Page 1 of 63

McNeese  State  University—Institutional  Review  &  Program  Prioritization  (Fall  2010)  

Academic  Program  Review     Program Name: BS Engineering Technology Degree: BS Engineering Technology Department: Engineering Technology College: College of Engineering and Engineering Technology Report Author(s): Dorothy Ortego, Brent Garner, Nikos Kiritsis with input from the faculty Date: 9/24/2010

I.    External  Demand  for  the  Program  A. Student Demand: From Academic Program Analysis provided by IR.

Incoming FTF or FT Graduate Student Demand For The Program

(5-Year Trend) 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 AVG

10 12 15 19 10 13

Enrollment in Program (5-year Trend) 05-

06 06-07

07-08

08-09

09-10

AVG

Total 106 109 101 131 117 113 Freshman 25 24 24 33 23 26 Sophomore 22 23 15 19 26 21 Junior 20 26 27 34 23 26 Senior 39 36 35 45 45 40 Other Undergraduate Graduate (degree-seeking) Graduate (non-degree seeking) Completers 15 16 15 14 13 15

Page 2 of 63

B. Employer Demand: Based on your best knowledge and information, describe employer demand according to the following chart, defining “current” as within the last 3-5 years. Then, provide any additional evidence or reasoning behind the categorization. Parenthetical examples in chart are a way of thinking about rankings.

To be consistent in the presentation of our data, we will use the same time-frame used in section V.B. on completers and job placement. The calendar years 2005-2007 will be used as “Current Demand”, but other additional information from recent years will also be presented.

Employer Demand (highlight more than one if appropriate)

Current Demand Estimated Productivity Ratio* Demand Characteristics • Extremely High • Consistent • High • Cyclical • Medium • Trending Upward • Low

2:1

• Trending Downward

Explanation/Discussion. We believe that we can produce more graduates who will be able to find jobs in the field. While a small number of electronic and instrumentation graduates studied from the 2005-2007 classes did not have jobs in the field, other graduates had multiple offers. In the time frame reviewed, all Process students received jobs. An unwillingness to locate outside of SWLA and inefficient job searches often hinders graduates in locating jobs in their fields. Even with the economic downturn post 2007 graduates are still getting jobs. As the economy improves, industry expects a steady demand for our graduates, with the largest group to be recruited through on-campus testing and interviews being the Process Tech graduates. The supplementary documentation section includes an industrial map of Southwest LA along with an industrial flow chart. In one-way or another the engineering technology program supports all of the industries located in the area. Please note that the SWLA with the ship channel is the ONLY area along the Gulf Coast from Corpus Christi, TX to New Orleans with available land next to water. This availability (land with water access) attracts new companies to SWLA every two to three years. The newest additions that are not included on the map are, Sempra LNG, Cheniere LNG, Cameron LNG, the Shaw Group’s modular building manufacturing facility, and currently under the

Page 3 of 63

planning phase the Leucadia Corporation gasification plant. An interesting fact is that, the four Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facilities located less than 80 miles from the McNeese campus are responsible for almost 64 percent of the North American LNG terminal capacity.

*Express numerically to reflect the difference between demand for graduates in the field and rate at which the program produces graduates; e.g. 5:3 demand five for every three we graduate.

C. Community/Other External Demand: Describe the community demand for, or reliance on, the program (e.g. some integral facet of the program performs a community service function such that without the program, the function could not be taken over by some other mix of entities).

Before we get too far into this document, let’s define an Engineering Technology (ET) program, especially as differentiated from engineering. According to a common definition, “Engineering technology is the profession in which a knowledge of mathematics and natural sciences gained by higher education, experience, and practice is devoted primarily to the implementation and extension of existing technology for the benefit of humanity.” It is easy to see the need of the industries in South Louisiana for graduates of our programs, and how those graduates serve SWLA. A great starting point for understanding the ET programs is to review the Program Educational Objectives as published in the 2010-11 MSU Catalog, noting the emphasis on preparing “graduates for employment”, usually in SWLA, offshore, or at other locations in the Gulf Coast that also have business interests in Louisiana.

The Bachelor of Science in Engineering Technology with concentrations in Electronics and Instrumentation builds upon the skills developed at the associate level and prepares graduates to fill supervisory or technical expert positions in industry, as well as providing a background for graduate study. To this end, the concentration is designed to help graduates achieve the educational objectives listed below. With appropriate work experience and desire, graduates will be able to:

1. fill more technically demanding and supervisory positions in the electronics or instrumentation (process control) fields; and 2. pursue graduate study in managerial or technical fields.

As of June 2010, MSU has the only ABET-accredited A.S. program in Instrumentation in the Gulf Coast region, and with the University of Houston, have the only ABET-accredited B.S. programs in Instrumentation in the nation. SWLA – and the whole Gulf Coast – has a continuing need for Instrumentation technicians, and in particular a need by some companies for B.S.-level

Page 4 of 63

graduates in Instrumentation. Despite other two-year programs in the region, MSU remains the only ABET-accredited program at the A.S. level. ABET accreditation is an assurance that a college or university program meets the quality standards established by the profession for which it prepares it students. Our “stamp of approval” gives our graduates an edge and allows them to more easily return to MSU for a B.S. degree (in Engineering Technology or other degrees) or to other colleges. Our A.S. and B.S. Instrumentation graduates work throughout SWLA and the Gulf Coast for companies such as Chevron, Halliburton, Louisiana Pigment, for other large and small companies, as well as for numerous technical contracting companies. Because of the flexibility of an Electronics program - consider the huge field of Electrical Engineering as a parallel field - there are probably more ABET-accredited degrees in Electronics than in any other ET field. As stated in our recruiting brochures – which can be found in the department’s webpage at http://www.mcneese.edu/ceet/engtech/ - graduates of Electronics are prepared “with the skills to enter careers in installation, operation and maintenance of electrical and electronics systems. Students will develop a broad background in electricity and electronics, with courses covering electronic devices, amplifiers, telecommunications and networking and microcontroller programming.” Students who graduate in our A.S. and B.S. Electronics concentration find positions in Information Technology, as Electrical designers, and as Field Engineers with companies and educational institutions within SWLA and the Gulf Coast. Some graduates have taken advantage of the B.S. accredited degree (with a strong emphasis in math and science) to become high school math and science teachers. Other graduates have used the fact that the Electronics degree is closely related to Instrumentation (and because there are not as many Instrumentation graduates), to take jobs in instrumentation and control systems areas or to make a mid-career move from one company/field to another company/field. And isn’t that what a college degree is about: not just a training program, but a broad and rigorous degree than prepares a graduate for a lifetime of learning and work in SWLA, but also wherever their life and career takes them?

The Bachelor of Science in Engineering Technology with concentrations in Process Plant serve the needs of both students and industry, as it prepares graduates for employment in the process industry and related fields. To this end, the program is designed to help graduates achieve the program educational objectives listed below. With appropriate work experience and desire, graduates will be able to:

1. fill supervisory and technical support positions in the process industry; 2. become sales representatives, technical experts, and supervisors for companies serving the process industry; and 3. pursue graduate study in managerial or technical fields.

Page 5 of 63

The A.S. degree provides a foundation of the skills that are necessary for a graduate to work in the process industry field. An A.S. graduate will fill entry level positions in the process industry. With appropriate work experience and desire, that graduate may move up the technical ladder if they desire and perform in a more supervisory or more technical role. In a process environment, understanding the fundamental principles of equipment operation is necessary to be successful, as are the “soft skills” of teamwork and oral and written communication skills. The A.S. program also provides the necessary foundation for students to pursue the B.S. program.

The B.S. degree builds on the foundation began in the A.S. program to develop a graduate that has the ability to move into supervisory and technical support positions. The B.S. degree adds more technical expertise and more opportunities to improve soft skills – including oral and written communication skills. Even though graduates of the B.S. program without experience start at the same level as A.S. degree, the B.S. degree with experience provides opportunity for positions that are not available to A.S. graduates. As of June 2010, MSU has the only ABET-accredited A.S. program and BS. Program in Process Technology in the nation. Process Industries not just in Louisiana, but along the whole Gulf Coast – have a continuing need for Process Technicians. Despite other two-year programs in the region, MSU remains the only ABET-accredited program at the A.S. level. Our Process graduates work throughout SWLA and the Gulf Coast for companies such as Conoco-Phillips, Citgo, Dow Chemical, Chevron and other large and small companies, as well as for numerous technical contracting companies. As stated in our recruiting brochures, “Process technicians become chemical plant and refinery operators who produce products, lab technicians who test product quality and technical sales and service representatives who provide equipment to make products. An accredited program in Process Plant Engineering Technology (PTEC) prepares graduates with the skills to enter careers in the refining, chemical processing, manufacturing and operations fields of process operations. McNeese State University has the only ABET accredited Process Plant program in the state of Louisiana. These operations positions are very well paying jobs and are highly sought after, particularly with the biggest and best paying local industries. In addition to the program itself, Department of Engineering Technology faculty get involved with numerous training activities for the benefit of local industry. Examples of such activities follow:

A collaboration between the College of E&ET and the Flowserve Corporation (Dallas, TX) created the Gulf-Coast Flowserve Satellite Training Center at McNeese State University to provide engineers and technicians from New Orleans to Corpus Christi, TX Flowserve training courses. Three Department of Engineering Technology faculty members have received Flowserve training and are now certified to teach Flowserve courses. In addition, the collaboration provides continuing education certificates or professional development hours to trainees who successfully complete Flowserve courses in the Dallas, TX, Desio Italy and Singapore Flowserve Learning

Page 6 of 63

Resource Centers. The collaboration is in the process of offering certificates to students successfully completing courses in Mexico/South America and the Middle East. A copy of a typical certificate is included in the supplementary documentation section.

As of the time of this report, the following Flowserve courses are planned to be offered at McNeese State University:

• September 21, 2010 Pump and Mechanical Seal Basics (2 days) • October 12, 2010 Centrifugal Pump Fundamentals (4 days) • November 9, 2010 Pump Operator Training (1 day) • November 30, 2010 Pump System Optimization (1 day) • February 7, 2011 Pump Operator Training (1 day) • March 28, 2011 Pump and Mechanical Seal Basics (2 days) • April 11, 2011 Centrifugal Pump Fundamentals (4 days) • May 9, 2011 Mechanical Seal Fundamentals (4 days) • May 16, 2011 Root Cause Analysis (4 days) • June 6, 2011 Pump Operator Training (1 day) • July 25, 2011 Pump Operator Training (1 day) • September 19, 2011 Pump and Mechanical Seal Principles (4 days) • October 24, 2011 Mechanical Seal Fundamentals (4 days)

o Department of Engineering Technology faculty were instrumental in the design and approval effort to establish the

Institute for Industry – Education Collaboration (IIEC). The IIEC is a means for McNeese State University to accomplish its mission by providing a framework for organizing and expanding its existing industry – university collaborations to “enhance economic development and cultural growth in this region and beyond.” As the liaison between industry and higher education, the IIEC seeks to establish relationships with a strong emphasis on economic development. An one page informational flyer about the institute is included in the supplementary documentation section. In August of 2010, the IIEC offered a one-day course on valves and heat exchangers to PPG employees with 4 to 25 years experience. The course was taught by Department of Engineering Technology faculty member Dorothy Ortego four different times within a two-week period to about 60 people. A 10-day Basic Operator Training course is currently being developed for PPG and is scheduled to start on January 3, 2011. This course will be taught 4 times and Department of Engineering Technology faculty members Dorothy Ortego, Rick Nyberg, and Carol Schulte will be involved.

Page 7 of 63

Since July 2010, the IIEC has been teaching (Rick Nyberg) a four-course sequence to MeadWestvaco employees in DeRidder, LA that will complete in May of 2011. These courses are funded through an Incumbent Workers Training Program (IWTP) grant written by MSU’s Continuing Education office. A second grant is in the planning stage to be submitted to the LA Department of Labor next year.

As of the time of this report, IIEC is offering or is planning to offer the following one-day courses:

• September 24, 2010 Basic Metallurgy • October, 2010 Procedure Writing Workshop • November 2010 What Went Wrong? Lessons on Chemical Process Safety

D. Program Size: Does the demand support a full program, or will a minor serve the needs? Because of the nature of the program, it is extremely doubtful that the Engineering Technology programs could exist as a minor. They would certainly not be able to be accredited as such, and such a minor would not serve the need of employers seeking individuals with this education. Local companies highly value the graduates of the programs. In fact, employers value the A.S. degree with a small amount of experience more than many years of experience without the A.S. degree. The A.S. degrees contain 36-39 hours of technical coursework, which are many more hours than a minor requires. The B.S. programs add another 30-34 hours of technical coursework to the A.S. programs, which makes a minor even less practical. The program is required by the Board of Regents to be accredited by an appropriate accrediting agency, and is organized as one degree with three concentrations. All three concentrations share both general education courses and some common technical coursework. Since the Electronics and Instrumentation concentrations share 22 of the 38-39 hours of technical courses at the A.S. level and another 19 hours at the B.S. level (even more can be common based on electives), they have been considered to be “closely related” in past ABET Self-Study documents and team visits, and share the annually-produced SACS MP/PR document. The BS degree in Engineering Technology Process Plant concentration builds on the skills that are taught in the AS degree or first two years. The program came into being when industry had an accident and one of the stipulations of the incident was that training was required. The current events that have occurred such as the BP Horizon explosion and the Meridian explosion point to the relevance of this degree in raising the importance of knowledge and understanding of the hazards in the workplace. The courses needed to develop the skill set that industry required were developed from a partnership with

Page 8 of 63

industry. That partnership continues today with input from four major entities: the local advisory board, which meets monthly, a state PTEC board which meets quarterly and the regional organization - the Gulf Coast Process Technology Alliance (GCPTA) which is a partnership between industry and education and meets quarterly. The needs of industry would not be met by a minor.

Internal  Demands  on  the  Program  

A. Provide FTE faculty per SCHs taught for the following periods (fall terms only):

08-09 09-10 Avg FTE Faculty assigned to program

8.51 8.41 8.46

FTE Faculty SCHs 2770 2436 2603

Program Major SCHs

3540 3121 3331

B. Service/Offerings: Describe the internal demands on the program. What courses, services, faculty expertise, resources, or other features integral to the program would, if they were no longer available, adversely affect other programs? What “major-support” courses does the program offer (not including General Education courses)?

1. Courses and lab sessions in the Dept. of Engineering: Faculty members in the program have taught ENGR 109 for the Engineering Department in the past few years, as well as teaching multiple lab sessions for engineering labs dealing with equipment (Nyberg and Connella). 2. Courses/Degree Audits/Industry Relations: Mr. Brent Garner has taught or co-taught ENGR 475, a senior engineering course, because of expertise in with Programmable Logic Controllers. We have also taken part in Industrial Advisory Board audits of the Electrical Engineering program (demonstrating lab equipment used in this course), and demonstrated the equipment for Citgo as well in a visit used to familiarize them with our college’s equipment and expertise.

Page 9 of 63

3. Mr. Rick Nyberg is providing a 1-year of training at MeadWestvaco in DeRidder, LA. The training is funded by a workers development grant and provides for basic operator training. 4. PPG training: Faculty have provided training on process equipment and will provide a 10-day basic operations training course this year. 5. Engineering Technology Instrumentation and Process Tech faculty – because of our industrial experience - have also been instrumental in the revamping of equipment used in the Chemical Engineering Lab in the ETL building, as well as the large Hands-on-Training (HOT) unit and climbing tower now installed near Drew Hall and the ETL building. 6. McNeese is the regional training facility for Flowserve Corporation, a large international supplier of industrial equipment. All faculty certified to teach Flowserve courses are in the Engineering Technology department (Schulte, Ortego, Nyberg). 7. Enrollments in MATH 170, MATH 175, and CHEM 101 would suffer by the elimination of about 30 engineering technology freshmen students per year (average over past 5 years) from those courses. Similarly, PHYS 151 and STAT 235 would suffer enrollment drops through the loss of about 20 engineering technology sophomore students per year. Without an Engineering Technology program, many of the companies that come to the McNeese career fairs (administered by the Career Services Office) seeking engineering students would no longer have a reason to do so. This would have a tremendously negative impact on the attendance of the fall and spring career fairs.

III.  Program  Inputs  and  Processes        

A. FTE Faculty Profile: Please include information on faculty in the program: those included in section I.A. (above), and faculty for AY 10-11.

Name Highest Degree

T, T-T, NT

Rank FT/PT

Years at McNeese

Michael Connella, III PhD T Assist.Prof. FT 19

Brent D. Garner M.S. T Assoc. FT 15

Page 10 of 63

Prof.

Qiu Liu PhD T Assist. Prof. FT 8

Richard J. Nyberg MEng T-T Assist. Prof. FT 3

Dorothy Ortego MS T Assist. Prof FT 10.25

Javier Pineros MEng T-T Assist. Prof FT 4.5

Carol Schulte DE T Assoc. Prof. FT 15

David Bates* PhD NT Inst FT 0 Taught one course

Joseph Hutchins*** DEng NT Inst FT 1

Stanley Klemetson PhD TT FT 1 Taught one course

Joseph Richardson PhD T Assoc. Prof. PT 22 Taught one

course

Nelson Perez-Valentine MS NT VL PT

Thomas Schulte MS NT VL PT

Theodore Thompson MS NT VL PT

James Bernard** MEngTech NT VL PT

* Full-time Engineering Prof. (1-year hire), teaching 4 sections of ENGR101/TECH104 in 2008-09 ** VL with 10-hour load in Fall 2010 *** Instructor from 2008-2010

Page 11 of 63

B. Faculty Qualifications Summary (for faculty represented in above chart).

1. Of the faculty members in the program, what percentage has terminal degrees? 42.9%, since MSU does not consider a master’s degree in engineering to be a terminal degree to teach engineering technology. However, the Technology Accrediting Commission (TAC) of ABET 2002-03 criteria stated that “Basic credentials to teach in a ABET-accredited degree program consisted of three years of relevant industrial experience and … a master's degree in engineering or engineering technology, which is considered as the appropriate terminal degree” or “a master's degree in a closely related field if the degree is primarily analytical and the subject clearly appropriate”.

From ABET’s point-of-view, all faculty members have an “appropriate terminal degree”.

2. Of the faculty members in the program, what percentage is tenured?

71% of the faculty is tenured.

C. Faculty Service Assignments: Identify the faculty member by name and each applicable service commitment by name.

The table below covers the last 5 academic years, and while is representative of the service work done by each faculty member in that time, is not a totally complete list.

Name Univ Committee College

Committee (College-specific work)

Dept Committee or other Dept-specific work

Academic Advisor

Advisor to Student Organization

Non-paid Univ-based External Service

Other Univ-specific service (identify service

Michael Connella Attendance, Academic- Integrity, SACS QEP, Out-of-State Tuition Committee.

SACS MP/PR and ABET Self-Study contributor, member of hiring committees in

6-8 students INST 102 Lab at Houston-Community College

E-Week tours on campus.

Page 12 of 63

dept. Brent D. Garner SACS/MAT,

Withdrawal Appeals , Faculty Senate (05-08)

Chair of hiring committee for Dean of the college (2006), Presentations to Industrial Advisory Board

ABET Self-Study author, SACS MP/PR author, member of hiring committees for faculty members. Worked with Purchasing to document and replace Rita-damaged furniture and equipment in 5 Drew Hall rooms.

Regular, Athletic Advisor, 20-25 students per semester, attended Student-Athlete Advisor training every year offered, updating of degree plans, catalog, and dept. advising manual.

Recruiting: High School visits.

E-Week tours on campus. CPSB Job Fair, Cowboy Q & A Day, responsible for creation/editing of many recruiting materials (posters, brochures, etc.) produced by our college and Media Services, graduation attendance.

Qiu Liu Faculty Senate (08-10), Academic Appeals Committee.

ASEE Regional Conference Planning Committee

SACS MP/PR and ABET Self-Study contributor, faculty hiring committee

Approx. 10 students

Regional Science Fair Judge, High School recruiting visits, Mathcounts volunteer.

Attendance at graduation, E-Week tours on campus, Alumni Assoc. Undergrad Research judge, CPSB Job Fair, Cowboy Q & A Day.

Javier Pineros Graduation Committee

APR Process Committee

SACS MP/PR and ABET Self-Study contributor, Faculty hiring committee

Approx. 10-12 students

PTEC Summer Girls camp, Cowboy Q & A Day.

Dorothy Ortego MSU Faculty Senate (2005); Chair

E week 2007 LAIA Advisory Board

Yes ABET, Science Fair Judge (2005, 2007,

College Fair Night – hosted booth 2007 &

Page 13 of 63

Teacher/Teaching Resource Committee (2005); Women’s Concerns Committee (became Campus Life Committee (2006-present); Animal Welfare Committee (2008 – Present); SACS Compliance Review Steering Committee (2 years)

Meetings – Monthly (2005-present); LA State PTEC Board Meetings (2005-Present) LA PTEC Education Committee Chair (2005-present); GCPTA Executive Committee (2005-present); Co-chair of Standards & Quality Committee (2005-present); Secretary of GCPTA (2008-present); Selection committee for Process position (2007,2008)

2009); Chem Expo worker 2005-present; Planning committee for 8th grade Career Fair day 2009; worked E-week every year; 2nd grade field trip – organized and presented activity for 2nd graders who came to MSU; Mentor for local middle school Lego League – twice weekly meetings with students and attended state competition in 2008-09

2009; Cowboy Q & A day (2006 -2009); MSU High School Open House (2005-2007) ; Howdy Rowdy (2008-2009); High school recruiting trips (2005 – present)

Richard J. Nyberg E-week Endowed Professorship Selection Committee

Program Coordinator

Yes Yes – ETECH 2008 Science Fair Judging ABET

Carol Schulte Grade Appeals Hiring Approx. 30 TAC of ABET Assists with E-

Page 14 of 63

Committee, Drew Proposal Committee, University Tenure Committee, Demotion & Termination Committee

committee for Dean of the college

students Commissioner, multiple ABET accreditation visits to other institutions, Chem Expo volunteer, member of Technician Affairs Committee for AIChE, and TAC of ABET Quality committee.

Week tours.

D. Curriculum Design

1. What discipline-based theories or principles underlie the program’s current curricular design?

The B.S. curricula are based on the requirements of the MSU core curriculum and the TAC of ABET’s criteria for such programs. The programs must meet ABET General Criteria (a set of 8 items dealing with student interaction, Program Educational Objectives, Program Outcomes, Continuous Improvement, general curriculum items, faculty, and institutional support) and Program Criteria (mandatory and optional coursework) for each concentration at MSU. The Process Tech curriculum has courses specified from the State of Louisiana PTEC Board. To facilitate our students having job prospects in the petrochemical industries we must also maintain accreditation with the Gulf Coast Process Technology Association (GCPTA). These two additional groups also require an audit performed by industry and educators in the field every two years.

Where options and choice in lab equipment exits, the program seeks to prepare students for employment in the SWLA area as much as is possible.

2. How does the curricular design operate to ensure students graduating from the program demonstrate competency appropriate to the discipline for the level at which they earn a degree? 1. Preparation and evaluation of yearly SACS MP/PR documents.

Page 15 of 63

2. The ABET Continuous Improvement cycle, which includes the evaluation of Program Educational Objectives and Program Outcomes. 3. Accreditation by TAC of ABET every six years. Some discussion of the excellence of our programs is in order. Despite the existence of the programs in Engineering Technology (known as Technology until 2002) since the late 1960s, the programs did not apply for Technical Accreditation Commission (TAC) of ABET accreditation until 2002. All A.S. and B.S. concentrations of Engineering Technology received not only accreditation in 2003 (from the Fall 2002 visit), but received accreditation without any interim reports or visits required; quite an accomplishment! The Process B.S. concentration was actually visited in 2004 and accredited in 2005 since it too new of a program in 2002. In 2009, despite the many trials brought on by the damage wrought by Hurricane Rita on Drew Hall (home of our offices, classrooms, and some labs), we again received a full, 6-year accreditation without any interim reports or visits needed! 4. The program receives input from the College of E&ET Industrial Advisory Board (IAB). The objective of the IAB is to provide support and assistance to the Department of Engineering Technology from the business and industrial community (Department of Engineering Technology constituencies). The primary goal of the IAB is to provide the department with an independent, critical assessment feedback on the curricula and facilities while promoting the needs, trends and challenges of industry. This is done with semi-annual program reviews. Secondary goals include: a) enhancing the interaction between McNeese State University Engineering and the industrial community, and b) assist the Dean with strategic planning for the College of E&ET.

5. The Process Tech group also maintains accreditation with the Gulf Coast Process Technology Association (GCPTA). The GCPTA and the State PTEC group require an audit performed by industry and educators in the field every two years. It also has a local advisory board affiliated with the Lake Area Industries Alliance, a SWLA industry group. 6. The assessment methods that are in place evaluate the student both in the academic sense of knowledge learned, but also by using lab assessments that evaluate hands-on exercises for correctness. 7. Beginning in Fall of 2009, two initiatives to enhance the abilities of the engineering and engineering technology stidents were implemented. Both initiatives engage the faculty of the Department of Engineering and the faculty of the Department of Engineering Technology in a collaborative relationship for the benefit of their students. The initiatives are described below:

Page 16 of 63

o The first initiative introduces engineering students to equipment technologies beyond what they see in their

laboratories. Over the years, the Department of Engineering Technology has compiled a significant collection of industrial grade teaching equipment necessary for the education of technicians. Gradually introducing engineering students to such equipment gives them an opportunity to connect the theory they learn in courses with the practical work required in industry, giving them an advantage when they join the workforce.

o The second initiative develops a working relationship between engineering and engineering technology students

in the laboratory. Engineers typically work side by side with technicians from the first day on the job. However, in education, we keep these two groups separate from one another. We have developed certain laboratories in our curricula that lend themselves to such an integrated environment. Gradual introduction of these two groups to one another will help both understand each other’s responsibilities, tasks, work habits, and limitations, and give all students an opportunity to exercise their oral and written communication skills in an environment similar to that found in industry.

3. Is the program curriculum designed for flexibility, giving students an array of options or potential paths of focus? The undergraduate program is designed to give students several discipline (concentration) paths that satisfy their educational needs. These paths are: Electronics, Instrumentation, and Process Plant Engineering Technology disciplines, as well as several sub-areas within each discipline. The students work with their advisor to select the best courses for their area of interest.

4. Is the program curriculum deliberately sequenced so that students must progress along a designated path to achieve completion? The program curriculum is deliberately sequenced so that students must progress along a designated path to achieve completion. Students are required to meet with an advisor each semester to discuss their progression and select coursework for the next semester. This enables faculty to provide input to the students on an on-going basis and keep them on track toward graduation.

Page 17 of 63

Because of the technical, mathematical, and scientific content of the program, prerequisites do exist for many of the courses in the program. That being said, we are often “tweaking” the catalog to only require the minimum prerequisites to protect the students and to maintain the academic integrity of the program. B.S. degrees are set at the ABET-required 124 hours and can be completed in 4 academic years by full-time students. Even students who transfer from another science-based degree plan should be able to complete the technical sequence of classes within three years. Besides the general education coursework, there are two technical electives in ELTR, one technical elective in INST, and one technical elective in PRTC, which limits the number of courses taught.

5. How often is the program changed? What evidence are these changes based on?

Since our first accreditation in 2002, very few large-scale changes have been made to the degree plan. However, the lab equipment is often being modernized, most often through the use of internal MSU and external grants. Other changes such as prerequisites, shifts in course content, textbooks, and the addition of labs are done as a result of our continuous improvement process (evaluation of exit interviews, post-graduate surveys, advisory boards, evaluation of program outcomes, etc.) Assessment takes place for the program in courses taught throughout the year. Annually, the faculty met to review the results of those assessments and evaluate to what extent the student outcomes and program educational objectives are met. Recommendations from those meetings are incorporated into changes in the program. Each year the degree plans for each discipline are updated to reflect changes in technology or industry needs. However, all of those changes must continue to comply with the ABET Criterion 4 for Continuous Improvement.

When university requirements change it is necessary to evaluate the degree plans to determine how the degree plans can satisfy these requirements.

6. How is the program able to adapt to external curricular demands? (e.g. caps on total hours, general education requirements, and so on).

Page 18 of 63

The B.S. programs are at 124 hours, which is mandated by TAC of ABET and will petition to remain at that level. Modifications were made in 2001 as the programs were prepared for initial accreditation, as well as for the addition of a fine arts class to A.S. degrees. Note that since these are 2+2 degrees, any change at the A.S. level usually filters up to the B.S. level, although the Fine Arts change was not one of these cases. The ABET-related changes did result in a slight lowering of technical hours (through removing a class and lowering the credit hours in other courses, such as capstone courses.) The B.S. programs in Engineering Technology have to answer to multiple groups (advisory boards at the local and state level, technology alliances, core curriculum, accrediting agencies, etc.). We have done so successfully in the past and should be able to meet any further such demands.

7. How is the program curriculum designed to accommodate transfer students?

As can be seen from section III.G, a large part of our students and graduates are not FT-FT Freshmen, but are transfers from other MSU degree programs or other institutions. Once the Registrar’s Office completes their evaluation of the transferring student’s transcript, the department head, usually in consultation with faculty or program coordinators will apply the student’s previous coursework, where applicable to the engineering technology degree program. Coursework from non-ABET accredited institutions or other non-engineering technology programs is closely evaluated, with the use of the other institution’s catalog, an interview with the student, and if necessary, communication with the other institution. To aid students transferring within the state, the Louisiana Board of Regents developed the Statewide Transfer Guide and Articulation System for general education courses. Transfer students who have taken courses at a school that meets the SACS and ABET faculty credentialing requirements are able to transfer credits directly into the program that they are pursuing. Transfer students who have taken courses at a school that does not meet the SACS and ABET credentialing requirements have two options to receive credit: advanced placement or credit exams. If the course taken is the first part of a two part sequence then they can be placed into the second course of the sequence and completion of the second course with a satisfactory grade (C or better), enables the first course to be counted. The second method of transfer is by taking a credit exam for the course. A passing score on the credit exam allows for credit to be received for the course.

Page 19 of 63

8. Are there courses, concentrations, paths or other facets of the curriculum that can be reduced—either because of lack of demand, lack of resources (faculty), or combined with courses in other programs to create more efficient (in-demand) concentrations?

As mentioned in item #6 above, the B.S. degrees are at the ABET-required number of hours. If forced to drop to 120 hours in the future (as perhaps ABET drops its required hours to 120), choices would have to be made as to where the hours will be dropped. A technical course would have to be eliminated, probably at the A.S. level, which would also drop hours at the B.S. level. The B.S. concentration in Electronics has 34 upper-level technical classes, and combined with two upper-level math courses, produce the required 40 hours of upper-level coursework needed in B.S. degrees. The concentration in Instrumentation, due to an additional required course in chemistry, has only 37 upper-level required courses, so students have to select – with the assistance of their advisor – an upper-level elective course to meet the 40-hour requirement. The B.S. Process Management Pathway has 31 upper-level technical classes, combined with one upper level math course, and two upper-level environmental science courses enable it to meet the 40-hour requirements. The B.S. Process Technical Pathway has 32 upper-level technical classes, one upper level math course, one upper level environmental course, and an elective selected with their advisor to enable this concentration to meet the required hours.

In the Process concentrations, in order for the student graduating from the program to meet industry expectations, comply with the general education requirements of the State of Louisiana, and meet the accreditation requirements of the various agencies there are no courses than can be cut from the curriculum at this time.

E. Learning Outcomes Assessment Plan

1. Describe the program’s assessment system via the following chart. Provide any additional comments or explanations after the chart. The B.S. programs in Engineering Technology are assessed each year as part of the SACS MP/PR process. Multiple years of our reports can be found at http://www.mcneese.edu/ie/mppr.html. Two separate reports are written each year: one for the Electronics and Instrumentation concentrations and one for the Process Plant concentration. This is

Page 20 of 63

done because of the work separation of the Self-Studies for the ABET visits in 2002 and 2008, and to better document the continuous improvement cycle needed for ABET accreditation. This first chart is for the B.S. concentrations in Electronics and Instrumentation.

Learning Outcome Courses/Places Where Assessed Assessment Method(s) Graduates apply critical thinking in academic and professional environments.

TECH250 and 450: co-op courses TECH420, a senior projects course INST304 and ELTR310

Selected questions from Supervisor's Review. Project performance grade Troubleshooting of existing software programs and creation of new software programs for use in electronics and process systems. Selected Final Exam questions in INST304 with PLC programming content and survey questions. Also, Test 1 and Final Exam results from ELTR310.

Graduates formulate and express ideas effectively through oral, written, and/or technological communications in academic and professional environments.

TECH250 and 450: co-op courses TECH420, a senior projects course ELTR314

Selected questions Supervisor's Review, final report grade. Fnal report grade Lab report average

Graduates analyze the global community to make sound judgments in academic and professional environments.

TECH403 – Supervision course TECH250 and 450: co-op courses TECH420, a senior projects course

Understand requirements of employees and supervisors in the global marketplace by way of Final Exam and course survey and, Selected questions on Supervisor's Review and , Project Management exam , and results from dept. mock interview session.

Page 21 of 63

Professional and Workforce Development Initiatives and Progress (new MSU outcome for 2010). Analyze, design, and implement systems using current electronic and instrumentation equipment.

TECH250 and 450: co-op courses INST304 and ELTR314 TECH420, a senior projects course

Supervisor’s Review Knowledge to make purchasing decisions for current electronic and instrumentation equipment by use of selected Final Exam selected questions and survey questions. Project function portion of grade

The ABET program outcomes are even more complex and require a few more assessments than do the SACS MP/PR outcomes, but many of the assessments are shared between the two sets of reports. The B.S. ELTR and INST ABET program outcomes, which are given in the current MSU catalog are:

The Bachelor of Science in Engineering Technology with concentrations in Electronics and Instrumentation builds upon the skills developed at the associate level and prepares graduates to fill supervisory or technical expert positions in industry, as well as providing a background for graduate study. To this end, the concentration is designed to help graduates achieve the educational objectives listed below. With appropriate work experience and desire, graduates of the A.S. programs will be able to: 1. Troubleshoot electronics and instrumentation systems using current equipment and systems. 2. Analyze and solve problems in electronics and instrumentation systems – in particular those dealing with analog and digital circuits, meters and instruments, and process control. 3. Understand the fundamental principles of electrical and electronics circuits and instrumentation, enabling them to understand current technology and to adapt to new devices and technologies. 4. Communicate using proper technical terminology both verbally and in writing. 5. Contribute as part of a team.

Page 22 of 63

6. Recognize that a successful career in engineering technology requires more than technical knowledge; it requires the knowledge of professional and ethical responsibilities, a respect for societal issues, a commitment to quality and timeliness, and the ability to engage in lifelong learning.

To prepare them for B.S.-level positions, students will meet the following program outcomes in addition to those given for the associate level program. By the time they graduate, students will be able to:

1. Analyze, design, and implement systems using current electronic and instrumentation equipment. 2. Troubleshoot existing programs and create new programs for use in electronics and process systems - in particular those using programmable logic controllers and higher-level computer language programming for microcontrollers. 3. Appreciate the requirements of employees and supervisors in an industrial workplace.

To show how these more detailed technical program outcomes are assessed, the ABET program outcomes for the Process Tech A.S. program will be given, rather than the SACS MP/PR learning outcomes.

Learning Outcome Courses/Places Where Assessed

Assessment Method(s)

Think critically about systems and make decisions, even if information is incomplete

- Troubleshoot and correct problems

- Predict how system responds

- Develop Operating Procedures

- Simulate Process Operations - Evaluation by state PTEC audit

team

PRTC 226 and 240 PRTC 226 and 414 PRTC 414 PRTC 414 State PTEC Audit

Evaluate exercises from lab reports, quizzes, & assignments Evaluate exercises from lab reports, quizzes, & assignments Evaluate exercises & assignments Evaluate exercises & assignments Program Review

Analyze and Solve problems in process systems – in particular those dealing with equipment performance, fluid flow, and material and energy balances

- Recognizing common units of measure and converting

- Apply problem solving techniques

TECH 324 & PRTC 310 TECH 324 &PRTC

Faculty evaluation of exercises, tests, and quizzes Faculty evaluation of exercises,

Page 23 of 63

- Solve problems using problem

solving techniques

310 TECH 324 &PRTC 310

tests, and quizzes Faculty evaluation of exercises, tests, and quizzes

Understand the fundamental principles of equipment operation so they will know not just how equipment is operated but why it is operated

- Discuss how equipment works

- Predict how changes in operating conditions affect performance

- Operate process systems

- Startup/shutdown of processes

- Troubleshoot

PRTC 204 & 224 PRTC 204 & 224 PRTC 206 & 228 PRTC 206 & 228 PRTC 206 & 228

Exam questions and faculty evaluation of student exercises Exam questions and faculty evaluation of student exercises Lab reports, oral reports and demonstrations Lab reports, oral reports and demonstrations Lab reports, oral reports and demonstrations

Communicate using proper technical terminology both verbally and in writing

- Prepare written report on process system

- Presentation evaluated on rubric

- Performa a semester of technical work, write a report based on work term and be evaluated by a supervisor

- Graduate exit surveys

PRTC 103 and 414 PRTC 203 and 414 TECH 250 and 450 Survey Questions

Evaluation of writing Rubric based evaluation of presentation Report Average, Questions 1 and 4 from Supervisor’s review of Co-op students Survey Questions

Contribute as part of a team - Function as effective team member

- Decision making and team

problem solving

PRTC 121 and 240 PRTC 121 and 240

Evaluation of team members and Survey Questions Quiz results, Team decisions, Evaluation of solutions

Appreciate the requirements of employees in an industrial workplace

- Identify responsibilities of process operator

- Normal Monitoring and maintenance tasks of process operators

PRTC 103 and TECH 250 and 450 PRTC 103 and TECH 250 and 450

Paper, Exam, & Quiz Questions Exam & Quiz Questions

Page 24 of 63

- Hazard Identification - Recognize the need for, and an

ability to engage in lifelong learning

- Demonstrate an ability to understand professional, ethical, and social responsibilities

- Graduate exit surveys

PRTC 103 and 203 PRTC 121 and TECH 403 PRTC 121 and TECH 403 Survey Questions

Exam & Quiz Questions Exam & Quiz Questions Exam & Quiz Questions Survey Questions

Program objectives were translated into different outcomes, then corresponding classes were selected that would meet those outcomes. A review of the core courses against program objectives was completed, and specific classes were targeted for assessment (see the matrix above). Instructors of the courses are required to complete an annual assessment of the performance of students against the objectives. That data is compiled and reviewed by the program faculty. Changes made to the courses or to the program are determined via this annual review.

D. Instructional Methods Used in Program:

1. Traditional Format: This section attempts to obtain a profile of how technology is used in traditional, face-to-face courses in the program, and ultimately across campus. Identify the following: Data for this section may vary, as some courses taught cycle between traditional format lectures to web hybrid courses which allow students to complete course via web (blackboard). Testing is done at a certified testing center, but all classwork and assignments are transmitted through web format. Courses that are offered via web are determined by student currently in the program.

i. Percentage of courses taught through traditional lecture, where technology use is relatively minimal (e.g. blackboard is used to post syllabus, maybe handouts): Any class that has no lab component and basically only uses Blackboard to post course information and/or grades will be listed in this section. ELTR: TECH403. This class represents 5% of the technical courses in the program.

Page 25 of 63

INST: TECH403. This class represents 5% of the technical courses in the program PRTC: PRTC 121, PRTC 203, TECH 403. These classes represent 14.8% of the technical courses in the program.

ii. Percentage of courses where half or more of instruction is technology-delivered (e.g. blackboard is used for

disseminating instructional materials and testing/receiving student work): Any class that has a lab component AND makes use of Blackboard to post course information, and involves on-line research, data gathering, and software downloads, or uses Blackboard to deliver more course content will be listed in this section. ELTR: ELTR234, ELTR290, and TECH420. These classes represent 14% of the technical courses in the program. INST: TECH420. This class represents 6% of the technical courses in the program. PRTC: PRTC103, PRTC204, PRTC224, PRTC240, PRTC310, PRTC314, PRTC320, PRTC360. In addition, a course required for transfer students PRTC 299 has been taught as a pure web-based delivery course. These classes represent 42.6% of the technical courses in the program.

iii. Percentage of courses where technology/media forms some or part of the subject of the course instruction (e.g. a

film studies course) Since Engr. Tech as a discipline is “devoted primarily to the implementation and extension of existing technology”, any class that contains a lab component (and is thus 25% -33% of the course content), will be listed in this section. Labs are used to learn the “tools of the trade” to build, test, simulate, and measure all kinds of process systems, circuits, and control systems. ELTR: ELTR151, ELTR171, ELTR152, ELTR172, ELTR210, ELTR202, ELTR209, ELTR212, ELTR234,

Page 26 of 63

ELTR290, and TECH104 at the freshman/sophomore level. Upper-division classes are ELTR310, ELTR314, ELTR414, INST333, TECH334, and TECH420. These classes represent 95% of the required technical courses in the program. INST: ELTR151, ELTR171, ELTR152, ELTR172, ELTR210, INST101, INST102, INST224, INST234, and INST244 at the freshman/sophomore level. Upper-division classes are ELTR310, ELTR314, INST304, TECH324, TECH334, and TECH420. These classes represent 95% of the required technical courses in the program. PRTC: INST101, INST102, PRTC 206, PRTC226, PRTC228, PRTC 414, PRTC450, TECH 324, and TECH342. These classes represent 41% of the required technical courses in the program.

2. E-Learning Education: This section directly relates to elements and measurements on the Louisiana GRAD act.

i. Please identify e-learning program courses offered in 09-10. Include the course, the number of e-learning sections, # enrolled (total for all sections), and SCHs. Indicate with an “x” whether the course was 50-99% e-learning or 100% e-learning.

Note: if different sections of the same course can be answered differently in the % e-learning boxes, then list them separately.

Place an “x” in the appropriate box.

Program Major Courses # of sections

# enrolled SCHs

50-99% e-learning

100% e-learning

PRTC 299 1 1 3 X PRTC 360 1 10 30 X PRTC 320 1 5 15 X

PRTC 430 (Web of ENGR 431)

1 2 6 X

PRTC 310 (Some students on web delivery)

1 6 18 X

PRTC 450 (some students on web delivery)

1 10 30 X

TECH324, WH 1 16 48 x TECH324, LQS 1 8 24 x

Page 27 of 63

Place an “x” in the appropriate box.

Program Service Courses # of sections

# enrolled SCHs

50-99% e-learning

100% e-learning

Engineering Technology does not offer any service courses

ii. Can this program be offered 100% online? Explain why or why not and how long it would take before it could be offered 100% online. Discuss what resources or support might be necessary to support such a move.

Currently the program cannot be offered 100% online because of the large number of labs in the concentrations. Laboratory skill sets being taught involve hand-on activities such as having students reverse the flow through a heat exchanger by opening and closing valves or troubleshoot a problem circuit board to find where the broken connection is and repair it. These types of activities cannot be accomplished in a simulated environment. However, hybrid courses can be taught where lecture material would be delivered on-line and labs run on weekends, nights, or other convenient time. This has actually been done for the course, TECH 324, listed above. For the 2009-10 catalog it was a required course in all the B.S. concentrations, but as of 2010-11 will be only an elective for the Electronics program. Other classes in the Process Plant concentrations which have been taught on-line are PRTC 360-What Went Wrong, PRTC 310-Process Utilities, PRTC 450-Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, and PRTC 299 (For transfer students). To offer the classes 100% online is not currently feasible. It is possible to have a portion of the courses offered completely web based, but not the lab component.

. Finally, we need to mention night sections and night students. We always have part-time students, full-time workers in our programs. While some part-time students – notably process operators who work 12-hour shifts – are better with regular day classes or web classes, students who work during the day require evening or web classes. We keep a current list of such students in our program, schedule our classes accordingly and make requests when needed of other departments which supply key classes to our students (CHEM 101, PHYS 151, MATH 313, MATH 314, etc.).

Page 28 of 63

G. Academic Program Analysis

The following academic program analysis was provided by Institutional Research.

McNeese  State  University        Academic  Department  Analysis        Department:    Engineering  Technology          

General  Education    2008-­‐2009  

 2009-­‐2010   Average  

Number  of  Faculty                        Full-­‐Time                        Part-­‐Time                      at  lower  level                      at  upper  level              FTE  faculty  assigned  to  Dept-­‐Gen  Ed              FTE  Faculty  SCHs              Average  Student  Credit  Hour  production  per  FTE  faculty                

Major  Support    2008-­‐2009  

 2009-­‐2010   Average  

Number  of  Faculty   1   1   1            Full-­‐Time   1   1   1            Part-­‐Time   0   0   0          at  lower  level   1   1   1          at  upper  level   0   0   0  FTE  faculty  assigned  to  Dept-­‐MS   0.07   0.03   0.05  FTE  Faculty  SCHs   5   1   3  Average  Student  Credit  Hour  production  per  FTE  faculty  *   5   1   3  

Graduate    2008-­‐2009  

 2009-­‐2010   Average  

Page 29 of 63

Number  of  Faculty                        Full-­‐Time                        Part-­‐Time                      at  graduate  level              FTE  faculty  assigned  to  Dept-­‐Grad              FTE  Faculty  SCHs              Average  Student  Credit  Hour  production  per  FTE  faculty                

Misc    2008-­‐2009  

 2009-­‐2010   Average  

Number  of  Faculty                        Full-­‐Time                        Part-­‐Time                      at  lower  level                      at  upper  level              FTE  faculty  assigned  to  Dept-­‐Misc              FTE  Faculty  SCHs              Average  Student  Credit  Hour  production  per  FTE  faculty                

Major      2008-­‐2009  

 2009-­‐2010   Average  

Number  of  Faculty   13   13   13            Full-­‐Time   10   10   10            Part-­‐Time   3   3   3          at  lower  level   10   10   10          at  upper  level   10   10   10  FTE  faculty  assigned  to  Dept-­‐Maj   6.54   6.51   6.525  FTE  Faculty  SCHs   2643   2362   2502.5  Average  Student  Credit  Hour  production  per  FTE  faculty     404   363   384                  Department  SCHs   2,158   1,898   2,028  

Page 30 of 63

Department  Cost  per  Major  SCH  (MSU  Cost  Analysis  Study)   153.07   171.37   162.22  Department  Cost  per  Crse  Taught  SCH  (MSU  Cost  Analysis  Study)   329.62   365.05   347.34          *  if  FTE  Faculty  assigned  is  less  than  1,  -­‐  the  total  FTE  Faculty  SCHs  is  listed    

H. Recruitment Strategies: In what ways does the program actively recruit new students? Does the program have a system for responding to student inquiries, for advertising classes, or otherwise increasing program exposure? Provide any data that shows the results of recruitment initiatives. If no program or plan exists, describe one that can be reasonably created.

Recruiting is performed by the following variety of methods for the program: Department faculty take part in nearly all on-campus recruiting events: Howdy Rowdy Week, Cowboy Q & A Day in the fall, the Calcasieu Parish School Board Job Fair held on campus, and our college’s E-Week tours and activities. We also make from 3-5 high school visits per year, lately teaming up with our Dean to visit math and science classes. However, from 2005-2008 we did not make many such visits due to our post-Rita workload and difficulties. We often visit ENGR 109 classes, which are freshman engineering courses, to discuss how engineering and ET differ, since we often get transfers out of engineering programs. There are other opportunities for us, which we did before 2005, such as advertising in the campus newspaper when advising periods begin and to further increase our high school visits.

From 2003 until 2005 we made a strong effort to visit many high schools, with a faculty member given 3-hours of release time to make those visits. In the Fall 2005 semester – according to statistics released by MSU at that time – we had a substantial increase. According to our Dean’s statistics, we increased 21% from 2004 to 2005. Since that time – according to the IR data attached in item G - our A.S. enrollment has fallen off, but our B.S. enrollment has not. Periodically, the College of E&ET sponsors summer programs for prospective students. During Summer 2009, the first Summer Engineering Academy was conducted under a Robotics theme. Twelve 11th/12th graders participated in the two-week academy. During the summer of 2010 about 200 students high school students attended a Space Science Summer Camp administered by the College of E&ET funded by the Louisiana Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (LA GEAR UP).

Page 31 of 63

High school visits – the Dean of the College of Engineering Technology has recruited at various schools throughout the five parish region over the past two years. Faculty accompanied him on some of the visits. Beginning this fall, the department will begin scheduling visits each semester to high schools in the area. The College of E&ET is currently working with officials from English as a Second Language International (ESLI) to promote the Engineering Technology program on the international stage and recruit students who may need some initial assistance with the English language. Two education agents are scheduled to visit the College of E&ET on Tuesday, September 27, 2010 to discuss possible collaboration activities.

Summer Camp – for several years a summer camp for girls was offered, sponsored by industry in the area. Review of the attendees that have participated in the camp starting in 2005 showed that it did not successfully increase enrollment of females in the program, so it was discontinued in 2010. Industry Advisory Board Faculty Recruitment Trips – The LAIA Advisory Board for Process was very active through 2007 in scheduling recruitment trips to area high schools to make a presentation about the field and the job availability. This year they are coordinating a Process program Open House at the school and trying to target older individuals, single parents, and ex-military personnel to provide a method of informing them about the opportunities in this field. The department actively recruits new students from local communities, as well as nearby states. In addition, the program has also built relations with agencies in foreign countries to recruit foreign students. For example, the department is taking advantage of a recently signed an agreement with Shanghai Shenyuan International Education Service Ltd. to recruit engineering technology majors. The Department of Engineering Technology has published a number of recruiting materials that are made available to prospective students (included in the supplementary documentation section). All of the materials are printed in house and on demand. ETL 104 was configured as a multimedia/reproduction room equipped with a four-processor Apple Desktop, a color laser printer, a two foot wide plotter, a two foot wide laminating machine, an automated folding machine (all purchased with grant funding) and internet access. Along with these materials the department distributes the Go For It magazine published by the American Society for Engineering Education that includes a customized back cover.

Page 32 of 63

The LAIA Advisory Board for Process Tech was very active through 2007 in scheduling recruitment trips to area high schools to make a presentation about the field and the job availability. This year they are coordinating a process program Open House at the school and trying to target older individuals, single parents, ex-military personnel to provide a method of informing them about the opportunities in this field. With the support of the College of E&ET, the department is in the process of publishing its degree plans and other recruiting material on the iPhone/iPad format for free distribution among its students.

Although in its infancy, within a year or two, it is expected that the international exposure gained by offering continuing education certificates with the college logo printed on the certificate for Flowserve sponsored courses to people in Europe, Asia, North and South America and the Middle East will attract more international students to our program. With the assistance of the Public Information Office, the department seeks to frequently publish articles about its activities in the local press in an effort to reach parents of prospective students.

Permanently installing a 20 by 50 foot tent facing Common Street during the football season (fall semester) displaying the College of E&ET logo along with the programs offered is seen by hundreds of people in cars driving up and down Common Street.

We are currently investigating putting a link on the website for potential students (employers, etc.) to post questions for faculty to respond to. This would be a way for interested parties to get direct answers to questions that they may have about the program, courses, the industry, etc. I would compare this to an “ask the expert”-type of forum. The faculty contributes their time to supporting and judging local since fairs. At those activities there is an opportunity meet potential students from the local high schools.

I. Advising: Include a student to advisor ratio. Describe the advising process for the program. For example, how are

advising assignments made? What activities constitute an advisor’s responsibility, and are these activities coordinated among advisors across the program? Include any feedback from students on the effectiveness of the advising experience. Is effective advising rewarded? If no advising or evaluation system is in place, describe one that will be developed and implemented.

Page 33 of 63

Using the statistics from III.C., we have an average ratio of about 12 students per advisor in the Electronics and Instrumentation concentrations and about 30 students per advisor in Process (that program is one advisor/full-time instructor short this academic year), which does allow us to do a good, through job of advising. Electronics and Instrumentation students transferring into the program usually are first advised by Mr. Garner, an ex-department head and a current program coordinator. Process transfer students – and some of others during the summer – are usually advised by Mrs. Ortego, the current department head. Since most students transfer into the program from May – August for the fall semester, some of those students are allocated to other advisors before registration for the spring semester begins. There are no particular methods for making assignments, other than speaking with advisors to determine who is low on advisees at that time and to try and maintain some kind of balance, although Garner and Ortego seem to always run on the high side of advisees. Our department advises students until graduation, because of math, science and technology prerequisites, because of classes that are only offered once a year, and because of A.S. students needing careful advising to ensure graduation in a timely manner. Students are instructed – via e-mail and on flyers in the department – to pay the $20 Technology Lab Fee in the bookstore before seeing their advisor. This is not strictly necessary, but Alternate PIN numbers are not given until a student pays the fee (which is not paid unless the student is in one or more dept. classes) and speaks with an advisor to create a trial schedule. During late registration we often go ahead and register the student immediately because of the number of closed sections on campus. An advisor is responsible for discussing student concerns regarding school, appropriateness of the degree, counseling discussion on grades and performance of the student if necessary. Discussion occurs about hours that the student is working and going to school and the classes the student intends to pursue for the following semester. This may include registration and drop/add deadlines, course requirements, prerequisites, and academic and departmental policies, progress of the student toward their degree, scholarship or financial aid problems (usually referred to the appropriate department), holds on registration, and internship/employment possibilities if appropriate. Our Dean has written and put into place an advising survey for students to complete and return to the department. We are awarded points on our APR for advising, and starting in 2009, were to be awarded points based on the survey. However, because of the limited number of responses, the Dept. Head did not use the survey results in the APR. It may take another semester or two until advisors can remember to hand the survey to students and to begin gathering enough to evaluate advisors. Based on comments from transfer students, we do a better-than-average

Page 34 of 63

job of advising, and whether or not we grade advisors on performance, we should admit that it is not an easy job and is not getting easier due to the many constraints put on elective selection due to the Writing Enriched program, the International Education elective requirement, and the Core Curriculum/General Education 11-point requirement. The Dean of the College of Engineering and Engineering Technology also has plans to begin an annual award for best advisor in the next year.

J. Retention Initiatives: Describe activities to encourage student retention in the program. If no current activities exist, describe efforts that the program can make to increase retention of students. Provide, if available, any data that shows student retention.

According to the IR data attached in item G, retention of First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen (FT-FTF), has averaged 57.5% in the A.S. program and 69.5% in the B.S. program in the last four years, but many of our students are not in this category (see section I.A.). Because we have most freshman – whether transfers or FT-FTF - in classes in their program immediately, we have opportunities to encourage retention. We do not have a defined program of retention, but use some of the following to improve retention:

a) We put some of our best, most approachable instructors in those classes, provide data about their programs and about retention, and generally try to encourage them to attend classes and do required work. We discuss schedule issues at the beginning of the semester, often assisting students who we do not officially advise in settling schedule issues. We discuss the drop day and how to drop, and of course, provide hands-on labs where students are exposed to equipment that they will use in their careers.

b) The Freshman Foundations class, FFND, provides much information on our degree programs and discusses ways for students to improve their success (study skills, time management). c) PRTC103 – an intro course - has long taken the students on plant trips to expose them to their future work environment. d) The COM-STEM program provides a number of ways for students entering Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) programs to earn money, become more active on campus, and receive tutoring, which is all meant to improve retention.

Page 35 of 63

e) ETECH student organization formed in 2008-09 academic year to promote networking between students at different levels in the program and to create opportunities for interaction between students and industry representatives. ETECH also plays a major role in events like E-week tours, “Excellence in PTEC day”, and various community service assignments. f) Drew Hall 235 has been reconfigured as an engineering technology student lounge. Comfortable furniture, a magazine rack, bookcases, three computers, and a refrigerator were purchased using grant funds for exclusive student use. Engineering technology students use the lounge as an R&R room between classes, as well as a meeting room for formal society meetings, casual meetings, etc. Students in Drew Hall 235 can check their email, surf the internet, socialize with other students, do homework, etc. g) A student messaging system (three 42 inch television monitors along with the broadcast equipment) was purchased through grant funding for the purpose of effectively communicating with students. Special announcements, meetings, coop opportunities and other events are posted in the messaging center screens and disseminated to students. Having better informed students contributes to their retention. h) In the Fall of 2007, the Student Advisory Group (SAG) was formed to advise the Dean regarding student issues. This group is comprised of two members from each chapter of the student engineering societies (IEEE, ASME, ASCE, AICHE, NSBE, and SWE) and representatives from the Department of Engineering Technology. SAG members meet directly with the Dean in the afternoon of the first Thursday in October and April. Issues brought forward by SAG members directly relate to our student body and therefore resolving these issues contributes to their retention. i) Establishing the annual Freshman Round Up event. The College of E&ET sponsors an afternoon/evening event with food and games where junior and senior students in the departments of engineering and engineering technology invite freshman and sophomore students to socialize and have fun while meeting professors, upper classmen students and getting exposed to student organizations. The first Freshman Round Up event was held in the fall of 2009. The second such event is scheduled for this semester.

There are a few statistical items relating to retention that should be mentioned:

Page 36 of 63

a) As also mentioned later in section V.D., sophomore-level to graduation rate for ELTR/INST students is extremely impressive, at 88.4%. This data is from a sophomore-level course taken by nearly all Electronics and Instrumentation students (other than perhaps a few transfer students) from Fall 2003 until Fall 2007. Of the students who successfully completed their freshman-level courses and enrolled in ELTR210 - which is a first-semester, sophomore course – 88.4% graduated.

b) Process Tech faculty members have found that retention of students can be correlated to their performance in the introductory course for the program. Provided that they exhibit the necessary mathematical skill sets, then students who earn a grade of “B” or higher almost always complete the degree. Students that earn a grade of “C” in the introductory program are less likely, and those students who a lower grade usually do not complete the program.

c) According to data provided (6 years of data from 2002 to 2008) by Dean Kiritsis, the retention rate for all engineering technology students from their freshman year to their sophomore year was 75%. Similar data for engineering students had a retention rate of 51%.

d) One statistic that was shown to incoming ELTR/INST students recently is an average of 35% of students enrolled in intro courses in the last three fall semesters were unsuccessful (grades of D, F, WN, W). Most of those students are no longer at MSU – and a number were not on their first degree plan - so a lack of commitment to college in general or to the programs offered at MSU seems to be the problem.

All of this data underscores opportunities to improve our overall retention and graduation rate by working with the freshman courses.

ETECH also plays a major role in events like EWEEK, “Excellence in PTEC day”, and various community service assignments.

Student retention for the BS degree in Engineering Technology is listed in the table below:

Retention Rate of FT-FTF

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Average

66.70% 78.60% 63.20% 69.50%

Page 37 of 63

K. Transfer Student Support: Describe the extent to which any special support or effort is made to help transfer students transition to your program. Describe any successes or challenges with respect to transfer student populations.

Transfer students are typically evaluated by the Dept. Head or a Program Coordinator, and using official transcripts or non-official transcripts, students are advised of what will probably transfer and what will not transfer. If a student is transferring from another institution, none of this is official until the Registrar’s Office completes the transcript evaluation. Students transferring work from a technical school or from military training are usually awarded credit through dept. exams or by advance placing, rather than giving direct credit. Because of our ABET status, we also have the right to refuse course credit from a non-ABET program, even if the courses transfer to a MSU transcript. We provide students with flow charts, degree plans, and semester-by-semester plans. We take the time to review course descriptions from other institutions, and speak to other advisors who may have better knowledge of the transferred courses if needed. We have also consulted with other MSU departments and even made phone calls to academic departments to other institutions if we have questions regarding the classes.

Articulation agreements are in place with Lamar State College Orange and Houston Community College for Process Tech. To facilitate an easy transition for those students, and to assist in the alignment of support courses that are general education, these students are usually assigned to a single advisor. Another issue with some of the transfer students coming into the BS degree is that they are not prepared for the academic rigor of any courses offered at McNeese.

One of the challenges of the transfer student population is the credentialing issue of instructors at the institutions where they previously attended. Students coming into Process programs have usually earned an AAS degree, and any courses taken by instructors that do not meet SACS requirements for a BS degree will not transfer, so that the credits have to be awarded by Credit Exam.

L. Resource Assessment: Are there resources within the program that might be shifted to better achieve the program’s mission? Are there inter-program/departmental collaborations that might be possible? Are there processes, practices, or policies that the program can employ, modify, or delete that would help it to better teach its students?

The program’s mission is to prepare students for positions in industry that require both technical skills and soft skills. The resources of the program are allocated to provide the needed equipment and activities as well as

Page 38 of 63

expertise of faculty that have both technical knowledge and real world experience. Resources in the department consist of people and equipment.

A better-executed recruiting program is one of the few areas where we can do a better job. When the economy increases, an attempt to seek out, find, and maintain more co-op positions would also be of service to our students and programs. In both cases, no additional resources are needed simply more time and more effort.

Recalling the fact that ABET considers a master’s degree a terminal degree in the engineering technology field, faculty resources could go much further if teaching load was assigned as such. If faculty with PhD or DE degrees each taught one more class, then the expense of VLs would be reduced or eliminated. The added benefit would be better service to the students through control of the curriculum and more consistent assessment. TECH 104 (Technical Drawing) and ENGR 101 (Engineering Graphics) are taught every semester by engineering faculty for the benefit of students in both departments (engineering technology and engineering). As we improve our program, increasingly more and more facilities and equipment are used in collaboration with the Department of Engineering. Currently, the two departments jointly used the main chemical engineering laboratory (ETL 105), the Model Chemical Plant (Hands On Trainer, Confined Space Training Unit), the Control Room (ETL 106), the Fluid Mechanics Laboratory (ETL 121), and the Motors Laboratory (ETL 107).

A recent collaboration between faculty from the Departments of Engineering Technology, Engineering and a local consulting firm (Polaris Engineering) resulted in the design of a $400K glycol-water fractionation unit currently under development as our latest addition to the department laboratories.

The Honeywell TDC 3000 process control computer (valued at over $800K) donated by Basell, is now being used by students in the department of engineering technology as well as in chemical and electrical engineering.

Process sensors were acquired through an internal grant by Griffith (chemical engineering) and Connella (instrumentation technology) for use in both disciplines.

Page 39 of 63

The Delta-V process control computer that was acquired by the department of engineering technology through grant funding is now used by engineering technology, chemical and electrical engineering students.

Joint grant writing between department of engineering technology and engineering faculty lead by Dr. Sullivan resulted in a $150K grant that was used to purchase a Bayport process trainer now used by chemical engineering, electrical engineering and engineering technology students.

V.    Quality  of  Program  Outcomes  

A. Student Learning Outcomes—results, 3-years.

Program

BS Engineering Technology Electronics and Instrumentation

Year SLO TM MM CA NM % Plan Score

2008 SLO 1 3 2 2 0 66.7% 2008 SLO 2 4 3 2 0 75.0% 2008 SLO 3 4 3 1 0 75.0% 2008 Total 11 8 5 0 72.7% 3 2009 SLO 1 3 3 3 0 100.0% 2009 SLO 2 3 3 4 0 100.0% 2009 SLO 3 5 5 0 0 100.0% 2009 Total 11 11 7 0 100.0% 3 2010 SLO 1 3 1 1 0 33.3% 2010 SLO 2 3 3 2 0 100.0% 2010 SLO 3 1 1 1 0 100.0% 2010 Total 7 5 4 0 71.4% 3

After discussion with the Institutional Effectiveness Director, it is apparent that these tables are not entirely accurate for 2010. For example, the plan changed very little for assessing the three required MSU SLOs from 2008 to 2010, yet we are getting different counts of assessments for each year. Certainly, the

Page 40 of 63

plan did not go from 11 assessments to 7 from 2009 to 2010! It comes down to counting the left column of the SACS MP/PR for methods in 2009 and the middle column of the MP/PR for results in 2010. One example of how the 2008-2010 assessments are made is SLO #1: Six different methods of assessments and twenty-two different assessment items (from 12 different courses) were used to create three assessment results. The Total Measures count in the table changed from 6 in 2008 to 3 in 2009 and 2010, but the methods used for this SLO in the SACS MP/PR changed hardly at all (other than better assessment items have been selected/created/used over the past few years).

Program

BS Engineering Technology Process Plant

Year SLO TM MM CA NM % Plan Score

2008 SLO 1 3 3 3 0 100.0% 2008 SLO 2 3 3 4 0 100.0% 2008 SLO 3 4 3 1 0 75.0% 2008 Total 10 9 8 0 90.0% 3 2009 SLO 1 7 5 1 0 71.4% 2009 SLO 2 4 3 2 0 75.0% 2009 SLO 3 3 3 0 0 100.0% 2009 Total 14 11 3 0 78.6% 3 2010 SLO 1 7 7 0 0 100.0% 2010 SLO 2 4 4 1 0 100.0% 2010 SLO 3 2 2 0 0 100.0% 2010 Total 13 13 1 0 100.0% 3

Explanation  of  Data  &  Assumptions  This chart indicates the levels of benchmark attainment for each University Student Learning Outcome for a three-year period, along with a score for the quality of the assessment plan as described on the annual Master Plan/Progress Report for the program. Column indicators for data correspond thusly: • TM = total measures (number of assessments used to determine achievement of objective;

Page 41 of 63

• MM = measures met; number total measures where benchmark was met or exceeded; • CA = Actions/decisions or other revisions based on data; • NM = New measure/new assessment created.

The plan score rubric is as follows:

• 0 = No activities or reports • 1 = Assessment activities need improvement--measures may not include benchmarks; markers may not clearly

address objective; may not include data where data should be present; provides little to no discussion of results; • 2 = Assessment activities developing--changes may be needed to clarify measures, benchmarks; there may be

problems with data on only a few markers; discussion may need more development; overall, plan shows effort but needs revision to make assessment system effective; score may also be assigned to new plans or plans with substantial changes from the previous year;

• 3 = Assessment activities on target--benchmarked measures clearly support objective and include communicative data with clearly applicable actions/decisions related to outcomes; minimal changes may be needed to make plan and process clear and communicative to a broad campus audience.

Assumptions / Methodology In 2008, the total measures column included new initiatives and any measures for which there was not data available or there were no students at that level of assessment or in the program. This method was changed for 2009 and 2010. Now, new measures, no data instances, and lack of completers for an assessment measure mean that that measure is not included in the total measures for that Learning Outcome. These exceptions are noted on the institutional report.

B. Completer Data & Tracking (provide at least a three-year period of information, if possible; in any case identify the period of time considered for response). Graduates for ELTR and INST are taken from 2005-2007. Process students are taken from 2005-2008.

Program % passing licensure,

certification, or other such instrument, if

applicable

Job Placement—In Field (%

of Completers) w/in 1 year

Job Placement—

Unrelated Field (% of Completers) w/in 1 year

Job Placement—In Louisiana

(% of Completers) w/in 1 year

Further Education

% of Completers)

Page 42 of 63

Exam Name

% passing

first time

Total for degree

93.6 % 6.4 % 93.6 % 1.6%

ELTR/INST 88.5% 11.5% 88.5% 3.8% Process 100% 0% 90.5% 0%

C. Employer Satisfaction: What evidence is there of employer satisfaction with program graduates?

The first item to be used here is the Supervisor’s Review of engineering technology students enrolled in the two co-op courses, TECH 250 and TECH 450. We use the data from these classes in our SACS MP/PR and in our ABET continuous improvement process. Using the results from two recent years from students enrolled in either course (TECH 250 usually replaces a sophomore-level course and TECH 450 replaces an upper-level course), without regard if students were A.S.-only or B.S.-only or both, the results show that employers are very satisfied with our students. The students scored an average of 19.3 out of 20 possible points on the review, which is a 96.5% result. Some of these students are true co-op students placed into jobs during a regular or summer semester, and some students are A.S. graduates who have returned to get a B.S. degree and are working full-time in technical positions.

A second source of employer satisfaction with our graduates is our placement rate. That rate can be seen in the table above, and is obviously a good result. We work very hard with MSU’s Career Services office, with employers who regularly hire our graduates, with potential employers who call to inquire about filling jobs, and with students who graduate without jobs. In the Process program, a comprehensive audit is performed every two years. Data results from Section 10 (Interview with Company that has hired PTEC Graduates) of the 2009 PTEC program audit indicate that employers that hire PTEC graduates from the program think the program is excellent. Employers interviewed all responded that they felt the PTEC graduate was prepared for the position, that hiring a PTEC graduate saved money in training costs, and that they plan to hire additional PTEC graduates in the future.

Page 43 of 63

Finally, we sent out a number of quick employer surveys to determine their level of satisfaction with our graduates. We have received a very small number of them back, but employers have rated our graduates highly.

D. Student Satisfaction: What evidence is there of student satisfaction with the program?

As mentioned elsewhere in this document, it is obvious that students who successfully complete their freshman technical coursework end up graduating from MSU, which has to be considered evidence of student satisfaction with the program. Data from a sophomore-level course taken by nearly all Electronics and Instrumentation students (other than perhaps a few transfer students) from Fall 2003 until Fall 2007, shows that 88.4% of students taking the class graduated. If we can increase the retention rate from freshman to sophomore classes, then we would greatly increase our graduation rate and retention rate overall.

Another indicator of student satisfaction is the feedback that we get from graduates via an exit interview survey. In addition to gathering post-graduation contact information from the students and asking them about their job search, we also ask questions meant to tell us how we did as a department and within the degree programs. We use the results of these questions as part of our continuous improvement process for ABET accreditation. Other than suggestions to delete courses that can’t really be deleted (due to core requirements or ABET requirements), we get a few comments about their least-favorite technical courses (which we take seriously and use to improve our teaching), and a few suggestions (which we also take seriously) about adding more content in certain areas. On the three very important questions below, we get very little negative feedback, and we attempt to address to those comments that we do get.

1. How has the Engr. Tech Department or MSU assisted you in completing your degree? 2. What could the Engr. Tech Department or MSU have done better to assist you in completing your degree?

3. Do you believe that your degree has prepared you for technical positions that correspond to your A.S. or B.S. degree? If not, what was lacking to better prepare you?

Page 44 of 63

Data results from Section 8 (Interviews with Students in Program) of the 2009 PTEC program audit indicates that students find the program interesting and that they were highly satisfied with the program and the instructors.

E. Faculty Performance and Contributions

1. Provide average SEI scores for 5-year period. Only include faculty assigned to program on the list provided by IR.

SEI Averages

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 AVG 92.82 90.60 88.43 89.25 92.99 90.82

2. Provide a detailed list (up to 10) of faculty-student research projects

1. 2010 McNeese Alumni Association Undergraduate Scholar Program, mentor Rick Nyberg; Spring 2010. Dylan Pleasant. Alumni Assoc. Undergraduate Scholar Program; “Assessment Methods for Skill Based Training” Included formal paper and presentations at Quality Day. 2. Spring 2010, Student - Matt Fontenot, faculty mentor Rick Nyberg, TECH 420 project - “Develop Powerpoints for Process Plant Heat Transfer, PRTC 314”. 3. Spring 2010, Student - David LaFargue, faculty mentor Rick Nyberg, TECH 420 project - “Develop Student Lab Manual for Unit Operations Laboratory, PRTC 228”. 4. Fall 2009, Student - Dylan Pleasant, faculty mentor Rick Nyberg, TECH 420 project - “Measuring Learning Outcomes in Unit Operations Laboratory, PRTC 228”. Included student/faculty presentation at CAPT 2009 national Critical Issues & Best Practices conference in Galveston, TX. 5. Fall 2009, Student - Matt Fontenot, faculty mentor Rick Nyberg, TECH 420 project - “Safety Compliance in Unit Operations Laboratory, PRTC 228”.

Page 45 of 63

6. Spring 2009, Student - Michael Olivier, faculty mentor Rick Nyberg, TECH 420 project - “Write Lab Operating Procedure for New Bayport Process Trainer”. 7. Fall 2008, Student - John Hicks, faculty mentor Rick Nyberg, TECH 420 project - “Develop Grading Rubric for Sowela’s Glass Labs”. 8. TECH420 Senior Projects Course can and does have students developing electronic and instrumentation technology projects under the supervision of a faculty member. 9. 2009 McNeese Alumni Association Undergraduate Scholar Program, mentor Brent Garner. 10. 2007 McNeese Alumni Association Undergraduate Scholar Program, mentor Javier Pineros.

3. Provide examples of recognition faculty bring to the program in the area of non-paid public service (up to five examples).

Engineering Technology faculty members provided equipment demonstrations during the 12/2/2009 visit of Gov. Jindal to MSU, http://www.mcneese.edu/news/news/jindal.asp. Dr. Kiritsis stated at that time that “Calcasieu Parish alone is home to more than 40 industrial facilities and one-third of the engineers working in the area are McNeese graduates. The article also stated that “Jindal also saw a demonstration of the new model chemical plant that has been built at McNeese. “McNeese is the only university in the state to have a model chemical plant to train future engineers and technicians,” Kiritsis explained. “The model plant reproduces the most critical processes found in the chemical industry on a smaller scale and safer environment using industrial grade equipment, instrumentation and controls. Some of the components were donated by area industry and were actively used to operate local facilities.” Kiritsis said.

During the same visit, the article stated that “Kiritsis discussed the importance of the Lake Area Industries/McNeese Engineering Partnership and the millions of dollars industry has saved through this alliance with McNeese. “Prior to 1990, area industries were sending key personnel to attend out-of-town seminars,” he said. “Providing the seminars locally is more economical.”

Engineering Technology faculty helps organize tours of Drew Hall and the ETL building for hundreds of high school students during E-Week activities each February.

Page 46 of 63

Carol Schulte volunteered as a AIChE (2005 - current) & IIE (2008 - current) Program Evaluator Volunteer for TAC of ABET and is the Commissioner (Team Chair) for TAC of ABET (Term 2010 - 2015) Dorothy Ortego acted as a middle school mentor for a Lego League team, meeting with students after school at least twice weekly for the entire school year. When Michael Connella realized that the instructor teaching the INST 102 lab class at Houston Community College was struggling, he drove over to Houston for an entire semester and showed the instructor how to set up each lab. Many other examples of Engineering Technology faculty performing service activities can be seen in section III.C. A few examples in volunteering at Mathcounts competitions, being judges for regional science fairs, provide tours for visiting school groups, high school visits, designing and supervising activities for local 2nd grades class tours and finally, organizing and running the E-Week open house of ETL / Drew Hall and the tours/activities provided to hundreds of high school students during E-Week activities each February.

F. Faculty Research (cover a five-year period, if possible. In any case, indicate the period of time this data will cover). The period this documentation covers is for the years 2005-2009.

1. Portfolio of Intellectual Contributions Need years for IE Faculty

Faculty (list alphabetically) Only include faculty currently employed at McNeese.

Conference Presentations

Research Monographs

Peer Reviewed Journals

Chapters Peer Reviewed Proceedings

Peer Reviewed Papers Presentations

Faculty Research Seminars

Non-Peer Reviewed Journals

Other / Lab Manual

Textbooks Reviewed

Workshop presentation for K-12 teachers

Michael Connella, III 1 1 1 Brent D. Garner 1 3 Qiu Liu 1 Javier Pineros 1 Carol Schulte 1 1 1 Richard Nyberg 1 Dorothy Ortego 4 2 2

2. Summary of Types of Intellectual Contributions Faculty Name (list alphabetically) Learning Contributio Discipline-

Page 47 of 63

and Pedagogical Research

ns to Practice

Based Research

Michael Connella, III 3 Brent D. Garner 4 Qiu Liu 1 Javier Pineros 1 Carol Schulte 3 Richard Nyberg 1 Dorothy Ortego 8

VI.  Revenue  and  Resources  Generated  by  the  Program  Briefly identify any revenue or resources generated by the program. • Fees charged, other than tuition (include amount of fee and total revenue by semester or academic year).

Financial Support through the Student Laboratory Fee: A $20 student laboratory fee is collected from each engineering technology student before registering for long semesters. In order to register for classes, a student must receive his/her Alternate PIN number which is needed to when register for a semester. This Alternate PIN is provided by the Advisor after the student presents evidence that the fee is paid. Students pay the laboratory fee at the bookstore. The funds are deposited to an account which is under the discretion of the Engineering Technology Department Head. Typical items purchased under this fund include laboratory supplies (consumables, i.e., printer/copy paper toner, specimens, etc.), electrical and electronic components (resistors, capacitors, ICs, etc.), inexpensive sensors, support circuits, etc. This fee provides approximately $3000 each year for the department. Financial Support through the Technology Advancement Student Committee (TASC). TASC was formed about 13 years ago in order to administer a $30 per semester, student self-assessed technology fee that is collected by the university at the time the tuition and fees are paid. During the last few years, TASC decided to allocate $50,000 towards technology needs per college on an annual basis. Requests submitted to the Dean of the College of Engineering and Engineering Technology by faculty members are prioritized and funded up to $50,000. The following table lists recent equipment/software purchases by the department of engineering technology.

Equipment/Software Year Amount Allen Bradley PLC Hardware and LaserJet Printers 2009-10 $4300

Page 48 of 63

RSLogix PLC Software 2008-09 $4000 National Electrical Code DVD Set 2008-09 $1289 Towards the purchase of a Continuous Distillation Column (pledged – not included in the $50,000 allocated per college). Shared with engineering.

2008-09 $131,000

Simtronics, DSS - 100 Dynamic Simulator System 2007-08 $6,000 Flow sensor assembly 2007-08 $620 Logic Analyzer Agilent 16810A 2006-07 $7,917 Assortment of Electronics Kits 2006-07 $950 Sliding Vane Air Pump #9010 2006-07 $3,443 Kettle Type Reboiler, Floating Head #6022 2006-07 $4,010

TOTAL $163,529

In addition to the above funds, TASC provided the following funding towards the establishment of a small scale outdoor Model Chemical Plant.

Equipment Year Amount

Glycol-Water Fractionation Unit 2009-10 $150,000 Hands On Trainer 2008-09 $90,000 Hands On Trainer 2007-08 $131,000

TOTAL $371,000

• Equipment Grants (identify any equipment received and estimated value and/or funds received specifically for purchase of equipment—include amount and date) The grants, purchases, donations, etc. represent a huge leap forward in the quality and quantity of equipment available to all programs in Engineering Technology, and through sharing labs and instructors, also for the Department of Engineering. It not representative of any previous 5-year period in the history of our college, nor is meant to represent the type and amount of equipment needed in the future.

Page 49 of 63

Principal Investigator Engineering Co-Investigators

Amount Description

Jonathan Sullivan John Griffith, Therrill Valentine, Carol Schulte, Brent Garner

$150,000 Bayport Process Trainer

Nikos Kiritsis Jonathan Sullivan $121,680 Equipment for the Department of Engineering Technology

Nikos Kiritsis Qiu Liu $ 90,443 Motors Laboratory

TOTAL $362,123

• Endowed Funds. The College of Engineering and Engineering Technology has one of the largest endowments with the

McNeese Foundation. The table below shows the endowed holdings for the department of engineering technology and other purposes that benefit the department as of July 13th, 2010. Depending on market conditions, the Department of Engineering Technology benefits from these funds from the annual distributions of Foundation revenue.

College of Eng. & Eng. Technology Endowed Funds 7/13/2010 Fund ID Fund Description Total 02600 ENGINEERING - GENERAL - DEAN $83,979.81 02799 ENGINEERING ENDOWMENT CAMPAIGN $657,900.34 02839 ENGINEERING - TECHNOLOGY - EQUIPMENT $17,268.34 02875 CITGO - PROCESS PLANT TECHNOLOGY $96,684.85

04101 SW LA INDUSTRIES PROFESSORSHIP IN ENGINEERING/TECH $100,000.00

04165 DR. O. C. KARKALITS ENDOWED PROFESSORSHIP IN ENGR & TECH $100,000.00

Grand Total: $1,055,833.35

Page 50 of 63

The following info represents equipment acquired through various funding sources for the entire department since 2005. Additional items since 2008 will be presented either at the end of this list, or incorporated as points into the data tables already present. The grants, purchases, donations, etc. represent a huge leap forward in the quality and quantity of equipment available to all programs in Engineering Technology, and through sharing labs and instructors, also for the Department of Engineering. It not representative of any previous 5-year period in the history of our college, nor is meant to represent the type and amount of equipment needed in the future. Financial Support through McNeese State University / State of Louisiana: In addition to the financial support provided for faculty/staff salaries, operating expenses, supplies, maintenance, and travel (see above), the university funds scientific equipment for the department laboratories. Information on such equipment follows:

Equipment/Software Year Amount H-6150-CDLC-X Liquid-Liquid Extraction Demonstrator with Data Acquisition and control access points to be used with the Honeywell System

2007-08 $80,000

H-ICS-PhX-X pH Control Trainer with micro controller 2007-08 $38,700 H-6252 Modular Chemical Reactor System 2007-08 $63,081 H-6290-CDLC-X Gas/Liquid Absorption Column with Computer Data Logging and Control via the Honeywell System

2007-08 $56,000

H-6878-CDLC-X Six Pass Heat Exchanger with Computer Data Logging and Control via the Honeywell system

2007-08 $43,762

H-IRT-1-CDLC-X Industrial Refrigeration Trainer with Computer Data Logging and Control via the Honeywell System

2007-08 $59,183

TOTAL

$260,806

Financial Support through the Community Support Fund: Every year a Community Support Fund is established by proceeds from the gaming revenue McNeese State University receives from the local casinos (varies every year). The fund primarily supports equipment and software purchases trough a competitive grant process. Over the years, Academic Affairs has been receiving about 50% of the

Page 51 of 63

amount collected. The Department of Engineering Technology submits proposals every year. The following equipment/software were funded by this program:

Equipment/Software Year Amount Recruitment Materials 2006-07 $6,000 Sliding Vane Air Pump #9010 2006-07 $3,443 Kettle Type Reboiler, Floating Head #6022 2006-07 $4,010

TOTAL $13,453

Financial Support through Competitive Grants: Soon after he became Dean of the College, one of the changes Dr. Nikos Kiritsis brought to the Department of Engineering Technology, was a heavy emphasis on grant writing (state and national) as a means of supplementing the department’s needs for upgrades to existing equipment, the purchase of new equipment as well as funding for recruitment programs. As a result, Department of Engineering Technology faculty are now involved with the following two active external grants:

1. The Research Commercialization / Educational Enhancement grant is intended to harness scientific research and educational resources in a manner which promotes both recovery and advancement of the scientific, technological, and educational infrastructure in the Hurricane Katrina-Rita affected regions, while aggressively promoting: a) the commercialization of targeted research, and b) attracting and sustaining low- and moderate-income students in science and technology research and education tracks. Under this grant the Department of Engineering Technology has received the following equipment below. Again, note that the equipment is for the department as a whole, but much of it can be used by either the Instrumentation or  Electronics concentrations, or both. In particular, note the much of this equipment is Process-related, but will operate under the control of a DCS system, the Delta V and will be available to our Instrumentation students.

Equipment

Amount Crude Oil Desalter Training Model $18,800 Three Phase Separator $26,450 Heat Exchanger Circulation Trainer w/backflush $10,250 Multi-pass Floating $2,975

Page 52 of 63

Head Exchanger Kettle Type Reboiler, Floating $3,850 Head Fixed Tube Sheet Single Pass Exchanger $2,975 U-Tube Type Exchanger $2.975 Vertical submersible pump cutaway Jet type $3,595 Positive displacement Pump cutaway Lobe Type $1,995 Positive displacement Pump cutaway Diaphragm Type $3,495 Air Operated Diaphragm Pump cutaway $3,295 Mobile display stand $995 Assortment of pressure regulators $6,995 Assortment of strainers $3,395 Solenoid Valve $595 Plate type Heat Exchanger Training Model $3,395 Distributed Control System – Delta-V $23,500 Furnish and equip two student lounge areas $14,325

TOTAL

$133,855

2. The Traditional Enhancement grant was funded under the Louisiana Education Quality Trust Fund program and was intended to enhance the infrastructure of the department. Under this grant the Department of Engineering Technology has received the following equipment:

Equipment

Amount 2008 ELT 107 Power Systems Lab Equipment Upgrade (shared with Electrical Engineering)

$94,943

BTTC-EPT Process Training Unit (100 gallon Stainless Steel Tank (x2), 5 hp motor (x2), 0-60 gpm centrifugal pumps (x2), 240 volt (60 Hz) 3-phase power control center, Power distribution panel, Stainless steel piping and tubing, Level control loop with bypass, 0-30 psi control loop with bypass, Flow control loop with bypass, 70-150 degree Temperature control loop with bypass, Heat exchangers, Industrial valves, transmitters, and positioners,

$150,000

Page 53 of 63

Allen-Bradley Programmable Logic Controller, Modular steel chassis with casters, Honeywell Controller adaptation package. TOTAL $244,943

H.C. Drew Endowment for Economic Development program: Engineering Technology faculty are also active in submitting proposals seeking internal university grants. Through the H.C. Drew Endowment for Economic Development, McNeese State University enhances opportunities to partner in economic development in Southwest Louisiana and prepares students with the modern skills needed to enter into and succeed in the workforce. Proceeds from the H.C. Drew Endowment for Economic Development fund two programs through competitive proposals: the H. C. Drew Center for Associate Studies which provides access to higher education for students seeking the associate degree, and the H. C. Drew Institute which augments the university’s contributions to economic development by providing resources to enhance classroom instruction and educational services for students pursuing baccalaureate and/or master’s degrees. The Department of Engineering Technology is eligible to participate in both programs. Competitive proposal written by Department of Engineering Technology faculty funded the following equipment/software purchases:

Equipment/Software Year Amount Contribution towards the outside, small-scale Chemical Plant 2008-09 $54,000 Transmitters, Controllers, Transducers for Instrumentation 2007-08 $22,204 Agilent E3620A Power Supplies 2007-08 $6,150 Feedback Electromagnetism Trainer 2007-08 $2,616 Elmo Document Camera 2007-08 $3,132 Tablet PC, Software and Scanner 2007-08 $3,500 Process Equipment, Models, Cutaways 2006-07 $20,000 Oil and Gas Production Materials (PTEC) 2006-07 $1,112 Mass Flow Transmitter, Vortex Meter and Accessories 2006-07 $5,200 Fluke 789 Process Meters 2006-07 $4,418 Digital Electronics Development Systems and Meters 2006-07 $1,395 PLC Software and Hardware 2006-07 $4,803 Multisim Software 2006-07 $4,746

TOTAL $133,276

Page 54 of 63

Financial Support as a Result of Private Industry Contributions: Private industry contributions come in the form of cash or equipment/software donations. We are very fortunate to be located in a heavily industrialized area specializing primarily on oil and gas based products/materials that have had a number of profitable years lately. The following table lists industry equipment/software donations to the Department of Engineering Technology.

Equipment/Software Year Amount* Tubing, Valves, control valves and transmitters donated by Entergy 2008-09 $35,000 Control Room Furniture by Trunkline LNG 2007-08 $35,000 Mass-flow meters, other flow meters, pressure transmitters, and level transmitters donated by Rosemount

2007-08 $35,000

LNG Plant Simulator by Trunkline LNG 2007-08 $75,000 Steam Power Plant Refurbishing by Entergy 2007-08 $72,000** Motor Control Trainer by PPG ( as part of TECH420) 2007-08 $962 Rita damaged Distributed Control System repaired for free by John H. Carter Co.

2006-07 $5000

TOTAL

$257,962

* approximate value at the time of donation **The steam power plant was an interesting and rewarding collaboration between McNeese and the local power company, Entergy, and received significant local press coverage. Quoting from the college newsletter, the E & T Modem, “Entergy personnel recently refurbished, delivered and installed a steam turbine engine that has been used for training in the MSU Department of Engineering Technology. The miniature power plant uses steam to run an electric generator to produce electricity similar to the equipment used at the Nelson Station Entergy Plant on Houston River Road. The use of the engine will be incorporated into the academic programs and used for hands-on training for future plant operators and mechanical and chemical engineers. The plant will also provide steam for labs within the Engineering Technology Lab building. More than 600 man-hours went into the refurbishing of the existing 1967 Westinghouse steam turbine engine. Entergy upgraded this miniature unit to be more like the actual equipment operated at the Nelson plant. The company’s research found that only nine of these specifically designed turbine engine and generator combination units were built for technology programs at colleges and universities, according to Dr. Nikos Kiritsis, dean of the college. “The MSU College of Engineering and Engineering Technology sincerely appreciates Entergy’s efforts,” said Kiritsis. “We believe that the refurbished power plant will be a great addition to the college.”

Page 55 of 63

Financial Support to Recover from Hurricane Rita: In response to Hurricane Katrina and Rita, the U.S. Department of Education and the Louisiana Board of Regents entered into an agreement for the administration of emergency funds as authorized by P.L 109-148. In accordance with this agreement, the Board of Regents contracted with McNeese State University to receive up to $2,600,000 in emergency grant funding. A portion of these funds were budgeted to purchase needed equipment and instruments. The Department of Engineering Technology received the following equipment/software were funded by this program:

Equipment

Amount Communications Lab $22,675 Ball and Plug Valves $5,500 Multi-stage Centrifugal Pump, Flange and Gasket Trainer, Chemical Injection Trainer

$21,478

Pump Cavitation Demonstrator, Pump Principles Trainer $24,444 InstruCalc Software $16,000 DAC Instrument Trainer $56,000

TOTAL $146,097

• The following are additional equipment grants are from Spring 2006 – Fall 2010.

1. Endowed Professorships, 2006 and 2007: $1000 Allen-Bradley PLC touch-screen and $1000 Instrumentation Flow Lab

equipment.

• Identify any potential revenues: fundraising, gifts, grants, other not yet acquired.

o Currently working towards acquiring equipment donations from Citgo Petroleum Corporation and Cheniere LNG.

o A $5,000 donation from Alcoa Carbon Products in Lake Charles is expected.

Page 56 of 63

o A $10,000 donation from the PPG Foundation is expected.    VII.    Cost/Expenses  Associated  with  the  Program  

• From the Academic Program Analysis report shown below the cost is $3,217.21 per student.

McNeese  State  University              Academic  Program  Analysis              Program  Title:    BSEN  -­‐  Engineering  Technology            Program  Level:              Date  Initiated:              

   2005-­‐2006  

 2006-­‐2007  

 2007-­‐2008  

 2008-­‐2009  

 2009-­‐2010   Average  

Enrollment   106   109   101   131   117   113            5  Parish  Area   86   88   78   97   86   87            25  and  older   25   23   16   30   32   25            FTF  Enrollment   10   12   15   19   10   13                        FT-­‐  FTF   10   12   14   19   10   13                        PT-­‐  FTF   0   0   1   0   0   0            Transfer  Enrollment   3   4   2   7   4   4            Rank                                              Freshman   25   24   24   33   23   26                      Sophomore   22   23   15   19   26   21                      Junior   20   26   27   34   23   26                      Senior   39   36   35   45   45   40            Concentration                                              Electronics  Technology   27   24   21   28   27   25                      Instrumentation  Technology   16   19   24   21   14   19                      Process  Plant   7   6   0   0   0   3                      Process  Plant  -­‐  Mgmt  Pathway   40   46   35   42   34   39  

Page 57 of 63

                   Process  Plant  -­‐  Tech  Pathway   9   7   11   36   29   18  Total  completers   15   16   15   14   13   15      Concentration                                              Electronics  Technology   6   6   6   4   4   5                      Instrumentation  Technology   4   3   5   4   1   3                      Process  Plant  -­‐  Mgmt  Pathway   3   7   4   6   8   6                      Process  Plant  -­‐  Tech  Pathway   1   0   0   0   0   0  Retention  Rate  of  FT-­‐FTF         66.70%   78.60%   63.20%       69.50%  APR       893   885   861       880  Average  ACT  of  enrollees       20.65   19.74   19.73   20.19   20.08  Average  ACT  of  FTF         21.42   19.07   20.11   20.89   20.37  Average  ACT  of  completers       21.20   21.85   20.15   20.54   20.94  Average  High  School  GPA  of  Enrollees       3.25   3.14   3.13   3.15   3.17  Average  High  School  GPA  of  FTF       3.28   2.79   3.11   2.94   3.03  Average  High  School  GPA  of  Completers       3.31   3.34   3.34   3.21   3.30  Average  GPA  of  Completers       2.99   2.97   2.96   2.79   2.93  Average  MSU  Term  GPA  of  Enrollees       2.64   2.71   2.43   2.53   2.58  Number  of  Faculty  teaching  major  courses               14   13   13.5            Full-­‐Time               10   10   10            Part-­‐Time               4   3   3.5          at  upper  level               11   11   11          at  lower  level               10   10   10          at  graduate  level                          

FTE  faculty  assigned  to  program               8.51   8.41   8.46  FTE  Faculty  SCHs               2770   2436   2603  Average  Student  Credit  Hour  production  per  FTE  faculty  assigned  to  program               326   290   308  Program  major  SCHs               3,540   3,121   3,331  

Page 58 of 63

Program  Cost  per  Major  (ULS  Cost  Analysis  Study)               3,217.21          

VIII.    Program  Branding  

Reflect on your program as a whole: its course offerings, availability, modes of delivery, faculty strengths, opportunities for unique student experience (travel, research, internship, campus social interaction), clarity of the nature of the program and its potential for impact on students’ lives as you respond to the following:

1. If you were a student entering McNeese what features would keep you in the program?

The faculty of the Department of Engineering Technology take pride in helping deliver McNeese’s slogan of “Excellence With a Personal Touch” to our students. We deliver on McNeese’s slogan for our students not only when we provide hands-on teaching and labs, but in one-on-one advising each semester, assisting them with job placement, in teaching them the value of producing good work in a timely fashion, and in providing them the opportunity to do work with lab and project partners.

o From the point of view of an entering freshman, we would keep the following features of our program:

Continue hiring faculty with industrial experience. Most of our current faculty has extensive industrial experience that they share with their students in and out of the classroom.

Continue to provide a variety of course offerings at convenient times. Course offerings and times are adjusted

to meet the students changing needs. Evening courses are offered on a need basis upon student request.

Continue to use various modes of course delivery. Engineering faculty teach courses using a variety of delivery modes that are generally suited to the class and materials being taught.

Maintain small class sizes. Our class sizes are small and this allows the student more contact with the professor

and more freedom to ask questions in class. There is a feeling of personal involvement of the faculty with

Page 59 of 63

students’ educational goals. Having small class sizes appears to be one of the reasons students prefer our program over other engineering programs in the state with much bigger classes.

Continue to have faculty teaching all engineering courses. All courses and laboratories are currently taught by

faculty rather than graduate students. We do not have any graduate teaching assistants in the department. Maintain updated laboratory facilities. Most of our laboratories are adequately equipped with modern

equipment. The department has invested more than $2.5M during the last five years in facility upgrades through industry donations, grant funding, TASC funding as well as general McNeese equipment acquisitions.

Maintain collaboration with industry. The Engineering Department provides an industry focused education as

well as many opportunities for students to network with industry personnel such as: guest speakers, industry tours, senior design project sponsorship, etc.

Maintain the interdisciplinary nature of our program. Our “one program – four concentration” mode gives the

students the opportunity to experience the interdisciplinary nature of engineering in the real world.

Expand our on-line course offerings. Although a full 100% on-line undergraduate engineering program is not feasible at this time, there are definite opportunities to increase our on-line course inventory.

Maintain and expand our collaboration with the Department of Engineering. Engineering Technology students

can improve their knowledge and experience by an increased exposure to engineering teaching equipment.

The two main factors that should keep a student enrolled in our program are the excellence of our programs and how they serve SWLA.

a) Equipment: ABET has complimented us on our facilities and equipment during accreditation visits. Our building and labs are fairly new and kept in good working order. Though grants, TASC money, LEQSF money, sharing of equipment with the Engineering Dept., and as a result of Rita, most of laboratories are adequately equipped and have modern facilities.

b) Accreditation: Despite not having ever being accredited before 2002, the ET programs have been granted the full 6-year accreditation period without any noteworthy findings, interim reports, or interim visits. There are more ABET-accredited degrees in Electronics than in any other ET field, and it is very difficult to get a clean accreditation final

Page 60 of 63

report, which we have done both in 2002 and 2008! Electronics is a large field of study - consider the huge field of Electrical Engineering as a parallel field – but graduates of our program receive not some kind of watered-down training or technical school, but a broad and rigorous degree that prepares them for a lifetime of learning and work.

As of June 2010, MSU has the only ABET-accredited A.S. program in Instrumentation in the Gulf Coast region, and aside from the University of Houston, have the only ABET-accredited B.S. programs in Instrumentation in the nation. SWLA – and the whole Gulf Coast – has a continuing need for Instrumentation technicians, and in particular a need by some companies for B.S.-level graduates in Instrumentation. Despite other two-year programs in the region, MSU remains the only ABET-accredited program at the A.S. level.

Despite a number of Process Technology programs at 2-year colleges and technical schools on the Gulf Coast, MSU has one of the oldest such programs and is the only program that is accredited by ABET. In fact it is the only program related to the field of Chemical Engineering Technology in the United States!

Accreditation may not mean that much to our students, but it should. In our experience, they are far more prepared after two years to continue their education to similar students graduating our rival institutions.

c) Faculty: Our faculty meet the ABET definition of basic credentials, which requires three years of relevant industrial experience and either a master's degree in engineering or engineering technology or a master's degree in a closely related field if the degree is primarily analytical and the subject clearly appropriate. The faculty members in the program meet the requirements on paper, have a wealth of teaching and industrial experience, teach nearly all of labs sections in the program (rather than using graduate students from engineering), providing students with consistent lab experience semester after semester. The department also requires students to be advised until graduation, and with use of the degree plans, flow charts and other documents that describe the program, very few advising problems occur.

d) Job Placement Assistance: The Engineering Technology department and MSU Career Services Center have an excellent working relationship and work together in selecting companies for career fairs, arranging rooms for on-campus testing and presentations, recruiting potential companies for hiring graduate and co-op positions, organizing interview skills workshops, working with the Career Services office in encouraging students to register with Career Services, and contacting students regarding potential openings and interviews.

2. How, when, and how often are the best features of your program communicated to students, and how would you improve upon that communication?

Page 61 of 63

The features of our program are communicated during high school recruiting visits, high school career fairs, during orientation sessions, Freshman Foundations, during other freshman classes, and during advising. We aren’t going to offer statistics, but most students successfully completing the first two classes in each degree program nearly always graduate. An improvement to our recruiting materials - incorporating testimonies of past graduates – along with a better identification of where graduates work and how their careers unfold, would be a start. We then need to take that information into high school recruiting forums and into our freshman classes to not only increase incoming students, but increase retention.

Each semester representatives from our LAIA visit Process introductory classes to discuss job qualifications, workplace expectations, and career paths. In these discussions, students learn some of our program’s best feature directly from potential employers. Such discussions include: transferability of credits, benefits of the BS degree, and opportunity to work while pursuing the last 2 years of the BS thanks to our department’s non-traditional course offerings.

Some feedback on best features of the program occurs during industry interactions with our students. The Process concentration hosts an Excellence in PTEC Day annually, where industry comes to observe and evaluate students in various levels of the program. The students demonstrate many pieces of process equipment and explain how it operates. Industry is able to ask questions and give feedback to the students. All students are evaluated on a rubric used by the industrial reps. This interaction helps the student to appreciate what they are learning, develop confidence in their knowledge and presentation abilities, and receive constructive feedback about their performance.

o We utilize an electronic messaging system with wall mounted TV monitors to announce co-op opportunities and other activities in the department.

o We publish a number of flyers for distribution such as the “Engineering Technology At A Glance” flyer that highlights

many of our features and accomplishments, a Co-op flyer that describes the program, flyers with the degree programs for all concentrations, as well as seasonal flyers describing the features of grant funded programs available to students.

o The Department of Engineering Technology maintains the most informative web page of all other departments at

McNeese (http://www.mcneese.edu/ceet/engtech/). Students visiting our web page can get information about faculty, scholarships, facilities, student organizations, events, can download program flyers, and among other things, view the Body of Knowledge for all of our courses.

Page 62 of 63

o We can improve upon our communication by: publicizing the activities of students and faculty more to better recognize

everybody’s effort, increase the student involvement with our student professional organizations, promote faculty-student mentoring activities, and organize events that faculty and students interact with each other outside the traditional classroom environment.

IX.    Opportunity  Analysis  

As a whole, McNeese is committed to recruiting a qualified, diverse population of students, ensuring their academic progress, and finally producing highly capable, professionally-adaptive graduates. Given the current status of your program as you have outlined it in the above sections, if funds or resources were available to you, how would you appropriate them to better ensure your program facilitates any or all aspects of recruiting, retention/progression, or graduation. Time for recruiting students, ensuring academic progress, and producing capable graduates has been in precious supply for our department: Rita knocked us out of Drew Hall in 2005 and we spent much of 2007 preparing to return and 2008 incorporating new equipment and a refurbished building into our programs, and ABET accreditation preparation required much of our time from 2008 until mid-2009. With those issues behind us we really only need time, continued effort, and existing talent to increase our recruiting, retention, and graduation. Our programs’ main struggles presently lie with the general economic slowdown (hurting job placement in engineering and engineering technology), lack of knowledge on the part of the public of our programs, and competition from other technical schools and community colleges.

The first item of business is to improve on and update the tracking of our graduates, which was done well in 2008 for graduates from 2005-2008. We then need to take advantage of our graduates’ willingness to assist us in recruiting and in producing different brochures containing testimonies. We’ve done some of this, but need to do more and to maintain the effort. We need to work with the employers of our past graduates and look for other possible employers to find even more jobs for our graduate, and then “sell” that success not only to high school students but to other potential students at McNeese or non-traditional students. With faculty typically teaching a 15-hour formula load and with many other responsibilities, not everything can be done, but we can improve.

Page 63 of 63

Signatures  of  Participating  Faculty  

Name Date

Dr. Carol Schulte

Dr. Mike Connella

Mr. Brent Garner

Mr. Rick Nyberg

Dr. Qiu Liu

Ms. Dorothy Ortego

Mr. Javier Pineros