ABET
Self-Study Report
for the
Mechanical Engineering
at
Middle East Technical University
Ankara, TURKEY
April 2009
CONFIDENTIAL
The information supplied in this Self-Study Report is for the confidential use of ABET and
its authorized agents, and will not be disclosed without authorization of the institution
concerned, except for summary data not identifiable to a specific institution.
1
Table of Contents
1.
CRITERION 1. STUDENTS ........................................................................................... 4
2.
CRITERION 2. PROGRAM EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES................................ 11
3.
CRITERION 3. PROGRAM OUTCOMES................................................................. 17
4.
CRITERION 4. CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT................................................... 31
5.
CRITERION 5. CURRICULUM .................................................................................. 35
6.
CRITERION 6 FACULTY ........................................................................................... 49
7.
CRITERION 7. FACILITIES ....................................................................................... 64
8.
CRITERION 8. SUPPORT ........................................................................................... 65
9.
CRITERION 9 PROGRAM CRITERIA ..................................................................... 66
10.
GENERAL CRITERIA FOR MASTERS LEVEL PROGRAMSERROR! BOOKMARK NOT D
11.
APPENDIX A – COURSE SYLLABI ........................................................................... 68
12.
APPENDIX B – FACULTY RESUMES ....................................................................... 69
13.
APPENDIX C – LABORATORY EQUIPMENT ........................................................ 70
14.
APPENDIX D – INSTITUTIONAL SUMMARY ........................................................ 71
15.
APPENDIX E – SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL .................................................... 72
2
Self-Study Report
Mechanical Engineering
Bachelor of Science
Middle East Technical University
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. Contact information
Professor Suha Oral
Chairman
Mechanical Engineering Department
Middle East Technical University
06531 Ankara, Turkey
Phone: +90 312 210 2539
Fax: +90 312 210 2536
E-mail: oral@metu.edu.tr
Website: http://www.me.metu.edu.tr/
B. Program History
Mechanical Engineering (ME) undergraduate program is the second program of the Middle
East Technical University (METU) implemented in 1956.
The last major change in the curriculum was implemented in 1990 after a one-year long and
extensive departmental effort, converting the earlier two-stem-option track and rather rigid
structure into today's elective driven senior year structure.
In order to harmonize with the new core curriculum requirements brought by the Faculty of
Engineering in 1993, two new courses (ME 200 Mechanical Engineering Orientation and Free
Elective) are introduced one in the beginning of the 2nd year and the other in the senior year,
and credits of those courses higher than three were reduced to three thereby making a uniform
credit distribution among courses and also reducing the total credits down to 142 for
graduation.
From that point on, there have been rather small scale fine tunings made in the curriculum in
order to satisfy different requirement at each change:

In 2000, a new course, ENG 311 Advanced Communication Skills, was added to the
curriculum as a general university requirement set by the university Senate, related to
the general education area of the ME curriculum. This course had 3 credits and
aimed at developing communication skills in a business context. However, its status
has been changed from compulsory to non-technical elective by the university Senate
1
again, effective for students enrolling the programs in 2006 and later. The
department decided to remove this added course from the curriculum.

As of 2004-2005 academic year, one of the technical electives taken by seniors is
restricted to a pool of courses, ME 403, ME 421, ME 426 ve ME 437, all regarded as
design courses in the area of thermal systems. By this arrangement, it is aimed to
have the students gain the ability to work in the area of thermal systems next to
mechanical systems, which is handled in the compulsory capstone design course ME
407.

As of 2004-2005 academic year, students are allowed to take one of the technical
electives from engineering departments other than mechanical engineering provided
that there is no substantial overlap between the courses in student's undergraduate
program.

Because sufficient emphasis on "engineering ethics" and "safety" were not placed in
the curricula of most departments, the Faculty Academic Board decided to include
these topics in all engineering undergraduate curricula. In the Mechanical
Engineering curriculum, as of 2004-2005 academic year the "engineering ethics"
topic was included to ME 200 and ME 407 courses, and the "laboratory safety" topic
was added to ME 200 and ME 410 courses.

There have been frequent changes in the contents, credits, and names of mathematics
courses in first three semesters of the curriculum, as a result of continuous
improvements efforts by the Faculty of Engineering and Mathematics Department.
The very last change involved a credit increase in MATH 119 Calculus with
Analytical Geometry and MATH 120 Calculus for Functions of Several Variables
courses from 4 to 5, and in MATH 219 Introduction to Differential Equations from 3
to 4, effective 2006-2007 academic year. These changes increased the total credits up
to 145 for graduation.
The B.S. program of the department was evaluated by ABET in 1996 and received a
substantial equivalency status. The program was again successfully evaluated by ABET in
2004 according to the ABET 2000 criteria.
C. Options
There are no options, tracks, concentrations included in the program.
D. Organizational Structure
To be provided by the Dean’s office.
E. Program Delivery Modes
The ME program is offered through daytime classes during fall and spring semesters. Some
courses are also offered during summer schools but not on regular basis.
2
F. Deficiencies, Weaknesses or Concerns from Previous Evaluation(s) and the Actions
taken to Address them
No deficiencies, weaknesses, or concerns were documented in the Final Report in the
previous ABET general evaluation.
3
1. CRITERION 1. STUDENTS
A. Student Admissions
Key to the quality and performance of students in any educational program is the admission or
selection process through which they enter the program. METU Mechanical Engineering
(ME) Department admits top quality undergraduates through the Student Selection
Examination (ÖSS), a very competitive nationwide examination. ÖSS scores combined with
the applicants’ high school performances and their preferences on programs and universities
are used in their placements to individual programs of all universities by the Student Selection
and Placement Center (ÖSYM), a nationwide institution. Over 1.5 million applicants take this
examination each year and only those within approximately first 5500 become eligible to
enroll in the METU ME undergraduate program. A vast majority of students in the
department are admitted through this process. A very limited number of students, each being
the top ranked in their high schools are also admitted with a somewhat lower score through a
2% enrollment quota reserved for them. The history of admission standards for freshmen
admissions for past five years is provided in Table 1-1. Note that there is a drop in the ranks
of the admitted students in the Academic Year 2008. In this particular year, no new students
graduated from the high-schools in Turkey due to the extension of basic education from 11 to
12 years. Therefore, candidates took ÖSS examination in 2008 were high school graduates of
previous years, forming not a representative applicant population.
Table 1-1 History of Admissions Standards for Freshmen Admissions for Past Five Years
ÖSS Score
Academic
Year
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
MIN.
354.750
361.012
349.846
364.216
363.447
Rank in ÖSS
AVG.
358.250
363.507
354.130
366.626
365.669
MIN.
5281
3393
3937
3508
2873
AVG.
3662
2439
2745
2493
2148
Number of
New Students
Enrolled
185+5
180+5
180+5
170+5
180+5
Other students are admitted to the program through;




Foreign Student Examination (YÖS), (About 8 students with non-Turkish nationality
every year)
Transfers from other departments of METU and/or universities
Double Major Program
Nationwide placement of top ranked graduates of 2–year Technical Vocational
Schools through an examination administered by (ÖSYM)
4
B. Evaluating Student Performance
Student performances are evaluated on the basis of their success in the courses they take.
Instructors keep records of student grades for their coursework and inform them on their
achievements and grades as the semester progresses. At the end of each semesters, course and
instructor evaluation questionnaires are filled by the students where this point is also rated.
Instructors have the sole authority to assign the final letter grades to students and these grades
can only be submitted electronically by course instructors through the online Student Affairs
Information System maintained by the Registrar’s Office.
At the end of a semester, grade distribution statistics for all courses are sent to department
chairs by the Registrar’s Office, so that they can monitor the performance of students in
individual courses and evaluate the general performance of the department.
D. Advising Students
While the instructors evaluate student performances in individual courses, academic advisors
are in a position to monitor the overall progress of individual students. Each student admitted
to the department is assigned an academic advisor and usually this advisor does not change
until graduation.
METU ME Department has a Student Affairs Office in which a separate file is kept for each
student (both on paper and electronically). These files contain all the educational records of
students. They are updated every semester and an up-to-date follow-up form is distributed to
the advisors prior to registration periods.
Each advisor has about 20 students and because of the large number of students in the
department some senior teaching assistants are also assigned as advisors in addition to full
time faculty members. Students must obtain their advisors’ approval for the courses they take
each semester. Without an advisor approval, the registration process which is conducted
interactively through the Student Affairs Information System on internet cannot be completed.
Hence, advisors can see whether or not a student is making progress towards completing
program requirements on a timely basis; they can warn the student and suggest a course plan
when necessary. The online registration system has many built-in checks regarding program
requirements, which assists students and advisors in during the registration process. In fact,
student transcripts and follow-up records are accessible by the whole faculty through the
online Student Affairs Information System and that facilitates monitoring students.
Advising of double major students, who are majoring in other programs and ME students who
are double majoring in other programs is given a great care. All such students in the
department are advised by a single faculty member, currently by Prof. Bülent E. Platin. There
are several reasons for this special arrangement; their course loads are significantly heavier
than the other students, they experience clashes in weekly schedules of courses of two
different programs, and there are several courses in both programs with common content
requiring some course equivalency decisions.
Similarly all transfer students are advised by a dedicated faculty member, currently by Prof.
Rüknettin Oskay, for a better monitoring of their adaptation to the department as well as their
smooth transition to a regular course plan.
The coordination of the courses related to the summer practice work is currently being carried
out by Prof. S. Engin Kılıç, who is responsible for the coordination of the courses ME 300
5
(Summer Practice I) and ME 400 (Summer Practice II). Prof. Kılıç advises students on issues
related to the summer practices and internships.
Middle East Technical University is a participant of the Erasmus Program. Since the 2004–
2005 academic year, 15 undergraduate students of the METU ME Department participated in
the Erasmus Program. These students spent one or two semesters at a university in Europe.
Currently, METU ME Department has bilateral agreements with Denmark Technical
University, Czech Technical University, Technische Universitat Braunschweig and Ruhr
University Bochum. Prof. Serkan Dağ advises students on issues related to the Erasmus
Program. It is also possible for the students to seek counsel from the METU International
Students and Study Abroad Office. The students can also seek advice from the Students Affair
Office of the Department where two full time staff (Mr. Bedrettin Aydemir and Mr. Latif
Karaçar) are employed. Traditionally, a vice-chairman of the department (currently Prof. A.
Buğra Koku) deals with the student affairs. He advises students on matters where student’s
own advisor could not provide adequate counseling and also supervises the operations of the
Student Affairs Office of the Department.
For special requests such as taking leave-of-absence etc., students can petition to the
Department Chair. These petitions are evaluated and the necessary action is taken. If the
request is beyond the jurisdiction of the Department, the petition is forwarded to the Faculty
of Engineering, with a suggested course of action. All the correspondence is kept in students’
files.
Students can also apply to the Registrar’s Office of the university to obtain an official
information regarding academic rules and regulations as well as their own academic status.
E. Transfer Students and Transfer Courses
Acceptance of Transfer and Double Major Students:
The following procedure is applied for the acceptance of transfer and double major students.
All necessary dates are indicated on the academic calendar of the university.

The Faculty of Engineering asks the departments, the number of transfer students they
are willing to admit for the coming semester as transfers and double majors.

The Executive Board of the Faculty of Engineering finalizes the quotas and announces
them along with the necessary conditions and credentials needed for application.

Student applications are made to the Registrar’s Office, where their credentials are
screened. Then, only valid applications are sent to the Faculty of Engineering.

In the Faculty of Engineering, a weighted score is calculated for each applicant by
considering his/her CGPA and ÖSS score. The applicants for each department are
sorted according to this weighted score. The sorted list of applicants along with their
application documents are sent to the Department Chairs for their review.

Departments review these documents and send the list of students they are willing to
admit back to the Faculty of Engineering. They also prepare ”Course Equivalency
Forms” for the transfer of credits.

Executive Board of the Faculty of Engineering makes a final review of the lists sent by
the departments and makes the final decision.

Registrar’s Office announces the results.
6
Transfer students who are top ranked graduates of 2-year vocational technical schools are
admitted through a special nationwide examination which is also organized by ÖSYM.
Students who are placed in our department give a petition for the transfer of credits, which is
evaluated by the department and submitted to the Faculty of Engineering for the final decision
by the Executive Board of the Faculty of Engineering.
The numbers of transfer students and double major students for past five academic years are
provided in Table 1-2.
Table 1-2 Transfer and Double Major Students for Past Five Academic Years.
Number of
Number of Double
Number of ME Students
Academic Transfer Students Major Students Enrolled
Enrolled to Other
Year
Enrolled
to ME Program
Double Major Programs
2008-2009
12
4
2
2007-2008
11
4
2006-2007
10
3
3
2005-2006
11
1
3
2004-2005
10
3
2
Validation of credits for courses taken elsewhere:
As indicated in the previous section, the Department Chairman reviews the transcripts of
transfer students and double major students and prepares course equivalency forms for the
transfer of credits. On these forms, the courses taken elsewhere and their equivalents in ME
program are indicated. These forms are subject to the approval of the Executive Board of the
Faculty of Engineering and are finalized there. Afterwards, the necessary information is
forwarded to the Registrar’s Office and the student records are updated. Copies of the course
equivalency forms are kept in the student files in the department and also by the advisor of
each student.
Most students admitted through transfer come from other departments within the Faculty of
Engineering of METU at the end of the freshman year. Since many courses (such as freshman
Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, English, etc.) that they have already taken are the same as
those of ME majors, their credits are directly transferred. For courses taken at other
institutions, there are many precedents establishing course equivalencies, hence department
chairs can easily prepare the course equivalency forms.
For courses taken in other departments of METU and approved to fulfill ME program
requirements, credits and grades are transferred to student’s ME program and they appear on
the transcripts of the students as if taken in the ME program. These grades and credits are
used in calculating CGPA of the student. For courses taken in another institutions, if an
equivalency is set, an exemption is granted for the course that is supposed to be taken in ME
program. For such courses grades and credits are not taken into account in the calculation of
CGPA.
For ME double major students majoring in other programs and ME students double majoring
in other programs, once the equivalency between two courses of these two programs is
established, students take only one of these courses. Such courses are considered to satisfy the
requirements of both programs and they are taken in account in the calculation of CGPA’s of
each program, separately.
7
For exchange students, who earned credits at an institution with which METU has an
‘Exchange Student Agreement’, transfer of credits and grades is handled like transfer of
credits within METU.
Occasionally, some students apply for other course replacements (i.e., the replacement of a
course required in ME program with a course taken elsewhere) by writing a petition to
Department Chair. Such situations arise, for example, when an ME major takes a course in
his/her minor program and wants it to be considered as an elective course to meet an ME
program requirement or when an ME major takes a course in some other institution as a
special student. Requests in this category are processed by considering the precedents in the
department and they are subjected to the general terms and conditions issued by the Registrar,
regarding course replacement. The final authority in approving course replacements belongs
to the Executive Board of Faculty of Engineering.
In preparing the course equivalency forms the Department Chair may consult with
undergraduate education committee (UEC), a board consisting of (currently) eight faculty
members. A sample course equivalency form is given in Appendix E-1.
F. Graduation Requirements
METU ME undergraduate program is given in Table 5-1. In order to graduate from this
program, all the students must complete this program (a total of 145 credits) with a CGPA of
at least 2.00 and with a minimum of DD grade in each course. Transfer students might have
course replacements or exemptions as discussed above.
Checking for the program requirements is a two tier process, run by the Registrar’s Office and
ME Student Affairs Office. Towards the end of each semester, the Registrar’s Office issues a
list of the students who are in graduation status. This list is sent to departments’ Student
Affairs Offices for their confirmation. Upon receiving this list, Student Affairs Office reviews
the files of the students and makes sure that these students fulfill all the program requirements
by the end of that semester. After the final examinations and submission of grades
electronically, the list is finalized, and graduated students are issued B.S. degree. Records of
double major students are kept by their advisor, hence his confirmation is asked by ME
Student Affairs Office, regarding the graduation of these students.
G. Enrollment and Graduation Trends
The numbers of undergraduate students enrolled in the mechanical engineering program each
semester since the 2003–2004 Spring Semester and the numbers of students graduated are
provided in Table 1-3. During this period, highest number of students that are registered is
recorded for the 2004–2005 Fall Semester. The number of enrolled students for this particular
semester is 952. Lowest number is 866, which is recorded for the 2007–2008 Spring
Semester. The average evaluated by taking into account the ten semesters considered in Table
1-3 is 912. Note that the number of students admitted to the program each year is determined
by the admission quota assigned by the Higher Education Council (YÖK) of Turkey. Table
1-3 also tabulates the numbers of students graduated from the mechanical engineering
program each semester since the 2003–2004 Spring Semester. In a given academic year, most
of the students graduate at the end of the spring semester. A relatively small number of
irregular students graduate at the end of fall semester. By considering the data provided in
8
Table 1-3, the average numbers of students graduated at the ends of spring and fall semesters
are respectively calculated as 157 and 26.
Table 1-3. Enrollment Trends for Past Five Academic Years
20032004
Spring
20042005
Fall
20042005
Spring
20052006
Fall
20052006
Spring
20062007
Fall
20062007
Spring
20072008
Fall
20072008
Spring
20082009
Fall
Full-time
Students
930
952
937
940
905
906
875
909
866
895
Part-time
Students
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Student
FTE1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Graduates
171
24
151
29
156
27
160
30
148
18
1
FTE = Full-Time Equivalent
Table 1-4 lists the positions or employers of 25 students, who graduated at the end of the
2007–2008 Spring Semester. As can be seen in this table, most of the graduates are employed
by the leading companies that are operating in various sectors of the industry in Turkey. In
general, the graduates of the METU ME undergraduate program do not have any difficulties
in finding suitable positions at the industrial sector. In addition to being full–time employees,
most of the students also pursue advanced degrees. The graduates of the METU ME
undergraduate program are also preferred for positions such as teaching and research
assistantships and fellowships that are offered by the universities in Turkey and abroad.
9
Table 1-4. Program Graduates
Numerical
Identifier
Year
Matriculated
Year
Graduated
Prior Degree(s)
if Master
Student
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2003
2004
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
B.Sc.
B.Sc.
B.Sc.
B.Sc.
B.Sc.
B.Sc.
B.Sc.
B.Sc.
B.Sc.
B.Sc.
B.Sc.
B.Sc.
B.Sc.
B.Sc.
B.Sc.
B.Sc.
B.Sc.
B.Sc.
B.Sc.
B.Sc.
B.Sc.
B.Sc.
B.Sc.
B.Sc.
B.Sc.
10
Certification/
Licensure
(If
Applicable)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Initial or Current
Employment/
Job Title/
Other Placement
Roketsan
Roketsan
Aselsan
Unemployed
Research Assistant
Meteksan Defense
Fellowship
Aselsan
Research Assistant
TAI
FNSS Defense
Aselsan
Teaching Assistant
Project Assistant
Fellowship
Fellowship
Unemployed
Aselsan
TUBITAK Fellow
Research Assistant
Unemployed
Aselsan
SSM
Unknown
Research Assistant
2. CRITERION 2. PROGRAM EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES
A. Mission Statements
The mission of METU, as published on page VII of the 2008-2010 University Catalogue is
given below.
The Middle East Technical University is devoted to the pursuit and application of
knowledge for the social, cultural, economic, scientific and technological development of
our society and mankind through achievements in teaching, research and community
service that are of highest international standards.
The mission of METU Faculty of Engineering, as published on page 479 of the university
catalogue is given below.
The Faculty of Engineering of METU educates engineers and researchers with universal
qualifications, who can fulfill the needs and expectations of, and play a leadership role in
the advancement of industry and society. The Faculty of Engineering advances
engineering science and technology through research, and contributes to the application
of the created knowledge and technology to benefit mankind.
The mission of METU Mechanical Engineering (ME) Department, as published on page 662
of the university catalogue and also given in the web site of the department is
 to educate individuals to become creative, inquisitive and productive in both national
and international arenas, instilled with global knowledge and abilities, and able to be
leaders and pioneers in their field,
 to perform research and development activities that will contribute to science and
national technologies,
 to lead and to pioneer in related fields.
B. Program Educational Objectives
In order to accomplish the educational component of the mission of METU ME Department
at undergraduate level, the following program educational objectives (PEO) for the
undergraduate program have been established as published on page 662 of the university
catalogue and also given in the web site of the department.
(http://www.me.metu.edu.tr/main/en/programs/#peo)
The graduates of the B.S. program of the METU Mechanical Engineering Department are
engineering professionals who
PEO-I. are sought in areas of new technology and/or product development, being
innovative and entrepreneurial individuals with leadership and pioneering abilities in
professional areas,
PEO-II. identify and solve engineering problems using a scientific approach with their
sound engineering base, life-long learning habits, command of advanced technology, and
research abilities,
PEO-III. seek rational solutions in their professional practice while considering their
social, environmental, economical, and ethical dimensions.
11
The first PEO above addresses “what our graduates could do best”. The second objective
addresses “how our graduates would approach problem solving, using what skills”, and the
last objective addresses “what values our graduates should have”.
C. Consistency of the Program Educational Objectives with the Mission of the
Institution
The mission of METU focuses on the pursuit and application of knowledge, which can be
achieved by individuals who can identify and solve engineering problems using a scientific
approach with their sound engineering base, life-long learning habits, command of advanced
technology, and research abilities, as stated in PEO-II. Furthermore, social, cultural,
economic, scientific, and technological development of the society is mentioned in the METU
mission, which is referred to by PEO-III through considering social, environmental,
economical, and ethical dimensions. PEO-I is also consistent with the METU mission because
a high standard of research can only be achieved by individuals who are sought in areas of
new technology and/or product development, being innovative and entrepreneurial, as stated
in PEO-I.
The mission of METU Faculty of Engineering states advances engineering science and
technology through research, which, similar to the relation with METU mission, can only be
achieved by individuals who are sought in areas of new technology and/or product
development, being innovative and entrepreneurial, as stated in PEO-I. A reference is made to
educating individuals with universal qualifications and the advancement of industry and
society which are possible only if engineering professionals identify and solve engineering
problems using a scientific approach with their sound engineering base, life-long learning
habits, command of advanced technology, and research abilities, as mentioned in PEO-II.
The mission of METU ME Department focuses on creative, inquisitive, and productive
individuals who are leaders and pioneers in their field. PEO-I is consistent with this mission
through the statement being innovative and entrepreneurial individuals with leadership and
pioneering abilities in professional areas. Moreover, research and development activities that
will contribute to science and national technologies are possible through the achievement of
PEO-I and PEO-II.
D. Program Constituencies
The most significant constituents of ME undergraduate program are the students, faculty,
alumni, and employers. ME faculty are responsible for developing, implementing, assessing,
and revising the curriculum, which is the primary tool towards reaching PEO. The alumni and
employers of ME graduates are the main external constituents that are necessary for the
assessment of ME program.
E. Process for Establishing Program Educational Objectives
In 1999, a comprehensive self-assessment study was initiated towards the implementation of a
continuous improvement system in ME Department. The current department mission as well
as PEO arose as a result of these efforts. The process involved the organization of a search
conference with the participation and input from the program constituents, who, in addition to
the four major constituents, are
12



faculty members from other departments within and outside METU,
representatives from the Higher Education Council of Turkey (YÖK) as well as
national research institutions such as Scientific and Technological Research Council
of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) and Technology Development Foundation of Turkey (TTGV),
representatives from relevant major industrial companies.
Prior to the search conference, a number of departmental study groups had been formed to
perform a preliminary study on the strong and weak aspects of the department, proposals for
improvement and the department mission statement. The results of these studies were then
discussed in the search conference. The mission statement was formulated and approved
within the department following this search conference. Four departmental working groups
were formed in four areas; namely, “education”, “research and development”, “human
resources”, and “administration and communication”. These groups worked towards
developing departmental objectives and goals in the assigned areas based on the mission
statement. The final form of departmental objectives and goals were established and adopted
at an ME faculty meeting on June 22, 2002. A comprehensive history of this process is given
in Appendix E-2. PEO were developed by the ABET Working Group (AWG) as statements
derived from the mission statement, through the use of the departmental objectives and goals
for the undergraduate education. An account of this process is given in Appendix E-3.
For continuous improvement of ME program, PEO need to be evaluated periodically. The
evaluation process involves inputs from and participation of the program constituents in a
cycle. Since the PEO address the accomplishments of the ME graduates in their professional
lives, the input of the external constituents, e.g. the employer / alumni surveys, plays the
major role in the evaluation of PEO. Although the data collection for assessment of PEO is a
continuous process, the formal review, assessment and revision (if necessary) of PEO will be
undertaken every few years (4-6 years). The revision and assessment processes are depicted in
Figure 2-1.
missions of the
university and
faculty
tuning PO and/or
curriculum to support
developed/revised PEO
developing / revising
departmental mission
and/or PEO
reviewing and assessing
needs and suggestions of
constituents
LONG
TERM
PEO
REVISION
CYCLE
determining the
constituents’ needs
and proposals on
PEO revisions
PO and
curriculum
determining the
revision processes for
PEO
needs and expectations
of constituents
Figure 2-1 Revision Cycle of Program Educational Objectives
13
F. Achievement of Program Educational Objectives
Curriculum Map in terms of PEO:
The curriculum of our undergraduate program is the main tool to prepare students for
achieving PEO. Therefore, the relevance of the courses in our undergraduate curriculum to
PEO needs be quantified in order to establish their level of support to PEO.
In Spring 2003, a process was initiated in which the level of success in each course is related
to the level at which the course serves towards the achievement of PEO. In this process, the
faculty members are asked to report the objectives of the courses they teach along with the
corresponding course student learning outcomes (SLO) in the form of standard Course
Worksheets Appendix E-4. A particular course objective is considered to be achieved if the
corresponding SLOs are achieved. These SLOs are course specific and the faculty are asked
to relate each SLO to PEO, Program Outcomes (PO) and ABET Criteria 3 and 8 (now 9) in
order to obtain the curriculum map. The faculty are also asked to indicate whether the
relations are strong (S) or weak (W).
The process described above is repeated in February 2009. The updated results of this analysis
for
PEO
are
presented
in
Appendix
Appendix
E-5
and
Figure 2-2 Average percentages of the references to each PEO in the curriculum
14
. In
Figure 2-2 Average percentages of the references to each PEO in the curriculum
, the weighted averages of references by SLO per PEO are indicated. An immediate outcome
of this analysis is that PEO-II is emphasized more than PEO-I and III in the ME
undergraduate curriculum.
Figure 2-2 Average percentages of the references to each PEO in the curriculum
Historical Perspective of PEO Assessments in the Department:
The major consideration in the assessment of degree of PEO achievements was taken as the
inputs of the external constituents, which are usually collected through alumni / employer
15
surveys and meetings and discussions with alumni, employers, and representatives from
industry.
As a result, an employer survey was prepared and conducted as part of a long term assessment
process in 1999. This survey mainly addressed ABET Criterion 3 requirements. However, the
results of this survey were considered as an assessment of PEO since the employers naturally
take into account the performance of our graduates in their professional lives and PEO are
consistent with ABET Criterion 3 requirements. The number of participants in this survey was
28. The results indicated that the employers were quite satisfied with the capabilities of our
graduates in all aspects.
Current PEO Assessment System in the Department:
Figure 2-3 illustrates the assessment and evaluation process used currently that periodically
documents and demonstrates the degree to which these objectives are attained.
missions of the
university, faculty,
and department
tuning PO and/or
curriculum towards
reaching PEO
developing strategies
towards reaching
PEO
reviewing and assessing
inputs from constituents
on PEO achievements
LONG
TERM
PEO
ASSESSMENT
CYCLE
determining the
constituents’ views
on PEO
achievements
PO and
curriculum
determining the
assessment processes
for PEO
views of
constituents
Figure 2-3 Assessment Cycle of Program Educational Objectives
In order to establish a more direct assessment system, the Evaluation and Assessment
Committee (EAC) of the department prepared a new set of employer and alumni surveys
(Appendix E-6 and Appendix E-7, respectively) for measuring the level of achievement of all
aspects of the PEO in 2004. These surveys were conducted through the internet in 2004 and
repeated in 2009 with identical questions to see the effects of the curriculum improvements
that were made in the years 2000-2003.
In both survey forms, it is specifically noted that the answers are expected to reflect the
performances of our graduates, who have only 3-6 years of experience. In the employer
survey, 52 employers participated in 2004 and 27 in 2009. The results shown in Figure 2-4
indicate that the employers are quite satisfied with the capabilities of our graduates in all
respects. Furthermore, the scores have increased on the average since 2004. In the alumni
survey, 73 alumni participated in 2004 and 136 in 2009. The overall results in Figure 2-5
reveal that the levels of achievement of most PEO requirements are quite high. However
items 11, 13 and 15 are not satisfactorily met in 2004 whereas these have improved in 2009.
YUKARDAKI PARAGRAF DUZELTİLMİS 2.4 VE 2.5’E GORE GUNCELLENECEK
AYRICA TTESTLERLE İLGİLİ BİR PARAGRAF DAHA EKLENECEK.
16
Figure 2-4 Average Scores of the 2009 Employer Survey (attendance:27)
Figure 2-5 Average Scores of the 2009 Alumni Survey (attendance:136)
17
3. CRITERION 3. PROGRAM OUTCOMES
A. Processes for Establishing and Revising Program Outcomes
Like Program Educational Objectives, Program Outcomes (PO) also arose as a result of the
self-assessment studies in the department initiated in 1999. A history of this process is
presented in Section 2.E and Appendix E-2. The Education Working Group (EWG), formed
in the department during this process, developed a proposal for the educational goals of the
ME undergraduate and graduate programs. These goals were elaborated through several
faculty meetings and finalized at the faculty meeting on June 22, 2002; and undergraduate
educational goals were adopted as the Program Outcomes in early 2003. Details of the
development process of PO can be found in Appendix E-3.
In 2002-2003 period, the components of each PO were also established by EWG in order to
clarify the definitions of PO, as they are perceived by the faculty. These components were
reconsidered and finalized by the Educational Assessment Committee (EAC) in 2005.
In a faculty meeting on 14 January 2005, it was decided to question the relative importance of
the PO considering the expectations of a recent mechanical engineering graduate. A survey
was conducted in 2005 involving faculty members, teaching assistants, undergraduate
students, employers, and the alumni, where they were asked to grade the importance of each
PO from ten (using it only once) down to zero, and also to make suggestions for the
modifications of the PO together with their justifications. In order to avoid any
misunderstanding of the statements of the PO, their components were also provided in the
questionnaire. The results of the survey given in Appendix E-8 and Figure 3-1 show that all of
the 14 PO were regarded as important. Furthermore, no notable modifications were suggested
for any of the PO.
Figure 3-1 Average percentages of the references to each PO in the ME curriculum
18
B. Program Outcomes
METU ME Department has set forth the following PO for its undergraduate program:
PO 1.
PO 2.
PO 3.
PO 4.
PO 5.
PO 6.
PO 7.
PO 8.
PO 9.
PO 10.
PO 11.
PO 12.
PO 13.
PO 14.
Ability to establish the relationship between mathematics, basic sciences and
engineering sciences with engineering applications
Ability to find and interpret information
Ability to follow the literature and technology related to his/her topic of
interest
Recognition of the need to keep oneself up to date in his/her profession
Possession of written and oral communication skills
Ability to conduct team work (within the discipline, inter-disciplinary, multidisciplinary)
Ability to produce original solutions
Use of scientific methodology in approaching and producing solutions to
engineering problems and needs
Openness to all that is new
Ability to conduct experiments
Ability to do engineering design
Awareness of engineering ethics, knowledge and adoption of its fundamental
elements
Ability to take societal, environmental and economical considerations into
account in professional activities
Possession of pioneering and leadership characteristics in areas related to the
profession.
The components of these PO are given in Appendix E-9. These PO are documented on the
web page (http://www.me.metu.edu.tr/main/en/programs) of the department.
PO of the ME undergraduate program encompass the ABET Criterion 3 (a-k) and the ABET
Criterion 9 (ME program criteria l-m) fully. The components (l) and (m) referred here are
defined as
The program must demonstrate that graduates have the ability to:
(l) apply principles of engineering, basic science, and mathematics (including
multivariate calculus and differential equations) to model, analyze, design, and realize
physical systems, components or processes; and
(m) work professionally in both thermal and mechanical systems areas.
The relations between our PO and ABET Criteria 3 and 9 are presented in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1 Relations Between PO and ABET Criteria 3 and 9
ABET Criterion
9 (ME Program
Requirements)
ABET Criterion 3
PO
1
(a)
(b)
(c)
√
√
√
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
√
√
19
(m)
√
2
√
√
3
√
4
√
5
√
√
√
√
√
9
11
√
√
7
10
√
√
6
8
√
√
√
√
√
√
12
√
13
√
√
14
C. Relationship of Program Outcomes and Program Educational Objectives
As listed in Section 3.B, fourteen Program Outcomes the ME undergraduate program foster
the attainment of program educational objectives through relations presented in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2 Relations between PO and PEO
PEO
PO
I
II
1


2


3


4


5

6

7


8


9


10


11


III

12
20

13
14

D. Relationship of Courses in the Curriculum to the Program Outcomes
In order to establish the relationship of the courses in the curriculum to the PO, course
worksheets were used back in 2003 assessment studies. Faculty members were asked to
prepare course worksheets in which specific course objectives are stated along with strategies,
expected student learning outcomes (SLO) and assessment methods for the SLO of each
course objective. At the same time, each student outcome is to be related to PEO, PO, and
ABET Criteria 3 and 8. The format of the course worksheets were adopted from the faculty
workbook by the Gateway Coalition [1]. A copy of the course worksheets is given in
Appendix E-6. An example of completed course worksheets, incorporating only one
objective, is presented in Appendix E-10 for ME 312 Thermal Engineering. The course
worksheets are updated in 2009.
The relation of each course to the PO is presented in Appendix E-8 as a curriculum map and
in Figure 3-1 as the frequency of referrals by each SLO. Similarly, the relation of each course
to the ABET Criteria 3 and 9 are presented in Appendix E-11 and in Figure 3.2.
21
Figure 3-2 Average percentages of the references to the ABET Criteria 3 and 9, in the ME curriculum
22
E. Documentation
The two main display materials related with the Program Outcomes that will be available for
review during the visit are:

Individual PO files, which include the measurement and assessment process for that
PO (including descriptions of PO components and indicators, as well as measurement
methods and their application frequencies), the data collected during the assessment,
the evaluation of the data, the final assessment, suggestions for the improvement of the
assessment process, and course data (faculty evaluation reports, surveys, focus group
meeting reports, student evaluations, etc.), and

Course files, which include textbooks, all midterm and final exam questions,
homework assignments, quizzes, projects, all supplementary material that is
disseminated to the students, as well as sample graded exam papers, project reports,
and lab reports, whichever applicable.
In addition to the above, the following materials will also be available for review.

Course worksheets detailing course objectives, strategies, SLO and assessment
methods for all undergraduate courses taught by ME faculty,

Samples of summer practice reports,

Summer practice employer surveys,

Samples of ME 407 (capstone design project) reports and prototypes manufactured
therein,

Student exit surveys,

Grade statistics for each course, and

Instructor and course evaluation survey results.
F. Achievement of Program Outcomes
During the studies of the departmental Educational Assessment Committee, it was realized
that the course-by-course assessment procedure described in Appendix E-12 has some
drawbacks; namely, it is not a direct evaluation process, all courses are considered equivalent
(including the technical electives), it is quantitative, and most importantly it does not give any
information whether the current curriculum covers each PO sufficiently. Hence, it was
concluded that with this approach any qualitative conclusion in the desired depth and detail
could not be reached. A proposal was prepared and submitted to the department by EAC for
employing a different PO assessment and continuous improvement system which is mainly
based on direct measurements of individual PO. At the faculty meeting on April 21, 2006, the
department decided to implement this new assessment system. Figure 3-3 illustrates the basic
features of this system.
A pilot study was conducted by EAC for the assessment of PO6 “Ability to conduct team
work (within the discipline, inter-disciplinary, multi-disciplinary)”. In 2007, individual
working groups (PO-WG) were formed for the assessment of each PO. Each PO-WG was
composed of two to three faculty members and one teaching assistant. The groups were asked
to develop, conduct, and report their studies, which include identifying the components of
23
their own PO and their indicators, deciding on the assessments methods and their application
frequencies, collecting and analyzing measurement data, assessing the results, and suggesting
for improvement on the assessment. With these reports, individual PO folders were formed,
which included sample reports/surveys, etc. in addition to the report contents. These folders
will be available for the disposal of the ABET evaluation team during the visit.
24
PEO
Cycle
PO Assessments
ASSESSMENT
COMMITTEE
PO1-PO14
PO1
WG
PO2
WG
and Proposals
PO14
WG
STUDENTS WORKS,
STUDENTS, GRADUATES,
FACULTY, FACULTY
ASSESSMENTS, SURVEYS,
STANDARD EXAMS, MEETINGS
FACULTY
BOARD
modifications
CURRICULUM
Figure 3-3 Assessment and Continuous Improvement Cycle for Program Outcomes
25
CURRICULUM
COMMITTEE
Below is the summary that describes the assessment methods and the level of achievement of
each Program Outcome.
PO 1 :
The assessment method used to asses this PO is to get information from the faculty and the
undergraduate students. For this purpose the instructors and the students of three courses,
namely ME 304 Control Systems, ME 306 Fluid Mechanics II and ME 478 Introduction to
Solar Energy Utilization are selected. This decision was driven by the fact that, these three
courses are among the ones which most heavily emphasized PO1. In order to extract
information from the faculty, it is decided to ask questions in a direct manner, to assess the
level of satisfaction of each criterion. Quantitative information in terms of percentages is
requested where applicable. The most important quantitative data which is asked are the
average scores that the students get in the exams from the questions which are related to PO 1
components. In order to extract information form the students, separate survey forms are
prepared for each of the courses involved. There are two types of questions on each form. 1)
course dependent (special) 2) course independent (general). There are three to four questions
for each type. Hence each form contained six or seven questions. Some of these are Likert type
survey questions. The others are open ended very simple technical questions about the subject
matter of the course involved. Survey questions reflect how the students "feel" about the
attainment of PO 1 components whereas the technical question provides more concrete data for
measurement.
It was concluded that this PO was attained at the average level by the graduates of the METU
Mechanical Engineering undergraduate curriculum. The overall level of achievement of this
PO is 3 out of 5.
PO 2 :
For assessment of PO2, an already available homework that requires a literature survey was
reconstructed. The selected course for this purpose was ME 407 - Mechanical Engineering
Design. Course assistants were provided a form as a guideline to gather information for the
purpose of the assessment of this PO. It was concluded that this PO was attained at the
average-to-good by the graduates of the METU Mechanical Engineering undergraduate
curriculum. The overall level of achievement of this PO is 3.3 out of 5 in Fall 2007-2008 and
3.5 out of 5 in Spring 2007-2008
PO 3 :
For the assessment of this PO, a student survey which contains 11 questions is prepared and
given to the students of the fourth year course ME 407 (Mechanical Engineering Design). The
survey includes questions on technical and scientific publications, standards, scientific and
professional meetings, technical fairs and the means of accessing information. Also additional
survey was applied to the faculty of the Mechanical Engineering department. This survey
contains a total of 12 questions on the assessment of students’ abilities related to PO3. It was
concluded that this PO was attained at the insufficient to average level. The overall level of
achievement of this PO is 2.8 out of 5.
PO 4 :
26
The main assessment method for this PO was to gather available data related to the number of
students who applied for transfer to other departments at the end of 1st year and the number of
students who have the right (CGPA more than 3.0) for transfer to other departments and the
order of preferences of students who won the Mechanical Engineering Department in the
University Entrance Examination. Also a survey was conducted for the 4th year students and
for the Graduates. It was concluded that this PO was attained at the average to good level. The
overall level of achievement of this PO is 3.4 out of 5.
PO 5 :
This PO study is still in progress.
PO 6 :
The assessment methods used for this PO were information from faculty, assessment of faculty,
information from students, assessment of students and assessment of student club studies,
contests, extracurricular projects, minor program projects, etc. For this purpose assessment and
information from the faculty and students related to the courses contributing to PO6 (ME202,
ME306, ME311, ME312, ME401, ME407, ME410, ME413, ME416, ME421, ME422, ME426,
ME432, ME433, ME442, ME443, ME451, ME462, ME471, ME483, ME485) was collected.
Also meetings held by the PO6 work group with members of student groups contributing
highly to PO6, to obtain oral information and assessment. As a result of these assessments, it
was concluded that this PO was attained at the very good level.
PO 7 :
Two different assessment methods were used for this PO. The instructors of the selected
courses (ME 421, ME 424, ME 428, ME 431, ME432, ME 436, ME 450, ME 471) have
assigned a bonus project, a midterm/final question or a bonus quiz to test the capability of the
students relevant to this program outcome. Also selected course instructors provide a written
comment on the performance of the students related to this program outcome. As a result it was
concluded that this PO was attained at the fair-to-good level. The overall level of achievement
of this PO is 2.4 out of 5.
PO 8 :
For the assessment of this PO, PO8 evaluation form for the course instructors has been
prepared based on the metrics of the PO8 components. Of the courses offered during the
semester, eleven undergraduate courses that were deemed especially relevant to PO8 were
selected and the instructors of these courses were sent this evaluation form which consisted of
questions about the students taking the course. The instructors were asked to complete the
evaluation form based on their observations and if possible, quantitative assessment of the
students. Specifically, the instructors were asked to base their evaluations on various
assessment methods (exams, quizzes, homework assignments) used in their courses. As a result
it was concluded that this PO was attained at the average to good level. The overall level of
achievement of this PO is 3.3 out of 5.
PO 9 :
For the assessment of this PO data was collected which are identified as the indicators of the
achievement of this PO. Some examples can be listed as success rates of department students
in the compulsory English classes, evaluation of the grades obtained by the students in these
27
classes at the end of the semester or specific performance such as presentations, project or
homeworks, ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers) and/or TMMOB (The
Chamber of Turkish Architects and Engineers) membership statistics, quantification of
department students’ library utilization habits such as number of books borrowed throughout
the undergraduate education, evaluation of the ability to complete a homework or project
assignment in a course using a tool that is not taught in the course or that is known by the
student, quantification of the interest in the newly offered departmental elective course (ME
490 Fuel Cell Fundamentals), evaluation of the interest shown by the students in the seminars
held in the Department, Ratio of the students in minor programs and number of total students in
the Department, Quantification of the number of engineering software packages that a student
knows how to use, Awareness of current techniques majorly used in Mechanical Engineering.
As a result it was concluded that this PO was attained at the average level. The overall level of
achievement of this PO is 3 out of 5.
PO 10 :
The main assessment tool is the form “Student Evaluation of Mechanical Engineering Systems
Laboratory Questionnaire” which was prepared to collect written information and assessment
from students in ME410 Mechanical Engineering Systems Laboratory that contribute to PO10.
Also quizzes, lab reports and final exam applied in ME 410 is used in assessment of the various
subcomponents of the PO. As a result it was concluded that this PO was attained at the
average to good level. The overall level of achievement of this PO is 3.3 out of 5.
PO 11 :
This PO study is still in progress.
PO 12 :
The assessment method for this PO is an extensive student survey consisting of 12 questions is
prepared and conducted on two groups of student population: 118 2nd year students at the
beginning of ME200 and 148 4th year students at their graduation with the assumptions that,
the survey results are an accurate measure of ethical attitudes, and the students in the 2nd year
are representative of the current 4th year students when they started their 2nd year. One can
point out that in terms of the notion of academic ethics, it seems like some difference is
observed in favor of the graduating students which can be an indication that during their
education they indeed learn and become more conscious on these matters. When it comes to
professional ethics, it seems like there is negligible difference between 2nd and 4th year
students who answered the survey.
PO 13 :
In order to assess this PO, questionnaires are given to the junior and senior students, teaching
assistants and faculty members. It is observed that 14% of junior students are member of
Turkish Chamber of Mechanical Engineers (MMO) whereas this number increases to 24% for
senior students. It was concluded that most of the students is not part of a professional society;
therefore, awareness of the students about professional societies has to be increased. In
addition to students, a questionnaire is given to the faculty members and teaching assistants.
According to the results obtained, 80% of the students perform cost analysis during their
summer practices and the quality was not good enough. Also the quality of the summer practice
reports prepared by the students in explaining the measures taken by the companies to prevent
28
environmental pollution is given. Majority of the reports are rated as bad; however, it should be
noted this performance is also very closely related to the companies where the summer
practices are performed.
PO 14 :
The method of assessment of this PO was a questionnaire composed of six questions. The
group stressed the need to assess the accuracy of this result and suggested that discussions must
be made with employers, and recommended some companies. Another measure was suggested
to be the determination of the number of companies founded by our students in Technoparks
and OSTIM. The main conclusion was that the attainment level is quite satisfactory and that
“the students think that they have the leadership and pioneering characteristic
overwhelmingly”.
The level of achievement of each PO can be observed from the PO group assessment folders,
which is the main tool of assessment. There is also supporting data, as will be explained below,
which will be used for triangulation purposes. The first such assessment tool is the exit survey
conducted on the graduating students every year (Appendix E-13). The survey questions
include specific references to ABET Criterion 3 requirements (see Table 3-1). The results of
the 2004-2008 exit surveys are given in Figure 3-4. A high level of achievement is observed in
all requirements.
Figure 3-4 Program Exit Surveys (2005-2008)
The second tool is summer practice surveys. Since 2005, the summer practices of the 2nd and
3rd year students have been utilized for obtaining the opinions of employers on the
qualifications of the current undergraduate students. In the summer practice surveys, the
29
summer practice supervisors of the students are asked to evaluate the students directly on the
basis of PO. The results of these surveys are given in Figure 3-5 and Figure 3-6.
Reference
1. Gateway Coalition, Faculty Workbook: Preparing For ABET 2000 – Defining Course
Objectives, Strategies, Outcomes and Assessment Methods, 1998
Figure 3-5 ME 300 Summer Practice Surveys (2005-2008)
30
Figure 3-6 ME 400 Summer Practice Surveys (2005-2008)
31
4. CRITERION 4. CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT
A. Information Used for Program Improvement
The results from the Criteria 2 and 3 processes, especially the degree to which the PO are
attained as explained in Section 3F (Achievement of Program Outcomes) are the major tools in
making decisions regarding program improvements. The information used for program
improvement are listed below.

Alumni and employer survey results

PO overall assessment results from individual PO files

Annual student exit survey and summer practice employer survey results

Course files

Course worksheets

Other miscellaneous information such as; the available number of students, the faculty
capacity, the fund allocation and their estimated capacities in the future
B. Actions to Improve the Program
The employer and alumni surveys conducted in 2004 showed that items 11, 13 and 15 of the
survey questionnaires were not satisfactorily met (Figure 2.4 and Figure 2.5). Item 11 involves
ability to take ethical, societal and environmental considerations into account in professional
activities.
On January 2, 2004, the department added ethics and engineering ethics topics into ME 200
Mechanical Engineering Orientation and ME 407 Mechanical Engineering Design courses and
laboratory safety topic into ME 410 Mechanical Engineering Systems Laboratory course. The
employer and alumni surveys conducted in 2009 (see Figure 2.4 and Figure 2.5) showed that
there is an increase in item 11, however this increase is not statistically significant based on a
95% confidence level (see Appendix E-14 for details).
Items 13 and 15 are related to written and oral communication skills and the use of English
effectively in oral communication, respectively. In the METU ME curriculum there are three
compulsory English courses. These are ENG 101 Development of Reading and Writing Skills
I, ENG 102 Development of Reading and Writing Skills II and ENG 211 Academic Oral
Presentation Skills. As a result of exemption exams held for ENG 101 and ENG 102 courses,
about 90% of the students were exempt from ENG 101 and about 50% from ENG 102. In 2006
ENG 101, ENG 102 and ENG 211 courses were revised and reorganized by the University
Senate and exemption was only limited to ENG 101 with its level reduced to about 10%. Hence
improvements in the achievement of items 13 and 15 are expected. The employer and alumni
surveys conducted in 2009 (see Figure 2.4 and Figure 2.5) showed that items 13 and 15 have
also increased, significantly in the employer survey for item 15.
32
The “Academic Code of Ethics” has been developed and made available to students on our web
page in 2006. In addition, this code is implemented into several of the courses by the instructors
in various forms, such as a handout to students, or as a signed form required for course
admission. As a result, an improvement has been observed in PO12 awareness of engineering
ethics, knowledge and adoption of its fundamental elements, component 1, academic ethics.
A number of licensed software, such as; SolidWorks Suite, Unigraphics, and the student
version of ProEngineer, has been made available for the use of students, as of December 2008.
Among these software, SolidWorks Suite can be used in their own computers during their
undergraduate education. This implementation was a result of the relatively low-level of
assessment of PO9, openness to all that is new, component 3, ability to use newly developed
engineering methods, tools and applications.
One of the five components of PO 10 Ability to Conduct Experiments specified by the
department is “Ability to design experimental procedure and experimental setup”. However
during the recent assessment studies it was seen that this topic was not addressed at all in any of
the compulsory courses of the METU ME curriculum. For this reason this topic was included to
the ME 410 Mechanical Engineering Systems Laboratory course on .......2008. This
improvement has a direct effect of increasing the overall level of achievement of PO 10.
PO 3 : Ability to follow the literature and technology related to his/her topic of interest.
a. Development of the ability to access and follow scientific and technical publications.
b. Development of an awareness of the scientific and professional meetings about different
branches of mechanical engineering.
c. Development of an awareness of the technical fairs about different branches of
mechanical engineering.
d. Development of an understanding of the use of national, international and foreign
standards in various applications of mechanical engineering.
Assessment: It was concluded that components a, b, and d of this PO were attained at good
level. However component c was attained at insufficient level. (The final report of this PO has
not been received yet.)
Suggestions: For the third component, the department can place some effort in providing
information on major technical fairs organized in Turkey. A collaboration with the Turkish
Chamber of Mechanical Engineers Ankara Branch in this respect could be useful in helping
students to attend technical fairs and other organizations.
PO 4 : Recognition of the need to keep oneself up to date in his/her profession.
a. To have motivation to keep oneself up to date in his/her profession
b. Continuously questioning the knowledge acquired upon the graduation
c. Ability to follow and question the new developments in technological applications and
to update his/her knowledge continuously
33
Assessment: It was concluded that this PO was attained at the average to good level. (The final
report of this PO has not been received yet.)
Suggestions: The number of departmental seminars regarding new technology could be
increased and attendance to a major portion of these seminars could be mandatory.
Undergraduate students could also be encouraged to attend ME 590 Thesis seminars, where
graduate students present their research.
PO 5 : Possession of written and oral communication skills.
a. Be able to document, to report and to present the engineering services he/she produced
b. Be able to communicate in writing and oral form while performing engineering tasks
c. Know the mechanical engineering vocabulary in Turkish and English
Assessment: It was concluded that although there are some variations, in overall, the
achievement levels of all of the components are “good” except component c, which is related to
Turkish ME terms.
Suggestions: The catalogues used in design courses could be provided in Turkish as a reference
to students. Also, references in Turkish could be added to the list of references for courses.
Finally, the students could be asked to provide the translations of the Turkish terms that they
learn during their summer practice, in their summer practice reports.
PO 9 : Openness to all that is new.
a. Acquirement of the formation to follow and apply the technological advancements in
the field of mechanical engineering
b. Being open to new technological applications and ideas
c. Ability to use newly developed engineering methods, tools and applications
Assessment: As a result it was concluded that this PO was attained at the average level. (The
final report of this PO has not been received yet.)
Suggestions: As suggested for PO 4, the number of departmental seminars regarding new
technology could be increased and attendance to a major portion of these seminars could be
mandatory. Undergraduate students could also be encouraged to attend ME 590 Thesis
seminars, where graduate students present their research.
To encourage the use of newly developed engineering methods, tools, and applications,
licensed software; such as SolidWorks Suite, has already been made available to the use of
students in their own computers for their undergraduate education (closing the loop). Also, in
senior level courses, the use of relevant licensed software could be increased.
PO 12 : Awareness of engineering ethics, knowledge and adoption of its fundamental elements.
a. Academic ethics
b. Professional ethics
34
Assessment: It was concluded that in terms of the notion of academic ethics, some differences
are observed in favor of the graduating students, which can be an indication that during their
education they indeed learn and become more conscious on these matters. When it comes to
professional ethics, it seems like there is statistically insignificant difference between 2nd and
4th year students who answered the survey.
Suggestions: The “Academic Code of Ethics” has been developed and made available to
students on our web page (closing the loop). Also, the subject of “Professional Engineering
Ethics” has already been added to ME200 and ME407 courses, which may have improved the
survey results of the current year compared to those in 2004 (this data will be available soon).
35
5. CRITERION 5. CURRICULUM
A. Program Curriculum
In the first year of ME program curriculum students take courses related to basic sciences and
college level mathematics. In the second year of the curriculum, basic engineering subjects and
two mathematics courses are given in order to prepare the student for engineering subjects. In
the third year of the curriculum, courses in mechanical engineering are offered. In the fourth
and last year of curriculum, a capstone design course and several technical and nontechnical
elective courses are offered in order to give more insight to the students in certain subjects.
Average percentages of the references to each Program Educational Objective (PEO) in the ME
curriculum
are
given
in
Figure 2-2 Average percentages of the references to each PEO in the curriculum
. Average percentages of the references to each Program Outcome and ABET criteria 3 are
given in Figure 3-1 and Figure 3.2 respectively. The relationship between PO and ABET
criteria 3 and PO and PEO are given in Table 3-1 and Table 3-2. In addition to these
contribution of each course to PEO is given in Appendix E-5.
A minimum of 145 credit-hours is required for the degree of Bachelor of Science in
Mechanical Engineering. The ME curriculum includes 33.5 credit hours (23%) of mathematics
and basic sciences and 81.5 credit hours (56%) of engineering topics. Therefore, the majority of
the compulsory courses in the ME curriculum are under the engineering topics category. In
addition to this, 26 credit hours (18%) of general education courses are present in the ME
curriculum. Table 5-1 summarizes the courses and their credit hour contribution to each item
specified above.
36
Table 5-1 Basic-Level Curriculum
(MECHANICAL ENGINEERING)
Semester
First
Semester
Second
Semester
Third
Semester
Course (Department, Number, Title)
ME 113
Computer Aided
Engineering Drawing I
MATH 119 Calculus with Analytical
Geometry
PHSY 105 General Physics I
CENG 230 Introduction to C
Programming
ENG 101
Development of Reading
and Writing Skills I
IS 100
Introduction to
Information Tech. and
App.
ME 114
Computer Aided
Engineering Drawing II
MATH 120 Calculus for Functions of
Several Variables
PHYS 106 General Physics II
CHEM 107 General Chemistry
ENG 102
Development of Reading
and Writing Skills II
ME 200
Mechanical Engineering
Orientation
ME 203
Thermodynamics I
ME 205
Statics
METE 227 Basic Concepts in
Material Science
MATH 219 Ordinary Differential
Equations
EE 209
Fundamentals of
Electrical and Electronic
Eng.
ENG 211
Advanced Reading and
Oral Communications
HIST 2201 Principles of K. Atatürk
I
37
Category (Credit Hours)
Math &
Engineering
Basic
Topics Check if
Sciences Contains
Significant Design
(√)
2
General
Education
Other
1
5
4
3
4
NC
3
5
4
4
4
NC
1
1
2
3
2
4
3
3
NC
Table 5-1 Basic-Level Curriculum (continued)
(MECHANICAL ENGINEERING)
Semester
Fourth
Semester
Fifth
Semester
Sixth
Semester
Course (Department, Number, Title)
Category (Credit Hours)
Math &
Engineering
Basic
Topics
Sciences
Check if
Contains
Significant
Design (√)
3
0,5
2,5
ME 202
ME 204
Manufacturing Technologies
Thermodynamics II
ME 206
ME 208
ME 210
Strength of Materials
Dynamics
Applied Mathematics for
Mechanical Engineers
Engineering Materials
3
Principles of K. Atatürk II
NC
Summer Practice I
Theory of Machines I
NC
METE
228
HIST
2202
ME 300
ME 301
General
Education
3
3
3
3
ME 303
ME 305
ME 307
ME 311
ECON
210
TURK
303
ME 302
Manufacturing Engineering
Fluid Mechanics I
Machine Elements I
Heat Transfer
Principles of Economics
Theory of Machines II
3
ME 304
ME 306
Control Systems
Fluid Mechanics II
3
3
ME 308
ME 310
Machine Elements II
Numerical Methods
3
ME 312
TURK
304
Thermal Engineering
Turkish II
Turkish I
0,5
0,5
3
2,5
3
2,5
(√)
3
NC
3
3
NC
38
(√)
Other
Table 5-1 Basic-Level Curriculum (continued)
(MECHANICAL ENGINEERING)
Semester
Course (Department, Number, Title)
Seventh
Semester
ME 400
ME 407
DE. EL.
Eighth
Semester
DE. EL.
DE. EL.
NT. EL.
FE. EL.
ME 410
DE. EL.
DE. EL.
DE. EL.
NT. EL.
Summer Practice II
Mechanical Engineering
Design
Departmental Elective*
Category (Credit Hours)
Math &
Engineering General
Other
Basic
Topics
Education
Sciences
Check if
Contains
Significant
Design (√)
NC
3
(√)
3
Departmental Elective*
Departmental Elective*
Non-Technical Elective
Free Elective
Mechanical Engineering
Systems Laboratory
Restricted Elective*
Departmental Elective*
Departmental Elective*
Non-Technical Elective
3
3
3
3
1
2
3
3
3
3
TOTALS-ABET BASIC LEVEL REQUIREMENTS
OVERALL TOTAL FOR DEGREE
36,5
81,5
23
4
PERCENT OF TOTAL
Totals must satisfy Minimum semester credit hours
one set
Minimum percentage
25%
32 hrs
25%
56%
48 hrs
37.5%
16%
3%
√ Indicates courses with significant design content.
* See next page for list of departmental electives.
Engineering design is a decision-making process that requires fundamental knowledge of all
aspects of the curriculum, including mathematics and basic science, engineering science, as
well as non-engineering aspects. It is therefore appropriate to include the capstone design
course in the later stage of the students’ education. ME 407 Mechanical Engineering Design
course is the compulsory capstone design course for senior level students in the fourth-year of
the program. This is a one-semester course and half of the fourth year students take the course
in the fall semester, the other half in the spring semester. Students who do not take ME 407
39
register for ME 410 Mechanical Engineering Systems Laboratory course.
The main objective of the ME 407 course is to provide the senior engineering student with a
realistic understanding of the engineering design process and to develop engineering design
synthesis ability. Students are encouraged to develop a creative and/or innovative design
project on preferably a real design problem, manufacturing a prototype. Groups of six students
tackle with design problems, which require analytical ability, judgment, technical skills,
creativity and innovation and produce a working prototype of their design. These prototypes are
tested and evaluated on the basis of some pre-established merit.
ME 407 lectures include discussions on the design process and morphology, problem solving
and decision making, modeling and simulation, project engineering, planning and management,
design optimization, economic decision making and cost evaluation, aspects of quality and
human and ecological factors in design. These subjects are built on and are meant to
supplement fundamental concepts.
Every semester several different design project topics (around 40) are announced in ME 407
course. Students in groups of six are assigned to one of these projects. They have to design the
prototype, produce engineering drawings, construct the design in the machine shop and test it in
a competitive examination at the end of the semester. The prototype should perform the
assigned task for the students to get passing grades. Throughout the semester, course assistants
follow the progress of each group and contribute to the grading of the project, assessing the
effort of each student in the group.
ME 407 Two third-year courses, ME 307 Machine Elements I and ME 308 Machine Elements
II, are other courses with design emphasis, aiming to develop student skill in analysis and
design of machine parts that may be used in a mechanical device. In each course, two monthly
design projects are assigned. Each student is required to submit separate reports and drawings.
The first design elements of the program are introduced in ME 113 and ME 114 Computer
Aided Engineering Drawing courses. Theory of Machines courses, ME 301 and ME 302,
include design concepts: design of a flywheel for a slider-crank mechanism, and design of
machinery foundations that achieve vibration isolation are examples. ME 304 Control Systems,
ME 305 and ME 306 Fluid Mechanics I-II, ME 311 Heat Transfer and ME 312 Thermal
Engineering courses each have some design elements in the problems, assigned to the students
as homework.
Among the technical elective courses offered in the fourth year, students apply fluid dynamics
principles to the preliminary design of fluid machinery in their homework assignments in ME
402 Fluid Machinery course. Design of dry and wet coils and design of warm water heating
systems are among the subjects of ME 403 HVACR course. In ME 415 Utilization of
Geothermal Energy course, analysis of system components leads to a geothermal system
design. Students are given two design projects, namely a jig or fixture design project and a
sheet metal die design project in ME 416 Tool Design course. Students are assigned a term
project in ME 418 Dynamics of Machinery course that involves a practical machine design
problem. Projects on technical and economical optimization calculations of heat exchangers
and on design calculations of steam generators are given in ME 421 Steam Generator and Heat
Exchanger Design course. In ME 422 HVACR Design course, students prepare one project on
40
the design of warm or pressurized hot water heating system and another on the design of a
summer air conditioning system. Open-ended problems are given to students on gas turbines
and its components in ME 423 Gas Turbines and Jet Propulsion course. An interactive
computer aided internal combustion engine design is made in ME 426 Internal Combustion
Engine Design course. In ME 431 Kinematic Synthesis of Mechanisms course, graphical and
analytical kinematic synthesis methods are taught and several synthesis problems are solved in
the computer laboratory. Pipeline design methods are studied and design projects are made in
ME 437 Pipeline Engineering course. ME 442 Design of Control Systems course provides the
students with design techniques for classical control systems, backed by some voluntary
laboratory work performed by teams of 2-3 students each. ME 444 Reliability in Engineering
Design course emphasizes reliability as reflected to the design of mechanical components.
Students are required to submit a case study, analyzing a design, which involves considerable
risk in groups of maximum four students. ME 451 Introduction to Composite Structures course
has a project for the design of a fiber reinforced composite laminate under a specified load. In
ME 461 Mechatronic Components and Instrumentation and ME 462 Mechatronic Design
courses, teams of two or three students work on design projects which involve a group-up
design process with an operational end product. Each student is required to submit a complete
plant design project in ME 471 Production Plant Design course. Synthesis methods of fluid
power circuits are taught in ME 481 Industrial Fluid Power course. Students are asked to
design, construct and then do experiments on an experimental setup in ME 483 Experimental
Techniques in Fluid Mechanics course.
The curriculum of the ME Undergraduate Program meets the requirements of the program’s
educational objectives and ABET. The undergraduate program aims to give the student
mathematics and basic science courses in the first year, mainly engineering science courses in
the second year, courses that basically are related to mechanical engineering areas in the third
year, and mechanical engineering specific application courses as technical electives in the
fourth year together with a capstone design course and a capstone laboratory course. The ME
Department undergraduate program leading to the B.S. degree in ME is given in Table 5-1,
which categorizes the course credit hours into mathematics & basic sciences, engineering
topics including both engineering science and engineering design, general education, and
other. The program contains 46 courses with credit, six of which are technical electives, two
are non-technical electives and one is a free elective. Course Syllabi of the courses offered in
the undergraduate curriculum can be found in Appendix A.
The program also includes two non-credit Turkish language courses, two non-credit history
courses, one non-credit information technology introduction course, one non-credit orientation
course and two non-credit summer practices.
A minimum of 148 credit-hours is required for the degree of Bachelor of Science in
Mechanical Engineering.
Mathematics and Basic Sciences
The ME curriculum includes 33 credit hours (22%) of mathematics and basic sciences. In the
first year, students complete most of the mathematics, physics, and chemistry courses that
provide the fundamental knowledge applied in engineering:
MATH 119 Calculus I (5 credits)
MATH 120 Calculus II (5 credits)
41
PHYS 105 General Physics I (4 credits)
PHYS 106 General Physics II (4 credits)
CHEM 107 General Chemistry I (4 credits)
The remaining mathematics courses are given in the second and third year:
MATH 219 Ordinary Differential Equations (4 credits)
ME 210 Applied Mathematics for Mechanical Engineers (3 credits)
ME 310 Numerical Methods (3 credits)
At the beginning of the ME 410 Mechanical Engineering Systems Laboratory course (3 credits
of which 1 credit is Mathematics & Basic Science), students are lectured on presentation of
experimental results, data plotting, curve fitting, error treatment, uncertainty, probability
distributions, significance tests, combination of uncertainties for a duration of 20 hours in the
first two weeks of the semester.
Engineering Topics
The ME curriculum includes 84 credit hours (57%) of engineering topics. Therefore, the
majority of the compulsory courses in the ME curriculum are under the engineering topics
category.
Students start taking the engineering fundamental courses and ME core courses in the second
year:
ME 202 Manufacturing Technologies
ME 203 Thermodynamics I
ME 204 Thermodynamics II
ME 205 Statics
ME 206 Strength of Materials
ME 208 Dynamics
Besides these ME courses, students are required to take supporting courses from other
engineering departments, including Metallurgical and Materials Engineering and Electrical and
Electronics Engineering. These courses are:
METE 227 Basic Concepts in Material Science
EE 209 Fundamentals of Electrical and Electronics Engineering
METE 228 Engineering Materials
In the third year, students take additional mechanical engineering core courses. These courses
are:
ME 301 Theory of Machines I
ME 302 Theory of Machines II
ME 303 Manufacturing Engineering
42
ME 304 Control Systems
ME 305 Fluid Mechanics I
ME 306 Fluid Mechanics II
ME 307 Machine Elements I
ME 308 Machine Elements II
ME 311 Heat Transfer
ME 312 Thermal Engineering
These required engineering courses prepare students to work in both the mechanical systems
and thermal systems stems and also provide students with all the fundamental topics required
for a mechanical engineer.
Students are required to select 6 technical elective courses (18 credits in total) during their
senior year in addition to a restricted elective course from a pool of Thermo-Fluids design
courses. Table 5-1 lists all the technical and restricted elective courses offered in the ME
undergraduate curriculum. Course Syllabi of the technical electives courses, which are given in
Appendix A, provide a description of each course.
Laboratory Experience
ME students have their first laboratory practice in the first year in the PHYS 105, PHYS 106,
and CHEM 107 courses.
Just before the registration period for the fall semester, second year students attend an eight-day
program, ME 200 Mechanical Engineering Orientation, five days of which are spent to
introduce the students to the laboratories and the machine shop of the department. No formal
experiments are performed, however, students get used to the physical setting and facilities
present. Also some demonstrations are given.
Students spend about 30 hours in the machine shop for the ME 202 Manufacturing Engineering
course. They do bench work, lathe work, milling machine, sheet metal forming and welding
practice. They are asked to produce small parts, such as nutcrackers, screwdrivers etc., during
the practice.
In the machine shop, students are instructed on safety procedures, attire and behavior
requirements by the supervising assistants and the machine shop personnel. They wear white
shop coats and use glasses when necessary. At all times, students are under the supervision of
the machine shop staff.
Students perform formal laboratory experiments in ME 305 Fluid Mechanics I, ME 306 Fluid
Mechanics II, ME 311 Heat Transfer, and ME 312 Thermal Engineering courses. In each
course, 2 to 3 experiments are performed in groups of 5 to 10 students. A report is required for
each experiment performed. Laboratory demonstrations are held once every semester in ME
307 Machine Elements I and ME 308 Machine Elements II courses.
ME 410 Mechanical Engineering Systems Laboratory is a compulsory course in the fourth year
of the curriculum. After being instructed on statistical uncertainty analysis, students perform 6
experiments in groups of 2 or 3. Every student submits a report for each experiment. Each
43
group conducts experiments on topics such as straightness and flatness measurements on a
surface table, closed loop on-off control, mass and energy balances in psychrometric processes,
performance characteristics of an internal combustion engine, stress analysis by using strain
gages, and characteristics of an airfoil, etc., which might not have been fully covered in the
compulsory courses of the curriculum. This course is an overview of the basic courses of the
first three years of the undergraduate curriculum. The students have the opportunity to apply
the knowledge acquired in basic mechanical engineering subjects on practical engineering
systems. A total of six experiments are selected to cover most of the basic branches of
mechanical engineering. The experiments are aimed at either providing an immediate
numerical answer to a specific problem or the verification of an existing theory. In either case
the collected data are statistically analyzed and filtered. The necessary calculations for
presenting the results require a certain amount of research on the specific subject of the
experiment. This serves to acquaint the student with a subject that he or she might not have
selected as a technical elective. Assignments are also given for the same purpose. The
presentation of the data and results are according to technical reporting format. As a result of
these combined efforts, the student is expected to learn how to conduct an experiment in a
group of at most three students and analyze and then synthesize the data and hypothesis or
assignment in an internationally understandable format.
ME 401 Internal Combustion Engine course has two experiments for which reports are
required. ME 402 Fluid Machinery course has also two experiments. Demonstrations are
made in ME 403 Heating, Ventilating, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration (HVACR) course.
ME 411 Gas Dynamics course has one experiment for which a report is required and two
demonstrations. ME 414 System Dynamics course has five experiments. ME 425 Automotive
Engineering I and ME 436 Automotive Engineering II courses each have two, and ME 433
Engineering Metrology and Quality Control and ME 481 Industrial Fluid Power courses each
have three one-hour sessions in the laboratory mainly for demonstrative purposes. There are
two experiments requiring reports in ME 422 HVACR Design course. Three experiments are
performed in ME 423 Gas Turbines and Jet Propulsion course. ME 437 Pipeline Engineering
course has two one hour laboratory sessions. ME 442 Design of Control Systems course has an
option in which students work on a semester-long laboratory project in teams of 2-3, spending
at least two hours in a week, producing weekly progress reports, and at the end of the semester
a formal written report and its presentation are required. In ME 445 Integrated Manufacturing
Systems, ME 448 Fundamentals of Micro Electromechanical Systems, and ME 481 Industrial
Fluid Power courses there are laboratory demonstrations. ME 450 Nondestructive Testing
Methods course has 5 experiments. Several experiments in mechatronics topics are conducted
in ME 461 Mechatronics Components and Instrumentation course. Students taking ME 483
Experimental Techniques in Fluid Mechanics course perform 10 experiments, 5 of them on
instrument calibration, and there are three demonstrations. Students also design, construct and
perform experiments on an experimental setup or a prototype in groups of 2 in this course.
General Education
The ME curriculum includes 26 credit hours (18%) of general education.
English is a second language for almost all students of METU. After the initial registration
procedure, students take a multiple-choice English Proficiency Examination prepared by the
44
School of Foreign Languages. Based on the results of this examination, students either start
their first year programs or they attend the Department of Basic English (English Preparatory
School) for one year.
All ME students are required to take ENG 101 Development of Reading and Writing Skills I
and ENG 102 Development of Reading and Writing Skills II courses in the first year, ENG 211
Advanced Reading and Oral Communication courses in the second year. ENG 101 aims to
reinforce reading and writing skills through reading selections with review of structural patterns
and paragraph and summary writing. ENG 102 is a continuation of ENG 101 with emphasis on
essay writing. ENG 211 aims at further reading improvement and vocabulary expansion
through readings, while attention is paid to the development of oral skills.
All Turkish students are required to take TURK 303 Turkish I and TURK 304 Turkish II
language courses in their third year, which aim at improving oral and written communication
and expression skills. All non-Turkish speaking foreign students must take TURK 201
Elementary Turkish and TURK 202 Intermediate Turkish courses.
Students may also take ENG 201 and ENG 202 English-Turkish Translation courses, ENG 203
Readings in Drama course, ENG 204 Communication and Culture course, Arabic, French,
German, Japanese, Italian, Russian, Spanish, Hebrew, and Advanced Turkish (foreign students
only) language courses to satisfy their non-technical elective or free elective requirements.
In addition to four English language courses (ENG 101, ENG 102, ENG 211), each student has
to take ECON 210 Principles of Economics in the third year, HIST 2201 Principle of K.
Atatürk I and HIST 2202 Principle of K. Atatürk II courses in the second year, two nontechnical elective courses (NTE) and one free elective (FE) course. Although NTE and FE
courses are in the last year of the program, most students start taking them earlier, especially
when unable to follow the regular program due to unsatisfied prerequisites. It is required that
NTE courses must at least be 3 credit courses in the fields of linguistics, foreign language
studies, history, psychology, sociology, philosophy, literature, music and fine arts, political
science, international relations, architecture, educational sciences, and economics. The faculty
of Engineering maintains an active list of courses offered by other faculties of METU that
engineering students can take as NTEs.
The Department of Modern Languages requires that students taking more than one language
courses should take different level courses of the same language, rather than courses of two
different languages, thereby providing some depth in the field.
Students may take NTE courses in excess of the number in program requirements, subject to
the approval of the academic advisor.
Computer Experience
The ME program contains three computer related courses in the first semester. One of them is
CENG 230 Introduction to C Programming, a computer language and programming course
offered by the Computer Engineering Department. IS 100 Introduction to Information
Technologies and Applications course introduces students to the basic information technology
concepts and applications (i.e., introduction to computers, computer hardware and software,
word processors, spreadsheets, computer networks and internet browsers) in their freshman
45
year preparing them to use these skills during their undergraduate studies in their respective
disciplines, as well as professional lives. In ME 113 Computer Aided Engineering Drawing I
course, a commercial CAD package is used as a tool for all assignments in the Computer
Graphics Laboratory. The continuation of the course, ME 114 Computer Aided Engineering
Drawing II, is in the second semester of the program.
At the beginning of the first semester of the third year, all students are given four hours of
instruction on the use of MathCad/MATLAB programs as a mathematical tools. Afterwards,
students spend four times two hours in the computer laboratory for ME 301 Theory of
Machines I course and two times two hours for ME 311 Heat Transfer course, under the
supervision of assistants, where they are required to work on assigned problems. The practice
continues in the next semester in ME 302 Theory of Machines II course (with 3 or 4 two hours
sessions) and ME 312 Thermal Engineering course (with 2 two hours sessions). Students are
encouraged to use MATLAB software for homework problems of ME 304 Control Systems
and to use MathCad/MATLAB or similar software in the preparation of design projects of ME
307 Machine Elements I and ME 308 Machine Elements II courses. The biweekly homework
assignments in ME 310 Numerical Methods course require the application of numerical
solution techniques using a high-level computer language of student’s choice. ME 407
Mechanical Engineering Design course requires students to make design calculations and
engineering drawings using available software packages.
Use of computers in fourth year technical elective courses is widespread. ME 401 Internal
Combustion Engines course requires students to use Borland Delphi 4.0 language in data
evaluation. Homework problems are solved using a computer code in ME 413 Introduction to
Finite Element analysis course. Students are required to use commercial packages to solve
problems using in ME 414 System Dynamics course and to make drawings in ME 416 Tool
Design course. Computer tools are also necessary to solve practical machine design problems
in ME 418 Dynamics of Machinery course. ME 426 Internal Combustion Engine Design course
requires writing a program in Delphi 4.0 language for thermodynamic analysis and component
design, and preparing a fully computer aided design of an internal combustion engine. In ME
422 HVACR Design course, students are recommended to make computerized design
calculations. In ME 431 Kinematic Synthesis of Mechanisms course, students are required to
solve several synthesis problems using MathCad or Excel.
ME 433 Engineering Metrology and Quality Control course requires students to use computers
for statistical process control. In ME 437 Pipeline Engineering course students work in the
computer laboratory on pipeline design analysis. ME 438 Theory of Combustion course uses
available programs for the solution of complex chemical equilibrium problems. In ME 440
Numerically Controlled Machine Tools course students use computers for simulation of CNC
machines and also for term papers. For the homework solutions of ME 442 Design of Control
Systems course, Matlab software is utilized. In ME 445 Integrated Manufacturing Systems
course, computers are used for PLC programming. ME 448 Fundamentals of Micro
Electromechanical Systems course requires the projccts to be prepared using related softwares.
In ME 451 Introduction to Composite Structures course students prepare a computational
design project for which they must use computers. Microcontrollers are programmed and
debugged in ME 461 Mechatronic Components and Instrumentation and ME 462 Mechatronic
Design courses. Students use commercial packages in their projects in ME 481 Industrial Fluid
46
Power course. ME 485 Computational Fluid Dynamics course has five computer assignements
to be solved by using commercial CFD softwares.
In addition, students are encouraged to use computers for homework exercises in ME 402 Fluid
Machinery, for homework problems in ME 403 HVACR, for design calculations in ME 421
Steam Generator and Heat Exchanger Design, for homework assignments and projects in ME
429 Mechanical Vibrations, for homework problems and voluntary projects in ME 425
Automotive Engineering I and ME 436 Automotive Engineering II, for term project in ME 443
Engineering Economy and Production Management, for case study topics in ME 444
Reliability in Engineering Design, and for homework solutions in ME 476 Second Law
Analysis of Thermal Systems courses.
As a result of these experiences, it is believed that students develop the necessary competence
in engineering applications of computers until graduation.
There is no cooperative education in ME Program.
No additional materials.
47
B. Prerequisite Flow Chart
METU DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING COURSE PRE-REQUISITE FLOWCHART
ENG 101
PHYS 105
ENG 102
PHYS 106
MATH 119
CENG 230
113
MATH 120
CHEM 107
114
200
ENG 211
EE 209
202
205
MATH 219
206
METE 227
208
210
203
METE 228
204
300
303
307
301
308
305
302
304
311
310
306
ECON 210
312
400
425
432
423
435
413
440
471
416
433
408
444
434
451
418
429
431
472
481
436
407 *
410
(
430
450
473
414
442
402
411
437
483
484
443
403
477
478
427
405
415
420
428
422
1
421
1
424
1
401
1
438
476
426
1
*ME 407 and ME 410 are only offered to senior students. Students who have less than 12 technical and 1 non-technical courses to graduate have senior status.
Figure 5-1 Prerequisite flowchart of the Mechanical Engineering Departmen
48
C. Course Syllabi
In Appendix A, include a syllabus for each course used to satisfy the mathematics, science, and
discipline-specific requirements required by Criterion 5 or any applicable Program Criteria.
The syllabi format should be consistent for each course, must not exceed two pages per course,
and, at a minimum, contain the following information:








Department, course number, and title of course
Designation as a Required or Elective course
Course (catalog) description
Prerequisites
Textbook(s) and/or other required material
Course learning outcomes
Topics covered
Class/laboratory schedule, i.e., number of sessions each week and duration of each
session
 Contribution of course to meeting the requirements of Criterion 5
 Relationship of course to Program Outcomes
 Person(s) who prepared this description and date of preparation
Öğretim üyeleri tarafından bir kısmı hazırlandı, bir kısmı da hazırlanıyor.
49
6. CRITERION 6 FACULTY
A. Leadership Responsibilities
Identify the person who has leadership responsibilities for the program.
leadership and management responsibilities of that person.
Describe the
The department chair has leadership responsibilities for the ME program. He is appointed by
the Dean of Faculty of Engineering for a period of three years. The program chair evaluates the
performance of each faculty member annually in the areas of research, teaching and service.
There are two vice-chairmen who assist the department chair in the departmental operations.
There are ten advisory standing committees in the department level. All department committees
meet frequently during the semester, report their activities and submit policy and program related
recommendations to the department chair. Academic changes require the approval of the
departmental Faculty Board consisting of entire faculty of the department which meets at least once
a month during semesters..
B. Authority and Responsibility of Faculty
Describe the role played by the program faculty with respect to course creation, modification,
and evaluation. Describe the roles played by others on the campus, e.g., Dean’s Office,
Provost’s Office, with respect to these areas. Describe the process used to ensure consistency
and quality of the courses taught.
Development of new courses as well as modification and evaluation of existing ones are
entirely the responsibility of the faculty. The department chair with the advice of
Undergraduate Curriculum Program Committee makes suggestions to the Faculty Board about
curricular matters. Courses may be created or modified through an established process through
the faculty governance system.
The departmental faculty is strongly involved with the governance of the Department and Faculty
of Engineering. Nearly each faculty member of the department serves on at least one standing
committee at the department and/or at the Engineering Faculty level and/or university level, in
some cases in multiple manners. They serve also in ad-hoc committees formed by the
administration at departmental, Faculty of Engineering, and upper administration level as a
need arises for their expertise.
C. Faculty
Describe the composition, size, credentials, experience, and workload of the faculty that
supports this program. Complete and include Tables 6-1 and 6-2.
Faculty in the Department of Mechanical Engineering has a diversified background in teaching
and research with Ph.D. degrees received from various prestigious universities around the
50
world. Many of them have more than one teaching and research areas and have strong teaching
and research record. A brief summary of the adequacy of the faculty expertise and experience is
provided here along with additional information on their activities. Table 6-1 shows the
activity distribution for the faculty members in Mechanical Engineering Department. Table 6-2
shows the professional credentials of the faculty. The resumes of all faculty associated with the
department are given in Appendix B. The size of the faculty is adequate for the current status of
the program.
Table 6-1 Faculty Workload Summary
Faculty Workload Summary
(MECHANICAL ENGINEERING)
FT
Classes Taught (Course No./Credit Hrs.)
Total Activity Distribution1
Faculty
Member
(Name)
AKKÖK,
Metin
AKSEL, M.
Haluk
ALBAYRAK,
Kahraman
or
2008-09 Fall
Term
2008-09 Spring Term
Teaching
ANLAĞAN,
Ömer
ARIKAN,
Sahir
ARINÇ, Faruk
PT
ME 307 / 3, two
groups
ME 305 / 3, ME
411 / 3
ME 305 / 3, ME
402 / 3, PNG
E211 / 3
ME 445 / 3
ME 202 / 3, two
groups
ME 311 / 3, ME
510 /3
ME 113 / 3, two
groups
ME 203 / 3, ME
490 / 3
ME 410 / 3, ME
516 / 3
ME 401 / 3, ME
410 / 3
ME 307 / 3, two
groups
ME 113 / 3,
three groups
ME 414 / 3, ME
520 / 3
ME 305 / 3, ME
517 / 3
ME 521 / 3, ME
543 / 3
PT
FT
FT
FT
FT
FT
ATAOĞLU,
PT
Ayfer
BAKER, Derek FT
BALKAN,
Tuna
BAYKA,
A.Demir
CİĞEROĞLU,
Ender
CİVCİ, Kerep
FT
ÇALIŞKAN,
Mehmet
ÇETİNKAYA,
Tahsin
DAĞ, Serkan
FT
FT
FT
FT
FT
FT
Other2
ME 206 / 3, ME 560 / 3 50
Research
/Scholarly
Activity
30
ME 306 / 3, ME 485 / 3 50
50
-
ME 306 / 3, ME 306 / 3 40
40
20
(D,I,C)
ME 535 / 3
100
-
-
ME 202 / 3, two groups
50
25
25 (C)
ME 210 / 3, ME 310 / 3 50
20
30 (I)
ME114 / 3, two groups
-
-
ME 203 / 3, ME 476 / 3 40
60
-
ME 304 / 3, ME 410 / 3 40
40
20 (C)
ME 410 / 3, ME 426 / 3 45
50
5 (C)
ME 308 / 3, two
60
groups, MECH 307 / 4
ME 114 / 3, three
80
groups
ME 302 / 3, ME 432 / 3 40
25
15(C)
20
-
35
25 (U)
ME 208 / 3, ME 310 / 3 50
40
10 (C)
ME 210 / 3, ME 583 / 3 45
45
10
51
100
20 (C)
Table 6-1 Faculty Workload Summary(Continued)
Faculty Workload Summary
(MECHANICAL ENGINEERING)
DARENDELİL
ER, Haluk
DOYUM,
Bülent
DÖLEN, Melik
FT
DURSUNKAY
A, Zafer
ERALP,
O.Cahit
ERDAL,
Merve
GÖKLER,
Mustafa İ.
HEPER, Yaver
ME 206 / 3, ME 208 / 3 11
5
84 (U)
ME 206 / 3, ME 450 / 3 55
30
15 (U)
ME 407 / 3, two groups
50
40
10 (C)
FT
ME 205 / 3, ME
586 / 3
ME 205 / 3, two
groups
ME 303 / 3, ME
440 / 3
ME 546 / 3
ME 518 / 3
20
20
60 U
FT
ME 483 / 3
ME 437 / 3
20
50
30 (U,I,C)
FT
ME 306 / 3, two groups
35
30
35 (A)
ME 212 / 3, ME 443 / 3 25
25
50 (U,C)
PT
ME 455 / 3, ME
521 / 3
ME 212 / 3, two
groups
ME 424 / 3
ME 424 / 3
50
0
50
İDER, S.Kemal
FT
ME 528 / 3
ME 302 / 3, two groups
40
30
30 (C, D)
KADIOGLU,
Suat
KAFTANOGL
U, Bilgin
KARABAY,
Macit
KILIÇ,
S.Engin
FT
ME 206 / 3, ME 308 / 3 55
40
5 (C)
PT
ME 205 / 3, two
groups
ME 533 / 3
ME 541 / 3
30
35
35 (C)
PT
ME 433 / 3
None
80
20
-
FT
ME 303 / 3, two
groups, ME 410 / 3
35
25
40 (U, I,
C)
KOKU, Buğra
FT
ME 462 / 3
30
40
30 (D,C)
KONUKSEVE
N, İlhan
ÖZYURT, H.
Tuba Okutucu
ORAL, Suha
FT
ME 303 / 3, two
groups, ME 410
/3
ME 220 / 1, ME
461 / 3
ME 105 / 3, ME
407 / 3
None
ME 308 / 3, two groups
30
40
30 (D,C)
ME 521 / 3, ME 704 / 3 50
50
-
ME 581 / 3
40
40
20 (D,C)
OSKAY,
Rüknettin
ÖZDEMİR,
Ayla
ÖZGEN,
Gökhan Osman
ÖZGÖREN,
M.Kemal
FT
ME 404 / 3, ME
413 / 3
ME 311 / 3, ME
403 / 3
ME 113 / 3,
three groups
ME 208 / 3, ME
310 / 3
ME 301 / 3, ME
502 / 3
ME 312 / 3, ME 422 / 3 50
30
20
ME114 / 3, two groups
-
-
50
-
FT
FT
FT
FT
FT
PT
FT
FT
100
ME 208 / 3, two groups
ME 304 / 3, ME 522 / 3 50
52
Table 6-1 Faculty Workload Summary(Continued)
Faculty Workload Summary
(MECHANICAL ENGINEERING)
ÖZGÜVEN,
H.Nevzat
PARNAS,
K.Levend
PLATİN,
Bülent E.
SERT, Cüneyt
FT
ME 429 / 3
ME 532 / 3
15
10
75 (U)
FT
None
None
30
30
40 (A,C)
FT
ME 210 / 3, two groups
35
35
30 (I)
ME 310 / 3, ME 413 / 3 50
50
-
SOYLU, Reşit
FT
ME 210 / 3, two groups
50
50
-
SÖYLEMEZ,
Eres
TARI İlker
FT
ME 431 / 3, ME 519 / 3 40
60
-
ME 312 / 3, ME 508 / 3 40
60
-
TÖNÜK, Ergin
FT
50
-
FT
ME 302 / 3, ME 547 /
3, ME 590 / NC, BME
501 / 3
None
50
TÜMER,
S.Turgut
ULAŞ,
Abdullah
ÜNLÜSOY,
Y.Samim
VURAL,
Hüseyin
YAMALI,
Cemil
YAZICIOĞLU,
Almıla G.
YAZICIOĞLU,
Yiğit
YEŞİN,
A.Orhan
YILDIRIM,
R.Orhan
YOZGATLIGİ
L
YÜNCÜ, Hafit
ME 442 / 3, ME
511 / 3
ME 305 / 3, two
groups
ME 301 / 3, two
groups
ME 301 / 3, ME
418 / 3
ME 311 / 3, ME
421 / 3
ME 206 / 3, ME
301 / 3, ME 590
/ NC
None
-
-
100 (U)
ME 203 / 3, ME
311 / 3
ME 425 / 3, ME
513 / 3
ME 203 / 3, two
groups
ME 203 / 3, ME
311 / 3
ME 351 / 3, two
groups
ME 310 / 3, two
groups
ME 415 / 3, ME
427 / 3
ME 307 / 3, ME
523 / 3
ME 204 / 3, ME
438 / 3
ME504 / 3, ME
537 / 3
ME 204 / 3, ME 312 / 3 50
50
-
ME 304 / 3, ME 436 / 3 50
40
10 (C)
ME 204 / 3, two groups
5
65 (U)
ME 312 / 3, ME 478 / 3 35
35
60 (C)
ME 351 / 3, ME 421 / 3 40
60
-
ME 205 / 3, two groups
50
50
-
ME 312 / 3, ME 428 / 3 30
30
40 (I)
ME 308 / 3, ME 588 / 3 40
45
15 (C)
50
-
FT
FT
FT
FT
FT
FT
FT
FT
FT
FT
FT
FT
30
ME 203 / 3, ME 351 / 3
ME204 / 3, ME 505 / 3
50
1. Activit distribution should be in percent of effort. Members' activities should total %100.
2. Indicate sabbatical leave, etc., under "Other." (D : administration in department; U :
administration in university.
53
I : administration in other institutions; C : consultancy)
3. FT = Full Time Faculty
PT = Part Time Faculty
Table 6-2 Faculty Analysis
Faculty Analysis
FT
Ph.D.
Prof.
T
FT
Ph.D.
Prof.
NTT
PT
Ph.D.
ARIKAN,
Sahir
ARINÇ,
Faruk
Prof.
T
FT
Ph.D.
Prof.
T
FT
Ph.D.
ATAOĞL
U, Ayfer
BAKER,
Derek
BALKAN
, Tuna
BAYKA,
A.Demir
Instr.
NTT
PT
M.Sc.
Asst.
Prof.
Prof.
T
FT
Ph.D.
T
FT
Ph.D.
Prof.
T
FT
Ph.D.
CİĞERO
ĞLU,
Ender
CİVCİ,
Kerep
ÇALIŞKA
N,
Mehmet
Instr.
Dr.
T
FT
Ph.D.
Instr.
NTT
FT
M.Sc.
Prof.
T
FT
Ph.D.
-
29
27
-
Medium
High
Low
1
29
28
-
None
High
Medium
1
20
20
-
Medium
High
Mediuim
Univ. of
Manchester,
1975
METU, 1987
8
29
29
-
None
High
Medium
-
24
24
-
Low
High
North
Carolina State
Univ., 1976
METU, 1974
4
23
18
-
High
Med
ium
Low
3
36
36
-
Low
None
University of
Texas-Austin
METU, 1988
2,5
6
27
ICA
T
-
High
-
8,
5
27
Non
e
High
High
Univ.of
Manchester,
1980
The Ohio
State
University
METU, 1974
-
24
24
-
None
Med
ium
High
-
2
2
-
None
High
Low
-
37
37
-
None
None
NCSU at
Raleigh, 1983
-
20
30
-
None
Med
ium
Med
ium
Imperial
College, 1980
Lehigh Univ.,
1981
METU, 1984
54
High
Consulting/
Summer Work
in Industry
T
Research
Prof.
Professional
Society
Ph.D.
State in which Society
(Indicate Society)
FT
This Institution
T
Institution
from which
Highest
Degree
Earned &
Year
Level of
Activity
(high,med
,low,none
) in:
Total Faculty
Prof.
Name
Type of
Academic
Appointm
ent
TT,
T, NTT
Years of
Experience
Govt./ Industry
Practice
Highest Degree and Field
AKKÖK,
Metin
AKSEL,
M. Haluk
ALBAYR
AK,
Kahraman
ANLAĞA
N, Ömer
Rank
PT or FT
(MECHANICAL ENGINEERING)
Low
None
High
High
Table 6-2 Faculty Analysis(Continued)
Faculty Analysis
T
FT
T
FT
DARENDELİLE
R, Haluk
DOYUM, Bülent
Prof.
T
FT
Prof.
T
FT
DÖLEN, Melik
Asst.P
rof.
T
FT
DURSUNKAY
A, Zafer
ERALP, O.Cahit
Prof.
T
FT
Prof.
T
FT
ERDAL, Merve
Asst.P
rof.
Prof.
T
FT
T
FT
HEPER, Yaver
Instr.
NTT
PT
İDER, S.Kemal
Prof.
T
FT
KADIOĞLU,
Suat
KAFTANOĞLU
, Bilgin
ORAL, Suha
Prof.
T
FT
Prof.
NTT
PT
Prof.
T
FT
OSKAY,
Rüknettin
ÖZDEMİR,
Ayla
ÖZGEN,
Gökhan Osman
Prof.
T
FT
Instr.
NTT
PT
Instr.
Dr.
T
FT
GÖKLER,
Mustafa İ.
Ph.D
.
Ph.D
.
Ph.D
.
Ph.D
.
Ph.D
.
Ph.D
.
Ph.D
.
Ph.D
.
Ph.D
.
M.Sc
.
Ph.
D.
Ph.D
.
Ph.D
.
Ph.D
.
PhD
M.Sc
.
18
-
None
Lehigh
University,
2002
METU, 1991
1
7
7
-
-
9
8
Lehigh Univ.,
1986
Univ. of
Wisconsin,
2000
IIT, 1988
-
22
-
Consulting/
Summer Work in
Industry
18
Professional
Society
1
Govt./ Industry
Practice
METU, 1990
Research
State in which Society (Indicate
Society)
Institution
from which
Highest
Degree
Earned &
Year
Level of
Activity
(high,med
,low,none
) in:
This Institution
Instr.
Dr.
Assoc.
Prof.
Years of
Experience
Total Faculty
ÇETİNKAYA,
Tahsin
DAĞ, Serkan
Highest Degree and Field
Name
Type
of
Acade
mic
Appoin
tment
TT, T,
NTT
PT or FT
Rank
(MECHANICAL ENGINEERING)
None
Low
Medi
um
High
-
None
High
None
22
-
Low
Medium
8
3
-
Low
Medi
um
High
5
15
15
-
None
None
-
29
29
-
Low
Medi
um
High
-
3
-
None
20
-
Medium
Medi
um
High
None
-
5,
5
20
38
11
11
-
None
-
High
Univ. Of
Illinois, 1988
Lehigh Univ.,
1993
Imperial
College, 1966
METU, 1987
6
20
19
-
None
High
Medium
1
13
13
-
None
Low
6
38
34
-
High
Medi
um
High
High
3
27
27
-
Medium
High
Medium
METU&1976
-
40
40
-
Medium
Low
METU, 1972
3
37
37
-
None
Medi
um
None
Cranfield
Institute of
Tech, 1980
Univ. Illinois,
1998
Univ. of
Birmingham,
1983
METU, 1972
-
55
Low
Medium
High
High
None
Table 6-2 Faculty Analysis(Continued)
Faculty Analysis
T
FT
Prof.
T
FT
PARNAS,
K.Levend
PLATİN, Bülent
E.
SERT, Cüneyt
Prof.
T
FT
Prof.
T
FT
Asst.P
rof.
Prof.
T
FT
T
FT
SÖYLEMEZ,
Eres
Prof.
T
FT
TARI, İlker
Asst.P
rof.
Asst.P
rof.
Prof.
T
FT
T
FT
T
FT
Assoc.
Prof.
Prof.
T
FT
T
FT
Prof.
T
FT
Assoc.
Prof.
Asst.
Prof.
Asst.P
rof.
T
FT
T
FT
T
FT
SOYLU, Reşit
TÖNÜK, Ergin
TÜMER,
S.Turgut
ULAŞ, Abdullah
ÜNLÜSOY,
Y.Samim
VURAL,
Hüseyin
YAMALI, Cemil
YAZICIOĞLU,
Almıla G.
YAZICIOĞLU,
Yiğit
D.E.
Sc.
Ph.D
.
Ph.D
.
Sc.D.
Ph.D
.
Ph.D
.
Ph.D
.
Ph.D
.
Ph.D
.
Ph.D
.
Ph.D
.
Ph.D
.
Ph.D
.
Ph.D
.
Ph.D
.
Ph.D
Columbia
Univ., 1976
Univ. of
Manchester,
1978
Georgia Inst. of
Tech., 1990
MIT, 1978
Texas A&M
Univ., 2003
Univ. of
Florida, 1987
Columbia U.,
New York,
USA
Northeastern
Univ., 1998
METU, 1998
Univ. of
Manchester,
1980
Pennsylvania
State Un., 2000
Univ. of
Birmingham,
1979
Rutgers Univ.,
1982
Univ. of
Michigan, 1983
Univ. Illinois
Chicago, 2004
Univ. Illinois at
Chicago
56
Consulting/
Summer Work in
Industry
State in which Society (Indicate
Society)
33
-
None
High
Low
8
22
20
-
None
High
Low
-
4
3
-
Low
High
High
1
31
31
-
High
Low
-
5
5
-
None
Medi
um
High
-
22
22
-
None
14
38
33
-
1,5
11
10
-
11
5
Research
33
Professional
Society
-
Govt./ Industry
Practice
Institution
from which
Highest
Degree
Earned &
Year
Level of
Activity
(high,med
,low,none
) in:
This Institution
Prof.
Years of
Experience
Total Faculty
ÖZGÖREN,
M.Kemal
ÖZGÜVEN,
H.Nevzat
Highest Degree and Field
Name
Type
of
Acade
mic
Appoin
tment
TT, T,
NTT
PT or FT
Rank
(MECHANICAL ENGINEERING)
None
None
None
Medi
um
High
-
None
High
Low
9
-
None
Med
Low
28
23
-
None
Medi
um
None
-
8
8
-
Med
High
Low
-
32
30
-
None
High
Medium
5
22
22
-
Low
Low
Medium
-
22
22
-
None
Medium
-
4,
5
4
3,5
-
None
Medi
um
High
4
-
None
Medi
um
None
High
None
Table 6-2 Faculty Analysis(Continued)
Faculty Analysis
T
FT
35
37
-
High
Univ. of
Birmingham,
1981
6
25
23
-
Consulting/
Summer Work in
Industry
FT
2
Research
T
UMIST, 1969
Professional
Society
Asst.
Prof.
Prof.
State in which Society (Indicate
Society)
YOZGATLIGİ
L, Ahmet
YÜNCÜ, Hafit
This Institution
FT
Ph.D
.
Ph.D
.
Institution
from which
Highest
Degree
Earned &
Year
Level of
Activity
(high,med
,low,none
) in:
Total Faculty
T
FT
Years of
Experience
Govt./ Industry
Practice
Prof.
Name
PT or FT
Prof.
Rank
YEŞİN,
A.Orhan
YILDIRIM,
R.Orhan
Type
of
Acade
mic
Appoin
tment
TT, T,
NTT
T
Highest Degree and Field
(MECHANICAL ENGINEERING)
None
None
Med
ium
High
Low
High
Low
Low
Ph.D
METU, 1975
-
40
40
-
D. Faculty Competencies
Describe the competencies of the faculty and how they are adequate to cover all of the
curricular areas of the program.
The Mechanical Engineering program of METU with a wide spectrum of content requires a
faculty with diverse backgrounds to provide adequate coverage. The faculty of ME department
has ample experience and knowledge in the basic areas of ME program. Most faculty have
publications in their areas of focus, and has about twenty years of experience in teaching their
courses in the curriculum. All faculty members with tenure tract and tenured positions are
involved in supervising M.S. and Ph.D. students.
The undergraduate curriculum is sub-divided into five mechanical engineering categories;
namely, machine theory and dynamics, design and production, solid mechanics, fluid
mechanics, thermodynamics and energy. Table 6-3 shows these curricular areas and faculty
members who teach in those areas. A sub-discipline breakdown based on research areas of the
faculty given in Table 6-4 shows a similar trend with a little bit more dispersed cross-over
character, which is a pretty good sign of the existence of multi-disciplinary nature of research
activities, at least within the department. Therefore, all five curricular areas are well covered by
the existing faculty members. The average age of the faculty is 48???????, implying an
experienced and matured group of academicians. But this figure also indicates that there should
57
be a carefully administrated recruitment plan for the coming years since there exists a
mandatory retirement age of 67 in Turkey. The study by our human resources working group
suggested a minimum hiring rate of two new faculty members every year between 2002 and
2010, with a special emphasis given on the thermodynamics and energy group. But the
unexpected early retirements from the design and production group since then have given this
group the top priority in the urgency list of faculty recruitments.
Faculty from Electrical Engineering and Metallurgical and Materials Engineering Departments
provide input into the program by teaching required courses specific to Mechanical
Engineering curriculum.
E. Faculty Size
Discuss the adequacy of the size of the faculty and describe the extent and quality of faculty
involvement in interactions with students, student advising, service activities, and professional
development.
The ME faculty covers a wide range of the discipline and, collectively, has a wide range of
experience in our discipline. The faculty analysis summarizing information about each
faculty member is given in Table 6-2. Current summary curriculum vitae for all faculty
members with the rank of instructor and above who have primary responsibilities for course
work associated with the program are provided in Appendix I.C. The size of the faculty of ME
is the second largest among mechanical engineering departments in Turkey, with a total of 48
full-time faculty members composed of 28 professors, 3 associate professors, 12 assistant
professors, 5 instructors in the 2008-2009 academic year. The average undergraduate student
population excluding freshman is about 660 and graduate student population is 360. Therefore,
the current student to faculty ratio is about 14 and it is about 21 including graduate students.
In addition to the full-time faculty, the department has 6 part-time very capable adjunct
instructors. These people are contributing to the teaching load, most of whom are emeritus
professors, former METU ME faculty members. The number of teaching assistants involved
mostly in undergraduate teaching is 48 in the 2008-2009 academic year.
The faculty members are highly competent in their respective areas of expertise. About only
one fifth of the faculty hold doctoral degrees from our department, and the rest from various
prominent institutions abroad, mostly from the U.S. and from the U.K. Starting early 1990’s, a
minimum of one academic year of experience abroad has been used as one of the universitywide requirements in all initial faculty appointments for those who have doctoral degrees from
METU, as a measure against possible in-breeding. On the other hand, most newly appointed
faculty members with non-METU doctoral degrees have already had some teaching experience
abroad. As a university policy, the faculty may be given one year leave-of-absence with pay
and if requested a second year of leave-of-absence without pay to follow once every seven
years. This leave is almost invariably spent in educational institutions abroad. Therefore, with
the exception of a small number of faculty, it can be stated that faculty body of the department
have involved in some teaching and research activities at institutions abroad, at various levels.
We consider this diverse faculty background on teaching and research as a richness of our
department in handling matters regarding teaching and research.
58
The university provides travel support to every faculty member to attend professional meetings
in Turkey almost without any restrictions and one international meeting a year provided that
he/she has a paper to present. In the 2002-2003 academic year, 16 faculty members used this
support to attend international meetings. The faculty is highly encouraged to publish their
research findings in internationally recognized scientific journals. In 2002 calender year, ME
faculty published 18 international journal papers.
The faculty workload summary are given in Table 6-1. The regular teaching load of full-time
faculty members in the department is two course sections per semester for professors and three
course sections per semester for instructors, regardless of being undergraduate or graduate.
The course load in the summer school is voluntary and carries extra compensation.
59
Table 6-3 Faculty Undergarduate Teaching Breakdown
Curricular Area
Machine Theory
and Dynamics
Must
Courses
Technical Electives
Faculty
ME301
ME414, ME418,
Balkan, Çalışkan, İder,
ME302
ME425, ME429,
Koku, Özgen, Özgören,
ME304
ME431, ME432,
Özgüven, Platin, Soylu,
ME310
ME436, ME442,
Söylemez, Tönük, Tümer*,
ME410
ME481
Ünlüsoy, Yazıcıoğlu Y.
Cross-Over
Adjunct
Faculty
Dölen
-
ME105M
E113
ME114
ME202
ME220, ME440,
ME212M
ME416, ME433,
Akkök, Arıkan,, Ciğeroğlu,
Darendeliler,
Design and
E220
ME443, ME445,
Civci, Dölen, Gökler, Kılıç,
Eralp, Kadıoğlu,
Production
ME303
ME455, ME461,
Koku, Konukseven,
Koku, Özgen,
ME307
ME462, ME471,
Yıldırım
Yazıcıoğlu Y.
ME308
ME445, ME448
Dağ, Darendeliler, Doyum,
İder,Ciğeroğlu,Çe
Kadıoğlu, Oral, Özgen,
tinkaya, Tümer*,
Parnas*, Sert
Tönük
Anlağan,
Ataoğlu,
Karabay,
Özdemir,
Kaftanoğlu
ME310
ME407
ME410
ME205
ME206
Solid Mechanics
ME208
ME310
ME413, ME434,
ME450, ME451
-
ME410
ME305
Fluid Mechanics
ME306
ME310
ME410
ME203M
E204
Thermodynamics
and Energy
ME310
ME311
ME312
ME351
ME410
ME402, ME411,
Aksel, Albayrak, Çetinkaya,
ME423, ME437,
Dursunkaya, Erdal, Eralp,
ME483
Sert
Yazıcıoğlu A.
-
ME401, ME403,
ME405, ME415,
ME420, ME421,
ME422, ME424,
ME426, ME427,
ME428, ME438,
ME476, ME478,
Arınç, Baker, Bayka,
Okutucu, Oskay, Tarı, Ulaş,
Vural, Yamalı, Yazıcıoğlu
A., Yeşin, Yozgatlıgil,
Yüncü
ME490
60
Dursunkaya, Sert Heper
* on leave
61
Table 6-4 FT Faculty Research Breakdown
Curricular Area
Faculty
Cross-Over
Balkan, Çalışkan, Ciğeroğlu,, İder, Koku,
Machine Theory
Özgen, Özgören, Özgüven, Platin, Soylu,
and Dynamics
Söylemez, Tönük, Tümer*, Ünlüsoy,
Dölen, Dursunkaya, Konukseven
Yazıcıoğlu Y.
Design and
Akkök, Arıkan, Civci, Dölen, Gökler, Kılıç,
Balkan, Bayka, Darendeliler, Erdal,
Production
Koku, Konukseven, Yıldırım
İder, Koku, , Söylemez, Tönük
Dağ, Darendeliler, Doyum, Kadıoğlu, Oral,
Ciğeroğlu, İder, Özgen, Tönük,
Parnas*
Yıldırım, Yazıcıoğlu Y.
Aksel, Albayrak, Çetinkaya, Dursunkaya,
Okutucu, Oskay, Tarı, Ulaş, Vural,
Erdal, Eralp, Sert
Yazıcıoğlu A , Yeşin
Solid Mechanics
Fluid Mechanics
Thermodynamics
and Energy
Arınç, Baker, Bayka, Okutucu, Oskay, Tarı,
Ulaş, Vural, Yamalı, Yazıcıoğlu A., Yeşin,
Yozgatlıgil, Yüncü
Aksel, Albayrak, Civci, Çetinkaya,
Dursunkaya, Eralp
* on leave
The regular faculty load is reduced by one course for faculty members in full-time
administrative posts within or outside the university, starting from department chair position
and up.
The department also offers a total of 25 course sections in one academic year to other
departments in the university. These courses are ME 105 Engineering Graphics (18 sections),
ME 212 Principles of Production Engineering (3 sections) and ME 351 Thermodynamics of
Heat Power (4 sections).
There are no separate research professorship assignments in the department. Faculty members
are expected to carry out their teaching and research activities concurrently. Each faculty
member may supervise at most 12 graduate students at any time. The average of this figure was
7.5 in the department in the 2008-2009 academic year. Those faculty members with a large
amount of research support and/or supervising a high number of graduate students are not
provided with any release time from teaching.
62
Based upon the data given in Table I-2, the average class size in undergraduate program
courses offered by the department in the 2008-2009 academic year turns out to be 44, barely
allowing a desired level of faculty-student interaction in undergraduate courses.
F. Faculty
In Appendix B include an abbreviated resume for each program faculty member with the rank
of instructor or above. The format should be consistent for each resume, must not exceed two
pages per person, and, at a minimum, must contain the following information:
Each full-time faculty member of the department without any administrative duty serves as the
faculty advisor for about 25 undergraduate students, which used to be below 20 before 1997.
Every freshman is assigned a faculty advisor during his/her enrollment to the department, who
will monitor the student’s academic performance for supplying appropriate guidance and
mentoring as well as counsel him/her in his/her personal problems throughout his/her residence
in the university as an undergraduate. The role of academic advisors is not limited to the
advisor-student interaction during registration, add-drop and withdrawal periods, but continues
throughout the year. Therefore, faculty members not only give the final approval to the courses
that their advisees would take every semester, but also are asked to provide their opinion on
topics like whether their advisees should take a certain technical elective course or not, should
increase or decrease their course load or not, should be granted a leave of absence or not, etc.
Advisors welcome student questions on academic, professional, and social matters. A special
emphasis is given to particular group of students who happen to follow some specific programs
like double majors and minors because of the special nature of their academic problems.
Therefore, those mechanical engineering undergraduates double majoring in another program
or those undergraduates of other programs double majoring in mechanical engineering,
undergraduates of other programs following production minor program, and undergraduates
following mechatronics minor program are all advised by three faculty members each
specialized in one of these programs.
Faculty doors are always open to students unless the faculty member is not busy with
consulting job or committee work. Therefore, the accessibility to faculty by our students can be
considered as one of our defining characteristics. In spite of a large student body, students are
encouraged to contact their instructors and teaching assistants during off-hours of regularly
scheduled class, laboratory, recitation meetings for clarification of course material, hints on the
solutions of homework problems, or guidance on their term projects.
Another mode of student-faculty interaction is the informal student-faculty get-togethers
arranged by the department administration with free agendas every semester. These meetings
serve as platforms to discuss all matters collectively related to the student life in the
department, in academic, social or administrative sense.
Faculty members serve in standing committees of the department, at least in one. Some of the
most active committees are on undergraduate education, masters education, doctoral education,
and departmental facilities. These committees not only serve to resolve specific problems
involving individual students but also act as bodies to review cases and/or to develop proposals
on matters of general interest to the department when asked by the department administration.
Several faculty members of the department serve at posts, on boards or in committees at
63
various levels in the upper administration of the university. Faculty members serve also in
various ad-hoc committees formed at departmental level and up. Examples are self evaluation
working group (SEWG), curriculum assessment committees (CURAS), working group on
human resources, ABET working group (AWG) and new course evaluation sub-committees.
Many faculty members are very active as holding administrative positions in professional
societies, members of editorial boards of professional journals, refereeing for scientific
journals, or serving on organization and/or scientific committees of conferences at
national/international level.
Faculty members interact with industry in the forms of consulting, carrying out contract
research projects, or conducting courses at the Continuing Education Center of the university.
Other major sources of research support are the Scientific and Technical Research Council of
Turkey (TÜBİTAK), State Planning Organization (DPT), and University Research Fund. They
also serve as experts in peer evaluations of project proposals to institutions like TÜBİTAK, in
patent investigations and in cases requiring technical views in courts.
G. Faculty Development
Describe the plan that is in place for faculty development and the funding available to execute
this plan. Provide detailed descriptions of professional development activities for each faculty
member.
The ME Department places high priority on faculty development. Faculty members are
encouraged to choose their own path for improving their abilities while keeping the mission of the
department in mind. All the faculty members are required to report their activities to the
department chair on an annual basis. The highlights of these development activities for each
faculty member are organized under the general headings of teaching and service with the
additional administrative category as department chair. Course instructor evaluations completed
by students at the end of each semester gives feedback to the course instructors to develop their
teaching competence. The Faculty of Engineering provides monetary support for faculty travel to
technical conferences to maintain and to develop currency in the field.
64
7. CRITERION 7. FACILITIES
65
8. CRITERION 8. SUPPORT
66
9. CRITERION 9 PROGRAM CRITERIA
9.1. Curriculum
We have restated the curriculum requirements of the ME program criterion as the two
additional ABET outcomes, l-m, that we expect our students to have at the time of their
graduation:
l.
Ability to apply principles of engineering, basic science, and mathematics (including
multivariate calculus and differential equations) to model, analyze, design, and realize
physical systems, components or processes.
m. Ability to work professionally in both thermal and mechanical systems areas.
The following courses in METU ME undergraduate curriculum are related directly to Criterion
9 requirements: The freshman year includes two physics courses PHYS 105 General Physics I
and PHYS 106 General Physics II and one chemistry course, CHEM 107 General Chemistry.
Calculus is given in two consecutive courses, MATH 119 Calculus with Analytic Geometry
and MATH 120 Calculus for Functions of Several Variables in the freshman year. A
differential equations course, MATH 219 Introduction to Differential Equations, in the
sophomore year follows the MATH 119-120 series. Two departmental mathematics courses,
ME 210 Applied Mathematics for Mechanical Engineers and ME 310 Numerical Methods, are
compulsory in sophomore and junior years, respectively. The senior year course ME 410
Mechanical Engineering Systems Laboratory is a laboratory course that deals with statistics.
Engineering design is emphasized in the METU ME curriculum. The compulsory and elective
courses that involve engineering design are explained in Section 5.A3 and are indicated in
Table 5.1. In our curriculum there are two senior level compulsory design courses. The
capstone design course, ME 407 Mechanical Engineering Design, involves mechanical design
projects. The second mandatory senior level design course is to be chosen among a pool of
design courses in thermo-fluid areas. The pool currently includes ME 403 Heating, Ventilation,
Air Conditioning and Refrigeration, ME 421 Steam Generator and Heat Exchanger Design, ME
426 Internal Combustion Engine Design and ME 437 Pipeline Engineering. In addition to these
courses, many ME courses relate to one or both of the requirements of ABET Criterion 9 (l-m),
through content and course activities. Previously, the relations between our courses and ABET
Criteria 3 (a-k) and 9 (program requirements, l-m above) were presented in Appendix E-11 and
Figure 3-3, through the course worksheet studies performed in our department as given in
section 3.D.
The two ABET ME program criterion outcomes “l-m” were related to the PO of our
department in Table 3.1. It is seen in Table 3.1 that “l” is related to PO1 and “m” is related to
PO11. Hence the assessment of ME program requirements are performed through the
assessment of PO1 and PO11, which were presented in detail in section 3.F.
67
9.2 Faculty
Majority of the faculty members responsible for the upper level professional program are
currently involved in supervising M.S. and Ph.D. students, publishing research papers in
journals, submitting papers to conferences regularly, and carry out project work to maintain
currencay in their areas of specialty.
68
10.APPENDIX A – COURSE SYLLABI
69
11.APPENDIX B – FACULTY RESUMES
70
12.APPENDIX C – LABORATORY EQUIPMENT
71
13.APPENDIX D – INSTITUTIONAL SUMMARY
72
14.APPENDIX E – SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
73
Appendix E-1
Course Equivalency Form
METU
ENGINEERING FACULTY
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
TRANSFER STUDENT COURSE EQUIVALENCY FORM
Department’s Ranking of the Candidate: ……
Academic Year:
Transfer Category: ………
Semester:
Candidate’s Name-Surname: …………………..
Type:
A
B
Candidate’s Ranking of the Department: ……
Previous University and Faculty/Department: ……………………….
Cumulative GPA: ………
ÖSS Year/Score: …………….
Department lowest ÖSS score: ………..
EXEMPT (Taken outside METU) or EQUIVALENT (Taken in METU with a different name) courses
Courses Taken in Previous Program
Equivalent Course
Course No
Name
Grade
Course No
Name
ADDITIONAL Courses (Courses that must be taken for the transferred and previous years)
Course No Name
Course No
Name
OFF-PROGRAM Courses (Courses taken in METU which will not be included to Cum. GPA)
Course No Name
Course No
Name
74
Appendix E-2 Development of the METU ME Mission Statement and the Departmental
Objectives and Goals
Search Conference
At the beginning of 1999, the department Chair formed a group of 8 faculty members to work
on departmental self-evaluation and ABET 2000 accreditation. The group, with the Turkish
acronym ÖDA2k, decided on implementing a continuous improvement process that will
contribute to the dynamism of the department. To this end, a series of seminars were conducted
to increase the level of awareness, knowledge, and sensitivity of the faculty members towards
total quality concepts. ÖDA2k believed the mission of the department should be determined
through a procedure involving wide participation. Prof. Ger of the Civil Engineering
Department, with previous experience in conducting search conferences, was contacted and
preliminary discussions led to a search conference to determine the departmental mission under
the guidance of Prof. Ger. ÖDA2k formed an executive group (EG) of three members and an
enlarged executive group (EEG) of eight members to plan and implement the search conference
in coordination with Prof. Ger. The plan called for a two-step procedure:
Step 1 - Eight Small group (SG) work by groups of 7-8 departmental faculty members put
together by EEG.
Step 2 - Discussion platform (DP) to take place during a period of two days where SG
results will be used.
Each SG was given a questionnaire and as a result of the analysis performed by EEG, the
following results were obtained.
1. Seven strong (S) aspects of the department:
S1. Faculty members
S2. Students
S3. Infrastructure
S4. Undergraduate education
S5. Education tradition
S6. Administration tradition
S7. Instruction in English
2. Seven predominant problems (P) of the department:
P1. Faculty member related problems
P2. Educational activity problems
P3. Communication problems
P4. Administrative problems
P5. University/industry cooperation problems
P6. Research/development and publication problems
P7. Graduate education problems
75
3. Proposals to solve these problems: Several solution proposals of SGs were all listed without
classification.
4. Most stressed seven mission (M) elements:
M1. Being contemporary (up to date on current practices)
M2. Sensitivity to community needs
M3. Environmental sensitivity
M4. Productivity at national level
M5. Productivity at international level
M6. Leading and pioneering
M7. Creativity and inquisitiveness
EEG decided that in addition to all SG members, a number of other constituents from
university administration, students, public and private sector representatives, faculty from other
universities, alumni, and parents also take part in the discussion platform. EG contacted
prospective participants and sent out invitation letters to those who consented. When the DP
was held, there were 75 participants (45 staff, 8 assistants, 4 students, 18 external constituents).
Prof. Ger acted as the moderator during the DP. Participants were divided into three categories,
namely education (E), research/development (R) and community relations (C) with two groups
in each category so that six groups were formed (E1, E2, R1, R2, C1, C2). Group members
were asked to approach issues from their own identity perspective.
In the first session of DP, the six E, R, C groups were asked to cross-match the 7 problems (P1,
…, P7) of the department in a 7x7 matrix form to determine which other problems need to be
solved in order to solve a specific problem. Computer analysis of the results yielded listing of
the problems with respect to relative necessity and relative dependency. This analysis was done
for each group identity and also for the whole groups.
The second session dealt with the solution proposals for problems P1 to P7. Solution proposals
of SGs were first ranked by groups E, R, C and a new list was formed. This list was then
presented to the whole DP in the form of a questionnaire so that each participant would select
not more than 5 solution proposals for each problem. Analysis of the results led to the
formation of 7 solution packages for 7 problems. 4 packages with 5 proposals, 2 packages with
4 proposals and 1 package with 3 proposals.
During the third session of DP, strong aspects of the department (S1, …, S7) were crossmatched versus the problems (P1, …, P7) in a 7x7 matrix formed by the identity groups
according to whether a strong aspect is necessary for the solution of a specific problem.
Through this procedure, relative importance of strong aspects of the department could be
determined from identity group points of view and also for the groups as a whole.
In the fourth and final session, 7 mission elements (M1, …, M7) were ranked according to the
analysis of the necessity of strong aspects of the department (S1,…, S7) in order to fulfill a
specific mission element. The strong aspects were cross-matched with mission elements in a
7x7 matrix. The same procedure was repeated with a 7x7 matrix matching solution packages to
mission elements. The issue was whether a solution package had to be implemented in order to
76
satisfy a specific mission element. On-site computer analysis yielded relative importance of
mission elements with and without E, R, C identity. For all groups, mission elements were
listed according to relative importance:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
M5.
M7.
M4.
M1.
M6.
M2.
M3.
Productivity at international level
Creativity and inquisitiveness
Productivity at national level
Being contemporary (up to date on current practices)
Leading and pioneering
Sensitivity to community needs
Environmental sensitivity
Mission Statement and Objectives
After the discussion platform, ÖDA2k set out to formulate the mission statement. In addition,
the departmental objectives, goals, strategies and indicators for assessment were to be
determined, based on the mission statement. Through a series of more than 40 meetings during
June 1999 – February 2000, the mission statement, objectives related to each mission element,
and goals to reach the objectives were formulated, faculty responses were obtained and
revisions were made. The department mission, objectives and goals were on the agenda of a
series of department staff meetings during February-March 2000. During these meetings, the
mission statement was approved, but it was decided that more work needed to be done on
objectives and goals. Four working groups of 7-8 faculty members each were formed for the
following specific areas:
1. Education
2. Research /development
3. Human resources
4. Administration and communication
Mission statement and the departmental objectives for the four specific areas are given below:
Mission of the ME Department is:

to educate individuals to become creative, inquisitive, industrious in both national and
international arenas, donated with global knowledge and abilities and able to be leaders
and pioneers in their field,

to perform research and development activities that with contribute science and national
technology,

to lead and to pioneer in related fields.
Objectives of the ME Department on education for graduates:

Ability to establish the relationship between mathematics, basic sciences and
engineering sciences with engineering applications,

Ability to find and interpret information,

Ability to follow the literature and technology related to his/her topic of interest,
77

Ability to implement life-long leaning,

Possession of written and oral communication skills,

Ability to conduct team work (within the discipline, inter-disciplinary, multidisciplinary),

Ability to produce original solutions,

Use of scientific methodology in approaching and producing solutions to engineering
problems and needs,

Openness to all that is new,

Ability to conduct experiments,

Ability to do engineering design,

Possession of engineering ethics,

Ability to take societal, environmental and economical considerations into account in
professional activities.
Research/development objectives for the department:

Conduct original research activities to benefit science,

Contribute to technology accumulation primarily at national level,

Cooperate with industry and produce solutions to problems,

Contribute to economical and societal use of scientific and technological studies,

Lead and pioneer for research and development.
Departmental objectives for human resources:

Increasing the motivation of the faculty,

Having a younger human resource on the average,

Renewal of human resources,

Providing attractive economical conditions,

Establishing and operating a human resources search mechanism,

Establishing relations with industry,

Aiming at an ideal student/faculty ratio,

Having up-to-date infrastructure for the use of human resources,

Improving alumni relations.
Departmental objectives for administration and communication:

Improving communication among faculty members,

Providing effective relations between the department and alumni,
78

Improving relations between faculty and students,

Improving communication between faculty and administration, contribution of faculty
members in determination of departmental administrative policies,

Improving the motivation of faculty members,

Abandonment of unpopular administrative policies for faculty members,

As necessitated by contemporary, societal, scientific and technological conditions,
division of the department and/or its organization as a faculty.
In March 2002, the Chair asked the four working groups to reconsider the objectives, goals and
strategies of their previous reports in view of possible changes of the last 1.5 years. This
resulted in very minor changes in the previous reports. The Chair formed an ad-hoc enlarged
self assessment group (EAG) of 17 members to finalize the reports. Through a series of EAG
meetings, the reports were put into their final forms and they were sent to the faculty for a final
review. The objectives and goals were unanimously approved and adopted at a departmental
faculty meeting on June 22, 2002.
79
Appendix E-3 A History of ABET 2000 Preparation Process to 2004 Visit
On October 21, 2002, the Dean’s Office organized an ABET coordination meeting for those
departments expecting ABET team visit in Fall 2003 (at the time, Fall 2003 was the estimated
visit date). One representative from each department (Departments of Chemical, Civil,
Electrical and Electronics, Mechanical, Metallurgical and Materials, and Mining Engineering)
was present and the degree of preparedness of each department for the visit was discussed. The
same week, another meeting was held to hear experiences of the 7 departments whose
programs had been evaluated by ABET back in 2001. These ABET coordination meetings
continued on an irregular schedule until the summer of 2003.
Total quality, self-evaluation, and assessment studies had been going on in the department
since 1999. Mission statement and objectives/goals were endorsed by the academic staff. These
documents naturally formed the basis for ABET studies. It was nevertheless obvious that
departmental assessment and improvement mechanisms had to be established for ABET 2000
accreditation. The ABET working group (AWG) was formed in the department, consisting of 8
staff members and 2 assistants, to work on the ABET agenda. A web site was created to inform
the staff on the developments. One member of AWG attended the ASME/ABET-EC2000
Preparedness Workshop in New Orleans in November 2002. The group developed a work plan
for the preparation of ABET process. Several meetings were organized in the department to
acquaint the academic staff to ABET procedures and criteria; information notes were also
distributed.
An understanding of two ABET EC2000 concepts, namely program educational objectives
(PEO) and program outcomes (PO), in view of the revised departmental document on
educational objectives and goals, was an important task of AWG. Educational objectives of the
document were individually considered to determine if they fit the concept of PO or PEO. It
was decided that a slightly modified list of 14 educational objectives of the document
represented program outcomes of EC 2000.
The three PEO were developed by AWG as statements derived from the mission statement
through the use of the departmental document on objectives and goals. The PEO address what
our graduates could do best, how our graduates would approach solving problems using what
skills and finally what values our graduates should have. An assessment of how well these PEO
are met would need to be carried out periodically every 3-6 years, involving mostly external
constituents.
AWG investigated how the departmental PO would embrace ABET’s Criterion 3, the program
outcomes (a) to (k), and Criterion 8, the four specific ME program requirements (l) to (o)
through a matrix, mapping PO (14 items) versus (a)-(o) (15 items).
Another matrix mapping related departmental PO (14 items) to PEO (3 items) was prepared to
show which PO supported meeting PEO.
An assessment system was needed in the department involving mostly internal constituents, to
demonstrate how well our engineering curriculum supported the PO on a course-by-course
basis. In addition, a measurement system needed to be developed to collect periodic data to
determine how well our PO were met by our students in each course. To perform these tasks, it
was decided to use course worksheets adapted from the originals developed by Gateway
Coalition in 2000.
80
AWG proposed that the Chair form six ad hoc curriculum assessment committees (CURAS) to
prepare the course worksheets. Departmental courses would be assigned to the appropriate
CURAS and each academic staff would be a member of a CURAS. The CURAS areas were
determined as:
CURAS 1
Theory of machinery (12 staff members, 16 courses)
CURAS 2
Design and production (11 staff members, 21 courses)
CURAS 3
Solid mechanics (7 staff members, 8 courses)
CURAS 4
Fluid mechanics (7 staff members, 12 courses)
CURAS 5
Thermodynamics and energy (12 staff members, 17 courses)
CURAS 6
Service courses (related staff, 14 courses)
On March 17, 2003, the Chair sent a document of 11 pages in English, prepared by AWG and
titled “Program Assessment Process and ABET 2000” to the academic staff with the content of:

Program educational objectives

Program outcomes

Course worksheets

Assessment methods
The document provided a detailed explanation of PEO and PO concepts, listing departmental
PEO and PO. PO versus (a)-(o) criteria mapping matrix and PO versus PEO mapping matrix
were included. The document also gave the course worksheet to be used, with details of each
item on the sheet. To guide the persons to fill out the sheets, two example worksheets prepared
by AWG for a specific course were also provided. CURAS information was added to the
document.
Each CURAS would be responsible in filling up worksheets for the courses assigned to them in
such a way that they would reflect only the present status of the courses. Staff members were
asked to provide at least 5 objectives for each course and to fill a separate worksheet for each
course objective. They were asked to:

Review and refer to the mission statement, PEO, PO, and ABET criteria,

Identify and define key course objectives,

List specific strategies/actions that support course objectives,

List all student learning outcomes (SLO) expected when strategies are implemented,

Compare SLO with departmental PO, indicating relation as strong (S) or weak (W)

Compare SLO with (a)-(o), indicating relation as (S) or (W).

Compare SLO with departmental PEO, indicating relation as (S) or (W).

List assessment methods that can be used to measure SLO.
Based on the course worksheets submitted, AWG decided it would be helpful to see the
frequency and degree (S or W) each course supported the PO (14 items), PEO (3 items) and
81
ABET 2000 criteria, (a)-(o) (15 items). In May 2003, a matrix was prepared by AWG, listing
all courses versus the 32 items of PO, PEO and (a)-(o).
Noting that assessment should be the key factor in determining if and to what degree
departmental courses support PO, PEO, and (a)-(o), AWG decided to ask individual staff
members to qualitatively or quantitatively suggest if the course as a whole supported PO, based
on the assessment methods used as indicated in the course worksheets.
In 1998, 1999, 2002 and 2003, new graduates of the department were given an exit survey
prepared by the Dean’s Office. The survey asked the graduates to rate themselves on the ABET
Criterion 3, (a)-(k) using a 5-point scale. 120-150 responses were obtained in all surveys. In
1999, the Dean’s Office also conducted an employer survey on whether they thought ME
Department graduates had the abilities of ABET criterion 3(a)-(k). The scoring again used a 5point scale. AWG advised the Chair that these survey results should be used in the self-study
questionnaire.
In May, the Chair asked faculty members to submit in their CV’s and course syllabi according
to the format in the self-study questionnaire document. Faculty members were also asked to fill
the faculty workload summary and faculty analysis tables.
In September 2003, the Chairman’s Office started preparing the self-study questionnaire with
the support of AWG members.
82
Appendix E-4 Course Worksheet Form Sample (ME 312)
COURSE OBJECTIVE 1: At the end of this course, students will solve convection heat transfer problems with phase change.
Strategies and
Actions
Student Learning
Outcomes
METU-ME
Program
Outcomes
(1-14)
83
METU-ME
ABET
Program
EC2000 Cr.
Educational
3 + ME Cr.
Objectives
(a-m)
(I,II,III)
Assessment
Methods
Appendix E-5 Relation Between ME Courses and the PEO
PEO
Courses
PEO
I
II
III
ME 113
ME 114
0
0
74
76
26
24
ME 200
50
50
ME 202
ME 203
0
0
ME 204
ME 205
PEO
Courses
I
II
III
Courses
I
II
III
ME 400
33
33
33
ME 434
0
100
0
ME 401
ME 402
33
16
44
81
22
3
ME 436
ME 437
0
25
100
35
0
40
0
ME 403
18
50
33
ME 438
32
57
11
85
72
15
28
ME 404
ME 407
0
51
100
44
0
4
ME 440
ME 442
0
5
100
95
0
0
0
0
53
100
47
0
ME 410
ME 411
38
0
62
100
0
0
ME 443G
ME 443K
0
0
50
50
50
50
ME 206
ME 208
0
0
100
100
0
0
ME 413 S
ME 413 C
0
100
0
ME 443
ME 444
0
0
50
100
50
0
ME 210
0
100
0
ME 414
0
100
0
ME 445
0
100
0
ME 212
ME 220
0
0
100
83
0
17
ME 415
ME 416
61
23
0
38
39
38
ME 448
ME 450
46
69
54
31
0
0
ME 300
ME 301
33
0
33
100
33
0
ME 418
ME 421
0
2
90
93
10
5
ME 451
ME 453
37
36
49
61
14
3
ME 302
0
100
0
ME 422
16
57
27
ME 461
0
100
0
ME 303
ME 304
0
0
68
100
32
0
ME 423
ME 424
30
0
60
100
10
0
ME 462
ME 471
3
55
90
45
6
0
ME 305
ME 306
0
8
100
69
0
23
ME 425
ME 426
0
42
100
17
0
42
ME 476
ME 478
0
0
56
71
44
49
ME 307
ME 308
24
22
76
78
0
0
ME 427
ME 428
0
20
100
80
0
0
ME 481
ME 483
0
34
100
55
0
10
ME 310
0
100
0
ME 429
0
100
0
ME 485
50
50
0
ME 311
38
62
0
ME 431
0
100
0
Average
14
74
13
ME 312
40
58
3
ME 432
0
60
40
ME 351
0
83
17
ME 433
25
38
38
ME 101
Sample Calculation
(Sample Course is ME 312)
PEO
I
# of strong and weak references of PEO
1
% of strong and weak references of PEO2
% of
II
III
s
8
w
10
s
18
w
2
s
0
w
1
25
15
55
3
0
3
PEO3
40
84
58
3
Appendix E-6 Employer Survey Form
85
Appendix E-7 Alumni Survey Form
86
Appendix E-8 Relations between ME courses and PO
PROGRAM OUTCOMES
Courses
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
ME 113
0
33
0
17
17
0
0
33
0
0
0
0
0
0
ME 114
0
35
0
15
15
0
0
35
0
0
0
0
0
0
ME 200
27
5
0
12
3
12
0
15
0
14
12
0
0
0
ME 202
0
23
23
29
0
3
0
3
12
3
0
5
0
0
ME 203
28
16
0
0
0
0
0
56
0
0
0
0
0
0
ME 204
42
15
31
0
4
0
2
0
3
0
0
0
5
0
ME 205
44
0
0
0
0
0
2
44
0
0
9
0
0
0
ME 206
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
0
0
20
0
0
0
ME 208
68
0
0
0
0
0
0
32
0
0
0
0
0
0
ME 210
44
3
2
0
3
0
2
44
3
0
0
0
0
0
ME 212
0
29
29
29
0
0
0
0
14
0
0
0
0
0
ME 220
16
5
22
5
0
0
14
16
22
0
0
0
0
0
ME 300
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
8
8
8
8
ME 301
22
3
0
0
0
0
8
50
0
0
17
0
0
0
ME 302
41
0
0
0
0
0
0
41
0
6
13
0
0
0
ME 303
36
16
0
0
0
0
0
40
0
5
0
0
3
0
ME 304
36
2
0
0
0
0
0
36
0
4
22
0
0
0
ME 305
57
10
0
0
0
0
0
33
0
0
0
0
0
0
ME 306
32
21
9
0
0
3
0
6
0
29
0
0
0
0
ME 307
19
0
0
0
19
0
0
23
0
0
34
0
5
0
ME 308
16
7
0
0
5
0
2
27
0
0
42
0
1
0
ME 310
31
15
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
38
8
0
ME 101
87
Appendix E-8 Relations between ME courses and PO (continued)
PROGRAM OUTCOMES
Courses
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
ME 311
48
15
0
0
4
6
2
15
4
7
0
0
0
0
ME 312
53
8
7
0
3
5
0
6
3
6
8
0
2
0
ME 351
18
19
0
3
0
0
5
27
5
0
13
3
6
0
ME 400
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
8
8
8
8
ME 401
6
16
13
10
16
10
3
6
10
3
0
0
3
3
ME 402
40
0
0
0
0
0
6
29
0
6
14
0
6
0
ME 403
36
22
10
2
0
0
1
13
0
2
8
0
5
0
ME 404
50
0
0
0
0
0
0
50
0
0
0
0
0
0
ME 407
6
8
11
1
15
28
9
5
4
0
6
2
2
1
ME 410
8
6
10
4
12
10
0
16
8
20
0
6
0
0
ME 411
44
0
0
0
0
0
0
44
0
0
11
0
0
0
ME 413 C
50
0
0
0
0
0
0
50
0
0
0
0
0
0
ME 414
43
0
0
0
0
0
0
43
0
0
14
0
0
0
ME 415
0
26
26
19
17
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
6
0
ME 416
10
10
10
10
8
8
8
8
4
0
8
10
10
0
ME 418
22
29
0
2
0
0
0
27
0
0
14
0
6
0
ME 421
34
7
0
1
0
10
1
27
2
0
15
0
4
0
ME 422
24
27
8
0
3
6
3
10
0
0
17
0
3
0
ME 423
21
8
8
0
4
0
0
25
17
4
8
0
4
0
ME 424
21
17
3
10
0
0
7
22
0
0
12
0
7
0
ME 425
30
24
12
0
0
0
2
28
2
2
0
0
1
0
ME 426
2
11
9
9
15
13
11
2
11
0
15
0
2
2
ME 413 S
88
Appendix E-8 Relations between ME courses and PO (continued)
PROGRAM OUTCOMES
Courses
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
ME 427
24
24
24
24
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ME 428
11
26
15
26
7
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
0
0
ME 429
25
15
29
0
0
0
4
25
0
0
2
0
0
0
ME 431
29
4
0
0
1
0
11
22
0
0
33
0
0
0
ME 432
28
5
2
0
7
2
0
28
0
11
4
0
14
0
ME 433
10
10
10
10
7
7
7
10
5
0
7
10
10
0
ME 434
43
0
0
0
0
0
0
46
0
0
11
0
0
0
ME 436
22
22
18
3
9
0
0
21
4
0
1
0
0
0
ME 437
14
14
14
10
0
0
0
14
6
2
6
4
16
0
ME 438
34
2
4
1
3
0
0
39
6
1
1
0
9
0
ME 440
17
18
12
0
0
0
7
25
18
4
0
0
0
0
ME 442
ME
443G
ME
443K
13
19
6
0
9
3
6
13
0
3
25
0
0
3
0
13
0
0
13
13
7
13
0
0
0
13
13
13
28
14
0
1
0
0
0
28
0
0
0
0
28
0
ME 443
14
14
0
1
7
7
3
21
0
0
0
7
21
7
ME 444
25
25
0
0
0
0
25
13
0
0
13
0
0
0
ME 445
12
37
21
14
0
0
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ME 448
23
9
0
0
11
0
0
25
2
0
28
0
2
0
ME 450
26
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
0
21
21
0
0
0
ME 427
24
24
24
24
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ME 428
11
26
15
26
7
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
0
0
89
Appendix E-8 Relations between ME courses and PO (continued)
PROGRAM OUTCOMES
Courses
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
ME 451
25
14
13
7
4
4
1
13
7
0
3
0
5
3
ME 453
29
21
4
0
6
0
4
25
0
0
10
0
0
0
ME 461
26
6
17
12
0
0
11
22
4
2
0
0
0
0
ME 462
12
16
4
4
3
6
13
9
13
0
12
6
3
0
ME 471
9
10
9
0
17
26
13
9
3
0
6
0
0
0
ME 476
16
18
16
14
0
0
10
4
16
0
0
0
8
0
ME 478
59
24
12
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ME 481
18
20
13
4
7
0
7
11
5
0
13
0
0
0
ME 483
16
7
9
2
12
10
4
10
4
11
6
4
0
3
ME 485
46
0
3
3
0
3
0
46
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average
24
12
7
4
4
3
4
21
3
3
8
2
4
1
* The numbers indicate the percentage of the number of times the student learning outcomes of a course refer to each PO.
The sum of each row is 100%.
90
Appendix E-8 Relations between ME courses and PO (continued)
Sample Calculation
(Sample course is ME 312)
PROGRAM OUTCOMES
1
# of strong and weak references of PO
1
% of strong and weak references of PO
% of PO3
2
2
2.
3.
4
S
W
S
W
S
W
15
2
2
1
1
2
48
3
6
2
3
53
1.
3
8
3
7
S
5
W
S
6
W
1
0
0
0
3
0
3
7
S
W
1
1
3
2
5
S
8
W
S
9
W
S
2
0
0
0
6
0
6
0
3
10
W
S
2
2
3
6
11
W
0
6
12
S
W
2
1
6
2
8
S
13
W
S
14
W
S
W
1
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
The first row shows how many times a PO is referred by the student learning outcomes of the course in the course worksheet. Whether these
references are of strong or weak type is also considered.
The second row shows the percentages of the references to each PO where the strong entries are weighted by 1 and weak entries by 0.5.
The third row gives the total percentages of the strong and weak references to each PO.
91
Appendix E-9 Components of PO
The components of the PO as described by the corresponding PO WG are listed as follows :
PO 1. Ability to establish the relationship between mathematics, basic sciences and engineering
sciences with engineering applications
Components :
The students should:
1. know the basic scientific concepts and principles,
2. be able to determine the parameters that define the system and be able to establish the
mathematical models,
3. be able to make the necessary engineering assumptions and approximations to
simplify the models in order to solve the problems that he/she encounters in engineering
applications.
PO 2.
Ability to find and interpret information
Components :
The students should be able to:
1. determine the keywords,
2. reach the related sources,
3. determine the reliable and relevant information out of the collected data,
4. organize (define, classify, rearrange and report) the reached information.
PO 3.
Ability to follow the literature and technology related to his/her topic of interest
Components :
1. Development of the ability to access and follow scientific and technical publications.
2. Development of an awareness of the scientific and professional meetings about different
branches of mechanical engineering.
3. Development of an awareness of the technical fairs about different branches of mechanical
engineering.
4. Development of an understanding of the use of national, international and foreign standards
in various applications of mechanical engineering.
PO 4.
Recognition of the need to keep oneself up to date in his/her profession
Components :
1. to have motivation to keep oneself up to date in his/her profession
92
2. Continuously questioning the knowledge acquired upon the graduation
3. Ability to follow and question the new developments in technological applications and to
update his/her knowledge continuously
PO 5.
Possession of written and oral communication skills
Components :
METU Mechanical Engineering Department graduates should
1.
be able to document, to report and to present the engineering services he/she produced
2.
be able to communicate in writing and oral form while performing engineering tasks
3.
know the mechanical engineering vocabulary in Turkish and English
PO 6. Ability to conduct team work (within the discipline, inter-disciplinary, multidisciplinary)
Components :
In executing the tasks required for engineering applications;
1. Actively participate in the identification and application of task distribution and work
planning
2. Communicate ideas to reach consensus,
3. Share responsibility of tasks and knowledge for work execution,
4. In interdisciplinary teams, be aware of the contributions of other disciplines and
communicate effectively.
PO 7.
Ability to produce original solutions
Components :
1. Utilizing different engineering systems, technological applications and components for
creative solutions
2. If necessary offer non-conventional solutions and should be able to identify the strong and
weak aspects of the offered solution
3. Should be able to offer alternative solutions and should be able to identify the strong and
weak aspects of these solutions.
PO 8. Use of scientific methodology in approaching and producing solutions to engineering
problems and needs
Components :
1. Define a problem requiring an engineering service by means of engineering concepts and
93
parameters
2. Determine the input-output parameters of a problem by establishing cause and effect
relationships
3. Break down an engineering problem into simplified and independently solvable subproblems
4. Produce applicable solutions
PO 9.
Openness to all that is new
Components :
1. Acquirement of the formation to follow and apply the technological advancements in the
field of mechanical engineering,
2. Being open to new technological applications and ideas
3. Ability to use newly developed engineering methods, tools and applications
PO 10. Ability to conduct experiments
Components :
1. Ability to conduct experiments on various Mechanical Engineering applications.
2. Have knowledge on various measurement techniques.
3. Ability to design experimental procedure and experimental setup.
4. To have knowledge on accuracy and calibration of measurement instruments and
concepts about the error and precision of measured values.
5. Ability to interpret experimental results and to put them into practice.
PO 11. Ability to do engineering design
Components :
In a design process, the student is expected to:
1.
be able to determine components in a design process and be aware of the design systematic
2.
be able to conduct patent / official design registration survey
3.
be able to do conceptual design
4.
be able to determine, define and use constraints
5.
be able to do detailed design and use contemporary technological design tools
6.
gain inter-disciplinary perspective
7.
be able to use optimization methods
94
8.
be able to use national and international standards
9.
be able to define the strong and weak aspects
10. be able to determine aspects such as performance, capacity, life-cycle, reliability,
interaction with the environment, and cost.
11. do project management: to prepare an applicable project plan, and follow the time line
PO 12. Awareness of engineering ethics, knowledge and adoption of its fundamental
elements
Components :
Ethical values are grouped as follows:
1. Academic Ethics
2. Professional Ethics
PO 13. Ability to take societal, environmental and economical considerations into account in
professional activities
Components :
1. Ability to take occupation safety, occupational health, environmental factors and economic
factors into consideration in engineering activities.
2. To be sensitive to society and environment in engineering activities and behave responsibly.
3. To contribute to the profession and professional societies in order to carry it to the future
and increase its respect.
PO 14. Possession of pioneering and leadership characteristics in areas related to the
profession.
Components :
1. Makina Mühendisliği konularında takım çalışanlarını daha verimli çalışma ve hizmet
verebilme konularında motive edebilmesi,
2. Yeni ve farklı çözümler üretebilmesi ve bunları sunabilmesi
3. Mühendislik bilgi ve deneyimine dayanarak insiyatif kullanabilmesi (belirsiz, eksik veya
yetersiz bilgi koşullarında karar alabilmesi)
4. Üretken olarak çok farklı ortamlarda ve kişilerle çalışabilme becerisine sahip olması,
5. Takımın ürettiği bilgilerin takım dışına sunabilmesi
95
Appendix E-10
ME 312 Course Worksheet (one objective only)
COURSE OBJECTIVE 1: At the end of this course, the students will be able to model a physical system and express its internal
dynamics and input-output relationships by means of block diagrams and transfer functions.
METU-ME
Program
Outcomes
(1-14)
Strategies and
Actions
Student Learning
Outcomes
1. Lectures.
Ability to identify the
1(S), 2(W),
components and the inputs of
8(S).
a system. (1, 2, 3)
2. In-class examples
3. HW assignments.
METU-ME
ABET
Program
EC2000 Cr.
Educational
3 + ME Cr.
Objectives
(a-m)
(I,II,III)
Assessment
Methods
a(S), d(W),
e(S).
II(S)
HW evaluation,
Exam evaluation.
Ability to model the
components of a system as
linear elements and to write
the constitutive and
connectivity equations for
them. (1, 2, 3)
1(S), 2(W), a(S), b(W),
8(S), 10(W). d(W), e(S).
II(S)
HW evaluation,
Exam evaluation.
Ability to draw block
diagrams and to obtain
transfer functions.
(1, 2, 3)
1(S), 8(S).
II(S)
HW evaluation,
Exam evaluation.
96
a(S), e(S).
Appendix E-11
Relations between ME courses and ABET Criteria 3 and 9
ME Program
Criterion (l-m)
CRITERION 3 (a-k)
Courses
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
ME 101
0
12
0
0
25
0
13
0
25
13
13
0
0
ME 113
0
11
0
0
25
0
13
0
25
13
13
0
0
ME 114
0
14
0
0
26
0
11
0
26
11
11
0
0
ME 200
25
25
16
0
15
0
0
0
0
0
19
0
0
ME 202
0
6
0
0
3
6
6
0
31
31
18
0
0
ME 203
31
31
0
0
0
0
31
3
0
3
0
0
0
ME 204
29
0
0
0
29
0
4
4
0
4
29
0
0
ME 205
43
0
7
0
42
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
ME 206
35
0
12
0
35
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
1
ME 208
49
0
0
0
24
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
0
ME 210
33
0
0
0
30
0
2
0
1
1
2
30
0
ME 212
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
40
20
0
0
ME 220
23
0
13
0
19
0
0
0
6
6
32
0
0
ME 300
8
8
8
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
ME 301
17
0
13
0
38
0
0
0
0
0
9
23
0
ME 302
28
0
5
0
28
0
0
0
0
0
11
29
0
ME 303
37
0
0
0
36
0
0
0
0
0
5
22
0
ME 304
36
4
20
2
36
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
ME 305
68
0
0
0
32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ME 306
64
0
5
0
32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ME 307
20
0
33
0
24
0
5
0
0
0
9
10
0
ME 308
16
0
36
0
36
0
5
0
0
0
6
0
2
ME 310
29
5
0
0
19
0
5
0
5
5
10
24
0
ME 311
47
6
2
3
25
0
3
0
0
0
3
11
0
ME 312
45
5
5
3
26
0
3
4
0
0
4
0
5
ME 351
28
5
33
0
12
0
0
3
9
0
3
0
7
ME 400
8
8
8
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
ME 401
11
4
0
0
18
4
14
11
11
11
11
4
4
ME 402
19
22
19
0
21
0
0
2
5
0
4
7
0
ME 403
27
15
13
0
20
4
0
10
4
0
3
0
2
ME 404
50
0
0
0
50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
97
Appendix E-11 Relations between ME courses and ABET Criteria 3 and 9 (continued)
ME Program
Criterion (l-m)
CRITERION 3 (a-k)
Courses
ME 407
ME 410
ME 411
ME 413
ME 413 S
ME 414
ME 415
ME 416
ME 418
ME 421
ME 422
ME 423
ME 424
ME 425
ME 426
ME 427
ME 428
ME 429
ME 431
ME 432
ME 433
ME 434
ME 436
ME 437
ME 438
ME 440
ME 442
ME 443G
ME 443K
ME 443
ME 444
a
9
11
31
29
31
32
0
14
13
31
26
25
35
24
11
33
21
29
26
22
16
34
24
12
22
23
40
13
13
22
33
b
3
15
0
14
0
0
0
0
20
0
26
10
0
23
0
0
0
2
0
13
0
0
17
12
0
12
0
0
0
0
33
c
13
15
0
8
0
11
22
8
22
13
19
10
26
0
11
0
12
4
28
4
11
0
4
11
1
10
18
0
0
0
0
d
24
5
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
2
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
0
2
13
13
0
0
e
6
11
31
29
31
32
18
14
13
21
8
10
17
25
13
0
21
29
30
13
16
37
25
0
20
10
9
13
13
22
33
f
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
0
0
5
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
3
0
0
13
13
0
0
98
g
18
5
0
0
2
0
0
8
0
0
3
5
0
1
15
0
0
0
1
0
11
0
12
0
1
0
13
13
13
0
0
h
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
1
3
5
0
0
2
0
7
0
0
11
0
0
0
14
5
0
0
13
13
9
0
i
1
13
0
0
2
0
0
14
15
0
5
15
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
0
9
4
0
0
13
13
1
0
j
6
2
0
0
2
0
32
14
0
0
0
0
2
2
11
33
28
0
0
9
16
0
4
2
2
17
0
13
13
0
0
k
15
10
0
0
2
0
0
14
0
13
4
15
2
25
11
0
0
29
14
7
16
14
15
14
18
28
18
0
0
22
0
l
0
4
31
5
31
26
0
0
7
22
2
0
15
0
2
33
12
8
0
9
0
15
0
0
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
m
0
4
8
6
0
0
22
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
22
0
Appendix E-11 Relations between ME courses and ABET Criteria 3 and 9 (continued)
ME Program
Criterion (l-m)
CRITERION 3 (a-k)
Courses
ME 445
ME 448
ME 450
ME 451
ME 453
ME 461
ME 462
ME 471
ME 476
ME 478
ME 481
ME 483
ME 485
Average
a
10
19
0
27
24
16
12
11
14
49
25
10
31
24
b
3
0
0
3
24
11
8
2
11
0
13
13
0
6
c
13
26
9
2
24
7
20
11
21
20
10
17
0
10
d
3
0
0
5
0
0
8
34
0
0
0
4
0
2
e
10
23
4
10
24
23
22
4
18
5
18
12
31
20
f
0
0
0
2
4
0
6
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
g
0
10
0
5
0
0
4
25
0
0
8
5
2
4
99
h
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
2
i
0
0
0
1
0
3
4
0
4
0
2
9
2
5
j
36
10
0
21
0
16
0
0
11
0
7
1
2
6
k
26
10
40
2
0
24
16
14
11
0
17
6
2
10
l
0
0
7
18
0
0
0
0
0
27
0
6
31
8
m
0
3
40
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
6
0
2
Appendix E-11 Relations between ME courses and ABET Criteria 3 and 9 (continued)
Sample Calculation
(Sample course is ME 312)
PROGRAM OUTCOMES
a
S
# of strong and weak references of
ABET1 criteria 3 and 9
% of strong and weak references of
ABET2 criteria 3 and 9
3
% of ABET criteria 3 and 9
1.
2.
3.
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
17 0
2
0
2
0
1
0
7
6
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0 0
2
0
45 0
5
0
5
0
3
0
18
8
0
0
3
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
3
1
0 0
5
0
45
5
5
3
26
0
3
4
0
0
4
0
5
The first row shows how many times a criteria is referred by the student learning outcomes of the course in the course worksheet.
Whether these references are of strong or weak type is also considered.
The second row shows the percentages of the references to each ABET criteria where the strong entries are weighted by 1 and weak entries by 0.5.
The third row gives the total percentages of the strong and weak references to each ABET criteria.
100
Appendix E-12
APPENDIX II
In 2003, after the relations between the course SLO and the PO were established by means of
the course worksheets, the department undertook the assessment of the curriculum on a courseby-course basis by the participation of every faculty member. This was an indirect process. In
this enterprise, the assessed entities were the SLO of individual courses. For this purpose two
tools were used. The first one was the Course Evaluation Reports (CER) prepared by the
instructors and the second one was the Course Exit Surveys (CES) conducted on the students.
An example of the course student exit survey form is given in Appendix E-15 for ME 210
Applied Mathematics for Mechanical Engineers. For the Fall 2003 and Spring 2004 semesters,
the CER were prepared for all courses taught by the full time faculty members and CES were
conducted for all courses. An example of instructor assessment results is given in Appendix E16 for ME 210 Applied Mathematics for Mechanical Engineers. Sample bar charts for the
levels of achievement of the SLO for both assessment tools are given in Figure E-12.1 and
Figure E-12.2 for ME 203 Thermodynamics I. Since, in this approach, the measured quantities
are the SLO, the relations of all SLO with each PO have to be taken into consideration; hence,
the SLO-PO matrix was formed. Since there are a total of 1161 SLO in all courses, the
dimension of this matrix is 1161×14. The elements of this matrix in the original form are 1 if
the relation between the SLO and the PO is strong, 0.5 if it is weak, and 0 if it doesn’t exist.
Then the matrix was normalized so that the total contribution of all SLO of each course to all
PO become equal. Letting A denote the normalized SLO-PO matrix and B denote a 1161
dimensional vector of SLO points in the 1-4 scale assigned either in the CER or by the CES,
each element of the vector ATB gives the level each PO is realized compared to its reference
value. (If all entries of B are set to 4, then ATB yields the reference values, which are the same
as given in Figure 3.2???). In Figure E-12.3 the realization of the PO in Fall 2003 according to
the CER of the instructors and the CES are given. Figure E-12.4 shows the results for Spring
2004.
The course-by-course assessment procedure described above has the advantages of being
systematic and analytic. However it has the following drawbacks: it is not a direct evaluation
process, all courses are considered equivalent - including the elective courses, it is quantitative,
and most importantly it doesn’t give any information whether the current curriculum covers
each PO sufficiently. Hence with this approach any qualitative conclusion in the desired depth
and detail could not be reached.
101
ME203 (Fall 2003)
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18
4
3,5
3
2,5
2
Excellent:4
Very Good:3,5
Good:3
Fair:2,5
Poor:2
Very Poor:1,5
1,5
1
0,5
0
1a
1b
1c
2a
2b
3a
3b
4a
4b
4c
5a
5b
5c
5d
5e
6a
6b
6c
Figure E-12.1 Course Instructor Evaluation Summary. At the bottom the numbers of the SLOs
in the course worksheet are shown. The numbers of the corresponding student exit survey
questions are shown at the top.
102
ME203 Thermodynamics I (Fall 2003)
4
3,5
3
2,5
2
1,5
1
Strongly Agree:4
Agree:3
Disagree:2
Strongly Disagree:1
0,5
0
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
Q10
Q11
Q12
Q13
Q14
Q15
Q16
Q17
Figure E-12.2 Course Student Exit Survey
35
REFERANS
ÖĞRETİM ÜYESİ
30
ÖĞRENCİ
AĞIRLIK
25
20
15
10
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
PK
Figure E-12.3 Realization of PO in Fall 2003
103
12
13
14
Q18
35
REFERANS
ÖGRETİM ÜYESİ
30
ÖĞRENCİ
AĞIRLIK
25
20
15
10
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
PK
Figure E-12.4 Realization of PO in Spring 2004
In addition, there is a student survey for course and instructor evaluation, conducted by the
university for each course. The survey form is given in Appendix E-17. The results of this
evaluation are declared to the course instructor as well as to the department chair. This survey
emphasizes instructor performance and the general aspects of the course rather than the topic
based specific questions in the former. It is believed that high teaching effectiveness and high
student satisfaction would indicate a good level of achievement of PO.
104
Appendix E-13
Exit Survey Form
QUESTIONAIRRE
In assessing the quality of engineering programs, it is expected that the engineering programs must demonstrate
that their graduates have acquired a number of skills and abilities. Please indicate your views, as to how well the
program you have undertaken has been able to develop in you the skills and abilities listed in the table below, by
marking the phrase nearest to your views.
Strongly
Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
I have developed an ability to apply knowledge of
mathematics, science and engineering
I have developed an ability to design and conduct
experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret
data
I have developed an ability to design a system,
component or process to meet desired needs
I have developed an ability to function on
multidisciplinary terms
I have developed an ability to identify, formulate
and solve engineering problems
I have developed an understanding of professional
and ethical responsibility
I have developed an ability to communicate
effectively
I have developed an ability to understand the
impact of engineering solutions in a global and
societal context
I have developed a recognition of the need for, and
a ability to engage in life-long learning
I have developed a knowledge of contemporary
professional issues
I have developed an ability to use the techniques,
skills and modern engineering tools necessary for
engineering practice
I was happy with the quality of instruction
I was happy with the physical environment of
education
I was happy with the computer resources that was
available to me
I was happy with the lab. Facilities
I was happy with the social, athletic and cultural
facilities and events
105
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
No
Opinion
Appendix E-14
Alumni
2009-2004
difference
2-tailed t-test
significant (5%)
Employer
2009-2004
difference
2-tailed t-test
significant (5%)
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
Q10
Q11
Q12
Q13
Q14
Q15
Q16
-0,21
0,022
Yes
-0,15
0,084
No
-0,11
0,236
No
-0,15
0,101
No
-0,08
0,448
No
-0,27
0,002
Yes
-0,11
0,179
No
-0,06
0,555
No
0,03
0,726
No
-0,31
0,003
Yes
0,09
0,385
No
0,16
0,099
No
0,02
0,880
No
0,13
0,180
No
0,04
0,743
No
-0,04
0,656
No
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
Q10
Q11
Q12
Q13
Q14
Q15
Q16
-0,04
0,825
No
0,06
0,632
No
0,07
0,669
No
0,22
0,141
No
-0,06
0,748
No
0,11
0,517
No
0,14
0,288
No
0,05
0,827
No
0,00
0,989
No
0,19
0,240
No
0,22
0,261
No
0,13
0,453
No
0,23
0,154
No
0,09
0,462
No
0,31
0,017
Yes
0,19
0,257
No
increase from 2004 to 2009
decrease from 2004 to 2009
difference between the means between 2004 and 2009 is significant at 5% level (that is 95% confidence
level)
106
Appendix E-15
ME 210 Course Student Exit Survey Form
Course Instructors
:
Date
:
Expected Grade :
Strongly
Agree
1
I have gained the ability to formulate and
use parametric and closed form
representations of curves and surfaces in
engineering/ mathematical problems
2
I have gained the ability to identify,
formulate and use gradient, divergence
and curl operations in solving
engineering/mathematical problems
3
I have gained the ability to identify,
formulate
and
solve
engineering/mathematical
problems
involving line, surface, double, and triple
integrals
4
I have gained the ability to identify,
formulate and use integral theorems in
solving
engineering/mathematical
problems
5
I have gained the ability to use basic
matrix properties and operations for
identifying solution characteristics of
systems of linear algebraic equations
6
I have gained the ability to solve systems
of linear algebraic equations analytically
7
I have gained the ability to identify,
formulate
and
solve
eigenvalueeigenvector problems analytically
8
I have gained the ability to identify
similarity of matrices and use it towards
diagonalization of matrices
9
I have gained the ability to perform basic
operations with complex numbers in both
rectangular and polar forms
10 I have gained the ability to identify some
basic complex functions and to use their
properties
11 I have gained the ability to identify and
formulate
analyticity
concept
in
107
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
No Opinion
mathematical/ engineering functions
108
E-15 ME 210 Course Student Exit Survey Form
(continued)
Strongly
Agree
12 I have gained the ability to identify
the appropriate mathematical tool to
be used for the solution of a given
problem and formulate accordingly
13 I have gained the ability to follow a
logical sequence of progression in
solution, upon formulation of the
problem
14 I have gained the ability to identify
the relevance of learnt mathematical
tools to the solution of a given
engineering problem
15 I have gained the ability to use at
least one computational tool in
solving engineering/ mathematical
problems that involve vector
analysis,
line/surface/volume
integration, linear algebra and
complex numbers
16 I have gained the ability to report
analysis, solution and results in a
logical sequence within a standard
engineering format
109
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
No
Opinion
Appendix E-16
Course Assesment
ME 210 Course Assessment
Spring 2003
by
Dr. Bülent E. Platin, Dr. Merve Erdal, Dr. Serkan Dağ
&
Course Assistants (Deniz Yücel, Kerem Altun, Oya Okman)
Student
Learning
Outcome
1a
Measurement Expected
Method
Score
Actual %
Assessment
Score Score
Score
HW2-1
50
29
58,0
HW2-2
50
30
60,0
HW3-1
50
25
50,0
HW4-1
50
40
80,0
HW4-2
15
14
93,3
MT1-1
15
14,3
95,3
MT1-5
15
14,2
94,7
MT2-1
15
10,1
67,3
F-1
20
9,1
45,5
F-3
15
8,5
56,7
Assessment
Actions To Be Taken
Excellent
71
Very Good
110
1. More homework problems may be assigned
on the use of parametric and closed form
representations of curves and surfaces.
2.
Graphical
representations
describing
geometries related to level surfaces, tangent
plane to a surface, normal to a surface, TNB
frame and unit vectors, osculating plane, etc. can
be shown in class. These representations could
be achieved through the use of a generic
computer program that could also be made
available
to
students.
3. For a better assessment of shortcomings in the
future, more effort can be put in identifying
whether there exists a distinct difference or not
in the levels of student understanding between
representation of curves and surfaces.
80 100
Very
Good
70
79
Good
60
69
Fair
50
59
Bad
0
49
E-16 Course Assessment (Continued)
HW3-2
50
41,0
82,0
MT1-2
20
13,3
66,5
MT1-4
12
8,2
68,3
MT1-5
15
14,2
94,7
F-3
15
8,5
56,7
Survey
10
8,0
80,3
HW4-2
35
34
97,1
HW5-1
50
40
80,0
HW5-2
50
25
50,0
HW6-1
25
20
80,0
HW6-2
10
8
80,0
MT1-3
15
3,7
24,7
MT1-5
15
14,2
94,7
MT2-1
15
10,1
67,3
MT2-2b
12
1,87
15,6
F-2
15
10,2
68,0
F-3
15
8,5
56,7
HW6-1
25
13
52,0
HW6-2
40
21
52,5
MT2-2
8
2,5
31,0
F-3
15
8,5
56,7
1b
2a
74
2b
Very Good
60
Good
46
Bad
111
1. More HW problems need to be assigned on
this
topic.
2. Examples involving basic vector operations,
proofs, derivations may be included in lectures
and in homework assignments
1. A clear distinction on the assessment of
student learning levels must be made between
line,
surface
and
triple
integrals.
2.Topics can be explained in class at first with
simplistic examples. In these examples, the
mechanics of how each works out in
application (especially for integral theorems),
can
be
shown
clearly.
3. By increasing the time allocated to these
topics, more examples can be solved in class
with a wider spectrum of applications.
4. Some exam problems may be made very
similar to those in HW assignments that have
not
been
turned
in.
5. A separate exam may be given for these
topics (line, surface, volume integrals +
integral theorems) so as to urge the students not
to skip course content that may seem more
demanding (i.e., integral theorems) than others.
6. In line integrals, more emphasis can be
placed on integrals involving ds and dx, dy, dz
in combination via examples in class and in
HW assignments
E-16 Course Assessment (Continued)
HW8-1
15
12
80,0
HW8-2
50
40
80,0
HW9-2
25
20
80,0
3a
3b
75
HW9-3
25
19
76,0
MT2-3
16
12,9
80,6
F-4
15
10,1
67,3
HW8-1
15
12
80,0
HW9-2
25
20
80,0
HW9-3
25
19
76,0
MT2-4
20
11,5
57,5
F-4
15
10,1
67,3
66
Very Good
1. More homework problems may be assigned.
2. During lectures, a special emphasis and
warnings may be required to avoid recurrence of
mistakes in the following: Division of two
matrices; inverse of a vector; order of an
inverted matrix; multiplication of matrices;
determinant
of
a
non-square
matrix.
3. More examples on rank determination can be
given in class and in HW assignments.
4. More emphasis on existence/uniqueness of
solution can be put, specifically, on concluding
about the solution characteristics based on rank
information. A recurring mistake was observed
to be basing conclusions on the rank of a single
matrix (rather than two matrices).
Good
1. During Gauss elimination, column operations
(instead of row operations) were observed in a
number
of
student
solutions.
2. More emphasis on existence/uniqueness of
solution can be put, specifically, on concluding
about the solution characteristics based on rowechelon
forms
of
systems.
3. Algebraic mistakes were very frequently
observed during solution. Students seem to have
a problem in performing a large number of
successive computations successfully, leading to
erroneous results often with different type of
solutions. More emphasis should be spent to
reduce these mistakes.
112
E-16 Course Assessment (Continued)
HW10-1
50
50
100,0
HW10-2
50
31
62,0
HW11-1
10
8
80,0
MT2-5
15
13,9
92,7
HW11-1
40
32
80,0
3c
Excellent
Eigenvalue/eigenvector topic seems to be O.K.
The success rate in the exam is believed to be
due to the straightforwardness (relative
simplicity) of the problem asked.
77
Very Good
1.More homework problems may be assigned.
2. Students need to be warned about wrongly
taking the diagonal elements on the matrix
reduced to a triangular form by performing
row/column operations, as the eigenvalues of
the original matrix.
73
Very Good
More homework problems may be assigned.
90
3d
F-5
20
15,3
76,5
HW11-2
50
41
82,0
F-6
20
13,9
69,5
4a
4b
none
none
4c
none
none
5a
O
10
8
80,0
MT1-4
10
3
30,0
MT1-5
15
14,2
94,7
MT2-1
15
10,1
67,3
MT2-2a
8
3
35,5
F-1
20
9,1
45,5
F-3
15
8,5
56,7
O
5
4
80,0
67
Good
113
It seems that the students have a problem in
identifying the appropriate mathematical tool to
be used for the solution of a given problem and
formulate accordingly. To enhance this skill,
1. examples in class can be given in such a
manner as to force the students to participate in
working out the problem step by step, rather
than writing the solution on the board,
2. tutoring sessions conducted by the teaching
assistants can be held regularly, in which the
structure of a solution is emphasized. These
sessions can involve the solution of previous
years' exam problems whose solutions are
available on the web. In that case, the students
can be asked to bring the solutions and the
session can concentrate how a problem is
formulated, how the relevant mathematical
tools are selected, etc.
E-16 Course Assessment (Continued)
O
5b
6a
7
8
10
7
70,0
O
5
3
60,0
O
5
3
60,0
O
15
12
80,0
O
10
7
70,0
O
5
3
60,0
O
10
10
100,0
O
10
6
60,0
O
10
5
50,0
O
5
3
60,0
63
Good
This is a skill, one normally expects from
students to have gained before coming to the
university, at least before taking this course.
Again, tutoring seems a viable method to
enhance this skill.
70
Good
Again, requires some brain-work!
100
Excellent
57
Fair
None
1. The report writing procedures in homework
solutions need to be enforced more strictly.
2. Demonstrative examples of good. vs. bad
written presentations can be given.
Overall Recommendations
1
2
3
The complex analysis chapter can be taken out of the course context, thus enabling more time to be spent on vector analyis and especially,
outcomes 2a and 2b.
Some exam problems may be made similar to homework problems, thus giving a chance to the students to work out a problem that should have
been worked on previously - asking exactly what was to be learnt.
The number of midterm exams throughout the semested can be increased from 2 to 5. This way, the overall student stress during exams may
be reduced. In addition, the amount of material that the students would be responsible for each exam will be reduced, forcing the students to
concentrate, rather than having them selectively study.
E-16 Course Assessment (Continued)
114
Dr. Erdal's Further Comments
1
More emphasis can be placed on explaining why the students are learning what they are learning, especially at the beginning of a new topic.
2
To keep students up to date in course material, regular announced quizzes to be held outside lecture times (logistics permitting) can be given
throughout the semester, based on HW assignments
3
Attendance requirement can be lifted. This way, it is believed that the coming students will put effort in participating and concentrate more in
learning the course material. Any disruptions that can be caused by those students who come to class only due to the attendance requirement
can be minimized.
Dr. Platin's Further Comments
1
As opposed to Merve's 3rd comment, I believe that it is the educators' responsibility to reach every individual student, promote his/her interest
in the course and have him/her involved with in-class learning environment, rather than keeping seemingly uninterested students away from the
learning atmosphere of the class. It is an unfortunate fact that, when we deal with the students of the educational system of our country, we
need to enforce class attendance at freshmen and sophomore levels, by either taking a class roll or giving pop quizzes or performing in-class
assignments, etc.
Dr. Dağ's Further Comments
1
I also think that attendance requirement should be lifted in order to have classes with students who are willing to participate and learn in the
class. But, I am opposed to giving quizzes during class time. From my experience in other courses, I know that at the end of the day, giving
quizzes works out as another way of checking out the attendance. There is always a group of students who come to class only to attend the
regularly held quizzes, because of their percentage effect on the overall grade. These students even study for the quiz during class time. I think
that increasing the number of exams during the semester (I suggest two exams for the vector calculus and two exams for the linear algebra
chapters, if the chapter on complex numbers is excluded) will do more than enough to keep the students up to date with the course material.
115
E-16 Course Assessment (Continued)
ME 302 Course Assessment
Instructors: Çalışkan, İder, Özgören
Semester: Spring 2003
Student
Learning
Outcome
1a
1b
2a
2b
2c
3a
3b
Measurement
Method1
Expected
Score
Weighted
Average
Actual
Score
Score
Relative
Weights
%
Assessment2
Score
MT 1-1
100
87
87.0
5
HW 13
80
77
96.3
1
MT 1-2
80
55
68.8
5
HW 2
90
78
86.7
1
CL 2
90
85
94.4
1
MT 1-3
100
75
75.0
5
F-3
80
44
55.0
5
HW 3
100
92
92.0
1
Exp 1
100
88
88.0
1
MT 2-1
80
47
58.8
5
F-1
80
69
86.3
5
HW 4
90
49
54.4
1
Exp 1
100
88
88.0
1
MT 2-1
80
47
58.8
5
F-1
80
69
86.3
5
Exp 1
100
88
88.0
1
MT 2-2
80
64
80.0
5
MT 2-3
100
71
71.0
5
F-2
100
78
78.0
5
HW 4
90
49
54.4
1
HW 5
80
68
85.0
1
CL 3
90
76
84.4
1
MT 2-2
80
64
80.0
5
MT 2-3
100
71
71.0
5
F-2
100
78
78.0
5
HW 5
80
68
85.0
1
116
%
89
Excellent.
75
Very Good
69
Good
72
Good
74
Good
76
Very Good
77
Very Good
F-4
80
69
86.3
5
HW 6
90
38
42.2
1
F-4
80
69
86.3
5
HW 6
90
38
42.2
1
4c
HW 6
90
38
42.2
5
F-5
80
45
56.3
4a
4b
79
Very Good
79
Very Good
1
42
Bad
5
56
Fair
1. MT i - j = i th midterm exam. - j th question, F = final exam., HW = homework, CL = computer laboratory,
Exp = experiment
2. Excellent: 85-100, Very Good: 75-84, Good: 65-74, Fair: 55-64, Bad: 0-54
3. Because individual HW questions were not graded, some HW questions also influence unrelated outcomes
117
E-16 ME 302 Course Assessment (continued)
Instructors: Çalışkan, İder, Özgören
Semester: Spring 2003
Student
Learning
Outcome
Actions to be Taken
1a
Objective is achieved
1b
The examples related to dynamic force analysis should be more instructive.
2a
Modeling of single dof systems containing elastic members with inertia is not well
understood. This concept should be made more clear.
2b, 2c
The examples related to free vibration of undamped systems should be more
instructive.
3a, 3b
Examples and homework problems related to forced vibrations and vibration
isolation should be more instructive.
4a, 4b
The students do not spend sufficient time for the homework assignments towards
the end of the semester because of studying for their exams. The students should be
encouraged to study their courses in an organized manner.
4c
An assessment based on only HW assignment is not reliable especially at the end of
the semester. At least one exam question should be asked about this outcome.
5
The examples and homework problems related to flywheels should be more
instructive.
118
Appendix E-17
Instruction Evaluation System
119