B.3 Program Outcomes and Assessment
B.3.1 Program Outcomes
The broad Engineering Physics Program Objectives described in B.2
above are realized by meeting the following Program Outcomes. Each Program
Outcome references a specific Program Objective. For example, Outcome 1(a) is
the first outcome in support of Objective 1. A tabulated summary appears below
in the B.3.4 Supplement II: Engineering Physics Program Objectives, Outcomes,
and Assessment Matrix.
The following provides the Engineering Physics Program Outcomes that
support the Program Objectives described in B.2.
Objective 1: All engineering physics graduates must have the factual knowledge
and other thinking skills necessary to construct an appropriate understanding of
physical phenomena in an applied context. In support of this objective each
Engineering Physics graduate will:
Outcome 1(a) have depth of understanding in the fundamental disciplines
of physics: mechanics, electromagnetism, thermal and statistical physics,
and quantum mechanics;
Outcome 1(b) understand a broad array of diverse physical phenomena in
terms of fundamental concepts;
Outcome 1(c) be able to design and implement an experiment or
theoretical study to understand a physical phenomenon in an applied
context;
Outcome 1(d) be able to apply scientific understanding and models of
thinking in engineering physics contexts; and
Outcome 1(e) be able to use fundamental physics in the design of a
component, system, or process;
Objective 2: All engineering physics graduates must have the ability to
communicate effectively. In support of this objective each Engineering Physics
graduate will:
Outcome 2(a) be able to write a well-organized, logical, scientifically
sound physics research paper or engineering physics report;
Outcome 2(b) be able to present effectively a well-organized, logical,
scientifically sound, and audience-appropriate oral report on an applied
physics topic;
Outcome 2(c) be able to communicate and present information
electronically including the appropriate use of multimedia modes of
communication;
Objective 3: Throughout their careers engineering physics graduates should be
able to function effectively in society. In support of this objective each
Engineering Physics graduate will:
Outcome 3(a) be able to work effectively in teams and exercise leadership
at appropriate times in their careers;
Outcome 3(b) understand and appreciate the human dimensions of their
profession, including the diverse social, cultural, economic, and
international aspects of their professional activities; and
Outcome 3(c) demonstrate high standards of ethical and professional
integrity in the conduct of their professional activities.
B.3.2. Relationship of Program Outcomes to Program Objectives
The Program Outcomes have been organized around the Program
Objectives as presented in B.3.1 above. The operating assumption is that a
graduate substantially demonstrating the program outcomes associated with one of
the the objectives will have the qualities necessary to meet that objective.
B.3.3. Relationship of Program Outcomes to Criterion 3
The Engineering Physics Program is supported by the institutional core.
The composition of the core curriculum has been purposefully designed to
align with the expectations of the Colorado School of Mines Graduate Profile.
The relationship between the Graduate Profile and ABET Outcome Criteria 3(a-k)
is shown in the table below.
Colorado School of Mines Graduate Profile (1994)
All CSM graduates must have depth in an area of
specialization, enhanced by hands-on experiential learning,
and breadth in allied fields. They must have the knowledge
and skills to be able to recognize, define and solve problems
by applying sound scientific and engineering principles.
These attributes uniquely distinguish our graduates to better
function in increasingly competitive and diverse technical
professional environments.
ABET Criterion
3
a, b, c, e, k.
Graduates must have the skills to communicate information,
concepts and ideas effectively orally, in writing, and
graphically. They must be skilled in the retrieval,
interpretation and development of technical information by
various means, including the use of computer-aided techniques.
g, k.
Graduates should have the flexibility to adjust to the everchanging professional environment and appreciate diverse
approaches to understanding and solving society's problems.
They should have the creativity, resourcefulness, receptivity
and breadth of interests to think critically about a wide range
of cross-disciplinary issues. They should be prepared to assume
leadership roles and possess the skills and attitudes which
promote teamwork and cooperation and to continue their
own growth through life-long learning.
c, d, e, h, i, j.
Graduates should be capable of working effectively in an
international environment, and be able to succeed in an
increasingly interdependent world where borders between
cultures and economies are becoming less distinct. They
should appreciate the traditions and languages of other
cultures, and value diversity in their own society.
Graduates should exhibit ethical behavior and integrity. They
should also demonstrate perseverance and have pride in
accomplishment. They should assume a responsibility to
enhance their professions through service and leadership and
should be responsible citizens who serve society, particularly
through stewardship of the environment.
d, h.
f.
Table B.3.3.1
While a detailed description of the core curriculum at the Colorado School of
Mines is given in section B.4.1., in view of the relationships described above
between the Graduate Profile and Criterion 3, the courses in the core curriculum
necessarily have overlap with this criterion. These are tabulated below:
MACS315
PHGN100
PHGN200
EPIC151
EPIC251
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
b(i)
design and conduct experiments
P
b(ii)
analyze and interpret data
P
c
design a system component or
process
d
function on multidisciplinary teams
e
f
P
P
P
identify, formulate and solve eng.
problems
understand ethical and
professional responsibility
g
communicate effectively
h
understand engineering solutions
in context
P: primary emphasis
S
S
S
Physical
Education
PAGN101
MACS213
P
SYGN101
MACS112
P
SYGN200
MACS111
apply knowledge of math, science
and engineering
EBGN201
CHGN126
a
LAIS100
CHGN124
Chemistry
CHGN121
Keyword Extracts fromCriterion 3
Statements
Colorado School of Mines Core Curriculum
Calculus and Differential
Humanities, Social
Physics
Design
Equations
Sciences and Systems
P
P
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
P
P
S
S
S
S
S
S
S: secondary emphasis
S
P
S
P
P
P
P
P
P
S
S
P
P
P
P
S
P
P
S
P
S
S
P
S
S
blank: negligible emphasis
Table B.3.3.2
Relationships between the Program Outcomes and the outcomes expressed
in EC2000 Criterion 3 exist at a variety of levels due to the overlaps and linkages
among Program Objectives and Program Outcomes in Engineering Physics and
the institutional common core and mission. Firstly, the institutional statements of
educational attributes in the CSM Graduate Profile have broad interpretive
connections to Criterion 3. Secondly, the composition of the institution-wide core
curriculum, and specifically the courses comprising the common core, have
primary or secondary emphasis in contributing toward fulfillment of the outcomes
in Criterion 3 as shown in Table B.3.2. And thirdly, the Program Outcomes
themselves are linked to Criterion 3. This section describes these three sets of
relationships.
Building on the core competencies discussed above, the Program
Outcomes which relate to EC2000 Criterion 3 (a-k) are discussed below.
EC2000 3(a) the ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and
engineering;
Program Objective 1 refers to the ability to construct an appropriate understanding
of a phenomenon in an applied context. In order to apply knowledge one must
first obtain it as per Program Outcomes 1(a-b). Outcome 1(d) specifically refers to
the ability to apply that knowledge in engineering contexts.
EC2000 3(b) the ability to design and conduct experiments, and analyze and
interpret data.
Program Objective 1 refers to the ability to construct an appropriate understanding
of a phenomenon, including of course experiments, which addresses the analysis
and interpretation criteria. Outcome 1(c) specifically addresses the ability to
design and implement an experiment.
EC2000 3(c) design a system, component or process;
Program Objective 1 refers to the ability to construct an appropriate understanding
of physical phenomena in applied contests. Outcome 1(e) specifically refers to the
ability to use fundamental physics in the design of a process, component, or
system.
EC2000 3(d) function on multidisciplinary teams;
Program Objective 3 refers to the ability to function in society. Outcome 3(a)
refers to the ability to work effectively in teams and exercise leadership as
appropriate.
EC2000 3(e) identify, formulate and solve engineering problems;
Program Objective 1 refers to the ability to construct an appropriate understanding
of physical phenomena. In applied engineering contexts that understanding takes
the form of identifying, formulating, and solving the engineering problems.
Objective 1(c-e) together enable the student to meet this criterion.
EC2000 (f) understand professional and ethical responsibility;
Program Objective 3 refers to the ability to function effectively in society.
Supporting Program Outcome 3(c) specifically states that graduates should
demonstrate high standards of ethical and professional integrity in the conduct of
their professions.
EC2000 3(g) communicate effectively;
Program Objective 2 refers specifically to the ability to communicate effectively.
Program Outcomes 2(a-c) state that graduates must have the ability to
communicate effectively in the written, oral, and electronic modes.
EC2000 3(h) understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and
societal context;
Program Objective 3 refers to the ability to function effectively in society.
Program Outcome 3(b) states that graduates should have an understanding and
appreciation of the human dimensions of one's professional activities including
the social, cultural, economic, and international components.
EC2000 3(i) recognize the need to engage in lifelong learning;
Program Objective 1 refers to the ability to construct an understanding of physical
phenomena in an applied context. Furthermore, Program Objective 3 states that
graduates should have the ability to function effectively as professionals in society
throughout their careers. This requires that as technological, economical, and
social changes occur, the graduate must continue learning and adapting to the new
situations in order to continue as an effective professional. The EP program itself
models this by constantly requiring students to adapt previous knowledge to new
situations. Program Outcome 1(a) requires depth of understanding in the
fundamental laws governing physics. This fundamental understanding enables the
lifelong pursuit of knowledge since these skills will never grow obsolete.
EC2000 3(j) show a knowledge of contemporary issues;
Program Objective 3 refers to the ability to function effectively in society
throughout their careers. This includes the technological sub-society in which the
professional is engaged. Senior design project advisers model this as they work to
be current on the important issues of their discipline and require that their charges
do so as well.
EC2000 3(k) use modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.
Program Objectives 1 through 3 all refer to the knowledge and cognitive skills
that enable the professional engineering physicist to perform in applied contexts.
Since the only immutable is change, these enabling skills are what are necessary
for success in the future technological environment. For example in the present
epoch there has been a revolution in the use of information technologies. For this
reason the Engineering Physics curriculum (specifically, PHGN384, Apparatus
Design, PHGN215 (Analog Circuits), PHGN317 (Digital Circuits), PHGN315
(Advanced Lab I), and PHGN326 (Advanced Lab II)) includes extensive exposure
to current IT, interfaced sensors, and feedback/control software (such as
LabView). The processes related to the achievement of Program Objectives
described in Section B.2.3 insure that the Engineering Physics is program
responsive to the changing technological environment.
B.3.4. Processes to Produce and Assess Program Outcomes
As described in section B.4.1 of this report, it is customary at the Colorado School
of Mines to recognize a separation in the basic-level curriculum into core and
program-specific curricula. This separation is not delineated by a fixed point in
time within the progression of semesters-of-study, but instead is a separation into
all courses that are required of all students at Mines (the core curriculum), and
those courses that are required of students majoring in a particular program (the
program curriculum).
Processes to produce and assess program outcomes related to core curricular
requirements are undertaken by the academic units responsible for delivering the
specific parts of the core as well as by the University Assessment Committee and
like bodies (see below). Processes to produce and assess program outcomes
related to program-specific curriculum are defined and implemented by each
program. An overview of the assessment processes used by these academic units
is provided in sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 below.
Regardless of where the outcomes are be measured and evaluated, the Institution
oversees the structure of, and changes to core and program-specific curricula
through the regular activities of a variety of University and Faculty Senate
committees, specifically the Undergraduate Council, the University Assessment
Committee as well as the Ad Hoc Curriculum Committee. A brief overview of
each of these Institutional committees is provided below.
Undergraduate Council. Council, a subcommittee of the Faculty Senate, is
charged with advising the Executive Vice President of Academic Affairs
(EVPAA) on matters such as exam scheduling, grading systems, instructional
development and excellence, instructional support and other administrative
matters. Council is also charged with advising the Faculty Senate on curricular
matters such as new undergraduate majors, minors and degrees, modifications to
the core curricula and degree requirements, credit hour requirements, and other
academic matters.
Undergraduate Council meets once a month during the regular academic year and
at other times as needed. Council considers issues suggested by its membership,
the Administration or the Senate. Membership consists of representatives from all
academic departments and many administrative departments. Council minutes are
available through the Mines Blackboard website.
University Assessment Committee. Established in 2005, the Assessment
Committee is appointed and reports to the EVPAA. This Committee is charged
with advising EVPAA in matters pertaining to assessment of the educational
outcomes of its academic programs. In fulfilling its role, the Assessment
Committee strives to review undergraduate and graduate assessment plans
provided by each academic unit as required by the EVPAA and review
documentation provided by each academic unit which indicate how the unit has
carried out its assessment plan, and what changes it has made to its academic
programs as a result. The Committee also is charged to recommend additional
actions each academic unit could take to enhance its assessment efforts.
Over the past year, the Assessment Committee has met on average once every two
weeks during the regular academic year.
Curriculum Committee. The Curriculum Committee is an ad hoc advisory
committee appointed by and reporting to the EVPAA. Its mission is intentionally
broad and has been designed to explore any and all curricular issues and matters
pertaining to curriculum (e.g., academic and administrative structure; budget,
personnel and facilities needs; academic advising) that the Committee deems to
be of importance. Additionally, the Committee may be called upon to undertake
special assignments at the direction of the EVPAA. During 2005-06, for example,
the Committee was asked to undertake a review of the existing undergraduate
core curriculum to determine whether changes may be needed. It normally meets
every two weeks. The core curriculum review will be continued during 2006-07.
The Committee’s recommendations are submitted to the EVPAA who may
subsequently forward these to other Mines entities such as the Undergraduate
Council and the Faculty Senate for formal consideration. The Committee
coordinates its work with other university committees and departments/divisions
as needed.
B.3.4.1. Core Curriculum. As described above, processes to produce and assess
program outcomes related to core curricular requirements are undertaken by the
academic units responsible for delivering specific parts of the core. Below is a
summary of the activities undertaken by each of the academic units with
responsibilities that include core curriculum activities.
Liberal Arts and International Studies. As described in section B.4.5.2. the
Division of Liberal Arts and International Studies (LAIS) houses all humanities,
social sciences (except Economics), communication, foreign language, and
performing arts courses at Colorado School of Mines. Its primary contribution to
the professional component of engineering education, therefore, is in general
education at the undergraduate level. In this role it hosts two courses which all
undergraduate students must complete, LAIS100 and SYGN200 and a series of
additional courses from which students must chose three that fall within specific
thematic areas.
Within LAIS100, Nature and Human Values (NHV), the following ABET Criteria
3 Outcomes have been identified and the activities students undertake in this
course that justify this identification is as follows.
Criterion 3-f: Professional and Ethical Responsibility (Primary)
NHV is the only required course at CSM in which students receive some
instruction in ethics. Case studies are used in the course to teach students about
contemporary professional ethics and to help them develop and understanding of
engineering responsibility. See “Cross-Campus Curricular Enhancement” below
for a discussion of an incipient Ethics Across the Curriculum effort within LAIS.
Criterion 3-g: Communicate Effectively (Primary)
CSM and LAIS have devoted significant resources to staffing some 50 sections
per year of 20-student seminars with instructors (both full-time lecturers and
adjuncts) who possess expertise in composition. Each student completes about 40
pages’ worth of writing assignments during the semester at what is considered a
first-year level of difficulty. It should be noted, however, that the emphasis is on
general writing skills: this is not a technical writing course.
Criterion 3-h: Understanding Engineering Solutions in Global and Societal
Contexts (Primary)
NHV’s central theme of exploring the human-nature interface both historically
and contemporaneously is, by definition, an exercise in understanding the
importance of contexts in which human choices and decisions take place, as well
as understanding how those contexts in turn influence further actions and
reactions on the part of humans. Themes covered in NHV that both directly and
indirectly address the global and social contexts in which engineering solutions
have been, are, and will be crafted include: a history of landscapes; a study of the
Colorado River; the rhetoric of the environmental debate; the development of
nuclear weapons; an introduction to professional ethics; bioethics; humanitarian
engineering; and engineering cultures.
Criterion 3-i: The Need to Engage in Life-Long Learning (Secondary)
By choosing controversial and provocative topics and issues as the core of NHV’s
subject matter, NHV contributes to stimulating students’ intellectual curiosity and
exposes them to new ways of thinking about the world and their future
professional lives. Further, it introduces them to basic research skills in nontechnical areas that the students must employ in completing a portion of their
composition assignments, thereby adding depth to their “intellectual tool box.”
Criterion 3-j: Knowledge of Contemporary Issues (Primary)
As is clear from the foregoing description of NHV’s contribution to understanding
global and societal contexts in which engineering takes place, NHV includes
coverage of such humanities-based contemporary issues as the environment,
professional ethics and an understanding of engineering responsibility,
humanitarian engineering, engineering cultures, and the ongoing, evolving
interface between humans and the environment in general.
Within SYGN200, Human Values, the following ABET Criteria 3 Outcomes have
been identified and the activities students undertake in this course that justify this
identification is as follows.
Criterion 3-g: Communicate Effectively (Secondary)
Human Systems promotes improved communication skills in two ways. One is
through the required readings in which students must engage, which contribute to
the expanse of social science-based ideas and concepts they have at their disposal,
and thus their capacity to articulate their own thoughts and ideas better. The
second is through a two-page take-home essay that requires a student to (a)
demonstrate that he/she has digested the reading and lecture materials; (b) engage
in additional research on the topic of the essay; and (c) craft an essay reflecting
both (a) and (b) as expressed in the student’s own way.
While the faculty who deliver Human Systems would like to build even further
upon the written communication and research skills that students acquired in
NHV, this is feasible from a teaching load standpoint since a given section’s one
instructor must do all course grading (with the exception of objective tests that are
machine graded by graduate teaching assistants). SYGN 200 instructors also offer
optional extra credit work to students that entails reading a monograph or set of
articles, or interviewing an expert, then writing a brief essay on the subject.
Criterion 3-h: Understanding Engineering Solutions in Global and Societal
Contexts (Secondary)
The contemporary or globalization portion of Human Systems provides individual
instructors with an opportunity to bring their disciplinary expertise to bear in the
selection of case studies and topics that contribute to an understanding of global
and societal contexts in which engineering takes place. For example, an
international political economy professor explores the “impact of engineering
solutions” in an integrated societal context through the prism of a variety of
industrialization processes found in today’s developing world, such as importsubstitution, export promotion, technology licensing, and turnkey industrial
models in various economies and societies. A sociologist examines the how
multiethnic societies define and implement development models in the face of
ethnic tensions, either successfully or unsuccessfully. A political scientist reveals
how wars and corrupt practices impact natural resource production globally. A
geographer discusses how the way a natural resource like water is managed can
either provoke interstate or inter-community conflicts or help resolve them. All of
these and other social science-based topics require students to appreciate a world
that is mostly “gray” – not black and white – and to learn how to think through
intersecting and complex sets of social, political, economic, cultural, and
environmental factors that comprise the context in which engineering is practiced.
Criterion 3-i: The Need to Engage in Life-Long Learning (Secondary)
The core lesson of Human Systems is the age-old dictum that those who fail to
learn from the errors of the past will be condemned to repeat them. For this
reasons, two-thirds of the course focuses on those historical processes of the past
half-millennium that have contributed to defining today’s world. The specific
historical topics that the course covers help the student identify past successes and
failures of the human condition and how the forces of the past are part of an everchanging continuum of human activity that requires one to accompany in order to
have a fulfilling and productive life and career.
Criterion 3-j: Knowledge of Contemporary Issues (Primary)
As is clear from the foregoing course description and discussion of the global and
societal contexts in which engineering takes place, the main goal of Human
Systems is to bring students to an historically informed understanding of today’s
world, especially those issues emerging from the ongoing process of globalization.
From cultural clashes to war, poverty, pandemic disease, the impact of rapidly
changing technologies on social structures and values, and the rise of new
economies and economic structures, Human Systems’ most significant
contribution to the CSM undergraduate curriculum is the conceptual and factual
knowledge it imparts to students about a constant and rapidly changing world, the
magnitude of problems it faces, and the resulting challenges it poses to the
engineering profession.
Assessment of student attainment of these outcomes is overseen by an LAIS
standing assessment committee chaired by the Director of the Writing Program
with additional membership drawn from the full spectrum of humanities, social
sciences, and communication full-time faculty. An assessment cycle for the
Division was devised and implemented in 1998. As of Fall 2005, the Assessment
Committee had more collected data on its hands than it could evaluate in as timely
a fashion as it would like. Highlights of LAIS assessment activities and potential
major changes in LAIS curriculum will be made available as part of the display
materials for the Core Curriculum.
Physics. As described in section B.4.5.1. the Department of Engineering Physics
hosts two courses which all undergraduate students must complete, PHGN100 and
PHGN200.
Within PHGN100, Physics I, the following ABET Criteria 3 Outcomes have been
identified and the activities students undertake in this course that justify this
identification is as follows.
Criterion 3-a: Apply knowledge of math, science and engineering (Primary)
In PHGN100, the major emphasis of the course is to solve mechanics problems,
both quantitatively and qualitatively. In order to solve quantitative problems,
extensive use of algebra, trigonometry, and calculus is necessary. In every
homework assignment, studio activity, and exam, there is a large emphasis on
applying mathematics to mechanics situations. In particular, there is a strong
emphasis on calculus.
Criterion 3-b(ii): Analyze and interpret data (Primary)
Students are required to analyze real data collected during studio activities, and
compare the data with the mathematical laws introduced in PHGN100. They are
also required to show the ability to predict what data (in graphical form) would
look like given a description of a situation. This is required both on quizzes in the
studio and on exams.
Criterion 3-e: Identify, formulate and solve engineering problems (Secondary)
PHGN100 is the first course the students’ career where they are given a situation
and are left to formulate the system of equations using fundamental laws in order
to solve for some outcome of the situation. This permeates the class in the form
of studio activities, homework, quizzes, and exams.
Criterion 3-h: Understand engineering solutions in context (Secondary)
The material presented in PHGN100 incorporates real-life situations with
engineering applications. In all the studio activities, exams and quizzes, emphasis
is placed on making the situations realistic and the answers that the students get to
be within reasonable ranges.
Criterion 3-k: Use modern tools for engineering practice (Secondary)
The studio facility used in PHGN100 uses state-of-the-art computer interfaced
equipment to do many of the activities. This includes data acquisition and
analysis using Vernier software and hardware, computer simulations using
InteractivePhysics, and use of symbolic math programs.
The following assessment tools have been used to evaluate student attainment of
these outcomes: exams (criteria a, b(ii), e, h); studio quizzes (criteria e, h); and
pre- and post-tests of the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) (criteria a, b(ii), e).
Samples of each of these tools are available in the course assessment notebook.
We calculate the normalized gains for the FCI, and compare the results from
semester to semester. Drop/Fail/Withdraw (DFW) rates are tracked.
Results of the assessment are tabulated each semester, and recommendations
made for the following semester appear in the assessment notebook. As a result of
our assessments, some of the changes that have been made in the course since
2000 are: implementing the studio teaching format in full scale, implementation
of retests to improve student performance, improved TA training, and a greater
emphasis on criterion based assessment in the course.
Within PHGN200, Physics II, the following ABET Criteria 3 Outcomes have been
identified and the activities students undertake in this course that justify this
identification is as follows.
Criterion 3-a: Apply knowledge of math, science and engineering (Primary)
This over-arching criterion is present in every student activity undertaken in the
course. Each student completes a computer-based homework assignment
consisting of 10-15 quantitative and qualitative problems each week. Immediate
feedback is provided to the students and they have multiple opportunities to arrive
at the correct answer. Students participate in bi-weekly recitation activities in
which they can improve their understanding of both concepts and specific
problems taught in the class. An individualized quiz is generally given in each
recitation. In the bi-weekly lab settings, students are asked to apply their “book”
knowledge to physical phenomena, and use that knowledge not only to describe
their observations, but also predict outcomes. We also administer a total of four
exams in the course which include conceptual questions, standard “physics”
questions, questions about the laboratory, and occasionally questions about other
“real-world” phenomena. Finally, we administer pre- and post-tests of the
Conceptual Survey on Electricity and Magnetism (CSEM), which requires
students to apply their knowledge to specific scenarios.
Criterion 3-b(i): Design and conduct experiments (Primary)
Our sequence of seven laboratory experiments starts students with an essentially
cook-book laboratory, and slowly takes them to the last lab, in which they must
develop the entire procedure, including methods for analyzing and interpreting
their data..
Criterion 3-b(ii): Analyze and interpret data (Primary)
Several of our homework assignments include exercises in which students must
use their graphical analysis skills to arrive at an answer. In addition, our
laboratory exercises require students to analyze their experimental data. Exams
and the CSEM also assess students’ abilities to analyze either numeric or
graphical data.
Criterion 3-c: Design a system, component or process (Secondary)
Our sequence of seven laboratory experiments starts students with an essentially
cook-book laboratory, and slowly takes them to the last lab, in which they must
develop the entire procedure. In addition to many other activities, as the semester
progresses students must: design a sliding mass to calibrate a sensitive balance;
optimize the number of turns in both the pick-up and field coils of a metal
detector to minimize the amount of wire used, while still obtaining the required
signal strength; and determine the number of turns required on a transformer to
obtain the desired voltage.
Criterion 3-e: Identify, formulate and solve engineering problems (Secondary)
Students solve a different engineering problem in each of our laboratories, and in
the final lab we provide the required equipment, but students must determine
exactly how to both perform and evaluate the required measurements. The
homework also includes problems of an engineering nature.
Criterion 3-h: Understand engineering solutions in context (Secondary)
The laboratory setting provides many opportunities for students to see how the
ideas of electricity and magnetism can be applied in the context of real problems
and measurements.
Criterion 3-k: Use modern tools for engineering practice (Secondary)
In the laboratories, students use spreadsheets for elementary data analysis. On the
hardware side, students use digital multimeters, digital storage oscilloscopes,
operational-amplifier circuits, microwave transmitters and receivers, DC power
supplies, and function generators.
Assessment of outcomes is overseen on a semester-to-semester basis by the team
of faculty involved with teaching the course. The course is further reviewed by
the physics faculty at our annual assessment retreats. The course is carefully
coordinated with the calculus sequence to ensure proper sequencing of
mathematical concepts. The assessment materials used include
exams, recitation quizzes, lab reports, and pre- and post-tests of the Conceptual
Survey on Electricity and Magnetism (CSEM). Samples of each of these tools are
available in the course assessment notebook. We calculate the normalized gains
on the CSEM, and compare the results from semester to semester. DFW rates are
tracked. Informal, qualitative feedback is also collected based on interaction with
individual students and informal class surveys.
Results of the assessment are tabulated each semester, and recommendations
made for the following semester appear in the assessment notebook. As a result of
our assessments, some of the changes that have been made in the course since
2000 include: improved TA training; additional pre-lab questions on erroranalysis; pre-lab materials which guide students on how to design an experiment;
moving recitations from 1 room with 75 students to three smaller rooms with 25
students each; and re-arrangements of the exam schedule.
Mathematics. As described in section B.4.5.1. the Department of Mathematical
and Computer Sciences (MCS) hosts four required courses for all undergraduate
students, Calculus for Engineers I (MACS111), Calculus for Engineers II
(MACS112), Calculus for Engineers III (MACS213) and Differential Equations
(MACS315).
MACS111, MACS112 and MACS213 are referred to as the calculus sequence.
This comprises coordinated courses, which means that all students, regardless of
section, follow a common syllabus and complete common exams and homework
sets. The calculus sequence is designed to support the attainment of the following
ABET Criteria 3 Outcomes.
Criterion 3-a: Apply knowledge of math, science and engineering (Primary)
Throughout the calculus sequence, students are introduced to key results and
theorems through their applications to science and engineering. Calculus is taught
as a tool for understanding physical phenomena. Course exams, homework and
quizzes reflect this emphasis, requiring students to demonstrate the application of
calculus to Engineering, Physics, Chemistry, Economics etc.
Criterion 3-b(ii): Analyze and interpret data (Secondary)
Another common thread throughout the calculus sequence is the importance of
using data to motivate functions. Students plot data, analyze trends, describe data
using functions and approximate solutions based on functions. Students also use
linear approximations and differentials to approximate error. Each of these
concepts is tested through the common exams.
Criterion 3-d: Function on multidisciplinary teams (Secondary)
Students in the calculus sequence regularly work in small groups on problem sets.
The problems they complete range from moderate to difficult. Group problems
sets are scored by the course instructor and are included in the calculation of
students’ final grades.
Criterion 3-e: Identify, formulate and solve engineering problems (Secondary)
When students work in teams in the calculus sequence, they are often asked to
solve ill structured problems that illustrate the application of mathematics to
engineering. In this context, students are expected to identify, formulate and solve
problems using the mathematical tools developed in their calculus courses. As
was previously discussed, these problems are graded and included in the
calculation of students’ final grades. Homework assignments, quizzes and
common exams often contain word problems embedded in an engineering
context. These problems require students to independently identify, formulate and
solve engineering problems.
Criterion 3-g: Communicate effectively (Secondary)
In the calculus sequence, students are expected to read problem statements,
develop a solution and write a clear and concise explanation of their solution.
Written explanations are evaluated through common exams, homework and
quizzes. Through teamwork, students are expected to communicate orally with
their peers. Teamwork is evaluated through the grading of the final submitted
team product.
Criterion 3-k: Use modern tools for engineering practice (Secondary)
Calculators and the CAS system provided with the text are used throughout the
calculus sequence. These technologies are tested through homework and quizzes.
Common exams, common homework sets, quizzes and worksheets are used
throughout the calculus sequence in the evaluation of criteria outcomes a, b(ii), e,
g. Common exams are developed through a collaborative effort of all of the
course instructors and are administered during the same testing period to all
students. Common exams ensure that all students are assessed in a consistent
manner with respect to the above-described outcomes. Criteria outcomes a, b(ii),
d, e, g, k are evaluated by course instructors through team activities. Criterion k is
further evaluated through homework and quizzes. Samples of each of these tools
are available in the course assessment notebook. Drop/Fail/Withdraw (DFW) rates
are also tracked by the department. The detailed MCS Assessment Plan and MCS
Departmental Goals and Objectives can be found at
http://www.mines.edu/Academic/assess/.
MACS315 is a coordinated course and is designed to support students in attaining
the following Criterion 3 outcomes.
Criterion 3-a: Apply knowledge of math, science and engineering (Primary)
In MACS 315, classical solution techniques are taught as tools for solving
problems in engineering and the applied sciences. Consequently, students are
expected to apply what they have learned for solving problems in engineering,
Physics, Chemistry, Economics, etc. Course exams, homework and quizzes reflect
this emphasis.
Criterion 3-e: Identify, formulate and solve engineering problems (Secondary)
Throughout this course, the instructors review various techniques from differential
equations that may be used to solve engineering problems. Students then use these
techniques to solve word problems embedded in an engineering context on
homework assignments, quizzes and common exams. These problems require
students to independently identify, formulate and solve engineering problems.
Criterion 3-g: Communicate effectively (Secondary)
In MACS 315, students are expected to read problem statements, develop a
solution and write a clear and concise explanation of their solution. Written
explanations are evaluated through common exams, homework and quizzes.
Criterion 3-k: Use modern tools for engineering practice (Secondary)
Throughout MACS 315, students are encouraged to use calculators to solve
engineering problems. Use of calculators is tested through homework and quizzes.
Common exams, homework and quizzes are used throughout MACS315 in the
evaluation of criteria outcomes a, e, and g. Criterion outcome k is evaluated
through homework and quizzes. Samples of each of these tools are available in the
course assessment notebook. Drop/Fail/Withdraw (DFW) rates are also tracked
by the department. The detailed MCS Assessment Plan and MCS Departmental
Goals and Objectives can be found at http://www.mines.edu/Academic/assess/.
Engineering Practices Introductory Course Sequence. As described in section
B.4.3.1, the Design (EPICS) program includes two courses, which all
undergraduate students must complete, EPIC151 and EPIC251. The Design
Engineering Practices Introductory Course Sequence (EPICS) implements the first
two years of the design stem. Design (EPICS) is a two-semester sequence of
courses for freshman and sophomores, designed to prepare students for their
upper-division design courses and to develop some of the key skills of the
professional engineer: the ability to solve complex, open-ended problems; the
ability to self-educate; and the ability to communicate effectively.
Within EPICS151 (EPICS I) and EPICS251 (EPICS II), the following ABET
Criteria 3 Outcomes have been identified and the activities students undertake in
this course that justify this identification is as follows.
Criterion 3-a: Apply knowledge of math, science and engineering (Primary)
The centerpiece of these courses is an open-ended problem that the students must
work in teams to solve. Projects must be carefully selected to provide a
challenging environment appropriate to students’ skill-levels in mathematics,
physics, and chemistry. An integral component of the projects, therefore, centers
on the application of fundamental mathematics, chemistry and physics concepts.
The following summary identifies a few of the examples of applications of these
concepts to the courses. A component of the EPICS I Visualization Laboratory in
devoted to geometric construction tying the use of mathematics to development of
construction drawings. A team not only uses these concepts to develop its
drawings but also to confirm that its specification meet the client’s requirements
(documented in the Design Report). The focus of EPICS II on data management
encourages a team to develop models of the problem situation. These simple
models evolve from basic mathematical, chemical, and physical concepts for the
system, component or process (documented in the Design Report). Specific
examples of the applications are found in reports filed in the course notebooks.
Criterion 3-b(ii): Analyze and interpret data (Primary, EPICS251 only)
Computer applications in EPICS II emphasize information acquisition and
processing based on knowing what information is necessary to solve a problem
and where to find the information efficiently. Teams are encouraged to use
computer-aided techniques to prepare an information-gathering plan (Access), to
analyze the problem (Excel, Project, CAD, ArcView, MathCAD, Simulation
Software), and to communicate results (Word, PowerPoint). Historically, a team
has been required to demonstrate the application of 5 commercial software
packages used for the solution of the project (documented in the Design Report).
A test case, based on the assessment process, has been implemented to evaluate
student competency through grades exercises, similar to the visualization exams
in EPICS I.
Criterion 3-c: Design a system, component or process (Primary)
The selection of projects for EPICS I emphasizes visual solutions to conceptual
engineering problems. Teams apply fundamental sketching techniques and CAD
computer packages, which graphically display a system, component or process.
The selection of projects for EPICS II emphasizes data analysis and construction
of simple model to support resource assessment. Teams apply commercial
computer packages to build models of systems, components or processes.
Examples of these designs can be found in the course notebooks (xxDE2DFP,
xxDE3DFP, xxDE4DFP and xxDE5DFP where xx represents the academic year).
Criterion 3-d: Function on multidisciplinary teams (Primary)
Educators have long been aware that industry needs people who can work well
together, primarily because the knowledge base required for decision-making is
frequently broader and deeper than one person can provide. In the EPICS
sequence, students work in teams of four-to-six with a mentor who directs four-tofive teams. The first-year engineering design environment, EPICS I, is a highly
competitive environment. The influence of an authentic client who interacted
with the team produces an environment that is more customer-oriented during the
second year, EPICS II. Research sponsored by the NSF support the need to study
successful teams and identified those factors that improved performance (quality
products and team satisfaction). Project management techniques guide the team
toward a quality product. Interpersonal communications plays a key role in the
performance of the team. Vertical integration creates a progressive learning
experience to teaming issues as students gain confidence through working in
teams. Primary emphasis toward the evaluation of this outcome centers on the
research into team dynamics
Criterion 3-e: Identify, formulate and solve engineering problems (Primary)
Engineering design, a complex, interactive, and creative decision-making process,
evolves as the design team synthesizes information, skills, and values to solve
open-ended problems. Through the sequence of EPICS courses, students build
confidence to address engineering design issues and projects, realizing the
importance, not only of the technical requirements but also the economic, societal,
and environmental requirements. The process provides a project situation in
which teams make decisions. It shifts in emphasis from creative thinking to
critical thinking as an engineering design process moves from 1) identifying the
needs to 2) implementing the design. A team focuses on activities to identify
needs, to develop specifications, to gather data and to define options with an
emphasis on creative thinking. The team prepares a proposal (design plan) to
implement the solution for the client. While analyzing its results, the team uses
graphical and analytical routines to assure accuracy and quality of their product
with an emphasis on critical thinking. The project enhances both creative and
critical thinking that comes from allowing teams to solve problems and to think
about the consequence of their decisions (documented in Design Reports).
Criterion 3-f: Understand ethical and professional responsibility (Secondary)
Historically, the EPICS courses have relied on projects to dictate exposure to the
ethical and professional issues of engineering. In 2003, Dr. C. Van Tyne
introduced the first workshop on ethics to the EPICS I program. Focused on the
issues of ethical decisions, workshop discussion evolved from the video: “Gilbane
Gold”. With the help of Ms. N. Van Tyne, the workshop series expanded to
engineering professionalism in 2005. In 2006, the series moved to EPICS II with
IEEE’s program on codes and standards. These workshops have introduced the
concepts of professionalism and ethics in a more formal format. Driven by
specific mentors within the program, the workshops evolved from faculty
meetings and assessment activities to improve the program at a level appropriate
for our students.
Criterion 3-g: Communicate effectively (Primary)
Almost all technical writing and oral presentation situations involve similar
elements—they are written for a particular audience and purpose, and they need to
be appropriately focused, coherent, and developed for that particular audience and
purpose. Writing assignments combines these elements to create various records,
which document the team’s progress through the design process. The Letter of
Understanding/Problem Definition defines the contract between the team and
client with respect to what are the needs of the project. The Project Plan outlines
the team’s strategy to resolve the design issues, forming a contract with the client
on how the problem will be solved. The team divides the issues to create
individual research areas documented in the Subsystems Analysis discussions.
All these documents combine to form different sections of the Design Report and
input to project marketing and presentation activities. The sequence produces a
logical order to evaluate students both individually and as a team following the
team’s progress throughout the project.
Criterion 3-h: Understand engineering solutions in context (Secondary,
EPICS151; Primary, EPICS251)
EPICS I introduces students to the concepts and processes of engineering design.
The course relies on various projects to expose students to the political, social,
and cultural settings of these projects. Teams have designed systems, components
and processes for clients with disabilities exposing them to the political and social
context of the project. Many of the students have followed the Playground
Equipment for Children with Disabilities project realizing that the political issues
and not the technical issues dominate the implementation of such equipment on
playgrounds today. EPICS II broadens the students’ exposures through the
diversity of projects with a variety of settings. The Emerging Project structure
features cultural projects through the International (EPICS) program in St Kitts,
Albania, Malaysia, and Mexico. The Universal Design projects feature projects
with a focus on access for all, not just those with disabilities. Energy projects
analyze issues of alternate sources, carbon emissions and environmental concerns
addressing all three settings.
Criterion 3-i: Recognize need for and engage in life-long learning (Secondary)
Although considered a secondary emphasis, the EPICS program reinforces the
need for self-learning, a process that continues throughout your career. Projects
are ambitious and take students to the edge of their abilities and invite them to go
beyond. Spread among the rigors of their mathematics, sciences, and engineering
classes; they learn the added value of applying their knowledge while it is fresh in
their minds. They gain the confidence to begin the project by define the
knowledge and processes necessary to address the design issues. They experience
the joy and satisfaction of completing a project that they perceived beyond their
abilities. Letters and comments from alumni document the assessment of this
criterion. As a CSM intern to NASA reported to the Director of the program, “I
was not intimidated by the project. I had the confidence to know that I would
have to do the research in order to educate myself about the project.” At
graduation, she accepted a job with a NASA contractor.
Criterion 3-k: Use modern tools for engineering practice (Primary)
The emphasis on tools within the EPICS program has historically been on the
computer packages used by engineers to generate and use models to analyze
systems. Teams also use the network to become familiar with engineering
equipment such as pumps and heat exchangers and to observe equipment
specifications necessary to refine designs currently in operations. As more and
more students enter the engineering field without exposure to technical
equipment, the program moved to a ‘design and build” methodology for EPIC I.
The construction phase of the project begins with safety, soldering and foam core
training clinics. Many teams push the boundaries of their technical skills as they
attempted to use a “BrainStem” or HOBO, electronic control and data storage
systems. EPICS II project such as the Playground Equipment for Children with
Disabilities, Solar Oven, and DemoSat enhance students’ learning through
construction of working models. Projects, such as the Tire Bale and Robotics,
require experimental testing to determine material properties that support the
team’s body of evidence and engineering design. The EPICS Shop features a
Model Shop consisting of a small-scale CNC mill/lathe/drill machine
(SolidWorks compatible) to create models or small prototypes.
In addition to the Primary and Secondary emphasis, EPICS I and EPICS II address
the other criteria frequently through the types of projects available to the students.
These examples are documented for reference and for illustration of the versatility
of the design sequence to the students’ learning.
Criterion 3-b(i): Design and conduct experiments
Engineering design projects often require teams to gather data through
experimentation. A team may need to design and conduct experiments to develop
specification critical to the design of its system, component or process. The Fall
2005 EPICS Challenge (Blackboard Chalk for Uzbekistan) for EPICS I required a
team to investigate and recommend the mixture of calcite and gypsum to produce
a stable, durable and pleasing chalk product. The Tactile Bird Project (sponsored
by Partners for Access to the Woods) for EPICS II required several teams of
students to design a test program to evaluate the impact of coatings on stainless
steel to enhance the aesthetics and reduce the temperature fluctuations (reduce
discomfort from touching) for tactile objects to be used in an outdoor
environment.
Criterion 3-j: Knowledge of Contemporary Issues
As a project-based course, the Design (EPICS) Program frequently receives
requests to undertake projects that address contemporary issues. Many of the
projects categorized as Universal Design address the issues of access for all. Mr.
G. Leonard of 2nd Segment, LTD sponsored several projects associated with the
design a sailing schooner for people with disabilities. Ms. C. Hunter of Partners
for Access to the Woods has led the effort to design and construct a tactile bird,
the American Dipper, for people who are blind. Dr. M. Young has sponsored
projects on Hybrid Cars and Hydrogen Fuels. Mr. E. R. Adcock from CM2H
sponsored a project on carbon emissions. Dr. R. Malhotra from ICAST has
sponsored several humanitarian projects, which include research and development
of an arsenic filter for rural communities. Mr. R. Hedlund from JDC introduced
the first-year students to blackboard chalk for Uzbekistan, a project that resulted
in the best student evaluations in recent years. Many of these projects are
included in assessment notebooks (xxDE2DFP, xxDE3DFP, xxDE4DFP and
xxDE5DFP where xx represents the academic year).
Activities to assess the students’ achievement of these outcomes focus primarily
on the products delivered to the clients. The Design (EPICS) Division compiles
notebooks each semester containing 1) design reports, 2) graphics portfolios, 3)
project notebooks, and 4) pictures of models and prototypes. These document the
design processes (problem formulation and solution; data analysis; system,
component, or process design; application of mathematics, sciences and
engineering and the tools of engineering). Team deliverables and mentor
feedback govern the evaluation of student and team communication skills.
Research serves as the major tool for teamwork issues. The Division uses
attitude, observation and evaluation surveys in conjunction with team
performance to develop activities for the classroom. Schedules and team
contracts, resulting from these studies evaluate team management and
interpersonal functions. Focus groups sessions, client comments, and external
reviews offer some insight into the ethical and contemporary issues, primarily
with respect to the projects.
Economics and Business. As described in section B.4.5.2. the Division of
Economics and Business hosts one course which all undergraduate students must
complete, EBGN201.
Within EBGN201, Principles of Economics, the following ABET Criteria 3
Outcomes have been identified and the activities students undertake in this course
that justify this identification is as follows.
Criterion 3-b(ii): Analyze and interpret data (Secondary)
The study of economics revolves around assembling and analyzing data on
various economic and business indicators, such as GDP growth, inflation,
unemployment, exchange rates, product prices in specific markets (e.g., oil),
consumption, and so on. Problem sets in this course and examination questions
focus on assembling and analyzing these data.
Criterion 3-d: Function on multidisciplinary teams (Secondary)
Students in EBGN 201 are encouraged to work in teams to complete problem sets
and, on occasion, written analyses of “real world” economic issues that are being
debated. The lecture session is broken down into much smaller groups for weekly
recitations where team work is often necessary to complete assigned tasks.
Included in these tasks may be joint writing assignments or presentations that the
students may be asked to present to the class.
Criterion 3-h: Understand engineering solutions in context (Primary)
Public and private organizations develop and implement engineering solutions in
the broader context of the economic, business, and public-policy environment in
which these organizations operate. This course exposes students to: the
macroeconomic environment in which organizations operate and the ways in
which economic growth, inflation, unemployment, monetary policy and fiscal
policy influence the viability of firms and their engineering solutions; and the
microeconomic environment and the ways in which technological change,
consumer preferences, labor markets, government policies and other factors
influence the viability of firms and their engineering solutions.
Criterion 3-i: Recognize need for and engage in life-long learning (Primary)
Many undergraduate students in engineering and the applied sciences come to
college with limited exposure to current events and public affairs. The study of
economics encourages students to read and develop informed opinions about
economic issues in the news and, in turn, encourages them to continue this
informed evaluation of economic issues once they leave the university.
Criterion 3-j: Knowledge of contemporary issues (Primary)
This course requires that students keep up with contemporary issues in the news—
macroeconomic issues such as economic growth, inflation, unemployment, and
Federal Reserve policy, and microeconomic issues such as high oil prices and
what (if anything) government should do in response, regulation of industry,
minimum-wage policies, and others. In addition this course has a special focus on
natural resource and environmental issues and how economists approach them
(environmental policy, sustainable development, “green” business, population
growth, biodiversity, and others).
Assessment of outcomes is based on: (a) within a semester, quizzes, homework
sets, and weekly meetings of the lead instructor and TAs to discuss student
performance, and (b) from semester to semester, by semi-annual reviews of
student performance involving the lead instructor, TAs, and the division director.
We also monitor the preparedness of students taking subsequent economics
courses that have EBGN 201 as a prerequisite (i.e., in subsequent courses, do
students have the tools that they should be learned in EBGN 201).
Geology and Geological Engineering. As described in section B.4.5.1. the
Department of Geology and Geological Engineering hosts one course which all
undergraduate students must complete, SYGN101.
Within SYGN101, Earth and Environmental Systems, the following ABET
Criteria 3 Outcomes have been identified and the activities students undertake in
this course that justify this identification is as follows.
Criterion 3-a: Apply knowledge of math, science and engineering (Primary)
This course utilizes knowledge of math and science to investigate a highly
complex system – the earth. Lectures focus on specific components of the earth
system – lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere, and biosphere, and use physical
science concepts to explain earth system mechanisms. Engineered systems and
their interaction with the earth system are utilized as examples throughout the
course. Standard tests on these materials are given four times during the semester.
Some sections have also utilized essay questions that require students to apply
their knowledge to current societal issues. The course includes an integrated
laboratory that focuses on the earth system in the Golden area. Students utilize
concepts from the course individually and in teams to solve problems dealing with
local cartographic and coordinate systems (map reading and orienteering), geology
(stratigraphy), geological engineering (soil types, natural hazards for
construction), and hydrology (surface and ground water quantity and quality).
Laboratories involve frequent quizzes as well as graded laboratory reports. The
reports include simple engineering calculations such as determining the maximum
volumes of water that flow between bridge abutments based on flood histories.
Criterion 3-h: Understand engineering solutions in context (Secondary)
The course investigates the interaction of engineering systems with earth systems.
The course deals with formation, acquisition, and use of natural resources such as
water, energy (fossil, solar, hydo, biomass, and geothermal), metals, earth building
materials, and soils. Emphasis is placed on concepts of sustainable development
and resource capacity. The concept of geologic time is utilized to better
understand human impacts on the earth system in context.
Criterion 3-j: Knowledge of Contemporary Issues (Secondary)
The SYGN 101 course is critical for Mines students in their exploration of
contemporary issues. The course deals with the scale of human engineered
systems in relation to the earth system. It provides the basis of understanding the
role of natural resources in human cultures and the concept of sustainable
development. Specific areas covered are energy, water, and mineral resources.
The course also examines natural hazards and disasters, their causes, and possible
engineered means of mitigation and preparedness. The course deals with these
questions and issues at global, national, and local scales.
The assessment of outcomes is overseen on a semester-to-semester basis by the
team of faculty and teaching assistants involved in presenting the course. Data for
this assessment comes from student scores, individual course evaluations (for
both the lecture and lab) from the students, and informal class surveys. The
Department has also created an ad hoc committee over the past 5 years that has
conducted an ongoing assessment tracking yearly results and comparing our
curriculum (and where possible student evaluations) to those at other schools with
similar courses. As a result of this assessment, the Geology and Geological
Engineering Department moved to take full control of this course in 2003 (it had
previously been co-taught with the Division of Environmental Science and
Engineering).
The laboratory manual for the course is produced in-house and emphasizes local
geoscience and engineering problems. There has been ongoing work to improve
laboratory exercises and an average of one problem per year has been modified
significantly. We continue to make the labs more “hands on” field problems
rather than in-class lab manual exercises; this work is on-going.
We have experimented with multiple forms of testing within the class including
both standardized and essay tests. Individual computerized “clickers” are also
being introduced to gauge student understanding through questions to the entire
group during lectures (when the course is taught in venues equipped with these
devices). Individual student projects dealing with applications of earth system
knowledge to societal problems have also been experimented with but discarded
due to steadily increasing class size.
Student Life. As described in section B.4.5.2, the Division of Student Life houses
all student affairs functions, Vice President of Student Life, Dean of Students,
career services, student counseling, disability services, student health services,
freshman advising, tutoring, admissions, financial aid, student activities, athletics,
public safety and residence life, at Colorado School of Mines. Its primary
contribution to the professional component of engineering education, therefore, is
in general education at the undergraduate level. In this role it hosts one course that
all undergraduate students must complete, CSM101.
Within CSM101, Freshman Success Seminar, the following ABET Criteria 3
Outcomes have been identified and the activities students undertake in this course
that justify this identification is as follows.
Criterion 3-f: Professional and Ethical Responsibility (Primary)
CSM101 is the only required course at CSM in which students receive instruction
on the Student Honor Code and the rules and regulations of the college
environment. Worksheet assignments and class discussion are used in the course
to teach students about campus policies, academic integrity and to help them
develop an understanding of the ethical responsibilities of being a student and an
engineering professional.
Criterion 3-i: The Need to Engage in Life-Long Learning (Secondary)
CSM101’s three learning objectives: become an integrated part of the CSM
community; explore, select and connect with a career field; and develop as a
person and as a student are exercises in understanding the importance of selfassessment, and the social and cultural interactions that affect their life as a
student and as a future professional. CSM101 introduces students to the
importance of connecting with peers, faculty, campus resources, academic support
programs and career services, culminating in a written statement of their personal
and professional goals. Specific assignments are made for students to join a
student organization, student chapter of a professional society, student
government or other groups on campus, as well as attend various educational and
social/recreational events. The Option Portfolio assignment combines career
exploration with attending a career fair and registering with the Career Center,
strengthening their knowledge of the dynamic nature of engineering fields and
careers.
Criterion 3-j: Knowledge of Contemporary Issues (Secondary)
As is clear from the foregoing description of CSM101’s contribution to
understanding the individual, cultural and societal contexts in which learning and
engineering takes place, CSM101 presents an opportunity for students to connect
with engineering professionals and college relations representatives, through
attending Career Day and presentations given by student chapters of professional
societies, gaining first-hand knowledge of employment trends, organizational
approaches, and core competencies related to engineering employment and labor
markets.
The Advising Coordinator conducts assessment of these outcomes annually. All
students, instructors and peer mentors, for all 70-75 sections of this course,
complete course evaluations. As a result of these evaluations, several curriculum
changes have been made since 2000, including solidifying the course objectives,
increasing the variety and number of suggested discussion topics for each class,
and replacing the number of written assignments with specific activites more
aligned with accomplishing the course objectives.
The following tables present the course evaluation results for 2003 and 2005.
Course Evaluation 2003
(5 highest to 1 lowest) n=509
Goal:
Importance
Become and
integrated part
of the Mines
community
Explore,
select, and
connect with a
career field
Develop as a
person and as
a student
4.10
Degree to
which
course met
this goal
3.88
4.34
4.01
4.05
3.57
Course Evaluation 2005
(5 highest to 1 lowest) n=725
Goal:
Importance Degree to
which
course met
this goal
Become and
4.18
4.01
integrated part
of the Mines
community
Explore,
4.36
4.08
select, and
connect with a
career field
Develop as a
4.20
3.69
person and as
a student
B.3.4.2 Program and Upper Division Curriculum
Within the Physics Department the Engineering Physics Program
Outcomes are achieved through the following procedures:
1. designing, configuring, delivering and periodically adapting a
curriculum whose sequence and selection of courses are consonant
with the program outcomes;
2. setting performance criteria for desired student achievement in the
area of each program outcome;
3. devising the implementation strategies (through student learning and
consequent advancement within the curriculum) that map the pathways
toward fulfillment of each outcome;
4. evaluating actual student achievement against the performance criteria,
using appropriate evaluation methods, and recording the measures of
student achievement; and
5. recognizing, to the extent that the measures meet or exceed the
performance criteria and to the extent signified by the advancement of
students, that the program is achieving its outcomes.
These procedures are carried out by faculty committees, by instructors, and
by the faculty in an academic unit through the leadership of the Department Head.
In particular, the responsibility for configuring and adapting the curriculum rests
with committees that are either institution-wide, for the core curriculum, or within
the department, for this program. The Assessment Committee and the Curriculum
Committee are examples of university committees that exercise oversight and
review of the common and distributed core components of the curriculum. The
Undergraduate Council, a standing committee of the Faculty Senate with broad
elected institutional representation, expedites on-going curriculum refinements
and adaptation. This Council deliberates, analyzes and approves, where
appropriate, curriculum and course changes within the core and within the
program areas. The relationship of the Engineering Physics component of the
curriculum to the Program Outcomes is given in Table B.3.4.1
Determinations of performance criteria and implementation strategies are
set by faculty consensus within the department. Cross-department faculty
consensus is sought for cross-disciplinary areas within the core and distributed
core. Individual faculty instructors operate within this framework, by setting
consistent learning objectives for individual courses and by evaluating student
achievement at the course level. Finally, the departmental faculty assess the
collective evidence of student achievements and gauge the extent to which the
program outcomes are being met.
As discussed in Section B.2.4, the Engineering Physics degree program is
managed through a multi-tiered process from broad to specific starting with the
Engineering Physics Program Objectives at the first level, realized through the
Program Outcomes at the next level which are in turn realized in the individual
course learning objectives at the third level. The assessment of the individual
course learning objectives are summarized in the Course Post-delivery Review
(B.3.4 Supplement I below).
Following the delivery of each course, the instructor assesses the degree
that the course learning objectives were met and makes recommendations for
improvements. Some of the recommendations can be implemented at the
instructor level, the others are passed to the Physics Undergraduate Council for
review and comment. The Program Outcomes are determined to be achieved
through an assessment program summarized in the Engineering Physics Program
Goals, Objectives, and Assessment Matrix (B.3.4 Supplement II below). The
Physics Department Head and Undergraduate Council review the assessment
program and assessment instruments discussed in the Assessment Matrix for
efficacy and coverage of the Program Objectives and Outcomes. The senior
design coordinator and individual student advisors have special assessment
responsibilities as identified in the Assessment Matrix. The Department Head
conducts the senior exit interviews and reviews alumni and employer feedback.
These results along with the individual course learning outcomes and the senior
design results are passed to the Physics Department Undergraduate Council,
which determines from the evaluation of this data if the Program Objectives are
being met and makes recommendations to the faculty and Department Head to
improve the program.
S
S
P
P
P
PHGN472
P
PHGN471
S
PHGN462
P
PHGN361
PHGN320
P
PHGN341
PHGN317
S
PHGN326
PHGN315
understand a broad array of physical phenomena in
terms of fundamentals
PHGN311
1b
PHGN384
have depth of understanding in principal disciplines of
physics
PHGN300
1a
DCGN210
Engineering Physics Program Outcomes
PHGN217
Engineering Physics Curriculum and Relation to Program Outcomes
S
P
P
P
S
S
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
be able to design and implement an experiment or
1c theoretical study to understand physical phenomena in
applied contexts
P
1d
be able to apply scientific understanding and models of
thinking in engineering physics contexts
S
S
P
P
1e
be able to use fundamental physical principles in the
design of a process, system, or component.
S
S
P
P
2a
be able to write a well-organized, logical, and
scientifically sound report
P
P
P
P
2b
be able to present a well-organized, logical, scientifically
sound, and audience appropriate oral report.
P
P
2c
be able to communicate and present information
electronically
P
P
3a
be able to work effectively in teams
S
S
3b
understand and appreciate the human dimensions of
their profession including the social cultural and
economic components.
P
P
3c
demonstrate high standards of ethical and professional
integrity
P
P
P: primary emphasis
P
P
P
S: secondary emphasis
P
P
P
S
S
S
S
(Lab courses are shaded)
Table B.3.4.1
B.3.4 (Supplement I) Course Post-delivery Review Form
Course Post-delivery Review
Course:
Term:
Instructor:
I. Learning Objectives (from course syllabus)
II. Evaluation Criteria and Assessment Instruments
III. Evaluation of Instruments relative to Learning Objectives
IV. Recommendations
V. Implementation Plan
B.3.4 (Supplement II) Engineering Physics Program Objectives, Outcomes, and Assessment Matrix
Program Educational Objective 1: All engineering physics graduates must have the factual knowledge and
other thinking skills necessary to construct an appropriate understanding of physical phenomena in an applied
context.
Program Outcomes
Performance Criteria
1a. Have depth of understanding in the principal 1. > 3.0 GPA across program in
fundamental disciplines of physics: mechanics, major subject courses
electromagnetism, optics, thermal and
statistical physics, and quantum mechanics.
Implementation Plan
Assessments Used
1. Design curriculum with adequate 1. Exams, HW, lab notebooks,
emphasis in subject areas
written and oral reports, senior
design reports
2. > 4/5 alumni satisfaction level on 2. Deploy instructors with area
surveys
expertise and excellence in
teaching
Evaluation and Feedback
1. Student course surveys and direct student
feedback to instructors
2. Review by DH and UG Council 2. Teaching evaluation and faculty teaching
of curriculum and instruction
development program
3. > 90% success rate in graduate 3. Coordinate topics and
3. GRE performance of graduate- 3. Realignment of curriculum sequencing and
school admissions
sequencing in Physics UG Council school bound students
emphasis by UG Council
and faculty retreat
4. ABET accreditation
4. Involve students in faculty
research through senior design
4. Longitudinal surveys of alumni 4. Curriculum and/or instruction modification
recommendations following annual Faculty
Retreat or External Visiting Committee
review
5. Implement quality advising
5. ABET and External Visiting
program to guide students in course Committee reports
selection
1b. Understand a broad array of diverse
physical phenomena in terms of fundamental
concepts.
1. Exposure to broad applications 1. Core and program courses
in subject courses
include wide diversity of
applications
2. > 90% success rate in Field
2. Deploy instructors with area
Session
expertise and/or industrial
experience
1. Review by UG Council and
Dept. Head
5. Resource allocations to address
weaknesses or new initiatives
1. Student course surveys and direct student
feedback to instructors
2. GRE performance of graduate 2. Curriculum and instruction
school bound students
recommendations from UG Council regarding
breadth coverage
3. Broad selection of elective
offerings in special topics by
majority of students
3. Coordinate topics and
3. Longitudinal surveys of alumni 3. Curriculum and/or instruction modification
sequencing in Physics UG Council
recommendations following annual Faculty
and at faculty retreat
Retreat or External Visiting Committee
review
4. High level participation in
4. Involve students in faculty
extramural physics events such as research
SPS , Colloquia, field trips, and
APS membership
4. ABET and External Visiting
Committee reports
4. Resource allocations to address
weaknesses or new initiatives
5. Implement advising program to
guide students in course selection
6. Provide extramural physics
activities such as SPS, colloquia,
and field trips
1c. Be able to design and implement an
1. Successful completion of senior 1. Quality supervision of senior
1. Senior design and advanced lab 1.Ongoing instructor review of student
experiment or theoretical study to understand a design project
design program
reports
performance
physical phenomenon in an applied context.
2. > 90% success rate in advanced 2. Faculty teach and model skills in 2. Senior design coordinator
laboratory courses
laboratory courses
evaluation with targeted criteria
3. Overall faculty supervisor
3. Laboratory reports
satisfaction with students working
in research groups
2. UG review and feedback to senior design
coordinator and advisors
3. Curriculum and/or instruction modification
recommendations following annual Faculty
Retreat or External Visiting Committee
review
4. Alumni and employer satisfaction
4. Resource allocations to address
weaknesses or new initiatives
4. ABET and External Visiting
Committee reports
1d. Be able to apply scientific understanding
and models of thinking in engineering physics
contexts.
1. >90% success rate in advanced 1. Quality supervision of senior
laboratory courses
design program
1. Senior design and advanced lab 1.Ongoing instructor review of student
reports
performance
2. Faculty supervisor satisfaction 2. Faculty teach and model skills in 2. Alumni survey forms
for students working in research laboratory courses
groups
2. UG review and feedback to senior design
coordinator and advisers
3. Alumni and employer satisfaction
3. Senior exit interviews
3. Curriculum and/or instruction modification
recommendations following annual Faculty
Retreat or External Visiting Committee
review
4. ABET and External Visiting
Committee reports
4. Resource allocations to address
weaknesses or new initiatives
1e. Be able to use fundamental physics
1. Successful competion of senior 1. Quality supervision of senior
principles in the design of a process, system, or design project
design program
component.
2. Alumni and employer satisfaction 2. Faculty teach and model model
skills in laboratory courses
3. >90% success rate in advanced
laboratory courses
4. Faculty supervisor satisfaction
for students working in research
groups
1. Senior design and advanced lab 1.Ongoing instructor review of student
reports
performance
2. Senior design coordinator
evaluation with targeted criteria
3. Alumni survey forms
2. UG review and feedback to senior design
coordinator and advisers
3. Curriculum and/or instruction modification
recommendations following annual Faculty
Retreat or External Visiting Committee
review
4. Senior exit interviews
4. Resource allocations to address
weaknesses or new initiatives
4. ABET and External Visiting
Committee reports
Program Educational Objective 2: All engineering physics graduates must have the ability to communicate
effectively.
Outcomes
2a. Be able to write a well-organized,
logical, scientifically sound physics
research paper or engineering physics
report.
Performance Criteria
1. >85%average score on
rubric-graded senior design
reports
Implementation Plan
1. Writing Across the
Curriculum program
Assessments Used
1. Senior design and
advanced lab reports
Evaluation and Feedback
1.Ongoing instructor review of student
performance
2. >80%of graduating seniors 2. Quality supervision of senior 2. Senior design coordinator 2. UG review and feedback to senior
agree with the statement: " I design program
evaluation with targeted
design coordinator and advisors
feel confident in expressing
criteria
myself in writing"
3. >85%success rate in
advanced laboratory written
reports
3. Faculty teach and model
skills in laboratory courses
4. Faculty supervisor
satisfaction for student written
work in research groups
2b. Be able to present a well-organized, 1. >85%average score on
logical, scientifically sound, and audience rubric-graded oral senior
appropriate oral report on an applied
design reports.
physics topic.
3. Alumni survey forms
4. Senior exit interviews
1. Presentation skills taught in 1. Senior design and
EPICS and reinforced in senior advanced lab reports
design
2. >80%of graduating seniors 2. Faculty teach and model
agree with the statement: " I skills in laboratory courses
feel confident in expressing
myself in orally"
3. Curriculum and/or instruction
modification recommendations following
Faculty Retreat or External Visiting
Committee review
4. Resource allocations to address
weaknesses or new initiatives
1.Ongoing instructor review of student
performance
2. Senior design coordinator 2. UG review and feedback to senior
evaluation with targeted
design coordinator and advisers
criteria
3. >85%success rate in
advanced laboratory oral
reports
3. Alumni survey forms
3. Curriculum and/or instruction
modification recommendations following
Faculty Retreat or External Visiting
Committee review
4. Faculty supervisor
satisfaction for student oral
presentations in research
groups
4. Senior exit interviews
4. Resource allocations to address
weaknesses or new initiatives
1. Senior design and
advanced lab reports
1.Ongoing instructor review of student
performance
2c. Be able to communicate and present 1. >85%average score on
information electronically including
rubric-graded reports
appropriate use of multimedia modes.
1. Electronic and multimedia
skills taught in EPICS and
reinforced in senior design
2. >80%of graduating seniors 2. Faculty teach and model
agree with the statement: " I skills in laboratory courses
feel confident in expressing
myself using electronic and
multimedia modes."
2. Senior design coordinator 2. UG review and feedback to senior
evaluation with targeted
design coordinator and advisors
criteria
3. >85%success rate in
advanced laboratory courses
3. Alumni survey forms
3. Curriculum and/or instruction
modification recommendations following
Faculty Retreat or External Visiting
Committee review
4. Faculty supervisor
satisfaction for students
working in research groups
4. Senior exit interviews
4. Resource allocations to address
weaknesses or new initiatives
Program Educational Objective 3: Throughout their careers engineering physics graduates should be able to
function effectively in society as professionals.
Outcomes
3a. Be able to work effectively in teams
and exercise leadership at appropriate
times in their careers.
3b. Understand and appreciate the
human dimensions of their profession,
including the diverse social, cultural,
economic and international aspects of
their professional activities.
Performance Criteria
1. >85%of students score
satisfactory for teamwork in a
team-related experience
Implementation Plan
Assessments Used
Evaluation and Feedback
1. Teamwork skills taught in 1. Senior design and summer 1.Ongoing instructor review of student
EPICS and reinforced in senior field session team projects
performance
design
2. >80%of graduating seniors 2. Faculty teach and model
agree with the statement: " I skills in laboratory courses
feel confident working in
teams"
2. Senior design and field
2. UG review and feedback to senior
session coordinator evaluation design coordinator and advisers
with targeted criteria
3. > 90%successful completion
of EPICS sequence
3. Alumni survey forms
4. Successful SPS leadership
4. Senior exit interviews
5. Alumni and employer
satisfaction
5. Peer evaluations
1. Alumni and employer
satisfaction
1. EPICS and Nature and
Human values curriculum and
reinforced in senior design
6. SPS Advisor evaluates
leadership
1. Alumni survey forms
3. Curriculum and/or instruction
modification recommendations following
Faculty Retreat or External Visiting
Committee review
1.Ongoing instructor review of student
performance
2. >80%of graduating seniors 2. Curriculum coverage in
2. Senior design and field
2. UG review and feedback to senior
agree with the statement: " I senior design and field session session coordinator evaluation design coordinator and advisers
appreciate the relation of my
with targeted criteria
profession to society."
3. ABET Accreditation
3. Quality supervision of senior 3. Senior exit interviews
design program
4. Faculty teach and model
skills in laboratory courses
3c. Demonstrate high standards of ethics 1. Alumni and employer
and professional integrity in the conduct of satisfaction
their professional activities.
3. Curriculum and/or instruction
modification recommendations following
Faculty Retreat or External Visiting
Committee review
4. Peer evaluations
1. EPICS and Nature and
1. Alumni survey forms
Human values curriculum and
reinforced in senior design
1.Ongoing instructor review of student
conduct
2. >80%of graduating seniors 2. Quality coordination of senior 2. Senior design and field
2. UG review and feedback to senior
agree with the statement: " I design program
session coordinator evaluation design coordinator and advisors
understand the ethics inherent
with targeted criteria
in my profession."
3. ABET Accreditation
3. Faculty teach and model
skills in laboratory courses
3. Senior exit interviews
3. Curriculum and/or instruction
modification recommendations following
Faculty Retreat or External Visiting
Committee review
B.3.5. Metric Goals Necessary to Produce Desired Graduates
Instructors in each course has identified in their Post-delivery Reviews the
criteria for evaluation indicating the degree to which course learning objectives
have been attained. At the program level, the Engineering Physics Program
Objectives, Outcomes, and Assessment Matrix (B.3.4 Supplement II) lists the
quantitative and qualitative performance criteria for the Program Outcomes that
indicate achievement of the Program Objectives.
B.3.6. Data and Analysis Used to Assess Achievement of Outcomes
Instructors in each course have identified in their Post-delivery Reviews
the assessment data used to evaluate the degree to which course learning
objectives have been attained. At the program level the Engineering Physics
Program Objectives, Outcomes, and Assessment Matrix (B.3.4 Supplement II)
lists the assessments and evaluations used for the Program Outcomes that indicate
achievement of the Program Objectives.
B.3.7. Processes for Achieving Program Improvement
At the course level individual instructors seek to improve the delivery and
coordination of their courses documented by the Course Post-delivery Review
form and course notebooks. The Engineering Physics Program Objectives,
Outcomes, and Assessment Matrix (B.3.4 Supplement II) lists the principal
feedback mechanisms intended to continuously improve the program. Central
among these are the External Visiting Committee reports and the Faculty Retreats
which include guest faculty from the Engineering Division representing our
Engineering graduate school constituency.
Program improvement in Engineering Physics is designed to occur at three
levels in response to changing constituent needs as well as pedagogic, economic
and professional developments. Each level has a characteristic time scale over
which change can be effected. The Engineering Physics Program Objectives,
through the input and assessment processes described in Section B.2.3, are
designed to respond to changing constituent needs on the time scale of 3-6 years.
Engineering Physics' Program Outcomes respond to changing Program
Objectives, institutional direction, and pedagogic, economic, and professional
developments on the time scale of 1-2 years, and finally the curriculum and
instruction respond to the assessment and evaluation of the Program Outcomes on
the time scale of an academic year. The individual course curriculum and
instruction can respond to assessments and evaluation each time they are
delivered.
The internal processes related to the implementation of EC2000 offer one
example of the process effecting a change in the goals of Engineering Physics.
Since ABET is the principal engineering accrediting body in the US, the EC2000
criteria themselves represent input from the professional engineering constituency.
Prior to EC2000, for example, the only objectives listed were the institutional
ones articulated in the CSM Graduate Profile. Through the EC2000 preparation
process the Physics Department faculty adopted the literacy objectives described
in B.2. These changes in turn led to an expansion of program outcomes which in
turn led to physics curricular reforms.
With the adoption of an outcomes based approach to academic
management several changes have been made to the Engineering Physics
curriculum and instruction modes. The following is a list course level and
program level changes. The course level changes are documented in the course
notebooks. The program level changes are documented in Faculty Meeting
Minutes, Undergraduate Council Reports, and Faculty Retreat reports.
Course level changes:
Electronics Lab sequence (PHGN215/317)
PHGN 215 Analog Electronics – Based on feedback from senior exit
interviews as well as from faculty, the analog circuits courses were
reformed from DCGN381 (Electronic Circuits, 3 credits) and PHGN217
(Analog Lab, 1 credit) to PHGN215 (Analog Circuits, 3 credits lecture, 1
credit lab). This allowed the lab sequence to match the topics, pace, and
order of material presented in lecture. Due to increased demand, the lab
was expanded from 9 electronic work stations to 18 presently. This
maintains the quality of an individual design experience for all students
even though our class size has doubled in the past four years. We have
also reduced the number of labs performed by one in 2006 – from ten to
nine. Based on assessment feedback, the pace of the lectures was reduced
and basic design fundamentals emphasized.
PHGN317 Semiconductor Circuits-Digital – This lab uses the same
electronics laboratory as Analog Circuits; so the expansion to 18 electronic
workstations has been similarly critical to PHGN317 for maintaining a
quality, individual laboratory experience. An additional lecture section for
the LabVIEW component of the course was added so the students could do
LabVIEW programming in each class individually. In 2005, the digital
electronics lectures were implemented in power point format. The
motivation for going to an electronic format to allow more time to discuss
circuit design and operations. Student assessments of the new format were
overwhelmingly favorable.
Advanced Lab sequence (PHGN315/326)
The design content of the EP curriculum was expanded by in the
junior lab sequence by expanding the credit hour designation to two
2-credit hour courses, PHGN315 (first semester junior) and
PHGN326 (second semester junior) to coordinate better with the
revised modern physics courses, PHGN300 (or PHGN310, the
honors section), Modern Physics I, Introductory Modern Physics
(second semester sophomore or first semester junior) and
PHGN320, Modern Physics II: Basics of Quantum Mechanics
(second semester junior). The delivery mode of the labs was
modified to allow for more hands-on student involvement in the
design of the experiments and in the in situ data analysis. Both
courses are designated “writing intensive course”; therefore a
significant written report is required for each laboratory. The
advanced laboratories have undergone major equipment upgrades
and are now outfitted with standard geometrical optics, physical
optics, modern physics lab apparatus, photon and particle counting
equipment, some of which is surplus from the research programs.
Over the past three years we have significantly modernized and
upgraded the equipment with Tech Fee grants and other sources of
institutional funding. Most of the experiments are now supported
by computer-interfaced data acquisition systems such as
multichannel analyzer cards installed in PCs. Equipment is
available for all of the experiments listed in the syllabi (Appendix
IB). Plans for improvement of this facility in order to increase the
number of stations and reduce the number of students per team (or
the capacity of the lab) are under way.
Apparatus Design (PHGN384)
In 2001 the use of specialized parallel port electronic interfaces
developed by the engineering department was introduced in the
electronics module of PHGN384 (Apparatus Design). Through a
Tech Fee grant, the choice of interfacing software as changed to
Labview from HP-Vee based on feedback from the engineering
community that Labview was the industry standard. In 2002, the
machine shop portion of the field session was reduced due to
overcrowding. The vacuum module was significantly upgraded
using a $31k Tech Fee proposal in 2003. In 2004 a module on
Solidworks was introduced to complement the machine shop and a
module on optical design was created by Dr. Matt Young. As the
number of students grew to above 60 in 2005, the number of field
trips was expanded from 2 to 5 to reduce the load on the hosting
institutions. The donation of optical equipment from Dr. Jeff
Squier and the movement of the advanced lab to MH263/275
enabled the expansion of the optics module led by Dr. Frank
Kowalski. Also, the vacuum module was expanded through an
$18k Tech Fee grant. In 2006 lectures on communications, library
searches (databases, literature search engines, interlibrary loans,
citations), graduate studies, REUs, career center (Diggernet,
internships, preparing resume), safety, and professional
organizations were added.
Thermodynamics sequence (DCGN210/PHGN341)
Based on a review of the curriculum and senior exit interviews, the
introductory engineering thermodynamics was changed from DCGN209,
which emphasized phase equilibrium, to DCGN210, which emphasized
cycles. Based on this foundation change, the curriculum of PHGN341 was
modified to emphasis the statistical foundations of thermodynamics.
Instructional modes were modified to include more in-class thinking
through "go-to-the-board" exercises and personal response questions.
Introduction to Mathematical Physics (PHGN311)
With respect to Fall 2003, PH311 in Fall 2005 (i) changed texts back to a
more pedagogically-structured (rather than more reference-oriented) text;
(ii) included a broader range of non-text problems in problem sets,
including use of dimensionless variables, the tools of time series analysis,
least squares analysis, and (iii) more explicitly acknowledged the relative
weakness of students in ordinary differential equations, since their math
preparation ceases at constant-coefficient ODEs. A reform of the
intermediate mathematical component of the curriculum is currently under
study. This reform would require MACS 332 (Linear Algebra) prior to
PH311 thereby allowing a redistribution of topics permitting greater
emphasis on other topics.
Intermediate Mechanics (PHGN350)
Minor improvements have been adjusting the emphasis on course material,
for example reducing the emphasis on harmonic oscillators (adequately
covered in differential equations) while retaining those concepts not
covered, such as Fourier series and Green's functions. This allowed more
emphasis on rigid body motion in general and expanded examples of
Lagrangian formulations, such as the symmetric top. Improvements in
instruction includes more group examinations and computer-based
projects. Computer-based projects allows for much more complex
examples.
Electricity and Magnetism sequence (PHGN361/PHGN462)
Since 2000, heavy reliance on symbolic computation for homework and
problem solving has been emphasized. In 2003 interactive student
response technology was included in the lectures. Enabled by an HP grant,
wireless tablet technology was introduced in 2006. This has allowed the
instructor to directly observe in real time the way students are thinking
about concepts. It has also enabled much wider use of peer to peer
communication as well as extensive use of Java applets in demonstrations
and homework. Exploiting this technology required a major upgrade to
the wireless bandwidth in Meyer Hall. From 2002-2006, the Physics
Department has made several changes to the curriculum of the advanced
electromagnetism course (PHGN462) to better meet the needs of the
students and to provide them with an introduction to some areas of physics
that are relevant to the research done at CSM and in which they may be
working on senior design projects. From 2002-04, there was an increased
emphasis on areas relating to optical physics: diffraction and interference,
dispersion and polarization at the expense of some of the traditional
material on electromagnetic waves. As the numbers of electives in optics
have increased, we have restored some of the truncated wave material and
crafted a selection of topics that still uses applications to optics as a focus,
but also includes areas of electromagnetism that are applicable to other
areas of physics and technology, such as radiation and antenna theory, and
metallic waveguides. To help get the physical principles across to the
students, as well as to show them the applicability of the theory to the real
world, we have developed a series of new lecture demonstrations.
Modern Physics sequence (PHGN310/PHGN320)
The topics covered in modern physics sequence have remained virtually
unchanged since its inception: a chronological survey of modern physics
topics (PH310) followed by a more mathematically rigorous introduction
to quantum theory. Faculty assessments indicated a need to strengthen the
second course. In 2001, the Physics Department changed the curriculum
for the Modern Physics II course, raising the credit content from 3 to 4
credit hours. The subject matter of the course is quantum mechanics (QM)
and its applications, a critical area for many modern areas of science and
technology. Since this course provides the most advanced quantum
mechanics that is required of our majors, it was deemed important to
increase the depth and sophistication of the instruction. As a result, the
course begins with the fundamentals of quantum mechanics in one
dimension, taking the opportunity of the review of the material to
introduce the students to the more formal mathematical structure of
quantum mechanics that is essential to understanding the theory. The
course then proceeds to cover topics of QM in 3 dimensions and
multiparticle effects. Along with the more advanced treatment, we have
increased the use of computer-based demonstrations and in-class personalresponse devices. The students gain experience in using symbolic
computation to perform calculations and visualizations so they can better
understand the fundamentals and also apply what they have learned to lessidealized situations.
Elective Courses
PHGN422-Nuclear Physics
Examples of outcome materials include in-class discussions,
homework and student presentations. Horizontal assessments of
program outcomes are made primarily through homework and the
peer reviewed student presentation. Vertical assessments are
provided by senior exit interviews by the Department Head. The
assessment materials have been evaluated and improvements
recommended. Example improvements in recent offerings include
use of different books and inclusions of more applied medical
topics.
PHGN435-Microelectronics Processing Laboratory
The primary assessment tools are student presentations, written reports,
student success in lab procedures, student lab notebooks, and student
evaluations. Students are also asked, informally, to provide comments and
suggestions directly to the instructor. Each year the instructors, Wolden
and Collins, use the above to guide improvements to the course which in
the last few years these have included: Equipment upgrades such as adding
a thickness monitor to the evaporator, automating the characterization
station which tended to be a student bottleneck and adding more computer
stations to more easily access web based procedures. Addition of process
simulation (Suprem IV). Change of the final project from development of
an open ended process defined by the students, which tended not to work,
to fabrication of either a bipolar or MOSFET transistor. Students are still
asked to develop their own process, but the instructor feedback on their
process can be guided by prior experience making the chances of success
much higher. Changes of presentation evaluations to a rubric format. Use
of classroom communicator system in lectures. Changes of grading to
include an evaluation of each student's participation in their team
activities.
PHGN440-Solid State Physics
In the past this course was cross-listed as MLGN502 which allowed
Materials Science graduate students received 3 hrs of graduate credit upon
completion of extra assignments. Physics students could only take the
course as PHGN440. MLGN502 was part of the common core for the
Materials Science graduate program. So, approximately half of the class
came from the diverse backgrounds that are characteristic of this program.
This heterogeneous mix presented significant problems for the instructor.
Typically the Materials Science students were less prepared in quantum
mechanics, statistical mechanics, Fourier analysis, and general
mathematical skills, compared to the physics undergraduates. Recently the
Materials Science program has eliminated MLGN502 as a required course.
This opened up the opportunity to teach the class at a more advanced level,
appropriate to an upper division physics elective. Rather than spending
class time on reviews of fundamental principles in those areas where the
Materials Science students were weak, the instructor now assumes this
background. Those students still taking the class as MLGN502 are
typically the ones who are better prepared, since they are focusing on
physics-related options within the Materials Science program. This has
worked quite well, and has enabled the instructor to provide all of the
students with a quality introduction to solid state physics.
PHGN450-Computational Physics
After a five year hiatus, Computational Physics was offered again in the
Fall of 2005. Based on feedback from the director of the CSM Mechanical
Engineering graduate program, it was determined that the needs of the 5
year B.S. Engineering Physics/ M.S. Mechanical Engineering students
would be best met by co-teaching this course with the Engineering
Division . A review of past curricula revealed that the previous offerings
emphasized physics examples exclusively indicating a need to improve the
applied science and engineering topics content. With the cooperation of
the Engineering Division, the course was co-taught with EGGN502
(Simulation and Modeling). The course is now organized around a
sequence of alternating physics and engineering projects.
Senior Design sequence (PHGN471/472)
Post-delivery course review and the faculty retreat identified several opportunities
for improvement, and the following changes were implemented.
1. To improve project planning and management as well as provide
experience with client communication, the course begins with a formal
proposal, graded by the course adviser and approved by the project
adviser. The proposal allows the course adviser to ensure that projects are
well-rounded and also serves as a contract between the student and the
project adviser. The project adviser informs the course adviser if the
proposal is not acceptable.
2. Based on past experience, advisers were discouraged from suggesting
demonstration projects and asked to involve the students in realistic
research or engineering environments.
3. To insure an appropriate amount of time is spent on the project, time
sheets were introduced and used at discretion of project adviser.
4. A new grading rubric was introduced to address concerns that
performance grades were too subjective and not uniform.
6. Instructional units on technical writing, intellectual property, philosophy
of science, ethics were added, and a separate ethics paper was assigned.
7. An award for best poster paper was added.
Program level changes:
Reduced total credits from 134.5 to 130.5.
Increased design component by expanding credit content in
Advanced Lab I and II from one to two.
Altered thermo sequence from DCGN209 (Chemical Thermo) to
DCGN210 (Engineering Thermo) including better coordination.
Greater emphasis on writing in "writing intensive" courses
Greater emphasis on oral communication by adopting professional
meeting style short talks in senior design.
Greater emphasis on communication by adopting professional
meeting style poster presentations in senior design (including a
"Best Poster" award).
Greater emphasis on the defining the open-ended constrained design
process
Better advising for 5-year program students
B.3.8. Evidence Verifying Program Improvement
The segment of this program that resides in the institution-wide core
curriculum has been subject to improvement through the mechanism of
institutional curriculum reform, as described in the separate volume on
Institutional Actions since the Last General Review. This volume, together with
its appendices and references, embodies much of the evidence for institutional
program improvement. In addition, the files of the curriculum reform project
containing reports, data, proposals, publications, minutes, mini-grant projects, and
general notes express many relevant details. Finally, there are a number of focused
reports on assessment and program improvement activities that relate to core
subject areas.
Evidence of changes which resulted from the assessment-feedback process
include: reformed program curriculum, reformed instruction modes, revised
advising forms and recruitment brochures, changes in specific course curricula,
altered course sequencing, altered course credit content, altered course content,
reassignment of faculty, new and/or modified allocation of resources, an altered
advising process, and adoption of 5-year programs.
B.3.9. Description of Materials Available for Review
While the bulk of the pertinent evidence demonstrating student
achievement of objectives necessarily falls within the domain of each engineering
program, it is worth noting that there are some miscellaneous institutional
indicators that relate to this discussion. Although these are not connected to the
program objectives per se, it can be argued that success on the institutional
indicators would not be forthcoming in the absence of student achievement of the
program objectives. In this respect, the following "institutional" evidential
materials will be available for review:

employment records for graduating seniors, as documented in the
Career Center Annual Reports;

Colorado School of Mines responses to the Colorado Commission on
Higher Education's Quality Indicator System, especially the detailed
1998 version that preceded the Commission's changed rulings for
1999;

miscellaneous student satisfaction surveys; and

an institution-wide aggregation of recruiter opinions on the
conformance of CSM graduating seniors to the statements in EC2000
Criterion 3.
With respect to the Engineering Physics Program, of the evidence listed
above, the following are available for review:
1. Student academic record and performance measures :
a. student transcripts (curricular coverage, GPA, GPA in major,
specific course grades)
b. samples of student work (examinations, homework, reports, lab
reports, Senior Design reports, etc.)
c. results from nationally-normed examinations (Graduate Record
Examination)
2. Placement records (industry and graduate school)
3. Constituent satisfaction measures
a. Citizens of the State of Colorado - Colorado Commission on
Higher Education Program of Excellence recognition.
b. Graduate programs - External Visiting Committee reports and
feedback from Engineering Division faculty.
c. alumni - nationally normed surveys
d. employers from government labs, and microelectronics and
defense industries- External Visiting Committee reports