CRITERION 2. PROGRAM EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES · The educational objectives for the MET program were developed as part of the MET Continuous Improvement Plan (appendix E-2). The process

22

CRITERION2.PROGRAMEDUCATIONALOBJECTIVES

A. MissionandVisionStatements

The vision of Montana State University is that it “will be the university of choice for those seekinga student-centered learning environment distinguished by innovation and discovery in a RockyMountain setting.” Its mission statement, adopted in 2011, is as follows: “Montana StateUniversity, the State's land-grant institution, educates students, creates knowledge and art, andserves communities, by integrating learning, discovery, and engagement.”6

Consist with that mission and vision, the College of Engineering at Montana State University hasadopted the following statements as its mission:7

The College of Engineering at Montana State University will serve the State ofMontana and the nation by:

· fostering lifelong learning· integrating learning and discovery· developing and sharing technical expertise· empowering students to be tomorrow's leaders

Its vision is to “be an outstanding collaborative community that achieves excellence in learning,innovation, discovery, and knowledge transfer.” To realize this vision, the college will

· Leverage shared interests and talents among faculty and students in order to createknowledge across disciplinary lines.

· Effectively and efficiently balance breadth with depth in undergraduate education in orderto prepare students for the global workforce.

· Be a leader in innovation and discovery in our identified focus areas.· Successfully integrate research and innovation into the learning experience of both

undergraduate and graduate students.· Be recognized for the level of knowledge transfer to industry, governments, and citizens in

the state of Montana.

The mission of the Department of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering is “to serve the State ofMontana, the region, and the nation by providing outstanding leadership and contributions inknowledge discovery, student learning, innovation and entrepreneurship, and service tocommunity and profession.” Its vision is “to be a leader in discovery, learning, innovation, andservice through focus on core competencies, multi-disciplinary collaborations, and investment inthe Departmental community.”8

6 http://www.montana.edu/opa/policy/MissionBozeman.html7 http://www.coe.montana.edu/about.asp8 http://www.coe.montana.edu/mie/

23

B. ProgramEducationalObjectives

Within the context of the university, college and department mission and vision statements, theMechanical Engineering Technology faculty has established the mission statement and programeducational objectives stated below.

Program Mission

The mission of the Mechanical Engineering Technology program is to prepare students forsuccessful mechanical engineering technology careers, responsible citizenship, and continuedprofessional growth.

Program Educational Objectives:

The Mechanical Engineering Technology program strives to prepare graduates who:· (I) Successfully establish themselves as professionals within a diverse range of

engineering technology activities.· (II) Conduct themselves ethically in all activities.· (III) Contribute to industry and society, through service activities and/or professional

organizations.· (IV) Advance in their profession, maintain currency within the profession, and

demonstrate leadership qualities.

These objectives reflect the mission and vision of the COE at MSU. Additionally, they provideguidance for development of program outcomes. The program educational objectives are availablefor download on the M&IE website9 and are published in the university catalog as part of theprogram description.10 They are intended to be objectives that graduates of the program willachieve within five years of graduation.

C. ConsistencyoftheProgramEducationalObjectiveswiththeMissionoftheInstitution

The ability of graduates to meet the defined program educational objectives is only possiblethrough the completion of a high quality undergraduate program. The MET program, like theuniversity, are committed to wise stewardship of resources through assessment and publicaccountability. The MET Program Educational Objectives are consistent with MSU’s mission toprovide a challenging and diverse learning environment in which the entire university communityis fully engaged in supporting student success and to provide an environment that promotes theexploration, discovery, and dissemination of new knowledge, since our students would be unableto attain our educational Objectives without this consistency. All of us must work together to

9 http://www.coe.montana.edu/met/MET_mission-objectives-outcomesSp14.pdf10 http://catalog.montana.edu/undergraduate/engineering/mechanical-industrial-engineering/mechanical-engineering-technology/

24

provide the learning environment that supports student success, and all must always remember thatstudents are our most important product.

For example, MET’s Objectives are consistent with the University mission to provide a collegialenvironment for faculty and students in which discovery and learning are closely integrated andhighly valued through engagement. Multidisciplinary teams of faculty and students on campusare one example how students are prepared to function well on teams in industry or elsewhere aftergraduation. This is also consistent with the College of Engineering’s mission to integrate learningand discovery and develop and share technical expertise; and the Mechanical and IndustrialEngineering Department’s mission to serve the State of Montana, the region, and the nation byproviding outstanding leadership and contributions in knowledge discovery and student learning.

As another example, the MET Objectives are consistent with MSU’s mission to serve the peopleand communities of Montana by sharing our expertise and collaborating with others to improvethe lives and prosperity of Montanans. This is consistent with the department mission to serve theState of Montana by providing outstanding leadership and contributions in knowledge discovery,student learning, innovation and entrepreneurship, and service to the community and profession.For graduates to successfully lead and serve our communities, they must be able to communicatewell and have valuable tools and knowledge that they can share.

In summary our educational goals and missions are consistent, since all of us are committed toeducation, research, and service to our constituencies. We value our students and are dedicated toprepare them to become the leaders of the future. In addition, we believe in pursuing newknowledge and sharing it with our constituencies.

D. ProgramConstituencies

The primary constituents of the MET program are listed in table 2.D.1.

Table 2.D.1 - Primary MET Program ConstituentsConstituent DescriptionCurrent MET Students The student that the MET program servesMET Faculty The faculty responsible for program effectiveness.MET Alumni Entity that supports data collection, provides program guidance,

and supports program changes.M&IE Department The department in which the MET program resides.COE The college in which the MET program resides.MSU The university in which the MET program resides.MUS The supporting Montana University System.Industrial Partners /Employers

Industrial companies / entities that hire and employ our graduates.

Graduate Programs MET or other engineering technology/engineering and businessrelated graduate programs.

25

Although not listed as primary constituencies, the groups listed in table 2.D-2 are also consideredconstituency groups that we serve, and also from which we receive feedback regarding the METProgram:

Table 2.D.2 - MET Program Constituency GroupsConstituent DescriptionStudent families Families of current studentsIAB M&IE Department Industrial Advisory Board.EAC COE Engineering Advisory CouncilETAC of ABET Entity providing accreditation guidance

The needs of the primary constituencies align well. Faculty members want to produce graduateswho are informed, productive citizens and valued employees. They also hope to prepare studentsto continue to learn effectively. Current students are pursuing an MET education with theexpectation that they will be competitive on the job market and be able to land a rewarding jobupon graduation. Many also expect to be prepared for graduate study, whether they pursue agraduate degree immediately upon graduation or sometime later. Graduates from the programdesire to be seen as value-adding in whatever pursuits they may be engaged, whether a professionalworking in an international company, or co-owner of a start-up company. Employers are lookingfor associates who will be valued members of their communities and contribute significantly tothe economic well-being of their companies, while faculty in graduate programs desire technicallycompetent graduate students who can communicate well, learn independently, and play well withothers.

We glean a lot of insight into the needs of our constituents through the Departmental IAB and theCollege EAC because most of the members of these boards are alumni of our programs, and hireand/or supervise engineers including MET’s. So what do employers look for? First, employersneed deep technical knowledge (Objectives I), and they need their people to work well in cross-disciplinary teams (Objective IV). Second, even though technical expertise is important, it can beseverely limiting if the individual is not able conduct themselves ethically or apply leadership skills(Objectives I, and IV) and be able to communicate across disciplinary boundaries (Objective IV).Third, technology and markets are changing rapidly, and it has become more important than everfor today’s engineer to be able to acquire new knowledge and learn new skills (Objective IV), andthe faster, the better! Fourth, all progressive companies are hiring today for tomorrow’s leaders,and they have a need to become ever more efficient and effective in their operations (Objective I,II, III, and IV). And finally, many of today’s companies value community service and support theefforts of their people in service to their profession (Objective III).

Since the objectives expressly meet the needs of prospective employers, they also serve the needsthe students and graduates of the program. Students do not, in general, pursue a degree for its ownsake, but rather as a springboard to the next phase in their lives, be it a career or further education.So the program educational objectives serve student needs as well.

26

E. ProcessforReviewoftheProgramEducationalObjectives

The educational objectives for the MET program were developed as part of the MET ContinuousImprovement Plan (appendix E-2). The process flow is shown in Figure 2.E-1. The MET programmission evolved after consideration of the MUS mission, MSU mission, COE mission, and M&IEDepartment missions. Once the MET mission was established, program educational objectiveswere developed to reflect the ABET definition “Program educational objectives are broadstatements that describe the career and professional accomplishments that the program is preparinggraduates to achieve.” Initially, the MET faculty developed these objectives. Upon agreement ofall MET faculty members, these objectives were reviewed by the M&IE department and Collegeof Engineering administration for approval and agreement. Upon receipt of that approval, theobjectives were then reviewed by the M&IE Industrial Advisory Board for approval.

Figure 2.E-1. MET Continuous Improvement Plan Schematic

The MET Faculty considers review and modification of program educational objectives a naturalpart of the program’s continual improvement efforts. These objectives are reviewed once per yearby the MET faculty and the M&IE Industrial Advisory Board (see appendix E-7). The process forreview is consistent with the process utilized to develop these objectives. The department IABserves the major constituency role for objectives review. Employer and Alumni Surveys alsoprovide valuable input on the relevancy of the objectives, as well as effectiveness of the METprogram in helping the graduates meet these objectives. Finally, faculty discussions and placementdata provides some indication of how well objectives are being met, and if they are appropriateand consistent. The process utilized to review the MET Program Educational Objectives iscompleted yearly (during the academic year) by the MET faculty. The flow is outlined in table2.E.1 below:

Feedback

Assessment Tools

Educational ObjectivesMission

Educational Outcomes

Data Analysis

MET Constituents

TAC of ABETAccreditation Criteria

COECollege-level Continuous Improvement Plan

Industrial Advisory Boards (IAB)Participation, Reviews, Suggestions

MET Students Student Interviews, Course Assessments

MET Faculty Curriculum Reviews, CI Plan, Faculty Discussions

Employers of MET graduatesSurvey Data, IAB Input, Sr. Project evaluations

MET alumniSurvey Data, IAB Input

27

Table 2.E.1 – Process for Review of Program Educational ObjectivesAugust: Survey results (if review is during survey year) are reviewed and objectives

modified if/as required by MET facultyAugust: University, College, Department, and Program Mission and Vision is

reviewed at the yearly retreat. In addition, the Yearly Assessment Summaryreport is reviewed at the yearly retreat. Objectives are reviewed forconsistency with current mission and vision statements. Changes arerecommended if/as appropriate and prepared for communication.

September: Current/Revised Mission, Objectives and Outcomes information submitted toIAB members for review

October: Meet with IAB members to review mission, objectives and outcomes andcollect change input

November: Make changes if/as required and submit to IAB for approvalDecember: Revise all affected documentation and communicate approved MET Mission,

Objectives, and Outcomes to relevant department sites.

Employer and Alumni Surveys are designed to provide quantitative data that will provide a strongindicator that the defined program objectives are appropriate and the MET program is providingthe foundation required for graduates to meet those objectives. Specific benchmark levels forobjectives are summarized below. Ultimately, all information and data is reviewed collectivelyand an evaluation made to ensure appropriateness of program objectives.

The 2012/2013review cycle resulted in a modification of the program objectives. These changesare summarized below:

Table 2.E-2. MET Educational ObjectivesObjectives (2010-2013) Objectives (2013-2015)

Mechanical Engineering Technology graduatesthat are employed professionally will:I. MET graduates will undertake professionalcareers in engineering technology.II. MET graduates will employ effectivecommunication.III. MET graduates work in multidisciplinaryprofessional teams.IV. MET graduates will engage in life-longlearning, including post-graduate education forsome graduates.V. MET graduates will contribute to industryand society, in Montana or elsewhere, includinginvolvement in professional and other serviceactivities.

VI. MET graduates will engage in professionalproblem-solving activities using appliedmethods.

The Mechanical Engineering Technologyprogram strives to prepare graduates who:· Successfully establish themselves as

professionals within a diverse range ofengineering technology activities.

· Conduct themselves ethically in allactivities

· Contribute to industry and society,through service activities and/orprofessional organizations

· Advance in their profession, maintaincurrency within the profession, anddemonstrate leadership qualities

28

VII. MET graduates will assume ethicalleadership roles that contribute to the success oftheir organization or community.VIII. MET graduates will advance in theprofession.

The changes were designed to clarify, as well as simplify, the objectives, as well as to more closelyreflect the mission and vision of the university, college, and department of M&IE, as well as theMET program mission and vision. Additionally, these objectives provide guidance for review andenhancement of program outcomes.

Evaluation of Objectives:

The relevance of the objectives are occasionally assessed through the employer and alumni surveysas well. The survey tools are online questionnaires designed to provide data utilized to assess thesuccess of MET graduates actively working in the profession. They provide quantitative andqualitative data relative to how well the objectives of the program are being met, as well as howrelevant our program’s educational objectives are to the needs of industry. The table below relatethe measures for each objective to the desired positive response rate that we would like to see.

Objective I: MET graduates will successfully establish themselves as professionals within adiverse range of engineering technology activities.

Measures Benchmark

BenchmarkDefinition(Positive

Response)

AlumniSurvey

Questions(2014)

EmployerSurvey

Questions(2014)

· Employed Professionally· Diverse Range of career

paths

MostSpectrum

67 to 84%All categoriesrepresented

1, 2, 3, 4, 5,62, 3,7

1,2,3,48

Objective II: MET graduates will conduct themselves ethically in all activities

Measures Benchmark


Response)

AlumniSurvey

Questions

EmployerSurvey

Questions

· MET Program preparedgraduate to conduct workethically and make ethicaldecisions

Many 33 to 65% 18h 11i

29

Objective III: MET graduates will contribute to industry and society, through service activitiesand/or professional organizations

Measures Benchmark


Response)

AlumniSurvey

Questions

EmployerSurvey

Questions

· Regularly involved incommunity service activities

· Occasionally involved incommunity service activities

· Currently registered as EIT· Currently registered as PE· Plan to become registered PE

in the near future· Belong to a professional

society but do not participate· Belong to a professional

society and activelyparticipate

Many

Many

ManyManyMany

Many

Many

33 to 65%

33 to 65%

33 to 65%33 to 65%33 to 65%

33 to 65%

33 to 65%

15

15

101111

13

13

Objective IV: MET graduates will advance in their profession, maintain currency within theprofession, and demonstrate leadership qualities

Measures Benchmark


Response)

AlumniSurvey

Questions

EmployerSurvey

Questions

· Advancing in METProfession

· Involved in continuingeducation and maintainingcurrency

· Currently seeking orcompleted an advanceddegree

· Leadership qualities

Most+Most+

Most+

Most+

85 to 100%85 to 100%

85 to 100%

85 to 100%

6, 17a8, 17b

12

17c

811n

11o

In addition, the faculty periodically administers a survey to alumni and to employers of ourgraduates in which they are asked to rate the relevance of our program’s educational objectives tothe needs of industry. The most recent alumni survey was conducted in 2015 and the most recentemployer survey was conducted in 2015. As Tables 2.E-1 and 2.E-2 show, survey respondentsgenerally agreed that the program educational objectives are important and relevant to their needs.Objective III was lower than we would expect by employers and alumni alike. We will continueto watch this trend, but will not make changes to objectives based on these survey results.

30

Table 2.E-1: Alumni Responses to the Survey Question “Please rate how relevant thefollowing Program Educational Objectives are relative to the needs of

today's employers and future job market.”

MET Program Educational Objective HighlyRelevant

SomewhatRelevant

Neutral SomewhatIrrelevant

HighlyIrrelevant

I. Prepare graduates who successfullyestablish themselves as professionalswithin a diverse range of engineeringtechnology activities.

66.7% 28.6% 4.8% 0% 0%

II. Prepare graduates who conductthemselves ethically in all activities 71.4% 28.6% 0% 0% 0%

III. Prepare graduates who contributeto industry and society, throughservice activities and/or professionalorganizations

47.6% 19.1% 23.8% 9.5% 0%

IV. Prepare graduates who advance intheir profession, maintain currencywithin the profession, anddemonstrate leadership qualities

66.7% 28.6% 4.8% 0% 0%

Table 2.E-2: Employer Responses to the Survey Question “Please rate how relevant thefollowing Program Educational Objectives are relative to the needs of

today's employers and future job market.”

MET Program Educational Objective HighlyRelevant

SomewhatRelevant

Neutral SomewhatIrrelevant

HighlyIrrelevant

I. Prepare graduates who successfullyestablish themselves as professionalswithin a diverse range of engineeringtechnology activities.

100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

II. Prepare graduates who conductthemselves ethically in all activities 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

III. Prepare graduates who contributeto industry and society, throughservice activities and/or professionalorganizations

33.3% 66.7% 0% 0% 0%

IV. Prepare graduates who advance intheir profession, maintain currencywithin the profession, anddemonstrate leadership qualities

100%% 0% 0% 0% 0%

31

CRITERION3.STUDENTOUTCOMES

A. ProcessfortheEstablishmentandRevisionoftheStudentOutcomes

The educational outcomes for the MET program were developed as part of the MET ContinuousImprovement Plan (appendix E-2). The process flow is shown in Figure 3.A-1. The MET programmission evolved after consideration of the Montana State University (MSU) mission, College ofEngineering (COE) mission, and Mechanical and Industrial Engineering (M&IE) Departmentmissions. Once the MET mission was established, program educational objectives weredeveloped. At that point, MET program objectives were developed to support the ABET definition“The program must have documented student outcomes that prepare graduates to attain theprogram educational objectives”. Initially, the MET faculty developed these outcomes to supportthe program objectives, as well as ETAC of ABET a through k outcomes and MET programcriteria. Upon agreement of all MET faculty members, these outcomes were reviewed by theM&IE department and COE administration for approval and agreement. Upon receipt of thatapproval, the outcomes were then reviewed by the M&IE Industrial Advisory Board for approval.

Figure 3.A-1. MET Continuous Improvement Plan Schematic

The MET faculty members meet yearly to evaluate these program outcomes. TAC of ABETcriteria is reviewed, along with proposed changes, to get a feel for future requirements. In addition,constituent input is considered. Any changes are approved by the MET faculty and the M&IEDepartmental Industrial Advisory Board.

Feedback

Assessment Tools

Educational ObjectivesMission

Educational Outcomes

Data Analysis

MET Constituents

TAC of ABETAccreditation Criteria

COECollege-level Continuous Improvement Plan

Industrial Advisory Boards (IAB)Participation, Reviews, Suggestions

MET Students Student Interviews, Course Assessments

MET Faculty Curriculum Reviews, CI Plan, Faculty Discussions

Employers of MET graduatesSurvey Data, IAB Input, Sr. Project evaluations

MET alumniSurvey Data, IAB Input

32

The MET Faculty considers review and modification of program educational outcomes a naturalpart of the program’s continual improvement efforts. These outcomes are reviewed once per yearby the MET faculty and the M&IE Industrial Advisory Board (see appendix E-7). The process forreview is consistent with the process utilized to develop these outcomes. The department IABserves the major constituency role for outcomes review. Employer and Alumni Surveys alsoprovide valuable input on the relevancy of the outcomes, as well as effectiveness of the METprogram in preparing graduates who meet those outcomes. Finally, faculty discussions andplacement data provides some indication of the relevancy of the program outcome. The processutilized to review the MET Program Educational Outcomes is completed yearly (during theacademic year) by the MET faculty. The flow is outlined in table 3.A.1 below:

Table 3.A.1 – Process for Review of Program Educational OutcomesAugust: Student survey results, as well as, Alumni and Employer Survey results (if

review is during survey year) are reviewed. ETAC of ABET Criteria forAccrediting Engineering Technology Programs for the latest accreditationcycle are also reviewed. From this information, outcomes are modified if/asrequired by MET faculty

August: University, College, Department, and Program Mission and Vision isreviewed at the yearly retreat. In addition, the Yearly Assessment Summaryreport is reviewed at the yearly retreat. Outcomes are reviewed forconsistency with current mission and vision statements, as well as programobjectives. Changes are recommended if/as appropriate and prepared forcommunication.

September: Current/Revised Mission, Objectives and Outcomes information submitted toIAB members for review

October: Meet with IAB members to review mission, objectives and outcomes andcollect change input

November: Make changes if/as required and submit to IAB for approvalDecember: Revise all affected documentation and communicate approved MET Mission,

Objectives, and Outcomes to relevant department sites.

The 2012/2013 review resulted in a modification of the program outcomes. These changes aresummarized below:

Table 3.A-2. MET Educational Outcomes (changes)Outcomes (2009-2013)

MET graduates will:1. Fundamentals: Demonstrate an understanding of math, basic science and engineeringscience skills necessary for proficiency in MET careers.2. Applications: Demonstrate an ability to integrate basic theoretical, experimental,computer and manufacturing knowledge and experience to produce practical, effective andinnovative solutions to problems.3. Design: Demonstrate the ability to apply the engineering design process to solve open-ended problems while integrating knowledge and experience from various disciplines.

33

4. Problem recognition and resolution: Understand and coordinate interrelationshipsnecessary for successful design-to-build processes, and develop and apply successfulproblem solving processes.5. Project Management: Demonstrate an ability to successfully lead an integrated designteam to completion.6. Communication: Develop written, oral, and technical skills to effectively communicatewith individuals having a broad range of backgrounds and experience.7. Professional and ethical responsibility: Consider the actual or potential immediate,short-term and long-term impacts of professional activities, including social, political,economic, and environmental impacts.

Outcomes (2013-2015)MET graduates will:

1. Fundamentals: Demonstrate the ability to apply math, basic science andengineering science skills necessary for proficiency in MET careers. (b)

2. Applications: Demonstrate an ability to select and apply a knowledge ofmathematics, science, engineering, and technological principles, applied procedures,or methodologies, to produce practical, effective and innovative solutions toproblems. (a, b, c, f)

3. Experimentation: Demonstrate an ability to conduct standard tests andmeasurements; to conduct, analyze, and interpret experiments; and to applyexperimental results to improve processes (c)

4. Design: Demonstrate the ability to apply the engineering design process to solveopen-ended problems while integrating knowledge and experience from variousdisciplines. (a, b, d, e, f, g)

5. Problem recognition and resolution: Understand and coordinate interrelationshipsnecessary for successful design-to-build processes, and develop and apply successfulproblem solving processes. (a, b, c, d, e, f, g, k)

6. Project Management: Demonstrate an ability to successfully lead an integrateddesign team to completion. (e)

7. Communication: Demonstrate appropriate written, oral, computer, and technicalskills to effectively communicate with individuals having a broad range ofbackgrounds and experience. (g)

8. Ethical responsibility: Consider the actual or potential immediate, short-term andlong-term impacts of professional activities, including social, political, economic,and environmental impacts. (i, j)

9. Professional responsibility: Understand and demonstrate an ability to engage inself-directed continuing professional development, as well as demonstrate acommitment to quality, timeliness, and continuous improvement. (h, k)

The changes were implemented to more accurately correlate to ABET a through k criteria, as wellas to make assessment more efficient and effective.

B. StudentOutcomes

34

The MET program seeks to produce graduates with a good foundation in engineering fundamentalsas well as one strong in applications, design, problem recognition and resolution, projectmanagement, communication, and professional and ethical responsibility. The program at MSUfocuses on developing student expertise in the following areas: Engineering Fundamentals,Manufacturing Applications, Thermal/Environmental Sciences, and Mechanical Design. Withregard to these expertise areas, MET graduates will:

1. Fundamentals: Demonstrate the ability to apply math, basic science and engineeringscience skills necessary for proficiency in MET careers. (b)

2. Applications: Demonstrate an ability to select and apply a knowledge of mathematics,science, engineering, and technological principles, applied procedures, or methodologies,to produce practical, effective and innovative solutions to problems. (a, b, c, f)

3. Experimentation: Demonstrate an ability to conduct standard tests and measurements; toconduct, analyze, and interpret experiments; and to apply experimental results to improveprocesses (c)

4. Design: Demonstrate the ability to apply the engineering design process to solve open-ended problems while integrating knowledge and experience from various disciplines. (a,b, d, e, f, g)

5. Problem recognition and resolution: Understand and coordinate interrelationshipsnecessary for successful design-to-build processes, and develop and apply successfulproblem solving processes. (a, b, c, d, e, f, g, k)

6. Project Management: Demonstrate an ability to successfully lead an integrated designteam to completion. (e)

7. Communication: Demonstrate appropriate written, oral, computer, and technical skills toeffectively communicate with individuals having a broad range of backgrounds andexperience. (g)

8. Ethical responsibility: Consider the actual or potential immediate, short-term and long-term impacts of professional activities, including social, political, economic, andenvironmental impacts. (i, j)

9. Professional responsibility: Understand and demonstrate an ability to engage in self-directed continuing professional development, as well as demonstrate a commitment toquality, timeliness, and continuous improvement. (h, k)

Table 3.B-1 provides the linkage of MET program outcomes to ABET a-k outcomes.

35

Table 3.B-1 – Mapping MET Outcomes to TAC of ABET a-k Outcomes:ABET (a-k) Outcomes

MET Outcome a b c d e f g h i j k

1. Fundamentals Ö2. Applications Ö Ö Ö Ö3. Experimentation Ö4. Design Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö5. Problem recognition andresolution

Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö

6. Project Management Ö7. Communication Ö8. Ethical responsibility Ö Ö9.Professional responsibility Ö Ö

MSU (MET) Defined Program Outcomes: MET graduates will:

1. Fundamentals: Demonstrate the ability to apply math, basic science and engineering science skills necessary forproficiency in MET careers. (b)

2. Applications: Demonstrate an ability to select and apply a knowledge of mathematics, science, engineering, andtechnological principles, applied procedures, or methodologies, to produce practical, effective and innovative solutions toproblems. (a, b, c, f)

3. Experimentation: Demonstrate an ability to conduct standard tests and measurements; to conduct, analyze, and interpretexperiments; and to apply experimental results to improve processes (c)

4. Design: Demonstrate the ability to apply the engineering design process to solve open-ended problems while integratingknowledge and experience from various disciplines. (a, b, d, e, f, g)

5. Problem recognition and resolution: Understand and coordinate interrelationships necessary for successful design-to-build processes, and develop and apply successful problem solving processes. (a, b, c, d, e, f, g, k)

6. Project Management: Demonstrate an ability to successfully lead an integrated design team to completion. (e)7. Communication: Demonstrate appropriate written, oral, computer, and technical skills to effectively communicate with

individuals having a broad range of backgrounds and experience. (g)8. Ethical responsibility: Consider the actual or potential immediate, short-term and long-term impacts of professional

activities, including social, political, economic, and environmental impacts. (i, j)9. Professional responsibility: Understand and demonstrate an ability to engage in self-directed continuing professional

development, as well as demonstrate a commitment to quality, timeliness, and continuous improvement. (h, k)

General Criterion 3: Student OutcomesThe program must have documented student outcomes that prepare graduates to attain the program educational objectives.There must be a documented and effective process for the periodic review and revision of these student outcomes.For purposes of this section, broadly defined activities are those that involve a variety of resources; that involve the use of newprocesses, materials, or techniques in innovative ways; and that require a knowledge of standard operating procedures.Narrowly defined activities are those that involve limited resources, that involve the use of conventional processes andmaterials in new ways, and that require a knowledge of basic operating processes. For baccalaureate degree programs, thesestudent outcomes must include, but are not limited to, the following learned capabilities:

a. an ability to select and apply the knowledge, techniques, skills, and modern tools of the discipline to broadly-definedengineering technology activities;b. an ability to select and apply a knowledge of mathematics, science, engineering, and technology to engineering technologyproblems that require the application of principles and applied procedures or methodologies;c. an ability to conduct standard tests and measurements; to conduct, analyze, and interpret experiments; and to applyexperimental results to improve processes;d. an ability to design systems, components, or processes for broadly-defined engineering technology problems appropriate toprogram educational objectives;e. an ability to function effectively as a member or leader on a technical team;f. an ability to identify, analyze, and solve broadly-defined engineering technology problems;g. an ability to apply written, oral, and graphical communication in both technical and non-technical environments; and anability to identify and use appropriate technical literature;h. an understanding of the need for and an ability to engage in self-directed continuing professional development;i. an understanding of and a commitment to address professional and ethical responsibilities including a respect for diversity;j. a knowledge of the impact of engineering technology solutions in a societal and global context; andk. a commitment to quality, timeliness, and continuous improvement.

36

These outcomes reflect the mission and vision of the COE at MSU, as well as provide guidancefor continuous improvement of the MET program. The program educational outcomes areavailable for download on the M&IE website11 and are published in the university catalog as partof the program description.12

C. RelationshipofStudentOutcomestoProgramEducationalObjectives

The student outcomes outlined above prepare MET graduates to attain the program educationalobjectives as shown in the table 3.C-1 below. An “X” in a cell indicates that the outcome supportsattainment of the particular objective.

Table 3.C-1: Map of Student Outcomes to Program Educational Objectives

MET Program Objectives MET Student Outcomes ABET a-k

Outcomes I II III IV

1 Fundamentals b X X2 Applications a, b, c, f X X3 Experimentation c X X4 Design a, b, d, e, f, g X X X

5 Problem Recognitionand Resolution

a, b, c, d, e, f,g, k X X X

6 Project Management e X X X7 Communication g X X X8 Ethical Responsibility i, j X X X X9 Professional

Responsibility h, k X X X

Objective I, Successfully establish themselves as professionals within a diverse range ofengineering technology activities, is supported by all nine outcomes. The MET curriculum andlearning environment emphasizes hands-on practical experience in Mechanical Engineering topicsduring each year of the program. Many of these courses have an accompanying laboratory, oftendealing with engineering measurement topics, data collection and analysis, documentation, andwritten/oral report preparation/presentation. An industry supported senior capstone design andbuild project is required of all students. Students develop project management skills through manyproject-based learning experiences and choose technical elective courses to tailor their educational

11 http://www.coe.montana.edu/met/MET_mission-objectives-outcomesSp14.pdf12 http://catalog.montana.edu/undergraduate/engineering/mechanical-industrial-engineering/mechanical-engineering-technology/

37

experience according to their interests. Multiple communication assignments throughout thecurriculum allows students to develop and practice interpersonal communication skills as theylearn to function effectively on multidisciplinary teams. Figure 3.C-1 shows the process utilizedto ensure that MET coursework, integrating core principles throughout the curriculum provides anacademic experience leading to a well-rounded, general, four-year university technical educationculminating in a Bachelor of Science degree. Successful completion of the program provides thegraduates with a foundation from which to build a successful technical career.

Figure 3.C-1. MET Continuous Improvement Flow

Objective II, conduct themselves ethically in all activities, is most directly supported by Outcome(8), which is “Ethical responsibility: Consider the actual or potential immediate, short-term andlong-term impacts of professional activities, including social, political, economic, andenvironmental impacts”. This objective is also supported by Outcomes (4), (5), (6), and (7).Ethical behavior and responsibility is emphasized throughout the curriculum and students willdevelop an understanding of the importance of ethics as they build skills in design, problemrecognition and resolution, project management, and communication abilities.

Objective III, contribute to industry and society, through service activities and/or professionalorganizations is supported most directly by Outcome (9) which is “Professional responsibility:Understand and demonstrate an ability to engage in self-directed continuing professionaldevelopment, as well as demonstrate a commitment to quality, timeliness, and continuousimprovement”. This objective is also supported by outcome (8). Again, the curriculum andlearning experience is designed to provide learning opportunities while fulfilling the undergraduaterequirements, but, also reinforces the responsibility of students to continue learning throughouttheir professional careers.

38

Objective IV, advance in their profession, maintain currency within the profession, anddemonstrate leadership qualities, is directly supported by all nine outcomes. As the undergraduateprogram forms a foundation from which to build a successful technical career, each student mustalso understand the importance of life-long learning and the need to maintain relevancy in theircareer path. Additionally, the ability to lead and communicate effectively are essential skills thatmust be integrated throughout the curriculum to provide the understanding necessary for successin future situations as a practicing engineer.

39

CRITERION4.CONTINUOUSIMPROVEMENT

4.A - MET Continuous Improvement Process

As specified in the ETAC of ABET criteria, for baccalaureate degree programs, student outcomesmust include, but are not limited to, the following learned capabilities:

a. an ability to select and apply the knowledge, techniques, skills, and modern tools of thediscipline to broadly-defined engineering technology activities;

b. an ability to select and apply a knowledge of mathematics, science, engineering, andtechnology to engineering technology problems that require the application of principlesand applied procedures or methodologies;

c. an ability to conduct standard tests and measurements; to conduct, analyze, and interpretexperiments; and to apply experimental results to improve processes;

d. an ability to design systems, components, or processes for broadly-defined engineeringtechnology problems appropriate to program educational objectives;

e. an ability to function effectively as a member or leader on a technical team;f. an ability to identify, analyze, and solve broadly-defined engineering technology

problems;g. an ability to apply written, oral, and graphical communication in both technical and non-

technical environments; and an ability to identify and use appropriate technical literature;h. an understanding of the need for and an ability to engage in self-directed continuing

professional development;i. an understanding of and a commitment to address professional and ethical responsibilities

including a respect for diversity;j. a knowledge of the impact of engineering technology solutions in a societal and global

context; andk. a commitment to quality, timeliness, and continuous improvement.

The process for establishment and revision of program outcomes was described in section 3 –Outcomes. In review, the MET program seeks to produce graduates with a good foundation inengineering fundamentals as well as one strong in applications, design, problem recognition andresolution, project management, communication, and professional and ethical responsibility.The program at MSU focuses on developing student expertise in the following areas:Engineering Fundamentals, Manufacturing Applications, Thermal/Environmental Sciences, andMechanical Design. With regard to these expertise areas, MET graduates will:

1. Fundamentals: Demonstrate the ability to apply math, basic science and engineeringscience skills necessary for proficiency in MET careers. (b)

2. Applications: Demonstrate an ability to select and apply a knowledge of mathematics,science, engineering, and technological principles, applied procedures, ormethodologies, to produce practical, effective and innovative solutions to problems. (a,b, c, f)

40

3. Experimentation: Demonstrate an ability to conduct standard tests and measurements;to conduct, analyze, and interpret experiments; and to apply experimental results toimprove processes (c)

4. Design: Demonstrate the ability to apply the engineering design process to solve open-ended problems while integrating knowledge and experience from various disciplines.(a, b, d, e, f)

5. Problem recognition and resolution: Understand and coordinate interrelationshipsnecessary for successful design-to-build processes, and develop and apply successfulproblem solving processes. (d, e, f, k)

6. Project Management: Demonstrate an ability to successfully lead an integrated designteam to completion. (e)

7. Communication: Demonstrate appropriate written, oral, computer, and technical skillsto effectively communicate with individuals having a broad range of backgrounds andexperience. (g)

8. Ethical responsibility: Consider the actual or potential immediate, short-term and long-term impacts of professional activities, including social, political, economic, andenvironmental impacts. (i, j)

9. Professional responsibility: Understand and demonstrate an ability to engage in self-directed continuing professional development, as well as demonstrate a commitment toquality, timeliness, and continuous improvement. (h, k)

Although the MET program at MSU communicates program outcomes differently than they arecommunicated in the ETAC of ABET documentation, table 4.A-1 provides mapping of eachoutcome to ensure they are addressed appropriately.

Table 4.A-1 – Mapping MET Outcomes to TAC of ABET a-k OutcomesABET (a-k) Outcomes





4.A-1: Assessment Process

Central to the accreditation of engineering technology programs is the creation, andimplementation of a Continuous Improvement Plan. The Continuous Improvement Plan for theMechanical Engineering Technology (MET) program at Montana State University exists in written

41

and digital form, is up to date and in work, and is maintained by the MET Program Coordinator.It is included as Appendix E-2 of this document. This plan describes the process of assessment,schedule, and responsibility for collection and evaluation of data. The main assessment tools usedby the MET program are:

· Student Interviews· Departmental Industrial Advisory Board (IAB)· Employer Surveys and Alumni Surveys· Faculty Discussions (Meetings / Retreats)· Capstone Reviews· FE Exam· Placement· Student Internship Reviews

Assessment is an ongoing, iterative, continuous process. Therefore, evaluation of the data happensas an iterative process also. As such, the MET faculty meet as required on an on-going basisthroughout the year (generally weekly), as well as twice per year at faculty retreats, to discussprogram issues. Much of this discussion supports program assessment. As data are collected,summarized, and evaluated, necessary program changes required to meet the overall mission,educational objectives, and educational outcomes of the program can be determined. This iterativeand continuous process will provide the feedback opportunity to implement program changeswhen or if needed. Figure 4.A-1 shows a flowchart of assessment and evaluation process utilizedby the MET faculty.

Figure 4.A-1. MET Program Assessment, Evaluation, and Documentation Flowchart

42

In order to insure that all outcomes are evaluated, the following matrix (Table 4.A-2) describeswhich assessment tool is utilized, and the measurement strategy.Table 4.A-2 – MET Matrix Relating Outcomes and Assessment Tools.

MET Program AssessmentTools

Stud

entI

nter

view

s

Dep

artm

enta

lIA

B

Alu

mni

Surv

ey

Empl

oyer

Surv

ey

Facu

ltyD

iscus

sions

Cap

ston

eR

evie

w

FEEx

am

Plac

emen

t

Inte

rnsh

ipR

evie

ws

Measures outcomes quantitatively √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Measures outcomes qualitatively √ √ √ √ √ √

Table 4.A.3 illustrates the metrics associated with each assessment tool, as well as the scale utilizedfor each of the applicable quantitative measures.

Table 4.A-3: Outcomes Assessment MatrixTool / Instrument Metric ScaleStudent Surveys Students are interviewed by a faculty

member or department head and asked torate their level of attainment of each of theMET program outcomes.

Students are also asked to answeradditional open-ended questions toprovide program feedback to the faculty.

Students informally questioned in variouscourses.

Quantitative rating scale of 1-5

Qualitative assessment ofanswers provided

Qualitative assessment ofanswers provided

IAB The board reviews selected CapstoneProjects

Commendations and Recommendations

Quantitative rating scale of1-5Qualitative assessment ofanswers provided

Employer Surveys Employers of MET graduates answeringspecific survey questions


43

Alumni Surveys MET graduates answering specific surveyquestions


Faculty Discussions Weekly program issues discussion

Annual program curriculum review

Annual facilities review

Qualitative assessment

Capstone Reviews Faculty review of Capstone IPresentations (Written and Oral)

Sponsor review of Capstone IPresentations (Oral)

IAB and Sponsor review of Capstone IIDesign Presentation (Design Fair)

Quantitative rating scale(various scales)

Qualitative assessment

FE Exam All students take nationally normedFundamentals of Engineering (FE) Exam.

Quantitative comparison ofpass rate to national average

Placement Placement data provides view of the jobfunctions that our graduates are movinginto. Also provides measure of placementrate.

Quantitative assessment ofplacement rate.

Student Internships Supervisor evaluation of intern. Quantitative rating scale 1-5

Ultimately, all information and assessment data is reviewed and evaluated collectively and anassessment made. Using the data from the assessment tools, an overall assessment regarding thelevel to which outcomes are being achieved can be determined. Quantifiable data is comparedagainst desired benchmark levels. Qualitative data is analyzed to assess any patterns or trendsthat may lead to improvement opportunities. No minimum ‘benchmark” standards are set for thequalitative data, but that data is filtered closely to minimize bias. After data are collected andanalyzed, necessary changes in, or changes required to meet, the overall mission, educationalobjectives, and educational outcomes can be determined. In general, evaluation of all assessmentdata collectively results in implementation of program improvements through:

· suggestions / implementation of changes to current MET program objectives· suggestions / implementation of changes to current MET program outcomes· suggestions / implementation of changes to survey tools (alumni, employer, student)· curriculum change activity· program information improvements (information packets, website, etc.)· course organization and content changes· new course and/or laboratory development· laboratory facilities changes· computer facilities changes· student shop improvements

44

· departmental operations changes (administrative changes, faculty additions, etc.)

This iterative and continuous process will provide the feedback opportunity to implementprogram changes when or if needed. The Department Head and core MET Faculty are theimplementation arm for review and change. Faculty meet regularly during the academic year(usually weekly) to consider ongoing issues, ongoing data collection, and items requiringimmediate attention. At a minimum, an annual review will be conducted at the departmentallevel (Faculty Retreat). The analysis, feedback, and any subsequent changes will be summarizedin the program assessment files, as well as summarized in the MET yearly AssessmentSummary.

4.A-1A: Student Surveys

This assessment tool contributes to assessment of MET Program Outcomes. MET faculty membersand/or the Department Head conduct interviews with MET students (predominately seniors) nearthe end of fall and spring semester each year. A questionnaire directly related to program outcomesis utilized to give students an opportunity to quantifiably rate, on a scale from 1 to 5, how wellthey believe they have met these program outcomes, as well as provide input related to thoseoutcomes. Additional open-ended questions related to their experiences with the MET program atMSU are also asked of the students. This data is quantified and summarized in a “MET SeniorStudent Interviews” file folder (MET Program Coordinators Office). Ultimately, the benchmarklevel of attainment is a minimum of 4.0 out of 5.0.

The summary is shared with the MET faculty, as well as with the department IAB. Thisquantitative and qualitative data is evaluated by the MET faculty, and considered collectively withall other assessment data in order to recommend and implement program improvements. The IABalso considers this data during the yearly IAB meeting and includes any comments in the“Recommendations and Commendations” report.

4.A-1B: Department Industrial Advisory Board (IAB)

This assessment tool contributes to review of MET Program Objectives, as well as assessment ofMET Program Outcomes. The department IAB convenes annually to provide a qualitativeassessment of programs in directed areas. This board comprises experts and managers in thefields of Mechanical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering Technology, and IndustrialEngineering (see Section 5.C of this report for membership). The department IAB is chargedwith reviewing employer and alumni survey results, student survey results, capstone courseresults, placement data, and current wording of the MET program objectives and outcomes.Each program provides an overview of the program in a general meeting, as well as morespecific discussion in program break-out sessions. Relevant data related to following ispresented for their review:

· Program Mission, Objectives, Outcomes· Yearly assessment summary data· Curriculum change summary data· Current facilities information / data

45

Upon review, the IAB provides recommendations or comments in the “Recommendations andCommendations” section of the IAB Meeting Minutes. These minutes are maintained by theM&IE Department Head, as well as saved in the Department Industrial Advisory Board folder(MET Program Coordinators Office). This qualitative data is evaluated by the MET faculty, andconsidered collectively with all other assessment data in order to recommend and implementprogram improvements.

In addition, the IAB provides a direct quantitative assessment of ABET outcomes c, e, g, j, h, andk through a review of capstone projects. The survey instrument used is included in Appendix E-5. Our Capstone project is a two-semester process; divided between a first semester paper designand analysis and a second semester build and test. At the end of the second semester of theCapstone projects, the following items are sent to our IAB members for each project: (i) executivesummary, (ii) technical addendum, (iii) video of the students presenting the final project. Basedon these materials, we request the IAB members to rank our Student Outcomes (c), (e), (g), (j),(h), and (k) using the following score mechanism:

4. Strongly achieved: More than ready to enter the profession with a high degree of successexpected.3. Achieved: Ready to enter profession and needing minimal additional training.2. Not achieved: Ready to enter profession but needing additional training.1. Strongly not achieved: Will need substantial training when entering the profession.

The expected level of attainment is 3 on each of these outcomes.

4.A-1C: Alumni and Employer Surveys

This assessment tool contributes to review of MET Program Objectives, as well as assessment ofMET Program Outcomes. The survey tools (appendix E-5) are online questionnaires (2015) orpaper surveys submitted to employers at the annual career fair (2012) designed to provide datautilized to assess the success of MET graduates actively working in the profession. They providequantitative and qualitative data relative to how well the objectives and outcomes of the programare being met. Each survey is conducted every three years and is managed through an appropriatesurvey vehicle (SurveyMonkey.com or paper surveys). Data is collected, and then summarizedinto an assessment report. That assessment data is then evaluated against defined benchmark levelsto determine level of success. Table 4.A-4 shows benchmark levels and associated surveyquestions for the latest survey (2015).

Table 4.A-4: Survey Questions Related to MET Program Outcomes

Outcomes Scale

ExpectedLevel of

Attainment

Alumni SurveyQuestions

(2015)

EmployerSurvey

Questions(2015)

1. Fundamentals 1 to 5 4.0 18.a 11.f, p2. Applications 1 to 5 4.0 18.b 11.f, m, p3. Experimentation 1 to 5 4.0 18.c 11.f, p

46

4. Design 1 to 5 4.0 18.d 11.f, l, p5. Problem Recognition and Resolution 1 to 5 4.0 18.e 11.g, k, p6. Project Management 1 to 5 4.0 18.f 11.d, e, h, o, p7. Communication 1 to 5 4.0 18.g 11.a, b, c, h, p8. Ethical Responsibility 1 to 5 4.0 18.h 11.f, p9. Professional Responsibility 1 to 5 4.0 18.i 11.j, n, p

A summary report, specifying level of success, as well as defining future action required to remedyany problems, is prepared by the MET faculty. This summary data is then presented to thedepartment IAB for review and comment. Summary reports and survey data are available forreview in the “MET Employer and Alumni Survey” folders located in the MET ProgramCoordinators office.

4.A-1D: Faculty Discussions

This assessment tool contributes to review of MET Program Objectives, as well as assessment ofMET Program Outcome. Faculty discussions are the primary daily management tool for the METprogram. A weekly meeting time is available, and a meeting held most weeks. Participation isexcellent and discussion of pertinent administrative and assessment issues results in effectivechange and improvement. Examples of activities considered during these meetings are listedbelow.

§ High-level MET curriculum reviews§ ETAC of ABET information and change updates§ Emerging program issues and/or concerns§ MET Core Competencies review and revision§ Individual course reviews by responsible faculty member(s)§ Review of evaluation data for course and/or instructor (Knapp, course surveys,

Department Head exit interviews, course reviews, etc.)§ Placement data§ MET program information (for prospective students, parents, employers)§ Student internship process and results§ Advising process and issues§ Professional elective courses§ Lab and computer committee presentations and updates§ Current student issues§ Results of surveys – graduates, employers, students, etc.§ Faculty issues (service courses, workloads, extra-curricular, facilities, equipment,

etc.)§ FE Exam results§ Departmental and COE advisory committee feedback§ In-depth review of capstone course/projects/student feedback

MET faculty also meet at least twice each year in a retreat setting to evaluate assessment datacollected throughout the year and to evaluate that data. Ultimately, the faculty make a decision onthe level each program outcome is being met. Decisions made and improvements proposed as a

47

result of these meetings are summarized in the “MET Faculty Meeting Minutes” folder (METProgram Coordinators Office) as well as summarized in the yearly student outcome and assessmentreport.

4.A-1E: Capstone Reviews

This assessment tool contributes to assessment of MET Program Outcomes. MET Faculty attendSenior Capstone I design presentations in the fall and spring semester each year. MET Facultycomplete an assessment tool to quantify communication effectiveness as well as designeffectiveness. Project sponsors and other students in the course also complete the assessment tool.The faculty, project sponsors, and IAB members (as available) also attend the Senior Capstone IIdesign fair to evaluate the capstone course prototypes. An evaluation tool is utilized to collectquantitative data related to program outcomes. The course instructor summarizes and evaluatesall of the input collected. The course instructor also presents the summarized data to the METfaculty and the department IAB for evaluation. In addition, since 2012, the IAB has performed anadditional review of capstone reports. This is an evaluation of interdisciplinary ME and METprojects, thus applies to both programs. This direct assessment and evaluation of the ABETOutcomes shown in Table 4.A-5 done by requesting our Industrial Advisory Board (IAB) membersto review our Capstone projects (as described in section 4.A-1B of this document) and focus onthe specific outcomes listed.

Table 4.A-5: IAB Capstone Outcomes ReviewME Outcomes Evaluated b, d, g, h, i, and jMET ABET Outcomes Evaluated c, e, g, j, h, and k

These specific abet outcomes map to MET program outcomes as shown previously in Table 4.A-1, reprinted below.

Table 4.A-1 – Mapping MET Outcomes to TAC of ABET a-k OutcomesABET (a-k) Outcomes





Indirectly, this review provides data related to MET Program Outcomes 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.The evaluation of the data is considered collectively with all other assessment data in order torecommend and implement program improvements. Data and summarized information is

48

documented in the “MET Senior Capstone Review” folder located in the MET Capstone CourseInstructors office.

4.A-1F: Fundamentals of Engineering Exam (FE Exam)

This assessment tool contributes to assessment of MET Program Outcomes. All MET students arerequired to sit for the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) exam during their senior year. Althoughthis is not a test designed for a MET student, it does provide an indication of how well the studentsactually meet the outcomes of the program. The MET faculty has set a pass rate of 75 % as anultimate goal, as this is an important step in becoming registered as a Professional Engineer. As aminimum benchmark, faculty expect MSU MET students to exceed the national pass rate.Summary overall pass rate data, as well as individual subject area data is available from theNCEES. This data is quantitatively evaluated and considered collectively with all otherassessment data in order to recommend and implement program improvements. Data andsummarized information is documented in the “MET FE Exam Results” folder located in the METProgram Coordinators office.

4.A-1G: Placement

This assessment tool contributes to review of MET Program Objectives, as well as assessment ofMET Program Outcome. Placement data is collected and reviewed yearly to provide a view of thejob functions that our graduates are moving into. With this knowledge, the program objectivesand outcomes can be assessed relative to how well they support those job functions. Although thisis a qualitative evaluation, it does provide a glimpse of past trends, repeat employers, etc., that canprovide some valuable information. Again, this data is evaluated collectively with all otherassessment data in order to recommend and implement program improvements. Data andsummarized information is documented in the “MET Placement” folder located in the METProgram Coordinators office.

Placement data is collected by the department receptionist through placement surveys. The datais collected from students prior to graduation if possible. Students that have not accepted a jobprior to graduation are strongly encouraged to contact MSU upon acceptance of full-timeemployment so records can be updated. Reports are generated and submitted to the programcoordinator, and reviewed by the faculty yearly to provide a view of the job functions that ourgraduates are moving into. Success is defined by an 85% placement rate into engineering orengineering technology positions.

Measures Benchmark Benchmark Definition(Positive Response)

· MET program graduates are being hiredby engineering companies upongraduation

Most+ 85 to 100%

49

4.A-1H: Student Internship Reviews

This assessment tool contributes to assessment of MET Program Outcomes. At the completion ofa formal internship experience (ETME 498), the intern’s immediate supervisor completes astandard evaluation of the intern (appendix E-6). This evaluation covers technical ability,interpersonal skills, decision making ability, creative ability, productivity, initiativecommunication skills, teamwork skills, and planning skills. The evaluation scale is shown in table4.A-6.

Table 4.A-6: MET Engineering Intern Performance ReviewCategory Assessment Level

· Technical Ability· Planning· Interpersonal Skills· Decision Making· Creative Ability· Productivity· Initiative· Communications· Teamwork· Safety· Overall Evaluation

1. Well below expectations2. Slightly below expectations3. Consistent with expectations4. Above expectations5. Far exceeds expectations

Specific feedback relative to performance of assigned skills, as well as suggestions on personalgrowth are also solicited. This data should shed some light on the abilities of our students, as wellas the level at which they are meeting outcomes. The benchmark level is 3.0 (consistent withexpectations). Again, this data is evaluated collectively with all other assessment data in order torecommend and implement program improvements. Data and summarized information isdocumented in the “MET Student Internship” folder located in the MET Program Coordinatorsoffice.

4.A-2: Assessment Schedule and Responsibility:

Table 4.A-7 provides schedule and responsibility information related to assessment activity.

Table 4.A-7 - Assessment Responsibility Matrix for MET Educational Objectives and OutcomesAssessment

ToolReview

ofObjectives

Assessmentof

Outcomes

Data Obtained &Compiled By

Frequency ofCollection

ResultsReviewed

By

Mechanism &Frequency For

ReviewStudentInterviews

X MET ProgramCoordinatorMET FacultyMembersDepartment Head

Fall 09/Sp10Fall 10/Sp11Fall 11/Sp12Fall 12/Sp13Fall 13/Sp14Fall 14/Sp15

Faculty Faculty Meetings –as neededAnnual Retreat(August)

50

Dept. IAB X X MET ProgramCoordinatorDepartment Head

Fall 09,10,11,12,13,14,15

Faculty IAB Annual Mtg.(October)

Alumni &EmployerSurveys

X X MET ProgramCoordinatorDepartment HeadFaculty

Spring 12Fall 12Spring 15

FacultyIAB

Annual Retreat(August)IAB Annual Mtg.(October)

FacultyDiscussions

X X MET ProgramCoordinatorMET FacultyMembers


Faculty Faculty Meetings –as needed

CapstoneProjectReview

X Capstone CourseInstructorDepartment Head


FacultyIAB


FE Exam X Department HeadMET ProgramCoordinator


FacultyIAB

Faculty Meetings –as neededAnnual Retreat(August)IAB Annual Mtg.(October)

Placement X X Department HeadMET ProgramCoordinator

AY 09/10AY 10/11AY 11/12AY 12/13AY 13/14AY 14/15

FacultyIAB


StudentInternshipReview

X MET InternshipCoordinator

AY 09/10AY 10/11AY 11/12AY 12/13AY 13/14AY 14/15

FacultyIAB


4.A-3: Expected Level of Attainment

Each academic year, the assessment data is collectively reviewed and evaluated, resulting in adetermination on “Met”, “Partially Met” or “Not Met” for each outcome. Tables 4.A-8a and 4.A-8b show the final evaluation summary matrix utilized to document the current state of the METProgram Outcomes.

Table 4.A-8a: Final Yearly Evaluation Table (2009-2012)Outcome to Measure ABET a-k

mappingMet Partially

MetNot Met

Fundamentals: Demonstrate an understanding of math,basic and engineering sciences necessary for proficiency inMET careers.

a, b, c, d, e, f,g, k

Ö

51

Applications: Demonstrate an ability to integrate basictheoretical, experimental, computer and manufacturingknowledge and experience to produce practical, effectiveand innovative solutions to problems.

a, b, c, d, e, f,g, k

Ö

Design: Understand and apply the engineering designprocess to solve open-ended problems, integratingknowledge and experience from various disciplines.

a, b, c, d, e, f,g, h, i, j, k

Ö

Problem recognition and resolution: Understand andcoordinate interrelationships necessary for successfuldeign-to-build processes, and develop and apply successfulproblem solving processes.

a, b, c, d, e, f,g, k

Ö

Project Management: Develop the ability to successfullylead an integrated design team to completion.

a, c, d, e, f, g,k

Ö

Communication: Develop written, oral, and technicalskills to effectively communicate with individuals having abroad range of backgrounds and experience.

a, c, d, e, f, g,h, i, j, k

Ö

Professional and ethical responsibility: Consider theactual or potential immediate, short-term and long-termimpacts of professional activities, including social,political, economic, and environmental impacts.

a, c, d, e, f, g,h, i, j, k

Ö

Table 4.A-8b: Final Yearly Evaluation Table (2013-2015)Outcome to Measure ABET a-k

mappingMet Partially

MetNot Met

Fundamentals: Demonstrate the ability to apply math,basic science and engineering science skills necessary forproficiency in MET careers

b Ö

Applications: Demonstrate an ability to select and apply aknowledge of mathematics, science, engineering, andtechnological principles, applied procedures, ormethodologies, to produce practical, effective andinnovative solutions to problems.

a, b, c, f Ö

Experimentation: Demonstrate an ability to conductstandard tests and measurements; to conduct, analyze, andinterpret experiments; and to apply experimental results toimprove processes

c Ö

Design: Demonstrate the ability to apply the engineeringdesign process to solve open-ended problems whileintegrating knowledge and experience from variousdisciplines.

a, b, d, e, f Ö

Problem recognition and resolution: Understand andcoordinate interrelationships necessary for successfuldesign-to-build processes, and develop and applysuccessful problem solving processes.

d, e, f, k Ö

Project Management: Demonstrate an ability tosuccessfully lead an integrated design team to completion.

e Ö

Communication: Demonstrate appropriate written, oral,computer, and technical skills to effectively communicatewith individuals having a broad range of backgrounds andexperience.

g Ö

Ethical responsibility: Consider the actual or potentialimmediate, short-term and long-term impacts of

i, j Ö

52

professional activities, including social, political,economic, and environmental impacts.Professional responsibility: Understand and demonstratean ability to engage in self-directed continuing professionaldevelopment, as well as demonstrate a commitment toquality, timeliness, and continuous improvement.

h, k Ö

Again, the determination of the level is based on the collective evaluation of all the assessmentdata. The expected level of attainment is “Met”. Even if the assessment data results in adetermination of “Met”, improvements are implemented wherever they make sense in order toimprove our program, as well as to keep or program viable and current.

4.A-4: Summaries of Results

Based on the evaluation of all assessment data, MET program outcomes are being metappropriately. Therefore, the a-k outcomes are being met as well. The collective assessmentsummary, as well as current level of achievement is summarized in tables 4.A-9a, 4.A-9b and 4.A-9c.

Table 4.A-9a: Summary of MET Program Outcomes Attainment LevelAssessment

YearStudentSurveys

IABInput

FacultyDiscussions

CapstoneReview

FEExam

Results

PlacementData

InternshipReview

2009/2010 MET MET MET MET MET MET MET2010/2011 MET MET MET MET MET MET MET2011/2012 MET MET MET MET MET MET MET2012/2013 MET MET MET MET MET MET MET2013/2014 MET MET MET MET MET MET MET2014/2015 MET MET MET MET MET MET MET

Table 4.A-9b: Summary of MET Program Outcomes Attainment LevelOutcome AY 09/10 AY 10/11 AY 11/12 AY 12/131. Fundamentals Met Met Met Met2. Applications Met Met Met Met3. Design Met Met Met Met4. Problem Recognition and

ResolutionMet Met Met Met

5. Project Management Met Met Met Met6. Communication Met Met Met Met7. Professional and Ethical

ResponsibilityMet Met Met Met

.

Table 4.A-9c: Summary of MET Program Outcomes Attainment LevelOutcome AY 13/14 AY 14/151. Fundamentals Met Met2. Applications Met Met

53

3. Experimentation Met Met4. Design Met Met5. Problem Recognition and Resolution Met Met6. Project Management Met Met7. Communication Met Met8. Ethical Responsibility Met Met9. Professional Responsibility Met Met

4.A-4A - Student Surveys:

The following tables show an overview of the quantifiable data that has been collected over thepast several years. Figure 4.A-2 shows an accumulation of average student survey responsescollected through the student survey tools from 2009 through 2013.

Figure 4.A-2: Student Survey Responses, MET Program Outcomes

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Leve

l

MET Outcome (09 thru 13)

Student Survey ResponsesMET Program Outcomes

09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13

0.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.504.004.505.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Leve

l

MET Outcome (13 thru 15)

Student Survey ResponsesMET Program Outcomes

13/14 14/15

54

Figure 4.A-3: Student Survey Responses, MET Program Outcomes

Figure 4.A-3 shows an accumulation of average student survey responses collected through thestudent survey tools from 2013 through 2015. The threshold level of meeting each of our outcomesis 4.0 on a 5.0 Scale. As can be deducted from the table, we have maintained above that level eachof the years assessed, except for outcome #3 in AY 13/14.

Figure 4.A-4 revises the data to show the correlated a-k criteria verses the MET program outcomes.Looking at the data this way showed some concern areas that were addressed as part of thecontinuous improvement process. For example, outcome c (an ability to conduct standard testsand measurements; to conduct, analyze, and interpret experiments; and to apply experimentalresults to improve processes) showed signs of a problem in AY 2011. The primary course wherethis outcome is attained is the Measurements and Instrumentation course. At that time, this coursewas shared between ME and MET students (ME 360), and was taught by ME faculty. Adetermination was made that the course was not meeting the needs of the MET students, so adecision was made to revise and rename this course to be an MET specific course (MET 360).This new course was implemented in spring semester 2012. Outcome #3 was still a problem inAY 13/14, but since ETME 360 was re-introduced the outcome has progressed above the minimumthreshold for 2015. We will continue to monitor and implement improvements when and wherenecessary.

Figure 4.A-4: Student Survey Responses, ABET a-k Criteria Sort

4.A-4B - Department Industrial Advisory Board (IAB):

Data is summarized in the yearly Commendations and Recommendations document created by theIAB. Improvements and changes related to this assessment tool are documented in the yearly METAssessment Report. Examples of these program changes will also be included in section 4.B ofthis report.

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

a b c d e f g h i j k

Leve

l

a-k Outcomes

Student Survey ResponsesABET a-k Criteria

09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15

55

4.A-4C - Alumni and Employer Surveys:

In an effort to improve response rates, the 2012 Employer Surveys were conducted directly withrecruiters of our students at the annual career fair. This was done in conjunction with theMechanical Engineering survey, as the same employers were recruiting both disciplines. Thebenchmark level for this assessment tool is 4.0 out of 5.0. The results from this survey (figure 4.A-5a) showed some general issues with outcome #7 (Professional and ethical responsibility:Consider the actual or potential immediate, short-term and long-term impacts of professionalactivities, including social, political, economic, and environmental impacts). To address this issue,faculty agreed to re-emphasize this topic in all courses they teach. In addition, a meeting time inETME 100 and ETME 400 – Freshman / Senior Seminar was dedicated to professional and ethicalresponsibility.

Figure 4.A-5a: 2012 Employer Survey Results

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Avg.

Leve

l

2009/2013 MET Program Outcomes

2012 Employer Survey Results

0

1

2

3

4

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Avg.

Scor

e

MET Outcome

2015 MET Empoyer/Alumni Survey Results

Employer Alumni

56

Figure 4.A-5b: 2015 Employer/Alumni Survey Results

The results from the 2015 Employer / Alumni Survey (figure 4.A-5b) shows all outcomes beingmet above the benchmark level.

4.A-4D - Faculty Discussions:

General issues and assessment data is discussed regularly (the MET faculty have a weekly standingmeeting time, and meet most weeks) by the MET faculty group. Discussion is summarized in theFaculty Meeting Summary document, and improvements and changes related to this assessmenttool are documented in the yearly MET Assessment Report. Examples of these program changeswill also be included in section 4.B of this report.

4.A-4E - Capstone Reviews:

General Reviews:

Discussion: For each course in the 2-course capstone sequence, course effectiveness is monitoredbased on several criteria. These criteria include semester-by-semester assessment from courseinstructors since they are most closely attuned to issues which arise during course.

[Note: The term “instructors” (plural) refers to the manner in which Capstone is presentlyorganized: During this entire accreditation evaluation period, the ME and MET programshave participated jointly in a shared Capstone experience. No distinction is made withregard to program affiliation during student group assignments, and all course elements areuniformly applied to students from the two participating programs.]

Assessment input is also solicited from M&IE Faculty at large, from the assigned faculty advisorsof individual project groups, from project sponsors, and from our MIE Industrial Advisory Boardmembers.

Student input on course mechanics and effectiveness is gathered mid-semester and at theconclusion of each term in the form of course reviews. Course assessment is also based partiallyupon student performance, which is evaluated using the grading rubric specified on the coursesyllabus for the Capstone 1 and 2 classes. Student course reviews (which can drive courseimprovements) are strongly influenced by the demands of the course - as enumerated in the gradingrubric shown in Table 4.A-10a.

Table 4.A-10a. Student performance assessment rubrics for Capstone Sequence.Capstone 1 Student Performance Assessment Capstone 2 Student Performance Assessment

Individual performance - including group leadergrade

20 pts Semester Group leader performance (IndividualScores)

20pts

Draft report section contents or assigneddeliverables (team grade):1. Problem Statement with "Level 1

5 ptseachX 8

Production Readiness Review(start-of-term presentation)

20pts

57

Requirements"2. Background3. Specifications4. Alternatives5. FMEA6. Analysis Appendix7. Drawing Package Appendix8. Manufacturing Appendix - Steps /Planning / parts orders completed

Project Management Plan 20 pts Project Management Plan 30pts

Preliminary Design Review 20 pts Prototype Rollout 30pts

Final written report 30 pts Technical Addendum 30pts

Critical Design Review 30 pts Design Fair 30pts

Faculty Advisor input(may overlap some sections, above.)

40 pts Faculty Advisor input(may overlap some sections, above.)

40pts

Total 200pts

Total 200pts

Course assessment activities undertaken as part of the continuous improvement process haveidentified several issues over the past several years, each addressed with some improvementactivity resulting in an accomplishment. These are itemized in Tables 4.A-10b through 4.A-10.fas follows:

Table 4.A-10b. Addressing non-uniformity in Capstone Faculty Advisor performance.Assessment Issue Improvement Activity / AccomplishmentNon-uniformity in Capstone Faculty AdvisorExpectations was identified, and lack of AdvisorFamiliarity with Course Procedures, changes, etc.was noted –especially with new faculty.

Capstone Advisor Guide

Discussion / Rationale: Capstone Advisor GuideThe Capstone instructors circulate a “Capstone Advisors Guide” document to faculty advisors at or just prior to thebeginning of each term. The original guide was first introduced in ~2006 based upon input from students, faculty, andsponsors who identified non-uniformity between project group experiences. Given the robust mix of project types andvarious faculty advisor personalities it remains impossible to provide identical experiences to the different projectteams, but a measure of consistency was desired then - as it still is today. A written and easily accessible listing ofadvisor procedures and expectations was deemed especially important for new faculty who may not have had priorexperience with undergraduate Capstone project advising

Advisor expectations, class procedures, schedules, links and resources are documented in the Guide to help ensure aquality student experience. Contents of this document have been updated and revised yearly as the class evolves, withthe latest update made in January 2015. The Guide is published on the College website, discussed at Departmental-level faculty meetings, and the link is provided to all involved faculty.

www.coe.montana.edu/me/ME_MET_Capstone/Fall_2014_Capstone_Advisor_Guide.htmlEvaluation of Improvement ActivitySince the introduction of the Capstone Advisor’s Guide, the course instructors have noticed a more uniform approachtowards project advising among faculty. The Guide has certainly not solved all advisor issues, due in-part to the widerange of faculty experience in design engineering and manufacturing, and varied duration of employment but it hasbeen a well-received and useful document. An added benefit has been that fewer questions on procedures & schedulesneed to be fielded, as the Guide’s numerous web links and references provide a good resource.

58

Table 4.A-10c: Addressing Communications Issues.Assessment Issue Improvement Activity / AccomplishmentCommunications skillset weaknesseswere identified in several of the courseevaluation mechanisms as an area inneed of improvement. This is a broadarea which warranted several differentapproaches to address studentcommunication performance.

Implementation of Standardized Memo Formats.Requiring every student to serve as “Group Leader” during term.Re-formatting of “Critical Design Review” Format and Expectations.Implemented a student-generated video presentation highlighting theirproject.GTA Training through MSU Writing Center on Feedback.Presentation to class by MSU Writing Center resource.Techniques for Technical Writing.Poster Preparation Requirements Web-link.Industrial Reviewers Attend Design Fair, Critique Communication andproject outcomes.

Discussion / Rationale: Communication Skillset ImprovementsCommunications skillsets have long been identified as an area in need of improvement for undergraduate students andfor graduates of engineering programs. Concurrent efforts are under way to enhance student writing skills throughoutthe curriculum, but Capstone is perhaps the most visible of these efforts. The many communication-related elementsof the Capstone course sequence give students an opportunity to exercise and improve communication in many areas,including

· Drawings and Analysis: “Languages” unique to Engineering / STEM fields (CAPSTONE 1 REPORT)· Oral communications:

o Formal (timed, critiqued) Engineering Presentations. (PDR)o Relatively Informal but structured exchanges of engineering information. (CDR)o Group meetings with or without advisor. (WEEKLY MEETINGS)o Explanation to layman of Engineering Outcomes (DESIGN FAIR)

· Written documentation:o Memos and other regular status reports. (WEEKLY MEMOS)o Formal (rigidly structured) Reports. (CAPSTONE 1 FINAL REPORT)o Informal (student-structured) Reports. (CAPSTONE 2 TECHNICAL ADDENDUM)o Posters. (DESIGN FAIR)

Improvements implemented in these areas include:· Re-formatting the Critical Design Review (CDR) into a 2-part exercise: The first portion is a ‘round-table’

format, designed to provide more opportunity for effectively providing drawing content feedback andanalysis results & format critique, through interaction between the group, advisor, and course instructors.A second part of the CDR requires student design teams to prepare and submit a video summary of theirproject. This implementation focuses on a different mode of communication, familiar to the age group, as ameans of developing skills in conveying important engineering details through modern technologies.

· Posting of a standard memo format, to reduce confusion regarding content, expectations of regular weeklystatus update documentation.

· Graduate Teaching Assistants have been added to the course instructional team. The GTA’s primaryresponsibility is to provide timely feedback on the technical writing elements submitted to the Course DropBox. We’ve engaged with the MSU Writing Center, to train and equip our GTAs with review techniques forconcise and effective feedback.

· The MSU Writing Center is identified as a useful writing resource via lecture from instructors, and during aguest lecture from Writing Center personnel

· A Poster Format Requirements information page is provided to students through the course website link.· Instructors collaborated with the MSU Foundation to supply 3rd party reviewers from industry who attend the

MSU Engineering Design fair, interview students, evaluate project outcomes, and generate a written critiqueof student performance. This critique is provided to Capstone instructors.

Evaluation of Improvement Activity

59

The added emphasis on communication in lecture sessions, the numerous tools provided for student guidance andassistance, feedback from GTA’s on writing submissions, focused face-to-face critique of Capstone project elements,and efforts to improve communication skillsets across the curriculum have resulted in demonstrated communicationimprovements. Industrial advisory board review of reports has been complimentary and provides evidence for claimedimprovement of written communication. Drawing sets have been more complete and accurate, and posters moreinformative and professionally compiled.

The revised CDR methodology provided significantly better feedback in both breadth and depth than the more formal‘CDR Presentation’ format used previously. More time per group, more interaction between group members, advisors,and instructors, and more specific feedback has been the result. The video presentations have been a popular additionas well, with many design teams preparing highly informative and interesting videos.

Despite gains, much more improvement is possible for many students in writing mechanics, logic flow, and efficientexplanations of design process & results. A Technical Writing course might help in these areas.

Oral communication is a difficult issue. Capstone provides many opportunities for various forms of formal andinformal oral communication, but students are still maturing and some lack confidence. An increase in the numbers ofInternational students plays a part, with noticeable lack of mastery of the English language. The implementation of arotating ‘Group Chair’ responsible for project reporting helped to force participation, but the group project structure ofCapstone sometimes still permits quiet students to ‘hide’ while more outgoing personalities dominate. Workimbalance contributes to group social challenges which are a valuable portion of the course but are not alwaysconstructive.

Program growth and larger class sizes challenge the instructors and are in conflict with traditional, personalapproaches to communication improvement.

Table 4.A-10d. Addressing shop safety, equipment operational training, liability, shopaccessibility.

Assessment Issue Improvement Activity / AccomplishmentWeaknesses were identified inmanufacturing lab safety awareness andcompliance. Students required additionaltraining, while a need for increasedaccess to manufacturing lab wassimultaneously identified.

Implemented safety training.Renewed Shop Badging Protocols.Developed on-line video reviews.Created on-line testing.Increased evening and weekend shop hours.Increased number of T/A’s supervising manufacturing lab, and hired GTAfor organization.Inclusion of projects with simpler prototyping deliverables.

Discussion / Rationale: Shop Safety, Equipment Operations, and Procedures

The ME and MET programs have seen a significant increase in student numbers, with associated increases in thenumber of project groups. This growth is mirrored in increased shop and manufacturing lab demands as several dozenstudent design teams attempt to fabricate project prototypes.

We identified weaknesses in student shop skillsets, primarily driven by lack of experience & training in equipmentusage. Perhaps more importantly, a lack of awareness of and adherence to safety protocols was identified. Theseissues were of particular concern when considering the powerful welding and manufacturing machinery in thedepartmental labs. An additional concern was MSU and Instructor liability associated with students accessing MSU-owned equipment.

To address these training, safety, and liability issues, a mandatory student operations, procedures, and safety reviewwas implemented. All students - no matter what their background, -are required to attend reviews and to take and passtests confirming that they have adequate knowledge in these areas.To improve access to this information, the review material was recorded and made accessible to students via D2L, andon-line testing was implemented to ensure compliance. Several shop procedures and protocols documents are posted

60

on the course website. Every student who desires access must have signed a form stating they understand all elementsof shop safety and procedures; this document is also signed by a faculty member as an indication that the students doin-fact require access.

Accessibility improvements involved hiring and training additional T/As to staff the manufacturing lab areas afterhours and on weekends, resulting in increased access for students. A Graduate Assistant to aid with organization andtraining issues.

Badging protocols are in-place to aid supervising T/As and instructors in visual identification of students who are“checked out” to operate equipment.

Finally, a limit has been placed on the number of students who may simultaneously occupy the manufacturing lab, toprevent the T/As from becoming overwhelmed on a busy night.Evaluation of Improvement ActivityFormal procedures for shop access including sign-in, headcount limits, and badging have been helpful in controllingusers, with safety benefits. The streamlined review and testing protocols emplaced to enhance safety and reduceliability seem to have paid off in that no major injuries have recently occurred, but this is an area where diligence iskey. The manufacturing labs can be congested at times, which is a concern.

Effective supervision of the manufacturing laboratory needs in a program with rapidly growing student numbersremains a challenge. Student T/As often do not have the expertise to help with manufacturing advice, rather they serveprimarily as safety monitors. An additional shop support technician has just been hired, and it is hoped that thisindividual will provide enhanced guidance and oversight in the manufacturing laboratory area.

The needs of students requiring shop access to complete their projects have been adequately addressed in mostinstances. A few large and complex projects such as Competition Team projects are greatly challenged to completework in the available hours. The addition of several projects which do not contain complicated prototype fabricationas final deliverables has helped somewhat in reducing manufacturing laboratory time demands (ref: Table 6, below.)

Table 4.A-10e. Addressing Capstone Project management issues.Assessment Issue Improvement Activity / AccomplishmentAn overall weakness in project management wasidentified. A means to require studentimplementation of modern, effectiveimplementation of project management techniqueswas desired.

Project Management Plan

Discussion / Rationale: Project Management Issues

Capstone projects, like any engineering project, require robust management and scheduling to proceed efficiently.Lecture presentation of Project management techniques as well as course assignments in scheduling – primarily Ganttcharts and network diagrams – have long been part of the course. But Project management entails many issues beyondscheduling: Some are relatively simple, such as how the student project team does business on a daily/weekly basis.Others are more complex, such as how a group tracks, communicates, and controls configuration management of anevolving design.

To address these goals the instructors modified deliverables to include a student group-generated ProjectManagement Plan. Students must write and conform to a plan of their own composition, which varies group-by-group. Instructors encouraged groups to identify and then utilize cloud-based file sharing and other electronic meansto enhance productivity.

The plan requirements are described in the course syllabus, as follows:

Project Management.All students are expected to maintain good organization of their project work during the semester. To

61

enhance organization of efforts, a group PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN must be prepared andsubmitted. The project management plan is formal, written documentation of the scheme your group will useto ensure timely completion, control, and submission of deliverables including any and all documents,fabrication of parts, presentation of results, etc. Project plans often rely heavily on a Project Schedule inGANTT CHART form but also include other elements such as ID and schedule of the rotating group leader,configuration management details, notes regarding design decisions, etc.

Procedures or methods for handling documentation must be specified in the project management plan: Forinstance, this might include the use of Google Docs, Drop-boxes, or other methods to share fileselectronically, as agreed upon by the group.

Your project management plan might also specify use of a traditional project management elementcommonly used by engineers - the Design Journal. A design journal is a permanently bound notebook whichcontains dated entries of all your responsibilities, agreements, notes, sketches, calculations, doodles, andother records of your thoughts and activities related to your design project.

Other items contributing to good organization include saving a file or binder with printed copies of importantmeeting notes and email communications, backup disks containing computer files, etc.

The project management plan including journals and other personal documentation elements may bereviewed periodically throughout the semester as a means to enhance communication among team members,advisors, and instructors.

Evaluation of Improvement ActivityRequiring students to prepare and continually update a complete project management plan has resulted in a notableimprovement in student engagement and understanding of project management elements. The utilization of modernfile sharing methodologies such as cloud storage has been nearly universal. Student groups have demonstrated goodadherence to their own protocols for drawing and document management. The accurate scheduling of activities anddurations remains a challenge for students, as it does for many working engineers.

Table 4.A-10f. Addressing issues with course schedule, project type and count.Assessment Issue Improvement Activity / AccomplishmentAn increased opportunity for interdisciplinary workwas identified as a need. A related need was toprovide a range of project types to span the broaddiscipline of Mechanical Engineering. Finally,increased enrollments required a greater number ofprojects.

Course Scheduling changed to coincide with ECE coursemeeting times.Projects solicited from HVAC, Building Systems areas.New experimental “Mini-Projects” format tested.Internal competitions initiated.Project need advertised via University News Service, MSUFoundation, Career Fairs, IAB, etc.

Discussion / Rationale: Increased opportunities for Interdisciplinary Projects, Project variety

Many constituent groups and evaluators have identified the need for increased focus on and availability ofinterdisciplinary projects. This was only partially addressed by combining the ME and MET Capstone courses manyyears ago, and ad-hoc teaming with other disciplines was difficult do in-part to scheduling issues.

It was recognized that the most probable teaming efforts were with the Electrical and Computer EngineeringDepartment, since that field employs a similar project-based focus of design/build/test. Other disciplines such asChemical and Biological Engineering tend to focus more on process control than on projects – at least for theUniversity Capstone experience. A successful effort was undertaken to adjust course schedules to permit easierteaming with our ECE colleagues, resulting in all Capstone 1 and Capstone 2 meeting times for the two disciplinesbeing coincident. This scheduling permits students from each discipline to attend lectures from the companiondiscipline as required by their projects.

62

This interdisciplinary focus is partially expressed in our increased number of competition-based projects including theAUVSI Robo-sub, Lunar Regolith Excavator, etc. These project groups are made up of students from multipledisciplines, and are supervised by faculty from one of the participating disciplines on a rotating basis. Students arerequired to “play by the rules” of the capstone course of their advisor’s department; [i.e. If the advisor is from ECE,all students (including ECE, ME, MET) on the team are evaluated utilizing the grading rubrics from ECE Capstone.]

The general subject of Capstone projects was broadened to include subjects outside our traditional areas, such as inHVAC, Building energy systems, and trade studies for complex systems. The advantages of embracing a wider cross-section the ME field include better opportunities in these fields for graduating students, and reduced manufacturinglab demands due to the inclusion of projects without prototyped deliverables.

Increased project count needs have been addressed by communicating project sponsorship opportunities to externalsponsors at Career Fairs, through MSU Foundation, IAB, and other industrial contacts. Internal contacts have beenreached via advertising this opportunity through the MSU News service, and re-doubling recruiting efforts by theinstructors.

To provide an avenue for project sponsorship for businesses or other entities for whom the year-long 2-semesterproject timeline was too long to support their needs, a new experimental one-term project scheme has been tested.Students participating in these projects address all elements of a project including prototype fabrication and reportingin one term, providing anxious sponsors with quick results. Students will complete two of these projects to fulfill theyear-long experience desired.Evaluation of Improvement ActivityRe-scheduling ECE and ME/MET Capstone coursed to a simultaneous time block has erased one of the obstacles tointerdisciplinary projects, and using the grading rubrics from one department (that of the advisor) on these projects hashelped to standardize student performance assessment. Students engaged in these projects overwhelmingly reportfavorably on the organization in course reviews.

Expanding the topics available to Capstone students to include HVAC studies, Building System designs, and Energyinstallation trade studies – all without “testable prototypes” as deliverables – has tradeoffs. It is good to providestudents with options for tailoring their education into these areas, but the loss of the “build & then test” element is aconcern. The introduction of no-prototype projects also perturbs the Capstone 2 grading rubrics, requiring specialmilestones for students engaged in these study-only projects.

Further broadening the subject matter of Capstone projects by casting a wider net for sponsors has been somewhatsuccessful: Projects are now regularly coming to us from both on- and off-campus sponsors, as word-of-mouth as wellas more formal calls for sponsorship are circulated. A concern is that the lightly-industrialized local economy may notbe able to support continued rapid program growth with sufficient project work: This drives participation in a greaternumber of competition-style, internally-funded projects, which can be expensive to undertake.

The implementation of an internal competition project (“Battlebots”) proved highly successful in a number of areas:The participants in each of the two groups exhibited great enthusiasm for their projects, which addressed numerouscourse objectives in design process, analysis, manufacturing planning, budgeting, fabrication, and test. The finalcompetition/demonstration of capability was highly entertaining, and drew about 100 observers to the robot fightingmatch. It is anticipated that expanding this internal competition may reduce Departmental expenses associated withtraditional competition projects.

The one-term ’Mini-Project’ experiment is still in-progress, but thus far each of the two participating design teamsseem to have successfully addressed course goals. A concern is that the 2+3 credit Capstone 1 & 2 sequence wouldimply that one of these mini-projects should be of larger scope than the other, something that is difficult to gauge priorto project commencement.

63

IAB Capstone Project Reviews:

The direct assessment and evaluation of the ABET Student Outcomes (c), (e), (g), (j), (h), and (k)are done by requesting our Industrial Advisory Board (IAB) members to review our Capstoneprojects (see description in section 4.A-1E of this report). Many of these projects are multi-disciplinary in nature. Some examples of the Capstone projects where MET students worked withstudents from other majors are shown in Table 4.A-11. In addition, it should be noted that the MECapstone project class and the Mechanical Engineering Technology (MET) Capstone project classare team taught by the faculty members from each program.

Table 4.A-11. Examples of previous multidisciplinary projects in Capstone classNumber of Student from Different Majors on the

ProjectCapstone Project Name ME MET EE ECE Architecture

Robosub (yr 1) 2 2 2Robosub (yr 2) 3 1 2Robosub (yr 3) 3 1 1 1

Lunabotics (yr1) 2 2 2Lunabotics (yr2) 2 1 2Lunabotics (yr3) 4 2

Integrated SustainableBuilding Design

2 1 3

Balloon Payload Imaging 2 1 2Motorized Variable

Attenuator1 1 2

Our Capstone project is a two-semester process, divided between a first-semester paper design andanalysis and a second-semester build and test. At the end of the second semester of the Capstoneprojects, we send the following items to our IAB members for each project: (i) executive summary,(ii) technical addendum, (iii) video of the students presenting the final project. Based on thesematerials, we request the IAB members to rank our Student Outcomes (b), (d), (g), (h), (i), and (j)using the following scoring mechanism:

4. Strongly achieved: More than ready to enter the profession with a high degree of successexpected.3. Achieved: Ready to enter profession and needing minimal additional training.2. Not achieved: Ready to enter profession but needing additional training.1. Strongly not achieved: Will need substantial training when entering the profession.

The scoring sheet is included in appendix E-5. Figure 4.A-6 shows the results based on thecapstone projects completed during Spring 2012 and Fall 2012 semesters. We have set a thresholdscore of 3 or better to achieve ABET Student Outcomes (c), (e), (g), (j), (h), and (k).

64

Figure 4.A-6a. Student Outcome assessment from Capstone projects of Spring 2012 and Fall2012 reviewed by IAB

From Fig. 4.A-6a it can be seen that ABET Student Outcomes (c), (e), and (h), met the thresholdand ABET Student Outcome (g) and (j) were slightly below the threshold during the Spring 2012review. All ABET Student Outcomes except (g) were above the threshold during the Fall 2012review. Although this measurement tool shows that ABET Student Outcome (g) was below thebenchmark threshold during the spring 2012 and fall 2012 reviews, when considering these resultscollectively with other evaluation tools, we concluded that overall ABET Student Outcome (g)was fully met. The faculty is, however, committed to improving attainment of abet Outcome (g).ABET Student Outcome (g) maps directly to MET Program Outcome #6 - communication.Outcome #6 states that students should:

Demonstrate appropriate written, oral, computer, and technical skills to effectivelycommunicate with individuals having a broad range of backgrounds and experience.

Specific action taken to improve student performance related to this outcome (documented insection 4.B of this report, summarized in Table 4.A-12) include:

· Continue emphasis of M&IE Writing Outcomes (Figure 4.A-6b)· MET Lab Report Format (attached as appendix E-9) incorporated by all faculty into

appropriate writing assignments (lab reports, research reports, etc.)· Communication emphasis was re-invigorated in ETME 216 with inclusion of writing

requirements and expectation in the published lab manual.· Capstone communication processes reviewed and revised (see Table 4.A-10c: Addressing

Communications Issues).

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

4

c e g j h k

Scor

e

MET abet Outcomes

Student Outcome AssessmentCapstone Project Review by IAB

Spring 2012 Fall 2012

65

Table 4.A-12: Summary of Activity related to Outcome #6 - CommunicationTool Assessment Issue Improvement Activity / Accomplishment

StudentSurveysFacultyDiscussions(AY 10/11)

Student communicationabilities are mostly adequate,but require improvement.

Continue emphasis of M&IE Writing Outcomes. Also,formatting standards are introduced in MET 211 and MET256, as well as MET 340. Writing is also introduced in MET101. Each of these will again be reviewed in AY 2011/2012.

StudentSurveysFacultyDiscussions(AY 11/12)

Student communicationabilities are mostly adequate,but require improvement.

Communication emphasis was re-invigorated in ETME 216with publication of a lab report writing manual. Each courseinstructor with writing requirements will continue to focus oncommunication issues. Also, communication techniques andimportance will be emphasized in ETME 400.Communication issues will be reviewed in AY 2011/2012.

IAB (AY12/13)

Outcome #6 –Communication. Falls belowbenchmark level of 3.0

Review writing across the curriculum. Develop standard labreport format in ETME 216 (also work with EMAT 252professor to make this consistent). Review and reviseformatting of communications in all labs throughout thecurriculum. Review writing requirements in capstone.Standardize and communicate resources to students.

FacultyDiscussion(AY 13/14)

Communication (Outcome 6)still needs emphasis

Add co-requisite requirement of EMAT 252 to ETME 310 inorder to ensure lab report writing skills are being developedat an appropriate point in the curriculum (will be added to15/16 flowsheet)Reiterated the past strategy: Continue to focus on importanceof communication requirements. With growing enrollments,difficult for faculty to provide feedback on writtencommunication activities. Students will be encouraged toutilize the Writing Center on campus to pursue help toimprove writing. Students will continue to utilize the labwriting report manual, as well as the M&IE WritingOutcomes. Finally, the college of engineering has madeavailable a writing toolkit(http://www.coe.montana.edu/StudentWritingAid/home.html)to aid students. All instructors have agreed to include thislink in all syllabi, as well as in lab assignments. We willcontinue to monitor results, and re-evaluate as required.

66

Figure 4.A-6b: M&IE Writing Outcomes

67

Figure 4.A-6c. Student Outcome assessment from Capstone projects of Spring 2012 and Fall2012 reviewed by IAB

Figure 4.A-6c presents results that include the IAB members’ review of Capstone projects ofSpring 2013 and Spring 2014, along with the Spring and Fall 202 results. It should be noted herethat IAB meets during the fall semester of every year. So, they review the Capstone projects ofthe preceding Spring semester during their fall meeting. For the 2013 review, we sent the relevantinformation (reports, video) to the IAB members by mail and the review was done remotely andnot during their visit at MSU.

From Fig. 4.A-6c it can be seen that the scores of Student Outcome (g) (an ability to communicateeffectively) during Spring 2013 and Spring 2014 have improved from the previous two semesters.The scores during these two semesters are 3.02 and 3.67 respectively and are above our thresholdof 3.0. This suggests that the additional measures that we have implemented in our programto improve students’ communication skill are working.

4.A-4F - Fundamentals of Engineering Exam (FE Exam):

The MET faculty has set a pass rate of 75 % as an ultimate goal, as this is an important step inbecoming registered as a Professional Engineer. As a minimum benchmark, faculty expect MSUMET students to exceed the national pass rate. The data that has been provided by the NCEES isshown in figure 4.A-13. We have consistently been above the national pass rate, and are steadilymoving up in the overall pass rate (75% pass rate for MSU MET students in Fall of 2013). Wehave not been able to specific data for 2014 at this time, but we feel the pass rate will remainconsistently high.

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

4

c e g j h k

Scor

e

MET abet Outcomes

Student Outcome AssessmentCapstone Project Review by IAB

Spring 2012 Fall 2012 Spring 2013 Spring 2014

68

Figure 4.A-7: FE Exam Pass Rates-MET

In early 2009, we implemented a 1 credit FE review course to help students prepare for this exam,as it is not written specifically for MET majors. The review course focused on testing strategies,how to use the NCEES FE supplied reference handbook, as well as review of specific fundamentalsquestions from the Barron’s FE review manual. MET faculty members shared the teachingresponsibilities for the course (see Figure 4.A-8). At the end of each semester, the course wasevaluated to define improvements. As can be seen, the general trend from Fall 10 to Spring 12was moving down. To reverse this trend, we reviewed data from course evaluations, as well asthe subject areas to determine if/where students are consistently performing poorly. The datashowed that many students were taking the “other disciplines” exam verses the “mechanical”exam. Prior to the changes in the test and testing process implemented by NCEES, the METstudents passed the “General” exam at a higher rate than the “Mechanical” specific test. After thechanges, the pass rate for students taking the mechanical exam was much higher (83% pass ratefor those taking the mechanical exam, verses 20 % pass rate for those taking the other disciplinesexam) in Fall of 2012. We realized that our review course better prepared them for the mechanicalexam, so now insist that each student take that exam. Also, each professor has recorded eachreview session so students can go back and review at times other than when the course is scheduled.Since fall of 2012, our pass rates have improved significantly, up to our benchmark level of 75%.We hope for that rate to continue to improve, until the MET students are passing at a 100% level.

Since the sample size is low, and this exam is not written specifically for Mechanical EngineeringTechnology students, we do not use this as a strong assessment tool as far as curricular change isconcerned. Rather, we look at trends related to student performance in this area. We do believethat this exam gives us some insight on the successful completion of outcomes 1, 2, 4 and 7 forthe MET program. In addition, it is an important credential for students that want own their ownengineering company, or want to work for an engineering firm where professional licensing isrequired.

0.000.050.100.150.200.250.300.350.400.450.500.550.600.650.700.750.80

Spring09

Fall 09 Spring10

Fall 10 Spring11

Fall 11 Spring12

Fall 12 Spring13

Fall 13 Spring14

Fall 14

FE Exam Pass Rates: MET

MET Pass Rate National Pass Rate

69

Figure 4.A-8: ETME 401- FE Review Course Schedule

Discussion is summarized in the FE Summary document, and improvements and changes relatedto this assessment tool are documented in the yearly MET Assessment Report. Examples of theseprogram changes will also be included in section 4.B of this report.

70

4.A-4G - Placement:

The benchmark placement level is 85% for MET students. The difficulty with this data is that werely on the students to report their employment to us. The response rate is fairly low, and also onlyreflects students at graduation, or shortly after graduation. Although the data shows the placementlevel below 85% for AY 2013/2014 and again for AY 2014/2015, we believe the employment rateto be well above the reported rate. We have decided to track activity related to annual career fairsto determine if we really have a problem. For now, we will not make any changes related tocurriculum based on this data.

Table 4.A-13: Job Placement Statistics 2009-2015

4.A-4H - Student Internship Reviews

Student internship data shows excellent performance, well above the benchmark level of 3.0 –consistent with expectations.

Table 4.A-14: Internship Supervisor Evaluation Results

Academic Year(Summer, Fall, Spring) # Graduated # Replied Job/School

Placement % ofstudents whograduated

Placement % ofstudents whoreplied

AY 2009-2010 27 12 12 44.44% 100.00%AY 2010-2011 28 14 14 50.00% 100.00%AY 2011-2012 30 23 22 73.33% 95.65%AY 2012-2013 28 15 15 53.57% 100.00%AY 2013-2014 39 21 15 38.46% 71.43%AY 2014-2015 38 21 16 42.11% 76.19%

Internship Supervisor Evaluation Results:

Category AY 09/10 AY 10/11 AY 11/12 AY 12/13 AY 13/14 AY 14/15Technical Ability 3.75 4.50 3.75 4.00 4.00 4.00Planning 3.25 4.25 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.14Interpersonal Skills 4.75 4.75 4.00 3.00 4.00 4.14Decision making 4.00 4.25 3.67 4.00 4.00 3.71Creative Ability 3.75 4.50 4.00 3.00 4.00 4.14Productivity 5.00 4.50 4.25 4.00 4.00 4.43Initiative 5.00 4.50 4.00 3.00 4.00 4.57Communications 5.00 4.50 4.00 3.00 4.00 3.71Teamwork 5.00 4.75 3.67 3.00 4.00 4.43Safety 3.25 4.50 3.67 3.00 4.00 4.33Overall Evaluation 4.75 4.75 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.50

Rankings Scale: 1 Well below expectations2 Slightly below expectations

Benchmark = 3 Consistent with expectations4 Above expectations5 Far exceeds expectations

N/A no opportunity to observe

71

4.A-5: Documentation of Results

A yearly assessment report is prepared to document the current state of the program, as well as toprovide a benchmark from which to sustain improvement. These reports are stored in the METProgram Assessment files (Figure 4.A-14) with the MET Program Coordinator. Also, within theyearly report, changes made to support improvement are documented.

Figure 4.A-14: MET Program Assessment Data Files and Yearly Report Storage

These “yearly” reports are the basis of the yearly evaluation of outcomes. In addition, summarydata accumulated as a result of implementing each assessment tool are documented and stored inan assessment folder for each of the assessment tools (Figure 4.A-15).

Figure 4.A-15: Yearly Assessment Tool Data Storage

72

All of this information will be available to evaluators for review.

4.B - MET Continuous Improvement

As part of our continuous improvement activity, we continually assess the effectiveness of ourprogram and to make adjustments when necessary and appropriate. The process we utilize isdocumented in our Continuous Improvement Plan (Appendix E-2).

Ultimately, all information and data is reviewed and evaluated collectively and an assessmentmade. Using the data from the assessment tools listed in Table 4.A-3, an overall assessmentregarding the level to which outcomes are being achieved can be quantified. Quantifiable data iscompared against desired benchmark levels. Qualitative data is analyzed to assess any patterns ortrends that may lead to improvement opportunities. No minimum ‘benchmark” standards are setfor the qualitative data, but that data is filtered closely to minimize bias. After data are collectedand analyzed, necessary changes in, or changes required to meet, the overall mission, educationalobjectives, and educational outcomes can be determined. In general, evaluation of all assessmentdata collectively results in implementation of program improvements through:

· suggestions / implementation of changes to current MET Program objectives· suggestions / implementation of changes to current MET Program outcomes· suggestions / implementation of changes to survey tools (alumni, employer, student)· curriculum change activity· program information improvements (information packets, website, etc.)· course organization and content changes· new course and/or laboratory development· laboratory facilities changes· computer facilities changes· student shop improvements· departmental operations changes (administrative changes, faculty additions, etc.)

This iterative and continuous process, completed on an on-going basis and summarized yearly,will provide the feedback opportunity to implement program changes when necessary andappropriate. The Department Head and core MET Faculty are the implementation arm for reviewand change. Faculty meet regularly during the academic year (usually weekly) to consider ongoingissues, ongoing data collection, and items requiring immediate attention. At a minimum, an annualreview will be conducted at the departmental level (Faculty Retreat). The analysis, feedback, andany subsequent changes will be summarized in the program assessment notebooks, as well assummarized in the MET yearly Student Outcomes and Assessment Report.

4.B-1: AY 2009/2010 Summary of Evaluation Results

Program outcomes are being met at an appropriate level. The current program meets all therequirements set forth in ETAC of ABET Criteria. Approved changes also meet theserequirements.

73

Summary of Continuous Improvement Activity / Accomplishments – Outcomes Only

Students rate themselves above the benchmark of 4.0 for each outcome (average 4.4/5.0).Placement rates remain high (100%). FE exam pass rates were 50 % (national pass rate was 42%)for fall 2009 and 71% (national pass rate was 48%) for spring 2010. The student pass rate wasabove the national pass rate in the fall and spring, but below the 75% benchmark level. Internshipevaluation comments were positive (4.75/5.0 overall rating) and well above the 3.0 benchmark.

Table 4.B-1: Summary of Continuous Improvement Activity AY 2009/2010AssessmentTool

Assessment Issue Improvement Activity / Accomplishment

FE Exam Below 75% pass rate (Avg.for year = 60.5%)

No curricular changes recommended. Continue to require allstudents take this exam. Continue to emphasize preparation inFE Review course MET 401).

IAB Curriculum should includemore application of GD&Ttopics, more guidance forunderstanding FEAapplications, and moreexposure to the link betweenmanufacturing andeconomics.

MET faculty worked with MET 119 and MET 211 course tobetter integrate GD&T and manufacturability topics into thecurriculum. An introduction is included in MET 119, with moreadvanced level discussion and application assignments in MET211. These topics are also being integrated into MET 448 –Design for Manufacturing and Tooling. MET 303 will focus onFEA application topics to provide MET students a betterunderstanding.

IAB The MIE Department shouldconsider a more active role inpreparing the studentsfor the FE exam, such asguiding them in which examto take and organizingreview sessions.

MET faculty will develop and implement a 1 credit electivecourse called FE Review and offer it in Fall semesters.

FacultyDiscussions

Course Review (MET 340) Review of topics identified that dynamics was not getting thecoverage desired. Impacts were being seen in analysiscapabilities in MET 456 and MET 303. Determination – add (1)credit to MET 340 – Mechanisms to focus on dynamics topics.

FacultyDiscussions

Course Review (ME 454) Review of topics showed a good emphasis on basic topics.Discussion with industry folks from the Montana ASHRAEsenior section point toward good growth in this field. Theywould be more inclined to offer entry-level jobs to folks withmore advanced training in HVAC topics. K. Amende will workwith the ASHRAE folks to develop an advanced HVAC courseto be offered spring 2011.

StudentSurveys

Student would like to seeCAD use integratedthroughout the curriculum tomake them more prepared toutilize it in the courses later inthe program (capstone).

MET faculty agreed to incorporate SolidWorks based designassignments into the following junior level courses (MET 341 –Machine Design, MET 310 – Machining and Safety) and MET449 in the senior year. In addition, the capstone design coursewill continue to require the use of SolidWorks.

MiscActivity

Course Outcomes ReviewCI PlanProgram Objectives ReviewFacilities Review

All course outcomes were reviewed and approved.MET CI Plan was reviewed and updated.Program Outcomes and Objectives were reviewed and approved.Facilities review and re-organization is a continuous processrelated to program and department growth.

74



Summary of Continuous Improvement Activity / Accomplishments

Students rate themselves above the benchmark of 4.0 for each outcome (average 4.4/5.0).Placement rates remain high (100%). FE exam pass rates were 56 % (national pass rate was 52%)for fall 2010 and 54% (national pass rate was 44%) for spring 2011. The student pass rate wasabove the national pass rate in the fall and spring, but below the 75% benchmark level. Internshipevaluation comments were positive (4.75/5.0 overall rating) and well above the 3.0 benchmark.

Table 4.B-2: Summary of Continuous Improvement Activity AY 2010/2011Tool Assessment Issue Improvement Activity / Accomplishment

StudentSurveysFacultyDiscussions

Student communication abilitiesare mostly adequate, but requireimprovement.

Continue emphasis of M&IE Writing Outcomes. Also,formatting standards are introduced in MET 211 (CAD) andMET 256, as well as MET 340 and MET 341. Writing is alsointroduced in MET 101. Assessment rubrics for writingassignments, based on M&IE writing outcomes, will beimplemented in MET 341. Each of these will again bereviewed in AY 2011/2012.

StudentSurveys

Students need help in preparingfor the job hunt.

Job hunt activities, such as resume writing, portfoliodevelopment, letter writing, etc., will be added to ETME 400 inFall 2011.

StudentSurveys

Multiple project assignments atthe end of senior year semestersinterferes with capstone time.

Work to implement course projects that can be incorporatedinto capstone activities. Or, revisit outcomes of coursesrequiring a term project and try to develop a strategy that willallow more capstone time.

StudentSurveysFacultyDiscussionsFE Examreview

Student’s math abilities fadeafter math courses complete – asevidenced in struggles to relearnfor the FE Exam.

Work to incorporate relevant math activities throughout theMET program. Also, work with the math department to ensurethat practical, applied activities are incorporated in the M 165and M 166 courses.

FE Exam Below 75% pass rate (Avg. foryear = 55%)

No curricular changes recommended. Continue to require allstudents take this exam. Continue to emphasize preparation inFE Review course MET 401). Encourage/insist students takethe ME specific exam verses the “General or Other” exam.

FacultyDiscussions

IABReview

Enrollment increases havenecessitated staffing planning tobetter meet demand.Department integrated staffingplan does not exist

Prepared a MET Faculty Staffing Proposal to aid in courseoffering planning. This was discussed with the departmenthead, then with the dean. No action has been taken by thedean at this point.

FacultyDiscussions

MET as a 2nd Major This program is becoming more popular – with our firstgraduate this year. Revision completed and programrequirements documented and shared with all MET and MEfaculty.

75

Tool Assessment Issue Improvement Activity / AccomplishmentFacultyDiscussions

Curriculum Changes Completed paperwork for MET 460 – AdvancedInstrumentation and Test (although we are not able to offeruntil staffing issues resolved) and MET 499 – HVAC II. Thiscourse offered Spring 2011 and will become a regularProfessional Elective offering in the spring semester.

FacultyDiscussionsIABReview

Lab Space and use of equipmentis a problem – due to increasedenrollment in MET and ME

Completed manufacturing space reorganizationBegan planning and implemented EPS 008 spacereorganization. Looking into future lab equipmentrequirements and related space issues.

FacultyDiscussions

Common Course NumberingInitiative

Implemented new course numbers in support of the commoncourse numbering initiative

FacultyDiscussions

Course Reviews completed Reviewed ME 360, ME 201, and ME 324. Due to changesrecommended by the ME curriculum committee, that thesecourses no longer met the requirements of the METcurriculum. Therefore, ETME 360 will be developed andtaught by MET faculty (Spring 2012), and ETME 201 will beresurrected and taught by MET faculty (Fall 2011). We alsorecommended that ME 324 be taught both fall and springsemesters beginning Fall of 2012.

FacultyDiscussionsStudentSurveys

Course Reviews identified for2011/2012

MET faculty will review the following courses in AY2011/2012: EMEC 103, ETME 311, EELE 250, EGEN 325,EGEN 350.

FacultyDiscussions

Aerospace Minor Revised and approved for MET students.

FE Exam Pass rate is below 75 % goal.Pass rate is only 44 % forstudents taking Mechanicalspecific exam, while pass ratewas 82% for those taking “otherdisciplines” exam.

Encourage students to sign-up for the “other disciplines” exam.Continue to offer ETME 401 – FE Exam Prep course everyspring semester.Incorporate relevant math activities throughout curriculum tobetter prepare students for the FE Exam.

DepartmentIAB

Recommend adding acomposites manufacturing lab tomaintain currency in advancedmaterials manufacturing

Work with ME faculty to identify equipment and labrequirements (resources).

DepartmentIAB

6-month Co-Op experiences forMET students are difficultbecause most courses are onlyoffered once per year.

MET staffing and course offering plans are detailed in theMET Faculty Staffing Proposal. Although the process forobtaining a Co-op is in place, scheduling issues make this adifficult prospect for MET students. In addition, industryopportunities are not extensive. MET faculty will continue towork with industry to provide more opportunities for students –both through internships and co-ops.

DepartmentIAB

Recommend CAD programs toME program to include newRevit CAD program includingfocus on GD&T and DFMA.

MET program has implemented successful CAD course flow,and has recently added introduction to Revit in MET 499 –HVAC II course. GD&T and DFMA are already emphasizedheavily in MET program. Many ME’s have taken advantage ofthese courses and the first MET CAD course will become thefirst CAD course for ME students beginning fall semester2011.

MiscActivity

Course Outcomes ReviewCI PlanProgram Objectives ReviewFacilities Review

All course outcomes were reviewed and approved.MET CI Plan was reviewed and updated.Program Outcomes and Objectives were reviewed andapproved.

76

Tool Assessment Issue Improvement Activity / AccomplishmentFacilities review and re-organization is a continuous processrelated to program and department growth.




Students rate themselves above the benchmark of 4.0 for each outcome (average 4.36/5.0).Placement rates remain high (95%). FE exam pass rates were 50 % (national pass rate was 43%)for fall 2011 and 46% (national pass rate was 52%) for spring 2012. The student pass rate wasabove the national pass rate in the fall, but below in the spring. It was also below the 75%benchmark level. Internship evaluation comments were positive (4.00/5.0 overall rating) andwell above the 3.0 benchmark.

Table 4.B-3: Summary of Continuous Improvement Activity AY 2011/2012Tool Assessment Issue Improvement Activity / AccomplishmentStudent SurveysFacultyDiscussions

Student communicationabilities are mostlyadequate, but requireimprovement.

Communication emphasis was re-invigorated in ETME 216with publication of a lab report writing manual. Each courseinstructor with writing requirements will continue to focus oncommunication issues. Also, communication techniques andimportance will be emphasized in ETME 400. Communicationissues will be reviewed in AY 2011/2012.

Student Surveys Students need help inpreparing for the job hunt.

Job hunt activities, such as resume writing, portfoliodevelopment, letter writing, etc., were added to ETME 400 inFall 2011. More emphasis will be placed on job searchstrategies in Fall 2012. Students polled at the end of Fall 2011felt they were adequately prepared for the job hunt.

Student Surveys Multiple projectassignments at the end ofsenior year semestersinterferes with capstonetime.

Several courses implemented “optional projects” designed to“piggyback” on capstone projects. Upon instructor approval,ETME 415, ETME 303, ETME 410 projects can all becapstone related.

Student SurveysFacultyDiscussionsFE Examreview

Student’s math abilities fadeafter math courses complete– as evidenced in strugglesto relearn for the FE Exam.

Work to incorporate relevant math activities throughout theMET program. Also, work with the math department to ensurethat practical, applied activities are incorporated in the M 165and M 166 courses. Instructors are continually reminded toimplement more math-related activities into courses.

Student SurveysFacultyDiscussions

Students should have abroader-based Joiningcourse, verses a purewelding course.

The curriculum committee modified the current ETME 311Welding Technology course to become a “Joining Processes”course with more engineering emphasis. The welding methodsbeing taught were revised, mechanical fastening techniques,along with adhesive bonding were added.

Student Surveys EGEN 325 – EngineeringEcon Course

Students felt the econ course was not relevant anymore.Worked with EGEN 325 instructor to resolve issues. Coursewas reviewed and upgraded in Spring 2012, with a newinstructor, and continues to be updated and upgraded.

77

Tool Assessment Issue Improvement Activity / AccomplishmentFacultyDiscussions

IAB Review

Enrollment increases havenecessitated staffingplanning to better meetdemand.

Prepared a MET Faculty Staffing Proposal created last yearresulted in the addition of one TTF position. A faculty searchwas conducted and an additional faculty member added. ANTT faculty search was also completed and a new facultymember hired. Although this will result in a reduced teachingload to start with, it will be an aid in the future. This plan willbe maintained in the future and updated if/as student numberskeep growing.

FacultyDiscussionsStudent Surveys

Faculty would like to offer acourse in industrialprocessesStudents would like to havea course in industrialprocesses

A course outline has been developed for a course in industrialprocessing to include PLC’s, Motors, PreventativeMaintenance, Facilities Management, etc.

FacultyDiscussions

MET Information Sheets Information sheets were reviewed and updated and preparedfor distribution.

FacultyDiscussions

Course Reviews EGEN 324 – Applied Thermo will be offered fall and springsemesters to help with student schedules and accommodategrowth.ETME 360 – Measurements and Instrumentation Applicationsoffered spring 2012. Will monitor ABET outcome c to see ifstudents perceive they are getting better.ETME 201 offered and working well for MET students.

DepartmentIAB

Commendations andRecommendations

Recommendations from IAB were reviewed and addressed (see“Action Items from IAB 2011 Meeting” in Assessment folder)

FacultyDiscussionsIAB Review

Lab Space and use ofequipment is a problem –due to increased enrollmentin MET and ME

Looking into future lab equipment requirements and relatedspace issues.

FE Exam MET Pass Rates Pass rates fell below the desired 75%. Faculty will review thecontent of the exam changes and develop a recommendationfor students taking the exam in Fall 2012. Recommendationswill be incorporated into ETME 401.

Placement MET job placement No concerns. MET graduates continue to be able to secureemployment upon graduation.

StudentInternshipAssessment

Evaluation of Student InternPerformance

Students performed at or above expectations in all categories.No changes recommended.

Misc Activity Course Outcomes ReviewCI PlanProgram Objectives ReviewFacilities Review

All course outcomes were reviewed and approved.MET CI Plan was reviewed and updated.Program Outcomes and Objectives were reviewed andapproved.Facilities review and re-organization is a continuous processrelated to program and department growth.



78


Students rate themselves above the benchmark of 4.0 for each outcome (average 4.43/5.0).Placement rates remain high (100%). FE exam pass rates were 55 % (national pass rate was 47%)for fall 2012 and 58% (national pass rate was 50%) for spring 2013. The student pass rate wasabove the national pass rate in the fall and spring. It was also below the 75% benchmark level.Internship evaluation comments were positive (4.00/5.0 overall rating) and well above the 3.0benchmark.

Table 4.B-4: Summary of Continuous Improvement Activity AY 2012/2013Tool Assessment Issue Improvement Activity / AccomplishmentCapstoneReview

Outcome #6 not makingimprovement. Falls belowbenchmark (2.71/4.0) inF12 vs. (2.84/4.0) in Sp 12.Benchmark (3.0/4.0)

Continue to focus on importance of communicationrequirements. With growing enrollments, difficult for faculty toprovide feedback on written communication activities. Studentswill be encouraged to utilize the Writing Center on campus topursue help to improve writing. Students will continue toutilize the lab writing report manual, as well as th M&IEWriting Outcomes. Finally, the college of engineering hasmade available a writing toolkit(http://www.coe.montana.edu/StudentWritingAid/home.html) toaid students. All instructors have agreed to include this link inall syllabi, as well as in lab assignments. We will continue tomonitor results, and re-evaluate as required.

StudentSurveysFacultyDiscussionsIAB

Students having difficultygetting courses to fit theirschedule. Would like forthem to be offered multiplesemesters.

Bottleneck courses were identified and extra section requestssubmitted to add these to the schedule. Will start by addingETEM 310, ETME 311, and ETME 203 both semesters.Faculty support will be added as necessary. A MET coursesection addition plan, along with a concurrent staffing plan willbe developed.

StudentSurveys

Students feel Outcome #3needs improvement. Theywould like moredesign/build exposurebefore capstone, as well asmore training onapplications of tolerancesand fits. In addition, theywould like more exposureto SolidWorks design.

ETME 415 – Design for Manufacturing will be modified toinclude a design/build project in the lab portion. Emphasis willbe placed on design for manufacturability, design for assembly,and application of fits and tolerances, as well as GD&T.ETME 341 – Machine Design will implement a SolidWorksdesign/build project in the lab as well.

IAB Outcome #6 –Communication. Fallsbelow benchmark level of3.0

Review writing across the curriculum. Develop standard labreport format in ETME 216 (also work with EMAT 252professor to make this consistent). Review and reviseformatting of communications in all labs throughout thecurriculum. Review writing requirements in capstone.Standardize and communicate resources to students.

IAB Outcome #7 – ProfessionalResponsibility. IABsuggests better careeradvising for students sothey have a better idea ofwhat they will do aftergraduation.

ETME 400 – Senior Seminar was revised to include allelements of preparation for graduation and the job search. Inaddition, more industry speakers were invited to talk withstudents.

IAB Significant student growth,leading to concerns of

Prepare a resource “strategic plan” to address issues of labequipment availability and maintenance. Also include resource

79

Tool Assessment Issue Improvement Activity / Accomplishmentquality in the curriculum.Also, lab space andresource issues need to beaddressed.

requirements (equipment and faculty). Develop strategies toimplement the plan.

IAB Curriculum Review The IAB members reviewed and discussed the METcurriculum. Comments were very positive. They felt we wereteaching the topics that would lead to a well-roundedapplications oriented engineer. Wanted us to ensure thatstudents understood the importance of economics inengineering, thus to continue requiring the economics course.Comments from the IAB included “You have excellentprofessors, a good curriculum with great classes, and greatadvising”.

FE Exam MET Pass Rates Recommend/Insist that all students take the “Mechanical”Specific exam.Have instructors record presentations (using Camtasia software)and post to the students so they can review each review sessionon their own time.

Placement MET job placement No concerns. MET graduates continue to be able to secureemployment upon graduation.


Evaluation of StudentIntern Performance


Misc Activity Course Outcomes ReviewCI PlanProgram ObjectivesReviewFacilities Review




Summary of Continuous Improvement Activity / AccomplishmentsStudents rate themselves above the benchmark of 4.0 for each outcome (average 4.19/5.0).Placement rates remain high (71.5%). FE exam pass rates were 75 % (national pass rate was 55%)for fall 2013 data was not available for spring 2014. The student pass rate was above the nationalpass rate in the fall, and met the 75% benchmark level. Internship evaluation comments werepositive (4.00/5.0 overall rating) and well above the 3.0 benchmark.

Table 4.B-5: Summary of Continuous Improvement Activity AY 2013/2014Tool Assessment Issue Improvement Activity / AccomplishmentStudentSurveys

Outcome #3:further understanding ofconducting tests andmeasurements

Although evaluation of this criteria places it in the “met”category, we will continue to monitor success of ETME 360.

80

Tool Assessment Issue Improvement Activity / AccomplishmentStudentSurveys

more classes with practicaland useful labs and designprojects

All instructors will integrate design projects throughout thecurriculum. Design/build activities continue to be required inETME 341 and ETM 415, as well as in ETME 410.

StudentSurveys

more emphasis onprofessional, ethicalresponsibilities, as well associetal impact

Will look into methods of successfully integrating this into thecurriculum. Specifically, this topic will be emphasized inETME 400 in fall 2014.

StudentSurveys

more basics in 2D drafting,more drafting (designcommunication)

This topic will be re-emphasized in EMEC 103 for all studentsin the MIE curriculum. Will consider course changes to includemore specific course work. Also, this topic is extensivelycovered in ETME 203. Will continue to emphasize here. Willlook into adding a drafting text (or portion of one) to EMEC103 that will also be required in ETME 203. Will continue torequire use of proper drafting standards throughout curriculum –for example, in ETME 341 for the shaft design project, and forseveral projects in ETME 415. Will consider development ofprogressive examples to make available to all students.

StudentSurveys

an advanced "designcommunications" coursewith solidworks to advancethe capabilities - especiallyto use in marketing andsales

Will look into course development in this area.

FE Exam MET Pass Rates Pass rate met the benchmark of 75% for the fall exam. Willcontinue to monitor the results and encourage instructorsproviding the review sessions to continue to improve the postedpresentations, as these seem to have provided a boost to studentperformance.

IAB Curricular Review Recommended addition of commercial computer program tocourse sequence. Trace/Trane will be added to ETME 422 –HVAC I in Fall 2015. Experience with this program willcontinue to be expanded in HVAC II for those students decidingto take it. REVIT is also introduced in HVAC II course.

IAB Equipment and Facilities Recommend establishment of a sustainable method forobtaining and maintaining equipment – sustainable fundingsource. MIE department head to pursue this with thefoundation, as well as review current funding methods andpossible solutions.

IAB Curriculum Review A Manufacturing of Composites course with a lab component(EMAT 463)-offered Spring 2014. This was developed throughthe following grant: Development of a Manufacturing ofComposite Materials Course at MSU-Bozeman, NASA EPSCoR,$49,490, 1/2/13 to 12/31/13 (D. Miller, PI; K. Cook, Co-PI,Robb Larson, Co-PI) and was the result of IAB input from2010.

FacultyDiscussion(AY 13/14)

Communication (Outcome6) still needs emphasis

Add co-requisite requirement of EMAT 252 to ETME 310 inorder to ensure lab report writing skills are being developed atan appropriate point in the curriculum (will be added to 15/16flowsheet)Reiterated the past strategy: Continue to focus on importance ofcommunication requirements. With growing enrollments,difficult for faculty to provide feedback on writtencommunication activities. Students will be encouraged toutilize the Writing Center on campus to pursue help to improve

81

Tool Assessment Issue Improvement Activity / Accomplishmentwriting. Students will continue to utilize the lab writing reportmanual, as well as the M&IE Writing Outcomes. Finally, thecollege of engineering has made available a writing toolkit(http://www.coe.montana.edu/StudentWritingAid/home.html) toaid students. All instructors have agreed to include this link inall syllabi, as well as in lab assignments. We will continue tomonitor results, and re-evaluate as required.

FacultyDiscussion

Program growth (overallquality of courses due tolarge section sizes)

Developed a strategic plan to address growth issues andpresented to MIE dept. head and COE dean. Approval given tohire one NTT faculty member on a 2-year contract and one part-time NTT faculty member on and as-needed basis.

CapstoneReview

Access to build facility andsafety in use of equipment

Training, access, safety, and usage of machine details developedand implemented.

Placement MET job placement(71.5%) below thebenchmark level of 85%.

Will continue to monitor. Reporting from students seems to bea big issue. We feel that employment rate is much higher asMET graduates continue to be able to secure employment upongraduation. No changes recommended based on this data point.


Evaluation of StudentIntern Performance


Misc Activity Course Outcomes ReviewCI PlanProgram ObjectivesReviewFacilities Review





Students rate themselves above the benchmark of 4.0 for each outcome (average 4.15/5.0).Placement rates remain high (76%). FE exam data was not available, but students self-reportingseem to be passing. Internship evaluation comments were positive (4.50/5.0 overall rating) andwell above the 3.0 benchmark.

Table 4.B-6: Summary of Continuous Improvement Activity AY 2014/2015Tool Assessment Issue Improvement Activity / AccomplishmentStudent Surveys

Alumni Surveys

Require betterunderstanding of electricalsystems

Will review topics of EELE 360 and work with EE departmentto better align those with MET needs. Will incorporate Motorsinto ETME 341 – Machine Design. Will incorporate controlsinto ETME 462 – Processing and Production course (P.E.)

Student Surveys Hold group members moreindividually accountable

Will discuss in faculty meetings and address strategies toimprove the accountability of students in group work.

82

Tool Assessment Issue Improvement Activity / AccomplishmentStudent Surveys Develop a mentoring plan

for students – withprofessional folks.

Will address this in the upcoming IAB meeting.

Surveys Outcomes No activity required, as all outcomes were evaluated above thebenchmark level of 4.0/5.0 (avg = 4.36/5.0)

· However, alumni commented that the program couldbenefit from more of the following:

· Project management training· Leadership training· Interdisciplinary activities· Engineering graphical communications· More HVAC industry focus· More advanced 3D modeling exposure· More exposure to design of weldments· More exposure to industry standards· More exposure to quality management systems

We will discuss these recommendations in our faculty meetingsand implement changes as necessary

FE Exam MET Pass Rates Data not available for MET students at this time. Will continueto monitor, but feel the MET’s are being successful in thisexam.

IAB Curricular Review Recommended that the department / program continue to offerrequired courses both semesters, while maintaining the “right”student numbers in each course. MET has implemented acourse section addition plan that has successfully addressedthis issue.

IAB Curriculum Review Recommended adding a lab technician to the MET faculty.This has been approved, and a technician hired to begin July 1,2015.

IAB Capstone Review “The board is very impressed with the improved quality of thecapstone reports, kudos to the faculty and students.”

IAB Equipment and Facilities Recommend establishment of a sustainable method forobtaining and maintaining equipment – sustainable fundingsource. MIE department head to pursue this with thefoundation, as well as review current funding methods andpossible solutions.

FacultyDiscussion

Design for ManufacturingCurriculum Review

Developed a proposal for improving this part of the curriculum(plan stored in faculty discussions folder). Also securedfunding to purchase new equipment to separate the basiceducational manufacturing equipment from the more powerfuland advanced equipment. Currently developing a“product/project based” lab experience for all MET and MEstudents to learn this equipment, as well as design/build topics.This will be piloted in Fall 2015.

FacultyDiscussion

Overall Curriculum Review Major portion of the faculty meeting time dedicated to coursereviews. All MET controlled courses were reviewed, as wellas all topics from all technical content required courses. Asummary of the results of this activity will be available toABET reviewers on site.

FacultyDiscussion

Program growth (overallquality of courses due tolarge section sizes)

Continue to implement the strategic plan. One new NTTfaculty member hired in Fall 2014, plus one part-time facultymember added in Fall 2014. We will successfully offer allrequired courses both fall and spring semesters. This eases

83

Tool Assessment Issue Improvement Activity / Accomplishmentstudent scheduling concerns, lowers class and lab section sizes,and maintains quality.

CapstoneReview

Outcomes See Capstone Reviews Summary in Capstone Review portionof Section 4.A-4.

Placement MET job placement (76%)below the benchmark levelof 85%.

Will continue to monitor. Reporting from students seems to bea big issue. We feel that employment rate is much higher asMET graduates continue to be able to secure employment upongraduation. No changes recommended based on this datapoint.


Evaluation of Student InternPerformance


Misc Activity Course Outcomes ReviewCI PlanProgram Objectives ReviewFacilities Review


4.C – Additional Information

In summary, the maintenance of our high quality MET program revolves around the use of acontinuous improvement process. The Continuous Improvement Plan for the MechanicalEngineering Technology (MET) program at Montana State University exists in written and digitalform, is up to date and in work, and is maintained by the MET Program Coordinator. It is includedas Appendix E-2 of this document. This plan describes the process of assessment, schedule, andresponsibility for collection and evaluation of data, describes the main assessment tools, as well asthe evaluation process. Assessment is an ongoing, iterative, continuous process, thus, evaluationof the data happens as an iterative process also. As such, the MET faculty meet as required on anon-going basis throughout the year (generally weekly), as well as twice per year at faculty retreats,to discuss program issues. Much of this discussion supports program assessment. As data arecollected, summarized, and evaluated, necessary program changes required to meet the overallmission, educational objectives, and educational outcomes of the program can be determined. Thisiterative and continuous process will provide the feedback opportunity to implement programchanges when or if needed. Ultimately, all information and assessment data is reviewed andevaluated collectively and an assessment made. Using the data from the assessment tools, anoverall assessment regarding the level to which outcomes are being achieved can be determined.Quantifiable data is compared against desired benchmark levels. Qualitative data is analyzed toassess any patterns or trends that may lead to improvement opportunities. No minimum‘benchmark” standards are set for the qualitative data, but that data is filtered closely to minimizebias. After data are collected and analyzed, necessary changes in, or changes required to meet, theoverall mission, educational objectives, and educational outcomes can be determined. In general,evaluation of all assessment data collectively results in implementation of program improvementsthrough:

· suggestions / implementation of changes to current MET program objectives· suggestions / implementation of changes to current MET program outcomes

84

· suggestions / implementation of changes to survey tools (alumni, employer, student)· curriculum change activity· program information improvements (information packets, website, etc.)· course organization and content changes· new course and/or laboratory development· laboratory facilities changes· computer facilities changes· student shop improvements· departmental operations changes (administrative changes, faculty additions, etc.)

This iterative and continuous process will provide the feedback opportunity to implement programchanges when or if needed. The Department Head and core MET Faculty are the implementationarm for review and change. Faculty meet regularly during the academic year (usually weekly) toconsider ongoing issues, ongoing data collection, and items requiring immediate attention. At aminimum, an annual review will be conducted at the departmental level (Faculty Retreat). Theanalysis, feedback, and any subsequent changes will be summarized in the program assessmentfiles, as well as summarized in the MET yearly Assessment Summary.

All data utilized in the assessment of our program will be available to program evaluators asnecessary during the site visit.

Documents

CRITERION 2. PROGRAM EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES · The educational objectives for the MET program were developed as part of the MET Continuous Improvement Plan (appendix E-2). The process