2002 Senior, Alumni and Manager/Supervisor Survey Report
Produced by R. Gustafson and E. McCaul
for
Committee on Outcomes Assessment for Undergraduate Engineering Programs
College of Engineering
September, 2002
Background
This report is intended to be a college level summary of outcomes assessment alumni surveys, administered during the 2001-2002 academic year, by the College of Engineering on behalf of its undergraduate engineering programs. This is the fourth year of use of a survey of exiting seniors, 2nd, 6th and 15th year alumni. Generally the data in this report is an aggregate of all programs. Since differences in responses between programs can exist and programs have additional inputs from other sources, this information needs to be used carefully by each program as part of its on-going outcomes assessment and continuous quality improvement.
Where feasible, observations about the data and comparisons to the previous years are included. A copy of the college-common part of each survey is appended. Demographic Data describing the alumni populations being surveyed and the respondents is also appended.
Two other specialized surveys were conducted during the year. For this year, all alumni received a one-page survey regarding ethical and professional responsibilities. Cooperative education and internship employers were also surveyed. Individual reports on these surveys will be issued separately.
Recommendations for follow-up activity and future survey development will be developed by the Outcomes Assessment for Undergraduate Engineering Programs Committee (OAC). Input to the Committee is encouraged.
SURVEY RESULTS
A. Educational Outcomes Summary
Since the same twenty-five questions were asked, a summary of Educational Outcomes across groups can be presented. A tabulated form of the data for four years of surveys by alumni year is in Appendix B and C. Since only a few questions showed obvious variation or trends across alumni years, data are summarized in the following Tables and Figures for the full college, across all programs and all alumni years. (Copies of Surveys used during any given your are on file in the College Office.)
It is apparent that the difference in response on average this year tended to be larger and more negative than previous years. Overall average difference (Ability/Preparation – Importance) were as follows; 98-99, -0.23; 99-00, -0.218; 00-01, -0.227; 01-02, -0.47. Reasons for this change are not clear. This should be monitored closely in the coming year.
Weighting of the scale is:
Importance: Not Important = 1, Somewhat Important = 2, Important = 3, Very Important = 4, Extremely Important = 5
Ability on the Job or Preparation: Not prepared = 1, Somewhat Prepared = 2, Prepared = 3, Well Prepared = 4, Very Well Prepared = 5
Difference: Ability/Preparation minus Importance
Table 1. Educational Outcomes Summary Across All Alumni Years and Programs by Survey Year
|
Topic |
Importance |
Ability/Preparation |
Difference |
|||||||||
|
|
98-99 |
99-00 |
00-01 |
01-02 |
98-99 |
99-00 |
00-01 |
01-02 |
98-99 |
99-00 |
00-01 |
01-02 |
|
An understanding of and ability to apply knowledge of: |
||||||||||||
|
Math |
3.19 |
3.07 |
3.45 |
3.37 |
3.83 |
3.75 |
3.90 |
3.81 |
0.64 |
0.68 |
0.45 |
0.45 |
|
Chemistry |
2.26 |
2.25 |
2.39 |
2.39 |
3.03 |
2.72 |
3.12 |
3.14 |
0.77 |
0.47 |
0.73 |
0.76 |
|
Physics |
3.22 |
3.11 |
3.49 |
3.42 |
3.51 |
3.45 |
3.63 |
3.58 |
0.29 |
0.33 |
0.14 |
0.16 |
|
Eng. Science |
3.66 |
3.47 |
3.60 |
3.65 |
3.65 |
3.54 |
3.66 |
3.47 |
-0.01 |
0.07 |
0.06 |
-0.18 |
|
Comp. Sci |
3.74 |
3.85 |
3.88 |
3.64 |
3.30 |
3.43 |
3.35 |
3.03 |
-0.44 |
-0.42 |
-0.53 |
-0.61 |
|
Humanities |
2.54 |
2.63 |
2.33 |
2.42 |
3.06 |
2.79 |
3.12 |
3.08 |
0.52 |
0.16 |
0.79 |
0.66 |
|
Business |
3.38 |
3.32 |
3.26 |
3.45 |
2.68 |
2.60 |
2.60 |
2.56 |
-0.70 |
-0.72 |
-0.66 |
-0.90 |
|
An understanding and ability to: |
||||||||||||
|
Experiment |
3.42 |
3.48 |
3.62 |
3.63 |
3.38 |
3.23 |
3.46 |
3.26 |
-0.04 |
-0.25 |
-0.16 |
-0.37 |
|
Analyze Data |
3.84 |
3.81 |
4.01 |
4.01 |
3.64 |
3.55 |
3.56 |
3.47 |
-0.20 |
-0.26 |
-0.45 |
-0.54 |
|
Design System |
4.05 |
4.01 |
4.15 |
4.18 |
3.44 |
3.38 |
3.57 |
3.33 |
-0.61 |
-0.63 |
-0.58 |
-0.85 |
|
Multi-D Teams |
4.28 |
4.18 |
4.23 |
4.27 |
3.42 |
3.49 |
3.52 |
3.35 |
-0.86 |
-0.69 |
-0.71 |
-0.92 |
|
Solve Problems |
4.20 |
4.17 |
4.27 |
4.29 |
3.77 |
3.80 |
3.76 |
3.65 |
-0.43 |
-0.36 |
-0.51 |
-0.64 |
|
Ethics |
4.02 |
3.90 |
3.92 |
3.99 |
3.34 |
3.31 |
3.50 |
3.10 |
-0.68 |
-0.59 |
-0.42 |
-0.89 |
|
Comm Orally |
4.36 |
4.29 |
4.24 |
4.32 |
3.19 |
3.33 |
3.35 |
3.19 |
-1.17 |
-0.96 |
-0.89 |
-1.13 |
|
Comm in Wrtng |
4.30 |
4.26 |
4.23 |
4.24 |
3.45 |
3.48 |
3.39 |
3.43 |
-.085 |
-0.78 |
-0.84 |
-0.81 |
|
Stay Current |
4.00 |
3.86 |
3.91 |
3.96 |
3.25 |
3.25 |
3.49 |
3.10 |
-0.75 |
-0.61 |
-0.42 |
-0.86 |
|
Skills-Practice |
3.99 |
3.78 |
3.95 |
3.97 |
3.58 |
3.44 |
3.54 |
3.35 |
-0.41 |
-0.35 |
-0.41 |
-0.62 |
|
An understanding of and ability to: |
||||||||||||
|
Diverse Env. |
3.64 |
3.29 |
3.47 |
3.63 |
3.47 |
3.33 |
3.52 |
3.39 |
-0.17 |
0.05 |
0.05 |
-0.24 |
|
Comp.-Commu. |
4.07 |
3.97 |
4.03 |
4.07 |
3.48 |
3.65 |
3.65 |
3.46 |
-0.59 |
-0.32 |
-0.39 |
-0.61 |
|
Comp.-Design |
4.00 |
3.90 |
4.16 |
4.02 |
3.41 |
3.58 |
3.51 |
3.22 |
-0.59 |
-0.32 |
-0.65 |
-0.80 |
|
Integrate |
3.81 |
3.54 |
3.71 |
3.75 |
3.28 |
3.17 |
3.24 |
2.96 |
-0.53 |
-0.36 |
-0.47 |
-0.79 |
|
Apparatus |
2.84 |
2.70 |
3.00 |
3.28 |
2.97 |
2.72 |
3.01 |
2.80 |
0.13 |
0.03 |
0.01 |
-0.48 |
|
An understanding of: |
||||||||||||
|
Env. Aspects |
3.19 |
2.80 |
3.05 |
3.11 |
2.71 |
2.57 |
2.86 |
2.48 |
-0.48 |
-0.24 |
-0.19 |
-0.63 |
|
Global Scale |
3.27 |
2.61 |
2.83 |
2.95 |
2.62 |
2.35 |
2.63 |
2.39 |
-0.65 |
-0.26 |
-0.19 |
-0.56 |
|
Rel to Society |
2.78 |
2.35 |
2.70 |
2.86 |
2.58 |
2.31 |
2.65 |
2.41 |
-0.20 |
-0.04 |
-0.05 |
-0.45 |
|
Being a Licensed Professional Engineer/Surveyor: |
||||||||||||
|
|
2.53 |
2.21 |
2.29 |
2.53 |
2.91 |
2.57 |
2.70 |
2.28 |
0.39 |
0.37 |
0.42 |
-0.25 |
The Educational Outcomes data from the 2001-2002 Surveys is plotted in the following figures for easier study.
Figure 1. (Mean of All Years)
Figure 2 (Mean of All Years)
Figure 3 (Mean of All Years)
Figure 4 (Mean of All Years)
Suggested Priorities for Action
Looking at those items with the largest differences between Importance versus Ability/Preparation, in its 1999 report the OAC choose six areas for highest priority consideration by the College. The following compares results of the most recent surveys to those of 98-99 for these six areas. Most of the highest differences did occur in the same areas confirming the choice of these as action areas.
1. Communications
Reference Question(s) Ability/Prep. – Importance
An understanding of and ability to: 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02
- communicate orally: informal and prepared talks -1.16 -0.96 -0.89 -1.13
- communicate in writing: letters, tech. reports, etc. -0.85 -0.78 -0.84 -0.81
- use computing technology in communications -0.65 -0.32 -0.39 -0.61
2. Teamwork
Reference Question(s) Ability/Prep. – Importance
An understanding of and ability to: 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02
- function on multi- or cross-functional teams -0.86 -0.69 -0.71 -0.92
3. Basic Sciences
Reference Question(s) Ability/Prep. – Importance
An understanding of and ability to apply knowledge of: 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02
- chemistry 0.77 0.47 0.73 0.76
- mathematics 0.64 0.68 0.45 0.45
4. Business
Reference Question(s) Ability/Prep. – Importance
An understanding of and ability to apply knowledge of: 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02
- business/finance -0.70 -0.72 -0.66 -0.90
5. Stay Current
Reference Question(s) Ability/Prep. – Importance
An understanding of and ability to: 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02
- stay current technically and professionally -0.75 -0.61 -0.42 -0.86
6. Ethics
Reference Question(s) Ability/Prep. – Importance
An understanding of and ability to: 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02
- recognize professional and ethical responsibility -0.68 -0.59 -0.42 -0.89
However, two other topic areas not in the original six may warrant special attention.
- The negative difference values (Ability/Preparation – Importance) for two question related to design (Design a System and Use of Computing Technology in Analysis/Design) have increased over time. The topic of design appears to be an area that needs attention. (Note: Last academic year, the College established a special committee looking at the capstone design experience. This committee will continue its work this academic year.)
- The positive difference for humanities remains high. Looking for opportunity to make better use of the humanities through our general education element of the program may warrant attention by the College.
B. Educational Experience at Ohio State
In this segment, exiting seniors, alumni were asked to evaluate selected aspects of their experience at OSU. Data by alumni year are presented in Appendix 2C. The following Table presents the mean of all alumni years across all programs for each year of the survey.
Table 2. Summary of Educational Experience at Ohio State
|
|
98-99 |
99-00 |
00-01 |
01-02 |
|
98-99 |
99-00 |