2000-01 EC2000 Visits Program Evaluator Report Engineering ......For an Interim Visit, only the part of the Program Report relevant to the identified shortcomings needs to be completed

2000-01 EC2000 Visits

1 8-3-00

SAMPLE REPORT FOR EVAULATOR TRAINING ONLY

ALL INFORMATION IS FICTIONAL AND SHOULD NOT BE USED

AS A GUIDE BY PROGRAMS SEEKING ACCREDITATION

Program Evaluator ReportEngineering Criteria 2000

2000-01 VisitsINSTRUCTIONS

The Evaluator Program Report is required for each program being evaluated. It is to becompleted by the Program Evaluator during the visit and left with the Team Chair. Sometechnical societies require their evaluators to submit additional information. It is theresponsibility of the evaluator to determine and meet this requirement.

For a General Review Visit, all of the forms in the Program Report should be completed andsubmitted to the Team Chair at the conclusion of the visit. Some forms may be extracted fromthe Institutional Profile and Program Self-Study Reports.

For an Interim Visit, only the part of the Program Report relevant to the identified shortcomingsneeds to be completed.

The Curriculum Analysis Form, the Transcript Analysis Form, the Faculty Analysis Form, thefirst column of the Program Evaluator Worksheet, and the first column of the Program AuditForm should be completed by the Program Evaluator before the visit, with a copy of eachsubmitted to the Team Chair at the first meeting of the team, and modified during the visit asrequired.

Each Program Report will also become an important part of the Team Chair Visit Report whichis prepared by the Team Chair and sent to ABET headquarters.

* For the most current edition, please refer to our website: http://www.abet.org

The Program Evaluator Worksheet, Program Audit Form,Recommended Accreditation Action and Proposed Statement tothe Institution are of particular importance. Together, these forma basis from which the Team Chair will draft the Statement to theInstitution. A copy of the Program Audit Form is to be left withthe institution. Please, pay close attention to the instructions onthese forms.

2000-01 EC2000 Visits

2 8-3-00




PROGRAM REPORT(Please Type or Print Legibly in Black Ink.)

ENGINEERING ACCREDITATION COMMISSIONACCREDITATION BOARD FOR ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

Evaluation of Program in ________Civil Engineering__________________________________

(Title of Program)

at State Tech University ______________________________________________________ (Official Name of the Institution)

Dates of Visit: September 14-17, 2000 __________________________________________

Evaluated by: R. Holder, P.E. (ASCE) N.Y., N.Y. __________________________(Name) (Address)

Office HomePhone: _(212)555-1212_Phone _(718)555-1212_Email: [email protected]_Fax: _(212)555-2121

Society Represented by Evaluator ASCE __________________Evaluation conducted in accordance with ABET Engineering Criteria 2000, third edition, andprogram criteria for program____Civil Engineering_________________(discipline of study.)

I. LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED

NAME POSITION

H. Lamar Professor, Department Chair

K. Patel Professor

K. Van Staten Assistant Professor

N. Smith Assistant Professor

V. Chin Associate Professor

R. Romerez Associate Professor

B. Friend Head of Advisory Board

25 Senior Students Senior Design Class

2000-01 EC2000 Visits

3





PROGRAM REPORT FORM - CURRICULUM ANALYSIS

Institution ______State Tech University_____Program___Civil Engineering_Year__2000____

PLEASE COMPLETE TWO DRAFT COPIES OF THIS WORKSHEET PRIOR TO YOURARRIVAL AT THE INSTITUTION AND PROVIDE ONE COPY OF THE CURRICULUMANALYSIS TO YOUR TEAM CHAIR AT THE START OF THE VISIT. INCLUDE A COPYIN YOUR REPORT, REVISED AS NECESSARY TO REFLECT YOUR ANALYSIS OFACTUAL COURSE CONTENT DURING THE VISIT.

ABET Number of Credits(a)

Curricular

Category

ABET Criteria

Requirement

From Table 10

of Self Study

Visitor’s

Evaluation

Mathematics and Basic Science 32 35 36

Engineering Topics 48 65 60

General Education * 22 22

Please List Below Any Applicable Program Criteria Requirements

Math through diff. Equ. YES YES

Probability and statistics YES YES

Physics and Chemistry YES YES

4 areas of Civil Engineering YES YES

(a) Enter minimum number of credits based upon a half-year as one-eight of a four-year programor sixteen semester credits (or twenty-four quarter credits or equivalent), whichever is less.

Are curricular requirements met in each of the following areas? YES NOCulmination of curriculum in a major design experience. XMajor design experience based on knowledge and skills acquired in earlier coursework.

X

Major design experience incorporates engineering standards and realisticconstraints that include most of the following considerations: economic;environmental; sustainability; manufacturability; ethical; health and safety; social;and political.

X

Other requirements contained in applicable program criteria? X

If “no” is checked in any of the above categories, please describe the specific weakness ordeficiency on the Explanation of Shortcomings Form.

2000-01 EC2000 Visits

4





PROGRAM REPORT FORM - TRANSCRIPT ANALYSIS

Institution ___State Tech University______Program___Civil Engineering_Year__2000_____

PLEASE COMPLETE TWO DRAFT COPIES OF THIS WORKSHEET PRIOR TO YOURARRIVAL AT THE INSTITUTION AND PROVIDE ONE COPY TO YOUR TEAM CHAIRAT THE START OF THE VISIT. PLEASE INCLUDE A COPY IN YOUR REPORT,REVISED IF NECESSARY TO REFLECT YOUR ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL COURSECONTENT.

ABET Number of Credits(a)

Curricular ABET Criteria Credits Actually Earned by Student NumberCategory Requirement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Mathematics and Basic

Sciences

32 35 36 36 36 35

Engineering Topics 48 66 58 57 63 64

General Education * 22 22 24 22 24

Please List Below Any Applicable Program Criteria Requirements

Math through diff. equ. X X X X X

Probability and statistics X X X X X

Physics and Chemistry X X X X X

4 areas of Civil Engineering 4 5 5 4 4

(a)Computed as in curriculum analysis table.

5



AS A GUIDE BY PROGRAMS SEEKING ACCREDITATIONFaculty Analysis Form

Program ________Civil Engineering__________________

Name Age Rank FT or

PT

Highest

DegreeInstitution from which

Highest Degree Earned &

Years of Experience Professional

Registration

Level of Activity (high, med, low, none) in:

Year Govt./Industry

Practice

Total Faculty This Insti-

tution

(Indicate State) Professional

Society

H. Lamar 58 Prof. FT PhD Drexel 1965 6 28 18 PE

PA, IN

high

K. Patel 63 Prof FT PhD Berkley 1960 1 37 25 PE

CA

low

K. Van Staten 49 Ast

Prof

FT PhD Iowa 1974 10 14 3 PE

IA MO CO

med

N. Smith 42 Ast

Prof

FT PhD LSU 1983 1 ½ 16 5 high

V. Chin 28 Asoc

Prof

FT PhD Texas A&M 1995 2 2 2 EIT

TX

med

Romerez 30 Asoc FT PhD IIT 1993 5 2 1 PE

IL

med

P. Time 55 Asoc

Prof

PT MS St Tech 1966 33 5 5 PE

ST

high

I. Help 61 Asoc

Prof

PT DSc Newcastle 1960 39 10 10 PE

ST

med

Instructions: Complete table for each member of the faculty of the program. Use additional sheets if necessary. The level of activity should reflect anaverage over the current year (year prior to visit) plus the two previous years. **** IF THIS FORM IS INCLUDED AS TABLE 4 IN THE PROGRAMSELF STUDY, THE PROGRAM EVALUATOR MAY WISH TO EDIT A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL FORM ****

2000-01 EC2000 Visits

6




RECOMMENDED ACCREDITATION ACTION FORM

Institution__State Tech University______Program__Civil Engineering___Year___2000____

Evaluator ___R. Holder, P.E. (ASCE)_________________

____NGR This action indicates that the program is in full compliance with the applicable criteria.This action is taken only after a general review and has a typical duration of six years.

_____RE This action indicates that satisfactory remedial action has been taken by the institutionwith respect to weaknesses identified in the prior IR action. This action is taken onlyafter an IR evaluation. This action extends accreditation to the next general review and,thus, has a typical duration of either two or four years.

_____VE This action indicates that satisfactory remedial action has been taken by the institutionwith respect to weaknesses identified in the prior IV action. This action is taken onlyafter an IV evaluation. This action extends accreditation to the next general review and,thus, has a typical duration of either two or four years.

_____SE This action indicates that satisfactory remedial action has been taken by the institutionwith respect to deficiencies identified in the prior SC action. This action is taken onlyafter a SC evaluation. This action typically extends accreditation to the next generalreview and, thus, has a duration from one to five years.

__X__IR This action needed indicates that compliance with applicable criteria should bestrengthened to ensure that the quality of the program will not be compromised prior tothe next review. The nature of the weaknesses is such that an on-site visit will not berequires to evaluate the remedial actions taken by the institution. A report focusing onthe remedial actions taken by the institution will be required. This action has a typicalduration of two years.

_____IV This action indicates that compliance with applicable criteria should be strengthened toensure that the quality of the program will not be compromised prior to the next review.The nature of the weaknesses is such that an on-site visit will be required to evaluate theremedial actions taken by the institution. This action has a typical duration of twoyears.

_____SC This action indicates that a program has deficiencies such that the program is not in fullcompliance with the applicable criteria. An on-site visit will be required to evaluate theactions taken by the institution to remove the deficiencies. This action has a typicalduration of one year.

_____NA This action indicates that a program has deficiencies such that the program is incontinued non-compliance with the applicable criteria. This action is usually taken onlyafter a SC evaluation or the evaluation of a new, unaccredited program. Accreditation isgenerally not extended as a result of this action.

If this is a new program, indicate the academic year in which accreditation is to begin (See SectionII.C.4. of the Accreditation Policy and Procedure Manual.) _________.

2000-01 EC2000 Visits

7




Level of Implementation Form

Each evaluator completes this form at the conclusion of the visit. Each program has completed this form beforethe visit and the data for all visits during the current cycle will be accumulated for analysis after the currentaccreditation cycle is completed. The data gathered from the institutions will not be available to any part of theaccreditation decision making process.

Institution: _______State Tech University______________________________________________

Unit or Program (specify): ___Civil Engineering___________Evaluator:____ R. Holder, P.E.

Date Prepared1: ____September 2000___________________

Implementation Factor Score (1-5)2

a. Educational Objectives 4b. Constituents 2c. Processes 2d. Outcomes Assessment 2e. Results 3f. System 3

Instructions:

Report implementation factors for the engineering unit as a whole and for each program being evaluated. Data onthis table should reflect the current level of Criteria 2000 implementation. Refer to Figure A-1, Matrix forImplementation Assessment for descriptions of implementation levels. Enter a numerical value that mostaccurately describes the extent to which:

a. Program Educational Objectives have been established and maintainedb. Constituents are involved in helping set program objectives and in evaluating the level to which they

are being achievedc. The required Processes are operationald. Outcomes Assessment is being practicede. Results of outcomes and the various processes are being used to improve programs and assure

objectives are being achievedf. An overall System is in place to meet the accreditation requirements

Institutions should provide this information to ABET Headquarters prior to the campus visit. Team membersprovide this information to Team Chair at conclusion of campus visit, and Team Chair forwards to ABETHeadquarters immediately thereafter.

8




Edu ca tiona lObjectives Cons titu ents Proces s es

Ou tcom esAs s es s m ent Res u lts

1 Not w ell defined Inform a l conta ct Few , if a ny proces s esdefined a nd docu m ented

Lim ited toa d hoc efforts

Anecdota l

2Broa dly defined

a nd docu m ented;clea rly tied to m is s ion;

evidence ofcons titu ent inpu t

Som ew ha t involved indefining objectives a nd

des ired ou tcom es ,a nd a s s es s m ent

Som e m a jor proces s esdefined a nd docu m ented;clea rly tied to m is s ion a nd

prog ra m objectives

Som e ou tcom es defineda nd im proved in

s ys tem a tic m a nner;problem s recog nized

a nd corrected

Sa tis fa ctory ou tcom es ;s om e evidence of pos itivetrends in a rea s deployed

3Com prehens ive;

defined, docu m ented'a nd m ea s u ra ble;

clea rly tied to m is s ion a ndcons titu ent needs

Clea rly involved indefining objectives a nd

des ired ou tcom es ,a nd a s s es s m ent;evidence of s om e

s u s ta ined s tra teg icpa rtners hips

Proces s es for a ll m a jorelem ents of criteria

defined, docu m ented, a ndcontrolled; clea rly tied to

m is s ion, prog ra mobjectives , a nd

cons titu ent needs

All m a jor ou tcom esdefined; s ys tem a tic

eva lu a tion a nd proces sim provem ent in pla ce;

problem s a nticipa ted a ndprevented

G ood ou tcom es ;pos itive trends

in s evera l m a jor a rea s ;s om e evidence tha t res u lts

ca u s ed by s ys tem a tica pproa ch

4Com prehens ive;

defined, docu m enteda nd m ea s u ra ble;

clea rly tied to m is s ion;res pons ive to

cons titu ent needs ;s ys tem a tica lly review ed a nd

u pda ted

Hig h deg ree ofinvolvem ent in

defining objectives a nddes ired ou tcom es ;

evidence of m a ny s u s ta ineds tra teg ic pa rtners hips in a ll

cons titu ent g rou ps

Proces s es for a ll elem entsof criteria a re

qu a ntita tively u nders tooda nd controlled; clea rly tied

to m is s ion, prog ra mobjectives , a nd

cons titu ent needs

All ou tcom es defined;s ys tem a tic eva lu a tion a nd

proces s im provem entin pla ce; m a ny s u pporta rea s involved; s ou rcesof problem s u nders tood

a nd elim ina ted

Excellent ou tcom es ;pos itive trendsin m os t a rea s ;

evidence tha t res u ltsca u s ed by s ys tem a tic

a pproa ch

5Com prehens ive;

defined docu m ented,m ea s u ra ble a nd flexible;clea rly tied to m is s ion;

rea dily a da pta ble to m eetcons titu ent needs ;

s ys tem a tica lly review ed a ndu pda ted

Hig h deg ree ofinvolvem ent in

defining objectives a nddes ired ou tcom es ,a s s es s m ent; a nd

im provem ent cycles ;s u s ta ined evidence of

s tra teg ic pa rtners hip w itha ll k ey cons titu ents

Proces s es for a ll elem entsof criteria a re

qu a ntita tively u nders tooda nd controlled; clea rly tied

to m is s ion, prog ra mobjectives , a nd

cons titu ent needs ;s een a s benchm a rk sby other ins titu tions

All ou tcom es defined;s ys tem a tic eva lu a tion a nd

proces s im provem entin pla ce; a ll s u pport

a rea s involved;com m on s ou rces of

problem s u nders tooda nd elim ina ted

W orld-cla s s ou tcom es ;s u s ta ined res u lts ;

res u lts clea rly ca u s ed bys ys tem a tic a pproa ch

9




Figure A-1: Matrix for Implementation Assessment

2000-01 EC2000 Visits

10




PROGRAM EVALUATOR WORKSHEETInstitution ________State Tech University_____________________________Program Name ____Civil Engineering______ Program Evaluator ____R. Holder, P.E. (ASCE)________Visit Dates ______September 14 – 17, 2000___________________

Use “C” for concern, “W” for weakness, and “D” for deficiency in theappropriate line.

Pre-visitEstimate

Day 0 Day 1 ExitStatement

IF THE PROGRAM HAS NO DEFICIENCIES OR WEAKNESSES,CHECK THIS LINE AT EACH APPROPRIATE TIME

1. STUDENTSEvaluateAdvise C C W WMonitor C C CPolicies for Acceptance of Transfer Students in Place and Enforced CProcess for Validation of Transfer Credits CProcess to Ensure All Students Meet All Program Requirement s C

2. PROGRAM EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVESPublished and Consistent with Mission and These CriteriaProcess in Place to Determine and Periodically Evaluate WBased on Needs of Constituencies C CCurriculum and Processes to ensure achie vementEvaluation to Determine AchievementResults Used to Improve Effectiveness of the Program

3. PROGRAM OUTCOMES AND ASSESSMENTAssessment Process with Documented Results to Measure OutcomesResults Applied to Improvement of the ProgramDemonstration (incl. Process & Measurements) that Graduates have:(a) ability to apply knowledge of math, engineering, and science(b) ability to design and conduct experiments C(b) ability to analyze and interpret dat a(c) ability to design system, component or process to meet needs W W C(d) ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams(e) ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems(f) understanding of professional and ethic al responsibility(g) ability to communicate effectively(h) broad education(i) recognition of need an ability to engage in life-long learning(j) knowledge of contemporary issues(k) ability to use techniques, skills, and tools in engineering practice

4. PROFESSIONAL COMPONENTMajor Design Experience COne year of Mathematics and Basic SciencesOne and one-half Years of Engineering TopicsGeneral Education Component, Consistent with Program Obje ctives

5. FACULTYSufficient Number and Competencies to Cover All Curricular AreasLevels of Student-Faculty InteractionStudent Advising and CounselingUniversity Service ActivitiesProfessional DevelopmentInteraction with Practitioners and Employers

6. FACILITIESClassroomsLaboratoriesEquipment and ToolsComputing and Information Infrastructure

7. INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT AND FINANCIAL RESOURCESSufficient to Assure Quality a nd Continuity of the ProgramSufficient to Attract and Retain a Well-Qualified FacultySufficient to Acquire, Maintain, and Operate Facilities and Equipment

8. PROGRAM CRITERIACurricular Topics C CFaculty QualificationsOther

2000-01 EC2000 Visits

11




Expanded PROGRAM EVALUATOR WORKSHEET

Institution State Tech University Program Name Civil Engineering Program Evaluator R. Holder, PE (ASCE)

GENERAL AND PROGRAM AREA REVIEW COMMENTS1. STUDENTS

EvaluateThere are approximately 80 students certified in the program.About 30 are female. The program graduates about 20 peryear. For Certification students must attain Junior status, havecompleted calculus, physics and chemistry, have passed thecommunications proficiency test and have a GPA of 2.5 orbetter. Students appear to be well qualified.

AdviseThe Engineering Advising Office advises freshmen andsophomore engineering majors.This was judged to be a program WEAKNESS as the advisor isnot a faculty member, and students are not apparently providedadvising from program faculty members.A full-time, full-year, CE staff member, whose primaryresponsibility is advising, advises Juniors and Seniors.

MonitorThe advisors must check student program each semester, but itis the student’s responsibility to develop each semester courses,following guidelines provided by the University General Catalogand the published Program Curriculum. A graduationrequirement checklist is maintained by the Advisor, andreviewed with the student each semester prior to enrollment.Student must have advisor permission to enroll, although it doesnot appear that the advisor is particularly strict in enforcementof prerequisite requirements. An OBSERVATION was madeto the Department Chair in this regard.

Policies for Acceptance of Transfer Students in Place and Enforced

University and College policies are used for acceptance oftransfer students. Matriculation agreements are in place withseveral local junior colleges which award equivalent credit forcourses as at State Tech. CE courses transferred from not-ABET accredited institutions are evaluated by program facultyand the Chair.

Process for Validation of Transfer CreditsMatriculation agreements are periodically reviewed, andstudent preparedness is evaluated by faculty for transferstudents from junior colleges. Engineering topics are evaluatedon a case by case basis.

Process to Ensure All Students Meet All Program Requirements

A graduation audit is made for each student two semestersbefore graduation. Outstanding course requirements areidentified by the program advisor and approved by the Chair.A final check is made of each student program prior tograduation.

2. PROGRAM EDUCATIONALOBJECTIVES

Published and Consistent with Mission and These Criteria

Objectives of the Engineering and Civil Engineering programappear to be well developed, with input from faculty andadvisory board. They appear to support the mission of theUniversity. They are presented well in the Self Study, and inthe Catalog. The Web page for the Department does notpresent the objectives well however, and this was pointed out tothe Department Chair. She indicated that the Web page iscurrently being upgraded and revised.

2000-01 EC2000 Visits

12




GENERAL AND PROGRAM AREA REVIEW COMMENTS

Process in Place to Determine and Periodically Evaluate

As this is the initial EC2000 visit the process for evaluation ofObjectives is crucial. Current program objectives weredeveloped by the Engineering School and Department Faculty,with review and apparent concurrence of the DepartmentAdvisory Board, two years ago. The Department intends toreview the objectives with the Curriculum Committee andAdvisory Board on two-year intervals.

2000-01 EC2000 Visits

13





Based on Needs of ConstituenciesIt was not clear from the self study document what the programdefines as its constituencies. Currently only the faculty andAdvisory Board are involved. It was suggested (as anOBSERVATION) that students and employers be included, ifthey are not represented on the Advisory Board.

Curriculum and Processes to ensure achievement

The curriculum is the primary vehicle for assuring that eachstudent meets the program objectives and EC2000 Criterion 3outcomes. A comprehensive cross-referenced table is presentedin the Self Study Report indicating how the objectives fulfill theEC2000 Criterion 3(a) through 3(k) outcomes.

Evaluation to Determine AchievementCompletion of curriculum requirements, evaluation of FE examresults and review of student academic performance are theprincipal means for current evaluation. The advisory board isprovided with the results at their semi-annual meeting andprovides comments. About 75% of students now take the FEexam. The Department is considering requiring all students totake the FE, but has received some student and administrationresistance. Employer and graduate surveys are planned,beginning this academic year. An OBSERVATION was madeto the Department Chair that improvement in this area isimportant, and encouragement was provided to continue effortsto upgrade this important function.

Results Used to Improve Effectiveness of the Program

Review of FE exam results did not identify any specific areas ofneed. The Department indicates that they intend to use resultsof graduate and employer surveys to make program changes asneeded.

3. PROGRAM OUTCOMES ANDASSESSMENT

Assessment Process with Documented Results to Measure Outcomes

Review of FE exam results, completion of curriculumrequirements, academic performance and senior design projectsby faculty and Advisory Board are used. Cross referencebetween Program Objectives and Criterion 3, and a definitionstatement as to how the objectives are met serve as a guide forevaluation.

Results Applied to Improvement of the Program

To date comments from the Advisory Board regarding thegraphics course content and subsequent addition of some GISconcepts are the only documented response of changes inresponse to evaluations. The Department is concerned andcurrently working on procedures for evaluation of Criteria 3(i)and 3(j) compliance.

Demonstration (incl. Process & Measurements) that Graduates have:

(a) ability to apply knowledge of math, engineering, and science

Observation of performance in upper division courses, byfaculty, and review of performance on FE exam used to assesspreparation. Response will be requested in graduate andemployer surveys to get additional information.

(b1) ability to design and conduct experiments

The self study document did not address the desing ofexperiments. Review of student laboratory reports indicatessatisfactory ability required physics, chemistry labs andrequired materials, soils and fluid mechanics laboratories in CEprogram.

(b2) ability to analyze and interpret data

Review of student laboratory reports shows data gathering bothby manual and automated means. Data analysis andinterpretation is demonstrated in the reports.

2000-01 EC2000 Visits

14




(c) ability to design system, component or process to meet needs

Lack of a major design experience was noted in the previousprogram review. Design is incorporated in several upperdivision courses, and all students are required to take seniordesign course. Review of course work and senior designprojects indicates good abilities. Advisory Board reviews seniordesign course performance.

2000-01 EC2000 Visits

15





(d) ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams

Senior design course projects normally include more than oneaspect of CE (i.e. transportation, geotechnical, hydraulic,structures, etc.), and students are asked to addressenvironmental and social impacts of the projects. AdvisoryBoard reviews projects. Faculty curriculum committee andAdvisory Board have discussed how to improve ability byincorporating outside of discipline members on teams, etc. butthere are no specific recommendations to date.

(e) ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems

Engineering problem formulation and solving is a component ofmost upper division engineering courses. Faculty gradingindicates ability is achieved. Satisfactory performance on FEexam indicates compliance.

(f) understanding of professional and ethical responsibility

Professional and ethical responsibility is included in someupper division engineering courses. Special lectures andpresentations are included in Senior Seminar, and emphasis isincluded in senior design course. Most students participate inASCE, which includes programs on professional conduct andethics. Interview with students indicates satisfaction withpreparation in this area.

(g) ability to communicate effectivelyAll students are required to take written and oralcommunication courses. Engineering laboratory coursesrequire written reports. Senior design course projectrequirements include mandatory written report and oralpresentation. Review of course work indicates abilities aresatisfactory. Advisory Board reviews written reports andobserves oral presentations, and provides feedback todepartment on observations.

(h) broad educationGeneral education requirements provide most of societalprogram breadth. Requirement includes courses in arts andhumanities with an emphasis in a thematic cluster. Completionof curriculum is used as indicator of compliance.

(i) recognition of need an ability to engage in life-long learning

Life long learning advice included in Senior Seminar and inASCE programs. Department intends to include questions onlife long learning appreciation in surveys of graduates andemployers.

(j) knowledge of contemporary issuesSome of general education course requirements incorporatecontemporary issues. Senior design project requirementsinclude consideration of social and environmental aspects ofprojects. Interviews with students indicate an appreciation thatthese issues may affect employment opportunities.

(k) ability to use techniques, skills, and tools in engineering practice

Students are required to use personal computers in performinghomework for upper division engineering courses. Seniordesign project report is required to be prepared with computerword processing. Laboratory data summary and analysis isrequired to be performed with spreadsheet software. AutoCAD is included in Graphics course and Auto CAD drawingsare required in senior design course projects. Students areintroduced to single station equipment in surveying course.Review of student work indicates ability.

2000-01 EC2000 Visits

16





4. PROFESSIONAL COMPONENT

Major Design ExperienceA weakness was identified under the prior accreditation criteria,that the program did not include sufficient design component anddid not include a meaningful, major engineering designexperience [I.C.3.d.(3).(d)]. The Senior Design Course has beenadded in response to that weakness, and it now appears that therequirement is satisfied. The Senior Design Course appears tomeet the requirement of Criterion 4. Professional Component ofthe EC2000 Criteria.

One year of Mathematics and Basic SciencesA total of 35 semester hours of mathematics and basic sciencesare required. This includes calculus through differentialequations, statistics, chemistry, calculus based physics,microbiology and geology.

One and one-half Years of EngineeringTopics

The CE program requires 56 semester hours of courses in Civiland related engineering. All of these courses are EngineeringTopics, although the engineering graphics course (4 hr) appearsto be a skills courses (use of AUTO CAD only). Therefor theremaining 52 hours fulfills the criterion.

General Education Component, Consistent with Program Objectives

The General Education component requires 26 semester hoursof communications, humanities and social sciences. A course inwestern civilization, and emphasis areas in both humanities andsocial sciences are included. The GE component appears tomeet the requirements of the criterion.

5. FACULTY

Sufficient Number and Competencies to Cover All Curricular Areas

The program has 6 full time faculty, 4 with tenure, and employs2 to 4 part time faculty per semester to teach in special areas.All full time faculty hold Ph.D. degrees in their respective areasof expertise. Three of the four tenured faculty and one of theuntenured faculty have PE licenses and the other untenuredfaculty holds an EIT certificate. All part time faculty areregistered professional engineers in the State, and one that isteaching this semester holds a Ph.D. in her field of expertise.

Levels of Student-Faculty InteractionAlthough the faculty do not directly advise the students oncurriculum, they do meet with the students informally throughthe ASCE chapter, which holds twice-monthly meetings. Thefaculty also appear to make individual efforts to interact withstudents. Students interviewed indicated that they are satisfiedwith interaction with the faculty and with the facultyavailability for informal guidance and assistance with classtopics, homework and projects.

Student Advising and CounselingStudents are advised during their freshman and sophomoreyears by College advisors. A full time CE advisor tracks allstudents and interacts with students at appointments requiredfor all students prior to the start of each semester. Faculty areavailable for individual informal advising during the semesters,and make special effort to be available during registrationperiods. The CE advisor tracks the curriculum of upper classstudent to assure that all requirements are met and that pre-requisites are fulfilled for subsequent courses.

2000-01 EC2000 Visits

17





University Service ActivitiesFaculty serve on University committees for outcome basedcurricula, as the regional accreditation will rely on this type ofperformance at the next accreditation for the full University.They also serve on other committees such as thecommunications coordination committee, and the GeneralEducation coordination committee. Two of the full time faculty,one senior and one junior, serve with the department Chair as aCurriculum committee for the department.

Professional DevelopmentFaculty routinely participate in research, although much of theresearch is practical for local and regional agencies andconsulting firms. Their results are normally presented bystudents in joint presentations and publications. All of thetenured faculty consult on a routine basis. Younger facultyconsult occasionally and are developing consultingrelationships. Part time faculty are employed full time byconsulting firms or municipal government where they routinelyperform design and project management activities.

Interaction with Practitioners and EmployersFull time faculty interact with part time faculty. They are allactive in engineering societies, including ASCE, WEF, ACI,ASFE and others. They have the opportunity to interface withAdvisory Board members during the semi-annual meeting oncampus. They also interact with practitioners who assist inreview and evaluation of design assignments for the seniordesign course.

6. FACILITIES

ClassroomsClassrooms in the Engineering Building that are used for CEcourses appear to be adequate in size, and in capability. Someare equipped for audio-visual and computer generated displaymaterial. Faculty and students interviewed were satisfied withclassroom facilities.

LaboratoriesLaboratory space appears to be adequate. Facilities in the soils,structures and hydraulic laboratories appeared adequate tosupport a representative range of experimentation.

Equipment and ToolsLaboratory equipment appears to be appropriate for the rangeof laboratory experiences, and appears to be well maintained.The Department has a laboratory committee consisting of twofaculty and the Department Chair to annually reviewlaboratory needs. The department maintains an up-to-dateinventory of laboratory equipment and has a plan for continualupdating and maintenance. Students interviewed are satisfiedwith the laboratory facilities.

2000-01 EC2000 Visits

18





Computing and Information InfrastructureThere is a computer laboratory for the Engineering collegestudents, furnished and maintained with fees collected from allengineering and science students ($50 per semester). Thislaboratory contains 20 Pentium based PCs with representativeword processing, spread sheet and other software, and 6 SUNstations with more advanced software. There is also anEngineering College supported CAD laboratory for CADinstruction (AutoCAD) and student and staff use during nonclass scheduled hours. Student assistants control access andoperation is normally 12 hours per day during the semester,and 16 hours per day during the last 2 weeks of the semester.The Civil Engineering Department has established a PC lab forCE students with 12 PCs that were provided by a special fundraising effort among alumni. They are maintained by theDepartment with “Development” funding and assistance of theASCE chapter. Access is unlimited to upper division CEstudents who each have an access computer card. Studentsindicate satisfaction with computer accessibility and equipment.A majority of the students interviewed have personal computersat their disposal in addition to those in the computerlaboratories.

7. INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES

Sufficient to Assure Quality and Continuity of the Program

Institutional support seems strong for the Engineeringprograms and for the Civil Engineering program (which makesup about 25% of all engineering enrollment). The DepartmentChair indicates that campus wide budget cuts have not unfairlyhurt her program, although she would like to recruit anadditional full-time faculty member if budgeting were available,and reduce the dependence on part-time faculty. There doesnot appear to be an immediate prospect for this to happen.

Sufficient to Attract and Retain a Well-Qualified Faculty

The 4 full-time tenured faculty have been in their positionsfrom 2 to 37 years. The newer faculty have been in theirpositions 2 and 1 year. It appears that all are currentlysatisfied with their positions and none indicated currentlylooking to relocate. Salaries appear to be competitive and travelother support appears to be adequate.

Sufficient to Acquire, Maintain, and Operate Facilities and Equipment

Resources appear to be adequate for maintenance of facilities ina satisfactory condition. The special computer fees anddepartmental support appear to provide good computer access.Laboratory maintenance funding budgeted by the departmentand supplemented by appears to be adequate.

8. PROGRAM CRITERIA Curricular Topics

Proficiency in math, probability andstatistics, calculus-based physics, andgeneral chemistry

All students are required to take calculus through differentialequations, statistics, calculus based physics, and chemistry.Proficiency is currently judged by satisfactory coursecompletion. CE instructor observations in upper divisioncourses note capability, although there is currently noprocedure for documentation. The department uses the FEexam performance as a tool to measure proficiency. However,there is no apparent feedback mechanism for improvement, ifneeded. Students seem satisfied with preparation. Thedepartment intends to include this as an item in its survey ofgraduates and employers. The lack of a documentation andlack of a feedback mechanism is a CONCERN of this reviewer.

2000-01 EC2000 Visits

19





Proficiency in a minimum of four recognizedmajor civil engineering areas

Students are required to take a two course sequence in each of 4major areas of civil engineering – mechanics/structures, fluidmechanics/hydraulics, geotechnical/soils/foundations, andtransportation systems and facilities. Proficiency is judged bysatisfactory course completion. Each of the areas second coursecontains a significant design project, and the design projectsare the subject of discussion of the faculty curriculumcommittee and the Advisory Board as to their appropriatenessto determine proficiency. Examination of course work appearsto show that the design problems are representative.

Ability to conduct laboratory experimentsand to critically analyze and interpret data inmore than one of the recognized major CEareas

Students are required to take laboratory courses in each of 3areas, structures (Materials Testing Lab), geotechnical (SoilMechanics Lab), and fluid mechanics/hydraulics (FluidMechanics Laboratory). Review of laboratory course notes andmaterial indicates that data collection requirements, dataanalysis requirements and a requirement of satisfactorylaboratory reports demonstrates abilities as required.

Ability to perform CE design by means ofdesign experiences integrated throughout theprofessional component of the curriculum

The Senior Design Course appears to demonstrate the ability ofthe students to perform design on a problem relevant to civilengineering. Design problem requirements in the second coursein each of the 4 civil engineering areas helps demonstrate thedevelopment of design skills throughout the curriculum,although some of those courses may be taken simultaneouslywith the senior design course. Review of course work indicatesthat design concepts are introduced in civil engineering coursesthroughout the curriculum.

Understanding of professional practice issuesProfessional practice issues are presented in the Seniorseminar, presentations are made at about 2 ASCE meetings peryear, and are discussed in the Senior Design Course. Theredoes not seem to be a means for assessment of theunderstanding of the issues. Students interviewed think thatthe issues are satisfactorily covered and that most students haveat least a passable understanding. Faculty indicate that theytoo think that students understand the issues relatively well.

Faculty Qualifications

Faculty teaching courses that are primarilydesign in content have professional licensure,or are qualified to teach the subject matter byeducation and design experience

4 of 6 full time faculty have PE licensure. One more has EIT.All have Ph.D. degrees. Senior design course taught bylicensed faculty. One course with design requirement is taughtby unlicensed faculty member, who has Ph.D. and several yearsof experience, including consulting experience. Programprovided resume with specific reference to education andexperience for all faculty without license. All part-time facultyare licensed PE, and one has Ph.D.

Program not critically dependent on oneindividual

Program does not appear to be critically dependent on onefaculty member. The 6 full time faculty members easily coverthe four areas of civil engineering within their expertise. Thestable of potential qualified part time faculty appears to beadequate to fill in for virtually any are of offering. TheDepartment Chair duties could be fulfilled by a faculty memberwith the assistance of the office personnel now in place.

Other comments to assist in understanding ofprogram analysis and to assist subsequentreviewers.

Further development of assessment procedures, and proceduresfor incorporation of findings is critically needed. Surveysplanned of graduates (recent as well as earlier) and employerscould provide better feedback on program strength and needs.Proper survey design will make interpretation easier.Statistical summarization of survey results will assist in review.Effort will be required in assessment of the results andtranslation into concrete proposals for program improvement.

2000-01 EC2000 Visits

20




2000-01 EC2000 Visits

21




ABET - Engineering Accreditation CommissionPROGRAM AUDIT FORM

(PROVIDE A COPY TO INSTITUTION AT EXIT MEETING)

Institution __________State Tech University__________________________________________________Program Name ________Civil Engineering_______ Program Evaluator __R. Holder, P.E., (ASCE)________Program Criteria Used for Evaluation _____________ EC 2000 Civil Engineering________________________Team Chair __ L.F. Bach, P.E.________________ Visit Dates _____September 2000_____________________

Use “C” for concern, “W” for weakness, and “D” for deficiency in theappropriate line 1.

ExitInterview

14-DayResponse

DueProcess Final

IF THE PROGRAM HAS NO DEFICIENCIES OR WEAKNESSES,CHECK THIS LINE AT EACH APPROPRIATE TIME

1. STUDENTS W

2. PROGRAM EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES

3. PROGRAM OUTCOMES AND ASSESSMENT


5. FACULTY

6. FACILITIES


8. PROGRAM CRITERIA C

1Definition of terms:

Concern: A concern indicates that a criterion is currently satisfied ; however, potentialexists for this situation to change in the near future such that the criterion may not besatisfied. Positive action is required to ensure full compliance with the criteria.

Weakness: A weakness indicates that a criterion is currently satisfied but lacks strength ofcompliance that assures that the quality of the program will not be compromised prior thenext general review. Remedial action is required to strengthen compliance with thecriteria.

Deficiency: A deficiency indicates that a criterion is not satisfied. Therefore, the programis not in compliance with the criteria and immediate action is required.

2000-01 EC2000 Visits

22




PROGRAM AUDIT FORMEXPLANATION OF SHORTCOMINGS

(PROVIDE A COPY TO INSTITUTION AT EXIT MEETING)

Institution _________State Tech University_____________________________________________________

Program Name _____Civil Engineering_________ Program Evaluator ___R. Holder, P.E., (ASCE)______

The following comments are provided to give additional detailed information on theshortcomings indicated on the Program Audit Form.1. STUDENTS

The Engineering Advising Office advises freshmen and sophomore engineering majors. This was judged to be aprogram WEAKNESS as the advisor is not a faculty member, and students are not apparently provided advising fromprogram faculty members.

2. PROGRAM EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES

3. PROGRAM OUTCOMES AND ASSESSMENT


2000-01 EC2000 Visits

23




5. FACULTY

6. FACILITIES


8. PROGRAM CRITERIA

All students are required to take calculus through differential equations, statistics, calculus based physics, andchemistry. Proficiency is currently judged by satisfactory course completion. CE instructor observations in upperdivision courses note capability, although there is currently no procedure for documentation. The department uses theFE exam performance as a tool to measure proficiency. However, there is no apparent feedback mechanism forimprovement, if needed. Students seem satisfied with preparation. The department intends to include this as an itemin its survey of graduates and employers. The lack of a documentation and lack of a feedback mechanism is aCONCERN of this reviewer.

2000-01 EC2000 Visits

24




III. Suggested Wording for the EAC’s

EXIT STATEMENT TO THE INSTITUTION(TO BE READ AT EXIT MEETING – DO NOT COPY TO INSTITUTION)

The Exit Interview Program Statement for each program addresses each of the seven EC2000 criteria (aswell as any applicable program criteria), documenting strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, concerns andobservations. In the discussion of Criteria 1, 2, 3, and as appropriate elsewhere, this statement shouldinclude the Program Evaluator’s findings concerning evaluation and assessment processes in place, andthe use of process results to improve the effectiveness of the program.

The general format for the statement should be similar to that of “Major University” (see ABET web-site).

In describing specific deficiencies, weakness or concerns, utilize where possible the exact language fromthe criteria. It is essential that all deficiencies and/or weaknesses identified on the Program Audit Form,which could lead to an action different than NGR be discussed in this statement.________________________________________________________________________

PROGRAM EXIT STATEMENT

CIVIL ENGINEERING PROGRAM

Introduction

The bachelor of science degree Civil Engineering program at State Tech university was

initially accredited by ABET in 1973. The program has 80 students enrolled during the fall

semester 1999. This compares to 85 in 1993, and 79 in 1996 for a relatively stable program

enrollment. Part time students have made up an average of about 10% of the students over

this period, but are at about 15% now. The Department of Civil Engineering has conferred

12 to 20 bachelor degrees annually over the past 5 years, 15 in 1998. There are 6 full time

faculty, all with PhD degrees, with academic experience ranging from 2 to 37 years. Four of

the faculty are registered Professional Engineers. Two adjunct or part time lecturers

supplement the faculty, both are registered engineers in the state.

Program Strengths

2000-01 EC2000 Visits

25




The program covers a wide range of Civil Engineering topics. Faculty expertise is apparent in

hydraulic, sanitary, structural, and geotechnical engineering. Professional practice issues are

addressed in the curriculum. The importance of professional licensure is stressed by the

program. A good working relationship between students and the faculty both in and out of

the classroom is evident. The students in general are very satisfied with the educational

experience provided by the Civil Engineering program.

The greatest strength of the program appears to be in the area of water quality and

geotechnical engineering. The engineering experience culminates in a major design experience

with a clear inter-disciplinary team concept. The project typically requires teams with

proficiency in aspects of hydraulic, foundation, and structural engineering. The program

through out the curriculum uses the team concept. This is an innovative teaching technique

for engineers, which is to be commended.

Program Weakness

1. Criterion 1: The Engineering Advising Office advises Freshmen and Sophomore

engineering students. Administrative personnel staff the Engineering Advising Office.

A full-time Civil Engineering faculty member advises Juniors and Seniors. Lack of

advising by engineering faculty at the under-class level is judged to be a program

weakness.

Program Concerns

1. Criterion 8: Civil Engineering program criteria require proficiency in mathematics

through differential equations. Proficiency is currently judged by; satisfactory course

2000-01 EC2000 Visits

26




completions, and application of these skills in upper level engineering courses.

However, there is no feed back mechanism in place from the Civil Engineering

department to the Mathematics department. This lack of a feed back mechanism is a

concern.

Observations

1. Faculty advisors must check student program each semester, but it is the student’s

responsibility to develop each semester’s courses, following guidelines provided by

the University General Catalog and the published Program Curriculum. A

graduation requirement checklist is maintained by the advisor, and reviewed with the

student each semester prior to enrollment. Student must have advisor permission to

enroll, although it does not appear that the advisor is particularly strict in

enforcement of prerequisite requirements. The program should consider a more

rigorous control of course selection.

2. The faculty and the Advisory Board currently establish the needs of the

constituencies. It is suggested that students and employers also be included in this

process.

3. Completion of curriculum requirements, evaluation of FE exam results and review of

student academic performance are the principal means for current evaluation. The

advisory board is provided with the results at their semi-annual meeting and provides

comments. About 75% of students now take the FE exam. Employer and graduate

surveys are planned as additional evaluation tools, beginning this academic year.

This improvement is encouraged to upgrade this important function.

2000-01 EC2000 Visits

27




Documents

2000-01 EC2000 Visits Program Evaluator Report Engineering ......For an Interim Visit, only the part of the Program Report relevant to the identified shortcomings needs to be completed