Manufacturing Engineering Technology
Results of Assessment
1) Based on your program’s assessment findings, what subsequent action will your program take?
Actions have been outlined on the learning outcome assessment plan and report
2) We are interested in better understanding how departments/programs assess their graduating seniors or graduate students. Please provide a short narrative describing the practices/curriculum in place for your department/program. Please include both direct and indirect measures employed.
We currently do not assess the performance of alumni. Years of survey results indicate that the inability of the department to track students and the lack of responses from those we know the location of create unusable data. We maintain very close contact with firms in our Industrial Advisory Committee and those firms give valuable feedback regarding student intern performance, graduate performance, future trends, etc. However, Utah has such as diverse manufacturing base, we have not been able to routinely capture input from all firms hiring students MFET students.
We modified our assessment plan to make it more sustainable for the last ABET review of the program. Here is a summary of the changes.
1. Added the following rubrics with assigned responsible parties and target values that affect Learning Outcomes. These rubrics have been attached.
a. SP1 - Senior Project 1st Semester Team Documentation Evaluation; completed by the instructor or
b. SP2 - Senior Project 2st Semester Team Documentation Evaluation; completed by the faculty Project
c. SP3 - Senior Project Individual Evaluation; completed by faculty Project Advisor
d. SP4 - Senior Project Presentation Evaluation; completed by all faculty attending senior project presentations each semester
e. SP5 – this rubric is calculated from SP2-4 and can be used to grade the overall project.
2. Changed the score threshold for the outcomes measured by senior projects to better alert the faculty of concerns to be addressed through continuous improvement. The new requirement is that all students must pass each rubric with a score of 8 or higher.
3. Changed SME exam overall score to specific section scores more aligned with outcomes for Learning Outcomes. We also changed the threshold to 100% of students passing 60% of the questions seen in specific areas.
4. Added specific timetable for assessments and summaries submitted to the MFET Program Coordinator and PC (annual reports are due to the Office of Institutional Effectiveness by November 15th of each year and ABET as required).
5. Manpower changes regarding assessment; the Dean and Chair have approved two credit hours each semester for a faculty member to coordinate Senior Project assessment and the collecting of data by a lab aid
We tested the rubrics by applying the rubrics to two of the most recent first semester and one second semester senior projects in Spring of 2016, a prosthetic foot , a children’s playground musical instrument project done in conjunction with the music department, and a robotic welding cell project done in conjunction with Miller Electric Company.
All of the applications of the rubrics (attached) resulted in a finding that corrective action is needed in our senior project. For example, with SP1 rubric the two first semester projects evaluated scored below the threshold. Problem areas were discussed in a meeting of our assessment committee during the week of 4/25. These included drawings & tolerances, inspection sheets, poor manufacturing routers & operation sheets. The committee felt that after reviewing the documents the root causes were varied, but included insufficient student awareness of project requirements, lack of topic coverage in CAD classes DET 1010 & DET1160, as well as lack of published grading rubrics. We also felt that in some cases the scope of the project may be too large and students are rushed, leading to poor drawings. With our second semester project we found that there was an issue with the SP3 rubric. The students were able to get through senior project with minimal work due to a lack of evaluation of the individual. The new rubric was developed to help ensure students are putting in the necessary work without burdening their fellow team mates.
Faculty will report their assessment done in the class (MFET 3550, MFET 3910, MFET 4610, MFET 4610L,
MFET4620L, MFET 4995) to the appropriate learning outcome and submit it to the Program Coordinator for
MFET. The Program Coordinator will report a summary for each learning outcome to the Office if Institutional Effectiveness by November 15th of each year, to the Industrial Advisory Committee, and to ABET as required.
The full report is available.