ENGR - Portland Community College

Engineering Transfer Program

Program Review Final Report Issued October 14, 2011

By ENGR Program SAC members

Mike Farrell

Greg Gerstner

Mike Kies

Gregg Meyer

Tara Nelson

Todd Sanders

Abstract:

During 2010-11 the ENGR SAC conducted a review of the Engineering Transfer program

consistent with the methodology set forth in the PCC Program Review Guide. As a result of

this work, assessment of the current state of the program is determined, and a strategic

plan for program improvements is suggested.

In summary, the program serves the community well but is challenged by an increase of

66% in the Student Full-time Equivalent enrollment (from 63 FTE to 103 FTE in four years),

the loss of full-time faculty, and student academic advising demands. The details of the

review outcomes and plans for improvement are contained in the body of this report.

2

Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 3

2. Curriculum ............................................................................................................................... 4

3. Needs of Students and the Community: Are they changing? ............................................... 10

4. Faculty .................................................................................................................................... 11

5. Facilities and Support ............................................................................................................ 12

7. Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 14

8. Appendices ............................................................................................................................ 18

A ENGR Advising Guides ............................................................................................................ 18

B Core Outcome Mapping Matrix ............................................................................................. 32

C Assessment- Professional Competency ................................................................................. 33

D Assessment- Engineering Annual Report for Assessment of Outcomes ................................ 35

E Assessment- Communication ................................................................................................. 37

F Assessment Worksheet .......................................................................................................... 39

G Survey of ENGR Students ........................................................................................................ 41

H Full-Time vs. Part-Time IFTE for 2010-11 ................................................................................ 58

Tables

Table 1: Summary Of Course Changes ............................................................................................ 4

Table 2: College Core Outcome Assessment Results ...................................................................... 9

3

1. Introduction

Portland Community College offers freshman and sophomore courses in chemical, civil,

computer, electrical, environmental, industrial, manufacturing and mechanical engineering

tailored to the needs of students transferring to Oregon State University, Oregon Institute of

Technology, Portland State University, University of Portland, George Fox University and

Washington State University-Vancouver. We also prepare students interested in other

disciplines or those planning to transfer to out-of-state schools.

The Engineering (ENGR) department SAC goals are to offer financial value, preparation for

university-level coursework, personal attention and encouragement, career guidance, industry

exposure, technical communication skills, and a curiosity for how and why the objects in our

world behave the way they do together with the tools to help make them better.

The Engineering SAC acknowledges the need for upgrading our own learning environment

including lab equipment, computers, and software. In addition to these tangible upgrades, we

are also seeking other methods of adapting our program to the changing needs of our students,

fluctuations in our economy, increasing expectations of accrediting agencies, and strengthening

values of PCC.

In conjunction with this program review, the Engineering SAC is providing cause for assessing

what we are doing well, where our efforts may be improved, and opportunities for taking on

new endeavors. Student survey feedback and informal conversations with our university

partners indicate our program is performing strongly. Analyzing transfer partners’ changes,

national trends, new context, perspective, and assessments has led us on a path towards

altering course sequences, changing curriculum plans and in one case discontinuing a class.

Furthermore, from a program perspective, we also see new opportunities such as encouraging

students to complete an Associate of Science Transfer degree (AS) at PCC before they fully

transition to university study. We believe this would lead to students gaining intermediate

4

employability and earning a sense of personal achievement, along with PCC benefiting from

improving upon its completion metrics in a very quantifiable manner.

2. Curriculum

The Engineering department’s first two years of engineering curriculum are very similar to the

first two years at every College and University in the US. The first years are purposely designed

to provide students with basic skills and analytical tools needed to solve the more complex

problems of the third and forth years of study. While the “core” curriculum of the first and

second years remains nearly constant, changes at PCC are being made based on transfer

partners changes, national trends, new context, perspective, and assessments. The list of these

changes at PCC is summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Summary Of Course Changes

Course Change Reason Status

ENGR171/

271

New digital sequence Complete freshman and

sophomore engineering options

at PSU

� Currently taught

� ENGR 171 approved

� ENGR 272 listed as

experimental, approval this year

ENGR221/

222/223

Reorder Electrical Circuits

Sequence and remove

Signals and Systems

Track PSU and OSU course

offerings

� Implemented

� New CCOGs approved by

Curriculum Committee

ENGR221/

222/223

Increase Matlab

component

Address a skill shortage of our

students going to PSU

� Implemented

ENGR222/

223

Multi-week lab projects Give classes a real world feel

and increase depth of

understanding

� Implemented

ENGR212 Introduce conceptual

problems and projects

Provide real world problems and

concepts

� Implemented

ENGR101 Added sustainability to

curriculum

Introduce students to real world

problems

� Change is currently implemented

ENGR275 Remove course Obsolete by ENGR271 � Needs to be done

5

Over the last few years the courses required for Electrical Engineers have undergone major

revisions. There have been new courses added and course content changed. ENGR 271, Digital

Logic Design, is a new course. With the addition of these courses, PCC now offers all first and

second year engineering courses for students planning to attend PSU or OSU.

The complete electrical circuits sequence was reordered, ENGR221/222/223, Electrical Circuits

I/II/III. This change was driven by changes made at PSU to realign their sophomore circuit’s

courses with the national trends. This change is a boon for PCC students as it allows us to more

closely match PSU and OSU in these courses and it allows more instructor/student contact time

for students to comprehend and learn to work with the basic circuit analysis tools that they will

need going forward.

Recent informal student surveys revealed a weakness in the Electrical Engineering courses. PSU

has an introduction course that focuses exclusively on the Matlab programming language.

PCC's introduction class does not have as heavy a focus on Matlab. Increasing PCC's focus on

Matlab in this class would help the Electrical Engineering students but would cause

misalignment with the Civil and Mechanical Engineering curriculums. It was decided to address

this problem in ENGR221/222/223. This sequence of classes now has an increased focus on

using Matlab to solve electrical problems.

Systems-level thinking is integrated into ENGR222/223. In this sequence the weekly lab

experiment has been replaced with more comprehensive and complex projects. The students

still have weekly lab time. However, now the experiment doesn't end in one week. The

students must build each week until a project is completed and a complete problem solved.

Student evaluations from ENGR222 indicate that they enjoyed the new lab projects. Most

students felt that they now had a better understanding of the topics. They also reported that

the projects are more interesting to work on than just weekly experiments that they typically

just tried to finish.

Application problems are introduced in ENGR212, Dynamics. These problems are designed to

place the field of dynamics in real world situations. Students are still being asked to solve

6

traditional dynamics problems. However, to understand to the dynamics problem the student

must first contextualize the problem to determine what dynamics rules need to be applied.

Both of these changes were made to encourage to students to think beyond the problem at

hand. We can encourage students to think/look outside the box and believe by doing so they

will be more complete engineers.

Engineering curriculums are extremely focused. Many of the college core outcomes are

routinely addressed in engineering by the very nature of the course. For a complete list how

individual courses rank see Appendix B. The ENGR courses at PCC are laying the groundwork

and providing students with the basic skills needed to become engineers. All of our courses

require a large amount of critical thinking. They also provide the fundamentals that will be

used in the professional world, and thus are rich in professional competence.

Engineers communicate with each other in using very specific engineering terminology. ENGR

courses at PCC provide students with the ability to communicate with other engineers using the

correct terminology. Many of our courses also have lab-based components that require reports

and presentations. These forms of communication not only strengthen communication skills

with other engineers but they also cultivate skills necessary for communication with other non-

engineers that will be encountered in the work place.

We recognize that cultural awareness is important. Most of our courses are extremely

technical and do not focus on cultural awareness. Instructors are sensitive to the fact that

engineering continues to be a white/male dominated profession, and make efforts to create

classroom environments that are safe and welcoming for under-represented groups. Changes

are being made to ENGR262, Manufacturing Process, to include some discussion on cultural

awareness: specifically, how cultural aspects can positively or negatively affect procurement

and outsourcing operations.

Self-reflection and Community and Environmental Responsibility are addressed in ENGR101.

This course is designed as an introduction to engineering. It provides students with information

7

about the different engineering disciplines and types of problems that engineers solve.

Students are encouraged to use this information while deciding which discipline is correct for

them. While introducing students to engineering problem solving, the problem of climate

change is examined. Students do research and analyze various data on global warming.

ENGR101 also has a service learning component. Students have the option to earn extra credit

by volunteering at the Community Cycling Center.

Courses after ENGR101 focus on providing students with the technical skills needed to solve

engineering problems. While some information is provided on community, most of the

emphasis is making sure the students are competent with the basic tools. These tools form the

foundation for them to become successful engineers and be equipped to tackle the world’s

problems.

Over that last year we have been asked to formally evaluate how well we are teaching the

college core outcomes. Our complete plan through 2012 is provided in the appendix. Table 2

shows the results of these assessments. The formal assessment reports are included in

Appendices C-F.

We recently surveyed about 300 former ENGR students (Appendix G). We limited the survey to

students that would still be attending college or recently had earned their BS. The survey

ranged around a variety of topics concerning PCC and the ENGR program. We received

responses from 59 students; about 20% of the emails that we sent responded to the survey.

59% of the respondents stated that Quality of Instruction was a very important reason for them

selecting to attend PCC. 83% of the students responding agreed with the statement that they

were “satisfied with the overall education” at PCC. With respect to the statement, “The

Engineering classes I took at PCC prepared me for the academic rigors of a four-year

college/university,” only 12% disagreed.

8

Civil Engineering graduates from PSU do better than the national average on the Fundamentals

of Engineering (FE) exam. PSU recognizes that 40% of their civil engineering students come

from PCC and that PCC deserves recognition for their success on the FE exam.

The national trend is not to offer engineering courses over distance. This corresponds with

philosophies in other computation intensive programs as well, such as Math. While the Math

department offers some courses over distance modality, this stops with MTH251, Calculus I.

Like ENGR, MTH does not offer courses requiring calculus level skills in any distance modality.

ENGR101 is offered over Interactive Video Classroom (IVC). ENGR100 maybe be taken as an

online class. Beyond these two introductory courses all other courses are offered only in the

traditional style.

9

Table 2: College Core Outcome Assessment Results

Outcome Method Result Notes/Changes

Critical Thinking Students have to construct a

circuit to pass the final. The

final requires critical

thinking in that the circuit

will not work unless it

constructed correctly.

33 students are in

the sample. The

average grade on

the final was 93%,

the high was 95%,

and the low was

70%. All but 4 of

the students

received an 'A' on

the final.

The true critical thinking aspect of this final

is in knowing when you are done. When is

your data collected and correct? The fact

that so many students received an A on this

final indicates that they have learned the

critical thinking skills emphasized in this

class.

It is our belief that this assessment does not

fully test our student’s ability to perform

critical thinking. In the future we will either

change this test or look at other work

samples that have require more critical

thinking. Specifically we could look at the

discussion of results in the lab reports that

are performed.

Communication Evaluate ENGR222 lab

reports. Analyze the

communication criteria in

the rubric. Specifically the

following criteria:

Introduction, Experimental

Procedure, Conclusions, and

Spelling/Grammar/Sentence

structure

The average score

was 2.78 out of 4. This score is lower than desired. The

ENGR SAC believes that good

communication skills need to be emphasized

in more classes. We need to try to infuse

communication skills into our classes.

Professional

Competency

In ENGR 101, students are

taught basic engineering

processes of problem

solving. Inherent in those

processes, is the Given-

Find-Solution method which

is a stalwart building block

of professional engineering

competency. In order to

pass the homework portion

of the class, the student must

use basic engineering

problem-solving

methodologies. Homework

assignments will be graded

on completeness and format.

Homework grades will be

analyzed.

Overall homework

score was 66%.

This included

students who simply

did not do the

homework. When

these numbers are

thrown out the score

raises to 85%.

This is not as good as expected. The

students that are doing the work are

succeeding. The SAC believes that we need

to do a better job of explaining to our

students the importance of professionalism.

We also need to do a better job of explaining

how presentation format relates to

professionalism.

10

3. Needs of Students and the Community: Are they changing?

The racial and gender demographics of ENGR students at PCC are similar to engineering

programs across the US. The age of the ENGR students, however, is not as 80% of our students

are between the ages of 21 and 40. Only 15% of our students are in the age range of 18 to 20

(there are very few recent high school graduates enrolled in the ENGR department). In 2009 –

2010, almost 80% of our students identified as “White, Non-Hispanic.” The second largest

ethnicity is “Asian/Pacific Islander” at 11%. Since the academic year 2007 to 2008 we have not

seen large changes in the ethnicity. Engineering is a predominately male dominated profession.

ENGR gender demographics are 20% female and 80% male, which is consistent with the

national average of college students (Engineering Workforce Commission, Engineering &

Technology). Similarly, the gender demographics of the engineering and engineering

technology faculty at PCC demonstrate similar ratios: there are only three (3) full time female

instructors out of 10. The number of students enrolled in the ENGR department continues to

increase, putting pressures on the resources students use to be successful. Student Full Time

Equivalent (FTE) for ENGR was 103 in 2009-2010. In 2005-06, the FTE was 63.

We understand that our student population has many commitments outside of the classroom.

To accommodate these students we offer many classes both during the day and evening.

While most of the ENGR classes are taught at the Sylvania campus ENGR 101 – Engineering

Fundamentals, the first required course of ALL students, is taught through IVC. ENGR 100 –

Exploring Engineering, which is an exploratory course for students considering engineering, is

offered both in-class and via distance learning.

In working with the students we have learned the needs of the students are related to the

academic availability of courses, the availability of support services (e.g. advising) and access to

financial assistance. In response to growing enrollments we’ve added additional sections to

ENGR classes. For example, most students take the consecutive classes, ENGR 211, ENGR 212

and ENGR 213 in the fall, winter and spring terms. Prior to 2008 – 2009 only one section of

each class was taught per term. In the fall of 2008 we had an increase in students registering

11

for ENGR 211 and added a second fall-term section. This year we still have additional sections

of ENGR 211, ENGR 212 and ENGR 213. Each class will be offered in multiple terms.

Increasing enrollments have increased the demand for ENGR student advising, which is only

available through ENGR faculty members. University partners and the degrees they offer are

varied and often complicated to understand and navigate properly. Therefore, students are

required, when entering the ENGR program (enrolling in ENGR 101), to meet with a faculty

advisor to get department approval. The increase in advising demands on faculty impacts the

availability of faculty for tutoring and other duties.

The increase in enrollments brings more students with financial needs. To support women in

engineering we offer a Society of Women in Engineering Scholarship through the PCC

Foundation. We are seeing an increase in student veterans. Fortunately, these students have

access to the GI bill to fund their education.

4. Faculty

The ENGR instructors include of both full-time and part-time faculty. No instructor has an

appointment associated solely with the ENGR Department. All full-time ENGR instructors teach

in either the CMET or the EET Department. The ENGR SAC has speculated that this may be one

of the few major PCC Departments in which there are no full-time instructors teaching only

ENGR courses.

In 2010-2011, the Full Time IFTE to Total IFTE ratio was 0.311 (Appendix H). The part-time

faculty compare well with the full-time instructors in terms of educational and experiential

backgrounds. There are both female and foreign-born ENGR instructors. The ENGR instructors

have a low turnover for both full-time and part-time instructors.

A Master’s of Science in Engineering or a Professional Engineering license (which implicitly

includes at least four years of engineering experience) is required to teach in the ENGR

Department with the exception of specific labs, surveying and Computer Aided Design (CAD)

courses. Due to a desire to be more flexible with demonstrated competencies, the Instructor

12

Qualifications were changed for specific lab, surveying and Computer Aided Design (CAD)

courses.

Todd Sanders has been working on a National Science Foundation grants, and on 100% full-time

release since 2009-2010. Recent funding will keep him on 100% release through 2014. Due to

his release time, Gregg Meyer was hired as a full-time temp for both ENGR and CMET for the

2010-2011 and 2011-2012. Therefore, the ENGR Department will be increasingly short-handed

without the continuing employment of another full-time CMET/ENGR instructor beyond 2011-

2012.

Professional development amongst the ENGR faculty includes participation in Engineers

Without Borders – Portland Professional Chapter and Professional Engineering license

maintenance course work. ENGR instructors also do consulting work, including working with

Lake Oswego to evaluate the sustainability of engineering projects. These experiences are

brought into the classroom as up-to-date, real-world engineering experiences.

5. Facilities and Support

All ENGR classroom space, computer/technology, laboratory space and equipment is bought

and used in conjunction with the CMET and EET programs. This interdependency allows

resources to be shared amongst programs, optimizing resources, reducing costs and limiting

classroom, lab, activity and storage space needs (See EET and CMET Program reviews). One

benefit of this interdependency, anecdotally, is the equipment in the department tends to be

more modern that what is available to students at the local universities.

There is a recognized need by the department instructors to increase the amount of classroom

space and to increase the amount of available “board-space” for instructors and students to

work on problems. In addition, many campus classrooms’ podium locations inhibit the full

implementation of available board space. Two rooms we recommend as examples of well-

designed for our classroom activities are AM112 and SS104. Besides being well-designed, with

13

new overhead projector technology, these rooms are preferred by the students because the

rooms have multi-seat tables rather than individual desks. Individual desks are NOT LARGE

ENOUGH for students to have both notepaper and a textbook open simultaneously.

The Interactive Vide Classroom (IVC) technology is used for the ENGR 101 course. Because all

ENGR students are required to complete ENGR 101 demand is high as is the need for some

flexibility in scheduling for students who working. Therefore ENGR 101 lecture is broadcast

from Sylvania campus to Rock Creek, SE and Cascade campuses.

ENGR faculty depends heavily on the Desire2Learn and MyPCC Course Tools. Some faculty

members also implement the use of the H-drive resource and YouTube to aid in teaching.

Students (and faculty) find digital and online-based resources to be a significant part of course

activity. Moodle.org is an example of a resource instructors have indicated they would be more

willing to use if the college supported it.

To combat the extremely high costs of engineering text books, and the fact that the texts

update very often, most textbooks are on reserve in the Sylvania library. Students have often

mentioned the costs of the text books (Appendix G) as being a barrier to their progress.

Clerical and administrative support is shared among ENGR, CMET, EET, ARCH, CADD and ID & D.

This optimizes the use of the support and keeps overall costs down by sharing support. There is

no tutoring support (other than faculty provided) for ENGR students at the tutoring center.

Cohort learning is recommended by the faculty and used as a replacement for tutoring.

ENGR does its own advising, as does CMET and EET. EET and CMET have a Perkins Funded

advisor that is not allowed to do ENGR advising. However, many students are unsure if the

Career Technical Education (CTE) or transfer option is best for them, they cannot compare

14

these two options when talking with just one advisor. To gather information on both options,

students have to talk to two different people. Student informational requests are increasing,

which is creating the need for ENGR specific advisor support. In Section 7. Recommendation we

outline three options to address the advising issue including one that allows the current CMET

and EET advisor to provide ENGR advising support.

ENGR maintains a schedule of course offerings that supports student’s matriculation to PSU,

OSU; usually after spring quarter. Classes are offered in summers that have demand from

PSU/OSU bound students. These courses have strong enrollments. ENGR also, in general,

parallels their course offering at the same time as courses at the university partners.

7. Recommendations

The ENGR program serves its students very well in providing a high-quality, low-cost, accessible

educational option for lower-division engineering curriculum. There are, of course, areas in

which we could improve the program and its ability to effectively serve students pursuing BS

degrees in engineering.

We recommend that the ENGR department:

• Expand engineering full-time faculty

• Address the extra burden that student academic advising places on faculty

• Update advising guides on an annual basis

• Have instructional materials available for all ENGR courses

• Offer new SolidWorks course by fall 2012

• Advise students to earn the AS degree as well as prepare for Junior-level course work

Our first recommendation, and the one we feel would provide the greatest benefit in terms of

being able to serve our students, is that we expand the full-time engineering faculty to increase

the percentage of sections that are taught by full-time instructors. The single biggest challenge

we face in our ability to continue to provide a high-quality educational alternative is the lack of

15

full-time faculty and the resulting reliance on part-time faculty. In 2010-2011, less than one-

third of the Instructor FTE in the ENGR program was full-time instructors (see Appendix H).

The first and most obvious problem presented by relying on part-time faculty is that it is simply

more difficult to provide consistently high-quality, effective teaching in the classroom. We are

extremely fortunate to have hard-working, dedicated, and capable part-time instructors

teaching courses in the ENGR program, and their efforts and the job they do on behalf of PCC’s

engineering students are very much appreciated. Even with these talented and dedicated part-

time instructors, it is still more difficult to ensure consistency and quality.

A second problem presented by a small full-time faculty is that it can result in a lack of diversity

of professional expertise. Engineering is a very broad occupational description with a myriad of

specializations. Even within a particular engineering discipline, there are areas of

concentration. For examples, not all electrical engineers will be capable of effectively teaching

a digital class; similarly, not all civil engineers could effectively teach an environmental class.

For example, there is no full-time instructor who has taught Material Science, ENGR 231. A

similar situation exists with Manufacturing Processes, ENGR 262, and Introduction to Logic

Design (digital electronics) ENGR 171.

Our second recommendation is to address the ENGR academic advising burden. Full-time

faculty are responsible for all ENGR-related advising. Engineering advising is complicated

because the lower-division requirements for each engineering discipline are different; for

example, the engineering courses taken by an electrical engineer are very different than those

taken by a mechanical engineer. Further adding to the complicated nature of engineering

advising is the fact that each university has slightly different curriculum requirements, even for

the same engineering discipline. For example a PSU-bound civil engineering student will have

different lower-division requirements than one headed for OSU. For this reason PCC academic

advisors refer students to our office for advising. This system does work, but doing in-house

advising for all engineering students places a huge burden on faculty. Maintaining the advising

guides and assisting students with financial aid time frame extensions are other advising-

16

related activities that take instructors away from their teaching duties.

One solution would be to have a dedicated advisor for the ENGR program. The CMET and EET

programs have such an advisor. Another solution would be to expand the role of the CMET/EET

advisor to include advising for ENGR; the current advisor believes this would be feasible, but

the way this position is currently funded (through Perkins) does not allow her to advise ENGR

students. A third solution would be to provide some release time for instructors for advising.

Of these three options, we believe that having the current advisor’s role expanded to include

ENGR is the most feasible and would best serve our students.

Our third recommendation is to establish a plan that would ensure that ENGR advising guides

be updated on an annual basis. This important work must be done on an annual basis, and to

do so require that we develop a system that involves the entire ENGR SAC. ENGR enjoys a good

working relationship with our university partners. Our engineering advising guides are created

by us, but reviewed by each university for accuracy (see Appendix A for the advising guides).

This system could be improved by ensuring that this review happens on an annual basis, to

ensure the currency and accuracy of the advising guides. This is a large task, requiring the

coordination of information from each of the individual engineering programs of the half-dozen

or so universities with whom we work.

Our fourth recommendation is to work toward having instructional materials available for all 14

ENGR courses. Fiscal realities seem to point toward a continuing, if not increasing, reliance on

part-time instructors. One way to address this challenge is to have better instructional

materials available for part-time instructors; currently, we have good materials for some, but

not all, ENGR courses. Many times, ENGR part-time instructors have little or no teaching

experience (some of whom prove to be outstanding instructors!), and asking them to teach a

course with little more to go on than a CCOG is really too much to ask, especially of an

individual with limited teaching experience. Having a body of instructional materials for each

course, including a syllabus, homework assignments, lecture and lab materials, and sample

exams, would be extremely helpful, both in making the part-time instructor’s job easier, but

17

also in helping to ensure a greater degree of consistency in our course offerings.

Our fifth recommendation is to create and offer a course on the design software program

SolidWorks. Our Engineering Graphics course, ENGR 102, is an AutoCAD-based course. While

AutoCAD is still the program of choice for civil engineers, the mechanical engineering

community has moved toward solid modeling programs; many use a program called

SolidWorks. Our university partners have followed this trend. To better serve our mechanical

and manufacturing students, we plan to create and offer an ENGR SolidWorks course by fall,

2012. Because Solidworks is very demanding from a hardware standpoint: fast processors, lots

of RAM, and large monitors are desirable, infrastructure resources will be required.

Our last recommendation is that ENGR advisors recommend that students earn the Associate of

Science Transfer degree (AS)as well as prepare for Junior-level course work Most engineering

students do not seek a degree from PCC; rather, most work toward completing the coursework

required for the first and second years of their engineering discipline and transfer institution.

The advising guides list the courses that will enable students to transfer at the junior level; they

do not lead students toward a degree. Due to evolving requirements at the universities and

changing degree requirements at PCC, ENGR students can earn an AS degree at PCC by

completing the Health and Physical Education requirement. Students transferring to OSU will

be required to complete the Health and Physical Education requirement to attend OSU. We

plan to modify our advising to encourage ENGR students to seek an Associate of Science

degree. This will benefit both PCC and the students: for PCC, it will be possible to better assess

and document the completion rate of ENGR students, and for the students, earning a two-year

degree will provide a form of formal recognition of their accomplishment and hard work at PCC.

18

8. Appendix

A- ENGR Advising Guides

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

B- Core Outcome Mapping Matrix

Course # Course Name CO 1 CO 2 CO 3 CO4 CO 5 CO 6

ENGR 101 Engineering

Fundamentals 4 4 4 2 4 4

ENGR 102 Engineering Graphics 3 2 4 2 4 2

GE 114 Engineering

Programming 3 1 4 1 4 2

ENGR 171 Logic Design 3 2 4 2 4 2

ENGR 211 Statics 4 2 4 0 4 2

ENGR 212 Dynamics 3 2 4 0 4 2

ENGR 213 Strength of Materials 3 2 4 0 4 2

ENGR 221 Electrical Circuits I 3 2 4 2 4 2

ENGR 222 Electrical Circuits II 4 2 4 2 4 2

ENGR 223 Signals and Systems 4 2 4 2 4 2

ENGR 226 Plane Surveying 4 2 4 2 4 2

ENGR 231 Material Science 4 2 4 2 4 2

ENGR 262 Manufacturing

Processes 3 3 3 3

4 2

ENGR 275 Microprocessor Design 3 2 4 2 4 2

33

C- Assessment- Professional Competency

Engineering Annual Report for Assessment of Outcomes

Submitted: June 2011

SAC: ENGR: Engineering Transfer

Outcomes Assessed: Professional Competency

1. Describe changes that have been implemented towards improving students’ attainment of

outcomes that resulted from outcome assessments carried out in the previous academic

year.

(Information provided here may be referenced, inserted into or summarized in

Program Review 2.C.iii (for Core Outcomes) or 6.B.iii (for CTE Degree and

Certificate outcomes)

N/A

2. Identify the outcomes assessed this year, and describe the methods used. What were the

results of the assessment (i.e., what did you learn about how well students are meeting the

outcomes)?.

(information provided here may be referenced, inserted into or summarized in

Program Review 2.C.i& ii (for Core Outcomes) or 6.B.i & ii (for CTE Degree and


a. Describe the method(s) you used.

Students entering the ENGR program often erroneously equate getting the “right answer” with

professional competency. In reality, using accepted problem-solving methods and

communication standards (formats) is equally important.

In ENGR 101, students are taught basic engineering processes of problem solving. In order to

pass the homework portion of the class, the student must use basic engineering problem-solving

methodologies. Homework assignments are evaluated on the use of proper professional

methodology and on the use of the industry-standard solution format. By analyzing the

homework grades we are able to see progress in professionalism and documentation of proper

methodology.

The homework scores of 14 students from the fall of 2010 were analyzed.

b. Results: What did you learn?

34

The overall average for the class was 66%. It was observed that many of the students had simply

not done some of the homework assignments. If these missing assignments are thrown out of the

evaluation, then average jumps up to 85%. This shows that when students actually take the time

to perform the assignment they are following proper methodology and standard format. The

problem is that many are not taking the time to complete the assignments.

3. Identify any changes that should, as a result of this assessment, be implemented towards

improving students’ attainment of degree and certificate outcomes.




Students seem to resist having to follow a prescribed method and format to homework. This

often manifests itself as simply not doing the homework when they get busy. We need to work

on emphasizing that these professional methodologies and formats are critical if their work is to

be perceived as professional in the workplace. While the format may seem cumbersome, the

skills learned in following the proper format will be used in the workplace.

These changes can be accomplished by faculty by explaining this to students at the start of class.

It will also help to give feedback using the key word “Professional.” Instructors should also

explain how the format can be used as an aid to study or give examples of how it is used in the

real world.

35

D- Assessment- Engineering Annual Report for Assessment of

Outcomes



Outcomes Assessed: Critical Thinking



year.




N/A



outcomes)?.





In ENGR 221 all students are given a laboratory final. In this final students are asked to rebuild

a circuit from a previous experiment. The student is responsible for determining when the data

from the final is complete and correct. This requires them to analyze their previous experiment

and duplicate its results. Students are expected to take measurements and reason/troubleshoot

until their previous results are duplicated.

Once the results are correct the student must demonstrate the measurement technique to the

instructor. The student must also demonstrate that he/she has evaluated the new data and that it

is correct. This is demonstrated by orally comparing previously taken data with the current data.

Proof must be given that the student knows what the previous data is, i.e. data table in lab

notebook. Students are asked questions such as “How do you know this is correct?” in the post-

lab interview with the instructor.

In Fall of 2010, 33 students were assessed in this method.


36

The average grade on the final was 93%, the high was 95%, and the low was 70%. All but 4 of

the students received an 'A' on the final. This shows that our students have learned to critically

evaluate lab data and understand when it is correct.

The lab final is designed to assess our student’s base level critical thinking; as so, it is given with

the expectation that students will do very well.

3. Identify any changes that should, as a result of this assessment, be implemented towards

improving students’ attainment of degree and certificate outcomes.




This assessment demonstrates that our students are achieving a base level of critical thinking. It

may be useful to determine the degree to which our students are achieving higher levels of

critical thinking. This will require a more robust assessment method or a change to the lab final

in ENGR 221. The lab final can easily be made more critical-thinking based simply asking

deeper questions and requiring students to explain the theory of operation of the circuits.

37

E- Assessment- Communication

Engineering Annual Report for Assessment of Outcomes



Outcomes Assessed: Communication



year.




N/A



outcomes)?.

(information provided here may be referenced, inserted into or summarized in




In the Electric Circuits II course (ENGR 222), students write lab reports. Among others,

there are the following required sections in the reports: Introduction, Experimental

Procedure, Conclusions, and Spelling/Grammar/Sentence structure.

When the lab reports are graded, a rubric is used to assess the students’ work in these

areas. Scores can range from 1-4, with 1 being “Beginning or Incomplete” and 4 being

“Exemplary.”

Student scores on their lab reports for the above-mentioned criteria were use for the

assessment of the Communication Outcome.


38

The overall average score for the selected lab report sections was 2.78. Average scores

for individual sections ranged from 2.65 to 2.85.

For each report section assessed, the students’ scores ranged from 1 to 4. This confirms

that some students arrive in our classes with very good written communication skills,

where others arrive with skills that need much improvement.

These results were disappointing; our hope was that averages would exceed 3 (3 =

“Accomplished”). Our students are not gaining the technical proficiency in writing that

we would like them to have.

3. Identify any changes that should, as a result of this assessment, be implemented

towards improving students’ attainment of degree and certificate outcomes.




Emphasize the importance of effective communication skills in all our courses, whenever

we can. Students often underestimate the importance of these skills, believing that

engineers only need to be competent on the technical side.

Many students received low marks for spelling and grammar. We feel that, with the tools

now available to students (spell checkers, etc.), this simply represents a lack of pride in

their work. Instructors should emphasize the importance of professionalism and pride in

all of the students’ work.

Consider adopting a prerequisite of WR 121 for all second-year ENGR courses. The

ENGR 101 course requires, at minimum, concurrent registration in WR 115. Other

ENGR courses do not have a writing prerequisite beyond this level.

Engineering courses are, of course, technical in nature, and there is often little time in

these courses to infuse much writing. However, we should explore ways to include some

writing in our courses that are traditionally exclusively calculation-based.

39

F- Assessment Worksheet

2010-2012 LDC/DE Assessment Plan Worksheet (optional)

Subject Area: ________ENGR_________________

Submit to [email protected] by November 15, 2010

Core Outcome

Cours(es), or other

setting in which

assessment will take

place:

Is there a

corresponding

course outcome?

Assessment approach

described

When will

assessment

take place?

Critical Thinking

ENGR 221 Lab Final

ENGR 221

Use a variety of

analysis techniques

to solve and design

basic electrical

systems.

Students have to construct a

circuit to pass the final. The

final requires critical

thinking in that the circuit

will not work unless it

constructed correctly. The

Final Lab grade is dependent

upon the accurate

completion of the circuit.

2009-2010

Communication

ENGR 222-223 Lab

write-ups

No

In the Discussion section of

the Circuit lab write-ups,

students must effectively

communicated their results,

observations and

conclusions. Labs are

graded upon these criteria.

2010-2011

Professional

Competency

ENGR 101

Homework

Yes

Apply basic

principles of

statistics, electricity

and mechanics in

engineering

problem solving.

In ENGR 101, students are

taught basic engineering

processes of problem

solving. Inherent in those

processes, is the Given-Find-

Solution method which is a

stalwart building block of

professional engineering

competency. In order to

pass the homework portion

of the class, the student

must use basic engineering

problem-solving

methodologies. Homework

grades will be analyzed.

2010-2011

Self Reflection

ENGR 101

ENGR 101

Explores the

ethical aspects of

engineering

In ENGR 101, Students will

be asked to complete a

Learning Styles assessment.

This assignment will be

followed up by a visit from a

PCC Student Employment /

Cooperative Ed office

representative to help

explain the subtleties of

their results and how they

2011-2012

40

can use this information to

learn more effectively.

ENGR 100 ENGR 100

Determines if a

career in

engineering or

engineering

technology is

desirable, and, if so,

what discipline to

pursue.

In ENGR 100, Students

will be asked to

complete an online

Myers-Briggs

personality test. Upon

discovering their

“personality type”, they

will reflect on their

Type’s strength and

challenge areas with

respect to the field of

engineering.

Cultural Awareness

ENGR 262

No In ENGR 262, the

curriculum will be

broadened to include

the many cultural

aspects that can

positively (or

negatively) influence

outsourcing operations.

Subsequent to this

material being

presented, the Office of

International Students

will host an in-class

student discussion

panel where non-US

students will share

information about their

respective cultures.

ENGR 262 students will

be encouraged to ask

probing cultural “Dos

and Don’ts” questions

to help prepare

themselves for working

in a global economy.

After the panel

discussion, the ENGR

262 students will be

issued a post-event

survey to assess what

knowledge they have

gained and identify

areas in need of further

inquiry.

2011-2012

41

G- Survey of ENGR Students

Survey of Portland Community College Engineering Students (N=59)

Administered by the PCC Office of Institutional Effectiveness, Spring 2011

4.

5.

6.

Section I. Background Information

7.

In choosing to attend Portland Community College, to what extent were the

following reasons important?

8.

Reason for attending PCC: Flexibility of schedule

Not important 8 (14%)

Somewhat important 23 (39%)

Very important 28 (47%)

no answer 0 ( 0%)

9.

Reason for attending PCC: Location of classes




no answer 0 ( 0%)

10.

Reason for attending PCC: Cost of attending PCC

Not important 4 ( 7%)



no answer 0 ( 0%)

11.

Reason for attending PCC: Class Size




no answer 0 ( 0%)

12. 13.

42

14. 15. 16. 17.

Reason for attending PCC: Access to instructors




no answer 0 ( 0%)

18.

Reason for attending PCC: Familiarity with PCC




no answer 0 ( 0%)

19.

Reason for attending PCC: Quality of instruction




no answer 0 ( 0%)

20.

Reason for attending PCC: The instruction is less formal




no answer 2 ( 3%)

21.

Reason for attending PCC: Ease of admission




no answer 1 ( 2%)

22. 23.

Section II. Your Experience at Portland Community College

24.

Experience at PCC: I am satisfied with the overall education I received at PCC.

Strongly Disagree 2 ( 3%)

Somewhat Disagree 2 ( 3%)

Neutral 4 ( 7%)

43

Somewhat Agree 22 (37%)

Strongly Agree 27 (46%)

no answer 2 ( 3%)

25.

Experience at PCC: PCC prepared me for my studies at a four-year

college/university.



Neutral 5 ( 8%)



Not Applicable 7 (12%)

no answer 0 ( 0%)

26.

Experience at PCC: PCC instructors are invested in my education.



Neutral 6 (10%)



Not Applicable 1 ( 2%)

no answer 0 ( 0%)

27.

Experience at PCC: My credits from PCC transferred seamlessly to a four-year

college/university.



Neutral 5 ( 8%)




no answer 0 ( 0%)

28.

Experience at PCC: The Engineering classes I took at PCC prepared me for the

academic rigors of a four-year college/university.



Neutral 8 (14%)



44


no answer 0 ( 0%)

29.

Section III. Your Experience at a Four-Year College/University

30.

What is the name(s) of the four-year college/university that you attend or plan to

attend?

31. portland state university

Portland State University

PSU

Portland state university

Portland state University

Portland State: Grad studies

PSU

Portland State University PSU

PSU or OIT



Oregon State University


PSU

PSU




OSU

psu



psu








OIT



PSU or UP

PSU

I already have an MS from Oregon State University.


PSU and then UW


45




psu

Portland state university

OIT


University of Portland

University of Texas, Austin


Portland state University


PSU?

32.

What is your primary major, or your intended primary major, at the four-year

college/university?

civil (structural) engineering

Mechanical Engineering

computer engineering

Mechanical engineering


Graduate studies discipline switch to Mechanical Engineering from a BS in EE.

Electrical Engineering

mechanical engineering

Civil Engineering

Civil Engineering

Construction Management Engineering

Civil Engineering

environmental engineer

Civil Engineering

Civil Engineer



Civil Engineering

civil engineering


Civil Engineering

mechanical engr

Civil Engineering, seeking a Masters in Water Resource Engineering

Electrical and Computer Engineering

civil engineering

Environmental Engineering

Mecahnical Engineering



renewable energy engineering

Civil Engineering


Civil Engineering

Civil Engineering


46


Civil Engineering




civil engineering


Renewable Energy Engineering

Civil Engineering

Civil Engineering



Civil engineering


EE

33.

Section IV. Your Feedback to the PCC Engineering Department

34.

What motivated you to pursue Engineering?

35.

personal reasons (im an international student)

Always been interested in engineering, love to build and create.

family

I like science and math and applying them. Engineering allows me to study physical

science in a laboratory setting and then put my research into practice in the field.

The love of Math and Science and how things work

Going to physics was too theoretical, Engineering is simply applied Physics.

A desire to do something rewarding and good for the planet.

An interest in how things work and are made along with liking math.

I have always been gifted with an understanding of mathematics and the sciences. I

chose engineering due to the higher income potential, greater expected job

availability, and a personal interest in understanding how things work. I chose Civil

47

Engineering specifically to have a personal impact on the sustainable future of the

world around us.

I was interested in transportation engineering, especially light rail and high-speed

rail projects.

To have the hands on experience and would like to challenge myself

I wanted to major in a field that paid well with just a four-year degree.

interest in math. interest in hydrology and natural systems

I have an aptitude and an interest.

I wanted to work in construction, but did not want to ruin my body doing it. I have

always loved math and science so engineering was a good fit for me.

A long history of interest in engineering

I like the idea behind engineering in that we are able to apply the knowledge that we

learn into an applied field.

i like bridges

Interest in math and science.

Looking for a meaningful career that encourages problem solving

Ability to help others using technical skills

Enjoyment of science and applied math

Was in healthcare but a dead-end position

[Name deleted] as advisor and instructor; all other CMET faculty continued to

provide encouragement as well.

Its seems like the most applicable profession to utilize my skills.

Many things including: Job availability in the area, job satisfaction, good pay.

I like to make new things. I chose electrical because I had an intuitive knowledge for

most things except electricity and programming, so I'm pursuing an education in

those things in order to more complete my intuitive knowledge resources. Basically, I

48

wanted to have more than one hammer.

I am interested in the type of work that civil engineers do, particularly in the field of

transportation.

Getting laid off after a year working at a dead-end job became a strong incentive to

go back to college. Engineering is a natural fit for me because I have strong math,

science, and problem-solving skills. Also, I am interested in those things! I settled on

Environmental Engineering because I thought the problems and solutions were the

most complex, multi-disciplinary, and creative (compared to the classical Civil

curriculum). Based on global trends, I expect that water resource management will

only become more important. An Enviromentnal Engineering degree positions me to

take advantage of those job opportunities.

My love of math, structure, art and organization. I crave to know how and why

things work.

I was motivated by a love of mathematics, and the possibility of a good job upon

graduation. I have always been interested in electricity and I thought an EE degree

would help me understand the "magic".

Interest in the sciences and mathematics and their real-world applications. Engineers

are involved in virtually every aspect of industry and the career choice is broad.

Engineering opens doors for future education or career choice.

Always have been an engineer

Over 30 years in working in the construction industry and a strong interest in

science.

I did well in math and was always interested in physics in highschool; I also knew an

engineer when I was growing up and it seemed like a neat job.

Through out my life I have always been curious about how things work. I enjoy

solving problems and figuring out puzzles. The combination of intellectual

stimulation, coordination with others, field work, work/life balance, compensation,

and impact on my community that engineering encompasses all make it a profession

I am committed to pursing.

An interest in problem solving, analysis, and water resources. And a desire to have a

secure career future.

I had a love for electricity every since I was young. Despite the hardships I am still

49

glad I chose this as my major

I am going back to school to get into the Construction Industry. I felt that PCC was a

good entry that still allowed me to work full time and take classes in the evening.

One thing that I really enjoyed about my experience with PCC is the one on one

contact that I had with my professors. I wasn't aware that I would enjoy that so

much, but I feel that it was rewarding for both parties.

I asked myself "What do you like to do and what are you good at?" The answers: I

am good at math and science, and I like making stuff. Sounded like engineering to

me and I heard they pay pretty well for it too. No-brainer.

My inrest in computers and how things work/making things better.

love the the field, good income.

Interest in the way things work

Prior work experience and the desire to earn a professional salary.

Challenging fun cateer

I love Math and Science. I was a framer/form setter for years and wanted to design

instead of build.

The ability to work at a career where employment opportunities exist and where a

person is treated with a certain measure of benevolence.

My interest in science and my family background.

My father is an electrical engineer and has a nice standard of living, so I thought I

would follow in his footsteps. Engineering is also pivotal to improving the globe's

standard of living. I liked math and science during my previous education before

college.

Hands on experience

I was originally planning to study either english or economics. However, in taking

required math courses, I found I had some talent in that area. I decided it would be

good to put that aptitude to use, and the only thing I could think of that sounded fun

was engineering.

50

My role model: my father

What suggestions do you have for the PCC Engineering department that will allow

them to improve their program? What would you say are the strengths and

weaknesses of the Engineering program at PCC?

36. You have great engineers but need teaching training to better understand how to

transfer the knowledge.

PCC's engineering courses are just as rigorous as at a 4-year university. PCC also

has much smaller class sizes which helps regardless of who your professor is.

I believe PCC has much better lab course work than PSU. This is very important

because the purpose of the lab is to learn practical applications of what you are

learning in class. It is not very useful to know concepts without knowing what can be

used with those concepts.

Also it was easy to meet with the engineering faculty for questions on scheduling and

transferring.

PCC could use more established professors, professors who have or have had jobs at

large engineering companies, i.e. experienced engineers, not just engineers who look

up specifications.

kept hearing that the teacher in the true engineering course didnt know thier stuff

very well. so i waited and took most of the non core classes at PSU

Help students find research internships early on. Provide tutors that are accessible

for students. The strength of the PCC program is in the dedication of the professors

and being able to ask questions in a more informal setting.

The green sheets at PCC's engineering department do not match well with the blue

sheets at PSU. I ended up taking at least three classes that I did not need or want to

take.

I have taken most my classes at CCC and only taken two At PCC. The first class was

electrical circuits and that class was great. I don't think there are any teachers better

then [Name deleted]. He really seemed to want us to do well.

The second class I am currently taking is engineering 101. I am taking it at the S.E.

campus which is very convenient. BUT the equipment has only been 100% up and

working for the first class. Besides missing several classes do to technical problems

the class has been all right. The instructor does seem friendly and knowledgeable

and gives the impression that he wants us to do well. I do wonder how I would do in

the class without my previous classes taken. I wouldn't have a clue about forces and

vectors without physics. The book doesn't seem to give a lot of help on anything, but

a lot of information on many topics. The labs are not bad, but I was expecting to

learn a little more about Matlab. Programing in it is fun and educational but never

51

having used Matlab before I wonder how I could use it to solve complex math

problems.

Class sizes were excellent, instructor knowledge and interest was amazing, texts for

the most part were acceptable. I would suggest increasing the availability of classes

throughout the year, especially including the summer session. I would also limit the

available calculators to students within the engineering classes. As a Civil

Engineering student I am required to use an FE-approved calculator for exams and

tests http://www.ncees.org/Exams/Exam-day_policies/Calculator_policy.php If the

calculator regulations were imposed earlier, I would have had a more solid

understanding of differentiation and integration.

The Chemistry courses were not up to par at all. I really struggled in Environmental

Engineering this year because I was completely unprepared after taking CH 221 and

222 at PCC.

The Engineering courses specifically were excellent--great access to instructors,

covered a similar amount of material to PSU courses, and lots of resources.

PCC could improve the program by having a student chapter of ASCE or EWB--or

some other kind of student group led by a faculty member. That is really the only

thing lacking compared to PSU.

Strengths: excellent instructors. Weaknesses: not too many opportunities to explore

engineering outside of class such as engineering activities and clubs, etc.

labs with hands on exposure. student groups like EWB (Engineers without Border).

TUTORS!!! It was so hard to learn this material myself without anyone (besides the

teacher) and some of the part time teachers did not have office hours so it was really

hard sometimes, really overwhelming.

Make room for more activities like informal labs that are mandatory. Give the

students more time in activities for the amount of material that they have to learn.

Make the help sessions more available to students: hire more assistants and give

more lectures that make the material down to earth and accessible.

Your program is pretty solid. I think I learned the least amount in Dynamics, yet still

got a good grade. Maybe consider revising this course plan.

I feel like the projects that we work on aren't necessarily applied to real-life but my

knowledge on this subject is still limited. It feels like they are applying the

knowledge that we are learning but that having a real application to the field would

have a more profound effect on learning. At the four year level the projects that we

complete have application to real life and we are required to develop and design

electronic circuits on our own with a specific goal in mind. The projects are lengthier

in design and sometimes take the whole term to complete.

More up-to-date transfer information/requirements

52

focus less on hw and more and quizes and exams and things that cant be found on

cramster

I understand the difficulty of having to balance the quality of education with

students' demands (i.e., whining about grades) when striving to maintain enrollment

and establish an institution as worthwhile. However, I feel that the classes at PCC -

physics, calculus, and the engineering-specific courses - were incredibly lax. This is

especially apparent now that I am at PSU. I had my share of good and bad

professors at PCC, but I feel now that it was incredibly easy to get an A in any course

while barely trying. PSU's courses are far more rigorous; as someone who intends to

get a master's, I find that I have to review and relearn (or learn for the first time)

too many aspects of engineering. In particular, differential equations,

statics/strengths, and dynamics. A lack of rigor may get students in and out the

door, but it doesn't prepare.

Improvements: make the physical space more welcoming to all people. For me, that

means adding a women's restroom to the part of campus where most engineering

courses as held. Nothing says 'unwelcoming' like not having enough space for the

students in a class or not having an easy way to take care of human needs in the

limited time between classes/at breaks. Strengths: access to instructors, tutoring,

classmates to study with, building relationships - camraderie, diving right into

applied coursework. Job options in 2 years, can use to build toward BS pusuit, broad

focus w/focus on universally desired engineering skills and problem solving

approach. Weaknesses: number of CMET courses that can be tricky to transfer, if at

all. (Note: I educated myself early about transfer vs technical degree and don't

regret the path I chose.) Sometimes professionals aren't familiar with the AAS

degree and what that entails, that is, what a graduate can offer them/their

workplace.

PROS: Smaller classes, teachers with time for students, you get at least as much for

you money as you do at PSU

CONS: inferior labs, no research opportunities

For me, the teachers often make or break the class, and I've had good and bad

teachers at both PCC and PSU. A good teacher is more than someone who

understands the material. It seems like the ability to teach is often overlooked for

someone with experience in the field or a couple degrees.

Strengths: Instructors. I have had quite a few excelent engineering instructors at

PCC. To name a few, [Names deleted] and the physics instructors have done a fine

job as well preparing students for application; [Names deleted].

Strengths: Great teachers. They know the material and know how to teach it.

Weakness: -Limited availability of classes, several terms the only section offered was

6-8:30pm which is a difficult time for a single parent.

-The material is covered to fast. Nine chapters of Statics in 10 weeks does not lead

to good comprehension and retention. A recitation period on Mondays (after the

weekend to attempt problems) where the students can get additional instructor

53

assistance on homework problems and concepts in addition to a Wednesday/Friday

or Tuesday/Thursday lecture would help.

-Not a lot of hands on experience with the material. Labs are usually for the Techy

program, not the University Transfer.

A little more hands on for the electrical fundamentals courses. Get a project that

students can work on and build over the course of their electrical fundamentals

classes. Also, maybe slightly expand the breadth and, in some cases, the depth of

topics covered. For instance, when I started my 300 level electronics courses here at

OSU I hadn't yet worked with diodes, but all the other students had. It was an

immediate disadvantage.

The Statics, Dynamics and Strength of Materials courses taught at PCC were not

taught by regular instructors and for that reason, the course content seemed to

fluctuate quite a bit. I took the Statics course with Russell Eng, who did not cover,

among other things, the shear and moment diagram segment of this course, which is

a very crucial subject that came up in every structural course I took from then on

(Strength of Materials, Structural Analysis, Indeterminate Structures, Reinforced

Concrete Design, etc.). I have struggled in structural engineering related classes

because I have had to learn basic concepts and theory on my own that were never

covered in that Statics course. This is very disappointing, and in retrospect, I wish I

had taken that course at Portland State University.

I truly enjoyed my time at PCC and plan to take more classes there, including

languages and welding, in my, ahem, copious free time once I graduate (Spring

2011) and find a job. I thought the level of difficulty of the Physics, Chemistry,

Microbiology and Biology, Math, and Engineering classes was on par with classes I

took at PSU in my Junior and Senior years. I felt that all of my instructors were

talented, were interested in the students, and took their jobs to heart. Specific to the

Engineering classes, I would like to say that Mike (Statics) and Hamid (Mechanics,

Strength of Materials) really inspired my interest in engineering, made me feel

welcome in the discipline, and cemented my interest in pursuing this field.

Strengths: Great instructors who are willing to spend extra time with you one on

one. Class material is the same quality you would receive at a four year college.

Weaknesses: Some instructors are over qualified to the point that they cannot relate

to beginning students. On the other end, some instructors are new to the teaching

field and are not prepared to teach the material.

I really enjoyed my engineering classes at PCC. I feel like all my teachers, especially

Mike Farrell, have been very good at preparing students to move on to a four year

college. The one area that could be improved is teaching the software we use. We

learned the basics of Excel and Matlab in engineering 101, but I feel like Matlab

should be taught more than Excel. I was a year and a half in before I felt

comfortable with Matlab. I had a similar experience with Pspice and LTspice. First of

all, LTspice should be the primary spice program used because it is much more user

friendly. Secondly, it would be helpful to have a lab that really gets into how to use

LTspice. I have been using it for the past year and still don't know how to model my

54

own circuit elements.

Strengths: Students know well in advance what is expected of them and which

classes are available in the upcoming terms (program lay-out is nice).

Instructors are flexible.

Class hours are reasonable and meets most people's needs.

Weaknesses: ENGR231 - Material Science - should be re-done in some way; it covers

way too much foreign material for students to actually learn and apply (that's not

just my opinion). It is a good class and interesting, but seems too specific for a

general ME transfer degree. If anything, instructors should NOT be allowed to teach

with Power Point in this class.

Textbooks were rare and expensive

The engineering lab (AM 103) is top notch and a great place to study. The instructors

have no equal.

I think the strengths of the program are that it is so easy to get going and the

credits seem like they will transfer easily; also it is fairly cheap compared to a

university. Many of the classes are also very good.

The weaknesses are that some of the classes are only offered one or two terms a

year which can make scheduling difficult. The only other thing would be that it seems

that some of the professors, while maybe very good engineers, are not really

educated in how to teach; this can sometimes make things difficult in the teacher

being able to get the subject across to the students in an effective and organized

manner.

Please note I have previously attended both a community college and state

university in NY.

In comparison to my experience at my previous CC, PCC exceeded my expectations

for advising. Upon enrollment, I met with [Name deleted] and she did a great job of

making my options known and available. I essentially got on track and expect to be

going to PSU or UP as a junior this fall.

Now this may have been my own fault for not going and specifically asking these

questions of the engineering dept. but it would have been nice to have some help

before my transfer. I just found out- upon acceptance to PSU- that I missed my

chance to register for the MECOP/CECOP program. I would have appreciated the

dept. making some effort to make sure its students know about those opportunities-

and the deadlines.

I have had some great teachers for my engineering classes. But I think PCC needs to

work on the consistency of the professors as I have also had some that have been

less than acceptable.

Also, professor preference wouldn't be such a problem if there were more than one

option for a class. Which brings me to increasing the options. In talking to my peers,

I believe there is enough of a demand to offer more engineering classes during the

daytime. I realize we are probably in 'competition' with the CMET program for

professors and classrooms but I feel that the dept. has an equal responsibility to

make classes [other than CMET] available during different times.

55

The one area that I found challenging was the ability to seek out scholarships and

internships. Not being part of the traditional four year CE track I had to stumble

upon much of the information on those opportunities. Though much of this is

expected one internship program that I believe many PCC students miss out on due

to just not knowing about it is the MECOP/CECOP program. Since students need to

apply in the winter of their second year they do not have the opportunity to apply

once they transfer to a four year school and miss out on what is an incredible

opportunity. I encourage PCC to make a point to have instructor mention the

program to all of their students as I believe many PCC student would be competitive

in the program.

I took the statics, dynamics and strength of materials sequence. The Beer and

Johnson text would have been a much better choice as it seemed to be preferred by

the instructors and I ended up buying it anyway and it seemed like I spent a lot of

money on the two text books.

Pro:

PCC Engineering Dep. has the best intructors who have thick teaching skill, and work

with thier passionateness.

Con:

Instructors office hours aren't enough for all students whom need help. A tutor

should be nice. New instructors need to prepare lectures before come to class, and

please select the best textbooks to use for the courses.

The biggest strength the Engineering department has are its instructors. [Names

deleted] are the two instructors I have had for all my coursework in ENGR and they

worked with students and were really dedicated to my success. The courses are

really difficult in a sink or swim type of environment and I have managed to maintain

a good GPA in this program because of their dedication to helping me understand the

material.

The greatest weakness of the ENGR program is availability of classes. I will be

transferring to PSU in the fall and I will not have logic and microtech complete. This

means I will transfer as a Junior but still have to take freshman level coursework.

This will set me back a whole term and possibly disrupt my fall session of coursework

for the duration of my undergraduate program. I suggest PCC re-evaluate its pre-req

requirements for the ENGR courses and/or make the classes more available for

people who have completed the prereqs such as myself.

Overall, Engineering majors have seen a major decline over the years. Introductory

engineering courses have been known for causing students to switch majors to non-

science related degrees. Students who would have made meaningful contributions to

STEM get driven away due to difficult coursework and not having the help they need.

I have been lucky enough to have two amazing instructors in this program that have

helped me and my peers make it to this level. I wish the other departments for Gen

Ed Calculus were as good as the ENGR department. Where the Calculus teachers

made fun of me for struggling with the concepts the ENGR teachers have been

helpful and supportive all the way. This is the greatest strength of your department.

Taking ENGR at PCC, despite the mentioned availability of courses, has been a great

decision for my education.

56

No changes necessary, it was a great experience

I would say that the one suggestion would be to have the instructor be available for

more office hours. I realize that this is difficult as they need to have a life outside of

their job as well, but I really liked being able to meet with the professors.

I learned more about writing lab/technical reports in my 200 level physics classes at

PCC than in any of my classes at PSU. Kudos!! Keep it up!! Ray...I don't remember

his last name. I guess that's the physics dept anyway.

Engineering Drafting - ENGR 102? - A bit more about reading drawings would be

useful. I can read dimensions and such, but I had to research weld symbols, hole

callouts and some other things like that myself. Also, AutoCAD may be somewhat

useful for civil majors, but as an ME I haven't touched it since I started using

SolidWorks. Maybe at least an intro to parametric solid modeling would be good.

I think it would help many students if classes were schedule at different times, many

times I couldn't take a course I needed because all the engineering classes were

scheduled at the same time of the same day.

weekly homeworks is not recommended, u think of it from a different angle. its not

the more homeworks you give, the more better the students will be.

make the student love the class, the teacher,,give them break of homeworks every

week and week, give them a chance for extra credits,, offer at least one take home

test during the term...force him not to excuse him not loving the class...

Strengths: availability of instructors and small class sizes, which allow student to get

as much out of the program as they put into it.

Make meeting a university engineering advisor a requirement of engr 101 and

generally improve info about university requirements and transfer credits.

Engineering instructors are uniformly talented and seem quite dedicated to success

of the student.

More group projects. Stay up-to-date with 4 year class requitments. Over all pcc

does this but it is important and I know a few people who had problems. Hands on

projects would be great. Have past students talk to classes to give advice. Prepare

for time management better. Keep up with the awesome teachers!

Real world experience does not always translate to a quality professor. Some of the

more experienced professors have been the worst teachers. For the type of

education at PCC the real-world experience of the professor is not always necessary.

Preparedness, and good communication to the student(s) should be paramount.

57

I took Dynamics and Strength of Materials at PCC. The dynamics course was more

rigorous than anything I have taken at the Univ of Portland; the instructor was very

professional. My experience in strength of materials and with the rest of PCC was the

opposite. It was more difficult to register for classes at PCC than at PSU (which I had

attended previously). The secretary in the engineering office was officious and

patronizing--I was deeply offended a number of times I interacted with her. The

strength of materials teacher was also patronizing. In addition, she was ill prepared

for class and disorganized, making easy concepts difficult. (I took Geotech

Engineering at the UP and, in one week and one chapter from the Caduto book,

understood more about Mohr's circle than I had at PCC.) Additionally, I want to

express my concern with the long class sections. PCC's classes meet for one week

longer than other state universities and require more seat time (5hr/week) than

state schools (4hr/week) for the same credits. This would be valuable if additional

learning was taking place, but it just turns into another wasted hour with instructors

who take longer to convey less-well organized info. (Maybe the extra hour--if PCC is

set on it--could be devoted to problem solving or homework help.) Overall, PCC

combines the worst of both worlds: it treats students as if they are mentally deficient

(as one would treat a grade schooler) yet provides a, "harsher," less forgiving

environment than other state schools (with unbending policies, a lack of office hours,

a library that is closed on the weekends, unprofessional faculty and staff, more work

(e.g. seat hours) for less credit).

It would probably great if PCC could accommodate more for students who are

interested in doing internships.

The strengths of the engineering program at PCC are: predictable course format,

access to faculty, comparable academic rigor to a university, and small class sizes.

The weaknesses are: small electrical circuits lab, and old transfer advising sheets. It

wasn't the end of the world, but I had to take a lower-division SolidWorks class, and

manufacturing processes class that I was not aware of before I transferred.

I think PCC students should be more informed about how difficult it is to be

successful at a university. Students are lucky if they receive credit for their

homework.

The instructors I've had in the engineering department have ranged anywhere from

amazing to awful. I'd suggest monitoring the teachers closer, or finding a way to get

an accurate, untainted opinion from a teacher's students. As far as strengths though,

I think the different courses compliment each other nicely. That is, statics leads into

dynamics and strength of materials quite nicely.

More eavailablity to students in terms of planning their classes.

58

H- Full-Time vs. Part-Time IFTE for 2010-11

59

Documents

ENGR - Portland Community College