B.3 Program Outcomes and Assessment

B.3.1 Program OutcomesThe broad Engineering Physics Program Objectives described in B.2

above are realized by meeting the following Program Outcomes. Each Program Outcome references a specific Program Objective. For example, Outcome 1(a) is the first outcome in support of Objective 1. A tabulated summary appears below in the B.3.4 Supplement II: Engineering Physics Program Objectives, Outcomes, and Assessment Matrix.

The following provides the Engineering Physics Program Outcomes that support the Program Objectives described in B.2. Objective 1: All engineering physics graduates must have the factual knowledge and other thinking skills necessary to construct an appropriate understanding of physical phenomena in an applied context. In support of this objective each Engineering Physics graduate will:

Outcome 1(a) have depth of understanding in the fundamental disciplines of physics: mechanics, electromagnetism, thermal and statistical physics, and quantum mechanics;

Outcome 1(b) understand a broad array of diverse physical phenomena in terms of fundamental concepts;

Outcome 1(c) be able to design and implement an experiment or theoretical study to understand a physical phenomenon in an applied context;

Outcome 1(d) be able to apply scientific understanding and models of thinking in engineering physics contexts; and

Outcome 1(e) be able to use fundamental physics in the design of a component, system, or process;

Objective 2: All engineering physics graduates must have the ability to communicate effectively. In support of this objective each Engineering Physics graduate will:

Outcome 2(a) be able to write a well-organized, logical, scientifically sound physics research paper or engineering physics report;

Outcome 2(b) be able to present effectively a well-organized, logical, scientifically sound, and audience-appropriate oral report on an applied physics topic;

Outcome 2(c) be able to communicate and present information electronically including the appropriate use of multimedia modes of communication;

Objective 3: Throughout their careers engineering physics graduates should be able to function effectively in society. In support of this objective each Engineering Physics graduate will:

Outcome 3(a) be able to work effectively in teams and exercise leadership at appropriate times in their careers;

Outcome 3(b) understand and appreciate the human dimensions of their profession, including the diverse social, cultural, economic, and international aspects of their professional activities; and

Outcome 3(c) demonstrate high standards of ethical and professional integrity in the conduct of their professional activities.

B.3.2. Relationship of Program Outcomes to Program ObjectivesThe Program Outcomes have been organized around the Program

Objectives as presented in B.3.1 above. The operating assumption is that a graduate substantially demonstrating the program outcomes associated with one of the the objectives will have the qualities necessary to meet that objective.

B.3.3. Relationship of Program Outcomes to Criterion 3The Engineering Physics Program is supported by the institutional core.

The composition of the core curriculum has been purposefully designed to align with the expectations of the Colorado School of Mines Graduate Profile. The relationship between the Graduate Profile and ABET Outcome Criteria 3(a-k) is shown in the table below.

Colorado School of Mines Graduate Profile (1994)

ABET Criterion 3

All CSM graduates must have depth in an area of specialization, enhanced by hands-on experiential learning, and breadth in allied fields. They must have the knowledge and skills to be able to recognize, define and solve problems by applying sound scientific and engineering principles. These attributes uniquely distinguish our graduates to better function in increasingly competitive and diverse technical professional environments.

a, b, c, e, k.

Graduates must have the skills to communicate information, concepts and ideas effectively

g, k.

orally, in writing, and graphically. They must be skilled in the retrieval, interpretation and development of technical information by various means, including the use of computer-aided techniques.

Graduates should have the flexibility to adjust to the ever-changing professional environment and appreciate diverse approaches to understanding and solving society's problems. They should have the creativity, resourcefulness, receptivity and breadth of interests to think critically about a wide range of cross-disciplinary issues. They should be prepared to assume leadership roles and possess the skills and attitudes which promote teamwork and cooperation and to continue their own growth through life-long learning.

c, d, e, h, i, j.

Graduates should be capable of working effectively in an international environment, and be able to succeed in an increasingly interdependent world where borders between cultures and economies are becoming less distinct. They should appreciate the traditions and languages of other cultures, and value diversity in their own society.

d, h.

Graduates should exhibit ethical behavior and integrity. They should also demonstrate perseverance and have pride in accomplishment. They should assume a responsibility to enhance their professions through service and leadership and should be responsible citizens who serve society, particularly through stewardship of the environment.

f.

Table B.3.3.1

While a detailed description of the core curriculum at the Colorado School of Mines is given in section B.4.1., in view of the relationships described above between the Graduate Profile and Criterion 3, the courses in the core curriculum necessarily have overlap with this criterion. These are tabulated below:

P: primary emphasis S: secondary emphasis blank: negligible emphasis

Table B.3.3.2

Relationships between the Program Outcomes and the outcomes expressed in EC2000 Criterion 3 exist at a variety of levels due to the overlaps and linkages among Program Objectives and Program Outcomes in Engineering Physics and the institutional common core and mission. Firstly, the institutional statements of educational attributes in the CSM Graduate Profile have broad interpretive connections to Criterion 3. Secondly, the composition of the institution-wide core curriculum, and specifically the courses comprising the common core, have primary or secondary emphasis in contributing toward fulfillment of the outcomes in Criterion 3 as shown in Table B.3.2. And thirdly, the Program Outcomes themselves are linked to Criterion 3. This section describes these three sets of relationships.

Building on the core competencies discussed above, the Program Outcomes which relate to EC2000 Criterion 3 (a-k) are discussed below.

EC2000 3(a) the ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering;

Program Objective 1 refers to the ability to construct an appropriate understanding of a phenomenon in an applied context. In order to apply knowledge one must first obtain it as per Program Outcomes 1(a-b). Outcome 1(d) specifically refers to the ability to apply that knowledge in engineering contexts.

EC2000 3(b) the ability to design and conduct experiments, and analyze and interpret data.

Program Objective 1 refers to the ability to construct an appropriate understanding of a phenomenon, including of course experiments, which addresses the analysis and interpretation criteria. Outcome 1(c) specifically addresses the ability to design and implement an experiment.

EC2000 3(c) design a system, component or process;

Program Objective 1 refers to the ability to construct an appropriate understanding of physical phenomena in applied contests. Outcome 1(e) specifically refers to the ability to use fundamental physics in the design of a process, component, or system.

EC2000 3(d) function on multidisciplinary teams;

Program Objective 3 refers to the ability to function in society. Outcome 3(a) refers to the ability to work effectively in teams and exercise leadership as appropriate.

EC2000 3(e) identify, formulate and solve engineering problems;

Program Objective 1 refers to the ability to construct an appropriate understanding of physical phenomena. In applied engineering contexts that understanding takes the form of identifying, formulating, and solving the engineering problems. Objective 1(c-e) together enable the student to meet this criterion.

EC2000 (f) understand professional and ethical responsibility;

Program Objective 3 refers to the ability to function effectively in society. Supporting Program Outcome 3(c) specifically states that graduates should demonstrate high standards of ethical and professional integrity in the conduct of their professions.

EC2000 3(g) communicate effectively;

Program Objective 2 refers specifically to the ability to communicate effectively. Program Outcomes 2(a-c) state that graduates must have the ability to communicate effectively in the written, oral, and electronic modes.

EC2000 3(h) understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context;

Program Objective 3 refers to the ability to function effectively in society. Program Outcome 3(b) states that graduates should have an understanding and appreciation of the human dimensions of one's professional activities including the social, cultural, economic, and international components.

EC2000 3(i) recognize the need to engage in lifelong learning;

Program Objective 1 refers to the ability to construct an understanding of physical phenomena in an applied context. Furthermore, Program Objective 3 states that graduates should have the ability to function effectively as professionals in society throughout their careers. This requires that as technological, economical, and social changes occur, the graduate must continue learning and adapting to the new situations in order to continue as an effective professional. The EP program itself models this by constantly requiring students to adapt previous knowledge to new situations. Program Outcome 1(a) requires depth of understanding in the fundamental laws governing physics. This fundamental understanding enables the lifelong pursuit of knowledge since these skills will never grow obsolete.

EC2000 3(j) show a knowledge of contemporary issues;

Program Objective 3 refers to the ability to function effectively in society throughout their careers. This includes the technological sub-society in which the professional is engaged. Senior design project advisers model this as they work to be current on the important issues of their discipline and require that their charges do so as well.

EC2000 3(k) use modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.

Program Objectives 1 through 3 all refer to the knowledge and cognitive skills that enable the professional engineering physicist to perform in applied contexts. Since the only immutable is change, these enabling skills are what are necessary for success in the future technological environment. For example in the present epoch there has been a revolution in the use of information technologies. For this reason the Engineering Physics curriculum (specifically, PHGN384, Apparatus Design, PHGN215 (Analog Circuits), PHGN317 (Digital Circuits), PHGN315 (Advanced Lab I), and PHGN326 (Advanced Lab II)) includes extensive exposure to current IT, interfaced sensors, and feedback/control software (such as LabView). The processes related to the achievement of Program Objectives described in Section B.2.3 insure that the Engineering Physics is program responsive to the changing technological environment.

B.3.4. Processes to Produce and Assess Program OutcomesAs described in section B.4.1 of this report, it is customary at the Colorado

School of Mines to recognize a separation in the basic-level curriculum into core and program-specific curricula. This separation is not delineated by a fixed point in time within the progression of semesters-of-study, but instead is a separation into all courses that are required of all students at Mines (the core curriculum), and those courses that are required of students majoring in a particular program (the program curriculum).

Processes to produce and assess program outcomes related to core curricular requirements are undertaken by the academic units responsible for delivering the specific parts of the core as well as by the University Assessment Committee and like bodies (see below). Processes to produce and assess program outcomes related to program-specific curriculum are defined and implemented by each program. An overview of the assessment processes used by these academic units is provided in sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 below.

Regardless of where the outcomes are be measured and evaluated, the Institution oversees the structure of, and changes to core and program-specific curricula through the regular activities of a variety of University and Faculty Senate committees, specifically the Undergraduate Council, the University Assessment Committee as well as the Ad Hoc Curriculum Committee. A brief overview of each of these Institutional committees is provided below.

Undergraduate Council. Council, a subcommittee of the Faculty Senate, is charged with advising the Executive Vice President of Academic Affairs (EVPAA) on matters such as exam scheduling, grading systems, instructional development and excellence, instructional support and other administrative matters. Council is also charged with advising the Faculty Senate on curricular matters such as new undergraduate majors, minors and degrees, modifications to the core curricula and degree requirements, credit hour requirements, and other academic matters.

Undergraduate Council meets once a month during the regular academic year and at other times as needed. Council considers issues suggested by its membership, the Administration or the Senate. Membership consists of representatives from all academic departments and many administrative departments. Council minutes are available through the Mines Blackboard website.

University Assessment Committee. Established in 2005, the Assessment Committee is appointed and reports to the EVPAA. This Committee is charged with advising EVPAA in matters pertaining to assessment of the educational outcomes of its academic programs. In fulfilling its role, the Assessment Committee strives to review undergraduate and graduate assessment plans provided by each academic unit as required by the EVPAA and review documentation provided by each academic unit which indicate how the unit has carried out its assessment plan, and what changes it has made to its academic programs as a result. The Committee also is charged to recommend additional actions each academic unit could take to enhance its assessment efforts.

Over the past year, the Assessment Committee has met on average once every two weeks during the regular academic year.

Curriculum Committee. The Curriculum Committee is an ad hoc advisory committee appointed by and reporting to the EVPAA. Its mission is intentionally broad and has been designed to explore any and all curricular issues and matters pertaining to curriculum (e.g., academic and administrative structure; budget, personnel and facilities needs; academic advising) that the Committee deems to be of importance. Additionally, the Committee may be called upon to undertake special assignments at the direction of the EVPAA. During 2005-06, for example, the Committee was asked to undertake a review of the existing undergraduate core curriculum to determine whether changes may be needed. It normally meets every two weeks. The core curriculum review will be continued during 2006-07.

The Committee’s recommendations are submitted to the EVPAA who may subsequently forward these to other Mines entities such as the Undergraduate Council and the Faculty Senate for formal consideration. The Committee coordinates its work with other university committees and departments/divisions as needed.

B.3.4.1. Core Curriculum. As described above, processes to produce and assess program outcomes related to core curricular requirements are undertaken by the academic units responsible for delivering specific parts of the core. Below is a summary of the activities undertaken by each of the academic units with responsibilities that include core curriculum activities.

Liberal Arts and International Studies. As described in section B.4.5.2. the Division of Liberal Arts and International Studies (LAIS) houses all humanities, social sciences (except Economics), communication, foreign language, and performing arts courses at Colorado School of Mines. Its primary contribution to the professional component of engineering education, therefore, is in general education at the undergraduate level. In this role it hosts two courses which all undergraduate students must complete, LAIS100 and SYGN200 and a series of additional courses from which students must chose three that fall within specific thematic areas.

Within LAIS100, Nature and Human Values (NHV), the following ABET Criteria 3 Outcomes have been identified and the activities students undertake in this course that justify this identification is as follows.

Criterion 3-f: Professional and Ethical Responsibility (Primary)NHV is the only required course at CSM in which students receive some instruction in ethics. Case studies are used in the course to teach students about contemporary professional ethics and to help them develop and understanding of

engineering responsibility. See “Cross-Campus Curricular Enhancement” below for a discussion of an incipient Ethics Across the Curriculum effort within LAIS.

Criterion 3-g: Communicate Effectively (Primary)CSM and LAIS have devoted significant resources to staffing some 50 sections per year of 20-student seminars with instructors (both full-time lecturers and adjuncts) who possess expertise in composition. Each student completes about 40 pages’ worth of writing assignments during the semester at what is considered a first-year level of difficulty. It should be noted, however, that the emphasis is on general writing skills: this is not a technical writing course.

Criterion 3-h: Understanding Engineering Solutions in Global and Societal Contexts (Primary)NHV’s central theme of exploring the human-nature interface both historically and contemporaneously is, by definition, an exercise in understanding the importance of contexts in which human choices and decisions take place, as well as understanding how those contexts in turn influence further actions and reactions on the part of humans. Themes covered in NHV that both directly and indirectly address the global and social contexts in which engineering solutions have been, are, and will be crafted include: a history of landscapes; a study of the Colorado River; the rhetoric of the environmental debate; the development of nuclear weapons; an introduction to professional ethics; bioethics; humanitarian engineering; and engineering cultures.

Criterion 3-i: The Need to Engage in Life-Long Learning (Secondary)By choosing controversial and provocative topics and issues as the core of NHV’s subject matter, NHV contributes to stimulating students’ intellectual curiosity and exposes them to new ways of thinking about the world and their future professional lives. Further, it introduces them to basic research skills in non-technical areas that the students must employ in completing a portion of their composition assignments, thereby adding depth to their “intellectual tool box.”

Criterion 3-j: Knowledge of Contemporary Issues (Primary)As is clear from the foregoing description of NHV’s contribution to understanding global and societal contexts in which engineering takes place, NHV includes coverage of such humanities-based contemporary issues as the environment, professional ethics and an understanding of engineering responsibility, humanitarian engineering, engineering cultures, and the ongoing, evolving interface between humans and the environment in general.

Within SYGN200, Human Values, the following ABET Criteria 3 Outcomes have been identified and the activities students undertake in this course that justify this identification is as follows.

Criterion 3-g: Communicate Effectively (Secondary)

Human Systems promotes improved communication skills in two ways. One is through the required readings in which students must engage, which contribute to the expanse of social science-based ideas and concepts they have at their disposal, and thus their capacity to articulate their own thoughts and ideas better. The second is through a two-page take-home essay that requires a student to (a) demonstrate that he/she has digested the reading and lecture materials; (b) engage in additional research on the topic of the essay; and (c) craft an essay reflecting both (a) and (b) as expressed in the student’s own way.

While the faculty who deliver Human Systems would like to build even further upon the written communication and research skills that students acquired in NHV, this is feasible from a teaching load standpoint since a given section’s one instructor must do all course grading (with the exception of objective tests that are machine graded by graduate teaching assistants). SYGN 200 instructors also offer optional extra credit work to students that entails reading a monograph or set of articles, or interviewing an expert, then writing a brief essay on the subject.

Criterion 3-h: Understanding Engineering Solutions in Global and Societal Contexts (Secondary)The contemporary or globalization portion of Human Systems provides individual instructors with an opportunity to bring their disciplinary expertise to bear in the selection of case studies and topics that contribute to an understanding of global and societal contexts in which engineering takes place. For example, an international political economy professor explores the “impact of engineering solutions” in an integrated societal context through the prism of a variety of industrialization processes found in today’s developing world, such as import-substitution, export promotion, technology licensing, and turnkey industrial models in various economies and societies. A sociologist examines the how multiethnic societies define and implement development models in the face of ethnic tensions, either successfully or unsuccessfully. A political scientist reveals how wars and corrupt practices impact natural resource production globally. A geographer discusses how the way a natural resource like water is managed can either provoke interstate or inter-community conflicts or help resolve them. All of these and other social science-based topics require students to appreciate a world that is mostly “gray” – not black and white – and to learn how to think through intersecting and complex sets of social, political, economic, cultural, and environmental factors that comprise the context in which engineering is practiced.

Criterion 3-i: The Need to Engage in Life-Long Learning (Secondary)The core lesson of Human Systems is the age-old dictum that those who fail to learn from the errors of the past will be condemned to repeat them. For this reasons, two-thirds of the course focuses on those historical processes of the past half-millennium that have contributed to defining today’s world. The specific historical topics that the course covers help the student identify past successes and failures of the human condition and how the forces of the past are part of an ever-

changing continuum of human activity that requires one to accompany in order to have a fulfilling and productive life and career.

Criterion 3-j: Knowledge of Contemporary Issues (Primary)As is clear from the foregoing course description and discussion of the global and societal contexts in which engineering takes place, the main goal of Human Systems is to bring students to an historically informed understanding of today’s world, especially those issues emerging from the ongoing process of globalization. From cultural clashes to war, poverty, pandemic disease, the impact of rapidly changing technologies on social structures and values, and the rise of new economies and economic structures, Human Systems’ most significant contribution to the CSM undergraduate curriculum is the conceptual and factual knowledge it imparts to students about a constant and rapidly changing world, the magnitude of problems it faces, and the resulting challenges it poses to the engineering profession.

Assessment of student attainment of these outcomes is overseen by an LAIS standing assessment committee chaired by the Director of the Writing Program with additional membership drawn from the full spectrum of humanities, social sciences, and communication full-time faculty. An assessment cycle for the Division was devised and implemented in 1998. As of Fall 2005, the Assessment Committee had more collected data on its hands than it could evaluate in as timely a fashion as it would like. Highlights of LAIS assessment activities and potential major changes in LAIS curriculum will be made available as part of the display materials for the Core Curriculum.

Physics. As described in section B.4.5.1. the Department of Engineering Physics hosts two courses which all undergraduate students must complete, PHGN100 and PHGN200.

Within PHGN100, Physics I, the following ABET Criteria 3 Outcomes have been identified and the activities students undertake in this course that justify this identification is as follows.

Criterion 3-a: Apply knowledge of math, science and engineering (Primary)In PHGN100, the major emphasis of the course is to solve mechanics problems, both quantitatively and qualitatively. In order to solve quantitative problems, extensive use of algebra, trigonometry, and calculus is necessary. In every homework assignment, studio activity, and exam, there is a large emphasis on applying mathematics to mechanics situations. In particular, there is a strong emphasis on calculus.

Criterion 3-b(ii): Analyze and interpret data (Primary)Students are required to analyze real data collected during studio activities, and compare the data with the mathematical laws introduced in PHGN100. They are also required to show the ability to predict what data (in graphical form) would

look like given a description of a situation. This is required both on quizzes in the studio and on exams.

Criterion 3-e: Identify, formulate and solve engineering problems (Secondary)PHGN100 is the first course the students’ career where they are given a situation and are left to formulate the system of equations using fundamental laws in order to solve for some outcome of the situation. This permeates the class in the form of studio activities, homework, quizzes, and exams.

Criterion 3-h: Understand engineering solutions in context (Secondary)The material presented in PHGN100 incorporates real-life situations with engineering applications. In all the studio activities, exams and quizzes, emphasis is placed on making the situations realistic and the answers that the students get to be within reasonable ranges.

Criterion 3-k: Use modern tools for engineering practice (Secondary)The studio facility used in PHGN100 uses state-of-the-art computer interfaced equipment to do many of the activities. This includes data acquisition and analysis using Vernier software and hardware, computer simulations using InteractivePhysics, and use of symbolic math programs.

The following assessment tools have been used to evaluate student attainment of these outcomes: exams (criteria a, b(ii), e, h); studio quizzes (criteria e, h); and pre- and post-tests of the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) (criteria a, b(ii), e). Samples of each of these tools are available in the course assessment notebook. We calculate the normalized gains for the FCI, and compare the results from semester to semester. Drop/Fail/Withdraw (DFW) rates are tracked.

Results of the assessment are tabulated each semester, and recommendations made for the following semester appear in the assessment notebook. As a result of our assessments, some of the changes that have been made in the course since 2000 are: implementing the studio teaching format in full scale, implementation of retests to improve student performance, improved TA training, and a greater emphasis on criterion based assessment in the course.

Within PHGN200, Physics II, the following ABET Criteria 3 Outcomes have been identified and the activities students undertake in this course that justify this identification is as follows.

Criterion 3-a: Apply knowledge of math, science and engineering (Primary)This over-arching criterion is present in every student activity undertaken in the course. Each student completes a computer-based homework assignment consisting of 10-15 quantitative and qualitative problems each week. Immediate feedback is provided to the students and they have multiple opportunities to arrive at the correct answer. Students participate in bi-weekly recitation activities in

which they can improve their understanding of both concepts and specific problems taught in the class. An individualized quiz is generally given in each recitation. In the bi-weekly lab settings, students are asked to apply their “book” knowledge to physical phenomena, and use that knowledge not only to describe their observations, but also predict outcomes. We also administer a total of four exams in the course which include conceptual questions, standard “physics” questions, questions about the laboratory, and occasionally questions about other “real-world” phenomena. Finally, we administer pre- and post-tests of the Conceptual Survey on Electricity and Magnetism (CSEM), which requires students to apply their knowledge to specific scenarios.

Criterion 3-b(i): Design and conduct experiments (Primary)Our sequence of seven laboratory experiments starts students with an essentially cook-book laboratory, and slowly takes them to the last lab, in which they must develop the entire procedure, including methods for analyzing and interpreting their data..

Criterion 3-b(ii): Analyze and interpret data (Primary)Several of our homework assignments include exercises in which students must use their graphical analysis skills to arrive at an answer. In addition, our laboratory exercises require students to analyze their experimental data. Exams and the CSEM also assess students’ abilities to analyze either numeric or graphical data.

Criterion 3-c: Design a system, component or process (Secondary)Our sequence of seven laboratory experiments starts students with an essentially cook-book laboratory, and slowly takes them to the last lab, in which they must develop the entire procedure. In addition to many other activities, as the semester progresses students must: design a sliding mass to calibrate a sensitive balance; optimize the number of turns in both the pick-up and field coils of a metal detector to minimize the amount of wire used, while still obtaining the required signal strength; and determine the number of turns required on a transformer to obtain the desired voltage.

Criterion 3-e: Identify, formulate and solve engineering problems (Secondary)Students solve a different engineering problem in each of our laboratories, and in the final lab we provide the required equipment, but students must determine exactly how to both perform and evaluate the required measurements. The homework also includes problems of an engineering nature.

Criterion 3-h: Understand engineering solutions in context (Secondary)The laboratory setting provides many opportunities for students to see how the ideas of electricity and magnetism can be applied in the context of real problems and measurements.

Criterion 3-k: Use modern tools for engineering practice (Secondary)

In the laboratories, students use spreadsheets for elementary data analysis. On the hardware side, students use digital multimeters, digital storage oscilloscopes, operational-amplifier circuits, microwave transmitters and receivers, DC power supplies, and function generators.

Assessment of outcomes is overseen on a semester-to-semester basis by the team of faculty involved with teaching the course. The course is further reviewed by the physics faculty at our annual assessment retreats. The course is carefully coordinated with the calculus sequence to ensure proper sequencing of mathematical concepts. The assessment materials used includeexams, recitation quizzes, lab reports, and pre- and post-tests of the Conceptual Survey on Electricity and Magnetism (CSEM). Samples of each of these tools are available in the course assessment notebook. We calculate the normalized gains on the CSEM, and compare the results from semester to semester. DFW rates are tracked. Informal, qualitative feedback is also collected based on interaction with individual students and informal class surveys.

Results of the assessment are tabulated each semester, and recommendations made for the following semester appear in the assessment notebook. As a result of our assessments, some of the changes that have been made in the course since 2000 include: improved TA training; additional pre-lab questions on error-analysis; pre-lab materials which guide students on how to design an experiment; moving recitations from 1 room with 75 students to three smaller rooms with 25 students each; and re-arrangements of the exam schedule.

Mathematics. As described in section B.4.5.1. the Department of Mathematical and Computer Sciences (MCS) hosts four required courses for all undergraduate students, Calculus for Engineers I (MACS111), Calculus for Engineers II (MACS112), Calculus for Engineers III (MACS213) and Differential Equations (MACS315).

MACS111, MACS112 and MACS213 are referred to as the calculus sequence. This comprises coordinated courses, which means that all students, regardless of section, follow a common syllabus and complete common exams and homework sets. The calculus sequence is designed to support the attainment of the following ABET Criteria 3 Outcomes.

Criterion 3-a: Apply knowledge of math, science and engineering (Primary)Throughout the calculus sequence, students are introduced to key results and theorems through their applications to science and engineering. Calculus is taught as a tool for understanding physical phenomena. Course exams, homework and quizzes reflect this emphasis, requiring students to demonstrate the application of calculus to Engineering, Physics, Chemistry, Economics etc.

Criterion 3-b(ii): Analyze and interpret data (Secondary)

Another common thread throughout the calculus sequence is the importance of using data to motivate functions. Students plot data, analyze trends, describe data using functions and approximate solutions based on functions. Students also use linear approximations and differentials to approximate error. Each of these concepts is tested through the common exams.

Criterion 3-d: Function on multidisciplinary teams (Secondary)Students in the calculus sequence regularly work in small groups on problem sets. The problems they complete range from moderate to difficult. Group problems sets are scored by the course instructor and are included in the calculation of students’ final grades.

Criterion 3-e: Identify, formulate and solve engineering problems (Secondary)

When students work in teams in the calculus sequence, they are often asked to solve ill structured problems that illustrate the application of mathematics to engineering. In this context, students are expected to identify, formulate and solve problems using the mathematical tools developed in their calculus courses. As was previously discussed, these problems are graded and included in the calculation of students’ final grades. Homework assignments, quizzes and common exams often contain word problems embedded in an engineering context. These problems require students to independently identify, formulate and solve engineering problems.

Criterion 3-g: Communicate effectively (Secondary)

In the calculus sequence, students are expected to read problem statements, develop a solution and write a clear and concise explanation of their solution. Written explanations are evaluated through common exams, homework and quizzes. Through teamwork, students are expected to communicate orally with their peers. Teamwork is evaluated through the grading of the final submitted team product.

Criterion 3-k: Use modern tools for engineering practice (Secondary)Calculators and the CAS system provided with the text are used throughout the calculus sequence. These technologies are tested through homework and quizzes.

Common exams, common homework sets, quizzes and worksheets are used throughout the calculus sequence in the evaluation of criteria outcomes a, b(ii), e, g. Common exams are developed through a collaborative effort of all of the course instructors and are administered during the same testing period to all students. Common exams ensure that all students are assessed in a consistent manner with respect to the above-described outcomes. Criteria outcomes a, b(ii), d, e, g, k are evaluated by course instructors through team activities. Criterion k is further evaluated through homework and quizzes. Samples of each of these tools are available in the course assessment notebook. Drop/Fail/Withdraw (DFW)

rates are also tracked by the department. The detailed MCS Assessment Plan and MCS Departmental Goals and Objectives can be found at http://www.mines.edu/Academic/assess/.

MACS315 is a coordinated course and is designed to support students in attaining the following Criterion 3 outcomes.

Criterion 3-a: Apply knowledge of math, science and engineering (Primary)In MACS 315, classical solution techniques are taught as tools for solving problems in engineering and the applied sciences. Consequently, students are expected to apply what they have learned for solving problems in engineering, Physics, Chemistry, Economics, etc. Course exams, homework and quizzes reflect this emphasis.

Criterion 3-e: Identify, formulate and solve engineering problems (Secondary)Throughout this course, the instructors review various techniques from differential equations that may be used to solve engineering problems. Students then use these techniques to solve word problems embedded in an engineering context on homework assignments, quizzes and common exams. These problems require students to independently identify, formulate and solve engineering problems.

Criterion 3-g: Communicate effectively (Secondary)In MACS 315, students are expected to read problem statements, develop a solution and write a clear and concise explanation of their solution. Written explanations are evaluated through common exams, homework and quizzes.

Criterion 3-k: Use modern tools for engineering practice (Secondary)Throughout MACS 315, students are encouraged to use calculators to solve engineering problems. Use of calculators is tested through homework and quizzes.

Common exams, homework and quizzes are used throughout MACS315 in the evaluation of criteria outcomes a, e, and g. Criterion outcome k is evaluated through homework and quizzes. Samples of each of these tools are available in the course assessment notebook. Drop/Fail/Withdraw (DFW) rates are also tracked by the department. The detailed MCS Assessment Plan and MCS Departmental Goals and Objectives can be found at http://www.mines.edu/Academic/assess/.

Engineering Practices Introductory Course Sequence. As described in section B.4.3.1, the Design (EPICS) program includes two courses, which all undergraduate students must complete, EPIC151 and EPIC251. The Design Engineering Practices Introductory Course Sequence (EPICS) implements the first two years of the design stem. Design (EPICS) is a two-semester sequence of courses for freshman and sophomores, designed to prepare students for their upper-division design courses and to develop some of the key skills of the

professional engineer: the ability to solve complex, open-ended problems; the ability to self-educate; and the ability to communicate effectively.

Within EPICS151 (EPICS I) and EPICS251 (EPICS II), the following ABET Criteria 3 Outcomes have been identified and the activities students undertake in this course that justify this identification is as follows.

Criterion 3-a: Apply knowledge of math, science and engineering (Primary)The centerpiece of these courses is an open-ended problem that the students must work in teams to solve. Projects must be carefully selected to provide a challenging environment appropriate to students’ skill-levels in mathematics, physics, and chemistry. An integral component of the projects, therefore, centers on the application of fundamental mathematics, chemistry and physics concepts. The following summary identifies a few of the examples of applications of these concepts to the courses. A component of the EPICS I Visualization Laboratory in devoted to geometric construction tying the use of mathematics to development of construction drawings. A team not only uses these concepts to develop its drawings but also to confirm that its specification meet the client’s requirements (documented in the Design Report). The focus of EPICS II on data management encourages a team to develop models of the problem situation. These simple models evolve from basic mathematical, chemical, and physical concepts for the system, component or process (documented in the Design Report). Specific examples of the applications are found in reports filed in the course notebooks.

Criterion 3-b(ii): Analyze and interpret data (Primary, EPICS251 only)Computer applications in EPICS II emphasize information acquisition and processing based on knowing what information is necessary to solve a problem and where to find the information efficiently. Teams are encouraged to use computer-aided techniques to prepare an information-gathering plan (Access), to analyze the problem (Excel, Project, CAD, ArcView, MathCAD, Simulation Software), and to communicate results (Word, PowerPoint). Historically, a team has been required to demonstrate the application of 5 commercial software packages used for the solution of the project (documented in the Design Report). A test case, based on the assessment process, has been implemented to evaluate student competency through grades exercises, similar to the visualization exams in EPICS I.

Criterion 3-c: Design a system, component or process (Primary)The selection of projects for EPICS I emphasizes visual solutions to conceptual engineering problems. Teams apply fundamental sketching techniques and CAD computer packages, which graphically display a system, component or process. The selection of projects for EPICS II emphasizes data analysis and construction of simple model to support resource assessment. Teams apply commercial computer packages to build models of systems, components or processes. Examples of these designs can be found in the course notebooks (xxDE2DFP, xxDE3DFP, xxDE4DFP and xxDE5DFP where xx represents the academic year).

Criterion 3-d: Function on multidisciplinary teams (Primary)

Educators have long been aware that industry needs people who can work well together, primarily because the knowledge base required for decision-making is frequently broader and deeper than one person can provide. In the EPICS sequence, students work in teams of four-to-six with a mentor who directs four-to-five teams. The first-year engineering design environment, EPICS I, is a highly competitive environment. The influence of an authentic client who interacted with the team produces an environment that is more customer-oriented during the second year, EPICS II. Research sponsored by the NSF support the need to study successful teams and identified those factors that improved performance (quality products and team satisfaction). Project management techniques guide the team toward a quality product. Interpersonal communications plays a key role in the performance of the team. Vertical integration creates a progressive learning experience to teaming issues as students gain confidence through working in teams. Primary emphasis toward the evaluation of this outcome centers on the research into team dynamics

Criterion 3-e: Identify, formulate and solve engineering problems (Primary)Engineering design, a complex, interactive, and creative decision-making process, evolves as the design team synthesizes information, skills, and values to solve open-ended problems. Through the sequence of EPICS courses, students build confidence to address engineering design issues and projects, realizing the importance, not only of the technical requirements but also the economic, societal, and environmental requirements. The process provides a project situation in which teams make decisions. It shifts in emphasis from creative thinking to critical thinking as an engineering design process moves from 1) identifying the needs to 2) implementing the design. A team focuses on activities to identify needs, to develop specifications, to gather data and to define options with an emphasis on creative thinking. The team prepares a proposal (design plan) to implement the solution for the client. While analyzing its results, the team uses graphical and analytical routines to assure accuracy and quality of their product with an emphasis on critical thinking. The project enhances both creative and critical thinking that comes from allowing teams to solve problems and to think about the consequence of their decisions (documented in Design Reports).

Criterion 3-f: Understand ethical and professional responsibility (Secondary)Historically, the EPICS courses have relied on projects to dictate exposure to the ethical and professional issues of engineering. In 2003, Dr. C. Van Tyne introduced the first workshop on ethics to the EPICS I program. Focused on the issues of ethical decisions, workshop discussion evolved from the video: “Gilbane Gold”. With the help of Ms. N. Van Tyne, the workshop series expanded to engineering professionalism in 2005. In 2006, the series moved to EPICS II with IEEE’s program on codes and standards. These workshops have introduced the concepts of professionalism and ethics in a more formal format. Driven by specific mentors within the program, the workshops evolved from faculty meetings and assessment activities to improve the program at a level appropriate for our students.

Criterion 3-g: Communicate effectively (Primary)

Almost all technical writing and oral presentation situations involve similar elements—they are written for a particular audience and purpose, and they need to be appropriately focused, coherent, and developed for that particular audience and purpose. Writing assignments combines these elements to create various records, which document the team’s progress through the design process. The Letter of Understanding/Problem Definition defines the contract between the team and client with respect to what are the needs of the project. The Project Plan outlines the team’s strategy to resolve the design issues, forming a contract with the client on how the problem will be solved. The team divides the issues to create individual research areas documented in the Subsystems Analysis discussions. All these documents combine to form different sections of the Design Report and input to project marketing and presentation activities. The sequence produces a logical order to evaluate students both individually and as a team following the team’s progress throughout the project.

Criterion 3-h: Understand engineering solutions in context (Secondary, EPICS151; Primary, EPICS251)EPICS I introduces students to the concepts and processes of engineering design. The course relies on various projects to expose students to the political, social, and cultural settings of these projects. Teams have designed systems, components and processes for clients with disabilities exposing them to the political and social context of the project. Many of the students have followed the Playground Equipment for Children with Disabilities project realizing that the political issues and not the technical issues dominate the implementation of such equipment on playgrounds today. EPICS II broadens the students’ exposures through the diversity of projects with a variety of settings. The Emerging Project structure features cultural projects through the International (EPICS) program in St Kitts, Albania, Malaysia, and Mexico. The Universal Design projects feature projects with a focus on access for all, not just those with disabilities. Energy projects analyze issues of alternate sources, carbon emissions and environmental concerns addressing all three settings.

Criterion 3-i: Recognize need for and engage in life-long learning (Secondary)Although considered a secondary emphasis, the EPICS program reinforces the need for self-learning, a process that continues throughout your career. Projects are ambitious and take students to the edge of their abilities and invite them to go beyond. Spread among the rigors of their mathematics, sciences, and engineering classes; they learn the added value of applying their knowledge while it is fresh in their minds. They gain the confidence to begin the project by define the knowledge and processes necessary to address the design issues. They experience the joy and satisfaction of completing a project that they perceived beyond their abilities. Letters and comments from alumni document the assessment of this criterion. As a CSM intern to NASA reported to the Director of the program, “I was not intimidated by the project. I had the confidence to know that I would have to do the research in order to educate myself about the project.” At graduation, she accepted a job with a NASA contractor.

Criterion 3-k: Use modern tools for engineering practice (Primary)

The emphasis on tools within the EPICS program has historically been on the computer packages used by engineers to generate and use models to analyze systems. Teams also use the network to become familiar with engineering equipment such as pumps and heat exchangers and to observe equipment specifications necessary to refine designs currently in operations. As more and more students enter the engineering field without exposure to technical equipment, the program moved to a ‘design and build” methodology for EPIC I. The construction phase of the project begins with safety, soldering and foam core training clinics. Many teams push the boundaries of their technical skills as they attempted to use a “BrainStem” or HOBO, electronic control and data storage systems. EPICS II project such as the Playground Equipment for Children with Disabilities, Solar Oven, and DemoSat enhance students’ learning through construction of working models. Projects, such as the Tire Bale and Robotics, require experimental testing to determine material properties that support the team’s body of evidence and engineering design. The EPICS Shop features a Model Shop consisting of a small-scale CNC mill/lathe/drill machine (SolidWorks compatible) to create models or small prototypes.

In addition to the Primary and Secondary emphasis, EPICS I and EPICS II address the other criteria frequently through the types of projects available to the students. These examples are documented for reference and for illustration of the versatility of the design sequence to the students’ learning.

Criterion 3-b(i): Design and conduct experimentsEngineering design projects often require teams to gather data through experimentation. A team may need to design and conduct experiments to develop specification critical to the design of its system, component or process. The Fall 2005 EPICS Challenge (Blackboard Chalk for Uzbekistan) for EPICS I required a team to investigate and recommend the mixture of calcite and gypsum to produce a stable, durable and pleasing chalk product. The Tactile Bird Project (sponsored by Partners for Access to the Woods) for EPICS II required several teams of students to design a test program to evaluate the impact of coatings on stainless steel to enhance the aesthetics and reduce the temperature fluctuations (reduce discomfort from touching) for tactile objects to be used in an outdoor environment.

Criterion 3-j: Knowledge of Contemporary IssuesAs a project-based course, the Design (EPICS) Program frequently receives requests to undertake projects that address contemporary issues. Many of the projects categorized as Universal Design address the issues of access for all. Mr. G. Leonard of 2nd Segment, LTD sponsored several projects associated with the design a sailing schooner for people with disabilities. Ms. C. Hunter of Partners for Access to the Woods has led the effort to design and construct a tactile bird, the American Dipper, for people who are blind. Dr. M. Young has sponsored projects on Hybrid Cars and Hydrogen Fuels. Mr. E. R. Adcock from CM2H sponsored a project on carbon emissions. Dr. R. Malhotra from ICAST has sponsored several humanitarian projects, which include research and development of an arsenic filter for rural communities. Mr. R. Hedlund from JDC introduced

the first-year students to blackboard chalk for Uzbekistan, a project that resulted in the best student evaluations in recent years. Many of these projects are included in assessment notebooks (xxDE2DFP, xxDE3DFP, xxDE4DFP and xxDE5DFP where xx represents the academic year).

Activities to assess the students’ achievement of these outcomes focus primarily on the products delivered to the clients. The Design (EPICS) Division compiles notebooks each semester containing 1) design reports, 2) graphics portfolios, 3) project notebooks, and 4) pictures of models and prototypes. These document the design processes (problem formulation and solution; data analysis; system, component, or process design; application of mathematics, sciences and engineering and the tools of engineering). Team deliverables and mentor feedback govern the evaluation of student and team communication skills. Research serves as the major tool for teamwork issues. The Division uses attitude, observation and evaluation surveys in conjunction with team performance to develop activities for the classroom. Schedules and team contracts, resulting from these studies evaluate team management and interpersonal functions. Focus groups sessions, client comments, and external reviews offer some insight into the ethical and contemporary issues, primarily with respect to the projects.

Economics and Business. As described in section B.4.5.2. the Division of Economics and Business hosts one course which all undergraduate students must complete, EBGN201.

Within EBGN201, Principles of Economics, the following ABET Criteria 3 Outcomes have been identified and the activities students undertake in this course that justify this identification is as follows.

Criterion 3-b(ii): Analyze and interpret data (Secondary)The study of economics revolves around assembling and analyzing data on various economic and business indicators, such as GDP growth, inflation, unemployment, exchange rates, product prices in specific markets (e.g., oil), consumption, and so on. Problem sets in this course and examination questions focus on assembling and analyzing these data.

Criterion 3-d: Function on multidisciplinary teams (Secondary)Students in EBGN 201 are encouraged to work in teams to complete problem sets and, on occasion, written analyses of “real world” economic issues that are being debated. The lecture session is broken down into much smaller groups for weekly recitations where team work is often necessary to complete assigned tasks. Included in these tasks may be joint writing assignments or presentations that the students may be asked to present to the class.

Criterion 3-h: Understand engineering solutions in context (Primary)Public and private organizations develop and implement engineering solutions in the broader context of the economic, business, and public-policy environment in which these organizations operate. This course exposes students to: the macroeconomic environment in which organizations operate and the ways in

which economic growth, inflation, unemployment, monetary policy and fiscal policy influence the viability of firms and their engineering solutions; and the microeconomic environment and the ways in which technological change, consumer preferences, labor markets, government policies and other factors influence the viability of firms and their engineering solutions.

Criterion 3-i: Recognize need for and engage in life-long learning (Primary)Many undergraduate students in engineering and the applied sciences come to college with limited exposure to current events and public affairs. The study of economics encourages students to read and develop informed opinions about economic issues in the news and, in turn, encourages them to continue this informed evaluation of economic issues once they leave the university.

Criterion 3-j: Knowledge of contemporary issues (Primary)This course requires that students keep up with contemporary issues in the news—macroeconomic issues such as economic growth, inflation, unemployment, and Federal Reserve policy, and microeconomic issues such as high oil prices and what (if anything) government should do in response, regulation of industry, minimum-wage policies, and others. In addition this course has a special focus on natural resource and environmental issues and how economists approach them (environmental policy, sustainable development, “green” business, population growth, biodiversity, and others).

Assessment of outcomes is based on: (a) within a semester, quizzes, homework sets, and weekly meetings of the lead instructor and TAs to discuss student performance, and (b) from semester to semester, by semi-annual reviews of student performance involving the lead instructor, TAs, and the division director. We also monitor the preparedness of students taking subsequent economics courses that have EBGN 201 as a prerequisite (i.e., in subsequent courses, do students have the tools that they should be learned in EBGN 201).

Geology and Geological Engineering. As described in section B.4.5.1. the Department of Geology and Geological Engineering hosts one course which all undergraduate students must complete, SYGN101.

Within SYGN101, Earth and Environmental Systems, the following ABET Criteria 3 Outcomes have been identified and the activities students undertake in this course that justify this identification is as follows.

Criterion 3-a: Apply knowledge of math, science and engineering (Primary)

This course utilizes knowledge of math and science to investigate a highly complex system – the earth. Lectures focus on specific components of the earth system – lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere, and biosphere, and use physical science concepts to explain earth system mechanisms. Engineered systems and their interaction with the earth system are utilized as examples throughout the course. Standard tests on these materials are given four times during the semester. Some sections have also utilized essay questions that require students to apply their knowledge to current societal issues. The course includes an integrated laboratory that focuses on the earth system in the Golden area. Students utilize

concepts from the course individually and in teams to solve problems dealing with local cartographic and coordinate systems (map reading and orienteering), geology (stratigraphy), geological engineering (soil types, natural hazards for construction), and hydrology (surface and ground water quantity and quality). Laboratories involve frequent quizzes as well as graded laboratory reports. The reports include simple engineering calculations such as determining the maximum volumes of water that flow between bridge abutments based on flood histories.

Criterion 3-h: Understand engineering solutions in context (Secondary)The course investigates the interaction of engineering systems with earth systems. The course deals with formation, acquisition, and use of natural resources such as water, energy (fossil, solar, hydo, biomass, and geothermal), metals, earth building materials, and soils. Emphasis is placed on concepts of sustainable development and resource capacity. The concept of geologic time is utilized to better understand human impacts on the earth system in context.

Criterion 3-j: Knowledge of Contemporary Issues (Secondary)

The SYGN 101 course is critical for Mines students in their exploration of contemporary issues. The course deals with the scale of human engineered systems in relation to the earth system. It provides the basis of understanding the role of natural resources in human cultures and the concept of sustainable development. Specific areas covered are energy, water, and mineral resources. The course also examines natural hazards and disasters, their causes, and possible engineered means of mitigation and preparedness. The course deals with these questions and issues at global, national, and local scales.

The assessment of outcomes is overseen on a semester-to-semester basis by the team of faculty and teaching assistants involved in presenting the course. Data for this assessment comes from student scores, individual course evaluations (for both the lecture and lab) from the students, and informal class surveys. The Department has also created an ad hoc committee over the past 5 years that has conducted an ongoing assessment tracking yearly results and comparing our curriculum (and where possible student evaluations) to those at other schools with similar courses. As a result of this assessment, the Geology and Geological Engineering Department moved to take full control of this course in 2003 (it had previously been co-taught with the Division of Environmental Science and Engineering).

The laboratory manual for the course is produced in-house and emphasizes local geoscience and engineering problems. There has been ongoing work to improve laboratory exercises and an average of one problem per year has been modified significantly. We continue to make the labs more “hands on” field problems rather than in-class lab manual exercises; this work is on-going.

We have experimented with multiple forms of testing within the class including both standardized and essay tests. Individual computerized “clickers” are also being introduced to gauge student understanding through questions to the entire group during lectures (when the course is taught in venues equipped with these

devices). Individual student projects dealing with applications of earth system knowledge to societal problems have also been experimented with but discarded due to steadily increasing class size.

Student Life. As described in section B.4.5.2, the Division of Student Life houses all student affairs functions, Vice President of Student Life, Dean of Students, career services, student counseling, disability services, student health services, freshman advising, tutoring, admissions, financial aid, student activities, athletics, public safety and residence life, at Colorado School of Mines. Its primary contribution to the professional component of engineering education, therefore, is in general education at the undergraduate level. In this role it hosts one course that all undergraduate students must complete, CSM101.

Within CSM101, Freshman Success Seminar, the following ABET Criteria 3 Outcomes have been identified and the activities students undertake in this course that justify this identification is as follows.

Criterion 3-f: Professional and Ethical Responsibility (Primary)CSM101 is the only required course at CSM in which students receive instruction on the Student Honor Code and the rules and regulations of the college environment. Worksheet assignments and class discussion are used in the course to teach students about campus policies, academic integrity and to help them develop an understanding of the ethical responsibilities of being a student and an engineering professional.

Criterion 3-i: The Need to Engage in Life-Long Learning (Secondary)CSM101’s three learning objectives: become an integrated part of the CSM community; explore, select and connect with a career field; and develop as a person and as a student are exercises in understanding the importance of self-assessment, and the social and cultural interactions that affect their life as a student and as a future professional. CSM101 introduces students to the importance of connecting with peers, faculty, campus resources, academic support programs and career services, culminating in a written statement of their personal and professional goals. Specific assignments are made for students to join a student organization, student chapter of a professional society, student government or other groups on campus, as well as attend various educational and social/recreational events. The Option Portfolio assignment combines career exploration with attending a career fair and registering with the Career Center, strengthening their knowledge of the dynamic nature of engineering fields and careers.

Criterion 3-j: Knowledge of Contemporary Issues (Secondary)As is clear from the foregoing description of CSM101’s contribution to understanding the individual, cultural and societal contexts in which learning and engineering takes place, CSM101 presents an opportunity for students to connect with engineering professionals and college relations representatives, through attending Career Day and presentations given by student chapters of professional

societies, gaining first-hand knowledge of employment trends, organizational approaches, and core competencies related to engineering employment and labor markets.

The Advising Coordinator conducts assessment of these outcomes annually. All students, instructors and peer mentors, for all 70-75 sections of this course, complete course evaluations. As a result of these evaluations, several curriculum changes have been made since 2000, including solidifying the course objectives, increasing the variety and number of suggested discussion topics for each class, and replacing the number of written assignments with specific activites more aligned with accomplishing the course objectives.

The following tables present the course evaluation results for 2003 and 2005.

Course Evaluation 2003(5 highest to 1 lowest) n=509

Goal: Importance Degree to which course met this goal

Become and integrated part of the Mines community

4.10 3.88

Explore, select, and connect with a career field

4.34 4.01

Develop as a person and as a student

4.05 3.57

Course Evaluation 2005(5 highest to 1 lowest) n=725

Goal: Importance Degree to which course met this goal

Become and integrated part of the Mines community

4.18 4.01

Explore, select, and

4.36 4.08

connect with a career fieldDevelop as a person and as a student

4.20 3.69

B.3.4.2 Program and Upper Division CurriculumWithin the Physics Department the Engineering Physics Program

Outcomes are achieved through the following procedures:

1. designing, configuring, delivering and periodically adapting a curriculum whose sequence and selection of courses are consonant with the program outcomes;

2. setting performance criteria for desired student achievement in the area of each program outcome;

3. devising the implementation strategies (through student learning and consequent advancement within the curriculum) that map the pathways toward fulfillment of each outcome;

4. evaluating actual student achievement against the performance criteria, using appropriate evaluation methods, and recording the measures of student achievement; and

5. recognizing, to the extent that the measures meet or exceed the performance criteria and to the extent signified by the advancement of students, that the program is achieving its outcomes.

These procedures are carried out by faculty committees, by instructors, and by the faculty in an academic unit through the leadership of the Department Head. In particular, the responsibility for configuring and adapting the curriculum rests with committees that are either institution-wide, for the core curriculum, or within the department, for this program. The Assessment Committee and the Curriculum Committee are examples of university committees that exercise oversight and review of the common and distributed core components of the curriculum. The Undergraduate Council, a standing committee of the Faculty Senate with broad elected institutional representation, expedites on-going curriculum refinements and adaptation. This Council deliberates, analyzes and approves, where appropriate, curriculum and course changes within the core and within the program areas. The relationship of the Engineering Physics component of the curriculum to the Program Outcomes is given in Table B.3.4.1

Determinations of performance criteria and implementation strategies are set by faculty consensus within the department. Cross-department faculty consensus is sought for cross-disciplinary areas within the core and distributed core. Individual faculty instructors operate within this framework, by setting consistent learning objectives for individual courses and by evaluating student achievement at the course level. Finally, the departmental faculty assess the collective evidence of student achievements and gauge the extent to which the program outcomes are being met.

As discussed in Section B.2.4, the Engineering Physics degree program is managed through a multi-tiered process from broad to specific starting with the

Engineering Physics Program Objectives at the first level, realized through the Program Outcomes at the next level which are in turn realized in the individual course learning objectives at the third level. The assessment of the individual course learning objectives are summarized in the Course Post-delivery Review (B.3.4 Supplement I below).

Following the delivery of each course, the instructor assesses the degree that the course learning objectives were met and makes recommendations for improvements. Some of the recommendations can be implemented at the instructor level, the others are passed to the Physics Undergraduate Council for review and comment. The Program Outcomes are determined to be achieved through an assessment program summarized in the Engineering Physics Program Goals, Objectives, and Assessment Matrix (B.3.4 Supplement II below). The Physics Department Head and Undergraduate Council review the assessment program and assessment instruments discussed in the Assessment Matrix for efficacy and coverage of the Program Objectives and Outcomes. The senior design coordinator and individual student advisors have special assessment responsibilities as identified in the Assessment Matrix. The Department Head conducts the senior exit interviews and reviews alumni and employer feedback. These results along with the individual course learning outcomes and the senior design results are passed to the Physics Department Undergraduate Council, which determines from the evaluation of this data if the Program Objectives are being met and makes recommendations to the faculty and Department Head to improve the program.

P: primary emphasis S: secondary emphasis (Lab courses are shaded)

Table B.3.4.1

B.3.4 (Supplement I) Course Post-delivery Review Form

Course Post-delivery Review

Course: Term:Instructor:

I. Learning Objectives (from course syllabus)

II. Evaluation Criteria and Assessment Instruments

III. Evaluation of Instruments relative to Learning Objectives

IV. Recommendations

V. Implementation Plan

B.3.4 (Supplement II) Engineering Physics Program Objectives, Outcomes, and Assessment Matrix

B.3.5. Metric Goals Necessary to Produce Desired Graduates

Instructors in each course has identified in their Post-delivery Reviews the criteria for evaluation indicating the degree to which course learning objectives have been attained. At the program level, the Engineering Physics Program Objectives, Outcomes, and Assessment Matrix (B.3.4 Supplement II) lists the quantitative and qualitative performance criteria for the Program Outcomes that indicate achievement of the Program Objectives. B.3.6. Data and Analysis Used to Assess Achievement of Outcomes

Instructors in each course have identified in their Post-delivery Reviews the assessment data used to evaluate the degree to which course learning objectives have been attained. At the program level the Engineering Physics Program Objectives, Outcomes, and Assessment Matrix (B.3.4 Supplement II) lists the assessments and evaluations used for the Program Outcomes that indicate achievement of the Program Objectives.

B.3.7. Processes for Achieving Program ImprovementAt the course level individual instructors seek to improve the delivery and

coordination of their courses documented by the Course Post-delivery Review form and course notebooks. The Engineering Physics Program Objectives, Outcomes, and Assessment Matrix (B.3.4 Supplement II) lists the principal feedback mechanisms intended to continuously improve the program. Central among these are the External Visiting Committee reports and the Faculty Retreats which include guest faculty from the Engineering Division representing our Engineering graduate school constituency.

Program improvement in Engineering Physics is designed to occur at three levels in response to changing constituent needs as well as pedagogic, economic and professional developments. Each level has a characteristic time scale over which change can be effected. The Engineering Physics Program Objectives, through the input and assessment processes described in Section B.2.3, are designed to respond to changing constituent needs on the time scale of 3-6 years. Engineering Physics' Program Outcomes respond to changing Program Objectives, institutional direction, and pedagogic, economic, and professional developments on the time scale of 1-2 years, and finally the curriculum and instruction respond to the assessment and evaluation of the Program Outcomes on the time scale of an academic year. The individual course curriculum and instruction can respond to assessments and evaluation each time they are delivered.

The internal processes related to the implementation of EC2000 offer one example of the process effecting a change in the goals of Engineering Physics. Since ABET is the principal engineering accrediting body in the US, the EC2000 criteria themselves represent input from the professional engineering constituency. Prior to EC2000, for example, the only objectives listed were the institutional ones articulated in the CSM Graduate Profile. Through the EC2000

preparation process the Physics Department faculty adopted the literacy objectives described in B.2. These changes in turn led to an expansion of program outcomes which in turn led to physics curricular reforms.

With the adoption of an outcomes based approach to academic management several changes have been made to the Engineering Physics curriculum and instruction modes. The following is a list course level and program level changes. The course level changes are documented in the course notebooks. The program level changes are documented in Faculty Meeting Minutes, Undergraduate Council Reports, and Faculty Retreat reports.

Course level changes:Electronics Lab sequence (PHGN215/317)

PHGN 215 Analog Electronics – Based on feedback from senior exit interviews as well as from faculty, the analog circuits courses were reformed from DCGN381 (Electronic Circuits, 3 credits) and PHGN217 (Analog Lab, 1 credit) to PHGN215 (Analog Circuits, 3 credits lecture, 1 credit lab). This allowed the lab sequence to match the topics, pace, and order of material presented in lecture. Due to increased demand, the lab was expanded from 9 electronic work stations to 18 presently. This maintains the quality of an individual design experience for all students even though our class size has doubled in the past four years. We have also reduced the number of labs performed by one in 2006 – from ten to nine. Based on assessment feedback, the pace of the lectures was reduced and basic design fundamentals emphasized.

PHGN317 Semiconductor Circuits-Digital – This lab uses the same electronics laboratory as Analog Circuits; so the expansion to 18 electronic workstations has been similarly critical to PHGN317 for maintaining a quality, individual laboratory experience. An additional lecture section for the LabVIEW component of the course was added so the students could do LabVIEW programming in each class individually. In 2005, the digital electronics lectures were implemented in power point format. The motivation for going to an electronic format to allow more time to discuss circuit design and operations. Student assessments of the new format were overwhelmingly favorable.

Advanced Lab sequence (PHGN315/326)The design content of the EP curriculum was expanded by in the junior lab sequence by expanding the credit hour designation to two 2-credit hour courses, PHGN315 (first semester junior) and PHGN326 (second semester junior) to coordinate better with the revised modern physics courses, PHGN300 (or PHGN310, the honors section), Modern Physics I, Introductory Modern Physics (second semester sophomore or first semester junior) and PHGN320, Modern Physics II: Basics of Quantum Mechanics

(second semester junior). The delivery mode of the labs was modified to allow for more hands-on student involvement in the design of the experiments and in the in situ data analysis. Both courses are designated “writing intensive course”; therefore a significant written report is required for each laboratory. The advanced laboratories have undergone major equipment upgrades and are now outfitted with standard geometrical optics, physical optics, modern physics lab apparatus, photon and particle counting equipment, some of which is surplus from the research programs. Over the past three years we have significantly modernized and upgraded the equipment with Tech Fee grants and other sources of institutional funding. Most of the experiments are now supported by computer-interfaced data acquisition systems such as multichannel analyzer cards installed in PCs. Equipment is available for all of the experiments listed in the syllabi (Appendix IB). Plans for improvement of this facility in order to increase the number of stations and reduce the number of students per team (or the capacity of the lab) are under way.

Apparatus Design (PHGN384)In 2001 the use of specialized parallel port electronic interfaces developed by the engineering department was introduced in the electronics module of PHGN384 (Apparatus Design). Through a Tech Fee grant, the choice of interfacing software as changed to Labview from HP-Vee based on feedback from the engineering community that Labview was the industry standard. In 2002, the machine shop portion of the field session was reduced due to overcrowding. The vacuum module was significantly upgraded using a $31k Tech Fee proposal in 2003. In 2004 a module on Solidworks was introduced to complement the machine shop and a module on optical design was created by Dr. Matt Young. As the number of students grew to above 60 in 2005, the number of field trips was expanded from 2 to 5 to reduce the load on the hosting institutions. The donation of optical equipment from Dr. Jeff Squier and the movement of the advanced lab to MH263/275 enabled the expansion of the optics module led by Dr. Frank Kowalski.  Also, the vacuum module was expanded through an $18k Tech Fee grant. In 2006 lectures on communications, library searches (databases, literature search engines, interlibrary loans, citations), graduate studies, REUs, career center (Diggernet, internships, preparing resume), safety, and professional organizations were added.

Thermodynamics sequence (DCGN210/PHGN341)Based on a review of the curriculum and senior exit interviews, the introductory engineering thermodynamics was changed from DCGN209,

which emphasized phase equilibrium, to DCGN210, which emphasized cycles. Based on this foundation change, the curriculum of PHGN341 wasmodified to emphasis the statistical foundations of thermodynamics. Instructional modes were modified to include more in-class thinking through "go-to-the-board" exercises and personal response questions.

Introduction to Mathematical Physics (PHGN311)With respect to Fall 2003, PH311 in Fall 2005 (i) changed texts back to a more pedagogically-structured (rather than more reference-oriented) text; (ii) included a broader range of non-text problems in problem sets,  including use of dimensionless variables, the tools of time series  analysis, least squares analysis, and (iii) more explicitly  acknowledged the relative weakness of students in ordinary differential equations, since their math preparation ceases at  constant-coefficient ODEs. A reform of the intermediate mathematical component of the curriculum is currently under study. This reform would require MACS 332 (Linear Algebra) prior to PH311 thereby allowing a redistribution of topics permitting greater emphasis on other topics.

Intermediate Mechanics (PHGN350)Minor improvements have been adjusting the emphasis on course material, for example reducing the emphasis on harmonic oscillators (adequately covered in differential equations) while retaining those concepts not covered, such as Fourier series and Green's functions. This allowed more emphasis on rigid body motion in general and expanded examples of Lagrangian formulations, such as the symmetric top. Improvements in instruction includes more group examinations and computer-based projects. Computer-based projects allows for much more complex examples.

Electricity and Magnetism sequence (PHGN361/PHGN462)Since 2000, heavy reliance on symbolic computation for homework and problem solving has been emphasized. In 2003 interactive student response technology was included in the lectures. Enabled by an HP grant, wireless tablet technology was introduced in 2006. This has allowed the instructor to directly observe in real time the way students are thinking about concepts. It has also enabled much wider use of peer to peer communication as well as extensive use of Java applets in demonstrations and homework. Exploiting this technology required a major upgrade to the wireless bandwidth in Meyer Hall. From 2002-2006, the Physics Department has made several changes to the curriculum of the advanced electromagnetism course (PHGN462) to better meet the needs of the students and to provide them with an introduction to some areas of physics that are relevant to the research done at CSM and in which they may be working on senior design projects. From 2002-04, there was an increased emphasis on areas relating to optical physics: diffraction and interference,

dispersion and polarization at the expense of some of the traditional material on electromagnetic waves. As the numbers of electives in optics have increased, we have restored some of the truncated wave material and crafted a selection of topics that still uses applications to optics as a focus, but also includes areas of electromagnetism that are applicable to other areas of physics and technology, such as radiation and antenna theory, and metallic waveguides. To help get the physical principles across to the students, as well as to show them the applicability of the theory to the real world, we have developed a series of new lecture demonstrations.

Modern Physics sequence (PHGN310/PHGN320)The topics covered in modern physics sequence have remained virtually unchanged since its inception: a chronological survey of modern physics topics (PH310) followed by a more mathematically rigorous introduction to quantum theory. Faculty assessments indicated a need to strengthen the second course. In 2001, the Physics Department changed the curriculum for the Modern Physics II course, raising the credit content from 3 to 4 credit hours. The subject matter of the course is quantum mechanics (QM) and its applications, a critical area for many modern areas of science and technology. Since this course provides the most advanced quantum mechanics that is required of our majors, it was deemed important to increase the depth and sophistication of the instruction. As a result, the course begins with the fundamentals of quantum mechanics in one dimension, taking the opportunity of the review of the material to introduce the students to the more formal mathematical structure of quantum mechanics that is essential to understanding the theory. The course then proceeds to cover topics of QM in 3 dimensions and multiparticle effects. Along with the more advanced treatment, we have increased the use of computer-based demonstrations and in-class personal-response devices. The students gain experience in using symbolic computation to perform calculations and visualizations so they can better understand the fundamentals and also apply what they have learned to less-idealized situations. 

Elective Courses

PHGN422-Nuclear PhysicsExamples of outcome materials include in-class discussions, homework and student presentations. Horizontal assessments of program outcomes are made primarily through homework and the peer reviewed student presentation. Vertical assessments are provided by senior exit interviews by the Department Head. The assessment materials have been evaluated and improvements recommended. Example improvements in recent offerings include use of different books and inclusions of more applied medical topics.

PHGN435-Microelectronics Processing Laboratory The primary assessment tools are student presentations, written reports, student success in lab procedures, student lab notebooks, and student evaluations. Students are also asked, informally, to provide comments and suggestions directly to the instructor. Each year the instructors, Wolden and Collins, use the above to guide improvements to the course which in the last few years these have included: Equipment upgrades such as adding a thickness monitor to the evaporator, automating the characterization station which tended to be a student bottleneck and adding more computer stations to more easily access web based procedures. Addition of process simulation (Suprem IV). Change of the final project from development of an open ended process defined by the students, which tended not to work, to fabrication of either a bipolar or MOSFET transistor. Students are still asked to develop their own process, but the instructor feedback on their process can be guided by prior experience making the chances of success much higher. Changes of presentation evaluations to a rubric format. Use of classroom communicator system in lectures. Changes of grading to include an evaluation of each student's participation in their team activities.

PHGN440-Solid State Physics In the past this course was cross-listed as MLGN502 which allowed Materials Science graduate students received 3 hrs of graduate credit upon completion of extra assignments. Physics students could only take the course as PHGN440. MLGN502 was part of the common core for the Materials Science graduate program. So, approximately half of the class came from the diverse backgrounds that are characteristic of this program. This heterogeneous mix presented significant problems for the instructor. Typically the Materials Science students were less prepared in quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics, Fourier analysis, and general mathematical skills, compared to the physics undergraduates. Recently the Materials Science program has eliminated MLGN502 as a required course. This opened up the opportunity to teach the class at a more advanced level, appropriate to an upper division physics elective. Rather than spending class time on reviews of fundamental principles in those areas where the Materials Science students were weak, the instructor now assumes this background. Those students still taking the class as MLGN502 are typically the ones who are better prepared, since they are focusing on physics-related options within the Materials Science program. This has worked quite well, and has enabled the instructor to provide all of the students with a quality introduction to solid state physics.

PHGN450-Computational PhysicsAfter a five year hiatus, Computational Physics was offered again in the Fall of 2005. Based on feedback from the director of the CSM

Mechanical Engineering graduate program, it was determined that the needs of the 5 year B.S. Engineering Physics/ M.S. Mechanical Engineering students would be best met by co-teaching this course with the Engineering Division . A review of past curricula revealed that the previous offerings emphasized physics examples exclusively indicating a need to improve the applied science and engineering topics content. With the cooperation of the Engineering Division, the course was co-taught with EGGN502 (Simulation and Modeling). The course is now organized around a sequence of alternating physics and engineering projects.

Senior Design sequence (PHGN471/472)Post-delivery course review and the faculty retreat identified several opportunities for improvement, and the following changes were implemented.

1. To improve project planning and management as well as provide experience with client communication, the course begins with a formal proposal, graded by the course adviser and approved by the project adviser.  The proposal allows the course adviser to ensure that projects are well-rounded and also serves as a contract between the student and the project adviser.  The project adviser informs the course adviser if the proposal is not acceptable.2. Based on past experience, advisers were discouraged from suggesting demonstration projects and asked to involve the students in realistic research or engineering environments.3. To insure an appropriate amount of time is spent on the project, time sheets were introduced and used at discretion of project adviser.4. A new grading rubric was introduced to address concerns that performance grades were too subjective and not uniform.6. Instructional units on technical writing, intellectual property, philosophy of science, ethics were added, and a separate ethics paper was assigned.7. An award for best poster paper was added.

Program level changes:Reduced total credits from 134.5 to 130.5.Increased design component by expanding credit content in Advanced Lab I and II from one to two.Altered thermo sequence from DCGN209 (Chemical Thermo) to DCGN210 (Engineering Thermo) including better coordination.Greater emphasis on writing in "writing intensive" coursesGreater emphasis on oral communication by adopting professional meeting style short talks in senior design. Greater emphasis on communication by adopting professional meeting style poster presentations in senior design (including a "Best Poster" award). Greater emphasis on the defining the open-ended constrained design process

Better advising for 5-year program students

B.3.8. Evidence Verifying Program ImprovementThe segment of this program that resides in the institution-wide core

curriculum has been subject to improvement through the mechanism of institutional curriculum reform, as described in the separate volume on Institutional Actions since the Last General Review. This volume, together with its appendices and references, embodies much of the evidence for institutional program improvement. In addition, the files of the curriculum reform project containing reports, data, proposals, publications, minutes, mini-grant projects, and general notes express many relevant details. Finally, there are a number of focused reports on assessment and program improvement activities that relate to core subject areas.

Evidence of changes which resulted from the assessment-feedback process include: reformed program curriculum, reformed instruction modes, revised advising forms and recruitment brochures, changes in specific course curricula, altered course sequencing, altered course credit content, altered course content, reassignment of faculty, new and/or modified allocation of resources, an altered advising process, and adoption of 5-year programs.

B.3.9. Description of Materials Available for ReviewWhile the bulk of the pertinent evidence demonstrating student

achievement of objectives necessarily falls within the domain of each engineering program, it is worth noting that there are some miscellaneous institutional indicators that relate to this discussion. Although these are not connected to the program objectives per se, it can be argued that success on the institutional indicators would not be forthcoming in the absence of student achievement of the program objectives. In this respect, the following "institutional" evidential materials will be available for review:

· employment records for graduating seniors, as documented in the Career Center Annual Reports;

· Colorado School of Mines responses to the Colorado Commission on Higher Education's Quality Indicator System, especially the detailed 1998 version that preceded the Commission's changed rulings for 1999;

· miscellaneous student satisfaction surveys; and

· an institution-wide aggregation of recruiter opinions on the conformance of CSM graduating seniors to the statements in EC2000 Criterion 3.

With respect to the Engineering Physics Program, of the evidence listed above, the following are available for review:

1. Student academic record and performance measures :

a. student transcripts (curricular coverage, GPA, GPA in major, specific course grades)

b. samples of student work (examinations, homework, reports, lab reports, Senior Design reports, etc.)

c. results from nationally-normed examinations (Graduate Record Examination)

2. Placement records (industry and graduate school)

3. Constituent satisfaction measures

a. Citizens of the State of Colorado - Colorado Commission on Higher Education Program of Excellence recognition.

b. Graduate programs - External Visiting Committee reports and feedback from Engineering Division faculty.

c. alumni - nationally normed surveys

d. employers from government labs, and microelectronics and defense industries- External Visiting Committee reports