Rubric Scores and Comments for ME 486 Assessment for 2005-2006
Outcome a: an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering
Criterion Score: 2.8
Comments: Skill in using SolidWorks and related software varies significantly among students. About half of the students seem to lack confidence or ability to model and analyze problems related to project.
Outcome c: an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability.
Criterion 1 Score: 3.2
Criterion 2 Score: 2.5
Criterion 3 Score: 3
Criterion 4 Score: 2.8
Criterion 5 Score: 2.7
Average for Outcome c: 2.84
Comments: Students generally have a good definition of the problem, as this is largely laid out in design competition rules. Teams tend to settle on their preferred design too quickly without fully exploring alternatives. Students are effective in using Excel for design calculations, although worksheets aren’t documented well. Cosmos Stress is also used, although doesn’t really drive design optimization as much as it should. Final reports are normally not complete as they should be. Students get “burned out” finishing the project and just turn in an adequate report.
Outcome d: an ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.
Criterion 1 Score: 2.8
Criterion 2 Score: 3
Criterion 3 Score: 3.2
Average for Outcome d: 3
Comments: Overall, senior design teams work well. Some individuals may not contribute adequately, and group organization may be partially at fault. Communication among group members is good, although occasionally personality conflicts may get in the way.
Outcome e: an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.
Criterion 1 Score: 2.5
Criterion 2 Score: 3
Criterion 3 Score: 2.7
Average Score for Outcome e: 2.73
Comments: Students generally make good use of “common sense” and intuition to adjust design to meet goals. Their judgments are not always backed up by engineering analysis.
Outcome f: an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.
Criterion 1 Score: 3
Criterion 2 Score: 0 (cannot be scored)
Criterion 3 Score: 3
Average Score for Outcome f: 3
Comments: Students are generally ethical with regard to who has contributed to the project (i.e. students don’t try to take credit for others’ work). Students exhibit a responsible attitude toward safety, with regard to use of shop facilities and testing of design prototypes.
Outcome g: an ability to communicate effectively.
Criterion 1 Score: 3
Criterion 2 Score: 2.8
Criterion 3 Score: 3.3
Average Score for Outcome g: 3.03
Comments: Students generally communicate more effectively in oral presentations, rather than written reports. This may be due to effort expended. Students use PowerPoint very effectively.
Outcome i: a recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning.
Criterion 1 Score: 0 (unable to score)
Criterion 2 Score: 3.5
Average for Outcome i: 3.5
Comments: Students are very effective at using the internet to find vendors for equipments and supplies, as well as background information related to project.
Outcome k: an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice
Average for Outcome k: 3 (did not use rubric definitions, not written well for design applications)
Comments: Generally students show a reasonable ability to use SolidWorks – some are very good, others are just adequate. A similar comment can be made with regard to Cosmos Stress package. Students can use Excel worksheets effectively.
Outcome o: an ability to work professionally in both thermal and mechanical systems areas, including the design and realization of such systems
Criterion 1 Score: 2.8
Criterion 2 Score: 2.8
Criterion 3 Score: 2.5
Criterion 4 Score: 0 (cannot be scored)
Average for Outcome o: 2.7
Comments: See other comments above. Some design decisions are not adequately supported by analysis. Too much reliance on intuition.