Program: Biological Engineering (BS)
Degree: Bachelor's
Date: Fri Nov 20, 2020 - 12:34:15 pm
1) Program Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) and Institutional Learning Objectives (ILOs)
1. An ability to identify, formulate, and solve complex engineering problems by applying principles of engineering, science, and mathematics.
(1a. General education, 1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2b. Conduct research)
2. An ability to apply engineering design to produce solutions that meet specified needs with consideration of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as global, cultural, social, environmental, and economic factors
(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 1c. Understand Hawaiian culture and history, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2b. Conduct research, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture, 3c. Stewardship of the natural environment, 3d. Civic participation)
3. An ability to communicate effectively with a range of audiences.
(1a. General education, 1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 1c. Understand Hawaiian culture and history, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2b. Conduct research, 2c. Communicate and report, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture, 3d. Civic participation)
4. An ability to recognize ethical and professional responsibilities in engineering situations and make informed judgments, which must consider the impact of engineering solutions in global, economic, environmental, and societal contexts.
(1a. General education, 1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 1c. Understand Hawaiian culture and history, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture, 3c. Stewardship of the natural environment)
5. An ability to function effectively on a team whose members together provide leadership, create a collaborative and inclusive environment, establish goals, plan tasks, and meet objectives.
(1b. Specialized study in an academic field)
6. An ability to develop and conduct appropriate experimentation, analyze and interpret data, and use engineering judgment to draw conclusions.
(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2b. Conduct research)
7. An ability to acquire and apply new knowledge as needed, using appropriate learning strategies.
(1a. General education, 1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2b. Conduct research, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture, 3d. Civic participation)
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: 
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: Other: 3) Please review, add, replace, or delete the existing curriculum map.
- File (11/20/2020)
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.
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 SLOs6) Did your program engage in any program learning assessment activities between November 1, 2018 and October 31, 2020?
Yes No (skip to question 17)7) What best describes the program-level learning assessment activities that took place for the period November 1, 2018 and October 31, 2020? (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) Investigate other pressing issue related to student learning achievement for the program (explain in question 8) Other: 8) Briefly explain the assessment activities that took place since November 2018.
New student learning outcomes were adopted by the Engineering Accreditation Commission of ABET. During this period new assessment rubrics were developed after which the BE program conducted its most recent 2-year assessment in November 2020. Student work was collected from four BE courses and included engineering projects, laboratory reports, presentations, and peer assessments.
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.
Evidence for 16 junior level and 11 senior level students were assessed during the current cycle.
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 from the evaluation, analysis, interpretation of evidence (checked in question 12). For example, report the percentage of students who achieved each SLO.
All SLOs were assessed through evaluation of student work from the capstone engineering courses. Additionally, most SLOs students were also assessed in a second course in the 3rd year of the curriculum to gauge progress as described the the rubric. For all SLOs the program's goal is that 75% of students would meet the target level. This was mostly the case for the capstone course, except for SLOs 2, 5, and 6. SLO 6 which involves experimentation was significantly affected by the shift to remote instruction during the Spring 2020 semester as the students were not able to complete planned experiments. WIth SLO 2 which assessed how students address relevant factors with their engineering design, students largely did not provide evidence for factors such as global, cultural, social, and environmental factors in the collected reports. The faculty largely attribute this to the emphasis placed on these factors during the curriculum and whether the students understood the need to communicate these in a final engineering report. SLO 5 which assesses teamwork proved difficult to assess with the new rubric and will likely undergo revision. Additionally, excellent feedback was provided by a student to consider modifying the rubric to assess how an individual works with team members rather than assess good individual performance which benefits the team.
|
SLO |
Indicator |
Non Capstone % Meeting Target |
Capstone % Meeting Target |
|
1. Complex engineering problems |
Identify Formulate Solve Refine |
75 63 50 38 |
100 100 100 75 |
|
2. Design factors |
Safety Global Environment Economics |
0 50 100 100 |
73 36 36 100 |
|
3. Communication |
Organization Style Support Delivery |
69 56 75 NA |
100 100 100 43 |
|
4. Ethics |
Identify Judgement Code of Ethics |
Only capstone assessed |
100 100 100 |
|
5. Teamwork |
Contribution Organization Punctuality Facilitation Collaborative Env |
Only capstone assessed |
43 29 86 14 86 |
|
6. Experimentation |
Conduct Design Interpret Analyze Conclusion |
100 100 50 38 44 |
44 Spring 2020 interrupted in-class activities |
|
7. Acquire knowledge |
Curiosity Transfer Initiative |
50 50 50 |
100 100 100 |
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 its findings/results.
Several continuous improvement activities were undertaken during the current reporting period as a result of the past cycle of assessment that was completed in November 2018. These included developing a formal document describing a signature assignment for engineering design projects in an effort to standardize a high quality and successful student experience throughout the curriculum. This was implemented in BE 350 and then applied to the capstone courses. In the current academic year, faculty will revisit the results of this measure and decide whether and how to implement it in more courses. Other changes involve the introduction of ethics assignments to more courses within the curriculum.
Based on assessments from the current reporting period, the following initial recommendations have been made.
1) Revisit the aforementioned engineering signature assignment for modifications and incorporation in additional courses.
2) Provide more planning and guidance to capstone students in experimental design to make more efficient use of resources and to ensure completion within the environment of a pandemic.
3) Provide clear definitions and guidance for common engineering design factors and criteria such as health / safety and global, cultural, and social factors.
4) Revise the assessment rubric for teamwork to incorporate how the individual works with team members to accomplish team objectives rather than assessing individual accomplishments or contributions to the team.
5) Review methods for improving student performance regarding data interpretation of experiemental results.
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.
During the recently completed assessment cycle, students were given the opportunity to complete a self-reflection upon completion of engineering design projects in multiple courses. This has proved very helpful to the students as they used the activity to identify strengths, weaknesses, and successes as well as develop specific ways to tie the experience to career and professional interests. The faculty have found the responses to be quite insightful and notable items include suggestions on the use of class time, peer and instructor interactions, implementation of organization of assignments, and the effectiveness and intention of assessment rubrics.