SJSU Annual Program Assessment Form

Academic Year 2015‐2016

Instructions

  1. Complete the attached form and submit it as an email attachment to Graduate and Undergraduate Programs () on or before June 1, 2016.
  1. Please copy your college’s Associate Dean and Assessment Facilitator on the email submission. Assessment Facilitators are also available to provide support - please feel free to contact them with any questions or concerns.
  1. Completed forms will be posted on your Program Records webpage.

Please note that this form has been updated since last year. We have made several minor changes that we believe will streamline the reporting process and increase focus on the implementation of changes based on assessment results (“Closing the Loop”). The program data elements (graduation rates, headcounts, SFR, etc.) have been dropped from this annual assessment report. This data is still available through the Institutional Effectiveness and Analytics (IEA) website and we encourage programs to examine this data on a regular basis. However, this information will only be required to be reported as part of the Program Planning process. This report is organized into three sections designed to organize your annual assessment efforts and to inform your department’s Program Planning. Here is the rationale behind each section.

Part A – The Big Picture

●This section will likely only need to be prepared once at the beginning of your assessment cycle, although it should be reviewed each year and updated as necessary. This information should be included in each annual report, even if it has not changed.

●This section lists your Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs) and, more importantly, how they connect with your curriculum within the program and the University Learning Goals (ULGs).

●Finally, this section presents your assessment plan for the current planning cycle in the form of a multi-year schedule (usually 5 years, updated as part of Program Planning). This schedule should indicate which PLO(s) will be assessed each year, as well as your plans for implementing changes based on assessment results, and re-assessment after changes have been given time to take effect.

Part B – What We Did This Year

●This section details your assessment efforts over the last year (AY 2015-16).

●Which PLO(s) were assessed, how was the data collected, and what do the data tell you with regard to student achievement on this PLO? What do you plan to do, if anything, to improve future achievement levels (i.e., “close the loop”)?

Part C – Keeping Track of the Changes (“Closing the loop”)

●This section is meant to keep a running record of your efforts to improve your students’ outcomes. This table should grow throughout your assessment cycle and will be an important part of your next Program Plan.

●Create a new row in the table each time you propose a change as a result of your assessment efforts.Then be sure to keep track of your change efforts in subsequent years.

SJSU Annual Program Assessment Form

Academic Year 2015‐2016

Department: Biomedical, Chemical and Materials Engineering

Program:M.S. Biomedical Engineering

College: Engineering

Program Website:

Link to Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs) on program website:

Program Accreditation (if any):

Contact Person and Email: Alessandro Bellofiore,

Date of Report: 06.01.2016

Part A

  1. List of Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs)

All of the student outcomes are assessed in a combination of the Project Courses:BME 281 (Project/Thesis Preparation Seminar), when they defend their research proposal, and BME 298/299 (MS Project/Thesis), when they defend their thesis or project, which is the culminating experience of the MS Biomedical Engineering program.

The Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs) and specific performance criteria (PC) for each PLO, are listed below. The PC for each PLO were identified and developed to ensure that the assessment for each PLO would be relevant to biomedical engineering. The assessment process involves the project committee answering the bulleted questions according to the rubric (in parenthesis) at the time of their proposal and project defense presentations.

BME 281 course is taken when the students have completed most of the coursework for the program, are in Classified Standing, have completed their GWAR, and have submitted their Candidacy Form. As such, they have taken the courses to expose and challenge them to learn the material at a more rigorous and in-depth level than at the BS level. The final defense (BME 298/299) must happen when they have completed their research, written and submitted the written report to the project advisers, and have also completed all the required courses including electives. Students typically enroll in BME 298/299 in the semester following the semester in which they complete BME 281.

  1. Ability to solve complex engineering problems and tasks, and use engineering, science and statistics principles to justify recommendations
  2. (PC 4) The student was able to defend his/her experimental results based on established and accepted engineering, science and statistical principles. (1 = student did not or was not able to adequately justify the majority of their experimental results (no verification runs etc.), 3 = student did adequately justify most aspects of their experimental results, 5 = excellent justification of all aspects of their experimental results
  3. Abilityto evaluate the impact of their work on society, including ethical, economic, global and environmental aspects.
  4. (PC 5) The student was aware of the global impact of their work on society including the ethical and/or environmental and/or economic impact of his/her work. (Note: 1 = neither the oral nor written presentation had a separate section on the global impact of the proposed work, 3 = both the oral and written presentation had an adequate section on the global impact of the proposed work, 5 = both the oral and written presentation had an excellent section on the global impact of the proposed work).
  5. Ability to deliver effective presentations of engineering results in written and oral formats.
  6. (PC 1) The student delivered a professional written report. (Note: 1 = insufficient technical content and/or major formatting, and/or lack of adequate referencing, and/or major grammatical/spelling errors, 3 = acceptable technical content, formatting, referencing and grammar/spelling, 5 = excellent report in all aspects) A level of 4 or above also implies that the report demonstrates a level of writing quality and technical analysis suitable for publication whether or not the focus is original enough to be published.
  7. (PC 2) The student delivered a professional oral presentation. . (Note: 1 = insufficient technical content and/or major errors in grammar/spelling and/or insufficient use of presentation software and/or in major errors in deliverance of a practiced presentation including response to questions, 3 = acceptable technical content, grammar/spelling, use of presentation software and deliverance of a practiced presentation including response to questions, 5 = excellent presentation in all aspects)
  8. Ability to develop life-long learning skills and to apply their engineering knowledge to critically evaluate relevant literature and new technologies or systems.
  9. (PC 3) The student was able to show how his/her project relates to work reported in the literature. (Note: 1 = incomplete or irrelevant literature cited and/or inadequate literature discussion, 3 = adequate amount and discussion of relevant literature, 5 = excellent discussion of relevant literature)
  10. Ability to become effective leaders, capable of working in diverse environments.
  11. This outcome is not assessed in the program
  12. Abilityto apply their engineering education to a variety of career paths.
  13. This outcome is not assessed in the program
  1. Map of PLOs to University Learning Goals (ULGs)

Mapping of the PLOs to the University Learning Goals was initially done by the Biomedical Engineering Program Director, and then reviewed and discussed by the Biomedical Engineering faculty. Table 1 contains the mapping that evolved as a result of this collaborative review process.

The five University Learning Goals are listed below:

1. ULG #1 ‐ Specialized Knowledge: Depth of knowledge required for a degree, as identified by its program learning outcomes

2. ULG #2 ‐ Broad Integrative Knowledge: Mastery of each step of an investigative, creative, or practical project. Understanding of the implications of results or findings from a particular work in societal context

3. ULG #3 ‐ Intellectual Skills: Fluency in the use of specific theories, tools, technology, and graphical representation. Skills and abilities necessary for life‐long learning: critical and creative thinking effective communication, conscientious information gathering and processing, mastery of quantitative methodologies, and the ability to engage effectively in collaborative activities

4. ULG #4 ‐ Applied Knowledge: Ability to integrate theory, practice, and problem‐solving to address practical issues. Ability to apply their knowledge and skills to new settings or in addressing complex problems. The ability to work productively as individuals and in groups

5. ULG #5 ‐ Social and Global Responsibilities: Ability to act intentionally and ethically to address a global or local problem in an informed manner with a multicultural and historical perspective and a clear understanding of societal and civic responsibilities. Diverse and global perspectives through engagement with the multidimensional SJSU community

Table 1: Mapping of MS Biomedical Engineering Program Learning Outcomes to University Learning Goals

BS Biomedical Engineering Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs) / University Learning Goals
1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
1. Ability to solve complex engineering problems and tasks, and use engineering, science and statistics principles to justify recommendations / X / X
2. Ability to evaluate the impact of their work on society, including ethical, economic, global and environmental aspects / X / X
3. Ability to deliver effective presentations of engineering results in written and oral formats / X
4. Ability to develop life-long learning skills and to apply their engineering knowledge to critically evaluate relevant literature and new technologies or systems. / X
5. Ability to become effective leaders, capable of working in diverse environments / X
6. Ability to apply their engineering education to a variety of career paths / X
  1. Alignment – Matrix of PLOs to Courses

Table 2: Matrix showing specific courses at which Program Evaluation Components are assessed.

Program Evaluation Components / BME 281 / BME 298/299
1. Ability to solve complex engineering problems and tasks, and use engineering, science and statistics principles to justify recommendations / X / X
2. Ability to evaluate the impact of their work on society, including ethical, economic, global and environmental aspects / X / X
3. Ability to deliver effective presentations of engineering results in written and oral formats / X / X
4. Ability to develop life-long learning skills and to apply their engineering knowledge to critically evaluate relevant literature and new technologies or systems. / X / X
5. Ability to become effective leaders, capable of working in diverse environments
6. Ability to apply their engineering education to a variety of career paths
  1. Planning – Assessment Schedule

The graduate program assessment schedule is as follows.All of the student outcomes are assessed in a combination of the two Project Courses:

  • BME 281, when they defend their research proposal;
  • BME 298/299, when they defend their thesis or project, which is the culminating experience of their program.

The data are reviewed periodically by the graduate advisors and appropriate recommendations are made, as necessary.

  1. Student Experience

The Program Learning Objectives are available in the university catalog and posted on the Biomedical Engineering Program website at the following URL address:

-Program Learning Objectives:

The students are initially made aware of the assessment process and student outcomes during their MS student orientation meeting, and then again the students are made aware of the outcomes and assessment process in the BME 281 course, primarily as this is the first course where they are assessed. They see their scores because they are on the reverse side of the sheet that they need to get signed by their advisor/committee stating that they have completed all the requirements for the degree program.

Additionally, specific Learning Outcomes are included in every course syllabus. These outcomes generally reflect Program Learning Objectives.

Part B

  1. Assessment Data and Results

Assessment of all the PCs was completed in Fall 2015 for the BME 281 course, and in Spring 2015 for BME 298/299. For both courses, the assessment process involves the project committee answering the bulleted question according to the rubric (in parenthesis) at the time of their proposal and project defense presentations.

The results for individual students are reported in Table 3 (BME 281, Fall 2015) and Table 4 (BME 298/299, Spring 2015).

Table 3. Individualassessment data for the students enrolled in BME 281 (Fall 2015).

Rating
Student / PC 1 / PC 2 / PC 3 / PC 4 / PC 5
1 / 4 / 4 / 5 / 4 / 3
2 / 4 / 4 / 5 / 4 / 3
3 / 2.5 / 3.5 / 2 / 2.5 / 4
4 / 2.5 / 3.5 / 2 / 2.5 / 4
5 / 3.5 / 4.5 / 5 / 4 / 5
6 / 3.5 / 4.5 / 5 / 4 / 5
7 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 3 / n/a
8 / 4 / 3.5 / 3.5 / 3 / 3.5
9 / 4.5 / 4.5 / 4.5 / 4.5 / n/a
10 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 3
11 / 4 / 4 / 5 / 4 / 4
12 / 4.5 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4
13 / 3 / 3 / 4 / 3 / 4

Table 4. Individualassessment data for the students enrolled in BME 298/299 (Spring 2015).

Rating
Student / PC 1 / PC 2 / PC 3 / PC 4 / PC 5
1 / 5 / 5 / 5 / 4 / 5
2 / 5 / 5 / 5 / 4 / 5
3 / 4.5 / 5 / 5 / 3.5 / 4
4 / 5 / 4 / 5 / 3 / 4.5
5 / 5 / 4 / 5 / 3 / 4.5
6 / 4.5 / 4.5 / 3.5 / 3.5 / 5
7 / 4 / 4 / 3.5 / 3 / 5
8 / 4 / 4 / 3.5 / 3 / 5
9 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4.5 / 3
10 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4.5 / 3
11 / 4.5 / 5 / 3.5 / 4 / 3.5
12 / 3 / 3.5 / 4 / 3.5 / 4
13 / 4.5 / 5 / 5 / 3.5 / 4
  1. Analysis

Analysis of the assessments of the PC is summarized in the following.

With regards to BME 281 (proposal defense), the analysis is summarized in Table 5. For this group, 84.6% of the students attained the minimum acceptable level of attainment (3) for PC 1. The same percent was observed for PC 3 and 4. For PC 2, 92.3% of the students attained the minimum acceptable level of attainment. For PC 5, data were unavailable for two students, and 72.7% of the students attained the minimum acceptable level of attainment.

Table 5. Data analysis for the students enrolled in BME 281 (Fall 2015).

13 Total Students / PC 1 / PC 2 / PC 3 / PC 4 / PC 5
≥ 3 / 11 / 12 / 11 / 11 / 8
≥ 4 / 7 / 9 / 10 / 7 / 7
≥ 4.5 / 2 / 3 / 5 / 1 / 2

With regards to BME 298/299 (project/thesis defense), the analysis is summarized in Table 6. For this group, all the students attained the minimum acceptable level of attainment (3) for every PC.

Table 6. Data analysis for the students enrolled in BME 298/299 (Spring 2015).

13 Total Students / PC 1 / PC 2 / PC 3 / PC 4 / PC 5
≥ 3 / 13 / 13 / 13 / 13 / 13
≥ 4 / 12 / 12 / 9 / 5 / 10
≥ 4.5 / 8 / 5 / 6 / 2 / 7

Out of the 15 total levels of attainment considered in Table 5 and 6, in 13 levels (86.7%) the students registered an improvement from BME 281 to BME 298/299.

In addition, we paired the BME 281 and BME 298/299 data for a subset of the students (N=7). The change in PC score from BME 281 (proposal defense) to BME 298/299 (project/thesis defense) are reported in Table 7. A positive variation indicates an improvement in the score for a certain PC.

The results indicate that in 34.3% of the PCs, students improved their score. A decrease in a PC score was observed only in 5.7% of the cases.

Table 7. Variations in the PC scores from BME 281 to BME 298/299.

Rating
Student / PC 1 / PC 2 / PC 3 / PC 4 / PC 5
1 / 0.5 / 1 / 0.5 / 1.5 / 1.5
2 / 0 / 0.5 / 0 / 0 / 0
3 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
4 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
5 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 1
6 / 1 / -0.5 / 0.5 / 0.5 / -0.5
7 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1
  1. Proposed changes and goals (if any)

PLOs 5 and 6 have not been assessed in the program. The list of assessed PC needs to be revised to include criteria aligned with PLOs 5 and 6.

Part C

Proposed Changes and Goals / Status Update

1