Robert L. Williams II, Ph.D.

This report details the results of the Department of Mechanical Engineering second year’s experience with outcomes-based assessment. As with previous years, the purpose of assessment is to improve teaching, learning, and student services.

The first section presents our general Vision, Mission, Objectives, and Strategies statements. This section concludes with statements of our department-based assessment goals, both current and future.

We are a department committed to the education of productive Mechanical Engineers (both Undergraduate and Graduate) and to conducting high quality research.

We will attract, educate, and train talented men and women to enter the field of Mechanical Engineering and prepare them for productive careers in professional practice. We will also attract external funds to conduct high quality research.

• Nation-wide prominence amongst Mechanical Engineering programs
• Excellence in teaching
• High quality research and development
• Participation in ASME, ASEE, honor societies and other professional organizations

• Curriculum enhancement
• Build a strong team for teaching and research
• Update and modernize laboratories
• Faculty professional and educational development
• Quick response to students’ and society’s needs
• Conform to ABET requirements

Our current goals for successful graduates are:

1. Students will learn logical approaches to solving complex problems.
2. Students will be capable of designing and developing all types of machines, mechanical systems, and energy systems.
3. Students will have a broad range of technical knowledge in materials behavior, motion transfer, electricity and electronics, energy conversion, control theory, stress analysis, fluid behavior, and computer techniques.
4. Students will be prepared with both theoretical and practical aspects of mechanical engineering.
5. Students are expected to become proficient in developing mathematical models based on physical principles.
6. Recipients of the M.S.M.E. degree will learn and demonstrate advanced knowledge of mechanical engineering.

The above goals are still sound and pertinent. However, in the future we will integrate these goals with the following list, taken from the ABET Engineering Criteria 2000 document. These strongly resemble the North Central Association assessment criteria.

Our graduates will have:

1. an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering to real-world problems;
2. an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data;
3. an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs;
4. an ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams;
5. an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems;
6. an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility;
7. an ability to communicate effectively;
8. the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global/societal context;
9. a recognition of the need for and an ability to engage in life-long learning;
10. a knowledge of contemporary issues; and,
11. an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.

The Department of Mechanical Engineering (ME) uses a variety of assessment vehicles for feedback: One- and five-year educational outcomes surveys of graduates, Industrial Advisory board feedback, quarterly reports from co-op students on assignment in industry, employer feedback, Engineer-In-Training (EIT, the first step for professional registration) and Professional Registration exams, and the local mini-EIT exam. These various feedback sources are monitored continuously and used to improve Mechanical Engineering curriculum and instructional practices. Program improvements can be both individual (professor improving specific course based on one or more feedback sources) and global (e.g. major re-working of senior design sequence based on industrial feedback and outcomes-based ABET accreditation criteria). Internal assessment feedback includes student performance on capstone senior design courses and three-quarter senior design projects, both of which often include hardware components and industry-motivated problems.

From the recent April 1997 meeting of the ME Advisory Board, all members expressed satisfaction with the quality of our graduates and progress toward our goals. This group cautioned not to change too much too fast because of our current strong position in providing capable engineers for industry. The Advisory Board is a diverse group of practicing engineers and managers, composed of OU ME graduates who are in positions of authority in industry.

A majority of our senior students take the standardized EIT examination, and approximately 85% of those pass on the first try. All senior students are required to take and pass the locally-administered mini-EIT prior to graduation. This speaks well for our students’ grounding in the fundamentals of mechanical engineering.

Over half of our undergraduate students are enrolled in the co-op program where students alternate quarters of school and work in industry. Not only is this valuable experience for the co-op student, but it provides an excellent source of early outcomes-based feedback for our program. This feedback takes two forms: 1) Co-op student reports concerning their quarterly assignments, their employers, and their current level of preparation to meet the challenges presented to them; and 2) Employer reports evaluating the effectiveness of the co-op students in their assignments.

Permanent employment feedback also forms valuable external assessment feedback to our program. Recently Mr. Don Hart of The Timken Company and Dr. Tom Wakeman of General Electric Company expressed satisfaction with the OU ME graduates they have hired and both expressed interest in hiring more in the future.

Our next ABET accreditation occurs in 1998, under the existing rules. However, in the year 2000, ABET will shift to outcomes-based accreditation. Therefore, we are making plans (in conjunction with this yearly outcomes-based assessment) to comply early with this future change.

This is our second year of outcomes-based assessment and thus it is premature to evaluate how our assessment vehicles are performing in achieving goals. We recognize the need for better data, based on actual graduate outcomes. An immediate goal is to maintain a database of all graduating seniors. However, it is acknowledged that we have neither the resources nor personnel to accomplish this, so we will have to rely on the Office of Institutional Research for information, which could be improved.

The following two tables summarize outcomes-based data from the Mechanical Engineering Career and Further Education and Mechanical Engineering Five-year Educational Outcomes, respectively.

From the Mechanical Engineering Career and Further Education results (percentages):

From the Mechanical Engineering Five-year Educational Outcomes (percentages):

The results of these two tables are encouraging in our outcomes-based assessment. A high percentage of our graduates are employed in industrial jobs. A significant number have obtained or are pursing master’s degrees and professional certification (not required for all jobs). We would like to increase graduate satisfaction in terms of being extremely satisfied with the quality of instruction and feeling that their mechanical engineering education prepared them very well for their careers.

The following figure graphically summarizes item #11, Competencies Needed and Developed, from the Mechanical Engineering Five-year Educational Outcomes data. For 15 major areas, this data describes the degree to which OU Mechanical Engineering graduates feel each area is needed and also how well their OU education prepared them for that specific area. The solid lines plot the averages; data falling in the upper right quadrant are the areas which are needed and we are doing a fine job providing. Data in the lower left quadrant are the areas which are not needed and we are not doing a fine job providing. The area of concern is the upper left quadrant, areas which are needed but not being effectively provided by our department. From the five year survey data, 1986-1991, there are two areas which fall into this problem category: 1) Sensitivity to feelings and perceptions of others; and 2) Organize and supervise work of others. Our department needs to work on the second shortcoming; the first has questionable relevance to an engineering education (more based on the individual). Overall, the results from this item #11 indicate we are doing very well in preparing students for industrial jobs.

Four curriculum changes have been proposed or accomplished as a result of external and internal assessment feedback.

1. ME 100 has been approved as an introductory ME class, to be first offered in Fall 1997. Previous to this course, we did not encounter our students until late in their sophomore year, when they take the service courses ME 224 and ME 321.

 

2. The ME department led an effort to reverse the course content of Physics 252 and 253 so that engineering students may take CE 220, Statics, in proper sequence, with the appropriate Physics prerequisite.

 

3. ME junior-level required courses are now being offered twice per year to accommodate co-op students. The ME department values co-op students and must facilitate their academic schedules.

 

4. The entire senior-level design sequence has been proposed for overhaul based on industry feedback. Currently a total of nine credit hours comprise ME 404 (Machine Design II, 4 credit hours) or ME 417 (Design of Thermal Systems, 4 credit hours), plus ME 499 (individualized senior design project, 4 credit hours) and ME 480 (Senior Colloquium, 1 credit hour). This nine credit hours will be re-worked into a three-quarter (three credit hours each) senior design course sequence where there is one major design project with hardware results. This major change is awaiting the quarter/semester decision before implementation.

 

5. Our department is offering various graduate courses in the OAI teleconferencing classroom for engineers in industry interested in pursuing a master’s degree.

 

6. A Mechanical Engineering Honors Program has been proposed in order to involve undergraduate students in research projects (for credit) and to recruit top U.S. citizens for graduate study in our department.

In addition to maintaining our current efforts in curriculum and assessment, the following future plans are presented to focus on outcomes-based assessment.

ME 100 will be implemented and taught to our first- and second-quarter freshman students so they may have earlier contact with ME faculty, an introduction to design and analysis techniques, and industrial involvement through guest speakers and field trips.

Based on co-op employer feedback, the IT 101 engineering drawing course is valuable for almost all co-op assignments. However, the majority of assignments request student experience with AutoCAD and none ask for Cadkey experience. Therefore, the ME department is assisting change at the college level from Cadkey to AutoCAD for drawing courses.

The current nine credit hour senior design effort will be reworked into a three-quarter sequence to serve as our capstone design sequence. The purpose for the change is to: 1) give all students extensive design experience including hardware; 2) include regular deadlines, including the need for written and oral intermediate reports; and 3) provide a unified, competition-driven design course sequence lasting three quarters.

As larger numbers of our students enter the co-op program, the student and employer reports will become increasingly important sources of external assessment feedback. The benefit of this mode is that current students may not only assist in changing our programs, but may themselves profit before graduation.

The ME curriculum, seven-year review, ABET accreditation, and outcomes-based assessment committees will be integrated. This will be accomplished to share assessment feedback efficiently and to facilitate implementing changes in a responsive and timely fashion.

In the future, the ME department proposes to add five or six questions to the standard OU Office of Institutional Research for our graduates only. The purpose is to provide detailed outcomes-based data (at one and five years) specific to our department program. The feeling is that a separate survey is not necessary, but a few specific questions could greatly improve our current feedback.

In summary, current external feedback evidence points to success in producing strong ME graduates. Several curricular changes are in progress to meet needs based on previous feedback. We are in the process of shifting our assessment paradigm to external outcomes-based assessment. The ME advisory board, industrial employers, and co-op students and employers are valuable external feedback resources. In our second year of outcomes-based assessment, we acknowledge a need for better data and are frustrated as to how we can obtain that without resources or personnel.