We have a department faculty meeting every week. The department’s goals were discussed and developed in the faculty meeting during 1994-95. They are:

1. Students will compare favorably in their knowledge and skills of chemical engineering with students completing similar programs nationally.

2. Graduates will be able to analyze industrial chemical engineering problems and synthesize possible solutions based on their educational background.

3. Graduates will be able to use their baccalaureate background as a springboard to further professional and career development.

These goals are consistent with College, University and Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) requirement. They are reviewed every year by the department. Minor modifications have been made since last year.

In order to match our goals and objectives more closely with those of ABET, we formed a Goals and Objectives committee to collect information from each faculty and will make more modifications next year.

To accomplish our goals, we identified the desired end of program objectives. These objectives are consistent with those of ABET. After successful completion of our program, our graduates should be able to

1. apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering

2. design and conduct experiments, as well as analyze and interpret data

3. design a system, component, or process for chemical industry

4. work as a chemical engineer or study in a graduate school

5. communicate effectively

6. use computers

7. work in a team

8. work independently

9. acquire new knowledge

10. understand moral, ethical and political issues

These objectives are measured by one or more of the 12 methods. These assessment activities and responsibilities are listed below. Two of them, Computer Skills Survey and Fundamentals of Engineering Exam, are new. Most of the activities are internal which tells us whether we have accomplished our objectives. The last two are external which tells us where we stand in the nation. Some of them collect information for individual courses, skills, and services, and others provide information for more than one objectives.

1. Course grade - Faculty

2. Teaching evaluation - Russ College

3. Senior assessment test - Assessment Committee

4. Capstone design course - Instructor

5. Senior student survey - Assessment Committee

6. Alumni survey - Institutional Research

7. Employer survey - Assessment Committee

8. Career and further education study - Institutional Research

9. Computer skills survey - Faculty

10. Advising survey - Chairman of the Department of Chemical Engineering

11. Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) exam - National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES)

12. Accreditation review - Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET)

The program objectives are covered more or less in various courses. The traditional structure of the assessment process consists of a feedback loop as shown below. The course grade is employed as a natural assessment tool for individual courses. Each required course has one or more prerequisites in our highly integrated program. Therefore, the course grade determines whether the student can continue or not. Teaching evaluation on the other hand provides valuable feedback for individual courses. These two assessment methods are used by individual professors to improve individual courses.

The second feedback loop is new. We use the rest of the assessment tools to evaluate the curriculum.

The capstone design courses are the last hurdles which tell us whether the student can work as a chemical engineer. The three surveys, Senior Student Survey, Alumni Survey and Employer Survey, are designed to see if we meet our objectives. The Senior Student Survey and the Alumni Survey are almost identical so that we can compare students’ opinions one quarter before graduation with that two years after graduation. These five methods and the assessed objectives form a matrix as follows,

Assessment

Capstone Senior Senior Alumni Employer

Design Tests Survey Survey Survey

(App 1) (App 2) (App 3) (App 4) (App 5)

Objectives

1. Basic Knowledge x x x x x

2. Experimental

design and analysis x x

3. Process Design x x x x

4. Work as a

chemical engineer x x x x x

5. Communication x x x x

6. Computer x x x x

7. Team work x x x x

8. Independence x x x

9. Acquiring

new knowledge x x x

10. Ethics x

In addition to the assessment methods mentioned earlier, the Career and Further Education Study tells us how many of our graduates are working as chemical engineers or studying in graduate school. The Computer Skills Survey shows what computer skills our students have learned in various courses. The Advising Survey concerns the academic advising the students obtain.

All the assessment activities were carried out in 1997-1998. The Employment Survey and the Alumni Survey, both for 1995-1996 class, were mailed by the Institutional Research in 1997 and the results were given to us in winter quarter, 1998. The Senior Assessment Tests were administered to senior students by the instructor of design course and graded by three members of the Assessment Committee in fall quarter, 1997. The Senior Students Survey and the Employer (of class of 1995-1996) Survey were conducted by the Chair of the Assessment Committee in winter quarter, 1998. The Capstone Design Course Report was completed by the instructor of design course at the end of winter quarter, 1998. The results of the Fundamentals of Engineering Exam for class of 1996-1997 were given to us in spring quarter of 1998. The Computer Skills Survey were collected by instructors of CHE101 at the beginning of spring, 1998 and CHE201 in the middle of spring, 1998. The Advising Evaluation was carried out by the Chair of the Department in spring, 1997. The detailed results and analysis are given in Appendix 1 to 9.

Both the external assessment tools, ABET accreditation and FE Exam (Appendix 8) indicate that we have a very strong ChE program. We are one of the few ChE programs that got full six year accreditation from ABET in 1992. The results of the 1997 FE Exam also show that our students are superior. In fact, 100% of our students who took the ChE Exam passed it, a perfect rate, which is better than the state average of 96% and the national average of 89%.

The strength of ChE graduates is also reflected by the employment survey. The Career and Further Education Study for 1991 to 1995 Graduates conducted by the Institutional Research (Appendix 9) shows that 87% of them are employed, 11% are in school and only 2% are not employed and not in school.

The response to the Employer Survey (Appendix 5) for 1993 to 1995 graduates is also very good. 98% agreed that our graduates have the necessary knowledge and skills. 89% agreed that our graduates are as good when compared to graduates from other schools. In fact, one employer stated "your graduate is an outstanding asset of this company. Your program has to be top-notch." Another stated "he is well prepared to enter the work force. Ohio University can be proud of the graduates." It can be concluded from this Survey that the employers are very satisfied with the education of our graduates.

The overall satisfaction indicated by the Senior Student Survey (Appendix 3) is 75% compared to 65% the previous year, which is a statistically significant improvement. The Survey indicates the majority of the current seniors think they have learned sufficient material in various courses including fundamentals, labs and designs. They also learned enough skills, such as the use of computer software, communications, acquiring new knowledge, working independently as well as in a team. There are some concerns in two courses, CHE 400 and CHE 408. However, the degree of satisfaction for both improved tremendously from last year. Another concern is computer programming. This may be caused by our switching from teaching programming in a FORTRAN course to teaching programming in MATLAB in a variety of CHE courses. We will continue to monitor these courses and areas, and to improve them. One modification we will make on the Survey is to add one more question, "if we want to improve our curriculum, please list one course which should be removed and one course which should be added," so that the students can make an input regarding our curriculum.

To investigate the students’ concern in computers, the Computer Skills Survey (Appendix 6) was implemented this year. It shows that the vast majority of our Freshman have computer skills in word processor and e-mail. About half of them have used or mastered spreadsheet. Only a few students have used MATLAB. Essentially no student has used or mastered the high level software for design and simulation. After one year, their skills in word processor improved a little. Everyone has used e-mail. The vast majority have used or mastered computer programming in MATLAB. Eventually they will learn the high level software for design and simulation.

We have improved the response rate for the Alumni Survey (Appendix 4) from 10% to above 50% by asking the Institutional Research to conduct it for us. The results are as good as those of the Senior Student Survey. This is the first time we have both the Alumni Survey and the Senior Student Survey from the same class, class of 95-96. It is interesting to see their change in perception two years after graduation by comparing these two Surveys. The answer to the same question varies from an increase of 33% to a decrease of 31%. When asked about "I think I do a good job working in a team," 67% agreed in 1996 and it is increased to 100% in 1998. When asked about "I learned sufficient material in oral presentation," 67% agreed in 1996 and it is decreased to 36% in 1998. More data will be collected for a statistically meaningful comparison. We will make some minor changes in the wording of some of the questions. We will also modify the Survey by adding one more question, "if we want to improve our curriculum, please list one course which should be removed and one course which should be added," so that the alumni can make an input regarding our curriculum.

The report (Appendix 1) from the capstone course, at this time, is subjective and qualitative. As the instructor stated, students come to the design course with an understanding of a few basic concepts from each of their previous courses but very little practical computational skill. Their practical competence is limited by an inability to identify applicable theories or models, an inability to correctly identify relevant terms in the analysis, and an inability to complete mathematical manipulations (mostly algebraic) required to generate a solution.

The main improvement for the Senior Assessment Test is that we were able to administer all three Assessment Tests for the current seniors this year. From the assessment tests, we find the students have almost no ability to do the high level problem organizations necessary for real world problems. They did well on simple items which were easily identifiable with a specific class and did poorly on the more complicated "real" problems which were less clearly identifiable with a certain course. They failed to identify the system boundaries, make the correct assumptions, list the relevant known and unknown variables and use the appropriate equations for the real problems. Since the tests are oriented more toward the real problems, they are not comparable to those from the previous year. We will try to keep the test problems similar from year to year. We will also move the assessment test from Fall quarter to Winter quarter because some of the real problem skills are learned in senior Design and Lab courses.

As far as service is concerned, the Senior Student Survey shows that 79% are satisfied with the computer services. 76% are satisfied with the library services. 76% are satisfied with the advising. The Advising Evaluation (Appendix 7) also shows that 85% of the students felt that their advising was either very good or excellent.

The main evidence that we are accomplishing our first goal - students will compare favorably in their knowledge and skills of chemical engineering with students completing similar programs nationally - is that we received full six year accreditation from ABET. In addition, the FE exam results (Appendix 8) show that 100% of our students passed it, which is better than the state average of 96% and the national average of 89%. The employment data in the Career and Further Education Study (Appendix 6) shows that on the average, 87% of our graduates are employed, 11% are in school and only 2% are not employed and not in school. The Employer Survey indicates that 89% of the employers think our graduates are as good when compared to graduates from other schools. In fact, one employer commented "your graduate is an outstanding asset of this company and your program has to be top-notch."

The Senior Student Survey (Appendix 3), the Alumni Survey (Appendix 4) and the Employer Survey (Appendix 5) provide evidence that we are accomplishing our second goal - graduates will be able to analyze industrial chemical engineering problems and synthesize possible solutions based on their educational background. For example, statement 27 of the Senior and Alumni Survey is "I am confident in my ability to solve chemical engineering problems." A total of 92% of the current seniors and 100% of the 1995-96 graduates agree. Similarly, statement 4 of the Employer Survey is "he/she has adequate problem solving skills." 100% of the employers agreed. One employer stated "he is well prepared to enter the work force. Ohio University can be proud of the graduates."

The Career and Further Education Study, the Alumni Survey and the Employer Survey all provide evidence that we are accomplishing our third goal-graduates will be able to use their baccalaureate background as a springboard to further professional and career development. In addition to the successful employment, and favorable response from alumni and employers as stated earlier, other evidence can be cited. For example, when asked about "satisfaction with present position" in the Career and Further Education Study, 97% of the 1991 to 1995 alumni are satisfied. About 96% of these alumni think that Ohio University prepare them well for their career and 100% think that we prepare them well for additional academic work. Statement 28 of the Alumni Survey is "I am confident in my ability to acquire new skills on my own." A total of 100% of the 1993-1995 graduates agree. Similarly Statement 5 of the Employer Survey is "he/she is able to acquire new skills as needed for his/her job." 100% of the employers agreed.

No recommendation is made for the academic program.

The recommendation in the department assessment plan is to:

1. Continue refining goals and objectives.

2. Add one question to the Senior Student Survey and the Alumni Survey so that they can make some input to curriculum change.

3. Move assessment tests from fall to winter.

Appendix 1

REPORT FROM CAPSTONE DESIGN COURSE

The following text details a subjective assessment of the capabilities of chemical engineering undergraduate students in the senior class as demonstrated by their performance during the two-quarter design course occurring in the fall quarter of 1997 and the winter quarter of 1998. Capabilities addressed are those developed during the students' education prior to the design courses, primarily stressing chemical engineering courses taken in the sophomore and junior years. The review is categorized according to these previous courses. The results represent the opinions and goals of the design course instructor. Lack of performance in some areas may reflect differences between the goals of the design instructor and the goals of the previous course instructors. This potential discrepancy should be addressed by developing and publishing a set of course goals for each course in the curriculum. All quantitative information has been estimated based upon general recollection.

This report was constructed by editing the version generated last year. The capabilities of the average student in the class of 1998 are similar to those of the class of 1997; however, a general impression is that the new class has a similar fraction of students with excellent capabilities and a smaller fraction of students with poor capabilities. As a whole, the new class accepted the philosophy of the design class (open-ended problems, learning material outside of class, student responsibility for developing solution strategies) better than the previous two classes did.

Essentially all students are familiar with the basic concepts of heat and material balances. They can all chant the familiar law "in minus out plus generation equals accumulation." However, only about half of them can be expected to accurately define the relevant equations and solve them when presented with a typical problem. A minority of students does not understand the concept of steady-state operation. A similar fraction of students does not understand the difference between enthalpy changes associated with temperature change and enthalpy changes associated with phase change.

Quantitative aspects of this subject are rarely required in the design course and so cannot be reviewed here. Almost all students understand the basic concepts of laminar and turbulent flow. Only about half of the students have any useful knowledge about how to select a type of pump or valve for a given application. Few students are familiar with the interaction between height and pressure.

Most students understand the basic processes of conduction and convection. Most can recall Newton's Law of Cooling and correctly identify the relevant terms in it. A significant minority of students cannot accurately complete calculations in this area because they make fundamental errors associated with improper identification of driving forces, physical properties, and unit conversions.

Most students do not understand the operation or purpose of staged separation processes; most believe that a mixture of liquids can, in general, be separated into pure components in a single equilibrium stage. Completion of specific calculations associated with this course are not required in the design course and so cannot be reviewed here.

Essentially all students have a general familiarity with the concepts of work, enthalpy, entropy, and phase equilibria; however, the familiarity is only general. For example, few students have a functional understanding of the difference between vapor-liquid-equilibrium models.

Essentially all students understand the difference between ideal reactor types and can write a reaction rate expression based on an elementary mechanism. Few students have working knowledge that enables them to specify reactor performance or interpret kinetic data. Most students do not appreciate the difference between heterogeneous and homogeneous catalysts and do not understand that the use of heterogeneous catalysts has an impact on the configuration of the reactor.

The use of calculus and differential equations is not required as a part of the senior design course. About one fourth of the students have regular difficulty performing basic algebraic manipulations.

About one quarter of the students have difficulty balancing chemical reactions. A similar fraction does not recognize common organic structures such as esters or carboxylic acids or common molecules such as xylene. Almost no students have any recollection of IUPAC nomenclature or common classes of chemical reaction. Concepts from physical chemistry are rarely used in the design course.

Writing skills are highly variable. About three quarters of the students have adequate grammar skills combined with an ability to organize their thoughts and generate a logical and informative report. The rest are not prepared to write a technical report worth reading. Although the later quarter fails in both the grammar and development areas, the inability to organize their thoughts in a way that demonstrates a concept or leads to a conclusion is perhaps the most concerning problem. Coming into the senior year, only about a quarter of the students have any familiarity with the basic mechanical details of how to format a table, figure, or reference. Only about one third of the students understand the purpose of citations, know when to use citations, or have a complete understanding of the concept of plagiarism.

Most students have adequate to good skills in this area. They can organize a talk into appropriate sections, create effective visual aids, and deliver their message.

Students come to the design course with an understanding of a few basic concepts from each of their previous courses but very little practical computational skill. Their practical competence is limited by an inability to identify applicable theories or models, an inability to correctly identify relevant terms in the analysis, and an inability to complete mathematical manipulations (mostly algebraic) required to generate a solution.

During the fall of 1997, we carried out 3 exams to test 9 core chemical engineering courses which the students take before their senior year. The exams are prepared and graded by three members of the Assessment Committee and administered to students enrolled in the senior design course. In order to ensure that the students make a serious attempt to complete the exams, they were given a minor emphasis (a total of 5% weight) in the design course grade. The results are reported here.

The first assessment test in 1997 covered the same subject areas as the first test reported for the previous year. However, because the test had a different style, emphasis, and scoring method, the scores are not directly comparable to those from the previous year. A review of each test question, scoring, and evaluation for the tests in 1997 follows. The scores indicate the percentage of the solutions which completed the described task satisfactorily.

Natural gas containing 95 mole% methane and the balance ethane is burned with 25% excess air in a plant to generate steam. The feeds (natural gas, air, and water) enter at 25 EC. The exhaust gas leaves at 300 EC. How much natural gas is required to produce 1000 kg of steam at 5 bar and 250 EC?

Please draw a sketch which describes this system. Define symbols for all material and energy flows, label the streams and show composition for each stream. Calculate the standard heat(s) of reaction. Propose the equation(s) you should use to solve the problem and supply values and formulas for each variable in the equation(s). What assumptions are you making when you use these equations and values. Do you have enough information to solve this problem? If not, make additional assumptions as required and then complete the solution. State all the assumptions and reference states at the beginning of your work. Identify one sensible heat and one latent heat calculation in your work.

Average for all tasks 48%

1. Identified natural gas combustion and steam generation system boundaries. 38

2. Assigned variables as needed to describe problem 98

3. Maintained dimensional units in solution 93

4. Identified the five main assumptions 28

5. Correctly balanced one of the two chemical reactions 85

6. Correctly identified at least two of the four material balances 48

7. Identified the reference state for the enthalpy calculations 0

8. Correctly calculated the sensible heat effect for one combustion product 33

9. Calculated the latent heat effect correctly 55

10. Calculated the heat of reaction correctly 68

11. Solved the complete energy balance 0

12. Described their procedure clearly 30

The students scored poorly because they failed to understand that there are two subsystems involved in this problem. The students need more skills translating textual descriptions into sketches. Part of the reason for the low scores must be related to low retention rates because the students all must have completed similar problems in order to get a passing grade of C in sophomore-level courses, material and energy balances. The students scored relatively better in basic concepts and calculations.

Ethylene and oxygen can be combined to form ethylene oxide by passing them over a heterogeneous silver catalyst arranged as packing in a tubular reactor. The reaction is highly exothermic. The heat of reaction is removed from the reactor by placing a larger pipe surrounding the reactor tube and passing cooling water through the outside pipe counter-currently.

Please make a sketch which describes this system. Define symbols for relevant variables (temperature, composition, etc.) and label the sketch with these symbols. Develop a set of equations which describe the composition, temperature, and pressure in the reactor and pipe as a function of position. What assumptions are you making when you use these equations? Which correlations can be used to predict heat transfer rates and pressure drop? List the physical properties which need to be known. What formulas should be used to predict how these physical property values change with temperature and/or pressure? What kind of math problem needs to be solved to complete this problem? What strategy would you use to solve this math problem?