1

Chemical Engineering Graduate Program Assessment Plan Master of Science (Thesis option) Degree

Updated 10/2015

Mission Statement: The mission of the Chemical Engineering Master of Science program is to

prepare chemical engineers for careers in industry, government and doctoral studies in chemical

engineering or related fields. This preparation will be customized to meet specific areas of interest to

the student and for which the faculty is qualified to manage and instruct.

Goal 1: Graduates will have mastered selected topics in chemical engineering and related areas to

achieve their specific goals and objectives.

Learning objectives 1.1: Students will be able to clearly define their goals and objectives for graduate

study in chemical engineering

Learning objectives 1.2: Students will demonstrate mastery of the core chemical engineering and

elective topics listed in their program of study.

Achievement of these objectives and goal will be assessed by: evaluating the alignment of the

program of study to the student goals in the graduate study questionnaire (Objective 1.1), student

grades in the core chemical engineering courses as well as the other courses listed in their program

of study (Objective 1.2) and student exit surveys handed out to the student at the end of their thesis

defense (Goal 1).

Goal 2: Graduates will be proficient researchers, i.e. they will have the skills required to formulate,

assess, and effectively communicate a hypothesis to a technically literate audience.

Learning objectives 2.1: Students will be able to effectively synthesize and present in a clear

manner the necessary background information pertaining to their research topic to a technically

literate audience.

Learning objectives 2.2: Students will be able to formulate and execute a research and/or

development plan involving the significant investigation of scientific hypotheses and/or engineering

technologies.

Learning objectives 2.3: Students will be able to effectively summarize their research in the form of a

thesis. The research included in this thesis will be suitable for publication in a peer-reviewed journal,

when such publication is relevant for the research/development project conducted.

Achievement of these objectives and goals will be assessed by the faculty using rubrics to evaluate:

annual progress review meetings, graduate seminar presentations, graduate scholarly forum

presentations, and the Master’s thesis and presentation. Individual rubric categories correspond to

the learning objectives as follows:

Literature review, Subject knowledge (Objective 2.1), Hypothesis and research plan, Research

methods, Quality of results and analysis (Objective 2.2), Overall quality, Organization structure,

Writing and grammar, Reasoning and conclusions, Significance (Objective 2.3)

2

Graduate Study Questionnaire

Questionnaire that is intended to evaluate the alignment of the Program of Study to the Student

Goals:

(Each question will be evaluated by the student advisor as “Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory” with the

student repeating the exercise until all questions is answered satisfactorily).

1. List your immediate goals following graduate study.

2. List the specific topics and skill-sets in Chemical Engineering that you intend to master during

your graduate study that will help you attain those goals.

3. List the specific courses that you intend to take that will provide you with the breadth and

depth of knowledge on these topics.

4. List the goals and possible outcomes of your thesis work.

5. How do you envision synthesizing and integrating the knowledge that you have gained through

your coursework towards addressing the goals/problems in your thesis?

6. What are the avenues through which you intend to effectively communicate (by writing and/or

speaking) your knowledge on these topics to your peers, the public and other professionals in your

discipline? (Please provide approximate timelines also).

7. List the professional, ethical standards and best practices that you will adhere to for ensuring

that the research and your graduate study is being conducted in a responsible manner?

3

Report of the Annual Progress Review for Chemical Engineering Graduate Students

This report should be sent to the Department of Chemical Engineering by the chair of the supervisory committee Full legal name of student: __________________________________________________

(Last) (First) (Middle) UND ID #: ________________ Address: ________________________________________________________________ Date of Annual Progress Review Meeting: ______________ The student’s progress towards the graduate degree was voted as follows by the supervisory committee:

Satisfactory Not satisfactory On the level of graduate assistantship for the student during the next academic year, the supervisory committee votes as follows:

½-time GTA/GRA ¼-time GTA/GRA

no GTA/GRA other

The degree is expected to be completed at the end of __________ semester, 20____. Comments (Use additional sheets if necessary): Name ___________________________________ Signature _______________________

(Chairperson) Name ___________________________________ Signature _______________________ Name ___________________________________ Signature _______________________ Name ___________________________________ Signature _______________________ Name ___________________________________ Signature _______________________

4

5

6

1

Chemical Engineering Graduate Program Assessment Plan Master of Science Degree

Updated 10/2013

Mission Statement: The mission of the Chemical Engineering Master of Science program is to prepare chemical engineers for careers in industry, government and doctoral studies in chemical engineering or related fields. This preparation will be customized to meet specific areas of interest to the student and for which the faculty is qualified to manage and instruct. Goal 1: Graduates will have mastered selected topics in chemical engineering and related areas to achieve their specific goals and objectives. Learning objectives 1.1: Students will be able to clearly define their goals and objectives for graduate study in chemical engineering Learning objectives 1.2: Students will demonstrate mastery of the core chemical engineering and elective topics listed in their program of study. Achievement of these objectives and goal will be assessed by: evaluating the alignment of the program of study to the student goals (Objective 1.1), student grades in the core chemical engineering courses as well as the other courses listed in their program of study (Objective 1.2) and student exit surveys handed out to the student at the end of their thesis defense (Goal 1). Goal 2: Graduates will be proficient researchers, i.e. they will have the skills required to formulate, assess, and effectively communicate a hypothesis to a technically literate audience. Learning objectives 2.1: Students will be able to effectively synthesize and present in a clear manner the necessary background information pertaining to their research topic to a technically literate audience. Learning objectives 2.2: Students will be able to formulate and execute a research and/or development plan involving the significant investigation of scientific hypotheses and/or engineering technologies. Learning objectives 2.3: Students will be able to effectively summarize their research in the form of a thesis. The research included in this thesis will be suitable for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, when such publication is relevant for the research/development project conducted. Achievement of these objectives and goals will be assessed by the faculty using rubrics to evaluate graduate seminar presentations, graduate scholarly forum presentations, and the Masters thesis and presentation. Individual rubric categories correspond to the learning objectives as follows: Literature review, Subject knowledge (Objective 2.1), Hypothesis and research plan, Research methods, Quality of data and analysis (Objective 2.2), Overall quality, Organization structure and grammar, Reasoning and conclusions, Significance (Objective 2.3)

Graduate Seminar Evaluation Rubric Speaker Date

Rating Excellent Very Good Fair Poor Score 4 3 2 1 SCORESpeaking skills

All of audience can hear presentation; maintains eye contact with audience; clear, expressive voice; poised, good posture, no distracting mannerisms

Most of audience can hear presentation; eye contact most of the time; clear voice, but not as expressive; a little nervous, not as polished

Difficult to hear; occasional eye contact; some mumbling, little or no expression; nervous, some distracting mannerisms; reads much of slides

Audience can’t hear presentation; no eye contact; hard to understand, monotone; speaker uncomfortable and uninterested; reads slides word for word

Audience interaction

Held audience’s attention throughout, points made in creative way; listened carefully to audience questions and responded directly to question asked

Held audience attention most of the time; polite in answering questions, but not as directly

Difficulty holding audience attention, facts presented with little or no imagination; lengthy answers, sometimes without answering the question asked

Completely lost audience attention; started responding before questions finished; answers often unrelated to the question asked

Visuals Visually pleasing and easy to read; good use of white space, color, backgrounds; images and graphics support and enhance content

Adequate layout, but with some fonts, colors, backgrounds difficult to read

Difficult to read, cluttered appearance; images improperly sized; some distracting graphics or animations

Confusing layout, text extremely difficult to read; many graphics, sounds, animations distract from the presentation

Organization presented in logical sequence; introduction and background give proper context; key points and conclusions are clear and well developed

Most information presented in logical sequence; clear introduction; adequate background; some irrelevant information

Some problems with sequencing, lacks clear transitions; incomplete or overly detailed introduction; emphasis given to less important information

Little or no organization, difficult to follow; missing or ineffective introduction; confusing or no background; key points unclear

Subject knowledge

Demonstrates in depth knowledge; answers questions with explanations and elaboration

Adequate knowledge of most topics; answers questions, but fails to elaborate

Superficial knowledge of topic; only able to answer basic questions

Does not have grasp of information; cannot answer questions about subject

Literature Review

Thoroughly, but concisely, describes previous and related work; clearly explains how current work fits into broader field

Describes previous and related work; makes connection to current work

Mentions other work done in field; connections to current work not as clear

Unaware of other work done in the field; little or no context for current work

Hypothesis & Research Plan

Novel and challenging research question; well thought out research plan; original and significant

focused and challenging research question; minor flaws in research plan; makes modest contribution to field

poorly focused research question; incomplete research plan; not very original or significant

research question requires little creative thought; incoherent research plan; little or no contribution to the field

Methods uses or develops best-suited tools, methods, approaches; describes methods in detail; understands pros/cons of methods

uses a variety of appropriate techniques; describes methods; good understanding of methods

uses limited number of standard techniques; incomplete description of methods; basic understanding of methods

poor selection of techniques; no description; does not understand methods used

Analysis Correctly interpreted results; Accounted for error and uncertainty; Explores in depth interesting issues and connections

Correct, but incomplete data analysis; partially accounted for error; explores some interesting issues and connections

Some errors in interpreting data; faulty error analysis; does not explore all possibilities and misses connections

Major errors in data interpretation; no error analysis; little or no exploration of results

Conclusions insightful conclusions supported by evidence; discusses implications and application; recommends future directions for research

conclusions supported by evidence; some discussion of implications and future directions

conclusions could be supported by stronger evidence; minimal discussion of implications and future work

conclusions not supported by evidence; no discussion of implications and future work

Other Comments

Total Score

Thesis/Dissertation Evaluation Rubric

Student Date Thesis/Dissertation Title Rating Outstanding Very Good Acceptable Unacceptable General • Is synthetic and

interdisciplinary • Exhibits mature, independent thinking

• Is solid • Is the next step in a research program (good normal science)

• Is workmanlike • Is narrow in scope

• Contains errors or mistakes • Lacks careful thought

Originality / Research Question

• Is original and significant, ambitious, brilliant, clear, clever, coherent, compelling, concise, creative, elegant, engaging, exciting, interesting, insightful, persuasive, sophisticated, surprising, and thoughtful • Asks new questions or addresses an important question or problem

• Has some original ideas, insights, and observations, but is less original, significant, ambitious, interesting, and exciting than the outstanding category • Has a good question or problem that tends to be small and traditional

• Is not very original or significant • Is not interesting, exciting, or surprising • Displays little creativity, imagination, or insight • Has a question or problem that is not exciting—is often highly derivative or an extension of the adviser’s work

• Looks at a question or problem that is trivial, weak, unoriginal, or already solved

Writing • Is very well written and organized • Connects components in a seamless way • Has a point of view and a strong, confident, independent, and authoritative voice • Clearly states the problem and why it is important • Conclusion ties the whole thing together

• Is well written and organized

• Writing is pedestrian and plodding • Has a weak structure and organization

• Is poorly written • Has spelling and grammatical errors • Has a sloppy presentation

Knowledge • Exhibits command and authority over the material • Is theoretically sophisticated and shows a deep understanding of theory

• Shows understanding and mastery of the subject matter

• Displays a narrow understanding of the field • Demonstrates understanding of theory at a simple level

• Does not understand basic concepts, processes, or conventions of the discipline • Does not handle theory well, or theory is missing or wrong

Literature Review

• Displays a deep understanding of a massive amount of complicated literature • Is thoroughly researched

Good critical review of literature, makes clear connection to current work

• Reviews the literature adequately—knows the literature but is not critical of it or does not discuss what is important

• Does not understand or misses relevant literature • Plagiarizes or deliberately misreads or misuses sources

Methods • Has a brilliant

research design • Uses or develops new tools, methods, approaches, or types of analyses

• Uses appropriate (standard) theory, methods, and techniques

• Uses standard methods • Theory is minimally to competently applied to the problem

• Relies on inappropriate or incorrect methods

Quality of Results

• Has rich data from multiple sources

• Includes well-executed research • Demonstrates technical competence • Obtains solid, expected results or answers

• Has predictable results that are not exciting • Shows the ability to do research

• Has data that are flawed, wrong, false, fudged, or misinterpreted • Includes results that are obvious, already known, unexplained, or misinterpreted

Analysis • Analysis is comprehensive, complete, sophisticated, and convincing

• Misses opportunities to completely explore interesting issues and connections

• Has an unsophisticated analysis—does not explore all possibilities and misses connections

• Has wrong, inappropriate, incoherent, or confused analysis • Has unsupported or exaggerated interpretation

Reasoning • Argument is focused, logical, rigorous, and sustained

• Has a strong, comprehensive, and coherent argument

• Can sustain an argument, but the argument is not imaginative, complex, or convincing

• Has a weak, inconsistent, self-contradictory, unconvincing, or invalid argument

Significance • Results are significant • Is of interest to a larger community and changes the way people think • Pushes the discipline’s boundaries and opens new areas for research • Is publishable in top-tier journals

• Makes a modest contribution to the field but does not open it up

• Makes a small contribution

• Does not make a contribution

Overall Rating

Outstanding (4) Very Good (3) Acceptable (2) Unacceptable (1)

Other Comments

DEPARTMENTAL PLAN FOR ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT LEARNING

2004-2005 ACADEMIC YEAR Department: Chemical Engineering Program: Master of Science

Mission Statement

Student Learning Goals

Objective 1.1: Students will work closely with a faculty advisor to design and execute an acceptable program of study. As a general guideline, this plan will be based on 21 credit hours of course instruction, 2 credit hours of seminar, and 7 credit hours of research/thesis.

Objective 1.2: Students will participate in chemical engineering and other related formal courses from UND that help them to meet this goal. Objective 1.3: Students will undertake independent study projects from UND and/or other institutions as required to supplement formal courses in order to meet this goal. Objective 1.4: Students will select a research topic that most closely aligns with their goals, subject to the constraints and limitations of the department of chemical engineering and faculty. Selection of research topics may be additionally constrained in order for students to obtain GRAs to support their work.

Student Learning Goal 1: Graduates will have mastered selected topics in chemical engineering and related areas to achieve their specific goals and objectives.

The mission of the chemical engineering masters of science program is to prepare chemical engineers for 1) careers in industry and/or 2) doctoral studies in chemical engineering or related fields. This preparation will be conducted in specific areas of interest to the student and for which the faculty is qualified to manage and instruct

Objective 2.1: Students will formulate and execute a research and/or development plan involving the significant investigation of scientific hypotheses and/or engineering technologies.

Objective 2.2: Students will increase their understanding of academic research in general, and their own research in particular, through participation in the chemical engineering department graduate seminar every semester while in residence at UND. Objective 2.3: Students will present their research findings at the chemical engineering department graduate seminar at least once during their program of study. Objective 2.4: Students will present their research findings at the UND graduate school scholarly activities forum poster session every year of residence at UND.

Objective 2.5: Students will publish a thesis documenting their research results. The research included in this thesis will be suitable for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, when such publication is relevant for the research/development project conducted.

Objective 3.1: Students will complete a course of study, encompassing both graduate and undergraduate courses, that demonstrates an acceptable level of proficiency in understanding of the fundamentals of chemical engineering beyond the level required to achieve the bachelors of science degree. Objective 3.2: Students will demonstrate acceptable communications skills by publishing a clear, well-written thesis documenting their research results and by delivering clear, well-organized presentations of their research. Objective 3.3: Upon completion of their degree, students will gain admission to a quality doctoral program or an industrial position in their area of interest should they wish to pursue these future goals.

Student Learning Goal 2: Graduates will be proficient researchers, i.e. they will have the skills required to formulate, assess, and document a hypothesis.

Student Learning Goal 3: Graduates will be well prepared for a career in industry and/or doctoral studies in chemical engineering or a related field.

DEPARTMENTAL PLAN FOR ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT LEARNING 2004-2005 MASTERS OF SCIENCE IN CHEMICAL ENGINEERING

Student Learning Goals & Objectives

Educational Experiences

Assessment Methods

Timeline

Responsibilities

Use of Results and Process for Documentation & Decision-Making

Student Learning Goal 1: Graduates will have mastered selected topics in ChE/related areas to achieve their specific goals and objectives

Obj 1.1: Students will work closely with a faculty advisor to design/execute program of study. Obj 1.2: Students will participate in ChE/ other formal courses from UND. Obj 1.3: Students may undertake independent study projects. Obj 1.4: Students select research topic that aligns with goals.

Complete 21 credit hours of course instruction, 2 CH seminar, and 7 CH of research/thesis Program of Study tailored to individual Student provided opportunity to select research area within funding constraints and faculty expertise.

Tool: Draft program of study completed. Objs 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 Tool: Formal program of study approved. Obj 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 Tool: Course grades, credit hour progress. Obj 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 Tool: Student surveys Criteria: 85% satisfaction with individualized program. Obj 1.1 – 1.4 Tool: Review of independent study reports. Obj 1.3

At initial enrollment. No later than 3rd semester of enrollment. Data collected annually; evaluated in last semester Student survey prepared by 8/05. Imple-mented at the end of each semester for those students graduating. Statistics update annually by 7/15 Reports evaluated annually.

Initial advisor (usually grad director) Research advisor Research advisor Prepared by Grad Director; Administered by Research Advisor One graduate faculty member

Grad Director: compared to formal program to see if initial plans are reasonable and useful.

Admin Asst: remove advisor hold; Grad Director to evaluate trends in student programs. Grad Director: correlate to admission criteria for correlation; look for trends. Grad Committee: is overall program meeting student needs? Grad committee: Feedback to instructors and advisors on whether reports are of acceptable

Student Learning Goals & Objectives

Educational Experiences

Assessment Methods

Timeline

Responsibilities

Use of Results and Process for Documentation & Decision-Making

Tool: Audit of student research topics. Obj 1.4

Annually

One graduate faculty member

standard of excellence. Grad committee: Insure that all students have a research topic no later than end of 2nd semester of enrollment. Do students have meaningful and relevant research topics?

Student Learning Goal 2: Graduates will be proficient researchers Obj 2.1: Students will formulate and execute a research and/or development plan involving the significant investigation of scientific hypotheses and/or engineering technologies. Obj 2.2: Students will participate in the chemical engineering department graduate seminar every semester while in residence at UND.

Present research plan to advisor. Students work with advisor to design experiments, perform research and interpret results Present results to other graduate students during seminar Present poster at Scholarly activities forum. Prepare Thesis Prepare peer-review papers, when appropriate

Tool: Presentation of research plan Criteria: acceptance with no/minor revisions. Obj: 2.1 Tool: Delivered Seminars. Criteria: score of 75+ on rubric Obj: 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 Tool: Relevant citations in thesis. Criteria: 20+. Obj: 2.5 Tool: Thesis Criteria: 75+ on rubric from all committee members Obj: 2.1, 2.5

Statistics updated annually by 7/15. Rubric for seminar developed and implemented for Fall 2005. Documented on Thesis rubric Thesis rubric developed by August 2005; implemented at each defense

Research Advisor Seminar Instructor Research Advisor Grad Director develops, research advisor implements

Faculty Advisors – are they using sufficient rigor in training of their students; Grad committee: insure that all students have research plans by 3rd semester of enrollment. Grad committee – overall quality of research and communication skills being developed. Grad Committee & Grad School – does program meet quality standards Grad Committee & Grad School – does program meet quality standards

Student Learning Goals & Objectives

Educational Experiences

Assessment Methods

Timeline

Responsibilities

Use of Results and Process for Documentation & Decision-Making

Obj 2.3: Students will present their research findings at the chemical engineering department graduate seminar at least once during their program of study. Obj 2.4: Students will present their research findings at the UND graduate school scholarly activities forum poster session every year of residence at UND. Obj 2.5: Students will publish a thesis documenting their research results.

Tool: Peer reviewed journal papers. Criteria: 1 (or appropriate substitute). Obj: 2.5 Tool: How often is work cited by others (3 yrs after grad) Criteria: 3 times. Obj: 2.1, 2.5

Statistics updated annually by 7/15. Audit every year by 7/15.

Research Advisor . Research Advisor

Grad Committee & Grad School – does program meet quality standards Grad Committee & Grad School – does program meet quality standards

Student Learning Goal 3: Graduates will be well prepared for a career in industry and/or doctoral studies in chemical engineer-ing/related field. Obj 3.1: Students will complete a course of study with acceptable level of proficiency in

21 credits of coursework Present results to other graduate students during seminar Present poster at Scholarly activities forum. Prepare Thesis

Tool: Course grades, credit hour progress. Obj: 3.1 Tool: Delivered Seminars. Criteria: score of 75+ on rubric Obj: 3.1, 3.2

Statistics updated annually by July 15. Rubric for seminar developed and implemented for Fall 2005

Research Advisor. Seminar Instructor

Advisor: Immediate feedback to student. Grad committeer: Evaluate for quality of content of work/student progress. Grad committee: Insure seminar remains useful and that student participation is meaningful.

Student Learning Goals & Objectives

Educational Experiences

Assessment Methods

Timeline

Responsibilities

Use of Results and Process for Documentation & Decision-Making

understanding of the fundamentals of chemical engineering beyond the level required to achieve the B.S.Che. Obj 3.2: Students will demonstrate good communications skills by publishing a clear, well-written thesis documenting their research results and by delivering clear, well-organized presentations of their research. Obj 3.3: Upon completion of their degree, students will gain admission to a quality doctoral program or an industrial position.

Prepare peer-review papers, when appropriate

Tool: Thesis Criteria: 75+ on rubric from all committee members Obj: 3.1, 3.2 Tool: Employer survey Criteria: 90% satisfied with quality of student Obj: 3.1, 3.2 Alumni survey Criteria: 85% satisfaction rate Obj 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 Tool: Peer reviewed journal papers. Criteria: 1 (when appropriate). Obj: 3.2 Tool: Placement rate Criteria: 90% in career field of choice when appropriate Obj: 3.3 Tool: PhD Program Admissions rate Criteria: 90% in a PhD program relevant and acceptable to student

Thesis rubric developed by August 2005; implemented at each defense Employer survey developed by August 2006 and implemented annually Alumni survey developed by August 2006 and implemented annually. Statistics updated annually by July 15. Statistics updated annually by July 15. Statistics updated annually by July 15.

Grad Director develop/Research Advisor implement Grad Director develop/ graduate faculty member implements Grad Director develops; graduate faculty member implements Research advisor Research advisor Research advisor

Grad Committee & Grad School – does program meet quality standards Grad Committee & Grad School – does program meet quality standards Grad Committee– does program meet the needs of our students? Grad Committee & Grad School – does program meet quality standards Grad Committee – does program meet the needs of our students? Grad Committee & Grad School – does program meet quality standards and needs of our students?

Student Learning Goals & Objectives

Educational Experiences

Assessment Methods

Timeline

Responsibilities

Use of Results and Process for Documentation & Decision-Making