Inventory - Cal Poly Pomona by panxiaoniu85

VIEWS: 7 PAGES: 14

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

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

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

College of Agriculture --      BS Foods and Nutrition,       Commission on Dietetic   >80% First time pass rate on national     2009- 87% (n = 15)               Campus site visit 2003- 10 year accreditation        withdrawal of assigned are for the
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 The major recommendationstimethat: DPD director will be a indicator for lack of University
Human Nutrition and Food       Dietetics Option              Education (CADE)         registered dietitian exam                 2008- 78% (n = 9)                Off campus review/report/letter December        support when program is up for to sustain growth in Program student numbers. 2. The Program
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 1. Program budgets be adequate reaccreditation in 2013, thus this is a major concern. The only
Sciences Department                                                                                                             2007- 89% (n= 9)                 2009                                            material support from the to provide appropriate, adequate space for animals is the annual
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 have a designated facilityUniversity/College for accreditation of this program and the
                                                                                                                                2006- 100% (n= 10)                                                               instructional needs of Program students and staff. 3. Program registered veterinary technician
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 accreditation fee. Funds for the DPD director required meetings come from Department
                                                                                                                                2005- 91% (n=11)                                                                 Foundation Accounts that to funded by grants and gifts.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 (RVT) staffing be increasedare be sufficient for Program teaching needs in light of increasing
                                                                                                                                2004- 82% (n=11)                                                                 Program enrollments.

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

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

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

College of Engineering --      BS Aerospace Engineering Accreditation Board for       Final Exam Scores                         Summary of Comprehensive         2006 received full accreditation                no concerns
Aerospace Engineering                                   Engineering and                                                         Final Exam Scores 2007-2009
Department                                              Technology (ABET)




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

College of Engineering --         BS Chemical Engineering    Accreditation Board for     Fundamental Exam                          Chemical Engineering             2006                                        • Effectiveness of curriculum changes over time should be clearly demonstrated.
Chemical & Materials                                         Engineering and                                                       Fundamentals Evaluation                                                      • Current teaching load may be too heavy to accommodate adequate levels of student advising
Engineering Department                                       Technology (ABET)                                                                                                                                  and counseling, university service, professional development, and interactions with industrial
                                                                                                                                                                                                                and professional practitioners.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                • Ensure students get adequate coverage of traditional and fundamental aspects of chemical
                                                                                                                                                                                                                engineering.
College of Engineering -- Civil   BS Civil Engineering       Accreditation Board for     Freshman Writing Test                     Fundamentals of Engineering 2005 visit from ABET resulted in an NGR (next Insufficient number of full-time faculty for the number of enrolled students.
Engineering Department                                       Engineering and                                                       (FE) examination results    general review). Next review will occur in 2011.
                                                             Technology (ABET)                                                     (which are nationally
                                                                                                                                   normalized).
College of Engineering --         BS Computer Engineering Accreditation Board for        Senior Exit Exam                          ECE Senior Exit Exam Results2006 - accredited for 5 years                    Insufficient number of faculty. Not enough laboratory equipment
Electrical & Computer                                       Engineering and
Engineering Department            BS Electrical Engineering Technology (ABET)            Senior Projects and Course Labs                                                                                     Insufficient number of faculty
                                                                                                                                                                                                             Outdated and non-functional laboratory equipment
College of Engineering --         BS Construction            Accreditation Board for     Summer Internship reports                 http://www.csupomona.edu/~cet/ Full Review, 2005, Interim Report and      College: Professional Development. Program: Improvements based upon Assessment data
Engineering Technology            Engineering Technology     Engineering and                                                       DirectInternshipEvaluation.htm Response 2007. Response to last submission needs to be shown.
Department                                                   Technology (ABET)                                                                                    expected Su2008

                                                                                                                                   http://www.csupomona.edu/~cet/
                                                                                                                                   CETInternshipevaluation2008.ht
                                                                                                                                   m
                                  BS Electronics and                                     Fundamentals of Engineering based         ECET Graph                     Full Review, 2005, Interim Report and                  Program: Assessment methodology approved; data "across the curriculum" needs to be shown.
                                  Computer Engineering                                   course assessment                                                        Response 2007. Response to last submission
                                  Technology                                                                                                                      expected Su2008
                                  BS Engineering                                         Fundamentals of Engineering based         ET Graph                       Full Review, 2005, Interim Report and                  College: Professional Development. Program: Lifelong learning and Continuous Improvement
                                  Technology                                             course assessment                                                        Response 2007. Response to last submission             criteria need to be address, inadequate faculty for program size, Improvements based upon
                                                                                                                                                                  expected Su2008                                        Assessment data needs to be shown methodology approved data “across the curriculum”
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         needs to be shown
College of Engineering --         BS Industrial Engineering Accreditation Board for      Qualitative - Course Outcomes             Course Outcomes Assessment 2006                                                       Publishing of Outcomes on website and catalog, better documentation of teamwork
Industrial & Manufacturing                                  Engineering and              Assessment Surveys using Survey           Results: 2007-2010. http://                                                           development, institutional financial support
Engineering Department                                      Technology (ABET)            Monkey and covering 13 outcomes.          www.surveymonkey.com/
                                                                                         Quantitative - Senior Project             sr.aspx?sm=_2b5sqIvVfDHzdW
                                                                                         Presentation Outcomes Assessment          UQ3wE5Rt6tgcvLexU4SzeaoR2
                                                                                         results from industry reviewers using a   Amc6A_3d
                                  BS Manufacturing                                       10 item rubric covering 7 outcomes.       Summary of Senior Project
                                  Engineering                                            Assessment performed quarterly by         Assessment Results
                                                                                         industry reviewers.
College of Engineering --         BS Mechanical              Accreditation Board for     Graduation and employment rates,          FE Exam Results                  ABET 2005                                            Mature faculty, heavy teaching load and limited research.
Mechanical Engineering            Engineering                Engineering and             passing rates of FE Exam, national
Department                                                   Technology (ABET)           ranking by various organizations.
College of Environmental          Bachelor of Architecture   NAAB                        passing the California Professional       ARE 3.1 Pass Rates by Division July, 2008                                       1. Physical Resources were found to be deficient, with spaces spread out across campus, a lack
Design -- Architecture            (Barch)                                                Exam (ARE).                                                                                                               of permanent studio space for first year students and poor conditions in Buildings 89 and 89 B.
Department                        Master of Architecture                                                                                                                                                           2. Financial Resources were found to be deficient in meeting operating needs and open
                                  (March)                                                                                                                                                                          communication about the budget with the College was found to be lacking.
College of Environmental          BA Art                     National Association of     We have only recently implemented a       No data                                                                         • Three Student Performance Criteria
                                                                                                                                                                    May 13, 2010 receved a 10 year accreditation - 3.SFR must be consistently reviewed were found to be not met: 13.7 Collaborative Skills; 13.
Design -- Art Department                                     Schools of Art and          graduating senior exit survey and will                                     Follow up report required.                     14Accessibility; and 13.23 Building Systems Integration.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   • We need faculty replacement positions of retired faculty
                                                             Design [NASAD]              date on June 1st.                                                                                                         • Advising needs more resources and consistency
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   • curriculum/foundation needs updating, student work needs yearly evaluation
                                  BFA Graphic Design                                     We have only recently implemented a                                        May 13, 2010 received a 10 year accreditation • SFR must be consistently reviewed
                                                                                         graduating senior exit survey this year                                                                                   • We need faculty replacement positions of retired faculty
                                                                                         and have data from winter quarter.                                                                                        • Advising needs more resources and consistency

College of Environmental          BS Landscape               National accrediting        Landscape Architecture. Faculty and       Landscape Architecture Faculty April, 2005 - Full 6 year accreditation                Student enrollment management. Strategies for faculty support in light of increased enrollments.
Design -- Landscape               Architecture               organization: Landscape     Rank                                      and Rank                                                                              Continued upgrade of technical equipment and support.
Architecture Department           Master of Landscape        Architecture                                                                                                                                                Increase graduate studio space to allow for program expansion. Expand computer technology
                                  Architecture (MLA)         Accreditation Board                                                                                                                                         support. Develop funding strategies to ensure the long term support of the graduate program.
                                                             [LAAB]
College of Environmental          BS Urban and Regional      Planning Accreditation      Student Composition                       3 years of data on Student       The PAB site visit team occurred on February         The site visit report found that two criteria were not met and five were partially met. None of
Design -- Dept. of Urban and      Planning                   Board of the American                                                 composition                      8-10, 2010 and a draft and final site visit report   these concerned the quality of the programs, but were a result of a low number of faculty and a
Regional Planning                 Master in Urban and        Planning Association                                                                                   were delivered to the Department and shared          lack of sufficient financing. The two unmet areas were: 1) Student/Faculty Ratios: Both
                                  Regional Planning                                                                                                                 with the Dean and Provost. Re-accreditation          programs are well above the minimum level required. 2) Financial Aid for Graduate Students. The
                                  (MURP)                                                                                                                            based on the report is expected. A 3 yr              Department has explained that we are an evening program with working students, but we are
The Collins College of            BS in Hotel & Restaurant   Accreditation Commission    Number of students graduated (summer 2006-2007: 199                        progress report onAugust 2002 -last annual
                                                                                                                                                                    Last accreditation items in Section 7 is             proceedingthedevelop some funding. The to working with our new permanent dean, no issues
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Other than to committee’s looking forward partially met criteria were: 1) Lack of progress since
Hospitality Management            Management                 for Programs in             through spring)                      2007-2008: 199                        anticipated.05/22/2008; report accepted 08/15/
                                                                                                                                                                    report filed                                         last review on the August 2008ratios. of acceptance program autonomy at the undergraduate
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         were noted in student/faculty letter 2) Lack of full of our annual report.
                                                             Hospitality                                                      2008-2009: 246                        08                                                   level because the Department does not directly control admissions.3) The Department has only
                                                             Administration (ACPHA)                                                                                                                                      one Assistant Professor 4) Advising load is deemed too heavy for faculty 5) More outcomes
College of Letter, Arts, and      Master of Public           National Association of     Culminating projects completed each       2007-2008: 10                    2006 program accredited until 2013                   assessments are needed. Faculty hiring and controlwork areas; admissions are key issues
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         • improved classrooms (seminar style) and student of student
Social Sciences -- Department     Administration (MPA)       Schools of Public Affairs   year                                      2008-2009: 5                                                                          requiring assistance from the University Administration. the region;
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         • develop competitive strategy for attracting students in
of Political Science                                         and Administration                                                    2009-20010: 13                                                                        • ensure adequate numbers of "core" faculty for the program.
                                                             (NASPAA)




    Cal Poly Pomona EER Report                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Appendix VIc - 116
College/ Department           Name of Program        Accreditation Agency for At least One Performance Indicator    3 Years of Data for at least One Date of most Recent Accreditation Action by Summary of Key Issues for Continuing Institutional Attention Identified in Action Letter or
                                                     this Program             accepted by agency, used by program   Indicator                        Agency and Decision Made                    Report

College of Science -- Computer BS Computer Science   Computing Accreditation Graduating Student Survey              http://www.csupomona.edu/~cs/ August 11, 2009, (CAC) of ABET granted a        • Weakness: Not enough full-time faculty to provide continuity and stability.
Science Department                                   Commission (CAC) of the                                        department/assessment/        three-year accreditation to September 30,       • Concern: Insufficient time for faculty scholarly activities and professional development.
                                                     Accreditation Board for                                                                      2011.                                           • Concern: Insufficient financial support to attract and retain high-quality faculty.
                                                     Engineering and                                                                                                                              • Concern: Financial resources might not remain in place throughout the period of accreditation.
                                                     Technology (ABET)




    Cal Poly Pomona EER Report                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Appendix VIc - 117
    Mild/Moderate Teaching
           Credential
Moderate/Severe Teaching
Credential
       Supervisors’ Evaluations of Candidates – Top Item in Each Domain Showing Improvement
Domain                                                         Item                               2007    2008       2009
Educating Diverse Learners with    Uses a variety of instructional strategies and resources        4.22    4.49       4.79
Disabilities                                 to respond to students’ diverse needs.
Planning & Implementing             Engages students in problem-solving, critical thinking,       4.11    4.37       4.83
Curriculum& Instruction           and other activities that make subject matter meaningful.
Managing Learning Environments Manages the learning environment to ensure the safe and            4.22    4.64       4.93
                                     effective use of space, time, instructional techniques,
Assessment of Student Learning               materials, in appropriate technology.
                                   Demonstrates skill equipment, andformal and informal           3.89    3.98       4.72
                                        developmental, academic, social/emotional and
Professional Practice,                              functional assessments.
                                   Demonstrates ethical standards, professional practices,        4.33    4.48         4.9
Communication, & Collaboration       and performs duties within the laws and regulations
                                    related to the provision of services to individuals with
Competencies specific to the Mild/ Demonstrates proficiency in ongoing case management.               4   4.24         4.8
Moderate Credential                              disabilities and their families.
Competencies specific to the          Uses safety precautions to ensure a safe and healthy            5   4.79          5
Moderate/Severe Credential                               environment.



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

Single Subject Credential
Cal-TPA Data

Cal Poly Pomona began planning for implementation of the Cal-TPA in fall of 2005; training and
calibrating of local assessor training began is summer 2006. Winter 2007 began the piloting of the Cal-
TPA. Beginning winter quarter 2008, all candidates completed the Cal-TPA with all four tasks. Beginning
Single Subject - Teaching Performanceis being assessed directly by calibrated assessors using an
fall 2009, assessment of all Cal-TPAs Assessment Data
   Rating          2007-2008
electronic tool, Task Stream.            2008-2009               2009-2010
 scale 1-4
  Passing     Single Subject Only    Single Subject Only    (Fall 09, Winter 10)
 score = 3
                                                             (Combined Single
                                                           Subject and Multiple
                                                             Subject Programs)




    Cal Poly Pomona EER Report                                                                            Appendix VIc - 118
           Pass on 1st Mean Pass on 1st Mean               Mean
            Attempt Score for 1 Attempt Score for 1
                        st                st
                           time              time
                       passers           passers
Task 1      99.91%         3.2   99.90%    3.13          3.23
             (N=51)             (N=138)                  (N=117)
Task 2      99.85%       3.09    99.93%      3.1         3.26 (126)
             (N=97)              (N=88)
Task 3      99.88%       3.16    99.98%    3.08          3.19
             (N=75)              (N=89)                  (N=119)
Task 4      99.99%       3.25   100.00%    3.16          3.23
             (N=70)              (N=84)                  (N=69)

Multiple Subject Credential

Cal-TPA Data

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

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

Administrative Services Credential


Table AS-3: Administrative Services Program
– Exit Survey – Areas of strength
    The Program (% agree with       2007-08    2008-09
            statement)




    Cal Poly Pomona EER Report                                                    Appendix VIc - 119
  Instructors were enthusiastic   80%       82%
   about content and teaching.    (N=104)   (N=121)

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


Source: Biennial Report, p. 52




    Cal Poly Pomona EER Report                        Appendix VIc - 120
Table AS-4: Administrative Services Program
– Exit Survey – Areas for Improvement recent
decrease)
       The Program (% agree)        2007-08      2008-09


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

Instruction appropriately utilized 77%          66%
 written assignments, group work (N=104)        (N=121)
           and quizzes.
   Fieldwork provided me with        72%        66%
    meaningful experiences in        (N=104)    (N=121)
   educational administration
    The assessments utilized         66%        61%
    practical administrative         (N=104)    (N=121)
           situations.
    The Instructors (% agree)         2007-08    2008-09


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


Source: Biennial Report p. 53




    Cal Poly Pomona EER Report                             Appendix VIc - 121
Aerospace Engineering
APPENDIX AERO – 8: Comprehensive Exam Results.


Comprehensive Exam Average Scores by Discipline with RUBRIC Evaluation:

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


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



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


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



                                                                   Fundamental Exam




                 90


                 80


                 70


                 60
        Scores




                                                                                                                                                             Stoichiometry
                 50                                                                                                                                          Fluid Mechanics

                                                                                                                                                             Thermodynamics
                 40
                                                                                                                                                             Heat Transfer

                 30


                 20


                 10


                  0
                           2002     2003          2004          2005             2006            2007            2008             2009
                                                                               Year




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


                70


                60


                50                                                                                                                          Ecomonics
       Scores




                                                                                                                                            Materials
                40
                                                                                                                                            Statics

                                                                                                                                            Electrical/Control
                30


                20


                10


                 0
                       2002     2003    2004         2005        2006
                                                              Year                 2007        2008           2009




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

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



                                  Fundamental Examination Average Score

                 65


                 60

                                                                                                                                            95% upper limit
        Score




                 55
                                                                                                                                            Average Score

                 50                                                                                                                         95% Lower Limit



                 45


                 40
                        2002     2003    2004        2005            2006          2007        2008          2009
                                                                   Year




   Cal Poly Pomona EER Report                                                                                                                                                  Appendix VIc - 122
Civil Engineering
Civil Engineering Freshman Writing Test Results

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

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


Electrical Engineering and Computer Engineering
The graph shows the results of Senior Exit Exam given to students.


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



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

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


Table of Results

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




   Cal Poly Pomona EER Report                                                                                                                    Appendix VIc - 123
Graph of Results


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




Engineering Technology
Results of capstone exam for Engineering Technology (General Program)
Students in the required capstone course
ETT460, Senior Seminar, take a test with
questions Results the national FE
Table of similar to
(Fundamentals of Engineering) exam.
                                                                    National
                                                                    Average
                                                                    Percent
                                         ET General ET General Correct
FE SUBJECT AREA                          Fall 2006    Fall 2007     October
MATHEMATICS                                      52%           64% 2006 70%
STATICS                                          30%           48%          68%
DYNAMICS                                         44%           72%          68%
FLUID MECHANICS                                  47%           59%          64%
THERMODYNAMICS                                   33%           54%          53%
MECHANICS OF MATERIALS                           25%           55%          69%


Graph of Results

     80%

     70%

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

     30%                                                                                      National Average Percent Correct Oct_2006
     20%

     10%

         0%
                         S




                                                                       S
                                                       S




                                                                                    LS
              S




                                      S
                        C




                                                                    IC
                                                   IC
              C




                                     IC




                                                                                IA
                      TI
           TI




                                                                  M
                                                   N
                                 M




                                                                                R
                   TA
         A




                                                  A



                                                                A
                                 A




                                                                            TE
       M




                                              H



                                                              N
                                 N
                  S




                                              C
     E




                                                              Y
                             Y




                                                                            A
    TH




                                           E



                                                           D
                             D




                                                                           M
                                          M




                                                          O
 A




                                                                       F
                                                       M
                                      ID
M




                                                                       O
                                                      R
                                   U



                                                   E




                                                                   S
                                 FL



                                               TH




                                                                  IC
                                                               N
                                                              A
                                                           H
                                                          C
                                                       E
                                                      M




    Cal Poly Pomona EER Report                                                                                                            Appendix VIc - 124
Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering
Assessment of Senior Project Presentations



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

              4


              3
     Data




              2


              1


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




                              Percentage of Professional +
                                   Proficient Scores

                              100%
                               90%
Percent Professional +




                               80%
                               70%
                               60%
      Proficient




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


Mechanical Engineering
EIT/FE Mechanical Engineering Pass Rates

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


                                           100

                                            90

                                            80

                                            70

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

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




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

Mechanical &
Electrical Systems              ME          68%          64%           70%      100%     69%      47%
Materials & Methods             MM          77%          65%           77%      50%      79%      59%
Construction
Documents &
Services                        CD          77%          61%           77%      50%      77%      58%

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

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



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




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

Prof. Emeritus                        2            2             2




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

Gender
Women                             27            33
Men                               73            67




   Cal Poly Pomona EER Report                        Appendic VIc - 127

								
To top