Annual Academic Program Assessment Report

Annual Academic Program Assessment Report

Degree and Program: B.S. Mining Engineering

Department: Mining Engineering

Department Head: Scott Rosenthal

Academic Program Year Reviewed: 2017-18 for SOs, 2018-19 for PEOs, next review and assessment

scheduled for 2020-21

Assessment Coordinator: Rosenthal and Roos

Questions about report directed to: Rosenthal

Report approved by: (Dean)

Brief Program Narrative (1-2 paragraphs):

• Program Mission

o The Mining Engineering department prepares students for careers in the global mining

industry. Graduates are successful in surface and underground mining of all aspects of

the industry including metal, non-metal, coal, aggregates, and other industrial materials.

• Context: changes/challenges throughout the year that impacted outcomes; rationale for any

changes throughout the year, etc.

This report contains:

1. A review of the MIN program objectives.

2. A reporting of the assessment and evaluation of outcomes conducted in 2017-18.

Section 1: Program Educational Objectives (What should alumni/graduates attain a few years after

graduation.) The purpose of this section is to demonstrate the process of reviewing the objectives to

ensure they remain consistent with the program mission and the constituents’ needs.

1. Please list your current Program Education Objectives (PEOs).

Mining Engineering graduates are expected within three-to-five years after graduation to:

• Build on their undergraduate education through personal career development through

continuing education, advanced degree graduation (both engineering and management

focused), professional registration (P.E. or P.Eng.), or other advanced recognition (e.g. as

a qualified person).

2. Including this year, when were the last two academic years you reviewed Program Educational

Objectives?

2018-2019 and 2019-20. The PEOs are reviewed annually. The next review is scheduled for

2020-21.

3. Are your Program Educational Objectives available on the department or program website?

a. Yes

4. Are your Program Educational Objectives available in the Montana Tech Catalog?

a. Yes

5. Please describe the process of reviewing the objectives periodically.

Every year during the fall meeting with of the Mining Industry Advisory Board there is a forum

where students present on their internship experiences. As part of this meeting the PEOs are

reviewed with the Mining Industrial Advisory Board members, program faculty, and mining

engineering students. This committee last met 2019-20 and are scheduled to meet 2020-21.

Each review focuses on gaging if: 1) the PEOs remain consistent with the program mission and

the constituents’ needs; and 2) graduates are prepared to achieve the PEOs

6. List the stakeholders and describe how they are involved in reviewing Program Educational

Objectives.

PEO review committee membership includes students, faculty, industry (via IAB), and alumni

(via IAB).

7. Describe the process by which Program Education Objectives can and will be modified.

If the Mining Industrial Advisory Board or students recommend changes to the PEOs, the faculty

then meet to discuss to either accept, not accept, or offer a counter proposal.

Section 2: Student Outcomes Assessment (Student Outcomes are what students should know and be

able to do at the time of graduation. Assessment is an observation of whether students met the

intended outcome.)

1. Does your program have student learning outcomes that have been reviewed and approved by

program faculty?

a. Yes

2. Please list the student outcomes and the schedule for assessing each outcome. Each outcome

should be measured at least once every three years.

The last assessed/evaluated SOs are listed below. Outcomes a-k were assessed for the 2017-

2018 academic year while outcomes l-o are considered program specific and are not directly

assessed.

a. An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering

b. An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data

c. An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within

realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health

and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability

d. An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams

e. An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems

f. An ability to understand professional and ethical responsibility

g. An ability to communicate effectively

h. The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a

global, economic, environmental, and societal context

i. A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning

j. A knowledge of contemporary issues

k. An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for

engineering practice

l. Demonstrated proficiency in statics, dynamics, strength of materials, fluid mechanics,

thermodynamics, and electrical circuits.

m. A fundamental knowledge of the geological sciences; including mineral and rock

identification and properties.

n. Demonstrated proficiency in engineering topics related to both surface and

underground mining; including, mining methods, planning and design, ground control

and rock mechanic, health and safety, environmental issues, and ventilation.

o. Demonstrated proficiency in additional engineering topics; such as, rock

fragmentation, materials handling, mineral processing, mine surveying, and valuation

and resources/reserve estimation.

The following student outcomes are the updated ABET outcomes from 2019. These outcomes

will be assessed in the 2020-2021 academic year.

Students graduating from the Mining Program at Montana Tech will attain:

1. An ability to identify, formulate, and solve complex engineering problems by applying

principles of engineering, science, and mathematics.

2. An ability to apply engineering design to produce solutions that meet specified needs

with consideration of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as global, cultural, social,

environmental, and economic factors.

3. An ability to communicate effectively with a range of audiences.

4. An ability to recognize ethical and professional responsibilities in engineering situations

and make informed judgments, which must consider the impact of engineering solutions

in global, economic, environmental, and societal context.

5. An ability to function effectively on a team whose members together provide leadership,

create a collaborative and inclusive environment, establish goals, plan tasks, and meet

objectives.

6. An ability to develop and conduct appropriate experimentation, analyze and interpret

data, and use engineering judgment to draw conclusions.

7. An ability to develop and conduct appropriate experimentation, analyze and interpret

data, and use engineering judgment to draw conclusions.

Academic Year

Outcome 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23

a thru k (2017-18), 1-7 (starting 2019-20) x x

3. Do you use both direct and indirect measures of learning in assessing your student outcomes?

(Direct measures of learning are assessments that measure something the student has

demonstrated, such as a specific test question or group of questions, completion of an

assignment or project, or other learning artifact. Indirect assessments are aggregated

assessments, such as grades in a course that addresses the student outcome, or they may

measure the perception of a student’s skill in attaining an outcome such as improving attitudes

about a subject or increasing understanding of a specific field.)

In 2017-18, we used both. For the 2020-21 assessment/eval, we will focus primary on

direct measures and only utilize indirect measures as a secondary measurement.

4. Have you mapped each student outcome to specific courses or extracurricular activities?

a. Yes

Student Learning Outcome Assessment Results: (Assessment is the process of quantifying what

students know, understand or can demonstrate. It is a framework for collecting data and other

documentation that the students have acquired knowledge, skills and attitudes through the

implementation of effective teaching.)

Four metrics are used for the 2017-18 assessment cycle to measure attainment of the SOs:

• Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) exam results.

o The FE exam is required for graduates, however with a low number of students, NCEES

recommends the use of the “Scaled Score” for assessment purposes rather than the

“Ratio Score”. The scaled score normalizes the exam results and allows for a measure of

uncertainty in each subject area due to low sample size. Levels of attainment were set

based on the typical ratio score and converted to scaled score values using the

methodology recommended in: Using the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE)

Examination as an Outcomes Assessment Tool, NCEES, 2018.

• Course Performance Indicator Scores (CPIS) – specific work in a class or the overall final grade in

a given class.

• Educational Testing Service (ETS) exam results.

• Participation in extra curricular activities (ECA).

Also, each SO is separated into measurable performance indicators (PI) and the metrics are used to

assess attainment of the PIs. The following tables show the SOs, PIs and associated metrics used for

assessment.

CategoryLevel of Attainment Ratio

(Scaled Score)Assignment Level of Attainment (%) Category Level of Attainment (%) Activity Level of Attainment (%)

Mathematics & Adv.

Eng. Math

Probability &

Statistics

Chemistry

Material Science

Statics

Dynamics

Strength of

Materials

Fluid Mechanics

Heat, Mass & Energy

Transfer

Electricity, Power, &

Magnetism

FG in Geomechanics

Lab

FG in Ventilation

Lab

b.2 have and apply the ability to analyze and interpret data

Instrumentation

and Data

Acquisition

Exc = above 1.0 (0.0)

Sat = 0.8 (-0.6) to 1.0 (0.0)

Critical Thinking

Score

Exc = above 90

Sat = 75 to 90

c.1have and apply knowledge of safety, health and environmental

constraints

Safety, Health and

Environment

Exc = above 1.05 (0.15)

Sat = 0.8 (-0.6) to 1.05 (0.15)

d.1 have an ability to function on multidisciplinary teamsMIN 499 - FG & Peer

Reviews

Exc = above 90

Sat = 75 to 90

Students conduct peer reviews during senior design and the final

course grade serves as an indicator to the success of the teamwork

e.1demonstrate the ablility to identify, formulate, and solve

engineering problemsMIN 305 - FG

Exc = above 90

Sat = 75 to 90

Unit Mining Operaitons is the foundational course where engineering

problems related to powered haulage, hoisting, compressed air,

pumping, etc are considered. Each week a homework assignment is

focused on solving problems related to different topics and the final

course grades provide an indication as to how well the students can

solve a variety of these problems.

f.1demonstrate and understanding of professional and ethical

responsibility

Ethics and

Professional

Practice

Exc = above 1.05 (0.15)

Sat = 0.8 (-0.6) to 1.05 (0.15)

g.1 demonstrate effective writing and reading skillsWriting & Reading

Scores

Exc = above 90

Sat = 75 to 90

g.2 demonstrate effective presentation skillsMIN 499 - Final

Preso. Rubric

Exc = above 90

Sat = 75 to 90

The final presentations in senior design are graded by several faculty

members, project sponsors, and industrial advisory board members.

The graded rubrics are aggregated to ensure a variety of audiences are

included.

h.1have and apply knowledge of the impact of engineering solutions in

regards to global and societal conext

Humanities & Social

Sciences Score

Exc = above 90

Sat = 75 to 90


regards to environmental context

MIN 444 - Final

Project Grades

Exc = above 90

Sat = 75 to 90

The Environmental Management & Design of Mines course includes a

final project where students must prepare a permit application for a

mining operation. These projects expose students to the full spectrum

of environmental considerations related to mine design and planning.

h.3 have and apply knowledge of engineering economicsEngineering

Economics

Exc = above 1.05 (0.15)

Sat = 0.8 (-0.6) to 1.05 (0.15)

i.1demonstrate the recognition of the need for, and their ability to

engage in life-long learning

Professional Society

Membership

Exc = above 75%

participation

Sat = 50% to 75%

Membership in a professional society indicates student's desire to

expand their professional education beyond higher education.

j.1demonstrate their willingness to pursue knowledge of

contemporary issues in the mining industry

Professional Conf.

Attendance

Exc = above 50%

attendance

Sat = 30% to 50%

Attendance at professional conferences exposes students to state of

the art techniques and current challenges faced by industry.

k.1demonstrate the ability to learn and utilize modern mine design

softwareMIN 310 - FG

Exc = above 95

Sat = 85 to 95

k.2 demonstrate the ability to use modern mine surveying instrumentsMIN 216 - Final

Exam Grade

Exc = above 95

Sat = 85 to 95

h. - The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in

a global, economic, environmental and societal context.

i. - A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning.

j. - A knowledge of contemporary issues.

k. - An ability to use techniques, skills and modern engineering tools necessary for

engineering practice.

c. - An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within

realistic constraints; such as, economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health

and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability.

d. - An ability to function on multidisciplinary teams.

e. - An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.

f. - An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.

g. - An ability to communicate effectively.

ETSNotes

Metric

ECA

Geomechanics and Ventilation are the primary experimental labs

located within the Mining Department. The average grades in these

labs provide insight into the capabilities of students in applicable lab

situations

Exc = above 90

Sat = 75 to 90b.1 demonstrate the ability to design and conduct experiments

CPIS

a. - An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering.

b. - An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.

SO PIFE Exam

a.1 have and apply knowledge of mathematics and statisticsExc = above 1.05 (0.15)

Sat = 0.8 (-0.6) to 1.05 (0.15)

a.2have and apply knowledge of general chemistry and materials

science

Exc = above 1.0 (0.0)

Sat = 0.8 (-0.6) to 1.0 (0.0)

a.3 have and apply knowledge of engineering fundamentalsExc = above 1.0 (0.0)

Sat = 0.8 (-0.6) to 1.0 (0.0)

Section 3: Student Learning Outcomes Evaluation (Evaluation is an opportunity for you to critically

reflect on the assessment grade in the previous step, and interpret the meaning. For example, if you set

a performance target of an average grade of C or higher on a lab assignment, and the target has been

met someone in your program may note that while the average is C, that reflects lots of high scores, but

over half the students receiving a grade of C or less, which may not be acceptable. Conversely, you may

get 100% of students meeting a target, and decide that you need to increase the skill level on that target

to become more rigorous.)

1. Please describe the process by which student outcomes are evaluated. Who is involved in the

process, how frequently does this process typically take place, how did you determine your evaluation

grade?

The faculty review the assessment results and meet to discuss. They vote on the evaluation

grade for each PI and provide “actions” to be taken. See the below tables for the evaluation

results for 2017-18.

2. Have criteria been defined to determine when a student outcome needs to be reviewed or

revised?

a. Yes

3. Have criteria been identified to determine when additional resources or interventions need to

be implemented to ensure that students can meet the student outcomes?

a. Yes

4. Describe any modifications to the Student Outcomes Assessment that have been implemented

since your last evaluation was conducted.

Several actions were recommended and are currently being implemented. See the below tables

5. Describe any new interventions that have been recommended to help increase the percentage

of students who meet the performance metric for any student objective since your last

evaluation was conducted.

See below tables.

CategoryLevel of Attainment Ratio

(Scaled Score)Score Grade Notes

Mathematics & Adv.

Eng. Math

Probability &

Statistics

Chemistry

Material Science

Statics

Dynamics

Strength of

Materials

Fluid Mechanics

Heat, Mass & Energy

Transfer

Electricity, Power, &

Magnetism


Instrumentation

and Data

Acquisition

Exc = above 1.0 (0.0)

Sat = 0.8 (-0.6) to 1.0 (0.0)0.00 +/- 0.33 Satisfactory

Spring 2018 FE Results, see trend graphic for

more detail.


constraints

Safety, Health and

Environment

Exc = above 1.05 (0.15)

Sat = 0.8 (-0.6) to 1.05 (0.15)-0.18 +/- 0.33 Satisfactory


more detail.

d.1 have an ability to function on multidisciplinary teams


engineering problems


responsibility

Ethics and

Professional

Practice

Exc = above 1.05 (0.15)



more detail.

g.1 demonstrate effective writing and reading skills

g.2 demonstrate effective presentation skills





h.3 have and apply knowledge of engineering economicsEngineering

Economics

Exc = above 1.05 (0.15)



more detail.






software

k.2 demonstrate the ability to use modern mine surveying instruments














Metric

-0.15 +/- 0.33 Satisfactory

Spring 2018 FE Results, Average Scaled Score

for 2 categories, see trend graphic for more

detail.

-0.12 +/- 0.33 Satisfactory



detail.

0.13 +/- 0.33

b.1 demonstrate the ability to design and conduct experiments



SO PIFE Exam

Excellent



detail.

a.1 have and apply knowledge of mathematics and statisticsExc = above 1.05 (0.15)

Sat = 0.8 (-0.6) to 1.05 (0.15)


science

Exc = above 1.0 (0.0)

Sat = 0.8 (-0.6) to 1.0 (0.0)

a.3 have and apply knowledge of engineering fundamentalsExc = above 1.0 (0.0)

Sat = 0.8 (-0.6) to 1.0 (0.0)

Assignment Level of Attainment (%) Score Grade Notes

FG in Geomechanics

Lab93.2%

FG in Ventilation

Lab92.5%



constraints

d.1 have an ability to function on multidisciplinary teamsMIN 499 - FG & Peer

Reviews

Exc = above 90

Sat = 75 to 90

81% FG & 90%

PRSatisfactory Spring 2018 Senior Design Grades


engineering problemsMIN 305 - FG

Exc = above 90

Sat = 75 to 9087.4% FG Satisfactory

Spring 2018 Unit Mining Operations Final

Grades


responsibility


g.2 demonstrate effective presentation skillsMIN 499 - Final

Preso. Rubric

Exc = above 90

Sat = 75 to 9086% Satisfactory

Spring 2018 Senior Design Final Presentation

Rubric, 3 faculty & 3 industry representatives





MIN 444 - Final

Project Grades

Exc = above 90

Sat = 75 to 9086.70% Satisfactory

Spring 2018 Env. Mgmt. & Design of Mines

Permit Project

h.3 have and apply knowledge of engineering economics






softwareMIN 310 - FG

Exc = above 95

Sat = 85 to 9599% Satisfactory

Fall 2017 Computer Aided Mine Design Final

Grades, The grade was heavily weighted on

attendance and may not accurately represent

individual ability to learn the software so

overall grade was lowered to Sat.

k.2 demonstrate the ability to use modern mine surveying instrumentsMIN 216 - Final

Exam Grade

Exc = above 95

Sat = 85 to 9597.5% Excellent

Spring 2018 Mine Survey Final Exam Grade

based on individual perfomance with survey

instruments














Metric

Exc = above 90

Sat = 75 to 90b.1 demonstrate the ability to design and conduct experiments

CPIS

Satisfactory

Spring 2018 Grades indicate Excellent grade,

however upon discussion these grades do

not adequately assess ability to design

experiments, only conducting experiments

as assigned



SO PI

a.1 have and apply knowledge of mathematics and statistics


science

a.3 have and apply knowledge of engineering fundamentals

Category Level of Attainment (%) Score Grade Notes

b.2 have and apply the ability to analyze and interpret dataCritical Thinking

Score

Exc = above 90

Sat = 75 to 90100% Excellent

2018-2019 ETS Results

2017-2018 unavailable


constraints





responsibility

g.1 demonstrate effective writing and reading skillsWriting & Reading

Scores

Exc = above 90

Sat = 75 to 90

Reading =

100%

Writing = 97%

Excellent2018-2019 ETS Results





Humanities & Social

Sciences Score

Exc = above 90

Sat = 75 to 90

Hum = 100%

SS = 100%Excellent

2018-2019 ETS Results










software















ETS

Metric




SO PI



science


Activity Level of Attainment (%) Score Grade Notes



constraints





responsibility










Professional Society

Membership

Exc = above 75%

participation

Sat = 50% to 75%

56% Satisfactory

30/54 undergradute students

Note this is an estimated number, future

assessments will track more accurately



Professional Conf.

Attendance

Exc = above 50%

attendance

Sat = 30% to 50%

2018 - 17%

2019 - 41%Satisfactory

2018 limited participation due to airfare. 9/54

undergraduates

2019 transportation provided - 24/59


software















Metric

ECA




SO PI



science


This is what we had in ABET

Outcome

Course Name a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o

MIN 152 Mapping & Surface Modeling X X X MIN 210 Plane Surveying X X X MIN 215 Mining Methods X X X X X X MIN 216 Mine Surveying X X X X X

MIN 230 Miner Safety Management X X X X X X X X EGEN 325 Engineering Economic Analysis X X X X

MIN 140 Practical Underground Mining X X X X X X X

EMET 232 Processing of Particulate Systems X X X

EMET 232 Processing of Particulate Systems Lab X X X X X

MIN 305 Unit Mining Operations X X X X X X X

M.EC 4000 Economics of the Mineral Industries X X X X X X X MIN 310 Computer Aided Mine Design X X X X MIN 401 Mine Design – Surface X X X X X X X X

MIN 408 Valuation of Mineral Properties X X X X X X X MIN 405 Mine Design Underground X X X X X X X X X

MIN 444 Environmental Mgt & Design Of Mines X X X X X X X MIN 456 Mine Ventilation X X X X X MIN 458 Mine Management X X X X X X X MIN 467 Geomechanics I X X X X X

MIN 499 Mine Design Project X X X X X

Process Improvement

1. Are there elements of the Students Outcomes Assessment that are overly burdensome to

perform or manage and need to be modified?

No, in 2016 we had proposed a staggered assessment cycle where assessment occurred

each year but for different student outcomes. In the following years, this proved to be

too burdensome and necessitated changing to the current system that has less

assessment points but full assessments will be completed every 2-3 years. The

department feels this is more achievable and will allow better visibility into the overall

effectiveness of the program in regards to student outcomes.

If yes, please explain.

2. Please describe any weaknesses in the student outcomes assessment that need to be remedied.

The 2017-2018 assessment did not prove to be successful in assessing certain student

outcomes (see above table). These performance indicators are being reevaluated for

2020-2021 and will ensure primary focus on direct measures.

3. What professional development topics would be most useful to you with respect to academic

program assessment in the future?

All faculty have attended ABET assessment training and one faculty is an ABET Program

Evaluator. Faculty will consider attending future ABET training and/or conferences to remain

current and learn best practices.

Section 4: Contributions to Mission Fulfillment (NWCCU)

1. Core Theme 1 Education and Knowledge, Objective 1 Indicator of Achievement a, identify

benchmarks and program quality metrics for recruiting, enrollment, advising, retention,

teaching, engagement, and research on the basis of evidence supplied by (where appropriate):

student satisfaction, faculty teaching evaluations, NSSE, ETS, etc.

Recruitment

Yes No

Has someone from your program attended at least one recruiting event on campus this year?

X

Has someone from your program provided tours or met with students who are visiting campus in an effort to recruit them?

X

Has someone from your program participated in an off-campus event specifically intended to recruit students (such as a college fair or a job fair)?

X

Has someone from your program been invited as a speaker for a career day or a panel session on careers in your field that wasn’t a specific recruiting event, but where you spoke about opportunities at Tech or in specific majors?

X

Does your program utilize a program-specific social media account to increase awareness of program activities and accomplishments?

X

Please list any other recruitment activities in which someone from your department has

participated this year.

• Faculty engage in recruiting, whether directly or indirectly, in nearly all of their

extracurricular and social activities.

Overall, were events organized by the recruiting office a good use of your time? Are there ways

to increase the effectiveness?

• It is difficult for departmental faculty to assess whether the events organized by the

recruiting office were a good use of faculty time. We have informal feedback that faculty

meetings are helpful for students who are undecided on their major or are choosing

between multiple mining engineering programs.

In the future, what ways you would want to be more involved in recruitment events on campus?

• Faculty are dedicated to the success of the department, and faculty acknowledge that

recruitment is imperative to success. Faculty will continue to participate in recruiting

activities organized by the recruiting office.

Advising

Percent of program faculty who engage in face-to-face advising 100%

Yes No

Based on the information provided by the Director of Institutional Research:

Did the percent of students registering during priority registration support your program goals?

X

Did the percent of faculty submitting 20th and 40th day grades support your program goals?

X

Are the ACE hours posted somewhere in your department where students can easily find them? (Located on website for most current information)

X

Have you posted contact information for the Dean of Students and Counseling Services somewhere in your department where students can easily find them? (Located on website for most current information)

X

Please share any plans you have to increase participation in these activities or use these to

increase retention in your program.

• The department will follow the lead of the Dean of Students and Counseling Services

where/when they determine that departmental involvement will support or promote

increased participation.

Enrollment

Yes No

Have you reviewed your enrollment trends? X

Have you reviewed completion rates for your department? (How many students withdrew during the semester?)

X

Have you reviewed courses in your department with low completion rates? X

Does your department sponsor a discipline-specific student organization or other co-curricular activities?

X

Given the current resources in your department, what is your enrollment capacity?

• There are two perspectives on this question: sustaining our ABET accreditation and

achieving SME targets for faculty/student ratio. With five tenure-track lines, we should

be able to achieve a capacity of 100 students (20:1 ratio). I believe our accreditation

status is satisfactory at five tenure-track lines.

What are your plans to increase or stabilize enrollment in your department?

• We have retained a new Chancellor with extensive recruiting experience. Our plans are

to support the new efforts of the recruiting office and to codify advising policies.

What are your plans to increase within-semester completion rates? Are there specific courses

that need intervention, or are there additional services required?

• Calculus completion is key for our department. Adequate Calc tutoring is already

available.

Retention

Yes No

During your program review, did you discuss

Fall-to-spring retention rates within your program? X

Fall-to-fall retention rates within your program? X

Graduation Rates within your program? X

The Student Satisfaction Inventory within your program? X

Describe any revisions, curricular changes, or interventions designed to improve retention rates

within your program.

• Faculty discussed retention of students who have completed Calc III and found the rates

to be acceptable. Calculus completion is key for our curriculum, and retention depends

upon successful completion of the Calc sequence.

Teaching

Yes No

Has someone from your academic program participated in at least one professional development activity focused on improving teaching?

X

On Campus? Off Campus? Online? Teaching Circle? Teaching Circle

Has someone from your academic program offered at least one event or activity related to improving teaching?

X

Has someone from your academic program been the recipient of a Rose and Anna Bush Award(s) and/or a Merit Award(s)?

X

What evidence do you have for high quality teaching within your program?

• The Student Outcome Assessment of Section 2 provides the most comprehensive

evidence of effective teaching pedagogy. The student surveys are also reviewed as an

indication of the acceptability of the teaching style, which can sometimes equate to

teaching quality.

What steps are you taking to improve teaching in your department?

• The department follows a rigorous assessment process focused on the Student

Outcome Assessment. If indicators related to a given Outcome demonstrate a need for

improvement of teaching, then the faculty address the deficiency in a way that improves

the related Outcome.

What types of professional development have you found most useful?

• Faculty finds that consulting and direct engagement with industry are beneficial for

maintaining currency in the faculty’s field of expertise. Increased industry exposure also

appears to directly correlate to improved scores on a faculty member’s student

evaluations.

Engagement

Yes No

Has at least one person in your program been on a college-wide committee this year?

X

Has at least one person in your program been on a university-wide committee this year?

X

Has at least one person in your program been on a state-wide committee this year?

X

Has at least one person in your program been involved in a national board or committee this year?

X

Research

Yes No

Has at least one person in your program presented their research at an external conference this year?

X

Has at least one person in your program published in a peer reviewed journal this year?

X

Has at least one person in your program written and submitted a grant proposal to an external funding agency this year?

X

Has at least one person in your program received an award related to research this year?

X

What percentage of those proposals were funded? $ 0

What was the total amount (in dollars) awarded by external funding agencies? $ 0

2. Core Theme 1 Education and Knowledge, Objective 2 Indicator of Achievement a, summarize

the educational opportunities (and participation rate) available to students in the program and

participation of graduates.

Number of Department Participants

Number of Awards

Techxpo 100% of grad students graduating in spring semester

Undergraduate Research Program (URP)/ Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship (SURF)

0

Other funded student research 3

Conference Presentations >2

Team Competitions 1

Internships >50

Service Learning Unknown

Symposia 100% of seniors

Other (describe):

Mining Engineering (2009-2012)

Number of Graduates 38

Participated in 0 of the above opportunities prior to graduation

0

Participated in 1 of the above opportunities prior to graduation

0

Participated in 2 or more of the above opportunities prior to graduation

38

Percent of Graduates participating in 2 or more of the above opportunities prior to graduation

100

3. Core Theme 2 Student Achievement, Objective 2, Indicator of Achievement d, Percent of

graduates passing standardized professional exams (i.e. ETS, NCLEX, EIT, etc.)

a. If there are no standardized professional exams for the program, respond with NA.

• 100% pass rate for ETS (2018-2019)

• FE Pass Rates – 75% (2017-2018), 14% (2018-2019)

4. Core Theme 3 Engaged Faculty

N Number Reviewed for Teaching

Number Meeting Standards for Teaching

Number Reviewed for Research

Number Meeting Standards for Research

Number Reviewed for Service

Number Meeting Standards for Service

Full Time Tenure Track Faculty 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Full Time Non Tenure Track Faculty 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Part Time Faculty 1 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A

Total 6 5 5 5 5 5 5

Appendices

-0.80

-0.60

-0.40

-0.20

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

Fall 2016 Spring 2017 Fall 2017 Spring 2018 Fall 2018 Spring 2019

FE E

xam

"Sc

aled

Sco

re"

Performance Indicator c.1 - Knowledge of Safety, Health and Environmental Constraints

Safety Health and Environment

Annual Academic Program Assessment Report

Documents

Transcript of Annual Academic Program Assessment Report