NWCCU Mechanical Engineering Assessment
Program Assessment Process
The Mechanical Engineering (ME) program utilizes seven student outcomes. These student outcomes are defined by ABET and used for the program’s engineering accreditation. Each outcome is assessed every two years:
| Evaluation Date | School Year | Outcomes evaluated |
|---|---|---|
| July/August 2021 | 2020-21 | 1-7, no direct measures |
| July/August 2022 | 2021-22 | 1-7 |
| July/August 2023 | 2022-23 | 1-7, no direct measures |
| July/August 2024 | 2023-24 | 1-7 |
| July/August 2025 | 2024-25 | 1-7, no direct measures |
| July/August 2026 | 2025-26 | 1-7 |
Three instruments (independent sources of information) are used in the assessment process:
- Direct: Instructor Course Assessment – assessment of student coursework (exams, projects, lab exercises, reports, etc.)
- Indirect: Graduating Senior Survey and Feedback from the MAE Industrial Advisory Board
Evaluation of the assessment process and data is conducted by the MAE Continuous Curriculum Improvement Committee, which meets biennially during the summer (July/August) to review all assessment data on years where direct assessments are made. Results are then reviewed during the annual fall department meeting (August) and at the Industrial Advisory Board meeting (typically April). If outcomes needing improvement are identified during that review, recommendations for improvement will be made by the Committee (and/or course instructors) and that outcome will be reevaluated the following 1-2 cycles depending on the time expected to observe impacts of improvements.
Instructor Course Assessment
Most required mechanical engineering courses are mapped to specific student outcomes. Every two years an instructor in these courses assess the attainment of at least one student outcome by evaluating each student’s performance on a specific work product such as a quiz or exam question, lab report, project report, or other assignment that is relevant to that outcome. The student outcomes are broken into measureable performance indicators (typically 2-5 performance indicators per student outcome). Student performance on this work product is rated on a 1-5 scale based on faculty approved rubrics, where the score indicates the student’s level of mastery with respect to the outcome. 5 – Mastery, 4 – Proficient, 3 – Competent, 2 – Developing, 1 – Lacking
Each assessment result is documented in a standardized form and archived electronically in Box with at least 10 random samples of student work on that problem or assignment.
The ME program has a goal for attainment of each performance indicator of at least 85% of the students performing at a level of 3 or above.
Graduating Student Survey
Graduating seniors complete an anonymous online exit interview to provide feedback about the ME program and rate their perceived progress in meeting each of the outcomes among other questions. The performance goal is to have at least 85% of the students rating their attainment as a rating of 3 “Competent” or above on the same scale used in the Instructor Course Assessments used above. Acknowledging that this is a subjective self-evaluation, these exit interview results are taken as a general indication whether students feel they are meeting the outcomes. The questions used for assessment of student outcome 7 are objective as they ask questions about student participation in several co-curricular activities and their future plans.
Industrial Advisory Board
The MAE Industrial Advisory Board (IAB) meets with the Department annually at USU during the Spring semester (usually March/April). The IAB members review the MAE curriculum and programs in general, including the Program Educational Objectives and assessment data pertinent to evaluation results. Selected MAE Senior Capstone Design groups also make formal presentations to the IAB on the project progress to date. These presentations provide the IAB with the opportunity to assess students’ technical and professional skills. The IAB also interviews a group of undergraduate students about the overall program and student concerns in the absence of Department faculty and staff. The results of the IAB meeting are summarized in a letter and provided to the Department by the IAB Chair. These annual letters often cite what the IAB feels the department is doing well and identifies areas for future improvement of all of the academic programs, including the BSME degree.
The annual Continuous Curriculum Improvement Committee reports are posted here:
Note: The assessment tools and processes go through periodic review and changes so some of these may be different than how they are described above.