Get documents about "Report to Constituents – Summer 2006
Document Sample
Report to Constituents – Summer 2007
Mechanical Engineering Department
Wayne State University
Trilochan Singh, Professor and Interim Chair
July , 2007
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ………………………………………………………………...2
Introduction …………………………………………………………. .…………… 2
September 2006 Faculty/IAC Retreat ……. ………………………………………. 3
December 2006 Faculty/IAC Meeting… ………………………………….. .7
April 2007 Faculty/IAC/SAC Meeting…………… ………………………………8
Fall 2006 and Winter 2007 Exit Interviews ----------------------------------------------8
1
Executive Summary
This report summarizes the activities related to the Mechanical Engineering Department’s
ABET continuous assessment and improvement process for the Academic Year 2006-
2007. The highlights of this year’s activities are as follows:
ABET (Accreditation Commission on Engineering and Technology) evaluators
visited the College of Engineering and Mechanical Engineering Department on
November 18-21, 2006. I am happy to report that the ME Department was
recommended for full re-accreditation. I like to thank the ME Faculty, the ME
students, and members of the Industrial Advisory Committee, who took time off
to meet with the ABET the visitors. Special thanks to Prof. Jerry Ku, who led the
efforts to prepare the self-study report and coordinate the collection and
organization of course material in various binders for inspection by ABET
evaluators.
A BSME Town Hall meeting was held in the Fall 2006 to inform students about
the changes in the department’s policies, curriculum, and class scheduling, as well
as research opportunities for undergraduates, Students were asked to give their
feedback, concerns, and suggestions for improvements etc.
A new procedure for course assessment (by the faculty) was proposed by Prof. Ku
and was approved for implementation starting Fall 2007. The new procedure is
more quantitative in relating the course learning objectives to the overall program
outcomes.
ABET related surveys (course learning objectives and program outcome surveys
for ME 2210, 4300, and 4500) were not done for the AY 2006-2007, as the new
assessment cycle called for surveys to be done once every two years in stead of
every year.
Introduction
In accordance with our department’s recently revised twelve month assessment cycle, the
Annual Report to Constituents is written by the department chair during the summer in
order to summarize activities related to the department’s continuous assessment and
improvement process for the previous academic year. Such a process is required for
accreditation of our BSME program by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and
Technology (ABET)
This report is organized in such a way as to lead the reader naturally through the major
ABET-related events of the past year. In the following sections, detailed summaries of
the major events in the assessment cycle will be given.
2
September 2006 Faculty/IAC Retreat
Date and time: Sept 29, 2006 9am-4pm
Location: Troy Marriot Hotel at 15 Mile/Stevenson Highway
A. Dr. Singh. Introduction (see power point slides provided)
Dr. Singh reviewed the enrollment data, number of degrees awarded (Ph.D., M.S. and
B.S. in ME) and research expenditure data for the last 4 years. The graduate enrollment
for the Fall Semester 2006, in particular the Master Degree Program, has declined by
almost 50% as compared to the Master Degree enrollment for Fall Semester 2002.
The main factor contributing to the drop is the decline in the number of international
students. This is a result of improved economies for countries like India and China;
outsourcing of engineering jobs from USA including Detroit area to those counties;
challenging economic situation in Michigan; and restrictions on student visas for
countries like Pakistan etc.
The total number undergraduate engineering degrees awarded by the College of
Engineering during the last two years at WSU is 129. The data for other neighboring
schools in Michigan and Detroit Metro are as follows:
UM Ann Arbor 1127, MTU 627, MSU 614, UM Dearborn 189, LTU 151, Oakland
124 and UD Mercy 34.
The research expenditures for the Automotive Research Center had a significant jump
due to establishment of the Low Temperature Army Research Center during 2004-2005
(Starting Funds $1.20 M) with Professor Naeim Henein as PI and Prof. Nabil Chalhoub,
and Dinu Taraza, Ming-Chia Lai as co-PI’s. The research expenditures for the rest of the
faculty are going down.
Based on an on-line survey of ME Alumni (226 ME alumni responded), the top
employers for ME graduates are as follows:
Ford 41, GM 29, Daimler Chrysler 11, US Army 11. The rest are employed by a
variety of other companies.
Dr. Ku: on ABET information:
1) BSME Program review:
Program objectives: data are from alumni survey. The response rate was 11%
3
The survey online is there and anyone can do it. We may not send request
every year.
Program outcomes: The outcome data from our survey support our BSME
program objectives.
BSME awarded by year: The fluctuation of the trend is caused by the
reliability of the data
Curriculum review: We need to reduce the credit hour for some courses. ME
has 5-10 more total credits as compared with other local universities and our
requirement is much more than that ABET requires.
2) ABET visit schedule:
Better to set a room for the visit. We can suggest a schedule to the evaluators:
Dr. Singh will take care of the schedule.
Course Binder. Dean Grimm wants all the binders be in Hall of Fame in
advance. We need to make sure there are enough rooms and bookshelves.
The binder currently used only have one-page summary. Those instructors
who like to use web materials and presentations may make individual binders,
depending on what you want to show. The course package is more
comprehensive than a power point file.
Uniformity of the course pack (asked by Dr. Tan): up to instructors’ choice.
Lab posters: Currently it is under TAs’ hands to do it. Dr. Ku prefers the
instructor to do the contents and let TA or others to produce Posters. Dr. Lai
will generate the template for the poster.
Dr. Rivin: there are lots of good posters, some related to hardware. Will be
discussed further whether we use them.
C. Associate Provost Howard Shapiro and Dina Mein, Office of Teaching and
Learning
The objectives for their presentation are as follows:
How to engage students more in their learning
Explore options/opportunities for ME faculty involvement in on-going
conversations about teaching and learning
They would like to know ME better
What does active/engaged learning mean to you? The question was posed to the entire
audience:
The Interactive Learning :
Looks like Sounds like
Passion Asking questions
Two-ways One-on-one interaction
Curiosity Common language
Listening
Share knowledge
Responsibility
Teach each other
Awake
4
We don’t know what level students are and we need to know and bring them together.
There are many studies on how human brain works. After 20-30 min the brain will slow.
Need to change the mode. Instructors need to prepare various teaching tools and use them
whenever appropriate.
Create an environment to let students talk. Ask what they talk, when you see students get
noisy.
After about 20 minutes of lecture, give a 2 minute break and ask students to:
Reflect – write down a few brief thoughts individually
Pair – turn to a partner
Share – share your thoughts with your partner
Discussion.
Research says:
Students must do more than just listen: read, write, discuss, be engaged in
problem-solving
Students must engage in higher order thinking tasks: analysis, synthesis,
evaluation
Use of active learning techniques has a powerful impact on students
How can active learning be incorporated in the classroom?
Pause three times for two min during a lecture for students to consolidate notes or
discuss a question
Insert brief demonstrations
Paired problem solving – very effective in engineering
Brief “formative” quizzes
Discussion, case studies
Teacher is decision maker. Need to know what are you doing and why.
(Dr. Ibrahim): what we can do if students do nothing after class?
A: - If more engaged they will be improved
-Take the time we control to be more effective
(Dr. Gibson): The study is based on full-time or part-time students?
A: (??)
What are the barriers?
Tradition
Faculty self-perception and self-definition of roles
Discomfort with change
Limited incentives
Need to develop skill/comfort level with techniques
What were the major themes?
Review your “notes”
Compare with your partner
Fill in any gaps
Discussion:
5
Dr. Gibson: Can we do better if students are given power point lecture notes?
A: We need to give students time to thinking for learning, and writing notes helps
Next step to do:
Proposed to form engineering faculty learning group
Meet twice for two hrs during Oct/Nov (make this initial commitment)
Half-day retreat at the beginning of winter semester
On-going groups during Winter semester.
Why?
Engineering (and ME in particular) is a leader in assessment and curriculum
development
We can all be better at teaching if we know more about student learning
We should be a model
D. Dr. Ku, ABET visit preparation
Improvements needed:
Self-study report: The surveys for the course learning objectives do not show much
fluctuation from course-to-course. There is weak or no correlation between the survey
results (extent of learning) and GPA. Is it the worth of the effort we put on the survey
compared with the usefulness /meaningful of the survey results?
Professional Engineering test: Some department/majors at other schools require their
students to take PE fundamental exam as a part of graduation requirements.
Need to motivate students to take PE.
We are too much influenced by the survey. The students’ satisfaction for themselves
scored 4-5 point, but there was poor correlation between grade distribution of a
course and satisfaction with the learning objectives.
Is GPA a better measure or survey is a better measure?
Out of 156 CLO’s (Course Learning Objectives), only two CLO’s were not satisfied(
based on student surveys) for the Fall 05 and Winter 06 semesters.
Suggested Improvements:
Modify the roles/applications of survey
Survey should not be the only source/tool for assessment
Better design survey questionnaire
Other possible ideas
Dr. Ibrahim:
The major problem is calculus, not dynamics
Math preparation is weak
E. Dr. Tan: Joint MS program with Tongji University
MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) signed in April.
Need approval of TJU courses (by ME Graduate Committee)
6
Develop an automotive degree program as a niche of the department
What are the unique areas that we can offer?
How can we be competitive?
Discussion:
There are some concerns on Soltech ( a private student recruitment company in
China) involvement in the recruitment of students for this joint program. But we
should move forward to approve the agreement with TJU and discuss/approve the
courses. This also improve our own program on automotive.
Retain quality students:
Some students got message from others that certain professors’ grade are low and
others are high. We need a uniform standard.
John Petty: Lawrence Tech is facing problem of the low standard. Some students
may not be suitable for engineering.
Dr. Sean Wu and Dr. Ku: We can not do much about admission standards, but we
need to convey our concerns. We need to do better advertisement. We need to
recruit good high-school students.
Dr. Berdichevsky: we are not good salesmen and we should speak out on our
program to let students know better.
Tom Khalil: Henry Ford Community College: Pre-engineering program. They are
interested in our engineering program, and like to transfer credits to WSU.
John: I am in public education committee of the College of Engineering, and will
talk these views to Dean Kummler.
Dr. Tan: When I was in CoE Dean’s office I suggested to make a CD to let
students get excited about our program. It goes nowhere.
One aspect to attract students can be the job opportunity from WSU education.
Susan Iwasuik: WSU can not beat UM and MSU in general, but we need to build
up our excitement. We have robust competition that students never forget.
December 2006 Faculty/IAC meeting:
On December 12, 2006, a Faculty/IAC meeting was co-located with the ME 4300
Thermal System Design Presentations. Prof. Ku made the unofficial announcement about
the selection of the College of Engineering, Wayne State University as a member of Pace
program. PACE consortium consists of GM, Unigraphics and a number of other
companies. The PACE consortium would provide software and hardware free of charge
to the COE (College of Engineering). The Engineering faculty would try to incorporate
the use of software in their courses. The formal announcement would be made in
September 2007. The members of IAC and some faculty members attended the final
design presentations for ME 4500.
7
April 2007 Faculty/IAC/ SAC Meeting April 26, 2007:
ME Faculty/IAC/SAC meeting was held on April 26, 2007. Three students (Andrew
Ricketts, Samantha Staley, Mr. Stanley Moy) attended the meeting on behalf of SAC
(Student Advisory Committee). Prof. Singh presented the enrollment numbers for
undergraduates and graduates, number of degrees awarded for the last 5 years. A number
of suggestions and comments were made about the trends. Some doubt was expressed on
the reliability of data for BSME students enrolled, taken from STARS program.
Prof. Rivin made a presentation about the objectives, contents, and philosophy behind
teaching of ME 4500 (ME Capstone Design course). ME 4500 used to involve design
and building of two big projects and the entire class was divided into two groups. Prof.
Rivin felt that a large size team did not provide adequate team experience and design
experience. So he decided to limit the size of team to 4 persons and use small design
projects (to build prototypes demonstrating the different concepts to fulfill the needs of
the industry). Innovation solutions are stressed to meet the objectives/requirements of the
problems. Students go through patent search, develop criterions for the design, consider
at least 3 alternatives, select the optimum one, analyze the system for stress/strain
analysis, and build the working prototype.
This was followed by the final design project presentations for ME 4300.
Results from Winter 2007 Exit Interview Questionnaires:
Based on 16 student responses using the scale 1-5, where 1 = strongly disagree, 5 =
strongly agree, and the average scores are given in parentheses
1.My BSME program has prepared me to learn the new things that will be necessary
to learn for a successful life-long career in engineering (4.00/5.0)
2.ME professors provided effective instruction (4.00/5.0)
3.ME professors were available to answer my questions (4.25/5.0)
4. The ME undergraduate advisor was helpful in answering my questions and
providing guidance (4.33/5.0)
5. I am confident that I am prepared for engineering practice (4.00/5.0)
6. Experience gained working on design projects was a valuable component of my
BSME program (4.25/5.0)
8
7. My written, oral and graphic communications skills are adequate for engineering
practice (4.25/5.0)
8. I am able to work well as a member of a team (4.50/5.0)
9
10
Related docs
