 8%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 9%)
(25%)
( 7%)
17
1
0
7
4
5
(23%)
(11%)
( 0%)
(64%)
(33%)
(17%)
12
1
1
2
2
6
(16%)
(11%)
( 8%)
(18%)
(17%)
(20%)
33
1
8
1
2
15
(44%)
(11%)
(67%)
( 9%)
(17%)
(50%)
7
6
3
0
1
2
( 9%)
(67%)
(25%)
( 0%)
( 8%)
( 7%)
0 (0%)
1 (11%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
6
0
1
1
1
3
( 8%)
( 0%)
( 8%)
( 9%)
( 8%)
(10%)
20
2
2
3
1
12
(27%)
(22%)
(17%)
(27%)
( 8%)
(40%)
13
2
2
0
3
6
(17%)
(22%)
(17%)
( 0%)
(25%)
(20%)
27
5
6
4
5
6
(36%)
(56%)
(50%)
(36%)
(42%)
(20%)
9
0
1
3
2
3
(12%)
( 0%)
( 8%)
(27%)
(17%)
(10%)
0
0
0
0
0
0
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
( 7%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 9%)
(17%)
( 7%)
23
0
1
7
5
10
(31%)
( 0%)
( 8%)
(64%)
(42%)
(33%)
10
2
1
1
2
4
(13%)
(22%)
( 8%)
( 9%)
(17%)
(13%)
29
7
7
1
2
11
(39%)
(78%)
(58%)
( 9%)
(17%)
(37%)
8
0
3
1
1
3
(11%)
( 0%)
( 25%)
( 9%)
( 8%)
(10%)
0
0
0
0
0
0
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
3
0
0
0
1
2
(4%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(8%)
(7%)
3
0
1
0
1
1
(
(
(
(
(
(
4%)
0%)
8%)
0%)
8%)
3%)
13
3
0
1
2
7
(18%)
(38%)
( 0%)
( 9%)
(17%)
( 23%)
43
4
8
8
6
15
(58%)
(63%)
(67%)
(73%)
(50%)
(50%)
11
0
3
2
1
5
(15%)
( 0%)
(25%)
(18%)
( 8%)
(17%)
1
0
0
0
1
0
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(8%)
(0%)
5
0
0
1
2
2
( 7%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 9%)
(17%)
( 7%)
2
1
0
0
0
1
( 3%)
(11%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 3%)
12
2
1
0
5
7
(16%)
(22%)
( 8%)
( 0%)
(42%)
(23%)
45
6
10
7
2
16
(60%)
(67%)
(83%)
(64%)
(17%)
(53%)
10
0
1
3
1
4
(13%)
( 0%)
( 8%)
(27%)
( 8%)
(13%)
1
0
0
0
0
0
(1%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
5
0
0
1
2
2
81
7.
Below are listed some skills and competencies that engineering graduates should have. Please provide us with your
opinion about the amount of experience you received in your coursework regarding these skills. Also indicate
your satisfaction with the level of competency you have achieved as a result of your USC education. For each item
please circle the number in the column appropriate to your answer.
Competencies
Amount of Experience
Too Little
Engineering terms,
principles and theories
College
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
Advanced mathematics
(calculus & above)
College
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
Chemistry and/or physics
College
Adequate
Level of Competency
Too Much
Completely
Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Satisfied
Completely
Satisfied
4 (5%)
66 ( 89%)
4 ( 5%)
1 ( 1%)
3 ( 4%)
61 ( 81%)
10 ( 13%)
0
0
1
1
2
9
12
8
11
25
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
2
8
10
3
10
26
1
2
4
1
2
(0%)
(0%)
(9%)
(8%)
(7%)
(100%)
(100%)
( 73%)
( 92%)
( 86%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 18%)
( 0%)
( 7%)
(
(
(
(
(
0%)
0%)
0%)
8%)
0%)
(
(
(
(
(
0%)
0%)
9%)
0%)
7%)
( 89%)
( 83%)
( 64%)
( 83%)
( 87%)
5 ( 7%)
63 (85%)
6 ( 8%)
1 ( 1%)
3 ( 4%)
58 ( 77%)
0
0
0
1
4
9
10
10
11
22
1
2
1
0
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
8
10
7
8
25
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 8%)
(14%)
(100%)
( 83%)
( 91%)
( 92%)
( 76%)
(13%)
(17%)
( 9%)
( 0%)
(10%)
(
(
(
(
(
0%)
0%)
0%)
8%)
0%)
(
(
(
(
(
0%)
0%)
0%)
8%)
7%)
(
(
(
(
(
89%)
83%)
64%)
67%)
83%)
( 11%)
( 17%)
( 27%)
( 8%)
( 7%)
13 ( 17%)
1
2
4
2
3
( 11%)
( 17%)
( 36%)
( 17%)
( 10%)
6 ( 8%)
63 ( 84%)
6 ( 8%)
1 ( 1%)
6 ( 8%)
63 ( 84%)
5 ( 7%)
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
1
1
0
1
3
(11%)
( 8%)
( 0%)
( 8%)
(10%)
8
10
9
10
25
1
1
2
1
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
3
2
8
11
8
8
27
1
0
4
0
1
College
7
( 9%)
50 ( 67%)
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
1
1
0
2
2
(11%)
( 8%)
( 0%)
(17%)
( 7%)
7
7
9
5
22
(
(
(
(
(
89%)
83%)
82%)
83%)
83%)
(13%)
( 8%)
(18%)
( 8%)
( 7%)
(
(
(
(
(
0%)
0%)
0%)
8%)
0%)
( 0%)
( 8%)
( 0%)
(25%)
( 7%)
(
(
(
(
(
89%)
92%)
73%)
67%)
90%)
( 11%)
( 0%)
( 27%)
( 0%)
( 3%)
Mechanical
Liberal Arts
(
(
(
(
(
78%)
58%)
82%)
42%)
73%)
18 (24%)
1
4
2
5
6
(11%)
(33%)
(18%)
(42%)
(20%)
1 ( 1%)
5 ( 7%)
64 ( 85%)
5 ( 7%)
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
0
0
1
6
9
9
11
28
2
0
2
0
1
(
(
(
(
(
0%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
(11%)
(25%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 3%)
( 67%)
( 75%)
( 82%)
( 92%)
( 93%)
(22%)
( 0%)
(18%)
( 0%)
( 3%)
Mechanical
An ability to:
Identify, formulate, and
solve engineering problems
College
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
7 ( 9%)
67 ( 89%)
1 ( 1%)
1 ( 1%)
5 ( 7%)
57 (76%)
0
0
2
1
4
9
12
8
11
26
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
3
7
12
6
9
23
( 0%)
( 0%)
(18%)
( 8%)
(13%)
(100%)
(100%)
( 73%)
( 92%)
( 87%)
(
(
(
(
(
0%)
0%)
9%)
0%)
0%)
82
(
(
(
(
(
0%)
0%)
0%)
8%)
0%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 9%)
( 8%)
(10%)
(78%)
(100%)
(55%)
(75%)
(77%)
12 (16%)
2
0
4
1
4
(22%)
( 0%)
(36%)
( 8%)
(13%)
Design a system, component,
or process to meet desired
needs and quality
College
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
Use the computer as a tool
for analysis and design
College
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
Function on multidisciplinary or crossfunctional teams
College
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
Function in culturally an
ethnically diverse
environments
College
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
Communicate orally,
informally, & in prepared
talks
College
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
17 (23%)
1
0
3
4
9
(11%)
( 0%)
(27%)
(33%)
(30%)
14 (19%)
2
3
3
2
4
(22%)
(25%)
(27%)
(17%)
(14%)
22 (29%)
4
2
2
4
9
(44%)
(17%)
(18%)
(33%)
(30%)
15
(20%)
2
1
2
4
6
(22%)
( 8%)
(18%)
(33%)
(20%)
11 (15%)
0
2
1
5
3
( 0%)
(17%)
( 9%)
(42%)
(10%)
57 ( 76%)
1 ( 1%)
3 ( 4%)
9 (12%)
55 (73%)
8 (11%)
8
12
7
8
21
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
1
2
1
5
8
11
5
9
22
1
0
4
0
2
( 89%)
(100%)
( 64%)
( 67%)
( 70%)
(
(
(
(
(
0%)
0%)
9%)
0%)
0%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
(17%)
( 3%)
( 0%)
( 8%)
(18%)
( 8%)
(17%)
(89%)
(92%)
(46%)
(75%)
(73%)
55 ( 74%)
5 ( 5%)
1 ( 1%)
8 (11%)
51 (68%)
6
9
6
9
24
1
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
1
1
4
7
9
7
7
21
(
(
(
(
(
67%)
75%)
55%)
75%)
83%)
(11%)
( 0%)
(18%)
( 8%)
( 3%)
(
(
(
(
(
0%)
0%)
0%)
8%)
0%)
( 0%)
(17%)
( 9%)
( 8%)
(13%)
(78%)
(75%)
(64%)
(58%)
(70%)
48 ( 64%)
5 ( 7%)
1 ( 1%)
12 (16%)
52 (69%)
5
10
7
8
18
0
0
2
0
3
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
1
7
7
10
9
7
19
(
(
(
(
(
56%)
83%)
64%)
67%)
60%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
(18%)
( 0%)
(10%)
(
(
(
(
(
0%)
0%)
0%)
8%)
0%)
(11%)
(17%)
( 0%)
( 8%)
(23%)
(
(
(
(
(
78%)
83%)
82%)
58%)
63%)
(11%)
( 0%)
(36%)
( 0%)
( 7%)
15 (20%)
2
1
3
3
5
(22%)
( 8%)
(27%)
(25%)
(17%)
10 (13%)
1
0
2
3
4
(11%)
( 0%)
(18%)
(25%)
(13%)
58 ( 77%)
2 ( 3%)
2 ( 3%)
9 (12%)
53 (71%)
11 (15%)
7
11
8
8
23
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
2
2
1
5
( 0%)
( 1%)
(18%)
( 8%)
(17%)
8
10
6
9
19
1
4
3
1
5
( 8%)
52 (69%)
( 0%)
(17%)
( 9%)
(17%)
( 3%)
6
9
7
6
23
( 78%)
( 92%)
( 73%)
( 67%)
( 77%)
(
(
(
(
(
0%)
0%)
9%)
0%)
3%)
(
(
(
(
(
0%)
0%)
0%)
8%)
3%)
60 ( 80%)
4 ( 5%)
1 ( 1%)
9
10
8
7
25
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
(100%)
( 83%)
( 73%)
( 58%)
( 83%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
(18%)
( 0%)
( 7%)
83
(
(
(
(
(
0%)
0%)
0%)
8%)
0%)
6
0
2
1
2
1
(
(
(
(
(
89%)
83%)
55%)
75%)
63%)
(67%)
(75%)
(64%)
(50%)
(77%)
(11%)
( 8%)
(27%)
( 8%)
(17%)
16 (21%)
3
1
3
3
6
(33%)
( 8%)
(27%)
(25%)
(20%)
Communicate in writing –
technical reports, memos,
proposals, etc.
College
8 (11%)
54 ( 72%)
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
Use computer software for
professional communications
College
1
0
2
2
2
2
8
5
9
24
9 (12%)
60 ( 80%)
6 ( 8%)
1 ( 1%)
5 ( 7%)
52 (71%)
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
Design and conduct
experiments
College
1
2
3
1
2
7
9
6
11
26
78%)
75%)
55%)
92%)
87%)
1
1
2
0
2
( 11%)
( 8%)
( 18%)
( 0%)
( 7%)
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
1
1
1
6
8
7
7
23
22 (29%)
48 ( 64%)
5
( 7%)
2 ( 3%)
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
Analyze and interpret data
College
3
2
4
2
11
6
9
5
10
17
0
1
2
0
2
( 0 %)
( 8%)
(18%)
( 0%)
( 7%)
0
0
0
1
1
8 (11%)
63 ( 84%)
4 ( 5%)
1 ( 1%)
7 (19%)
55 (73%)
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
An understanding of:
Professional and ethical
responsibilities
College
0
0
1
1
6
8
12
8
11
23
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
5
5
11
7
11
20
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
Environmental aspects of
engineering practice
College
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
(11%)
( 0%)
(18%)
(17%)
( 7%)
(11%)
(17%)
(27%)
( 8%)
( 7%)
(33%)
(17%)
(36%)
(17%)
(37%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 9%)
( 8%)
(20%)
( 89%)
( 67%)
( 46%)
( 75%)
( 80%)
(
(
(
(
(
( 67%)
( 75%)
( 46%)
( 83%)
( 57%)
( 89%)
(100%)
( 73%)
( 92%)
( 77%)
13 (17%)
0
4
4
1
4
( 0%)
(33%)
(36%)
( 8%)
(13%)
( 11%)
( 0%)
( 18%)
( 0%)
( 3%)
1 ( 1%)
6 ( 8%)
50 (67%)
18 (24%)
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
4
6
11
6
6
20
3
1
4
4
6
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
0%)
0%)
0%)
8%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
8%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
8%)
3%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
8%)
0%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 9%)
( 8%)
(13%)
( 0%)
(17%)
( 9%)
( 8%)
( 3%)
14 (19%)
2
1
4
1
6
(22%)
( 8%)
(36%)
( 8%)
(20%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
(18%)
( 0%)
(17%)
(67%)
(92%)
(55%)
(50%)
(67%)
(75%)
(67%)
(64%)
(58%)
(79%)
(33%)
( 8%)
(36%)
(33%)
(20%)
15 (21%)
2
2
3
3
5
(25%)
(17%)
(27%)
(25%)
(17%)
52 (69%)
7 ( 9%)
7
10
4
8
22
0
1
3
2
1
(78%)
(83%)
(36%)
(67%)
(73%)
(
(
(
(
(
56%)
92%)
64%)
92%)
67%)
( 0%)
( 8%)
(27%)
(17%)
( 3%)
12 ( 16%)
4
1
2
0
5
(44%)
( 8%)
(18%)
( 0%)
(17%)
21 (28%)
52 ( 69%)
2 ( 3%)
3 ( 4%)
9 ( 12%)
50 (67%)
2 (22%)
1 ( 8%)
2 (18%)
6 (50%)
10 (33%)
7
11
8
6
19
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
5
7
9
8
7
18
32 (43%)
41 ( 55%)
2 ( 3%)
3 ( 4%)
22 (29%)
43 ( 57%)
7 ( 9%)
4
4
3
6
15
5
8
7
6
14
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
3
4
3
1
11
6
6
7
9
14
0
2
1
0
4
(44%)
(33%)
(27%)
(50%)
(50%)
( 78%)
( 92%)
( 73%)
( 50%)
( 63%)
(
(
(
(
(
56%)
67%)
64%)
50%)
47%)
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
0%)
0%)
9%)
0%)
3%)
0%)
0%)
9%)
0%)
0%)
84
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
(17%)
( 3%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
(17%)
( 3%)
(11%)
( 8%)
( 9%)
( 8%)
(17%)
(33%)
(33%)
(27%)
( 8%)
(37%)
(78%)
(75%)
(73%)
(58%)
(60%)
( 67%)
( 50%)
( 64%)
( 75%)
( 47%)
13 (17%)
1
2
2
2
6
(11%)
(17%)
(18%)
(17%)
(20%)
( 0%)
(17%)
( 9%)
( 0%)
(13%)
The practice of
engineering on a
global scale
College
39 (52%)
34 ( 45%)
2 ( 3%)
3 ( 5%)
27 (36%)
39 (52%)
5 ( 7%)
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
The impact of
engineering solutions
in a global and societal
context
College
7 (78%)
3 (25%)
6 (55%)
9 (75%)
14 (47%)
2
9
4
3
15
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
3
0
6
1
4
5
11
3
10
3
3
16
0
0
1
1
3
37 (49%)
36 (48%)
2 ( 3%)
4 ( 5%)
25 (33%)
39 ( 52%)
7 ( 9%)
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
The need for engaging
in life-long learning
5 (56%)
4 (33%)
4 (36%)
9 (75%)
15 (50%)
4
8
6
3
14
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
2
1
3
3
3
5
11
5
7
7
4
15
0
2
1
1
3
13 (17%)
59 (79%)
3 ( 4%)
2 ( 3%)
9
11
9
9
20
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
1
College
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
Basic knowledge of
industry practices and
standards
College
0 (10%)
1 ( 8%)
1 ( 9%)
3 (25%)
8 (27%)
( 22%)
( 75%)
( 36%)
( 25%)
( 50%)
(44%)
(67%)
(55%)
(25%)
(47%)
(100%)
( 92%)
(82%)
(75%)
(67%)
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
0%)
0%)
9%)
0%)
3%)
0%)
0%)
9%)
0%)
3%)
0%)
0%)
9%)
0%)
7%)
( 0%)
( 8%)
( 0%)
(25%)
( 0%)
(11%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
(17%)
( 3%)
(
(
(
(
(
0%)
0%)
0%)
8%)
3%)
(67%)
( 8%)
(36%)
(42%)
(37%)
(33%)
(25%)
(27%)
(42%)
(37%)
11 (15%)
0
1
1
2
7
( 0%)
( 8%)
( 9%)
(17%)
(23%)
( 3%)
( 3%)
( 5%)
( 5%)
( 3%)
(56%)
(58%)
(64%)
(33%)
(50%)
51 (68%)
8
8
9
8
18
(89%)
(67%)
(82%)
(67%)
(60%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 9%)
( 8%)
(10%)
( 0%)
(17%)
( 9%)
( 8%)
(10%)
11 (15%)
1
3
1
1
4
(11%)
(25%)
( 9%)
( 8%)
(13%)
32 (43%)
42 (56%)
1 ( 1%)
5 ( 7%)
24 (32%)
41 (55%)
5 ( 7%)
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
Contemporary issues
(welfare reform,
irradiation,etc.)
College
2 (22%)
3 (25%)
4 (36%)
7 (58%)
16 (53%)
7
9
6
5
14
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
2
1
0
2
3
6
13
8
9
6
4
14
1
0
1
0
2
50 (67%)
24 (32%)
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
7 (78%)
5 (46%)
2 (40%)
9 (75%)
22 (73%)
2
5
3
3
8
(78%)
(75%)
(55%)
(42%)
(47%)
(
(
(
(
(
22%)
46%)
60%)
25%)
27%)
(
(
(
(
(
0%)
0%)
9%)
0%)
0%)
( 0%)
( 8%)
( 9%)
(17%)
( 3%)
( 0%)
(17%)
(27%)
(50%)
(43%)
(89%)
(75%)
(55%)
(33%)
(47%)
(11%)
( 0%)
( 9%)
( 0%)
( 7%)
1 ( 1%)
10 (14%)
27 (37%)
33 (45%)
4 ( 5%)
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
1
3
3
5
3
2
5
12
3 (33%)
7 (58%)
7 (64%)
4 (33%)
11 (38%)
0
0
1
0
3
(
(
(
(
(
0%)
9%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
85
(11%)
(17%)
( 9%)
(25%)
(10%)
(56%)
(25%)
(18%)
(42%)
(41%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 9%)
( 0%)
(10%)
8.
What courses, experiences, teachers, professional organizations, or learning activities did you find most
useful in helping to prepare you for becoming an engineering professional?
Chemical
Co-oping helped me get hands on experience in industry. This was extremely helpful when deciding a career path.
Unit Operations was a great class because it helped with my presentation and writing skills. Dr. Gadala-Maria was an
excellent professor who helped me build a strong engineering foundation. Dr. Van Brunt taught me to take
responsibility for my actions as an engineer. (ECHE 467)
Dr. Van Brunt, AIChE
Professors Amiridis, Van Brunt, Ritter, and all of the other Chemical Engineering professors and their courses have
been very helpful in learning about the field of Engineering. The AIChE has also been invaluable in providing
information about plants and career opportunities in engineering.
Courses: kinetics, safety, mass transfer
Teachers: Van Brunt, Amiridis
Organizations: Tau Beta Pi, AICHE
My Co-op experience prepared me more than anything. Group projects helped as well.
Design classes, freshman English, and computer oriented classes will most likely be the most important.
Dr. Vincent Van Brunt, Dr. Karlene Hoo, All Chemical Engineering faculty; Safety ECHE 467; AIChE
Courses: Unit operations lab, Separations course, Process Safety and Health Course
Organizations: AIChE
Teachers: Dr. Vincent Van Brunt, Dr. Michael Matthews, Dr. Michael Amiridis
Experiences: Participant in AICHE regional and national conventions, internships
I am particularly glad I got to know Dr. Amiridis and Dr. Matthews. They are wonderful, cool-headed, helpful
professors (& teachers) and assets to the department. Dr. Van Brunt should be commended for his out-of-class efforts
to teach and advise students (and other zany antics). I think this was overall a very helpful, concerned and
approachable department. I like the fact that interesting electives were offered. I’m glad engineers have to take so
many liberal arts classes. It is necessary. I think that there was a lot of good teamwork, oral presentation, and student
interaction. Theses were nice! I feel I received a good education and developed a stronger personality by studying
engineering. I don’t always plan to be an engineer, but it has certainly prepared me for life.
Civil
470, fluids, statics, 535
As far as courses go, ECIV 470 (Senior Design taught by Dr. Meadows) was by far the best class I took. I learned
how to work together in a team to produce a meaningful project. Also, I learned a lot of “practical” applications to
things I’ve learned over the past 4 years. Working as an undergraduate research assistant was also extremely helpful
in preparing me to become an engineering professional. I’ve gained more knowledge through that experience than I
ever thought I would.
Design classes (pavement design, reinforced concrete, foundations), ASCE
ASCE, Hydraulics
I found our ASCE meetings really helped us prepare for real world problems. The civil professors are very helpful in
working with students, teaching us, and in some, helping us find jobs. They are people we can rely on for advice and
86
recommendations. The career service is also an excellent program to be involved in to get a chance for interviews.
They not only help us look for jobs or co-op, but also assist us with mock interviews or info on how to succeed in
interviews.
Engr. 101 and 102, Eciv 301
I really enjoyed and value my experience here at USC. I really feel that it is important to join your professional
organization. I am a member of ASCE and feel that it is very important for others to join. I have a few professors that
I would like to commend for their knowledge that they relayed to me: Dr. Petrou, Dr. Meadows, Dr. Baus, Dr. Sutton,
and Dr. Kahn.
Courses: Statistics, Soil Mechanics, Hydraulics, Fluids, Foundation Design, Pavement Design, Auto CAD (not
enough time here), Solid Mechanics, Rein. Concrete Design, ECIV 300. I learned the most useful information in these
courses.
Teachers: Peters, Baus (most useful), Petrou, Pierce, Meadows, Kahn. These teachers were the best and I learned
from them all, but I felt that Dr. Baus and Dr. Meadows were the most helpful.
ASCE—I loved it. It was a great experience.
I found that all of the core requirements prepared me for becoming an engineering professional.
ECIV 420—Senior Design (very important)—Meadows
ECIV 325—Steel Design—Bradburn
ECIV 530—Foundations—Baus
ECIV 327—Reinforced Concrete—Petrou
ECIV 320—Structured Analysis—Bradburn
ASCE—Great hands on experience with everything from design to leadership.
Courses: Senior design, ECIV 490B with Dr. Gassman (Environmental Geotechnics), ECIV 551 (water and
wastewater treatment) with Dr. McAnally (because of the projects)
Other: my part-time job made a huge difference in showing me exactly what kinds of jobs I could have and what
kinds of work I can do.
Senior design was most useful in that it taught the importance and necessity of teamwork in real life situations. Dr.
Meadows was a professor who really motivated his students to learn in his classes through his excitement about the
material and through his humor.
Electrical
My favorite courses were always the labs. Doing hands-on work seemed to give my studies a feeling of relevance.
In my five years as a student, the courses that I found most useful in helping me to prepare to become an engineering
professional were my calculus courses, both circuits courses, E-mag, communications, microwave engineering, power
systems, and the labs. The teachers who have given me the desire to continue, heightened my interests, pushed me to
perform better, and just knew how to teach were Dr. Charlie Cook, professor of mathematics at the USC Sumter
Campus, Dr. Jerry Hudgins, professor of engineering, and Dr. Ted Simpson, professor of engineering.
Nothing written
Working for the college’s computer support department. Cooperative education was extremely useful. Overall
curriculum for electrical engineering.
Not fair. Nothing useful at all. Not interesting!! Waste of time.
401 and 402 labs were most helpful
Dr. Simpson is one of the better instructors here. 401 and 402 labs were the most useful.
87
NSBE; electronics; circuits; C ++ programming, all labs
Laboratory work, 500 level courses, Dr. Brice, Dr. Hudgins. Dr. Cokkinides is extremely smart but is a little too fast.
Definitely lab courses-the most practical and informative.
Prof. Sudarshan was very insightful in relating real world experiences to the classroom.
All of the labs and my advanced electronics class EECE 571
Computer
Labs, programming classes
Physics 212, Dr. Bob Nerbun, USC Sumter. He helped me conclude my decision to enter engineering school.
Professor Simpson and Professor Sudarshan had personal conversations and in-class references. Lab classes
Courses: labs 402 and 404, EECE 371
Instructors: Dr. Hudgins, Dr. Dougal
Teacher’s Assistants: D. W. (Scooter) Harris
EECE 534, EECE 503A, EECE 511, EECE 512
Interning helped me.
I found the two software engineering courses 351 and 352 taught by Mark Campbell and Chris King respectively, the
most beneficial courses I took at college. These courses were challenging and presented practical material that I will
use in my career.
Nothing written
IEEE, ECE 351-351, CSCI 575, Mark Campbell, Chris King, Mike Sechrest, ECE 502, ECE 503
National Society of Black Engineers
VTB! The Visual Test Bed was instrumental in helping me understand software engineering principles and practices.
Mechanical
Dr. Keating was one of the few if not the only teacher who really cared about the problems and decisions that you face
as an engineer. In his class we found a voice and an opportunity to really speak of how to improve the level of
learning and trust that is not present on our university. Many of the other professors seemed so wrapped up in
“teaching” us class that our voice as students would never be heard.
Senior design, senior lab
ASME, TBP, Dr. Lyons—Manufacturing Processes, Dr. Young; Dr. Khan, Dr. Sutton, Dr. Dickerson, Dr. Peters.
Great teachers who really care about student learning.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Research Assistant job with Dr. Stephen McNeill, Senior Lab with Dr. Ed
Young, Society of Experiment Mechanics Conferences, open door policy that all professors have.
88
ASME was incredible under the leadership of Helen Sailer and Heather Stone.
Dr. Young, Dr. Reynolds, Dr. Khan, Dr. Peters, Dr. Gadala-Maria, ASME
Dr. Lyons—Manufacturing (should be required), Dr. Young—Thermo, Dr. Kahn—Fluids, Truly cares for his students,
Dr. McNeil—Senior Design, Dr. Keating—Truly cares for his students, Dr. Sutton, Dr. Peters, ASME, Dr. Gibbons—
the best person in the College of Engineering
ASME allowed me to meet others in Mechanical Engineering who helped me in homework problems and other
learning issues. As a whole the ME professors act as a family and welcome students into their offices.
I found that our basic required courses prepared me a lot, but we need some more EMCH electives (no variety). I also
feel that more team project oriented classes will provide that needed experience.
I found my co-op to be intensely useful and highly recommend that it be pointed out more to students. As far as
courses, I found my senior lab and design courses to be the best. Through them I was able to relate the real world with
the theory learned. Also through them I was able to learn more in the area of communications.
Organizations: ICAR, ASME
Courses: EMCH 394, 354, 507, 467, 527
Experiences: Designing experiments and training personnel on racing team
Teachers: E. Young, D. Keating, A. Bayomi, J. Morehouse
Dr. Keating’s classes—the only classes concerned with ethics and managerial issues.
I believe our Senior Design Course as well as Senior Lab were the most beneficial. Both of these helped with written
and oral skills. ASME also helped (maturity, leadership). Dr. Khan should be an inspiration to us all. He is
absolutely the greatest teacher that I have come in contact with.
Junior Design, manufacturing processes, ASME, Senior Design Project
I found the materials department to be very good at USC (Reynolds, Sutton, etc.).
Senior Lab presentation skills. Senior Design—working with industry contacts.
N/A
Dr. Sutton—solids, Dr. Keating -
, Dr. Young—thermodynamics, Dr. Reynolds—materials
Dave Oberly, math instructor at Spring Valley High, was my calculus instructor in evening class. He was the best
instructor I’ve had at USC and I learned more in his class than any other. Professor Clary in statics was a close second
to Dave Oberly.
Upper division courses. Courses that emphasized oral presentations. Senior design.
The courses that used the computer as a tool to solve problems: EMCH 301, 507, 508, etc. As far as teachers go Dr.
Kahn was the best. If I had not had him for fluids early on I might have quit engineering. Also Dr. Reynolds, Dr.
Young, and Dr. Rocheleau were excellent.
Nothing written
Dr. Keating, Dr. Sutton—solids, Dr. Young, Dr. Reynolds
EMCH 520A, EMCH 527, EMCH 467, EMCH 427 and 428
Courses: early core courses, senior design
89
Teachers: Dr. Young, Dr. Schwartz, Prof. May at USC Aiken
Organizations: ASME, Tau Beta Pi
Junior design and senior design
EMCH 427, 428, 527
Dr. Ed Young, Dr. Wally Peters, Sylvia Therrell
Lab experiments.
EMCH 301 with Dr. Young was very helpful for work in other courses. EMCH 427/428 was very helpful to get an
understanding about engineering design in industry. Dr. Sutton and Reynolds: outstanding in communications with
students in class and getting students interested in the topic.
9.
What recommendations would you make to improve the educational experience for future engineering
students at USC?
Chemical
Our school should promote the co-op program more. Professors should talk about the importance of co-oping more
often in class. I would even recommend making co-oping mandatory.
Don’t close a computer lab for maintenance when two others have classes in them at the same time.
Stop doing computer maintenance at the busiest times of the day. There are plenty of computers, but when one of the
labs is closed for maintenance, and the others are either full or involved in class, it presents students (mostly seniors)
from doing work right after class. Instead of saying that the engineering building is open 24 hours a day, make it open
24 hours a day. Sometimes the most convenient time of day is not between 6 a.m. and midnight, but late night.
Better access to computers.
They need to co-op or at least intern!!!
Process redesign (change in industrial process). Quality management.
Improvements and expansions in courses offered, material covered.
Try to get more professors involved in the activities of discipline specific organizations. Also, try to have an
organization for all engineering students. Most engineering students only know students in their specific engineering
discipline. By having a non-discipline specific organization or even more social events, students would get to know
more of their peers. This would be especially good for freshmen. A facility for copying and making transparencies in
the College of Engineering would be a nice addition. It would save the students time in not having to go to Kinko’s, as
well as possibly providing the College of Engineering added revenue. I know it is not educational, but a food
establishment inside the College of Engineering would be greatly appreciated. As freshmen are required to have a
meal plan and higher level engineering students live at the College of Engineering, a food establishment would be well
used. Have a more dependable server. I cannot count the number of times that the system and email has been down.
Also, add more computers. When classes are using the computer labs, there are not enough computers for everyone
else to use. Try and have someone from computer services to have a help desk from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. Now they are
only open for a few hours in the early afternoon.
Considering that nearly all students pursuing undergraduate degrees in USC engineering will go to work in industry, it
is important that the emphasis be on more practical, hands-on learning.
90
The professors in the Chem - E dept are lovely people, but often their teaching comes across as overly erudite and
caters to those pursuing advanced degrees. Some of the professors don’t even seem to have that much
industrial/practical experience to bring to the classroom.
I think that greater contact should be established with industrial contacts. A team-taught Process Control Design class
would be great. I think professors might learn to be more generous about telling you when you have done a good job.
It makes a difference.
I think a point should be made about recognizing student leaders in Engineering. They do make a difference! I
believe this was once a common-practice, but has declined in recent years.
A new curriculum or course plan should be drawn up to incorporate co-oping. This should be offered to students as an
option from the very beginning. Additionally, foreign language and business minor schedules (4-year) should be
established and offered.
The COE should work with a foreign university to set up an engineering exchange program. U of Leeds has one with
Penn State. With a little work, it can happen.
We don’t know who or what we are when we come here. It is up to you to offer us options. In the end, it comes down
to how complacent you are with the current state of things and how much you are willing to change and better yourself
in the process.
Civil
More actual hands on teaching in classrooms. Some people learn easier and faster when they actually see a process
happening.
I would recommend more faculty and student interaction during the freshman and sophomore years.
Do away with ECON 421 and ECIV 405 or take them out of required classes.
None
I feel the electrical engineering department is horrible!! One professor is mean and only helps students in its own
section outside the classroom and during test taking. That is completely unfair to the other sections! (This is about
circuits.) Also USC electrical professors don’t seem to care what sections the students decide to sit in. They are
basically allowed to sit in another section that is technically not their section. They are never there to help you except
for one. And the TA’s are never there during office hours. These situations do not really help the electrical students
and all those who must take Circuits I to improve on their educational experience. I find the mechanical and civil
engineering departments have wonderful professors who are willing to help any student! If I know someone who is
considering electrical engineering, I would say NO!
Increase the types of software for civil engineering applications.
I would first have to agree with the ideas of others and preach using more computer programs for solving problems. I
believe that once you teach students the basic equations and ideas, then you should go along and provide a computer
program to solve these problems. This would help prepare students more for the real world. I think that some classes
like STAT 509, ECON 421, and ECIV 405 should be replaced by classes that will help in the future. I think you can
combine 101 and ECIV 300 and make a class learning about MS Office, Mathcad, etc. I think you should also provide
a class dealing strictly with surveying; this class should have a lab. Use the structures lab!!
Get rid of ECIV 405, ENGR 101, STAT 509, maybe ECIV 301 and economics. I felt that these classes took up time
that could have been used on more important things like programs that solve engineering problems that are used in the
workplace such as WATERCAD and EAGLEPOINT for example. I think that circuits and dynamics was a waste of
time, for civil engineers anyway. I think that one semester of soils, foundation, and hydraulics is not enough and
should be put in place of some of the above courses I have listed. I also felt that there should have been more time on
surveying and less on engineering economics. (ECIV300)
91
I feel like the civil engineering department should offer Surveying I, Surveying II, and Highway Design. These are the
three courses that I have to take at another educational facility. Without these three courses a graduate of USC (civil
engineering) cannot take the L.S.I.T. and P.S. For that reason, USC should offer these courses. I feel that these
courses would help everyone in the future.
I believe we need to have a course in Mathcad and Autocad. These are two relevant courses and both programs are
used in many workplaces.
Get freshmen and sophomores involved in their organizations (AICHE, ASCE, etc.). Keep up the good work with
faculty-student interaction. It’s great in the Civil/Environmental department. Put AutoCAD on the computers used by
civil and mechanical students. Standardize lab reports.
There needs to be a more in depth teaching of computer software. ECIV 405 needs to be explained more clearly.
Computer
More computers that are not used as classrooms
Study, study, study!
Food station.
Advisement software (degree matrix)—program to take your transcript and form a path of where you are going and
what prerequisites you need to get there. This would help students and advisors to better map a plan based on where
the student is in their academic career.
More emphasis on technical writing
More courses emphasizing IT systems and design
Try to recruit more black professors so that the students have people that they can model. Provide more courses in
things like networking, web page design, Java, etc. Get instructors who care about learning and excelling.
I believe the college should offer more computer and software courses. I felt my choices as a computer engineering
major were too limited and courses were not offered in areas I would have liked to taken.
Nothing listed.
Hire more computer engineering faculty and offer more classes. Make sure that the current ones care (most don’t
seem to). Have Engr 101 equivalent introduction to department and specific major.
More variety of courses and professors
Do not use TA’s which do not have sufficient knowledge to teach a course, i.e., a student who has taken the course
they are going to teach only one semester before teaching it.
Electrical
1.) Better texts. Better texts. Better texts. I cannot stress this enough --the books used by most professors seemed to
have been written on a level to impress the author’s peers. These books are not written with consideration for the
way people learn and assimilate new information. Though the texts might make for good reference sources -they most surely are not suitable for people trying to learn the material.
2.) Stop professors from outlining the text as their teaching method. We pay up to $100 for the book and $300 or
more for a professor to clarify the text. However, most professors I had only outlined the text, sometimes word
92
for word. I only had one professor who ever indicated how their teachings were used in a real world environment.
That professor was sharing wisdom that could produce valuable engineers.
3.) Fire every last professor that rolls their eyes or holds contempt for students that don’t get it the first time through.
Engineering lessons are tough and not everyone is going to understand all of the concepts the first time. If these
professors have better things to do than to illuminate someone in trouble then they need to be elsewhere.
4.) Link every last lesson to how it is used in industry. The best classes were those where the professors told how the
theory was used in a real-life problem. I know that the professors are experienced but they don’t share it with the
rest of us. I am a young engineer by now, but I have little idea of what the industry expects of me or of what my
proper place is in the job market.
As hard as it may possibly be, I think the electrical engineering department needs to do what it takes to place more
emphasis on student education and less on research. I think if the electrical department wants to be as successful as
the chemical department, more professors need to be hired for the electrical side of the house. Diversify the electrical
program. Not everyone wants to work in power systems or power electronics. I think some of the professors come to
class and teach off the top of their heads. It doesn’t seem like they had the time needed to look over the text to see
how the author has prepared the information and problems. They come to class, look in the book to see what chapter
or section we are supposed to cover, explain their interpretation of the subject and then assign the author’s problems.
It becomes apparent within the first week that the professor hasn’t had the time to go over the material in the text but,
because you have no choice in professors for a course in a semester, no one says anything and they just try to make it
through the course.
Nothing written.
Get rid of outdated courses and/or professors. Technology is the driving force behind engineering, especially in the
computer engineering field.
Stop discrimination!!! Stop cheating!! Stop giving the same homework and exams each semester! Stop
competitiveness and hatress!
Allow students to choose a specific part of engineering such as power systems or semiconductors design and have
more courses specific to those fields.
Clean up the labs and have more equipment. Have each person pick a discipline before their junior year. Have classes
scheduled so they can work in that discipline, which means have a course schedule about two years before so juniors
can determine their junior and senior years. I had so many companies ask what my discipline was. Electrical –
(electronics, computer, power, etc.) Have instructors care more about students instead of research.
More teaching assistance for each class. Review sessions before each test. More student/faculty interaction.
Recruiting of many African-American students.
Better lab equipment, easier access to computer labs for upper classmen, and more memory for students in computer
classes (C++, etc.) underclassmen don’t need as much memory as upper classmen.
More presentations. More liberal art electives (public communication, economics, etc.)
None.
Faster network connections
Mechanical
Get rid of grades!! Many of the problems with cheating, lack of motivation, distrust and disillusionment that occurs
with being an engineer occurs because of an inaccurate grading system. Too much emphasis is placed on what grade
you get in class instead of what you really learned over your 4 years. We all know that grades have no bearing on how
93
good an engineer will be after he graduates. All that grades have been linked to is how much money your parents
have.
Get students involved in more hands on activities. I feel you can learn just as much if not more by hands on activities
as you can from a book. I think it would be good to require a project for the students to do that relates to each course.
Also I don’t know how ENGR 101 is set up now, but when I took it I was still trying to figure out what engineering
was all about. Maybe ENGR 101 should expose students more to the practical applications of engineering. It might
be good to bring in some working engineers and have them tell the class about what their duties include. Many times
when freshmen are taking this course they’re still trying to decide what they want to major in. Maybe this could help
them in their decision making process. In addition to this maybe they should also bring in upperclassmen to the class
to help the students learn “the ropes.”
Computer staff. Poor teachers. Poor lab equipment. The computer staff is reprehensible. These students are paid to
service the students, faculty, and labs, but they are extremely rude. They make me too embarrassed to tell prospective
students that USC has good computer labs and computer services, things which are very important! One student in
particular has been extremely rude to both students and faculty. He is <
>.
Most of the teachers I had were very good. A few were terrible. <
> was a bigoted, rude teacher. He
displayed racism, sexism and he didn’t teach us any of the material he was supposed to. He also graded unfairly, i.e.,
he taught material in one class before the exam and then tested us on it on the exam. <
> is also a poor teacher.
He is monotone, boring, hard to understand, and he treats the class like 6 th graders. I feel sorry for students who will
have him for senior design.
The lab equipment is in disrepair. Many of the labs could not produce decent data and were a big waste of time.
<
> was not as adequate as others for <
>. I feel that my education is lacking because of the fact I took <
> for <
>. After talking to other engineering students from other schools, I have learned that what I did/learned
in <
> is lacking!
Better labs. Many things need updating to this decade.
Teach more ethics and industry practices and standards.
1.) More hands on labs 2.) More interaction with industry 3.) More interactions with professors
Make sure the professors are competent to teach the material the students are paying them for. There should be a
better way of recognizing their downfalls and removing them from basic course curriculum. For electives, if you
choose to have them fine, but for major classes like solid mechanics and kinematics, the only professor involved
should be one who knows the material and how to teach it.
1.) Have more projects like senior design, but better projects 2.) Don’t need professors that don’t care about the
students.
3.) Change the policy about academic forgiveness.
Communications is the only overall subject I found lacking in my education experience. Until this, my final year,
presentations and group work were at a minimum. I’m expected to be able to give presentations, tech and non-tech
reports, yet we’re not encouraged to take any courses that will prepare us for this. I believe this is an area that
definitely needs work.
Have a required engineering ethics class. Have more applied engineering possibilities. Stop the major push for
research $$. Make the students the priority; make preparing the students a priority; make teachers teach and not just
do research. Change the microprocessor curriculum. Do away with so much programming.
Computer—More supervision of the computer service personnel. They are consistently rude and arrogant to all that
request their help. Too many computer problems and no one is willing to help correct them.
Curriculum—more information about actual manufacturing process, machinery, practices.
I would recommend a little more reading. The verbal capacity of engineers is usually very low.
94
Fewer liberal arts classes and more regarding experimental design
Nothing written.
More challenging classes.
Computer lab service.
I would recommend that students should have to get more involved with their respective departments. For example,
the Mechanical Dept. has the legends car, solar car, etc. Maybe you should give students a technical elective credit as
being part of one of the required curriculum.
Get instructors who have experience in the real engineering world.
Nothing listed.
More computer integration into courses. Also should require control theory and a class to help prepare for the FE.
Also, the career center <
>. They need to do more to help the student. The professors should be more active in
recruiting undergrads to help out with research. Also make EMCH special problems a requirement.
Do not require micro.
Micro Processors is useless course.
More on engineering ethics, environmental issues and design type of projects.
Eliminate microprocessors class. Replace with something more practical.
Apply in class theory to real world problems. More classes like junior and senior design.
More real world problem-solving classes.
1.) Make the computers work 2.) Improve quality of ECS staff (rather rude and often unhelpful) 3.) make certain
classes mandatory (any dealing with ethics, sustainability, and environmental issues)
More hands on experience.
Nothing listed.
Extracurricular Activities or Service
10.
Did you have an internship with an engineering company?
Yes
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
33 (45%)
4
4
5
6
13
(50%)
(33%)
(46%)
(50%)
(43%)
95
No
41 ( 55%)
4
8
6
6
17
(
(
(
(
(
50%)
67%)
55%)
50%)
57%)
If yes, where?
Chemical
Department of Defense
International Paper—Hampton, SC
Westinghouse Savannah River Company
Milliken & Co., Barnewell; DuPont (UK) Ltc England
Civil
Design South Professionals, Inc.
Qore Property Sciences
SCDOT
Milliken and Qore Property Sciences
Columbia Environmental Consulting Firm, BMW Manufacturing Co.
Computer
NCR
NCR Corporation
USC School of Medicine
College of Engineering
IBM, NCR
Electrical
Chavis Electric
Albermarle Corp.—Orangeburg, SC
Marathon Ashland Oil
Union Switch and Signal
R. E. Phelon
Mechanical
Worthington Custom Plastics Duty Scientific
Dana Corporation
FTE, Inc.
JPL
Aircond., Inc.
AFCO—Anderson, SC
Westinghouse
Cartech
Westinghouse
Ambac International
Atlantic Coast Mechanical
Kemet Electronics
Consolidation System
11. Did you participate in a Co-op program?
Yes
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
21 (28.0%)
3
3
0
6
8
No
(33%)
(25%)
( 0%)
(50%)
(27%)
54 ( 72.0%)
6
9
11
6
22
96
( 67%)
( 75%)
(100%)
( 50%)
( 73%)
If yes, where?
Chemical
Westinghouse Savannah River Site
Allied Signal/Oak-Mitsui
Union Camp Corporation
Civil
Westinghouse Savannah River Co
SCDOT
Electrical
Georgetown Steel Corporation
Pontiac Foods
Union Switch and Signal
Hubbell/Ohio Brass—Aiken, SC
R. E. Phelon
Mechanical
BellSouth
Thermal Ceramics—Augusta, GA
Georgetown Steel
GE Banyon
Union Switch and Signal
Bose Corporation
Cooper Power Tools
Santee Cooper
12. Did you work while going to school?
Yes
60 ( 80%)
Chemical
5 ( 56%)
Civil
9 ( 75%)
Computer
10 ( 91%)
Electrical
8 ( 67%)
Mechanical
27 ( 90%)
No
15
4
3
1
4
3
(20%)
(44%)
(25%)
( 9%)
(33%)
(10%)
If yes, how often?
Part-time
(<20 hrs./wk)
32 (53%)
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
3
6
4
7
11
Part-time
(20-30 hrs./wk) 12 (20%)
(60%)
(67%)
(40%)
(88%)
(41%)
1
3
2
0
6
97
(20%)
(33%)
(20%)
( 0%)
(22%)
Part-time/Full-time
(> 30 hrs./wk) 16 (27%)
1
0
4
1
10
(20%)
( 0%)
(40%)
(13%)
(37%)
13.
Are you planning to attend graduate school?
College
Yes
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
20 (27%)
3
4
1
4
8
No
21 (28%)
(33%)
(33%)
( 9%)
(33%)
(27%)
0
5
2
4
10
( 0%)
(42%)
(18%)
(33%)
(33%)
If yes, in what field? If yes, in which University do you plan to enroll?
Chemical
Chemical Engineering (NC State)
Chemical Engineering (unknown at this time)
Business (NA)
Chemical Engineering (University of Texas or Texas Tech)
Business Administration (unsure)
MBA (possibly USC)
Law or business (The best one that will have me.)
Civil
Business (USC)
Environmental Engineering (USC)
Geotechnical/Materials (Clemson)
Environmental Engineering (USC)
Mathematics/Physics (UNC)
Environmental Engineering (USC)
Computer
Business (U of M)
Information Systems
Computer Engineering or MBA (?)
Maybe Education or Psychology
Unknown (UT at Austin , U of Washington)
Computer Science (NC State)
Electrical
Communications (undecided)
Not in the engineering department at USC
Business (undecided)
Electrical Engineering (USC)
MBA (undecided)
Business Administration (undecided)
EE or BA (USC)
Mechanical
MBA (USC)
ME or Education
98
Maybe
34 (45%)
6
3
8
4
12
(67%)
(25%)
(73%)
(33%)
(40%)
Mechanical Engineering (USC)
MBA (Too soon to tell)
Business (USC)
MBA or ME (USC)
Mechanical Engineering (not sure)
ME (USC or Penn State)
Mechanical Engineering (NC State)
Business (?)
Mechanical (USC)
Unknown (not USC)
Business (USC or Maryland)
Business (USC)
Business Administration (USC)
Mechanical Engineering (USC)
Employment Information
14.
Have you accepted a position at this time?
Yes
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
39 (53%)
5
5
5
6
17
(56%)
(46%)
(46%)
(50%)
(57%)
If yes, what is the name of the company or organization and your job title?
Chemical
International Paper Company
Allied Signal
Ingersoll-Rand (Chemical Project Engineer and Environmental Coordinator)
International Paper—Vicksburg, MS (Project Engineer)
Westinghouse Savannah River Company (Associate Engineer in Defense i.e. Tritium)
Civil
Qore Property Sciences (Geotechnical Engineer)
Southern Company (Engineer III)
SCDOT (Engineering Associate I)
Power Engineering
Jaderloon Co. Inc. (Structural Engineer)
Computer
SRS Westinghouse (Senior Engineer A)
Palmetto Health Alliance (Systems Analyst/Programmer)
Booz, Allen, and Hamilton (Consultant I)
Microsoft (NT Support Engineer)
IBM (Software Engineer)
Electrical
Bethlehem Steel (Engineer in planning and layout)
99
No
35 (47%)
4
6
6
6
13
(44%)
(54%)
(55%)
(50%)
(43%)
Microsoft Corporation (Support Engineer)
Marathon Ashand Oil (Engineer I)
Keyence (Applications Engineer)
USAF (Developmental Engineer)
R. E. Phelon (Product Engineer)
Mechanical
Solectron (Associate Design Engineer)
CP&L (Associate Engineer)
Milliken and Company (Assistant Plant Engineer)
FTE, Inc. (Assistant Engineering Manager)
Corning Asan. (Engineering Mold Design)
Cutler-Hammer (Engineering Design, Professional Management Program Employee)
Westinghouse Cnfd.
Allied Signal (Area Engineer)
Anderson Brass Co. (Staff Engineer)
ACM (Project Manager)
Best Auto Sales (owner/manager)
United States Navy (Officer, Nuclear Engineering)
Milliken (Process Improvement Engineer)
Vickers Aerospace Marine Defense (Manufacturing Engineer)
Engineered Systems (Engineer)
15. Did you participate in career planning in the Career Services Office?
College
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
Yes
45
7
5
5
10
17
(61.6%)
(87.5%)
(45.5%)
(45.5%)
(83.0%)
(57.0%)
No
28
1
6
6
2
13
(38.4%)
(12.5%)
(54.5%)
(54.5%)
(17.0%)
(43.0%)
16. When did you enroll at USC?
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
1979
1 ( 1%)
1988
2 ( 2%)
1991
1 ( 1%)
1993
5 ( 7%)
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
(
(
(
(
(
0%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
3%)
1995
21 (28%)
3 (33%)
3 (25%)
4 (36%)
2 (18%)
9 (30%)
(
(
(
(
(
0%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
3%)
1996
6 ( 8%)
1 (11%)
2 (17%)
0 ( 0%)
0 ( 0%)
3 ( 10%)
(
(
(
(
(
0%)
0%)
9%)
0%)
0%)
1997
8 (11%)
1 (11%)
2 (17%)
2 (18%)
0 ( 0%)
3 (10%)
100
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 9%)
(13%)
1998
3 ( 4%)
0 ( 0%)
0 ( 0%)
1 ( 9%)
0 ( 0%)
2 ( 7%)
1994
26 ( 35%)
4
5
3
8
7
(44%)
(42%)
(27%)
(73%)
(23%)
17. Did you transfer from another college or university?
Yes
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
27 (35%)
3
5
4
3
12
No
(33%)
(42%)
( %)
(25%)
(40%)
6
7
8
9
18
If yes, what was the transfer institution?
Colleges
Midlands Technical College
Trident Technical College
1
3
3
1
1
11
47 (65%)
Coastal Carolina
USC - Sumter
USC - Aiken
USC - Lancaster
USC - Union
Other universities
Chemical:
USC Sumter
USC Sumter
Civil:
Anderson College
Winthrop University
USC Union
Coastal Carolina University
Clemson, Midlands Tech, USC Salkahatchie
Computer:
USC Aiken
USC Aiken
MTC
Trident Technical College
Electrical:
Belmont Abbey College
The Citadel
Mechanical:
College of Charleston
Marine Maritime Academy
Clemson University
Greenville College of Chicago
Midlands Tech
Clemson University
USC Lancaster
101
(67%)
(58%)
(73%)
(75%)
(60%)
University of Maine
USCS
USC Aiken
Francis Marion University
18. What is your major?
Chemical
Civil/Environmental
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
19.
9
12
11
12
30
What is your cumulative GPA (grade point average)
College 2.0 – 2.4 3 ( 4%)
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
20.
(12.0%)
(16.0%)
(14.9%)
(16.2%)
(40.5%)
0
1
0
1
1
(
(
(
(
(
2.5 – 2.9 21 (29%)
0%)
8%)
0%)
8%)
3%)
0
7
5
3
6
What is your gender?
3.0 – 3.4 31 (42%)
( 0%)
(58%)
(56%)
(25%)
(21%)
Male
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
range:
mean:
median:
mode:
5
3
4
5
14
59 ( 80%)
4
7
10
12
26
2.00 to 4.00
3.15 (SD = .43)
3.1
3.1
3.5 – 4.0 18 (25%)
(56%)
(25%)
(36%)
(32%)
(48%)
Female
( 44%)
( 58%)
( 91%)
(100%)
( 87%)
4
1
2
3
8
(44%)
( 8%)
(18%)
(25%)
(28%)
15 (20%)
5
5
1
0
4
(56%)
(42%)
( 9%)
( 0%)
(13%)
21. What is your ethnicity?
College
Caucasian
56 ( 76%)
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
8
10
8
6
24
( 89%)
( 83%)
( 73%)
( 50%)
( 80%)
African-American
9 ( 12%)
0
1
3
3
2
( 0%)
( 8%)
( 27%)
( 25%)
( 7%)
Hispanic
4 ( 5%)
0
0
0
1
3
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 8%)
(10%)
102
Asian/Pacific Is.
3 ( 4%)
1
0
0
1
1
( 11%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 8%)
( 3%)
Native American
0 ( 0%)
0
0
0
0
0
(
(
(
(
(
0%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
Other
2 ( 3%)
0
1
0
1
0
(0%)
(8%)
(0%)
(8%)
(0%)
College of Engineering & Information Technology Seniors:
An Assessment of Student’s Experiences and Opinions
May 1999 Senior Survey Analysis of Results
Goals/Objectives
Students graduating from the College of Engineering & Information Technology in May 1999
completed a survey requesting information about their undergraduate college experience and their
judgment regarding specific engineering skills and abilities. The purposes of the survey are
fourfold: (1) to present conclusions regarding the overall outcomes of the student’s academic and
extracurricular engineering performance for use in decision making; (2) to present results about
programs, activities, etc. in order to improve the programs; (3) to enhance understanding and
appreciation of formative and summative evaluation; and (4) to contribute to the general body of
knowledge with regard to evaluation of undergraduate engineering programs.
Administration Procedures
The Director of Assessment administered the Senior Exit Survey to students within the EMCH 467
and EECE 402/404 classes during the third week in April. Civil Engineering distributed and
collected surveys from their department office. A senior in Chemical Engineering distributed and
returned surveys for their department.
Surveys distributed using these methodologies resulted in the following return rates:
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
60%
86%
73%
86%
97%
( 9 of 15 surveys)
( 12 of 14 surveys)
( 11 of 15 surveys)
( 12 of 14 surveys)
( 30 of 31 surveys)
A total of 89 surveys were collected for an overall return rate of 83 percent for the May 1999
senior sample. Return rates for the Computer, Electrical and Mechanical Programs are higher than
for the previous semester, however, the proportion of surveys collected for the Chemical
Engineering department is significantly lower. The return rate for Civil Engineering was about the
same as the December 1998 survey administration.
Instrument
A three-page survey accompanied by a title page was developed to obtain information in the
following areas:
(11) overall ratings of students’ engineering education
(12) life-long learning indicators
(13) assessment of specific college services
(14) opportunity to make recommendations
103
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
evaluation of ABET skills and competencies
useful experiences
extracurricular activities
plans for graduate education
employment information
demographic information including transfer status
Sample Demographics
Demographic information requested from the graduating seniors included ethnicity, gender,
cumulative GPA, major, transfer institution and year of USC enrollment. It should be noted that
although surveys were returned, some students did not answer all items on the instrument. Totals
given in the distribution of responses or discussed in this summary vary according to the number
of students supplying the information.
According to the data analysis, 59 males (80%) and 15 females (20%) returned surveys. Surveys
were returned by 56 Caucasians (76%), 9 African-Americans (12%), 3 Asian/Pacific Islanders
(4%), 4 Hispanic (5%), and 2 (3%) “other” students. The return sample was fairly representative
of the gender and ethnicity distribution within the graduating class.
Length of Enrollment
Seniors in the May 1999 sample began their engineering coursework at the Columbia campus
during a range of nineteen years (1979 –1998). This lengthy time period suggests that some of
these students attended part-time over a long period of time or stopped-out during their academic
career. Seniors, including the long-term students, required from one to twenty years to graduate
from the College of Engineering. The following numbers and percentages of students enrolled
during each year:
1979
1988
1991
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1
2
1
5
26
21
6
8
3
1%
2%
1%
7%
35%
28 %
8%
11%
4%
Students who entered Engineering during 1994 to 1998, approximately 86% of the sample,
completed their degree within a time frame of five years or less. Students completing their degree
within four years or less totaled 51 percent of the sample.
Departmental Results: The length of student enrollment varied by program. Computer
Engineering had the largest percentage of students (64 percent) completing their degree in four (or
less) years. Approximately 58 percent of the Mechanical and Civil Engineering seniors, 56
104
percent of the Chemical Engineering seniors and 18 percent of the Electrical engineering seniors
enrolled in 1995 and finished in 1999.
Transfer Population
Information supplied by the seniors reveals that a significant percentage attended another college
or university prior to their enrollment within the College of Engineering at USC. Transfer students
represented approximately 35 percent of the cohort (27 students). Eighty-nine percent of the
transfers are male and 85 percent are Caucasian. These demographics suggest that a slighter
higher percentage of the transfer population is male and Caucasian than are found in the total
sample.
Seniors transferred to USC from a variety of two and four-year colleges and universities. Students
attending a regional campus of USC accounted for a significant segment of this group,
approximately 38 percent, or a total of nine students. An additional 17 percent of the transfer
students attended Midlands or Trident Technical College with the remainder of the group,
approximately 45 percent, coming from various four-year colleges within the state and around the
U.S.
The dates of first-time enrollment for transfer students covered a five-year period from 1994 to
1998. The following listing gives the number and percentage of student enrolling during each year:
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
3
8
5
8
2
11%
31%
19%
31%
8%
These statistics indicate that all of the transfers graduated within five years and that 89 percent
graduated within four years.
Departmental results: Frequency distributions indicate that each program area included at least
three transfer students. The number and percentages of transfer students within each program are
listed below:
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
3
5
4
3
12
11%
19%
15%
11%
44%
Comparison of transfer and non-transfer students: The distribution of responses were similar for
transfer and non-transfer students for each of the following items: gender, internships, co-ops,
working while in school, number of hours worked, and GPA. Significant differences in the
response patterns were observed for several variables. A higher percentage of transfer students (42
percent) indicated plans to attend graduate school at the time of the survey than non-transfer
105
students (20 percent). There was a small difference in the ethnic distribution for the transfer and
native groups of students who responded to the survey: Caucasians represented 79 and 67 percent
of the groups, respectively.
General Performance Indicators
Four questions on the survey were designed to yield a measure of the student’s satisfaction with
their overall undergraduate experience with primary emphasis on the teaching/learning process
within the College of Engineering. As one indicator, students were asked if they would
recommend the program to a relative or friend. Approximately 65 percent of the graduating
seniors replied affirmatively. Approximately twelve percent (9 students) said they would not
recommend an engineering degree; students in this response category include six (6) electrical and
two (2) computer engineering majors as well as one (1) mechanical engineering senior. An
additional 22 percent of the sample selected a “maybe” response to this question. At least one
student from each program area selected this response but a majority of these students were
computer and mechanical engineering majors.
Students were also asked to rate their satisfaction regarding their preparation to become an
engineer on a scale from “not satisfied” to “very satisfied.” Students indicating a “very satisfied”
or “satisfied” response pattern totaled approximately 81 percent of the respondents. Seven percent
were undecided and 12 percent expressed dissatisfaction with their engineering preparation. The
distributions for each program show that the nine students who chose the “not satisfied” or “a little
satisfied” responses included seniors from the Computer (18%), Electrical (25%), and Mechanical
(14%) programs.
Students were asked to rate their preparation to obtain a job after graduation. Students
describing their preparation for a job as “satisfactory” or “very satisfactory” totaled 77 percent of
the senior sample. Three students rated their preparation as “not satisfactory” and six students, or
eight percent of the seniors, rated their preparation as “somewhat satisfactory.” One or more
seniors representing the Civil, Computer, Electrical and Mechanical programs expressed a less
than satisfactory evaluation.
The final question in this section asked students: “How would you rate your preparation to become
a contributing member of society?” Approximately 91 percent of the sample believe their
preparation was “satisfactory” or “very satisfactory.” Four students (six percent) gave a
“somewhat satisfactory” or a “not satisfactory” response and three students (four percent) were
undecided regarding this issue.
Indicators of Life-long Learning
As one indicator of a student’s motivation to continue the education process, the survey included
questions concerning the types of publications read and the programs students listen to or watch on
television. Of the students completing surveys, approximately 87% (66 students) indicated they
read at least one publication other than a textbook on a regular basis. All but 16 of these students
listed more than one publication in response to this inquiry. Newspapers (45 students) and
engineering magazines (34 students) were cited most frequently by the students as the
106
publications they read. Students indicated that they read these publications on a weekly or
monthly basis. Very few students mentioned that they read a magazine or newspaper everyday.
Engineering publications read by the students include Chemical Engineering Progress, ASCE
Newsletter, IEEE Spectrum, and the ASME Journal. Students indicated that Engineering
magazines are read “regularly” or “monthly.” Students also indicated that they read other types of
magazines including news publications (such as Newsweek) and, hobby, science and sports
magazines (such as Popular Science, Sports Illustrated and Men’s Health).
In response to the question about the kinds of news programs they watch or listen to, 87 percent
indicated they watch a news program on a regular basis. Students listed three types of broadcasts:
(1) cable news (26 students); (2) national and/or local network news (35 students).
Assessment of College Services
Students rated ten different categories of services provided by the College of Engineering using a
scale from “very dissatisfied” to “very satisfied.” At least 48 percent of the students indicated they
were “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with all of the college services listed in the table. Areas
receiving the highest marks include: comfort and appropriateness of classrooms (83 %); value of
assistance provided by Student Services (75%); the respectfulness of the Teaching Assistants
(73%); Teaching Assistants display a clear understanding of the subject matter (73%); and,
advisor’s knowledge of program requirements (72 %). College services that a significant
percentage of students evaluated as unsatisfactory (by selecting a “very dissatisfied” or
“dissatisfied” response) include: availability and condition of computers (35%); availability and
condition of lab equipment (38%); and overall conditions of labs (31%). These student response
patterns are also similar to those obtained from the previous survey in December 1998.
Departmental Results: Analysis of the college-wide programs and services findings, suggests that
student response patterns on several items varied according to department affiliation. A
significant proportion of the Computer and Electrical Engineering majors were dissatisfied with
the value of the advisement services (46% and 50%), the conditions of the labs (73% and 58%),
and the availability and condition of lab equipment (73% and 58%), respectively. Approximately
25 percent of Electrical Engineering students were dissatisfied with their advisor’s knowledge of
their program requirements. Mechanical seniors expressed dissatisfaction with the availability and
condition of computers (50%) and lab equipment (40%). The negative perception regarding the
computer labs was also shared by students representing the other programs but to a lesser extent:
Chemical (22%); Civil (25%); Computer (36%); and Electrical (16%).
Ratings of Competencies
Seniors were asked to provide their opinion regarding the amount of experience and their
satisfaction with the level of competency they achieved on 21 different skills and competencies
as a result of their USC education. These skills are grouped into three major categories. The
following paragraphs summarize these findings.
Category 1: An ability to apply engineering terms and principles, mathematics, chemistry,
and liberal arts.
107
Amount of Experience May 1999 seniors rated the amount of education experience received with
their engineering terms, principles and theories, advanced mathematics and chemistry concepts
about the same but the response pattern for liberal arts was substantially different. Overall, 89
percent of the students believe they received an “adequate” amount of experience in engineering
terms and principles. The amount of experience in advanced mathematics and chemistry/physics
was also rated as “adequate” by 85 and 84 percent, respectively, of the seniors. Ratings for the
application of the liberal arts coursework followed a slightly different pattern with 67 percent of
the students stating that their college experience was adequate. Approximately 24 percent of the
seniors believe that they received “too much” liberal arts coursework.
Departmental results: Regarding the application of engineering terms, principles and theories,
advanced math and chemistry/physics, the distribution of responses by departments show some
variation on each of these items, but, in general, percentages for each alternative did not
substantially deviate from the college totals. Unlike the other programs, Mechanical seniors were
more diverse in their responses concerning advanced mathematics. Although 76% of the seniors
believe their math preparation was adequate, 14% received “too little” experience but 10% felt
they received “too much” training in this area. For the ratings on the amount of experience
received in the Liberal Arts coursework, response patterns for the Electrical and Civil programs
were somewhat different from the other programs. Approximately 42 and 33 percent of the
seniors, respectively, believe they received “too much” experience.
Level of Competency Approximately 94 percent of the seniors who responded to the survey were
satisfied or completely satisfied with their level of competency relating to engineering terms,
principles and theories. Students also expressed satisfaction with their competency level in
advanced math (94%) as well as chemistry/physics (91%) and liberal arts (92%). It is clear that
seniors are satisfied with the level of competency they achieved in each of the four areas.
Category 2: An ability to identify and solve engineering problems; design a system to meet desired
needs; use the computer as an analysis tool; function on multidisciplinary teams; function in
culturally diverse settings; communicate orally, in writing and with computer software;
design/conduct experiments; and analyze/interpret data.
Amount of Experience Overall, most seniors believe they received an adequate amount of
experience on each of the skills within this set of competencies. At least 64 percent or more of the
seniors indicated that they received an adequate amount of experience with each of the
competencies listed above. Those skills with the largest percentages of students rating their
amount of experience as “adequate” include: identify/formulate/solve engineering problems
(89%); analyze/interpret data (84%); use of computer software for communications (80%); and
communicate orally (80%). Seniors also believe that an insufficient amount of experience was
provided in certain areas. These competencies, and the percentages of students indicating “too
little” experience in each area are as follows: functioning on multi-disciplinary teams (29%),
designing/conducting experiments (29%), designing a system or process (23%), and functioning in
a culturally and ethnically diverse environment (20%).
108
Departmental Results: Departmental differences were evident for six of the ten items. A few are
noteworthy because a substantial percentage of students in a particular program indicated that “too
little” emphasis was given to some skills. For example, 44 percent of the Chemical seniors believe
they received inadequate experience in functioning on a multi-disciplinary team compared to 29
percent of the student sample as a whole and 17 and 18 percent, respectively, for the Civil and
Computer Engineering programs. Electrical (33%) and Mechanical Engineering (30%) seniors
also indicated insufficient experience with multidisciplinary teams. Response patterns also
differed with regards to oral communication. A larger percentage of Electrical Engineering seniors
perceived a weakness in the area of oral communication skills, 42 percent, compared to the college
total of 15 percent and totals for the other programs. Departmental differences are also suggested
in the senior’s evaluation of analyzing and interpreting data with 20 percent of the Mechanical
engineering seniors indicating there was insufficient experience provided in this area whereas
seniors in the other programs did not rate this as a weakness. It is interesting to note that 27 percent
of the computer engineering seniors rated use of computer software for professional
communications as inadequate compared to the overall college total of 12 percent.
Level of Competency Overall, the students were satisfied with the level of competency they
achieved on each of these ten skills. Positive response rates ranged from 78 to 92 percent of the
responding students. This finding indicates that students feel confident in solving engineering
problems, designing systems, using computers, functioning in ethnically diverse environments, and
analyzing experiments. Students also feel confident in their ability to communicate either orally,
by reports and through the use of computer software.
Although most of the students feel confident in their capabilities as a graduating senior, a
substantial segment identified areas of weakness. These include designing and conducting
experiments (22%); analyzing and interpreting data (20%); functioning on the multidisciplinary
team (17%); designing a system, component, or process to meet desired needs (16%); and
functioning in a culturally diverse environment (15%).
Departmental Results: Student response patterns were fairly similar for a majority of the ten skills
listed in this category. A few exceptions should be noted. Forty-three percent of the Electrical
engineering students were dissatisfied with their level of competency to design a system,
component or process. Also, a third of the Civil Engineering students expressed dissatisfaction
with their skills in using the computer as a tool for analysis and design, and written
communications such as reports, memos, etc.
Category 3: An understanding of professional and ethical responsibilities, environmental aspects of
engineering, engineering on a global scale, impact of engineering solutions in global context, lifelong learning, industry practices, and contemporary issues.
Amount of Experience These characteristics were assessed with seven items on the survey.
Compared to the other two categories of competencies, smaller percentages of students rated the
amount of experience received as “adequate.” An adequate rating on college totals for these
competencies ranged from a low of 32 percent to a high of 79 percent. An understanding of
professional and ethical responsibilities and the need for life long learning were the highest rated
competencies in this category. According to the May 1999 seniors, the skills receiving insufficient
instructional emphasis within the curriculum included contemporary issues (67%), the practice of
109
engineering on a global scale (52%) , the impact of engineering in a global context (49%) and,
industry practices and standards (43%).
Departmental Results: In general, response patterns for the Computer, Electrical and Mechanical
programs were similar for over half of the competency items. Response patterns for the Chemical
and Civil programs also followed a similar trend for six of the 10 items. A small segment of the
seniors within Computer, Electrical and Mechanical expressed dissatisfaction with the following
competencies: the identifying and solving of engineering problems, designing a system,
component or process; using the computer as a tool for analysis; written communication; analysis
and interpretation of data. None of the Civil or Chemical Engineering seniors indicated a negative
rating of their competency level for these topics. All ratings for the oral communications,
functioning in an ethnically diverse environment, and use of computer software were rated
positively by the Chemical Engineering students but one or more students in all other programs
were dissatisfied with their competency level in these areas.
Although Civil Engineering majors rated the amount of experience received in professional and
ethical responsibilities as adequate, 18 to 50 percent of the seniors in the other programs felt their
experience was inadequate. It is of interest for curriculum development that 50 percent of the
Electrical Engineering seniors noted a deficiency in the curriculum in this area. A similar pattern
was observed for the practice of engineering on a global scale: 25% of the Civil Engineering
seniors rated this experience as inadequate but 47 to 75 percent of the seniors in the other programs
indicated this response. Although 22 and 25 percent of the Chemical and Civil Engineering
seniors, respectively, indicated a lack of knowledge regarding industry practices and standards,
Electrical and Mechanical seniors, 53 and 58 percent, respectively, indicated this belief. While a
majority of Civil Engineering seniors rated this competence as adequately incorporated into the
curriculum, seniors in each of the other programs perceived an insufficient emphasis in this area in
their programs.
Level of Competency In general, the student’s satisfaction with their level of competency in these
areas reflects their opinion regarding the amount of experience they received. Students expressing
dissatisfaction with the level of competency ranged from 16 to 51 percent. The competencies, and
the percentage of May graduates rating the competencies as deficient include: contemporary
issues (67%); knowledge of industry practices and standards (43%); impact of engineering
solutions in a global context (49%); the practice of engineering on a global scale (52%); and,
environmental aspects of engineering practices (43%).
Departmental Results: Response patterns for the five programs varied by topic with no consistent
overall pattern detected. Response patterns, by program, were somewhat similar for the student’s
rating of the environmental aspects of engineering practices and the impact of engineering
solutions in a global context. Regarding professional and ethical responsibilities, Electrical and
Mechanical majors exhibited lower satisfaction levels than the other programs. Satisfaction with
the competency level of the practice of engineering on a global scale was significantly higher for
Civil, Computer and Mechanical than for the Chemical and Electrical majors. Chemical, Electrical
and Mechanical majors expressed higher levels of dissatisfaction regarding their competency level
relating to contemporary issues than Civil and Computer engineers. In addition, a larger
proportion of Electrical and Mechanical engineers were dissatisfied with their competency levels
110
regarding basic knowledge of industry practices and the need for life-long learning than seniors
from the Chemical, Civil or Computer Engineering programs.
Most Useful Experiences and Activities
Students were asked what courses, experiences, teachers or activities they believe were most
useful in helping to prepare for the engineering profession. Responses differed by area of
concentration.
Electrical
Eleven students majoring in electrical engineering responded to this question and provided a
variety of responses. One student indicated that working with computers was the most beneficial
experience of his college career. Several professors including – Hudgins, Simpson, Brice,
Cokkinides and Sudarshan - were noted for their roles in heightening students’ interest in
engineering. Eight of the eleven students said that labwork was the most “practical and
informative” academic activity as well as yielding a “feeling of relevance” to their experience.
Computer
Ten students majoring in computer engineering listed a response to this item. Three students listed
EECE 351 and 352, taught by Campbell and King, as challenging and practical. Students also
noted 500 level computer courses. Other beneficial activities included interning, labs, NSBE and
professors Campbell, King, Sechrest, Hudgins, Dougal, Sudarshan and Simpson.
Civil
Seven students in civil engineering wrote a response for this item. Several students named
professors who were helpful and other students listed beneficial courses and organizations.
Professors mentioned include Bradburn, Gribb, Harries, Meadows, Petrou and Sutton. One student
noted ASCE as a helpful learning activity. Courses listed by students include: ECIV 470, 520,
562, and 563.
Mechanical
There were 29 responses from Mechanical Engineering majors. The top four responses included a
listing of outstanding professors, senior design courses, ASME and senior lab. Fourteen of the 29
students named particular professors as having a positive impact on their education. Mechanical
professors recognized by the seniors include: Young (11), Keating (6), Reynolds (6), Sutton (6),
Khan (5), Peters (4), NcNeill (2), Lyons (1), Morehouse (1), Rochealeau (1), Schwartz (1), and
Bayoumi (1). Students also recognized professors from regional campuses and other departments.
Twelve students highlighted the senior design sequence when listing useful courses. Ten students
said that the ASME organization was useful in fostering interest in Engineering. Other beneficial
activities noted by students included co-op and internship experiences, research work, open door
policy of the professors, and, the basic core courses in the curriculum.
Chemical
Nine Chemical Engineering majors provided comments regarding useful college activities, helpful
courses or outstanding teachers. Two students suggested that their most influential learning
111
activity was their co-op or internship experience. Students noted the following professors: Van
Brunt (6), Amiridis (4), Matthews (2), Gadala-Maria (1), Hoo (1), and Ritter (1). Five students
stated that participation in AIChE assisted with interpersonal and leadership skills. Group projects,
design classes, computer classes, teamwork, oral presentations, student interaction, and freshman
English were also listed as helpful activities in preparing students to become an engineering
professional.
Extracurricular Activities
Internships
Only 45 percent of the senior indicated that they held at least one internship with an engineering
company during their academic career. Students with internships (33 students) listed 24 different
companies as employers. Some of the companies, for example, include NCR, SC DOT, Milliken,
Westinghouse, Quore Property Science, Chavis Electric, Dana Corp and AFCO. A complete
listing of all the companies is provided in the frequency distribution of results.
Departmental Results: Students from all majors participated but levels of involvement varied
among the program areas: Chemical (50%); mechanical (43%); computer (46%); electrical (50%)
and civil (33%).
Co-ops
Approximately 28 percent, or 21 students, indicated that they participated in a co-op program.
Fifteen different companies provided this work opportunity for these students including;
Westinghouse, Allied Signal, Union Camp, SC DOT, Georgetown Steel, Pontiac Foods, Union
Switch and Signal, Ohio Brass, R.E. Phelon, BellSouth, Thermal Ceramics, GE Banyon, Bose
Corporation, Cooper Power Tools, and Santee Cooper.
Departmental Results: None of the Computer Engineering seniors enrolled in a co-op program,
however, 50 percent (6 students) of the Electrical engineering students and 33 percent of the
Chemical Engineering students were participants. Similar proportions of Civil (25%) and
Mechanical (27%) students also listed co-op experience.
Career Services
Students were asked if they participated in career planning through the Career Services Office.
Approximately 63 percent of the seniors (45 students) indicated using services offered by this
office. There was a difference in the participation of students in different programs. Over 80
percent of the seniors from Chemical and Electrical but less than half of the Civil and Computer
seniors utilized the Career Services Offices.
Employment during School
Survey results show that 80 percent of the seniors held a part-time or full-time job while attending
school. About half of the working students, 53 percent (32 students), were employed less than 20
hours per week. A sizable proportion, however, 27 percent (16 students), worked more than 30
112
hours per week with an additional 20 percent (12 students) engaged for between 20 and 30 hours
per week.
Departmental Results: All program areas had at least half of their students engaged in a job while
attending college. The proportion of working students ranged from 56 percent of the civil
Engineering seniors to 91 percent of the Computer Engineering seniors. With the exception of the
Computer and Mechanical Engineering seniors, a majority of the students (60 percent or more)
indicated they worked less than 20 hours per week.
Graduate Education
Students were asked if they plan to attend graduate school. Only 27 percent of the seniors
surveyed indicated they have plans to enroll in graduate school, however, approximately 45
percent were unsure. A significant proportion, approximately 27 percent, said they had no plans to
attend graduate school.
Departmental Results: Survey data indicated that students in each program area plan to further
their education but a smaller percentage of the Computer Engineering students (only 9 percent)
compared to seniors from other programs have definite plans to attend graduate school.
Program of Study: Students were asked to indicate what future program of study they would
pursue during graduate school. The 20 students who definitely plan to attend graduate school as
well as some of those students who indicated they might pursue further education responded to this
question. Student responses suggest that they are planning to pursue graduate degrees in an
engineering field or a business degree. Other students indicated an interest in
mathematics/physics, education and communications. Less than half of the students indicated
USC as their possible choice of graduate school.
Recommendations
Students were given the opportunity to make recommendations for the improvement of the
educational experience for future engineers at USC. Approximately 91 percent of the respondents
(68 students) commented on this survey item. A variety of topics emerged from an analysis of the
data with students making more than 50 independent suggestions.
Seniors provided program specific suggestions as well as more global critiques applicable to
college-wide services, etc. Recommendations common to all program areas are listed below:
1.)
2.)
3.)
4.)
5.)
6.)
Redesign curriculum and/or add courses such as computer applications, ethics,
business/industry standards, environmental issues
Add faculty. Provide more caring faculty. Hire competent faculty.
Require or increase participation in co-ops and internship programs
Greater collaboration with business and industry within the classroom.
Increase oral presentation opportunities.
Increase real world, hands-on, practical activities/projects in courses.
113
7.)
8.)
9.)
10.)
11.)
Increase access to computers – more computers – have computer labs available
instead of tied up with classes.
Improve instruction – have faculty focus more on course rather than research.
Upgrade and increase maintenance of labs and equipment.
Improved and increased faculty/student interaction.
Improve computer technical support – increase support availability, provide more
competent and courteous staff.
Some specific program recommendations, most of which are not covered in the global list, are also
noteworthy. The more frequently mentioned suggestions for each area are given below.
Chemical:
1.)
2.)
3.)
4.)
Encourage co-op participation.
Improvements/expansions in courses offered, material covered.
Faculty with increased industrial and practical experience.
Increase faculty/industry contact (ex. - team taught Process Control Design)
Civil:
1.)
2.)
3.)
Computer:
1.)
2.)
3.)
Electrical:
1.)
2.)
3.)
Add courses such as Surveying I and II, surveying lab, Highway Design
Increase use within instruction of computer programs for calculations and
applications (ex. Mathcad, Autocad, Watercad, EaglePoint)
Delete and/or combine ECIV 300, ECIV 301, ECIV 405, ECON 421 and STAT
509.
Better access to computers (computers not used as classrooms).
Hire more computer faculty.
Include more course emphasizing IT systems, design, networking, web page design,
JAVA, etc.
Redesign curriculum: more diversity in courses offered. Delete outdated courses.
Clean labs and provide better equipment in them.
Improve teaching. Hire faculty members who know how to teach.
Mechanical:
1.)
2.)
3.)
4.)
5.)
6.)
7.)
Delete the microprocessor course as a requirement.
Implement more applications to real world and problem-solving.
Expose students more to industry practices.
Increase the teaching of ethics, industry practices and standards, environmental
issues and design projects.
Improve lab conditions and equipment.
Improve instruction – terminate incompetent and bigoted professors.
Increase faculty/student interaction.
114
Summary
The College of Engineering administered the Senior Survey to 89 graduating seniors during May
1999. Seventy-four surveys were completed and collected from students yielding an overall 83
percent return rate. This marks a substantial increase compared to the previous semester in which
the return rate was approximately 65 percent. Return rates were highest for those departments in
which the surveys were administered during class or by a department administrator.
Demographics for the sample of students who completed a survey indicate that 76 percent of the
students are Caucasian and 80 percent are male. Approximately 45 percent of the students held an
internship during the summer and 28 percent of the sample participated in a co-op program while
attending USC. These figures represent a decrease compared to the December 1998 Senior Survey
results. Survey findings also show that 80 percent of the seniors held a part-time or full-time job
while attending school. A majority of the seniors who held jobs while attending USC, 53 percent,
were employed for less than 20 hours per week.
About 27 percent of the seniors have definite plans to attend graduate school and another 45
percent indicate that they might enroll in the future. Only 45 percent of the students who indicated
a possibility of pursuing further education stated that they plan to study engineering. A sizable
proportion of the seniors, 40 percent, believes they will enroll in a business program in graduate
school.
A total of 27 seniors, or approximately 35 percent of the sample, transferred to the USC-Columbia
campus from a regional campus or another institution. Approximately 83 percent of these transfers
were from a two or four-year college within South Carolina. A substantial segment of the
transfers, 33 percent, came from a USC regional campus program. Technical colleges supplied
approximately 17 percent of the transfer population. The Mechanical Engineering program had
the largest proportion of the transfers with 12 students or approximately 44 percent of the transfer
population.
Length of enrollment statistics for this semester was somewhat unusual because three students
began their college careers in 1979 and 1988. Otherwise, 90 percent of the seniors who began in
1991 through 1998 took five years to graduate. Approximately 54 percent of the seniors who
entered in 1991 or later graduated in four years.
Four questions on the survey asked students to rate their degree of satisfaction with their
undergraduate experience within the College of Engineering. Approximately 65 percent of the
seniors said they would recommend their program to a friend or relative. This is the same
percentage as in previous semesters. A majority of students, 81 percent, indicated satisfaction
with their preparation to become an engineer. Approximately 77 percent rendered a positive rating
regarding their preparation to obtain a job. Overall, 91 percent of the seniors believe they are
satisfactorily prepared to become contributing members of society.
Students assessed satisfaction with ten categories of services provided by the College of
Engineering. Although there is room for improvement, in general, students have a positive
115
perception of these selected services. Areas of strength include: the comfort and appropriateness
of classrooms (83%), the value of assistance provided by Student Services (75%), the respectful
treatment of students by TAs (73%), the TAs understanding of the subject matter (73%), and the
advisor’s knowledge of program requirements (72%). According to the following percentages of
students, areas needing the most improvement are: the availability and condition of computers
(35%), the availability and condition of lab equipment (38%), and the overall condition of labs
(31%) and the value of general advisement services received (26%). These are the same
weaknesses identified by students from the December 1998 survey administration.
Seniors were asked to give their opinion regarding the amount of experience they received and
their satisfaction with the level of competency achieved on 21 different skills. Regarding the
amount of experience received in coursework, at least 60 percent or more of the students believe
they obtained “adequate” instructional experience for 16 of the 21 competency areas.
Competencies rated the highest by 90 percent or more of the students are given below:
knowledge of engineering terms, principles and theories (94%)
knowledge of advanced math (94%)
knowledge of chemistry and/or physics (91%)
knowledge of liberal arts (92%)
identification, formulation and solving of engineering problems (92%)
ability to use computer software for communications (92%)
ability to communicate in writing (91%)
ability to communicate orally (90%)
Students also identified several skills and/or competencies that received “too little” instructional
emphasis in their coursework. Competencies indicated by 30 percent or more of the students as
needing improved coverage:
contemporary issues (51%)
practice of engineering on a global scale (41%)
basic knowledge of industry practices (39%)
impact of engineering solutions in a global context (38%)
environmental aspects of engineering practice (33%).
Students, as a whole, were also satisfied with their level of competency in each of the 21 skills.
Satisfaction levels ranged from 50 to 94 percent. Tabulations indicate that 90 percent or more of
the students gave the highest satisfaction ratings for the following competencies:
knowledge of engineering terms, principles, and theories (94%)
knowledge of advanced math (94%)
knowledge of liberal arts (92%)
identification and formulation of engineering problems (92%)
knowledge of chemistry and/or physics (91%)
written communications (91%)
use of computer software for communications (91%)
oral presentations (90%)
116
Students were asked what courses, experiences, teachers, or activities were most useful in helping
them to prepare for the engineering profession. A majority of students who responded to this
question listed particular courses, professors and professional organizations. A significant number
of students indicated that the co-op and/or internship experiences were the most important learning
activities during their academic career. Many of the students believe that membership and
participation in an organization such as the NSBE, AiChE, ASCE, and ASME fostered interest in
Engineering and provided valuable information about the profession. Students in each discipline
mentioned numerous faculty members who were especially helpful with the learning process.
Particular courses within each department, such as labs and design courses, were also noted as
providing useful experiences for the students.
Students made numerous recommendations regarding the improvement of the educational
experience for future engineering students. The most frequently cited suggestions made by all
students, regardless of major, include the following:









Redesign curriculum and /or add courses such as computer applications, ethics,
business/industry standards, environmental issues
Add faculty. Have more caring faculty. Hire competent faculty.
Have greater collaboration with business and industry within the classroom.
Increase real world, hands-on, practical activities/projects in courses.
Increase access to computers – more computers – have computer labs available instead of
tied up with classes.
Improve instruction – have faculty focus more on course rather than research.
Upgrade and increase maintenance of labs and equipment.
Improved and increased faculty/student interaction.
Improve computer technical support – increase support availability, provide more
competent and courteous staff.
Overall, the interpretation of the survey results suggests that students perceive their engineering
experience in a positive light. In their evaluation of the ABET Criteria 2000 skills, students believe
they received about the right amount of coursework experience and are satisfied with their level of
competency on a majority of the specified skills.
117
Appendix D
Course Survey
118
119
120
Appendix E
Course Survey Reports
(sample)
121
Spring 2000 Course Survey Results
College and Program Totals
1.
The instructor clearly stated the instructional objectives of the course.
Total
Strongly
Disagree
28 (1.3%)
Disagree
54 (2.4%)
Neutral
132 ( 6.0%)
CSCE
ECHE
ECIV
ELCT
EMCH
AIKEN
8
0
3
12
5
0
22
4
8
14
6
0
43
9
26
41
12
1
2.
(1.9%)
(0.0%)
(0.7%)
(3.7%)
(0.7%)
(0.0%)
(5.1%)
(1.4%)
(2.0%)
(4.3%)
(0.9%)
(0.0%)
Agree
1062 (48.0%)
(10.0%)
( 3.2%)
( 6.4%)
(12.6%)
( 1.8%)
( 1.4%)
238
121
178
183
325
15
(55.2%)
(42.6%)
(43.6%)
(56.1%)
(47.5%)
(21.1%)
Strongly
Agree
937 (42.3%)
Means
4.28
SD
.79
120
150
193
76
336
55
4.02
4.47
4.35
3.91
4.43
4.75
. 87
.63
.80
.93
.65
.47
(27.8%)
(52.8%)
(47.3%)
(23.3%)
(49.1%)
(77.5%)
The instructor clearly stated the method by which your final grade would be determined.
Total
Strongly
Disagree
49 (1.9%)
Disagree
90 (4.1%)
Neutral
172 ( 7.8%)
Agree
933 (42.2%)
Strongly
Agree
972 (43.9%)
Means
4.21
SD
.91
CSCE
ECHE
ECIV
ELCT
EMCH
AIKEN
14
2
12
15
6
0
26
13
21
21
9
0
42
19
35
47
28
1
212
108
152
156
282
22
138
142
188
88
360
48
4.00
4.32
4.18
3.86
4.43
4.65
.98
.84
.99
1.03
.72
.51
3.
(3.2%)
(0.7%)
(2.9%)
(4.6%)
(0.9%)
(0.0%)
(6.0%)
(4.6%)
(5.1%)
(6.4%)
(1.3%)
(0.0%)
( 9.7%)
( 6.7%)
( 8.6%)
(14.4%)
( 4.1%)
( 1.4%)
(49.1%)
(38.0%)
(37.3%)
(47.7%)
(41.2%)
(31.0%)
(31.9%)
(50.0%)
(46.1%)
(26.9%)
(52.6%)
(67.6%)
The instructor clearly explained any special requirements of attendance which differ from the
attendance policy of the University.
Total
Strongly
Disagree
32 (1.5%)
Disagree
54 (2.5%)
Neutral
311 (14.1%)
Agree
961 (43.7%)
Strongly
Agree
842 (38.3%)
Means
4.15
SD
.86
CSCE
ECHE
ECIV
ELCT
EMCH
AIKEN
13
0
6
8
5
0
15
8
5
19
7
0
74
40
55
82
57
3
196
121
159
141
321
21
129
115
180
75
289
47
3.97
4.21
4.24
3.79
4.30
4.61
.94
.79
.84
.95
.73
.57
4.
Total
(3.0%)
(0.0%)
(1.5%)
(2.5%)
(0.7%)
(0.0%)
(3.5%)
(2.8%)
(1.2%)
(5.8%)
(1.0%)
(0.0%)
(17.3%)
(14.1%)
(13.6%)
(25.2%)
( 8.4%)
( 4.2%)
(45.9%)
(42.6%)
(39.3%)
(43.4%)
(47.3%)
(29.6%)
(30.2%)
(40.5%)
(44.4%)
(23.1%)
(42.6%)
(66.2%)
The instructor clearly graded and returned the student’s written work (e.g., examinations and
papers) in a timely manner..
Strongly
Disagree
94 ( 4.3%)
Disagree
146 ( 6.6%)
Neutral
230 (10.4%)
122
Agree
854 (38.6%)
Strongly
Agree
887 (40.1%)
Means
4.04
SD
1.07
CSCE
ECHE
ECIV
ELCT
EMCH
AIKEN
5.
37
1
6
41
7
2
( 8.6%)
( 0.4%)
( 1.5%)
(12.5%)
( 1.0%)
( 2.8%)
47
18
26
38
15
2
(10.9%)
( 6.4%)
( 6.4%)
(11.6%)
( 2.2%)
( 2.8%)
58
29
39
54
43
4
(13.5%)
(10.3%)
( 9.6%)
(16.5%)
( 6.3%)
( 5.6%)
156
128
160
123
266
21
(36.3%)
(45.4%)
(39.3%)
(37.6%)
(38.8%)
(29.6%)
(30.7%)
(37.6%)
(43.2%)
(21.7%)
(51.7%)
(59.2%)
3.70
4.13
4.16
3.44
4.38
4.38
1.25
.87
.94
1.29
.78
.94
Means
4.41
SD
.75
4.21
4.32
4.60
4.11
4.55
4.69
. 87
.87
.57
.83
.60
.46
The instructor met the class regularly and at the scheduled times.
Total
Strongly
Disagree
26 (1.2%)
Disagree
32 (1.5%)
Neutral
101 (4.6%)
Agree
901 (40.9%)
CSCE
ECHE
ECIV
ELCT
EMCH
AIKEN
12
5
1
5
3
0
5
11
1
13
2
0
38
14
9
26
14
0
197
111
137
175
259
21
6.
132
106
176
71
354
42
(2.8%)
(1.8%)
(0.2%)
(1.6%)
(0.4%)
(0.0%)
(1.2%)
(3.9%)
(0.2%)
(4.1%)
(0.3%)
(0.0%)
(8.9%)
(4.9%)
(2.2%)
(8.1%)
(2.0%)
(0.0%)
(46.0%)
(39.1%)
(33.6%)
(54.7%)
(37.9%)
(29.6%)
Strongly
Agree
1143 (51.9%)
176
143
260
101
405
50
(41.1%)
(50.4%)
(63.7%)
(31.6%)
(59.3%)
(70.4%)
The instructor scheduled a reasonable number of office hours per week.
Total
Strongly
Disagree
41 (1.9%)
Disagree
66 (3.0%)
Neutral
228 (10.3%)
Agree
882 (39.8%)
Strongly
Agree
997 (45.0%)
Means
4.23
SD
.89
CSCE
ECHE
ECIV
ELCT
EMCH
AIKEN
22
1
2
11
4
1
21
9
2
23
11
0
62
20
22
60
60
2
174
114
149
140
281
23
151
140
233
93
329
45
3.96
4.35
4.49
3.86
4.34
4.56
1.07
.78
.69
1.02
.75
.69
7.
(5.1%)
(0.4%)
(0.5%)
(3.4%)
(0.6%)
(1.4%)
(4.9%)
(3.2%)
(0.5%)
(7.0%)
(1.6%)
(0.0%)
(14.4%)
( 7.0%)
( 5.4%)
(18.3%)
( 8.8%)
( 2.8%)
(40.5%)
(40.1%)
(36.5%)
(42.8%)
(41.0%)
(32.4%)
(35.1%)
(49.3%)
(57.1%)
(28.4%)
(48.0%)
(63.4%)
Please indicate your satisfaction with the availability of the instructor outside the classroom by
choosing one response from the scale above. (In selecting your rating, consider the instructor’s
availability via established office hours, appointments, and other opportunities for face-to-face
interaction as well as via telephone, e-mail, fax and other means.).
Total
Very
Dissatisfied
36 (1.7%)
Dissatisfied
107 ( 5.0%)
Satisfied
998 (47.0%)
Very
Satisfied
983 (46.3%)
Means
3.38
SD
.66
CSCE
ECHE
ECIV
ELCT
EMCH
AIKEN
17
3
2
13
1
0
41 (10.2%)
6 ( 2.2%)
7 ( 1.8%)
42 (13.6%)
11 ( 1.7%)
0 ( 0.0%)
201
131
166
173
303
23
144
137
224
81
343
46
3.17
3.45
3.53
3.04
3.50
3.67
.77
.60
.56
.75
.54
.47
8.
(4.2%)
(1.1%)
(0.5%)
(4.2%)
(0.2%)
(0.0%)
(49.9%)
(47.3%)
(41.6%)
(56.0%)
(46.0%)
( 33.3%)
The stated course objectives reflect what was actually taught..
123
(35.7%)
(49.5%)
(56.1%)
(26.2%)
(52.1%)
(66.7%)
Total
CSCE
ECHE
ECIV
ELCT
EMCH
AIKEN
9.
Strongly
Disagree
27 (1.2%)
9
0
3
9
6
0
(2.1%)
(0.0%)
(0.7%)
(2.8%)
(0.9%)
(0.0%)
Disagree
77 (3.5%)
Neutral
201 (9.1%)
Agree
1018 (46.1%)
Strongly
Agree
887 (40.1%)
Means
4.20
SD
.84
34
8
9
17
9
0
58
14
38
55
35
0
218
122
164
167
323
22
111
140
193
75
313
49
3.90
4.39
4.31
3.87
4.35
4.68
. 94
.71
.79
.92
.72
.47
(7.9%)
(2.8%)
(2.2%)
(5.3%)
(1.3%)
(0.0%)
Total
Disagree
103 (4.7%)
CSCE
ECHE
ECIV
ELCT
EMCH
AIKEN
18
2
5
13
8
0
35
14
11
28
15
0
Total
CSCE
ECHE
ECIV
ELCT
EMCH
AIKEN
11.
(50.7%)
(43.0%)
(40.3%)
(51.7%)
(47.1%)
(31.0%)
(25.8%)
(49.3%)
(47.4%)
(23.2%)
(45.6%)
(69.0%)
The assignments were meaningful, and contributed to my understanding of the subject..
Strongly
Disagree
46 (2.1%)
10.
(13.5%)
( 4.9%)
( 9.3%)
(17.0%)
( 5.1%)
( 0.0%)
(4.2%)
(0.7%)
(1.2%)
(4.0%)
(1.2%)
(0.0%)
(8.2%)
(4.9%)
(2.7%)
(8.6%)
(2.2%)
(0.0%)
Neutral
199 (9.0%)
50
15
26
53
52
3
(11.7%)
( 5.3%)
( 6.4%)
(16.3%)
( 7.6%)
( 4.2%)
Agree
938 (42.4%)
Strongly
Agree
924 (41.8%)
Means
4.17
SD
.92
191
121
162
154
284
24
134
132
203
77
327
44
3.91
4.29
4.34
3.78
4.32
4.56
1 06
.83
.82
1.03
.80
.60
(44.6%)
(42.6%)
(39.8%)
(47.4%)
(41.4%)
(33.8%)
(31.3%)
(46.5%)
(49.9%)
(23.7%)
(47.7%)
(62.0%)
The course was intellectually challenging.
Strongly
Disagree
22 (1.0%)
9
0
2
6
5
0
(2.1%)
(0.0%)
(0.5%)
(1.9%)
(0.7%)
(0.0%)
Disagree
50 (2.3%)
Neutral
171 (7.7%)
Agree
918 (41.5%)
Strongly
Agree
1049 (47.5%)
Means
4.32
SD
.79
19 (4.4%)
3 (1.1%)
6 (1.5%)
11 (3.4%)
11 (1.6%)
0 (0.0%)
44
14
25
39
48
1
200
107
161
154
272
22
158 (36.7%)
159 (56.2%)
213 (52.3%)
114 (35.2%)
350 (51.0%)
48 (67.6%)
4.11
4.49
4.42
4.11
4.39
4.65
.91
.64
.72
.87
.75
.51
(10.2%)
( 4.9%)
( 6.1%)
(12.0%)
( 7.0%)
( 1.4%)
(46.5%)
(37.8%)
(39.6%)
(47.5%)
(39.7%)
(31.1%)
The course was well organized; course materials were well prepared and carefully explained.
Total
Strongly
Disagree
70 (3.2%)
Disagree
133 (6.1%)
Neutral
243 (11.1%)
Agree
929 (42.3%)
Strongly
Agree
823 (37.4%)
Means
4.05
SD
1.01
CSCE
ECHE
ECIV
ELCT
EMCH
AIKEN
27
4
7
26
6
0
44
16
21
34
17
0
56
19
43
70
53
2
196
114
148
133
310
27
103
130
187
60
294
42
3.71
4.24
4.20
3.52
4.28
4.56
1.13
.91
.94
1.15
.78
.55
(6.3%)
(1.4%)
(1.7%)
(8.0%)
(0.9%)
(0.0%)
(10.3%)
( 5.7%)
( 5.2%)
(10.5%)
( 2.5%)
( 0.0%)
(13.1%)
( 6.7%)
(10.6%)
(21.7%)
( 7.8%)
( 2.8%)
13. The required course readings were valuable.
124
(46.0%)
(40.3%)
(36.5%)
(41.2%)
(45.6%)
(38.0%)
(24.2%)
(45.9%)
(46.1%)
(18.6%)
(43.2%)
(59.2%)
Total
CSCE
ECHE
ECIV
ELCT
EMCH
AIKEN
13.
Strongly
Disagree
100 (4.6%)
29
7
14
24
26
0
(6.8%)
(2.5%)
(3.5%)
(7.4%)
(3.8%)
(0.0%)
Disagree
143 ( 6.5%)
Neutral
423 (19.3%)
Agree
845 (38.6%)
Strongly
Agree
680 (31.0%)
Means
3.85
SD
1.07
37
18
13
41
33
0
67
39
91
103
117
6
185
109
141
111
268
31
107
107
141
45
238
34
3.72
4.04
3.96
3.35
3.97
4.39
1.14
1.00
1.01
1.10
1.03
.64
( 8.7%)
( 6.4%)
( 3.3%)
(12.7%)
( 4.8%)
( 0.0%)
(15.8%)
(13.9%)
(22.8%)
(31.8%)
(17.2%)
( 8.5%)
(43.5%)
(38.9%)
(35.3%)
(34.3%)
(39.3%)
(43.7%)
(25.2%)
(38.2%)
(35.3%)
(13.9%)
(34.9%)
(47.9%)
The tests, projects, reports, and/or presentations were related to course objectives.
Total
Strongly
Disagree
24 (1.1%)
Disagree
49 (2.2%)
Neutral
161 ( 7.3%)
Agree
1007 (46.0%)
Strongly
Agree
950 (43.4%)
Means
4.28
SD
.78
CSCE
ECHE
ECIV
ELCT
EMCH
AIKEN
10
1
1
8
4
0
18
1
6
18
6
0
45
13
28
37
35
3
218
121
169
177
301
20
132
146
199
83
335
48
4.05
4.45
4.39
3.96
4.41
4.63
. 89
.64
.70
.90
.68
.57
14.
(2.4%)
(0.4%)
(0.2%)
(2.5%)
(0.6%)
(0.0%)
(4.3%)
(0.4%)
(1.5%)
(5.6%)
(0.9%)
(0.0%)
(51.5%)
(42.9%)
(41.9%)
(54.8%)
(44.2%)
(28.2%)
(31.2%)
(51.8%)
(49.4%)
(25.7%)
(49.2%)
(67.6%)
The assessments used to determine the grade in this course were objectively or fairly scored by
the instructor or TA.
Total
Strongly
Disagree
45 (2.1%)
Disagree
95 (4.4%)
CSCE
ECHE
ECIV
ELCT
EMCH
AIKEN
18
3
4
17
3
0
28
20
10
27
10
0
15.
(10.6%)
( 4.6%)
( 6.9%)
(11.5%)
( 5.1%)
( 4.2%)
(4.3%)
(1.1%)
(1.0%)
(5.4%)
(0.4%)
(0.0%)
(6.6%)
(7.1%)
(2.5%)
(8.5%)
(1.5%)
(0.0%)
Neutral
257 (11.8%)
66
32
49
56
52
2
(15.6%)
(11.3%)
(12.3%)
(17.7%)
( 7.7%)
( 2.9%)
Agree
932 (42.9%)
Strongly
Agree
841 (38.8%)
Means
4.12
SD
.92
199
121
153
143
292
22
111
106
182
73
318
44
3.85
4.09
4.25
3.72
4.35
4.61
1.02
.93
.84
1.08
.73
.55
(47.2%)
(42.9%)
(38.4%)
(45.3%)
(43.3%)
(32.4%)
(26.3%)
(37.6%)
(45.7%)
(23.1%)
(47.1%)
(64.7%)
Overall, how would you rate this course?
Total
Very Poor
48 (2.2%)
Poor
109 ( 5.0%)
Average
226 (10.3%)
Good
1006 (45.8%)
Excellent
806 (36.7%)
Means
4.10
SD
.93
CSCE
ECHE
ECIV
ELCT
EMCH
AIKEN
24
3
3
15
3
0
36
14
14
34
11
0
65
23
37
52
46
2
199
133
177
157
321
19
102
110
174
64
300
48
3.75
4.18
4.25
3.69
4.33
4.66
1.0 8
.86
.82
1.05
.71
.54
Means
SD
16.
(5.6%)
(1.1%)
(0.7%)
(4.7%)
(0.4%)
(0.0%)
( 8.5%)
( 4.9%)
( 3.5%)
(10.6%)
( 1.6%)
( 0.0%)
(15.3%)
( 8.1%)
( 9.1%)
(16.1%)
( 6.8%)
( 2.9%)
(46.7%)
(47.0%)
(43.7%)
(48.8%)
(47.1%)
(27.5%)
(23.9%)
(38.9%)
(43.0%)
(19.9%)
(44.1%)
(69.6%)
The instructor made the objectives clear for each class.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
125
Strongly
Agree
Total
31 (1.4%)
83 (3.8%)
203 (9.3%)
1043 (47.9%)
819 (37.6%)
4.16
.85
CSCE
ECHE
ECIV
ELCT
EMCH
AIKEN
9
2
4
10
6
0
27
10
16
25
5
0
53
25
35
53
37
0
216
111
185
170
333
27
109
134
165
61
299
44
3.94
4.29
4.21
3.77
4.34
4.63
.92
.83
.84
.95
.70
.49
17.
Total
CSCE
ECHE
ECIV
ELCT
EMCH
AIKEN
18.
(2.2%)
(0.7%)
(1.0%)
(3.1%)
(0.0%)
(0.0%)
(6.5%)
(3.5%)
(4.0%)
(7.8%)
(0.7%)
(0.0%)
(12.8%)
( 8.9%)
( 8.6%)
(16.6%)
( 5.4%)
( 0.0%)
(52.2%)
(39.4%)
(45.7%)
(53.3%)
(49.0%)
(38.0%)
(26.3%)
(47.5%)
(40.7%)
(19.1%)
(44.0%)
(62.0%)
The instructor was prepared for each class session.
Strongly
Disagree
24 (1.1 %)
9
1
3
7
4
0
(2.2%)
(0.4%)
(0.7%)
(2.2%)
(0.6%)
(0.0%)
Disagree
60 (2.8%)
Neutral
151 (6.9%)
Agree
956 (43.9%)
Strongly
Agree
989 (45.4%)
Means
4.30
SD
.80
19
4
13
18
6
0
49
14
30
38
19
1
208
115
148
167
295
21
128
149
211
90
356
49
4.03
4.44
4.36
3.98
4.46
4.68
.90
.69
.81
.91
.65
.50
(4.6%)
(1.4%)
(3.2%)
(5.6%)
(0.9%)
(0.0%)
(11.9%)
( 4.9%)
( 7.4%)
(11.9%)
( 2.8%)
( 1.4%)
(50.4%)
(40.6%)
(36.5%)
(52.2%)
(43.4%)
(29.6%)
(31.0%)
(52.7%)
(52.1%)
(28.1%)
(52.4%)
(69.0%)
The instructor made effective use of the available time.
Total
Strongly
Disagree
39 (1.8%)
Disagree
78 (3.6%)
Neutral
186 (8.5%)
Agree
924 (42.4%)
Strongly
Agree
951 (43.7%)
Means
4.23
SD
.88
CSCE
ECHE
ECIV
ELCT
EMCH
AIKEN
12
8
2
12
5
0
27
11
14
11
15
0
55
18
32
47
33
1
198
111
145
167
282
20
119
135
212
83
345
50
3.94
4.25
4.36
3.93
4.39
4.69
.97
.94
.81
.94
.75
.49
19.
Total
CSCE
ECHE
ECIV
ELCT
EMCH
AIKEN
20.
Total
(2.9%)
(2.8%)
(0.5%)
(3.8%)
(0.7%)
(0.0%)
(6.6%)
(3.9%)
(3.5%)
(3.4%)
(2.2%)
(0.0%)
(13.4%)
( 6.4%)
( 7.9%)
(14.7%)
( 4.9%)
( 1.4%)
(48.2%)
(39.2%)
(35.8%)
(52.2%)
(41.5%)
(28.2%)
(29.0%)
(47.7%)
(52.8%)
(25.9%)
(50.7%)
(70.4%)
The instructor was enthusiastic about the subject.
Strongly
Disagree
19 (0.9%)
7
1
2
8
1
0
(1.7%)
(0.4%)
(0.5%)
(2.5%)
(0.1%)
(0.0%)
Disagree
64 (2.9%)
Neutral
158 (7.3%)
Agree
856 (39.3%)
Strongly
Agree
1079 (49.6%)
Means
4.34
SD
.81
25
5
5
23
6
0
44
19
24
39
31
0
200
95
127
155
261
18
134
162
247
95
381
53
4.05
4.46
4.51
3.96
4.49
4.75
.91
.73
.71
.97
.64
.44
Means
4.10
SD
.99
(6.1%)
(1.8%)
(1.2%)
(7.2%)
(0.9%)
(0.0%)
(10.7%)
( 6.7%)
( 5.9%)
(12.2%)
( 4.6%)
( 0.0%)
(48.8%)
(33.7%)
(31.4%)
(48.4%)
(38.4%)
(25.4%)
(32.7%)
(57.4%)
(61.0%)
(29.7%)
(56.0%)
(74.6%)
The instructor illustrated basic concepts so that I could understand.
Strongly
Disagree
60 (2.8%)
Disagree
127 ( 5.8%)
Neutral
224 (10.3%)
126
Agree
881 (40.4%)
Strongly
Agree
886 (40.7%)
CSCE
ECHE
ECIV
ELCT
EMCH
AIKEN
21.
22
7
2
22
7
0
(5.3%)
(2.5%)
(0.5%)
(6.9%)
(1.0%)
(0.0%)
40
16
17
41
12
0
( 9.7%)
( 5.7%)
( 4.2%)
(12.8%)
( 1.8%)
( 0.0%)
(13.6%)
( 9.9%)
( 9.9%)
(15.3%)
( 7.2%)
( 2.8%)
196
95
153
142
269
25
(47.6%)
(33.7%)
(37.9%)
(44.4%)
(39.5%)
(35.2%)
98
136
192
66
344
44
(23.8%)
(48.2%)
(47.5%)
(20.6%)
(50.5%)
(62.0%)
3.75
4.20
4.28
3.59
4.37
4.60
1.09
1.00
. 84
1.15
.78
.55
The instructor clearly answered questions asked by students..
Total
Strongly
Disagree
38 (2.7%)
Disagree
105 (4.8%)
CSCE
ECHE
ECIV
ELCT
EMCH
AIKEN
20
5
1
28
4
0
39 (9.5%)
15 (5.3%)
11 (2.7%)
28 (8.8%)
11 (1.6%)
0 (0.0%)
22.
56
28
40
49
49
2
(4.9%)
(1.8%)
(0.2%)
(8.8%)
(0.6%)
(0.0%)
Neutral
193 ( 8.9%)
52
17
36
50
34
4
(12.6%)
( 6.0%)
( 8.9%)
(15.6%)
( 5.0%)
( 5.6%)
Agree
908 (41.7%)
Strongly
Agree
911 (41.9%)
Means
4.15
SD
.96
189
105
166
136
287
25
112
139
190
78
343
42
3.81
4.27
4.32
3.65
4.40
4.54
1.09
.93
.77
1.19
.71
.60
(45.9%)
(37.4%)
(41.1%)
(42.5%)
(42.3%)
(35.2%)
(27.2%)
(49.5%)
(47.0%)
(24.4%)
(50.5%)
(59.2%)
The instructor respected the students as individuals.
Total
Strongly
Disagree
41 (1.9%)
Disagree
48 (2.2%)
Neutral
130 ( 6.0%)
Agree
856 (39.4%)
Strongly
Agree
1095 (50.5%)
Means
4.34
SD
.84
CSCE
ECHE
ECIV
ELCT
EMCH
AIKEN
12
2
1
23
3
0
17
6
2
17
6
0
37 ( 9.0%)
12 ( 4.3%)
15 ( 3.7%)
39 (12.3%)
24 ( 3.5%)
2 ( 2.8%)
186
100
142
151
258
19
160
161
243
87
387
50
4.13
4.47
4.55
3.83
4.50
4.68
. 94
.74
.62
1.11
.65
.53
23.
(2.9%)
(0.7%)
(0.2%)
(7.7%)
(0.4%)
(0.0%)
(4.1%)
(2.1%)
(0.5%)
(5.4%)
(0.9%)
(0.0%)
(45.1%)
(35.6%)
(35.2%)
(47.6%)
(38.1%)
(26.8%)
(38.8%)
(57.3%)
(60.3%)
(27.4%)
(57.1%)
(70.4%)
Overall, I rate the performance of my instructor as:
Total
Very Poor
29 (1.6%)
Poor
84 (4.6%)
CSCE
ECHE
ECIV
ELCT
EMCH
AIKEN
13
0
1
13
2
0
31
11
10
25
7
0
(3.8%)
(0.0%)
(0.3%)
(5.0%)
(0.3%)
(0.0%)
(9.0%)
(4.5%)
(3.2%)
(9.6%)
(1.2%)
(0.0%)
Average
125 ( 6.9%)
34
18
22
33
18
0
( 9.9%)
( 7.3%)
( 7.1%)
(12.6%)
( 3.1%)
( 0.0%)
127
Good
697 (38.3%)
Excellent
883 (48.6%)
Means
4.28
SD
.90
155
80
97
122
222
20
110
137
182
68
331
48
3.93
4.39
4.44
3.79
4.50
4.71
1.06
.81
.79
1.09
.65
.46
(45.2%)
(32.5%)
(31.1%)
(46.7%)
(38.3%)
(29.4%)
(32.1%)
(55.7%)
(58.3%)
(26.1%)
(57.1%)
(70.6%)
Appendix F
Alumnae/Alumni Survey
128
College of Engineering
& Information Technology
Alumnae/Alumni Survey
An Assessment of Your
Experiences and Opinions
College of Engineering &
Information Technology
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
Susan Creighton
Director of Assessment
803/777-4423
129
Employment Information:
1.
Please indicate which of the following statements is applicable to your situation. Mark all that apply.
_____Employed full time (30 or more hours a week)
_____Employed part time (less than 30 hours a week)
_____I am enrolled in graduate school.
_____Not employed, but seeking a position.
_____Not employed and not seeking a position.
_____Not employed and not attending graduate school.
If you are NOT employed, skip to question 3.
2a.
What is your present position? ____________________________________________________________
2b.
Where are you employed? _______________________________________________________________
2c.
What is your primary business activity? (for example, design, research, sales, etc.) _______________
2d.
If you are NOT employed in the engineering field, please indicate the reasons for this decision.
2e.
Are you satisfied with your current position?
Please elaborate why or why not.
2f.
Are you satisfied with your career progression? Why or why not?
2g.
Are you satisfied with your salary level? Why or why not?
2h.
Are you generally satisfied with your career choice? (such as engineering) Circle one.
Please elaborate why or why not.
2i.
Do you ever see yourself leaving engineering in the future to enter another field?
Circle one.
Yes
No
Circle one.
130
Yes
No
Yes
No
If yes, which field?___________________________________________
First Time Employment
3.
What was your first position after graduation? _____________________________________________
4.
How long after graduation did you obtain an engineering-related job? _________________________
Continuing Education
5.
Have you applied to graduate school?
Circle one.
Yes
No
5a.
If yes, were you accepted?
Yes
No
5b.
Did you enroll in graduate school?
Yes
No
5c.
If yes, in what field? __________________________________________
5d.
Institution: __________________________________________________
5e.
Have you completed an advanced degree?
Yes
No
Undergraduate Experience
6.
How would you rate your overall satisfaction with your preparation to become an engineer? Please
mark the box that best describes your opinion.
Not
Satisfied
□
7.
Undecided
□
Satisfied
□
Very
Satisfied
□
How would you rate your preparation to obtain a job after graduation? Please mark the box that best
describes your opinion.
Not
Satisfied
□
8.
A Little
Satisfied
□
A Little
Satisfied
□
Undecided
□
Satisfied
□
Very
Satisfied
□
How would you rate your preparation to become a contributing member of society? Please mark the
box that best describes your opinion.
Not
Satisfied
□
A Little
Satisfied
□
Undecided
□
131
Satisfied
□
Very
Satisfied
□
9.
Below are listed some skills and competencies that are expected of engineering graduates.
Please provide us with your opinion about the importance of each skill as it relates to your
engineering positions. Also indicate your satisfaction with the level of competency you
achieved as a result of your USC education. For each item please circle the number in the
column appropriate to your answer.
Competencies
Importance of Skills
Not
Important
Important
1
Level of Competency
Very
Important
Completely
Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Satisfied
Completely
Satisfied
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
1
2
2
3
3
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
1
2
2
3
3
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
1
1
2
2
3
3
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
An ability to apply:
Engineering terms, principles and
theories
Advanced mathematics (calculus &
above)
Chemistry and/or physics
Liberal Arts (English, history,
economics, business, etc.)
An ability to:
Identify, formulate, and solve
engineering problems
Design a system, component, or process
to meet desired needs and quality
Use the computer as a tool for analysis &
design
Function on multi-disciplinary or crossfunctional teams
Function in culturally and ethnically
diverse environments
Communicate orally, informally, and in
prepared talks
Communicate in writing - technical
reports, memos, proposals, etc.
Use computer software for professional
communications
Design and conduct experiments
Analyze and interpret data
An understanding of:
Professional and ethical responsibilities
Environmental aspects of engineering
practice
The practice of engineering on a global
scale
The impact of engineering solutions in a
global and societal context
The need for engaging in life-long
learning
Basic knowledge of industry practices
132
and standards
Contemporary issues (welfare reform,
irradiation, etc.)
1
2
3
133
1
2
3
4
10.
Which aspects of your undergraduate or graduate engineering program (courses, experiences,
instructors, professional organizations) have most contributed to your satisfaction working in
engineering or your present career and why?
11.
Of the professors in the College of Engineering, which one was the most influential in your professional
development and why?
12.
What recommendations would you make to improve the educational experience for future engineering
students at USC?
134
Professional Development
13.
Please indicate the following information by circling the appropriate response.
13a.
Have you passed the Fundamentals of Engineering Examination? Yes No Haven’t taken it
13b.
Have you completed 4 years of engineering practice as an EIT? Yes No Working toward it
13c.
Have you successfully completed the Principles and Practice Examination? Yes
No
13d.
Are you a licensed professional engineer?
No
Yes
14.
List your memberships in professional organizations and indicate any offices/positions you have held or
are presently
fulfilling.
15.
List your involvement with any committees or other community organizations.
16.
What conferences do you attend on a regular basis?
Demographic Information:
____________________
17.
What year did you receive your engineering degree?
18.
Did you transfer to USC from another college or university?
19.
If yes, what was the transfer institution? _________________________________
What was your undergraduate major? Civil/Environmental
Chemical
Electrical
Yes
No
Computer
Mechanical
20.
What was your cumulative GPA (grade point average) at the time of graduation? ________________
21.
What is your gender?
22.
What is your ethnicity?
Please circle.
Female
Please circle.
Caucasian
Asian/Pacific Islander
Thank you for completing this survey!
135
Male
African-American
Hispanic
Native American
Other
Appendix G
Alumnae/Alumni Survey Reports
(sample)
136
Alumnae/Alumni Survey
Survey Results for the 1996 Graduates
Please note: Some capitalization, spelling, grammar, etc. errors have been corrected. Double underlines were not
possible. Otherwise, information recorded here was typed as received!
Employment Information
1.
Please indicate which of the following statements is applicable to your situation. Mark all that apply.
32
4
2a.
2b.
2c.
Employed full time (30 or more hours a week)
I am enrolled in graduate school.
What is your present position?
Where are you employed?
What is your primary business activity? (for example, design, research, sales, etc.)
Chemical
 Chemical Engineer – Intermediates Development; Carolina Eastman; R&D
 Self-employed; World Art Imports; Sales, marketing, e-commerce
Civil








Environmentalist; State of New Mexico (Silver City); Everything
Hydraulic Design Engineer; SCDOT; Design
Engineer-in-Training; Consulting Firm; Design
Transportation planner; Wilbur Smith Associates, Falls Church, VA; Analysis & Design
Transportation Planner; Wilbur Smith Associates; Planning
Project Engineer/Project Manager; Grant + Associates, LLC; Design/Management
CATV Design Engineer; Horry Telephone Coop. Conway, SC; Design
Engineer Tech III; SCDOT – Shop Rd in Columbia, SC; Lab Testing
Computer
 Software Engineer; Conita Technologies, Inc.; Design/Programming
 Lead Programmer; Acclaim Studios Austin; Software production
 Senior Associate; Cambridge Technology Partners; Consulting/SI
 Senior Applications Developer; Renaissance Interactive Inc.; Design/Development
 Platform Design Engineer; Dell Computer Corp. Round Rock, TX; Design, Research
Electrical
 Systems Engineer; Day + Zimmermann International Inc.; Programming
 Jr. Engineer; Mid-Carolina Electrical Cooperative; System design & GIS Coordinator
 Network Facilities Engineer; Chester Telephone Company; Utilities
 Controls Project Engineer; Yuasa-Exide Inc. Sumter, SC; Design
Mechanical
 Engineer/CAD technician; M.E.C.A.; Design
 Process Engineer; Becton Dickinson; Troubleshooter
 Project Engineer; Reverse Engineering, Inc.; Design
 Quality Engineer; Cutler-Hammer, Eaton Corp.; Manufacturing
 Quality Engineer / Coordinator CMM Measurement; Spartanburg Steel Products; Trouble-shooting
 Design Engineer – Model Build Coord.; GE Appliances; Project Engineer Coordinator
 Manufacturing Eng.; Eaton Corp. / Cutler-Hammer Puerto Rico; Manufacturing
137






2d.
Process Engineer; Bridgestone/Firestone South Carolina; Design/process improvement
Mechanical Engineer; Datex-Ohmeda R&D dept.; Design – new product development
Engineer (process & project); Becton Dickinson; Manufacturing
City Engineer – City of Winder, GA; City of Winder, GA; Design, management
Assistant Engineer + Services Manager; Milliken + Co. – Spartanburg; Maintenance
Process Engr; Siemens; Manufacturing
If you are NOT employed in the engineering field, please indicate the reasons for this decision.
Chemical
 Limited opportunities
Civil


2e.
Consultants for the mining industry are not always certain they will have work – NEED some
stability
Lack of experience, lack of confidence, lack of knowledge
Are you satisfied with your current position?
Circle one.
Yes
28 (88%)
No 4
(13%)
Please elaborate why or why not.
Chemical
 Yes – Everyday is a different experience.
Civil




Yes – Not “stuck” with any one particular type of assignment
Yes – It’s what I want to do
Yes – It has changing markets so there is always something new and improved.
I am satisfied to be gaining practical experience in lab testing in soils. However I am not satisfied
that I have not gained confidence. I feel I need to pursue engineering job + expected to be past this
point at this time in my life.
Computer
 Yes – Pay is good, atmosphere is great, and good work is appreciated.
 Yes – I wanted to make games, and I am.
 Yes – I am working with new computer telephony integration products that appears to be a hot
leading edge technology.
 Yes – Challenging Position, Cutting Edge development
Electrical
 Yes - Challenging, Technical, room to grow
 Yes – I enjoy working with the other engineers of Mid-Carolina. Mid-Carolina supplies us with
some of the best technology to do our job.
Mechanical
 No - Need P.E. certification for engineering consulting.
 No – I do not think production is the appropriate setting for me.
 Yes – Challenging & interesting – projects are always different with new problems to tackle.
 No – Not enough information provided in school on different careers
 Yes - I am working on another promotion (into management)
138




2f.
Yes – It is challenging
Yes – Job is good… People who own the company are willing to invest, but foreign personalities
hard to deal with
No – I sometimes feel out of place because of my lack of practical experience.
Yes – I ♥ Manufacturing
Are you satisfied with your career progression?
Yes
30 (94%)
No 2
(6%)
Why or why not?
Chemical
 Yes; Eastman is a good company with lots of opportunities for dedicated workers.
 Yes, I’ve done more than I ever thought possible.
Civil






Yes – lots of potential
Yes. I take on as much as I can handle
Yes. Opportunities for advancement
Yes, I feel I have progressed quickly.
Yes, I am gaining experience in a very up and growing market.
No. I graduated 1996. I feel I needed experience I didn’t get while in school to get the confidence +
understanding at the engineering field I had hoped to get while in school + also to pinpoint the
specific areas + engineering I want to pursue my life’s work.
Computer
 Yes, because I am constantly learning which is why I went into engineering to begin with. New
challenges every day.
 Yes. Fast-moving field.
 Yes – I’m making very good progress with salary and position promotions every year.
 Good Challenges, room to grow
Electrical
 Yes, I feel that I have progressed fairly well for a two year engineer.
 Yes. Mid-Carolina continues to give me the opportunity to expand my knowledge in the engineering
field.
 Yes – I have increased in position responsibilities
 Yes, I think I am ahead of where I should be for my experience
Mechanical
 Yes, M.E. degree allows me to advance.
 Yes. I have worked in different aspects of engineering, so I am getting a lot of exposure.
 Yes, my position is satisfactory with opportunities for advancement in the future.
 Yes. I’ve managed to stay alert and ask questions.
 Yes – [I am working on another promotion (into management)]
 Yes – constant improvement in title and pay
 I have been given the mechanical lead position for my project
 No. I have changed from design to manufacturing which means I basically had to start over.
 Yes. This is just one more step towards my goal in management.
139
2g.
Are you satisfied with your salary level?
Yes 20 (63%)
No 12 (38%)
Why or why not?
Chemical
 Yes; I would like to make more, but I feel that my salary is competitive.
 No, but it takes time when self-employed
Civil
 No, but good benefits (Have 3 kids – insurance is more important – two for braces on teeth)
 Yes. I have enough to live and have fun.
 No – Engineers as a whole are vastly underpaid.
 Yes, but it is getting better gradually.
 No. It is not at the engineering level because I have not attained an engineering position.
Computer
 Yes. I live comfortably.
 Yes. Higher than others.
 Yes. I’m keeping w/ market average and have doubled my entry level salary in just 2 years.
 Yes. I make plenty of money for my years in the field.
Electrical
 Yes, I am satisfied with my salary level, but I expect my salary to advance a little because my
responsibilities have slightly advanced.
 Yes. My salary has increased yearly by more than what I expected.
 Yes, $10K above average for my experience
Mechanical
 No, HVAC design is a low salary level.
 No. I was underpaid in my first position, so I have not caught up yet.
 No – it is ok for a small company, but rather low for the engineering field.
 No. does not meet national average due to lack of expertise.
 No. I am paid less than male employees with MUCH less responsibility than myself.
 No – I believe I can always make more money
 No. Am paid overtime (not part of salary) to meet satisfaction level
 Yes. Slightly above avg.
 No. I am being paid less than my less experienced coworkers.
2h.
Are you generally satisfied with your career choice?
Yes
28 (88%)
No 4 (13%)
Please elaborate why or why not.
Chemical
 I am doing what I planned to do.
 Yes – unlimited opportunity
Civil





Yes + No. Yes because I like the background No because no-one likes engineers (HaHa)
Yes – I enjoy what I do.
Yes – I enjoy the variation and the challenge.
Yes – Engineering background gives a person a process of thinking
Yes - I believe engineering is the correct field. The difficulty is pinpointing the area of engineering I
want to pursue my life’s work.
140
Computer
 I, very much, enjoy software design and implementation.
 Yes – No better career out there!
 Yes – It has provided me with confidence that I can understand a wide range of problems and the
capability to solve them.
 Yes – It seems that there is huge demand for people in our industry
 Yes – It’s always what I wanted to do.
Electrical
 Yes, I have to admit that when I started I did not have much of an idea at all what
 I was getting into, but it has turned out to be a choice that I am glad I made.
 Yes – I grew up around the utility organization so I knew this was a good choice.
 Yes – It fits my desires + goals.
 Yes – I am going to get my PE in 2000 and open my own controls company
Mechanical
 No - I do not think engineering is the field I need to work in. It is not a good fit for my personality.
 Yes – Allows me to be creative and use my problem solving skills.
 No – Needed more information in school.
 Yes – I enjoy what I am doing.
 Yes – I work on many different projects at once
 Yes – Flexibility, respect, mostly interesting field of work
 No – I didn’t realize the amount of stress that comes with engineering.
 Yes – It is a field where there is always an opportunity for growth and employment
 Yes - I have great satisfaction with my job. I enjoy design & making important decisions.
2i.
Do you ever see yourself leaving engineering in the future to enter another field?
Yes 14 (44%)
No 18 (56%)
If yes, which field?
Chemical
 Management; Finance; Sales
 Already left
Civil





Mercenary for hire
Missions
Music
Management or Education
Engineering Management
Computer
 I would stay in the technical area but more to a business management/executive position.
Electrical
Mechanical
 Law
 Business, maybe
141


Something non-technical or education
Management – probably associated with engineering
First Time Employment
3.
4.
What was your first position after graduation?
How long after graduation did you obtain an engineering-related job?
Chemical
 This one; Had the job 9 months before I graduated
 Grad School; Never
Civil








Self-employed contract assignments; 18 months after grad. school
Same [Hydraulic Design Engineer]; 1 ½ months
Worked at Target; 2 ¼ years
Traffic engineer; Immediately following graduate school
Wilbur Smith Assoc. – Transportation Planner; After graduate school
Project Designer; 1 month
Construction Project Managing; 1 month
Engineering Tech III; 3 yrs
Computer
 Programmer; Yes
 Programming; 2 months
 Internet developer – BellSouth.net; 0 – immediately
 Web Developer; Had one before leaving
 Performance Engineer; 1 mo.
Electrical
 Junior Project Engineer; Approx. 5 months (I was hired after 1 month but could not start until after
5)
 Same as current; Began week after graduation.
 Plant Electrical Engineer; 1 month
 Controls Engineer; before graduation
 Contract Engineer; 2 weeks
Mechanical
 Engineer; Advanced position @ current job
 Design engineer; Immediately after graduation
 Current position (project engineer); 3 years before graduation
 Engineer; 0 days.
 Process Engineer; 3 mos.
 2LT – US Army; 2 ½ yrs
 Manufacturing Eng; -3 months
 Applications Engineer (AutoCAD); (2) months
 Mechanical Engineer – Lockheed Martin; 2 months
 Design engineer; 2 weeks
 Design Engineer for consulting Eng. Firm; I was working with Eng. firm while I was in College.
 Production manager; 2 months
 Project Engineer; 1 month
142
Continuing Education
5.
Have you applied to graduate school?
Circle one.
Yes
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
5a.
If yes, were you accepted?
2
3
2
2
4
Yes
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
5b.
Did you enroll in graduate school?
Yes
If yes, in what field?
5d. What institution?
Chemical
 MBA; USC
 MIB; USC
Civil



Civil Engineering - Transportation; Penn State University
Transportation Engineering; University of Washington
Environmental; USC
Computer
 Computer Engineering; USC
 Software; USC
Electrical
 ME in Computer Engineering;
 Electrical; MIT
Mechanical
 Business; Troy State University
 Management; Troy State University
 Mechanical; USC
 Mechanical; USC
143
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
19 (59%)
0
5
3
3
9
No
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
13 ( 72%)
2
3
2
2
4
No
(100%)
( 38%)
( 40%)
( 40%)
( 31%)
13 (87%)
2
3
2
2
4
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
5c.
13 (41%)
( 0%)
(63%)
(60%)
(60%)
(69%)
2 (13%)
0
0
0
0
0
No
(
(
(
(
(
0%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
5 (28%)
0
0
0
0
0
(
(
(
(
(
0%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
5e.
Have you completed an advanced degree?
Yes
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
5 ( 26%)
1
2
1
1
0
No
14 ( 74%)
(50%)
(67%)
(33%)
(33%)
( 0%)
1
1
2
2
8
( 50%)
( 33%)
( 67%)
( 67%)
(100%)
Undergraduate Experience
9.
10.
11.
How would you rate your overall satisfaction with your preparation to become an engineer? Please
mark the box that best describes your opinion.
Not
Satisfied
A Little
Satisfied
Undecided
Satisfied
Very
Satisfied
College
4 (12%)
3 ( 9%)
3 ( 9%)
21 ( 64%)
2 ( 6%)
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
0
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
0
2
0
0
1
( 0%)
(38%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 8%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
(20%)
(15%)
( 0%)
(25%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 8%)
2
2
5
4
8
(100%)
( 25%)
(100%)
( 80%)
( 62%)
0
1
0
0
1
( 0%)
(13%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 8%)
How would you rate your preparation to obtain a job after graduation? Please mark the box that best
describes your opinion.
Not
Satisfied
A Little
Satisfied
Undecided
Satisfied
Very
Satisfied
College
8 (24%)
2 ( 6%)
7 (21%)
15 (46%)
1 ( 3%)
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
0
4
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
1
0
5
( 0%)
(50%)
(20%)
(20%)
(15%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
(15%)
(50%)
( 0%)
(20%)
( 0%)
(39%)
1
4
2
4
4
(50%)
(50%)
(40%)
(80%)
(31%)
0
0
1
0
0
( 0%)
( 0%)
(20%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
How would you rate your preparation to become a contributing member of society? Please mark the
box that best describes your opinion.
Not
Satisfied
A Little
Satisfied
Undecided
Satisfied
Very
Satisfied
College
1 ( 3%)
2 ( 6%)
7 (21%)
18 (55%)
5 (15%)
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
3
0
3
( 0%)
(13%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
(13%)
( 0%)
(20%)
( 0%)
144
( 0%)
(13%)
(60%)
( 0%)
(23%)
2
3
0
4
9
(100%)
( 38%)
( 0%)
( 80%)
( 69%)
0
2
2
0
1
( 0%)
(25%)
(40%)
( 0%)
( 8%)
12.
Below are listed some skills and competencies that are expected of engineering graduates. Please
provide us with your opinion about the importance of each skill as it relates to your engineering
positions. Also indicate your satisfaction with the level of competency you achieved as a result of your
USC education. For each item please circle the appropriate number in the column.
Competencies
Importance of Skills
Engineering terms,
principles and theories
College
Not
Important
Important
2 ( 6%)
13 ( 41 %)
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
Advanced mathematics
(calculus & above)
College
0
1
0
0
1
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
Chemistry and/or physics
College
0
2
0
0
5
( 0%)
(13%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 8%)
7 (22%)
( 0%)
(25%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
(39%)
11 (36%)
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
0
4
2
1
4
( 0%)
(50%)
(50%)
(20%)
(31%)
College
8 (25%)
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
0
0
1
1
6
1
2
3
3
4
(100%)
( 25%)
( 60%)
( 60%)
( 31%)
20 ( 63%)
1
5
4
3
7
(100%)
( 63%)
( 80%)
( 60%)
( 54%)
17 (55%)
1
4
1
3
8
(100%)
(50%)
(25%)
(60%)
(62%)
Level of Competency
Very
Important
Completely
Dissatisfied
17 (53%)
1 ( 3%)
0
1
0
0
0
0
5
2
2
8
( 0%)
(63%)
(40%)
(40%)
(62%)
( 0%)
(13%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
Satisfied
Completely
Satisfied
2 ( 6%)
26 ( 79%)
4 (12%)
0
2
0
0
0
2
3
5
4
12
(100%)
( 38%)
(100%)
( 80%)
( 92%)
0
2
0
1
1
( 0%)
(25%)
( 0%)
(20%)
( 8%)
Dissatisfied
( 0%)
(25%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
5 (16%)
1 ( 3%)
3 (9%)
25 ( 76%)
4
(12%)
0
1
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
2
5
4
4
10
0
2
0
1
1
( 0%)
(25%)
( 0%)
(20%)
( 8%)
( 0%)
(13%)
(20%)
(40%)
( 8%)
(
(
(
(
(
0%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
8%)
( 0%)
(13%)
(20%)
( 0%)
( 8%)
(100%)
( 63%)
( 80%)
( 80%)
( 77%)
3 (10%)
0 ( 0%)
4 (13%)
23 ( 72%)
5 (16%)
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
2
6
2
4
9
0
1
2
1
1
( 0%)
( 0%)
(25%)
(20%)
( 8%)
(
(
(
(
(
0%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
( 0%)
(13%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
(23%)
(100%)
( 75%)
( 50%)
( 80%)
( 69%)
( 0%)
(13%)
(50%)
(20%)
( 8%)
Liberal Arts
( 0%)
( 0%)
(20%)
(20%)
(46%)
16 (50%)
1
4
2
4
5
(100%)
(50%)
(40%)
(80%)
(39%)
8 (25%)
0 ( 0%)
4 (13%)
24 (75%)
4 (13%)
0
4
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
2
5
2
3
12
0
2
1
1
0
( 0%)
(25%)
(25%)
(20%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
(50%)
(40%)
( 0%)
(15%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
( 0%)
(13%)
(25%)
(20%)
( 8%)
(100%)
( 63%)
( 50%)
( 60%)
( 92%)
An ability to:
Identify, formulate, and
solve engineering problems
College
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
2 ( 6%)
3 ( 9%)
27 ( 84%)
1 ( 3%)
6 (18%)
22 (67%)
4
(12%)
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
6
5
5
11
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
2
2
4
2
4
10
0
0
2
1
1
( 0%)
( 0%)
(40%)
(20%)
( 8%)
( 0%)
(25%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
(100%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
(15%)
( 0%)
( 75%)
(100%)
(100%)
( 85%)
145
( 0%)
(13%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
(38%)
(20%)
( 0%)
(15%)
(100%)
( 50%)
( 40%)
( 80%)
( 77%)
Design a system,
component, or process to
meet desired needs and
quality
College
1 ( 3%)
3 ( 9%)
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
Use the computer as a tool
for analysis and design
College
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0 ( 0%)
6 ( 19%)
26 ( 81%)
1 ( 3%)
4 (12%)
17 (52%)
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
Function on multidisciplinary or crossFunctional teams
College
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
3
0
6
5
5
10
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
2
3
2
3
7
1 ( 3%)
14 (44%)
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
Function in culturally an
ethnically diverse
environments
College
0
0
0
0
1
0
4
2
2
6
( 0%)
(13%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
0%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
8%)
4 (13%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
(31%)
(100%)
( 13%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 8%)
(100%)
( 25%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
(23%)
( 0%)
(50%)
(40%)
(40%)
(46%)
12 ( 38%)
( 0%)
( 75%)
(100%)
(100%)
( 77%)
17 (53%)
20 (61%)
4
(12%)
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
5
2
4
4
4
6
0
0
1
1
2
( 0%)
( 0%)
(20%)
(20%)
(15%)
( 0%)
(13%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
(13%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
(38%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
(39%)
( 0%)
(25%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
(15%)
(100%)
( 50%)
( 80%)
( 80%)
( 46%)
11 (33%)
(100%)
( 38%)
( 40%)
( 60%)
( 54%)
0
2
3
2
4
( 0%)
(25%)
(60%)
(40%)
(31%)
2 ( 6%)
5 (15%)
23 (70%)
3 ( 9%)
(100%)
( 50%)
( 60%)
( 60%)
( 46%)
0
2
0
0
0
( 0%)
(25%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
0
1
0
1
3
( 0%)
(13%)
( 0%)
(20%)
(23%)
2
5
4
4
8
(100%)
( 63%)
( 80%)
( 80%)
( 62%)
0
0
1
0
2
16 ( 50%)
1
( 3%)
6 (19%)
22
(71%)
2 ( 7%)
0
1
0
0
0
( 0%)
(13%)
( 0%)
(0%)
(0%)
0
0
1
1
4
2
6
2
4
8
(100%)
( 75%)
( 50%)
( 80%)
( 67%)
0
1
1
0
0
1
4
3
3
6
0 ( 0%)
8 (25%)
24 ( 75%)
1 (3%)
8 (24%)
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
Communicate in writing –
technical reports, memos,
proposals, etc.
College
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
4
1
1
7
3
1
12
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
0 ( 0%)
8 (25%)
24 ( 75%)
1 ( 3%)
6 (18%)
21 (64%)
5 (15%)
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
3
2
1
7
3
2
11
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
1
1
1
2
3
3
3
10
0
1
1
1
2
(
(
(
(
(
0%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
( 0%)
(13%)
(40%)
(80%)
( 8%)
( 0%)
(13%)
(40%)
(60%)
(15%)
1
6
3
0
6
(100%)
( 75%)
( 60%)
( 0%)
( 46%)
(100%)
( 88%)
( 60%)
( 20%)
( 92%)
(100%)
( 88%)
( 60%)
( 40%)
( 85%)
146
( 0%)
(13%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
(0%)
( 0%)
(13%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
(25%)
(20%)
(33%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
(20%)
( 0%)
(15%)
0
0
0
0
4
0%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
( 0%)
( 25%)
( 40%)
(100%)
( 23%)
( 0%)
( 75%)
(100%)
(100%)
( 92%)
8 (24%)
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
Communicate orally,
informally, and in prepared
talks
College
(
(
(
(
(
0
2
2
5
3
0
6
5
5
12
1 ( 3%)
( 0%)
(25%)
(40%)
(40%)
(15%)
( 0%)
(38%)
(20%)
(20%)
( 8%)
19 (58%)
2
4
2
2
9
(100%)
( 50%)
( 40%)
( 40%)
( 69%)
(100%)
( 38%)
( 60%)
( 60%)
( 77%)
( 0%)
(13%)
(25%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
5 (15%)
0
1
1
1
2
( 0%)
(13%)
(20%)
(20%)
(15%)
( 0%)
(13%)
(20%)
(20%)
(15%)
Use computer software for
professional
communications
College
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
Design and conduct
experiments
College
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
Analyze and interpret data
College
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
0 ( 0%)
6 ( 19%)
26 ( 81%)
1 ( 3%)
7 (21%)
16 ( 49%)
9 (27%)
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
2
0
8
5
2
11
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
1
2
2
2
4
1
1
8
0
1
3
2
3
(
(
(
(
(
0%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
10 (31%)
0
3
1
1
5
( 0%)
(38%)
(20%)
(20%)
(39%)
(100%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 60%)
( 15%)
10 (31%)
0
3
3
3
1
( 0%)
(38%)
(60%)
(60%)
( 8%)
( 0%)
(100%)
(100%)
( 40%)
( 85%)
12 ( 38%)
1
2
1
1
7
(100%)
( 25%)
( 20%)
( 20%)
( 54%)
( 0%)
(13%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
(25%)
(20%)
(40%)
(15%)
(100%)
( 50%)
( 20%)
( 20%)
( 62%)
( 0%)
(13%)
(60%)
(40%)
(23%)
2 ( 6%)
9 (27%)
17 (52%)
5
(15%)
0
1
0
0
1
0
2
3
1
3
( 0%)
(25%)
(60%)
(20%)
(23%)
2
3
1
3
8
(100%)
( 38%)
( 20%)
( 60%)
( 62%)
0
2
1
1
1
( 0%)
(25%)
(20%)
(20%)
( 8%)
( 0%)
(13%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 8%)
6 (18%)
0 ( 0%)
8 (25%)
24 (75%)
0 (0%)
9 (27%)
18
(55%)
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
4
2
1
7
4
1
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
0
4
2
3
1
4
8
(100%)
( 38%)
( 20%)
( 80%)
( 62%)
(
(
(
(
(
0%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
( 0%)
(13%)
(20%)
(80%)
(15%)
(100%)
( 88%)
( 80%)
( 20%)
( 85%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
( 0%)
(38%)
(40%)
( 0%)
(31%)
0
2
2
1
1
( 0%)
(25%)
(40%)
(20%)
( 8%)
An understanding of:
Professional and ethical
responsibilities
College
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
Environmental aspects of
engineering practice
College
0 ( 0%)
9 ( 28%)
23 (72%)
2 (6%)
5 (15%)
20 (61%)
6 (18%)
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
3
2
(100%)
( 12%)
( 40%)
(60%)
(15%)
0
7
3
2
11
( 0%)
(88%)
(60%)
(40%)
(85%)
0
1
1
0
0
0
2
1
0
2
2 (100%)
4 ( 50%)
2 ( 40%)
4 ( 80%)
8 ( 62%)
0
1
1
1
3
11 ( 36%)
14
(45%)
1 ( 3%)
(100%)
( 13%)
( 0%)
( 60%)
( 46%)
0
6
0
1
7
( 0%)
(75%)
( 0%)
(20%)
(54%)
0
0
0
0
1
21 ( 66%)
4
(13%)
3 ( 9%)
0
1
0
0
3
( 0%)
(13%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
(23%)
0
2
0
0
1
(
(
(
(
(
0%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
( 0%)
(13%)
(20%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
(25%)
(20%)
( 0%)
(15%)
( 0%)
(13%)
(20%)
(20%)
(23%)
4 (13%)
6 ( 19%)
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
The practice of engineering
on a global scale
College
0
1
4
1
0
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
0
1
3
0
3
( 0%)
( 13%)
(100%)
( 20%)
( 0%)
1
1
0
3
6
(
(
(
(
(
0%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
8%)
11 (34%)
0
3
3
2
3
( 0%)
(38%)
(75%)
(40%)
(23%)
16 (50%)
2
4
0
3
7
(100%)
( 50%)
( 0%)
( 60%)
( 54%)
0
1
1
0
2
( 0%)
(13%)
(25%)
( 0%)
( 15%)
1 ( 3%)
7 (22%)
( 0%)
(13%)
(60%)
( 0%)
(23%)
1
6
2
5
7
(100%)
( 75%)
( 40%)
(100%)
( 54%)
147
( 0%)
(25%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 8%)
15 (46%)
0
3
4
3
5
( 0%)
(38%)
(80%)
(60%)
(39%)
14 (42%)
2
3
0
2
7
(100%)
( 38%)
( 0%)
( 40%)
( 54%)
0
0
1
0
0
( 0%)
( 0%)
(20%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
The impact of engineering
solutions in a global and
societal context
College
7 (22%)
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
The need for engaging in
life-long learning
College
0
0
2
1
4
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
Basic knowledge of
industry practices and
standards
College
0
0
1
0
0
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
Contemporary issues
(welfare reform, irradiation,
etc.)
College
0
1
0
0
0
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
13.
( 0%)
( 0%)
(40%)
(20%)
(31%)
1 (3%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
(20%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
1 (3%)
( 0%)
(13%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
19 (59%)
0
2
4
4
9
( 0%)
(25%)
(80%)
(80%)
(69%)
18 ( 56%)
1
4
3
4
6
(100%)
( 50%)
( 60%)
( 80%)
( 46%)
15 (47%)
1
2
1
4
7
(100%)
( 25%)
( 20%)
( 80%)
( 54%)
13 (41%)
1
3
2
3
4
(100%)
(38%)
(40%)
(60%)
(31%)
11 (34%)
1
5
1
1
3
(100%)
( 63%)
( 20%)
( 20%)
( 23%)
7 (22%)
2 ( 6%)
0
4
0
0
3
( 0%)
(50%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
(23%)
0
2
0
0
0
16
(50%)
2 ( 6%)
6 (18%)
0
6
3
1
6
( 0%)
(75%)
(60%)
(20%)
(46%)
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
1
3
18
(56%)
7 (21%)
0
4
3
2
9
( 0%)
(50%)
(60%)
(40%)
(69%)
0
3
1
1
2
( 0%)
(38%)
(20%)
(20%)
(15%)
0
2
2
3
4
2
( 6%)
4
(13%)
9 (28%)
0
1
0
0
1
( 0%)
(13%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 8%)
0
2
1
1
0
( 0%)
(25%)
(20%)
(20%)
( 0%)
0
2
1
2
4
( 0%)
(25%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
(13%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 8%)
14 (44%)
0
3
3
3
5
( 0%)
(38%)
(60%)
(60%)
(42%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
(40%)
(20%)
(23%)
11 (33%)
( 0%)
(25%)
(40%)
(60%)
(31%)
( 0%)
(25%)
(20%)
(40%)
(33%)
15 (47%)
1
( 3%)
2
3
1
2
7
0
0
1
0
0
( 0%)
( 0%)
(20%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
22 (67%)
3
( 9%)
2
6
2
4
8
0
1
1
0
1
( 0%)
(13%)
(20%)
( 0%)
( 8%)
13 (39%)
2
( 6%)
2
3
1
1
6
0
0
1
0
1
( 0%)
( 0%)
(20%)
( 0%)
( 8%)
17 (53%)
2
( 6%)
2
3
2
2
8
0
1
1
0
0
( 0%)
(12%)
(20%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
(100%)
( 38%)
( 20%)
( 40%)
( 58%)
(100%)
( 75%)
( 40%)
( 80%)
( 62%)
(100%)
( 38%)
( 20%)
( 20%)
( 46%)
(100%)
( 38%)
( 40%)
( 40%)
( 67%)
Which aspects of your undergraduate or graduate engineering program (courses, experiences,
instructors, professional organizations) have most contributed to your satisfaction working in
engineering or your present career and why?
Chemical:
 The teamwork assignments were helpful and the quality of the professors was beneficial as well. The
light atmosphere of the College of Engineering kept the days fun (cookouts, etc.)
 The fact that I accomplished one of the most difficult degrees possible in undergrad is good for selfconfidence.
Civil:
 I feel that Dr. Steve McAnally’s approach during my graduate research interim helped/encouraged
me more than the entire previous 5 years. He allowed me to choose my own research, meet with
clients, write reports, etc. with minimal “interference.” The most important thing I learned, is how to
“self-direct.”
148






The degree. I use very little of what I actually learned in school. All I use is the piece of paper that
says I completed the program.
Nothing – I was actually completely unsatisfied with my education through the USC College of
Engineering. It is only because of my education at Penn State that I am still in the field of
engineering
At USC, my favorite instructor was Jack Jakubs in the Dept. of Geography. I did my transportationplanning Senior thesis with him. He is the only instructor I know of that has an interest in
transportation planning.
All of it. The complete experience.
Solid mechanics class helped with understanding all objects and their reactions.
The lab experiments particularly the environmental labs contributed greatly to my understanding the
coursework in the classroom.
Computer:
 The most influence placed upon me was by the professors who understood the current state of
engineering in the practical world and conducted class accordingly; classes with completely project
based and independently earned grades were the most beneficial to my working career.
 The lab systems. I thought they were great for work ethic + team building.
 Having an understanding of programming, databases, and networks were the most valuable industry
skills used from my engineering courses.
Elective courses that I took in Management & accounting have been extremely valuable in applying
technology solutions to business needs.
 Team Work!!!
Software Engineering courses plus the Computer Engineering Labs were the basis for everything I
now about software development.
 Senior and Junior Labs.
Electrical:
 I would have to say the close attention to students’ computer skills. The programming techniques we
all had to learn have become very useful. Also, through the writing of all of those many, many
reports we had to turn in, I had to become a pretty good user of several software applications. Those
skills have also been useful.
 Courses:
Power Systems
Computer & design courses
Organizations:
IEEE
 The computer skills I learned helped me greatly in fulfilling job requirements as did the team
approach to solving problems + completing goals, which I learned in some of my classes and labs.
 The labs (301, 201, 401, 402) were the most educational for the real world.
EECE
The classes 211 and 221 were best for learning concepts for understanding.
 My courses helped me to have the knowledge I needed, but IEEE is what encouraged me to become
involved in the professional duties of Engineering.
Mechanical:
 Heat transfer & thermo are most related to Heating, Ventilation, + Air Conditioning Design.
 Statics & dynamics, heat transfer, statistics, engineering materials & metallurgy, public speaking,
technical writing, computer skills, ASME, all of my professors.
 -ASME, being a part of it
-Working in the machine shop. Actually making the parts that I designed
 Long term projects like senior design assisted greatly. The vehicle project teams in school gave me
hands on knowledge that many engineers do not gain even after 6 years in industry
149




13.
Problem solving labs…
Micro-processing….
Classes that give you a goal (a problem) that you must solve by studying and compiling data
I think professors that incorporate real-life problems are the one’s who best prepare their students.
Senior projects are great to express the importance of teamwork. I do believe that projects involving
multidisciplines are the most effective. In the real world, mechanical, civil, chemical, environmental
and structural engineers all work on the same projects and most work well together.
-working on teams in senior design with private sector companies
-small size classes with first name relationships w/professors
Dr. Jed Lyons – manufacturing processes + metallurgy
Dr. Mike Sutton – all courses
Dr. Jamil Khan – all courses
Of the professors in the College of Engineering, which one was the most influential in your professional
development and why?
Chemical:
 Dr. Vincent Van Brunt. Dr. Vincent Van Brunt has a passion for teaching and this is contagious for
his students. He gives you the kind of fire that you can build your career on. He shows that
determination is the most important aspect that you can have as an engineer.

Both Dr. Stanford and Dr. Gadala-Maria were influential teachers. They made learning interesting.
They also encouraged the exploitation of science in developing new ideas.
Civil:
 Dr. McAnally – for letting me attempt the impossible
Dr. Gribb – for staying mad at me
Dr. Ray – for teaching me how to get dirty
Dr. Baus – for always being there
Dr. Bradburn – for getting it through my head that F=ma=0
*Jo Wooley, Abby Cradock – Making me laugh when I wanted to cry
 Ms. Molly Gribb – She is one of the only professors at USC that invests a sincere effort in students &
making sure that teaching takes priority over research & personal gain.
 Dr. Michael Meadows – put simply, he is a true Teacher.
 Dr. Ray showed me ways of analyzing things and breaking them down to solve a problem
(generally).
 Dr. Ray + Dr. Meadows have been most influential. Even though I struggled with coursework +
tests, I sensed that these individuals believed in my ability to performing engineering tasks.
Computer:
 Dr. Juan Vargas. He challenged me in every class I had with him and knew exactly what was needed
to excel in the “real world.” Unlike almost all other professors I had, he kept abreast of the latest
advancements and techniques in software.
 Dr. Bailey, before he left. He actually cared whether or not we learned and prepared us well for life
after college.
 Simpson – I realized that you don’t have to be able to please everyone or fit the mold to succeed in
this world.
 Prof. Vargas. He kicked our butts and helped challenge me with “modern” software development
using commonly used tools.
 Dr. Pettus + Prof. Byrd.
150
Electrical:
 I don’t believe he is still at the college of Engineering, but Professor Dan Bailey was the most
influential. He was a good teacher in the classroom. He always had time for students. He always
tried to make his tests fair. Also, he was young so I think us students felt more comfortable in his
presence. Professor Byrd and Huggins were also great professors.
 Hard question to answer. I guess I would have to say professor Sam Hilborn was my most influential
professor due to his emphasis on teamwork to complete assignments, which has really helped me in
dealing with problems in industry.
 Ronald Bonnell, I want to learn about Databases for Data Acquisition, important or future controls
work. My graduate degree is in Database Engineering.
 Dr. Sudarshan – who allowed me to participate in an Undergraduate Research program
Mechanical:
 Dr. Kahn + Dr. Rocheleau. Both Prof. Showed interests to the students’ individual effort. However;
Dr. Kahn would be more influential.
 The most influential professor on the positive side for me was Dr. Michael Sutton. He helped me to
understand that my capabilities were not limited by my previous educational experience and that
whatever I wanted to do, I could be successful at it.
The most influential professor on the negative side was <
>. He made a lot of us feel as
though we were allowed in as a favor and not our merit and that we would not graduate without those
same favors.
 Dr. Jamil Khan was the most influential – he was always willing to set time aside to assist students
and ensure that they learned the material. He is very friendly and extremely knowledgeable.
 Dr. Stephen McNeill. He empowered students.
 Dr. Kahn.
He was a tough but fair professor. He taught you that through hard work you can excel at anything.
 Dr. Young was the most influential since he was strictly dedicated to teaching and was not distracted
by trying to complete research projects.
 Wally Peters
-1st lesson – brush your teeth
 Prof. Lyons – I retained more from his classes than any other. His subjects (materials &
manufacturing) were the most applicable than any other.
 Dr. Michael Sutton was most influential because he showed us what the real world expected of us and
how to handle it.
 Dr. Poole gave me a great understanding in statics and economics. I know students that were not as
fluent in statics and vectors, resulting in a more difficult curriculum.
I also thought Dr. Kahn and Professor Rocheleau made a great impact on my future decisions
 Dr. Kahn – challenged us to think + analyze more than any other professor. He also would help with
any problems in any course, even if he was not the instructor.
 Dr. Sutton – he cared
14.
What recommendations would you make to improve the educational experience for future engineering
students at USC?
Chemical
 Put more $$ in the ChemE program. Don’t stifle the faculty with politics. Let them do what they are
good at and get out of the way.
 Encourage “persistence.” Many times I thought of quitting and doing something easier, but the
experience of studying engineering has made me mentally stronger and determined to do whatever I
wish to pursue.
Civil

1. Laptops mandatory
2. Apply principles through “real life” application.
151






3. More multi-disciplinary work-groups
ie – Senior design class with a few liberal arts majors thrown in
4. Do not have babies in the middle of graduate school
Bring in professional engineers who can teach you exactly what you will use when you get into your
field.
Use AutoCad/Softdesk in class (more than just 2 semesters)
Teach more practice as opposed to theory.
I would be happy to discuss why I feel the University of South Carolina has a long way to go before
the College of Engineering reaches any level of satisfactory performance. (name and number given)
Establish same transportation-related engineering/planning courses (e.g. traffic engineering,
transportation planning, etc.). There is much more to Civil Engineering than is presented at Carolina.
Clemson and The Citadel both have transportation instructors and courses. Transportation is my area
of interest, but I had to go to graduate school elsewhere to gain instruction in this area.
I support ASCE in the Idea that All engineering students work towards a Masters Degree. I would
like to see USC no longer after a BS in Engineering. The Masters Degree should be the first
Professional Degree of Engineering.
More involvement with actual industries such as communication field.
The more practical and hands-on knowledge can be conveyed in the classroom so the more successful
students will be in understanding the coursework and will be more successful in the practical
application at this knowledge.
Computer
 Don’t give grades away! If someone consistently shows that he or she does not have a desire or
ability to be an engineer, do not pass them. The ones that pass respect their education more and the
ones that fail will not end up doing something they will hate.
 1. Wider variety of courses to take. 2. Integrate with some of the Computer Science classes.
 I think the students need to have more opportunities to work on real business problems, whether these
are solutions labs, internships or co-ops.
 More software classes using business tools.
Electrical
 I know this may be a topic that is too specific, but I know that it would have been very helpful for me
if I would have learned about Programmable Logic Controllers (PLC’s) and Ladder Logic.
 Even though theories are important, I would use more real world examples and problems in the
classrooms. I have learned more from real world applications than I have from theory.
 I hope that future engineering students are given more real-world projects and classes based on
industrial practices (as much as they can) to gain an understanding of how the real world works, since
the majority of the graduates will be in some type of industry after graduation.
 More real life controls (Practical Experience)
PLC’s (at least more relay logic academics)
Motion Control (VFD’s, Servo & Stepper Dives)
Schematic’s Standards (being able to read and understand schematics)
 Allow the development of lab experiments by students.
Mechanical
 Need more labs + classes pertaining to HVAC design. I had very few labs + one class relating to
HVAC design which conflicted with my schedule.
 The program needs to focus less on theory and more on real world applications. We need to know
how to make things happen not how they are supposed to happen.
 The computer lab in 300 Main needed more functioning computers with up-to-date software. More
CAD training would have been beneficial. Also, manufacturing engineering would be a valuable
course (if there isn’t one already).
 -Remove out of date Professors
-Focus more attention on making sure students understand the core engineering classes. Statics,
dynamics.
152








-Consistency between information taught from different instructors.
There should be much more exposure to the real working world. Programs that involve students and
companies, so that students see 1st hand what is important, and what they should really apply their
efforts to learn. Sometimes Professors’ ideas of what the work-world expects of their employees is
different from reality.
I found that the things my professors really stressed were trivial, and the things necessary for
survival were put on the back-burner. This caused me to require a lot of training, and not a whole lot
to sell myself to a potential employer with. Without experience, topped with the lack of necessary
skills, I think the first few companies I interviewed with, laughed as I walked out the door.
Improve Sr. Design Projects. Incorporate cross-functional team members (at least as part of an
advocacy team) such as marketing & finance.
More hands on projects.
More lab!
-Project driven that uses theory and training
More hands-on, practical experience is an absolute must. A course outlining a physical task to be
accomplished in addition to design classes would be a great addition.
-more projects/courses with private industry
-courses on management/supervision/HR issues
-courses like concurrent eng. EMCH 520 for undergrads
I am writing to you because I received your survey dealing with my satisfaction of my education at
the University of South Carolina Mechanical Engineering Department. The survey came in a timely
fashion because I had already been contemplating writing a letter to the College to express my
disappointment with my education. I have been employed in the engineering field for three years
now and have had an extremely frustrating experience, most of which I attribute to lack of
preparedness to enter the design field. Please understand, this letter is not intended to be a complaint
directed at USC’s engineering program. My intent is actually to offer you the opportunity to speak
with me regarding my opinions of the program when I was enrolled as well as offer you some
suggestions for program improvement. I have given much thought in the last three years about what
types of courses or programs would have helped me transition into a design position more smoothly.
Overall, I would easily compare my education to schools such as Purdue, University of Colorado,
University of Illinois, and others in terms of course curriculum. In speaking to other students from
these schools, it is apparent to me that new graduates as a whole struggle with the same frustrations
that I have experienced. Also, with employers increasing focus on speed to market with a “lean and
mean” mentality, many times there is not time or available engineers to adequately train a new
engineer through mentoring programs. I do not foresee this mentality changing, therefore, I believe it
to be the responsibility of the university to prepare students for this incredibly fast paced, cut throat
workplace. I understand that the ABET accreditation board has requirements that schools must meet.
However, the fundamental approach to education seems to have remained stagnant for decades. I
would be very proud to see the USC College of Engineering devise a truly innovative program to
more aptly prepare students for the engineering fields. I have several ideas in which to accomplish
this goal if you are interested. (name and number given)
153
Professional Development
15.
Please indicate the following information by circling the appropriate response.
15a.
Have you passed the Fundamentals of Engineering Examination?
Yes
Civil
Chemical
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
15b.
24 (73%)
6
2
1
3
12
( 75%)
(100%)
( 20%)
( 60%)
( 92%)
Haven’t taken it
3 (9%)
1
0
0
1
1
(13%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
(20%)
( 8%)
6 (18%)
1
0
4
1
0
(13%)
( 0%)
(80%)
(20%)
( 0%)
Have you completed 4 years of engineering practice as an EIT?
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
15c.
No
Yes
No
Working toward it
2 ( 6%)
11 (34%)
19 (59%)
0
1
0
0
1
( 0%)
(13%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 8%)
1
2
3
2
3
(50%)
(25%)
(75%)
(40%)
(23%)
1
5
1
3
9
(50%)
(63%)
(25%)
(60%)
(69%)
Have you successfully completed the Principles and Practice Examination?
Yes
No
Not
Applicable
College
1 (4%)
27 (96%)
0 ( 0%)
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
0
0
0
1
0
2
7
4
4
10
0
0
0
0
0
15d.
( 0%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
(20%)
( 0%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
( 80%)
(100%)
Are you a licensed professional engineer?
College
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
Yes
No
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
2
8
4
5
11
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
154
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
(
(
(
(
(
0%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
16.
List your memberships in professional organizations and indicate any offices/positions you have held or
are presently fulfilling.
Chemical
 AIChE
 Association of International Business
Civil






Have 3 kids + I work, not time for any right now
ASCE
ASCE
Tau Beta Pi (Chapter Secretary)
Chi Epsilon (Chapter President)
Institute of Transportation Engineers (Chapter Vice-President)
Intelligent Transportation Systems of America (Chapter Vice-President)
Institute of Transportation Engineers
Transportation Association of South Carolina
Member, Board of Directors
ASCE
ASCE
Computer
 IEEE
SCOA
 IEEE, ACM
Electrical
 Member of IEEE
Member of South Carolina Electrical Cooperative Engineering Association
 IEEE-Columbia Section
Mechanical
 ASHRAE
 ASME, Pi Tau Sigma, Lexington Who’s Who
 ASQ
 ASME
 PRO/E user group head – 1998 Datex-Ohmeda
 ASME, NSPE
 ASME
17.
List your involvement with any committees or other community organizations.
Chemical
 United Way
Civil


Work for the state – involved with all of them
The Jaycees of Northern Virginia
Local symphony orchestra – Fairfax County, Virginia
Local church fellowship group – Vienna, Virginia
155



ITE Southern District Meeting Planning Committee
Boy Scouts of America
Church
Computer
 S.C. Software dev. Group
Electrical
 Church-based committees (if that counts)
Mechanical
 Oakland Primary School Mentoring Program
 SC Libertarian Party (Richland County Vice-Chair)
 Active Church member
 Knights of Columbus
 Edgefield Youth Soccer
 Young Life
High School Science & Math Tutor
 Lion’s Club
 USA Track + Field-> held @ Milliken Headquarters – National Chapionship Cross Country
Planning Committee
18.
What conferences do you attend on a regular basis?
Chemical
 Eastman Technical Conference
Civil



State-sponsored
Transportation Research Board (Washington, D.C.)
ITE
ITS America
Transportation Research Board
Computer
 Computer Game Developer’s Conference
 Computer Telephony Expo
CTI Expo
 M.S. Tech Ed.
Electrical
 Gentry Systems User Conference – software
Stoner User Conference – software
S.C. Electric Cooperative Engineering Association meetings
 TCI conferences (S.C. Telephone Associaton)
Mechanical
 Design meetings
 Automated Manufacturing Exposition (Greenville, SC)
156
Demographic Information
17.
What year did you receive your engineering degree?
18.
Did you transfer to USC from another college or university?
Yes
Civil
Chemical
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
7 (21%) No
1
0
0
2
4
1996 (100%)
26 (79%)
(13%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
(40%)
(31%)
7
2
5
3
9
( 88%)
(100%)
(100%)
( 60%)
( 69%)
If yes, what was the transfer institution?
Civil

USC – Costal Carolina
Electrical
 USC Spartanburg
 Midlands Tech
Mechanical
 Midlands Tech.
 USC Spartanburg
 Clemson University
19.
What was your undergraduate major?
Chemical
Civil/Environmental
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
20.
2
8
5
5
13
( 6%)
(24%)
(15%)
(15%)
(39%)
What was your cumulative GPA (grade point average) at the time of graduation?
2.0 – 2.49
College
3 (10%)
Chemical
0 ( 0%)
Civil
2 (29%)
157
Computer
1 (20%)
Electrical
0 ( 0%)
Mechanical
0 ( 0%)
2.5 – 2.9 9
3.0 – 3.49
3.5 – 3.79
3.8 – 4.00
21.
12
8
5
2
(40%)
(27%)
(17%)
( 7%)
0
2
0
0
What is your gender?
( 0%)
(100%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
2
1
1
1
Female
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
21.
(29%)
(14%)
(14%)
(14%)
8 (24%)
0
4
0
0
4
2
1
1
0
(40%)
(20%)
(20%)
( 0%)
Male
3
0
1
1
(60%)
( 0%)
(20%)
(20%)
5
4
2
0
(45%)
(36%)
(28%)
( 0%)
25 (76%)
( 0%)
(50%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
(31%)
2
4
5
5
9
(100%)
( 50%)
(100%)
(100%)
( 69%)
What is your ethnicity?
Caucasian
College
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
29 (91%)
2
8
4
5
10
(100%)
(100%)
( 80%)
(100%)
( 83%)
African-American
Hispanic
Asian/Pacific Islander
3 ( 9%)
0 ( 0%)
0 ( 0%)
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
( 0%)
( 0%)
(20%)
( 0%)
(17%)
(
(
(
(
(
0%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
(
(
(
(
(
0%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
0%)
College of Engineering and Information Technology
158
Alumnae/Alumni Survey
1996 Graduates
Summary of Survey Results
Survey Administration
During March 2000, alumnae/alumni surveys were mailed to 170 students who graduated in May,
August or December of 1996. Fifty-six surveys, approximately 33 percent, were returned from the
post office labeled as undeliverable. Twelve surveys were resent to graduates using an alternate
address. A total of 126 surveys may have reached the graduates. The analysis sample consists of
33 surveys or approximately 26 percent of the graduates that may have received a survey.
Although the sample is not very large, the return rate is about what would be expected for surveys
mailed to alumnae/alumni. The following table lists the return rate data for each program.
Return Rates by Program
Program
Number of
Graduates
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
22
27
21
41
56
Number of
Graduates
Receiving Survey
13
22
18
30
40
Number of
Surveys
Completed
2
8
5
5
13
Return Rate
15
36
28
17
33
Demographics
Gender, ethnicity, GPA, major and transfer status were the demographic variables of interest
requested on the survey. Analysis of sample data indicates that seventy-six percent of the
respondents are males, which is slightly lower than the 81 percent present in the sample. This
indicates that females returned surveys at a higher rate than their male counterparts. Ninety-one
percent of the responding alumnae/alumni are Caucasian and nine percent represent AfricanAmerican minorities. These figures suggest that higher percentage of Caucasians completed
surveys than the minority groups. None of the Asian/Pacific Islanders within the sample returned
surveys.
Twenty-one percent of the alumnae/alumni (7 graduates) were transfers from another institution.
Previous colleges include Midlands Technical College (3), USC-Spartanburg (2), Coastal Carolina
(1), and Clemson (1).
Employment
All but one of the alumnae/alumni who returned surveys are employed full time; one alumnus
enrolled in graduate school and is not employed. One alumnae/alumni is not employed in an
engineering-related field. This chemical graduate is self-employed in the import business. He
cites limited opportunities as the reason why he is not employed in an engineering–related field.
159
Another alumnae respondent, employed as an Engineer Technician III, indicates that “lack of
experience, lack of confidence, lack of knowledge” is the reason she is not working as an engineer.
Despite her job title it is evident that this civil engineering graduate does not consider herself an
engineer.
A range of companies throughout South Carolina and the United States employs the sample of 32
alumnae/alumni. At least 15 of the 32 respondents (approximately 49 percent) are employed
within the state of South Carolina. A list of the employers and the discipline of the graduates are
given below.
Chemical
Carolina Eastman
World of Art Imports
Civil
State of New Mexico
South Carolina Department of Transportation
Consulting Firm
Wilbur Smith Associates
Grant and Associates
Horry County Telephone Cooperative
Computer
Acclaim Studios
Cambridge Technology Partners
Conita Technologies, Inc.
Dell Computer Corporation
Renaissance Interactive Inc.
Electrical
Day and Zimmermann International
Mid-Carolina Cooperative
Chester Telephone Company
Yuasa-Exide Inc.
Mechanical
Becton Dickinson
City of Winder
Cutler-Hammer, Easton Corporation
Datex-Ohmeda
General Electric Appliances
160
Firestone
Milliken
MECA
Reverse Engineering
Spartanburg Steel Products
Siemens
Eighty-eight percent of the alumnae/alumni (28 respondents) are satisfied with their current
employment listing a variety of reasons for this feeling. Reasons for their satisfaction include the
following quotes of alumnae/alumni representing each program:
“Everyday is a different experience.” (Chemical)
“It has changing markets so there is always something new and improved.” (Civil)
“Pay is good, atmosphere is great, and good work is appreciated.” (Computer)
“I enjoy working with the other engineers of Mid-Carolina. Mid-Carolina supplies us with
some of the best technology to do our job.” (Electrical)
“Challenging and interesting – projects are always different with new problems to tackle.”
(Mechanical)
Four graduates, however, are unhappy with their positions. All are mechanical engineering
graduates. Different reasons for being dissatisfied with their positions include:
“Need P.E. Certification for engineering consulting.”
“I do not think production is the appropriate setting for me.”
“Not enough information provided in school on different careers.”
“I sometimes feel out of place because of my lack of practical experience.”
Are you satisfied with your career progression? All but two alumnae and alumni, approximately
94 percent, responded affirmatively to this question. Graduates cited opportunities for
advancement, new challenges, and gaining experience as the primary reasons why they are
satisfied with their career progression. A typical response is like the following from a mechanical
engineer, “My position is satisfactory with opportunities for advancement in the future.” Another
respondent indicated: “Yes, because I am constantly learning which is why I went into engineering
to begin with. New challenges everyday.”
Are you satisfied with your salary level? Why or why not? Only sixty-three percent of the
respondents (20 alumnae/alumni) expressed satisfaction with their salary at the present time. One
computer alumni explained the reason for his satisfaction: “I’m keeping w/market average and
have doubled my entry level salary in just 2 years.” All of the computer graduates expressed
satisfaction with their salary. A civil engineering alumnus said, “Yes. I have enough to live and
have fun.”
Twelve alumnae/alumni, however, indicated that they are not happy with their salaries; these
include 1 chemical, 3 civil and 8 mechanical engineering graduates. A civil engineering graduate
unhappy with his salary said: “Engineers as a whole are vastly underpaid.” As noted, mechanical
engineering graduates accounted for 67 percent of the negative responses regarding salary. A
161
variety of reasons were given for their dissatisfaction. Two alumni cited lack of experience or
expertise as the reason. Another believes the low salary is because he works for a small company.
A female mechanical engineering graduate said, “ I am paid less than male employees with MUCH
less responsibility than myself.”
Are you generally satisfied with your career choice? All but four alumnae/alumni expressed
satisfaction with engineering as a career choice. Most alumnae/alumni mentioned that they enjoy
what they are doing. Reasons for liking engineering include, “I enjoy the variation and challenge.”
And “All want me to be creative and use my problem-solving skills.”
Another question on the survey asked alumnae/alumni: “Do you ever see yourself leaving
engineering in the future to enter another field?” Fourteen respondents, or 44 percent of the
sample, indicated plans to leave engineering. Some respondents are not sure what field they will
enter but others indicated an interest in management, finance, music, missions, law and education.
First-Time Employment
A majority of the alumni/alumnae, approximately 70 percent, held a different position with the
same or another company before moving to their present employment. Four alumni indicated it
was three to eight months after graduation that they began employment with their first job after
graduation. The first positions held by these responding alumnae/alumni are listed below.
Self-employed contract assignments
Target employee
Traffic engineer
Performance engineer
Construction project managing
Design engineer
Project engineer
Engineering Technician II
Programmer
Web developer
Internet developer
Plant electrical engineer
Process engineer
Army
Applications engineer
Project designer
Production manager
Contract engineer
Nine alumnae/alumni have the same position they entered upon leaving USC. One student
enrolled in graduate school and has not worked in another job. Most alumnae/alumni accepted a
job prior to graduation or within three months of graduation. Three alumnae/alumni did not
acquire an engineering-related position within this time period.
162
Continuing Education
Forty-one percent of the respondents (13 graduates) indicated that they applied to graduate school;
all students were accepted and enrolled into the graduate program for which they applied. Five
alumnae/alumni completed an advanced degree. The degrees received by the alumnae/alumni
include: Master’s in International Business Studies (1), Civil Engineering (1), Transportation
Engineering (1), Computer Engineering (1), and Electrical Engineering (1). These degrees were
obtained from MIT, Penn State University, the University of Washington, and the University of
South Carolina (2).
Other alumnae/alumni who are enrolled in graduate school are attending the University of South
Carolina and Troy State University. One graduate indicated that she could not finish her thesis in
environmental engineering because of a lack of data. She has completed all other requirements for
the master’s degree.
Academic Preparation
Students were asked to rate their satisfaction with their preparation to become an engineer.
Seventy percent of the graduates said they are satisfied or very satisfied with their preparation.
Seven graduates indicated they were only “a little satisfied” or “not satisfied” with their training.
Civil, electrical and mechanical alumnae/alumni selected these negative responses. Three
alumnae/alumni, graduating form civil and mechanical, selected the undecided response category.
Alumnae/alumni also rated their preparation to obtain a job after graduation. Forty-nine percent
(16 students) indicated a “satisfied” or “very satisfied” response. Ten students indicated negative
responses to this item totaling approximately 30 percent of the sample. Eight students said that
they were “not satisfied” and two students said they were “a little satisfied” with their preparation
to obtain a job. Students selecting these responses graduated from the Civil, Computer, Electrical
and Mechanical programs. In addition, seven students from the Chemical, Computer and
Mechanical programs selected the undecided response to this question.
Overall, students responded positively to the question regarding their preparation to become a
contributing member of society. Approximately 76 percent selected a “satisfied” or “very
satisfied” response. One Electrical and two Civil Engineering graduates indicated they were not
satisfied with their overall educational preparation and seven alumnae/alumni (Chemical,
Computer, Civil and Mechanical are undecided regarding this issue.
Engineering Skills and Competencies
Alumnae/alumni were asked to provide their opinion regarding the importance of skills and their
satisfaction with the level of competency they achieved on 21 different competencies as a result of
their College of Engineering education. The skills and competencies identified on the survey
include those recommended and outlined in the EC 2000 Criteria. For discussion purposes in the
following paragraphs, these competencies are grouped into three major categories.
163
Category 1: An ability to apply engineering terms, principles, mathematics,
chemistry/physics and liberal arts.
Importance of Skills A majority of students rated mathematics, chemistry/physics, liberal arts and
engineering terms, concepts and principles as “important” or “very important” skills to possess as
it relates to their engineering position. Positive ratings for each of these skill areas included:
Engineering principles (94%); advanced mathematics (79%); chemistry and/or physics (65%); and
liberal arts (75%). A small percentage of engineering graduates classified these skills as “not
important.” Thirty-nine percent of the Mechanical engineers indicate that advanced math is not
important for their engineering position. Approximately 36 percent of the alumnae/alumni
classified chemistry and/or physics as “not important” for their positions; graduates from all
programs except Computer Engineering selected this response. Overall 25 percent of the
alumnae/alumni rated liberal arts as unimportant; Mechanical engineers comprise the majority of
this response category.
Level of Competency Eighty-eight percent or more of the students responded positively
regarding their satisfaction with the level of competency achieved on the skills and competencies
in this category. These findings indicated that alumni are satisfied with their competency levels in
advanced mathematics, chemistry, physics, liberal arts and engineering principles and theories.
Category 2: An ability to identify and solve engineering problems, design a system to meet
desired needs; use the computer as an analysis tool; function on multidisciplinary teams;
function in culturally diverse settings; communicate orally, in writing and with computer
software; design/conduct experiments; and analyze/interpret data.
Importance of Skills All but a few of the respondents believe that the competencies listed in
category 2 are “important” or “very important” skills to possess as it relates to their employment.
Positive ratings on these skills are given in Table 1.
Table 1
Positive Ratings for Specific Competencies
Competencies
Identify and solve problems
Design a system
Use computer as a tool
Function on multi-disciplinary team
Function in a culturally diverse environment
Oral communications
Written communications
164
Importance of
Skills
Satisfaction with
Level of
Competency
% of “important ”
& “very
important”
93
97
100
97
88
100
100
% of “satisfied”
& “very satisfied”
79
73
85
79
78
73
79
Use of computer software for communication
Design and conduct experiments
Analyze and interpret data
100
69
100
76
67
73
As indicated in the table, a majority of the respondents believe these skills to be important for their
job. In one area, however, design/conduct experiments, respondents indicate that these skills are
not as important in their present positions as the other skills in this category. Graduates from the
Civil and Mechanical programs account for the largest percentage of these ratings. Half of the
graduates in chemical engineering who returned surveys also indicated that designing and
conducting experiments is not an important part of their job.
Level of Competency Graduates rated their satisfaction with the level of competency achieved in
each of these skill areas. The percentage of students selecting the “satisfied” and “completely
satisfied” response categories is listed in Table 1. Overall results suggest that a majority of alumni
are satisfied with their competency-level for each skill with a minimum of 67 percent of the
respondents indicating a positive rating. For all skills, the level-of-satisfaction totals are lower
than the percentage of alumni who selected the competency as important or very important.
Although reflecting a positive level, the competency areas receiving the lowest satisfaction ratings
include oral communications (73%), designing a system (73%), and designing and conducting
experiments (67%). Dissatisfaction response patterns were fairly evenly distributed throughout
each program.
Category 3: An understanding of professional and ethical responsibilities, environmental
aspects of engineering, engineering on a global scale, impact of engineering solutions in
global context, life-long learning, industry practices, and contemporary issues.
Importance of Skills These characteristics were assessed with seven items on the survey. A
majority of alumni/alumnae rated all skills in this category as important but the response patterns
were mixed; some competencies were rated more important than other competencies. Response
levels are given in Table 2. For their current positions, alumni rated life-long learning (97%),
knowledge of industry practices (97%), and ethical responsibilities (100%) as the most important
skills. As seen in Table 2, alumni/alumnae rated contemporary issues as the least important
competency in this category with only 40 percent of the alumnae/alumni indicating this skill as
important in their current situation.
Table 2
Positive Ratings of Specific Competencies
Competencies
Professional and ethical responsibilities
165
Importance of
Skills
Satisfaction
with Level of
Competency
% of “important
” & “very
important”
100
% of “satisfied”
& “very
satisfied”
79
Environmental aspects of engineering practice
Practice of engineering on a global scale
Impact of engineering solutions in a global
societal context
Life-long learning
Basic knowledge of industry practices
Contemporary issues
81
79
78
63
45
50
97
97
40
76
45
59
On the average, response patterns for the sample indicate that alumnae/alumni rank the skills in
this category as important as the skills comprising the other two groups. Response patterns for
each program are similar for most of the competencies in this category indicating no significant
differences in alumni/alumnae opinions across the five engineering programs. Several obvious
exceptions should be noted. In contrast to the other program graduates, none of the computer
engineering alumnae/alumni believes that the environment aspects of engineering are important for
their job. Sixty percent of the computer alumni also rated the practice of engineering on a global
scale as unimportant.
Level of Competency As shown in Table 2, alumni/alumnae satisfaction with their level of
competency for skills in this category ranged from a low of 45 percent to a high of 79 percent
suggesting that almost half or more of the alumnae/alumni gave positive ratings for these
competencies. Highly rated competencies include professional ethical responsibilities and lifelong learning. Competency ratings for these skills, on the whole, are slightly lower than the ratings
for the other skills listed on the survey. More importantly, however, is the fact that the proportion
of alumnae/alumni who rated these competencies as important does not correspond to the
proportion of graduates who are satisfied with their level of competency on these skills. For
example, 97 percent of the alumnae/alumni believe that basic knowledge of industry practices is an
important skill to possess but only 45 percent feel satisfied with their expertise in this area. This
trend holds for each program except Chemical Engineering.
Professional Development
Seven survey items elicit information concerning the alumnae’s involvement in professional and
service organizations and the engineering licensing process. Seventy-three percent of the alumni
indicate they have passed the Fundamentals of Engineering Exam. Three alumnae/alumni did not
pass the test and the remainder of the respondents (6 graduates or 18 percent) said they have not
taken it. All but one of the alumni/alumnae (96 percent) have not completed the Principles and
Practice Examination. Only two respondents have completed practice as an EIT and fifty-nine
percent of the survey respondents are working toward this credential. None of the alumnae/alumni
are licensed as a professional engineer.
Eighteen of the 32 respondents (56%) are members of a professional organization including ASCE
(4), IEEE (2), ASME (4) and AIChE (1) and other local and company sponsored groups.
Sixteen of the 32 respondents (50%) listed participation in a variety of community or service
organizations. Three of the 16 alumni mentioned involvement with a church or a religious
166
organization. Five alumni/alumnae responding to this item volunteer with national civic
organizations such as Boy Scouts of America, Jaycees, Lions’ Club and Knights of Columbus.
Several graduates participate in local schools as a mentor or a tutor.
Contributions to Engineering Success
Students were asked which aspects of their undergraduate engineering programs contributed to
their satisfaction working in engineering or their present career. Twenty-seven of the 32
alumnae/alumni provided a variety of responses mentioning courses, competencies, teaching
strategies, instructors, organizations and specific learning experiences.
Projects, labs, teamwork, computer skills and the quality of the faculty members were the most
frequently cited responses to this question. Graduates emphasized different aspects of their
relationship with faculty members. For example, one alumnae/alumni concluded: “I feel that Dr.
Steve McAnally’s approach during my graduate research interim helped/encourage me more than
the entire previous 5 years. He allowed me to choose my own research, meet with clients, write
reports, etc. with minimal ‘interference.’ The most important thing I learned, is how to selfdirect.” Another alumnae stated: “I think professors that incorporate real-life problems are the
ones who best prepare their students.”
Another frequently cited response concerning the factors that contributed to their satisfaction with
engineering careers was the opportunity to participate in “hands-on” or “real-world” activities such
as the labs offered in each program. One alumnae/alumni expressed the opinion as follows: “The
lab experiments particularly the environmental labs contributed greatly to my understanding the
coursework in the classroom.” Another student said: “The labs (301, 201, 401, 402) were the
most educational for the real world.”
According to alumnae/alumni, class projects were an important contribution in preparing them to
work as engineers. A typical explanation included: “Classes with completely project based and
independently earned grades were the most beneficial to my working career. Another alumni
response indicates the helpfulness of several teaching learning techniques: “Long term projects
like senior design assisted greatly. The vehicle project teams in school gave me hands on
knowledge that many engineers do not gain even after 6 years in industry.”
Regarding the importance of computer skills one graduate stated: “I would have to say the close
attention to student’s computer skills. The programming techniques we all had to learn have been
very useful.”
Particular courses, professional organizations, industrial input, oral and written communications
were also mentioned by the respondents. One alumnae/alumni said: “Also, through the writing of
all those many, many reports we had to turn in, I had to become a pretty good user of several
software applications. Those skills have also been useful.”
Most Influential Faculty Member
167
Alumnae/alumni were asked to identify the most influential professor in their professional
development at the College of Engineering and Information Technology. Twenty-six professors
were mentioned by 28 alumnae/alumni. In several instances, graduates selected more than one
professor. Faculty members who were acknowledged by the 1996 alumnae/alumni include: Dan
Bailey, Ronald Baus, Ronald Bonnell, Hugh Bradburn, Joseph Byrd, Francis Gadala-Maria, Molly
Gribb, Sam Hilborn, Jerry Hudgins, Jamil Khan, Jed Lyons, Steve McAnally, Stephen McNeill,
Michael Meadows, Walter Peters, Robert Pettus, Richard Poole, Richard Ray, David Rocheleau,
Ted Simpson, Thomas Stanford, Tangali Sudarshan, Michael Sutton, Vincent Van Brunt, Juan
Vargas, and Edward Young.
Three of these faculty members will be highlighted in this summary - Jamil Kahn, Molly Gribb
and Richard Ray. Several insightful comments were written regarding Dr. Khan including: “Dr.
Jamil Khan was the most influential – he was always willing to set time aside to assist students and
ensure that they learned the material. He is very friendly and extremely knowledgeable.”
Alumnae/alumni appreciated Dr. Kahn’s attention to the student’s individual efforts. Other
students commented on Dr. Kahn’s ability to challenge students to think and analyze. Another
alumni commended Dr. Kahn’s efforts to motivate students: “He was a tough but fair professor.
He taught you that through hard work you can excel at anything.”
A wonderful tribute was written regarding Molly Gribb. The student said: “She is one of the only
professors at USC that invests a sincere effort in students and making sure that teaching takes
priority over research and personal gain.” Another professor frequently praised was Dr. Richard
Ray. One of the most memorable quotes concerning Dr. Ray was: “ Dr. Ray showed me ways of
analyzing things and breaking them down to solve a problem (generally).” Another reference to
Dr. Ray said: “Even though I struggle with coursework and tests, I sensed that these individuals
believed in my ability to perform engaging tasks.”
Recommendations
The former College of Engineering students provided numerous recommendations to improve the
educational experience for future engineering students; 30 respondents provided thoughtful
feedback. Although 21 or more different suggestions were received, most of the comments can be
grouped into three major categories.
The major theme throughout student responses to this question is the need for more “hands-on” or
“real world” experiences within the classroom. This suggestion was reiterated by eleven of the
responding alumnae/alumni. Graduates believe that if practical knowledge is conveyed in the
classroom then students will be more successful in the coursework and in their future employment.
Recommendations from some of the students regarding this theme are:
“I think the students need to have more opportunities to work on real business problems,
whether these are solutions labs, internships or co-ops.” (Computer)
“Apply principles through “real-life” applications.” (Civil)
168
“Even though theories are important, I would use more real world examples and problems
in the classroom. I have learned more from real world application than I have from
theory.” (Electrical)
“There should be much more exposure to the real working world. Programs that involve
students and companies, so that students see 1st hand what is important, and what they
should really apply their efforts to learn. Sometimes professors’ ideas of what the workworld expects of their employees is different from reality. I found that the things my
professors really stressed were trivial, and the things necessary for survival were put on the
back-burner. This caused me to require a lot of training, and not a whole lot to sell myself
to a potential employer with. Without experience, topped with the lack of necessary skills,
I think the first few companies I interviewed with, laughed as I walked out the door.”
(Mechanical)
As indicated within several of the above quotes, a related theme emerging from the student
responses is the recommendation for more involvement of business with student coursework. One
mechanical graduate succinctly stated this recommendation for outside input: “ More
projects/courses with private industry.” Another graduate’s suggestion: “Bring in professional
engineers who can teach you exactly what you will use when you get into your field.” This
suggestion links hands-on/real-life applications with increased industry involvement.
Another group of recommendations are associated with computer and software usage and
instruction. Three or more alumnae/alumni suggest that additional software/applications
instruction is needed before graduation. Recommendations related to this topic included: (1) more
functioning computer with up-to-date software at 300 Main Street; (2) More AutoCAD/CAD
training; (3) Use AutoCad/Softdesk in class; (4) Integrate with some of the computer science
classes; (5) more software classes using business tools; and (6) make laptops mandatory.
Other recommendations concerned proposed changes to the current curriculum; alumnae/alumni
believe courses in HVAC design, transportation, manufacturing and business/management should
be added to the catalogue. Also one alumnae/alumni believes that a wider variety of courses
would be beneficial for future engineers. Other alumnae/alumni stated that some courses could be
integrated and instruction should be more consistent among professors.
Other recommendations from alumnae/alumni involve some general observations such as
“Encourage persistence” but also some specific ones like “Put more $$ in the ChemE program”
and “Don’t give grades away!” In general, recommendations were shared in a positive manner
and show the care and concern the former students gave to this endeavor. Two alumnae/alumni
did not share their suggestions on paper but listed a name, phone number and email address to
reach them for more specific comments.
Summary
Alumnae/alumni surveys were mailed to 170 students who graduated in May, August or December
of 1996. Excluding 44 surveys returned because of an insufficient address, approximately 26
169
percent of the sample returned completed forms. The analysis sample consists of 33 surveys with
return rates for each program as follows:
Program
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
Number of
Graduates
22
27
21
41
56
Number of
Graduates
Receiving
Survey
13
22
18
30
40
Number of
Surveys
Completed
2
8
5
5
13
Return Rate
15
36
28
17
33
Ethnic and gender characteristics of the respondents are fairly representative of the 1996 graduate
sample. Seventy-six percent of the respondents are males and 91 percent are Caucasian. These
figures suggest that a slightly higher percentage of females and Caucasians completed surveys
compared to the total group. Computer and electrical alumnae/alumni are somewhat underrepresented in the analysis sample. Approximately 21 percent of the respondents transferred to
USC from another college or university.
All but one of the alumnae/alumni who returned surveys are employed full time; one alumnus
enrolled in graduate school and is not employed. One alumnae/alumni is not employed in an
engineering-related field. This chemical graduate is self-employed in the import business.
A range of companies throughout South Carolina and the United States employs the sample of 32
alumnae/alumni. At least 15 of the 32 respondents (approximately 49 percent) are employed
within the state of South Carolina. Some of the companies employing 1996 graduates include:
Carolina Eastman, Wilbur Smith Associates, Horry County Telephone Cooperative, Cambridge
Technology Partners, Conita Technologies, Mid-Carolina Cooperative, Datex-Ohmeda, General
Electric Appliances, Becton Dickinson, Reverse Engineering, and Spartanburg Steel Products.
Eighty-eight percent of the alumnae/alumni (28 respondents) are satisfied with their current
employment listing a variety of reasons for this feeling. Reasons for their satisfaction include
challenging projects; good pay, working with other engineers, and a variety of tasks and
experiences. Four graduates, however, are unhappy with their positions. All four are mechanical
engineering graduates and listed different reasons for being dissatisfied with their positions.
All but four alumnae/alumni (88%) expressed satisfaction with engineering as a career choice.
Most alumnae/alumni mentioned that they enjoy what they are doing. Approximately 94 percent
of the respondents are satisfied with the progression of their career citing opportunities for
advancement, new challenges, and gaining experience as the primary reasons for this opinion.
Sixty-three percent of the respondents (20 alumnae/alumni) expressed satisfaction with their salary
at the present time. Some alumnae/alumni indicated they had received raises and that their salaries
were in keeping with the market averages or competitive in their field.
170
Twelve alumnae/alumni, however, indicated that they are not happy with their salaries; these
include 1 chemical, 3 civil and 8 mechanical engineering graduates. All of the computer graduates
expressed satisfaction with their salary As noted, mechanical engineering graduates accounted for
67 percent of the negative responses regarding salary. A variety of reasons were given for their
dissatisfaction including lack of experience or expertise, working for a small company and unequal
pay for female engineers.
Fourteen respondents, or 44 percent of the sample, indicated plans to leave engineering. Some
respondents are not sure what field they will enter but others indicated an interest in management,
finance, music, missions, law and education.
Forty-one percent of the respondents (13 graduates) applied and enrolled in graduate school. At
the present time, five alumnae/alumni have completed an advanced degree; all degrees were
obtained in an engineering-related field except one.
Three questions on the survey were designed to measure graduate’s satisfaction with their
undergraduate experience within the College of Engineering. Seventy percent of the
alumnae/alumni said they are satisfied with their preparation to become an engineer.
Approximately 49 percent of the respondents indicated they are satisfied with their preparation to
obtain a job after graduation. Finally, 76 percent of the alumnae/alumni expressed satisfaction
with their preparation to become a contributing member of society.
Alumnae/alumni were asked to provide their opinion regarding the importance of skills and their
satisfaction with the level of competency they achieved on 21 different skills as a result of their
College of Engineering education. Alumnae/alumni report that the 21 competencies listed on the
survey are important skills for their engineering work. A majority of respondents, ranging from 40
to 100 percent rated these skills as ‘important” or “very important.” The skills or competencies
rated as important by 100 percent of the alumnae/alumni are given below:
Use the computer as a tool for analysis and design
Communicate orally
Communicate in writing
Use computer software for professional communication
Analyze and interpret data
Professional and ethical responsibilities
Although positively rated, competencies receiving the lowest endorsements include: contemporary
issues (40%), chemistry/physics (65%) and to design and conduct experiments (69%).
In general, alumnae/alumni were also satisfied with their level of competency in each of the 21
skills. Satisfaction levels ranged from 45 to 91 percent of the respondents. Skills in which 80
percent or more of the alumnae/alumni were “satisfied” or “completely satisfied” with the level of
competency they achieved as a result of their USC education include:
Engineering terms, principles, and theories (91%)
Advanced math (88%)
171
Liberal Arts (88%)
Chemistry/physics (88%)
Use the computer as a tool for analysis and design (85%)
Alumnae/alumni were asked which aspects of their undergraduate education contributed to their
satisfaction working in engineering. Twenty-seven of the 32 alumnae/alumni provided a variety of
responses mentioning courses, competencies, teaching strategies, instructors, organizations and
specific learning experiences.
Projects, labs, teamwork, computer skills and the quality of the faculty members were the most
frequently cited responses to this question. Graduates emphasized different aspects of their
relationship with faculty members. For example, one alumnae/alumni concluded: “I think
professors that incorporate real-life problems are the ones who best prepare their students.”
Another frequently cited response concerning the factors that contributed to their satisfaction with
engineering careers was the opportunity to participate in “hands-on” or “real-world” activities such
as the labs offered in each program.
According to alumnae/alumni, class projects were an important contribution in preparing them to
work as engineers. A typical explanation included: “Classes with completely project based and
independently earned grades were the most beneficial to my working career.
Another group of recommendations are associated with computer and software usage and
instruction. Three or more alumnae/alumni suggest that additional software/applications
instruction is needed before graduation.
Alumnae/alumni were asked to identify the most influential professor in their professional
development at the College of Engineering. Twenty-six professors were mentioned by 28
alumnae/alumni. Faculty members acknowledged by the 1996 alumnae/alumni include: Dan
Bailey, Ronald Baus, Ronald Bonnell, Hugh Bradburn, Joseph Byrd, Francis Gadala-Maria, Molly
Gribb, Sam Hilborn, Jerry Hudgins, Jamil Khan, Jed Lyons, Steve McAnally, Stephen McNeill,
Michael Meadows, Walter Peters, Robert Pettus, Richard Poole, Richard Ray, David Rocheleau,
Ted Simpson, Thomas Stanford, Tangali Sudarshan, Michael Sutton, Vincent Van Brunt, Juan
Vargas, and Edward Young.
The former College of Engineering students provided numerous recommendations to improve the
educational experience for future engineering students; 30 respondents provided thoughtful
feedback. Although 21 or more different suggestions were received, most of the comments can be
grouped into three major categories.
The major theme throughout student responses to this question is the need for more “hands-on” or
“real world” experiences within the classroom. This suggestion was reiterated by eleven of the
responding alumnae/alumni. Graduates believe that if practical knowledge is conveyed in the
classroom then students will be more successful in the coursework and in their future employment.
172
A related theme emerging from the student responses is the recommendation for more involvement
of business with student coursework. One mechanical graduate succinctly stated this
recommendation for outside input: “ More projects/courses with private industry.”
Another group of recommendations is associated with computer and software usage and
instruction. Three or more alumnae/alumni suggest that additional software/applications
instruction is needed before graduation.
173
Appendix H
Faculty/Staff Surveys
174
College of Engineering and Information Technology
Faculty and Staff Survey
1999 Spring Semester
Indicate your department affiliation __________________________
Check one:
_____Faculty
_____Staff
The survey consists of statements about policies and programs that individuals within the College of Engineering
will have different opinions or judgments. Indicate your opinion by placing a check (√) in the appropriate column.
If you have no opinion, please leave the item blank.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
1.
2.
3.
I am aware of the priorities of the University.
I am aware of the priorities for the College of Engineering.
The College plans and aspirations are aligned with the University
goals.
4. I am aware of the vision and mission statement s of the College.
5. There is a sense of shared interests within the College of Engineering.
6. The Senior Survey, Course Survey and other results of other college
studies are reported to the department chairs.
7. Budget information is shared with faculty and staff members.
8. In general, the deans and department chairs provide effective
leadership and advocacy.
9. The faculty and staff are involved in the strategic planning process.
10. There is faculty and staff involvement in important decisions about
College programs and activities.
11. The Faculty and Staff Advisory Councils provide an effective forum
for communication between faculty and staff and the administration.
Indicate your opinion by placing a check (√) in the appropriate column. If you have no opinion, please leave the
item blank.
Inadequate
12. Indicate your perception of the quality of the undergraduate
programs in the College.
14. Rate the effectiveness of communication that is exchanged
among the Administration, faculty, and staff.
14. Rate your overall impression of the College of Engineering’s
collaboration with business and industries in the state.
15. Rate the level of information you have received about the
ABET process and the new accreditation criteria.
16. Rate the process for improving the quality of your program.
18. Rate the effectiveness of the College’s economic development
initiatives.
19. Rate the overall effectiveness of the Professional
Communications Center in providing support for improving the
quality of student’s oral and written communications.
18. Rate the overall effectiveness of the Career Services Center in
providing internships, co-op opportunities and the placement of
graduates.
20. Rate the undergraduate student recruiting efforts of the College
175
Poor
Average
Good
Excellent
of Engineering.
21. Rate your awareness of programs in your discipline at peer
aspirant Institutions.
22. Rate your perception of how aware peer institutions are of your
program.
23. Rate your perception of the quality of the information
technology infrastructure within the College.
24. Rate the effectiveness of the College’s efforts in creating better
public awareness of what we do.
25. Rate the effectiveness of your industrial advisory board in
affecting change in your curriculum.
26. Please indicate industries’ perception of the currency and
relevancy of your undergraduate curriculum.
Please indicate your perception of the overall rank of the undergraduate program for each of the two peer groups
given below. 1 represents the best program among the group.
Undergraduate Programs
CHE/University Peer Group
Regional Peer Group
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
Indiana (no engineering
University of Colorado – Boulder
University of Florida
University of Iowa
University of Kansas
University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill (no engineering)
University of South Carolina
_____ University of Virginia
_____ Vanderbilt University
Auburn University
Clemson University
Georgia Tech
N. C. State
Mississippi State
University of Kentucky
University of North
Carolina - Charlotte
_____ University of South Carolina
_____ Virginia Tech
Graduate Programs
CHE/University Peer Group
Regional Peer Group
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
Indiana (no engineering)
University of Colorado – Boulder
University of Florida
University of Iowa
University of Kansas
University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill
University of South Carolina
Auburn
Clemson
Georgia Tech
N. C. State University
Mississippi State
University of Kentucky
University of North
Carolina - Charlotte
_____ University of South Carolina
_____ Virginia Tech
_____ University of Virginia
_____ Vanderbilt University
176
With the limited resources and the multitude of needs, please rank the following in order of priority
for receiving new funds. Use 1 as the highest ranking. Please use each number only one time.
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
Upgrading the college computer network
Machine Shop
Professional Communications Center
Freshman Engineering Experience
Classroom enhancements to improve the teaching environment
Recruiting of undergraduate students
Recruiting of graduate students
Start-up funds for new faculty
Hiring more computer support personnel
Hiring more departmental support staff
Instructional laboratory equipment
Computer hardware and software in departments
Computer hardware and software in College labs
High performance research computing
Other
__________________________________________________________________
177
College of Engineering and Information Technology
Faculty Survey
2000 Spring Semester
Please indicate your program
1.
______________________________
Below are listed some skills and competencies that an engineering graduate should have according to the
Engineering Criteria 2000. Please indicate your perception of the amount of experience students received in
your coursework regarding these skills. Use the one course that you most often teach as the basis for
answering these questions. Also indicate your opinion of the level of competency students have achieved as
a result of their USC engineering education.
Competencies
Amount of Experience
Too Little
Adequate
Level of Competency
Too
Much
An ability to apply:
Engineering terms, principles and
theories
Advanced mathematics (calculus &
above)
Chemistry and/or physics
Liberal Arts (English, history,
economics, business, etc.)
An ability to:
Identify, formulate, and solve
engineering problems
Design a system, component, or
process to meet desired needs and
quality
Use the computer as a tool for analysis
& design
Function on multi-disciplinary or
cross-functional teams
Function in culturally and ethnically
diverse environments
Communicate orally, informally, and
in prepared talks
Communicate in writing - technical
reports, memos, proposals, etc.
Use computer software for
professional communications
Design and conduct experiments
Analyze and interpret data
An understanding of:
Professional and ethical
responsibilities
Environmental aspects of engineering
practice
The practice of engineering on a global
scale
178
Completely
Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Satisfied
Completely
Satisfied
The impact of engineering solutions in
a global and societal context
The need for engaging in life-long
learning
Basic knowledge of industry practices
and standards
Contemporary issues
2.
Please indicate the extent to which you incorporate the following teaching/learning strategies and topics
into the major course you typically teach each year. Secondly, indicate if you use these strategies more or
less than the last academic year. Please indicate the direction of change by checking one box.
Activities in the classroom
Extent to which you use each activity
Direction of change
Never
Less
than last
year
1
All the
time
2
3
4
More
than last
year
5
Use technology to deliver
instruction
Use computer activities to enhance
student learning
Use a variety of methods to
accommodate differences in student
learning styles
Integrate math and science into
engineering courses
Use a variety of teaching strategies
Interact with students outside of
class
Available for student appointments
Encourage students to read
professional journals
Encourage students to visit
professional websites
3.
Other than the course survey administered at the end of the semester (green form), how often do you
ask for student input on how to improve the courses you teach?
__________
__________
__________
__________
___________
Never
Seldom (once a year)
Once per semester in each course
Twice per semester in each course
Three or more times per semester
179
4.
Are you aware that SC State law requires the administration of the first seven items of the course
survey for all courses (undergraduate and graduate) each semester?
Yes
No
5.
One of the goals of the of the ABET Engineering Criteria 2000 is to improve the education experience
for students in engineering. In what ways have you tried to improve the education experience for
students in your courses?
6.
How can the College of Engineering and Information Technology do more to enhance undergraduate
engineering education?
7.
Examine the following list of classroom assessment instruments. Indicate the extent to which you rely
on a given method within the course you typically teach during one semester. (Consider tests, finals,
assignments, projects, homework, etc.). Rate each type of assessment given below.
Types of
Assessments
Multiple choice
tests/quizzes
Short response
tests/quizzes
Written solutions
to math
problems
Development of
computer
programs
Written papers
Oral
presentations
Oral questioning
Peer ratings
Student selfevaluations
Portfolios
Design projects
Experiments
Team projects
Never use
Sometimes in
some classes
Always in
some classes
Others (please specify_____________________________________)
180
Always in all
classes
Not applicable
For the course
8.
List the professional development activities that you have participated in during the past year.
9.
What types of faculty development activities have you participated in during the past two years that
focus on ways to improve the teaching/learning process? Check all that apply. If you attended more
than on conference, etc. please indicate the number in the blank.
10.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
Attending conferences
Presenting at conferences
Writing articles
Presenting within the COEIT
Attending in-house workshops
Attending presentations by invited guest speakers within your program
Serving on College-wide ABET-related committees
Serving on ABET-related committees within your program
One-on-one consultations
Reading journal articles
Visiting websites of other engineering institutions
L.
________
Did not participate in any such activities
ABET Engineering Criteria 2000 requires the implementation of a continuous quality improvement
system within each program. Provide any comments you wish regarding issues, concerns, strengths
and weaknesses of this assessment process within your program.
181
Appendix I
Faculty/Staff Survey Reports
(sample)
182
College of Engineering and Information Technology
Faculty and Staff Survey
Summary of Results
Spring 1999
The first annual Faculty and Staff Survey was distributed to full-time employees within the
College of Engineering (COE) during the first week of June 1999. A total of 72 surveys were
returned with partial or complete responses. Approximately 58 percent of the respondents, or 42
surveys, were received from faculty members. The remainder, 30 respondents, indicated positions
as staff. Staff members included employees from the Dean’s area, Student Services, Institutional
Services and each of the four departments. Breakdowns of the returned surveys by department are
as follows:
ECHE:
Faculty:
Staff:
12
8
4
ECIV: 11
Faculty: 10
Staff:
1
EECE: 11
Faculty: 9
Staff:
2
EMCH:
Faculty:
Staff:
Unknown:
16
12
3
1
Administration
Staff: 30
The survey requested faculty and staff opinions regarding a variety of college objectives and
functions. The first set of statements asked respondents to react to 11 Likert-type items. Response
choices included: “strongly disagree,” “disagree,” “agree,” and “strongly agree.” Over half of
the faculty and staff members responded positively to 7 of the 11 items. In general, faculty and
staff are aware of the goals and priorities of the University of South Carolina and the College of
Engineering and believe that the COE objectives are aligned with U.S.C.’s goals. Over 93% of the
respondents know that reports are given to their Department Chairs. They also expressed the
opinion that budget information is shared with them and that the COE has effective leadership and
advocacy.
Response patterns for four of the items in the first set suggest that over half of the faculty do not
have positive perceptions regarding their involvement in the planning or decision-making process.
Faculty and staff believe that the Faculty and Staff Councils do not provide an effective
communication medium (62%) nor do they believe that there is a sense of shared interests within
the COE (72%).
In the second set of items, faculty and staff members were asked to rate the quality and
effectiveness of 15 different areas, programs or services within the COE. These survey statements
were given in a Likert-type format using the following alternatives: inadequate, poor, average,
good and excellent. Overall, faculty and staff respondents rated 13 of 15 items as average, good or
excellent indicating a degree of satisfaction with the quality of the College services. Faculty and
staff members rated seven of these 15 topics as good or excellent. These include: quality of
undergraduate programs, ABET information, the Professional Communications Center, their
awareness of programs at peer institutions, public awareness and the Industrial Advisory Board’s
183
perception of the curriculum. Areas of the College that were rated in a negative manner by more
than a third of the respondents include communication (44%) and peer awareness of USC
programs (47%).
The next section of the survey requested respondents to rank the list of aspirant peers that were
adopted for use by the CHE and legislature in the performance funding evaluation. Some of the
institutions do not have an engineering program while others have a very large engineering
college. The ranking of the undergraduate programs of these Universities by faculty and staff
members, according to the frequency of first place votes, are as follows: UVA, Florida, Colorado,
UNC, USC, and Indiana, Iowa and Kansas tied for the bottom places. UVA received 20 first
place votes followed by the University of Florida with 7 and UNC with 5. These schools were also
most frequently ranked in the second place among the CHE designated peer group.
Faculty and staff also ranked the universities designated as part of the regional peer group.
Rankings for the 10 regional peer institutions were also consistent among the faculty responses.
Georgia Tech received 26 first place and 10 second place votes. Virginia Tech was second in the
frequency of the top selections with 8 and 15 first and second place votes respectively. NC State
was a close 3rd differing only by a frequency of 5. The overall ranking, in order of the frequency
of first place votes, was: Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech, Vanderbilt, and NC State. Auburn,
Kentucky, Mississippi, UNCC and USC were given the lowest ratings within the group.
Faculty and staff members were also asked to rate the graduate programs of the CHE aspirant peer
Universities. Rankings for the top four graduate programs were the same as for the undergraduate
programs with UVA receiving the largest number of first place rankings followed by Florida,
Colorado and UNC. The next rankings include Iowa, Indiana, Kansas and USC placing at the
bottom of the list. Rankings of the regional peer group programs were somewhat similar to the
undergraduate results indicated previously. Georgia Tech obtained the largest number of first place
ranks with Virginia Tech and NC State coming next. Unlike the undergraduate rankings, USC was
listed in fourth place among the universities listed outranking Vanderbilt, Mississippi and
Clemson. Auburn, Kentucky and UNCC were ranked last.
In the final section of the survey, faculty and staff members ranked a list of 14 items that could
receive funds from the College budget. The survey directions asked employees to prioritize these
14 items or add their own selections. Examination of the frequencies for a first place ranking
suggests that recruiting of undergraduate students is a top priority. Priorities ranked in the next
four positions include: hiring more departmental staff; providing start-up finds for new faculty, the
Machine Shop and classroom enhancements.
When first, second and third place priorities are collapsed the top five priorities are as follows:
recruiting undergraduates, recruiting graduates, start-up funds for faculty, lab equipment and hiring
computer support staff.
Analysis of the rankings, by department, indicates some differences among the programs. The
following tables show the top five (5) priorities for each department. The first table indicates the
priorities examining only the frequencies for items ranked # 1. The second table indicates the top
five priorities when first, second and third place rankings are combined.
184
Ranked as #1 Priority
Administration Staff
ECHE
ECIV
EECE
EMCH
Recruit Undergraduates
Recruit
Undergraduates
Start-up funds
Hire staff
Hire staff
Hire faculty
Recruit
Undergraduates
Lab Equipment
Machine Shop
Freshman Year
Classroom
Enhancements
Start-up funds
Note. Only priorities listed above are those that received a first place ranking.
Combined 1st – 3rd Ranks
Administration Staff
ECHE
ECIV
EECE
EMCH
Recruit undergraduates
Start-up funds
Hire staff
Recruit graduates
& Start-up funds
Freshman Year
Recruit
undergraduates
Recruit graduates
Recruit graduates
Recruit
undergraduate
Recruit graduates
Recruit
undergraduates
and hire faculty
Start-up funds &
lab equipment
Hire faculty and hire
staff
Classroom
enhancements,
lab equipment &
computer
network
Lab equipment
and computer
support personnel
Machine Shop,
Computer
network, and
computer support
personnel
Classroom
enhancements
Recruit graduates
Hire computer
personnel
Lab equipment
185
College of Engineering and Information Technology
Faculty Survey
Summary of Survey Results
2000 Spring Semester
Overview
Numerous reports over the past ten years have outlined the attributes that engineering graduates
need to possess in the 21st century workplace. Engineering is part of the growing national trend
toward increased accountability and assessment to provide feedback from multiple constituencies
and to enhance student learning in and out of the classroom. There is broad agreement of the need
for systemic engineering educational reform that must be implemented for colleges to successfully
develop graduates who meet these criteria and to provide evidence to legislatures, parents and
potential employers that programs are achieving their stated missions, goals and objectives.
As part of this reform, institutions of higher education now focus on student outcomes or
performance-based models of instruction that strive to measure what students have learned and
what they can do. This altered view of the teaching-learning process also required a concomitant
change in the way learning outcomes are assessed inside and outside of the classroom. Outcomes
assessment examines the results of the education process by asking to what extent student have
accomplished the objectives of their discipline.
Believing in the need for change, ABET and other accrediting organizations have taken leadership
roles in defining the parameters of the reform movement. This paradigm shift is clearly evident in
the new Engineering Criteria 2000. EC 2000 stipulates that programs must have published
educational objectives that are consistent with the mission of the institution and that they must
evaluate the success of students in meeting these program objectives. The ABET criteria also
require engineering programs to include a continuous quality improvement process that documents
progress toward achievement of these objectives.
To advance the criteria, ABET has promoted more diversity in classroom practices that move
instruction from a traditional lecture to structured activities reflecting what engineers do in the
workplace. The reform movement advocates that engineering curricula incorporate a variety of
teaching and assessment methods to involve students in active learning, design projects,
technology use, and multidisciplinary teams. Outcomes-based assessments, in the form of design
projects, portfolios, and model construction are more direct measures of student learning than
multiple exams and are strongly advocated to enable faculty members to directly link student
competencies with the expectations of the workplace.
Goals and Purposes
A major goal of this survey is to provide an opportunity for faculty members to identify the
strengths and weaknesses of their students and to evaluate their use of ABET recommended
186
teaching/learning strategies. The survey represents one of multiple methods that assess program
impact within the College’s continuous quality improvement program. As a key stakeholder
within this system, faculty members are requested to evaluate: (1) the skills and competencies of
their students, (2) their involvement in professional development activities, and (3) their use of
multiple teaching and learning strategies in the classroom. The Faculty and Staff Survey
administered in the fall semester will address other issues such as space utilization, IT Services,
Career Services, Student Services and other college-wide services.
Administration
Surveys were mailed to 81 College faculty members on April 19, 2000. This distribution included
Computer Science faculty even though they are new to the College and are probably unfamiliar
with the EC 2000 Criteria. A reminder was emailed to faculty during the following week. A total
of 31 surveys were received for a return rate of 38 percent.
The following return rates were obtained for each program:
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
47%
33%
26%
33%
53%
( 7 of 15 surveys)
( 5 of 15 surveys)
( 6 of 23 surveys)
( 3 of 9 surveys)
(10 of 19 surveys)
Instrument
A three-page survey was developed to obtain information in the following areas:
Ratings of student competency for each EC 2000 Criteria
Ratings of student experience with each competency (EC 2000 Criteria)
Use of teaching/learning strategies
Student input regarding courses
Improving engineering education
Use of classroom assessment techniques
Involvement in professional development
Survey results, consisting of frequencies and percentages for each survey item, are given by
program in the accompanying tabular report. The following paragraphs summarize the general
findings for each section of the survey.
Ratings of Competencies
Faculty were asked to provide their opinion regarding the amount of experience students received
in engineering courses and their satisfaction with the level of competency students achieved as a
result of their USC education. Ratings were requested for 21 different skills and competencies
outlined in the Engineering Criteria 2000 published by ABET. These skills are grouped into three
major categories. The following section summarizes the survey findings in each category.
187
Category 1: An ability to apply engineering terms and principles, mathematics, chemistry
and/or physics and liberal arts.
Amount of Experience A majority of faculty members believe that their students received an
“adequate” amount of experience in coursework regarding skills in this category. Adequacy
ratings include: engineering terms, etc. (97%); advanced math (96%); chemistry and/or physics
(84%); and liberal arts (59%). Approximately 36 percent of the faculty members believe that
engineering students received “too little” experience in the liberal arts courses.
Program Results Overall, no significant differences were observed among the programs
regarding the student’s ability to apply engineering terms, principles, theories, etc., and advanced
mathematics. With one exception, similar response patterns were also noted for each program
concerning the application of chemistry and physics. Computer faculty members were equally
divided having one faculty member to choose each response category – “too little,” “adequate,”
and “too much.” Engineering professors are less unanimous in their opinion regarding the
application of liberal arts. Although a substantial proportion of the overall group (36%) believes
students have not received sufficient liberal arts coursework, an even larger proportion (67
percent) of Civil engineering faculty members believe students need more training in this area.
Level of Competency For each skill in this category, at least half of the faculty members perceive
that students have a sufficient level of competency in the four skills in this category. The
following proportion of faculty members are satisfied or completely satisfied with student’s level
of competency in the application of:
Engineering terms, principles and theories (82%)
Chemistry/physics (74%)
Liberal arts concepts (72%)
Advanced math (58%)
Compared to the other key areas, the figures suggest that a lower percentage of faculty members
are comfortable with student’s expertise in advanced math. In fact, survey results indicate that
approximately 41 percent expressed dissatisfaction with the level of competency students have
achieved in math as a result of their USC education.
Program Results The distribution of responses by program indicates that there are some
differences among faculty member’s perception of student competency in these areas. A larger
percentage of Civil and Electrical professors are dissatisfied with student’s ability to apply
engineering and chemistry/physics concepts. Approximately 67 and 50 percent, respectively, of
the Electrical and Mechanical respondents believe that students are under-prepared in advanced
math. For liberal arts, 50 percent of the Civil and 30 percent of the Mechanical professors are
dissatisfied with student skills in these areas.
Category 2: An ability to identify and solve engineering problems; design a system to meet
desired needs; use the computer as an analysis tool; function on multidisciplinary teams;
function in culturally diverse settings; communicate orally, in writing and with computer
software; design/conduct experiments; and analyze/interpret data.
188
Amount of Experience Overall, engineering faculty expressed the opinion that students have an
adequate amount of experience with each of the ten competencies listed in this category. At least
59 percent or more of the faculty indicated this viewpoint. The percentage of faculty members
selecting adequate as their rating of student experience are as follows:
Identify, formulate and solve problems (90%)
Use computer software for communications (79%)
Communicate in writing (76%)
Communicate orally (75%)
Function in diverse environments (75%)
Design a system, component or process (75%).
Analyze and interpret data (70%)
Use the computer as a tool for analysis and design (63%)
Design and conduct experiments (59%)
Function on multidisciplinary teams (59%)
A substantial proportion of the faculty members think that students have received “too little”
experience in several areas. These competencies, including the percentage of professors indicating
this rating, are as follows:
Design and conduct experiments (41%)
Function on multidisciplinary teams (41%)
Use the computer as a tool for analysis and design (37%)
Analyze and interpret data (30%)
Program Results Differences were observed among the distribution of responses for the
programs. In general, responses from the civil engineering faculty members were fairly uniform
but did not duplicate trends observed with the other programs. Half or more of the Civil
engineering faculty members believe their students did not have an adequate amount of experience
with 6 of 10 topics in this category. Most notably, all of the Civil engineering respondents
indicated that students had insufficient experience with multidisciplinary teams and functioning in
culturally diverse environments and 75 percent believe that students lack sufficient coursework in
oral communications. Other differences among the programs concern the competencies for
designing a system and using the computer as a tool for design. Chemical faculty members (43
percent) and Civil faculty members (50%) think students need more experience with designing a
system, component or process. Chemical (50%), Civil (50%), and Electrical (67%) professors
believe students lack experience in analysis and design using a computer.
189
Level of Competency The proportion of faculty indicating a “satisfied” or “completely satisfied”
response ranged from 48 to 78 percent of the total. Faculty members believe that students exhibit
a sufficient degree of competency in a number of areas. Some of these include:
Use of computer software for communication (78%)
Oral communication (78%)
Identify, formulate and solve problems (69%)
Design a system, component or process (68%)
Function in a culturally diverse environment (68%)
Communicate in writing (68%)
A significant segment of the respondents identified areas needing improvement; faculty gave
“completely dissatisfied” or “dissatisfied” ratings to these competencies. They include:
Use the computer for analysis and design (52%)
Analyze and interpret data (50%)
Design and conduct experiments (45%)
Function on multi-disciplinary teams (41%)
Program Results Notable differences were also observed in the distribution of responses by
program. Results indicate that a substantial portion of the Civil engineering faculty are dissatisfied
with the level of competency of their students on the skills in this category. Dissatisfaction ratings
ranged from 40 to 80 percent on the ten topics. Areas with the highest levels of dissatisfaction
include oral (80%) and written (80%) communications, design and conduct experiments (80%),
analyze and interpret data (80%), functioning in a culturally diverse environment (75%), and
functioning on a multidisciplinary team (75%). These findings are not surprising because civil
engineering faculty indicated that students had not received sufficient experience with these skills.
Electrical faculty also indicated overall dissatisfaction with the competency level of their students
on various skills such as identifying engineering problems (67%), designing systems (67%), use of
the computer as a tool for analysis (100%), designing and conducting experiments (67%), and
analyze and interpret data (100%). These are areas in which faculty also indicated that students
received an insufficient amount of experience. On the other hand, 100 percent of the professors
were satisfied with student’s competency in functioning on multidisciplinary teams, functioning in
culturally diverse environments, oral communication, written communications and use of
computer software for professional communications.
Category 3: An understanding of professional and ethical responsibilities, environmental
aspects of engineering, engineering on a global scale, impact of engineering solutions in a
global context, life-long learning, industry practices, and contemporary issues.
190
Amount of Experience For all but one skill in this area, over half of the faculty members believe
students received an adequate amount of experience with each competency. The proportion of
faculty indicating a rating of “adequate” ranged from 46 to 68 percent of the respondents.
Approximately 54 percent of the professors, however, believe that students do not have an
adequate amount of experience regarding industry practice and standards.
Program Results There was a similar pattern of responses for each program regarding basic
knowledge of industry practices and standards; 43 to 75 percent of the faculty members indicate
that students have insufficient experience in this area. Response patterns for the remainder of the
skills in this category were mixed. In general, however, the Chemical and Civil engineering
professors were likely to agree that student’s experience was adequate on these particular topics.
Electrical, Mechanical, and sometimes Computer faculty regarded student experience on the
environment, engineering solutions in a global context, need for life-long learning and professional
and ethical responsibilities as inadequate.
Level of Competency Overall, 50 percent or more of the faculty are satisfied or completely
satisfied with the competency levels achieved by their students in each of these skill areas. The
positive ratings of skills in this category ranged from 50 to 82 percent of the total. Approximately
82 percent of the faculty members are happy with students’ ability to engage in life-long learning
and 71 percent believe students have a sufficient understanding of professional and ethical
responsibilities. The two skills identified as weaknesses include basic knowledge of industry
practices and standards (50%) and contemporary issues (44%).
Program Results There was not a discernable pattern of responses by program for the
competencies in this category. Also, programs differed as to the magnitude. Overall 30 to 40
percent of the faculty members expressed dissatisfaction with the level of student competency for
each skill but the response rate for each program varied from 0 to 70 percent indicating a wide
range of perceptions. Dissatisfaction patterns for each program are given in the following table.
Dissatisfaction Ratings for Skills in Category 3
Competency
Ethics
Environment
Global scale
Solution in a global
context
Life-long learning
Business practices
Contemporary Issues
Chemical
Civil
Computer Electrical
Mechanical
0%
17%
33%
0%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
25%
25%
33%
33%
67%
0%
50%
30%
40%
50%
30%
0%
40%
40%
0%
25%
75%
0%
40%
25%
33%
50%
0%
44%
70%
50%
In general, 30 to 70 percent of the mechanical faculty members are dissatisfied with student
competencies on these skills. Results seem to indicate that the other programs have selected one or
two areas to emphasize within the coursework.
191
Student Feedback
Faculty members were asked how often they ask student’s input on course improvement.
Respondents were told to exclude the COEIT Course Survey (green Scantron form) from their
estimate. Approximately 13 percent of the respondents indicated that they never ask for student
evaluation of the course. Twenty-three percent seldom ask for student feedback. Survey results
indicate that the largest proportion of faculty members, 42 percent, seek feedback from students
once per semester. An additional 23 percent of the respondents obtain student input two or three
times each semester.
State Mandated Course Evaluation
Faculty members were asked if they are aware that South Carolina accountability law mandates
seven of the items included on the course evaluation survey. Only 61 percent of the faculty
members responded affirmatively indicating that additional briefings or updates on this topic
would be a beneficial exercise.
Activities in the Classroom
Faculty members were asked to indicate the extent to which they engage in various teaching and/or
learning strategies within the classroom. Many of the techniques or strategies listed are those
recommended by ABET and other engineering reform leaders. Possible responses covered a fivepoint continuum from “never” to “all the time.” A score of three on this scale would indicate an
“average” use of the particular strategy with scores of four and five representing “above average”
usage.
Overall, results suggest that faculty engage in the specific activities most of the time. The
following percentages represent the proportion of the responding faculty members who rated their
engagement as “above average.”
Available for student appointments
Integrate math and science within courses
Interact with students outside of class
Use a variety of teaching strategies
Use of technology to deliver instruction
Use computer activities to enhance learning
Use of a variety of methods to accommodate
different student learning styles
Encourage students to read professional journals
Encourage students to visit professional websites
96%
84%
80%
61%
52%
52%
51%
45%
40%
Faculty were also asked to indicate if they engaged in these activities more, less or about the same
as the previous year. Over half of the faculty indicated that they used each of the specified
classroom activities more than the year before. Activities noted most frequently by the professors
include:
192
Use technology to deliver instruction
Interact with students outside of class
Use computer activities to enhance learning
90%
76%
75%
Improving Engineering Education
One of the goals of the ABET Engineering Criteria 2000 is to improve the educational experience
for students in engineering and information technology. The faculty members were asked to relate
the ways they have tried to improve the educational experience for students in their courses.
Twenty-seven faculty members listed more than 34 different activities that were incorporated into
the courses they taught. Responses to this question suggest a variety of methodologies and
strategies in the effort to improve engineering education. Multiple persons listed several activities.
They include hands-on projects (3), more use of computer (3), more interaction with students
outside of class (2), formal use of the Professional Communications Center (PCC) (2), giving
students more responsibility for design projects, team projects, more business industry
applications, more appropriate projects/homework, and, relating topics to current/contemporary
issues.
A few of the other activities faculty members listed include adding ethics, giving a workshop on
teamwork, use of industry expertise within the classroom, use of internet resources, linking exam
questions to course objectives and linking course materials to other courses and engineering topics.
An open-ended survey item also asked how the College of Engineering and Information
Technology could enhance undergraduate engineering education. Twenty-seven faculty members
listed 29 different suggestions for change and/or improvement. The most frequently cited
responses from faculty are as follows:
Hire more faculty members (5)
Re-organize/restructure college computer support services (4)
Provide funds for teaching assistants (2)
Provide funds for the purchase of computer software (2)
Provide computer training for basic software (2)
Admit more qualified students (2)
Some of the other suggestions include more staff support, provide teaching awards, computer
projection screens in all classrooms, faculty involvement in recruiting, provide technicians, better
labs and equipment and an endowed chair in education.
Professional Development
Respondents were asked to list the professional activities that they participated in during the past
year. Attending and/or presenting at conferences and workshops were the most frequently cited
responses to this question. Fourteen faculty members indicated that they attended/presented at one
or more conferences during the academic year. Six respondents mentioned attending technical
seminars given by the College or those sponsored by another department or university. Three
faculty members attended meetings of a professional engineering organization. Several (2)
professors indicated that they served on various committees and regularly participated in meetings.
193
Additionally, faculty members wrote papers, edited a journal and/or reviewed papers for
publication.
Summary
An objective of this survey was to provide faculty members an additional opportunity to contribute
to the continuous quality improvement process with the College of Engineering and Information
Technology. Respondents evaluated student’s exposure to or experience with 21 different skills
and competencies necessary for graduates to function effectively as engineers in the workplace.
They also assessed student’s competencies within their program. The survey also requested
information regarding other concerns such as professional development, improving engineering
education, use of teaching/learning/assessment strategies within the classroom and
recommendations for improvement.
On April 19, 2000, surveys were mailed to 81 College faculty members including Computer
Science professors. The survey sample consisted of a total of 31 surveys for a return rate of 38
percent. The following return rates were obtained for each program:
Chemical
Civil
Computer
Electrical
Mechanical
47%
33%
26%
33%
53%
( 7 of 15 surveys)
( 5 of 15 surveys)
( 6 of 23 surveys)
( 3 of 9 surveys)
(10 of 19 surveys)
Faculty provided their opinion regarding the amount of experience students received on 21
different skills and competencies within their engineering courses. A majority of faculty rated
their student’s experience as adequate for all skills except one. Rating of adequate ranged from 46
to 97 percent of the total. Approximately 54 percent of the faculty members believe that students
do not graduate with a basic knowledge of industry practices. A substantial proportion of faculty
members (a third or more of the total group) believe that students receive “too little” experience in
additional skill areas. These include Liberal Arts (36%), use of computer as a tool for analysis and
design (37%), function on multi-disciplinary teams (41%), design and conduct experiments (41%),
professional and ethical responsibilities (37%), environmental aspects of engineering (41%),
engineering on a global scale (33%), impact of engineering solutions in a global context (33%).
Faculty members provided their perception of the level of competency students achieved as a
result of their USC education. Positive faculty ratings, on the skills, ranged from 48 to 82 percent
of the total indicating that they were satisfied with their student’s competency level. Competencies
achieving the highest approval ratings include:
Engineering terms, principles, theories 82%
Need for engaging in life-long learning 82%
Communicate orally 78%
Use computer software for communication 78%
Ability to apply chemistry/physics 74%
Ability to apply liberal arts 72%
194
Professional and ethical responsibilities 71%
The faculty members also identified areas of weakness by indicating that they were dissatisfied
with the student’s level of competency. Areas in need of improvement (indicated by the
percentage of faculty selecting a dissatisfied response) include:
Use computer as a tool for analysis and design 52%
Analyze and interpret data 50%
Basic knowledge of industry practices 50%
Design and conduct experiments 45%
Contemporary issues 44%
Function on Multi-disciplinary teams 41%
Advanced math 41%
Practice engineering on global scale 39%
Environmental aspects 37%
Impact of engineering solutions in global 36%
Faculty members were asked to name the ways in which they have tried to improve the educational
experience for students in their course. A total of 27 respondents listed more than 34 activities that
were incorporated into their courses. The activities mentioned most frequently by the professors
include hands-on projects, increased use of the computer, more interaction with students outside of
class, and formal use of the Professional Communications Center (PCC).
Faculty members were asked to indicate the extent to which they engage in various teaching
/learning strategies within the classroom. Techniques or strategies used “all the time” or “nearly
all the time” by engineering faculty members include:
Available for student appointments
Integrate math and science within courses
Interact with students outside of class
Use a variety of teaching strategies
96%
84%
80%
61%
Over half of the faculty indicated that they used each of the specified classroom activities more
than the year before. Activities with the largest percentage of increased usage in the classroom are
listed below.
Use technology to deliver instruction
Interact with students outside of class
Use computer activities to enhance learning
90%
76%
75%
Survey results indicate that approximately 65 percent or more of the professors seek student input
regarding the course at least once during the semester. Only 61 percent of the respondents are
aware that South Carolina law mandates the administration of at least seven evaluation items for
all courses taught each fall and spring semester.
195
Respondents listed the professional activities that they participated in during the past year.
Attending and/or making presentations at conferences and workshops were the most frequently
cited responses to this question. Fourteen faculty members attended/presented at one or more
conferences during the academic year.
Twenty-seven faculty members listed 29 suggestions as ways in which the College can enhance
undergraduate engineering education. Some of these recommendations for improvement include:
Hire more faculty members (5)
Re-organize/restructure college computer support services (4)
Provide funds for teaching assistants (2)
Provide funds for the purchase of computer software (2)
Provide computer training for basic software (2)
Admit more qualified students (2)
196
Appendix J
Entering Student Survey
197
College of Engineering and Information Technology
Entering Student Questionnaire
1999 Fall Semester
Name of your UNIV101-E instructor: ______________________________________________
Marketing and Recruiting Information
1.
What was the primary reason why you decided to attend the University of South Carolina?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2.
Was USC your first choice of colleges to attend?
Yes
No
3.
What are some of the other important factors that influenced your decision to attend USC?
(Such as cost, scholarship, close to home, academic reputation, friends, parental influence)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4.
If USC was NOT your first choice, please indicate the reasons. What could we have done
to make USC your first choice university?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5.
Other than USC, list the colleges to which you applied and indicate if you were admitted.
________________________
College Name
Admitted
Yes
No
________________________
College Name
Admitted
Yes
No
________________________
College Name
Yes
No
______________________
College Name
Yes
No
________________________
College Name
Yes
No
______________________
College Name
Yes
No
_________________________
Yes
No
_______________________
Yes
No
198
College Name
College Name
Engineering Information
6.
How did you learn about the College of Engineering and Information Technology? Circle all the
options that apply.
TV
Radio
Newspaper ads
College sponsored special events
Newspaper stories
State Fair
Friends
Admissions fairs
Relatives
Through a high school program or counselor
Others:
__________________________________________________________________________
7.
Did you receive enough information about the College of Engineering and Information Technology
before you enrolled in Engineering?
Yes
8.
I don’t know
No
Did you have an opportunity to tour the college?
Yes
No
If yes, please tell us your opinion of the tour?
Engineering Website
9.
Before enrolling at USC, did you visit the college of Engineering Website?
10.
Do you have any recommendations for improving the Website?
________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
11.
If you have visited the college of Engineering and Information technology Website, please
indicate your impression of the following characteristics:
Not
Satisfactory
Ease of locating site
Organization of front page
Ease of finding specific information
Completeness of information
Currency of information
199
No
Opinion
Yes
Satisfactory
No
Very
Satisfactory
Student Demographics
12.
Are you employed?
Yes
No
If yes, how many hours do you work per week?
___________________________
13.
If you are not employed, do you plan to find a job during your freshman year?
14.
Please indicate your gender.
15.
Did you bring a computer with your when you came to USC?
Yes
No
(a)
Yes
No
Female
Yes
No
Male
If no, have you purchased a computer since enrolling at USC?
(b)
If yes, indicated the brand name type of computer you own.
______________________________________________________________________________
(c)
Is your computer a PC or a laptop?
____________________________
(d)
Have you upgraded your computer since arriving at USC?
(e)
List the software you have installed on your system.
Yes
No
___________________________________________________________
(f)
16.
Was this your first computer purchase?
Prior to this class, have you had any computer instruction?
Yes
No
Yes
No
If yes, where did you receive your instruction about computers and software? If you learned on
your own
– by reading manuals, etc. – please indicate that experience too.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Academic Preparation
17.
Did you take a calculus course in high school?
If yes, what grade did you receive?
_______________
Yes
No
18.
Did you take a physics course in high school?
Yes
No
If yes, what grade did you receive?
_______________
19.
Have you given an oral presentation in any of your high school classes?
No
20.
Did you take AP English in high school?
Yes
200
No
Yes
21.
Did you write reports or papers in science or math classes in high school?
22.
What best describes your attitude toward writing?
_____
_____
_____
_____
Yes
No
Avoid it if I can
Don’t enjoy it, but do a pretty good job
Enjoy writing
Other: _________________________________________________________________
201
Appendix K
Entering Student Survey Reports
(sample)
202
203
College of Engineering and Information Technology
Entering Student Questionnaire
1999 Fall Semester Results
Note. Student responses have been typed as written. Spelling and grammar have not been corrected.
UNIV101-E instructors and the number of students completing the questionnaire:
Bowles
Dougal
Gadala-Maria
Gribb
Total
23
14
22
19
Lyons
McAnally
McNeill
Van Zee
24
23
22
13
160
Marketing and Recruiting Information
1.
What was the primary reason why you decided to attend the University of South Carolina?
Close to home
Scholarships
Good engineering program
Cost
Academic reputation
Family or friends
Location
Honor’s College
Sports
Other:
Prepare for future
Handicap accessible
Pre-med
Love Columbia
Size of campus
Personal attention
44
29
26
19
19
9
9
4
3
6
It is close to home and I felt that this University would prepare me the best for the future.
Because it is nice, very well handicap accessible,
The university is close to home
I wanted be an Engineering major and USC has a very accredited engineering dept.
Cost
To join the University of South Carolina Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps
I wanted to attend a good university close to home
USC has a great Engineering School and Career Placement program
The primary reason was to put distance between home and school.
I heard USC had a pretty good engineering program, and it was close to home.
Programs and scholarships
NROTC scholarship, high academic standards
Good Reputation For Engineering + Closer To Home
The University of South Carolina has a good teaching program.
Scholarships
Scholarships
Money – scholarships, work, research
I was impressed with the College of Engineering at U.S.C.
204
To get a good education
Male\Female ration; scholarships; in the south
B/c of the strong engineering department, and academic success
I love Columbia
Close to home, good overall
It made more sense economically to attend USC instead of my first choice.
It has a good engineering program.
I wanted to attend USC because it’s close to home and it has a great engineering program
I wanted to get involved in the engineering department + also planning on pursuing on to Med. School.
Had the highest academic reputation of the schools that I applied to.
My brothers go there and my father is a Professor at USC.
The ability to do Chemical Engineering with Pre-medicine and more to people to meet.
Best education closer to home
USC had my major which is Engineering and also it was very close to home.
I was impressed with the College of Engineering when I visited.
This school was the closest to my home.
To get an engineering degree
I thought I would like living in Columbia but I was wrong.
Not too far from home. In state school with my intended major
Academics
They were the first school to send me information on going to school here and they carried my major.
My father influenced me a lot because he went here. My top priority was to find a large school close to home, but also away from
home.
Its location and engineering program that was involved in racing attracted me to USC.
Good school
The only college I sent in an application
My primary reason was to get a better education and USC had a great Engineering program
I wanted to further my education at a 4-year college.
Financial Purposes
Scholarships
USC’s accredited engineering program
The engineering program of USC is great and the college suits my needs as a student
College of Engineering, close to home
It was a combination of the reputation of the engineering program and the layout of the campus.
Close to home, good engineering program
Scholarships awarded, change in climate
The engineering program was seeing changes toward improvement and the University was close to home and affordable
USC is close to home and the best price for my major, electrical engineering.
Two reasons: My sister attends USC and I was looking for a personal learning environment like the one USC offers
Money – I received Scholarships.
Distance, location, and quality
The cost was primary.
Because it was close to home and it’s engineering program impressed me.
Close to home, but far enough away
Scholarship money
I liked the campus and the Honors College.
Brainwashing Since Birth
Scholarships and broad curriculum
The Honors program
Lower cost
Scholarship Money
Money
The personal attention I received during my visit to the school.
I thought it was a good place for education, and it was inexpensive.
Scholarship money, proximity to home.
I liked what I saw in the college of engineering and got scholarships to allow me to go here.
I was already familiar with it and the honors college has a good reputation
Financial constraints
Location and because I thought I was accepted under an environmental engineering major
Big school, close to home
Cheap, close to home
I receive my college at a low cost due to my father’s death. Only in SC USC has a great engineering program.
205
USC has a good program for engineering and it is close to home
Close to home
Opportunity at a better education and location
Because of the engineering program
Family tradition
It was closer to home and a well-known school
Close to home
They provided the largest scholarships to me
Close to home
Ranked highly in the Engineering program
Size of campus
4 year ROTC scholarship
I received an NROTC scholarship
It has a big school & in state (heard that it has a good academic environment
It was close to home
To earn a degree in Computer Engineering
Academics
Because I could not afford to go out of state
The university has great credibility and has a fine college of Engineering
Only school I applied to
Location – close to home
It was near home
Close to home and already had friends there.
Good School, Close to home
Because I got accepted here
I love football + Lou Holtz.
To get a Degree in Mech. Engineering
To play for the University’s Men’s Soccer Team.
Full Ride
I toured the Swearingen Engineering program in February 1998.
I attended USC because everyone I knew was going to SCSU and I wanted to be different.
My mother forced me into going to college.
To better myself as a person + increase my earning potential
To get an education
I heard they had a good engineering program and it wasn’t too far from home
My father attended USC and I have been raised around the University.
The University is known for a good engineering program.
Location
I wanted to major in Engineering and all the schools that were recruiting me for football didn’t have it.
Location
Only good college around with engineering that would accept me.
It’s close to home, and I received scholarships
Close to home, cost.
I liked the school and everything that surrounded it
Because of how close it was.
I didn’t really care where I went, and USC gave me $1500, so I came here
Convenient, cheap, plus it’s a good school
Financial situation
I decided to attend USC because they have a very good engineering program and success rate is high
I wanted to be in Columbia.
Close to home
Big school in a city – places nearby off campus close enough to home, but far enough to live on campus
The academic status is high at this college.
Offered major I wanted.
Location, reputation
Close to home, Parents decided for me
The Chemical Engineering Program.
Close to home + scholarships
Was close to home
I have my own home in Camden & I wanted to go somewhere close to home.
I’m from Columbia and liked the Engineering school.
It has a great academic reputation.
206
Exceptional academic profile
Good College ranking
Close to home & good engineering program
Pretty campus and * they are very friendly to out-of-staters *
They gave me money
Scholarships
It is in state and free.
Money, Pre-Med Program
Close to home and scholarship money
I chose USC because of scholarships and the college of engineering.
The university offered more comparative financial support than other universities I was interested in attending.
Location, Engineering Program
The engineering program and financial aid programs.
Scholarship Money
It was close to home + I got a good scholarship
I received a McNair Scholarship.
Admission to the honors college, it was my first choice
2.
Was USC your first choice of colleges to attend?
No
3.
101 (63%)
Yes
59 (37%)
What are some of the other important factors that influenced your decision to attend USC?
(Such as cost, scholarship, close to home, academic reputation, friends, parental influence)
I had a brother who attended USC.
Cost cause my first choice was out of state
Academic reputation, cost
Cost and closer to home
Close to home, choice of major
Scholarships
It was cheaper for me to attend an in-state university
Close to home, reasonable affordable tuition, and diverse community
Other important factors were cost and friends
Close to home and friends I have at the college.
Close to home; the helpfulness of the staff at USC; the tours
Scholarship, academic reputation
Close to home, located in city
Close to home
Academic reputation, cost, weather
Close to home also, but mostly scholarships.
Scholarships, engineering department
Scholarships, close to home
Meeting a lot of people
Constantly improving engineering school
Closeness to home
Good programs, scholarship, academic rep., I have a good job here outside of school.
Friends, cost, Lou Holtz, developing school
It is close to home, I know people here and for the cost, it is a very good school.
I received the University Scholars Scholarship, and another scholarship from College of Engineering, + it is close to home
My parents did want me to attend this school, and I received partial scholarships.
Academic reputation, close to home
Warm weather, not too far from home.
I was close to home and I got the LIFE scholarship. The academic reputation is also good
Cost, friends
Academic reputation, suggested by an Upward Bound counselor
Mainly because it was close to home
Academic reputation, nice campus + good location.
Cost, parental influence and USC reputation as a university
207
Academic Reputation
Nothing except I thought I would like Columbia
Costs, friends, close to home
Friends, parental influence
In-state tuition is cheaper; I like the “city” atmosphere. Scholarships helped too.
Scholarship, close to home, parents, friends
It was close to home, and my brother previously attended USC.
Scholarship, cost
Scholarship, Friends
My friends were an important factor, but it was basically not to far back home, but close enough that I could come back.
The cost, close to home, and my family influenced my decision.
Academic reputation as well as Ann
Close to home, reputation, on going programs, advancements
Cost, scholarships, closer to home, friends, & parental influence
I received two scholarships from the school, and one of my good friends attends USC as well
Cost, close to home
Friends, cost, distance from home
Scholarships awarded, change in climate
Academic reputation, close to home, scholarships, costs, friends
Scholarship, academic reputation, and a good engineering program.
Scholarships and the location
It cost too much to attend my 1st choice school
Reasonable cost
Scholarship, close to home, my brother is here
I have friends who attend here and it was close to home.
Friends
Cost, far from home, athletics, academics, size, location
I received scholarship money and it was a good distance away from home.
All of the above
Close to home, fun campus
Cost, scholarship, size, parental influence
Acceptance into Honors College, good reputation
Music Reputation, Family influence
Close to home, best of both worlds at the Honors College
Dorms, scholarships, nice campus
Cost, scholarship, close to home, academics, friends
Honors College, cost,
Scholarships, my comfort with the engineering college, and academic reputation of the college of engineering
Cost, scholarship
Friends (to a small extent) – Honors College
Reputation, location, city-like environment – appearance of campus.
1st choice did not have my major
Scholarship, friends
My family has been gamecock fans forever.
Cost and academic reputation
Cost, location, reputation
It was cheaper and I received more money from USC
Close to home, friends, parental influence
Academic reputation, close to home
Friends
I could stay at home, scholarships, and low tuition
Reputation
Academic reputation was high, soccer
Friends
Choice of major, southern school, big school
Parental influence, ROTC reputation.
Parental influence, and the university is a well accredited school
Cost, marching band
Close to home
Scholarship, close to home
It was close to home and it also had good academic reputation
In state
208
Scholarship, close to home but not too close, cost
Close to home, brother attends, friends, plus best choice for my major.
I had a good deal of friends that go to USC.
Life scholarship
Cost, Close to home
Close to home
Cost, close to home, scholarship, friends, parental influence.
Well, I didn’t want to go to Clemson, and this was the best in-state institution for my major
Close to home, scholarship
Scholarship
I had several family members who graduated from USC. The college is well known. Location was also a factor.
USC being close to home influenced my decision because I can go home anytime I want.
The college is close to home and my friends go here.
Scholarships, friends, and It’s close to home
Cost + academic reputation
Friends, close to home and not too expensive
USC is the only school that I applied to, and I received a nice amount of scholarship money to attend.
Life scholarship, close to home, sister
Cost, scholarship, close to home.
Close to home and friends
Cost, close to home, many friends go there
It was farther away from home
My father attended USC, and I have many friends up here in Columbia.
Close to home, scholarship, costs.
I received 2 scholarships, its close to home, my parents went here, I have a lot of friends here
It was my cheapest option, and it was an ideal campus size
Life Scholarship; Friends attend USC; Parents wanted me close to home.
Cost
In the state and close to home. Very nice people
I was given enough scholarship to make it affordable to go here. I wanted to get away from home.
Scholarship, friends
Scholarship and semi-close to home, instate
My parents, teachers, & some friends recommended it to me. The cost was reasonable.
Close to home, good reputation, friends.
My sister went here, close to home
Cost, friends, Life Scholarship, parents
The NROTC, close to home, Dad attended
Parental influence, cost
Friends, scholarships
Scholarship, close to home, & academic reputation
It is known as a good University and my girlfriend lives here.
Close to home, academic reputation
Close to home, tuition paid through scholarship, prestigious academics.
Cost; academic reputation
Cost
Climate
Cost, academic rep
Close to home, variety of majors
Scholarships totally covered me, close to home, and in state
Scholarship, cost, friends
Scholarship, close to home
The scholarships were the deciding factors. But also, proximity to home and the reputation of the Honors College were
major influences.
Scholarships were the most influential reasons
Cost, scholarship, friend
Friends and close location to home.
Nice campus, good Honors College
It was mainly because it was close to home + I got a scholarship.
I was also impressed with Columbia.
Scholarships, far enough from home to be away, but not too far
209
4.
If USC was NOT your first choice, please indicate the reasons. What could we have done to make USC
your first choice university?
Nothing really. I wanted to go to UNC but the only reason I didn’t is it was very poorly handicap accessible
Was not interested in 4 year University. Send more information about my particular major at USC, not just general info
about the college.
There wasn’t any particular reason why USC wasn’t my first choice.
Academic Reputation. Make the University’s courses more rigorous + comprehensive.
I was interested in the total academic, military, & extracurricular environment that was offered at the Naval Academy.
There was nothing you could do to make USC my first choice.
I liked the campus at Miami because it was isolated but near a city.
USC was a close second to Georgia Tech… simply because of engineering reputation.
Wanted to go out of state
If USC had higher national rankings
Nothing could’ve changed my mind except not being accepted to the college
Offered more scholarships to rising seniors, let them know what’s available.
A more popular engineering dept. All through high school I heard only about Clemson being the engineering school, I
didn’t hear anything about USC. I know USC + Clemson both have good engineering programs.
NCA&T was my first choice because they have a real good Engineering program and they’re a majority black college.
USC wasn’t my first choice because it is 6 hours away from home. Can’t do much about that.
I didn’t hear of USC at the beginning.
USC didn’t have such a developed Engineering program as Clemson did. Maybe expand your Engineering program
Clemson has a slightly better engineering program based on statistics. Find ways to make USC a looked at college for
engineering grads.
Clemson was also reputed for their engineering program, but I disliked the campus. Promotional videos outlining what
the university has to offer (sent to prospective students) would have helped in making USC my first choice.
Nothing could have been done. I just love Florida State
It’s not what USC didn’t do… it’s just that my 1st choice school was closer to home.
Clemson was my first choice. Most people think that Clemson’s engineering program is better and so did I.
USC couldn’t have done anything to have made this my first choice because I wanted to attend the citadel and would have
been there if they offered Mechanical Engineering.
Establish better reputation
Distance from home, Degree offerings
-Make the campus prettier, -if it were more prestigious
A little too close to home school I wanted to go to cost too much (Didn’t even apply)
Get an engineering dept. on par with GAIT or a large Big Ten school
My first choice was about 500 miles closer to home.
Nothing
Been better in football and Basketball. Plus closer to my hometown.
I wanted to go to school out of state.
Nothing
UNCW was ranked higher than USC, been a higher rank
My first choice was the United States Naval Academy. USC could not have been my first choice
I didn’t know that much about the school. Ya could have advertised that the women here are the best looking in the
south.
Didn’t want to be close to home
They could have offered me some more financial assistance. My sister and I graduated at the same time and we both
attend here, we really need some more assistance.
Nothing, you did everything you should have. I just wanted to go to a small school first.
Because my first choice of college has a bigger reputation on the major of my interest. Let yourselves known more
Never recruited, never thought about it
I was looking for a smaller college. Later I got a reality check that smaller is not always better.
I wanted to attend college out of stat, but couldn’t afford it.
Better engineering school
I had no first choices. It would have been if I received more money from them.
Not much of a recognized engineering program.
USC was my first choice
Not #1 in Engineering
I want to get away from home (out of South Carolina). Other than that it would have been my topic 3 choices.
Recruited at my H.S. more.
Be more prompt in your responses when dealing with international students.
Better academic rep
210
Better reputation for pre-med
Higher quality pre-med program
Prestige. I still feel, though, that I shall receive perhaps even a better education at USC than my other choices.
USC was not on par academically with the top two institutions I was considering attending
I originally wanted to go to a smaller school.
5.
Other than USC, list the colleges to which you applied and indicate if you were admitted.
College Name
Frequency Admitted
Yes
No
Clemson
College of Charleston
Georgia Tech
UNC
Virginia Tech
NC State
Charleston Southern
Benedict
Auburn
Winthrop
Furman
University of Tennessee
Duke
S. C. State
Florida State
US Naval Academy
Hampton
56
15
12
7
7
7
6
6
5
5
6
4
4
4
4
4
4
54
15
11
5
6
7
6
5
5
4
6
4
2
4
4
1
4
College Name
2
Frequency
Francis Marion
Lander
Newberry
University of Florida
Johnson C. Smith
Wofford
West Point
Vanderbilt
Rose-Hulman
Rutgers
UNC-Charlotte
US Air Force Academy
University of Georgia
John Hopkins
USC-Spartanburg
Appalachian State
1
2
1
1
1
2
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
Admitted
Yes
No
3
2
2
2
3
3
1
3
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
Engineering Information
6.
How did you learn about the College of Engineering and Information Technology? Circle all the
options that apply.
TV
4
Radio
Newspaper stories
10
State Fair
Friends
65
Relatives
Through a high school program or counselor
7.
Newspaper ads
5
College sponsored special events 38
Admissions fairs
28
Others:
29
Did you receive enough information about the College of Engineering and Information Technology
before you enrolled in Engineering?
Yes
8.
2
4
46
63
86 (54%)
No
47 (29%)
Did you have an opportunity to tour the college?
Yes
105 (66%)
No
55 (34%)
211
I don’t know
27 (17%)
If yes, please tell us your opinion of the tour?
I would have liked to tour a larger portion of the campus. All I really saw were the dorms + library
It was great
I had the opportunity but didn’t take advantage.
The tour was very nice and filled a lot of information
Ok, but the tour would have been more helpful if it was personalized to what the student wanted to major in.
It was an excellent tour.
The tour was a great intro to the college of Engineering, and clearly presented each aspect of engineering.
It was very informative
Acceptable.
It was a great tour and it influenced my choice to attend USC
Good
It was very good!
The tour was well organized and the information given was interesting.
Very informative
It was very informative and interesting
It was ok
It was a very good tour that represented all areas of engineering very well.
It was a very informative tour.
It was a very good tour.
I took my own tour, so I can’t grade yours.
Good, fun
I thought that it was very education. I was able to tour all of the engineering labs and it helped me to decide on a major.
During orientation I had a brief tour of the college
GREAT!!
I think that the tour was well organized and very informative.
It was well planned and the staff was prepared to show us what we wanted to see.
More information for international student
Big Campus
It was very good
It was ok, didn’t show as much as I wish you guys would have.
I thought it was very informative
It gave a foundation of understanding
Well organized
I enjoyed my visit a lot and the campus was better than I thought
A lot of resources for students to use, very impressive
It was superb.
On a one to five 3
Very good, in depth, appreciated 1 on 1 tour
The tour gave me the information I did not receive from mail and/or friends – great help
It was a help. It let me see where my classes were going to be.
It was very interesting.
It was nice
It was excellent.
I thought it was very interesting and beneficial.
Great
Very good
Well done and enlightening about the College
Tour was informative, but should have offered more info on Honors College
I thought the tour was great because I got a personal tour and I was able to talk to a few professors
I had a good time
Good overview of the college, with insight on all aspects of the college
Good
It as informative
It was good. I got a good feel for the campus.
My family and I enjoyed the tour. I t was very well planned and very informational.
Didn’t see enough of the campus
The tour was very informative
Good
212
Didn’t go
Well rounded
Tom Ward gave me a great tour. He showed me a lot of the Engineering College.
Very nice
Satisfactory
I thought it was well organized, and very helpful.
It was fine
I was able to learn my way around
Well organized.
The tour was to my satisfaction
Too short, only show a few things
Very Educational, Exciting
I had an opportunity but I didn’t take advantage of it.
Very well.
It was okay. I think I made my decision too early though.
The tour was very thorough. The demo w/ the PC camera was neat.
It was tiring
Very informative
Very good.
Great
It was good; there is a lot to offer
The facilities appeared to be top of the line, and everyone was very helpful.
Just like a tour should be – informative
I enjoyed the tour because I got to see all the different types of engineering here at USC
It was good, but should’ve covered the campus better
It was adequate, but could have been more detailed
It was great
Enjoyed it. Time limit was strongly enforced.
It was very good. Tom Ward was an excellent guide.
This campus is very large, and the people here so far a very nice.
Very good
It was well planned out, didn’t really tour
I really enjoyed the engineering orientation held over the summer
I enjoyed the tour, but hopping from building to building, upstairs & downstairs, back upstairs & back downstairs was
absolutely ridiculous. Plan the areas to visit better this year.
It was very interesting and informative.
It was very educational and I felt confidant that engineering as the right major for me.
It was not one provided by the college. A friend of ours went to school here and she showed me around.
Good
The tour was informative, and I felt familiar with the college afterwards.
Fair
Pretty good
I enjoyed it.
It was very informative.
Engineering Website
9.
Before enrolling at USC, did you visit the College of Engineering and Information Technology
Website?
Yes
45 (28%)
10.
Do you have any recommendations for improving the Website?
No
115 (72%)
It was good.
There ought to be a more helpful section on connecting to the engineering server from across campus because I’ve had a
lot of trouble connecting from Maxcy.
No, just get the instructors to show us how to get logged on better.
213
More accessible to students off campus. Links to USC system
Have a shorter URL for the website.
Faster Access
To be able to be accessed from any computer on campus.
Students can’t get into the engineering account unless they’re in the engineering building; change that.
Homepage is not eye-catching. Maybe more colors or designs.
Show more activities / events that go on during the year.
Include typical course requirements
Common schedule for each degree w/requirements
11.
If you have visited the College of Engineering and Information Technology Website, please indicate your
impression of the following characteristics:
Ease of locating site
Organization of front page
Ease of finding specific
information
Completeness of information
Currency of information
Not
Satisfactory
2 ( 2%)
0 ( %)
6 ( 6%)
No
Opinion
12 (12%)
6 ( 6%)
10 (10%)
Satisfactory
51 (51%)
46 (46%)
64 (64%)
Very
Satisfactory
36 (36%)
49 (49%)
21 (21%)
6 ( 6%)
4 ( 4%)
14 (14%)
14 (14%)
59 (59%)
57 (57%)
21 (21%)
26 (26%)
Student Demographics
12.
Are you employed?
Yes
42 (26%)
No
117 (73%)
If yes, how many hours do you work per week?
5
11
16
24
- 10 hours
- 15 hours
- 20 hours
- 32 hours
Total
13.
39
48 (42%)
No
67 (58%)
Please indicate your gender.
Female 34 (21%)
15.
(28%)
(23%)
(23%)
(26%)
If you are not employed, do you plan to find a job during your freshman year?
Yes
14.
11
9
9
10
Male
125 (79%)
Did you bring a computer with you when you came to USC?
Yes
63 (40%)
No
94 (60%)
214
a) If no, have you purchased a computer since enrolling at USC?
Yes
12 (12%)
No
90 (88%)
b) If yes, indicate the brand name type of computer you own.
Gateway
14 (21%)
Packard-Bell 6 ( 9%)
Compaq
Dell
Home/Custom-made 5 ( 7%)
c)
12 (18%)
IBM
6 ( 9%)
Toshiba
1 ( 1%)
Other
58 (75%)
Laptop 17 (22%)
d) Have you upgraded your computer since arriving at USC?
Yes
18 (19%)
No
75 (81%)
List the software you have installed on your system.
Windows 98, Office 98
Office 97
Win 98, Office
A lot (everything required by CEAIS)
Windows 98
Windows 98 2nd edition
Windows 98
Office 2000, Games, MS Publisher 2000
Windows 95
Internet
Ethernet Card, HD
None
Microsoft Office, Windows 95,
Adobe Photoshop, Netscape Composer
Win 98
Windows 98, MS Office 2000, AOL
I Don’t Know
Huh? Are you serious? Windows 98 + a bunch of other stuff
Win 98, Office 2000
Microsoft Office,
Games, music related, office 2000, movies, C++, many more
Office 97, works suite, games
Win 98, Corel Quatro Pro1
Win NT, Office 97 Professional, etc
Several Games
Microsoft Office, lotus
Basic downloads
Netscape 4.6; 500 mhz; 13 G hard drive
3D accelerator card + games
Office 2000, Win 98
Office 2000
Lots of games, voodoo 3000, Corel suite 8
215
Both
10 (15%)
3 ( 4%)
11 (16%)
Is your computer a PC or a laptop?
PC
e)
Hewlett-Packard
2 ( 3%)
Everything
MS Office, MS Works, Print Master gold, Print Shop
AOL, Office 97
Windows 98
MS 98
Windows 95
Windows 95, I need MS Office & Windows 98
MS Office
MS Office, Explorer
Microsoft Windows 98, Office, Word, Excel, Outlook
Microsoft Office, AOL, AutoCAD
Windows 98, Word 98, etc.
MS Office 97, Corel Word Perfect 8
Microsoft Office 97, Windows 98
Ms Office, AOL
Win 98, Office, AOL, Adobe Photoshop, etc.
Just the stuff that came with it
Windows 98, Office 2000 Professional, IE5.0
MS Office 2000, Netmeetings 3.0, Quicktime 4.0 pro
Microsoft Prof. Office, Microsoft Office 2000
Microsoft, Internet 4.0
Microsoft Office,
Win 98
Microsoft Office 2000
Win 98, Office 97
MS Works, MS Word
GRIN, games, FTP searchers
Win 95, AutoCAD ver. 10
Too Much – Microsoft Office professional, Win 98 o/s, Paint Pro 5.0, Adobe, …
MS Office 97
Microsoft 2000
Microsoft office, various games + entertainment, ect…
f)
16.
Was this your first computer purchase?
Prior to this class, have you had any computer instruction?
Yes
No
31 (37%)
53 (63%)
Yes
No
129 (83%)
26 (17%)
If yes, where did you receive your instruction about computers and software? If you learned on your
own – by reading manuals, etc. – please indicate that experience too.
I took a computer electronics class in high school + also worked at a local business for 1 year building, repairing,
troubleshooting, + installing software on computers.
On my own by playing with them
By reading manuals, trial and error, and generally messing around.
Taking computer courses in high school.
High School, personal use, peer help
Through computer class in High School.
High school
High School Computer Tech I & II
I received instruction about computers and software in high school.
From my grandfather, and from making mistakes on my mom’s computer and trying to fix it
High school, C++ language
SHS (Socastee High School) – Typing instruction, Academy For Arts, Science, & Technology – Microsoft Word,
Microsoft PowerPoint, An AutoCAD V. 12
High school
High School/on my own – bought programming books and read info on the Internet
216
High school, learning on my own, etc.
School, friends
Computer class in high school
High school classes
I knew a great deal about computers. Mostly self-taught; Two years of AP computer courses
Keyboarding class (high school)
Learned a lot on my own
Middle + high school Micro Computer courses. CAD programs, and work.
At Ridge view high I took drafting and a word processing class.
High School Classes
High school classes
From my brothers
Learned on my own, computer application classes in high school
Reading manuals, CPT 101
Took a class at Macon Technical Institute (Macon, GA), and I mostly learned on my own.
High school courses
Computer literacy course
I worked on them when I was in the Army. The little that I know I taught myself.
School, Internship
High School
I took a computer applications class my senior year in high school, I went to a summer computer camp a few years ago,
and I learned a lot on my own.
A took a computer science course in high school, but learned a lot about software on my own or through friends.
I basically learned on my own and through friends.
School, reading manuals, going through the programs
Experience, classes in high school
Learned through some in one of my high school classes and I taught myself
I was taught by my parents + learned on my own
Learned on own
High school classes: Computer Business Applications I & II self-teaching
GCHS – typing class, GCHS/Trident Technical College – 2 yrs. CADD class
A few computer classes in high school; computer manuals
Darlington high school – Darlington, SC Computer Technology I and II
Play + learn, High School, friends
R.B. Skill High School, learned on my own (reading manuals)
On my own by playing around on the computer and also at Dorman High School.
Middle School
School class / father / self / work
Classes in High School.
I mostly learned by trial and error but I did take computer science in high school.
High school computer science
High school – info. word processing + keyboarding
Self taught, manuals, school
Computer Tech at James Island High School
Learned on my own, high school
Family, computer science
I took computer programming in high school, including AP C++, but I knew how to use a computer well before that
Reading manuals / computer science class on C++, education programs
Reading manual about programming, tutoring from my father and school classmates
Self – taught, Computer Science in High school
Mostly self-taught by trial & error
Self interest
I have read Linux books and normal operating books. I took a Computer Electronics I & II at Sumter County Career
Center
High school
High school and reading manuals
I took two computer courses in high school
High School Class
High school
Taught myself
@ Airport High School
School
217
Software Tool’s class
Reading by myself, Dad’s instruction, High School
School
Computer Software class in 10th grade.
High school
Learned on my own by reading manuals
Work – Savannah River Site
High School
Learned on my own and some classes in high school
High school and other college
Basically hands on, but some in high school.
Personal, high school
High School, reading Manuals
In High school
My 9th grade computer / typing class.
Aiken Tech. Col.
High School Applications class
Reading books and an Intro to Computers course in high school
I received instruction in high school
At High school during Business application classes
On my own, and in high school
High school
Computer class in high school
Manuals, previous computer experience, classes taken during high school.
In high school computer classes as well as an engineering summer program this past summer
School, friends, learned on own
On my own.
Own experience, school, + relatives.
Self-taught.
Reading manuals, relatives
High school
I learned a little in Keyboarding class in High School. I also figured out a little on my own
High school computer course.
Richland Northeast High School
In high school.
FAMU
School, and reading manuals. I know html, JavaScript, + parts of Java.
Learned on my own, 3 semesters of HS instruction
On my own and from my Dad
High school
Reading manuals & just playing around
Reading and taking computer-based classes.
Through high school keyboarding classes and use @ school & home for research projects
School and by reading manuals
Learned on my own & learned from family & friends
I learned on a clerical job and in a word processing class in high school.
High school typing, learned on own
My own, manuals
Some on my own from loans, some in middle and high school
High School and by reading manuals
High school / Middle School – Word processing, data entry, data manipulation, general programming, Internet browsing,
web site creation and maintenance, hardware installation.
Basic computer class
Independent… C, C++ (four years), DOS (12 years), Windows (6 six years), Excel, Word, etc…
On own, University of Cincinnati 1 semester of Computer Science, High School Personal keyboarding…
I learned it on my own and in English and Man classes at School.
High school, private study
218
Academic Preparation
17.
Did you take a calculus course in high school?
Yes
103 (65%)
No
56 (35%)
C
D
If yes, what grade did you receive?
A
18.
44 (45%)
B
40 (41%)
Did you take a physics course in high school?
12 (12%)
2 (2%)
Yes
113 (71%)
No
46 (29%)
C
10 (9%)
F
19.
Have you given an oral presentation in any of your high school classes?
Yes
152 (96%)
20.
Did you take AP English in high school?
21.
Did you write reports or papers in science or math classes in high school?
If yes, what grade did you receive?
A
61 (56%)
B
Yes
106 (67%)
22.
36 (32%)
Yes
48 (30%)
No
52 (33%)
What best describes your attitude toward writing?
30
81
30
17
(19%)
(51%)
(19%)
(11%)
Avoid it if I can
Don’t enjoy it, but do a pretty good job
Enjoy writing
Other:
219
No
111 (70%)
1 (1%)
No
6 (4%)
College of Engineering and Information Technology
Entering Student Questionnaire
Summary of Results
1999 Fall Semester
Goals/Objectives
The Entering Student Questionnaire is administered to freshmen during the first month of the fall
semester each year. All students enrolled in UNIV 101-E are asked to complete the 22-item
survey. The survey elicits information regarding several topics of interest including: 1) marketing
of the College and the engineering programs; 2) recruitment; 3) public relations; 4) the College of
Engineering and Information Technology (COEIT) website (http://www.engr.sc.edu); 5) student
employment; 6) computer ownership, hardware, software and training; and, 7) academic
preparation for college.
Survey Administration
During the 1999 fall Semester, there were nine sections of UNIV 101-E enrolling 204 students. All but one
section of the introductory course completed the survey. A total of 160 surveys were collected yielding a
return rate of approximately 78 percent. A few students from several sections were absent on the day of
survey administration.
Description of the Respondents
The survey sample was composed of 160 students of which 79 percent are males. Approximately
26 percent of the respondents are employed, working from 5 to 32 hours per week. Approximately
74 percent of the students indicated that they worked 20 hours or less each week. Approximately
42 percent of the unemployed students said they would be looking for a job during their freshman
year.
Academic Preparation
Students were asked questions relating to the math, science and English courses taken in high
school. Survey results indicate that 65 percent of the freshmen took a calculus course. Forty-five
percent of the students received a grade of A and 41 percent made a B. A total of 71 percent of the
freshmen completed a physics course in high school. Students received a range of grades from A to
F with a majority, 56 percent, achieving an A. Almost all of the students, 96 percent, indicated
that they had given an oral presentation and 67 percent said they were required to write reports in
science or math classes in high school. Survey responses show that freshmen did not enroll in AP
English; only 30 percent of the students took this course in high school.
The questionnaire included an item eliciting the student’s attitudes towards writing. Seventy
percent of the freshmen stated that they avoid writing or that writing is not something they enjoy.
220
Even though 51 percent do not like to write, they believe that they “do a pretty good job” when
they must prepare a paper.
Recruitment
Students were asked to identify the primary reason why they decided to attend USC. There were
158 responses to this question. Over half of the respondents listed more than one reason indicating
that the decision to enroll may be a combination of factors with several reasons being of equal
importance.
The most frequently cited reason for choosing USC is the proximity of the university to their
home. Close to home was listed by 44 students, or approximately 28 percent of the students who
completed this item. Students mentioned eleven different categories of responses to this question.
Some of the other reasons listed by the freshmen include: good engineering program (26
students); scholarships (29 students); cost or financial aid (19 students); academic reputation (19
students), had major/an accredited engineering program (15); location (9); family (9); and the
Honors College (4 students).
Sixty-three percent of the students indicated that USC was their first choice among colleges they
considered for enrollment. In a follow-up question, students were asked why USC was not their
first choice. The most frequently cited response was that other colleges/universities have a better
academic reputation than USC. Other reasons given by the 1999 freshmen include 1) USC was too
close to home; 2) Clemson, NC State, Georgia Tech, Florida State have more popular engineering
programs; 3) liked another school or campus; 4) wanted to be out-of-state; and 5) wanted to attend
a smaller school.
To assist in the recruitment efforts, the survey asked students to list all colleges to which they
applied and to indicate if they were admitted to these colleges. Data suggests that students applied
to numerous in-state and out-of-state colleges and/or universities. Some students applied to
multiple colleges, as many as seven were listed, while other students applied to one or two
colleges. A few students indicated that USC was the only school to which they applied. The
colleges most frequently listed by the students include: Clemson (56 students); College of
Charleston (15 students); Georgia Tech (12 students); UNC, Virginia Tech, and NC State (7
students each); Charleston Southern, Furman, Benedict (6 students each); and, Auburn and
Winthrop (5 students each).
Marketing
Students responded to several items concerning the information they received about the College of
Engineering. Most students indicated they learned of the College from friends (65), high school counselors
(63), and, relatives (46). In addition, a substantial number of students also listed College-sponsored events
(38) and admissions fairs (28) as other information sources. It is noteworthy that few students indicated
TV, radio, newspaper or the S.C. State Fair as sources of information about the College of Engineering.
About half of the students (54 percent) believe they received sufficient information about the College before
they enrolled in Engineering.
221
A guided tour was another way in which students learned about the College; approximately 66
percent of the freshmen toured the College of Engineering prior to enrollment. Students were
asked to give their opinion of the college tour. The question was intended as an evaluation of the
College of Engineering tours but some students interpreted it to mean the University tour.
Opinions regarding the Engineering tours were very favorable. Thirty-five students characterized
the tour as excellent, great, very good or good. An additional 21 students believe the tour was very
informative, helpful or educational. Ratings of acceptable, adequate, fine and satisfactory were
expressed by 13 students. Other comments indicated that the tour was well-organized and
enjoyable.
COEIT Website
Students responded to seven items regarding the COEIT Website. Only 28 percent of the
respondents visited the site before enrolling at USC. Students who visited the COEIT Website
rated five different components on a scale from 1 to 4 selecting from the following choices: not
satisfactory, no opinion, satisfactory and very satisfactory. Regarding ease in locating the site,
approximately 87 percent of the students were satisfied with this characteristic. Over 95 percent of
the respondents believe the organization of the front page is satisfactory or very satisfactory. This
was the highest rated item on the website section of the survey. Over 80 percent of the students
also rated the following characteristics in a positive manner:
Ease of finding specific information (85%)
Completeness of information (80%)
Currency of information (82%)
Computer Ownership
Forty percent of the freshmen (63 students) brought a computer with them to college. Even though
the survey was administered within the first month of the semester, 12 percent of the students said
they had purchased a computer since enrolling at USC. This information indicates that 75 of the
freshmen (or approximately 47% of the respondents) brought a computer to USC or purchased one
after they arrived. Seventy-five percent of the student computers are PC’s and 25 percent are
laptops; a few students have both. The brands of computers owned by the students are listed
below.
Gateway
Compaq
Hewlett Packard
Dell
Packard Bell
Home built
Toshiba
IBM
Others
13
12
9
6
6
5
3
2
9
222
Approximately 19 percent of the respondents indicated that they have upgraded their computer
after arriving for classes. When asked if this was their first computer purchase, only 37 percent of
the students answered affirmatively.
Students were asked to indicate the type of software they installed on their computer. Students
listed a wide variety of word processing, graphics and networking software. The most frequently
cited software selections are given below:
Office (97, 98, 2000)
Windows (95, 98)
Games
AOL, Netscape, Internet
Works Suite
Adobe Photoshop, Paint Pro, C++,
Lotus, Quatro Pro, Netmeetings,
Quicktime, etc.
37
26
9
8
3
7
Survey responses indicate that 83 percent of the freshmen had computer instruction prior to
entering UNIV 101. Students gained knowledge and practice with computer software in a number
of ways. Most frequently, students enrolled in a course in high school; approximately 81 percent
learned a mix of basics and programming in a high school course. In addition, many freshmen (43
students) state that computer knowledge was gained by “playing with them” or “learning on my
own.” In some cases computer manuals or books were used to acquire basic skills (25 students).
Another resource cited by a substantial segment of the group is the help received from parents,
relative and friends (20 students). Finally, seven freshmen mentioned that their computer skills
were enhanced on the job at their place of business.
223
Appendix L
Performance Assessment Instrument
224
Oral Presentation of EMCH 467 Senior Project
As outlined in your course syllabus, EMCH 467 students are required to make a 20 minute oral
presentation of their senior project. The presentation will include the use of PowerPoint graphics to
display key ideas, data and results of your study. The presentation is the culmination of your
work on the project. This is your opportunity to present your ideas, design and research results to
the industry representatives who solicited assistance with their mechanical engineering problem.
The industry representatives, your classmates and departmental instructors will be present during
your presentation. Each group, all audience participants, will be asked to critique your oral
presentation using a specified format. You will receive the results in a tabulated, summarized form
within a week of your presentation. In addition, you will complete a self-evaluation of your
presentation. All details of this activity are outlined below.
Course Learning Outcomes for the Oral Presentation
·
The student will display effective communication skills that would be expected in a job
setting.
·
The student will demonstrate the capability to prepare and utilize PowerPoint software
when making an oral presentation.
·
The student will include all expected components of a research design in the presentation
and demonstrate an understanding of the content of each component and how they are
interrelated.
Assistance with the Presentations
Staff in the Professional Communications Center are available to assist you with your speech and
the PowerPoint software. Consultants can advise you regarding the organization, clarity, length,
body language, speech patterns and other elements of your presentation. You are encourage to
practice your speech so that you become familiar with the details of your report, stay within the 15
minute time frame, and make an articulate and poised presentation to your colleagues, industry
representative and engineering faculty members.
Date of Presentation
Presentations will be made during the last three class periods of the fall semester. A sign-up sheet
for choosing your presentation date and time will be circulated during the first part of November.
On the list indicate the title of your presentation and any audio-visual equipment or supplies you
will need for your presentation.
Setting
The presentations will be held in the Faculty Conference Room. A computer, projector and screen
will be set-up for your use. You are responsible for preparing the PowerPoint slides for the
presentation; bring your disk for this purpose.
225
Performance Expectations
Your presentation should represent a critical analysis and synthesis of your research project.
Elements that should be covered in your presentation include:
·
Statement of the Problem What is the question addressed by the study? What are the goals
of the research?
·
Description of the Design Process This should include a brief summary of the relevant
theoretical background and an overview of the methodology utilized to examine the
problem.
·
Findings Overview of data analysis and the results giving appropriate statistics used in
the study. Provide a synthesis of the results.
·
Conclusions and Recommendations Provide an evaluation of your work indicating your
conclusions and the reasons for your particular recommendations. Cost and feasibility
projections should be included if appropriate.
Grade and Grading Criteria
The oral presentation will be worth 85 points toward your total grade in the course. You will be
evaluated on three components: the technical content, the use of PowerPoint in your presentation
and your communication skills. The grading rubric (checklist) is set-up in tabular form and is
provided for your information. This rubric will be used by your peers, faculty members and the
industry representatives to evaluate your performance.
You will be evaluated on 17 different elements. These elements are listed in two tables on
separate pages. The table of elements evaluating the content of your speech is entitled Evaluation
Rubric for the Technical Content of the EMCH 467 Oral Presentation. An additional rubric is also
given for the speech and graphics components, entitled Evaluation Rubric for Communication
Skills and PowerPoint Graphics of the EMCH 467 Oral Presentation.
Each element will be rated on a scale from 0 to 5. The highest score is a 5 and represents an
excellent performance on each element. The specific criteria that all raters will use are outlined
below.
Analytical Rating Scale for the Technical Content of the Oral Presentation
Rating
Description
5
Strong organized and analytical focus. Evidence given of depth of understanding.
Responds to all elements of the item. Uses convincing evidence to support the
problem, goals and solutions. Shows signs of original thinking and creativity.
226
4
Present concepts and processes in a meaningful manner. Cites elements appropriate to
item and clearly links these to the problem or goals. Discusses all major elements and
issues. Lacks some clarity or understanding or provides an incomplete description.
3
Demonstrates comprehension of pertinent concepts and processes. May contain some
errors. Responds to only part of item. Somewhat unorganized.
2
Weak or implausible coverage of item. Information provided lacks depth or may
contain factual errors. Information may be irrelevant to problem or solution. Lack of
understanding on content or process.
1
Attempts to respond to item, however, fails to provide detail and sufficient coverage.
Disconnected discussion. Few, if any factual illustrations to support statement or does
not include relevant information.
0
Not present to give presentation at assigned date and time. No attempt to answer
the item in any meaningful way.
Analytical Rating Scale for Use of PowerPoint Software and Communication Skills
Rating
Description
5
Excellent - Very effective communication. Arouses interest. Directs attention to
speech topic. Smooth transitions. Pleasing and natural movements which emphasize
speech. Points meaningful and clear. Connection with audience present throughout
presentation. Faced audience when speaking. Eye contact with audience. Spoke clearly
and projected voice so all could hear. Effective use of time. Did not have to rush to
finish. Allowed time for questions. Answered questions effectively.
Slides are effective and used to reinforce points in presentation. A sufficient number of
slides are presented that compliment the presentation.
4
Very good - Effective communication. Interesting presentation. Needs a little polish.
Pleasing and natural movements which emphasize speech. Transitions or flow of
speech could improve. Points meaningful and clear. Connection with audience present
through most of presentation. Maintained eye contact. Spoke clearly and projected
voice. Effective use of time. Did not have to rush to finish or was a little hurried.
Allowed time for questions. Answered questions effectively or could use a little
improvement.
Slides were meaningful and used to reinforce point in the presentation. A sufficient
number of slides are presented that complement the presentation.
3
Average - Makes adequate presentation. Needs more tonal inflection and fewer
distracting mannerisms. Points made are not always clear. Connection with audience is
227
noted only in part of the presentation. Spoke loud enough to hear most of the time.
Two or more of the following elements might be missing. Not effective use of time.
Rushed to finish. No time for questions. Questions not always answered completely.
Includes appropriate slides but lacking in number and quality of information. Or too
many slides presented.
2
Below Average - Ineffective presentation. Several areas need strengthening. Three or
more of the following elements were noted. Abrupt transitions. Visual aids not
incorporated smoothly into presentation. No eye contact with audience. Does not
project voice. Does not face audience when speaking. Has to rush to finish. Does not
allow time for questions.
Visual aids not used to make important points. Not an organized slide presentation.
Slides or graphics not produced correctly.
1
Unacceptable - Ineffective presentation. Several areas need strengthening. Five or
more of the following elements were noted. Abrupt transitions. Visual aids not
incorporated smoothly into presentation. No eye contact with audience. Does not
project voice. Does not face audience when speaking. Has to rush to finish. Does not
allow time for questions.
Visual aids not used or not in working order. Slides or graphics not produced correctly.
0
Not present for the presentation.
228
Evaluation Rubric for Technical Content of the Oral Presentation
0
1
2
Introduction:
Summarizes statement of
problem
States goal
Design Process:
Povides relevant theoretical
background
Selects appropriate
methodology to analyze
problem
Findings:
Data analysis presented
Synthesis of results
Conclusions/Recommendati
ons:
Conclusions formulated
Reasons given
Recommendations given
229
3
4
5
Comments
Evaluation Rubric for Software Usage and Communication Skills
EMCH 467 Oral Presentation
0
1
2
3
Use of PowerPoint:
Quality of slides
Quantity of slides
Incorporation into presentation
Communication Skills:
Enthusiasm for subject
Eye contact with audience
Clear speaking; projection of voice
Effective use of time
Smooth transitions between
components
Student’s Name: _______________________________________________________
Reviewer/Rater: _______________________________________________________
Total Points for Use of PowerPoint:
__________
Total Points for Communication Skills: __________
Total Points for Technical Content:
__________
Total Points for Oral Presentation:
__________
230
4
5
Comments
Appendix M
Midterm Evaluation
231
Midterm Course Evaluation
Fall 2000
This evaluation form is provided so that you may express your views of this course and the way it is
being taught. Please circle the number that correspond to your selected response.
Please rate the following overall characteristics of the course to this point:
1.
Instructor’s overall teaching effectiveness
Poor
2.
5
Excellent
1
2
3
4
5
Excellent
1
2
4
5
Excellent
5
Excellent
4
5
Excellent
4
5
Excellent
4
5
Excellent
3
1
2
3
4
Amount of work required for the course
Poor
6.
4
Instructor’s attitude toward the students
Poor
5.
3
Statement of objectives and purposes
Poor
4.
2
Overall quality of this course
Poor
3.
1
1
2
3
Course materials (notes, copies, etc.)
Poor
1
2
3
Please rate the instructor’s performance:
7.
General course organization
Poor
1
2
3
232
8.
Instructor’s preparation for class
Poor
9.
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
4
5
Excellent
2
3
4
5
Excellent
2
3
4
5
Excellent
2
3
4
5
Excellent
Instructor’s interaction with students during class
Poor
14.
Excellent
Use of visual aids (chalkboard, overheads, etc.)
Poor
13.
5
Instructor’s knowledge of the subject
Poor
12.
4
Instructor’s ability to present the class material
Poor
11.
3
Grading of homework and tests in a timely manner
Poor
10.
2
1
2
3
4
5
Excellent
Availability during office hours for consultation
Poor
1
2
3
4
5
Excellent
Rate the following topics related to your quizzes or exams:
15.
Length
Short 1
16.
3
4
5
Long
Relevance to material covered
Poor
17.
2
1
2
3
4
5
Excellent
3
4
5
Hard
Difficulty level
Easy
1
2
Please continue answering on the back.
233
18.
Please provide any comments on course content.
19.
What do you like best about the course to this point in the semester?
20.
What do you like least about the course to this point in the semester?
21.
Provide any comments on the instructor’s performance.
234
Appendix N
Education Outreach Survey
235
E2 Everyday Engineering
Participant Survey
Grade of the students ____________
1.
Please indicate the activity (or activities) presented in your classroom.
2.
Did you use the vocabulary sheets, introductory questions, or the introductory activities prior to the class
presentation?
Yes
No
2.a.
How helpful were the advance materials in preparing students for this activity?
3.
Did the presentation/class activity meet your expectations? Why or why not?
4.
Was the activity presented at the appropriate level?
5.
How does this activity assist you in meeting the learning objectives of the South Carolina Science
Curriculum Standards?
6.
Do you think this was a beneficial teaching/learning activity of the concepts discussed? Why or why not?
7.
Rate the overall presentation of the activities by the instructor. Circle one.
Very Poor
Poor
Fair
Good
If not, please explain.
Very Good
Excellent
8.
How can this presentation be improved?
9.
Has your awareness of the College of Engineering and Information Technology increased as a result of
this program?
10.
What are your suggestions for additional topics and/or activities that could be presented?
11.
Would you recommend this program to another teacher? Why or why not?
236
Appendix O
Professional Communications Center Assessment
237
Professional Communications Center
Analysis of Activity
1999
Professional Communications Center
Number of Student and Faculty Consultations Per Month
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
1999
# of Consults
57
97
39
65
10
30
44
36
50
46
59
36
Total
570
Percent of
1999 Total
10%
17%
7%
11%
2%
5%
8%
6%
9%
8%
10%
6%
1998
# of Consults
34
71
35
54
3
25
13
34
73
73
73
42
530
In-Class Presentations By PCC Staff
January – December 1999
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Number of
Classroom
Visits
14
10
1
1
0
2
3
5
7
2
7
0
Totals
51
238
Number of
Students
177
198
35
12
0
20
9
78
118
50
139
0
836
Percent of
1998 Total
6%
13%
7%
10%
.6%
5%
3%
6%
14%
14%
14%
8%
Professional Communications Center
Number of Sessions Conducted for Each Type of PCC Service
Types
1999
Totals
52
264
80
74
26
52
62
12
In-class Presentation
Student Consultation
Faculty Consultation
English is Second Language
Preparation Time (consultant’s time)
Other Writings
Grading
Instructor Preparation
(consultant meetings with instructor)
1998
Totals
20
435
34
47
30
Professional Communications Center
Student and Faculty Consultations By Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Totals
1999
Number of
Student Visits
19
43
18
40
0
7
19
5
26
31
43
12
1999
Number of
Faculty Visits
7
3
8
1
5
11
9
7
4
0
2
23
263
80
239
Professional Communications Center
Courses Related to Student Consultations
Courses
EECE 201
EECE 212
EECE 301
EECE 302
EECE 401
EECE 402/403/404
EECE 553
EECE 701
ECHE 361
ECHE 401
ECHE 460
ECHE 461
ECHE 465
ECIV 303
ECIV 303L
ECIV 350
ECIV 350L
ECIV 470
ECIV 551
ECIV 750
ECIV 750A
ECIV 790
ECIV 797
EMCH 361
EMCH 371
EMCH 427
EMCH 428
EMCH 467
EMCH 527
EMCH 561
EMCH 790
EMCH 797
ENGL 101
ENGL 102
UNIV 101
Other courses
1999
Number of
Students
139
0
31
1
6
2
2
1
5
14
30
1
2
1
3
6
1
19
2
34
41
1998
Number of
Students
142
15
5
26
20
6
1
2
12
3
2
2
1
3
8
2
20
1
8
3
16
1
2
2
4
6
19
11
240
1
9
15
94
6
Professional Communications Center
Frequency of Repeat Consultations
Number of Repeat
Consultations
One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Six
Seven
Eight
Nine
Ten
Eleven
Twelve
Thirteen
Eighteen
1999
Number of
Students & Faculty
1998
Number of
Students & Faculty
108
43
15
3
6
2
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
53
42
17
10
5
4
3
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
Length of Time Per Visit
for Consultations*
Student Consultations
Range: 3 minutes to 6 hours 40 minutes
Median: 50 minutes
Faculty Consultations
Range: 10 minutes to 4 hours 50 minutes
Median: 55 minutes
Note. This table does not include Apogee students.
241
Professional Communications Center
Consultations for Reasons Other Than Coursework
Type of Writing
1999
Frequency
1998
Frequency
Abstract
Application
Article
Brochure
Conference Paper
Chapter
Dissertation
Editing
Essay
Graduate School Application
Grant
Letter
Memo
Newsletter (Innovations & PCC)
Organizations (IEEE, SECWA)
Poster
Presentation
Proposal
Resume
Some type of lab
Thesis
Russian (SIC Project)
1
1
6
2
1
242
9
1
12
1
4
2
3
13
2
1
2
27
4
17
8
2
16
6
2
3
1
2
2
7
4
7
7
Appendix P
Longitudinal Student Tracking Report
243
College of Engineering and Information Technology
Student Longitudinal Tracking System
In collaboration with the University’s Institutional Planning and Assessment Office, the College
of Engineering and Information Technology assisted with the design and implementation of a
Longitudinal Student Tracking System that incorporates all of the necessary elements to study student
trends from admission through graduation and beyond. The goal of this system is the availability of a
college-wide mechanism that will provide data for faculty and administrators to enable them to
continuously monitor and improve the quality of their programs.
The USC Student Longitudinal Tracking System provides data from the beginning of the 19901991 academic year (Fall, Spring, Summer I, and Summer II) through the end of the 1998-99 academic
year. Each year the Student Longitudinal Tracking System will be updated to provide another cohort for
the database and to add modified graduation, grade point average (GPA), and retention information.
Developing statistical tables, analyzing the data and reporting the results will occur in stages. Reports
will be generated for the following areas: enrollment, academic performance, graduation, transfer
performance, and retention. The following tables and synopses give an overview of initial data collected
and analyzed regarding engineering students progress toward degree completion. Each table addresses a
specific research question and these questions are given in bold lettering.
Retention Statistics
The following table examines one aspect of student return rates, that is, how many students begin in the
College of Engineering and Information Technology and re-enroll in subsequent semesters. It captures
data for the freshman students that are the primary population of interest. As noted in the columnar
headings, the tracking begins with the fall semester of each cohort. Data for the student’s second
semester at the College of Engineering is listed followed by the enrollment figures for the next two fall
semesters. This table, therefore, provides persistence rates from a student’s first semester through the
fall semester of the second year.
What percentage of the freshmen engineering students, from the 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, and
1995 cohorts, enrolled within the College of Engineering and Information Technology in
subsequent semesters?
244
Table 1
Freshman Persistence Rates for the 1990-1995 Cohorts
Cohort
Cohort
Enrollment
1990-91
1991-92
1992-93
1993-94
1994-95
1995-96
297
302
247
265
245
231
First to Second
Semester
After One Year
(Fall-to-Fall)
#
%
#
%
264
263
225
236
209
204
89%
88%
91%
89%
85%
88%
208
202
174
181
166
166
70%
68%
70%
68%
68%
72%
After Two Years
(Fall-to-Fall)
#
%
155
145
114
111
111
142
52%
48%
46%
42%
45%
61%
Table 1 indicates similar persistence rates for each cohort from 1990 to 1995. For all cohorts,
approximately 88 percent of the freshmen students re-enroll in Engineering after their initial fall
semester. The data also suggests that an average of 69 percent of the students return for their second
year in engineering. After two years, the statistics show that only 49 percent of the original cohort
enrolled for the fall semester of the third year.
Table 2 shows the persistence rates for the transfer students in each of the 1990 to 1994 cohorts.
Table 2
Transfer Persistence Rates for the 1990-1994 Cohorts
Cohort
1990-91
1991-92
1992-93
1993-94*
1994-95*
Enrollment
in Cohort
63
45
52
42
36
First to Second
Semester
#
53
40
45
36
31
%
84%
89%
87%
86%
86%
After One
Year
(Fall-to-Fall)
#
%
47
75%
33
73%
41
79%
31
74%
27
75%
After 4
Semesters
(Graduates)
#
%
38 (7)
71%
26 (3)
64%
34 (5)
75%
25 (2)
64%
25
69%
# Of
Engineering
Graduates
#
%
42
67%
22
49%
28
54%
16
5
-
# Of NonEngineering
Graduates
#
%
6
10%
4
9%
4
8%
4
10%
-
* Note. Figures for the 1993 and 1994 Cohorts are incomplete because students will continue to graduate from Engineering
and other USC programs.
Retention for Gender and Ethnic Categories
Table 3 – Table 8 provides persistence rates for freshman engineering students indicating the proportion
of each gender and ethic category within each cohort.
For each cohort, what are the persistence rates for each gender and ethnic category within the College of
Engineering and Information Technology?
245
Table 3
Persistence Rates by Gender and Ethnicity
1990 Cohort
1990 Fall
1991 Spring
1991 Fall
Male Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Caucasian
African American
Asian
Hispanic
Other
1992 Fall
Male
Female
164
46
39
26
144 ( 88%)
45 ( 98%)
34 ( 87%)
22 ( 85%)
113 (69%)
35 (76%)
27 ( 69%)
16 ( 62%)
85 (52%)
25 (54%)
23 (59%)
9 (35%)
6
5
5
5
5 ( 83%)
5 (100%)
4 ( 80%)
5 (100%)
4 (67%)
4 (80%)
4 (80%)
5 (100%)
4 (67%)
3 (60%)
3 (60%)
3 (60%)
Table 4
1991 Fall
Male
Female
Caucasian
African American
Asian
Hispanic
Other
155
64
10
5
36
25
4
Persistence Rates by Gender and Ethnicity
1991 Cohort
1992 Spring
1992 Fall
Male
Female
Male
Female
130
60
8
5
( 84%)
( 94%)
( 80%)
(100%)
34 ( 94%)
22 ( 88%)
4 (100%)
97
45
7
4
(63%)
(70%)
(70%)
(80%)
27 (75%)
19 (76%)
3 (75%)
1993 Fall
Male
Female
74
33
5
1
(48%)
(52%)
(50%)
(20%)
14 (39%)
16 (64%)
2 (50%)
Table 5
1992 Fall
Male
Female
Caucasian
African American
Asian
Hispanic
Other
137
57
13
15
17
3
1
4
Persistence Rates by Gender and Ethnicity
1992 Cohort
1993 Spring
1993 Fall
Male
Female
Male
Female
122 ( 89%)
55 ( 96%)
13 (100%)
13
15
2
1
( 87%)
( 88%)
( 67%)
(100%)
4 (100%)
95 (69%)
43 (75%)
11 (85%)
9
10
2
1
( 60%)
( 59%)
( 67%)
(100%)
3 (75%)
Male
1994 Fall
Female
72 (53%)
21 (37%)
8 (62%)
4 (27%)
6 (35%)
1 (33%)
2 (50%)
Table 6
Persistence Rates by Gender and Ethnicity
1993 Cohort
1994 Spring
1994 Fall
1993 Fall
Male
Female
Caucasian
African American
Asian
Hispanic
Other
137
48
9
2
1
Male
20
34
3
1
128
46
9
2
1
(93%)
(96%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
Female
17
28
3
1
( 85%)
( 82%)
(100%)
(100%)
246
Male
97
38
7
1
1
( 71%)
( 79%)
( 78%)
( 50%)
(100%)
1995 Fall
Female
13
20
2
1
( 65%)
( 59%)
( 67%)
(100%)
Male
56
22
5
1
1
Female
( 41%) 7 ( 35%)
( 46%) 16 ( 47%)
( 56%) 2 ( 67%)
( 50%) 1 (100%)
(100%)
Table 7
1994 Fall
Male
Female
Caucasian
African American
Asian
Hispanic
Other
108
46
8
2
1
35
23
5
Persistence Rates By Gender and Ethnicity
1994 Cohort
1995 Spring
1995 Fall
Male
Female
Male
Female
99
43
5
2
1
( 92%)
( 93%)
( 63%)
(100%)
(100%)
33 ( 94%)
21 ( 91%)
5 (100%)
80
31
4
2
1
( 74%)
( 67%)
( 50%)
(100%)
(100%)
27 ( 77%)
7 ( 30%)
4 ( 80%)
1996 Fall
Male
Female
52
18
4
1
1
( 48%)
( 39%)
( 80%)
( 50%)
(100%)
20 ( 57%)
12 ( 52%)
3 ( 60%)
Table 8
1995 Fall
Male
Female
Caucasian
African American
Asian
Hispanic
Other
101
43
6
2
1
35
28
2
Persistence Rates by Gender and Ethnicity
1995 Cohort
1996 Spring
1996 Fall
Male
Female
Male
Female
100
38
5
1
1
( 99%)
( 88%)
( 83%)
( 50%)
(100%)
32 ( 91%)
26 ( 93%)
0 ( 0%)
84
29
4
1
1
( 83%)
( 67%)
( 67%)
( 50%)
(100%)
27 ( 77%)
19 ( 68%)
Male
72
23
5
1
1
1997 Fall
Female
( 71%)
( 53%)
( 83%)
( 50%)
(100%)
24 ( 69%)
16 ( 57%)
Persistence rates for ethnic groups
From fall to spring semester of the first year, minority persistence rates exceeded Caucasian
return rates in each cohort. Persistence rates for the third semester (or the beginning of the second year)
indicate that minority re-enrollment was higher than the Caucasian rates for the 1990 through 1993
cohort with the reverse trend occurring in the last two years (1994 and 1995) of the tracking period.
Overall ethnic group persistence rates for the second year show that similar proportions of minority and
Caucasian students re-enrolled for each cohort. Comparison of African American and Caucasian
persistence rates show variation among the academic cohort: in some years African American return
rates for the second year exceed Caucasian rates whereas in other semesters the Caucasian return rates
are higher. The overall effect is that there is little difference in persistence rates between the two groups.
Persistence rates for gender groups
Tables 3 through 8 indicate that there are some variations in the persistence rates between males
and females across the cohorts. However, a comparison of the overall averages for each semester
suggests that the proportion of males and females returning is approximately equal. One noteworthy
trend is the slightly higher retention rate of Asian and Hispanic females but these figures are low
enrollment numbers.
247
Graduation Statistics
A key factor in determining the health of an academic program is the rate at which the students
graduate from that program. The following table gives overall graduation statistics for the first three
cohorts of the longitudinal study. Information from the College of Engineering and Information
Technology Senior Survey and other sources indicate that engineering students, particularly freshmen,
often require longer than four years to complete their degree program. Given this fact, Table 8 stops
with the 1992-1993 cohort because sufficient time has not elapsed for data to be comparable to the
previous academic years. It should be noted that previous research has found that additional students are
likely to graduate from the 1991 and 1992 cohort increasing the graduation rates slightly for those years.
Table 9
Graduation Statistics for the 1990, 1991 and 1992 Cohorts
Cohort
Enrollment
1990-1991 Cohort
All Engineering Students
First-time Freshmen
Transfer Students
1991-1992 Cohort
All Engineering Students
First-time Freshmen
Transfer Students
1992-1993 Cohort
All Engineering Students
First-time Freshmen
Transfer Students
Total
Graduates
Engineering Degrees
Non-Engineering
Degrees
Freq.
% of
Cohort
Freq.
% of
Cohort
Freq.
% of
Cohort
360
297
63
228
63%
152
111
41
42%
37%
65%
76
70
4
21%
24%
6%
347
302
45
183
53%
104
82
22
30%
27%
49%
79
75
4
23%
25%
9%
299
247
52
158
53%
97
69
28
32%
28%
54%
61
57
4
20%
23%
8%
Graduation figures for the three cohorts show a decline in the number of total graduates as well
as the number of Engineering degrees granted during the tracking period. Overall, approximately 56
percent of the students who began in the College of Engineering & Information Technology graduate at
some point in their academic career. Approximately 35% of the students in the cohort graduated with an
Engineering degree. The percentage of students to graduate with an Engineering degree declined from
42 percent to 32 percent over the three-year period. It is also noteworthy that approximately 21 percent
of the students within each cohort graduate from USC with a degree in another discipline besides
Engineering.
The proportion of first-time freshmen, within the cohort, to graduate with an Engineering degree
equals approximately 37, 27, and 28 percent of the 1990-91, 1991-92, and 1992-93 cohorts, respectively.
The overall average equals approximately 31 % for freshmen. The breakdowns for the students who
were non-engineering graduates suggest that a very low percentage of this population were transfer
students.
248
Graduation Rates for Gender and Ethnic Categories
How many students in each cohort (1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93) graduated in Engineering as of June 1997
showing distributions for each of the following subgroups: total students, first-time freshmen, and transfer
students with breakdowns by ethnicity and gender for each subgroup?
Table 10
Graduation Rates for Students Receiving Engineering Degrees
Demographic Distributions for the 1990, 1991 and 1992 Cohorts
1990-1991 Cohort
1991-1992 Cohort
1992-1993 Cohort
Subgroup
Ethnicity
All engineering students
African-Americans
Am. Indian/Alaskan Native
Asians/Pacific Islanders
Caucasians
Hispanic
Other
F
# %
34 (22%)
6 ( 4%)
M
# %
118 (78%)
15 (10%)
Total
#
152
21
F
#
%
21 (20%)
7 ( 7%)
M
#
%
84 (80%)
11 (11%)
Total
#
105
18
F
# %
14 ( 4%)
3 ( 3%)
M
#
%
83 (86%)
9 ( 9%)
Total
#
97
12
3 ( 2%)
24 (16%)
1 ( 1%)
5 ( 3%)
93 (61%)
2 ( 1%)
3 ( 2%)
8
117
3
3
1 ( 1%)
13 (13%)
2 ( 2%)
69 (66%)
1 ( 1%)
3
82
1
1 ( 1%)
9 ( 9%)
1 ( 1%)
5 ( 5%)
68 (67%)
1 ( 1%)
6
77
1
1
First-time Freshmen
African-Americans
Am. Indian/Alaskan Native
Asians/Pacific Islanders
Caucasians
Hispanic
Other
28 (25%)
6 ( 5%)
83 (75%)
15 (14%)
111
21
17 (21%)
6 ( 7%)
65 (79%)
11 (13%)
82
17
8 (12%)
2 (3%)
61 (88%)
7 (10%)
69
9
3 ( 3%)
19 (17%)
3
61
2
2
( 3%)
(55%)
( 2%)
( 2%)
6
80
2
2
1 ( 1%)
10 (12%)
2 (2%)
52 (63%)
3
62
1 ( 1%)
4 ( 6%)
1 ( 1%)
4 ( 6%)
49 (71%)
1 ( 1%)
5
53
1
1
Transfer Students
African-Americans
Am. Indian/Alaskan Native
Asians/Pacific Islanders
Caucasians
Hispanic
Other
6 (15%)
35 (85%)
41
4 (18%)
1 ( 5%)
2 ( 5%)
32 (78%)
2
37
1
1
5 (12%)
1 ( 2%)
1 ( 2%)
18 (82%)
3 (14%)
17 (77%)
1 ( 5%)
22
1
6 (21%)
1 ( 4%)
22 (79%)
2 ( 7%)
28
3
20
1
5 (18%)
1 ( 4%)
19 (68%)
1
24
The proportion of female graduates in Engineering declined during this period from a high of 22
percent in 1990 to a low of 14 percent in 1992. The percentage of female graduates with an Engineering
degree approximately equaled the proportion of females enrolled in the college during the 1990 and
1991 academic periods.
African-Americans totaled 14%, 17% and 12% of the graduates in Engineering for the 1990-91,
1991-92 and 1992-93 cohorts, respectively. These percentages suggest that a slightly smaller proportion
of the African-Americans graduated in Engineering when compared to their enrollment figures. The
cohort percentages represent an average graduation rate of approximately 14 percent over the three-year
period.
Academic Years of Graduation
For Engineering and Non-Engineering Graduates
249
What percentage of the students within the 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 cohorts received their
Engineering degrees at any time during each of the subsequent academic years?
Table 11
Academic Years of Graduation
1993-1994
1990 Cohort
1991 Cohort
1994-1995
1995-1996
#
%
#
%
#
%
39
26%
85
22
56%
21%
23
55
15%
52%
4
4%
9
9%
1992 Cohort
1993 Cohort
1996-1997
#
1997-1998
1998-1999
Total
Number of
Graduates
%
#
%
#
%
4
19
3%
18%
5
6
3%
6%
3
3%
152
105
64
37
66%
43%
19
36
20%
41%
1
14
1%
16%
97
87
For the 1990-1991 and 1991-1992 cohort approximately 26 and 21 percent, respectively, of the students
graduated with an Engineering degree within four years. In the 1995-1996 cohort, the figure drops to 13
percent but increases to 43 percent for the 1993 cohort. Five-year graduation rates for the four cohorts
are as follows:
1990-1991
1991-1992
1992-1993
1993-1994
82%
73%
79%
84%
What percentage of the 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994 cohorts received their USC degrees (thus
far) in a discipline other than Engineering during each of the subsequent academic years?
Table 12
1993-1994
1990 Cohort
1991 Cohort
1992 Cohort
1993 Cohort
1994-1995
1995-1996
1996-1997
1997-1998
1998-99
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
11
14%
36
19
47%
24%
22
28
16
29%
35%
26%
3
13
27
26
4%
16%
44%
49%
4
14
16
32
5%
18%
26%
49%
5
2
7
6%
3%
11%
Total
Number of
Graduates
76
79
61
65
Student tracking of these four cohorts indicates that a significant number of students who began in
Engineering left the program but graduated from USC with another degree. Five–year graduation rates
are slightly lower than those for the Engineering graduates:
1990-1991
1991-1992
1992-1993
1993-1994
61%
59%
70%
89%
250
Academic Performance
Grade point averages (GPA) are used as one measurement of a student’s academic performance
while attending college. This is also a useful tool to assess college programs. Table 13 shows the
overall averages for freshmen and transfer students for the 1990, 1991, and 1992 cohorts. Also shown
are the average GPA’s for the students receiving an Engineering degree, students who began in
engineering but graduated from another USC discipline and the students who began in Engineering but
dropped out of USC or otherwise did not receive a degree.
Table 13
GPA’s for Longitudinal Cohorts
1990-1991 Cohort
All Engineering Students
First-time Freshmen
Transfer Students
1991-1992 Cohort
All Engineering Students
First-time Freshmen
Transfer Students
1992-1993 Cohort
All Engineering Students
First-time Freshmen
Transfer Students
Engineering
Degree
Other USC
Degrees
No
Degree
3.04
3.02
3.11
2.77
2.73
3.45
1.96
1.87
2.63
2.95
2.86
3.12
2.68
2.72
2.40
1.88
1.78
2.54
3.11
3.08
3.09
2.79
2.77
2.96
1.85
1.72
2.69
Note. Averages have been rounded and were calculated using a weighted sum.
Table 13 statistics show that the average GPA for students with an Engineering degree is
approximately 3.0 for the first three years of the longitudinal study. Transfer students tend to have about
the same GPA average as freshmen students. The GPA’s of graduates from other USC programs tend to
be slightly lower than those for the Engineering graduates. The overall GPA for non-engineering
graduates is 2.75 and the average of 1.90 was obtained for students with no degrees.
251
Appendix Q
Bates House Living-Learning Project Report
252
The Engineering Community in Bates House
Summary of the First Semester Results
Overview and Goals
During the 1999 fall semester, freshmen students in The College of Engineering and Information
Technology were offered the opportunity to participate in a unique Living and Learning Community
program developed in collaboration with the USC Housing Department. The Engineering Community
in Bates House is an on-campus residential community designed to enrich the educational environment
for first-year engineering students. Development of this concept was based on research documenting the
benefits of students living in learning environments that foster student-faculty interaction and student
peer relationships strengthened by involvement with each other both in and out of the classroom.
More specifically, goals of the Engineering Community in Bates House are:
1)
6)
7)
8)
9)
To increase the retention rate of these freshmen by creating a learning environment that
maximizes their potential for success
To incorporate active learning strategies and increased academic support to increase
academic performance indicators such as the student’s grade point average (GPA);
To develop professional attitudes and to emphasize experiential learning by encouraging
student involvement in the community and the professional engineering organizations;
To develop and implement new technologies, such as laptop computer, that can be
applied in the classroom to enhance education program delivery;
To provide early design and teamwork experience to enhance student motivation and
learning and to develop leadership, communication and problem solving skills.
The increases in retention and academic performance are primarily long-term research questions. The
Bates House project students will be tracked during their subsequent years at USC collecting course
grades and GPA data each semester. Retention figures for this group of students will be tabulated with
overall results available at the end of the first, second and fourth years of the project.
A group of engineering students with similar academic backgrounds will be randomly selected for use as
a control group to provide a criterion for judgment of program success. Retention rates, course grades
and GPA data will be collected for this group of students each semester from 1999-2000 through the
2002-2003 academic years. Control and experimental groups will be compared to determine if the
additional academic support and activities given the Bates House students yields improved performance
and retention within the College.
Progress toward meeting project goals will be monitored each semester during the initial semesters. It
was decided to interview all experimental students in November to evaluate the effectiveness of the first
semester of the project. The following narrative will analyze and summarize the results of the interview
process. First, the Bates House program will be described, followed by a brief description of the
experimental group of engineering students.
253
Description of the Bates House Project
Students who participated in the Bates House Engineering Community had access to programs and
services developed specifically with the engineering student in mind. Bates House students were
enrolled in two sections of University 101-E instructed by Professors Molly Gribb and Steve McNeill.
Required by the College during the 1999-2000 academic year, this course provided an introduction to
engineering concepts and the computer network and software utilized within College and within some
engineering programs. University 101-E also provided an introduction to the USC campus and some of
its high usage facilities such as the library as well as offering several programs regarding health issues
including drug abuse and sexually transmitted diseases. Special tutoring services were provided for the
Bates House students in math, chemistry and writing. Community dinners and cookouts, career
development classes, plant tours, and other activities were arranged for the freshmen. Each Bates House
participant also received a Gateway laptop computer purchased with grant monies received from the
Department of Commerce; laptops were leased for a period of two years although students may not keep
the computer for the entire period. All software available on the engineering network was installed on
the laptop. Students were given special training on how to use the laptop and two student assistants
were employed to be available via email and in-person to help students with computer-related problems.
Project Implementation
Professors Gribb and McNeill emphasized different engineering skills and competencies within their
UNIV 101-E sections. Steve McNeill’s class took part in classroom discussion, summarized newspaper
articles relating to current events in engineering, provided practice with the computer network software,
instruction and exercises with MathCAD and completed a team design project. Professors Gribb’s
section completed four or five essays, made PowerPoint and other oral presentations, problem solving
exercises using Excel and participated in a team design project.
All students requesting a USC Housing Application were notified for the Bates House Living Learning
option. Students who volunteered for this option were placed into two sections of UNIV 101-E. The
instructors for this course, Professors Molly Gribb and Steve McNeill, agreed to participate in the
special activities planned for these students. After some housing and class scheduling adjustments at the
beginning of the semester, 47 students remained in the Living Learning Community and comprise the
experimental sample.
Sample Demographics
The sample of students included 36 males and 11 females. The ethnic distributions of the sample
approximated the total undergraduate distribution of the College of Engineering with 35 (74%)
Caucasians, 8 (17%) African Americans, 3 (6 %) Asians, and 1 (2%) Hispanic. Although first semester
freshmen, most of the students declared a major upon entry: computer (10); civil (5); mechanical (5);
chemical (3); electrical (3); and undecided (6). There were 15 students classified as conditional
indicating that their math SAT scores were below the entrance requirement of 600 or that they did not
place into MATH 141.
254
Students in the experimental group represent a wide continuum of verbal and mathematical capabilities.
SAT total scores ranged from 870 to 1420 with a score of 1142 as the average Total score for the group.
SAT Verbal and Math scores ranged from 440 to 670 and 410 to 800 respectively.
It was decided to interview all students at the end of the course to evaluate the effectiveness of the first
semester of the project. Students answered a series of questions concerning five target areas: 1) the
teaching/learning process of UNIV 101-E; 2) written and oral communications and the PCC; 3) the use
of laptops; 4) particular skills and competencies including teamwork, problem solving, leadership and
interpersonal skills; and 5) the Bates House Living Learning arrangement. The following narrative will
analyze and summarize the results of the interview process.
UNIV 101-E
The freshmen were asked what they liked the “best” and the “least” about their UNIV 101-E course.
The availability and use of the laptops was the most frequently cited response from 11 freshmen
regarding what they liked best about the course. Other items mentioned by the students include: design
projects (5), open class, relaxed atmosphere (4), computer programs (4), interactions with peers (3),
teamwork (3), the teacher (2), the scavenger hunt (2), articles everyday (1), and living together and fun
(1 each). Student voiced 17 or more activities that they liked the least about UNIV 101-E. The items
cited most frequently include: writing essays (9), MathCAD (8), current event articles (4), and the
workload (4). Students also mentioned other items they disliked such as community service, Excel
homework, night classes, lack of organization, buying books that weren’t used and a few other items.
Students were asked to identify differences in the way UNIV 101-E was taught in comparison to the
other freshman courses. Students provided 15 or more categories of responses ranging from the
comment that it was like high school to the observation that the course included more technology.
Students indicated that one-on-one or more personal attention (12 students) and the more relaxed selfpaced classes (11 students) were the most noteworthy differences. Other observations mentioned less
frequently included smaller class sizes, more application/hands-on activities, teacher instructional
effectiveness, teamwork, workload, broader topics, discussion classes and more technology. Three
students said they did not perceive substantial differences in the teaching learning processes between the
engineering class and other freshmen courses.
Students stated that the advantages of a more personalized, relaxed environment include less stress,
better writing, more help when needed, more group work, and getting to know everyone. Disadvantages
were few, but some students cited personality differences, the long class period, lack of organization,
lack of time to prepare for other classes and some of the essays as reasons for their perceptions.
Tutoring
Twenty-two students utilized one or more of the tutoring activities provided during the semester. Three
students indicated they would seek tutoring before the final exam. Eight students received Bates House
tutoring and five students sought help in the math lab. Two other students attended a math class help
session. One student used the NSBE tutoring services. Most of the students seeking math assistance
were satisfied with the help they received citing it as “good” or very helpful. However, four students
who attended the class session or went to LeConte were not pleased with the assistance given at these
places. Seven students said they were tutored in Chemistry and rated their experience as “good.” Two
255
students received tutoring from other sources and were split on the level of help they received. Four
freshmen from the experimental sections sought communications assistance from the PCC; all found this
support to be very helpful.
Plant Tours
The following is a list of the plant tours attended by the students in the Bates House project:
Allied Signal
Cooper Tools
Pirelli Cable
SCANA/SCE&G
Safety Kleen
International Paper
Selectron
SMI Steel
Kryotech
12
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
All students said they learned what the companies do, the day-to-day activities of engineers, they types
of jobs available and/or about the different types of companies who hire engineers. Almost all students
agreed the tours were interesting and informative. Students believe this is a worthwhile activity and that
freshmen should be required to participate in at least one plant tour in the future. Students provided a
range of comments about why the plant tour is an important activity. A few of these reasons are listed
below:







Learned different aspects of engineering
Different kinds of engineers need to work together to get things done
Creativity is needed in the engineering world
See real world applications of engineering
Broadens horizons
Can change perceptions and help you determine what field to go into
Provides opportunities for learning resources or companies in the area
Dinner Programs
All freshmen were invited to attend the Dean’s Cookout on August 30, 1999. Most of the Bates House
students attended this function. All but three Bates House students attended a special dinner program
held on September 29, 1999. The program was designed for engineering students and faculty to have an
opportunity to interact and to listen to presentations by engineers in the workplace. Guest speakers were
Scott Echerer (mechanical) and William Holder (civil). Two additional dinner programs were planned
but cancelled because of conflicts in the scheduling of the Bates House facility. All students believe the
dinner/speaker program was worthwhile (7), interesting (9), informative (11), and enjoyable (2). Nine
students noted, however, that one speaker was well-prepared and articulate but the second speaker did
not capture the students’ interest.
256
Grading
Students from both sections thought the grading system was fair. All but four students understood the
point system used to assign their final grade.
Academic Skills and Competencies
Students were asked to describe how UNIV 101-E provided the opportunity to develop problem-solving
skills, leadership skills, written and oral communication skills and interpersonal skills as a team
member. Students listed eight activities they believe enhanced their problem solving skills. The tasks,
with the number of students selecting each, are as follows: design project (23); teamwork (13); EXCEL
homework (9); MathCAD exercises (7); brainstorming (3) problems to solve/class discussion (3);
readings (2); and reflection papers (1). Three students said that there were no problem- solving
opportunities in their class.
Almost all of the students interviewed, 35 of 43 students or 81 percent, cited the group projects as a
means of developing leadership skills. Other students mentioned community service, presentations,
class discussions, and professional organizations. Five students said the course did not offer
opportunities to develop leadership skills.
During the interviews, freshmen offered various ways in which they developed their interpersonal skills
as a team member. The most frequent response concerned the need to learn to work with others and
how to get a group to function. Students indicated other issues such a compromise (6), learning to listen
(4), learning about different kinds of people (4), and being open to ideas (3). When asked about the
productivity of their group, students were very positive in their responses. Fifteen students said their
group was very productive and ten students stated that their group “got along well.” Three rated their
group as “fairly productive” and four rated it as “sometimes productive.” Only four students rated their
group as “unproductive” or “not so well.” All students indicated that the goal of the group, the team
project, was completed as assigned.
The ability to communicate in writing is an important competency engineering students need to possess
as graduates. Some sections of UNIV 101 incorporated essays, reports, and memos into the curriculum
while instructors of other sections did not choose to address this competency. In Dr. Gribb’s section,
students completed five essays and several memos as part of their homework assignments. In addition,
they made two oral presentations during the semester. In Dr. McNeill’s section, weekly summaries of
newspaper articles were required but these were not graded for technical content of communication
skills. Both sections required an oral presentation using PowerPoint slides. The PCC made two
presentations to students in Dr. Gribb’s section of UNIV 101-E; one presentation on technical writing
and one on oral presentations using PowerPoint software. Dr. McNeill’s section did not utilize the PCC
staff to present oral or written instruction.
Students in Dr. Gribb’s section were encouraged to go to the PCC to seek help with their essays and oral
presentations. Only eight students in Dr. Gribb’s class reported that they received PCC assistance.
Percent of these students indicated that the PCC was helpful with their problems. Twenty-two students
stated that the PCC presentations made in their class were useful; ten students were satisfied with this
257
instruction/learning process and ten students indicated that the PCC did “a good job” in presenting the
information and providing useful handouts.
Laptop Program Evaluation
Students were asked a series of questions relating to the effectiveness of the laptop component of the
Bates House program. All students said that they enjoyed having the laptop to use during the semester.
Students were very enthusiastic in their responses. Students were eager to list all the advantages of
having a laptop but reluctant to provide any disadvantages. Fifteen students emphasized the mobility
advantage of the laptop; students listed some of the places they used their laptops: home, class, dorm
rooms, other rooms, meetings and in the car. Not having to go to the labs or use the Bates House
computers was also mentioned by 15 students as an advantage of having a laptop. Students stated that
computers in the labs and Bates House were not always available and sometimes in disrepair. Students
said that having a laptop therefore saved them time and a lot of inconvenience. More importantly,
students concluded that a laptop allows them to get their assignments done on time and to be self-paced
with homework and other assignments which would not be as true when depending on the accessibility
of a lab computer. Seven students also indicated that having email and Internet access at all times was
an advantage and six students noted that laptops aided communication among peers, instructors and
family. Finally, students suggested that the laptops were used for all classes – not just engineering.
The primary disadvantage, mentioned by five students, was that the computers would frequently freeze
or shut down. Several students indicated that the laptop needs a better processor and that printers and
spare computers would be helpful. Students also mentioned that laptops were received late in the
semester; having them at the beginning would allow more time for students to learn how to use them.
Written guides or instructions were not available and several students believe this addition is needed to
facilitate learning.
A majority of students believe that the laptops contributed to their overall learning experience. Thirtyone, (or 72 percent) agreed with this statement. Seven students said they “think” it did and one was
unsure. Four students said that the laptop did not aide their learning experience. Fourteen respondents
believe they had more opportunity to learn about the software programs having the laptops; they were
able to expand their knowledge base, discover more about each program with the extra time afforded by
laptop usage. Three students said having a laptop was an incentive to learn more. Nine stated that
laptops made it much easier, faster and more convenient to complete assignments, projects and reports
and finish them by the date due. Six students stressed the importance of being accessible to the Internet
for information and research. They also stated that self-paced learning was an important outcome of
laptop usage allowing for differences in the way students learn. Laptops provided students the
opportunity to work together either in groups or by communicating through email. Laptops allowed
easy access to course web sites, in-class instruction with software, etc. and permitted professors to
personally assist student’s in-class with problems (5 students). Three students said the laptop was useful
in every aspect of their lives. Two students commented that their grades were higher because of the
laptop; students had extra time to revise and polish essays and reports for courses. One student
commented that the laptop helped to ease the transition into college-life. Another student believes that
the laptop program gives students an opportunity at USC that other schools do not offer. When asked,
all students believe that the laptop program for freshmen should continue next year.
258
Students were asked for suggestions to improve the laptop part of the UNIV 101-E course. The most
frequent response, from 14 students, was to include more instruction and training on how to use the
laptop and the software. The level of instruction was too high for students who had no computer
experience. Some students said a printed instruction booklet would enhance the learning process. Two
students also suggested that laptop computer support needed to be available all day. Other suggestions
included the upgrading of the processor within the unit, improving the speakers, and providing extra
batteries. Three students said they did not use the video and four persons said that next year video
cameras were not needed if used for freshmen and the curriculum as presented fall semester. Five
students think that AutoCAD should be a part of the software included on the laptop. Eight students
recommended that freshmen receive the laptop at the beginning of the semester. Five students would
like to see computer used more often in class and three students believe there should be more use of the
different types of software. In addition, four students stated that more projects and activities should
incorporate the use of the laptop.
Bates House Living Arrangement
All but two of the 43 students interviewed said that they have enjoyed the Bates House arrangement in
which engineering students are assigned engineering roommates and a group of engineering students
were placed together in the same dorm. The two students displeased with the arrangement indicated
personality conflicts with their roommates as the reason; otherwise these two students are satisfied with
the placement.
One objective of the Bates House project was to engender a feeling of belonging and to encourage
students to become part of the engineering community. Approximately 70 percent of the students (30
students) said that they feel a part of the Engineering community. Six students (14 percent) indicated
that they did not feel this way and the remainder of the group indicated they could not say since they
have had little exposure to engineering at this point.
Students who indicated a sense of belonging to the Engineering community were asked how living in
Bates House and being part of the project contributed to this feeling. The most frequent student
responses involve the interactions among the students and the ways they benefited from this
environment. Thirteen students said they were able to seek and give help to each other with academics
and other problems. Nine students indicated that they had become good friends with several of the
students in the dorm. Six students said it was great having other engineering students around who were
in the same classes. Five students said living together helped them with their design projects. Eight
students indicated that the Bates House arrangement was very convenient; by this the students meant
that they had easy access to each other for support and assistance.
Students shared 20 or more different suggestions for improvement with the UNIV 101 course. The
following is a list of the most frequently cited items:





More in-depth information about all engineering disciplines (7)
More projects in the course (7)
A standardized curriculum in all sections (5)
More diversity in the computer programs taught/used in the course (3)
More in-depth computer work (3)
259




More oral presentations (3)
Revise MathCAD instruction (3)
Too much emphasis on MathCAD (2)
Include more writing (2)
260
Appendix R
Quality Review Template
261
College of Engineering and Information Technology
Annual Quality Review Template
Mission and Purposes
1.
Provide a statement of the mission of the College of Engineering and Information Technology
and your program.
Statements should indicate large-scale areas of activity and include education, research and
service components. Describe your program’s purpose(s) telling what the program is designed to
accomplish and at what curriculum level.
2.
Discuss how the program mission and purposes are related to the mission and goals of the
College of Engineering and Information Technology and to the mission and goals of the
University of South Carolina.
Example: The Electrical Engineering program will produce graduates who are committed to
lifelong learning.
Program Objectives and/or Learning Outcomes
1.
List your program objectives.
These objectives should be broad statements relating what is to be achieved as a result of
graduating from the program. Program objectives and learning outcomes can be combined or
stated separately. Each objective or outcome, however, should be:
(1) measurable;
(2) stated in terms of expected student behavior;
(3) reflect a program emphasis not an individual course; and,
(4) specify skills and/or competencies you expect from a graduate of your program.
Performance Criteria, Practices/Procedures and Measures/Methods
1.
Provide a listing of the performance criteria for each program objective.
Performance Criteria - The performance criterion indicates the level or standard required to
meet your program objectives. The performance criteria must be explicit and measurable
although it can consist of cognitive or affective measurements. It should be a standard that can
be adjusted as the program improves. In some cases, criteria exist that are endorsed by
professional or education organizations and these should be identified and used. (e.g., standards
for software development).
262
2.
Accompanying statements should indicate the classroom or program activity(ies) that teach the
skill(s) or provide experience in that competency, how the student performance will be measured
or observed, and a time frame for observing the performance. This can be accomplished in a
short paragraph.
Practices/Procedures - The statements should outline the classroom practices or program
procedures that will be used to achieve a specific performance.
For example, if teamwork is the program objective then several practices might include: (1)
teamwork training; (2) self-evaluation of team participation; (3) team exams; (4) course projects
completed by teams; (5) readings on teamwork; (6) teamwork role play; (7) outside/industry
guest speaker on use of teams and teamwork in a particular field, etc.
Measures/Methods - The assessment methods or tools used to measure each performance criteria
should be identified within the paragraph.
Possible data collection methods could include: Senior Exit Survey, Alumnae/Alumni
Survey, portfolios, exam items, team projects, essay on the strengths and weakness of team
work, review of literature, classroom observation by an outside evaluator, etc.,
Data Collection, Analysis, and Reporting of Results
1.
This part of the narrative should briefly discuss when the data were collected and how, when,
and by whom it was analyzed. The discussion should also indicate how and when the results
were shared with the faculty members. (e.g. annual retreat, semester course review, etc.)
This is your assessment implementation plan or structure of committees or committee members
who create or receive the data, synthesize it for trends, strengths and weaknesses, determine
recommendations, and prioritize strategic plans for making program improvements. Each
program should specify the responsibilities for the assessment tasks. For example, it may be the
undergraduate and graduate committees in your program that are responsible for this. Or it may
be the entire faculty member group meeting once a semester to review and evaluate data, etc.
2.
Determine whether or not the performance criteria were met and the program objectives were
achieved. Justify or explain your reasoning for each program objective. Make recommendations
for improvement and provide an indication of how this will be accomplished.
Use of Assessment Results
1.
Indicate the changes and/or improvements that were made during the preceding year for each
program objective. Provide a paragraph of explanation regarding the follow-up evaluation and
the results.
263
For example, if student feedback indicated that they wanted additional oral presentation
experience, list the course(s) in which the changes were implemented and indicate if this change
improved student evaluations of the course.
2.
Were the program objectives changed during the 1999-2000 academic year? Why? What data
or findings were received that justified a change?
3.
At what time, place and with whom was there any discussion during the year concerning the
relevance or content of the objectives?
Example of how objectives/outcomes/criteria can be written
As part of a small group project in a senior level course, students will demonstrate the ability to search
the web for relevant research data, effectively cooperate with group members to achieve project goals,
write a journal quality report incorporating appropriate data from engineering journals and summarize
and synthesize project findings in an oral presentation to faculty, industry representatives and
colleagues.
To achieve this objective, students in ELCT 401 will:
1.)
2.)
3.)
4.)
5.)
6.)
provide citations of five web sites visited and researched which address their project topic
support group members in the effective performance of their roles (rating of 3 or better on
part 1 of team member evaluation form)
initiate and participate in group activities (rating of 3 or better on part 2 of team member
evaluation form)
execute a group generated plan for development and production of the group project (rating
of 3 or better on part 3 of team member evaluation form)
write a report that is concise, clear, content-relevant and meaningfully conveys a summary of
the project and its findings(a score of 3 or better on the report rubric)
present an oral presentation that is concise, clear, content-relevant and meaningfully conveys
a summary and a synthesis of research data on the group project (a score of 3 or better on the
oral presentation rubric).
264