Accreditation

The Bachelor of Environmental Engineering is accredited by the Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) of ABET, https://www.abet.org, under the General Criteria and the Environmental Engineering Program Criteria.

Program Educational Objectives

The Environmental Engineering program will produce graduates that, within a few years of graduation, will

• address the evolving needs of a global society by applying knowledge of engineering and sustainability principles;
• advance their careers through lifelong learning, graduate studies, and/or professional licensure;
• demonstrate effective communication skills, social responsibility, ethical decision-making, and a commitment to their profession.

Student Outcomes

The student outcomes for the environmental engineering degree program are as follows:

• an ability to identify, formulate, and solve complex engineering problems by applying principles of engineering, science, and mathematics (Outcome 1)
• an ability to apply engineering design to produce solutions that meet specified needs with consideration of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as global, cultural, social, environmental, and economic factors (Outcome 2)
• an ability to communicate effectively with a range of audiences (written & oral) (Outcome 3)
• an ability to recognize ethical and professional responsibilities in engineering situations and make informed judgments, which must consider the impact of engineering solutions in global, economic, environmental, and societal contexts (Outcome 4)
• an ability to function effectively on a team whose members together provide leadership, create a collaborative and inclusive environment, establish goals, plan tasks, and meet objectives (Outcome 5)
• an ability to develop and conduct appropriate experimentation, analyze and interpret data, and use engineering judgment to draw conclusions (Outcome 6)
• an ability to acquire and apply new knowledge as needed, using appropriate learning strategies (Outcome 7)

The Bachelor of Construction Engineering and Management is accredited by the Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) of ABET, https://www.abet.org, under the General Criteria and the Construction Engineering Program Criteria and by the Applied and Natural Sciences (ANSAC) Accreditation Commission of ABET, https://www.abet.org, under the General Criteria and the Construction Management Program Criteria.

Program Educational Objectives

The Construction Engineering and Management program will produce graduates that, within a few years of graduation, will

• address the evolving needs of a global society by applying knowledge of engineering and sustainability principles;
• advance their careers through lifelong learning, graduate studies, and/or professional licensure;
• demonstrate effective communication skills, social responsibility, ethical decision-making, and a commitment to their profession.

Student Outcomes

The successful graduate of the construction engineering and management program must demonstrate:

• an ability to identify, formulate, and solve complex engineering problems by applying principles of engineering, science, and mathematics (Outcome 1)
• an ability to apply engineering design to produce solutions that meet specified needs with consideration of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as global, cultural, social, environmental, and economic factors (Outcome 2)
• an ability to communicate effectively with a range of audiences (Outcome 3)
• an ability to recognize ethical and professional responsibilities in engineering situations and make informed judgments, which must consider the impact of engineering solutions in global, economic, environmental, and societal contexts (Outcome 4)
• an ability to function effectively on a team whose members together provide leadership, create a collaborative and inclusive environment, establish goals, plan tasks, and meet objectives (Outcome 5)
• an ability to develop and conduct appropriate experimentation, analyze and interpret data, and use engineering judgment to draw conclusions (Outcome 6)
• an ability to acquire and apply new knowledge as needed, using appropriate learning strategies. (Outcome 7)

Level 4 performance characterized by:

• Develops a design strategy which includes a plan of attack, decomposition of work into subtasks, and development of a timetable
• Applies engineering or scientific principles correctly during design development
• Suggests new approaches or improves on previous design
• Develops several potential solutions and determines optimum with appropriate consideration of applicable factors
• Thinks holistically; understands the whole as well as the parts
• Uses computer tools and engineering resources effectively
• Supports design process with documentation and references
• Develops solution that considers economic, health, safety, environmental and other realistic constraints
• Recognizes practical significance of design outcome

Level 3 performance characterized by:

• Develops design strategy; execution includes inconsequential omissions
• Applies engineering or scientific principles correctly with only minor errors
• Requires no assistance to successfully complete design
• Develops several potential solutions but unsure of correctness
• Applies holistic approach with minor omissions
• Uses computer tools and engineering resources correctly
• Design exhibits proper level of documentation or references with minor omissions
• Design includes consideration of majority of economic, safety, cultural, social, or environmental factors
• Design is complete but lacks full considerations of practical significance

Level 2 performance characterized by:

• Minimal design strategy is developed; minimal development of subtasks
• Applies engineering or scientific principles correctly but sparingly
• Requires only minimal assistance to complete design
• Attempts multiple solutions but is unsuccessful or incorrect
• Applies only minimal holistic approach
• Attempts to use computer tools and engineering resources but with minimal success
• Design exhibits moderate level of documentation or references
• Design includes only nominal consideration of economic, safety, cultural, social, or environmental factors
• Design is partially complete and of little practical significance

Level 1 performance characterized by:

• No design strategy is developed; utilizes a haphazard approach
• Applies engineering or scientific principles incorrectly or minimally
• Requires significant assistance to complete design
• Focuses on only one solution to a problem; little to no optimization attempted
• Lacks understanding of concept that the process is the sum of its parts
• Minimal or no use of computer tools and engineering resources
• Design exhibits minimal documentation or references
• Design lacks consideration of economic, safety, cultural, social, or environmental factors
• Design is incomplete or of no practical significance

Level 4 performance characterized by:

• Presentation conforms to the prescribed format (if any)
• Articulates ideas clearly and concisely
• Organizes presentation material in a logical sequence to enhance audience comprehension
• Effectively uses graphs, tables, and diagrams to support points and to explain, interpret, and assess information
• Uses level of detail and technical content appropriate for the audience and presentation format
• Work is presented neatly and professionally, and in an appropriate format (written, presentation slides, posters, etc.)
• Grammar and spelling are correct; proper American English is used
• Figures are in consistent and proper format
• Written:
  • Uses accepted professional writing style
• Oral:
  • Verbal and non-verbal aspects augment the presentation
  • Listens carefully to questions and responds appropriately
  • Explains and interprets results effectively
  • Adheres to specified time limits

Level 3 performance characterized by:

• Presentation largely conforms to the prescribed format
• Nearly all ideas are clearly and concisely articulated
• Significant structure (headings, labels, etc.) which generally supports audience comprehension
• Graphs, tables or diagrams are generally effective, properly referenced, and error free
• Work is largely neat and effective with minimal errors
• Material and presentation are within time and/or space constraints
• Presentation exhibits only minimal spelling and grammar errors
• Prescribed presentation format followed and generally in proper format
• Written:
  • The writing style is appropriate with minimal errors
• Oral:
  • Verbal and non-verbal aspects generally improve the effectiveness of the presentation
  • Response to questions is adequate
  • Explanation or interpretation of results generally correct and adequate
  • Adheres to specified time limit

Level 2 performance characterized by:

• The prescribed format is only vaguely followed
• Poor organization, few key points made clear to audience
• Minimal structure (headings, labels, etc.) which poorly supports audience understanding
• Graphs, tables or diagrams are somewhat effective, poorly referenced, or contain errors
• Work presentation is marginally neat and effective
• Material and presentation are slightly beyond time and/or space constraints
• Spelling and grammar errors present in several locations of presentation
• The prescribed presentation format minimally followed
• Written:
  • The writing style is appropriate in only a few portions of the assignment
• Oral:
  • Verbal and non-verbal aspects slightly reduce the effectiveness of the presentation
  • Response to questions is inadequate
  • Explanation or interpretation of results exhibits significant errors or omissions
  • Exceeds time limit but only minimally

Level 1 performance characterized by:

• The prescribed format is not followed
• Poor organization, key points not clear to audience
• Little to no structure (headings, labels, etc.) to support audience understanding
• Graphs, tables or diagrams are used ineffectively, not referenced, or contain errors
• Work is not presented neatly or in an effective format
• Material and presentation do not adhere to time and/or space constraints
• Spelling and grammar errors present throughout significant portion of presentation
• The prescribed presentation format is not followed
• Written:
  • The writing style is inappropriate for the audience or the assignment
• Oral:
  • Verbal and non-verbal aspects distract from the presentation
  • Response to questions is inappropriate or extraneous
  • Unable to explain or interpret results
  • Exceeds time limit

Level 4 performance characterized by:

• Understands and abides by the ASCE Code of Ethics and the UD Students’ Code of Conduct
• Participates in class discussions and exercises on ethics and professionalism
• Consistently demonstrates ethical behavior among peers, staff, and faculty
• Is familiar with current events within civil and environmental engineering and respects the historical aspects of the profession
• Is able to thoughtfully discuss current economic and societal issues and assess their implications within the profession
• Takes personal responsibility for his/her actions
• Evaluates and judges a situation in practice or a case study using both facts and a professional code of ethics
• Uses a personal value system to support actions, but understands the role of professional ethical standards for professional decisions

Level 3 performance characterized by:

• Aware of ASCE Code of Ethics and similar codes for ethical behavior
• Occasionally participates in or contributes to discussions of ethics; generally accepts the need for professional ethics
• Generally demonstrates ethical behavior in most situations
• Is familiar with current events and/or the historical aspects of the profession
• Is able to superficially discuss current economic and societal issues or assess their implications with the profession
• Usually takes responsibility for own issues and problems
• Evaluates and judges a situation in practice or a case study using facts and a personal value system
• Uses a personal value system to support actions, but occasionally acknowledges the role of professional ethical standards for professional decisions

Level 2 performance characterized by:

• Vaguely aware of ASCE Code of Ethics or similar codes for ethical behavior
• Infrequently participates in or contributes to discussions of ethics; marginally accepts the need for professional ethics
• Indifferent to unethical behavior such as cheating, plagiarism, etc.
• Is only somewhat familiar with current events and/or the historical aspects of the profession
• Minimally able to discuss current economic and societal issues or assess their implications within the profession
• Occasionally blames others for own issues and problems
• Evaluates and judges a situation in practice or a case study using a slightly biased perspective with minimal objectivity
• Uses only a personal value system to support actions to the exclusion of most other ethical standards

Level 1 performance characterized by:

• Lack of awareness of ASCE Code of Ethics or any codes for ethical behavior
• Does not participate in or contribute to discussions of ethics; does not accept the need for professional ethics
• Demonstrates or condones unethical behavior such as cheating, plagiarism, etc.
• Is unfamiliar with current events and/or the historical aspects of the profession
• Is unable to discuss current economic and societal issues or assess their implications within the profession
• Blames others for own issues and problems
• Evaluates and judges a situation in practice or a case study using biased perspective without objectivity
• Uses only a personal value system to support actions to the exclusion of all other ethical standards

Level 4 performance characterized by:

• Routinely attends team meetings or work sessions and contributes fair share to project workload
• Is prepared for group meetings with clearly formulated ideas, objectives, and goals
• Cooperates with others and endeavors to include all members in planning and discussions
• Shares credit for success with others and accountability for team results
• Readily shares information with and assists other group members
• Demonstrates the ability to assume a designated role in the group
• Values alternative perspectives and encourages participation among all team members
• Remains non-judgmental when disagreeing with others and seeks conflict resolution; does not blame others when things go wrong
• Treats all members of the group with respect and courtesy

Level 3 performance characterized by:

• Rarely absent from team meetings or work sessions
• Often contributes to group work or only rarely submits group’s work as own
• Seldom unprepared for meetings and work sessions
• Rarely works on his/her own and values team work
• Seldom claims work of group as own
• Actively participates in group discussions
• Routinely volunteers for team roles
• Generally considers the ideas of others will accept participation of other team members
• Is seldom critical of the performance of others
• Usually treats members of group with respect and courtesy

Level 2 performance characterized by:

• Occasionally absent from team meetings or work sessions
• Contributes marginally to group work or occasionally submits group’s work as own
• Often unprepared for meetings and work sessions
• Occasionally works on his/her own and does not value team work
• Often claims work of group as own or occasionally blames others
• Prefers to be in the background; only participates if asked
• Avoids volunteering for team roles
• Often does not consider the ideas of others
• Is occasionally critical of the performance of others
• Occasionally disrespectful and discourteous to other group members

Level 1 performance characterized by:

• Often absent from team meetings or work sessions
• Contributes only minimally to group work or often submits group’s work as own
• Routinely unprepared for meetings and work sessions
• Generally works on his/her own and does not value team work
• Claims work of group as own or frequently blames others
• Hides in the background; only participates if strongly encouraged
• Does not willingly assume team roles
• Does not consider the ideas of others
• Is openly critical of the performance of others
• Is disrespectful and discourteous to other group members

Level 4 performance characterized by:

• Adheres to proper laboratory safety procedures
• Formulates an experimental plan of data gathering to attain the stated objective (develops correlation, tests a model, ascertains performance of equipment, etc.)
• Carefully documents collected data
• Develops and implements logical experimental procedures
• Selects appropriate equipment and instruments to properly conduct the planned experiment
• Is able to properly and efficiently operate instrumentation and process equipment
• Analyzes and interprets data using appropriate theory; as required, translates theory into practice or applies to process model(s)
• Is aware of measurement error and is able to account for the error statistically
• Seeks supplemental information for experiment(s) from multiple sources

Level 3 performance characterized by:

• Rarely practices unsafe or risky behavior in lab
• Provides systematic plan of data gathering; experimental data collection is minimally disorganized and slightly incomplete
• Data are well documented but exhibit minor errors and inconsistencies
• Rarely deviates from proper experimental procedure
• Identifies appropriate equipment and instrumentation required to conduct the experiment(s) with only minor omissions
• Is able to operate instrumentation and process equipment with only minimal supervision
• Relates data to theory with only slight errors
• Is aware of measurement error but attempts to account for error incorrectly
• Seeks supplemental information for experiment(s) but applies information improperly

Level 2 performance characterized by:

• Occasionally practices unsafe or risky behavior in lab
• Provides minimal systematic plan of data gathering; experimental data collection is significantly disorganized and incomplete
• Data are only marginally well documented
• Often deviates from proper experimental procedure
• Is able to identify only a portion of appropriate equipment and instrumentation required to conduct the experiment(s)
• Is able to operate only a portion of the instrumentation and process equipment, requires frequent supervision
• Attempts to relate data to theory, but does so incorrectly
• Only vaguely aware of measurement error
• Seeks minimal supplemental information for experiment(s)

Level 1 performance characterized by:

• Practices unsafe, risky behavior in lab
• Provides no systematic plan of data gathering; experimental data collection is disorganized, even random, and incomplete
• Data are poorly documented
• Does not follow proper experimental procedure
• Is unable to select the appropriate equipment and instrumentation required to conduct the experiment(s)
• Is unable to operate instrumentation and process equipment, does so incorrectly or requires frequent supervision
• Makes no attempt to relate data to theory
• Is unaware of measurement error
• Seeks no supplemental information for experiment(s), using only what is provided by instructor

Level 4 performance characterized by:

• Demonstrates ability to learn independently
• Goes beyond the minimum of what is required to complete an assignment and brings information from outside sources into assignments
• Learns from mistakes and practices continuous improvement
• Demonstrates capability to think for one’s self
• Possesses ability to understand, interpret, and apply learned concepts in a format different from that taught in class (e.g. different nomenclature, understands equation in different form)

 Level 3 performance characterized by:

• Learns independently but requires confirmation and reassurance
• Completes minimum required tasks efficiently and without direction
• Recognizes own shortcomings or deficiencies and addresses these issues
• Applies independent thinking with minimal assistance
• Applies materials from outside of what is explained in class with only minor errors or omissions

Level 2 performance characterized by:

• Requires general instructions to complete a task
• Completes minimum required tasks with encouragement and direction
• Recognizes own shortcomings or deficiencies but fails to address these issues
• Attempts to apply independent thinking but requires significant assistance
• Uses minimal materials outside of what is explained in class but incorrectly

Level 1 performance characterized by:

• Requires detailed or step-by-step instructions to complete a task
• Has trouble completing even the minimum required tasks
• Is unable to recognize own shortcomings or deficiencies
• Assumes all learning takes place within the confines of the classroom
• Is unable to use materials outside of what is explained in class