1. Program Outcomes and
Assessment
Following
the establishment of the educational objectives, a set of educational outcomes was
defined for achieving these objectives. The
process for determining Program Outcomes is identical to that used for
establishing the program educational objectives. We involved our constituents: students
(through AIAA Student Branch and Sigma Gamma Tau),
faculty, industries and government labs, the AE School External Advisory
Council, professional societies, and the alumni.
The
outcomes were first established in 1997, and are revised annually based on the
data from our assessment efforts. A
comprehensive review of the expected outcomes is done once every five years. The most recent review was done during the
2001-2002 academic year.
The
Web site <http://www.ae.gatech.edu/~lsankar/ABET2002/Constituents.Input.pdf>
contains the constituents input in establishing the outcomes.
a. Program Outcomes:
The following Program Outcomes have
been established in consultation with our constituents.
a) The graduates of the undergraduate program in
aerospace engineering will have an understanding of physics, chemistry and
mathematics, and how they pertain to solving real world problems.
b) They
will have a firm understanding of engineering science fundamentals that enables
the graduates to examine real world problems for the underlying physical
principles, and decide on appropriate methods of solution.
c) They will have the ability to design,
conduct and analyze the results of experiments in order to measure and study physical
phenomena.
d) They will have the ability to analyze and
design aerospace structural elements, such as trusses, beams and thin walled
structures, taking into account structural dynamics and aeroelastic
effects.
e) They will have the ability to analyze and
design airfoils and wings, accounting for viscous and compressibility effects.
f) They will have the ability to analyze and
design air-breathing and rocket propulsion systems.
g) They will have the ability to analyze the
flight dynamics of aircraft and spacecraft, and design flight control systems.
h) They will have the ability to work in teams and design complex
systems such as aircraft and spacecraft, from a preliminary design perspective.
i) They
will have good oral, written and graphical communication skills.
j) They will be well trained in the role of the engineer in
society, and have an awareness of ethical, environmental and quality concerns
in the engineering profession.
k) They
will be trained to be life-long learners, pursuing and interested in
independent study, research and development.
b. Relationship
of the Outcomes to the Courses and the EAC/ABET List of Outcomes: After the list of outcomes was developed, a set of
courses and topics was identified. The
semester conversion during the year prior to the fall of 1999 gave our faculty
an opportunity to redesign our curriculum and tie the objectives and outcomes
of the courses to the program outcomes. It
also gave us an opportunity to take into account our constituents’ input.
The
table below shows the relationship between the program outcomes and the courses
in the aerospace engineering curriculum.
A more detailed table is also provided in Table I-6.
|
Program Outcomes |
ABET (a)-(k) |
Courses |
|
a) The graduates of the undergraduate program in aerospace
engineering will have an understanding of physics, chemistry and mathematics,
and how they pertain to solving real world problems. |
a) |
Math 1501,1502, 2401, 2403; Physics 2121, 2122; Chemistry 1310;
Science elective; all AE courses |
|
b) They will have a firm understanding of engineering science
fundamentals that enables the graduates to examine real world problems for
the underlying physical principles, and decide on appropriate methods of
solution. |
a), e) |
MSE 2001; EE 3710; EE 3741; all AE courses |
|
c) They will have the ability to design, conduct and analyze the
results of experiments in order to measure and study |
b), k) |
AE3051, AE 3145, AE 4525; AE electives
290x/390x/490x |
|
d) They will have the ability to analyze and design aerospace
structural elements such as trusses, beams and thin walled structures, taking
into account structural dynamics and aeroelastic
effects. |
a), c), e), k) |
AE 2120, 3120, 3121, 3145, 2220, 4220 |
|
e) They will have the ability to analyze and design airfoils and
wings, accounting for viscous and compressibility effects. |
a), c), e), k) |
AE2020, 3021, 3051 |
|
f) They will have the ability to analyze and design air-breathing and
rocket propulsion systems. |
a), c), e), k) |
AE 3051, 3450, 4451 |
|
g) They will have the ability to analyze the flight dynamics of
aircraft and spacecraft, and design flight control systems. |
a), c), e), k) |
AE 3515, 3521, 4525 |
|
h) They will have the ability to work in teams and design complex
systems such as aircraft and spacecraft, from a preliminary design
perspective. |
a), c), d), h) |
AE 1350, 3310, 4350, 4351; Electives 1355,
2355, 3355, 4355 |
|
i) They will have good oral, written and graphical
communication skills. |
g) |
ENGL 1101, 1102; ME 1770; LCC 3401; AE 3051, 3145, 4350, 4351,4525 |
|
j) They will be well trained in the role of the engineer in society,
and have an awareness of ethical, environmental and quality concerns in the
engineering profession. |
f), j), h) |
Humanities, Social Sciences, AE 1350, 4350, 4351; Electives 1355, 2355, 3355, 4355 |
|
k) They will be trained to be life-long learners, pursuing and
interested in independent study, research and development. |
i) |
All AE courses; Electives 1355,2355, 3355,
4355, AE 290x, 390x, 490x |
c. Relationship
of the Outcomes to the Educational Objectives: Our constituents view the expected outcomes listed above as the skill
sets our students will have at the time of graduation. The educational objectives describe the
expected accomplishments of graduates during their first few years of work in
the industry, academia, or a government laboratory. The expected outcomes are thus crucial to, and
closely tied to, achieving our educational objectives.
Items
(a)-(f) in the above list are aimed at our first educational objective, the development
of successful engineers. Items (g)-(j) is related to our second educational
objective, the development of successful professionals. All the items above. and item (k) in particular, directly relate to our third
objective of instilling a desire for life-long learning in our graduates.
d. Two-Loop Process in Place for Assessing Outcomes and Evaluating
Objectives
We use the following approach, patterned after the EAC/ABET two-loop cycle, to
establish, assess, and revise our educational objectives and outcomes:
e.
Establishment of Indicators for
Success: Until 1999-2000, we used a
relative indicator (a significant 10% change in a measurable outcome with
the 1999 level as the baseline) to determine if our educational objectives and
expected outcomes are being achieved. As
part of the recent comprehensive review of our educational objectives and
outcomes in the fall of 2001 and the spring of 2002, the following absolute
indicators have been established:
i) Our
graduates will assess themselves as having the engineering skills needed to
succeed in their profession at 3.2 (80%) or better, on a scale of 1 to 4. The employers will also rate our graduates as
having the skills needed to succeed in their profession at 3.2 (80%) or better
on a scale of 1 to 4. Our alumni will
assess themselves as having technical skills that exceed job expectations. These three indicators are being used to
monitor our first educational objective of developing successful engineers
(outcomes a-f).
ii) Our
curriculum has a number of required courses for achieving our second
educational objective, and all of our students successfully complete
these courses (with the requirement that there are no more than 2 D’s in the
entire curriculum). We have set the
following additional indicator for achieving our second educational objective
of developing successful professionals (outcomes g, i,
j): twenty-five percent of our students will have participated in an undergraduate
research project, design experience beyond capstone design, or an industry
internship by the time they graduate. This
indicator is consistent with our strategic plan goals.
iii) The
following indicator is used to determine if we are instilling in our graduates
the desire for life-long learning (our third educational objective, outcome k).
One-third of our graduates will pursue
graduate studies or participate in a continuing education program within their
first five years following graduation.
f. Strategies for Achievement of Outcomes:
Our
Curriculum – The
primary strategy we have in place is the portfolio of courses specifically
tailored for achieving the outcomes, and the qualified faculty who are well
equipped in training our students. The
table above lists our expected outcomes and the course(s) used towards the
achievement of these outcomes. Each of
our courses has a clearly documented set of learning objectives and a set of
expected outcomes. The instructor uses
homework assignments and quizzes to determine if a large majority of students are
learning the material and developing the skill sets associated with that
course. If a program-wide problem is
encountered (e.g., a large number of students do not have the pre-requisites or
have difficulty in mastering a specific skill) the instructor confers with the
disciplinary committee members (and the Academic Council, as needed) to
implement changes. These changes may
include: changes to the pre-requisites; changes in the text; and changes to the
mode of teaching. An e-mail log is kept
of such information from the instructors and distributed to the entire faculty
when appropriate.
Examination
of Course Content and Student Readiness by Upper Level Course Instructors – A second strategy
in place is the use of entrance quizzes in our upper-level classes and
design/research courses. This is done to
identify students needing help and to identify how the lower-level course
material may be reorganized. Instructors
in an upper level administer these tests, usually during the first week of
classes. Their findings are forwarded to
the instructor in the lower-level class(es) as well as the entire disciplinary group. This is done either in the form of an e-mail
or in a disciplinary committee meeting. Disciplinary
groups meet once a semester to determine if the expected outcomes are being met
and to take corrective actions as needed.
Creation
of Learning Resources and Refresher Material – Our School has established a Digital Library under the direction of
Professor Komerath. This library contains a vast collection of
class notes, homework, computer models/codes, and papers both from within our
School and worldwide. This library
contains AE-specific material as well as links to material on mathematics,
physics, chemistry, computer science, and life sciences. Students are encouraged by the instructors to
use these resources when the entrance examinations indicate students lack the
background.
Examination
of Student Readiness by Design Faculty and Research Advisors – A third strategy
for ensuring the achievement of outcomes is the evaluation of the curriculum
content and student readiness by design instructors, and faculty mentors
directing student research. Because our
students have the opportunity to work with the design faculty or do research as
early as their freshman year, this is a particularly useful approach. It is not necessary to wait until the senior
year capstone design experience to gather this information. Instructors of the 13xx/23xx/33xx/43xx (design
courses) and 29xx/39xx/49xx (undergraduate research courses) provide feedback
to the instructors on the material the students should have mastered. The Academic Council keeps copies of relevant
e-mail correspondence between the design faculty, research mentors, and faculty
teaching foundation courses, and distributes it to the entire academic faculty
for follow-up action. Actions to be taken
are discussed in the faculty meeting and disseminated to our constituencies.
Creation
of Opportunities for Design experience, Independent Research, and Industry
Experience – A further strategy for achieving the outcomes is the creative use
of the free electives in our program to provide valuable design experience
beyond capstone design (AE1355, AE 2355, AE 3355) and independent study and
faculty directed research experience (AE 290x, AE 390x, AE 490x where x
indicates the credit hours earned). This
strategy is aimed at achieving outcomes (g), (i), and
(j). Our program is designed so that
students can take advantage of co-op opportunities and gain valuable
industry/research experience. We also
work closely with industries (Pratt & Whitney, GE), government labs (NSF),
and our graduate division to ensure financial support for these activities (in
the form of internships) as needed.
g. Assessment Instruments in Use: The School of Aerospace Engineering faculty and
students participate in a number of college-wide, institute-wide, and
nationwide surveys that are administered by (or facilitated by) our Office of
Assessment, headed by Dr. Joseph Hoey. The Web site <http://www.academic.gatech.edu/assessment/>
contains a complete list of these surveys as well as tabulated results. We use these surveys to benchmark our students
against the national student population, to observe and learn from national and
institutional trends in education practices, and to find out about the quality
of life issues that are important to our students. We also participate in annual self-assessment
of our educational program conducted by the Board of Regents. This self-assessment study (found at <http://www.ae.gatech.edu/~lsankar/ABET2002>)
is evaluated by the
With
the assistance of the Office of Assessment, and in collaboration with the
Exit
and Commencement Surveys – The exit survey is conducted every year by Dr.
Joseph Hoey, a resource for our Institute assessment activities,
in collaboration with Dr. Yeung, an AE faculty member
in charge of School assessment activities. The survey consists of a questionnaire that
the students complete followed by an open-ended discussion. No faculty members are present. The discussions are recorded on audiotape with
the permission of the students. The data
is distributed, with a transcript of the oral discussions, to the aerospace
engineering faculty for follow-up actions.
The
Office of Career Services also conducts a survey at the commencement where data
are collected on starting salaries, number of job offers, student career and
educational plans.
Alumni
Surveys – An alumni survey is conducted once every three years in coordination
with the
Co-op
Employer Surveys – The Cooperative Division office contacts the co-op employers
regarding the performance of the students (every semester for every co-op
student at the conclusion of the co-op assignment). Results from this
evaluation are shared with the student’s academic advisor and with the
Student
Portfolios – This assessment activity is done to establish if the expected
outcomes are being achieved (g)-(j). We
monitor our student participation and success rates in national design
competitions, and undergraduate research that leads to externally recognized
accomplishments (papers, fellowships, internships). Our faculty members and
external visitors also examine and critique student work and their oral
presentations. The students are given feed back, usually following the oral
presentation, and often in written form that will allow them to improve their
work. This assessment tool also helps us
determine if we our graduates are developing skills needed to be successful
professionals (educational objective 2; outcomes h-k), and successful human
beings with a desire for life-long learning (educational objective 3; outcome
k).
h.
Assessment Results and Discussion: In this section, some of the significant results and
trends that have emerged over the past three years are presented. We only present the results that are related
to the indicators mentioned above.
Senior Exit Surveys
– These surveys are conducted every spring. The surveys for 1997-1999 largely addressed
qualitative issues such as the satisfaction with the program, satisfaction with
the quality of advisement, and career plans. The results from these surveys are documented
at our Web site but are not included here. In 2000, with the assistance of the Office of
Assessment, these surveys were redesigned to yield more quantitative
information related to our educational processes and the expected outcomes. Oral discussions with the students conducted
as part of the surveys are also documented and shared with the faculty.
Additional details
of the survey and oral comments by the students are available at the Web site. It should be noted that that the success
criterion is 3.2 (on a scale of 1 to 4). The graduates rated themselves as having
mastered the educational outcomes, as shown below.
These
surveys indicate that the students are satisfied with the technical education
they received in our undergraduate program. The students feel their preparation in
mathematics, physical sciences, engineering, testing, design, modern
engineering tool usage, and written communication skills are good.
Relative
to 1999, students felt better about their written and
oral communication skills, although the oral presentation skills fall below the
3.2 threshold discussed earlier. We have
redesigned a number of our courses (e.g., lab courses, capstone design,
nationwide design competitions), and continue to modify others to emphasize
oral presentation skills, and will continue to monitor student readiness in
this area.
The
students feel that an area that still requires improvement is their training on
the societal and environmental impact of their engineering design and engineering
solutions. In order address this
concern, the following efforts have been made. Our introduction to AE course (AE 1350),
capstone design sequence (AE 4350, 4351), and the elective design courses
already contain lectures on designing for reduced life cycle cost, designing for reduced energy
consumption, and designing for reduced environmental contamination. Increased emphasis is being given to these
topics. We have also increased the
frequency of undergraduate elective offerings in areas such as aeroacoustics, noise control, chemically reacting flows
(with emphasis on emissions). Finally,
since 1999, the students have had the option of taking a course on
environmental science (EAS 1600) to satisfy the science elective requirement. We will continue to explore other means such
as offering undergraduate seminars in this area, in consultation and
collaboration with our student organizations (AIAA, Sigma Gamma Tau).
Finally,
students feel that additional electives are needed in topical areas. Over the past two years, we have added new
electives in CFD, aeroacoustics, and flow
diagnostics. We also offer three new
courses on design (AE 2355, 3355, 4355), and numerous independent research (AE
290x, 390x, 490x) courses. One of the
concerns that the students have expressed is that their curriculum is crowded
during the first three years, which leaves little room for taking electives. Our faculty members are aware of this
difficulty and will continue to modify and streamline the course offerings and
prerequisites to make room for electives early in the program.
Student
Portfolios – Unlike
other engineering disciplines, aerospace engineering programs nationwide do not
have a P.E. Examination that may be used to benchmark the qualifications of our
program graduates relative to others. Internal
assessment of our program by our faculty, valuable as it is in fine-tuning our
curriculum and improving the processes, is not sufficient in determining where
our program stands relative to other programs around the country. National Rankings (e.g., U.S. News and World
Report where our program was tied for second place with
Results
are collected every spring. The design
courses (AE 1355, 2355, 3355, and 4355) were formally added to our catalog only
in the fall of 2000. Thus, a complete
set of data is available for only two years: spring 2001 and spring 2002. Although this database is consequently small,
some useful conclusions may be drawn from the table below. These design activities are beyond the required capstone design
activity.
|
Item |
Spring 2002 |
Spring 2001 |
Spring 2000 |
|
# of students: Freshman
Design 1355 |
17 |
14 |
0 |
|
# students: Sophomore
Design: 2355 |
11 |
21 |
0 |
|
# Students: Junior Design
3355 |
8 |
5 |
0 |
|
# Students: Senior Design
4355 |
6 |
3 |
0 |
|
# Students: Sophomore
Research, 2901/2902/2903 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
|
# Students: Junior
Research, 3901/3902/3903 |
0 |
2 |
5 |
|
# Students: Senior Research,
4901/4902/4903 |
4 |
6 |
5 |
|
# Students: Research
Internships |
19 |
10 |
10 |
|
Total No. of Students |
66 |
64 |
20 |
|
Total Undergraduate
Enrollment |
456 |
359 |
300 |
|
% of students Participation |
15% |
18% |
6% |
|
No. of Design Team Entrees |
4 |
3 |
2 |
|
Winning Team Entrees |
Design in progress |
2 |
1 |
|
% Success rate |
Not Available |
66% |
50% |
|
No. of Research Entrees |
Not Available |
3 |
3 |
|
No. of Externally
Recognized Research Entries |
Not Available |
2 |
3 |
|
Success Rate |
Not Available |
67% |
100% |
The
above table indicates that roughly 15% to 18% of our students are engaged in
undergraduate research, design experience over and above the required capstone
design, or a research internship experience. This is below our target participation rate of
twenty-five percent. However, we expect
a rapid growth in the number of students participating in research and design
competitions, as the large freshman classes of 2000 and 2001 migrate to upper
level courses. In order to further
encourage student (and faculty) participation, a number of measures are being
implemented. Allocation of financial and
time resources to faculty is being pursued.
Increased allocation of resources to students in the form of research
internships (undergraduate research internships, Pratt& Whitney internships,
NASA fellowships, etc.) is also being actively pursued. A Web page featuring undergraduate research is
under construction. We will continue to
track the faculty and student participation with the purpose of achieving and
exceeding our stated metric of twenty-five percent participation of our
students.
The
above table also indicates that our students are successful in winning national
awards, over 50% of the time. The student research proposals are successful
nearly 66% of the time. This is very satisfying, given the large number of
students and institutions around the country who participate in these
activities. We will continue to monitor our students’ performance so that our
students may learn from both their successes and failures. Based on this table
above, it appears that our educational objectives 2 and 3 are being achieved,
although there is clearly room for improvement.
Here
is a partial list of student performance in national competitions:
–
-
–
–
– First Place National Winner - 1998/1999
AIAA Undergraduate Team Engine Design Competition, “Cygnus X-1: An RBCC
Engine for a Single-Stage-to-Orbit Launch Vehicle,” sponsored by AIAA,
Washington, DC (joint collaborative design project with Virginia Tech whose
team was directed by C. Hall).
–
Our
students also participate in nationally recognized research activities. For example, Georgia Tech undergraduate
research teams have been invited to participate in NASA Reduced Gravity Flight
Opportunities for the past three years in a row (1999-2001), and conduct
experiments in the reduced gravity environment. Our Web site <http://www.ae.gatech.edu/~lsankar/ABET2002>
contains examples of student design (over and above the capstone design), and
undergraduate research.
Alumni
Survey – The
The
alumni survey results indicate that our engineers felt that they are well
trained in traditional engineering disciplines.
Our alumni also felt that the training they received in these areas
exceeded the job expectations in the technical areas listed. The alumni, however, felt that more needs to
be done in the areas of communication skills, ethics, and cultural/ethnic
diversity issues. Our faculty members
have discussed how these issues and topics can be addressed in our curriculum
without increasing the total number of hours or reducing coverage of equally
important technical topics.
The
1997 and the 2000 surveys indicated that alumni felt that additional training
in the area of engineering from economics and business perspectives is
desirable. To accommodate this, a course
on economics (ECON 2100) is now required in our curriculum. Both the 1997 and 2000 surveys emphasized the
importance of ability to function in multi-disciplinary teams and culturally
diverse environments. It is anticipated
that the additional team design opportunities that are available in our
curriculum (AE 1355/2355/3355/4355) will help our graduates achieve this
ability.
The
alumni surveys provided the following additional information. Among the 2001 survey respondents, nine out of
the thirty-three respondents had participated in co-op programs, eleven had
participated in undergraduate research, seven had participated in an internship
activity, and seven had also participated in a summer activity/employment
related to their major. This data
indicates that our criterion of twenty-five percent student participation in an
engineering/design/research activity outside the curriculum is being met.
|
1997 Survey of AE Graduates from
the 1992 and the 1993 Classes (No. of Responses =
25) |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Area |
% of alumni saying
this area is important |
% of alumni saying
they are well prepared, relative to importance |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Computer
Science |
80 |
68 |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Physical Science |
80 |
96 |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Business/Finance |
64 |
32 |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Math |
48 |
96 |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Humanities |
48 |
72 |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Social Sciences |
36 |
64 |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Life Sciences |
29 |
60 |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Graphics |
68 |
72 |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Aerodynamics |
56 |
96 |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Design |
52 |
96 |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Structures |
52 |
88 |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Engineering Economics |
52 |
44 |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Flight Controls |
44 |
96 |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Propulsion |
44 |
88 |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Critically, logically |
100 |
88 |
|
Satisfaction with
Overall Preparation |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Life long learning |
100 |
84 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Written communications |
96 |
76 |
|
Be an Engineer |
96% |
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Oral communications |
92 |
76 |
|
Get first job |
72% |
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Function in multi-disc. Team |
92 |
84 |
|
Transition to first
job |
83% |
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Function in diverse environments |
92 |
64 |
|
Compete as an
engineer |
96% |
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
identify/solve problems |
88 |
92 |
|
Contribute to society |
96% |
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
conduct experiments, interpret data |
88 |
84 |
|
Would recommend Tech |
88% |
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Use modern engineering tools |
79 |
80 |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
ethics |
88 |
80 |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Engineering from business perspective |
72 |
52 |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Engineering on a global scale |
48 |
28 |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Environmental aspects of engineering |
44 |
32 |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Engineering in society |
32 |
32 |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Professional
Registration and Continuing Education Activities |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
% Alumni |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Passed F. E. Exam |
28% |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Attended Professional
Conferences |
40% |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Participated in
Continuing Ed. |
28% |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
2000-01 Survey of
Graduates from the 1994-1997 Classes (No. of Responses =
38) |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Skills |
Importance on a scale
of 1 to 5 |
Preparation on a
scale of 1 to 5 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Math |
3.21 |
4.28 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Physical Sciences |
3.37 |
3.97 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Life Sciences |
1.76 |
2.77 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Computer |
3.84 |
3.11 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Humanities |
3.32 |
3.17 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Social Sciences |
2.27 |
2.94 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Business/Finance |
2.76 |
2.21 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Oral Communications |
4.5 |
3.22 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Written
Communications |
4.34 |
3.33 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Function
Multidisciplinary teams |
4.32 |
3.43 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Culturally diverse
teams |
3.58 |
3.19 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Design/conduct
experiments |
2.92 |
3.11 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Analyze/interpret
data |
4.21 |
3.7 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Formulate, solve
problems |
4.34 |
3.78 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
Professional Registration and Continuing Education Activities
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
% Alumni |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Passed F. E. Exam |
16% |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Attended Professional
Conferences |
33% |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Participated in
Continuing Ed. |
42% |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Attending/Completed
Grad. School |
57.80% |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
The
alumni were also asked about their graduate/continuing education. In both the 1997 and the 2000-2001 surveys,
the percentage of alumni who participated in professional conferences,
continuing education programs, and/or graduate programs was around forty
percent. This data indicates that we are
meeting our criterion that one out of three students would pursue graduate
studies or a continuing education opportunity.
Co-op
Employer Survey –
With the assistance of the Office of
Assessment, the
Commencement
Surveys – The Career Services office at Georgia Tech collects
data from all graduates during the commencement ceremonies. Until recently, institute-wide data was
collected. Beginning in 2001, Career
Services also started collecting and tabulating the data by major. This data is useful for determining if our
program is achieving the criterion that at least one out of three of our
graduates will pursue graduate studies.
During
the Spring 2001 survey, thirty-one AE graduates
responded. Out of these, eleven had
accepted full-time employment, two were reporting for armed services, eleven
had been admitted into graduate programs, and seven were uncertain about (or
did not indicate) their career plans. Based
on this information, and the alumni survey results discussed earlier, it
appears that our criterion that one out of three of our graduates will pursue
graduate studies or a continuing education opportunity is being met.
i. Closing the
Georgia
Tech switched from a quarter-based system to a semester-system in 1999. This presented an opportunity for our faculty
to revise the entire curriculum, taking into consideration our constituents’
concerns and suggestions. A number of changes to the curriculum were made as a
result.
i) In the quarter-based
curriculum, astronautics topics were encapsulated in two or three elective
courses. Under the new curriculum, we
embedded these topics across the entire curriculum. As an example, our
performance course now covers aircraft performance as well as spacecraft
performance. The flight mechanics and
control courses cover both aircraft and spacecraft. The high-speed aerodynamics
courses now cover reentry aerodynamics and hypersonic flow. Every one of our disciplines has incorporated
astronautics topics.
ii)
We created ten
hours of free electives, which may be used in any way the student and the
faculty advisor consider appropriate. Students
are encouraged to pursue minors, certificates, independent research, and group
design activities over and above the capstone design.
iii)
We added new
required courses in the areas of material science and engineering, and
economics, responding to our alumni’s views on these areas, and recognizing the
increased role these fields play in engineering.
iv)
Topics on linear
algebra were added to the math curriculum.
Examination
of student portfolios has lead to a concerted effort on the part of our faculty
to offer challenging design and research experiences beyond the required
courses. This has resulted in creation
of several undergraduate research courses (AE 290x, 390x, 490x), and design
courses (AE 1355, 2355, 3355). As our
discussions above show, there has been a significant increase in the number of
students participating in such activities, relative to the 1999 baseline. There has also been a steady increase in the
quantity and quality of design entrees, undergraduate research experiences, and
national awards, as discussed above. Samples of students work are documented at
our Web site.
The
internal assessment efforts by the faculty members have lead to a number of
minor, yet important, adjustments to the curriculum.
i) An examination
of the homework assignments in aerodynamics courses indicated that a large
majority of the students had difficulties with mathematical concepts such as
vector products, divergence, curls, etc. The mathematics requirement for AE 2020 was
increased from Math 1502 (Calculus II) to Math 2401 (Calculus III). When the
students with the stricter mathematics requirement were examined during the
following year, a measurable improvement was observed.
ii) An
examination of the three-dimensional dynamics knowledge of the students by the
design faculty (in particular those dealing with spacecraft design) showed that
students lack knowledge of three-dimensional rigid body dynamics. We took this observation into effect while
developing our AE 2220 dynamics course. This course has three-dimensional
dynamics topics, while its quarter equivalent did not.
iii) Examination
of the lower course material by the upper course instructors has lead to a
redistribution of material that helped the students better learn the material. Some of the compressible viscous flow material
and the turbulent flow material were redistributed between two of our fluid
dynamics courses: AE 2020 and 3021. We
also moved some material in our senior level flight mechanics and controls
course (AE4520) to a junior level course (AE 3515) to ensure that students have
an adequate knowledge of these topics before entering the capstone design. Finally, many of our students entering AE
learn Java and lack familiarity with MATLAB, a rapid prototyping language often
used in AE. Our Flight Mechanics and
Control discipline has assigned a number of assignments and practice sessions
to help students with MATLAB when they enter the junior level.
Senior
Exit surveys show that the students desire more AE electives, particularly in
areas such as CAD/CAE, finite element method, computational fluid dynamics,
astronautics, and unmanned aerial vehicles.
Several new electives in these areas have been added to the curriculum,
as evidenced by the list of elective offerings in the fall of 2001 and spring of
2002.
j. Areas that Need Further
Improvement: Our alumni and employer
surveys, analysis of our curriculum, and evaluation of our students'
participation in design and research all indicate that good progress is being
made in achieving our educational objectives. However, these surveys and studies indicate
that there is still opportunity for improvement in the following two areas.
Communication skills – Our alumni and employers
frequently point out the importance of oral and written communication skills. We require LCC 3401, a course on Technical
Communication skills, and ME/CE 1770, a course on graphical communication
skills. All our lab courses, and our
capstone design courses, require oral presentations. While these measures have been helpful, we do
not yet have in place a systematic effort aimed at assessing student
communication skills throughout their career and offering remedial help where
needed. This is an area our faculty will work on during the coming years.
Some of the measures being considered
are: use of faculty and teaching assistants from the
Coverage
of Ethics and Societal Issues in the Curriculum – In
many of the AE courses, we extensively cover environmental concerns (lower drag
for improved fuel efficiency, reduced acoustic emissions, reduced chemical
emissions, use of non-toxic material in design, etc.). Other areas such as ethics and cultural
diversity do not receive a commensurate emphasis in the curriculum. There is very little room in the curriculum to
add courses or topics in this area. The aerospace
engineering faculty are considering establishing an undergraduate
seminar series that may be taken for free elective credit, where professionals
from industry address these vital issues. Other approaches are also being
considered.
k. Challenges Faced: Aerospace engineering, like most fields of
engineering, is rapidly expanding. The
number of topics that aerospace engineers need to know is swiftly growing:
digital signal processing, statistics, MEMS, CFD, CSD, CAD, CAE, active flow
control, avionics, etc. Yet the total
number of credit hours available is clearly limited to 128-136 hours over a
four-year period. Innovative ideas are
needed to train our students for tomorrow’s technologies and needs.
Our
school plans to offer a five-year combined B. S./M. S.
program which will allow our graduates to receive a Bachelors’ as well as
Masters’ degree after a five-year period. By taking advantage of the common topics
between our Bachelor and the Master degree program, our students will be able
to reduce the total number of hours by 6 (2 courses). These students will be required, as part of
their training, to engage in design activities beyond the capstone design and/or
participate in research. This will allow
us to meet our target goal that at least one in every five students
participates in some form of design or research activity outside the required
courses. At this time, the idea of a
combined B. S./M. S. has been presented to our
faculty. A faculty vote is expected in
the summer of 2002.
l. Assessment Material
Available: The following material is
available for review during the visit. Most
of this material is already available for examination at <http://www.ae.gatech.edu/~lsankar/ABET2002>.
– Constituents Input to our objectives and program outcomes.
– Course lecture notes, homework, and quizzes demonstrating that
the courses address the expected outcomes.
– Assessment Plans for the past four years.
– E-Mail among the discipline and design faculty on student skill
sets.
– Faculty meeting minutes on curricular changes based on outcome
assessments.
– Exit surveys for the past four years (1999-2002).
– Sample Student Portfolios.