EFC 2000-2001

Engineering Faculty Council
Academic year 2000 - 2001

EFC
Minutes of Meeting # 1
July 6, 2000

Members present: J. S. Arora, J. S. Chen, S. Dasgupta, D. W. Murhammer, V. G. J. Rodgers, Associate Dean Fischer (ex officio member)
Members absent:  Dean Hines (ex officio member)

1. Meeting started at 11:05 a.m.

2. Professor Dasgupta was elected new EFC chair.

3. Professor Murhammer was elected new EFC secretary.

4. The core curriculum was discussed in terms of the need to incorporate the concerns of the Dean’s committee.

5. Liaisons were chosen for EFC committees, specifically the Promotion and Tenure Committee (Professor Chen), Curriculum Committee (Professor Arora), and Teaching Committee (Professor Rodgers).

6. It was decided that the summer Engineering College faculty meeting will be held on Monday, July 24th at 2:00 p.m. in 40 SH.

7. The 2000-2001 membership of the EFC committees (Promotion and Tenure, Curriculum, and Teaching) was discussed.  EFC members will contact potential new members to determine their willingness to serve.

8. Meeting adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

Respectfully submitted by Prof. David W. Murhammer

EFC
Minutes of Meeting # 2
August 23, 2000

Members present: J. S. Arora, J. S. Chen, S. Dasgupta, D. W. Murhammer, Associate Dean Fischer (ex officio member), Dean Hines (ex officio member)
Members absent:  V. G. J. Rodgers

1.  Meeting started at 4:05 p.m.

2. It was decided that the EFC meetings this semester will be held 4-5 p.m. on Wednesdays in 3108 SC.

3. The membership of the Teaching Committee was discussed.  The members for the 2000-1 academic year will be A. Allen Bradley (CEE, chair), Joon B. Park (BME), and David G. Rethwisch (CBE).

4. The membership of the Promotion and Tenure Committee was discussed.  The members for the 2000-1 academic year will be Thomas L. Casavant (ECE), Andrew Kusiak (IE), and Fred Stern (ME, chair).

5. The membership of the Curriculum Committee was discussed.  The members for the 2000-1 academic year will be Christoph Beckermann (ME), John D. Lee (IE), Greg R. Carmichael (CBE), Dong H. Chyung (ECE), Edwin L. Dove (BME), and Colby C. Swan (CEE, chair).

6. The charges for the Teaching Committee were discussed.  Prof. Rodgers will be asked to bring suggestions to the next EFC meeting.

7. The charges for the Promotion and Tenure Committee were discussed.  It was requested that EFC members bring suggestions to the next EFC meeting.

8. The charges for the Curriculum Committee were discussed.  The major issue (in addition to standing charges) to be resolved this academic year is the new curriculum.  Specific charges will be developed after the EFC has the opportunity to speak with L.D. Chen regarding the resource implications of the proposed curriculum changes.  L.D. Chen has tentatively agreed to speak at the next EFC meeting.

9. The changes in the qualifications for specific ranks (i.e., Assistant, Associate, and Full Professor) at the University level were discussed in the context of the need of modifying the corresponding qualifications for the College of Engineering.  Prof. Dasgupta will contact Associate Provost Clark to determine to what extent our wording can differ from that of the University document.  This issue will be discussed further at the next EFC meeting.

10. The agenda for an early Fall faculty meeting (to be held Sept. 12th) was discussed and will be finalized at the next EFC meeting.

11. Meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by Prof. David W. Murhammer

EFC
Minutes of Meeting # 3
August 30, 2000

Members present: J. S. Arora, J. S. Chen, S. Dasgupta, D. W. Murhammer, Associate Dean Fischer (ex officio member, departed after item 3), Dean Hines (ex officio member, departed after item 3)
Members absent:  V. G. J. Rodgers
Guest: L. D. Chen

1. Meeting started at 4:05 p.m.

2. The minutes from the July 6th and August 23rd EFC meetings were approved contingent on confirmation of the membership of the Curriculum Committee.

3. L. D. Chen summarized the findings of the Committee to Evaluate Proposed Curriculum regarding implementation of the new curriculum.  A copy of his presentation is attached.  A copy of the file containing this presentation can be obtained via email from Professor Murhammer (murham@engineering.uiowa.edu).

4. Discussed items to be addressed during meeting with Provost regarding the appointment of an interim Dean.  Prof. Dasgupta will send an email to College of Engineering faculty asking for input prior to this meeting.  Specifically, he will ask for comments (to be emailed to an EFC member) regarding (i) candidates for Interim Dean, (ii) nature of the transition period, and (iii) nature and timing of the national search.

5. The charges for the Curriculum Committee were discussed, especially in regards to ABET and the new curriculum.  This issue will be discussed further at the next EFC meeting after Professor Murhammer receives input from the College ABET group.

6. Specific committee charges will be discussed at the next EFC meeting (Sept. 6th).

7. Meeting adjourned at 5:25 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by Prof. David W. Murhammer

 

EFC
Minutes of Meeting # 4
September 6, 2000

Members present: J. S. Arora, J. S. Chen, S. Dasgupta, D. W. Murhammer, Associate Dean Fischer (ex officio member)
Members absent:  V. G. J. Rodgers, Dean Hines (ex officio member)

1. Meeting started at 4:10 p.m.

2. The minutes from the August 30th EFC meeting were approved.

3. Curriculum Committee charges were discussed.  The discussion focussed on charges relevant to ABET accreditation and implementation of the new core curriculum.  Assessment of outcomes will need to begin in college courses this semester in order to have sufficient information for our Fall 2002 ABET visit.  This will involve having instructors collect student work and conduct surveys with specific questions.  More information regarding this issue, e.g., what student work to collect, will be provided to faculty in the near future.  The charges will be finalized at the next EFC meeting and distributed with that meeting’s minutes.

4. Teaching Committee charges were discussed.  The discussion focussed on charges relevant to use of the new Evaluation and Assessment SurveY (EASY) computer based system for ABET and ACE assessment.  The EASY system has been developed by CSS staff and will be presented to the faculty at some future date.  It was decided that EASY-ACE may be used this semester on a pilot basis, but manual ACE forms will be continued.  Also, EASY-ABET may be used this semester to begin collecting data for the Fall 2002 ABET visit.  The charges will be finalized at the next EFC meeting and distributed with that meeting’s minutes.

5. Promotion and Tenure Committee charges were discussed.  The charges will be finalized at the next EFC meeting and distributed with that meeting’s minutes.

6. The EFC recommends that the College ABET Group (“ABET Anonymous”) develop formal charges (or at least define goals for the benefit of the EFC).  The EFC also recommends that the chair of the curriculum committee be a member of the College ABET Group to aid in coordinating the efforts between the two groups.

7. Specific committee charges will be finalized at the next EFC meeting (Sept. 13th).

8. Meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by Prof. David W. Murhammer

EFC
Minutes of Meeting # 5
September 13, 2000

Members present: J. S. Arora, , S. Dasgupta, D. W. Murhammer, V. G. J. Rodgers, Associate Dean Fischer (ex officio member), Dean Hines (ex officio member)
Members absent:  J. S. Chen
Guest: Forrest Holly

1. Meeting started at 4:05 p.m.

2. The minutes from the September 6th EFC meeting were approved as amended

3. Forrest Holly distributed and discussed a draft report (“Guidelines for ABET Preparation”) developed by the ad hoc ABET working group (“ABET Anonymous”) that will be distributed on Sept; 18th to DEO’s to aid departments in their ABET preparation.  Briefly, this report contains recommended program objectives and outcomes that can be supplemented by each department.  In addition, this group is working on developing strategies for assessing College and non-College core courses.  The aspects of this report that need to be voted on by the College faculty was then discussed.  Although no consensus was reached, it is clear that issues that are relevant to core courses, e.g., the outcomes addressed by the core courses, need to be uniform throughout the college.  A representative of the ABET working group will give a presentation at the next College faculty meeting regarding the recommended guidelines for ABET preparation.

4. Charges for the Curriculum Committee were finalized (see attached).  Completion of charge 4 was discussed (see attached).  Professor Fischer was asked to provide suggestions at the next EFC meeting (Sept. 20th).

5. Charges for the Promotion and Tenure Committee, which were finalized at a previous EFC meeting, are attached.

6. Prof. Arora will communicate with the Curriculum Committee regarding David Anderson’s request to be officially appointed as Physics liaison.

7. Discussed proposed changes to College Promotion and Tenure criteria in order to satisfy the new University policy.  The modified College Promotion and Tenure criteria will be voted on by the College faculty at the next College faculty meeting.

8. Teaching committee charges and charge 4 for the Curriculum Committee will be discussed at the next EFC meeting (Sept. 20th).

9. Meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by Prof. David W. Murhammer

 Charges from the EFC to the
College Curriculum Committee
AY 2000-01
13 September 2000

Membership
1. Christoph Beckerman, ME (1999-02)
2. John D. Lee, IE (2000-03)
3. Gregory R. Carmichael, CBE (1998-01)
4. Dong H. Chyung, ECE (1998-01)
5. Edwin L. Dove, BME (1998-01)
6. Colby C. Swan, CEE (2000-03), Chair, AY 2000-01

Standing Charge (from Manual of Procedure, College of Engineering)
 The Curriculum Committee shall be responsible for reviewing and evaluating all existing and proposed curricula within the college, for reviewing and evaluating all existing and any proposed courses taught within the college or required in any of its curricula, and for making appropriate recommendations to the dean and the faculty.

Specific Charges
1. Interact with College ABET Support Group, Associate Dean for Academic Programs, and core course coordinators to develop and implement assessment tools for core courses in Fall 2000/Spring 2001 semester, as appropriate.
2. Interact with core course coordinators to ensure that appropriate student work and other data are collected in the Fall 2000/Spring 2001 core courses, including non-college core courses, to demonstrate that the program outcomes as per ABET requirements for each course are being fulfilled.
3. Interact with core course coordinators and collect and interpret core course end-of-semester reports.  Prepare an annual report to the EFC summarizing the status of the core courses and identifying any problem areas.
4. Charges related to Curriculum Advancement will be communicated at a later date.
 

 CHARGES TO THE PROMOTION AND TENURE COMMITTEE FOR 2000-2001

Membership

1. Frederick Stern, ME (Chair)
2. Andrew Kusiak, IE
3. Tomas L. Casavant, ECE
 

Standing Charge

The Promotion and Tenure Committee shall review procedures used in all decisions concerning faculty promotions, tenure, and new appointments in the college and make such recommendations to the Dean and the faculty as it deems necessary. The review shall monitor implementation of and compliance with written college and university policies for new appointments and promotion and tenure evaluations completed prior to the current academic year.
 

Specific Charges

1. Develop instruments for surveying the knowledgeable groups and individuals about CoE P&T procedures. Coordinate this development with the EAC. Establish a schedule for their use.

2. Develop and recommend a protocol for discharging the P&T Committee’s standing charge.

3. Recommend specific charges for the 2001-2002 P&T Committee.

EFC
Minutes of Meeting # 8
October 11, 2000

Members present: J. S. Arora, J. S. Chen, S. Dasgupta, D. W. Murhammer
Members absent:  V. G. J. Rodgers
Guest: Associate Dean Fischer

1. Meeting started at 4:05 p.m.

2. The minutes from the October 4th EFC meeting were approved as amended.

3. Professor Dasgupta updated the EFC on the Dean search process.  There are currently two applicants who will be giving presentations to the faculty.

4. Professor Dasgupta distributed copies of the College’s “Guidelines for Departmental Post-Tenure Effort Allocation.”  This document was briefly discussed.

5. The ABET evaluation process, program objectives, outcomes, and the need for common college wide objectives and outcomes were discussed.  It is possible that the current objectives developed by the College ABET Group need to be modified since the objectives need to be related to student characteristics and must be measurable.  The EFC will evaluate the responses from the individual departments regarding ABET objectives and related issues and then decide the appropriate role for the EFC.  The College is developing computer-based survey tools that can be used to collect ABET-related information from the appropriate constituencies (students, alumni, industrial representatives, etc.).  The EFC expressed concern that faculty should be introduced to these tools in a timely manner so that they can be utilized to start collecting the necessary data ASAP.  Prof. Murhammer will bring CBE Objectives and Outcomes to the next EFC meeting for discussion.

6. At the next EFC meeting (October 18th) David Andersen and Tom Schnell will give a presentation regarding their findings at the recent ABET workshop held in Newton, Iowa.  In addition, discussions of the ABET evaluation process will continue.

7. Meeting adjourned at 5:25 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by Prof. David W. Murhammer

EFC
Minutes of Meeting # 9
October 18, 2000

Members present: J. S. Arora, , S. Dasgupta, D. W. Murhammer, V. G. J. Rodgers
Members absent:  J. S. Chen
Guests: Associate Dean Fischer, David Andersen, Tom Schnell

1. Meeting started at 4:05 p.m.

2. The minutes from the October 11th EFC meeting were approved as amended.

3. David Andersen and Tom Schnell discussed their findings from the recent ABET workshop held in Newton, Iowa.  A copy of the corresponding Powerpoint presentation is attached.

4. The EFC now has a web site (http://www.engineering.uiowa.edu/~efc/) on which all of the EFC minutes can be found.

5. At the next EFC meeting (October 25th) the computer-based EASY (Evaluation and Assessment Survey) system will be demonstrated.

6. Meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by Prof. David W. Murhammer

EFC
Minutes of Meeting # 10
October 25, 2000

Members present: J. S. Arora, J. S. Chen, S. Dasgupta, D. W. Murhammer
Members absent:  V. G. J. Rodgers
Guests: Associate Dean Fischer, Jim Cramer

1. Meeting started at 4:05 p.m.

2. The minutes from the October 18th EFC meeting were approved.

3. Jim Cramer gave a presentation regarding the computer-based EASY (Evaluation and Assessment Survey) system (see attached copy of his Powerpoint presentation).  He also gave a demonstration of EASY.

4. At the next EFC meeting (Nov. 1st) ABET data collection and related Curriculum Committee charges will be discussed.

5. Meeting adjourned at 5:55 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by Prof. David W. Murhammer

EFC
Minutes of Meeting # 11
November 1, 2000

Members present: J. S. Arora, J. S. Chen, S. Dasgupta, D. W. Murhammer
Members absent:  V. G. J. Rodgers
Guests: Associate Dean Fischer

1. Meeting started at 4:10 p.m.

2. The minutes from the October 25th EFC meeting were approved.

3. Discussed ABET program Table 2 (this table shows which of the ABET outcomes a-k are satisfied by each of the core courses).  The EFC believes that it is important that this table is same for all departments.  It is recommended that the curriculum committee complete this table and send to the departments for feedback.

4. Discussed the collection of information from core courses outside of the College of Engineering (i.e., Rhetoric, Math, Physics, and Chemistry) for ABET assessment.  Associate Dean Fischer, who is one of the liaisons for Rhetoric, noted that work of engineering students is being collected this semester in Accelerated Rhetoric (10:003).  In addition, EASY will be used to obtain student feedback relevant to ABET assessment.  The EFC will obtain an update for analogous information collection for Math, Physics, and Chemistry from Colby Swan at next week’s EFC meeting (see below).

5. Discussed implementation of EASY.  It is believed that the most useful information for ABET assessment can be obtained by each instructor writing specific questions for each course, i.e., questions that address that course’s goals (note that each goal should be mapped to program outcomes a-k).  The EFC believes that it is critical to get the EASY system on line ASAP.  Associate Dean Fischer expects it to be on line within a week.  It was recommended that Jim Cramer give a demonstration of EASY to each department.  It was further recommended that the college hire a consultant to assist faculty in using EASY, e.g., to input faculty questions into the system.

6. Prof. Arora will ask Colby Swan (chair of the curriculum committee) to update the EFC on the status of core course ABET assessment at next week’s EFC meeting.

7. Meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by Prof. David W. Murhammer

EFC
Minutes of Meeting # 12
November 8, 2000

Members present: J. S. Arora, S. Dasgupta, D. W. Murhammer
Members absent:  J. S. Chen, V. G. J. Rodgers
Guests: Colby Swan

1. Meeting started at 4:05 p.m.

2. The minutes from the November 1st EFC meeting were approved as amended.

3. Discussed Professor Arora’s course goals for the Principles of Design I (57:021) core course and questions to be used in the EASY evaluation of this course (see attached draft).  These questions are designed to assess achievement of the course goals.

4. Colby Swan, Chair of the College Curriculum Committee, updated the EFC on the status of core course assessment in support of ABET accreditation.  Briefly, the Curriculum Committee is overseeing the development of course outcome worksheets (COWs) for all of the core courses, including mathematics, physics, chemistry, and rhetoric courses taken by engineering students.  The COWs have been developed for most of the core courses.  Prof. Swan noted that four tools will be used to assess outcomes (i) collecting graded student work (exams, homework, projects, etc.), (ii) EASY survey, (iii) statistical analysis, e.g., mean and distribution of exam questions that are designed to directly assess a specific course goal, and (iv) instructor assessment of student work (and the course).  Prof. Swan also emphasized that we need to do a better job of informing faculty of the process at both the core course and departmental course levels.  He noted that this process should be viewed as a new paradigm for quality assessment and improvement of our students and programs (i.e., this should be done for us, not ABET).  Gary Fischer and the Curriculum Committee are working on a draft of a memo regarding the faculty’s role in ABET accreditation that will be sent to the faculty.  Prof. Swan will ask David Andersen to give presentations to each department to follow up on this memo.  Finally, the Curriculum Committee will coordinate their efforts with those of the College ad hoc ABET group.

5. Meeting adjourned at 5:40 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by Prof. David W. Murhammer

 Learning Objectives and ABET Outcomes Survey Questionnaire
57:021 Principles of Design I; Fall 2000

COURSE GOALS
1. Overall process of designing new systems or improving existing systems
2. Economic considerations in the design process
3. Formulation of a design problem as an optimization problem
4. Graphical solution of design optimization problems to illustrate some basic concepts
5. Basic principles of optimum design for unconstrained and constrained problems and their illustration using simple design examples: Optimality conditions
6. Methods for optimum design for linear problems: Linear programming using Simplex method
7. Methods for optimum design for nonlinear unconstrained problems: One dimensional search, steepest descent, conjugate directions, Newton's method
8. Methods for optimum design for nonlinear constrained problems: Nonlinear programming, sequential linear programming, and constrained steepest descent method
9. Team Work: Students work on four group projects and produce written reports
 

OUTCOMES SURVEY QUESTIONS (Each question is related to the ABET Program Outcomes (a) to (k)). Each question has six possible outcomes:
Strongly Agree, Agree, Moderately Agree; Moderately Disagree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree

1. I learnt the overall process of designing systems (c)

2. I learnt economic considerations in the design process (e)

3. I learnt the process of formulating a design problem as an optimization problem (e)

4. I learnt the graphical design optimization process (c)

5. I learnt the optimality conditions for unconstrained design problems (a)

6. I learnt the optimality conditions for constrained design problems (a)

7. I learnt the Simplex method for solving linear design problems (e)

8. I learnt the general concept of numerical algorithms for solving design optimization
 problems (a,k)

9. I learnt the numerical methods for solving unconstrained design optimization problems (a)

10. I learnt the numerical methods for solving constrained design optimization problems (a,c,e,k)

11. I learnt to apply knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering to design and optimize systems (a)

12. I learnt to write technical reports (g)

13. I learnt to work on multidisciplinary projects as a design team (d)

14. I gained ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for successful engineering practice (k)
 

Please write any other comments or suggestions for future offerings of this course:

 

EFC
Minutes of Meeting # 13
November 29, 2000

Members present: J. S. Arora, J. S. Chen, S. Dasgupta, D. W. Murhammer
Members absent:  V. G. J. Rodgers
Guests: Associate Dean Fischer

1. Meeting started at 4:05 p.m.

2. The minutes from the November 8th EFC meeting were approved as amended.

3. Jerry Schnoor’s proposal for modifying Engineering I (57:005) was discussed.  Briefly, he proposes that the first half of Engineering I consist of “Fundamentals of Sustainable Engineering” and that the 2nd half, engineering drawing and visualization in Pro/E, remain unchanged.  Prof. Schnoor proposes that this modified version be taught during the Spring 2001 semester.  The EFC will invite him and Prof. Colby Swan to attend the next EFC meeting to discuss this proposal and to clarify some issues.

4. Geb Thomas’ proposal for replacing Fortran programming with C programming in Engineering II (57:006) was discussed.  The EFC was generally in favor of this change, but need input from all of the departments before moving forward on this proposal.   The EFC also believed that if this change is made, then it should be made permanent (i.e., no need for a trial basis).

5. Associate Dean Fischer discussed problems with the current social science/humanities policy for our undergraduate students.  The current breath and depth requirement (e.g., requiring students to complete both lower and upper level courses in the same department) was a result of the old ABET requirement.  One problem with the current system is that some students dislike their lower level course, but still have to take a related upper level course. We are now in a position, however, to be more flexible on our social science/humanities requirements due to the new ABET 2000 criteria.  For example, Associate Dean Fischer suggests that we could require that each student take only 1 social science and 1 humanities course among the required 16 sh of social sciences/humanities.  It was decided that Associate Dean Fischer will write a specific proposal to be discussed at a future EFC meeting prior to review by the curriculum committee.

6. Meeting adjourned at 5:40 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by Prof. David W. Murhammer

 

EFC
Minutes of Meeting # 14
December 6, 2000

Members present: J. S. Arora (presiding), J. S. Chen, D. W. Murhammer
Members absent:  S. Dasgupta, V. G. J. Rodgers
Guests: Dean Butler, Associate Dean Fischer, Colby Swan

1. Meeting started at 4:05 p.m.

2. The minutes from the November 29th EFC meeting were approved as amended.

3. Geb Thomas’ proposal for replacing Fortran 90 programming with C programming in Engineering II (57:006) was discussed.  Prof. Swan noted that the curriculum committee is supportive of this proposal.  One concern of the EFC was making this change in light of the future implementation of EPS II (which may or may not contain a computer programming language).  It was noted, however, that the proposed change would be useful in obtaining information for developing a new programming course even if EPS II does not contain programming.  Another concern regarding the implications in future courses taken by the students that include computer programming (e.g., Principles of Design I, 57:021), i.e., the fact that the Fall 2000 students and Spring 2001 Engineering II students know different programming languages (Fortran 90 and C, respectively), was discussed.  The EFC decided that this situation, while not ideal, is workable.  Therefore, the EFC decided to have the faculty vote on the following curriculum committee proposal at the December 14th faculty meeting:
“It is proposed that the teaching of Fortran 90 programming in all sections of 57:006 Engineering II be replaced with the teaching of C-programming, with this change taking effect in the Spring 2001 semester.  The teaching of Matlab and Excel in 57:006 will remain essentially unchanged.”

4. Jerry Schnoor’s proposal for modifying Engineering I (57:005) for the Spring 2001 semester was discussed.  The EFC was enthusiastic about this proposal, but did not believe that there is sufficient time to implement it in the Spring 2001 semester.  The EFC hopes that Prof. Schnoor will be involved in the transition from Engineering I to EPS I, which would certainly benefit from the ideas given in his present proposal.

5. The proposal for modifying the humanities/social science requirements (see November 29th EFC minutes) will be revisited early in the Spring 2001 semester.

6. Professor Arora will remind Prof. Dasgupta (EFC chair) of the need for the EFC to formulate a charge to the curriculum committee regarding curriculum modification.  Prof. Dasgupta will then decide if an EFC meeting is necessary prior to the beginning of the Spring 2001 semester.

7. The Agenda for the December 14th faculty meeting was finalized.

8. Meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by Prof. David W. Murhammer

EFC
Minutes of Meeting # 15
December 21, 2000

Members present: J. S. Arora, J. S. Chen, S. Dasgupta, D. W. Murhammer
Members absent:  V. G. J. Rodgers
Guests: Dean Butler

1. Meeting started at 9:20 a.m.

2. The minutes from the December 6th EFC meeting were approved as amended.

3. Dean Butler discussed his vision regarding modification of the College curriculum.  Briefly, he supports moving ahead, but noted that we need to move at a pace that is consistent with our resources.  We should follow the spirit of CATF within constraints of resources and departmental requirements.  Dean Butler is currently working with Associate Dean Fischer to develop a timeline for College curriculum modification that includes key milestones.  He would like to see a number of issues addressed by the curriculum committee and voted on by the faculty during the Spring 2001 semester and implemented (at least on a pilot scale) during the Fall 2001 semester.  These issues are (i) modifications of the math, physics, and chemistry courses, (ii) EPS I and EPS II, and (iii) Elective Focus Areas.  Regarding the math, physics and chemistry courses, the syllabi and format of the corresponding courses (including chemistry with an integrated laboratory) need to be finalized.  Regarding EPS I and II, a workshop will be held early in the Spring 2001 semester to brainstorm about possible projects for these courses.  This workshop will include an outside person from an engineering college in which they already utilize freshmen projects in their introductory courses.  In addition, these courses must be designed in conjunction with Rhetoric (e.g., do we want a 3/3/4 sh or 4/4/2 sh model for EPS I/EPSII/Rhetoric?).

4. Professor Dasgupta will draft a charge for the Curriculum Committee regarding modifications of math, physics, and chemistry.  This draft will then be reviewed by the entire EFC prior to submitting to the Curriculum Committee.

5. Early in the Spring 2001 semester the EFC will draft specific charges for the Curriculum Committee regarding EPS I/EPS II and the Elective Focus Areas.

6. Meeting adjourned at 10:35 a.m.

Respectfully submitted by Prof. David W. Murhammer

 

EFC
Minutes of Meeting # 16
January 17, 2001

Members present: J. S. Arora, J. S. Chen, S. Dasgupta (presiding), D. W. Murhammer, and V. G. J. Rodgers
Members absent:  none
Guests: Dean Butler, Associate Dean Fischer

1. Meeting started at 3 p.m.

2. The additional charges to the Curriculum Committee regarding College core courses outside the College were reviewed and edited.

3. The EFA (Elective Focus Areas) for the new curriculum were discussed at length.  Some of the concerns discussed include control, departmental creativity, departments sharing similar courses and additional costs for implementing EFAs.  S. Dasgupta will draft some proposed action on the EFA and bring it to the next meeting.

4. The EFC discussed the three semester common core.

5. The technical communications component of the new curriculum was discussed.  Specifically what to do with rhetoric was discussed.

6. The minutes for meeting # 15 were distributed.

7. Meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by Prof. V. G. J. Rodgers

 

EFC
Minutes of Meeting # 17
January 29, 2001

Members present: J. S. Arora, J. S. Chen, S. Dasgupta, D. W. Murhammer
Members absent:  V. G. J. Rodgers
Guests: Dean Butler, Associate Dean Fischer

1. Meeting started at 3:05 p.m.

2. The minutes from the December 21st EFC meeting were approved as amended.

3. The policies regarding elective focus areas (EFAs) and Social Science/Humanities courses were discussed.  Professor Dasgupta will discuss this issue with the EAC.

4. Questions regarding implementation of the proposed EPS I and EPS II were discussed.  These include who will teach the course, how the projects will be managed, and how many professors and graduate students will be required.  Professor Arora will draft a list of specific questions pertaining to resource issues for these courses to be addressed by the Dean’s office.

5. A new math liaison may be needed for the engineering college since Jeff Marshall is now Mechanical Engineering DEO.

6. Problems with EASY ABET were discussed, e.g., some instructors obtained evaluations regarding himself/herself (which is certainly not appropriate for ABET).

7. Associate Dean Fischer handed out a proposed agenda for the College faculty meeting to be held on Tuesday, February 6th at 3:30 p.m.

8. Meeting adjourned at 4:35 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by Prof. David W. Murhammer

 

EFC
Minutes of Meeting # 18
February 5, 2001

Members present: J. S. Arora, J. S. Chen, S. Dasgupta, D. W. Murhammer
Members absent:  V. G. J. Rodgers
Guests: Dean Butler, Associate Dean Fischer

1. Meeting started at 3:05 p.m.

2. The minutes from the January 29th EFC meeting were approved as amended.

3. A draft written by Prof. Dasgupta regarding the policy on Elective Focus Areas (EFAs) and General Education Component (GEC, previously referred to as Social Science/Humanities) was discussed and edited.  The EFC and EAC will have a joint meeting in the near future to discuss this document.

4. A draft of a proposed charge for the curriculum committee written by Prof. Arora was discussed.  This proposed charge involves collecting information (COWs, etc.) from departments in the College for courses that may be of interest to other departments in the College.

5. Prof. Arora’s draft of questions to be submitted to the Dean’s Office regarding implementation of the proposed EPS I and EPS II were discussed.  This document will be discussed at the next EFC meeting following modification based on input from other EFC members.

6. Prof. Arora notified the EFC that the Curriculum Committee has appointed Prof. Asghar Bhatti as the new math liaison for the Engineering College.

7. Associate Dean Fischer notified the EFC that EASY ABET has been updated.  The report now consists of a part A (numerical results) and a part B (written comments).  In addition, the end of semester reports for College core courses has now been extended to include a course evaluation consistent with ABET.

8. Curriculum issues will continue to be discussed at next week’s EFC meeting.

9. Meeting adjourned at 4:25 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by Prof. David W. Murhammer

 

EFC
Minutes of Meeting # 19
February 12, 2001

Members present: J. S. Arora, J. S. Chen, S. Dasgupta, D. W. Murhammer, V. G. J. Rodgers
Members absent:  None
Guests: Dean Butler, Associate Dean Fischer

1. Meeting started at 3:05 p.m.

2. The minutes from the January 17th and February 5th EFC meetings were approved as amended.

3. Finalized charge to curriculum committee (see attached).

4. Discussed the latest draft of “Policy on Elective Focus Areas (EFAs) and General Education Component (GEC) Courses.”  This document will be discussed in a joint meeting of the EFC and EAC during the next scheduled EAC meeting.

5. The issue of what constitutes GEC courses was discussed, e.g., should fine arts courses also be acceptable.  Discussion of this issue will be continued at future EFC meetings.

6. Prof. Arora’s list of questions for the Dean’s Office regarding resource issues for the proposed EPS I and EPS II were discussed and finalized.  Dean Butler suggested that the EFC have a member of the ad hoc curriculum committee attend a future EFC meeting to discuss the logic behind the proposed format of these courses, e.g., having projects during the second half of the courses.

7. Professor Dasgupta distributed a draft report from the Teaching Committee regarding EASY ACE implementation.  This report will be discussed at the next EFC meeting.

8. Associate Dean Fischer distributed a document entitled “Technical Communications Options,” which will be discussed at the next EFC meeting.

9. Meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by Prof. David W. Murhammer
 

Charge to CC

CHARGE: Develop and send a memo to the Departments in the College of Engineering soliciting proposals for undergraduate courses, beyond common core courses, that may be of interest to other Departments in the College.  The Departments should provide the information in the standard ABET format (i.e., “COWs”, course syllabus, etc.) for the purpose of further discussion and development of possible common courses in the College.  The COWs should be submitted to the CC as soon as practicable.

 

EFC
(Joint with EAC)
Minutes of Meeting # 20
February 20, 2001

EFC Members present: J. S. Arora, J. S. Chen, S. Dasgupta, D. W. Murhammer
EFC Members absent:  V. G. J. Rodgers
EAC Members present: Dean Butler, K. Chandran, K. K. Choi, J. Kuhl, J. Marshall, W. Nixon, Associate Dean Odgaard, V. C. Patel, A. Scranton, J. Stoner (for R. Ettema)
EAC Members absent: L. D. Chen, R. Ettema, Associate Dean Fischer

1. Meeting started at 12:05 p.m.

2. Prof. Dasgupta discussed the major components of the “Policy on Elective Focus Areas (EFAs) and General Education Component (GEC) Courses.”  [See attached document].

3. The major components of this document were discussed.  Two minor concerns were raised.  First, some concern was expressed that there is too much flexibility in both the GEC and EFA policies.  Specifically, there was concern that it may be difficult for engineering faculty to access whether or not the students have a useful experience in regards to the GEC courses.  Second, concern was expressed that the proposed flexibility in the EFA policy would provide the opportunity for departments to deviate from the “Engineers and More” philosophy of the CATF document.  It should be emphasized, however, that overall there was general agreement that this document provides a good approach.

4. Dean Butler proposed that we implement this policy now and evaluate the GEC policy in depth next year and make changes at that time, if necessary.  This may include drafting a list of acceptable GEC courses that would contribute to our goal of graduating broadly trained engineers.  There was general agreement with this proposal.

5. Prof. Dasgupta indicated that the next step is to discuss the attached document within each department to provide feedback.  The goal is to have a faculty vote to approve this document at a College faculty meeting during the Spring 2001 semester.

6. Prof. Kuhl suggested that a statement be put in the general catalog indicating that at press time the curriculum in our College is undergoing a significant change and that updates can be found on our web site.  This idea was well received and Dean Butler indicated that the Dean’s Office will provide this information for the general catalog.

7. Meeting adjourned at 12:55 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by Prof. David W. Murhammer
 

DRAFT V

POLICY ON ELECTIVE FOCUS AREAS AND GENERAL EDUCATION COMPONENT COURSES

The EFC (EFC) recommends that the following policy be adopted with respect to Elective Focus Areas (EFA) and General Education Component (GEC)  courses in the proposed new Undergraduate curriculum. In proposing this policy the EFC wishes to adhere to the spirit of the Curriculum Advancement Task Force (CATF) document adopted by the faculty in the College Faculty meeting of May 1998, while at the same time resolving conflicts arising from certain competing constraints.

1. Every student must take at least 15sh of GEC courses. Among these at least 3sh of courses must be from the pool of courses designated as social science courses and at least another 3sh from the pool of courses designated as humanities courses. To ensure depth, at least 6sh should be Intermediate (100) level courses at least one of which has a prerequisite .

2. Each student must develop and implement a plan for EFA’s, comprising 21sh of courses approved by the department. All departments should develop their own pool of approved EFA’s for their declared majors. Departments have complete freedom in defining acceptable EFA’s, as they are in the best position to assess the requirements of their disciplines. As such, the guidelines below should be treated as recommendations .

  • To the extent appropriate a student should be given maximum flexibility in defining EFA’s that are consistent with his/her individualized career plan.
  •  Departments should allow students who change majors before the fourth semester of study, to apply courses required by the previous major department in the first three semesters, toward the 21sh set aside for EFA’s .
  • If a department deems that it cannot permit students to take all of the 21sh in non-program courses without jeopardizing accreditation, then it may define all EFA’s to include additional program courses.
  • EFA’s may be defined to utilize courses taken toward meeting the GEC requirements.

EFC
Minutes of Meeting # 21
February 26, 2001

Members present: J. S. Arora, J. S. Chen, S. Dasgupta, D. W. Murhammer, V. G. J. Rodgers
Members absent:  None
Guests: Associate Dean Fischer

1. Meeting started at 3:05 p.m.

2. The minutes from the February 12th and February 20th EFC meetings were approved as amended.

3. Discussed the response of the curriculum committee (CC) to the latest charge sent by the EFC regarding soliciting proposals for undergraduate courses that may be of interest to multiple departments in the College (see Minutes of the February 12th EFC meeting).  Prof. Arora notified the EFC that the CC was concerned with what they should do if they receive proposals for similar courses from multiple departments.  In addition, the CC thought that requesting COWs at this point was unreasonable.  The EFC decided that if multiple proposals were obtained for similar courses that the respective departments should be notified so that they can work together to develop a common course if they so desire.  It was also decided that in place of COWs, that only the first page of the ABET course description should be requested.  This would include learning objectives, textbook to be used, course catalog description, and a list of topics to be covered and the time spent on each.  Departments could also submit joint proposals for courses at this time, if they so wish.  It was decided that the target date for collecting this information should be end of Summer 2001.

4. The need for an EASY ABET policy was discussed.  Many complaints from faculty resulted from the Fall 2000 use of EASY ABET.  Specifically, these complaints primarily resulted from student comments regarding the instructor instead of the course.  This constituted a confidentiality problem since the resulting information was intended to be shared with core course coordinators.  The EFC decided that it should develop a tentative policy for this semester and work with the faculty to develop a long term policy beyond this semester.  The EFC decided that the EASY ABET numerical results should be shared with the core course coordinator.  Regarding the written comments, the instructor could choose to (i) share with the core course coordinator as is, (ii) share with the core course coordinator after redaction of comments regarding the instructor, or (iii) not share any of the written comments with the core course coordinator.

5. The Teaching Committee’s proposal to run a pilot study of EASY ACE was discussed.  The EFC was in favor of running this pilot study.  However, the following suggestions (beyond those suggested by the Teaching Committee) for the pilot study were raised: (i) only run for full professors, (ii) compare the number of students attending class during evaluation period to the response rate for the EASY ACE, (iii) security issues need to be addressed, and (iv) it must be run such that the instructor, DEO, and the Dean’s office each receive copies.  Additional issues regarding this proposal will be discussed at the next EFC meeting.

6. Meeting adjourned at 4:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by Prof. David W. Murhammer

 

EFC
Minutes of Meeting # 22
March 19, 2001

Members present: J. S. Arora, J. S. Chen, S. Dasgupta, D. W. Murhammer,
Members absent:  V. G. J. Rodgers
Guests: Dean Butler, Associate Dean Fischer

1. Meeting started at 3:05 p.m.

2. The minutes from the February 26th EFC meeting were approved.

3. The time line for introducing the new college curriculum was discussed.   First, it was proposed that Fall 2001 Freshmen should have the option of following the new GEC policy (see Feb. 20th EFC minutes).  Second, Fall 2002 Freshmen should be completely covered by the new curriculum, including the new GEC policy, new EFA policy (see Feb. 20th EFC minutes), and new Physics, Math, and Chemistry core courses.  Regarding the EFA’s, each department should develop an EFA policy and EFA’s by the end of the Fall 2001 semester and publish in the catalog.  If passed by the faculty during the April CoE faculty meeting, the Dean’s office will publish this policy for the incoming Fall 2001 Freshmen. Prof. Dasgupta will draft a memo regarding curriculum changes to send to college faculty. Colby Swan will be asked to attend the next EFC meeting to discuss issues regarding the implementation of the new Physics, Math, and Chemistry courses.

4. The technical communications options were discussed.  The consensus was that the 3/3/4 (3 s.h. EPS I, 3 s.h. EPS II, and 4 s.h. Rhetoric) model is best.  Under this model Rhetoric would include some technical communications instructions.  The CoE would define the “themes” for the sections, e.g., product liability, environment, ethics in engineering decision making, and global/societal impact of engineering.  Regarding EPS II, there was discussion regarding whether the course should follow the model given in the Core Curriculum 2000 document (i.e., not contain computer programming) or be more in line with the current Engineering II (i.e., contain computer programming).  A reasonable approach would be to have the CoE faculty vote on these two EPS II options.  Discussion of this issue will continue during a future EFC meeting.

5. Issues regarding the implementation of EASY ACE were discussed (see Feb. 26th EFC minutes).  It was decided that we would proceed with the pilot study.  However, faculty volunteering to participate (limited to full professors) will be notified that there are potential problems with the electronic version of ACE, including the potential for a bias toward negative comments, lower numerical scores (compared to the paper version of ACE) and a potential for a lower participation rate.

6. Issues regarding EASY ABET were discussed.  It was agreed that specific questions should be developed only by course coordinators/instructors.  Further, multisection courses should have one survey; otherwise instructor evaluation (inappropriate for ABET survey) would become a component.  It was also noted that written comments from each section should only be made available to that section instructor and not to the core course coordinator.   Discussion on this issue will be continued during a future EFC meeting.

7. Meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by Prof. David W. Murhammer

 

EFC
Minutes of Meeting # 23
March 26, 2001

Members present: J. S. Arora, S. Dasgupta, D. W. Murhammer,
Members absent:  J. S. Chen, V. G. J. Rodgers
Guests: Dean Butler, Associate Dean Fischer, Colby Swan

1. Meeting started at 3:05 p.m.

2. The minutes from the March 19th EFC meeting were approved as amended.

3. A proposed timeline (proposed by Dean Butler) for implementation of the new core curriculum was discussed.  This will be modified to include all important milestones.

4. Associate Dean Fischer notified the EFC of the curriculum committee’s concerns regarding implementation of the new GEC policy (see Feb. 20th EFC minutes) and the proposed 3/3/4 model for EPS I/EPSII/Rhetoric (see March 19th EFC minutes).  Specifically, the CC does not see any significant advantage to giving the incoming Fall 2001 students the option of following the new GEC policy.  In addition, the CC is concerned that employing the 3/3/4 model will result in 18 sh for the first semester of the Freshmen year.  The EFC discussed these issues.  First, consensus was reached that the core curriculum (as given in Core 2000 document) should be modified as shown in the attached document.  Major changes include (i) replacing Technical Communications (2 sh) with Rhetoric (4 sh) during the first semester, (ii) changing EPS I and EPS II from 4 sh to 3 sh each, and (iii) removing GEC 1 from the first semester.  The result is that the first three semesters contain 15, 16, and 17 sh, respectively.  Second, consensus was reached that the 16 sh requirement should be maintained for the humanities/social sciences (or GEC’s) for incoming Fall 2001 students.  We should, however, implement the remaining components of the new GEC policy and make this change available to every student in the college.  Further, it was proposed that the new GEC policy be totally implemented (including 15 sh of GEC’s vs. the current 16 sh) for incoming Fall 2002 students.  The faculty at the April College faculty meeting will vote on these issues.

5. A draft of a memo to be sent to the faculty requesting nominations for the open EFC positions and faculty secretary was discussed.

6. The issue of developing an EASY ABET policy was discussed.  This policy will address confidentiality issues in light of the fact that EASY ABET is a course assessment tool, and is not intended to be used for instructor evaluation.  Dean Butler noted that EASY ABET is one of many course assessment tools that can be used at the departmental level (note: the curriculum committee has endorsed its use for College core courses). Thus, it may be useful to have broad guidelines that address the use of other ABET assessment tools as well.  Discussion of this issue will be continued at a future EFC meeting.

7. Colby Swan, chair of the CC, updated the EFC on the status of the modified core curriculum.  Briefly, the content of Physics I and II has been finalized, including the choice of textbook.  The current proposal includes teaching Physics I and II only in the Fall and Spring, respectively (i.e., each course only to be taught once a year).  The EFC came to the consensus that the Dean’s office should be open to negotiate this issue with the Physics Department (i.e., there may be a need to have each of these courses taught twice a year).  The content of Chemistry I is not yet completed, but the CC is currently working with the Chemistry Department on this issue.  The content of the Mathematics courses has been finalized.  The textbooks, however, have not yet been selected.  The content and textbooks for Fundamentals of Engineering I (Statics), II (Electrical Circuits), and III (Thermodynamics) have been finalized.  Professor Swan noted that it is critical that the faculty be provided time to respond to the proposed curriculum changes prior to the April College faculty meeting.  To this end, the CC plans to have their corresponding report finalized by March 31st.

8. Meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by Prof. David W. Murhammer

Table 1.  Common Core Curriculum

Semester 1 (Fall)      
  Credit Session Pre(co)requisites: P or C
Engineering Math I 4 s.h. All (P)H.S. Alg. & Trig
Engineering Problem Solving I 3 s.h. F  
Fundamentals of Chemistry for Engineers 4 s.h. F (P)ACT (M)24; MPT II (20)
Rhetoric 4 s.h. F (C) EPS I
College Seminar 0 s.h. F N/A
       
Total Hours: Semester 1 15 s.h.    
       
Semester 2 (Spring)      
  Credit Session Pre(co)requesites: P or C
Engineering Math II 4 s.h. All (P)Math I or AB-4
Engineering Problem Solving II 3 s.h. S (C)Math I
Physics I 4 s.h. S (C) Math I
Engineering Math III 2 s.h. All (P) Math I; (C) Math II
GEC 1/ Principles of Chem II 3 s.h. All/S **/(P) 4:07, 4:13, or 4:17
       
Total Hours Semester 2 16 s.h. (14*)    
       
Semester 3 (Fall)      
  Credit Session Pre(co)requesites: P or C
Engineering Math IV 3 s.h. All (P) Math III
GEC 1/Physics II 3 s.h. All/F **/(P)Physics I; (C) Math II
Engineering Fundamentals I - Statics 2 s.h. All (P)Math I; (C) Math II, Physics
Engineering Fundamentals II - Electrical Circuits 3 s.h. All (C) Math II
Engineering Fundamentals III - Thermodynamics 3 s.h. All (P) Math II, Chem. I, Phys. I
Department Selection 3 s.h.   **
Departmental Seminar (optional) 0 s.h.    
       
Total Hours Semester 3 17 s.h. (14*)    

*   For a reduced load some students may delay GEC or Departmental Selection courses
** Pre(co)requisites are determined on a course-by-course basis

 

EFC
Minutes of Meeting # 24
April 2, 2001

Members present: J. S. Arora, J. S. Chen, S. Dasgupta, D. W. Murhammer, V. G. J. Rodgers
Members absent:  None
Guests: Dean Butler, Associate Dean Fischer

1. Meeting started at 3:05 p.m.

2. The minutes from the March 26th EFC meeting were approved as amended.

3. A “Policy on Assessment Tools for ABET Reports” drafted by Prof. Dasgupta was discussed.  The key point of this policy is that ABET assessment tools must only be used for curriculum assessment (not for instructor evaluation, etc.).  In addition, specific policy issues are included in this document for multisection college core courses.  A revised version of this document is attached.

4. Prof. Dasgupta suggested that the EFC draft an outline including the present status of the new College core curriculum to be discussed at the next EAC meeting (Wednesday, April 4th).  The key issues to be included are (i) the EPS I and II courses are proposed to each be 3 sh, (ii) a 4 sh Rhetoric course is proposed to be included in the curriculum, (iii) content of core mathematics courses have been completed (textbooks still need to be specified), (iv) new Chemistry I course is still in development, (v) the content (including textbooks) of Physics I and II have been completed, (vi) the content and textbooks for Fundamentals of Engineering I, II, and II have been completed, and (vii) the proposed sh content of first 3 semesters of the new college curriculum.  Prof. Dasgupta will draft this document and distribute for feedback prior to the next EAC meeting

5. New charges for the Curriculum Committee regarding providing updated information on college core courses prior to the April College Faculty meeting were discussed.  The charges will be finalized at a future EFC meeting.

6. Meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by Prof. David W. Murhammer

 FINAL:  4/2/01

Policy on Assessment Tools for ABET Reports

The EFC intends to recommend the following policy guidelines for faculty action at a forthcoming faculty meeting. However, since EASY based assessment mechanisms are already being implemented, in the interim these policies will also serve as guidelines to be followed in the current use of assessment tools.

1. ABET related assessment tools should be used only for curriculum assessment. They should not be used in any shape or form for instructor assessment. As such any instructor performance related material that is inadvertently generated by these tools must be kept strictly confidential.

2. The use of  EASY ABET questionnaires for course evaluation must follow the following guidelines. It should be noted that all core courses will require EASY ABET questionnaires. The use of these questionnaires for program courses is up to the specific programs, instructors and course coordinators.

  • Transcripts from all EASY ABET questionnaires will be separated into two distinct documents: (a) Summary of numerical response. (b) Transcript of written comments.
  • Questions used will only be determined by the course coordinator and instructor.
  • For multiple section courses, there will be only one set of summary numerical response data for each course. It will contain statistics that are not separated by Course Sections.
  • Transcripts of written comments will be separated on an instructor by instructor basis, i.e. multiple transcripts will be generated for multi-section courses.
  • Summary numerical response data will be accessible to all involved in the course assessment.
  • Transcripts of written comments will be provided only to the cognizant instructor. The extent to which this will be shared with a wider audience is entirely up to the instructor.

EFC
Minutes of Meeting # 25
April 9, 2001

Members present: J. S. Arora, J. S. Chen, S. Dasgupta, D. W. Murhammer, V. G. J. Rodgers
Members absent:  None
Guests: Associate Dean Fischer, Steve Collins

1. Meeting started at 3:10 p.m.

2. The minutes from the April 2nd EFC meeting were approved.

3. Charges to the curriculum committee were discussed.  The final version of these charges is attached.  The philosophy behind charge 3 in the attached document is to provide students with more tools prior to doing their project/case studies.

4. A summary of proposed actions on the new curriculum was distributed.  This contains essentially the same material given in the Minutes of the April 2, 2001 EFC meeting.

5. Prof. Steve Collins distributed a draft of a proposed policy regarding faculty unfitness that discusses procedures to enact sanctions against and to dismiss “unfit” faculty.  Prof. Collins informed the EFC of proposed changes from the existing policy.  This proposed policy was then discussed.  In general, the EFC was not in favor of this new policy since they believe that it does not provide sufficient faculty protection.  Prof. Rodgers will draft a memo summarizing the concerns of the EFC.

6. Meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by Prof. David W. Murhammer

CHARGES TO THE CURRICULUM COMMITTEE

1. Modify the EPS I and EPS II syllabi, proposed by the previous Curriculum Committee, to make them 3 sh courses. Consider providing departments the option of providing case studies based instruction instead of projects. Develop learning objectives and a plan for delivery.
2. Provide an alternative to EPS I if EPS II retains the current Engineering II format.
3. Consider interchanging the contents of EPS I and II.

 

EFC
Minutes of Meeting # 26
April 16, 2001

Members present: J. S. Arora, J. S. Chen, S. Dasgupta, D. W. Murhammer, V. G. J. Rodgers
Members absent:  None
Guests: Dean Butler, Associate Dean Fischer

1. Meeting started at 3:10 p.m.

2. The minutes from the April 9th EFC meeting were approved.

3. Prof. Dasgupta distributed the latest description of EPS I and II prepared by the previous Curriculum Committee.  Methods of reducing the class periods in each course from 60 to 45 (to reduce each of these courses from 4 to 3 sh) were discussed.  Regarding EPS I, it was proposed that the number of periods devoted to departmental design projects and presentations be reduced from 30 to 20.  In addition, it was proposed that the class periods devoted to “acquiring, using, and presenting engineering data” and “modern engineering problem solving” be reduced from 8 and 14 periods to 5 and 12 periods, respectively.  Regarding EPS II, it was proposed that the number of class periods for the departmental projects be decreased from 34 to 20, and that the number of class periods for MATLAB be reduced from 6 to 5.  This proposal was forwarded to Colby Swan.  The curriculum committee was requested to return a final proposal for EPS I and II (either the one proposed by the EFC or an alternative) to the EFC by Monday, April 23rd.

4. The faculty vote on the EPS I and II proposals was discussed.  There will be two options for EPS I: (i) projects required for the departmental portion and (ii) choice of projects or case studies for the departmental portion.  There will also be two options for EPS II (i) EPS II as proposed and modified by the curriculum committee and (ii) a course devoted to computer programming similar to the current Engineering II.  It was decided that a college faculty meeting held Tuesday, May 1st will be devoted entirely to curriculum issues, including these votes on EPS I and II.  This is in addition to the general end of semester faculty meeting that will be held on Thursday, May 10th.

5. The proposed university faculty unfitness policy was discussed (see also the minutes from the April 9th EFC meeting).  The EFC continues to believe that this is a bad policy.  The current policy states that a faculty member is unfit if they are “not meeting the standard of performance ordinarily expected of an individual in a position occupied by the faculty member.”  The proposed policy states that a faculty member is unfit if their “performance is judged to be substantially below the relevant unit’s standards and criteria for acceptable faculty performance for a significant period of time to such an extent that person is unfit to serve on the faculty.”  The EFC believes that the current policy is adequate.  The “acceptable faculty performance” statement in the proposed policy is of particular concern since it is open to misuse.   The EFC was also curious as to why a change is needed.  Who are the individuals that the University “needs” to get rid of that the current policy will not suffice?  Prof. Rodgers will write up comments for review by the EFC at its next meeting prior to forwarding to the faculty senate.

6. Meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by Prof. David W. Murhammer

 

EFC
Minutes of Meeting # 27
April 23, 2001

Members present: J. S. Arora, J. S. Chen, S. Dasgupta, D. W. Murhammer, V. G. J. Rodgers
Members absent:  None
Guests: Dean Butler, Associate Dean Fischer

1. Meeting started at 3:05 p.m.

2. Associate Dean Fischer introduced the EFC to Scott Coffel, the new Technical Communications Coordinator for the College of Engineering.

3. The minutes from the April 16th EFC meeting were approved as amended.

4. Prof. Dasgupta distributed syllabi for the proposed Math I-IV, Physics I and II, Chemistry I and II, Engineering Problem Solving I-III, EPS I, and EPS II courses.  All of these courses appear to be well defined except the Chemistry courses.  It is believed, however, that sufficient detail will also be available for a faculty vote on the new Chemistry courses following the May 1st College Faculty meeting (see below).

5. The agenda for the May 1st College Faculty meeting was discussed.  This meeting will be devoted to discussion of the proposed modifications in the College core curriculum.  Motions regarding the modified curriculum will be discussed.  A mail ballot will be distributed to the College faculty following this meeting to vote on these motions.

6. Prof. Rodgers distributed his draft summarizing the EFC’s concerns regarding the proposed university faculty unfitness policy.  This draft was discussed.  Prof. Rodgers will incorporate the suggestions of other EFC members and then forward to Gene Parkin so that the EFC’s concerns with the proposed policy can be heard by the faculty senate.

7. Meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by Prof. David W. Murhammer

 

EFC
Minutes of Meeting # 28
April 30, 2001

Members present: J. S. Arora, J. S. Chen, S. Dasgupta, D. W. Murhammer, V. G. J. Rodgers
Members absent:  None
Guests: Dean Butler

1. Meeting started at 3:05 p.m.

2. The minutes from the April 23rd EFC meeting were approved.

3. Prof. Dasgupta informed the EFC that Prof. Greg Carmichael has been communicating with the Chemistry Department regarding the Chemistry I and Chemistry II courses for our students.  The course syllabus for Chemistry I will be very similar to that previously proposed.  This course will be a 4 sh course that includes a laboratory component.  This course, however, will be taken by Pharmacy, Biology and other students; thus, it will not be a course taught exclusively to Engineering students.  During the transition period the plan is to have a 3 sh lecture course and a 1 sh laboratory course for which the lecture course is a co-requisite.  The format for Chemistry II will be similar.

4. Prof. Dasgupta distributed copies of Steve Collins’ suggestions pertaining to wording of the curriculum-related motions to be made to the College faculty.  The EFC agreed that his wording was improved over that previously written by the EFC.

5. Prof. Dasgupta distributed a draft of the agenda for the May 10th College faculty meeting and a motion regarding a policy on assessment tools for ABET to be voted on during the faculty meeting.  He also distributed the proposed EFC report to the faculty, the teaching committee report, and the curriculum committee report.  In addition, Prof. Chen forwarded the promotion and tenure report to the EFC shortly following the meeting.  These committee reports to the faculty will discussed at next week’s EFC meeting.

6. Dean Butler informed the EFC of the resources needed for the proposed EPS I and compared them to those needed for the current Engineering I.  Briefly, EPS I requires 10 FTE faculty and 4 half-time TA’s compared to 10-12 FTE faculty and 6.7 half-time TA’s for the current Engineering I.  The EFC also noted that the load for the one faculty in charge of teaching Pro E during the 2nd half of the semester is very heavy.

7. Prof. Arora distributed a summary of his proposal regarding EPS I (see attached).  The proposed concept needs to be studied further in the future in conjunction with the EPS II course.

8. Prof. Butler notified the EFC that the faculty needs to vote on the new College Strategic Plan during the May 10th faculty meeting.  The EFC agreed to include this item in the agenda.  This motion, however, will not be an EFC motion.

9. Meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by Prof. David W. Murhammer

 EPS I (OPTION B)
J.S. ARORA (4/25/01)

COURSE DESCRIPTION

Course description modified from Option A is attached. Part A of the course is same for both the options. Part B is organized differently. Part B consists of assignments (projects, case studies, Matlab, etc.) submitted by various departments to the course instructors and selected by the instructors.

COURSE ORGANIZATION AND RATIONALE FOR OPTION (B)

1. There are three lecture sections as in Option (A). Each section instructor conducts the course for the entire semester. During Part B, the instructor meets with the class once a week. For the remaining two class periods, the students work in the computer labs with the help of TAs.
2. All students are exposed to the same material, maintaining the "core" nature of the course.
3. Management of the course will be quite straightforward.
4. Smaller faculty resources will be required (impacts teaching loads).
5. Allocation of resources will be quite straightforward.
6. Departments will be able to provide input for the instructors for assignments in Part B.

 

EFC
Minutes of Meeting # 29
May 7, 2001

Members present: J. S. Arora, D. W. Murhammer
Members absent:  J. S. Chen, S. Dasgupta, V. G. J. Rodgers
Guests: Associate Dean Fischer

1. Meeting started at 4:05 p.m.

2. The minutes from the April 30th EFC meeting were approved as amended.

3. The Curriculum Committee final report was discussed and approved by the EFC.  This report will be summarized at the May 10th College faculty meeting.  In addition, copies of this report will be distributed at this meeting.

4. The Promotion and Tenure Committee final report was discussed and approved by the EFC.  This report will be summarized at the May 10th College faculty meeting.  In addition, copies of this report will be distributed at this meeting.

5. The Teaching Committee final report was discussed and approved by the EFC.  This report will be summarized at the May 10th College faculty meeting.  In addition, copies of this report will be distributed at this meeting.

6. The EFC final report was discussed.  The EFC members present at this meeting suggest that Professor Dasgupta update the list of specific activities undertaken by the EFC to include the discussion of motions regarding the new curriculum at the May 1st College Faculty meeting, approval of conducting a mail ballot, and any other appropriate updates.  This report in its present form will be summarized at the May 10th College faculty meeting.  In addition, copies of this report will be distributed at this meeting.

7. Meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by Prof. David W. Murhammer