Program: Mechanical Engineering (PhD)
Date: Fri Oct 09, 2015 - 3:58:01 pm
1) Below are your program's student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.
The Department of Mechanical Engineering adheres to the student learning outcomes of the Graduate Division: “In general, a student who has successfully completed the graduate degree requirements should be able to
1. Demonstrate mastery of the methodology and techniques specific to the field of study.
2. Communicate both orally and in writing at a high level of proficiency in the field of study.
3. Conduct research or produce some other form of creative work.
4. Perform in their field of study at a professional level.”
1) Institutional Learning Objectives (ILOs) and Program Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs)
2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: http://me.hawaii.edu/ME_Grad_Program_Handbook_Revised_03Mar2015_Final.pdf
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online: http://www.eng.hawaii.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Grad_ME_r6_spreads.pdf
UHM Catalog. Page Number: 230
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online:
3) Please review, add, replace, or delete the existing curriculum map.
- File (03/16/2020)
4) For your program, the percentage of courses that have course SLOs explicitly stated on the syllabus, a website, or other publicly available document is as follows. Please update as needed.
5) Did your program engage in any program learning assessment activities between June 1, 2014 and September 30, 2015?
No (skip to question 16)
6) What best describes the program-level learning assessment activities that took place for the period June 1, 2014 to September 30, 2015? (Check all that apply.)
Collect/evaluate student work/performance to determine SLO achievement
Collect/analyze student self-reports of SLO achievement via surveys, interviews, or focus groups
Use assessment results to make programmatic decisions (e.g., change course content or pedagogy, design new course, hiring)
Investigate curriculum coherence. This includes investigating how well courses address the SLOs, course sequencing and adequacy, the effect of pre-requisites on learning achievement.
Investigate other pressing issue related to student learning achievement for the program (explain in question 7)
7) Briefly explain the assessment activities that took place in the last 18 months.
The goals of the Assessment Activities are to assess the level of achievements of the Department SLOs on Course, Research/Dissertation, and Seminar Requirements by our PhD graduates and ensure that our PhD graduates have acquired our SLOs 1 through 4 (see responses to Question 1), and hence SLOs 1 through 4 were assessed. The assessments for the Courses are done by the ME Faculty/Instructor at the time of the course offering as well as the Graduate Chair towards the completion of the degree. For the Qualifying Examination, the Qualifying Examination Committee makes the assessment of the students’ capability in conducting independent research and presenting their research in a professional manner. For the Comprehensive Examination, which will be conducted after the course work is completed, the Comprehensive Examination Committee makes the assessments of the students’ fundamental knowledge acquired through the course work as well as research quality and capability for the student to be advanced to a PhD candidate. The Dissertation Committee (which is the same as the Comprehensive Examination Committee in general) makes the assessment of the students’ research accomplishments in developing an independent research program and contributing uniquely to the field of study by judging the students’ Dissertation Document and Final Defense Oral Presentation. Seminar Requirements are judged by the faculty in charge of the Seminar. The results obtained from these assessments have been applied to assess the coherence of our PhD program.
8) What types of evidence did the program use as part of the assessment activities checked in question 6? (Check all that apply.)
Direct evidence of student learning (student work products)
Assignment/exam/paper completed as part of regular coursework and used for program-level assessment
Capstone work product (e.g., written project or non-thesis paper)
Exam created by an external organization (e.g., professional association for licensure)
Exit exam created by the program
IRB approval of research
Oral performance (oral defense, oral presentation, conference presentation)
Portfolio of student work
Publication or grant proposal
Qualifying exam or comprehensive exam for program-level assessment in addition to individual student evaluation (graduate level only)
Supervisor or employer evaluation of student performance outside the classroom (internship, clinical, practicum)
Thesis or dissertation used for program-level assessment in addition to individual student evaluation
Other 1: reports students submitted after seminars attendance
Indirect evidence of student learning
Alumni survey that contains self-reports of SLO achievement
Employer meetings/discussions/survey/interview of student SLO achievement
Interviews or focus groups that contain self-reports of SLO achievement
Student reflective writing assignment (essay, journal entry, self-assessment) on their SLO achievement.
Student surveys that contain self-reports of SLO achievement
Program evidence related to learning and assessment
(more applicable when the program focused on the use of results or assessment procedure/tools in this reporting period instead of data collection)
Assessment-related such as assessment plan, SLOs, curriculum map, etc.
Program or course materials (syllabi, assignments, requirements, etc.)
9) State the number of students (or persons) who submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
About 15 students.
1. Course Requirements & Performances (Assessed by Faculty Instructor)
2. Seminar Requirements & Performances (Assessed by Faculty Instructor)
3. Research Requirements &Performances (Thesis, Report, Oral Presentations; Assessed by Thesis
4. Conference & Journal Publications (Assessed by External Peer Reviewers)
5. Course Syllabi (Assessed by Department Chair)
10) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected? (Check all that apply.)
Ad hoc faculty group
Persons or organization outside the university
Advisors (in student support services)
Students (graduate or undergraduate)
11) How did they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence? (Check all that apply.)
Used professional judgment (no rubric or scoring guide used)
Compiled survey results
Used qualitative methods on interview, focus group, open-ended response data
External organization/person analyzed data (e.g., external organization administered and scored the nursing licensing exam)
12) Summarize the results of the assessment activities checked in question 6. For example, report the percent of students who achieved each SLO.
The number of courses offered at graduate level is not sufficient (as also voiced by the graduate students) due to insufficient number of faculty members and a rapid increase of undergraduate enrollment. Although the Dean’s office agreed to give the Department two additional positions, these positions are contingent to the availability of funds. The PhD students write an average of three conference and/or journal papers at the completion of their degree. In general, all the students passing the courses have achieved the SLOs designated by the course instructors. All the students successfully graduated from the program have achieved all the SLOs. The Department intends to design rubrics to make the assessments more representative, but needs additional time to complete the task. Our undergraduate program is currently under review by ABET and the Department was focusing on writing the self-study report, collecting required documents and preparing for the onsite visit in the past academic year.
13) What best describes how the program used the results? (Check all that apply.)
Course changes (course content, pedagogy, courses offered, new course, pre-requisites, requirements)
Personnel or resource allocation changes
Program policy changes (e.g., admissions requirements, student probation policies, common course evaluation form)
Students' out-of-course experience changes (advising, co-curricular experiences, program website, program handbook, brown-bag lunches, workshops)
Celebration of student success!
Results indicated no action needed because students met expectations
Use is pending (typical reasons: insufficient number of students in population, evidence not evaluated or interpreted yet, faculty discussions continue)
14) Please briefly describe how the program used the results.
Any observed problems and suggestions of how the prolems maybe resolved are reported to the Graduate Curriculum Committee chaired by the Graduate Chair of the Department. The committee considers recommendations for modifications and takes actions. The Department Graduate Student Handbook will be updated accordingly when necessary.
15) Beyond the results, were there additional conclusions or discoveries? This can include insights about assessment procedures, teaching and learning, and great achievements regarding program assessment in this reporting period.
The faculty and students expressed that the number of courses offered at graduate level was not sufficient both related to research work and for graduation. This is caused by a significant increase of undergraduate enrollment and shortage of faculty members. The Department Chair and the Dean have requested for two additional positions to solve the problem.
The Graduate program has been reviewed by an external review panel in Spring, 2012 and the result is mostly positive. The course availability and shortage of faculty problems were mentioned in the review report. The program will be reviewed again in Spring, 2017.