Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

Inventory - Cal Poly Pomona

VIEWS: 19 PAGES: 12

									AppendixVIc: Table 8.1
Inventory of Concurrent Accreditation and Key Performance Indicators

College/ Department               Name of Program               Accreditation Agency for     At least One Performance Indicator            3 Years of Data for at least One   Date of most Recent Accreditation Action by          Summary of Key Issues for Continuing Institutional Attention Identified in Action Letter or
                                                                this Program                 accepted by agency, used by program           Indicator                          Agency and Decision Made                             Report

College of Agriculture -- Animal BS Animal Health Science       American Veterinary          Number RVT (Registered Veterinary             95% pass rate National Exam        November 17, 2006, granted continued full            The critical recommendations are:
Health Science Department                                       Medical Association          Technicians)                                   60% State Exam                    accreditation. The next accreditation is due         1. All facilities used in Program instruction be compliant with Occupational Safety and Health
                                                                (AVMA) Committee on                                                        2004 6                             Spring 2012.                                         Administration (OSHA) regulations with respect to eyewash availability; secondary labeling of
                                                                Veterinary Technician                                                      2005 8                                                                                  repackaged materials; appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) use; ground fault interrupted
                                                                Education and Activities                                                   2006 6                                                                                  electrical circuitry; secured compressed gas cylinders; complete Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS);
                                                                (CVTEA).                                                                   2007 14                                                                                 emergency shower, lighting, and exit signage; adequacy of fire extinguishers; and sanitizable surfaces in
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   laboratories in which potential pathogens are used. 2. All extraneous materials be removed from the
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Program surgery, and nonsurgical procedures not be performed in the surgery, to be compliant with
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   the California veterinary practice act and with contemporary veterinary practice standards. 3.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Individual radiation dosimetry badges be used by Program students. 4. Controlled substance storage
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   and logs be compliant with Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) regulations in all areas in which
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Program instruction takes place. 5. The Program acquire a tonometer. 6. Medical records be complete
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   and consistent with contemporary veterinary practice standards. 7. Analyses of results of surveys of
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Program graduates and their employers be used for Program improvement


College of Agriculture -- Human BS Foods and Nutrition,         Commission on Dietetic       >80% First time pass rate on national         2009- 87% (n = 15)                 Campus site visit 2003- 10 year accreditation        The major recommendationstime that:the DPD director will be a indicator for lack of University support
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   The withdrawal of assigned are for
Nutrition and Food Sciences     Dietetics Option                Education (CADE)             registered dietitian exam                     2008- 78% (n = 9)                  Off campus review/report/letter December 2009        when program is up for reaccreditation in 2013, thus this is a major concern. The only material
Department                                                                                                                                 2007- 89% (n= 9)                                                                        support from the University/College for accreditation of this program is the annual accreditation fee.
                                                                                                                                           2006- 100% (n= 10)                                                                      Funds for the DPD director required meetings come from Department Foundation Accounts that are
                                                                                                                                           2005- 91% (n=11)                                                                        funded by grants and gifts.
                                                                                                                                           2004- 82% (n=11)

College of Business               BS Business Administration AACSB                           # of students graduated                       2006-2007: 1295,                   Report received April 30, 2010 with decision on Document progress of three departments and college to meet 50% AQ levels. Document progress of
Administration                                                                                                                             2007-2008: 1270,                   04/05-08/09 accreditation period. Accreditation   college to meet 90% AQ+PQ levels. Document actual portfolio of intellectual contributions. Provide
                                                                                                                                           2008-2009: 1464                    was continued for an additional year with a sixth details of strategic financial strategies.
                                  MS Business Administration                                                                               2006-2007: 6,                      year review to be conducted prior to March 1,
                                                                                                                                           2007-2008: 9,                      2011
                                                                                                                                           2008-2009: 5
                                  Master in Business                                                                                       2006-2007: 82,
                                  Administration                                                                                           2007-2008: 37,
                                                                                                                                           2008-2009: 55
                                  MS Accountancy                                                                                           no data                            Not reviewed yet but considered during review         Provide AOL plan and demonstrate mission appropriateness of the new Master of Science in
                                                                                                                                                                              of other programs                                    Accountancy
College of Education and       Preliminary Multiple Subject Ca Commission on Teacher Cal TPA Data for the 4 Teacher           Multiple Subject - Teaching                     2002-2003                                            1. Align rubrics for assessments for better consistency. 2. Include the average ratings for all of the
Integrative Studies-Department Credential                   Credentialing (CCTC)     Performance Assessments to assess        Performance Assessment Data                                                                          items included in the Directed Teaching Evaluation by Supervisor and Cooperating Teachers.
of Education                                                                         candidates' competencies of the Teacher                                                                                                       Disaggregate data into a sub-table to answer if interns score as traditional candidates on these
                                                                                     Performance Expectations.                                                                                                                     assessments and evaluations.
                               Single Subject Teacher                                The California Teaching Performance      Single Subject - Teaching                       2002-2003                                            1. Improving candidate effectiveness at teaching English Language Learners. 2. Improving candidate
                               Credential                                            Assessment (CalTPA) is the state's model Performance Assessment Data                                                                          effectiveness at teaching students with special needs. 3. Improving candidate effectiveness at
                                                                                     of performance assessment of the                                                                                                              developing students' content area reading skills. 4. Improving candidate effectiveness at teaching at-risk
                                                                                     knowledge, skills, and abilities of                                                                                                           students.
                                                                                     elementary and secondary level beginning
                                                                                     teachers. The four CalTPA tasks are:1.
                                                                                     Subject-Specific Pedagogy, 2. Designing
                                                                                     Instruction, 3. Assessing Learning, 4.
                                                                                     Culminating Teaching Experience

                                  Education Specialist                                       Candidate Assessment Level I                  Supervisors' Evaluation of         2003                                                 • Align rubrics for assessments for better consistency
                                  Mild/Moderate Level I and                                  • End of Directed Teaching Candidate          Candidates                                                                              • Include the average ratings for all of the items included in the Directed Teaching Evaluation by
                                  II Teaching Credential                                     Evaluation by Supervisor                                                                                                              Supervisor and Cooperating Teachers.

                                  Education Specialist                                       Candidate Assessment Level I                  Supervisors' Evaluation of         2003                                                 • Align rubrics for assessments for better consistency
                                  Moderate/SevereLevel I and                                 • End of Directed Teaching Candidate          Candidates                                                                              • Include the average ratings for all of the items included in the Directed Teaching Evaluation by
                                  II Teaching Credential                                     Evaluation by Supervisor                                                                                                              Supervisor and Cooperating Teachers.

                                  Administrative Leadership                                  Data                                          Administrative Services Program – Letter dated July 26, 2007 from Dr. Joseph Dear, Limited data were reported, analyzed, or used to identify program modifications. Much of the data was
                                  Program, Tier I Preliminary                                Program Evaluation Data                       Exit Survey                       Consultant for the California Commission on      anecdotal or provided little differentiation between advanced and mediocre students.
                                  and Tier II Professional                                   • Exit Survey                                                                   Teacher Credentialing approving the Program
                                  Administrative Services                                                                                                                    under the New Standards.
                                  Credential

College of Engineering --         BS Aerospace Engineering      Accreditation Board for      Final Exam Scores                             Summary of Comprehensive Final 2006 received full accreditation                         no concerns
Aerospace Engineering                                           Engineering and                                                            Exam Scores 2007-2009
Department                                                      Technology (ABET)
College of Engineering --         BS Chemical Engineering       Accreditation Board for      Fundamental Exam                              Chemical Engineering               2006                                                 • Effectiveness of curriculum changes over time should be clearly demonstrated.
Chemical & Materials                                            Engineering and                                                            Fundamentals Evaluation                                                                 • Current teaching load may be too heavy to accommodate adequate levels of student advising and
Engineering Department                                          Technology (ABET)                                                                                                                                                  counseling, university service, professional development, and interactions with industrial and
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   professional practitioners.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   • Ensure students get adequate coverage of traditional and fundamental aspects of chemical
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   engineering.
College of Engineering -- Civil   BS Civil Engineering          Accreditation Board for      Freshman Writing Test                         Fundamentals of Engineering     2005 visit from ABET resulted in an NGR (next           Insufficient number of full-time faculty for the number of enrolled students.
Engineering Department                                          Engineering and                                                            (FE) examination results (which general review). Next review will occur in 2011.
                                                                Technology (ABET)                                                          are nationally normalized).

College of Engineering --         BS Computer Engineering       Accreditation Board for      Senior Exit Exam                              ECE Senior Exit Exam Results       2006 - accredited for 5 years                        Insufficient number of faculty. Not enough laboratory equipment
Electrical & Computer                                           Engineering and
Engineering Department            BS Electrical Engineering     Technology (ABET)            Senior Projects and Course Labs                                                                                              Insufficient number of faculty
                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Outdated and non-functional laboratory equipment
College of Engineering --         BS Construction               Accreditation Board for      Summer Internship reports                     http://www.csupomona.edu/~cet/D Full Review, 2005, Interim Report and Response College: Professional Development. Program: Improvements based upon Assessment data needs to be
Engineering Technology            Engineering Technology        Engineering and                                                            irectInternshipEvaluation.htm   2007. Response to last submission expected     shown.
Department                                                      Technology (ABET)                                                                                          Su2008

                                                                                                                                           http://www.csupomona.edu/~cet/C
                                                                                                                                           ETInternshipevaluation2008.htm

                                  BS Electronics and                                         Fundamentals of Engineering based             ECET Graph                         Full Review, 2005, Interim Report and Response       Program: Assessment methodology approved; data "across the curriculum" needs to be shown.
                                  Computer Engineering                                       course assessment                                                                2007. Response to last submission expected
                                  Technology                                                                                                                                  Su2008
                                  BS Engineering Technology                                  Fundamentals of Engineering based             ET Graph                           Full Review, 2005, Interim Report and Response       College: Professional Development. Program: Lifelong learning and Continuous Improvement criteria
                                                                                             course assessment                                                                2007. Response to last submission expected           need to be address, inadequate faculty for program size, Improvements based upon Assessment data
                                                                                                                                                                              Su2008                                               needs to be shown methodology approved data “across the curriculum” needs to be shown

College of Engineering --         BS Industrial Engineering     Accreditation Board for      Qualitative - Course Outcomes                 Course Outcomes Assessment      2006                                                    Publishing of Outcomes on website and catalog, better documentation of teamwork development,
Industrial & Manufacturing                                      Engineering and              Assessment Surveys using Survey               Results: 2007-2010.                                                                     institutional financial support
Engineering Department                                          Technology (ABET)            Monkey and covering 13 outcomes.              http://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.
                                                                                             Quantitative - Senior Project Presentation    aspx?sm=_2b5sqIvVfDHzdWUQ3
                                                                                             Outcomes Assessment results from              wE5Rt6tgcvLexU4SzeaoR2Amc6A
                                                                                             industry reviewers using a 10 item rubric     _3d
                                  BS Manufacturing                                           covering 7 outcomes. Assessment               Summary of Senior Project
                                  Engineering                                                performed quarterly by industry               Assessment Results
                                                                                             reviewers.
College of Engineering --       BS Mechanical Engineering       Accreditation Board for      Graduation and employment rates,              FE Exam Results                    ABET 2005                                            Mature faculty, heavy teaching load and limited research.
Mechanical Engineering                                          Engineering and              passing rates of FE Exam, national
Department                                                      Technology (ABET)            ranking by various organizations.
College of Environmental Design Bachelor of Architecture        NAAB                         passing the California Professional Exam      ARE 3.1 Pass Rates by Division     July, 2008                                           1. Physical Resources were found to be deficient, with spaces spread out across campus, a lack of
-- Architecture Department      (Barch)                                                      (ARE).                                                                                                                                permanent studio space for first year students and poor conditions in Buildings 89 and 89 B.
                                Master of Architecture                                                                                                                                                                             2. Financial Resources were found to be deficient in meeting operating needs and open
                                (March)                                                                                                                                                                                            communication about the budget with the College was found to be lacking.
College of Environmental Design BA Art                          National Association of      We have only recently implemented a         No data                              May 13, 2010 receved a 10 year accreditation -       • SFR must be consistently reviewed
-- Art Department                                               Schools of Art and Design    graduating senior exit survey and will date                                      Follow up report required.                           • We need faculty replacement positions of retired faculty
                                                                [NASAD]                      on June 1st.                                                                                                                          • Advising needs more resources and consistency
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   • curriculum/foundation needs updating, student work needs yearly evaluation
                                  BFA Graphic Design                                         We have only recently implemented a                                              May 13, 2010 received a 10 year accreditation        • SFR must be consistently reviewed
                                                                                             graduating senior exit survey this year and                                                                                           • We need faculty replacement positions of retired faculty
                                                                                             have data from winter quarter.                                                                                                        • Advising needs more resources and consistency

College of Environmental Design BS Landscape Architecture       National accrediting         Landscape Architecture. Faculty and Rank Landscape Architecture Faculty          April, 2005 - Full 6 year accreditation              Student enrollment management. Strategies for faculty support in light of increased enrollments.
-- Landscape Architecture                                       organization: Landscape                                               and Rank                                                                                     Continued upgrade of technical equipment and support.
Department                      Master of Landscape             Architecture Accreditation                                                                                                                                         Increase graduate studio space to allow for program expansion. Expand computer technology support.
                                Architecture (MLA)              Board [LAAB]                                                                                                                                                       Develop funding strategies to ensure the long term support of the graduate program.

College of Environmental Design BS Urban and Regional           Planning Accreditation       Student Composition                           3 years of data on Student         The PAB site visit team occurred on February 8-      The site visit report found that two criteria were not met and five were partially met. None of these
-- Dept. of Urban and Regional Planning                         Board of the American                                                      composition                        10, 2010 and a draft and final site visit report     concerned the quality of the programs, but were a result of a low number of faculty and a lack of
Planning                        Master in Urban and             Planning Association                                                                                          were delivered to the Department and shared          sufficient financing. The two unmet areas were: 1) Student/Faculty Ratios: Both programs are well
                                Regional Planning (MURP)                                                                                                                      with the Dean and Provost. Re-accreditation          above the minimum level required. 2) Financial Aid for Graduate Students. The Department has
                                                                                                                                                                              based on the report is expected. A 3 yr progress     explained that we are an evening program with working students, but we are proceeding to develop
The Collins College of            BS in Hotel & Restaurant      Accreditation Commission Number of students graduated (summer              2006-2007: 199                     Last accreditation August 2002 -last annual report   Other than the committee’s looking forward to working with our new permanent dean, no issues were
Hospitality Management            Management                    for Programs in Hospitality through spring)                                2007-2008: 199                     filed 05/22/2008; report accepted 08/15/08           noted in the August 2008 letter of acceptance of our annual report.
                                                                Administration (ACPHA)                                                     2008-2009: 246

College of Letter, Arts, and     Master of Public               National Association of      Culminating projects completed each year 2007-2008: 10                           2006 program accredited until 2013                   • improved classrooms (seminar style) and student work areas;
Social Sciences -- Department of Administration (MPA)           Schools of Public Affairs                                             2008-2009: 5                                                                                 • develop competitive strategy for attracting students in the region;
Political Science                                               and Administration                                                    2009-20010: 13                                                                               • ensure adequate numbers of "core" faculty for the program.
                                                                (NASPAA)
College of Science -- Computer    BS Computer Science           Computing Accreditation      Graduating Student Survey                     http://www.csupomona.edu/~cs/de August 11, 2009, (CAC) of ABET granted a                • Weakness: Not enough full-time faculty to provide continuity and stability.
Science Department                                              Commission (CAC) of the                                                    partment/assessment/            three-year accreditation to September 30, 2011.         • Concern: Insufficient time for faculty scholarly activities and professional development.
                                                                Accreditation Board for                                                                                                                                            • Concern: Insufficient financial support to attract and retain high-quality faculty.
                                                                Engineering and                                                                                                                                                    • Concern: Financial resources might not remain in place throughout the period of accreditation.
                                                                Technology (ABET)




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Appendix VIc - 115
    Cal Poly Pomona EER Report
College/ Department        Name of Program   Accreditation Agency for   At least One Performance Indicator    3 Years of Data for at least One   Date of most Recent Accreditation Action by   Summary of Key Issues for Continuing Institutional Attention Identified in Action Letter or
                                             this Program               accepted by agency, used by program   Indicator                          Agency and Decision Made                      Report




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Appendix VIc - 116
   Cal Poly Pomona EER Report
Mild/Moderate Teaching Credential
Moderate/Severe Teaching

          Supervisors’ Evaluations of Candidates – Top Item in Each Domain Showing Improvement
Domain                                                                Item                                  2007         2008      2009
Educating Diverse Learners with           Uses a variety of instructional strategies and resources to        4.22         4.49      4.79
Disabilities                                         respond to students’ diverse needs.
Planning & Implementing                   Engages students in problem-solving, critical thinking, and           4.11      4.37      4.83
Curriculum& Instruction                     other activities that make subject matter meaningful.
Managing Learning Environments            Manages the learning environment to ensure the safe and               4.22      4.64      4.93
                                            effective use of space, time, instructional techniques,
Assessment of Student Learning              Demonstrates skill in appropriate formal and informal               3.89      3.98      4.72
                                         developmental, academic, social/emotional and functional
Professional Practice,                   Demonstrates ethical standards, professional practices, and            4.33      4.48       4.9
Communication, & Collaboration          performs duties within the laws and regulations related to the
Competencies specific to the               Demonstrates proficiency in ongoing case management.                   4       4.24       4.8
Mild/Moderate Credential
Competencies specific to the                Uses safety precautions to ensure a safe and healthy                  5       4.79        5
Moderate/Severe Credential                                     environment.




                       Supervisors’ Evaluations of Candidates – Top Items Showing Decline
Domain                                                                 Item                                 2007         2008      2009
Assessment of Student Learning         Gathers and integrates assessment information from multiple           3.67         3.93       3.1
                                       sources including formal and informal assessment tools,
                                       parents/families, students, other professionals and
                                       community members, as applicable.
Professional Practice,                 Effectively utilizes school, district, community, and                    4.33      4.14      3.24
Communication, & Collaboration         professional resources to provide the highest quality of
                                       instruction and support for students.
Competencies specific to the           Identifies community resources and professional and                       3.4      3.11      2.48
Mild/Moderate Credential               advocacy organizations for students with mild and moderate
                                       disabilities.
Competencies specific to the           Uses effective communication and interaction across a variety            4.67      4.14       3.5
Moderate/Severe Credential             of environments to facilitate an increase in their social
                                       interactions with students with and without disabilities.


Single Subject Credential
Cal-TPA Data

Cal Poly Pomona began planning for implementation of the Cal-TPA in fall of 2005; training and calibrating of


Single Subject - Teaching Performance Assessment Data
Rating scale        2007-2008              2008-2009                   2009-2010
    1-4
  Passing       Single Subject Only    Single Subject Only         (Fall 09, Winter 10)
 score = 3
                                                                   (Combined Single
             Pass on 1st      Mean      Pass on 1st     Mean       Mean
              Attempt       Score for    Attempt      Score for
                             1st time                  1st time
                             passers                   passers
Task 1        99.91%            3.2      99.90%          3.13   3.23
              (N=51)                     (N=138)                (N=117)
Task 2        99.85%          3.09       99.93%           3.1   3.26 (126)
              (N=97)                      (N=88)



    Cal Poly Pomona EER Report                                                                                         Appendix VIc - 118
Task 3         99.88%         3.16       99.98%        3.08      3.19
               (N=75)                    (N=89)                  (N=119)
Task 4         99.99%         3.25      100.00%        3.16      3.23 (N=69)
               (N=70)                    (N=84)

Multiple Subject Credential


Cal-TPA Data

Cal Poly Pomona began planning for implementation of the Cal-TPA in fall of 2005;
training and calibrating of local assessor training began is summer 2006. Winter 2007
began the piloting of the Cal-TPA. Beginning winter quarter 2008, all candidates
completed the Cal-TPA with all four tasks. Beginning fall 2009, assessment of all Cal-
TPAs are being assessed directly by calibrated assessors using an electronic tool, Task
Stream.


Table MS-3: Multiple Subject - Teaching Performance Assessment Data
Rating scale       2007-2008                2008-2009                2009-2010
    1-4
  Passing     Multiple Subject Only    Multiple Subject Only    (Fall 09, Winter 10)
 score = 3
                                                                 (Combined Single
                                                               Subject and Multiple
                                                                 Subject Programs)
             Pass on 1st    Mean      Pass on 1st    Mean       Mean
              Attempt     Score for    Attempt     Score for
                           1st time                 1st time
                           passers                  passers
Task 1        99.92%         3.15      99.90%         3.34       3.23
              (N=129)                  (N=105)                 (N=117)
Task 2        99.85%         3.17      99.92%         3.06    3.26 (126)
              (N=107)                   (N=86)
Task 3        99.89%         3.28      99.97%         3.08       3.19
               (N=99)                   (N=84)                 (N=119)
Task 4        99.90%         3.28      99.97%         3.05   3.23 (N=69)
               (N=64)                   (N=80)

Administrative Services Credential


Table AS-3: Administrative Services Program –
Exit Survey – Areas of strength
      The Program (% agree with       2007-08        2008-09
             statement)
Instructors were enthusiastic about 80%             82%
       content and teaching.        (N=104)         (N=121)

Instructors valued and encouraged 83%               82%
student input and diverse opinions. (N=104)         (N=121)




Source: Biennial Report, p. 52




    Cal Poly Pomona EER Report                                                            Appendix VIc - 119
Table AS-4: Administrative Services Program –
Exit Survey – Areas for Improvement recent
decrease)
       The Program (% agree)          2007-08       2008-09


       The Program provided a           91%        69%
 comprehensive introduction to the      (N=104)    (N=121)
    field of school administration
 The program provided courses that      88%        62%
 were relevant to the preparation of    (N=104)    (N=121)
         school administrators
The program utilized instructors who    51%        62%
 were competent in the delivery of      (N=104)    (N=121)
               instruction
  The program utilized appropriate      60%        64%
text or other supplemental sources,     (N=104)    (N=121)
        handouts, articles, etc.
 The course content was relevant to     89%        78%
        subject/thematic areas          (N=104)    (N=121)

 Instruction appropriately utilized     77%        66%
 written assignments, group work        (N=104)    (N=121)
            and quizzes.
   Fieldwork provided me with           72%        66%
     meaningful experiences in          (N=104)    (N=121)
    educational administration
 The assessments utilized practical     66%        61%
     administrative situations.         (N=104)    (N=121)

     The Instructors (% agree)           2007-08    2008-09



  Instructors motivated students to     83%        78%
   view new concepts and broader        (N=104)    (N=121)
              perspectives
       The instructors made the         65%        67%
 assignments and activities relevant    (N=104)    (N=121)
       to school administration
The fieldwork supervisors effectively   68%        63%
 guided students through fieldwork      (N=104)    (N=121)
             requirements



Source: Biennial Report p. 53




    Cal Poly Pomona EER Report                                Appendix VIc - 120
Aerospace Engineering
APPENDIX AERO – 8: Comprehensive Exam Results.


Comprehensive Exam Average Scores by Discipline with RUBRIC Evaluation:

                                           Aerothermofl
                                           uid-                                             Flight
Discipline Averages                        dynamics     Struc-tures       Propul-sion       Mechanics        Astro-nautics                      RUBRIC
                                                                                                                                Overall
                                                                                                                               Averages          Eval.
                       AY 07-08                67%           57%              79%              45%               74%             65%             Fair
                       AY 08-09                61%           61%              79%              28%               74%             60%             Fair
                       AY 09-10                56%           60%              72%              32%               70%             57%             Fair


                                           Aerothermo-
                                           fluid-                                           Flight
Compared to 07-08                          dynamics    Struc-tures        Propul-sion       Mechanics        Astro-nautics
                                                                                                                                Overall
                                                                                                                               Averages
                       AY 07-08               100%          100%             100%              100%             100%            100%
                       AY 08-09                91%          107%             100%              62%              100%              92%
                       AY 09-10                84%          105%              91%              71%               95%              88%



Chemical Engineering
Fundamentals Evaluation
Fundamental Exam Results- all score in %
Year                                           2003          2004             2005             2006              2007             2008               2009
No of students                                        22            14                22                19               18               37              28
Highest Score                                         78            76                76                76               74               76              76
Lowest Score                                          37            30                37                33               33               30              24
Average                                               55            52                57                54               51               47              53
Areas
Year                                           2003          2004             2005             2006              2007             2008               2009
Stoichiometry                                         80            76               79.1             71.1              68.3             65.9            68.6
Fluid Mechanics                                       45            42               42.2             31.6              36.1             27.5            47.0
Thermodynamics                                        68            61               65.5             68.4              62.2             67.0            58.6
Heat Transfer                                         52            30               54.5             31.6              35.6             27.0            36.4
Ecomonics                                             46            60               61.4             51.3              69.4             49.3            56.3
Materials                                             47            45               51.3             56.4              42.9             44.8            49.5
Statics                                               36            38               33.0             42.1              38.9             36.5            44.6
Strength of Material                                   0             0                0.0              0.0               0.0              0.0             0.0
Electrical/Control                                    47            46               45.5             60.0              46.7             44.3            47.1
Average                                               55            52               57.0             53.7              51.2             47.2            52.8



2002 through 2009 average scores were based on 46 problems excluding strength of materials, which was not a required subject
 in Chemical Engineering Major.




                                                               Fundamental Exam



               90


               80


               70


               60
                                                                                                                                                           Stoichiometry
          Scores




               50                                                                                                                                          Fluid Mechanics

                                                                                                                                                           Thermodynamics
               40
                                                                                                                                                           Heat Transfer

               30


               20


               10


                   0
                           2002     2003       2004         2005           2006              2007            2008          2009
                                                                         Year




   Cal Poly Pomona EER Report                                                                                                                                                Appendix VIc - 121
                                                      Fundamental Exam
              80


              70


              60


              50                                                                                                                          Ecomonics
         Scores




                                                                                                                                          Materials

              40                                                                                                                          Statics

                                                                                                                                          Electrical/Control
              30


              20


              10


                  0
                        2002    2003    2004         2005        2006
                                                              Year                2007        2008          2009




Statistical Analysis                                                                                                                              Standard       95% t-value
                                        2004          2005           2006            2007            2008          2009         Average           Deviation
Average Score                                52               57             54            51             47            53                39.25
                                           2704             3249           2916          2601           2209          2809                               44.21         2.37

95% Lower Limit                                0.0           0.0            0.0             0.0             0.0           0.0
95% Upper limit                                0.0           0.0            0.0             0.0             0.0           0.0



                                Fundamental Examination Average Score

                   65


                   60

                                                                                                                                          95% upper limit
           Score




                   55
                                                                                                                                          Average Score

                   50                                                                                                                     95% Lower Limit



                   45


                   40
                         2002    2003    2004        2005           2006          2007        2008          2009
                                                                   Year




   Cal Poly Pomona EER Report                                                                                                                                                  Appendix VIc - 122
Civil Engineering

Civil Engineering Freshman Writing Test Results

This study compared writing skills as freshmen (FWT) with those as juniors (GWT). A positive Delta indicates improvement in writing abilities.

              FWT Year                      Number of Number of                 %                Delta
                                              FWT       GWT                  Analyzed
                                             Results   Results
                   1999                         46       29                       63             1.21
                   2000                         35       19                      54.3            0.74
                   2001                         48       16                      33.3            1.81
                   2002                         68        0                       0               0
                   2003                         70        0                       0               0
                   Total                       267       64                       24             1.22



Electrical Engineering and Computer Engineering

The graph shows the results of Senior Exit Exam given to students.


   80%
   70%
   60%                                                                                                                            2003
   50%                                                                                                                            2004
                                                                                                                                  2006-W
   40%
                                                                                                                                  2006-Sp
   30%
                                                                                                                                  2007-W
   20%                                                                                                                            2007-F
   10%
    0%
              ECE          ECE    ECE        ECE       ECE         ECE        ECE         ECE        ECE         ECE
              302          307    306        309       310         315        320         330        341         405



Electronics and Computer Engineering Technology
ETE 204/L Semiconductor Devices and Circuits/Lab
Student Outcomes Assessment: Winter 2007 and Fall 2007;

Item Number                                 Objective:
                                           Over 70% of
                                              student
                                        1 Analyze BJT CC amplifiers with two power-supply biasing.
                                        2 Analyze BJT CC amplifiers for input/output impedance and mid band gain analysis.
                                        3 Analyze BJT CC amplifiers for frequency and phase (Bode plot) response.
                                        4 Analyze JFET CS amplifiers with simple self bias.
                                        5 Analyze JFET CS amplifiers for input/output impedance and mid band gain.
                                        6 Analyze JFET CS amplifiers for frequency and phase (Bode plot) response.
                                        7 Analyze BJT diode-transistor NAND gates with LED loads.
                                        8 Utilize PSpice simulations throughout the lecture for circuit analysis and problem solving.


Table of Results

Item Number                                 W07             F07             Objective
                                        1          50.00%          38.10%          70.00%
                                        2          75.00%          42.90%          70.00%
                                        3          41.70%          71.40%          70.00%
                                        4          41.70%          47.60%          70.00%
                                        5          57.10%          58.30%          70.00%
                                        6          25.00%          33.30%          70.00%
                                        7          16.70%          28.60%          70.00%
                                        8         100.00%         100.00%          70.00%




     100.00%
      90.00%
      80.00%
      70.00%
      60.00%                                                                                                          W07
      50.00%                                                                                                          F07
      40.00%                                                                                                          Passing Score 70%
      30.00%
      20.00%
      10.00%
   Cal Poly Pomona EER Report                                                                                                                    Appendix VIc - 123
        0.00%
                      Q1         Q2         Q3       Q4           Q5        Q6          Q7         Q8
Graph of Results


      100.00%
        90.00%
        80.00%
        70.00%
        60.00%                                                                                           W07
        50.00%                                                                                           F07
        40.00%                                                                                           Passing Score 70%
        30.00%
        20.00%
        10.00%
        0.00%
                     Q1        Q2            Q3         Q4             Q5       Q6      Q7   Q8




Engineering Technology
Results of capstone exam for Engineering Technology (General Program)
Students in the required capstone course


Table of Results
                                                                             National
                                                                             Average
                                                                             Percent
                                                                             Correct
                                             ET General         ET General October
FE SUBJECT AREA                              Fall 2006          Fall 2007    2006
MATHEMATICS                                           52%                64%          70%
STATICS                                               30%                48%          68%
DYNAMICS                                              44%                72%          68%
FLUID MECHANICS                                       47%                59%          64%
THERMODYNAMICS                                        33%                54%          53%
MECHANICS OF MATERIALS                                25%                55%          69%


Graph of Results

      80%

      70%

      60%
                                                                                             ET General Fall 2006
      50%
                                                                                             ET General Fall 2007
      40%

      30%                                                                                    National Average Percent Correct Oct_2006
      20%

      10%

        0%
                           S




                                                        S




                                                                     S
                 S




                                                                                   LS
                                       S
                          C




                                                                   IC
                C




                                                    IC
                                     IC




                                                                                IA
                       TI
             TI




                                                   N



                                                                  AM
                                    M
                     TA




                                                                               R
            A




                                                A
                                 A




                                                                             TE
           M




                                               H



                                                             YN
                                N
                     S




                                              C
        E




                                Y




                                                                            A
                                             E
      TH




                                                            D
                               D




                                                                         M
                                          M




                                                           O
    A




                                                                        F
                                                     M
                                        ID
  M




                                                                       O
                                                    R
                                      U



                                                    E




                                                                   S
                                    FL



                                                  TH




                                                                 IC
                                                                N
                                                              A
                                                             H
                                                            C
                                                         E
                                                       M




   Cal Poly Pomona EER Report                                                                                                            Appendix VIc - 124
                                      TA




                                                                                                                   R
                 A




                                                                               A




                                                                                                    A
                                                           A




                                                                                                                 TE
                M




                                                                              H



                                                                                              YN
                                                          N
                                    S




                                                                             C
             E




                                                      Y




                                                                                                                 A
                                                                         E
         TH




                                                                                             D
                                                     D




                                                                                                            M
                                                                         M




                                                                                            O
    A




                                                                                                         F
                                                                                         M
                                                                   ID
  M




                                                                                                        O
                                                                                        R
                                                               U



                                                                                 E




                                                                                                    S
                                                             FL



                                                                               TH




                                                                                                  IC
                                                                                                 N
                                                                                              A
                                                                                             H
                                                                                            C
                                                                                         E
                                                                                        M
Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering

Assessment of Senior Project Presentations



           Boxplot of Senior Project Presentation Average Scores - Spr 2005
                                                    Industry Evaluations Only
                               (4 = Professional; 3 = Proficient, 2 = Marginal; 1 = Unacceptable)

          4


          3
  Data




          2


          1


          0
                  l                                pr                               l          al                                          l
                at                    ob                          Mo
                                                                     d           ua          Or
                                                                                                            W                 m        cia          re
                                                                                                                                                         ?
                                                                                                                                                                  Av
                                                                                                                                                                    g
              vM                    Pr           Ap                          Vis                         S/            s te          an           Hi
            Ad                 ID          En
                                             g               th                                                      Sy           Fin
                                                          Ma
 10 presentations; 6 industry reviewers




                               Percentage of Professional +
                                    Proficient Scores

                               100%
      Percent Professional +




                                90%
                                80%
            Proficient




                                70%
                                60%
                                50%
                                40%
                                30%
                                20%
                                10%
                                 0%
                                                     1            2          3           4          5        6            7            8         9           10
                                                                                        Student/Team


Mechanical Engineering
EIT/FE Mechanical Engineering Pass Rates

                                             CAL POLY POMONA ME FE EXAM RESULTS ABET SUMMARY
                   CAL POLY POMONA ME % EXAMINEES PASSING > STATEWIDE ME % EXAMINEES PASSING FOR 80% OF EXAMS TAKEN
                   CAL POLY POMONA ME % EXAMINEES PASSING > NATIONWIDE ME % EXAMINES PASSING FOR 70% OF EXAMS TAKEN


                                           100

                                            90

                                            80

                                            70

                                            60
         % EXAMINEES
                                            50
           PASSING
                                            40
                                                                                                                                                                        CAL POLY ME
                                            30                                                                                                                          STATEWIDE ME
                                            20                                                                                                                          NATIONWIDE ME
                                            10

                                                 0
                                                 Apr-99
                                                           Oct-99
                                                                      Apr-00
                                                                                 Oct-00
                                                                                             Apr-01
                                                                                                        Oct-01
                                                                                                                 Apr-02
                                                                                                                                  Oct-02
                                                                               DATE EXAM TAKEN                                                 Apr-03
                                                                                                                                                             Oct-03




   Cal Poly Pomona EER Report                                                                                                                                                           Appendix VIc - 125
Architecture
M.S., BS in Architecture
 ARE 3.1 Pass Rates
    by Division
       DIVISION           Abbr.             2005           2005         2006      2006    2007      2007
                                           national        CPP         national   CPP    national   CPP
                                              %                           %                 %
Pre-Design                       PD          76%           53%           78%       40%     79%      60%
General Structures               GS          75%           49%           75%       37%     76%      50%
Lateral Forces                   LF          76%           57%           75%      100%     79%      71%

Mechanical & Electrical
Systems                          ME          68%           64%          70%       100%    69%       47%
Materials & Methods              MM          77%           65%          77%        50%    79%       59%

Construction
Documents & Services             CD          77%           61%          77%       50%     77%       58%

Site Planning                    SP          73%           64%          66%       58%     66%       64%
Building Planning                BP          63%           58%          68%       63%     65%       42%
Building Technology              BT          66%           57%          67%       55%     69%       54%


Source: NCARB published database http://www.ncarb.org/en/ARE/ARE-pass-rates.aspx



                CA Professional Exam
     Architecture General Selected Competencies
CPP Average Passing       1997-1999            2004          2005          2006
General Structures             49%              59%           56%           76%
Lateral Loads                  65%              60%           65%           86%




Landscape Architecture Faculty and Rank
Rank/Title                2002-03          2003-4        2004-05
Professor                              5             5             5
Assoc. Prof                            0             1             0
Asst. Prof.                            3             3             3
Instructor/Lecturer                    6             8             7
Visiting
Lecturer/Consult.                      0             0             0
Total                                 14            17            15

Prof. Emeritus                         2             2             2




    Cal Poly Pomona EER Report                                                                        Appendic VIc - 126
URP Student Body
Race/Ethnic Data                1996   1998   2001
White                             28     26     30
Black                              4      4      6
Native American                    1      0      2
Asian                             27     20     15
Hispanic                          28     33     31
Other                              9     10     14
Foreign                            3      7      3
Total                            100    100    100

Gender
Women                             27            33
Men                               73            67




   Cal Poly Pomona EER Report                        Appendic VIc - 127

								
To top