Page 1

PROGRAM ASSESSMENT REPORT

Engineering Management Program Assessment Report Name of the program: BS in Engineering Management (EM) Year: Academic year 2016/2017 Date: June 30, 2017 Faculty Participant: Drs. Xun Yu, Steven Lu, Jun Ma, James Scire, Fang Li, Dorinamaria Carka, Milan Toma.

1. Student Outcomes specified by ABET The Department of Mechanical Engineering (ME) has been very successful in all our previous ABET visits and several Middle States evaluation visits. We will continue to follow the same guidelines and closely watch any new changes in ABET and Middle States evaluation criteria. The assessment process has both course embedded and constituency based assessment tools. The course embedded assessment is the Faculty Course Assessment Reports (FCAR) which are the primary tools used to assess the Student Outcomes (SOs) and learning outcome achievement. The ME faculty are required to submit their FACRs for each course they teach in the fall and spring semesters. The BS EM program is not accredited by ABET, but we would access the learning outcomes following ABET guideline which requires the assessment of a set of (a)-(k) Student Outcomes (SOs), which describe what our EM students are expected to know and be able to do by the time of graduation. The ME department has decided to evaluate our Student Outcomes (SOs) by completely following the eleven SOs specified by ABET SOs a to k, i.e., the graduates of the B.S. in the Engineering Management program are expected to demonstrate: a. An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering. b. An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data. c. An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability. d. An ability to function effectively in a team. e. An ability to identify, formulate and/or solve engineering problems. f. An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility. g. An ability to communicate effectively. h. The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context. i. A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in, life-long learning. j. A knowledge of contemporary issues. k. An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practices. During the fall 2016 and Spring 2017 semesters we assessed all ABET SOs: (1) At end of each semester, for each course offered, ME faculty are required to submit Faculty Course Assessment Reports (FCAR). The FCAR requires that each course is required to

Page 2

satisfy a minimum set of Student outcomes (SOs) for his course as established by the ME department.

(2) The department chair will chair assessment meetings each semester, after faculty complete all the FCARs, to check each FCAR, course by course, to determine that they are consistent with all the requirements for FCARs. At the meetings, the full time and those regular part time faculty identify and propose strategies to improve program outcomes and program educational objective performance through course work. The ME department will determine if the minimum EGMU score of 1.5 can be used, as before, to measure the minimum level of quality that is necessary to produce graduates that will ultimately achieve our program educational objectives. This score of 1.5 was chosen by the department because in the EGMU scoring it falls midway between the Minimal and Good indicators and therefore represents what a student would need in order to satisfy the requirements for graduation. 3. Which program learning outcomes have been assessed for the planned academic year? We developed a relationship between ABET outcomes and NYIT core Learning Outcomes (NYIT LOs) since 2012 as follows:

TABLE 1: relationship between ABET outcomes and NYIT core Learning Outcomes Engineering Management.

NYIT MISSION

NYIT LEARNING GOALS

By the time of graduation, NYIT students will be able, at the appropriate level (baccalaureate, masters or professional) to:

ACADEMIC PROGRAM LEARNING GOALS

Baccalaureate Level BS Engineering Management

Career Oriented Professional Education

Gain a coherent understanding of the knowledge, skills, and values of their discipline

a) Apply knowledge of computing and mathematics appropriate to the discipline.

b) Analyze a problem and identify and define the computing requirements appropriate to its solution.

i) Use current techniques, skills, and tools necessary for

computing practice.

j) Apply mathematical foundations, algorithmic principles, and computer science theory in the modeling and design of computer-based systems in a way that demonstrates comprehension of the tradeoffs involved in design choices.

Page 3

Applications Oriented Research

Integrate academic and co-curricular learning to explore concepts and questions that bridge disciplines, professions, and cultures

Formulate evidence-based and ethical courses of action or conclusions to address challenges and problems

Engage with, respond to, and reflect on political, social, environmental and economic challenges at local, national, and global levels

c) Design, implement, and evaluate a computer-based system, process, component, or program to meet desired needs.

e) Understand professional, ethical, legal, security, and social issues and responsibilities.

g) Analyze the local and global impacts of computing on individuals, organizations, and society.

k) Apply design and development principles in the construction of software systems of varying complexity.

Access to Opportunity

Achieve proficiency in oral and written communication, scientific and quantitative reasoning, critical analysis, technological competency, and information literacy

Develop self-efficacy, professionalism, creativity, and an innovative spirit

d) Function effectively on teams to accomplish a common goal

f) Communicate effectively with a range of audiences

h) Engage in and recognize the need for continuing professional development.

Starting 2016/2017 academic year we adopted a new Excel form for all FCARs. For instance the FCAR we developed for IENG 240 (Engineering Economics, 3 cr) course for the Fall 2016 semester addressed the following SOs :ABET a, c, d, f, g, i, and k. in terms of different tasks: homework, mid term exam, and final examination (Please see the attached FCAR Excel file for IENG 240 (Engineering Economics). The Student Outcomes and performance indicators for the Mechanical/Aerospace Engineering ABET SOs with EGMU are: a. an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering (EGMU score:

2.03) d. An ability to function effectively in a team. (EGMU score: 1.94) e. An ability to identify, formulate and/or solve engineering problems. (EGMU score: 2.03) k. An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practices. (EGMU score: 2.03)

Page 4

The EGMU rubric that we have used is:

EGMU Rubric Score

E - Excellent Fully demonstrates/accomplishes the attributes and behavior in the rubric

3

G – Good Mostly demonstrates/accomplishes the attributes and behavior in the rubric

2

M – Minimal Minimally demonstrates/accomplishes the attributes and behavior in the rubric

1

U - Unsatisfactory Does not demonstrate/accomplish the attributes and behavior in the rubric

0

According to the Table 1 above when ABET a, c, d, f, g, i, and k SO requirements are satisfied, as shown from attached FCAR IENG 240, the NYIT Learning Goals would automatically be satisfied correspondingly due to the one-on-one strongly linked matrix.

Mechanical Engineering Spring 2017

IENG240 Section W01 Title Engineering Economics Ron Saporita Ocm ABET Program Outcomes E G M U Avg

a an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering 33 17 13 9 2.03

b an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data 0 0 0 0 0.00

c

an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability 0 0 0 0 0.00

d an ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams5 8 4 1 1.94

e an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems33 17 13 9 2.03

f an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility0 0 0 0 0.00

g an ability to communicate effectively 0 0 0 0 0.00

h the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context 0 0 0 0 0.00

i a recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning0 0 0 0 0.00

j a knowledge of contemporary issues0 0 0 0 0.00

k an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice 33 17 13 9 2.03

T# E G M U Avg a b c d e f g h i j k

1 15 1 1 1 2.67 1 1 1

2 5 8 4 1 1.94 1 1 1 1

3 6 5 2 5 1.67 1 1 1

4 7 3 6 2 1.83 1 1 1

5 0.00

6 0.00

7 0.00

8 0.00

9 0.00

10 0.00

11 0.00

12 0.00

13 0.00

CO E G M U 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1 21 6 3 6 1 1

2 28 9 9 8 1 1 1

3 22 4 7 3 1 1

4 20 9 5 2 1 1

5 0 0 0 0

6 0 0 0 0

7 0 0 0 0

8 0 0 0 0

9 0 0 0 0

10 0 0 0 0

11 0 0 0 0

12 0 0 0 0

13 0 0 0 0 0.00

1. The students did not have a good engineering background and too many basic concepts (i.e., how to compute cost of electrical energy, building heating, etc.) were struggles. 2. Much focus was on repeating terminology and adding background to engineering issues not familiar to the students.

Course Outcome

Understanding of the basis for estimating profit and costs and the time value of money and applying associated equations and tables Apply the tables and equations to engineering problems for decision making via equivalent worth, rate of return, and payback periods

2.17

2.06

Understand the effect of depreciation, taxes and foreign exchange in a variety of engineering economics problems.

2.31Recognize the uncertainty of inflation rates to assess problems in engineering economy, especially long duration public construction

Course Assessment Report

Team Project and presentation

1. Students recognized the importance of being critical when applying estimates which have varying degrees of accuracy. 2. They did not like using cash flow diagrams in organizing a problem.

1. Team projects were assigned to experience the difficulty of evaluating costs and benefits for a long duration public project. Available information from the MTA and other agencies were provided and discussed fully. 2. Increased focus was put on cash flow diagrams. 3. Risk Assessment was omitted because the students do not have a foundation in statistics prior to taking this class.

Dept Sem Engineering programs must demonstrate that their graduates have:

Avg

New York Institute of TechnologySchool of Engineering and Technology

ABET Assessment

Year First Name Last Name Key: E = Excellent, G = Good,

Catalog DescriptionEconomic analysis methods relavant to the management/engineering decision making process such as various time valued costs, interest, methods for depreciation, break-even analysis, sensitivity analysis, replacement decisions, capital budgeting and the benefit-cost method.

0.00

0.00

0.00

Task

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Midterm Exam

Homework

Course #Instructor

M = Minimal, U = Unsatisfactory

2.25

Modifications Made to Course

Student Feedback

Final Exam

Instructor's Comments