Updated: 3/29/2017 1

Civil and Environmental Engineering Department

State of Program Learning Outcomes

I. BS in Civil and Environmental Engineering

1. Program Evaluation

Criterion 1 - Comprehensive List (of Program Learning Outcomes – PLOs)

Rank: Highly Developed

Reasoning: The Civil and Environmental Engineering (CEE) department adopted the list of ABET

Outcomes A though K as the set of CEE Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs). This is a reasonable,

appropriate, and comprehensive list of learning outcomes to provide important knowledge, skills, and

values to students in the CEE program. The ABET Outcomes are the national standards dictated by the

accreditation agency (ABET) which spans the university learning goals. The CEE Faculty has agreed on

explicit criteria for assessing students’ level of mastery of each outcome. The Program Learning

Outcomes are presented in Table 1.

Criterion 2 - Assessable Outcomes

Rank: Highly Developed

Reasoning: Outcomes A though K describe how students can demonstrate their learning. Faculty

members have agreed on explicit criteria statements, such as rubrics, and have identified examples of

student performance at 3 levels for each outcome. The assessment criteria for each Outcome are

presented in Table 2.

Criterion 3 – Alignment (Matrix of PLOs to Courses)

Rank: Highly Developed

Reasoning: The CEE curriculum is explicitly designed to provide students to develop increasing

sophistication with respect to each outcome. Pedagogy, grading, the curriculum, relevant student support

services, and co-curriculum are explicitly and intentionally aligned with each of the Outcomes A through

K. Curriculum map indicates increasing levels of proficiency. Table 3 presents the list of CEE courses

assessed for each Outcome and the learning capacity level for each of the courses associated with the

Outcomes.

Criterion 4 - Assessment Planning

Rank: Highly Developed

Reasoning: The CEE faculty developed explicit plans for assessing each outcome. The program has a

fully articulated, sustainable, multi-year assessment plan that describes when and how each outcome will

be assessed and how improvements based on findings will be implemented. The plan is annually

examined and revised, as needed.

Criterion 5 - The Student Experience

Rank: Highly Developed

Updated: 3/29/2017 2

Reasoning: Students are well well-acquainted with Program Outcomes A though K which are posted on

the department’s notice board on the hallway outside of the department’s office as well as on the

department’s website. Program policy calls for inclusion of outcomes in all course syllabi, and they are

readily available in other program documents. Table 4 presents the Learning Outcomes mapped to

University Learning Goal.

Criterion 6 - Graduation Rates for Total, Non URM and URM Students

Rank: Emerging

From Table A1, the Total, Non URM and URM six-year graduation rates for undergraduate students

who entered the program in 2007 were 42.3%, 49.1% and 22.7%, respectively. The department is

implementing strategies to improve graduation rates, such as advising, early connection of new students

to the program and the new 120-unit program.

Criterion 7 - Headcounts of Program Majors and New Students

Rank: Developed

From Table A2, our undergraduate headcount in Fall 2013 was 519. Our program has seed significant

increase in the number of applicants over the pas years. This shows that increasing demand for the

program. However, past experience shows that the demand for our program is highly dependent on the

economy of the Bay Area (the electronic industries). We tend to have high demand for our program

when the Bay Area electronic industries are not doing well.

Criterion 8 - SFR and Average Section Size

Rank: Developed

From Table A3, SFR for our lower division courses in Fall 2013 was 23.1 and 20.5 for our upper

division undergraduate courses with an average of 21.8. The department will study the significant of this

number and any needed improvement.

Criterion 9 - Percent of Tenured/Tenure-Track Instructional Faculty

Rank: N/A

Information on the percent of Tenured/Tenure-Track Instructional Faculty is presented on Table A4.

The department has 8 full-time faculty members which includes the Chair and two tenure-track faculty

members. Therefore, the department has high dependence on part-time instructional faculty members.

Closing the Loop/Recommended Action

The Civil and Environmental Engineering Department faculty sees Program Assessment is a very process

for program improvement. In our assessment process, we note areas (both assessment process and

curriculum planning and delivery) that need improvement and we make sure that the noted improvements

are implemented and assessed to close the loop of any recommended action.

Assessment Data

The data collected include course assessment reports that are prepared and submitted to the department by

individual course instructor. The report presents students’ performance on examination problems that

were used to assess course objectives that address various PLOs. Course assessment reports for each

Updated: 3/29/2017 3

Outcome are summarized by Outcome Champion and submitted to the department in the form of

“Outcome Champion Report”.

Analysis

The department has developed a process for evaluating the achievement PLOs. For a course objective to

be considered as achieving an associated PLO, 70% of the class must score at least 70% or higher on an

examination problem that is used for assessing student learning. The Outcome Champion reports presents

a summary of student performance in each of the courses that support an Outcome. At least one faculty

meeting is used to discuss each Outcome Champion report to decide on any assessment or curriculum

improvement that may be needed in any of the courses that support an Outcome.

Proposed Changes and Goals (if any)

The department continuously updates our assessment process and curriculum based on results of our

assessment work.

Table 1 Undergraduate Program Learning (PLOs)

STUDENT OUTCOMES

Outcome A Graduates have an ability to apply knowledge of engineering, mathematics through differential equations, probability and statistics, calculus-based physics, chemistry, and one additional area of science.

Outcome B Graduates have an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data in more than one civil engineering area.

Outcome C Graduates have an ability to design a civil engineering system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability.

Outcome D Demonstrate ability as a member of a team to lead, interact, communicate in a professional manner with other members on the team and contribute discipline-specific input to a multi-disciplinary team.

Outcome E Graduates have an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems in technical areas appropriate to civil engineering.

Outcome F Graduates have an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.

Outcome G Graduates have an ability to communicate effectively.

Outcome H Graduates have the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental and social context.

Outcome I Graduates have a recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in, life-long learning and working towards professional licensing.

Outcome J Graduates have knowledge of contemporary issues.

Outcome K Graduates have an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.

Outcome L Graduates can explain key concepts, and problem-solving processes used in business, public policy, and public administration.

Updated: 3/29/2017 4

Table 2 – Performance Criteria for each PLO

PLOs (See Table 1)

Performance Criteria

Outcome A Performance Criterion A1: Demonstrate an ability to use mathematics through differential equations, statistics, probability theory, calculus-based physics, and chemistry to perform engineering calculations and solve engineering problems.

Outcome B Performance Criterion B1: Demonstrate an ability to design and conduct experiments through collecting data, analysis and interpreting data using graphs, tables and reports to present data, compare data to theoretical predictions, and make conclusions and recommendations about the phenomena tested, with ability to operate test equipment.

Outcome C Performance Criterion C1: Demonstrate an ability to perform civil engineering component and system design to meet defined constraints.

Outcome D Performance Criterion D1: Demonstrate an ability as a member of a team, to lead, interact, communicate in a professional manner with other members on the team and contribute discipline-specific input to a multi-disciplinary team.

Outcome E Performance Criterion E1: Demonstrate an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems in the following civil engineering areas: Environmental, Geotechnical, Structural, Transportation, and Water Resources.

Outcome F Performance Criterion F1: Demonstrate an ability to analyze and evaluate a situation in which personal or professional ethics are involved. Performance Criterion F2: Demonstrate knowledge of codes, standards and regulations.

Outcome G Performance Criterion G1: Demonstrate an ability to give an oral, individual, or group presentation that is organized and uses effective visuals. Performance Criterion G2: Demonstrate an ability to convey technical information through the use of visual instruments such as data plots, graphs, calculations, drawings and equations, and write well-organized reports that are grammatically correct, properly formatted, and convey a specific concept.

Outcome H Performance Criterion H1: Demonstrate an ability to identify economic, environmental and social impacts (both benefits and costs) of engineering projects.

Outcome I Performance Criterion I1: Demonstrate knowledge of various civil engineering professional organizations, the recognition of the need for participation in professional societies, professional meetings, advanced education, application of self-learning, and ability to explain the importance of professional licensing.

Outcome J Performance Criterion J1: Demonstrate an ability to identify and analyze information related to contemporary issues, such as current codes, the environment, traffic, and new technologies that may be associated with engineering projects and practices.

Outcome K K1: Demonstrate an ability to use computer programs and computer skills to organize and present information, to analyze problems, and to design components and systems.

Outcome L: Graduates can explain key concepts and problem-solving processes used in business, public policy, and public admission

Performance Criterion L1: Demonstrate an ability to identify the basic concepts of various project delivery systems in construction, the fundamental concepts of construction cost estimating and scheduling techniques, the basic concepts of owner-engineer-contractor relationships, public policy and administration related to civil engineering practice. Performance Criterion L2: Demonstrate an ability to implement the basic concepts of minimizing life-cycle costs, and the principle of using engineering economics for selecting public sector projects.

Updated: 3/29/2017 5

Table 3. CEE Courses Assessed for each Outcome at Specific Learning Capacity Level

Required Courses/Outcomes

Program Outcomes

A B C D E F G H I J K L

A1 B1 C1 D1 E1 F1 F2 G1 G2 H1 I1 J1 K1 L1 L2

CE 8 2

CE 20 3

CE 95 2

CE 112 2

CE 120 3

CE 121 2 2

CE 130 2

CE 131 3 3 2

CE 140 3 2 3

CE 150

2 2 3 3 3

CE 160 2 3 3

CE 162 3 2 2 2 3

CE 170 2 2 2 2

CE 181 2

CE 190 2

CE 192 2 2

1, 2, and 3 indicate learning capability levels

The following learning capacity levels were used:

o Level 1: Not Meet Expectations,

o Level 2: Meets Expectations, and

o Level 3: Exceeds Expectations.

Updated: 3/29/2017 6

Table 4. PLOs Mapped to University Undergraduate Learning Goals

PLO/ULG

Sp

ecia

lize

d K

no

wle

dg

e

Bro

ad

In

teg

rative

Kn

ow

ledg

e

Inte

llectu

al S

kill

s

Ap

plie

d K

no

wle

dg

e

So

cia

l a

nd

Glo

ba

l

Re

sp

onsib

ilities

A: An ability to apply knowledge of engineering, mathematics through differential equations, probability and statistics, calculus-based physics, chemistry, and one additional area of science.

X

X

B: An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data in more than one civil engineering area.

X

X

C: An ability to design a civil engineer system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health & safety, manufacturability, and sustainability.

X

X

D: An ability to function as a member of a multi-disciplinary team, with the ability to explain the role of a leader.

X

E: An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems in technical areas appropriate to civil engineering.

X

X X

F: An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.

X

X X

G: An ability to communicate effectively.

X X

X

H: The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental and social context.

X

X

I: A recognition of the need for, and an ability to, engage in life-long learning and working towards professional licensing.

X

J: Knowledge of contemporary issues. X X X X

K: An ability to use the techniques, skills and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.

X X X X

L: An ability to explain key concepts and problem-solving processes used in business, public policy, and public administration.

X

X

Updated: 3/29/2017 7

II. MS in Civil and Environmental Engineering

1. Program Evaluation

Criterion 1 - Comprehensive List (of Graduate Program Learning Outcomes

Rank: Highly Developed

Reasoning: Our graduate program mission statement is the graduate Program Educational

Objectives (PEOs), which objectives are broad statements that describe the career and

professional accomplishments that the program is preparing the graduates to achieve. The PEOs

are posted on the department’s information board and the department’s website,

www.engr.scu.edu/civil. The graduate PEOs are:

PEO 1: Prepare students for their professional careers and licensure by strengthening

their knowledge in their specialization (depth) and extending their skills and

knowledge base (breadth).

PEO 2: Provide students advanced proficiencies for professional practice to enable

them to advance in the licensing process and equip them for advancement in

their career.

PEO 3: Improve students’ research skills and prepare them for further graduate study.

PEO 4: Provide students with experience and skills for multi-disciplinary and cross-

CE disciplinary practice.

The CEE department adopted four Graduate Program Outcomes which were derived from ABET

program criteria. The four Graduate Program Outcomes are:

By the end of the program, students should be able to:

1. Apply advanced concepts, theory and analysis for problem solving;

2. Synthesize and integrate necessary engineering concepts into engineering

solution process;

3. Apply modern tools for computations, simulations, analysis and design;

4. Communicate effectively.

The Four Graduate Program Outcomes (POs) are aligned with the PEOs and are assessed in

individual graduate courses. Alignment of the graduate Program Educational objectives with the

graduate Program Outcomes is presented in Table 5.

Criterion 2 - Assessable Outcomes

Rank: Developed

Reasoning: The four Graduate Program Outcomes (POs) describe how students can demonstrate their

learning and the CEE faculty members have agreed on explicit rubrics for each outcome.

Updated: 3/29/2017 8

Criterion 3 – Alignment (Matrix of Graduate POs to Courses)

Rank: Developed

Reasoning: The CEE curriculum is designed to provide opportunities for students to learn and to develop

increasing sophistication with respect to Program Outcomes 1 through 4. Table 6 presents the list of CEE

graduate courses assessed for each PO for our last program review.

Criterion 4 - Assessment Planning

Rank: Developed

Reasoning: The program has a reasonable, multi-year assessment plan that identifies when each outcome

will be assessed. The plan explicitly includes analysis and implementation of improvements. The plan is

annually examined and revised, as needed.

Criterion 5 - The Student Experience

Rank: Emerging

Reasoning: Students are well-acquainted with Graduate Program Outcomes which are posted on the

department’s notice board on the hallway outside of the department’s office as well as on the

department’s website. Table 7 presents the Graduate Program Outcomes mapped to University Learning

Goal.

Criterion 6 - Graduation Rates for Total, Non URM and URM Students

Rank: Emerging

From Table A1, the Total, Non URM and URM three-year graduation rates for graduate students who

entered the program in 2010 were 67.3%, 63.0% and 50.0%, respectively.

Criterion 7 - Headcounts of Program Majors and New Students

Rank: Developed

From Table A2, our graduate headcount in Fall 2013 was 145. Our program has seed significant

increase in the number of applicants over the pas years. This shows that increasing demand for the

program. However, past experience shows that the demand for our program is highly dependent on the

economy of the Bay Area (the electronic industries). We tend to have high demand for our program

when the Bay Area electronic industries are not doing well.

Criterion 8 - SFR and Average Section Size

Rank: Developed

From Table A3, SFR for our graduate courses in Fall 2013 was 24.4. The department will study the

significant of this number and any needed improvement.

Criterion 9 - Percent of Tenured/Tenure-Track Instructional Faculty

Rank: N/A

Information on the percent of Tenured/Tenure-Track Instructional Faculty is presented on Table A4.

The department has 8 full-time faculty members which includes the Chair and two tenure-track faculty

members. Therefore, the department has high dependence on part-time instructional faculty members.

Updated: 3/29/2017 9

Closing the Loop/Recommended Action

The Civil and Environmental Engineering Department faculty sees Program Assessment is a very process

for program improvement. In our assessment process, we note areas (both assessment process and

curriculum planning and delivery) that need improvement and we make sure that the noted improvements

are implemented and assessed to close the loop of any recommended action.

Assessment Data

The data collected include course assessment reports that are prepared and submitted to the department by

individual course instructor. The report presents students’ performance on examination problems that

were used to assess course objectives that address various POs. Other assessment data included MS exit

exam performance and survey questions for our graduate students on various aspects of our graduate

program.

Analysis

The department has developed a process for evaluating the achievement POs. For a course objective to be

considered as achieving an associated PO, 80% of the class must score at least 80% or higher on an

examination problem that is used for assessing student learning.

Proposed Changes and Goals (if any)

The department continuously updates our assessment process and curriculum based on results of our

assessment work.

Updated: 3/29/2017 10

Table 5: PEOs Relationships to POs

PEOs Program Outcomes POs

PO 1 PO 2 PO 3 PO 4

PEO 1 X X X

PEO 2 X X X

PEO 3 X X X X

PEO 4 X X X X

Table 6. Matrix Showing the Alignment of Graduate Courses to Graduate Program Outcomes

POs Courses

CE 210 CE 212 CE 234 CE 237 CE 220 CE 221 CE 222 CE 223 CE 224 CE 225 CE 226

PO 1 X X X X

PO 2 X X X X X X X

PO 3 X X X X

PO 4 X X

POs Courses

CE 239 CE 244 CE 246 CE 250 CE 255 CE 260 CE 261 CE 270 CE 271 CE 272 CE 273

PO 1 X X X X X X X

PO 2 X X X X X X X X X X

PO 3 X X X X X

PO 4 X X X

POs Courses

CE 274 CE 275 CE 276 CE 277

PO 1 X X X X

PO 2 X X X X

PO 3 X X X X

PO 4 X

Updated: 3/29/2017 11

Table 7. Graduate Program Outcomes (POs) Mapped to University Undergraduate Learning Goals (ULGs)

Graduate POs / ULG

Sp

ecia

lize

d k

no

wle

dg

e

Bro

ad

Inte

gra

tive

kn

ow

led

ge

Inte

llectu

al S

kill

s

Ap

plie

d K

no

wle

dg

e

So

cia

l a

nd

Glo

ba

l

Re

sp

onsib

ilities

1. Apply advance concepts, theory and analysis for problem solving.

X

X X

2. Synthesize and integrate necessary engineering concepts into engineering solution process.

X

X X

3. Apply modern tools for computations, simulations, analysis and design.

X X X X

4. Communicate effectively.

X

X

Appendices

Table A1 Undergraduate Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs)

Table A2 Performance Criteria for each PLO

Table A3 CEE Courses Assessed for each Outcome at Specific Learning Capacity Level

Table A4 PLOs Mapped to University Undergraduate Learning Goals

Table A5 PEOs Relationships to POs

Table A6 Matrix Showing the Alignment of Graduate Courses to Graduate Program Outcomes

Table A7 Graduate Program Outcomes (POs) Mapped to University Undergraduate Learning

Goals (ULGs)

Updated: 3/29/2017 12

Table A1. Graduation Rates for Total, Non URM and URM Students by Program

Note: URM = African-American, Hispanic, and Americam-Indians; Non-URM = White and Asian/Pacific Islander; Other = Other and Foreign

Academic Programs

First-time Freshmen: 6 Year Graduation Rates

New UG Transfers: 3 Year Graduation Rates

Grads : 3 Year Graduation Rates

Fall 2007 Cohort Fall 2010 Cohort Fall 2010 Cohort

Entering % Grad Entering % Grad Entering % Grad

Civil/Envir.Engineering Total 78 42.3% 38 39.5% 49 67.3%

URM 22 22.7% 13 15.4% 10 50.0%

Non-URM 53 49.1% 18 44.4% 27 63.0%

Other 3 66.7% 7 71.4% 12 91.7%

Table A2. Headcount of Program Majors and New Students by Programs and Degree Note: 1st Fr. = First-time Freshmen; Transf = Transfer Students; UGs = Undergraduate Students; Creds = Credential Students; Grads = Graduate Students

Fall 2013

New Students Cont. Students Total

Civil Engineering Degree 1st Fr. UG Transf New Creds 1st Grads UGs Creds Grads UGs Creds Grads

Total 91 57 0 57 371 0 88 519 0 145

BS 91 57 0 0 371 0 0 519 0 0

MS 0 0 0 57 0 0 88 0 0 145

Updated: 3/29/2017 13

Table A3. SFR (Exhibit 3) and Average Headcount per Section (Exhibit 2) by Course Prefix

Fall 2013

Course Prefix Course Level Student to Faculty Ratio

(SFR)

Average Headcount per

Section

CE - Civil/Env Engineering

Total 21.7 29.1

Lower Division 23.1 45.6

Upper Division 20.5 30.3

Graduate Division 24.4 17.9

Table A4. Percentage of Full-time Equivalent Faculty (FTEF) for tenured/tenure-track instructional faculty by Department

Fall 2013

% Tenured/Prob Tenured Probationary Temp Lecturer

Civil & Environmental Engineering

33.6% 3.467 10.332 1.756