viewnone; we expect this to happen as a matter of course. how goal supports program’s mission...

(APC Handbook – LINK 4 – Form B)

Academic Planning CouncilIn-depth Program Review [Form B]

Form B is due on or before October 15.

Please supply the following information

Program Engineering Physics (EP)

Department Engineering Physics

Current Academic Year 2013-14

Date of Last In-Depth Review 2006

Name of Program Contact Person Doyle St.John

Position of Program Contact Person Department Chair

To be completed by the program/department1. In a paragraph, briefly describe your program’s Mission Statement and how it relates to the

University Strategic Mission.

The Engineering Physics program at UW-Platteville provides Engineering Physics majors with a quality undergraduate education in liberal studies, mathematics, science, and engineering to prepare them:

1. to, within a few years of graduation, have attained positions as professionals in industry, government, or academia;

2. to become responsible, accountable, current professionals who work well with those both within and outside their profession, and demonstrate leadership at some level.

The Engineering Physics Educational Objectives are consistent with items 1, 3, 8 and 9 of the UW- Platteville mission (online at http://www3.uwplatt.edu/chancellor/mission). This is done by accepting a wide range of students (8) and developing them into well-trained, well-rounded engineers (1, 3) who are prepared to contribute to the regional economy (9).

2. List your program’s long-term (5+ years) goals as reported on at your last APC review and describe how your program met those goals. If there was a need to modify those goals, briefly explain why.

There were no goals established, nor a request to establish, at the time of the last APC review.

3. At this point in your long-range planning, list your program’s most important (5+ years) goals and briefly describe the resources your program will need to be successful, as well as any concerns or issues your program is facing. Also briefly address how these goals support your program’s Mission Statement.

(maximum of three)

http://www3.uwplatt.edu/chancellor/mission


Long-term Goal One Develop and implement the Microsystems & nanomaterials concentration

Resources Needed No add’l resources needed

Issues or Concerns None; we expect this to happen as a matter of course.

How Goal Supports Program’s Mission Statement

The completion of the curriculum is critical for preparing our students for positions in industry or academia in the area of Microsystems & nanomaterials.

Long-term Goal Two Continue to strengthen EP representation at the EMS Advisory Board meetings

Resources Needed No add’l resources needed

Issues or ConcernsIt’s unclear why the EMS Dean’s office was unsuccessful reaching EP alumni and convincing them to attend this meeting in the past. We need to understand and address this.


The AB representatives are crucial to our Program assessment.

Long-term Goal Three

Resources Needed

Issues or Concerns


4. If your program was reviewed by any outside accrediting bodies since the last APC review, please identify the review body and briefly summarize the results in 1-2 paragraphs.

The Engineering Physics program along with all the other engineering programs at UWP was evaluated by the Engineering Accreditation Commission (which is part of the Accreditation Board for Engineering


and Technology or ABET) in Fall 2012. The EP program evaluation resulted in three Concerns and one Weakness.

The first Concern dealt with the Registrar’s office and its handling of transfer student equivalencies. Even at the time of the October visit, the Registrar’s office was moving to improve their procedures in this regard. Other than continuing to monitor the transcripts ourselves (which has worked thus far: there were no violations), we expect this concern to be solved at levels above the program level. The second Concern dealt with whether Senior Design students consistently addressed multiple realistic constraints. In response to this, we are expressly requiring that the final student reports not only address the constraints of their project, but also highlight these in the report, as the main issue was that it was challenging for the reviewer to verify that the students had considered constraints. This was implemented in the Spring 2013 offering of EP 493 Senior Design and we reported on this in the July 2013 submission to ABET. The third Concern dealt with whether institutional support was adequate to ensure the quality and continuity of the program. We continue to work with our Dean and administration as they move to address this. In addition, we have recently begun utilizing our program’s “overhead fund,” which is as our share of the campus’ overhead charges for administration of external grants to faculty in our program. Though we cannot address salary issues with this fund, it does allow us to support faculty initiatives and professional development activities. As for the one Weakness, the review team identified our first Educational Objective as a restatement of some of the program’s Educational Outcomes. Upon discussing with our constituents, the objective in question was changed to the following,

to, within a few years of graduation, have attained positions as professionals in industry, government, or academia.

As of August 2013, the Engineering Physics program has been reaccredited for the maximum six years.

Information Required by the Assessment Oversight Committee5. Please answer the following questions in 1-3 pages.

a. What evidence do you have that students achieve your stated expected outcomes?

To assess achievement of the engineering physics program outcomes, we have collected direct and indirect data from our constituents. The tools used are described in the following table.

Target Tool Frequency ReviewStudents Course-related:

Self-reporting survey on attainment of outcomes.

End of semester. In the following semester.

Students Instructor-maintained course files: narrative, student work, syllabus.

Beginning in instructor’s 2nd year; updates as needed. [Senior Design: every

In advance of EP Student Meeting. Assess students’ attainment of outcomes (and opportunity to show attainment). Report submitted.Direct outcomes are linked to the


semester.] final grade in a course; failure to achieve a direct outcome coincides with failure of the course.

Students Instructor reviews each student’s attainment of indirect outcomes using D2L.

At the conclusion of each semester.

Early each Spring semester. Senior design students with deficiencies are to be notified and a remedial plan is to be established. Ultimately this will be linked to their grade in the course.

Students EP Student Meeting. Survey, discussion, and review by faculty.

Triennially In the following semester, faculty submits reports on attainment of outcomes. Action items recorded in meeting minutes.

Graduating Seniors

Survey and group meeting

Semesterly Faculty member summarizes results of the survey and discussion, and presents a report the following semester.

Alumni Discussions during Alumni Advisory Board meetings.

Triennially Submitted as part of meeting report.

Senior Design sponsor

Survey At the conclusion of the semester.

In the following semester, with student survey review. Results reported in meeting minutes.

Co-op reports

Review of assessments done by co-op employer

Semesterly. Done by program coordinator. Done only sporadically until reporting system overhaul in 2012.

Course surveysNear the end of each semester, students in EP courses are given surveys in which they self-report their attainment of course outcomes. The surveys enable faculty to assess whether the courses themselves enable students to meet the outcomes associated with the course. These are summarized and reviewed during the subsequent semester, and reported in the program meeting minutes.

Course FilesCourse Files are maintained beginning in the second year of a professor’s starting (or re-starting) a course. (Most courses are taught on a roughly four-year rotation.) Contents include:

1. A narrative/summary: describes how the students met the courses’ assigned outcomes.2. Syllabus and course handouts3. Samples of graded student work

a. Homeworkb. Quizzes/examsc. Projectsd. Reports/presentations

4. Other material to “state the case” for attainment of outcomes


5. Secondary outcomes’ attainment: the instructor flags students that are deficient in secondary outcomes associated with the course (i.e. those outcomes not intimately linked to receiving passing grade in the course). This may be part of the narrative.

A new course narrative is added each time the course is taught. Further updates are made to the course file (1) when something significant to the outcomes has been changed, and (2) especially in response to peer review of prior course files. Because it is unique every semester and has several outcomes, Senior Design needs a course file every time it is offered. Course files are reviewed in the year preceding the EP Alumni Meeting.

Student attainment of secondary outcomes is tracked, and any deficiencies would be addressed with individualized extra assignments in Senior Design. Tracking is aided by the use of a spreadsheet in D2L, the online learning system used by our campus. Each semester, the instructor logs the attainment of the secondary outcomes. Students are able to view their ratings.

EP Student MeetingWe hosted EP Student Meetings in 2008 and 2011. All EP students were invited, from freshmen through graduating seniors, and students in EP courses were required to attend. The purpose was to directly collect data on the students’ achievement of outcomes: students rated themselves and provided evidence of the extent to which they achieved the outcomes. The meeting also included a general discussion of the curriculum, the EP program, academic advising, and other issues the students wished to discuss with the faculty.

After the meeting, the EP faculty reviewed the student responses and assigned their own scores based on the evidence presented. The final scores thus used the faculty member’s professional judgment, not the students’ self-rating. Reports on each of the three outcomes were shared and discussed in program meetings.

Senior Exit Surveys and MeetingGraduating seniors completed a survey in their final semester. In addition, they have a group interview with a faculty member, during which they provide reflections on their experiences and suggestions for the program. The results of the survey and meeting are summarized and distributed to the EP faculty, which review and determine action items at a program meeting.

Alumni Advisory Board MeetingsSeparate from the EMS Advisory Board meetings, EP held meetings with its own Alumni Advisory Board in 2007 and 2010. The details of the EP Program were discussed at length, many recommendations were offered, and a number of changes made to the program as a result.

Senior Design Sponsor SurveyThese surveys allow independent assessment of the extent to which graduating students achieved the program outcomes.

Employer Co-op ReportsCo-op students’ final evaluations by their supervisors have been reviewed by the program coordinator. While these reports are cursory and do not typically provide extensive evidence of


achievement of the program outcomes, they generally provide support for or against conclusions drawn using other assessment tools.

5b. What have you learned as a result? AND 5c. What changes have you made as a result?

The following response addresses both 5b. and 5c.

Program student outcomesThe earliest changes since the last accreditation visit were revisions to the EP outcomes. These are summarized below.

Outcome (October 2008) Revised Outcome (November 2008)

Comment

1a (or a) - working knowledge of fundamental physics and basic electrical and mechanical engineering principles,

1a (or a) - working knowledge of fundamental physics and basic electrical and/or mechanical engineering principles, to include advanced knowledge in one or more engineering disciplines.

The curriculum at present allows a student, through their course selections, to not have what we would consider knowledge of all basic principles in both ME & EE. Further, we wanted to highlight the “engineering electives” portion of the curriculum that gives some advanced knowledge.

1c (or c) - the ability to apply the design process to engineering physics problems

1c (or c) - the ability to apply the design process to engineering problems

Our definition of this outcome is not specific to EP in particular, but to engineering.

3c (or i) - desire for life-long learning to improve themselves as citizens and engineers.

3c (or i) - capacity and desire for life-long learning to improve themselves as citizens and engineers.

Added the word “capacity” to indicate that students should not only want to engage in life-long learning, but they should also be able to do so.

Further, some changes were made as a result of the 2007 EP alumni advisory board meeting:

Outcome (October 2008) Revised Outcome (November 2008)

Comment


3b (or h & j) - knowledge of contemporary issues related to engineering physics and understanding of the impact of engineering in a global and societal context

3b (or h) - knowledge of the relationship between technology and society

This outcome was split up into 3b and 3d for clarity. Outcome 3b is a more “humanities-based” issue, with engineers as the contact point between society and technology. The interactions between technology and society are two-way, hence the wording change.

3d (or j) - a knowledge of technical contemporary issues

Outcome 3d is a more “technical” issue, related to keeping current as a professional.

The analysis of the student data from the 2008 EP Student Meeting led to several actions:1) EP students showed achievement in the design process, but offered little evidence of

achievement in the earlier phases of the design process. In response:a) EP 4010, Engineering Physics Laboratory, was recast with a stronger emphasis on

design skills (both engineering & experimental), effective in Fall 2010. We implemented a “standard design rubric” that has been repeated throughout the curriculum (EP 4210, etc.). Note that this “standard rubric” was recommended by the EP alumni advisory board, too.

2) EP students were relatively weaker in their ability to use (software-based) engineering tools. In response:a) A new LabView module was incorporated into EP: 4210, Sensors Laboratory, in Fall

2009.b) EP 4210 students are now required to use “pre-requisite engineering tools” such as

PSPICE, AutoCAD/Solid Works etc. in preparing their reports. The goal is to maintain their ability to use these tools. Further, this change is supported by feedback from the 2007 alumni advisory board, which encouraged requiring the use of software tools from other courses to prevent deterioration of skills.

3) EP students were relatively weaker in their ability “to function effectively in multi-disciplinary teams.” In response:a) EP 4210 now requires (as of 2009) the inclusion of an external sponsor as a “bonus”

on final projects. This has had positive results following from working with non-engineers (sponsors) on a project.

b) EP 4010 will include more formal introduction to functioning in teams.c) EP 4930 will include an opportunity to meet with “non engineers” at the sponsor’s

institution, with whom the sponsoring engineers work. This was implemented in Spring 2010, though with sporadic success.

4) EP students were weaker in “understanding the relationship between technology and society.” This outcome was relatively low, and students did not show improvement as they moved through the curriculum. (It is only formally incorporated into Senior Design.) In response:a) EP 4010, Engineering Physics Laboratory, incorporated a module related to

engineering solutions in global cultures. The instructor consulted with the


Engineering Without Borders faculty advisor for ideas that were implemented in Fall 2010.i) We should note that it was later determined that this project was not necessary to

the overall program, given the alumni’s “expected attainment” rating for this outcome.

5) Our newest outcome, “a knowledge of technical contemporary issues,” was also only met by Senior Design students. This is not a surprise, since it was created as a result of our Alumni Advisory Board meeting in 2007. In response:a) It has been assigned to EP 4140, 4210, 4220, and 4930. Course files will be checked

for inclusion of this content.6) Also as part of our review, we found that EP students are meeting the “oral

communication” outcome early in the curriculum. As such, we removed some of the emphasis on oral communication from EP 4010 EP Lab. Oral communication is not being removed; however, incoming students have more experience in this than they did ten years ago.

The 2010 EP Advisory Board also provided feedback that led to modifications affecting the outcomes:

1) With the Board’s emphasis on statistics, we formalized the implementation of statistics into EP 4010 EP Lab, with the addition of a new textbook effective in Fall 2011.

2) The board headed off an action as well. Faculty were intending to make EP 4210 Sensor Lab based on LabView (and no longer Visual Basic); however, the board strongly advised against this, in order to maintain the programming aspect of this course. They instead recommended incorporating more microcontrollers. That process has begun and it is hoped that these can be a part of the course in the Spring 2014 offering.

The 2011 faculty review of course files, in combination with prior years’ exit interviews and senior surveys, led to several significant changes:

1) EP 3240 Applied Mechanics student projects are focusing almost exclusively on the “analysis” portion of the design process; as a result, the instructor will incorporate more “formulating” types of design exercises.

2) EP 4010 EP Lab currently neglects electrical phenomena; the instructor will add more electrical and optics topics beginning in Fall 2011.

3) EP 4140 Applied Optics lacked optical system design; this will be re-incorporated beginning with the Spring 2012 offering.

4) Since the laboratory portion of EP 4140 is seen as such an important part of the curriculum, it is being made into a primary outcome: students must successfully complete the laboratory portion in order to pass the course.

5) In order to provide a wider range of types of communication (as recommended by the EP alumni advisory board), the laboratory portion of EP 4140 and EP 4210 Sensor Lab will incorporate “executive summary” and “lab notebook” components to the course, beginning with the Spring 2012 offerings.

6) The EP 4210 instructor had mistakenly not incorporated outcome 3b (technology and society) due to a clerical error. This was immediately implemented beginning with the Fall 2011 offering.

7) EP 4220 is a valuable course for the outcomes “tools and techniques” (2c; Mathematica and numerical simulation) and teaming (2b). These will be added to the course as secondary outcomes.


8) EP 4930 plays a critical role in the achievement of student outcomes, with ten assigned to this course. Therefore, effective Spring 2012, we will require appendices to the final report: at least one each for outcomes 3a/3b/3c/3d.

9) EP 4930 is also the course in which we would “catch” a student who is consistently deficient in a secondary outcome (as determined by the D2L outcomes spreadsheet). Therefore, effective Spring 2012, the syllabus will state that students must address deficient outcomes to pass the course; this would be accomplished with student-specific assignments.

This was created as a result of the course file review, and includes more detail on how the outcomes are to be achieved in each course.

It is apparent that a significant portion of our students struggle with our present presentation of some mathematical tools; in particular, Mathematica and LabView. This is a recurring theme of senior exit surveys and the EP student meeting; it is also consistently the lowest-scored outcome in EP 3240. Therefore, we recently completed a project funded by the UW-Platteville Curriculum Improvement Fund; this fund our development of a one-to-two credit “engineering software” that provides students a structured introduction to these software tools.

Other program-level issuesSeveral improvements have been made to EP’s “face” to the world, the advising process, and the assessment process as a result of the process of continuous improvement. These include:

1) Updating the EP web presence (2007) and using it to collect assessment information, as recommended by the 2007 Alumni board. This was done within the academic year, making the site more professional and easier to navigate, with links that describe our program and some alumni. The site was also used to collect employer data in 2009-2010. This has also reaped benefits for the EP program by helping to recruit students from beyond UW-Platteville’s typical region.

2) Encouraging “broadening,” extracurricular activities ; that is, broadening experiences outside of the academic setting: Study Abroad; Co-op/Internship; summer REUs. This was recommended at both Alumni board meetings, and has been incorporated into a new, annual “advising” meeting in the Fall semester between the EP faculty and all EP students, where we relay the alumni’s sentiments and provide resources to help students take advantage of these opportunities.

3) Maintaining the flexibility and interdisciplinary aspects of the EP curriculum. In 2007, the EP faculty were seriously considering reducing the flexibility of course selection, etc.; this was soundly rejected by the alumni board. In this case, their input helped avoid a potentially bad “improvement!”

4) Advising for professional electives. Discussions at the 2008 EP Student meeting indicated that students desired a flow chart to help guide their class selection for the various professional emphases. This was completed within the semester and quickly made available to the students. This has proven to be very useful for students and advisors.

5) Fall advising meeting . As detailed above, there is a steady trickle of responses from students and graduates requesting more or better guidance on class selection, co-ops, study abroad, and other opportunities. In addition, the alumni have urged us to encourage our students to seek these extracurricular opportunities. Finally, a common “weakness” fingered by EP majors is the need to educate employers on the major. To address these needs, in 2010 and 2011 we hosted our first EP Student Advising meetings. We used this time to convey information about the


major, professional electives, and external opportunities; and to have the upperclassmen available to help answer questions of the first- and second-year students. We have had good turnout to this optional meeting and have received good feedback thus far from the students.

6) Expected attainment of outcomes . The 2010 Alumni board helped us to define “expected levels of attainment” for new graduates from EP. These scores are matched to each outcome and are used as part of our assessment process, in order to determine the areas most in need of improvement (and those that are adequate).

7) Course progression . Course file review for EP 3640 showed that students who delayed the course struggled with low retention of mathematical and/or content-related topics. The program coordinator will investigate moving this course earlier on the “recommended” four-year schedule used by students.

8) Outcome assessment forms . The faculty review of course files revealed that the forms for several courses were deficient:a) EP 4210’s form did not incorporate outcome 3b;b) EP 4140’s form had not kept up with shifting topics;c) EP 4220’s form did not incorporate outcome 3d, and newly assigned outcomes 2b and 2c

need to be added.9) Course files . The course file review showed that narratives were especially useful in the

assessment process. Therefore, a template was distributed for future use.10) Future curriculum . An often-repeated lament of the students and graduates is that there is “too

much” flexibility in the curriculum, or perhaps risk that one could graduate with too much breadth and not enough depth in any one area. To this end, we have presented a “three track” proposal, which would cut back on the “intermixing” between mechanical and electrical engineering coursework but would give students more guidance. The reception thus far (alumni and students) has been positive, but it is important to first get feedback from potential employers. This process began in Spring 2012.

Information Required by the Academic Standards Committee6. Briefly describe how your program is engaged in reviewing its own internal academic standards.

In particular:a. How does your program monitor consistency in course standards and course content from

semester to semester?As part of our annual assessment, we examine the course files for all EP courses. Course files include a narrative by the instructor, example “A”, “B”, “C” or failing work by students taken from homework, quizzes, exams, projects, lab reports, and anything else.

b. How does your program monitor consistency in course standards and course content for multi-section courses (i.e. courses with more than 2 sections and more than 2 instructors per semester)?

This has not been an issue. This term will be the first term where we had more than one section of a given EP course. However, even in this term, the same instructor is teaching both sections.

c. How does your program monitor consistency in course standards and course content for courses taught in multiple formats (i.e. on-campus courses, on-line courses, streaming-video courses, etc.)?

This has not been an issue. All courses are on-campus courses delivered in the traditional manner.


d. What does your program do to ensure that the courses, major options, minor options, etc. are current and relevant?

Term meetings with the EMS advisory board and co-op reports are our best resource for determining relevance of the curriculum.

e. What does your program do to ensure that grades are an accurate reflection of course/student outcomes?

The course files, described in the previous section, include graded samples of student work. In this way, when program faculty review the course files, they can ensure that the grades on assignments and exams are reflective of the course/student outcomes.

Information Required by the Academic Information Technology Commission7. The first set of questions refers to your programs current use of information technology. The

second set of questions refers to your program’s proposed future use of information technology.

Current Technology Informationa. What information technology is being used by your program? Please include library

resources. For each tool that is used, please identify the objective of that tool and any barriers to achieving that objective. Please record your responses in Table 1 – Current Technology Index.

Current Information Technology Tool Objective Barriers to Objective

Mathematica

Software used in most EP courses for the purpose of numerical problem solving, graphing, and developing animations for simulating

mechanical systems

None so far, but cost may become a factor

Controlling software for DekTak XT profilometer

Software to control the profilometer and analyze data.

(Students use this tool in research and courses.)

Any OIT-imposed hardware/OS upgrades for networked computers may impact

hardware interface.

Controlling software for OptoPro MEMS probe

Software to control the MEMS probe. (Students use this tool in

research and courses.)

PC is not on the network; any OIT-imposed hardware/OS

upgrades for networked computers may impact

hardware interface.

Controlling software for Asylum Atomic Force Microscope

Software to control the AFM and analyze data. (Students use

this tool in research.)


hardware interface.

Laptop & software to control Nanosurf AFM

Software to control the AFM and analyze data. (Students use

this tool in research and courses.)

Laptop is not on the network. Any OIT-imposed hardware/OS

upgrades for networked computers may impact

hardware interface.Laptop & software to control Software to control the SEM and Laptop is not on the network.


Hitachi TM3000 Scanning Electron Microscope

analyze data. (Students use this tool in research and courses.)


hardware interface.

SpectraSuite software for Ocean Optics

Software to control the spectrometer and analyze data.

(Students use this tool in research and courses.)


hardware interface.

SUMMiT softwareMEMS fabrication process

simulation used by students in MSNT 4230 course.

Ansys may not be renewed by the college beyond 2013-2014.

(SUMMiT requires Ansys)

Ansys engineering simulation software

Simulation of “fabricated” devices produced by SUMMiT.

Used by students in MSNT 4230 course.

Ansys may not be renewed by the college beyond 2013-2014.

AutoCAD softwareEngineering design software

used by students in MSNT 4230 course.

None.

nanoHUB.org online simulations Used by students to help learn concepts in nanotechnology.

Keeping up-to-date with Flash and other “player” plug-ins.

PHET.org online simulations Used by students to help learn concepts in nanotechnology.

Keeping up-to-date with Flash and other “player” plug-ins.

Desire to Learn (D2L)Share electronic copies of

course materials, web links, etc. with students.

None; system is adequate.

Table 1 - Current Technology Index

b. List any program/department policies regarding usage of the technology. Students are expected to use equipment-controlling computers only to acquire, analyze and save/transfer data, and to adhere to university policies.

c. List any innovative uses of technology in your program/department. Students are trained and allowed to use advanced instrumentation early in their careers, enhancing the “hands-on” aspect of our program.

d. What is the skill level of faculty and staff regarding the utilization of the technology used in your program/department?


Depending on the software and the individual, adequate to advanced. Faculty are able to train users,maintain updates, trouble-shoot and perform installations (if permitted).

Proposed Technology Informatione. What new information technologies are you piloting or would like to explore? For each tool,

please answer the following questions.i. What is the learning or objective in using this technology? ii. What is the current skill level with this technology?iii. Why is this technology needed? For example, is it a replacement for something

currently used or is it increasing learning objectives?iv. How does it fit into the strategic components (strategic plan, mission, values, etc.) of the University?

None presently

Information Required by the University Academic Budget Commission 8. A member of the University Academic Budget Commission will contact each program/department

regarding the budget component of the APC review. This component will follow a different timeline than the rest of Form B.

Once completed, please send Form B electronically to Lisa Merkes-Kress at [email protected].

viewnone; we expect this to happen as a matter of course. how goal supports program’s mission...

Documents