1. Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research 2010 Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research Assessment Review Committee Report College of Technology & Computer Science Evelyn Brown and Leslie Pagliari April 7, 2014 1 2013 Institutional Planning, Assessment, and Research

2. Mentoring/Review Process ARC review process All members met with Kristen and Susan for an overview of TracDat and for specifics on what they were monitoring ARC members were each assigned 4-5 programs outside of their discipline Deadlines for reviews were given and the team met monthly for review All reviews were conducted individually except for the Dean’s Office and the CITE Center. These reviews were college-wide and the ARC members met as a group to review these two reports. 22013 Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research

3. 2012-13 Component Data DevelopingAcceptableProficient Outcome02734 Means of Assessment 133218 Criteria for Success 102132 Results81935 Actions Taken261124 Follow-Up to Actions Taken 38810 32013 Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research

4. Data Visualization 42013 Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research

5. 2012-13 Best Practices – “Closing the Loop” Outcome: –Graduates will demonstrate an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety. Means of Assessment: –Course-embedded assessments include evaluation of student work samples in core engineering courses, student surveys in core engineering courses, and evaluation of capstone project reports. These results are evaluated by a faculty member designated as the outcome coordinator to rate overall achievement of the outcome. 52013 Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research

6. 2012-13 Best Practices – “Closing the Loop” Criteria for Success: –Overall result of 3 or higher based on a 5 point scale: 5=well above expectations: all measures exceed target levels 4=above expectations: most measures at or above target levels 3=outcome achieved: most measures at or near target levels 2=outcome not achieved: most measures below target levels 1=well below expectations: all measures below target levels –Specific target levels for each measure from the Department’s Assessment and Evaluation Plan: Capstone Assessment: 70% of samples at 3 (satisfactory) or 4 (superior) Student Work Samples: 70% of samples at 3 (satisfactory) or 4 (superior) Targeted Exam Questions: 60% correct for each question Student Surveys: 70% 4 or 5 responses for each related course outcome 62013 Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research

7. 2012-13 Best Practices – “Closing the Loop” 2012-13 Results: –Student Work Samples: ENGR 3050=80% assessed at a level of 3 or 4 with rubric ENGR 4020=92% assessed at a level of 3 or 4 with rubric BIME 4200=100% assessed at a level of 3 or 4 with rubric ISYS 3060=84% assessed at a level of 3 or 4 with rubric MENG 4650=42% assessed at a level of 3 or 4 with rubric Actions Taken (based on analysis of results): –Faculty had concern about the 42% rating that students in MENG 4650 attained. In order to improve student performance on this outcome in this course, the two exams for the class were edited to include a lot more about design. Specifically, students were required to design a gear box, with gears, shafts, and bearings. Additionally, the tests were set up to be take-home tests so that students could have adequate time to demonstrate their ability to design a system. 72010 Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research

8. 2012-13 Best Practices – “Closing the Loop” Initiative/Change/Strategy Implemented for Program/Unit improvement: –For this outcome in this course, 66% of the students rated at a 3 or 4 for Fall 2013. The modification appears to have been effective, but in order to further improve student attainment of this outcome, another modification will be included in Fall 2014. –While the current take-home test assignment on design will continue to be assessed, the instructor will also assess an assignment that is done as a part of a team-based project. –It is thought that students learn from each other and that collaboration among students can foster creativity in design, so providing this type of assignment and assessing it will allow us to determine how working with others impacts students’ ability to design. 82010 Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research

9. Substantive Changes Program/Unit: –Department of Engineering Description of Changes: –From 2008 to 2011, the outcome coordinator for the "design" outcome kept reporting to faculty that students were not doing well with design, particularly at the senior level with their Capstone Design Projects. –Faculty agreed and minor changes were made across those three years in an attempt to improve student achievement of this outcome. 92013 Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research

10. Substantive Changes Description of Changes: –In 2011, the decision was made to add design in to the freshman, sophomore, and junior years so that by the time students got to be seniors in the Capstone course, they would know a bit about design. –One course was eliminated that was worth three credit hours and replaced with ENGR 2000 (Engineering Design and Project Management I - 1 credit hour) and ENGR 3000 (Engineering Design and Project Management II - 2 credit hours). –More design concepts were also added to ENGR 1016, an existing freshman course. 102013 Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research

11. Substantive Changes Justification of Changes: –ENGR 2000 was first offered in Fall 2012 and ENGR 3000 was first offered in Fall 2013. The students who took those courses will be in Capstone during the 2014-15 academic year. –Our assessment of how well they achieve the design outcome will provide us with some data on the impact of this curriculum change we made. 112013 Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research

12. Rubric and Review Process Feedback Rubric and review process –This process was reviewed and analyzed by our ARC members. All members were comfortable with their assignments and made sure they discussed the findings with the responsible Unit Assessment Coordinators (UACs). –The UACs were responsible for updating their reports and reviewing the information with the ARC members in order to ensure compliance with their recommendations. –All members felt like the process went smoothly and will work together in the upcoming year to ensure that the process works well again. –All UAC and ARC members were sent a certificate from the Dean as a “THANK YOU” for their work on college assessment. 122013 Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research

13. EXAMPLE OF CERTIFICATE 132010 Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research