– Electronics Engineering Technology –
2013-14 Assessment Report
Aaron Scher & Cristina Crespo
Electrical Engineering & Renewable Energy Department
1
Contents
1 Introduction
1.1 Program Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2 Program Goals and Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3 Program Brief History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
3
3
3
2 Program Mission, Educational Objectives, and Outcomes
2.1 Program Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 Program Educational Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3 Relationship Between Program Educational Objectives and Institutional Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4 Program Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
5
5
3 Cycle of Assessment for Program Outcomes
3.1 Introduction and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2 Assessment Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3 Summary of Assessment Activities & Evidence of Student Learning . . . . .
3.3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.2 Methodology for Assessment of Program Outcomes . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.3 2013-2014 Targeted Assessment Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.4 Targeted Assessment for Outcome c: an ability to conduct standard
tests and measurements; to conduct, analyze, and interpret experiments; and to apply experimental results to improve processes. . . .
3.3.5 Targeted Assessment for Outcome f: an ability to identify, analyze,
and solve broadly-defined engineering technology problems. . . . . .
3.3.6 Targeted Assessment for Outcome g: an ability to apply written, oral,
and graphical communication in both technical and non-technical environments; and an ability to identify and use appropriate technical
literature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.7 Targeted Assessment for Outcome h: an ability to engage in independent learning and recognize the need for continual professional
development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.8 Targeted Assessment for Outcome k: a commitment to quality, timeliness, and continuous improvement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.9 Targeted Assessment for Outcome m: the ability to apply project
management techniques to electrical/electronic(s) systems. . . . . .
3.3.10 2013-2014 Indirect Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
7
7
8
8
8
9
4 Changes Resulting From Assessment
4.1 Changes Resulting from the 2013-2014 Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2 Changes to Assessment Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
5
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
21
1
1.1
Introduction
Program Location
The Bachelor of Science in Electronics Engineering Technology (BSEET) is offered at the
Oregon Tech Wilsonville Campus on the south side of the Portland metropolitan area. The
campus is situated in a wooded business park setting among several technology companies
including Mentor Graphics, Rockwell Collins, and Xerox. The campus is conveniently located off Interstate 5 and a short walk away from the Wilsonville Station on the Westside
Express Service (WES) commuter rail line that connects to Beaverton and the MAX Light
Rail. In addition, several of the core courses for the degree and technical electives are available at the Willow Creek Center (WCC) in the Portland Westside to better accommodate
degree-seeking professionals working for high-tech companies in the Hillsboro and Beaverton
area. The WCC is located in the heart of the high-tech industry cluster (Silicon Forest),
minutes away from companies such as Intel, Tektronix, MAXIM, Credence, Lattice, Synopsis, TriQuint, and ESI. Some of the core courses and technical electives are also available
online.
1.2
Program Goals and Design
The program is designed to prepare graduates to assume engineering and technology positions in the electronics industry. Graduates of the Electronics Engineering Technology
program fulfill a wide range of functions within industry. Bachelor’s degree graduates are
currently placed in positions such as component and system design, test engineering, product engineering, field engineering, manufacturing engineering, sales or market engineering,
and quality control engineering. The program also provides a solid preparation for students intending to continue to graduate school to pursue master’s degrees in engineering,
engineering management, and M.B.A.s. Employers of Electronics Engineering Technology
graduates include research and development laboratories, electronic equipment manufacturers, public utilities, colleges and universities, government agencies, medical laboratories
and hospitals, electronic equipment distributors, semiconductor companies, and automated
electronic controlled processing companies. Recent graduates have been employed at companies such as MAXIM, TriQuint, Tektronix, Biotronik, and Intel.
The BSEET degree at Oregon Tech Wilsonville is especially suited for working professionals with an associate’s degree in Electronics Engineering Technology, Microelectronics
Technology, or equivalent coursework. Students entering the B.S. degree in Electronics
Engineering Technology program by transfer are requested to contact the EET Program
Director concerning transfer of technical coursework. Oregon Tech has articulation agreements with various community colleges throughout Oregon. Students transferring to Oregon
Tech under an articulation agreement are encouraged to work with an Oregon tech advisor
after completion of their first year in the was degree to ensure 2+2 transferability.
1.3
Program Brief History
The BSEET program at Oregon Tech was first accredited by ABET in 1970. The last
ABET accreditation visit took place in Fall 2008.
3
Oregon Institute of Technology has offered a Bachelor of Science in Electronics Engineering Technology (BSEET) degree since 1970. The BSEET program served a need in
the state for many years and was a successful program, with high enrollment and graduate placement rates. Since the 1990’s industries’ needs began to shift more towards hiring
graduates of full electrical engineering programs and the BSEET program started to experience significant enrollment declines. A department committee, in consultation with
the Industry Advisory Board, recommended that the program change from EET to EE in
Klamath Falls, but continue as the BSEET program at OIT-Portland to continue serving
degree completion students and working professionals with AAS EET (and similar) degrees.
Once the decision to discontinue the BSEET program from Klamath Falls was made, the
BSEET program underwent a major revision in order to optimize it to address the needs
of working professionals and transfer students at Oregon Tech-Portland. These revisions
were approved by the Curriculum Planning Commission (CPC) in 2008. In 2011, a decision
was made by the department, in consultation with the industry advisory board, to enhance
the upper division EET curriculum by converting some of the EET courses to traditional
EE courses with a strong lab component. This change was implemented to better achieve
the program educational objectives of preparing graduates to assume diverse roles in the
engineering and engineering technology fields, as well as improve their access to graduate
education. These changes were approved by the Curriculum Planning Commission (CPC)
in 2011 and implemented in the 2011-12 academic year.
In Fall 2012 the Oregon Tech Wilsonville campus opened as a result of the consolidation
of the university’s four Portland metro area sites. The BSEET courses are offered at the
Wilsonville campus, and they also continue to be offered at the Willow Creek Center (on
the Westside), in order to accommodate professionals working in the high-tech industry
cluster in the Beaverton/Hillsboro area. In Fall 2012, a partnership with Portland State
University (PSU) was launched. This partnership, referred to as the Westside Partnership,
provides a path for students to complete the BSEET program at Oregon Tech, and gain
direct admission to PSU’s MS Electrical and Computer Engineering program by meeting a
set of specified requirements. The Westside Partnership addresses the need for the high-tech
industry on the Westside to upgrade its talent, by providing a path for AAS EET graduates
to obtain an ABET-accredited BS degree in EET from Oregon Tech, and BS graduates to
obtain a MS ECE from PSU. Both the BS EET and MS ECE programs are co-located
on the Westside, and offered in the evening so that they are easily accessible to working
professionals in the Westside high-tech companies.
Oregon Tech also has a partnership with University of Oregon (UO), whereby BSEET
students have access to a 4+1 program. Under this partnership, students can complete
a BSEET degree from Oregon Tech, followed by a 12-month (Summer through Spring)
industrial master?s program at UO. The graduate program includes coursework and an
internship component, and leads to a MS Applied Physics or Applied Chemistry from UO.
The MS tracks in Semiconductor Processing and Optics have been the most popular with
BSEET students, as they align well with the BSEET courses offered at Oregon Tech.
The BSEET program has strong relationships with industry, particularly through its
Industry Advisory Board and alumni from the EET program. These relationships allow to
keep the BSEET program relevant and current, to make sure it continues to meet the needs
of the industry in this field.
4
2
Program Mission, Educational Objectives, and Outcomes
2.1
Program Mission
The mission of the EET Program is to provide a comprehensive program of instruction that
will enable graduates to obtain the knowledge and skills necessary for immediate employment and continued advancement in the field of electronics. The department will be a leader
in providing career ready candidates for various electronics technology fields. Faculty and
students will engage in applied research in emerging technologies and provide professional
services to their communities.
2.2
Program Educational Objectives
Program educational objectives are broad statements that describe the career and professional accomplishments that the program is preparing graduates to achieve. The Program
Educational Objectives of OIT’s Bachelor of Science in Electronics Engineering Technology
are:
• The graduates of the program will possess a strong technical background as well as
analytical and problem solving skills, and will contribute in a variety of technical
roles within the electronics and high-tech industry. Within three years of graduation,
BSEET graduates are expected to be employed as test engineers, characterization engineers, applications engineers, field engineers, hardware engineers, process engineers,
and similar engineering technology positions within this industry.
• The graduates of the program will be working as effective team members with excellent
oral and written communication skills, assuming technical and managerial leadership
roles throughout their career.
• The graduates of the program will be committed to professional development and
lifelong learning by engaging in professional and/or graduate education in order to
stay current in their field and achieve continued professional growth.
2.3
Relationship Between Program Educational Objectives and Institutional Objectives
The BSEET PEOs map strongly to the mission and core themes for the university. Specifically, the program objective relating to “strong technical background as well as analytical
and problem solving skills” is tightly linked to the mission of offering “rigorous applied
degree programs” in a “hands-on learning environment, focusing on application of theory
to practice.”
5
2.4
Program Outcomes
The BSEET Program Outcomes include ABET’s ETAC a − k outcomes as well as the
electronics specific l − m outcomes. The ABET ETAC student outcomes were revised in
the 2011-12 accreditation cycle. The revisions included slight rewording of ETAC outcomes
a − k and elimination of two of the program-specific outcomes. The BSEET program
adopted the new ABET student outcomes in the 2012-13 academic year. These are listed
below:
a an ability to select and apply the knowledge, techniques, skills, and modern tools of
the discipline to broadly-defined engineering technology activities.
b an ability to select and apply a knowledge of mathematics, science, engineering, and
technology to engineering technology problems that require the application of principles and applied procedures or methodologies.
c an ability to conduct standard tests and measurements; to conduct, analyze, and
interpret experiments; and to apply experimental results to improve processes.
d an ability to design systems, components, or processes for broadly-defined engineering
technology problems appropriate to program educational objectives.
e an ability to function effectively as a member or leader on a technical team.
f an ability to identify, analyze, and solve broadly-defined engineering technology problems.
g an ability to apply written, oral, and graphical communication in both technical and
non-technical environments; and an ability to identify and use appropriate technical
literature.
h an understanding of the need for and an ability to engage in self-directed continuing
professional development.
i an understanding of and a commitment to address professional and ethical responsibilities including a respect for diversity.
j a knowledge of the impact of engineering technology solutions in a societal and global
context.
k a commitment to quality, timeliness, and continuous improvement.
l the ability to analyze, design, and implement control systems, instrumentation systems, communications systems, computer systems, or power systems.
m the ability to apply project management techniques to electrical/electronic(s) systems.
n the ability to utilize statistics/probability, transform methods, discrete mathematics,
or applied differential equations in support of electrical/electronic(s) systems.
6
3
3.1
Cycle of Assessment for Program Outcomes
Introduction and Methodology
Assessment of the program outcomes is conducted over a three year-cycle. Table 1 shows the
outcomes assessed during each academic year. During the 2007/08 academic year almost all
the outcomes were assessed in order to establish a baseline. Note that the student outcomes
were revised in the 2012-13 academic year. For years prior to 2012-13, assessed outcomes
a − k refer to the old version of these outcomes, and l − n refer to the old outcomes n − o
(since old outcomes l, m have been eliminated as being contained in new outcomes (a), (b),
(d), and (l), and being therefore redundant).
3.2
Assessment Cycle
Table 1: BSEET Outcome Assessment Cycle
Outcome
2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12
√
a. Fundamentals
–
–
–
√
√
b. Application
–
–
√
c. Experimentation
–
–
–
√
√
d. Design
–
–
√
√
e. Teamwork
–
–
√
f. Problem Solving
–
–
–
√
g. Communication
–
–
–
√
h. Lifelong Learning
–
–
–
√
i. Eithics
–
–
–
√
j. Impact
–
–
–
√
k. Continuous Improvement
–
–
–
√
l. Electronic Systems
–
–
–
√
m. Project Management
–
–
–
√
√
n. Advanced Mathematics
–
–
7
2012/13
√
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
√
√
–
√
–
–
2013/14
–
–
√
–
–
√
√
√
–
–
√
–
√
–
3.3
3.3.1
Summary of Assessment Activities & Evidence of Student Learning
Introduction
The Electronics Engineering Technology faculty members conducted formal assessment of
four Student Outcomes during the 2013-2014 academic year using direct measures such as
course projects and assignments. Additionally, indirect assessment of Student Outcomes
a − n was conducted through a senior exit survey.
3.3.2
Methodology for Assessment of Program Outcomes
At the beginning of the assessment cycle, an assessment plan is generated by the Assessment Coordinator in consultation with the faculty. This plan includes the outcomes to be
assessed during that assessment cycle (according to table 1), as well as the courses and
terms where these outcomes will be assessed.
The BSEET mapping process links specific tasks within BSEET course projects and
assignments to ABET program outcomes and on to program educational objectives in a
systematic way. The program outcomes are evaluated as part of the course curriculum
primarily by means of ABET assignments1 . The ABET assignments are then assessed
based on ABET rubrics2 . These ABET assignments typically involve a short project or
lab requiring the student to apply math, science, and engineering principles learned in the
course to solve a particular problem requiring the use of modern CAD tools and engineering equipment, working in teams, writing a project report, and giving an oral presentation.
The mapping process aims to systemize the assessment of engineering coursework, and to
provide a mechanism that facilitates the design of engineering assignments that meet the
ABET-relevant (“a” through “n”) outcomes, particularly those that are more distant from
traditional engineering coursework. Rather than considering how the outcomes match the
assignment, the assignment is designed to map to the program outcomes.
A systematic, rubric-based process is then used to quickly assess the level of attainment
of a given program outcome, based on a set of performance criteria. The work produced
by each student is evaluated according to the different performance criteria, and assigned a
level of 1-developing, 2-accomplished, or 3-exemplary. The results for each outcome are then
summarized in a table, and reviewed by the faculty at the annual Closing-the-Loop meeting.
The acceptable performance level is to have at least 80% of the students obtain a level of accomplished or exemplary in each of the performance criteria for any given program outcome.
If any of the direct assessment methods reflects a performance below the established
level, that triggers the continuous improvement process, where all the direct and indirect
assessment measures associated with that outcome are evaluated by the faculty, and based
on the evidence, the faculty decides the adequate course of action. The possible courses of
action are:
• Collect more data (if there is insufficient data to reach a conclusion as to whether the
outcome is being attained or not); this may be the appropriate course of action when
1
ABET assignments refer to assignments specifically designed to measure program-level outcomes
ABET rubrics refer to rubrics especially designed by Oregon Tech BSEET faculty to assess ABET
assignments based on program-level outcomes.
2
8
assessment was conducted on a class with low enrollment, and it is recommendable
to re-assess the outcome on the following year, even if it is out-of-cycle, in order to
obtain more data.
• Make changes to the assessment methodology (if the faculty believe that missing the
performance target on a specific outcome may be a result of the way the assessment
is being conducted, and a more proper assessment methodology may lead to more
accurate numbers); for example, this could be the suggested course of action if an
outcome was assessed in a lower-level course, and the faculty decide that the outcome
should be assessed in a higher-level course before determining whether curriculum
changes are truly needed.
• Implement changes to the curriculum (if the faculty conclude that a curriculum change
is needed to improve attainment of a particular outcome). A curriculum change will
be the course of action taken when the performance on a given outcome is below the
target level, and the evidence indicates that there is sufficient data and an adequate
assessment methodology already in place, and therefore there is no reason to question
the results obtained.
If the faculty decide to take this last course of action and implement curriculum changes,
the data from the direct assessments is analyzed and the faculty come up with a plan for
continuous improvement, which specifies what changes will be implemented to the curriculum to improve outcome performance.
In addition to direct assessment measures, indirect assessment of the student outcomes
is performed on an annual basis through a senior exit survey.
The results of the direct and indirect assessment, as well as the conclusions of the faculty
discussion at the Closing-the-Loop meeting are included in the annual BSEET Assessment
Report, which is reviewed by the Department Chair and the Director of Assessment for the
university. The suggested changes to the curriculum are presented and discussed with all the
department faculty at the annual Convocation meeting in Fall, as well as with the Industry
Advisory Board at the following IAB meeting. If approved, these changes are implemented
in the curriculum and submitted to the University Curriculum Planning Commission (if
catalog changes are required) for the following academic year.
3.3.3
2013-2014 Targeted Assessment Activities
The sections below describe the 2013-2014 targeted assessment activities and detail the
performance of students for each of the assessed outcomes. The tables report the number of
students performing at a developing level, accomplished level, and exemplary level for each
performance criteria, as well as the percentage of students performing at an accomplished
level or above.
9
3.3.4
Targeted Assessment for Outcome c: an ability to conduct standard tests
and measurements; to conduct, analyze, and interpret experiments; and
to apply experimental results to improve processes.
This outcome was assessed in EE320 - Advanced Circuits and Systems in Fall 2013 by
means of a project, which involved the design, simulation, implementation, and validation
of a 1KHz oscillator. The project required designing and measuring the performance of a
square wave oscillator for generating a square wave and analog filters for converting the
square wave into a sinusoid. Design constraints were imposed to encourage an efficient
design (in terms of power efficiency, active component count, and size). The students experimentally measured delivered DC power and various voltages in the circuit in both time
and frequency domains. The students were asked to analyze and interpret their results,
calculate DC-to-signal efficiency, and explain ways to improve their design/measurement
process based upon their experience with the project. Upon successful implementation of
their design and experiment, students were required to submit their report in the form a
PowerPoint presentation.
A total of eighteen students were assessed in Fall 2013 using the performance criteria
listed in the table below. The minimum acceptable performance level was to have above
80% of the students performing at the accomplished or exemplary level in all performance
criteria. The results indicate that the minimum acceptable performance level of 80% was
not met on two of the three performance criteria for this program outcome; namely, the
percentage of students who reached an accomplished level for criteria 2 (analyze/interpret)
and 3 (improve) was 77.8% and 77.8%, respectively. Ideas on how to improve performance
in these areas were discussed at the annual closing-the-loop meeting, and are presented in
section 4.
Table 2: Targeted Assessment for Outcome c: 1) Criterion 1-an ability to conduct experiments, 2) Criterion 2-an ability to analyze and interpret experimental results, and 3)
Criterion 3-an ability to apply experimental results to improve processes.
Performance Criteria 1-Developing 2-Accomplished 3-Exemplary % Students ≥ 2
1 - Conduct
3
9
6
83.3%
2 - Analyze/Interpret
4
10
4
77.8%
3 - Improve
4
10
4
77.8%
10
3.3.5
Targeted Assessment for Outcome f: an ability to identify, analyze, and
solve broadly-defined engineering technology problems.
This outcome was assessed in EE321 - Electronics I in Fall 2013 by means of a project.
The project consisted of designing, simulating, implementing, and experimentally testing
an AC–to–DC power supply and linear regulator with current boosting to provide an adjustable regulated output voltage with short–circuit/overload protection. Students were
provided with a series of design specifications and design constraints. Students were expected to select an initial topology within the given constraints, identify the limitations of
this topology and work on improving the design through an iterative process of analyzing
and solving technical problems until the given specifications were met. Once the design
was finalized and the simulations indicated the results were met, students were required
to physically implement their designs and experimentally test them. This additional step
was intended to get students to identify, analyze, and solve an additional set of technical
problems related to implementation and measurement of electronic designs. Finally, the
students were required to write a complete report following the guidelines of the IEEE
Transactions Journals (IEEE Transactions Publication-Ready Template and Instructions
for Authors).
Eleven students were assessed in Fall 2013 using the performance criteria listed in the
table below. The minimum acceptable performance level was to have above 80% of the
students performing at the accomplished or exemplary level in all performance criteria.
Table 3 summarizes the results of this targeted assessment. The results indicate that the
minimum acceptable performance level of 80% was met on all performance criteria for this
program outcome, that is, over 80% of students were able to identify, analyze, and solve
technical problems. Hands-on laboratory skills are definitely a strength of the students
in the BSEET program. This may be due to the strong emphasis placed on laboratory
instruction and practical projects as part of most courses in the curriculum, as well as the
fact that many of the students in the program are working professionals with experience as
technicians, who are typically required to identify and solve technical problems as part of
their job responsibilities.
Table 3: Targeted Assessment for Outcome f: 1) Criterion 1-an ability to identify, 2)
Criterion 2- an ability to analyze, and 3) Criterion 3-an ability to solve broadly-defined
engineering technology problems.
Performance Criteria 1-Developing 2-Accomplished 3-Exemplary % Students ≥ 2
1 - Identify
0
6
5
100%
2 - Analyze
0
6
5
100%
3 - Solve
2
5
4
81.8%
11
3.3.6
Targeted Assessment for Outcome g: an ability to apply written, oral,
and graphical communication in both technical and non-technical environments; and an ability to identify and use appropriate technical literature.
This outcome was assessed in the ENGR465 - Capstone Project, in Spring 2013. The Capstone Project is a year-long (three-term) project that students complete in their senior year,
which involves a major design experience. Throughout the year, students are required to
complete the definition, design, implementation, and verification of a major engineering
design project. During the initial stage, students work under the supervision of their capstone project advisor to select a project of adequate scope, and submit a project proposal.
The proposal typically includes an explanation of the project relevance, a project definition
or specification, a timeline with major milestones, a list of resources needed to complete
the project, and a projected cost analysis. Once the proposal is approved by the academic
advisor, students go through the different phases of design, implementation, and verification of their project. During this time, students have regular meetings with their project
advisor in order to report progress, notify of plan changes if needed, present results, and
perform prototype demonstrations. Once the design, implementation, and verification process is completed, and there is a final working prototype, students are required to generate a
poster for inclusion in the annual Student Project Symposium, deliver an oral presentation,
and submit a formal written report. These three deliverables are used to determine the
students’ ability to communicate according to the performance criteria listed in table 4.
Eighteen students were assessed in Spring 2013, using the performance criteria listed in
the table below. The minimum acceptable performance level was to have above 80% of the
students performing at the accomplished or exemplary level in all performance criteria.
Table 4 summarizes the results of this targeted assessment. The results indicate that
the minimum acceptable performance level of 80% was not met on three of the five performance criteria for this program outcome; namely, the percentage of students who reached
an accomplished level for criteria 1 (written), 2 (literature), and 5 (audience), was 77.8%,
77.8%, and 72.2%, respectively. Ideas on how to improve performance in these areas were
discussed at the annual closing-the-loop meeting, and are presented in section 4.
Table 4: Targeted Assessment for Outcome g: 1) Criterion 1- an ability to apply written
communication, 2) Criterion 2-an ability to apply oral communication, 3) Criterion 3-an
ability to apply graphical communication 4) Criterion 4 - an ability to identify and use appropriate technical literature, and 5) Criterion 5 - an ability to communicate with technical
and nontechnical audiences.
Performance Criteria
1-Developing 2-Accomplished 3-Exemplary % Students ≥ 2
1 - Written
4
11
3
77.8%
2 - Oral
1
13
4
94.4%
3 - Graphical
2
13
3
88.9%
4 - Literature/Resources
4
10
4
77.8%
5
9
4
72.2%
5 - Audience
12
3.3.7
Targeted Assessment for Outcome h: an ability to engage in independent
learning and recognize the need for continual professional development.
This outcome was assessed in EE430 - Digital Signal Processing in Winter 2014 by requiring students to write an essay explaining the importance of independent learning, how they
plan on staying current in their field and industry through independent learning, and how
this relates to the need for continual professional development.
A total of fifteen students were assessed. The minimum acceptable performance level
was to have above 80% of the students performing at the accomplished or exemplary level
in all performance criteria.
Table 5 summarizes the results of this targeted assessment, and corresponding criteria
used for the assessment. The results indicate that the acceptable performance level was
reached in all of the performance criteria. This suggests most students in the program have
the ability to engage in independent learning and recognize the need for continual professional development.
Table 5: Targeted Assessment for Outcome h: 1) Criterion 1- an ability to engage in
independent learning, and 2) recognize the need for continual professional development
Performance Criteria 1-Developing 2-Accomplished 3-Exemplary % Students ≥ 2
1 - Ability
2
10
3
87%
2 - Recognition
2
9
4
87%
13
3.3.8
Targeted Assessment for Outcome k: a commitment to quality, timeliness, and continuous improvement.
This outcome was assessed in EE323 - Electronics II in Winter 2014 through a design
project. The project involved the design of an operational amplifier at the transistor level
using BJT and MOSFET transistors. The project was broken into three different stages,
each one corresponding to a laboratory assignment for the course, to guide students through
the design process, and provide an opportunity for students to get feedback through the
quarter regarding their designs. Students were required to complete and submit each of the
lab assignments by the deadline, as well as generate a final report by the end of the quarter
describing and characterizing their design. The final report was to be submitted following
the guidelines of the IEEE Transactions Journals (IEEE Transactions Publication-Ready
Template and Instructions for Authors). The students’ commitment to quality, timeliness,
and continuous improvement was measured by the quality of the final design, the timely
submission of the lab assignments and final report, and the willingness of the students to
use the feedback received through the term to make improvements to their design.
A total of fourteen students were assessed in Winter 2014, using the performance criteria
listed in the table below. The minimum acceptable performance level was to have above
80% of the students performing at the accomplished or exemplary level in all performance
criteria.
Table 6 summarizes the assessment results. The results indicate that the minimum
acceptable performance level of 80% was met on all performance criteria, except for performance criterion 1 - a commitment to quality, where only 78.6% of the students achieved a
level of accomplished or exemplary. Ideas on how to improve performance in this area were
discussed at the annual closing-the-loop meeting, and are presented in section 4.
Table 6: Targeted Assessment for Outcome k: 1) Criterion 1 - commitment to quality, 2)
Criterion 2 - commitment to timeliness, and 3) - commitment to continuous improvement.
Performance Criteria
1-Developing 2-Accomplished 3-Exemplary % Students ≥ 2
1 - Quality
3
6
5
78.6%
2 - Timeliness
1
9
4
92.9%
3 - Cont. Improvement
2
8
4
85.7%
14
3.3.9
Targeted Assessment for Outcome m: the ability to apply project management techniques to electrical/electronic(s) systems.
This outcome was assessed in the ENGR465 - Capstone Project in Spring 2013. As previously mentioned, the Capstone Project sequence is a three-term sequence that students take
in their senior year, which involves the completion of a major engineering design project.
The goal is to have students go through a normal design cycle, which in- cludes project
definition, design, implementation, verification, and documentation. Good project management skills are essential to the successful completion of the senior capstone project. For
this reason, emphasis is placed during the initial stages in project planning. Students work
with their project advisor to generate a project proposal. As explained previously, in their
proposal students must demonstrate that they have specific goals (a project definition or
specification), as well as an execution plan which takes into account time and resource
management. After the proposal has been approved by the project advisor, students start
working on their project, periodically meeting with their advisor to report progress. During these meetings, students must demonstrate their ability to execute according to plan.
Students are also expected to be able to dynamically adapt the project plan and timeline
as needed, and properly justify and document if and when changes need to happen to the
specification or timeline.
Eighteen students were assessed in the ENGR465 - Capstone Project sequence in Spring
2013 using the performance criteria listed in the table below. The minimum acceptable performance level was to have above 80% of the students performing at the accomplished or
exemplary level in all performance criteria.
The results indicate that the acceptable performance level was reached in all of the
performance criteria, with the exception of criterion 2 (ability to manage the design flow),
where the percentage of students who reached an accomplished level was 77.8%. These
results suggest that most students in the program are effective at applying project management techniques to electrical/electronic(s) systems. One area where the results suggest
improvement is needed is the ability of students to use management tools such as Gantt
charts and network diagrams. Ideas on how to improve performance in this area were
discussed at the annual closing-the-loop meeting, and are presented in section 4.
Table 7: Targeted Assessment for Outcome m: 1) Criterion 1-an ability to apply project
management techniques, 2) Criterion 2- an ability to manage design flow, and 3) Criterion
3-an ability to document and present designs.
Performance Criteria 1-Developing 2-Accomplished 3-Exemplary % Students ≥ 2
1 - Apply
2
11
5
88.9%
2 - Manage
4
9
5
77.8%
3 - Document
2
11
5
88.9%
15
3.3.10
2013-2014 Indirect Assessment
In addition to direct assessment measures, the student outcomes a − n were indirectly assessed through a senior exit survey.
Question 16 in the survey asked students ”Below are the ABET student outcomes for
the BS EET program. Please indicate how well the EET program prepared you in each
of the following areas”. Figures 1 and 2 show the results of the indirect assessment of the
BSEET student outcomes for the 2013-2014 graduating class.
Seven BSEET graduating seniors completed the survey, with 80 % or more of the respondents indicating that as a result of completing the BSEET program they feel prepared
or highly prepared in each of the student outcomes, except for outcome (m) Project Management, where 2 out of the 7 respondents (29%) felt inadequately prepared. These results
suggest that a high proportion of the BSEET graduating students feels they have attained
the BSEET student outcomes. Student Outcome (m) was discussed at the Closing-theLoop meeting. Based on a comparison between the results from the direct and the indirect
assessment, the BSEET faculty made some recommendations for changes in order to boost
the level of attainment of this outcome. These recommendations are presented in section
4.1.
Figure 1: Graph of results of the indirect assessment for the BSEET Student Outcomes as
reported in the Senior Exit Survey (AY 2013-14).
16
Question
a. An ability to select and apply the knowledge, techniques,
skills, and modern tools of the discipline to broadly-defined
engineering technology activities.
b. An ability to select and apply a knowledge of mathematics,
science, engineering, and technology to engineering
technology problems that require the application of
principles and applied procedures or methodologies.
c. An ability to conduct standard tests and measurements; to
conduct, analyze, and interpret experiments; and to apply
experimental results to improve processes.
d. An ability to design systems, components, or processes for
broadly-defined engineering technology problems
appropriate to program educational objectives.
e. An ability to function effectively as a member or leader on
a technical team.
f. An ability to identify, analyze, and solve broadly-defined
engineering technology problems.
g. An ability to apply written, oral, and graphical
communication in both technical and non-technical
environments; and an ability to identify and use appropriate
technical literature.
h. An understanding of the need for and an ability to engage
in self-directed continuing professional development.
i. An understanding of and a commitment to address
professional and ethical responsibilities including a respect
for diversity.
j. A knowledge of the impact of engineering technology
solutions in a societal and global context.
k. A commitment to quality, timeliness, and continuous
improvement.
l. The ability to analyze, design, and implement control
systems, instrumentation systems, communications systems,
computer systems, or power systems.
m. The ability to apply project management techniques to
electrical/electronic(s) systems.
n. The ability to utilize statistics/probability, transform
methods, discrete mathematics, or applied differential
equations in support of electrical/electronic(s) systems.
Inadequately
prepared
Prepared
Highly
prepared
0
3
4
0
4
3
0
2
5
0
5
2
0
4
3
0
5
2
1
3
3
0
3
4
0
3
4
1
4
2
0
4
3
0
5
2
2
3
2
0
5
2
Figure 2: Table of results of the indirect assessment for the BSEET Student Outcomes as
reported in the Senior Exit Survey (AY 2013-14).
17
4
Changes Resulting From Assessment
This section describes the changes resulting from the assessment activities carried out during the year 2013-2014. It includes any changes that have been implemented based on
assessment in previous assessment cycles, from this or last year, as well as considerations
for the next assessment cycle.
The BSEET faculty met on May 20, 2013 to review the assessment results and determine whether any changes are needed to the BSEET curriculum or assessment methodology
based on the results presented in this document. The objective set by the BSEET faculty
was to have at least 80% of the students perform at the level of accomplished or exemplary
in all performance criteria of the assessed outcomes. Table 8 provides a summary of the
2012-13 assessment results for the outcomes which were directly assessed.
Table 8: Summary of BSEET direct assessment for AY2012-13. Performance criteria where
% Students ≥ 2 is less than 80% appear in bold.
Total Students Students ≥ 2 % Students ≥ 2
c - Experimentation
1 - Conduct
18
15
83.3%
2 - Analyze/Interpret
18
14
77.8%
3 - Improve
18
14
77.8%
f - Problem Solving
1 - Identify
11
11
100%
11
11
100%
2 - Analyze
3 - Solve
11
9
81.8%
g - Communication
1 - Written
18
14
77.8%
2 - Oral
18
17
94.4%
3 - Graphical
18
16
88.9%
4 - Literature/Resources
18
14
77.8%
5 - Audience
18
13
72.2%
h-Lifelong Learning
1 - Ability
15
13
87%
2 - Recognition
15
13
87%
k - Continuous Improvement
1 - Quality
14
11
78.6%
2 - Timeliness
14
13
92.9%
14
12
85.7%
3 - Cont. Improvement
m - Project Management
1 - Apply
18
16
88.9%
2 - Manage
18
14
77.8%
3 - Document
18
16
88.9%
18
4.1
Changes Resulting from the 2013-2014 Assessment
The results of the 2013-14 Assessment indicate that the minimum acceptable performance
level of 80% was not met on all performance criteria for all assessed outcomes. Areas of
improvement to the curriculum were discussed during the Closing the Loop Meeting in May
2014 with respect to these results. These areas include:
• Outcome c (Experimentation):
Results: The results obtained are consistent with those obtained the last time this
outcome was assessed in the 2010-11 assessment cycle. The results in two of the performance criteria are slightly below the 80% threshold. However, the faculty noted
that the results were close to the threshold, and that the resolution of these measurements is affected by the low sample size (i.e., a single measurement moving from the
1 to the 2 category would have yielded a result above the threshold). The faculty also
noted that this outcome was evaluated in a different course in the 2010-11 assessment
cycle (EE323, as opposed to EE320).
Recommendation: The faculty concluded that no specific changes to the curriculum
are needed at this point, but recommended reviewing the assessment methodology
to identify ways to improve resolution of assessment results, as well as increase the
consistency of the courses and assignments used for assessment of a given outcome, so
that comparisons to previous assessment cycles can be more meaningful. The changes
proposed to the assessment methodology are listed in section 4.2.
• Outcome f (Problem Solving):
Results: The results show that the threshold of attainment of this outcome was exceeded in all performance criteria. These results are consistent with those obtained
the last time this outcome was assessed in the 2010-11 assessment cycle.
Recommendation: The faculty identified no problem with this outcome, and therefore recommended no changes at this time.
• Outcome g (Communication):
Results: The results on this outcome are slightly below the threshold in three out
of the five performance criteria. These results are somewhat consistent with those
obtained the last two times this outcome was assessed (in the 2010-11 and 2011-12
assessment cycles, respectively), even though a good comparison is difficult due to the
changes in the wording of this outcome (due to the 2011-12 ABET ETAC outcome
revisions), which led to a corresponding update of the performance criteria. Some
changes to the BSEET curriculum were implemented as a result of the assessment
activity from the 2010-11 and 2011-12 assessment cycles, which included adding oral
presentation and written report requirements to at least half of the courses in the
upper division of the BSEET curriculum. Even though the faculty agreed that the
19
implementation of these recommendations has had a positive impact in the communication skills of the BSEET student population, there was a consensus that further
improvement is needed in this area, since it is an area of particular relevance, based on
the input received from the Industry Advisory Board, as well as employers and alumni.
Recommendation: The faculty agreed that the requirements for oral presentations
and written reports in the BSEET curriculum are sufficient to allow students to develop an adequate level of proficiency, but students should be able to get more feedback
and an opportunity to improve their reports/presentations based on the feedback received.
With respect to criterion 1 (written communication), students are already assigned
multiple graded written reports throughout the curriculum to allow them to progressively improve their technical writing skills. In the future, students will be encouraged
to use the free writing tutors, so that they can get early feedback beyond that provided
by the course instructor, and they get a chance to improve their written assignments
before they are submitted for grading. It will be emphasized that final drafts of reports should be written with enough time to allow students to go through the process
of review with a writing tutor before final submission.
With regards to criterion 4 (literature), faculty noted that free seminars on how to
use the library, how to adequately cite sources, etc. are provided by the Library periodically. To foster improvement in this area, the BSEET faculty will consult with the
Library for a schedule of seminars, and BSEET students will be encouraged to attend
seminars that are relevant to this performance criteria.
To foster improvement in criterion 5 (audience), students will be encouraged to participate in and attend technical talks, presentations, and seminars in nontechnical
environments. There are multiple events like this on campus that students can participate in. Information regarding such events will be included in the syllabi of relevant
courses so that students know of their availability.
• Outcome f (Lifelong Learning):
Results: The results show that the threshold of attainment of this outcome was exceeded in all performance criteria. These results are consistent with those obtained
the last time this outcome was assessed in the 2010-11 assessment cycle.
Recommendation: The faculty identified no problem with this outcome, and therefore recommended no changes at this time.
• Outcome k (Continuous Improvement):
Results: The results are consistent with those obtained the last time this outcome
was assessed in the 2010-11 assessment cycle. The results in one of the performance
20
criteria are slightly below the 80% threshold. As with outcome c, the faculty noted
that this could be a result of low resolution noise (i.e., a single measurement causing
the result to fall below threshold). Likewise, the faculty noted that this outcome was
evaluated in a different course in the 2010-11 assessment cycle (ENGR266, as opposed
to EE323), which makes it difficult to identify any kind of trend in the results.
Recommendation: The faculty concluded that no specific changes to the curriculum
are needed at this point, but recommended reviewing the assessment methodology to
identify ways to improve resolution of assessment results, as well as increase the consistency of the courses and assignments used for assessment of a given outcome, so
that comparisons to previous assessment cycles can be more meaningful. The changes
proposed to the assessment methodology are listed in section 4.2.
• Outcome m (Project Management):
Results:: These results are somewhat consistent with those obtained the last time
this outcome was assessed (in the 2011-12 assessment cycle). The results indicate that
the acceptable performance level was reached in all of the performance criteria, with
the exception of criterion 2 (ability to manage the design flow), where the percentage
of students who reached an accomplished level was slightly below 80%.
Recommendation: The results in criterion 2 are close to the threshold, but faculty
agreed that some improvement is needed in this area, specially since this is the outcome
that received the lowest rating in the indirect assessment as well. In order to improve
the ability to manage the design flow, students will be encouraged to practice good
time management skills by incorporating project management techniques and design
flow management in courses earlier in the curriculum, so that students are exposed to
these methods before the Capstone Project. This will be performed in courses that
have a substantial project.
4.2
Changes to Assessment Methodology
This section describes changes to the assessment methodology that were proposed in the
2013-2014 assessment cycle for implementation in the 2014-15 assessment cycle.
An Assessment Coordinators Meeting was held in February 2014. At this meeting,
Assessment Coordinators from each program within the EERE Department aligned their
assessment cycles so that each program assesses similar outcomes on the same years. The
Assessment Coordinators also worked with the corresponding program faculty to generate
a mapping of the program outcomes to the courses where assessment will be conducted
for each outcome. As a result of this meeting, assessment of the student outcomes will
still be conducted over a three year-cycle, but in a slightly different order compared to the
previous cycle. Table 9 shows the outcomes assessed during each assessment cycle starting
with the 2014/2015 assessment cycle. The intention for this change is to better organize
the assessment process and produce more meaningful data for comparison between different
programs in the EERE Department.
21
In order to better measure trends, the faculty also decided this year to standardize the
process so that each student outcome is sampled at the same point in the curriculum using
a similar assignment from one assessment cycle to the next. Table 10 maps the BSEET
Student Outcomes assessed each year within the assessment cycle to the corresponding
courses where assessment for the specific Student Outcome is performed. This map reflects
a decision by the faculty to assess outcomes a – g and l – n in two different courses in
the same assessment cycle (i.e., two direct measurements per outcome). These courses were
chosen to correspond to different points in the curriculum in order to also provide an idea of
progress made in these outcomes as students progress through the program. For outcomes
h – k, the faculty decided that a single measurement was most adequate. The reason for
this is that these outcomes are less related to the specific BSEET curriculum, but are
rather broader outcomes, and multiple measurements would require the use of substantially
equivalent assignments.
Table 9: BSEET Outcome Assessment Cycle effective 2014/2015
Outcome
Year 1 (2014/15) Year 2(2015/16 Year 3 (2016/17)
√
a. Fundamentals
–
–
√
b. Application
–
–
√
c. Experimentation
–
–
√
d. Design
–
–
√
e. Teamwork
–
–
√
f. Problem Solving
–
–
√
g. Communication
–
–
√
h. Lifelong Learning
–
–
√
i. Eithics
–
–
√
j. Impact
–
–
√
k. Continuous Improvement
–
–
√
l. Electronic Systems
–
–
√
m. Project Management
–
–
√
n. Advanced Mathematics
–
–
22
Table 10: Map of the BSEET Student Outcomes assessed each year within the assessment
cycle to the corresponding courses where assessment for the specific Student Outcome is
performed effective 2014/2015
Outcome
Year 1 (2014/15)
Year 2(2015/16
Year 3 (2016/17)
a. Fundamentals
–
–
ENGR267, EE321
b. Application
EE321, EE430
–
–
c. Experimentation
–
EE320, EE323
–
d. Design
EE325, EE465
–
–
e. Teamwork
EE320, EE321
–
–
f. Problem Solving
–
–
EE325, ENGR 465
g. Communication
–
–
EE325, ENGR 465
h. Lifelong Learning
–
–
EE430
i. Eithics
–
EE401
–
j. Impact
–
EE323
–
k. Continuous Improvement
ENGR 465
–
–
l. Electronic Systems
–
EE325, ENGR465
–
m. Project Management
–
–
EE432, ENGR465
n. Advanced Mathematics
EE320, EE401
–
–
23