Program: Mechanical Engineering (MS)
Degree: Master's
Date: Fri Nov 20, 2020 - 2:49:03 pm
1) Program Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) and Institutional Learning Objectives (ILOs)
1. Demonstrate mastery of the methodology and techniques specific to the field of study.
(1. Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge in one or more general subject areas related to, but not confined to, a specific area of interest., 2. Demonstrate understanding of research methodology and techniques specific to one’s field of study., 4. Critically analyze, synthesize, and utilize information and data related to one’s field of study.)
2. Communicate both orally and in writing at a high level of proficiency in the field of study.
(5. Proficiently communicate and disseminate information in a manner relevant to the field and intended audience., 7. Interact professionally with others.)
3. Conduct research or produce some other form of creative work.
(2. Demonstrate understanding of research methodology and techniques specific to one’s field of study., 3. Apply research methodology and/or scholarly inquiry techniques specific to one’s field of study., 4. Critically analyze, synthesize, and utilize information and data related to one’s field of study., 6. Conduct research or projects as a responsible and ethical professional, including consideration of and respect for other cultural perspectives.)
4. Perform in their field of study at a professional level.
(3. Apply research methodology and/or scholarly inquiry techniques specific to one’s field of study., 4. Critically analyze, synthesize, and utilize information and data related to one’s field of study., 6. Conduct research or projects as a responsible and ethical professional, including consideration of and respect for other cultural perspectives.)
2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.
Department Website URL: http://www.me.hawaii.edu/ Student Handbook. URL, if available online: http://me.hawaii.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/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: 248-249
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.
Each MS student graduating in the 2015-2019 period was assessed by their advisor according to each SLO on a scale from one to four, with 1-Unsatisfactory, 2-Developing, 3-Satisfactory, and 4-Exemplary. The average scores for the 34 graduated MS students were 3.6 for each of the four SLOs.
Each of the 227 graduate students in the 36 graduate-level classes given by the department in the 2015-2019 period were assessed by the instructor according to
the 4 SLOs. The average scores were 3.3 for SLO1: Mastery, 3.5 for SLO2: Communication, and 3.4 for SLO3: Research and SLO4: Performance.
The goals of Assessment Activities are to assess the level of achievements of the Department SLOs on Course, Thesis/Report, and Seminar Requirements by our MS graduates and ensure that our MS graduates have acquired all our SLOs (see responses to Question 1), and hence all SLOs were assessed. The assessments for 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. Thesis/Report are assessed by the students’ advisors (and the thesis committee members). For the Seminar, the faculty in charge of the Seminar for that semester makes the assessment. The results obtained from these assessments have been applied to assess the coherence of our MS program.
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: written reports submitted by students after attendance at seminars Other 2: 10) State the number of students (or persons) who submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
All 34 graduating MS students were assessed in the 2015-2019 assessment period. Course performance and seminar reports were assessed by faculty course instructors, research accomplishments were assessed by thesis committee members, and conference and journal publications were assessed by external peer reviewers.
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.
The 34 graduating MS students in the 2015-2019 period were assessed by their faculty advisors according to each of the 4 SLOs, on a scale from 1-4, with 1-Unsatisfactory, 2-Developing, 3-Satisfactory, and 4-Exemplary. The resulting percentages of students for each SLO and grade were as follows:
SLO1 Mastery: 59% Exemplary, 38% Satisfactory, 3% Developing, 0% Unsatisfactory.
SLO2 Communication: 62% Exemplary, 32% Satisfactory, 6% Developing, 0% Unsatisfactory.
SLO3 Research: 62% Exemplary, 32% Satisfactory, 6% Developing, 0% Unsatisfactory.
SLO4 Performance: 65% Exemplary, 29% Satisfactory, 6% Developing, 0% Unsatisfactory.
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.
The student assessment data and its analysis were included in the Self-Study Report for University Reviewed Graduate Programs: University of Hawai’i Department of Mechanical Engineering completed in April 2020. This report was submitted as part of the College of Engineering graduate program review conducted October 12-13, 2020. Constructive recommendations were provided by the university review committee and a final report is pending.
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.
It is encouraging to have specific validation of the ongoing improvement in our department's graduate program with respect to numbers of students admitted and graduated, number of graduate classes offered, and research productivity of the department overall.