Program Self-Study Report for Civil Engineering

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Washington

Contents

List of Figures

List of Tables

Chapter 1
Background Information

1.1  Degree Titles

1.2  Program Modes

1.3  Actions to Correct Previous Deficiencies

• Observation

  ``There appears to be an advising difficulty for the freshman and sophomore pre-engineering students. Information for the pre-engineering students appears to be available at the university; but the mechanics of getting it to students is a potential problem.''

  Action

  Improved web access for students and a completely re-designed departmental web site should have solved most of the information availability issue. It should be noted that the 1995 program report had no complaints about the pre-engineering advising, in general. See the Institution Self Study Addendum for further information concerning early advising.

• Observation

  ``The common junior course work appears to be difficult and demanding, but fair. However, there are no available ``elective'' engineering courses provided to give the students an opportunity to study their areas of interest.''

  Action

  While the junior year remains largely required, difficult, and demanding (and fair!), there have been substantial changes made, including the addition of some flexibility. This is discussed in more detail later in this Self-Study.

• Observation

  ``Students expressed satisfaction with the faculty but wished to have more control in the course evaluation process.''

  Action

  This comment appeared to be related to students' desire to have other ways to provide feedback concerning course quality beyond the standard end of quarter evaluations. Since the 1995 visit, a Student Advisory Board has been formed, and this provides a formal mechanism for students to participate in the running of the department at many levels. This has included very useful input about course quality and content that would have been difficult to pick up with the standard evaluation process. SectionE in this Self Study presents a summary of student input and departmental action coming from the Spring 2001 Student Advisory Committee meeting with the Chair.

1.4  Overview of Major Developments since Prior Visit

• The Department's name was changed from the Department of Civil Engineering to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. The name change was intended to provide a better reflection of the department's activities for students, the university, and the profession. However, there was has been no change in the formal degree offered, which remains the B.S.C.E., as indicated in section 1.1.
• The Department was formerly organized into three distinct programs, with both administrative and curricular responsibilities partially distributed to these programs. The department has now been restructured, and the former program structure has been abolished. Among other things, this required the renumbering of all the departmental courses, which used to have designations based on the these programs. This course numbering change has not yet propagated to all university publications, and so this might be a possible source of confusion in examining transcripts and requirements.
• As part of the restructuring, two new academic administrative positions were created: (i) Director of Instruction; and (ii) Graduate Program Director. The Director of Instruction plays a central role in managing the undergraduate and graduate educational programs.
• The department staff was re-organized to reflect the removal of the separate program structure. This in particular led to a period of mild administrative disarray during the transition, but things have now returned to an even keel.
• The degree requirements were reduced from 192 credits to 180 credits.
• The junior year curriculum was overhauled to provide more efficient coverage of certain topics, and to give students additional flexibility in planning their program.
• The number of undergraduate students admitted to the department each year declined throughout the late 1990's driven partially by student demand, and partially by reductions in faculty numbers (the Department started the `90's with 38 faculty, and will enter the 2001-02 academic year with 27. This latter number must be interpreted in light of the recent loss of 3 faculty members who likely will be replaced next year, but still the reduction in numbers is significant.)
• The Department used to admit students twice a year, but now this has been changed to a single admission cycle per year. This has lead to substantial streamlining of administrative overhead, but more importantly has provided more class scheduling flexibility, enabling better meeting of students' needs.
• Master's degree requirements were revised to provide a more uniform set of options across the department. This included the addition of a new non-thesis degree.
• The prevalence of the internet as an information dissemination medium has lead to the department's creation of a comprehensive web site. The URL is www.ce.washington.edu.

One side effect of all these changes has been to hamper our ability to accumulate long-term program evaluation data, since the program has not been in a steady state. However, as will be made evident in the body of this report, we continue to monitor carefully the quality of our program and our achievement of outcomes.

One additional interesting issue in regards to Civil Engineering, in particular, is the fact that the American Society of Civil Engineers has adopted the position that the master's degree should be the first professional degree. With a B.S.C.E. no longer representing the official threshold for entré to the profession, the issue of what an accredited degree program should be trying to accomplish becomes a bit more cloudy. We have begun to have preliminary discussions of how to respond to this trend, but have not yet made any formal changes to our mission or objectives.

Chapter 2
Accreditation Summary

2.1  Students

2.1.1  Departmental Admission

• Students must have completed the required prerequisite coursework.
• Students must satisfy a minimum GPA requirement.
• Academic achievement is characterized by overall and core GPA.
• Each student submits a written statement outlining their background and objectives in pursuing a CEE degree. This statement provides an opportunity for students to present a fuller picture of their abilities and circumstances beyond that measured by GPA alone. It also gives the admissions committee a sample of student writing to evaluate.

Applications for admission are reviewed by an admissions panel composed of faculty members and the department's advisor (students can not serve on this committee due to rules governing student access to other studetns' records). Each panel member is assigned a set of applications to review prior to the admissions meeting, and during the admissions meeting that panel member serves as an advocate for the students whose files he or she was given to review. Each student meeting the minimum requirements is discussed, essentially in order of core G.P.A., and a preliminary decision made on the student's admission status (Accept, Deny, and other conditional states). A second pass through the list is then made to verify decisions, and there is extra deliberation for students whose cases were close calls.

Students typically apply to multiple departments, and so it is not generally possible to directly map the number of admission offers to the number of students that will be in the incoming junior class. This complicates things somewhat, as the process is largely driven by a target enrollment number. Past experience is used to guide the prediction of likely enrollments based on admission offers, but there is variation between class sizes due to the volatility inherent to the process.

The state of Washington has passed a voters' initiative that forbids the use of race, sex, or ethnic background as a criteria for evaluation in any state agency, so explicit efforts to increase enrollment percentages of any particular group of students is not possible. Nevertheless, the Department strives to create an environment that encourages diversity, and that fosters professional collaboration and team work without regard to background.

2.1.2  Advising

Evaluating, Advising, and Monitoring Civil and Environmental Engineering Premajors

Prospective students coming to the advising office range from high school age to those with postbaccalaureate degrees. We complete credit evaluations using a department audit sheet for each student, which shows them all of the prerequisites, degree requirements, and general education requirements needed for their Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering. Additionally, our office works out academic plans on the audits. These academic plans include quarter by quarter schedules, of course, but also often include advice on damage repair and control for struggling students and advice for students who have a checkered academic past to overcome. Our advice, written on the audit sheet itself, may include suggestions such as signing up for study skills courses through the Mary Gates Center, visiting the Student Counseling Center, visiting the Hall Health Center, cutting back on work hours, getting special services from the Disabled Student Center, working with a tutor, and retaking courses at a community college, among others. We give a copy of the audit sheet to each student at the end of the advising session and update them on return visits.

High School Students

We discuss high school background with the students to be sure they are coming into the University with both University required general education requirements and adequate courses in mathematics and science in preparation for engineering prerequisites.

Transfer Students

We also evaluate high school backgrounds and transfer credits for transfer students, the first necessary again for general admission to the University and the second for credits applicable to the Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering.

Postbaccalaureate Students

Postbaccalaureate student advising differs slightly in that their backgrounds are evaluated only for courses meeting program requirements, since their admission depends solely on department sponsorship, not high school or college background.

University Premajors

University freshmen and sophomores have the option of seeking pre-engineering advice in the Mary Gates Gateway Center, the College of Engineering Premajor Advising Office, the Minority Students in Engineering Program, the Women in Science and Engineering Program, and in the Civil and Environmental Engineering department. Many students go for advice in more than one of these locations, tapping into a range of special services and social activities. We evaluate their course work using a department audit sheet, with updates being made on return visits. Additionally, the University has a course evaluation system in place, DARS, which UW students can access online to plot their progress towards any degree the University offers.

Evaluating, Advising, and Monitoring Civil and Environmental Engineering Majors

We evaluate admitted majors' credits during an intake interview immediately after they are admitted and before they begin Autumn Quarter. Only credits from official transcripts submitted to the UW Admissions Office are considered, which ensures that students update their transfer credits with the UW Admissions Office, a task students are prone to forget. This procedure also ensures that only credits from an accredited institution are counted, since the UW Admissions Office is responsible for checking each college's accreditation. This procedure also prevents us from mistakenly evaluating falsified transcripts.

If students have credits that are unclear, which happens frequently with international transcripts, we send them to other advising offices on campus for course evaluations, such as to Mathematics, Chemistry, and Physics. If a student has taken civil engineering courses at another school, we have our faculty evaluate the course syllabi and descriptions. On occasion we require the student to take the exams for the courses in question to be sure he or she has reached our standard before granting credit.

We assign a faculty mentor to each student during the intake interview, based on the student's interests. They are advised to meet with their faculty mentors within three weeks of the beginning of the quarter and as often thereafter as they choose. They also must meet with their faculty mentor when they apply for graduation.

We monitor students' academic progress by downloading their grades from the UW student database system each quarter. The downloaded data show overall grade point averages, quarterly grade point averages, and grade point averages in major courses. Based on this information we write letters of concern to students whose GPAs have dropped in any one of these areas. The letters follow University protocol in beginning with a warning, probation, final probation, and dismissal from the department. Each student receiving such a letter must come in for an advising meeting, where we work out a plan together to relieve the situation. The letters and plans are filed in the students' academic folders.

Although many students come to the advising office once a quarter or more, their second required meeting takes place between their first and second year courses. Our adviser writes out a graduation application, which requires going through the departmental audit sheet and the UW DARS online audit. The graduation application lists all outstanding course work needed to complete the BSCE and is signed by the adviser, the department chair, and the student. Additionally, students must work out a plan for their remaining courses, which they take to their faculty mentors to review and sign.

After we submit a student's graduation application, the UW graduation evaluators begin a series of reviews of each student's academic progress, until the student graduates. We then work together with the graduation evaluator and the student to resolve any problems that may come up. Since 1995 only two students have had to delay their graduation by a quarter unexpectedly, and both times because the student had departed from his or her academic plan midway through Spring Quarter.

2.2  Program Educational Objectives

2.2.1  Instructional Mission

In graduate instruction, the Department seeks to impart the knowledge and provide the intellectual environment that will encourage the highest level of research and critical, innovative thinking. Master's students are to be equipped for state of the art practice, while doctoral students are to be prepared for advancing the state of practice and understanding in their discipline.

This mission reflects a recognition of the diversity of our students' backgrounds, needs, and career aspirations.

2.2.2  Undergraduate Educational Objectives

1. demonstrated proficiency in applying fundamental mathematical, scientific, and engineering principles in formulating and solving civil engineering problems;
2. demonstrated sufficient mastery of core civil engineering topics suitable for entry into the profession and/or for graduate study;
3. gained significant experience in designing systems and components in civil and environmental applications in both individual and team contexts;
4. acquired up-to-date skills for analysis, data collection, modeling, project management, professional development, communication, and presentation;
5. developed an understanding of professional and social issues suitable for participation and leadership in their communities.

2.2.3  Relation of Objectives to Institutional Mission

Institutional Mission

Founded 4 November 1861, the University of Washington is one of the oldest state-supported institution of higher education on the Pacific coast. The University is comprised of three campuses: the Seattle campus is made up of sixteen schools and colleges whose faculty offer educational opportunities to students ranging from first-year undergraduates through doctoral-level candidates; the Bothell and Tacoma campuses, each developing a distinctive identity and undergoing rapid growth, offer diverse programs to upper-division undergraduates and to graduate students.

The primary mission of the University of Washington is the preservation, advancement, and dissemination of knowledge. The University preserves knowledge through its libraries and collections, its courses, and the scholarship of its faculty. It advances new knowledge through many forms of research, inquiry, and discussion; and disseminates it through the classroom and the laboratory, scholarly exchanges, creative practice, international education, and public service. As one of the nation's outstanding teaching and research institutions, the University is committed to maintaining an environment for objectivity and imaginative inquiry and for the original scholarship and research that ensure the production of new knowledge in the free exchange of diverse facts, theories, and ideas.

To promote their capacity to make humane and informed decisions, the University fosters an environment in which its students can develop mature and independent judgment and an appreciation of the range and diversity of human achievement. The University cultivates in its students both critical thinking and the effective articulation of that thinking.

As an integral part of a large and diverse community, the university seeks broad representation of and encourages sustained participation in that community by its students, its faculty, and its staff. It serves both non-traditional and traditional students. Through its three-campus system and through educational outreach, evening degree and distance learning programs, it extends educational opportunities to many who would not otherwise have access to them.

The academic core of the University of Washington is its College of Arts and Sciences; the teaching and research of the University's many professional schools provide essential complements to these programs in the arts, humanities, social sciences, and natural and mathematical sciences. Programs in law, medicine, forest resources, oceanography and fisheries, library science, and aeronautics are offered exclusively (in accord with state law) by the University of Washington. In addition, the University of Washington has assumed primary responsibility for the health science fields of dentistry and public health, and offers education and training in medicine for a multi-state region of the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. The schools and colleges of architecture and urban planning, business administration, education, engineering, nursing, pharmacy, public affairs, and social work have a long tradition of educating students for service to the region and the nation. These schools and colleges make indispensable contributions to the state and, with the rest of the university, share a long tradition of educating undergraduate and graduate students towards achieving an excellence that well serves the state, the region and the nation.

Board of Regents February 1981; revised February 1998

This statement includes a specific reference to the University's engineering programs, of which CEE is one. The mission of equipping students for service at state and local levels is consistent with our stated objectives, which has a clear professional preparation focus. The more general educational mission of preserving and disseminating knowledge via courses and varieties of instruction is reflected in the choice of educational objectives, which provide the framework on which our courses and instruction are based.

College Mission

Engineering leadership through innovative learning, world-class research, and responsible public service.

In a succinct fashion, this statement captures the basic instruction, research, and service aspects of the College of Engineering's mission. The Department's Program Educational Objectives support this mission implicitly, as they are the student-side manifestation of learning for leadership in Civil and Environmental Engineering.

2.2.4  Constituents

• Students (pre-majors, majors, and alumni)
• Departmental Faculty
• Departmental Staff
• Employers of CEE graduates

These groups and individuals have interaction with and participation in the undergraduate program that is an inherent part of its function and reason for existence.

The indirect constituents are further removed from the ongoing operations, activities, and outcomes of the department, but are nevertheless effected by or capable of influencing the Department's directions. These indirect stakeholders can be identified as follows:

• Washington State Legislature
• Students' Parents/Families
• University of Washington Administration
• UW College of Engineering
• ABET
• Professional Societies

In general, these indirect program constituents provide the framework of rules, policies, and constraints under which the program must operate.

2.2.5  Process for Establishing and Reviewing Educational Objectives

It would have been possible to establish these Objectives earlier, but it was decided that the Department's pre-existing Strategic Plan was providing an adequate framework for guiding our actions, and that the 2001 iteration of the Strategic Plan would incorporate the formal Mission/Objective statements. Henceforth, the Strategic Plan's undergraduate education components will be based around this now formalized Mission/Objective statement.

The Strategic Plan document has been part of an overall planning strategy similar in spirit to ABET's EC 2000, but with a scope encompassing all the Department's activities, and using a somewhat different vocabulary. The focus has been more on specific initiatives and activities, but within a mission-driven context. The framework of the strategic planning process can be outlined as follows:

• Statements of goals and objectives: what we are trying to achieve.
• Achievement mechanisms: what we are doing/planning to achieve these goals/objectives.
• Achievement metrics: what we will measure and monitor to track our progress.
• Assessment: how we measure and interpret data relative to our metrics.
• Outcomes: what our assessment tells us.
• Improvement: adjusting out mechanisms to improve our outcomes, as necessary.

The Strategic Plan is updated every two years, with the Chair providing interim updates at each fall's Faculty retreat. The most recent iteration of the Strategic Plan is included in the Section J of this Self Study. (It is likely that there will be a delay in the current iteration of the Strategic Plan updating due to the current chair being hired away late in the year, and the process to find a new chair just beginning.)

Figure 2.1 illustrates the overall process by which program evaluation and outcomes assessment inform the strategic planning activity. This figure also shows how the various constituents participate in the decision-making and feedback loops that inform the planning process.

Figure 2.1: CEE educational assessment process as a part of departmental strategic planning

The two-year cycle of the Strategic Plan document provides a reasonable interval for reviewing the Program Educational Objectives, although it is unlikely that major changes to these global Objectives would occur within such a short time-frame. The process for constructing the Strategic Plan documents has been relatively Chair-centric, but with extensive input from the various direct constituent groups. The Chair meets formally with the Student Advisory Group, the Visiting Committee, the faculty-based Strategic Planning Committee, the Educational Assessment Committee, and staff working groups on a periodic basis as part of his or her normal activities. The Chair also tends to have the closest contacts at the College, University, and legislative levels. This puts the chair in the best position for setting a well-informed strategic direction for the department, and this is also the case with the Program Educational Objectives rolled into the Strategic Planning process.

One way to see the effectiveness of this process in regards to the overall improvement of the Department can be seen by reviewing past iterations of the Strategic Plan. Such previous iterations will be made available during the site visit. See also the loop closure examples table in Appendix F.

2.2.6  Program Curriculum

2.2.7  Evaluation and Improvement

Course Quality and Content

Student Evaluations

With few exceptions, each course taught by the Department undergoes a student evaluation. These evaluations are administered by the UW Office of Educational Assessment (OEA) and are composed of two principal parts: (i) numerical survey forms; and (ii) more open-ended comment sheets. Examples of the forms used and a full description of evaluation process can be found at OEA's web site (www.washington.edu/oea). The OEA has long been a national leader in student evaluation of courses, and while no one believes such evaluations are without flaws, the system used here is very good. The numerical results of the course evaluations are made available to the Chair and the Director of Instruction, while the numerical scores and the comment sheets go directly to individual faculty members. The Chair and Director of Instruction use these data to keep tabs on how students are perceiving the quality of the courses, and to look for problematic patterns with certain courses or faculty members. Individual faculty members use the evaluations to monitor student perception of their courses, and to make improvements and adjustments as appropriate. Summaries of these evaluations are posted on the web for students use, and they are also used for promotion and merit considerations, and so they are taken seriously across the board.

Course Reports

For close to a decade, the College of Engineering has required that upon the completion of each course, the instructor is to prepare a reflective statement overviewing how the course went. These statements become part of a faculty member's portfolio for promotion, but there has been little in the way of enforcement or use of this process for the faculty as a whole. To address this and related issues, the CEE Department has been worked on developing a web-based reporting mechanism that can make reflective statement preparation and recording more convenient, structured, trackable, and useful. The course reporting system is also tied in to the Program Educational Objectives, so that each course offering can be dynamically related to these objectives, and at any point in time, an accurate snapshot of the program can be obtained. A sample course report can be found in Appendix B.1, and the database can be browsed live at (send email to gmiller@u.washington.edu to obtain a password to browse with full access, if desired):

CEE Course Data site

The online version of the system provides different views of the data to different users, and so can serve several purposes. With respect to program evaluation and improvement, the data from these reports can be used to provide improvement feedback across and within courses, help identify best practices, and in general make it feasible to keep an up-to-date picture of the curriculum as a whole.

Student Achievement

Program Quality and Content

National Rankings

Like student evaluations, national rankings can be abused, but at the same time they do provide a useful measure of program performance. In this regard, the UW Civil Engineering undergraduate program is ranked 14th among public universities by U.S. News and World Report ( U.S. News rankings). The graduate program is ranked 8th among public universities and 13th overall. The department continues to make improvements and increase its visibility to maintain its strong recognition, which we believe benefits all our constituents.

Graduate Student Quality and Preparation

The CEE Department has a world-class graduate program, and so the faculty works closely with students from across the nation and around the world on a consistent and on-going basis. We also have a fair number of our own students continue on for graduate degrees, which means we have frequent opportunities to see how our own students' preparation compares with that of students educated elsewhere. This has long provided an implicit feedback loop with regards to observing our own graduates' preparation for advanced study.

Visiting Committee

To help locate points of possible weakness in our program, we work with the Visiting Committee during our annual meetings. The chair presents and discusses the Strategic Plan and asks for input regarding the current directions and strategies. During the Spring 2000 meeting we also did a short exercise that went as follows: each board member was given a listing of the ABET Program Outcomes, and was asked to choose whichever two they would identify as being outcomes for which there is the biggest gap between what our students can do, and what they would like them to be able to do. We then went through the list, having people raise their hands if the outcome was on their list of two. This was illuminating for all of us, and we looked for any patterns that were apparent, and had a discussion about the nature of what they would like to see, and how we might work together to achieve a closer match to their needs.

Student Advisory Committee

In addition to the course-by-course feedback we receive from students via the course evaluation forms, the Student Advisory Committee (SAC) provides more general programmatic feedback. The members of the SAC are selected by the chair and the departmental advisor with the express purpose of getting students who are both representative of their class, and who are likely to be vocal about their experience in the program. This committee has been an excellent source of information and suggestions, and many changes have been implemented as a result of its input. See Appendix E in the appendix for a summary of the student committee's spring 2001 input, along with a corresponding action plan/response for each issue raised.

University Alumni Surveys

The State of Washington instituted accountability measures for the University some time ago, and so there is a significant amount of data available gathered from students following their graduation. These data include both outcome and program quality considerations, and thus play a role both in assessing program outcomes and monitoring program quality and effectiveness. The 1997 and 1999 alumni survey data can be found in Appendix app.UWSurveys, and these will be discussed in more detail in the outcomes section below. Here we consider the program quality questions, which focus on students' general satisfaction with their UW experience. In particular, Figure 2.2 plots the results for the 1997 and 1999 survey cycles. In all cases involving issues for which there is direct departmental control, there was improvement from 1997 to 1999, although only 3 of these changes are statistically significant with 98% or greater confidence as indicated. The department has made many changes over the past five years, so it is difficult to link these improved measures to any particular action, but we interpret these results as partial confirmation that the department has been doing the right things overall in regards to program improvement.

Figure 2.2: University of Washington one-year alumni survey results for 1997 and 1999 (see Appendix H for complete, unprocessed results.)

University 10-Year Program Reviews

Each program at the University of Washington undergoes a thorough review by the Graduate School on a 10-year cycle. While run by the Graduate School, the scope of these reviews is comprehensive, considering all aspects of a department's operations and programs. By coincidence, the CEE Department is just nearing the completion of its 2001 review. The final results of that review are not yet available, but see Appendix G for documentation demonstrating the nature of the process. Recommendations coming out of the final report will be used directly in the improvement of the program. Two preliminary recommendations involve increasing the participation of graduate students and junior faculty in the governance of the department, and steps are already being taken to address these recommendations.

2.3  Program Outcomes and Assessment

2.3.1  Outcomes

[(a)]
1. an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering

2. an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data

3. an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs

4. an ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams

5. an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems

6. an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility

7. an ability to communicate effectively

8. the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context

9. a recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning

10. a knowledge of contemporary issues

11. an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.

The mapping between these outcomes and our Program Educational Objectives is presented in Table 2.4. This table shows that all ABET outcomes can be related to one or more of our Program Educational Objectives.

2.3.2  Assessment Plan

Fundamentals of Engineering Exam

The FE exam is taken by the majority of our students as it represents a necessary step for most into professional practice. As an independent external metric, it can provide one important measure of our success in providing students with fundamental engineering knowledge. We include the results of this exam in our annual program assessment, specifically focused on tracking Program Educational Objectives A, C, and some aspects of D. The detailed exam results are distributed to the faculty so that they can monitor how our students are performing in those areas for which they have instructional responsibility.

Student Grades

For those outcomes that are closely matched to specific course content, student grades provide an excellent measure of satisfaction of outcomes. Grades result from careful consideration of several measures for each and every student, and when multiple courses are involved for a particular outcome, there is participation by multiple faculty members. As relative measures, grades do not reflect program quality in and of themselves, but they do ensure minimum standards are met. In effect, if a student receives a passing grade in a course ( > 2.0), the student can be judged to have satisfied the outcomes around which the course is structured. The curriculum maps in Tables 2.1-2.1 indicate which outcomes are associated with which course. More detailed information for particular courses can be obtained via the on-line course reporting system and the course syllabi in Appendix B.2 of this Self Study.

University Alumni Surveys

As mentioned previously, the University conducts biannual surveys of alumni one year after they have completed their degrees. Many of the outcomes questions asked in these surveys are general, but there are many close linkages to ABET criteria as shown in Tables 2.5 and 2.6. These data provide useful longitudinal information, and are particularly helpful in measuring those outcomes less directly related to specific courses. Extensive technical information about these surveys is available at www.washington.edu/oea/reports.htm.

Table 2.5: Relation between 1997 UW Outcomes Survey questions and ABET criteria.

Survey Outcome	ABET Outcome
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h	i	j	k
Writing effectively							x
Speaking effectively							x
Critically analyzing written information							x
Defining and solving problems					x
Learning independently									x
Working cooperatively in a group				x
Understanding and appreciating the arts								x
Understanding and applying scientific principles and methods	x	x
Understanding and applying quantitative principles and methods	x	x
Understanding differing philosophies and cultures				x				x
Understanding the interaction of society and the environment								x		x
Readiness for advanced education	x	x	x	x	x		x	x	x		x
Readiness for a career	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
Recognizing your responsibilities, rights and privileges as a citizen						x			x

Table 2.6: Relation between 1999 UW Outcomes Survey questions and ABET criteria.

	ABET Outcome
Survey Outcome	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h	i	j	k
Writing effectively							x
Speaking effectively							x
Critically analyzing written information							x
Defining and solving problems					x
Working and/or learning independently									x
Working cooperatively in a group				x
Using a foreign language								x
Understanding and appreciating the arts								x
Understanding and applying scientific principles and methods	x	x
Understanding and applying quantitative principles and methods	x	x
Understanding and appreciating diverse philosophies and cultures				x				x
Understanding the interaction of society and the environment								x		x
Working effectively with modern technology, especially computers		x									x
Locating information needed to help make decisions or solve problems			x		x
Using knowledge, ideas, or perspectives gained from major field	x		x				x				x
Using knowledge, ideas, or perspectives from outside major field			x							x
Using management/leadership capabilities			x	x
Recognizing your responsibilities, rights and privileges as a citizen						x				x

Writing Assessment

Students are required to complete courses in which writing is the principal focus, but there is general consensus within the College that this does not provide a general reflection of the writing students do throughout the curriculum. To address this, a College-wide set of writing standards were developed, and a process put in place to assess student writing performance at a programmatic level, i.e., outside the scope of any particular course. Working with the Department of Technical Communication (TC), each department supplies a set of writing samples that are assessed against the writing standards. This assessment is performed by a team of departmental and TC faculty using a scoring rubric appropriate for outcome assessment. See Appendix D for additional details.

Visiting Committee

As mentioned earlier, the Department's Visiting Committee provides direct input concerning program quality and directions from an industrial perspective. The Visiting Committee also can provide general feedback concerning student learning outcomes, and this was done in the Spring 2000 meeting via the exercise described earlier.

University 10-Year Program Reviews

As described previously, the University of Washington reviews each of its programs on a rotating 10-year cycle. These internal program reviews have many similarities to ABET's accreditation process, but are not limited to consideration of undergraduate degree programs. The review process consists of the preparation of a departmental self study, the formation of a review committee composed of faculty and/or administrators from both the UW and other institutions, a 2-day site visit consisting largely of interviews with faculty, students, and staff, the preparation of a report by the review committee, and the response of the department to the report. The Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering is undergoing its 10-year review this year, with the site visit having taken place on May 10-11, 2001. The final results of this review will not be known until next year, but to give an impression of the issues considered in the review, a list of questions posed by the review committee prior to the site visit and the department's response to these questions is included in the appendix in Appendix G.

CELT Study

We have a professional practice seminar course (CEE 440) that is required for all seniors. In the fall of 1999 we began working with College of Engineering's Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching (CELT) to make the framework for the course align with the ABET definitions of preparation for professional practice, and to engage the students in some interesting and innovative development and assessment activities. In brief, the course was structured around the question of what it means to be prepared for professional practice relative to an ABET (a)-(k) type of framework in a civil engineering context, and how one can determine whether one is indeed prepared. As a final project, students were asked to prepare some kind of representation of how they define civil engineering and professional practice, and to build a case outlining the quality of their preparation. Beyond its value in helping us assess our students' learning, this work proved sufficiently interesting that papers have been written about the study. This particular assessment activity is more of a ``one-off'' than the others, but it is indicative of the Department's active interest in taking advantage of special opportunities for assessment when they arise.

2.3.3  Assessment Data and Discussion

Fundamentals of Engineering Exam   Table 2.7 summarizes recent FE results for UW students relative to overall state and national norms. In all recent exams, UW students performed well above state and national norms, both in the case of those taking the General afternoon session and those taking the CE-specific afternoon session.

Table 2.7: Recent F.E. Exam results for CEE Department compared to state and national averages.

Figures 2.3-2.6 provide more detailed breakdowns of these results by subject area and exam session. The FE Exam is administered such that all students take a common morning session, but the students have the option in the afternoon session of either additional general questions, or specialized questions for their discipline. In virtually all cases, UW students outperformed or matched closely national and state averages, and this is particularly pronounced in the case of the CE-specific afternoon session. Taken together, we interpret these results as demonstrating that our program is meeting Program Objectives A, B, and parts of those parts of D and E that can be measured by a standardized exam.

Figure 2.3: Detailed breakdown of FE exam results for students taking the General afternoon session, April, 2000

Figure 2.4: Detailed breakdown of FE exam results for students taking the Civil Engineering afternoon session, April, 2000

Figure 2.5: Detailed breakdown of FE exam results for students taking the General afternoon session, October, 2000

Figure 2.6: Detailed breakdown of FE exam results for students taking the Civil Engineering afternoon session, October, 2000

Student Grades   Table 2.8 presents a summary of grade point averages across the College of Engineering, and includes data comparing in-department grades to out-of-department grades. This latter information can be used to add some degree of external calibration to what otherwise would be an entirely program-defined metric. In particular, Table 2.8 shows differences in how students are graded within a department relative to how those same students are graded by the rest the university. Large differentials might indicate problems in a unit's grading standards. As can be seen from this table, CEE's grading standards are well-calibrated to campus norms as indicated by the small grading differential. It can also be seen that CEE students are earning grades comparable to those common in the College. Combining these data with the curriculum/Program Objectives/Program Outcomes linkages presented earlier, we can conclude that students are achieving curricular outcomes quite successfully. (The minimum grade standards discussed earlier ensure that all students achieve the outcomes to a baseline level).

Visiting Committee   The interactive query exercise with the Visiting Committee during the Spring 2000 meeting identified the following two ABET outcomes criteria where there was the largest perceived gap between preparation and need were:

1. Criterion g: an ability to communicate effectively;
2. Criterion c: an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs

With respect to the first of these, both written and oral communication were stressed, and these are both areas where we know our students continue to need additional opportunities for practice and improvement. In regards to the second of these, there was a particular emphasis on the ``desired needs'' and the necessity of being able to listen to and work with clients to determine their needs. Neither of these abilities were perceived as non-existent or seriously inadequate, but they do represent areas where improvement effort would make sense.

University Surveys   As a quick perusal of the OEA web site given earlier reveals, the University has a wealth of tracking information available in regards to students and alumni. Here we will consider representative results in regards to outcomes.

Appendix H includes full 1-year bachelor's degree alumni survey reports for the years 1997 and 1999. Table 2.9 presents a summary and comparison of alumni satisfaction for these reports (changes were made in the survey questions between 1997 and 1999, so only those questions that overlap are included in this table).

The standard deviations in these data are such that there is little in the way of statistical distinction between the results. Considering the full data summaries in the reports in the appendices, it is evident that CEE graduates express similar levels of satisfaction in their UW educational experience to those across the college of engineering and other professional programs. These data again indicate that CEE graduates report they were adequately prepared to begin professional work.

Beginning with the 1999 1-year alumni survey, graduates were asked to rate both their skills and the importance of those skills in their professional life, rather than just whether they were satisfied with their educational preparation. Information of this kind can be more useful in looking for areas for improvement or shortfalls in preparation. Questions about satisfaction alone do not provide a way to separate out importance and degree of preparation. Figure 2.7 and Table 2.10 present two views of the same skills/importance data coming out of the 1999 alumni survey. From the graphical view in Figure 2.7 it can be seen that there is generally strong correlation between graduates' perception of their skills and the importance of those skills. The data in Table 2.10 provide a summary of mismatch normalized by importance: positive mismatch numbers reflect potential areas in which our graduates perceive that their preparation did not completely match their professional needs. The top three areas of mismatch in the table can be seen to be Speaking Effectively (0.16 mismatch), Defining and Solving Problems (0.09 mismatch), and Writing Effectively (0.08). These mismatches are modest, but they do highlight areas of ongoing concern for the program, particularly in light of the consistency between these results and our input from the Visiting Committee reported above.

Figure 2.7: 1999 1-year alumni survey results relating outcomes and perceived importance: CEE graduates.

One other point worth noting in regards to the 1-year alumni survey reports is the substantial improvement in former students' satisfaction level with the advising. The CEE response improved from 2.71 to 3.16, which indicates the positive impact of improved College and departmental advising procedures, including the hiring of a new departmental advisor.

In addition to the regular 1-year alumini surveys, the University also has published reports and data on 5- and 10-year alumni surveys (again available on the OEA web site). These long-term survey results were not broken down to the level of departments, but engineers were separated out as a sample group. The questions asked were very similar to the short-term surveys, with analogous mapping to ABET outcomes. The conclusions to be drawn from these data are similar to the short-term surveys: there is a strong correlation between preceived skill/knowledge levels and importance; and there are certain areas where there is a moderate perceived undershoot between what was gained from the undergraduate experience and what was ultimately required for practice. The areas of mismatch were essentially the same as for the short term surveys, except there was a particular identification of a lack of preparation in regards to use of computers and modern technology. Given the rate of change in this area for the 10 year period in question (1988-1998), this is not surprising, and the preparation given students now is very different than 10 years ago. It is still something to monitor, however.

One other interesting outcome of the 5- and 10-year survey was the relative low importance ranking given by all majors, including engineering, to the area of Using the knowledge, ideas or perspectives gained from your major field. There are several ways one might interpret this, but the Director of the OEA, Gerrald Gilmore, makes this comment:

In interpreting these results, it is important to keep in mind that the question asked of alumni was to rate each item on its importance for their current primary activity, which was working. The skills that seem to be important in the workplace appear to transcend specific course content, both within and outside of the major. These results argue strongly against the conceptualization of higher education as training for specific occupations, even when the focus of these ratings was the job, not life more generally.

Writing Assessment   Appendix D presents the results and report from the Spring 2001 review of CEE students' writing. As reported there, all work examined demonstrated adequate writing for beginning professional practice. At the College level, there were many instances of inadequate writing, so CEE fared well in this regard. There were various areas identified where improvements can be made in students' preparation for writing in practice, and these observations have been fed back to the Technical Communications program.

10-Year Program Review   During the exit interview with the site review committee, the undergraduate program was praised, particularly the impression the students gave during their open invitation group interview. The students were described as being very enthusiastic about the department and their career prospects. There were no noted issues relative to Program Outcomes or University expectations. We anticipate having the formal report from this review by the time of the ABET site visit.

CELT Study   A portion of the final report of the CELT study of CEE seniors is included in Appendix I. A full version of the completed report will be available during the site visit. This study includes many interesting observations concerning various aspects of CEE students' performance and knowledge framework relative to ABET outcomes. For purposes of the present discussion in which the focus is on demonstrating that UW students are achieving the desired outcomes, the following excerpt from the report is particularly relevant:

Concerning student preparedness, it was confirmed that graduating students were able to perform within acceptable ranges. It was anticipated that most of the results of this study would correlate with the ABET outcome technical knowledge, design and engineering problems. It was a surprising observation to find that some students do think broadly about engineering. Some students identified with aspects outside of the technical arena and incorporated areas like society and ethics into their answers. Our hypothesis that a student's performance is related to their grade point averages was invalidated according to the data of the study. There was no prominent differences in results between the students with high and low grade point averages.

In addition to this broad statement of outcomes satisfaction, the report contains specific observations for each of the ABET (a)-(k) outcomes. Having just received this report in its final form, this more detailed information will be used to identify additional areas of improvement in the program.

2.3.4  Review Materials for Site Visit

• Course evaluations for the 2000-2001 academic year.
• Course materials including examples of student work.
• Amplified presentation of student work for capstone design courses.
• Updated FE Exam results data as available.
• Full CELT Report

Please send email to Greg Miller gmiller@u.washington.edu; to request additional materials, if desired.

2.3.5  Transfer Students and Transfer Credit

General Policy on Transfer Credit

To students pursuing a first bachelor's degree, the Office of Admissions awards transfer credit according to the guidelines discussed here. It reserves the right to accept or reject credits earned at other institutions of higher education. In general, it is University policy to accept credits earned at institutions fully accredited by their regional accrediting association, provided that such credits have been earned through university-level courses appropriate to the student's degree program at the University; exceptions are noted under Notable Restrictions on Transfer Credit and Courses Receiving No Credit.

State Policy on Inter-College Transfer and Articulation  

The UW subscribes to the statewide Policy on Inter-College Transfer and Articulation Among Washington Public Colleges and Universities, endorsed by the public colleges and universities of Washington as well as the State Board for Community and Technical College Education, and adopted by the Higher Education Coordinating Board. The policy deals with the rights and responsibilities of students and the review and appeal process in transfer credit disputes. Copies of the policy are available from the Office of Admissions.

Class Standing  

A student's class standing is determined by the total number of transfer credits awarded by the UW, not by the number of years of college study or the completion of an associate degree.

Satisfying UW graduation requirements depends not only on the number of credits completed-a minimum of 180 for most programs-but also on completing all college and major requirements.

Quarter vs. Semester Credits   

Colleges and universities that operate on a semester system award semester credit. The UW awards quarter credit. To convert quarter credits to semester credits, multiply by two-thirds. To convert semester to quarter credits, multiply by 1.5. For example, a student who earns 30 credits at an institution on a semester calendar would have earned 45 quarter credits at the UW.

Transfer Credit Evaluation

After an admitted student pays the $100 Enrollment Confirmation Deposit and shortly before the student's orientation or advising/registration date, the Office of Admissions completes a course-by-course evaluation of transfer credits. One copy of the evaluation is sent to the student; a second copy is sent to the student's academic advising office. The information recorded on the transfer credit evaluation-including the transfer of credits and the transfer GPA-becomes part of the student's permanent record at the UW. If a student applies to an academic program with special admission requirements, transfer course work and the transfer GPA will be considered. The evaluation is not an official transcript. The official UW transcript-which is sent out to other institutions-does not include the transfer GPA or a detailed listing of the transfer credit the UW awarded; it merely lists the other colleges the student has attended and the total number of transfer credits awarded. Transfer grades are not included in the UW GPA.

Appeal Procedure  

If not all courses transfer and the student questions a decision, the student should consult the admission specialist who completed the transfer evaluation. Further appeal can be directed to the UW Transfer Officer in the Office of Admissions.

Applying Transfer Credit to Degree Requirements  

Before a student first registers for classes at the University, s/he should meet with an academic adviser to plan a program of study. The adviser determines how the transfer credits shown on the evaluation may be used to meet UW degree requirements. For example, suppose Admissions awards a student 120 transfer credits, but only 100 of those credits can be applied toward graduation requirements for a student's degree program. Credits that do not apply to specific requirements may still be used as electives-if any electives are needed-toward meeting the minimum UW credit total required for graduation.

Alternative Credit Options  

The UW does not award general credit for work or life experience. However, two avenues exist for obtaining credit under select circumstances.

Once enrolled at the UW, students may explore the possibility of obtaining departmental approval for transfer of credit earned through course work taken at an unaccredited institution.

Students may arrange to challenge specific UW courses via credit by examination if the same knowledge has been gained through independent student outside a formal educational setting.

For course work taken at an unaccredited institution, contact Admissions. For credit by examination for independent study completed outside a formal educational setting, contact the Graduation and Academic Records Office, 206.543.1803. or ugradoff@u.washington.edu.

Notable Restrictions on Transfer Credit

College in the High School  

Additional credit restrictions may apply when students enrolled in high school have been awarded college-level credit by another college or university, and the course work was completed on the high school campus rather t