Program: Biological Engineering (BS)
Degree: Bachelor's
Date: Mon Oct 19, 2009 - 8:51:33 am
1) List your program's student learning outcomes (SLOs).
The BE program has adopted an outcomes-based assessment process to ensure that students are fully prepared to achieve the program educational objectives (a vision of the professional trajectory of students graduating from the program).
Each of the program outcomes (a-l) is related to one of the three program educational objectives (1-3), and this relationship is published on the program webpage as well as in the university catalog. To facilitate the assessment of program outcomes, a set of measurable performance criteria were developed by which success in achieving the outcome can be determined.The program outcomes (a-l) including associated performance criteria (lower case roman numerals), mapped under the umbrella of individual educational objectives (1-3), are as follows:
1.Graduates are able to apply the fundamentals of engineering.
a. The graduate has the ability to solve problems involving differential equations.
i. Can apply principles of mass/ energy conservation and force balance to derive differential equations describing a system.
ii. Has the ability to formulate systems of differential equations through coupled/ interdependent variables.
iii. Can formulate and apply appropriate boundary/ initial conditions.
iv. Can apply analytical techniques for the solution of ordinary differential equations.
b. The graduate has the ability to solve physics problems involving mechanics, electromagnetic, and optics; chemistry problems involving inorganic and organic chemistry; problems involving general- and micro- biology.
i. Understands basic principles of how light and electromagnetic radiation interact with materials.
ii. Can identify how molecular structure relates to material properties.
iii. Understands reduction and oxidation processes, and their relationship to chemical energy.
iv. Has a firm understanding of the concept of pH, buffering, and protonation/ deprotonation.
v. Understands fundamentals of cell structure and metabolism.
vi. Recognizes the structure and basic functions of DNA, RNA, and protein.
c. The graduate has the ability to solve engineering problems related to statics, dynamics, fluid mechanics, and thermodynamics.
i. Can analyze the stresses in a statically loaded system, and design system to prevent stress related failure.
ii. Can solve basic problems in kinetics and kinematics.
iii. Can formulate solutions relating pressure, pump power, flow rate, and conduit characteristics/ dimensions in pipe flow.
iv. Understands the relationship between free energy, entropy, internal energy, and enthalpy.
v. Understands the fundamental principles of thermodynamic machines.
vi. Demonstrates understanding of the thermodynamic constraints for energy conversion.
2. Graduates have the skills to design, manufacture, evaluate, and/or operate systems in which living organisms or biological products are a significant component.
d. The graduate has the ability to design a system, component, or process in which biology plays a significant role.
i. Can recognize and define the problem to be solved.
ii. Can apply predictive models (e.g. growth, mortality, metabolism, enzyme kinetics) in biological engineering designs.
iii. Understands the role of environmental conditions on biological engineering designs (e.g. cell/enzyme survival/ activity, species competition, growth).
iv. Has fundamental understanding of the material and chemical properties of biological materials.
v. Demonstrates the ability to engineer cost effective solution to control or monitor a biological process.
e. The graduate has the ability to design and conduct experiments to gather information for engineering designs.
i. Can use models of a process to identify the most salient characteristics governing system behavior.
ii. Has the ability to design a simple experiment, with effective controls, to quantitatively measure relevant parameters.
iii. Has a fundamental understanding of accuracy and precision of a measurement, and how these relate to uncertainties in the performance of a design.
iv. Can use appropriate statistical tools to determine the power/ reliability of an experiment.
v. Demonstrates the ability to logically interpret data.
f. The graduate has the ability to use modern engineering techniques, skills, and tools to define, formulate, and solve engineering problems.
i. Prepares appropriate graphics and diagrams for communication of problems and designs.
ii. Chooses appropriate computer applications (e.g. structured code, spreadsheets, simulation to formulate a problem and/or execute a solution.
iii. Demonstrates an understanding of simple fabrication/ manufacturing processes.
iv. Student can design simple circuits for signal processing and measurement.
3. Graduates have the skills to function in modern society as is expected of a professional engineer with a baccalaureate degree.
g. The graduate has the ability to function effectively in multi-disciplinary teams.
i. Can share responsibilities and duties with team members.
ii. Has the ability to objectively discuss the problem and the merits of possible solutions.
iii. Can formulate an effective strategy for action
iv. Maintains constructive dialog with team members with different tasks and disciplinary backgrounds
h. The graduate has the ability to identify professional and ethical responsibilities when practicing engineering.
i. Demonstrates knowledge of professional code of ethics.
ii. Can evaluate the ethical ramifications of professional engineering and scientific practices.
i. The graduate has the ability to communicate effectively in large and small groups.
i. Can organize content of a presentation or document according to the informational needs and technical background of the audience.
ii. Can communicate facts supported with evidence and/or sufficiently detailed explanation.
iii. Can effectively address questions and/or assimilate feedback from an audience.
iv. Submits written work without errors in spelling, grammar, punctuation, and usage.
j. The graduate has the background to understand the impact of engineering solutions on the surrounding context.
i. Understands the cultural impacts of engineering.
ii. Understands the political impacts of engineering.
iii. Understands the social impacts of engineering.
iv. Understands the environmental impacts of engineering.
k. The graduate recognizes the need to engage in life-long learning through participation in professional conferences, workshops, and courses, and by reading and writing in the relevant literature.
i. Participates in symposia or conferences to explore research and design innovations across disciplines.
ii. Develops independence in researching current literature, patents, and design standards.
iii. Grasp of the fundamentals is strong enough to facilitate the independent assimilation of new knowledge.
l. The graduate has the ability to intelligently discuss contemporary issues.
i. Understands the challenges facing society, and the roles Biological Engineers face in addressing these challenges.
ii. Demonstrates an understanding of current events and their historical context.
2) Where are your program's SLOs published?
Department Website URL: http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/be/undergrad.html
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online: UHM Catalog. Page Number: 343-344 Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: http://www2.ctahr.hawaii.edu/depart/mbbe/courses.html#_be_courses Other: Other: 3) Upload your program's current curriculum map(s) as a PDF.
4) What percentage of courses have the course SLOs explicitly stated on the course syllabus, department website, or other publicly available document? (Check one)
0% 1-50% 51-80% 81-99%
100%5) State the SLO(s) that was Assessed, Targeted, or Studied
For the acacemic year 2008/2009, eight of the twelve SLOs for the Biological Engineering undergraduate program were assessed. These include the following outcomes:
The graduate has the ability to design a system, component, or process in which biology plays a significant role.
e. The graduate has the ability to design and conduct experiments to gather information for engineering designs.
f. The graduate has the ability to use modern engineering techniques, skills, and tools to define, formulate, and solve engineering problems.
g. The graduate has the ability to function effectively in multi-disciplinary teams.
i. The graduate has the ability to communicate effectively in large and small groups.
j. The graduate has the background to understand the impact of engineering solutions on the surrounding context.
k. The graduate recognizes the need to engage in life-long learning through participation in professional conferences, workshops, and courses, and by reading and writing in the relevant literature.
l. The graduate has the ability to intelligently discuss contemporary issues.
The remaining outcomes are scheduled to be reviewed in the 2009/2010 academic year, along with reevaluation of outcomes j, k, and l. Subsequently, outcomes assessment will be done according to a three year cycle.
6) State the Assessment Question(s) and/or Goal(s) of Assessment Activity
The primary goal of the program is to prepare students for careers in a variety of Biological Engineering fields, and to this end the assessment process is critical to ensure that the program is delivered in an optimal manner given it's limited resources. As part of the assessment process, the outcomes themselves are periodically reviewed in the context of industry need, especially in Hawaii. This is done in consultation with a committee of nine industry engineers in Hawaii to identify continuing and emerging needs, and make recommendations for program improvement. This industry advisory board meets annually with students and the program chair.
The outcomes based assessment is designed to gage the degree to which students in the program are achieving the outcomes which have been articulated as being fundamental to the success of the graduates in their professional engineering careers.
7) State the Type(s) of Evidence Gathered
Qualitative and quantitative data are gathered from our constituencies on a regular basis to assess achievement of the program outcomes. These instruments include:
1. Rubrics based assessment of student performance in prescribed courses
2. Student performance on the NCEES Fundamentals of Engineering exam
3. Focus group sessions
a. Students
b. BE-EPAC (industry advisory board)
4. Exit interview with BE chair
5. Feedback from BE alumni and their employers
6. Student evaluations of courses/instructors
7. CTAHR (College) graduation survey
8) State How the Evidence was Interpreted, Evaluated, or Analyzed
1. Rubrics based assessment of student performance in prescribed courses
For rubrics based assessment of student learning outcomes, portfolios of all student work from selected courses contributing to an outcome are evaluated by the instructor for the course using a standardized rubric for the outcome. Each student is classified as having “no proficiency”, “developing” proficiency, as being “proficient” or “exemplary” according to the most favorable example of work submitted for the course as defined under the rubric. These results are then reviewed for validation by a committee of faculty with expertise in the course area.
2. Student performance on the NCEES Fundamentals of Engineering exam
Students are required to take (but not necessarily pass) the national NCEES Fundamentals of Engineering exam, which is the first step in the path towards engineering licensure, in their final semester before graduation. Individual student performance is provided back to the program for assessment purposes such that individual students cannot be identified. The feedback includes student performance on each of the various engineering topics which compose the exam, and give some qualitative indication of the degree to which students are achieving the objectives.
3. Focus group sessions
a. Students
Focus group sessions with students facilitated by the industry advisory board (BE-EPAC) help the program assess the degree to which students are prepared for engineering careers, and help gain insight into the student’s perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of the program.
b. BE-EPAC (industry advisory board)
As indicated above, the industry advisory board provides feedback on the relevance of the program learning outcomes, and advises on strategies to improve the outcomes and objectives of the program.
4. Exit interview with BE chair
The chair of the BE program meets with all graduating students in the weeks preceding graduation to gain feedback on the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the program. This opportunity is also used as an opportunity to gage the level of achievement of certain of the less concrete outcomes (e.g., “ability to intelligently discuss contemporary issues”) by leading the graduates through a guided but open ended series of questions/ discussion.
5. Feedback from BE alumni and their employers
Alumni and employers of alumni of the Biological Engineering program are interviewed by telephone using a guided questionnaire to determine the degree to which students are prepared for their professional careers and to identify any needs and deficiencies in the program.
6. Student evaluations of courses/instructors
Course evaluations are used to determine whether the outcomes/ objectives for the course are clearly expressed and the degree to which students perceive that the instructors are successful in leading the students to achieve the outcomes.
7. CTAHR graduation survey
All students in the program complete an on-line survey for the College when they submit their degree check to apply for graduation. These data provide some feedback about how the program might be improved to more effectively address program outcomes.
9) State How Many Pieces of Evidence Were Collected
For rubrics based assessment of student work in individual courses, typically all of the student work submitted for evaluation in a given course is used. Typically at least two courses are used for assessment of each outcome, with at least one of these courses being required for graduation.
Focus groups with students and the industry advisory board meet annually, with all students in the program encouraged to participate, and minutes summarizing the results of these focus groups are maintained by the program chair.
Every student is interviewed by the graduate chair in the weeks leading up to graduation, and the summary notes for each meeting are maintained by the program chair, along with recordings of the interviews with students that consent to having them recorded.
Feedback is solicited from every alumnus and employer of alumni that have graduated within the last 5 years, and summaries of the discussions are compiled and maintained by the program chair. Due to difficulties in maintaining contact with alumni and low response rates from employers due to a reluctance to share confidential information, the quantity of assessment data collected is low (in the last year for example only 5 employers provided feedback).
Student evaluations of courses/ instructors, and results of the CTAHR graduation surveys are maintained by the program chair.
10) Summarize the Actual Results
Rubrics based assessment of student performance in prescribed courses
In response to limited participation and uncertainty in the quality of data obtained by indirect assessment tools such as surveys, beginning in 2008 a concerted effort was made to implement a more direct and systematic method of assessing achievement of program outcomes. While student work has always been collected by the program, and senior design projects specifically were scrutinized in order to assess achievement of outcomes, no clear criteria were defined to determine whether the student performance was proficient enough to demonstrate mastery of the outcome.
To remediate this situation, a set of performance criteria were compiled by the faculty in the summer of 2008 describing specifically the skills and competencies expected of each student under each outcome by the time of graduation (the performance criteria are summarized under each outcome in sub-section B above). Each faculty member then rewrote all of their syllabi to specifically include information on which performance criteria were addressed in the course, with an associated level of mastery (“introductory” being a superficial treatment/ introduction, “developmental” being a more in depth exposure including practical problems, and “mastery” being practice with the skill sufficient to allow reliable independent performance). While course grades are determined by a complex weighting system taking into consideration multiple different performance criteria, in general students demonstrating “developmental” mastery in each performance criteria evaluated in a class are regarded as “C” students, those demonstrating “proficiency” are regarded as a “B” students, and those demonstrating “mastery” are regarded as “A” students. From the new syllabi, a new mastery-level course-outcome map was prepared (Table 3-2 above), including content inferred from syllabi or hallmarks collected from program and university requirements taught outside of BE. This exercise was useful in determining whether the curricular content was sufficient to cover all of the expected performance criteria under each outcome, and resulted in some small curricular changes to ensure adequacy of coverage. To ensure that graduates have sufficient opportunity to achieve all outcomes, the curriculum was modified to ensure that each performance criterion is covered to a “mastery” level in at least one required course and one elective course in the program. This has resulted in small changes to the content of some courses, for example, BE 350L now includes instruction and assignments related to uncertainty analysis in engineering design.
Based on the completed course-outcome map, courses were strategically selected for more detailed rubrics-based assessment of the student work to demonstrate achievement of the outcomes. In general, at least two courses (at least one being a required course) are selected for assessment of each performance criterion to ensure adequate direct assessment data for all outcomes. Courses selected for review have all of the coursework scrutinized by a committee of at least three faculty, including the instructor of the course, and rubrics are used to determine the level of proficiency demonstrated for each performance criterion being evaluated. The rubrics and course venues used for direct assessment of student performance are included in Appendix F, Sections A and B respectively.
Due to the burden of collecting direct assessment data for every outcome every year, the rubrics-based assessment process is being implemented on a three-year rotating schedule. The schedule of rubric based assessment by outcome through the 2014/2015 academic year is summarized in the table below.ubric based outcomes assessment schedule
| Year | 2008/2009 | 2009/2010 | 2010/2011 | 2011/2012 | 2012/2013 | 2013/2014 | 2014/2015 |
| Outcomes* | defgij†k†l† | abchj†k†l† | defj†k†l† | ghij†k†l† | abcj†k†l† | defj†k†l† | ghij†k†l† |
* a) ability to solve problems involving differential equations
b) ability to solve physics problems involving mechanics, electromagnetics, and optics; chemistry problems involving inorganic and organic chemistry; problems involving general and micro-biology
c) ability to solve engineering problems related to statics, dynamics, fluid mechanics, and thermodynamics
d) ability to design a system, component, or process in which biology plays a significant role
e) ability to design and conduct experiments to gather information for engineering designs
f) ability to use modern engineering techniques, skills, and tools to define, formulate, and solve engineering problems
g) ability to function effectively on multi-disciplinary teams
h) ability to identify professional and ethical responsibilities when practicing engineering
i) ability to communicate effectively in large and small groups
j) has the background to understand the impact of engineering solutions on the surrounding contextk) recognizes the need for life-long learning through participation in professional conferences, workshops, and courses, and by reading and writing in the relevant literaturel) ability to intelligently discuss contemporary issues
† Note that at least some aspects of outcomes j, k, and l will be assessed annually in exit interviews by the BE chair.
Summaries of assessment data gathered through the 2008/2009 academic year are available, and generally show that students on average are achieving proficiency in the program outcomes, though work evaluated under several outcomes indicated that certain students were classified as "developing" or even "not proficient" in the respective outcome.
Student performance on the NCEES Fundamentals of Engineering exam
As a broad metric for assessing the achievement of program outcomes, BE students have always been encouraged to sit for the national Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) exam. Performance on the exam by past graduates has been good, with high passing rates. Since 2002 16 BE students/ graduates (not including those graduating in Spring 2009) have been eligible to take the FE exam. Nine of the eligible students/graduates have taken the exam, and eight of them passed (Appendix G, Section B). For students graduating in Spring 2009, the first semester in which the requirement to sit for the exam became effective, nine of the ten students sitting for the exam passed. These passing rates (~90%) compare highly favorably with pass rates recorded for other similar programs nationwide (typically about 70%). There is an apparent trend in Engineering Economics scores being low (below two standard deviations of national) at the beginning of this period to well above national average at the end (October 2008). Additional detailed data on performance of BE graduates on individual sections of the FE exam are available from the program chair.
Focus group sessions
Through the tenure of Dr. Kinoshita as department chair (through Spring 2005), biennial focus groups of students were convened to gather feedback on achievement of outcomes and other important issues for the BE program, and the industry group BE-EPAC was convened annually to provide recommendations. Since it was the practice for BE-EPAC also to meet with students during their visit and provide feedback of the student perspective, in 2006 the separate student focus groups were dispensed with and a single annual focus group was convened that included BE-EPAC and students. Recommendations of BE-EPAC and students gathered from the June 2009 focus-group session are summarized below:
a) Feedback on appropriateness of Program Educational Objectives and Outcomes:
i) Committee endorsed rewording of Objectives to more specifically address achievements expected of graduates, and not of the program itself.
ii) Committee generally felt that Objective 1 (“…apply the fundamentals of engineering”) was somewhat vague, but agreed that this is OK since the expectations/ meanings of “fundamentals of engineering” are more explicitly stated in the underlying outcomes and performance criteria.
iii) Committee recommended modifying Objective 2 to state that graduates should become engineers with the ability to “evaluate” rather than simply “test” systems.
iv) Committee recommended that Objective 3 should refer more specifically to skills expected in the “workplace”, and not merely “in modern society”. While it is recognized that these skills are broadly transferable/ necessary to the role of engineers in society (e.g., presenting information to the public, testifying to legislative bodies, etc) so that reference to “modern society” should be maintained, objective should make more explicit reference to the engineering workplace, possibly including industry, public/ government agencies, and other engineering workplaces.
v) Committee urged the program to more explicitly include reference to economic analysis under the outcomes; it was recommended that an additional performance criteria related to analysis of economic feasibility be included under outcome f (“ability to use modern engineering techniques, skills, and tools to define, formulate, and solve engineering problems”)
b) General program level recommendations:
i) Program should consider developing a formal cooperative education/ internship program, or at least strengthening these opportunities for students (this will help improve the confidence of students in recognizing what engineers do, and that they have the skills to compete in the engineering work force).
ii) Program should strengthen ties to industry, and exploit BE-EPAC to develop more formal career services/ advising to students about opportunities in the Biological Engineering field.
iii) Committee members recommended explicitly staking ownership of some engineering field(s) (e.g. Biomass conversion, bioenergy, hydroponics, waste treatment, biotechnology applications/ research and development) to make the major more recognizeable to employers and society in general, and to improve the self-confidence of BE students in their identities.
iv) Committee recommended that BE faculty make more of a concerted effort at contacting employers ahead of the Engineering career fairs to ensure that they are adequately informed about the capabilities/ skills/ value that BE students can bring to their organizations.
v) Committee recommended that the program not ignore the needs of agricultural companies (e.g. Pioneer Hi-Bred, Syngenta, etc) when providing career support, as these companies also need employees with the analytical and problem solving skills of BE students. The program should consider engaging more industry representatives to present special lectures or even courses to the students (several members volunteered to continue their contributions to course presentations and field trips as in the past, other new members also volunteered).
Exit interview with BE chair
One response to poor participation in alumni and employer surveys has been to require graduating students to sit for an exit interview with the BE chair in their final semester. The main objectives of the interview are:
- Gain feedback from students on the quality of the program, and obtain recommendations for improvement
- Obtain more reliable contact information to ensure greater success in following up with alumni and employers
- Allow direct assessment of outcomes j (understand impact of engineering solutions on the surrounding context), k (engage in life-long learning through participation in professional conferences, workshops, and courses, and by reading and writing in the relevant literature), and l (ability to intelligently discuss contemporary issues)
For the last item, a series of guided questions are asked to probe the students’ understanding of the role of engineering in society, familiarity with and participation in professional development activities, and appreciation/ awareness of a broad range of social issues, especially those on which Biological Engineering has an impact.
A summary of the exit interviews conducted for Spring 2009 graduates is as follows:
- Improve ties/ access/ visibility to/from College of Engineering/ employers. This is an extremely urgent priority; discontent from upper division students perceiving poor recognition or disrespect trickles down very efficiently to lower division students- we are facing a major exodus of good students to engineering, and other students just vanishing. Regardless of the reality, student perceptions continue to be a major constraint on program success.
- Create more hands-on open-ended design projects earlier in the curriculum
- Improve training in fabrication/ shop use early on in curriculum
- Include Mechanics/ Strength of Materials in curriculum
- Include/ emphasize deeper coverage of biological topics in BE classes
- Enforce pre-requisites (already being done?)
- Pair up underclassmen with upper division students for mentoring, and also to complete team projects in classes (e.g., BE 191+BE 410?- was tried once with BE 191+BE 420)
- Initiate team oriented extracurricular projects in the discipline
- Continue enhancing the diversity of elective offerings- especially in bioprocessing related areas
- Improve access to supplies and ideas for senior design project
- Provide more structure in senior design (e.g., more systematic review of fundamentals for FE exam, ethics; review examples of design projects and process for completing it; include a syllabus with a detailed schedule); in the basic respects students in general had significant amount of praise for senior design (process was realistic of real design situation, instructor was knowledgeable resource but was more like a “boss than a mentor”, requiring students to use their own initiative and self-discipline).
- Phone based surveys/ interviews of graduates and their employers
Feedback from the web surveys have consistently indicated that the BE Program is achieving the desired outcomes with few, if any, deficiencies. However, as indicated earlier, participation in web surveys has been limited and the faculty has become increasingly wary of relying on self-reported data. In Fall 2008 the BE program participated in a more probing survey of alumni coordinated by the College of Engineering through the private company EBI, and a new script of questions was drafted for employers, who were contacted by phone by the Academic and Student Affairs (ASAO) office of CTAHR. Data from these interviews indicate that graduates are in general well prepared for their professional careers.
Student evaluations of courses/instructors
All BE faculty have agreed to solicit and make available for program assessment and refinement purposes, students' evaluations of their courses and instruction using the University's Course and Faculty Evaluation (CAFE) instrument. Effective Spring 2009, a set of standardized questions was agreed to be used by all faculty, including whether the objectives/ outcomes of the course were achieved. These data are used primarily for assessment of individual courses, but to the degree that they address program level outcomes the course evaluations indicate that the courses generally articulate the outcomes well and are relevant to the outcomes.
CTAHR graduation survey
Every graduating CTAHR student is required to complete an on-line survey prior to graduation, to assess their attainment of skills and competencies expected of the College’s graduates and to acquire feedback for continuous improvement. Many of the competencies expected of CTAHR alumni are supported by outcomes of the BE program, so results of the survey are qualitatively useful to determine the level of achievement of BE outcomes. A summary of the most notable findings from the CTAHR graduation survey administered for Spring 2009 graduates is included below:
Favorable Comments :
- Small class sizes
- Good training in writing, communication, and critical thinking
Recommendations for improvement:
- The program needs more faculty to teach a wider variety of classes
- Program needs more effective services to place students into engineering careers
- Program is isolated from others in CTAHR, and from other engineering programs
11) Briefly Describe the Distribution and Discussion of Results
Assessment results are compiled and maintained by the program chair and discussed with the faculty in meetings as they become available in order to determine priorities and strategies for program improvement. Assessment results are also shared with the industry advisory board, and with ABET Inc (the program's accrediting organization) to ensure that the assessment process remains relevant to industry needs and that programmatic improvements are appropriate to meet these needs.
12) Describe Conclusions and Discoveries
Assessment data show that generally the Biological Engineering is a high quality program, preparing highly employable graduates that are well prepared for careers in Biological Engineering especially considering the resource constraints that the program is operating under. One of the primary objectives for program improvement based on assessment results is to is to enhance the exposure of students to manufacturing and fabrication so that they have more opportunities to translate abstract ideas into practice and become more engaged in the learning process. One strategy for doing this is to introduce a required course at the lower division introducing these topics and promoting training in computer aided drawing and manufacture.
The primary concerns for sustainability of the program related to low student enrollment which diminish the statistical significance of the assessment data. The low student numbers coupled with low faculty numbers also make it difficult to support the curricular requirements of the program and offer a wide variety of technical electives suited to individual students. Another primary concern is the lack of visibilty of the program within the University, and a correspondingly dubious student perception about the content and quality of the program.
To address the latter problems the program is developing more strategic partnerships with other units on campus (e.g., Hawaii Natural Energy Institute, Natural Resources and Environmental Management, Civil Engineering) to help deliver courses for the program, and also to seek a much greater degree of administrative ties to the College of Engineering. The administrations in both Colleges are engaged in talks to move the program to the College of Engineering to enhance the visibility of the program as one of the available Engineering programs, to improve student access to facilities, resources, and opportunities in the College of Engineering, and to better coordinate the curricula among all of the engineering programs.
13) Use of Results/Program Modifications: State How the Program Used the Results --or-- Explain Planned Use of Results
As described under the previous item, assessment results were used to prioritize goals for program improvement. Current priorities based on recent assessment data include developing a required lower division course and generally enhancing access to computer aided design and manufacture in the program, and more closely aligning the program within the College of Engineering to create a synergy among all of the Engineering programs on campus.
14) Reflect on the Assessment Process
The assessment process is a constant struggle for our program and we are constantly seeking ways to make it more efficient and meaningful. The outcomes based assessment of student work is useful and is viewed as essential to demonstrate to our accrediting body that we have relevant outcomes and that we have practices in place to demonstrate quantitatively how well we are achieving outcomes, but is a large burden on the small number of faculty in the program especially considering that the student numbers being assessed may not yield statistically meaninful results. The major challenges facing the program are much more structural and can readily be identified with less formal assessment means such as focus groups with industry and students.
Some of the more subjective and indirect assessment methods (e.g., graduation surveys, course evaluations) do not seem to provide much valuable data for program improvement, and there is little faculty enthusiasm for regularly using them for program improvement. Since faculty participation and engagement is essential for the success of the assessment process, these tools may not be continued, or may only be used with relatively low frequency between our reaccreditation visits.