Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Bachelor of Electrical Engineering Program
Academic Year 2004/2005 (August 2004 to May 2005)
Prepared by: F. Eugenio Villaseca
Professor and Chairman
Table of Contents
I.
I.1.
Overview of Assessment Process
Assessment Methods
I.2.
Outcomes/Assessment Matrix
I.3.
Objectives/Assessment Matrix
I.4.
Courses/Outcomes Matrix
I.5.
Courses/Objectives Matrix
II.
Assessment Results Relative to Outcomes
Assessment Report by the Industry Advisory Committee on Objectives and Outcomes
III.
Summary of Assessment Results Relative to Objectives
IV.
Conclusions
Appendixes
1.
Course Evaluation Results for Outcomes, Fall 2004
2.
Course Evaluation Results for Objectives, Fall 2004
3.
Course Evaluation Results for Outcomes, Spring 2005
4.
Course Evaluation Results for Objectives, Spring 2005
5.
Senior Exit Survey Results for Outcomes, Spring 2004
6.
Senior Design Instructor Survey Results for Outcomes, Spring 2005
7.
Alumni Survey Results for Outcomes, Fall 2005
8.
Course Evaluation Form for Outcomes
9.
Course Evaluation Form for Objectives
10.
Senior Exit Survey Sheet
11.
Senior Design Instructor Survey Sheet
12.
Alumni Survey Sheet
Page
5
6
7
8
2
2
4
18
21
23
28
29
30
30
31
32
34
36
24
25
26
27
Assessment Report (04-05)-EE.doc 6-28-05 1

According to ABET EC2000, the assessment process should be an on-going spiral process that starts with the formulation of the program’s educational objectives and the student expected outcomes, followed by annual assessments to ascertain the degree to which the objectives and outcomes are being met with all educational means, mainly the offering of courses. Based on the assessment findings, adjustment of educational practice is made to better meet the objectives and outcomes. This process continues in a spiral manner in the sense that, in each passing of the process, a higher quality of education will hopefully result.
I.1 Assessment Methods
The five assessment instruments used by the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering are as follows:
Course Evaluation, Senior Exit Survey, Design Instructor Survey, Alumni Survey, and Industry Advisory Committee
Survey. Each method will be described in detail later.
Results collected by the five instruments are compiled and analyzed by the Engineering Criteria Department
Coordinator. The compiled results are presented to the Department Faculty in the Annual Assessment Report and the Department Faculty reviews them and holds discussions about the findings. Weak points of the curriculum are identified and remedies are proposed.
A summary of the faculty review discussions and recommended remedial actions are compiled in the Reviews and Actions Report by the Engineering Criteria Department Coordinator and distributed to all faculty members of the Department. Any recommended changes related to assessment methods and tools are proposed by the
Engineering Criteria Department Coordinator for approval by the Department Faculty. Any recommended changes related to courses are made by the course coordinator. Any recommended curriculum changes are then officially brought before the Department, College, and University for approval.
Course Evaluation
This activity is performed after the end of each semester (this process started after the Spring 2002). Each EEC course is designated to meet certain outcomes and objectives (see Courses/Outcomes Matrix in Section I.4 and
Courses/Objectives in Section I.5). The instructor of each course is required to fill out a Course Evaluation form for
Outcomes and a Course Evaluation for Objectives form (see Appendixes 8 and 9. These forms are distributed to and collected from the instructors by the Engineering Criteria Department Coordinator. A score from 0 to 3 points is selected for a related outcome or objective, with 3 for “completely met” and 0 for “not met”. Total number of points and the percentage of the maximum total number of points are calculated. On the forms, the instructor is provided space to write any necessary explanation to support the evaluation, and to provide an assessment of the students’ knowledge of the prerequisite topics, and to provide recommendations on how to change the course in order to better meet the program outcomes and/or objectives.
Senior Exit Survey
This activity is performed every year after the end of spring semester. Each graduating senior student is asked to fill out the Senior Exist Survey form (see Appendix 10.) These forms are given to the graduating seniors and collected by one of the department secretaries before the student’s application for graduation can be processed. The student is first asked to answer three general questions about quality of the academic program, the courses, and the faculty. For these 3 questions, a score from 1 to 5 is selected, with 1 for “poor” and 5 for “excellent”. Then the student is asked to answer 15 questions regarding whether the outcomes of the curriculum are met. For these 15 questions, a score from 0 to 5 points is selected, with 5 for “strongly agree”, 1 for “strongly disagree”, and 0 for “no basis for judgment”. At the end, the student is asked to comment on the strength of the Electrical Engineering program and on how the Electrical Engineering program could be improved
Assessment Report (04-05)-EE.doc 6-28-05 2

Senior Design Instructor Survey
This activity is performed every year after the end of spring semester. Each instructor teaching the Senior
Design course (EEC490) is asked to fill out a Senior Design Instructor Survey form (see Appendix 11.) These forms are distributed to and collected from the instructors by the Engineering Criteria Department Coordinator.
The instructor is asked to answer 16 questions regarding the students’ ability as stipulated by the outcomes of the curriculum, acquired through the curriculum, and manifested in the senior design process. For these 16 questions, a score from 0 to 5 points is selected, with 5 for “excellent”, 1 for “poor”, and 0 for “no basis for judgment”. At the end, the instructor is asked to recommend changes, if any, to the Senior Design course or to the curriculum of the Electrical Engineering program.
Alumni Survey
This activity is performed every odd year in the fall semester by the engineering college. Each surveyed alumnus is asked to fill out a form of 22 questions (see Appendix 12). The first 18 questions are for the outcomes.
The alumni are asked to rate our program using a score from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent) for achieving each outcome.
The rest of 4 questions are related to objectives; no rating is required.
Industrial Advisory Committee
An annual meeting of the Industrial Advisory Committee with all the faculty members is organized by the
Department Chairperson. Invitation letters and material related to curriculum objectives and outcomes are sent to the committee members before the meeting. The committee members are presented with videos of the senior design presentations, the student notebook recording their daily work through the semester, and the student teams final reports. The Committee and the Faculty exchange opinions and ideas regarding curriculum outcomes and objectives. After meeting, the Committee submits a report including their ratings of the level to which each outcome and objective is met, and to provide suggestions that might be helpful to improve the curriculum.
Assessment Report (04-05)-EE.doc 6-28-05 3

I.2 Outcomes/Assessment Matrix
The assessment tools (strategies) include senior exit survey (questionnaire), design instructor survey
(questionnaire), alumni survey (questionnaire), and industrial advisory committee (meetings). The outcomes and the assessment strategies for outcomes are summarized in the following table.
Assessment Tools
Outcomes
Electrical Engineering
(a) Apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering
(b) Design and conduct electrical engineering experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data
(c) Design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs
(d) Function on multi-disciplinary teams
(e) Identify, formulate, and solve electrical engineering problems
(f) Understanding of professional and ethical responsibility
(g) Communicate effectively
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X (h) Understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context
(i) Engage in life-long learning
(j) Knowledge of contemporary issues
(k) Use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Assessment Report (04-05)-EE.doc 6-28-05 4

I.3 Objectives/Assessment Matrix
The assessment tools (strategies) include alumni survey (questionnaire) and industrial advisory committee
(meetings). The objectives and the assessment strategies for objectives are summarized in the following table.
Assessment Tools
Objectives
Electrical Engineering
1) Practice electrical engineering in one or more of the following areas: communications computers, controls, power electronics, and power systems
X
2) Define and diagnose problems, and provide and implement electrical engineering solutions in an industrial environment
X
3) Observe engineering ethics in the practice of electrical engineering
4) Communicate effectively with technically diverse audiences
5) Collaborate with others as a member or as a leader in an engineering team
6) Develop their knowledge beyond the undergraduate level and to keep current with advancements in electrical engineering
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Assessment Report (04-05)-EE.doc 6-28-05 5

I.4 Courses/Outcomes Matrix
Freshman Program
Electrical
Engineering
Outcomes
Sophomore Junior
Senior
(a) Knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering
(b) Design and conduct experiments, analyze and interpret data
(c) Ability to design a system, component, or process
(d) Ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams
(e) Ability to identify, formulate, and solve electrical engineering problems
(f) Understanding of professional and ethical responsibility
(g) Ability to communicate effectively
(h) Broad education to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context
(i) Recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning
(j) Knowledge of contemporary issues
(k) Ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X
X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X X X X
X X
X X X X X X
X X X X
X X X X X
X
X X X X X
X X
X X X
X X X X X
6

I.5 Courses/Objectives Matrix
Electrical
Engineering
Program
Objectives
1.
Practice electrical engineering in one or more of the X following areas: communications, computers, controls, power electronics, and power systems.
2.
Define and diagnose problems, and provide and implement electrical
X engineering solutions in industry, business, and government.
3.
Observe engineering ethics in the practice of
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X electrical engineering.
4.
Communicate effectively with technically diverse audiences
5.
Collaborate with others as a member or as a leader in an engineering team.
6.
Develop their knowledge beyond the undergraduate level and to keep current with advancements in electrical engineering.
X X X X
X
X
X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
7

Scores are percentages that are obtained by normalizing scores to their maximums. The designations are:

90 to 100: Excellent,

80 to 90: Very Good,

70 to 80: Good,

60 to 70: Satisfactory,

< 60: unsatisfactory.
The following table is a summary of the overall average scores of all outcomes. The overall average score is an average of scores obtained by various assessment tools during two semesters. (See Appendixes 1 to 7 for detailed results from Course Evaluations, Senior Exit Survey, Senior Design Instructor Survey, and Industrial Advisory
Committee Survey).
8

Outcomes
Electrical Engineering
(a) Ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering
(b) Ability to design and conduct electrical engineering experiments
(c) Ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs
(d) Ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams
(e) Ability to identify, formulate, and solve electrical engineering problems
(f) Understanding of professional and ethical responsibility
(g) Ability to communicate effectively
(h) Broad education to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context
(i) A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning
(j) A knowledge of contemporary issues
(k) An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for electrical engineering practice
89
81
88
85
86
82
73
82
85
Overall
Average
02-03 (%)
85
Overall
Average
03-04 (%)
81
0verall
Average
04-05 (%)
92
81 79 92
Designation
Excellent
Excellent
77
68
75
89
81
82
93
82
87
95
88
98
Excellent
Very good
Very good
Excellent
Very Good
Excellent
75
76
84
86
93
97
Very Good
Excellent
Excellent
9

From this table we can see that our program in general is very successful in meeting all outcomes. Compared with last year’s results, we can see that scores have all increased. Effort should continue to be made to improve the scores of outcomes (d), (e), and (g).
In the following, detailed scores for each outcome are presented (If an assessment instrument is not used, no entry is entered in the score table.) Then, conclusions are drawn from the scores and necessary actions are recommended or actions already taken are described.
Outcome (a): Ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering to general electrical engineering and, in particular, to one or more of the following areas: communications, computers, controls, power electronics, and power systems .
This outcome is to be realized by all EEC courses and supporting engineering science (ESC) courses.
However it also relies heavily on the background acquired from the courses students taken in their first two years from the departments of Mathematics, Physics, and Chemistry.
Results of Outcome (a):
Scores
Assessment Strategy
Course Evaluation
Fall
2004
Spring
2005
Average
04-05
Designation
Senior Exit Survey
Senior Design Instructor Survey
Alumni Survey
Industrial Advisory Committee
91
N.A.
97
95
78
100
94
95
78
100
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Excellent
Overall Average 92 Excellent
Conclusions and Action Taken/Recommended:
The overall average score is “excellent” so that this outcome has been met. The score from
Senior Exit
Survey , which reflects the perception of our graduates about their own ability, is “excellent” the highest it has ever been. The score from Course Evaluation is also “excellent”, which reflects the fact that our courses have met this outcome well. The Alumni Survey is conducted every odd year in the Fall semester, so results are not available for this assessment exercise. The score from Senior Design Instructor Survey is only “good”. There are noticeable discrepancies of scoring in some other outcomes that require some analysis and it will be presented at the discussion of the pertinent outcomes.
Outcome (b): Ability to d esign and conduct electrical engineering experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data
This outcome is to be realized by all EEC laboratory courses and some other EEC courses.
726995980 6-28-05 10

Results of Outcome (b):
Scores
Assessment Strategy
Course Evaluation
Senior Exit Survey
Senior Design Instructor Survey
Alumni Survey
Fall
2004
89
N.A.
Spring
2005
83
93
90
Average
04-05
86
93
90
Designation
Very good
Excellent
Excellent
Industrial Advisory Committee 100 100 Excellent
Overall Average 92 Excellent
Conclusions and Action Taken/Recommended:
The overall average score is “excellent” so that this outcome has been met. The results appear consistent with those of the previous year, with a slight improvement in the Course Evaluation, but not enough to raise it to the “excellent” category. Again, the Alumni Survey is not available by schedule.
Outcome (c): Ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs
This outcome is to be realized by all EEC courses.
Results of Outcome (c):
Scores
Assessment Strategy
Course Evaluation
Fall
2004
Spring
2005
Average
04-05
Designation
Senior Exit Survey
Senior Design Instructor Survey
Alumni Survey
Industrial Advisory Committee
79
N.A.
92
93
93
100
86
93
93
100
Very Good
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Average 93 Excellent
Conclusions and Action Taken/Recommended:
The overall average score is “excellent” so that this outcome has been met. The results appear consistent with those of the previous year, with a decrease in the Course Evaluation.
Although, this outcome is intended to be realized by “all EEC courses”, it is noted from the
Course Evaluation that the course EEC 361
Electromechanical Energy Conversion is the only EEC course that has no score for this outcome and neither is it declared in the Courses/Outcomes Matrix. This is an anomaly that requires resolution by the Faculty. The course EEC 310 did not show a score for the Spring semester; this may have been an oversight by the instructor. Again, the Alumni Survey is not available by schedule.
Outcome (d ) : Ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams
This outcome is to be realized by EEC 490, Senior Design course.
726995980 6-28-05 11

Results of Outcome (d):
Scores
Assessment Strategy
Course Evaluation
Senior Exit Survey
Senior Design Instructor Survey
Alumni Survey
Fall
2004
N.A.
N.A.
Spring
2005
73
92
80
Average
04-05
73
92
80
Designation
Good
Excellent
Very Good
Industrial Advisory Committee 83 83 Very Good
Overall Average 82 Very Good
Comments by the Industry Advisory Committee:
The Committee observes that it is impractical to provide a true multi-disciplinary experience within the constraints of a university program. The students do have ample team experience as a result of many laboratory courses. The faculty has incorporated into the senior design course as many multi-disciplinary elements as possible, requiring the students to consider, for example, marketing and cost aspects of their projects, not just the technical issues. The committee observes that this should adequately prepare students to participate in multidisciplinary teams. The Committee also observes that the newly implemented ProSkills program is an excellent addition to the university’s programs, and should substantially improve students’ communications skills, which will also enhance their effectiveness in multi-disciplinary teams.
Conclusions and Action Taken/Recommended:
The overall average score is “very good” so that this outcome has been met. Senior design is the only course where a multidisciplinary team is possible. Fall 2002 semester was the first time when a multi-disciplinary team was formed. The team consisted of students from electrical and computer engineering. The senior design in
Spring 2004 is a joint project of communication and digital systems, again involving students from electrical engineering and computer engineering. However, after the ABET visit for accreditation, this effort was not continued, going back to disciplinary designs. A change in this course, which can be credited to the ABET review was the inclusion and use of Engineering Standards.
The multi-disciplinary team requirement must be addressed by the Faculty. All departments in the college are facing this problem and the dean has appointed a senior design committee to study the problem, but we the department faculty should discuss this issue. Again, the Alumni Survey is not available by schedule.
Outcome (e): Ability to identify, formulate, and solve electrical engineering problems
This outcome is to be realized by EEC courses, including EEC 490, Senior Design course.
Results of Outcome (e):
Fall
2004
Spring
2005
Average
04-05
Designation Scores
Assessment Strategy
Course Evaluation
Senior Exit Survey
Senior Design Instructor Survey
Alumni Survey
Industrial Advisory Committee
Overall Average
82
N.A.
94
97
80
83
88
97
80
83
87
Very Good
Excellent
Very Good
Very Good
Very Good
726995980 6-28-05 12

Conclusions and Action Taken/Recommended:
The overall average score is “very good” so that this outcome has been met. However, only the graduation seniors had a higher opinion regarding this outcome. Since the Faculty did not provide commentary, it is not clear whether the lack of a higher level of achievement of this outcome was due to the fact that the courses involved did not provide sufficient opportunities for students to demonstrate their abilities or because the students were somewhat deficient in responding to its demands. It is suggested that the Faculty use the space provided by the form for commentary when this outcome in their course deserves a score less than 3. Again, the Alumni Survey is not available by schedule.
Outcome (f): Understanding of professional and ethical responsibility
This outcome is to be realized by ESC100, Orientation, ESC120, Introduction to Engineering Design, and
PHL215, Engineering Ethics.
Results of Outcome (f):
Scores
Assessment Strategy
Course Evaluation
Senior Exit Survey
Fall
2004
100
Spring
2005
100
95
Average
04-05
100
95
Designation
Excellent
Excellent
Senior Design Instructor Survey
Alumni Survey
Industrial Advisory Committee
Overall Average
N.A.
100
83
100
83
95
Excellent
Very Good
Excellent
Conclusions and Action Taken/Recommended:
The overall average score is “excellent” so that this outcome has been met. It has been recommended that course evaluations be conducted on those two related courses: ESC100, ESC120, and PHL215, so that the overall score will be more accurate. However, neither ESC 100 nor ESC120 address these issues in a significant way. PHL215 and the ProSkills module (which includes, among other things, a discussion of the IEEE Code of
Ethics) are pertinent. Since the ProSkills is a module and not a course in the curriculum, there is no way to include it in the Course/Outcomes Matrix, and hence it does not get reported and evaluated. The Faculty should address this anomaly. It is also noted that the instructors reporting the Senior Design Instructor Survey (survey question 9) do not agree on how to assess this outcome. While two of the instructors gave a score of 5, one indicated “no basis for judgment”. This result poses a dilemma: either this outcome is observable in the Senior
Design course or it is not. If it is, the Faculty needs to discuss how it is manifested and if it is not, determine why we do require its assessment.
Outcome (g): Ability to communicate effectively
This outcome is to be realized by EEC lab courses, including EEC 490, Senior Design course and PHL215.
726995980 6-28-05 13

Results of Outcome (g):
Scores
Assessment Strategy
Course Evaluation
Senior Exit Survey
Senior Design Instructor Survey
Alumni Survey
Fall
2004
83
N.A.
Spring
2005
90
94
87
Average
04-05
87
94
87
Designation
Very Good
Excellent
Very Good
Industrial Advisory Committee 83 83 Very Good
Overall Average 88 Very Good
Conclusions and Action Taken/Recommended:
The overall average score is “very good” so that this outcome has been met. Again, the
Alumni Survey is not available by schedule. Compared with 03/04 year’s result (81), the score has increased almost to the
“excellent” level. We may attribute this improvement to the efforts of all faculty members of the department.
Particularly, we must attribute it to the “ProSkills” modules which are distributed throughout the curriculum.
This program started experimentally in Fall 02, formally implemented in Spring 2003, and continues to this day.
The ProSkills program is a communication skill development program designed to address many of the most important communication and interpersonal skills required for successful carriers in engineering. The program targets the development of the non-technical skills such as writing, listening, speaking, ethics, personal networking, resumes and cover letters, project management, teamwork, interpersonal relationships, etc.
Program activities ProSkills are integrated in required classes that typically involve all students. For each designated course, lectures and exercises are given during one class session in the semester. Student work is evaluated and feedback is provided to each student. The program also incorporates an assessment methodology to track on-going student skills development and documents results for use by the Faculty.
Outcome (h): Broad education to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context
This outcome is to be realized by four general education electives and ESC282, Engineering Economy and
PHL215, Engineering Ethics.
Results of Outcome (h):
Fall
2004
Spring
2005
Average
04-05
Designation Scores
Assessment Strategy
Course Evaluation
Senior Exit Survey
Senior Design Instructor Survey
Alumni Survey
100
N.A.
100
93
100
100
93
100
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Industry Advisory Committee
Overall Average
N.A.
98 Excellent
726995980 6-28-05 14

Conclusions and Action Taken/Recommended:
The overall average score is “excellent” so that this outcome has been met. It is difficult, if not impossible, to do the course evaluation by surveying the instructors of general education electives. However, it is possible to do that from instructors of ESC282, Engineering Economy and PHL215, Engineering Ethics. It was recommended that course evaluation be conducted on those two courses. The data were collected from
PHL215. But the instructor of ESC282 considers that this course is not related to outcome (h), and no score is given again this year.
Again, the Alumni Survey is not available by schedule. The Industry Advisory Committee report indicated no basis for assessing this outcome, which raises the question: what evidence should the Faculty provide to the
Committee to assess this outcome or should they be expected to do so and how?
Here again it is also noted that the instructors reporting the Senior Design Instructor Survey (survey question 12) do not agree on how to assess this outcome. While two of the instructors gave a score of 5, one indicated “no basis for judgment”. This result poses a dilemma: either this outcome is observable in the Senior
Design course or it is not. If it is, the Faculty needs to discuss how it is manifested and if it is not, determine why we do require its assessment.
Outcome (i): recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning
This outcome is to be realized by general education electives and EEC490, Senior Designs, and EEC electives.
Results of Outcome (i):
Scores
Assessment Strategy
Course Evaluation
Fall
2004
Spring
2005
Average
04-05
Designation
Senior Exit Survey
Senior Design Instructor Survey
Alumni Survey
Industrial Advisory Committee
83
N.A.
92
97
70
N.A.
88
97
70
Very Good
Excellent
Good
Overall Average 86 Very Good
Instructor’s Comment:
The instructor of EEC 490, Power Electronics and Control, indicated that the design project required to:
(a) get from the library two IEEE Transactions papers proposing a new technique not covered in the curriculum courses which the students were to read, implement, and compare its performance to well established technique, (b) verify that the design met the requirements of IEEE standard 519, and (c) use the Internet to: (i) identify and cost the components, required for the implementation of their designs, from two different vendors, and (ii) estimate the engineering design, drafting, manufacturing, testing and sales/marketing costs, to produce their designs.
Conclusions and Action Taken/Recommended:
The overall average score is “very good” so that this outcome has been met. The inclusion of the assessment of this outcome in the Senior Design course was agreed to by the Faculty last year.
Again, the Alumni Survey is not available by schedule. The Industry Advisory Committee report indicated no basis for assessing this outcome, which raises the question: what evidence should the Faculty provide to the
Committee to assess this outcome or should they be expected to do so and how?
Here again it is also noted that the instructors reporting the Senior Design Instructor Survey (survey question 13) do not agree on how to assess this outcome. The three instructors gave scores of 4, 3, and “no
726995980 6-28-05 15

basis for judgment”. This result poses a dilemma: either this outcome is observable in the Senior Design course or it is not. If it is, the Faculty needs to discuss how it is manifested and if it is not, determine why we do require its assessment.
Outcome (j): knowledge of contemporary issues
This outcome is to be realized by general education electives and PHL215 Engineering Ethics.
.
Results of Outcome (j):
Scores
Assessment Strategy
Course Evaluation
Senior Exit Survey
Fall
2004
89
Spring
2005
100
92
Average
04-05
95
92
Designation
Excellent
Excellent
Senior Design Instructor Survey
Alumni Survey
Industrial Advisory Committee
Overall Average
N.A.
100
83
100
83
93
Excellent
Very Good
Excellent
Conclusions and Action Taken/Recommended:
The overall average score is “excellent” so that this outcome has been met. It is difficult, if not impossible, to do the course evaluation by surveying the instructors of general education electives. Hence, only data from the instructor of PHL215, Engineering Ethics is again included this year. Again, the Alumni Survey is not available by schedule.
Here again it is also noted that the instructors reporting the Senior Design Instructor Survey (survey question 14) do not agree on how to assess this outcome. Two instructors gave scores of 5 and the other “no basis for judgment”. This result poses a dilemma: either this outcome is observable in the Senior Design course or it is not. If it is, the Faculty needs to discuss how it is manifested and if it is not, determine why we do require its assessment.
Outcome (k): An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for electrical engineering practice
This outcome is to be realized by all EEC courses.
.
Results of Outcome (k):
Scores
Assessment Strategy
Course Evaluation
Senior Exit Survey
Fall
2004
92
Spring
2005
93
95
Average
04-05
93
95
Designation
Excellent
Excellent
Senior Design Instructor Survey
Alumni Survey
Industrial Advisory Committee
Overall Average
N.A.
97
100
97
100
97
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
726995980 6-28-05 16

Instructor’s Comment:
The instructor of EEC 490, Power Electronics and Control, indicated that the design project required the students to learn the use of a new and more powerful software, “Simplorer”, that allowed the integration of the power electronics circuitry with the control system, without the limitations of the student version of PSpice.
Conclusions and Action Taken/Recommended:
The overall average score is “excellent” so that this outcome has been met. Although, this outcome is intended to be realized by “all EEC courses”, it is noted from the
Course Evaluation that the course EEC 361
Electromechanical Energy Conversion is the only EEC course that has no score for this outcome and neither is it declared in the Courses/Outcomes Matrix. This is an anomaly that requires resolution by the Faculty.
726995980 6-28-05 17

Assessment Report by the Industry Advisory Committee on Objectives and Outcomes
The Industrial Advisory Committee met with the CSU EE & CE faculty on 12/2/04.
Agenda items included:
- Review of the preliminary ABET audit findings
- Tour of EE & CE labs while students present (as requested at an earlier meeting)
- Discussion of the future direction for these engineering programs
Committee members present: Gerald Lucak, Paul Franklin
The department will provide additional information for several of the issues raised in the preliminary ABET report.
Based on this information, the department is optimistic that these items will be eliminated or reclassified as observations. Proposed actions to address the remaining weaknesses and concerns were discussed. The Advisory
Committee concurs with the actions proposed by the faculty to address items that are within the purview of the department. Several items that appeared in both the EE and CE critique are controlled by the Engineering College and will be addressed at that level.
The faculty plans to tie specific test questions to program outcomes. This will verify that all items are adequately covered in a course.
The faculty is investigating ways to expand lab work associated with major courses. This has been successful with the electronics course, as evidenced by the Electronics Lab tour. The weekly lab assignments build on class work from the previous semester and the current Electronics II course. The student lab reports we saw appeared quite thorough.
We also toured the Controls Lab and observed students at work on several experiments. Dr. Donoghue demonstrated the pendulum experiment which applied feedback and motion control theories to a real-world problem. The equipment appeared up to date and in good working order. We were also encouraged to see high school students being exposed to the engineering labs and engineering studies.
The curriculum for the Computer Networks course was discussed with Dr. Schultz. This new CE course covers a number of real world problems from ASIC design to network administration. The new workstations, servers and routers replicate configurations likely to be found in industry today.
The Faculty and committee members discussed the desire to provide additional multi-disciplinary team experience for the students. The committee observes that it is impractical to provide a true multi-disciplinary experience within the constraints of a university program. The students do have ample team experience as a result of many laboratory courses. The faculty has incorporated into the senior design course as many multi-disciplinary elements as possible, requiring the students to consider, for example, marketing and cost aspects of their projects, not just the technical issues. The committee observes that this should adequately prepare students to participate in multidisciplinary teams.
The committee previously was unable to assess Outcome (f): Understanding of professional and ethical responsibility. Following review of the course abstracts for PHL 215, ESC 100 and ESC 120, the committee can now assess this outcome.
The committee observes that the newly implemented ProSkills program is an excellent addition to the university’s programs, and should substantially improve students’ communications skills, which will also enhance their effectiveness in multi-disciplinary teams.
726995980 6-28-05 18

The committee sees a potential problem with the low number of alumni survey responses. The department is encouraged to explore ways to improve the response rate to provide a better assessment of program outcomes.
Before the next full ABET review (4-6 years), it may be appropriate to split the advisory committee into separate
CE & EE committees. However, at this time, the Advisory Committee believes a combined committee is more effective. A combined committee can better focus on consistency between the two programs and expanded interdisciplinary projects/studies. The committee will need to expand participation before splitting.
726995980 6-28-05 19

Advisory Committee's Outcomes Assessment
A. Apply knowledge...
B. Design & conduct experiments...
C. Design a system...
2003
3
2.5
2.75
D. Function on multidisciplinary teams 2.5 projects
E. Identify, formulate & solve problems 2.5
F. Understand ... ethical responsibilities NA
G. Communicate effectively 2.5
NA H. Understanding...societal context
I. Engage in life-long learning NA
J. Knowledge of contemporary issues
K. Use...modern engineering tools
2.5
3
2004
3
3
3
2.5 expanding with combined EE/CE Senior Design
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
3 reinforced by new lab equipment
2003 is the combined ranking from the two subcommittee reports (5/9/03 & 7/15/03) scale: 3 = completely, 2 = mostly, 1 = somewhat, 0 = not met, NA = not able to assess
Advisory Committee's Objectives Assessment
1. Practice electrical engineering in one or more of the following areas: communications computers, controls, power electronics, and power systems
2004
3
2. Define and diagnose problems, and provide and implement electrical engineering solutions in an industrial environment
3. Observe engineering ethics in the practice of electrical engineering
4. Communicate effectively with technically diverse audiences
5. Collaborate with others as a member or as a leader in an engineering team
6. Develop their knowledge beyond the undergraduate level and to keep current with advancements in electrical engineering
Note: These assessments apply to both the EE and CE programs.
3
2.5
2.5
2.5
N/A
726995980 6-28-05 20

Scores are percentages that are obtained by normalizing scores to their maximums. The designations are:
90 to 100: Excellent; 80 to 90: Very Good; 70 to 80: Good; 60 to 70: Satisfactory; < 60: unsatisfactory.
According to our assessment strategies, successes of objectives are assessed by course evaluations, alumni survey, and industrial advisory committee meetings. The last Alumni Survey was conducted by the college in the
Fall of 2003 and since is done every two years, the next alumni survey is scheduled to be conducted in the Fall
2005. Therefore data is not available for this assessment round. The following is the table that summarizes the results (all scores are normalized percentages).
This table shows that, compared to last year’s scores, all objectives had increased scores. However, objective
(6) is still only in the “good” range. This may be attributed in part to the fact that results of the Alumni Survey is not available this year and the Industry Visiting Committee report indicated no basis for assessing this objective, which raises the question: what evidence should the Faculty provide to the Committee to assess this objective or should they be expected to do so and how?
Also, the Fall 2004 Course Evaluations show that only one course assigning a score to this objective (EEC
440) and in the Spring 2005 only two (EEC 440 again and only one section of EEC 490.) The fact that such few courses have this as an objective was discussed by the Faculty last year, but no action was taken. This issue must be revisited given its importance to the future careers of our graduates.
Furthermore, the draft report resulting from the ABET visit for accreditation indicated that “The program has defined an appropriate set of program objectives based on the expected accomplishments of graduates but only objectives 1 and 6 are assessed directly using questions posed to alumni. The achievement of the program outcomes is inferred from the alumni’s assessment of the program outcomes and from course evaluations, neither of which are directly related to the achievements of the alumni that re the subject of the educational objectives. The program should ask alumni directly about their achievement of the objectives.” The Faculty will have to review the contents of the Alumni Survey to address this issue.
726995980 6-28-05 21

Objectives
1) Practice electrical engineering in one or more of the following areas: communications, computers, controls, power electronics, and power systems
Fall 05
Alumni
Survey
Pending
(Result of question
20: 71.4 % of graduates’ positions corresponds to their degrees).
6) Develop their knowledge beyond the undergraduate level and to keep current with advancements in electrical engineering
Pending
(Result of question
19: 6 out of 7 surveyed are engaged in one or more of the professional development activities asked by the question.)
Fall 04
Course
Evaluation
92
Spring 05
Course
Evaluation
100
Industry
Visiting
Committee
100
Overall
Average
Score (%)
97
2) Define and diagnose problems, and provide and implement electrical engineering solutions in industry, business, and government
3) Observe engineering ethics in the practice of electrical engineering
4) Communicate effectively with technically diverse audiences
Pending
(Average of scores from questions 1 to
7)
Pending
(Result of question
10)
Pending
(Results of questions
11 and 12)
83
100
75
5) Collaborate with others as a member or as a leader in an engineering team
Pending
(Result of question
7)
86
67
75
100
100
79
83
100
83
83
83
N.A.
86
94
86
83
75
Designation Overall
Average
Excellent
03-04 Score
85
Very Good
Excellent
Very Good
Very Good
Good
80
93
78
78
73
726995980 6-28-05 22

From above assessment results and analysis, we can conclude that our Program of Bachelor of Electrical
Engineering has met all outcomes and objectives in academic year 03-04.
From the outcomes results summary table we can see that compared with last year’s results, all outcomes showed an increase in scores as it is normally expected from a systematic use of assessment. However, effort should be made on improving the “very good” scores to “excellent”.
From the objectives result summary table, we see that all scores increased, but some need improvement.
726995980 6-28-05 23

Appendix 1 Course Evaluation Results for Outcomes, Fall 2004
Course No. Course Description
Electrical Engineering Courses
Credits (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) Average
EEC 310 Electric Circuits I 4 2 3 3
EEC 311 Electric Circuits II
EEC 313 Electronics I
EEC 314 Electronics II
EEC 315 Electronics Lab
EEC 361
Electromechanical Energy
Conversion
EEC 380 Digital Systems
EEC 381 Digital Systems Lab
4
4
4
2
4
4
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
1
1
2
2
1
3 3 1
3
2
2
2
3
3
EEC 417 Embedded Systems
EEC 430 Digital Signal Processing
2
4
4
2 3 2 2 not offered not offered
EEC 440 Controls
EEC 441 Controls Lab (1)
EEC 441 Controls Lab (2)
EEC 450 Communications
EEC 451 Communications Lab
EEC 470 Power Electronics
EEC 471 Power Electronics & Machines
EEC 473 Power Systems
EEC 474 Power Electronics II
EEC 480 Modern Digital Design
EEC 481 Digital Systems Lab II
EEC 490 Senior Design
4
4
4
4
4
4
Other Courses
ESC120 Introduction to Engineering Design 2
PHL215 Engineering Ethics (I)
PHL215 Engineering Ethics (II)
3
3
ESC282 Engineering Economy
Average Score
Percentage
4
2
2
4
2
4
3
3
3
3
3
3 3 2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2.67
2.33
2.33
2.33
2.00
3.00
2.33
2.40
3 2 3
2 3
3 3 2
3
3
2
3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3
3
3 not offered not offered
3 not offered
2.75
2.67
2.60
3.00
3.00
3.00
3
2.44 3.00 2.50 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.75 2.74 2.67 2.38
91 89 79 N.A. 82 100 83 100 83 89 92
(a) to (k) avg. above
3.00
89
2.67
3.00
3.00
2.75
2.75
2.00
726995980 6-28-05 24

Appendix 2 Course Evaluation Results for Objectives, Fall 2004
Course No. Course Description
EEC 310
Electrical Engineering Courses
Electric Circuits I
EEC 311
EEC 313
EEC 314
EEC 315
Electric Circuits II
Electronics I
Electronics II
Electronics Lab
EEC 361
EEC 380
EEC 381
EEC 417
EEC 430
EEC 440
EEC 441
Electromechanical Energy Conversion
Digital Systems
Digital Systems Lab
Embedded Systems
Digital Signal Processing
Controls
Controls Lab (I)
EEC 441
EEC 450
EEC 451
EEC 470
EEC 471
EEC 473
EEC 474
EEC 480
Controls Lab (II)
Communications
Communications Lab
Power Electronics
Power Electronics & Machines
Power Systems
Power Electronics II
Modern Digital Design
EEC 481
EEC 490
PHL215
Digital Systems Lab II
Senior Design
Other Courses
Engineering Ethics
Average Score
Percentage
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
2
4
2
4
4
4
2
4
4
4
2
4
4
2
Credits 1 2 3 4 5 6 Average
4
4
2
3
2
3
2.00
3.00
3 2
3 2
2 1 3
2.50
2.50
2.00
3
3
2 3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3.00
3.00
2.67 not offered not offered
1 2 2.25
2 3 2.75
3 3
3 3
3 2
2 2
2 3
3 3 3 2
3 2
3 3
3 3
3
2
2.75
3.00
2.67
2.00 not offered not offered
2.75
2.50
2.67 not offered
3.00
2.76 2.50 3.00 2.25 2.57 2.00 2.50
92 83 100 75 86 67 84
1 to 6 avg.above
726995980 6-28-05 25

Appendix 3 Course Evaluation Results for Outcomes, Spring 2005
Course No. Course Description
Electrical Engineering Courses
EEC 310 Electric Circuits I
EEC 311 Electric Circuits II
EEC 313 Electronics I
EEC 314 Electronics II
EEC 315 Electronics Lab
EEC 361 Electromechanical Energy Conversion 4
EEC 380 Digital Systems 4
EEC 381 Digital Systems Lab
EEC 417 Embedded Systems
2
4
EEC 430 Digital Signal Processing
EEC 440 Controls
EEC 441 Controls Lab
4
4
2
4
4
2
Credits (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) Average
4
4
3
3
1
3
2
3
3 2
3 2
3 2 2
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3 2 3
3 2 3
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3 not offered
EEC 450 Communications
EEC 451 Communications Lab
4
2
EEC 470 Power Electronics 4
EEC 471 Power Electronics & Machines Lab 2
EEC 473 Power Systems
EEC 474 Power Electronics II
EEC 480 Modern Digital Design
EEC 481 Digital Systems Lab II
EEC 490 Senior Design: Digital
EEC 490 Senior Design: Communications
EEC 490 Senior Design: Power & Control
Other Courses
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
ESC120 Introduction to Engineering Design 2
PHL215 Engineering Ethics (I) 3
3 ESC282 Engineering Economy
Average Score
Percentage
3
3 3
3
3 3 3
3 3 3
3 3
3
3
3 3 2 2 3
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
3 not offered not offered
2 3 3 3 2
3 3 3 1 3
3 3 3 2 3
3
3
3 3
3
3 2
3
3
3
3 3 3 3 3
3
3 not offered
2.90 2.50 2.76 2.20 2.83 3.00 2.70 3.00 2.75 3.00 2.79
97 83 92 73 94 100 90 100 92 100 93
3.00
2.71
2.71
2.88
3.00
3.00
2.67
(a) to (k) avg. above
92
2.00
3.00
2.33
2.33
2.50
3.00
2.60
2.67
3.00
2.67
2.67
3.00
3.00
2.50
3.00
726995980 6-28-05 26

Appendix 4 Course Evaluation Results for Objectives, Spring 2005
Course No. Course Description Credits 1 2 3 4 5 6 Average
Electrical Engineering Courses
EEC 310 Electric Circuits I
EEC 311 Electric Circuits II
EEC 313 Electronics I
EEC 314 Electronics II
EEC 315 Electronics Lab
4
2
EEC 361 Electromechanical Energy Conversion 4
EEC 380 Digital Systems 4
4
4
4
EEC 381 Digital Systems Lab
EEC 417 Embedded Systems
EEC 430 Digital Signal Processing
EEC 440 Controls
EEC 441 Controls Lab
EEC 450 Communications
EEC 451 Communications Lab
EEC 470 Power Electronics
2
4
2
4
4
4
EEC 471 Power Electronics & Machines Lab 2
EEC 473 Power Systems 4
EEC 474 Power Electronics II
EEC 480 Modern Digital Design
4
4
EEC 481 Digital Systems Lab II
EEC 490 Senior Design: Digital
EEC 490 Senior Design: Communications
EEC 490 Senior Design: Power and Control
Other Courses
3
4
4
4
4
PHL215 Engineering Ethics
Average Score
Percentage
3 2
3 2
3 2
3 2
3 1
3
3 2
3 2
3 2
3 2
3 2
3 3
3 3
3 3 3
3 2
3 3
3 3
3 3
3
3 2
3 3
3 2 3
3
2
2
3 2
2
3.00 2.25 3.00 3.00 2.38 2.50 not offered not offered not offered not offered not offered not offered
2.67
2.33
2.50
2.33
2.50
3.00
3.00
3.00
2.50
3.00
2.80
3.00
2.69
100 75 100 100 79 83 90
1 to 6 avg. above.
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.00
3.00
726995980 6-28-05 27

Appendix 5 Senior Exit Survey Results for Outcomes, Spring 2005
Strongly Agree
Score ------>
Outcomes
(a)-1 (survey question 4)
(a)-2 (survey question 5)
(a)-3 (survey question 6)
(a)-total
(b) (survey question 7)
(c ) (survey question 8)
(d) (survey question 9)
(e) (survey question 10)
(f) (survey question 11)
(g)-1 (survey question 12)
(g)-2 (survey question 13)
(g)-total
(h) (survey question 14)
(I) (survey question 15)
(j) (survey question 16)
(k)-1(survey question 17)
(k)-2(survey question 18)
(k)-total
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
4
2
4
5
2
1
2
3
1
1
2
1
4
4
3
9
8
10
8
7
10
10
9
8
10
10
5
9
9
11
8
Grand Total Average
Each entry is the number of surveyed students who chose that option.
Percentage score is the ratio of total actual score over the maximum possible score.
Score interpretations:
>=90% Excellent,
>=80% Very good,
>=70% Good,
>=60% Satisfactory,
<60% Unsatisfactory.
Strongly Disagree Percentage Score
1
95%
93%
98%
95%
93%
93%
92%
97%
95%
93%
95%
94%
93%
97%
92%
95%
95%
95%
94%
(Avg. of black numbers)
New survey form.
726995980 6-28-05 28

Appendix 6 Senior Design Instructor Survey Results for Outcomes, Spring 2005
Score ------>
Excellent
5
Outcomes
(a)-1 (survey question 1)
(a)-2 (survey question 2)
(a)-3 (survey question 3)
(a)-total
(b)-1 (survey question 4)
(b)-2 (survey question 5)
(b)-total
(c ) (survey question 6)
2
2
2
(d) (survey question 7)
(e) (survey question 8)
(f) (survey question 9)
(g)-1 (survey question 10)
(g)-2 (survey question 11)
(g)-total
(h) (survey question 12)
(I) (survey question 13)
(j) (survey question 14)
(k)-1 (survey question 15)
(k)-2 (survey question 16)
(k)-total
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
1
3
3
1
3
3
1
1
4
2
1
1
1
3
1
2
Poor
1
No basis for
Judgment
1
1
1
1
Grand Total Average
Each entry is the number of surveyed instructors (total of 1) who chose that option.
Entries of "No basis for judgment" are not included in scores.
Score interpretations:
>=90% Excellent,
>=80% Very good,
>=70% Good,
>=60% Satisfactory,
<60% Unsatisfactory.
726995980 6-28-05
Percentage Score
73%
80%
80%
78%
93 %
87 %
90%
93%
80%
80%
100%
100%
73%
87%
100%
70%
100%
100%
93%
97%
89%
(Avg. of bold numbers)
New survey form.
29

Appendix 7 Alumni Survey Results for Outcomes
(not available by schedule)
Appendix 8 Course Evaluation Form for Outcomes
ABET Course Evaluation for Electrical Engineering Outcomes by Instructor
Course number and name __________________________Term and year__________
For the following outcomes, check the items that are specified for the course. Then for each outcome that is checked, evaluate the level to which you believe that outcome was met. The total number of points is the sum of all points of the checked items in the table. The maximum total number of points is maximum number of points of all checked items.
#
(a)
□
Outcome
An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering to general electrical engineering and, in particular, to one or more of the
Completely
(4)
□ following areas: communications, computers, controls, power electronics, and power systems
Mostly
(3)
□
Somewhat Not met
(2) (1)
□ □
(b)
□ An ability to design and conduct electrical engineering experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data
(c)
□ An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs
□
□
(d)
□ An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams □
(e)
□ An ability to identify, formulate, and solve electrical engineering problems □
(f)
□ An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility
(g)
□ An ability to communicate effectively
(h)
□ The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context
(i)
□ A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning
(j)
□ A knowledge of contemporary issues
(k)
□ An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for electrical engineering practice
□
□
□
□
□
□
Total Number of Points
Percentage of the Maximum Total Number of Points
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
In the space below, provide any necessary explanation to support your evaluation given above. If relevant, also provide an assessment of the students’ knowledge of the prerequisite topics. Provide recommendations on how you should change the course in order to better meet the program outcomes. Please type.
Evaluated by: __________________
Signature: _____________________ Date: ______________________
726995980 6-28-05 30

Appendix 9 Course Evaluation Form for Objectives
ABET Course Evaluation for Electrical Engineering Objectives by Instructor
Course number and name __________________________Term and year__________
For the following objectives, check the items that are specified for the course. Then for each objective that is checked, evaluate the level to which you believe that objective was met. The total number of points is the sum of all points of the checked items in the table. The maximum total number of points is maximum number of points of all checked items.
# Objective Completely
(4)
□
Mostly
(3)
□
Somewhat Not met (1)
(2)
□ □
(1)
□
Practice electrical engineering in one or more of the following areas: communications, computers, controls, power electronics, and power systems
(2)
□ Define and diagnose problems, and provide and implement electrical engineering solutions in industry, business, and government
(3)
□ Observe engineering ethics in the practice of electrical engineering
(4)
□ Communicate effectively with technically diverse audiences
(5)
□ Collaborate with others as a member or as a leader in an engineering team
(6)
□ Develop their knowledge beyond the undergraduate level and to keep current with advancements in electrical engineering
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□ □
□ □
□ □
□
□
□
Total Number of Points
Percentage of the Maximum Total Number of Points
In the space below, provide any necessary explanation to support your evaluation given above. If relevant, also provide an assessment of the students’ knowledge of the prerequisite topics. Provide recommendations on how you should change the course in order to better meet the program outcomes. Please type.
Evaluated by: __________________
Signature: _____________________ Date: ______________________
726995980 6-28-05 31

Appendix 10 Senior Exit Survey Sheet (version 2, revised 4-23-03)
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Senior Exit Survey for Electrical Engineering
1 In general, the department has provided a ___________ quality academic program?
Excellent
5 4 3
Poor
2 1
2 The Electrical & Computer Engineering courses are of ________________academic quality.
Excellent
5 4 3
Poor
2 1
3 The Electrical & Computer Engineering faculty are
Excellent
5 4 3
Poor
2 1
In my studies of Electrical Engineering at Cleveland State University I have: Agree
4.
Gained the ability to apply knowledge of mathematics. 5
5.
Gained the ability to apply knowledge of science. 5
6.
Gained the ability to apply knowledge of engineering. 5
7.
Gained the ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data
Strongly
5
4
4
4
4
8.
Gained the ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.
5 4
3
3
3
3
3
Strongly No Basis for
Disagree Judgment
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
9.
Gained the ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams
10.
Gained the ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
0
0
11.
Gained the understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.
5 4 3 2 1 0
12.
Gained the ability to communicate effectively in oral presentations.
5 4 3 2 1 0
13.
Gained the ability to communicate effectively in writing. 5
14.
Gained the broad education necessary to understand of the 5 impact engineering solutions in a global and societal context
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
0
0
15.
Gained a recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning
16.
Gained a knowledge of contemporary issues
17.
Gained the ability to use computers and modern software
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
726995980 6-28-05 32

packages as problem-solving tools.
18.
Gained the ability to use reference materials to solve problems.
5
Comments on the strength of the Electrical Engineering program.
4
Comments on how the Electrical Engineering program could be improved.
3 2 1 0
726995980 6-28-05 33

Appendix 11 Senior Design Instructor Survey Sheet (version 2, revised 4-23-03)
Cleveland State University
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Assessment Survey for the Faculty Teaching Senior Design for Electrical Engineering
Above Below No Basis for
Excellent Average Average Average Poor Judgment
1.
The students’ ability to apply knowledge 5 of mathematics
2. The students’ ability to apply knowledge
5
of science
3.
The students’ ability to apply knowledge
5 of engineering
4. The students’ ability to design and conduct 5
experiments
5. The students’ ability to analyze and
5
interpret data
6. The students’ ability to design a system,
5
component, or process to meet a need
7. The students’ ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams
5
8. The students’ ability to identify, formulate, 5
and solve engineering problems
9. The students’ understanding of ethical
and professional responsibility
10. The students’ ability to communicate
effectively in oral presentations
5
5
11. The students’ ability to communicate
effectively in writing
5
12.
The students’ broad education necessary 5 to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context
13. The students’ recognition of the need for, 5
14. The students’ knowledge of contemporary 5 issues and an ability to engage in life-long learning
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
726995980 6-28-05 34

15. The students’ ability to use computers
5 4 3 2 1 0
and modern software packages as
problem-solving tools
16. The students’ ability to use reference
5 4 3 2 1 0
materials to solve problems
17. Based on your experience teaching senior design this year, what changes to senior design would you recommend?
18. Based on your experience teaching senior design this year, what changes to the curriculum would you recommend to better prepare students for the senior design course?
Submitted by ___________________________________________________________
Senior Design Project Area ________________________________________________
Date __________________________
726995980 6-28-05 35

Appendix 12 Alumni Survey Sheet
Fenn College of Engineering Alumni Survey
All individual responses will be kept confidential. Only statistically analyzed results from the entire population will be shared.
The section in this box is optional, and will be used to update our database:
Name________________________________________________ Email address______________________ Phone_______________
Last First Middle Initial
Address (if different from that on envelope):
Street Address___________________________________________ City_______________________ State_____ Zip_____________
Employer Name_____________________________________ Position Title____________________________
From which engineering program did you receive your bachelor degree at CSU?

Chemical

Civil

Electrical

Industrial

Mechanical

Electronic Engnrg. Tech.

Mechanical Engnrg. Tech.
Year of graduation with bachelor degree:

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001
How well did your undergraduate studies at Cleveland State University prepare you in the following areas?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Ability to apply knowledge of mathematics
Ability to apply knowledge of science
Ability to apply knowledge of engineering
Ability to design experiments
Poor Fair Moderate Very Well Excellent N/A
     
  
  






  
  


 
 
5.
Ability to conduct experiments
6.
Ability to analyze and interpret data
7.
Ability to design a system, component, or process to meet a need
  
  
8.
Ability to work in a multi-disciplinary team
9.
Ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems
10.
Understanding of ethical and professional responsibility
11.
Ability to communicate effectively in oral presentations
  
  
  
  
12.
Ability to communicate effectively in writing
  
13.
Understanding the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context
  
14.
Knowledge of contemporary issues
  
15.
Ability to use the up-to-date techniques necessary for engineering practice
  
16.
Ability to use computers and modern software as problem-solving tools
  
17.
Ability to use reference materials to solve problems
  
18.
Knowledge of advanced topics in my discipline
  
























 
 












Enrolled in graduate course(s)
19 . Since graduation, have you (check all that apply):

Joined a professional association

Attended workshops or short courses

Subscribed to or regularly read a technical or professional journal
20. Your current position is (select only one):

Within the engineering field corresponding to your degree

Outside engineering

Within another engineering field

Unemployed
21. Your type of position (select only one):

Consulting

Customer Service/Support

Product Design

Product Support


Manufacturing/Production
Software Development



Research or Development
Marketing/Sales
Operations/Maintenance
22. Overall, the education that you received at Cleveland State was of:

Low quality

Moderate quality

High quality



Management
Testing
Other
Please Turn To Other Side

726995980 6-28-05 36

Civil Engineering and Mechanical Engineering Alumni: Please answer the following questions.
_____________________________________________________________
Civil Engineering
Since graduation, have you (check all that apply):

Made formal presentations to your peers? If yes, how many? _____

Authored or co-authored a paper in a refereed journal? If yes, how many?

Authored or co-authored a paper in a trade journal?

Earned an advanced degree or certificate?
With regards to the Professional Engineers (PE) license, have you (check all that apply):

Passed the FE exam

Passed the PE exam

Taken, but not passed, the FE exam

Have not taken the FE exam


Plan on taking the PE exam
Do not plan on taking the PE exam

Taken FE exam, awaiting results

Taken PE exam, awaiting results
______________________________________________________________
Mechanical Engineering
In your current employment, are you involved with (check all that apply):

Fluid/thermal systems

Machine elements

Other
As a student in the mechanical engineering program, did you find the equipment in the mechanical engineering laboratories to be (check only one):

Modern and up-to-date

Adequate

Inadequate or out-of-date
What three courses from the mechanical engineering program were most useful for your career?
__________________________ ________________________ _________________________
What one course from the mechanical engineering program was least useful for your career?
__________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Please write additional comments about your educational experience at Cleveland State
University here, or attach another sheet of paper.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for your participation in this survey. Your feedback is greatly appreciated.
726995980 6-28-05 37