California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Industrial & Manufacturing Engineering Department
Assessment Processes
May 17, 2013
Back to IME Assessment Documents Mission & Educational Objectives

Description of assessment processes for evaluating student outcomes(SOs) :

Survey Title

Years Applied, frequency

Targeted Participants

Type of Instrument, responses, and goals (goals shown in bold below)

Senior Project Outcomes Assessment Surveys – student feedback on a-k plus l & m. outcomes related questions plus course and demographic questions.

Starting Fall 2011 quarterly

Students completing their senior projects (graduating seniors)

On-line exit survey (subjective/indirect)
5 = Very Good,
4 = Good
3 = Satisfactory
2 = Fair
1 = Poor
Goal: Average of 3.00 or higher

Senior Project Presentation Assessments

Starting 2006 quarterly

Industry  representatives assess Senior Project Presentations (100% of projects assessed)

Assessment instrument/rubric (objective/direct)
4 = Professional
3 = Proficient
2 = Marginal
1 = Unacceptable
Goal: Average of 3.00 or higher

Senior Project Written Report Assessment

Starting 2006 annual

Professor Emeritus assessment of random 20% sample written reports

Assessment instrument/rubric (objective/direct)
4 = Professional
3 = Proficient
2 = Marginal
1 = Unacceptable
Goal: Average of 3.00 or higher

Senior Project Reflective Piece

Starting 2006 annual

Assessment of  three-page reflective piece written after senior project presentation to assess outcomes h, i, j

Embedded assessment. Assessed with rubric (objective/direct)
4 = Professional
3 = Proficient
2 = Marginal
1 = Unacceptable
Goal: Average of 3.00 or higher

Projects Symposium Industry  Feedback Survey

Starting 2008 annual

On-line survey of industry attendees to Projects Symposium Day in May.

On-line survey (objective/direct)
5 = Very Effective
4 = Effective
3 = Moderately Effective
2 = Somewhat Effective
1 = Not Very Effective
Goal: 4.00 average or higher

Lower Division Knowledge Exam covering graphics, materials, processes, statistics, and work measurement

Starting 2008 annual

Junior year IME students ho have completed lower division pre-requisite courses.

Objective 50 question exam covering 5 lower division knowledge areas (objective/direct)
60%-100% Very Good  Knowledge
50%-60%  Good Knowledge
40%-50% Fair knowledge
30%-40%, Poor knowledge
0%-30% Weak or No Apparent Knowledge
Goal: 50% average or higher in each of five knowledge areas

EGR 402 Ethics Reflective Piece

Starting 2008 annual

Faculty assessment of students taking EGR 402

Embedded assessment (objective/direct)
4 = Excellent
3 = Acceptable

2 = Marginal
1 = Unacceptable
Goal: 3.00 average or higher

IME 112 Teamwork Survey

Starting 2008 annual

Faculty assessment of student survey results in  IME 112

End of course on-line survey (subjective/indirect)

IME Alumni Survey 2010, 2013, 2016 by email Survey of alumni to assess program educational objectives and changes in demographics

15 question survey over extent of meeting educational objectives (subjective/indirect)
5 = Strongly Agree
4 = Agree
3 = Neither
2 = Disagree
1 = Strongly Disagree
Goal: 90% Agree or Strongly Agree

Page maintained by Dr. Phil Rosenkrantz