; Background Information - DOC
Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out
Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

Background Information - DOC

VIEWS: 7 PAGES: 119

  • pg 1
									9/3/2012     Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal




              Engineering Accreditation Commission
     Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Inc.




               Program Self-Study Report
                                           for

    Bachelor of Science in Engineering, Civil
                  Engineering




                                  Submitted by

    Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
       College of Engineering and Natural Sciences
               Northern Arizona University




                                 June 30, 2007




                                             1
9/3/2012               Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal




Table of Contents
Chapter I Background and Overview ............................................................................... 5
  A. Degree Titles: Bachelor of Science in Engineering, Civil Engineering ................... 5
  B. Program Mode and Curriculum Overview ................................................................ 5
  C. Actions to Correct Previous Shortcomings ................................................................ 7
  D. Report Organization ................................................................................................. 10
  F. Contact Information .................................................................................................. 10
  G. Abbreviations ........................................................................................................... 10

Chapter II Students (Criterion 1) ...................................................................................... 12
  A. Admission and Transfer Course Articulation .......................................................... 12
    1. Freshman Admission Requirements ..................................................................... 12
    2. Transfer Student Admission Requirements .......................................................... 13
    3. Arizona Transfer Articulation System .................................................................. 13
    4. Transfer of Non-Arizona System Courses ............................................................ 15
  B. Advising and Monitoring ........................................................................................ 16
    1. Advising Incoming Freshman and Transfer Students .......................................... 16
    2. Advising First-Year Students ............................................................................... 17
    3. Advising Transfer and Continuing Students ........................................................ 17
    4. Monitoring Progress............................................................................................. 18
    5. Advising Effectiveness ........................................................................................ 19
  C. Evaluating the Completion of Program Requirements ............................................ 21

Chapter III Program Educational Objectives (Criterion 2) ............................................... 23
  A. University and College Mission Statements ............................................................ 23
  B. CENE’s Mission ....................................................................................................... 24
  C. Program Educational Objectives .............................................................................. 25
  D. Relating Objectives to Mission ................................................................................ 26
  E. Assessing Graduates Achievement of Educational objectives ................................ 27
  F. Future Planned Activities ........................................................................................ 29

Chapter IV Program Outcomes (Criterion 3).................................................................... 31
  A. Constituency Helps to Revise Program Learning Outcomes ................................... 34
  B. Program Learning Outcomes Support Educational Objectives................................ 36
  C. Relating Outcomes and Establishing Metrics .......................................................... 37
    1. Criterion 3 Outcome (a)  CE Program Outcome 1 ............................................ 38
    2. Criterion 3 Outcome (b)  CE Program Outcome 3 ............................................ 38
    3. Criterion 3 Outcome (c)  CE Program Outcomes 2, 4, 5 ................................... 39
    4. Criterion 3 Outcome (d)  CE Program Outcome 4 ............................................ 39
    5. Criterion 3 Outcome (e)  CE Program Outcome 2 ............................................ 39
    6. Criterion 3 Outcome (f)  CE Program Outcome 6 ............................................. 40
    7. Criterion 3 Outcome (g)  CE Program Outcome 4 ............................................ 40
    8. Criterion 3 Outcome (h)  CE Program Outcomes 4, 5 ...................................... 40



                                                               2
9/3/2012               Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


     9. Criterion 3 Outcome (i)  CE Program Outcome 5 ............................................. 41
     10. Criterion 3 Outcome (j)  CE Program Outcome 5 ............................................ 41
     11. Criterion 3 Outcome (k)  CE Program Outcomes 3, 5 ..................................... 41
   D. Transforming Curriculum into Outcomes ............................................................... 41
   E. Process to Assess Outcomes ................................................................................... 43
   F. Outcome Evidence and Achievement Evaluation ................................................... 44
     1. Outcome (a) ........................................................................................................ 44
     2. Outcome (b) ........................................................................................................ 46
     3. Outcome (c) ........................................................................................................ 47
     4. Outcome (d) ........................................................................................................ 49
     5. Outcome (e) ........................................................................................................ 50
     6. Outcome (f) ......................................................................................................... 51
     7. Outcome (g) ........................................................................................................ 54
     8. Outcome (h) ........................................................................................................ 55
     9. Outcome (i) ......................................................................................................... 57
     10. Outcome (j) ......................................................................................................... 59
     11. Outcome (k) ........................................................................................................ 63

Chapter V Assessment and Evaluation (Criterion 4) ........................................................ 65
  A. Overview of Continuous Improvement Process ..................................................... 65
  B. Constituency Groups ............................................................................................... 66
  C. Assessment Tools and Drivers ................................................................................ 68
    1. Alumni Survey ...................................................................................................... 69
    2. Employer Survey ................................................................................................. 73
    3. Senior Exit Survey ............................................................................................... 75
    4. Course Improvement Documents (CID) .............................................................. 79
    5. Capstone Design Project Evaluation .................................................................... 84
    6. DAC Student Forum ............................................................................................ 90
    7. University-Wide Tools or Drivers ....................................................................... 93
    8. Fundamentals of Engineering Examination Results .......................................... 102

Chapter VI Curriculum (Criterion 5) .............................................................................. 105
  A. Mathematics and Basic Sciences .......................................................................... 106
  B. Engineering Topics ............................................................................................... 106
  C. General Education ................................................................................................. 107
  D. Major Design Experience...................................................................................... 108

Chapter VII Faculty (Criterion 6) ................................................................................... 111

Chapter VIII Facilities (Criterion 7) ............................................................................... 112

Chapter IX Support (Criterion 8) .................................................................................... 113

Chapter X Program Criteria (Criterion 9) ....................................................................... 114
  A. Curriculum .......................................................................................................... 114
    1. Math and Science ............................................................................................... 114


                                                               3
9/3/2012                 Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


       2.   Proficiency in Four Civil Engineering Areas..................................................... 115
       3.   Laboratory Experiences in More Than One Civil Engineering Area ................ 116
       3.   Civil Engineering Design ................................................................................... 117
       4.   Professional Practice .......................................................................................... 118
  B.        Faculty................................................................................................................. 118




                                                                   4
9/3/2012        Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal



Chapter I Background and Overview
A. Degree Titles: Bachelor of Science in Engineering, Civil
Engineering

The Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering (CENE) offers and requests
accreditation for the Bachelor of Science in Engineering (BSE), Civil Engineering
(CE) degree. The degree program provides a high quality education that prepares our
students for civil engineering careers of technical innovation and leadership. Our
students are recognized for their ability to “get things done”. The curriculum provides
includes instruction in structural engineering, geotechnical engineering, transportation
engineering, and water resources engineering. It contains a strong design component
centered on the Design4Practice (D4P) sequence of courses that are complemented by
extensive discipline-specific design work. This design focus to our curriculum
component is structured to guide students through the design process and to give them
many significant and modern experiences in well-managed team-base formats that
incorporate life-long learning expectations and professional practice and contemporary
issues.

Special note: The reader should be aware that the CENE is responsible for two
undergraduate academic programs, Civil Engineering (CE) and Environmental
Engineering (ENE). Most of our faculty members contribute to both programs and the
programs are intertwined in many other ways, including laboratories, curricula, and
administration. Thus, at certain places in this document we will refer to the CE Program
and its particular components and at other times it will make more sense to talk about the
CENE Department as a whole. We strive to operate as a strong, unified Department with
a commitment to students in two undergraduate programs.


B. Program Mode and Curriculum Overview

The Bachelor of Science in Engineering, Civil Engineering is a day program intended for
full-time students, as is true for the other BSE programs in the College of Engineering
and Natural Sciences (CENS).

The program is offered on a semester basis. One 50-minute lecture per week in a fifteen–
week semester constitutes one semester credit hour that is also known as a “unit” or
“hour”. Thus, three 50-minute lectures per week in a fifteen-week semester constitute a
3-credit hour course. One semester credit hour is given when a laboratory meets for one
2.5-hour session per week. The terms credit hours, credits, units, and hours used
throughout this report, are synonymous.

The current 2007-08 curriculum for the BSE-CE is provided here in Figure I.1 to support
the reader’s comprehension of the following Accreditation Summary. Our educational




                                                5
9/3/2012           Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


objectives and learning outcomes are fostered primarily1 through this curriculum, which
is referenced frequently throughout this document. The terms program and curriculum are
used interchangeably throughout this report.

Figure I.1 2007- 08 CE Program of Study

                                            Freshman Year
CENE 150      Intro to Environmental Egr.    3     PHY 161           University Physics I                 3
CHM 151       General Chemistry I            4     PHY 161L          University Physics I Lab             1
CHM 151L      General Chemistry I Lab        1     MAT 137           Calculus II                          4
ENG 105       Critical Reading & Writing     4     EGR 186           Intro to Engineering Design          3
MAT 136       Calculus I                     4     PHI 105 OR        Introduction to Ethics3
                                                     PHI 331         Environmental Ethics3                3
                                                   CENE 180          Computer Aided Drafting              2

                                            Sophomore Year
CENE 251      Applied Mech: Statics          3      CENE 253        Mechanics of Materials                3
PHY 262       University Physics II          3      CENE 253L Mechanics of Materials Lab                  1
MAT 238       Calculus III                   4      EGR 286         Egr Design: The Process               3
CENE 225      Engineering Analysis           3      MAT 239         Differential Equations                3
CENE 270      Plane Surveying & Lab          3      ME 291          Thermodynamics I                      3
                                                    Liberal Studies Distribution Course3                  3

                                             Junior Year
CENE 376 Structural Analysis I               3      CENE 333      Applied Hydraulics                      3
ME 252        Applied Mech: Dynamics         3      CENE 333L Applied Hydraulics Lab                      1
ME 395        Fluid Mechanics                3      CENE 383      Soil Mech & Foundations                 4
Science Elective2                            3      CENE 386W Egr Design: The Methods                     3
CENE 420 Traffic Studies & Signals           3      CENE 433      Hydrology & Flood Control               3
Liberal Studies Distribution Course 3        3      Liberal Studies Distribution Course3                  3


                                             Senior Year
CENE 331 Sanitary Engineering                3      EE 188          Electrical Engineering I              3
CENE 418 Highway Engineering                 3      CENE 486C Egr. Design: Capstone                       3
CENE 438 Reinforced Concrete Design          3      Technical Elective                                    3
CENE 476 Egr Design Process Lab              1      Liberal Studies Distribution Course3                  3
CENE 450 Geotechnical Eval. & Design         3      Liberal Studies Distribution Course3                  3
Technical Elective4                          3

1
  As described within Chapter IV and Chapter V, the CENE actively supports and looks to student
participation in organizations such as the student chapter of the American Society of Civil Engineers
(ASCE), Tau Beta Pi, Engineers Without Borders (EWB) to encourage the in-program achievement of
learning outcomes and future accomplishment of program objectives.
2
  Approved Science Electives include: BIO 181 Unity of Life I (4 units), CHM 152 General Chemistry II
(3 units), CHM 230 Fund. Organic Chemistry (3 units), GLG 101:103 Physical Geology and Lab (4 units)
– this course is highly recommended, PHY 263 University Physics III (3 units).
3
  Liberal Studies Distribution and Diversity Requirements: Units must total to 18 with 6 units from the
Social and Political World (SPW) block, 6 units from the Aesthetic and Humanistic Inquiry (AHI) block,
and 6 units from the Cultural Understanding (CU) block. Three of the AHI units must be from either PHI
105 or PHI 331. Three units must be co-listed as an US Ethnic Diversity course, and three units must be
co-listed as a Global Diversity course.
4
  At least 3 units must be from a CENE approved technical elective course chosen from one of the
recognized CE specialty areas. The other course may be an approved non-CENE technical elective.


                                                   6
9/3/2012           Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


The CE program of study consists of a total 130 units of coursework. The courses of
EGR 186 Introduction to Engineering Design and EGR 286 Engineering Design: The
Process, CENE 386W Engineering Design: The Methods, CENE 476 Engineering Design
Process Lab, and CENE 486C Engineering Design: Capstone define the Design4Practice
(D4P) curriculum. The D4P curriculum provides multi-disciplinary, team-based, hands-
on design experiences to all of our engineering students through their fours years of study
with the integration of professional practice and technical skills. The CE program of
study requires 32 hours of basic math and science coursework which includes the
Department taught course in statistics and probability titled CENE 225 Engineering
Analysis. Additionally, the program contains 76 hours of engineering topics of which 24
are design. Twenty-two hours of general education complete the program of which one
course addresses ethics directly and two courses enhance students’ knowledge of
diversity on global and ethnic scales.

C. Actions to Correct Previous Shortcomings

The following table summarizes the CENE’s experiences with the EAC evaluation since
our first evaluation under the new EC 2000 Criteria in the fall of 2001. The information
in this table refer to the criteria numbering scheme that was in place prior to the
renumbering that became effective for 2007-08 evaluations.

Table I.1 Summary of EAC Evaluations for the CENE since Fall 2001

       Time
       Frame          Activity                                          Program Results
 1     Fall –         Program Reviews for all Engineering               IV for CE and ENE due to:
       Summer         Programs under new EC 2000 Criteria.                 Weakness in Criterion 7 along with
       2001                                                                Program Issues in Criterion 2, 3, 6, and 8
 2     June 2003      CE and ENE Submit Reports on Actions
                      Taken to Correct Shortcomings
 3     Nov 2003       ABET Site Visit of CE and ENE Programs.           Draft Statement Results:
                                                                          - Observation in Criterion 7 both CE
                                                                             and ENE
                                                                          - Concern in Criterion 3 both CE and
                                                                             ENE
                                                                          - Concern in Criterion 6 ENE
 4     April –        Communications to ABET about NAU-wide             Final Statement Results:
       August 2004    restructuring; collapsing its ten colleges into      - Reinstatement of Criterion 7
                      six. The previously stand-alone College of             Institutional Weakness for all of
                      Engineering and Technology is combined                 NAU’s Engineering Programs
                      with the science and math departments into a           including CE, ENE, ME, and EE.
                      new college, the College of Engineering and          - Concern in Criterion 3 both CE and
                      Natural Sciences.                                      ENE
                                                                           - Concern in Criterion 6 ENE
 5     June 2005      Focus report submitted responding to the
                      Institutional Weakness as applied to all
                      engineering programs, plus responses to the
                      remaining concerns in the CE and ENE




                                                    7
9/3/2012                Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


                           programs.
    6      October 26-     ABET Focus Visit                                   Draft Statement Results:
           27 2005                                                              - Concern in Criterion 7 for all
                                                                                   programs
                                                                                 - Concern in Criterion 6 for ENE
    7      May 19,         30-Day response submitted documenting
           2006            Engineering’s return to its renovated and
                           expanded building , as well as the
                           improvements made to the ENE laboratories
    8      August 21,      ABET – EAC Final Statement                         Final Statement Results:
           2006                                                                  - Concern in Criterion 6 for ENE5


Significant to this program review is the NAU, college, department and program changes
and activities commencing with item 4 in the above table and finishing with the item 8.
Item 4 – the communication to ABET about NAU’s restructuring – speaks to the many
important and beneficial changes that were initiated at NAU that went well beyond
NAU’s restructuring. The excerpts below from our June 2005 focus report to ABET
describe the university-wide restructuring that took place.

        “Along with hundreds of other public higher education institutions throughout the country, NAU has
        experienced the effects of changing conditions related to state funding, technology, the economy, and
        student demographics. Our internal examinations about how to respond to these changes – combined
        with the feedback gained from our external constituencies including ABET, our state and regional
        communities, and our industrial advisory partners – compelled NAU to develop and implement
        proactive solutions. One of these solutions is the recent reorganization of the university.

        In June 2004, the Arizona Board of Regents approved the proposal for internal restructuring of the
        academic units (colleges) of Northern Arizona University as proposed on April 12, 2004. The proposed
        changes became operational on July 1 of that year. In the restructuring, the five departments with their
        six accredited programs, and supporting infrastructure of the former College of Engineering &
        Technology (CET) were joined with the mathematics and science departments from the former College
        of Arts & Sciences and some of the infrastructure from that unit. The new unit was named the College
        of Engineering & Natural Sciences to preserve the visibility of the engineering programs, to emphasize
        the beneficial integration of engineering with science, and to highlight the environmental themes
        running throughout the many programs from both parent colleges.

        This restructuring was initiated by President John Haeger to address an overgrown academic structure
        that had come to be, not through deliberate planning, but by historical happenstance. The pre-
        restructured university consisted of 10 schools and colleges with 34 departments and approximately 40
        independent research and outreach centers and institutes. Along with hundreds of other public higher
        education institutions throughout the country, however, NAU faced changing conditions related to
        funding, technology, the economy, and student demographics. The university had reached a point
        where a close look at the basic organizational structure was needed to find ways to capture
        administrative efficiencies, to more effectively achieve the University’s mission through
        interdisciplinary cooperation and integration of teaching and research, and ultimately to provide the
        highest quality undergraduate education possible. This examination was completed by The Blue
        Ribbon Task Force on Restructuring, which consisted of faculty and deans (no central administrators).
        The result was a restructured university with 6 colleges and the integration of research and outreach
        centers into the academic reporting lines. It is a university better able to focus on priorities and goals

5
 The actions taken correct this one remaining issue from the focus review is covered in detail under
Chapter VIII in the June 2007 Self-Study report of the ENE program.


                                                          8
9/3/2012           Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


    while controlling and directing the growth of programs and research endeavors. In contrast to the
    ABET EAC interpretation that reorganization was the direct result of “a worsening budget during the
    Fall 2003”, the reality is far more complex. Certainly finances were a factor, but it was only one
    driver among the many that motivated institutional changes. Most important was the desire to
    strengthen academic programs by capitalizing on synergistic teaching and research missions.

We understand why ABET wanted to learn more about our reorganization and its impacts
within the context of the earlier 2001-02 finding a “weakness” in Criterion 7. As we had
successfully shown, however, the university reorganization was not portending problems
in institutional support and financial resources. In fact, it was the opposite. It was the
right thing to do at the right time to proactively address the rapidly changing world of
higher education.

Along with restructuring, many additional and/or associated changes were also occurring
at NAU. These beneficial changes are listed below to present the context under which
the CENE operates today. The impacts of these changes are noted in detail throughout
this self-study. These notable changes that were either initiated during or after the spring
of 2004 include:

          Migration of NAU’s legacy institutional data management system to a modern
           and integrated PeopleSoft system called LOUIE (Lumberjack’s Online University
           Information Environment).
          Initiation of a campus-wide infrastructural renewal program that included the
           addition of, or renovation to, numerous academic and residential building
           projects; enhanced parking and on-campus transportation systems; upgraded way-
           finding; and restored green and out-door activity spaces.
          Completion of the $16.5 million Engineering building expansion and renovation
           plus additional $1.3 million in FFE for furniture, fixtures and equipment.
          Increased commitment, campus-wide, to a variety of supportive student-life and
           student services including freshman advising and retention, tutoring and
           mentoring, summer reading program, computing services, supplemental
           instruction, and career placement.
          Revitalization of the University’s development, marketing, and alumni-outreach
           functions.
          Focused investments made in effective student recruitment through the Office of
           Enrollment Management and Student Affairs.
          Redirection of dollars for increase compensation to faculty and staff.
          Stabilized and strengthened the leadership function in the CENS along with
           increases to administrative services.

We confidently say today that restructuring, along with the other NAU-wide changes
noted above, has encouraged the CENE to succeed and prosper in its mission to serve its
undergraduate programs. The CENE is successfully responding to the needs of the civil
engineering profession with graduates who have achieved program learning outcomes
and are becoming accomplished professionals. The CENE has a robust and actively
managed CIP that engages faculty, students, and external constituents in our programs
directed towards producing graduates who “get things done”.


                                                   9
9/3/2012        Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal



D. Report Organization

This self-study was developed during the 2006-07 academic year (AY), and follows the
renumbered criteria approved by the ABET Accreditation Council in January of 2006. It
is organized by criterion using a chapter organizational scheme with one chapter per
criteria. These chapters are:

    Chapter I      Background and Overview
    Chapter II     Students (Criterion 1)
    Chapter III    Program Educational Objectives (Criterion 2)
    Chapter IV     Program Outcomes (Criterion 3)
    Chapter V      Assessment and Evaluation (Criterion 4)
    Chapter VI     Curriculum (Criterion 5)
    Chapter VII    Faculty (Criterion 6)
    Chapter VIII   Facilities (Criterion 7)
    Chapter IX     Support (Criterion 8)
    Chapter X      Program Criteria (Criterion 9)

The ABET Self-Study Questionnaire dated 8/7/02 was used to guide the development of
this report; albeit modified to reflect the renumbered criterion. Appendices I and II
exactly follow the instructions of the Questionnaire.

F. Contact Information

Dr. Debra Larson, Chair of the Department of Civil Engineering, was the lead author of
this self-study. She also is serving as the primary contact person to the ABET evaluation
team for the CE and ENE programs. Her contact information is:

    Debra Larson, PhD, PE
    Professor and Chair
    Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
    Building 69, McConnell Drive
    Box 15600
    Northern Arizona University
    Flagstaff, AZ 86011-1560
    (928) 523-1757
    Debra.Larson@nau.edu

G. Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used throughout this document:

ABET        Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology
AGEC        Arizona General Education Curriculum



                                                10
9/3/2012       Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


AHI        Aesthetic and Humanistic Inquiry
ASCE       American Society of Civil Engineers
AY         Academic Year
BSE        Bachelor of Science in Engineering
CE         Civil Engineering
CEG        Course Equivalency Guide
CEIC       College of Engineering Industrial Council
CENE       Civil and Environmental Engineering
CENS       College of Engineering and Natural Sciences
CID        Course Improvement Document
CIP        Continuous Improvement Process
CHM        Chemistry
CU         Cultural Understanding
DAC        Departmental Advisory Committee
D4P        Design4Practice
EE         Electrical Engineering
EGR        Engineering (General)
ENG        English
ENE        Environmental Engineering
FE         Fundamentals in Engineering exam
GPA        Grade Point Average
IGETC      Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum
LOUIE      Lumberjack’s Online University Information Environment
MAT        Math
ME         Mechanical Engineering
MEP        Multicultural Engineering Program
NAU        Northern Arizona University
PHI        Philosophy
PHY        Physics
SPW        Social and Political Worlds




                                               11
9/3/2012           Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal




Chapter II Students (Criterion 1)
In this chapter, we summarize the policies and procedures that influence the academic
quality of our program, describe the student advising and monitoring processes, and
explain our program evaluation functions. We’ve also included the related results of our
continuous improvement processes and the related changes.

This chapter will show that we have an organization – with its dedicated student services,
faculty attention, state-wide articulation processes, and integrated on-line management
systems – that ensures academic quality and fosters student progress and success.

A. Admission and Transfer Course Articulation

The NAU Office of Undergraduate Admissions is the sole authority for the admission of
students to undergraduate studies at the University. The CENE does not have additional
requirements beyond NAU requirements; therefore students admitted to the University
can declare a major in civil engineering at any time.

1. Freshman Admission Requirements

Arizona residents are offered admission as freshman to NAU if they meet the following:

          3.0 or higher GPA* (on a 4.0 scale), or
          22 ACT or 1040 SAT (Math and Critical Reading Sections Only) composite
           score, or
          top 25 percent class rank
          and have no deficiencies in the required competencies, also known as course
           requirements.

The admission requirements for nonresident students are similar to those of the Arizona
residents except the minimum ACT or SAT scores for nonresidents are, respectively, 24
or 110.

Incoming students must demonstrate competency in a variety of content areas including
English, Mathematics, Laboratory Science, Social Science, Foreign Language and Fine
Arts. These competencies may be met with high school coursework, college work and/or
test scores. Competency via coursework is generally determined by earning a minimum
2.0 GPA within each course. The detail requirements for each competency requirement
is found at http://home.nau.edu/admissions/apply/admissreq.asp

Conditional admission may be offered to students who do not meet the above
requirements. These details are found at
http://home.nau.edu/admissions/apply/admissreq.asp




                                                   12
9/3/2012             Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


2. Transfer Student Admission Requirements

Arizona resident transfer students are offered admission to NAU if they have:

          completed of an associate's degree and/or the Arizona General Education
           Curriculum (AGEC), or
          cumulative 2.0 or higher GPA (on a 4.0 scale) in at least 24 transferable college
           credits and have completed of all the required competencies as described above.

Nonresident transfer students who do not possess an associate's degree, the AGEC, or the
California IGETC, must have a cumulative GPA of 2.5 or higher in at least 24
transferable college credits and have completed all required competencies.

The University does offer conditional admission status to students under certain
situations, which are described at http://home.nau.edu/admissions/apply/admissreq.asp

NAU will accept up to 64 transfer credits from accredited two-year colleges. These
credits must carry grades of P (credit awarded), C, 2.0, or better and be from a college-
parallel program designed for transfer toward a bachelor’s degree.

3. Arizona Transfer Articulation System

The accredited universities and community colleges of Arizona participate in a state-wide
articulation process that creates course transfer policies, assigns and catalogues course
equivalencies, coordinates campus curriculum changes, and documents and
communicates information to students, faculty, and staff within the Arizona system.
Each university and community college in the Arizona system maintains an articulation
office plus articulation specialists within the various college and/or departments. The
CENE also utilizes both department and college expertise to manage the transfer
processes. NAU’s transfer articulation function is housed in the Academic Information
Office and is staffed by two articulation coordinators. The articulation home page is
located on the Web at http://www4.nau.edu/aio/Articulation/Index.htm.

Of particular importance to this self-study is Course Equivalency Guide (CEG) that
documents how Arizona State University, Northern Arizona University and the
University of Arizona accept transfer coursework from the Arizona public community
colleges. This guide, located at http://az.transfer.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Admin_CEG,
lists the various courses from the community colleges that are equivalent to the respective
courses at the three universities. The following table serves as an example of the type of
information found in the CEG. This information was excerpted from the Pima
Community College6 web site area of the 2006-07 CEG. For students transferring into
NAU who possess credits from courses deemed equivalent via this articulation process
and documented in the CEG, those courses will are automatically assigned the
equivalency by the transcript evaluators from the Office of Undergraduate Admissions.

6
    Pima Community College is located in Tucson, Arizona.


                                                     13
9/3/2012          Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


An assumption inferred by this statement is that the student completed the course with a
grade of “C” or better (2.0 or better).

Table II.1 Sample Course Equivalency Information from the CEG for Courses from
Pima Community College, Tucson, AZ

                                                         Equivalent Courses
PCC Course                              ASU*                 NAU                         UA*
ENG 130IN (3)                          CON 241             CENE 270                     CE 251
Elementary Surveying
ENG 230 (3)                         Elective Credit         CENE 253             CE 215, ME324A
Mechanics Of Materials
*ASU = Arizona State University, UA = University of Arizona

Figure II.1 Articulation Example for an Arizona Transfer Student




For CENE courses, equivalencies are established by the Department Chair via a careful
review of the course description, educational objectives, student activities, grading
criteria, topical coverage, reference materials, etc. The requests for consideration of
course equivalencies come through either NAU’s articulation office or at the annual
articulation meeting. In 2006-07 AY, NAU hosted and chaired the Arizona engineering
articulation meeting of which the agenda included items on:




                                                  14
9/3/2012           Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


          Update from the three State University Members on topics such as general
           education changes, admissions changes, review of University Transfer Guide
           Information, and program and course level changes.
          Update from Community College Members such as changes to institution’s
           AGEC and advising issues.
          Confirm current common courses and pathways.
          Review and update the course equivalency informatio for all community colleges.
          Explore potential opportunities for collaboration and discuss emerging curricula.

This process works well from the perspectives of usability and academic quality. Figure
II.1 above is provided as an example of the articulation process. It is a screen capture
from the on-line records of a student who transferred to NAU into civil engineering from
Dine’ College, an Arizona-based community college located on the Navajo Nation.
Through the existing articulation agreement, this student’s previous coursework in
English in ENG 101 and 102 at Dine’ was transferred in as meeting our 4-credit ENG
105 requirement.

4. Transfer of Non-Arizona System Courses

NAU is currently developing an institutional process, which resides in the Office of the
Associate Provost for Academic Affairs, for evaluating and assigning equivalencies for
lower lever English, Mathematics, and Science courses coming from accredited non-
Arizona universities and community college. In the meantime, however, we rely on a
process developed and coordinated by Ms. Debbie Wildermuth, the CENS’ Academic
Services Coordinator to evaluate the applicability and quality of non-Arizona course
credits relative to our requirements. This process is captured via course substitution-
equivalency form that is hand processed. An example request with evaluation is provided
in Table II.2.

Table II.2 Example of Course Substitution-Equivalency for Processing Transfer
Credits from Non-Arizona Institutions


Course Under Petition                     Proposed NAU Course                            Approval
Course:    CHEM 101                       Equivalency/substitute: CHM 151/L              Approved by:
When taken: Fall 2002                     Reason:                                        Chemistry
Where taken: Colorado State Un.                                                          representative
Course:    ENG 311                        Equivalency/substitute:                        Approved by:
When taken: Spring 2001                   Reason: engineering depth elective             Mechanical
Where taken: Colorado State Un.                                                          engineering rep
Course:    PHY 120                        Equivalency/substitute: PHY 161                Approved by:
When taken: Spring 2001                   Reason: This course is equivalent to           Not Approve – Physics
Where taken: Colorado State Un.           PHY 111 and lab not PHY 161                    representative


Each course a student wishes to transfer towards his or her program requirements must be
evaluated by the appropriate and qualified disciplinary representative. The student must
provide information, such as course catalogue description, about each course along with



                                                   15
9/3/2012         Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


the form to permit a full review. Ms. Wildermuth passes the form to the appropriate
representatives for their review. Once a course has been approved for equivalency or
substitution, it is recorded into the student transcripts and becomes a part of the student’s
permanent NAU record. This is the only way a non-Arizona course can be assigned as
equivalent to a NAU requirement.

In terms of maintaining high standards of academic quality, this process works
exceedingly well as is discussed in the section below labeled degree audit. It is, however,
not the most efficient of processes. Every non-Arizona transfer course petitioned for
evaluation receives a unique review, even if that same course had been evaluated
previously. The previously mentioned effort to institute an automated process for the
high volume, lower-level courses from non-Arizona system universities and community
colleges will enhance process efficiencies.

In the CENE, the Department Chair is the primary course evaluator with three members
of the CENE faculty - Dr. Bridget Bero, Dr. Paul Gremillion, and Dr. Paul Trotta -
serving as back-up. These faculty members have worked closely with Ms. Wildermuth
over the past three years and have participated in additional advisor training beyond that
received by the other faculty.

B. Advising and Monitoring

At NAU, we consider advising essential to the academic and professional success of our
students and have a three-step advising system in place.

1. Advising Incoming Freshman and Transfer Students

All incoming new students to NAU are strongly encouraged to participate in priority
enrollment and orientation prior to the start of the first semester at NAU. There are two
enrollment/orientation tracks; one for freshman who are students starting NAU with 0-12
post-high school credit hours, and the other for transfer students who have more than 12
credit hours of post-high school work.

Freshman Orientation is a 2-day Orientation session. At this session, students participate
in workshops and lectures from Financial Aid, the Gateway Student Success Center,
representatives from the colleges and schools, academic advisors, faculty, student
organizations, and many others. The Counseling and Testing Center is available for
taking placement exams. Students meet with an academic advisor and enroll in classes
during orientation. Those students who had signed up for priority enrollment prior to
attending orientation will have already had a class schedule created by an advisor that
specializes in the student’s path of study. In these situations, the advisor meeting often
focuses more on getting to know the student as well as time for revising or refining class
schedules.

Transfer Orientation is a 1-day event and is premised on the assumption that these
students need focused information related to the “nuts and bolts” vs the more general


                                                 16
9/3/2012        Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


information about university life that freshman receive. The transfer students meet with
staff from the Office of Student Financial Aid and the Gateway Student Success Center,
as well as meeting with a discipline-specific advisor knowledgeable about transfer course
issues to help the students enroll in the appropriate courses.

Orientation for students entering the Fall Term is during the summer - typically running
from the end of May through June. Students entering in the Spring Term may attend
Orientation in December or January.

2. Advising First-Year Students

All freshmen at NAU receive advisement through the Gateway Student Success Center
that is centrally located on NAU’s campus. The Gateway Center’s mission is to welcome
students as they embark on their academic journey at NAU and to provide direction and
support along the way. In addition to academic advising, the Gateway offers career
counseling and employment services. Its intent is to help students establish solid
education and career goals. A description of the full suite of services and information
provided by Gateway is found at http://www4.nau.edu/gateway/

The Gateway Center maintains a strong connection with the CENS through our academic
advising staff and faculty advisors. These CENS members help with priority enrollment,
orientation advisement, and manage the information about curricula. In addition,
freshman students are assigned faculty mentors that supplement the professional advising
provided by the Gateway Center.

Once a student has completed his or her freshman year, the student’s advising function is
transferred to the department of the student’s major.

3. Advising Transfer and Continuing Students

Continuing students at NAU and transfer students receive their academic advising
through the department of their major. In addition to Ms. Debbie Wildermuth, the
engineering departments are supported locally by Ms. Heidi Lopez, the academic support
associate. Ms. Lopez manages the student advising files, assists department chairs with
the department-wide advising logistics, helps students with enrollment issues, gathers and
distributes related student data, assists with Orientation, finds answers to faculty
advisors’ questions and supports Ms. Wildermuth.

All full-time faculty members of the CENE, including the Department Chair, advise.
Accordingly, the faculty’s statements of expectations reflect a 10% distribution of effort
towards this important function and minimum standards of performance are regularly
communicated. The typical advising load varies from 20 to 30 students per faculty
member. Students are encouraged to seek advice from their assigned advisors, the
Department Chair, and the Associate Dean of Academic Affairs in CENS. Faculty advise
students on course offerings and selection, degree requirements, minors, internships, and
career or graduate school topics.


                                                17
9/3/2012         Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


The CENS also provides direct assistance to students through two additional functions.
The CENS employs a full-time coordinator of scholarships, internships and employment
services. The CENS also supports the Multicultural Engineering Program (MEP), which
offers a variety of programs designed to increase and enhance the academic performance
of our students. The MEP is one means of addressing the critical issue of the under-
representation of minorities, women, disabled persons, and first generation students in
undergraduate engineering programs and industry workforce. MEP currently serves as a
support and resource center for African-American, Hispanic, Native American, Women,
disable, and first generation engineering and construction management students. A list of
MEP services is at http://www.cet.nau.edu/Student/mep/services.shtml.

4. Monitoring Progress

The CENE has a proactive approach to advising and monitoring students, while also
utilizing the automated NAU-wide degree progress/audit process, prerequisites, required
mid-term grade submittals for 100 (freshman) and 200 (sophomore) courses, and course
repeat procedures.

During the fall of 2003, coinciding with the completion of the migration from NAU’s
legacy institutional data management system to a modern and integrated PeopleSoft
system called LOUIE (Lumberjack’s Online University Information Environment), the
class enrollment policy changed. Students with GPAs of 2.5 or better and 30 or more
completed hours were able to enroll for courses on-line without meeting with an advisor.
Soon after, the CENE began to notice problems. Some students were experiencing
logistics-related troubles such as: taking courses out of sequence and then missing
prerequisite courses, selecting liberal studies courses that did not meet the distribution
block requirements courses, or failing to get non-Arizona transfer credits properly
assigned and recorded to LOUIE. These progress problems become evident during the
2004-05 AY.

In response, the CENE instituted a policy requiring its students to attend academic
advising prior to enrolling for classes for the next semester. An electronic mandatory
advising hold, which prohibits the CENE student from enrolling, is placed on the account
of every continuing student. The hold is removed by the student’s advisor after the
student has attended an advising session. The faculty of CENE is pleased with its two
year experience (2005-06 and 2006-07) of mandatory advising holds. We have
successfully re-engaged with our student body and are simultaneously providing
additional monitoring services. We have caught and corrected a number of self-advising
mistakes that will benefit the affected students by reducing their struggles with the
curriculum details and ensuring smoother progress. We will continue this mandatory
advising requirement.

The LOUIE system contains a robust student and advisor monitoring system called
degree progress/degree audit. This feature, fully instituted in the fall of 2005, provides an
automated evaluation of a student’s progress in completing his or her degree. During a
student’s academic career, it serves as an informational tool. At the time of graduation, it


                                                 18
9/3/2012           Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


becomes a degree audit tool. Students and advisors readily access this LOUIE feature. A
complete description of this system is provided in Section C below.

Through LOUIE, satisfaction of course prerequisites requirements is automatically
checked. The Department prerequisite policy is each student must complete the
prerequisite courses with grades of “C” or better for each CENE course in which he or
she is enrolled. Any prerequisite course in which a student earns a grade of “D” or “F”
must be repeated before progress is permitted. Waivers of this policy are occasionally
allowed if the student can demonstrate they understand the prerequisite material.
However, the student must petition for this waiver to the course instructor, his or her
advisor, and the Department Chair.

During 2004-05, the CENE noticed that the number of petitions to waive a prerequisite
requirement had increased. An analysis found three reasons contributing to this increase
in waiver requests. LOUIE did not recognize the terminology of “and higher”, there had
been a growth in the number of prerequisite requirements to the CENE courses, and self-
advisement became common, as discussed above. The CENE worked closely with the
LOUIE programmers in 2004 to correct the prerequisite wording and related coding.
Once the “and higher” terminology was hard coded in, students, who for example were
enrolled in Calculus III were no longer being denied enrollment into courses who’s
prerequisite was, say, Calculus I. Secondly, the CENE completed a critical evaluation of
its prerequisites and eliminated a number of prerequisites that were not justifiable from a
specific knowledge or skill perspective. These actions along with the academic advising
holds have resulted in a noticeable reduction in requests to waive prerequisite
requirements.

Mid-term grades are submitted for 100-level and 200-level courses. These grades are
reported to all advisors. This allows for intervention with students who appear to be in
academic difficulty early in their careers.

Students may repeat7 up to 18 units of credit for grade replacement where the better of
the two grades is used to compute the cumulative grade point average. Earned grades in
repeated courses beyond the 18 units are averaged with the initial grade(s) earned. An
individual course may be repeated two times. Students wishing to “replace” or “average”
a course grade must make this request via a form that is reviewed and signed by the
current course instructor, advisor, and department chair. This process is an effective
monitoring process as it informs the department to possible academic or progress issues
and enables a proactive approach to advisement.

5. Advising Effectiveness

As is explained in Chapter V, the CENE has a long-established Continuous Improvement
Process (CIP) that integrates a number of sequenced data gathering and assessment

7
 Students may only repeat courses in which they have earned a grade of D or F. Students may repeat, for
grade averaging only, a course in which a grade of C was earned under exceptional circumstances and if
prior approval by NAU’s Academic Standards Committee had been granted.


                                                   19
9/3/2012        Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


activities. Important to this Criterion 1 is the information obtained on the overall
environment at NAU for students and advising effectiveness through the various tools
listed in Chapter V.

Senior exit survey responses of graduating CENE students assessed the quality of
advising assistance provided by the CENE faculty as averaging 3.6 and 3.4 (on a 1 to 5
scale with 5 being excellent) in spring 2005 and 2006. The explanatory comments
suggested that a few faculty advisors were not fully informed about program and
university requirements and, as a result, provided confusing information to students. The
perception about advising quality, however, did improve after students graduated and
moved on away from NAU. Recent alumni of the CENE rated the quality of assistance
higher with an average score of 4.2. In addition to this department information, the
University-wide survey of graduating seniors supplements this advising information. The
2004 responding seniors indicated that advising was an area deserving attention. A
promising result of the 2004 University survey, however, was: all three measurements of
satisfaction with academic advising, lower-division, major, and career goals, increased in
the three year period from 2002 to 2004.

The above information suggested to the CENE that there is room for improvement in our
local department advising function. As such, the CENE has been implementing a number
of steps towards this goal of better advising. In 2005-06, the CENE reworked its
program sheets (a four page check sheet that summarizes program requirements) for
better clarity and enhanced information such as the inclusion of prerequisite and course
offering information. These sheets are made readily available in both hard copy
electronic forms. Advisors are strongly encouraged work through by hand with the
students their program check sheets, to cross-check results against the degree
progress/audit features of LOUIE, and to reconcile any differences. The Department
Chair has been regularly, since 2005-06, communicating with the student body via email,
posters, and forums about curricula issues. The CENE has been providing explicit
information to the faculty on various advising issues such as changes in University
requirements and how to use LOUIE effectively. Ms. Wildermuth from the Dean’s
Office of the CENS welcomes questions from faculty advisors and serves as our on-call
expert for the complex or infrequent questions. She works closely with any faculty
member who asks for advising assistance. In addition, Ms. Wildermuth will be holding a
number of adviser training sessions over the 2006-07 academic year covering topics on
general advising functions, interpretation of the liberal studies and diversity coursework
requirements, overview of degree progress, and advisor resources. And finally, since
2005-06 AY, the Department Chair has begun to actively monitor those faculty members
needing extra guidance in their advising function.

We believe that these efforts along with the fully implemented LOUIE system have
strengthened the advising and monitoring function and improved students’ progress. We
value the role that high-quality academic and career advising makes on students’ overall
preparation and success.




                                                20
9/3/2012        Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal



C. Evaluating the Completion of Program Requirements

Formal evaluation of whether or not a student has successfully completed the
requirements of his or her degree relies on course grades, related progress policies, and
the graduation application process that incorporates a rigorous and automated degree
auditing system. Students receive a letter grade for each course they take, except for a
limited number of independent study courses that are graded on a pass-fail basis. A
plus/minus grading system is not used. Final course grades are assigned according to the
cumulative results of a student’s demonstrated achievement of course outcomes.

Figure II.2 Excerpt from Degree Progress/Audit




The CE student must complete the 130 hours of course work as required for the 2007-08
program, with an overall grade point average of 2.0 or higher. A maximum of two “D”
grades in engineering courses may be applied toward graduation. As noted above, NAU
has a 18-credit hour grade replacement policy - with this exception the cumulative grade
point average (GPA) reflects the aggregate for all courses taken at Northern Arizona
University. Grades from courses transferred from other institutions are not included in
the GPA calculation.

When nearing graduation, each student must submit a formal Application for Graduation.
As part of this, the student’s transcript(s) is checked in detail to verify that all


                                                21
9/3/2012        Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


requirements are satisfied. This evaluation process became fully automatic in 2005-06
through the degree audit function of LOUIE. An excerpt from an example audit of a
student who is only in his second semester of courses is provided above in Figure II.2.

In addition to the degree audit feature, the student’s complete graduation application is
thoroughly reviewed by the faculty advisor so that any missed requirements are clearly
communicated to the student. Upon approval by the advisor, the Department Chair, and
the Dean’s office each execute additional independent checks of the student’s record.
All – the faculty advisor, department chair, and Dean’s office – must approve the
application before the student is cleared to graduate.

The migration to the degree audit function on LOUIE has added rigor to our evaluation
processes. We have noticed, however, some audit difficulties with students on older
programs of studies. The difficulties are often the result of legacy or paper processes that
did not translate properly to LOUIE. Most of these difficulties happened in the 2005-06
graduation cycles and we were reverted back, for those cases, to the legacy hand
checking process by advisor, Chair, and Dean’s office. We have seen far fewer
migration-related problems in 2006-07, and expect the degree audit function to be
running close to error free in subsequent years.




                                                22
9/3/2012         Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal




Chapter III Program Educational Objectives (Criterion 2)

In this chapter of the CE’s self-study, we present three missions - the University, College
and Department. We describe how the program’s educational objectives were developed
along with representatives of our constituency, and the congruence of objectives to
missions. We describe the evaluation process, the resulting conclusions, and future
activities. A summary of this chapter is given immediately below.

The CE’s current educational objectives are the result of a multi-year continuous
improvement process that actively incorporates the input of our constituencies and is
informed by alumni and employers. As is shown, our graduates are achieving the
objectives set forward and are known for their ability “to get things done”. Through our
CIP, however, we discovered the need to improve upon one component of Objective 4 –
contribute to society. In response, the CENE is exploring ways to institutionalize
students’ participation in a professional organization or extra curricular activity. Positive
and meaningful experiences while at NAU will translate to graduates who will
understand the benefits of this participation and will be more willing to seek out
opportunities to contribute to society later in their career.

A. University and College Mission Statements

Along with hundreds of other public higher education institutions throughout the country,
NAU had experienced the effects of changing conditions related to state funding,
technology, the economy, and student demographics. Our internal examinations about
how to respond to these changes – combined with the feedback gained from our external
constituencies including ABET, our state and regional communities, and our industrial
advisory partners – compelled NAU to develop and implement proactive solutions. One
of these solutions was the recent reorganization of the university.

In June 2004, the Arizona Board of Regents approved the proposal for internal
restructuring of the academic units (colleges) of Northern Arizona University as proposed
on April 12, 2004. The proposed changes became operational on July 1 of that year. In
the restructuring, the five departments with their six accredited programs, and supporting
infrastructure of the former College of Engineering & Technology were joined with the
mathematics and science departments from the former College of Arts & Sciences and
some of the infrastructure from that unit. The new unit was named the College of
Engineering & Natural Sciences to preserve the visibility of the engineering programs, to
emphasize the beneficial integration of engineering with science, and to highlight the
environmental themes running throughout the many programs from both parent colleges.

Throughout this process and forward to today, the University held onto and reaffirmed its
undergraduate mission and the goal to deliver high quality education. NAU’s mission is
captured in Figure III.1.




                                                 23
9/3/2012             Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal




Figure III.1 University Mission Statement8

           Provide an outstanding undergraduate residential education strengthened by important
           research, graduate and professional programs and a responsive distance learning network
           delivering programs throughout Arizona.

The College of Engineering and Natural Sciences contains eleven departments and two
interdisciplinary master’s degree programs (one of them the Master’s of Engineering
Partnership shared by NAU, the University of Arizona, and Arizona State University).
The four engineering programs reside in three departments – Civil and Environmental,
Electrical, and Mechanical. The College also includes a number of research centers and
institutes. The interaction of these centers with the academic departments has also been a
very positive step for the college, leading to increased numbers of collaborative
proposals, participation of center staff in instruction, and enhanced opportunities for
student employment and research.

Figure III.2 College Mission Statement9

           The College of Engineering & Natural Sciences promotes undergraduate and graduate
           learning experiences that integrate science, engineering, and mathematics, sustained by a
           commitment to research, scholarship, and the creative application of knowledge. The
           faculty, staff, and students collaborate to engage actively in the possibilities and
           practicalities of their fields.


B. CENE’s Mission

The CENE’s original mission was established during the 1997-98 academic year as part
of the 1998-2002 strategic planning effort of the Department. The mission was revised in
early 2005 to reflect the earlier work at: the fall 2004 Department Advisory Council10
(DAC) meeting where objectives and outcomes were revised and the Department’s
faculty strategic planning retreat in December of 2004.

The department’s mission statement correlates well to both the current College and
University mission statements and incorporates the values held important at both levels.
The first bullet of the department statement grows from the University’s commitment to
providing outstanding undergraduate education in professional programs. The second
bullet is an outgrowth of the College’s and University’s commitment to applied research.
The third bullet reflects the department’s commitment to the profession of engineering.
8
  The University’s complete Mission and Goal Statement can be found at
http://www4.nau.edu/president/mission2.asp
9
  The College’s complete Mission Statement is found at http://home.nau.edu/cens/cens_MVV.asp
10
   The CENE DAC, as described in Chapter V consists of 33 active and engaged members who represent
the diverse characteristics of the department’s constituency of alumni, employers, graduate schools, other
faculty, professional organizations, and regional and statewide interests. One of the primary functions of
the DAC is to support the CENE in its delivery of an excellent educational program. They do this by
advising the CENE on objectives, outcomes, and assessment, among other things.



                                                      24
9/3/2012             Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


The Department’s mission statement also includes University and College goals of
valuing diversity11, providing community and professional leadership via service, and
excelling by way of our professional programs.

Figure III.3 Department Mission Statement


           Modern society relies on well-educated and dedicated civil and environmental engineers
           for its health and well being in relationship to the natural and built environments. The
           mission of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering is to:

                   Prepare men and women from a wide variety of backgrounds for careers of
                    technological innovation and leadership through curricula rooted in the
                    fundamentals of engineering, science and mathematics, focused on the practice
                    of civil and environmental engineering, broadened by liberal education, and
                    guided by faculty dedicated to civil and environmental engineering practice and
                    education;
                   Promote the creation, utilization, and dissemination of technical knowledge and
                    wisdom associated with civil and environmental engineering that directly
                    enhances the welfare of society; and,
                   Enhance the stature of the engineering profession, and serve the people of
                    Arizona, the region, and the nation through professional practice, leadership and
                    citizenship.

C. Program Educational Objectives

The CE program’s educational objectives represent measurable explanations of the
department’s mission. The following discussion presents our current objectives and
explains how they came to be.

The CENE offers two ABET accredited undergraduate engineering programs – one in
civil engineering, the other in environmental engineering. As part of the Department’s
CIP12, a review of program outcomes was initiated at the January 2004 DAC meeting.
During this meeting, the DAC reviewed the then existing CE and ENE program
objectives and provided extensive feedback. These older objectives, as presented in a
matrix form, were found to be overwhelming and, consequently, difficult to manage and
assess. A faculty representative from each program incorporated the DAC comments
into draft program objectives. These draft objectives were reviewed and commented on
by the faculty during a September 2004 meeting in preparation for the DAC’s review in
October 2004. At this October meeting, the DAC separated into the CE and ENE focus
areas and worked to produce final versions of separate program objectives.

In January of 2005, however, the DAC at their mid-winter meeting in Phoenix made the
recommendation to the Department to establish one set of “department” objectives vs.
having separate objectives for each program. Furthermore, the DAC recommended that
the October 2004 version of the CE objectives be used as the template for the

11
     NAU is becoming the nation’s leading university in serving Native Americans.
12
     An overview of the Continuous Improvement Process is found in Chapter V of this self-study.


                                                       25
9/3/2012             Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


department-level objectives. This recommendation came forward as the DAC was
working to create tools for evaluating the performance of recent NAU graduates relative
to our program objectives, as well as the objectives themselves. The DAC reasoned that
objectives are overarching educational principles unique to the unit that houses the
educational programs. Following their direction, the CENE merged the two sets of
program objectives into one; hereafter known as department objectives intended to
describe the expected accomplishments of civil and environmental engineering graduates
during the first several years following graduation from the program. The current version
of the CENE objectives along with a tracking record of revisions is provided in Figure
III.4. These objectives are published on the Department’s website at
http://www.cet.nau.edu/Academic/CENE/vision.shtml

Figure III.4 CENE Objectives


           Our graduates are recognized throughout industry, government and academia for their
           ability to "get things done.” Our graduates are prepared to:

               1. Use mathematical, scientific, and engineering principles to formulate solutions
                    to multi-disciplinary problems.
               2. Create and implement safe, economical, and sustainable designs using
                    appropriate technology and methods.
               3. Are independent learners who communicate effectively, work well on project
                    teams, and can assume a leadership role.
               4.   Adhere to ethical standards and seek professional licensure, consider the
                    implications of their actions, and contribute to society beyond the requirements
                    of their employment.

               Revision Tracking: 1/15/01 sjn; 1/10/03 DAC; 9/13/04 dsl; 10/1/03 faculty;
               10/12/04 DAC & dsl; 10/25/04 dsl; 1/14/05 DAC; 1/26/05 faculty




D. Relating Objectives to Mission

The CENE’s educational objectives are a direct and simplified representation of the
Department’s mission via measurable action statement. In other words, objectives are
intended to describe the performance attributes of our graduates during their first several
years following graduation. The “get things done” perspective reflects the professional
practice orientation of Department – its faculty, students, and constituents.

As Bill Caroll, one of our DAC members, wrote in an email following the April 2005
DAC meeting where “get things done” was further discussed:

    “I really like the focus on students (via program objectives and strategic planning) who have
    the ability to get things done. When it comes right down to is, I’d much rather hire someone
    who gets things done than a graduate who is a several year project. The difference is not so
    much the curriculum or the quality of the instruction; it’s a function of the overall education
    process.”



                                                       26
9/3/2012           Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal




The CENE - through its curriculum, advising, student organizations, and its active
association with other CENS and University student support services - provides the
overall educational environment that prepares graduates for the attainment of its
educational objectives. Section E of this chapter provides the evidence that supports this
conclusion.

Figure III.5 provides a graphical representation of how each objective relates to the
principle tenants of the department’s mission. The relationship between educational
objectives to program outcomes is discussed in Chapter IV. Outcomes provide the
foundation from which our graduates are able to grow from, or in other words
“outcomes…foster achievement of” educational objectives.

Figure III.5 Congruency of CENE Objectives to CENE Mission

                                                                                  Mission Tenants




                                                                  Prepare for technical




                                                                                          technical knowledge



                                                                                                                profession, serve
                                                                  innovation and


                                                                                          Create, utilize,




                                                                                                                Enhance the
                                                                                          disseminate
                                                                  leadership
                                                                  careers of




                                                                                                                society
                    Educational Objectives

  Use mathematical, scientific, and engineering principles to
  formulate solutions to multi-disciplinary problems.                                          
  Create and implement safe, economical, and sustainable
  design using appropriate technology and methods.                                                                  
  Are independent learners who communicate effectively, work
  well on project teams and can assume a leadership role.                                      
  Adhere to ethical standards and seek professional licensure,
  consider the implications of their actions, and contribute to                                                     
  society beyond the requirements of their employment.



E. Assessing Graduates Achievement of Educational objectives

The CENE’s CIP is a multi-year process where various program aspects are assessed and
refined on different time lines. Program objectives are accordingly assessed and
reviewed on a more or less four year cycle. As part of the review process, the DAC
worked closely with the department to develop two tools for assessing the achievement of
the revised program objectives, as well as assessing the objectives themselves. In other
words, are the objectives meeting the needs of our constituents?

The details of how the employer and alumni surveys were developed and managed are
provided in Chapter V along with a presentation of the full results. The DAC helped the
CENE to analyze and interpret the data generated from the summer of 2005 (and 2006)


                                                    27
9/3/2012            Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


survey activities. Excerpts are provided here to support the conclusions about our
graduates’ achievement of objectives.

Table III.1 presents the response averages from both the alumni and employer surveys.
There were 36 alumni and 21 employer respondents. The alumni represented graduates
from May 1999 to May 2005 and came from both the civil and environmental
engineering programs. The alumni results were within the context of: “How well did
your education from NAU’s Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering prepare
you to:” The employers represented both public and private consulting sectors that were
mostly Arizona-based. The employer results were within the context of “How well
prepared their recent NAU employees were to:”

Table III.1 Summary of Responses from Alumni and Employers Assessing Achievement of
CENE Objectives

                                                                               Alumni      Employer
Scale: 5 = very well, 3 = adequate, 1 = not at all                             Average     Average
1(a) Appropriately use mathematical, scientific, and engineering principles.     4.39        3.89
1(b) Formulate solutions to multi-disciplinary problems.                         4.14        3.67
2(a) Create and implement safe, economical, and sustainable designs.             3.86        3.53
2(b) Use tools, methods, and technology appropriately.                           3.83        3.95
3(a) Engage in independent learning activities.                                  4.08        3.85
3(b) Communicate orally and in writing.                                          4.17        3.85
3(c) Work with others on project teams.                                          4.51        4.30
3(d) Assume leadership roles when warranted.                                     4.19        4.12
4(a) Adhere to ethical and professional standards.                               4.14        4.15
4(b) Consider the broader impacts of engineering solutions.                      3.86        3.40
4(c) Contribute to society beyond the requirements of your employment.           3.29        3.50
5 Generally speaking, are able to get things done                              Not Rated     4.10


In general, the employer results were lower than the alumni responses. Table III.1
demonstrates, from both the employer and alumni perspectives, that our recent graduates
are achieving all aspects of the CENE educational objectives. The scores are typically
well above “adequate”. The only item that triggered some concern was 4(c) -
contributing to society beyond the requirements of your employment. It received the
lowest score and was also identified by both alumni and employers as not being as
important to a graduate’s career as other objectives were. Further discussion on this
component of Objective 4 is provided below in Section F.

Our DAC analysis of the survey data and comments confirms the achievement conclusion
of above. The additional summative comments provided by the DAC included:

          The high score for 3(c),, working with others, made sense as it is a value that is
           supported by the faculty and covered extensively within the curriculum.




                                                      28
9/3/2012            Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


          The DAC agreed with the employer’s assessment that our graduates do well with
           2(b), using tools and technology appropriately, 3(a), independent learning, 3(b),
           communicating, 3(d), leading, 3(c), working with others, and 4(a), adhering to
           ethical and professional standards.

          The DAC also agreed with the employers’ assessment of which attributes were
           the most important. These included the ability to appropriately use mathematical,
           scientific, and engineering principles, 1(a), as the most important attribute,
           followed by 3(b), oral and written communication, 3(c), working with others, and
           4(a), adherence to ethical and professional standards. The least important
           attribute was a graduate’s contributions to society.

Generally speaking, this assessment confirms that our recent NAU graduates have
attained the educational objectives of the CENE. Of the many comments provided
throughout the surveys, the following employer quote captures the essence of a NAU
engineer.

“NAU graduates are generally better able to ‘get things done’ than graduates of other schools – even more
                                         ‘prestigious’ schools.”



F. Future Planned Activities

The CENE began exploring in the 2006-07 AY ways to address the lower results for the
component of Objective 4 relating to contributions to society. The DAC and the CENE
believe that this is an important objective, albeit a rather non-traditional one for most
undergraduate engineering programs. Its value lies with recognizing that in order for
engineers to be leaders of society, they must be at the forefront of defining what problems
and activities society engages in. This “definition” phase happens not through the
problem solving and design activities of an engineer engaged in traditional employment,
but through less traditional activities like volunteering for regional community
development or regulatory boards, assisting with disaster relief, running youth sports
leagues, or mentoring children in the K-12 system. Our planned efforts for 2006-08 with
this Objective involves communicating “why” this participation is important, further
enhancing support to the our student chapters of ASCE and Engineers Without Borders,
and exploring ways to institutionalize students’ participation in a professional
organization or extra curricular activity.

The surveys also generated information about the objectives themselves. In addition to
evaluating the importance of the educational objectives to career success, alumni and
employers were asked to identify other attributes that should be considered as part of the
CE program objectives. The responses were varied and included topical/content-type
skills like project management or construction engineering to attributes such as
possessing a positive attitude, and respect for history and traditions of the civil
engineering profession. In 2008-09, the CENE will once again engage its DAC in a
review and revisions to program objectives. Three contexts will be incorporated in this



                                                    29
9/3/2012        Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


process: (1) the numerical importance results as well as the qualitative comments
provided through these surveys, (2) the draft changes proposed by ASCE to Criterion 9
that will probably be finalized by this time, and (3) the 2nd edition to the ASCE’s Body of
Knowledge work.




                                                30
9/3/2012            Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal




Chapter IV Program Outcomes (Criterion 3)
In this chapter of the Civil Engineering Program’s Accreditation Self-Study, we present
detail information on:

          establishment of CE program outcomes,
          relationship of CE outcomes to the department’s educational objectives, and to the
           ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes (a) thru (k),
          process used to assess outcomes and make changes, and
          outcome by outcome evaluation details.

Table IV.1 is provided below as an overview. It captures the chapter’s key elements of
metrics, target courses, and the improvements made to curricula or other related strategies
as the results of our Continuous Improvement Process. The improvements noted are
those made since our last general program review in the fall of 2001. The table also
captures planned future work for implementation in the 07-08 or 08-09 curriculum
cycles.

Section F of this Chapter presents outcome-by-outcome details and our conclusions
drawn from the data about our graduating students’ compliance with Outcomes (a) thur
(k). In summary, our students are shown to:

          Meet the full intent of Outcomes (a), (b), (e), (f), and (k).
          Possess exceptional skills going beyond the intent of Outcomes (c), (d), and (g).
          Meet the intent of Outcomes of (h), (i), and (j), with improvements identified to:
            enhance students’ economics and project management skills, and
            assess more directly student’s life-long learning skills.

Table IV.1 Outcome Summary and Improvement History for the CE Program

ABET        Metric Statement                  Target         Improvements**                                Effec.
 Out.       Compliance is achieved by         CENE &                                                       AY
            students who can …                EGR
                                              Courses*
(a)         solve engineering problems        150, 225,      1. MAT 238 hours increase from 3 to 4         1. 05-06
            using mathematics and science     251, 253,      2. CENS forms a college-wide assessment       2. 05-06
            principles.                       331, 376          committee to enhance communications
                                                                between the disciplines.
                                                             3. NAU invests in Supplemental                3. 05-06
                                                                Instruction. SI available for chemistry,
                                                                physics, pre-calculus, biology, and
                                                                CENE 251 and 253
                                                                (http://home.nau.edu/edsup/lac/si_sched
                                                                ule.asp).
(b)         design civil engineering or       270L, 225,     1. Curriculum in CENE 270 and 270L is         1. 04-05
            environmental engineering         253L, 333L,       revised – incorporating data
            experiments to meet a need;       383, 420          management, modeling, and
            conduct the experiments, and                        presentation.


                                                    31
9/3/2012            Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


           analyze and interpret the                         2. Major equipment purchases made for            2. 05-06
           resulting data.                                      CENE 270L totaling $15,250
                                                             3. $20,000 invested in CE laboratory             3. 05-06
                                                                equipment for CENE 253L, 333L, 383.
                                                             4. Laboratory manager position created and       4. 06-07
                                                                staffed.
                                                             5. Separate the CENE 383 laboratory              5. 07-08
                                                                experience from the lecture to enhance
                                                                enrollment logistics and better reflect
                                                                laboratory skills in assessment processes.
(c)        design systems or processes to     186, 286,      1. EGR 286 revised; 5 sequenced skill-           1. 04-05
           meet desired needs within          253, 331,         building projects.
           realistic constraints.             333, 383,      2. CENE capstone design evaluation tool          2. 04-05
                                              418, 433,         developed and implemented.
                                              438, 450,      3. Computers purchased and printer               3. 06-07
                                              476, 486C         installed in CENE projects room to
                                                                accommodate the work of teams’ on
                                                                their design project.
                                                             4. Half-time D4P director hired to               4. 06-07
                                                                coordinate, refine, and expand the D4P
                                                                program.
                                                             5. A team-teaching approach reinstated in        5. 06-07
                                                                CENE 386W to better manage the
                                                                evaluation tasks and to provide both CE
                                                                and ENE disciplinary expertise via the
                                                                instructional team.
                                                             6. CID process initiated in EGR 286 spring       6. 07-08
                                                                2007.
(d)        perform and communicate            186, 286,      1. EGR 286 revised; accommodating both           1. 04-05
           effectively on diverse teams.      386W, 418,        small and large team multi-disciplinary
                                              476, 486C         formats.
                                                             2. NAU adds 2 required diversity courses         2. 05-06
                                                                in ethnic and global studies.
                                                             3. NAU refines liberal studies                   3. 07-08
                                                                requirements; requires 1 additional
                                                                distribution course.
                                                             4. CID process initiated in EGR 286 spring       4. 07-08
                                                                2007.
(e)        solve well-defined engineering     150, 186,      1. CENE revises curriculum to require a          1. 02-03
           problems in the four technical     251, 253,         minimum of 2 junior or senior level
           areas appropriate to civil         376, 331,         courses in each area.
           engineering (e.g. structures,      333, 383,      2. Pre-requisites to ME 395 fluids changed       2. 06-07
           water resources, transportation,   420, 433,         from dynamics to thermodynamics;
           geotechnical)                      438, 486C         better accommodates CE and ENE
                                                                program needs.
                                                             3. CENE revitalizes its offerings of co-         3. 06-07
                                                                convened technical electives; adding
                                                                masonry, cl. open channel flow, adv.
                                                                traffic signals, and water quality
                                                                modeling to existing list of 400/500
                                                                courses.
                                                             4. Instructors of technical area courses         4. 07-08
                                                                compare CID performance indicators to
                                                                FE results.
(f)        recognize and analyze situations   150, 186,      1. CENE 386W revised to increase the             1. 04-05
           involving professional and         270, 386W,        attention given to f. and to better capture



                                                    32
9/3/2012             Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


           ethical interests.                  486C, 383,        direct assessment data.
                                               418, 420       2. Overall CID process refined to better         2. 04-05
                                                                 capture direct assessment data.
                                                              3. CENE increases the faculty advising           3. 04-05
                                                                 resources, enhances funding, and
                                                                 dedicates work space to student chapter
                                                                 of ASCE
                                                              4. CENE pilots a P/F “ASCE” 1-credit             4. 04-05
                                                                 elective course. Abandons pilot after
                                                                 three semesters; not meeting intended
                                                                 goals.                                        5. 05-06
                                                              5. PHI 105 Intro to Ethics or
                                                                 331Environmental Ethics becomes a
                                                                 required course in the CE curriculum.
                                                              6. CENE evaluating the creation of a             6. 06-07
                                                                 “milestone” or “graduation requirement”
                                                                 requiring student participation in a
                                                                 student professional organization like
                                                                 ASCE or EWB
(g)        organize and deliver effective      186, 180,      1. CENE 180 created.                             1. 04-05
           verbal, written, and graphical      270L, 286,     2. Curriculum in CENE 180 refined                2. 05-06
           communications.                     253L,          3. The use of AutoCAD Land Desktop               3. 06-07
                                               386W, 383,        required in CENE 418.
                                               418, 476,      4. Additional instructor added to CENE           4. 06-07
                                               486C              386W to form a team approach to
                                                                 providing enhance coverage and
                                                                 feedback in writing.
                                                              5. CID process initiated in EGR 286 spring       5. 07-08
                                                                 2007.
(h)        generally describe the impacts      150, 386W,     1. University drops UC 101 from liberal          1. 03-04
           of constrained engineering          450, 420,         studies requirements as it fails to achieve
           solutions to relevant economic,     486C              intended outcomes.
           environmental, social, and                         2. Increased attention given to and the          2. 06-07
           global-political systems.                             capturing of direct assessment enhanced
                                                                 in CENE 150, 332, 420, and 450.
                                                              3. CENE supports the creation of an              3. 06-07
                                                                 Engineers Without Borders chapter,
                                                                 MOU signed, projects initiated.
                                                              4. NAU refines liberal studies                   4. 07-08
                                                                 requirements; requires 1 additional
                                                                 distribution course insuring the
                                                                 completion of 2 courses in SPW.
                                                              5. CENE initiates process to enhance             5. 08-09
                                                                 students’ understanding of economics.
(i)        demonstrate the ability to learn    270, 286,      1. EGR 286 revised and students required         1. 04-05
           on their own, without the aid of    386W, 418,        to learn a “C” based programming
           formal instruction, and express     476, 486C         language with little formal instruction.
           the need to continually improve                    2. Assessment added to senior exit survey        2. 05-06
           their professional skills                          3. Target courses assigned this outcome.         3. 06-07
           throughout their careers.                          4. Further refinements made to senior exit       4. 06-07
                                                                 survey to capture licensure intent and
                                                                 relationship of student professional
                                                                 organization participation to outcome.
                                                              5. CID process initiated in EGR 286 spring       5. 07-08
                                                                 2007.
(j)        incorporate into the engineering    150, 386W,     1. CENE 386W revised to increase the             1. 04-05



                                                     33
9/3/2012             Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


            problem solving process well-      331, 450,           attention given to j. and to better capture
            defined contemporary issues        438, 433,           direct assessment data.
            such as regulations and            486C             2. Overall CID process refined to better       2. 04-05
            compliance, economics,                                 capture direct assessment data.
            environmental impacts, political                    3. CENE capstone evaluation tool               3. 04-05
            influences, and globalization.                         developed and implemented informing
                                                                   CENE on achievement.
                                                                4. Fall 2006 offering of CENE 476 revised      4. 06-07
                                                                   to deliberately focus students’ proposal
                                                                   activities towards management topics.
                                                                5. CENE initiates process to enhance           5. 08-09
                                                                   students’ understanding of economics.
k.         apply relevant techniques, skills, 180, 270,         1. CENE 180 created.                           1. 04-05
           and modern engineering tools of 270L, 225,           2. Curriculum in CENE 180 refined              2. 05-06
           the engineering practice.            331, 333L,      3. Curriculum in CENE 270 and 270L is          3. 04-05
                                                376, 420,          revised – incorporating data management
                                                433, 486C          and modeling.
                                                                4. EGR 286 revised and requires all            4. 04-05
                                                                   students to learn and use “C” based
                                                                   programming to control robots
                                                                5. Major equipment purchases made for          5. 05-06
                                                                   CENE 270L totaling $15,250
                                                                6. $20,000 invested in CE laboratory           6. 05-06
                                                                   equipment for CENE 253L, 333L, 383.
                                                                7. Computers purchased and printer             7. 06-07
                                                                   installed in CENE projects room to
                                                                   accommodate the work of teams’ on
                                                                   their design project.
                                                                8. Upgrading computers in room 317 to          8. 06-07
                                                                   accommodate specialized modeling &
                                                                   analysis software and students’ access to
                                                                   that software
                                                                9. Individual assessment (vs. team based)      9. 06-07
                                                                   of programming accomplishments added
                                                                   to EGR 286.
                                                                10. CID process initiated in EGR 286 spring 10. 07-08
                                                                   2007; adding to the assessment
                                                                   information base for this outcome.
*Target courses were assigned via a student and faculty process to target outcomes for the purpose of capturing
assessment information through the CID process. This concept is not intended to imply that only those target courses
cover the specified outcomes. Most courses of CE curriculum cover multiple outcomes that go beyond the target
course – target outcome pairing. Only those courses that are required (vs. electives) are targeted.
**In a few cases, the noted improvement is targeting future activities and curricula beyond the window of this program
review, e.g. initiated in late 07 for implementation in the 07-08 or 08-09 curriculum cycles. As such, these items serve
as indication of our commitment to ongoing continuous improvement, whereby future activities are already identified
and scheduled.

A. Constituency Helps to Revise Program Learning Outcomes

The Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering offers two ABET accredited
undergraduate engineering programs – one in Civil Engineering, the other in
Environmental Engineering. As part of the Department’s CI P13, a review of outcomes

13
     An overview of the Continuous Improvement Process is found in Chapter V.


                                                     34
9/3/2012             Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


was initiated with the DAC14 in January of 2004. Previous outcome statements of the CE
program were deemed to be overwhelming in length and complexity, and hence difficult
to manage and assess. The DAC provided extensive feedback to the CENE, and faculty
representatives – one from each program – incorporated these comments into new draft
program outcomes. These draft outcomes were reviewed and commented on by the
faculty during a September 2004 meeting, in preparation for the DAC’s review in
October 2004. At this October meeting the DAC, along with faculty, separated into the
CE and ENE focus areas and worked to produce near-final versions of separate program
outcomes. The DAC and faculty carefully constructed outcomes that were balanced
against the Department’s educational objectives, the requirements of Criterion 3 and
Criterion 9, and the desire to limit the number of outcomes to simplify their management.
This penultimate version of the CE and ENE program outcomes went to the full faculty
one more time and a small number of mostly editorial changes were made.

Figure IV.1 Civil Engineering Program Outcomes

           Upon the successful completion of our Civil Engineering curricula, the students of CENE
           will be proficient in the areas of structural engineering, water resources engineering,
           transportation engineering, and geotechnical engineering. They will:

               1. Possess a foundation of mathematical and scientific principles in calculus
                    through differential equations, statistics, calculus-based physics, and general
                    chemistry.
               2.   Define and solve engineering problems, and create, evaluate, and document
                    engineering designs of systems or components
               3.   Properly apply tools and methodologies to design and conduct experiments, to
                    model or simulate processes and phenomena, and to analyze, interpret, and
                    report results.
               4.   Work successfully and communicate effectively, both orally and in writing, with
                    diverse and multi-disciplinary teams and as individuals in public and private
                    organizations, understanding the impact of societal and political systems on the
                    engineering design process
               5.   Strive to improve their professional skills and abilities and to update their
                    knowledge and understanding of contemporary professional issues.
               6.   Recognize the practice of engineering as a privilege and adhere to the standards
                    and ethics of the profession, including licensure requirements, to protect and
                    promote public health, safety, and welfare.

           Outcome Revisions: 10/13/00 sjn; 1/15/01 faculty and sjn; 1/10/03 DAC;
           9/13/04 dsl; 10/1/04 faculty; 10/12/04 DAC & dsl; 10/25 & 11/1/04 dsl


The final version of the CE program outcomes is provided in Figure IV.1 along with the
tracking record of the various changes to these outcomes since 2000. Although the
department possessed program educational goals prior to 2000, it was during 1999-2000

14
  The CENE DAC, as described in Chapter V, currently consists of 33 active and engaged members who
represent the diverse characteristics of the department’s constituency of alumni, employers, graduate
schools, other faculty professional organizations, and regional and statewide interests. One of their primary
functions is to support the CENE as it delivers an excellent educational program.


                                                      35
9/3/2012            Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


that the CENE revised these goals and renamed them as outcomes to reflect the new
approach being taken by ABET with the EC 2000 changes. These original outcomes as
presented in our 2001 ABET self study consisted of fourteen lengthy outcomes. The
department was not completely successful in managing (creating strategies and assessing)
such a large list of outcomes. In particular, the faculty found it difficult to synthesis the
assessment data and was encouraged by it’s ABET program evaluators and DAC
members to shorten the outcome list.

B. Program Learning Outcomes Support Educational Objectives

Figure IV.2      CE Program Outcomes Supporting Department Objectives


                                                                        Educational Objectives of the Department




                                                                                                                                                                                           implications of their actions, and contribute to
                                                Use mathematical, scientific, and engineering



                                                                                                Create and implement safe, economical, and



                                                                                                                                             Are independent learners who communicate
                                                                                                                                             effectively, work well on project teams and




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              industry, government and academia for their
                                                principles to formulate solutions to multi-




                                                                                                                                                                                           society beyond the requirements of their


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Our graduates are recognized throughout
                                                                                                                                                                                           Adhere to ethical standards and seek
                                                                                                sustainable design using appropriate




                                                                                                                                                                                           professional licensure, consider the
                                                                                                                                             can assume a leadership role.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ability to "get things done.”
                                                                                                technology and methods.
                                                disciplinary problems.




                                                                                                                                                                                           employment.
Civil Engineering Program Outcomes -
Abbreviated
1. Foundation of mathematical and scientific
   principles                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

2. Engineering problems and design
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
3. Tools and methodologies, experiments,
    modeling, results                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
4. Communication & teaming in public &
    private, societal and political impacts                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

5. Improving skills and contemporary issues
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
6. Professional standards and ethics                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              


Figure IV.2 provides a visual representation of how each program outcome relates to the
Department’s educational objectives. Outcomes describe what students are expected to
know or be able to do at the time of graduation, whereas objectives are intended to
describe the performance attributes of our graduates during their first several years
following graduation. Outcomes provide the foundation from which our graduates are



                                                                   36
9/3/2012            Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


able to grow from, or in other words “outcomes…foster achievement of” educational
objectives.

C. Relating Outcomes and Establishing Metrics

Figure IV.3 Correlating CE Program Outcomes to ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes


                                                                                                                          ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes Abbreviated




                                                                                                                                                                                                                               f. Professional & Ethical Responsibility
                                                a. Mathematics Science & Engineering

                                                                                        b. Experiments, Analyze, and Interpret




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       j. Knowledge of Contemporary Issues
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           h. Impact of Engineering Solutions
                                                                                                                                                                                               e. Solve Engineering Problems




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             k. Modern Engineering Tools
                                                                                                                                 c. Ability to Design a System

                                                                                                                                                                 d. Multi-Disciplinary Teams




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                i. Lifelong Learning
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          g. Communicate
CE Program Outcomes
 1. Foundation of mathematical and
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
    scientific principles
2. Engineering problems and design
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
3. Tools and methodologies, experiments,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
     modeling, results
4. Communication & teaming in public &
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
     private, societal and political impacts
5. Improving skills and contemporary
    issues                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

6. Professional standards and ethics
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               


Although each institution is encouraged to create their own unique educational objectives
and outcomes, ABET has established eleven outcomes that describe what students are
expected to know or be able to do at the time of graduation. Regardless of terminology,
engineering programs must demonstrate student achievement of these outcomes. The
following figure visually compares abbreviated CE program outcomes to abbreviated
Outcomes (a) thru (k) as taken from the 2007-08 ABET Criteria for Accrediting
Engineering Programs. A full circle indicates the program and Criterion 3 outcome are
strongly correlated. A half circle indicates dependency between outcomes, but of
secondary importance. The correlation of Figure IV.3 was developed by a comparison of
terminology, as well as a cross analysis of student generated data set from the senior exit




                                                                                       37
9/3/2012          Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


surveys15. This data taken from seniors in the 2004-05 class validated the grouping of like
or compatible (a) thru (k) outcomes into the shorter list of CE program outcomes.

As shown, every ABET Criterion 3 Outcome is strongly correlated to at least one of the
CE program outcomes. Comments are provided below to explain why or how the
various CE program outcomes are correlated. These comments, however, are reserved
only for the strongly correlated outcomes as this is where the CENE has focused its
efforts in assessment and action.

Naturally following from each correlation discussion are the corresponding metric
statements16. These metric statements are unequivocal performance goals that students’
must demonstrate to illustrate their achievement of the (a) thru (k) outcomes. Each
statement contains one or more bold-faced action verbs that form the basis of judging
performance by the CENE faculty. The average of the sampled student body
achievement level must be greater than or equal to 70% to establish outcome compliance
by the program. Some statements, however, are binary; eg the student either participated
or did not. Compliance in this case would be if 70% of the surveyed population
participated.

1. Criterion 3 Outcome (a)  CE Program Outcome 1

Student attainment of the ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and
engineering requires a technical core or foundation as is directly expressed by the CE
Program Outcome 1. There is almost a one-to-one correspondence in language between
the two outcomes eliminating the need for additional comments.

Compliance is achieved by students who can solve engineering problems using principles
of mathematics and science.

2. Criterion 3 Outcome (b)  CE Program Outcome 3

Student attainment of the ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze
and interpret data is strongly correlated to CE Program Outcome 3. The two statements
map almost directly to each other in terminology with exceptions. The CE outcome
recognizes the necessity of applying tools and methods to conduct successful experiments
and acknowledges that today’s experimental and analytical arenas rely heavily on
modeling and simulations to supplement and enhance traditional laboratory and analysis
techniques. CE Program Outcome 3 also adds reporting as the final step to the data
management tasks of experimentation.

15
  The senior exit survey tool is explained in Chapter V.
16
  The genesis of these metric statements comes from the September 2, 2005 draft report on Levels of
Achievement written by the ASCE Committee on Academic Prerequisites for Profession Practice. The
CENE Department Chair was a member of this committee and was responsible for the committee’s
approach to achievement via measurable action verbs. These originating statements were subsequently
reviewed and revised by the CENE faculty.



                                                  38
9/3/2012         Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal




Compliance is achieved by students who can design civil engineering or environmental
engineering experiments to meet a need; conduct the experiments, and analyze and
interpret the resulting data.

3. Criterion 3 Outcome (c)  CE Program Outcomes 2, 4, 5

Student attainment of the 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 is strongly
correlated to three CE Program Outcomes, Outcomes 2, 4, and 5. CE Outcome 2 implies
that engineering problem solving is an important subset skill of design, where design
explicitly involves creativity and synthesis that may not necessarily be present in
engineering problem solving. The overarching methodology for design and problem
solving are the same and include: identify and define the problem, capture problem
requirements and constraints, develop solution alternatives, select an optimal solution,
completing and document the details, communicate and implement the solution, and
eventually retire the solution. CE Outcomes 4 and 5 each capture the role of constraints
imposed by contemporary systems including political and societal settings.

Compliance to Outcome (c) is achieved by students who can design systems or processes
to meet desired needs within realistic constraints.

4. Criterion 3 Outcome (d)  CE Program Outcome 4

Student attainment of the ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams is strongly
correlated to CE Program Outcome 4. This program outcome, however, goes further by
suggesting that the ability to function is demonstrated by successful work products and
effective communications. It also expands the notion of teaming beyond just functioning
with others from different disciplines but also of diversity in the sense of gender, cultural,
ethnic, etc.

Compliance to Outcome (d) is achieved by students who can perform and communicate
effectively on diverse teams.

5. Criterion 3 Outcome (e)  CE Program Outcome 2

Student attainment of the ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems is
strongly correlated to CE outcome 2. As noted above, this program outcome recognizes
engineering problem solving as an important subset skill to design where both rely on the
same overarching methodology of: identify and defining the problem, capturing problem
requirements and constraints, developing solution alternatives, selecting an optimal
solution, completing and documenting the details, communicating and implementing the
solution, and eventually retiring the solution. In other words good designers must also be
good problem solvers and hence our rational for combining design and engineering
problem solving as one program outcome.


                                                 39
9/3/2012           Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal




Compliance to Outcome (e) is achieved by students who can solve well-defined
engineering problems in four technical areas appropriate to civil engineering (e.g.
structures, water resources, transportation, and geotechnical).

6. Criterion 3 Outcome (f)  CE Program Outcome 6

Student attainment of an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility is
strongly correlated to CE Program Outcome 6. Outcome 6, however, clarifies
“responsibility” as being responsible for the protection and promotion of health, safety,
and welfare.

Compliance to Outcome (f) is achieved by students who can recognize and analyze
situations involving professional and ethical interests.

7. Criterion 3 Outcome (g)  CE Program Outcome 4

Student attainment of the ability to communicate effectively is strongly correlated to CE
Program Outcome 4 that not only captures effective communication in both the verbal
and written domains, but does so within the context of engineering practice – in teams
within public and private organizations.

Compliance to Outcome (g) is achieved by students who organize and deliver effective
verbal, written, and graphical communications.

8. Criterion 3 Outcome (h)  CE Program Outcomes 4, 5

Student attainment of the broad education necessary to understand the impact of
engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and social context is strongly
correlated to CE Program Outcomes 4 and 5. Outcome 4 addresses “impact” and
outcome 5 addresses contemporary issues of the profession including globalization,
quality of life, societal diversification; and the technical, environmental, societal,
political, and economic implications17. Engineering design, especially for civil and
environmental engineering projects, are often completed within the public space.
Successful projects must incorporate and be negotiated through this political and social
space via public comment, bonding and taxing, and elected officials.

Compliance to Outcome (h) is achieved by students who can generally describe the
impacts of a constrained engineering solution to relevant economic, environmental,
social, and global-political systems.



17
  The ASCE book Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for the 21 st Century, First Edition, January 2004,
offers a commentary to each of the eleven existing ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes. The definition of
contemporary issues offered here was paraphrased from the commentary to Outcome (j).


                                                   40
9/3/2012         Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal



9. Criterion 3 Outcome (i)  CE Program Outcome 5

Student recognition of the need for and an ability to engage in life-long learning is
strongly correlated to CE Program Outcome 5, which equates the willingness to improve
one’s skills and abilities as the defining feature of life-long learning. Associated life-long
learning mechanisms that students can access include internships and summer
employment, curricula settings that promote problem-based learning, community service,
tutoring, mentoring, and participation in professional society.

Compliance to Outcome (i) is achieved by students who demonstrate the ability to learn
on their own, without the aid of formal instruction, and express the need to continually
improve their professional skills throughout their careers.

10. Criterion 3 Outcome (j)  CE Program Outcome 5

Student attainment of knowledge of contemporary issues is strongly correlated to CE
Program Outcome 5, which speaks directly to understanding the contemporary issues of
the profession. This program definition follows directly from the previously referenced
ASCE commentary. Contemporary issues can include knowledge of technical standards
and regulations, engineering economics, environmental impacts, and how to incorporate
social and political processes into engineering design and problem solutions.

Compliance to Outcome (j) is achieved by students who incorporate into the engineering
problem solving process well-defined contemporary issues such as regulations and
compliance, economics, environmental impacts, political influences, and globalization.

11. Criterion 3 Outcome (k)  CE Program Outcomes 3, 5

Student attainment of the ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering
tools necessary for engineering practice is strongly correlated to CE Program Outcomes 3
and 5. The CE program understands this outcome in two ways: (1) the ability to apply
the appropriate tool and/or method to corresponding problem, experiment, or design as
expressed by outcome 3, and (2) the ability to use applicable codes and standards,
information and methods as captured by “contemporary professional issues” of Outcome
5.

Compliance to Outcome (k) is achieved by students who apply relevant techniques,
skills, and modern engineering tools of the engineering practice.

D. Transforming Curriculum into Outcomes

Even though other activities contribute to students’ achievement of program learning
outcomes, it is the curriculum that forms the primary strategy for encouraging student
learning. It is also the one strategy that we, the faculty, have the most control over.




                                                 41
9/3/2012           Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


The curriculum, however, is organized by courses and not outcomes. In addition, the
personnel management, financial systems, and student evaluation processes of the typical
university are organized by a course structure. Program outcomes, however, represent a
structural context different from the discrete and sequential system of courses. Program
outcomes present a holistic, or sum-total, context to education that is construed from
demonstrable and measurable student activities that infer achievement of specific
learning goals. This difference in structural organization presents a considerable
challenge and requires a tool or process to transform content-directed course activities
and data into outcomes-directed evidences and learning assessment. The CENE has
made this transformation by asking its seniors to map their courses to the program
outcomes. The student mapping provided an initial version of target courses to target
outcomes that was then reviewed and revised by the faculty. An example of student
results of this mapping is found in Chapter V, plus a discussion of the faculty review
process.

This mapping not only helped the CENE to think in terms of outcomes, but fine-tuned
our assessment activities as well. The CENE is relying on primarily on two assessment
instruments – the Course Improvement Document (CID) and the Capstone Design
Evaluation Tool. As noted in Chapter V, the CIDs have been further focused towards
outcomes with target CENE course assigned one or more “target” outcomes for
assessment purposes. This transformation of courses to outcomes is presented in matrix
form in Chapter V and in table form here, Table IV.2. Only those courses “owned” by
the CENE and are also required for completion by every civil engineering student are
addressed in this table. It is these courses that we are able to directly assess and change.
This table should not be misunderstood to suggest that the listed courses are only
focusing on the listed outcomes. As the completed CID forms show, most courses cover
multiple outcomes that go beyond the assigned target outcomes. The target courses is a
way of sizing down the outcomes assessment process.

Table IV.2 Target Courses and Target Outcomes

Criterion 3 Outcomes             Target Courses
(Abbreviated)
a. Mathematics, Science &        CENE 150 Introduction to Environmental Engineering, CENE 225
Engineering                      Engineering Analysis, CENE 251 Statics, CENE 253 Mechanics of
                                 Materials, CENE 331 Sanitary Engineering, CENE 376 Structural
                                 Analysis I
b. Experiments, Analyze, &       CENE 270 Plane Surveying and Lab, CENE 225 Engineering
Interpret                        Analysis, CENE 253 Mechanics of Materials Lab, CENE 333 Applied
                                 Hydraulics Lab, CENE 420 Traffic Studies & Signals (embedded lab),
                                 CENE 383 Soils Lab (embedded)
c. Ability to Design a System     EGR 186 Introduction to Engineering Design, EGR 286 Engineering
                                 Design – The Process, CENE 253 Mechanics of Materials, CENE 438
                                 Reinforced Concrete Design, CENE 331 Sanitary Engineering, CENE
                                 333 Applied Hydraulics, CENE 418 Highway Engineering, CENE 450
                                 Geotechnical Eval & Design, CENE 433 Hydrology & Flood Control,
                                 CENE 476 Engineering Design Process Lab, CENE 486C Engineering
                                 Design – Capstone
d. Multi-Disciplinary Teams      EGR 186 Introduction to Engineering Design, EGR 286 Engineering
                                 Design – The Process, CENE 386W Engineering Design III – the


                                                   42
9/3/2012            Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


                                  Methods, CENE 418 Highway Engineering, CENE 476 Engineering
                                  Design Process Lab, CENE 486C Engineering Design - Capstone
e. Solve Engineering Problems     CENE 150 Introduction to Environmental Engineering, EGR 186
                                  Introduction to Engineering Design, CENE 251 Statics, CENE 253
                                  Mechanics of Materials, CENE 376 Structural Analysis I, CENE 331
                                  Sanitary Engineering, CENE 333 Applied Hydraulics, CENE 383 Soil
                                  Mechanics and Foundations, CENE 420 Traffic Studies & Signals,
                                  CENE 433 Hydrology & Flood Control, CENE 438 Reinforced
                                  Concrete Design, CENE 486C Engineering Design – Capstone
f. Professional & Ethical         CENE 150 Intro to Environmental Engineering, EGR 186 Introduction
Responsibility                    to Engineering Design, CENE 270 Plane Surveying, CENE 386W
                                  Engineering Design III – The Methods, CENE 486C Engineering
                                  Design – Capstone, CENE 383 Soil Mechanics and Foundations,
                                  CENE 418 Highway Engineering, CENE 420Traffic Studies & Signals
g. Communicate                    EGR 186 Introduction to Engineering Design, CENE 150 Computer
                                  Aided Drafting, CENE 270 Plane Surveying Lab, EGR 286
                                  Engineering Design – The Process, CENE 253L Mechanics of
                                  Materials Lab, CENE 386W Engineering Design III – The Methods,
                                  CENE 383L Soils (embedded lab), CENE 418 Highway Engineering
                                  Lab (embedded), CENE 476 Engineering Design Process Lab, CENE
                                  486C Engineering Design – Capstone
h. Impact of Engineering          CENE 150 Introduction to Environmental Engineering, CENE 386W
Solutions                         Engineering Design III – The Methods, CENE 450 Geotechnical
                                  Evaluation & Design, CENE 420 Traffic Studies & Signals, CENE
                                  486C Engineering Design – Capstone
i. Lifelong Learning              CENE 270 Plane Surveying, EGR 286 Engineering Design – The
                                  Process, CENE 386W Engineering Design III – The Methods, CENE
                                  418 Highway Engineering, CENE 476 Engineering Design Process
                                  Lab, CENE 486C Engineering Design – Capstone
j. Contemporary Issues            CENE 150 Intro to Environmental Engineering, CENE 386W
                                  Engineering Design III – The Methods, CENE 331 Sanitary
                                  Engineering, CENE 450 Geotechnical Evaluation & Design, CENE
                                  438 Reinforced Concrete Design, CENE 433 Hydrology & Flood
                                  Control, CENE 486C Engineering Design – Capstone
k. Modern Engineering Tools       Computer Aided Drafting, Plane Surveying and Lab, Engineering
                                  Analysis, Structural Analysis I, Traffic Studies & Signals, Sanitary
                                  Engineering, Applied Hydraulics Lab, Hydrology and Flood Control,
                                  Engineering Design IV – Capstone

E. Process to Assess Outcomes

The CENE is relying on primarily on two assessment instruments – the Course
Improvement Document (CID) and the Capstone Design Evaluation Tool. These tools are
described in detail in Chapter V. This section is intended as a summary of the key
features of our process.

The individual CIDs focuses on student performance in specific CENE courses that target
certain outcomes as noted above. Only those courses under the direct influence of the
CENE faculty (including EGR 186 Introduction to Engineering Design and EGR 286
Engineering Design: The Process) are monitored by the CIDs. The synthesis of the
separate course results into a holistic review of the curricula is completed at least once a




                                                    43
9/3/2012            Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


year18 by the full faculty. As part of this review, the faculty makes conclusions regarding
students’ achievement of outcomes. The Capstone Design Evaluation Tool provides a
direct and quantifiable measure of the full curricula’s influence on student achievement
of nine of the eleven ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes. The DAC reviews the capstone
results and reports on outcome achievement. The feedback from the synthesized CID
review, the DAC capstone review, as well as information from other secondary strategies
such as the senior exit survey, the DAC student forum, or even FE results are integrated
by the Chair and presented to the faculty at follow-up department meetings. It is through
these meetings that the actual changes to courses, curricula, advising, or other activities
are decided. The follow-up meetings are scheduled to sync up with the University’s
curriculum processes so that changes can be immediately reflected in the next catalog. A
summary of the many improvements to the CE curriculum and other strategies on an
outcome by outcome basis was provided in the overview to this chapter in Table IV.1.

F. Outcome Evidence and Achievement Evaluation

In this section, a review of the evidence and achievement evaluation for each of the
eleven Criterion 3 Outcomes is presented. The conclusions about students’ achievement
of learning outcomes that are presented here were determined at the January 2007 faculty
workshop based primarily upon the relevant CIDs and capstone evaluation results. As
explained, outcome compliance is achieved if the average student body score on direct
assessments is 70%. As shown below, our students are meeting all outcomes per this
metric. The details below, however, provide important distinctions to this global
conclusion. In summary, our students are shown to:

          Meet the full intent of Outcomes (a), (b), (e), (f), and (k).
          Possess exceptional skills going beyond the intent of Outcomes (c), (d), and (g).
          Meet the intent of Outcomes of (h), (i), and (j), with improvements identified to:
            enhance students’ economics and project management skills, and
            assess more directly student’s life-long learning skills.

1. Outcome (a)

Compliance is achieved by students who can solve engineering problems using principles
of mathematics and science, and the department has determined that our students are
complying with this outcome by the time of graduation.

The evidence for this conclusion is provided in course CIDs and the team-project scores
from the most recent capstone evaluation for Outcome a. Examples are presented here
from the CIDs for CENE 150, 251, and 376 and show the progressive development of our
students’ ability to solve problems using mathematics and science. In particular, CENE
150 provides evidence of the application of chemistry and basic math; 251 provides

18
  In addition to this once a year review of synthesized CID results, additional curricula reviews occur in
response to other drivers such as university-level decisions on liberal studies or initiation of a new records
management system.


                                                      44
9/3/2012        Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


evidence of physics and math, and 376 more advanced applications of mathematics in
engineering problems.

The applicable CENE 150 outcome taken from the spring 2006 offering is “the student
will be able to draw block diagrams, perform material balance calculations using
appropriate units and unit conversions.” As reported by the instructor, the strategies used
to encourage achievement and capture assessment were: 4 sets of notes and example
problems along with the content of 6 text chapters, 5 homework assignments, 1 quiz, and
3 exams. The average achievement for the class (n = 23) for the related homework, quiz,
and exam questions for this outcome was 75%.

Five of the six CENE 251 outcomes from the spring 2006 CID related directly to this
Outcome a. For example, the first outcome is: The students will apply principles of
mathematics and physics to the preparation and solution of problems involving force
components in two dimensions, forces in equilibrium, combining force components to
obtain a resultant and vice-versa, equivalent force systems. The strategies used to
encourage achievement and capture assessment included lecturing, numerous homework
assignments, group problem solving and methodology coverage, supplemental
instruction, practice quizzes, and multiple exams. The final exam was comprehensive,
and as such represents a succinct assessment strategy for this Outcome (a). Class average
(n = 37) was 70%. A more detail look at this CID shows that the student body starts out
weak; exam performances averaged less than the minimum acceptable 70% criteria. In
addition, the class started the semester with 51 students and ended with 37, with 14
students withdrawing from the course to repeat it at another time.

The fall 2005 CID for CENE 376 is similar in format to CENE 251 with four of its five
outcomes each related to Outcome a. The third class outcome is stated here as an
example of this relationship: Students will have the ability to determine influence lines
and to use them in computing internal function values relating to the applications of dead
and live structural loads; and to calculate rotation and translation deflections of beams
using the moment-area and conjugate beam methods. The strategies used to encourage
achievement and capture assessment included: Lecture and text presentations of topic,
require the submission of homework that is graded for content and professionalism,
require successful completion of hourly tests and a final examination, use of in-class
teaching models, use of a supplementary text that was developed by the instructor for
student use, presentation of personal real-world experiences from automotive and
aerospace industry, use of a COSMOS/M Mini User Guide developed by the instructor
for student use, require project involving the use of COSMOS/M finite element computer
program, and encouragement of individual and group efforts in solution of homework problems.
The student achievement averages (n = 31) on the four related outcomes ranged from a
low of 74% for the outcome on indeterminate structures and related mathematical
analytical techniques to a high of 81% on the outcome that reviewed and enhanced upon
the concepts in the earlier mechanics of materials course.




                                                45
9/3/2012           Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


The average capstone project score for the spring 2006 experience on Outcome (a) was
83% (n = 32) with scores ranging from a low of 65% for the Residential Bridge team to a
high of 93% for the Steel Bridge team.

The four cited assessment examples show that our students’ abilities build with time in
our curriculum, and sometimes via multiple attempts within critical courses. This is
readily exemplified via the CENE 251 CID example. By the time, our students reach
their culminating capstone event in their senior year, however, their ability to meet
Outcome (a) is satisfied as exemplified through the capstone evaluation tool results.

The department also cautiously19 looked to the recent FE results as secondary evidence of
math and science proficiency. The eight CE students that took the April 2006 exam
performed as well or better than national average % correct in the content areas of
chemistry, electricity and magnetism, engineering mechanics, fluid mechanics, and
engineering probability. This sample of students however scored, respectively 3 and 6
percentage points lower than the national average in thermodynamics and mathematics.
This overall concurrency with national data confirms our conclusion regarding students’
compliance with Outcome (a).

2. Outcome (b)

Compliance is achieved by students who can design civil engineering or environmental
engineering experiments to meet a need; conduct the experiments, and analyze and
interpret the resulting data. As noted earlier in this chapter, the CENE also
acknowledges with this outcome that today’s experimental and analytical arenas rely
heavily on modeling and simulations to supplement and enhance traditional laboratory
and analysis techniques. The department has determined that our students are complying
with this outcome.

The evidence for this conclusion is provided in the relevant course CIDs. Examples are
presented here from the CIDs for CENE 225, 253L, 333L, 383, and 420. CENE 225 is an
engineering statistical and probability course that provides students with the
mathematical tools for analyzing and interpreting data. CENE 333L and 420 are
representative of our approach to incorporating modeling and simulation as an important
skill set highly correlated to the intent of this outcome. The CENE gives additional
attention to the assessment results of CENE 420. As a higher-level course, it is
suggestive of a summative example of students’ experimental skills.




19
   Exam participation by CE students is strictly voluntary. Even though the CENE provides information to
its students about professional practice issues including licensure and encourages its students to purse
licensure, it does not require its students to take the FE exam. In addition, the CENE does not formally
provide refresher courses or workshops for FE exam preparation. It is well documented that performance
on standardized tests is not a reliable indicator of future performance. As such, the CENE does not believe
that the FE exam should not be used as the primary evaluation tool in any continuous improvement process.
It can, however, provide additional information that supplements the primary evidence.


                                                    46
9/3/2012        Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


Three sections of CENE 253L were taught and reported on in spring 2006. The first two
outcomes of this laboratory course speak directly to Outcome b. Course outcome l
relates to students’ ability to design and conduct experiments for analyzing joints,
determining material properties including fatigue, using standard test protocols, designing
materials (e.g. concrete), acquiring strain, measuring deflections, and comparing
experimental results to analytical results. Course outcome 2 is students shall develop
the ability to organize data and to write professional engineering laboratory reports.
Class averages for outcome 1 range from 92.5% (n = 9), 89% (n = 14) and 87% (n = 8)
over the three sections. Class averages for outcome 2 range from 89% (n = 14, n = 8),
and 93% (n = 9).

The fourth outcome of spring 2006 CENE 225 CID speaks directly to the relevance of
this course to Outcome (b). The course outcome is: students shall be able to use and
interpret concepts from central limit theorem to establish confidence intervals and levels,
design experiments, and test hypothesis. The instructor embedded 2 quizzes and 2
homework assignments to directly measure this outcome. The composite class average
(n = 53) for the four activities was 89%.

Report on CENE 333L and 420 after fall 2006 CIDs come in.

3. Outcome (c)

Compliance to Outcome (c) is achieved by students who can design systems or processes
to meet desired needs within realistic constraints. The department believes that not only
do our students comply with this outcome, but their approach and skills in design are
exceptional. In addition to the requirement of completing 9 units of traditional
disciplinary design, our students also complete 13 hours of the Design4Practice (D4P)
curriculum (EGR 186 and 286, CENE 386W, 476, and 486) that provides the additional
professional, multi-disciplinary, and management skills needed to develop exceptional
design abilities. A complete description of the Design4Practice curriculum is described
in Chapter VI.

The evidence for the conclusion that our students not only comply, but perform
exceptionally well in design is provided here through a sampling of the relevant course
CIDs and the related indicator from the capstone evaluation. The CID examples include
information from the Design4Practice courses (EGR 186 and CENE 386W), and from a
traditional sub-discipline specific course CENE 438.

EGR 186 Introduction to Engineering Design was developed in collaboration with
engineering colleges at the University of Arizona and Arizona State University and with
the Arizona Community College system. Students from all of the engineering disciplines
in Engineering at NAU work together to on a variety of small, engineering design
experiences in EGR 186. Other topics include problem solving techniques, teaming and
research skills, oral and written communications skills, and tools for success in academic
and professional careers. The fourth outcome of the fall 2005 CID for EGR 186 speaks
directly to Outcome (c). It is: Students will use the design process to identify and solve


                                                47
9/3/2012            Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


engineering problems. Three design projects were used to encourage achievement of this
outcome while also serving as the assessment tool. The composite class average (n = 50)
for the three design projects was 80%. Follow-on course improvement suggestions by
the instructor indicate that the EGR 186 could benefit from updating of course materials
and projects. The CENS has recently created a new college position, the D4P director, to
coordinate, sustain, expand, and enhance the D4P program. We are looking forward to
the new energy this position will bring to the D4P program of which EGR 186 will
benefit from.

CENE 386W introduces our CE students to the real multi-disciplinary work of civil and
environmental engineers; whereby this work is often embedded within large, one-of-a-
kind, publicly funded construction projects with many economic, environmental, and
social impacts. These projects are developed and built by a team of diverse professionals
that follow a design process. And their work is initiated, documented, and communicated
through many forms of specialized writing supplemented by drawings and presentations.
To capture these attributes, the instructors of CENE 386W relied on the case-study
method with many embedded writing activities. The fourth outcome of CENE 386W as
documented in the Spring 2006 CID speaks directly to Outcome (c). It is: students will
be able to describe the process of developing, designing, and implementing a civil or
environmental engineering project for a public agency including an environmental
analysis. The assessment tools used for this outcome included three homework
assignments, two major writing assignments, and a final exam essay question directly
evaluating this outcome. The composite weighted class average (n = 28) for six
activities was 91%. Follow-on comments by the instructor as documented in the CID
are:

    “The use of the case study/case history reporting coupled with guest lectures on a
    specific project provides an excellent exposure to the “real-world” of engineering
    practice. At this time, the assessment data do not suggest a change is needed to this
    basic approach. However, the course is very dependent on the “project” used and
    moving the course toward a more consistent project base would be suggested to
    improve on the consistency and control over of what students learn from semester-to-
    semester.”

CENE 438 Reinforced Concrete Design is a required course generally taken by seniors in
their fall semester. The fall 2005 class outcomes C2 (analyze and design reinforced
concrete members and systems), and C4 (document engineering designs with sketches
that can be used to produce final engineering drawings) speak directly to Outcome (c).
The instructor utilized a number of homework assignments and exam questions to
motivate and assess these outcomes. Class average (n = 27) for, respectively, C2 and C4
was 79% and 81%. The suggested changes provided by the instructor included:

          Revise assessment methods for course educational outcome C4, as not enough
           credit was placed on the students’ calculation neatness and logical flow and on the
           ability to communicate their designs by neat, to-scale, sketches. Increase the




                                                    48
9/3/2012           Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


           emphasis on professional quality calculations…maybe have the students evaluate
           each other on how easily they can follow each others work.
          Have students work out example problems in small groups (2-3 people) during
           lecture prior to instructor presenting solution.

Evidence of our students’ achievement of Outcome (c) is also evaluated from a
cumulative perspective via the capstone evaluation tool used by our DAC member to
evaluate students’ performance at the end of their capstone design experience in CENE
486C. CENE 486C is the spring semester capstone design course that is part of a two-
semester, senior-year, culminating design experience. It is preceded by CENE 476 that
takes place in the fall semester. Students work in teams to complete “real-world” design
projects that are typically sponsored by external (to the CENE) clients. Seven of the 21
capstone evaluation questions are directed at the Outcome (c), and include evaluation on:
scope of work, technical challenge and approach, technical deficiencies, solution
creativity, and application or consideration of regulatory issues and other constraints.
The average capstone project score for the spring 2006 experience on Outcome (c) was
85% (n = 32) with scores ranging from a low of 72% for the Residential Bridge team to a
high of 96% for the Canoe Hull Design.

4. Outcome (d)

Compliance to Outcome (d) is achieved by students who can perform and communicate
effectively on diverse teams. As above and because of our Design4Practice curriculum,
the department believes that our students teaming skills are exceptional. The evidence
for this conclusion is provided here through a sampling of the relevant course CIDs and
the related indicator from the capstone evaluation. The CID examples include
information from the Design4Practice courses (EGR 186 and CENE 386W), and from a
traditional sub-discipline specific course CENE 418.

Course outcome 3 of the spring 2006 offering of EGR 186 is communication and
working in teams. The instructor utilizes a variety of strategies to encourage student
achievement including daily in-class team activities, 3 major design projects with
required reports and presentations, exams, team peer evaluations and team content
videos. The class average (n = 34) on this outcome was 93%.

The teaming concepts for CENE 386W are expressed within the context of the many
collaborative reporting and presentation activities. Class outcome 3 is students will write
collaboratively. The students work in teams to analyze and report upon a variety of
aspects from the case-study project. Via their team, the students submit seven written
deliverables including memos, report outline, proposal, draft submittals, and a minimum
20-page final report. The class average (n = 28) calculated across the seven team-
produced deliverables was 92.5%.

Insert CENE 418 results from fall 2006 here




                                                   49
9/3/2012         Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


EGR 286 is an important class for helping our students’ achieve the multi-disciplinary
aspects of teaming. Students from across the four engineering programs participate in
small and large team robot-based design activities and are required to learn and take on
tasks that go beyond their chosen discipline. The teams are populated on a more or less
random basis and they change during the semester three times. Prior to the spring of
2007, the EGR 286 course did not incorporate the CID outcome assessment process used
by the CENE department. This however has changed with the integration of a CENE
faculty member into EGR 286 and the piloting of the CID in the spring of 2007. The
CENE looks forward to the data collected from this on not only this outcome, but also
Outcomes (c), (g), (i), and (k).

Evidence of our students’ achievement of Outcome (d) is also evaluated from a
cumulative perspective via the capstone evaluation tool described in detail in Chapter V.
Five of the 21 questions are directed at the Outcome (d), and include external
communications with their client, quality of presentation at the capstone design
conference, internal team communications, and integrating multi-disciplinary skills. The
average capstone project score for the spring 2006 experience on Outcome (d) was 89%
(n = 32) with scores ranging from a low of 81% for Flagstaff Reservoirs Inundation team
to a high of 96% for the Arboretum Accessibility project.

5. Outcome (e)

Compliance to Outcome (e) is achieved by students who can solve well-defined
engineering problems in four technical areas appropriate to civil engineering (e.g.
structures, water resources, transportation, and geotechnical). The department has
determined that our students are complying with this outcome.

The evidence for this conclusion is provided from the embedded assessment results from
four of the eight required courses that span the four technical areas.

Class outcome 4 for the spring 2006 offering of CENE 433 Hydrology and Flood control
is for students to solve hydrologic engineering problems given on professional
registration exams. The instructor measured students’ ability via two in-class exams.
Class average (n = 34) over these exams for this outcome was 85%. CENE 433 is a
traditionally delivered course that utilizes a major field trip to supplement the lecture and
homework materials.

Class outcome 1 for the fall 2005 offering of CENE 438 Reinforced Concrete Design is
to prepare students so they can analyze and design reinforced concrete members and
systems. Like CENE 433, this is a traditionally delivered class with lectures, homework
assignments, and exams. The instructor measured students’ achievement of this outcome
through their performance on 8 homework assignments, and problems from four exams.
Class average (n = 27) calculated over these multiple evaluation tools was 79%.

Insert results for CENE 450 and 420 from fall 2006 here.




                                                 50
9/3/2012        Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


Evidence of our students’ achievement of Outcome (e) is also evaluated from a
cumulative perspective via the capstone evaluation tool. This evaluation is similar to
Outcome (c) minus the criteria on solution creativity. As noted earlier, the CENE
recognizes engineering problem solving as an important subset skill to design where both
rely on the same overarching methodology. In other words good designers must also be
good problem solvers and hence serves as our rational for combining design and
engineering problem solving as one program outcome. We did, however, qualify
creativity as more unique to design than problem solving. For this particular outcome,
the capstone tool does not provide an indication of every student’s problem solving
ability in all four areas. This occurs because of the structure of the capstone experience
whereby multiple and unique projects spanning the four sub-disciplines are
simultaneously being completed by different teams of students. In this regard, the
capstone results for Outcome (e) can only be regarded as a sample of performance. The
average capstone project score for the spring 2006 experience on Outcome (e) was 85%
(n = 32) with scores ranging from a low of 72% for the Residential Bridge team to a high
of 96% for the Canoe Hull Design.

The department looked to the recent FE results as secondary evidence; intended only to
supplement the CID and capstone evaluation results. The eight CE students that took the
April 2006 exam performed as well or better than national average as indicated by the %
correct in the afternoon content areas of: hydraulics/hydrology, structural analysis and
design, soil mechanics and foundations, and transportation. This concurrency with
national data confirms validates our conclusion regarding students’ compliance. Given
the direct relevancy of the afternoon session of the FE to this outcome and the related
course work, the department has asked its instructors to begin comparing data sets
between the FIE results and students’ classroom performance to gather additional insights
into course delivery and content. This process was initiated for the spring 2007 CIDs.

6. Outcome (f)

Compliance to Outcome (f) is achieved by students who can recognize and analyze
situations involving professional and ethical interests. The department has determined
that our students are complying with this outcome, and this conclusion was recently
validated by ABET through the focus visit process. As summarized in Chapter I
Background and Overview of this self study, NAU’s Engineering programs were the
subject of an ABET focus visit in the fall of 2005 triggered by the NAU-wide
restructuring of colleges. Because the CE and ENE programs had two outcome concerns
remaining from the previous program review process – Outcome (f) and Outcome (j) –
these issues were also addressed during the focus visit. The final statement issued by
ABET in August of 2006 resolved the concern in Outcome (f) as the result of the actions
taken by the CENE. These actions included the addition of a required philosophy course
in ethics to both the CE and ENE curriculum, enhanced attention to this outcome via our
CID process, and number of specific improvements to CENE 386W, one of the primary
courses in the CE and ENE curriculum that targets this outcome.




                                                51
9/3/2012        Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


As confirmed by our colleagues from NAU’s Department of Philosophy, a basic course
in ethics (PHI 105 or PHI 331) will ground our student’s knowledge of ethics, allowing
them to better understand and appreciate the professional application of ethical principles
and theories they will encounter in their engineering coursework and after the
undergraduate program when practicing as an engineer-in-training. This curricular
action was considered and reviewed by our Department Advisory Council (DAC) in our
fall 2004 and spring 2005 meetings. This council, who serve as active advisors and
reviewers of our department’s programs, agreed with this curricular change and
supported our efforts to increase our other curricular content relative to these two
outcomes. The course requirement became effective for students entering the 2005-06
programs, and as such, the CENE has not yet been able to assess its efficacy. Beginning
with the spring 2007 senior survey, the CENE will incorporate questions about ethics to
capture information about PHI 105 and 331.

The fall 2005 self-study reported on the improvements made to our CID process
simultaneous with improvements in CENE 386W to better attend to Outcome (f). Course
outcome C2 of CENE 386W speaks directly to professional and ethical responsibilities
within the context of technical communications that span individual, team, business, and
design activities. An example embedded direct assessment used to assess student’s
understanding of C2 was problems 3.1 and 3.2 from test 2 in the spring 2005 offering.
Students were directed to respond to the following situation described below. The
average class grade on this question was 88.8%.

    You are a newly hired engineer and on your first day of work, you are sent into the
    field to inspect the concrete work being done on a new section of State highway
    construction. You are handed an engineering inspection log and told to record the
    temperature data that the contractor measures prior to the pour. There is a blank field
    on the log sheet for recording this particular temperature in accordance to AASHTO
    T 309 (AASHTO is the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
    Officials), which has been adopted by the State agency as prohibiting the placement
    of concreted under certain air temperature conditions. You arrive at the jobsite and
    discover that the concrete is in place and the contractor did not measure the air
    temperature. The contractor then measures the temperature for you and you record it
    on the inspection log sheet. The temperature is 36F. You return to the office, hand in
    the inspection log and move on to your next assignment. Several weeks later, you
    learn that AASHTO T 309 prohibits the placement of concrete when air temperatures
    are either below 36F or above 90F.

    1st Response: Now that you know the temperature-based prohibition limits for
    placing concrete, what do you do?

    2nd Response: Is there anything you could have done or should have done before
    doing the inspection? Be specific and support your response based on either the
    ASCE or the NSPE engineering code of ethics. While your reference to these may be
    made in general, it must clearly indicate that you understand the meaning of these
    codes.


                                                52
9/3/2012           Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal




Table IV.3 captures the assessment activities and evaluation results for this ethics
outcome from three semesters of offering CENE 386W.

Table IV.3. Embedded CENE 386W Course Assessment of Outcome (f)

                                 Spring 2004                    Spring 2005                   Spring 2006
 Course Educational             Class                                      Class                      Class
     Outcomes       Assessment Average                    Assessment      Average Assessment         Average

C2. Define the ethical     2 Qs Test 1      8.3/10        6 HWs             73.6%        HW #8, #9     95.5%
principles of technical
                           4 Qs Test 2      24.3/31       2 Qs on Test      88.8%
communications and
recognize unethical          Average        79.5%         Average           81.2%          Average     95.5%
communication.

In addition to the CENE 386W specific efforts, our students are required to take a number
of other courses that address and assess this outcome. The information presented above
is in addition to what is documented, through the CIDs, from other courses such as EGR
186 Introduction to Engineering Design, CENE 150 Introduction to Environmental
Engineering, CENE 383 Soil Mechanics and CENE 486C Senior Capstone Design. For
example, the spring 2005 offering of CENE 486C integrated a week-long professional
and ethical responsibility module. The module used a case study format that facilitated
group discussions referencing the current Rules of Professional Conduct of the Arizona
State Board of Technical Registration. The outcomes of the week-long module were
measured in two dimensions: a test about the content and a specific course evaluation
question about the relevancy. The students’ grasp of the material is captured in the mean
score of the test covering the module material. This student mean was 95.5% with a low
score of 85% and the high of 105% (a 5 % bonus was given one student for an
exceptionally well-developed answer). The student’s perception of the relevancy of the
one-week module was captured in a specific question asked on the course evaluation.
The conclusion drawn from this question is that the mean student was neutral as to the
relevance of the module, i.e., the mean of the responses neither agreed nor disagreed that
the module was relevant.

Course outcome 3 from the spring 2006 CENE 150 CID is that students shall be able to
discuss basic environmental ethics and technical environmental issues framed in a global,
contemporary context. The strategies used toward the achievement of this outcome
included environmental ethics discussion, a team-based “Global Env Eng” project, one
homework assignment, three exams, two quizzes, and a presentation on sustainability.
The evidence for students’ compliance as accumulated for the assignment, exams, and
quizzes was a class average of 90% (n = 23).

Insert CENE 383 and 418 from fall 2006 here.

The department looked to the recent FE results as secondary evidence; intended only to
supplement the CID and capstone evaluation results. The eight CE students that took the



                                                     53
9/3/2012        Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


April 2006 exam performed better than the national average in the ethics and business
topic area as indicated by the % correct. The performance of this student sample against
the national norms confirms our conclusion regarding students’ compliance to Outcome
(f).

7. Outcome (g)

Compliance to Outcome (g) is achieved by students who organize and deliver effective
verbal, written, and graphical communications. As above and because of our
Design4Practice curriculum, the department believes our students’ communication skills
are exceptional. The evidence for this is provided through a sampling of the relevant
course CIDs and the related indicator from the capstone evaluation. The CID examples
include information from the Design4Practice course CENE 386W and CENE 476, and
from CENE 180 and 253L. These courses were selected as they feature the full range of
communication skills addressed in the CE curriculum including various forms of written
communication, verbal, and graphical.

CENE 253 L Mechanics of Materials represents our students’ ability in traditional
laboratory report writing activities. The corresponding class outcome is students shall
develop the ability to organize data and to write professional engineering laboratory
reports. The laboratory course includes multiple laboratory report assignments. The
average class performance for the two lab sections taught in the fall of 2005 were 87.8%
(n = 15) and 83.5% (n = 8).

Insert CENE 180 fall 2006 results here.

CENE 386W Engineering Design – The Methods is not only the junior-level design
course for the Design4Practice program, it also satisfies the University’s requirement of a
meaningful writing experience in the junior year for every NAU students. CENE 386W
focuses on technical writing for engineers within the context of the team-based case study
and provides multiple opportunities for the practice of writing on an individual basis.
One of the prerequisite for CENE 386W is ENG 105 Critical Reading and Writing, the
freshman English course required of all NAU students. Three of the CENE 386W five
course outcomes speak directly to writing and include:

    1. Write concise, well-organized, and grammatically correct documents such as
       memos, proposals, and technical reports.
    2. Define the ethical principles of technical communications and recognize unethical
       communication.
    3. Write collaboratively.

Class outcome 1 is most directly related to this ABET Outcome (g). The corresponding
strategies employed in CENE 386W include lecture and multimedia instruction, reading
assignments, a guest lecture from a member of our DAC about the importance of writing
in the profession, homework memorandum assignments, case-study deliverables, and a
final essay. The class average (n = 28) for the individually completed assignments for the


                                                54
9/3/2012        Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


7 memos was 90.4%, and for the final essay was 87.1%. For a short period of time in the
spring 2006 offering, CENE 386W employed a graduate student from English to help
with the writing. Due to the requirements of graduate teaching assistantships, however,
the CENE was not able to keep the graduate student and will not be able to access this
service in the future for the same reason. Feedback from students gathered via the DAC
sponsored student forum in the fall of 2006 indicated that the students enjoyed and
benefited from the English student, particularly in the context of increased access to help
with writing. The CENE is populating the spring 2007 offering CENE 386W with two
CENE instructors as an attempt to provide adequate coverage and assistance with
technical writing.

Insert CENE 476 from fall 2006 data here.

Evidence of our students achievement of Outcome (g) is also evaluated from a
cumulative perspective via the capstone evaluation tool. Six of the 21 questions are
directed at the Outcome (g), and include external communications with their client
including negotiating, articulating, and meeting the client’s expectations, quality of
presentation at the capstone design conference, and internal team communications. The
average capstone project score for the spring 2006 experience on Outcome (d) was 89%
(n = 32) with scores ranging from a low of 82% for Flagstaff Reservoirs Inundation team
to a high of 98% for the Arboretum Accessibility project.

8. Outcome (h)

Compliance to Outcome (h) is achieved by students who can generally describe the
impacts of a constrained engineering solution to relevant economic, environmental,
social, and global-political systems. The CENE looks to its own courses – CENE 150,
386W, 420, 450, and 486C – as well as to the required liberal studies distribution courses
to develop this skill. In addition to the CID captured assessment, the capstone evaluation
tool measure this skill directly via six questions focusing on the integration of regulatory
issues, non-technical project constraints, and the corresponding solution effectiveness.
By way of these multiple inputs, the CENE has determined that our students are generally
complying with this outcome by graduation. We have, however, detected the need to
improve our approach to the specific topic of engineering economics and are working to
incorporate a solution in time for the 08-09 curriculum process.

The CENE embraces the University’s recently revised position on its liberal studies
requirements that has resulted an additional distribution course being added to the 07-08
CE and ENE curricula. Both curriculums now provide 6 hours of coursework in Social
and Political Worlds, 6 hours of coursework in Cultural Understanding, and 6 hours of
coursework in Aesthetic and Humanistic Inquiry. The CENE understands the value of
this coursework in a manner similar to the ethics coursework requirement of above.
These distribution courses ground our student’s knowledge with the broader perspectives
of culture, humanity, social constructs, art, political and economic processes so they can
better understand and appreciate these issues as they encounter them in their engineering
coursework and in their future careers.


                                                55
9/3/2012           Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal




Our CE students are provided an introduction to environmental impacts through the
required CENE 150 course. Class outcome 2 speaks directly to ABET Outcome (h) -
students will be able to describe air and water quality parameters, techniques for air and
water pollution control, environmental regulations, solid / hazardous / nuclear waste
management and recycling technologies. CENE 150 employs a number of strategies to
encourage this outcome including 12 homework assignments, 21 quizzes, 1 team project,
3 exams and a moderated/graded discussion. The class average (n = 23) accumulated
from these activities was 81%.

The fourth and fifth course outcomes for CENE 386W relate to Outcome (h), and are
respectively, students must: describe the process of developing, designing, and
implementing a civil or environmental engineering project for a public agency,
including environmental analysis; and use time-value of money formulas to analyze
economic alternatives. The instructor incorporated a question in his final exam that
directly assessed the fourth course outcome. The class average (n = 28) on this activity
was 86.7%. The evaluation of engineering economics was made through homework
assignments and exam questions. Class average was 79.8%. Additional comments by
the instructor in the CID focused on this fifth outcome:

    “Some students do not perform as well in this area as others. One change would be to increase the time
    devoted to engineering economics and increase the homework load in this area to provide more
    practice solving economics problems. This would be done, however, at a cost of decreasing the time
    available for the writing component. Alternately, engineering economics could be removed from this
    course, but only if an alternative approach was made available.”

The alternative approach recommended by the CENE 386W instructor was:
    “Considering the targeted nature of engineering economy and how it is inserted in the 386W course
    with mixed success, it may be time to consider creating modules that students can take as Web-based
    credit components of an individual course. While engineering economy is one candidate, there are
    likely other courses that could benefit from this approach – of course the details of exactly how these
    modules would be administered would need to be determined first.”

The spring 2006 FE exam results also suggest problems with engineering economics.
The eight CE students that took the April 2006 exam did not perform as well as (8
percentage points lower) the national average as indicated by the % correct. The
department initiated a process for enhancing this topic during its mid-academic year
workshop in January 2007.

Insert 450 and 420 CID data from fall 2006 here.

As noted in the introductory paragraph to this outcome, we are also using evidence of our
students’ compliance to Outcome (h) from the capstone evaluation process. Six questions
focused on how well the students integrated regulatory issues and non-technical project
constraints in their respective capstone projects, as well as assessing the effectiveness
(relative to constraints and requirements) of the corresponding solution. The average
capstone project score for the spring 2006 experience on Outcome (h) was 86% (n = 32)



                                                     56
9/3/2012        Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


with scores ranging from a low of 78% for Flagstaff Reservoirs Inundation team to a high
of 98% for the Canoe Hull Design project.

9. Outcome (i)

Outcome (i) focuses on students’ awareness for and their ability to engage in life-long
learning. The CE program’s related metric statement is:

    Compliance is achieved by students who demonstrate the ability to learn on their
    own, without the aid of formal instruction, and express the need to continually
    improve their professional skills throughout their careers.

Of the eleven outcomes, Outcome (j) had challenged the department in its ability to
capture direct evidence. The department believes its graduating students’ comply with
this outcome, but this conclusion was developed through student self-assessment, by
inference from the success of students’ capstone experiences, and our students’
participation in student professional organizations. Prior to fall of 2006, the CENE had
not assigned specific courses to attend to the assessment of this outcome, even though the
use of problem-based learning formats extended throughout the Design4Practice courses
(EGR 186 and 286, CENE 386W, 476, and 486C) as well as embedded lab or project
elements as exemplified by CENE 418 and 420. As a result of this, no course had picked
this outcome up in a formal way for reporting via the CID process. Over the summer of
2006 revisions were made to the CENE’s CID process that incorporated the targeting of
specific courses to this outcome.

Prior to this CID revision, the CENE has been relying on indicators gathered from the
senior exit survey and the capstone evaluation tool. The senior exit survey tool was
refined in 2006 to better capture data on students’ participation while on campus (eg
demonstration of) in relevant activities such as summer employment or tutoring and
mentoring, and students’ intent (e.g. express the need to) to be involved in community or
professional organizations and pursue additional education. Additional changes are
incorporated in the spring 2007 survey capture information: about awareness of and
intent towards professional licensure, and if and how student professional organization
participation enhanced life-long learning skills. A summary of the spring 2006 data is as
follows.

Twenty-eight of the twenty-nine students were able to adequately explain what the words
"lifelong learning" meant. Eighteen students reported being involved in an extra-
curricular activity, typically a student professional organization, while at NAU that
contributed to their life-long learning abilities. Nineteen indicated that they have future
plans to be involved in a community or professional organization after graduation.
Fifteen indicated a strong interest in pursuing additional formal education beyond their
undergraduate degree work. In addition, the students judged their skills or preparation to
address the various components of life-long learning and their ability to adhere to ethical
and professional standards using a 1 to 5 scale. The average results are presented in




                                                57
9/3/2012           Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


Table IV.4. Of the 290 total individual responses, only 9 were scored less than 3, receiving a
score of 2.

Table IV.4. Summary Results – Spring 2006 Students’ Self Assessment of Life-
Long Learning and Ethical Standards

 Please Evaluate how prepared you feel you are to address the                        Average   Std
 following tasks or activities.                                                                Dev

 Scale: 5 = Always True, 3 = Sometimes True, 1 = Never True
 Number of respondents = 29

 Learn new material on my own                                                            4.1   .64
 Find and use relevant sources of information                                            4.0   .80
 Read critically and assess the quality of information available                         3.9   .37
 Use information to solve well-defined problems                                          4.3   .59
 Analyze content by breaking it down, asking questions, comparing and                    4.3   .65
 contrasting, recognizing patterns, and interpreting information
  Model problems by estimating, simplifying, making assumptions and                      4.0   .82
 approximations.
 Combine knowledge in novel ways to generate new products or ideas.                      3.6   .73
 Judge the worth of ideas, theories, and opinions.                                       3.7   .81
 Choose between alternative ideas, theories, opinions, and justify the choice.           4.1   .80
 Adhere to the professional and ethical standards of the civil engineering               4.7   .45
 profession

The senior capstone experience of CENE 476 and CENE 486C is by inference a good
example of our students’ ability to learn on their own. Each year, our students must solve
uniquely different “real world” design projects that are typically sponsored by external
clients. The capstone instructors’ role is much more a function of management and
coaching and far less about instruction. The learning outcomes for the spring 2006
version of CENE 486C are listed below. Implied with each outcome is the requirement
of students needing to learn new things on their own in order to successfully complete
their project and the course.

    1. Student team will identify problems or problem component derived from non-
       academic environment and negotiate with “owner” the scope of work proposed to
       solve the problem.
    2. Student team will systematically analyze problem to disaggregate problem into
       component parts and organize a work task outline considering a temporal
       sequence to be followed for project’s life.
    3. Student team will identify, clarify and internally negotiate specific technical
       approaches (technical methods, organization, resources and personnel) needed to
       address all critical problem components.
    4. Student team members will apply selected tools and methodologies to individual
       component tasks.
    5. Student team will synthesize overall problem solution (analysis or design
       components) to address original problem.




                                                     58
9/3/2012           Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


     6. Student team will disseminate problem context, definition, solution approach,
        component solutions and overall design using various media including web sites,
        posters, informal and formal presentations, and technical white papers.

The capstone evaluation tool captures, again by inference, an assessment of this outcome.
The questions T2 (project selection and technical challenge), T3 (application of technical
skills), T5 (creativity of solution), T6 (properly incorporating regulatory issues), T7
(inclusion of technical and non-technical constraints), and C3 (integrating multi-
disciplinary skills) are grouped to provide insights to Outcome (i). The average capstone
project score for the spring 2006 experience on Outcome (i) was 87% (n = 32) with
scores ranging from a low of 80% for Steel Bridge team to a perfect score of 100% for
the Canoe Hull Design project.

The CENE has always supported the student section of ASCE, as well as a other student
professional organizations like Tau Beta Pi, SWE, SHPE, AISES, through its faculty’s
willingness to serve as section advisors. More recently, the CENE changed its approach
to student organizations by focusing its advising energies and funds towards a limited
number of organizations, most specifically ASCE and Engineers Without Borders
(EWB). This approach was formally implemented in the fall of 2004. The CENE faculty
was asked to encourage student participation and some faculty even awarded extra credit
for attendance at ASCE. The CENE piloted the use of the ASCE project as a capstone
design project. It also piloted, over three semesters, the use of a pass/fail one-credit
ASCE course as further enticement. We have seen participation in the ASCE general
meetings as well as the project teams grow. In 2003-04, ASCE student participation was
limited to approximately ten active students who also staffed the concrete canoe project.
In 2005-06, the group had grown to approximately twenty-five consistently active
students and the staffing of four formal project teams; a concrete mix team, a canoe hull
team, steel bridge team, and environmental project team. The department’s funding
contributions to ASCE has also grown from roughly $1500 in 2003-04 to $7500 in direct
and indirect (through a donation) funding in 2006-07. In 2006-07, the department
initiated a golf tournament for the purpose of becoming the ASCE’s main venue for fund
raising. Coordination for this tournament is being transferred to the students so it
becomes a student-run event in 2007-08. The CENE officially launched its EWB chapter
in the fall 2006 with the signing of the NAU-EWB MOU. The chapter appeals to
students who are interested in humanitarian engineering. In the fall 2006, the chapter
applied to EWB-USA to complete a clean water and sanitation project for the Yua
Community in Ghana.

10. Outcome (j)

Outcome (j) focuses on student attainment of the knowledge of contemporary issues. The
CE program has followed the ASCE20 interpretation of this outcome as viewed from the
context of the engineering profession. As such, contemporary issues can include
knowledge of technical standards and regulations, engineering economics, environmental
20
  The ASCE book Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for the 21 st Century, First Edition, January 2004,
offers a commentary to each of the eleven existing ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes.


                                                   59
9/3/2012        Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


impacts, and how to incorporate social and political processes into engineering design
and problem solutions. The CE program’s related metric statement is:

    Compliance to Outcome (j) is achieved by students who incorporate into the
    engineering problem solving process well-defined contemporary issues such as
    regulations and compliance, economics, environmental impacts, political influences,
    and globalization.

The department had determined during its preparation for the fall 2005 ABET focus visit
that our students are complying with this outcome, and this conclusion was validated by
ABET. As summarized in Chapter I Background and Overview of this self study, NAU’s
Engineering programs were the subject of an ABET focus visit in the fall of 2005
triggered by the NAU-wide college restructuring. Because the CE and ENE programs
had two outcome concerns remaining from the previous program review process –
Outcome (f) and Outcome (j) – these issues were also addressed during the focus visit.
The final statement issued by ABET in August of 2006 resolved the concern in Outcome
(j) as the result of the actions taken by the CENE. These actions included increased
assessment attention to this outcome via our CID process, and number of specific
improvements to CENE 386W- a primary agent for addressing and assessing outcome j.

New evidence revealed during the 06-07 outcome review process and documented in this
self-study shows that additional student gains could be made via changes in the specific
topics of engineering economics and other professional practice issues like scheduling,
quality management, and scoping.

By June of 2005, the department had completed three continuous improvement cycles
involving CENE 386W; realizing improvements in the assessment approach and the
documentation of student achievement, while also benefiting from an increased attention
to the contemporary issues outcome within the overall civil engineering curriculum.

The description for CENE 386W as taken from the course syllabus is:

    Often times, the culminating activity of the work of civil and environmental engineers
    is some type of construction project that is generally unique and is one that has many
    economic, environmental, and social impacts. These projects are developed and built
    by a team of diverse professionals that follow the process we know as the design
    process. It is the intent of this design class to address these issues for junior-level
    civil and environmental engineers through a student-developed case study of the City
    of Flagstaff’s Fourth Street Overpass. Although some supporting technical content
    will be provided by the instructor and guest speakers, the primary responsibility for
    developing the case study shall be by the students of CENE 386W. Teams of
    students shall select a topic of interest from the Fourth Street Overpass, research the
    topic, and report upon this topic in both oral and written forms.

The Spring 2003 offering of CENE 386W was the first pilot for implementing
improvements in our program’s overall strategy for assessing educational outcomes.



                                                60
9/3/2012            Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


Particular attention was given to instruction and assessment of the contemporary issues
outcomes. This spring 2003 offering relied primarily on graded written documents to
assess student’s understanding of this outcome plus two self assessment instruments  an
end-of-the-class survey and a skills matrix. In particular, the students completed:

          Seven, 1 to 2 page graded memos that followed each of the seven guest speakers
           who presented on topics ranging from ASCE professional ethics and standards,
           professional practices issues, and contemporary examples of civil and engineering
           projects.
          A pre- and post-class quantitative self-assessment of related course skills,
           knowledge and attitudes. This assessment tool is known as a skills matrix.
          A graded post-mortem document with multiple tasks including: essay answers to
           specific course content questions, a numerical comparison of pre and post skills
           matrices, a written explanation for the results of this comparison, and reflective
           essay analyzing their technical writing strengths and weaknesses.
          A final web-based Course and Teaching Evaluation Survey course with specific
           outcome questions.

A post-course analysis of the spring 2003 offering revealed difficulties in connecting the
intended learning to the available direct assessments, and emphasized the inherent
uncertainties associated with indirect assessment methods. As a result, three changes
were incorporated into the subsequent offerings of CENE 386W. Course activities and
graded deliverables were formally linked and documented in a Course Improvement
Document. Additional objective and quantitative assessment activities were embedded
into to the course. The use of the indirect skills matrix and course survey instruments
was deemphasized. Table IV.5 is the Course Outcomes to Student Achievement data
excerpted from these CIDs relevant to Outcome j.

Course outcome C4 and C5 speak directly to the knowledge of contemporary issues; C4
within the context of the large, multi-disciplinary case study and C5 focusing on
traditional engineering economics and its application to the case study. An example
embedded direct assessment used to assess student’s understanding of C4 was the final
exam in the spring 2005 offering. Students were directed to respond to the situation
described below. The average class grade on this exam was 79%.

    Place yourself in the role of a practicing Civil or Environmental Engineer. Write a
    brief essay that promotes the profession by discussing the role that the profession can
    have in rebuilding or reconstructing communities affected by natural disaster. Use the
    December 2004 tsunami disaster as a focal point for this discussion and explain the
    role in the context of the technical process or steps that must occur in order to
    accomplish this rebuilding or reconstruction. Include some emphasis on how the
    engineering profession is equipped to accomplish this.

This embedded assessment activity is directly linked the Department’s metric for
Outcome (j) whereby students need to incorporate contemporary issues into their problem


                                                    61
9/3/2012            Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


solving process. This essay requires students to identify and integrate contemporary
issues into the response.

Table IV.5. CENE 386W Course Outcomes vs. Student Achievement

                               Spring 2004                         Spring 2005                 Spring 2006
   Educational            Assessment        Class         Assessment        Class         Assessment     Class
    Outcomes                               Average                         Average                      Average
C4. Describe the       7 Written           78/105         HW #5, #9,        79.5%         HW #3, 4, 7    90.4%
process for            Memos                              #10, #11, #12,
developing,                                               #14, #18
designing, and
implementing a         5 Deliverables      271/300        Test #2           81.6%           D6, D7       96.0%
civil and                                                 Problem #1 &
environmental                                             #2
engineering project    1 Case Study        198/200        Final PM          79%            Final PM      86.7%
for a public agency,   Presentation                       Essay Exam                      Essay Exam
including
environmental          7 Case Study Q. ,   24.1/29
alternatives.          Test 1
                       8 Env. Assess.      38.4/49
                       Q., Test 2
                       2 Project Mgmt.     15.1/20
                       Q., Test 3
                       2 Questions on      53.2/60
                       PM
                       Average             88.9%          Average           80.0%         Average         91.0%
C5. Use time-value     6 HW                112/170        HW #7, #13        59.0%         HW #5 & #6      76.4%
of money formulas
to analyze economic    5 Questions on      60.6/80        Test 1            87.9%         Test            87.9%
alternatives.          Test 3                                                             problems B
                                                                                          &C

                       Average             69.0%          Average           73.5%         Average         79.8%


In addition to the CENE 386W specific efforts, our students are required to take a number
of other courses that address and assess this outcome, including EGR 186 Introduction to
Engineering Design, CENE 331 Sanitary Engineering, CENE 433 Hydrology and Flood
Control, and CENE 486C Engineering Design - Capstone.

Our cross-disciplinary EGR 186 course introduces students to the practice of engineering
through design projects while covering professional topics including ethics and
contemporary issues. As an example, design project # 3 was created to enhance students’
knowledge of contemporary issues. The project learning goals included:

          What engineering issues are confronted by cultures other than our own
          How different cultures require different solutions to their engineering problems
          Accessing information on other areas of the world
          How global companies work in other countries
          How to work in a foreign currency.


                                                     62
9/3/2012        Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal




The EGR186 project problem statement was as follows:

    Your team has been contacted to work with a German logging firm who owns tracts
    of land in the Sangha River Basin. Their local operations are based out of Pokola, a
    town of 9,000. Your German employer will be working with local environmental
    groups to minimize the impacts of their logging operations. One of these issues
    involves providing area inhabitants whose drinking water may be contaminated by
    sediments with a system to reduce / remove sediment-contaminated drinking water.
    Your team is to provide a prototype water filtration system to remove sediment from
    water.

The average student grade for this project was a 75%

Evidence of our students’ achievement of Outcome (j) is also evaluated from a
cumulative perspective via the capstone evaluation tool. Eleven of the 21 questions are
directed at the Outcome (i). Seven questions focused on students’ ability to incorporate
costs, schedules, and other contemporary practice issues into the projects. These
questions were referred to as the “M” or management questions. The average capstone
project score for the spring 2006 experience on Outcome (j) was 78% (n = 32) with
scores ranging from a low of 60% for Walnut Canyon Remediation team to a high of
94% for the Canoe Hull Design. Of the nine ABET outcomes evaluated by the capstone
tool; the CENE students performed the weakest on this outcome. This was also true for
the spring 2005 projects. Our DAC reviewed the spring 2006 raw capstone data and also
pointed this out. They recommended that the capstone instructors further incorporate
project management topics into CENE 476 through the proposal preparation process.
The capstone instructors are piloting these related strategies in the fall 2006 offering of
CENE 476. The DAC also noted that the “M” skills accounted for the largest percentage
of the overall points on the tool and questioned that. They suggested paring down the
“M” categories so that an equal weighting is achieved between the three categories of
management, technical, and communication-multi-disciplinary. This revision to the
capstone tool was made in time for use with the Spring 2007 capstone conference.

11. Outcome (k)

Compliance to Outcome (k) is achieved by students who apply relevant techniques,
skills, and modern engineering tools of the engineering practice. The department has
determined that our students are complying with this outcome by graduation.

The evidence for this conclusion is provided in the relevant course CIDs and the team-
project scores from the most recent capstone evaluation. Examples are presented here
from the CIDs for CENE 180, 270 and 270L, 333L, and 376 and show the variety of tools
being used by our students.

The second outcome of CENE 376 Structural Analysis develops students’ ability to use a
finite element program to analyze determinate and indeterminate beams, frames, and


                                                63
9/3/2012        Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


trusses. As captured by the instructor in the fall 2005 CID, students’ performance as
evidenced by the class average on various embedded assessment activities was 75.8%.

Insert data from the fall 2006 CIDs from 180, 270, and 333L here.

Evidence of our students’ achievement of Outcome (k) is also gleaned from the capstone
evaluation tool. Two questions – the appropriateness of the technical approach taken and
its completeness, and the evaluation of missing technical elements – formed the basis of
this outcome evaluation. The average capstone project score for the spring 2006
experience on Outcome (k) was 83% (n = 32) with scores ranging from a low of 75% for
both the Arboretum Accessibility project and the On-Site Mater Plan to a high of 93% for
the Steel Bridge.




                                                64
9/3/2012             Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal




Chapter V Assessment and Evaluation (Criterion 4)
In this chapter, the CENE presents its full Continuous Improvement Process (CIP). The
chapter is organized deductively – from an overview down to the details of each tool
including data summaries. Our CIP is a multi-year process that is informed by an
engaged constituency. It extends across all aspects of the civil engineering program, and
not only attends to outcomes and objectives, but to students, faculty, professional issues,
and the overall University environment. It is a robust process that is actively managed by
the Chair of the CENE department.

A. Overview of Continuous Improvement Process

Table V.1 Summary of Continuous Improvement Activities for Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering

Cycle                     Planned     Actual Activity            Primary           Tools and Drivers
                          Timing                                 Constituents
Curricula Assessment      Yearly      Fall semester coinciding   Students,         CIDs, Senior Exit
& Improvements                        with university-wide       Faculty, DAC      Surveys, Capstone
                                      curricula process                            Evaluation, ABET, FE
Assessment Tools &        2 Years     Yearly at Fall DAC         Students          Assessment Literature,
Indicators                            meeting                    Faculty, DAC      Structured feedback
                                                                                   sessions at DAC
                                                                                   meetings, Student
                                                                                   Forums
Program Outcomes          3 Years     Review Initiated Jan       Students, DAC,    CIDs, Senior Exit
                                      ‘04, Competed Oct ‘04      Faculty, ASCE,    Surveys, Capstone
                                                                 ABET              Evaluation, ABET, FE
                                                                                   Reviewed by Faculty
                                                                                   and DAC
Program Objectives        4 Years     Review Initiated Jan       DAC, Faculty,     Alumni and Employer
                                      ‘04, Completed Jan ‘05     ASCE, ABET        Surveys Reviewed by
                                                                                   Faculty and DAC
Department Vision,        5 Years     Initiated Dec ‘04, Final   Students, DAC,    NAU PAIR
Mission, Strategic                    Feb ‘05                    Faculty,          Institutional Surveys,
Goals                                                            Administration,   Department Retreats,
                                                                 ASCE              Annual Performance
                                                                                   Reviews


Table V.1summarizes the CENE’s CIP that was established in March of 2001 and revised
in June of 2003 and again in May of 2006. The most notable change to our CIP was the
inclusion of the five-year strategic planning cycle; acknowledging that the application of
continuous improvement extends beyond educational objectives and outcomes and into
the overall management and success of the department. The process consists of five
interrelated cycles with the full process completed, more or less, on a five year time span.
This CIP forms the basis of this self-study report and is referred to extensively.


                                                     65
9/3/2012            Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal



B. Constituency Groups

Our constituency base, as noted in Column 4 of the above CIP table has evolved from a
dispersed and broad-based population of eight different groups to a focused and
accessible base consisting of our current students, the CENE faculty and faculty from
CENS, and the members of our Department Advisory Council (DAC). The table also
recognizes the role that our professional societies and ABET play as constituencies.

The evolution of our constituency base occurred, because we found that the broad-base
approach did not provide readily accessible or pertinent information that could affect our
continuous program improvement process in a timely manner. Evolving toward a
smaller constituent base has yielded timely input, while also optimizing our own limited
resources towards high impact program assessment and improvement activities. The
success of this focused constituent base hinges upon the composition and participation of
our DAC, as we rely on our council to represent the issues of the larger and more diverse
organizations and interest of today. Since the fall of 2004, the CENE has been actively
rebuilding its DAC to meet this representation goal; growing the group from a small
membership of approximately 10 to a group of 33 engaged members. The CENE DAC
represents a constituency of:

          alumni (< than 10 years and > than 10 years),
          employers of our graduates,
          representatives of graduate/professional schools,
          representatives of community colleges
          adjunct faculty and faculty of other NAU programs
          regional and statewide community members, and
          representatives from national or state-wide organizations.

A listing of our current membership with constituency affiliation is provided in Table
V.2. This current composition meets our constituency goals.

Table V.2 Membership in Department Advisory Council

Name                   Organization                      Disciplinary   Constituency Representation
                                                         Affiliation
Rick Barrett           City of Flagstaff                 CE             Alumni > 10 years, Employer
Lee Busenbark          HDR                               CE & ENE       Alumni < 10 years, Employer
William Carroll        Engineering &                     CE & ENE       Employer, Alumni > 10 years
                       Environmental Consultants
Guillermo Cortes       Shepard Wesnitzer                 CE             Employer, Alumni < 10 years, ASCE
                                                                        practitioner advisor
Rod Curtis             MACTEC Engineering                CE             Employer
Ray Dovalina           City of Phoenix                   CE             Employer, Public Entity
Charles Dryden         Arizona Engineering               CE             Employer, Adjunct Faculty
Ryan Dupont            Utah State                        ENE            Graduate School
Dean Durkee            Gannet Fleming                    CE             Employer
Jim Fulton             James Fulton and                  ENE            Statewide community member and
                       Associates                                       professional organization



                                                    66
9/3/2012          Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


John Gleason         Gannet Fleming                    CE             Employer
David Gunn           Central Arizona Project           CE             Employer, statewide community
                                                                      member
Ryan Huffman         Pulte Homes                       CE             Alumni < 10 years
Tim Huval            Wood, Patel & Associates          CE & ENE       Employer
Ned Jerabek          New Mexico Environment            ENE            Alumni > 10 years, employer,
                     Department                                       regional public
Niles Larson         Retired                           ENE            Statewide community member and
                                                                      professional organization
Greg Lingor          Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade        CE             Employer
                     & Douglas, Inc
Tom Loomis           Flood Control District of         CE & ENE       Alumni > 10 years, employer,
                     Maricopa County                                  statewide community and
                                                                      professional
Bill Mancini         Clark Pacific                     CE             Alumni > 10 years, Adjunct faculty
Don Manthe           Stanley Consultants               ENE            Alumni > 10 years, employer
Richard Mirth        Faculty Emeritus                  CE & ENE       Faculty
John Mitchell        APS                               CE             Employer
Barzin Mobasher      ASU                               CE             Graduate school
Debra Mollet         Stantec Consulting                CE             Alumni < 10 years, employer
Jean Nehme           ADOT – Bridge Group               CE             Employer, statewide community
Rahkesh Pangasa      Arizona Western College           CE-ENE         Faculty at community college
Sandra Redsteer      Indian Health Services            ENE            Alumni < 10 years, Employer,
                                                                      regional and national community
Jim Schlenvogt       Peabody Western Coal              ENE            Employer, regional community
Reza Shamskhorzani   Bio-Microbics, Inc                ENE            Employer
John Trujillo        Public Works, City of             CE & ENE       Alumni > 10 years, employer,
                     Phoenix                                          regional
Richard Turley       Caruso Turley Scott               CE             Alumni > 10 years, employer,
                                                                      statewide community and
                                                                      professional
Gary Wendt           Peabody Western Coal              ENE            Employer, regional community
Mark Woodson         Woodson Engineering               CE             Employer, national ASCE

The goals of the DAC, as approved in January 2004, include reviewing and providing
feedback on curricular offerings and content; participating and providing advice on
student recruitment, retention, career development and placement; participating and
providing advice to support faculty and academic programs; and participation and
providing advice to support capital and resource development activities. The CENE
DAC’s mission and goals are included as Figure V.1. The DAC meets at least twice a
year and sometimes three times a year either at NAU or in Phoenix. At the fall 2006
DAC meeting, the DAC appointed a subcommittee to examine its governance structure.
This activity was initiated because of the DAC’s recent growth in membership and the
possible need to create an DAC-specific leadership team. This subcommittee of John
Trujilo, Ray Dovalina, Don Manthe, and Chuck Dryden will report back to the larger
DAC at the spring 2007 meeting.

Within the context of program advice and assessment, the DAC has fully participated in a
variety of activities, each of which is reported in the following sections of this chapter.
These activities, the date of initiation, and applicable ABET Criteria include:




                                                  67
9/3/2012             Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


          Program Objectives Revised: Activity initiated January 2003 and completed
           October 2004. Criterion 2.
          Program Outcomes Revised: Activity initiated January 2003 and completed
           January 2005. Criteria 3 and 9.
          Alumni Survey: Revised, data gathered, and results analyzed. Initiated January
           2005 and completed Fall 2005. Criteria 2, 6, 7, and 8.
          Employer Survey: Revised, data gathered, and results analyzed. Initiated January
           2005 and completed Fall 2005. Criterion 2.
          Capstone Design Project Evaluation: Initiated January 2005. It is an ongoing
           annual activity. Criteria 3, 5, and 9.
          Student Forum: Initiated October2006; intending to be an ongoing, twice a year
           activity. , Criteria 1, 6, 7, and 8.

Figure V.1 Mission and Goals of the Department Advisory Council


           The mission of the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department Advisory
           Committee (DAC) at Northern Arizona University is to support and foster excellence in
           the Department’s Instructional, Scholarly and Service missions through regular and on-
           going review, discussion, feedback and participation with the Department’s faculty,
           students and leadership.

           The goals of the CENE DAC will be to use the wisdom and experience of the members
           to positively influence and impact the following:

               1.   Review and feedback of curricular course offerings and content to foster
                    continuous improvement and relevance of the Department’s academic
                    programs, including accreditation.
               2.   Participation and advice that supports student recruitment, retention, career
                    development and placement, including: high school and community college
                    outreach; internships, coops and scholarships; engagements with student
                    professional societies and organizations; and professional licensure, career and
                    placement advising and assistance.
               3.   Participation and advice that supports development of quality faculty and
                    academic programs, including: adjunct instruction; engagement and support of
                    student design projects; in class presentations of relevant issues in professional
                    practice; and faculty internships into public and private practice.
               4.   Participation and advice that supports the capital and resource development
                    activities of the Department, including specifically: outreach to legislative and
                    professional bodies; enhancing faculty development; improving instructional
                    programs, including instructional and research laboratories; and supporting the
                    cost of the Department’s commitment to excellence in Instruction, Scholarship
                    and Service.

                (drafted January 2004 by RAD, approved April 2004 by DAC)



C. Assessment Tools and Drivers

The CENE utilizes a number of assessment tools to inform its CIP. Each tool has been
assessed, refined, and used over a number of years. The details of each tool as well as


                                                       68
9/3/2012           Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


data and analyses summaries are presented in this Section. Additional information about
“drivers’ to our CIP such as the changes to the overall University academic requirements
are included here as well. Table V.3 presents a tabular summary of the key features of
each tool or driver.

Table V.3 Summary of CENE Assessment Tools and Drivers

Assessment Tool or             Frequency         Revision or Activity History                      Informs
Driver                         of Use                                                              Criteria

1. Alumni Survey               Every 3 to 4      a. Initiated Feb ‘00 - Data Analyzed and          2, 6, 7, 8
                               years                 Reported 6/01
                                                 b. Revised spring ’05, Data collected summer
                                                     ’05, Data analyzed Fall’05.
2. Employer Survey             Every 3 to 4      a. Initiated Feb ‘00 - Data Analyzed and          2
                               years                 Reported 6/01
                                                 b. Revised spring ’05, Data collected summer
                                                     ’05, Data analyzed Fall’05.
3. Senior Exit Survey          Yearly            a. Initiated spring 2000. Two years of data       1, 3, 6, 7,
                                                     collected, analyzed and reported on.          8
                                                 b. Re-initiated in fall 2004. Data collected in
                                                     Spring ’05, ’06, and ’07. Analysis
                                                     completed.
4. Course Improvement          Twice a Year      a. Initiated spring 2000.                         3, 5, 9
Document                                         b. Continuously used with noted variations in
                                                     full faculty participations.
                                                 c. Tool has been revised multiple times.
5. Capstone Design Project     Yearly            a. Initiated spring ’05. Tool revised spring’05   3, 5, 9
Evaluation                                           and spring ’06.
                                                 b. Data gathered and analyzed in spring ’05,
                                                     ’06, and ’07.
6. DAC Student Forum           Twice a Year      a. Initiated fall ’06 by DAC.                     1, 6, 7, 8
7. University Tools/Drivers:
    a. BO & Inst. Surveys      Yearly                                                              1
    b.. Changes to             Every 2 to 3                                                        2, 3, 5, 9
    Academic (e.g. Liberal     years
    Studies) Requirements
8. FE and PE Exam Results      Yearly            a. Initiated in fall ‘06                          3, 9
                                                 b. Viewed as supplemental to other tools.

1. Alumni Survey

The primary purpose of the alumni survey is to inform the Department about its
graduates’ attainment of program objectives. It also provides information about the
Department’s faculty, facilities, and the overall institutional support. The CENE has had
an alumni survey process in place since the spring of 2000 with alumni surveyed on a 3
to 4 year time interval. The rewriting of program objectives and outcomes that occurred
in the 2003-04 encouraged the CENE and its DAC to revisit the alumni survey. As noted
above, the DAC took a lead role in this and revised the survey and overall process. This
work was initiated in January of 2005, edited and finalized in April of 2005 for
implementation in the summer of 2005. After the data had been collected, the DAC



                                                   69
9/3/2012            Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


along with the CENE faculty in the fall of 2005 reviewed the results and developed
conclusions about what the data meant.

The updated alumni survey was sent out by mail in the summer of 2005 to 93 recent
graduates of the civil and environmental programs. In addition, the survey was
advertised via the Arizona State Section of ASCE list serve and newsletter, which
generated a few responses from alumni not previously identified in the summer mailing.
An important feature of the survey was its focus on program objectives and the alumni’s
evaluation on how prepared they were to achieve program objectives. Thirty-six alumni
responded to the survey. A summary of results is presented here, while the analysis
conclusions are presented in the applicable sections of this report including Criteria 2, 6,
7, and 8.

Table V.4 Summary of Alumni Responses to “Your Preparation and Our Program’s
Objectives”

How well did your education from NAU’s Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering prepare you to:
Scale: 5 = very well, 3 = adequate, 1 = not at all                             Average    Std.   Top 3
Number of respondents = 36                                                                Dev.   Count
1(a) Appropriately use mathematical, scientific, and engineering principles.      4.39     .55    17
1(b) Formulate solutions to multi-disciplinary problems.                          4.14     .73    10
2(a) Create and implement safe, economical, and sustainable designs.              3.86     .76    7
2(b) Use tools, methods, and technology appropriately.                            3.83     .77    12
3(a) Engage in independent learning activities.                                   4.08     .87    4
3(b) Communicate orally and in writing.                                           4.17     .77    19
3(c) Work with others on project teams.                                           4.51     .67    14
3(d) Assume leadership roles when warranted.                                      4.19     .75    7
4(a) Adhere to ethical and professional standards.                                4.14     .68    5
4(b) Consider the broader impacts of engineering solutions.                       3.86     .68    6
4(c) Contribute to society beyond the requirements of your employment.            3.29     .93    2


The characteristics of the responding recent alumni group included:

Majors:             24 Civil Engineering, 12 Environmental Engineering
Graduation Dates: May 1999 – May 2005
Current Job Titles: 25 were “engineers – design or project”, 5 “project managers” 1
                    “sales manager, 2 “analysts”.
Graduate Degrees: 4 MS or MEng in strictly engineering, 2 MS in Engineering
                    Management, 1 MBA

The alumni were asked to comment on items from Table V.4 that were rated either a 1 or
5 and 24 of the 36 respondents did comment on multiple aspects. The majority of the
comments were focused on those objectives the alumni felt they were well prepared. The
topics and frequency of occurrence of the positively focused comments included:
teaming (9), Design4Practice courses (9), communicating (7), solving technical problems


                                                      70
   9/3/2012            Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


   with math and other tools (6), leading (4), independent learning (2), and ethics (2). A
   sampling of comments included:

                                 “Each semester I was in class involved teamwork.”
                 “Sophomore design class was a great experience in multi-disciplinary teaming.”
               “I felt very confident working on teams, communicating, and assuming leadership.”

   Six comments in total presented suggestions on areas to improve on. The topics and
   frequency of occurrence included: AutoCad (1), formal oral presentation skills (3),
   leadership (1), and technical writing (1).

   The alumni were asked to comment on whether or not there were other objectives the
   program should include. Twenty-five alumni responded to this question and the
   responses were very diverse. Only a few topics received more than one suggestion and
   these included: construction-related topics (5), AutoCad or equivalent (5), project
   management (3), formal presentation skills (3), and land development (2). A sampling of
   related comments included:

      “The use of drawings (sketches, plan sheets) as a form of communication, as the AutoCAD class was
                                   primarily based on learning commands.”
                               “Please provide [class] options in construction.”

   Table V.5. Summary of Alumni Responses to “Your Overall Impressions”

Please Rate Your Overall Impression of:                                                      Average      Std
Scale: 5 = Excellent, 3 = Adequate, 1 = Poor                                                              Dev
Number of Respondents = 34

1. The quality of the faculty in the department.                                              4.26         .57
2. The quality of assistance provided by the faculty and department.                          4.21         .73
3. The quality of classrooms, experimental laboratories, and computing facilities.            3.31        1.07
4. Rate your overall experience at NAU.                                                       4.36         .71
Scale: 5 = strongly yes, 1 = strongly no

5. My personal goals and objectives were satisfied by my education at NAU                     4.21         .64
6. I would select NAU for my civil engineering or environmental engineering education,        4.13        1.10
   if I had the opportunity to choose again
7. I would recommend NAU to friends and relatives for studying civil engineering or           4.24        .85
   environmental engineering
8. I would select civil engineering or environmental engineering as my major if I had the     4.25        .89
   opportunity to choose again.

   Alumni were invited to add comments to the tabular query about their overall
   impressions as summarized above in Table V.5.

   Twelve alumni provided comments, all positive, about the quality of the faculty. A
   sample response was:

                      “Most were excellent teachers with excellent knowledge of subjects.”




                                                        71
9/3/2012             Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


Nine alumni provided comments, all positive, about the quality of assistance provided. A
sample response was:

“The faculty/student interaction (undergrad research assistant, office hours, etc) is the most important asset
                                             NAU can offer.”

Nine alumni provided comments about the quality of the facilities. The responses were
mixed and reflected that these students hand been educated in an old facility21. A sample
of these responses was:

                     “Computer facilities were small. Classrooms had outdated furniture.”
                                          “I hope the remodel helps.”

Eleven alumni provided comments, all positive, about their overall experience at NAU.
A sample response was:

              “Enjoyed every minute of it, much more face time with professors than…”

Six alumni provided positive comments about achieving their personal goals. Ten alumni
provided comments, again all positive, about recommending NAU to their friends and
family. Except for one comment, nine of the ten comments about choosing civil or
environmental engineering were affirmative.

At the October 2005 DAC meeting, the DAC along with the attending CENE faculty
reviewed the alumni survey results and provided an interpretation to these results. The
DAC analysis is as follows:

           The high 3(c) score made sense as it is a value that is supported by the faculty and covered
           extensively within the curriculum.

           The DAC sub-group identified two important themes from the answers to “Are there other
           educational objectives, beyond those listed above, that we should include in our civil and
           environmental engineering programs?” One was AutoCAD, and the second was on formal
           presentation skills.

           One set of DAC comments center on the theme of “Is the AutoCAD skill analogous to typing?”
           Some members felt that CAD was to problem solving as word processing software was to writing.
           Each tool helped the user to complete the task more competently and efficiently. CAD, in
           particular, helps the engineer to quickly and easily visualize the problem and evolve/design the
           problem solution in a visual manner. (A post meeting analysis of the question 7 results find that
           many of the AutoCAD type alumni comments were in-line with this reasoning. The alumni
           wished they had learned how to use CAD within discipline – for designing and communicating –
           beyond what the basic CAD class provides.)

           On the other hand, some felt that engineers were too valuable to be and should not be CADist (eg
           typist).


21
   The Engineering building was recently underwent a $16.5 million expansion and renovation that
included additional $1.3 million in FFE for furniture, fixtures and equipment. Engineering moved back into
its new facilities in January 2006.



                                                       72
9/3/2012             Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal



           These two sub-themes were attributed to different sub-disciplines or organizations have different
           cultures of technical communications; some needing their engineers to use CAD directly in their
           design activities and others not, but relying on CAD shops to complete the drawing work.

           The DAC thought that the overall angst expressed by the alumni on their CAD skills reflected two
           things. First, there appears to be a disconnect between the employer and the graduate’s
           expectation on CAD experience and skills. Implied here is that employers understand the entering
           skill level of these new hires and have reasonable expectations, but the new graduates are unaware
           of this. Secondly and following, given that CAD is one of the first things many new EITs must
           work with or do, the EITs’ naturally focus their work-performance anxieties on this tool (and
           reflect that back to their education as not properly preparing them to be fully functional with CAD
           in the engineering work place.)

           The speaking theme generated far less discussion by the DAC with the concluding remarks
           wondering if employers felt the same way about speaking as the alumni did. It was suggested that
           the CENE try to integrate even more speaking experiences into the curriculum.

2. Employer Survey

Similar to the alumni survey, the primary purpose of the employer survey is to inform the
Department about its graduates’ attainment of program objectives and to cross-check the
alumni survey results. The CENE has had an employer survey process in place since the
spring of 2000 with employers of our graduates surveyed on a 3 to 4 year time interval.
The rewriting of program objectives and outcomes that occurred in the 2003-04
encouraged the CENE and its DAC to revisit this process. The DAC took a lead role in
this and revised the survey and overall process. This work was initiated in January of
2005, edited and finalized in April of 2005 for implementation in the summer of 2005.
After the data had been collected, the DAC along with the CENE faculty in the fall of
2005 reviewed the results and developed conclusions about what the data meant.

This survey was sent out by mail in the summer of 2005 to a listing of approximately 300
companies or public entities that could have hired graduates of the NAU Civil and
Environmental Engineering programs. This list was generated through the recently
developed data base of employers contacting the engineering program’s student
coordinator and supplemented by the member listing of the American Council of
Consulting Engineers of Arizona. In addition, the survey was advertised via the Arizona
ASCE list serve and newsletter. Only 19 employers responded during the summer of
2005 query to the survey. An attempt was made in the early summer of 2006 to increase
employer participation. An email was sent to 36 alumni who had responded to the earlier
alumni survey asking them to pass onto their employers the employer survey with the
promise of confidentiality. This second effort generated only 3 unique additional
employer responses, which were added to the early results.

The characteristics of this group included:

Location:                    5 from Flagstaff; 11 from the Phoenix Metropolitan area; 1 Irvine,
                             CA; 1 Prescott, AZ; 1 Albuquerque, NM, 1 Williamsburg VA
Employer Type:               4 Public Sector (City, State, Federal), 15 Consulting Engineering


                                                       73
9/3/2012           Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


Title of Respondent: 10 President, Vice, or Principal; 6 Supervisory-type Engineers; 3
                     Engineer
Number of NAU
graduates hired
in past 3 years:     1.8

The survey focused on two areas: an assessment of the preparation of recent NAU
graduates in relationship to program objectives, and input on what graduate attributes are
important. The results of these two focus areas have been summarized in Table V.6.
Column 1 is the preparation (or achievement of program objectives), and column 2
reports on the importance of the attribute to career success.

Table V.6 Employer Survey Summary Results on Assessing Attainment and
Importance of Program Objectives

                                                                                 (1)            (2)
  Scale: 5 = very well, 3 = adequate, 1 = not at all                         Graduates       Import.
  Number respondents to table = 21                                           Preparation    Attributes
                                                                              Average        Average
  1(a) Appropriately use mathematical, scientific, engineering principles.      3.89              4.64
  1(b) Formulate solutions to multi-disciplinary problems.                      3.67              4.14
  2(a) Create and implement safe, economical, and sustainable designs.          3.53              4.14
  2(b) Use tools, methods, and technology appropriately.                        3.95              4.48
  3(a) Engage in independent learning activities.                               3.85              4.10
  3(b) Communicate orally and in writing.                                       3.85              4.48
  3(c) Work with others on project teams.                                       4.30              4.57
  3(d) Assume leadership roles when warranted.                                  4.12              3.90
  4(a) Adhere to ethical and professional standards.                            4.15              4.52
  4(b) Consider the broader impacts of engineering solutions.                   3.40              4.00
  4(c) Contribute to society beyond the requirements of your                    3.50              3.86
  employment.
  5    Generally speaking, are able to get things done.                         4.10            Not rated


All the responding employers stated that they would continue to hire NAU graduates in
the future. A sampling of related comments included:

                        “The NAU students have a good foundation to build on.”
      The Civil curriculum at NAU does an excellent job of preparing your engineering students for
                                             employment.”
        “They are all well educated engineers who know how to work and think independently .”

When asked how the NAU employees compared to employees from other engineering
colleges with comparable degrees and start times, the response summary was: ten
employers stated the NAU graduates were better, five stated that the NAU graduates were
the same, one negative, and two did not answer. A few example comments include:

           “A (the NAU graduates exhibit) whole lot less angst when they come on as interns.”


                                                    74
9/3/2012            Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


                          “They appear to be better prepared to start work.”
“NAU graduates are generally better able to ‘get things done’ than graduates of other schools – even more
                                         ‘prestigious’ schools.”

When asked to list any additional attributes missing from the list, only eight comments
were made. Two respondents thought the list was fine. The additional attributes
suggested are:

          Be willing to be engaged in policy making
          Looking at the big picture and verify that a design is appropriate.
          Possessing a positive attitude
          Problem solving that includes non-traditional aspects such as interpersonal
           relationships and negotiating
          Respect for history, traditions, past and ethics of the civil/environmental
           profession

The employers were also asked to comment on their role in educating undergraduate
students for professional practice. Eighteen employers responded and they all noted the
importance of summer employment and/or internships to learning. Two respondents
noted, however, that providing these types of experiences are difficult to manage for the
employers; finding it difficult to allocate the time and dollars needed to fund and sustain
a viable internship program.

At the October 2005 DAC meeting, the DAC along with the CENE faculty in attendance
reviewed the alumni survey results and provided an interpretation to these results. The
DAC analysis is as follows:

    The employers’ assessment of the NAU graduates of the civil and environmental engineering program
    either met the objective at an adequate or higher level of performance. In particular, these graduates do
    well with 2(b) using tools and technology appropriately, 3(a) independent learning, 3(b)
    communicating, 3(d) leading, 3(c) working with others, and 4(a) adhering to ethical and professional
    standards. On the lower end of the adequate range, graduates were judged to be slightly above
    adequate in their abilities 2(a) to create and implement design, 4(b) to consider the broader
    implications of their solutions, and 4(c) to contribute to society.

    The employers’ judged a graduates ability to 1(a) appropriately use mathematical, scientific, and
    engineering principles as the most important attribute, followed by 3(b) oral and written
    communication, 3(c) working with others, and 4(a) adherence to ethical and professional standards.
    The least important attribute was a graduate’s contributions to society.

    The theme that stood out for the DAC group from the comments section was the respondents’ valuing
    students gaining practical experience during their time as an undergraduate.

3. Senior Exit Survey

The CENE initiated a senior exit survey process in the spring of 2000. Two complete
cycles (covering 1999-2000 and 2000-2001) of data collection, analysis, and reporting
was completed before this process was sidelined. In the fall of 2004, the CENE once



                                                     75
9/3/2012           Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


again reinstituted a senior exit survey and it is this current process that is reported on
here.

The primary purpose for the current senior survey is to provide information on the overall
department environment and climate, which is used directly to inform our analysis of
Criteria 1, 6, and 7. Secondarily, it is being used to help qualitatively inform Criteria 3
and 8.

The students were invited to add comments to the tabular query about their overall
impressions and many students did respond. These comments varied widely, but we
were able to glean some insights about the impact to our students’ experiences as a
function of (1) our building facilities and related infrastructure (the old building, the
transition to a swing space during construction, and the newly renovated and expanded
building) and (2) quality advising. Our students found the time in the temporary
classroom and laboratory facilities difficult as space was limited and testing and
computing equipment was either old or in storage during the transition. The seniors of
2006, however, did experience their last semester in the new building and their comments
spoke to the greatly improved environment including meeting and working space,
enhanced laboratory facilities, and increased computing. The comments on advising
were mixed ranging from great support to uninterested and inadequate advising. The one
conclusion that can be drawn from the advising comments was that poor advice was
problematic to the overall student experience, whereas good advising experiences led to a
more satisfied student.

Table V.7 Spring 2005 and 2006 Senior Exit Survey Results on Overall Impression

 Please Rate Your Overall Impression of:                                              Spring    Spring
 Scale: 5 = Excellent, 3 = Adequate, 1 = Poor                                          2005      2006
                                                                                     Average   Average
                                                                                      N = 21    N = 29
 The quality of the faculty in the CENE department.                                     3.7       3.9
 The quality of advising assistance provided by the CENE faculty.                       3.6       3.4
 Did you receive advising services through Gateway or other non-CENE entities?          2.7       3.0
 If so, please rate the quality of that service.
 The quality of classrooms, experimental laboratories, and computing facilities in       2.7     3.9
 engineering.
 Rate your overall experience at NAU.                                                    3.7     4.1
 Did you receive help with scholarships, summer employment/internships, or post           -      3.9
 BS employment? If so, please rate the quality of
 Scale: 5 = agree strongly, 3 =neither agree or disagree, 1 = disagree
 strongly

 My personal goals and objectives were satisfied by my education at NAU.                 3.7     4.2

 If I had to choose again, I would select NAU for my civil engineering or                3.6     4.0
 environmental engineering education.
 I would recommend NAU to friends and relatives for studying civil engineering or        3.6     4.1
 environmental engineering.
 If I had to choose again, I would select civil engineering or environmental             4.6     4.3
 engineering as my major.



                                                    76
9/3/2012         Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal




Students were asked to identify one thing to change to improve the department, and again the
responses varied widely. The two most common themes focused on enhancing the overall
laboratory environments as well as larger or more computing facilities with the full suite of
software needed to compute, analyze, communicate, schedule, plan, and document. Additional
comments were provided about rearranging the offering of courses, offering more technical
engineering courses, and more frequent offerings for junior and senior courses beyond the regular
once a year offering.

The students were asked to grade the overall effectiveness of the individual full and part-
time faculty in the CENE department, using the following system: A = excellent, B =
good, C = adequate, D = marginal, F = poor. This data is converted to a 5.0 scale with A
= 5.0 and F = 1.0. During the faculty annual review processes, the individual results are
provided to each member to help inform the faculty about the quality of their student
interactions.

A curriculum, consisting of traditional course by course packets of content, continues to
be the dominating strategy that institutions use to provide an education. In addition, the
personnel management, financial systems, and student evaluation processes of the
university are organized by a course structure. Program outcomes, however, represent a
structural context different from the discrete and sequential system of courses. Program
outcomes present a holistic, or sum-total, context to education that is construed from
demonstrable and measurable student activities that infer achievement of specific
learning goals. This difference in structural organization presents a considerable
challenge and requires a tool or process to transform content-directed course activities
and data into outcomes-directed evidences and learning assessment. The CENE is
making this transformation by regularly asking seniors to map their program of courses to
the program outcomes. It provides an external (vs. internal by faculty who’s course
ownership can bias the assessment of a particular course’s contributions) picture of the
influence that specific courses make on specific outcomes.

The student mapping was completed by asking the seniors to evaluate how they thought
each course (and/or organized activities) in their program of study contributed to their
current abilities as expressed as outcomes. The scale used was 3 = strongly contributed,
2 = contributed, 1 = contributed marginally, and blank or 0 = no contributions. Table V.8
is the averages from the civil engineering students responding to the 2005 senior exit
survey. Given the size of these maps, only one matrix of results is presented here. Those
courses to outcome contributions that were rated at 2.0 or greater are shaded to facilitate
the interpretation of the matrix. Given the amount of effort, however, to reduce these
sizeable data sets, we have decided to complete this mapping exercise less frequently
than the yearly basis as originally intended.




                                                 77
  9/3/2012        Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


  Table V.8 2005 Civil Engineering Seniors Mapping Courses to Outcomes,
  Averages for N = 16




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               h. Impact of Engineering Solutions
                                                                      b. Experiments, Analyze, Interpret




                                                                                                                                                                               e. Solve Engineering Problems




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             j. Knowledge of Contemporary


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              k. Modern Engineering Tools
                                                                                                             c. Ability to Design a System


                                                                                                                                               d. Multi-Disciplinary Teams
                                         a. Mathematics Science &




                                                                                                                                                                                                               f. Professional & Ethical




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      i. Lifelong Learning
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             g. Communicate
Course                                   Engineering
Number       Course Description
MAT 136      Calculus I (4)                2.69                     1.94                                   0.25                              0.06                            1.94                                 0                         .06               0.06                                  0.13                        0                           1.94
MAT 137      Calculus II (4)               2.50                     1.44                                   0.25                              0.19                            1.69                                 0                        0.19               0.06                                  0.56                        0                            1.5
MAT 238      Calculus III (3)              2.50                     1.50                                   0.25                              0.06                            1.63                                 0                        0.06               0.06                                  0.81                        0                            1.5
MAT 239      Differential Eqs (3)          2.63                     1.56                                   0.25                              0.31                            1.81                                 0                        0.31               0.06                                  0.81                        0                           1.69
CHM 151      General Chemistry I (4)       1.69                     1.25                                   0.06                              0.25                            1.13                                 0                        0.25               0.19                                  0.56                      .06                           1.06
CHM 151L     Gen Chem I Lab (1)            1.50                     1.81                                   0.13                              0.69                            0.88                               .13                        0.69               0.25                                  0.44                      .13                           1.31
PHY 161      Univ. Physics I (3)           2.06                     1.63                                   0.44                              0.41                            1.69                                 0                        0.41               0.06                                  0.56                        0                           1.13
PHY 161 L    Univ. Physics I Lab (3)       2.00                     2.00                                   0.44                              0.81                            1.44                                 0                        0.81               0.06                                   0.5                        0                            1.5
PHY 262      Univ. Physics II (3)          2.06                     1.63                                   0.56                              0.47                            1.88                                 0                        0.47               0.13                                  0.94                        0                           1.25
CENE 150     Intro to Env Eng (3)          1.47                     1.38                                   1.09                              0.69                            1.66                               1.3                        0.69               1.92                                    1                      1.38                           1.06
EGR 180      Comp Aided Design (2)         0.56                     1.19                                   1.25                              0.25                            0.81                               .06                        0.25                0.5                                  0.75                      .19                           1.19
EGR 186      Intro to Eng Design (3)       1.25                     1.81                                   2.31                              2.19                            2.31                              1.81                        2.19               1.73                                  1.81                     1.06                           1.94
CENE 270     Plane Surveying (2)           1.75                     1.25                                   1.06                              1.06                            1.19                               .56                        1.06               0.19                                  1.06                      .38                           1.19
CENE 270 L   Plane Survey Lab (1)          1.69                     1.44                                   1.31                              1.56                            0.94                               .56                        1.56               0.19                                  1.06                      .31                           1.13
EGR 225      Engi Analysis (3)             1.63                     1.44                                   1.31                              1.25                            1.75                               .81                        1.25               0.69                                    1                       .63                           1.44
EGR 286      Eng Design Process (3)        1.81                     2.44                                   2.63                              2.25                            2.44                              2.38                        2.25               2.19                                  2.06                        2                           2.38
EGR 251      App Mech--Statics (3)         2.44                     1.19                                   1.38                              0.88                            2.06                                .5                        0.88               0.38                                    1                        .5                           1.13
EGR 252      Dynamics (3)                  2.44                     1.13                                     1                               0.88                            2.38                               .75                        0.88                0.5                                  1.13                      .63                           1.19
CENE 253     Mech of Materials (3)         2.44                     1.38                                   1.38                              0.75                            2.25                               .63                        0.75               0.44                                  1.19                      .38                           1.25
CENE 253 L   Mech of Mat Lab (1)           2.31                     2.31                                    1.5                               1.5                            2.25                               .94                         1.5               0.56                                  1.44                      .56                             2
EE 188       Electrical Eng I (3)          1.69                     0.88                                   0.56                              0.56                            1.38                               .44                        0.56               0.25                                  0.81                      .31                           0.69
ME 291       Thermodynamics I (3)          1.91                     0.81                                   0.75                              0.63                            1.75                               .75                        0.63               0.56                                    1                       .81                           0.88
CENE 331     Sanitary Eng (3)              1.88                     1.38                                   1.31                              0.94                            1.81                                 1                        0.94                 1                                   1.19                     1.06                           1.31
CENE 333     Applied Hydraulics (3)          2                      1.13                                   1.31                              0.81                            2.13                               .94                        0.81               0.75                                  1.19                      .75                           1.38
CENE 333 L   App Hydraulics Lab (1)        1.88                     1.63                                   1.31                              1.38                            2.25                               .88                        1.38               0.69                                  1.25                      .75                           1.75
CENE 376     Structural Analysis I (3)     2.25                     1.31                                   1.38                              0.69                            2.19                              1.19                        0.69               0.69                                  1.25                      .75                           1.41
CENE 383     Soil Mech & Fds (3)           2.44                     1.63                                    1.6                              0.94                             2.5                              1.25                        0.94               0.94                                  1.31                     1.19                           1.63
CENE 383 L   Soil Mech & Fds L (1)         2.13                     1.94                                   1.56                              1.75                            2.19                               1.5                        1.75               0.94                                  1.25                     1.13                           2.03
CENE 386W    Eng Design Methods(3)          1.4                     2.25                                   2.27                              2.38                            2.31                              2.31                        2.38               1.06                                  2.38                     1.88                           2.38
ME 395       Fluid Mechanics (3)            2.5                     1.75                                   1.81                              1.25                            2.56                              1.24                        1.25               0.81                                   1.5                      .88                           1.81
CENE 418     Highway Eng (2)               2.06                     2.19                                    2.5                              2.19                            2.56                              2.25                        2.19               2.38                                  2.44                        2                           2.19



                                                                                   78
  9/3/2012           Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


CENE 418 L      Highway Eng Lab (1)         2.06   2.19      2.5   2.13   2.56     2.06   2.13    2.38   2.38     2    2.19
CENE 420        Traffic & Signal (2)        1.38   1.38     1.25   1.38   1.63     1.13   1.38    1.19   1.44   1.19   1.38
CENE 420 L      Traffic Signal Lab (1)      1.38   1.31     1.13   1.25   1.63     1.13   1.25    1.19   1.44   1.19   1.31
CENE 433        Hyd & Flood Cont (3)        1.69   1.38     1.38   0.88     2      1.13   0.88    0.81   1.25    .88   1.31
CENE 438        Reinf Concrete D (3)        1.81   1.38     1.63   0.63   1.88     1.44   0.63    0.75    1.5   1.06   1.31
CENE 450        Geot Eval & Design (3)       1.5   1.13      1.6   0.69    1.5     1.13   0.69    0.69   0.94    .94   1.19
CENE 476        Senior Design Sem (1)       1.19   1.81     2.13   1.75   2.06     2.24   1.75    1.44   2.13   1.38   1.63
CENE 486        Design Capstone (3)         2.06   2.63     2.56    2.5    2.8     2.25    2.5      2    2.44   1.15   2.63

  A section focusing on the self-assessment of life-long learning was added to the 2006
  senior exit surveys in attempt to better inform this outcome. Twenty-eight of the twenty-
  nine students were able to adequately explain what the words "lifelong learning" meant.
  Eighteen students reported being involved in an extra-curricular activity, typically a
  student professional organization, while at NAU that contributed to their life-long
  learning abilities. Nineteen indicated that they have future plans to be involved in a
  community or professional organization after graduation. Fifteen indicated a strong
  interest in pursuing additional formal education beyond their undergraduate degree work.
  In addition, the students judged their skills or preparation to address the various
  components of life-long learning and their ability to adhere to ethical and professional
  standards using a 1 to 5 scale. The average results are presented in Table V.9. Of the 290
  total individual responses, only 9 were scored less than 3, receiving a score of 2.

  Table V.9 Summary Results – Spring 2006 Students’ Self Assessment of Life-Long
  Learning and Ethical Standards

   Please Evaluate how prepared you feel you are to address the                           Average        Std
   following tasks or activities.                                                                        Dev

   Scale: 5 = Always True, 3 = Sometimes True, 1 = Never True
   Number of respondents = 29

   Learn new material on my own                                                             4.1          .64
   Find and use relevant sources of information                                             4.0          .80
   Read critically and assess the quality of information available                          3.9          .37
   Use information to solve well-defined problems                                           4.3          .59
   Analyze content by breaking it down, asking questions, comparing and                     4.3          .65
   contrasting, recognizing patterns, and interpreting information
    Model problems by estimating, simplifying, making assumptions and                       4.0          .82
   approximations.
   Combine knowledge in novel ways to generate new products or ideas.                       3.6          .73
   Judge the worth of ideas, theories, and opinions.                                        3.7          .81
   Choose between alternative ideas, theories, opinions, and justify the choice.            4.1          .80
   Adhere to the professional and ethical standards of the civil engineering                4.7          .45
   profession

   4. Course Improvement Documents (CID)

  The CID has the longest history of continuous use in the department. While promising to
  capture direct outcome assessment data, it has also presented some difficulties.



                                                       79
9/3/2012           Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


The CID was initially created in 1999 to help faculty (1) create course learning outcomes,
(2) link course outcomes to program outcomes and program outcomes to program
objectives, (3) reflect on the course, (4) organize and document ideas for improving the
course, and (5) archive course information to communicate between the various faculty
who teach the course over the years. This initial version was overly long. The
department managed to use this initial version over a number of semesters, but its use
dropped off precipitously between 2002and 2004. This drop-off reflected its
cumbersome design, as well as the recognition that the tool wasn’t really working. In
particular, it did not readily yield outcome assessment data that could be easily
synthesized and analyzed. During the fall of 2004, the CENE began to rethink CIDs with
an emphasis on creating a tool to capture outcome data effectively and efficiently. The
various steps taken included:

          Faculty learned how to create unambiguous course and lesson learning outcomes
           that could be directly assessed.
          Program outcomes and objectives were updated and revised. One of the many
           goals of this work was to create outcomes and objectives that encouraged an
           economical and effective assessment process. As a result, the CE and ENE
           program outcomes are very similar, few in number, and written in an active voice
           with verbs that can be measured. Additionally, each program agreed to adopt a
           common set of objectives.
          The CENE chair made substantial revisions to the CID; shortening it and directing
           its focus on learning assessment via embedded student deliverables.
          The CENE conducted a number of short sessions on topics related to outcomes
           and assessment, and reaffirmed that the CENE wanted to continue using the CID
           as the tool for encouraging and capturing direct evidences of students’
           achievement relative to learning outcomes.

Faculty use of the CID over the 2004-05 academic year increased, but even so there still
remained faculty who (1) did not understand the assessment component of learning
outcomes - how to embed, capture, or document useable assessment evidences - or (2)
had not made the change to their course management approach – shifting focus away
from content delivery and course grades to student learning and documenting learning via
embedded evidences. After much discussion, the CENE came to believe that the revised
CID and its focus on learning outcomes was enough of a shift in teaching and course
administration that for many, it was too big of change to make without help. The CENE
followed up by obtaining a small assessment grant from NAU’s Office of Academic
Assessment to encourage a mentoring process. Drs. Bero and Baxter, CENE faculty who
are experienced with CIDs and intimate with program outcomes and assessment,
volunteered to work side by side with other faculty in the CENE over the spring 2006
semester to increase the faculty participation and the quality of that participation.

Over the summer of 2006 while the CENE was analyzing its outcome processes, it
became clear that the CID could still benefit from additional revisions. The fall 2004
version, while surely encouraging of the important paradigm shift for faculty, still did not
readily yield clear evidences of outcome learning achievement. In addition, the CID


                                                   80
    9/3/2012            Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


    process actually missed a few outcomes, e.g. the direct assessment of Outcome (i), had
    not been captured.

    Table V.10 Target Courses and Target Outcomes




                                                 a. Mathematics, Science & Engineering




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      f. Professional & Ethical Responsibility
                                                                                         b. Experiments, Analyze, and Interpret




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              j. Knowledge of Contemporary Issues
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  h. Impact of Engineering Solutions
                                                                                                                                                                                                      e. Solve Engineering Problems
                                                                                                                                       c. Ability to Design a System.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    k. Modern Engineering Tools
                                                                                                                                                                        d. Multi—disciplinary Teams




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       i. Lifelong Learning
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 g. Communicate
Civil Engineering Required Course Work
(programs of study ranging from fall
2001 to spring 2006):
     CENE 150      Intro to Env. Engineering     ●                                                                                                                                                    ●                               ●                                                           ●                                                           ●
    CENE 180        Computer Aided Drafting                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ●                                                                                                                           ●
      EGR 186            Intro to Eng. Design                                                                                          ●                                ●                             ●                               ●                                          ●
    CENE 270                 Plane Surveying                                                                                                                                                                                          ●                                                                                                ●                                                                     ●
   CENE 270L            Plane Surveying Lab                                              ●                                                                                                                                                                                       ●                                                                                                                           ●
     CENE 225           Engineering Analysis     ●                                       ●                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   ●
      EGR 286          Egr. Design - Methods                                                                                           ●                                ●                                                                                                        ●                                                     ●                                                                     ●
     CENE 251         App. Mechanics-Statics     ●                                                                                                                                                    ●
    CENE 253          Mechanics of Materials     ●                                                                                     ●                                                              ●
   CENE 253L          Mech. of Materials Lab                                             ●                                                                                                                                                                                       ●
    CENE 331            Sanitary Engineering     ●                                                                                     ●                                                              ●                                                                                                                                                       ●                                              ●
    CENE 333              Applied Hydraulics                                                                                           ●                                                              ●
   CENE 333L          Applied Hydraulics Lab                                             ●                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   ●
    CENE 376             Structural Analysis I   ●                                                                                                                                                    ●                                                                                                                                                                                                      ●
    CENE 383       Soil Mech. & Foundations                                              ●                                             ●                                                              ●                               ●                                          ●
  CENE 386W            Egr. Design - Methods                                                                                                                            ●                                                             ●                                          ●                ●                                    ●                      ●
    CENE 418            Highway Engineering                                                                                            ●                                ●                                                             ●                                          ●                                                     ●
    CENE 420          Traf. Studies & Signals                                            ●                                                                                                            ●                               ●                                                           ●                                                                                                          ●
    CENE 438          Reinf. Concrete Design                                                                                           ●                                                              ●                                                                                                                                                       ●
    CENE 450         Geotech. Eval & Design                                                                                            ●                                                                                                                                                          ●                                                           ●
    CENE 476          Senior Design Seminar                                                                                            ●                                ●                                                                                                        ●                                                     ●
   CENE 486C          Egr. Design - Capstone                                                                                           ●                                ●                             ●                               ●                                          ●                ●                                    ●                      ●                                              ●
    CENE 433        Hydrology/Flood Control                                                                                            ●                                                              ●                                                                                                                                                       ●                                              ●

    Given that accreditation is focused on Outcomes (a) thru (k), the CENE decided to revise
    the CID one more time for use during the 2006-07 academic year. This revision kept the
    course learning outcome paradigm shift intact, but explicitly focused the CID on



                                                                                                                                  81
9/3/2012        Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


capturing course embedded data related to a small number of appropriately targeted
ABET outcomes.

Assignment of course-specific target outcomes was made through (1) the incorporation of
student mapping results captured from the 2005 senior exit surveys and (2) a review and
revision of those student results by the CENE faculty in a outcomes focused workshop.
The matrix Table V.10 summarizes which required courses have been assigned to which
ABET outcome. Electives have not been included. This matrix should not be
misunderstood to suggest that the listed courses are only focusing on the listed target
outcomes. As the completed CIDs show, most courses cover multiple outcomes that go
beyond the assigned target outcomes. The target matrix is our way of sizing down the
outcomes assessment process.

Table V.11 Metric Statements for ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes


            Metric Statements Corresponding to ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes
                        (Revisions: dsl 5/2606, CENE 8/21/06 & 9/6/06)

Outcome                                          Metric Statement
   a       Compliance is achieved by students who can solve engineering problems using mathematics
           and science principles.
    b      Compliance is achieved by students who can design civil engineering or environmental
           engineering experiments to meet a need; conduct the experiments, and analyze and interpret
           the resulting data.
    c      Compliance is achieved by students who can design systems or processes to meet desired
           needs within realistic constraints.
    d      Compliance is achieved by students who can perform and communicate effectively on
           diverse teams.
    e      Compliance is achieved by students who can solve well-defined engineering problems in the
           four technical areas appropriate to civil engineering (e.g. structures, water resources,
           transportation, geotechnical) or environmental engineering (e.g. water resources, systems
           modeling, wastewater management, waste management, pollution prevention, atmospheric
           systems and air pollution control, and environmental and occupational health).
    f      Compliance is achieved by students who can recognize and analyze situations involving
           professional and ethical interests.
    g      Compliance is achieved by students who can organize and deliver effective verbal, written,
           and graphical communications.
    h      Compliance is achieved by students who can generally describe the impacts of constrained
           engineering solutions to relevant economic, environmental, social, and global-political
           systems.
    i      Compliance is achieved by students who can demonstrate the ability to learn on their own,
           without the aid of formal instruction, and express the need to continually improve their
           professional skills throughout their careers.
    j      Compliance is achieved by students who can incorporate into the engineering problem
           solving process well-defined contemporary issues such as regulations and compliance,
           economics, environmental impacts, political influences, and globalization. .
    k      Compliance is achieved by students who can apply relevant techniques, skills, and modern
           engineering tools of the engineering practice.

New to the 2006-07 CID template is a reference table of metric statements along with
compliance levels. These metric statements not only provided measurable outcome goals


                                                82
9/3/2012           Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


per target courses, but also helped in the creation and embedding of outcome
assessments and the drawing of conclusions about outcome compliance. The statements
are unequivocal performance goals that students’ must demonstrate to illustrate their
achievement of the (a) thru (k) outcomes. For those statements that are measured by a
curricula embedded assessment, the average student body achievement level must be
greater than or equal to 70% to establish outcome compliance by the program. Some
statements, however, are binary; e.g. the student either participated or did not.
Compliance in this case would be if 70% of the surveyed population participated.

Table V.12 CID Captured Assessment Data Example Taken from CENE 386W Engineering
Design – The Methods


                            Assessment of ABET Criterion 3 Target Outcomes


      Outcome Metric Statements                        Assessment Deliverable*                 Level of
(Compliance is achieved by students                                                         Achievement
                   who…)                                                                  (Class Averages)
Outcome d: Produce and communicate              3 Peer Evaluation Memos                  26.1/30 = 87%
effectively on diverse teams.                   4 Team Oral Status Reports               75/80 = 94%
                                                5 Case Study Deliverables                544/600 = 91%
                                                (Adjusted by peer evaluation)
Outcome f: Can recognize and analyze            2 Questions on Test 1                    8.3/10 = 83%
situations involving professional and ethical
interests.                                      4 Questions on Test 2                    24.3/31= 78%

Outcome j: Incorporate into the                 5 Case Study Deliverables                271.3/300 = 90%
engineering problem solving process well-
defined contemporary issues.                    1 Individual PM report                   26.6/30 = 89%
Outcome h: Can generally describe the           6 Economic Homework Assignments          112/170 =66%
impacts of a constrained engineering            5 Economic Questions on Test 3           60.6/80 = 76%
solution to relevant economic,                  7 Individually Written Memo              78/105 = 74%
environmental, social, and global-political     7 Case Study Questions on Test 1         24.1/29 = 83%
systems                                         8 Environ. Assess. Quest. on Test 2      38.4/49 = 78%
                                                2 Project Mgmt. Questions on Test 3      15.1/20 = 76%
Outcome i: Demonstrate the ability to           5 Case Study Deliverables                271.3/300 = 90%
learn on their own, without the aid of formal
instruction.
Outcome g: Organize and deliver effective       7 Individually Written Memos             78/105 = 74%
verbal, written, and graphical                  5 Case Study Deliverables                271.3/300 = 90%
communications.                                 1 Individual PM report                   26.6/30 = 89%
                                                1 Oral Case Study Presentation           198/200 = 99%


The genesis of the metric statements comes from the September 2, 2005 draft report on
Levels of Achievement written by the ASCE Committee on Academic Prerequisites for
Profession Practice. The CENE Department Chair was a member of this committee and
was responsible for the committee’s approach to achievement via measurable action
verbs. The originating statements were reviewed and revised by the CENE faculty in
their fall 2006 department-wide workshop focusing on program outcomes.


                                                     83
9/3/2012            Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal




The 2006-07 CID captured assessment and analysis of target outcomes are reported on in
Chapter IV Criterion 3 of this report. The course-by-course CIDs along with the
examples of the assessment strategies and additional information will be available in hard
copy at the time of accreditation visit. An example of what the captured data looks like is
provided in Table V.12. The follow-on instructor analysis of the captured assessment is
provided in Figure V.2.

The assessment “loop” courses, curriculum, and outcomes is closed once a year through a
mid-year workshop. The CID data, outcome analysis, and course/curriculum suggestions
are assembled, reviewed, and discussed by the faculty. The results are captured by the
Department Chair for inclusion into curricula or other change efforts.

Figure V.2 Example Instructor Analysis of Captured Outcome Data Corresponding to Table
xx

                                       Analysis of Targeted Outcomes
 (Have the students in this class achieve/complied with the targeted outcomes in full or in part? Why or why not.
                A class average of 70% or above on suitable deliverables indicates compliance.)

The economic features of outcome h do not seem to be fully captured by this course for these students as indicated
by an average homework score less than 70%. In addition, the economic-related deliverables were geared more
towards basic engineering economics principles and less towards being a tool for evaluating economic impacts.
Other than economics, however, the students comply with outcome h, especially as it is related to project
management and environmental impacts.

The case study project provides the opportunity for student to learn about constraints and contemporary issues
within a real-world context. The related deliverables require students to describe the constraints and impacts, and
fully meets the intent of the metric statement within the context of complex technical report writing.
Correspondingly, students consistently above 70% and therefore judged to comply with both outcomes g and j.

The case study project deliverables was also intended to encourage students to research and document information
on their own. Demonstration of this skill occurred via the completion of the deliverable. No formal instruction on
self-directed learning was provided, and no assessment of this explicit skill was attempted.



5. Capstone Design Project Evaluation

This assessment tool was encouraged and developed by the Department’s DAC for their
use in directly evaluating the year-long capstone design projects of our senior engineering
students. The tool, however, goes far beyond being a tool for directly evaluating
outcomes. It also serves to inform the faculty and our students about what skills and
attributes are important to our constituency as represented by the DAC, to
correspondingly guide curriculum conversations, to bring additional focus to our senior-
level capstone experience, to enhance the overall performance of our seniors with their
culminating design project, and to further engage our DAC with us and our students. For
all of these reasons, this tool exemplifies the notion of “authentic assessment”.




                                                     84
9/3/2012           Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


The DAC initiated the development of the capstone design project evaluation tool at their
January 14, 2005 meeting through the work of a six member subgroup of DAC members
and faculty. At this meeting, the sub-group decided on the tool’s overarching principle –
compare the capstone projects to industry standards of performance and then lay in
ABET outcomes afterward. Following the meeting, two members of this DAC subgroup
– Dr. Trotta, a CENE faculty member and capstone course instructor, and Tom Loomis, a
longstanding DAC member – took on the task of creating a tool from the results of the
January meeting. The tool was drafted, critiqued and revised via email, and finalized for
piloting at the spring 2005 DAC meeting and for actual use at the capstone conference
that same spring.

All of our engineering seniors at NAU must take and successfully complete the requisite
team-based capstone design course(s). For the CENE students this curricula requirement
includes the fall semester, one-credit senior design lab and a spring semester, three-credit
capstone course. The fall lab focuses the students on finding a project, assembling a
team, and writing the project proposal that includes scope, requirements, design concepts,
schedule, and deliverable milestones. The spring semester is focused on detail design
and implementation. The environmental engineering and civil engineering students
together take the same capstone courses.

The Engineering Programs at NAU traditionally hold their spring DAC meetings the day
before the engineering-wide senior capstone conference and the conference is held on the
Friday before reading week. The conference is a day-long, professional-style conference
where the engineering student teams present their capstone projects. The morning is a
simultaneous session format of formal presentations to audiences consisting of clients,
faculty, other external partners, family, and students. The afternoon is a free-form poster
session to provide the extra time for informal interactions between students and
conference attendees. In conjunction with college restructuring, the longstanding
engineering conference has been expanded to include the many undergraduate research
projects of the science students.

In April of 2005, the DAC piloted the use of the capstone tool by trying it out with one
example student team, the McConnell Drive Widening Project, at the DAC meeting.
This piloting exercise generated a lot of discussion and a small number of revisions that
were made over night, so the revised tool could be used by the DAC evaluators at the
capstone conference on the next day. Five DAC members stayed over for the 2005
conference and used the tool to assess the design projects of the civil and environmental
engineering students. The spring 2005 civil and environmental engineering capstone
projects along with sponsoring clients included:

          Window Rock Wastewater Treatment Lagoon Design for the Navajo Tribal
           Utility Authority
          Camp Verde Town Park Irrigation Plan for the Town of Camp Verde
          Fanning Drive Wash Hydraulic Study for the City of Flagstaff
          McConnell Drive Widening Project for NAU Parking/Shuttle Services
          Webber Creek Sediment Transportation Relief Study for Camp Geronimo


                                                   85
9/3/2012           Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


          San Francisco Street/Pine Knoll Drive Roundabout Design for Plateau
           Engineering and NAU
          NAU Soccer Field Improvements for Plateau Engineering and NAU
          ASCE Concrete Canoe for CENE Department Chair.

The data from the spring 2005 evaluations was collected and synthesized, and presented
to the DAC in their fall 2005 meeting. At this fall 2005 meeting, the DAC analyzed the
results as well as the tool itself. In addition to making a few editorial changes and adding
one additional metric, the DAC concluded that tool did what was needed and it contained
the right balance between technical, project management, and communications. The
DAC requested, however, that evaluator training be provided the day before 2006
capstone conference. This request was made to reduce the recognized variability of
interpretations and use.

The April 2006 DAC meeting was arranged to incorporate the requested evaluator
training whereby another example student team - The Residential Bridge Project –
presented while the DAC members simultaneously used the revised evaluation tool to
evaluate their project. Evaluation results were then compared and discussed. This
discussion centered on two issues.

The first issue was “What to do if a team did not address an item from the tool?” After
much discussion, the DAC decide the following. Given that the students had been
provided the evaluation tool criteria via their syllabus and by other means during their
capstone courses, the DAC decided that missing items are given a score of “1”. This
score was in contrast to other possible options of a “3” or NA.

The second issue discussed turned into an affirmation of the evaluation tool’s basic
premise. The engineering capstone teams and their respective projects should be
evaluated within the context of a professional environment, but whereby the project
represents the employee’s first real project.

Seven DAC members stayed over from the DAC meeting and attended the spring 2006
capstone design conference and used the tool. Their results were analyzed at the fall
2006 DAC meeting. The spring 2006 civil and environmental engineering capstone
design projects with sponsoring clients included:

          Residential Bridge Project for Don and Marilyn Sluyk
          AISC Steel Bridge Competition for Dr. Joshua Hewes
          Flagstaff Reservoirs Inundation Study for the City of Flagstaff
          Snowbowl Pedestrian Crossing for Arizona Snowbowl
          Arboretum Accessibility Design for Flagstaff Arboretum
          Portable Water Treatment System for Dr. Paul Gremillion
          Walnut Canyon Site Remediation for Walnut Canyon National Monument
          Concrete Canoe Hull Design for Dr. Paul Trotta
          Concrete Canoe Concrete Mix Design for Dr. Paul Trotta
          On-Site Wastewater Treatment Plan Master Plan for Dr. Paul Trotta


                                                   86
  9/3/2012           Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal




  Table V.13 Transforming Capstone Evaluation Tool to Assess ABET Outcomes

                                                                                                      Applicable ABET Criterion 3
                                                                                                        Outcomes Abbreviated




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 j. Knowledge of Contemporary Issues
                                                                                                                                                                                     h. Impact of Engineering Solutions
                                                                                                                                    e. Solve Engineering Problems




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       k. Modern Engineering Tools
                                                                      c. Ability to Design a System

                                                                                                      d. Multi-Disciplinary Teams




                                                                                                                                                                                                                          i. Lifelong Learning
                                                                                                                                                                    g. Communicate
Capstone Project Team Evaluation Metrics / Weight
Technical Skills
 T1 Scope of Work / 5%                                                                                                             
 T2 Project Selection & Technical Challenge / 5%                                                                                                                                                                        
 T3 Technical Skills (Approach & Completeness) / 5%                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
 T4 Technical Deficiencies / 5%                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      
 T5 Creativity of Solution / 5%                                                                                                                                                                                                               
 T6 Regulatory Issues / 5%                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
 T7 Project Constraints (Including Non-technical) / 5%                                                                                                                                                                                       
Communication and Multi-Disciplinary
 C1 External (Client & at Conference) / 14%                                                                                                                        
 C2 Internal (w/in Team) / 5%                                                                                                                                      
 C3 Integrating Multi-Disciplinary Skills / 5%                                                                                                                                                                                                 
Management Skills
 M1 Budget, Costs, Schedule, Plans/Docs, Report, QC / 28%                                                                                                                                                                                        
 M2 Meeting Client Expectations / 9%                                                                                                                                                
 M3 Solution – Effective, Practical / 5%                                                                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                                                    


  The capstone tool was developed under the primary objective to focus the team and
  project evaluation within the context of a professional environment with ABET outcome
  assessment as a secondary objective. Its effectiveness in meeting this goal has been
  evaluated by members of the DAC. The following comment provided by DAC member
  Debra Mollet of Stantec Consulting in the fall of 2006 best captures their evaluation.

      “Last spring I participated in CENE 486C Capstone Conference, and had the chance to evaluate the
      student teams from the perspective of an employer/consultant. After reviewing the evaluation form,
      and using it to rate several teams, I must say that you are right on track with what we are looking for in
      prospective employees/college graduates. Given my experience with graduates from several western
      universities, I can honestly say that a student or student team that meets all of the expectations and
      skills outlined on the evaluation form will be sought after by our firm as a top candidate for hire.”



                                                       87
9/3/2012        Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal




Given the tool’s primary objective of evaluating the capstone experience from the
professional practice perspective, it does not automatically provide a one-to-one
correspondence to ABET outcomes. For the purposes of Criterion 3 assessment, Table
V.13 translates the various metric statements of the tool to the ABET outcomes.
Following this transformation, the capstone evaluation results have been re-grouped
according to outcomes and their previously defined metric statements, and tabulated here
in this report. For example, a direct assessment of our students’ achievement of Outcome
(c) the ability to design a system would be accumulated from items T1-T7 and M3.
Metrics T2,T3, T5-T7, and C3 are assigned to the life-long learning Outcome (i) because,
if successfully completed, demonstrate the ability to learn something without formal
instruction. There is little formal instruction during the capstone courses. Instead the
capstone design instructors function primarily as project managers and each project
brings its own unique requirements. Students must identify and learn on their own the
technical skills and other issues necessary to successfully complete their capstone design
project and pass the two semester course sequence.

At the fall 2006 DAC meeting, the DAC reviewed the transformation and agreed with the
decisions on how the various metrics related to the various ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes.
One DAC sub-group, however, felt that the transformation did not go far enough. They
suggested mapping the tool to the entire set of ABET outcomes; adding to Outcomes (a),
(b) and (f) to the transformation.

Also at the fall 2006 DAC meeting, the DAC undertook a review of the raw spring 2006
capstone evaluation data. Relative to student’s performance, the DAC agreed that the
capstone students did not perform as well in “M” category skills as they did in the
technical, communication, and multi-disciplinary categories. The “M” or Management
skills included metrics on budgets, project cost, schedule, quality management, and
scoping. The DAC recommended to the capstone instructors to more explicitly
incorporate management into the CENE 476 precursor course. They also noted that the
“M” skills accounted for a larger percentage of the overall points on the tool and
questioned that. They suggested paring down the “M” categories so that an equal
weighting is achieved between the three categories of management, technical, and
communication-multi-disciplinary.

The CENE took under consideration the fall 2006 DAC recommendations and agreed that
capstone evaluation tool could be also used to directly map to Outcome (a), but not (b) or
(f). As discussed in Chapter IV, the CENE understands problem solving - whether
outcome (a) or (e) - to be a requisite component of successful technical designs. Metrics
T3 and T4 are most appropriate to Outcome (a). The spring 2006 student data was
revised to incorporate Outcome (a), and is included in Table V.15.



Table V.14 Spring 2005 Capstone Design Project Assessment Summary – Average
Ratings by DAC Evaluators



                                                88
9/3/2012           Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal




                                     Wash Hydraulic




                                                                                                                                                                           Town Park Plan
                                                                                                                                                                           Drive Widening




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Class Average*
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Lagoon Design
                                                                                                                 Webber Creek
                                     Fanning Drive




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Window Rock
                                                                              ASCE Canoe




                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Roundabout
                                                                                                                                                                            Camp Verde
                                                                                                                                           NAU Soccer
                                                                                                                                           Field Impr. *




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Wastewater
                                                                                                                                                                             McConnell
                                                                                                                  Transport
                                                                                                                  Sediment




                                                                                                                                                                               Project




                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Design
Number of Evaluators                      5         3          3        1      2        4       3            3
Number of Students/Project Team           4         3          3        3      4        3       4            3
Outcome Assessment (%):
  a. Math, Science, Engineering        84.0      96.7       75.0     60.0   80.0     87.5    90.0         90.0                                                                                                                                                                        86.2
  c. Ability to Design a System        82.6      92.5       75.8     47.5   82.5     84.6    92.5         86.3                                                                                                                                                                        85.3
  d. Multi-Disciplinary Teams          79.6      74.7       76.7     40.0   88.0     87.0    88.0         68.7                                                                                                                                                                        80.4
  e. Solve Engineering Problems        83.7      93.3       76.7     42.5   82.5     86.7    92.4         87.1                                                                                                                                                                        85.9
  g. Communicate                       78.5      75.0       76.7     44.0   85.0     85.0    88.3         63.3                                                                                                                                                                        78.8
  h. Impact of Engineering             84.5      88.9       78.9     44.0   78.3     81.1    88.9         72.2                                                                                                                                                                        81.8
  i. Lifelong Learning                 81.5      86.7       73.9     46.7   83.3     87.8    93.3         86.1                                                                                                                                                                        84.7
  j. Knowledge of Contemporary         74.8      83.0       68.2     36.4   80.0     78.3    86.4         74.8                                                                                                                                                                        77.9
  k. Modern Engineering Tools          84.0      96.7       75.0     60.0   80.0     87.5    90.0         90.0                                                                                                                                                                        86.2
*Evaluator did not provide scores for many of the individual component items skewing this team’s results.
Likewise, the overall class average does not include the scores from the NAU Soccer Field Improvement
project.

Table V.15 Spring 2006 Capstone Design Project Assessment Summary – Average
Ratings by DAC Evaluators
                                                          Reservoirs Inundation




                                                                                                                                   Snowbowl Pedestrian
                                     Walnut Canyon Rem.




                                                                                           Concrete Mix Design




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            On-Site Master Plan
                                                                                                                                                           Canoe Hull Design

                                                                                                                                                                               Residential Bridge




                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Portable Water




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Class Average
                                                                                                                                                                                                    Accessibility
                                                                                                                    Steel Bridge




                                                                                                                                                                                                     Arboretum



                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Treatment
                                                                                                                                        Crossing




Number of Evaluators                                  3                       4                              2                 3                   4                       2                    2              2                   5                          5
Number of Students/Project Team                       3                       3                              3                 4                   3                       3                    4              3                   3                          3
Outcome Assessment (%):
 a. Math, Science, Engineering              77                    85                               92                    93                   85            90                        65                   75                    89                 75                 83
 c. Ability to Design a System              85                    84                               94                    83                   85            96                        72                   88                    87                 80                 85
 d. Multi-Disciplinary Teams                92                    81                               87                    87                   85            94                        86                   96                    90                 88                 89
 e. Solve Engineering Problems              85                    84                               94                    83                   85            96                        72                   88                    87                 80                 85
 g. Communicate                             95                    82                               84                    89                   86            92                        88                   98                    92                 89                 89
 h. Impact of Engineering                   84                    78                               95                    86                   83            98                        80                   93                    86                 80                 86
 i. Lifelong Learning                       84                    83                               95                    80                   85           100                        80                   90                    86                 86                 87
 j. Knowledge of Contemporary               60                    65                               91                    83                   75            94                        63                   81                    81                 73                 78
 k. Modern Engineering Tools                77                    85                               92                    93                   85            90                        65                   75                    89                 75                 83

Tables V.14 and V.15 summarize the team by team results for the two years that this
capstone design project evaluation has been in place. The DAC did complete a spring



                                                                                                     89
9/3/2012                          Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


2007 evaluation, but this data and the subsequent DAC analysis of the data, was not
available for inclusion to this report due to timing.

Figure V.3 Capstone Design Project Results for CENE Seniors, 2005 and 2006


                                    Spring 2005 and Spring 2006 Capstone Design Results


                             90
                             88
                             86
             Class Average




                             84
                             82                                                                         2005
                             80                                                                         2006
                             78
                             76
                             74
                             72
                                     c        d       e       g        h       i       j       k
                                                   ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes



Figure V.3 provides a comparative view between the 2005 and 2006 results for the
evaluated outcomes. In general, the students’ performance over the 8 outcomes evaluated
either remained the same or increased between 2005 and 2006. Class averages ranged
from a low of 78% for Outcome (j) knowledge of contemporary issues to a high of 89%
for Outcomes (d) multi-disciplinary teaming and (g) communication.

The class average data is being used to directly assess outcome achievement. Given that
this tool evaluates the culminating experience of each student’s program and it is being
completed by professional practicing engineers external to our department, it serves as
the definitive assessment of Outcomes (c), (d), (e), (g), (h), (i), (j), and (k).

6. DAC Student Forum

The CENE Department has an outstanding Departmental Advisory Council who
continues to seek out ways to contribute. In this regard, the DAC recently initiated a
twice a year student forum whereby a sub-committee from the DAC independently meets
with students of the CENE without the involvement of the CENE faculty. Debra Mollet is
leading this sub-committee, which is populated by Bill Caroll, John Mitchell, Dean
Durkee, David Gunn, and Tom Loomis. The forum purposes are many and include:

          Gathering feedback about their experiences with the program, the department, and
           the overall university from students of all levels.
          Interpreting the feedback and informing the department about conclusions,
           successes, and areas for improvement.
          Establishing a closer connection with the students of CENE


                                                                  90
9/3/2012            Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


          Promoting the profession and the diversity of opportunities it provides to up and
           coming engineers.

The DAC piloted its first forum the evening before the fall 2006 DAC meeting. The
results of this meeting and analysis of the forum processes where presented at the DAC
meeting the next day. A summary of this fall forum is presented as follows.

The session was attended by 16 seniors, and 2 sophomores. Students from both civil and
environmental engineering students were present, although the majority were from the
civil program. Overall, the students are very happy with the program. The smaller
classes are nice, the professors have field experience, which is great, and the
environmental professors are doing very well with what they are given. The new
building facilities are working well - students are allowed access to the building on the
weekends to work on projects, and the Internet café is a great idea and gets used often.
The Design4Practice works well. EGR 186 provides a good foundation course for
freshmen. CENE 486C is excellent - you can focus on your discipline and gain good
experience. The experience with working as a part of an overall team is valuable. The
concept of CENE 386W is good, e.g. writing combined with design, and it was a good
idea to have a grad student from English as a part of 386, to provide input on aspects of
technical writing. The access to professors is great and students like when professors ask
for feedback on ways to improve the teaching. The base engineering courses are very
strong. The mini-design projects are great way to incorporate the speaking and writing
requirements, especially when they are reasonably sized. The environmental classes
“sync” really well at the senior level. CENE-specific AutoCad class is good.

Those areas needing improvement were segregated into a table (Table V.16) of action
items for the DAC and CENE department to follow-up with.

Table V.16 Action Items from Fall 2006 CENE Student Forum
Item                                      DAC Input                       CENE Action or Response
FACILITIES
Internet café larger
No plotters available for student use
No copiers/scanners available for
student use
Printers need service or out of paper –
where do we go for help? Can a
student worker be assigned to monitor
the printer needs throughout the day?
Student purchase of clicker device that                                   From DAC Meeting: Deb Larson is
wasn’t needed                                                             looking into which professor is
                                                                          requiring their purchase.
                                                                          (Further Action Needed)
Urinal flush sequence
DESIGN4PRACTICE
286 – Not civil oriented (mostly          Programming and the             From DAC Meeting: 286 is used as
programming), and some teams were         associated thought processes    exposure to programming instead of a
not well balanced among the               where seen as beneficial to     stand-alone course.



                                                    91
9/3/2012           Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


disciplines                               several members of the DAC.        (Further Action Needed)
                                          Is there a way to let students
                                          know that 286 is to fulfill the
                                          programming requirements?
386 – Student requested                   A majority of the DAC              From DAC Meeting: Local projects
improvements to the writing portion of    members see strong technical       needed for 386 to serve as a base for the
the class, i.e., more instruction on      writing skills as vital. Several   case study reports. Deb Larson will
technical writing, access to a grad       representatives were willing to    follow up with Terry Baxter on items
student from English Dept., more real-    provide technical document         that can be used for reference, and send
world application                         examples for use as references     an email to DAC requesting those
                                          for the class.                     specific items.
                                                                             (Further Action Needed)
PROFESSORS
Syncing of classes in terms of
workload, terminology, etc.
Incorporating computer methods of
design/drafting instead of relying on
the “old way” of doing things
(drafting by hand, etc.). It would be
great if we did it by hand for a couple
of times, and then were allowed to
utilize AutoCad or one of the design
programs.
COURSES/CURRICULUM
More Environmental classes earlier in
the program – there is too much time
between classes in the
Freshman/Sophomore years, and
students are not being “retained”
More leeway in what students can          Is there a way to pass the         From DAC Meeting: Accreditation
specialize in, and scheduling of          information along to the           requires coursework in 4 key areas.
“emphasis” classes – having to take       students about the 4 areas         (Further Action Needed)
classes not interested in or in desired   being required for
emphasis just to graduate on time         accreditation?
Philosophy 105 is not
applicable/worthwhile. Is there any
way to do Engineering Ethics instead?
More emphasis in codes, especially in
reference to structure design
Workload in Highways is 30+ hours
per week, with most of the work such
as drafting being done by hand. Many
students feel that this workload is
starting to affect their performance in
outher classes.
Some Environmental students feel that
there is too much emphasis placed on
wastewater. Is there a way to get
exposure to other topics in
Environmental Engineering, such as
groundwater modeling or remediation,
and hazardous waste management?
COMPUTERS/SOFTWARE
Solid Edge vs. AutoCad: some                                                 From DAC Meeting: A few years ago
students had to take Solid Edge in                                           there was some miscommunication and



                                                     92
9/3/2012            Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


order to stay on track with their                                         some civil students unfortunately ended
program and graduate on time                                              up in Solid Edge. There is a civil-
                                                                          oriented AutoCad class available now
                                                                          to prevent that situation.

It would be nice to have an additional
class in AutoCad, and some
instruction in Land Desktop,
Terramodel, or one of the other design
programs
AutoCad and Hydraulics programs are
not available all of the time – hard to
find time to go in and use the
programs
Current AutoCad class is drafting
elevator parts

7. University-Wide Tools or Drivers

In this section, we discuss the University-level services and activities that impact the
department. The University maintains the Office of Planning, Budget and Institutional
Research, who conducts a number of relevant institutional surveys and supplies a
centralized data-mining facility called Business Objects (BO). These services are
discussed below. The academic activities of the University also serve as inputs (or
drivers) to the CENE program. At NAU, the University-level academic requirements are
often referred to as the Liberal Studies Program. This program is discussed here with
particular attention given to the impacts of the recent liberal studies changes on the CE
program of study.

a. Business Objects and Institutional Surveys

The University maintains the Office of Planning, Budget and Institutional Research,
which is responsible for providing information in support of strategic planning and
budgeting, policy formulation and decision-making. It provides data, analyses, and
projections for planning and decision-making; coordinates the design, implementation
and analysis of major institutional studies, reports official data for mandated and other
external reports; and assists other offices in obtaining and analyzing information. Of
importance to this Accreditation Summary is this office’s management of institutional
information, called Information Resource Management (IRM) through Business Objects.
IRM provides operational and statistical reports for admissions, enrollment, advising,
class schedule and course catalog, class rosters, grading, census, student financials, and
graduation. These reports accurately inform the Department; helping the CENE to
effectively offer and maintain its curriculums, which directly support attainment of
Criteria 3, 5, and 9.

The Office of Planning and Institutional Research is consistently involved in conducting
and preparing studies to facilitate institutional planning, decision-support, assessment,
evaluation, and quality enhancement. PAIR annually conducts a Sophomore Survey, a
Graduating Senior Survey, and an Alumni Survey. National surveys that NAU regularly


                                                    93
9/3/2012            Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


participates in include: the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP), the
Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) Faculty Survey, National Survey of Student
Engagement (NSSE) / Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE) and the National
Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity (know as the Delaware Study). These
surveys help inform the CENE on the overall climate and issues impacting its students
and faculty. In particular, Criteria 1, 6, and 8 are served directly by these surveys.

Executive summaries from the latest and pertinent surveys are provided here. These
results are used to help draw conclusions regarding the applicable Criteria of this Self-
Study.

Fall 2005 Northern Arizona University Freshmen Cooperative Institutional
Research Program (CIRP) Survey Report

In the summer of 2005, Northern Arizona University participated in CIRP survey of new
incoming students. In addition to having responses from 1,428 first-time, full-time
students at NAU, for the 2005 administration of the CIRP, NAU obtained data from two
national norm groups and a “peer group” of institutions.

Nearly eight out of ten NAU respondents reported that NAU was their first choice for
college. The most commonly reported reason for attending college was to “learn more
about things that interest me” and the most commonly reported reason for attending NAU
was “I wanted to go to a school about the size of this college.”

Interesting to note are areas where one may expect to find a significant difference
between NAU respondents when compared to the national norm groups, but no
difference is found. For example,

    •      Our students appear to be as prepared when compared to the national norm
           groups.
    •      Our students are more committed to graduating from NAU, are less likely to plan
           on transferring, have higher expectations for their collegiate experiences,
           anticipate being more involved in their college experience, and are more likely to
           indicate that NAU was their first choice for college.
    •      NAU students appear to be just as socially active in high school as their peers.
           Additionally, NAU students anticipate being as involved, if not more, in a variety
           of activities once at the University.

Out of a possible 41 questions on which to compare the NAU respondents to national
norms, the first-time, full time students from NAU look remarkably similar to all
available comparison groups with several notable differences. Areas where there were
significant differences between NAU’s first-time, full-time freshmen and the national
norm groups include:

    •      NAU students were more likely to report that NAU was their first choice for
           college.



                                                    94
9/3/2012            Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


    •      Incoming freshmen at NAU were significantly more likely to indicate that an
           important reason for going to college was that they wanted to get away from
           home and NAU students are significantly more likely to be attending college
           more than 100 miles from home.
    •      Several differences were notable for reasons given as “very important” in
           influencing a student’s decision to attend their particular college. NAU students
           were significantly more likely to respond that they “wanted to go to a school
           about the size of this college” and that they were “offered financial assistance”.
    •      When asked about their activities over the past year in high school, NAU
           respondents were more likely to have “socialized with someone of another racial /
           ethnic group,” more likely to have drank wine, liquor, or beer, and have
           “discussed politics in class.”

Faculty/Staff Comments Report 2006 On-Line Sophomore Survey

The students at Northern Arizona University value their faculty. Whether it is
sophomores, graduating seniors, or alumni, students consistently rate their satisfaction
with the quality of NAU’s faculty above ninety-five percent. For the last three years, the
Office of Planning, Budget, and Institutional Research has conducted an annual
Sophomore Survey. On this survey students are asked “If any member of the NAU faculty
or staff has positively influenced your experience at NAU, please complete the following
information.” Students are then asked to provide a name, department and comment. This
report summarizes the data collected on this one question.

Out of the 507 students that participated in the 2006 sophomore survey, 270 students
(53%) provided one or more names of a faculty or staff member that has positively
influenced their experience at NAU. A total of 288 compliments were made about 187
individual faculty / staff members.

Northern Arizona University’s 2004 Graduating Senior Survey Report: Trends in
Satisfaction for Graduating Seniors

For the past seven years, a survey of graduating seniors has been conducted at Northern
Arizona University (NAU). This survey assesses student satisfaction and opinions about
their experience at the university, while also addressing specific questions that are asked
by the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) for the Undergraduate Consolidated
Accountability Report (UCAR) each year.

    •      Results from the 2004 administration indicate that student satisfaction continues
           to increase. While there is some variation in the satisfaction within various
           content areas over the six years of study, one positive trend is the relatively
           consistent increase in satisfaction across all content areas.
    •      Past respondents have indicated advising as an area deserving of greater attention.
           A promising result from the 2003 and 2004 administration of this survey is that all
           three measurements of satisfaction with academic advising, lower-division, major,
           and career goals, increased in the three-year period from 2002 – 2004.



                                                    95
9/3/2012            Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


    •      Overall satisfaction with NAU continues to be the highest rated and most
           consistently rated content area. For the 2004 administration, 98% of respondents
           indicated satisfaction with their overall experience at NAU. Satisfaction with the
           faculty at NAU continues to be extremely high with 97% of the respondents
           reporting that they were satisfied with the quality of faculty instruction.

Results from NAU’s Alumni Surveys: 1997-2005

For the past nine years, NAU has been surveying its alumni, three to four years post
graduation, in order to keep track of their graduate school and/or employment activities,
and to have them reflect on their experience at the university. In addition to postgraduate
activities, the alumni are asked to rate their satisfaction on such topics as faculty, career
preparation, advising, their development of certain basic skills, and their overall
experience while at NAU. This alumni feedback allows NAU to shape programs to help
the university better meet the academic and personal needs of future students.

    •      Results from the Alumni Survey indicate that student satisfaction continues to be
           high. The overall satisfaction rating typically hovers around 97-99%. While there
           is some variation in the satisfaction within various content areas over the seven
           years of study, one positive trend is the consistently high satisfaction ratings in all
           content areas.
    •      Past respondents from various NAU surveys (Sophomore, Graduating Senior, and
           Alumni) have identified advising as an area deserving of greater attention. A
           promising result from analyzing the results of the Alumni survey over the period
           of 1997 – 2005 is the general increases in satisfaction for the three measurements
           of academic advising: lower-division, major, and career goals. The satisfaction for
           advising in the respondents major increased this year to 87%.
    •      Satisfaction with faculty continues to be rated very high. Satisfaction with faculty
           has continued to increase over the years and has ranged from 92% - 98%. For the
           last two years of administration, 97% of respondents indicated satisfaction with
           faculty instruction.
    •      The majority of NAU alumni have been employed since completing their
           undergraduate degree at NAU (depending upon the year, anywhere from 88% to
           95%). The majority of these students indicate that their employment was directly
           related to their major field of study (68% to 85%). Generally, approximately half
           of the graduates indicated that they had or were currently pursuing a graduate or
           professional education after completing their undergraduate degree at NAU.

Retention of Northern Arizona University’s Fall 2002 Freshman Class: Survey of
the Non-Retained Freshmen

During the summer of 2003, attempts were made to contact all freshman students that
were in good standing but had not yet registered for the fall semester in order to assess
whether or not these students anticipated returning to Northern Arizona University (425
students). Additionally, student and guardian respondents were asked what the one thing




                                                    96
9/3/2012            Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


was that they would change about NAU. Respondents were also given the opportunity to
provide any additional comments.

    •      The majority of students that had not pre-registered for the fall 2003 semester but
           intended on returning to NAU indicated that they had not pre-registered because
           they were too busy at the time or had to meet with advisors before registering.
    •      Eighty-one percent of the students that did not plan on returning to NAU indicted
           that they were going to attend another university or college in the fall. 34% of
           these students were going to Arizona State University and 11% were going to the
           University of Arizona. Twenty-one percent were going to a community college.
    •      Guardian respondents were most likely to indicate dorms or housing as the one
           thing that they would change about NAU. The location (Flagstaff) was also cited
           as a negative by many guardian respondents.
    •      Student respondents were most likely to indicate that they would change nothing
           about NAU. NAU’s location was also cited as a negative by many student
           respondents. The most common response for those students that intend on
           attending ASU or U of A in the fall was NAU’s location.
    •      When respondents were given the option to provide any additional comments,
           34% of the students provided an overall positive comment about NAU. Sixteen
           percent of students commented on the tuition costs or the general cost of living in
           Flagstaff.
    •      Guardian and student respondents that indicated their intention of attending a
           different university in the fall 2003 semester were generally positive about their
           experience at NAU. The small town, weather, distance from home, and general
           cost of living were common concerns of those leaving NAU.

The 2005 National Survey of Student Engagement Benchmark Report

Each year the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) collects information from
undergraduates at four-year colleges and universities across the country to assess the
extent to which students are engaged in a variety of educational practices. NSSE is
grounded in the theoretical framework that student engagement, measured by the
frequency with which students participate in activities that represent effective educational
practices, is a meaningful proxy for measuring collegiate quality. NAU participated in the
national NSSE administration in 2002, 2003 and 2005. This report focuses on the results
from the 2005 administration and comparisons to the previous years’ results.

This current report is a summary of selected results divided into two sections. The first
section presents NAU’s scores on the five NSSE benchmarks representing effective
educational practice: Level of Academic Challenge, Active and Collaborative Learning,
Student Interactions with Faculty Members, Enriching Educational Experiences, and
Supportive Campus Environment. NAU’s scores are compared to other doctoral intensive
universities, a selection of “peer” institutions, and the NSSE norms comprised of all
participating institutions. The second section compares NAU’s results on the 2005 NSSE
administration to NAU’s previous results in 2002 and 2003.




                                                    97
9/3/2012            Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


    •      Overall, Northern Arizona University continues to score similar or higher when
           compared to other doctoral intensive institutions, the group of selected peers, and
           all participating NSSE institutions on all five benchmarks. NAU’s strongest
           ratings were in Active and Collaborative Learning, Student-Faculty Interaction,
           and Enriching Educational Experiences. In order to excel on all five benchmarks,
           NAU can continue to improve in the Level of Academic Challenge and providing
           a Supportive Campus Environment.
    •      First-year students at NAU rated the University higher than the comparison
           groups in Active and Collaborative Learning and Enriching Educational
           Experiences. For first-year students at NAU, two benchmarks stand out as areas
           that the University can continue to improve. These two areas are the Level of
           Academic Challenge and creating a Supportive Campus Environment.
    •      NAU scored well by senior ratings on all five benchmarks. In particular, the
           University excelled in Active and Collaborative Learning, Student-Faculty
           Interactions, and Enriching Educational Experiences.
    •      The 2005 administration was the third time Northern Arizona University has
           participated in the National Survey of Student Engagement (2002, 2003, and
           2005). The mean values for first-year students fro m NAU on the four
           benchmarks that are available for trend analysis are all relatively consistent with
           no major departures from year to year or any notable increases or decreases in a
           benchmark value from 2002 to 2005.
    •      The mean values for senior students from NAU on three out of the four
           benchmarks have shown improvement, most notably in Student-Faculty
           Interaction.

Job Satisfaction and Professional Priorities for the Faculty of Northern Arizona
University: 2004 – 2005 Faculty Survey Report

During the fall of 2004, Northern Arizona University’s faculty was invited to participate
in a national study conducted by the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) at the
University of California in Los Angeles. Nationally 40,670 full-time faculty from 421
institutions participated in the study.

This report summarizes the results of 165 questions asked to faculty at NAU. Full-time
undergraduate faculty (FTUG) members at NAU are then compared to national FTUG
faculty members that are similar to NAU. Out of the 165 comparisons, FTUG faculty
members at NAU differed significantly (when using a 10% difference as the cut-off)
from national FTUG faculty on nineteen questions. The areas covered by these nineteen
questions are summarized below:

Job Satisfaction
   • When asked to identify aspects of their jobs that are satisfactory or very
       satisfactory, 75% or more of the NAU faculty identified:
       o “autonomy and independence,”
       o “professional relationships with other faculty,”
       o “competency of colleagues,”


                                                    98
9/3/2012            Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


           o “opportunity to develop new ideas,” and
           o “overall job satisfaction.”
    •      The faculty at the national norm group was more likely to identify the
           “availability of child care at their institution” and “salary and fringe benefits” as
           aspects of their jobs that are satisfactory when compared to the NAU faculty.
    •      Over the past two years, the NAU faculty was significantly more likely to have
           considered leaving NAU for another institution.

Salaries
Self-reported faculty salaries for NAU’s full time undergraduate faculty are significantly
lower compared to the national norm group. Seventy percent of faculty at the national
norm universities report making more than $50,000 a year compared to only 58% of
FTUG faculty at NAU. It is important to keep in mind that there are no adjustments for
the cost of living index minimizing the meaningfulness of an absolute salary comparison.

Teaching / Interaction with Students
   • In comparison to the national norm group, the NAU faculty was more likely to
       say that “it is easy for students to see faculty outside of regular office hours.”
   • The FTUG faculty at NAU was more likely to agree strongly or somewhat that
       “faculty are interested in student’s personal problems,” and “faculty here are
       strongly interested in the academic problems of undergraduates” in comparison to
       the national norm group.
   • Seventy-five percent of more of the NAU FTUG faculty respondents agreed that:
       o “my teaching is valued by faculty in my department,”
       o “faculty are interested in students’ personal problems,”
       o “faculty here are strongly interested in the academic problems of
           undergraduates,” and
       o “there is adequate support for integrating technology in my teaching.”
   • The faculty was asked about a variety of methods that they use in the classroom.
       Overall, the FTUG faculty from NAU was more likely to engage their students in
       a variety of techniques. Specifically, the faculty at NAU were significantly more
       likely to use:
       o “cooperative learning (small groups),”
       o “student presentations,” and
       o “group projects.”
   • The FTUG faculty from NAU was asked what goals for undergraduates are very
       important or essential. Their responses were very similar to faculty at the national
       norm universities. Seventy-five percent or more of NAU’s FTUG faculty
       identified the below goals:
       o “develop ability to think critically,”
       o “help master knowledge in a discipline,”
       o “promote ability to write effectively,”
       o “prepare students for employment.”




                                                    99
9/3/2012           Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


    •      In comparison to the national norm group, the faculty at NAU was more likely to
           identify “influencing social values” and “becoming involved in programs to clean
           up the environment” as important personal goals.

National Study of Institutional Cost and Productivity, Northern Arizona
University’s Faculty Teaching Workload Report, Falls 2003, 2002 and 2001

In this report, forty-two academic disciplines at Northern Arizona University (NAU) are
compared to national benchmark data collected by the University of Delaware as part of
the National Study of Institutional Cost and Productivity (NSICP). This data is part of a
national data-sharing consortium aimed at measuring institutional costs and faculty
productivity at the academic discipline level of analysis. This report compares the faculty
teaching workload at NAU for the fall 2003, by discipline, to the national benchmark for
that discipline.

Organized Class Sections for Tenured and Tenure-track Faculty
Of the eleven departments in the College of Engineering and Natural Sciences for which
there is national norm data to compare the faculty teaching workloads for NAU’s tenured
and tenure-track faculty, four NAU departments have greater organized class sections per
FTE faculty than the national norm for that discipline. Civil and Environmental
Engineering (3.5 vs. 2.4), Electrical Engineering (3.0 vs. 2.4), Mechanical Engineering
2.9 vs. 2.4), Physics and Astronomy (2.3 vs. 1.8) all had organized class sections per FTE
faculty greater than the national norm for their discipline. The tenured and tenure-track
faculty in Geology had on average 1.1 organized class sections per FTE faculty fewer
than the national norm for this discipline in the fall 2003.

Student Credit Hours for Tenured and Tenure-track Faculty
Of the eleven departments in the College of Engineering and Natural Sciences for which
there is national norm data to compare the faculty teaching workloads for NAU’s tenured
and tenure-track faculty, two NAU departments generated greater SCH than the national
norm for that discipline. Electrical Engineering (222 vs. 140) and Exercise Science and
Athletic Training (270 vs. 173) generated more SCH than the national norm for these two
disciplines, whereas Environmental Sciences (122 vs. 193) and Geology (133 vs. 216)
had lower SCH / FTE than the national norms for those two disciplines in the fall 2003.

FTE Students Taught for Tenured and Tenure-track Faculty
Of the eleven departments in the College of Engineering and Natural Sciences for which
there is national norm data to compare the faculty teaching workloads for NAU’s tenured
and tenure-track faculty, only one NAU departments had a student / faculty ratio that was
not within 5.0 of the national norm for the discipline. The tenured and tenure track
faculty in Geology had lower student / faculty ratios than the national norm for this
discipline (9.7 vs. 15.3).

b. University Academic Requirements




                                                  100
9/3/2012        Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


Northern Arizona University has a long-standing commitment to high quality
undergraduate education. In 1997, the University began a process that resulted in a major
restructuring of its Liberal Studies Program, with implementation beginning in the Fall of
1999. The following summarizes the changes since 1999 that have been made to the
Liberal Studies Program and other associated requirements. These changes have directly
impacted the CENE’s curriculum which by association impact Criteria 2, 3, 5 and 9.

The goal of the 1999 Liberal Studies Program was to develop the necessary skills of
citizenship in our students through a combination of foundation requirements,
distribution courses, and courses embedded within the academic major. To meet the
demands of living in an increasingly complex society, students were asked to consider
three thematic foci: the environment, technology, and the diversity of human experience.
The Liberal Studies Program hoped to foster a broad educational base by having students
take courses from among five distribution blocks: 1. science/applied science, 2. lab
science, 3. aesthetic and humanistic inquiry, 4. cultural understanding, and 5. social and
political worlds. Further, Liberal Studies courses were to develop students as life-long
learners through the acquisition of nine essential skills (critical thinking, creative
thinking, critical reading, effective oral communication, effective writing, ethical
reasoning, quantitative/spatial analysis, scientific inquiry, and use of technology). In
addition, the program established university-wide requirements for courses embedded
within the academic major, such as Junior Level Writing courses and a Senior Capstone.

The Liberal Studies Program has had many successes, including being a finalist in
Association of American Colleges & Universities’ Greater Expectations: The
Commitment to Quality as a Nation Goes to College initiative. However, by 2004 the
faculty concluded that the required UC 101 Freshman Colloquium had fallen short of
achieving its learning outcomes, and the course was withdrawn. The Cultural
Understanding distribution block had lost focus and coherence, and a new diversity
requirement was established university-wide and implemented in Fall 2005.

For many faculty and students, it became increasingly clear that the Liberal Studies
Program became too complex, with its myriad courses parsed among three themes, five
distribution blocks, and nine skills. In January 2004, the Liberal Studies Committee
made several recommendations to the Faculty Senate, including one that the Senate
institute a Liberal Studies Program Review Committee “to recommend a plan for
restructuring the current Liberal Studies Program.” In Spring 2004, the Faculty Senate
Liberal Studies Review Committee was charged by the Senate to “study the current
requirements of the Liberal Studies/General Education requirements….and recommend
to the Faculty whether to continue those requirements as currently constituted . . . .” In
addition, the Committee was charged with making a recommendation concerning the
three credit hours of Liberal Studies previously devoted to UC101 and currently being
filled by any elective Liberal Studies course.

The recommendations of this committee were presented and approved by the Faculty
Senate during the spring semester of 2006 with implementation for the 2007-08 catalog.
Specific to the CENE was the need to revise our curricula in response to the change in the



                                               101
9/3/2012            Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


Distribution Blocks. The Lab Science and Science-Applied Science blocks will be
combined into one block called “Science,” and that two courses be required from each of
the remaining blocks. The total hours in the Distribution Block remained at 28 hours, but
the composition of these hours changed. The new rules are as follows:

           7 hours of Science (to include at least one Lab Science)
           6 hours of Social and Political Worlds (SPW)
           6 hours of Aesthetic and Humanistic Inquiry (AHI)
           6 hours of Cultural Understanding (CU)
           3 additional hours (Any Liberal Studies distribution course)

The net impact of this redistribution to the CENE is that it must insert 3 additional hours
of coursework from SPW, AHI, or CU into its CE and ENE curricula, while insuring that
two of the distribution course are double-dipping as diversity courses.

During the fall of 2006, the CENE addressed this University driver and modified both its
programs.

8. Fundamentals of Engineering Examination Results

The CENE does not believe that the FE exam should be used as a primary assessment
tool in CIP for four reasons:

    1. The FE has been designed for the purposes of evaluation, which is different than
       assessment. Assessment tools provide a richer context and information about a
       number of issues beyond what a paper and pencil summative event provides.
    2. The exam focuses only on a narrow range of traditional educational objectives –
       content mastery and problem solving, and does not assess skills and behaviors
       such as true iterative design incorporating multiple and realistic constraints,
       multidisciplinary teaming abilities, verbal and graphical communication skills,
       and life-long learning.
    3. Exam participation by our students is strictly voluntary. Even though the CENE
       provides information to its students about professional practice issues including
       licensure and encourages its students to pursue licensure, it does not require its
       students to take the FE exam. In addition, the CENE does not formally provide
       refresher courses or workshops for FE exam preparation.
    4. It is well documented in the literature that performance on standardized test is not
       a reliable indicator of future performance. And as such, the FE results should not
       be used to draw broad-brush conclusions about the overall ability of graduates to
       perform in professional work situations.

    We do acknowledge, however, that the FE exam has value as a secondary tool in our
    overall continuous improvement process. It is particularly well-suited for informing
    us about our student’s ability to solve well-defined, unambiguous test-book type
    engineering and related problems using mathematical and scientific principles within
    appropriate technical areas. For this reason, we have recently incorporated the FE


                                                   102
9/3/2012         Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


    exam results as a secondary informational tool into our CIP. Tables V.17 and V.18
    summarizes the FE results for our CE and ENE students for April 2005 and 2006. In
    general, the NAU examinees performed as well or better on the % correct basis as the
    national average across the many various categories.

Table V. 17 NAU Civil Engineering FE Test Results

                             April 2005                                                     April 2006
                             NAU        National                                        NAU        National
No. Examinees Taking            12        3045                                            8          3580
No. Examinees Passing            8        2478                                            5          2566
Percent Passing                 67         84                                            62           72
                              NAU %      Nat’l %                                       NAU %        Nat’l %
                              Correct    Correct                                       Correct     Correct
Morning Exam                                            Morning Exam
Chemistry                        53            59       Chemistry                        67          64
Computers                        62            60       Computers                        48          64
Dynamics                         44            51       Eng Mechanics                    76          66
Electrical Circuits              52            39       Elect. & Magnet                  51          45
Eng Economics                    38            57       Eng Economics                    62          70
Ethics                           53            62       Ethics & Business                83          78
Fluid Mechanics                  51            55       Fluid Mechanics                  62          60
Mat Sci/Str Matter               38            52       Material Prop                    42          48
Mathematics                      54            60       Mathematics                      58          64
Mechanics Materials              63            66       Strengths Mat                    78          73
Statics                          56            62       Eng Probability                  64          63
Thermodynamics                   47            44       Thermodynamics                   45          48
Afternoon Exam                                          Afternoon Exam
Construction Mgmt                33            49       Construction Mgmt                69          64
Comp & Num Methods               36            49       Comp & Num Methods
Environ Eng                      40            42       Environ Eng                      57          55
Hydraul/Hyrdolog                 50            49       Hydraul/Hyrdolog                 59          63
Legal & Prof                     64            61       Legal & Prof
Structural Analysis              50            43       Structural Analysis              44          51
Structural Design                19            31       Structural Design                42          42
Soil Mech & Foundations          56            58       Soil Mech & Foundations          61          60
Surveying                        50            46       Surveying                        54          53
Trans Facilities                 46            49       Transportation                   61          64
Water Pur & Treat                47            54       Water Pur & Treat
                                                        Materials                        38          49

Table V. 18 NAU Environmental Engineering FE Results

                                   April 2005                                               April 2006
                               NAU        National                                      NAU        National
No. Examinees Taking             2          178                                           3          180
No. Examinees Passing            1          134                                           2          144
Percent Passing                 50           75                                          67           80
                              NAU %        Nat’l %                                     NAU %        Nat’l %
                              Correct     Correct                                      Correct     Correct
Morning Exam                                            Morning Exam
Chemistry                        64            72       Chemistry                        64          78
Computers                        71            61       Computers                        67          67
Dynamics                         39            49       Eng Mechanics                    69          59



                                                103
9/3/2012         Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


Electrical Circuits              46            39       Elect. & Magnet                52   46
Eng Economics                    10            53       Eng Economics                  67   68
Ethics                           40            64       Ethics & Business              75   79
Fluid Mechanics                  44            56       Fluid Mechanics                71   64
Mat Sci/Str Matter               44            53       Material Prop                  62   46
Mathematics                      50            58       Mathematics                    74   66
Mechanics Materials              19            51       Strengths Mat                  71   54
Statics                          63            47       Eng Probability                75   65
Thermodynamics                   41            50       Thermodynamics                 50   56
Afternoon Exam                                          Afternoon Exam
Air Quality Eng                  39            50       Air Quality Eng                67   65
Env Science & Mgmt               50            50       Env Science & Mgmt             63   72
Water Resources                  67            68       Water Resources                80   64
Solid & Haz Waste                50            55       Solid & Haz Waste              70   63
Water & Wastewater               58            66       Water & Wastewater             56   54




                                                104
9/3/2012         Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal




Chapter VI Curriculum (Criterion 5)
Our current 2007-08 curriculum, which is provided in Chapter I, reflects a number of
changes that have taken place since our last full program review in fall of 2001. These
changes have been motivated by internal assessment processes, actions taken in
preparation for the ABET focus visit, and University-level drivers. Table IV.1 of Chapter
IV Program Outcome summarizes when and why these changes occurred.

The basic level curriculum analysis of the 2007-08 CE program is provided in Table
VI.1, which is followed by an explanatory comments.

Table IV.1 Curriculum Analysis of 2007- 08 CE Program

                                                                 Math &      Engin.        Engin.     Gen.
                                                      Hours     Science*     Topics**      Design**   Ed.
                Freshman Year, 1st Semester
 CENE 150        Intro to Envir. Engineering                3                          3
 CHM 151         General Chemistry I                        4            4
 CHM 151 L       General Chemistry I Laboratory             1            1
 ENG 105         Critical Reading and Writing               4                                            4
 MAT 136         Calculus I                                 4            4
               Freshman Year, 2nd Semester
 PHY 161         Univ. Physics I                            3            3
 PHY 161 L       Univ. Physics I Laboratory                 1            1
 MAT 137         Calculus II                                4            4
 EGR 186         Intro to Engineering Design                3                                     3
 PHI 105 or 331 Intro to Ethics or Envir. Ethics            3                                            3
 CENE 180        Computer Aided Drafting                    2                          1          1
               Sophomore Year, 1st Semester
 CENE 251        Applied Mechanics--Statics                 3                          3
 PHY 262         Univ. Physics II                           3            3
 MAT 238         Calculus III                               4            4
 CENE 225        Engineering Analysis                       3            2             1
 CENE 270        Plane Surveying (& Lab)                    3                          3
               Sophomore Year, 2nd Semester
 CENE 253        Mechanics of Materials                     3                          2          1
 CENE 253 L      Mechanics of Materials Lab                 1                          1
 EGR 286         Engineering Design: The Methods            3                                     3
 MAT 239         Differential Equations                     3            3
 ME 291          Thermodynamics I                           3                          3
 Lib. Studies    AHI or CU or SPW                           3                                            3
                 Junior Year, 1st Semester
 CENE 376        Structural Analysis I                      3                          3
 ME 252          Applied Mechanics--Dynamics                3                          3
 ME 395          Fluid Mechanics                            3                          3
 Science Elect   Geol, Chem II, Physics III, Bio            3            3
 CENE 420        Traffic & Signal System (& Lab)            3                          1          2
 Lib. Studies    AHI or CU or SPW                           3                                            3



                                                105
9/3/2012        Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


                Junior Year, 2nd Semester
 CENE 333       Applied Hydraulics                      3                       2          1
 CENE 333 L     Applied Hydraulics Lab                  1                       1
 CENE 383       Soil Mech & Foundations (& Lab)         4                       3          1
 CENE 386W      Engineering Design: The Methods         3                       1          2
 CENE 433       Hydrology & Flood Control               3                       2          1
 Lib. Studies   AHI or CU or SPW                        3                                           3
                Senior Year, 1st Semester
 CENE 331       Sanitary Engineering                    3                       2          1
 CENE 418       Highway Engineering (& Lab)             3                       1          2
 CENE 438       Reinforced Concrete Design              3                       2          1
 CENE 476       Egr Design Process Lab                  1                                  1
 CENE 450       Geotechnical Eval & Design              3                       2          1
 CENE xxx       CENE Technical Elective                 3                       3
                Senior Year, 2nd Semester
 EE 188         Electrical Engineering I                3                       3
 CENE 486C      Engineering Design: Capstone            3                                  3
 Tech Elec      CENE or (ME, CM, GLG, MAT)              3                       3
 Lib. Studies   AHI or CU or SPW                        3                                           3
 Lib. Studies   AHI or CU or SPW                        3                                           3
                Total                                130            32         52         24       22
                % of Curriculum                   100.0%        24.6%      40.0%      18.5% 16.9%
                *Minimum Math and Basic Science Required by ABET = 32 hours or 25%
                **Minimum Engineering (includes Design) Topics Required by ABET = 48 hours or 37.5%



A. Mathematics and Basic Sciences

Criterion 5 requires one year of a combination of college level mathematics and basic
sciences (some with experimental experience) appropriate to the discipline. The CE
program is in compliance with this requirement as our CE students are required to take
the following science and math courses for a total of 32 hours: one chemistry course with
lab, two calculus-based physics courses with one lab, one science elective of which
physical geology and lab is the recommended selection, three 4-credit calculus courses, a
course in differential equations, and a statistics and probability course taught by the
CENE. The CENE offers this statistics and probability course to all engineering majors
as it is a calculus based course with more rigor than the STA 270 Applied Statistics
course offered by the Mathematics and Statistics department.

B. Engineering Topics

Criterion 5 requires one and one-half years of engineering topics, consisting of
engineering sciences and engineering design appropriate to the student’s field of study.
The CE program is in compliance with this requirement.

Except for the math, science, English, and liberal studies distribution requirements, all
other courses in CE curriculum apply to this engineering topics category for a total of 76
hours. Only six of the 76 hours are electives. Design - in disciplinary, contemporary,


                                               106
9/3/2012           Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


and multi-disciplinary contexts; in team and individual formats; and attentive to the
process of requirements capture, problem definition, conceptual design, analysis,
iteration, final design, and implementation – accounts for 24 of the 76 credits. Thirteen
of the 24 design credits come from our Design4Practice (D4P) program that is proven to
effectively develop our students’ design, hands-on, and professional practice skills and
results in successful, culminating design experiences derived from real-world clients with
real-engineering projects. Additional information on the D4P program is provided in
Section D.

C. General Education

Criterion 5 requires a general education component that complements the technical
content and is consistent with the program and institution objectives. The CE program is
in compliance with this requirement.

The current CE program provides students with 24 hours of general education that is
motivated by the Universities Liberal Studies Program and additional University
requirements regarding diversity, junior level writing, and capstone coursework. The CE
program specifically meets these requirements through ENG 105 Critical Reading and
Writing, 6 hours of Social and Political World (SPW) courses, 6 hours of Aesthetic and
Humanistic Inquiry (AHI) of which 3 hours are required in an approved ethics course, 6
hours of Cultural Understanding (CU), CENE 386W Engineering Design: The Methods
that incorporates significant writing within the discipline, and CENE 486C Engineering
Design: Capstone. The 6 hours of diversity course work are met by courses that are cross
listed as both diversity and either SPW, CU, or AHI.

The CENE values the 18 hours of AHI, CU, and SPW coupled with diversity as it helps
to promote student’s achievement of our fourth CE program outcome22. This outcome
recognizes the need for students to work successfully in teams that are not only multi-
disciplinary, but diverse as well and to understand the impact of engineering solutions on
humanity, cultures, and society. We look to ENG 105 as a course that contributes to our
students’ communication abilities.

The recently revised and approved mission of the Liberal Studies Program is:

     to prepare students to live responsible, productive, and creative lives as citizens of a
     dramatically changing world. To accomplish this mission Northern Arizona
     University provides a Liberal Studies Program that challenges students to gain a
     deeper understanding of the natural environment and the world’s peoples, to explore
     the traditions and legacies that have created the dynamics and tensions that shape the
     world, to examine their potential contributions to society, and thus to better determine
     their own places in that world.


22
  …They will work successfully and communicate effectively, both orally and in writing, with diverse and
multi-disciplinary teams and as individuals in public and private organizations, understanding the impact of
societal and political systems on the engineering design process.


                                                    107
9/3/2012            Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


The principles adopted to guide the development of course learning outcomes in the
University Liberal Studies program include:

    •      To understand natural processes and the fragility of the earth’s environment.
    •      To understand the world’s peoples and their diversity.
    •      To understand the traditions and legacies that have created the dynamics and
           tensions that shape the world.
    •      To understand the potential for and limitations of technology to enhance human
           and other life.
    •      To act upon the individual’s responsibilities and connections to local, national,
           and global communities and environments.
    •      To practice the habits of an examined or self-reflective life to facilitate ethical and
           responsible living.

D. Major Design Experience

Criterion 5 requires a curriculum that builds to a culminating major design experience
that prepares students for engineering practice by incorporating engineering standards
and multiple realistic constraints. The CE program is in compliance with this
requirement.

As noted in Section B, thirteen of the 24 design hours in the CE program come from the
Design4Practice curriculum. As depicted in Figure VI.1, the D4P is a four-year sequence
of classes that were carefully designed through joint industry and university effort, to
provide all of engineering students with hands-on learning and the continuous practice of
a broad set of professional skills in better preparation for careers as engineering
practitioners.

Figure VI.1 NAU’s Integrated Sequence of Design Coursework – Design4Practice




                                    The                     476 & 486
                              Design4Practice
                                  Program             386

                                            286

                                   186

                                                                A Traditional
                                                                 Curriculum




                                                   108
9/3/2012        Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


The program builds these technical, managerial, and professional skills by increasing
project intensity, technical difficulty, and process complexity one step (class) at a time.
EGR 186 and 286 are multi-disciplinary courses followed by the disciplinary CENE
386W, 476, and 486C. Each preceding D4P class serves as a prerequisite to the
proceeding one and fosters the accumulation of skills and knowledge to ensure a
successful major design experience in the senior year. The D4P curriculum emphasizes:

   Problem definition, specifications                 Professionalism and ethics
   High-level design, creativity                      Economic analysis and budgets
   Detail design, analysis, tools, methods            Planning, scheduling, risks, and change
   Prototyping, iterating, and building               Customer and subcontractor interactions
   Documentation and communication skills             Project-driven technical, analytical and
   Teaming and organizational theory                   contextual knowledge

Although the senior capstone course (486C) was introduced in 1987, the Design4Practice
vision was not launched until 1992 with implementation beginning in 1994. This
innovative and practice-oriented program is now a permanent core of the engineering
program’s curriculum. As a testament to the program’s success, the Design4Practice
program won the 1999 Boeing Outstanding Educator Award and the program is the
cornerstone of our Hewlett Foundation engineering talent pipeline grant. In addition, the
CENS has dedicated 3,000 square feet of flexible classroom and project workspace to
Design4Practice as part of our building remodel that was completed in the winter of
2006.

The courses and their impact on students have been evaluated since 1994. The
Design4Practice has been successful in reaching our own and our industrial partners’
objectives - enhancing our students’ ability to contribute and succeed in industry
immediately upon graduation. In addition, we have been actively disseminating and
sharing our work in both the national and international arenas via workshops,
publications, and serving as hosts to numerous visitors.

Of particular importance to this component of Criterion 5 is the major design experience.
It is a year-long experience - CENE 476 and 486C – for the CENE students. CENE 476
Engineering Design Process Lab is a one credit, fall only course and focuses students on
finding a project, assembling a team, and creating a project proposal that includes scope,
requirements, design concept, schedule with deliverables, and budget. CENE 486C is the
follow-on spring course where detail design, analysis, iteration, documentation,
presentation, and sometimes implementation takes place. The CENE program of study is
organized so all of the required technical courses are taken prior to CENE 486C;
providing students with opportunity to apply their skills and knowledge in a true
culminating major design project. The CENE staffs both 476 and 486 with two
professors, each possessing PE licenses, in a co-teaching arrangement to better manage
the variety of team projects that are simultaneously being completed.

The Engineering Programs at NAU traditionally hold their spring DAC meetings the day
before the engineering-wide senior capstone conference and the conference is held on the
Friday before reading week. The conference is a day-long, professional-style conference


                                               109
9/3/2012          Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


where the engineering student teams present their capstone projects. The morning is a
simultaneous session format of formal presentations to audiences consisting of clients,
faculty, other external partners, family, and students. The afternoon is a free-form poster
session to provide the extra time for informal interactions between students and
conference attendees. In conjunction with college restructuring, the longstanding
engineering conference has been expanded to include the many undergraduate research
projects of the science students. The spring 2005 and 2006 CENE capstone projects are
listed in Table VI.2 to provide a sampling the type and variety of a major design
experiences in CENE. Every project incorporates engineering standards and codes, and
every project is constrained by realistic requirements such as client expectations,
accessibility, usability, safety, costs, construction issues, and public involvement.

Table VI.2. Sampling of Recent CENE Capstone Design Projects

Spring 2005 Capstone Design Projects                Spring 2006 Capstone Design Projects

 Window Rock Wastewater Treatment Lagoon               Residential Bridge Project for Don and Marilyn
  Design for the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority         Sluyk
 Camp Verde Town Park Irrigation Plan for the          AISC Steel Bridge Competition for Dr. Joshua
  Town of Camp Verde                                     Hewes
 Fanning Drive Wash Hydraulic Study for the City       Flagstaff Reservoirs Inundation Study for the
  of Flagstaff                                           City of Flagstaff
 McConnell Drive Widening Project for NAU              Snowbowl Pedestrian Crossing for Arizona
  Parking/Shuttle Services                               Snowbowl
 Webber Creek Sediment Transportation Relief           Arboretum Accessibility Design for Flagstaff
  Study for Camp Geronimo                                Arboretum
 San Francisco Street/Pine Knoll Drive                 Portable Water Treatment System for Dr. Paul
  Roundabout Design for Plateau Engineering and          Gremillion
  NAU                                                   Walnut Canyon Site Remediation for Walnut
 NAU Soccer Field Improvements for Plateau              Canyon National Monument
  Engineering and NAU                                   Concrete Canoe Hull Design for Dr. Paul Trotta
 ASCE Concrete Canoe for CENE Department               Concrete Canoe Concrete Mix Design for Dr.
  Chair.                                                 Paul Trotta
                                                        On-Site Wastewater Treatment Master Plan for
                                                         Dr. Paul Trotta




                                                 110
9/3/2012   Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal




Chapter VII Faculty (Criterion 6)




                                          111
9/3/2012   Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal




Chapter VIII Facilities (Criterion 7)




                                          112
9/3/2012   Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal




Chapter IX Support (Criterion 8)




                                          113
9/3/2012        Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal




Chapter X Program Criteria (Criterion 9)
A. Curriculum
1. Math and Science

The Civil Engineering program criteria requires that graduates have a proficiency in
mathematics through differential equations, probability and statistics, calculus-based
physics, and general chemistry. NAU’s CE program complies with this statement as
evidenced primarily through a required coursework element and the dependency of later
engineering courses on this material and the skill assessment that occurs in the CENE
courses. Secondary evidence is provided by the performance of a sample of CE students
on the FE exam.

The CE students are required to take 32 hours of math and science courses of which
many are prerequisites to other required CENE courses. This math and science
coursework includes one chemistry course with lab, two calculus-based physics courses
with one lab, one science elective of which physical geology and lab is the recommended
selection, three 4-credit calculus courses, a course in differential equations, and a
statistics and probability course taught by the CENE. The CENE offers this statistics and
probability course to all engineering majors as it is a calculus based course with more
rigor than the STA 270 Applied Statistics course offered by the Mathematics and
Statistics department.

CENE 150 Introduction to Environmental Engineering is the one course in the CE
program of study that is related to chemistry, as chemistry is a co-requisite. The course
includes chemistry in outcome 1. This course outcome is: the student will be able to
draw block diagrams, perform material balance calculations using appropriate units and
unit conversions. The instructor of the spring 2006 offering through the use of a number
of direct assessments, determined an average class performance (n = 23) of outcome 1 at
75%.

CENE 251 Statics provides a good indicator of student’s proficiency with Physics I, as
well as Calculus I. Five of the six class outcomes relate directly to math and physics.
For example, the first outcome is: The students will apply principles of mathematics and
physics to the preparation and solution of problems involving force components in two
dimensions, forces in equilibrium, combining force components to obtain a resultant and
vice-versa, equivalent force systems. The final exam for the spring 2006 offering of
CENE 251 was comprehensive, and provides a window into math and physics
proficiency. Class average (n = 37) was 70%. A more detail look at this class shows
that the student body starts out weak; exam performances averaged less than the
minimum acceptable 70% criteria. In addition, the class started the semester with 51
students and ended with 37, with 14 students withdrawing from the course to repeat it at
another time.



                                               114
9/3/2012           Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


ME 291 Thermodynamics is dependent upon multiple math and science courses
including Chemistry I, Physics II, and Calculus III or Differential Equations. ME 395
Fluid Mechanics is dependent on Differential Equations, as well as Thermodynamics.
Students’ success in both ME classes gives strong indications of their proficiency in math
and science.

Insert information from CENE 420 here and its dependency on Statistics and Probability
after the fall 2006 CID is completed.

Another factor that will prove over time to benefit our students’ math and science skills is
the Supplemental Instruction (SI) program that NAU has recently invested in. The SI
program goes far beyond tutoring through the staffing of trained student instructors to
provide additional teaching and problem solving that complements the regular classroom
environment. Many key freshman and sophomore courses, particularly math, science, and
engineering, are participating in SI. The SI program has been in place since the fall of
2005, and the early data suggests that it is having a positive impact on students’
comprehension and pass rates.

The department also cautiously23 looked to the recent FE results as secondary evidence of
math and science proficiency. The eight CE students that took the April 2006 exam
performed as well or better than national average % correct in the content areas of
chemistry, electricity and magnetism, engineering mechanics, fluid mechanics, and
engineering probability. This sample of students however scored, respectively 3 and 6
percentage points lower than the national average in thermodynamics and mathematics.
This overall concurrency with national data confirms our conclusion regarding students’
compliance.

2. Proficiency in Four Civil Engineering Areas

The CE program specializes, providing both depth and breadth, in the areas of
geotechnical engineering, water resources, structures, and transportation. It also provides
an additional breadth in environmental engineering. As the direct result of our first EC
2000 program review in the fall of 2001, the CE program was strongly encouraged to
incorporate two junior and/or senior level courses in each of the four areas as a way to
demonstrate proficiency. The CENE complied and incorporated the changes to its 2002-
03 program of study that are still in effect today.

The proficiency in geotechnical engineering is established by the following sequence of
required courses: CENE 251 Statics, CENE 253 & L Mechanics of Materials, CENE 383

23
   Exam participation by CE students is strictly voluntary. Even though the CENE provides information to
its students about professional practice issues including licensure and encourages its students to purse
licensure, it does not require its students to take the FE exam. In addition, the CENE does not formally
provide refresher courses or workshops for FE exam preparation. It is well documented that performance
on standardized tests is not a reliable indicator of future performance. As such, the CENE does not believe
that the FE exam should not be used as the primary evaluation tool in any continuous improvement process.
It can, however, provide additional information that supplements the primary evidence.


                                                   115
9/3/2012            Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


Soils Mechanics and Foundation (with embedded lab), and CENE 450 Geotechnical
Evaluation and Design. The proficiency in water resources is established by the
following sequence of required courses: ME 395 Fluid Mechanics, CENE 333 & L
Applied Hydraulics, CENE 331 Sanitary Engineering, and CENE 433 Hydrology and
Flood Control. The proficiency in structures is established by the following sequence of
required courses: CENE 251 Statics, CENE 253 & L Mechanics of Materials, CENE 376
Structural Analysis I, CENE 438 Reinforced Concrete Design. The proficiency in
transportation is established by the following sequence of required courses: CENE 270
(with embedded lab) Surveying, CENE 225 Statistics and Probability, CENE 420 Traffic
Studies and Signal Systems (with embedded lab), and CENE 418 Highway Engineering
(with embedded lab).

The department also cautiously1 looked to the recent FE results as secondary evidence of
proficiency in the four areas. The eight CE students that took the April 2006 exam
performed as well or better than national average % correct in construction management,
environmental engineering, soil mechanics and foundations, structural design, and
surveying. This group performed slightly lower than the national average in hydraulics
and hydrology, structural analysis, and transportation. This overall concurrency with
national data confirms our conclusion regarding students’ compliance.

3. Laboratory Experiences in More Than One Civil Engineering Area

Each of the four areas in the CE program of study contains at least one meaningful
laboratory experience. For structures, it’s the one-hour lab CENE 253L Mechanics of
Materials. The course learning outcomes include developing students’ abilities to:

          Analyze and test riveted joints.
          Perform hardness, tension, torsion, and impact testing of metals and to arrive at
           associated material properties.
          Perform a rotating beam fatigue test and to theoretically predict fatigue life of
           steels.
          Design a concrete mix, mix the concrete, and perform testing at various time
           intervals in order to acquire pertinent concrete material properties.
          Acquire strain data from electronic strain gauges and to use that data in the
           prediction of associated structural loads and stresses.
          Measure deflections on a laboratory test frame and to predict those same
           deflections through frame analysis.
          Organize data and to write professional engineering laboratory reports.
          Use test equipment, measurement devices, and computerized data collection
           equipment and software.

For geotechnical engineering, it’s the one-hour soils lab that is embedded in the 4-hour
CENE 383 Soil Mechanics and Foundations. The laboratory exercises, each followed by
submitted and evaluated laboratory report, includes: Field Sampling, Specific Gravity
Determination, Dry and Wet Sieve analysis, Atterberg Limits, Soil Classification, Proctor



                                                   116
9/3/2012         Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


Test, Field Unit Weight, Unconfined Compression Test, Direct Shear Test, Consolidation
Test, and Triaxial Test.

For water resources, it’s the one-hour applied hydraulics lab CENE 333L. This
laboratory is …

The transportation engineering area has three significant laboratory experiences. The 1-
hour surveying lab embedded in CENE 270, the 1-credit embedded lab for CENE 418
Highway Engineering, and the 1-credit embedded lab for CENE 420 Traffic Studies and
Signal Systems. Add topics after fall 2006.

In addition to this rich laboratory environment, we have established proficiency through
complying with Outcome (b) of Criterion 3. A number of evidences of students’ skill
were presented via the captured CID data from CENE 253L, 333L, 383, and 420.

3. Civil Engineering Design

By virtue of the year-long capstone design experience in their senior year after
completing all required engineering courses, the CE students easily comply with this
requirement of be able to perform civil engineering design by means of design
experiences integrated throughout their curriculum. The total project scores from the
capstone evaluation process for the spring 2006 design projects ranged from a low of
72% for the Residential Bridge Project to a high of 94% for the Concrete Canoe Hull
Design. The average class project score was 83% for the 32 students.

Beyond the D4P and capstone experience, however the CE students are required to take
junior and/or senior level disciplinary courses with design content. The required courses
are listed in Table X.1. The CENE also offers a number of upper division elective
courses with significant design, such as CENE 436 Steel Design, CENE 499 Masonry
Design, CENE 437 Wood Building Design, etc. These courses are not listed here,
however, as they are electives and there is no assurance of the choice a student may make
from the approved course lists to fulfill his or her 6- hours of technical elective.

Table X.1 Design Content in Required Upper Division Courses in CE Program

Design Content Upper Division Courses            Design Hours        06-07 Instructors

CENE 420 Traffic Studies & Signals               2                   Craig Roberts, PhD, PE, RLS
CENE 333 Applied Hydraulics                      1                   Charles Schlinger, PhD, PE,
CENE 383 Soil Mechanics & Foundations            1                   Clyde Holland, PhD, PE
CENE 433 Hydrology & Flood Control               1                   Rand Decker, PhD
CENE 331 Sanitary Engineering                    1                   Paul Trotta, PhD, PE
CENE 418 Highway Engineering                     2                   Craig Roberts, PhD, PE, RLS
CENE 438 Reinforced Concrete Design              1                   Joshua Hewes, PhD, PE
CENE 450 Geotechnical Evaluation & Design        1                   Charles Schlinger, PhD, PE




                                                117
9/3/2012         Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


4. Professional Practice

CENE 386W, 476 and 486C provide the CE students with a good understanding of many
professional practice issues typical of Civil Engineering. The case study format in CENE
386W exposes students to a real civil and environmental engineering and construction
project from the region. Through multiple guest speakers and their own analysis of the
case study, the students learn about public involvement, environmental impacts,
archaeological assessments, public agency contracting processes, getting work, managing
consulting projects, and professional liscensure. Similarly, in their senior year, the
students practice identifying and using various professional practice skills such as project
scoping, scheduling, document submittals, and project quality control. The DAC
evaluation of the “M” skills for the spring 2006 capstone projects resulted in a class
average of 78%. Supplementing this data is the results of the eight CE students that took
the April 2006 FE exam. This sample performed as well or better than national average
% correct in the content areas of construction management and ethics & business. As
noted earlier in this self-study, the CE students might benefit in a change to how we are
delivering content in engineering economics and the CENE will begin investigating
solutions to this in 2007-08.

B. Faculty

Every full-time faculty member of the CENE, except for Dr. Rand Decker, is a registered
professional engineer. Dr. Decker, however, by virtue of experience is also qualified to
teach design. In addition to the full-time faculty, the many of the CENE’s part-time
faculty are also PE’s.

The following table lists the required courses offered in 2006-07 that had design content
along with the instructor(s).

Table X.2 Faculty Design Qualifications vs. Required Design Courses

Design Content Courses                       Design       06-07 Instructors
                                             Hours
CENE 180 Computer Aided Drafting             1            John Tingerthal, MS, SE
EGR 186 Introduction Engineering Design      3            William Auberle, MS, PE and Rand Decker, PhD
EGR 286 Engineering Design: The Process      3            John Tester, PhD and Debra Larson, PhD, PE
CENE 386W Eng. Design: The Methods           3            Terry Baxter, PhD, PE and Rand Decker PhD
CENE 420 Traffic Studies & Signals           2            Craig Roberts, PhD, PE, RLS
CENE 333 Applied Hydraulics                  1            Charles Schlinger, PhD, PE,
CENE 383 Soil Mechanics & Foundations        1            Clyde Holland, PhD, PE
CENE 433 Hydrology & Flood Control           1            Rand Decker, PhD
CENE 331 Sanitary Engineering                1            Paul Trotta, PhD, PE
CENE 418 Highway Engineering                 2            Craig Roberts, PhD, PE, RLS
CENE 438 Reinforced Concrete Design          1            Joshua Hewes, PhD, PE
CENE 450 Geotechnical Evaluation & Design    1            Charles Schlinger, PhD, PE
CENE 476 Eng. Design Process Lab             1            Paul Trotta, PhD, PE and Paul Gremillion, PhD, PE
CENE 486C Eng. Design Capstone               3            Paul Trotta, PhD, PE and Paul Gremillion, PhD, PE




                                                118
9/3/2012        Draft Report in Preparation for Engineering Accreditation Submittal


Each of the four civil engineering areas has more than one faculty member able to teach
and provide suitable advisement. Table X.3 summarizes the faculty composition during
the 2006-07 AY. We are expecting the contents of this table to change some in 2007-08
as the CENE is conducting a search for an Assistant Professor or Assistant Professor of
Practice in Geotechnical and/or Transportation. We hope to have this new position filled
for the start of the 2007-08 AY.

           Table X.3 Faculty Expertise per Major CE Area

             Civil Engineering Area                       Faculty Expertise

             Structural Engineering                       Eugene Loverich, MS, PE
                                                          Debra Larson, PhD, PE
                                                          Joshua Hewes, PhD, PE
             Water Resources                              Paul Trotta, PhD, PE
                                                          Rand Decker, PhD
                                                          Wilbert Odem, PhD, PE
             Geotechnical Engineering                     Charles Schlinger, PhD, PE
                                                          Clyde Holland, PhD, PE
             Transportation Engineering                   Craig Roberts, PhD, PE
                                                          Clyde Holland, PhD, PE




                                               119

								
To top