TAC Self-Study Questionnaire Self... · Web viewApril 2006 Self-Study Report Mechanical Engineering...

ABET Self-Study ReportApril 2006

Self-Study Report

Mechanical Engineering Technology Associate Degree ProgramPenn State University

Hazleton Campus

PREPARED FOR:Technology Accreditation CommissionAccreditation Board for Engineering and Technology111 Market Place, Suite 1050Baltimore, MD 21202-4012Phone: 410.347.7700Fax: 410.625.2238e-mail: [email protected]: http://www.abet.org

Penn State University – Hazleton Campus 1 April 2006

http://www.abet.org/

mailto:[email protected]

School of Engineering Design, Technology and Professional Programs

(SEDTAPP)

The Pennsylvania State University

Table of Contents:A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION......................................................................................4

A.1 Program Title..................................................................................................................................4

A.2 Program Modes...............................................................................................................................4

A.3 Actions to Correct Previous Findings...........................................................................................4TAC/ABET Comments on Institutional Factors...................................................................................................4

Action Taken by the Institution…………………………………………………………………………………………………………...4Action Taken by the Institution....................................................................................................................................................................5

TAC/ABET Program Weakness...........................................................................................................................5Action Taken by the Institution…………………………………………………………………………………………………………...5

TAC/ABET Program Concern..............................................................................................................................7Action Taken by the Institution....................................................................................................................................................................7

TAC/ABET Other Comments on the Program.....................................................................................................7Action Taken by the Institution....................................................................................................................................................................7Action Taken by the Institution....................................................................................................................................................................7

B. ACCREDITATION SUMMARY...........................................................................................8B.1 Program Educational Objectives..................................................................................................8

B.1.a-Mission........................................................................................................................................................8B.1.b-Educational Objectives................................................................................................................................8

B.2 Program Outcomes.........................................................................................................................9B.2.a-MET Program Outcomes.............................................................................................................................9B.2.b-Relationship Between Program Outcomes and ABET Criterion 2:..........................................................10B.2.c-Relationship Between MET Program Outcomes and Program Objectives:..............................................12B.2.d-Relationship Between MET Program Outcomes and Course Outcomes:.................................................13B.2.e-Organization of Display Materials Demonstrating Accomplishment of Outcomes:.................................15

B.3 Assessment and Evaluation.........................................................................................................16B.3.a-MET Program CQI Process:......................................................................................................................16

1. The Engineering Technology Council (ETC)…………………………………………………………………………………………172. The Engineering Technology Advisory Board (ETAB):........................................................................................................................183. System-wide Program Coordinators.....................................................................................................................................................184. Program Curriculum Committees.........................................................................................................................................................195. Course Chairpersons.............................................................................................................................................................................20

B.3.b-Administrative Support Structure for Engineering Technology:..............................................................23B.3.c-Examples of Continuous Improvement of MET Program……………………………………………….23

1. Examples of CQI Activities of SEDTAPP and Supporting Committees…………………………………………………………….23 2. Examples of CQI Activities of MET Curriculum Committee and MET Course Chairs……………………………………………..24 3. Examples of Continuous Quality Improvement-Closing the Loop at the System-wide Level……………………………………….24

Program Improvement…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….24 Course Improvement………………………………………………………………………………………………………………26 4. Examples of Continuous Quality Improvement - Closing the Loop at the Hazleton Campus……………………………………….31 Program Improvement……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..31 Course Improvement………………………………………………………………………………………………………………33 5. Assessment of Program Educational Objectives……………………………………………………………………………………..34.


B. 4 Program Characteristics………………………………………………………………………...34B.4.a-MET Program Curriculum……………………………………………………………………………….34B.4.b-Minimum Credits and Credit Distribution………………………………………………………………38B.4.c-Quality Assurance of Core Courses……………………………………………………………………...41 B.4.d-Course Descriptions……………………………………………………………………………………...43B.4.e-Demonstration of Adequate Attention to Key Curriculum Components………………………………..43B.4.f-Co-operative Education Provisions………………………………………………………………………43B.4.g-Additional Review Materials…………………………………………………………………………….43

B.5 Program Faculty………………………………………………………………………………….44B.5.a-Faculty Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………………45

Biographical Data-Wieslaw Grebski, Ph.D……………………………………………………………………………………………46 Biographical Data-Raj Amireddy………………………………………………………………………………………………………48 Biographical Data-Maryam Ghorieshi…………………………………………………………………………………………………50 B.5.b-Relevance of Faculty Background to Program Curriculum…………………………………………….52 B.5.c-Adequacy of Faculty-Student Interactions………………………………………………………………52 B.5.d-Technical Currency of Faculty…………………………………………………………………………..52 B.5.e-Professional Development Program for Faculty………………………………………………………...53 B.5.f-Faculty Input into Program Objectives…………………………………………………………………..53 B.5.g-Faculty Workload………………………………………………………………………………………..54 B.5.h-Faculty Teaching Assignments………………………………………………………………………….54

B.6 Program Facilities………………………………………………………………………………...56B.6.a-Physical Facilities………………………………………………………………………………………..56B.6.b-Adequacy of Facilities…………………………………………………………………………………...58

B.7 Institutional and External Support……………………………………………………………...59B.7.a-Institutional and Financial Support………………………………………………………………………59B.7.b-Support Expenditures for the Program…………………………………………………………………..63B.7.c-Characteristics of the Industrial Advisory Committee for the MET Program…………………………...64

B.8 Program Criteria………………………………………………………………………………….65

APPENDIX - CROSS REFERENCE: SELF-STUDY TO TAC OF ABET ASSESSMENT FORM…………………………………………………………………………………………...67


A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

A.1 Program TitleThe program covered by this report is titled Mechanical Engineering Technology (MET). Students graduating from the program are awarded the degree of Associate in Mechanical Engineering Technology. There are no options in the program.

A.2 Program ModesThe MET program is offered only as a traditional day-schedule program. There are no off-site, co-operative, on-line, distance-learning, or other non-traditional offerings. However, some courses are offered during the evening hours on a rotating basis to accommodate non-traditional students.

A.3 Actions to Correct Previous FindingsThe last accreditation visit of the MET program occurred in September of 2000, and the final report documenting the findings of that visit was issued in August of 2001. There was one “weakness”, one concern”, and four comments found with respect to both the Institution and the MET program.

TAC/ABET Comments on Institutional Factors

It was observed that although there is room for an elective course in the curricula of both the electrical and mechanical engineering technology programs, there is no plan for a cooperative education program in either of the two programs. Consideration might be given to developing formal cooperative education programs to enhance student experiences in internships and cooperative programs with local industry.

Action Taken by the Institution

In order to enhance students’ industrial experience and get students involved in cooperative projects, the course, MET 297, was developed. A majority of the MET students are taking MET 297 in order to satisfy the technical elective requirement. Students in the MET 297 course are doing a design project for local manufacturing companies. While doing the projects, students are working with the company’s engineering staff and are being supervised by the faculty. A majority of those projects are implemented by the company. The student can see the implementation of their work. Some projects are sponsored by the Northeastern Pennsylvania Industrial Resource Center so the students can also benefit financially from their work. Although internships are available, they are not required. To require an internship, there would have to be a change in the MET curriculum. This change cannot be made at the Campus level. Discussions related to these changes are currently being held at the College level.

Policies of the United States Department of Education prescribe that literature of

institutions refer to their ABET program accreditation by providing complete contact information of ABET. This information enables the public to contact ABET for the


purpose of learning the nature and level of standards of programs holding ABET accreditation. TAC of ABET accredited programs should be specifically identified as “accredited by the Technology Accreditation Commission of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, 111 Market Place, Suite 1050, Baltimore, MD 21202 – Telephone (410)347-7700.” Though the institution was advised in the previous TAC of ABET visit to provide the address of ABET in their publications, the university has inadvertently left out the address from their university catalog. The institution is requested to give attention to this requirement and utilize this wording in an easily identifiable location in literature such as the college catalog.


The campus does recognize this omission. However, the University has stopped printing these catalogs two years ago. Presently, the University uses a web based version of these catalogs. We have advised the network administrators to include the complete contact information of ABET on its website.

TAC/ABET Program Weakness

The program does not provide adequate laboratory experiences for students, particularly in the areas of manufacturing processes, materials, thermal and fluid sciences, and controls/automation. Students do not receive any laboratory experiences in conventional machining, foundry, heat-treating, metallography, polymers, thermodynamics, heat transfer, fluid mechanics, and data acquisition. Much of the existing equipment utilizes old technology and is not of the type currently used in industry. Since one of the objectives of engineering technology is the development of technical skills, all students should be thoroughly familiar with the use and operation of analytical or measurement equipment common to their major field of study. It was recommended that the program provide more laboratory experiences for students using equipment of current technology and of the type encountered in industry.

ABET Criteria: Criterion I.K.2 states “…Laboratory manuals, experiments, and projects should clearly indicate that the facilities are being used to educate students in modern techniques of applied design, construction, operation, maintenance, testing, production processes, etc.” Criterion I.K.3 states that “it is particularly important that instruction in engineering technology be conducted in an atmosphere of realism. Theory courses…should be accompanied by coordinated laboratory experiences, including measurement, collection, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of data.” Further, criterion I.K.4 states that “Laboratory equipment…should be of the type that would be encountered in industry and practice.”


In accordance with an agreement between the institution and the Hazleton Area School District, one of the required laboratory courses, IET 216, Manufacturing Processes Laboratory, is being taught at the Career Center of the Hazleton Area School District. The equipment at the center is the type that is currently used in industry. The Mechanical


Engineering Technology students are now getting hands-on experience in machine tools, machining, welding, cutting, brazing, sheet metal fabrication, foundry process, manufacturing, planning, and manual and computer-aided programming for CNC and robotics.

In addition, the topics listed below were incorporated into IET101 – Manufacturing Materials, Processes Laboratory and MCHT214-Strength and Properties of Materials Laboratory.

a. Data Acquisition: Students use state of the art Mitutoyo Data Acquisition system to acquire data and compute statistical interpretation. This is incorporated into the student laboratory experiment entitled “Automated Data Acquisition and Evaluation of Process Capability”. A new set of data acquisition tools used in conjunction with a PC has been acquired to integrate a majority of the laboratory experiences to real-time data acquisition systems with a sampling rate up to 240 samples/second from DATAQ Instruments in Akron, Ohio. These devices are the same type as those employed in industry to monitor various system parameters like, temperature, pressure, stress, etc. The laboratory experiments are being upgraded to utilize this system in the course, MCHT214-Strength and Properties of Materials Laboratory.

b. Fluid Mechanics: The department procured fluid circuit tester # 9009 from Technovate, Inc. The students were able to experiment with the concepts of pressure drop in a pipe flow and Bernoulli principle using this system. This is incorporated into the student laboratory experiment entitled “Fluid Circuits”. Also, the students were able to experiment with the effect of heat on the viscosity of various lubricant oils. This was incorporated into the student laboratory experiment entitled “Viscosity Experiment”.

c. Heat Transfer & Thermodynamics: Two experiments were developed to expound on the principles of thermal expansion and thermal conductivity. These concepts were incorporated into the student laboratory experiments entitled “Coefficient of Thermal Expansion” and “Thermal Conductivity”.

d. Polymers: Students are exposed to these materials in the creep testing experiment utilizing SM106 MK II – Creep Measurement Apparatus from Tecquipment, England, to expound on the behavior of polymer materials in static loads and varying temperatures. This was incorporated into the student laboratory experiment entitled “Creep Testing”.

e. Heat Treating and Metallography: The department has acquired a state of the art oven, LINDBERG 5100 series with 1200 degree Celsius maximum temperature capability from G.S. Lindberg, A division of Allied Signal. This is the kind used in industry and research laboratories. This system gives the students exposure to heat treatment, annealing, and PLC programming concepts. The system is equipped with the PLC system to program and control the temperature for ramp up, ramp down, and set temperature(s) as done in industry. The sample material for this experiment was acquired from local industry and adopted into the course.


These concepts were incorporated into the student laboratory experiments entitled “Effect of Heat Treatment on Hardness” or “Precipitation Hardening”.

TAC/ABET Program Concern

The program has a part-time technician, but the support is provided primarily after regular working hours. This arrangement forces the program faculty to do many of the laboratory set-ups, and occasionally perform equipment maintenance. Section I.K.7. of the ABET criteria states that “Satisfactory procedures and/or qualified support personnel for repair and maintenance of laboratory and other instructional equipment and for general laboratory assistance must be provided.” It is recommended that technician support and/or other satisfactory procedures be provided during regular working hours.


The working hours of the laboratory technician have been extended. The technician is available as needed to provide laboratory set-ups and equipment maintenance during regular working hours.

TAC/ABET Other Comments on the Program

MET 206 is entitled “Dynamics and Machine Elements” but does not contain any topic coverage of machine elements. MET 210W is entitled “Product Design” but is primarily a machine elements course. It is suggested that courses or course titles be changed to reflect the actual topic coverage.


The names of those two courses have been changed according to the suggestions made by ABET.

There are no technical courses offered in the curriculum that cover topics of thermal science, fluid mechanics, fluid power, and heat transfer. These topics are only covered in the second physics course, PHYSICS 151, and they occupy about one-fourth of the course content. For student understanding of applied aspects of these topics, it is suggested that the program include technical coursework on topics of thermal science, fluid mechanics, fluid power, and heat transfer.


This change is a curricular change and therefore it cannot be made at the Hazleton Campus level. This change is being discussed at the University level and the appropriate change will be made.


B. ACCREDITATION SUMMARY

To be accredited by the Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology (ABET), it is now necessary that engineering technology programs adopt clearly defined and measurable objectives and outcomes. Objectives represent those post-graduation accomplishments that are reasonably expected of program graduates in the first few years after graduation. Outcomes represent the skills, knowledge and capabilities that graduates should possess at the time of graduation so that they are properly prepared to achieve the objectives of the program.

The Penn State MET program is offered at several campuses within the Penn State system, Hazleton being one of them. However, the program is academically controlled and administered by the School of Engineering Design, Technology, and Professional Programs (SEDTAPP), which is a department within Penn State’s College of Engineering. As such, the MET program curriculum, as well as its objectives and outcomes, are common to all offerings of the program. To ensure proper breadth, relevance, and currency, the MET curriculum and the expected objectives and outcomes were established and are maintained through an ongoing process that involves faculty and constituent representation from all campuses where the MET program is offered. The details of this process are described in Section B.3 of this report where continuous quality improvement practices are described. It was through this collective process that the current MET program objectives and outcomes were established. The current objectives and outcomes are described in the following paragraph. The program educational objectives complement the mission of the University as well as the mission of the Hazleton Campus.

B.1 Program Educational Objectives

B.1.a-Mission

The Mechanical Engineering Technology Associate Degree program is a broad-based educational program. The program prepares graduates for technical positions in a wide variety of mechanically oriented industries. The MET program prepares graduates to continue their education toward a Baccalaureate Degree in Engineering Technology. The MET program is providing technical assistance in the area of mechanical engineering technology to business.

B.1.b-Educational Objectives

Graduates of the Mechanical Engineering Technology program will:

1. Have a broad knowledge in the areas of applied design, manufacturing, testing, evaluation, and technical sales, 2D & 3D modeling.

2. Have the ability to enter a Baccalaureate Mechanical Engineering Technology or related Engineering Technology program.

3. Be prepared to communicate effectively and work collaboratively in multi-disciplinary teams.


4. Be able to learn and adapt to changes in a professional work environment.

5. Demonstrate a high standard of professional ethics and be cognizant of social concerns as they relate to the practice of Engineering Technology.

B.2 Program Outcomes

The program objectives outlined above are the achievements that are expected of MET graduates once they leave Penn State and embark on their careers. Program outcomes, on the other hand, are those skills and capabilities that are the foundation on which those achievements can be built. Stated differently, outcomes are the talents, skills, and capabilities that should be imparted to students so that when they leave Penn State, they are well-equipped to succeed at their chosen careers. The Penn State MET program has identified eleven outcomes that provide that foundation.

B.2.a-MET Program Outcomes

At graduation, MET students must:

1. Demonstrate proficiency in applied design, manufacturing processes and mechanics.

2. Be able to apply engineering design processes to solve technical problems through experimentation and analysis.

3. Be able to apply concepts of applied mathematics and science in solving technical problems.

4. Demonstrate proficiencies in computer applications. 5. Be able to produce 2D drawings and 3D parametric solid models as a part of

the applied engineering design process.6. Be able to matriculate into a related baccalaureate engineering technology

program. 7. Be able to communicate their ideas and solutions effectively both in oral and

written form. 8. Be able to demonstrate an ability to work as a professional in a team

environment. 9. Be able to recognize the need for life long learning, be prepared to continue

their education through formal and informal study, and be able to adapt to a continuously changing work environment.

10. Have the ability to understand professional, ethical, and social responsibilities in a diverse and global workplace.

11. Demonstrate a commitment to quality, timeliness, and continuous improvement (through the implementation of established standards, through the completion of laboratory reports, project reports, and assignments on a timely basis).


B.2.b-Relationship between Program Outcomes and ABET Criterion 2:

The preceding discussion describes the views of Penn State faculty and administration regarding appropriate and effective objectives and outcomes for the MET program. However, TAC of ABET also has expectations regarding program outcomes. Those expectations are defined in Criterion 2 of the General Accreditation Criteria and are typically referred to as the “a – k” requirements. In the most recent Criteria, these requirements are –

“An engineering technology program must demonstrate that graduates have

a. appropriate mastery of the knowledge, techniques, skills and modern tools of their disciplines

b. ability to apply current knowledge and adapt to emerging applications of mathematics, science, engineering and technology

c. ability to conduct, analyze and interpret experiments and apply experimental results to improve processes

d. ability to apply creativity in the design of systems, components or processes appropriate to program objectives

e. ability to function effectively on teamsf. ability to identify, analyze and solve technical problemsg. ability to communicate effectivelyh. recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in, lifelong

learningi. ability to understand professional, ethical and social responsibilitiesj. respect for diversity and a knowledge of contemporary professional,

societal and global issuesk. commitment to quality, timeliness and continuous improvement”

In addition to the General Criteria, which apply to all accredited engineering technology programs, ABET stipulates program-specific performance expectations for specific programs. The program-specific criteria for Mechanical Engineering Technology Programs stipulate that

Associate degree programs must demonstrate that graduates can apply the following principles to the specification, installation, fabrication, test, operation, maintenance, sales, or documentation of basic mechanical systems.

a. Technical expertise in a minimum of three subject areas chosen from engineering materials, applied mechanics, applied fluid sciences, applied thermal sciences, and fundamentals of electricity.

b. Technical expertise in manufacturing processes, mechanical design, and computer-aided engineering graphics with added technical depth in at least one of these areas.


c. Expertise in applied physics having an emphasis in applied mechanics plus inorganic chemistry, or, if program objectives do not require chemistry, added technical topics in physics appropriate to the program objectives.

Both the general and the program-specific criteria were considered in the development of and are encompassed by the MET program outcomes. Table B.2.1 below shows the correspondence between MET program outcomes and the ABET’s general and program-specific criteria.

Table B.2.1 – Mapping Correspondence Between Program Outcomes and ABET Criteria

GeneralCritria Program Criteria

PROGRAM OUTCOMES Students should: a b c d e f g h i j k a b c

1 Demonstrate proficiency in applied design, manufacturing processes, and mechanics. X X X X X X X X X

2 Be able to apply engineering design processes to solve technical problems thru experimentation and analysis.

X X X X X

3 Be able to apply concepts of applied mathematics and science in solving technical problems

X X X X

4 Demonstrate proficiencies in computer applications. X X X X

5 Be able to produce 2D drawings and 3D parametric solid models as a part of the applied engineering design process.

X X X

6 Be able to matriculate into a related baccalaureate engineering technology program.

X X X X X X X X X

7 Be able to communicate their ideas and solutions effectively both in oral and written form.

X X

8 Be able to demonstrate an ability to work as a professional in a team environment. X X X X

9 Be able to recognize the need for life long learning, be prepared to continue their education through formal or informal study, and be able to adapt to a continuously changing work environment.

X

10 Have the ability to understand professional, ethical, and social responsibilities in a diverse and global workplace.

X X

11 Demonstrate a commitment to quality timeliness, and continuous improvement (through the implementation of established standards, through the completion of laboratory reports, project reports, and assignments on a timely basis).

X

.


B.2.c-Relationship Between MET Program Outcomes and Program Objectives:

If program outcomes are to provide the proper foundation for achieving program objectives, it is essential that there be a direct correlation between the outcomes and the expected objectives. Table B.2.2 below illustrates this correspondence in general terms.

Table B.2.2 – Mapping Program Outcomes to MET Program Objectives

The following mapping shows how the MET program outcomes lead to the achievement of the previously stated MET program objectives.

Program OBJECTIVESProgram OUTCOMES

(Knowledge or skill demonstrated prior to graduation)

Students should:

I II III IV V

1. Demonstrate proficiency in applied design, manufacturing processes and mechanics. X X

2. Be able to apply engineering design processes to solve technical problems thru experimentation and analysis. X X

3. Be able to apply concepts of applied mathematics and science in solving technical problems. X X

4. Demonstrate proficiencies in computer applications.X

5. Be able to produce 2D drawings and 3D parametric solid models as a part of the applied engineering design process. X X

6. Be able to matriculate into a related baccalaureate engineering technology program. X

7. Be able to communicate their ideas and solutions effectively both in oral and written form. X

8. Be able to demonstrate an ability to work as a professional in a team environment. X X

9. Be able to recognize the need for life long learning, be prepared to continue their education through formal or informal study, and be able to adapt to a continuously changing work environment.

X

10. Have the ability to understand professional, ethical, and social responsibilities in a diverse and global workplace. X X

11. Demonstrate a commitment to quality, timeliness, and continuous improvement (through the implementation of established standards, through the completion of laboratory reports, project reports, and assignments on a timely basis.

X

.


B.2.d-Relationship Between MET Program Outcomes and Course Outcomes:

In general, MET program outcomes are achieved through work in the various courses that make up the MET curriculum. However, to ensure that result, it is necessary to take the final step of identifying and ensuring the relationship among the expected outcomes and the courses that are responsible for achieving those outcomes. That relationship, as currently constituted in the MET curriculum, is illustrated in Table B.2.3. The table indicates those courses that are designed to be the primary repository or vehicle for achieving the various outcomes defined above. Table B.2.3 indicates the primary courses where outcomes are to be focused. However, it is important to note that most, if not all, outcomes are achieved through the influence of many courses and activities. That is, the relationships between program outcomes and program courses shown in Table B.2.3 are not exclusive. The course-to-outcome correlation reflects just the primary arena for specific types of instruction and skill development. They are not necessarily the only venues for development of the indicated outcomes. Specific details of the curriculum and the courses making up the curriculum are covered in a later section of this report.


Table B.2.3 – Mapping Program Outcomes to Courses

Eng

l 15

CA

S 1

00

Mat

h 8

1

Mat

h 8

2

Mat

h 8

3

Phy

s 1

50

Phy

s 1

51

ET

002

EG

T 10

1

EG

T 10

2

EG

T 11

4

EG

T 20

1

ME

T 20

6

ME

T 2

10W

MC

HT

111

MC

HT

213

MC

HT

214

IET

101

IET

215

IET

216

TE H (D

F)

EE

T 10

1

EE

T 10

9 PROGRAM OUTCOMES Students should:

1. Demonstrate proficiency in applied design, manufacturing processes and mechanics.

X X X X X X X

2. Be able to apply engineering design processes to some technical problems thru experimentation and analysis.

X X X

X

3. Be able to apply concepts of applied mathematics and science in solving technical problems.

X X X X

4. Demonstrate proficiencies in computer applications. X X X X X X X

5. Be able to produce 2D drawings and 3D parametric solid models as a part of the applied engineering design process.

X X X X

6. Be able to matriculate into a related baccalaureate engineering technology program..

X X X X X X X X

X

X

X X X X X X X X

X

X

X X

X

X

7. Be able to communicate their ideas and solutions effectively both in oral and written form.

X X X

8. Be able to demonstrate an ability to work as a professional in a team environment.

X X

9. Be able to recognize the need for life long learning, be prepared to continue their education through formal or informal study, and be able to adapt to a continuously changing work environment.

X

10. Have the ability to understand professional, ethical, and social responsibilities in a diverse and global workplace.

X X

X

11. Demonstrate a commitment to quality, timeliness, and continuous improvement (through the implementation of established standards, through the completion of laboratory reports, project reports, and assignments on a timely basis).

X

X X

B.2.e-Organization of Display Materials Demonstrating Accomplishment of Outcomes:

To facilitate the accreditation team’s review of the success of the MET program in achieving its defined outcomes, Table B.2.3 has been used as an organizing framework


for two distinct sets of display materials. Though both sets contain similar information, they are organized differently. One set is organized at the highest level according to the eleven program outcomes, that is, there are eleven folders, one for each outcome listed in Table B.2.3. Each of these ‘Outcome’ folders contains samples of student work, relevant to that outcome, from each of the courses indicated in Table B.2.3. Since it is generally true that no outcome is achieved through the efforts of a single course, a reviewer can, by examining these folders, determine the breadth of development of each outcome across the entire program curriculum.

The second display set provides a more in-depth look at the development of program outcomes. To do so it follows the more traditional approach of organizing display materials into ‘Course’ folders. However, rather than being simply a random collection of course materials and examples of student work, ‘Course’ folders are subdivided into sub-folders that define, in specific terms, how the course supports achievement of the program outcomes related to it. The sub-folders do this by first identifying a series of specific ‘course outcomes’ that, in combination, represent the course’s contributions to achievement of the higher-level program outcomes assigned to the course. Other sub-folders then describe the course activities and assignments designed to achieve the course outcomes, and provide examples of student work relevant to each of those activities and assignments. Thus, a reviewer interested in seeing more detail on how specific courses support accomplishment of higher-level program outcomes can find that detail by examining the various course folders. The general arrangement of sub-folders within ‘Course’ folders are described below:

Sub-Folder Topic Description

Standard Course Outline SEDTAPP foundation document describing, for all instructors teaching this course, the essential materials to be covered in the course. Among other things, the standard course outline identifies the program outcomes supported by the course (from Table B.2.3), and more important, defines for each program outcome, one or more explicit ‘course outcomes’ to be achieved by the course. ‘Course outcomes’ are those context-appropriate goals of the course that have direct relevance to accomplishment of the higher-level program outcomes supported by the course.

Class Syllabus Instructor’s specific class outline, based on the standard course outline, describing class schedules, reading assignments, grading policies, etc.

Course Outcome Sub-folder(s) One course outcome sub-folder exists for each ‘course outcome’ identified in the Standard Course Outline (see above). A subfolder contains a statement of the expected course outcomes,


examples of the class activities (test problems, homework assignments, lab exercises, etc.) designed by the course instructor to accomplish that course outcome, and a selection of representative student work on those activities.

Given this arrangement of materials, an evaluator interested in evidence of a particular program outcome can start with an individual ‘Outcome’ folder to get a view of the breadth of coverage of that outcome across the program curriculum. If there is interest in seeing more detail on the depth of outcome development, reference to Table B.2.3 will identify those ‘Course’ folders that could be reviewed to find those details.

B.3. Assessment and Evaluation

B.3.a- MET Program CQI Process

SEDTAPP is the department for the College of Engineering with the academic authority to carry out the engineering technology mission as established by the College’s strategic plan. SEDTAPP is also the office that coordinates the delivery of these programs for the University College, of which the Hazleton campus is one location. From the perspective of curriculum and programs, that mission for engineering technology is to ‘develop and deliver an undergraduate curriculum based on active, problem-based and professionally oriented teaching and learning’1

and to do so in a way that gives Penn State engineering technology programs their ‘own identity and decision making capability,’ ‘strengthen[s] baccalaureate pathways for viable programs,’ and ‘markets Penn State engineering technology programs nationwide.’2

SEDTAPP strives to achieve this mission via a three-pronged strategy that emphasizes ongoing assessment of and planning for the future vision of technology; systematic control, monitoring and evolutionary growth of existing program curricula; and coordinated resource allocation and professional development of faculty. The general responsibilities for carrying out these three strategies are embedded in three broad-based activities headed, respectively, by the Engineering Technology Council, the Engineering Technology Advisory Board, and the administrations of SEDTAPP and the individual University campuses where technology programs are offered. Figure B.3.1, “Quality Assurance Organization and Functions,” illustrates the organization and interaction among these activities. Ongoing monitoring, assessment, improvement, and strategic growth of all the engineering technology programs are inherent features of the activities depicted in the figure. Detailed descriptions of those activities and the responsibilities of each area follow.

1 Penn State University College of Engineering Strategic Plan, 2005/6 – 2008/9, page 112 Penn State University College of Engineering Strategic Plan, 2005/6 – 2008/9, page 13


Figure B.3.1 – SEDTAPP Curriculum Control and Assessment Framework (Commonwealth College is now referred to as University College.)

1. The Engineering Technology Council (ETC):

In addition to the COE’s engineering technology programs delivered by the University College, there are engineering technology programs offered, and in some cases academically controlled, by four other academic colleges within the Penn State system (The Capital College, the Altoona College, the Behrend College and the Berks-Lehigh Valley College). Student movement among these programs is common, and in fact, is encouraged by the University to optimize the availability of programs to all Pennsylvania residents. As a result, it is essential that programs at all locations and colleges remain as compatible as possible to avoid creating artificial barriers to this flexibility of movement. Further, it is essential that technology programs at the University share a coordinated strategy of program and curriculum development to minimize unwanted duplication, optimize resource usage, avoid internal competition for students, and create an integrated system of opportunities for technology students. The ETC is the main vehicle for ensuring the inter-campus coordination necessary to bring these results about.

The ETC consists of the administrative leaders (department heads, division head, etc.) at each of the colleges involved in offering engineering technology programs. The Council typically meets


four times a year, and the meetings typically focus on developing long-term vision and strategy to enhance ET throughout the Penn State system. These efforts involve developing a body-of-knowledge for ET, working with state-wide economic development initiatives, collaborating with state industry consortiums, and benchmarking with other institutions in the country.

2. The Engineering Technology Advisory Board (ETAB):

The ETAB serves both a strategic role and an operational role in the management of engineering technology at Penn State. Its strategic role is to serve as an advisory body to the ETC with the specific duty of helping to develop strategic visions for the orderly evolution of ET at Penn State. This duty includes identifying emerging issues likely to influence future technology education, assessing the relevance of those issues to Penn State ET programs, brainstorming effective responses to emerging trends, developing practical strategies for pursuing future visions, identifying potential funding sources for development activities, and preparing grant proposals to obtain funding.

The ETAB’s operational role is to facilitate the consistent delivery of SEDTAPP’s existing technology programs across the Penn State system, and to manage the orderly evolution of those curricula to meet changing demands. It does this by overseeing curriculum development activities in all the ET programs and by working to ensure that all programs evolve in a consistent and coordinated fashion. In this role, the ETAB establishes consistent goals for all programs, correlates activities and courses that can be shared among programs, establishes and disseminates curriculum and course standards, responds to constituents’ suggestions for curriculum improvement, and manages evolutionary changes in curricula.

The ETAB consist of selected faculty members, key administrators, and active curriculum and course coordinators from throughout the Penn State technology system. Because of ETAB’s focus on curriculum evolution, the key constituents are the lead ET curriculum and course coordinators. It typically meets two to three times each year.

The ETAB accomplishes its operational objectives primarily by providing strategic direction to its three main support groups: the system-wide program coordinators, the program curriculum committees, and the engineering technology course chairs. The roles of each of these groups are described below.

3. System-wide Program Coordinators

Though there are eight distinct ET programs in the SEDTAPP system (EET, MET, BET, TelET, NanoET, AET, BEST, and EMET)3, commonalties in their curricula permit them to be grouped into three major programmatic areas: Electrical-based ET (EET, TelET, BET, & NanoET), Mechanical-based ET (MET, AET, & BEST), and Electro-Mechanical ET (EMET). SEDTAPP has assigned a System-wide Program Coordinator for each of these programmatic areas. The system-wide coordinators’ job is to be the liaison among the individual program coordinators at

3 EET – Electrical Engineering Technology

MET – Mechanical Engineering TechnologyBET – Biomedical Engineering TechnologyTelET – Telecommunications Engineering TechnologyNanoET – Nanofabrication Engineering TechnologyAET – Architectural Engineering TechnologyBEST – Building Energy Systems TechnologyEMET – Electro-Mechanical Engineering Technology


all campuses where their respective programs are offered. The liaison function relates primarily to keeping campus program leaders abreast of curriculum developments, coordinating development activities that involve those leaders, identifying opportunities for resource sharing and/or exchange among programs, and identifying common needs and interests and opportunities for shared effort, among faculty at different locations.

4. Program Curriculum Committees

As with the system-wide coordinators, there are three SEDTAPP Curriculum Committees, one for EET-related programs, one for MET-related programs, and one for the EMET program. These committees are responsible for establishing, controlling, monitoring, disseminating, and directing the orderly evolution of the SEDTAPP engineering technology program curricula. The committees meet twice during the year at the Spring and Fall SEDTAPP faculty meetings and at other times during the year as situations dictate. Committees consist of faculty representatives from all of the colleges within Penn State that deliver engineering technology programs. Committee functions, membership, and operating rules are governed by bylaws, which are available at <<http://cede.psu.edu/tc2k/contents/programs.htm>>. Each committee accomplishes its charge mainly through the following activities:

Establishing and disseminating the TC2K objectives expected of the program, and periodically reviewing and updating those objectives based on assessment information.

Establishing and disseminating the TC2K outcomes expected of the program, and periodically reviewing and updating those outcomes to ensure they support the current program objectives.

Establishing those courses and activities in the program curriculum that are to be the primary means by which program outcomes are achieved.

Recruiting and managing course chairpersons to develop and maintain standard course outlines for all technical courses in the curriculum.

Reviewing, approving, and disseminating standard course outlines to faculty.

Receiving, reviewing, responding to, and acting on faculty recommendations for curriculum change and improvement.

Managing the curricular change process through the colleges and the University Faculty Senate for official curriculum changes.

Monitoring program-related assessment information from various assessment systems (employer, graduate, and student exit surveys; advisory body inputs; MEET4 data system; etc.) and taking appropriate curricular action to respond to that information.

Maintaining records to document curricular change activities.

4 MEET – Measurement and Evaluations in Engineering Technology, available via <<https://www.engr.psu.edu/MEET/>>


https://www.engr.psu.edu/MEET/

http://cede.psu.edu/tc2k/contents/programs.htm

5. Course Chairpersons

Chairpersons in charge of SEDTAPP’s standard course outlines hold a key place in the SEDTAPP curricular quality control structure. As noted above, curriculum committees establish the expected objectives and outcomes for programs, and then identify those courses in the curriculum that are the key producers of the expected outcomes. The committees rely on a set of approved, standard course outlines to ensure that the defined outcomes are consistently achieved everywhere a program is offered. They do this by requiring all faculty teaching in the SEDTAPP engineering technology programs to use the standard outlines as the basis for their course syllabi. In concert with this instruction, course outlines follow a standard format that requires explicit identification of the program outcomes that are supported by the course. More important, the outlines are required to expand program outcomes into specific course outcomes that have explicit relevance to the content of the course. Course outcomes identify specific tasks that students should perform and skills that they should acquire while in the course. The outlines also suggest example activities and practices that can help students achieve the prescribed course outcomes, and they suggest possible ways to assess and document students’ success with respect to the outcomes.

Course chairs are the agents responsible for developing, maintaining, and revising course outlines. They are selected from among the faculty having significant experience teaching each course, and they must be actively teaching any course that they chair. Once selected, chairs are responsible first to develop, and then to provide annual updates of the outlines to the curriculum committees. Annual updates are reviewed and approved by the appropriate curriculum committee, and when approved, are posted to the official curriculum committee websites. The annual update and approval process is completed around the middle of the fall semester, and new outlines become effective beginning in the following spring semester. The adoption of new outlines in mid-fall gives adequate time for faculty to incorporate changes in their course plans for both the spring and following fall semesters. Curriculum Committee websites, and links to standard outlines, can be found at <<http://cede.psu.edu/tc2k/contents/programs.htm>>.

In the process of developing and maintaining outlines, course chairs receive input from several sources. As noted above, curriculum committees identify the program outcomes to be supported by courses, and act as the review and approval body for changes to outlines. However, the primary inputs leading to improvement of outlines come from faculty. Each semester, SEDTAPP surveys (via the MEET data system) the performance of every technology course at every location with reference to the established program outcomes. One element of the survey process offers faculty the opportunity to comment on the effectiveness of existing course outlines and course outcomes, and to offer suggestions for improvement. Course chairs have direct, online access to those suggestions and comments, and they are expected to discuss the comments with the appropriate faculty and develop suitable responses based on those discussions. Suitable responses may be anything from a discussion and one-on-one resolution of the comments with the interested faculty to the identification of necessary revisions to the outline. Course chairs are responsible for managing and documenting these activities and reporting the outcomes to curriculum committees on an annual basis. The flow chart in Figure B.3.2, ‘Curricular Committee – Course Chair – Faculty Interactions,’ clarifies the nature of these interactions. Additionally, examples of annual course assessment reports



from course chairs to the curriculum committee can be viewed on the curriculum committee website at <<http://cede.psu.edu/tc2k/contents/programs.htm>>.


Curriculum Committee

Establishes Program Objectives & Outcomes Identifies Foundation Courses to Support Outcomes Disseminates Objective, Outcome, & Course Information to Faculty Assigns Course Chairs Reviews & Approves Standard Course Outlines Disseminates Approved Outlines to Faculty Assesses Need for & Initiates Curricular Improvement/Change Reviews & Responds to Faculty Suggestions re. Curriculum Changes Manages University Approval of Curriculum Change

To:Engr Faculty CouncilUniv. Faculty Senate


Figure B.3.2 – Curriculum Committee – Course Chair – Faculty Interactions


Course Chairs

Develops & Maintains Standard Course Outline Reviews & Responds to Faculty Comments/Suggestions re. Course Outlines Updates Course Outlines Annually in Response to Faculty Assessment & Comments

Faculty

Incorporate Standard Course Outcomes into Class Syllabi Assess Class Performance vs. Course Outcomes Each Semester Provide Comments/Suggestions to Course Chairs re. Standard Outlines

Program Outcomes vs. Courses

Annual Outline Updates

Recommendations for Course and Curriculum Change

Course Change Suggestions

Response/Resolution to Course Change Suggestions

Response/Resolution to Course & Curriculum Suggestions

Formal Proposals for Course & Curriculum Change Approval

B.3.b-Administrative Support Structure for Engineering Technology

The framework on which all of the above activities hang is the administrative infrastructure of the Penn State colleges that offer technology programs. The head of the SEDTAPP provides overall coordination of this function, primarily by interacting with the local campus Directors of Academic Affairs (DAAs) to keep them apprised of external demands and obligations on the technology programs (mostly related to accreditation), future directions and opportunities being pursued by SEDTAPP leadership, and funding and grant opportunities that may help support local programs. The SEDTAPP head also establishes workload guidelines for technology faculty, provides input to faculty performance evaluations, consults in and provides guidance for faculty hiring, and advocates, with the campus administration, for faculty promotion and tenure. Finally, SEDTAPP provides some funds to the campuses to support professional development activities of faculty.

B.3.c-Examples of Continuous Improvement of MET Program

As the previous discussion illustrates, the task of monitoring and improving the quality of Penn State’s MET programs is spread over multiple hierarchical levels, starting with the University-level SEDTAPP administration and its supporting committees, devolving down through the MET curriculum committee and supporting course chairs, and finally to the local MET program coordinators and faculty. The following list highlights several examples of specific assessment and improvement actions that have been taken at each level during the past two years. Though not exhaustive, these examples do provide a representative indication of the scope and depth of MET quality improvement activities, both in general and locally at the Hazleton campus.

1. Example CQI Activities of SEDTAPP and Supporting Committees

Representative examples of quality improvement accomplishments of the SEDTAPP administration and supporting committees are:

Development and implementation of the on-line, Internet-based MEET survey system. MEET data has been collected since fall of 2004 and is available on-line at <<https://www.engr.psu.edu/MEET/>>. ET faculty, program coordinators, curriculum committees, and administrators use the data to support both semester-based and annual course and program assessments (examples of MET program assessments by the MET curriculum committee and course assessments done by MET faculty at Hazleton are discussed later).

Development and implementation of an on-line, Internet-based exit survey of graduating ET students to determine their career directions and to obtain their overall assessment of the capabilities they acquired as a student at Penn State. Surveys have been conducted each semester since the spring of 2005, and results are used by the SEDTAPP administration and the MET curriculum committees to identify program weaknesses and areas for improvement. Past survey results are available at <<http://www.cede.psu.edu/tc2k/>>.

Development and implementation of an on-line, Internet-based survey of actual and potential MET employers to determine the post-graduation performance of Penn State students and to gain industry feedback on the appropriateness and relevance of MET program educational objectives and outcomes. Surveys have


http://www.cede.psu.edu/tc2k/

https://www.engr.psu.edu/MEET/

been conducted each semester since the spring of 2005. As with the exit and MEET surveys, results from the employer/industry survey are used to identify program weaknesses and areas for improvement.

Development and implementation of the alumni survey to determine the level of achieving and the appropriateness of the program’s educational objectives. This survey is being conducted at the campus level in either an electronic form or by mailing a hard copy of the survey.

2. Example CQI Activities of MET Curriculum Committee & MET Course Chairs

Representative examples of quality improvement accomplishments of the MET curriculum committee and MET course chairs are:

Creation of a standard format for all MET technical course outlines to include explicit indication of the correlation between MET program outcomes and subsidiary course outcomes.

Revision and on-line posting of all MET course outlines following the new, standardized format. Current outlines are available via the MET curriculum committee link at <<http://cede.psu.edu/tc2k/contents/programs.htm>>. Outlines have been available in this fashion since fall of 2004.

Policy established requiring annual update of standard course outlines, including written justification for all modifications. Updates are to be based on MEET results and on a review and resolution of suggestions and concerns raised by faculty either via MEET or curriculum committee meetings. Update reports for the most recent revisions are maintained at the MET curriculum committee site at <<http://cede.psu.edu/tc2k/contents/programs.htm>>.

3. Examples of Continuous Quality Improvement – Closing the Loop at the System-wide Level

Program Improvement

System-wide CQI activities related to the MET program are coordinated by the MET Curricular Affairs Committee. The Curricular Affairs Committee reviews the feedback received from industry, students, faculty, and course chairs annually. The Curricular Affairs Committee also reviews the MEET data, student exit survey, as well as alumni and employer surveys. Based on the feedback collected, the Curricular Affairs Committee makes recommendations for improvements in the MET program. Examples of some of the recommendations and corrective actions are as follows.

Recommendation

Expand the list of technical courses which are acceptable to satisfy the technical elective requirements for the 2MET program. Every student is required to take 5-7 credits from that category. The list of technical courses is to be expanded by IST 110, IST 210, IST 220, and IST 250. This recommendation was based on feedback from industry, faculty, and students. The rationale for adding IST courses to the list of acceptable courses to satisfy the technical elective




requirement was to allow individual students to customize the curriculum to meet specific needs of the job market. (Program Outcome 4)

Corrective Action

The proposal was voted on and was unanimously approved by the MET faculty. The proposed IST courses have been added to the list of technical electives.

Recommendation

Add Math 140 to the list of technical courses which are acceptable to satisfy the technical elective requirement. The above recommendation was based on feedback from students and faculty. This curricular change will better accommodate students who are planning to enroll in the baccalaureate EMET program where Math 140 is one of the conditions for admission to the major. (Program Objective 2, Program Outcome 6)

Corrective Actions

The recommended change was unanimously approved by the MET faculty and was implemented into the curriculum.

Recommendation

Eliminate IET 215 as a prerequisite (or concurrent) for IET 216. This recommendation was based on feedback from faculty. The content of both courses, IET 215 and IET 216, allow them to be taken separately in any order. This will give individual campuses more scheduling flexibility. It will be up to the discretion of individual campuses as to whether the courses will be offered individually or separately.

Corrective Action

The proposed change was voted on and was approved by the MET faculty. The change in prerequisite has been implemented.

Recommendation

Eliminate CMPSC 101 as a prerequisite (or concurrent) for MET 206. This recommendation was made by the faculty. The recommendation was based on the fact that COMPSC 101 is no longer a required course in the MET curriculum, but an elective course.

Corrective Action

The proposed change was voted on and was approved by the MET faculty. The change in the prerequisite has been implemented.


Course Improvement

Recommendation

Change the title of MET 210W from Product Design to Machine Design. This recommendation was made based on feedback received from faculty as well as the TAC of ABET team during the last visit.

Corrective Action

The proposed change was voted on and was approved by the MET faculty. The change in the course title has been implemented.

Recommendation

Modify the course outcomes in the Technical Graphics Sequence. This recommendation was based on feedback from faculty, industry, and students. (Program Outcomes 4, 5, and 6)

Corrective Action

The changes in the course outcomes cited below were voted on and approved by the Curricular Affairs Committee, and implemented by the faculty.

1. EGT102 (No outcomes added or removed. Outcomes 4 and 5 reworded as follows:)

Students will draw with CAD software using basic techniques. Students will perform basic editing techniques using CAD software. Students will create multi-view projections of three-dimensional objects using

CAD software.

2. EGT114 (No outcomes added or removed, outcomes 4 and 5 reworded as follows)

Students will be able to obtain true shape – true size, distance, area, and angle data using methods of conventional descriptive geometry or the analysis tools of a parametric solid modeler adhering to ANSI Y14 standards.

Students will be able to successfully create and modify complex geometry using 2D software or 3D parametric solid modeling software adhering to ANSI Y14 standards.

Students will be able to successfully create and modify assemblies of three or more unique parts using the 2D software or 3D parametric solid modeling software adhering to ANSI Y14 standards.


3. EGT201 (Outcomes W,X,Y, and Z removed. Outcomes 3, 4, 5 and 6 added and worded as follows:)

Apply concepts of applied mathematics and science in solving technical problems (Outcome 3).

Demonstrate proficiencies in computer applications (Outcome 4). Produce two-dimensional (2D) drawings and three-dimensional (3D) parametric solid

models as a part of the applied engineering design process (Outcome 5). To matriculate in a baccalaureate Engineering Technology (4MET) degree program

(Outcome 6).

Recommendation

Modify the course outcomes in the Industrial Engineering Technology Sequence. This recommendation was based on input from faculty, industry, and students. (Program Outcomes 2, 6, 7, and 11)

Corrective Action

The changes in the course outcomes cited below were voted on, approved, and implemented.

1. IET101 (Outcome 2 reworded. Outcomes 6 and 11 added and worded as follows:)

PROGRAM OUTCOME #2 - BE ABLE TO APPLY ENGINEERING DESIGN PROCESSES TO SOME TECHNICAL PROBLEMS THROUGH EXPERIMENTATION AND ANALYSIS:

Students will successfully describe and recommend proper destructive and non-destructive material tests to achieve the desired material properties of engineering materials.

Students will successfully describe and recommend proper heat treating and alloying methods to alter a material’s atomic structure in order to achieve the desired material properties of engineering materials.

Students will successfully describe the proper basic manufacturing processes for part creation and/or part feature creation.

Students will successfully employ proper measurement tools and techniques to achieve the desired sizes of parts and/or part features.

Students will successfully solve empirical problems associated with Statistical Process Control.

PROGRAM OUTCOME #6 -BE ABLE TO MATRICULATE INTO A RELATED BACCALAUREATE ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM.

PROGRAM OUTCOME #11 -DEMONSTRATE A COMMITMENT TO QUALITY, TIMELINESS, AND CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT (THROUGH IMPLEMENTATION OF ESTABLISHED STANDARDS, THROUGH COMPLETION OF LABORATORY REPORTS, PROJECT REPORTS, ASSIGNMENTS ON A TIMELY BASIS:

Students will successfully create quality engineering lab reports on a timely basis.


2. IET215 (Outcomes 2 and 7 reworded. Outcome 6 added and worded as follows:)

PROGRAM OUTCOME #2 - BE ABLE TO APPLY ENGINEERING DESIGN PROCESSES TO SOME TECHNICAL PROBLEMS THROUGH EXPERIMENTATION AND ANALYSIS:

Students will successfully solve production design problems that are typical of current and advanced technologies.

Students will successfully describe and recommend proper production tools and equipment for part creation and/or part feature creation.

Students will successfully develop and create route sheets that list and describe the manufacturing operations that are needed to produce a part and/or assembly.

PROGRAM OUTCOME #7 - BE ABLE TO COMMUNICATE THEIR IDEAS AND SOLUTIONS EFFECTIVELY BOTH IN ORAL AND WRITTEN FORMAT:

Students will prepare oral presentation(s), written report(s) and/or graphical solution(s) with regard to production design and the study of advanced manufacturing technologies.

PROGRAM OUTCOME #6 - BE ABLE TO MATRICULATE INTO A RELATED BACCALAUREATE ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM.

3. IET216 (Outcomes 1, 2, and 4 reworded. Outcome 6 added and worded as follows)

PROGRAM OUTCOME #1 – DEMONSTRATE PROFICIENCY IN APPLIED DESIGN, MANUFACTURING PROCESSES AND MECHANICS. THIS COURSE CONCENTRATES ON THE APPLIED DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING PROCESSES ASPECT OF THIS MET PROGRAM OUTCOME.

Students will successfully set-up and operate industrial equipment and/or tooling with respect to current and advanced manufacturing processes, so that the student will understand how the capabilities of manufacturing processes impact the applied design of a part and/or part feature such as: lathes, milling machines, drill presses, foundry equipment, welding machines, sheet metal forming equipment, EDM’s, automation/robotics, and CNC machine tools.

Students will successfully develop and create route sheets that list the manufacturing operations that are needed to produce a part and/or assembly.

P ROGRAM OUTCOME #2 – BE ABLE TO APPLY ENGINEERING DESIGN PROCESSES TO SOME TECHNICAL PROBLEMS THROUGH EXPERIMENTATION AND ANALYSIS:

Students will successfully solve empirical problems associated with current and advanced manufacturing processes such as: speed and feed calculations, material removal rates, solidification shrinkage and/or developed length calculations.


P ROGRAM OUTCOME #4 – DEMONSTRATE PROFICIENCIES IN COMPUTER APPLICATIONS

Students will successfully use computer applications that control the movements of machine tools, robots, and other mechanical systems such as: CNC programs, CAM software, and/or PLC’s.

Students will use word processing and/or spreadsheet software to complete problems associated with this course.

P ROGRAM OUTCOME #6 – B E ABLE TO MATRICULATE INTO A RELATED BACCALAUREATE ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM.

Recommendation

Modify the course outcomes in the Technical Mechanics Sequence and Machine Design course. This recommendation was based on feedback from faculty, industry, and students. (Program Outcomes 1, 3, 4, 9, and 10)

Corrective Action

The changes in the course outcomes cited below were voted on, approved, and implemented.

1. MCHT111 (No outcomes added or removed. Outcomes 1 and 4 reworded as follows:)

Students shall demonstrate proficiency in applied design and mechanics. (Outcome 1) Students shall be able to isolate statically- determinate bodies from their surroundings

and draw their free body diagrams in order to determine the reactions at their supports.

Students will be able to use the method of joints or sections to determine the forces of tension or compression in a statically determinate loaded truss.

Students will be able to isolate members of a plane frame and determine the forces at the joints which connect the members.

Students will be able to use mathematical formulas to determine the location of the centroid of a composite area.

Students shall demonstrate proficiency in computer applications. (Outcome 4) Students shall design a spreadsheet program to solve a statics problem of the

instructor’s choice.

2. MCHT213 (No outcomes added or removed. Outcomes 1 and 4 reworded as follows:) Students shall demonstrate proficiency in applied design and mechanics. (Outcome 1) Using strength of materials analysis students shall calculate the axial stress and

deformation for a body whose axial loading and cross-sectional area are known. Using strength of materials analysis, students shall calculate the torsional shear stress

and angle of twist for a circular shaft whose cross-section and applied torques are known.


Using strength of materials analysis, students shall calculate the bending stress and beam deflection for a beam whose cross-section and loading are known.

Using strength of materials analysis, students shall draw shear and bending moment diagrams for statically determinate beams whose load and method of support are known.

Using beam tables and strength of materials analysis, students will correctly select standard beams for given allowable stresses and deflections as well as known loading and method of support.

Students shall demonstrate proficiency in computer applications. (Outcome 4) Students shall use a spreadsheet program to solve a strength of materials analysis or

design problem as assigned by the instructor.

3. MET206 (Outcome 1 reworded. Outcome 3 added.)

The specific course outcomes supporting the program outcomes are:

To describe the kinetic and kinematic quantities such as forces, moments, position, velocity and acceleration.

To relate position, velocity and acceleration to one another using the equations of motion.

To create free body diagrams (FBD) of particles and rigid bodies, i.e., to graphically display the relevant system of forces and moments acting on these bodies at a particular and/or at a generic instant during their motion. In general, only motions in 2D will be considered.

To synthesize the information contained in the FBD and mass-acceleration diagram (MAD) to derive the equations of motion for the particular system at hand.

To create the kinetic or mass-acceleration diagram (MAD) of particles and rigid bodies. In general, only motions in 2D will be considered.

To apply the work-energy principle to relate the energy of the mechanical system to it spatial configuration variables (i.e., position variables). In general, only motions in 2D will be considered.

To apply the impulse-momentum principle to relate the momentum of a mechanical system to the system of forces applied.

To introduce various mechanisms involved in manufacturing processes. To apply elementary algebra and calculus to the solution of the equations of motion.

Except for a few elementary cases, such as motions with constant acceleration, the solution process in question does not include the solution of initial value problems.

4. MET210W (Outcome 9 and 10 added.)


P ROGRAM OUTCOME #9 – STUDENTS SHOULD BE ABLE TO RECOGNIZE THE NEED FOR LIFE- LONG LEARNING, BE PREPARED TO CONTINUE THEIR EDUCATION THROUGH FORMAL OR INFORMAL STUDY, AND BE ABLE TO ADAPT TO A CONTINUOUSLY CHANGING WORK ENVIRONMENT.

Students will review modern mechanical design practices presented in technical journals, periodicals, or any media as determined by the instructor.

P ROGRAM OUTCOME #10 – STUDENTS SHALL HAVE THE ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND PROFESSIONAL, ETHICAL, AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES IN A DIVERSE AND GLOBAL WORKPLACE.

Students will review a case study involving an engineering ethics issue presented in either video or paper form or any form as assigned by the course instructor.

4. Example of Continuous Quality Improvement: Closing the Loop at the Hazleton Campus

Program Improvement

Hazleton Campus specific CQI activities related to the MET program are coordinated by the Penn State Hazleton CQI Committee which consists of the MET Program Coordinator and members of the IAC for the MET program. In May 2005, the IAC personally interviewed every graduating student. The IAC shared the feedback that they received from the students with the MET Program Coordinator. In addition to that, the IAC reviewed MEET data for the 2004-2005 academic year. Recommendations were made for improvements to the MET programs. Those recommendations and corrective actions are as follows:

Recommendation

Switch IET 216 from the Fall semester to the Spring semester, so that IET 215 and IET 216 are offered in the same semester. The theoretical part, IET 215, and the laboratory part, IET 216, will therefore be taught at the same time.

Corrective Action In the 2006-2007 academic year, IET 216 will be offered in the Spring semester.

Recommendation

Switch PHYS 150 from the Fall semester to the Spring semester and PHYS 151 from the Spring semester to the Fall semester. This change would allow students to take PHYS 150, Mechanics, in the same semester as MCHT 111, Statics.

Corrective Action


The class schedule for the 2006-2007 includes this change.

Recommendation

Standardize the technical writing requirement for all laboratory courses in the MET program, so that there is a consistency in teaching technical writing. (Program Objective 3. Program Outcome 7)

Corrective Action

Standard guidelines for writing technical reports were developed by the Engineering and English faculty. Those guidelines are given to the students in their freshman year.

Recommendation

Create an Engineering/Engineering Technology Summer Camp to spark an interest in engineering technology among secondary students.

Corrective Action

An Engineering/Engineering Technology Summer Camp was offered in the Summer of 2005 and the Summer of 2006. This three day summer camp had twenty participants. It will become an annual event.

Recommendation

Establish a closer working relationship with local schools for the purpose of increasing enrollment.

Corrective Action

A joint project between Penn State Hazleton engineering technology students, Hazleton Area School District high school students and Hazleton Area Career Center students was introduced in the 2005-2006 academic year. They students designed and built a solar powered car. The project was funded by local industry. In addition, engineering and math faculty are posting a “Problem of the Month” for high school students. Engineering, math, and education faculty have also conducted in-service training for K-12 teachers, in order to provide the teachers with the skills and background to incorporate engineering concepts into the K-12 curriculum. Engineering related learning modules were developed or purchased and were donated to local school districts. Finally, an engineering/engineering technology website for K-12 students, teachers, and parents was developed and linked to the Penn State Hazleton website.

Recommendation

Establish a working relationship between the MET program and the Pennsylvania Technical Assistance Program (PennTAP) where engineering and business students will work together in providing assistance in product development and product marketing to small start-up companies who are clients of PennTAP. (Program Outcomes 2, 8, and 11)

Corrective Action


Beginning in the Fall of 2005, engineering and business students began to work with PennTAP. They provided assistance to three start-up companies. A grant proposal to expand those activities was submitted in December 2005.

Course ImprovementAll instructors teaching in the MET program are required to complete a one page CQI

form which assesses the course based on MEET data, student assessments, and thefaculties’ personal observations. The course CQI form focuses on identifying the weaknesses in the course and suggesting the corrective activities which will be taken by

the instructor the next time the course will be offered. All CQI forms will be available for review during the ABET visit. Some examples of CQI recommendations with corrective actions for selected MET courses are as follows: MCHT 214 - Fall 2004 Recommendations

-Implement usage of EXCEL for data analysis.(Program Outcome 4)-Make labs available to students beyond the scheduled class time, so that they can collect data.

Corrective Action These recommendations were incorporated during the Fall 2005 semester.

MCHT 214 - Fall 2005 Recommendation

-Add digital readout capability to at least two or more equipment setups.(Program Outcome 4)

Corrective Action The following equipment has been purchased and will be available for use in the Fall 2006 semester.

-Strainsert Model FL10U-2NSGKT -Strainsert Model Bx 6SM-BeN4(10) -Retrofit adapter plate

MET 210W – Spring 2004 Recommendation

-Incorporate a case study related to the engineering code of ethics into the curriculum.Corrective Action Students are required to review a case study involving an engineering ethics issue and to prepare a written personal judgment about it.

MET 210W- Spring 2005


Recommendation-Incorporate a design project in co-operation with PennTAP where MET 210W students will provide assistance in product design and product development to start-up companies which are clients of PennTAP. (Program outcomes 2, 7, 8, and 11)

Corrective Action MET students are doing “real world” design projects which are coordinated by PennTAP. In the Spring 2006 semester, three PennTAP sponsored design projects were completed. A PennTAP grant in the amount of $10,000 was awarded to cover expenses associated with building and testing prototypes.

5. Assessment of Program Educational Objectives

Assessment of the program objectives has been conducted through a survey of industries which hire our graduates. This survey was done on the system-wide level, but because of the low return it was supplemented by industry and alumni surveys on the individual campus level. Results indicated that industry is satisfied with the graduates’ technical qualifications. However, the surveys indicated that Objective 3, “be prepared to communicate effectively and work collaboratively in multidisciplinary teams”, is the weakest link. The Curricular Affairs Committee as well as the individual Program Coordinators are in the process of investigating and addressing this problem. Additional industry and alumni surveys will be conducted to generate more assessment data.

B.4 Program Characteristics

Characteristics of the MET curriculum are described in the following paragraphs. The information is organized according to the specific topics stated in by Criterion 4 of the General Accreditation Criteria.

B.4.a-MET Program Curriculum

The MET curriculum and course sequencing are illustrated in Table B.4-1 on the following page. The year and semester in which students typically take courses are indicated in the first column; however, some alteration of this schedule may occur in individual cases depending on specific student needs. Sequencing of technical courses is dictated by course prerequisites, which are stipulated in the University Bulletin.


Table B 4.1 – MET Program Curriculum

Year andSemester

Course(Department, Number, Title)

Category (Credit Hours)

Com

mun

icat

ions

Mat

hem

atic

s

Phys

ical

&

N

atur

al

Scie

nces

Soci

al

Scie

nces

&

H

uman

ities

Tech

nica

l Con

tent

MET Courses 1 Yr 1, Sm 1 EGT 101Technical Drawing

Fundamentals1

Yr 1, Sm 2 EGT-102 Introduction to Computer Aided Drafting

1

Yr 1, Sm 2 IET 101 – Mfg Matls, Processes & Lab 3Yr 1, Sm 2 EGT 114 Spatial Analysis and

Computer Aided Drafting2

Yr 1, Sm 2 MchT 111 – Statics 3Yr 2, Sm 1 MET 206 Dynamics 3

Yr 2, Sm 1 MCHT 213 Strength and Properties of Materials

3

Yr 2, Sm 1 MCHT 214 Strength and Properties of Materials Laboratory

1

Yr 2, Sm 2 MET 210W Product Design³ 3Yr 2, Sm 2 EGT 201 Advanced Computer Aided

Drafting2

Yr 2, Sm 2 IET 215 Production Design 2Yr 2, Sm 2 IET 216 Production Design Laboratory 2

Total credits = 26Supporting Technical Courses 1

Yr 1, Sm 1 EET 101 Electrical Circuits I 3Yr 1, Sm 1 EET 109 – Electrical Circuits I Lab 1Yr 1, Sm 1 ET 002 – ET Orientation 1

Total credits = 5Mathematics Courses4

Yr 1, Sm 1 Math 081 – Tech Math I 3Yr 1, Sm 2 Math 082 – Tech Math II 3Yr 2, Sm 1 Math 083 – Tech Math III 4

Total credits = 10Physical Sciences Courses5

Yr 1, Sm 2 Phys 150 – Tech Physics I 3Yr 2, Sm 1 Phys 151 – Tech Physics II 3

Total credits = 6Communications Courses

Yr 1, Sm 1 Engl 015 – Rhetoric & Composition2 3Yr 2, Sm 2 CAS 100 – Effective Speech2 3

Total credits = 6


Table B.4.1.aTechnical Elective Course Selections

(Courses below automatically satisfy technical elective requirements of the program. Other courses may be approved by the ETCE Dept. Head)Yr 2, Sm 2 Chem 011 – Intro Chemistry 3

Yr2,Sm 2 Chem 012- General Principles 3Yr 2, Sm 2 AET 297- Special Topics (1-9)

Yr 2, Sm 2 CET 297- Special Topics (1-9)Yr 2, Sm 2 Chem 014- Experiment Chemistry 1Yr 2, Sm 2 EET 100- Applied Electricity 3Yr 2, Sm 2 EGT 297- Special Topics (1-9)

Yr 2, Sm 2 IET 105- Economics of Industry 2

Yr 2, Sm 2 IET 109- Inspection and Quality Control 3

Yr 2, Sm 2 IET 297 Special Topics (1-9)Yr 2, Sm 2 MET 207- Heat Transfer 3Yr 2, Sm 2 MET 281- Elementary Thermal and Fluid

Dynamics4

Yr 2, Sm 2 SUR 111-Plane Surveying 3Yr 2, Sm 2 IST 110- Introduction to Information

Sciences and Technology4

Yr 2, Sm 2 IST 210- Organization of Data 3

Yr 2, Sm 2 IST 220- Networking and Telecommunications

3

Yr 2, Sm 2 IST 250- New Media and the Web 3Yr 2, Sm 2 CET 261 – Fluid Flow 3Yr 2, Sm 2 CmpSc 101 – Basic Computer Prgmg 3

Yr 2, Sm 2 MET 297 – Independent Studies 4

Yr 2, Sm 2 Math 140 – Calc w/ Analytic Geom I 4

Total Credits = 5-7

General Education Courses (one course in each discipline is required)6

Yr 1, Sm 1 Social Sciences, Humanities or Arts7 3Yr 1, Sm 2 Social Sciences, Humanities or Arts7 3Yr 2, Sm 2 Social Sciences, Humanities or Arts7 3

Total Credits = 9Totals Required for the Degree (by Category) = 63 10 6 9 36

Percent of Total = 93 15 9 13 54Total Credits Required in the Program = 678

Notes

1The breadth and depth of the technical sciences and supporting technical courses are designed to satisfy the Technical Content requirement of Criterion 4 of the GENERAL CRITERIA. Details of how individual courses address specific elements of this criterion are covered elsewhere in this report.

2

These courses have specific and significant relevance to the Communications requirements specified by Criterion 4 of the GENERAL CRITERIA. The college composition and public speaking courses are required by the University of all associate degree graduates. Further, the “W” designated course requires extensive and focused development of written and oral communication skills within the specific context of the program discipline. The requirement for a discipline-specific “W” course in all degree programs is also a University-wide requirement.

3These totals and percentages do not include the contribution of the “W-designated” technical course to the communications training of students. If that contribution is included, the communications credit total would be 9, and the percentage would be 13.5%


4

The technical math sequence includes topics in college algebra, trigonometry, and concepts of technical calculus, including limits, derivatives & differentiation, integration & integration techniques, and basic differential equations. This range of coverage exceeds the minimum Mathematics requirements of Criterion 4 of the GENERAL CRITERIA.

5

The two-course physics sequence required by the MET program covers topics in mechanics, heat, wave motion, sound, electricity, light, and basics of modern physics. Coverage is from the perspective of the basic sciences, which provides students with a broader theoretical foundation for their studies in the technical sciences. Both courses include experimental lab activities. This content and focus is consistent with the Physical and Natural Sciences requirement of Criterion 4 of the GENERAL CRITERIA.

6

All associate degree graduates at Penn State University must complete a minimum of nine credits in the study of the Social Sciences, Humanities, and Arts. One course in each area is generally required. Additionally, at least one of these courses must be intercultural in nature, and a second must be international in focus to satisfy University-wide requirements for breadth and diversity in programs’ societal and global perspectives. These requirements are consistent with the Social Sciences and Humanities requirement of Criterion 4 of the GENERAL CRITERIA.

7 Examples of Social Sciences, Humanities, and Arts courses typically available at the campus are listed in Table 1A, which follows.

8 Total program credits exceed the minimum of 64 specified by Criterion 4 of the GENERAL CRITERIA.

Table B4.1b – General Education CoursesMET students are required to complete three credits each of Social Sciences, Humanities, and Arts studies for a total of nine General Education credits. At least one of these courses must be an “International and Intercultural Competency” (GI) designated course. Typical courses satisfying these requirements are listed below. GI designated course are shown in Italics.

Subject Course DescriptionArtsArt Art 20 Introduction to DrawingArt History ArtH 100 Introduction to Art

ArtH 111 Ancient to Medieval ArtArtH 112 Renaissance to Modern Art

Integrative Arts InArt 1 The ArtsMusic Music 005 An Introduction to Western Music

Music 007 Evolution of JazzMusic 008 Rudiments of MusicMusic 009 Introduction to World Musics

Theatre Arts Thea 100 The Art of the TheatreThea 102 Fundamentals of Acting

HumanitiesComparative Literature CmLit 10 The Forms of World LiteratureEnglish Engl 104 The Bible as Literature

Engl 139 Black American LiteratureEngl 182 Literature and EmpireEngl 194 Women Writers

History Hist 1 The Western Heritage IHist 2 The Western Heritage IIHist 20 American Civilization to 1877Hist 21 American Civilization since 1877Hist 175 The History of Modern East AsiaHist 191 Early African HistoryHist 192 Modern African History

Philosophy Phil 10 Critical ThinkingPhil 106 Introduction to Business EthicsPhil 221 Philosophy of ScienceRl St 001 Introduction to World Religions

Social & Behavioral SciencesAnthropology Anth 045 Cultural AnthropologyEconomics Econ 002 Introductory Microeconomic Analysis

Econ 004 Introductory Macroeconomic AnalysisGeography Geog 020 Human Geography: An Introduction


History Hist 12 History of PennsylvaniaHist 120 Europe since 1848

International Studies IntSt 100 Introduction to International StudiesPolitical Science Pl Sc 001 Intro to American National Government

Pl Sc 003 Introduction to Comparative PoliticsPl Sc 014 International Relations

Psychology Psy 002 PsychologyPsy 213 Intro to Developmental PsychologyPsy 221 Introduction to Cognitive PsychologyPsy 243 Psychology of Personal Well-Being

Sociology Soc 001 Introductory SociologyWomen’s Studies WmnSt 001 Introduction to Women’s Studies

B.4.b-Minimum Credits and Credit Distributions (re: ABET Criterion 4)

Footnotes in Table B.4.1 indicate the correlations between various elements of the MET curriculum and minimum credit hours and credit distributions specified in ABET Criterion 4. Details of these relationships are described below.

TOTAL CREDITS

The MET program consists of 67 total credits, which exceeds the 64 credit minimum requirement of Criterion 4.

Communications

While communications skills are imparted in a variety of places in the MET curriculum, the specific elements that address students’ communications skills directly are English 15 (Rhetoric & Composition), Communications Arts and Sciences 100 (Effective Speech) and MET 210W (Product Design). The first two of these courses provide traditional college-level-instruction in the art of effective writing and effective public speaking respectively. MET 210W is the University-approved “writing intensive” course in the MET program.

The University requires all students to complete at least 3 credits of writing-intensive course work within their major. Further, "W" courses must include writing assignments that relate clearly to the course objectives and serve as effective instruments for learning the subject matter of the course. Typically, assignments are designed to help students investigate the course subject matter, gain experience in interpreting data, shape writing and/or speaking for a particular audience, or practice the type of writing and/or speaking associated with a given profession or discipline. “W” courses also provide opportunities for students to receive written feedback from the instructor and to apply that feedback to future efforts. “W” courses often include peer review of student communications, tutorial assistance, instructor conferences, group writing projects, use of writing or learning centers, and classroom discussions of writing and/or speaking assignments. From a grading perspective, it is typically expected that 25% of the grade in a “W” course will be determined from the writing and speaking activities.

While the English composition, speech communications, and “W” courses provide special emphasis to the development of MET students’ communications skills, it is also possible to point out specific examples of written, oral and graphical communications exercises in other parts of the technical curriculum.

Technical Writing Exercises


Essentially all lab courses within in the MET curriculum require students to prepare formal written reports to document lab exercises. Basic, structured lab reports required in the two freshman lab courses (EET 109, IET 101), and the sophomore Strength of Materials lab, MCHT 213, elevate the level of this type of formal lab reporting. Finally, the MET 210W course requires students to prepare a project report in written form.

Oral Presentation Exercises

The speech communications class is the obvious focus for developing students’ oral presentation skills. However, oral presentations are a standard element of the MET 210W course where students are required to present summaries of their project report to classmates using standard presentation tools. Oral presentations are also a standard component of the ET 2 course.

Graphical Presentation Exercises

Graphical presentation of visual and numerical information is a critical skill in technology professions. The MET curriculum imparts this skill in several courses. Visual presentations using CAD are the specific focus of the EGT 102, EGT 114, and EGT 201 courses. Students are required to demonstrate a full range of skills covering multi-view, sectional and isometric drawings; dimensioning, layout, and complex assemblies. As noted above, creation of graphical representations of numerical data is required in many labs, but the IET 101 and MCHT 213 courses give particular emphasis to this topic.

Library Research & Use of Technical Literature

There are two key instances where MET students are required to investigate and use library and technical data resources. In IET 101 and MCHT 213, students are instructed in the content and use of a range of technical data retrieval resources available through the University Libraries. They are required to use this knowledge to retrieve a collection of technical resources covering a broad range of technical subjects. Also, the project report required in the MET 210W course is a formal research report requiring review and proper referencing of information sources, which are generally retrieved both through the library and the Internet.

Teamwork Skills

Essentially all lab courses in the MET curriculum are team-based exercises involving teams of 2 or 3 students conducting lab exercises.

Mathematics

The MET technical math sequence includes topics in college algebra, trigonometry, and concepts of technical calculus, including limits, derivatives & differentiation, integration & integration techniques, and basic differential equations. This range of coverage exceeds the minimum requirements of Criterion 4 for an associate degree program.


Physical and Natural Sciences

The two-course physics sequence required by the MET program covers topics in mechanics, heat, wave motion, sound, electricity, light, and basics of modern physics. Coverage is from the perspective of the basic sciences, which provides students with a broader theoretical foundation for their studies in the electrical and electronic technical sciences. Both courses include experimental lab activities. This content and focus is consistent with the physical and natural sciences requirement of Criterion 4 for an associate degree program.

Social Sciences and Humanities

All associate degree graduates at Penn State must complete a minimum of nine credits in the study of the social sciences, humanities, and arts. One course in each area is generally required. Additionally, at least one of these courses must be either intercultural in nature or must be international in focus to satisfy University-wide requirements for breadth and diversity in programs’ societal and global perspectives. These requirements are consistent with the social sciences and humanities requirement of Criterion 4 for an associate degree program.

Technical Content

The technical content of the MET curriculum consists of the combination of ET, EGT, and MET designated courses (see Table B.4-1 above). The combination of these courses represents 36 credits, or 54%, of the total 67 credits in the program, which is between the minimum of 33% and the maximum of 67% required by the General Criteria.

The ET and 100-level EGT, IET, and MCHT-designated courses constitute the core or foundation of the program. The ET courses provide students with foundation training in computer tools which are essential to success in the program. The EGT courses provide a similar purpose with respect to engineering drawing and computer-aided drafting skills. The freshman-level EET courses teach students the fundamental concepts, theories and analysis techniques for dealing with DC and AC.

IET courses expose students to different manufacturing techniques and selected topics of metallurgy and heat treatment. MCHT courses provide students with a background in statics as a foundation for performing structural analysis.

The 200-level MET, EGT, and IET courses represent the technical specialty courses in the MET program. Building on the core courses, these courses teach students solid modeling, strength of materials, dynamics, machine design, and tool design.

Laboratory Activities

Laboratory activities support essentially all core and specialty topics. All laboratories require students to use standard laboratory measurement equipment (VEGA universal material tester, hardness tester, impact tester, fatigue tester, creep tester, strain gage, etc.). In most cases, the data determined through these measurements are analyzed and synthesized into formal laboratory reports.


Design Practices and the Use of Design Tools

Design practices and the use of design tools in the MET curriculum are concentrated in two topical areas: machine design and tool design. Courses in each of the areas require students to complete open-ended design projects or design analysis. Design projects include structural analysis, as well as the use of solid modeling software.

Capstone ExperienceA capstone design project is incorporated into the MET 210W course. This is an open-ended project in which the students are required to write a formal report and make an oral presentation.

B.4.c-Quality Assurance of Core Courses

Section B.3.a. describes the general quality control process and administrative features implemented by SEDTAPP and Hazleton Campus administration to monitor, maintain, and improve the courses that make up the MET program. However, the MET coordinator and program faculty also employ individual practices that provided added monitoring, assurance and improvement in course delivery.

Individual instructors teaching in the MET Program have the responsibility to assess the level at which the students meet the course outcomes. This assessment needs to be done from three different perspectives in order to secure a higher accuracy. The three recommended perspectives are

Faculty assessment of individual students Faculty perspective for meeting course outcomes Student perspective for meeting course outcomes

At the end of each MET course, the individual instructors teaching the course should assess the level of mastery of the program outcomes by the students and suggest improvements that the instructor feels would increase the effectiveness of the course the next time it is offered. The individual instructors are obligated to incorporate the corrective actions that they have made for the next time that the course is offered. The instructor will also notify the course chair for a particular course of problems and the suggested corrective actions which have been taken to improve the effectiveness of the course. The course chair will readjust the course outline at least once a year taking under consideration CQI feedback from the instructors who are teaching the course. This procedure allows for the closing of the loop for CQI of the course on a one semester cycle on the individual campuses and on a one year cycle on the system-wide level, that is, changes suggested by the course chair (Figure B. 4.1). Documentation related to the individual courses will be maintained by the instructor who is teaching the course and the course chair system-wide. That information will be available to the campus program coordinator and the system-wide program coordinator.


Figure B.4.1 - CQI Course Loop for Individual Courses

Course Outline

Course Outcome

Assessment of Mastery Assessment of Mastery Assessment of MasteryOf the Course Outcomes Of the Course Outcomes Of the Course Outcomes(Faculty Assessment of (Faculty Perception) (Student Perception)Individual Students)

Analysis of Assessment Results

(Instructor)

Suggestions for Course Improvement (Instructor)

Notification of Course Chair

Suggestions for Course ImprovementCourse Chair

One Semester Cycle One Year Cycle


B.4.d-Course Descriptions

Standard course outlines can be viewed at the Engineering Technology Student Guide website ( http://cede.psu.edu/StudentGuide/associate/2met.htm). Detailed outlines/syllabi for the technical core and specialty courses listed in Table B.4.1, as conducted at the Hazleton campus will be part of the display during the visit.

Both a hardcopy of the course outlines and a CD version of the course outlines are also provided.

B.4.e-Demonstration of Adequate Attention to Key Curriculum Components

The following table shows the breakdown, by credit count, of the distinct curricular elements for the MET program:

Table B.4-2 – Credit Allocations to Key Curricular Topics(Upper-Division Courses Only)

Curricular Area Total Credits Percent of ProgramTechnical Content 36 54 %

Mathematics 10 15%Physical Sciences 6 9%Communications 6 9%Soc. Sc/Hum/Arts 9 13%

Totals 67 100%

As the table shows, almost 54% of the curriculum is dedicated to technology subjects. Furthermore, 78% of the program is dedicated to technology subjects supported by critical math and science topics. The remaining ~22% of the program is committed to essential communications skills and exposure to core topics in the humanities and social sciences. This distribution of studies is typical of similar programs at other schools.

B.4.f -Co-operative Education Provisions

The Hazleton Campus’s MET program has no co-operative education or internship provisions. The campus has significant interaction with regional employers and therefore allows for a coop-like relationship between employers and program students.

B.4.g-Additional Review Materials

Most review materials demonstrating the above described characteristics are included in the ‘Outcomes’ and ‘Course’ files described previously in section B.2.e. Information not contained


http://cede.psu.edu/StudentGuide/associate/2met.htm

in those files generally will be found in appendices to this report or online at SEDTAPP-maintained websites. Where appropriate, the text herein indicates the relevant appendix or identifies the Internet address to the relevant website. (Note – if viewing an electronic version of this report from an Internet-connected computer, links to online sources are active, and the information may be accessed directly by ‘clicking’ on the link while holding down the ‘Ctrl’ key).


B.5 Program FacultyQualificationsa. Complete Table 5.1, Faculty Analysis, which summarizes information about each faculty member. Include part-time

and adjunct faculty members. In addition, provide current curriculum vitae for all faculty members with the rank of instructor and above who have primary responsibilities for the technical course work associated with the program. The format should be consistent for each curriculum vita, must not exceed two pages per person, and must contain adequate details to support the information entered in Table 5.1. Be sure to include:

Degrees with fields, institution, and date Number of years service on this faculty, including date of original appointment and dates of advancement in rank Related teaching and other work experience Professional registration by States, if applicable Active membership in professional and scientific societies Honors, awards, publications Institutional and professional service in the last five years Professional development activities in the last five years


B.5.a-Faculty Analysis

Table B.5-1 summarizes the qualifications of all faculty teaching in the MET program. Activity assessments reflect the last three years. Curriculum vitae follow the table.

Table B.5.1

NameRank FT

or P

T Degrees EarnedDegree, Year,& Institution

Years of ExperienceProfessional Registration

(Indicate State)

Level of Activity (high, med, low, none)* in:

Govt./Industry Eng/ET

Teaching Eng/ET

ThisInstitution

Professional Development

Professional Society Work in Industry

Wes Grebski Associate

Professor

FT MS Mech Eng 1974

Stanislaw Staszic

PhD Tech Sci 1978 Stanislaw

Staszic

4 27 21 Presentations at

professional meetings

ASME

ASEE

PA Academy of

Science

Ongoing consulting work

Raj

Amireddy

Instructor FT MS Mech Eng 1987

University of Toledo,

Ohio

15 4 4 Presentations at

professional meetings.

ASME

ASEE

Ongoing consulting work

Maryam

Ghorieshi

Instructor FT BS Electrical Eng1986

State University of New York at

Buffalo

MS Elect. Eng 1991

Wilkes University

3 16 15 ASEE


Biographical Data – Wieslaw Grebski, Ph.D.

Department: School of Engineering Design, Technology, and Professional Programs

Date Hired: August 1984

Years/Service: 21 years of service

Rank: Associate Professor – 1986

Degrees:

Ph.D. Technical Sciences 1978 Stanislaw Staszic University of Mining and Metallurgy M.S. Mechanical Engineering 1974 Stanislaw Staszic University of Mining and Metallurgy

Other Teaching:

Adjunct Professor Stanislaw Staszic University of Mining and MetallurgyAssistant Professor Stanislaw Staszic University of Mining and Metallurgy

Industrial:

Summit Manufacturing Developing a method of doing stress (Part-Time): 1988-1997 analysis of poles for highway signs and

base plates.Consulting:

“Assistance with a Project to Further Streamline the Manufacture of the Various Product Offerings at AllSteel Inc., Hazleton Plant.” Northeastern Pennsylvania Industrial Resource Center, $7,141.20. Principle Investigator. Funded 2003.

“Implement the Cellular Manufacture of the Lateral File Cabinet at AllSteel Inc., Hazleton Plant.” Northeastern Pennsylvania Industrial Resource Center. $8,872.40. Principle Investigator. Funded 2002.

“Implementation of the Cellular Manufacture at AllSteel Inc., Hazleton Plant.” Northeastern Pennsylvania Industrial Resource Center. $1,190. Principle Investigator. Funded 2002.

“Introduction of a Generic Two-Sided Grill for Garland Commercial Industries, Inc.” Northeastern Pennsylvania Industrial Resource Center, $20,233. Principle Investigator. Funded 2002.

Professional Recognition:

Certificate of Appreciation Awarded by Board of Governors of ASME, 1999-2001.

Publications During the Last Five Years

Grebski, Wes and Turowski, Jacek. “Globalization of Engineering Design Projects”. iCEER Conference on Engineering Education and Research. Olomouc, Czech Republic, June 27, 2004.


Grebski, Wes, Amireddy, R., O’Donnell, J., Singer, L. “Linking Engineering Technology with a Business Administration Program”. 3rd International Conference on Engineering and Computer Education. Sao Paulo, Brazil, March 16-19, 2003.

Grebski, Wes, Dudeck, K. “Involvement of an Industrial Advisory Committee to Maximize Learning”. 58th Annual Conference of the Pennsylvania Association of Two Year Colleges. Champion, Pennsylvania, April 25-27, 2001.

Grebski, Wes, O’Donnell, J. “Partnering With Private Industry to Maximize Learning in Associate Degree Technology Programs”. 57th Annual Conference of The Pennsylvania Association of Two-Year Colleges. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, April 5-7, 2000.

Scientific and Professional Societies:

American Society of Mechanical Engineers – MemberAmerican Society of Engineering Educators – Member Faculty Advisor of the Student Chapter of ASME (1995 – 2002)Pennsylvania Academy of Science - Member Honors and Awards:

2005 Commonwealth College Excellence in Academic Advising Award2004 George T. Bobby Excellence in Academic Advising Award2001 Teaching Excellence Award – Hazleton Educational Council

Other Duties: (Base Salary): Mechanical Engineering Technology Group Leader


Biographical Data – Raj AmireddyDepartment: School of Engineering Design and Professional Programs

Date hired: August 1, 2002

Number of years of service to department: 3 years / 8/1/2002

Present academic rank and date obtained: Instructor on 8/1/2002

Degrees (state field, institution, and date of graduation): M.S. in Mechanical Engineering, University of Toledo, Ohio, August 1987

Other teaching experience (state where, dates, and in what capacity):1996 – 2000: Vocational courses for fresh hires with mechanical background.

Professional Registration: Registered Professional Engineer by the State of MichiganCertified Enterprise Integrator by the Society of Manufacturing Engineers (SME)Certified Engineering Manager by the Society of Manufacturing Engineers (SME)Certificate in Nano Manufacturing Technology by Penn State University

Full-time Industrial experience (state where, dates, and in what capacity):01/01-07/02: Principal/Consultant - Elenar Tech Inc., 475 Sheffield Ct., Canton, MI - 48188

11/93 - 12/00: President - Kelton Graphics Inc., 32175 Industrial Rd., Livonia, MI – 48150Design of sheet metal dies using exact manufacturable/machinable solidsConversion of manual drawings to CAD into 2D or 3D (solids/wire frame) as per customer requirementsCATIA/IDEAS/ANSYS training aimed at product/tool/die designDevelopment of software for automating the tool/die design process (CADE)Downstream tools to evaluate the output QC data for the plastic material thicknessDesign, model and FEA analysis of power generation equipment components and assemblies (Compressors, pumps, Motors & Heat Exchangers)Design & Model Fuel Cell Power Generation SystemThe various systems used in the process are:CATIA, IDEAS, UGII, AutoCAD, ANSYS, GITA, PCs, etc

02/88 - 09/93: Graphics Manager - Solartec inc., Salem, OH – 44460Promoted to this position to formulate a master plan for creation and expansion of the CAD/CAM and computing departments. Develop a long-term strategy to effectively utilize CAD/CAM/CAE for the whole enterprise using lean manufacturing methods.Customized CATIA, UGII and CALMA systems for effective use in Checking Fixtures, Sheet metal Tools & Dies and Plastic MoldsDeveloped a methodology to utilize the shop floor knowledge for CAD/CAM customizationImplemented effective data management strategies for the organization to minimize 'art to part' timeDeveloped an automated process for generating NC locator blocks used in the Robotic weld lines at GM Lordstown assembly plant.


Develop SPC methods for in-house manufacturing needs. Automate the process for using "six-sigma", Cp, and Cpk methods for process capabilities. Apply DFMEA and PFMEA techniques to reduce the final rejection rate of components being manufacturedDeveloped and implemented a shop floor bar coding system to collect real time data for tracking job progress on shop floor and use the same data in payroll system, process control & schedulingDevelop curriculum to train new users to be productive in a short period of timeDeveloped a comprehensive enterprise wide network using TCP/IP and Token Ring connecting CAD, CAM, CNC, CMM, Shop Floor, Estimation & administration departments

09/87 - 01/88: CAD/CAM Engineer - Solartec inc., Salem, OH - 44460Development of a post processor for NC data output from CAD/CAM systemsProduct Design/Reverse Engineering: Developed and implemented a procedure to digitize the surface data of automotive wooden and plastic part models on a CMM and generate the surface geometry in CAD system.Fixture Design: Design checking/assembly fixtures for sheet metal/plastic components and assembliesWrote macros to improve existing surface and spline generation routines for checking fixture design and manufacturing. Reduced surface generation time by 80%.Developed macros to automate the generation of QC data for surface quality checking on CAD system and write it to a file in a suitable format to be directly used on the CMMSystem installation and maintenance for operating system software and CAD/CAM software.

Principal Publications during the last five years:Amireddy, R., Grebski, W., O’Donnell, J., Singer, L., "Linking Engineering Technology with a Business Administration Program", Proceedings of “ICECE2003 International Conference on Engineering and Computer Education, March 2003, Santos, Brazil.”

Honors and Awards during the last five years: Dean’s List in MEMS/N.M.T Program at Penn State University

Institutional and Professional service in the last five years: Member, Society of Manufacturing EngineersMember, American Society of Mechanical EngineersMember, American Society of Engineering EducationMember, Education Technology Committee, PSU – HazletonMember, Industrial Advisory Committee, PSU – HazletonMember, Cultural Expo Committee, PSU – HazletonFaculty Advisor, Engineering Club, PSU – HazletonFaculty Advisor, ASME Student Chapter, PSU – Hazleton

Professional Development activities in the last five years:Achieved the following: Registered Professional Engineer by the State of MichiganCertified Enterprise Integrator by the Society of Manufacturing Engineers (SME)Certified Engineering Manager by the Society of Manufacturing Engineers (SME)Certificate in Nano Manufacturing Technology by Penn State University


Biographical Data – Maryam Ghorieshi

Name: Maryam GhorieshiDepartment: School of Engineering Design, Technology and Professional ProgramsDate hired: Fall 1992Number of years of service to department and date of appointment: 14 years, Fall 1992

Present academic rank and date obtained:Electrical Eng. Instructor, Nano-Fab. Manufacturing Technology Coordinator Nano-Fab. Manufacturing Technology, 1999 – present

Electrical Engineering Instructor 1992 - present

Degrees (state field, institution, and date of graduation): Master of Science in Electrical Engineering, PA, Wilkes University, 1991Bachelor of .Science in Electrical Engineering, State University of New York at Buffalo, NY, 1986

Other teaching experience (state where, dates, and in what capacity)Luzerne Community College, Instructor, Advance Technology Center, Nanitocke, PA, 1991 – 1992, Teaching: DC/AC Electricity, DC/AC Electricity Laboratories, and Physics.

Misericordia College, Instructor, Math/Computer Science Department, Wilkes-Barre, PA, 1991 – 1992, Teaching Computer Software Design, Calculus, Mathematical Reasoning.

Wilkes University, Teaching Assistant, Wilkes-Barre, PA, Sept. 1988-May 1991, Electrical Engineering Measurement lab, Circuit theory, and Electronics Lab. To develop new experiments, integrate CAD in laboratories, update experiments, revise manual, guide students to set up circuit and use equipment.

Part-time Industrial experience (state where, dates, and in what capacity)CAD/CAM Laboratory, Wilkes University, Wilkes-Barre, PA (Sept. 1988-Aug 1989) Assistant Facility ManagerResearch Assistant, Wilkes University, Wilkes-Barre, PA (Jun 1987-Sept 1988) Computer analysis on power transistor packages manufactured by Harris/RCA.Troubleshooting Laboratory Technician, VA Hospital, Buffalo, NY (Dec 1985-May 1986) Troubleshooting of electronic devices using an oscilloscope, curve tracer, multimeter, and function generator.

Principal Publications during the last five years:

Ghorieshi, M “Communication Skills for the Engineering Technology Graduate Industrial and Academic Perspectives” Present at 1999 ASEE Annual Conference.

Reviewer for following papers to presented and published in ASEE International Conference:


* Document 2002-242-Are Current Engineering Graduates in the US Being Treated as Commodities by

Employers?

* Document 2002-249- Faculty Exchange, one Aspect of international Co-operation.

* Document 2002-254- Being Political in the Global: How engineers accommodate, resist, and

experience ambiguity towards globalization.

* Document 2002-343-Development of new crashworthiness Evaluation Strategy for Advanced General

Aviation and Transport Aircraft Seats

* Document 2002-268-Technical English in a US Slovak Collaboration.) and many more

Institutional and Professional service in the last five years:

Presentation OrganizerNano Fabrication Lecture Coordinator of the Seminar with guest speaker

Professor Fonash

Access to Careers in Engineering and Information Technology (ACEIT) Program Executive, Program Coordinator, An active outreach program to promote Engineering Program. This program has been implemented due to grants since 1995

Eye on the Future – Nanotechnology Presentation Coordinator, guest speakers from the Center for Nanotechnology Education and Utilization (CNEU), UP, Presentation at Penn State Hazleton Campus open to public.

Kid Day Workshop, Coordinator, Engineering workshop for 6 and 7 grader, Spring 2000

Institutional Service* Elected Member to Engineering Faculty Council (2004- present)* Chairperson, Electrical Engineering Technology Curriculum Committee (1998 – 2002)* Elected to Penn State CEO Search and Hire Committee (1999)* Member of Electrical Engineering Technology Curriculum Committee (1995 – Present)

* Engineering Industrial Advisory Committee (1993- present) * Computer and Technology Committee

Professional Development activities in the last five years:

IEEE SOCC 2005, IEEE International Systems-on-Chip Conference, Herndon, Virginia, September 25-28, 2005 2000 Spring Regional Conference of the Middle Atlantic Section of the American Society for Engineering Education, State University of New York, Farmingdale, April 14-15


2000 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Engineering Education Beyond the Millennium, St. Louise, June 18 – 21

B.5.b- Relevance of Faculty Backgrounds to Program Curriculum

Demonstrate that the faculty members have suitable backgrounds and competencies to cover all of the curricular areas of the program. Relate the backgrounds and competencies of each faculty member to the program curricular areas.

The Mechanical Engineering Technology program is comprised of essentially three key components: computer-aided drafting, manufacturing, and engineering mechanics. Group leader, Wes Grebski, earned his Master’s Degree in Mechanical Engineering and his PhD in Technical Sciences. His primary teaching responsibilities include statics, dynamics, and machine design. Raj Amireddy joined the Hazleton Campus three years ago. Given his rather recent experience with the manufacturing industry, Mr. Amireddy has assumed ownership of the manufacturing based courses. The computer aided drafting courses are divided between Wes Grebski and Raj Amireddy considering the fact that both of them have an extensive background in computer aided drafting and design. Maryam Ghorieshi, a full-time instructor in the EET Program, teaches two electrical engineering technology courses which are required for the MET Program. While focused on their areas of specialization, all of these faculty members make a conscious effort to intertwine these three core program elements into their respective courses via detailed class design projects and/or tours to various industries within the community on a regular basis each semester.

B.5.c-Adequacy of Faculty-Student Interactions

Show that the number of faculty members is sufficient to accommodate student-faculty interaction, advising and counseling, service activities, professional development, and interaction with practitioners and employers, as required by Criterion 5.

Although the MET program consists of only two full-time faculty members, they are still able to sufficiently manage course loads and other expectations due to positive work conditions, good planning and mutual cooperation toward program goals and its students. It also helps that they have essentially the same group of students for several of their classes each semester which allows for continuous interaction with these students during and outside office hours as well as via the internet and telephone. The campus administration is sensitive in planning course schedules so as to allow off-campus time for consulting projects undertaken by the faculty as well as, research and professional development. The advising responsibility is split between two full-time faculty with the assistance of the Advising Center.

B.5.d-Technical Currency of Faculty

Demonstrate that each faculty member has sufficient industrial experience, professional practice, and technical currency to support the program.


Both MET faculty, Wes Grebski and Raj Amireddy, avail themselves of every opportunity to incorporate “real world” experiences into the classroom and to expose their students to actual engineering/engineering technology environs. In the process, both faculty members continually ensure technical currency in the field. The faculty and students from the MET Program are involved in providing technical expertise and services to the Hazleton Business Incubator Center which is located across the street from the Campus. In addition a number of applied research and design projects for local industry were completed by the faculty and students from the MET Program. A number of those projects were sponsored by external funding from the Northeastern Pennsylvania Industrial Resource Center and Ben Franklin Partnership.

B.5.e-Professional Development Program for Faculty

Show that a suitable process is in place to assure their effective professional development, and that it is adequately funded and effective. Provide detailed descriptions of professional development activities for each faculty member.

All faculty at the campus are given a deadline date each fall for request of travel funds for professional development that academic year. SEDTAPP has always been most gracious as to provide matching funds for its engineering faculty. Because funds are limited, faculty is expected to contribute personal funds which tend to increase effectiveness once back in the classroom due to first-hand costs. Additionally, all faculty complete an annual Faculty Activity Report (FAR), detailing professional achievements completed during the past year with plans included for the following year. Faculty is then reviewed at both the campus and department levels during the March Conferences. Then salary and merit pay are adjusted accordingly. Development activities are detailed in individual biographies.

B.5.f-Faculty Input into Program Objectives

Demonstrate that a suitable process is in place for faculty to define, revise, implement and achieve program objectives.

Program objectives and goals for the MET program, and the expected relationships among these and the program curriculum, are established by the MET Curriculum Committee, which involves representation from all the colleges that offer the MET program. These documents are maintained on-line at an open-access Internet site available to all faculty. The process for establishing and updating these documents involves Committee representatives notifying their constituent faculty of proposed changes, which are posted online, and asking for comment and reactions. All feedback received is provided to the Committee for consideration before modifications are adopted as final. As a result, all faculty have the opportunity to be involved in the creation of and modifications to the program.

Faculty is also included in the annual distribution of standard course outlines, which are first distributed in draft form for comment. Further, the on-line course assessment system (MEET see Section B.3.a.) gives all faculty the opportunity every semester to provide feedback to Course Chairs regarding appropriateness of, problems with, or suggestions for improvement of standard course outlines. These comments are reviewed by Course Chairs, who are charged with


responding to and resolving all such comments with both the faculty and the Curriculum Committee.

Finally, the faculty is involved in the monthly meetings of the MET Industrial Advisory Committee, which provides feedback on program and curriculum issues related to the program. These meetings provide the faculty the opportunity to discuss with active industry practitioners issues related to the topics they teach.

B.5.g-Faculty Workload

Complete Table 5.2, Faculty Workload Summary, for program faculty members having a full-time equivalent (FTE) assignment in the program. Give data for the current semester or quarter. An updated report for the current year is to be provided at the time of the visit.

Faculty Workload Summary for the 2005 – 2006 Academic Year is shown in Table B.5.2.

Table B.5.2

Range AverageCredit Hours 9-14 11.5Contact Hours Per Week 9-18 13.5Laboratory Size 6-12 9Class Size 8-22 15.5Advisees 12-24 18

B.5.h Faculty Teaching Assignments

Provide a listing of classes taught by each faculty member; be sure to include those scheduled for the semester during which the campus visit will occur.

Teaching Assignments for the 2005 – 2006 Academic Year are shown in Table B.5.3.

Table B.5.3

Faculty Member: Wes GrebskiSemester Courses

TaughtNumberSections

Credits Hours ofLecture

Hours ofLaboratory

TotalContactHours

Spring 05Spring 05Spring 05Spring 05

MET 210WMCHT 111EGT 114MET 297

1111

3322

2300

3064

5364

Total Contacts 18Fall 04Fall 04

MET 206EGT 201

1 1

32

31

02

32


Fall 04Fall 04

EMCH 11ENGR 100S

11

31

31

00

31

Total Contacts 9

Faculty Member: Raj AmireddySemester Courses



Hours ofLaboratory

TotalContactHours

Spring 05Spring 05Spring 05Spring 05Spring 05

IET 101EMCH 12EMCH 13IET 215ED&G 100

11111

33323

23320

20006

43326

Total Contacts 18Fall 04Fall 04Fall 04

MCHT 213MCHT 214ED&G 100

112

313

300

0212

3212

Total Contacts 17

Faculty Member: Maryam GhorieshiSemester Courses



Hours ofLaboratory

TotalContactHours

Spring 05Spring 05Spring 05Spring 05

EET 114EET 118EET 216EET 221

1111

4131

4030

0202

4232

Total Contacts 11Fall 04Fall 04Fall 04Fall 04Fall 04Fall 04

EET 101EET 109EET 205EET 210NMT 250NMT 210W

121111

311113

300013

042200

342213

Total Contacts 15


B.6 Program Facilities

B.6.a-Physical Facilities:

Describe classrooms, laboratory facilities, equipment, and infrastructure. Note any changes since the previous accreditation cycle (if applicable).

Lecture and laboratory facilities are good to excellent. Chemistry, Physics, and other basic science laboratories and equipment are typically excellent, lecture facilities are good. Facilities are adequate for present enrollment and any possible moderate increase in enrollment. The campus now has campus-wide high speed internet access. Three multi-media classrooms and one Pic-Tel classroom are available for MET lectures.

In addition to lab-based computing equipment, students in the MET program have access to computers in the campus Computer Center, which is open six days a week for a total of about 60 hours. The Computer Center consists of two general-purpose computer labs and an CAD classroom. The general computing area contains forty (40) student workstations, a digital scanner, and a networked printing center. The computers in the general area are Windows-based, Pentium-equipped workstations, typically with 196Mb or more of RAM and 20Gb hard drive. These stations also run Windows XP Professional and are networked to the campus central applications server, the University web, and e-mail servers. Available software includes the Windows Office Suite, Internet web browsers, e-mail, and a variety of software applications used in classroom instruction.

A variety of applications software is available on all of the Computer Center stations, and in many cases, to all computers connected to the campus network.

The Computer Center also maintains a collection of reference materials for all software. Materials are available to students for use in the Center, but they may not be checked out.

Changes Since the Previous Accreditation Visit

Additions to the physical facilities for the Associate Degree Mechanical Engineering Technology program at the campus are listed as follows:


2004 Instructional Equipment (new): $1,980

Item QuantityDI-195B Starter Kit 4DI-5B38 Strain Gage Input Modules 4

Instructional Equipment (used): $9,471

Tools List

Name List Weir-Hazleton

Micrometer 10"-11" (Starrett) $205 $179.00Last Word Electronic Gage (Starrett) $1,500 $868.00Bore Measuring Tool (Mitutoyo) $463 $334.00Gage Blocks (DoAll) $500 $250.00Gage Setting Fixture(Sunnen) $360 $180.00Height gage 18" (Starrett) $970 $1,541.00Bore Gage (Starrett) $630 $778.00Bore Scope (Ellis Optical) $4,000 $1,000.00Snap Gage 2"-4" (Starrett) $1,332 $1,061.00Snap Gage 4"-6" (Starrett) $3,400 $1,225.00Snap Gage 6"-8" (Starrett) $3,500 $1,144.00Micrometer 12"-16" (Starrett) $995 $614.00Granite Base Gage Mount (Starrett) $392 $102.00Granite Block (Starrett) $200 $50.00Gage Mount (Ralmike’s Tool-A-Rama) $173.50 $50.00Gage Mount (Starrett) $475 $95.00

$19,096 $9,471.00

2003 Instructional Equipment: $3,030

Item QuantityG4015Z Lathe/Mill 2G4011 – Sheet Metal Machine – 30” 1H2871 – 12 Ton Hydraulic Press (Floor Model) 1G4020 – Arbor Press – 3 Ton 1G9018 – 16 Ton Hydraulic Tube Bender 1G7918 – Universal Bending Machine 1


H3370 - Grizzly® Pancake Air Compressor 1

2002 Digital projection system in CAD Lab: $1,500

B.6.b-Adequacy of Facilities

Discuss the adequacy of these facilities to accomplish program objectives, as required by Criterion 6. As a minimum: Provide information concerning facilities such as classrooms, laboratories, computing, and information infrastructures that engineering technology students and faculty are expected to use in meeting the requirements of the program.

Physical facilities for the Associate Degree in Mechanical Engineering Technology technical courses are located in Kostos, Chestnut and Laurel buildings. The facilities include a Computer Aided Design Laboratory, a Materials Testing room, instructional classrooms, electrical engineering laboratory, restrooms, storage space and two offices. The program also uses the facilities of the Hazleton Area Career Center for automation, CNC, and shop floor experiences.

The Computer Aided Design Laboratory is equipped with 20 CAD workstations, a Hewlett Packard 755CM inkjet plotter, a Hewlett Packard laserjet printer and an overhead digital projection system used for class room presentations both by the instructor and students, and software demonstration by the instructor. The Computer Aided Design Laboratory is approximately 20’ X 37’, air-conditioned and has lighting suitable for CRT work.

The material testing laboratory located in Laurel building has equipment for material testing and analysis. The building also has a storage room where all the equipment is stored on shelves when not in use. The various equipment in this lab include hardness testers (both Brinell and Rockwell), Tinius Olsen Universal tester, VEGA universal material testers, impact tester, fatigue tester, creep tester, etc for material characterization. The lab also has a furnace, with the capability of performing heat treatment process and thereby changing the properties of the materials. The lab is also equipped with basic metrology tools to help the student understand and gain experience on tools like micrometers, calipers, height gages, etc. The lab also has combination lathe/mill machines to give the student exposure to basic machining processes of milling and turning along with hydraulic presses, etc., The lab is very well ventilated and heated and provides a very conducive learning environment.

The electrical engineering laboratory has 6 work station areas with all the necessary power supplies both in DC and AC, function generators, oscilloscopes, multi-meters and bread board kits that are needed for the students to build circuits and test them.

The classrooms in both the Kostos and Chestnut buildings are approximately 15’ X 20’ and are equipped with an overhead digital projection system used for presentations and lectures. High speed internet access is available in all instructional areas to expose the students to the latest material using the Internet.

Identify the reference materials and student learning opportunities associated with these facilities, particularly regarding the use of modern engineering technology tools.


The campus has a library which has a computer lab, LIAS (library internet access service). Students typically conduct the majority of their research using the internet to access the Thomas register, periodicals, manufactures catalogs, society publications, ASME, ASTM, ANSI for examples. It should be noted that even though “Machine Design” and “Mechanical Engineer” are available on the periodicals shelves in the library, the students prefer to do research on articles appearing in the above named periodicals on the internet.

The workstations in the Computer Aided Design lab are loaded with Microsoft Office Suite of Word, Excel, Access and Outlook. In the areas of CAD/CAM/CAE applications, the latest versions of Solid Works, AutoCAD, COSMOS are available for the student use.

The materials testing apparatus used in the IET 101 - Manufacturing Materials and Processes course with lab, MCHT 214 - Strength and Properties of Materials Laboratory, are older analog type apparatus. The equipment is serviceable and does not hinder the students’ developing an understanding of material properties.

B.7 Institutional and External Support

B.7.a-Institutional and Financial Support:

Describe the level and adequacy of institutional support, financial resources, and constructive leadership to achieve program objectives and assure continuity of the program, as required by Criterion 7. As a minimum: Describe the process to acquire, maintain, and operate facilities and equipment required to achieve program objectives and outcomes.

Over the last several years, monies to acquire equipment have been gotten thru gifts from foundations and benefactors. The Director of University Relations is the person who is the campus’s representative to patrons and benefactors who may wish to gift monies to the Associate Degree Mechanical Engineering Technology program. The monies for the upgrading of computers and software used in the Associate Degree Mechanical Engineering Technology program are budgeted annually. Monies to maintain equipment are on an as-needed basis and applied for through the Director of Academic Affairs’ office. When a piece of equipment is non-operational a decision is made to repair, scrap or replace. If the equipment is repairable, then it is sent out for repair. Monies for reasonable repairs have always been available. If it is determined that the piece of equipment is beyond repair and should be replaced then see the statement above regarding acquisition of equipment. If a piece of equipment is non-operational and is no longer needed in the program, then it is sent to salvage. Operation of equipment is always under the direction of the instructor of the course.

There is a part-time technician to oversee maintenance and operation of the equipment.

All students pay a computer surcharge to the University each semester, and a portion of the surcharge is returned to the campus in proportion to campus enrollment. This money is dedicated to maintaining state-of-the-art computers on campus, and in recent years has resulted in about 30 new computers being purchased each year. In recent years it has also been typical for the surcharge money to be supplemented by funds from the general budget of the College. These funds, too, have generally been earmarked for computer upgrades. When these funds are


available, the campus practice is to install the newest purchases in the campus Computer Center and to move existing computers out to other areas on campus. Engineering labs are typically one of the first areas to be considered in these moves, and several upgrades of lab computers have occurred since the last accreditation visit.

Discuss the adequacy of support personnel and institutional services necessary to achieve program objectives and outcomes.

The campus provides financial aid services, advising, tutoring, and career placement services. Students on work study or wage payroll and a part-time technician are the support personnel for the maintenance of laboratory equipment; other than that, the faculty maintains the equipment. The Engineering Technology faculty prepares their own exams, reports, etc.

Describe the processes in place to ensure effective selection, supervision, and support of faculty.

Faculty positions are publicly advertised. A search committee is delegated with the responsibility of screening all candidates for the advertised position. Instructors are required to hold a minimum of a master’s degree, more recently however a PhD degree is being required. Instructors are hired having varying degrees of industrial experience.

Engineering technology faculty in the University College must maintain currency in their given fields, including keeping abreast of technological advances in their fields and of the changing technical skills needed in industry and other employment settings.

According to University policy (policy HR-40), each January faculty must submit Faculty Activity Reports that detail, for the previous chronological year, activity in the three main areas of responsibility: teaching, research/scholarship, and service. The reports provide a basis for annual reviews: First, individual pre-March conferences between the faculty members and the campus Director of Academic Affairs (DAA) are held. Secondly, March Conferences at University Park between the Campus DAA and Executive Officer (CEO) and the SEDTAPP Head produce an overall consensus rating, on a 5 point scale, of each faculty member’s performance. Additionally, individual ratings are established for teaching, scholarship/research and service. These ratings are reported back to the faculty by the DAA in post-March conferences. Finally, as a formal follow-up to the conferences, annual performance letters are written by the DAA, with input from and concurrence of the CEO and the School Head, and forwarded to the faculty.

Within SEDTAPP, faculty is encouraged to attend two professional meetings a year, one with a technical focus, usually in the form of regional or national or, on occasion, international conferences or workshops. Preference in the funding of these activities is given to faculty who are on the tenure track and who are presenting. There is support also for attendance at meetings to provide service to the profession through the chairing of sessions or committee work. To support faculty advancement broadly, multiple funding sources are available to the faculty. With justification, faculty members can obtain financial support from:

the College for up to $2,000 for Research Development Grants, which can include travel

SEDTAPP for up to $500 for matching travel support the campus for up to $1000 for travel support the Global Fund for up to $500 matching for out-of-country research/scholarship

activities


All standing faculty positions (tenured, tenure-track, continuing appointments) are indefinite in length. One-year fixed term and multi-year fixed term appointments are automatically renewed at the time of their expiration unless there is a substantive change in the situation of the appointment.

For faculty on the tenure track, a promotion and tenure process takes place that is separate from the annual reviews discussed earlier. This process is governed by University policy HR-23 and by statements of expectations and criteria for tenure and promotion for the College of Engineering, SEDTAPP, the University College, and the campus. Reviews are performed at the second, fourth, and sixth year marks. The sixth-year review is for tenure and promotion, which are now linked at Penn State. Promotion to Professor typically occurs no sooner than the eleventh year mark (five years subsequent to earliest promotion to Associate level) However, Associate Professors may request consideration for promotion to full Professor at any point subsequent to the eleventh year. For all reviews, the levels of review in the system consist of the Campus committee, the DAA and CEO, the SEDTAPP committee, the SEDTAPP Head, and the University College Dean, for each of which a review letter is written. For tenure (sixth year) and promotion, the University Promotion and Tenure Committee and the University Provost are involved.

Faculty members compile dossiers for the review process, with teaching, research and scholarly activity, and service serving as the basis for the reviews, as for annual reviews. Methods for judging what constitute good teaching, research, scholarship, and service are established by the campus, SEDTAPP, and the College, respectively. It should be noted that attainment of a national reputation, as reflected in independently solicited external letters and evidence of a plan of research are two particularly important aspects of successful promotion.

Many units within the University, including the College, the Campus and SEDTAPP, provide promotion and tenure workshops, individual feedback and dossier critiquing to help faculty prepare for the process. The DAA, in particular, regularly assesses and discusses the progress of faculty on the tenure-track through the annual review process and by handling applications for research funding.

University policy (policy HR-80) provides for faculty to do private consulting work for a maximum of one day per week provided their assigned duties are not impacted negatively. SEDTAPP faculty members are encouraged to consult to remain current in their fields and to enhance research and scholarship opportunities that might be important for promotion and tenure or for annual review.

As part of a research institution, faculty at the campus who are on the tenure track are expected to be involved in research. Appropriate to the delivery of engineering technology programs, the engineering technology faculty may be engaged in more applied types of research and making connection with local industries. Faculty can obtain support for their research activities through two main sources: Research Development Grants from the College for up to $2,000 and the Fund for Research and Development at the campus for up to $800. The College also has recognized in its Statement of Expectations and Criteria for Tenure and Promotion that, while there can be no compromise on the quality of research performed, the quantity expected need not approach that of the faculty at University Park. Moreover, more applied or pedagogy-related research is more appropriate at the commonwealth campuses. Major sponsored research projects funded by external agencies are encouraged, and release time from teaching will be supported. In addition to


the sources noted above, the College also awards Undergraduate Research Stipends of $500 to faculty to support students working with faculty on research.

The University supports the idea of standardized teaching loads for faculty. SEDTAPP has established guidelines on teaching loads that are specific to faculty at the campus and are intended to bring consistency across the College. They allow, however, for variations having to do with the availability of laboratory technician support, the numbers of preparations done in a semester, or the significance of professional service, etc. Allowance of lower loads for research-active versus non-tenure-track faculty is made. Relative to a standard load range, the campus supports the paying of extra compensation to faculty members who agree to teach additional courses, so long as this does not unduly affect their research productivity negatively. These guidelines are available at <<http://www.cede.psu.edu/tc2k/Engineering_8-05.pdf>>.

Describe the processes in place to ensure effective selection and supervision of students, including remediation, advisement, retention, assurance that students meet all curricular requirements, and employment assistance.

The campus has an open enrollment policy. Students are administered the FTCAP test at the time of acceptance into the university to determine their placement in math and English. If the results of the test scores are such then the students are placed in remedial math and remedial English courses. Students do not receive credit toward their degree work for these courses.

An advisor is assigned to each student in the Associate Degree Mechanical Engineering Technology program. Near the conclusion of each semester students are advised of the courses that he or she should take in the following semester. If a student should require individualized advising then the student arranges a meeting with his or her advisor.

A variety of advising, counseling, and career-related services are available to engineering technology students at the Hazleton campus. Chief among these is a professional Learning Center that is staffed by two full-time professional teaching/staff members. These individuals manage the learning support activities of the center, which include the services of a full-time career services counselor, an English tutor and on average 10 - 12 peer tutors. The activities of the Learning Center include:

Tutoring (on-demand and scheduled, professional and peer, individual and group) in the sciences, mathematics, engineering and engineering technology, and English.

Supplemental instruction, via recitation sessions, in math, physics, and chemistry. Study skills workshops covering time management, listening, note taking, reading,

memory building, test taking, concentration, and preparing for final exams. Various resource materials including drill and practice software in math, English,

chemistry, and biology; solutions manuals; supplemental texts; and example tests. Specific engineering technology support for engineering technology courses. Professional tutoring, critiquing and feedback for technical writing Resume writing workshops Job interview skills training Job posting services Graduate exit survey services


http://www.cede.psu.edu/tc2k/Engineering_8-05.pdf

Maintenance of communications links with past graduates.

Professional counseling services for students are also available at the Learning Center. While most students obtain academic advising from faculty members, some “at risk” students often seek additional advising and personal counseling in the Learning Center. Increasingly, students’ ability to succeed in college is impacted by their personal difficulties. Personal counseling for this type of issue is available at the Learning Center.

The campus currently has a job placement officer. Employment opportunities are posted by this office. In addition to on-campus interviews, job fairs are periodically organized.

B.7.b-Support Expenditures for the Program Complete Table 7.1, Support Expenditures For The Program. Report fiscal year expenditures for support functions of the engineering technology program being evaluated. The information is to be supplied for each of the three most recent fiscal years. The current fiscal year is the year during which you will be preparing this self-study. Provide your preliminary estimate of annual expenditures if your current fiscal year is not over. Provide an updated table at the time of the visit.

Table B.7.1 lists the expenditures directly supporting the MET Program during the last three years and the anticipated expenditures for the coming year.

Table B.7.1

Expenditure Category Two years ago Last Year Current YearBudgeted for the Year of the Visit

Operations, excluding staff 1 $6,877 $9,990 $13,293 $14,100Travel 2 $2,829.00 $1,168.00 $1,300.00 $1,500.00Equipment: 3

(a) Institutional Funds 220.00 618.00 272.00 500.00 (b) Grants and Gifts 4 $1,500.00 $5,700.00 $9,957.00 $10,000.00Temporary (non-teaching) Assistance

$2,328.00 $2,504.00 $1,764.00 $ 2,100.00

Notes:1. Include general operating expenses here.2. Institutionally sponsored, excluding special program grants.3. Major laboratory equipment. The expenditures (a) and (b) in the table should total the

expenditures for Equipment. 4. Including special, non-recurring equipment purchase programs.


B.7.c-Characteristics of the Industrial Advisory Committee for the MET Program

Describe the makeup and activities of the program’s industrial advisory committee. Provide evidence that the committee is supported and active, and that input from industry is being used to shape the program.

The Industrial Advisory Committee is comprised of individuals representing a cross section from local industries. Meetings are conducted once a month. Minutes from the meetings are available electronically at http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/k/e/ked2/IAC/IAC.htm. IAC membership is listed in Table B.7.2.

Table B.7.2 - IAC Members:

Last name First name Email Address Employer Address Tel.

Amireddy Raj [email protected]. Penn State Hazleton 76 University Drive Hazleton, PA 18202 450-3084

Bartkus Vince [email protected] PPL 344 S. Poplar Avenue Hazleton, PA 18201 459-7327

Dudeck Ken [email protected] Penn State Hazleton 76 University Drive Hazleton, PA 18202 450-3085

Ghorieshi Maryam [email protected] Penn State Hazleton 76 University Drive Hazleton, PA 18202 450-3086

Grant Lou [email protected] Tubular,LLC 225 Kiwanis Blvd.

West Hazleton, PA 18202 454-8730

Grebski Wieslaw [email protected] Penn State Hazleton 76 University Drive Hazleton, PA 18202 450-3087

Gregory Monica [email protected] Penn State Hazleton 76 University Drive Hazleton, PA 18202 450-3188

Hayden George [email protected] George J. Hayden, Inc. 235 E. Maple Street Hazleton, PA 18201 455-6109

Hoegg James [email protected] Leader Data Processing75 Kiwanis Boulevard, P.O. Box 0

West Hazleton, PA 18201 455-8511

Leander Gary [email protected] Hazleton Pumps Inc 225 North Cedar Street Hazleton, PA 18201 455-7711

Madden John [email protected] Penn State Hazleton 76 University Drive Hazleton, PA 18202 450-3032

Manorek Anthony [email protected] PA IND. Resource Center 75 Young Street

Wilkes-Barre, PA 18706 819-8966

McGuire Sally [email protected] Penn State Hazleton 76 University Drive Hazleton, PA 18201 450-3053

Meiss Henry [email protected] Merck & Company 100 Avenue C Riverside, PA 17868 275-5877

O'Donnell Judy [email protected] Penn State Hazleton 76 University Drive Hazleton, PA 18201 450-3022

Ridley Rodney [email protected] Semiconductor 125 Crestwood Road

Mountaintop, PA 18707

474-6761 X4828

Rowlands David [email protected] Rowlands Sales Co Inc Butler Industrial Park Hazleton, PA 18201 455-5813

Zoba Joe [email protected] Engineering Company, Inc 198 South Poplar Street Hazleton, PA 18201 455-7531


http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/k/e/ked2/IAC/IAC.htm

B.8 Program Criteria

Demonstrate that the discipline-specific components of the program meet the requirements of all applicable program criteria.

The program meets the requirements of all applicable program criteria for Mechanical Engineering Technology. Table B.8.1 shows the mapping of individual courses to program criterion. It can be seen from looking at this table that subjects required by program criteria have sufficient coverage in individual courses.

TableB.8.1 - Mapping program courses to program criteria.

Courses

Program Criteria

A B C

Engi

neer

ing

Mat

eria

ls

App

lied

Mec

hani

cs

Fund

amen

tals

of E

lect

ricity

Man

ufac

turin

g Pr

oces

ses

Mec

hani

cal D

esig

n

Com

pute

r

Aid

ed

Engi

neer

ing

Gra

phic

s (

in

dept

h co

vera

ge)

App

lied

Mec

hani

cs

Elec

trici

ty a

nd M

agne

tism

Phys 150 X Phys 151 X EGT 101 X EGT 102 X EGT 114 X EGT 201 X X MET 206 X MET 210W X X X MCH T 111 X MCH T 213 X X MCH T 214 X X IET 101 X X IET 215 X X X IET 216 X X X Tech Elective EET 101 X EET 109 X

The additional materials that will be available for review during the visit to demonstrate achievement of the Mechanical Engineering Technology program criteria will include:


a. MEET surveyb. Exit surveyc. Graded exam questions sorted according to outcomesd. Graded reports sorted according to outcomese. Portfolio of campus activities


APPENDIX

CROSS REFERENCE: SELF-STUDY TO TAC OF ABET ASSESSMENT FORM


REPORT CROSS-REFERENCE TO TAC OF ABET ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS (FORM TC4)

QUESTIONS RELATED TO MET PROGRAM TITLE, DEGREE OFFERINGS AND OPTIONS

Program Title : Mechanical Engineering Technology

Degree Conferred : Associate Degree

Delivery mode : two-year, semester-based, daytime-only program

Remote/alternative delivery, co-op, etc. options : none

CRITERION #1-QUESTIONS RELATED TO MET PROGRAM OBJECTIVES

Program Objectives : Official program objectives for the MET program are published and maintained on the SEDTAPP ET programs website at

<<http://www.cede.psu.edu/tc2k/contents/programs.htm>>Current program objectives for MET are listed in section B.1.b of this report.

Consistency of Institution and Program Missions : Consistency of MET program objectives with the missions of Penn State, the College of Engineering, and the SEDTAPP is described in section B.1.a.

Maintenance of Program Objectives : The MET Curriculum Committee is responsible for maintaining and updating MET program objectives. The review, assessment, and updating processes are described in Section B.3.

Reflection of Constituents’ Needs in Program Objectives : MET program objectives are based on inputs from all program constituents (i.e., faculty, students, administrators, and industry representatives). The process for involving these groups in the establishment of objectives is discussed in section B.3.

Adequacy of Educational Program to Support Stated Objectives : Sections B.4, B.5, and B.6 describe the curriculum, faculty, and facilities, respectively, that ensure that graduates of the MET program can achieve the stated program objectives.

CRITERION #2-QUESTIONS RELATED TO MET PROGRAM OUTCOMES

Program Outcomes : Official program outcomes for the MET program are published and maintained on the SEDTAPP ET programs website at

<<http://www.cede.psu.edu/tc2k/contents/programs.htm>>Current program outcomes for MET are listed in section B.2.a.

Adequacy of Program Outcomes to Encompass TAC of ABET Criteria 2a – 2k : The defined MET program outcomes are not an identical match to the 2a – 2k criteria; however, they` do encompass the full intent of the 2a – 2k criteria. This relationship is discussed in section B.2.b and shown explicitly in Table B.2.1.

Ability of Program Outcomes to Achieve Specific Elements of Criteria 2a – 2k : Table B.2.1 shows the correlation between MET program outcomes and criteria 2a – 2k. Table B.2.3 shows the relationships between program outcomes and specific curriculum elements in the MET program. In combination, these tables indicate how the MET program addresses individual 2a – 2k criteria. Specific items reflecting coverage of criteria 2a – 2k are identified in the following:


http://www.cede.psu.edu/tc2k/contents/programs.htm

http://www.cede.psu.edu/tc2k/contents/programs.htm

– Criterion 2a: Technical knowledge, analytical skills, and analysis methods relevant to mechanical engineering technology are covered in the core MET technical courses MCHT 111, MET 206, MCHT 213, IET 101, IET 215, EET 101, MET 210W. Key computer-based skills and tools are covered in EGT 101, EGT 102, ET 2, EGT 114, and EGT 201.

– Criterion 2b : The ability of MET students to apply technical skills and analytical tools, particularly those demanding understanding and application of math and science concepts, is challenged throughout the MET curriculum. However, the key courses relied on to develop these skills are MCHT 111, MET 206, MCHT 213, MET 210W, and EET 101.

– Criterion 2c : The ability of MET students to analyze, interpret and apply experimental results is demonstrated in all of the lab-based MET courses. However, key courses relied on to develop these skills are MCHT 214, IET 101, EET 109.

– Criterion 2d : The ability of MET students to apply creativity to design of systems, components, and processes is most emphasized in work assignments in EGT 201, IET 215, and MET 210W, which encompass the topics of machine design and tool design.

– Criterion 2e : The ability of MET students to work effectively in teams is demonstrated in essentially all lab-based MET courses. However, key courses relied on to develop team-based skills are EET 109, MCHT 214, and IET 101.

– Criterion 2f : The ability of MET students to formulate, analyze, and accurately solve technical problems is an inherent requirement in all the technical skills courses. However, key courses relied on to develop problem-solving skill IET 215, MCHT 213, MET 206, MCHT 111, and MET 210W.

– Criterion 2g : MET students develop fundamental writing and speaking skills in required English composition (ENGL 015) and public speaking (CAS 100) courses. Effective application of these skills to technical subjects is emphasized in MET 210W, IET 101, EET 109, and MCHT 214. Some of these courses also emphasize effective visual and graphical presentation of technical information.

– Criterion 2h : The importance of life-long learning is emphasized throughout the MET curriculum. (Especially MET 210W)

– Criterion 2i : Awareness of professional, ethical, and societal responsibilities of practicing technologists is addressed across the MET curriculum. (Especially MET 210W)

– Criterion 2j : Respect for diversity and knowledge of and appreciation for important issues of contemporary society are impressed upon MET students via the University’s General Education requirements, particularly those related to required diversity-focused studies in either the Arts, Humanities, or Social Sciences.

– Criterion 2k : Instilling in MET students a commitment to quality and continuous improvement is inherent in any number of the project and laboratory exercises they perform. However, particular emphasis to these concepts is provided in the report and project development exercises in MET 210W .

Verification of Achievement of Outcomes Prior to Graduation : Verification of achievement of outcomes is based on the assumption that successful completion of all required courses indicates successful achievement of required course outcomes, which in turn assures achievement of required program outcomes as indicated in Section B.2 of this report. Verification that all graduates have successfully completed all required courses in the MET curriculum is done by both the program coordinator and the University Registrar. The verification process is described in Section B.9 of Volume II of this report.

CRITERION #3 – QUESTIONS RELATED TO MET PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION

Formal Assessment Process in Place and Functioning : A full description of the CQI processes used to ensure continuing assessment and improvement of the MET program is provided in section B.3 of this report.


Written Continuous Improvement Plan in Place : Since fall of 2003, the SEDTAPP has been issuing an “ETCETC2K Resource Manual” to all faculty teaching engineering technology in the Penn State system. This manual provides reference materials, assessment guidance, timetables for action, contact points, and task assignments so that all program coordinators and ET faculty are aware of what is expected of them and what resources are at their disposal to conduct the ETCE’s CQI program. It also identifies the key tools (MEET survey system, archived MEET survey data, standard course outlines, etc.) that are available to assist them as they carry out that process. Copies of these manuals will be available for review by the ABET review team. Further, the contents of the Resource Guide, updates to it, and reports on ongoing CQI activities are a keystone component of the two annual meetings of all SEDTAPP ET faculty. The discussion in Section B.3 of this report is a synopsis of the various elements of the processes and activities that are covered by the Resource Manual.

Multiple Assessment Measures are Used : There are several system-wide and local assessment tools used to monitor program success at the Hazleton campus. These are described in detail in Section B.3; however, in summary the important ones are –

– System-level Activities : MEET survey system used each semester by both faculty and students to evaluate every ET course offered that semester; exit surveys conducted each semester of all graduating ET students; annual alumni surveys of former graduates; annual industrial surveys of representative industry contacts; issuance and annual updates to standard course outlines for all ET courses; annual review, evaluation, and update of program educational objectives and outcomes by relevant curriculum committees; annual review by curriculum committee of all system program MEET data to identify system-level quality concerns.

– Local-level Activities : course assessments performed by all ET faculty each semester for courses taught that semester, and written reports identifying issues and opportunities for improvement provided to program coordinator; program assessment conducted by program coordinator each semester by program coordinator based on faculty course assessments; student review and teaching evaluations (SRTE surveys) conducted each semester for each ET course taught; local exit survey of ET graduates conducted by campus career services; periodic meetings of all ET faculty to brainstorm key directions and improvements to be undertaken at campus.

Assessment Data Evaluated and Used to Improve Program : See Section B.3.c of this

report for examples.

CRITERION #4 – QUESTIONS RELATED TO MET PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS

Content of Curriculum Develops Graduates Ability to Solve Problems : Program educational Outcome #1 is the primary means of ensuring this result. See Table B.2-3 for a list of courses primarily responsible for this outcome. Refer to the standard course outlines for these courses (separate document assembled by the SEDTAPP) for a description of the fundamental content of these courses.

Orientation is Consistent with Program Objectives, Faculty Qualifications, etc. : See Table B.2-2 for correspondence of program objectives and planned program outcomes. See Tables B.5-1 and B.5-2 for faculty qualifications and workloads. See Section B.4-1 and Section B.4 for information on program content. See Section B.1 for a discussion of the compatibility between program objectives and college and University objectives.

Total Credits and Credit Distribution : Section B.4.b discusses the MET program credit distribution in reference to the minimum requirements of ABET’s accreditation criteria.


CRITERION #5 – QUESTIONS RELATED TO MET PROGRAM FACULTY

Faculty Workloads and Qualifications : See Table B.5-1 and individual vitae in section B.5.a.

Faculty Characteristics :

– Balance of Backgrounds : See Table B.5-1, individual vitae in Section B.5.a.

– Individual Faculty Competence : See Table B.5-1, individual vitae in Section B.5.a, and discussion of specific faculty expertise in Section B.5.b.

– Breadth and Depth of Faculty : See Table B.5-1, individual vitae in Section B.5.a, and discussion of specific faculty expertise in Section B.5.b.

– Support for Extracurricular Activities : One MET faculty member is the faculty advisor of the Student Section of ASME and a student Engineering Club. All ET faculty members participate routinely in campus recruiting and open-house events for prospective students.

– Faculty Professional Development : See Section B.5.e for a discussion of professional development support.

– Size of Faculty : See Table B.5-2 for information on workloads for current faculty supporting the program.

– Faculty Responsibility and Authority to Define, Revise, Implement, and Achieve Program Change: See Section B.3.a, and particularly the discussion of course chair and standard outline updates, for a discussion of faculty involvement in key quality improvement functions.

CRITERION #6 – QUESTIONS RELATED TO MET PROGRAM FACILITIES

Financial Support for the Program : See Table B.7-1 and Section B.7.a for details of financial support for the program.

Classrooms, Laboratories, Computing Facilities, etc. : Section B.6 provides a comprehensive discussion of all the physical plant and computing facilities available to the ET programs.

Support Staff : Support staff are available to the ET program as described in Section B.7.a.

Information Resources : Section B.6.b summarizes the informational resources available to the ET programs. A more detailed description of technical references and library resources is provided in volume II of this report.

CRITERION #7 – QUESTIONS RELATED TO INSTITUTIONAL AND EXTERNAL SUPPORT

Faculty Recruiting, Retention, and Development : See Section B.7.a.

Student Recruiting, Selection and Advising : See Section B.7a.

Support Staff : Support staff are available to the ET program as described in section B.7.a.

Job Placement Services : Career placement services are provided to ET students by a placement counselor (see Section B.7.a). A more detailed description of campus career services is provided in volume II of this report.

Industrial Advisory Committee : See Section B.7.c and Table B.7.2 for a description of the makeup of the program’s industrial advisory committee.


CRITERION #8 – QUESTIONS RELATED TO ABET PROGRAM-SPECIFIC CRITERIA – see Section B.8 for a discussion of the relationship between program objectives and outcomes and specific ABET program criteria.


TAC Self-Study Questionnaire Self... · Web viewApril 2006 Self-Study Report Mechanical Engineering...

Documents

Transcript of TAC Self-Study Questionnaire Self... · Web viewApril 2006 Self-Study Report Mechanical Engineering...