Unit: Molecular Biosciences & Biosystems Engineering
Program: Biological Engineering (BS)
Degree: Bachelor's
Date: Fri Nov 16, 2018 - 2:37:17 pm

1) Program Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) and Institutional Learning Objectives (ILOs)

1. A. An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering.

(1a. General education, 1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2b. Conduct research)

2. B. An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2b. Conduct research)

3. C. 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, manufacturability, and sustainability.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively)

4. D. An ability to function on multidisciplinary teams.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth)

5. E. An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2b. Conduct research)

6. F. An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth, 3c. Stewardship of the natural environment, 3d. Civic participation)

7. G. An ability to communicate effectively.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2c. Communicate and report)

8. H. The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context.

(1a. General education, 1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture, 3c. Stewardship of the natural environment)

9. I. A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth)

10. J. A knowledge of contemporary issues.

(1a. General education, 1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 1c. Understand Hawaiian culture and history, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture, 3c. Stewardship of the natural environment, 3d. Civic participation)

11. K.An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2b. Conduct research, 2c. Communicate and report)

2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.

Department Website URL: https://cms.ctahr.hawaii.edu/mbbe/Undergraduate/Biological-Engineering
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: https://cms.ctahr.hawaii.edu/ugstudies/Home/Major-Handbooks/Biological-Engineering
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online:
UHM Catalog. Page Number: 351
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online:
Other:
Other:

3) Please review, add, replace, or delete the existing curriculum map.

Curriculum Map File(s) from 2018:

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.

0%
1-50%
51-80%
81-99%
100%

5) Does the program have learning achievement results for its program SLOs? (Example of achievement results: "80% of students met expectations on SLO 1.")(check one):

No
Yes, on some(1-50%) of the program SLOs
Yes, on most(51-99%) of the program SLOs
Yes, on all(100%) of the program SLOs

6) Did your program engage in any program learning assessment activities between June 1, 2015 and October 31, 2018?

Yes
No (skip to question 17)

7) What best describes the program-level learning assessment activities that took place for the period June 1, 2015 to October 31, 2018? (Check all that apply.)

Create/modify/discuss program learning assessment procedures (e.g., SLOs, curriculum map, mechanism to collect student work, rubric, survey)
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)
No (skip to question 17)
Investigate other pressing issue related to student learning achievement for the program (explain in question 7)
Other:

8) Briefly explain the assessment activities that took place.

In June of 2015 a self-study report was submitted to the Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) of ABET as part of the Biological Engineering program's application for reaccreditation.  The program also hosted a site visit in November of 2015 by an assessment team and responded to several inquiries prior to and after the site visit.  Program and student assessment were significant components in the self-study report and site visit.

During the 2016 - 2017 and 2017 - 2018 academic years student work was collected for assessment for the two year cycle.  Student work was assessed during summer and fall of 2018 by teams of faculty members and recommendations were made for improvement.  Continuous improvement measures were implemented for two of the outcomes during the Fall 2018 term based on assessment results.

EAC-ABET has changed the required student learning outcomes for engineering programs beginning in the 2018 - 2019 academic year.  The faculty have begun writing new assessment rubrics for the new outcomes.

9) What types of evidence did the program use as part of the assessment activities checked in question 7? (Check all that apply.)

Artistic exhibition/performance
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
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
Assessment-related such as assessment plan, SLOs, curriculum map, etc.
Program or course materials (syllabi, assignments, requirements, etc.)
Other 1:
Other 2:

10) State the number of students (or persons) who submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.

A total of 34 students were assessed.  All students submitting evidence were assessed.

11) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected? (Check all that apply.)

Course instructor(s)
Faculty committee
Ad hoc faculty group
Department chairperson
Persons or organization outside the university
Faculty advisor
Advisors (in student support services)
Students (graduate or undergraduate)
Dean/Director
Other:

12) How did they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence? (Check all that apply.)

Used a rubric or scoring guide
Scored exams/tests/quizzes
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)
Other:

13) Summarize the results of the assessment activities checked in question 7. For example, report the percentage of students who achieved each SLO.

Each SLO contains several performance indicators and a summary is presented in the table below.  The target for each performance indicator is a level of "proficient" and the program has a goal of 75% of students at a level of "proficient" at the time of graduation.  The same target level is applied regardless of the student's position within the curriculum.  The results are an aggregate of the work collected over the 2016 - 2017 and 2017 - 2018 academic years.

 

Sophomore/Junior

Senior

Outcome a - Knowledge

 

 

Math

53

-

Science

53

-

Engineering

53

-

Outcome b – Experimentation

 

 

Conduct

71

79

Design

64

79

Statistics

64

79

Interpret

50

79

Outcome c – Design constraints

 

 

Economics

-

100

Safety

-

100

Manufacturability

-

100

Environmental

-

43

Outcome d – Teamwork

 

 

Dialog

-

100

Shared responsibilities

-

100

Outcome e – Engineering problems

 

 

Identify

54

100

Formula

46

100

Solve

39

100

Outcome f – Professional and ethical responsibility

 

 

Code

-

50

Ramifications

-

50

Outcome g – Communication

 

 

Organization

50

100

Support with facts

50

100

Integrate feedback

39

100

Written work

57

100

Outcome h – Engineering impacts

 

 

Engineer’s role

93

-

Impacts

50

-

Outcome i – Lifelong learning

 

 

Recognition of need

-

100

Engagement

-

100

Outcome j – Contemporary issues

 

 

Societal challenges

50

100

Current events

100

50

Outcome k – Modern engineering tools

 

 

Graphics

100

100

Solutions

100

100

 

14) What best describes how the program used the results? (Check all that apply.)

Assessment procedure changes (SLOs, curriculum map, rubrics, evidence collected, sampling, communications with faculty, etc.)
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)
Other:

15) Please briefly describe how the program used the results.

Student performance in Outcome 'e'  at the junior level does not meet the program's target goal of 75% of students meeting attaining the proficient level, although that specification is at the time of graduation.  Still the faculty feel performance here can still be improved and serve as a foundation for subsequent courses.   Although the performance of students in their capstone project final report was assessed as proficient, during that course itself and other senior level courses with a design component, students are not applying and communicating a consistent approach to the engineering design process.  Primarily this involved not developing a set of problem requirements to solve early in the project that guides the planning and execution of task to meet those requirements.  This observation matches the assessment of the performance of junior level students.  In response, the faculty created a engineering design process curriculum and began developing a new rubric to guide the assessment of student performance and communication of the design process to students.

The other two outcomes that are a major focus are 1) 'b' designing, conducting, and interpreting experiments and 2) 'g' communication.  Again, it was decided that performance at the junior could be improved even as it was observed that targets have been met by the time of graduation.  For the outcome 'b', it was determined in part that low assessed performance is impart due to the documentation collected.  In the future, the experimental procedure written by students prior to the laboratory experiment will be collected along with the laboratory report to more accurately assess the ability to design and conduct experiments.

Regarding outcome 'g' which assesses communication, the faculty will address whether requiring revisions for reports in  BE courses will be required.  For the 2018 BE 350L course, mandatory revised report submissions are required for all except for the final report.  The faculty want to encourage student to implement feedback in their writing submissions in order to further develop their writing skills rather than to simply be made aware of these suggestions.

16) 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.

There has been a greater realization among the faculty that the assessment activities and continuous improvement efforts can be greatly improved through collaboration.  Efforts such as improving the instruction and demonstration of the engineering desing process, ethical and professional responsibility, communication, and experimental design in particular have been identified as the initial efforts to pursue.  The faculy haave already started planning and implementing a new engineering design curriculum at the junior level in the Fall 2018 with plans to evaluate the results in the next term and plan implementation in sophomore and senior level courses.

With the accreditation body prescribing new student learning outcomes for the Biological Engineering program, new assessment rubrics are in the process of being written.  The faculy are considering a different focus to the rubrics to focus more on assessing development through the curriculum rather than one that focuses on judging errors in student work or places a large emphasis on the final product.

17) If the program did not engage in assessment activities, please justify.