Review Assessment Report

Part 1: Contact & Program Identification

Report Year and Contact Information
Academic Year	Modified By	Date Modified
2021-2022	evoges@cnm.edu	2022-10-13T18:26:11.754Z

School	Name of Program	Courses
MSE	Engineering AS Degree	CHEM 1215,CHEM 1215L,ECON 2110,ENGL 2210,MATH 1510,MATH 1520,MATH 2410,MATH 2530,PHYS 1310,PHYS 1310L,PHYS 1320,PHYS 1320L

Part 2: Program Summary

Provide a high level review of the program to include highlights, successes, challenges, significant changes, and significant resources needed to support the program
We have faculty that are passionate about student success and we have crafted a strong physics and engineering curriculum that emphasizes problem solving and analysis. The Engineering AS degree has attracted a small number of declared majors each year and has produced an appropriate number of graduates. We have recently developed a full suite of online physics courses, providing more flexible options for our students.

Provide a high level review of the program to include highlights, successes, challenges, significant changes, and significant resources needed to support the program

We have faculty that are passionate about student success and we have crafted a strong physics and engineering curriculum that emphasizes problem solving and analysis. The Engineering AS degree has attracted a small number of declared majors each year and has produced an appropriate number of graduates. We have recently developed a full suite of online physics courses, providing more flexible options for our students.

Part 3: Data Review

	2019-2020	2020-2021	2021-2022
Annual number of graduate awards is greater than 10	42	45	40
Number of declared majors	1049	840	770
Average Class Size	24.8	21.8	19.7
Annual Average Class withdrawal rate is 30% or below (SAGE 35%)	19%	21%	17%
Annual C-Pass rate for coursework is 60% or above	65%	63%	66%
Average class fill rate at 60% or above capacity within a term or over a year	84%	78%	67%
Graduate Transfer to 4-year Schools	60%	n/a	n/a
Full-time Faculty Coverage by Section	62%	60%	27%

Summarize how your program met or did not meet the target measures based on the data above
Our engineering degree program has met or exceeded all of the above targets.

Part 4: Program Learning Outcome Analysis

Learning Outcome	Population or Course(s) Assessed	Description	Summary of Assessment Results
Construct a free body diagram, apply Newton’s Laws, solve the equations, describe the relationships between physical quantities in the equations, and conduct dimensional analysis.	Physics 1310	Final Exam	Forty-four students were assessed and 77% passed the assessment. The average score was 6.0 on a scale of 0 -10.

Interpretation of Assessment findings
In Spring 2022, forty-four PHYS 1310 students were assessed on constructing free body diagrams and applying Newton's Laws. We require a 50% on the final exam to pass PHYS 1310, so we chose a minimum score of 5 out of 10 to pass this assessment. Seventy-seven percent of the students passed the assessment, and the average score among all students was 6/10. This population had a very similar pass rate to the 1310 students assessed in 2019. Although we assessed a different SLO and used a different question than that year, this year's question was similar in its level of difficulty and grading procedure. The pass rate in 2019 was 76% (pre-pandemic, all f2f classes) vs. 77% in 2022. However, if we break it out by online vs. f2f, the online students had a pass rate of 70% versus 83% for our f2f. Upon closer inspection, the free body diagram seems to be at the heart of the difference in pass rates. This may indicate our online students need more practice, or that the online interface for creating them is unwieldy.

Interpretation of Assessment findings

In Spring 2022, forty-four PHYS 1310 students were assessed on constructing free body diagrams and applying Newton's Laws. We require a 50% on the final exam to pass PHYS 1310, so we chose a minimum score of 5 out of 10 to pass this assessment. Seventy-seven percent of the students passed the assessment, and the average score among all students was 6/10. This population had a very similar pass rate to the 1310 students assessed in 2019. Although we assessed a different SLO and used a different question than that year, this year's question was similar in its level of difficulty and grading procedure. The pass rate in 2019 was 76% (pre-pandemic, all f2f classes) vs. 77% in 2022. However, if we break it out by online vs. f2f, the online students had a pass rate of 70% versus 83% for our f2f. Upon closer inspection, the free body diagram seems to be at the heart of the difference in pass rates. This may indicate our online students need more practice, or that the online interface for creating them is unwieldy.

Part 5: Additional Action Plan in Support of Student Learning (If Appropriate)

Upcoming Year	Changes Planned for the upcoming year	Data Motivating this change
2021-2022	Revise the free body diagram portion of the question for our online students such that they are better able to demonstrate their knowledge.	Our online students had lower scores on this portion of the assessment vs their f2f counterparts, although not on the other parts of the assessment, indicating that they might have had a difficult time demonstrating their knowledge using the online interface.
2021-2022
2021-2022

Please select all of the following that characterize the types of changes described in the above action plan

Back