Chabot College Program Review Report 2015 ‐2016 ENGINEERING Year One of the Program Review Cycle Author: Bruce Mayer, PE Submitted on 23‐Oct‐14 1 AppendixB2:“ClosingtheLoop”Course‐LevelAssessmentReflections.
Course ENGR43 (Circuits & Devices) Semester assessment data gathered Sp13, Sp14 Number of sections offered in the semester One (“Singleton” CapStone Course) Number of sections assessed One Percentage of sections assessed 100% Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion Sp14 Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion B. Mayer, W. Phillips Form Instructions:  Complete a separate Appendix B2 form for each Course‐Level assessment reported in this Program Review. These courses should be listed in Appendix B1: Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Reporting Schedule.  Part I: CLO Data Reporting. For each CLO, obtain Class Achievement data in aggregate for all sections assessed in eLumen.  Part II: CLO Reflections. Based on student success reported in Part I, reflect on the individual CLO.  Part III: Course Reflection. In reviewing all the CLOs and your findings, reflect on the course as a whole. PART I: COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOMES – DATA RESULTS CONSIDER THE COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOMESi INDIVIDUALLY (THE NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE) (CLO) 1:ANALYZE A STEADY‐STATE DIRECT CURRENT CIRCUIT TO DETERMINE UNKNOWN ELECTRICAL QUANTITIES AND/OR RESPONSES. (CLO) 2:ANALYZE STEADY‐STATE SWITCHED TRANSIENT CIRCUITS. (CLO) 3:ANALYZE STEADY‐STATE ALTERNATING CURRENT CIRCUIT (CLO) 4:GIVEN A TRANSISTOR‐LEVEL CMOS LOGIC GATE SCHEMATIC: * CONSTRUCT THE TRUTH TABLE * WRITE A BOOLEAN ALGEBRA EQUATION FOR OUTPUT Z IN TERMS OF THE INPUTS A, B, AND C * DRAW AN EQUIVALENT LOGIC CIRCUIT USING STANDARD LOGIC GATES: INVERTOR, AND/NAND, OR/NOR (CLO) 5:LABORATORY PRACTICUM TO DEMONSTRATE THE ABILITY TO CONSTRUCT AN AC SINUSOIDAL ELECTRICAL CIRCUIT AND THEN USE A DMM AND OSCILLOSCOPE TO MEASURE CIRCUIT VOLTAGES & CURRENTS, AND TO CALCULATE VOLTAGE AMPLITUDES & PHASE‐ANGLES. 2 Defined Target Actual Scores** Scores* (eLumen data) (CLO Goal) 70% of Students 50% of students score 3 or scored 3 or better Better 60% of Students score 3 or Better 70% of Students score 3 or Better 60% of Students score 3 or Better 46% scored 3 or more 95% scored acceptably 45% scored in the proficient range 70% of Students 100% of students score 3 or scored 3 or better Better  If more CLOs are listed for the course, add another row to the table. * Defined Target Scores:What scores in eLumen from your students would indicate success for this CLO? (Example: 75% of the class scored either 3 or 4) **Actual scores: What is the actual percent of students that meet defined target based on the eLumen data collected in this assessment cycle? Table 1 • Student Learning OutCome Scores from Chabot College ENGR43 in Spring 2014
No. Students
DC Ckt
Switched Transient
10
10
5
5
0
0
1
2
3
0
4
0
No. Students
AC SteadyState
10
5
5
0
1
2
3
0
4
No. Students
Lab Practicum
10
5
5
0
1
2
3
CLO Score
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
PLACEHOLDER; NOT DATA
10
0
2
CMOS Logic
10
0
1
0
4
ii
0
1
2
3
CLO Score
4
Figure 1 • Histograms for the data contained in Table 1 . Students did particularly well on the
AC-SteadyState and Lab-Practicum Assessments.
3 PART II: COURSE‐ LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS A. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1: 1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? Students performed below expectation. A well instructed, and well‐motivated class of second year engineering students should produce 70% proficiency 2. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? The students generally have not grasped fundamental concepts, or more likely, how to APPLY the concepts of 
(Voltage Drops Around a ClosedLoop) = 0 
(Currents Into a CircuitNode) = 0  The Voltage across a CURRENT‐SOURCE is Unknown, and is defined by the REST OF THE CIRCUIT It was hoped that the OnLine HomeWork System, with RealTime Error‐FeedBack would improve student’s development on this point. The results have been disappointing, but In my professional opinion the OnLine HomeWork is a small improvement over the traditional handed‐in then later‐scored alternative. To help students use the examination‐encounter with DC circuit analysis as a learning experience, detailed SOLUTIONS are provided, and the students are STRONGLY ENCOURAGED to ReWork the problem until UNDERSTANDING. Also, everyday experiences offer little guidance in support of analysis of electrical engineering devices, circuits, and systems. Unlike mechanical systems, operation of electrical systems can NOT be: Touched, Tasted, Felt, Seen, or Heard. Development of a “feel” for this topic takes some time, and DC circuits are assessed on the first of three exams; giving students one chance to demonstrate mastery. Perhaps a later‐in‐course assessment would be in order. The instructor already spends extra time on the Current‐Source topic. The instructor will continue to search‐for and/or develop innovative methods of instruction to improve student performance on this issue. B. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2: 1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? The 46% score is within striking distance of the 60% goal against the difficult and complicated topic of the switching in‐to or out‐of a power source in a passive electrical circuit 4 2. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? This is a very difficult topic in that it combines circuit analysis with the sophisticated mathematical topic of Ordinary Differential Equations (ODE’s). In particular, students have difficultly discerning a PHYSICALLY based INTIAL CONDITION based on a RATE of CHANGE. In most MATH treatments of ODE’s the Initial Conditions (ICs) are GIVEN. The engineering instructor’s current methods POWERFULLY STRESS the need to THINK PHYSICALLY, and not in a Pure‐Math sense when encountering this type of situation during engineering design. Solution to ODE’s are also covered in the PreRequiste Computational Methods Class, ENGR25 The plan for improvement continues along the lines of stressing the need to consider circuit operation, and to not view this type of situation as merely a non‐contextual mathematics problem. C. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 3: 1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? The students performed extremely well on the AC Steady‐State Circuit Learning OutCome. 95% of the students demonstrated proficiency in this area. 2. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? In past years student performance was degraded by the calculational complication of the using COMPLEX Numbers. The addition of the math of the complex unit( √ ) 1
to the computation increases the complexity of the AC‐SS topic exponenitally . The instructor tried to address the complex‐algebra side of this issue by emphasizing this topic in the prerequisite Computational Methods course (ENGR25). Apparently this proved effective as most students appear to have mastered not only the circuit analysis, but also the Complex‐Number calculations. D. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 4: 1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? Complementary Metal↔Oxide Silicon Field‐Effect Transistor Logic gate design and analysis. This outcome showed a very uniform mastery‐level distribution as indicated by the “CMOS Logic” histogram in Figure 1 1
c.f. the Euler Relation 5 2. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? Master of this topic requires skills in TWO‐value math known as Boolean Algebra. The Boolean formulation is quite different from the analog, infinite‐values analysis used in the balance of the course. Students must understand the relationship between complementary‐transistor circuits and completely theoretical logic‐constructs such as AND/OR. In a binary environment, thinking physically is less important, and tracing HI or LO signal flow becomes of utmost importance. Often times students understand a some, but not all, of the subtopics related to this type of analysis. This leads to the relatively uniform mastery distribution shown in in Figure 1 The plan for improvement includes increasing the number of OnLine HomeWork problems related to Logic Gates, and to devote more Lecture‐Time to the Topic if possible. E. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 5: ADD IF NEEDED. PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS 1. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions? CoTeaching with the Electrical Systems instructor; Mr. Wayne Phillips. Mr. Phillips teaches the labs to the great benefit of the students by way of  Mr. Phillips 20+ years of practice in the Electrical Systems field during his private sector career  Mr. Phillips 20+ years of Electrical Engineering Lab instruction  Access to the otherwise unavailable sophisticated lab equipment that Mr. Phillips maintains for the ESYS program Added Electrical DEVICES to the course content as Required for articulation by Prof. Paul Boser of UCBerkeley Added the use of an OnLIne HomeWork System. 2. Based on the current assessment and reflections, what course‐level and programmatic strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? What actions has your discipline determined might be taken as a result of your reflections, discussions, and insights? The greatest issue for student learning is the tension between how to prioritize in‐Class time. The students could benefit from MUCH MORE in‐class Problem‐Solving Tutorial‐
Time, but UCBerkeley requires for articulation coverage of a very wide range of topics at the conceptual level. 6 
The instructor continues to struggle with this balancing‐issue as the greatest barrier to improved success rates. Mr. Phillips has been a tremendous asset in terms of student learning. On the Lab Practicum Exam approximately 90% of the students score 90% or better. Current Plan to improve  Use the CLO data in Figure 1 as guide to spend more InClass time on Transient‐Circuits and CMOS‐Logic  With great trepidation: Reduce the number of Hands‐On labs by 1‐2, and instead conduct problem‐solving tutorials  Iterate on the use of the OnLine HomeWork System 3. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?  Curricular  Pedagogical  Resource based  Change to CLO or rubric  Change to assessment methods  Other:_________________________________________________________________ 7 AppendixC:ProgramLearningOutcomes
Considering your feedback, findings, and/or information that has arisen from the course level discussions, please reflect on each of your Program Level Outcomes. Program: Engineering (AA [should be AS]) • from http://www.chabotcollege.edu/sloac/plo_results.cfm?program=Engineering (AA) _  PLO #1: ENGRINEERING STUDENTS SHALL DEMONSTRATE AN ABILITY TO APPLY KNOWLEDGE OF MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE, AND ENGINEERING. Ref: Outcome (a) from E001 10‐11 EAC Criteria 1‐27‐10.pdf, DownLoaded from http://www.abet.org/forms.shtml#For_Engineering_Programs_Only 27Feb2010

PLO #2: ENGINEERING STUDENTS SHALL DEMONSTRATE AN ABILITY TO DESIGN A SYSTEM, COMPONENT, OR PROCESS TO MEET DESIRED NEEDS WITHIN REALISTIC CONSTRAINTS SUCH AS ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, POLITICAL, ETHICAL, HEALTH AND SAFETY, MANUFACTURABILITY, AND SUSTAINABILITY. Ref: Outcome (c) from E001 10‐11 EAC Criteria 1‐27‐10.pdf, DownLoaded from http://www.abet.org/forms.shtml#For_Engineering_Programs_Only 27Feb2010 What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions? Questions: Q1. How do I encourage students to dedicate more time and effort to mastering the course material? That is, how do I help the students to develop “GRIT2” Q2. How do I make complicated material easier for students to understand? Q3. What can I do to improve the Engineering‐Problem‐Solving3 skills of students? Q4. How can I give to students more immediate (daily) feedback on their learning? Q5. How do I encourage students to stay‐current with the course‐material; i.e., what I do to ensure that the students stay on the course schedule? Q6. How can I assist students who missed occasional classes due to “life circumstances” such as illness, or unexpected changes in gainful‐employment work schedules, etc.? Q7. Is there anything I can do to INSPIRE students to greater learning and academic achievement? What program‐level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? Strengths revealed: SR1.
Students REALLY DO appreciate having the Instructors Lecture Notes, and access to course materials on the WebPage. Many times a student will printout the lecture‐slides and write on them his/her personal notes. SR2.
Engineering students appreciate the FULL suite of TRANSFER COURSES offered by 2
GRIT = “Perseverance to accomplish long-term or higher-order goals in the face of challenges and setbacks,
engaging the student’s psychological resources, such as their academic mindsets, effortful control, and strategies and
tactics.” 3
An extremely important “Critical Thinking” skill within the Engineering Discipline 8 Chabot. This full program often attracts students from nearby community colleges that do NOT offer all of the ELC4 recommended courses. SR3.
Students, as evidenced by unstructured data in the from commendations from former students, really do benefit from the inclusion of Study Skills suggestions and the emphasis on the professional importance of developing “GRIT” SR4.
Transfer students who have returned to Chabot from the TRANSFER UNIVERSITY generally express gratitude for the RIGOR of the courses offered by Chabot Engineering as these courses well‐prepared them for the Upper Division course material at the university college/school of Engineering. SOME of the students who ultimately earned university Engineering Degrees have returned to Chabot to give advice to current students:  Thein Win ‐ Civil Engineer UCBerkeley  Jose Servanda – Mechanical Engineer, UCBerkeley  Garrick Bornkamp – Mechanical Engineer, UCDavis  Ishmael Ayesh – Civil Engineer, UCBerkeley  Koo Hyun Nam – Mechanical Engineer (Ph.D.), UCBerkeley  Krishnil Mani – Mechanical Engineer, CalPoly‐SLO  Lucas Huezo – Civil Engineer, UCBerkeley  Nicholas Vickers – Materials Engineer (M.S.) – CalPoly‐SLO  Phil Cutino – Mechanical Engineer, UCBerkeley  Melissa Quemada – Chemical Engineer, UCBerkeley  Robert Irwin – Mechanical Engineer, UCBerkeley  Robert Curry – Civil Engineer, CSU‐Sacramento  Emiliano Esparza – Civil Engineer, UCDavis  Jim Havercamp – Mechanical Engineer, UCBerkeley  Berhard Stonas – Mechanical Engineer (M.S.), San Jose State  Yong Yin Chuah – Engineering Management (M.S.)5, CSU‐EastBay  Joshua Merritt – Mechanical Engineer, the Ohio State University  Tomasz Jagoda – Mechanical Engineer, UC Santa Barbara  Robert Moore – Mechanical Engineer, UCBerkeley  Elijah Rosas – Mechanical Engineer, UCDavis  Baoying (Stephenie) Zhang – Chemical Engineer, UCBerkeley  Nic Celeste – Mechanical Engineer, San Francisco State University  Hoang Si Nguyen – Civil Engineer, UCBerkeley  Sangam Rawat – Mechanical Engineer, UCBerkeley  Zhiwei Huang – Mechanical Engineer, UCBerkeley  Huy Nguyen – Civil Engineer, UCDavis  George Greer – Civil Engineer, UCBerkeley  Artos Cen – Chemical Engineer, UCBerkeley  Cesar Urbano – Chemical Engineering Student, UCBerkeley  Joel Christensen – Chemical Engineering Student, UCBerkeley  Phillip Swanson – Mechanical Engineering Student, San Jose State University  Stephanie J. Sibert – Bio Engineering Student, UCBerkeley  Branden Andersen – Mechanical Engineering Student, San Jose State University 4
5
http://www.caelc.org/ Mr. Chuah also earned a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from UCDavis after transferring from Chabot 9 





Mr. Rizalino de Guzman – Electrical Enginering Student, San Jose State University Mr. Andrew Koth ‐ UCBerkeley Double‐Major in Electrical Engineering and Materials Science & Engineering Mr. Elijah Rosas ‐ UCDavis Mechanical & AeroSpace Masters Degree Student Mr. Tony Delas, Esq. ‐ BS‐EECS UC Berkeley • Attorney at Law Mr. Evan Manrique ‐ Electrical Engineering Student at Cal Poly (SLO) • Former Chabot College Transfer Student Mr. Joshua Benz ‐ Mechanical Engineer, UCBerkeley Graduate What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of students completing your program? Actions planned: AP1.
Continue to Offer, for ExtraCredit, in all classes a Take Home Quiziii based on a presentationiv describing the STUDY SKILLS of effective College/University students. Reflecting on incoming student preparation indicated that many students just did not recognize the substantial difference between HIGH‐SCHOOL studying and College/University Studying. Periodically UpDate and improve the Study‐Skills Presentation/Quiz. Continue to improve the effectiveness of the quiz. AP2.
97+% of the instructor’s preparation course‐notes are in PowerPoint form. These notes are then made available on a “24/7” basis for students who missed class for any reason (c.f. Q6, above). The instructor’s PowerPoint notes are used for in‐Class lecture presentations. In effect, the instructor’s notes were made available to students as suggested in the “Share the Wealth” section of the fine video presentation “Reading Between Lives” by Chabot Instructor Sean McFarlandv. Consider this comment from a Chabot English Instructorvi regarding the contents of Mr. McFarland’s production: “This video makes me ask the question, “What is the purpose of higher education? Why not give students the handout of a lecture?” Engineering ALWAYS gives students the “handout of the lecture” by posting it to the Engineering‐Course WebPage. However, one instructional‐faculty colleague pointed out that, in his experience, students respond better to “MultiMedia” presentations such as a combination of Screen (PowerPoint) and Board (Chalk or Marker) work than they do to “single media” forms such a pure‐board or pure‐PowerPoint formats. As a result, a concerted effort has been made by the Engineering Instructor to move from majority‐PowerPoint to a more balanced approach. AP3.
To help students stay current with the course material, give them immediate feedback, and encourage them to attend every class meetings the Engineering Instructor wrote DAILY “MiniQuizzes”. The “MQ’s” are 5 minutes in duration, are “pop” in that they may be administered at any time during the course period, and solved on the board immediately after collection. Piloted in the Engineering Mechanics course (ENGR36), the use of an OnLine Homework system that gives students immediate feedback and solution “hints”. The plan is to use Pearson Publishing’s Proven Mastering6 Engineering OnLine HomeWork System. Since the Pilot proved fairly successful, the OnLine HomeWork system has been expanded to the Electrical Circuits and Devices course (ENGR43). 6
Chabot’s own Scott Hildreth is a PIONEER user of the “Mastering” system. 10 AP4.
Do more detailed “Problem Solving” tutorials in the calculus‐based courses ENGR 25/36/43/45 to “model” how an Engineer might approach technical problems that are described by a combination of words and math. Make the tutorial notes available on the course webpage for student access. AP5.
Try to act as a CommunityCollege→UCBerkeley→Stanford role‐model for Chabot Engineering students. Continue to encourage students with the “If I can do it, then YOU can do it too…” mantra. I also bring back former students who have moved‐to, and through, the University Engineering college/school to provide more recent models of the success of, in this case, Chabot transfer students. See also “Strengths revealed” Above. Program:Engineering (Transfer Prep) from http://www.chabotcollege.edu/sloac/plo_results.cfm?program=Engineering (Transfer Prep)  PLO #1: ENGRINEERING STUDENTS SHALL DEMONSTRATE AN ABILITY TO APPLY KNOWLEDGE OF MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE, AND ENGINEERING. Ref: Outcome (a) from E001 10‐11 EAC Criteria 1‐27‐10.pdf, DownLoaded from http://www.abet.org/forms.shtml#For_Engineering_Programs_Only 27Feb2010
 PLO #2: : ENGINEERING STUDENTS SHALL DEMONSTRATE AN ABILITY TO DESIGN A SYSTEM, COMPONENT, OR PROCESS TO MEET DESIRED NEEDS WITHIN REALISTIC CONSTRAINTS SUCH AS ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, POLITICAL, ETHICAL, HEALTH AND SAFETY, MANUFACTURABILITY, AND SUSTAINABILITY. Ref: Outcome (c) from E001 10‐11 EAC Criteria 1‐27‐10.pdf, DownLoaded from http://www.abet.org/forms.shtml#For_Engineering_Programs_Only 27Feb2010
What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions? Explain:: See Above discussion under Engineering AS program What program‐level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? Strengths revealed:See Above discussion under Engineering AS program What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of students completing your program? Actions planned:See Above discussion under Engineering AS program 11 i
SLO_20rubric_WrkSht_ENGR43_Ckt‐Anal_110720.doc Plot produced by BMayer MATLAB file SubPlot_3x2_SLO_HistoGrams_1410.m Oct14 iii
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/faculty/bmayer/ChabotEngineeringCourses/All_Courses_ENGR/College_Student_
Study_Skills_Quiz_1010.doc iv
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/faculty/bmayer/ChabotEngineeringCourses/All_Courses_ENGR/Study_Skills_for_
Chabot_College_Students_1010.ppt v
http://facultyinquiry.net/2009/01/15/capturing‐student‐voices‐reading‐between‐lives/ vi
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/accreditation/exhibits/Standard%20I%20B/B%201.8%20Discussion%20notes%20f
rom%20Reading%20between%20the%20Lines%20discussions.%20Nov%202006%C3%AF%E2%82%AC%C2%A9/Rea
dingvideodiscDCnotes.pdf ii
12