program self-study report bachelor of science in

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

Program Self-Study Report

for

Bachelor of Science in Engineering,

Environmental Engineering

Submitted by

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering College of Engineering and Natural Sciences

Northern Arizona University Flagstaff, Arizona

June 29, 2007

Table of Contents

for Major Sections of Self-Study Report

Chapter I Background and Overview Tab I

Chapter II Students (Criterion 1) Tab II

Chapter III Program Educational Objectives (Criterion 2) Tab III

Chapter IV Program Outcomes and Assessment (Criterion 3) Tab IV

Chapter V Professional Component (Criterion 4) Tab V

Chapter VI Faculty (Criterion 5) Tab VI

Chapter VII Facilities (Criterion 6) Tab VII

Chapter VIII Institutional Support and Financial Resources (Criterion 7) Tab VIII

Chapter IX Program Criteria (Criterion 8) Tab IX

Chapter X Continuous Improvement Process, Assessment, and Evaluation Tab X

Appendix I Additional Program Information Tab XI

Appendix II Institutional Profile Under Separate Cover

A table of contents is provided at the start of each Chapter and the Appendices

Chapter I Background and Overview

Chapter I Table of Contents

A. Degree: Bachelor of Science in Engineering, Environmental Engineering... 1 B. Program Mode and Curriculum Overview 1 C. Actions to Correct Previous Shortcomings 3 D. Report Organization 6 F. Contact Information 7 G. Abbreviations 8

A. Degree Titles: Bachelor of Science in Engineering, Environmental Engineering

The Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering (CENE) offers and requests accreditation for the Bachelor of Science in Engineering, Environmental Engineering degree. The degree program provides a high quality education that prepares our students for environmental engineering careers of technical innovation and leadership. Our students are recognized for their ability to "get things done." The curriculum provides proficiencies in water supply and resources, wastewater management, atmospheric systems and air pollution controls. Like all of NAU's Engineering Programs, the ENE curriculum contains a strong design component centered on the Design4Practice (D4P) sequence of courses and complemented by extensive discipline-specific design work. This design focus is structured to guide students through the design process and to give them many significant and modern experiences in well-managed team-based formats that incorporate life-long learning expectations, professional practice topics, and contemporary issues.

Special note: The reader should be aware that the CENE department 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 ENE Program and its particular components and at other times it will make more sense to talk about the CENE 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 (BSE), Environmental 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).

Chpater I Background and Overview Page I-1

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 referred to as a unit, hour, or credit. 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 2006-07 curriculum for the BSE-ENE is provided in Figure 1.1 to support the reader's comprehension of the following accreditation self-study report. The educational objectives and learning outcomes are fostered primarily through this curriculum, which is referenced frequently throughout this document. The terms program and curriculum are used interchangeably.

Figure I.1 2006 - 07 ENE Program of Study

CENE 150 CHM 151 CHM 151L BIO 181 BIO 181L MAT 136

PHY 262 CENE 281L CHM 152 CENE 225 CENE 251 MAT 238

CENE 270 CENE 253 CENE 330 ME 395

Intro to Environ. Engrg. General Chemistry I General Chemistry I Lab Unity of Life I: Cell Life Unit of Life I Lab Calculus 1

University Physics II Water Quality Lab General Chemistry II Engineering Analysis Applied Mech: Statics Calculus III

Plane Surveying & Lab Mechanics of Materials Air Quality Engineering Fluid Mechanics

Liberal Studies Distribution Course

CENE 410 Unit Ops in Env.Engrg CENE 476 Senior Design Seminar CENE 480 Env.Transport Processes II CENE 434 Water/Wastewater Engrg CENE Technical Elective Liberal Studies Distribution Course

Freshman Year

3 EGR 186 Intro to Engineering Design 3 4 ENG 105 Critical Reading/Writing 4 1 MAT 137 Calculus II 4 3 PHY 161 University Physics I 3 1 PHY 161L University Physics I Lab 1 4 CENE 180 Computer Aided Drafting 2

Sophomore Year

3 CENE 280 Env. Engrg Fundamentals 3 1 CENE282L Air/Site Investigation Lab 1 3 EGR 286 Engrg Design: The Process 3 3 MAT 239 Differential Equations 3 3 ME 291 Thermodynamics I 3 4 CHM 230 Fund Organic Chemistry 3

Junior Year

3 CENE 332 Solid/Haz Waste Mgmt 3 3 CENE 333 Applied Hydraulics 3 3 CENE333L Applied Hydraulics Lab 1 3 CENE 383 Soil Mech & Foundations 4 3 CENE386W Engrg Design: The Methods 3

Senior Year 3 CENE486C Engrg Design: Capstone 3 I Technical Elective 3 3 Liberal Studies Distribution Course 3 3 Liberal Studies Distribution Cour se 3 3 PHI 105 OR Introduction to Ethics 3 PHI 331 Environmental Ethics 3

The 2006-07 ENE program of study consists of a total 126 units of required 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 cuniculum 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 ENE program of study requires 39 hours of basic math and science coursework. Additionally, the program contains 68 hours of engineering topics of which 21 are design. Nineteen hours of general education complete the program of which one course addresses ethics directly and two courses enhance students' diversity of knowledge on global and ethnic issues.

C. Actions to Correct Previous Shortcomings

The following table summarizes the CENE's experiences with the EAC since our first evaluation under the new EC 2000 Criteria in the fall of 2001.

Table I.1 Summary of EAC Activities for the CENE Since Fall 2001

l

2

3

4

5

6

7

Time Frame Fall-Summer 2001

June 2003

Nov 2003

April -August 2004

June 2005

October 26-27 2005

May 19, 2006

Activity Program reviews for NAU Engineering Programs under the new EC 2000 Criteria

CE and ENE Submit Reports titled "Actions Taken to Correct Shortcomings"

ABET site visit of CE and ENE Programs

Communications to ABET about NAU-wide restructuring, collapsing its ten colleges into six. The previously stand-alone College of Engineering and Technology is combined with the science and math departments into a new college, the College of Engineering and Natural Sciences

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 programs

ABET Focus Visit

30-Day response submitted documenting Engineering's return to its renovated and

Program Results IV for CE and ENE due to:

Weakness in Criterion 7 along with Program Issues in Criterion 2, 3, 6, and 8

Draft Statement results: - Observation in Criterion 7 both CE

and ENE - Concern in Criterion 3 both CE and

ENE - Concern in Criterion 6 ENE

Final Statement results: - Reinstatement of Criterion 7

Institutional Weakness for all of NAU's Engineering Programs including CE, ENE, ME, and EE.

- Concern in Criterion 3 both CE and ENE

- Concern in Criterion 6 ENE

Draft Statement results: - Concern in Criterion 7 for all

programs - Concern in Criterion 6 for ENE


8 August 21, 2006

expanded building . as well as the improvements made to the ENE laboratories ABET - EAC Final Statement Final Statement results:

- Concern in Criterion 6 for ENE

Significant to this program review are the NAU, College, Department and Program changes and activities commencing with item 4 in the above table and finishing with 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, 2004. In this 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 exist, 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

Chpaler I Background and Overview Page I-4

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 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 of a "weakness" in Criterion 7. As we had successfully shown, however, the 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 infrastructure renewal program that included the addition of, or renovation to, numerous academic and residential buildings; enhanced parking and on-campus transportation systems; upgraded way-finding; and restored green and outdoor activity spaces.

• Completion of the $15 million Engineering building expansion and renovation with an additional $1.3 million 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 administrative leadership in the CENS along with increases to administrative services.

• New investments in internationalization of the University.

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 environmental engineering profession with graduates who have achieved program learning outcomes and are becoming accomplished professionals. The CENE has a robust and actively managed continuous improvement process that engages faculty, students, and external constituents in our programs directed towards producing graduates who "get things done."

D. Report Organization

This self-study was developed during the 2006-07 academic year (AY), and follows the 2007-08 criteria approved by the ABET Accreditation Council on October 28, 2006. It is organized by criterion using a chapter organizational scheme with one chapter per criteria. A separate chapter, Chapter X, is a detailed presentation of the CENErs Continuous Improvement Process (CIP). The CIP extends across the entire set of 8 Criterion with the various tools yielding data and information applicable to multiple criteria. Each preceding chapter makes extensive use of the CIP chapter via referencing and summarizing. These chapters of this self study report are:


Chapter II Students (Criterion 1)

Chapter III Program Educational Objectives (Criterion 2)

Chapter IV Program Outcomes and Assessment (Criterion 3)

Chapter V Professional Component (Criterion 4)

Chapter VI Faculty (Criterion 5)

Chapter VII Facilities (Criterion 6)

Chapter VIII Institutional Support and Financial Resources (Criterion 7)

Chapter IX Program Criteria (Criterion 8)

Chapter X Continuous Improvement Process, Assessment, and Evaluation

The ABET Self-Study Questionnaire dated 8/7/02 was used to guide the development of this report and Appendices I and II.

A draft of this self-study was submitted in November of 2006 to NAU's University Assessment Committee (see http://www4.nau.edu/assessment/uac/index.htm). This sixteen person committee reviewed and evaluated this report and found the following:


http://www4.nau.edu/assessment/uac/index.htm

• Strong interactions with and contributions from several faculty members as well as internal and external stakeholders.

• Several years of using assessment results to improve curriculum, with future improvements planned.

• Strong link between desired outcomes and assessments. Matrices relating outcomes, course activities, and assessment techniques.

• A variety of assessment measures utilized for each outcome.

• Students appear to be involved in providing input to assessment activities, but it's

unclear whether students see the results and analyses of these assessments.

Subsequent preparations for the body of this self-study, which took place in December and January of 2007, took this feedback into account.

F. Contact Information

Dr. Debra Larson, Chair of the Department of Civil Engineering, was the primary 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, [email protected]

Dr. Terry E. Baxter, Associate Professor of Environmental Engineering, was the secondary author of this self-study, providing specific information and details regarding the environmental engineering program. His contact information is:

Terry Baxter, PhD, PE

Associate Professor of Environmental Engineering







mailto:[email protected]


G. Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used throughout this document:

ABET Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology

ABOR Arizona Board of Regents

AGEC Arizona General Education Curriculum

AH I Aesthetic and Humanistic Inquiry

APR Annual Performance Review

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 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

CENS College of Engineering and Natural Sciences

CET College of Engineering and Technology

CID Course Improvement Document

CIP Continuous Improvement Process

CHM Chemistry

CM Department of Construction Management

CS Department of Computer Science

CU Cultural Understanding

DAC Departmental Advisory Committee

D4P Design4Practice

EE Department of Electrical Engineering

EGR Engineering (General)

EIT Engineer in Training

ENG English


ENE Environmental Engineering

EWB Engineers Without Borders

FE Fundamentals of Engineering Examination

FF&E Fixtures, Furnishings and Equipment

FSC Faculty Status Committee

FTE Full Time Equivalent

FY Fiscal Year

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

MSE Master of Science Engineering

NAU Northern Arizona University

P&T Promotion and Tenure

PHI Philosophy

PHY Physics

SI Supplemental Instruction

SOE Statement of Expectations

SPW Social and Political Worlds



Chapter II Table of Contents

A. Admission and Transfer Course Articulation 1 1. Freshman Admission Requirements 1 2. Transfer Student Admission Requirements 2 3. Arizona Transfer Articulation System 2 4. Transfer of Non-Arizona System Courses 5

B. Advising and Monitoring 6 1. Advising Incoming Freshman and Transfer Students 6 2. Advising First-Year Students 6 3. Advising Transfer and Continuing Students 7 4. Monitoring Progress 8 5. Advising Effectiveness 10

C. Evaluating the Completion of Program Requirements 13

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 the program evaluation functions. Where appropriate, the results related to students from the CENE's continuous improvement processes are included along with a description of any 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 environmental engineering at any time.

1. Freshman Admission Requirements

Arizona residents are offered admission as freshmen 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 50 percent class rank

Chapter II Students (Criterion l) Page II— 1

• 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 1100 and the class percentile ranking is 25%.

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 detailed requirements for each competency requirement are found at http://home.nau.edu/admissions/apply/admissreq.asp.

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

2. Transfer Student Admission Requirements

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

• completed 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 all the required competencies as described above.

Nonresident transfer students who do not possess an associate's degree, the AGEC, or the California 1GETC, 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 maintains an articulation office plus specialists

Chapter II Students (Criterion 1) Page II-2

http://home.nau.edu/admissions/apply/admissreq.asp



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/lndex.htm.

Of particular importance to this self-study is the 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.oru/c^i-bin/WebObiects/Admin CEG, lists the various courses from the community colleges that are equivalent to the respective courses at the three universities. The following table, Table 11.1, serves as an example of the type of information found in the CEG. This information was excerpted from the Pima Community College 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 are automatically assigned the equivalency by the transcript evaluators from NAU's Office of Undergraduate Admissions. 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 11.1 Sample Course Equivalency Information from the CEG for Courses from Pima Community College, Tucson, AZ

PCC Course ENG 1301N (3) Elementary Surveying ENG 230 (3) Mechanics Of Materials

Equivalent Courses ASU*

CON 241

Elective Credit

NAU CENE 270

CENE 253

UA* CE 251

CE 215,ME 324A

*ASU = Arizona State University, UA = University of Arizona

For CENE courses, equivalencies are established by the Department Chair following a 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 in which the agenda included items on:

• Update from the three State University Members on topics such as general education changes, admissions changes, review of the 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.

1Pima Community College is located in Tucson, Arizona.

Chapter II Students (Criterion l) Page II-3

http://www4.nau.edu/aio/Articulation/lndex.htm

http://az.transfer.oru/c%5ei-bin/WebObiects/Admin

• Review and update the course equivalency information 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 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 Environmental Engineering from Dine' College, an Arizona-based community college located on the Navajo Nation. Through the existing articulation agreement, much of this student's previous coursework at Dine' was transferred and used to meet several of the ENE program's course requirements.

Figure II.1 Articulation Example for an Arizona Transfer Student


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 level English, Mathematics, and Science courses coming from accredited non-Arizona universities and community colleges. 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 a course substitution-equivalency form that is hand processed. An example request with evaluation is provided in Table II.2.

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 the form to permit a full review. Ms. Wildermuth passes the form to the appropriate department representatives for their review. Once a course has been approved for equivalency, it is recorded into the student transcripts and the student can proceed as if the equivalent course at NAU was completed. Students can then enroll in NAU courses that have the transferred course as a pre or co-requisite and their degree progress report automatically satisfies that graduation requirement. If a course is approved as a substitution, then the course is recorded in the student's degree progress plan as satisfying that particular graduation requirement, but does not automatically satisfy pre or co-requisite requirements. The substitution is not reflected in the student's transcripts.

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

Course Under Petition

Course: CHEM 101 When taken: Fall 2002 Where taken: Colorado State Un. Course: ENG 311 When taken: Spring 2001 Where taken: Colorado State Un. Course: PHY 120 When taken: Spring 2001 Where taken: Colorado State Un.

Proposed NAU Course

Equivalency/substitute: CHM 151/L Reason:

Equivalency/substitute: Reason: engineering depth elective

Equivalency/substitute: PHY 161 Reason: This course is equivalent to PHY 111 and lab not PHY 161

Approval

Approved by: Chemistry representative Approved by: Mechanical engineering rep Approved by: Not Approve- Physics representative

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 an efficient process. Every non-Arizona transfer course petitioned for evaluation receives a unique review, even if that same course had been evaluated earlier. 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 speed this process up and allow transfer students to more easily enroll in classes.


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 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 freshmen who are students 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 who 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 "nuts and bolts" information related vs. the more general information about university life that freshmen 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 discipline-specific advisors knowledgeable about transfer course issues to help 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 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. The Gateway advisor (as of the Fall 2006 semester) assigned to the Engineering Programs is Ms. Lori Van Haren . 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 the CENS academic advising staff and faculty advisors. These CENS members help with priority enrollment, orientation advisement, and managing the information about curricula.

The IT group at Gateway has recently developed a tracking method called GTAC (Gateway Tracking Advising Contacts) to better understand student needs and students' use of resources. GTAC tracks every student that comes into the Gateway, whether it is to simply pick up a form or to participate in a full advising session.

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 Lopez3, 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 the 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. The faculty advise students on course offerings and selection, degree requirements, minors, internships, scholarships, and career or graduate school topics.

Transfer students from Arizona Community Colleges can access transfer guides provided by each state university that list the equivalent coursework that they can complete at the community college and what requirements that coursework will satisfy at NAU. The screen on the next page, Figure II.2, is from the transfer guide for Pima Community College in Tucson. This information is used by both advisors at NAU and advisors at

2At the time of this report submittal, Ms. Lori Van Haren had left NAU. The Gateway Center has provided temporary coverage for Engineering, while another advisor was being hired.

3At the time of this report submittal, Ms. Heidi Lopez had left NAU. A new academic support advisor for Engineering has been hired and will be starting in July 2007.


http://www4.nau.edu/gateway/

each of the Arizona community colleges to help ensure that students are aware of the requirements at each state university and take courses that will help them progress toward their goals.

Figure II.2. Excerpt from the Pima Community College Transfer Guide

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 services designed to increase and enhance the academic performance of our students. The MEP is one means of addressing the critical issue of under-representation of minorities, women, disabled persons, and first generation students in undergraduate engineering programs and industry workforce. The MEP currently serves as a support and resource center for African-American, Hispanic, Native American, Women, disabled, and first generation engineering, computer science, and construction management students. A list of MEP services is at http://www.cet.nau.edu/Student/mep/scrvices.shtml.

4. Monitoring Progress

The CENE has a proactive approach to advising and monitoring students, while also utilizing the automated NAU-wide processes of: degree progress/audit, prerequisite


http://www.cet.nau.edu/Student/mep/scrvices.shtml

checking, required mid-term grade submittals for 100- and 200-level 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 for engineering students 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 this software-driven policy change, the CENE began to notice problems. Some students were experiencing logistic-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, or failing to get non-Arizona transfer credits properly assigned and recorded to LOUIE. These progress problems became 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 curriculum details and ensuring smoother progress. We will continue this mandatory advising requirement.

LOUIE contains a robust student and adviser 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 and hence the name "degree progress.'" At the time of graduation, it serves as a degree audit. 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 prerequisite requirements is automatically checked. The Department prerequisite policy is that 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. 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 as already discussed, self-advisement became common. 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 whose 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- 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 repeat 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 X, the CENE has a long-established Continuous Improvement Process (CIP) that integrates a number of sequenced data gathering and assessment 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 X.

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 the respective Spring 2005 and 2006 semesters. 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 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 department-specific advising information. The 2004 responding seniors indicated that advising, across the University, was an area deserving attention. A promising result

4 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.


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, and more recently via the CENE website, in electronic form'. Advisors are strongly encouraged to work through the program sheets with their advisees, 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 curriculum issues. The CENE plans to start using its website to assemble and post this same information. 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 welcomes questions from faculty advisors and serves as our on-call expert for 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 advisor 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.

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. Our beliefs are founded on the following data of retention rates in the overall College and within the Department. This data shows that the CENE over the past three years has posted improved retention rates. In fact, the CENE rates are the highest for the eleven CENS departments. The retention and graduation rates for students entering and staying within the College (i.e., CENS) and Department (i.e., CENE) are given in Tables II.3 and 11.5. Tables II.4 and II.6 provide the overall retention and graduation rates for students having entered either CENS or CENE, but switching majors while remaining at NAU.

The website address for downloading the program sheets is http://www.cens.nau.edu Academic/CENE/environmentafEnEProgram.shtml


http://www.cens.nau.edu

Table II.3 First Time Freshmen in CENS - Retained/Graduated Within CENS

Cohort Year 1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Cohort

406

488

503

456 519

590

588

574

491

491

519

521

604

1 Year Retain 50.7%

52.9%

52.7%

49.8%

50.3%

52.7%

47.8%

48.6%

53.2%

51.5%

48.9%

52.6%

2 Year Retain

36.9%

33.8%

32.8%

30.5%

35.1%

33.7%

30.8%

35.5%

41.5%

35.8%

38.5%

3 Year Grad

0.7%

0.0%

1.4%

1.5%

1.5%

0.3% 1.4%

0.9%

0.6%

2.0%

3 Year Retain

28.6%

26.8%

28.6%

26.5%

26.6%

27.8%

27.4%

30.3% 35.4%

30.3%

4 Year Grad 9.4%

10.9% 10.9%

12.5% 12.1%

13.4%

11.9%

13.2%

17.3%

4 Year Retain 18.7%

15.2%

17.1%

14.3%

14.8% 14.4%

14.5%

16.9%

16.9%

5 Year Grad

22.2%

18.4%

22.1%

22.6% 24.1%

22.4%

20.6%

24.6%

Table 11.4 First Time CENS Freshmen Retained/Graduated Within University

Cohort Year

1994

1995

1996 1997 1998

1999

2000 2001

2002

2003 2004

2005

2006

Cohort 406

488

503

456 519

590

588 574

491 491

519

521

604

1 Year Retain

64.0%

62.7%

64.4%

67.3% 67.8% 65.1%

65.6% 65.7%

68.2%

69.9%

66.9%

71.6%

2 Year Retain 51.5%

52.3%

51.7%

56.8% 58.2%

54.2%

54.6% 56.4%

59.9%

59.9%

57.0%

3 Year Grad

1.0%

0.6% 1.4%

2.2% 1.7%

0.7% 1.9% 1.7%

1.4%

2.9%

3 Year Retain 43.1%

45.9%

48.3%

52.2% 52.6% 49.7%

49.8% 51.9%

54.2%

54.6%

4 Year Grad 14.5%

18.2%

19.5%

23.0% 21.2%

20.8% 21.6% 22.8% 24.4%

4 Year Retain

29.8%

28.5%

27.6%

28.7% 30.8%

28.6% 27.2%

27.9%

28.9%

5 Year Grad 33.5%

34.6% 37.4%

43.6% 42.2%

38.3% 37.6% 41.1%


Table 11.5 First Time Freshmen in CENE - Retained/Graduated Within CENE

Cohort Year

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Cohort 53 52 45 14 11 11 14 23 23 20 21 42 52

1 Year Retain 52.8% 61.5% 53.3% 42.9% 63.6% 27.3% 50.0% 21.7% 52.2% 60.0% 71.4% 66.7%

2 Year Retain

24.5% 21.2% 31.1% 42.9% 54.5%

9.1% 14.3% 13.0% 52.2% 55.0% 66.7%

3 Year Grad 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.3% 0.0% 0.0%

3 Year Retain 22.6% 13.5% 26.7% 35.7% 54.5%

9.1% 14.3% 8.7%

43.5% 50.0%

4 Year Grad 3.8% 3.8% 2.2%

21.4% 9.1% 9.1%

14.3% 4.3% 4.3%

4 Year Retain

17.0% 7.7%

22.2% 14.3% 45.5%

0.0% 0.0% 8.7%

34.8%

5 Year Grad 17.0% 3.8%

17.8% 35.7% 45.5%

9.1% 14.3% 13.0%

5 Year Retain

3.8% 11.5% 6.7% 0.0% 9.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

6 Year Grad 18.9% 9.6%

20.0% 35.7% 54.5%

9.1% 14.3%

Table 11.6 First Time CENE Freshmen Retained/Graduated Within University

Cohort Year

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Cohort 53 52 45 14 11 11 14 23 23 20 21 42 52

1 Year Retain 71.7% 76.9% 77.8% 78.6% 81.8% 54.5% 78.6% 43.5% 65.2% 75.0% 81.0% 81.0%

2 Year Retain 52.8% 44.2% 62.2% 85.7% 63.6% 54.5% 71.4% 34.8% 65.2% 75.0% 81.0%

3 Year Grad 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.3% 0.0% 0.0%

3 Year Retain 47.2% 38.5% 57.8% 78.6% 63.6% 45.5% 71.4% 34.8% 52.2% 75.0%

4 Year Grad 13.2% 7.7%

13.3% 50.0%

9.1% 27.3% 35.7%

8.7% 8.7%

4 Year Retain 37.7% 36.5% 42.2% 21.4% 54.5% 18.2% 21.4% 30.4% 39.1%

5 Year Grad 43.4% 25.0% 42.2% 64.3% 54.5% 45.5% 50.0% 26.1%

5 Year Retain

5.7% 17.3% 13.3% 21.4%

9.1% 0.0%

14.3% 8.7%

6 Year Grad 45.3% 34.6% 48.9% 71.4% 63.6% 45.5% 57.1%

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.

The ENE student must complete the 126 hours of course work as required for the 2006-07 program, with an overall grade point average of 2.0 or higher. A maximum of two "D" grades in engineering courses may be applied towards graduation. As noted above, NAU has an 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 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 in Figure II.3.

Figure 11.2 Excerpt from Degree Progress/Audit

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. We have seen fewer migration-related problems in 2006-07, and expect the degree audit function to be running close to error free in subsequent years.



Chapter III Table of Contents

A. University and College Mission Statements 1 B. CENE's Mission 2 C. Program Educational Objectives 3 D. Relating Objectives to Mission 5 E. Assessing Graduates" Achievement of Educational Objectives 6 F. Future Planned Activities 8

In this chapter of the ENE's self-study, three missions are presented. These are for the University, the College, and the Department. We describe how the program's educational objectives were developed with our constituencies and in congruence to the missions. We also describe the evaluation process, the resulting conclusions, and the future activities that are planned. An abstract of this chapter is given immediately below.

The ENE'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. 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 the "contribute to society" component of Objective 4. 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. We will begin the process of revisiting program objectives again in early 2009.

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

Chapter III Program Educational Objectives (Criterion 2) Page III-1

mathematics and science departments from the former College of Arts & Sciences and some of the infrastructure from that previous 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.

Figure III.1 University Mission Statement1

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 been a 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. The mission statement for the College is presented in Figure III.2.

Figure III.2 College Mission Statement2

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 slightly in early 2005 to reflect the work of: (1) the Fall 2004 Department Advisory

1 The University's complete Mission and Goal Statement can be found at http://www4.nau.edu/president/mission2.asp 2 The College's complete Mission Statement is found at http: home.nau.edu/cens/cens MVV.asp


http://www4.nau.edu/president/mission2.asp

http://home.nau.edu/cens/cens

Council3 (DAC) meeting where objectives and outcomes were revised, and (2) the Department's strategic planning retreat in December 2004.

The Department's statement, given in Figure III.3, correlates with 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. The Department's mission statement also includes University and College goals of valuing diversity, providing community and professional leadership through service, and excelling in 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 ENE 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 Continuous Improvement Process4, a review of program outcomes was initiated at the

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.

An overview of the Continuous Improvement Process is found in Chapter X of this self-study.


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 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 programs. 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.cens.nau.edu/Academic/CENE/vision/.

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. Be 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: 9/1304 dsl: 10/1/03 faculty; 10/12/04 DAC & dsl; 10/25/04 dsl; 1/14/05 DAC; 1/26/05 faculty


http://www.cens.nau.edu/Academic/CENE/vision/

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 the "'get things done" perspective was further discussed:

"1 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 it, 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."

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 Congruency of CENE Objectives to CENE Mission

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.

Mission Tenants

Prep

are

for

tech

nica

l ca

reer

s of

in

nova

tion

and

le

ader

ship

`/

`/

Cre

ate,

uti

lize

, di

ssem

inat

e te

chni

cal

know

ledg

e

`/

`/

`/

`/

Enh

ance

the

pr

ofes

sion

, ser

ve

soci

ety

`/

`/

Figure III.5 provides a graphical representation of how each objective relates to the principle tenets 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.

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 an approximate 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 X 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) survey activities. Excerpts are provided here to support the conclusions about our graduates" achievement of objectives.

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

Scale: 5 = very well, 3 = adequate, 1 = not at all

1 (a) Appropriately use mathematical, scientific, and engineering principles.

1(b) Formulate solutions to multi-disciplinary problems.

2(a) Create and implement safe, economical, and sustainable designs.

2(b) Use tools, methods, and technology appropriately.

3(a) Engage in independent learning activities.

3(b) Communicate orally and in writing.

3(c) Work with others on project teams.

3(d) Assume leadership roles when warranted.

4(a) Adhere to ethical and professional standards.

4(b) Consider the broader impacts of engineering solutions.

4(c) Contribute to society beyond the requirements of your employment.

5 Generally speaking, are able to get things done

Alumni

Average

4.39

4.14

3.86

3.83

4.08

4.17

4.51

4.19

4.14

3.86

3.29

Not Rated

Employer Average

3.89

3.67

3.53

3.95

3.85

3.85

4.30

4.12

4.15

3.40

3.50

4.10

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 the education from NAU's Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering prepare you to ... :" The employers represented both public sectors and private consulting that were


mostly Arizona-based. The employer results were within the context of "How well prepared their recent N AU employees were to ... :"

In general, the employer results were lower than the alumni responses. Table III.l 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 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.

• 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 1 (a) the ability to 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.

In a follow-on letter, DAC member Debra Mollet of Stantec Engineering provided additional explanatory comments about NAU recent CENE graduates:

"Too often we (Stantec) see young engineers with the technical skills to address a given problem, but little ability to effectively communicate solutions or work as part of an overall team to complete required tasks. We have found that NAU engineering graduates have not only strong technical skills, but also a solid knowledge of project management issues such as schedule, costs, and budgeting. This knowledge combined with their ability to work effectively in teaming situations (and indeed in most cases lead team activities), accurately define project constraints that go beyond the routine design constraints, and to communicate real-world solutions makes them ideal employees."

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.1"

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 societal contributions. 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 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 engineering profession.

In 2008-09, the CENE will once again engage its DAC to begin reviewing and eventually revising program objectives. The conventional approach in 2004 was to align objectives to outcomes. Today, however, there is a higher premium being placed on objectives that more strongly reflect department mission and our review will include this changed practice. In addition, the Department has begun (in late Spring 2007) to revisit its vision that, if changed, will impact mission and objectives. The review of objectives will also incorporate: the numerical importance results as well as the qualitative comments provided through the surveys, and the 2nd edition to the ASCE's Body of Knowledge work.


Chapter IV Program Outcomes (Criterion 3)

Chapter IV Table of Contents

A. Overview 1 B. Constituency Helps to Revise Program Learning Outcomes 6 C. Program Learning Outcomes Support Educational Objectives 7 D. Relating Outcomes and Establishing Metrics 8

1. Criterion 3 Outcome (a) ~ ENE Program Outcome 1 10 2. Criterion 3 Outcome (b) ~ ENE Program Outcome 3 10 3. Criterion 3 Outcome (c) ~ ENE Program Outcomes 2, 4, 5 10 4. Criterion 3 Outcome (d) ~ ENE Program Outcome 4 11 5. Criterion 3 Outcome (e) ~ ENE Program Outcome 2 11 6. Criterion 3 Outcome (f) ~ ENE Program Outcome 5 11 7. Criterion 3 Outcome (g) ~ ENE Program Outcome 4 11 8. Criterion 3 Outcome (h) ~ ENE Program Outcomes 4, 5 12 9. Criterion 3 Outcome (i) ~ ENE Program Outcome 5 12 10. Criterion 3 Outcome (j) ~ ENE Program Outcome 5 12 11. Criterion 3 Outcome (k) ~ ENE Program Outcomes 3, 5 13

E. Transforming Curriculum into Outcomes 13 F. Process to Assess Outcomes 15 G. Outcome Evidence and Achievement Evaluation 16

1. Outcome (a) 17 2. Outcome (b) 18 3. Outcome (c) 20 4. Outcome (d) 22 5. Outcome (e) 23 6. Outcome (f) 24 7. Outcome (g) 26 8. Outcome (h) 28 9. Outcome (i) 29 10. Outcome (j) 32 11. Outcome (k) 37

A. Overview

In this chapter of the Environmental Engineering Program's Accreditation Self-Study, the following topics are presented:

• establishment of the ENE program outcomes, • relationship of the ENE 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

Chapter IV Program Outcomes (Criterion 3) Page IV-1

• outcome by outcome evaluation summaries.

Table IV. 1 is provided below as an overview. It captures this chapters key elements of metrics, target courses, and the improvements made to curricula or other related strategies as the results of our Continuous Improvement Process (CIP). The improvements noted are those made since our last general program review in the Fall of 2001. Table IV. 1 also captures future work planned for implementation in the 2007-08 or 2008-09 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 ABET Criterion Outcomes (a) thru (k). In summary, our students are shown to:

• Possess exceptional skills going beyond intent for Outcomes (c), (d), and (g). • Meet the intent of Outcomes (a), (b), (e), (f), (h), (i), and (k). • Meet the intent of Outcome (j), with improvements identified to enhance students'

skills in scheduling, cost estimating, economics, and planning.

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

ABE T

Out.

(a)

(b)

Metric Statement Compliance is achieved by students who can ...

solve engineering problems using mathematics and science principles.

design civil engineering or environmental engineering experiments to meet a need: conduct the experiments, and analyze and interpret the resulting data.

Target CENE& EGR Courses* 150,225, 251,253, 280, 330, 332,410, 430, 434, & 480

270L. 225. 281L., 282L 333L. &410

Improvements**

1. MAT 238 increases hours from 3 to 4. 2. CENS forms a college-wide assessment

committee to enhance communications between the disciplines.

3. NAU invests in Supplemental Instruction. SI available for chemistry, physics, pre-calculus. biology. EE 188, CENE 251, 253, and ME 252. (http: home.nau.edu/edsup'lac si sched ule.asp).

4. ENE curriculum revised - new course CENE 150L Introduction to Environmental Engineering Computations Lab

1. Curriculum in CENE 270 and 270L is revised - incorporating data management, modeling, and presentation.

2. Major equipment purchases made for CENE 270L totaling $ 15,250.

3. $20,000 invested in CE laboratory equipment for CENE 253L, 333L, 383.

4. 3-year. $10,000/yr investment in ENE laboratory

5. Laboratory manager position created and staffed.

Effec. AY

1.05-06 2. 05-06

3. 05-06

4. 07-08

1.04-05

2. 05-06

3. 05-06

4. 05-08

5. 06-07


http://home.nau.edu/edsup'

(c)

(d)

(e)

design systems or processes to meet desired needs within realistic constraints.

perform and communicate effectively on diverse teams.

solve well-defined engineering problems in the four technical areas appropriate to civil engineering (e.g. structures, water resources, transportation, geotechnical) or in more than one major area of environmental engineering (e.g. air. water, land, and environmental health)

186,286, 253,330, 332,333, 383,410, 430,434, 480,476, & 486C

•

186,286, 386W, 430, 476, & 486C

150, 186, 251,253, 280, 330, 332, 333, 383,410, 434,480, & 486C

6. Separate the CENE 383 laboratory experience from the lecture to enhance enrollment logistics and better reflect laboratory skills in assessment processes.

7. Accept the new Math course STA 275 as an acceptable substitute for CENE 225.

8. Additional equipment purchased for CENE 270L ($ reserved from class fees plus Dean's office contribution)

1. EGR 286 revised; 5 sequenced skill-building projects.

2. CID process initiated in EGR 286 fall 2004.

3. CENE capstone design evaluation tool developed and implemented.

4. Computers purchased and printer installed in CENE projects room to accommodate design project teamwork.

5. Half-lime D4P director hired to coordinate, refine, and expand the D4P program.

6. A team-teaching approach reinstated in CENE 386W to better manage the evaluation tasks and to provide both CE and ENE disciplinary expertise via the instructional team.

7. Catalog descriptions of the various discipline-specific courses edited to better existing reflect design content.

1. EGR 286 revised; accommodating both small and large team multi-disciplinary formats.

2. CID process initiated in EGR 286 fall 2004.

3. NAU adds 2 required diversity courses in ethnic and global studies.

4. NAU refines liberal studies requirements; requires 1 additional distribution course.

1. CENE revises curriculum to require a minimum of 2 junior or senior level courses in each CE area.

2. Pre-requisites to ME 395 fluids changed from dynamics to thermodynamics: better accommodates ENE program needs.

3. CENE revitalizes its offerings of co-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

6. 07-08

7. 07-08

8. 07-08

1.04-05

2. 04-05

3. 04-05

4. 06-07

5. 07-08

6. 06-07

7. 07-08

1.04-05

2. 04-05

3. 05-06

4. 07-08

1.02-03

2. 06-07

3. 06-07

4. 07-08


(f)

(g)

(h)

recognize and analyze situations involving professional and ethical interests.

organize and deliver effective verbal, written, and graphical communications.

generally describe the impacts of constrained engineering solutions to relevant economic, environmental, social, and global-political systems.

150, 186, 270,383. 386W. & 486C

186, 180, 270L, 286, 281L, 282L. 330, 332. 386W. 383. 410.430. 476, &486C

150,280, 330,332, 386W. 410, 430.& 486C

compare CID performance indicators to FE results.

5. Separate CENE 331 from CENE 434 to provide better coverage of traditional sanitary engineering curriculum in the CE curriculum.

1. CENE 386W revised to increase the attention given to Outcome (0 and to better capture direct assessment data.

2. Overall CID process refined to better capture direct assessment data.

3. CENE increases the faculty advising resources, enhances funding, and dedicates work space to student chapter of ASCE

4. CENE pilots a P/F "ASCE" 1-credit elective course. Abandons pilot after three semesters; logistics difficult to manage.

5. PHI 105 Intro to Ethics or 331 Environmental Ethics becomes a required course in the CE and ENE curriculums.

6. CENE examined the creation of a "milestone" or "graduation requirement" requiring student participation in a student professional organization such as ASCE or EWB.

1. CENE 180 created. 2. CID process initiated in EGR 286 fall

2004. 3. Curriculum in CENE 180 refined. 4. The use of AutoCAD Land Desktop

piloted in CENE 418. 5. Additional instructor added to CENE

386W to form a team approach to providing enhanced coverage and feedback in writing.

1. University drops UC 101 from the liberal studies requirements as it fails to achieve intended outcomes.

2. Increased attention given to and the capturing of direct assessment enhanced in CENE 150, 332,420, and 450.

3. CENE supports the creation of an EWB chapter, MOU signed, projects initiated.

4. NAU refines liberal studies requirements; requires 1 additional distribution course insuring the completion of 2 courses in each SPW, CU, and AHI for all CENE students.

5. 07-08

1.04-05

2. 04-05

3. 04-05

4.04-05

5. 05-06

6. 06-07

1.04-05 2. 04-05

3. 05-06 4. 06-07

5. 06-07

1. 03-04

2. 06-07

3. 06-07

4. 07-08


(i)

G)

(k)

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.

incorporate into the engineering problem solving process well-defined contemporary issues such as regulations and compliance, economics, environmental impacts, political influences, and globalization.

apply relevant techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools of the engineering practice.

270,286, 386W.430, 476,& 486C

150,280, 330, 332, 386W.410, 430, 434, & 486C

180,270, 270L, 225, 281L.282L, 330,333L, 332.410, 430,434,& 486C

1. EGR 286 revised and students required to learn a "C" based programming language with little formal instruction.

2. C1D process initiated in EGR 286 fall 2004.

3. Assessment of life-long learning added to senior exit survey.

4. Target courses assigned this outcome. 5. Further refinements made to senior exit

survey to capture licensure intent and relationship of student professional organization participation to outcome.

1. CENE 386W revised to increase the attention given to Outcome (j) and to better capture direct assessment data.

2. Overall C1D process refined to better capture direct assessment data.

3. CENE capstone evaluation tool developed and implemented informing CENE on achievement.

4. Fall 2006 offering of CENE 476 revised to deliberately focus students' proposal activities towards project management topics.

5. CENE 386W focusing on proposal processes including planning and scheduling.

6. Enhanced cost estimating content delivered in CENE 476-486C

1. CENE 180 created. 2. Curriculum in CENE 180 refined. 3. Curriculum in CENE 270 and 270L is

revised - incorporating data management and modeling.

4. EGR 286 revised and requires all students to learn and use "C" based programming to control robots.

5. Major equipment purchases made for CENE 270L totaling $15,250.

6. $20,000 invested in CE laboratory equipment for CENE 253L, 333L, 383.

7. 3-year, $10,000/yr investment in ENE laboratory

8. Computers purchased and printer installed in CENE projects room to accommodate the project work.

9. Upgraded the computers in room 317 to accommodate specialized modeling & analysis software and students' access to that software.

10. Individual assessment (vs. team based) of programming accomplishments added to EGR 286.

11. Piloted a credit-by-exam process for

1.04-05

2. 04-05

3. 05-06

4. 06-07 5. 06-07

1.04-05

2. 04-05

3. 04-05

4. 06-07

5. 06-07

6. 07-08

1.04-05 2. 05-06 3. 04-05

4. 04-05

5. 05-06

6. 05-06

7. 05-08

8. 06-07

9. 06-07

10.06-07

11.06-07


those occasional student already possessing exceptional skills in drafting and AutoCAD by way of previous professional experiences.

12. Implementation of refined assessments for EGR 286 based on prior CID results, adding to the assessment information base for this outcome.

13. Additional equipment purchased for CENE 270L ($ reserved from class fees and contribution from Dean's Office).

12.07-08

13.07-08

*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, however, is not intended to imply that only those target courses cover the specified outcomes. Most courses of ENE 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. implementation occurring 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.

B. 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 CIP1, a review of outcomes was initiated with the DAC2 in January of 2004. Previous outcome statements of the CE and ENE programs were judged to be overwhelming in length and complexity, and hence difficult to manage and assess. The DAC provided extensive feedback to the CENE, and the 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 8, 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.

The final version of the ENE 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 the 1999-2000 AY that the CENE revised these goals and renamed them as outcomes to reflect the

1An overview of the Continuous Improvement Process is found in Chapter X. 2 The CENE DAC, as described in Chapter X, 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.


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 statements. The Department was not completely successful in managing (creating strategies for and assessing) such a large list. In particular, the faculty found it difficult to synthesize the assessment data and was encouraged by ABET program evaluators and DAC members to shorten the outcome list.

Figure IV.1 Environmental 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, general chemistry, biological science, fluid mechanics, and soils.

2. Define and solve complex environmental engineering problems, and create, evaluate, and document sustainable engineering designs.

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 pubic 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, to update their knowledge and understanding of contemporary professional issues, and adhere to the standards and ethics of professional practice.

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

C. Program Learning Outcomes Support Educational Objectives

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 able to grow, or in other words "outcomes...foster achievement of" educational objectives.


Figure IV.2 ENE Program Outcomes Supporting Department Objectives

Environmental 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, contemporary issues, professional standards, and ethics

Educational Objectives of the Department

Use

mat

hem

atic

al,

scie

ntif

ic,

and

engi

neer

ing

prin

cipl

es t

o fo

rmul

ate

solu

tion

s to

mul

ti-

disc

ipli

nary

pro

blem

s,

•

•

•

Cre

ate

and

impl

emen

t sa

fe, e

cono

mic

al, a

nd

sust

aina

ble

desi

gn u

sing

app

ropr

iate

te

chno

logy

and

met

hods

.

-

•

•

-

-

Are

ind

epen

dent

lea

rner

s w

ho c

omm

unic

ate

effe

ctiv

ely,

wor

k w

ell

on p

roje

ct t

eam

s an

d ca

n as

sum

e a

lead

ersh

ip r

ole.

-

-

•

•

Adh

ere

to e

thic

al s

tand

ards

and

see

k pr

ofes

sion

al l

icen

sure

, co

nsid

er th

e im

plic

atio

ns o

f the

ir a

ctio

ns,

and

cont

ribu

te t

o so

ciet

y be

yond

the

req

uire

men

ts o

f the

ir

empl

oym

ent.

•

•

Our

gra

duat

es a

re r

ecog

nize

d th

roug

hout

in

dust

ry,

gove

rnm

ent

and

acad

emia

for

the

ir

abil

ity

to "

get

thin

gs d

one.

"

•

•

•

•

•

D. Relating Outcomes and Establishing Metrics

Although each institution is encouraged to create its 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 the abbreviated ENE 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 Outcomes 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 a student-generated data set from the senior exit surveys'. The data taken from seniors in the 2004-05 class validated

3The senior exit survey tool is explained in Chapter X.


the grouping of like or compatible (a) thru (k) Outcomes into the shorter list of ENE program outcomes.

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

ENE Program Outcomes 1. Foundation of mathematical and

scientific principles 2. Engineering problems and design



5. Improving skills, contemporary issues, professional standards, and ethics

ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes Abbreviated

a. M

athe

mat

ics

Scie

nce

& E

ngin

eeri

ng

•

-

-

b. E

xper

imen

ts, A

naly

ze, a

nd I

nter

pret

-

•

c. A

bili

ty t

o D

esig

n a

Syst

em

•

•

•

d. M

ulti

-Dis

cipl

inar

y T

eam

s

•

e. S

olve

Eng

inee

ring

Pro

blem

s

-

•

f. Pr

ofes

sion

al &

Eth

ical

Res

pons

ibil

ity

•

g. C

omm

unic

ate

-

-

•

h. I

mpa

ct o

f E

ngin

eeri

ng S

olut

ions

-

•

•

i. L

ifel

ong

Lea

rnin

g

-

-

•

j. K

now

ledg

e of

Con

tem

pora

ry I

ssue

s

-

•

k. M

oder

n E

ngin

eeri

ng T

ools

-

•

•

As shown, every ABET Criterion 3 Outcome is strongly correlated to at least one of the ENE program outcomes. Comments are provided below to explain why or how the various ENE 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 statements4. 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

4 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.


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; that is, 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) ~ ENE Program Outcome 1

Attainment of the ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering requires a technical core or foundation as is directly expressed by the ENE Program Outcome l. There is almost a one-to-one correspondence in language between the two outcomes with the exception that the ENE outcome recognizes the importance of being able to apply biology, fluid mechanics, and soil science as well.

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

2. Criterion 3 Outcome (b) ~ ENE Program Outcome 3

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

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) ~ ENE Program Outcomes 2, 4, 5

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 ENE Program Outcomes, Outcomes 2, 4, and 5. ENE 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, complete and document the details, communicate and implement the solution, and


eventually retire the solution. ENE 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) ~ ENE Program Outcome 4

Attainment of the ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams is strongly correlated to ENE 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) ~ ENE Program Outcome 2

Attainment of the ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems is strongly correlated to ENE outcome 2. As noted above, this program outcome recognizes engineering problem solving as an important subset skill of 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.

Compliance to Outcome (e) is achieved by students who can solve well-defined engineering problems more than one major area of environmental engineering (e.g. air, water, land, and environmental health).

6. Criterion 3 Outcome (f) ~ ENE Program Outcome 5

Attainment of an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility is strongly correlated to ENE Program Outcome 5.

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

7. Criterion 3 Outcome (g) ~ ENE Program Outcome 4

Attainment of the ability to communicate effectively is strongly correlated to ENE 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) ~ ENE Program Outcomes 4, 5

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 ENE Program Outcomes 4 and 5. Outcome 4 addresses "impact" and outcome 5 addresses contemporary issues of the profession, which includes globalization, quality of life, societal diversification; and the technical, environmental, societal, political, and economic implications5. Engineering design, especially for civil and environmental engineering projects, is 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.

9. Criterion 3 Outcome (i) ~ ENE Program Outcome 5

Recognition of the need for and an ability to engage in life-long learning is strongly correlated to ENE 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) ~ ENE Program Outcome 5

Attainment of knowledge of contemporary issues is strongly correlated to ENE 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

5 The ASCE book Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for the 21st 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).


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) ~ ENE Program Outcomes 3, 5

Attainment of the ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice is strongly correlated to ENE Program Outcomes 3 and 5. The ENE 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.

E. 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.

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 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 the student results of this mapping is found in Chapter X, 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 primarily relying on two assessment instruments - the Course Improvement Document (CID) and the Capstone Design Evaluation Tool. As noted in Chapter X, the CIDs have been further focused towards


outcomes with target CENE course being assigned one or more "target" outcomes for assessment purposes. This transformation of courses to outcomes is presented in matrix form in Chapter X and in table form here, Table IV.2. Only those courses "owned" by the CENE and required for completion by every environmental 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 targets. The process of target courses to target outcomes is a way of sizing down the assessment process.

Table IV.2 Target Courses and Target Outcomes

Criterion 3 Outcomes (Abbreviated) a. Mathematics, Science & Engineering

b. Experiments, Analyze, & Interpret

c. Ability to Design a System

d. Multi-Disciplinary Teams

e. Solve Engineering Problems

Target Courses

CENE 150 Introduction to Environmental Engineering, CENE 225 Engineering Analysis. CENE 251 Statics, CENE 253 Mechanics of Materials, CENE 280 Fundamentals of Environmental Engineering, CENE 330 Air Quality Engineering, CENE 332 Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, CENE 410 Unit Operations in Environmental Engineering, CENE 430 Air Pollution Controls Design, CENE 434 Water and Wastewater Engineering, and CENE 480 Environmental Transport Processes CENE 270 Plane Surveying and Lab, CENE 225 Engineering Analysis, CENE 281L Water Quality Lab, CENE 282L Air and Site Investigations Lab, CENE 333L Applied Hydraulics Lab, CENE 410 Unit Operations in Environmental Engineering, CENE 383 Soils Lab (embedded)

EGR 186 Introduction to Engineering Design, EGR 286 Engineering Design - The Process, CENE 253 Mechanics of Materials, CENE 333 Applied Hydraulics, CENE 383 Soil Mechanics and Foundations. CENE 330 Air Quality Engineering, CENE 332 Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, CENE 410 Unit Operations in Environmental Engineering, CENE 430 Air Pollution Controls Design, CENE 480 Environmental Transport Processes, CENE 476 Engineering Design Process Lab, and CENE 486C Engineering Design - Capstone

EGR 186 Introduction to Engineering Design, EGR 286 Engineering Design - The Process, CENE 386W Engineering Design III - the Methods. CENE 430 Air Pollution Controls Design, CENE 476 Engineering Design Process Lab, and CENE 486C Engineering Design - Capstone

CENE 150 Introduction to Environmental Engineering. EGR 186 Introduction to Engineering Design, CENE 251 Statics, CENE 253 Mechanics of Materials, CENE 280 Fundamentals of Environmental Engineering CENE 330 Air Quality Engineering, CENE 332 Solid and Hazardous Waste Management. CENE 333 Applied Hydraulics, CENE 383 Soil Mechanics and Foundations, CENE 410 Unit Operations in Environmental Engineering, CENE 430 Air Pollution Controls Design, CENE 434 Water and Wastewater Engineering, CENE 480 Environmental Transport Processes, and CENE 486C Engineering Design - Capstone


f. Professional & Ethical Responsibility

g. Communicate

h. Impact of Engineering Solutions

i. Lifelong Learning

j . Contemporary Issues

k. Modem Engineering Tools

CENE 150 Intro to Environmental Engineering, EGR 186 Introduction to Engineering Design, CENE 270 Plane Surveying, CENE 383 Soil Mechanics and Foundations, CENE 386W Engineering Design III -The Methods, and CENE 486C Engineering Design - Capstone

CENE 180 Computer Aided Drafting, EGR 186 Introduction to Engineering Design, CENE 270L Plane Surveying Lab, CENE 281L Water Quality Lab, CENE 282L Air and Site Investigations Lab, EGR 286 Engineering Design - The Process, CENE 330 Air Quality Engineering, CENE 332 Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, CENE 383 Soils (embedded lab), CENE 386W Engineering Design III - The Methods, CENE 410 Unit Operations in Environmental Engineering, CENE 430 Air Pollution Controls Design, CENE 476 Engineering Design Process Lab, and CENE 486C Engineering Design - Capstone

CENE 150 Introduction to Environmental Engineering, CENE 280 Fundamentals of Environmental Engineering, CENE 330 Air Quality Engineering, CENE 332 Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, CENE 386W Engineering Design III - The Methods, CENE 410 Unit Operations in Environmental Engineering, CENE 430 Air Pollution Controls Design, and CENE 486C Engineering Design - Capstone

CENE 270 Plane Surveying, EGR 286 Engineering Design - The Process, CENE 386W Engineering Design III - The Methods, CENE 430 Air Pollution Controls Design, CENE 476 Engineering Design Process Lab, and CENE 486C Engineering Design - Capstone

CENE 150 Intro to Environmental Engineering, CENE 280 Fundamentals of Environmental Engineering, CENE 330 Air Quality Engineering, CENE 332 Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, CENE 386W Engineering Design III - The Methods, CENE 410 Unit Operations in Environmental Engineering, CENE 430 Air Pollution Controls Design, CENE 434 Water and Wastewater Engineering, and CENE 486C Engineering Design - Capstone

CENE 180 Computer Aided Drafting, CENE 270 Plane Surveying and Lab, CENE 225 Engineering Analysis,, CENE 281L Water Quality Lab, CENE 282L Air and Site Investigations Lab, CENE 330 Air Quality Engineering, CENE 333L Applied Hydraulics Lab, CENE 410 Unit Operations in Environmental Engineering, CENE 430 Air Pollution Controls Design, CENE 434 Water and Wastewater Engineering, and 486C Engineering Design IV - Capstone

F. Process to Assess Outcomes

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


The individual CIDs focus 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 year6 by the full faculty. As part of this review, the faculty of the CENE derives conclusions regarding students' achievement of outcomes - we call this the "closing the loop" activity and the most recent meeting was on January 10, 2007. The faculty reviewed and discussed the quantitative data and qualitative comments from the Fall 2006 CIDs and compared this information to the capstone evaluation and FE results7. Their overall approach was to develop an initial interpretation of compliance from the outcome assessment scores and to overlay this with discussion and analyses to finalize their conclusions.

The Capstone Design Evaluation Tool provides a direct and quantifiable measure of the full curriculum's influence on student achievement for 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 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, curriculum, advising, or other activities are decided. It is our intent to schedule the follow-up meetings in sync with the University's curriculum processes so that, whenever possible, 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.

G. 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 primarily at the January 2007 faculty workshop and supplemented by an overview analysis from the Chair that incorporated previous CID data from 2005-06, as well as other evidence. As previously explained, outcome compliance is achieved if the average student body score on the direct assessments is 70%. As shown below, our students are meeting all outcomes per this metric. The details, however, provide important distinctions to this global conclusion. In summary, our students are shown to:

• Possess exceptional skills going beyond the intent for Outcomes (c), (d), and (g).

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

7The data and comments used by the faculty during their "closing the loop" workshop are found in Chapter X. Section D.


• Meet the intent of Outcomes (a), (b), (e), (f), (h), (i), and (k).

• Meet the intent of Outcome (j), with improvements identified to enhance students' skills in scheduling, cost estimating, economics, and planning.

1. Outcome (a)

Compliance is achieved by students who can solve engineering problems using principles of mathematics and science. 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 410, 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 evidence of physics and math, and 410 advanced applications of mathematics in environmental systems modeling and process analysis.

The applicable CENE 150 outcome taken from the Fall 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, 7 homework assignments, 6 quizzes, and 3 exams. The average achievement for the class (n = 17) for the related homework, quiz, and exam questions for this outcome was 73%.

Five of the six CENE 251 outcomes from the Spring 2006 C1D 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% criterion. 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 2006 CID for CENE 410 addresses this outcome through its course outcome to "develop mass-balance models of environmental engineering reactors using differential equations." Assessment measures consisted of five deliverables and a portion of the final exam, all devoted to the quantitative application of advanced math and science. The overall average achievement for the class (n = 7) based on these deliverables was 89.3%.


The average CENE 486C 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 with Outcome (a) build with time in our curriculum, and sometimes via multiple attempts within critical courses. This is readily exemplified via the CENE 251 C1D 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 cautiously looked to the recent FE results as secondary evidence of math and science proficiency. The three ENE students that took the April 2006 exam performed as well or better than national average % correct in the content areas of computers, engineering mechanics, engineering economics, electricity and magnetism, fluid mechanics, material properties mathematics, strength of materials, and engineering probability. This small sample of students, however, scored respectively 14, 4, and 6 percentage points lower than the national average in chemistry, ethics and business, and thermodynamics. Overall, this 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 through 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 225, 281L, and 410. CENE 270L provides students with experience in generating survey data having appropriate levels of precision and accuracy, and in analyzing the data through generation of topographic representations of the data. CENE 225 is an engineering statistical and probability course that provides students with the mathematical tools for analyzing and interpreting data. CENE 281L provides students with analytical tools for designing and conducting experiments, and for analyzing and interpreting adapt. CENE 410 is representative of our approach for

8 Exam participation by ENE 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. 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.


incorporating modeling and simulation as an important data analysis tool, and as a higher-level course, presents a summative example of students' Outcome (b) skills.

Two of the four CENE 225 Fall 2006 outcomes were related to Outcome (b); providing students with the ability to design experiments that properly integrate statistics, and the resulting analysis and interpretation of data. The specific in-class activity reinforcing Outcome (b) was the examination of student learning styles as (possible) functions of other variables such as major, gender, etc. Through the use of 5 homework assignments and 2 quizzes, the instructor established students' quantitative compliance to this Outcome as averaging 78%. His additional course and curriculum comments provide suggestions for further enhancements including: establish a better balance between the time spent between experimental design and conduct and that spent on analysis and interpretation, expand the time allotted to the design of experiments topic to allow further student engagement, and communicate to the other faculty the topics that are being covered, especially data analyses and design of experiments.

Two of the course outcomes in CENE 281L are related to Outcome (b), which is achieved through lecture material, homework and reading assignments, laboratory exercises, and a final practicum where students individually demonstrate their ability to design, conduct, analyze, and interpret data that then culminates with a written report. Course outcome 1 relates directly to students' ability to conduct experiments for analyzing water systems through selected homework and laboratory units, and through the final practicum, directly relates to their ability to design and conduct experiments. Overall, the class average for course outcome 1 was 80% (n - 6). Course outcome 2, while only partially relating to Outcome (b), provides an additional measure for demonstrating students' ability to analyze and interpret data, predominantly through the written laboratory reports they are required to submit for several laboratory units. The class average for outcome 2 was 52%, which led to specific improvements being identified for this course.

Course outcome 2 of CENE 410 relates directly to Outcome (b) through two specific assignments requiring students to design an experimental plan and to collect and analyze their data. The overall class average (n - 7) for this outcome was 91%. This level of achievement is particularly significant since this is a senior-level course that best represents what students will have achieved upon graduation.

Although the above courses are not the only courses where Outcome (b) is addressed, they were selected as the representative target courses for this assessment cycle. When the achievement of Outcome (b) is viewed as being the simple aggregate from these courses, achievement approaches 75.3% and the criterion established for having achieved this outcome is met.


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 concludes 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 11 hours 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 provided in Chapter V.

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 C1D examples include information from Design4Practice courses (EGR 186, CENE 476, and CENE 386W), and from two traditional sub-discipline specific courses CENE 410 and CENE 430.

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 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 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 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 is a part.

CENE 386W introduces our ENE students to the real multi-disciplinary work of civil and environmental engineers; 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 410 is a required course generally taken by seniors in their fall semester. Although the Fall 2006 CID for this course does not list a specific course outcome having a relationship to Outcome (c), this outcome was assessed through five separate course deliverables. The overall average (n = 7) level of achievement from these five deliverables was 93.2%. Again, with this being a senior-level course this level of achievement is considered more representative of what our students achieve upon graduation.

In the Fall 2006 CENE 430 course, Outcome (c) is addressed through course outcome 1, which involved some homework, several design practicums, and the final exam. The design practicums and the final examination, in particular, were effective tools for assessing students' ability to design systems or processes to meet desired needs within realistic constraints. The overall course average (n= 4) for this outcome was 83%.

CENE 476 is the fall precursor 1-hour course to the spring 3-hour capstone design experience. It involves forming design teams, selecting a project per team, interacting with project clients, and completing an acceptable project proposal. The instructors utilized a number of evaluation activities to establish students" ability to set-up the design project via their proposals. For those teams managed by one of the two capstone instructors in the Fall 2006 offering, their composite score (n = 12) averaged 94%. The other instructor for CENE 476 did not complete his respective CID.

Evidence of our students' achievement of Outcome (c) is also evaluated from a cumulative perspective via the capstone evaluation tool used by our DAC members 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 overall (CE and ENE) average capstone project score for the Spring 2006 experience on Outcome (c) was 85% (n = 32) with scores on environmental engineering projects


ranging from a low of 79.8% for the On-Site Wastewater project to a high of 87.3% for the Portable Water Treatment System project

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 concludes 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, EGR 286, and CENE 386W).

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%.

EGR 286 is an important class for helping our students' achieve the multi-disciplinary aspects of teaming. Students from across 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. The Spring 2007 CID for EGR 286 assessed Outcome (d) based on results from six different team projects. The overall average (n=58) obtained for student achievement of this outcome was 89%.

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%.

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 X. 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 overall (CE and ENE) average capstone project score for the Spring 2006 experience on Outcome (d) was 89% (n = 32) with scores on environmental engineering projects ranging from a low of 88.4% for the On-Site Wastewater project to a high of 92% for the Walnut Canyon Site Restoration project.


5. Outcome (e)

Compliance to Outcome (e) is achieved by students who can solve well-defined engineering problems in more than one major area of environmental engineering (e.g. air, water, land, and environmental health). The Department has determined that our students are complying with this outcome. The evidence for this conclusion is provided from the assessment results from courses representing different technical areas. The CID evidence is also supplemented by information from the capstone evaluation and FE results.

The CENE 150 course represents the entire breadth of technical areas in environmental engineering. Course outcome 2 includes an assessment of Outcome (e) and for the Fall 2006 offering of CENE 150, the overall average (n=17) of student's achieving this outcome was 85%.

Course outcome 5 for the Fall 2006 CENE 330 course is directly related to Outcome (e) and was assessed using a targeted quiz and final exam problem. On average, this class (n = 4) achieve this outcome to a level of 94%.

In CENE 410, course outcome 1 relates to Outcome (e). In particular, six course deliverables and a specific portion of the final exam were used to directly assess outcome (e). Overall, students in the Fall 2006 offering of this course (n = 7) averaged 93.2% toward achieving this outcome.

Outcome (e) is assessed in CENE 434 through a home work, several quizzes, a project, and the final exam. Students achieved a level of 74% for this outcome in CENE 434 during fall 2006.

The course outcome 2 in the fall 2006 CENE 480 course directly relates to Outcome (e) and was assessed using 2 home works and one exam. The overall average (n= 7) level of achievement of this outcome for students in this course was 71%.

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 this serves as our rationale 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 overall (CE and ENE) average capstone project score for the Spring 2006 experience on Outcome (e) was 85% (n = 32) with scores for environmental engineering projects


ranging from a low of 79.8% for the On-Site Wastewater project to a high of 87.3% for the Portable Water Treatment System project.

The Department also looked to the recent FE results as secondary evidence, intended only to supplement the CID and capstone evaluation results. During the past 2 years (2005 and 2006), 5 ENE students took the FE exam performed essentially at the national average (60% vs. 60.7%) based on the afternoon content areas of air quality engineering, environmental science and management, water resources, solid and hazardous waste, and water and wastewater. This concurrency with the national data seems to confirm 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 FE results and students' classroom performance to gather additional insights into course delivery and content. This process was initiated in the January 2007 "Closing the Loop'" faculty workshop. Dr. Craig Roberts volunteered to find ways the CENE can provide some explicit support to our students during their FE preparations.

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 1 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 its 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 curriculums, enhanced attention to the assessment of this outcome via our CID process, and a number of specific improvements to CENE 386W - one of the primary courses in the CE and ENE curriculum that targets this outcome.

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 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 C1D 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.

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

In addition to the CENE 386W 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 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.

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

Course Educational Outcomes

C2. Define the ethical principles of technical communications and recognize unethical communication.

Spring 2004

Assessment

2 Qs Test 1

4 Qs Test 2

Average

Class Average

8.3/10

24.3/31

79.5%

Spring 2005

Assessment

6 HWs

2 Qs on Test

Average

Class Average

73.6%

88.8%

81.2%

Spring 2006

Assessment

HW #8, #9

Average

Class Average

95.5%

95.5%

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).

The Department also looked at recent FE results for secondary evidence; intended only to supplement the CID and capstone evaluation results. The three ENE students that took the April 2006 exam performed four points lower than the national average in the ethics and business topic area, at 74% correct. Although we are aware that it is difficult to draw firm conclusions form such a small sample size (n=3), it appears that the performance of these students is reasonably comparable to the national norm and at least supportive of 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 noted above for Outcomes (c) and (d), and because of our Design4Practice curriculum, the Department has concluded that 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 270L. These courses were selected as they feature the full range of communication skills addressed in the ENE curriculum including various forms of written communication, verbal, and graphical.

CENE 270 L Plane Surveying Lab provides our students with written and graphical communication skills requiring the reduction of field data into an organized and presentable format capable of communicating the results of a particular field activity. One survey lab deliverable, in particular was used to evaluate Outcome (g). The average level of achievement for this outcome in the Fall 2006 course was 90.1% (n * 45).

CENE 180 Computer Aided Drafting develops students' ability to present graphical information in hand and digital formats (via AutoCAD). The instructor uses a variety of sketching and drawing activities delivered in eleven laboratory sessions to reinforce these concepts, which are followed by a final project. The composite class average (n = 43) for nine deliverables in the Fall of 2006 was 81%.

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 student. Through the spring 2006 offering of CENE 386W, the course focus was on technical writing for engineers within the context of the team-based case study, and it provided 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 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 likely 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 in an attempt to more adequately provide coverage and assistance with technical writing.

The goal for students of CENE 476 - the precursor course to CENE 486C Capstone Design - is to complete and present an acceptable (to their client, course instructor, and other CENE faculty) project proposal that includes problem definition, technical scope of work, team management, project schedule, and cost estimates. The Fall 2006 instructors used a number of activities to evaluate students" ability to organize and deliver their proposal including a team presentation. For those teams managed by one of the two capstone instructors in the Fall 2006 offering, their composite score for the four deliverables (n = 12) averaged 94%. The other instructor for CENE 476 did not complete his respective CID.

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 such as negotiating, articulating, and meeting the client's expectations; quality of presentation at the capstone design conference; and internal team communications. Based on five environmental engineering focused capstone projects, the overall combined average capstone project score for the spring 2005 and 2006 semesters on Outcome (g) was 83%. The high score was 95% for the Walnut Canyon Restoration project while the low score was 63% for the Window Rock Wastewater Treatment Redesign 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 (e.g., in regard to environmental engineering, CENE 150, 330, 386W, 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 measured this skill directly via six questions focusing on the integration of regulatory issues, non-technical project constraints, and the corresponding solution's effectiveness. By way of these multiple inputs, the CENE has determined that our students are complying with this outcome by graduation.

The CENE embraces the University's recently revised position on its liberal studies requirements that has resulted in an additional distribution course being added to the 2007-08 CE and ENE curricula. Both curricula 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.


The ENE students are introduced to environmental impacts through the required CENE 150 course. Class outcome 2 relates directly to ABET Outcome (h). 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 course outcome for CENE 386W relates to Outcome (h). It is that students must describe the process of developing, designing, and implementing a civil or environmental engineering project for a public agency, including environmental analysis. The Spring 2006 instructor incorporated a question in his final exam that directly assessed this course outcome. The class average (n = 28) on this activity was 86.7%.

CENE 330 Air Quality Engineering incorporates the impacts of air pollutants on health and the environment (leading to a greater understanding the influence these impacts have on air quality regulations, air pollution control design, and air quality management activities) through course readings, homework, and quizzes. The direct assessment of this outcome during the fall 2006 semester indicated an average (n = 4) level achievement for this outcome at a level of 83%.

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 overall average environmental engineering capstone project score for the Spring 2006 experience on Outcome (h) was 83.6% (n = 3) with low score of 80.3% for the On-Site Wastewater project and a high score of 86% for the Portable Water Treatment System project.

9. Outcome (i)

Outcome (i) focuses on students' awareness for and their ability to engage in life-long learning. The CE and ENE programs measure student achievement of this outcome against the following metric statement:

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 (i) has challenged the Department in its ability to capture direct evidence. The Department believes its graduating students comply with this outcome, with this conclusion being derived from student self-assessment, inference from student success in the Design4Practice courses, and our students" participation in student professional organizations. Prior to the 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 270 and 430. 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. The Fall 2006 results for CENE 430 and CENE 270, two courses designated to target this outcome, are reported on below.

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 (e.g. 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 to capture information on the awareness of and intent towards professional licensure, and if and how student professional organization participation enhanced life-long learning skills. A summary of the relevant Spring 2006 senior exit survey data follows.

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 following tasks or activities.

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

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

Aver

4.1 4.0 3.9 4.3 4.3

4.0 3.6 3.7 4.1 4.7

Std Dev

.64

.80

.37

.59

.65

.82

.73

.81

.80

.45

Twenty-eight of the twenty-nine students were able to adequately explain what the words "life-long learning" meant. Eighteen (64%) 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 (68%) indicated that they have future plans to be involved in a community or professional organization after graduation. Fifteen (54%) 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 (never true) to 5 (always true)


scale. The average results are presented in Table IV.4. Of the 290 total individual responses, only 9 were scored less than 3, receiving a score of 2.

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 more a function of management and coaching and less about instruction. The learning outcomes for the Spring 2006 version of CENE 486C are listed below. Implied with each outcome is the requirement that students must learn new things on their own in order to successfully complete their project and the course. The student team will:

1. Identify problems or problem component derived from non-academic environment and negotiate with "owner" the scope of work proposed to solve the problem.

2. Systematically analyze problem to disaggregate a problem into component parts and organize a work schedule considering the sequence of tasks to be followed for the project's life.

3. Identify, clarify, and internally negotiate specific technical approaches (technical methods, organization, resources, and personnel) needed to address all critical problem components.

4. Apply selected tools and methodologies to individual component tasks. 5. Synthesize an overall problem solution (analysis or design components) to

address the original problem. 6. 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 environmental engineering capstone project score for the Spring 2006 experience on Outcome (i) was 85.5% (n = 32) with a low of 84.4% for the Walnut Canyon Site Restoration project and the two other projects (Portable Water Treatment System project and On-Site Wastewater project) both receiving scores of 86%.

The CENE has historically supported the student section of ASCE, as well as other student professional organizations like Tau Beta Pi, SWE, SHPE, A1SES, through its faculty's willingness to serve as section advisors. More recently, the CENE refined its approach by focusing its advising energies and funds towards a limited number of organizations, specifically ASCE and Engineers Without Borders (EWB). This approach was formally implemented in the Fall of 2004. The CENE faculty were asked (and this reminder continues today) to encourage student participation and some faculty even award extra class 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, a steel bridge team, and an environmental project team. In 2006-07, the group has grown further to approximately 30 formal members and many other associated members who attend the general-interest meetings. The Department's monetary 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 with the help of a local engineering practitioner, a golf tournament for the eventual purpose of becoming the ASCE's main fund raising activity. Coordination for this tournament will be 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 and we learned of this project's acceptance in December of 2006.

The lecture portion of CENE 270 Surveying was targeted for assessing Outcome (i). The instructor in the Fall 2006 assigned one chapter on total station surveying instruments and angle measurements for the students to read and learn on their own and then assessed their comprehension via a homework assignment. This assignment consisted of a series of problems from the chapter, and the preparation of 3 simple maps of boundary traverses with angular and distance measurements. The class average (n = 45) was 65%. The instructor believed that the assignment difficulties centered on the mapping aspects and is hopeful that the Department's refinement of CENE 180 Computer Aided Drafting will provide students with better a background, and comfort with, the graphical techniques needed to produce accurate, to-scale drawings.

Although an elective design course, CENE 430 Air Pollution Controls Design incorporates the use of design practicum assignments that require students to not only to apply knowledge gained homework completed, but also to extend this by seeking-out on their own the additional knowledge required to complete the design practicum. In the fall 2006 offering of CENE 430, Homework 1 and the Design Practicum 1A and 1B were specifically used for this assessment and represented an individual student's ability to "self-learn" technical skills and design concepts. Considered a component of this course's outcome 4, the achievement of Outcome (i) was accomplished at a level of 94%.

10. Outcome (j)

Outcome (j) focuses on student attainment of the knowledge of contemporary issues. The CENE has followed the ASCE9 interpretation of this outcome as viewed from the context

2 The ASCE book Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for the 21st Century. First Edition. January 2004. offers a commentary to each of the eleven existing ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes.


of the engineering profession. As such, 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. The CE and ENE programs' related metric statement is:


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 2006-07 review process and documented in this self-study show that additional student gains could be made via changes in the specific topics of engineering economics and other professional practice issues like scheduling, cost estimating, scoping, and planning.

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 both the overall civil and environmental engineering curricula.

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. 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 students' 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 environmental 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 a 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 of an embedded direct assessment used to assess students" 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 to the Department's metric for Outcome (j) whereby students need to incorporate contemporary issues into their problem solving process. This essay requires students to identify and integrate contemporary issues into their response.

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

Educational Outcomes

C4. Describe the process for developing, designing, and implementing a civil and environmental engineering project for a public agency, including environmental alternatives.

C5. Use time-value of money formulas to analyze economic alternatives.

Spring 2004 Spring 2005 Spring 2006

Assessment

7 Written Memos

5 Deliverables

1 Case Study Presentation 7 Case Study Q. Test 1 8 Env. Assess. Q., Test 2 2 Project Mgmt. Q., Test 3 2 Questions on PM Average 6 HW

5 Questions on Test 3

Average

Class Average

78/105

271/300

198/200

24.1/29

38.4/49

15.1/20

53.2/60

88.9% 112/170

60.6/80

69.0%

Assessment

HW #5, #9. #10, #11, #12, #14, #18 Test #2 Problem #1 &#2 Final PM Essay Exam

Average HW#7. #13

Test 1

Average

Class Average

79.5%

81.6%

79%

80.0% 59.0%

87.9%

73.5%

Assessment

HW#3,4, 7

D6. D7

Final PM Essay Exam

Average HW #5 & #6

Test problems B &C Average

Class Average

90.4%

96.0%

86.7%

91.0% 76.4%

87.9%

79.8%

The Spring 2006 instructor provided some additional comments about all CENE {i.e., CE and ENE) students" performance in engineering economics:

"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 Spring 2006 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 potential issues with engineering economics. The eight CE students who took the April 2006 exam performed 8 percentage points lower than the national average, as indicated by the % correct, while the three ENE students who took the exam performed 1 percentage point lower than the national average.

In addition to the CENE 386W specific efforts, our students take a number of other courses that address and assess this outcome, including EGR 186 Introduction to Engineering Design, CENE 150 Introduction to Environmental Engineering, CENE 330 Air Quality Engineering, CENE 430 Air Pollution Controls Design, CENE 434 Water and Wastewater Engineering, and CENE 486C Engineering Design - Capstone.

The 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.

The EGR 186 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 taken from a cumulative perspective via the capstone evaluation tool. Eleven of the 21 questions are directed at Outcome (j). 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 overall average for all


capstone project scores from the Spring 2006 experience on Outcome (j) was 77.7% with scores ranging from a low of 63.1% for the Residential Bridge project to a high of 94.6% for the Concrete Canoe Hull Design project. The overall score for just the environmental engineering capstone projects was 74.8%. Of the nine ABET outcomes evaluated by the capstone tool, the CENE capstone students performed most poorly on this outcome. This was also true for the Spring 2005 capstone projects. Our DAC reviewed the Spring 2006 capstone data and also pointed this out. They recommended that the capstone instructors further incorporate project management topics into CENE 476 through the team proposal preparation process. The capstone instructors piloted these related strategies in the Fall 2006 offering of CENE 476, which is reported on directly below. The DAC also noted that the "M" skills accounted for the largest percentage of the overall points on the tool and questioned the rationale for 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 will be implemented for use at the Spring 2007 capstone conference.

The January 2007 CENE faculty "Closing the Loop" workshop agreed with the DAC"s conclusions about the specific project management skills. In addition to the enhanced attention given to scoping, planning, scheduling, and cost estimating in CENE 476, the CENE faculty were encouraged by the already planned refinement to CENE 386W for Spring 2007 of focusing on the process of responding to technical RFPs as another strategy for helping students build their project management skills. In addition, the CENE has increased the faculty resource committed to the Spring 2007 offering CENE 386VV from one to two instructors: a team teaching approach that attempts to properly manage, assess, and cover the many different elements of this class in an integrative fashion.

Even though CENE 476 was not targeted to evaluate Outcome (j) in the Fall 2006 CID process, its CID does provide evidence of students' performance in scoping, planning, managing, scheduling and estimating their capstone design projects. This performance was evaluated at an outline phase, a 50% submittal, a final submittal, and a public presentation. These project management elements were incorporated into the evaluation of Outcome (g) and are summarized here as applicable to Outcome (j) too. For those teams managed by one of the two capstone instructors in the Fall 2006 offering, their average score (n = 12) for their final proposal was 92.5%. Additional comments provided by this instructor indicate that the students produced proposals in sufficient detail and quality to enable a quick start on their spring capstone course. He is also looking forward to working with the Spring 2007 CENE 386W instructors as they modify CENE 386VV, and hopes to take advantage of these revisions in the Fall 2008 offering of CENE 476; expecting students to be even more successful with these project management skills via their proposal development.


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 presented here from the CIDs for CENE 180, 225, CENE 270, 330, and 410 are intended to provide a sampling of the variety of tools and techniques being used by our students.

CENE 180 Computer Aided Drafting is an important beginning-level course that helps students develop their modern tools skill set. The two relevant course outcomes are to develop students" ability to read and understand engineering drawings and to gain an understanding of, and ability to use, AutoCAD. Eight laboratory activities were used to encourage these skills and to evaluate their progress. These activities included finding information from a "real-world" set of engineering drawings, sketching, completing simple constructions and drawing multi-view drawings, working with blocks, drawing a floor plan, recreating a previously drawn detail, and creating a drawing using external references. The Fall 2006 C1D captured an evaluation of students performance with the class average (n = 43) over all the activities being 82%. A suggested change to the curriculum offered by the instructor is to establish a mechanism for ensuring that students possess basic skills in the Windows operating environment prior to CENE 180.

CENE 225 Engineering Analysis, a calculus based statistics and probability course taught to all engineering majors by the CENE department, introduces students to analytical computer tools. The instructor requires his students to use computer statistical tools and spreadsheets to complete the major calculations. The Fall 2006 instructor captured students" compliance with Outcome (k) via 5 homework assignments and 2 quizzes. The composite class average (n = 36) was 87%.

CENE 270 Surveying naturally covers Outcome (k) and includes course learning objectives such as: set-up and use auto-levels, total stations, and data collectors to acquire topographic survey, cross-sectional, slope, distance, and other related survey data; download, process, evaluate and present topographic and other survey data; utilize GIS and aerial topographic data sets; and read, interpret, and apply surveying information related to construction and layout. The instructor evaluated students' compliance in the lecture portion of the class via a homework assignment that integrated surveying and CAD tools and the class average (n = 45) was 51%. The students' performance over the required laboratory elements of completing a topographic survey of Sinclair Wash and working with aerial topographic data averaged 81%. The Fall 2006 instructor provided a number of suggestions for improving the delivery of this course and enhancing learning including course scheduling, prerequisite skill needs, better instruction and communication about lab and lecture expectations, and better coordination between laboratory instructors.


CENE 410 Unit Operations in Environmental Engineering assesses Outcome (k) directly through four course deliverables that require applications of spreadsheet analysis of data and process modeling. The overall average score for achieving Outcome (k) in the Fall 2006 offering of this course was 92.6%.

Evidence that our students achieve 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 evaluation. The average environmental engineering capstone project score for the Spring 2006 experience on Outcome (k) was 80.2% (n = 3) with the low being 75% for both the On-Site Wastewater project to the high of 89% for the Portable Water Treatment System project.



Chapter V Table of Contents

A. Overview 1 B. Mathematics and Basic Sciences 3 C. Engineering Topics 3 D. General Education 3 E. Major Design Experience 4

A. Overview

Our current 2006-07 curriculum 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 Outcomes and Assessment summarizes when and why these changes occurred. This previous table also includes information about upcoming changes that will be implemented for 2007-08 and the related activities planned for the 2008-09 catalog cycle.

The basic level curriculum analysis of the 2006 - 2007 ENE program is provided in Table V.l.

Table V.1 Curriculum Analysis of 2006 - 2007 ENE Program

Hours Freshman Year, 1st Semester

CENE 150 CHM 151 CHM 151 L BIO 181 BIO 181 Lab MAT 136

Intro to Envir. Engineering General Chemistry I General Chemistry I Laboratory Unity of Life 1: Cell Life Unity of Life I Lab Calculus 1

3 4 1 3 1 4

Freshman Year, 2nd Semester EGR186 ENG 105 MAT 137 PHY 161 PHY 161 L CENE 180

Intro to Engineering Design Critical Reading and Writing Calculus II Univ. Physics 1 Univ. Physics 1 Laboratory Computer Aided Drafting

3 4 4 3 1 2

Sophomore Year, 1st Semester PHY 262 CENE 281L CHM 152 CENE 225

University Physics II Water Quality Lab General Chemistry 11 Engineering Analysis

3 1 3 3

Math& Science*

Engin. Topics**

Engin. Design**

Gen. Ed.

4 1 3 1 4

3

4 3 1

1

3

1

4

3

3 2

1

1


CENE251 MAT 238

Applied Mechanics—Statics Calculus 111

3 4

Sophomore Year, 2nd Semester CENE 280 CENE 282L EGR 286 MAT 239 ME 291 CHM 230

Env. Engrg Fundamentals Air/Site Investigation Lab Engineering Design: The Methods Differential Equations Thermodynamics I Fund Organic Chemistry

3 1 3 3 3 3

Junior Year, 1st Semester CENE 270 CENE 253 CENE 330 ME 395 Lib. Studies

Plane Surveying (& Lab) Mechanics of Materials Air Quality Engineering Fluid Mechanics AHI or CU or SPW

3 3 3 3 3

Junior Year, 2nd Semester CENE 332 CENE 333 CENE 333 L CENE 383 CENE 386W

Solid/Haz Waste Mgmt Applied Hydraulics Applied Hydraulics Lab Soil Mech & Foundations (& Lab) Engineering Design: The Methods

3 3 1 4 3

Senior Year, 1st Semester CENE 410 CENE 476 CENE 480 CENE 434 CENE xxx Lib. Studies

Unit Ops in Env.Engrg Egr Design Process Lab Env.Transport Processes 11 Water/Wastewater Engrg CENE Technical Elective AHI or CU or SPW

3 1 3 3 3 3

Senior Year, 2nd Semester CENE486C Tech Elec Lib. Studies Lib. Studies PHI 105 or 331

Engineering Design: Capstone CENE or Tech AHI or CU or SPW AHI or CU or SPW Intro to Ethics or Envr. Ethics Total % of Curriculum

3 3 3 3 3

126 100.0%

4 3

3

3

3 1

3

3

3 2 2 3

1 1

3

2 2 1 3 1

1 1

1 2

2

2 2 3

1 1 1 1

3

39 31%

3

47 37%

3

21 17%

3 3 3 19

15%

•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%


Chapter V Professional Component (Criterion 4) Page V-2

B. Mathematics and Basic Sciences

Criterion 4 requires one year of a combination of college level mathematics and basic sciences (some with experimental experience) appropriate to the discipline. The ENE program is in compliance with this requirement as our ENE students are required to take the following science and math courses for a total of 39 hours: three chemistry courses (one with a lab), two calculus-based physics courses with one lab, one biology class with a lab, three 4-credit calculus courses, a course in differential equations, and a statistics and probability course. The CENE offers a statistics and probability course, CENE 225 Engineering Analysis, which is the recommended course for all engineering majors.

C. Engineering Topics

Criterion 4 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 ENE program is in compliance with this requirement.

Except for the math, science, English, and liberal studies distribution requirements, all other courses in the ENE curriculum apply to this engineering topics category for a total of 68 hours; six of these are electives. Design - in disciplinary, contemporary, 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 21 of the 68 credits. Twelve of the 21 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 E.

D. General Education

Criterion 4 requires a general education component that complements the technical content and is consistent with the program and institution objectives. The ENE program is in compliance with this requirement.

The current ENE program provides students with 19 hours that are motivated by the University's Liberal Studies Program and the additional University requirements regarding diversity, junior level writing, and capstone coursework. The ENE program specifically meets these requirements through 4 hours of ENG 105 Critical Reading and Writing; 15 hours of courses chosen from the categories of Social and Political World (SPW), Aesthetic and Humanistic Inquiry (AH1) of which 3 hours are required in an approved ethics course, and Cultural Understanding (CU); 3 hours of CENE 386W Engineering Design: The Methods that incorporates significant writing within the discipline; and 3 hours of CENE 486C Engineering Design: Capstone. The 6 hours of


required diversity course work are met by courses that are cross listed as both diversity and either SPW, CU, or AHI.

The CENE values the liberal studies distribution courses from AHI, CU, and SPW with the diversity coupling as it helps to promote achievement of our fourth ENE program outcome . 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."

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.

E. Major Design Experience

Criterion 4 requires a curriculum that builds to a culminating major design experience that prepares students for engineering practice by incorporating engineering standards

1 ...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.


and multiple realistic constraints. The ENE program is in compliance with this requirement.

As noted in Section B, twelve of the 21 design hours in the ENE program come from the Design4Practice curriculum. As depicted in Figure V.l, the D4P is a four-year sequence of classes that were carefully designed through a joint industry and university effort, to provide all 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.

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 succeeding 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

Figure V.1 NAU's Integrated Sequence of Design Coursework - Design4Practice

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 January 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 4 is the major design experience. It is a year-long experience for the CENE students and consists of CENE 476 in the Fall and CENE 486C in the Spring. CENE 476 Engineering Design Process Lab is a one credit course that focuses students on finding a project, assembling a team, and creating a project proposal with scope, requirements, design concept, schedule, and budget. CENE 486C is the follow-on course where detail design, analysis, iteration, documentation, presentation, and sometimes implementation takes place. The ENE 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 CENE 476 and CENE 486C 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.

Table V.2. Sampling of Recent CENE Capstone Design Projects Spring 2005 Capstone Design Projects

• 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

• 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.

Spring 2006 Capstone Design Projects

• 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 Master Plan for

Dr. Paul Trotta


The Engineering Programs at NAU traditionally hold their Spring DAC meetings the day before the engineering-wide senior capstone conference and this 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 session is a platform format of concurrent formal presentations being made 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 V.2 to provide a sampling of the type and variety of 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.



Chapter VI Table of Contents

A. Size of the Department 1 B. Faculty Workload 5 C. Faculty Qualifications 8

A. Size of the Department

The Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering (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, as such, this chapter reports on the contributions of this entire CENE faculty to the ENE program.

Over the 2006-07 AY, the Department consisted of twelve full-time, tenured or tenure-track faculty, one 3/4-time faculty emeritus, one 1/2 time lab manager, three part-time instructors, and two research faculty members. This staffing is tabulated in Table VI.1. State funds, as displayed in the FY 07 Budget Book1, directly support the full-time, tenured and tenure-track faculty as well as the 1/2-time lab manager. A combination of salary savings and other local accounts managed through the Dean's Office are used to fund the part-time instructors and the faculty emeritus position. The research faculty members are funded solely through grants. Of this total composition, thirteen members (tenured, tenured-track, and emeritus) participate fully in the undergraduate student-related responsibilities of teaching and advising. With the number of CE and ENE undergraduate majors totaling 238 as of the Fall of 2006, the student to faculty ratio is 18.3.

In addition to the major curricular areas (air, water, land, and environmental health) mandated by Criterion 8, the ENE program includes design, via the Design4Practice program and discipline specific-courses in environmental engineering. Except in one instance, which is directly related to the CE program, the CENE faculty is sufficient to cover all of the ENE curricular areas. Tables VI.2 through VI. 6 summarize the staffing assignments in 2006-07 per curricular area.

The complete, state-funded, budget document for NAU in FY 07 is found at http://www4.nau.edu/pair/Bud.uet stbiidbookfv07vers3main.pdf.

Chapter VI Faculty (Criterion 5) Page VI-1

http://www4.nau.edu/pair/Bud.uet

Table VI.1 Rank, Degree, and Registration Summary of the 2006-07 CENE Faculty and Staff


Table VI.2 Staffing of Required Courses with Design Content

Required Design Courses

CENE 180 Computer Aided Drafting EGR 186 Introduction Engineering Design EGR 286 Engineering Design: The Process CENE 253 Mechanics of Materials CENE 386W Eng. Design: The Methods CENE 330 Air Quality Engineering CENE 332 Solid/Haz Waste Mgmt CENE 333 Applied Hydraulics CENE 383 Soil Mechanics & Foundations CENE 410 Units Ops in Env Eng. CENE 434 Water/Wastewater Eng CENE 480 Env. Transport Processes CENE 476 Eng. Design Process Lab CENE 486C Eng. Design Capstone

2006-07 Instructors

John Tingerthal, MS, SE William Auberle, MS. PE and Rand Decker, PhD John Tester, PhD and Bridget Bero, PhD, PE Clyde Holland, PhD, PE and Gene Loverich, MS, PE Terry Baxter, PhD, PE and Rand Decker PhD Terry Baxter, PhD, PE Bridget Bero, PhD, PE Charles Schlinger, PhD. PE. PG, PGp Clyde Holland, PhD, PE Paul Gremillion, PhD, PE Paul Trotta. PhD. PE Bridget Bero, PhD, PE Paul Trotta, PhD, PE and Paul Gremillion, PhD, PE Paul Trotta, PhD, PE and Paul Gremillion, PhD, PE

Table VI.3 Staffing of Overarching1 Environmental Courses


CENE 150 Intro. Env. Engineering CENE 280 Env. Eng. Fundamentals CENE 410 Units Ops in Env Eng. CENE 480 Env. Transport Processes CENE 435 Env. Biotechnology CENE 440 Env. Protection

Required or Elective Required Required Required Required Elective Elective

2006-07 Instructors

Bridget Bero, PhD, PE, Bill Auberle, MS, PE Bill Auberle, MS, PE Paul Gremillion, PhD, PE Bridget Bero, PhD, PE Terry Baxter, PhD, PE Bill Auberle, MS, PE

These courses cover environmental issues including environmental health or are courses that build technical skills applicable to all curricular areas of air. water, land, and environmental health impacts.

Table VI.4 Staffing of Water and Waste Water Courses

Water Resources

CENE 281L Water Quality Lab ME 395 Fluid Mechanics CENE 333 Applied Hydraulics CENE 333L Applied Hydraulics Lab CENE 410 Units Ops in Env Eng. CENE 434 Water/Wastewater Eng CENE 433 Hydrology & Flood Control CENE 468 Rivers and Streams1

CENE 499 CI. Open Channel Flow2

CENE 499 Water Quality Modeling2

Required or Elective Required Required Required Required Required Required Elective Elective Elective Elective

2006-07 Instructors

Terry Baxter. PhD, PE Staffed by the ME Department Charles Schlinger. PhD, PE, PG, PGp Charles Schlinger, PhD, PE, PG, PGp Paul Gremillion. PhD. PE Paul Trotta, PhD, PE Rand Decker. PhD Wilbert Odem. PhD. PE Rand Decker. PhD Paul Gremillion. PhD, PE

1Because of Dr. Odem's 2006-07 sabbatical, this course was not offered in 2006-07 2These two "499"' courses were first offered in 2006-07. and will become a permanent feature of the CENE department in 2007-08.


Table VI.5 Staffing of Air Quality Courses

Air Quality Courses

CENE 282 L Air/Site Investigation Lab CENE 330 Air Quality Engineering CENE 430 Air Pollution Controls

Required or Elective Required Required Elective

2006-07 Instructors

Paul Gremillion, PhD, PE Terry Baxter, PhD, PE Ferry Baxter, PhD, PE

Table VI.6 Staffing of Land-Related Courses

Solid Mechanics & Land-Related

CENE 251 Statics CENE 253 Mechanics of Materials CENE 270 Plane Surveying (w/'Lab) CENE 282 L Air/Site Investigation Lab CENE 383 Soil Mechanics (w/Lab) CENE 332 Solid/Haz Waste Mgmt

Required or Elective Required Required Required Required Required Required

2006-07 Instructors

Clyde Holland, PhD, PE, Debra Larson, PhD, PE Clyde Holland, PhD, PE, Gene Loverich, MS, PE Charles Schlinger, PhD, PE, PG, PGp Paul Gremillion, PhD, PE Clyde Holland, PhD, PE Bridget Bero, PhD, PE

In 2007-08, Dr. Craig Roberts and Professor Bill Auberle are both moving to permanent, half-time arrangement in support of a staged retirement. The CENE was given permission to bundle their remaining half-time FTE's into one "new'" full FTE. As part of this staged retirement arrangement, Professor Bill Auberle agreed to teach three courses during his "on" semester, which will occur each spring. A staffing assessment by the Chair determined that the ENE program is still able to cover all classes with faculty of appropriate experience and expertise even with Professor Auberle moving to half-time. This conclusion is supported by the successful staffing of courses and advising loads by the CENE when Professor Auberle served as the Director of Engineering Programs in 2004-05 and was on sabbatical in 2005-06; a two year period of time when Professor Auberle did not carry either a teaching or advising load. This staged retirement aiTangement, however, is presenting a vulnerability to the staffing of the geotechnical and transportation areas of the CE program. The upper division required classes (totaling four - CENE 383, CENE 450, CENE 481, and CENE 420) are staffed primarily by three faculty members; Dr. Charles Schlinger, Dr. Craig Roberts, and Dr. Clyde Holland. Historically, this arrangement has been sufficient. But with Dr. Roberts" impending permanent, half-time arrangement combined with Dr. Clyde Holland, an emeritus faculty who has been working between full-time and 3/4-time since 2003-04 also moving to half-time status, the CE program is vulnerable. The CENE and NAU recognized this vulnerability, and are currently2 conducting a faculty search for an Assistant Professor or Assistant Professor of Practice in Geotechnical and/or Transportation.

2At the time of" this report submittal, the CENE successfully completed the search process and hired Dr. Ed Smaglik at the Assistant Professor rank. Dr. Smaglik received his PhD in transportation engineering from Purdue University.


B. Faculty Workload

The workload of the full-time tenured or tenure-track faculty is typically distributed among the categories of (1) student-related responsibilities, which consist of teaching and advising, (2) scholarship, creative activity and/or professional development, and (3) service. These three categories are synergistic to, and provide the primary mechanism for achieving, the mission of the CENE. As presented in Figure III.3 of this report, the CENE's mission fully encompasses the same student-related, scholarship, and service goals. The work of the CENE is spread out among its faculty and staff, and articulated in individualized Statements of Expectations (SOE) that are finalized during the Summer and early Fall of each academic year. Teaching assignments, which are part of the SOE, are typically drafted out the year before to accommodate the University-wide class schedule build process. Annual Performance Reviews (APR) are conducted in the Fall semester and rely heavily upon the individual's previous SOE as the metric from which to judge performance.

The CENE follows a number of guidelines for establishing the workload of each full-time faculty member. These guidelines are based upon the notion that full-time can be expressed as equivalent to 15 units per semester of teaching, or 30 units per academic year. The assignment of one "regular " 3 unit course is then equal to 10% of a faculty member's AY work load. Using this terminology, the CENE tries to maintain across the full-time faculty at least the following:

• 20% for scholarship and/or professional development,

• 10% for advising that is included within the student-related responsibilities area, and

• 10% for service.

The target teaching load for tenured faculty is 50%, which is approximately equal to three 3-unit regular courses in one semester and two 3-unit regular courses in the second semester. Whenever possible, the CENE tries to keep the tenure-track (e.g. Assistant Professors) faculty's teaching to about 40%. This slightly reduced course load allocation provides the Assistant Professors some additional time to establish a scholarship and service record necessary for success in the Promotion and Tenure process. As noted in the CENE's draft Guidelines for Setting Expectations and Evaluating Performance:

"The faculty of CENE hold teaching to be a core value and are encouraged to provide an educational environment that is unique, timely, and of high-quality. In support of this value, this area of effort recognizes that teaching encompasses a broad set of student-related responsibilities, which often extend beyond traditional classroom teaching. These student-related responsibilities include advisement in

A "regular" course is typically a lecture-type classroom course that an instructor has taught before with a reasonable number of students. It is not: a laboratory course, a new preparation, or a distance-delivered course


its many forms and teaching and learning innovations in and outside the classroom."

The full-time faculty, including the Department Chair, each carries an undergraduate advising load that varies from 20 to 30 students. As noted in Chapter 11 of this report, the Department advises all CENE students who have completed or transferred in 30 or more units. This advice consists of information on course offerings and selection, degree requirements, minors, internships, scholarships, and career or graduate school topics. In contrast to the practice of most other departments on campus, the CENE requires its students to attend a minimum of one academic advising session per year. This policy became effective in the 2005-06 AY to minimize the student progress problems that were being incurred due to self-advisement. The CENE is pleased with the results of this mandatory advising process. We have successfully re-engaged with our student body and are simultaneously providing additional monitoring services. We continue to catch and correct self-advising mistakes that are proving to benefit students" progress towards degree completion.

Table VI.7 CENE Faculty Workload Summary for 2006-07

Name

William Auberle Terry Baxter Bridget Bero

Rand Decker Patricia Ellsworth" Paul Gremillion

Joshua Hewes Clyde Holland Debra Larson3

Eugene Loverich4

Wilbert Odem5

Alarick Reiboldt

Craig Roberts

Charles Schlinger Ellen Soles John Tingerthal Paul Trotta Alisa Vadasz

FT or PT FT FT FT

FT FT FT

FT PT FT PT FT FT

FT

FT PT PT FT PT

AY Effort Distribution Stud. Schol. Serv. Rel.1

54% 60% 60%

57% 50% 58%

51% 65% 20% 35%

50%

60%

65% 12% 40% 58% 10%

30% 25% 25%

30% 5% 30%

37% -10% 10% 95% -

25%

23% --22% 30%

16% 15% 15%

13% 45% 12%

12% 10% 70% 5% 5%, 50%

15%

12% --20% -

Class Taught 6, 7, 8

Fall 2006 Spring 2007

CENE 150,440/540 CENE330,430, 281L CENE 150,480

CENE 499/599, EGR 186(2)

CENE 410, 476

CENE 438, 376, 499/599 CENE 251 (2), 253

CENE 253L (3)

CENE418(w/L),420(w/L), 599 CENE 450/550, 270, 270L CENE 270L (2) CENE 180(2) CENE 225, 331/434.476 CENE 485

CENE 280, EGR 186 CENE 386W, 435 CENE 150, 332, EGR 286 CENE 433, 386W

CENE 282L, 486C. 499/599 CENE 497 CENE383(w/L)(3) CENE 251 CENE 253 (2), 377

CENE 253L (4)

CENE 420 (w/L)

CENE 333, 333L(2)

CENE 180,436 CENE 225, 486C

1Student related responsibilities include teaching and advising. 2Dr. Ellsworth effort is dedicated fully towards to American Indian Air Quality Training Program of the Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals. 3Dr. Larson serves as Department Chair and her administrative duties are captured via the Service category. 4Professor Loverich was on a two-year, half-time assignment over the 2005-06 and 2006-07 academic year. 5Dr. Odem is on sabbatical for the 2006-07 AY. 6Multiple sections of a course are designated by the number of sections in parenthesis. 7Co-convened classes are designated with a "/". 8Courses containing embedded labs are designated as "w/L" in parenthesis.


In addition to traditional academic advising, the CENE faculty is actively involved with the undergraduate community and the faculty workload appropriately accounts for this. Distribution of effort is provided for those who are advising student organizations such as ASCE and EWB, and design or research projects. Many members of the faculty incorporate field trips and guest speakers into their classroom setting, serving to not only enhance the learning environment, but also to promote stronger connections between faculty and students. The CENE funds most of these extra activities through its Class Fees account.

Each full-time faculty member is expected, and is given the time to do so through the allocation of at least 10%, to participate fully in service to the department and to one or more other entities on and off campus. This department service requirement includes participation in regularly scheduled department meetings (usually held every two weeks), participation in the longer department workshops held twice a year, attendance at the twice a year Department Advisory Council meetings, fulfillment of assessment and continuous improvement tasks, attendance at both the Fall and Spring graduation ceremonies, and staffing two, one-hour Daily Campus Visits per semester. The CENE provides additional time allocation for activities such as: advising of student organizations, chairing the search committee for finding and hiring new faculty, chairing the Faculty Service Committee, and coordination of the assessment and continuous improvement efforts. This commitment to fairly recognizing the importance of quality service provides a good mechanism for the CENE to achieve the service-type components of its mission.

Integrated into the CENE's mission is its commitment to scholarship and professional development. As noted in the complementary CENE's draft Guidelines for Setting Expectations and Evaluating Performance:

"Providing students with a unique, timely, and quality educational experience is the responsibility of a faculty that is technically competent, current, and active. In this regard, the faculty of CENE recognizes and supports results-producing professional development. The CENE also encourages its faculty to be engaged in scholarship that by its very nature encompasses professional development. It is a goal of the CENE to provide every faculty member a 20% distribution in scholarly and professional development activities. This allocation recognizes the importance of continuous professional development to the CENE and its faculty members.

As shown in Table VI.7, a workload summary for the CENE faculty, the Department has been able to achieve and maintain this scholarship and professional development goal for its full-time, tenure and tenure-track faculty.


C. Faculty Qualifications

Table VI. 8 along with the previous Table VI. 1 summarize the background, experience, and qualifications of the CENE faculty. Of the tenured or tenure-track faculty in 2006-07, 2 are at the Assistant Professor rank, 5 are at the Associate Professor rank, and 5 are Full Professors. It is a diverse faculty: 5 of 18 members are female, and the faculty possesses a broad range of academic and professional experiences. Most are licensed as professional engineers, as well as a few individuals maintaining multiple registrations and affiliations. It is a faculty well-qualified by virtue of its experience and activity level to effectively prepare students for the professions of Civil and Environmental Engineering.

Table VI.8 Experience Summary of the 2006-07 CENE Faculty and Staff

Name

William Auberle Terry Baxter Bridget Bero Rand Decker Patricia Ellsworth Paul Gremillion Joshua Hewes Clyde Holland Debra Larson Eugene Loverich Wilbert Odem Alarick Reiboldt Craig Roberts Charles Schlinger Ellen Soles John Tingerthal Paul Trotta Alisa Vadasz

Years of Experience

Prof. Practice

23 12 10 2 6 7 4

13 12 5

>20 8 8 12 4

Academic2

AtNAU

16 14 12 5 16 4 2

>20 12 28 15 3 8 8 7 2

30 3

Total

16 23 12 11 30 10 2

>20 12 30 15 3 8 15 7 3

32 3

Level of Activity

Prof. Society

High High Med

High Low Low Med None High Med Low None High Med Med Low Med None

Research

Med High High High Low High High None Low Low Med High High Med Low None Low High

Consulting1

Med None None High None None None None None High High None None High High High High None

1NAU does not recognize consulting as part of the part of the regular duties of the NAU faculty. Those faculty who engage in consulting do so "off-contract": during the summer and/or as overload during the regular AY. 2The reported academic experience does not include that time working as a teaching or research assistant while pursuing a graduate degree.



Chapter VII Table of Contents

A. Renovated and Expanded Engineering Building . 1 B. Introduction to the CENE Laboratories 5 C. Assessment of Laboratory Conditions 5

1. Comparative Senior Exit Survey Results 5 2. Alumni Survey Results 6

D. The New CENE Laboratories 7 1. Strength of Materials and Structures Lab 9 2. Concrete/Masonry Wet Lab and ASCE Projects Space 9 3. Soils Lab 9 4. Transportation Lab 10 5. CENE Student Projects Space 10 6. Surveying Equipment 11 7. Applied Microbiology Lab 11 8. Environmental Instrumentation Lab 12 9. Wet/Fluid Media Environmental Lab 12 10. Environmental Instruction Lab 12

E. Additional Equipment Purchases 12 F. Computing 14

1. University Instructional Technology Services 14 2. Local Computing 16

A. Renovated and Expanded Engineering Building

In December of 2005, the Engineering Programs at NAU re-occupied its newly renovated and expanded building after residing in temporary office and teaching spaces for 16 months during construction. Recognizing that the previous building had become outdated and was not well suited either to modern instructional methods and learning activities or to research; the Arizona Board of Regents authorized $15 million in bonding authority to complete this remodel. Classrooms and instructional laboratories were redesigned and modernized, and an 18,000 sq ft expansion has added significantly to the building's capacity. The total size of the Engineering Building is 89,013 sq ft. The facility's quality as a space for faculty-student interaction and learning was enhanced by several "signature spaces"' including: a tiered teaching theater; flexible, hands-on, design-build teaching-learning spaces; multiple student meeting and open project spaces; and a 24-7 computing and gathering space (aka Internet Cafe). The building's LEED features provide additional teaching and learning opportunities synergistic to the environmental and sustainable systems themes common to the Engineering Programs and the University.

Chapter VII Facilities (Criterion 6) Page VII-1

The University and the College of Engineering & Natural Sciences added to the capital improvement with significant Furnishings, Fixtures & Equipment (FF&E) investments. These included $1 million provided by the central administration, approximately $300,000 from college resources, and an ongoing capital campaign to add significant private and corporate funds to the total.

Five departments - Civil and Environmental Engineering, Computer Science, Construction Management, Mechanical Engineering, and Electrical Engineering - reside in and share the facilities of the Engineering Building. This sharing is evident throughout the building in class rooms, computing areas, student huddle spaces, some laboratories, student services and Design4Practice (D4P).

Figure VII.2 The Design4Practice Laboratory/Classroom

The D4P Instructional Laboratory is an instructional facility designed specifically to meet our D4P program modus operandi. The modular design of the space allow for both formal instruction as well as for design group work of students, a versatile arrangement that is functional in terms of its educational experience and process. As shown in Figure


V11.2, the space is composed of two conjoined rooms on the ground floor of the main Engineering building. The front room (room 118) has multimedia presentation capabilities and can be used in a lecture format. A dedicated wireless environment is established in both rooms, such that laptops can be deployed for classes without over-taxing the building's general-access wireless system. The furniture was chosen to be simple and sturdy, thus allowing it to be reconfigured for team-oriented laboratories. The back room (room 119) has lockers dedicated to the EGR 286 class; this class uses pre-configured Legos® Mindstorms kits for a robotics-styled team design class.

Figure VII.3 D4P Laptop Storage and Charging Station

The Engineering Building was formally dedicated by the Arizona Board of Regents on April 21, 2006 in a public celebration of the State's investment and commitment to Engineering at NAU. Faculty offices and research activities, student organizations, academic support services, and events hosting our external partners and stakeholders have all flourished in the carefully-designed laboratories, classrooms, and interaction spaces.

During the Engineering Programs' spring advisory council meeting in April 2005, our external partners were asked to formally answer two questions:

• How will this renovated facility with new equipment make a difference for you or your organization?

• What do you want students to have learned or experienced in this new facility?

The purpose of this exercise was to gather additional information from this important group of employers, alumni, supporters, and donors in support of our facility design activities. A total of forty-five multi-dimensional responses were provided, and each


response was analyzed to find common themes and needs or wants missing from our understandings. The majority of comments explicitly linked the new building to enhanced learning, including the expansion of teaching opportunities; encouragement of even more collaborative, multi-disciplinary, design, and hands-on learning; and more exposure of students to modern tools. Sixteen comments were related to how the new building may increase student numbers. Fifteen comments spoke to greater research and project capacities. A sampling of these comments included:

• "I see a strongly enhanced learning environment. Key features...are the Internet Cafe and the student interview and counseling rooms. The room organization/layout will support collaborative learning, and I hope this will extend to integration of projects and research with Natural Sciences." Tom Loomis, Flood Control District of Maricopa County

• "The close proximity of various engineering disciplines, along with state of the practice facilities, promises to develop engineers with broader vision and greater awareness of the impacts their chosen discipline has on other disciplines and the environment." Bud Clay, General Dynamics

• "Opportunity to work within an environment that's more representative of what the students will find in the current high-tech industry...a more inspiring vision of their future." Ron Carsten, Raytheon

• "Better resources and equipment will hopefully allow us to bring new projects to Engineering." Deborah Lee Soltesz, USGS

• "A state of the art facility will certainly help in attracting and retaining both (quality faculty and quality students) groups." George Bain, W.L. Gore

A few comments were cautionary with particular concern about holding onto our Design4Practice (D4P) curriculum and the type of student it produces.

• "Orbital expects a return to a student focus in the College and a focus on the D4P program that has been so instrumental in producing graduates that can hit the ground running." Eric Wood, Orbital Sciences

• "D4P needs to remain core to the program." Amanda Nemee, The Boeing Co

If we can safely summarize these comments, it appears that our advisory council partners appreciate the type of education we provide, but also recognize the limitations the old building put on offering design and project driven, team-centered curricula. They see the new building with new equipment and furnishings furthering these types of educational activities while enhancing students" use of modem tools within attractive and stimulating work spaces. High quality facilities lead to high quality education when combined with the right teaching methodologies. We always have had the methodologies, and now with a new building, the formula for high-quality undergraduate engineering education at NAU is complete.


B. Introduction to the CENE Laboratories

The significance of maintaining laboratories that will expose students to the most current of technologies and equipment is evident with the rapid pace in which these technologies and equipment are changing. Engineering technologies once referred to as "alternative" and "emerging" are now state-of-the-art. Engineers must keep abreast of new design and operational requirements associated with their application. Additionally, the information and technology revolutions will dramatically change our basic approach to designing, operating, and managing systems or processes and thus require innovations in the education of civil and environmental engineers. The expansion and renovation of the Engineering Building at Northern Arizona University provided the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering the opportunity to plan for and implement modern, high-quality teaching and learning laboratories as detailed in this report.

The overall mission of the CENE Laboratories is to provide state-of-the-art facilities which are capable of supporting both the instructional and research needs of the students and faculty, as well as to provide access to others within the University that may have well defined, synergistic educational or research needs. This mission directly supports achievement of the third outcome of our CE and ENE programs, which is:

Upon successful completion of our curricula, the students of CENE will properly apply the tools and methodologies to design and conduct experiments, to model or simulate processes and phenomena, and to analyze, interpret, and report results.

Ten unique laboratory and project areas with additional storage and office space are a part of the CENE Laboratories.

C. Assessment of Laboratory Conditions

As documented in Chapter X of this self-study report, the CENE has been actively gathering feedback from a number of constituents about a variety of issues. The senior exit and alumni surveys yielded data specific to facilities both before and after the building renovation. This feedback on the conditions of our laboratory and other educational facilities was used by the CENE to help it prioritize the needs for the Engineering Building redesign. In addition, the comparative senior exit results showed a measurable difference in students' perception about the quality of facilities before and after the building expansion and renovation.

1. Comparative Senior Exit Survey Results

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 again reinstituted a senior exit survey. The primary purpose for the current senior survey is to provide information on the overall Department environment and climate, to directly


inform our analysis of Criteria 1, 5, and 6. Secondarily, it is being used to help qualitatively inform Criteria 3 and 7.

Table VII.1 summarizes the senior survey results on the facilities question, comparing those seniors (Spring 2005) who completed their programs of study in the old building and in the temporary swing space during construction to those seniors (Spring 2006) who had one semester of experience in the new building. Even though the Spring 2006 seniors had also experienced the old building and the swing space, their short time in the new building significantly impacted their numerical rating.

Table VII. 1 Spring 2005 and 2006 Senior Exit Survey Results on Facilities

Please Rate Your Overall Impression of: Scale: 5 = Excellent, 3 = Adequate, 1 = Poor

The quality of classrooms, experimental laboratories, and computing facilities in engineering.

Spring 2005

Average N = 21

2.7

Spring 2006

Average N = 29

3.9

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 facilities - the old building, the transition to a swing space during construction, and the newly renovated and expanded building. Our students found their time in the temporary classroom and laboratory facilities difficult, as space was limited and testing and computing equipment was either old or in storage. 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.

A supplemental piece of evidence about the facilities was gleaned from the current students through the Fall 2006 DAC Student forum, which is covered in detail in Chapter X. The DAC representatives reported back to the CENE that from the students" perspective:

"The new building facilities are working well - students are allowed access to the building on the weekends to work on projects, and the Internet Cafe is a great idea and gets used often."

2. Alumni Survey Results

The primary purpose of the alumni survey is to inform the Department about its graduates* attainment of program objectives. It also, however, 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 interval. The rewriting of program objectives and outcomes that occurred in the 2003-04 AY encouraged the CENE and its DAC to revisit the alumni


survey. This work was initiated in January 2005, edited and finalized in April for implementation in the Summer. 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.

The alumni survey specifically queried our former students on their impression of the quality of classrooms, laboratories, and computing facilities. This inquiry was within the context of 8 questions where respondents used a scale of 1 to 5 whereby 1 = poor, 3 = adequate, and 5 - excellent. The 34 responding alumni equally represented both the CE and ENE programs graduating between 2000 and 2005. The results of this set of questions are tabulated below in Table VII.2. The only question that received an average score less than 4 was Questions 3 - quality of classrooms, laboratories, and computing facilities.

In addition, respondents were asked to comment, and the responses related to facilities included the following:

• Computer facilities were small. Classrooms had outdated furniture.

• Resources were always provided.

• Good.

• Great class sizes, poor building (old) and facilities. I understand there is a new hi-tech building now! Congrats!

• The lab hours and access to the building was very restrictive on weekends when time was available to work on projects. Since engineering requires a lot of time from students, there shall be access to programs which are only installed in computer labs in the CET building.

• Science labs were not great, but computer labs were real nice.

Table VII.2 Summary of Alumni Responses to "Your Overall Impressions"

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

1. The quality of the faculty in the department. 2. The quality of assistance provided by the faculty and department. 3. The quality of classrooms, experimental laboratories, and computing facilities. 4. Rate your overall experience at NAU.

Average

4.26 4.21 3.31 4.36

Std Dev

.57

.73 1.07 .71

D. The New CENE Laboratories

Today, the CENE utilizes modern approaches to teaching and learning with particular emphasis on hands-on, project-based learning that is embedded throughout both the CE


and ENE curricula. These modern approaches, however, make demands on physical infrastructure that are different from the traditional lecture and laboratory formats of old. The expanded and renovated Engineering Building has been designed with this project-based learning approach in mind. In addition to the CENE dedicated spaces, there are a number of building features available to all students of the Engineering Programs that are proving to enhance student learning, particularly within the experiential realms of their education including:

• Numerous small student teaming rooms and open gathering spaces provided throughout the new building.

• Additional computing laboratories and computing social spaces (e.g. the Internet Cafe) that are available to all the students.

• Enhanced design classrooms directly supporting the Design4Practice program.

• Machine shop capabilities maintained off-site in Building 98C, a short walk from Engineering.

Table VII.3 CENE Laboratory and Student Project Space

CENE Laboratory-Related Space

Strength of Materials and Structures Lab Concrete/Masonry Wet Lab & ASCE Projects Space Soils Lab Transportation Lab CENE Student Projects Laboratory Manager Office Surveying Equipment Room Applied Microbiology Lab Tank Closet and Small Office Environmental Instrumentation Lab Wet/Fluid Media Environmental Lab Environmental Instruction & Senior Design Lab Vented Chemical Storage & Balance Room

Approx. Square Footage

1300 700

1350 780 540 160 200 770 210 770 770 770 160

Room Number

117 115 116 114 113

113A 1008B

239 238 241 242 245

241A, 240

Student User Groups

CE CE,CM

CE, CM, ENE CE

CE, ENE NA

CE, ENE, CM ENE ENE ENE ENE ENE ENE

Table VII.3 is the laboratory and student project space dedicated to the CENE in the new building. This design concentrates the civil and environmental laboratories to the southern portions of the lst and 2nd floors of the laboratory wing. At the time of this writing (early Spring 2007), the University is completing the last remaining details of the laboratory installation for CENE. These details include construction of a tank closet for the safe-keeping of pressurized gas cylinders used in the environmental laboratories, a curing closet in Room 117, installation of additional flexible venting ducts in the environmental laboratories, and the relocation of the Strength of Materials laboratory from Building 98C to Room 117 in Engineering. The Department, although bearing the majority of costs and management issues, readily shares the Soils Lab, the Concrete/Masonry Wet Lab, and Surveying with the Department of Construction Management.


The entire CENE laboratory complex is supported by the CENE Laboratory Manager. This half-time position is a new position that was filled in the Fall of 2006 by Mr. Alarick Reiboldt. Mr. Reiboldt is currently completing his graduate degree (Master of Engineering) in Environmental Engineering at NAU. As part of the Fall 2006 University-wide macro-budget process, the CENE has requested funding to expand this position into a full-time one. In addition to Mr. Reiboldt, Dr. Terry Baxter has been formally serving, since the Spring of 2006, as the Director for the Environmental Engineering Laboratories. Dr. Baxter and Mr. Reiboldt have established a safety plan, a lab use protocol (Project Planning, Assessment and Hazards Assessment Form), and coordinated the requisite safety training for faculty and students through NAU's Office of Regulatory Compliance. A preliminary audit for compliance to OSHA by the CENE Laboratories was completed during the early Spring 2007 semester.

1. Strength of Materials and Structures Lab

The Strength of Materials and Structures Lab is a combined instructional and research facility. The faculty and staff associated with this lab include Gene Loverich, MS, PE; Joshua Hewes, PhD, PE; Debra Larson, PhD, PE; and Alarick Reiboldt, the CENE Lab Manager who also teaches the related laboratory class. This laboratory provides students with regular hands-on experiences with structural member performance, material property determination, and testing protocols and standards. It is also used to introduce new developments in solid mechanics to students.

2. Concrete/Masonry Wet Lab and ASCE Projects Space

The Concrete/Masonry Wet Lab and ASCE Projects Space provides students and faculty with the properly configured environment to support their design and construction projects involving concrete and masonry assemblies, as well as other large, hands-on engineering activities that utilize a variety of real-world construction materials. The significant set of activities enabled by this space include the concrete canoe, steel bridge and environmental design projects completed each year by the student chapter of ASCE. These projects along with other ASCE activities help to develop our student professional skills and attitudes, and the CENE continually looks for ways to support and fully integrate ASCE into the CENE. The CENE faculty typically associated with this lab includes the various members who serve as ASCE advisors and Gene Loverich, MS, PE; Clyde Holland, PhD, PE, RLS; and Debra Larson, PhD, PE. Greg Ohrn, MS, PE from the Department of Construction Management is also associated with this lab. The CENE has recently received two separate donations of respectively $4,000 and $3,000 to help with new equipment purchase for this lab in support of the ASCE projects along with an agreement by the donor to let CENE use this gift as leverage for other related requests.

3. Soils Lab

The Soils Lab is an instructional student project facility and provides additional opportunity for faculty and student research. The faculty members associated with the Soils Lab are Clyde Holland, PhD, PE, RLS and Charles Schlinger, PhD, PE, PGp, PG.


In CENE 383, students complete twelve to fifteen laboratory exercises involving the measurement of selected engineering properties of soils. Special student projects, undergraduate research and faculty research will be encouraged and supported. New equipment acquisitions will focus on the measurement of soil index properties, grains size, consistency, shear strength, consolidation, and permeability. Numerical simulation of slope stability, stress-strain behavior and seepage will be supported, as will model testing of retaining structures, shallow and deep foundations, and permeability.

4. Transportation Lab

The Transportation Lab was developed and is managed by faculty member Craig A. Roberts, PhD, PE, RLS. He both teaches and conducts research in the lab using undergraduate student research assistants. Three transportation courses are a part of the Civil Engineering program and all use this lab. Ten computer workstations are provided to support the specialized applications software used in actual practice. The Traffic Studies and Signal Systems lab also uses the workstations for signal systems design. This lab1 possesses an extensive array of signal control hardware and data acquisition devices, and is designed to provide input video feeds from partner agencies, i.e., from their traffic management centers and traffic control devices installed in the field. These capabilities will enable students to learn how to design and operate Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS).

5. CENE Student Projects Space

This is a dedicated computing and work space for all students of CENE to support their many design project activities and student project competitions. The projects room

1At the time of this report submittal, the CENE successfully completed the search process and hired Dr. Ed Smaglik as a new Assistant Professor in Transportation. As part of Dr. Smaglik's start-up package, the Dean's Office agreed to provide $10,000 for the installation of a test loop deck located adjacent to the Engineering building.

Chapter VII Facilities (Criterion 6) Page VI1-10

contains 6 new computer workstations (purchased Summer 2006) with specialized software, an 11 x 17" printer, and additional work and storage space.

6. Surveying Equipment

The CENE teaches a sophomore level surveying course, CENE 270 with Lab. The Laboratory course learning outcomes address students' ability to:

• Set up a tripod with instrument over a control point (monument);

• Set up and use vertical levels, total stations, and data collectors to acquire topographic survey, cross-sectional, slope, distance, and other related survey data;

• Download, process, evaluate and present topographic and other survey data;

• Utilize GIS and aerial topographic data sets as part of civil engineering projects;

• Read and use horizontal and vertical control plan sheets;

• Use trigonometry and geometry for surveying computations;

• Determine what kinds of surveying can be conducted by registered civil engineers in the States of Arizona and California.

The related equipment is stored in room 1008A and is regularly cleaned and maintained by the CENE Laboratory manager. Since the Fall of 2004, the CENE department has been making incremental investments in new surveying equipment and software. This investment has included, to date, four data loggers, a total station, battery chargers, tapes, rods, stakes, and other miscellaneous equipment. The additional pending needs include one more total station with data logger and the incremental replacement of the older levels. The faculty members associated with surveying are Charles Schlinger, PhD, PE, PGp, PG; Wilbert Odem, PhD, PE, and Craig Roberts, PhD, PE, RLS.

7. Applied Microbiology Lab

The Applied Microbiology Lab is an instructional support lab that provides a controlled-access space with equipment for conducting biological observations, methods, exercises and design projects for all CENE labs or courses that involve a lab-based microbiological component. The Civil and Environmental Engineering Faculty who teach in and use this laboratory include Wilbert Odem, PhD, PE, Terry Baxter, PhD, PE, Paul Trotta, PhD, PE, and Paul Gremillion, PhD, PE.

2At the time of this report submittal, the CENE has been able to commit enough dollars through class fees and emergency funding from the Dean's Office to purchase two additional Total Station equipment set-ups for use in the Fall 2007 semester.


8. Environmental Instrumentation Lab

The Environmental Instrumentation Lab is a 3-room instructional support lab that combines major analytical equipment, chemical storage and chemical weighing abilities in a convenient central location within the Environmental Engineering labs. Compressed gases will be plumbed into this room from a single outside location. The faculty who are associated with this laboratory include Wilbert Odem, PhD, PE; Terry Baxter, PhD, PE; Bridget Bero, PhD, PE; and Paul Gremillion, PhD, PE.

9. Wet/Fluid Media Environmental Lab

The Wet/Fluid Media Environmental Lab is an instructional support laboratory that provides space for conducting or staging lab exercises in applied hydraulics and air quality. It also serves as space where field equipment used for these exercises will be located. The faculty who are associated with this laboratory include Charles Schlinger PhD, PE, PGp, PG; Wilbert Odem, PhD, PE; Terry Baxter, PhD, PE; Paul Trotta, PhD, PE; and Paul Gremillion, PhD, PE.

10. Environmental Instruction Lab

The Environmental Instruction Lab is the primary laboratory lecture space intended to support most instructional needs, including basic/routine wet lab, bench-top analytical procedures. The faculty associated with this laboratory include Wilbert Odem, PhD, PE; Terry Baxter, PhD, PE; Bridget Bero, PhD, PE; Paul Trotta, PhD, PE; and Paul Gremillion, PhD, PE.

Figures VII.5 and 6 The Microbiology and Environmental Instruction Labs

E. Additional Equipment Purchases

As part of the previous self-study in preparation for the Fall 2005 ABET Focus Visit, the CENE identified additional laboratory needs as summarized in Table VII.4. These items

Chapter VII Facilities (Criterion 6) Page VII-l2

ENE, CE &ME ENE & CE

CE

1 Ammonia Ion Selective Electrode 1 Replacement membrane for Ammonia 1SE 1 Gravity Convection Oven 1 Single Still & plumbing supplies 2 Cases of Serum bottles & stoppers Microscope consumables & camera adapter 2 Sedgwick-Rafter Cells Fume Hood (Table II 1.4, Item 6), installed prior lo occupancy Purchased and future installation of 4 flexible hoods & ducting Nitrogen, carbon dioxide gases & regulators Misc. chemicals and analytical supplies Misc. supplies (gloves, filters, wax pencils) 1 Cutthroat Flume 1 Ultrasonic Portable Flow Meter 1 Total Station, 2 Data Loggers (Surveying) 5 Computer Work Stations (CENE Projects room) 2 Allen Instr. Survey Pro Data Loggers, 20 Styliis Pens (Surveying) Misc. surveying equipment (tapes, flagging) Batteries, charging station equipment (Surveying) 1 Used 11" x 17" Printer (CENE Projects Room) 3 Ovens, 1 vacuum pump, 2 elect. Balances, misc equip (for Soils) 1 Computerized data acquisition system (Mechanics of Materials) 10 Computer Stations (Transportation Lab)

$299.00 $59.95

$1,928.00 $2,896.60

$368.99 $411.54 $205.00

** $33,237.00

$410.90 $598.28 $332.44

$1,500.00 $5,550.00

$10,959.00 $8,000.00 $2,853.34

$246.21 $911.82 $160.00

$6,765.85 $8,500.00

$15,000.00

F. Computing

In addition to the University's Instructional Technology Services, the CENS maintains its own IT staff that effectively serves the specialized computing needs of the students and faculty of the Engineering Programs, This local staff consists of 4 Support Systems Analysts and a number of student workers, who successfully manage and maintain the many computing labs and classrooms, as well as faculty office and research needs. The local staff is supervised by the Director of the CENS IT services, Mr. Tom Baca.

1. University Information Technology Services

Northern Arizona University provides significant network and computing infrastructure for students and faculty through the Information Technology Services (ITS) organization. The overall NAU strategic plan (see http://www.nau.edu/pair) establishes priorities and needs that are reflected in the annual Information Technology Strategic Plan (available at http://www.nau.edu/its). ITS student and faculty resource allocations and needs are developed with input from the Provost's Academic Computing Advisory Committee (see http://www.nau.edu/provost/pacac) and this input is factored into the strategic plan. An example of a recent strategic decision is the board approval to increase the IT Fee by $l in order to finish providing wireless access to all campus buildings, starting with the residence halls in the summer of 2007. Another initiative led to acquiring the Microsoft Select License Agreement allowing students to purchase MS Office and other MS software at a 58% discount.


http://www.nau.edu/pair

http://www.nau.edu/its

http://www.nau.edu/provost/pacac

The ITS organizational chart (available at http://www.nau.edu/its) shows a Chief Information Technology Officer, who reports to the President, and four organizational areas. In addition to providing comprehensive online administrative services, the central ITS organization provides students with active directory services, email, a 24 hour help desk, computer labs, a central file server, a central course management system, and residence hall network services. Student computing services are also tightly coordinated with the Cline Library and Disability Services. The latter collaboration has resulted in making universal access software such as JAWS, Kurzweil 3000, and Inspiration available on all lab and library machines.

A listing of open computer labs and software available to all students can be found at http://www.nau.edu/achd. The mountain campus hosts 14 open computer labs with over 300 computers; the distance learning organization supports another 25 computer labs across the state. Other central student resources include a walk-in service center where students can get help removing malware, a software download page, an extensive knowledge base, local tools for changing passwords, and an online "TIPS" course for learning how to navigate and use campus online resources. The Academic Computing Help Desk also coordinates support for the residence hall network (see http://www.nau.edu/resnet).

The ITS organization provides the network infrastructure that is increasingly critical to student success. Off-campus students still have free access to dialup modem banks—for some rural areas these are still the best available option for students needing to connect to the Internet, although the Academic Computing Help Desk recommends students purchase broadband services whenever possible. Residence hall students have access to 200 Mbs of commodity Internet over a robust, centrally managed campus network that includes 1 Gbs connections between buildings with a l00Mbs standard for in-building networks. University network resources are managed by the ITS Network Operations Center, which has the resources necessary to do regular maintenance and upgrades to network infrastructure. This group also monitors commodity and Internet 2 usage and reports to the CITO when bandwidth needs to be increased. To date, funding has kept up with observed Internet bandwidth usage patterns.

Resources to maintain and upgrade ITS services are provided through a combination of state funding and a $3 per credit hour IT fee capped at 12 units per semester. Student input in spending the IT fee led to opening a second 24 hour computer lab on the south campus to complement the existing 24 hour computer lab in the Cowden honors hall and the 24 hour help desk. These initiatives also secured another help desk staff position, so there is now a full-time staff member covering critical evening and weekend hours. Engineering students especially seem to make good use of the 24 hour south campus open lab. These students routinely use group study areas to access both wireless and wired network connections to work collaboratively on engineering assignments and projects.



http://www.nau.edu/achd

http://www.nau.edu/resnet

2. Local Computing

Beyond the CENE Projects room, the CENE students have ready access to the shared computing infrastructure supplied throughout the Engineering Building. The building is wireless enabled. The 24/7 Internet Cafe contains 9 computing stations and printer, and most importantly, the full suite of specialized software that students can access at any time to complete their various engineering projects and assignments. Room 112 has recently become another open access overflow computing room with 12 stations. Room 317 is a 30-seat computer classroom specially designed to teach software applications. When this room is not used for teaching, it is an open access facility. Other computing is available to students when not being used for teaching or other department-specific activities. These facilities include:

• The Construction Management Simulation Lab, Room 315, is a 17-seat computer laboratory managed by the Department of Construction Management.

• The Electronics Labs, Room 234 and 245, managed by the Department of Electrical Engineering.

• The Unix Lab, Room 106, managed by the Department of Electrical Engineering.

• The Computer Science Thin Client Lab, Room 105, managed by the Department of Computer Science.

Every computer lab is installed with a basic set of software including:

• Accessories: irfanView, MS Calc Plus, MS Power Calc, GraphCalc, PSPad, and TweakUI;

• Base Applications: CutePDF Writer, Ghostscript, ghostview, Java jdk/jre and NetBeans IDE (Currently jdk = 1.6.0 NetBeans = 5.5);

• General Applications: Microsoft Office, Adobe Reader

• Internet Applications: Firefox, Flash, Gaim, IE, QuickTime, RealPlayer, Shockwave, SSH Workstation, Sun Global Desktop

The CENE also purchases specialized software, at approximately $12,000 per AY, for use by the students and faculty. The following lists only that software which is currently being used in class. This accounting does not include legacy software that faculty may be using on an irregular and non-student basis.

• COSMOS Finite Element,

• AutoCAD and AutoDesk Land Development Suite,

• Retainpro,

• TerraModel,

• Bentley HEC,


*

• SYNCRO, SIMTraffic, HCS, HiCAP, and

• Flow2D.

Upon the completion of the CENE Projects Room (occurred in the Summer of 2006) and 24/7 Internet Cafe (late Spring 2006) facilities, the computing needs of the CENE students are determined to be more than adequate to meet the educational needs of the CE and ENE programs.



Chapter VIII Table of Contents

A. Background 1 B. Organizational and Administrative Structure 2

1. College Structure 2 2. College Leadership 3

C. Improved University Finances 4 1. Institutional Financial Status 4 2. College Financial Status 6

D. Salaries, Staffing, and Local Financial Support 7 E. Faculty Processes 10

1. Faculty Engagement and Governance 10 2. Curricular Programs and Development 12

F. Physical Infrastructure 12 G. A Positive Indicator of Impact 13

A. Background

As noted in Chapter I, the NAU"s Engineering Programs recently participated in a successful review with ABET focusing on Criterion 7, as well as the pre-existing concerns in the Civil and Environmental Engineering programs that are reported on elsewhere in this self-study document. This focus review was initiated due to a weakness in Criterion 7, issued in response to NAU's campus wide restructuring1, which occurred over Spring and Summer 2004. The Engineering programs submitted a focus self-study in June 2005, followed by a site visit in October 2005. The Draft Statement of findings, dated May 1, 2006, reported that the "weakness is now cited as a concern," and acknowledged a number of improvements, including:

• reorganization and administration efforts have resulted in an improved fiscal situation;

• institutional strengths included continued student enthusiasm, leadership by dean and appreciation by the faculty of consistent direction;

• improved opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration had been created; and

1The pre-restructured University consisted of 10 schools and colleges with 34 departments and approximately 40 independent research and outreach centers and institutes. The restructured University consisted of 6 colleges, with most research and outreach centers integrated into the academic reporting lines.

Chapter VIII Institutional Support (Criterion 7) Page VIII-1

• (upcoming) completion of the engineering building renovation and expansion was viewed as a "very encouraging step".

The evaluation team encouraged us to use the Draft Statement response process as an opportunity to document the completion of the engineering building renovation, as the building and its related features could not be examined during previous autumn's visit. Thus, we documented in our 30-day response report not only the details of our new building, but also the additional progress made within our newly restructured college. The Final Statement issued August 21, 2006 resolved the concern for all the Engineering programs at NAU.

In this Chapter, we report upon more recent progress made between the 30-day response report submitted in May of 2006 and the writing of this self-study, in addition to general context-informing background.

B. Organizational and Administrative Structure

1. College Structure

In June 2004, the Arizona Board of Regents approved the April 12, 2004 proposal for internal restructuring of the academic units (colleges) of Northern Arizona University. 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 and 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 many programs from both parent colleges.

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 accredited engineering programs reside in three departments - Civil and Environmental, Electrical, and Mechanical - and account for 27 full-time faculty and 5893 enrolled undergraduate majors. Associated with the Engineering Programs because of their physical location in the Engineering building and through long-standing historical relationships are the Departments of Construction Management and Computer Science. These two departments add another 2893 undergraduate students and 10 full-time faculty to the entity broadly known as Engineering at NAU. The College also includes a number

2Building expansion and renovation was completed in mid-December of 2005, which was followed immediately by the Engineering Programs reoccupying the building during the Winter Break period. The Spring 2006 classes were held in the new building. 3Full and part-time students pursuing undergraduate degrees according to the Hall 2006 21-day enrollment

count.


of research centers and institutes that are now incorporated into the academic reporting lines of the institution. The interaction of these centers with the academic departments has 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.

During the first two years of the College's formation, two different interim structures were used to guarantee leadership for Engineering and to facilitate the transition from the previous CET structure of a softer department model dependent upon a central administration to the new CENS structure of independent departments. During the first year in 2004-05, a Director of Engineering Programs position was established and Professor Bill Auberle, PE (from the CENE) willingly served in this capacity. The Director worked closely with the Dean and Associate Deans to aid in the initial formation of college-wide processes and to provide continuity of external relationships with supporters and stakeholders of the engineering programs. During the second year in 2005-06, the Director model was modified to an Associate Dean model and Dr. Debra Larson, PE took on the role of Associate Dean for Engineering and Professional Progiams, while also serving as Chair of the CENE. In Spring 2006, the Dean invited the engineering faculty to explore and study various organizational and administrative options. One faculty member from each program volunteered for this committee, and their work resulted in a thorough report presenting the pros and cons of three different structures workable for the Engineering units. Over Summer 2006, following discussion and input from faculty and staff, a decision was made regarding the most optimal structure and the Engineering programs took the final step towards the department-centric model of today. Dr. Larson resigned as Associate Dean of Engineering, returning to the Chair's role fullfime, and the Associate Dean of Engineering position was eliminated. An additional commitment was made by Dean Huenneke to staff both the Design4Practice program and the master-level graduate program(s), programs that are actively shared across the departments, with a half-time Director (D4P) and a part-time Graduate Coordinator recruited from the existing faculty.

2. College Leadership

The CENS has a unique, broad and deep, leadership team with the right mix of expertise and skills to effectively and efficiently lead, manage, and administer. This team consists of the Dean, two Associate Deans, Department Chairs, and Center Directors. The Dean is the team leader and holds overall responsibility for personnel (both faculty and staff), for budgetary matters, and for advancement of the quality and scope of the academic programs. The Associate Dean for Academic Affairs assists all departments and programs with questions and initiatives in instruction, curriculum, assessment, and student affairs. The Associate Dean for Research, a new position for any college within NAU, leads research and faculty development within the college.

The Dean of CENS, Dr. Laura Huenneke, was the former Dean of Arts & Sciences and comes from the discipline of environmental biology and ecosystem science. Dr. Huenneke is committed to the development and support of integrative, interdisciplinary


approaches to the advancement of degree programs, students, and faculty across engineering and science. Dr. Barry Lutz, a former long-standing Chair of the Department of Physics, serves as the Associate Dean of Academic Affairs. Dr. Lutz brings important institutional and process knowledge to the leadership team. Dr. Stan Lindstedt, a Regents Professor with expertise in physiology and functional morphology, serves as the Associate Dean of Research. Dr. Lindstedt is a highly recognized researcher who is interested in furthering the college's focus on undergraduate research and design through multi-disciplinary projects and activities, as well as enhancing professional and research opportunities for faculty. Dr. Lindstedt initiated a Dean's Research Council, comprising accomplished research scholars from across the college, to assist in strategic planning for the advancement of research and application.

Each of the departments is led by a chairperson. Dr. Debra Larson, PE chairs the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Dr. Peter Vadasz chairs the Department of Mechanical Engineering. Dr. David Scot chairs the Department of Electrical Engineering. Dr. Tom Rogers, PE chairs the Department of Construction Management. Dr. Eck Doerry chairs the Department of Computer Science. The primary responsibility of each chair in the college is to lead, manage, and administer the respective departments, while also contributing to college wide initiatives and processes. The chairs work closely with the Dean and with the Associate Deans, and hold important leadership roles in the new college.

The college leadership team works with the Dean and Associate Deans in strategic planning and reporting. In the first year of the college, a general mission, vision, and values statement were adopted, and the leadership group established initial strategic goals related to clarifying college processes and priorities. In each of the years since then, the strategic goals are revisited and annual performance assessed. Over time the college has established benchmarks for multiple areas of performance so that performance and accomplishments related to each strategic goal can be assessed in context.

Both the former College of Engineering & Technology and the former College of Arts & Sciences had established external advisory groups (for the CET, a College of Engineering Industrial Council comprising a College Advisory Council to assist the dean, and Departmental Advisory Councils for each program; for the CAS, an A&S Advisory Council). The college-level advisory groups have been integrated as a Dean's Leadership Council; this group of highly successful alumni, industry representatives, and other supporters provide valuable insights to the Dean regarding strategic initiatives and are active in development and fundraising.

C. Improved University Finances

1. Institutional Financial Status

Five years ago, the university was struggling with a multi-year enrollment decline, leading to serious financial challenges. Thanks to leadership and strategic investment at the highest levels, Northern Arizona University finds itself in a very different situation


today. Enrollment has grown each year for several years; the Arizona Board of Regents has reaffirmed its support for the unique and valuable mission of the university within the state system; a vigorous marketing and public affairs effort has reinforced the messages about program quality and distinctiveness; and continued success of faculty in gaining external funding and carrying out high-quality research and outreach has bolstered university capabilities. Specifically within the college, reorganization has yielded a stronger fiscal infrastructure better able to support the missions of the engineering programs. Financial resources have been protected, extended, and realigned; program staff added; student support services enhanced; and faculty and administrative processes revitalized.

The University's increased attention, beginning in 2004, to fiscal matters through restructuring, marketing and student recruitment, tuition increases, and other budgetary inputs from the State has been positive. In addition, the State of Arizona's ability to make additional and incremental contributions, also beginning in 2004, to the University's General Fund allocation has been positive. Figure VIII.1 summarizes the historical expenditure and general fund allocations for NAU since 1996 FY to the budgeted 2007 FY. This figure, along with other state budget details, is found at http://www4.nau.edu/pair/Budget/StateBudgetBooks/stbudbookfv07vers3main.pdf. To summarize: the University's state budget book for FY07 showed a total of $178,656,000 in base budget: about 75 % of that derives from state appropriations and head-count funding, and about 25 % from tuition and student fee collections. Both categories of support were significantly higher in FY07 than in the previous year (with $11.4 M in new state funding for enrollment growth, compensation increases, and new priorities, and $3.2 M increase in tuition collections). The University's 2007 FY All Funds (corresponding to the 2006-07 AY) report is found at http://www4.nau.edu/pair/Budget/AllFundsOperatingBudgetReports/ and provides the details of NAU's current fiscal situation.

At the time of this writing, the state legislature has not finalized its appropriation for next year (nor are tuition revenues completely known). However, it appears that the state will be adding new money to the university's budget to fund further compensation increases for employees, and perhaps funding special programs focused on recruiting, retaining, and graduating teachers, scientists, and engineers. The CENS, the primary contributor to these student categories at NAU, should see budgetary improvements as the result of this allocation, if this budget item remains in the final and approved budget.

The University generates roughly $50 - 55 M in sponsored project (external grant) activity each year, with indirect cost recovery representing an additional source of institutional revenue. Until recent years the institution used the "short form" method of calculating indirect costs, charging and collecting only on personnel costs within a project. As of FY06 the institution now calculates indirect costs on Total Modified Direct Costs (TMDC) basis; indirect cost recovery is modest (about $4.2 M per year) due to a large proportion of educational and public service projects, but increasing.


http://www4.nau.edu/pair/Budget/StateBudgetBooks/stbudbookfv07vers3main.pdf

http://www4.nau.edu/pair/Budget/AllFundsOperatingBudgetReports/

Figure VIII.1 Historical Expenditures and Appropriations

As a result of the positive trends in fiscal matters, the University today is making new investments in student services including those programs that increase academic success and enhance student retention, making further adjustments in faculty and staff salaries, renovating the campus' physical and IT infrastructure, and extending services through distance delivery and co-location at the State's community college campuses. In FY08, new university investments will include a new position of Vice President for Research, with a separate Dean of Graduate Studies (previously these two offices were directed by a single Vice Provost of Research and Graduate Studies); a new Vice Provost for International Education; and a major step toward tuition waivers for graduate assistants (a remission of 50 % of tuition for GA's), increasing the institution's ability to recruit excellent graduate students.

2. College Financial Status

During the 2003-04 academic year, NAU's academic units were asked to cut and return an average of 2.5% of their total state budgets. The CET was initially asked to make a lesser cut of l.7%, and by the end of that year when cuts were finalized the impact to the CET was even less. In spring and summer 2004, the institution sought to capture as many vacant faculty and staff positions as possible, in a desire to re-allocate funds to increase salaries. The engineering programs were largely protected from these cuts, losing only one-half of one position coming vacant during the year due to a retirement. Most other academic units lost all of their vacant lines. The engineering programs were held almost harmless during this time, so as not to negatively impact the viability and vigor of the programs.

Today the College of Engineering & Natural Sciences receives a state budget of roughly $13M, of which more than 90% is allocated to personnel costs. Additional college


revenues are generated each year through summer school revenue return and through indirect cost recovery. Because CENS is a major contributor to sponsored project activity (generating roughly half the new award dollars for the entire university each year), indirect cost return is an important resource. Both summer school returns and indirect costs are shared between the Dean's office and the units that generated the funds, to create incentives for further revenue generation while providing for faculty startup, matching or cost share on grant-funded projects, and other necessary college-wide investments.

D. Salaries, Staffing, and Local Financial Support

With the recapturing of positions and the internal restructuring, the university moved in 2004-05 to address the single highest priority on campus - compensation for faculty and staff. Classified staff and service professionals saw a $1,000 across-the-board increase in salary. Faculty members received more substantive adjustments, with assistant professors receiving the smallest adjustment of $2,000 and full professors the largest adjustment of $5,000 per FTE. The tiered adjustments reflected the fact that new hires have consistently been made nearer to market levels, but full professors were the furthest from market, being the most severely compressed by the years of small or no raises.

In March of 2006, an additional raise was approved by the Arizona legislature. Each university employee saw an increase of $1,650 and the University was given an additional 2.5 percent to apply as merit-based raises. In January of 2007, the University allocated an additional total (from internal reallocations) of $757,337: $642,083 for salaries to adjust for market conditions and salary compression and $115,254 for increases in employee-related expenses (benefits). Six academic professionals and 186 faculty members from across the University were beneficially impacted. In the CENE, four faculty members realized these adjustments including Dr. Odem, Dr. Bero, Dr. Trotta and Professor Auberle.

Faculty and staff salaries continue to be the highest priority for the University, which is dedicated to recruiting and maintaining excellent faculty for sustaining strong programs. While the state's FY08 budget is not yet signed (as of this writing), it appears that the legislature will fund a 3% increase for all university employees; the university is considering whether additional adjustments (from internal reallocations) are appropriate to address remaining equity or compression issues.

The Engineering programs have been protected from most university-wide fiscal realignments such as the practice of sweeping open faculty lines into control of the Provost's office for her re-allocation to the university's highest needs. For example, during 2006-07 AY, the Electrical Engineering Department realized two faculty vacancies due to retirements and was able to conduct searches immediately to fill these vacancies; the Electrical Engineering Department consequently and successfully hired two assistant professors. Similarly, two faculty members of the CENE have been successful in their bid for a permanent reduced workload situation in a staged retirement scenario. The Dean and Provost supported CENE's proposal to bundle the remaining


portions of each individual's position into a retained FTE. The CENE is currently conducting a search to fill this position with an Assistant Professor possessing expertise in transportation and/or geotechnical engineering. In general, the Dean has been supportive of exploring alternative or non-standard ways of structuring faculty positions and assignments in order to provide incentives and flexibility for faculty members to pursue professional opportunities that would benefit them, the College, and our students.

At the time of the university restructuring, the former College of Engineering & Technology had lost most state-funded staff positions and operations dollars; staff were generally supported on soft money, and departments depended upon the dean for most basic operating expenses. At the time of restructuring, Dean Huenneke moved several key staff positions onto state support, and over the next two years moved progressively more of the former CET clean's operations budget into individual departments. State budget totals and positions for the Engineering Programs specifically are outlined in Appendix II. The College continues to make additional investments in support staff for engineering and related activities. These additions, achieved via internal college-level funding reallocations or job realignments, include:

• administrative associate for the engineering programs - filled in 2005-06,

• administrative assistant dedicated primarily to academic programs and student academic support - in 2005-06,

• support staff for college technology - two support analyst positions filled in Summer of 2006,

• (half-time) recruiting coordinator to support outreach to pre-university students -filled in 2005-06,

• two (half-time) lab managers, for Electrical Engineering and the CENE - filled in Summer of 2006,

• scholarship/internship coordinator - filled Summer of 2006,

• administrative assistant to support the Engineering Chairs - filled Spring 2007,

• faculty director for the Design4Practice program - candidate identified and assignment to be effective in FY08,

• faculty Graduate Coordinator for the existing Master s of Engineering and the anticipated Master of Science in Engineering -job description being refined for implementation with the new MSE (fall 2008).

The larger size and resource base of the new college permits a more flexible and responsive manner of addressing instructional and other staffing needs. The college has an annual process for allocating resources to cover needs not fully addressed by the state budget. Each spring we project the salary savings from sabbaticals, faculty buyout of academic year salary on research grants, and discretionary income from summer school. Departments prepare and justify requests to call upon those dollars to support their staffing and other needs. Much of the staffing is allocated to cover teaching needs in the departments and programs supporting sabbatical leaves or research buy-out. However, in the larger college, there has been the opportunity to cross-subsidize programs. The


estimated allocation for temporary staffing dollars for the next academic year for the four engineering programs is $180,734 of which the CENE request is $84,171. At least half of these dollars are coming from the general college pool. (In addition, the central university administration has made temporary staffing dollars available in the last two years to cover the recent enrollment growth, a commitment to provide all needed seats for incoming students even though the state's funding of the institution does not yet fully reflect the impact of recent growth, due to the 3-year rolling average funding formula.)

The University and the College have been able to dedicate new financial support to the continued professional development of faculty. The Provost's office has initiated a travel grants program, inviting faculty to apply for support for travel to professional conferences or other development activities. While the Provost has funded only a portion of the total requests, the Dean has provided partial support to virtually every applicant from the college. Further, the Dean uses the state capital budget and indirect cost return for funding startup budgets for new faculty hires and purchasing laboratory equipment. The guarantee of some startup funding for faculty hired in the engineering programs was almost nonexistent in years previous. This is, however, an essential element of recruiting and supporting new faculty members and the college is committed to providing appropriate startup budgets.

The CENS leads NAU in scope and success of research activity, with more than $24 million in sponsored projects (new awards) during FY2005. This level of activity provides the CENS with an unprecedented ability to cross-subsidize its undergraduate teaching and learning facilities and activities through research. For example, $20,000 worth of new equipment and software was acquired for the Civil Engineering's Transportation Laboratory. This equipment was part of a research project that became part of the teaching lab once the research was completed. This type of investment is contrary to the economic decisions being made at many of our nation's four-year institutions today. Cross-subsidizing undergraduate education through research occurs because the CENS strongly values undergraduate education, and uses this value as a guide to its practices and decisions. NAU (largely CENS faculty and staff) was highly successful in this year's competitions for the new investment dollars in Science Foundation Arizona.

The College (and the university as a whole) recognizes that state and tuition support are not sufficient to provide the quality of educational experience or the full promise of the college's new opportunities; thus there has been renewed attention to advancement efforts in the form of development and fundraising. The College has a full-time Director of Development, Ms. Bonnie O'Donnell, who works closely with the Dean to identify prospective supporters of college initiatives. Ms. O'Donnell works primarily in the area of major gifts ($25K or greater), but has also assisted the Dean in revitalizing an annual campaign strategy for smaller gifts and has worked with department chairs in building alumni relations, annual giving campaigns, and campaigns for specific department-level initiatives.


E. Faculty Processes

1. Faculty Engagement and Governance

Faculty are the acknowledged heart and soul of any academic program. The CENS is enriched by a talented group of faculty-scholars who demonstrate both high levels of professional activity and strong commitment to engagement with undergraduate students. Recent histories of faculty governance structures, faculty support, and administrative approaches varied greatly across the departments in their previous colleges. An important element of the restructuring, then, has been renewed attention to basic faculty processes and governance. We are taking pains to explore previous approaches and to share best practices across units in order to engage and support faculty as the heart of the college. We recognize how important suitable processes are to motivating new ways of doing things and creating cross-disciplinary collaborations.

College-wide committees have been established, comprising members from engineering and from science and math programs. These include the following:

• Budget Committee: reviews college-wide resources and expenditures, advises Dean on priorities in staffing;

• Startup and Indirect Cost Committee: works with Associate Dean for Research to recommend policies for distribution and use of indirect cost returns to the college, reviews patterns of investment in faculty startup and in other support;

• Enhancement of Instruction Committee: works with Associate Dean for Academic Affairs to recommend programs of support for faculty development in the area of instruction, and to explore other mechanisms for improving the college's academic offerings;

• Assessment Committee: this is a group that has chosen to self-organize and continue work as the collaboration of assessment representatives from all departments, after a successful Assessment Workshop organized by the Dean this year;

• Development and Outreach Committee: works with the Dean and the development officer to promote and advance the college, including public relations and outreach efforts as well as fundraising;

• Door-to-Door Committee: works with the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs on issues related to student recruitment and retention, as well as scholarship, internship and employment support;

• International Committee: has revised and revitalized a certificate program for international experiences in science and engineering, and will be working with the incoming Vice Provost for International Education to maximize opportunities for our students to develop an understanding of the global nature of technology and science today.

Chapter VIII Institutional Support (Criterion 7) Page VIII-l0

These committees are in addition to the standard Curriculum and Promotion & Tenure Committees, which have formal representation from every department. Dr. Bridget Bero of the CENE served as Chair of the 2006-07 CENS P&T committee. The Associate Dean for Research has also established a Research Council, dedicated to strategic planning for enhancement of research and professional activities across the college. The Associate Deans work with committees, as appropriate, and with departments or individual faculty members as consultants and resources.

Meanwhile the college is committed to providing the strongest possible support for individual faculty members in their development as scholars and instructors. The college organizes an annual Promotion and Tenure workshop in spring, to guide all faculty members who plan to apply for tenure and/or promotion in the subsequent fall. To date, three workshops have been offered, providing advice about the teaching-research balance, the preparation of annual reports and of tenure application packages, and so on. The Dean has arranged a faculty mentor for one assistant professor in engineering desiring the support and guidance of an established faculty member outside his own (small) department.

Each department also staffs its own respective Faculty Status Committee (FSC) that provides peer review and input to the Promotion and Tenure, and Annual Review processes. The CENE FSC in 2006-07 was staffed by Professor Bill Auberle, Dr. Bridget Bero and Dr. Craig Roberts. In addition, the CENE also helps to staff the respective FSCs of the Departments of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. Given that the current faculty composition of these two departments was weighted heavily toward the Assistant Professor ranks, each department needed assistance in fully staffing its FSC with Associate or higher ranked faculty.

In the 2006-07 AY, one CENE faculty member (Dr. Paul Gremillion) and one EE faculty member (Dr. Phil Mlsna) made application for promotion to Associate Professor with tenure. Both received favorable recommendations from their departments, from the College P&T Committee, and from the Dean; both were granted tenure with promotion. All faculty members from the engineering programs who have applied for promotion and/or tenure since the restructuring have been successful. An annual college-wide P&T workshop each spring, along with less formal mentoring and feedback added to the annual pre-tenure review process, ensures that faculty receive constructive and regular feedback on expectations and performance as they progress toward promotion.

Finally, the College and Dean are committed to the concept of faculty governance and engagement. We work to ensure college faculty representation in important campus initiatives. The Dean regularly communicates with faculty and staff (most frequently through an email update), and builds in a process of faculty feedback on the strategic plan and other college initiatives. Department chairs receive 360-degree reviews or feedback from their colleagues after 3 or 4 years of service, and in spring 2007 the faculty and staff of the College were invited to provide feedback on Dean Huenneke's performance to the Provost in her systematic review of academic deans.


2. Curricular Programs and Development

Over the 2006-07 AY, NAU has demonstrated increased support and enthusiasm for masters-level programs within Engineering. The University continues to invest heavily in technology, staff, and classroom infrastructure in support of distance delivered courses and outreach beyond the Flagstaff campus. This investment is vitally important to the success of our existing tri-university Master of Engineering program intended to serve place-bound students. More importantly, NAU recently endorsed the development of a residential, thesis-based Master of Science in Engineering program. The request to plan was forwarded to the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) in June 2006 and was approved. A committee of faculty, supported by the Dean's Office through the Associate Dean of Academic Affairs, followed this planning approval up by developing the implementation plan. This implementation plan has been approved by the various University entities during the Spring 2007 semester, and is now being advanced for approval by ABOR. Dr. Larson from the CENE along with Dr. Acker of Mechanical Engineering co-chaired this implementation planning effort. Given the recent directions by the ASCE towards the Masters (or 30-hours of accredited graduate level course work) as the entry-level degree for professional (licensed) engineering practice, the CENE sees implementation of a high-quality MSE program as critical to the success of its undergraduate programs. Bachelor level students will need access to suitable graduate programs to enable their professional success. A new degree program has been proposed as well in Computer Science , reflective of the institution's encouragement to consider alternative degrees meeting the needs of additional types of students.

F. Physical Infrastructure

NAU's fiscal and administrative support for its engineering programs is best exemplified by its willingness to renovate and expand the Engineering Building (housing our four engineering programs along with Construction Management and Computer Science). At the time of the focus visit in October of 2005, the building project was not quite completed and the evaluation team was not able to review the finished building or assess its impact on our programs. We are pleased to report that the building was ready for occupancy on December 19, 2005, and NAU immediately began the process of moving the engineering group from temporary quarters back into its new home. The move was completed over the winter break, and engineering started the Spring 2006 semester in the new building, offering our regular suite of courses and labs.

The building was formally dedicated by the Arizona Board of Regents on April 21, 2006, in a public celebration of the state's $16.5 million investment. Faculty offices and research activities, student organizations, academic support services, and events hosting our external partners and stakeholders have all flourished in the carefully-designed laboratories, classrooms, and interaction spaces. Further refinements to the new building have been realized over 2006-07 including: new furniture and computing resources in the 24/7 Internet Cafe, window coverings along east and west windows, equipping of additional laboratories, and a realignment of student project areas, laboratories, and machine shop to better coordinate offerings and economize staff and student time. The


University has also invested an additional $350,000 to refurbish a 10,000 sq. ft facility located approximately '/4-mile southwest of the Engineering building to house the Engineering machine shop, a CAD/CAM laboratory, and a student projects build space.

The Engineering Building is not the only new capital project benefiting our students. In January 2007, a new Science Laboratory building opened for college use. Constructed with Arizona state Research Infrastructure funds, the 80,000 sq ft building was completed at a cost of $36 million. The Science Laboratory houses both research and instructional laboratory space for the departments of Biological Sciences and Chemistry & Biochemistry. Virtually all chemistry teaching labs take place in this facility (and some of the biology course labs), meaning that many engineering students will benefit from this new facility during their basic science coursework.

G. A Positive Indicator of Impact

In the spring of 2004, NAU rose to the challenge of changing conditions in higher education by restructuring its college units and simultaneously recommitting itself to high quality undergraduate education through investments in infrastructure, salaries, marketing, recruitment, and retention. A new outreach and marketing campaign was also launched, stressing the high quality and distinctive personal approach of NAU's educational programs. Three years later, NAU is realizing the benefits of its earlier actions as exemplified by a very important indicator.

Enrollments during the 2005-06 and 2006-07 academic years, especially in the undergraduate programs, were up significantly relative to the year before. Northern Arizona University started the 2006-07 year seeing the healthiest enrollment increase in several years - up by about 675 undergraduate students. This university-wide growth translated directly to Engineering as exemplified by the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering undergraduate major count which grew by 73% from Fall 2004 to Fall 2005 and by 22% from Fall 2005 to Fall 2006, as detailed in Table VIII.1. We are expecting additional enrollment growth for the University and Department in 2007-08.

Table VMM CENE Undergraduate Majors

CE ENE Total

F1999 112

58 170

F2000 99

49 148

F2001 101

46 147

F 20002 107

38 145

F2003 93

30 123

F2004 89 24

113

F2005

156

40

196

F2006 190

49 239

*Data source is the Fall 21-Day F.nroIIment Count

Enrollment growth is a positive indication of the University's ability to sustain programs of high quality and promote the direct engagement of undergraduates with excellent faculty in active learning and application. College level enrollment has been up significantly for three years running- the college is recognized as a significant contributor to the overall university profile and enrollment. Significantly, a larger


percentage of college enrollment is out-of-state (indicating regional and national reputation of programs) than for the university as a whole (33 % vs. < 20 %). Because of the great sensitivity of the university's budget to enrollment (due to reliance on state funding for enrollment and on tuition revenues), the increasingly healthy enrollments in the college are contributing to the continued fiscal recovery and growth of the institution.



Chapter IX Table of Contents

A. Curriculum 1 1. Math and Science 1 2. Introductory Environmental Issues Knowledge 3 3. Conduct Laboratory Experiments, and Analyze and Interpret Data 4 4. Design and Integrated Design in Curriculum 5 5. Advanced Principles and Practice 5 6. Understanding of Professional Practice 7

B. Faculty 7

A. Curriculum

1. Math and Science

The environmental engineering program criteria require that graduates have a proficiency in mathematics through differential equations, probability and statistics, calculus-based physics, and general chemistry, an earth science relevant to the program of study, a biological science relevant to the program of study, and fluid mechanics relevant to the program of study. NAU's ENE 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 ENE students on the FE exam1 and the evaluation by our employers on students' ability to appropriately use mathematical, scientific, and engineering principles.

The ENE students are required to take 39 hours of math and science courses of which many are prerequisites to other required CENE courses. This math and science coursework includes three chemistry courses (CHM 151 General Chemistry I with lab CHM 151L, CHM 152 General Chemistry II, and CHM 230 Fundamental Organic Chemistry), two calculus-based physics courses (PHY 161 University Physics I with lab PHY 161 Land PHY 262 University Physics II), one biology class (BIO 181 Unity of Life I: Cell Life with lab BIO 181L), three 4-credit calculus courses (MAT 136 Calculus

Exam participation by ENE 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 be used as the primary evaluation tool in any continuous improvement process. It can. however, provide additional information that supplements the primary evidence.

Chapter IX Program Criteria (Criterion 8) Page IX-1

I, MAT 137 Calculus II, and MAT 238 Calculus III), a course in differential equations (MAT 239), and a statistics and probability (CENE 225 Engineering Analysis) taught by the CENE. Earth science content is obtained through CENE 330 - Air Quality Engineering via topics in meteorology, CENE 280 Environmental Engineering Fundamentals, CENE 332 Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, CENE 383 Soil Mechanics and Foundations with Lab. The ENE students are also required to take ME 291 Thermodynamics I and ME 330 Fluid Mechanics which supplements the content in the science of fluid and thermo flow initiated in PHY 262 University Physics II.

Table IX.1. Courses building proficiency by directly requiring math or science course prerequisites or co-requisites.

Course

CENE 150 Intro Env. Engineering CENE 225 Engineering Analysis CENE 251 Applied Mech. Statics CENE 280 Fund. Env. Engineering CENE 281L Water Quality Lab CENE 282L Air/Site Investg. Lab ME 291 Thermodynamics CENE 330 Air Quality Engineering CENE 332 Solid/Haz. Waste Mngmnt. ME 395 Fluid Mechanics CENE 435 Env. Biotechnology

Required or

Elective

Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Elective

Math or Science Prerequisites and Co-requisites

CHM 151 MAT 137 PHY 161, MAT 137 BIO 181, CHM 152, Mat 136 CHM 151, CHM 151L CHM 151, CHM 151L. CENE 225 CHM 151, PHY 262, (MAT 238 or MAT 239) MAT 137 CHEM 230 or CHM 235 or CHM 440 MAT 239 CHM 230

Proficiency in math and science is deepened by subsequent coursework in the curriculum requiring these initial math and science courses either as a prerequisite or a co-requisite. There are essentially two levels of extended proficiency-building, one being the initial level of courses that require a math or science course directly as a prerequisite or co-requite, and the second being an indirect extension of math and science proficiency by those courses that subsequently require any of the first level of courses. Table IX.1 demonstrates the first level of this proficiency-building dependency by showing those courses that have either a math or a science course, or both, directly listed as a prerequisite or a co-requisite. The second, or indirect, level that extends this dependency and proficiency building on math and science is demonstrated in Table IX.2.

A program that will prove to benefit our students" math and science skills over time 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 complement the regular classroom environment. Many key freshman and sophomore courses, particularly in 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.


Table IX.2. Courses further building proficiency in math and science through indirect prerequisites or co-requisites requirements through other courses.

Course

CENE 253 Mechanics of Materials CENE 280 Fund. Env. Engineering CENE 281L Water Quality Lab CENE 282L Air/Site Investg. Lab CENE 330 Air Quality Engineering CENE 332 Solid/Haz. Waste Mngmnt. CENE 333 Applied Hydraulics CENE 383 Soil Mech. And Foundations ME 395 Fluid Mechanics CENE 410 Unit Ops in Env. Eng CENE 430 Air Pollution Control Design CENE 433 Hydrology & Flood Control CENE 434 Water/Wastewater Eng CENE 410 Unit Ops in Env. Eng CENE 435 Env. Biotechnology CENE 440 Env. Prot. Today &Tomorrow CENE 468 River & Stream Restoration CENE 480 Environ. Transport Processes

Required or

Elective

Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Elective Elective Required Required Elective Elective Elective Required

Math and Science Extended Through Other

Course Prerequisites and Co-requisites

CENE 251 CENE 150 CENE 150 CENE 150 CENE 280 CENE 280 ME 395 CENE 253 ME 291 CENE 480 CENE 330, ME 295 CENE 333 CENE 280. CENE 333 CENE 480 CENE 280. CENE 281L, CENE 282L CENE 150 CENE 333. CENE 383. CENE 433 ME 395

The department also cautiously looked to the recent FE results as secondary evidence of math and science proficiency. The three ENE students that took the April 2006 exam performed as well or better than national average % correct in the content areas of computers, engineering mechanics, engineering economics, electricity and magnetism, fluid mechanics, material properties mathematics, strength of materials, and engineering probability. This small sample of students, however, scored respectively 14, 4, and 6 percentage points lower than the national average in chemistry, ethics and business, and thermodynamics.

As noted in Table III. 1 of Chapter III, the employers of NAU graduates rated their employees" abilities to appropriately use mathematical, scientific, and engineering principles as 3.9 on a 1 to 5 scale with 5 being very well. This relationship between work place abilities correlates well to a proficiency in basic math and science. These secondary evidences of overall concurrency with national data and the noted abilities of our graduates to appropriately apply math and science principles confirm our conclusion regarding students" compliance.

2. Introductory Environmental Issues Knowledge

The environmental engineering program criteria also requires that graduates have an introductory level knowledge of environmental issues associated with air, land, and water systems and associated environmental health impacts. The introduction to


environmental issues in these four areas of environmental engineering is done early in the curriculum, predominantly through topics covered in CENE 150 Introduction to Environmental Engineering (air, land, water, and environmental health impacts), CENE 280 Fundamentals of Environmental Engineering (water), CENE 281 L Water Quality Lab (water and environmental health impacts), and CENE 282L Air and Site Investigation Lab (air, land and environmental health impacts). In addition, introductory level topics are provided in CENE 330 Air Quality Engineering (air and environmental health impacts), in CENE 332 Solid and Hazardous Waste Management (land and environmental health impacts), in CENE 333 Applied Hydraulics (water), and in CENE 434 Water and Wastewater Engineering (water).

The demonstration that our graduates have an introductory level knowledge is based on the students' performance in these particular classes and the assessment of related outcomes, which is documented in these course CIDs and explained in further detail within the text of Chapter IV for Criterion 3 Outcome e. Additionally, secondary evidence is provided by the performance of ENE students on the afternoon portion of the FE exam.

The performance of students in the above courses provides an overall, but somewhat generalized, demonstration of whether students have gained the necessary introductory level of knowledge required. With the exception of CENE 434, all of the above courses are listed as prerequisites or co-requisites to at least one subsequent course. The catalog descriptions for these subsequent courses requires that students must have received a "C or better" on a listed prerequisite course. Thus students progressing through the ENE program curriculum and graduating will, in general, be considered to have attained and possess the introductory level of knowledge provided by the curriculum.

Evaluating the FE examination results also seem to demonstrate that our graduates do have an introductory level knowledge of environmental issues. In the areas of air quality engineering, water resources, solid and hazardous wastes, and water and wastewater our students performed better than the national average from 2 percentage points higher in air quality engineering and in water and wastewater to 16 percentage points higher in water resources. Performance for these same students on Environmental Science and Management, however, was 9 percentage points lower than the national average. Again, the FE results are evaluated with some caution particularly since ENE student sample set at this time is so small.

3. Ability to Conduct Laboratory Experiments, and Analyze and Interpret Data

The environmental engineering program criteria also requires that graduates have an ability to conduct laboratory experiments and to critically analyze and interpret data in more than one major environmental engineering focus area, e.g., air, water, land, environmental health. Our ENE students gain laboratory experience and the ability to analyze and interpret data through in a variety of required laboratory-based coursework that spans more than one of the major areas of environmental engineering. These required courses include CENE 281L


Water Quality Lab (water), CENE 282L Air and Site Investigation Lab (air, land), CENE 333L Applied Hydraulics Lab (water), CENE 383 Soil Mechanics with embedded lab (land), and CENE 410 Units Operations in Environmental Engineering with embedded lab work (water). In addition to requiring these laboratory experiences, we have established proficiency through complying with Outcome (b) of Criterion 3 where a number of evidences of students' skill were presented via the captured C1D data. One example summarizing this is the data presented for CENE 281L and CENE 410, both emphasizing the water area. When combined, the overall outcome achievement (average of scores) for these courses in the area of water is 78%.

4. Ability to Design and Integrated Design in Curriculum

The environmental engineering program requires that graduates have an ability to perform engineering design by means of design experiences integrated throughout the professional component of the curriculum. By virtue of the yearlong capstone design experience in their senior year after completing all required engineering courses, the ENE students easily comply with this requirement. The total (CE and ENE) project scores from the capstone evaluation process for the Spring 2006 design projects on "the ability to design" 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. With that, those projects that were specifically environmental engineering projects earned scores on "the ability to design" of 80% for the On-site Wastewater project, 85% for the Walnut Canyon Remediation project, and 87% for the Portable Water Treatment project.

Beyond the D4P and its capstone experience, the ENE students are required to take disciplinary courses that contain design content. At a minimum, the ENE students are required to have at least 21 hours of design content that is integrated throughout the curriculum. This is best demonstrated by the curriculum analysis of the 2006-2007 ENE program presented in Table V.l (see Chapter V Professional Component). Additionally, the CENE also offers upper division elective courses with significant design that students may take, such as CENE 430 Air Pollution Controls design, CENE 433 Hydrology and Flood Control, and CENE 468 Rivers and Stream Restoration, to name a few. However, since these particular courses are electives, there is no assurance of the choice a student may make from the approved elective course lists to fulfill his or her 6 hours of technical elective credits.

5. Advanced Principles and Practice

The environmental engineering program criteria also require that students have proficiency in advanced principles and practice relevant to the program objectives. The most relevant program objectives are 1) Use mathematical, scientific, and engineering principles to formulate solutions to multi-disciplinary problems, 2) Create and implement safe, economical, and sustainable design using appropriate technology and methods, and 3) Are independent learners who communicate effectively, work well on project teams and can assume a leadership role.


Perhaps the most convincing demonstration of our students having gained proficiency in advanced principles is their performance on their senior capstone design projects as evaluated by the external evaluators from our Departmental Advisory Committee. These capstone projects represent a culminating assessment of the curriculum and demand that our students work effectively with project team members (Program Objective 3) toward the end goal of creating a viable design (Program Objective 2) through the application of sound and acceptable advanced principles in mathematic, science, and engineering (Program Objective 1).

During the past two years (2005 and 2006), the Capstone Design Evaluation Tool (described in Chapter IV Program Outcomes) has been used by our Departmental Advisory Committee to perform external assessments of the senior capstone projects against nine of the eleven ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes. Because of the relationships established between the ENE program outcomes and program objectives (Tables IV.2 and IV.3 in Chapter IV Program Outcomes), the results of the capstone evaluations may be taken in aggregate as a measure of our students' proficiency in using advanced principles and practice relevant to the program objectives indicated above. The results of aggregating these scores are presented in Table IX.3, and in both 2005 and 2006, demonstrate that our students have achieved this proficiency at a level greater than 70%, which has previously been defined as "achievement" (see Chapter IV Program Outcomes). In particular the ENE capstone projects demonstrated this proficiency at a level of 76% for spring 2005 and a level of 83% for spring 2006.

Table IX.3 Summary of aggregate capstone evaluation scores for CENE and ENE 2005 and 2006 capstone projects.

Capstone Evaluation Semester

Spring 2005 Spring 2006

CENE No. of

Projects 8 10

CENE Aggregate

Score 83% 85%

ENE No. of

Projects 2 3

ENE Aggregate

Score 76% 83%

In addition to the capstone design experience, the ENE curriculum provides students with the opportunity to further establish this proficiency through the coursework of CENE 410 Units Operations in ENE, CENE 434 Water and Waste Water Engineering, and CENE 480 Environmental Transport Processes, all of which are required courses in the curriculum. Although the CIDs for these courses do not assess this proficiency directly, the overall (aggregate) level of achieving a course's outcomes is considered to be representative of students having this proficiency. The overall levels for students in these courses having achieved these course outcomes in the fall 2006 semester, as determined from the CIDs, is 91%, 70%, and 72% for CENE 410, CENE 434, and CENE 480, respectively. These levels all provide supporting evidence that this proficiency has been achieved. Similarly, this proficiency is also further established and may be demonstrated through various elective courses in the curriculum, such as CENE 430 Air Pollution Controls and CENE 435 Environmental Biotechnology for two examples. However, as before there is no guarantee which elective course students will choose to fulfill their 6-hour elective requirement.


6. Understanding of Professional Practice

The environmental engineering program criteria also require that students have understanding of concepts of professional practice and the roles and responsibilities of public institutions and private organizations pertaining to environmental engineering. The ENE curriculum through the courses CENE 386W Engineering Design: The Methods, CENE 476 Engineering Design Process Lab and CENE 486C Engineering Design Capstone provide the ENE students with a good understanding of many professional practice issues typical of Environmental 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 licensure. During the recent Spring 2007 semester offering of CENE 386W, students were managed through a competitive bid process leading to student teams producing competing project proposal and being interviewed for selection. This was an exciting opportunity to significantly advance understanding of professional practice, which to some degree may be summarized by the comments received by one of the selection panel reviewers who participated in the final interview sessions and final selection of the winning proposal, and who is a practicing professional engineer.

"Thanks very much for the opportunity to be involved with the CENE 386 proposals and presentations. It will be interesting to see how this effort grows in the future. You're obviously doing terrific work with this class. The proposals were impressive and very professional. All the teams were good, and one was truly outstanding. Congratulations to you for your efforts in getting the most out of this promising raw material."

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%.

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, many of the CENE's part-time instructors are also PEs.


Table IX.4 lists the required courses offered in 2006-07 that had design content along with the instructor(s). Table IX.5 associates faculty expertise with the major cumicula areas for Environmental Engineering.

Table IX.4 Faculty Design Qualifications vs. Required Design Courses


CENE 180 Computer Aided Drafting EGR 186 Introduction Engineering Design EGR 286 Engineering Design: The Process CENE 253 Mechanics of Materials CENE 386W Eng. Design: The Methods CENE 330 Air Quality Engineering CENE 332 Solid. Haz Waste Mgmt CENE 333 Applied Hydraulics CENE 383 Soil Mechanics & Foundations CENE 410 Units Ops in Env Eng. CENE 434 Water/Wastewater Eng CENE 480 Env. Transport Processes CENE 476 Eng. Design Process Lab CENE 486C Eng. Design Capstone

2006-07 Instructors

John Tingerthal, MS, SE William Auberle, MS, PE and Rand Decker, PhD John Tester. PhD and Bridget Bero, PhD. PE Clyde Holland. PhD, PE and Gene Loverich, MS, PE Terry Baxter, PhD, PE and Rand Decker PhD Terry Baxter, PhD. PE Bridget Bero, PhD, PE Charles Schlinger, PhD. PE, PG, PGp Clvde Holland. PhD. PE Paul Gremillion, PhD. PE Paul Trotta. PhD, PE Bridget Bero, PhD, PE Paul Trotta, PhD, PE and Paul Gremillion, PhD, PE Paul Trotta, PhD. PE and Paul Gremillion, PhD, PE

Table IX.5 Faculty Expertise per Major ENE Area

Environmental Engineering Area

Air

Water Systems

Land

Environmental Impacts

Faculty Expertise

Terry Baxter, PhD, PE Bridget Bero, PhD, PE Bill Auberle, MS, PE Paul Gremillion, PhD, PE Paul Gremillion, PhD. PE Paul Trotta, PhD. PE Rand Decker, PhD Wilbert Odem, PhD, PE Charles Schlinger, PhD, PE, PG, PGp Terry Baxter, PhD, PE Charles Schlinger, PhD, PE, PG, PGp Clyde Holland, PhD, PE Paul Gremillion, PhD. PE Wilbert Odem, PhD, PE Bridget Bero, PhD, PE Craig Roberts, PhD, PE Terry Baxter, PhD, PE Bridget Bero, PhD, PE Bill Auberle, MS, PE Paul Gremillion, PhD, PE Wilbert Odem, PhD, PE

In 2007-08, Dr. Craig Roberts and Professor Bill Auberle are both moving to permanent, half-time arrangement in support of a staged retirement. The CENE was given permission to bundle their remaining half-time FTE's into one "new" full FTE. As part


of this staged retirement arrangement, Professor Bill Auberle agreed to teach three courses during his "on" semester, which will occur each spring. A staffing assessment by the Chair determined that the ENE program is still able to cover all classes with faculty of appropriate experience and expertise even with Professor Auberle moving to half-time. This conclusion is supported by the successful staffing of courses and advising loads by the CENE when Professor Auberle served as the Director of Engineering Programs in 2004-05 and was on sabbatical in 2005-06; a two year period of time when Professor Auberle did not carry either a teaching or advising load. This staged retirement arrangement, however, is presenting a vulnerability to the staffing of the geotechnical and transportation areas of the CE program. The upper division required classes (totaling four- CENE 383, CENE 450, CENE 481, and CENE 420) are staffed primarily by three faculty members; Dr. Charles Schlinger, Dr. Craig Roberts, and Dr. Clyde Holland. Historically, this arrangement has been sufficient. But with Dr. Roberts' impending permanent, half-time arrangement combined with Dr. Clyde Holland, an emeritus faculty who has been working between full-time and 3/4-time since 2003-04 also moving to half-time status, the CE program is vulnerable. The CENE and NAU recognized this vulnerability, and are currently conducting a faculty search for a Professor or Assistant Professor of Practice in Geotechnical and/or Transportation.

"At the time of this report submittal, the CENE successfully completed the search process and hired Dr. Ed Smaglik at the Assistant Professor rank. Dr. Smaglik received his PhD in transportation engineering from Purdue University.



Chapter X Table of Contents

A. Overview of Continuous Improvement Process 1 B. Constituency Groups 3 C. Assessment Tools and Drivers 6

1. Alumni Survey 6 2. Employer Survey 11 3. Senior Exit Survey 14 4. Course Improvement Documents (CID) 18 5. Capstone Design Project Evaluation 23 6. DAC Student Forum 29 7. University-Wide Tools or Drivers 35 8. Fundamentals of Engineering Examination Results 44

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 X.l summarizes 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.

A draft of this self-study report was submitted in November of 2006 to NAU"s University Assessment Committee (see http://www4.nau.edu/assessment/uac/index.htm). This sixteen person committee of assessment experts reviewed and evaluated the report. They found the CENE's CIP as fully meeting eleven of their twelve criteria, which are summarized in Table X.2 below. Their summary comments, which were provided to the Department in mid-December 2006, included:

Chapter X Continuous Improvement Process Page X-l






• Students appear to be involved in providing input to assessment activities, but it's unclear whether students see the results and analyses of these assessments.

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

Cycle

Curricula Assessment & Improvements

Assessment Tools & Indicators

Program Outcomes

Program Objectives

Department Vision, Mission, Strategic Goals

Planned Timing

Yearly

2 Years

3 Years

4 Years

5 Years

Actual Activity

Fall semester coinciding with university-wide curriculum process

Yearly at Fall DAC meeting

Review Initiated Jan '04, Competed Oct '04

Review Initiated Jan '04. Completed Jan '05

Initiated Dec '04, Final Feb '05

Primary Constituents

Students, Faculty, DAC

Students, Faculty, DAC

Students, DAC, Faculty, ASCE, ABET

DAC, Faculty. ASCE. ABET

Students, DAC. Faculty, Administration, ASCE

Tools and Drivers

CIDs, Senior Exit Surveys, Capstone Evaluation, ABET, FE

Assessment Literature, Structured feedback sessions at DAC meetings. Student Forums

CIDs, Senior Exit Surveys. Capstone Evaluation, ABET, FE; Reviewed by Faculty and DAC

Alumni and Employer Surveys Reviewed by Faculty and DAC

NAU PAIR Institutional Surveys, Department Retreats, Annual Performance Reviews

The CENE began exploring mechanisms for providing feedback of findings to students in their January 2007 Department workshop. Two strategies that will be employed in the Spring 2007 semester include follow-up to the Fall 2006 DAC Student Forum via a Spring 2007 DAC Student Forum, and on-going efforts to include appropriate feedback, time-sensitive information, and program details to students via its Department website. An example of this type of information, an excerpt of the alumni survey results, is located at http://www.cens.nau.edu/Academic/CENE/vision/.

Chapter X Continuous Improvement Process Page X-2


Table X.2 Evaluation of CENE's Assessment by NAU's University Assessment Committee

Criteria 1. Assessment Activities

a. Learning outcomes addressed match those specified in plan. b. Assessment activities conducted align with those specified in plan. c. Timeline of Assessment activities conducted align with schedule specified in

plan. d. Assessment activities conducted measure the specified outcome.

2. Findings a. Findings are clearly stated for each outcome assessed. b. Findings used to celebrate and promote achievements. c. Findings used to inform curriculum development and improvements.

3. Feedback a. Appropriate and systematic feedback of findings to faculty. b. Appropriate and systematic feedback of findings to students.

4. Assessment Plan Review a. Assessment plan reviewed by faculty to consider updates. b. Decisions on whether and what to revise are justified. c. Revised assessment plan submitted to NAU's Office of Academic Assessment

Yes

X X X

X

X X X

X

X X X

No

X

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 occun'ed 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 interests of today. Since the Fall of 2004, the CENE has been actively rebuilding its DAC to meet this representation goal; growing it 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 and community colleges,

• adjunct faculty and faculty of other NAU programs,

• regional and statewide community members, and

• representatives of national or state-wide organizations.


Table X.3 Membership in Department Advisory Council

Name

Rick Barrett Lee Busenbark William Carroll

Guillermo Cortes

Rod Curtis Ray Dovalina Charles Dryden Ryan Dupont Dean Durkee Jim Fulton

John Gleason David Gunn

Ryan Huffman Tim Huval Ned Jerabek

Niles Larson

Greg Lingor

Tom Loomis

Bill Mancini Don Manthe Richard Mirth John Mitchell Barzin Mobasher Debra Mollet Jean Nehme Rahkesh Pangasa Sandra Redsteer

Jim Schlenvogt Reza Shamskhorzani John Trujillo

Richard Turley

Garv Wendt Mark Woodson

Organization

City of Flagstaff HDR Engineering & Environmental Consultants Shepard Wesnitzer

MACTEC Engineering City of Phoenix Arizona Engineering Utah State Gannet Fleming James Fulton and Associates Gannet Fleming Central Arizona Project

Pulte Homes Wood, Patel & Associates New Mexico Environment Department Retired

Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc Flood Control District of Maricopa County

Clark Pacific Stanlev Consultants Faculty Emeritus APS ASU Stantec Consulting ADOT - Bridge Group Arizona Western College Indian Health Services

Peabody Western Coal Bio-Microbics, Inc

Public Works, City of Phoenix Caruso Turley Scott

Peabody Western Coal Woodson Engineering

Disciplinary Affiliation CE CE & ENE CE & ENE

CE

CE CE CE ENE CE ENE

CE CE

CE CE & ENE ENE

ENE

CE

CE&ENE

CE ENE CE & ENE CE CE CE CE CE-ENE ENE

ENE ENE

CE & ENE

CE

ENE CE

Constituency Representation

Alumni > 10 years. Employer Alumni < 10 years, Employer Employer, Alumni > 10 years

Employer, Alumni < 10 years, ASCE practitioner advisor Employer Employer, Public Entity Employer, Adjunct Faculty Graduate School Employer Statewide community member and professional organization Employer Employer, statewide community member Alumni < 10 years Employer Alumni > 10 years, employer, regional public Statewide community member and professional organization Employer

Alumni > 10 years, employer, statewide community and professional Alumni > 10 years. Adjunct faculty Alumni > 10 years, employer Faculty Employer Graduate school Alumni < 10 years, employer Employer, statewide community Faculty at community college Alumni < 10 years, Employer, regional and national community Employer, regional community Employer

Alumni > 10 years, employer, regional Alumni > 10 years, employer, statewide community and professional Employer, regional community Employer, national ASCE

A listing of our current membership with constituency affiliation is provided in Table X.3. This current composition meets our constituency goals.


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 participating and providing advice to support capital and resource development activities. The CENE DAC's mission and goals are included as Figure X. 1.

Figure X.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)

The DAC meets at least twice a year and sometimes three times a year either at NAU or in Phoenix. At the Fall 2006 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 a 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:


• 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 8.

• Alumni Survey: Revised, data gathered, and results analyzed. Initiated January 2005 and completed Fall 2005. Criteria 2, 5, 6, and 7.

• 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, 4, and 8.

• Student Forum: Initiated October2006; intending to be an ongoing, twice a year activity. Criteria 1, 5, 6, and 7.

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 data and analysis summaries are presented in this Section. Additional information about drivers to our CIP such as the changes to the overall University academic requirements is included here as well. Table X.4 presents a tabular summary of the key features of each tool or driver.

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 AY 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 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.


Table X.4 Summary of CENE Assessment Tools and Drivers Assessment Tool or Driver

1. Alumni Survey

2. Employer Survey

3. Senior Exit Survey

4. Course Improvement Document

5. Capstone Design Project Evaluation

6. DAC Student Forum 7. University Tools/Drivers:

a. BO & Inst. Surveys

b. Changes to Academic (e.g. Liberal Studies) Requirements

8. FE and PE Exam Results

Frequency of Use

Every 3 to 4 years

Every 3 to 4 years

Yearly

Twice a Year

Yearly

Twice a Year

Yearly

Every 2 to 3 years

Yearly

Revision or Activity History

a. Initiated Feb '00 - Data analyzed and reported 6/01.

b. Revised Spring '05, Data collected summer '05, Data analyzed Fall'05.


b. Revised Spring '05, Data collected summer '05, Data analyzed Fair05.

a. Initiated Spring 2000. Two years of data collected, analyzed and reported on.

b. Re-initiated in Fall 2004. Data collected in Spring '05, '06. and '07. Analysis completed.

a. Initiated Spring 2000. b. Continuously used with noted variations in

full faculty participation. c. Tool has been revised multiple times. a. Initiated Spring '05. Tool revised Spring'05

and Spring '06. b. Data gathered and analyzed in Spring '05,

'06, and '07. a. Initiated Fall '06 by DAC.

a. Initiated in Fall '06 b. Viewed as supplemental to other tools.

Informs Criteria

2,5,6,7

2

1,3,5,6, 7

3,4,8

3,4,8

1,5,6,7

1,3,4,5, 7,8 2,3,4,8

3,8

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 as Table X.5, while the analysis conclusions are presented in the applicable sections of this report including Criteria 2, 5, 6, and 7.

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," and 2 "analysts"

Graduate Degrees: 4 MS or MEng in strictly engineering, 2 MS in Engineering Management, 1 MBA


Table X.5 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 Number of respondents = 36

1(a) Appropriately use mathematical, scientific, and engineering principles.











Average

4.39

4.14

3.86

3.83

4.08

4.17

4.51

4.19

4.14

3.86

3.29

Std. Dev.

.55

.73

.76

.77

.87

.77

.67

.75

.68

.68

.93

Top 3 Count

17

10

7

12

4

19

14

7

5

6

2

The alumni were asked to comment on items from Table X.5 that were rated either a 1 or 5, and 24 of the 36 respondents did reply. The majority of the comments were focused on those objectives the alumni felt they were well prepared for. The topics and frequency of occurrence of the positively focused comments included: teaming (9), Design4Practice courses (9), communicating (7), solving technical problems 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, provided 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 if additional program objectives, beyond those of Table X.5, were needed. If so, the alumni were asked to provide descriptions of those additional objectives. Twenty-five alumni responded with a diverse list of suggestions. 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."

Alumni were invited to add comments to the tabular query about their overall impressions as summarized above in Table X.6.

Table X.6 Summary of Alumni Responses to "Your Overall Impressions"


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

5. My personal goals and objectives were satisfied by my education at NAU. 6. 1 would select NAU for my civil engineering or environmental engineering

education, if I had the opportunity to choose again. 7. 1 would recommend NAU to friends and relatives for studying civil engineering

or environmental engineering. 8. I would select civil engineering or environmental engineering as my major if 1

had the opportunity to choose again.

Average

4.26 4.21 3.31 4.36

4.21 4.13

4.24

4.25

Std Dev

.57

.73 1.07 .71

.64 1.10

.85

.89

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."

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 had been educated in an old facility . A sample of these responses was:

"Computer facilities were small. Classrooms had outdated furniture."

The Engineering building was recently underwent a $15.0 million expansion and renovation that included an additional $1.3 million in FFE for furniture, fixtures and equipment. Engineering moved back into its new facilities in January 2006.


"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 centered on the theme of "Is 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 found 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 provided.)

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

These two sub-themes were attributed to different sub-disciplines or organizations that have different cultures of technical communications; some needing their engineers to use CAD directly in their design activities and others not, but relying instead 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 interval. The rewriting of program objectives and outcomes that occurred in the 2003-04 AY 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 programs" 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 earlier 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

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 (average)


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 X.7. Column 1 is the preparation (or achievement of program objectives), and column 2 reports on the importance of the attribute to career success.

Table X.7 Employer Survey Summary Results on Assessing Attainment and Importance of Program Objectives


Number respondents to table = 21

l(a) Appropriately use mathematical, scientific, engineering principles.











5 Generally speaking, are able to get things done.

(1) Graduates Preparation

Average 3.89

3.67

3.53

3.95

3.85

3.85

4.30

4.12

4.15

3.40

3.50

4.10

(2) Import.

Attributes Average

4.64

4.14

4.14

4.48

4.10

4.48

4.57

3.90

4.52

4.00

3.86

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 included:

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

"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 verifying 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; e.g. 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 designs, 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 4(c) 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.



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 were completed before this process was sidelined. In the Fall of 2004, the CENE once 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, 5, and 6. Secondarily, it is being used to help qualitatively inform Criteria 3 and 7.

Table X.8 Spring 2005 and 2006 Senior Exit Survey Results on Overall Impression


The quality of the faculty in the CENE department. The quality of advising assistance provided by the CENE faculty. Did you receive advising services through Gateway or other non-CENE entities? If so, please rate the quality of that service. The quality of classrooms, experimental laboratories, and computing facilities in engineering. Rate your overall experience at NAU. Did you receive help with scholarships, summer employment/internships, or post BS employment? If so, please rate the quality of that service. Scale: 5 = agree strongly, 3 =neither agree or disagree, 1 = disagree strongly

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

If 1 had to choose again, 1 would select NAU for my civil engineering or environmental engineering education. I would recommend NAU to friends and relatives for studying civil engineering or environmental engineering. If I had to choose again, I would select civil engineering or environmental engineering as my major.

Spring 2005

Average N = 21

3.7 3.6 2.7

2.7

3.7

3.7

3.6

3.6

4.6

Spring 2006

Average N = 29

3.9 3.4 3.0

3.9

4.1 3.9

4.2

4.0

4.1

4.3

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 (l) 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) advising quality. Our students found the time in the temporary 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 that included meeting and working spaces, enhanced laboratory facilities,


and increased computing infrastructure. The comments on advising were mixed ranging from great support to uninterested and inadequate. 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 led to a more satisfied student.

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 environment as well as providing 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 (beyond the regular once-a-year offering) for junior and senior courses.

The students were asked to grade the overall effectiveness of the individual full and part-time faculty in the CENE, using the following system: A = excellent, B - good, C = adequate, D = marginal, F = poor. This data were converted to a 5.0 scale with A = 5.0 and F = 1.0. During the faculty annual review processes, the individual results were provided to each member to help inform the faculty about 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 transfonnation by regularly asking seniors to map their program of courses to the program outcomes. It provides an external (vs. internal by faculty whose 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 X.9 is a summary of averages from the civil and environmental engineering students responding to the 2005 senior exit survey. It should be noted however, that the number of environmental engineering respondents was low (n = 2, 3 or 4) and the data presented for ENE-specific courses are included primarily for documenting the results rather than to infer specific meaning or significance. 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 was originally intended.

Table X.9 2005 Civil Engineering and Environmental Engineering Seniors Mapping Courses to Outcomes, Averages for N ranging from 16 to 20

Course Number

MAT 136

MAT 137

MAT 238

MAT 239

CHM 151

CHM 151L

PHY 161

PHY 161 L

PHY 262

BIO 181

CHM 440

CENE 150

EGR 180

EGR186

CENE 270

CENE 270 L

EGR 225

EGR 286

EGR 251

EGR 252

CENE 253

CENE 253 L

EE 188

ME 291

Course Description

Calculus 1 (4)

Calculus 11 (4)

Calculus 111 (3)

Differential Eqs (3)

General Chemistry I (4)

Gen Chem I Lab (1)

Univ. Physics I (3)

Univ. Physics 1 Lab (3)

Univ. Physics 11 (3)

Unity of Life I

Environmental Chem

Intro to Env Eng (3)

Comp Aided Design (2)

Intro to Eng Design (3)

Plane Surveying (2)

Plane Survey Lab (1)

Eng Analysis (3)

Eng Design Process (3)

App Mech—Statics (3)

Dynamics (3)

Mech of Materials (3)

Mech of Mat Lab (1)

Electrical Eng 1 (3)

Thermodynamics I (3)

a. M

ath

em

atic

s S

cience

&

Engin

eerin

g

2.74

2.53

2.50

2.61

1.83

1.67

2.21

2.16

2.21

3.00

2.33

1.61

0.61

1.24

1.71

1.71

1.72

1.78

2.53

2.44

2.47

2.31

1.69

2.03

b. E

xperim

ents

, Analy

ze,

Inte

rpre

t

1.94

1.44

1.50

1.61

1.35

1.94

1.67

2.11

1.63

3.00

2.00

1.47

1.18

1.78

1.35

1.53

1.47

2.39

1.18

1.13

1.35

2.31

0.88

0.82

c. A

bili

ty to

Desi

gn a

Sys

tem

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.29

0.18

0.24

0.56

0.56

0.67

2.00

2.00

1.08

1.39

2.22

1.18

1.39

1.29

2.68

1.39

1.00

1.44

1.50

0.56

0.83

d.

Multi

-Dis

ciplin

ary

Team

s

0.06

0.19

0.06

0.35

0.25

0.69

0.41

0.94

0.50

0.00

1.50

0.72

0.29

2.21

1.06

1.65

1.24

2.37

0.88

0.88

0.76

1.50

0.56

0.65

e.

Solv

e E

ngin

eerin

g P

roble

ms

1.95

1.71

1.63

1.94

1.13

0.88

1.65

1.41

1.88

0.00

1.50

1.64

0.82

2.33

1.18

0.94

1.76

2.42

2.06

2.38

2.22

2.25

1.38

1.78

f. P

rofe

ssio

nal &

Eth

ical

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.13

0.00

0.12

0.00

0.00

3.00

1.37

0.42

1.89

0.71

0.71

0.94

2.44

0.67

0.75

0.78

0.94

0.44

0.89

g.

Com

munic

ate

0.06

0.19

0.06

0.35

0.25

0.69

0.41

0.94

0.50

0.00

1.50

0.72

0.29

2.21

1.06

1.65

1.24

2.37

0.88

0.88

0.76

1.50

0.56

0.65

h.

Impact

of E

ngin

eerin

g S

olu

tions

0.06

0.06

0.06

0.06

0.19

0.25

0.06

0.06

0.13

0.00

1.00

1.86

0.50

1.75

0.35

0.19

0.69

2.18

0.56

0.50

0.61

0.56

0.25

0.59

i. Life

long L

earn

ing

0.13

0.56

0.81

0.82

0.56

0.44

0.65

0.53

1.00

0.00

2.00

1.06

0.76

1.82

1.06

1.06

1.06

2.61

1.06

1.13

1.24

1.44

0.81

1.06

j. K

now

ledge

of C

onte

mpora

ry

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.06

0.29

0.28

0.12

0.12

3.00

3.00

1.41

0.39

1.06

0.47

0.31

0.71

2.06

0.67

0.63

0.44

0.56

0.31

0.94

k. M

odern

Engin

eerin

g T

ools

1.94

1.50

1.50

1.78

1.18

1.50

1.22

1.63

1.33

3.00

1.50

1.22

1.37

1.94

1.18

1.24

1.58

2.28

1.11

1.19

1.28

2.00

0.69

0.94


CENE 434

CENE331

CENE 333

CENE 333 L

CENE 376

CENE 383

CENE 383 L

CENE 386W

ME 395

CENE 281L

CENE 282L

CENE 280

CENE 330

CENE 380

CENE 332

CENE 410

CENE 418

CENE 418 L

CENE 420

CENE 420 L

CENE 433

CENE 438

CENE 450

CENE 476

CENE 486

WaterAVastewater Eng.

Sanitary Eng (3)

Applied Hydraulics (3)

App Hydraulics Lab (1)

Structural Analysis I (3)

Soil Mech & Fds (3)

Soil Mech& Fds L ( l )

Eng Design Methods(3)

Fluid Mechanics (3)

Water Quality lab

Air/Site Invest. Lab

Fund. Env. Engrng.

Air Qual. Engineering

Env Transport Proc. I

Solid/Haz Waste Mgmt

Unit Ops Env. Engrg.

Highway Eng (2)

Highway Eng Lab (1)

Traffic & Signal (2)

Traffic Signal Lab (1)

Hyd & Flood Com (3)

Reinf Concrete D (3)

Geot Eval & Design (3)

Senior Design Sem (1)

Design Capstone (3)

2.67

1.88

2.11

2.00

2.25

2.44

2.17

1.41

2.56

2.67

3.00

2.50

2.67

3.00

2.67

3.00

2.06

2.06

1.38

1.38

1.69

1.81

1.50

1.28

2.11

2.50

1.38

1.12

1.67

1.31

1.67

1.94

2.28

1.71

2.33

3.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

3.00

2.19

2.19

1.38

1.31

1.38

1.38

1.13

1.94

2.68

2.50

1.31

1.39

1.39

1.38

1.59

1.56

2.39

1.76

1.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

2.00

2.00

2.50

2.50

2.50

1.25

1.13

1.38

1.63

1.60

2.21

2.63

2.00

0.94

0.88

1.50

0.69

1.06

1.71

2.44

1.24

3.00

3.00

1.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

2.19

2.13

1.38

1.25

0.88

0.63

0.69

1.89

2.56

2.67

1.81

2.21

2.28

2.19

2.50

2.22

2.42

2.59

2.50

3.00

2.00

2.50

3.00

2.00

2.50

2.56

2.56

1.63

1.63

2.00

1.88

1.50

2.16

2.79

2.67

1.00

1.06

1.00

1.19

1.33

1.56

2.40

1.24

2.00

2.33

2.33

2.33

3.00

2.33

2.00

2.25

2.06

1.13

1.13

1.13

1.44

1.13

2.32

2.40

2.00

0.94

0.88

1.50

0.69

1.06

1.71

2.44

1.24

3.00

3.00

1.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

2.19

2.13

1.38

1.25

0.88

0.63

0.69

1.89

2.56

2.00

1.00

0.76

0.71

0.69

0.94

0.94

2.12

0.82

1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

0.00

2.00

1.00

2.38

2.38

1.19

1.19

0.81

0.75

0.69

1.47

2.11

3.00

1.19

1.24

1.29

1.25

1.35

1.29

2.35

1.60

1.00

0.00

2.50

2.00

0.00

2.00

3.00

2.44

2.38

1.44

1.44

1.25

1.50

0.94

2.17

2.44

1.50

1.06

0.94

0.89

0.76

1.29

1.22

1.95

0.88

2.00

2.00

3.00

2.33

2.50

3.00

2.50

2.00

2.00

1.19

1.19

0.88

1.06

0.94

1.47

1.89

2.00

1.31

1.42

1.89

1.41

1.68

2.13

2.28

1.76

2.67

3.00

1.00

2.67

2.00

2.33

2.67

2.19

2.19

1.38

1.38

1.31

1.31

1.19

1.72

2.68

A section focusing on the self-assessment of lifelong learning was added to the 2006 senior exit surveys in an 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 lifelong 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 lifelong learning and their ability to adhere to ethical and professional standards using a 1 to 5 scale. The average results are presented in Table X.10. Of the 290 total individual responses, only 9 were scored less than 3.


Table X.10 Summary Results - Spring 2006 Students' Self Assessment of Life-Long Learning and Ethical Standards



Learn new material on my own.

Find and use relevant sources of information. Read critically and assess the quality of information available . Use information to solve well-defined problems. Analyze content by breaking it down, asking questions, comparing and contrasting, recognizing patterns, and interpreting information. Model problems by estimating, simplifying, making assumptions and approximations. Combine knowledge in novel ways to generate new products or ideas. Judge the worth of ideas, theories, and opinions. Choose between alternative ideas, theories, opinions, and justify the choice. Adhere to the professional and ethical standards of the civil engineering profession.

Average

4.1

4.0 3.9 4.3 4.3

4.0

3.6 3.7 4.1 4.7

Std Dev

.64

.80

.37

.59

.65

.82

.73

.81

.80

.45

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. 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 facilitate communications 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 evidence of students' achievement relative to learning outcomes.

Faculty use of the CID over the 2004-05 AY 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 a 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 process actually missed a few outcomes; e.g. the direct assessment of Outcome (i) had not been captured.

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 AY. This revision kept the course learning outcome paradigm shift intact, but explicitly focused the CID on 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. Table X.l 1 summarizes which required courses have been assigned to which ABET outcome. Electives have not been included. This table 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.


curriculum 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 X.12 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 a

b

c

d

e

f

p

h

i

J

k

Metric Statement Compliance is achieved by students who can solve engineering problems using mathematics and science principles. 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. Compliance is achieved by students who can design systems or processes to meet desired needs within realistic constraints. Compliance is achieved by students who can perform and communicate effectively on diverse teams. 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). Compliance is achieved by students who can recognize and analyze situations involving professional and ethical interests. Compliance is achieved by students who can organize and deliver effective verbal, written, and graphical communications. Compliance is achieved by students who can generally describe the impacts of constrained engineering solutions to relevant economic, environmental, social, and global-political systems. 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. 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. Compliance is achieved by students who can apply relevant techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools of the engineering practice.

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.


Table X.13 CID Captured Assessment Data Example Taken from CENE 386W Engineering Design - The Methods

Assessment of ABET Criterion 3 Target Outcomes

Outcome Metric Statements (Compliance is achieved by students

who...) Outcome d: Produce and communicate effectively on diverse teams.

Outcome f: Can recognize and analyze situations involving professional and ethical interests.

Outcome j: Incorporate into the engineering problem solving process well-defined contemporary issues. Outcome h: Can generally describe the impacts of a constrained engineering solution to relevant economic, environmental, social, and global-political systems.

Outcome i: Demonstrate the ability to learn on their own, without the aid of formal instruction. Outcome g: Organize and deliver effective verbal, written, and graphical communications.

Assessment Deliverable

3 Peer Evaluation Memos 4 Team Oral Status Reports 5 Case Study Deliverables (Adjusted by peer evaluation) 2 Questions on Test l


5 Case Study Deliverables

l Individual PM report 6 Economic Homework Assignments 5 Economic Questions on Test 3 7 Individually Written Memo 7 Case Study Questions on Test l 8 Environ. Assess. Quest. on Test 2 2 Project Mgmt. Questions on Test 3 5 Case Study Deliverables

7 Individually Written Memos 5 Case Study Deliverables l Individual PM report l Oral Case Study Presentation

Level of Achievement

(Class Averages) 26.1/30 = 87% 75/80 = 94% 544/600 = 91%

8.3/10 = 83%

24.3/31=78%

271.3/300 = 90%

26.6/30 = 89% 112/170=66% 60.6/80 = 76% 78/105 = 74% 24.1/29 = 83% 38.4/49 = 78% 15.1/20 = 76% 271.3/300 = 90%

78/105 =74% 271.3/300 = 90% 26.6/30 = 89% 198/200 =99%

The 2006-07 CID captured assessment and analysis of target outcomes are reported on in Chapter IV Criterion 3 of this report. These conclusions regarding our students' compliance with the outcomes (a) through (k) were derived from the annual "Closing the Loop" faculty meeting; the most recent meeting occurring on January 10, 2007. The faculty reviewed and discussed the quantitative data and qualitative comments from the Fall 2006 CIDs and compared this information to the capstone evaluation and FE results.

The course-by-course CIDs along with the examples of the assessment strategies and additional infonnation 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 X.13. The follow-on instructor analysis of the captured assessment is provided in Figure X.2.


Figure X.2 Example Instructor Analysis of Captured Outcome Data Corresponding toTable X.13

Analysis of Targeted Outcomes (Have the students in this class achieved/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 students 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 meet the intent of the metric statement within the context of complex technical report writing. Correspondingly, students consistently above scored 70% and were therefore judged to comply with both outcomes g and j .

The case study project deliverables were 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.


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."'

The DAC initiated the development of the capstone design 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 detailed design and implementation. The environmental and civil engineering students take the same capstone courses together.

The Engineering Programs at NAU traditionally hold their spring DAC meetings the day before the engineering-wide senior capstone conference, and this 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 the 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:









The data from the Spring 2005 evaluations was collected and synthesized, and presented to the DAC in their Fall 2005 meeting. At this 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 the tool did what was needed and it contained the right balance of 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 decided the following. Given that the students had been provided the evaluation criteria via their syllabus and by other means during their capstone courses, the DAC decided that missing items are given a score of a "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:








• 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

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."

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 X.14 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, they 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 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 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 students' 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.


Table X.14 Transforming Capstone Evaluation Tool to Assess ABET Outcomes

Capstone Project Team Evaluation Metrics / Weight

Technical Skills

Tl 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

Ml Budget, Costs, Schedule. Plans/Docs, Report, QC / 28%

M2 Meeting Client Expectations / 9% M3 Solution - Effective. Practical / 5%

Applicable ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes Abbreviated

c. A

bili

ty to

Des

ign

a Sy

stem

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

d. M

ulti

-Dis

cipl

inar

y T

eam

s

•

•

•

e. S

olve

Eng

inee

ring

Pro

blem

s

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

g.

Com

mun

icat

e

•

•

•

h. I

mpa

ct o

f Eng

inee

ring

Sol

utio

ns

•

•

•

•

•

i. L

ifel

ong

Lea

rnin

g

•

•

•

•

•

• j.

Kno

wle

dge

of C

onte

mpo

rary

Iss

ues

• •

•

•

•

•

k. M

oder

n E

ngin

eeri

ng T

ools

•

•

The CENE took under consideration the Fall 2006 DAC recommendations and agreed that the 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 design. 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 X.16.

Tables X. 15 and X. 16 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 2007 evaluation, but these data and the subsequent DAC analysis were not available for inclusion to this report due to timing.


Table X.15 Spring 2005 Capstone Design Project Assessment Summary - Average Ratings by DAC Evaluators

*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.


Number of Evaluators Number of Students/Project Team Outcome Assessment (%):

a. Math, Science, Engineering c. Ability to Design a System d. Multi-Disciplinary Teams e. Solve Engineering

Problems g. Communicate h. Impact of Engineering

Wa

lnu

t C

an

yon

Rem

.

3 3

77 85 92 85

95 84

Rese

rvoirs

Inundatio

n

4 3

85 84 81 84

82 78

Concr

ete

Mix

Des

ign

2 3

92 94 87 94

84 95

Ste

el B

ridge

3 4

93 83 87 83

89 86

Snow

bow

l Pedest

rian

Cro

ssin

g

4 3

85 85 85 85

86 83

Canoe H

ull D

esig

n

2 3

90 96 94 96

92 98

Resi

dentia

l Brid

ge

2 4

65 72 86 72

88 80

Arb

ore

tum

A

ccess

ibili

ty

2 3

75 88 96 88

98 93

Por

tabl

e W

ate

r T

reat

men

t

5 3

89 87 90 87

92 86

On-

Site

Mas

ter

Pla

n

5 3

75 80 88 80

89 80

Cla

ss A

vera

ge

83 85 89 85

89 86


i. Lifelong Learning j. Knowledge of

Contemporary k. Modern Engineering Tools

84 70

77

83 65

85

95 91

92

80 83

93

85 75

85

100 94

90

80 63

65

90 81

75

86 81

89

86 73

75

87 78

83

Figure X.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.

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

Spring 2005 and Spring 2006 Capstone Design Results

The class average data are 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 that continues to seek out ways to contribute. In this regard, the DAC recently initiated a twice a year student forum whereby a sub-committee independently meets with students of the CENE without the involvement of the faculty. Debra Mollet is leading this sub-committee, which is populated by Bill Caroll, John Mitchell, Dean Durkee, David Gunn, and Tom Loomis. The 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.

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






a. Math, Science, Engineering c. Ability to Design a System d. Multi-Disciplinary Teams e. Solve Engineering

Problems g. Communicate h. Impact of Engineering

Waln

ut C

anyo

n R

em

.

3 3

77 85 92 85

95 84

Rese

rvoirs

Inundatio

n

4 3

85 84 81 84

82 78

Co

ncr

ete

Mix

Des

ign

2

3

92 94 87 94

84 95

Ste

el B

ridge

3 4

93 83 87 83

89 86

Snow

bow

l Pedest

rian

C

ross

ing

4 3

85 85 85 85

86 83

Canoe H

ull D

esig

n

2 3

90 96j 94 96

92 98

Resi

dentia

l Brid

ge

2 4

65 72 86 72

88 80

Arb

ore

tum

A

ccess

ibili

ty

2 3

75 88 96 88

98 93

Por

tabl

e W

ate

r T

reatm

ent

5 3

89 87 90 87

92 86

On-

Site

Mas

ter

Pla

n

5 3

75 80 88 80

89 80

Cla

ss A

vera

ge

83 85 89 85

89 86


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 were 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 were present, although the majority was from the civil program. Overall, the students are very happy with their respective programs. 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 Cafe is a great idea and gets used often. The Design4Practice (program) 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 graduate student from English as a part of CENE 386W 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 a 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 X.l 7, of action items for the DAC and CENE department to follow-up. The CENE made considerable progress during the Fall 2006 semester in addressing issues and this progress is summarized in the second column of Table X.l 7.

Table X.17 Action Items from Fall 2006 CENE Student Forum

ITEM CENE DEPT. ACTION OR RESPONSE

FACILITIES

Internet cafe larger

No plotters available for student use

No copiers/scanners available for student use

Finally, new furniture that matches the rest of the building has been installed in the Internet cafe. This space sees lots of use both during and after the open building hours. Seems to be adding to the sense of community for our engineering students (and faculty and staff). For spring DAC forum follow-up: Unable to make the cafe larger... what is really meant by this comment? Is it that students would like a larger 24/7 space or greater access to the building?

A used 11x17 printer has been purchased for room 113 (the CENE students' project area). A plotter is available to students under certain conditions, that being a faculty member must approve and negotiate its use with the CM department.

Referred this issue on to our IT staff as this is under their purview. They are exploring the installation of a scanner in the Internet cafe for use as a pseudo copy machine. Previous installations of student copiers were not successful due to excessive vandalism and paper removal.


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 wasn't needed

Urinal flush sequence

Referred this issue on to our IT staff.

No progress to date on this question. Basic information about Clickers at NAU is found at http://fm.instrdev.nau.edu:591 /clickers/

Referred this onto our building manager. The facilities staff have been taught how to change the filters.

DESIGN4PRACTICE

286 - Not civil oriented (mostly programming), and some teams were not well balanced among the disciplines

386 - Student requested improvements to the writing portion of the class, i.e., more instruction on technical writing, access to a grad student from English Dept., more real-world application

The CENE has made a renewed commitment to placing one instructor per semester into the EGR 286 teaching team. In the recent past (eg since = fall 2004), CENE has not been teaching in this class. Dr. Bero is teaching this spring 07, and is penciled in for spring 08. Dr. Larson is penciled in for fall 07. It is an important class to our students in that it provides: 1. One of the best scenario(s) for learning about teaming through active practice. 2. The one true multi-disciplinary course. 3. The development of life-long learning skills through multiple, complex design challenges 4. An introduction to programming, controllers, and mechanisms (important knowledge for any student of CE and ENE who may work with sensors, testing equipment, programmable controllers, and simple machines). For CENE students, this class is the only class in their curricula where they are introduced to a programming language and related environments. The CENE instructors will help the current instructors with implementing better assessment methods, better articulation of learning outcomes, improving the delivery of content, and bringing in examples from civil and environmental engineering that make use of the technologies and teaming skills of EGR 286.

This class fulfills NAU's requirement of a junior-level writing course as related to the students' discipline. In addition, to providing a meaningful and relevant experience with writing within the discipline - something that is difficult to get from a technical writing course taught in English -the course also addresses contemporary issues of the profession, professional responsibilities and ethics, and engineering economics. It, like EGR 286, is very important to the CENE students given these many outcomes that would be difficult to cover via our current curriculum.

More instruction: This class has eenerallv provided ample time for "in-class" team work on their case study report, but it would not be a problem at all to reduce this (luxury time) and insert more lectures and assignments on writing. In the recent past, reading assignments from a technical writing text and the lectures/presentations on writing were designed to target and directly support the student's efforts on the case study assignment. In addition to seven chapters/Handbook Appendix assigned for reading, 11 different topics on the writing process and writing were covered in lectures/presentations. Also, feedback was provided on the graded papers and throughout the various stages (6 separate writing stages) of drafting the case study report toward a final document.


http://fm.instrdev.nau.edu:591


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 real-world application: While the case study reDort is legitimate writing situation that engineers may experience, the case study does have a rather narrow application to the "real-world". In this regard and over the past year or more, some informal discussions had already been taking place to explore how to better link the 386w writing experience with the 476/486C design experience. While my (Dr. Baxter) favorite concept is to have a competitive project where student teams compete for a project by preparing and presenting proposals to a review panel, an then having that project move into 486C for the winning team, I believe Rand & I are going to try the "prepare and present proposal to a panel" portion this coming spring. Whether it moves into 486C or not will not necessarily be pushed. So the hope is that we will actually be moving this into a more "real-world" experience by doing this. If by real-world experience the student meant resumes and business letters, I don't think those are legitimate vehicles for meeting NAU's junior-level writing requirement and will simply not be done.

Access to a grad student from English Dept.: This aspect of the course was actually accomplished one semester and it worked great by having the GTA assess writing and provide consultations (at least one was required and others would be required depending on the most recent writing assignment score). Having a GTA really augments the "more instruction" issue because of the consultations that are available to the students. The student commenting was probably one who experienced a more recent semester when we started off with a GTA, but then lost her to some complications regarding her enrollment status. Currently it seems that unless we have enough resources to fund a regular GTA position to support this course in that way, we will not be able to attract qualified grads to take this on. We were very fortunate with the one successful semester we did have.

Because of the difficulties of hiring a GTA from English, the CENE has dedicated two (2) CENE faculty to this spring 2007 offering of CENE 386W. The hope being that with two faculty, the content, team and course management, and grading load can be more realistically shouldered vs having only one instructor (with or without a GTA) handle CENE 386W.

CENE acknowledges this issue, and will continue to try to balance project scheduling amongst classes. CENE has increased its use of software throughout the program in recent years. Students are being introduced to software in the following required classes of: CENE 180, CENE 225. CENE 270, CENE 333L. CENE 376, CENE 418, CENE 450, CENE 476, and CENE 486C.

The ENE faculty has responded by modifying the ENE curriculum. A 1-credit CENE 150L computations course has been added to the freshman year in the ENE curriculum. It is a co-requisite course to CENE 150 for ENE students. CE students are not required to take this computations course. Not only does this 150L course help to address this issue, it also helps to address the problem that CENE 150 was too packed and that students were overwhelmed by the course. The ENE faculty feels that by

More leeway in what students can specialize in, and scheduling of "emphasis" classes - having to take classes not interested in or in desired emphasis just to graduate on time

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 other 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?

focusing the computational issues into a "laboratory" course, students will be more successful with this entry-level content and develop a better feel for ENE. The CENE will continue to find additional ways (e.g. advising, EGR 186, student forums, and program of study sheets) to communicate with students on the requirements of their programs and why these requirements are there. The 2006-07 and 2007-08 Programs of Study sheets make note of this 4 area issue, as well as other ABET requirements. Faculty advisers are being encouraged, when appropriate, to explain what features of our curricula are being driven by ABET or University requirements. The December posting of the "News from NAU" spoke directly to the issue of who is driving our curricula, and this posting is readily available at http://www.cens.nau.edu/Academic/CENE/news/ This course is in the curriculum specifically because of ABET. In the past, CENE was not doing a good job, with documenting and assessing the learning of ethics, and hence this addition was made to address the issue in time for the 2005 focus ABET visit. This addition was favorably reviewed by ABET evaluators during the 05 focus visit and, effectively, eliminated this concern for us. D. Larson would like to keep this in the program, at least through the 07-08 AY, to not invite problems with our upcoming ABET review. We can revisit this class in 07-08 for possible changes after the upcoming program review. Codes are covered extensively in the required CENE 438 course and the elective structural design courses. Perhaps, the commenting students had yet to take these senior courses? Dr. Roberts continues to make modifications to this class to address this work load issue without compromising on the learning.

The ENE curriculum requires the following non-water related courses: -CENE332, 3cr, Solid and Hazardous Waste Management. Students are exposed to contaminant properties and partitioning in the environment, toxicology, risk assessment, ASTM Phase I Audits, the CERCLA process and the Hazard Ranking System (use of EPA-sponsored software to perform site ranking), landfill design (HELP and LANDGEM models, applied to global situations) and research on treatment technologies. -CENE383, 4cr (includes lab), Soil Mechanics and Foundations. Students are exposed to soil properties, identification and classification of earth material, subsurface exploration of soil strength, stresses, and settlement; substructure design; computer applications. -CENE330, 3 cr. Air Quality Engineering. Students are exposed to the technical approaches to air quality problems, source identification, acid deposition, ozone, control of primary and toxic air pollutants, indoor air quality and utilize dispersion and emissions models. -CENE480, 3 cr, Environmental Transport Processes. Students are exposed to diffusion and convective mass transfer from a theoretical basis to the practical aspects of equipment design and analysis.

Environmental Engineering majors may choose from the following CENE Electives that are non-water related include: -CENE430. 3 cr Air Pollution Controls Design. -CENE435 Environmental Biotechnology. -CENE440 Environmental Protection


http://www.cens.nau.edu/Academic/CENE/news/

-CENE418 Highway Engineering - CENE499 Urban Transportation Planning -CENE450 Geotechnical Evaluation Design

Technical electives provide even a broader scope, from additional biology, chemistry, geology and math courses to construction management, computer science, electrical engineering and mechanical engineering courses. The Geology Department offers a 400-level course on groundwater hydrology and modeling which is available to CENE majors as an elective with no prerequisites should they be interested in this topic.

We recognize that several of our faculty maintain a water-emphasis in their areas of expertise due to the many sub-specialties found within the water emphasis (Gremillion, Decker, Odem, Trotta). However, Auberle, Bero and Baxter emphasize biological, air and waste-related areas of expertise. We feel that we have a well-rounded faculty and that our suite of course offerings represent that breadth.

COMPUTERS/SOFTWARE Solid Edge vs. AutoCad: some students had to take Solid Edge in order to stay on track with their program and graduate on time

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

A few years ago, the ME department, who "owned" this class at that time changed the software in this class from AutoCAD to Solid Edge. This change was not widely communicated and some civil students unfortunately ended up in Solid Edge. Since the fall of 2004, the CENE department has been teaching its own computer aided drafting course (CENE 180), focusing on AutoCAD, introductory drawing issues, and applications in the CE and ENE profession. Our current instructor, Mr. John Tingerthal, is a practicing engineering, who has further modified the CENE 180 curriculum; making this class even more relevant to the CE and ENE professions. We are very happy with these changes.

In addition, the CENE piloted a "challenge exam" process for CENE 180 for those students who come to NAU already possessing exceptional skill and knowledge in AutoCAD and its use in a professional environment. We hope to make this challenge exam process a permanent part of our curriculum, once all of the NAU curricula and transcript details have been finalized. Terramodel has been incorporated into CENE 270 Surveying. This change occurred in 05-06. CENE 418 is currently being modified to incorporate more AutoCAD and the Land Desktop packages. The Arizona Board of Regents and State Legislature have placed significant limits on our curricula in terms of how many credits a program can require. As such, it would be very difficult to add additional courses to our curricula without compromising some other topic (that is probably there because of ABET or some other external driver). The CENE recently installed additional computer work stations in room 113, the CENE student projects room. The intent is for all of the CENE software to be available on these computers as well as the computers in 317 and the Internet Cafe. The CENE maintains a 30-seat AutoCAD network license for $9000. The CENE cannot afford to make more than 30 seats available. The current version of CENE 180 is strongly orientated towards CE and ENE needs. In addition, the CENE has made explicit efforts to place qualified instructors in this class. We suspect that this comment is coming from a student who may have taken an older offering of 180 when it was being taught by instructors with a ME background.


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, that 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 CENE 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 curricula, which directly support attainment of Criteria 3, 4, and 8.

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 participates in include: the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP), the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) Faculty Survey, the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) / Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE) and the National Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity (known 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, 5, and 7 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 often 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.

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 drunk 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.

• 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 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.

• 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.

• N AU 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 from 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,"

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 were 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 were asked about a variety of methods that they use in the classroom. Overall, the FTUG faculty from NAU were 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 were 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."

In comparison to the national norm group, the faculty at NAU were 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 more 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 nonns for those two disciplines in 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 department had a student / faculty ratio that was not within 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

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, 4 and 8.

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 lifelong 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 the 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 UC 101 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 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 Distribution Blocks. The Lab Science and Science-Applied Science blocks will be combined into one block called "Science," and two courses will 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 (AH1)

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 2007-08 CE and ENE curricula, while insuring that two of the distribution courses are double-dipping as diversity courses.

During the Fall of 2006, the CENE addressed this University driver and modified both its programs for the 2007-08 catalog.

8. Fundamentals of Engineering Examination Results

The CENE does not believe that the FE exam should be used as a primary assessment tool in the 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 lifelong learning.

3. Exam participation by our students is 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 tests 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 students' 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 exam results as a secondary infonnational tool into our CIP. Tables X.l 8 and X.19 summarize 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 X.18 NAU Civil Engineering FE Test Results

No. Examinees Taking No. Examinees Passing Percent Passing

Morning Exam Chemistry Computers Dynamics Electrical Circuits Eng Economics Ethics Fluid Mechanics Mat Sci/Str Matter Mathematics Mechanics Materials Statics Thermodynamics Afternoon Exam Construction Mgmt Comp & Num Methods Environ Eng Hydraul/Hyrdolog Legal & Prof Structural Analysis Structural Design Soil Mech & Foundations Surveying Trans Facilities Water Pur & Treat

April 2005 NAU

12 8

67 NAU % Correct

53 62 44 52 38 53 51 38 54 63 56 47

33 36 40 50 64 50 19 56 50 46 47

National 3045 2478

84 Nat'l % Correct

59 60 51 39 57 62 55 52 60 66 62 44

49 49 42 49 61 43 31 58 46 49 54

Morning Exam Chemistry Computers Eng Mechanics Elect. & Magnet Eng Economics Ethics & Business Fluid Mechanics Material Prop Mathematics Strengths Mat Eng Probability Thermodynamics Afternoon Exam Construction Mgmt Comp & Num Methods Environ Eng Hydraul/Hyrdo1og Legal & Prof Structural Analysis Structural Design Soil Mech & Foundations Surveying Transportation Water Pur & Treat Materials

April 2006 NAU

8 5

62 NAU % Correct

67 48 76 51 62 83 62 42 58 78 64 45

69

57 59

44 42 61 54 61

38

National 3580 2566

72 Nat'l % Correct

64 64 66 45 70 78 60 48 64 73 63 48

64

55 63

51 42 60 53 64

49


Table X.19 NAU Environmental Engineering FE Results


Morning Exam Chemistry Computers Dynamics Electrical Circuits Eng Economics Ethics Fluid Mechanics Mat Sci/Str Matter Mathematics Mechanics Materials Statics Thermodynamics Afternoon Exam Air Quality Eng Env Science & Mgmt Water Resources Solid & Haz Waste Water & Wastewater

April 2005 NAU

2 1

50 NAU % Correct

64 71 39 46 10 40 44 44 50 19 63 41

39 50 67 50 58

National 178 134 75

Nat'l % Correct

72 61 49 39 53 64 56 53 58 51 47 50

50 50 68 55 66

Morning Exam Chemistry Computers Eng Mechanics Elect. & Magnet Eng Economics Ethics & Business Fluid Mechanics Material Prop Mathematics Strengths Mat Eng Probability Thermodynamics Afternoon Exam Air Quality Eng Env Science & Mgmt Water Resources Solid & Haz Waste Water & Wastewater

April 2006 NAU

3 2 67

NAU % Correct

64 67 69 52 67 75 71 62 74 71 75 50

67 63 80 70 56

National 180 144 80

Nat'l % Correct

78 67 59 46 68 79 64 46 66 54 65 56

65 72 64 63 54


Appendix I- Additional Program Information

Tabular Data for Program

Table I-1. Basic level Curriculum Table I-2. Course and Section Size Summary Table I-3. Faculty Workload Summary Table I-4. Faculty Analysis Table I-5. Support Expenditures

Course Syllabi

Faculty Curriculum Vitae

Table I-1 Basic Curriculum Environmental Engineering (ENE)

Course Category (Credit Hours)

Math & Basic Science *

Engineering Topics **

Engineering Design **

General Education

Freshman Year, 1st Semester

CENE 150 Introduction to Environmental Engineering

CHM 151 General Chemistry I

CHM 151 L General Chemistry I Lab

BIO 181 Unity of Life I: Cell Life

BIO 181LUnityofLifeILab

MAT 136 Calculus I

4

1

3

1

4

3

Freshman Year, 2nd Semester

EGR 186 Introduction to Engineering Design

ENG 105 Critical Reading and Writing

MAT 137 Calculus II

PHY 161 University Physics I

PHY 161 L University Physics I Lab

CENE 180 Computer Aided Drafting

3

4

3

1

1 1

4

Sophomore Year, 1st Semester

PHY 262 University Physics II

CENE 281 L Water Quality Lab

CHM 152 General Chemistry II

CENE 225 Engineering Analysis

CENE 251 Applied Mechanics Statics

MAT 238 Calculus III

3

3

2

4

1

1

3

Sophomore Year, 2nd Semester

CENE 280 Environmental Engineering Fundamentals

CENE 282L Air/Site Investigation Lab

EGR 286 Engineering Design: The Methods

MAT 239 Differential Equations

ME 291 Thermodynamics I

CHM 230 Fundamental Organic Chemistry

3

3

3

1

3

3

3

1

CENE 270 Plane Surveying and Lab

CENE 253 Mechanics of Materials

CENE 330 Air Quality Engineering

ME 395 Fluid Mechanics

Liberal Studies (AHI or CU or SPW)

CENE 332 Solid/Haz Waste Management

CENE 333L Applied Hydraulics

CENE 333L Applied Hydraulics Lab

CENE 383 Soil Mechanics and Foundations (& Lab)

CENE 386W Engineering Design: The Methods

CENE 410 Unit Ops in Environmental Engineering

CENE 476 Engineering Design Process Lab

CENE 480 Environmental Transport Processes II

CENE 434 Water/Wastewater Engineering

CENE XXX CENE Technical Elective


CENE 486C Engineering Design: Capstone

Technical Elective (CENE. ME. CM, GLG, MAT)



PHI 105 or PHI 331 Intro. To Ethics or Environmental Ethics

Total ABET Basic-Level Requirements

Overall Total For Degree

Percent of Total

Junior Year, 1st Semester

Junior Year, 2nd Semester

Senior Year, 1st Semester

Senior Year, 2nd Semester

126

100%

39

31%

3

2

2

3

I

I

3

2

2

1

3

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

3

1

1

1

1

3

3

47

37%

3

21

17%

3

3

3

19

15 %

*Minimum Math and Basic Science Requirements by ABET = 32 hours or 25 % **Minimum Engineering (including Design) Topics Required by ABET = 48 hours or 37.5 %

2

Table I-2 Undergraduate Course and Section Size Summary Civil and Environmental Engineering

Course Number

150 180 186 225 251 253 253L 270 280 28 1L 282L 286 330 331 332 333 333 L 376 377 383 386W 410 418 420 430 433 434 435 436 438 440 450 476

Title

Introduction to Environmental Engineering Computer Aided Drafting Introduction to Engineering Design Engineering Analysis Applied Mechanics Statics Mechanics of Materials Mechanics of Materials Lab Plane Surveying * Environmental Engineering Fundamentals Water Quality Lab Air and Site Investigations Lab Engineering Design: The Process Air Quality Engineering Sanitary Engineering Solid & Hazardous Waste Management Applied Hydraulics Applied Hydraulics Lab Structural Analysis I Structural Analysis II Soil Mechanics and Foundations ** Engineering Design: The Methods Unit Operations in Environmental Engineering Highway Engineering Traffic Study and Signal Air Pollution Control Design Hydrology and Flood Control Water and Waste-Water Units Design Environmental Biotechnology Structural Steel Design Reinforced Concrete Design Environmental Protection: Today & Tomorrow Geotechnical Evaluation and Design Engineering Design Process Lab

Number of Sections

Fall 2 2 4 1 2

1 3 4 0 1 0 1 1 1 0

0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1

Spring 0 1 3 1 1

4 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 2

0 1 3 2

0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0

Average Section Enrollment

Fall 36.5 22.5

37.25 36

39.5 33 9

34.5

6

66 4 27

30

7 16 5 4

6

25 6 19 26

Spring

29 26.7 58 60

30.5 13

8

4 54

3 40

20.5

14 12.6 22

28

19

4 15

Type of class

Lecture 3 hrs 1 hrs 2 hrs 3 hrs 3 hrs 3 hrs

2 hrs 3 hrs

3 hrs 3 hrs 3 hrs 3 hrs 3 hrs

3 hrs 3 hrs 3 hrs 3 hrs 3 hrs 2 hrs 2 hrs 3 hrs 3 hrs 3 hrs 3 hrs 3 hrs 3 hrs 3 hrs 2 hrs 3 hrs

Laboratory

3 hrs 2 hrs

1 hrs 3 hrs

1 hrs 2.5 hrs

1 hrs

1 hrs

3 hrs 3 hrs

3 hrs

Other

3

480 485 486C 497 499 499 499

Environmental Transport Processes Undergraduate Research Engineering Design Independent Study Masonry Design Classical Open Channel Flow Water Quality Development Modeling

1 1 0 1 1 1 0

0 1 1 0 0 0 1

7 2

1 10 10

26

4

3 hrs

2 hrs

3 hrs 3 hrs 3 hrs

3 hrs 1 to 6 hrs

1 to 6 hrs

* 270 Plane Survey contains a lab with 3 sections, and 1 lecture section. ** 383 Soil Mechanics and Foundations is listed in the catalog as 4 hr lecture, the change to make it 3 hr lecture, 1 hr lab have been submitted for the academic year 07'-08\

4

Table I-3 Faculty Workload Summary Civil and Environmental Engineering

Faculty Member

William Auberle

Terry Baxter

Bridget Bero

Rand Decker

Patricia Ellsworth

Paul Gremillion

Joshua Hewes

Clyde Holland

Debra Larson

Eugene Loverich**

Wilbert Odem

Alarick Reiboldt

Craig Roberts

Charles Schlinger

Ellen Soles

John Tingerthal

Paul Trotta

Alisa Vadasz

FT or PT

FT

FT

FT

FT

FT

FT

FT

PT

FT

PT

FT

FT

FT

FT

PT

PT

FT

PT

Classes Taught

Fall 2006 150(2), 440, 540(2)

281L, 330,430

150,480

499, 599

330,410,476,690

376,438,499

251 (2), 253

253L(3)

418,420.599

270 (4), 450, 550

270 (2)

180(2)

331,434,476

485

Spring 2007 280

386W, 435

332

386W,433

282L, 486C, 499, 599

383 (3)

251

253 (2), 253L, 377

253L(3)

420

333,333L(2)

180,436

225,486C

485

Total Activity Distribution*

Teaching 54%

60%

60%

57%

50%

58%

51%

65%

20%

35%

50%

60%

65%

12%

40%

58%

10%

Research 30%,

25%,

25%)

30%

5%

30%

37%

10%

10%

95%

25%

23%

22%

30%

Other 16%

15%

15%

13%

45%

12%.

12%

10%

70%

5%

5%

50%

15%

12%

20%

Teaching includes advising. Research includes creative activity and professional development. Other includes service to the school. ** 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 reduced workload assignment

5

Table I-4 Faculty Analysis Civil and Environmental Engineering

Faculty Member William Auberle Terry Baxter Bridget Bero Rand Decker Patricia Ellsworth Paul Gremillion Joshua Hewes Clyde Holland

Debra Larson Eugene Loverich Wilbert Odem Alarick Reiboldt Craig Roberts Charles Schlinger Ellen Soles

Rank

Professor

Assoc Prof

Assoc Prof

Professor

Assist. Res. Prof.

Assist. Prof.

Assist. Prof.

Prof. Emeritus Professor & Chair

Assoc. Prof.

Professor

Lab Mgr & PT instructor

Assoc. Prof.

Assoc. Prof.

PT Instructor

FT or PT

FT

FT

FT

FT

FT

FT

FT

PT

FT

PT

FT

FT

FT

FT

PT

Highest Degree

MSE

PhD

PhD

PhD

PhD

PhD

PhD

PhD

PhD

MS

PhD

BSE (ME pending)

PhD

PhD

MA

Institution from which Highest Degree Earned

&Year West Virginia U 1967

U. of Kansas 1988

U. of Idaho 1994

Montana State U. 1986 U. of Colorado 1978 U. Central Florida 1994 U. California- San Diego 2002 Georgia Institute of Technology, 1970 Arizona State U. 1994

Ohio U. 1968

U.Arizona 1991

Northern Arizona U. 2001 Georgia Institute of Technology 1999 John Hopkins U. 1983 Northern Arizona U. 2003

Years of Experience

Prof. Practice

23

12

10

2

6

7

4

13

12

5

>20

8

8

Academic*

NAU Total

16

14

12

5

16

4

2

>20

12

28

15

3

8

8

7

16

23

12

11

30

10

2

>20

12

30

15

3

8

15

7

State Registered

OH and LA

KS

ID

LA

Ca

(Ret.) GA, LA, AZ

OR, AZ

AZ, OH

AZ

AZ and 13 other states AZ and 3 other states

Level of Activity

Professional Society

High

High

Med

High

Low

Low

Med

None

High

Med

Low

None

High

Med

Med

Research

Med

High

High

High

Low

High

High

None

Low

Low

Med

High

High

Med

Low

Consulting**

Med

None

None

High

None

None

None

None

None

High

High

None

None

High

High

John Tingerthal Paul Trotta

Alisa Vadasz

PT Instructor

Professor

Assist. Res. Prof.

PT

FT

PT

MS

PhD

PhD

U. Illinois- Urbana Champaign 1994 Colorado State U. 1975 U. Durban-Westville, South Africa 2004

12

4

2

30

3

2

32

3

IL(SE)

AZ and CO

Low

Med

None

None

Low

High

High

High

None

* T h e reported academic experience does not include that time working as a teaching or research assistant while pursuing a graduate degree. ** NAU does not recognize consulting as part of the regular duties of the NAU faculty. Those faculties who engage in consulting do so "off contract"; during the summer and/or as overload during the regular AY.

7

Table I-5. Support Expenditures (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering)

Fiscal Year

Expenditure Category Operations1

(not including staff)

Travel2

Equipment3

Institutional Fundsa

Grants and Gifts4

Graduate Teaching Assistants Part-time Assistanceh

(other than teaching)

1 2004-05

$7,577

$18,905

$6,910

2 2005-06

$7,894

$2,860 $16,500 $30,000

$18,033

3 2006-07

$7,894

$2,860 $43,035 $10,000

$10,701

4 2007-08

$7,894

$2,860 $43,035 $10,000

$10,701

Notes: 1. General operating expenses to be included here. 2. Institutionally sponsored, excluding special program grants. 3. Major equipment, excluding equipment primarily used for research. Note that the expenditures under "Equipment" should total the

expenditures for Equipment. If they don't, please explain. 4. Including special (not part of institution's annual appropriation) non-recumng equipment purchase programs.

a. From class fees

b. Includes student graders and lab aides.

8

CENE Syllabi

Northern Arizona University - College of Engineering & Natural Sciences Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering

CENE 150 INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING COURSE SYLLABUS Fall 2006, 3 Credil Hours

Instructor: William M. Auberle

Required Textbooks: Environmental Pollution and Control; Fourth Edition; Peirce, J., Weiner, R. and Vesilind, A.; Butterworth - Heinemann

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: MAT 110 or higher (co-req.) and CHM 120, 130 or 151 (co-req.) with a grade greater than or equal to C

Required or Elective: This course is required for both civil and environmental engineering students.

Catalogue Description: This course is designed to introduce the student to the discipline of environmental engineering and the role of technology in environmental protection. The course begins with an explanation of the principles of conservation and environmental protection. The environment is considered as a system with attention given to water resources, air contamination and waste management. Emphasis is given pollution prevention and multi-media impacts of most contaminants. The course concludes with current perspectives on environmental risks, policies and ethics. Current environmental issues are explored continuously throughout the semester.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes a, e, f, h, and j

Basic Curriculum Category: Engineering Topics

Course Objectives: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: A. Have knowledge of introductory level fundamentals in the following major focus areas: water resources,

wastewater management, pollution prevention, waste management, pollution prevention, atmospheric systems and air pollution control, and environmental and occupational health

B. Have a broader education that develops an ability to understand contemporary societal issues and engenders an understanding of the interaction of public institutions, the private sector and general society in environmental management.

Topics Covered: This course introduces the student to the fundamental concepts and issues associated with the discipline of environmental engineering and the role of environmental engineering in society. The course is designed as 4 modules. Module 1 is introductory and presents environmental ethics and unit and unit conversion. Module 2 focuses on water and wastewater treatment technologies; the concept of block diagrams and material balance are introduced. Module 3 explores the generation and management of solid, hazardous and nuclear wastes in the industrial society. This topic includes waste "from cradle to grave" with an emphasis on waste reduction methodologies. Module 4 introduces common air pollutants, the atmosphere and emissions reduction strategies and technologies. The course concludes with an examination of complex, contemporary environmental issues facing humans and ecosystems on a global scale.

Course Evaluation Methods: Homework and participation = 25% Examinations (3 @ 15%) = 45% Final Examination = 30%

The reported final course grade will be determined by comparing the final course total score obtained at the end of the semester to the following grading scale: A = 90 - 100%, B = 80 - 89%, C =70 - 79%, D= 60 - 69%, F =< 60%

Class Schedule: This class meets twice a week for two hours and twenty minutes.

Date Activity

August 29 Course introduction; discussion of student and instructor expectations; definitions of environmental engineering

August 31 -September 26 Water resources; water quality; water and waste water treatment technologies; laws and

regulations

September 28 First examination

October 3 -October 24 Solid and hazardous waste generation; principal characteristics; waste management; laws and

regulations

October 26 Second examination

October 31 -November 16 Air pollution sources; meteorology; air pollution measurements and controls; laws and

regulations

November 21 Third examination

November 28- Environmental ethics; environmental risks December 5

December 12 Final examination

Prepared By: William M. Auberle, August 2006 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, January 2007

Northern Arizona University - College of Engineering & Natural Sciences - Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering

CENE 180 COMPUTER AIDED DRAFTING COURSE SYLLABUS Fall 2006, 2 Credit Hours

Instructor: John Tingerthal, Shephard-Wesnitzer

Required Textbooks: There is no required text for this course. You will be required to take notes on the lectures. Outline lecture notes, labs and reference material are available on the Internet: www.cet.nau.edu/~jst37/cenel80.htm

Required Materials - No later than beginning of 2nd week of class (Sep 6) - Bring all to class • Minimum of 100 Mb portable storage media (USB Jump drive, etc) • Scale - either architectural or engineers or both • Straight-edge or 30-60-90 triangle • Engineer's grid paper • Red and Blue colored pencils • (2) HB or F pencils • (2) #4 pencils • White Plastic Eraser (stick or block type) • 2-prong pressboard report cover (see below) • Engineering calculator

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: MAT 125 or MAT 125H or higher with a grade greater than or equal to C


Catalogue Description: Fundamentals of graphical communications, including sketching, computer aided drafting, standards, scaling, and basic civil and environmental engineering applications.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes g and k

Basic Curriculum Category: Engineering Topics and Engineering Design

Course Objectives: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: A. Read and understand engineering drawings B. Present graphical information in both sketch and CAD format C. Have a fundamental understanding of AutoCAD D. Be exposed to Civil Engineering applications

Topics Covered: • Sketching and Scale • Sketching Techniques • Lettering • Introduction to the AutoCAD Environment • Plotting with AutoCAD • Blocks • Text • Lineweights and Plot Styles • Dimensioning • Hatching • Topographic Drawing • Geographical Information Systems (GIS) • External References (XREFS)

http://www.cet.nau.edu/~jst37/cenel80.htm

Course Evaluation Methods:

• 20% Class Participation • 50% Lab work / Notebook evaluations / Quizzes • 30% Final Project


Class Schedule: This class meets twice a week for an hour and forty minutes.

Tentative Course Outline (subject to change)

Week 1 Introduction Week 2 - 3 Sketching, Hand Techniques Week 4 - 5 Intro to AutoCAD Week 6 - 8 Creating Design Drawings w/AutoCAD Week 9 - 1 3 Advanced techniques w/AutoCAD Week 14 - 15 Final Project

Prepared By: John Tingerthal, August 2006 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, January 2007


CENE 225 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS C O U R S E SYLLABUS Fall 2006, 3 Credit Hours

Instructor: Paul D. Trotta

Required Textbooks: Modern Engineering Statistics ; author: Lawrence L. Lapin; publisher: Duxbury

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: MAT 137 or higher with grade greater than or equal to C


Catalogue Description: Graphical and numerical descriptive statistics, probability, inferential statistics, discrete and continuous random variables, sampling error, hypothesis testing, and experiment design.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes a, b, k,

Basic Curriculum Category: Math and Science with Engineering Topics

Course Objectives: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: A. Present and analyze data from various engineering fields using graphical and numerical descriptive statistics B. Apply probability concepts to interpret and deduce probabilities and risks C. Use and contrast fundamental probability distributions and density functions found in engineering analysis. D. Use and interpret concepts from central limit theorem to establish confidence intervals and levels, design

experiments, and test hypothesis.

Topics Covered: • Describing, Displaying, and Exploring Statistical Data • Statistical Process Control • Making Predictions Regression Analysis • Probability • Random Variables and Probability Distributions • Statistical Estimation & Testing • Experimental Design

Course Evaluation Methods: Your semester grade will be based upon a combination of assignments and activities that are summarized below:

Item Homework Individual Projects

Quizzes Final

Total

Number 10 4

10 1

Points per Item 10 20

20

5@20

Quiz or Quiz Equivalents 5 4

10 5

24

Of the 24 potential Quiz or Quiz Equivalent grades only the best 19 will be totaled. The reported final course grade will be determined by comparing the final course total score obtained at the end of the semester to the following grading scale: A = 90 - 100%, B = 80 - 89%, C =70 - 79%, D= 60 - 69%, F =< 60%

Class Schedule: This class meets three times a week for fifty minutes. The course instructors reserve the right to modify this schedule during the semester to meet the needs of this particular class.

Class 1 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

Week 1 I

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5 6 6 7 7

8 8 9 9

10

10

11

11

12

12

13

14

14

15

15

Date Tuesday. August 29, 2006 Thursday, August 31, 2006 Tuesday, September 05, 2006 Thursday, September 07, 2006 Tuesday, September 12, 2006 Thursday, September 14, 2006 Tuesday, September 19, 2006 Thursday, September 21, 2006 Tuesday, September 26, 2006 Thursday, September 28, 2006 Tuesday, October 03, 2006 Thursday, October 05, 2006 Tuesday, October 10, 2006 Thursday, October 12, 2006

Tuesday. October 17, 2006 Thursday, October 19, 2006 Tuesday, October 24, 2006 Thursday, October 26, 2006 Tuesday, October 31, 2006 Thursday, November 02, 2006 Tuesday, November 07, 2006 Thursday. November 09, 2006 Tuesday, November 14, 2006 Thursday. November 16, 2006 Tuesday, November 21, 2006 Tuesday, November 28, 2006 Thursday, November 30, 2006 Tuesday, December 05, 2006 Thursday, December 07, 2006 Final

Chapter 1 1

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

4 4 4 5 6

6 6 6 6 7

7

7

8

S

7

7

7

7

7&8

7&8

Topic Intro&Typs of Data

Sampling

Descriptive-Graphical


Descriptive-Numerical


Variability

Control Charts

Control Charts

Regression Regression Regression

Model Building Probabilitv-Basics

Probability-Independence

Probability-Conditional Bayes

Reliabilitv Discrete Prob Dist

Expccted&Var-discrcte

Binomial

Poisson/Exponential

Hypergeometric Continuous Prob

Densilv

Normal

Normal

Central Limit

Hypothesis

Hypothesis

HWDUE class assignments 1:1,2,5,6,8,9

1:11,12,15,16,17,19

class assignment#2

2:1,2,3,7,8,10,11

2:23,25,26

TBD

2:30,33,35

TBD

3:1,2,5 class assignment#3 4:14,16 TBD 5:1,3,4,6

6:1,3,4,5,6 6:9,10,11,15,16,17 6.21,22,23 6:26,27,29,31 6.33,34,35,36

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

7.22,24,27,28,30

8:1,2,3,4,

8:38,39,41,42,44

7:6,7,8,9,10,11,13,16,35,36,37,42,43,44

9:1,2,3,4,8,9,10,11,12,17,19,23,24

Quiz

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Prepared By: Paul D. Trotta, August 2006 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, January 2007


CENE 251 APPLIED MECHANICS - STATICS COURSE SYLLABUS

Fall 2006, 3 Credit Hours

Instructor: Clyde N. Holland

Required Textbooks: Mechanics for Engineers-Statics, Beer and Johnston, et. al.,8th ed.



Catalogue Description: Fundamentals of applied mechanics, vector algebra, equivalent force systems, equations of

equilibrium, structures, moments of plane areas, centroids, friction.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes a and e


Course Objectives: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: A. Distinguish and appropriately represent problems as particles, rigid bodies, structures, or simple machines composed

of multiple rigid bodies and particles. B. Visualize the mechanics of various problems and draw the corresponding free body diagrams making use of

Newton's First and Third Laws. C. Apply the equations of equilibrium via vector algebra to analyze various two and three-dimensional engineering

problems. D. Represent the solution to these problems in a neat, readable, orderly and professional manner.

Each of these course objectives build towards student's achievement of two ABET learning outcomes, a and e, which focus on developing students' proficiency in solving engineering problems using mathematics and science principles within their respective disciplines.

Topics Covered: • Fundamentals of Applied Mechanics • Vector Algebra • Free Body Diagrams • Equivalent Force Systems • Equations of Equilibrium • Structures • Moments of Plane Areas • Shear/Moment Diagrams • Centroids • Fluid Pressure • Friction, Moments of Inertia


Hourly Exams (4) 60% Home Assignments 15% Final Exam 25% The reported final course grade will be determined by comparing the final course total score obtained at the end of the semester to the following grading scale: A = 90 - 100%, B = 80 - 89%, C =70 - 79%, D= 60 - 69%, F =< 60%

Prepared By: Clyde N. Holland, August 2006 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, February 2007

Class Schedule: This course meets three times a week for fifty minutes. The course instructors reserve the right to modify this schedule during the semester to meet the needs of this particular class.

Week 1

Week 2

Week 3

Week 4

Week 5

Week 6

Week 7

Week 8

Week 9

Week 10

Week 11

Week 12

Week 13

Week 14

Week 15

EGR251

M Aug 28

W Aug 30

F Sep 1

M Sep 4

W Sep 6

F Sep 8

M Sep 11 1

W Sep 13

F Sep 15

M Sep 18

W Sep 20

F Sep 22

M Sep 25

W Sep 27

F Sep 29

M Oct 2

W Oct 4

F Oct6

M Oct9

W Oct 11

F Oct 13

M Oct 16

W Oct 18

F Oct 20

M Oct 23

W Oct 25

F Oct 27

M Oct 30

W Nov 1

F Nov3

M Nov 6

W Nov 8

F Nov 10

M Nov 13

W Nov 15

F Nov 17

M Nov 20

W Nov 22

F Nov 24

M Nov 27

W Nov 29

F Dec 1

M Dec4

W Dec 6

F Dec 8 F I N A L E X A M -

FALL 2006

1.1-1.6; 2.1-2.6

2.1-2.8

2.9-2.11

Holiday - Labor Dav

2.12-2.14

2.15-2.15

3.1-3.8

3.9-3.11

3.12-3.16

3.17-3.20

3.12-3.20

4.1-4.3

4.4-4.5

4.4-4.5

4.6-4.7

4.6-4.9

4.6-4.9

4.4-4.9

5.1-5.5

5.6-5.7

5.8-5.9

5.1-5.9

6.1-6.5

6.1-6.5

6.7-6.8

6.7-6.8

7.3-7.5

7.6-7.6

7.3-7.6

Holiday - Veteran's Day

6.9-6.11

6.12-6.12

6.9-6.12

6.9-6.12

8.1-8.4

Holiday-Thanksgiving Holiday

8.5-8.6

8.5-8.6

9.1-9.6

9.1-9.6

3-5 pm Tuesday, Dec 12th

ASSIGNMENTS W I L L BE MADE DURING EACH CLASS

Introduction/Review

Addition Subtraction of Forces

Particle Equilibrium

Forces In Space

Equilibrium In Space Vector Prod Moment of Force/Point Axis

Scalar Product/Moment of Force/Axis

Couples

Equivalent System Of Forces

Couples

HOURLY EXAMINATION #1 Free Body Diagrams Reactions At Supports

Equilibrium In Two Dimensions


Two & Three Force Bodies

Equilibrium In Three Dimensions


Equilibrium

Hourly Examination #2

Cenlroids

Centroids Integration

Fluid Pressure

Centroids

Trusses. Method Of Joints

Trusses/Method Of joints

Trusses Method Of Sections

Trusses/Method Of Sections

Internal Forces In Beams

Shear/Bending Moment

Shear.Bending Moment


Frames

Machines

Frames & Machines

Frames & Machines

Friction

Wedges

Screws

HOURLY EXAMINATION #4

Moment of Inertia- Intro.

Moment Of Inertia Parts

Moment Of Inertia


CENE 253 MECHANICS OF MATERIALS COURSE SYLLABUS Fall 2006, 3 Credit Hours


Required Textbooks: Mechanics of Materials, 4th Edition, F.B. Beer, E.R. Johnston, and J.T. DeWolf McGraw-Hill, 2006

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: CENE 251 with a grade of C or better


Catalogue Description: This course covers basic concepts of solid mechanics. Relationships between stresses, strains, deformations and internal forces in machine components and load-bearing structures are presented. Design of these members for safety is covered. Presentation of engineering solutions in a clear, simple, and professional method is emphasized

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes a, c and e

Basic Curriculum Category: Engineering Topics with Engineering Design

Course Objectives: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: A. Use the method of sections to draw free body diagrams and subsequently determine external and internal forces

using equilibrium principles and mathematical tools. B. Calculate stresses, strains and deformations in various machines and load-bearing structures subjected to axial force,

torsion, shear, and bending actions. C. Design safe load-bearing components D. Present engineering calculations in a clear, logical, and professional manner.

Topics Covered: MODULE 1 - General Background Information Chapter 1 -Topics/concepts include - force, stress (normal, shearing, bearing), stress on oblique planes, six components of stress, variation of stress over a section, ultimate strength, allowable load, factor of safety, load and resistance factor design. Problems illustrating most of the above.

Chapter 2 -Stress-strain diagram (engineering/true) elastic constants including Bulk Modulus, Poisson's Ratio, Young's Modulus; elastic/plastic behavior of materials, fatigue, deformation under axial load; multi-axial loading, fiber reinforced fabrics, stress concentrations, Saint-Venants Principle, solution to statically indeterminate problems (including temperature changes) using deformation information.

Module 2 Torsion in a Circular Shaft Chapter 3- Deformation of circular shaft, derivation of torsion formula in the elastic range, deformation of circular shaft in the elastic range, design of circular shaft, general problems involving torsion in circular members.

Module 3 Shear and Bending Moment Diagrams for Beams Chapter 5 (5.1-5.3) Derivation of relationship for shear and bending moment in a beam; shear and bending moment diagrams by equation, shear and bending moment diagrams using boundry conditions and relations between load, shear and bending moments.

Module 4 - Flexure Stress and Design of Beams for Bending Chapter 4 Deformation of symmetrical member in pure bending, the neutral axis/surface; stresses and deformation in the elastic range; beams of several materials: combined axial and flexure stresses. Chapter 5 (5.4) Design of Beams for Bending.

Module 5 Shear Stress in Beams Chapter 6 (6.1-6.4: 6.6, 6.7) - Derivation of necessary equations, variation of shear stress across a section, distribution of shear stress in standard sections, longitudinal shear in a beam,, shear stress in thin walled member/shear flow.

Module 6 Transformation of Stress; Mohr's Circle for Plane Stress

Chapter 7 (7.1-7.4); Chapter 8 (8.1-8.4) - Development of equations for transformation of planes stress, principal stresses; maximum shearing stress by equation; use of Mohr's Circle in stress transformation. Chapter 8 (8.1-8.4) Principal stresses in beams and circular shafts, stresses under combined loadings, design taking into account principal stresses and maximum shear stresses.

Module 7 Beam Deflection Chapter 9 (9.1-9.5; 9.7-9.8) - Beam deflection by integration and superposition, statically indeterminate beams.

Module 8- Columns Chapter 10 (10.1-10.4; 10.6)- Development of Euler's Equation for columns, design of columns for centric loads.


Item Hourlv Exams

Homework Final Exam

Weight 60% 15% 25%

The reported final course grade will be determined by comparing the final course total score obtained at the end of the semester to the following grading scale: A - 90 - 100%, B = 80 - 89%, C =70 - 79%, D= 60 - 69%, F =< 60%

Class Schedule: This class meets this schedule during the semester to

three times a week for fifty minutes. The course instructors reserve the right to modify meet the needs of this particular class.

Date 8-28-06 8-30-06 9-1-06 9-6-06 9-8-06 9-11-06 9-13-06 9-15-06 9-18-06 9-20-06 9-22-06 9-27-06 10-2-06 10-4-06 10-6-06 10-9-06 10-11-06 10-18-06 10-20-06 10-23-06 10-27-06 10-30-06 11-3-06 11-6-06 11-13-06 11-15-06 11-17-06 11 -20-06 11-22-06 11-27-06 12-4-06 12-6-06

Lecture 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

Topic 1.1-1.5;1.9-1.10 1.6-1.8 pages 23-30 2.1-2.5 2.6-2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11-2.12; 2.14-2.15 2.17-2.18 3.1-3.5 3.5-3.6 3.7 ' 5.1-5.2 5.3 5.3 4.1-4.5,5.4 4.1-4.5 5.4 4.6 4.6 -4.7 4 .12&4.14 6.1-6.4 6.2 6.1-6.4 7.1-7.3 7.4 7.1-7.4 9.1-9.4 9.5 9.7 11.1-11.3 11.4

Homework 1.3, 1.6, 1.13 1.10, 1.16, 1.17, 1.21 1.30, 1.34, 1.43, 1.49 2.1,2.9,2.23 2.4,2.18,2.24 2.35,2.37,2.46 2.48,2.50,2.55 2.61,2.64,2.68,2.81 2.105,2.109,2.113 3.3,3.13,3.19 3.34,3.35,3.39 3.70. 3.77, 3.82 5.1,5.3.5.12 5.10,5.44,5.56 5.30, 5.49, 5.59 4.1,4.2,4.8,4.10 4.5,4.17,4.20 5.72,5.82. 5.89 4.33,4.40,4.42 4.49,4.50 4.101,4.102,4.145 6.5.6.10,6.13 6.2,6.4,6.8

7.1,7.5,7.15 7.32,7.33 7.23,7.47 9.1,9.7,9.13 9.19.9.20 9.72,9.78.9.82 10.9. 10.10. 10.18 10.18, 10.21, 10.22



CENE 253L MECHANICS OF MATERIALS LAB - SECTION B C O U R S E SYLLABUS Fall 2006, 1 Credit Hour

Instructor: A. K. Reiboldt

Required Textbooks/Materials: One three-ring binder with a minimum of twelve dividers.

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: The course prerequisite is EGR 251 (Statics), with grade of C or better, the co-

requisite is CENE 253 (Mechanics of Materials)

Required or Elective: This course is required for both civil and mechanical engineering students.

Catalogue Description: Lab experiments to reinforce the concepts discussed in CENE

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes b and g


Course Objectives: The Mechanics of Materials Laboratory course is intended to supplement the classroom instruction in the mechanics of Mechanics of Materials lecture course. Upon completion of this class, students will understand:

A. The physical properties, the action under load, and the character of failure of the more commonly used structural materials.

B. Some of the experimental methods used and the limitations of these methods in the determination of the properties of materials.

C. Determine the accuracy of the data commonly obtained during testing, and the reliance which should be placed on the test data.

D. The basic tools for the preparation of technical documents, including technical reports, professional letters, and memos.

Topics Covered: • Testing equipment and methods • Engineering report writing and data organization • Hardness testing • Bolted joint testing • Tension testing • Torsion testing • Impact testing • Fatigue analysis and testing • Concrete mix design • Electronic strain gages • Frame flexure


Total for Reports: (w/'o extra credit) 1000 pts. maximum x 0.75 = 7 5 % Quizzes: (lowest score dropped) 133 pts. maximum = 10% Lab Participation: 133 pts. maximum = 10% Notebooks: 67 pts. maximum = 5 % Total Possible Score 100 %

Grading Scale: A = 90- 100%, B= 80-89%, C-70 - 79%, D= 60 - 69%, F =< 59%

Class Schedule: This course meets once a week for two hours and thirty minutes. The course instructors reserve the right to modify this schedule during the semester to meet the needs of this particular class.

Week ofSession Activity Report Report Due

8-28 1 Introduction N/A None

9-04 2 Hardness Lab Partial Report None

9-11 3 Machine Shop Training N/A None

9-18 4Q Bolted Joints Partial Report Hardness Reports

9-25 5Q Tension Lab Full Report Bolted Joints Report

10-02 6Q Torsion Lab Full Report None

10-09 7Q Impact Lab Letter Tension Reports

10-16 8Q Fatigue Lab Letter Torsion Reports

10-23 9Q Concrete Lab Letter Impact Letters

10-30 10Q Strain Gages Memo Fatigue Letters

11-06 11 Bridge Construction Concrete Letters

11-13 12Q Frame Flexure Memo Strain Gage Memos

11-20 13 Bridge Construction None

11-27 14Q Bridge Testing Full Report Frame Flex Memos

12-04 15Q Review/Notebooks N/A Bridge Reports

12-11 16 To Be Determined

Prepared By: A. K. Reiboldt, August 2006 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, January 2007


CENE 270 PLANE SURVEYING COURSE SYLLABUS Fall 2006, 3 Credit Hours

Instructor: Charlie Schlinger, Ellen S. Soles

Required Textbooks: Elementary Sun-eying - An Introduction to Geomatics, 11th Edition,, Wolf, P. R. and Ghilani, C. D., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2006

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: MAT 125 or MAT 125H with grade of C or better.


Catalogue Description: Surveying instruments and basic procedures including error analysis; note keeping; measurement of distance, elevation, and angles with appropriate precision; traversing; stadia; and, topographic mapping. 2 hours lecture, 3 hours lab.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes f, i and k for CENE 270; b, g & k for CENE 270L.


Course Objectives: CENE 270 is designed to introduce civil & environmental engineering undergraduates, and other interested students, to the technical and professional skills necessary to collect and work with survey data. We cover modern surveying principles, methods of spatial data collection, reduction, evaluation, analysis, manipulation & presentation; software, survey instruments, and applications. Emphasis will be placed on engineering line-of-sight surveying. Additionally, we address plane coordinate geometry (COGO), geodesy, Global Positioning System (GPS), Land Information Systems & Geographic Information Systems (LIS/GIS), map projection, horizontal and vertical curves, regulation of surveying work, and other topics of interest. The student is expected to further develop good work habits and to develop a high regard for thoroughness, accuracy and precision of data.

Course Outcomes: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: A. Set up and use auto-levels, total stations, and data collectors to acquire topographic survey, cross-sectional, slope,

distance, and other related survey B. Download, process, evaluate and present topographic and other survey data C. Utilize GIS and aerial topographic data sets D. Read, interpret and apply surveying information related to construction and layout E. Use trigonometry and geometry for surveying computations F. Determine what kinds of surveys can be conducted by registered civil and environmental engineers in the States of

Arizona and California G. Acquire a thorough understanding of the terminology and fundamentals of civil and environmental engineering

surveying and measurements H. Acquire dexterity in the use of surveying equipment and of relevant software I. Develop the ability to evaluate and analyze engineering measurement problems and to successfully solve these

problems J. Develop good fieldwork, survey note-taking habits and data management techniques K. Develop skills necessary to communicate technical information in a written format

Topics Covered and Schedule: This course meets twice a week for fifty minutes.

Classroom Topic(s) Introduction, Applications and History; Geodetic versus Plane Surveying Units, Significant Digits, Precision, Accuracy, Errors Distance and Angle Measurements Traversing COGO

Lab Topic(s) Introduction to Tapes, Rods, Tripods, Levels & Stadia; Vertical Control Leveling - As-Built Vertical Profile

Intro to Total Station and Data Collector Topo Survey 1 Topo Survey 2

Week 1

2

3 4 5

Mapping (Topographic & Planimetric) Surveys Areas and Volumes Projections: UTM & State Plane Coordinates (Map Projections Project) Geodesy & GPS - incl. Guest Speaker

Public Lands System in the U.S. Boundary, ALTA & Control Surveys (ALTA Survey Project) Regulation of Surveying by the States Legal and Quasi-Legal Issues Aerial Topographic Surveys - incl. Guest Speaker TBD - Thanksgiving Week LIS/GIS/CADD - incl. Guest Speaker Construction Surveying / Horizontal and Vertical Curves (Horizontal & Vertical Control Sheets Project)

Topo Survey 3

Topo Survey 4 Topo Survey: 5

Establishing Survey Control With GPS

Topo Survey 6

Topo Survey 7

Aerial Topographic Survey

Monday Lab only - Thanksgiving Week G1S TBD

6

7 8

9

10

11

12

13 14 15


Mid-term exam - 20% Lab Field Book and Set-Up Testing - 10% Lab Projects - 20% Homework- 15% Final Examination - 35%


Prepared By: Charlie Schlinger, August 2006 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, January 2007


CENE 280 ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING FUNDAMENTALS C O U R S E SYLLABUS

Spring 2007, 3 Credit Hours


Required Textbooks: Introduction to Environmental Engineering and Science, Second Edition; by Gilbert M. Masters; Prentice Hall

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: BIO 181, CENE 150, CHM 152, MAT 136 or MAT 136H with a grade greater than or equal to C

Required or Elective: This course is required for environmental engineering students, and is an elective for selected other programs of study

Catalogue Description: A course in environmental engineering fundamentals that applies biological, chemical, and mathematical principles to solve environmental engineering problems using the mass balance approach

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes a, e, h, and j

Basic Curriculum Category: Engineering topics

Course Objectives/Outcomes: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: A. Utilize basic mathematics, science and engineering to understand and describe a broad array of environmental

science and engineering topics, and B. Solve engineering problems in environmental contexts through mass balance and related mathematical techniques;

and C. Understand the import of environmental engineering in assessing and addressing fundamental, contemporary and

future societal challenges, and D. Describe selected contemporary environmental issues in the broader context of economic, social and global -

political systems.

Topics Covered: This course begins with a review and expansion of terms, units, scientific principles, and mathematical techniques employed in assessing and solving environmental engineering problems. Emphasis is placed on the application of mass balance to representative problems. Water resources are explored at the community, regional and global scales through hydrology, water management and water treatment methodologies. Atmospheric science, air pollution, pollutant dispersion and emissions control strategies and technologies are examined through engineering and societal solutions, including the challenges of climate change.


Homework and participation= 25% Examinations (3@ l5%)= 45% Final Examination= 30%

100%


Class Schedule: class meets twice a week for one hour and fifteen minutes.

Date

January 16

January 18

February 13

February 15

February 20

March 15

March 19

March 23

March 27

April 24

April 26

May 1 and 3

May 8

Activity

Course introduction; discussion of student and instructor expectations; definitions of environmental engineering

Review of materials balance; applications of mathematics and environmental

chemistry; environmental challenges of energy demands and population growth

First examination

Introduction to water resources engineering including oxygen demand, March 13 contaminant transport, engineered pollution control systems

Second examination

Spring Break - No Classes

Introduction to air pollution engineering including atmospheric science,

Gaussian plume dispersion, engineered emissions control systems and strategies, and climate change

Third examination

Environmental ethics; contemporary challenges of environmental engineers

Final examination

Prepared By: William M. Auberle, January 2007 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, March 2007


CENE 281 L WATER QUALITY LABORATORY COURSE S Y L L A B U S Fall 2006, 1 Credit Hour

Instructor: Terry E. Baxter

Required Textbooks: Course web page

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: CHM 151, CHM 151L, and CENE 150 with a grade of C or better; EGR 225 or CENE 225 (co requisite)

Required or Elective: This course is required for environmental engineering students.

Catalogue Description: Lab and field methods of sampling and measuring water, wastewater and microbiological parameters. Includes quality assurance and analysis of data.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes b, g, and k


Course Objectives: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: A. Design and conduct experiments associated with water systems B. Analyze and interpret water quality data C. Write a concise, well-organized, technical laboratory report

Topics Covered/ Schedule: This course meets once a week for two hours and ten minutes. Week Topics 1 - 2 Introduction to the Water Quality Lab

Laboratory and Field Safety Planning for, collecting, and preserving water samples Quality assurance and quality control

3 - 4 Solids and Turbidity (Report # 1) 5 pH and Acidity 6 - 7 Hardness and Alkalinity (Report #2) 8 - 9 DO, BOD & COD (Report #3) 10 Oxygen-Consumption Rate (Report #4) 11 Microscope Use and Observing Microorganisms

Slide Preparation Mounts and Staining (Report #5) 12 Identifying Filamentous Bacteria (Report #6) 13 Bacterial Enumeration and the Coliform Group (Report #7) 14-15 Final Laboratory Practicum 16 Final Exam / Final Laboratory Practicum Report


Item Course Points Laboratory Reports (7) 700 Homework Effort 100 Final Exam Practicum Report (1) 200 Total Points 1000

The reported final course grade will be determined by comparing the final course total score obtained at the end of the semester to the following grading scale: > 899 = A; 898 > B > 799; 798 > C > 699; 698 > D > 599; < 599 = F

Prepared By: Terry E. Baxter. August 2006 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, January 2007


CENE 282L AIR AND SITE INVESTIGATIONS LAB C O U R S E SYLLABUS


Instructor: Paul Gremillion

Required Textbooks: Handouts

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: CHM 151 and CHM 151L and CENE 150 and (EGR 225 or STA 270) completed with grades greater than or equal to C.


Catalogue Description: Lab and field methods for measuring parameters in air, soil, and hazardous materials. Includes quality assurance and analysis of data. 2.5 hrs. lab. Prerequisites: CHM 151 and 151L, CENE 150, and EGR 225 or STA 270.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes b, g and k


Course Objectives/Outcomes: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to:

A. Design experiments to meet a need, conduct the experiments, and analyze and interpret the data (ABET Outcome b). B. Apply relevant techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools of the engineering practice (ABET Outcome k).

Topics Covered/Schedule: This course meets once a week for two hours and thirty minutes.

Week

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8 9

10 11

12 13 14

Date

16-Jan

23-Jan

30-Jan 6-Feb

13-Feb

20-Feb

27-Feb

6-Mar 13-Mar

20-Mar

27-Mar 3-Apr 10-Apr 17-Apr

Topic Intro, Soil Sampling: Sampling plan and chain of custody. Lab: Review sampling plan, chain of custody, and field logistics. Field: Proposed for Friday 26-Jan. Lab: Analyze samples collected in field. Work on mercury lab report.

Review lab report, revise. Start PM10 monitoring. Intro, Hazardous Waste Monitoring; groundwater movement.

Soil and GW sampling design, Assign first round sampling.

Methods to find plume centers. Work on hazardous waste report.

Assignments

Sampling plan

Lab data forms Lab Report 1

PM 10 sampling plan

GW map

First round sampling.

Second round sampling Lab Report 2

Due

Sampling plan

Completed lab form. Lab Report 1 Revised Report 1 PM 10 sampling plan

GW map 1 st round map due 2nd round map due

Spring Break Intro, Indoor Air Quality; Lecture by Jim Biddle; plan indoor air sampling. Indoor air lab 2: Deploy CO? monitor on campus Indoor air lab 3: Data reduction and analysis Intro, Air Quality Monitoring; prep for PM 2.5

CO2 monitoring plan CO2 data files

Lab Report 2

CO2 data files Lab Report 3

15 16

17

24-Apr 1-May

8-May

total and speciation analyses, site selection. Air quality monitoring lab 2: field work with PM 2.5 Air quality lab 3: Data reduction and analysis

Lab Final

PM2.5 data forms Lab Report 4 Completed data

forms Lab Report 4


Soil sampling plan 10 Soil lab data forms 10 Lab Report 1 100 PM10 sampling plan 10 GWmap 10 1st round sampling 10 2nd round sampling 10 Lab Report 2 100 C02 monitoring plan 10 C02 data files 10 Lab Report 3 100 PM2.5 data forms 10 PM10 data forms 10 Lab Report 4 100 Lab Final 50 Total: 550


Prepared By: Paul Gremillion, January 2007 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, March 2007


CENE 330 AIR QUALITY ENGINEERING COURSE S Y L L A B U S Fall 2006, 3 Credit Hours


Required Textbooks: Course web site materials on Vista

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: CENE 280, CENE 282L, and MAT 137 with a grade of C or better


Catalogue Description: Technical approaches to air quality problems; source identification; acid deposition; ozone; control of primary and toxic air pollutants; indoor air quality.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes a, c, e, g, h, j and k


Course Objectives: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: A. Explain the role regulations play in defining and managing air quality B. Explain the effects air pollutants have on health, and on local and global environments C. Explain physical processes affecting air quality D. Use appropriate concepts and techniques to quantify air quality and air pollutant emissions E. Explain various types of air pollution control systems and how they operate

Topics Covered/Schedule:

Week Topic 1-6 Course introduction and expectations

Air pollutants and sources Legislation and Regulation Effects of Air pollution Air pollution meteorology and dispersion

7-11 Air Quality and Source Assessment a) emissions inventory b) ambient air monitoring c) source sampling

Air pollution dispersion models 12-15 Air Pollution Control and Prevention

Indoor air quality 16 Final Exam


Item Course Weight Homework 25% Quizzes 25% Paper 25% Final Exam 25%

The reported final course grade will be determined by comparing the final course total score obtained at the end of the semester to the following grading scale: A = 89.5 - 100%, B = 79.5 - 89.4%, C = 69.5 - 79.4%, D - 59.5 - 69.4%, F = < 59.5%

Class Schedule: This course meets three times a week for one hour. This course instructors reserve the right to modify this schedule during the semester to meet the needs of this particular class.

Week Activity Reading 8/28 Introduction to structural analysis, structural systems 1.1 - 1.6 9/4 Boundary conditions, sign convention and statics review 4.1 - 4.6, 4.9 - 4.15 9/11 Structural loads 2.1 - 2.11,3.1 - 3.2,3.6 9/18 Systems identification, stability and indeterminacy of beams 4.7 - 4.8 9/25 Test #1, Internal forces & deflected shape for beams & frames 5.1 - 5.6 10/2 Internal forces and deflected shape for beams and frames 5.1 - 5.6, 10.1 - 10.3 10/9 Stability and indeterminacy of 2-D trusses 6.1 - 6.7, 7.1 - 7.2, 7.4 10/16 Stability and indeterminacy of 2-D trusses 6.1 - 6.7, 7.1 - 7.2, 7.4 10/23 Test #2, Influence lines (IL's) for determinate beams 9.1-9.7 10/30 IL's for determinate beams 9.1 - 9.7, 14.2 11/6 Deflections: elastic curve and moment - area method 10.3 - 10.6 11/13 Deflections: conjugate - beam method App. F4 - F6 11 /20 Review, Test #3, Thanksgiving Holiday 11/27 Introduction to finite element programs: SAP 2000 Handout 12/4 Approximate methods of analysis, Review 16.1, 16.3 - 16.5 12/11 Test #4 - Final Exams Week

Prepared By: Terry E. Baxter, August 2006

Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, January 2007


CENE 331 SANITARY ENGINEERING COURSE SYLLABUS Fall 2006, 3 Credit Hours


Required Textbooks: Water and Wastewater Technology; author: Mark J. Hammer, Jr; publisher: Pearson; Prentice Hall

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: CENE 333 with grade greater than or equal to C

Required or Elective: This course is required for civil engineering students.

Catalogue Description: Water-quality issues affecting water supply and effluent treatment, disposal, and reuse. Design of physical, chemical, and biological treatment facilities.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes a, c, e, j and k

Basic Curriculum Category: Engineering Topics with Significant Engineering Design

Course Objectives: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to:

A. Understand the origin and scope of regulations for drinking water supply and wastewater effluent quality. B. Understand how flow rates and overall plant capacities are determined. C. Understand how water supply distribution systems are designed, operated, and maintained. D. Be able to design the volume, surface area, and chemical feed mass flow of reactors for common physical and chemical

unit operations in water and wastewater treatment. E. Understand the metabolic processes of microorganisms used in biological wastewater treatment. F. Understand the growth and decay kinetics microorganisms in suspended-growth reactors. G. Be able to design reactors for suspended-growth wastewater treatment. H. Be able to design disinfection systems for water and wastewater treatment systems

Topics Covered: • Water & Wastewater quality management regulations at federal, state and local level • Essential Hydraulics of Water Treatment and Distribution; Wastewater Treatment and Collection • Physical, Chemical and Biological Unit Processes; engineering analysis and design

Course Evaluation Methods: Your semester grade will be based upon a combination of assignments and activities that are summarized below. These activities will be evaluated according to the following point distribution. The number of activities may change to better accommodate the needs of this group of students.

Item

Homework

Individual Projects & Field Trips

Quizzes

Final

Total

Number

8

4

5

1

Points per Item

20

40

40

200

Quiz or Quiz Equivalents

160

160

200

200

720


Class Schedule: This course meets three times a week for one fifty minutes. The course instructors reserve the right to modify this schedule during the semester to meet the needs of this particular class.

Week of 28 Aug. 04 Sep. 11 Sep. 18 Sep. 25 Sep. 02 Oct. 9 Oct. 16 Oct. 23 Oct. 30 Oct. 06 Nov. 13 Nov. 20 Nov. 27 Nov. 04 Dec.

Chapter 5 6 7 7 7 8 9 10 11 11 11 11 12 14

Handouts

Topic Introduction, regulations Distribution systems Water treatment processes Water treatment processes Water treatment processes, EXAM I (Wednesday) Operation of waterworks Wastewater flows and characteristics Wastewater collection systems Wastewater processes Wastewater processes, EXAM II (Wednesday) Wastewater processes, Wastewater processes Wastewater system management Water Reuse, Disinfection, review FINAL EXAM


'

.


CENE 332 HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE COUR S E S Y L L A B U S


Instructor: Bridget N. Bero

Required Textbooks: LaGrega, Michael D. et al, Hazardous Waste Management, McGraw-Hill

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: CENE 280 and CHM 230/235/440 with grade greater than or equal to C, or permission of the instructor


Catalogue Description: Waste identification, soils, subsurface fate and transport, toxicology, environmental / public health and risk assessment, site characterization and assessment tools, remediation tools and technologies, team design project.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes a, b, e, g, h, j and k


Course Objectives: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: Converse with engineers, scientists, medical personnel, regulatory agencies, industry and the public regarding the technical impacts of waste management.

Topics Covered:

• Waste identification (RCRA)

• Physicochemical properties and partitioning in the environment

• Fate and transport

• Toxicology and risk assessment

• Site characterization and assessment

• Remediation technologies

• Tools:

o ASTM Phase 1 audit o Hazard Ranking System o Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) o Landfill Gas Emissions Model (LandGEM)


Item % Homework 20 Individual Project 15 SW Team Project 20 Superfund Team Project 20 Participation 5 Exam 20

The course grade reported at the end of the semester will be based on the following scale. A = >1249 points; B = >1199 points; C = >1049 points; D = >899 points; F - <900 points

Class Schedule: This course meets twice a week for one hour and fifteen minutes. The course instructors reserve the right to modify this schedule during the semester to meet the needs of this particular class.

Week Topic 1 - 4 Intro, physicochem properties, fate/transport - Ch1,2,3(l,2),4(l-3) 4 - 6 Toxicology, risk assessment - Ch 5,14(1-6,9) 6 - 9 Site assessment - Ch6,7,8,HRS,ASTM. EXAM 10 Individual TT project, Ch9,10,l 1 11-13 Solid waste team project, Ch13 14 - 15 Superfund team project, Ch17 16 Final (Superfund project presentation)

Prepared By: Bridget N. Bero, January 2007 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, March 2007


CENE 333 APPLIED HYDRAULICS C O U R S E SYLLABUS


Instructor: Charlie Schlinger

Required Textbooks: Computer Applications in Hydraulic Engineering, 7th ed., Haestad Press, 2006 Hydraulic Engineering, 2nd ed., Wiley, 1998

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: CENE 333L and ME 495 (co requisites) with a grade of C or better


Catalogue Description: Hydraulic considerations for public works, wells, pumps, distribution systems, gravity flow systems and treatment plant design. Use of computer analysis techniques.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes c, and e


Course Objectives and Outcomes: Objectives:

1) To acquaint students with quantitative and qualitative applied hydraulics engineering principles and methods by means of instructor-led and cooperative classroom and assignment-based training and learning.

2) To acquaint students with the basic principles of design for pressure pipe, pumped and open channel flow systems.

3) To provide students with the training necessary for solving applied hydraulics problems given on professional registration exams.

Outcomes:

1) Can apply fluid mechanical conservation principles for incompressible flow.

2) Can determine and interpret grade lines.

3) Can evaluate, analyze and design systems for conveying water in pressurized or open-channel situations, with limited emphasis on transient conditions.

4) Can apply test pumping methods and analyze results for steady state & transient response in both confined and unconfined aquifers.

5) Can evaluate, analyze and design pumping systems.

Topics Covered/Schedule: This course meets twice a week for one hour and fifteen minutes.

Topics: Lectures Water: Physical Properties and Characteristics 1 Hydrology 2 Fluid Mechanics Review 2 Pressure Pipe Flow and Hydraulic Grade Lines 3 Water Well Hydraulics 3 Pumps (Hydraulic Machinery) 4 Open Channel Flow 4

Culverts 2 Water Storage and Distribution Systems 3 Water Use Needs Assessment, Management and Conservation 4 Erosion and Sedimentation 3 Storm and Sanitary Sewers 6 Exams, Reviews 4 Field Trip 3 Holiday 1 Total 45


25% homework 45% final exam 30% mid-term test.

The course grade reported at the end of the semester will be based on the following scale:

90-100%: A; 80-89.99%: B; 70-79.99%: C; 60-69.99%: D; <60%: F.

Prepared By: Charlie Schlinger, January 2007

Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, March 2007


CENE 333L APPLIED HYDRAULICS LAB COUR S E S Y L L A B U S




Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: CENE 333 (co requisite)


Catalogue Description: Provides hands-on experience in solving design problems using contemporary hydraulics software, lab projects, field projects and site visits.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes b, and k



1) To acquaint students with quantitative and qualitative applied field and laboratory methods in applied hydraulics by means of cooperative field- and lab-based training and learning.

2) To acquaint students with the basic principles of applied hydraulics measurements in the lab and in the field.

3) To provide students with the training necessary for solving applied hydraulics problems given on professional engineering registration exams.

4) To provide students with hands-on experience with computational methods and software utilized in applied hydraulics.

Outcomes:

1) An experience-based ability to determine pressures, velocities, flows, hydraulic conductivity, etc., using, e.g., weirs, flumes, flow meters, pressure transducers.

2) An observation-based understanding of applied hydraulic systems such as open channels, pressure pipe systems, culverts, wells, dams, pumping stations, water and wastewater treatment plants, etc.

3) An experience-based ability to utilize software for analysis of hydraulic elements such as: water distribution systems, storm water systems, aquifers, pumps, culverts, open channels, etc.

Topics Covered/Schedule: This course meets once a week for two hours.

CENE 333L: Laboratory Sessions

1. Introduction; Sources and Pathways of Municipal Tap Water 2. Flow measurement using a weir 3. Flow and pressure measurement - hydrant flow tests 4. Flow measurement using a flume 5. Distribution system water pressure monitoring 6. Ultrasonic flow measurement for pressurized pipe flow 7. Open channel flow measurement using a turbine flowmeter 8. Detention pond analysis (Pondpack)

9. Water distribution system modeling (WaterCad) 10. Culvert flow analysis and modeling (Culvertmaster) 11. Storm drain flow analysis and modeling (StormCad) 12. Open channel flow analysis and modeling (Flowmaster) 13. TBD - Field Trip? 14. TBD


75% on lab reports; 25% on attendance (evenly split between your physical presence and your participation).

The course grade reported at the end of the semester will be based on the following scale: 90-100%: A; 80-89.99%: B; 70-79.99%: C; 60-69.99%: D; <60%: F.

Prepared By: Charlie Schlinger, January 2007 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, March 2007

Northern Arizona University - College of Engineering & Natural Sciences - Department of Civil <& Environmental Engineering

CENE 376 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS I COURSE SYLLABUS Fall 2006, 3 Credit Hours

Instructor: Joshua T. Hewes

Required Textbooks: Structural Analysis: Classical and Matrix Methods , 3rd Ed. By J. McCormac, and J. Nelson, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.



Catalogue Description: Determinate structures, cables, V&M diagrams, influence lines, moving loads, deflection methods, approximate analysis of indeterminate structures, and computer analysis.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes a, e, and k


Course Objectives: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: A. Identify the basic component and system types used in civil structures B. Calculate resultant structural loads acting on members due to various arrangements of dead, live and lateral wind

loading C. Calculate the reactions, internal forces and deflections for statically determinate beams, frames, and truss structures D. Determine qualitatively the internal force flow (i.e., shear and bending moment diagram) and deflected shape for

statically indeterminate beams and frames E. Calculate influence lines for beams and trusses and use them to determine reactions and internal forces of beams and

trusses F. Calculate rotations and transverse deflections of beams using the moment-area and conjugate beam methods G. Create and analyze basic truss, beams and frame structures finite element models in SAP2000 H. Use approximate methods of analysis to determine reactions and internal forces in statically indeterminate structures

Topics Covered: This course will provide students and introduction to classical methods of structural analysis for determinate structures and also to qualitative analysis of indeterminate structures. Shear, bending moment and deflected shape diagrams for beams and frames, stability and indeterminacy of beams, frames and trusses, determinate truss analysis, influence lines and moving loads for beams, moment-area and conjugate beam methods for deflection, introduction to finite element modeling and programs, and approximate methods of analysis for indeterminate structures will be covered.


Homework = 30% Quizzes (12) = 5% Tests (4) = 60% (15% each for semester tests, 20% final test)



Week Activity Reading 8/28 Introduction to structural analysis, structural systems 1.1 - 1.6 9/4 Boundary conditions, sign convention and statics review 4.1 - 4.6, 4.9 - 4.15 9/11 Structural loads 2.1-2.11,3.1-3.2,3.6 9/18 Systems identification, stability and indeterminacy of beams 4.7 - 4.8 9/25 Test #1, Internal forces & deflected shape for beams & frames 5.1 - 5.6 10/2 Internal forces and deflected shape for beams and frames 5.1 - 5.6, 10.1 - 10.3 10/9 Stability and indeterminacy of 2-D trusses 6.1 - 6.7, 7.1 - 7.2, 7.4 10/16 Stability and indeterminacy of 2-D trusses 6.1 - 6.7, 7.1 -7.2, 7.4 10/23 Test #2, Influence lines (IL's) for determinate beams 9.1 - 9.7 10/30 IL's for determinate beams 9.1-9.7,14.2 11/6 Deflections: elastic curve and moment - area method 10.3 - 10.6 11/13 Deflections: conjugate - beam method App. F4 - F6 11/20 Review, Test #3, Thanksgiving Holiday 11/27 Introduction to finite element programs: SAP 2000 Handout 12/4 Approximate methods of analysis, Review 16.1, 16.3 - 16.5 12/11 Test #4 - Final Exams Week

Prepared By: Joshua T. Hewes, August 2006 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, January 2007


CENE 377 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS II COU R S E S Y L L A B U S


Instructor: Eugene B. Loverich

Required Textbooks: Structural Analysis: Using Classical and Matrix Methods, 3rd Edition, James K. Nelson and Jack

C. McCormac, Wiley, 2003.

Structural Analysis II Supplementary Text Eugene B. Loverich, Staples.

COSMOS/M Mini User Guide, Eugene B. Loverich, Staples


Required or Elective: This course is a technical elective for civil engineering students.

Catalogue Description: Indeterminate analysis, classical energy methods, consistent distortion, slope deflection, moment distribution, matrix and finite element analysis, computer analysis.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes a, c, e and k



A. Solve structural problems using the the following energy methods: real work, virtual work and complementary virtual work, Castigliano's theorems, and the minimum total potential energy theorem.

B. Use the classical slope deflection method to analyze indeterminate continuous beams and frames. Analyze indeterminate continuous beams and frames using the moment distribution method.

C. Use the COSMOS/M finite element system to analyze 2D and 3D trusses, frames, and planar structures. Understand the basic theory associated with the matrix structural and finite element methods.

D. Analyze beams, frames, and trusses that are statically indeterminate (to the first or second degrees) using the consistent distortion method.

Topics Covered: 1. Energy Methods:

Real Work Virtual Work and Complementary Virtual Work Castigliano's Theorems Minimum Total Potential Energy Theorem

2. Consistent Distortion Methods for Analyzing Indeterminate Beams, Frames, Trusses

3. Slope Deflections Method

4. Moment Distribution Method for Beams and Frames

5. Computer Methods in Structural Analysis:

Theory of Matrix Structural Analysis Introduction to Finite Element Structural Analysis Use of the COSMOS/M General Purpose Finite Element Computer Program


3 Hourly Exams (0.50 weight on lowest) * 54% Homework & Quizzes (includes projects) 18% Final Exam 28%

100% * Provided no Hourly Exams are not taken.

The reported final course grade will be determined by comparing the final course total score obtained at the end of the semester to the following grading scale:

Grade A B C D F

Percentage 100-90 89-70 79-70 69-60 <60

meets twice a week for one hour and fifteen minutes.

Topics Covered

Introduction to Energy Methods Real Work and Impact

Complementary Virtual Work Castigliano's Theorem 1 and 2 Minimum Total Potential Energy Computer Solution

Slope Deflection Moment Distribution Computer Solution

Computer Super Project Matrix Structural Analysis

Computer Super Project Use of COSMOS FEA Computer Program to design and analyze a 3D Tower

Consistent Distortion Method

Schedule: This course

Week

1

2-5

6-8

9-12

13-14

15-16

Prepared By: Eugene B. Loverich, January 2007 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, March 2007


CENE 383 SOIL MECHANICS AND FOUNDATIONS C O U R S E SYLLABUS



Required Textbooks: Principles of Geotechnical Engineering, BJ Das, 6th ed., Thomson Publishing; LAB- Soil Mechanics Laboratory Manual, 6th ed. BJ Das, Oxford Univ. Press



Catalogue Description: Soil properties, identification and classification of earth material; subsurface exploration; soil strength, stresses, settlement, substructure design; computer applications.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes b, c, e, f and g


Course Objectives: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: A. Understand the process of soil formation, how transportation and deposition of soil may impact the basic

engineering properties of soils, understand the engineering properties of sand, silt and clay, realize that residual and transported soils may behave differently and why.

B. Be able to determine and interpret soil index properties, determine and understand the significance of soil consistency limits, collect the necessary information and classify a soil by the AASHTO and Unified Methods, know how to use the results of these classification systems, understand the process of soil compaction, roller/compaction device selection and field control of a fill.

C. Know the significance, the process and consequences of static and moving water in a soil, how to construct and use a flow net in decision making, the consolidation process, how to conduct a consolidation test, collect data, processing the data, use of consolidation test results in decision making.

D. Be familiar with the Mohr Coulomb Failure Theory, soil shear strength, evaluating soil shear strength (unconfined compression, direct shear, traixial tests), understand the fundamentals of earth pressure.

E. Be familiar with the process of field exploration, sampling and basic laboratory test on disturbed and undisturbed samples.

Topics Covered/ Schedule: This courses lecture portion meets three times a week for fifty minutes. The laboratory portion of this course meets once a week for two hours and thirty minutes. Module 1 Meetings 1 through 11- Elements, minerals, rocks, soil formation, transportation, deposition, clays, sands and silts - Hourly Examination #1

Module 2 Meetings 12 through 20 - Soil index properties, consistency limits, classification, compaction -Hourly examination #2

Module 3 Meetings 21 through 30 - Movement of water in soil, laminar/turbulent flow, Darcy's law, Coefficient of Permeability, geostatic stresses, consolidation- Hourly examination #3

Module 4 Meetings 31 through 39 Mohr-Coulomb failure theory, strength testing (unconfined, direct shear, triaxial test - As time permits geotextiles, introduction to earth pressure.


Item Hourly Exams

Final Exam Laboratory

Course Weight 60% 20% 20%


Grade A B C D F

Percentage 100-90 89-70 79-70 69-60

<60

Prepared By: Clyde N. Holland, January 2007 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, March 2007


CENE 386W ENGINEERING DESIGN: THE METHODS COURSE SYLLABUS


Instructor: Terry E. Baxter, Rand Decker

Required Textbooks: All materials required for this course will be provided.

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: EGR 286 and (ENG 105 or HON 190 or HON 191)


Catalogue Description: Methods of engineering design, including project planning and management, project economics, data analysis and management, systems modeling and performance evaluation, and assessment of engineering impacts on social and cultural concerns. This course fulfills NAU's junior-level writing requirement.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes d, f, g, h, i and j

Basic Curriculum Category: Engineering Design with Significant Engineering Topics

Course Objectives: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: A. Write concise, well-organized, and grammatically correct documents such as memos, proposals, and technical

reports. B. Define the ethical principles of technical communications and recognize unethical communication. C. Write collaboratively. D. Describe the process of developing, designing, and implementing a civil and environmental-engineering project for

a public agency, including environmental analysis. E. Use time-value of money formulas to analyze economic alternatives.

Topics Covered/ Schedule: This course meets twice a week for one hour and fifteen minutes. Week Topic 1 Course Introduction, Outcomes, and What to Expect

Team Assignments Ethics in Engineering Communications

2 Request for Proposals - Project Intro Organizing, Planning, and Scheduling Technical Writing in Engineering & the Writing Process

3 - 4 Engineering Economics - Part 1 Preliminary design and alternatives comparison needs Proposal Writing Research design concepts and alternatives

5 Engineering Economics - Part 2 Proposal Outline and Descriptions

6 - 8 Initial Proposal Draft Preliminary design and design alternative comparison matrix Engineering Economics - Part 3

9 - 1 0 Proposal Editing and Revising Engineering Economics - Part 4 Mid-term Exam

11-12 Final Proposal Draft

13-14 Preparing the Proposal Presentation Presentation to Panel

15 Course debriefing Final Exam Assignment

16 Final Exam 10:00 - 12:00 Thursday May 10, 2007


Item Course Weight Homework 10% Mid-term Exam 15% Project Deliverables 60% Final Exam 15% Course Total 100%

The reported final course grade will be determined by comparing the final course total score obtained at the end of the semester to the following grading scale: A = 89.5 - 100%, B = 79.5 - 89.4%, C = 69.5 - 79.4%, D = 59.5 - 69.4%, F = < 59.5%

Prepared By: Terry E. Baxter, January 2007 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, March 2007


CENE 410 UNIT OPERATIONS IN ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING COURSE S Y L L A B U S Fall 2006, 3 Credit Hours


Required Textbooks: Wastewater Engineering, Treatment and Reuse. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. Fourth Edition. Revised by G. Tchobanoglous, F.L., Burton, and H.D. Stensel. McGraw Hill, 2003.

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: CENE 480 with a grade of C or better.


Catalogue Description: Design of unit operations in water, wastewater, waste management, and/or air quality engineering. Student-generated data informs and drives the design of relevant processes.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes a, b, c, e, h, j, and k.

Basic Curriculum Category: Engineering Topics with Significant Design


A. Develop mass-balance models of environmental engineering reactors using differential equations B. Collect experimental data and apply those data to full-scale engineering design C. Model unit operations using analytical tools currently used in engineering practice D. Understand the broader impacts of engineering decisions E. Recognize the cultural and regulatory environment that drives the development of engineering design parameters

Topics Covered and Schedule: This course meets twice a week for one hour and fifteen minutes.

Week Topic 1-3 Introduction, mass-balance analysis, rates of reaction, modeling reactors (Chapter 4). 4-6 Physical Unit Operations (Chapter 5). 7-8 Chemical Unit Operations (Chapter 6). 9-13 Biological Unit Operations (Chapters 7 and 8). 14-15 Experimental Design: Air stripping (linked with CENE 480). 16 Final Exam: 7:30-9:30am, Tuesday, December 12, 2006


Quizzes and Homework: 30% Design Reports (3) 60% Final Exam: 10% Total: 100%


Prepared By: Paul Gremillion, August 2006 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, January 2007


CENE 418 HIGHWAY ENGINEERING C O U R S E SYLLABUS Fall 2006, 3 Credit Hours

Instructor: Craig Roberts

Required Textbooks/Material: 1. Highway Engineering by Paul H. Wright and Karen Dixon (7th edition) 2. CENE 418 Course Pack (details in class) 3. Personal elnstruction CPS RF "Student Response Unit" (a clicker). 4. A Flash Drive or similar for keeping your Group Project's Files

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: CENE 270, CENE 383, and EGR 225 (or CENE 225) with grades of C or better are the prerequisite for this course.

Required or Elective This course is required for the Civil Engineering Program and is an elective for the Environmental Engineering Program.

Catalogue Description: Emphasizes highway geometric design, including capacity, human factors, safety, drainage, and specifications. Introduces highway construction, maintenance, and pavement design; transportation planning; and traffic engineering. 2 hrs. lecture, 3 hrs. lab.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes c, d, f, g and i


Course Objectives: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: A. Students can outline the historical development of transportation worldwide; they can explain the development of

the United States highway system within the political and administrative contexts surrounding it. B. Students can describe the transportation planning and highway evaluation phases that precede a highway design

project. C. Students can explain the concepts of capacity, demand, and Level of Service (LOS); they can categorize a wide

range of transportation metrics, planning methods, and design procedures by these concepts. D. Students can explain the driver-vehicle-roadway interactive model; they can apply this model when evaluating

roadway design elements. E. Students can describe the multidiscipline approach to corridor selection; they can create a process that leads to the

selection of an "optimal" improvement corridor. F. Students can disassemble a roadway into its design elements; they can determine how the design controls,

engineering criteria, and project-specific objectives influence each element. G. Students can design the cross section elements of a simple highway project: number of lanes, crowns, shoulders,

curbs, slopes, and right-of-way. H. Students can design the horizontal alignment elements of a simple highway project: circular curves, superelevation,

and spirals/transition curves. I. Students can design the vertical alignment elements of a simple highway project: grades and vertical curves. J. Students can evaluate the roadside design elements of a simple highway project: recovery areas, ditches and

drainage structures, longitudinal barriers, and impact devices. K. Students can perform rudimentary calculations for earthwork quantities and sizing drainage structures. Students can

prepare by hand a cross-section sheet of plans. L. Students can prepare by hand detailed plan & profile sheets and a set of outline specifications for a simple highway

project. M. Students will become familiar with the potential of specialized highway design software tools to improve their

design productivity and quality as well as learn how such software can lead to significant errors when highway design concepts are not properly applied.

N. Students can present and justify their highway design solutions. O. Students can perform a rudimentary design of rural highway stop-control intersections: they can explain the

elementary technical concepts that govern highway interchange design.

Topics Covered: Students will master a working knowledge of basic highway engineering principles. They will know how to size and provide the basic geometric design of an urbanizing one-mile highway relocation project, using data and criteria taken from a real project. The students use standard design references to guide their design along with client provided criteria (a state DOT).

The highway is sized using the Highway Capacity Manual. The AASHTO "Green Book" and "Roadside Design Manual" are used to design the horizontal and vertical alignments and the cross-section. Basic methods are learned to determine the earthwork quantities, size drainage culverts, and prepare an outline of specifications. The students work in teams, preparing a final report that includes plan and profile and cross section sheets. The design requires considerable team work, self-learning from reference manuals and construction documents of similar projects. The final report is presented orally to a panel of practicing engineers.

Course Evaluation Methods: These weightings will be given to each student's work to determine her or his overall grade in the course:

Average of Exams 1 and 2 Average of Homeworks and Quizzes Highway Design Project

20% 15% 50%

Participation in ASCE(2)

Final Exam(1) 5%'

10%' 100%

(1) Students who maintain an average of 92.0 or greater will be exempt from the Final Exam. However, this requires that the Student complete all homework assignments. In addition, the last two homework assignments must receive a grade comparable with the Student's previous homeworks.

(2)You may participate in another technical professional society besides ASCE, if you so desire, subject to prior approval by the Instructor.

Grading Scheme: The following grading scale pertains to all work. Extra credit questions may be given on any quiz, exam, and homework that can add points to the normal grade for that quiz, exam, or homework.

90.0 to 100.0 = A; 80.0 to 89.9 = B; 70.0 to 79.9 = C: 60.0 to 69.9 = D; 59.9 or lower = F

Class Schedule: This courses lecture portion meets twice a week for fifty minutes. The laboratory portion meets once a week for three hours and thirty minutes. The course instructors reserve the right to modify this schedule during the semester to meet the needs of this particular class.

Week Beginning

8/28/06

9/4/06

9/11/06

9/18/06

9/25/06

10/2/06

10/9/06

10/16/06

10/23/04

10/30/06

11/6/06

11/13/06

11/20/06

11/27/06

12/4/06

12/11/04

Reading Assignment

Ch. 1 . 2 & 5

Ch. 6,Ch. 7 p. 156-161, Ch. 13 p. 348-357, Ch 7 & 13

Ch. 7 p. 187-195 Ch. 6 p. 135-149

Ch. 7 p. 169-174

Ch. 7 p. 174-183 Ch. 13 p. 357-371

Ch. 7 p. 183-195

Ch. 7 p. 161-169

All Ch. 8 All Ch. 8 Fig. 13-4

Ch. 13 p. 361-371, Ch. 14 p. 374-383, Ch13 p. 362-369

Ch. 12, Ch. 12 p. 303-343

Ch. 9 p. 234-248, Ch. 7 p. 209-211

Ch. 7 p. 195-209

Ch. 13 p. 349-357 Ch. 4

Ch. 11 p. 298-301

Ch. l ip . 276-398

Class Content

Learning Objectives of Highway Engineering Course, Rdwy-Veh-Driver Model

LAB: Team Contract. Introduce Project—Show Prior Year Projects

RES: Rdwy-Veh-Driver Model (com.). Traffic Characteristics LAB: Design Control and Criteria, Traffic Characteristics (cont.)

Traffic Characteristics (cont.), Sight Distances: Stopping (SSD), Passing (PSD), & Decision (DSD), LOS-Capacity-Demand LAB: Design Project—Capacity Calcs

Horizontal Alignment. Simple Curves & Related Rdway Applications LAB: Design Project—Horizontal Calcs and Schematic

Superelevation, Transition Curves, Reverse Curves LAB: Design Project—Plan Sheet & Superelevation Calcs

Vertical Alignment, Vertical Curve (VC) Design, Vertical Curve Elevations, Vertical Curve Sight Distance, Test No. 1: Take-home LAB: Vertical Calcs & Schematic and 30% Design Review

Cross Section Elements, Lanes, crowns, shoulders, medians, curbs, ditches Test No. 1: In-class part taken Friday 10/13/04 LAB: Design Project—Profile Sheet

Roadside Design, Longitudinal Barriers, Typical Cross Section LAB: Design Project—Typical Cross Section and Critical Cross Sections

Earthwork Calcs, Specifications: General and Specials, Drainage LAB: Design Project—Earthwork, Outline Specifications, &60% Design Review

Drainage (cont.) LAB: Design Project—Drainage Calcs & Plans and Culvert Design

Interchange & Intersection Concepts, Safe Rural Highway Intersection Design LAB: Design Project—Computer-Aided Design

Bikes and Pcds Test No. 2: Take-home part given out Wed 1 l/l 7/04 LAB: Design Project—Computer-Aided

Selection of Optimal Improvement Corridor Test No. 2 Thursday is Thanksgiving-No Classes (11/23/06 & 11/24/06)

Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) LAB: Project Team Presentations to Expert Panel

Traffic operations and signalization, CENE 420/541 Traffic Engineering LAB: Traffic Controller Cabinet Demo, Microsimulation Traffic Model (V1SSIM and/or TrafficSim) Demo

Finals Week

Prepared by: Craig Roberts, Fall 2006 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, January 2007


CENE 420 TRAFFIC STUDIES AND SIGNAL SYSTEMS COURSE S Y L L A B U S Fall 2006, 3 Credit Hours


Required Textbooks: Traffic Engineering (Third Edition) by Roger P. Roess, Elena S. Prassas, and Willian R. McShane, copyright 2004, Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: EGR 225 (or CENE 225), EGR 286 with a grade greater than or equal to C, Co requisite: 300- or 400-level CENE course.

Required or Elective: This course is required for civil engineering students and is a technical elective for environmental engineering students.

Catalogue Description: Basic concepts including driver-roadway-vehicle system characteristics, traffic studies, capacity analysis, and traffic-control devices. Lab introduces traffic-engineering studies and signal-system operations, including computer applications. 2 hrs. lecture, 3 hrs. lab.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes Criterion 3 Outcomes b, e, f, h, and k


Course Objectives: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to master a working knowledge of basic traffic engineering concepts, studies, solutions, and devices.

Topics Covered: Students will master a working knowledge of basic traffic engineering concepts, studies, solutions, and devices. They will know about the basic theory of traffic, including the driver-roadway-vehicle system characteristics, capacity analysis, and introductory traffic flow theory. Through the lab, they will conduct several traffic studies typically used in traffic engineering to quantify traffic characteristics and support decisions requiring engineering judgment. Students will learn the fundamentals of traffic signal timing and design, including use of detection for actuated control. Emphasis is placed on understanding the theoretical and practical aspects of traffic control devices with special focus on understanding and programming traffic signal controllers. Students are introduced to signal timing/coordination and traffic simulation software


Average of Laboratories 25% Average of Homeworks 30% Average of Quizzes 10% Average of Tests 20% Professional Development(1) 5% Final Exam(2) 10%

100% The reported final course grade will be determined by comparing the final course total score obtained at the end of the semester to the following grading scale: A = 90 - 100%, B = 80 - 89.9%, C =70 - 79.9%, D= 60 - 69.9%, F =< 59.9%

Class Schedule: This courses lecture portion meets twice a week for fifty minutes. The laboratory portion meets once a week for three hours and thirty minutes.

1/15-1/29 Module A: Traffic Characteristics and Concept of Traffic Control (Week 1-Week 3)

2/5-2/12 Module B: Traffic Studies (Week 4- Week 5)

2/19 Module C: Intersection Control: Introduction and Warrants (Week 6)

2/26-4/9 Module D: Fundamentals of Intersection Signalization (Week 7-Week 12)

4/16-5/7 Module E: Introduction to Signal Coordination (Week 13-Week 15)

Prepared By: Craig Roberts, August 2006 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, January 2007


CENE 430 AIR POLLUTION CONTROLS DESIGN C O U R S E SYLLABUS Fall 2006, 3 Credit Hours


Required Textbooks: Air Pollution Control. A Design Approach . 3rd Edition (2002) by C. David Cooper and F.C. Alley, Waveland Press, Inc

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: CENE 330 and ME 395 with a grade of C or better

Required or Elective: This course is a technical elective for environmental engineering students.

Catalogue Description: Design process and procedure for control of particulate and gaseous pollutants. Includes pollution prevention considerations.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes


Course Objectives: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: A. Define and solve complex environmental engineering problems, and create, evaluate, and document sustainable

engineering designs B. Apply tools and methodologies properly to design and model air pollution control processes and to analyze the

physical and/or chemical phenomena associated with particles and gases C. Work and communicate effectively with diverse and multi-disciplinary teams D. Improve professional skill and ability, and update knowledge and understanding of contemporary issues in air

pollution control

Topics Covered/Schedule: This course meets three times a week for fifty minutes.

Week Topic 1-5 Course Introduction, Outcomes, and Approach Process Design and Economics of Equipment

Selection DP 1. Establishing Preliminary Scope of a Design Problem DP 2. Process Flow and Material Balance Introduction to using MatLab's Simulink Design of Air and Gas Transport and Handling Systems DP 3. Basis of Design for Gas Transport and Handling System

6-10 Review of Particle Characteristics and Calculations, Cyclone Collectors, Baghouse Filters DP 4. Baghouse Filtration Design Electrostatic Presipitators Overview of other particulate control devices DP 5. Particulate Control Design Options

11-13 Review of Vapor and Gas Properties, and Calculations, Carbon Adsorption DP 6. Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorption Gas Absorption DP 7. Packed-Tower Scrubber Design

14 - 15 Incineration and Biofiltration DP 8. Biofilter Design

16 Final Exam


Item Course Weight Homework 20% Design Practicums 50% Final Exam 30% Course Total 100%

The reported final course grade will be determined by comparing the final course total score obtained at the end of the semester to the following grading scale: A = 89.5 - 100%, B = 79.5 - 89.4%, C =69.5 - 79.4%, D= 59.5 - 69.4%, F =< 59.4%

Prepared By: Terry E. Baxter, August 2006



CENE 433 HYDROLOGY AND FLOOD CONTROL COURSE S Y L L A B U S


Instructor: Rand Decker

Required Textbooks: Bedient and Huber, Third Edition

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: CENE 333 with a grade greater than or equal to C

Required or Elective: This course is required for civil engineering students and a technical elective for environmental engineering students.

Catalogue Description! Hydrologic design and analysis of drainage and flood-control systems. Hydrologic cycle components necessary for determining design flows. Computer modeling.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes c, e, j and k


Course Objectives/Outcomes: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: A. apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering B. design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data C. design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs D. function on multi-disciplinary teams E. identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems F. have an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility G. communicate effectively H. the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context I. recognize of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning J. have a knowledge of contemporary issues K. use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.

Topics Covered/ Schedule: This course meet twice a week for one hour and fifteen minutes.

Week Chapter Subject Problems 1 1 Introduction to Hydrologic Principles 2 - continued; Water Balance; 1.2,5,9,11,14,15,17,20.28 3 2 Hydro Analysis - Rainfall/Runoff; 2.2,3,4,8,9,12,17,20,24,28,29 4 - Rainfall/Runoff continued 5 3 Frequency Analysis; 3.2,3,5,6,7,15 6 - Frequency Analysis, continued 7 4 Storage/Flood Routing 4.1,2,5,6,10,11,15,21 8 - Storage/Flood Routing, continued 9 - Storage/Flood Routing, continued 10 - Exam I; Tuesday, March 13 (no class on Thursday, March 15)

Spring Break 11 6 Urban Hydrology/Storm Sewer Design 6.2,3,6,8,9,10,12,19 12 - Urban Hydrology, continued 13 - Urban Hydrology, continued Final Exam part 1.0 (take home) 14 8 Groundwater; 8.3,4,5,6,9,11,14,15;

Final Exam part 1.0 in-class 15 - Ground Water, continued 16 - Course Review and Final Exam Prep none assigned Finals Week: Final Exam part 2.0; T, May 8,7:30 ~ 9:30am, Engineering 314


Grading: Exam I @ 100 points. Final Exam @ 200 points. Hydrology Toolbox @ 100 points. Homework @ 100 points.


Hydrology Toolbox: A large portion of the assigned problems in this class, as well as problems found in the practice of hydrology are amenable to treatment using spreadsheet analysis, usually coupled with a compatible graphing package. Using the hardware platform of your choice (Mac, PC, Unix,...) and a spreadsheeting/graphing application of your choice prepare a "toolbox" for use in this class. You are encouraged to use this spreadsheet/graphing analysis tool on as many homework problems as is appropriate. You should document (text and example problems) the use of this analysis tool sufficiently that it could be easily understood and used by someone other than yourself. This documentation should also serve to "re-educate" you in the use of these techniques if and when you begin hydrologic analysis in a workplace setting. Your documentation will be collected and graded at the end of the semester. Many of the appropriate problems for spreadsheet/graphing analysis are early in the semester. You are encouraged to get started early. You are to each work on this assignment individually.

Prepared By: Rand Decker, January 2007 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, March 2007


CENE 434 WATER/WASTE WATER UNIT DESIGN C O U R S E SYLLABUS Fall 2006, 3 Credit Hours



Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: CENE 333 and CENE 280 with grade greater than or equal to C

Required or Elective: This course is required for environmental engineering students

Catalogue Description: Design-based environmental engineering course. Unites design of drinking water and waste-water treatment plants. Applies microbiology, water chemistry principles, and units of treatment-plant design techniques.








Item

Homework


Quizzes

Final

Total

Number

8 4

5

1

Points per Item

20

40

40

200


160

160

200

200

720


Class Schedule: This course meets three times a week for fifty minutes. The course instructors reserve the this schedule during the semester to meet the needs of this particular class.


Chapter 5 6 7 7 7 8 9 10 11 11 11 11 12 14

Handouts




CENE 435 ENVIRONMENTAL BIOTECHNOLOGY COURSE SYLLABUS



Required Textbooks: Environmental Biotechnology: Principles and Applications . by Bruce E. Rittman and Perry L. McCarty, McGraw Hill

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: (CENE 280 and CENE 281L and CENE 2821.) or (BIO 205 and (STA 270 or PSY 230)), CHM 230, and CENE 280 with grade greater than or equal to C


Catalogue Description: Presents the engineered application of biological systems for remediation of contaminated environments (land, air, water), and for sustainable development technologies and processes.


Basic Curriculum Category': Engineering Topics with Significant Design

Course Objectives/Outcomes: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: A. Possess a foundation of mathematical and scientific principles in biological science B. Define, create, and evaluate complex environmental problems that involve sustainable biotechnology C. Apply tools and methodologies to design and conduct experiments that model or simulate biological processes, and

to analyze, interpret, and report results D. Work and communicate effectively with diverse and multidisciplinary teams E. Improve professional skills and abilities that can update knowledge and understanding of contemporary professional

issues

Topics Covered/ Schedule: This courses lecture portion meets twice a week for fifty minutes. The laboratory portion meets once a week for three hours and ten minutes.

Week Topic 1 Course Introduction, Objectives, Lab Overview, and Safety

2 - 5 Lectures: Applied Microbiology and Biochemistry for Engineers Discussions: Microorganisms, metabolism, ecology, energy, and kinetics Labs: Methods in culturing, observing, and monitoring mixed microbial ecosystems

6 - 1 0 Lectures: Applications of suspended and attached-growth bioreactors, and biological remediation Discussions: Reactor types and process applications, hydraulic characterization using tracers, process performance parameters, and modeling applications Labs: Biological reactor process kinetics, simulation, operation, and monitoring.

11-15 Lectures: Integrating biotechnology for sustainable and renewable energy solutions Discussions: Microbiology-based applications for utilizing solar energy, practical and economical considerations of engineered systems Labs: System integration and evaluation

16 Final Exam 7:30 - 9:30 Wednesday May 9, 2007


Item Course Weight Oral Reports 15% Discussion 15% Logbook 25% Homework 25% Final Exam Paper 20% Course Total 100%

The reported final course grade will be determined by comparing the final course total score obtained at the end of the semester to the following grading scale A = 89.5 - 100%, B= 79.5 - 89.4%, C = 69.5 - 79.4%, D = 59.5 - 69.4%, F = < 59.5%



CENE 436 STRUCTURAL STEEL DESIGN C O U R S E SYLLABUS



Required Textbooks: Steel Design, Fourth Edition, William Segui (Thompson Press), Steel Construction Manual, 13th

Edition, (AISC)



Catalogue Description: Analysis and design of structural steel members for tensile, compressive, flexural and combined loading.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes c, e, and j


Course Objectives/Outcomes: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: A. Expand and solidify basic understanding of structural mechanics B. Gain an understanding of the properties and behavior of structural steel C. Develop the ability to analyze and design steel members and connections for tensile, compressive, flexural and

combined loading using Load and Resistance Factor Design and Allowable Strength Design Methods D. Become familiar with concepts of load combinations (ASCE 7) E. Become familiar with the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Steel Construction Manual

Topics Covered/Schedule: This course meets twice a week for one hour and fifteen minutes. Week 1 - 2 Introduction Week 3-4 Tensile Members Week 4 - 6 Compressive Members Week 6 - 8 Flexural Members Week 9-11 Flexural-Compression Week 12-13 Connections Week 14-15 Special Topics


• 30% Weekly Design Projects • 25% Midterm Exam • 15% Final Project • 30% Final Exam


Prepared By: John Tingerthal, January 2007 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, March 20007


CENE 438 REINFORCED CONCRETE DESIGN COURSE SYLLABUS Fall 2006, 3 Credit Hours


Required Textbooks: Design of Reinforced Concrete, 7th Ed. By J. McCormac, and J. Nelson, John Wiley & Sons,.



Catalogue Description: Working stress and strength design concepts, beams, columns, slabs, retaining walls, single and combined footings. Computer applications.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes c, e and j


Course Objectives/Outcomes: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: A. List the constituent materials of reinforced concrete. B. Describe the influence of various factors (water/cement ratio, curing conditions, etc) on concrete strength. C. Describe the mechanical response of concrete to tensile, compressive, flexural and shear loadings. D. Analyze (calculate stresses, deflections, allowable moment, etc) and design (determine required section

dimensions, reinforcement, etc) reinforced concrete beams for elastic flexural response. E. Describe the strength design method (LRFD method) and apply it in the solution of reinforced concrete analysis and

design problems. F. Analyze and design a reinforced concrete member for axial, flexural and shear loadings. G. Apply the provisions of the ACI 318-05 Code in the analysis and design of reinforced concrete members. H. Effectively communicate their engineering work: they can produce clear and logical engineering calculations and

draw neat sketches of their designs that convey all pertinent information. I. Utilize modern engineering tools such as Excel spreadsheets and rudimentary Visual Basic programming to aid the

solution of their engineering work J. Describe several current issues in the reinforced concrete engineering and construction industries.

Topics Covered: This course will provide an introduction to the behavior, analysis, and design of reinforced concrete members subjected to axial, flexure, and shear loading. Reinforced concrete beams (rectangular and Tbeams), columns, footings, and walls will be covered. ACI 318 -05 Code requirements will be covered, and practical application of concepts will be emphasized.


Homework = 30%: Quizzes (12) = 5%; Tests (4) = 65% (15% each for semester tests, 20% final test)

The reported final course grade will be determined by comparing the final course total score obtained at the end of the semester to the following grading scale: A = 90 - 100%, B = 80 - 89%, C -70 - 79%, D= 60 - 69%, F =< 60%


Week of Activity Reading 8/28 Class introduction, material properties 1.1 - 1.4, 1.6, 1.8 - 1.13, 1.15 - 1.18 9/4 Elastic flexural theory ( No class 9/4 ) 2 . 1 - 2.3 9/11 Strength analysis of singly reinforced rectangular beams 2.4, 3.1 - 3.10

9/18 Analysis and design of singly reinforced beams, Test #1 4.1 -4.6,4.8 9/25 Design of rectangular beams, Doubly reinforced beams 5.7 - 5.8 10/2 Doubly reinforced beams, T-beams 5.1-5.6 10/9 Analysis and design of one-way slabs, Beam deflections 4.7, 6.1 - 6.7 10/16 Beam deflections, Crack control, Test #2 6.1-6.7,6.9-6.11 10/23 Bar development, Bar cut-off 7.1-7.3,7.8-7.11 10/30 Beam shear analysis, shear envelope 8.1 - 8.7 11 /6 Beam shear design, Test #3 8.8-8.11 11/13 Beam shear design 8.8-8.11 11/20 Columns with pure axial load, Columns with flexure and axial load,

Thanksgiving Holiday 9.1 - 9.9 11/27 Columns with flexure and axial load 10.1-10.5 12/4 Footings 12.1-12.6 12/11 Test #4 - Final Exams Week


Northern Arizona University - College of Engineering A Natural Sciences - Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering

CENE 440/540 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION: TODAY AND TOMORROW C O U R S E SYLLABUS Fall 2006, 3 Credit Hours

Instructor: William Auberle

Required Textbooks: There is no textbook is used for this course. Course text will be delivered through the modules. Required and recommended readings will include U.S. Environmental Protection Agency publications on assigned topics, other writings on assigned topics, and related statutes, regulations, and court cases. All required and recommended readings will be accessible electronically.

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: ENV101 or CENE 150 or FOR222 with grade greater than or equal to C or permission from instructor.


Catalogue Description: This course will explore current legal and regulatory strategies for environmental protection.

Innovative approaches to environmental management will be examined and discussed in groups/chat rooms and class

projects.



Course Objectives/Topics Covered: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: A. Understand the role of diverse laws in formulating environmental public policy. B. Access easily environmental laws, regulations and ordinances at the local, state, tribal, federal and international

levels. C. Understand the applications of laws, regulations, guidelines and standards of practice in an environmental context. D. Grasp recent developments in environmental policies and how these may change. E. Know the applications of fundamental legal and regulatory principles to air pollution, water pollution, waste

management, and other environmental issues. F. Assess critically multiple options for addressing environmental problems. G. Recognize major current events affecting the environment. H. Know how to use research materials available to answer questions presented by realistic case studies. 1. Have experience in preparing a detailed research paper. J. Communicate via mail and chat rooms in WebCT.


CENE 440: CENE 540: Case studies = 25% Case studies = 30% Homework = 10% Homework = 10% Mid-term exam = 10% Mid-term exam = 10% Research papers = 40% (20% each) Research paper = 30% Final exam = 15% Final exam = 20%


Class Schedule: This course is an online course and does not have a weekly scheduled time. The course instructors reserve the right to modify this schedule during the semester to meet the needs of this particular class.

Prepared By: William Auberle, August 2006



CENE 450/550 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION DESIGN COURSE SYLLABUS Fall 2006, 3 Credit Hours


Required Textbooks: Principles of Foundation Engineering, Thomson/Brooks/Cole 5th Edition

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: CENE 383 with a grade of C or better, or permission of instructor.

Required or Elective: This course is required for civil engineering students, and is a technical elective for environmental engineering students.

Catalogue Description: Advanced methods in geotechnical evaluation and design with applications in foundations, slope stability, geosynthetics, underground construction, ground improvement and earth retention systems.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes c, h, and j


Course Objectives: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: A. Estimate lateral earth pressures and to design earth retention structures using methods appropriate to the problem at

hand. B. Estimate bearing capacity, settlement and allowable bearing pressure for conventional spread footing foundations, as

well as for drilled shafts and piers C. C. Design and specify geosynthetics for geotechnical applications, such as design for a weak subgrade. D. Use software for earth retention design. E. Advanced knowledge and understanding of one or more contemporary issues in civil-engineering-related to

geotechnical design


Tentative Course Outline Topic

Earth Retention - Basic Principles Earth Retention - Applications and Design Methods Introduction to Foundation Design Bearing Capacity - Foundations on Soil Settlement - Foundations on Soil Foundations on Rock Drilled Shafts and Piers Drilled Shafts and Piers Geosynthetics - Weak Subgrades Katrina & New Orleans Katrina & New Orleans Segmental/Modular Retaining Wall Design Field Trips

Week 1,2 3.4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15


Assignments/projects (30%), midterm exam (30%) and final exam (40%) Of the 24 potential Quiz or Quiz Equivalent grades only the best 19 will be totaled. The reported final course grade will be determined by comparing the final course total score obtained at the end of the semester to the following grading scale: A = 90- 100%, B = 80-89%, C =70 - 79%, D=60-69%, F =< 60% Prepared By: Charlie Schlinger, August 2006 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, January 2007


CENE 476 ENGINEERING DESIGN PROCESS LABORATORY COURSE SYLLABUS Fall 2006, 1 Credit Hour

Instructor: Paul D. Trotta, Paul Gremillion

Required Textbooks: Assignments, handouts, and other course materials will be posted on the course Vista page.

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: CENE 386W or CENE 386 with a grade of C or better.

Required or Elective: This course is required for both civil and environmental engineering students

Catalogue Description: Involves forming design teams, selecting projects for CENE 486 with sponsor interaction, completing a project proposal, and having it accepted by the sponsor.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes c, d, g, and i.

Basic Curriculum Category: Engineering Design

Course Objectives: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: A. Have an understanding of procedures for developing proposals for engineering design projects. B. Work with a prospective client to develop technical and cost proposals that match the needs of the client. C. Function in a team of professional peers. D. Prepare and deliver a professional presentation.


Week Date Topic 1 29 Aug Introduction, review course requirements, complete self-evaluation forms. 2 5 Sep Introduction to projects, announce team assignments. 3 12 Sep Issue the Request for Proposals, instructions for proposals. 4 19 Sep Project budgets. 5 26 Sep Team meetings with instructors. 6 3 Oct Team meetings with instructors. 7 10 Oct Proposal Detailed Outline Due. 8 17 Oct Team meetings with instructors. 9 24 Oct Proposal 50% Completion Due. 10 31 Oct Team meetings with instructors. 11 7 Nov Team meetings with instructors. 12 14 Nov Presentations, Part 1

16 Nov Presentations, Part 2 13 21 Nov Presentations, Part 3, Final Proposal Due

Course Evaluation Method: Your semester grade will be based upon a combination of assignments and activities that are summarized below:

Proposal Outline: 20% Proposal 50%: 20% Oral Presentation: 20% Final Proposal: 40% Total: 100%

Of the 24 potential Quiz or Quiz Equivalent grades only the best 19 will be totaled. The reported final course grade will be determined by comparing the final course total score obtained at the end of the semester to the following grading scale: A = 90- 100%, B = 80-89%, C =70 - 79%, D= 60 - 69%, F =< 60% Prepared By: Paul D. Trotta, August 2006 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, January 2007


CENE 480/502 ENGINEERING TRANSPORT PROCESSES C O U R S E S Y L L A B U S Fall 2006, 3 Credit Hours


Required Textbooks: Welty, J.R., Wicks, C.E., Wilson, R.E and Rorrer, G. Fundamentals of Momentum, Heat and Mass Transfer, 4th Ed. Wiley, 2001.

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: ME395 with a grade of C or better


Catalogue Description: Fundamental engineering concepts of mass transport with applications for environmental engineering. Additional laboratory/writing component for CENE502.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes a, c, and e


Course Objectives: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: A. Apply the differential equation of mass transfer to environmental engineering problems and solve. B. Identify, simplify and diagram two-phase convective mass transfer systems; formulate and solve associated

environmental engineering problems. C. Select appropriate mass transfer coefficient correlations and apply them to the design and analysis of mass transfer

equipment. D. CENE502: Analyze and critique the current literature on a mass transfer problem and present your conclusion;

experimentally determine mass transfer coefficients and use to design a scaled-up system.

Topics Covered: Chapters 24-26, 28-31 of the text.


Item Homework In-class participation Mid-term Exam Final Exam

Points 500

200

120

180

The course grade reported at the end of the semester will be based on the following scale. A - >899 points; B = >799 points; C = >699 points; D = >599 points; F = <600 points


Week 1 - 4 4 - 5 6 - 9 9-11 11- 15 16

Topic Chapters 24 and 25 Chapter 26 Chapters 28 and 29 Chapter 30 Chapter 31 Final Exam

Prepared By: Bridget N. Bero, August 2006 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, January 2007


CENE 486C ENGINEERING DESIGN COURSE SYLLABUS


Instructor: Paul Gremillion, Paul Trotta


Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: CENE 386W or CENE 386 and CENE 476 with grades of C or better

Required or Elective: This course is required for both environmental and civil engineering students.

Catalogue Description: Involves design methodology and decision making and preparing team design projects that culminate in oral and written reports. Must be taken in the year in which you graduate

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes c, d, e, f, g, h, i and k


Course Objectives/Outcomes: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: A. Design systems or processes to meet desired needs of a client within realistic constraints (ABET Outcome c). B. Perform and communicate effectively on teams (ABET Outcome d). C. Solve well-defined engineering problems in one or more of the technical areas appropriate to civil engineering

(structures, water resources, transportation, geotechnical) or environmental engineering (water resources, systems modeling, wastewater management, waste management, pollution prevention, atmospheric systems and air pollution control, environmental and occupational health (ABET Outcome e).

D. Recognize and analyze situations involving professional and ethical interests (ABET Outcome f)-E. Organize and deliver effective verbal, written, and graphical communications (ABET Outcome g). F. Describe the impacts of constrained engineering solutions to relevant economic, environmental, social, and global-

political systems (ABET Outcome h). G. 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 (ABET Outcome i). H. Incorporate into the engineering problem solving process well-defined contemporary issues such as regulations and

compliance, economics, environmental impacts, political influences, and globalization (ABET Outcome j). I. Apply relevant techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools of the engineering practice (ABET Outcome k).


Week 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Week of Jan 16

Jan 23 Jan 30 Feb 06 Feb 13 Feb 20 Feb 27 Mar 06 Mar 13 Mar 20

Topic Course introduction, schedule team meetings, review proposals (Tu). Final report structure and outline (Tu). Evaluation criteria (Tu).

Spring Break

11 12 13

14

15 16

Mar 27 Apr 03 Apr 17

Apr 24

May 01 May 08

Website due (Tu) Poster due (Tu) Presentation dress rehearsal (Th) 100% Deliverable due (Tu) Final Presentation: Capstone Conference (Fr) Ethics module (Tu, Th) and quiz (Th) Commencement: Friday May 11

Note that there are no scheduled activities or deliverables during the period Week 4 through Week 12. During this time students will schedule their 30%, 60%, and 90% design deliverables and meetings with their instructor. Instructors will also use this time to make relevant announcements and deliver lectures as needed. Because many deliverables are scheduled during the last three weeks of the term, it is essential that teams plan carefully their activities during Weeks 4 through 12 to avoid excessive workload at the end of the term.


30% Design 75 60% Design 75 90% Design 75 Project Website 50 Project Poster 50 Final Report (100% design) 200 Capstone Presentation 200 Ethics Quiz 50 Total: 775




CENE 499 / 599 CLASSICAL OPEN CHANNEL FLOW C O U R S E S Y L L A B U S Fall 2006, 3 Credit Hours


Required Textbooks: Open Channel Hydrology, T. Sturm, First Edition.

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: Instructors consent

Required or Elective: This course is a technical elective for both civil and environmental engineering students.

Catalogue Description: Examines recent trends and investigations in open channel flow

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes a, e and k


Course Objectives: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: Have sufficient skills to analyze free surface flows in engineered and natural channel systems, including common hydraulic structures and flow control facilities

Topics Covered: Study will include a rigorous examination of the theory of incompressible flow, flow potential and resistance; and analytic and computational methods for uniform and gradually varying open channel flow regimes. Those individuals who choose to register for this class at the graduate level will further exercise these learning objectives by developing and presenting an in depth project of their own choosing in the general area of open channel flow.


Exam I @ 100 points. Final Exam @ 200 points. Homework @ 200 points. 599 registrants - a 100 point report and oral presentation on a topic of interest in the area of COCF.



Week Chapter Subject/Problems

1 - Introduction and Fundamentals of the Engineering Science of Fluid Mechanics 2 - Fundamentals of the Engineering Science of Fluid Mechanics, continued 3 1 Conservation Law, Kinematics and Constitutive Equations of Fluid Mechanics 4 2 Characteristics of Open Channel Flows and Specific Energy Bal & Applications; 1.3,4,5,8 &

2.1,2,5,7,9,12,13,15,17 5 3 Momentum Balance Applications; 3.1,2,5,8,11,13 6 4 Introduction to Uniform Flow; 4.1,2,3,6,7,9,11,13,16,18,19 7 - Uniform Flow, continued 8 - Uniform Flow, continued

Week Chapter 9 10 5 11 12 6 13 14 15

Subject/Problems Exam Prep and Exam 1, Wednesday, October 25th, Room 314 Engineering Gradually Varying Flow; TBA Gradually Varying Flow, continued Hydraulic Structures for Open Channel Flows; 6.5,6,7,8,12 Hydraulic Structures, continued; -; no class on Wednesday, November 22nd Oral Presentations of 599 Registrants' Projects Final Exam Prep

Prepared By: Rand Decker, August 2006 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, January 2007

.


CENE 499 / 599 MASONRY DESIGN COURSE SYLLABUS Fall 2006, 3 Credit Hours


Required Textbooks: Reinforced Masonry Design, 3rd Ed., Schnieder and Dickey

Course Prerequisite: CENE 253 with a grade of C or better

Required or Elective: This course is a technical elective for civil engineering students

Catalogue Description: Examines recent trends and investigations in a selected area of a particular major field of study.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criteria 3 Outcomes c, e, j, and k


Course Objectives: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: A. List the constituent materials of reinforced concrete masonry construction. B. Describe the compression and tension response of concrete masonry subjected to axial and flexural loads. C. Analyze and design reinforced masonry elements (section size and required steel reinforcement) using allowable

stress design for flexure and shear loads. D. Calculate reinforced masonry beam service load deflections due to transverse loads. E. Analyze and design reinforced masonry elements for flexure, shear, and axial loads using the ultimate strength

design method. F. Analyze and design reinforced masonry walls for out-of-plane loads using the ultimate strength design procedure. G. Analyze and design reinforced masonry walls for in-of-plane loads using the ultimate strength design procedure. H. Use Microsoft Excel spreadsheets along with Visual Basic programming to perform analysis and design calculations

for reinforced masonry elements. I. Use the provisions of the Masonry Standards Joint Committee Code "Building Code Requirements for Masonry

Structures, ACI 530-05" in the analysis and design of reinforced concrete masonry elements.

Topics Covered: This course will provide an introduction to the behavior, analysis, and design of reinforced masonry members subjected to axial, flexure, and shear loading. Masonry beams, walls (in-plane, out-of-plane, and shear loads) columns, will be covered. MSJC -- 05 Code requirements will be covered, and practical application of concepts will be emphasized.


Homework: These are individual calculation assignments and should be done on engineering calculation paper (e.g. the "green stuff). These assignments are due at the beginning of the designated class period. Late assignments are not accepted. Note that a portion of your homework score will be based on the neatness and clarity of your work. Please see the set of calculations given to you with this syllabus for an example of "clear" and "neat" work.

Tests: Four in-class tests will be administered. No make-up tests will be given for missed tests without the prior consent of the instructor. Make-up tests will-not be given for trivial reasons, i.e., the first big snow falls in Colorado and you have to be there to get "first tracks".

These activities will carry the following weighting for calculating your overall course grade: Homework = 35% Tests = 65% (15% each for semester tests, 20% final test)


A = 90 - 100%, B = 80 - 89%, C = 70 - 79%, D = 60 - 69%, F =< 60%

Class Schedule: This course meets once a week for two hours and thirty minutes. The course instructor reserves the right to modify this schedule during the semester to meet the needs of this particular class.

Week of

8/28

9/4

9/11

9/18

9/25

10/2

10/9

10/16

10/23

10/30

11/6

11/13

11/20

11/27

12/4

12/11

Activity Class introduction, material properties

Elastic flexural theory ( No class 9/4 )

Flexural analysis and design

Deflections

Shear in masonry members


Reinforced masonry walls- axial loads

Reinforced masonry walls - axial and bending

Walls - out-of-plane analysis and design

Masonry columns

Masonry Columns

Masonry Shear Walls

Masonry Shear walls Thanksgiving Holiday

Retaining walls

Retaining walls

Test #4 - Final Exams Week

Contribution to Professional Component: This contributes to the professional component of Civil Engineering by providing engineering design experiences in reinforced concrete.



CENE 499/599 WATER QUALITY MODELING C O U R S E SYLLABUS


Instructor: Paul Gremiilion

Required Textbooks: Surface Water Quality Modeling, Steven C. Chapra, McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 1997, 844pp. Journal articles and excerpted material from relevant text books and other sources will also be provided on the Vista web page.

Recommended Optional Material / References: Principles of Surface Water Quality Modeling and Control, Robert V. Thomann and John A. Mueller, Prentice Hall, 1979.

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: Consent of the instructor

Required or Elective: This course is a technical elective for both environmental and civil engineering students.

Catalogue Description: Water quality modeling has its origins in the study of oxygen depletion and re-aeration downstream from wastewater discharges. We will study this classic example as well as many other water quality phenomena. This course will emphasize two areas of study: (1) The chemical, physical, and biological processes that control water quality in lakes and streams, and (2) the systems of differential equations that can be used to describe these transfonnations. We will derive and apply these equations using spreadsheets and pre-packaged software. We will examine procedures for calibrating and verifying these models and consider the capabilities and limitations of mathematical representations of natural systems


Basic Curriculum Category: Engineering Topics with Design


A. Derive and apply differential equations for water movement and transformations of chemical and biological constituents in lakes, rivers, and estuaries.

B. Develop spreadsheet models to apply non-steady state solutions of differential equations appropriate for lake, river, and estuary modeling.

C. Create solutions to a water quality problem using a pre-packaged numerical model. D. Understand commonly accepted conventions for calibrating and verifying water quality models. E. Recognize the limitations and capabilities of deterministic models of natural systems.

Topics Covered/Schedule: This course meets online

Weeks 1 - 4: Completely Mixed Systems Weeks 5 - 8: Incompletely Mixed Systems Weeks 8 - 9 : Water Quality Environments Weeks 10 - 12: Dissolved Oxygen and Pathogens Weeks 13 - 15: Eutrophication and Temperature


Grading Scheme Points Points CENE 499 CENE 599

Homework: 60 60 Quizzes 20 20 Research Paper 10 10 Project 20 Lecture Presentations (2) 15 Final Exam: 10 10 Total: 100 135



Supporting Class Syllabi

Northern Arizona University - College of Engineering & Natural Sciences Department of Biological Sciences

BIO 181 UNITY OF LIFE: LIFE OF THE CELL COURSE S Y L L A B U S Fall 2006, 3 Credit Hours

Instructor: Dr. Catherine Gehring

Required Textbooks: Life The Science of Biology, 7th Ed. By Purves, Sadava, Orians and Heller, Sinauer Associates, Inc.

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: High school algebra, biology, and chemistry. Co requisite: BIO 181L

Required or Elective: This course is required for all environmental engineering students.

Catalogue Description: Introductory course for biology majors. Emphasizes the unifying molecular and cellular principles of all life on earth. 3 hrs. lecture.

Basic Curriculum Category: Math and Science

Course Objectives: • To provide students with a solid foundation in the nasic biological/biochemical principles that unite all living things

and thereby acquire the necessary background for courses in microbiology, cell biology, genetics, etc. that are required of Biology majors.

• To improve student understanding of science as a dynamic process • To familiarize students with the scientific approaches used by cellular and microbiologists.

Topics Covered: The Scientific Method Ch 1 Atoms and Molecules, Chemical Bonds, Properties of Water Ch 2 Organic Molecules- Carbohydrates, Lipids, Proteins & Nucleic Acids Ch 3 Protein Function. Enzymes Ch 6 Cells and Cell Structure Ch 4 Cell Membranes- Structure and Function Ch 5 Fundamentals of Cellular Energetics Ch 6 Cellular Energetics- Cellular Respiration Ch 7 Cellular Energetics- Photosynthesis Ch 8 Cellular Reproduction Ch 9 Patterns of Inheritance- Mendelian Genetics Ch 10 Molecular Genetics- DNA replication Ch 11 Molecular Genetics- Transcription and Translation Ch 12 Genes and Gene Expression Ch 14 Cell Signaling and Cell-Cell Interactions Ch 15


6 Quizzes @ 40 points each (The lowest quiz will be dropped) 240 points Class/on-line participation 60 points 2 mid-terms exams @ 150 points each 300 points A required comprehensive final exam 150 points

Total 750 points The reported final course grade will be determined by adding points earned and determining the percentage of the total possible points. Percentile grades will be converted to letter grades using the following scale:

A = 90 - 100%, B = 80 - 89%, C -70 - 79%, D= 60 - 69%, F =< 60%

Class Schedule:

The class is scheduled to meet every Tuesday and Thursday from 9:35 - 10:50 AM.

The course instructors reserve the right to modify this schedule during the semester to meet the needs of this particular class.

Date Event 9/7 Quiz 1 9/21 Quiz 2 10/10 Exam 1 10/24 Quiz 3 11/7 Quiz 4 11/16 Exam 2 11/28 Quiz 5 12/5 Quiz 6 12/12 Final Exam

Prepared By: Dr. Catherine Gehring, August 2006 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, January 2007

Northern Arizona University - College of Engineering & Natural Sciences Department of Biological Sciences

BIO 181L UNITY OF LIFE: LIFE OF THE CELL LABORATORY C O U R S E SYLLABUS Spring 2007, 1 Credit Hour

Instructor: Dr. Dickson

Required Textbooks: BIO 181 Laboratory Manual. By Van Winkle-Swift and Dickson, 2006-2007, Composition notebook, quad ruled

Optional Textbooks: Writing Papers in the Biological Sceince.s, 4th edition, McMillan, 2006. An Introduction to Chemistry for Biology Students, 7th edition, Sackheim, 2002

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: High school algebra, biology, and chemistry. Co requisite: BIO 181


Catalogue Description: Introduces experimental techniques in cellular and molecular biological sciences.


Course Objectives: • To provide students with a solid foundation in the basic biological/biochemical principles that unite all living things

and thereby acquire the necessary background for courses in microbiology, cell biology, genetics, etc. that are required of Biology majors.

• To improve student understanding of science as a dynamic process • To familiarize students with the scientific approaches used by cellular and microbiologists.

Topics Covered/ Schedule: This Class meets once a week for 2 hours and 50 minuets

Week of Topic Quizzes/Projects Due Module I: Introduction to Scientific Inquiry

1/22 The Black (White ) Box 1/29 Molecules and Chemical Bonds Quiz 1/ Homework assignment 1

Module II: Cells 2/5 The Microscope and Cells Quiz 2 2/12 Osmosis and Cellular Motility Quiz 3 2/19 Mitosis and Meiosis Quiz 4 2/26 Bacterial Chemotaxis 1 Quiz 5/Worksheet 1 3/5 Bacterial Chemotaxis ILTntroduction to Experiment Quiz 6 3/12 Photosynthesis Quiz 7 3/19 Spring Break - No Labs

Module III: Enzymes 3/26 Building and Breaking down Polysaccharides Quiz 8/Lab Report 1st draft 4/2 Measuring pH. a factor that Affect Enzyme Activity Quiz 9/ Worksheet 2 4/9 Quantifying an Enzyme Reaction Quiz 10

Module IV: Molecular Genetics 4/16 DNA extraction and an introduction to restriction

endonucleases and gel electrophoresis techniques Quiz 11/ Final Lab Report 4/23 Gel Electrophoresis of DNA Quiz 12/ Worksheet 3 4/30 Presentation on Molecular Genetics Quiz 13/Presentation/ Worksheet 4


13 Quizzes @ 10 points each (The lowest quiz will be dropped) 120 points 2 Notebook Checks @ 25 points each 50 points Homework Assignments 10 points 4 Worksheets @ 10 points each 40 points Lab Report 50 points Presentation 20 points

Total 290 points The reported final course grade will be determined by adding points earned and determining the percentage of the total possible points. Percentile grades will be converted to letter grades using the following scale:

A = 90 - 100%, B = 80 - 89%, C =70 - 79%, D= 60 - 69%, F =< 60%

Prepared By: Dr. Dickson, January 2007 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, March 2007

Northern Arizona University - College of Engineering & Natural Sciences - Department of Chemistry

CHM 151 GENERAL CHEMISTRY I COURSE S Y L L A B U S


Instructor: Dr. Wayne A. Hildebrandt

Required Textbooks: CHEMISTRY & CHEMICAL REACTIVITY, John Kotz, Paul Treichel, Gabriela Weaver; Thompson, Brooks/Cole; 6th edition (2006)

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: High school chemistry or CHM 100 plus intermediate algebra; recommended: CHM 151L. Prerequisite: (MAT 102X or higher) or International Student Group SAS

Required or Elective: This course is required for all environmental, civil, electrical and mechanical engineering students.

Catalogue Description: Fundamental chemistry principles presented at a level appropriate for pre-professional, science, and engineering majors, including students proceeding to CHM 235 and 238


Course Objectives: Following successful completion of this course, students will be able to: 1. Based on empirical observations, distinguish between chemical and physical processes, and chemical and

physical properties of matter. Critical Thinking Scientific Inquiry

2. Utilize mathematical skills to solve chemical problems in mass relationships and stoichiometry Quantitative Analysis

3. Determine the solubility, concentrations, and ionic properties of compounds dissolved in aqueous solution Quantitative Analysis

4. Use standardized symbols to represent atoms, molecules, ions, and chemical reactions Scientific Inquiry

5. Describe the intermolecular forces which influence the properties of gases, liquids, and solids, and quantitatively determine the physical state of materials.

Critical Thinking, Quantitative Analysis 6. Predict atomic structure, chemical bonding or molecular geometry based on theoretical models and results of

empirical studies Critical Thinking, Scientific Inquiry

7. Apply chemical principles to the understanding of the physical and natural world. Critical Thinking, Scientific Inquiry

8. Recognize the influence of chemical change in the context of environmental situations and technological applications.

Environmental, Consciousness, Technology and its Impact, Critical Thinking Topics:

• Some Fundamental Concepts in Science o Introduction o Matter o Energy o The Properties of Matter

• Stoichiometry o The development of Stoichiometric Concepts o Modern Stoichiometry

• Atomic Structure and Properties o Development of the Modern Concept of the Atom o Electron Configurations o Atomic Properties—Trends and Explanations Based Upon ZEFF and r

• Chemical Bonding o Ionic Bonding o Covalent Bonding

o Metallic Bonding • The States of Matter

o A Comparison of the Three Pure States of Matter o The Empirical Gas Laws o The Kinetic Theory of Gases o The Kinetic Theory Applied to Liquids and Solids o Changes of State

• Solutions o Description o Concentration terminology o The Dissolving Process o Colligative Properties of Solutions of Non-electrolytes and Electrolytes


Quizzes (10 x 25 pts each) 250 pts These point percentages represent Exams (3 x 100 pts each) 300 pts "guaranteed" grades. Final Exam 150 pts Total 700 pts


Schedule: This Class meets four days a week for 50 minuets

Tentative Schedule January 25 Quiz 1 February 1 Quiz 2 February 8 Quiz 3 February 15 Exam 1 February 22 Quiz 4 March 1 Quiz 5 March 8 Quiz 6 March 15 Quiz 7 March 29 Exam 2 April 5 Quiz 8 April 12 Quiz 9 April 19 Quiz 10 April 26 Exam 3 May 3 Quiz 11

Prepared By: Wayne A. Hildebrandt, January 2007 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, March 2007

Northern Arizona University - College of Engineering & Natural Sciences Department of Chemistry

CHM 151L GENERAL CHEMISTRY I LABORATORY COURSE SYLLABUS Spring 2007, 1 Credit Hour

Instructor: All faculty with appointments in the chemistry department are eligible to supervise CHM 151L sections. All sections will utilize graduate, and/or undergraduate teaching assistants.

Required Textbooks: General Chemistry I Laboratory Manual, CHM151L, for 2006-2007 by Hayden McNeil and indirectly vented goggles.

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: Co requisites: CHM 130 or CHM 151


Catalogue Description: Introduces important lab practices, stoichiometry, and the analysis of chemical unknowns. 2 hrs. lab including lecture time when appropriate.


Course Objectives: Students will be able to: 1. Demonstrate basic laboratory skills

Scientific Inquiry 2. Describe and demonstrate safe laboratory practice

Scientific Inquiry 3. Utilize scientific notation and dimensional analysis in solving problems of chemical interest

Quantitative Reasoning 4. Predict, analyze and test experimentally the chemical and physical properties of matter

Environmental Consciousness, Quantitative Reasoning, Scientific Inquiry 5. Determine the numerical value of chemical concentrations and physical states

Environmental Consciousness, Quantitative Reasoning 6. Predict, analyze, and experimentally confirm the products of a chemical reaction

Environmental Consciousness, Quantitative Reasoning, Scientific Inquiry Specific Skills: By the end of this lab you will be expected to be able to accurately use a volumetric pipet, pipettor, buret, volumetric flask, mohr pipet, balance, thermometer, and graduated cylinder in safely conducting titrations, dilutions, weighings, and other lab procedures. You should be able to calculate and/or use molecular mass, moles, molarity, percent-by-mass, density, m1v1=m2v2, PV=nRT, plot and use graphs.

Topics: I. Measurement of mass, volume, density, and fermentation (2 periods) II. Identification and Quantification of a metal chloride solution concentration (1-2 periods) III. The study of chemical reactivity (1-2 periods) IV. Quantification of the waters of hydration of ionic compounds (1 period) V. Identification of ions in salts (1 period) VI. Acid-Base Titration (2-3 periods) VII. Determination of molar mass (1-2 periods) VIII. Thermal properties of matter (1 -2 periods)

Course Evaluation Methods: The course grade is based on a total of 1000 points. 680 possible points are earned by the proper identification of unknowns and completion of experiments. 200 points are based on the results of a hands-on practical examination. The Loncapa Pre-labs and Post-lab questions are worth 120 points. Points and grades will be assigned as follows:

Pass/ FullPartial Repeat Points off for Grade Credit Credit late Assignment:

unknowns Percent of Point Final or repeals:

Experiment Points Points Points _ Total Grade 1 - Mass ,Volume, & Fermentation 80 40 10 10 90-100 A 2 - ID&Conc. Salt Solution 80 40 10 10 80-89 B 3-Reactivity 80 40 10 10 70-79 C 4-Hydrates 80 40 10 10 60-69 D 5A-ID Cations 40 20 5 5 <60 F 5B-ID Anions 40 20 5 5 6 - Acid/Base Titration 150 80 10 10 7-MW by GasLaw 40 20 10 10 8-Thermochemistry 60 30 10 10 Loncapa Points 120 Lab Performance 30 -5 pts for every issue up to 30 pts Lab Practical 10-200 Total = 1000

Extra Credit When you have passed all of the unknowns, you may try to earn 30 bonus points by doing the Bonus Titration

Experiment described in the back of the lab manual. You can also earn extra credit by just coming to lab on time and signing in (2 points per week and 4 more points if you are on time every lab period for a total of 30 points).


Schedule: This class meets once a week for 2 hours

Experiments or Activities Due Dates For Unknowns

Loncapa Due Dates: (Mondays at 11pm)

First week activities (see above), Do add/drops NOW! Experiment 1, (Assignment 1), Start fermentation and rest of experiment. Experiment 1 (finish fermentation), do calculation checks, Check out locker bin (MSDS Tutorial must be complete)

Experiment 2, Check out unknown packet (First Exp. 1: 2/9 Loncapa must be done) Experiment 3, finish 2 and do calculation check Experiment 3, complete graphs Exp.2: 3/2 Experiment 4 and do calculation check Exp.3: 3/9 Experiment 5 & do net ionic equations for ppt formation Experiment 6 Exp.4:3/16 Experiment 6 Exp.5: 3/30 Experiment 7, finish 6 and do calculation check Experiment 8, finish 7 and do calculation check Exp.6: 4/13 Finish 8 and do calculation check. Makeup Lab. Exp.7: 4/20 Makeup Labs. Exp.8: 4/27 Final Deadline for all Unknown Report Sheets. Nothing accepted after 3:00 pm. Lab Final at start of period, Lab Evaluation, Check point totals with TA

Prelabs below are in bold print. Loncapa Opens on 1/29-Must use loncapa in lab this week Intro&Exp.I&2:2 5

Exp.l & 3: 2/12

Exp. 2 & 4: 2/26 Exp. 3 & 5: 3/5

Exp. 4 & 6: 3/12

Exp. 5 & 7: 4/2 Exp. 6 & 8: 4/9

Exp. 7 & 8 Post: 4/23 Final Review: due on 4/27 Friday by 11pm


Sec. Letter: A-F G&H I-L

1/16 1/17 1/18

1/23 1/24 1/25

1/30 1/31 2/1

2/6 2/7 2/8

2/13 2/14 2/15 2/20 2/21 2/22 2/27 2/28 3/1 3/6 3/7 3/8

3/13 3/14 3/15 3/27 3/28 3/29 4/3 4/4 4/5 4/10 4/11 4/12 4/17 4/18 4/19 4/24 4/25 4/26 4/27 3:00 PM

5/1 5/2 5/3

Northern Arizona University - College of Engineering c? Natural Sciences Department of Chemistry

CHM 152 GENERAL CHEMISTRY II COURSE S Y L L A B U S


Instructor: Dr. Brandon Cruickshank

Required Textbooks: CHEMISTRY & CHEMICAL REACTIVITY, John Kotz, Paul Treichel, Gabriela Weaver; Thomson Brooks/Cole, 6th edition (2006). Course Pack to Accompany CHM 152, Brandon J. Cruickshank (2007)

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: CHM 151 with a grade of C or better


Catalogue Description: CHM 152 is the second semester of a 1-year sequence appropriate for pre-professional science and engineering majors. As a liberal studies course, CHM 152 continues to develop the fundamental principles of chemistry the science of change. The course addresses the following liberal study themes and essential skills


Course Objectives: 1. Determine the likelihood of a reaction based upon thermodynamic principles

Critical Thinking, Quantitative Analysis 2. Utilize mathematical skills to calculate the free energy change associated with chemical processes

Quantitative Analysis, Critical Thinking 3. Utilize kinetic data to evaluate the nature of molecular interactions

Critical Thinking, Scientific Inquiry:, Quantitative Analysis 4. Predict the rate of chemical reactions using rate equations derived from empirical data

Quantitative Analysis, Critical Thinking, Scientific lnquiiy 5. Evaluate the concentration of reaclants and products at equilibrium in aqueous solutions

Quantitative Analysis, Critical Thinking 6. Calculate the pH of aqueous solutions and recognize its application to acid rain

Critical Thinking, Quantitative Analysis, Scientific Inquiry, Environmental Consciousness 7. Describe the interconversion of electrical and chemical energy

Critical Thinking, Scientific Inquiry 8. Recognize nuclear processes and discuss their impact on the technological and environmental changes in today's

world Critical Thinking, Scientific Inquiry, Environmental Consciousness, Technology and its Impact

Topics: I. Will a reaction occur?

Ch. 6: Review AH Ch. 19: Entropy and Free Energy Sec 19.1-19.6

II. If a reaction occurs, how fast will it go? Ch. 15: Chemical Kinetics

III. Most reactions eventually reach a state of equilibrium. Ch. 16: Chemical Equilibria Ch. 17: The Chemistry of Acids and Bases Ch. 18: Other Aspects of Aqueous Equilibria Ch. 19: Sec 19. 7. ^G°. K. and Product Favorability

IV. Electron Transfer Reactions Ch. 20: Electron Transfer Reactions (Electrochemistry) Sec 20.1-20.6

V. Nuclear Processes Ch. 23: Nuclear Chemistry

Course Evaluation Methods: Your semester are summarized below:

Quizzes (10 x 25 pts each) Homework Class Participation Exams (3x 100 pts each) Final Exam


Schedule: This class meets two days a week for 1 hour and 15 minuets

Tentative Schedule January 25 Quiz 1 February 1 Quiz 2 February 8 Quiz 3 February 15 Exam 1 February 22 Quiz 4 March 1 Quiz 5 March 8 Quiz 6 March 15 Exam 2 March 29 Quiz 7 April 5 Quiz 8 April 12 Quiz 9 April 19 Exam 3 April 26 Quiz 10 May 3 Quiz 11

grade will be based upon a combination of assignments and activities that

Points Percent of grade 250 pts 30.3% 100 pts 12.1% 25 pts 3.0% 300 pts 36.4% 150 pts 18.2% 825 pts 100%

Prepared By: Dr. Robert L. Cowan, January 2007 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, March 2007


CHM 230 GENERAL ORGANIC CHEMISTRY I C O U R S E SYLLABUS


Instructor: Dr. Robert L. Cowan

Required Textbooks: Essential Organic Chemistry, Paula Y. Bruice, 1st ed. Model Kit (packaged with the book). Study Guide and Solutions Manual by Paula Y. Bruice (suggested)

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: CHM 130 with a grade of C or better


Catalogue Description: Introduces the chemistry of aliphatic, aromatic, and bio-organic compounds. For students needing only one semester of organic chemistry.


Course Objectives/Topics: Aliphatic compounds Aromatic compounds Bio-organic compounds


Points Quizzes (10 x 20 pts each) 200 pts Exams (3 x 100 pts each) 300 pts Final Exam 200 pts

700 pts


A = 85 - 100% (700-592 points) B = 80 - 89% (591-525 points) C =70 - 79% (524-434 points) D= 60 - 69% (433-350 points) F =< 60% (349 -0 points)

Schedule: This class meets three days a week for 50 minuets

Prepared By: Dr. Robert L. Cowan, January 2007 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, March 2007

Northern Arizona University - College of Engineering & Natural Sciences

EGR 186 INTRODUCTION TO ENGINEERING DESIGN COURSE SYLLABUS


Instructor: William M. Auberle, P.E.

Required Textbooks: Introduction to Engineering Design and Problem Solving, 2nd Ed, Eide, et al, McGraw-Hill, 2002


Required or Elective: This course is required for all civil, environmental, electrical and mechanical engineering students.

Catalogue Description: Introduces the design process, problem-solving techniques, teaming skills, oral and written communication skills, and tools for success in academic and professional careers. Multiple hands-on projects. 2 hrs. lecture, 2 hrs. lab.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes c, d, e, f and g


Course Objectives: In this course you will learn the skill activities of decision making, project management, communication, and collaboration as they relate to the four-phase design process below:

1. Defining the Problem 2. Formulating Solutions 3. Developing Models and Prototypes 4. Presenting and Implementing the Design

Topics Covered/Schedule: This class meets two times a week for 2 hours

Week 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Tuesday Introduction, prereqs

Name game, dots and bicycle problems HW: Read Ch 1

Quiz #1 Peg prob presentations, brainstorming

and prob stmts HW: Read Ch 2.1-7

Excel exercise HW: Excel #1 (due 9 20). read Ch 5.1.2

Excel HW#1 due Writing Center Talk, Decision Matrix

Design Problem #1 assigned

Term Paper Title memo due Team workday on Design 1

Team report, peer reviews due Design 1 - team oral presentation

HW: Read Ch 6

"To Engineer is Human", Majors & ABET, handout on Midterm

Thursday Paradigms video VT67 & questions. Peg

problem HW: email (CET account), peg problem

Space Tower exercise HW: Read Ch 4.1-4, Prob. Statement (due

9/15)

Quiz Ch 5, Prob. Stmt. HW due Video: "Power of Vision" VT 3037

HW: Term Paper (due 11/3). Read rest of Ch2

Comm video #1, Library talk, work on design, peer review & mtg memos

Testing of Design 1, design peer eval, report & pres grading criteria

References Memo due Discuss Ch6. Comm video #2; Dice Exercise

HW: Dice Problem

Dice Problem due Ethics Game

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

MIDTERM EXAM

"Deep Dive" video, work on Design #2 design concepts - team names due

Design #2 Presentations

Continue Oral Reports


Off site work day

Off site work day

Excel Exercise

Final Exam

Term paper rough draft due Design #2 Assigned, make-up "To

Engineering is Human" video

Off site workday Team memo due

Term papers and oral reports due


Assign Design #3; work in-class

Thanksgiving Holiday

Design #3 Presentations Design #3 Report Due

Paper Airplane Exercise

Final Exam


Attendance 10% A = 90 to 100 TIMES* 2% B = 80 to 89 Homework 8% C = 70 to 79 Term Paper 15% D = 60 to 69 Team Design Projects (3) 45% F = 59 or below Exams (mid-term and final) 20%

* Training Intuition in Math for Engineering Success

Prepared By: William M. Auberle, January 2007



EGR 286 ENGINEERING DESIGN: THE PROCESS COURSE SYLLABUS


Instructor: Bridget N. Bero, Civil and Environmental Engineering John Tester, Mechanical Engineering John Sharber, Electrical Engineering

Required Textbooks: None

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: EGR 186 with a grade greater than or equal to C, Co requisites: CENE majors: EGR/CENE180, EE majors: EE188, ME majors: EGR/ME180

Required or Elective: This course is required for all engineering students.

Catalogue Description: The process of engineering design, mechanisms and controls, computer and programming skills, teamwork and project management, written and oral communications.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes c, d, g and i


Course Objectives: This course presents material via lectures and individual assignments, but predominant work in this course is project- and team-based. Design teams consisting of members from different majors will learn the "design-build-test" process of design; the mechanism used is via electro-mechanical robots. Each student will learn a C-based programming language, and the basics of gears and mechanisms, which are topics relevant and required for a broad-based engineering education (regardless of major). Additionally, this course requires the student to develop the skills that enable one to enjoin life-long learning, which means that students will be required to learn some material on their own without assistance.

Topics Covered: • Design process • Programming • Teaming • Report preparation and presentation.


Item Individual assignments Project 1 Project 2 Project 3 Project 4 Project 5 Final Project Final Exam

Percentage 8% 5% 8%

10% 12% 12% 35% 10%

The course grade reported at the end of the semester will be based on the following scale: A = >89%; B = 80-89%; C = 70-79%; D = 60-69%; F = <60%

Class Schedule: The course instructors reserve the right to modify this schedule during the semester to meet the needs of this particular class. This Class meets Monday's and Wednesday for 100 minuets and Friday's for 50 minuets.

Week 1 2 3 4 5

6-7 8-9

10-11 12 13 14 15 16

Topic Intro, design overview, programming, assign teams, programming assign Teaming and design philosophy, mechanisms and gears, assign PI Technical writing, P1 demo, assign P2 P2 demo, assign P3

P3 demo, assign P4 P4 demo, assign P5 P5 demo, assign FP prelim FP design presentation detailed FP design presentation final FP design presentation, FP report draft FP demo FP report Final Exam

Prepared By: John Tester, January 2007 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, March 2007

Northern Arizona University - College of Arts & Letters - Department of English

ENG 105 Critical Reading and Writing in the Academic Community COURSE SYLLABUS


Instructor: Faith Young

Required Textbooks: Gruber, Sibylle, et al. (Eds.). (2005) Composing Identity through Language, Culture, Technology, and the Environment: A Reader and Rhetoric (C1LCTE). Kendall/Hunt

Maimon, Elaine, & Janice Peritz (2003) A Writer's Resource. McGraw-Hill—required

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: ENG 100X with a grade greater than or equal to C or English Placement 30 or higher FNRQ


Catalogue Description: Writing skills for completing university coursework. Fulfills the liberal studies requirement for English composition.

Basic Curriculum Category: General Education

Course Objectives: • To introduce fundamental writing principles used in academic settings. • To understand the connections between critical reading and writing skills through close attention to the production and

interpretation of texts. • To apply critical reading and writing skills to formal writing tasks, including an extended writing project. • To develop technological literacy skills to rhetorically analyze online resources based on the audience addressed, the

purpose explored, and the language used.

Topics/Schedule: This class meets four times a week for 50 minuets

Assignment Draft of rhetorical analysis Rhetorical analysis Draft of synthesis paper Synthesis paper Documentary in Cline library Draft of short argument paper Group presentation Short argument paper Spring Break (no class) Draft of annotated bibliography Documentary in Cline Tibrary Annotated bibliography Draft of extended argument paper Individual presentation Extended argument paper Draft of online writers profile Online writer's profile Portfolio

Due Date 2/1 2/7 2/22 3/1 3/5 (5:30pm) 3/8 (online discussion) 3/12-3/15 3/15 3/19-3/22 4/5 4/9 (5:30pm) 4/9 4/18,19 4/23-4/26 4/26 5/1 5/3 Finals Week


1 rhetorical analysis essay 1 synthesis essay 1 short argument paper (needs to include 1 -2 visuals) 1 annotated bibliography 1 extended argument paper (including 2-3 visuals) Group presentation Individual presentation Website with Writer's Profile: Reflective Essay Portfolio (revised papers) Preparation as discussion leader Class work: reflection papers, participation in class discussions and group activities, peer editing, etc.

Total

10% 10% 10% 10% 25% 5% 5% 10% 5% 5% 5%

100%

The reported final course grade will be determined by comparing the final course total score obtained at the end of the semester to the following grading scale: A = 90 - 100%. B = 80 - 89%, C =70 - 79%, B= 60 - 69%, F =< 60%

Prepared By: Faith Young, January 2007 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, March 2007

Northern Arizona University - College of Engineering & Natural Sciences - Department of Mathematics and Statistics

MAT 136 CALCULUS I COURSE S Y L L A B U S


Instructor: Dr. Roger A. Crawford

Required Textbooks: Calculus- Concepts and Contexts, 3rd ed., Stewart, 2005

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: MAT 125 or MAT 125H with a grade greater than or equal to C or Math Placement 70 or higher or International Student Group SAS


Catalogue Description: Calculus of one variable; basic concepts, interpretations, techniques, and applications of differentiation and integration.


Course Objectives: To familiarize the student with the basic concepts of calculus, including limits, derivatives, and integration. Upon completion of this course the student will be expected to be able to:

1) Construct and interpret graphs of functions. 2) Understand the concepts of limit, derivative, and integral. 3) Apply, calculate, and interpret limits, derivatives, and integrals.

Objective 1. Express understanding of and related interpretations of the concepts of limit, derivative and integral in writing and via computations, graphs, numerical values and mathematical symbolism. (Technology and it's impact, environmental consciousness, critical thinking, quantitative analysis, use of technology 2. Calculate exactly or approximate as appropriate limits, derivatives and integrals from formulas, tables, and graphs. (Technology and its impact, quantitative analysis, use of technology) 3. Apply the derivative to analyze graphical behavior, motion problems, other rate problems and optimization problems. (Technology and its impact, environmental consciousness, critical thinking, quantitative analysis, use of technology)

Assessment Examination questions, technology projects. Some may also use writing assignments, homework or quizzes.

Examination questions, technology projects. Some may also use homework or quizzes.

Examination questions and technology projects. Some may also use applied projects, homework, or quizzes.

Topics/Schedule:

This class meets four days a week for 50 minuets

1. Functions and Models 7-8days

Review of functions including linear, exponential, power, logarithmic, trigonometric, polynomial and rational functions. Inverse function, compositions and transformations and modeling.

2. Limits and Derivatives 14-15 days Development of the notion of derivative via tangents and velocity. Limits of a function, limit laws, limits involving infinity, continuity, tangents, velocity and other rates of change, formal derivatives as functions, linear

approximations, relationships between properties of a function and its derivative.

3. Applications of Differentiation 13-15 days Related rates, maxima/minima, creation and analysis of graphs of functions, indeterminate forms and L'Hospital's rule, applied optimization problems, Antiderivatives with application to the analysis of motion.

4. The Integral 7-8 days Computation of areas and distances, definite integrals, Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, Substitution.


-Weekly Homework Assignments will account for 15% of the course grade. These assignments will be given and completed using an online program called Webwork. Webwork allows the student to work from any computer with internet access, and gives the student immediate feedback for each problem.

-Weekly Quizzes will account for 10% of the course grade. These quizzes will consist of three or less problems very similar to problems assigned in Webwork. No make up quizzes will be given, except in the case of institutional excuses provided BEFORE the date of the quiz.

-Projects will account for 5% of the course grade. These will be assigned throughout the semester, to be completed outside of class. Late projects will not be accepted.

-Exams will account for 45% of the course grade. There will be four regular exams throughout the semester. Make-up exams will only be given for institutional excuses or in VERY special circumstances (leniency in the latter is rare), in either case you MUST contact me in advance, NO EXCEPTIONS.

-The Final exam will account for 25% of the course grade. There are absolutely NO makeup exams for the final. The final exam is scheduled on Wednesday, May 9th, 7:30 - 9:30 am)

-Attendance is mandatory, and is critical to your success in this course. In addition to lectures all homework hints, quizzes, changes to test dates, etc. will be given in class. You will be expected to learn and familiarize yourself with the material presented in class daily. Missing even one day can set a student far enough behind as to be beyond hope of passing. If you show up to a class for a quiz, but leave afterward (without prior arrangements with me) you will get a zero on that quiz. I am not responsible for missed tests/quizzes/assignments due to a student's lack of attendance.

-Extra Credit will not be given in this course.


Prepared By: Roger A. Crawford, January 2007 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, March 2007


MAT 137 CALCULUS II C O U R S E SYLLABUS



Required Textbooks: Calculus- Concepts and Contexts, 3rd ed., Stewart. 2005

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: MAT 136 or MAT 136H with a grade greater than or equal to C


Catalogue Description: Concepts, techniques, and applications of integration, differential equations. Taylor polynomials, infinite series.


Course Objectives: This course is designed to continue the study of Calculus by familiarizing the student with integration, improper integration, applications of integration, differential equations, infinite series, power series, and vectors. Upon completion of this course the student will be expected to be able to:

1) Calculate or approximate integrals using various techniques. 2) Identify improper integrals, determine whether they converge, and calculate improper integrals. 3) Apply integration to solve problems involving volume, work, etc. 4) Analyze basic first order differential equations and use them in applications. 5) Understand various types of infinite series and use convergence/divergence tests, etc. 6) Use vectors and properties of vectors, as well as lines and planes in three dimensional space.

Objective 1. Apply the definite integral to analyze be able to apply integration in a variety of contexts such as geometry, physics, engineering and biology 2. Be able to use basic integration techniques for solving definite and indefinite integrals. 3. Be familiar with beginning concepts of differential equations and basic models involving differential equations and be able to model simple applied problems by differential equations. 4. Understand the concepts of limits of sequences and sums of infinite series and of power series and be able to use theorems and convergence tests to decide convergence or divergence of sequences and series. 5. Be able to use technology, such as computer algebra systems or advanced calculators, in solving calculus problems. 6. Be able to demonstrate an understanding of the concepts and methodology of vectors and be able to use them to solve applied problems.

Assessment Examination questions, technology projects. Some may also use applied projects, homework or quizzes.

Examination questions, some may also use writing assignments, homework or quizzes. Examination questions, technology projects. Some may also use homework, or quizzes.

Examination question. Some may also use applied projects, homework, or quizzes.

Technology projects. Some may also use applied projects, homework, or quizzes.

Examination questions. Some may also use applied projects, homework, or quizzes.


1. The Integral 10-12 days Computation of areas and distances, Definite Integrals, Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, Substitution (Review). Integration by Parts, Use of integral tables, integral approximations, improper integrals, standard applications and interpretations of integrals including area between curves and average value of functions.

2. Application of Integration 12-14 days Areas, volumes, arc length, average value, applications to physics and engineering (applications to economics, biology and probability).

3. Differential Equations 4-5 days Basic modeling, direction fields, Euler's method, separable equations, exponential growth and decay (the logistic

equation, predator-prey systems).

4. Vectors 6-8 days 3-dimensional coordinate systems, vectors, dot product, cross product, equations of lines and planes.



-Weekly Quizzes and Worksheets will account for 10% of the course grade. These quizzes will consist of three or less problems very similar to problems assigned in Webwork. No make up quizzes will be given, except in the case of institutional excuses provided BEFORE the date of the quiz.



-The Final exam will account for 25% of the course grade. There are absolutely NO makeup exams for the final. The final exam is scheduled on Monday, May 7th, 5:10-7:10 pm)



The reported final course grade will be determined by comparing the final course total score obtained at the end of the semester to the following grading scale: A = 90 - 100%, B = 80- 89%, C =70 - 79%, D= 60 - 69%, F =< 60%



MAT 238 CALCULUS III COURSE SYLLABUS


Instructor: Matt Fahy

Required Textbooks: Calculus: Concepts and Contexts, 3rd Ed, J. Stewart, Brooks-Cole, 2005, Chapters 9 -13 . A few sections may be omitted.

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: MAT 137 with a grade greater than or equal to C or satisfactory placement


Catalogue Description: Vector functions and multidimensional calculus; partial derivatives, gradients, optimization, multiple integrals, parametric curves and surfaces, vector calculus, line integrals, flux intergral, and vector fields


Course Objectives: By the end of the course, students should be able to:

Objective 1. Be able to demonstrate an understanding of the concepts and methodology of vector functions of one variable and be able to use vectors and vector functions to solve applied problems. 2. Have an understanding of the concept of partial derivative together with related concepts and rules and be able to use these concepts in applied problems 3. Have an understanding of the definition of multiple integrals as limits of Riemann sums and be able to estimate them by Riemann sums in applied problems. 4. Be able to set up multiple integrals over general regions using different coordinate systems, to computer such integrals and be able to use such techniques in applications. 5. Be able to use technology, such as computer algebra systems or advanced calculators, in solving calculus problems. 6. Have an understanding of the concepts and methods of vector calculus related to line integrals and surface integrals of scalar fields and vector fields and be able to use such methods in applications.

Assessment Examination questions, and technology projects. Some may also use applied projects, homework or quizzes.

Examination questions. Some may also use writing assignments, homework or quizzes.

Examination questions, technology projects. Some may also use homework, or quizzes.





1. Vector functions 6-8 days Vector review. Parametric curves and vector functions, velocity and acceleration, arc length and curvature, Parametric surfaces, (tangential and normal components of acceleration, Kepler's law of planetary motion).

2. Partial derivatives: 12-14 days Surfaces, functions of two or more variables, contour diagrams, partial derivatives, tangent planes and linear

approximation, chain rule, directional derivatives and gradient vector, maximum and minimum values, method of Lagrange multipliers, (high order Taylor approximations, partial deferential equations).

3. Multiple integrals: 15-17 days

Double integrals and iterated integrals over rectangles and over more general regions, introduction to polar coordinates, double integrals in polar coordinated, triple integrals in rectangular, cylindrical and spherical coordinates, (surface area, general change-of-variables theorem for double integrals).

4. Vector calculus: 18-20 days Vector fields, line integrals, conservative vector fields and fundamental theorem for line integrals, Green's theorem,

curl and divergence, parametric surfaces, surface integrals, Stokes' theorem, divergence theorem.

Course Evaluation Methods: Homework will be primarily administered through an internet based program called Webwork. To complete the homework, you will first access this website (the address is case sensitive): http://webwork2.math.nau.edu/webwork2/MFahy_238/ Your username is your last name (first letter capitalized) an underscore and then your NAU user Id (for example, Shiffer_ams3). Your initial password is the last five digits of your NAU Id number. Once you have opened a homework set, you will print it off and work the problems on paper, returning to Webwork when you've finished to enter your answers. The program will provide instant feedback and provide you several chances to retry any problem that might be incorrect.

Several projects will be assigned during the semester. These will typically incorporate mathematical software or graphing calculators.

Four in-class examinations and a comprehensive final exam will be administered during the semester. Real tentative dates for the four in-class exams are

Test 1 Wednesday, February 7 Test 2 Friday, March 9 Test 3 Friday, April 6 Test 4 Friday, April 27

The final exam will be Monday, May 7 at 7:30am.

Homework: 20% Projects: 5% Exams: 50% Final exam: 25%


Prepared By: Matt Fahy January 2007 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, March 2007

http://webwork2.math

http://nau.edu/webwork2/MFahy_238/


MAT 239 DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS C O U R S E SYLLABUS


Instructor: Jim Swift

Required Textbooks: Elementary Differential Equations by William E. Boyce and Richard C. DiPrima, 8th ed.

Class website: Go to my home page (www.nau.edu/Jim.Swift) and follow the "Teaching" link. That link takes you to the instructor information page, where there is a link to the web site for this class, as well as a link to official U.S. time, http://www.time.gov, that our class will observe.

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: (co requisite) MAT 238 with a grade greater than or equal to C


Catalogue Description: Solutions of first-order differential equations, nth-order linear equations, systems of linear differential equations, series solutions.


Course Objectives: By the end of the course, students should be able to: 1. Set up a differential equation to model a variety of real world problems. 2. Classify a differential equation into one of a number of different types (e.g. first order separable, third order

linear with constant coefficients, linear autonomous first order systems, etc.) 3. Apply the appropriate method of solution to a given differential equation. 4. Appreciate the fact that not all differential equations can be solved analytically, and understand some basic

geometric tools that might help provide information on the qualitative behavior of solutions in such instances (e.g. direction fields, phase plane analysis).

Topics/Schedule: This class meets three times a week for 50 minuets 1. Basic Terminology of Differential Equations 2. First Order Ordinary Differential Equations 3. Higher- order linear ODE's with constant coefficients 4. First order linear autonomous systems of ODEs. 5. Series solutions of non- autonomous second order differential equations 6. Topics selected from the following as time permits

a. Non-linear autonomous systems of ODEs. b. Numerical Methods c. Laplace Transforms

Mon Wed Fri Week 1: Jan. 15

MLK Day 1.1 1.2 & 1.3

Week 2: Jan. 22 2.2 2.1 2.1

Week 3: Jan. 29 2.3 2.3,2.5 2.6

Week 4: Feb. 5 2.7 2.9 Review

Feb. 9: Drop deadline Week 5: Feb. 12

Exam 1 3.1 3.2

http://www.nau.edu/Jim.Swift

http://www.time.gov

Course Evaluation Methods: Points: There will be approximately 750 possible "class points."

Midterms: (3 x 100 = 300 class points) There will be 3 midterm exams. Each exam will have a raw score and a "curved" or scaled score based on 100 possible class points. In fairness to those with classes before or after ours, the exam will start and end on time.

Homework: (10 class points each, approximately 20 assignments) We will be using WeBWorK for most of the homework assignments. Each of WeBWorK assignments is worth 10 class points. 1 may occasionally have quizzes or short assignments for you to turn in on paper. The point value of the paper assignments will be announced when they are assigned.

Final Exam: (250 class points) The Final Exam will be comprehensive. The Final exam is scheduled for Wednesday. May 9 from 7:30 to 9:30.1 reserve the right to raise your course grade from the 90/80/70 curve,

based on an exceptional Final exam. Extra Credit: At each midterm exam I will give you 3 points if you had no unexcused absences since the previous

exam. Any points that you get for the math department's \Problem of the Week" will be credited to this class

The reported final course grade will be determined by comparing the final course total score obtained at the end of the semester to the following grading scale: A = 90 - 100%. B = 80 - 89%, G =70 - 79%, D= 60 - 69%. F =< 60%

Prepared By: Jim Swift, January 2007 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, March 2007

Northern Arizona University - College of Engineering and Natural Science - Mechanical Engineering Department

ME 291 THERMODYNAMICS I COURSE SYLLABUS


Instructor: Dr. Tom Acker

Required Textbooks: Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics, 2nd Ed., by J.R. Howell and R.O. Buckius, McGraw-Hill, 1992.

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: CHM 151, PHY 262 and MAT 238 with a grade greater than or equal to C

Required or Elective: This course is required for mechanical and civil engineering students.

Catalogue Description: Energy and entropy concepts, applications; first and second law principles, applications to processes and cycles.


Basic Curriculum Category': Engineering Topics

Course Objectives: A. To gain an understanding of the fundamental principles of thermodynamics and its application to engineering systems.

(L1, L3, L4, L6, L14)* B. Application of the control volume methodology in solution of engineering problems. (L1, L4) C. Understanding of and ability to use of computer software in solution of thermodynamics problems (L12) D. Exposure to contemporary technical issues associated with energy conversion and utilization. (L9, L17) *L 's refer to ME Department Learning Outcomes (e.g., L1 refers to ME Learning Outcome number I)

Topics/Schedule: This class meets two times a week for 75 minuets

1. Preliminaries: Some concepts and definitions a. System/Surroundings b. Equilibrium c. Properties d. Energy

2. Principle #4: The State Postulate; Properties of Common Substances a. The state postulate b. Simple compressible substances: relationships of state c. The ideal gas

3. Principles #1 & #2: The rate of production of mass = 0, The rate of production of energy = 0 a. Closed systems b. Open systems

4. Principle #3: The rate of production of entropy >0 a. Gibbs equation b. T & P definitions c. reversibility d. Isentropic processes

5. Applications a. Component analysis b. Carnot Cycle c. Rankine Cycle d. Others

Course Evaluation Methods: Your final grade will be based upon the homework, midterm exams, and the final exam as follows:

RELATIVE WEIGHT

Homework & Quizzes 20 % 4 Exams 60 % Final Exam 20% Total 100%

Grades may be curved. Letter grades are: A = 90+, B = 80-89, C = 70-79, D = 60-69, F<60

Prepared By: Tom Acker, January 2007 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, March 2007

Northern Arizona University - College of Engineering and Natural Sciences - Mechanical Engineering Department

ME 395 FLUID MECHANICS COURSE SYLLABUS


Instructor: Dr. Okey Oseloka Onyejekwe

Required Textbooks: Frank M. White "Fluid Mechanics" 6th edition, McGraw Hill 2006.

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: MAT 239 and ME 291 with a grade greater than or equal to C


Catalogue Description: Theory, concepts and usage of the basic laws of fluid mechanics (conservation of mass, momentum, and energy); incompressible flow of fluids with introduction of compressible flow: dimensional analysis and similitude; laminar and turbulent flows; empirical methods.

ABET Target Outcomes: (a) an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering; (L1) (b) an ability to communicate effectively; (L2) (c) a knowledge of chemistry and calculus-based physics with depth in physics; (L3) (d) an ability to identify, formulate and solve engineering problems; (L4) (e) have essential skills in writing, critical reading, critical thinking and creative thought; (L5) (f) an ability to apply advanced mathematics through multivariate calculus and differential equations; ((L6) (g) an ability to function on design teams and multidisciplinary teams; (L7)

an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs; (L8) a recognition of the need for and an ability to engage in life-long learning; (L9) an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility; (L10) an ability to design and conduct experiments as well as to analyze and interpret data; (L11) an ability to use the techniques, skills and modern engineering tools, such as computers, necessary for engineering practice; (L12)

(m) an ability to lead a team-based engineering activity (L13) (n) an ability to work professionally in both thermal and mechanical systems areas, including the design and realization

of such systems; (L14) the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global/societal context; (L15) familiarity with statistics and linear algebra; and (L16) a knowledge of contemporary issues as related to the mechanical engineering profession, including engineering economic issues. (L17)

(h) (i) (j) (k) (l)

(o) (p) (q)


Course Objectives: A. To gain an understanding of the fundamental principles of fluid mechanics and its application to engineering

systems. (L1,L3,L4,L6.L14)* B. Application of the control volume, differential equations, and dimensional analysis methodologies to solve fluid

dynamic problems. (L1,L3,L4,L6,L14) C. Ability to use computer software to solve and analyze fluid dynamics problems. (L1,L4,L12) D. Exposure to contemporary technical and economic issues associated with fluid mechanical devices and systems.

(L17) Topics/Schedule: This class meets two times a week for 75 minuets

No.

1.

2. 3. 4. 5.

Date

Aug. 29

Aug. 31 Sept. 5

Sept. 7 Sept. 12

Topic

Introduction : units fluid properties

Com., Units: SI & British Systems. Fluid properties, fluid statics

Fluid statics: pressure field in a field, manometers Fluid statics: hydrostatic forces on submerged

surfaces, buoyancy

Read Sections

1.1-1.3

1.4-1.5 1.6-1.7 2.1-2.4

2.6

Homework Due

Assign: Reading 1.05, 1.13,1.18

1.25a,b, 1.45, 1.70. 1.79 2.5.2.13,2.17,2.26,2.29, 2.41,2.61,2.66,2.71

6.

7.

8.

9. 10. 11. 12.

13.

14. 14.

15.

16. 17.

18.

19.

20.

21. 22.

23

24. 25. 26. 27.

28.

29.

Sept. 14 I

Sept. 19

Sept. 21

Sept. 26 Sept. 28 Oct. 3 Oct. 5

Oct. 10

Oct. 12 Oct. 17

Oct. 19

Oct. 24 Oct. 26

Oct. 31

Nov. 2

Nov. 7

Nov. 9 Nov. 14

Nov. 16

Nov. 21 Nov. 23 Nov. 28 Dec. 3

De. 5

Dec. 10-19

Fluid statics: Rigid body motion, summary of fluid statics

Elementary fluid kinematics and dynamics

Fluid kinematics: velocity and acceleration fields

Applications of kinematics to flow fields Conservation of mass (Concepts)

Conservation of Energy and momentum(Concepts)

Test 1

Control volume analysis: Reynolds Transport theorem

Control volume analysis : Conservation of mass Control Volume Analysis: Conservation of

momentum Control Volume Analysis:

Conservation of energy Analysis and Review: Overview

Differential Relations for Fluid flow: Applications to Conservation Laws

vorticity and irrolationality, Navier-Stokes equations

TEST 2

Overview of Differential analysis

Viscous Flow in Ducts Reynold's number Regimes (Moody's diagram),

headlosses

Analysis of flows in pipes and ducts

Different types of flow problems, pumping, and boundary layer

Open Channel Flows Uniform flows, Chezy and Manning's Equations

Efficient channel cross sections

TEST 3

Specific Energy

Hydraulic grade lines, energy grade lines .hydraulic jump, and general reviews

2.1-2.10

3.1

3.1

3.1 3.2 3.2

3.2

3.3 3.4-3.5

3.6

4.1 4.2-4.4

4.5-4.8

4-1-4.9

6.1 6.1-6.2

6.1-6.3

10.1 10.1-10.2

10.3

10.4

10.5

2.72,2.73,2.79,2.104, 2.113,2.115,

2.119,2.120,2,122,2.139 Assign: Reading (Chapter

3) 3.1, Assign: Reading (Chapter

3) 33,3.8, 12,3.13,3.16,

3.223.34,3.35,3.36 3.41,3.43,3.54,3.58

3.59,3.61,3,62

3.77,3.79, 3.80

3.82,3.83,3.85 3.91,3.95,3.96

3.107,3.110,3.116,3.135. 3.137

4.1.4.2.4.3 4.6,4.10, 4.20

4.21,4.27,4.34,4.47.4.54

4.55, 4.57, 4.59

6.1.6.2,6.4 6.111,6.12,6.13,6.14,6.15

6.19,6.21,6.24,6.29,6.32, 6.33, 6.47, 6.52, 6.68

101. 10.4. 10.6 10.14, 10.15, 10.16 10.17, 10.20, 10.21

10.22, 10.24, 10.30

10.56,10.62,10.72, 10.80-10.95

Course Evaluation Methods: Your final grade will be based upon the homework, midterm exams, and the final exam as follows: 20% Home Work, 60% Tests (3x20%>), 20% Final Exam Letter grades are: A = 90+, B = 80-89, C = 70-79, D = 60-69, F<60

Prepared By: Dr. Ernesto Penado, January 2001 Edited and Reviewed By: Peter Vadasz, August 2006 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, May 2007

Northern Arizona University - College Arts & Letters Deportment of Philosophy

PHI 105 INTRODUCTION TO ETHICS COURSE SYLLABUS


Instructor: Dan Heller

Required Textbooks: An Inquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, Plume, Meno, Plato, Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant, The German Ideology, Marx & Engels

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites:

Required or Elective: This course or PHI 331 is required for all. environmental and civil engineering students.

Catalogue Description: Introduces philosophical analysis of the ethical life. Reading and critical discussion of both classical and contemporary texts.


Course Objectives: The goal of this course is to interpret and evaluate the philosophical concepts related to the nature of ethics and what the ethical life entails. Students will learn to read, write and think clearly and critically about the ideas surrounding the ethical life developed in the Western tradition of philosophy.

Topics/Schedule: This class meets three times a week for 50 minuets Part One- And Objective Basis for Morality T 1/16 Class business. Introductory Discussion. "Raskolnikov's Dream" by Dostoyevsky Th 1/18 Read Plato pp 3-19 T 1/23 Read Plato pp. 20-23 Th 1/25 Read Plato pp. 24-32 Last Discussion on Plato. Quiz 1 T 1/30 Read Hume pp. 13-20 Th 2/1 Read Hume pp. 20-26 T 2/6 Read Hume pp. 27-34 Th 2/8 Read Hume pp. 34-42 T 2/13 Read Hume pp. 72 - 82 Last Discussion on Hume. Quiz 2 Th 2/15 Read Kant pp. 7-19 T 2/20 Read Kant pp. 19-24 Th 2/22 Read Kant pp.25-34 T 2/27 Read Kant pp. 34-44 Th 3/1 Preparation for First Essay Last Discussion on Kant Quiz 3 T 3/27 Read Marx pp. 89-103 Th 3/29 Read Marx pp. 103-114 Last Discussion on Marx Quiz 4 Part Two- The responsibilities in Being Human T 4/3 Good Samaritan Story Th 4/5 Read Gusdorf. Chapter I and II T 4/10 Read Gusdorf. Chapter III Th 4/12 Read Gusdorf. Chapter IV T 4/17 Read Gusdorf. Chapter V Th 4/19 Read Gusdorf. Chapter VI Review. T 4/24 Read Gusdorf. Chapter VII Th 4/26 Read Gusdorf. Chapter VIII T 5/1 Read Gusdorf. Chapter IX & X Th 5/3 Read Gusdorf. Chapter XI & XII T 5/8 Final Essay Due

Course Evaluation Methods: There is a total of 695 points in this course. There will be 5 quizzes/tests worth 20 points each. There will be 2 essays assigned tliroughout the term. The first should be 5-6 pages in length and is worth 200 points. The final paper will be 6-7 pages in length and worth 250 points.

The reported final course grade will be determined by comparing the final course total score obtained at the end of the semester to the following grading scale: A = 90 - 100%. B - 80 - 89%, C =70 - 79%, D= 60 - 69%, F =< 60%

Prepared By: Dan Heller, January 2007 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, March 2007

Northern Arizona University - College Arts & Letters - Department of Philosophy

PHI 331 ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS COURSE SYLLABUS


Instructor: Dr. Dennis Rusche

Required Textbooks: 1) Eco-Economy, Brown, Lester; W.W. Norton & Co., 2001

2) Beyond the Land Ethic, Callicolt, J. Baird; SUNY Press, 1999 3) A Sand Country Almanac, Leopold, Aldo; Oxford U. Pr., 1968 4) Watersheds 4, Newton, Lisa, and Dillingham, Catherine; Wadsworth, 2006 5) Miscellaneous articles will be handed out during the course of the semester



Catalogue Description: Critical examination of the moral reasons for protecting and preserving the environment.


Course Objectives: The first goal of this course is to learn about and assess the major adverse impacts that modern economic activity is having on the natural environment. The second objective is to examine the question of what value and moral status the natural environment and in particular wilderness should have for humans. The third object is to learn about and evaluate a variety of actions that humans might take so as to create a sustainable, good relationship with the environment. Each of these objectives calls for independent, critical thinking on the part of the student.

Topics/Schedule: This class meets online once a week for 90 minuets 1 Introduction

Watersheds, pp. x-xv. 116-125 (chapter 7) 2 Watersheds, pp. 125-140 (chapter 7) Chlorine; Lomborg on population

Watersheds, pp. 141-156 (chapter 8) Population; Handout Questions #'s 3 & 4 3 Watersheds, pp. 98-115 (chapter 6) Great Apes; Lomborg on species decline

Watersheds, pp. 173-196 (chapter 10) Biodiversity; Handout Questions #'s 5 & 6 4 Watersheds, pp. 1-15 (chapter 1) Global Wanning; Article on Climate Change

Eco-Economy, pp. 27-39 (chapter 2) Global Warming 5 First Essay Examination

Sand Countiy, pp. vii-ix, 227-228, 6-17. 44-50: Handout Questions #'s 7 & 8 6 Sand Countiy, pp. 66-77, 95-108

Sand Country, pp. 108-119, 129-133; Handout Questions #\s 9 & 10 7 Sand Country, pp. 141-148, 177-184 (Wilderness)

Sand Country, pp. 184-200; Instructions for first paper 8 Sand Country, pp. 201-226 (Land Ethic)

Sand Countiy, (General); Handout Questions #'s 11 & 12 9 Lynn White. "Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis. "

Beyond the Land Ethic, pp. 27-36, 40-43, 50-51, 189-198; (Importance of a Theory of Nature); Handout Questions #'s 13 & 14 10 Beyond the Land Ethic, pp. 14-18, 221 -229

Beyond the Land Ethic, pp. 239-249, 84-87, 112-115 (Issue of the Intrinsic Value of Nature); Handout Questions #'s 15 & 16 and points on "The Social Nature of Humans'" 11 Beyond the Land Ethic, pp. 12-14, 59-76, 167-169 12 Beyond the Land Ethic (continued)

The Skeptical Environmentalist, selected passages; Handout Questions 17 & 18 Second paper is due Friday by 5 pm

13 Eco-Economy, pp. 3-33 (Chapter 1); pp. 158-167 (Chapter 7) Handout Lomborg on food

14 Lomborg on Food Eco-Economy, pp. 97-119 (Chapter 5) Handout Questions #'s 19 & 20

15 Eco-Economy, pp. 121-143 (Chapter 6) Eco-Economy, pp. 169-186 (Chapter 8): Possible Questions for final

16 Final Essay Examination Tuesday 12:30-2:30

Course Evaluation Methods: In the five different class periods, you will be called on to answer one question from a set of questions handed out in a previous period. You can volunteer for rhw question that you will answer. Each answer is worth 4 points. You will be required to answer five questions for a total of 20 points. The class is divided into four groups-these groups will be of equal numbers divided according to the alphabetical order of last names. The first and third groups will answer even numbered Handout Questions. The second and fourth group will answer the even numbered ones. For those who can not be present during a period when they would be expected to answer a question, two make-up sets of questions (sets A and B) will be available. This assignment can be compleded only in class. Even though one student is responsible for answering one question, every student should be prepared to answer to some extent all of the questions or follow-up questions. Use these questions as a guide to what is important in reading the assigned pages or chapters.

Second, you will take 2 essay examinations, one near the beginning of the semester, and one at the end during finals week. Third, you will write two short papers (each about 3 pages in length) during the semester. Each of these written assignments is worth 50 points for a total of 200 points.

For one point extra credit at the beginning of class, 1 will call on 2 or 3 members of the class to define a term in the Glossary of terms handed out.

The total number of points possible for the semester is 220. The grading scale for each assignment and the course as a whole is the following: A = 90 - 100%, B = 80 - 89%, C =70 - 79%, D= 60 - 69%, F =< 60%

Prepared By: Dennis Rusche, August 2006 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, January 2007

Northern Arizona University - College of Engineering & Natural Sciences - Physics and Astronomy Department

PHY 161 UNIVERSITY PHYSICS I COURSE SYLLABUS


Instructor: Dr. Gary Bowman

Required Textbooks: Physics for Scientists and Engineers, 6th ed., R. Serway and J. Jewett

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: High school physics or PHY 107 and 107L with a grade of C or better; co requisites- Mat 136, PHY 161L


Catalogue Description: First course in the three-semester, calculus-based, introductory physics sequence. Classical mechanics.


Course Objectives: The goal of this course is to introduce students to classical mechanics. Ideally, we will cover the first 12 chapters of text. You will be expected to solve a variety of stand problems. More importantly, though our goal will be to acquire a real understanding of fundamental physical concepts.

Topics: • kinematics (the study of motion); • rigid body statics and dynamics (Newton's Laws) • gravitation • work, power and energy • impulse • momentum


• Quizzes (15%) • Exams (2) (40%) • Final Exam (20%) • Lab (25%)


Schedule: This class meets three times a week for 50 minuets

Prepared By: Gary Bowman, January 2007 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, March 2007


PHY 161L UNIVERSITY PHYSICS I LABRATORY COURSE SYLLABUS Fall 2006, 1 Credit Hour

Instructor: Matthew Abernathy






Course Objectives: A. To clarify the concepts covered in lecture B. To gain practice in the use of computer and lab equipment C. To establish basic laboratory skills such as the making of tables and graphs D. To begin learning the skills of estimating and propagating experimental uncertainties E. To begin learning experimental design and data analysis




Note: Lab scores and lecture scores wil be combined into a final grade which you will receive for both the lab and lecture.


Schedule: This class meets once a week for 150 minuets

Lab Contents 1 Describing Motion 2 Velocity and Acceleration 3 Measurement and Uncertainty 4 Two-Dimensional Motion 5 Introduction to Forces 6 Newton's 2ed Law 7 Circular Motion 8 Conservation of Energy 9 Work and Energy 10 Inelastic Collisions 11 Elastic Collision 12 Torque and Angular Momentum 13 Static Equilibrium

Prepared By: Matthew Abernathy, August 2006 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, March 2007


PHY 262 UNIVERSITY PHYSICS II COURSE S Y L L A B U S Fall 2006, 3 Credit Hours

Instructor: Dr. R. D. Young

Required Textbooks: Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics by R. A. Serway and J. W. Jewett, Jr. (6th edition).

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: Physics 161 and PHY 161L with a grade of C or better and MAT 137 or higher (co requisite)


Catalogue Description: Second course in the three-semester, calculus-based, introductory physics sequence. Electricity, magnetism, and thermodynamics.


Course Objectives: The course objective are threefold: (i) The student will learn the fundamental physical concepts and phenomena of electricity, magnetism, and thermodynamics; (ii) The student will learn the mathematical formulation of the concepts of electricity, and thermodynamics; (iii) The student will apply the concepts and mathematical formulations to construct solutions to various problems involving electricity, magnetism, and thermodynamics.

Topics/Schedule: This class meets three times a week for 50 minuets

Week

1 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10

11

12

13

14

15

Topic Temperature, First law of Thermo. Kinetic Theory Second Law of Thermo.

Coulomb's Law Electric Field. Gauss's Law Gauss's Law, Electric Potential Electric Potential, Capacitance

Capacitance Resistance. Circuits Magnetic Fields Sources of Magnetic Fields Sources of Magnetic Fields Faraday's Law, Maxwell's Eqs Faraday's Law, Maxwell's Eqs Inductance. RLC Circuits

Chapter Sections

19.1-19.5.20.1-20.6 21.1-21.3

22.1-22.4.22.6-22.7

23.1-23.3

23.4-23.7.24.1-24.2

24.3-24.4,25.1-25.3

25.4-25.6,26.1-26.3

26.4-26.5

27.1-27.2,27.6,28.1-28.4 29.1-29.4

30.1-30.3

30.4-30.7

31.1-31.3

31.4-31.7

32.1-32.6

Quiz Exam

Quiz 1 Quiz 2

Quiz 3 Hour Exam 1

Quiz4

Quiz 5

Quiz 6 Hour Exam 2

Quiz 7 Quiz 8

Quiz 9 Hour Exam 3

Quiz 10

Quiz 11

Quiz 12

This course meets for three 50 minute periods each week. Class times and place are MWF 9:10-10:00 am.


Evaluation Grading Exams -3 @ 150 points each 450 points 810 points and higher A Quizzes- 10 @ 20 points each 200 points 720-809 points B Final Exam 250 points 630-719 points C

900 points 420 to 629 points D 449 points or less F

Prepared By: R. D. Young, August 2006 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, January 2007

Faculty VITA'S

WILLIAM M. AUBERLE, P.E. Professor of Civil & Environmental Engineering

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ (928) 523-5845, [email protected]

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND MSE Civil (Environmental) Engineering West Virginia University 1967

BS1E. Industrial Engineering West Virginia University 1966

ACADEMIC SERVICE Professor of Civil & Environmental Engineering, August 1994 to present, College of Engineering and Natural Sciences, Northern Arizona University

Research Director, Ecological Monitoring & Assessment Program and Foundation, April 2003 - present, Northern Arizona University

Acting Dean/Director, April 2004 - July 2005 - Engineering Programs, College of Engineering and Natural Sciences, Northern Arizona University

Associate Professor, of Civil & Environmental Engineering, January 1991 to August 1994, College of Engineering and Technology, Northern Arizona University

PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE President, Yates & Auberle, Ltd., 1984 - 1990, Oakbrook, IL (Denver & New York)

Principal, William M. Auberle, P.E., 1982 - 1984, Barlow, OH

Vice-President, KEMRON Division, Borg-Warner Corp., 1980 - 1982, Marietta, OH

Associate Director, Colorado Department of Health, 1978 - 1980, Denver

Director, Air Pollution Control Division, Colorado Department of Health, 1977 - 1978, Denver

Supervisor, Regional Air Pollution Control Agency, 1972 - 1977, Dayton, OH

Supervisor, Bureau of Engineering, Montgomery County Combined General Health District, 1972 - 1977, Dayton, OH

Supervisor, Air Pollution Control, Montgomery County Combined General Health District, 1970 - 1972, Dayton, OH

Associate Executive Secretary/Chief Survey & Studies Section, Missouri Air Conservation Commission, 1969 - 1970, Jefferson City, MO

Air Quality Specialist, Missouri Air Conservation Commission, 1967 - 1968, Jefferson City, MO

PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION Professional Engineer: Ohio and Louisiana Qualified Environmental Professional Diplomate, American Academy of Environmental Engineers

HONORS AND AWARDS Fellow Member and Former Vice-President, Air & Waste Management Association

Dean's Award, College of Engineering & Technology, Northern Arizona University, 1998 - 1999

President's Award, Northern Arizona University, 1997


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Leadership Awards , 1975 (Region 5 Chicago), 1979 Region 8 Denver)

PROFESSIONAL and INSTITUTIONAL SERVICE Sustainable Economic Development Task Force Steering Committee, Coconino County, AZ 2005 - 2006

Arizona Town Hall, 1994 - present

Children's Environmental Health Advisory Committee, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 2004 - present

Clean Air Act Advisory Committee, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1996 - present

Water Research & Education Program, Advisory Board, 2003 - present

White House Task Force on Nuclear Energy and Air Quality, 2002 - 2003

Air & Waste Management Association, Member, Committee Chair (numerous), Board of Directors, Vice President

American Academy of Environmental Engineers, Diplomate, 1984 - present; Trustee, 1988 - 1991

PUBLICATIONS SAMPLE

Acker, T. L., W. M. Auberle, J. D. Eastwood, D. R. LaRoche, A. S. Ormond, R. P. Slack and D. H. Smith, Recommendations for reducing Energy Consumption and Improving Air Quality Through Energy Efficiency on Native-American Lands, Energy Sources, Part B, 1:223-234, 2006.

Cole, Henry S. and W. M. Auberle, Final Report of Environmental Liaisons' Investigation of Georgia-Pacific Resins, Inc, Columbus, Ohio, Franklin County Ohio Court of Common Pleas, November, 2005.

Acker, T. L., W. M. Auberle, J. D. Eastwood, D. R. LaRoche, A. S. Ormond, R. P. Stack and D. H. Smith, Economic Analysis of Energy Efficiency Measures: Tribal Case Studies with the Yurok Tribe, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, the Pasqua Yaqui Tribe, American Indian Culture and Research Journal, Volume 20, Number 1, 2005.

Auberle, W. M., Implementing Strategies to Reduce Emissions from Diesel-Powered Motor Vehicles in the Southwest, Report to USEPA/OTAQ, 2002.

Auberle, W.M., Alvarez, V., Paramo, V., Leary, J. and Rios, G., Design of a Workshop in Air Quality Management for Senior Managers in Mexico, Proceedings of the 92nd Annual Meeting of the Air & Waste Management Association, 1999.

Terry E. Baxter Ph.D., P.E. Assoc. Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northern Arizona University,

Flagstaff, AZ (928) 523-2008, [email protected]

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

Ph.D. Environmental Health Engineering, University of Kansas 1988 M.S. Environmental Health Engineering, University of Kansas 1981 B.S. Civil Engineering, University of Kansas 1979

ACADEMIC SERVICE Associate Professor, of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 2000, College of Engineering and

Technology, Northern Arizona University Initial Appointment: 1993 as Assistant Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Northern

Arizona University

PREVIOUS AND CURRENT EXPERIENCE 2000-present: Associate Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,

Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 1993-1999: Assistant Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northern

Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 1993-2003: Science Advisory Committee, Environmental Engineer, Great Plains/Rocky

Mountain Hazardous Substance Research Center, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 1989-1993: Environmental Engineer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII,

Kansas City, KS 1988-1989: Research Associate, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University

of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 1984: Environmental Engineer, Ralph B. Carter Company, Hackensack, Nj 1983-1984: Environmental Engineer, Ross E. McKinney Consulting Engineer, Lawrence, KS 1980-1988: Research and Teaching Assistant, Department of Civil and Environmental

Engineering, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 1979: Civil Engineer, E.T. Archer Engineering, Kansas City, MO 1977-1978: Land Surveyor/Draftsman, Schmidt Engineering Company, Topeka, KS 1974-1976: Land Surveyor/Draftsman, Burgwin, Paselv and Associates, Topeka, KS 1974: Land Surveyor/Draftsman, W.H. Burgwin and Associates, Denver, CO 1973-1974: Land Surveyor/Draftsman, Burgwin, Martin and Associates, Topeka, KS 1972: Land Surveyor, J and M Development Company, Berryton, KS

PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION Professional Civil Engineer: Kansas

HONORS AND AWARDS Senior Member, American Society for Qualitv (2006) Boeing Outstanding Educator Award (1999) Chair, Science Advisory Committee, Great Plains-Rocky Mountain Hazardous Substance

Research Center (1998 - 2003) Vice-Chair, Science Advisory Committee, Great Plains-Rocky Mountain Hazardous Substance

Research Center (1994 - 1998) Director's Special Achievement Award, U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency

Response (1993) Superfund OERR Award, U.S. EPA (1992)

T.Baxter ABET Vita Fall 2006 1


National Chair, Present State Work Group for Delivery of Analytical Services Task Force, U.S. EPA,OERR, (1991 - 1992)

Special Achievement Award, U.S. EPA, Region VII, Environmental Services Division (1990 & 1991)

PROFESSIONAL and INSTITUTIONAL SERVICE

Environmental Engineering Laboratory Director, C E N E / C E N S / N A U (2006) American Society of Civil Engineers ABET Evaluator training initiated (2005) and in progress

as an Observer (2006). Part 2000 Coordinator, Standard Methods Committee, APHA/AWWA/WEF (2001 - present) Chair, Section 2710 Joint Task Group, Standard Methods Committee, A P H A / A W W A / W E F

(1996 - present) Chair, Science Advisory Committee, Great Plains-Rocky Mountain Hazardous Substance


Research Center (1994 -1998) Standard Methods Committee, APHA/AWWA/WEF (1991 - present) Plazardous Waste Committee, Water Environment Federation (1990 - 1996)

PUBLICATIONS SAMPLE

Baxter, T.E., Schell, D. and Holec, S. (2001) "Virtual tour of a wastewater treatment facility. A multimedia tool for training and education." WEPTEC 2001 Conference Proceedings (Atlanta, GA, October 13-17, 2001), Water Environment Federation

DeMendonca, M. and Baxter, T.E. (2001) "Design for the environment (DFE). An approach to achieve the ISO 14000 international standardization." Environmental Management and Health, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 51-56.

DeMendonca, M. and Baxter, T.E. (2000) "DFE Application to Achieve ISO-14000 Compliance." Proceedings oj the 5th International Symposium on Environmental Geotechnology and Global Sustainable Development, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil, August 17-23. 2000

Baxter, T.E. and Ramirez, B.B. (1999) "Training tribal environmental officials: Using a project not a projector." Proceeding of AWMA 92nd Annual'Meeting, St. Louis, Missouri, June 20-24, 1999.

DeMendonca, M. and Baxter, T.E. (1999) "Comparative assessment of instructional-based technology for learning wastewater treatment process unit operations." Proceedings of the 1999 International Conference on Simulation and Multimedia in Engineenng Education, Society for Computer Simulation, San Francisco, CA, January 17-20, 1999.

Dupont, R. Ryan, Terry E. Baxter and Louis Theodore (1998) Environmental Management. Workbook Problems and Solutions, CRC Press/Lewis Publishers.

Baxter, T.E., (1998) "Comparison of neighborhood-scale residential wood smoke emissions inventories using limited and intensive survey data." Proceedings ofAWMA 91 st Annual Meeting (San Diego, CA, June 14-18, 1998), Air and Waste Management Association.

Baxter, T.E., Ellsworth, P.M., Bero, B.N., Masavesva, V., Weimerskirch, P., Marshall, M.T. and Madrone, B.C. (1998) "Adaptation and delivery of indoor air quality training tor tribal officials." Proceedings of AWMA 91st Annual Meeting (San Diego, CA, June 14-18, 1998), Air and Waste Management Association.

Baxter, T.E., lannacone, A. and Messbarger, D. (199.3) "Assessing the Quality and Quantity of Environmental Data," Proceedings of Challenges Facing Environmental Laboratories: Methods, Quality, Media and Liability, Specialty Conference Series (Santa Clara, CA, August 8-11, 1993), Water Environment Federation.


Bridget N. Bero, Ph.D., P.E. Associate Professor of Environmental Egnineering

Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona (520) 523-2051, [email protected]


Ph.D. Chemical Engineering University of Idaho 1994

B.S. Chemical Engineering Cleveland State University 1981

ACADEMIC SERVICE

Associate Professor (2000 to present), Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ. (Initial appointment as Assistant Professor, 1995.)

• Special Project (2004-present): principle investigator, project: Utilization of Small Diameter Pine Slash: Research, Development and Commercialization of High Value Pine Oil Products in Northern Arizona.

• Special Project (2004-present): principle investigator, project: Devevlopment of an Environmental Management System for NAU.

Fulbright Senior Scholar (2002 - 2003), Fachhochschule Zittau-Gorlitz, Zittau, Germany.

PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE

Senior Environmental Engineer (1994 - 1995), Travis Energy & Environment, Inc., Hayden Lake, ID

Environmental Engineer (1989 - 1994), TerraGraphics Environmental Engineering, Moscow, ID.

Chemical Engineer (1981 - 1985), Texaco Port Arthur Research Labs, Port Arthur, TX.

PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION

Registered Professional Engineer (Chemical), Idaho

HONORS AND AWARDS

Dean's Award, 1999 and 2000, College of Engineering and Technology

Outstanding Faculty Award, 1999, Native American Student Services, Northern Arizona University

Jaycees Outstanding Flagstaff Young Citizen Award, 1997


PROFESSIONAL SERVICE

Member, State of Arizona Water Quality Advisory Revolving Fund (WQARF) Board, 2004 - present

Member of: Air & Waste Management Association (AWMA), American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), Fulbright Association

PUBLICATIONS SAMPLE

Doerry, Eck, B.N. Bero, K. Doerry and M. Neville. "The Global Engineering College: Lessons Learned in Exploring a New Model for International Engineering Education," Proc, 2004 American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Meeting, Salt Lake City, UT, June 2004.

Doerry, E., B.N. Bero and K. Doerry. 'international Internships in a Globalized Engineering Curriculum," Proc. 3" Global International Internship Congress, Stuttgart, Germany, April 8-12, 2003.

Doerry, E., B.N. Bero and K. Doerry. '"The Global Engineering College: exploring a new model for engineering education in a global economy," Proc. 2003 American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Meeting, Nashville, TN, June 22-25, 2003.

Bero, Bridget N., E. Doerry and D. Hartman. "Northern Arizona University's Design4Practice Sequence: Interdisciplinary Training in Engineering Design for the Global Era," Proc, 2001 American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Meeting, Albuquerque, NM, June 24-27,2001.

Doerry, E., B. Bero, D. Larson, and J. Hatfield. "Northern Arizona University's 'Design4Practice Sequence': Interdisciplinary Training in Engineering Design for the Global Era", Proc. 3rd

Workshop on Global Engineering Education (GEE3). Aachen, Germany, October 18-20, 2000.

Bero, Bridget N., M.C. von Braun, I.H. von Lindem, S. Spallinger and V. Petrosyan. "The Influence of Soil Remediation on Lead in House Dust," Proc, USEPA Symposium on Lead Remediation Effectiveness, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, May 22 - 26, 2000.

AIAQTP Semi-annual and End-of-Year Reports to funding agency (USEPA): 2x/year. 2001 -present.

Rand Decker, Ph.D. Professor of Civil Engineering

Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona (928)523-6083, [email protected]

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND B.Sc. Geological Engineering, Department of Geology and Geophysics, College of Mines, University of Utah, 1977 Ph.D. Civil Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, Montana State University, 1986 Minor: Mechanical Engineering

ACADEMIC SERVICE June, 2004 - Professor and Assistant to the Director for Research and Graduate studies, July, 2006 Engineering and Professional Programs, College of Engineeeing and Natural

Science, NAU July, 2002 - Professor, with tenure, and Chair, Department of Civil and Environmental June, 2004: Engineering, College of Engineering and Technology, NAU June, 1996 - Associate Professor, with tenure, Department of Civil and Environmental June, 2002: Engineering and Director, Winter/Alpine Engineering Laboratory, U. of Utah August 1989 Assistant Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, June, 1996: University of Utah September 1989 - Research Associate, The Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research (INSTAAR), January 1991: University of Colorado at Boulder September 1979 - Assistant Research Engineer and Lecturer, Department of Civil Engineering and April 1987: Engineering Mechanics, Montana State University

SELECTED PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE May, 2000 - Visiting Scientist, Austrian Institute for Avalanche and Torrent Research, Present Innsbruck, Austria. September 1989 - Science and Technology Agency Fellow, Nagaoka Institute for Snow and Ice March 1990: Studies, National Research Center for Disaster Prevention, Nagaoka, Japan. April 1987 National Academy of Science/National Research Council Resident Research September, 1989 Associate, Fluid:Dynamics Branch, Earth Science September, 1989: and

Applications Division, Structures and Dynamics Laboratory, National Aeronautics and Space Administration/Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama.

1979 - 1986: Chief Guide and Operations Manager, High Mountains Helicopter Skiing, Inc., (seasonally) Jackson, Wyoming. July 1977 - Geological Engineer and Mining Geologist, Sunshine Mining Co., August 1979: Kellogg, Idaho.

REGISTRATION, LICENSES and QUALIFICATIONS (FE) Examination, passed - April, 1977 Licensed pilot Licensed winter guide/outfitter, Idaho Outfitters and Guides Board (1982-1986)

Selected Honors Arizona Water Institute Faculty Affiliate, 2006 Northern Arizona University Honors Faculty Affiliate, 2005


Selected Professional Sept., 2005-Present: May, 2004 -Present: December, 2002 -Present: December, 1996 -Present:

June 1995-July, 2000:

March 1994-Present: January, 1994 -June, 2002: March 1994:

June 1993-June, 1996: Sept, 1989-June,2002 April 1987-June, 1996:

University of Utah Public Service Professorship, 2002 The American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE) 1999/2000 Visiting Scholar Utah Alpha Chapter of Chi Epsilon Fraternity (the National Civil Engineering

Honor Society) 1995 Excellence in Teaching Award, May 1995 Fellow: San Diego Supercomputer Computational Sciences Institute, 1992 Fellow: Science and Technology Agency (of Japan), 1989 National Academy of Science Research Associate, November, 1986

Service Board of Trustees and University Liaison, Verde Valley FIRST Robotics, Inc. Institutional (NAU) Representative, Arizona Governor's Task Force for the Arizona Water Institute. Chairman, William and Flora Flewlett Foundation Engineering Schools of the West Sustainability Sub-Committee. USA Point-of Contact, Joint Snow and Ice Disaster Mitigation for Developing Countries Committee, (Japan) National Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention (NIED) and the US Office of Global Change Research. Serx'ing, Airfield and Airspace Capacity and Delay Committee, National Academy of Science (NAS)/National Research Council (NRC) - Transportation Research Board (TRB). Serving, Winter Maintenance Committee, NAS/NRC - TRB. Serving, State of Utah, Division of Comprehensive Emergency Management Field Advisory Support Team. Touring Panel Member, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)/NAS/NRC -TRB International Winter Maintenance Technology Scanning Tour, Japan and Western Europe. Sen'ing, Committee on (Aircraft) Ground De-icing Systems, Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE).

: Serx'ing, Director of Science, The Center for Snow Science at Alta. Sening, Fluids Committee and Subcommittee on Granular and Multiphase Flow, Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE.

Selected Recent Publications: 1. Rice, R., R. Decker, Modeling waves, and short lived peak velocities and impact loads associated

with snow avalanches, 2005, Cold Regions Science and Technology, No. 41, pg. 221-233. 2. Decker, R., R. Rice, S. Putnam, S. Singer, Rural Intelligent Transportation System Natural Hazard

Management, 2003, Transportation Research Record, No. 1819, pg. 255-259. 3. Rice, R., et al (R. Decker), Avalanche Hazard Reduction for Transportation Corridors Using Real

time Detection and Alarm, 2002, Cold Regions Science and Technology, No. 34, pg. 31-42. 4. Decker, R., J.L. Bignel, C M . Lambertsen, and K. Porter, Measuring the Efficiency of Winter

Maintenance Practices, 2001, Transportation Research Record, No 1741, pg 167-175. 5. Rice, R., and R. Decker, A Rural Intelligent Transportation System for Snow Avalanche Detection

and Warning, 2000, Transportation Research Record, No. 1700, pg. 17 - 23. 6. Abe, O., et al (R. Decker), Snow Profile Observations for Avalanche Forecasts using the New

Generation Rammsonde", 1999, J. of the Japan Society of Snow and Ice, Vol. 61, pg. 369 - 376. 7. Frair, F., and R. Decker, Evaluation of a Fixed Anti-Icing Spray System, 1999, Transportation

Research Record, No. 1672, pg. 34 - 41.

2

Patricia M. Ellsworth, Ph.D. Assistant Research Professor

Civil & Environmental Engineering and Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ (928) 523-6721, [email protected]

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND Ph.D. Freshwater Biology University of Colorado M.A. Environmental Biology University of Colorado B.S. Biology University of San Francisco

ACADEMIC SERVICE Assistant Research Professor, Civil & Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering and Natural Sciences, Northern Arizona University, 2006-present

Curriculum Coordinator, American Indian Air Quality Training Program, Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals (ITEP), Northern Arizona University, 1993-present

Visiting Assistant Professor, Civil & Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering and Technology, Northern Arizona University, 2000-2006

Visiting Assistant Professor, Science & Mathematics Learning Center, Northern Arizona University, 1994-2000

Adjunct Faculty in Biology, Northern Arizona University, 1991-1993

PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE Core Faculty and Mentor for high school students, National Science Foundation Young Scholars Program and Four Corners Science & Math Summer Program, Northern Arizona University, 1991-1994, 1996

Aquatic Biology Consultant for the Prescott National Forest, biomonitoring in the upper Verde River, Arizona, 1992-1994

Adjunct Faculty in Biology and Microbiology, Yavapai College, Prescott, Arizona, 1988-1992

Visiting Instructor in Winter Limnology, Mountain Research Station, University of Colorado, 1988

Adjunct Faculty in Environmental Studies, Prescott College, Prescott, Arizona, 1987-1988

Adjunct Faculty in Biology and Anatomy & Physiology, Southern Oregon State College, Ashland, Oregon, 1980-1987

Instructor, summer Academy for gifted secondary students, Ashland, Oregon, 1981-1982

Lecturer in Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, 1979

Aquatic Biology Consultant, Steams-Roger, Inc., Denver, Colorado, 1978-1979

Supervisor for high school students in National Science Foundation Summer Research Participation Program, Mountain Research Station, University of Colorado, 1974-1976

1978 1973 1970

Patricia M. Ellsworth Vita Fall 2006 I


HONORS AND AWARDS Northern Arizona University, Supervisor of the Year (for Student Workers), Honorable Mention, 2004-2005,

Northern Arizona University, Supervisor of the Year (for Student Workers), Runner-Up, 2002-2003

PROFESSIONAL SERVICE Arizona Riparian Council, member, 1990-present Section Editor, Arizona Riparian Council Newsletter, 1992-1995

Volunteer instructor, annual community ecology program called "Wander the Wild," Highlands Center for Natural History, Prescott, Arizona, 1992, 1996, 1998

PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS Ben, N., P.M. Ellsworth, and W. Auberle. 2006. Health Impacts of Ambient Air Pollution on American Indians & Alaska Natives, National Tribal Forum, Seattle, WA, April 11-13, 2006.

Ellsworth, P.M. and D.W. Blinn. 2003. Distribution and biomass of Tropocyclops prasinus mexicanus (Cyclopoida) in a near-thermally constant environment, Montezuma Well, Arizona. Southwestern Naturalist 48 (3): 341-346.

Baxter, T.E., P.M. Ellsworth, B.B. Bero, V. Masayesva, P. Weimerskirch, M.T. Marshall, and B.C. Madrone. 1998. Adaptation and delivery of indoor air quality training for tribal officials. Annual Meeting of the Air & Waste Management Association, June, 1998, Paper No. 98-WAC.06P (A494).

Ellsworth, P.M., W.M. Auberle, and V. Masayesva. 1998. Update of innovative education and training for tribal environmental professionals. Annual Meeting of the Air & Waste Management Association, June, 1998, Paper No. 98-WAC.07P (A499).

Auberle, W.M., P.M. Ellsworth, and V. Masayesva. 1996. Innovative education and training for tribal environmental professionals. Annual Meeting of the Air & Waste Management Association, June, 1996, Paper No. 96-RP143.07.

Ellsworth, P.M. 1983. Ecological seasonal cycles in a Colorado mountain pond. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 2: 225-237.

Ellsworth, P.M. 1980. A simple plankton sampler for use in shallow water. American Midland Naturalist 104: 395-396.

Patricia M. Ellsworth Vita Fall 2006 2

PAUL T. GREMILLION, Ph.D., P.E. Assistant Professor of Environmental Engineering

Civil and Environmental Engineering Department Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ (928) 523-5382, [email protected]


Ph.D. Civil Engineering University of Central Florida 1994

M.S. Civil Engineering Louisiana State University 1986

B.S. Civil Engineering Louisiana State University 1983

ACADEMIC SERVICE

Assistant Professor, College of Engineering and Natural Sciences, Northern Arizona University, August 2003 to present.

PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE

Design Engineer, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Restoration Division, Field Engineering Section, New Orleans, Louisiana, October 2000 to July 2003.

Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering Department, Union College, Schenectady, New York, September 1996 to May 2000.

Assistant Professor, School of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science, University of Oklahoma, August 1994 to May 1996.

Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Central Florida, August 1991 to May 1994.

Environmental Engineer, Northwest Florida Water Management District, Havana, Florida, November 1990 to August 1991.

Senior Civil Engineer, Ecology & Environment, Inc., Tallahassee, Florida, August 1989 to October 1990.

Enviroiimental Engineer, International Science & Technology, Reson, Virginia (now Dynamac, Inc., Rockville, Maryland), April 1986 to August 1989.

PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION Professional Civil Engineer: Louisiana #29253

HONORS AND AWARDS

Fellow, 1996 Young Investigator Program on Urban Water Quality Management, Nizhnevartovsk, Russia, National Research Council.


Member of the NAU College Curriculum Committee, College of Engineering and Natural Sciences.

PTG ABET Vita Fall 2006 1


Member of the NAU University Library Committee.

PUBLICATIONS SAMPLE

Peer Reviewed Journal Articles:

Gremillion, P.T., J.V. Cizdziel, and N.R. Cody, 2005. Caudal fin mercury as a non-lethal predictor of fish-muscle mercury. Environmental Chemistry, 2:96-99.

Rodbell, D.T. and P.T. Gremillion, 2005. A winter field-based course on limnology and paleolimnology. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(5):494-500.

Peer Reviewed Conference Abstracts:

Gremillion, P.T. and D.T. Rodbell, 2003. Comparing the limnology and paleo-limnology of upstate New York lakes. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 35(6):276.

Invited Talks:

Aquatic Sediment Records of Atmospheric Metals Deposition in Northern Arizona. Invited speaker, Meeting of The Southern Nevada Section of the American Chemical Society and the U.S. Environmenta! Protection Agency. Environmental Sciences Division (Las Vegas). June 17, 2005, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Paleolimnological Techniques in Reservoirs. Invited speaker, Comprehensive Watershed Management for the Valley of the Sun and Central Arizona Basins. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. November 14, 2005, Phoenix, Arizona.

Restoring Louisiana 's wetlands through Mississippi River Diversions. Invited speaker, Smith College Environmental Science and Policy Brown Bag Lunch Series, March 7, 2003.

Effectiveness of freshwater diversion at the Naomi (BS-03) project site. CWPPRA Adaptive Management Workshop, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, August 12 and 13, 2002.

Technical Reports:

Gremillion, P.T and C. Piastrini, 2005. Bathymelric Survey of Northern Arizona Reservoirs. Final report submitted to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Phoenix, Arizona, October 2005.

Gremillion, P.T. and J.L. Toney, 2005. Metals deposition in northern Arizona reservoirs. Final report submitted to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Phoenix, Arizona, March 2005.

Shaw, G., F. Williams, and P.T. Gremillion, 2004. Groundwater Geohydrology of the Town of Wright. Final report submitted to the National Fish and Wildlife Federation.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES

Currently pursuing Graduate Certificate in Geographic Information Systems, NAU Department of Geography Planning and Recreation.


JOSHUA T. HEWES, Ph.D., P.E. Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering

Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ (928) 523-1478, [email protected]


Ph.D. Structural Engineering University of California, San Diego 2002

M.S. Structural Engineering University of California, San Diego 2000

B.S. Structural Engineering University of California, San Diego 1998

ACADEMIC SERVICE

Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering (August 2005 to present), Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ.

• Special Project (March 2006-present): co-principle investigator, project: Criteria for Standardization of Substation Enclosure Walls, SRP, Phoenix, Arizona

PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE Bridge Engineer, David Evans and Associates, Inc., Sacramento, California, May 2002 - August 2005

Lecturer, University of California, Davis, Davis, California, September 2004 - December 2004

Graduate Teaching/Research Assistant, Department of Structural Engineering, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California, August 1998 - May 2002

Engineering Aide, Powell Structural Research Laboratories, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California, June 1997 - August 1998

PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION Professional Civil Engineer: California


Transportation Research Board: Member of the Seismic Design of Bridges Committee

Institutional Service: NAU Faculty Senate, ACI Student Chapter Advisor

PUBLICATIONS SAMPLE Hewes, J.T., Priestley, M.J.N. "Seismic Design and Performance of Precast Concrete Segmental Bridge Columns.'' Structural Systems Research Project, Report No. SSRP - 2001/25, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California. 2002.

Hewes, J.T., Vasquez, A., Innamorato, D., Priestley, M.J.N, Seible, F. "Beam Test - Sherwood Resort Hotel Guam", Structural Systems Research Project, Report No. TR - 98/02. University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California. 1998.

JTH ABET Vita Fall 2006 1


CLYDE NELSON HOLLAND Ph.D., P.E. (Retired) Professor Emeritus Civil Engineering

College of Engineering and Natural Sciences Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ

928-523-4440, [email protected]


Ph.D. The Georgia Institute of Technology M.S.E. Duke University B.S. Virginia Polytechnic and State University

CURRENT ACADEMIC SERVICE Professor Emeritus, College of Engineering & Natural Sciences, Northern Arizona

University.

PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE Fonner positions at Northern Arizona University include Associate Professor, Civil Engineering and Technology; Chairman Civil Engineering and Technology Department; Dean College of Engineering and Technology.

Within the University system in Arizona I served as Academic Officer for the Arizona Board of Regents. Responsible for academic programs at the three state universities.

PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION • Former Registered Professional Engineer in Georgia, Louisiana and Arizona. • Former Registered Land Surveyor - Louisiana.


DEBRA S. LARSON, Ph.D., P.E. Professor of Civil Engineering

Chair of Civil and Environmental Engineering Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ



Ph.D. Civil Engineering Arizona State University 1994

M.S. Civil Engineering Michigan Technological University 1981

B.S. Civil Engineering Michigan Technological University 1978

ACADEMIC SERVICE Associate Dean of Engineering and Natural Sciences, July 2005 to August 2006, College of Engineering and Natural Sciences, Northern Arizona University

Department Chair, May 2004 - Current, Civil and Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering and Natural Sciences, Northern Arizona University

Visiting Professor, January 2003 to June 2003, Joint Appointment in Departments of Civil Engineering and Forest Products Technology, Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo, Finland.

Professor, of Civil Engineering, August 2000, College of Engineering and Technology, Northern Arizona University

Initial Appointment: 1994 as Associate Professor of Civil Engineering at Northern Arizona University

PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE Subcontractor to Gromala & Associates, Federal Way, Washington, August 1992 - February 1994

General Research Engineer (part-time), Forest Products Laboratory, USDA, Madison, Wisconsin November 1991 -May 1994

Teaching Associate, Department of Civil Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, January 1989-May 1994

Senior Plan Review Engineer, Wildan Associates, Phoenix, Arizona,March 1988 -January 1989

Sunbelt Regional Engineer, Phoenix Service Center, Trus Joist International, Tempe, Arizona, June 1986-March 1988

Staff Engineer, Corporate Engineering, Trus Joist Corporation, Boise, Idaho, September 1984 -June 1986

Plant Technical Director, MlCRO=LAM® Division, Trus Joist Corporation, Junction City, Oregon June 1983-August 1984

Professional Intern, Weyerhaeuser Company, Tacoma, Washington: Engineered Wood Products Sales Group and Civil/Structural Engineering Section, August 1981 - May 1983

Graduate Teaching/Research Assistant, Department of Civil Engineering, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Michigan, August 1979-June 1981

Analysis Engineer, Manitowoc Crane Co., Manitowoc, Wisconsin June 1978-June 1979

DSL ABET Vita Fall 2006 1


PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION Professional Civil Engineer: Oregon and Arizona

HONORS AND AWARDS Arizona Society of Civil Engineers, 2005, President's Award

Distinguished Lecturer, 1999-2000, NSE/ASEE Visiting Scholars Program. http://www.asee.org/visit/htnil/about.htm

2000 ASME Curriculum Innovation Award, Honorable Mention, Design4Practice.

1999 NAU Centennial Year Service Award for the Design4Practice program.

Dean's Award, 1999, College of Engineering and Technology, Northern Arizona University.

Outstanding Teaching Award, 1999, Pacific Southwest Section of American Society of Engineering Educators.

The 1999 $50,000 Boeing Outstanding Educator Award for Design4Practice: Engineering Design through the Curriculum at NAU.

1996 ASME Curriculum Innovation Award Program, Honorable Mention: "'Engineering Design at NAU - The Path to Synthesis"

Distinguished Achievement Award, 1994, Arizona State University Faculty Women's Association, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona.

PROFESSIONAL and INSTITUTIONAL SERVICE Greater Flagstaff Forests Partnership, Flagstaff, Arizona: Board of Directors, Chair of the Advisory Board, and Utilization and Economics Team member

ABET Evaluator: Training in progress

American Society of Civil Engineers Committee on Academic Prerequisites for Professional Practice: Member of the Curriculum Committee and Levels of Competence Subcommittee

American Society of Civil Engineers Excellence in Civil Engineering Teaching Workshops: Provider and Mentor, 1999 to Current

Institutional Service: Ecological Restoration Institute Associate, Student Chapter ASCE Advisor, CENS Budget Committer, Engineering Scholarship Committee, Multicultural Engineering Program: Advisor, Design4PracticeRevitalization Proposal Committee: Chair

PUBLICATIONS SAMPLE

N. Dennis and D. Larson, (2005), Defining Who Should Teach the Body of Knowledge, Proceedings, 2005 ASEE Annual Conference, Portland, OR, June 12-15, No. 1 789.

D. Larson, R. Mirth, and R. Wolfe, (2004), The Evaluation of Small Diameter Ponderosa Pine Logs in Bending, Forest Products Journal, December, 54(12): 52-58.

D. Larson, R. Mirth, R. Wolfe, J. Baer, (2004), Small-Diameter Ponderosa Pine Specimens in Compression, 8th World Conference on Timber Engineering WCTE 2004, Volume II, Lahti, Finland, June 14-17, pp 487-492.

D. Larson and A.M. Ahonen, (2004), Active Learning in a Finnish Engineering University Classroom. European Journal of Engineering Education, Special Issue: Active Learning in Engineering Education, Vol. 29. No. 4.


http://www.asee.org/visit/htnil/about.htm

EUGENE B. LOVERICH, M.S.E.M., M.A., P.E. Associate Professor of Civil Engineering


EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND Doctoral Work Engineering Mechanics M.A. M.S. B. M. E

Guidance and Counseling Engineering Mechanics Mechanical Engineering

Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State U. 1973-1974 Eastern Michigan University 1970 Ohio University 1968 University of Detroit 1966

ACADEMIC SERVICE 1979 - Present Northern Arizona University, College of Engineering and Natural Sciences

Associate Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department

1966 - 1968 Ohio University, College of Engineering and Technology, Athens, Ohio Research Assistant and Laboratory Instructor

PREVIOUS AND CONCURRENT EXPERIENCE 1985 - Present Consulting Engineer:

Perform structural and mechanical design, analysis and failure prediction, vehicle dynamics, and accident reconstruction.

1976 - 1979 Ford Motor Company, Engineering and Research Center, Dearborn, Michigan Design Analyst: Performed theoretical and experimental analysis to detennine structural integrity of light truck components and systems.

1968 - 1970 Bendix Corporation, Aerospace Systems Division, Ann Arbor, Michigan Structural Analyst: Designed and analyzed components utilized in the Apollo 11, Apollo 12, and Viking Mars experiments packages.

Summer, 1967 NASA, Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio Research Engineer: Designed and analyzed gas turbine rotor and stator blades.

Summer, 1966 Bendix Corporation, Aerospace Products Division, South Bend, Indiana Structural Analyst: Performed stress analysis for design and evaluation of aircraft landing gear.

1961 - 1966 GM Corporation, Buick Motors Division, Flint, Michigan Cooperative Engineer-in-Training program

PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION Professional Mechanical Engineer, State of Arizona, 14934 Professional Mechanical Engineer, State of Ohio, 39866

1


HONORS and AWARDS Professor of the Year for the College of Engineering in 1990-91, 1992-93, 1993-94; 1997-98,

1998-99 Centennial Professor of the Year for the College of Engineering and Technology in 1997-98,

1998-99, and 1999-2000 Tau Beta Pi "Eminent Engineer"

PROFESSIONAL and INSTITUTIONAL SERVICE American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Engineering Society for Advancing Mobility Land Sea Air Space (SAE) Tau Beta Pi Honorary Engineering Society Phi Kappa Phi Honor Society Order of the Engineer

PUBLICATIONS SAMPLE Loverich, Eugene B., and James S. Loverich, "Application of Integrated Microcomputer-Aided Engineering to an Undergraduate Design Problem," published in the proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Mechanical Division Annual Conference, Session 1668, June 1993, Carbondale, Illinois.

Saczalski, Kenneth J., and Eugene B. Loverich, "Vibration Analysis Methods Applied to Forensic Engineering Problems," Paper No. 205, published in the proceedings of the ASME Conference on Mechanical Vibration and Noise, September 1991, Miami, Florida.

Loverich, Eugene B., James S. Loverich, and Joseph R. Troxler, "Comparison of Stress Patterns Provided by Finite Element Analysis and Photoelastic Analysis," published in the proceedings of the American Society of Engineering Education Pacific Southwest Section Conference, October 1991, Berkeley, California.

Loverich, Eugene B., "Theoretical Fatigue Life Prediction Using the Cumulative Damage Approach," Paper No. 820692, published in the conference proceedings and presented at the Society of Automotive Engineers Conference on Fatigue, April 1982, Dearborn, Michigan.

TECHNICAL REPORTS SAMPLE

"The Finite Element Analysis of the SOFIA High Speed Imaging Photometer for Occultations (HIPO) Instrument and FLITECAM Dewar Assembly System," Report No. TR-02-01, prepared for Ted Dunham, Lowell Observatory, March, 2002.

"Analysis of Lowell Observatory 42-Inch HEXTEK Mirror,", Report No. TR-00-01, prepared for Ted Dunham, Lowell Observatory, January, 2000.

"Dynamic Analysis and Reconstruction of Door Impact Resulting from Explosion," Report No. TR-95-01, prepared for The Atchison, Topeka, and Sante Fe Railway Company, May, 1995.

"Array Telescope Foundation Thermal and Dynamic Analysis," Report No. TR-93-01, prepared for Dr. Nathaniel White, Lowell Observatory, July 1993.

"Nonlinear Finite Element Stress Analysis of a Vehicle Upper Control Arm to Determine Peak Stresses and Stress Contour Patterns for Various Load Conditions — Analysis III," Report No. TR-91-03, prepared for Environmental Research and Safety Technologists, Inc., March 1991.

2

Wilbert I. Odem, Jr., Ph.D., P.E. Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering

College of Engineering and Natural Sciences Northern Arizona University


Ph.D. Civil Engineering University of Arizona Environmental Engineering Emphasis

M.S. Civil Engineering University of Arizona Environmental Engineering Emphasis

B.A. Geosciences and Geography University of Texas

EXPERIENCE

2002-Present Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northern Arizona University

1997-2002 Associate Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northern Arizona University

1992-1997 Associate Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Construction Management, Northern Arizona University

Summer 1993 Research Fellow, Los Alamos National Laboratory 1991 -92 Research Associate, University of Colorado, Boulder, Co. 1988-91 Research Associate, University of Arizona, Tucson, Az. 1987-88 Environmental Engineer, HDR Engineering, Cameron Park, Ca. 1986-87 Environmental Engineer/Hydrogeologist, Radian Corp., Sacramento, Ca. 1984-85 Research Assistant, University of Arizona, Tucson, Az. 1984 Hydrogeoglogical Technician, HydroGeoChem, Tucson, Az


Professional Civil Engineer: State of Arizona

PUBLICATIONS SAMPLE

Odem, Wilbert I. And Joshua Gilman, 2002. Hydraulic and Hydrologic Relationships in Streams of the Southwest US. Submitted to Journal American Water Resources Association, April 2002.

Odem, Wilbert; S. Blossom, J. Loverich, B.Orchard, N. Wallace, 2001. Evaluation of the BEHI Bank Erosion Prediction Model in the Verde River Watershed and San Pedro River Watershed, Final Report submitted to Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 172 pp.

Odem, Wilbert; S. Blossom, J. Loverich, B.Orchard, N. Wallace, 2001. Bank Evaluation at ADEQ Biocriteria Reference Sites in the Verde River Watershed and San Pedro River Watershed, Final Report submitted to Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 77 pp.

Odem, Wilbert; S. Blossom, S. Welch, 2001. Regional Relationships Between Hydrologic and Hydraulic Parameters in the State of Arizona. Final Report submitted to Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 25 pp.

Odem, Wilbert I., et al, 2000. Evaluating the Bank Erodibility Hazard Index in New Mexico. Report Submitted to New Mexico Environmental Department. 123 pp.

Odem, Wilbert I., etal, 1999. Stream Channel Morphology in New Mexico: Regional Relationships. Report Submitted to U.S. Forest Service Southwest Region and to New Mexico Environmental Department. 227 pp.

PRESENTATION SAMPLES

Odem, Wilbert I.; J. Gilman, S. Welch, 2001. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Geometry Relationships in Arizona and New Mexico: Regional Curves and What Are They Good For, Presented at Restoring Streams, Riparian Areas, and Floodplains in the Southwest, a Conference Sponsored by the Institute for Wetland Science and Public Policy and The Association of State Wetland Managers, Albuquerque, NM, 2001.

Hink, Jeff; W. Odem, S. Welch, 2001. Stream Restoration at Hoxworth Springs, Coconino National forest: A Demonstration Project.. Presented at Restoring Streams, Riparian Areas, and Floodplains in the Southwest, a Conference Sponsored by the Institute for Wetland Science and Public Policy and The Association of State Wetland Managers, Albuquerque, NM, 2001.

Odem, Wilbert I., 2001. Geomorphic Analysis of Rivers and Streams: Necessary but not Sufficient. Presented in Plenary Session at Restoring Streams, Riparian Areas, and Floodplains in the Southwest, a Conference Sponsored by the Institute for Wetland Science and Public Policy and The Association of State Wetland Managers, Albuquerque, NM, 2001.

AWARDS

Recognition by the Hopi Tribe for Outstanding Contributions to the Hopi Junior/Senior High School Water Improvement Project, 1998.

Dean's Award, NAU College of Engineering and Technology, 1998-1999.

Boeing Outstanding Education Award. Member of NAU College of Engineering and Technology Design4Practice Project Team, 1999.

PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

American Society of Civil Engineers American Water Works Association Water Environment Federation Arizona Water Protection Control Association American Water Resources Association

Alarick K. Reiboldt Lab Manager for Civil and Environmental Engineering Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Northern Arizona University Box 15600 Flagstaff, Arizona 86011

(928) 523-5208 [email protected]


M.E. Engineering (Pending Defense) Northern Arizona University 2005

B.S.E. Environmental Engineering Northern Arizona University 2001

A.S. Physical Sciences Mohave Community College 1997

ACADEMIC SERVICE

Laboratory Manager, 2006 - Current, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering and Natural Science, Northern Arizona University

Teaching Staff, 2004 - Current, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering and Natural Science, Northern Arizona University

Senior Research Engineer, 2004 -2006 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering and Natural Science, Northern Arizona University/ USDA Forestry Service

Research Engineer, 2002 - 2003, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering and Technology, Northern Arizona University

Environmental Engineering Laboratory Manager, 1997-2002, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering and Technology, Northern Arizona University

GRANTS/AWARDS

2002 - 2003 NSF Scholarship, $2,500.

2001 - 2002 Graduate Teaching Assistantship, $ 17,500.

2000 - 2001 NASA Undergraduate Research Grant. "Feasibility of Biologically Augmented Low-Gravity Life Support System," $2,700.


CRAIG A. ROBERTS, Ph.D., P.E., R.L.S. Associate Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering


EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND • Ph.D. in Civil Engineering, Transportation Specialty with Minors in Statistics and Spatial

Analysis, 1999, The Georgia Institute of Technology. • M.S. in Civil Engineering, Transportation Specialty, 1996, The Georgia Institute of Technology. • Certificate in Owners/Presidents Management Program (Executive Education), 1987-1989,

Harvard University—Graduate School of Business Administration. • B.S. in Civil Engineering, Kansas State University.

PROFESSIONAL HISTORY • 2005 - Present: Associate Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona. • 1999 - 2005: Assistant Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona. • 1995 - 1999: Graduate Research Assistant, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering

The Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia. • 1994 - 1995: Executive Vice President

Carnahan-Proctor & Associates, Margate, Florida. • 1991-1994: Vice President

Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, San Francisco, California. • 1988-1991: Principal

Management Consulting Practice, Portland, Oregon. • BSCE - 1988: Managing Partner, Partner, and Project Engineer/Manager

Wilson & Company, Engineers & Architects, Salina, Kansas.

Prior to receiving his graduate degrees in Civil Engineering, Dr. Roberts had over twenty years of consulting engineering experience, ranging from design engineer to managing partner. Dr. Roberts served in engineering design and project management capacities for water, wastewater, transportation, and construction observation projects. He has served as an officer or partner in three consulting firms, which maintain headquarters in Florida, New Mexico (formerly Kansas), and California.

PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION AND AFFLIATIONS • Registered Professional Engineer in Arizona and 13 other states (AR, CO, GA, KS, 1L, MS, MO,

NE, NM, ND, OK, SD, and TX). Registered Land Surveyor in Kansas. • Member of American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Transportation Research Board (TRB),

Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Intelligent Transportation Society of America (ITS), American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE), and Rotary Internationa] (RI).

HONORS AND AWARDS • Transportation Leadership Fellow, 1999, ENO Transportation Foundation, Inc. • Great Works Award, 1992; Professional Services Management Association. • Kansas Outstanding Young Engineer, 1981; Kansas Engineering Society of NSPE • Kansas Outstanding Engineering-in-Training, 1973; Kansas Engineering Society of NSPE.

RECENT JOURNAL/PROCEEDING PUBLICATIONS, RESEARCH FUNDING, AND INVITED PRESENTATIONS

• Railroad-Highway Crossing Cooperative Signal Research Control, SPR-557, Principal Investigator, 2003-2005. Research project funded by Arizona Department of Transportation, the City of Flagstaff, AZ, and Northern Arizona University. ($219,500/32 months: ADOT $155,000, Flagstaff $33,000, NAU $31,500)

• Evaluation of Photo Radar for Freeway Enforcement, Principal Investigator, 2004-2005. Research project funded by Arizona Department of Transportation. ($60,000/15 months).

• Railroad Preemption-Congestion Mitigation, Arizona Institute of Traffic Engineers/ITMSA Annual Conference, Phoenix, AZ, 10 March 2005.

• Roberts, Craig A., Mark J. Poppe, and Seth W. Chalmers. "A Statistical Procedure Using An Expert Panel For The Procurement Of Emerging Transportation Technologies." Transportation Research Record, No. 1840, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, The National Academies, Washington, D.C., pp. 1-9, 2004.

• VISSIM Modeling of RR Crossing Early Warning System. Arizona Intelligent Transportation System/I-40 Collation joint meeting, Flagstaff, AZ, 17 August 2004.

• Roberts, Craig .A. and K.K. Dixon. "Model for Emphasizing Design in Highway Engineering by Incorporating an Experiential Laboratory. American Society for Engineering Education, Pacific Southwest Section Annual Meeting, Conference Proceedings, Tucson, AZ, 15 April 2000.

• Microscopic Traffic Simulation Modeling as a Research Tool, University of Arizona Graduate CE Seminar, Tucson, AZ, 16 April 2004.

• Roberts, Craig A. Review of the book, Sensor Technologies and Data Requirements for ITS, by Lawrence A. Klein, Journal of Transportation Engineering, July/August 2002.

• Congestion Mitigation Resources and Strategies for Arizona \s State Highway System. Research Engineer, 2001-2002. Research project funded by the Arizona Department of Transportation. (My portion $11,650/12 months; total project $100,000. Andrew Kolcz and Nayan S. Amin, Co-Principal Investigators, BWR, Inc.)

• Scientific Approaches for Transportation Research, Research Engineer, 1998-2001. Research project funded by National Cooperative Highway Research Project 20-45, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, The National Academies. Also, developed a 3-day National Highway Institute (NHI) Training Course: Scientific Approaches to Transportation Research. (My portion at NAU $10,100/15 months; total project $200,000, Simon Washington. Principal Investigator, The Georgia Institute of Technology)

BOARDS & COMMITTEES- INSTITUTIOANL & PROFESSIONAL • Traffic Control Products Evaluation Committee, Arizona Department of Transportation:

Member, 2000 to present.

• American Society of Civil Engineers, Transportation and Development Institute Research Committee: Member 2000 to present, Secretary 2002 to 2005.

• Technical Advisory Committee, Flagstaff Signal Synchronization Study, City of Flagstaff. Arizona: Member 2002 to 2005.

• Peer Exchange Team, Review of the ADOT Arizona Transportation Research Center's Funded-Research Program: Member 25-27 June 2002, Phoenix. AZ.

• Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, The National Academies, Committee AHB25, Traffic Signal Systems: Member of committee, 2003 - 2005. Friend and paper reviewer. 2000 to present.

Craig A. Roberts - Curriculum Vitae (ABET 2 pg.) 10 October 2006 page 2 of 2

CHARLES M. SCHLINGER, Ph.D., P.E., P.G., P.Gp. Associate Professor Civil Engineering

College of Engineering and Natural Sciences Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 928-523-0652, [email protected]


Ph.D. The Johns Hopkins University 1983 M.S.E. Utah State University 1991 B.S. The University of Michigan at Flint 1977

ACADEMIC SERVICE

Associate Professor, College of Engineering & Natural Sciences, Northern Arizona University, July 2004 to present

Assistant Professor, College of Engineering & Technology, Northern Arizona University, July 1999 to June, 2004

PREVIOUS AND CONCURRENT EXPERIENCE

8/99-Present Plateau Engineering, Flagstaff, Arizona. Consulting Engineer and Project Manager.

3/96-8/99 Plateau Engineering, Flagstaff, Arizona. Project Manager. Civil engineering and geoscience services for municipal, county, school district, tribal, mining industry and private sector clients; business development, field construction observation, and occasional surveying.

6/94-1/96 STS Consultants, Ltd., Minneapolis, Minnesota. Geotechnical Engineer. Tailings basin and dam engineering, subsurface exploration, geotechnical engineering, testing and monitoring, geophysical investigations, construction testing and business development.

12/91-2/94 Science Applications International Corporation, Las Vegas, Nevada. Senior Scientist and Geotechnical Engineer. Hydrogeological and engineering site characterization, GIS operation and analyses.

7/90-12/91 Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Utah State University. Graduate Student in Geotechnical Engineering.

7/83-6/90 Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Utah. Assistant Professor. Geophysical, geological & materials science research and teaching.

9/77-6/83 The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. Teaching and Research Assistant -Graduate Student. NASA-sponsored geophysical & geological research.

6/78-9/78 Amoco Production Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Seismologist - Summer Intern. 3D seismic data acquisition modeling and processing.

9/75-9/77 The University of Michigan at Flint. Teaching, Laboratory and Field Assistant.


• Registered Professional Engineer (MN License No. 24459; AZ License No. 30615; CA license No. 60331; Ml License No. 6201052934)

• Registered Professional Geophysicist (CA License GP 994) • Registered Professional Geologist (AZ License No. 33755, WI License No. 155)


HONORS & AWARDS

• Named as an exemplary mentor by Vanessa Beauchamp, Arizona State University, as part of the Preparing Future Faculty Program, Spring 2003.

• Named Most Influential Faculty Member by Seth Marlow, Winner of the College of Engineering and Technology Outstanding Academic Achievement Award, Fall 2000.

PROFESSIONAL AND INSTITUTIONAL SERVICE

• Founding Co-Director and Present Director of the Watershed Research & Education Program (http://watershed.nau.edu).

• Founding member and past Director of the Sustainable Water Resources Alliance (SWRA) at Northern Arizona University (2001-2004).

• Past Member of Action Team, Northern Arizona Council of Governments (NACOG) Focused Future II - Strategic Planning (2003)

• Past Member of Yavapai County Water Advisory Committee - Technical Coordinating Subcommittee (2001-2002)

• Past Member of Coconino Plateau Water Advisory Council (Fall 2000 to summer 2002).

• Past Member of Coconino County Planning and Zoning Commission (Summer - Winter, 1999).

• Past Member on Flagstaff 2020 Vision Task Force, which played a pivotal role in helping the community formulate and articulate a vision for its future (1996-1997).

PUBLICATIONS SAMPLE

Schlinger, CM., Helton, C, and Janecek, J., 2005, Flood Risk and the Impacts of Fire in a Small Forested Watershed, in: Marsh, W., Landscape Planning. 4th Ed., Wiley.

Schlinger, CM., Helton, C, and Janecek, J., 2004, PMF Hydrology, with Rodeo-Chediski Fire Impacts, and Spillway Hydraulics for Black Canyon Lake and Dam, Proc. Dam Safety 2004 Conference, ASDSO, Lexington, KY.

Schlinger, CM., Welch, S., Ramsey J., Trotta, P., Janecek, J., Auberle, W., 2003, Sediment Transport Evaluation for Dam Removal Scenarios, Fossil Springs Diversion Dam, Arizona, Proc. Dam Safety 2003 Conference, ASDSO, Lexington, KY.

Schlinger, CM., Veblen, D.R. and Rosenbaum, J.G., 1991, Magnetism and magnetic mineralogy of ash-flow sheets from Yucca Mountain, Nevada, J. Geophys. Res., 96, 6035-6052.

Schlinger, CM., Khan, M.J. and Wasilewski, P., 1989, Rock Magnetism of the Kohistan Island Arc, Pakistan, Geol. Bull. Univ. Peshawar., 22, 83-101.

Schlinger, CM. and Veblen, D.R., 1989, Magnetism and Transmission electron microscopy of Fe-Ti oxides in a granulite from Lofoten, Norway, J. Geophys. Res., 94, 14009-14026.

Schlinger, CM.. Griscom, D.. Papaefthymiou, G., and Veblen, D.R., 1988, The nature of magnetic single-domains in volcanic glasses of the KBS tuff, J. Geophys. Res. 93, 9137-9156.

Schlinger, CM., 1985, The magnetization of the lower crust and the interpretation of regional magnetic anomalies: The example from Lofoten and Vesteralen, Norway, J. Geophys. Res. 90, 11484-11504.

http://watershed.nau.edu

ELLEN S. SOLES Instructor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering


2521 N. Main St. Flagstaff, AZ 86004 928-213-9398 / [email protected]


Masters Program Rural Geography Northern Arizona University (Summer 2003)

Master's Program American Civilization University of Texas at Austin (Spring 1992-Spring 1993)

B.A. American Studies University of Texas (emphasis on environmental geography of western U.S.)

EXPERIENCE

2000-Present Instructor. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northern Arizona University

2003-Present Geomorphologist- H20dem Company

2001-2002 Hydrologic Research Technician- Northern Arizona University

2000-2003 Hydrologic Research Assistant- Roundtree Company, Flagstaff, Az

Mar- Sept 2003 Cartographic Technician- U.S. Geological Survey, Flagstaff, Az

2000-2001 Compiler - Central Arizona Watersheds Project (US Forest Service/University of Arizona)

1998-1999 Technician- Stream Gage Calibration Project (Northern Arizona University)

SAMPLE PUBLICATIONS / PRESENTATIONS

Soles, E.S., Monroe, S., Odem, W. 1.. & Peacock, E. (2004). Middle Rio Grande River, Bernalillo Bridge-Alameda Bridge Reach HEC-RAS Model Development. Report prepared for Bureau of Reclamation, Albuquerque Office.

Soles, E.S. (2003). Where the River Meets the Ditch: Human and Natural Impacts on the Gila River, New Mexico, 1880-2000. (Master's thesis in Rural Geography, Northern Arizona University, 2003; 166pp).

Avery, C.C. & Soles, E.S. (2003). Final Report: Hydrological Assessment of a Wed Meadow and Perennial Headwater Stream in the White Mountains. (Unpublished report prepared for The Nature Conservancy of Arizona, November 2003; 95pp. plus appendices)


Avery, C.C., Soles, E.S., & Silbert, M. (2002). An Eco-Hydrological Assessment of a Wed Meadow and Perennial Headwater Stream in the White Mountains, Arizona. Presentation at the Arizona Hydrological Society Annual Symposium, September 2002, Flagstaff, Az.

Soles, E.S. (1999). A Study of channel Form and Flow Regime on the Gila River. Carapace, Summer 1999.

Soles, E.S. (1998). Protecting the Verde River. Presentation at the meeting of the Association of Pacific Coast Geographers, October, 1998, Flagstaff, Az.

Soles, E.S. (1985). PUF: Buildings or Brains? UTMOST, Winter. 1985.


International Geographical Honor Society Association of Pacific Coast Geographers Society for Ecological Restoration Arizona Hydrologic Society

SOFTWARE EXPERIENCE

MS Word/Excel/Powerpoint/Access; Imagine (v. 8.5) and ARCView (v.3.3)(GIS); Boss WMS, XSPro, IHA/RVA, HEC-RAS (hydrologic and hydraulic analysis); TerraModel (topographic mapping); SigmaPlot, JMP (statistical); Pathfinder Office (GPS); AutoCAD; Quark Xpress, Torquemada, Photoshop, ProCite (publishing); dBase III/IV; SBT accounting packages; Macintosh, DOS, Windows, UNIX operating systems

JOHN S. TINGERTHAL, S.E. Instructor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering


1385 W. University Ave. Apt 7-256 Flagstaff, Arizona 86001



M.S. Structural Engineering

B.S. Civil Engineering

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

EXPERIENCE

2003-Present

1998-2003

2002

1995-1998

Engineering Consulting

Senior Project Engineer- Thomton-Tomasetti Engineers, Chicago, IL

Adjunct Associate Professor- College of Architecture and the Arts, University of Illinois Chicago, IL

Project Engineer- Perkins & Will, Chicago, IL


Licensed Structural Engineer: State of Illinois


ALISA S. VADASZ, Ph.D. Assistant Research Professor, Environmental Engineering



Ph.D. Chemical Engineering University of Durban-Westville, South Africa (Bio-Chemical Engineering)

M.S. Chemical Engineering (Cum Laude) University of Durban-Westville, South Africa (Bio-Chemical Engineering)

B.S. Biochemistry (Honors) University of Durban-Westville, South Africa

B.S. Microbiology and Biochemistry University of Durban-Westville, South Africa

Registered Nurse Belinson Medical Center, Petach Tikva, Israel

EXPERIENCE

2004-Present Assistant Professor, Research, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northern Arizona University

1992-1996 Consulting and behavioral treatment for Nocturnal Enuresis patients 1990-91 Intensive Respiratory Care Unit, Carmel Hospital, Haifa, Israel 1986-89 Head Nurse, Private Hospital, Haifa, Israel 1981 -86 Intensive Coronary Care Unit, Carmel Hospital, Haifa, Israel


Registered Nurse, Ministry of Health, Jerusalem, Israel General Nurse, The South African Nursing Council, Pretoria, South Africa

SAMPLE PUBLICATIONS

Vadasz, A. S.: "Spatio-temporal Dynamics of Heterogeneousle Distributed Population", Ph.D. Thesis, University of Durban-Westville, South Africa. December 2003.

Vadasz, A. S.: "Modelling of the Dynamical Interactions of Killer and Sensitive Yeast under Nutritional Stress", M.S. Thesis, University of Durban-Westville, South Africa, December 200.

Vadasz, A. S.: "Microscale Vinifications Challenged by a K2 Killer Yeast'". B.S. (Hons) Thesis, University of Durban-Westville, South Africa, November 1999.

Vadasz, A. S., Carsky, M., Gupthar. A.S., Vasasz, P.: "Linear Stability Analysis of the Neoclassical Stationary Points to Spartially Homogeneous Perturbations", Journal of Mechanics in Medicine and Biology, Vol. 4 (No.3), pp. 361-387, 2004

Vadasz, P., Vasasz, A. S.: "Metabolic Mass Transfer Effect in Monotonic and Non-Monotonic Growth of Micro-organisms", Proceedings of the 2003 ASME Heat Transfer Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, 2003

Vadasz, P., Vasasz, A.S.: "A Neoclassical Growth Model for Population Dynamics in a Homogeneous Habitat", ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress, New York, 2001

Vadasz, A. S., Vasasz, P., Abashar, M.E., Gupthar, A.S.: "Recovery of an Oscillatory Mode of Batch Yeast Growth for a Pure Culture", International Journal of Food Microbiology, Vol. 71 (2-3), pp. 219-234,2001

Vadasz, A. S.: "Experimental and Theoretical Recovery of Oscillatory Growth of Yeast Subjected to Nutritional Stress". KZN Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Symposium, University of Durban-Westville, Westville, October 2000.

Vadasz, A. S., Jagganath, D.B., Pretorius, I.S., Gupthar, A.S.: "Mucoid Secretions by Wine Yeast Saccharomyces Cerevisiae VIN7" , Proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference of the Microscopy Society of Southern Africa, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa, December 2000.

Vadasz, A. S., Jagganath, D.B., Pretorius, I.S., Gupthar, A.S.: "The K2 Effect of Saccharomyces Cerevisiae T206'", Proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference of the Microscopy Society of Southern Africa, Rhodes University, Grahamstown. South Africa, December 2000.

Vadasz, A. S., Jagganath, D.B., Pretorius, I.S., Gupthar, A.S.: "Electron Microscopy of the K2 Killer Effect of Saccharomyces Cerevisiae T206 on a Mesophilic Wine Yeast", Anionic van Leeuwenhoek, Vol. 78(2), 117-122,2000

Vadasz, A. S., Jagganath, D.B., Pretorius, I.S., Gupthar, A.S.: "Microscale Vinifications Challenged by a K2 Killer Yeast", Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of the Microscopy Society of Southern Africa, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa, December 1999.

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 Flagstaff, Arizona

June 29, 2007

Table of Contents

for Major Sections* of Self-Study Report

Chapter I Background and Overview Tab I

Chapter II Students (Criterion 1) Tab II

Chapter III Program Educational Objectives (Criterion 2) Tab III

Chapter IV Program Outcomes and Assessment (Criterion 3) Tab IV

Chapter V Professional Component (Criterion 4) Tab V

Chapter VI Faculty (Criterion 5) Tab VI

Chapter VII Facilities (Criterion 6) Tab VII

Chapter VIII Institutional Support and Financial Resources (Criterion 7) Tab VIII

Chapter IX Program Criteria (Criterion 8) Tab IX

Chapter X Continuous Improvement Process, Assessment, and Evaluation Tab X

Appendix I Additional Program Information Tab XI

Appendix II Institutional Profile Under Separate Cover

*A table of contents is provided at the start of each Chapter and Appendices


Chapter I Table of Contents

A. Degree Titles: Bachelor of Science in Engineering, Civil Engineering 1 B. Program Mode and Curriculum Overview 1 C. Actions to Correct Previous Shortcomings 3 D. Report Organization and Preparation 6 F. Contact Information 7 G. Abbreviations 7

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, Civil Engineering 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 proficiencies in structural engineering, geotechnical engineering, transportation engineering, and water resources engineering. It also includes instruction on environmental engineering. Like all of NAU's Engineering Programs, the CE curriculum contains a strong design component centered on the Design4Practice (D4P) sequence of courses and complemented by extensive discipline-specific design work. This design focus is structured to guide students through the design process and to give them many significant and modern experiences in well-managed team-based formats that incorporate life-long learning expectations, professional practice topics, and contemporary issues.

Special note: The reader should be aware that the CENE Department 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 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 (BSE), 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).

Chapter I Background and Overview Page I-1


The 2006-07 curriculum for the BSE-CE is provided in Figure LI to support the reader's comprehension of the following accreditation self-study report. The educational objectives and learning outcomes are fostered primarily through this cumculum, which is referenced frequently throughout this document. The terms program and curriculum are used interchangeably.

Figure I.1 2006 - 07 CE Program of Study

CENE 150 CHM 151 CHM 151L ENG 105 MAT 136

CENE 251 PHY 262 MAT 238 CENE 225 CENE 270

Intro to Environmental Egr. General Chemistry I General Chemistry I Lab Critical Reading & Writing Calculus I

Applied Mech: Statics University Physics II Calculus III Engineering Analysis Plane Surveying & Lab

CENE 376 Structural Analysis I ME 252 Applied Mech: Dynamics ME 395 Fluid Mechanics Science Elective CENE 420 Traffic Studies & Signals

Senior Year CENE 331 Sanitary Engineering CENE 418 Highway Engineering CENE 438 Reinforced Concrete Design CENE 476 Egr Design Process Lab CENE 450 Geotechnical Eval. & Design Technical Elective

EE 188 Electrical Engineering I 3 CENE 486C Egr. Design: Capstone 3 Technical Elective 3 Liberal Studies Distribution Course 3 Liberal Studies Distribution Course 3

The 2006-07 CE program of study consists of a total 127 units of required 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


3 PHY 161 University Physics 1 3 4 PHY 161L University Physics 1 Lab 1 1 MAT 137 Calculus II 4 4 EGR 186 Intro to Engineering Design 3 4 PHI 105 OR Introduction to Ethics

PHI 331 Environmental Ethics 3 CENE180 Computer Aided Drafting 2

Sophomore Year

3 CENE 253 -Mechanics of Materials 3 3 CENE 253L Mechanics of Materials Lab 1 4 EGR 286 Egr Design: The Process 3 3 MAT 239 Differential Equations 3 3 ME 291 Thermodynamics I 3

Liberal Studies Distribution Course 3

Junior Year

3 CENE 333 Applied Hydraulics 3 3 CENE 333L Applied Hydraulics Lab 1 3 CENE 383 Soil Mech & Foundations 4 3 CENE386W Egr Design: The Methods 3 3 CENE 433 Hydrology & Flood Control 3

Liberal Studies Distribution Course 3

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 four 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. Additionally, the program contains 76 hours of engineering topics of which 24 are design. Nineteen 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 since our first evaluation under the new EC 2000 Criteria in the Fall of 2001.

Table I.1 Summary of EAC Activities for the CENE Since Fall 2001

l

2

3

4

5

6

Time Frame Fall -Summer 2001

June 2003

Nov 2003

April -August 2004

June 2005

October 26-27 2005

7 | May 19,

Activity Program reviews for NAU Engineering Programs under the new EC 2000 Criteria

CE and ENE Submit Reports titled "Actions Taken to Correct Shortcomings'"

ABET site visit of CE and ENE Programs

Communications to ABET about NAU-wide restructuring, collapsing its ten colleges into six. The previously stand-alone College of Engineering and Technology is combined with the science and math departments into a new college, the College of Engineering and Natural Sciences

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 programs

ABET Focus Visit

30-Day response submitted documenting

Program Results IV for CE and ENE due to:

Weakness in Criterion 7 along with Program Issues in Criterion 2, 3, 6, and 8

Draft Statement results: - Observation in Criterion 7 both CE

and ENE - Concern in Criterion 3 both CE and

ENE - Concern in Criterion 6 ENE

Final Statement results: - Reinstatement of Criterion 7

Institutional Weakness for all of NAU's Engineering Programs including CE, ENE, ME, and EE.

- Concern in Criterion 3 both CE and ENE

- Concern in Criterion 6 ENE

Draft Statement results: - Concern in Criterion 7 for all

programs - Concern in Criterion 6 for ENE


8

2006

August 21, 2006

Engineering's return to its renovated and expanded building , as well as the improvements made to the ENE laboratories ABET - EAC Final Statement Final Statement results:

- Concern in Criterion 6 for ENE

Significant to this program review are 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 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 leam more about our reorganization and its impacts within the context of the earlier 2001-02 finding of a "weakness'" in Criterion 7. As we had successfully shown, however, the 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 infrastructure renewal program that included the addition of, or renovation to, numerous academic and residential buildings; enhanced parking and on-campus transportation systems; upgraded way-finding; and restored green and outdoor activity spaces.

• Completion of the $ 15 million Engineering building expansion and renovation with an additional $1.3 million 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 increased compensation to faculty and staff.


• Stabilized and strengthened the administrative leadership in the CENS along with increases to administrative services.

• New investments in internationalization of the University.

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 continuous improvement process that engages faculty, students, and external constituents in our programs directed towards producing graduates who "get things done."

D. Report Organization and Preparation

This self-study was developed during the 2006-07 academic year (AY), and follows the 2007-08 criteria approved by the ABET Accreditation Council on October 28, 2006. It is organized by criterion using a chapter organizational scheme with one chapter per criterion. A separate chapter, Chapter X, is a detailed presentation of the CENE's Continuous Improvement Process (CIP). The CIP extends across the entire set of 8 Criteria with the various tools yielding data and information applicable to multiple criteria. Each preceding chapter makes extensive use of the CIP chapter via referencing and summarizing. The chapters of this self study report are:

Chapter 1 Background and Overview



Chapter IV Program Outcomes and Assessment (Criterion 3)







The ABET Self-Study Questionnaire dated 8/7/02 was used to guide the development of this report and Appendices I and II.

A draft of this self-study was submitted in November of 2006 to NAU's University Assessment Committee (see http://www4.nau.edu/assessment/uac/index.htm). This sixteen person committee reviewed and evaluated this report and found the following:







• Students appear to be involved in providing input to assessment activities, but it's

unclear whether students see the results and analyses of these assessments.

The final preparations for the body of this self-study, which took place in December and January of 2007, took this feedback into account.

F. Contact Information

Dr. Debra Larson, Chair of the Department of Civil Engineering, was the primary 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






G. Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used throughout this document:

ABET Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology

ABOR Arizona Board of Regents

AGEC Arizona General Education Curriculum

AH1 Aesthetic and Humanistic Inquiry

APR Annual Performance Review

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 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

CENS College of Engineering and Natural Sciences

CET College of Engineering and Technology

C1D Course Improvement Document

CIP Continuous Improvement Process

CHM Chemistry

CM Department of Construction Management

CS Department of Computer Science

CU Cultural Understanding

DAC Departmental Advisory Committee

D4P Design4Practice

EE Department of Electrical Engineering

EGR Engineering (General)

EIT Engineer in Training

ENG English

ENE Environmental Engineering

EWB Engineers Without Borders

FE Fundamentals of Engineering Examination

FF&E Fixtures, Furnishings and Equipment

FSC Faculty Status Committee

FTE Full Time Equivalent

FY Fiscal Year

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

MSE Master of Science Engineering

NAU Northern Arizona University

P&T Promotion and Tenure

PHI Philosophy

PHY Physics

SI Supplemental Instruction

SOE Statement of Expectations

SPW Social and Political Worlds

Chapter 1 Background and Overview Page 1-9


Chapter II Table of Contents

A. Admission and Transfer Course Articulation I 1. Freshman Admission Requirements I 2. Transfer Student Admission Requirements 2 3. Arizona Transfer Articulation System 2 4. Transfer of Non-Arizona System Courses 4

B. Advising and Monitoring 6 1. Advising Incoming Freshman and Transfer Students 6 2. Advising First-Year Students 6 3. Advising Transfer and Continuing Students 7 4. Monitoring Progress 8 5. Advising Effectiveness 10

C. Evaluating the Completion of Program Requirements 12

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 the program evaluation functions. Where appropriate, the results related to students from the CENE's continuous improvement processes are included along with a description of any 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 freshmen 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 50 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 1100 and the class percentile ranking is top 25%.

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 detailed requirements for each competency requirement are found at http://home.nau.edu/admissions/applv/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/applv/admissreq.asp.

2. Transfer Student Admission Requirements

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

• completed 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 maintains an articulation office plus specialists within the various colleges 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


http://home.nau.edu/admissions/applv/admissreq.asp

http://home.nau.edu/admissions/applv/admissreq.asp


coordinators. The articulation home page is located on the Web at http://www4.nau.edu/aio/Articulation/lndex.htm.

Of particular importance to this self-study is the 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.orR/cgi-bin/WebObiects/Admin CEG, lists the various courses from the community colleges that are equivalent to the respective courses at the three universities. The following table, Table II. 1, serves as an example of the type of infonnation found in the CEG. This information was excerpted from the Pima Community College1 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 NAU's Office of Undergraduate Admissions. 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

PCC Course ENG 130IN(3) Elementary Surveying ENG 230 (3) Mechanics Of Materials

Equivalent Courses ASU*

CON 241

Elective Credit

NAU CENE 270

CENE 253

UA* CE251

CE 215, ME 324A

*ASU = Arizona State University, UA = University of Arizona

For CENE courses, equivalencies are established by the Department Chair via a 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, where the agenda included items on:

• Update from the three State University Members on topics such as general education changes, admissions changes, review of the University Transfer Guide Information, and program and course level changes.

• Update from Community College Members such as changes to an institution's AGEC and advising issues.

• Confirm current common courses and pathways.

• Review and update the course equivalency information for all community colleges.

Pima Community College is located in Tucson. Arizona.

Chapter II Students (Criterion l) Page II-3

http://www4.nau.edu/aio/Articulation/lndex.htm

http://az.transfer.orR/cgi-bin/WebObiects/Admin

• Explore potential opportunities for collaboration and discuss emerging curricula.

This process works well from the perspectives of usability and academic quality. Figure II. 1 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 ENG 101 and 102 at Dine' was transferred in as meeting our 4-credit ENG 105 requirement.

Figure II.1 Articulation Example for an Arizona Transfer Student

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 level English, Mathematics, and Science courses coming from accredited non-Arizona universities and community colleges. 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 uses a captured via course substitution-


equivalency form that is hand processed. An example request with evaluation is provided in Table 11.2.

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 the form to permit a full review. Ms. Wildermuth passes the form to the appropriate department representatives for their review. Once a course has been approved for equivalency, it is recorded into the student transcripts and the student can proceed as if the equivalent course at NAU was completed. Students can then enroll in NAU courses that have the transferred course as a pre or co-requisite and their degree progress report automatically satisfies that graduation requirement. If a course is approved as a substitution, then the course is recorded in the student's degree progress plan as satisfying that particular graduation requirement, but does not automatically satisfy pre or co-requisite requirements. The substitution is not reflected in the student's transcripts.

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

Course Under Petition

Course: CHEM 101 When taken: Fall 2002 Where taken: Colorado State Un. Course: ENG 311 When taken: Spring 2001 Where taken: Colorado State Un. Course: PHY 120 When taken: Spring 2001 Where taken: Colorado State Un.

Proposed NAU Course

Equivalency/substitute: CHM 151/L Reason:

Equivalency/substitute: Reason: engineering depth elective

Equivalency/substitute: PHY 161 Reason: This course is equivalent to PHY 111 and lab not PHY 161

Approval

Approved by: Chemistry representative Approved by: Mechanical engineering rep Approved by: Not Approve-Physics representative

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 an efficient process. Every non-Arizona transfer course petitioned for evaluation receives a unique review, even if that same course had been evaluated earlier. 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 speed this process up and allow transfer students to more easily enroll in classes.

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 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 freshmen who are students 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 who 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 "nuts and bolts" information vs. the more general 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 discipline-specific advisors knowledgeable about transfer course issues to help students enroll in the appropriate courses.

Orientation for students entering the Fall Term is during the summer - sessions typically scheduled 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 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. The Gateway advisor assigned to the Engineering Programs is Ms. Lori Van Haren. 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/.


http://www4.nau.edu/gateway/

The Gateway Center maintains a strong connection with the CENS through the CENS academic advising staff and faculty advisors. These CENS members help with priority enrollment, orientation advisement, and manage the information about curricula.

The IT group at Gateway has recently developed a tracking method called GTAC (Gateway Tracking Advising Contacts) to better understand student needs and students' use of resources. GTAC tracks every student that comes into the Gateway, whether it is to simply pick up a form or to participate in a full advising session.

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 Wildermufh, 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 the full-time faculty members of the CENE, including the Department Chair, advise. Accordingly, faculty 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. The faculty advise students on course offerings and selection, degree requirements, minors, internships, scholarships, and career or graduate school topics.

Transfer students from Arizona Community Colleges can access transfer guides provided by each state university that list the equivalent coursework that they can complete at the community college and what requirements that coursework will satisfy at NAU. The screen on the next page. Figure II.2, is from the transfer guide for Pima Community College in Tucson. This information is used by both advisors at NAU and advisors at each of the Arizona community colleges to help ensure that students are aware of the requirements at each state university and take courses that will help them progress toward their goals.

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 services designed to increase and enhance the academic performance of our students. The MEP is one means of addressing the critical issue of under-representation of minorities, women, disabled persons, and first generation students in


undergraduate engineering programs and industry workforce. The MEP currently serves as a support and resource center for African-American, Hispanic, Native American, Women, disabled, and first generation engineering, computer science, and construction management students. A list of MEP services is at http://www.cet.nau.edu/Student/mep/services.shtml.

Figure II.2. Excerpt from the Pima Community College Transfer Guide

4. Monitoring Progress

The CENE has a proactive approach to advising and monitoring students, while also utilizing the automated NAU-wide processes of: degree progress/audit, prerequisite checking, required mid-term grade submittals for 100- and 200-level 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 modem and integrated PeopleSoft system called LOUIE (Lumberjack's Online University Information Environment), the class enrollment policy for engineering students 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 this software-driven policy change, the CENE began to notice problems. Some students were experiencing logistic-related troubles such as:

Chapte r II Students (Cri ter ion 1) Page II-8

http://www.cet.nau.edu/Student/mep/services.shtml

taking courses out of sequence and then missing prerequisite courses, selecting liberal studies courses that did not meet the distribution block requirements, or failing to get non-Arizona transfer credits properly assigned and recorded to LOUIE. These progress problems became 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 curriculum details and ensuring smoother progress. We will continue this mandatory advising requirement.

LOUIE 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 and hence the name "degree progress." At the time of graduation, it serves as a degree audit. 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 prerequisite requirements is automatically checked. The Department prerequisite policy is that 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. 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 as already discussed, self-advisement became common. 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 whose prerequisite was, say, Calculus 1. 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- 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 repeat2 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 X, the CENE has a long-established Continuous Improvement Process (CIP) that integrates a number of sequenced data gathering and assessment 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 X.

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 the respective Spring 2005 and 2006 semesters. 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 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 department-specific advising information. The 2004 responding seniors indicated that advising, across the University, 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 and

" Students may only repeat courses in which they have earned a grade of D or F. Students may repeal, 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.


more recently, via the CENE website, in electronic form . Advisors are strongly encouraged to work through the program sheets with their advisees, 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 plans to start using its website to assemble and post this same information. 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 welcomes questions from faculty advisors and serves as our on-call expert for complex or infrequent questions. She works closely with any faculty member who asks for advising assistance. In addition, Ms. Wildermuth held a number of advisor 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.

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. Our beliefs are founded on the following data of retention rates in the overall College and within the Department. This data shows that the CENE over the past three years has posted improved retention rates. In fact, the CENE rates are the highest for the eleven CENS departments. The retention and graduation rates for students entering and staying within the College and Department are given in Tables II.3 and II.5 give. Tables II.4 and II.6 provide the overall retention and graduation rates for students entering either the CENS and CENE, but switching majors while remaining at NAU.

Table II.3 First Time Freshmen in CENS - Retained/Graduated Within CENS

Cohort Year

1994

1995 1996 1997

1998 1999

2000

2001 2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Cohort

406

488 503 456

519

590

588 574 491

491

519

521

604

1 Year Retain

50.7%

52.9% 52.7%

49.8%

50.3% 52.7%

47.8%

48.6% 53.2%

51.5%

48.9%

52.6%

2 Year Retain

36.9%

33.8% 32.8%

30.5%

35.1% 33.7%

30.8%

35.5% 41.5%

35.8%

38.5%

3 Year Grad

0.7%

0.0% 1.4%

1.5% 1.5%

0.3% 1.4%

0.9%

0.6%

2.0%

3 Year Retain

28.6%

26.8% 28.6%

26.5%

26.6%

27.8% 27.4%

30.3% 35.4%

30.3%

4 Year Grad

9.4%

10.9% 10.9%

12.5% 12.1% 13.4%

11.9% 13.2%

17.3%

4 Year Retain

18.7%

15.2% 17.1%

14.3%

14.8% 14.4%

14.5% 16.9%

16.9%

5 Year Grad 22.2%

18.4% 22.1%

22.6% 24.1%

22.4%

20.6% 24.6%

The website address for downloading the program sheets is http://www.cens. nau.edu/Academic/CENE/civil/CEProgram.shtml


http://www.cens

http://nau.edu/

Table II.4 First Time CENS Freshman Retained/Graduated Within University

Cohort Year

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

20031

2004

2005

2006

Cohort 406

488

503

456 519

590

588

574

491

491

519 521

604

1 Year Retain

64.0%

62.7%

64.4%

67.3%

67.8%

65.1%

65.6%

65.7%

68.2%

69.9%

66.9%

71.6%

2 Year Retain

51.5%

52.3%

51.7%

56.8% 58.2%

54.2%

54.6%

56.4%

59.9%

59.9%

57.0%

3 Year Grad

1.0%

0.6%

1.4%

2.2%

1.7% 0.7%

1.9%

1.7%

1.4%

2.9%

3 Year Retain

43.1%

45.9%

48.3%

52.2%

52.6%

49.7% 49.8%

51.9%

54.2%

54.6%

4 Year Grad

14.5%

18.2%

19.5%

23.0% 21.2%

20.8%

21.6%

22.8% 24.4%

4 Year Retain

29.8%

28.5%

27.6%

28.7%

30.8%

28.6%

27.2%

27.9%

28.9%

5 Year Grad

33.5% 34.6%

37.4%

43.6%

42.2%

38.3%

37.6% 41.1%

Table II.5 First Time Freshman in CENE - Retained/Graduated Within CENE

Cohort Year

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999 2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Cohort 53

52

45

14

11

11 14

23

23 20

21

42 52

1 Year Retain

52.8%

61.5%

53.3% 42.9%

63.6%

27.3% 50.0% 21.7%

52.2% 60.0%

71.4% 66.7%

2 Year Retain

24.5%

21.2%

31.1% 42.9%

54.5%

9.1%

14.3% 13.0%

52.2%

55.0%

66.7%

3 Year Grad 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0% 0.0% 4.3%

0.0%

0.0%

3 Year Retain 22.6%

13.5%

26.7%

35.7%

54.5%

9.1%

14.3% 8.7%

43.5% 50.0%

4 Year Grad 3.8%

3.8%

2.2%

21.4%

9.1%

9.1%

14.3% 4.3%

4.3%

4 Year Retain

17.0%

7.7%

22.2%

14.3%

45.5%

0.0% 0.0% 8.7%

34.8%

5 Year Grad 17.0%

3.8%

17.8%

35.7%

45.5%

9.1%

14.3% 13.0%

5 Year Retain

3.8%

11.5%

6.7%

0.0% 9.1%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

6 Year Grad 18.9%

9.6%

20.0%

35.7%

54.5%

9.1%

14.3%

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.

Chapter 11 Students (Criterion 1) Page 11-12

The CE student must complete the 127 hours of course work as required for the 2006-07 program, with an overall grade point average of 2.0 or higher. A maximum of two "D" grades in engineering courses may be applied towards graduation. As noted above, NAU has an 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.

Table II.6 First Time CENE Freshman Retained/Graduated Within University

Cohort Year

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Cohort

53

52

45 14

11

11 14

23

23

20

21

42

52

1 Year Retain

71.7%

76.9%

77.8%

78.6%

81.8%

54.5%

78.6%

43.5%

65.2%

75.0%

81.0%

81.0%

2 Year Retain

52.8%

44.2%

62.2% 85.7%

63.6%

54.5%

71.4%

34.8%

65.2%

75.0%

81.0%

3 Year Grad

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

4.3%

0.0%

0.0%

3 Year Retain

47.2%

38.5%

57.8%

78.6%

63.6%

45.5%

71.4%

34.8%

52.2%

75.0%

4 Year Grad

13.2%

7.7%

13.3%

50.0%

9.1%

27.3%

35.7%

8.7%

8.7%

4 Year Retain

37.7%

36.5%

42.2%

21.4%

54.5%

18.2%

21.4%

30.4%

39.1%

5 Year Grad

43.4%

25.0%

42.2%

64.3%

54.5%

45.5%

50.0%

26.1%

5 Year Retain

5.7%

17.3%

13.3% 21.4%

9.1%

0.0%

14.3%

8.7%

6 Year Grad

45.3%

34.6%

48.9% 71.4%

63.6%

45.5%

57.1%

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 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 in Figure II.3.

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. We have seen fewer migration-related problems in 2006-07, and expect the degree audit function to be running close to error free in subsequent years.

Figure II.3 Excerpt from Degree Progress/Audit



Chapter III Table of Contents

A. University and College Mission Statements 1 B. CENE's Mission 2 C. Program Educational Objectives 3 D. Relating Objectives to Mission 4 E. Assessing Graduates Achievement of Educational Objectives 6 F. Future Planned Activities 8

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 with our constituencies and in congruence to the missions. We describe the evaluation process, the resulting conclusions, and future activities. An abstract 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 the "contribute to society" component of Objective 4. 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. We will begin the process of revisiting program objectives again in early 2009.

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 previous 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.

Figure III.1 University Mission Statement1

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 masters 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 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 Statement2

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 slightly in early 2005 to reflect the work of: (1) the Fall 2004 Department Advisory Council (DAC) meeting where objectives and outcomes were revised, and (2) the Department's strategic planning retreat in December of 2004.

1The University's complete Mission and Goal Statement can be found at http://www4.nau.edu/president/mission2.asp 2 The College's complete Mission Statement is found at http://home.nau.edu/cens/cens_MVV.asp 3 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


http://www4.nau.edu/president/mission2.asp

http://home.nau.edu/cens/cens_MVV.asp

The Department's 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. The Department's mission statement also includes University and College goals of valuing diversity4, providing community and professional leadership via service, and excelling in 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 Continuous Improvement Process", 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

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.

4 NAU is becoming the nation's leading university in serving Native Americans. 5 An overview of the Continuous Improvement Process is found in Chapter X of this self-study.


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 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 programs. 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.cens.nau.edu/Academic/CENE/vision/.

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. Be 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 the 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 the "get things done" perspective 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 it, 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."

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 Congruency of CENE Objectives to CENE Mission

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.

Mission Tenets Pr

epar

e fo

r te

chni

cal

care

ers

of

inno

vati

on a

nd

lead

ersh

ip

`/

`/

Cre

ate,

uti

lize

, di

ssem

inat

e te

chni

cal

know

ledg

e

`/

`/

`/

`/

Enh

ance

the

pr

ofes

sion

, ser

ve

soci

ety

`/

`/

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


E. Assessing Graduates' Achievement of Educational objectives

The CENE's C1P 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 an approximate 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 X 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) survey activities. Excerpts are provided here to support the conclusions about our graduates' achievement of objectives.

Table 111.1 Summary of Responses from Alumni and Employers Assessing Achievement of CENE Objectives


1 (a) Appropriately use mathematical, scientific, and engineering principles.











5 Generally speaking, are able to get things done

Alumni

Average

4.39

4.14

3.86

3.83

4.08

4.17

4.51

4.19

4.14

3.86

3.29

Not Rated

Employer Average

3.89

3.67

3.53

3.95

3.85

3.85

4.30

4.12

4.15

3.40

3.50

4.10

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 the education from NAU's Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering prepare you to ... :"" The employers represented both public sectors and private consulting that were mostly Arizona-based. The employer results were within the context of "How well prepared their recent NAU employees were to ... :"


In general, the employer results were lower than the alumni responses. Table I1I.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 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.

• 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 1(a) the ability to 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.

In a follow-on letter, DAC member Debra Mollet of Stantec Engineering provided additional explanatory comments about NAU recent CENE graduates:

"Too often we (Stantec) see young engineers with the technical skills to address a given problem, but little ability to effectively communicate solutions or work as part of an overall team to complete required tasks. We have found that NAU engineering graduates have not only strong technical skills, but also a solid knowledge of project management issues such as schedule, costs, and budgeting. This knowledge combined with their ability to work effectively in teaming situations (and indeed in most cases lead team activities), accurately define project constraints that go beyond the routine design constraints, and communicate real-world solutions makes them ideal employees."

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 enhance achievement of the component of Objective 4 relating to societal contributions. 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 to begin reviewing and eventually revising program objectives. The conventional approach in 2004 was to align objectives to outcomes. Today, however, there is a higher premium being placed on objectives that more strongly reflect department mission and our review will include this changed practice. In addition, the Department has begun (in late Spring 2007) to revisit its vision that, if changed, will impact mission and objectives. The review of objectives will also incorporate: (1) the numerical importance results as well as the qualitative comments provided through the surveys, (2) the draft changes proposed by ASCE to Criterion 8 that will probably be finalized by this time, and (3) the 2nd edition to the ASCE's Body of Knowledge work.


Chapter IV Program Outcomes (Criterion 3)

Chapter IV Table of Contents

A. Overview 1 B. Constituency Helps to Revise Program Learning Outcomes 6 C. Program Learning Outcomes Support Educational Objectives 7 D. Relating Outcomes and Establishing Metrics 8

1. Criterion 3 Outcome (a) ~ CE Program Outcome 1 10 2. Criterion 3 Outcome (b) ~ CE Program Outcome 3 10 3. Criterion 3 Outcome (c) ~ CE Program Outcomes 2, 4, 5 10 4. Criterion 3 Outcome (d) ~ CE Program Outcome 4 11 5. Criterion 3 Outcome (e) ~ CE Program Outcome 2 11 6. Criterion 3 Outcome (f) ~ CE Program Outcome 6 11 7. Criterion 3 Outcome (g) ~ CE Program Outcome 4 12 8. Criterion 3 Outcome (h) ~ CE Program Outcomes 4, 5 12 9. Criterion 3 Outcome (i) ~ CE Program Outcome 5 12 10. Criterion 3 Outcome (j) ~ CE Program Outcome 5 13 11. Criterion 3 Outcome (k) ~ CE Program Outcomes 3, 5 13

E. Transforming Curriculum into Outcomes 13 F. Process to Assess Outcomes 15 G. Outcome Evidence and Achievement Evaluation 16

1. Outcome (a) 17 2. Outcome (b) 18 3. Outcome (c) 20 4. Outcome (d) 22 5. Outcome (e) 23 6. Outcome (f) 25 7. Outcome (g) 27 8. Outcome (h) 29 9. Outcome (i) 31 10. Outcome (j) 34 11. Outcome (k) 39

A. Overview

In this chapter of the Civil Engineering Program's Accreditation Self-Study, the following topics are presented:

• establishment of the CE program outcomes,

• relationship of the 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 summaries.

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 2007-08 or 2008-09 cumculum cycles.

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

• Possess exceptional skills going beyond intent for Outcomes (c), (d), and (g).

• Meet the intent of Outcomes (a), (b), (e), (I), (h), (i), and (k).


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

ABET Out.

(a)

(b)

Metric Statement Compliance is achieved by students who can ...

solve engineering problems using mathematics and science principles.

design civil engineering or environmental engineering experiments to meet a need; conduct the experiments, and analyze and interpret the resulting data.

Target CENE&

EGR Courses*

150.225. 251.253. 331.376

270L.225, 253L.333L. 383,420

Improvements**

1. MAT 238 increases hours from 3 to 4. 2. CENS forms a college-wide assessment

committee to enhance communications between the disciplines.

3. NAU invests in Supplemental Instruction. SI available for chemistry-physics, pre-calculus, biology. EE 188, CENE 251, 253. and ME 252. (http://hotne.nau.edu/edsuD/lac/si sched ule.asp).

1. Curriculum in CENE 270 and 270L is revised - incorporating data management, modeling, and presentation.

2. Major equipment purchases made for CENE 270L totaling $15,250.

3. $20,000 invested in CE laboratory equipment for CENE 253L, 333L. 383.

4. Laboratory manager position created and staffed.

5. Separate the CENE 383 laboratory experience from the lecture to enhance enrollment logistics and better reflect laboratory skills in assessment processes.

Effec. AY

1. 05-06 2. 05-06

3. 05-06

1. 04-05

2. 05-06

3. 05-06

4. 06-07

5. 07-08


http://hotne.nau.edu/edsuD/lac/si

(c)

(d)

(e)

design systems or processes to meet desired needs within realistic constraints.

perform and communicate effectively on diverse teams.

solve well-defined engineering problems in the four technical areas appropriate to civil engineering (e.g. structures, water resources, transportation, geotechnical)

186,286, 253,331, 333,383, 418,433, 438,450, 476,486C

186,286, 386W,418, 476,486C

150, 186. 251.253, 376,331, 333,383, 420, 433, 438.486C

6. Accept the new Math course STA 275 as an acceptable substitute for CENE 225.

7. Additional equipment purchased for CENE 270L ($20,000 reserved from class fees)

1. EGR 286 revised; 5 sequenced skill-building projects; CID process initiated.

2. CENE capstone design evaluation tool developed and implemented.

3. Computers purchased and printer installed in CENE: projects room to accommodate design project teamwork.

4. Half-time D4P director hired to coordinate, refine, and expand the D4P program.

5. A team-teaching approach reinstated in CENE 386W to better manage the evaluation tasks and to provide both CE and ENE disciplinary expertise via the instructional team.

6. CID process-based implementation of refined assessments for EGR 286 spring 2007.

7. Catalog descriptions of the various discipline-specific courses edited to better existing reflect design content.

1. EGR 286 revised; accommodating both small and large team multi-disciplinary formats; CID process initiated.

2. NAU adds 2 required diversity courses in ethnic and global studies.

3. NAU refines liberal studies requirements; requires 1 additional distribution course.


1. CENE revises curriculum to require a minimum of 2 junior or senior level courses in each CE area.

2. Pre-requisites to ME 395 fluids changed from dynamics to thermodynamics: better accommodates ENE program needs.

3. CENE revitalizes its offerings of co-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 compare CID performance indicators to FE results.

6. 07-08

7. 07-08

1.04-05

2. 04-05

3. 06-07

4. 06-07

5,06-07

6. 07-08

7. 07-08

1.04-05

2. 05-06

3. 07-08

4. 07-08

1. 02-03

2. 06-07

3. 06-07

4. 07-08


(f)

(g)

(h)

(i)

recognize and analyze situations involving professional and ethical interests.

organize and deliver effective verbal, written, and graphical communications.

generally describe the impacts of constrained engineering solutions to relevant economic, environmental, social, and global-political systems.

demonstrate the ability to learn on their own. without the

150, 186, 270, 386W, 486C, 383, 418,420

186, 180, 270L, 286, 253L, 386W,383. 418,476, 486C

150, 386W, 450, 420, 486C

270, 286, 386W,418,

5. Separate CENE 331 from CENE 434 to provide better coverage of traditional sanitary engineering curriculum in the CE curriculum.

1. CENE 386W revised to increase the attention given to Outcome (f) and to better capture direct assessment data.


3. CENE increases the faculty advising resources, enhances funding, and dedicates work space to student chapter of ASCE

4. CENE pilots a P/F "ASCE" 1-credit elective course. Abandons pilot after three semesters; logistics difficult to manage.

5. PHI 105 Intro to Ethics or 331 Environmental Ethics becomes a required course in the CE and ENE curriculums.

6. CENE evaluating the creation of a "milestone7" or "graduation requirement" requiring student participation in a student professional organization such as ASCE or EWB.

1. CENE 180 created. 2. Curriculum in CENE 180 refined. 3. The use of AutoCAD Land Desktop

piloted in CENE 418. 4. Additional instructor added to CENE

386W to form a team approach to providing enhanced coverage and feedback in writing.


1. University drops UC 101 from the liberal studies requirements as it fails to achieve intended outcomes.

2. Increased attention given to and the capturing of direct assessment enhanced in CENE 150. 332. 420. and 450.

3. CENE supports the creation of an EWB chapter. MOU signed, projects initiated.

4. NAU refines liberal studies requirements: requires 1 additional distribution course insuring the completion of 2 courses in each SPW, CU. and AH1 for all CE students.

1. EGR 286 revised and students required to learn a "C" based programming

5. 07-08

1.04-05

2. 04-05

3. 04-05

4. 04-05

5. 05-06

6. 06-07

1. 04-05 2. 05-06 3. 06-07

4. 06-07

5. 07-08

1. 03-04

2. 06-07

3. 06-07

4. 07-08

1. 04-05


(j)

(k)

aid of formal instruction, and express the need to continually improve their professional skills throughout their careers.

incorporate into the engineering problem solving process well-defined contemporary issues such as regulations and compliance, economics, environmental impacts, political influences, and globalization.

apply relevant techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools of the engineering practice.

476,486C

150.386W, 331, 450, 438,433, 486C

180,270, 270L, 225, 331.333L, 376.420, 433,486C

language with little formal instruction. 2. Assessment of life-long learning added

to senior exit survey. 3. Target courses assigned this outcome. 4. Further refinements made to senior exit

survey to capture licensure intent and relationship of student professional organization participation to outcome.


1. CENE 386W revised to increase the attention given to Outcome (j) and to better capture direct assessment data.


3. CENE capstone evaluation tool developed and implemented informing CENE on achievement.

4. Fall 2006 offering of CENE 476 revised to deliberately focus students' proposal activities towards project management topics.

5. CENE 386W focusing on proposal processes including planning and scheduling.

6. Enhanced cost estimating content delivered in CENE 476-486C

1. CENE 180 created. 2. EGR 286 revised and students required

to learn a "C" based programming language; CID process initiated.

3. Curriculum in CENE 270 and 270L is revised - incorporating data management and modeling.

4. Curriculum in CENE 180 refined. 5. Major equipment purchases made for

CENE 270L totaling $ 15,250. 6. $20,000 invested in CE laboratory

equipment for CENE 253L. 333L. 383. 7. Computers purchased and printer

installed in CENE projects room to accommodate the project work.

8. Upgraded the computers in room 317 to accommodate specialized modeling & analysis software and students" access to that software.

9. Individual assessment (vs. team based) of programming accomplishments added to EGR 286.

10. Piloted a credit-by-exam process for those occasional student already possessing exceptional skills in drafting and AutoCAD by way of previous

2. 05-06

3. 06-07 4. 06-07

5. 07-08

1.04-05

2. 04-05

3. 04-05

4. 06-07

5. 06-07

6. 07-08

1.04-05

2. 04-05

3. 04-05

4. 04-05

5. 05-06

6. 05-06

7. 06-07 8. 06-07

9. 06-07

10. 06-07


professional experiences. 11. C1D process-based implementation of

refined assessments for EGR 286 spring 2007; adding to the assessment information base for this outcome.

12. Additional equipment purchased for CENE 270L ($20,000 reserved from class fees).

11.07-08

12.07-08

*Target courses were assigned via a student and faculty process to target outcomes for the purpose of capturing assessment information through the C1D process. This concept, however, 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. implementation occurring 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.

B. 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 CIP1, a review of outcomes was initiated with the DAC in January of 2004. Previous outcome statements of the CE program were judged to be overwhelming in length and complexity, and hence difficult to manage and assess. The DAC provided extensive feedback to the CENE, and the 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 8, 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.

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 AY 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 statements. The

1An overview of the Continuous Improvement Process is found in Chapter X. 2The CENE DAC. as described in Chapter X. 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.


Department was not completely successful in managing (creating strategies and assessing) such a large list. In particular, the faculty found it difficult to synthesize the assessment data and was encouraged by its ABET program evaluators and DAC members to shorten the outcome list.

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

C. Program Learning Outcomes Support Educational Objectives

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


Figure IV.2 CE Program Outcomes Supporting Department Objectives

Civil Engineering Program Outcomes - Abbreviated 1. Foundation of mathematical and

scientific principles

2. Engineering problems and design



5. Improving skills and contemporary issues

6. Professional standards and ethics

Educational Objectives of the Department

Use

mat

hem

atic

al,

scie

ntif

ic,

and

engi

neer

ing

prin

cipl

es t

o fo

rmul

ate

solu

tion

s to

mul

ti-

disc

ipli

nary

pro

blem

s.

•

•

•

Cre

ate

and

impl

emen

t saf

e, e

cono

mic

al,

and

sust

aina

ble

desi

gn u

sing

app

ropr

iate

te

chno

logy

and

met

hods

.

-

•

•

-

-

Are

ind

epen

dent

lea

rner

s w

ho c

omm

unic

ate

effe

ctiv

ely,

wor

k w

ell

on p

roje

ct t

eam

s an

d ca

n as

sum

e a

lead

ersh

ip r

ole.

-

-

•

•

Adh

ere

to e

thic

al s

tand

ards

and

see

k pr

ofes

sion

al l

icen

sure

, con

side

r th

e im

plic

atio

ns o

f the

ir a

ctio

ns, a

nd c

ontr

ibut

e to

so

ciet

y be

yond

the

req

uire

men

ts o

f the

ir

empl

oym

ent.

•

•

• O

ur g

radu

ates

are

rec

ogni

zed

thro

ugho

ut

indu

stry

, gov

ernm

ent a

nd a

cade

mia

for

thei

r ab

ilit

y to

"ge

t th

ings

don

e."

•

•

•

•

•

•

D. Relating Outcomes and Establishing Metrics

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 the 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 Outcomes 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 a student generated data set from the senior


exit surveys3. The 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.

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

CE Program Outcomes 1. Foundation of mathematical and

scientific principles 2. Engineering problems and design



5. Improving skills and contemporary issues

6. Professional standards and ethics

ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes Abbreviated

a. M

athe

mat

ics

Scie

nce

& E

ngin

eeri

ng

•

-

-

b. E

xper

imen

ts,

Ana

lyze

, and

Int

erpr

et

-

•

c. A

bili

ty to

Des

ign

a Sy

stem

•

•

•

d. M

ulti

-Dis

cipl

inar

y T

eam

s

•

e. S

olve

Eng

inee

ring

Pro

blem

s -

• f.

Prof

essi

onal

& E

thic

al R

espo

nsib

ilit

y

-

•

g. C

omm

unic

ate

-

-

• h.

Im

pact

of

Eng

inee

ring

Sol

utio

ns

-

•

• i.

Lif

elon

g L

earn

ing

-

-

•

-j.

Kno

wle

dge

of C

onte

mpo

rary

Iss

ues

-

•

k. M

oder

n E

ngin

eeri

ng T

ools

-

•

•

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 statements . These metric statements are unequivocal performance goals that students

The senior exit survey tool is explained in Chapter X. 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.


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; e.g. 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

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 l. 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

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.

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

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, complete 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

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

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.

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

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

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

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 implications . Engineering design, especially for civil and environmental engineering projects, is 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.

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

Recognition of the need for and an ability to engage in life-long learning is strongly con-elated 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, curricular 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.

5 The ASCE book Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for the 21st 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).


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

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.


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

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.

E. 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.

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 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 imply 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 the student


results of this mapping is found in Chapter X, 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 primarily relying on two assessment instruments - the Course Improvement Document (C1D) and the Capstone Design Evaluation Tool. As noted in Chapter X, the CIDs have been further focused towards outcomes with target CENE courses being assigned one or more "target" outcomes for assessment purposes. This transformation of courses to outcomes is presented in matrix form in Chapter X and in table form here, Table IV.2. Only those courses "owned'' by the CENE and 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 targets. The process of target courses to target outcomes is a way of sizing down the assessment process.

Table IV.2 Target Courses and Target Outcomes

Criterion 3 Outcomes (Abbreviated) a. Mathematics, Science & Engineering

b. Experiments. Analyze, & Interpret

c. Ability to Design a System

d. Multi-Disciplinary Teams

e. Solve Engineering Problems

Target Courses

CENE 150 Introduction to Environmental Engineering, CENE 225 Engineering Analysis, CENE 251 Statics, CENE 253 Mechanics of Materials, CENE 331 Sanitary Engineering, CENE 376 Structural Analysis I

CENE 270 Plane Surveying and Lab, CENE 225 Engineering Analysis, CENE 253 Mechanics of Materials Lab. CENE 333 Applied Hydraulics Lab, CENE 420 Traffic Studies & Signals (embedded lab), CENE 383 Soils Lab (embedded)

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 383 Soil Mechanics and Foundations, 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

EGR 186 Introduction to Engineering Design, EGR 286 Engineering Design - The Process. CENE 386W Engineering Design 111 - the Methods. CENE 418 Highway Engineering, CENE 476 Engineering Design Process Lab, CENE 486C Engineering Design - Capstone

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 Responsibility

g. Communicate

h. Impact of Engineering Solutions

i. Lifelong Learning

j. Contemporary Issues

k. Modern Engineering Tools

CENE 150 Intro to Environmental Engineering, EGR 186 Introduction 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

EGR 186 Introduction to Engineering Design, CENE 180 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

CENE 150 Introduction to Environmental Engineering, CENE 386W Engineering Design III - The Methods, CENE 450 Geotechnical Evaluation & Design, CENE 420 Traffic Studies & Signals, CENE 486C Engineering Design - Capstone

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

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

CENE 180 Computer Aided Drafting, CENE 270 Plane Surveying and Lab, CENE 225 Engineering Analysis, CENE 376 Structural Analysis I, CENE 420 Traffic Studies & Signals, CENE 331 Sanitary Engineering, CENE 333L Applied Hydraulics Lab, CENE 433 Hydrology and Flood Control. CENE 486C Engineering Design IV -Capstone

F. Process to Assess Outcomes

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

The individual CIDs focus 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 curriculum is completed at least once


a year6 by the full faculty. As part of this review, the faculty of the CENE derives conclusions regarding students' achievement of outcomes - we call this the "closing the loop" activity and the most recent meeting was on January 10, 2007. The faculty reviewed and discussed the quantitative data and qualitative comments from the Fall 2006 CIDs and compared this information to the capstone evaluation and FE results7. Their overall approach was to develop an initial interpretation of compliance from the outcome assessment scores and to overlay this with discussion and analyses to finalize their conclusions.

The Capstone Design Evaluation Tool provides a direct and quantifiable measure of the full curriculum's influence on student achievement for 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 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. It is our intent to schedule the follow-up meetings in sync with the University's curriculum processes so that, whenever possible, 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.

G. 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 primarily at the January 2007 faculty workshop and supplemented by an overview analysis from the Chair that incorporated previous CID data from 2005-06, as well as other evidence. As previously explained, outcome compliance is achieved if the average student body score on the direct assessments is 70%. As shown below, our students are meeting all outcomes per this metric. The details, however, provide important distinctions to this global conclusion. In summary, our students are shown to:

• Possess exceptional skills going beyond the intent for Outcomes (c), (d), and (g).

• Meet the intent of Outcomes (a), (b), (e), (f), (h), (i), and (k).


6In addition to this once a year review of synthesized CID results, additional curriculum reviews occur in response to other drivers such as university-level decisions on liberal studies or initiation of a new records management system. 7 The data and comments used by the faculty during their "closing the loop"' workshop is found in Chapter X, Section D.


1. Outcome (a)

Compliance is achieved by students who can solve engineering problems using principles of mathematics and science. 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 evidence of physics and math, and 376 more advanced applications of mathematics in engineering problems.

The applicable CENE 150 outcome taken from the Fall 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, 7 homework assignments, 6 quizzes, and 3 exams. The average achievement for the class (n = 17) for the related homework, quiz, and exam questions for this outcome was 73%.

Five of the six CENE 251 outcomes from the Spring 2006 C1D 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 detailed 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 2006 CID for CENE 376 is similar in format to CENE 251 with four of its eight course outcomes each related to Outcome (a). The second and third class outcomes are stated here as examples of this relationship: Students can calculate resultant structural loads acting on members due to..., and students can calculate reactions, internal forces, and deflections for... The strategies used to encourage achievement and capture assessment included: Lecture and text presentations of topics; require the submission of homework that is graded for content and professionalism; require successful completion of quizzes, hourly tests, and a final examination; use of in-class teaching models; presentation of personal real-world experiences from the consulting structural engineering industry; and required homework assignment using SAP2000 finite element computer program. The student achievement average (n = 29) for Outcome (a) ranged


from a 73% from 6 homework assignments, an 80% from 2 quizzes, and 88% on 5 related test questions. The Fall 2006 instructor provided interpretive comments relative to Outcome (a). He stated "Students showed, overall, reasonable achievement of ABET Outcome (a), but some of the course material dedicated to these outcomes is presented in prerequisite courses, and thus coverage here is primarily review." 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 with Outcome (a) 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 cautiously 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 through 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, and 420. CENE 225 is an engineering statistical and probability course that provides students with the mathematical tools for analyzing and interpreting data. CENE 253L is a typical

8Exam 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 be used as the primary evaluation tool in any continuous improvement process. It can, however, provide additional information that supplements the primary evidence.


mechanics laboratory complete with testing, data gathering and reduction, and interpretation via laboratory reports. CENE 420 is representative of our approach of incorporating modeling and simulation as an important data analysis tool, and as a higher-level course, presents a summative example of students' Outcome (b) skills.

Two of the four of the CENE 225 Fall 2006 outcomes were related to Outcome (b); providing students with the ability to design experiments that properly integrate statistics, and the resulting analysis and interpretation of data. The specific in-class activity reinforcing Outcome (b) was the examination of student learning styles as (possible) functions of other variables such as major, gender, etc. Through the use of 5 homework assignments and 2 quizzes, the instructor established students' quantitative compliance to this Outcome as averaging 78%. His additional course and curriculum comments provide suggestions for further enhancements including: establish a better balance between the time spent between experimental design and conduct with analysis and interpretation, expand the time allotted to the design of experiments topic to allow further student engagement, and communicate to the other faculty the topics that are being covered, especially data analyses and design of experiments.

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 1 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) to 87% (n = 8) over the three sections. Class averages for outcome 2 range from 89% (n = 14, n = 8) to 93% (n = 9).

The two course outcomes from the Fall 2006 offering of CENE 420 that relate directly to this outcome include: Students can perform statistical analyses of traffic data and evaluate the results, and students can perform volume, speed, time travel, and delay studies. The primary "laboratory" strategies were two traffic study projects where real data is collected; data is analyzed individually in the "speed lab" and also collectively in teams in the "counts lab". In addition, to these projects, the instructor used homework assignments and quizzes to evaluate student performance. The instructor evaluated his students' level of achievement for Outcome (b) as 88%. This achievement level, however, was based on a small sample size of 5 students, which is atypical for CENE 420. This small number reflects that 2006-07 was a transition year for CENE 420. It is being moved from previously being a spring offering to a fall offering. We are offering the course twice in 2006-07 to help students' make this transition with the Spring 2007 enrollment being over 25.


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 concludes 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 11 hours 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 V.

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, CENE 476, and CENE 386W), and from two traditional sub-discipline specific courses CENE 438 and CENE 450.

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 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 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 including EGR 186.

CENE 386W introduces our CE students to the real multi-disciplinary work of civil and environmental engineers; 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 who 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 emphasis on professional quality calculations...maybe have the students evaluate each other on how easily they can follow each other's work.

• Have students work out example problems in small groups (2-3 people) during lecture prior to instructor presenting solution.

The CID for the Fall 2006 offering of CENE 438 by the same instructor as the Fall 2005 offering provided additional insights into students' disciplinary design skills. The instructor noted that students struggle with: (1) making an initial estimate or educated guess to start the design process, and (2) iterating their designs. The instructor has committed to trying out some new teaching techniques such as using design checklists and incorporating a laboratory test with assignment of a reinforced concrete beam to demonstrate the various response states the beam transitions through to failure.

CENE 476 is the fall precursor 1 -hour course to the spring 3-hour capstone design experience. It involves forming design teams, selecting a project per team, interacting with project clients, and completing an acceptable project proposal. The instructors utilized a number of evaluation activities to establish students" ability to set-up the design project via their proposals. For those teams managed by one of the two capstone instructors in the Fall 2006 offering, their composite score (n = 12) averaged 94%. The other instructor for CENE 476 did not complete his respective CID.


CENE 450 provides our students with advanced methods in geotechnical evaluation and design. Three of the four course outcomes relate directly to Outcome (c) whereby students learn to estimate a number of soil properties and capacities for use in follow-on earth retention and foundation designs using both hand and computer techniques. The instructor evaluated students' achievement of Outcome (c) using two design assignments and a final exam design flood wall problem. The composite weighted average (n = 19) was 90%.

Evidence of our students' achievement of Outcome (c) is also evaluated from a cumulative perspective via the capstone evaluation tool used by our DAC members 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 concludes 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%.


CENE 418 utilizes a cooperative, semester-long highway design project to teach and encourage learning about a number of course outcomes. Particular to Outcome (d) is that students work in teams of 3 or 4 and must respond and prepare many staged deliverables within this project context including the preparation of reports, plan and profile sheets, specifications and the presentation of their work to a panel of experts. Evaluation of students" ability to perform and communicate effectively in their team environments is through peer evaluation and the team report. The class average (n=16) for Outcome (d) was 90% over these related deliverables. The instructor noted that the team environment was a good motivator, and that "a student is typically unwilling to let their team down by not doing the work and not doing it to a high level of quality." The checklist and resubmit requirements of the design project encourage this level of responsibility to the team.

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 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 X. 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 (i.e., 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 assessment results from four of the eight required courses that span the four technical areas. This CID evidence is also supplemented by information from the capstone evaluation and FE results.

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%.

Nine of the eleven CENE 420 course outcomes relate directly to Outcome (e): introducing students to driver-roadway-vehicle system characteristics, traffic studies, capacity analysis, and traffic-control devices. CENE 420 is a 2-hour lecture, 1-hour laboratory class that is successful in teaching engineering problem solving within transportation. Through the use of 8 homework assignments and 2 tests, the instructor evaluated students" compliance to Outcome (e) as averaging (n = 5) 92%.

CENE 383 Soil Mechanics is a 3-hour lecture, 1-hour laboratory course focusing on soil properties; identification and classification of earth material; subsurface exploration of soil strength, stresses, and settlement; and substructure design. The evaluation of engineering problem solving within this context was made through a number of exams with the composite student class average (n = 28) equaling 72% in the Spring of 2006. This instructor recommended that the laboratory experience be separated from the lecture to better capture students' laboratory performance - removing the influence of the lecture course evaluations on the laboratory scores - and to better highlight the resource needs of the laboratory. The CENE has taken on this recommendation, and a new course CENE 383L has been created and will be offered in 2007-08.

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 this 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.

Chapter IV Program Outcomes (Criterion 3) Paee IV-24

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 who 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 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 FE results and students' classroom performance to gather additional insights into course delivery and content. This process was initiated in the January 2007 "Closing the Loop" faculty workshop. Dr. Craig Roberts volunteered to find ways the CENE can provide some explicit support to our students during in their FE preparations.

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 its 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 curriculums, enhanced attention to the assessment of this outcome via our CID process, and a number of specific improvements to CENE 386W - one of the primary courses in the CE and ENE curriculum that targets this outcome.

As confirmed by our colleagues from NAU's Department of Philosophy, a basic course in ethics (PHI 105 or PHI 331) will ground our students" 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 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 concrete 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.

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

In addition to the CENE 386W 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, CENE 418 Highway Design, 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.

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

Course Educational Outcomes

C2. Define the ethical principles of technical communications and recognize unethical communication.

Spring 2004

Assessment

2 Qs Test 1

4 Qs Test 2

Average

Class Average

8.3/10

24.3/31

79.5%

Spring 2005

Assessment

6 HWs

2 Qs on Test

Average

Class Average

73.6%

88.8%

81.2%

Spring 2006

Assessment

HW #8, #9

Average

Class Average

95.5%

95.5%

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).

In the Fall 2006 offering of CENE 418, the instructor documented his strategy for incorporating Outcome (f) into this class. As each project design element was introduced, the instructor discussed the related safety elements and the duty owed the public. The evaluation was completed by embedding two "professional duty" questions on the two in-class exams. The average class score on the four exam questions was (n = 16)92%.

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 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 noted above for Outcomes (c) and (d), and because of our Design4Practice curriculum, the Department has concluded that 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).

CENE 180 Computer Aided Drafting develops students" ability to present graphical information in hand and digital formats (via AutoCAD). The instructor uses a variety of sketching and drawing activities delivered in eleven laboratory sessions to reinforce these concepts, which are followed by a final project. The composite class average (n = 43) over nine deliverables in the Fall of 2006 was 81%.

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 student. 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 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.

The goal for students of CENE 476 - the precursor course to CENE 486C Capstone Design - is to complete and present an acceptable (to their client, course instructor, and other CENE faculty) project proposal that includes problem definition, technical scope of work, team management, project schedule, and cost estimates. The Fall 2006 instructors used a number of activities to evaluate students' ability to organize and deliver their proposal including a team presentation. For those teams managed by one of the two capstone instructors in the Fall 2006 offering, their composite score for the four deliverables (n = 12) averaged 94%. The other instructor for CENE 476 did not complete his respective CID.

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 such as 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 measured 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 complying with this outcome by graduation.

The CENE embraces the University's recently revised position on its liberal studies requirements that has resulted in an additional distribution course being added to the 2007-08 CE and ENE curricula. Both curricula 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 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.

Chapter IV Program Outcomes (Criterion 3) PageIV-29

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 course outcomes for CENE 386VV relate to Outcome (h). It is that students must describe the process of developing, designing, and implementing a civil or environmental engineering project for a public agency, including environmental analysis. The Spring 2006 instructor incorporated a question in his final exam that directly assessed this course outcome. The class average (n = 28) on this activity was 86.7%.

CENE 450 Geotechnical Evaluation and Design incorporated the impacts of Hurricane Katrina into the context of this class via lectures, readings, and homework assignments. Students were required to write a short essay, make a presentation, and complete a technical memo on the Lake Okeechobee Dike. This very timely and technically relevant topic fits the intent of Outcome (h) perfectly. The instructor evaluated students" level achievement as averaging (n = 19) over the three deliverables at 86%. He did note that including a major project focused on impacts and contemporary issues in geotechnical engineering limited the time available for the conventional topics of this course.

The design of the course CENE 420 Traffic Studies and Signal Systems is predicated upon constraints and requirements and their impacts on engineering solutions. Students are required to understand traffic signals, traffic conditions and characteristics, and regulations and publicly derived guidelines; to use these concepts to design traffic studies, control sequences, and phase plan; and to interpret and evaluate regulatory guidelines, standards, and modeling. The instructor utilized 5 homework assignments to evaluate students' compliance with Outcome (h) within the context of this course. The composite average (n = 5, see earlier discussion on enrollment) for the Fall 2006 class was 91%,.

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) 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 (i) has challenged the Department in its ability to capture direct evidence. The Department believes its graduating students" comply with this outcome, with this conclusion being derived from student self-assessment, inference from student success in the Design4Practice courses, and our students' participation in student professional organizations. Prior to the 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 270 and 418. 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. The Fall 2006 results for CENE 418 and CENE 270, two of the newly targeted courses to this outcome, are reported on below.

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 (e.g. demonstration of 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 to capture information on the awareness of and intent towards professional licensure, and if and how student professional organization participation enhanced life-long learning skills. A summary of the relevant Spring 2006 senior exit survey data follows in Table IV.4.

Twenty-eight of the twenty-nine students were able to adequately explain what the words "life-long learning" meant. Eighteen (64%) 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 (68%) indicated that they have future plans to be involved in a community or professional organization after graduation. Fifteen (54%) 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 (never true) to 5 (always true) scale. The average results are presented in 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



Leam new material on my own Find and use relevant sources of information Read critically and assess the quality of information available Use information to solve well-defined problems Analyze content by breaking it down, asking questions, comparing and contrasting, recognizing patterns, and interpreting information Model problems by estimating, simplifying, making assumptions & approximations. Combine knowledge in novel ways to generate new products or ideas. Judge the worth of ideas, theories, and opinions. Choose between alternative ideas, theories, opinions, and justify the choice. Adhere to the professional and ethical standards of the civil engineering profession

Aver

4.1 4.0 3.9 4.3 4.3

4.0 3.6 3.7 4.1 4.7

Std Dev

.64

.80

.37

.59

.65

.82

.73

.81

.80

.45

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 more a function of management and coaching and less about instruction. The learning outcomes for the Spring 2006 version of CENE 486C are listed below. Implied with each outcome is the requirement that students must leam new things on their own in order to successfully complete their project and the course. The student team will:

1. Identify problems or problem component derived from non-academic environment and negotiate with "owner" the scope of work proposed to solve the problem.

2. 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. Identify, clarify and internally negotiate specific technical approaches (technical methods, organization, resources and personnel) needed to address all critical problem components.

4. Apply selected tools and methodologies to individual component tasks. 5. Synthesize overall problem solution (analysis or design components) to address

original problem. 6. 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 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 refined its approach by focusing its advising energies and funds towards a limited number of organizations, specifically ASCE and Engineers Without Borders (EWB). This approach was formally implemented in the Fall of 2004. The CENE faculty were asked (and this reminder continues today) to encourage student participation and some faculty even award extra class 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. In 2006-07, the group has grown further to approximately 30 formal members and many other associated members who attend the general-interest meetings. The Department's monetary 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, with the help of a local engineering practitioner, a golf tournament for the eventual purpose of becoming the ASCE's main fund raising activity. Coordination for this tournament will be 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 and we learned of this project's acceptance in December of 2006.

The lecture portion of CENE 270 Surveying was targeted for assessing Outcome (i). The instructor in the Fall 2006 assigned one chapter on total station surveying instruments and angle measurements for the students to read and learn on their own and then assessed their comprehension via a homework assignment. This assignment consisted of a series of problems from the chapter, and to prepare 3 simple maps of boundary traverses with angular and distance measurements. The class average (n = 45) was 65%. The instructor believed that the assignment difficulties centered on the mapping aspects and is hopeful that the Department's refinement of CENE 180 Computer Aided Drafting will provide students with better a background, and comfort with, the graphical techniques needed to produce accurate, to-scale drawings.


The Fall 2006 offering of CENE 418 Highway Design used a semester-long design project to fully integrate life-long learning concepts and complemented this with required attendance for professional development purposes, at six ASCE technical meetings. The project was staged via seven checklist submittals to guide students through the process of what to do, but not how to do. Students had to learn on their own "how to do" while completing tasks such as creating a vertical alignment in Excel or performing ground profile take offs. Students were required to defend all their design decisions using appropriate standards or references and/or through the application of sound engineering logic. While student performance on the staged submittals via the checklists averaged (n = 16) 52% , their final culminating project reports that reflected corrections and revisions as motivated by the staged submittals, average 93%. As noted by the instructor.. .the checklists showed that students had difficulty with the process of intensive self-learning, but eventually they mastered the process and were very successful in the completion of the culminating milestone project. The average attendance record for the ASCE meetings by this class was 93%.

10. Outcome (j)

Outcome (j) focuses on student attainment of the knowledge of contemporary issues. The CE program has followed the ASCE 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 impacts, and how to incorporate social and political processes into engineering design and problem solutions. The CE program's related metric statement is:


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 a number of specific improvements to CENE 386W- a primary agent for addressing and assessing Outcome

(j).

9 The ASCE book Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for the 21st Century, First Edition, January 2004. offers a commentary to each of the eleven existing ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes.


New evidence revealed during the 2006-07 review process and documented in this self-study show that additional student gains could be made via changes in the specific topics of engineering economics and other professional practice issues like scheduling, cost estimating, scoping, and planning.

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. 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.


1

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).

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

Educational Outcomes

C4. Describe the process for developing, designing, and implementing a civil and environmental engineering project for a public agency, including environmental alternatives.

C5. Use time-value of money formulas to analyze economic alternatives.

Spring 2004 Spring 2005 Spring 2006

Assessment

7 Written Memos

5 Deliverables

1 Case Study Presentation 7 Case Study Q. Test 1 8 Env. Assess. Q., Test 2 2 Project Mgmt. 0- Test 3 2 Questions on PM Average 6 HW


Average

Class Average

78/105

271/300

198/200

24.1/29

38.4/49

15.1/20

53.2/60

88.9% 112/170

60.680

69.0%

Assessment

HW#5. #9, #10, #11,#12;#14. #18 Test #2 Problem #1 &#2 Final PM Essay Exam

Average HW#7, #13

Test 1

Average

Class Average

79.5%

81.6%

79%

80.0% 59.0%

87.9%

73.5%

Assessment

HW#3,4, 7

D6, D7

Final PM Essay Exam

Average HW #5 & #6

Test problems B &C Average

Class Average

90.4%

96.0%

86.7%

91.0% 76.4%

87.9%

79.8%

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

The Spring 2006 instructor provided some additional comments about students' performance in engineering economics:

"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 Spring 2006 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 issues 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.

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.


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 taken from a cumulative perspective via the capstone evaluation tool. Eleven of the 21 questions are directed at the Outcome (j). 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 63% for the Residential Bridge team to a high of 94% for the Canoe Hull Design. Of the nine ABET outcomes evaluated by the capstone tool, the CENE capstone students performed the weakest on this outcome. This was also true for the Spring 2005 projects. Our DAC reviewed the Spring 2006 capstone data and also pointed this out. They recommended that the capstone instructors further incorporate project management topics into CENE 476 through the team proposal preparation process. The capstone instructors piloted these related strategies in the Fall 2006 offering of CENE 476, which is reported on directly below. 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 will be implemented for use at the Spring 2007 capstone conference.

The January 2007 CENE faculty "Closing the Loop" workshop agreed with the DAC"s conclusions about the specific project management skills. In addition to the enhanced attention given to scoping, planning, scheduling, and cost estimating in CENE 476, the CENE faculty were encouraged by the already planned refinement to CENE 386W for Spring 2007 of focusing on the process of responding to technical RFPs as another strategy for helping students build their project management skills. In addition, the CENE has increased the faculty resource committed to the Spring 2007 offering CENE 386W from one to two instructors: a team teaching approach in attempts to properly manage, assess, and cover the many different elements of this class in an integrative fashion.


Even though CENE 476 was not targeted to evaluate Outcome (j) in the Fall 2006 CID process, its CID does provide evidence of students' performance in scoping, planning, managing, scheduling and estimating their capstone design projects. This performance was evaluated at an outline phase, a 50% submittal, a final submittal, and a public presentation. These project management elements were incorporated into the evaluation of Outcome (g) and are summarized here as applicable to Outcome (j) too. For those teams managed by one of the two capstone instructors in the Fall 2006 offering, their average score (n = 12) for their final proposal was 92.5%. Additional comments provided by this instructor indicate that the students produced proposals in sufficient detail and quality to enable a quick start on their spring capstone course. He is also looking forward to working with the Spring 2007 CENE 386W instructors as they modify CENE 386W, and hopes to take advantage of these revisions in the Fall 2008 offering of CENE 476; expecting students to be even more successful with these project management skills via their proposal development.

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 presented here from the CIDs for CENE 180, 225, CENE 270, 331, and 376 are intended to provide a sampling of the variety of tools and techniques being used by our students.

CENE 180 Computer Aided Drafting is an important beginning-level course that helps students' develop their modern tools skill set. The two relevant course outcomes are to develop students' ability to read and understand engineering drawings and to gain an understanding of, and ability to use, AutoCAD. Eight laboratory activities were used to encourage these skills and to evaluate their progress. These activities included finding information from a "real-world" set of engineering drawings, sketching, completing simple constructions and drawing multi-view drawings, working with blocks, drawing a floor plan, recreating a previously drawn detail, and creating a drawing using external references. The Fall 2006 CID captured an evaluation of students performance with the class average (n = 43) over all the activities as 82%. A suggested change to the CE curriculum offered by the instructor is to establish a mechanism for ensuring that students possess basic skills in the Windows operating environment prior to CENE 180.

CENE 225 Engineering Analysis, a calculus based statistics and probability course taught to all engineering majors by the CENE department, introduces students to analytical computer tools. The instructor requires his students to use computer statistical tools and spreadsheets to complete the major calculations. The Fall 2006 instructor captured students' compliance with Outcome (k) via 5 homework assignments and 2 quizzes. The composite class average (n = 36) was 87%.


CENE 270 Surveying naturally covers Outcome (k) and includes course learning objectives such as: set-up and use auto-levels, total stations, and data collectors to acquire topographic survey, cross-sectional, slope, distance, and other related survey data; download, process, evaluate and present topographic and other survey data; utilize GIS and aerial topographic data sets; and read, interpret, and apply surveying information related to construction and layout. The instructor evaluated students' compliance in the lecture portion of the class via a homework assignment that integrated surveying and CAD tools and the class average (n = 45) was 51%. The students' performance over the required laboratory elements of completing a topographic survey of Sinclair Wash and working with aerial topographic data averaged 81%. The Fall 2006 instructor provided a number of suggestions for improving the delivery of this course and enhancing learning including course scheduling, prerequisite skill needs, better instruction and communication about lab and lecture expectations, and better coordination between laboratory instructors.

CENE 331 Sanitary Engineering covers water quality issues in water supply and effluent treatment, disposal, and reuse, plus the design of related facilities. The Fall 2006 instructor introduced students to modeling via incremental non steady-state approaches to biological, chemical and physical kinetic processes, which required finite difference solution techniques implemented via Excel spreadsheet tool. He evaluated students' performance with the Outcome (k) concepts via three homework assignments, 6 quizzes and one exam. Composite class average (n = 27) was 72%.

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 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%.

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 Master Plan to a high of 93% for the Steel Bridge.



Chapter V Table of Contents

A. Overview 1 B. Mathematics and Basic Sciences 2 C. Engineering Topics 3 D. General Education 3 E. Major Design Experience 4

A. Overview

Our current 2006-07 curriculum 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 Outcomes and Assessment summarizes when and why these changes occurred. This previous table also includes information about upcoming changes that will be implemented for 2007-08 and the related activities planned for the 2008-09 catalog cycle.

The basic level curriculum analysis of the 2006-07 CE program is provided in Table V.l.

Table V.1 Curriculum Analysis of 2006-07 CE Program

Hours Freshman Year, 1st Semester

CENE 150 CHM 151 CHM 151 L ENG 105 MAT 136

Intro to Envir. Engineering General Chemistry I General Chemistry 1 Laboratory Critical Reading and Writing Calculus I

3 4 1 4 4

Freshman Year, 2nd Semester PHY 161 PHY 161 L MAT 137 EGR 186 PHI 105 or 331 CENE 180

Univ. Physics 1 Univ. Physics I Laboratory Calculus 11 Intro to Engineering Design Intro to Ethics or Envr. Ethics Computer Aided Drafting

3 1 4 3 3 2

Sophomore Year, 1st Semester CENE 251 PHY 262 MAT 238 CENE 225 CENE 270

Applied Mechanics-Statics Univ. Physics II Calculus 111 Engineering Analysis Plane Surveying (& Lab)

3 3 4 3 3

Math& Science*

Engin. Topics**

Engin. Design**

Gen. Ed.

4 1

4

3

4

3 1 4

1

3

1 3

3 4 2

3

1 3


Sophomore Year, 2nd Semester CENE 253 CENE 253 L EGR 286 MAT 239 ME 291 Lib. Studies

Mechanics of Materials Mechanics of Materials Lab Engineering Design: The Methods Differential Equations Thermodynamics I AHI or CU or SPW

3 1 3 3 3 3

Junior Year, 1st Semester CENE 376 ME 252 ME 395 Science Elect CENE 420

Structural Analysis I Applied Mechanics-Dynamics Fluid Mechanics Geol. Chem II, Physics III, Bio Traffic & Signal System (& Lab)

3 3 3 3 3

Junior Year, 2nd Semester CENE 333 CENE 333 L CENE 383 CENE 386W CENE 433 Lib. Studies

Applied Hydraulics Applied Hydraulics Lab Soil Mech & Foundations (& Lab) Engineering Design: The Methods Hydrology & Flood Control AHI or CU or SPW

3 1 4 3 3 3

Senior Year, 1st Semester CENE 331 CENE 418 CENE 438 CENE 476 CENE 450 CENE xxx

Sanitary Engineering Highway Engineering (& Lab) Reinforced Concrete Design Egr Design Process Lab Geotechnical Eval & Design CENE Technical Elective

3 3 3 1 3 3

Senior Year, 2nd Semester EE 188 CENE 486C Tech Elec Lib. Studies Lib. Studies

Electrical Engineering 1 Engineering Design: Capstone CENE or (ME. CM. GLG, MAT) AHI or CU or SPW AHI or CU or SPW Total % of Curriculum

3 3 3 3 3

127 100.0%

3

2 1

3

1

3

3

3

3 3 3

1 2

2 1 3 1 2

1

1 2 1

3

2 1 2

2 3

1 2 1 1 1

32 25%

3

3

52 41%

3

24 19%

3 3

19 15%

*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%


B. Mathematics and Basic Sciences

Criterion 4 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. The CENE offers a statistics and probability course, CENE 225 Engineering Analysis, which is the recommended course for all engineering majors.

C. Engineering Topics

Criterion 4 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 the CE cumculum apply to this engineering topics category for a total of 76 hours. Only six of the 76 hours are electives. Design - in disciplinary, contemporary, 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 E.

D. General Education

Criterion 4 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 25 hours that is motivated by the University's Liberal Studies Program and the additional University requirements regarding diversity, junior level writing, and capstone coursework. The CE program specifically meets these requirements through 4 hours of ENG 105 Critical Reading and Writing; 15 hours of courses chosen from the categories of Social and Political World (SPW), Aesthetic and Humanistic Inquiry (AHI) of which 3 hours are required in an approved ethi cs course, and Cultural Understanding (CU); 3 hours of CENE 386W Engineering Design: The Methods that incorporates significant writing within the discipline; and 3 hours of CENE 486C Engineering Design: Capstone. The 6 hours of required diversity course work are met by courses that are cross listed as both diversity and either SPW, CU, or AHI.


The CENE values the liberal studies distribution courses from AHI, CU, and SPW with the diversity coupling as it helps to promote achievement of our fourth CE program outcome . 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.

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.

E. Major Design Experience

Criterion 4 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.

...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.


As noted in Section C, thirteen of the 24 design hours in the CE program come from the Design4Practice curriculum. As depicted in Figure V.l, the D4P is a four-year sequence of classes that were carefully designed through a joint industry and university effort, to provide all 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.

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 succeeding 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 • High-level design, creativity • Detail design, analysis, tools, methods • Prototyping, iterating, and building • Documentation and communication skills • Teaming and organizational theory

• Professionalism and ethics • Economic analysis and budgets • Planning, scheduling, risks, and change • Customer and subcontractor interactions • Project-driven technical, analytical and

contextual knowledge

Figure V.1 NAU's Integrated Sequence of Design Coursework - Design4Practice

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 January 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 4 is the major design experience. It is a year-long experience for the CENE students and consists of CENE 476 in the Fall and CENE 486C in the Spring. CENE 476 Engineering Design Process Lab is a one credit course that focuses students on finding a project, assembling a team, and creating a project proposal with scope, requirements, design concept, schedule, and budget. CENE 486C is the follow-on course where detail design, analysis, iteration, documentation, presentation, and sometimes implementation takes place. The CE 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.

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







• San Francisco Street Pine Knoll Drive Roundabout Design for Plateau Engineering and NAU











• Concrete Canoe Hull Design for Dr. Paul Trotta • Concrete Canoe Concrete Mix Design for Dr.

Paul Trotta • On-Site Wastewater Treatment Master Plan for

Dr. Paul Trotta

The Engineering Programs at NAU traditionally hold their Spring DAC meetings the day before the engineering-wide senior capstone conference and this 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. The Spring 2005 and 2006 CENE capstone projects are listed in Table V.2 to provide a sampling of the type and variety of 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.



Chapter VI Table of Contents

A. Size of the Department 1 B. Faculty Workload 5 C. Faculty Qualifications 8

A. Size of the Department

The Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering (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, as such, this chapter reports on the contributions of this entire CENE faculty to the CE program.

Over the 2006-07 AY, the Department consisted of twelve full-time, tenured or tenure-track faculty, one 3/4-time faculty emeritus, one 1/2 time lab manager, three part-time instructors, and two research faculty members. This staffing is tabulated in Table VI.1. State funds, as displayed in the FY 07 Budget Book , directly support the full-time, tenured and tenure-track faculty as well as the 1/2-time lab manager. A combination of salary savings and other local accounts managed through the Dean's Office are used to fund the part-time instructors and the faculty emeritus position. The research faculty members are funded solely through grants. Of this total composition, thirteen members (tenured, tenured-track, and emeritus) participate fully in the undergraduate student-related responsibilities of teaching and advising. With the number of CE and ENE undergraduate majors totaling 238 as of the Fall of 2006, the student to faculty ratio is 18.3.

The curricular areas of the CE program go beyond the four areas of proficiencies as mandated by Criterion 8 and include design, via the Design4Practice program and discipline specific-courses, and environmental engineering. Except in one instance as is described further, the size of the CENE faculty is sufficient to cover all of the CE curricular areas. Tables VI.2 through VI. 7 summarize the staffing assignments in 2006-07 per curricular area.

The complete, state-funded, budget document for NAU in FY 07 is found at hltp:/7www4.nau.edu. pair/Budget stbudbookfv07vers3main.pdf.


http://nau.edu

Table VI.1 Rank, Degree, and Registration Summary of the 2006-07 CENE Faculty and Staff

Name

William Auberle

Terry Baxter

Bridget Bero

Rand Decker

Patricia Ellsworth

Paul Gremillion

Joshua Hewes

Clyde Holland

Debra Larson

Eugene Loverich Wilbert Odem Alarick Reiboldt

Craig Roberts

Charles Schlinger

Ellen Soles

John Tingerthal

Paul Trotta

Alisa Vadasz

Rank and/or Title

Professor

Assoc. Prof.

Assoc. Prof.

Professor

Assist. Res. Prof. Assist. Prof.

Assist. Prof.

Prof. Emeritus

Professor & Chair Assoc. Prof. Professor Lab Mgr & Part-time Instr. Assoc. Prof.

Assoc. Prof.

Part-time Instr. Part-time Instr.

Professor

Assist. Res. Prof.

Highest Degree

MSE

PhD

PhD

PhD

PhD

PhD

PhD

PhD

PhD

MS PhD BSE (ME pending) PhD

PhD

MA

MS

PhD

PhD

Institution of Degree & Year

West Virginia U 1967

U. of Kansas 1988 U. of Idaho 1994 Montana State U 1986 U. of Colorado 1978 U. Central Florida. 1994 U. California-San Diego, 2002 Georgia Institute of Technology

Arizona State U 1994 Ohio U. 1968 U.Arizona. 1991 Northern Arizona U, 2001

Georgia Institute of Technology 1999 John Hopkins U 1983

Northern Arizona U,2003 U. Illinois Urbana-Champaign. 1994 Colorado State U 1975 U. Durban-Westville, South Africa. 2004

Registrations

PE: Ohio, Louisiana Qualified Environ. Professional Diplomate, AAEE PE: Kansas

PE: Idaho

PE: Louisiana

PE: California

PE (Retired): Georgia, Louisiana, Arizona RLS (Retired): Louisiana PE: Oregon, Arizona

PE: Arizona. Ohio PE: Arizona

PE: Arizona and 13 other states RLS: Kansas

PE: Arizona and 3 other states PGp: California PG: Arizona and Wisconsin

SE: Illinois

PE: Arizona and Colorado


Table VI.2 Staffing of Design Courses


CENE 180 Computer Aided Drafting EGR 186 Introduction Engineering Design EGR 286 Engineering Design: The Process CENE 386W Eng. Design: The Methods CENE 420 Traffic Studies & Signals CENE 333 Applied Hydraulics CENE 383 Soil Mechanics & Foundations CENE 433 Hydrology & Flood Control CENE 331 Sanitary Engineering CENE 418 Highway Engineering CENE 438 Reinforced Concrete Design CENE 450 Geotechnical Evaluation & Design CENE 476 Eng. Design Process Lab CENE 486C Eng. Design Capstone

2006-07 Instructors

John Tingerthal, MS. SE William Auberle, MS, PE and Rand Decker, PhD John Tester, PhD and Bridget Bero, PhD, PE Terry Baxter, PhD, PE and Rand Decker PhD Craig Roberts, PhD. PE, RLS Charles Schlinger, PhD, PE, PG, PGp Clyde Holland, PhD. PE Rand Decker, PhD Paul Trotta, PhD, PE Craig Roberts, PhD. PE. RLS Joshua Hewes, PhD, PE Charles Schlinger, PhD, PE, PG, PGp Paul Trotta, PhD, PE and Paul Gremillion, PhD, PE Paul Trotta, PhD, PE and Paul Gremillion. PhD, PE

Table VI.3 Staffing of Environmental Engineering Courses


CENE 150 Intro. Env. Engineering CENE 331 Sanitary Engineering CENE 499 Water Quality Modeling1

CENE 440 Env. Protection

Required or Elective Required Required Elective Elective

2006-07 Instructors

Bridget Bero, PhD, PE. Bill Auberle, MS. PE Paul Trotta, PhD, PE Paul Gremillion, PhD. PE Bill Auberle, MS, PE

This "499" course was first offered in 2006-07, and it will become a permanent feature of the CENE department in 2007-08.

Table VI.4 Staffing of Water Resource Courses

Water Resources

ME 395 Fluid Mechanics CENE 333 Applied Hydraulics CENE 333L Applied Hydraulics Lab CENE 433 Hydrology & Flood Control CENE 468 Rivers and Streams' CENE 499 CI. Open Channel Flow2

CENE 499 Water Quality Modeling-

Required or Elective Required Required Required Required Elective Elective Elective

2006-07 Instructors

Staffed by the ME Department Charles Schlinger, PhD. PE. PG. PGp Charles Schlinger, PhD, PE. PG, PGp Rand Decker. PhD Wilbert Odem, PhD, PE Rand Decker. PhD Paul Gremillion, PhD. PE

Because of Dr. Odem's 2006-07 sabbatical, this course was not offered in 2006-07. "These two "499" courses were first offered in 2006-07. and will become a permanent feature of the CENE department in 2007-08.


Table VI.5 Staffing of Structural Engineering Courses

Structural Engineering

CENE 251 Statics CENE 253 Mechanics of Materials CENE 253 L Mech. Of Materials Lab ME 252 Dynamics CENE 376 Structural Analysis 1 CENE 438 Reinforced Concrete Design CENE 377 Structural Analysis 11 CENE 499 Masonry Design1

CENE 436 Structural Steel Design CENE 437 Wood Building Design2


2006-07 Instructors

Clyde Holland, PhD, PE, Debra Larson, PhD, PE Clyde Holland, PhD, PE, Gene Lovench. MS, PE Alarick Reiboldt. BSE Staffed by the ME department Josh Hewes, PhD, PE Josh Hewes, PhD, PE Gene Loverich, MS, PE Josh Hewes, PhD, PE John Tingerthal, MS. SE Debra Larson, PhD, PE

This was the second time that this "499" had been offered, and it will become a pennanent feature of the CENE department in 2007-08. " Due to Dr. Larson's assignment as Department Chair, this course was not offered in 2006-07.

Table VI.6 Staffing of Geotechnical Engineering Courses

Geotechnical Engineering

CENE 251 Statics CENE 253 Mechanics of Materials CENE 253 L Mech. Of Materials Lab CENE 383 Soil Mechanics (w/Lab) CENE 450 Geotechn. Eval. & Design

Required or Elective Required Required Required Required Required

2006-07 Instructors

Clyde Holland, PhD, PE, Debra Larson, PhD, PE Clyde Holland, PhD, PE, Gene Loverich, MS, PE Alarick Reiboldt, BSE Clyde Holland, PhD, PE Charles Schlinger, PhD, PE, PG, PGp

Table VI.7 Staffing of Transportation Engineering Courses

Transportation Engineering

CENE 180 Computer Aided Drafting CENE 225 Engineering Analysis CENE 270 Surveying CENE 270 L Surveying Lab CENE 418 Highway Engineering CENE 420 Traffic Studies & Signals CENE 599 Adv. Traffic Signal Systems

Required or Elective Required Required Required Required Required Required Elective

2006-07 Instructors

John Tingerthal, MS. SE Paul Trotta, PhD, PE Charles Schlinger, PhD, PE, PG, PGp Charles Schlinger. PhD, PE, PG, PGp Craig Roberts, PhD. PE, RLS Craig Roberts, PhD, PE, RLS Craig Roberts, PhD. PE, RLS

This was the first time that this "599" had been offered, and it will become a pennanent feature of the CENE department in 2007-08.


A change beginning in AY 2007-08 is presenting a future vulnerability to the CENE in the staffing of its geotechnical and transportation areas. The upper division required classes (totaling four - CENE 383, CENE 450, CENE 481, and CENE 420) are staffed primarily by three faculty members; Dr. Charles Schlinger, Dr. Craig Roberts, and Dr. Clyde Holland. Historically, this arrangement has been sufficient. In 2007-08, however, Dr. Craig Roberts is moving to a permanent, half-time arrangement in support of a staged retirement. In addition, Dr. Clyde Holland, an emeritus faculty who has been working between 3/4 and full-time since 2003-04 is also moving to half-time status. The CENE and NAU recognized this vulnerability, and are currently2 conducting a faculty search for an Assistant Professor or Assistant Professor of Practice in Geotechnical and/or Transportation.

B. Faculty Workload

The workload of the full-time tenure or tenure-track faculty is typically distributed among the categories of (1) student-related responsibilities, which consist of teaching and advising, (2) scholarship, creative activity and/or professional development, and (3) service. These three categories are synergistic to, and provide the primary mechanism for achieving, the mission of the CENE. As presented in Figure III.3 of this report, the CENE's mission fully encompasses the same student-related, scholarship, and service goals. The work of the CENE is spread out among its faculty and staff, which is articulated in individualized Statements of Expectations (SOE) that are finalized during the Summer and early Fall of each academic year. Teaching assignments, which are part of the SOE, are typically drafted out the year before to accommodate the University-wide class schedule build process. Annual Performance Reviews (APR) are conducted in the Fall semester and rely heavily upon the individual's previous SOE as the metric from which to judge performance.

The CENE follows a number of guidelines for establishing the workload of each full-time faculty member. These guidelines are based upon the notion that full-time can be expressed as equivalent to 15 units per semester of teaching, or 30 units per academic year. The assignment of one "regular3" 3 unit course is then equal to 10% of a faculty member's AY work load. Using this terminology, the CENE tries to maintain across the full-time faculty at least the following:

• 20% for scholarship and/or professional development,

• 10% for advising that is included within the student-related responsibilities area, and

• 10% for service.

2At the time of this report submittal, the CENE successfully completed the search process and hired Dr. Ed Smaglik at the Assistant Professor rank. Dr. Smaglik received his PhD in transportation engineering from Purdue Universitv.

3A "regular" course is typically a lecture-type classroom course that an instructor has taught before with a reasonable number of students. It is not: a laboratory course, a new preparation, or a distance-delivered course.


The target teaching load for tenured faculty is 50%, which is approximately equal to three 3-unit regular courses in one semester and two 3-unit regular courses in the second semester. Whenever possible, the CENE tries to keep the tenure-track (e.g. Assistant Professors) faculty's teaching to about 40%. This slightly reduced course load allocation provides the Assistant Professors some additional time to establish a scholarship and service record necessary for success in the Promotion and Tenure process. As noted in the CENE"s draft Guidelines for Setting Expectations and Evaluating Performance:

"The faculty of CENE hold teaching to be a core value and are encouraged to provide an educational environment that is unique, timely, and of high-quality. In support of this value, this area of effort recognizes that teaching encompasses a broad set of student-related responsibilities, which often extend beyond traditional classroom teaching. These student-related responsibilities include advisement in its many forms and teaching and learning innovations in and outside the classroom."

The full-time faculty, including the Department Chair, each carries an undergraduate advising load that varies from 20 to 30 students. As noted in Chapter II of this report, the Department advises all CENE students who have completed or transferred in 30 or more units. This advice consists of information on course offerings and selection, degree requirements, minors, internships, scholarships, and career or graduate school topics. In contrast to the practice of most other departments on campus, the CENE requires its students to attend a minimum of one academic advising session per year. This policy became effective in the 2005-06 AY to minimize the student progress problems that were being incurred due to self-advisement. The CENE is pleased with the results of this mandatory advising process. We have successfully re-engaged with our student body and are simultaneously providing additional monitoring services. We continue to catch and correct self-advising mistakes that are proving to benefit students' progress towards degree completion.

In addition to traditional academic advising, the CENE faculty is actively involved with the undergraduate community and the faculty workload appropriately accounts for this. Distribution of effort is provided for those who are advising student organizations such as ASCE and EWB, and design or research projects. Many members of the faculty incorporate field trips and guest speakers into their classroom setting, serving to not only enhance the learning environment, but also to promote stronger connections between faculty and students. The CENE funds most of these extra activities through its Class Fees account.

Each full-time faculty member is expected, and is given the time to do so through the allocation of at least 10%, to participate fully in service to the department and to one or more other entities on and off campus. This department service requirement includes participation in regularly scheduled department meetings (usually held every two weeks), participation in the longer department workshops held twice a year, attendance at the twice a year Department Advisory Council meetings, fulfillment of assessment and continuous improvement tasks, attendance at both the Fall and Spring graduation


ceremonies, and staffing two, one-hour Daily Campus Visits per semester. The CENE provides additional time allocation for activities such as: advising of student organizations, chairing the search committee for finding and hiring new faculty, chairing the Faculty Service Committee, and coordination of the assessment and continuous improvement efforts. This commitment to fairly recognizing the importance of quality service provides a good mechanism for the CENE to achieve the service-type components of its mission.

Table VI.8 CENE Faculty Workload Summary for 2006-07

Name

William Auberle Terry Baxter Bridget Bero

Rand Decker Patricia Ellsworth"' Paul Gremillion

Joshua Hewes Clyde Holland Debra Larson Eugene Loverich Wilbert Odem5

Alarick Reiboldt

Craig Roberts

Charles Schlinger Ellen Soles John Tingerthal Paul Trotta Alisa Vadasz

FT or PT FT FT FT

FT FT FT

FT PT FT PT FT FT

FT

FT PT PT FT PT

AY Effort Distribution Stud. Schol. Serv. Rel.1

54% 60% 60%

57% 50% 58%

51% 65% 20% 35%

50%

60%

65% 12% 40% 58% 10%

30% 25% 25%

30% 5% 30%

37% -10% 10% 95% -

25%

23% --22% 30%

16% 15% 15%

13% 45% 12%

12% 10% 70% 5% 5% 50%

15%

12% --20%

Class Taught6, 7, 8

Fall 2006 Spring 2007

CENE 150,440/540 CENE330.430.281L CENE 150,480

CENE 499/599, EGR 186(2)

CENE 410, 476

CENE 438, 376, 499/599 CENE 251 (2), 253

CENE 253L (3)

CENE 418 (vv/L), 420 (w/L), 599 CENE 450/550, 270, 270L CENE 270L (2) CENE 180(2) CENE 225, 331/434,476 CENE 485

CENE 280, EGR 186 CENE 386W, 435 CENE 150, 332, EGR 286 CENE 433, 386W

CENE 282L, 486C, 499/599 CENE 497 CENE 383 (w/L) (3) CENE 251 CENE 253 (2), 377

CENE 253L (4)

CENE 420 (w/L)

CENE333,333L(2)

CENE 180,436 CENE 225, 486C

1Student related responsibilities include teaching and advising. 2Dr. Ellsworth effort is dedicated fully towards to American Indian Air Quality Training Program of the Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals. 3Dr. Larson serves as Department Chair and her administrative duties are captured via the Service category. 4Professor Loverich was on a two-year, half-time assignment over the 2005-06 and 2006-07 academic year. 5Dr. Odem is on sabbatical for the 2006-07 AY. 6Multiple sections of a course are designated by the number of sections in parenthesis. 7Co-convened classes are designated with a "/". 8Courses containing embedded labs are designated as "w/L'" in parenthesis.

Integrated into the CENE's mission is its commitment to scholarship and professional development. As noted in the complementary CENE's draft Guidelines for Setting Expectations and Evaluating Performance:

"Providing students with a unique, timely, and quality educational experience is the responsibility of a faculty that is technically competent, current, and active. In this regard, the faculty of CENE recognizes and supports results-producing professional development. The CENE also encourages its faculty to be engaged

Chapter VI Faculty (Criterion 5) Page Vl-7

in scholarship that by its very nature encompasses professional development. It is a goal of the CENE to provide every faculty member a 20% distribution in scholarly and professional development activities. This allocation recognizes the importance of continuous professional development to the CENE and its faculty members.

As shown in Table VI.8, a workload summary for the CENE faculty, the Department has been able to achieve and maintain this scholarship and professional development goal for its full-time, tenure and tenure-track faculty.

C. Faculty Qualifications

Table VI. 9 along with the previous Table VI.1 summarize the background, experience, and qualifications of the CENE faculty. Of the tenured or tenure-track faculty in 2006-07, 2 are at the Assistant Professor rank, 5 are at the Associate Professor rank, and 5 are Full Professors. It is a diverse faculty: 5 of 18 members are female, and the faculty possesses a broad range of academic and professional experiences. Most are licensed as professional engineers, as well as a few individuals maintaining multiple registrations and affiliations. It is a faculty well-qualified by virtue of its experience and activity level to effectively prepare students for the profession of Civil Engineering.

Table VI.9 Experience Summary of the 2006-07 CENE Faculty and Staff

Name

William Auberle Terry Baxter Bridget Bero Rand Decker Patricia Ellsworth Paul Gremillion Joshua Hewes Clyde Holland Debra Larson Eugene Loverich Wilbert Odem Alarick Reiboldt Craig Roberts Charles Schlinger Ellen Soles John Tingerthal Paul Trotta Alisa Vadasz

Years of Experience

Prof. Practice

23 12 10 2 6 7 4

13 12 5

>20 8 8 12 4

Academic2

At NAU

16 14 12 5 16 4 2

>20 12 28 15 3 8 8 7 2 30 3

Total

16 23 12 11 30 10 2

>20 12 30 15 3 8 15 7 3

32 3

Level of Activity

Prof. Society

High High Med High Low Low Med None High Med Low None High Med Med Low Med None

Research

Med High High High Low High High None Low Low Med High High Med Low None Low High

Consulting1

Med None None High None None None None None High High None None High High High High None

N AU does not recognize consulting as part of the part of the regular duties of the N AU faculty. Those faculty who engage in consulting do so "off-contract", during the summer and/or as overload during the regular AY. "The reported academic experience does not include that time working as a teaching or research assistant while pursuing a graduate degree.



Chapter VII Table of Contents

A. Renovated and Expanded Engineering Building 1 B. Introduction to the CENE Laboratories 5 C. Assessment of Laboratory Conditions 5

1. Comparative Senior Exit Survey Results 5 2. Alumni Survey Results 6

D. The New CENE Laboratories 7 1. Strength of Materials and Structures Lab 9 2. Concrete/Masonry Wet Lab and ASCE Projects Space 9 3. Soils Lab 9 4. Transportation Lab 10 5. CENE Student Projects Space 10 6. Surveying Equipment 11 7. Applied Microbiology Lab 11 8. Environmental Instrumentation Lab 12 9. Wet/Fluid Media Environmental Lab 12 10. Environmental Instruction Lab 12

E. Additional Equipment Purchases 12 F. Computing 14

1. University Instructional Technology Services 14 2. Local Computing 16

A. Renovated and Expanded Engineering Building

In December of 2005, the Engineering Programs at NAU re-occupied its newly renovated and expanded building after residing in temporary office and teaching spaces for 16 months during construction. Recognizing that the previous building had become outdated and was not well suited either to modem instructional methods and learning activities or to research; the Arizona Board of Regions authorized $15 million in bonding authority to complete this remodel. Classrooms and instructional laboratories were redesigned and modernized, and an 18,000 sq ft expansion has added significantly to the building's capacity. The total size of the Engineering Building is 89,013 sq ft. The facility's quality as a space for faculty-student interaction and learning was enhanced by several "signature spaces" including: a tiered teaching theater; flexible, hands-on, design-build teaching-learning spaces; multiple student meeting and open project spaces; and a 24-7 computing and gathering space (aka Internet Cafe). The building's LEED features provide additional teaching and learning opportunities synergistic to the environmental and sustainable systems themes common to the Engineering Programs and the University.


The University and the College of Engineering & Natural Sciences added to the capital improvement with significant Furnishings, Fixtures & Equipment (FF&E) investments. These included $1 million provided by the central administration, approximately $300,000 from college resources, and an ongoing capital campaign to add significant private and corporate funds to the total.

Five departments - Civil and Environmental Engineering, Computer Science, Construction Management, Mechanical Engineering, and Electrical Engineering - reside and share the facilities of the Engineering Building. This sharing is evident throughout the building in class rooms, computing areas, student huddle spaces, some laboratories, student services and Design4Practice (D4P).

Figure VII.2 The Design4Practice Laboratory/Classroom

The D4P Instructional Laboratory is an instructional facility designed specifically to meet our D4P program modus operandi. The modular design of the space allow for both formal instruction as well as for design group work of students, a versatile arrangement that is functional in terms of its educational experience and process. As show in Figure


VII.2, the space is composed of two conjoined rooms on the ground floor of the main Engineering building. The front room (room 118) has multimedia presentation capabilities and can be used in a lecture format A dedicated wireless environment is established in both rooms, such that laptops can be deployed for classes without overtaxing the building's general-access wireless system. The furniture was chosen to be simple and sturdy, thus allowing it to be reconfigured for team-oriented laboratories. The back room (room 119) has lockers dedicated to the EGR 286 class; this class uses pre-configured Legos® Mindstorms kits for a robotics-styled team design class.

Figure VII.3 D4P Laptop Storage and Charging Station

The Engineering Building was formally dedicated by the Arizona Board of Regents on April 21, 2006 in a public celebration of the State's investment and commitment to Engineering at NAU. Faculty offices and research activities, student organizations, academic support services, and events hosting our external partners and stakeholders have all flourished in the carefully-designed laboratories, classrooms, and interaction spaces.

During the Engineering Programs' spring advisory council meeting in April 2005, our external partners were asked to formally answer two questions:

• How will this renovated facility with new equipment make a difference for you or your organization?

• What do you want students to have learned or experienced in this new facility?

The purpose of this exercise was to gather additional information from this important group of employers, alumni, supporters, and donors in support of our facility design activities. A total of forty-five multi-dimensional responses were provided, and each


response was analyzed to find common themes and needs or wants missing from our understandings. The majority of comments explicitly linked the new building to enhanced learning, including the expansion of teaching opportunities; encouragement of even more collaborative, multi-disciplinary, design, and hands-on learning; and more exposure of students to modern tools. Sixteen comments were related to how the new building may increase student numbers. Fifteen comments spoke to greater research and project capacities. A sampling of these comments included:

• "I see a strongly enhanced learning environment. Key features...are the Internet Cafe and the student interview and counseling rooms. The room organization/layout will support collaborative learning, and I hope this will extend to integration of projects and research with Natural Sciences." Tom Loomis, Flood Control District of Maricopa County

• "The close proximity of various engineering disciplines, along with state of the practice facilities, promises to develop engineers with broader vision and greater awareness of the impacts their chosen discipline has on other disciplines and the environment." Bud Clay, General Dynamics

• "Opportunity to work within an environment that's more representative of what the students will find in the current high-tech industry...a more inspiring vision of their future." Ron Carsten, Raytheon

• "Better resources and equipment will hopefully allow us to bring new projects to Engineering." Deborah Lee Soltesz, USGS

• "A state of the art facility will certainly help in attracting and retaining both (quality faculty and quality students) groups." George Bain, W.L. Gore

A few comments were cautionary with particular concern about holding onto our Design4Practice (D4P) curriculum and the type of student it produces.

• "Orbital expects a return to a student focus in the College and a focus on the D4P program that has been so instrumental in producing graduates that can hit the ground running." Eric Wood, Orbital Sciences

• "D4P needs to remain core to the program." Amanda Nemee, The Boeing Co

If we can safely summarize these comments, it appears that our advisory council partners appreciate the type of education we provide, but also recognize the limitations the old building put on offering design and project driven, team-centered curricula. They see the new building with new equipment and furnishings furthering these types of educational activities while enhancing students' use of modern tools within attractive and stimulating work spaces. High quality facilities lead to high quality education when combined with the right teaching methodologies. We always have had the methodologies, and now with a new building, the formula for high-quality undergraduate engineering education at NAU is complete.


B. Introduction to the CENE Laboratories

The significance of maintaining laboratories that will expose students to the most current of technologies and equipment is evident with the rapid pace in which these technologies and equipment are changing. Engineering technologies once referred to as "alternative" and "emerging" are now state-of-the-art. Engineers must keep abreast of new design and operational requirements associated with their application. Additionally, the information and technology revolutions will dramatically change our basic approach to designing, operating, and managing systems or processes and thus require innovations in the education of civil and environmental engineers. The expansion and renovation of the Engineering Building at Northern Arizona University provided the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering the opportunity to plan for and implement modern, high-quality teaching and learning laboratories as detailed in this report.

The overall mission of the CENE Laboratories is to provide state-of-the-art facilities which are capable of supporting both the instructional and research needs of the students and faculty, as well as to provide access to others within the University that may have well defined, synergistic educational or research needs. This mission directly supports achievement of the third outcome of our CE and ENE programs, which is:

Upon successful completion of our curricula, the students of CENE will properly apply the tools and methodologies to design and conduct experiments, to model or simulate processes and phenomena, and to analyze, interpret, and report results.

Ten unique laboratory and project areas with additional storage and office space are a part of the CENE Laboratories.

C. Assessment of Laboratory Conditions

As documented in Chapter X of this self-study report, the CENE has been actively gathering feedback from a number of constituents about a variety of issues. The senior exit and alumni surveys yielded data specific to facilities both before and after the building renovation. This feedback on the conditions of our laboratory and other educational facilities was used by the CENE to help it prioritize the needs for the Engineering Building redesign. In addition, the comparative senior exit results showed a measurable difference in students' perception about the quality of facilities before and after the building expansion and renovation.

1. Comparative Senior Exit Survey Results

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 again reinstituted a senior exit survey. The primary purpose for the current senior survey is to provide information on the overall Department environment and climate, to directly


to inform our analysis of Criteria 1, 5, and 6. Secondarily, it is being used to help qualitatively inform Criteria 3 and 7.

Table VII. 1 summarizes the senior survey results on the facilities question, comparing those seniors (Spring 2005) who completed their programs of study in the old building and in the temporary swing space during construction to those seniors (Spring 2006) who had one semester of experience in the new building. Even though the Spring 2006 seniors had also experienced the old building and the swing space, their short time in the new building significantly impacted their numerical rating.

Table VII. 1 Spring 2005 and 2006 Senior Exit Survey Results on Facilities


The quality of classrooms, experimental laboratories, and computing facilities in engineering.

Spring 2005

Average N = 21

2.7

Spring 2006

Average N = 29

3.9

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 facilities - the old building, the transition to a swing space during construction, and the newly renovated and expanded building. Our students found their time in the temporary classroom and laboratory facilities difficult, as space was limited and testing and computing equipment was either old or in storage. 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.

A supplemental piece of evidence about the facilities was gleaned from the current students through the Fall 2006 DAC Student forum, which is covered in detail in Chapter X. The DAC representatives reported back to the CENE that from the students' perspective:

"The new building facilities are working well - students are allowed access to the building on the weekends to work on projects, and the Internet Cafe is a great idea and gets used often."

2. Alumni Survey Results

The primary purpose of the alumni survey is to inform the Department about its graduates" attainment of program objectives. It also, however, 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 interval. The rewriting of program objectives and outcomes that occurred in the 2003-04 AY encouraged the CENE and its DAC to revisit the alumni


survey. This work was initiated in January 2005, edited and finalized in April for implementation in the Summer. 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.

The alumni survey specifically queried our former students on their impression of the quality of classrooms, laboratories, and computing facilities. This inquiry was within the context of 8 questions where respondents used a scale of 1 to 5 whereby 1 = poor, 3 = adequate, and 5 = excellent. The 34 responding alumni equally represented both the CE and ENE programs graduating between 2000 and 2005. The results of this set of questions are tabulated below in Table VII.2. The only question that received an average score less than 4 was Questions 3 - quality of classrooms, laboratories, and computing facilities.

In addition, respondents were asked to comment, and the responses related to facilities included the following:

• Computer facilities were small. Classrooms had outdated furniture.

• Resources were always provided

• Good.

• Great class sizes, poor building (old) and facilities. I understand there is a new hi-tech building now! Congrats!

• The lab hours and access to the building was very restrictive on weekends when time was available to work on projects. Since engineering requires a lot of time from students, there shall be access to programs which are only installed in computer labs in the CET building.

• Science labs were not great, but computer labs were real nice.

Table VII.2 Summary of Alumni Responses to "Your Overall Impressions"


1. The quality of the faculty in the department. 2. The quality of assistance provided by the faculty and department. 3. The quality of classrooms, experimental laboratories, and computing facilities. 4. Rate your overall experience at NAU.

Average

4.26 4.21 3.31 4.36

Std Dev

.57

.73 1.07 .71

D. The New CENE Laboratories

Today, the CENE utilizes modern approaches to teaching and learning with particular emphasis on hands-on, project-based learning that is embedded throughout both the CE


and ENE curricula. These modern approaches, however, make demands on physical infrastructure that are different from the traditional lecture and laboratory formats of old. The expanded and renovated Engineering Building has been designed with this project-based learning approach in mind. In addition to the CENE dedicated spaces, there are a number of building features available to all students of the Engineering Programs that are proving to enhance student learning, particularly within the experiential realms of their education including:

• Numerous small student teaming rooms and open gathering spaces are provided throughout the new building.

• Additional computing laboratories and computing social spaces (e.g. the Internet Cafe) that are available to all the students.

• Enhanced design classrooms directly supporting the Design4Practice program.

• Machine shop capabilities that maintained off-site in Building 98C, a short walk from Engineering.

Table VII.3 CENE Laboratory and Student Project Space

CENE Laboratory-Related Space

Strength of Materials and Structures Lab Concrete/Masonry Wet Lab & ASCE Projects Space Soils Lab Transportation Lab CENE Student Projects Laboratory Manager Office Surveying Equipment Room Applied Microbiology Lab Tank Closet and Small Office Environmental Instrumentation Lab Wet/Fluid Media Environmental Lab Environmental Instruction & Senior Design Lab Vented Chemical Storage & Balance Room

Approx. Square Footage

1300 700

1350 780 540 160 200 770 210 770 770 770 160

Room Number

117 115 116 114 113

113A 1008B

239 238 241 242 245

241 A, 240

Student User Groups

CE CE, CM

CE, CM, ENE CE

CE, ENE NA

CE. ENE. CM ENE ENE ENE ENE ENE ENE

Table VII.3 is the laboratory and student project spaces dedicated to the CENE in the new building. This design concentrates the civil and environmental laboratories to the southern portions of the 1st and 2nd floors of the laboratory wing. At the time of this writing (early Spring 2007), the University is completing the last remaining details of the laboratory installation for CENE. These details include construction of a tank closet for the safe-keeping of pressurized gas cylinders used in the environmental laboratories, a curing closet in Room 117, installation of additional flexible venting ducts in the environmental laboratories, and the relocation of the Strength of Materials laboratory from Building 98C to Room 117 in Engineering. The Department, although bearing the majority of costs and management issues, readily shares the Soils Lab, the Concrete/Masonry Wet Lab, and Surveying with the Department of Construction Management.


The entire CENE laboratory complex is supported by the CENE Laboratory Manager. This half-time position is a new position that was filled in the Fall of 2006 by Mr. Alarick Reiboldt. Mr. Reiboldt is currently completing his graduate degree (Master of Engineering) in Environmental Engineering at NAU. As part of the Fall 2006 University-wide macro-budget process, the CENE has requested funding to expand this position into a full-time one. In addition to Mr. Reiboldt, Dr. Terry Baxter has been formally serving, since the Spring of 2006, as the Director for the Environmental Engineering Laboratories. Dr. Baxter and Mr. Reiboldt have established a safety plan, a lab use protocol (Project Planning, Assessment and Hazards Assessment Form), and coordinated the requisite safety training for faculty and students through NAU's Office of Regulatory Compliance. A preliminary audit for compliance to OSHA by the CENE Laboratories was completed during the early Spring 2007 semester.

1. Strength of Materials and Structures Lab

The Strength of Materials and Structures Lab is a combined instructional and research facility. The faculty and staff associated with this lab include Gene Loverich, MS, PE; Joshua Hewes, PhD, PE; Debra Larson, PhD, PE; and Alarick Reiboldt, the CENE Lab Manager who also teaches the related laboratory class. This laboratory provides students with regular hands-on experiences with structural member performance, material property determination, and testing protocols and standards. It is also used to introduce new developments in solid mechanics to students.

2. Concrete/Masonry Wet Lab and ASCE Projects Space

The Concrete/Masonry Wet Lab and ASCE Projects Space provides students and faculty with the properly configured environment to support their design and construction projects involving concrete and masonry assemblies, as well as other large, hands-on engineering activities that utilize a variety of real-world construction materials. The significant set of activities enabled by this space include the concrete canoe, steel bridge and environmental design projects completed each year by the student chapter of ASCE. These projects along with other ASCE activities help to develop our student professional skills and attitudes, and the CENE continually looks for ways to support and fully integrate ASCE into the CENE. The CENE faculty typically associated with this lab includes the various members who serve as ASCE advisors and Gene Loverich, MS, PE; Clyde Holland, PhD, PE, RLS; and Debra Larson, PhD, PE. Greg Ohrn, MS, PE from the Department of Construction Management is also associated with this lab. The CENE has recently received two separate donations of respectively $4,000 and $3,000 to help with new equipment purchase for this lab in support of the ASCE projects along with an agreement by the donor to let CENE use this gift as leverage for other related requests.

3. Soils Lab

The Soils Lab is an instructional student project facility and provides additional opportunity for faculty and student research. The faculty members associated with the Soils Lab are Clyde Holland, PhD, PE, RLS and Charles Schlinger, PhD, PE, PGp, PG.


In CENE 383, students complete twelve to fifteen laboratory exercises involving the measurement of selected engineering properties of soils. Special student projects, undergraduate research and faculty research will be encouraged and supported. New equipment acquisitions will focus on the measurement of soil index properties, grains size, consistency, shear strength, consolidation, and permeability. Numerical simulation of slope stability, stress-strain behavior and seepage will be supported, as will model testing of retaining structures, shallow and deep foundations, and permeability.

4. Transportation Lab

The Transportation Lab was developed and is managed by faculty member Craig A. Roberts, PhD, PE, RLS. He both teaches and conducts research in the lab using undergraduate student research assistants. Three transportation courses are a part of the Civil Engineering program and all use this lab. Ten computer workstations are provided to support the specialized applications software used in actual practice. The Traffic Studies and Signal Systems lab also uses the workstations for signal systems design. This lab possesses an extensive array of signal control hardware and data acquisition devices, and is designed to provide input video feeds from partner agencies, i.e., from their traffic management centers and traffic control devices installed in the field. These capabilities will enable students to learn how to design and operate Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS).

5. CENE Student Projects Space

This is a dedicated computing and work space for all students of CENE to support their many design project activities and student project competitions. The projects room

At the time of this report submittal, the CENE successfully completed the search process and hired Dr. Ed Smaglik as a new Assistant Professor in Transportation. As part of Dr. Smaglik's start-up package, the Dean's Office agreed to provide $10,000 for the installation of a test loop deck located adjacent to the Engineering building.


contains 6 new computer workstations (purchased Summer 2006) with specialized software, an 11 x 17" printer, and additional work and storage space.

6. Surveying Equipment

The CENE teaches a sophomore level surveying course, CENE 270 with Lab. The Laboratory course learning outcomes address students' ability to:

• Set up a tripod with instrument over a control point (monument).

• Set up and use vertical levels, total stations, and data collectors to acquire topographic survey, cross-sectional, slope, distance, and other related survey data;

• Download, process, evaluate and present topographic and other survey data;

• Utilize G1S and aerial topographic data sets as part of civil engineering projects;

• Read and use horizontal and vertical control plan sheets;

• Use trigonometry and geometry for surveying computations;

• Determine what kinds of surveying can be conducted by registered civil engineers in the States of Arizona and California.

The related equipment is stored in room 1008A and is regularly cleaned and maintained by the CENE Laboratory manager. Since the Fall of 2004, the CENE department has been making incremental investments in new surveying equipment and software. This investment has included, to date, four data loggers, a total station, battery chargers, tapes, rods, stakes, and other miscellaneous equipment. The additional pending needs2 include one more total station with data logger and the incremental replacement of the older levels. The faculty members associated with surveying are Charles Schlinger, PhD, PE, PGp, PG; Wilbert Odem, PhD, PE, and Craig Roberts, PhD, PE, RLS.

7. Applied Microbiology Lab

The Applied Microbiology Lab is an instructional support lab that provides a controlled-access space with equipment for conducting biological observations, methods, exercises and design projects for all CENE labs or courses that involve a lab-based microbiological component. The Civil and Environmental Engineering Faculty who teach in and use this laboratory include Wilbert Odem, PhD, PE, Terry Baxter, PhD, PE, Paul Trotta, PhD, PE, and Paul Gremillion, PhD, PE.

At the time of this report submittal, the CENE has been able to commit enough dollars through class fees and emergency funding from the Dean's Office to purchase two additional Total Station equipment set-ups for use in the Fall 2007 semester.

Chapter VII Facilities (Criterion 6) Page. VII-11

8. Environmental Instrumentation Lab

The Environmental Instrumentation Lab is a 3-room instructional support lab that combines major analytical equipment, chemical storage and chemical weighing abilities in a convenient central location within the Environmental Engineering labs. Compressed gases will be plumbed into this room from a single outside location. The faculty who are associated with this laboratory include Wilbert Odem, PhD, PE; Terry Baxter, PhD, PE; Bridget Bero, PhD, PE; and Paul Gremillion, PhD, PE.

9. Wet/Fluid Media Environmental Lab

The Wet/Fluid Media Environmental Lab is an instructional support laboratory that provides space for conducting or staging lab exercises in applied hydraulics and air quality. It also serves as space where field equipment used for these exercises will be located. The faculty who are associated with this laboratory include Charles Schlinger PhD, PE, PGp, PG; Wilbert Odem, PhD, PE; Terry Baxter, PhD, PE; Paul Trotta, PhD, PE; and Paul Gremillion, PhD, PE.

10. Environmental Instruction Lab

The Environmental Instruction Lab is the primary laboratory lecture space intended to support most instructional needs, including basic/routine wet lab, bench-top analytical procedures. The faculty associated with this laboratory include Wilbert Odem, PhD, PE; Terry Baxter, PhD, PE; Bridget Bero, PhD, PE; Paul Trotta, PhD, PE; and Paul Gremillion, PhD, PE.

Figures VII.5 and 6 The Microbiology and Environmental Instruction Labs

E. Additional Equipment Purchases

As part of the previous self-study in preparation for the Fall 2005 ABET Focus Visit, the CENE identified additional laboratory needs as summarized in Table VI1.4. These items


were chosen for two reasons: (1) they provide an adequate laboratory experience in accordance to the curricular demands, and (2) they are in direct response to the observations made by the civil and environmental engineering students. Table VII.5 lists the purchases made since January of 2006. The differences between what was identified and what was purchased occurred as additional needs were realized upon moving back into the new Engineering Building. Computing software is discussed in Section E of this Chapter.

Table VII.4 Laboratory Equipment Needs Identified in June 2005

Items 1. Computers and plotter/printer 2. Bench top meters 3. Upgrade TO plus data acquisition system 4. Glassware washer, microscope, autoclave, centrifuge 5. Computer works stations & software 6. One additional fume hood 7. GCs, mercury/ammonia/nitrate analyzers 8. Spectrophotometer, hydrogen generator 9. Lab Flume 10. Total Station, data loggers, and miscellaneous equipment

Laboratory CENE Projects Room Environmental Instruction Strengths of Materials & Structures Applied Microbiology Wet/Fluid Media Environmental Environmental Instrumentation Environmental Instrumentation Environmental Instrumentation Wet/Fluid Media Environmental Surveying

Tables VII.4 and VII.5 represent a multi-year approach funded primarily through class fees, the CENS Dean's contribution of $10,000 per year for three years to the ENE labs, and $20,000 in FF&E funds earmarked for the Department's discretion; and secondarily through research grants and capital development. The June 2005 self-study made note of our plans to revisit class fees and to increase these fees by $10 to $15 per student per course for the purpose of purchasing and maintaining laboratory and classroom equipment. These plans were implemented in the Fall of 2005 and the new course fees went into effect in the Spring of 2006. Based upon this past semester's experience (Fall 2006), we are realistically expecting a 2006-07 class fee budget of at least $43,000 representing an increase of $19,000 that goes directly into laboratory and classroom equipment, and student computing infrastructure.

Table VII.5 CENE Laboratory Purchases

Student User

Group ENE

Actual Purchases or Status (as of 12/06)

l DO Meter l Self-stirring BOD Probe l Bench top pH/Conductivity/TDS Meter l Light Meter l Quantum Sensor Misc. tubing, values, clamps, bulbs, fillers Materials & equipment for water purifier 2 Tissue grinders l Used Refrigerator for Tissue Storage Stir-pack mixer and connectors 4 Brushes for Stir-pack motor

Expense $l.66l.l6

$616.99 $799.00 $595.00 $340.00 $607.34 $961.92 $273.02

$1,000.00 $956.00

$72.00


ENE, CE &ME ENE & CE

CE

1 Ammonia Ion Selective Electrode 1 Replacement membrane for Ammonia ISE 1 Gravity Convection Oven 1 Single Still & plumbing supplies 2 Cases of Serum bottles & stoppers Microscope consumables & camera adapter 2 Sedgwick-Rafter Cells Fume Hood (Table I1I.4, Item 6), installed prior to occupancy Purchased and future installation of 4 flexible hoods & ducting Nitrogen, carbon dioxide gases & regulators Misc. chemicals and analytical supplies Misc. supplies (gloves, filters, wax pencils) 1 Cutthroat Flume 1 Ultrasonic Portable Flow Meter 1 Total Station, 2 Data Loggers (Surveying) 5 Computer Work Stations (CENE Projects room) 2 Allen Instr. Survey Pro Data Loggers, 20 Styliis Pens (Surveying) Misc. surveying equipment (tapes, flagging) Batteries, charging station equipment (Surveying) 1 Used 11" x 17" Printer (CENE Projects Room) 3 Ovens, 1 vacuum pump, 2 elect. Balances, misc equip (for Soils) 1 Computerized data acquisition system (Mechanics of Materials) 10 Computer Stations (Transportation Lab)

$299.00 $59.95

$1,928.00 $2,896.60

$368.99 $411.54 $205.00

** $33,237.00

$410.90 $598.28 $332.44

$1,500.00 $5,550.00

$10,959.00 $8,000.00 $2,853.34

$246.21 $911.82 $160.00

$6,765.85 $8,500.00

$15,000.00

F. Computing

In addition to the University's Instructional Technology Services, the CENS maintains its own IT staff that effectively serves the specialized computing needs of the students and faculty of the Engineering Programs. This local staff consists of 2 Support Systems Analysts and a number of student workers, who successfully manage and maintain the many computing labs and classrooms, as well as faculty office and research needs. The local staff is supervised by the Director of the CENS IT services, Mr. Tom Baca.

1. University Instructional Technology Services

Northern Arizona University provides significant network and computing infrastructure for students and faculty through the Information Technology Services (ITS) organization. The overall NAU strategic plan (see http://www.nau.edu/pair) establishes priorities and needs that are reflected in the annual Information Technology Strategic Plan (available at http://www.nau.edu/its). ITS student and faculty resource allocations and needs are developed with input from the Provost's Academic Computing Advisory Committee (see http://www.nau.edu/provost/pacac) and this input is factored into the strategic plan. An example of a recent strategic decision is the board approval to increase the IT Fee by $1 in order to finish providing wireless access to all campus buildings, starting with the residence halls in the summer of 2007. Another initiative led to acquiring the Microsoft Select License Agreement allowing students to purchase MS Office and other MS software at a 58% discount.


http://www.nau.edu/pair


http://www.nau.edu/provost/pacac

The ITS organizational chart (available at http://www.nau.edu/its) shows a Chief Information Technology Officer, who reports to the President, and four organizational areas. In addition to providing comprehensive online administrative services, the central ITS organization provides students with active directory services, email, a 24 hour help desk, computer labs, a central file server, a central course management system, and residence hall network services. Student computing services are also tightly coordinated with the Cline Library and Disability Services. The latter collaboration has resulted in making universal access software such as JAWS, Kurzweil 3000, and Inspiration available on all lab and library machines.

A listing of open computer labs and software available to all students can be found at http://www.nau.edu/achd. The mountain campus hosts 14 open computer labs with over 300 computers; the distance learning organization supports another 25 computer labs across the state. Other central student resources include a walk-in service center where students can get help removing malware, a software download page, an extensive knowledge base, local tools for changing passwords, and an online "TIPS" course for learning how to navigate and use campus online resources. The Academic Computing Help Desk also coordinates support for the residence hall network (see http://www.nau.edu/resnet).

The ITS organization provides the network infrastructure that is increasingly critical to student success. Off-campus students still have free access to dialup modem banks—for some rural areas these are still the best available option for students needing to connect to the Internet, although the Academic Computing Help Desk recommends students purchase broadband services whenever possible. Residence hall students have access to 200 Mbs of commodity Internet over a robust, centrally managed campus network that includes 1 Gbs connections between buildings with a l00Mbs standard for in-building networks. University network resources are managed by the ITS Network Operations Center, which has the resources necessary to do regular maintenance and upgrades to network infrastructure. This group also monitors commodity and Internet 2 usage and reports to the CITO when bandwidth needs to be increased. To date, funding has kept up with observed Internet bandwidth usage patterns.

Resources to maintain and upgrade ITS services are provided through a combination of state funding and a $3 per credit hour IT fee capped at 12 units per semester. Student input in spending the IT fee led to opening a second 24 hour computer lab on the south campus to compliment the existing 24 hour computer lab in the Cowden honors hall and the 24 hour help desk. These initiatives also secured another help desk staff position, so there is now a full-time staff member covering critical evening and weekend hours. Engineering students especially seem to make good use of the 24 hour south campus open lab. These students routinely use group study areas to access both wireless and wired network connections to work collaboratively on engineering assignments and projects.



http://www.nau.edu/achd

http://www.nau.edu/resnet

2. Local Computing

Beyond the CENE Projects room, the CENE students have ready access to the shared computing infrastructure supplied throughout the Engineering Building. The building is wireless enabled. The 24/7 Internet Cafe contains 9 computing stations and printer, and most importantly, the full suite of specialized software that students can access at any time to complete their various engineering projects and assignments. Room 112 has recently become another open access overflow computing room with 12 stations. Room 317 is a 30-seat computer classroom specially designed to teach software applications. When this room is not used for teaching, it is an open access facility. Other computing is available to students when not being used for teaching or other department-specific activities. These facilities include:

• The Construction Management Simulation Lab, Room 315, is a 17-seat computer laboratory managed by the Department of Construction Management.

• The Electronics Labs, Room 234 and 245, managed by the Department of Electrical Engineering.

• The Unix Lab, Room 106, managed by the Department of Electrical Engineering.

• The Computer Science Thin Client Lab, Room 105, managed by the Department of Computer Science.

Every computer lab is installed with a basic set of software including:

• Accessories: irfanView, MS Calc Plus, MS Power Calc, GraphCalc, PSPad, and TweakUI;

• Base Applications: CutePDF Writer, Ghostscript, ghostview, Java jdk/jre and NetBeans IDE (Currently jdk = 1.6.0 NetBeans = 5.5);

• General Applications: Microsoft Office, Adobe Reader

• Internet Applications: Firefox, Flash, Gaim, IE, QuickTime, RealPlayer, Shockwave, SSH Workstation, Sun Global Desktop

The CENE also purchases specialized software, at approximately $12,000 per AY, for use by the students and faculty. The following lists only that software which is currently being used in class. This accounting does not include legacy software that faculty may be using on an irregular and non-student basis.

• COSMOS Finite Element,

• AutoCAD and AutoDesk Land Development Suite,

• Retainpro,

• TerraModel,

• Bentley HEC,


• SYNCRO, SIMTraffic, HCS, HiCAP, and

• Flow2D.

Upon the completion of the CENE Projects Room (occurred in the Summer of 2006) and 24/7 Internet Cafe (late Spring 2006) facilities, the computing needs of the CENE students are determined to be more than adequate to meet the educational needs of the CE and ENE programs.



Chapter VIII Table of Contents

A. Background 1 B. Organizational and Administrative Structure 2

1. College Structure 2 2. College Leadership 3

C. Improved University Finances 4 1. Institutional Financial Status 4 2. College Financial Status 6

D. Salaries, Staffing, and Local Financial Support 7 E. Faculty Processes 10

1. Faculty Engagement and Governance 10 2. Curricular Programs and Development 12

F. Physical Infrastructure 12 G. A Positive Indicator of Impact 13

A. Background

As noted in Chapter I, the NAU's Engineering Programs recently participated in a successful review with ABET focusing on Criterion 7, as well as the pre-existing concerns in the Civil and Environmental Engineering programs that are reported on elsewhere in this self-study document. This focus review was initiated due to a weakness in Criterion 7, issued in response to NAU's campus wide restructuring1, which occurred over Spring and Summer 2004. The Engineering programs submitted a focus self-study in June 2005, followed by a site visit in October 2005. The Draft Statement of findings, dated May 1, 2006, reported that the "weakness is now cited as a concern", and acknowledged a number of improvements, including:

• reorganization and administration efforts have resulted in an improved fiscal situation;

• institutional strengths included continued student enthusiasm, leadership by dean and appreciation by the faculty of consistent direction;

• improved opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration had been created; and

approximately 40 independent research and outreach centers and institutes. The restructured University consisted of 6 colleges, with most research and outreach centers integrated into the academic reporting lines.


• (upcoming) completion2 of the engineering building renovation and expansion was viewed as a "very encouraging step".

The evaluation team encouraged us to use the Draft Statement response process as an opportunity to document the completion of the engineering building renovation, as the building and its related features could not be examined during previous autumn's visit. Thus, we documented in our 30-day response report not only the details of our new building, but also the additional progress made within our newly restructured college. The Final Statement issued August 21, 2006 resolved the concern for all the Engineering programs at NAU.

In this Chapter, we report upon more recent progress made between the 30-day response report submitted in May of 2006 and the writing of this self-study, in addition to general context-informing background.

B. Organizational and Administrative Structure

1. College Structure

In June 2004, the Arizona Board of Regents approved the April 12, 2004 proposal for internal restructuring of the academic units (colleges) of Northern Arizona University. 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 and 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 many programs from both parent colleges.

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 accredited engineering programs reside in three departments - Civil and Environmental, Electrical, and Mechanical - and account for 27 full-time faculty and 5893 enrolled undergraduate majors. Associated with the Engineering Programs because of their physical location in the Engineering building and through long-standing historical relationships are the Departments of Construction Management and Computer Science. These two departments add another 2893 undergraduate students and 10 full-time faculty to the entity broadly known as Engineering at NAU. The College also includes a number

"Building expansion and renovation was completed in mid-December of 2005, which was followed immediately by the Engineering Programs reoccupying the building during the Winter Break period. The Spring 2006 classes were held in the new building. 'Full and part-time students pursuing undergraduate degrees according to the Fall 2006 21-day enrollment count.


of research centers and institutes that are now incorporated into the academic reporting lines of the institution. The interaction of these centers with the academic departments has 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.

During the first two years of the College's formation, two different interim structures were used to guarantee leadership for Engineering and to facilitate the transition from the previous CET structure of a softer department model dependent upon a central administration to the new CENS structure of independent departments. During the first year in 2004-05, a Director of Engineering Programs position was established and Professor Bill Auberle, PE (from the CENE) willingly served in this capacity. The Director worked closely with the Dean and Associate Deans to aid in the initial formation of college-wide processes and to provide continuity of external relationships with supporters and stakeholders of the engineering programs. During the second year in 2005-06, the Director model was modified to an Associate Dean model and Dr. Debra Larson, PE took on the role of Associate Dean for Engineering and Professional Programs, while also serving as Chair of the CENE. In Spring 2006, the Dean invited the engineering faculty to explore and study various organizational and administrative options. One faculty member from each program volunteered for this committee, and their work resulted in a thorough report presenting the pros and cons of three different structures workable for the Engineering units. Over Summer 2006, following discussion and input from faculty and staff, a decision was made regarding the most optimal structure and the Engineering programs took the final step towards the department-centric model of today. Dr. Larson resigned as Associate Dean of Engineering, returning to the Chair's role fulltime, and the Associate Dean of Engineering position was eliminated. An additional commitment was made by Dean Huenneke to staff both the Design4Practice program and the master-level graduate program(s), programs that are actively shared across the departments, with a half-time Director (D4P) and a part-time Graduate Coordinator recruited from the existing faculty.

2. College Leadership

The CENS has a unique, broad, and deep leadership team with the right mix of expertise and skills to effectively and efficiently lead, manage, and administer. This team consists of the Dean, two Associate Deans, Department Chairs, and Center Directors. The Dean is the team leader and holds overall responsibility for personnel (both faculty and staff), for budgetary matters, and for advancement of the quality and scope of the academic programs. The Associate Dean for Academic Affairs assists all departments and programs with questions and initiatives in instruction, curriculum, assessment, and student affairs. The Associate Dean for Research, a new position for any college within NAU, leads research and faculty development within the college.

The Dean of CENS, Dr. Laura Huenneke, was the former Dean of Arts & Sciences and comes from the discipline of environmental biology and ecosystem science. Dr. Huenneke is committed to the development and support of integrative, interdisciplinary

Chapler VI11 Institutional Support (Criterion 7) Page VIII-3

approaches to the advancement of degree programs, students, and faculty across engineering and science. Dr. Barry Lutz, a former long-standing Chair of the Department of Physics, serves as the Associate Dean of Academic Affairs. Dr. Lutz brings important institutional and process knowledge to the leadership team. Dr. Stan Lindstedt, a Regents Professor with expertise in physiology and functional morphology, serves as the Associate Dean of Research. Dr. Lindstedt is a highly recognized researcher who is interested in furthering the college's focus on undergraduate research and design through multi-disciplinary projects and activities, as well as enhancing professional and research opportunities for faculty. Dr. Lindstedt initiated a Dean's Research Council, comprising accomplished research scholars from across the college, to assist in strategic planning for the advancement of research and application.

Each of the departments is led by a chairperson. Dr. Debra Larson, PE chairs the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Dr. Peter Vadasz chairs the Department of Mechanical Engineering. Dr. David Scott chairs the Department of Electrical Engineering. Dr. Tom Rogers, PE chairs the Department of Construction Management. Dr. Eck Doerry chairs the Department of Computer Science. The primary responsibility of each chair in the college is to lead, manage, and administer the respective departments, while also contributing to college wide initiatives and processes. The chairs work closely with the Dean and with the Associate Deans, and hold important leadership roles in the new college.

The college leadership team works with the Dean and Associate Deans in strategic planning and reporting. In the first year of the college, a general mission, vision, and values statement were adopted, and the leadership group established initial strategic goals related to clarifying college processes and priorities. In each of the years since then, the strategic goals are revisited and annual performance assessed. Over time the college has established benchmarks for multiple areas of performance so that performance and accomplishments related to each strategic goal can be assessed in context.

Both the former College of Engineering & Technology and the former College of Arts & Sciences had established external advisory groups (for the CET, a College of Engineering Industrial Council comprising a College Advisory Council to assist the dean, and Departmental Advisory Councils for each program; for the CAS, an A&S Advisory Council). The college-level advisory groups have been integrated as a Dean"s Leadership Council; this group of highly successful alumni, industry representatives, and other supporters provide valuable insights to the Dean regarding strategic initiatives and are active in development and fundraising.

C. Improved University Finances

1. Institutional Financial Status

Five years ago, the university was struggling with a multi-year enrollment decline, leading to serious financial challenges. Thanks to leadership and strategic investment at the highest levels, Northern Arizona University finds itself in a very different situation

Chapter VIII Institutional Support (Criterion 7) Page VII1-4

today. Enrollment has grown each year for several years; the Arizona Board of Regents has reaffinned its support for the unique and valuable mission of the university within the state system; a vigorous marketing and public affairs effort has reinforced the messages about program quality and distinctiveness; and continued success of faculty in gaining external funding and carrying out high-quality research and outreach has bolstered university capabilities. Specifically within the college, reorganization has yielded a stronger fiscal infrastructure better able to support the missions of the engineering programs. Financial resources have been protected, extended, and realigned; program staff added; student support services enhanced; and faculty and administrative processes revitalized.

The University's increased attention, beginning in 2004, to fiscal matters through restructuring, marketing and student recruitment, tuition increases, and other budgetary inputs from the State has been positive. In addition, the State of Arizona's ability to make additional and incremental contributions, also beginning in 2004, to the University's General Fund allocation has been positive. Figure VIII.1 summarizes the historical expenditure and general fund allocations for NAU since 1996 FY to the budgeted 2007 FY. This figure, along with other state budget details, is found at http://www4.nau.edu/pair/Budget/StateBudgetBooks/stbudbookfy07vers3main.pdf. To summarize: the University's state budget book for FY07 showed a total of $178,656,000 in base budget: about 75 % of that derives from state appropriations and head-count funding, and about 25 % from tuition and student fee collections. Both categories of support were significantly higher in FY07 than in the previous year (with $11.4 M in new state funding for enrollment growth, compensation increases, and new priorities, and $3.2 M increase in tuition collections). The University's 2007 FY All Funds (corresponding to the 2006-07 AY) report is found at http://www4.nau.edu/pair/Budget/AllFundsOperatinuBudKetReports/ and provides the details of NAU's current fiscal situation.

At the time of this writing, the state legislature has not finalized its appropriation for next year (nor are tuition revenues completely known). However, it appears that the state will be adding new money to the university's budget to fund further compensation increases for employees, and perhaps funding special programs focused on recruiting, retaining, and graduating teachers, scientists, and engineers. The CENS, the primary contributor to these student categories at NAU, should see budgetary improvements as the result of this allocation, if this budget item remains in the final and approved budget.

The University generates roughly $50 - 55 M in sponsored project (external grant) activity each year, with indirect cost recovery representing an additional source of institutional revenue. Until recent years the institution used the "short form" method of calculating indirect costs, charging and collecting only on personnel costs within a project. As of FY06 the institution now calculates indirect costs on Total Modified Direct Costs (TMDC) basis; indirect cost recovery is modest (about $4.2 M per year) due to a large proportion of educational and public service projects, but increasing.


http://www4.nau.edu/pair/Budget/StateBudgetBooks/stbudbookfy07vers3main.pdf

http://www4.nau.edu/pair/Budget/AllFundsOperatinuBudKetReports/

Figure VIII.1 Historical Expenditures and Appropriations

As a result of the positive trends in fiscal matters, the University today is making new investments in student services including those programs that increase academic success and enhance student retention, making further adjustments in faculty and staff salaries, renovating the campus' physical and IT infrastructure, and extending services through distance delivery and co-location at the State's community college campuses. In FY08, new university investments will include a new position of Vice President for Research, with a separate Dean of Graduate Studies (previously these two offices were directed by a single Vice Provost of Research and Graduate Studies); a new Vice Provost for International Education; and a major step toward tuition waivers for graduate assistants (a remission of 50 % of tuition for GA"s), increasing the institution's ability to recruit excellent graduate students.

2. College Financial Status

During the 2003-04 academic year, NAU's academic units were asked to cut and return an average of 2.5 % of their total state budgets. The CET was initially asked to make a lesser cut of 1.7 %, and by the end of that year when cuts were finalized the impact to the CET was even less. In spring and summer 2004, the institution sought to capture as many vacant faculty and staff positions as possible, in a desire to re-allocate funds to increase salaries. The engineering programs were protected from these cuts, losing only one-half of one position coming vacant during the year due to a retirement. Most other academic units lost all of their vacant lines. The engineering programs were held almost harmless during this time, so as not to negatively impact the viability and vigor of the programs.

Today the College of Engineering & Natural Sciences receives a state budget of roughly $13 M, of which more than 90 % is allocated to personnel costs. Additional college


revenues are generated each year through summer school revenue return and through indirect cost recovery. Because CENS is a major contributor to sponsored project activity (generating roughly half the new award dollars for the entire university each year), indirect cost return is an important resource. Both summer school returns and indirect costs are shared between the Dean's office and the units that generated the funds, to create incentives for further revenue generation while providing for faculty startup, matching or cost share on grant-funded projects, and other necessary college-wide investments.

D. Salaries, Staffing, and Local Financial Support

With the recapturing of positions and the internal restructuring, the university moved in 2004-05 to address the single highest priority on campus - compensation for faculty and staff. Classified staff and service professionals saw a $1,000 across-the-board increase in salary. Faculty members received more substantive adjustments, with assistant professors receiving the smallest adjustment of $2,000 and full professors the largest adjustment of $5,000 per FTE. The tiered adjustments reflected the fact that new hires have consistently been made nearer to market levels, but full professors were the furthest from market, being the most severely compressed by the years of small or no raises.

In March of 2006, an additional raise was approved by the Arizona legislature. Each university employee saw an increase of $1,650 and the University was given an additional 2.5 percent to apply as merit-based raises. In January of 2007, the University allocated an additional total (from internal reallocations) of $757,337: $642,083 for salaries to adjust for market conditions and salary compression and $115,254 for increases in employee-related expenses (benefits). Six academic professionals and 186 faculty members from across the University were beneficially impacted. In the CENE, four faculty members realized these adjustments including Dr. Odem, Dr. Bero, Dr. Trotta and Professor Auberle.

Faculty and staff salaries continue to be the highest priority for the University, which is dedicated to recruiting and maintaining excellent faculty for sustaining strong programs. While the state's FY08 budget is not yet signed (as of this writing), it appears that the legislature will fund a 3 % increase for all university employees; the university is considering whether additional adjustments (from internal reallocations) are appropriate to address remaining equity or compression issues.

The Engineering programs have been protected from most university-wide fiscal realignments such as the practice of sweeping open faculty lines into control of the Provost's office for her re-allocation to the university's highest needs. For example, during 2006-07 AY, the Electrical Engineering Department realized two faculty vacancies due to retirements and was able to conduct searches immediately to fill these vacancies; the Electrical Engineering Department consequently and successfully hired two assistant professors. Similarly, two faculty members of the CENE have been successful in their bid for a permanent reduced workload situation in a staged retirement scenario. The Dean and Provost supported CENE's proposal to bundle the remaining


portions of each individual's position into a retained FTE. The CENE is currently conducting a search to fill this position with an Assistant Professor possessing expertise in transportation and/or geotechnical engineering. In general, the Dean has been supportive of exploring alternative or non-standard ways of structuring faculty positions and assignments in order to provide incentives and flexibility for faculty members to pursue professional opportunities that would benefit them, the College, and our students.

At the time of the university restructuring, the former College of Engineering & Technology had lost most state-funded staff positions and operations dollars; staff were generally supported on soft money, and departments depended upon the dean for most basic operating expenses. At the time of restructuring, Dean Huenneke moved several key staff positions onto state support, and over the next two years moved progressively more of the former CET dean's operations budget into individual departments. State budget totals and positions for the Engineering Programs specifically are outlined in Appendix II. The College continues to make additional investments in support staff for engineering and related activities. These additions, achieved via internal college-level funding reallocations or job realignments, include:

• administrative associate for the engineering programs - filled in 2005-06,

• administrative assistant dedicated primarily to academic programs and student academic support - in 2005-06,

• support staff for college technology - two support analyst positions filled in Summer of 2006,

• (half-time) recruiting coordinator to support outreach to pre-university students -filled in 2005-06,

• two (half-time) lab managers, for Electrical Engineering and the CENE - filled in Summer of 2006,

• scholarship/internship coordinator - filled Summer of 2006,

• administrative assistant to support the Engineering Chairs - filled Spring 2007,

• faculty director for the Design4Practice program - candidate identified and assignment to be effective in FY08,

• faculty Graduate Coordinator for the existing Master's of Engineering and the anticipated Master of Science in Engineering -job description being refined for implementation with the new MSE (fall 2008).

The larger size and resource base of the new college permits a more flexible and responsive manner of addressing instructional and other staffing needs. The college has an annual process for allocating resources to cover needs not fully addressed by the state budget. Each spring we project the salary savings from sabbaticals, faculty buyout of academic year salary on research grants, and discretionary income from summer school. Departments prepare and justify requests to call upon those dollars to support their staffing and other needs. Much of the staffing is allocated to cover teaching needs in the departments and programs supporting sabbatical leaves or research buy-out. However, in the larger college, there has been the opportunity to cross-subsidize programs. The


estimated allocation for temporary staffing dollars for the next academic year for the four engineering programs is $180,734 of which the CENE request is $84,171. At least half of these dollars are coming from the general college pool. (In addition, the central university administration has made temporary staffing dollars available in the last two years to cover the recent enrollment growth, a commitment to provide all needed seats for incoming students even though the state's funding of the institution does not yet fully reflect the impact of recent growth, due to the 3-year rolling average funding formula.)

The University and the College have been able to dedicate new financial support to the continued professional development of faculty. The Provost's office has initiated a travel grants program, inviting faculty to apply for support for travel to professional conferences or other development activities. While the Provost has funded only a portion of the total requests, the Dean has provided partial support to virtually every applicant from the college. Further, the Dean uses the state capital budget and indirect cost return for funding startup budgets for new faculty hires and purchasing laboratory equipment. The guarantee of some startup funding for faculty hired in the engineering programs was almost nonexistent in years previous. This is, however, an essential element of recruiting and supporting new faculty members and the college is committed to providing appropriate startup budgets.

The CENS leads NAU in scope and success of research activity, with more than $24 million in sponsored projects (new awards) during FY2005. This level of activity provides the CENS with an unprecedented ability to cross-subsidize its undergraduate teaching and learning facilities and activities through research. For example, $20,000 worth of new equipment and software was acquired for the Civil Engineering's Transportation Laboratory. This equipment was part of a research project that became part of the teaching lab once the research was completed. This type of investment is contrary to the economic decisions being made at many of our nation's four-year institutions today. Cross-subsidizing undergraduate education through research occurs because the CENS strongly values undergraduate education, and uses this value as a guide to its practices and decisions. NAU (largely CENS faculty and staff) was highly successful in this year's competitions for the new investment dollars in Science Foundation Arizona.

The College (and the university as a whole) recognizes that state and tuition support are not sufficient to provide the quality of educational experience or the full promise of the college's new opportunities; thus there has been renewed attention to advancement efforts in the form of development and fundraising. The College has a full-time Director of Development, Ms. Bonnie O'Donnell, who works closely with the Dean to identify prospective supporters of college initiatives. Ms. O'Donnell works primarily in the area of major gifts ($25K or greater), but has also assisted the Dean in revitalizing an annual campaign strategy for smaller gifts and has worked with department chairs in building alumni relations, annual giving campaigns, and campaigns for specific department-level initiatives.


E. Faculty Processes

1. Faculty Engagement and Governance

Faculty are the acknowledged heart and soul of any academic program. The CENS is enriched by a talented group of faculty-scholars who demonstrate both high levels of professional activity and strong commitment to engagement with undergraduate students. Recent histories of faculty governance structures, faculty support, and administrative approaches varied greatly across the departments in their previous colleges. An important element of the restructuring, then, has been renewed attention to basic faculty processes and governance. We are taking pains to explore previous approaches and to share best practices across units in order to engage and support faculty as the heart of the college. We recognize how important suitable processes are to motivating new ways of doing things and creating cross-disciplinary collaborations.

College-wide committees have been established, comprising members from engineering and from science and math programs. These include the following:

• Budget Committee: reviews college-wide resources and expenditures, advises Dean on priorities in staffing;

• Startup and Indirect Cost Committee: works with Associate Dean for Research to recommend policies for distribution and use of indirect cost returns to the college, reviews patterns of investment in faculty startup and in other support;

• Enhancement of Instruction Committee: works with Associate Dean for Academic Affairs to recommend programs of support for faculty development in the area of instruction, and to explore other mechanisms for improving the college's academic offerings;

• Assessment Committee: this is a group that has chosen to self-organize and continue work as the collaboration of assessment representatives from all departments, after a successful Assessment Workshop organized by the Dean this year;

• Development and Outreach Committee: works with the Dean and the development officer to promote and advance the college, including public relations and outreach efforts as well as fundraising;

• Door-to-Door Committee: works with the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs on issues related to student recruitment and retention, as well as scholarship, internship and employment support;

• International Committee: has revised and revitalized a certificate program for international experiences in science and engineering, and will be working with the incoming Vice Provost for International Education to maximize opportunities for our students to develop an understanding of the global nature of technology and science today.


These committees are in addition to the standard Curriculum and Promotion & Tenure Committees, which have formal representation from every department. Dr. Bridget Bero of the CENE served as Chair of the 2006-07 CENS P&T committee. The Associate Dean for Research has also established a Research Council, dedicated to strategic planning for enhancement of research and professional activities across the college. The Associate Deans work with committees, as appropriate, and with departments or individual faculty members as consultants and resources.

Meanwhile the college is committed to providing the strongest possible support for individual faculty members in their development as scholars and instructors. The college organizes an annual Promotion and Tenure workshop in spring, to guide all faculty members who plan to apply for tenure and/or promotion in the subsequent fall. To date, three workshops have been offered, providing advice about the teaching-research balance, the preparation of annual reports and of tenure application packages, and so on. The Dean has arranged a faculty mentor for one assistant professor in engineering desiring the support and guidance of an established faculty member outside his own (small) department.

Each department also staffs its own respective Faculty Status Committee (FSC) that provides peer review and input to the Promotion and Tenure, and Annual Review processes. The CENE FSC in 2006-07 was staffed by Professor Bill Auberle, Dr. Bridget Bero and Dr. Craig Roberts. In addition, the CENE also help to staff the respective FSCs of the Departments of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. Given that the current faculty composition of these two departments was weighted heavily toward the Assistant Professor ranks, each department needed assistance in fully staffing their FSCs with Associate or higher ranked faculty.

In the 2006-07 AY, one CENE faculty member (Dr. Paul Gremillion) and one EE faculty member (Dr. Phil Mlsna) made application for promotion to Associate Professor with tenure. Both received favorable recommendations from their departments, from the College P&T Committee, and from the Dean; both were granted tenure with promotion. All faculty members from the engineering programs who have applied for promotion and/or tenure since the restructuring have been successful. An annual college-wide P&T workshop each spring, along with less formal mentoring and feedback added to the annual pre-tenure review process, ensures that faculty receive constructive and regular feedback on expectations and performance as they progress toward promotion.

Finally, the College and Dean are committed to the concept of faculty governance and engagement. We work to ensure college faculty representation in important campus initiatives. The Dean regularly communicates with faculty and staff (most frequently through an email update), and builds in a process of faculty feedback on the strategic plan and other college initiatives. Department chairs receive 360-degree reviews or feedback from their colleagues after 3 or 4 years of service, and in spring 2007 the faculty and staff of the College were invited to provide feedback on Dean Huenneke's performance to the Provost in her systematic review of academic deans.


2. Curricular Programs and Development

Over the 2006-07 AY, NAU has demonstrated increased support and enthusiasm for masters-level programs within Engineering. The University continues to invest heavily in technology, staff, and classroom infrastructure in support of distance delivered courses and outreach beyond the Flagstaff campus. This investment is vitally important to the success of our existing tri-university Master of Engineering program intended to serve place-bound students. More importantly, NAU recently endorsed the development of a residential, thesis-based Master of Science in Engineering program. The request to plan was forwarded to the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) in June 2006 and was approved. A committee of faculty, supported by the Dean's Office through the Associate Dean of Academic Affairs, followed this planning approval up by developing the implementation plan. This implementation plan has been approved by the various University entities during the Spring 2007 semester, and is now being advanced for approval by ABOR. Dr. Larson from the CENE along with Dr. Acker of Mechanical Engineering co-chaired this implementation planning effort. Given the recent directions by the ASCE towards the Masters (or 30-hours of accredited graduate level course work) as the entry-level degree for professional (licensed) engineering practice, the CENE sees implementation of a high-quality MSE program as critical to the success of its undergraduate programs. Bachelor level students will need access to suitable graduate programs to enable their professional success. A new degree program has been proposed as well in Computer Science (reflective of encouragement to consider alternative degrees meeting the needs of additional types of students).

F. Physical Infrastructure

NAU's fiscal and administrative support to its engineering programs is best exemplified by its willingness to renovate and expand the Engineering Building (housing our four engineering programs along with Construction Management and Computer Science). At the time of the focus visit in October of 2005, the building project was not quite completed and the evaluation team was not able to review the finished building or assess its impact on our programs. We are pleased to report that the building was ready for occupancy on December 19, 2005, and NAU immediately began the process of moving the engineering group from temporary quarters back into its new home. The move was completed over the winter break, and engineering started the Spring 2006 semester in the new building, offering our regular suite of courses and labs.

The building was formally dedicated by the Arizona Board of Regents on April 21, 2006, in a public celebration of the state's $16.5 million investment. Faculty offices and research activities, student organizations, academic support services, and events hosting our external partners and stakeholders have all flourished in the carefully-designed laboratories, classrooms, and interaction spaces. Further refinements to the new building have been realized over 2006-07 including: new furniture and computing resources in the 24/7 Internet Cafe, window coverings along east and west windows, equipping of additional laboratories, and a realignment of student project areas, laboratories, and machine shop to better coordinate offerings and economize staff and student time. The


University has also invested an additional $350,000 to refurbish a 10,000 sq. ft facility located approximately 1/4-mile southwest of the Engineering building to house the Engineering machine shop, a CAD/CAM laboratory, and a student projects build space.

The Engineering Building is not the only new capital project benefiting our students. In January 2007, a new Science Laboratory building opened for college use. Constructed with Arizona state Research Infrastructure funds, the 80,000 sq ft building was completed at a cost of $36 million. The Science Laboratory houses both research and instructional laboratory space for the departments of Biological Sciences and Chemistry & Biochemistry. Virtually all chemistry teaching labs take place in this facility (and some of the biology course labs), meaning that many engineering students will benefit from this new facility during their basic science coursework.

G. A Positive Indicator of Impact

In the spring of 2004, NAU rose to the challenge of changing conditions in higher education by restructuring its college units and simultaneously recommitting itself to high quality undergraduate education through investments in infrastructure, salaries, marketing, recruitment, and retention. A new outreach and marketing campaign was also launched, stressing the high quality and distinctive personal approach of NAU's educational programs. Three years later, NAU is realizing the benefits of its earlier actions as exemplified by a very important indicator.

Enrollments during the 2005-06 and 2006-07 academic years, especially in the undergraduate programs, were up significantly relative to the year before. Northern Arizona University started the 2006-07 year seeing the healthiest enrollment increase in several years - up by about 675 undergraduate students. This university-wide growth translated directly to Engineering as exemplified by the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering undergraduate major count which grew by 73% from Fall 2004 to Fall 2005 and by 22% from Fall 2005 to Fall 2006, as detailed in Table VIII. 1. We are expecting additional enrollment growth for the University and Department in 2007-08.

Table VIII.1 CENE Undergraduate Majors

CE ENE

Total

F1999 112

58

170

F2000 99 49

148

F2001 101

46 147

F 20002 107

38 145

F2003 93

30 123

F2004 89

24

113

F2005 156

40

196

F2006 190

49 239

*Data source is the Fall 21-Day Enrollment Count

Enrollment growth is a positive indication of the University's ability to sustain programs of high quality and promote the direct engagement of undergraduates with excellent faculty in active learning and application. College level enrollment has been up significantly for three years running- the college is recognized as a significant contributor to the overall university profile and enrollment. Significantly, a larger


percentage of college enrollment is out-of-state (indicating regional and national reputation of programs) than for the university as a whole (33 % vs. < 20 %). Because of the great sensitivity of the university's budget to enrollment (due to reliance on state funding for enrollment and on tuition revenues), the increasingly healthy enrollments in the college are contributing to the continued fiscal recovery and growth of the institution.



Chapter IX Table of Contents

A. Curriculum 1 1. Math and Science 1 2. Proficiency in Four Civil Engineering Areas 3 3. Laboratory Experiences in More Than One Civil Engineering Area ... 5 4. Civil Engineering Design 6 5. Professional Practice 7

B. Faculty 7

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 and the evaluation by our employers on students' ability to appropriately use mathematical, scientific, and engineering principles.

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 a statistics and probability course, CENE 225 Engineering Analysis, which is the recommended course for all engineering majors.

CENE 150 Introduction to Environmental Engineering provides an indication of students" proficiency with chemistry, as chemistry is a co-requisite to CENE 150. The related course outcome is: The student will be able to draw block diagrams, perform material balance calculations using appropriate units and unit conversions. Using a number of direct assessments, the instructor of the Spring 2006 offering determined an average class performance (n = 23) of the outcome to be 75%.

CENE 251 Statics provides a good indicator of students' 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 of Statics 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 detailed 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.

ME 291 Thermodynamics is dependent upon multiple math and science courses including Chemistry I, Physics 11, and Calculus HI 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.

CENE 420 Traffic & Signal Systems provides a good indicator of students' proficiency with statistics via two of the course outcomes: students can perform statistical analyses of traffic data and evaluate the results, and students can perform volume, speed, time travel, and delay studies. The primary "laboratory" strategies were two traffic study projects where real data is collected; data is analyzed individually in the "speed lab" and also collectively in teams in the "counts lab". In addition, to these projects, the instructor used homework assignments and quizzes to evaluate student performance. The instructor evaluated his students" level of achievement as 88%. This achievement level, however, was based on a small sample size of 5 students, which is atypical for CENE 420. This small number reflects that 2006-07 was a transition year for CENE 420. It is being moved from previously being a spring offering to a fall offering. We are offering the course twice in 2006-07 to help students' make this transition with the Spring 2007 enrollment being over 25.

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 cautiously1 looked to the recent FE results as secondary evidence of

1 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


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.

As noted in Table III.1 of Chapter III, the employers of NAU graduates rated their employees' abilities to appropriately use mathematical, scientific, and engineering principles as 3.9 on a 1 to 5 scale with 5 being very well. This relationship between work place abilities correlates well to a proficiency in basic math and science. These secondary evidences of overall concurrency with national data and the noted abilities of our graduates to appropriately apply math and science principles confirm 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 ABET 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 changes to its 2002-03 program of study that are still in effect today.

Table IX.1 Geotechnical Engineering Courses


CENE 251 Statics CENE 253 Mechanics of Materials CENE 253 L Mech. Of Materials Lab CENE 383 Soil Mechanics (w/Lab) CENE 450 Geotechn. Eval. & Design

Required or Elective Required Required Required Required Required

2006-07 Instructors

Clyde Holland. PhD. PE. Debra Larson, PhD. PE Clyde Holland. PhD. PE. Gene Loverich, MS, PE Alarick Reiboldt. BSE Clyde Holland, PhD, PE Charles Schlinger. PhD. PE. PG. PGp

The proficiency in geotechnical engineering (Table IX. I) is established by the following sequence of required courses: CENE 251 Statics, CENE 253 & L Mechanics of Materials, CENE 383 Soils Mechanics and Foundation (with embedded lab), and CENE 450 Geotechnical Evaluation and Design. The proficiency in water resources (Table IX.2) is established by the following sequence of required courses: ME 395 Fluid Mechanics, CENE 333 & L Applied Hydraulics, and CENE 433 Hydrology and Flood Control. The proficiency in structures (Table IX.3) is established by the following sequence of required courses: CENE 251 Statics, CENE 253 & L Mechanics of Materials, ME 252 Dynamics, CENE 376 Structural Analysis I, and CENE 438 Reinforced Concrete Design. The proficiency in transportation (Table IX.4) is

that the FE exam should be used as the primary evaluation tool in any continuous improvement process. It can. however, provide additional information that supplements the primary evidence.


established by the following sequence of required courses: CENE 180 Computer Aided Drafting, CENE 225 Engineering Analysis, CENE 270 (with embedded lab) Surveying, CENE 420 Traffic Studies and Signal Systems (with embedded lab), and CENE 418 Highway Engineering (with embedded lab). Additional breadth is provided in environmental engineering (Table IX.5) through: CENE 150 Introduction to Environmental Engineering and CENE 331 Sanitary Engineering.

Table IX.2 Water Resource Courses

Water Resources

ME 395 Fluid Mechanics CENE 333 Applied Hydraulics CENE 333L Applied Hydraulics Lab CENE 433 Hydrology & Flood Control CENE 468 Rivers and Streams1

CENE 499 CI. Open Channel Flow2

CENE 499 Water Quality Modeling2

Required or Elective Required Required Required Required Elective Elective Elective

2006-07 Instructors

Staffed by the ME Department Charles Schlinger, PhD, PE. PG, PGp Charles Schlinger. PhD, PE, PG, PGp Rand Decker. PhD Wilbert Odem. PhD. PE Rand Decker, PhD Paul Gremillion, PhD, PE

Because of Dr. Odem's 2006-07 sabbatical, this course was not offered in 2006-07 "These two "499" courses were first offered in 2006-07. and will become a permanent feature of the CENE department in 2007-08.

Table IX.3 Structural Engineering Courses


CENE 251 Statics CENE 253 Mechanics of Materials CENE 253 L Mech. Of Materials Lab ME 252 Dynamics CENE 376 Structural Analysis 1 CENE 438 Reinforced Concrete Design CENE 377 Structural Analysis 11 CENE 499 Masonry Design' CENE 436 Structural Steel Design CENE 437 Wood Building Design-


2006-07 Instructors

Clyde Holland, PhD, PE, Debra Larson, PhD, PE Clyde Holland, PhD. PE, Gene Loverich. MS. PE Alarick Reiboldt. BSE Staffed by the ME department Josh Hewes. PhD. PE Josh Hewes. PhD. PE Gene Loverich. MS, PE Josh Hewes. PhD. PE John Tingerthal. MS. SE Debra Larson, PhD. PE

This was the second time that this "499" had been offered, and it will become a permanent feature of the CENE department in 2007-08.

Due to Dr. Larsons assignment as Department Chair, this course was not offered in 2006-07.

The department also cautiously 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.


During the Spring 2007 semester, the CENE began the process of re-examining its Water Resources curriculum for two purposes: (1) to develop a graduate level curriculum in Water Resource Engineering in preparation for the MSE program awaiting approval by the ABOR, and (2) to refine learning outcomes and prerequisite requirements at the undergraduate level.

Table IX.4 Transportation Engineering Courses


CENE 180 Computer Aided Drafting CENE 225 Engineering Analysis CENE 270 Surveying CENE 270 L Surveying Lab CENE 418 Highway Engineering CENE 420 Traffic Studies & Signals CENE 599 Adv. Traffic Signal Systems1

Required or Elective Required Required Required Required Required Required Elective

2006-07 Instructors

John Tingerthal, MS, SE Paul Trotta. PhD. PE Charles Schlinger, PhD, PE, PG, PGp Charles Schlinger, PhD, PE, PG. PGp Craig Roberts, PhD, PE, RLS Craig Roberts, PhD, PE, RLS Craig Roberts. PhD, PE, RLS

This was the first time that this "599" had been offered, and it will become a permanent feature of the CENE department in 2007-08.

Table IX.5 Environmental Engineering Courses


CENE 150 Intro. Env. Engineering CENE 331 Sanitary Engineering CENE 499 Water Quality Modeling1

CENE 440 Env. Protection

Required or Elective Required Required Elective Elective

2006-07 Instructors

Bridget Bero, PhD, PE. Bill Auberle, MS, PE Paul Trotta, PhD, PE Paul Gremillion. PhD, PE Bill Auberle, MS, PE

This "499" course was first offered in 2006-07. and it will become a permanent feature of the CENE department in 2007-08.

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 arrive at associated material properties; perform a rotating beam fatigue test and 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 use that data in the prediction of associated structural loads and stresses; measure deflections on a laboratory test frame and predict those same deflections through frame analysis; organize data and 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 reports, include: Field Sampling, Specific Gravity Detennination, Dry and Wet Sieve analysis, Atterberg Limits, Soil Classification, Proctor 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. The laboratory sessions include: Sources and Pathways of Municipal Tap Water, Flow measurement using a weir, Flow and pressure measurement - hydrant flow tests, Flow measurement using a flume, Distribution system water pressure monitoring, Ultrasonic flow measurement for pressurized pipe flow, Open channel flow measurement using a turbine flowmeter, Detention pond analysis (Pondpack), Water distribution system modeling (WaterCad), Culvert flow analysis and modeling (Culvertmaster), Storm drain flow analysis and modeling (StormCad), and Open channel flow analysis and modeling (Flowmaster).

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. The CENE 270 Surveying activities include: Introduction to Tapes, Rods, Tripods, Levels & Stadia; Vertical Control Leveling and As-Built Vertical Profile; Introduction to Total Station and Data Collector; 7 Topo Survey Activities; Establishing Survey Control with GPS, and Aerial Topographic Survey. Through the embedded lab of CENE 420 Traffic Studies and Signals, students conduct several traffic studies typically used in traffic engineering to quantify traffic characteristics and support decisions requiring engineering judgment.

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 225, 253L, and 420.

4. 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 its capstone experience, the CE students are required to take junior and/or senior level disciplinary courses with design content. The required courses are listed in Table IX.6. 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 elective course lists to fulfill his or her 6- hours of technical elective.

Table IX.6 Design Content in Required Upper Division Courses in CE Program

Design Content Upper Division Courses

CENE 420 Traffic Studies & Signals CENE 333 Applied Hydraulics CENE 383 Soil Mechanics & Foundations CENE 433 Hydrology & Flood Control CENE 331 Sanitary Engineering CENE 418 Highway Engineering CENE 438 Reinforced Concrete Design CENE 450 Geotechnical Evaluation & Design

Design Hours

2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1

06-07 Instructors

Craig Roberts, PhD, PE. RLS Charles Schlinger, PhD, PE, PG, PGp Clyde Holland, PhD, PE Rand Decker, PhD Paul Trotta, PhD, PE Craig Roberts, PhD, PE. RLS Joshua Hewes. PhD. PE Charles Schlinger, PhD, PE, PG, PGp

5. 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 licensure. 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 are 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 from a change to how we are delivering content in engineering economics and the CENE will begin investigating solutions to this in the upcoming academic year.

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, many of the CENE's part-time instructors are also PEs.

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


Table IX.7 Faculty Design Qualifications vs. Required Design Courses


CENE 180 Computer Aided Drafting EGR 186 Introduction Engineering Design EGR 286 Engineering Design: The Process CENE 386W Eng. Design: The Methods CENE 420 Traffic Studies & Signals CENE 333 Applied Hydraulics CENE 383 Soil Mechanics & Foundations CENE 433 Hydrology & Flood Control CENE 331 Sanitary Engineering CENE 418 Highway Engineering CENE 438 Reinforced Concrete Design CENE 450 Geotechnical Evaluation & Desisgn CENE 476 Eng. Design Process Lab CENE 486C Eng. Design Capstone

2006-07 Instructors

John Tingerthal, MS, SE William Auberle. MS. PE and Rand Decker. PhD John Tester, PhD and Bridget Bero, PhD, PE Terry Baxter, PhD, PE and Rand Decker PhD Craig Roberts, PhD, PE. RLS Charles Schlinger, PhD. PE. PG, PGp Clyde Holland. PhD. PE Rand Decker, PhD Paul Trotta. PhD. PE Craig Roberts. PhD. PE, RLS Joshua Hewes. PhD. PE Charles Schlinger, PhD, PE, PG, PGp Paul Trotta. PhD. PE and Paul Gremillion. PhD. PE Paul Trotta. PhD, PE and Paul Gremillion, PhD. PE

Table IX.8 Faculty Expertise per Major CE Area

Civil Engineering Area


Water Resources



Faculty Expertise

Eugene Loverich. MS. PE Debra Larson. PhD. PE Joshua Hewes, PhD, PE Paul Trotta. PhD, PE Rand Decker. PhD Wilbert Odem, PhD, PE Charles Schlinger, PhD. PE, PG, PGp Charles Schlinger, PhD, PE, PG, PGp Clyde Holland, PhD. PE Craig Roberts, PhD, PE Clyde Holland. PhD. PE

Historically, each of the four civil engineering areas has more than one faculty member able to teach and provide suitable advisement. Table IX.8 summarizes the faculty composition during the 2006-07 AY. A change beginning in 2007-08 AY is presenting a future vulnerability to the CENE in the staffing of its geotechnical and transportation areas. The upper division required classes (totaling four - CENE 383, CENE 450, CENE 481, and CENE 420) are staffed primarily by three faculty members: Dr. Charles Schlinger, Dr. Craig Roberts, and Dr. Clyde Holland. This arrangement has been sufficient. In 2007-08, however, Dr. Craig Roberts is moving to a permanent, half-time arrangement in support of a staged retirement. In addition, Dr. Clyde Holland, an emeritus faculty who has been working between 3/4 and full-time since 2003-04 is also moving to half-time status. The CENE and NAU recognized this vulnerability, and are currently2 conducting a faculty search for a Professor or Assistant Professor of Practice in Geotechnical and/or Transportation.

2At the time of this report submittal, the CENE successfully completed the search process and hired Dr. Ed Smaglik at the Assistant Professor rank. Dr. Smaglik received his PhD in transportation engineering from Purdue University.



Chapter X Table of Contents

A. Overview of Continuous Improvement Process 1 B. Constituency Groups 3 C. Assessment Tools and Drivers 6

1. Alumni Survey 7 2. Employer Survey 11 3. Senior Exit Survey 14 4. Course Improvement Documents (CID) 18 5. Capstone Design Project Evaluation 23 6. DAC Student Forum 30 7. University-Wide Tools or Drivers 35 8. Fundamentals of Engineering Examination Results 44

D. Appendix - Fall 2006 CID Data and Comments 46 1. Outcome Evaluation Data 46 2. Fall 2006 Course Commentaries: Analysis of Targeted Outcomes.... 49 3. Fall 2006 Course Commentaries: Suggested Changes for Course 54 4. Fall 2006 Course Commentaries: Suggested Changes to Curriculum 58

In this chapter, the CENE presents its full Continuous Improvement Process (C1P). 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 X.l summarizes 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.


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

Cycle

Curriculum Assessment & Improvements

Assessment Tools & Indicators

Program Outcomes

Program Objectives

Department Vision, Mission, Strategic Goals

Planned Timing

Yearly

2 Years

3 Years

4 Years

5 Years

Actual Activity

Fall semester coinciding with university-wide curriculaumprocess

Yearly at Fall DAC meeting

Review Initiated Jan '04, Competed Oct '04

Review Initiated Jan '04, Completed Jan '05

Initiated Dec '04, Final Feb '05

Primary Constituents

Students, Faculty. DAC

Students Faculty, DAC

Students, DAC, Faculty, ASCE, ABET

DAC, Faculty, ASCE, ABET

Students, DAC, Faculty, Administration, ASCE

Tools and Drivers

CIDs, Senior Exit Surveys, Capstone Evaluation, ABET, FE

Assessment Literature, Structured feedback sessions at DAC meetings, Student Forums

CIDs, Senior Exit Surveys, Capstone Evaluation, ABET, FE; Reviewed by Faculty and DAC

Alumni and Employer Surveys Reviewed by Faculty and DAC

NAU PAIR Institutional Surveys, Department Retreats, Annual Performance Reviews

A draft of this self-study report was submitted in November of 2006 to NAU's University Assessment Committee (see http://www4.nau.edu/assessment/uac/index.htm). This sixteen person committee of assessment experts reviewed and evaluated the report. They found the CENE's CIP as fully meeting eleven of their twelve criteria, which are summarized in Table X.2 below. Their summary comments, which were provided to the Department in mid-December 2006, included:





• Students appear to be involved in providing input to assessment activities, but it's unclear whether students see the results and analyses of these assessments.



Table X.2 Evaluation of CENE's Assessment by NAU's University Assessment Committee

Criteria

1. Assessment Activities a. Learning outcomes addressed match those specified in plan. b. Assessment activities conducted align with those specified in plan. c. Timeline of Assessment activities conducted align with schedule specified in

plan. d. Assessment activities conducted measure the specified outcome.

2. Findings a. Findings are clearly stated for each outcome assessed. b. Findings used to celebrate and promote achievements. c. Findings used to inform curriculum development and improvements.

3. Feedback a. Appropriate and systematic feedback of findings to faculty. b. Appropriate and systematic feedback of findings to students.

4. Assessment Plan Review a. Assessment plan reviewed by faculty to consider updates. b. Decisions on whether and what to revise are justified. c. Revised assessment plan submitted to NAU's Office of Academic Assessment

Yes

X X X

X

X X X

X

X X X

No

X

The CENE began exploring mechanisms for providing feedback of findings to students in their January 2007 Department workshop. Two strategies that will be employed in the Spring 2007 semester include follow-up to the Fall 2006 DAC Student Forum via a Spring 2007 DAC Student Forum, and on-going efforts to include appropriate feedback, time-sensitive information, and program details to students via its Department website. An example of this type of information, an excerpt of the alumni survey results, is located at http://www.cens.nau.edu/Academic/CENE/vision/.

B. Constituency Groups

Our constituency base, as noted in Column 4 of the above C1P 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 interests of today. Since the Fall of 2004, the CENE has been actively rebuilding its DAC to meet this representation goal, growing it 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 of national or state-wide organizations.

A listing of our current membership with constituency affiliation is provided in Table X.3. This current composition meets our constituency goals.

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 participating and providing advice to support capital and resource development activities. The CENE DACs mission and goals are included as Figure X. 1.

Table X.3 Membership in Department Advisory Council

Name

Rick Barrett Lee Busenbark William Carroll

Guillermo Cortes

Rod Curtis Rav Dovalina Charles Dryden Ryan Dupont Dean Durkee Jim Fulton

John Gleason David Gunn

Ryan Huffman Tim Huval Ned Jerabek

Niles Larson

Organization

City of Flagstaff HDR Engineering & Environmental Consultants Shepard Wesnitzer

MACTEC Engineering City of Phoenix Arizona Engineering Utah State Gannet Fleming James Fulton and Associates Gannet Fleming Central Arizona Project

Pulte Homes Wood. Patel & Associates New Mexico Environment Department Retired

Disciplinary Affiliation CE CE & ENE CE & ENE

CE

CE CE CE ENE CE ENE

CE CE

CE CE & ENE ENE

ENE

Constituency Representation

Alumni > 10 years, Employer Alumni < 10 years, Employer Employer, Alumni > 10 years

Employer, Alumni < 10 years, ASCE practitioner advisor Employer Employer, Public Entity Employer, Adjunct Faculty Graduate School Employer Statewide community member and professional organization Employer Employer, statewide community member Alumni < 10 years Employer Alumni > 10 years, employer, regional public Statewide community member and


Greg Lingor

Tom Loomis

Bill Mancini Don Manthe Richard Mirth John Mitchell Barzin Mobasher Debra Mollet Jean Nehme Rahkesh Pangasa Sandra Redsteer

Jim Schlenvogt Reza Shamskhorzani John Trujillo

Richard Turley

Gary Wendt Mark Woodson

Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, lnc Flood Control District of Maricopa County

Clark Pacific Stanley Consultants Faculty Emeritus APS ASU Stantec Consulting ADO'F - Bridge Group Arizona Western College Indian Health Services

Peabody Western Coal Bio-Microbics, lnc

Public Works, City of Phoenix Caruso Turley Scott

Peabody Western Coal Woodson Engineering

CE

CE & ENE

CE ENE CE & ENE CE CE CE CE CE-ENE ENE

ENE ENE

CE & ENE

CE

ENE CE

professional organization Employer

Alumni > 10 years, employer, statewide community and professional Alumni > 10 years, Adjunct faculty Alumni > 10 years, employer Faculty Employer Graduate school Alumni < 10 years, employer Employer, statewide community Faculty at community college Alumni < 10 years, Employer, regional and national community Employer, regional community Employer

Alumni > 10 years, employer, regional Alumni > 10 years, employer, statewide community and professional Employer, regional community Employer, national ASCE

The DAC meets at least twice a year and sometimes three times a year, either at NAU or in Phoenix. At the Fall 2006 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 a 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:

• 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 8.

• Alumni Survey: Revised, data gathered, and results analyzed. Initiated January 2005 and completed Fall 2005. Criteria 2, 5, 6, and 7.

• 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, 4, and 8.


• Student Forum: Initiated October 2006; intending to be an ongoing, twice a year activity. Criteria 1,5,6, and 7.

Figure X.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 ongoing 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

Table X.4 Summary of CENE Assessment Tools and Drivers

Assessment Tool or Driver

1. Alumni Survey

2. Employer Survey

Frequency of Use

Every 3 to 4 years

Every 3 to 4 years

Revision or Activity History


b. Revised Spring '05, Data collected summer '05, Data analyzed Fall'05.


b. Revised Spring '05, Data collected summer '05. Data analyzed Fall'05.

Informs Criteria

2. 5, 6, 7

2



4. Course Improvement Document


6. DAC Student Forum 7. University Tools/Drivers:

a. BO & Inst. Surveys

b. Changes to Academic (e.g. Liberal Studies) Requirements

8. FE and PE Exam Results

Yearly

Fwice a Year

Yearly

Twice a Year

Yearly

Every 2 to 3 years

Yearly

a. Initiated Spring 2000. Two years of data collected, analyzed and reported on.

b. Re-initiated in Fall 2004. Data collected in Spring '05, '06, and '07. Analysis completed.

a. Initiated Spring 2000. b. Continuously used with noted variations in

full faculty participation. c. Tool has been revised multiple times. a. Initiated Spring '05. Tool revised Spring'05

and Spring '06. b. Data gathered and analyzed in Spring '05,

'06. and '07. a. Initiated Fall '06 by DAC.

a. Initiated in Fall '06 b. Viewed as supplemental to other tools.

1,3,5,6, 7

3,4,8

3,4,8

1,5,6.7

1,3,4.5, 7,8 2,3,4,8

3,8

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 data and analysis summaries are presented in this Section. Additional information about drivers to our CIP such as the changes to the overall University academic requirements is included here as well. Table X.4 presents a tabular summary of the key features of each tool or driver.

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 AY 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 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 as Table X.5, while the analysis conclusions are presented in the applicable sections of this report including Criteria 2, 5, 6, and 7.

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," and 2 "analysts"

Graduate Degrees: 4 MS or MEng in strictly engineering, 2 MS in Engineering Management, 1 MBA

Table X.5 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 Number of respondents = 36

1(a) Appropriately use mathematical, scientific, and engineering principles.











Average

4.39

4.14

3.86

3.83

4.08

4.17

4.51

4.19

4.14

3.86

3.29

Std. Dev.

.55

.73

.76

.77

.87

.77

.67

.75

.68

.68

.93

Top 3 Count

17

10

7

12

4

19

14

7

5

6

2

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

"1 felt very confident working on teams, communicating, and assuming leadership."

Six comments, in total, provided 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 if additional program objectives, beyond those of Table X.5. were needed. If so, the alumni were asked to provide descriptions of those additional objectives. Twenty-five alumni responded with a diverse list of suggestions. 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."

Alumni were invited to add comments to the tabular query about their overall impressions as summarized above in Table X.6.

Table X.6 Summary of Alumni Responses to "Your Overall Impressions"


1. The quality of the faculty in the department. 2. The quality of assistance provided by the faculty and department. 3. The quality of classrooms, experimental laboratories, and computing facilities. 4. Rate your overall experience at NAU. Scale: 5 = strongly yes, 1 = strongly no 5. My personal goals and objectives were satisfied by my education at NAU. 6. I would select NAU for my civil engineering or environmental engineering

education, if I had the opportunity to choose again. 7. I would recommend NAU to friends and relatives for studying civil engineering

or environmental engineering. 8. 1 would select civil engineering or environmental engineering as my major if I

had the opportunity to choose again.

Average

4.26 4.21 3.31 4.36

4.21 4.13

4.24

4.25

Std Dev

.57

.73 1.07 .71

.64 1.10

.85

.89

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."


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 had been educated in an old facility . 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 centered on the theme of "Is 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

1 The Engineering building recently underwent a $15.0 million expansion and renovation that included an additional $1.3 million in FFE for furniture, fixtures and equipment. Engineering moved back into its new facilities in January 2006.


found 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 provided.)

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

These two sub-themes were attributed to different sub-disciplines or organizations that have different cultures of technical communications: some needing their engineers to use CAD directly in their design activities and others not, but relying instead 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 interval. The rewriting of program objectives and outcomes that occurred in the 2003-04 AY 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 programs' 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 earlier 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

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 (average)

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 X.7. Column 1 is the preparation (or achievement of program objectives), and column 2 reports on the importance of the attribute to career success.

Table X.7 Employer Survey Summary Results on Assessing Attainment and Importance of Program Objectives

Scale: 5 = very well, 3 = adequate, 1 = not at all Number respondents to table = 21

1(a) Appropriately use mathematical, scientific, engineering principles.











5 Generally speaking, are able to get things done.

(1) Graduates

Preparation Average

3.89

3.67

3.53

3.95

3.85

3.85

4.30

4.12

4.15

3.40

3.50

4.10

(2) Import.

Attributes Average

4.64

4.14

4.14

4.48

4.10

4.48

4.57

3.90

4.52

4.00

3.86

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 included:

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

"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 verifying 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: e.g. 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 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 designs, 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 4(c) 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.


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 were completed before this process was sidelined. In the Fall of 2004, the CENE once 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, 5, and 6. Secondarily, it is being used to help qualitatively inform Criteria 3 and 7.

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) advising quality. Our students found the time in the temporary 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 that included meeting and working spaces, enhanced laboratory facilities, and increased computing infrastructure. The comments on advising were mixed ranging from great support to uninterested and inadequate. 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 led to a more satisfied student.

Table X.8 Spring 2005 and 2006 Senior Exit Survey Results on Overall Impression


The quality of the faculty in the CENE department. The quality of advising assistance provided by the CENE faculty. Did you receive advising services through Gateway or other non-CENE entities? If so, please rate the quality of that service. The quality of classrooms, experimental laboratories, and computing facilities in engineering. Rate your overall experience at NAU. Did you receive help with scholarships, summer employment/internships, or post BS employment? If so, please rate the quality of that service. Scale: 5 = agree strongly, 3 =neither agree or disagree, 1 = disagree strongly My personal goals and objectives were satisfied by my education at NAU.

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

Spring 2005

Average N = 21

3.7 3.6 2.7

2.7

3.7 -

3.7

3.6

3.6

4.6

Spring 2006

Average N = 29

3.9 3.4 3.0

3.9

4.1 3.9

4.2

4.0

4.1

4.3

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 environment as well as providing 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 (beyond the regular once-a-year offering) for junior and senior courses.

The students were asked to grade the overall effectiveness of the individual full and part-time faculty in the CENE, using the following system: A = excellent, B = good, C = adequate, D = marginal, F = poor. This data were converted to a 5.0 scale with A = 5.0 and F = l.0. During the faculty annual review processes, the individual results were provided to each member to help inform the faculty about 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 whose course ownership can bias the assessment of a particular course's contributions) picture of the influence that specific courses make on specific outcomes.

Table X.9 2005 Civil Engineering and Environmental Engineering Seniors Mapping Courses to Outcomes, Averages for N ranging from 16 to 20

C o u r s e Number

MAT 136

MAT 137

MAT 238

MAT 239

CHM 151

CHM 151L

PHY 161

PHY 161 L

PHY 262

BIO 181

CHM 440

CENE 150

EGR 180

EGR 186

CENE 270 CENE 270 L

EGR 225

EGR 286

EGR 251

EGR 252

CENE 253

Course Descr ipt ion

Calculus I (4)

Calculus II (4)

Calculus III (3)

Differential Eqs (3)

General Chemistry 1 (4)

Gen Chem I Lab (1)

Univ. Physics I (3)

Univ. Physics I Lab (3)

Univ. Physics II (3)

Unity of Life I

Environmental Chem

Intro to Env Eng (3)

Comp Aided Design (2)

Intro to Eng Design (3)

Plane Surveying (2)

Plane Survey Lab (1)

Eng Analysis (3)

Eng Design Process (3)

App Mech—Statics (3)

Dynamics (3)

Mech of Materials (3)

a. M

ath

em

atic

s S

cience

&

Engin

eerin

g

2.74

2.53

2.50

2.61

1.83

1.67

2.21

2.16

2.21

3.00

2.33

1.61

0.61

1.24

1.71

1.71

1.72

1.78

2.53

2.44

2.47

b.

Exp

erim

ents

, A

na

lyze

, In

terp

ret

1.94

1.44

1.50

1.61

1.35

1.94

1.67

2.11

1.63

3.00

2.00

1.47

1.18

1.78

1.35

1.53

1.47

2.39

1.18

1.13

1.35

c. A

bili

ty to

Desi

gn a

Sys

tem

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.29

0.18

0.24

0.56

0.56

0.67

2.00

2.00

1.08

1.39

2.22

1.18

1.39

1.29

2.68

1.39

1.00

1.44

d.

Multi

-Dis

ciplin

ary

Team

s

0.06

0.19

0.06

0.35

0.25

0.69

0.41

0.94

0.50

0.00

1.50

0.72

0.29

2.21

1.06

1.65

1.24

2.37

0.88

0.88

0.76

e. S

olv

e E

ngin

eering P

roble

ms

1.95

1.71

1.63

1.94

1.13

0.88

1.65

1.41

1.88

0.00

1.50

1.64

0.82

2.33

1.18

0.94

1.76

2.42

2.06

2.38

2.22

f. P

rofe

ssio

nal &

Eth

ical

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.13

0.00

0.12

0.00

0.00

3.00

1.37

0.42

1.89

0.71

0.71

0.94

2.44

0.67

0.75

0.78

g.

Com

munic

ate

0.06

0.19

0.06

0.35

0.25

0.69

0.41

0.94

0.50

0.00

1.50

0.72

0.29

2.21

1.06

1.65

1.24

2.37

0.88

0.88

0.76

h.

Impact

of E

ngin

eering S

olu

tions

0.06

0.06

0.06

0.06

0.19

0.25

0.06

0.06

0.13

0.00

1.00

1.86

0.50

1.75

0.35

0.19

0.69

2.18

0.56

0.50

0.61

i. Life

long

Learn

ing

0.13

0.56

0.81

0.82

0.56

0.44

0.65

0.53

1.00

0.00

2.00

1.06

0.76

1.82

1.06

1.06

1.06

2.61

1.06

1.13

1.24

j. K

now

ledge

of C

onte

mpora

ry

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.06

0.29

0.28

0.12

0.12

3.00

3.00

1.41

0.39

1.06

0.47

0.31

0.71

2.06

0.67

0.63

0.44

k. M

odern

Engin

eering

Tools

1.94

1.50

1.50

1.78

1.18

1.50

1.22

1.63

1.33

3.00

1.50

1.22

1.37

1.94

1.18

1.24

1.58

2.28

1.11

1.19

1.28


CENE 253 L

EE 188

ME 291

CENE 434

CENE 331

CENE 333 CENE 333 L

CENE 376

CENE 383 CENE 383 L CENE 386W

ME 395

CENE 281L

CENE 282L

CENE 280

CENE 330

CENE 380

CENE 332

CENE 410

CENE 418 CENE 418 L

CENE 420 CENE 420 L

CENE 433

CENE 438

CENE 450

CENE 476

CENE 486

Mech of Mat Lab(l)

Electrical Eng 1 (3)

Thermodynamics I (3)

Water/Wastewater Eng.

Sanitary Eng (3)

Applied Hydraulics (3)

App Hydraulics Lab (1)

Structural Analysis I (3)

Soil Mech & Fds (3)

Soil Mech & Fds L( l )

Eng Design Methods(3)

Fluid Mechanics (3)

Water Quality lab

Air/Site Invest. Lab

Fund. Env. Engrng.

Air Qual. Engineering

Env Transport Proc. I

Solid/Haz Waste Mgmt

Unit Ops Env. Engrg.

Highway Eng (2)

Highway Eng Lab (1)

Traffic & Signal (2)

Traffic Signal Lab (1)

Hyd & Flood Cont (3)

Reinf Concrete D (3)

Geot Eval & Design (3)

Senior Design Sem (1)

Design Capstone (3)

2.31

1.69

2.03

2.67

1.88

2.11

2.00

2.25

2.44

2.17

1.41

2.56

2.67

3.00

2.50

2.67

3.00

2.67

3.00

2.06

2.06

1.38

1.38

1.69

1.81

1.50

1.28

2.11

2.31

0.88

0.82

2.50

1.38

1.12

1.67

1.31

1.67

1.94

2.28

1.71

2.33

3.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

3.00

2.19

2.19

1.38

1.31

1.38

1.38

1.13

1.94

2.68

1.50

0.56

0.83

2.50

1.31

1.39

1.39

1.38

1.59

1.56

2.39

1.76

1.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

2.00

2.00

2.50

2.50

2.50

1.25

1.13

1.38

1.63

1.60

2.21

2.63

1.50

0.56

0.65

2.00

0.94

0.88

1.50

0.69

1.06

1.71

2.44

1.24

3.00

3.00

1.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

2.19

2.13

1.38

1.25

0.88

0.63

0.69

1.89

2.56

2.25

1.38

1.78

2.67

1.81

2.21

2.28

2.19

2.50

2.22

2.42

2.59

2.50

3.00

2.00

2.50

3.00

2.00

2.50

2.56

2.56

1.63

1.63

2.00

1.88

1.50

2.16

2.79

0.94

0.44

0.89

2.67

1.00

1.06

1.00

1.19

1.33

1.56

2.40

1.24

2.00

2.33

2.33

2.33

3.00

2.33

2.00

2.25

2.06

1.13

1.13

1.13

1.44

1.13

2.32

2.40

1.50

0.56

0.65

2.00

0.94

0.88

1.50

0.69

1.06

1.71

2.44

1.24

3.00

3.00

1.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

2.19

2.13

1.38

1.25

0.88

0.63

0.69

1.89

2.56

0.56

0.25

0.59

2.00

1.00

0.76

0.71

0.69

0.94

0.94

2.12

0.82

1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

0.00

2.00

1.00

2.38

2.38

1.19

1.19

0.81

0.75

0.69

1.47

2.11

1.44

0.81

1.06

3.00

1.19

1.24

1.29

1.25

1.35

1.29

2.35

1.60

1.00

0.00

2.50

2.00

0.00

2.00

3.00

2.44

2.38

1.44

1.44

1.25

1.50

0.94

2.17

2.44

0.56

0.31

0.94

1.50

1.06

0.94

0.89

0.76

1.29

1.22

1.95

0.88

2.00

2.00

3.00

2.33

2.50

3.00

2.50

2.00

2.00

1.19

1.19

0.88

1.06

0.94

1.47

1.89

2.00

0.69

0.94

2.00

1.31

1.42

1.89

1.41

1.68

2.13

2.28

1.76

2.67

3.00

1.00

2.67

2.00

2.33

2.67

2.19

2.19

1.38

1.38

1.31

1.31

1.19

1.72

2.68

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 X.9 is a summary of averages from the civil and environmental engineering students responding to the 2005 senior exit survey. It should be noted however, that the number of environmental engineering respondents was low (n = 2, 3 or 4) and the data presented for ENE-specific courses are included primarily for documenting the results rather than to infer specific meaning or significance. 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 was originally intended.

A section focusing on the self-assessment of lifelong learning was added to the 2006 senior exit surveys in an 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 lifelong 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 lifelong learning and their ability to adhere to ethical and professional standards using a 1 to 5 scale. The average results are presented in Table X.10. Of the 290 total individual responses, only 9 were scored less than 3.

Table X.10 Summary Results - Spring 2006 Students' Self Assessment of Life-Long Learning and Ethical Standards



Learn new material on my own.

Find and use relevant sources of information. Read critically and assess the quality of information available . Use information to solve well-defined problems. Analyze content by breaking it down, asking questions, comparing and contrasting, recognizing patterns, and interpreting information. Model problems by estimating, simplifying, making assumptions and approximations. Combine knowledge in novel ways to generate new products or ideas. Judge the worth of ideas, theories, and opinions. Choose between alternative ideas, theories, opinions, and justify the choice. Adhere to the professional and ethical standards of the civil engineering profession.

Average

4.1

4.0 3.9 4.3 4.3

4.0

3.6 3.7 4.1 4.7

Std Dev

.64

.80

.37

.59

.65

.82

.73

.81

.80

.45

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. 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 facilitate communications 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 2002 and 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 evidence of students' achievement relative to learning outcomes.

Faculty use of the CID over the 2004-05 AY 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 a 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 familiar 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 the important paradigm shift for faculty, still did not readily yield clear evidences of outcome learning achievement. In addition, the CID process actually missed a few outcomes, e.g. the direct assessment of Outcome (i) had not been captured.


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 AY. This revision kept the course learning outcome paradigm shift intact, but explicitly focused the CID on capturing course embedded data related to a small number of appropriately targeted ABET outcomes.

Table X.11 Target Courses and Target Outcomes

Civil Engineering Required Course Work (programs of study ranging from fall 2001 to spring 2006):

CENE 150 Intro to Env. Engineering


EGR 186 Intro to Eng. Design

CENE 270 Plane Surveying

CENE 270L Plane Surveying Lab


EGR 286 Egr. Design - Methods

CENE 251 App. Meehanics-Staties

CENE 253 Mechanics of Materials

CENE 253L Mech. of Materials Lab

CENE 331 Sanitary Engineering

CENE 333 Applied Hydraulics

CENE333L Applied Hydraulics Lab

CENE 376 Structural Analysis 1

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

a. M

ath

em

atic

s, S

cie

nce &

Engin

eering

•

•

• •

•

•

b. E

xperim

ents

, A

naly

ze, and In

terp

ret

•

•

•

•

•

•

c. A

bili

ty to D

esig

n a

Syste

m.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

• •

•

d.

Multi

—dis

cip

linary

Team

s

•

•

•

•

• •

e.

Solv

e E

ngin

eering P

roble

ms

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

f. P

rofe

ssio

nal &

Eth

ical R

esponsib

ility

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

g. C

om

munic

ate

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

• •

h. Im

pact

of E

ngin

eering S

olu

tions

•

•

•

•

•

i. L

ifelo

ng

Learn

ing

•

•

•

•

• •

|. K

now

ledge o

f C

onte

mpora

ry Issues

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

k. M

odern

Engin

eering T

ools

•

•

•

•

•

•

• •

•

•

•


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. Table X.l 1 summarizes which required courses have been assigned to which ABET outcome. Electives have not been included. This table 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 X.12 Metric Statements for ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes

Metric Statements Corresponding to ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes (Revisions: dsl 5/2006, CENE 8/21/06 & 9/6/06)

Outcome a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

i

j

k

Metric Statement Compliance is achieved by students who can solve engineering problems using mathematics and science principles. 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. Compliance is achieved by students who can design systems or processes to meet desired needs within realistic constraints. Compliance is achieved by students who can perform and communicate effectively on diverse teams. 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). Compliance is achieved by students who can recognize and analyze situations involving professional and ethical interests. Compliance is achieved by students who can organize and deliver effective verbal, written, and graphical communications. Compliance is achieved by students who can generally describe the impacts of constrained engineering solutions to relevant economic, environmental, social, and global-political systems. 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. 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. 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 is a reference table, Table X. 12, of metric statements along with compliance levels. These metric statements not only provided measurable outcome goals 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 curriculum 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.

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.

Table X.13 CID Captured Assessment Data Example Taken from CENE 386W Engineering Design - The Methods

Assessment of ABET Criterion 3 Target Outcomes

Outcome Metric Statements (Compliance is achieved by students

who...) Outcome d: Produce and communicate effectively on diverse teams.

Outcome f: Can recognize and analyze situations involving professional and ethical interests.

Outcome j: Incorporate into the engineering problem solving process well-defined contemporary issues. Outcome h: Can generally describe the impacts of a constrained engineering solution to relevant economic, environmental, social, and global-political systems.

Outcome i: Demonstrate the ability to learn on their own, without the aid of formal instruction. Outcome g: Organize and deliver effective verbal, written, and graphical communications.

Assessment Deliverable

3 Peer Evaluation Memos 4 Team Oral Status Reports 5 Case Study Deliverables (Adjusted by peer evaluation) 2 Questions on Test 1


5 Case Study Deliverables

1 Individual PM report 6 Economic Homework Assignments 5 Economic Questions on Test 3 7 Individually Written Memo 7 Case Study Questions on Test 1 8 Environ. Assess. Quest. on Test 2 2 Project Mgmt. Questions on Test 3 5 Case Study Deliverables

7 Individually Written Memos 5 Case Study Deliverables 1 Individual PM report 1 Oral Case Study Presentation

Level of Achievement

(Class Averages) 26.1/30 = 87% 75/80 = 94% 544/600=91%

8.3/10=83%

24.3/31=78%

271.3/300 = 90%

26.6/30 = 89% 112/170=66% 60.6/80 = 76% 78/105 = 74% 24.1/29 = 83% 38.4/49 = 78% 15.1/20=76% 271.3/300 = 90%

78/105 = 74% 271.3/300 = 90% 26.6/30 = 89% 198/200 =99%


The 2006-07 CID captured assessment and analysis of target outcomes are reported on in Chapter IV Criterion 3 of this report. These conclusions regarding our students' compliance with the outcomes (a) through (k) were derived from the annual "Closing the Loop'" faculty meeting, the most recent meeting occurring on January 10, 2007. The faculty reviewed and discussed the quantitative data and qualitative comments from the Fall 2006 CIDs and compared this information to the capstone evaluation and FE results.

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. Given the size of this data, the synthesis of the Fall 2006 CID data and comments used in the "Closing the Loop"" meeting is provided at the end of this chapter as Section D. An example of what the captured data looks like is provided in Table X.13. The follow-on instructor analysis of the captured assessment is provided in Figure X.2.

Figure X.2 Example Instructor Analysis of Captured Outcome Data Corresponding to Table X.13

Analysis of Targeted Outcomes (Have the students in this class achieved/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 students 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 meet the intent of the metric statement within the context of complex technical report writing. Correspondingly, students consistently above scored 70% and were therefore judged to comply with both outcomes g and j.

The case study project deliverables were 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.


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."


The DAC initiated the development of the capstone design 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 detailed design and implementation. The environmental and civil engineering students take the same capstone courses together.

The Engineering Programs at NAU traditionally hold their spring DAC meetings the day before the engineering-wide senior capstone conference, and this 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 the 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 overnight, 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:










The data from the Spring 2005 evaluations was collected and synthesized, and presented to the DAC in their Fall 2005 meeting. At this 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 the tool did what was needed and it contained the right balance of technical, project management, and communications. The DAC requested, however, that evaluator training be provided the day before the 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 decided the following. Given that the students had been provided the evaluation 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:









• 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

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."

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 X.14 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, they 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 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 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.

Table X.14 Transforming Capstone Evaluation Tool to Assess ABET Outcomes

Capstone Project Team Evaluation Metrics / Weight Technical Skills

T1 Scope ofWork/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

CI 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%

Applicable ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes Abbreviated

c. A

bili

ty t

o D

esig

n a

Syst

em

•

•

•

•

•

• •

•

d. M

ulti

-Dis

cipl

inar

y T

eam

s

• •

•

e. S

olve

Eng

inee

ring

Pro

blem

s

•

•

•

•

• •

•

g.

Com

mun

icat

e

•

•

•

h. I

mpa

ct o

f E

ngin

eeri

ng S

olut

ions

• • •

•

•

i. L

ifel

ong

Lea

rnin

g

•

•

• • •

•

j. K

now

ledg

e of

Con

tem

pora

ry I

ssue

s

• • •

•

•

•

k. M

oder

n E

ngin

eeri

ng T

ools

•

•

The CENE took under consideration the Fall 2006 DAC recommendations and agreed that the 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 design. 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 X.16. Table X.15 Spring 2005 Capstone Design Project Assessment Summary - Average Ratings by DAC Evaluators




a. Math, Science, Engineering c. Ability to Design a System

Waln

ut C

anyo

n R

em.

3 3

77 85

Rese

rvoirs

Inundatio

n

4 3

85 84

Concr

ete

Mix

Desi

gn

2 3

92 94

Ste

el

Brid

ge

3 4

93 83

Snow

bow

l Pedest

rian

Cro

ssin

g

4 3

85 85

Canoe H

ull D

esi

gn

2 3

90 96

Resi

dentia

l B

ridge

2 4

65 72

Arb

ore

tum

A

ccess

ibili

ty

2 3

75 88

Por

tabl

e W

ate

r T

reatm

ent

5 3

89 87

On-

Site

Mas

ter

Pla

n

5 3

75 80

Cla

ss A

vera

ge

83 85


d. Multi-Disciplinary Teams e. Solve Engineering

Problems g. Communicate h. Impact of Engineering i. Lifelong Learning j . Knowledge of

Contemporary k. Modern Engineering Tools

92 85

95 84 84 70

77

81 84

82 78 83 65

85

87 94

84 95 95 91

92

87 83

89 86 80 83

93

85 85

86 83 85 75

85

94 96

92 98

100 94

90

86 72

88 80 80 63

65

96 88

98 93 90 81

75

90 87

92 86 86 81

89

88 80

89 80 86 73

75

89 85

89 86 87 78

83

Tables X. 15 and X. 16 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 2007 evaluation, but these data and the subsequent DAC analysis were not available for inclusion to this report due to timing.

Figure X.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.

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

The class average data are 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 that continues to seek out ways to contribute. In this regard, the DAC recently initiated a twice a year student forum whereby a sub-committee independently meets with students of the CENE without the involvement of the faculty. Debra Mollet is leading this sub-committee, which is populated by Bill Caroll, John Mitchell, Dean Durkee, David Gunn, and Tom Loomis. The 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.

• 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 were 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 were present, although the majority was from the civil program. Overall, the students are very happy with their respective programs. 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 Cafe is a great idea and gets used often. The Design4Practice (program) 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 graduate student from English as a part of CENE 386W 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 a 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 X. 17, of action items for the DAC and CENE department to follow-up. The CENE made considerable progress during the Fall 2006 semester in addressing issues and this progress is summarized in the second column of Table X.17.


Table X.17 Action Items from Fall 2006 CENE Student Forum

ITEM CENE DEPT. ACTION OR RESPONSE

FACILITIES

Internet cafe 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 wasn't needed

Urinal flush sequence

Finally, new furniture that matches the rest of the building has been installed in the Internet cafe. This space sees lots of use both during and after the open building hours. Seems to be adding to the sense of community for our engineering students (and faculty and staff).

For spring DAC forum follow-up: Unable to make the cafe larger...what is really meant by this comment? Is it that students would like a larger 24/7 space or greater access to the building?

A used 11x17 printer has been purchased for room 113 (the CENE students' project area). A plotter is available to students under certain conditions, that being a faculty member must approve and negotiate its use with the CM department.

Referred this issue on to our IT staff as this is under their purview. They are exploring the installation of a scanner in the Internet cafe for use as a pseudo copy machine. Previous installations of student copiers were not successful due to excessive vandalism and paper removal.

Referred this issue on to our IT staff.

No progress to date on this question. Basic information about Clickers at NAU is found at http://fm.instrdev.nau.edu:591/clickers/

Referred this onto our building manager. The facilities staff have been taught how to change the filters.

DESIGN4PRACTICE

286 - Not civil oriented (mostly programming), and some teams were not well balanced among the disciplines

386 - Student requested

The CENE has made a renewed commitment to placing one instructor per semester into the EGR 286 teaching team. In the recent past (eg since = fall 2004), CENE has not been teaching in this class. Dr. Bero is teaching this spring 07, and is penciled in for spring 08. Dr. Larson is penciled in for fall 07. It is an important class to our students in that it provides: 1. One of the best scenario(s) for learning about teaming through active practice. 2. The one true multi-disciplinary course. 3. The development of life-long learning skills through multiple, complex design challenges 4. An introduction to programming, controllers, and mechanisms (important knowledge for any student of CE and ENE who may work with sensors, testing equipment, programmable controllers, and simple machines). For CENE students, this class is the only class in their curricula when they are introduced to a programming language and related environments. The CENE instructors will help the current instructors with implementing better assessment methods, better articulation of learning outcomes, improving the delivery of content, and brining in examples from civil and environmental engineering that make use of the technologies and teaming skills of EGR 286.

This class fulfills NAU's requirement of a junior-level writing course as


http://fm.instrdev.nau.edu:591/clickers/


improvements to the writing portion of the class, i.e., more instruction on technical writing, access to a grad student from English Dept., more real-world application

related to the students' discipline. In addition, to providing a meaningful and relevant experience with writing within the discipline - something that is difficult to get from a technical writing course taught in English -the course also addresses contemporary issues of the profession, professional responsibilities and ethics, and engineering economics. It, like EGR 286, is very important to the CENE students given these many outcomes that would be difficult to cover via our current curriculum.

More instruction: This class has generallv provided ample time for "in-class" team work on their case study report, but it would not be a problem at all to reduce this (luxury time) and insert more lectures and assignments on writing. In the recent past, reading assignments from a technical writing text and the lectures/presentations on writing were designed to target and directly support the student's efforts on the case study assignment. In addition to seven chapters/Handbook Appendix assigned for reading, 11 different topics on the writing process and writing were covered in lectures/presentations. Also, feedback was provided on the graded papers and throughout the various stages (6 separate writing stages) of drafting the case study report toward a final document.

More real-world application: While the case study report is a legitimate writing situation that engineers may experience, the case study does have a rather narrow application to the "real-world". In this regard and over the past year or more, some informal discussions had already been taking place to explore how to better link the 386w writing experience with the 476/486C design experience. While my (Dr. Baxter) favorite concept is to have a competitive project where student teams compete for a project by preparing and presenting proposals to a review panel, and then having that project move into 486C for the winning team, I believe Rand & I are going to try the "prepare and present proposal to a panel" portion this coming spring. Whether it moves into 486C or not will not necessarily be pushed. So the hope is that we will actually be moving this into a more "real-world" experience by doing this. If by real-world experience the student meant resumes and business letters, I don't think those are legitimate vehicles for meeting NAU's junior-level writing requirement and will simply not be done.

Access to a grad student from English Dept.: This aspect of the course was actually accomplished one semester and it worked great by having the GTA assess writing and provide consultations (at least one was required and others would be required depending on the most recent writing assignment score). Having a GTA really augments the "more instruction" issue because of the consultations that are available to the students. The student commenting was probably one who experienced a more recent semester when we started off with a GTA, but then lost her to some complications regarding her enrollment status. Currently it seems that unless we have enough resources to fund a regular GTA position to support this course in that way, we will not be able to attract qualified grads to take this on. We were very fortunate with the one successful semester we did have.

Because of the difficulties of hiring a GTA from English, the CENE has dedicated two (2) CENE faculty to this spring 2007 offering of CENE 386W. The hope being that with two faculty, the content, team and

course management, and grading load can be more realistically shouldered vs having only one instructor (with or without a GTA) handle CENE 386W.

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.

CENE acknowledges this issue, and will continue to try to balance project scheduling amongst classes. CENE has increased its use of software throughout the program in recent years. Students are being introduced to software in the following required classes of: CENE 180, CENE 225, CENE 270, CENE 333L, CENE 376, CENE 418, CENE 450, CENE 476, and CENE 486C.

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 specialize in, and scheduling of "emphasis" classes - having to take classes not interested in or in desired emphasis just to graduate on time

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 other classes. Some Environmental students feel that there is too much emphasis placed on

The ENE faculty has responded by modifying the ENE curriculum. A 1-credit CENE 150L computations course has been added to the freshman year in the ENE curriculum. It is a co-requisite course to CENE 150 for ENE students. CE students are not required to take this computations course. Not only does this 150L course help to address this issue, it also helps to address the problem that CENE 150 was too packed and that students were overwhelmed by the course. The ENE faculty feels that by focusing the computational issues into a "laboratory" course, students will be more successful with this entry-level content and develop a better feel for ENE. The CENE will continue to find additional ways (e.g. advising, EGR 186, student forums, and program of study sheets) to communicate with students on the requirements of their programs and why these requirements are there. The 2006-07 and 2007-08 Programs of Study sheets make note of this 4 area issue, as well as other ABET requirements. Faculty advisers are being encouraged, when appropriate, to explain what features of our curricula are being driven by ABET or University requirements. The December posting of the "News from N AU" spoke directly to the issue of who is driving our curricula, and this posting is readily available at http://www.cens.nau.edu/Academic/CENE/news/ This course is in the curriculum specifically because of ABET. In the past, CENE was not doing a good job, with documenting and assessing the learning of ethics, and hence this addition was made to address the issue in time for the 2005 focus ABET visit. This addition was favorably reviewed by ABET evaluators during the 05 focus visit and, effectively, eliminated this concern for us. D. Larson would like to keep this in the program, at least through the 07-08 AY, to not invite problems with our upcoming ABET review. We can revisit this class in 07-08 for possible changes after the upcoming program review. Codes are covered extensively in the required CENE 438 course and the elective structural design courses. Perhaps, the commenting students had yet to take these senior courses? Dr. Roberts continues to make modifications to this class to address this work load issue without compromising on the learning.

The ENE curriculum requires the following non-water related courses: -CENE332, 3cr, Solid and Hazardous Waste Management. Students are


http://www.cens.nau.edu/Academic/CENE/news/


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 students had to take Solid Edge in order to stay on track with their program and graduate on time

exposed to contaminant properties and partitioning in the environment, toxicology, risk assessment, ASTM Phase I Audits, the CERCLA process and the Hazard Ranking System (use of EPA-sponsored software to perform site ranking), landfill design (HELP and LANDGEM models, applied to global situations) and research on treatment technologies. -CENE383, 4cr (includes lab), Soil Mechanics and Foundations. Students are exposed to soil properties, identification and classification of earth material, subsurface exploration of soil strength, stresses, and settlement; substructure design; computer applications. -CENE330, 3 cr, Air Quality Engineering. Students are exposed to the technical approaches to air quality problems, source identification, acid deposition, ozone, control of primary and toxic air pollutants, indoor air quality and utilize dispersion and emissions models. -CENE480, 3 cr, Environmental Transport Processes. Students are exposed to diffusion and convective mass transfer from a theoretical basis to the practical aspects of equipment design and analysis.

Environmental Engineering majors may choose from the following CENE Electives that are non-water related include: -CENE430, 3 cr Air Pollution Controls Design. -CENE435 Environmental Biotechnology. -CENE440 Environmental Protection -CENE418 Highway Engineering - CENE499 Urban Transportation Planning -CENE450 Geotechnical Evaluation Design

Technical electives provide even a broader scope, from additional biology, chemistry, geology and math courses to construction management, computer science, electrical engineering and mechanical engineering courses. The Geology Department offers a 400-level course on groundwater hydrology and modeling which is available to CENE majors as an elective with no prerequisites should they be interested in this topic.

We recognize that several of our faculty maintain a water-emphasis in their areas of expertise due to the many sub-specialties found within the water emphasis (Gremillion. Decker, Odem, Trotta). However, Auberle, Bero and Baxter emphasize biological, air and waste-related areas of expertise. We feel that we have a well-rounded faculty and that our suite of course offerings represent that breadth.

A few years ago, the ME department, who "owned" this class at that time changed the software in this class from AutoCAD to Solid Edge. This change was not widely communicated and some civil students unfortunately ended up in Solid Edge. Since the fall of 2004, the CENE department has been teaching its own computer aided drafting course (CENE 180), focusing on AutoCAD, introductory drawing issues, and applications in the CE and ENE profession. Our current instructor, Mr. John Tingerthal, is a practicing engineer, who has further modified the CENE 180 curriculum, making this class even more relevant to the CE and ENE professions. We are very happy with these changes.

In addition, the CENE piloted a "challenge exam" process for CENE 180 for those students who come to NAU already possessing exceptional skill and knowledge in AutoCAD and its use in a professional environment. We hope to make this challenge exam process a permanent part of our

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

curriculum, once all of the NAU curricula and transcript details have been finalized. Terramodel has been incorporated into CENE 270 Surveying. This change occurred in 05-06. CENE 418 is currently being modified to incorporate more AutoCAD and the Land Desktop packages. The Arizona Board of Regents and State Legislature have placed significant limits on our curricula in terms of how many credits a program can require. As such, it would be very difficult to add additional courses to our curricula without compromising some other topic (that is probably there because of ABET or some other external driver). The CENE recently installed additional computer work stations in room 113, the CENE students projects room. The intent is for all of the CENE software to be available on these computers as well as the computers in 317 and the Internet Cafe. The CENE maintains a 30-seat AutoCAD network license for $9000. The CENE cannot afford to make more than 30 seats available. The current version of CENE 180 is strongly orientated towards CE and ENE needs. In addition, the CENE has made explicit efforts to place qualified instructors in this class. We suspect that this comment is coming from a student who may have taken an older offering of 180 when it was being taught by instructors with a ME background.

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, that 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 curricula, which directly support attainment of Criteria 3, 4, and 8.


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 participates in include: the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (C1RP), the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) Faculty Survey, the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) / Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE), and the National Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity (known 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, 5, and 7 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 the 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 often 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.

• 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 drunk 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.

• 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 respondent's 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 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 indicated 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 who 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 infonnation 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.

• 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 from 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,"

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."

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 more 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 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 department had a student / faculty ratio that was not within 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

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, 4 and 8.

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 lifelong 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 the 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 UC 101 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 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 Distribution Blocks. The Lab Science and Science-Applied Science blocks will be combined into one block called "Science," and two courses will 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 (AH I)

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 2007-08 CE and ENE curricula, while insuring that two of the distribution courses are double-dipping as diversity courses.

During the Fall of 2006, the CENE addressed this University driver and modified both its programs for the 2007-08 catalog.

8. Fundamentals of Engineering Examination Results

The CENE does not believe that the FE exam should be used as a primary assessment tool in the 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 lifelong learning.

3. Exam participation by our students is 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 testsi s 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 students' 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 exam results as a secondary informational tool into our CIP. Tables X. 18 and X. 19 summarize 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 X.18 NAU Civil Engineering FE Test Results


Morning Exam Chemistry Computers Dynamics Electrical Circuits Eng Economics Ethics Fluid Mechanics Mat Sci/Str Matter Mathematics Mechanics Materials Statics Thermodynamics Afternoon Exam

April 2005 NAU

12 8

67 NAU % Correct

53 62 44 52 38 53 51 38 54 63 56 47

National 3045 2478

84 Nat'l % Correct

59 60 51 39 57 62 55 52 60 66 62 44

Morning Exam Chemistry Computers Eng Mechanics Elect. & Magnet Eng Economics Ethics & Business Fluid Mechanics Material Prop Mathematics Strengths Mat Eng Probability Thermodynamics Afternoon Exam

April 2006 NAU

8 5 62

NAU % Correct

67 48 76 51 62 83 62 42 58 78 64 45

National 3580 2566

72 Nat'l % Correct

64 64 66 45 70 78 60 48 64 73 63 48


Construction Mgmt Comp & Num Methods Environ Eng Hydraul/Hyrdolog Legal & Prof Structural Analysis Structural Design Soil Mech & Foundations Surveying Trans Facilities Water Pur & Treat

33 36 40 50 64 50 I9 56 50 46 47

49 49 42 49 61 43 31 58 46 49 54

Construction Mgmt Comp & Num Methods Environ Eng Hydraul/Hyrdolog Legal & Prof Structural Analysis Structural Design Soil Mech & Foundations Surveying Transportation Water Pur & Treat Materials

69

57 59

44 42 61 54 61

38

64

55 63

51 42 60 53 64

49

Table X.19 NAU Environmental Engineering FE Resul t s


Morning Exam Chemistry Computers Dynamics Electrical Circuits Eng Economics Ethics Fluid Mechanics Mat Sci/Str Matter Mathematics Mechanics Materials Statics Thermodvnamics Afternoon Exam Air Quality Eng Env Science & Mgmt Water Resources Solid & Haz Waste Water & Wastewater

April 2005 NAU

2 1

50 NAU % Correct

64 71 39 46 10 40 44 44 50 19 63 41

39 50 67 50 58

National 178 134 75

Nat'l % Correct

72 61 49 39 53 64 56 53 58 51 47 50

50 50 68 55 66

Morning Exam Chemistry Computers Eng Mechanics Elect. & Magnet Eng Economics Ethics & Business Fluid Mechanics Material Prop Mathematics Strengths Mat Eng Probability Thermodynamics Afternoon Exam Air Quality Eng Env Science & Mgmt Water Resources Solid & Haz Waste Water & Wastewater

April 2006 NAU

3 2

67 NAU % Correct

64 67 69 52 67 75 71 62 74 71 75 50

67 63 80 70 56

National 180 144 80

Nat'l % Correct

78 67 59 46 68 79 64 46 66 54 65 56

65 72 64 63 54

D. Appendix - Fall 2006 CID Data and Comments

1. Outcome Evaluation Data

Outcome a: Compliance would be achieved by students who can solve engineering problems using mathematics and science principles.

Fall 2006 CENE 150 CENE 225

Outcome Evaluation 73% 82.5%


CENE251 CENE 253 CENE331 CENE 376

61% 74% 68% 80%

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.

Fall 2006 CENE 270L CENE 225 CENE 253L CENE 420

Outcome Evaluation 81% 78%

88%

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

Fall 2006 EGR 186 CENE 253 CENE 438 CENE 331 CENE 418 CENE 450 CENE 476

Outcome Evaluation

74% 79% 65% 89% 90% 94.3/100 = 94.3%

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

Fall 2006 EGR 186 CENE 418 CENE 476

Outcome Evaluation

90% 96%

Outcome 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).

Fall 2006 CENE 150 EGR 186 CENE 251 CENE 376 CENE 253 CENE 438 CENE 331

Outcome Evaluation 85%

61% 78% 74% 80% 73%


CENE 420 92%

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

Fall 2006 CENE 150 EGR 186 CENE 270 CENE 418 CENE 420


66% 92% 90%

Outcome g: Compliance is achieved by students who can organize and deliver effective verbal, written, and graphical communications.

Fall 2006 CENE 180 EGR 186 CENE 270L CENE 253L CENE 418 CENE 476


90%

93% 94%

Outcome 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.

Fall 2006 CENE 150 CENE 450 CENE 420

Outcome Evaluation 71% 86% 88%

Outcome 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.

Fall 2006 CENE 270 CENE 418 CENE 476

Outcome Evaluation 65.3% 79% 97.6%

Outcome 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.

Fall 2006 CENE 150 CENE 331 CENE 450 CENE 438

Outcome Evaluation 79% 70% 63.0% 80%


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

Fall 2006 CENE 180 CENE 270 CENE 270L CENE 225 CENE 376 CENE 420 CENE 331

Outcome Evaluation 82% 51% 81% 87% 76.5% 89% 70%

2. Fall 2006 Course Commentaries: Analysis of Targeted Outcomes

CENE 150 Data were averaged using zeroes for students who did not turn in work for grading, and indicate that the average student achieved minimum competence of the required outcomes. Even if data for team projects were omitted, outcome averages remain above 70%. It should be noted that online quizzes usually permitted two attempts, allowing the student to go back and reinforce concepts that were stressed. When quiz and team data are removed for the data set, outcome averages remain above 70% with the exception of outcome A, which falls to 59%. Although outcome E also involves computational problems, there were significantly many more points (non-computational) assigned to outcome E, thus "diluting" the effect of the computational problems. It is not surprising that low achievement is seen in this area, because the work is rather difficult for freshmen.

Of the three students receiving a D in the course, one was obviously underperforming despite trying, one likely didn't apply herself (she simply "forgot" to take the second exam - but would have still received a D overall even if she had averaged the lowest C on that exam), while the third was very bright and simply did not turn in assigned work nor appear to study at all.

CENE 225 Overall class status was developed from the best 15 of 20 recorded grades. These consisted of 10 quizzes, 14 homework assignments which were composited to 5 grades at 20 points each, and 5 final exam 20 point problems. Both the target outcomes and the course educational outcomes were present in differing ad mixtures in many of the homeworks and assignments. The above analysis includes a dis-aggregation and re-allocation of the various grades to the outcomes. Target outcome a (solve problems) is inherent in most activities while b (experiments) may not have included sufficient design and conduct in deference to analyze and interpret activities. This will be discussed further below in the suggested changes for course. Target outcome k (modern skills and tools) was achieved by required use of computer statistical analysis tools rather than brute force computation. Students were


required to solve problems using fundamental equations, calculator functions as well as Excel spreadsheet work.

CENE 251 Give serious consideration to keeping this a three credit hour course but with two lectures and a required three hour problem solving laboratory taught and supervised by the instructor.

CENE 253 Major emphasis of this course was on Outcomes a and e. The importance of and methods of design (Outcome c) were background to many lectures. Actual design was introduced in shafts, beams and columns. In most instances students were given a problem statement with important properties of the material used or the student was expected to select the appropriate properties from excerpts from the Steel Manual (included in the text) and select a member to meet the conditions of the problem. Compliance with target outcome in Columns was not achieved as the class average on the column exam problem was 53. It is recommended additional lectures on columns be included in the future.

CENE 376 The students have achieved the targeted outcomes as indicated by the mid-seventy to eighty percent averages for all outcomes. However, because of time constraints near the end of the semester, insufficient time was given to material related to ABET Outcome (k) - namely the use of the commercial finite element software SAP2000. Although this course does not aim to provide students with the complete theoretical background upon which finite element analysis software is based (this is done in CENE 377), it was desired to provide both an introduction to its use and a description of the assumptions and limitations of the software. If more time had been available, students would have been given additional assignments beyond the one homework assignment given in order to increase their practice and hence overall proficiency in using the software. Thus, in terms of assessment of achievement of Outcome (k), the homework and test question averages indicate a reasonable level of proficiency, but more time should be devoted to material targeting this outcome. Another issue related to presentation of finite element software is the limited number of software licenses - not all students (29 total) could have SAP2000 open simultaneously in the computer lab. Thus, students were required to forms groups with one person actually sitting at the PC and using the software while one or two others watched over their shoulder. Thus some students did not have the benefit of following along with the instructor step-by-step. Students showed overall reasonable achievement of ABET Outcomes (a) and (e), but some of the course material dedicated to these outcomes is presented in prerequisite courses and thus coverage of that material is primarily review. For example, solving for reactions in statically determinate structures using static equilibrium is presented initially in CENE 251, and then covered again in CENE 253. By the time the students take CENE 376, they should be proficient in this skill. However, it was found that many students still struggled with the method and more time than was planned was given to covering the topic. The above can be said for development of shear and bending moment diagrams for statically determinate structures


as well. Because of this, less time was available for presentation of new concepts (e.g. finite element software as noted above, approximate methods of analysis, etc.). Suggestions for addressing this issue are given in the suggested changes for the course section.

CENE 418 A very high level of targeted outcome achievement was demonstrated by this class. This is typical of this class because of its specific nature. The class is a senior design class so all of the students have learned how to apply themselves. A high degree of motivation is developed in each student by their identification with a small work group. The primary focus of this course is a semester-long highway design project, which is accomplished in a small team (typically 3 people). A student is typically unwilling to let their team down by not doing the work and not doing it to a high level of quality. The class is very demanding of student's time and attention to details. A client-focus is placed on all evaluations. Work during the semester is organized into 7 submittals called "Checklists", each representing a major portion of the final highway design. Checklist submittals are not allowed to be of sub-standard quality—such work is required to be redone until it meets high quality standards. These standards try to create a real-world engineering-practice environment and typically receive high marks from student evaluations in this regard. Checklist submittals are "red-lined" and comments/questions made; they are not graded-only the Final Project is graded.

Time Requirement: The primary complaint about this class is that it takes too much time. This is a valid complaint and efforts are ongoing to reduce the time required. There is high variability among the teams as to how much time they spend on the project. Of the five teams, three took about 60% more time to do their project than did the other two teams. However, the use of "redo and resubmit" of substandard Checklist submittals results in all teams mastering the skills and attention to detail needed to produce a very high quality Final Report. The Final Report is graded on 75 criteria and the spread of grades is typically very tight. This semester the grades ranged from 89.7 to 95.5.

The primary contributor to the workload is the submission of substandard work that has to be redone. This semester 18 out of the total of 35 submittals were substandard requiring them to be redone and resubmitted. Sometimes this was due to a lack of understanding of a concept, but this was infrequent. Typically it was inattention to detail and/or simply failure to organize their submittal in a cohesive manner. One comment in a detailed evaluation mentioned procrastination as being a problem in organizing and doing the work for each Checklist submittal.

Design Software versus Hand Drafting: As an experiment this year, two teams were allowed to use AutoCad with Land Desktop design software to produce their drawings. The other 3 teams used hand drafting methods. The benefit of the software is that all design on roadways by practicing engineers is done using software tools. Software enables several iterations of a design that is difficult to do with hand drawing. However, for this project only one iteration is done due to overall time constraints so this benefit of the software is unimportant to the class. Another observation from the teams using the


software is that only one team member actually does the AutoCad LD work. While they become proficient in using it, the other team members can't participate in the drawing because of the lack of skills. This leaves the other team members to do the "rest of the work" and this was not entirely successful as to an even workload split. This is partially due to the fact that the software incorporates several of the design decisions within it so that the other team members can't participate in these decisions. The hand drafting methods results in a simple recording of the design decisions and calcs after they have been done. Also, everyone can work on drawing by hand so the drafting work can be divided up to even out the workload. Another problem was the lack of my personal proficiency with the AutoCad LD software. I plan to improve my skills using this next semester before I teach the course again. However I am unconvinced that using AutoCad LD benefits the learning experience or reduces the time spent on the project. One AutoCad team had a low number of total hours on the project while the other team had one of the higher project hours. I will probably wait until I have mastered the software better before deciding what to do. I will probably run another experiment and again have some teams use software and the others do it by hand. Or I may return to all teams using hand methods.

Clickers: Although clickers were required for this class, I greatly underestimated the amount of time it would take to incorporate them into the classes. Consequently, I only used them effectively about two times the whole semester and only used them a total of 3 times. I learned that questions that have multiple right answers work the very best. This brings the whole class into the discussion, defending their logic while learning that other choices were "right" also. I got several good suggestions in the detailed evaluations about questions that I could use for "clicker questions" next time 1 teach the course. Also I got several suggestions to focus my time on teaching specific skills needed to make engineering judgments about the projects. The students understand after they complete the project that each early decision has far reaching ramifications to later design decisions. They suggested some very useful "clicker questions" that could bring out these critical decisions much earlier in the process and help them reduce the "redo and resubmit" on some checklists.

CENE 420 The students have achieved the target outcomes, but changes in the course should improve their understanding. The following recaps the analysis of improvements that are believed to improve the class.

Because we are transitioning this course from a Spring-only Senior offering to a Fall-only Junior offering, the class was quite small, only 5 students. Also all the students were Juniors. This allowed me to experiment on several things. Next semester the class will have 28 students in it but after that the class size should be between 15 and 20 and all juniors. The 28 students next semester will be about evenly divided between seniors and juniors.

Self Learning Labs: I experimented with a great deal more "self learning" techniques in this class and had mixed results. The series of 4 "capstone" labs required the students to


use the equipment and software manuals to learn on their own how to accomplish the tasks. I rebuffed most questions, explaining that part of the focus was on "self learning." From anonymous detailed class evaluations that I give every year, all 5 students agreed that they could use the HCM to calculate the capacity of an intersection (the focus of the self-learning work) but all also said that they didn't really understand how to use the HCM software. In other questions on the evaluations, they all indicated that if they first did a simple intersection signal timing design "by hand" using the HCM manual, this would have significantly increased their understanding of what the variables meant when using the software. Clickers: Although clickers were required for this class, I greatly underestimated the amount of time it would take to incorporate them into the classes. Consequently, I only used them effectively about two times the whole semester and only used them a total of 3 times. I learned that questions that have multiple right answers work the very best. This brings the whole class into the discussion, defending their logic while learning that other choices were "right" also. I actually learned this from my other class, which had 16 students. This class, with only 5 students, didn't work well with the clickers. One student seemed to pinpoint problem by saying, ".. .when a class is smaller your more likely to have some one who doesn't understand speak up." Small class size definitely makes it extremely difficult to have students-teaching-students, which is one of the primary benefits of using clickers. However, in evaluations, all 5 students said they thought using the clickers greatly helped the "PowerPoint" lectures, which I interpret as getting them more engaged in critical thinking.

Additional problems occurred because I was transitioning from overhead slides to PowerPoint presentations and incorporating more of the HCM and non-text materials into the lectures. Criticisms on evaluations regarding these included "where all information was presented on Powerpoint, it was hard to stay awake" and "a bit boring and repetitive." Suggestions were to use more class discussion and one said lectures needed to be "more goal-driven" pointing out repetition on several points while other topics that were needed on homework were not discussed. Time needs to be spent to finish the transition to PowerPoint and include interactive exercises in each lecture.

Labs: Labs are intended to allow students to apply what they have learned to real-world data and situations. Students gave labs good marks for this type of learning and generally rated them as good learning experiences. Exceptions centered on student complaints about vague directions on the last series of "capstone" labs. This was done on purpose to force students to do more self-learning. However, the resulting deliverables were below expectations and more structure is needed. Also, some lab periods were used more like lectures. Given the high marks for labs in evaluations, these lab periods that were used for other purposes should be used for labs instead. Some material should be dropped from the course in order to accomplish this.

Statistics: Students continue to be unprepared in the statistical concepts and applications needed for this course, even though CENE 225 is a prerequisite for this course.


Professional and Ethical Responsibility: The ability to kill people when traffic engineering is done incorrectly or without proper effort was emphasized in the course whenever it applied in the material. The mantra of "my students don't kill anyone" is used to emphasize to students the critical nature of "mistakes." To bring this more sharply in focus a series of topic-specific situations needs to be recapped in some formal way, with evaluation of students' understanding more formalized.

CENE 438 The students have achieved the targeted outcomes as indicated by the above 70% averages for all outcome assessments. Of the three ABET Targeted Outcomes, students seemed to struggle the most with topics on Outcome (c) - design. Most students seemed to struggle with the idea of making an initial estimate or educated guess at the start of the design process, and then iterating for the final design (most economical, or that meets minimum design standards, etc). The iterative nature of design was demonstrated regularly via example problems during lecture, but a lecture solely dedicated to describing the design process in general form was not given. Most students could, by the end of the semester, design a RC component to meet one or two requirements. However, almost all struggled with the design process when multiple interdependent variables were involved. A significant emphasis of the course was the design standard for reinforced concrete members, namely, the American Concrete Institute's "Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05)". Students readily understood and could apply provisions of this technical standard to their designs when only a few provisions needed to be considered. However, as the course progressed and more Code provisions were covered, students tended to forget previously discussed provisions and focused on those covered most recently despite the fact all provisions needed to be considered. Thus, it seems they struggled with the large number of Code provisions that must be adhered to.

CENE 450 The students have achieved the targeted outcomes in full, based on the percentages reported on the previous page. The low average for the field trip reflects the fact that some students had schedule conflicts and could not attend the field trip.

CENE 476 The students did achieve target outcomes, but not quite to the extent reflected in the grades. The grades given by the instructor exceeded their performance by 5 to 10 percent. By the end of this course, students are expected to have a well-developed plan for executing their capstone design projects in the following spring semester. Each team did produce proposals sufficient in detail and quality to enable them to get a quick start on their capstone projects.

3. Fall 2006 Course Commentaries: Suggested Changes for Course

CENE 150


Two web animations were added to the course to assist with comprehension of material balance and block diagram concepts; numerous podcasts were added to accompany extra notes as well as to introduce the important logistical steps at the beginning of the course.

CENE 180 1. Specify an optional textbook reference for students (implemented for Spring

2007) 2. Emphasize and enforce neatness and completeness of aspects of student's

presentation of lab assignments 3. Provide students with grading rubric for each lab 4. Reduce extent of labs 3 and 6 from six objects to four

CENE 225 Expand the course outcomes to explicitly address the use of statistics/probability theory and inferential statistics in relevant contemporary issues. (Partially achieved Fall of '06 through use of data from current affairs and student's contemporary personal interests.) Expand the design of experiments section to allow time for students to form teams, design an experiment, collect data and run appropriate analyses to test experiment hypothesis. (Partially achieved Fall of '06 through use of data class project to look at learning styles as a function of other variables of interest to the students, e.g., major, gender, etc.)

Refine the grading process. This semester there were 10 actual quizzes, the homework was reduced to 5 quiz equivalents and the final was treated as 5 independent quizzes. Final grading was based upon the best 15 (out of 20) grades. Some students shopped the final quizzes to select ones they could do best to improve their standing. High grades earned and assigned shows that the students optimized their situations by "working the system" to "beat the system". Doing their own sensitivity analysis on their situation was a benefit of this process.

During the Fall of '06 the course was taught on a Tuesday & Thursday schedule instead of the more common Monday, Wednesday and Friday schedule. This seriously impacted the classes in both positive and negative ways. Positive aspect was more time to generate discussion and secondary questions in any given class. Negative aspect was less material covered in the long run.

CENE 376 . The following changes will be tried the next time the class is taught: 1. Review of Prerequisite Course Material: In order to decrease the amount of time dedicated to review of concepts presented in previous courses, the students will be given handouts with notes, examples, etc. and will be required to cover the review material on their own outside of the classroom. Fewer examples on these topics will be given in class. The expectation that the students understand and are proficient in the review concepts will be emphasized. It is envisioned that a homework assignment will be given during the first week of classes in order to provide the students with an opportunity to review the


material and practice. By decreasing the time allotted to review of concepts, more time can be devoted to covering new material as noted above.

2. Software License Availability: In order to allow all students the opportunity to practice using the finite element analysis software while the instructor is available, several meeting times will be set up in place of a regular lecture time. Thus the limitation on number of software "seats" can be eliminated, and all students will have the ability to follow along using the software while the instructor demonstrates on the screen. More time will be provided for presentation of this topic via the reduced time given to remedial lectures.

CENE 418 Improvements to the course focus on reducing the number of hours required without reducing the students" mastery of the ability to design a basic roadway. 1. Incorporate Student Suggestions into Checklists: The Checklists are meant to help

students understand what is needed in a submittal. Students submitted suggestions as part of a graded test on how to improve the Checklists. These improvements will be reviewed and incorporated in the Checklists.

2. Provide more Examples of Work Products: This semester a detailed example of how to analyze a roadway using the HCM was provided for the first time. This proved helpful and reduced the number of errors that were seen on previous years' submittals. More examples will be developed on other items to aid students in understanding what an acceptable work product is.

3. Instructor master AutoCad LP software: As a means to better evaluate the use of design software to produce the project versus hand drafting, I will master the design software next semester and then make a decision about the extent of using the design software in the next Fall07 class.

4. Clickers: Getting these to work requires several basic changes: a. Finish transitioning lectures into PowerPoint format from overheads. b. Prepare more specific goals for each lecture whereas now they are by chapter.

Stay on topic. c. Prepare lectures using one or two "clicker" questions to stimulate class

discussion that brings out the key concepts as it specifically relates to design choices the students will be making that will directly affect later design choices. Let students view PowerPoints online as supplemental information. Focus on only key concepts in each class period. Use more worked example design calcs handouts instead of lecturing on some of the topics.

CENE 420 The following changes will be tried the next time the class is taught: 1. Self-Learning Labs: Have students do a homework problem using the HCM to

develop a signal timing design labs; grade it and discuss it in detail before assigning them the labs requiring them to use the HCM software. Perhaps develop an example problem for them to use as a guide that is similar but still requires them to think about each variable choice.

2. Clickers: Getting these to work requires several basic changes:


a. Finish transitioning lectures into PowerPoint format from overheads. b. Prepare more specific goals for each lecture whereas now they are by chapter.

Stay on topic. c. Prepare lectures using one or two "clicker" questions to stimulate class

discussion that brings out the key concepts in each topic or a coop exercise in each class. Let students view PowerPoints online as supplemental information. Focus on only key concepts in each class period.

3. Labs: Two primary improvements will be made. a. All self-learning labs will be more structured as to results expected. Methods

will be discussed in abstract, pointing out the self-learning aspect of the labs. Examples of "good" labs will be shown to guide students as to my expectations.

b. Additional labs will be added in periods not currently used for labs. These new labs will apply concepts that are currently covered in lectures but not in labs.

4. Statistics: Students will be given a list of concepts and applications required for this course at the beginning of the year. A test will be given about 2 weeks into the semester and a minimum score established. Students will be required to pass this test or (a) drop the class or (b) take remedial work and pass the test within another 2 weeks. Supplemental lectures and work sessions will be given by me evenings during the first 4 weeks or so.

Professional and Ethical Responsibility: I will develop a set of specific situations wherein judgment is critical and prepare a set of mini-case studies to emphasize the tension between "safety" and "efficiency" that can lead to fatalities. I will also develop a homework specifically focused on this, probably given at the end of the semester, to evaluate student understanding.

CENE 438 The following changes will be tried the next time the class is taught: 1. Lectures dedicated to discussing the design process in general terms will be developed and included in the course. The design process will then later on be applied to the design of RC members, with an increasing numbers of design variables as the course progresses. 2. In an attempt to simplify and organize all of the ACI Design Code requirements that students are required to understand/apply, students will be required to build checklists for design of the various types of RC components or systems. These checklists will include design steps and any applicable ACI Code provisions, and will be handed in for credit along with their regular homework problems. 3. Students struggled with the concepts of elastic behavior of reinforced concrete and ultimate limit state behavior of reinforced concrete. It was hoped that a laboratory demonstration of a RC beam loaded to failure could be performed so that students could see in person the behavior for various response states, but this was not done due to time constraints. Next year this demonstration and a corresponding assignment will be incorporated into the course.


CENE 450 I have received negative feedback from the students on Das' text. They (and I) view it as a compilation with too many equations, and with insufficient discussion and interpretation. The students almost uniformly prefer Coduto's approach to Das' approach to geotechnical subjects. I have long been dissatisfied with Das' approach and am looking at adopting Coduto's Foundation Design book for CENE 450/550. This shift will be a major undertaking, probably to be completed over 2 years, and should not be taken lightly.

The inclusion of a major project focused, in this case, on a contemporary engineering issue involving geotechnical issues, does limit the amount of time that we can spend on the conventional topics of earth retention, shallow and deep foundation design. We covered Berkeley and USACE draft reports on Katrina/New Orleans. We did not have a guest speaker, but the students did present over a 2-week period. I assessed their presentations, their ability to design a floodwall, and with a few short essay questions, their general comprehension of the topics. I will probably touch on the Katrina/NewOrleans interior drainage and pump station performance in CENE 333. We ought to keep communicating (across the courses) on what each of us is doing, so as to avoid any redundancy.

Promote better field trip attendance by making attendance count as a significant portion (e.g., 5%) of the total score.

CENE 476 Grading: Improve grading rigor and perhaps enlist a review team of practicing engineers in the Flagstaff area willing to grade student deliverables. Revise the evaluation criteria and weighting for C1D.

RFP and proposal process: Provide more examples to students of professional engineering proposals. Revise the course RFP.

Team selections: Strategies for selecting teams and for peer evaluation seem to be working well. No change recommended.

4. Fall 2006 Course Commentaries: Suggested Changes to Curriculum

CENE 150 This course continues to be challenging due to its large amount of content. Upon reviewing the ENE program of study, we have decided to maintain CENE150 as a 3-credit course for both CENE majors, but will add a 1-credit lab (CENE150L) that will include the majority of the problem-solving content. (Both programs will now require the same number of hours for graduation.) CENE150L will be required for ENE majors only and will only be taught in-person.


CENE 180 1. Offer an advanced CAD class for students that already have a basic

understanding of AutoCAD. 2. Ensure that students have a basic knowledge and understanding of the

Windows operating system.

CENE 225 Do a better job of communicating to all instructors what is being covered in EGR225, especially on those topics of data analysis and design of experiments. (Partially achieved Fall of "06 but explicit list of taught topics should be considered by all subsequent class instructors to avoid the "never saw it before" excuse which pervades the attitude of weaker students.)

Program outcomes sufficiently include outcomes related to this class. Program content should more explicitly demand competent data analysis and display. Program sequencing should include more explicit use of course content. Program pre-requisites may be more than necessary. First semester calculus is sufficient.

Explicitly require EGR225 as pre-requisite to any upper division course with lab work, data collection or analysis or random processes and/or outcomes. (Partially achieved Fall of '06)

CENE 420 Students show a lack of understanding on needed statistics concepts, which is a prerequisite for this course. Knowledge and applications needed for the course will be written and given to the statistics lecturers. Concepts not covered, if any, by CENE 225 will be covered in class by me.

CENE 450 The CENE 418 course continues to negatively impact all other courses typically taken by NAU CE majors. It is not clear that the Department intends to remedy the problem. My response has been to lighten up on my expectations of students in this course.

CENE 476 Changes in CENE 386W content have been proposed to better prepare students for the proposal-preparation process. I anticipate working with CENE 386 instructors to modify content of CENE 476 to take advantage of their changes. One result is that students in CENE 476 next year may be better prepared to approach the process of responding to an RFP.


Appendix I- Additional Program Information

Tabular Data for Program

Table Table Table Table Table

- 1 . -2. -3. -4. -5.

Basic level Curriculum Course and Section Size Summary Faculty Workload Summary Faculty Analysis Support Expenditures

Course Syllabi

Faculty Curriculum Vitae

Table 1-1 Basic Curriculum Civil Engineering

Course Category (Credit Hours)

Math & Basic Science *

Engineering Topics **

Engineering Design **

General Education

Freshman Year, 1st Semester CENE 150 Introduction to Environmental Engineering

CHM 151 General Chemistry I

CHM 151 L General Chemistry I Laboratory

ENG 105 Critical Reading and Writing

MAT 136 Calculus I

4

1

4

3

4

Freshman Year, 2ed Semester PHY 161 University Physics I

PHY 161 L University Physics I Laboratory

MAT 137 Calculus II

EGR 186 Introduction to Engineering Design


PHI 105 or 331 Intro to Ethics or Envir. Ethics

3

1

4

1

3

1

3

Sophomore Year, 1st Semester CENE 251 Applied Mechanics Statics

PHY 262 University Physics II

MAT 238 Calculus III


CENE 270 Plane Surveying (& Lab)

3

4

2

3

1

3

Sophomore Year, 2ed Semester CENE 253 Mechanics of Materials

CENE 253L Mechanics of Materials Lab

MAT 239 Differential Equations

EGR 286 Engineering Design: The Methods

ME 291 Thermodynamics I


3

2

1

3

1

3

3

1

Junior Year, 1st Semester

*Minimum Math and Basic Science Requirements by ABET = 32 hours or 25 % **Minimum Engineering (including Design) Topics Required by ABET = 48 hours or 37.5 %

2

CENE 376 Structural Analysis I ME 252 Applied Mechanics- Dynamics

ME 395 Fluid Mechanics

Science Elect (Geol, Chetn II, Physics III, Bio)

CENE 420 Traffic Study and Signal (& Lab)

Liberal Studies (AHI or CU or SPVV)

3

Junior Year, 2ed Semester CENE 333 Applied Hydraulics

CENE 333L Applied Hydraulics Lab

CENE 383 Soil Mechanics and Foundations (& Lab)

CENE 386W Engineering Design: The Methods

CENE 433 Hydrology and Flood Control


Senior Year, 1st Semester CENE 331 Sanitary Engineering

CENE 418 Highway Engineering (& Lab)

CENE 438 Reinforced Concrete Design

CENE 476 Engineering Design Process Lab

CENE 450 Geotechnical Evaluation and Design

CENE XXX CENE Technical Elective

Senior Year, 2ed Semester EE 188 Electrical Engineering I

CENE 486C Engineering Design: Capstone

Technical Elective (CENE, ME. CM, GLG, MAT)



Total ABET Basic-Level Requirements

Overall Total For Degree

Percent of Total

127

100 %

32

25%

3

3

3

1

2

1

3

1

2

2

1

2

2

3

3

3

52

41 %

2

1

1

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

3

24

19%

3

3

3

3

22

15%

Table 1-2 Undergraduate Course and Section Size Summary Civil and Environmental Engineering

Course Number

150 180 186 225 251 253 253 L 270 280 281L 282L 286 330 331 332 333 333L 376 377

383 386W 410 418 420 430 433 434 435 436 438 440 450 476

Title

Introduction to Environmental Engineering Computer Aided Drafting Introduction to Engineering Design Engineering Analysis Applied Mechanics Statics Mechanics of Materials Mechanics of Materials Lab Plane Surveying * Environmental Engineering Fundamentals Water Quality Lab Air and Site Investigations Lab Engineering Design: The Process Air Quality Engineering Sanitary Engineering Solid & Hazardous Waste Management Applied Hydraulics Applied Hydraulics Lab Structural Analysis I Structural Analysis II Soil Mechanics and Foundations ** Engineering Design: The Methods Unit Operations in Environmental Engineering Highway Engineering Traffic Study and Signal Air Pollution Control Design Hydrology and Flood Control Water and Waste-Water Units Design Environmental Biotechnology Structural Steel Design Reinforced Concrete Design Environmental Protection: Today & Tomorrow Geotechnical Evaluation and Design Engineering Design Process Lab

Number of Sections

Fall 2 2

4 1 2 1 3 4 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1

Spring 0 1 3 1 1 2 4

0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 3 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0

Average Section Enrollment

Fall 36.5 22.5 37.25

36 39.5 33 9

34.5

6

66 4 27

30

7 16 5 4

6

25 6 19 26

Spring

29 26.7 58 60

30.5 13

8

4 54

3 40

20.5

14 12.6 22

28

19

4 15

Type of class

Lecture 3 hrs 1 hrs 2 hrs 3 hrs 3 hrs 3 hrs

2 hrs 3 hrs

3 hrs 3 hrs 3 hrs 3 hrs 3 hrs

3 hrs 3 hrs 3 hrs 3 hrs 3 hrs 2 hrs 2 hrs 3 hrs 3 hrs 3 hrs 3 hrs 3 hrs 3 hrs 3 hrs 2 hrs 3 hrs

Laboratory

3 hrs 2 hrs

1 hrs 3 hrs

1 hrs 2.5 hrs

1 hrs

1 hrs

3 hrs 3 hrs

3 hrs

Other

480 485 486C 497 499 499 499

Environmental Transport Processes Undergraduate Research Engineering Design Independent Study Masonry Design Classical Open Channel Flow Water Quality Development Modeling

1 1 0 1 1 1 0

0 1 1 0 0 0 1

7 2

1 10 10

26

4

3hrs

2hrs 3 hrs 1 to 6 hrs

1 to 6 hrs 1 to 6 hrs 1 to 4 hrs 1 to 4 hrs

* 270 Plane Survey contains a lab with 3 sections, and 1 lecture section. ** 383 Soil Mechanics and Foundations is listed in the catalog as 4 hr lecture, the change to make it 3 hr lecture, I hr lab have been submitted for the academic year 07"-08\

4

Table 1-3 Facu l ty W o r k l o a d S u m m a r y Civil and Environmental Engineering

Faculty Member

William Auberle

Terry Baxter

Bridget Bero

Rand Decker

Patricia Ellsworth

Paul Gremilion

Joshua Hewes

Clyde Holland

Debra Larson

Eugene Loverich**

Wilbert Odem

Alarick Reiboldt

Craig Roberts

Charles Schlinger

Ellen Soles

John Tingerthal

Paul Trotta

Alisa Vadasz

FT or PT

FT

FT

FT

FT

FT

FT

FT

PT

FT

PT

FT

FT

FT

FT

PT

PT

FT

PT

Classes Taught

Fall 2006

150 (2), 440, 540(2)

281L, 330, 430

150,480

499, 599

330,410,476,690

376,438,499

251 (2), 253

253L(3)

418,420,599

270 (4), 450, 550

270(2)

180(2)

331, 434,476

485

Spring 2007

280

386W,435

332

386W, 433

282L, 486C, 499, 599

383(3)

251

253(2), 253L, 377

253L(3)

420

333,333L(2)

180,436

225.486C

485

Total Activity Distribution*

Teaching

54%

60%

60%

57%

50%

58%

5 1 %

65%

20%

35%

50%

60%

65%

12%

40%

58%

10%

Research

30%

25%

25%

30%

5%

30%

37%

10%

10%

95%

25%

23%

22%

30%

Other

16%

15%

15%

13%

45%

12%

12%

10%

70%

5%

5%

50%

15%

12%

20%

Teaching includes advising. Research includes creative activity and professional development. Other includes service to the school. ** 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 reduced workload assignment

5

=4 =4, —4 =V"> =Vi>'MM>=^''"^M=^"<*^ ,'~^^!^^ ,'^^-^ll> ,~w~4Br wm

Table 1-4 Faculty Analysis Civil and Environmental Engineering

Faculty Member William Auberle Terry Baxter Bridget Bero Rand Decker Patricia Ellsworth Paul Gremilion Joshua Hewes Clyde Holland Debra Larson Eugene Loverich Wilbert Odem Alarick Reiboldt Craig Roberts Charles Schlinger Ellen Soles

Rank

Professor

Assoc Prof

Assoc Prof

Professor

Assist. Res. Prof.

Assist. Prof.

Assist. Prof.

Prof. Emeritus Professor & Chair

Assoc. Prof.

Professor

Lab Mgr & PT instructor

Assoc. Prof.

Assoc. Prof.

PT Instructor

FT or PT

FT

FT

FT

FT

FT

FT

FT

PT

FT

PT

FT

FT

FT

FT

PT

Highest Degree

MSE

PhD

PhD

PhD

PhD

PhD

PhD

PhD

PhD

MS

PhD

BSE (ME pending)

PhD

PhD

MA

Institution from which Highest Degree Earned

&Year West Virginia U 1967

U. of Kansas 1988

U. of Idaho 1994

Montana State U. 1986 U. of Colorado 1978 U. Central Florida 1994 U. California- San Diego 2002 Georgia Institute of Technology, 1970 Arizona State U. 1994

OhioU. 1968

U.Arizona 1991

Northern Arizona U. 2001 Georgia Institute of Technology 1999 John Hopkins U. 1983 Northern Arizona U.2003

Years of Experience

Prof. Practice

23

12

10

2

6

7

4

13

12

5

>20

8

8

Acad At

NAU

16

14

12

5

16

4

2

>20

12

28

15

3

8

8

7

emic*

Total

16

23

12

11

30

10

2

>20

12

30

15

3

8

15

7

State Registered

OH and LA

KS

ID

LA

Ca

(Ret.) GA, LA, AZ

OR, AZ

AZ, OH

AZ

AZ and 13 other states AZ and 3 other states

Level of Activity

Professional Society

High

High

Med

High

Low

Low

Med

None

High

Med

Low

None

High

Med

Med

Research

Med

High

High

High

Low

High

High

None

Low-

Low

Med

High

High

Med

Low

Consulting**

Med

None

None

High

None

None

None

None

None

High

High

None

None

High

High

John Tingerthal Paul Trotta

Alisa Vadasz

PT Instructor

Professor

Assist. Res. Prof,

PT

FT

PT

MS

PhD

PhD

U. Illinois- Urbana Champaign 1994 Colorado State U. 1975 U. Durban-Westville, South Africa 2004

12

4

2

30

3

2

32

3

IL(SE)

AZ and CO

Low

Med

None

None

Low

High

High

High

None

*The reported academic experience does not include that time working as a teaching or research assistant while pursuing a graduate degree. ** NAU does not recognize consulting as part of the regular duties of the NAU faculty. Those faculties who engage in consulting do so "of f contract"; during the summer and/or as overload during the regular AY.

7

Table 1-5. Support Expenditures (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering)

Fiscal Year

Expenditure Category Operations1

(not including staff) Travel2

Equipment Institutional Funds3

Grants and Gifts4

Graduate Teaching Assistants Part-time Assistanceb

(other than teaching)

1 2004-05

$7,577

$18,905

$6,910

2 2005-06

$7,894

$2,860 $16,500 $30,000

$18,033

3 2006-07

$7,894

$2,860 $43,035 $10,000

$10,701

4 2007-08

$7,894

$2,860 $43,035 $10,000

$10,701

Notes: 1. General operating expenses to be included here. 2. Institutionally sponsored, excluding special program grants. 3. Major equipment, excluding equipment primarily used for research. Note that the expenditures under "Equipment" should total the

expenditures for Equipment. If they don't, please explain. 4. Including special (not part of institution's annual appropriation) non-recurring equipment purchase programs.

a. From class fees

b. Includes student graders and lab aides.

8


CENE 150 INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING COURSE SYLLABUS Fall 2006, 3 Credit Hours


Required Textbooks: Environmental Pollution and Control; Fourth Edition; Peirce, J., Weiner, R. and Vesilind, A.; Butterworth - Heinemann

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: MAT 110 or higher (co-req.) and CHM 120, 130 or 151 (co-req.) with a grade greater than or equal to C


Catalogue Description: This course is designed to introduce the student to the discipline of environmental engineering and the role of technology in environmental protection. The course begins with an explanation of the principles of conservation and environmental protection. The environment is considered as a system with attention given to water resources, air contamination and waste management. Emphasis is given pollution prevention and multi-media impacts of most contaminants. The course concludes with current perspectives on environmental risks, policies and ethics. Current environmental issues are explored continuously throughout the semester.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes a, e, f, h, and j


Course Objectives: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to; A. Have knowledge of introductory level fundamentals in the following major focus areas: water resources,

wastewater management, pollution prevention, waste management, pollution prevention, atmospheric systems and air pollution control, and environmental and occupational health

B. Have a broader education that develops an ability to understand contemporary societal issues and engenders an understanding of the interaction of public institutions, the private sector and general society in environmental management.

Topics Covered: This course introduces the student to the fundamental concepts and issues associated with the discipline of environmental engineering and the role of environmental engineering in society. The course is designed as 4 modules. Module 1 is introductory and presents environmental ethics and unit and unit conversion. Module 2 focuses on water and wastewater treatment technologies: the concept of block diagrams and material balance are introduced. Module 3 explores the generation and management of solid, hazardous and nuclear wastes in the industrial society. This topic includes waste "from cradle to grave" with an emphasis on waste reduction methodologies. Module 4 introduces common air pollutants, the atmosphere and emissions reduction strategies and technologies. The course concludes with an examination of complex, contemporary environmental issues facing humans and ecosystems on a global scale.

Course Evaluation Methods: Homework and participation = 25% Examinations (3@ 15%) = 45% Final Examination = 30%

The reported final course grade will be determined by comparing the final course total score obtained at the end of the semester to the following grading scale: A = 90 - 100%, B = 80 - 89%, C =70 - 79%. D= 60 - 69%, F =< 60%

Class Schedule: This class meets twice a week for two hours and twenty minutes.

Date Activity

August 29 Course introduction; discussion of student and instructor expectations; definitions of environmental engineering

August 31 -September 26 Water resources; water quality; water and waste water treatment technologies; laws and

regulations

September 28 First examination

October 3 -October 24 Solid and hazardous waste generation; principal characteristics; waste management; laws and

regulations

October 26 Second examination

October 31 November 16 Air pollution sources; meteorology: air pollution measurements and controls; laws and

regulations

November 21 Third examination

November 28- Environmental ethics; environmental risks December 5

December 12 Final examination

Prepared By: William M. Auberle, August 2006 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, January 2007


CENE 180 COMPUTER AIDED DRAFTING COURSE SYLLABUS Fall 2006, 2 Credit Hours


Required Textbooks: There is no required text for this course. You will be required to lake notes on the lectures. Outline lecture notes, labs and reference material are available on the Internet: www.cet.nau.edu/~jst37/cenel80.htm

Required Materials - No later than beginning of 2nd week of class (Sep 6) - Bring all to class • Minimum of 100 Mb portable storage media (USB Jump drive, etc) • Scale - either architectural or engineers or both • Straight-edge or 30-60-90 triangle • Engineer's grid paper • Red and Blue colored pencils • (2) HB or F pencils • (2) #4 pencils • White Plastic Eraser (stick or block type) • 2-prong pressboard report cover (see below) • Engineering calculator



Catalogue Description: Fundamentals of graphical communications, including sketching, computer aided drafting, standards, scaling, and basic civil and environmental engineering applications.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes g and k

Basic Curriculum Category: Engineering Topics and Engineering Design

Course Objectives: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: A. Read and understand engineering drawings B. Present graphical information in both sketch and CAD format C. Have a fundamental understanding of AutoCAD D. Be exposed to Civil Engineering applications

Topics Covered: • Sketching and Scale • Sketching Techniques • Lettering • Introduction to the AutoCAD Environment • Plotting with AutoCAD • Blocks • Text • Lineweights and Plot Styles • Dimensioning • Hatching • Topographic Drawing • Geographical Information Systems (GIS) • External References (XREFS)

http://www.cet.nau.edu/~jst37/cenel80.htm


• 20% Class Participation • 50% Lab work / Notebook evaluations / Quizzes • 30% Final Project

The reported final course grade will be determined by comparing the final course total score obtained at the end of the semester to the following grading scale: A = 90 - 100%, B = 80 - 89%, C =70 - 79%, D= 60 - 69%. F =< 60%

Class Schedule: This class meets twice a week for an hour and forty minutes.

Tentative Course Outline (subject to change)

Week 1 Introduction Week 2 - 3 Sketching, Hand Techniques Week 4 - 5 Intro to AutoCAD Week 6 - 8 Creating Design Drawings w/AutoCAD Week 9-13 Advanced techniques w/AutoCAD Week 14-15 Final Project

Prepared By: John Tingerthal, August 2006 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, January 2007


CENE 225 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS COURSE S Y L L A B U S Fall 2006, 3 Credit Hours


Required Textbooks: Modern Engineering Statistics ; author: Lawrence L. Lapin; publisher: Duxbury



Catalogue Description: Graphical and numerical descriptive statistics, probability, inferential statistics, discrete and continuous random variables, sampling error, hypothesis testing, and experiment design.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes a, b, k,

Basic Curriculum Category: Math and Science with Engineering Topics

Course Objectives: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: A. Present and analyze data from various engineering fields using graphical and numerical descriptive statistics B. Apply probability concepts to interpret and deduce probabilities and risks C. Use and contrast fundamental probability distributions and density functions found in engineering analysis. D. Use and interpret concepts from central limit theorem to establish confidence intervals and levels, design

experiments, and test hypothesis.

Topics Covered: • Describing, Displaying, and Exploring Statistical Data • Statistical Process Control • Making Predictions Regression Analysis • Probability • Random Variables and Probability Distributions • Statistical Estimation & Testing • Experimental Design


Item Number Points per Item Quiz or Quiz Equivalents Homework 10 10 5 Individual Projects 4 20 4 Quizzes 10 20 10

Final 1 5@20 5

Total 24

Of the 24 potential Quiz or Quiz Equivalent grades only the best 19 will be totaled. The reported final course grade will be determined by comparing the final course total score obtained at the end of the semester to the following grading scale: A = 90 - 100%, B = 80 - 89%, C =70 - 79%, D= 60 - 69%, F =< 60%

Class Schedule: This class meets three times a week for fifty minutes. The course instructors reserve the right to modify this schedule during the semester to meet the needs of this particular class.

Class 1 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

Week 1 1

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5 6 6 7 7

8 8 9 9

10

10

11

11

12

12

13

14

14

15

15

Date Tuesday, August 29, 2006 Thursday, August 31, 2006 Tuesday, September 05, 2006 Thursday, September 07, 2006 Tuesday, September 12, 2006 Thursday, September 14, 2006 Tuesday, September 19, 2006 Thursday, September 21, 2006 Tuesday, September 26, 2006 Thursday, September 28. 2006 Tuesday, October 03, 2006 Thursday, October 05, 2006 Tuesday, October 10, 2006 Thursday, October 12, 2006

Tuesday, October 17, 2006 Thursday, October 19, 2006 Tuesday, October 24, 2006 Thursday, October 26, 2006 Tuesday, October 31, 2006 Thursday, November 02, 2006 Tuesday, November 07, 2006 Thursday, November 09, 2006 Tuesday, November 14, 2006 Thursday, November 16, 2006 Tuesday, November 21. 2006 Tuesday, November 28, 2006 Thursday, November 30, 2006 Tuesday, December 05, 2006 Thursday. December 07, 2006 Final

Chapter 1 1

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

4 4 4 5 6

6 6 6 6 7

7

7

8

8

7

7

7

7

7&8

7&8

Topic Intro&Typs of Data

Sampling





Variability

Control Charts

Control Charts

Regression Regression Regression

Model Building Probability-Basics

Probability-Independence

Probability-Conditional Baves

Reliability Discrete Prob Dist

Expected&Var-discrete

Binomial

Poisson'Exponential

Hypergeometrie Continuous Prob

Densitv

Normal

Normal

Central Limit

Hypothesis

Hypothesis

HW DUE class assignments 1 1:1,2,5,6,8,9

1:11,12,15,16,17,19

class assignment#2

2:1,2,3,7,8,10,11

2:23,25,26

TBD

2:30,33,35

TBD

3:1,2,5 class assignment#3 4:14,16 TBD 5:1,3,4,6

6:1,3,4,5,6 6:9,10,11,15,16,17 6.21.22.23 6:26,27,29,31 6.33,34,35,36

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

7.22,24,27,28,30

8:1,2,3,4,

8:38,39,41,42,44

7:6,7,8,9,10,11,13,16,35,36,37.42,43,44

9:1,2,3,4.8,9,10.11,12.17,19,23.24

Quiz

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X



CENE 251 APPLIED MECHANICS - STATICS COURSE SYLLABUS



Required Textbooks: Mechanics for Engineers -Statics. Beer and Johnston, et. al.,8,h ed.



Catalogue Description: Fundamentals of applied mechanics, vector algebra, equivalent force systems, equations of

equilibrium, structures, moments of plane areas, centroids, friction.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes a and e


Course Objectives: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: A. Distinguish and appropriately represent problems as particles, rigid bodies, structures, or simple machines composed

of multiple rigid bodies and particles. B. Visualize the mechanics of various problems and draw the corresponding free body diagrams making use of

Newton's First and Third Laws. C. Apply the equations of equilibrium via vector algebra to analyze various two and three-dimensional engineering

problems. D. Represent the solution to these problems in a neat, readable, orderly and professional manner.

Each of these course objectives build towards student's achievement of two ABET learning outcomes, a and e, which focus on developing students 'proficiency in solving engineering problems using mathematics and science principles within their respective disciplines.

Topics Covered: • Fundamentals of Applied Mechanics • Vector Algebra • Free Body Diagrams • Equivalent Force Systems • Equations of Equilibrium • Structures • Moments of Plane Areas • Shear/Moment Diagrams • Centroids • Fluid Pressure

• Friction, Moments of Inertia


Hourly Exams (4)60% Home Assignments 15% Final Exam 25% The reported final course grade will be determined by comparing the final course total score obtained at the end of the semester to the following grading scale: A - 90 - 100%, B = 80 - 89%, C =70 - 79%, D= 60 - 69%, F =< 60%



Week 1

Week 2

Week 3

Week 4

Week 5

Week 6

Week 7

Week 8

Week 9

Week 10

Week I I

Week 12

Week 13

Week 14

Week 15

EGR 251

M Aug 28

W Aug 30

F Sep 1

M Sep 4

W Sep 6

F Sep 8

M Sep 11 1

W Sep 13

F Sep 15

M Sep 18

W Sep 20

F Sep 22

M Sep 25

W Sep 27

F Sep 29

M Oct 2

W Oct 4

F Oct 6

M O c t 9

W Oct 11

F Oct 13

M Oct 16

W Oct 18

F Oct 20

M Oct 23

W Oct 25

F Oct 27

M Oct 30

W Nov 1

F N o v 3

M Nov 6

W Nov 8

FNov 10

MNov 13

W Nov 15

F Nov 17

M Nov 20

W Nov 22

F Nov 24

M Nov 27

W Nov 29

F Dec 1

M Dec4

W Dec 6

F Dec 8 FINAL EXAM-

FALL 2006

1.1-1.6; 2.1-2.6

2.1-2.8

2.9-2.11

Holiday - Labor Day

2.12-2.14

2.15-2.15

3.1-3.8

3.9-3.11

3.12-3.16

3.17-3.20

3.12-3.20

4.1-4.3

4.4-4.5

4.4-4.5

4.6-4.7

4.6-4.9

4.6-4.9

4.4-4.9

5.1-5.5

5.6-5.7

5.8-5.9

5.1-5.9

6.1-6.5

6.1-6.5

6.7-6.8

6.7-6.8

7.3-7.5

7.6-7.6

7.3-7.6

Holidav - Veteran's Day

6.9-6.11

6.12-6.12

6.9-6.12

6.9-6.12

8.1-8.4

Holiday-Thanksgiving Holiday

8.5-8.6

8.5-8.6

9.1 -9.6

9.1-9.6

3-5 pm Tuesday. Dec 12th

ASSIGNMENTS W I L L BE MADE DURING EACH CLASS

Introduction Review

Addition/Subtraction of Forces

Particle Equilibrium

Forces In Space

Equilibrium In Space Vector Prod'Momenl of Force-Point'Axis

Scalar Product Moment of Force/Axis

Couples

Equivalent System Of Forces

Couples

HOURLY E X A M I N A T I O N #1 Free Body Diagrams Reactions At Supports



Two & Three Force Bodies



Equilibrium


Centroids

Centroids/integration

Fluid Pressure

Centroids

Trusses/Method Of Joints

Trusses-Method Of joints



Internal Forces In Beams

Shear Bending Moment

Shear Bending Moment


Frames

Machines

Frames & Machines

Frames & Machines

Friction

Wedges

Screws

HOURLY EXAMINATION #4

Moment of Inertia - Intro.

Moment Of Inertia/Paris

Moment Of Inertia


CENE 253 MECHANICS OF MATERIALS COURSE SYLLABUS Fall 2006, 3 Credit Hours


Required Textbooks: Mechanics of Materials, 4th Edition, F.B. Beer, E.R. Johnston, and J.T. DeWolf McGraw-Hill, 2006

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: CENE 251 with a grade of C or belter


Catalogue Description: This course covers basic concepts of solid mechanics. Relationships between stresses, strains, deformations and internal forces in machine components and load-bearing structures are presented. Design of these members for safety is covered. Presentation of engineering solutions in a clear, simple, and professional method is emphasized

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes a, c and e

Basic Curriculum Category: Engineering Topics with Engineering Design

Course Objectives: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: A. Use the method of sections to draw free body diagrams and subsequently determine external and internal forces

using equilibrium principles and mathematical tools. B. Calculate stresses, strains and deformations in various machines and load-bearing structures subjected to axial force,

torsion, shear, and bending actions. C. Design safe load-bearing components D. Present engineering calculations in a clear, logical, and professional manner.

Topics Covered: MODULE 1 - General Background Information Chapter 1 -Topics/concepts include - force, stress (normal, shearing, bearing), stress on oblique planes, six components of stress, variation of stress over a section, ultimate strength, allowable load, factor of safety, load and resistance factor design. Problems illustrating most of the above.

Chapter 2 -Stress-strain diagram (engineering/true) elastic constants including Bulk Modulus, Poisson's Ratio, Young's Modulus; elastic/plastic behavior of materials, fatigue, deformation under axial load: multi-axial loading, fiber reinforced fabrics, stress concentrations, Saint-Venants Principle, solution to statically indeterminate problems (including temperature changes) using deformation information.

Module 2 Torsion in a Circular Shaft Chapter 3- Deformation of circular shaft, derivation of torsion formula in the elastic range, deformation of circular shaft in the elastic range, design of circular shaft, general problems involving torsion in circular members.

Module 3 Shear and Bending Moment Diagrams for Beams Chapter 5 (5.1-5.3) Derivation of relationship for shear and bending moment in a beam; shear and bending moment diagrams by equation, shear and bending moment diagrams using boundry conditions and relations between load, shear and bending moments.

Module 4 - Flexure Stress and Design of Beams for Bending Chapter 4 Deformation of symmetrical member in pure bending, the neutral axis/surface; stresses and deformation in the elastic range; beams of several materials; combined axial and flexure stresses. Chapter 5 (5.4) Design of Beams for Bending.

Module 5 Shear Stress in Beams Chapter 6 (6.1-6.4; 6.6, 6.7) - Derivation of necessary equations, variation of shear stress across a section, distribution of shear stress in standard sections, longitudinal shear in a beam,, shear stress in thin walled member/shear flow.

Module 6 Transformation of Stress: Mohrs Circle for Plane Stress

Chapter 7 (7.1-7.4); Chapter 8 (8.1-8.4) - Development of equations for transformation of planes stress, principal stresses; maximum shearing stress by equation; use of Mohr's Circle in stress transformation. Chapter 8 (8.1-8.4) Principal stresses in beams and circular shafts, stresses under combined loadings, design taking into account principal stresses and maximum shear stresses.

Module 7 Beam Deflection Chapter 9 (9.1-9.5; 9.7-9.8) - Beam deflection by integration and superposition, statically indeterminate beams.

Module 8- Columns Chapter 10 (10.1-10.4; 10.6) - Development of Euler's Equation for columns, design of columns for centric loads.


Item Hourly Exams

Homework Final Exam

Weight 60% 15% 25%


Class Schedule: This class meets this schedule during the semester to

three times a week for fifty minutes. The course instructors reserve the right to modify meet the needs of this particular class.

Date Lecture Topic 8-28-06 1 1.1-1.5;1.9-1.10 8-30-06 2 1.6-1.8 9-1-06 3 pages 23-30 9-6-06 4 2.1-2.5 9-8-06 5 2.6-2.8 9-11-06 6 2.9 9-13-06 7 2.10 9-15-06 8 2.11-2.12; 2.14-2.15 9-18-06 9 2.17-2.18 9-20-06 10 3.1-3.5 9-22-06 11 3.5-3.6 9-27-06 12 3.7 10-2-06 13 5.1-5.2 10-4-06 14 5.3 10-6-06 15 5.3 10-9-06 16 4.1-4.5,5.4 10-11-06 17 4.1-4.5 10-18-06 18 5.4 10-20-06 19 4.6 10-23-06 20 4.6-4.7 10-27-06 21 4.12 & 4.14 10-30-06 22 6.1-6.4 11-3-06 23 6.2 11-6-06 24 6.1-6.4 11-13-06 25 7.1-7.3 11-15-06 26 7.4 11-17-06 27 7.1-7.4 11-20-06 28 9.1-9.4 11-22-06 29 9.5 11-27-06 30 9.7 12-4-06 31 11.1-11.3 12-6-06 32 11.4

Homework 1.3, 1.6, 1.13 1.10, 1.16, 1.17, 1.21 1.30, 1.34, 1.43, 1.49 2.1,2.9,2.23 2.4,2.18,2.24 2.35,2.37,2.46 2.48,2.50,2.55 2.61,2.64,2.68,2.81 2.105,2.109,2.113 3.3,3.13,3.19 3.34,3.35,3.39 3.70,3.77,3.82 5.1,5.3,5.12 5.10,5.44,5.56 5.30,5.49.5.59 4.1,4.2,4.8,4.10 4.5,4.17,4.20 5.72,5.82,5.89 4.33,4.40,4.42 4.49,4.50 4.101,4.102.4.145 6.5,6.10,6.13 6.2,6.4,6.8

7.1,7.5,7.15 7.32,7.33 7.23, 7.47 9.1,9.7,9.13 9.19,9.20 9.72,9.78,9.82 10.9, 10.10, 10.18 10.18. 10.21. 10.22

Prepared By: Clyde N. Holland, August 2006

Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, February 2007


CENE 253L MECHANICS OF MATERIALS LAB - SECTION B C O U R S E SYLLABUS Fall 2006, 1 Credit Hour

Instructor: A. K. Reiboldt

Required Textbooks/Materials: One three-ring binder with a minimum of twelve dividers.

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: The course prerequisite is EGR 251 (Statics), with grade of C or better, the co-

requisite is CENE 253 (Mechanics of Materials)

Required or Elective: This course is required for both civil and mechanical engineering students.

Catalogue Description: Lab experiments to reinforce the concepts discussed in CENE

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes b and g


Course Objectives: The Mechanics of Materials Laboratory course is intended to supplement the classroom instruction in the mechanics of Mechanics of Materials lecture course. Upon completion of this class, students will understand:

A. The physical properties, the action under load, and the character of failure of the more commonly used structural materials.

B. Some of the experimental methods used and the limitations of these methods in the determination of the properties of materials.

C. Determine the accuracy of the data commonly obtained during testing, and the reliance which should be placed on the test data.

D. The basic tools for the preparation of technical documents, including technical reports, professional letters, and memos.

Topics Covered: • Testing equipment and methods • Engineering report writing and data organization • Hardness testing • Bolted joint testing • Tension testing • Torsion testing • Impact testing • Fatigue analysis and testing • Concrete mix design • Electronic strain gages • Frame flexure


Total for Reports: (w/o extra credit) 1000 pts. maximum x 0.75 = 75 % Quizzes: (lowest score dropped) 133 pts. maximum = 10% Lab Participation: 133 pts. maximum = 10% Notebooks: 67 pts. maximum = 5 % Total Possible Score 100 %

Grading Scale: A = 90 - 100%, B = 80 - 89%, C =70 - 79%. D= 60 - 69%, F =< 59%


Week ofSession Activity Report Report Due

8-28 1 Introduction N/A None

9-04 2 Hardness Lab Partial Report None

9-11 3 Machine Shop Training N/A None

9-18 4Q Bolted Joints Partial Report Hardness Reports

9-25 5Q Tension Lab Full Report Bolted Joints Report

10-02 6Q Torsion Lab Full Report None

10-09 7Q Impact Lab Letter Tension Reports

10-16 8Q Fatigue Lab Letter Torsion Reports

10-23 9Q Concrete Lab Letter Impact Letters

10-30 10Q Strain Gages Memo Fatigue Letters

11-06 11 Bridge Construction Concrete Letters

11-13 1 2 Q Frame Flexure Memo Strain Gage Memos

11-20 13 Bridge Construction None

11-27 14Q Bridge Testing Full Report Frame Flex Memos

12-04 15Q Review/Notebooks N/A Bridge Reports

12-11 16 To Be Determined



CENE 270 PLANE SURVEYING COURSE SYLLABUS Fall 2006, 3 Credit Hours


Required Textbooks: Elementary Surveying - An Introduction to Geomatics, 11th Edition,, Wolf, P. R. and Ghilani, C. D., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2006




ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes f, i and k for CENE 270; b, g & k for CENE 270L.


Course Objectives: CENE 270 is designed to introduce civil & environmental engineering undergraduates, and other interested students, to the technical and professional skills necessary to collect and work with survey data. We cover modern surveying principles, methods of spatial data collection, reduction, evaluation, analysis, manipulation & presentation; software, survey instruments, and applications. Emphasis will be placed on engineering line-of-sight surveying. Additionally, we address plane coordinate geometry (COGO), geodesy, Global Positioning System (GPS), Land Information Systems & Geographic Information Systems (LIS/GIS), map projection, horizontal and vertical curves, regulation of surveying work, and other topics of interest. The student is expected to further develop good work habits and to develop a high regard for thoroughness, accuracy and precision of data.


distance, and other related survey B. Download, process, evaluate and present topographic and other survey data C. Utilize G1S and aerial topographic data sets D. Read, interpret and apply surveying information related to construction and layout E. Use trigonometry and geometry for surveying computations F. Determine what kinds of surveys can be conducted by registered civil and environmental engineers in the States of





Classroom Topie(s) Introduction, Applications and History: Geodetic versus Plane Surveying Units, Significant Digits, Precision, Accuracy, Errors Distance and Angle Measurements Traversing COGO

Lab Topic(s) Introduction to Tapes, Rods, Tripods, Levels & Stadia; Vertical Control Leveling - As-Built Vertical Profile


Week 1

2

3 4 5

Mapping (Topographic & Planimetric) Surveys Areas and Volumes Projections: UTM & State Plane Coordinates (Map Projections Project) Geodesy & GPS - incl. Guest Speaker

Public Lands System in the U.S. Boundary, ALTA & Control Surveys (ALTA Survey Project) Regulation of Surveying by the States Legal and Quasi-Legal Issues Aerial Topographic Surveys - incl. Guest Speaker TBD - Thanksgiving Week LIS/G1S/CADD- incl. Guest Speaker Construction Surveying / Horizontal and Vertical Curves (Horizontal & Vertical Control Sheets Project)

Topo Survey 3

Topo Survey 4 Topo Survey: 5

Establishing Survey Control With GPS

Topo Survey 6

Topo Survey 7

Aerial Topographic Survey

Monday Lab only - Thanksgiving Week G1S TBD

6

7 8

9

10

11

12

13 14 15


Mid-term exam - 20% Lab Field Book and Set-Up Testing - 10% Lab Projects - 20% Homework- 15% Final Examination - 35%


Prepared By: Charlie Schlinger, August 2006 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, January 2007

Northern Arizona University - College of Engineering & Natural Sciences - Department of Civil cS Environmental Engineering

CENE 280 ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING FUNDAMENTALS COURSE SYLLABUS



Required Textbooks: Introduction to Environmental Engineering and Science, Second Edition; by Gilbert M. Masters; Prentice Hall

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: BIO 181, CENE 150, CHM 152, MAT 136 or MAT 136H with a grade greater than or equal to C

Required or Elective: This course is required for environmental engineering students, and is an elective for selected other programs of study

Catalogue Description: A course in environmental engineering fundamentals that applies biological, chemical, and mathematical principles to solve environmental engineering problems using the mass balance approach

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes a, e, h, and j


Course Objectives/Outcomes: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: A. Utilize basic mathematics, science and engineering to understand and describe a broad array of environmental

science and engineering topics, and B. Solve engineering problems in environmental contexts through mass balance and related mathematical techniques;

and C. Understand the import of environmental engineering in assessing and addressing fundamental, contemporary and

future societal challenges, and D. Describe selected contemporary environmental issues in the broader context of economic, social and global -

political systems.

Topics Covered: This course begins with a review and expansion of terms, units, scientific principles, and mathematical techniques employed in assessing and solving environmental engineering problems. Emphasis is placed on the application of mass balance to representative problems. Water resources are explored at the community, regional and global scales through hydrology, water management and water treatment methodologies. Atmospheric science, air pollution, pollutant dispersion and emissions control strategies and technologies are examined through engineering and societal solutions, including the challenges of climate change.


Homework and participation= 25% Examinations (3@15%)= 45% Final Examination= 30%

100%


Class Schedule: This class meets twice a week for one hour and fifteen minutes.

Date

January 16

January 18

February 13

February 15

February 20

March 15

March 19

March 23

March 27

April 24

April 26

May 1 and 3

May 8

Activity

Course introduction; discussion of student and instructor expectations; definitions of environmental engineering

Review of materials balance; applications of mathematics and environmental

chemistry; environmental challenges of energy demands and population growth

First examination

Introduction to water resources engineering including oxygen demand, March 13 contaminant transport, engineered pollution control systems

Second examination

Spring Break - No Classes

Introduction to air pollution engineering including atmospheric science,

Gaussian plume dispersion, engineered emissions control systems and strategies, and climate change

Third examination

Environmental ethics; contemporary challenges of environmental engineers

Final examination



CENE 281 L WATER QUALITY LABORATORY COURSE SYLLABUS Fall 2006, 1 Credit Hour


Required Textbooks: Course web page

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: CHM 151, CHM 151L, and CENE 150 with a grade of C or better; EGR 225 or CENE 225 (co requisite)


Catalogue Description: Lab and field methods of sampling and measuring water, wastewater and microbiological parameters. Includes quality assurance and analysis of data.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes b, g, and k


Course Objectives: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: A. Design and conduct experiments associated with water systems B. Analyze and interpret water quality data C. Write a concise, well-organized, technical laboratory report

Topics Covered/ Schedule: This course meets once a week for two hours and ten minutes. Week Topics 1-2 Introduction to the Water Quality Lab

Laboratory and Field Safety Planning for, collecting, and preserving water samples Quality assurance and quality control

3 - 4 Solids and Turbidity (Report #1) 5 pH and Acidity 6 - 7 Hardness and Alkalinity (Report #2) 8 - 9 DO, BOD & COD (Report #3) 10 Oxygen-Consumption Rate (Report #4) 11 Microscope Use and Observing Microorganisms

Slide Preparation Mounts and Staining (Report #5) 12 Identifying Filamentous Bacteria (Report #6) 13 Bacterial Enumeration and the Coliform Group (Report #7) 14-15 Final Laboratory Practicum 16 Final Exam / Final Laboratory Practicum Report


Item Course Points Laboratory Reports (7) 700 Homework Effort 100 Final Exam Practicum Report (1) 200 Total Points 1000

The reported final course grade will be determined by comparing the final course total score obtained at the end of the semester to the following grading scale: > 899 = A; 898 > B > 799; 798 > C > 699; 698 > D > 599; < 599 = F

Prepared By: Terry E. Baxter. August 2006 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, January 2007


CENE 270 PLANE SURVEYING C O U R S E SYLLABUS Fall 2006, 3 Credit Hours


Required Textbooks: Elementary Sun-eying - An Introduction to Geomalics, 11th Edition,, Wolf, P. R. and Ghilani, C. D., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2006




ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes f, i and k for CENE 270: b. g & k for CENE 270L.


Course Objectives: CENE 270 is designed to introduce civil & environmental engineering undergraduates, and other interested students, to the technical and professional skills necessary to collect and work with survey data. We cover modem surveying principles, methods of spatial data collection, reduction, evaluation, analysis, manipulation & presentation; software, survey instruments, and applications. Emphasis will be placed on engineering line-of-sight surveying. Additionally, we address plane coordinate geometry (COGO), geodesy, Global Positioning System (GPS), Land Information Systems & Geographic Information Systems (LIS/GIS), map projection, horizontal and vertical curves, regulation of surveying work, and other topics of interest. The student is expected to further develop good work habits and to develop a high regard for thoroughness, accuracy and precision of data.


distance, and other related survey B. Download, process, evaluate and present topographic and other survey data C. Utilize G1S and aerial topographic data sets D. Read, interpret and apply surveying information related to construction and layout E. Use trigonometry and geometry for surveying computations F. Determine what kinds of surveys can be conducted by registered civil and environmental engineers in the States of





Classroom Topic(s) Introduction, Applications and History; Geodetic versus Plane Surveying Units, Significant Digits. Precision. Accuracy, Enron Distance and Angle Measurements Traversing COGO

Lab Topic(s) Introduction to Tapes, Rods. Tripods, Levels & Stadia; Vertical Control Leveling - As-Built Vertical Profile


Week I

2

3 4 5


Week ofSession Activity

8-28

9-04

9-11

9-18

9-25

10-02

10-09

10-16

10-23

10-30

11-06

11-13

11-20

11-27

12-04

12-11

1

2

3

4 Q

5 Q

6 Q

7 Q

8 Q

9Q

10Q

11

12Q

13

HQ

15Q

16

Report

Introduction

Hardness Lab

Report Due

N/A None

Partial Report None

Machine Shop Training N/A None

Bolted Joints Partial Report Hardness Reports

Tension Lab Full Report Bolted Joints Report

Torsion Lab Full Report None

Impact Lab Letter Tension Reports

Fatigue Lab Letter Torsion Reports

Concrete Lab Letter Impact Letters

Strain Gages Memo Fatigue Letters •

Bridge Construction Concrete Letters

Frame Flexure Memo Strain Gage Memos

Bridge Construction None

Bridge Testing Full Report Frame Flex Memos

Review/Notebooks N/A Bridge Reports

To Be Determined



CENE 330 AIR QUALITY ENGINEERING C O U R S E SYLLABUS Fall 2006, 3 Credit Hours


Required Textbooks: Course web site materials on Vista

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: CENE 280, CENE 282L, and MAT 137 with a grade of C or better


Catalogue Description: Technical approaches to air quality problems; source identification; acid deposition; ozone; control of primary and toxic air pollutants; indoor air quality.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes a, c, e, g, h, j and k


Course Objectives: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: A. Explain the role regulations play in defining and managing air quality B. Explain the effects air pollutants have on health, and on local and global environments C. Explain physical processes affecting air quality D. Use appropriate concepts and techniques to quantify air quality and air pollutant emissions E. Explain various types of air pollution control systems and how they operate

Topics Covered/Schedule:

Week Topic 1-6 Course introduction and expectations

Air pollutants and sources Legislation and Regulation Effects of Air pollution Air pollution meteorology and dispersion

7-11 Air Quality and Source Assessment a) emissions inventory b) ambient air monitoring c) source sampling

Air pollution dispersion models 12 - 15 Air Pollution Control and Prevention

Indoor air quality 16 Final Exam


Item Course Weight Homework 25% Quizzes 25% Paper 25% Final Exam 25%

The reported final course grade will be determined by comparing the final course total score obtained at the end of the semester to the following grading scale: A = 89.5 - 100%, B = 79.5 - 89.4%, C = 69.5 - 79.4%, D - 59.5 - 69.4%, F = < 59.5%

Class Schedule: This course meets three times a week for one hour. This course instructors reserve the right to modify this schedule during the semester to meet the needs of this particular class.

Week Activity Reading 8/28 Introduction to structural analysis, structural systems 1.1 - 1.6 9/4 Boundary conditions, sign convention and statics review 4.1 - 4.6, 4.9 - 4.15 9/11 Structural loads 2.1-2.11,3.1-3.2,3.6 9/18 Systems identification, stability and indeterminacy of beams 4.7 -4.8 9/25 Test #1, Internal forces & deflected shape for beams & frames 5.1 - 5.6 10/2 Internal forces and deflected shape for beams and frames 5.1 - 5.6, 10.1 - 10.3 10/9 Stability and indeterminacy of 2-D trusses 6.1 - 6.7, 7.1 - 7.2, 7.4 10/16 Stability and indeterminacy of 2-D trusses 6.1 - 6.7, 7.1 - 7.2, 7.4 10/23 Test #2, Influence lines (IL's) for determinate beams 9.1 - 9.7 10/30 IL's for determinate beams 9.1 - 9.7, 14.2 11/6 Deflections: elastic curve and moment - area method 10.3 - 10.6 11/13 Deflections: conjugate-beam method App. F4 -F6 11/20 Review, Test #3, Thanksgiving Holiday 11/27 Introduction to finite element programs: SAP 2000 Handout 12/4 Approximate methods of analysis, Review 16.1, 16.3 - 16.5 12/11 Test #4 - Final Exams Week

Prepared By: Terry E. Baxter, August 2006 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, January 2007


CENE 331 SANITARY ENGINEERING COURSE SYLLABUS Fall 2006, 3 Credit Hours



Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: CENE 333 with grade greater than or equal to C


Catalogue Description: Water-quality issues affecting water supply and effluent treatment, disposal, and reuse. Design of physical, chemical, and biological treatment facilities.







Course Evaluation Methods: Your semester grade will be based upon a combination of assignments and activities that are summarized below. These activities will be evaluated according to the following point distribution. The number of activities may change to better accommodate the needs of this group of students.

Item

Homework


Quizzes

Final

Total

Number

8

4

5

1

Points per Item

20

40

40

200

Quiz or Quiz Equivalents 160

160

200

200

720


Class Schedule: This course meets three times a week for one fifty minutes. The course instructors reserve the right to modify this schedule during the semester to meet the needs of this particular class.


Chapter 5 6 7 7 7 8 9 10 11 11 11 11 12 14

Handouts




CENE 332 HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE C O U R S E SYLLABUS



Required Textbooks: LaGrega, Michael D. et al, Hazardous Waste Management, McGraw-Hill

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: CENE 280 and CHM 230/235/440 with grade greater than or equal to C, or permission of the instructor


Catalogue Description: Waste identification, soils, subsurface fate and transport, toxicology, environmental /public health and risk assessment, site characterization and assessment tools, remediation tools and technologies, team design project.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes a, b, e, g, h, j and k


Course Objectives: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: Converse with engineers, scientists, medical personnel, regulatory agencies, industry and the public regarding the technical impacts of waste management.

Topics Covered:

• Waste identification (RCRA)

• Physicochemical properties and partitioning in the environment

• Fate and transport

• Toxicology and risk assessment

• Site characterization and assessment

• Remediation technologies

• Tools:

o ASTM Phase I audit o Hazard Ranking System o Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) o Landfill Gas Emissions Model (LandGEM)


Item % Homework 20 Individual Project 15 SW Team Project 20 Superfund Team Project 20 Participation 5 Exam 20

The course grade reported at the end of the semester will be based on the following scale. A = >1249 points; B = >1199 points; C =>1049 points; D = >899 points; F = <900 points


Topic Intro, physicochem properties, fate/transport - Chl,2,3(!,2),4(l-3) Toxicology, risk assessment - Ch 5,14(1-6,9) Site assessment - Ch6,7,8.HRS,ASTM. EXAM Individual TT project, Ch9,10,l 1 Solid waste team project, Ch13 Superfund team project, Ch17 Final (Superfund project presentation)

Prepared By: Bridget N. Bero. January 2007 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, March 2007

Week 1 - 4 4 - 6 6 - 9 10 11-13 14-15 16


CENE 333 APPLIED HYDRAULICS COURSE SYLLABUS



Required Textbooks: Computer Applications in Hydraulic Engineering, 7th ed., Haestad Press, 2006 Hydraulic Engineering. 2nd ed.. Wilev. 1998 Engineering, 2nd ed., Wiley, 1998

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: CENE 333L and ME 495 (co requisites) with a grade of C or better


Catalogue Description: Hydraulic considerations for public works, wells, pumps, distribution systems, gravity flow-systems and treatment plant design. Use of computer analysis techniques.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes c, and e



1) To acquaint students with quantitative and qualitative applied hydraulics engineering principles and methods by means of instructor-led and cooperative classroom and assignment-based training and learning.

2) To acquaint students with the basic principles of design for pressure pipe, pumped and open channel flow systems.

3) To provide students with the training necessary for solving applied hydraulics problems given on professional registration exams.

Outcomes:

1) Can apply fluid mechanical conservation principles for incompressible flow.

2) Can determine and interpret grade lines.

3) Can evaluate, analyze and design systems for conveying water in pressurized or open-channel situations, with limited emphasis on transient conditions.

4) Can apply test pumping methods and analyze results for steady state & transient response in both confined and unconfined aquifers.

5) Can evaluate, analyze and design pumping systems.


Topics: Lectures Water: Physical Properties and Characteristics 1 Hydrology 2 Fluid Mechanics Review 2 Pressure Pipe Flow and Hydraulic Grade Lines 3 Water Well Hydraulics 3 Pumps (Hydraulic Machinery) 4 Open Channel Flow 4

Culverts 2 Water Storage and Distribution Systems 3 Water Use Needs Assessment, Management and Conservation 4 Erosion and Sedimentation 3 Storm and Sanitary Sewers 6 Exams, Reviews 4 Field Trip 3 Holiday 1 Total 45


25% homework 45% final exam 30% mid-term test.

The course grade reported at the end of the semester will be based on the following scale:

90-100%: A; 80-89.99%: B; 70-79.99%: C; 60-69.99%: D; <60%: F.

Prepared By: Charlie Schlinger, January 2007 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, March 2007


CENE 333L APPLIED HYDRAULICS LAB C O U R S E S Y L L A B U S




Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: CENE 333 (co requisite)

Required or Elect ive: This course is required for environmental engineering students.

Catalogue Descript ion: Provides hands-on experience in solving design problems using contemporary hydraulics software, lab projects, field projects and site visits.

A B E T Target Outcomes : ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes b, and k



1) To acquaint students with quantitative and qualitative applied field and laboratory methods in applied hydraulics by means of cooperative field- and lab-based training and learning.

2) To acquaint students with the basic principles of applied hydraulics measurements in the lab and in the field.

3) To provide students with the training necessary for solving applied hydraulics problems given on professional engineering registration exams.

4) To provide students with hands-on experience with computational methods and software utilized in applied hydraulics.

Outcomes:

1) An experience-based ability to determine pressures, velocities, flows, hydraulic conductivity, etc., using, e.g., weirs, flumes, flow meters, pressure transducers.

2) An observation-based understanding of applied hydraulic systems such as open channels, pressure pipe systems, culverts, wells, dams, pumping stations, water and wastewater treatment plants, etc.

3) An experience-based ability to utilize software for analysis of hydraulic elements such as: water distribution systems, storm water systems, aquifers, pumps, culverts, open channels, etc.

Topics Covered/Schedule: This course meets once a week for two hours.

CENE 333L: Laboratory Sessions

1. Introduction; Sources and Pathways of Municipal Tap Water 2. Flow measurement using a weir 3. Flow and pressure measurement - hydrant flow tests 4. Flow measurement using a flume 5. Distribution system water pressure monitoring 6. Ultrasonic flow measurement for pressurized pipe flow 7. Open channel flow measurement using a turbine flowmeter 8. Detention pond analysis (Pondpack)

9. Water distribution system modeling (WaterCad) 10. Culvert flow analysis and modeling (Culvertmaster) 11. Storm drain flow analysis and modeling (StormCad) 12. Open channel flow analysis and modeling (Flowmaster) 13. TBD - Field Trip? 14. TBD


75% on lab reports; 25% on attendance (evenly split between your physical presence and your participation).

The course grade reported at the end of the semester will be based on the following scale: 90-100%: A; 80-89.99%: B; 70-79.99%: C; 60-69.99%: D; <60%: F.

Prepared By: Charlie Schlinger, January 2007



CENE 376 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS I CO U R S E SYLLABUS Fall 2006, 3 Credit Hours


Required Textbooks: Structural Analysis: Classical and Matrix Methods , 3rd Ed. By J. McCormac, and J. Nelson, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.



Catalogue Description: Determinate structures, cables, V&M diagrams, influence lines, moving loads, deflection methods, approximate analysis of indeterminate structures, and computer analysis.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes a, e, and k


Course Objectives: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: A. Identify the basic component and system types used in civil structures B. Calculate resultant structural loads acting on members due to various arrangements of dead, live and lateral wind

loading C. Calculate the reactions, internal forces and deflections for statically determinate beams, frames, and truss structures D. Determine qualitatively the internal force flow (i.e., shear and bending moment diagram) and deflected shape for

statically indeterminate beams and frames E. Calculate influence lines for beams and trusses and use them to determine reactions and internal forces of beams and

trusses F. Calculate rotations and transverse deflections of beams using the moment-area and conjugate beam methods G. Create and analyze basic truss, beams and frame structures finite element models in SAP2000 H. Use approximate methods of analysis to determine reactions and internal forces in statically indeterminate structures

Topics Covered: This course will provide students and introduction to classical methods of structural analysis for determinate structures and also to qualitative analysis of indeterminate structures. Shear, bending moment and deflected shape diagrams for beams and frames, stability and indeterminacy of beams, frames and trusses, determinate truss analysis, influence lines and moving loads for beams, moment-area and conjugate beam methods for deflection, introduction to finite element modeling and programs, and approximate methods of analysis for indeterminate structures will be covered.


Homework = 30% Quizzes (12) = 5% Tests (4) = 60% (15% each for semester tests. 20% final test)



Week Activity Reading 8/28 Introduction to structural analysis, structural systems 1.1 - 1.6 9/4 Boundary conditions, sign convention and statics review 4.1 - 4.6, 4.9 - 4.15 9/11 Structural loads 2.1-2.11,3.1-3.2,3.6 9/18 Systems identification, stability and indeterminacy of beams 4.7 -4.8 9/25 Test #1, Internal forces & deflected shape for beams & frames 5.1 - 5.6 10/2 Internal forces and deflected shape for beams and frames 5.1 - 5.6, 10.1 - 10.3 10/9 Stability and indeterminacy of 2-D trusses 6.1 - 6.7, 7.1 - 7.2, 7.4 10/16 Stability and indeterminacy of 2-D trusses 6.1 -6.7,7.1-7.2,7.4 10/23 Test #2, Influence lines (IL's) for determinate beams 9.1 -9 .7 10/30 IL's for determinate beams 9.1-9.7,14.2 11/6 Deflections: elastic curve and moment - area method 10.3 - 10.6 11/13 Deflections: conjugate - beam method App. F4 - F6 11/20 Review, Test #3, Thanksgiving Holiday 11/27 Introduction to finite element programs: SAP 2000 Handout 12/4 Approximate methods of analysis, Review 16.1, 16.3 - 16.5 12/11 Test #4 - Final Exams Week



CENE 377 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS II COURSE SYLLABUS


Instructor: Eugene B. Loverich

Required Textbooks: Structural Analysis: Using Classical and Matrix Methods, 3rd Edition, James K. Nelson and Jack

C. McCormac, Wiley, 2003.

Structural Analysis II Supplementary Text^ Eugene B. Loverich, Staples.

COSMOS/M Mini User Guide, Eugene B. Loverich, Staples



Catalogue Description: Indeterminate analysis, classical energy methods, consistent distortion, slope deflection, moment distribution, matrix and finite element analysis, computer analysis.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes a, c, e and k



A. Solve structural problems using the the following energy methods: real work, virtual work and complementary virtual work, Castigliano's theorems, and the minimum total potential energy theorem.

B. Use the classical slope deflection method to analyze indeterminate continuous beams and frames. Analyze indeterminate continuous beams and frames using the moment distribution method.

C. Use the COSMOS/M finite element system to analyze 2D and 3D trusses, frames, and planar structures. Understand the basic theory associated with the matrix structural and finite element methods.

D. Analyze beams, frames, and trusses that are statically indeterminate (to the first or second degrees) using the consistent distortion method.

Topics Covered: 1. Energy Methods:

Real Work Virtual Work and Complementary Virtual Work Castigliano's Theorems Minimum Total Potential Energy Theorem

2. Consistent Distortion Methods for Analyzing Indeterminate Beams, Frames, Trusses

3. Slope Deflections Method

4. Moment Distribution Method for Beams and Frames

5. Computer Methods in Structural Analysis:

Theory of Matrix Structural Analysis Introduction to Finite Element Structural Analysis Use of the COSMOS/M General Purpose Finite Element Computer Program


3 Hourly Exams (0.50 weight on lowest) * 54% Homework & Quizzes (includes projects) 18% Final Exam 28%

100% * Provided no Hourly Exams are not taken.

The reported final course grade will be detennined by comparing the final course total score obtained at the end of the semester to the following grading scale:

Grade A B C D F

Percentage 100-90 89-70 79-70 69-60

<60

Schedule: This course meets twice a week for one hour and fifteen minutes.

Week Topics Covered

1 Introduction to Energy Methods Real Work and Impact

2-5 Complementary Virtual Work Castigliano's Theorem 1 and 2 Minimum Total Potential Energy Computer Solution

6-8 Slope Deflection Moment Distribution Computer Solution

9-12 Computer Super Project Matrix Structural Analysis

13-14 Computer Super Project Use of COSMOS FEA Computer Program to design and analyze a 3D Tower

15-16 Consistent Distortion Method

Prepared By: Eugene B. Loverich. January 2007



CENE 383 SOIL MECHANICS AND FOUNDATIONS C O U R S E SYLLABUS



Required Textbooks: Principles of Geotechnical Engineering, BJ Das, 6"' ed., Thomson Publishing; LAB- Soil Mechanics Laboratory Manual, 6lh ed. BJ Das, Oxford Univ. Press



Catalogue Description: Soil properties, identification and classification of earth material; subsurface exploration; soil strength, stresses, settlement, substructure design; computer applications.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes b, c, e, f and g


Course Objectives: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: A. Understand the process of soil fonnation, how transportation and deposition of soil may impact the basic

engineering properties of soils, understand the engineering properties of sand, silt and clay, realize that residual and transported soils may behave differently and why.

B. Be able to determine and interpret soil index properties, determine and understand the significance of soil consistency limits, collect the necessary information and classify a soil by the AASHTO and Unified Methods, know how to use the results of these classification systems, understand the process of soil compaction, roller/compaction device selection and field control of a fill.

C. Know the significance, the process and consequences of static and moving water in a soil, how to construct and use a flow net in decision making, the consolidation process, how to conduct a consolidation test, collect data, processing the data, use of consolidation test results in decision making.

D. Be familiar with the Mohr Coulomb Failure Theory, soil shear strength, evaluating soil shear strength (unconfined compression, direct shear, traixial tests), understand the fundamentals of earth pressure.

E. Be familiar with the process of field exploration, sampling and basic laboratory test on disturbed and undisturbed samples.

Topics Covered/ Schedule: This courses lecture portion meets three times a week for fifty minutes. The laboratory portion of this course meets once a week for two hours and thirty minutes. Module 1 Meetings 1 through 11- Elements, minerals, rocks, soil fonnation, transportation, deposition, clays, sands and silts - Hourly Examination #1

Module 2 Meetings 12 tlirough 20 - Soil index properties, consistency limits, classification, compaction -Hourly examination #2

Module 3 Meetings 21 through 30 - Movement of water in soil, laminar/turbulent flow, Darcy's law, Coefficient of Permeability, geostatic stresses, consolidation- Hourly examination #3

Module 4 Meetings 31 through 39 Mohr-Coulomb failure theory, strength testing (unconfined, direct shear, triaxial test - As time permits geotextiles, introduction to earth pressure.


Item Hourly Exams

Final Exam Laboratory

Course Weight 60% 20% 20%


Grade A B C D F

Percentage 100-90 89-70 79-70 69-60 <60

Prepared By: Clyde N. Holland, January 2007 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, March 2007


CENE 386W ENGINEERING DESIGN: THE METHODS COURSE SYLLABUS


Instructor: Terry E. Baxter, Rand Decker

Required Textbooks: All materials required for this course will be provided.

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: EGR 286 and (ENG 105 or HON 190 or HON 191)


Catalogue Description: Methods of engineering design, including project planning and management, project economics, data analysis and management, systems modeling and performance evaluation, and assessment of engineering impacts on social and cultural concerns. This course fulfills NAU's junior-level writing requirement.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes d, f, g, h, i and j


Course Objectives: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: A. Write concise, well-organized, and grammatically correct documents such as memos, proposals, and technical

reports. B. Define the ethical principles of technical communications and recognize unethical communication. C. Write collaboratively. D. Describe the process of developing, designing, and implementing a civil and environmental-engineering project for

a public agency, including environmental analysis. E. Use time-value of money formulas to analyze economic alternatives.

Topics Covered/ Schedule: This course meets twice a week for one hour and fifteen minutes. Week Topic 1 Course Introduction. Outcomes, and What to Expect

Team Assignments Ethics in Engineering Communications

2 Request for Proposals - Project Intro Organizing, Planning, and Scheduling Technical Writing in Engineering & the Writing Process

3 - 4 Engineering Economics - Part 1 Preliminary design and alternatives comparison needs Proposal Writing Research design concepts and alternatives

5 Engineering Economics - Part 2 Proposal Outline and Descriptions

6 - 8 Initial Proposal Draft Preliminary design and design alternative comparison matrix Engineering Economics - Part 3

9 - 1 0 Proposal Editing and Revising Engineering Economics - Part 4 Mid-term Exam

11-12 Final Proposal Draft

13 - 14 Preparing the Proposal Presentation Presentation to Panel

15 Course debriefing Final Exam Assignment

16 Final Exam 10:00 -12:00 Thursday May 10, 2007


Item Course Weight Homework 10% Mid-term Exam 15% Project Deliverables 60% Final Exam 15% Course Total 100%

The reported final course grade will be determined by comparing the final course total score obtained at the end of the semester to the following grading scale: A = 89.5 - 100%, B = 79.5 - 89.4%. C = 69.5 - 79.4%, D = 59.5 - 69.4%. F = < 59.5%



CENE 410 UNIT OPERATIONS IN ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING COURSE SYLLABUS Fall 2006, 3 Credit Hours


Required Textbooks: Wastewater Engineering, Treatment and Reuse. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. Fourth Edition. Revised by G. Tchobanoglous, F.L., Burton, and H.D. Stensel. McGraw Hill, 2003.



Catalogue Description: Design of unit operations in water, wastewater, waste management, and/or air quality engineering. Student-generated data informs and drives the design of relevant processes.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes a, b, c, e, h, j, and k.



A. Develop mass-balance models of environmental engineering reactors using differential equations B. Collect experimental data and apply those data to full-scale engineering design C. Model unit operations using analytical tools currently used in engineering practice D. Understand the broader impacts of engineering decisions E. Recognize the cultural and regulatory environment that drives the development of engineering design parameters


Week Topic 1-3 Introduction, mass-balance analysis, rates of reaction, modeling reactors (Chapter 4). 4-6 Physical Unit Operations (Chapter 5). 7-8 Chemical Unit Operations (Chapter 6). 9-13 Biological Unit Operations (Chapters 7 and 8). 14-15 Experimental Design: Air stripping (linked with CENE 480). 16 Final Exam: 7:30-9:30am, Tuesday, December 12, 2006


Quizzes and Homework: 30% Design Reports (3) 60% Final Exam: 10% Total: 100%

The reported final course grade will be determined by comparing the final course total score obtained at the end of the semester to the following grading scale: A = 90 - 100%. B = 80 - 89%, C =70 - 79%, D= 60 - 69%, F =< 60%

Prepared By: Paul Gremillion, August 2006 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, January 2007


CENE 418 HIGHWAY ENGINEERING COURSE S Y L L A B U S Fall 2006, 3 Credit Hours


Required Textbooks/Material: 1. Highway Engineering by Paul H. Wright and Karen Dixon (7th edition) 2. CENE 418 Course Pack (details in class) 3. Personal elnstruction CPS RF "Student Response Unit" (a clicker). 4. A Flash Drive or similar for keeping your Group Project's Files

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: CENE 270, CENE 383, and EGR 225 (or CENE 225) with grades of C or better are the prerequisite for this course.

Required or Elective This course is required for the Civil Engineering Program and is an elective for the Environmental Engineering Program.

Catalogue Description: Emphasizes highway geometric design, including capacity, human factors, safety, drainage, and specifications. Introduces highway construction, maintenance, and pavement design; transportation planning; and traffic engineering. 2 hrs. lecture, 3 hrs. lab.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes c, d, f, g and i


Course Objectives: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: A. Students can outline the historical development of transportation worldwide; they can explain the development of

the United States highway system within the political and administrative contexts surrounding it. B. Students can describe the transportation planning and highway evaluation phases that precede a highway design

project. C. Students can explain the concepts of capacity, demand, and Level of Service (LOS); they can categorize a wide

range of transportation metrics, planning methods, and design procedures by these concepts. D. Students can explain the driver-vehicle-roadway interactive model; they can apply this model when evaluating

roadway design elements. E. Students can describe the multidiscipline approach to corridor selection; they can create a process that leads to the

selection of an "optimal" improvement corridor. F. Students can disassemble a roadway into its design elements; they can determine how the design controls,

engineering criteria, and project-specific objectives influence each element. G. Students can design the cross section elements of a simple highway project: number of lanes, crowns, shoulders,

curbs, slopes, and right-of-way. H. Students can design the horizontal alignment elements of a simple highway project: circular curves, superelevation,

and spirals/transition curves. 1. Students can design the vertical alignment elements of a simple highway project: grades and vertical curves. J. Students can evaluate the roadside design elements of a simple highway project: recovery areas, ditches and

drainage structures, longitudinal barriers, and impact devices. K. Students can perform rudimentary calculations for earthwork quantities and sizing drainage structures. Students can

prepare by hand a cross-section sheet of plans. L. Students can prepare by hand detailed plan & profile sheets and a set of outline specifications for a simple highway

project. M. Students will become familiar with the potential of specialized highway design software tools to improve their

design productivity and quality as well as learn how such software can lead to significant errors when highway design concepts are not properly applied.

N. Students can present and justify their highway design solutions. 0. Students can perform a rudimentary design of rural highway stop-control intersections: they can explain the

elementary technical concepts that govern highway interchange design.

Topics Covered: Students will master a working knowledge of basic highway engineering principles. They will know how to size and provide the basic geometric design of an urbanizing one-mile highway relocation project, using data and criteria taken from a real project. The students use standard design references to guide their design along with client provided criteria (a state DOT).

The highway is sized using the Highway Capacity Manual. The AASHTO "Green Book" and "Roadside Design Manual" are used to design the horizontal and vertical alignments and the cross-section. Basic methods are learned to determine the earthwork quantities, size drainage culverts, and prepare an outline of specifications. The students work in teams, preparing a final report that includes plan and profile and cross section sheets. The design requires considerable team work, self-learning from reference manuals and construction documents of similar projects. The final report is presented orally to a panel of practicing engineers.

Course Evaluation M e t h o d s : These weightings will be given to each student's work to determine her or his overall grade in the course:

Average of Exams 1 and 2 20% Participation in ASCE(2) 5%|(2)

Average of Homeworks and Quizzes 15% Final Exam(1) 10%(1)

Highway Design Project 50% 100% (1) Students who maintain an average of 92.0 or greater will be exempt from the Final Exam. However, this requires that

the Student complete all homework assignments. In addition, the last two homework assignments must receive a grade comparable with the Student's previous homeworks.

(2You may participate in another technical professional society besides ASCE. if you so desire, subject to prior approval by the Instructor.

Grading Scheme: The following grading scale pertains to all work. Extra credit questions may be given on any quiz, exam, and homework that can add points to the normal grade for that quiz, exam, or homework.

90.0 to 100.0 = A; 80.0 to 89.9 = B: 70.0 to 79.9 = C; 60.0 to 69.9 = D; 59.9 or lower = F

Class Schedule: This courses lecture portion meets twice a week for fifty minutes. The laboratory portion meets once a week for three hours and thirty minutes. The course instructors reserve the right to modify this schedule during the semester to meet the needs of this particular class.

Week Beginning

8/28/06

9/4/06

9/11/06

9/18/06

9/25/06

10/2/06

10/9/06

10/16/06

10/23/04

10/30/06

11/6/06

11/13/06

11/20/06

11/27/06

12/4/06

12/11/04

Reading Assignment

Ch. 1 , 2 4 5

Ch. 6, Ch. 7 p.156-161, Ch. 13 p. 348-357, Ch 7 & 13

Ch. 7 p. 187-195 Ch. 6 p. 135-149

Ch. 7 p. 169-174

Ch. 7 p. 174-183 Ch. 13 p. 357-371

Ch. 7 p. 183-195

Ch. 7 p. 161-169

All Ch. 8 All Ch. 8 Fig. 13-4

Ch. 13 p. 361-371, Ch. 14 p. 374-383, C h i 3 p. 362-369

Ch. 12, Ch. 12 p. 303-343

Ch. 9 p. 234-248, Ch. 7 p. 209-211

Ch. 7 p. 195-209

Ch. 13 p. 349-357 Ch. 4

Ch. 11 p. 298-301

Ch. 11 p. 276-398

Class Content

Learning Objectives of Highway Engineering Course, Rdwy-Veh-Driver Model

LAB: Team Contract, Introduce Project—Show Prior Year Projects

RES: Rdwy-Veh-Driver Model (cont.), Traffic Characteristics LAB: Design Control and Criteria, Traffic Characteristics (cont.)

Traffic Characteristics (cont.). Sight Distances: Stopping (SSD), Passing (PSD), & Decision (DSD), LOS-Capacity-Demand LAB: Design Project—Capacity Calcs

Horizontal Alignment, Simple Curves & Related Rdway Applications LAB: Design Project—Horizontal Calcs and Schematic

Superelevation, Transition Curves, Reverse Curves LAB: Design Project—Plan Sheet & Superelevation Calcs

Vertical Alignment, Vertical Curve (VC) Design, Vertical Curve Elevations, Vertical Curve Sight Distance, Test No. 1: Take-home LAB: Vertical Calcs & Schematic and 30% Design Review

Cross Section Elements, Lanes, crowns, shoulders, medians, curbs, ditches Test No. 1: In-class part taken Friday 10' 13/04 LAB: Design Project—Profile Sheet

Roadside Design, Longitudinal Barriers, Typical Cross Section LAB: Design Project—Typical Cross Section and Critical Cross Sections

Earthwork Calcs, Specifications: General and Specials, Drainage LAB: Design Project—Earthwork, Outline Specifications, &60% Design Review

Drainage (cont.) LAB: Design Project—Drainage Calcs & Plans and Culvert Design

Interchange & Intersection Concepts, Safe Rural Highway Intersection Design LAB: Design Project—Computer-Aided Design

Bikes and Peds Test No. 2: Take-home part given out Wed 11/17/04 LAB: Design Project—Computer-Aided

Selection of Optimal Improvement Corridor Test No. 2 Thursday is Thanksgiving-No Classes (11/23/06 & 11/24/06)

Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) LAB: Project Team Presentations to Expert Panel

Traffic operations and signalization, CENE 420/541 Traffic Engineering LAB: Traffic Controller Cabinet Demo, Microsimulation Traffic Model (V1SSIM and/or TrafficSim) Demo Finals Week

Prepared by: Craig Roberts, Fall 2006 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, January 2007


CENE 420 TRAFFIC STUDIES AND SIGNAL SYSTEMS C O U R S E SYLLABUS Fall 2006, 3 Credit Hours


Required Textbooks: Traffic Engineering (Third Edition) by Roger P. Roess, Elena S. Prassas, and Willian R. McShane, copyright 2004, Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: EGR 225 (or CENE 225), EGR 286 with a grade greater than or equal to C, Co requisite: 300- or 400-level CENE course.

Required or Elective: This course is required for civil engineering students and is a technical elective for environmental engineering students.

Catalogue Description: Basic concepts including driver-roadway-vehicle system characteristics, traffic studies, capacity analysis, and traffic-control devices. Lab introduces traffic-engineering studies and signal-system operations, including computer applications. 2 hrs. lecture, 3 hrs. lab.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes Criterion 3 Outcomes b, e, f, h, and k


Course Objectives: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to master a working knowledge of basic traffic engineering concepts, studies, solutions, and devices.

Topics Covered: Students will master a working knowledge of basic traffic engineering concepts, studies, solutions, and devices. They will know about the basic theory of traffic, including the driver-roadway-vehicle system characteristics, capacity analysis, and introductory traffic flow theory. Through the lab, they will conduct several traffic studies typically used in traffic engineering to quantify traffic characteristics and support decisions requiring engineering judgment. Students will learn the fundamentals of traffic signal timing and design, including use of detection for actuated control. Emphasis is placed on understanding the theoretical and practical aspects of traffic control devices with special focus on understanding and programming traffic signal controllers. Students are introduced to signal timing/coordination and traffic simulation software


Average of Laboratories 25% Average of Homeworks 30% Average of Quizzes 10% Average of Tests 20% Professional Development(1) 5% Final Exam(2) 10%

100% The reported final course grade will be determined by comparing the final course total score obtained at the end of the semester to the following grading scale: A = 90 - 100%, B = 80 - 89.9%, C =70 - 79.9%, D= 60 - 69.9%, F =< 59.9%

Class Schedule: This courses lecture portion meets twice a week for fifty minutes. The laboratory portion meets once a week for three hours and thirty minutes.

1/15-1/29 Module A: Traffic Characteristics and Concept of Traffic Control (Week 1-Week 3)

2/5-2/12 Module B: Traffic Studies (Week 4- Week 5)

2/19 Module C: Intersection Control: Introduction and Warrants (Week 6)

2/26-4/9 Module D: Fundamentals of Intersection Signalization (Week 7-Week 12)

4/16-5/7 Module E: Introduction to Signal Coordination (Week 13-Week 15)

Prepared By: Craig Roberts, August 2006 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, January 2007


CENE 430 AIR POLLUTION CONTROLS DESIGN COURSE SYLLABUS Fall 2006, 3 Credit Hours


Required Textbooks: Air Pollution Control. A Design Approach . 3rd Edition (2002) by C. David Cooper and F.C. Alley, Waveland Press, Inc

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: CENE 330 and ME 395 with a grade of C or better


Catalogue Description: Design process and procedure for control of particulate and gaseous pollutants. Includes pollution prevention considerations.



Course Objectives: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: A. Define and solve complex environmental engineering problems, and create, evaluate, and document sustainable

engineering designs B. Apply tools and methodologies properly to design and model air pollution control processes and to analyze the

physical and/or chemical phenomena associated with particles and gases C. Work and communicate effectively with diverse and multi-disciplinary teams D. Improve professional skill and ability, and update knowledge and understanding of contemporary issues in air

pollution control

Topics Covered/Schedule: This course meets three times a week for fifty minutes.

Week Topic 1-5 Course Introduction, Outcomes, and Approach Process Design and Economics of Equipment

Selection DP 1. Establishing Preliminary Scope of a Design Problem DP 2. Process Flow and Material Balance Introduction to using MatLab's Simulink Design of Air and Gas Transport and Handling Systems DP 3. Basis of Design for Gas Transport and Handling System

6-10 Review of Particle Characteristics and Calculations, Cyclone Collectors. Baghouse Filters DP 4. Baghouse Filtration Design Electrostatic Presipitators Overview of other particulate control devices DP 5. Particulate Control Design Options

11-13 Review of Vapor and Gas Properties, and Calculations, Carbon Adsorption DP 6. Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorption Gas Absorption DP 7. Packed-Tower Scrubber Design

14-15 Incineration and Biofiltration DP 8. Biofilter Design

16 Final Exam


Item Course Weight Homework 20% Design Practicums 50% Final Exam 30% Course Total 100%

The reported final course grade will be determined by comparing the final course total score obtained at the end of the semester to the following grading scale: A = 89.5 - 100%. B = 79.5 - 89.4%. C =69.5 - 79.4%. D= 59.5 - 69.4%. F =< 59.4%

Prepared By: Terry E. Baxter, August 2006 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, January 2007


CENE 433 HYDROLOGY AND FLOOD CONTROL COURSE SYLLABUS



Required Textbooks: Bedient and Huber, Third Edition


Required or Elective: This course is required for civil engineering students and a technical elective for environmental engineering students.

Catalogue Description: Hydrologic design and analysis of drainage and flood-control systems. Hydrologic cycle components necessary for determining design flows. Computer modeling.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes c, e, j and k


Course Objectives/Outcomes: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: A. apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering B. design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data C. design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs D. function on multi-disciplinary teams E. identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems F. have an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility G. communicate effectively H. the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context I. recognize of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning J. have a knowledge of contemporary issues K. use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.

Topics Covered/ Schedule: This course meet twice a week for one hour and fifteen minutes.

Week Chapter Subject Problems 1 1 Introduction to Hydrologic Principles 2 - continued; Water Balance; 1.2,5,9,11,14,15,17,20.28 3 2 Hydro Analysis -Rainfall/Runoff; 2.2,3,4.8,9,12,17,20,24,28,29 4 - Rainfall/Runoff continued 5 3 Frequency Analysis; 3.2,3,5,6,7,15 6 - Frequency Analysis, continued 7 4 Storage/Flood Routing 4.1,2,5,6,10,11,15,21 8 - Storage/Flood Routing, continued 9 - Storage/Flood Routing, continued 10 - Exam I; Tuesday, March 13 (no class on Thursday, March 15)

Spring Break 11 6 Urban Hydrology/Storm Sewer Design 6.2,3,6,8,9,10,12,19 12 - Urban Hydrology, continued 13 - Urban Hydrology, continued Final Exam part 1.0 (take home) 14 8 Groundwater; 8.3,4,5,6,9,11,14,15;

Final Exam part 1.0 in-class 15 - Ground Water, continued 16 - Course Review and Final Exam Prep none assigned Finals Week: Final Exam part 2.0; T, May 8, 7:30 ~ 9:30am, Engineering 314


Grading: Exam I @ 100 points. Final Exam @ 200 points. Hydrology Toolbox @ 100 points. Homework @ 100 points.


Hydrology Toolbox: A large portion of the assigned problems in this class, as well as problems found in the practice of hydrology are amenable to treatment using spreadsheet analysis, usually coupled with a compatible graphing package. Using the hardware platform of your choice (Mac, PC, Unix,...) and a spreadsheeting/graphing application of your choice prepare a "toolbox" for use in this class. You are encouraged to use this spreadsheet/graphing analysis tool on as many homework problems as is appropriate. You should document (text and example problems) the use of this analysis tool sufficiently that it could be easily understood and used by someone other than yourself. This documentation should also serve to "re-educate" you in the use of these techniques if and when you begin hydrologic analysis in a workplace setting. Your documentation will be collected and graded at the end of the semester. Many of the appropriate problems for spreadsheet'graphing analysis are early in the semester. You are encouraged to get started early. You are to each work on this assignment individually.

Prepared By: Rand Decker, January 2007 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, March 2007


CENE 434 WATER/WASTE WATER UNIT DESIGN COURSE SYLLABUS Fall 2006, 3 Credit Hours



Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: CENE 333 and CENE 280 with grade greater than or equal to C

Required or Elective: This course is required for environmental engineering students

Catalogue Description: Design-based environmental engineering course. Unites design of drinking water and waste-water treatment plants. Applies microbiology, water chemistry principles, and units of treatment-plant design techniques.








Item

Homework


Quizzes

Final

Total

Number

8

4

5

1

Points per Item

20

40

40

200


160

160

200

200

720




Chapter 5 6 7 7 7 8 9 10 11 11 11 11 12 14

Handouts




CENE 435 ENVIRONMENTAL BIOTECHNOLOGY C O U R S E SYLLABUS



Required Textbooks: Environmental Biotechnology: Principles and Applications . by Bruce E. Rittman and Perry L. McCarty, McGraw Hill

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: (CENE 280 and CENE 281L and CENE 282L) or (BIO 205 and (STA 270 orPSY 230)), CHM 230, and CENE 280 with grade greater than or equal to C


Catalogue Description: Presents the engineered application of biological systems for remediation of contaminated environments (land, air, water), and for sustainable development technologies and processes.



Course Objectives/Outcomes: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: A. Possess a foundation of mathematical and scientific principles in biological science B. Define, create, and evaluate complex environmental problems that involve sustainable biotechnology C. Apply tools and methodologies to design and conduct experiments that model or simulate biological processes, and

to analyze, interpret, and report results D. Work and communicate effectively with diverse and multidisciplinary teams E. Improve professional skills and abilities that can update knowledge and understanding of contemporary professional

issues

Topics Covered/ Schedule: This courses lecture portion meets twice a week for fifty minutes. The laboratory portion meets once a week for three hours and ten minutes.

Week Topic 1 Course Introduction, Objectives, Lab Overview, and Safety

2 - 5 Lectures: Applied Microbiology and Biochemistry for Engineers Discussions: Microorganisms, metabolism, ecology, energy, and kinetics Labs: Methods in culturing, observing, and monitoring mixed microbial ecosystems

6 - 1 0 Lectures: Applications of suspended and attached-growth bioreactors, and biological remediation Discussions: Reactor types and process applications, hydraulic characterization using tracers, process performance parameters, and modeling applications Labs: Biological reactor process kinetics, simulation, operation, and monitoring.

11-15 Lectures: Integrating biotechnology for sustainable and renewable energy solutions Discussions: Microbiology-based applications for utilizing solar energy, practical and economical considerations of engineered systems Labs: System integration and evaluation

16 Final Exam 7:30 - 9:30 Wednesday May 9, 2007


Item Course Weight Oral Reports 15% Discussion 15% Logbook 25% Homework 25% Final Exam Paper 20% Course Total 100%

The reported final course grade will be determined by comparing the final course total score obtained at the end of the semester to the following grading scale A - 89.5 - 100%, B = 79.5 - 89.4%, C = 69.5 - 79.4%, D = 59.5 - 69.4%, F = < 59.5%



CENE 436 STRUCTURAL STEEL DESIGN COURSE S Y L L A B U S



Required Textbooks: Steel Design, Fourth Edition, William Segui (Thompson Press), Steel Construction Manual, 13th

Edition, (AISC)



Catalogue Description: Analysis and design of structural steel members for tensile, compressive, flexural and combined loading.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes c, e, and j


Course Objectives/Outcomes: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: A. Expand and solidify basic understanding of structural mechanics B. Gain an understanding of the properties and behavior of structural steel C. Develop the ability to analyze and design steel members and connections for tensile, compressive, flexural and

combined loading using Load and Resistance Factor Design and Allowable Strength Design Methods D. Become familiar with concepts of load combinations (ASCE 7) E. Become familiar with the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Steel Construction Manual

Topics Covered/Schedule: This course meets twice a week for one hour and fifteen minutes. Week 1 -2 Introduction Week 3 - 4 Tensile Members Week 4 - 6 Compressive Members Week 6 - 8 Flexural Members Week 9-11 Flexural- Compression Week 12-13 Connections Week 14-15 Special Topics


• 30% Weekly Design Projects • 25% Midterm Exam • 15% Final Project • 30% Final Exam


Prepared By: John Tingerthal, January 2007 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, March 20007


CENE 438 REINFORCED CONCRETE DESIGN COURSE SYLLABUS Fall 2006, 3 Credit Hours


Required Textbooks: Design of Reinforced Concrete, 7th Ed. By J. McCormac, and J. Nelson, John Wiley & Sons,.



Catalogue Description: Working stress and strength design concepts, beams, columns, slabs, retaining walls, single and combined footings. Computer applications.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes c. e and j


Course Objectives/Outcomes: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: A. List the constituent materials of reinforced concrete. B. Describe the influence of various factors (water/cement ratio, curing conditions, etc) on concrete strength. C. Describe the mechanical response of concrete to tensile, compressive, flexural and shear loadings. D. Analyze (calculate stresses, deflections, allowable moment, etc) and design (determine required section

dimensions, reinforcement, etc) reinforced concrete beams for elastic flexural response. E. Describe the strength design method (LRFD method) and apply it in the solution of reinforced concrete analysis and

design problems. F. Analyze and design a reinforced concrete member for axial, flexural and shear loadings. G. Apply the provisions of the ACI 318-05 Code in the analysis and design of reinforced concrete members. H. Effectively communicate their engineering work: they can produce clear and logical engineering calculations and

draw neat sketches of their designs that convey all pertinent information. I. Utilize modern engineering tools such as Excel spreadsheets and rudimentary Visual Basic programming to aid the

solution of their engineering work J. Describe several current issues in the reinforced concrete engineering and construction industries.

Topics Covered: This course will provide an introduction to the behavior, analysis, and design of reinforced concrete members subjected to axial, flexure, and shear loading. Reinforced concrete beams (rectangular and Tbeams), columns, footings, and walls will be covered. ACI 318-05 Code requirements will be covered, and practical application of concepts will be emphasized.


Homework = 30%: Quizzes (12) = 5%; Tests (4) = 65% (15% each for semester tests, 20% final test)

The reported final course grade will be determined by comparing the final course total score obtained at the end of the semester to the following grading scale: A = 90 - 100%. B - 80 - 89%, C =70 - 79%, D= 60 - 69%, F =< 60%


Week of Activity Reading 8/28 Class introduction, material properties 1.1 - 1.4, 1.6, 1.8 - 1.13, 1.15 - 1.18 9/4 Elastic flexural theory ( No class 9/4 ) 2.1 - 2.3 9/11 Strength analysis of singly reinforced rectangular beams 2.4,3.1 -3.10

9/18 Analysis and design of singly reinforced beams. Test #1 4.1 -4.6,4.8 9/25 Design of rectangular beams. Doubly reinforced beams 5.7-5.8 10/2 Doubly reinforced beams, T-beams 5.1-5.6 10/9 Analysis and design of one-way slabs, Beam deflections 4.7,6.1 -6 .7 10/16 Beam deflections, Crack control, Test #2 6.1 - 6.7, 6.9 - 6.11 10/23 Bar development, Bar cut-off 7.1 - 7.3,7.8 - 7.11 10/30 Beam shear analysis, shear envelope 8.1-8.7 11/6 Beam shear design, Test #3 8.8-8.11 11/13 Beam shear design 8.8-8.11 11/20 Columns with pure axial load, Columns with flexure and axial load.

Thanksgiving Holiday 9.1 9.9 11/27 Columns with flexure and axial load 10.1-10.5 12/4 Footings 12.1-12.6 12/11 Test #4 - Final Exams Week



CENE 440/540 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION: TODAY AND TOMORROW COURSE SYLLABUS Fall 2006, 3 Credit Hours

Instructor: William Auberle

Required Textbooks: There is no textbook is used for this course. Course text will be delivered through the modules. Required and recommended readings will include U.S. Environmental Protection Agency publications on assigned topics, other writings on assigned topics, and related statutes, regulations, and court cases. All required and recommended readings will be accessible electronically.

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: ENV101 or CENE150 or FOR222 with grade greater than or equal to C or permission from instructor.


Catalogue Description: This course will explore current legal and regulatory strategies for environmental protection.

Innovative approaches to environmental management will be examined and discussed in groups/chat rooms and class

projects.



Course Objectives/Topics Covered: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: A. Understand the role of diverse laws in formulating environmental public policy. B. Access easily environmental laws, regulations and ordinances at the local, state, tribal, federal and international

levels. C. Understand the applications of laws, regulations, guidelines and standards of practice in an environmental context. D. Grasp recent developments in environmental policies and how these may change. E. Know the applications of fundamental legal and regulatory principles to air pollution, water pollution, waste

management, and other environmental issues. F. Assess critically multiple options for addressing environmental problems. G. Recognize major current events affecting the environment. H. Know how to use research materials available to answer questions presented by realistic case studies. 1. Have experience in preparing a detailed research paper. J. Communicate via mail and chat rooms in WebCT.


CENE 440: CENE 540: Case studies «= 25% Case studies = 30% Homework = 10% Homework = 10% Mid-term exam = 10% Mid-term exam = 10% Research papers = 40% (20% each) Research paper = 30% Final exam = 15% Final exam = 20%


Class Schedule: This course is an online course and does not have a weekly scheduled time. The course instructors reserve the right to modify this schedule during the semester to meet the needs of this particular class.

Prepared By: William Auberle, August 2006 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, January 20007


CENE 450/550 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION DESIGN COURSE SYLLABUS Fall 2006, 3 Credit Hours


Required Textbooks: Principles of Foundation Engineering, Thomson/Brooks/Cole 5th Edition

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: CENE 383 with a grade of C or better, or permission of instructor.

Required or Elective: This course is required for civil engineering students, and is a technical elective for environmental engineering students.

Catalogue Description: Advanced methods in geotechnical evaluation and design with applications in foundations, slope stability, geosynthetics, underground construction, ground improvement and earth retention systems.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes c, h, and j


Course Objectives: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: A. Estimate lateral earth pressures and to design earth retention structures using methods appropriate to the problem at

hand. B. Estimate bearing capacity, settlement and allowable bearing pressure for conventional spread footing foundations, as

well as for drilled shafts and piers C. C. Design and specify geosynthetics for geotechnical applications, such as design for a weak subgrade. D. Use software for earth retention design. E. Advanced knowledge and understanding of one or more contemporary issues in civil-engineering-related to

geotechnical design


Tentative Course Outline Topic

Earth Retention - Basic Principles Earth Retention - Applications and Design Methods Introduction to Foundation Design Bearing Capacity - Foundations on Soil Settlement - Foundations on Soil Foundations on Rock Drilled Shafts and Piers Drilled Shafts and Piers Geosynthetics - Weak Subgrades Katrina & New Orleans Katrina & New Orleans Segmental/Modular Retaining Wall Design Field Trips

Week 1.2 3.4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15


Assignments/projects (30%), midterm exam (30%) and final exam (40%) Of the 24 potential Quiz or Quiz Equivalent grades only the best 19 will be totaled. The reported final course grade will be determined by comparing the final course total score obtained at the end of the semester to the following grading scale: A = 90 - 100%, B = 80 - 89%, C =70 - 79%, D= 60 - 69%, F =< 60% Prepared By: Charlie Schlinger, August 2006 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, January 2007

Northern Arizona University - College of Engineering c$ Natural Sciences - Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering

CENE 476 ENGINEERING DESIGN PROCESS LABORATORY COURSE SYLLABUS

Fall 2006, 1 Credit Hour

Instructor: Paul D. Trotta, Paul GremilHon


Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: CENE 386W or CENE 386 with a grade of C or better.

Required or Elective: This course is required for both civil and environmental engineering students

Catalogue Description: Involves forming design teams, selecting projects for CENE 486 with sponsor interaction, completing a project proposal, and having it accepted by the sponsor.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes c, d, g, and i.



A. Have an understanding of procedures for developing proposals for engineering design projects. B. Work with a prospective client to develop technical and cost proposals that match the needs of the client. C. Function in a team of professional peers. D. Prepare and deliver a professional presentation.


Week Date Topic 1 29 Aug Introduction, review course requirements, complete self-evaluation forms. 2 5 Sep Introduction to projects, announce team assignments. 3 12 Sep Issue the Request for Proposals, instructions for proposals. 4 19 Sep Project budgets. 5 26 Sep Team meetings with instructors. 6 3 Oct Team meetings with instructors. 7 10 Oct Proposal Detailed Outline Due. 8 17 Oct Team meetings with instructors. 9 24 Oct Proposal 50% Completion Due. 10 31 Oct Team meetings with instructors. 11 7 Nov Team meetings with instructors. 12 14 Nov Presentations, Part 1

16 Nov Presentations, Part 2 13 21 Nov Presentations, Part 3, Final Proposal Due

Course Evaluation Method: Your semester grade will be based upon a combination of assignments and activities that are summarized below:

Proposal Outline: 20% Proposal 50%: 20% Oral Presentation: 20% Final Proposal: 40% Total: 100%

Of the 24 potential Quiz or Quiz Equivalent grades only the best 19 will be totaled. The reported final course grade will be determined by comparing the final course total score obtained at the end of the semester to the following grading scale: A = 90 - 100%, B = 80 - 89%, C =70 - 79%, D= 60 - 69%, F =< 60% Prepared By: Paul D. Trotta, August 2006 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, January 2007


CENE 480/502 ENGINEERING TRANSPORT PROCESSES COURSE SYLLABUS Fall 2006, 3 Credit Hours


Required Textbooks: Welty, J.R., Wicks, C.E., Wilson, R.E and Rorrer, G. Fundamentals of Momentum, Heat and Mass Transfer, 4th Ed. Wiley, 2001.

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: ME395 with a grade of C or better


Catalogue Description: Fundamental engineering concepts of mass transport with applications for environmental engineering. Additional laboratory/writing component for CENE502.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes a, c, and e


Course Objectives: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: A. Apply the differential equation of mass transfer to environmental engineering problems and solve. B. Identify, simplify and diagram two-phase convective mass transfer systems; formulate and solve associated

environmental engineering problems. C. Select appropriate mass transfer coefficient correlations and apply them to the design and analysis of mass transfer

equipment. D. CENE502: Analyze and critique the current literature on a mass transfer problem and present your conclusion;

experimentally determine mass transfer coefficients and use to design a scaled-up system.

Topics Covered: Chapters 24-26, 28-31 of the text.


Item Homework In-class participation Mid-term Exam Final Exam

Points 500

200

120

180

The course grade reported at the end of the semester will be based on the following scale. A = >899 points; B = >799 points; C = >699 points; D = >599 points; F = <600 points


Week 1-4 4 - 5 6 -9 9-11 11-15 16

Topic Chapters 24 and 25 Chapter 26 Chapters 28 and 29 Chapter 30 Chapter 31 Final Exam

Prepared By: Bridget N. Bero, August 2006 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, January 2007


CENE 486C ENGINEERING DESIGN COURSE SYLLABUS


Instructor: Paul Gremillion, Paul Trotta


Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: CENE 386W or CENE 386 and CENE 476 with grades of C or better

Required or Elective: This course is required for both environmental and civil engineering students.

Catalogue Description: Involves design methodology and decision making and preparing team design projects that culminate in oral and written reports. Must be taken in the year in which you graduate

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes c, d, e, f, g, h, i and k


Course Objectives/Outcomes: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: A. Design systems or processes to meet desired needs of a client within realistic constraints (ABET Outcome c). B. Perform and communicate effectively on teams (ABET Outcome d). C. Solve well-defined engineering problems in one or more of the technical areas appropriate to civil engineering

(structures, water resources, transportation, geotechnical) or environmental engineering (water resources, systems modeling, wastewater management, waste management, pollution prevention, atmospheric systems and air pollution control, environmental and occupational health (ABET Outcome e).

D. Recognize and analyze situations involving professional and ethical interests (ABET Outcome f). E. Organize and deliver effective verbal, written, and graphical communications (ABET Outcome g). F. Describe the impacts of constrained engineering solutions to relevant economic, environmental, social, and global-

political systems (ABET Outcome h). G. Demonstrate the ability to leam on their own, without the aid of formal instruction, and express the need to

continually improve their professional skills throughout their careers (ABET Outcome i). H. Incorporate into the engineering problem solving process well-defined contemporary issues such as regulations and

compliance, economics, environmental impacts, political influences, and globalization (ABET Outcome j). I. Apply relevant techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools of the engineering practice (ABET Outcome k).


Week 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Week of Jan 16

Jan 23 Jan 30 Feb 06 Feb 13 Feb 20 Feb 27 Mar 06 Mar 13 Mar 20

Topic Course introduction, schedule team meetings, review proposals (Tu). Final report structure and outline (Tu). Evaluation criteria (Tu).

Spring Break

11 12 13

14

15 16

Mar 27 Apr 03 Apr 17

Apr 24

May 01 May 08

Website due (Tu) Poster due (Tu) Presentation dress rehearsal (Th) 100% Deliverable due (Tu) Final Presentation: Capstone Conference (Fr) Ethics module (Tu, Th) and quiz (Th) Commencement: Fridav May 11

Note that there are no scheduled activities or deliverables during the period Week 4 through Week 12. During this time students will schedule their 30%, 60%, and 90% design deliverables and meetings with their instructor. Instructors will also use this time to make relevant announcements and deliver lectures as needed. Because many deliverables are scheduled during the last three weeks of the term, it is essential that teams plan carefully their activities during Weeks 4 through 12 to avoid excessive workload at the end of the term.


30% Design 75 60% Design 75 90% Design 75 Project Website 50 Project Poster 50 Final Report (100% design) 200 Capstone Presentation 200 Ethics Quiz 50 Total: 775


Prepared By: Paul Gremillion, January 2007 Formatted By: Abiaail Breazeale, March 2007


CENE 499 / 599 CLASSICAL OPEN CHANNEL FLOW C O U R S E SYLLABUS Fall 2006, 3 Credit Hours


Required Textbooks: Open Channel Hydrology, T. Sturm, First Edition.

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: Instructors consent

Required or Elective: This course is a technical elective for both civil and environmental engineering students.

Catalogue Description: Examines recent trends and investigations in open channel flow

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes a, e and k


Course Objectives: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: Have sufficient skills to analyze free surface flows in engineered and natural channel systems, including common hydraulic structures and flow control facilities

Topics Covered: Study will include a rigorous examination of the theory of incompressible flow, flow potential and resistance; and analytic and computational methods for uniform and gradually varying open channel flow regimes. Those individuals who choose to register for this class at the graduate level will further exercise these learning objectives by developing and presenting an in depth project of their own choosing in the general area of open channel flow.


Exam I @ 100 points. Final Exam @ 200 points. Homework @ 200 points. 599 registrants - a 100 point report and oral presentation on a topic of interest in the area of COCF.



Week Chapter Subject/Problems 1 - Introduction and Fundamentals of the Engineering Science of Fluid Mechanics 2 - Fundamentals of the Engineering Science of Fluid Mechanics, continued 3 1 Conservation Law, Kinematics and Constitutive Equations of Fluid Mechanics 4 2 Characteristics of Open Channel Flows and Specific Energy Bal & Applications; 1.3,4,5,8 &

2.1,2,5,7,9,12,13,15,17 5 3 Momentum Balance Applications; 3.1,2,5,8,11,13 6 4 Introduction to Uniform Flow; 4.1,2,3,6,7,9,11,13,16,18,19 7 - Uniform Flow, continued 8 - Uniform Flow, continued

Week Chapter Subject/Problems 9 - Exam Prep and Exam 1, Wednesday, October 25th, Room 314 Engineering 10 5 Gradually Varying Flow; TBA 11 - Gradually Varying Flow, continued 12 6 Hydraulic Structures for Open Channel Flows; 6.5,6,7,8,12 13 - Hydraulic Structures, continued; -: no class on Wednesday, November 22nd 14 - Oral Presentations of 599 Registrants' Projects 15 - Final Exam Prep

Prepared By: Rand Decker, August 2006 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, January 2007


CENE 499 / 599 MASONRY DESIGN COURSE S Y L L A B U S Fall 2006, 3 Credit Hours


Required Textbooks: Reinforced Masonry Design, 3rd Ed., Schnieder and Dickey

Course Prerequisite: CENE 253 with a grade of C or better

Required or Elective: This course is a technical elective for civil engineering students

Catalogue Description: Examines recent trends and investigations in a selected area of a particular major field of study.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criteria 3 Outcomes c, e, j, and k


Course Objectives: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: A. List the constituent materials of reinforced concrete masonry construction. B. Describe the compression and tension response of concrete masonry subjected to axial and flexural loads. C. Analyze and design reinforced masonry elements (section size and required steel reinforcement) using allowable

stress design for flexure and shear loads. D. Calculate reinforced masonry beam service load deflections due to transverse loads. E. Analyze and design reinforced masonry elements for flexure, shear, and axial loads using the ultimate strength

design method. F. Analyze and design reinforced masonry walls for out-of-plane loads using the ultimate strength design procedure. G. Analyze and design reinforced masonry walls for in-of-plane loads using the ultimate strength design procedure. H. Use Microsoft Excel spreadsheets along with Visual Basic programming to perform analysis and design calculations

for reinforced masonry elements. I. Use the provisions of the Masonry Standards Joint Committee Code "Building Code Requirements for Masonry

Structures, ACI 530-05" in the analysis and design of reinforced concrete masonry elements.

Topics Covered: This course will provide an introduction to the behavior, analysis, and design of reinforced masonry members subjected to axial, flexure, and shear loading. Masonry beams, walls (in-plane, out-of-plane, and shear loads) columns, will be covered. MSJC - 05 Code requirements will be covered, and practical application of concepts will be emphasized.


Homework: These are individual calculation assignments and should be done on engineering calculation paper (e.g. the "green stuff"). These assignments are due at the beginning of the designated class period. Late assignments are not accepted. Note that a portion of your homework score will be based on the neatness and clarity of your work. Please see the set of calculations given to you with this syllabus for an example of "clear" and "neat" work.

Tests: Four in-class tests will be administered. No make-up tests will be given for missed tests without the prior consent of the instructor. Make-up tests will not be given for trivial reasons, i.e., the first big snow falls in Colorado and you have to be there to get "first tracks".

These activities will carry the following weighting for calculating your overall course grade: Homework = 35% Tests = 65% (15% each for semester tests, 20% final test)


A = 90 - 100%, B - 80 - 89%, C = 70 - 79%, D = 60 - 69%, F =< 60%

Class Schedule: This course meets once a week for two hours and thirty minutes. The course instructor reserves the right to modify this schedule during the semester to meet the needs of this particular class.

Week of

8/28

9/4

9/11

9/18

9/25

10/2

10/9

10/16

10/23

10/30

11/6

11/13

11/20

11/27

12/4

12/11

Activity

Class introduction, material properties

Elastic flexural theory ( No class 9/4 )

Flexural analysis and design

Deflections



Reinforced masonry walls - axial loads

Reinforced masonry walls - axial and bending

Walls - out-of-plane analysis and design

Masonry columns

Masonry Columns

Masonry Shear Walls

Masonry Shear walls Thanksgiving Holiday

Retaining walls

Retaining walls

Test #4 — Final Exams Week

Contribution to Professional Component: This contributes to the professional component of Civil Engineering by providing engineering design experiences in reinforced concrete.



CENE 499/599 WATER QUALITY MODELING C O U R S E SYLLABUS



Required Textbooks: Surface Water Quality Modeling, Steven C. Chapra, McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 1997, 844pp. Journal articles and excerpted material from relevant text books and other sources will also be provided on the Vista web page.

Recommended Optional Material / References: Principles of Surface Water Quality Modeling and Control, Robert V. Thomann and John A. Mueller, Prentice Hall, 1979.

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: Consent of the instructor

Required or Elective: This course is a technical elective for both environmental and civil engineering students.

Catalogue Description: Water quality modeling has its origins in the study of oxygen depletion and re-aeration downstream from wastewater discharges. We will study this classic example as well as many other water quality phenomena. This course will emphasize two areas of study: (1) The chemical, physical, and biological processes that control water quality in lakes and streams, and (2) the systems of differential equations that can be used to describe these transformations. We will derive and apply these equations using spreadsheets and pre-packaged software. We will examine procedures for calibrating and verifying these models and consider the capabilities and limitations of mathematical representations of natural systems


Basic Curriculum Category: Engineering Topics with Design


A. Derive and apply differential equations for water movement and transformations of chemical and biological constituents in lakes, rivers, and estuaries.

B. Develop spreadsheet models to apply non-steady state solutions of differential equations appropriate for lake, river, and estuary modeling.

C. Create solutions to a water quality problem using a pre-packaged numerical model. D. Understand commonly accepted conventions for calibrating and verifying water quality models. E. Recognize the limitations and capabilities of deterministic models of natural systems.

Topics Covered/Schedule: This course meets online

Weeks 1 - 4: Completely Mixed Systems Weeks 5 - 8 : Incompletely Mixed Systems Weeks 8 - 9 : Water Quality Environments Weeks 10 - 12: Dissolved Oxygen and Pathogens Weeks 13 - 15: Eutrophication and Temperature


Grading Scheme Points Points CENE 499 CENE 599

Homework: 60 60 Quizzes 20 20 Research Paper 10 10 Project 20 Lecture Presentations (2) 15 Final Exam: 10 10 Total: 100 135




CHM 151 GENERAL CHEMISTRY I C O U R S E S Y L L A B U S


Instructor: Dr. Wayne A. Hildebrandt

Required Textbooks: CHEMISTRY & CHEMICAL REACTIVITY, John Kotz, Paul Treichel, Gabnela Weaver; Thompson, Brooks/Cole; 6th edition (2006)

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: High school chemistry or CHM 100 plus intermediate algebra; recommended: CHM 151L. Prerequisite: (MAT 102X or higher) or International Student Group SAS


Catalogue Description: Fundamental chemistry principles presented at a level appropriate for pre-professional, science, and engineering majors, including students proceeding to CHM 235 and 238


Course Objectives: Following successful completion of this course, students will be able to: 1. Based on empirical observations, distinguish between chemical and physical processes, and chemical and

physical properties of matter. Critical Thinking Scientific Inquiry

2. Utilize mathematical skills to solve chemical problems in mass relationships and stoichiometry Quantitative Analysis

3. Determine the solubility, concentrations, and ionic properties of compounds dissolved in aqueous solution Quantitative Analysis

4. Use standardized symbols to represent atoms, molecules, ions, and chemical reactions Scientific Inquiry

5. Describe the intermolecular forces which influence the properties of gases, liquids, and solids, and quantitatively determine the physical state of materials.

Critical Thinking, Quantitative Analysis 6. Predict atomic structure, chemical bonding or molecular geometry based on theoretical models and results of

empirical studies Critical Thinking, Scientific Inquiry

7. Apply chemical principles to the understanding of the physical and natural world. Critical Thinking, Scientific Inquiry

8. Recognize the influence of chemical change in the context of environmental situations and technological applications.

Environmental, Consciousness, Technology and its Impact, Critical Thinking

Topics: • Some Fundamental Concepts in Science

o Introduction o Matter o Energy o The Properties of Matter

• Stoichiometry o The development of Stoichiometric Concepts o Modern Stoichiometry

• Atomic Structure and Properties o Development of the Modern Concept of the Atom o Electron Configurations o Atomic Properties-Trends and Explanations Based Upon Zeff and r

• Chemical Bonding o Ionic Bonding o Covalent Bonding

o Metallic Bonding • The States of Matter

o A Comparison of the Three Pure States of Matter o The Empirical Gas Laws o The Kinetic Theory of Gases o The Kinetic Theory Applied to Liquids and Solids o Changes of State

• Solutions o Description o Concentration terminology o The Dissolving Process o Colligative Properties of Solutions of Non-electrolytes and Electrolytes


Quizzes (10 x 25 pts each) 250 pts These point percentages represent Exams (3 x 100 pts each) 300 pts "guaranteed" grades. Final Exam 150 pts Total 700 pts


Schedule: This Class meets four days a week for 50 minuets

Tentative Schedule January 25 Quiz 1 February 1 Quiz 2 February 8 Quiz 3 February 15 Exam 1 February 22 Quiz 4 March 1 Quiz 5 March 8 Quiz 6 March 15 Quiz 7 March 29 Exam 2 April 5 Quiz 8 April 12 Quiz 9 April 19 Quiz 10 April 26 Exam 3 May 3 Quiz 11

Prepared By: Wayne A. Hildebrandt, January 2007 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, March 2007


CHM 151L GENERAL CHEMISTRY I LABORATORY COURSE SYLLABUS Spring 2007, 1 Credit Hour

Instructor: All faculty with appointments in the chemistry department are eligible to supervise CHM 151L sections. All sections will utilize graduate, and/or undergraduate teaching assistants.

Required Textbooks: General Chemistry J Laboratory Manual, CHM151L, for 2006-2007 by Hayden McNeil and indirectly vented goggles.

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: Co requisites: CHM 130 or CHM 151


Catalogue Description: Introduces important lab practices, stoichiometry, and the analysis of chemical unknowns. 2 hrs. lab including lecture time when appropriate.


Course Objectives: Students will be able to: 1. Demonstrate basic laboratory skills

Scientific Inquiry 2. Describe and demonstrate safe laboratory practice

Scientific Inquiry 3. Utilize scientific notation and dimensional analysis in solving problems of chemical interest

Quantitative Reasoning 4. Predict, analyze and test experimentally the chemical and physical properties of matter

Environmental Consciousness, Quantitative Reasoning, Scientific Inquiry 5. Determine the numerical value of chemical concentrations and physical states

Environmental Consciousness, Quantitative Reasoning 6. Predict, analyze, and experimentally confirm the products of a chemical reaction

Environmental Consciousness, Quantitative Reasoning, Scientific Inquiiy Specific Skills: By the end of this lab you will be expected to be able to accurately use a volumetric pipet, pipettor, buret, volumetric flask, mohr pipet, balance, thennometer, and graduated cylinder in safely conducting titrations, dilutions, weighings, and other lab procedures. You should be able to calculate and/or use molecular mass, moles, molarity, percent-by-mass, density, m1VI=m2v2 , PV=nRT. plot and use graphs.

Topics: I. Measurement of mass, volume, density, and fermentation (2 periods) II. Identification and Quantification of a metal chloride solution concentration (1-2 periods) III. The study of chemical reactivity (1-2 periods) IV. Quantification of the waters of hydration of ionic compounds (1 period) V. Identification of ions in salts (1 period) VI. Acid-Base Titration (2-3 periods) VII. Determination of molar mass (1-2 periods) VIII. Thermal properties of matter (1-2 periods)

Course Evaluation Methods: The course grade is based on a total of 1000 points. 680 possible points are earned by the proper identification of unknowns and completion of experiments. 200 points are based on the results of a hands-on practical examination. The Loncapa Pre-labs and Post-lab questions are worth 120 points. Points and grades will be assigned as follows:

Pass/ Full Partial Repeat Points off for Grade Credit Credit late Assignment:

unknowns Percent of Point Final or repeats:

Experiment Points Points Points Total Grade 1 - Mass ,VoIume, & Fermentation 80 40 10 10 90-100 A 2 - ID&Cone. Salt Solution 80 40 10 10 80-89 B 3-Reactivity 80 40 10 10 70-79 C 4-Hydrates 80 40 10 10 60-69 D 5A-ID Cations 40 20 5 5 <60 F 5 B - ID Anions 40 20 5 6 - Acid/Base Titration 150 80 10 7-MW by Gas Law 40 20 10 8-Thermochemistry 60 30 10 Loncapa Points 120 Lab Performance 30 -5 pts for every issue up to 30 pts Lab Practical 10-200 Total = 1000

Extra Credit When you have passed all of the unknowns, you may try to earn 30 bonus points by doing the Bonus Titration

Experiment described in the back of the lab manual. You can also earn extra credit by just coming to lab on time and signing in (2 points per week and 4 more points if you are on time every lab period for a total of 30 points).

The reported final course grade will be determined by comparing the final course total score obtained at the end of the semester to the following grading scale: A = 90 - 100%, B = 80 - 89%, C =70 - 79%, D= 60 - 69%, F=<60%

Schedule: This Class meets once a week for 120 minuets

Sec. A-F

Letter: G&H I-L

Experiments or Activities Due Dates Loncapa Due Dates: For (Mondays at 11pm) Unknowns

Prelabs below are in bold print. Loncapa Opens on 1/29-Mustuse loncapa in lab this week

Exp. 1: 2/9 Intro & Exp.l&2: 2/5

Exp.l & 3: 2/12 Exp.2: 3/2 Exp.3:3/9 Exp. 2 & 4: 2/26

Exp. 3 & 5: 3/5

Exp.4:3/16 Exp. 4 & 6: 3/12 Exp.5: 3/30

Exp. 5 & 7: 4/2 Exp.6:4/13 Exp. 6 & 8: 4/9 Exp.7: 4/20 Exp.8: 4/27 Exp. 7 & 8 Post: 4/23

Final Review: due on 4/27 Friday by 11pm

1/16 1/17 1/18 First week activities (see above), Do add/drops NOW!

1/23 1/24 1/25 Experiment 1, (Assignment 1), Start fermentation and rest of experiment.

1/30 1/31 2/1 Experiment 1 (finish fermentation), do calculation checks, Check out locker bin (MSDS Tutorial must be complete)

2/6 2/7 2/8 Experiment 2, Check out unknown packet (First Loncapa must be done)

2/13 2/14 2/15 Experiment 3, finish 2 and do calculation check 2/20 2/21 2/22 Experiment 3, complete graphs 2/27 2/28 3/1 Experiment 4 and do calculation check 3/6 3/7 3/8 Experiment 5 & do net ionic equations for ppt

formation 3/13 3/14 3/15 Experiment 6 3/27 3/28 3/29 Experiment 6 4/3 4/4 4/5 Experiment 7, finish 6 and do calculation check 4/10 4/11 4/12 Experiment 8, finish 7 and do calculation check 4/17 4/18 4/19 Finish 8 and do calculation check, Makeup Lab. 4/24 4/25 4/26 Makeup Labs. 4/27 3:00 PM Final Deadline for all Unknown Report Sheets.

Nothing accepted after 3:00 pm. 5/1 5/2 5/3 Lab Final at start of period, Lab Evaluation,

Check point totals with TA Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, March 2007

Northern Arizona University - College of Engineering & Natural Sciences -Electrical Engineering Department

EE 188 ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING I COURSE S Y L L A B U S Fall 2006, 3 Credit Hours

Instructor: Dr. David R. Scott

Required Textbooks/Materials: Textbook - Basic Engineering Circuit Analysis by J. David Irwin and R. Mark Nelms, 8lh Edition, Wiley. Online edition also available (see separate handout).

Classroom Response Clickers - These clickers will be provided by your instructor, but you will be required to activate it for this class. Activation is $13 or less on a per class basis if you activate multiple classes.

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: MAT 136 or MAT 136H or higher with a grade greater than or equal to C or Co requisite: MAT 136 or MAT 136H or higher

Required or Elective: This course is required for electrical engineering students.

Catalogue Description: Introduces electrical engineering including DC and AC circuit analysis, operational amplifiers, transducers, transformers, and AC power

Contribution of Course to meeting the professional component (in credit hours):

3

Math and Basic Sciences

Engineering Topics (non-design)

Engineering Topics (design)

General Education

Other

Relationship of Course to Program Objectives: Rating of each outcome (far left column) indicates level of emphasis from exposure (1) to mastery (5). NA indicates that an outcome does not apply.

Objective 1 - Students receive a personalized college experience in which high quality teaching, advising and mentoring are emphasized.

Objective 2 — Graduates are technically competent and prepared for leadership and professional practice with strength in design, problem solving, communications and teaming.

Objective 3 - Graduates are grounded in mathematics and engineering science fundamentals and prepared for advanced education and lifelong learning.

•

4

2

2

1.1 Be a leader in educational innovation and the use of technology in providing educational experience in the classroom and in distance settings.

1.2 Attract and retain well-qualified students.

1.3 Foster advising and mentoring relationships between faculty and students.

i quality

1 1

NA

2

3

2.1 Possess professional skills and knowledge of the design process.

2.2 Ability to function in disciplinary and multi-disciplinary teams.

2.3 Possess abilities to effectively communicate orally

2.4 Possess abilities to effectively communicate in writing

2.5 Abilities in creativity, critical thinking and problem identification, formulation and solving.

3

NA

NA

1

NA

3.1 Ability to apply knowledge of physics and mathematics (including calculus, complex variables and differential equations).

linear algebra,

3.2 Ability to apply knowledge of probability, statistics, Laplace transforms and Fourier transforms.

3.3 Ability to design and conduct scientific and engineering experiments.

3.4 Motivation and skills needed for lifelong learning.

3.5 Ability to use industry standard analysis and design software tools.

Objective 4 - Graduates are experienced with and understand diverse populations, such as that existing in the American Southwest. (E* NA

NA

NA

4.1 Ability to relate a broad education and contemporary issues to engineering solutions and their impact in a societal and global context. 4.2 An appreciation and understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.

4.3 Attract and retain under-represented students. # >

Course Objectives: Upon completion of this class, students will be able to: • Analyze steady-state DC and AC electrical circuits consisting of resistors, inductors, capacitors, independent and

dependent voltage and current sources, ideal transformers, and ideal operational amplifiers. #"^ • Develop Thevenin and Norton equivalent circuits and use them to better understand and model the behavior of ^-

electncal circuits. fer • Perform power calculations for DC electrical circuits and for AC single phase circuits with complex loads. »~"̂

These will be assessed by in-class quizzes, homework and exam questions. fc~

Topics Covered: • Definitions, laws and theorems governing electrical systems and circuits • The analysis process for direct current (DC) and alternating current (AC) steady state circuits • Electrical components like resistors, capacitors, inductors, voltage sources, current sources, transducers, op amps

and transformers in electrical systems

e=

t-• Single and three-phase power, power factor correction and maximum power. f* • Frequency response, sinusoidal waveforms, and analog filtering. ^J

Course Evaluation Methods: Your semester grade will be based upon a combination of assignments and activities that £^j are summarized below: _.

First two exams - 24% each of total grade, homework and quizzes - 24% of total grade, and final exam - 28% of *2 total grade. Guaranteed grade cutoffs are 90% - A, 80% - B, 70% - C, 60% - D. The percentage at which grade cutoffs are made may be lower to ensure a fairer distribution of grades. Homework will generally be due once a week. Graded or CT̂ ungraded quizzes will be given almost every day and will part of the homework grade. gjj%

Class Schedule: The course instructors reserve the right to modify this schedule during the semester to meet the needs of |S this particular class. «g

This class meets three days a week for 50 minuets #•

August 29 & 30 - EE 188L begins t? September 5 - Monday - Labor Day Holiday ta September 22 - Friday - Drop delete deadline _^ September 28 - Thursday-First Exam w October 20 - Friday - Midterm Grade Submission Deadline ^m October 27 - Friday - Deadline to Drop with a W ^, November 2 - Thursday - Second Exam (8? November 10 - Friday - Veteran's Day Holiday Jk November 25 & 26 - Thursday and Friday - Thanksgiving Holiday December 12 - Tuesday - Final Exam -7:30 - 9:30 am m Prepared By: David Scott, August 2006 *1_ Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, March 2007

r


EGR 186 INTRODUCTION TO ENGINEERING DESIGN COURSE S Y L L A B U S


Instructor: William M. Auberle, P.E.

Required Textbooks: Introduction to Engineering Design and Problem Solving, 2nd Ed, Eide, et al, McGraw-Hill, 2002



Catalogue Description: Introduces the design process, problem-solving techniques, teaming skills, oral and written communication skills, and tools for success in academic and professional careers. Multiple hands-on projects. 2 hrs. lecture, 2 hrs. lab.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes c, d, e, f and g


Course Objectives: In this course you will learn the skill activities of decision making, project management, communication, and collaboration as they relate to the four-phase design process below:

1. Defining the Problem 2. Formulating Solutions 3. Developing Models and Prototypes 4. Presenting and Implementing the Design

Topics Covered/Schedule: This class meets two times a week for 120 minuets

Week

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Tuesday Introduction, prereqs

Name game, dots and bicycle problems HW: Read Ch 1

Quiz# l Peg prob presentations, brainstorming

and prob stmts HW: ReadCh 2.1-7

Excel exercise HW: Excel #1 (due 9/20), read Ch 5.1.2

Excel HW#1 due Writing Center Talk, Decision Matrix

Design Problem #1 assigned

Term Paper Title memo due Team workday on Design 1

Team report, peer reviews due Design 1 - team oral presentation

HW: Read Ch 6

"To Engineer is Human", Majors & ABET, handout on Midterm

Thursday

Paradigms video VT67 & questions, Peg problem

HW: email (CET account), peg problem

Space Tower exercise HW: Read Ch 4.1-4. Prob. Statement (due

9/15)

Quiz Ch 5, Prob. Stmt. HW due Video: "Power of Vision" VT 3037

HW: Term Paper (due 1 1 3 ) . Read rest of Ch2

Comm video # 1 , Library talk, work on design, peer review & mtg memos

Testing of Design 1, design peer eval, report & pres grading criteria

References Memo due Discuss Ch6, Comm video #2; Dice Exercise

HW: Dice Problem

Dice Problem due Ethics Game

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

MIDTERM EXAM

"Deep Dive" video, work on Design #2 design concepts + team names due

Design #2 Presentations



Off site work day

Off site work day

Excel Exercise

Final Exam

Term paper rough draft due Design #2 Assigned, make-up "To

Engineering is Human" video

Off site work day Team memo due

Term papers and oral reports due


Assign Design #3; work in-class

Thanksgiving Holiday

Design #3 Presentations Design #3 Report Due

Paper Airplane Exercise

Final Exam


Attendance 10% TIMES* 2% Homework 8% Term Paper 15% Team Design Projects (3) 45% Exams (mid-term and final) 20%

* Training Intuition in Math for Engineering Success


A = 90 to 100 B = 80 to 89 C = 70 to 79 D = 60 to 69 F = 59 or below


EGR 286 ENGINEERING DESIGN: THE PROCESS C O U R S E SYLLABUS


Instructor: Bridget N. Bero, Civil and Environmental Engineering John Tester, Mechanical Engineering John Sharber, Electrical Engineering

Required Textbooks: None

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: EGR 186 with a grade greater than or equal to C, Co requisites: CENE majors: EGR/CENE180, EE majors: EE188, ME majors: EGR/ME180


Catalogue Description: The process of engineering design, mechanisms and controls, computer and programming skills, teamwork and project management, written and oral communications.

ABET Target Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3 Outcomes c, d, g and i


Course Objectives: This course presents material via lectures and individual assignments, but predominant work in this course is project- and team-based. Design teams consisting of members from different majors will learn the "design-build-test" process of design; the mechanism used is via electro-mechanical robots. Each student will learn a C-based programming language, and the basics of gears and mechanisms, which are topics relevant and required for a broad-based engineering education (regardless of major). Additionally, this course requires the student to develop the skills that enable one to enjoin life-long learning, which means that students will be required to learn some material on their own without assistance.

Topics Covered: • Design process • Programming • Teaming • Report preparation and presentation.


Item Individual assignments Project 1 Project 2 Project 3 Project 4 Project 5 Final Project Final Exam

Percentage 8% 5% 8%

10% 12% 12% 35% 10%

The course grade reported at the end of the semester will be based on the following scale: A = >89%; B = 80-89%; C = 70-79%; D = 60-69%; F = <60%

Class Schedule: The course instructors reserve the right to modify this schedule during the semester to meet the needs of this particular class. This Class meets Monday's and Wednesday for 100 minuets and Friday's for 50 minuets.

Prepared By: John Tester, January 2007 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, March 2007

Week 1 2 3 4 5

6-7 8-9

10-11 12 13 14 15 16

Topic Intro, design overview, programming, assign teams, programming assign Teaming and design philosophy, mechanisms and gears, assign P1 Technical writing, P1 demo, assign P2 P2 demo, assign P3

P3 demo, assign P4 P4 demo, assign P5 P5 demo, assign FP prelim FP design presentation detailed FP design presentation final FP design presentation, FP report draft FP demo FP report Final Exam

Northern Arizona University - College of Arts & Letters - Department of English

ENG 105 Critical Reading and Writing in the Academic Community COURSE S Y L L A B U S


Instructor: Faith Young

Required Textbooks: Gruber, Sibylle, et al. (Eds.). (2005) Composing Identity through Language, Culture, Technology, and the Environment: A Reader and Rhetoric (CILCTE). Kendall/Hunt

Maimon, Elaine, & Janice Peritz (2003) A Writer's Resource. McGraw-Hill—required

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: ENG 100X with a grade greater than or equal to C or English Placement 30 or higher FNRQ


Catalogue Description: Writing skills for completing university coursework. Fulfills the liberal studies requirement for English composition.


Course Objectives: • To introduce fundamental writing principles used in academic settings. • To understand the connections between critical reading and writing skills through close attention to the production and

interpretation of texts. • To apply critical reading and writing skills to formal writing tasks, including an extended writing project. • To develop technological literacy skills to rhetorically analyze online resources based on the audience addressed, the

purpose explored, and the language used.


Assignment Draft of rhetorical analysis Rhetorical analysis Draft of synthesis paper Synthesis paper Documentary in Cline library Draft of short argument paper Group presentation Short argument paper Spring Break (no class) Draft of annotated bibliography Documentary in Cline Library Annotated bibliography Draft of extended argument paper Individual presentation Extended argument paper Draft of online writers profile Online writer's profile Portfolio

Due Date 2/1 2/7 2/22 3/1 3/5 (5:30pm) 3/8 (online discussion) 3/12-3/15 3/15 3/19-3/22 4/5 4/9 (5:30pm) 4/9 4/18,19 4/23-4/26 4/26 5/1 5/3 Finals Week


1 rhetorical analysis essay 1 synthesis essay 1 short argument paper (needs to include 1-2 visuals) 1 annotated bibliography 1 extended argument paper (including 2-3 visuals) Group presentation Individual presentation Website with Writer's Profile: Reflective Essay Portfolio (revised papers) Preparation as discussion leader Class work: reflection papers, participation in class discussions and group activities, peer editing, etc.

Total

10% 10% 10% 10% 25% 5% 5% 10% 5% 5% 5%

100%


Prepared By: Faith Young, January 2007


m

K WE?

m m

r


MAT 136 CALCULUS I C O U R S E SYLLABUS




Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: MAT 125 or MAT 125H with a grade greater than or equal to C or Math Placement 70 or higher or International Student Group SAS


Catalogue Description: Calculus of one variable; basic concepts, interpretations, techniques, and applications of differentiation and integration.


Course Objectives: To familiarize the student with the basic concepts of calculus, including limits, derivatives, and integration. Upon completion of this course the student will be expected to be able to:

1) Construct and interpret graphs of functions. 2) Understand the concepts of limit, derivative, and integral. 3) Apply, calculate, and interpret limits, derivatives, and integrals.

Objective 1. Express understanding of and related interpretations of the concepts of limit, derivative and integral in writing and via computations, graphs, numerical values and mathematical symbolism. (Technology and it's impact, environmental consciousness, critical thinking, quantitative analysis, use of technology 2. Calculate exactly or approximate as appropriate limits, derivatives and integrals from formulas, tables. and graphs. (Technology and its impact, quantitative analysis, use of technology) 3. Apply the derivative to analyze graphical behavior, motion problems, other rate problems and optimization problems. (Technology and its impact, environmental consciousness, critical thinking, quantitative analysis, use of technology)

Assessment Examination questions, technology projects. Some may also use writing assignments, homework or quizzes.

Examination questions, technology projects. Some may also use homework or quizzes.

Examination questions and technology projects. Some may also use applied projects, homework, or quizzes.

Topics/Schedule:

This class meets four days a week for 50 minuets

1. Functions and Models 7-8days

Review of functions including linear, exponential, power, logarithmic, trigonometric, polynomial and rational functions. Inverse function, compositions and transformations and modeling.

2. Limits and Derivatives 14-15 days Development of the notion of derivative via tangents and velocity. Limits of a function, limit laws, limits involving infinity, continuity, tangents, velocity and other rates of change, formal derivatives as functions, linear

approximations, relationships between properties of a function and its derivative.

3. Applications of Differentiation 13-15 days Related rates, maxima/minima, creation and analysis of graphs of functions, indeterminate forms and LTIospitaFs rule, applied optimization problems, Antiderivatives with application to the analysis of motion.

4. The Integral 7-8 days Computation of areas and distances, definite integrals, Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, Substitution.



-Weekly Quizzes will account for 10% of the course grade. These quizzes will consist of three or less problems very similar to problems assigned in Webwork. No make up quizzes will be given, except in the case of institutional excuses provided BEFORE the date of the quiz.



-The Final exam will account for 25% of the course grade. There are absolutely NO makeup exams for the final. The final exam is scheduled on Wednesday, May 9th , 7:30 - 9:30 am)






MAT 137 CALCULUS II COURSE S Y L L A B U S




Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: MAT 136 or MAT 136H with a grade greater than or equal to C


Catalogue Description: Concepts, techniques, and applications of integration, differential equations, Taylor polynomials, infinite series.


Course Objectives: This course is designed to continue the study of Calculus by familiarizing the student with integration, improper integration, applications of integration, differential equations, infinite series, power series, and vectors. Upon completion of this course the student will be expected to be able to:

1) Calculate or approximate integrals using various techniques. 2) Identify improper integrals, determine whether they converge, and calculate improper integrals. 3) Apply integration to solve problems involving volume, work, etc. 4) Analyze basic first order differential equations and use them in applications. 5) Understand various types of infinite series and use convergence/divergence tests, etc. 6) Use vectors and properties of vectors, as well as lines and planes in three dimensional space.

Objective 1. Apply the definite integral to analyze be able to apply integration in a variety of contexts such as geometry, physics, engineering and biology 2. Be able to use basic integration techniques for solving definite and indefinite integrals. 3. Be familiar with beginning concepts of differential equations and basic models involving differential equations and be able to model simple applied problems by differential equations. 4. Understand the concepts of limits of sequences and sums of infinite series and of power series and be able to use theorems and convergence tests to decide convergence or divergence of sequences and series. 5. Be able to use technology, such as computer algebra systems or advanced calculators, in solving calculus problems. 6. Be able to demonstrate an understanding of the concepts and methodology of vectors and be able to use them to solve applied problems.

Assessment Examination questions, technology projects. Some may also use applied projects, homework or quizzes.

Examination questions, some may also use writing assignments, homework or quizzes. Examination questions, technology projects. Some may also use homework, or quizzes.





1. The Integral 10-12 days Computation of areas and distances, Definite Integrals, Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, Substitution (Review). Integration by Parts, Use of integral tables, integral approximations, improper integrals, standard applications and interpretations of integrals including area between curves and average value of functions.

2. Application of Integration 12-14 days Areas, volumes, arc length, average value, applications to physics and engineering (applications to economics, biology and probability).

3. Differential Equations 4-5 days Basic modeling, direction fields, Euler's method, separable equations, exponential growth and decay (the logistic

equation, predator-prey systems).

4. Vectors 6-8 days 3-dimensional coordinate systems, vectors, dot product, cross product, equations of lines and planes.



-Weekly Quizzes and Worksheets will account for 10% of the course grade. These quizzes will consist of three or less problems very similar to problems assigned in Webwork. No make up quizzes will be given, except in the case of institutional excuses provided BEFORE the date of the quiz.



-The Final exam will account for 25% of the course grade. There are absolutely NO makeup exams for the final. The final exam is scheduled on Monday, May 7' , 5:10-7:10 pm)



The reported final course grade will be determined by comparing the final course total score obtained at the end of the semester to the following grading scale: A = 90- 100%, B=80-89%, C =70 - 79%, D= 60 - 69%, F =< 60%



MAT 238 CALCULUS III C O U R S E SYLLABUS


Instructor: Matt Fahy

Required Textbooks: Calculus: Concepts and Contexts, 3rd Ed, J. Stewart, Brooks-Cole, 2005, Chapters 9-13. A few sections may be omitted.

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: MAT 137 with a grade greater than or equal to C or satisfactory placement


Catalogue Description: Vector functions and multidimensional calculus; partial derivatives, gradients, optimization, multiple integrals, parametric curves and surfaces, vector calculus, line integrals, flux intergral, and vector fields


Course Objectives: By the end of the course, students should be able to:

Objective 1. Be able to demonstrate an understanding of the concepts and methodology of vector functions of one variable and be able to use vectors and vector functions to solve applied problems. 2. Have an understanding of the concept of partial derivative together with related concepts and rules and be able to use these concepts in applied problems 3. Have an understanding of the definition of multiple integrals as limits of Riemann sums and be able to estimate them by Riemann sums in applied problems. 4. Be able to set up multiple integrals over general regions using different coordinate systems, to computer such integrals and be able to use such techniques in applications. 5. Be able to use technology, such as computer algebra systems or advanced calculators, in solving calculus problems. 6. Have an understanding of the concepts and methods of vector calculus related to line integrals and surface integrals of scalar fields and vector fields and be able to use such methods in applications.

Assessment Examination questions, and technology projects. Some may also use applied projects, homework or quizzes.

Examination questions. Some may also use writing assignments, homework or quizzes.

Examination questions, technology projects. Some may also use homework, or quizzes.





1. Vector functions 6-8 days Vector review. Parametric curves and vector functions, velocity and acceleration, arc length and curvature, Parametric surfaces, (tangential and normal components of acceleration, Kepler's law of planetary motion).

2. Partial derivatives: 12-14 days Surfaces, functions of two or more variables, contour diagrams, partial derivatives, tangent planes and linear

approximation, chain rule, directional derivatives and gradient vector, maximum and minimum values, method of Lagrange multipliers, (high order Taylor approximations, partial deferential equations).

3. Multiple integrals: 15-17 days

Double integrals and iterated integrals over rectangles and over more general regions, introduction to polar coordinates, double integrals in polar coordinated, triple integrals in rectangular, cylindrical and spherical coordinates, (surface area, general change-of-variables theorem for double integrals).

4. Vector calculus: 18-20 days Vector fields, line integrals, conservative vector fields and fundamental theorem for line integrals, Green's theorem,

curl and divergence, parametric surfaces, surface integrals, Stokes' theorem, divergence theorem.

Course Evaluation Methods: Homework will be primarily administered through an internet based program called Webwork. To complete the homework, you will first access this website (the address is case sensitive): http://webwork2.math.nau.edu/webwork2/MFahy_238/ Your username is your last name (first letter capitalized) an underscore and then your NAU user Id (for example, Shiffer ams3). Your initial password is the last five digits of your NAU Id number. Once you have opened a homework set, you will print it off and work the problems on paper, returning to Webwork when you've finished to enter your answers. The program will provide instant feedback and provide you several chances to retry any problem that might be incorrect.

Several projects will be assigned during the semester. These will typically incorporate mathematical software or graphing calculators.

Four in-class examinations and a comprehensive final exam will be administered during the semester. Real tentative dates for the four in-class exams are

Test 1 Wednesday, February 7 Test 2 Friday, March 9 Test 3 Friday, April 6 Test 4 Friday, April 27

The final exam will be Monday, May 7 at 7:30am.

Homework: 20% Projects: 5% Exams: 50% Final exam: 25%


Prepared By: Matt Fahy January 2007 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, March 2007

http://webwork2.math.nau.edu/webwork2/MFahy_238/


MAT 239 DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS COURSE S Y L L A B U S


Instructor: Jim Swift

Required Textbooks: Elementary Differential Equations by William E. Boyce and Richard C. DiPrima, 8lhed.

Class website: Go to my home page (www.nau.edu/Jim.Swift) and follow the "Teaching" link. That link takes you to the instructor information page, where there is a link to the web site for this class, as well as a link to official U.S. time, http://www.time.gov, that our class will observe.

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: (co requisite) MAT 238 with a grade greater than or equal to C


Catalogue Description: Solutions of first-order differential equations, nth-order linear equations, systems of linear differential equations, series solutions.


Course Objectives: By the end of the course, students should be able to: 1. Set up a differential equation to model a variety of real world problems. 2. Classify a differential equation into one of a number of different types (e.g. first order separable, third order

linear with constant coefficients, linear autonomous first order systems, etc.) 3. Apply the appropriate method of solution to a given differential equation. 4. Appreciate the fact that not all differential equations can be solved analytically, and understand some basic

geometric tools that might help provide information on the qualitative behavior of solutions in such instances (e.g. direction fields, phase plane analysis).

Topics/Schedule: This class meets three times a week for 50 minuets 1. Basic Terminology of Differential Equations 2. First Order Ordinary Differential Equations 3. Higher- order linear ODE's with constant coefficients 4. First order linear autonomous systems of ODEs. 5. Series solutions of non- autonomous second order differential equations 6. Topics selected from the following as time permits

a. Non-linear autonomous systems of ODEs. b. Numerical Methods c. Laplace Transforms

Mon Wed Fri Week 1: Jan. 15

MLK Day 1.1 1.2 & 1.3

Week 2: Jan. 22 2.2 2.1 2.1

Week 3: Jan. 29 2.3 2.3,2.5 2.6

Week 4: Feb. 5 2.7 2.9 Review

Feb. 9: Drop deadline Week 5: Feb. 12

Exam 1 3.1 3.2

http://www.nau.edu/Jim.Swift

http://www.time.gov

Course Evaluation Methods: Points: There will be approximately 750 possible "class points."

Midterms: (3 x 100 = 300 class points) There will be 3 midtenn exams. Each exam will have a raw score and a "curved" or scaled score based on 100 possible class points. In fairness to those with classes before or after ours, the exam will start and end on time.

Homework: (10 class points each, approximately 20 assignments) We will be using WeBWorK for most of the homework assignments. Each of WeBWorK assignments is worth 10 class points. I may occasionally have quizzes or short assignments for you to tum in on paper. The point value of the paper assignments will be announced when they are assigned.

Final Exam: (250 class points) The Final Exam will be comprehensive. The Final exam is scheduled for Wednesday, May 9 from 7:30 to 9:30. I reserve the right to raise your course grade from the 90/80/70 curve,

based on an exceptional Final exam. Extra Credit: At each midtenn exam I will give you 3 points if you had no unexcused absences since the previous

exam. Any points that you get for the math department's \Problem of the Week" will be credited to this class


Prepared By: Jim Swift, January 2007 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, March 2007

Northern Arizona University - College of Engineering and Natural Science- Mechanical Engineering Department

ME 252 APPLIED MECHANICS DYNAMICS C O U R S E SYLLABUS


Instructor: David E. Hartman, PhD, PE, Professor

Required Textbooks: Beer and Johnson, Dynamics, 8th Ed, McGraw-Hill, 2006

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: CENE 251 and MAT 238 with a grade greater than or equal to C


Catalogue Description: Kinematics and kinetics of particles and rigid bodies using vector analysis; solution methods: force-mass-acceleration, work and energy, impulse and momentum, translating and rotating coordinate systems.


Course Objectives: A. You will learn the basic concepts and principles of dynamics, especially how to develop and use free body diagrams,

and how to model mechanical systems. (E.l*). B. You will acquire experience in formulating and solving a wide variety of real engineering problems by solving about

100 homework problems during the semester. (E.5). C. You will learn to recognize three different solution methods based on Newton's Laws, and be able to apply these

methods to problem solving. (E.l, E.5). D. You will develop the ability to predict the effects of force and motion on real objects so as to facilitate your analysis

ability in subsequent engineering courses. (E.l, E.5). * E.1 and E.5 refer to two of the ME Department Educational Objectives.


Ch 11. Kinematics of Particles (5 periods) Ch 12. Kinetics of Particles: Newton's 2nd Law (4 periods) Ch 13. Kinetics of Particles: Energy & Momentum (6 periods) Ch 14. Systems of Particles (4 periods) Ch 15. Kinematics of Rigid Bodies (7 periods) Ch 16. Plane Motion of Rigid Bodies: Forces and Accelerations (4 periods) Ch 17. Plane Motion of Rigid Bodies: Energy and Momentum (6 periods) Reviews (3 periods), Exams (4 periods)

Course Evaluation Methods: Your final grade will be based upon the homework, midterm exams, and the final exam as follows:

RELATIVE WEIGHT

Homework & Quizzes 20 % 4 Exams 60 % Final Exam 20% Total 100%


Prepared By: David E. Hartman, January 2007 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, March 2007

Northern Arizona University - College of Engineering and Natural Science - Mechanical Engineering Department

ME 291 THERMODYNAMICS I COURSE S Y L L A B U S


Instructor: Dr. Tom Acker

Required Textbooks: Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics, 2nd Ed.., by J.R. Howell and R.O. Buckius, McGraw-Hill, 1992.

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: CHM 151, PHY 262 and MAT 238 with a grade greater than or equal to C


Catalogue Description: Energy and entropy concepts, applications; first and second law principles, applications to processes and cycles.



Course Objectives: A. To gain an understanding of the fundamental principles of thermodynamics and its application to engineering systems.

(L1,L3,L4, L6, L14)* B. Application of the control volume methodology in solution of engineering problems. (L1, L4) C. Understanding of and ability to use of computer software in solution of thermodynamics problems (L12) D. Exposure to contemporary technical issues associated with energy conversion and utilization. (L9, L17) *L 's refer to ME Department Learning Outcomes (e.g., L1 refers to ME Learning Outcome number 1)

Topics/Schedule: This class meets two times a week for 75 minuets

1. Preliminaries: Some concepts and definitions a. System/Surroundings b. Equilibrium c. Properties d. Energy

2. Principle #4: The State Postulate: Properties of Common Substances a. The state postulate b. Simple compressible substances: relationships of state c. The ideal gas

3. Principles #1 & #2: The rate of production of mass = 0, The rate of production of energy = 0 a. Closed systems b. Open systems

4. Principle #3: The rate of production of entropy >=0 a. Gibbs equation b. T & P definitions c. reversibility d. Isentropic processes

5. Applications a. Component analysis b. Carnot Cycle c. Rankine Cycle d. Others

Course Evaluation Methods: Your final grade will be based upon the homework, midtenn exams, and the final exam as follows:

RELATIVE WEIGHT

Homework & Quizzes 20 % 4 Exams 60 % Final Exam 20 % Total 100%


Prepared By: Tom Acker, January 2007 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, March 2007

Northern Arizona University - College of Engineering and Natural Sciences - Mechanical Engineering Department

ME 395 FLUID MECHANICS C O U R S E SYLLABUS


Instructor: Dr. Okey Oseloka Onyejekwe

Required Textbooks: Frank M. White "Fluid Mechanics" 6ih edition, McGraw Hill 2006.

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: MAT 239 and ME 291 with a grade greater than or equal to C


Catalogue Description: Theory, concepts and usage of the basic laws of fluid mechanics (conservation of mass, momentum, and energy); incompressible flow of fluids with introduction of compressible flow: dimensional analysis and similitude; laminar and turbulent flows; empirical methods.

ABET Target Outcomes: (a) an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering; (LI) (b) an ability to communicate effectively; (L2) (c) a knowledge of chemistry and calculus-based physics with depth in physics; (L3) (d) an ability to identify, formulate and solve engineering problems; (L4) (e) have essential skills in writing, critical reading, critical thinking and creative thought; (L5) (f) an ability to apply advanced mathematics through multivariate calculus and differential equations; ((L6) (g) an ability to function on design teams and multidisciplinary teams; (L7) (h) an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs; (L8) (i) a recognition of the need for and an ability to engage in life-long learning; (L9) (j) an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility; (L10) (k) an ability to design and conduct experiments as well as to analyze and interpret data; (LI 1) (1) an ability to use the techniques, skills and modern engineering tools, such as computers, necessary for engineering

practice; (L12) (m) an ability to lead a team-based engineering activity (L13) (n) an ability to work professionally in both thermal and mechanical systems areas, including the design and realization

of such systems; (L14) (o) the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global/societal context; (L15) (p) familiarity with statistics and linear algebra; and (L16) (q) a knowledge of contemporary issues as related to the mechanical engineering profession, including engineering

economic issues. (LI7)


Course Objectives: A. To gain an understanding of the fundamental principles of fluid mechanics and its application to engineering

systems. (L1,L3,L4,L6.L14)* B. Application of the control volume, differential equations, and dimensional analysis methodologies to solve fluid

dynamic problems. (L1,L3,L4.L6,L14) C. Ability to use computer software to solve and analyze fluid dynamics problems. (L1,L4,L12) D. Exposure to contemporary technical and economic issues associated with fluid mechanical devices and systems.

(L17) Topics/Schedule: This class meets two times a week for 75 minuets

No.

1.

2. 3. 4. 5.

Date

Aug. 29

Aug. 31 Sept. 5

Sept. 7 Sept. 12

Topic

Introduction : units fluid properties

Cont., Units: SI & British Systems. Fluid properties, fluid statics

Fluid statics: pressure field in a field, manometers Fluid statics: hydrostatic forces on submerged

surfaces, buoyancy

Read Sections

1.1-1.3

1.4-1.5 1.6-1.7 2.1-2.4

2.6

Homework Due

Assign: Reading 1.05, 1.13,1.18

1.25a,b, 1.45, 1.70. 1.79 2.5.2.13,2.17,2.26,2.29, 2.41,2.61,2.66,2.71

6.

7.

8.

9. 10. 11. 12.

13.

14. 14.

15.

16. 17.

18.

19.

20.

21. 22.

23

24. 25. 26. 27.

28.

29.

Sept. 14

Sept. 19

Sept. 21

Sept. 26 Sept. 28 Oct. 3 Oct. 5

Oct. 10

Oct. 12 Oct. 17

Oct. 19

Oct. 24 Oct. 26

Oct. 31

Nov. 2

Nov. 7

Nov. 9 Nov. 14

Nov. 16

Nov. 21 Nov. 23 Nov. 28 Dec. 3

De. 5

Dec. 10-19

Fluid statics: Rigid body motion, summary of fluid statics

Elementary fluid kinematics and dynamics

Fluid kinematics: velocity and acceleration fields

Applications of kinematics to flow fields Conservation of mass (Concepts)

Conservation of Energy and momentum(Concepts)

Test 1

Control volume analysis: Reynolds Transport theorem

Control volume analysis : Conservation of mass Control Volume Analysis: Conservation of

momentum Control Volume Analysis:

Conservation of energy Analysis and Review: Overview

Differential Relations for Fluid flow: Applications to Conservation Laws

vorticity and irrotationality, Navier-Stokes equations

TEST 2

Overview of Differential analysis

Viscous Flow in Ducts Reynold's number Regimes (Moody's diagram),

headlosses

Analysis of flows in pipes and ducts

Different types of flow problems, pumping, and boundary layer

Open Channel Flows Uniform flows, Chezy and Manning's Equations

Efficient channel cross sections

TEST 3

Specific Energy

Hydraulic grade lines, energy grade lines ,hydraulic jump, and general reviews

2.1-2.10

3.1

3.1

3.1 3.2 3.2

3.2

3.3 3.4-3.5

3.6

4.1 4.2-4.4

4.5-4.8

4-1-4.9

6.1 6.1-6.2

6.1-6.3

10.1 10.1-10.2

10.3

10.4

10.5

2.72,2.73,2.79,2.104, 2.113,2.115,

2.119,2.120,2,122,2.139 Assign: Reading (Chapter

3)3. l , Assign: Reading (Chapter

3) 3.3,3.8, 12,3.13,3.16,

3.223.34,3.35,3.36 3.41,3.43,3.54,3.58

3.59,3.61,3,62

3.77,3.79, 3.80

3.82,3.83,3.85 3.91,3.95,3.96

3.107,3.110,3.116,3.135, 3.137

4.1.4.2.4.3 4.6,4.10, 4.20

4.21,4.27,4.34,4.47,4.54

4.55,4.57, 4.59

6.1,6.2,6.4 6.111,6.12,6.13,6.14,6.15

6.19,6.21,6.24,6.29,6.32, 6.33,6.47,6.52,6.68

101, 10.4, 10.6 10.14, 10.15, 10.16 10.17, 10.20, 10.21

10.22, 10.24, 10.30

10.56,10.62,10.72, 10.80-10.95

Course Evaluation Methods: Your final grade will be based upon the homework, midterm exams, and the final exam as follows: 20% Home Work, 60% Tests (3x20%), 20% Final Exam Letter grades are: A = 90+, B = 80-89, C = 70-79, D = 60-69, F<60

Prepared By: Dr. Ernesto Penado, January 2001 Edited and Reviewed By: Peter Vadasz, August 2006 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, May 2007


PHI 105 INTRODUCTION TO ETHICS COURSE S Y L L A B U S


Instructor: Dan Heller

Required Textbooks: An Inquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, Hume, Meno, Plato, Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant, The German Ideology, Marx & Engles



Catalogue Description: Introduces philosophical analysis of the ethical life. Reading and critical discussion of both classical and contemporary texts.


Course Objectives: The goal of this course is to interpret and evaluate the philosophical concepts related to the nature of ethics and what the ethical life entails. Students will leam to read, write and think clearly and critically about the ideas surrounding the ethical life developed in the Western tradition of philosophy.

Topics/Schedule: This class meets three times a week for 50 minuets Part One- And Objective Basis for Morality T 1/16 Class business. Introductory Discussion. "Raskolnikov's Dream" by Dostoyevsky Th 1/18 Read Plato pp 3-19 T 1/23 Read Plato pp. 20-23 Th 1/25 Read Plato pp. 24-32 Last Discussion on Plato. Quiz 1 T 1/30 Read Hume pp. 13-20 Th 2/1 Read Hume pp. 20-26 T 2/6 Read Hume pp. 27-34 Th 2/8 Read Hume pp. 34-42 T 2/13 Read Hume pp. 72 - 82 Last Discussion on Hume. Quiz 2 Th 2/15 Read Kant pp. 7-19 T 2/20 Read Kant pp. 19-24 Th 2/22 Read Kant pp.25-34 T 2/27 Read Kant pp. 34-44 Th 3/1 Preparation for First Essay Last Discussion on Kant Quiz 3 T 3/27 Read Marx pp. 89-103 Th 3/29 Read Marx pp. 103-114 Last Discussion on Marx Quiz 4 Part Two- The responsibilities in Being Human T 4/3 Good Samaritan Story Th 4/5 Read Gusdorf. Chapter I and II T 4/10 Read Gusdorf. Chapter III Th 4/12 Read Gusdorf. Chapter IV T 4/17 Read Gusdorf. Chapter V Th 4/19 Read Gusdorf. Chapter VI Review. T 4/24 Read Gusdorf. Chapter VII Th 4/26 Read Gusdorf. Chapter VIII T 5/1 Read Gusdorf. Chapter IX & X Th 5/3 Read Gusdorf. Chapter XI & XII T 5/8 Final Essay Due

Course Evaluation Methods: There is a total of 695 points in this course. There will be 5 quizzes/tests worth 20 points each. There will be 2 essays assigned throughout the term. The first should be 5-6 pages in length and is worth 200 points. The final paper will be 6-7 pages in length and worth 250 points.


Prepared By: Dan Heller, January 2007 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, March 2007


PHI 331 ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS COURSE SYLLABUS


Instructor: Dr. Dennis Rusche

Required Textbooks: 1) Eco-Economy, Brown, Lester; W.W. Norton & Co., 2001

2) Beyond the Land Ethic, Callicolt, J. Baird; SUNY Press, 1999 3) A Sand Country Almanac, Leopold, Aldo; Oxford U. Pr., 1968 4) Watersheds 4, Newton, Lisa, and Dillingham, Catherine; Wadsworth, 2006 5) Miscellaneous articles will be handed out during the course of the semester



Catalogue Description: Critical examination of the moral reasons for protecting and preserving the environment.


Course Objectives: The first goal of this course is to learn about and assess the major adverse impacts that modern economic activity is having on the natural environment. The second objective is to examine the question of what value and moral status the natural environment and in particular wilderness should have for humans. The third object is to learn about and evaluate a variety of actions that humans might take so as to create a sustainable, good relationship with the environment. Each of these objectives calls for independent, critical thinking on the part of the student.

Topics/Schedule: This class meets online once a week for 90 minuets 1 Introduction

Watersheds, pp. x-xv. 116-125 (chapter 7) 2 Watersheds, pp. 125-140 (chapter 7) Chlorine; Lomborg on population

Watersheds, pp. 141-156 (chapter 8) Population; Handout Questions #'s 3 & 4 3 Watersheds, pp. 98-115 (chapter 6) Great Apes; Lomborg on species decline

Watersheds, pp. 173-196 (chapter 10) Biodiversity; Handout Questions #'s 5 & 6 4 Watersheds, pp. 1-15 (chapter 1) Global Warming; Article on Climate Change

Eco-Economy, pp. 27-39 (chapter 2) Global Warming 5 First Essay Examination

Sand Country, pp. vii-ix, 227-228, 6-17, 44-50; Handout Questions #"s 7 & 8 6 Sand Country, pp. 66-77, 95-108

Sand Countiy, pp. 108-119, 129-133; Handout Questions #'s 9 & 10 7 Sand Country, pp. 141-148, 177-184 (Wilderness)

Sand Country, pp. 184-200; Instructions for first paper 8 Sand Country, pp. 201-226 (Land Ethic)

Sand Country, (General); Handout Questions #'s 11 & 12 9 Lynn White. "Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis. "

Beyond the Land Ethic, pp. 27-36, 40-43, 50-51, 189-198; (Importance of a Theory of Nature); Handout Questions #'s 13 & 14 10 Beyond the Land Ethic, pp. 14-18, 221 -229

Beyond the Land Ethic, pp. 239-249, 84-87, 112-115 (Issue of the Intrinsic Value of Nature) ; Handout Questions #'s 15 & 16 and points on "The Social Nature of Humans" 11 Beyond the Land Ethic, pp. 12-14, 59-76, 167-169 12 Beyond the Land Ethic (continued)

The Skeptical Environmentalist, selected passages; Handout Questions 17 & 18 Second paper is due Friday by 5 pm

13 Eco-Economy, pp. 3-33 (Chapter 1); pp. 158-167 (Chapter 7) Handout Lomborg on food

14 Lomborg on Food Eco-Economy, pp. 97-119 (Chapter 5) Handout Questions #'s 19 & 20

15 Eco-Economy, pp. 121-143 (Chapter 6) Eco-Economy, pp. 169-186 (Chapter 8): Possible Questions for final

16 Final Essay Examination Tuesday 12:30-2:30

Course Evaluation Methods: In the five different class periods, you will be called on to answer one question from a set of questions handed out in a previous period. You can volunteer for rhw question that you will answer. Each answer is worth 4 points. You will be required to answer five questions for a total of 20 points. The class is divided into four groups-these groups will be of equal numbers divided according to the alphabetical order of last names. The first and third groups will answer even numbered Handout Questions. The second and fourth group will answer the even numbered ones. For those who can not be present during a period when they would be expected to answer a question, two make-up sets of questions (sets A and B) will be available. This assignment can be compleded only in class. Even though one student is responsible for answering one question, every student should be prepared to answer to some extent all of the questions or follow-up questions. Use these questions as a guide to what is important in reading the assigned pages or chapters.

Second, you will take 2 essay examinations, one near the beginning of the semester, and one at the end during finals week. Third, you will write two short papers (each about 3 pages in length) during the semester. Each of these written assignments is worth 50 points for a total of 200 points.

For one point extra credit at the beginning of class, I will call on 2 or 3 members of the class to define a term in the Glossary of terms handed out.

The total number of points possible for the semester is 220. The grading scale for each assignment and the course as a whole is the following: A = 90 - 100%, B = 80 - 89%, C =70 - 79%, D= 60 - 69%, F =< 60%

Prepared By: Dennis Rusche, August 2006 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, January 2007


PHY 161 UNIVERSITY PHYSICS I COURSE S Y L L A B U S


Instructor: Dr. Gary Bowman

Required Textbooks: Physics for Scientists and Engineers, 6lh ed., R. Serway and J. Jewett

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: High school physics or PHY 107 and 107L with a grade of C or better; co requisites-Mat 136, PHY 161L




Course Objectives: The goal of this course is to introduce students to classical mechanics. Ideally, we will cover the first 12 chapters of text. You will be expected to solve a variety of stand problems. More importantly, though our goal will be to acquire a real understanding of fundamental physical concepts.





Schedule: This class meets three times a week for 50 minuets

Prepared By: Gary Bowman, January 2007



PHY 161L UNIVERSITY PHYSICS I LABRATORY COURSE SYLLABUS Fall 2006, 1 Credit Hour

Instructor: Matthew Abernathy






Course Objectives: A. To clarify the concepts covered in lecture B. To gain practice in the use of computer and lab equipment C. To establish basic laboratory skills such as the making of tables and graphs D. To begin learning the skills of estimating and propagating experimental uncertainties E. To begin learning experimental design and data analysis




Note: Lab scores and lecture scores wil be combined into a final grade which you will receive for both the lab and lecture.


Schedule: This class meets once a week for 150 minuets

Lab 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Contents Describing Motion Velocity and Acceleration Measurement and Uncertainty Two-Dimensional Motion Introduction to Forces Newton's 2ed Law Circular Motion Conservation of Energy Work and Energy Inelastic Collisions Elastic Collision Torque and Angular Momentum Static Equilibrium

Prepared By: Matthew Abemathy, August 2006 Formatted By: Abigail Breazeale, March 2007


PHY 262 UNIVERSITY PHYSICS II COURSE SYLLABUS Fall 2006, 3 Credit Hours

Instructor: Dr. R. D. Young

Required Textbooks: Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modem Physics by R. A. Serway and J. W. Jewett, Jr. (6th edition).

Course Prerequisites/Co requisites: Physics 161 and PHY 161L with a grade of C or better and MAT 137 or higher (co requisite)


Catalogue Description: Second course in the three-semester, calculus-based, introductory physics sequence. Electricity, magnetism, and thermodynamics.


Course Objectives: The course objective are threefold: (i) The student will learn the fundamental physical concepts and phenomena of electricity, magnetism, and thermodynamics; (ii) The student will learn the mathematical formulation of the concepts of electricity, and thermodynamics; (iii) The student will apply the concepts and mathematical formulations to construct solutions to various problems involving electricity, magnetism, and thermodynamics.


Week

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Topic Temperature, First law of Thermo.

Kinetic Theory Second Law of Thermo.

Coulomb's Law Electric Field, Gauss's Law Gauss's Law, Electric Potential Electric Potential, Capacitance

Capacitance Resistance, Circuits

Magnetic Fields Sources of Magnetic Fields Sources of Magnetic Fields Faraday's Law, Maxwell's Eqs Faraday's Law, Maxwell's Eqs

Chapter Sections

19.1-19.5,20.1-20.6

21.1-21.3

22.1-22.4.22.6-22.7

23.1-23.3

23.4-23.7.24.1-24.2

24.3-24.4.25.1-25.3

25.4-25.6.26.1-26.3

26.4-26.5

27.1-27.2, 27.6, 28.1-28.4

29.1-29.4

30.1-30.3

30.4-30.7

31.1-31.3

31.4-31.7

Quiz Exam

Quiz 1

Quiz 2

Quiz 3 Hour Exam 1

Quiz4

Quiz 5

Quiz 6 Hour Exam 2

Quiz 7

Quiz 8

Quiz 9 Hour Exam 3

Quiz 10

Quiz 11

15 Inductance, RLC Circuits 32.1-32.6 Quiz 12

This course meets for three 50 minute periods each week. Class times and place are MWF 9:10-10:00 am.


Evaluation Exams -3 @ 150 points each Quizzes- 10 @ 20 points each Final Exam

450 points 200 points 250 points 900 points

Grading 810 points and higher 720-809 points 630-719 points 420 to 629 points 449 points or less

A B C D F

Prepared By: R. D. Young, August 2006

Formatted By: Abieail Breazeale, January 2007

WILLIAM M. AUBERLE, P.E. Professor of Civil & Environmental Engineering

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ (928) 523-5845, [email protected]

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND MSE Civil (Environmental) Engineering West Virginia University 1967

BSIE. Industrial Engineering West Virginia University 1966

ACADEMIC SERVICE Professor of Civil & Environmental Engineering, August 1994 to present, College of Engineering and Natural Sciences, Northern Arizona University

Research Director, Ecological Monitoring & Assessment Program and Foundation, April 2003 - present, Northern Arizona University

Acting Dean/Director, April 2004 - July 2005 - Engineering Programs, College of Engineering and Natural Sciences, Northern Arizona University

Associate Professor, of Civil & Environmental Engineering, January 1991 to August 1994, College of Engineering and Technology, Northern Arizona University

PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE President, Yates & Auberle, Ltd.. 1984 - 1990, Oakbrook, IL (Denver & New York)

Principal, William M. Auberle, P.E., 1982 - 1984, Barlow, OH

Vice-President, KEMRON Division, Borg-Warner Corp., 1980-1982, Marietta, OH

Associate Director, Colorado Department of Health, 1978 - 1980, Denver

Director, Air Pollution Control Division, Colorado Department of Health, 1977 - 1978, Denver

Supervisor, Regional Air Pollution Control Agency, 1972- 1977, Dayton, OH

Supervisor, Bureau of Engineering, Montgomery County Combined General Health District, 1972 - 1977. Dayton, OH

Supervisor, Air Pollution Control, Montgomery County Combined General Health District, 1970 - 1972, Dayton, OH

Associate Executive Secretary/Chief Survey & Studies Section, Missouri Air Conservation Commission, 1969 - 1970. Jefferson City, MO

Air Quality Specialist, Missouri Air Conservation Commission, 1967 - 1968, Jefferson City, MO

PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION Professional Engineer: Ohio and Louisiana Qualified Environmental Professional Diplomate, American Academy of Environmental Engineers

HONORS AND AWARDS Fellow Member and Former Vice-President, Air & Waste Management Association

Dean's Award, College of Engineering & Technology, Northern Arizona University, 1998 - 1999

President's Award, Northern Arizona University, 1997


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Leadership Awards , 1975 (Region 5 Chicago), 1979 Region 8 Denver)

PROFESSIONAL and INSTITUTIONAL SERVICE Sustainable Economic Development Task Force Steering Committee, Coconino County, AZ 2005 - 2006

Arizona Town Hall, 1994 - present

Children's Environmental Health Advisory Committee, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 2004 - present

Clean Air Act Advisory Committee, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1996 - present

Water Research & Education Program, Advisory Board, 2003 - present

White House Task Force on Nuclear Energy and Air Quality, 2002 - 2003

Air & Waste Management Association, Member, Committee Chair (numerous), Board of Directors, Vice President

American Academy of Environmental Engineers, Diplomate, 1984 - present; Trustee, 1988 - 1991

PUBLICATIONS SAMPLE

Acker, T. L., W. M. Auberle, J. D. Eastwood, D. R. LaRoche, A. S. Ormond, R. P. Slack and D. H. Smith, Recommendations for reducing Energy Consumption and Improving Air Quality Through Energy Efficiency on Native-American Lands, Energy Sources, Part B, 1:223-234, 2006.

Cole, Henry S. and W. M. Auberle, Final Report of Environmental Liaisons ' Investigation of Georgia-Pacific Resins, Inc, Columbus, Ohio, Franklin County Ohio Court of Common Pleas, November, 2005.

Acker, T. L., W. M. Auberle, J. D. Eastwood, D. R. LaRoche, A. S. Ormond, R. P. Stack and D. H. Smith, Economic Analysis of Energy Efficiency Measures: Tribal Case Studies with the Yurok Tribe, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, the Pasqua Yaqui Tribe, American Indian Culture and Research Journal, Volume 20, Number 1, 2005.

Auberle, W. M., Implementing Strategies to Reduce Emissions from Diesel-Powered Motor Vehicles in the Southwest, Report to USEPA/OTAQ, 2002.

Auberle, W.M., Alvarez, V., Paramo, V., Leary, J. and Rios, G., Design of a Workshop in Air Quality Management for Senior Managers in Mexico, Proceedings of the 92 Annual Meeting of the Air & Waste Management Association. 1999.

Terry E. Baxter Ph.D., P.E. Assoc. Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northern Arizona University,

Flagstaff, AZ (928) 523-2008, [email protected]


Ph.D. Environmental Health Engineering, University of Kansas 1988 M.S. Environmental Health Engineering, University of Kansas 1981 B.S. Civil Engineering, University of Kansas 1979

ACADEMIC SERVICE Associate Professor, of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 2000, College of Engineering and

Technology, Northern Arizona University Initial Appointment: 1993 as Assistant Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Northern

Arizona University

PREVIOUS AND CURRENT EXPERIENCE 2000-present: Associate Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,

Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 1993-1999: Assistant Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northern

Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 1993-2003: Science Advisory Committee, Environmental Engineer, Great Plains/Rocky

Mountain Hazardous Substance Research Center, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 1989-1993: Environmental Engineer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII,

Kansas Citv, KS 1988-1989: Research Associate, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University

of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 1984: Environmental Engineer, Ralph B. Carter Company, Hackensack, NJ 1983-1984: Environmental Engineer, Ross E. McKinnev Consulting Engineer, Lawrence, KS 1980-1988: Research and Teaching Assistant, Department of Civil and Environmental

Engineering, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 1979: Civil Engineer, E.T. Archer Engineering, Kansas City, MO 1977-1978: Land Surveyor/Draftsman, Schmidt Engineering Company, Topeka, KS 1974-1976: Land Surveyor/Draftsman, Burgwin, Pasely and Associates, Topeka, KS 1974: Land Surveyor/Draftsman, W.H. Burgwin and Associates, Denver, CO 1973-1974: Land Surveyor/Draftsman, Burgwin, Martin and Associates, Topeka, KS 1972: Land Surveyor, J and M Development Company, Berrvton, KS

PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION Professional Civil Engineer: Kansas

HONORS AND AWARDS Senior Member, American Society for Quality (2006) Boeing Outstanding Educator Award (1999) Chair, Science Advisor)' Committee, Great Plains-Rocky Mountain Hazardous Substance


Research Center (1994 -1998) Director's Special Achievement Award, U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency

Response (1993) Superfund OERR Award, U.S. EPA (1992)



National Chair, Present State Work Group for Delivery of Analytical Services Task Force, U.S. EPA, OERR, (1991 - 1992)

Special Achievement Award, U.S. EPA, Region VII, Environmental Services Division (1990 & 1991)


Environmental Engineering Laboratory Director, CENE/CENS/NAU (2006) American Society of Civil Engineers ABET Evaluator training initiated (2005) and in progress

as an Observer (2006). Part 2000 Coordinator, Standard Methods Committee, APHA/AWAVA/WEF (2001 - present) Chair, Section 2710 Joint Task Group, Standard Methods Committee, APHA/AWWA/WEF

(1996 - present) Chair, Science Advisory Committee, Great Plains-Rockv Mountain Hazardous Substance

Research Center (1998 - 2003) Vice-Chair, Science Advisory Committee, Great Plains-Rockv Mountain Hazardous Substance

Research Center (1994 - 1998) Standard Methods Committee, APHA/AWWA/WEF (1991 - present) Hazardous Waste Committee, Water Environment Federation (1990 - 1996)

PUBLICATIONS SAMPLE

Baxter, T.E., Schell, D. and Holec, S. (2001) "Virtual tour of a wastewater treatment facility. A multimedia tool for training and education." WEFTEC 2001 Conference Proceedings (Atlanta, GA, October 13-17, 2001), Water Environment Federation

DeMendonca, M. and Baxter, T.E. (2001) "Design for the environment (DFE). An approach to achieve the ISO 14000 international standardization." Environmental Management and Health, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 51-56.

DeMendonca, M. and Baxter, T.E. (2000) "DFE Application to Achieve ISO-14000 Compliance." Proceedings of the 5 th International Symposium on Environmental Geotechnology and Global Sustainable Development, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil, August 17-23, 2000

Baxter, T.E. and Ramirez, B.B. (1999) "Training tribal environmental officials: Using a project not a projector." Proceeding of AW SEA 92ndAnnual'Meeting, St. Louis, Missouri, June 20-24, 1999.

DeMendonca, M. and Baxter, T.E. (1999) "Comparative assessment of instructional-based technology for learning wastewater treatment process unit operations." Proceedings of the 1999 International Conference on Simulation and Multimedia in Engineering Education, Societv for Computer Simulation, San Francisco, CA, January 17-20, 1999.

Dupont, R. Ryan, Terry E. Baxter and Louis Theodore (1998) Environmental Management. Workbook Problems and Solutions, CRC Press/Lewis Publishers.

Baxter, T.E., (1998) "Comparison of neighborhood-scale residential wood smoke emissions inventories using limited and intensive survey data." Proceedings of AWMA 91st Annual Meeting (San Diego, CA, June 14-18, 1998), Air and Waste Management Association.

Baxter, T.E., Ellsworth, P.M., Bero, B.N., Masavesva, V., W'eimerskirch, P., Marshall, M.T. and Madrone, B.C. (1998) "Adaptation and delivery of indoor air quality training for tribal officials." Proceedings of AWMA 91st Annual Meeting (San Diego, CA, June 14-18, 1998), Air and Waste Management Association.

Baxter, T.E., Iannacone, A. and Messbarger, D. (1993) "Assessing the Quality and Quantity ot Environmental Data," Proceedings of Challenges Voting Environmental Laboratories: Methods, Quality, Media and Liability; Specialty Conference Series (Santa Clara, CA, August 8-11, 1993), Water Environment Federation.


Bridget N. Bero, Ph.D., P.E. Associate Professor of Environmental Egnineering Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona



Ph.D. Chemical Engineering University of Idaho 1994

B.S. Chemical Engineering Cleveland State University 1981

ACADEMIC SERVICE

Associate Professor (2000 to present), Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ. (Initial appointment as Assistant Professor, 1995.)

• Special Project (2004-present): principle investigator, project: Utilization of Small Diameter Pine Slash: Research, Development and Commercialization of High Value Pine Oil Products in Northern Arizona.

• Special Project (2004-present): principle investigator, project: Devevlopment of an Environmental Management System for NAU.

Fulbright Senior Scholar (2002 - 2003), Fachhochschule Zittau-Gorlitz, Zittau, Germany.

PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE

Senior Environmental Engineer (1994 - 1995), Travis Energy & Environment, Inc., Hayden Lake, ID

Environmental Engineer (1989 - 1994), TerraGraphics Environmental Engineering, Moscow, ID.

Chemical Engineer (1981 - 1985), Texaco Port Arthur Research Labs, Port Arthur, TX.


Registered Professional Engineer (Chemical), Idaho

HONORS AND AWARDS

Dean's Award, 1999 and 2000, College of Engineering and Technology

Outstanding Faculty Award, 1999, Native American Student Services, Northern Arizona University

Jaycees Outstanding Flagstaff Young Citizen Award, 1997


PROFESSIONAL SERVICE

Member, State of Arizona Water Quality Advisory Revolving Fund (WQARF) Board, 2004 - present

Member of: Air & Waste Management Association (AWMA), American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), Fulbright Association

PUBLICATIONS SAMPLE

Doerry, Eck, B.N. Bero, K. Doerry and M. Neville. "The Global Engineering College: Lessons Learned in Exploring a New Model for International Engineering Education,"' Proc, 2004 American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Meeting, Salt Lake City, UT, June 2004.

Doerry, E., B.N. Bero and K. Doerry. "International Internships in a Globalized Engineering Curriculum," Proc. 3rd Global International Internship Congress, Stuttgart, Germany, April 8-12, 2003.

Doerry, E., B.N. Bero and K. Doerry. "The Global Engineering College: exploring a new model for engineering education in a global economy," Proc. 2003 American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Meeting, Nashville, TN, June 22-25, 2003.

Bero, Bridget N., E. Doerry and D. Hartman. "Northern Arizona University's Design4Practice Sequence: Interdisciplinary Training in Engineering Design for the Global Era," Proc, 2001 American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Meeting, Albuquerque, NM, June 24-27,2001.

Doerry, E., B. Bero, D. Larson, and J. Hatfield. "Northern Arizona University's 'Design4Practice Sequence': Interdisciplinary Training in Engineering Design for the Global Era", Proc, 3" Workshop on Global Engineering Education (GEE3). Aachen, Germany, October 18-20, 2000.

Bero, Bridget N., M.C. von Braun, I.H. von Lindern, S. Spallinger and V. Petrosyan. "The Influence of Soil Remediation on Lead in House Dust." Proc. USEPA Symposium on Lead Remediation Effectiveness, Coeur d' Alene, Idaho, May 22 - 26, 2000.

AIAQTP Semi-annual and End-of-Year Reports to funding agency (USEPA): 2x/year. 2001 -present.

Rand Decker, Ph.D. Professor of Civil Engineering

Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona (928)523-6083, [email protected]

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND B.Sc. Geological Engineering, Department of Geology and Geophysics, College of Mines, University of Utah, 1977 Ph.D. Civil Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, Montana State University, 1986 Minor: Mechanical Engineering

ACADEMIC SERVICE June, 2004 - Professor and Assistant to the Director for Research and Graduate studies, July, 2006 Engineering and Professional Programs, College of Engineeeing and Natural

Science, NAU July, 2002 - Professor, with tenure, and Chair, Department of Civil and Environmental June, 2004: Engineering, College of Engineering and Technology, NAU June, 1996 - Associate Professor, with tenure, Department of Civil and Environmental June, 2002: Engineering and Director, Winter/Alpine Engineering Laboratory, U. of Utah August 1989 Assistant Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, June, 1996: University of Utah September 1989 - Research Associate, The Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research (INSTAAR), January 1991: University of Colorado at Boulder September 1979 - Assistant Research Engineer and Lecturer, Department of Civil Engineering and April 1987: Engineering Mechanics, Montana State University

SELECTED PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE May, 2000 - Visiting Scientist, Austrian Institute for Avalanche and Torrent Research, Present Innsbruck, Austria. September 1989 - Science and Technology Agency Fellow, Nagaoka Institute for Snow and Ice March 1990: Studies. National Research Center for Disaster Prevention, Nagaoka, Japan. April 1987 National Academy of Science/National Research Council Resident Research September, 1989 Associate, Fluid:Dynamics Branch, Earth Science September, 1989: and

Applications Division, Structures and Dynamics Laboratory, National Aeronautics and Space Administration/Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama.

1979 - 1986: Chief Guide and Operations Manager, High Mountains Helicopter Skiing, Inc., (seasonally) Jackson, Wyoming. July 1977 - Geological Engineer and Mining Geologist, Sunshine Mining Co., August 1979: Kellogg, Idaho.

REGISTRATION, LICENSES and QUALIFICATIONS (FE) Examination, passed - April, 1977 Licensed pilot Licensed winter guide/outfitter, Idaho Outfitters and Guides Board (1982-1986)

Selected Honors Arizona Water Institute Faculty Affiliate, 2006 Northern Arizona University Honors Faculty Affiliate, 2005


University of Utah Public Sen-ice Professorship, 2002 The American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE) 1999/2000 Visiting Scholar Utah Alpha Chapter of Chi Epsilon Fraternity (the National Civil Engineering

Honor Society) 1995 Excellence in Teaching Award, May 1995 Fellow: San Diego Supercomputer Computational Sciences Institute, 1992 Fellow: Science and Technology Agency (of Japan), 1989 National Academy of Science Research Associate, November, 1986

Selected Professional Service Sept., 2005-Present: Board of Trustees and University Liaison, Verde Valley FIRST Robotics, Inc. May, 2004 - Institutional (NAUj Representative. Arizona Governor's Task Force for the Present: Arizona Water Institute. December, 2002 - Chairman, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Engineering Schools of the Present: West Sustainability Sub-Committee. December, 1996 - USA Point-of-Contact, Joint Snow and Ice Disaster Mitigation for Developing Present: Countries Committee, (Japan) National Institute for Earth Science and Disaster

Prevention (NIED) and the US Office of Global Change Research. June 1995 - Serving, Airfield and Airspace Capacity and Delay Committee, National July, 2000: Academy of Science (NAS)/National Research Council (NRC) - Transportation

Research Board (TRB). March 1994-Present: Serving, Winter Maintenance Committee, NAS/NRC - TRB. January, 1994- Serving, State of Utah, Division of Comprehensive Emergency Management June, 2002: Field Advisory Support Team. March 1994: Touring Panel Member, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)/NAS/NRC -

TRB International Winter Maintenance Technology Scanning Tour, Japan and Western Europe.

June 1993 - Serving, Committee on (Aircraft) Ground De-icing Systems, Society of June, 1996: Automotive Engineers (SAE). Sept, 1989-June, 2002: Serving, Director of Science, The Center for Snow Science at Alta. April 1987 - Senving, Fluids Committee and Subcommittee on Granular and Multiphase Flow, June, 1996: Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE.

Selected Recent Publications: 1. Rice, R., R. Decker, Modeling waves, and short lived peak velocities and impact loads associated

with snow avalanches, 2005, Cold Regions Science and Technology, No. 41, pg. 221-233. 2. Decker, R., R. Rice. S. Putnam, S. Singer, Rural Intelligent Transportation System Natural Hazard

Management, 2003, Transportation Research Record, No. 1819, pg. 255-259. 3. Rice, R., et al (R. Decker), Avalanche Hazard Reduction for Transportation Corridors Using Real-

time Detection and Alarm, 2002, Cold Regions Science and Technology, No. 34, pg. 31-42. 4. Decker, R., J.L. Bignel, CM. Lambertsen, and K. Porter, Measuring the Efficiency of Winter

Maintenance Practices, 2001, Transportation Research Record, No 1741, pg 167-175. 5. Rice, R., and R. Decker, A Rural Intelligent Transportation System for Snow Avalanche Detection

and Warning, 2000, Transportation Research Record, No. 1700, pg. 17 - 23. 6. Abe, O., et al (R. Decker), Snow Profile Observations for Avalanche Forecasts using the New

Generation Rammsonde", 1999, J. of the Japan Society of Snow and Ice, Vol. 61, pg. 369 - 376. 7. Frair, F., and R. Decker, Evaluation of a Fixed Anti-Icing Spray System, 1999, Transportation

Research Record, No. 1672, pg. 34 - 41.

2

Patricia M. Ellsworth, Ph.D. Assistant Research Professor

Civil & Environmental Engineering and Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ (928) 523-6721, [email protected]

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND Ph.D. Freshwater Biology University of Colorado 1978 M.A. Environmental Biology University of Colorado 1973 B.S. Biology University of San Francisco 1970

ACADEMIC SERVICE Assistant Research Professor, Civil & Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering and Natural Sciences. Northern Arizona University, 2006-present

Curriculum Coordinator, American Indian Air Quality Training Program, Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals (ITEP), Northern Arizona University, 1993-present

Visiting Assistant Professor, Civil & Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering and Technology, Northern Arizona University, 2000-2006

Visiting Assistant Professor, Science & Mathematics Learning Center, Northern Arizona University. 1994-2000

Adjunct Faculty in Biology, Northern Arizona University, 1991-1993

PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE Core Faculty and Mentor for high school students, National Science Foundation Young Scholars Program and Four Corners Science & Math Summer Program, Northern Arizona University, 1991-1994, 1996

Aquatic Biology Consultant for the Prescott National Forest, biomonitoring in the upper Verde River, Arizona, 1992-1994

Adjunct Faculty in Biology and Microbiology, Yavapai College, Prescott, Arizona, 1988-1992

Visiting Instructor in Winter Limnology, Mountain Research Station, University of Colorado, 1988

Adjunct Faculty in Environmental Studies, Prescott College, Prescott, Arizona, 1987-1988

Adjunct Faculty in Biology and Anatomy & Physiology, Southern Oregon State College, Ashland, Oregon, 1980-1987

Instructor, summer Academy for gifted secondary students, Ashland, Oregon, 1981-1982

Lecturer in Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, 1979

Aquatic Biology Consultant, Stearns-Roger, Inc., Denver, Colorado, 1978-1979

Supervisor for high school students in National Science Foundation Summer Research Participation Program, Mountain Research Station, University of Colorado, 1974-1976

Patricia M. Ellsworth Vita Fall 2006 1


HONORS AND AWARDS Northern Arizona University, Supervisor of the Year (for Student Workers), Honorable Mention, 2004-2005,

Northern Arizona University, Supervisor of the Year (for Student Workers), Runner-Up, 2002-2003

PROFESSIONAL SERVICE Arizona Riparian Council, member, 1990-present Section Editor, Arizona Riparian Council Newsletter, 1992-1995

Volunteer instructor, annual community ecology program called "Wander the Wild," Highlands Center for Natural History, Prescott, Arizona, 1992, 1996, 1998

PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS Ben, N., P.M. Ellsworth, and W. Auberle. 2006. Health Impacts of Ambient Air Pollution on American Indians & Alaska Natives, National Tribal Forum, Seattle, WA, April 11-13, 2006.

Ellsworth, P.M. and D.W. Blinn. 2003. Distribution and biomass of Tropocyclops prasinus mexicanus (Cyclopoida) in a near-thermally constant environment, Montezuma Well, Arizona. Southwestern Naturalist 48 (3): 341-346.

Baxter, T.E., P.M. Ellsworth, B.B. Bero, V. Masayesva, P. Weimerskirch, M.T. Marshall, and B.C. Madrone. 1998. Adaptation and delivery of indoor air quality training for tribal officials. Annual Meeting of the Air & Waste Management Association, June, 1998, Paper No. 98-WAC.06P (A494).

Ellsworth, P.M., W.M. Auberle, and V. Masayesva. 1998. Update of innovative education and training for tribal environmental professionals. Annual Meeting of the Air& Waste Management Association, June, 1998, Paper No. 98-WAC.07P (A499).

Auberle, W.M., P.M. Ellsworth, and V. Masayesva. 1996. Innovative education and training for tribal environmental professionals. Annual Meeting of the Air & Waste Management Association, June, 1996, Paper No. 96-RP143.07.

Ellsworth, P.M. 1983. Ecological seasonal cycles in a Colorado mountain pond. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 2: 225-237.

Ellsworth. P.M. 1980. A simple plankton sampler for use in shallow water. American Midland Naturalist 104:395-396.

Patricia M. Ellsworth Vita Fall 2006 J

PAUL T. GREMILLION, Ph.D., P.E. Assistant Professor of Environmental Engineering

Civil and Environmental Engineering Department Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ (928) 523-5382, [email protected]


Ph.D. Civil Engineering University of Central Florida 1994

M.S. Civil Engineering Louisiana State University 1986

B.S. Civil Engineering Louisiana State University 1983

ACADEMIC SERVICE

Assistant Professor, College of Engineering and Natural Sciences, Northern Arizona University, August 2003 to present.

PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE

Design Engineer, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Restoration Division, Field Engineering Section, New Orleans, Louisiana, October 2000 to July 2003.

Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering Department, Union College, Schenectady, New York, September 1996 to May 2000.

Assistant Professor, School of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science, University of Oklahoma, August 1994 to May 1996.

Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Central Florida, August 1991 to May 1994.

Environmental Engineer, Northwest Florida Water Management District, Havana. Florida, November 1990 to August 1991.

Senior Civil Engineer, Ecology & Environment, Inc., Tallahassee, Florida, August 1989 to October 1990.

Environmental Engineer, International Science & Technology, Reson, Virginia (now Dynamac, Inc., Rockville, Maryland), April 1986 to August 1989.

PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION Professional Civil Engineer: Louisiana #29253

HONORS AND AWARDS

Fellow, 1996 Young Investigator Program on Urban Water Quality Management, Nizhnevartovsk, Russia, National Research Council.


Member of the NAU College Curriculum Committee, College of Engineering and Natural Sciences.



Member of the NAU University Library Committee.

PUBLICATIONS SAMPLE

Peer Reviewed Journal Articles:

Gremillion, P.T., J.V. Cizdziel, and N.R. Cody, 2005. Caudal fin mercury as a non-lethal predictor of fish-muscle mercury. Environmental Chemistry, 2:96-99.

Rodbell, D.T. and P.T. Gremillion, 2005. A winter field-based course on limnology and paleolimnology. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(5):494-500.

Peer Reviewed Conference Abstracts:

Gremillion, P.T. and D.T. Rodbell, 2003. Comparing the limnology and paleo-limnology of upstate New York lakes. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 35(6):276.

Invited Talks:

Aquatic Sediment Records of Atmospheric Metals Deposition in Northern Arizona. Invited speaker, Meeting of The Southern Nevada Section of the American Chemical Society and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Sciences Division (Las Vegas). June 17, 2005, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Paleolimnological Techniques in Reservoirs. Invited speaker, Comprehensive Watershed Management for the Valley of the Sun and Central Arizona Basins. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. November 14, 2005, Phoenix, Arizona.

Restoring Louisiana 's wetlands through Mississippi River Diversions. Invited speaker, Smith College Environmental Science and Policy Brown Bag Lunch Series, March 7, 2003.

Effectiveness of freshwater diversion at the Naomi (BS-03) project site. CWPPRA Adaptive Management Workshop, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, August 12 and 13, 2002.

Technical Reports: Gremillion, P.T and C. Piastrini, 2005. Bathymetric Survey of Northern Arizona Reservoirs. Final report submitted to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Phoenix, Arizona, October 2005.

Gremillion, P.T. and J.L. Toney, 2005. Metals deposition in northern Arizona reservoirs. Final report submitted to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Phoenix, Arizona, March 2005.

Shaw, G., F. Williams, and P.T. Gremillion, 2004. Groundwater Geohydrology of the Town of Wright. Final report submitted to the National Fish and Wildlife Federation.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES

Currently pursuing Graduate Certificate in Geographic Information Systems, NAU Department of Geography Planning and Recreation.


JOSHUA T. HEWES, Ph.D., P.E. Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering



Ph.D. Structural Engineering University of California, San Diego 2002

M.S. Structural Engineering University of California, San Diego 2000

B.S. Structural Engineering University of California, San Diego 1998

ACADEMIC SERVICE

Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering (August 2005 to present), Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ.

• Special Project (March 2006-present): co-principle investigator, project: Criteria for Standardization of Substation Enclosure Walls, SRP, Phoenix, Arizona

PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE Bridge Engineer, David Evans and Associates, Inc., Sacramento, California, May 2002 - August 2005

Lecturer, University of California, Davis, Davis, California, September 2004 - December 2004

Graduate Teaching/Research Assistant, Department of Structural Engineering, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California, August 1998 - May 2002

Engineering Aide, Powell Structural Research Laboratories, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California, June 1997 - August 1998

PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION Professional Civil Engineer: California


Transportation Research Board: Member of the Seismic Design of Bridges Committee

Institutional Service: NAU Faculty Senate, ACI Student Chapter Advisor

PUBLICATIONS SAMPLE Hewes, J.T., Priestley, M.J.N. "Seismic Design and Performance of Precast Concrete Segmental Bridge Columns." Structural Systems Research Project, Report No. SSRP - 2001/25, University of California. San Diego, La Jolla, California. 2002.

Hewes. J.T., Vasquez, A., Innamorato, D., Priestley, M.J.N, Seible, F. "Beam Test - Sherwood Resort Hotel Guam", Structural Systems Research Project, Report No. TR - 98/02. University of California. San Diego, La Jolla, California. 1998.

JTH ABET Vita Fall 2006 1


CLYDE NELSON HOLLAND Ph.D., P.E. (Retired) Professor Emeritus Civil Engineering- Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ



Ph.D. The Georgia Institute of Technology M.S.E. Duke University B.S. Virginia Polytechnic and State University

CURRENT ACADEMIC SERVICE Professor Emeritus, College of Engineering & Natural Sciences, Northern Arizona

University.

PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE Former positions at Northern Arizona University include Associate Professor, Civil Engineering and Technology; Chairman Civil Engineering and Technology Department; Dean College of Engineering and Technology.

Within the University system in Arizona I served as Academic Officer for the Arizona Board of Regents. Responsible for academic programs at the three state universities.

PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION • Former Registered Professional Engineer in Georgia, Louisiana and Arizona. • Former Registered Land Surveyor - Louisiana.


DEBRA S. LARSON, Ph.D., P.E. Professor of Civil Engineering

Chair of Civil and Environmental Engineering Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ



Ph.D. Civil Engineering Arizona State University 1994

M.S. Civil Engineering Michigan Technological University 1981

B.S. Civil Engineering Michigan Technological University 1978

ACADEMIC SERVICE Associate Dean of Engineering and Natural Sciences, July 2005 to August 2006, College of Engineering and Natural Sciences, Northern Arizona University

Department Chair, May 2004 - Current, Civil and Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering and Natural Sciences, Northern Arizona University

Visiting Professor, January 2003 to June 2003, Joint Appointment in Departments of Civil Engineering and Forest Products Technology, Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo, Finland.

Professor, of Civil Engineering, August 2000, College of Engineering and Technology, Northern Arizona University

Initial Appointment: 1994 as Associate Professor of Civil Engineering at Northern Arizona University

PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE Subcontractor to Gromala & Associates, Federal Way. Washington, August 1992 - February 1994

General Research Engineer (part-time), Forest Products Laboratory, USDA, Madison, Wisconsin November 1991 -May 1994

Teaching Associate, Department of Civil Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, January 1989-May 1994

Senior Plan Review Engineer, Wildan Associates, Phoenix, Arizona,March 1988 - January 1989

Sunbelt Regional Engineer, Phoenix Service Center, Trus Joist International, Tempe. Arizona, June 1986-March 1988

Staff Engineer, Corporate Engineering, Trus Joist Corporation, Boise, Idaho, September 1984 - June 1986

Plant Technical Director, MICRO=LAM® Division, T rus Joist Corporation, Junction City, Oregon June 1983-August 1984

Professional Intern, Weyerhaeuser Company, Tacoma, Washington: Engineered Wood Products Sales Group and Civil/Structural Engineering Section, August 1981 -May 1983

Graduate Teaching/Research Assistant, Department of Civil Engineering, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Michigan, August 1979-June 1981

Analysis Engineer, Manitowoc Crane Co., Manitowoc, Wisconsin June 1978-June 1979



PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION Professional Civil Engineer: Oregon and Arizona

HONORS AND AWARDS Arizona Society of Civil Engineers, 2005, President's Award

Distinguished Lecturer, 1999-2000, NSF/ASEE Visiting Scholars Program. http://www.asee.org/visit/html/about.htm

2000 ASME Curriculum Innovation Award, Honorable Mention, Design4Practice.

1999 NAU Centennial Year Service Award for the Design4Practice program.

Dean's Award, 1999, College of Engineering and Technology, Northern Arizona University.

Outstanding Teaching Award, 1999, Pacific Southwest Section of American Society of Engineering Educators.

The 1999 $50,000 Boeing Outstanding Educator Award for Design4Practice: Engineering Design through the Curriculum at NAU.

1996 ASME Curriculum Innovation Award Program, Honorable Mention: "Engineering Design at NAU - The Path to Synthesis"

Distinguished Achievement Award, 1994, Arizona State University Faculty Women's Association, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona.

PROFESSIONAL and INSTITUTIONAL SERVICE Greater Flagstaff Forests Partnership, Flagstaff, Arizona: Board of Directors, Chair of the Advisory Board, and Utilization and Economics Team member

ABET Evaluator: Training in progress

American Society of Civil Engineers Committee on Academic Prerequisites for Professional Practice: Member of the Curriculum Committee and Levels of Competence Subcommittee

American Society of Civil Engineers Excellence in Civil Engineering Teaching Workshops: Provider and Mentor. 1999 to Current

Institutional Service: Ecological Restoration Institute Associate, Student Chapter ASCE Advisor, CENS Budget Committer, Engineering Scholarship Committee, Multicultural Engineering Program: Advisor. Design4Practice Revitalization Proposal Committee: Chair

PUBLICATIONS SAMPLE

N. Dennis and D. Larson, (2005), Defining Who Should Teach the Body of Knowledge, Proceedings, 2005 ASEE Annual Conference, Portland, OR, June 12-15, No. 1789.

D. Larson, R. Mirth, and R. Wolfe, (2004), The Evaluation of Small Diameter Ponderosa Pine Logs in Bending, Forest Products Journal, December, 54(12): 52-58.

D. Larson, R. Mirth, R. Wolfe, J. Baer, (2004), Small-Diameter Ponderosa Pine Specimens in Compression, 8th World Conference on Timber Engineering WCTE 2004, Volume II. Lahti, Finland, June 14-17, pp 487-492.

D. Larson and A.M. Ahonen, (2004), Active Learning in a Finnish Engineering University Classroom. European Journal of Engineering Education. Special Issue: Active Learning in Engineering Education, Vol. 29. No. 4.


http://www.asee.org/visit/html/about.htm

EUGENE B. LOVERICH, M.S.E.M., M.A., P.E. Associate Professor of Civil Engineering


EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND Doctoral Work Engineering Mechanics Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State U. 1973-1974 M. A. Guidance and Counseling Eastern Michigan University 1970 M.S. Engineering Mechanics Ohio University 1968 B. M. E Mechanical Engineering University of Detroit 1966

ACADEMIC SERVICE 1979 - Present Northern Arizona University, College of Engineering and Natural Sciences

Associate Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department

1966 - 1968 Ohio University, College of Engineering and Technology, Athens, Ohio Research Assistant and Laboratory Instructor

PREVIOUS AND CONCURRENT EXPERIENCE 1985 - Present Consulting Engineer:

Perform structural and mechanical design, analysis and failure prediction, vehicle dynamics, and accident reconstruction.

1976 - 1979 Ford Motor Company, Engineering and Research Center, Dearborn, Michigan Design Analyst: Performed theoretical and experimental analysis to detennine structural integrity of light truck components and systems.

1968 - 1970 Bendix Corporation, Aerospace Systems Division, Ann Arbor, Michigan Structural Analyst: Designed and analyzed components utilized in the Apollo 11, Apollo 12, and Viking Mars experiments packages.

Summer, 1967 NASA, Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio Research Engineer: Designed and analyzed gas turbine rotor and stator blades.

Summer, 1966 Bendix Corporation, Aerospace Products Division, South Bend, Indiana Structural Analyst: Performed stress analysis for design and evaluation of aircraft landing gear.

1961 - 1966 GM Corporation, Buick Motors Division, Flint, Michigan Cooperative Engineer-in-Training program

PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION Professional Mechanical Engineer, State of Arizona, 14934 Professional Mechanical Engineer, State of Ohio, 39866

1


HONORS and AWARDS Professor of the Year for the College of Engineering in 1990-91, 1992-93, 1993-94: 1997-98,

1998-99 Centennial Professor of the Year for the College of Engineering and Technology in 1997-98,

1998-99, and 1999-2000 Tau Beta Pi "Eminent Engineer"

PROFESSIONAL and INSTITUTIONAL SERVICE American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Engineering Society for Advancing Mobility Land Sea Air Space (SAE) Tau Beta Pi Honorary Engineering Society Phi Kappa Phi Honor Society Order of the Engineer

PUBLICATIONS SAMPLE Loverich, Eugene B., and James S. Loverich, "Application of Integrated Microcomputer-Aided Engineering to an Undergraduate Design Problem," published in the proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Mechanical Division Annual Conference, Session 1668, June 1993, Carbondale, Illinois.

Saczalski, Kenneth J., and Eugene B. Loverich, "Vibration Analysis Methods Applied to Forensic Engineering Problems," Paper No. 205, published in the proceedings of the ASME Conference on Mechanical Vibration and Noise, September 1991, Miami, Florida.

Loverich, Eugene B., James S. Loverich, and Joseph R. Troxler, "Comparison of Stress Patterns Provided by Finite Element Analysis and Photoelastic Analysis," published in the proceedings of the American Society of Engineering Education Pacific Southwest Section Conference, October 1991, Berkeley. California.

Loverich. Eugene B., "Theoretical Fatigue Life Prediction Using the Cumulative Damage Approach," Paper No. 820692, published in the conference proceedings and presented at the Society of Automotive Engineers Conference on Fatigue, April 1982, Dearborn, Michigan.

TECHNICAL REPORTS SAMPLE

"The Finite Element Analysis of the SOFIA High Speed Imaging Photometer for Occultations (HIPO) Instrument and FLITECAM Dewar Assembly System," Report No. TR-02-01, prepared for Ted Dunham, Lowell Observatory, March, 2002.

"Analysis of Lowell Observatory 42-Inch HEXTEK Minor," Report No. TR-00-01, prepared for Ted Dunham, Lowell Observatory. January, 2000.

"Dynamic Analysis and Reconstruction of Door Impact Resulting from Explosion," Report No. TR-95-01, prepared for The Atchison, Topeka, and Sante Fe Railway Company, May, 1995.

"Array Telescope Foundation Thermal and Dynamic Analysis," Report No. TR-93-01, prepared for Dr. Nathaniel White, Lowell Observatory, July 1993.

"Nonlinear Finite Element Stress Analysis of a Vehicle Upper Control Ann to Detennine Peak Stresses and Stress Contour Patterns for Various Load Conditions - Analysis III," Report No. TR-91-03, prepared for Environmental Research and Safety Technologists, Inc., March 1991.

2

Wilbert I. Odem, Jr., Ph.D., P.E. Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering



Ph.D. Civil Engineering University of Arizona Environmental Engineering Emphasis

M.S. Civil Engineering University of Arizona Environmental Engineering Emphasis

B.A. Geosciences and Geography University of Texas

EXPERIENCE

2002-Present Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northern Arizona University

1997-2002 Associate Professor. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northern Arizona University

1992-1997 Associate Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Construction Management, Northern Arizona University

Summer 1993 Research Fellow, Los Alamos National Laboratory 1991-92 Research Associate, University of Colorado, Boulder, Co. 1988-91 Research Associate, University of Arizona, Tucson, Az. 1987-88 Environmental Engineer, HDR Engineering, Cameron Park, Ca. 1986-87 Environmental Engineer/Hydrogeologist, Radian Corp., Sacramento, Ca. 1984-85 Research Assistant, University of Arizona, Tucson, Az. 1984 Hydrogeoglogical Technician, HydroGeoChem, Tucson, Az


Professional Civil Engineer: State of Arizona

PUBLICATIONS SAMPLE

Odem, Wilbert I. And Joshua Gilman, 2002. Hydraulic and Hydrologic Relationships in Streams of the Southwest US. Submitted to Journal American Water Resources Association, April 2002.

Odem, Wilbert; S. Blossom, J. Loverich, B.Orchard, N. Wallace, 2001. Evaluation of the BEHI Bank Erosion Prediction Model in the Verde River Watershed and San Pedro River Watershed, Final Report submitted to Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 172 pp.

Odem, Wilbert; S. Blossom, J. Loverich, B.Orchard, N. Wallace, 2001. Bank Evaluation at ADEQ Biocriteria Reference Sites in the Verde River Watershed and San Pedro River Watershed. Final Report submitted to Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 77 pp.

Odem, Wilbert; S. Blossom, S. Welch, 2001. Regional Relationships Between Hydrologic and Hydraulic Parameters in the State of Arizona. Final Report submitted to Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 25 pp.

Odem, Wilbert I., et al, 2000. Evaluating the Bank Erodibility Hazard Index in New Mexico. Report Submitted to New Mexico Environmental Department. 123 pp.

Odem, Wilbert I., et al, 1999. Stream Channel Morphology in New Mexico: Regional Relationships. Report Submitted to U.S. Forest Service Southwest Region and to New Mexico Environmental Department. 227 pp.

PRESENTATION SAMPLES

Odem, Wilbert I.; J. Gilman, S. Welch, 2001. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Geometry Relationships in Arizona and New Mexico: Regional Curves and What Are They Good For. Presented at Restoring Streams. Riparian Areas, and Floodplains in the Southwest, a Conference Sponsored by the Institute for Wetland Science and Public Policy and The Association of State Wetland Managers, Albuquerque, NM 2001.

Hink, Jeff; W. Odem, S. Welch, 2001. Stream Restoration at Hoxworth Springs, Coconino National Forest: A Demonstration Project.. Presented at Restoring Streams, Riparian Areas, and Floodplains in the Southwest, a Conference Sponsored by the Institute for Wetland Science and Public Policy and The Association of State Wetland Managers, Albuquerque, NM, 2001.

Odem, Wilbert I., 2001. Geomorphic Analysis of Rivers and Streams: Necessary but not Sufficient. Presented in Plenary Session at Restoring Streams, Riparian Areas, and Floodplains in the Southwest, a Conference Sponsored by the Institute for Wetland Science and Public Policy and The Association of State Wetland Managers, Albuquerque, NM, 2001.

AWARDS

Recognition by the Hopi Tribe for Outstanding Contributions to the Hopi Junior/Senior High School Water Improvement Project, 1998.

Dean's Award, NAU College of Engineering and Technology, 1998-1999.

Boeing Outstanding Education Award. Member of NAU College of Engineering and Technology Design4Practice Project Team, 1999.


American Society of Civil Engineers American Water Works Association Water Environment Federation Arizona Water Protection Control Association American Water Resources Association

Alarick K. Reiboldt Lab Manager for Civil and Environmental Engineering Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Northern Arizona University Box 15600 Flagstaff, Arizona 86011

(928) 523-5208 [email protected]


M.E. Engineering (Pending Defense) Northern Arizona University 2005

B.S.E. Environmental Engineering Northern Arizona University 2001

A.S. Physical Sciences Mohave Community College 1997

ACADEMIC SERVICE

Laboratory Manager, 2006 - Current, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering and Natural Science, Northern Arizona University

Teaching Staff, 2004 - Current, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering and Natural Science, Northern Arizona University

Senior Research Engineer, 2004 -2006 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering and Natural Science, Northern Arizona University/ USDA Forestry Service

Research Engineer, 2002 - 2003, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering and Technology, Northern Arizona University

Environmental Engineering Laboratory Manager, 1997-2002, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering and Technology, Northern Arizona University

GRANTS/AWARDS

2002 - 2003 NSF Scholarship, $2,500.

2001 - 2002 Graduate Teaching Assistantship, $17,500.

2000 - 2001 NASA Undergraduate Research Grant. "Feasibility of Biologically Augmented Low-Gravity Life Support System," $2,700.


Craig A. Roberts, Ph.D., P.E., R.L.S. Associate Professor

Northern Arizona University Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND • Ph.D. in Civil Engineering, Transportation Specialty with Minors in Statistics and Spatial

Analysis, 1999, The Georgia Institute of Technology. • M.S. in Civil Engineering, Transportation Specialty, 1996, The Georgia Institute of Technology. • Certificate in Owners/Presidents Management Program (Executive Education), 1987-1989,

Harvard University—Graduate School of Business Administration. • B.S. in Civil Engineering, Kansas State University.

PROFESSIONAL HISTORY • 2005 - Present: Associate Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona. • 1999 - 2005: Assistant Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona. • 1995 - 1999: Graduate Research Assistant, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering

The Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia. • 1994 -1995: Executive Vice President

Carnahan-Proctor & Associates, Margate, Florida. • 1991-1994: Vice President

Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, San Francisco, California. • 1988-1991: Principal

Management Consulting Practice, Portland, Oregon. • BSCE-1988: Managing Partner, Partner, and Project Engineer/Manager

Wilson & Company, Engineers & Architects, Salina, Kansas.

Prior to receiving his graduate degrees in Civil Engineering, Dr. Roberts had over twenty years of consulting engineering experience, ranging from design engineer to managing partner. Dr. Roberts served in engineering design and project management capacities for water, wastewater, transportation, and construction observation projects. He has served as an officer or partner in three consulting firms, which maintain headquarters in Florida, New Mexico (formerly Kansas), and California.

PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION AND AFFLIATIONS • Registered Professional Engineer in Arizona and 13 other states (AR, CO, GA, KS, IL, MS, MO,

NE, NM, ND, OK, SD, and TX). Registered Land Surveyor in Kansas. • Member of American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Transportation Research Board (TRB),

Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Intelligent Transportation Society of America (ITS), American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE). and Rotary International (RI).

HONORS AND AWARDS • Transportation Leadership Fellow, 1999, ENO Transportation Foundation, Inc. • Great Works Award, 1992; Professional Services Management Association. • Kansas Outstanding Young Engineer, 1981; Kansas Engineering Society of NSPE • Kansas Outstanding Engineering-in-Training, 1973; Kansas Engineering Society of NSPE.

RECENT JOURNAL/PROCEEDING PUBLICATIONS, RESEARCH FUNDING, AND INVITED PRESENTATIONS

• Railroad-Highway Crossing Cooperative Signal Research Control, SPR-557, Principal Investigator, 2003-2005. Research project funded by Arizona Department of Transportation, the City of Flagstaff, AZ, and Northern Arizona University. ($219,500/32 months: ADOT $155,000, Flagstaff $33,000, NAU $31,500)

• Evaluation of Photo Radar for Freeway Enforcement, Principal Investigator, 2004-2005. Research project funded by Arizona Department of Transportation. ($60,000/15 months).

• Railroad Preemption-Congestion Mitigation, Arizona Institute of Traffic Engineers/ITMSA Annual Conference, Phoenix, AZ, 10 March 2005.

• Roberts, Craig A., Mark J. Poppe, and Seth W. Chalmers. "A Statistical Procedure Using An Expert Panel For The Procurement Of Emerging Transportation Technologies."" Transportation Research Record, No. 1840, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, The National Academies, Washington, D.C., pp. 1-9, 2004.

• VISSIM Modeling of RR Crossing Early Warning System, Arizona Intelligent Transportation System/I-40 Collation joint meeting, Flagstaff, AZ, 17 August 2004.

• Roberts, Craig .A. and K.K. Dixon. "Model for Emphasizing Design in Highway Engineering by Incorporating an Experiential Laboratory. American Society for Engineering Education, Pacific Southwest Section Annual Meeting, Conference Proceedings, Tucson, AZ, 15 April 2000.

• Microscopic Traffic Simulation Modeling as a Research Tool, University of Arizona Graduate CE Seminar, Tucson, AZ, 16 April 2004.

• Roberts, Craig A. Review of the book, Sensor Technologies and Data Requirements for ITS, by Lawrence A. Klein, Journal of Transportation Engineering, July/August 2002.

• Congestion Mitigation Resources and Strategies for Arizona 's State Highway System, Research Engineer, 2001-2002. Research project funded by the Arizona Department of Transportation. (My portion $11,650/12 months; total project $100,000, Andrew Kolcz and Nayan S. Amin, Co-Principal Investigators, BWR, Inc.)

• Scientific Approaches for Transportation Research, Research Engineer, 1998-2001. Research project funded by National Cooperative Highway Research Project 20-45, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, The National Academies. Also, developed a 3-day National Highway Institute (NHI) Training Course: Scientific Approaches to Transportation Research. (My portion at NAU $10,100/15 months; total project $200,000, Simon Washington, Principal Investigator, The Georgia Institute of Technology)

BOARDS & COMMITTEES- INSTITUTIOANL & PROFESSIONAL • Traffic Control Products Evaluation Committee, Arizona Department of Transportation:

Member, 2000 to present.

• American Society of Civil Engineers, Transportation and Development Institute Research Committee: Member 2000 to present, Secretary 2002 to 2005.

• Technical Advisory Committee, Flagstaff Signal Synchronization Study, City of Flagstaff, Arizona: Member 2002 to 2005.

• Peer Exchange Team, Review of the ADOT Arizona Transportation Research Center's Funded-Research Program: Member 25-27 June 2002, Phoenix, AZ.

• Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, The National Academies, Committee AHB25, Traffic Signal Systems: Member of committee, 2003 - 2005. Friend and paper reviewer, 2000 to present.

Craig A. Roberts - Curriculum Vitae (ABET 2 pg.) 10 October 2006 page 2 of 2

CHARLES M. SCHLINGER, Ph.D., P.E., P.G., P.Gp. Associate Professor Civil Engineering - Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ


EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND Ph.D. The Johns Hopkins University 1983 M.S.E. Utah State University, 1991 B.S. The University of Michigan at Flint 1977

ACADEMIC SERVICE

Associate Professor, College of Engineering & Natural Sciences, Northern Arizona University, July 2004 to present

Assistant Professor, College of Engineering & Technology, Northern Arizona University, July 1999 to June, 2004

PREVIOUS AND CONCURRENT EXPERIENCE

8/99-Present Plateau Engineering, Flagstaff, Arizona. Consulting Engineer and Project Manager.

3/96-8/99 Plateau Engineering, Flagstaff, Arizona. Project Manager. Civil engineering and geoscience services for municipal, county, school district, tribal, mining industry and private sector clients; business development, field construction observation, and occasional surveying.

6/94-1/96 STS Consultants, Ltd., Minneapolis, Minnesota. Geotechnical Engineer. Tailings basin and dam engineering, subsurface exploration, geotechnical engineering, testing and monitoring, geophysical investigations, construction testing and business development.

12/91-2/94 Science Applications International Corporation, Las Vegas, Nevada. Senior Scientist and Geotechnical Engineer. Hydrogeological and engineering site characterization, G1S operation and analyses.

7/90-12/91 Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Utah State University. Graduate Student in Geotechnical Engineering.

7/83-6/90 Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Utah. Assistant Professor. Geophysical, geological & materials science research and teaching.

9/77-6/83 The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. Teaching and Research Assistant -Graduate Student. NASA-sponsored geophysical & geological research.

6/78-9/78 Amoco Production Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Seismologist - Summer Intern. 3D seismic data acquisition modeling and processing.

9/75-9/77 The University of Michigan at Flint. Teaching, Laboratory and Field Assistant.


• Registered Professional Engineer (MN License No. 24459; AZ License No. 30615; CA license No. 60331; Ml License No. 6201052934)

• Registered Professional Geophysicist (CA License GP 994) • Registered Professional Geologist (AZ License No. 33755, WI License No. 155)


HONORS & AWARDS

• Named as an exemplary mentor by Vanessa Beauchamp, Arizona State University, as part of the Preparing Future Faculty Program, Spring 2003.

• Named Most Influential Faculty Member by Seth Marlow, Winner of the College of Engineering and Technology Outstanding Academic Achievement Award, Fall 2000.

PROFESSIONAL AND INSTITUTIONAL SERVICE

• Founding Co-Director and Present Director of the Watershed Research & Education Program (http://watershed.nau.edu).

• Founding member and past Director of the Sustainable Water Resources Alliance (SWRA) at Northern Arizona University (2001-2004).

• Past Member of Action Team, Northern Arizona Council of Governments (NACOG) Focused Future II - Strategic Planning (2003)

• Past Member of Yavapai County Water Advisory Committee - Technical Coordinating Subcommittee (2001-2002)

• Past Member of Coconino Plateau Water Advisory Council (Fall 2000 to summer 2002).

• Past Member of Coconino County Planning and Zoning Commission (Summer - Winter, 1999).

• Past Member on Flagstaff 2020 Vision Task Force, which played a pivotal role in helping the community formulate and articulate a vision for its future (1996-1997).

PUBLICATIONS SAMPLE Schlinger, CM., Helton, C, and Janecek, J., 2005, Flood Risk and the Impacts of Fire in a Small Forested

Watershed, in: Marsh, W., Landscape Planning, 4th Ed., Wiley.

Schlinger, CM., Helton, C, and Janecek, J., 2004, PMF Hydrology, with Rodeo-Chediski Fire Impacts, and Spillway Hydraulics for Black Canyon Lake and Dam, Proc. Dam Safety 2004 Conference, ASDSO, Lexington, KY.

Schlinger, CM., Welch, S., Ramsey J., Trotta, P., Janecek, J., Auberle, W., 2003, Sediment Transport Evaluation for Dam Removal Scenarios, Fossil Springs Diversion Dam, Arizona, Proc. Dam Safely 2003 Conference, ASDSO, Lexington, KY.

Schlinger, CM., Veblen, D.R. and Rosenbaum, J.G., 1991, Magnetism and magnetic mineralogy of ash-flow sheets from Yucca Mountain, Nevada, J. Geophys. Res., 96, 6035-6052.

Schlinger, CM., Khan, M.J. and Wasilewski, P., 1989, Rock Magnetism of the Kohistan Island Arc, Pakistan, Geol. Bull. Univ. Peshawar., 22, 83-101.

Schlinger, CM. and Veblen, D.R., 1989, Magnetism and Transmission electron microscopy of Fe-Ti oxides in a granulite from Lofoten, Norway, J. Geophys. Res., 94, 14009-14026.

Schlinger, CM., Griscom, D., Papaefthymiou, G., and Veblen, D.R., 1988, The nature of magnetic single-domains in volcanic glasses of the KBS tuff, J. Geophys. Res. 93, 9137-9156.

Schlinger, CM., 1985, The magnetization of the lower crust and the interpretation of regional magnetic anomalies: The example from Lofoten and Vesteralen, Norway, J. Geophys. Res. 90, 11484-11504.

http://watershed.nau.edu

Ellen S. Soles Instructor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Northern Arizona University 2521 N. Main St. Flagstaff, AZ 86004 928-213-9398 / [email protected]


Master's Program Rural Geography Northern Arizona University (Summer 2003)

Master's Program American Civilization University of Texas at Austin (Spring 1992-Spring 1993)

B.A. American Studies University of Texas (emphasis on environmental geography of western U.S.)

EXPERIENCE

2000-Present Instructor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northern Arizona University

2003-Present Geomorphologist- H20dem Company

2001 -2002 Hydrologic Research Technician- Northern Arizona University

2000-2003 Hydrologic Research Assistant- Roundtree Company, Flagstaff, Az

Mar- Sept 2003 Cartographic Technician- U.S. Geological Survey, Flagstaff, Az

2000-2001 Compiler- Central Arizona Watersheds Project (US Forest Service/University of Arizona)

1998-1999 Technician- Stream Gage Calibration Project (Northern Arizona University)

SAMPLE PUBLICATIONS / PRESENTATIONS

Soles, E.S., Monroe, S., Odem, W. I., & Peacock, E. (2004). Middle Rio Grande River, Bernalillo Bridge-Alameda Bridge Reach HEC-RAS Model Development. Report prepared for Bureau of Reclamation. Albuquerque Office.

Soles, E.S. (2003). Where the River Meets the Ditch: Human and Natural Impacts on the Gila River, New Mexico, 1880-2000. (Master's thesis in Rural Geography, Northern Arizona University, 2003; 166pp).

Avery, C.C. & Soles, E.S. (2003). Final Report: Hydrological Assessment of a Wed Meadow and Perennial Headwater Stream in the While Mountains. (Unpublished report prepared for The Nature Conservancy of Arizona, November 2003; 95pp. plus appendices)


Avery, C.C, Soles, E.S., & Silbert, M. (2002). An Eco-Hydrological Assessment of a Wed Meadow and Perennial Headwater Stream in the White Mountains, Arizona. Presentation at the Arizona Hydrological Society Annual Symposium, September 2002, Flagstaff, Az.

Soles, E.S. (1999). A Study of channel Form and Flow Regime on the Gila River. Carapace, Summer 1999.

Soles, E.S. (1998). Protecting the Verde River. Presentation at the meeting of the Association of Pacific Coast Geographers, October, 1998, Flagstaff, Az.

Soles, E.S. (1985). PUF: Buildings or Brains? UTMOST, Winter, 1985.


International Geographical Honor Society Association of Pacific Coast Geographers Society for Ecological Restoration Arizona Hydrologic Society

SOFTWARE EXPERIENCE

MS Word/Excel/Powerpoint/Access; Imagine (v. 8.5) and ARCView (v.3.3)(GIS); Boss WMS, XSPro, IHA/RVA, HEC-RAS (hydrologic and hydraulic analysis); TerraModel (topographic mapping); SigmaPlot, JMP (statistical); Pathfinder Office (GPS); AutoCAD; Quark Xpress, Torquemada, Photoshop, ProCite (publishing); dBase III/IV; SBT accounting packages; Macintosh, DOS, Windows, UNIX operating systems

John S. Tingerthal, S.E. Instructor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Northern Arizona University 1385 W. University Ave. Apt 7-256

Flagstaff, Arizona 86001 928-699-0196

[email protected]


M.S. Structural Engineering University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

B.S. Civil Engineering University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

EXPERIENCE

2003-Present Engineering Consulting

1998-2003 Senior Project Engineer- Thornton-Tomasetti Engineers, Chicago, IL

2002 Adjunct Associate Professor- College of Architecture and the Arts, University of Illinois Chicago, IL

1995-1998 1995-1998 Project Engineer-Perkins & Will, Chicago, IL


Licensed Structural Engineer: State of Illinois


ALISA S. VADASZ, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Environmental Engineering



Ph.D. Chemical Engineering University of Durban-Westville, South Africa (Bio-Chemical Engineering)

M.S. Chemical Engineering (Cum Laude) University of Durban-Westville, South Africa (Bio-Chemical Engineering)

B.S. Biochemistry (Honors) University of Durban-Westville, South Africa

B.S. Microbiology and Biochemistry University of Durban-Westville, South Africa

Registered Nurse Belinson Medical Center, Petach Tikva, Israel

EXPERIENCE

2004-Present Assistant Professor, Research, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northern Arizona University

1992-1996 Consulting and behavioral treatment for Nocturnal Enuresis patients 1990-91 Intensive Respiratory Care Unit, Carmel Hospital, Haifa, Israel 1986-89 Head Nurse, Private Hospital, Haifa, Israel 1981-86 Intensive Coronary Care Unit, Carmel Hospital, Haifa, Israel


Registered Nurse, Ministry of Health, Jerusalem, Israel General Nurse, The South African Nursing Council, Pretoria, South Africa

SAMPLE PUBLICATIONS

Vadasz, A. S.: "Spatio-temporal Dynamics of Heterogeneousle Distributed Population", Ph.D. Thesis, University of Durban-Westville, South Africa, December 2003.

Vadasz, A. S.: "Modelling of the Dynamical Interactions of Killer and Sensitive Yeast under Nutritional Stress", M.S. Thesis, University of Durban-Westville, South Africa, December 200.

Vadasz, A. S.: "Microscale Vinifications Challenged by a K2 Killer Yeast", B.S. (Horn) Thesis, University of Durban-Westville, South Africa, November 1999.

Vadasz, A. S., Carsky, M., Gupthar, A.S., Vasasz, P.: "Linear Stability Analysis of the Neoclassical Stationary Points to Spartially Homogeneous Perturbations*', Journal of Mechanics in Medicine and Biology, Vol. 4 (No.3), pp. 361-387, 2004

Vadasz, P., Vasasz, A. S.: "Metabolic Mass Transfer Effect in Monotonic and Non-Monotonic Growth of Micro-organisms", Proceedings of the 2003 ASME Heat Transfer Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, 2003

Vadasz, P., Vasasz, A.S.: "A Neoclassical Growth Model for Population Dynamics in a Homogeneous Habitat", ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress, New York, 2001

Vadasz, A. S., Vasasz, P., Abashar, M.E., Gupthar, A.S.: "Recovery of an Oscillatory Mode of Batch Yeast Growth for a Pure Culture", InternationalJournal of Food Microbiology, Vol. 71 (2-3), pp. 219-234,2001

Vadasz, A. S.: "Experimental and Theoretical Recovery of Oscillatory Growth of Yeast Subjected to Nutritional Stress", KZN Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Symposium, University of Durban-Westville, Westville, October 2000.

Vadasz, A. S., Jagganath, D.B., Pretorius, I.S., Gupthar, A.S.: "Mucoid Secretions by Wine Yeast Saccharomyces Cerevisiae VIN7" , Proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference of the Microscopy Society of Southern Africa, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa, December 2000.

Vadasz, A. S., Jagganath, D.B., Pretorius, I.S., Gupthar, A.S.: "The K2 Effect of Saccharomyces Cerevisiae T206", Proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference of the Microscopy Society of Southern Africa, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa, December 2000.

Vadasz, A. S., Jagganath, D.B., Pretorius, I.S., Gupthar, A.S.: "Electron Microscopy of the K2 Killer Effect of Saccharomyces Cerevisiae T206 on a Mesophilic Wine Yeast", Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, Vol. 78 (2), 117-122,2000

Vadasz, A. S., Jagganath, D.B., Pretorius, I.S., Gupthar, A.S.: "Microscale Vinifications Challenged by a K2 Killer Yeast", Proceedings of the 38" Annual Conference of the Microscopy Society of Southern Africa, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa, December 1999.