Engineering Curriculum Assessment

Engineering Curriculum Assessment

November 1, 1999 Dear Colleague, Engineering education is entering a new and challenging age. One of our biggest challenges is assessing the outcome of our engineering programs. Because many of us are coming to terms with new engineering accreditation requirements, the need to share assessment strategies is paramount. The success engineering educators experience in the next century is dependent upon our ability to measure and improve our programs. As a department head, I have had the responsibility of developing and implementing a variety of tools and strategies for engineering curriculum assessment. My experience and the experience of other educators may benefit you, your engineering program, and your students. In this light, I have enclosed a paper I co-authored with three other engineering education professionals. I urge your consideration of the assessment strategy it outlines, and I welcome your comments. Sincerely, Dr. Kenneth R. White, P.E. New Mexico State University Department of Civil, Agricultural and Geological Engineering

Using the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) Examination To Assess Academic Programs WALTER LEFEVRE, PH.D., P.E. JOHN W. SMITH, PH.D., P.E. JOHN W. STEADMAN, PH.D., P.E. KENNETH R. WHITE, PH.D., P.E.

nstitutions of higher education are increasingly being pressured to evaluate their academic programs with reference to a national norm or standard. This pressure may come from accreditation requirements or it may come from state legislators who want to assign cost/benefit labels and who want to measure the effectiveness of higher education. Whatever the reason, accreditation in the foreseeable future will be driven by accountability and benchmarking; therefore, institutions must find ways to assess their programs. In engineering education, assessment has become a major topic as a result of Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology s (ABET) Criteria 2000. Instructional effectiveness is not easily measured and often is an educated approximation, and although various assessment tools have been used to evaluate instructional effectiveness, results have rarely been published or used in a consistent manner. In addition, the data that is collected may be misused or misinterpreted, leading to erroneous conclusions. One tool that may be effective in assessing engineering education is the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) examination, sometimes called the EIT exam. This exam is used as the first step in the professional licensing of engineers and was developed to measure minimum technical competence. It is a pass/fail exam that is taken by approximately 50,000 people a year, most of whom are recent college graduates or seniors within one year of graduating. Although exam results do provide some specific data on performance in a given subject, this data is not used for licensing. The data can, however, be used to make comparisons and conclusions, some of which are valid, others of which are not. Effective assessment of academic programs requires a set of tools and processes to evaluate various aspects of education. If the tools are to have any value as benchmarks or have credibility on some objective basis, the tools should make it possible to compare one institution with another. Assessment tools with this comparative value are particularly difficult to obtain, especially ones that are truly objective. Methods such as using portfolios or surveys lack uniformity. And forcing comparisons, for example by asking an employer to compare graduates of different schools, makes it difficult to ensure objectivity. The FE examination is the only nationally normed exam that addresses specific engineering topics, which makes it an extremely attractive tool for use as part of an assessment process. In fact, the format of the FE exam was recently changed with the express purpose of making it useful for outcomes assessment. Specifically, discipline-specific exams for chemical, civil, electrical, industrial, and mechanical engineering were developed to include topics from upper-level courses topics that were not appropriate when students from all engineering disciplines took the same exam. This was done to better measure students knowledge of subjects taught in current junior- and senior-level engineering courses. Discipline-specific FE exam sections were developed for programs that have a minimum of 100 accredited engineering programs in the United States. A survey was sent to every ABET-accredited engineering program in the United States to ensure that the exam questions were relevant to the coursework expected of students in the corresponding major. The topics included in the revised exams were determined from the results of this survey. A general engineering exam is taken by students majoring in all other engineering disciplines. 1

hrough careful analysis, FE exam results may be used to assess the following as specified in ABET Criterion 3: (a) an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering; (b) an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data; (c) an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs; (e) an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems; (f) an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility, and (k) an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice. Although the FE exam does provide some means of assessment, there are both advantages and disadvantages of using the exam as an assessment tool; therefore, its widespread use as such should be viewed with caution. The FE exam should not be used to determine the curricular content of any program its purpose is to test competency for licensure. The FE exam is not intended to force programs to be similar. For licensure purposes, the total score is used rather than the score in any specific subset of questions. Passing the exam does not denote competence in all subjects but instead shows an average minimum competency in several subject areas. One of the major errors that could be made in using the FE exam results as an assessment tool is focusing on the percentage who pass the exam. This criterion is too broad to be effective in improving subdiscipline instruction more specific measures are needed. Too often, the passing rates of individual programs are compared with those of other institutions, and these rates become more important than the subject-matter evaluations. One way this might happen is if administrators or faculty select those who are allowed to attempt the examination. In such a situation, the focus becomes teaching to the exam and not truly assessing the subject matter in the curriculum. In light of these limitations, how does one properly use the FE exam as an assessment tool? First, the department or program faculty should decide what subjects to teach and to what depth and breadth to teach them. This is a major part of the outcome goals set by each program as required by ABET Criteria 2000. After determining what topics to teach, faculty should use the portions of the FE exam that are relevant to those topics to assess knowledge in specific areas such as water resources, electric circuits, or machine design. Faculty should then compare the goals set by the faculty who teach those topics to the knowledge shown by the students who have successfully completed the program. This scenario assumes that examinees are not selected to inflate the passing rates and make the school look superior. In fact, for this assessment process to be valid, the population taking the exam must be representative of the entire population of graduates from the program. This can be accomplished either by having all seniors take the exam or by choosing a sample appropriately. A related issue is ensuring that people who take the exam make an honest effort to complete all problems to the best of their ability. While there is little or no evidence that large numbers of students fail to take the exam seriously, motivating them to review before the test and do their best work is a legitimate concern. Various methods are available to motivate students, ranging from letting them know how important the results are both to them as individuals and to the institution to requiring that they pass the exam to graduate. Some programs require that all students take the exam, and, while they do not have to pass the exam, either the pass/fail status or their exam score is posted to their transcripts. Clearly, if the results are to be useful for outcomes assessment, the students must be making their best effort at solving the problems. Faculty who have doubts about whether students are doing this should take steps to motivate them. 2

n order to effectively use the FE exam as an assessment tool, faculty should be knowledgeable of the exam specifications, both morning (AM) and afternoon (PM), as well as the level of knowledge the items are written to measure. (Specifications are provided at the end of this paper.) All the ABET/Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) programs were surveyed, and the specifications were developed from the responses of this survey. Assessments will be more meaningful if students take the discipline-specific PM exam that addresses more advanced engineering topics rather than the general engineering PM exam. However, even the general exam will provide information on basic topics that are relevant to most programs. The NCEES publishes performance data on all FE exams administered. In order to make an effective assessment, faculty should request the proper performance data from the NCEES so that comparisons with their program are based on content congruent with their program. NCEES Report 5 summarizes data on ABET/EAC program examinees who took the exam while still enrolled in school. This is the statistical group that should be used as a measure of instructional outcome. This report is currently available from your state board, but only if the examinees were asked to indicate school and program on the exam data sheet. An edited version of a Report 5 for civil engineering is shown in Table 1. Only the columns showing the results from the specific discipline should be used in making an assessment. TABLE 1. REPORT 5 SUMMARY* APRIL 19XX ADMINISTRATION ABET-ACCREDITED ENGINEERING PROGRAM EXAMINEES CURRENTLY ENROLLED IN SCHOOL Board: XXXXXXXX Special Code: Name of Institutio Major: Civil Engineering PM Examination Selected: Civil Engineerin SPECIFIED MAJORS ONLY ALL MAJORS COMBINED SPECIAL CODE STATE NATIONAL SPECIAL CODE STATE NATIONAL No. Taking Exam 12 19 1,987 51 125 15,277 No. Passing Exam 11 14 1,652 73 99 12,521 Percent Passing Exam 92% 74% 83% 80% 79% 82% NUMBER SPEC. CODE STATE NATIONAL SPEC. CODE STATE NATIONAL AM SUBJECT EXAM AVG. % AVG. % AVG. % AVG. % AVG. % AVG. % (1 POINT EACH) QUESTION CORRECT CORRECT CORRECT CORRECT CORRECT CORRECT Chemistry 11 73 64 66 71 63 62 Computers 6 67 83 74 65 82 71 Dynamics 10 30 40 36 31 41 33 Elect Circuits 12 17 8 12 15 10 12 Engr Economics 5 80 60 69 75 58 69 Ethics 5 80 60 71 78 59 67 Fluid Mech 8 75 63 68 73 59 67 Mat l Science/Str Matter 8 38 25 34 39 29 33 Mathematics 24 54 63 58 52 60 58 Mech of Materials 8 63 50 59 61 48 54 Statics 12 58 50 53 57 47 51 Thermodynamics 11 45 45 45 40 41 41 PM SUBJECT (2 POINTS EACH) Comp & Num Methods 6 33 33 33 36 34 25 Constr Management 3 33 67 50 37 68 51 Environmental Engr 6 67 50 60 62 51 56 Hydraulics & Hyd Sys 6 50 67 58 48 68 59 Legal & Prof Aspects 3 67 67 67 65 66 66 Soil Mech & Found 6 50 67 59 48 65 56 Struct Analysis 6 67 50 58 61 52 57 Struct Design 6 50 67 57 48 61 54 Surveying 6 50 67 56 47 64 56 Trans Facilities 6 50 50 50 45 51 49 Water Treatment 6 50 67 61 49 66 57 *National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) Fundamentals of Engineering Examination. Subject-matter report by major/all majors combined, including state and national norms for each, based on particular PM examination selected. 3

rior to the exam, faculty should determine the expected performance in each topic area, depending on the emphasis of that topic in their program. For example, if a program places little emphasis on surveying or transportation facilities, students should be expected to perform accordingly. Conversely, if the program has a strong emphasis on structural analysis, one would expect a much higher performance in this area compared to the national average. Faculty should consider performance over several administrations of the FE exam rather than from one test administration in order to obtain more conclusive results. The following scenario illustrates how the results of the FE exam can be used as an assessment tool. The civil engineering faculty at a university require all their students to take the FE exam in their senior year and strongly encourage them to take the discipline-specific PM exam. The faculty expect the students to meet the goals of successfully answering 60% of the AM questions directly related to their major (all topics except electric circuits, material science, and thermodynamics) and 40% of the questions on these three topics. For the PM questions, the faculty expect the students to correctly answer 65% of the questions on topics emphasized in their program (environmental, structures, hydraulics/hydrology, and transportation in this case), 50% on the fringe topics (soil mechanics and surveying), and only 30% on topics not included in their program (construction management). Assume that these students took the exam shown in Table 1, Report 5. The assessment based on this one administration only (recognizing that a conclusive assessment will require evaluation of several administrations of the exam) yields the following. For the AM subjects compared to the goals, the civil engineering students met the expectation of correctly answering at least 60% of the questions in chemistry, computers, engineering economics, ethics, fluid mechanics, and mechanics of materials. They were close or exceeded the 40% expectation in material science (38%) and thermodynamics. In the remaining topics (dynamics, electric circuits, mathematics, and maybe statics), the students failed to meet the goal. In the assessment process, the faculty must determine if the expectation was too high or if the topic area needs attention. In electric circuits and statics, perhaps the expectations were too high since the students correctly answered a higher percentage of the questions on these topics than did students nationally (column 4). These topics certainly need further study and evaluation. In mathematics, the students were below the expected goal and slightly below the national average (54% compared to 58% nationally). This topic also needs further study for any significant assessment to be made. For dynamics, the students were significantly below the expected goal. They scored below the national average and below other students within the state (column 3). Certainly this topic needs to be tracked over additional administrations of the FE exam, and factors such as instructional methods, texts, and teaching mechanisms need to be evaluated. In comparing the PM subjects to the goals, the students met the expectation in the environmental and structural analysis topic areas but fell below expectations in hydraulics, structural design, and transportation. In the fringe areas, they met the expected goals in soil mechanics and surveying and also met the expected goals in construction management, which is not part of their program. The students performed at the national average in legal and professional aspects as well as in computers and numerical methods that are embedded in several courses. Perhaps the expectation was high for transportation since the students performed at the national average, but this needs some further consideration. In hydraulics and structural design, the students performed below the expected goals and below the national averages. These two areas warrant further investigation and perhaps modification of laboratory demonstrations, teaching mechanisms, and texts, and perhaps even warrant reallocation of faculty. It should be noted that expectations of faculty typically exceed actual performance of their students on the FE examination. 4

he NCEES compiles other summaries from Report 5 data sheets that show national performance for all examinees (Table 2). These summaries show the number of questions asked by topic area and the percentage answered correctly nationally. The number of examinees and the passing rates for other statistical groups are shown at the bottom of these summaries. The passing rate depends entirely on the population examined. In Table 2, the only information pertinent for assessment purposes is that that pertains to the ABET/EAC examinees who took the exam while still in school. TABLE 2. NATIONAL PERFORMANCE NCEES FUNDAMENTALS OF ENGINEERING EXAMINATION APRIL 19XX CIVIL ENGINEERING DATA* NATIONAL NATIONAL CE GENERAL PM EXAM PM EXAM No. of CE Taking Exam* 2,506 2,216 Percent CE Passing Exam 83% 81% AM SUBJECT NO. PERCENT PERCENT QUESTIONS CORRECT CORRECT Chemistry 11 66 68 Computers 7 71 70 Dynamics 9 63 65 Electric Circuits 12 57 61 Engr Economics 5 77 77 Ethics 5 76 72 Fluid Mechanics 8 70 70 Mat l Sci/Str Matter 8 72 73 Mathematics 24 61 65 Mechanics of Materials 8 73 74 Statics 12 69 70 Thermodynamics 11 64 66 TOTAL QUESTIONS 120 AM SUBJECT NO. PERCENT PM SUBJECT NO. PERCENT QUESTIONS CORRECT QUESTIONS CORRECT Construction Mgmt 3 45 Electric Circuits 6 47 Computers & Num Meth 6 59 Chemistry 5 40 Environmental Engr 6 62 Computers 3 70 Hydr & Hydrologic Sys 6 46 Dynamics 5 35 Legal & Professional 3 91 Engr Economics 3 40 Structural Analysis 6 53 Ethics 3 80 Structural Design 6 51 Fluid Mechanics 4 61 Soil Mech & Found 6 65 Mathematics 12 57 Surveying 6 45 Mat l Sci/Str Matter 3 61 Transportation Facilities 6 63 Mechanics of Mat l 4 42 Water Treatment 6 43 Statics 6 70 Thermodynamics 6 53 TOTAL QUESTIONS 60 TOTAL QUESTIONS 60 % PASSING Total ABET engineering examinees 20,323 78.3% Total ABET technology examinees 1,644 42.1% All examinees 29,936 72.8% * Exam taken by students enrolled in ABET-accredited engineering programs 5

n making an assessment using the FE exam results, faculty must also consider that some students may not have taken the coursework before taking the FE exam. For example, some students take structural design in the spring semester of their senior year; therefore, those who take the FE in October of their senior year will not be prepared for that subject area. A sample FE exam exit questionnaire is shown in Table 3. Completed questionnaires may provide some insight into these factors and allow faculty to consider such factors in making their assessment. TABLE 3. SAMPLE EXIT QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FE EXAMINATION This questionnaire is designed to determine your perception of your preparedness for the topic areas on the FE examination. The department will use the information as part of our outcomes assessment. Individual responses will be confidential. Indicate your confidence in answering the questions in each topic area by placing an X in the column that best describes your preparedness. Also indicate how many credit hours you have completed in each area. SUBJECT AREA AM Chemistry Computers Dynamics Electric Circuits Engineering Economics Ethics Fluid Mechanics Material Science/Structure of Matter Mathematics Mechanics of Materials Statics Thermodynamics SUBJECT AREA PM VERY PREPARED VERY PREPARED ADEQUATELY PREPARED ADEQUATELY PREPARED Computers & Numerical Methods Construction Management Environmental Engineering Hydraulics & Hydrologic Systems Legal and Professional Aspects Soil Mechanics and Foundations Structural Analysis Structural Design Surveying Transportation Facilities Water Purification and Treatment DO YOU BELIEVE YOU PASSED FE? YES NO MINIMALLY PREPARED MINIMALLY PREPARED UNPREPARED UNPREPARED CREDIT HOURS CREDIT HOURS 6

ffective assessment should result in continuous program improvement. Faculty should evaluate the results of student performance on individual items. Doing so will identify those areas in which students are performing below the goals established by the faculty and perhaps significantly below national or state averages. Evaluations should instigate necessary changes in textbooks, teaching mechanisms, laboratory procedures, and even reallocations of faculty to improve student performance. In one documented case in which FE exam results were used, student performance was significantly below the national average in hydraulics and hydrology. The department head was surprised since the student evaluations for the course had been very good over several years. However, upon investigation, he found that the laboratory procedures used to reinforce the theory were very shallow and that the performance demand on the students was low. The laboratory procedures and depth of instruction were improved over several semesters without lessening instruction on the theory. The last few examinations indicate a significant improvement in student performance in this area. A point that cannot be overemphasized is that for assessment purposes, the results of multiple exams should be considered and the exam content compared to the course content. There are some other criticisms of using the FE examination data that should be addressed. One criticism is that only sample questions are provided to faculty, making it difficult for them to determine the level of knowledge. The NCEES cannot release exam questions without compromising its data bank and without requiring the volunteers who write the questions to produce significantly more questions for the exam. Faculty could, however, use an exit questionnaire such as the one in Table 3 to learn more about the level of learning and preparation of their students by subject area. This questionnaire could also provide information about students who take the exam before having the coursework and can also be used to determine other information such as whether transfer students have taken courses at other institutions. A second criticism is that information on student learning is not complete since the FE is not taken by all engineering students. Also, some students are not held accountable for the results, while other students who voluntarily take the FE are highly motivated. One technique that might compensate for the variability in student attitude would be to make comparisons with peer groups only. The NCEES could become a depository for all FE data, and each institution could select a number of peer institutions for comparison. The authors have suggested to the NCEES that Report 5 be modified to provide the average statistics for several peer groupings. The proposed changes to Report 5 are shown in Table 4. 7

or example, the peer group might be the Carnegie Research institutions (a combination of Research I and Research II), which require all students to take the FE examination. In those programs requiring the FE exam for graduation, the students who did not take it seriously could be statistically eliminated to provide better data comparisons. Also, the NCEES might share the full test specifications with faculty to show what kind of content is in the examination and what is not in the examination. The NCEES technical staff has been willing to discuss these possibilities but will need Council approval to implement the suggested changes. TABLE 4. PROPOSED REPORT 5 SUMMARY* APRIL 19XX ADMINISTRATION ABET-ACCREDITED ENGINEERING PROGRAM EXAMINEES CURRENTLY ENROLLED IN SCHOOL Board: XXXXXXXX Special Code: Name of Institution Major: Civil Engineering PM Examination Selected: Civil Engineering SPECIFIED MAJORS ONLY ALL MAJORS COMBINED INSTITUTION STATE NAT L INSTITUTION STATE NAT L NAME No. Examnees Taking 12 19 1,987 51 125 15,277 AM SUBJECT NUMBER INSTITUTION NAT L NAT L CARNEGIE CARNEGIE CARNEGIE (1 POINT EACH) EXAM AVG. % AVG. % STANDARD RESEARCH AVG. % DOCTORAL COMP AVG. % QUESTION CORRECT CORRECT DEVIATION CORRECT AVG. % CORRECT CORRECT Chemistry 11 73 66 Computers 6 67 74 Dynamics 10 30 36 Elect Circuits 12 17 12 Engr Economics 5 80 69 Ethics 5 80 71 Fluid Mech 8 75 68 Mat l Science/Str Matter 8 38 34 Mathematics 24 54 58 Mech of Materials 8 63 59 Statics 12 58 53 Thermodynamics 11 45 45 PM SUBJECT NUMBER INSTITUTION NAT L NAT L CARNEGIE CARNEGIE CARNEGIE (2 POINTS EACH) EXAM AVG. % AVG. % STANDARD RESEARCH AVG. % DOCTORAL COMP AVG. % QUESTION CORRECT CORRECT DEVIATION CORRECT AVG. % CORRECT CORRECT Comp & Num Meth 6 33 33 Constr Management 3 33 50 Environmental Engr 6 67 60 Hydraulics & Hyd Sys 6 50 58 Legal & Prof Aspects 3 67 67 Soil Mech & Found 6 50 59 Struct Analysis 6 67 58 Struct Design 6 50 57 Surveying 6 50 56 Trans Facilities 6 50 50 Water Treatment 6 50 61 NAME *National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) Fundamentals of Engineering Examination. Subject-matter report by major/all majors combined, including state and national norms for each, based on particular PM examination selected. 8

Conclusions he authors have experience in using the FE exam for outcomes assessment and find it to be a very useful part of a balanced assessment program that includes other standardized tests, assessment tools, alumni surveys, and placement data. The FE exam is particularly important because it is the only nationally normed test of upper-level engineering knowledge that is widely available. The detailed reports of performance by subject area provide information than can be related to a program s success in achieving many of the outcomes specified by ABET. Over time, these reports can also help programs document the effects of curriculum revisions, teaching innovations, and other actions taken to improve student mastery of engineering topics. Based on our experience, we conclude the following. 1. Engineering programs should strongly consider using the FE exam topic-level performance data as part of their program assessment, with proper regard for the caveats described. 2. Programs that will gain the most from using the FE exam as an assessment tool are those programs in which all students are required to take the FE exam, all students are required take the discipline-specific PM exam, the faculty establish specific goals for their program, and comparisons are made with peer institutions that have similar requirements. 3. Member Boards (state boards) should become proactive in working with academic programs to stress the use and value of the FE exam as an assessment tool. 4. Institutions must remember that the primary purpose of the FE is to assess minimal technical competencies. Other assessment tools need to be used to assess higher-level theories or critical thought that might be the focus of some portion of their program. 5. The results of each FE examination (Report 5) should be sent directly to the institutions for their use. 9

NCEES FUNDAMENTALS OF ENGINEERING (FE) EXAMINATION EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1996 MORNING SESSION SPECIFICATIONS SUBJECT % OF QUESTIONS SUBJECT % OF QUESTIONS Chemistry... 9 Computers... 5 Dynamics... 8 Electric Circuits... 10 Engineering Economics... 4 Ethics... 4 Fluid Mechanics... 7 Materials Science/Structure of Matter...7 Mathematics...20 Mechanics of Materials...7 Statics...10 Thermodynamics... 9 Total...100 CHEMISTRY Acids & Bases Equilibrium Equations Electrochemistry Inorganic Chemistry Kinetics Metals and Nonmetals Nomenclature Organic Chemistry Oxidations & Reduction Periodicity States of Matter Solutions Stoichiometry COMPUTERS Algorithm Flowchart Spreadsheets Psuedocode Data Transmission & Storage DYNAMICS Force, Mass, & Acceleration Friction Impulse & Momentum Kinematics Vibrations Work & Energy ELECTRIC CIRCUITS AC Circuits Diode Applications DC Circuits Electric & Magnetic Fields Capacitance & Inductance Ideal Transformers Fourier & Laplace Transforms Operational Amplifiers (Ideal) ENGINEERING ECONOMICS Annual Cost Breakeven Analysis Benefit-Cost Analysis Future Worth or Value Present Worth Valuation & Depreciation ETHICS Relations with Clients Relations with Peers Relations with Public FLUID MECHANICS Flow Measurement Fluid Properties Fluid Statics Impulse & Momentum Pipe & Other Internal Flow Similitude & Dimensional Analysis MATERIAL SCIENCE/ STRUCTURE OF MATTER Atomic Structure Crystallography Corrosion Diffusion Materials Binary Phase Diagrams Properties Processing & Testing MATHEMATICS Analytic Geometry Differential Equations Differential Calculus Difference Equations Integral Calculus Linear Algebra Laplace Transforms Probability & Statistics Roots of Equations Vector Analysis MECHANICS OF MATERIALS Beams Bending Columns Combined Stresses Shear Stress & Strain Tension & Compression Torsion STATICS 2-Dimensional Equilibrium 3-Dimensional Equilibrium Centroid of Area Concurrent Force Systems Friction Moment of Inertia Vector Forces THERMODYNAMICS 1st Law 2nd Law Availability-Reversibility Cycles Energy, Heat & Work Ideal Gases Mixture of Gases Phase Changes Properties: Enthalpy, Entropy, Free Energy Thermodynamic Processes 10

The FE examination is an 8-hour supplied-reference examination: 120 one-point questions in the 4-hour morning session and 60 two-point questions in the 4-hour afternoon session. The morning session is common to all disciplines. The afternoon session is administered in the following five disciplines: Chemical, Civil, Electrical, Industrial, and Mechanical with a General Engineering section for all remaining disciplines. Examinees will work all questions in the morning session and all questions in the afternoon section they have chosen. Examinees can purchase a book from the NCEES containing sample questions by calling 800-250-3196 or faxing 864-654-6966. 11

NCEES FUNDAMENTALS OF ENGINEERING (FE) EXAMINATION EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1996 AFTERNOON SESSION SPECIFICATIONS SUBJECT % OF QUESTIONS SUBJECT % OF QUESTIONS CHEMICAL Chemical Reaction Engineering... 10 Chemical Thermodynamics... 10 Computer & Numerical Methods... 5 Heat Transfer... 10 Mass Transfer... 10 Material/Energy Balances... 15 Pollution Prevention... 5 Process Control... 5 Process Design & Economics Evaluation... 10 Process Equipment Design... 5 Process Safety... 5 Transport Phenomena... 10 CIVIL Computers & Numerical Methods... 10 Construction Management... 5 Environmental Engineering... 10 Hydraulics & Hydrologic Systems... 10 Legal & Professional Aspects... 5 Soil Mechanics & Foundations... 10 Structural Analysis... 10 Structural Design... 10 Surveying... 10 Transportation Facilities... 10 Water Purification & Treatment... 10 INDUSTRIAL Computer Computations & Modeling... 5 Design of Industrial Experiments... 5 Engineering Economics... 5 Engineering Statistics... 5 Facility Design & Location... 5 Industrial Cost Analysis... 5 Industrial Ergonomics... 5 Industrial Management... 5 Information System Design... 5 Manufacturing Processes... 5 Manufacturing Systems Design... 5 Material Handling System Design... 5 Mathematical Optimization & Modeling... 5 Production Planning & Scheduling... 5 Productivity Measurement & Management... 5 Queuing Theory & Modeling... 5 Simulation... 5 Statistical Quality Control... 5 Total Quality Management... 5 Work Performance & Methods... 5 GENERAL Chemistry...7.5 Computers...5 Dynamics...7.5 Electrical Circuits...10 Engineering Economics...5 Ethics...5 Fluid Mechanics...7.5 Material Science/Structure of Matter...5 Mathematics...20 Mechanics of Materials...7.5 Statics...10 Thermodynamics...10 ELECTRICAL Analog Electronic Circuits...10 Communications Theory...10 Computer & Numerical Methods...5 Computer Hardware Engineering...5 Computer Software Engineering...5 Control Systems Theory & Analysis...10 Digital Systems...10 Electromagnetic Theory & Applications...10 Instrumentation...5 Network Analysis...10 Power Systems...5 Signal Processing...5 Solid State Electronics & Devices...10 MECHANICAL Automatic Controls...5 Computer...5 Dynamic Systems...10 Energy Conversion & Power Plants...5 Fans, Pumps, & Compressors...5 Fluid Mechanics...10 Heat Transfer...10 Material Behavior/Processing...5 Measurement & Instrumentation...10 Mechanical Design...10 Refrigeration & HVAC...5 Stress Analysis...10 Thermodynamics...10 12

Report Authors Walter LeFevre is a professor emeritus in civil engineering at the University of Arkansas. He has served on NCEES examination committees since 1984 and served 12 years on the Arkansas State Board of Engineers. He is past president of the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE), past ABET national board member, and presently senior vice president of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). John W. Smith is a former professor of civil engineering and director of the Ground Water Institute at the University of Memphis. He is the past chair of the NCEES Computer- Based Testing Committee and a past member of the Committee on Examinations for Professional Engineers (EPE). John W. Steadman is the associate dean and head of the Electrical Engineering Department at the University of Wyoming. He has served on NCEES examination committees since 1986 and is the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) representative to NCEES EPE Committee. He is past president of the NCEES and is currently chair of the IEEE Licensure and Registration Committee. Kenneth R. White is head of the Civil Engineering Department at New Mexico State University. He is presently chair of NCEES EPE Committee and a past chair of the civil engineering exam subcommittee. He is a member of the New Mexico State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Surveyors. 13