A Perspective on Building an Electrical Engineering Undergraduate
Online Education Program
By Craig J. Scotta, Petronella Jamesa, Yacob Astatkea, Jumoke Ladeji-Osiasa, Farzad Moazzamia, Kofi
Nyarkoia
aMorgan State University
Abstract
Over the past three years, we have been investigating the use of inexpensive, highly portable
instrumentation to facilitate our lab requirements. As a result of this enabling technology, an online
program targeted toward completing the second two years of an undergraduate electrical engineering
degree is being piloted at our institution. Nearly 109 students have participated in this study. A twoplus-two approach avoids the need for an institution wide conversion of all required courses. Special
care must be taken, however, to assess a student’s ability to work independently and to assess
whether or not they have reasonable expectations of the degree of time management and persistence
needed to satisfactorily complete their coursework online. In this article, we detail the curriculum
changes, how the formats of both laboratory and non- laboratory courses were modified, and the
process of recruiting and certifying faculty to teach these courses.
Introduction
This article is a reflection of our experiences in developing, piloting and delivering a completely online
Electrical and Computer Engineering program. With the rapid evolution of communication and
computer technologies, the number of online engineering programs has also grown substantially. The
online student is typically a lifelong learner, more concerned with commuting and non-academic
responsibilities, and motivated to complete assignments individually.[i] Moreover, graduate courses are
usually more content and design centered with less needs for laboratory experiences. [ii] Undergraduate
programs are considerably less available owing to a significant laboratory experience requirement.
Recent innovations in inexpensive and portable laboratory instruments during recent years have
enabled new pedagogical approaches to be applied toward the teaching of theoretical concepts and
design practices in Electrical Engineering. A small number of Electrical Engineering programs have
taken advantage of these new tools to incorporate hands-on experimental activities into existing
lecture courses. This new approach has led to the implementation of new restructured EE courses that
utilize problem-based learning with a focus on student-centered learning rather than instructorcentered lectures. As an extension to this pedagogy, we have been successful in developing and
teaching completely online electrical engineering courses with laboratory components. [iii] While our
primary motivation is to provide a quality education to those who would not otherwise be in a position
to pursue one, reaching out to students that inhabit areas with little post-secondary infrastructure has
meritorious implications. This reasoning can be extended not only nationally but also to restricted
global communities.
A common trend for many students is for them to accomplish their General Education requirements at
a community college. If available, some lower-division discipline specific courses may also be taken at
a two-year institution. In this article, we discuss our experiences in implementing the upper-division
portion of an electrical engineering program designed to complement the needs of a student acquiring
an Associate degree in this area. The major areas of consideration include curriculum design, course
design, and program assessment.
Curriculum Design
The primary reasons for delivering undergraduate courses and programs online are to allow our
campus to expand enrollment beyond the limitations of available classroom space, and to reach
student learners that would not otherwise come to campus. Morgan State University is in the process
of expanding in liberal arts and the general sciences areas but it may be some time before all the
General Education and University requirements for our program are offered fully online. This is where
the synergy between two-year and four-year institutions can be leveraged to minimize cost and
duplication associated with bringing up a fully online program. Likewise, negative experiences with
lower‐division undergraduate students having poor success rates in online courses can be abated
owing to the experience gained in pursuing general studies at a two-year institution.
The current plus-two program at Morgan requires 65 credits of courses beyond those taken at a two
year institution, consisting of 18 credits of lab augmented core courses, 15 credits of non-lab based
core courses, 12 of 21 credits of elective courses, and 20 credits of non-electrical courses.
The salient features of this curriculum sequence are that it:






Allows completion of all laboratory courses online
Allows students at a two year college to obtain a BSEE in electrical engineering by completing
the third & fourth year without having to leave the area
Is designed for graduates of the associate degree in electrical engineering
Allows non-ASE graduates to take lower division EE courses without having to come to the 4
year institution beforehand.
Allows students to complete the ECE curriculum part-time or full-time, online or face-to-face
Allows a maximum of seventy (70) credit hours from a community college or 4-year institution
towards fulfillment of the minimum one hundred thirty-three (133) credit hours required for
baccalaureate completion.
Course Design
The course building phase was sustained over a two year period following a strategy of completing the
most challenging core laboratory courses and then turning our attention to building the core nonlaboratory courses. Near the end of the building phase the elective courses and non-electrical
engineering courses were considered.
All courses offered within this program require certification using the “Quality Matters (QM)” standard
rubrics.[iv],[v] This rubric outlines many of the practices that are generally accepted for teaching
engineering courses and includes some items that are critical for an online student’s success. In
addition, any online instructor must also receive certification either as a builder or online teacher using
a similar rubric for evaluation. This required in most instances that instructors commence and
complete these certification requirements during the instructional phase of a semester. This was not
only challenging and demanding for the instructors, but contributed in large measure to an extended
building phase for the scheduled courses.
The certification rate for faculty and adjuncts averaged 67%, with 22 instructors completing
certification during the 3-year online program initiation and piloting phase (Table 1 ). Sixteen (16)
instructors completed the 9-week online course design (OCD) module, and six (6) completed the 7week teach online (TO) certification. Instructors who successfully completed the OCD module were
certified for both course design and teaching online.
Table 1 Total Instructor Certification
Methods to use collaborative software applications such as Adobe Connect™ for remote lab
demonstration[i] were conceived and tested. All of the laboratory classes require demonstrations by
the students. Sharing live video and simulations via remote desktop proved to be an innovative
solution to address this requirement. An example interactive electric circuits laboratory session is
shown in Figure 1 . Course developers were instructed on how to use the system for lecture capture
and storage on Blackboard™ and using Adobe Connect™ for collaborating. For courses with laboratory
components, the course developers were also required to train on the use of the Mobile Studio™
technology[ii]. At present, the Analog Discovery board is being phased-in to replace the Mobile studio
boards.
Figure 1. Interactive Online Laboratory Session Using Mobile Studio Technology
Assessment
Not only is there a need for an ability to offer laboratory courses online, but there is a parallel need for
assessment tools that allow the collection and analysis of course outcomes and objectives, in a
seamless manner. A web-based assessment system might have more potential in terms of access and
flexibility for teachers and administrators in terms of overall effectiveness and efficiency of producing
“Learning Analytics”[i]. Various approaches specifically geared toward helping programs document and
measure ABET EC2000 program educational objectives and outcomes exist [ii],[iii] but few such as
Blackboard Learn and TK20 feature a fully electronic, rubric based approach that integrate well with
existing student information systems[iv]. The philosophy driving the approach in this effort is to allow
the instructor to focus on course outcomes via embedded problems and laboratory exercises while the
program outcomes are derived from a mapping between the two levels. Subsequently, examining
performance metrics and taking a proper course of action are conveniently done at all levels of
administration.
During the course test and evaluation the effectiveness of the modified curriculum was periodically
assessed using surveys, interviews, and course outcomes. Subsequently, the remaining courses were
offered and the evaluation information gathered to serve as a basis for continual improvement and the
development of best practices. During this development phase, over 147 seats were occupied. In most
cases for a course pilot rollout, the initial modality was face-to-face followed by a gradual transition to
a fully online format. This allows a new online instructor to adapt to the different modality of online
pedagogy.
For most aspects, the student’s perception was found to be slightly lower during the initial piloting for
the laboratory based classes as compared to the non-laboratory based courses. There appeared to be
some frustration at the onset of the class owing to a quick ramp-up on the use of the Mobile Studio
boards and the transition from conventional laboratory equipment. Developing better pre-course
tutorials on using this technology has addressed this problem.
Information was sought to gather information pertaining to the equivalency of achieving learning
outcomes in this environment. Figure 2 shows that in most cases the performance of students in the
online section is roughly equivalent to that of the face to face cohorts, for the sections evaluated.
Figure 2. Online versus F2F student outcomes comparison
Lessons Learned/Best Practices
There are a few lessons learned from the implementation and piloting of these undergraduate courses:


A two-plus-two electrical engineering program benefits from the cooperation of two-year
colleges by offering at least some of the sophomore courses outside of the four-year
institution. This approach also allows four-year institutions to focus resources on the upperlevel core and elective courses.
Some type of certification process is essential for maintaining a consistent standard of quality.



It is optimistic to have faculty build and teach courses, especially when adjunct instructors are
involved on a part time basis. It is a good practice then to pair seasoned faculty with adjuncts
or junior faculty, if this approach is used.
Online programs offer a unique opportunity to offer courses during the summer, giving the
students an extra window to stay on track and meet their graduation goals.
Pre-course training on specialized laboratory equipment and software is important to keep the
pace of online learning manageable.
The course design and building phase is extremely integral to developing a successful online program.
It is important to create high-quality online courses to protect the university’s brand which means
faculty need the time and training, and support to plan and design courses that will be both rich in
content and instructional strategies, with a variety of multimedia tools and technologies to encourage
student engagement and learning.
Summary
As a result of this implementation, with special care and proper resources, conducting a fully online
program appears to be a viable endeavor. It is markedly different in terms of the pedagogy,
instructional tools and administrative overhead required. We have discovered the modality of hybrid
course delivery is preferred over fully online participation by a majority of our students. There are
many reasons to offer courses fully online and some are very compelling such as travel restrictions
and family obligations. Our experience in developing, piloting and delivering a completely online
Electrical and Computer Engineering program indicates that adding a fully online option provides a
very practical compliment to traditional brick and mortar course venues.
[1] J. Dutton, M. Dutton, J. Perry, “How Do Online Students Differ from Lecture Students?” Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks. 6, (1), July. 2002: 1-20
[1] J. Bourne, D. Harris, F. Mayadas, Journal of Engineering Education , 9, 2005: 131-146
[1] Y. Astatke, J. Ladeji-Osias C. J. Scott, “Developing and Teaching Sophomore Level Electrical
Engineering Courses Completely Online”, Journal of Online Education, 2, (2), 2011.
[1] http://www.qmprogram.org/rubric
[1] L. Ragan, C. Sax, “Defining and Implementing Quality Assurance Standards in Online Courses”,
EDUCAUSE 2005, October 18–21 in Orlando, Florida.
[1] Y. Astatke, C. J. Scott, J. Ladeji-Osias, “Electric Circuits Online: Towards a Completely Online
Electrical Engineering Curriculum”, American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference,
2011
[1] D. Millard, M. Chouikha, and F. Berry, "Improving Student Intuition via Rensselaer‛s New Mobile
Studio Pedagogy", ASEE 2007 Annual Conference, Honolulu, HW, June 2007.
[1] P. Baepler, and C. J. Murdoch, “Academic analytics and data mining in higher education”.
International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 4 (2), July 2010.
[1] McGourty, Jack, Kevin Scoles, and Stephen Thorpe. "Web-based course evaluation:
comparing the experience at two universities." Frontiers in Education, 2002. FIE 2002. 32nd Annual.
(1) IEEE, 2002.
[1] Buzzetto-More, Nicole A., and Ayodele Julius Alade. "Best practices in e-assessment." Journal of
Information Technology Education 5 (1) , 2006: 251-269.
[1] Williams, J. M. "Evaluating What Students Know: Using the RosE Portfolio System for Institutional
and Program Outcomes Assessment." Professional Communication, IEEE Transactions on 53.1 2010:
46-57.