ira.mst.eduira.mst.edu/.../documents/reports/aerospace_engineering.docx · web viewaerospace...

Aerospace Engineering Student Learning Outcome Assessment Report

1. Department /Program Mission

The mission of the Department of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering is –

to build and enhance the excellent public program that the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering currently is, and to be recognized as such;

to provide our students with experiences in solving open-ended problems of industrial and societal need through learned skills in integrating engineering sciences, and synthesizing and developing useful products and processes;

to provide experiences in leadership, teamwork, communications — oral, written and graphic —, and hands-on activities, with the help of structured and unstructured real-life projects.

The following Educational Objectives represent the broad objectives of this department as they relate to the undergraduate students in the Aerospace Engineering Program.

The overall educational objective of the Aerospace Engineering program is to prepare graduates for careers in the aerospace engineering profession and related disciplines, and/or to receive an advanced graduate degree within three to five years from their graduation. Specifically, the expected professional accomplishments of the program graduates within five years from their graduation are that:

They are gainfully employed in industry, a government agency, academia, or private practice.

They have demonstrated professional competence and are successfully contributing to the aerospace science, technology, or engineering workforce, and,

They have found that their education at Missouri S&T was valuable preparation toward their careers.

1

2. Student Learning Outcomes (SLO)

a. Campus-Wide Student Learning Outcomes:Programs must demonstrate that their graduates have:

I. an ability to communicate effectively both orally and in writing. II. an ability to think critically and analyze effectively.

III. an ability to apply disciplinary knowledge and skills in solving critical problems.

IV. an ability to function in diverse learning and working environments.V. an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.

VI. an awareness of national and global contemporary issues.VII. a recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in, life-long

learning.

b. Additional Program Specific Student Learning Outcomes (Optional)The current AE program outcomes are: Students graduating from this program should have:(a) an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering(b) an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data(c) an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability(d) an ability to function on multidisciplinary teams(e) an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems(f) an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility(g) an ability to communicate effectively(h) the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context(i) a recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning(j) a knowledge of contemporary issues(k) an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.

3. Curriculum Mapping to Campus and/or Program Outcomes

Mapping Between Campus Learning Outcomes and AE Program OutcomesThe Campus Learning Outcomes and the AE Program Outcomes are very compatible. To avoid duplication of effort and confusion of assessment processes, the AE program will continue to assess and document the AE Program Outcomes. Figure (1) shows the correlation between the two sets of outcomes. Five of them are almost exact matches. Two of the Campus Learning

2

Outcomes are addressed by multiple AE Program Outcomes. By satisfying the AE Program Outcomes, the Campus Learning Outcomes will inherently be satisfied.

Campus Learning Outcome Corresponding AE Program Outcome1 g2 b, e3 a, c, e, k4 d5 f6 j7 i

Figure (1) Correlation of Campus Learning Outcomes to AE Program Outcomes

Correlations of courses to program outcomesEach course in the curriculum (required and elective) is linked to a certain set of program outcomes. Figures (2) and (3) show the correlation between the aerospace and non-aerospace engineering courses in the curriculum and the program outcomes. The majority of the required courses are expected to contribute to multiple outcomes, and each outcome is to be satisfied by many different courses. These correlations provide a method to target potential areas to improve any weaknesses found by the assessment instruments. Course descriptions that includea summary of which outcomes are primarily affected by the course, along with a table indicating which specific course activities (homework assignments, projects, class room and laboratory activities, etc.) directly correlate to outcomes are prepared and updated by the faculty on a regular basis.

4. Methods/Instruments and Administration The Aerospace program utilizes multiple assessment instruments to assess the outcomes. The primary assessment instruments are:

o Assessment by employers (practicing engineers who are not alumni of the Missouri S&T aerospace engineering program)

o Explicit (direct) assessment produced by an Exit Exam for graduating seniors

o Explicit assessment of specific course assignments

o Student self-assessment

3

CoursesAssociated Program Outcomes

a b c d e f g h i j k

AE 160 – Dynamics x x x x

AE 161 – Aerospace Vehicle Performance x x x x x x

AE 180 – Introduction to Aerospace Design x x x x x x

AE 213 – Aerospace Mechanics I x x x x x x x

AE 231 – Aerodynamics I x x x x x

AE 235 – Aircraft And Space Vehicle Propulsion x x x x x

AE 251 – Aerospace Structures I x x x x x

AE 253 – Aerospace Structures II x x x x x x

AE 261 – Flight Dynamics And Control x x x x

AE 271 – Aerodynamics II x x x x x

AE 280 – Aerospace Systems Design I x x x x x x

AE 281 – Aerospace Systems Design II x x x x x x

AE 282 – Experimental Methods In Aerospace Engineering I x x x x x x

AE 283 - Experimental Methods In Aerospace Engineering II x x x x x

AE 309 – Engineering Acoustics x x x

AE 311 – Introduction To Composite Materials & Structures x x x x x x

AE 314 – Spaceflight Mechanics x x x x x x

AE 325 – Intermediate Heat Transfer x x x

AE 335 – Aerospace Propulsion Systems x x x x

AE 336 – Fracture Mechanics x x x x x

AE 339 – Computational Fluid Dynamics x x x x x x

AE 344 – Fatigue Analysis x x x x x

AE 352 – Finite Element Approximation I: An Introduction x x x x x x

AE 360 – Probabilistic Engineering Design x x x x x x

AE 361 – Flight Dynamics-Stability And Control x x x

AE 378 – Mechatronics x x x x x x x

AE 380 – Spacecraft Design I x x x x x x x x x x x

AE 381 – Mechanical And Aerospace Control Systems x x x x x

AE 382 – Spacecraft Design II x x x x x x x x x x x

Figure (2) Correlation of the Aerospace Engineering Courses with the Program Outcomes

4

CoursesAssociated Program Outcomes

a b c d e f g h i j k

FE 10 – Study And Careers In Engineering x x x x x x

Math 14 – Calculus For Engineers I x x x

Math 15 – Calculus For Engineers II x x x

Math 22 – Calculus With Analytical Geometry III x x x

Math 204 – Elementary Differential Equations x x x

Comp Sci 73 – Basic Scientific Programming x x x

Comp Sci 74 – Introduction To Programming x x x

Comp Sci 77 – Computer Programming Laboratory x x x

Comp Sci 78 – Programming Laboratory x x x

Physics 23 – Engineering Physics I x x x x x

Physics 24 – Engineering Physics II x x x x x

Chem 1 – General Chemistry x x x x

Chem 2 – General Chemistry Laboratory x x x x x x

Chem 4 – Introduction To Laboratory Safety & Hazardous Materials x x

IDE 20 – Engineering Design With Computer Applications x x x x x x x x

IDE 50 – Engineering Mechanics-Statics x x x

IDE 110 – Mechanics Of Materials x x x

AE 377 – Principles of Engineering Materials x x x

EE 281 – Electrical Circuits x x x

Figure (3) Correlations of Non - Aerospace Engineering Courses with the Program Outcomes

Figure (4) shows a summary of the results generated from administering an Exit Exam administered to 49 graduating seniors on April 21, 2010 and the results produced by assessing various activities related to course work. This figure also shows the performance criteria, corresponding overall class grade for each criterion, level of achievement, and whether the criteria was met, respectively.

Outcome Measure Data Administered Results Reviewed Results Recommendations

5

Collection Method

by by Met criteriaYes/No

a.1 Ability to apply algebra, trig, calculus, and ordinary differential equations in modeling engineering problems

Exit Exam Faculty Faculty and Dept. Chair

79/100

YES

None

a.2 Ability to identify and apply pertinent principles of science to engineering applications


54/100

No

See Section 5 for Actions Taken

a.3 Ability to apply the fundamental concepts of each of the engineering topics including aerodynamics, space dynamics, structures, stability & controls, and propulsion


78/100

YES

None

b.1 Ability to design an experiment to measure a certain concept or phenomena

Course Assignments (AE 282)

Faculty Faculty and Dept. Chair

89/100

YES

None

b.2 Ability to acquire, analyze and interpret experimental data

Course Assignments (AE 283)


93/100

YES

None

c.1 Ability to generate conceptual design solutions

Course Assignments (AE 280, AE 380)


80/100

YES

None

c.2 Ability to bring a final design to realization



90/100

YES

None

c.3 Ability to recognize Course Faculty Faculty and Dept. 90/100 None

6

and address realistic constraint issues

Assignments (AE 281, AE 382)

Chair YES

d.1 Understands the team structure and the overall mission with associated design constraints and performance goals



89/100

YES

None

d.2 Consistently contributes to one or more specific area(s) of the team



89/100

YES

None

e.1 Ability to identify and formulate a mathematical model to describe a physical system or process


75/100

YES

None

e.2 Ability to solve mathematical model to obtain desired results

Exit Exam Faculty and Dept. Chair

67/100

NO


f.1 Recognizes the ethically salient features of dilemmas and can suggest options for the ethical resolution of dilemmas


56

NO


f.2 Selects and correctly applies a model for ethical decision making


56

NO


f.3 Recognizes the far-reaching importance of ethical behavior with respect to stakeholders in a project


64

NO


7

g.1 Effectively communicates in oral presentations



84/100

YES

None

g.2 Effectively communicates in written design reports



89/100

YES

None

h.1 Ability to relate engineering issues within an historical context


78/100

YES

None

h.2 demonstrates understanding of the impact of engineering in economics, environmental, global, and social issues


61/100

NO


i.1 Recognizes the value of pursuing advanced educational opportunities


Survey results

YES

None

i.2 Recognizes the usefulness of engagement in professional societies


Survey results

YES

None

j.1 Demonstrates awareness and knowledge of critical contemporary issues relevant to engineering


72/100

YES

None

8

j.2 Demonstrates awareness of current affairs at the national and global level [within the last four years]


81/100

YES

None

k.1 Ability to use modern software packages in modeling and solving engineering problems

Course Assignments (AE 253, AE 261, AE 271)


82/100

YES

None

k.2 Ability to acquire experimental data using data acquisition and instrumentation



86/100

YES

None

Figure (4) Fall 2010 Program Outcomes Assessment Methods, Administration, and Results

5. Results and Changes Implemented or Planned

a. Findings

As judged by the exit exam results, the students did not meet the desired level of achievement (overall class grades 70% or greater) for the following performance criteria

Performance criteria f.1 “recognizes the ethically salient features of dilemmas and can suggest options for the ethical resolution of dilemmas” [Overall score: 56/100]

Performance criteria f.2 “Selects and correctly applies a model for ethical decision making” [Overall score: 56/100]

Performance criteria f3 “Recognizes the far-reaching importance of ethical behavior with respect to stakeholders in a project” [Overall score: 64/100]

Performance criteria h.2 “demonstrates understanding of the impact of engineering in economics, environmental, global, and social issue” [Overall score: 61/100]

9

Performance Criterion a.2 “Ability to identify and apply pertinent principles of science to engineering application” and performance Criterion e e.2 “Ability to solve mathematical model to obtain desired results” [Overall score: 54/100]

Data evaluation of the new employer’s survey and of the Student Self Assessment of Achieving the Program Outcome revealed that score for achieving the Program Outcome j is relatively low

Data evaluation of the exit interview of the graduating seniors held in May of 2010, revealed that student satisfaction with the laboratories is low [~ 1.8/4.0 ]

b. Use of resultsAs a result of the assessment efforts described in the previous section, the faculty developed and implemented several initiatives. Brief descriptions of these initiatives are included herein.

Observation : Data evaluation of the Exit Exam in connection to performance criteria h.2 “demonstrates understanding of the impact of engineering in economics, environmental, global, and social issue” showed that students scored 61/100

Actions:

Incorporation of additional course materials in the Freshman YearFor the Fall Semester of 2010 (FS10), additional material was added to the Interdisciplinary Engineering 20 “Introduction to Engineering Design with Computer Applications” curriculum to emphasize the social, economic, and environmental impact of the decisions made by design engineers. This course, taken as early as the first semester of a student’s freshman year, includes topics on fundamentals of design, project management, concept development and selection processes, development and manufacturing of functional prototypes, and ethical & professional ramifications as individuals and in engineering teams (NSPE Code, case studies).

Specific case studies of failed designs were (and will continue to be) added to illustrate the connection between engineering decisions and the broader, and often unintended, impact these decisions can have. These case studies were selected to highlight specific concerns including:

The Texas A&M Bonfire collapse – Social causes and impact

Mars Climate Orbiter, Mars Polar Lander failures – Economic impact and organizational causes

PEPCON disaster – Environmental and economic impact as well as the connection between the Challenger disaster and PEPCON facility explosion

10

Additional case studies were included to further highlight the impact of engineering design choices. New material was included in FS10 for managing failures during the engineering design process including the use of Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA). Students were tasked with developing an FMECA for their semester team design project.

Presentations by local design organizations were added to the FS10 IDE20 curriculum to promote student involvement and awareness. These organizations included Engineers Without Borders (global social and environmental concerns), the Industrial Designers Society of America (social and economic concerns) and Interdisciplinary Design Collaborative, LLC. (a company formed by recently graduated S&T students whose focus is commercializing student work).

Incorporation of additional course materials in the Sophomore YearIn the second semester of the sophomore year, the students are required to take AE 180 “Introduction to Aerospace Design”. In this course, the students are required to design, simulate, build, and test fly a small radio-controlled aircraft that produces a given performance or mission requirement. New materials designed to expose students to topics such as safety, manufacturability of the product they are producing, and social obligations to pursue common goals in team environments have been introduced into the course contents in Fall Semester of 2010.

Augmentation of course materials in the Senior YearAdditional relevant materials are being introduced in AE 380/382 senior design sequence in spacecraft design which already involves the ongoing design and construction of a flight-ready microsatellite. In this course, students create, modify, and manage a budget with input from the various subsystem groups, giving students a solid dose of economics. Social elements are thoroughly experienced through the extensive teamwork with which the team is continually involved. Students who select to take the AE 280/281 senior design sequence in aircraft design will go through similar course materials. A rigid cost constraint is given, and scheduling constraints are implicitly imposed by the duration of the semester/academic year. The scheduling constraint is continuously reviewed via a standard Gantt chart. Constraints on manufacturing processes are imposed by requiring that it be possible to have serial production of several aircraft. An additional operational constraint is imposed that requires the aircraft be maintainable in the field.

Observation : Data evaluation of the exit interview of the graduating seniors held in May of 2010, revealed that student satisfaction with the laboratories is low [~ 1.8/4.0].

Actions: One of the main goals of the laboratory courses (AE282 and AE283) is to fulfill outcome b “an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as, to analyze and interpret data and outcome” and outcome k “ability to use the techniques, skills, and

11

modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice”. The AE faculty discussed the assessment data pertaining to the laboratories and accordingly put improvement of the aerospace engineering laboratory curriculum as one of the top priorities highlighted in the 5-year development plan, “Aerospace 2015.”

Develop new experimentsBased on the assessment data evaluation and review of current experiments, the aerospace faculty determined that the lab courses currently provide good opportunities for students to conduct experiments in aerodynamics, propulsion, and structure areas. However, laboratory experiments that focus on dynamic system and spacecraft fundamentals are lacking. Thus, a new action item that called for developing two new lab modules in these deficient areas was formulated in August of 2010. Specifically, dynamics and feedback control of systems and spacecraft power sources and management modules were selected for development late August of 2010. Investments in the development of these experiments were allocated in September of 2010 with funding from the campus, the department, and by the NASA Missouri Space Grant Consortium. Two experiments were developed during the period between September and December of 2010 under the direction of Professor Rovey. These experiments will be taught in AE 283 “Experimental Methods of Aerospace Engineering II” in the next course offering during the Fall Semester of 2011.

Initiate a process to upgrade existing experiments Based on the assessment data, the AE faculty also felt there was a need to upgrade some of the existing experiments in the laboratories. The department met with the Mechanical and Aerospace Academy on December 16 and 17th of 2010 and this concern was raised. As a result, a plan was undertaken by the Academy members to fund an upgrade to a couple of experiments each year using Academy funds. This enhancement of the laboratory equipment is to be initiated in Spring 2011 with upgrades to be in operation by the Fall 2011 semester.

Observation: The data produced by the new employer’s survey given in the Spring Semester of 2010 (survey developed and distributed to managers and supervisors at companies and government agencies hiring Missouri S&T aerospace engineering graduates) was carefully evaluated early in the Fall Semester of 2010. Data evaluation revealed that the achievement levels of the program outcomes as judged by employers who are not alumni of the program are above the acceptable performance criterion of an average score above 2.0. The minimum score received is 2.7/4.0 for outcome j “knowledge of contemporary issues”. Evaluating the data produced by the Student Self Assessment of Achieving the Program Outcome (Graduating Seniors - May 2010) confirmed the employers’ assessment in regards to outcome j. Based on student self-assessment, outcome j received a score of ~ 2.56/4.0.

Actions:

12

As a result of evaluating these assessment data, the AE faculty introduced additional course materials in a key required course “AE 180: Introduction to Aerospace Design”. The main objective is to enhance student awareness of contemporary issues. These lectures focus on new trends with details on the following topics: 1) Rapid changes, 2) New knowledge (biotechnology, nano technologies, material science, 3) Global Competition, 4) Challenging problems (shortage of water, energy, air pollution & climate change,…). These lectures (consist of more than 60 slides) were introduced for the first time in the Fall Semester of 2010 to students enrolled in AE 180.

Observation:Low performance (less than 70%) on Exit Exam Performance Criteria a.2 and e.2Data evaluation of the Exit Exam shows that Performance Criterion a.2 “Ability to identify and apply pertinent principles of science to engineering application” and performance Criterion e.2 “Ability to solve mathematical model to obtain desired results” were low.

Actions:

Student Admission to the programStarting the Fall Semester of 2010 (August of 2010), the AE faculty implemented new guidelines for student admission to the aerospace program. The faculty adopted these guidelines, following very careful deliberations, as it strongly feels that these guidelines will improve the quality and success of the students in the program. The following guidelines in evaluation of applications for admission to the undergraduate program have been adopted.

Completed all required courses in the common Freshman Engineering program, including a grade of C or better in Math 14, 15, and Physics 23

Cumulative and campus GPAs ≥ 2.5 Student is not on probation or deficiency status

Student performance in the early stages of the program (Sophomore Year)The prerequisite for the courses of the Aerospace Engineering curriculum was examined carefully and several changes were implemented starting the Fall semester of 2010. The main goal of this action item is to strengthen the requirements of student admission to Aerospace courses by requiring students to have a grade of C or better in Chemistry 1, Physics 24, Mathematics 204, Interdisciplinary Engineering 50, Interdisciplinary Engineering 110, and computer programming electives.

Knowledge application and hands-on experienceA new effort which focuses on strengthening experiential learning was launched in the Fall Semester of 2010. This effort is one of the key priorities of the 5-year plan “AEROSPACE 2015” formulated by the AE faculty and finalized in November of 2010. This effort will provide more opportunities for students to participate

13

in engineering design and in applied research projects. These types of experiences enhance student learning by applying concepts and theory in a real-world setting so they learn and develop skills on knowledge applications. Undergraduate research opportunities are possible through small fellowships and also through undergraduate courses. Specifically, the Office of Undergraduate Research Experiences (OURE) at Missouri S&T and the Missouri Space Grant Consortium (MoSGC) offer undergraduate research grants. In addition, students can pursue independent research projects for course credit through AE 390 as a result of these enhanced efforts.

Observation: Low performance (less than 70%) on Exit Exam criterion f.1, f.2, f.3

Performance criterion f.1 “Recognizes the ethically salient features of dilemmas and can suggest options for the ethical resolution of dilemmas”, f.2 “Selects and correctly applies a model for ethical decision making”, and f.3 “Recognizes the far-reaching importance of ethical behavior with respect to stakeholders in a project” received lower scores.

Actions: A focus group was formed in December of 2010 to further explore the questions related to the Exit Exam. The focus group [Professors Riggins, Hosder, and Finaish] was charged with investigating the produced data and recommending appropriate action to the faculty. Evaluation of the exit exam data shows several questions in which the percentage of correct answers is low. These questions certainly warrant close scrutiny to validate that they are clear and accurate. Since the number of questions in any particular category is small, sometimes as low as four, any anomalies in the makeup of the questions can have significant impact on the percentage of students achieving the performance metric. The data has been evaluated to determine if the questions are believed to accurately reflect the knowledge expected. Efforts are now centered on the validation/calibration of the exam itself before using the results to make significant changes in the curriculum. Revisions are expected to improve the clarity of the questions, to eliminate or revise questions (or answer choices) that are deemed to be ambiguous, and to hone in on questions better targeted to determine desired information. This effort led to good discussions and provided useful information for the faculty to make significant improvements in the exam before its next administration in the Spring Semester of 2011.

Furthermore, the low performance criterion f.1, f.2, and f.3 are being addressed by changes in the curriculum. As outlined under Observation 1-item (a), ethical & professional ramifications as individuals and in engineering teams (NSPE Code, case studies) have been incorporated into the curriculum in the freshman year. Moreover, the aerospace curriculum requires AE students to take at least one course in ethics.

14

ira.mst.eduira.mst.edu/.../documents/reports/aerospace_engineering.docx · web viewaerospace...

Documents