SELF-STUDY
QUESTIONNAIRE
for:
The Department of Electrical Engineering
submitted by:
University of Hawai`i at Manoa
College of Engineering
June 30, 2003
Engineering Accreditation Commission
Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology
111 Market Place, Suite 1050
Baltimore, Maryland 21202-4012
Phone: 410-347-7700
Fax: 410-625-2238
e-mail: eac@abet.org
www: http://www.abet.org/
1
Table of Contents
A.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ................................................................................... 5
1. Degree Titles ....................................................................................................................... 5
2. Program Modes ................................................................................................................... 5
3. Actions to Correct Previous Shortcomings ......................................................................... 5
4. Contact Information ............................................................................................................ 6
B. ACCREDITATION SUMMARY ...................................................................................... 7
1. STUDENTS ..................................................................................................................... 12
1.1 Admission of Students ................................................................................................ 12
1.2 Advising ...................................................................................................................... 13
1.3 Monitoring Student Progress ...................................................................................... 14
1.4 Transfer Students ........................................................................................................ 14
1.5 Transfer Credits .......................................................................................................... 15
1.6 Student Performance ................................................................................................... 15
2. PROGRAM EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES................................................................ 16
2.1. Statement of Objectives ............................................................................................. 16
2.2 Significant Constituencies ......................................................................................... 18
2.3 Periodic Evaluation of Objectives ............................................................................. 19
2.4 Curriculum to Ensure Achievement........................................................................... 19
2.5 Processes to Ensure Achievement ............................................................................. 22
2.6 Evaluation to Determine Achievement ...................................................................... 23
2.7 Use of Results to Improve the Program ..................................................................... 23
3. PROGRAM OUTCOMES AND ASSESSMENT........................................................... 25
3.1. Statement of Program Outcomes .............................................................................. 25
3.2. Relationship to Educational Objectives .................................................................... 25
3.3. Relationship to Criterion 3 ......................................................................................... 26
3.4. Processes to Produce and Assess Program Outcomes ............................................... 26
3.5. Course Objectives and Outcomes .............................................................................. 27
3.6. Relationship of Courses to Program Outcomes ......................................................... 29
3.7. Achievement of All Outcomes by All Students ......................................................... 32
3.8. Process for Achievement of Outcomes ...................................................................... 32
3.9. Metric Goals for Outcomes ........................................................................................ 32
3.10. Assessment of Program Outcomes and Results ...................................................... 37
3.10.1. Overview of Assessment Tools ........................................................................ 38
3.10.2. Campus Senior Exit Surveys and Alumni Survey ............................................ 39
3.10.3. Course Evaluation/Assessment Surveys ........................................................... 50
Figure 3.26. The Newly Developed Prerequisite Survey. ............................................ 58
3.10.4. Prerequisite Survey ........................................................................................... 58
3.10.5. IAB and SAB Surveys ...................................................................................... 59
3.10.6. Faculty Course Assessment .............................................................................. 64
3.11. Processes to Apply Assessment Results to Improve the Program .......................... 64
3.12. Changes Implemented or Pending Implementation ................................................ 65
3.12.1. Improvements from 1997-2001 ........................................................................ 65
3.12.2. Improvements for 2001-2002 ........................................................................... 65
3.12.3. Improvements for 2002-2003 ........................................................................... 67
2
3.12.3. Continuing Work .............................................................................................. 69
3.13. Materials Available for Review During ABET Visit ............................................. 71
4. PROFESSIONAL COMPONENT .................................................................................. 72
4.1. Overview of Curriculum Requirements .................................................................... 72
4.1.1. Mathematics and Basic Sciences ........................................................................ 72
4.1.2. Engineering Topics ............................................................................................. 73
4.1.3. General Education ............................................................................................... 76
4.1.4. Special Topics, Directed Reading, and Inactive Courses ................................... 77
4.2. Design Experience in the Curriculum ........................................................................ 78
4.2.1. Required Major Design Experience ................................................................... 83
5. FACULTY ....................................................................................................................... 86
5.1. Number and Competencies to Cover the Curricular Areas ....................................... 86
5.2. Department, College, and University Service Activities .......................................... 89
5.3. Professional Development ........................................................................................ 90
5.4. Interaction with Practitioners and Employers ........................................................... 90
6. FACILITIES .................................................................................................................... 92
6.1 Space and equipment for faculty................................................................................. 92
6.2 Undergraduate and Project Laboratories .................................................................... 92
6.2.1 Basic circuits lab (Holmes 357) ........................................................................... 92
6.2.2 Analog circuits lab (Holmes 358) ........................................................................ 93
6.2.3 Digital circuits lab (Holmes 451) ......................................................................... 94
6.2.4 Communications lab (Holmes 386) ..................................................................... 94
6.2.5 Physical electronics lab (POST Building) ........................................................... 95
6.2.6 Casual Use Computer lab (Holmes 486, soon to be moved to Holmes 387)....... 95
6.3 Space and equipment for teaching or research assistants ........................................... 97
7. INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES ................................ 98
7.1 Institutional support, financial resources, and constructive leadership. ..................... 98
7.2 Processes used to determine the budget. ..................................................................... 98
7.3 Faculty professional development. ............................................................................. 99
7.4 Plan and sufficiency of resources to acquire, maintain, and operate facilities and
equipment. ......................................................................................................................... 99
7.5 Support personnel and institutional services............................................................... 99
8. PROGRAM CRITERIA ................................................................................................ 100
APPENDIX I Program Data ..................................................................................................... 1
APPENDIX I-A Curriculum, faculty and expenditure information ...................................... 2
Table I-1. Basic-Level Curriculum .................................................................................... 2
Table I-2. Course and Section Size Summary ................................................................... 5
Table I-3. Faculty Workload Summary ............................................................................. 9
Table I-4. Faculty Analysis .............................................................................................. 11
Table I-5. Support Expenditures ...................................................................................... 13
APPENDIX I-B Course Syllabi ........................................................................................... 14
APPENDIX I-C Faculty Curriculum Vitae ....................................................................... 111
APPENDIX II Institutional Profile ............................................................................................ 1
APPENDIX III Role of Committees.......................................................................................... 1
APPENDIX IV Summary Report to Constituents FY 2001-2002............................................. 1
APPENDIX V Undergraduate Curriculum Committee Reports ............................................... 1
3
APPENDIX V-A. UCC Proposal: May 2002 ....................................................................... 2
APPENDIX V-B. UCC Report on Curriculum Changes: September 2002 ....................... 13
APPENDIX V-C. UCC Final Report: Academic Year 2001-02 ........................................ 15
APPENDIX V-D. UCC Final Report: Academic Year 2002-03 ........................................ 18
APPENDIX VI Interface Committee Documents ..................................................................... 1
APPENDIX VII Assessment Committee Report Spring 2002 .................................................. 1
4
A.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1. Degree Titles
We currently offer undergraduate and graduate programs in Electrical Engineering and offer
B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees. The department has three different areas of emphasis for both
undergraduate and graduate students. These three areas are computer engineering (software and
hardware), electrophysics (circuits, devices, electromagnetics, optics), and systems
(communications, control, networks, signal processing, power).
2. Program Modes
The primary mode of instruction is daytime, on-campus. This is consistent with the information
provided in Appendix II for the engineering unit as a whole.
3. Actions to Correct Previous Shortcomings
Program-specific shortcomings identified during the 1997 ABET visit were as follows:
1) Math and basic sciences are not adequately applied in the courses in the different optional
areas.
2) Lack of documentation of the realistic constraints in engineering was noted.
3) Lack of guidelines for the course required of the major design experiences.
4) Application of probability and statistics not required of all students.
The actions taken to address these shortcomings were:
Action 1: In 1998, the faculty of the College of Engineering negotiated with the faculty of the
Math Department to establish two sequences of calculus courses: Math 241, 242, 243, 244; and
Math 151, 152, 153. The two sequences were designed to meet the needs of students with
different levels of high school preparation (those who have taken introductory calculus and those
who have not). Both groups of students are more satisfied with this situation and are doing better
work. This has allowed an improved level of mathematics in our electrical engineering courses.
Action 2, 3: The EE296 (1 cr), EE396 (2 cr), and EE496 (3 cr) design project sequence has
been restructured to improve the quality of the design experience (please see section 4.2, below).
Action 4: All students are required to take EE342 (Probability and Statistics).
An institutional shortcoming identified during the 1997 ABET visit was with respect to the
chemistry instructional laboratories, which were found marginally adequate for instructional
purposes.
5
In response, (as expressed in letters from the Dean of the College of Engineering to ABET dated
March 30, 1998 and March 12, 2001), the Chemistry Department received approximately
$100,000 to upgrade the laboratories in Bilger Hall, which was also newly renovated. Equipment
purchased with these funds included 12 pH meters, 12 hot plates/stirrers, 4 balances, 12
electrodes, 12 power supplies and 12 voltmeters. The Chemistry Department was also provided
funds by the Interim Dean of the College of Natural Sciences to hire additional teaching
assistants.
4. Contact Information
Primary pre-visit contact person:
Todd R. Reed
Professor and Chair
Department of Electrical Engineering
2540 Dole Street
Holmes Hall 485
Honolulu, Hawaii 96822
Phone: (808) 956-3427
Fax: (808) 956-3427
Email: treed@hawaii.edu
6
B.
ACCREDITATION SUMMARY
There have been significant changes within the department in regards to preparation for ABET
evaluation. In the previous six-year evaluation cycle, the department chair appointed an ABET
Committee approximately two years in advance of the ABET’s visit. This ad-hoc committee
was responsible for all the tasks related to ABET evaluation. Due to the recent changes in
EC2000 criteria, a new ‘system’ has now been developed and its implementation began during
the academic year 2001-02. The system ensures involvement of constituents, administration and
faculty in establishing an on-going cycle of feedback and improvement of the undergraduate
program.
Our system is implemented by four separate EE faculty committees, each having a specific set of
ABET related tasks (the details of the responsibilities of the committees may be found in
Appendix III):

Assessment Committee (AC): This committee oversees all aspects of assessment, which
include assessment of the outcomes to verify that the undergraduate curriculum satisfies
the department’s objectives, and continual modification of the metrics, methods and
procedures used to assess the outcomes.

Undergraduate Curriculum Committee (UCC): This committee oversees all aspects of
the undergraduate curriculum, which include ensuring continual improvement of the
undergraduate curriculum, such that it meets the department’s objectives, and updating
documents for the undergraduate curriculum.

Interface Committee (IC): This committee oversees all aspects of interaction with the
constituencies, which include identifying, interfacing and getting feedback from the
constituencies on the Department’s objectives and its performance in educating
undergraduate students. It deals primarily with the following constituencies: students,
industry, and alumni.

ABET Core Committee: This committee oversees all aspects of the ABET criteria and
evaluation process, which include developing the undergraduate educational objectives,
developing a mechanism by which these objectives are determined and evaluated,
developing a system of ongoing assessment that leads to continuous improvement of the
undergraduate curriculum, and evaluating outcomes and providing recommendations to
modifications and improvements in the program. As a minimum the membership
includes the chairs of the other three committees and the Department Chair. The
committee may have additional members, though it is optional.
Figure 1.1 illustrates our adaptation to the ‘two loop process’ of EC 2000, and its relationship
with the above-mentioned committees. It is important to note that these committees are standing
committees in the department with memberships that encompass a large fraction, and even a
majority, of the department’s faculty.
7
ABET Core
Committee
ABET Core
Committee
Determine
Outcomes
Required to
Achieve
Objectives
Determine
educational
objectives
Assessment
Committee
“Small Loop”
Evaluate/
Assess
Undergraduate
Curriculum
Committee
Determine
How
Outcomes
will be
Achieved
“Big Loop”
Input from
Constituencies
Determine
How
Outcomes
will be
Assessed
Formal
Instruction
Student
Activities
Interface
Committee
Undergraduate
Curriculum
Committee
Assessment
Committee
Establish Indicators
for Achievement of
Outcomes/Objectives
Assessment
Committee
Figure 1.1. ABET cycle diagram.
Figure 1.2 illustrates how the committees interact with each other, the constituencies, and
faculty. Overseeing the whole process is the ABET Core Committee. Through this committee,
the other three committees exchange information and plans of action via their chairs. The plans
of action are typically recommendations to implement some type of change or to investigate a
possible deficiency. It is up to the other committees to determine if the suggestions are feasible
and then to implement them. The ABET Core Committee also establishes and updates the
Program Objectives and Outcomes. Basically, the Program Outcomes state what students should
be able to do at the time of graduation, while Program Objectives indicate what graduates should
be able to do several years after graduation. Detailed description of the Program’s Objectives
and Outcomes are discussed in Sections B.2 and B.3, respectively.
To facilitate inter- and intra-communication between the committees, and document preparation
and archiving, an intranet site (abet-uhee.intranets.com) was also created in Fall 2000. All the
faculty members participating in various committees have access to the site and hence remain
cognizant of the ABET related activities in the department.
8
Department of Electrical Engineering
ABET Core Committee
AC Chair
Assessment
Committee
(AC)
Performance Student
Advisory
Feedback
Board
(SAB)
Students
Department
Chair
UCC Chair
IC Chair
Undergraduate
Curriculum
Committee
(UCC)
Interface
Committee
(IC)
Constituents
Industry
Alumni
Approval
Curriculum
Courses
Faculty
Figure 1.2. Committees and constituents in relation to each other.
As shown in Figure 1.2, the IC gets feedback from external constituencies about the curriculum,
Program Objectives and Outcomes, and other aspects of the department. Currently, these
external constituencies are industry and alumni who are represented by an Industrial Advisory
Board (IAB). In addition, the IC organizes a Student Advisory Board (SAB), composed of
undergraduate students. The SAB provides feedback about the state of the Department for the
constituency of students.
The AC assesses student ability to meet the Program Objectives and Outcomes. Important
measurement tools are surveys from students and faculty including end-of-semester surveys of
courses and exit surveys of graduating seniors. The AC also receives the reports from the IAB
and SAB via the IC.
The UCC implements any changes to the curriculum suggested by the ABET Core Committee.
The UCC is also responsible for advertising course and curriculum information. The committee
updates the information in the annual University course catalog and the Department’s web site
(www-ee.eng.hawaii.edu).
Figure 1.2 also illustrates that all EE faculty have input into the process even if they are not
members of a committee. They may recommend changes to any of the committees, and have
final approval on curriculum changes or changes to the Program Objectives and Outcomes.
9
Two Loops
Our system implements the two loops of Figure 1.1. The purpose of the “small loop” is to
maintain the Program Objectives and to ensure that graduates achieve them. The IC, with help
from the AC, solicit evaluations from external constituencies about whether the Program
Objectives are appropriate and how well our graduates achieved them. The IC then reports to the
ABET Core Committee, who updates the Program Objectives if necessary.
The “big loop” is to maintain the Program Outcomes and to ensure that students can achieve
them at the time of graduation. Our system does not exactly follow the information flow of the
“big loop” in Figure 1.1 due to our particular organization, as illustrated in Figure 1.2.
The process is as follows. The IC solicits input from industry and alumni about the
appropriateness of the Outcomes and whether fresh graduates achieve them. The AC measures
student performance, and gathers student feedback about the curriculum and Program Outcomes.
The IC and AC report their findings to the ABET Core Committee. The ABET Core Committee
determines if the Program Outcomes are appropriate, whether graduating students are achieving
them, and whether they are appropriate for achieving the Program Objectives. The committee
updates the outcomes if necessary. The committee identifies important issues to improve the
undergraduate program and forwards them to the appropriate entity. If the issue is about the
undergraduate curriculum then the entity is the UCC. If the issue is about resources or personnel
then the entity is the Department Chair. If the issue is about assessment then the entity is the
AC.
The entities then resolve their assigned issues. Any solutions must be discussed and approved by
the EE faculty during departmental meetings. Then the Department Chair or the chair of the
appropriate committee takes appropriate measures to implement the solution. With this process,
the cycle that begins with feedback from the constituencies lead to on-going improvements in the
department.
Timelines
The chairs and members of the committees are selected for the academic year during the first two
weeks of each fall semester, i.e., the beginning of the academic year. At this time, the IC and
UCC should each have prepared an end-of-year report of their activities from the previous
academic year (the exact dates when these reports are due will be discussed shortly). The AC
prepares its end-of-year report of its activities from the previous academic year during the third
week of the fall semester. From these reports and its own evaluation, the ABET Core Committee
prepares its own final report for the previous academic year during the fourth week of the fall
semester. The ABET Core Committee may take an additional two weeks to make
recommendations to all committees for the academic year. The Core committee also prepares a
report for the constituents summarizing the improvements and in-process activities. An example
of such a report for the FY 2001-2002 is attached in Appendix IV. Final reports from the UCC
can be found in Appendices V-C and V-D, a report from the IC can be found in Appendix VI-K,
and one from the AC can be found in Appendix VII.
10
Typically, the IC will organize visits from the Industrial Advisory Board (IAB) to evaluate the
program during the middle of the fall semester. It should be timed so that the Core Committee’s
report for the constituents is available for evaluation. In this way, the IAB can determine if their
recommendations and observations were properly addressed. The IC also organizes the Student
Advisory Board (SAB) to evaluate the program at the same time.
Based upon reports from the IC about the IAB and SAB visits, the Core Committee can make
additional recommendations to the committees and Department Chair.
As mentioned earlier, each committee is required to prepare an end-of-year report of their
activities. At the end of the academic year, 3 weeks prior to the last day of instruction of the
spring semester, the IC and UCC each prepare and submit an annual report. The AC may require
more time to complete their assessment of the spring semester, and therefore, its annual report is
due three weeks after the beginning of the fall semester of the next academic year. The Core
Committee prepares its end-of-year report a week after the AC’s report is due.
The frequency of committee meetings varies between the four committees. The Core Committee
meet every other week and in many cases every week throughout the fall and spring semesters
because it is the main organizing committee. The other committees meet as needed. For
example, the IC’s main activity is the visit from the IAB and SAB which occurs in the fall
semester. Thus, they meet frequently in the fall and less so during spring.
Faculty Involvement
In general, the department faculty are involved at two levels. First, all faculty are involved with
curriculum development through their own courses and by providing suggestions to improve the
curriculum to appropriate committees. They also provide important data such as the course
syllabi, course assessments, responding to surveys, and participate in meetings with the student
and industrial constituents. Second, a substantial number of faculty directly participate by being
members in one of the four committees discussed above. For example, during the 2002-2003
academic year, the following were the membership of the committees:




ABET Core: A. Kuh, V. Malhotra, T. Reed (Chair), G. Sasaki, J. Yee, and D. Yun.
Assessment Committee: D. Yun (Chair), T. Dobry, and K. Najita.
Interface Committee: J. Holm-Kennedy (Chair 2002), A. Bullock, A. Host-Madsen, N.
Reed, and J. Yee (Chair 2003).
Undergraduate Curriculum Committee: G. Sasaki (Chair), T. Gaarder, A. Kuh, and W.
Shiroma.
Twelve faculty directly participated for the year which is a little more than half of our
Department. The previous academic year had about the same participation. We expect that the
Assessment, Interface, and Undergraduate Curriculum Committees to have at least three
participants, and so we expect that on average to have about a dozen faculty who will be direct
participants per year. This is a very high percentage for a Department of our size, and is
considerably larger than the faculty who participated in the previous six-year ABET evaluation
cycle.
11
1. STUDENTS
1.1 Admission of Students
Engineering in general, and Electrical Engineering in particular, tends to attract high quality
students. This is due to both career potential and the challenging nature of the engineering
curriculum. Students applying into Electrical Engineering as freshmen are initially screened by
the office of Admissions and Records for meeting UHM guidelines (2.8 high school GPA, SAT
scores of 510/510 and rank in the upper 40% of the graduating class). Applications of students
accepted to UHM are forwarded to the College of Engineering Student Services section for
evaluation by the Assistant Dean. Additional criteria required for admission in Engineering
include completion of high school chemistry, physics and mathematics at least through
trigonometry, with special emphasis on the grades for these courses. Freshmen students who do
not meet the admission requirements are directed to apply for admission to other units of the
University of Hawai`i system in order to complete course or grade requirements. They may
subsequently apply to the College of Engineering for admission as transfer students.
While these are the minimum requirements for entering freshmen, those admitted to EE tend to
be well above this. The average for the entering freshmen in Electrical Engineering in the past 2
years has been a 3.43 high school GPA and 567/627 SAT. In addition, a significant portion of
Regents Scholars enter the EE program as freshmen. These are prestigious, 4-year scholarships
offered to 20 entering freshmen from throughout the state each year with outstanding academic
records. In the past four years, between 2 and 5 of these 20 scholars have been EE students;
significant considering about 70 of the 2000 freshmen enter EE.
While EE admits many excellent students, a growing number of freshmen are entering with
inadequate high school preparation; particularly in mathematics. In recent years, an average of
about 40% of entering freshmen have not placed into Calculus I in their first semester, based on
placement exam results. Between 20-25% of first term freshmen are place on probation due to
low grades after their first semester. The College of Engineering has put in place several
practices to address these issues. Learning Communities have been established for first term
freshmen, where cohorts of students are enrolled together in sections of courses common in the
first semester. Social activities, such as a picnic sponsored by the Raytheon Company are held in
the Fall semester to allow new students to meet other engineering students who may be potential
sources of help in their course work. Freshmen are encouraged to become involved in College
recruiting activities such as Open House. Those freshmen who are placed on probation in their
first semester are encouraged to enroll in ENGR 100, a Freshman Seminar course which
provides both motivation and information on engineering and the study skills and habits needed
to succeed.
The retention rate for Electrical Engineering students is in line with the national average for
engineering programs. Over the last 10 years, the graduation rate (the number of freshmen
beginning the program who complete the degree) has been about 44%. A rough survey of
retention shows that between the freshman and sophomore years, about 25% leave the program.
Another 15% leave after the sophomore year. The remaining 15% typically leave the program
12
after several attempts to get through the introductory level Electrical Engineering courses. The
college is working on programs to improve students' study habits, particularly at the freshman
level. We have also recently worked with the Math department to reorganize the calculus
sequence to better support the engineering programs. To further address a desired improvement
in retention, the College of Engineering has engaged the services of a retention consulting firm,
Noel-Levitz. Benchmarking data was gathered, and a student satisfaction survey conducted in
Fall 2002. A faculty workshop was held in Spring 2003 to determine goals and develop action
plans for improvement. Development and implementation of these plans is on-going.
1.2 Advising
Academic advising is required of all engineering students every semester. The process begins
with incoming freshmen. The College of Engineering conducts an advising session as part of the
New Student Orientation (NSO) offered by the New Students Program in the UHM Office of
Student Affairs during the summer prior to their first semester. During the advising session, the
Assistant Dean explains the curriculum requirements, describes what is expected of engineering
students, introduces resources available in the college (including student organizations), and
encourages students to become involved in their education. Academic advising follows with
faculty and students from each department to help select courses for their first semester. The
remainder of the NSO program familiarizes the new students with the campus and facilities and
resources available to them. Approximately 50% of incoming freshmen attend one of the NSO
sessions during the summer. The remaining students contact their department or the Assistant
Dean for advising prior to registration.
For continuing students, an advising week is designated each semester prior to registration for
for the following semester. Students are assigned to a faculty advisor when they enter the
program and keep the same advisor until they decide on an emphasis area around the junior year.
At that point they may be assigned to an advisor within their area of interest. Students may also
choose their advisor if they have a preference. Advising sessions consist of checking the
student's progress in the EE curriculum, identifying any academic problems, and helping the
student select courses for the following semester to ensure satisfactory progress toward the
degree. In addition, one EE faculty is assigned as the Undergraduate Advisor for the department.
This task includes coordinating advising, assigning advisors and assisting faculty during advising
week. The Undergraduate Advisor is available to all EE students for academic consulting
throughout the semester, and typically advises 25-30% of the undergraduate students in place of,
or in addition to, advising sessions with the assigned advisor each semester.
In addition to academic advising, the project courses required at the sophomore, junior and
senior levels (EE 296, EE 396 and EE 496), including the student projects (CubeSat/NanoSat,
MicroMouse and the Engineering Clinics) provide for more interaction between students and
faculty. These projects allow students to interact with their peers and develop social and team
work skills as well as leadership skills for those who take on those positions on the projects.
These projects have become highly popular, with as many as 60 students working on CubeSat,
and as many as five MicroMouse teams going to competition in recent years. At any given time,
about half of the students working on these project are using that for the required credit project;
with the remainder contributing to the project because it is interesting and good experience.
13
1.3 Monitoring Student Progress
Student progress in the EE curriculum is monitored on the Curriculum Check Sheet maintained
by the Student Services section of the Dean's office. These check sheets show all requirements
for the degree and are updated with grades each semester. The updated check sheets are
provided to the student and the faculty advisor prior to advising week and are used to check
progress and spot difficulties in completing the program.
Students are required to maintain a 2.0 cumulative GPA, as well as 2.0 GPA in major courses
numbered 300 and above. This level of performance is required for graduation, and is also used
to determine academic actions. Each semester, a “trouble list” is provided to the College of
Engineering by the Office of Admissions and Records listing students who have a semester GPA
or cumulative GPA below 2.0 as well as those currently on probation. The records of the
students on this list are reviewed by the Assistant Dean to determine any academic actions.
Students with a semester GPA below 2.0, who are otherwise in good standing are sent a warning
letter encouraging them to take corrective steps to do better in the next semester. These warnings
do not affect a student's academic standing; however inform them that they are in danger of
failing to meet the minimum requirements for continued registration. Students whose GPA or
major GPA fall below 2.0 are placed on probation. On probation, students are required to
maintain at least a 2.0 semester GPA until they bring the overall or major GPA above 2.0 to be
removed from probation. Students failing to meet the conditions of probation may be suspended
for one semester. Students who do not meet the conditions of probation after returning from
suspension may be dismissed from the college.
Students who are subject to academic action receive a letter form the Assistant Dean informing
them of the action, and encouraging them to see him to discuss any difficulties they may be
having and possible corrective actions. In EE, about 20-25% of students receive some type of
academic action each semester. Some of these students ultimately transfer out of the engineering
program; others turn around and complete the program.
In addition, each semester, students who receive a semester GPA above 3.5, with a minimum
course load and requirements, are placed on the Dean's List and receive a letter and certificate
from the College. In EE, about 20% of the students are placed on the Dean's List each semester,
and about 40% maintain a GPA above 3.0.
1.4 Transfer Students
For transfer admissions, the requirements are a grade point average of 3.0 for all college-level
work and completion of English 100, Mathematics 241, 242 and 242L, Chemistry 161, 161L,
and 162, and Physics 170 and 170L, or their equivalents, preferably with grades of B or better.
The Student Services section and the Assistant Dean are responsible for enforcing these
requirements. Transfer students tend to do well in the program and have a higher graduation rate
than students who begin as freshmen. over the past 8 years, 65% of students who transferred
into the program have graduated within 2 to 3 years of transfer, compared to 44% of entering
freshmen.
14
1.5 Transfer Credits
Articulation agreements have been developed for other campuses within the University of
Hawai`i system for course transfer. Credits for course work outside of the University of Hawai`i
system are evaluated by the Office of Admissions and Records by consulting with the
appropriate departments on this campus. Course descriptions, and if necessary, syllabi are
provided to faculty in the departments to evaluate equivalence to UHM courses. A data base of
course equivalence is provided at http://www2.admrec.hawaii.edu/transfer/CreditTransfer.asp.
In addition, the College of Engineering requests evaluation of courses not in the data base from
the appropriate departments for courses on the Engineering curricula.
1.6 Student Performance
A good measure of the quality of students is their performance. In recent years, UH's Delta
Omega Chapter of Eta Kappa Nu has received awards for their activities. One student was
recognized this year with the Alton Zerby award as the top EE student in the country. In the
regional EEE MicroMouse competition, over the past seven years, UH teams have taken first
place three times, and second place twice.
Academically, our students do well also. As mentioned above, 20% of the EE students merit
placement on the Dean's List each semester, and 40% maintain a GPA over 3.0. Though a 2.0
GPA is the minimum for graduation, over the past 6 years, the average GPA for graduates has
been 3.06, both overall and in the major.
UHM Electrical Engineering graduates are highly sought after by industry, both locally and on
the mainland. The informal feedback we get from industries that hire our students indicates that
those students who complete the degree perform well as engineers and do well in their careers.
An informal poll of our graduates in the past 5 years shows that 51% of our graduates have found
engineering jobs upon graduation. with 30% finding engineering jobs in Hawaii. Local
companies that hire our students include Adtech, SPAWAR, NAVSEA, Orincon, Boeing,
Oceanit, Pearl Harbor and others, including utilities and consulting companies in the construction
industry. About 20% of our graduates find jobs in mainland companies including TRW,
Raytheon, Boeing, ON Semiconductor and others. A number of companies, TRW and Raytheon
in particular, recruit strongly from the department and have large numbers of UH EE graduates
employed. About 16% of our graduates go on to graduate programs at schools including MIT,
Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, Arizona, Arizona State, and UHM. Many of our graduates complete
a Masters degree while working in their first engineering position, particularly with mainland
companies. The recently approved Intern Plus program provides a means for students employed
in local industry to complete a Masters degree at UHM while continuing to work. We do not
have employment information on 32% of our graduates. Some of these students do not begin
their job search until after graduation; others we do not know their employment status. The
department is working on programs to better track our alumni as they progress through their
careers. This includes the institution of the above mentioned Industrial Advisory Board to
provide outcomes assessment of our program and updates on the changing needs of industry for
engineers.
15
2. PROGRAM EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES
In this section, the Program Education Objectives (or, for brevity, Program Objectives) will be
discussed in detail. Section 2.1 presents the objectives, how they were developed, and how they
are consistent with the mission of the Department and accreditation criteria.
Section 2.2 identifies the significant constituents of the program and how their needs are met by
the Program Objectives.
Section 2.3 describes the processes used to establish and review the Objectives. Section 2.4
explains how the program curriculum ensures achievement of the Objectives, while Section 2.5
presents the processes that ensure the achievement.
Section 2.6 describes the evaluation of the level of achievement of the Objectives, and the results
obtained by the evaluation, while Section 2.7 provides evidence that the results are being used to
improve the program.
2.1. Statement of Objectives
The department’s old ad-hoc ABET Committee drafted Program Educational Objectives in Fall
2000 which are shown below.
Old Program Education Objectives (Fall 2000 to Spring 2002)
1.
An ability to apply fundamental knowledge of mathematics and science to electrical
engineering problems.
2.
An ability to identify, formulate, analyze and solve real-world electrical engineering
problems using modern engineering methods.
3.
An ability to practice the engineering design process to achieve objectives while
meeting constraints.
4.
An ability to design and conduct scientific and engineering experiments, and to
analyze and interpret the resulting data.
5.
Opportunities to function and communicate effectively within multidisciplinary teams.
6.
An academic environment that fosters life-long learning.
7.
An education that spans a wide range of technical specialties, including recent
developments in electrical engineering.
8.
A broad education needed to understand the impact of electrical engineering
solutions in a global, societal, and environmental context.
16
9.
A solid understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.
10. Development of diversity within the profession through the education of minority and
women students.
They had been selected to be consistent with the mission of the Department, which is as follows:
Department’s Mission: The mission of the Department of Electrical Engineering (EE), is to
provide quality education, research and service to our constituents. Major goals of the
Department are:
1. Educate a new generation of Electrical Engineers to meet the challenges of the
future.
2. Create, develop, and disseminate new knowledge.
3. Promote a sense of scholarship, leadership, and service among our graduates.
These objectives were reviewed by the ABET Core Committee, the faculty, Industrial Advisory
Board (IAB), and Student Advisory Board (SAB) during the academic year 2001-2002. After
receiving comments, the ABET Core Committee revised the Program Education Objectives,
which were discussed and approved by the faculty in Spring 2002. The current Objectives are
shown below.
Program Education Objectives (Current since Spring 2002)
A. The students shall have technical competence to solve electrical engineering problems
through the application of basic science, mathematics, and engineering. They will have
the fundamental knowledge and skills to apply modern engineering techniques and tools
to identify, formulate, and solve electrical engineering problems with realistic
constraints. They will have the ability to apply design methods effectively, and possess
an understanding of the relationship between theory and practice. The students shall also
acquire skills of testing, data collection, interpretation and verification for the purpose of
validation by experiments.
B. They will have the basic skills to communicate effectively and develop the ability to
function as members of multi-disciplinary teams.
C. In addition to acquiring a broad based knowledge of engineering practice, they will also
develop an understanding of societal, environmental, and ethical issues.
D. The students shall develop lifelong learning skills. They will be critical thinkers and
independent learners with the ability to adapt to changing engineering technology.
E. Development of diversity within the profession through the education of minority and
women students.
17
Note that the Objectives are consistent with the Major Goals 1 and 3 of the Department’s
Mission Statement. The Objectives are also consistent with ABET accreditation Criterion 2 as
will be explained next.
The Objectives are detailed and published on the Department’s web site:
wwwee.eng.hawaii.edu. As mentioned earlier, the Objectives are consistent with the mission of the
Department. Sections 2.2 through 2.7 explain how the rest of Criterion 2 is met. In particular,
the significant constituencies and how their needs are met by the Objectives are described in
Section 2.2. The process based on the needs of the constituencies in which the objectives are
periodically evaluated is presented in Section 2.3. Section 2.4 describes how the curriculum
ensures the achievement of the Objectives, while Section 2.5 describes the processes to ensure
achievement. Section 2.6 describes the Department’s ongoing evaluation that demonstrates
achievement of the Objectives, while Section 2.7 explains how the Department uses the results to
improve the program.
2.2 Significant Constituencies
The significant constituencies are students, alumni, industry, and community. The Department
solicits feedback from students, alumni, and industry about the program. There are formal
meetings with the Industrial Advisory Board (IAB) and Student Advisory Board (SAB). The
IAB provides feedback from industry and alumni, because some members of the IAB are alumni.
The SAB provides a forum for students to comment about the program. They also provide input
through course work performance, instructor and course evaluations, projects, and day-to-day
interactions.
The department faculty, though not formally a constituency, obviously have a stake in the
welfare of the graduates and Department. They provide continuous feedback either formally,
such as through faculty committee activities, departmental meetings, course assessments, and
surveys, or informally through discussions with the ABET committee members.
The needs of the constituencies are essentially that the Department produce graduates that are
well trained and will become successful, competent, and contributing engineers throughout their
working years. Program Educational Objectives A through D address these needs. Objective A
is to ensure that our graduates are well trained in fundamental engineering knowledge, problem
solving, and design methods. Objective B addresses the modern engineering environment,
where engineers must work in groups and often interact with customers. In this environment, an
engineer must have good communication skills and be able to efficiently work with others, who
may have diverse skills. Objective C ensures that our graduates take into account important nontechnical issues. Of course, Objective D is important for engineers, especially electrical
engineers who work in a discipline that is constantly changing.
Objective E does not directly contribute to training good engineers. However, in Hawaii with its
diverse cultural and ethnic population, it is believed that it should be promoted.
18
2.3 Periodic Evaluation of Objectives
Section 2.1 has already described how the Objectives were established. We now describe the
process to review and update them. The process corresponds to the “small loop” in Figure 1.1.
The Interface Committee (IC) organizes an on-campus meeting with the IAB, which represents
the constituencies of industry and alumni. An example itinerary of the meeting is given in
Appendix VI-J. Through the meeting, the IAB learns about the state of the Department and then
provides an evaluation. Part of this evaluation is a survey on how our graduates meet the
Objectives and how important each Objective is. An example survey form is provided in VI-B
(note that this form is for the original rather than the current list of Objectives). As an example,
the results of the survey for the Fall 2002 IAB meeting are given in Appendix VI-F. The IAB
provided numerical ratings of the achievement of each Program Objective whenever possible.
They also rated the importance of each Objective, and gave comments about the curriculum,
Objectives, and program in general.
The IC then reports to the ABET Core Committee, who updates the Program Objectives if
necessary. The ABET Core Committee updates the objectives taking into account the mission of
the institution. The ABET Core Committee can also recommend that the Assessment Committee
improve upon the surveys issued by the IC to the IAB.
This process has input from faculty through committee participation and department meeting
discussions. Note that it is a periodic process as committees interact with each other per
academic year. In addition, IAB visits are annual since Fall 2001. Input from these
constituencies become the drivers for annual changes in the program.
This process has already achieved some improvements, e.g., Section 2.1 described how the
original Objectives were modified to the current Objectives.
2.4 Curriculum to Ensure Achievement
The following is a discussion of how the curriculum ensures achievement of the Program
Objectives. First, we will summarize the curriculum (a more detailed description is given in
Section 4 “Professional Component”). Then we will show how each Objective is addressed by
the curriculum.
The curriculum can be divided into five requirements:

Basic sciences: These are required chemistry and physics courses and laboratories.

Mathematics: These are required courses on calculus, differential equations and probability
and statistics.

Engineering Required: These are required courses that cover a breadth of EE fundamentals,
and in particular computer programming, analog and digital circuits, signals and systems,
19
electro-magnetic engineering, and solid-state theory and devices. They also include the
following:
o Project Courses at the sophomore, junior, and senior levels. The senior level project
course is the capstone design project and the major design experience. Students
select their own projects and project advisors. Projects tend to be open-ended, and
exercise the ability to self-learn new concepts and tools. All project courses have oral
presentations. The senior project also has a writing requirement of written reports,
with a total of at least 4000 words or approximately 16 pages.
o Engineering Breadth, which is an engineering or related course of a student’s interest.
It enhances breadth of knowledge in engineering.

EE Technical Electives: These are EE elective courses that allow students to specialize in
topics of their own interest. The courses are divided into three groups called “Tracks”:
Computers, Systems, and Electro-Physics. The Computer Track is focused on computer
hardware and software. The Electro-Physics Track is focused on the EE applications of
physics and chemistry, and it covers analog circuits, micro- and millimeter-wave
engineering, optics, and solid-state devices. The Systems Track is focused on signals and
systems, and it covers communications, controls, and signal processing. Through a Track of
their own choosing, students explore topics in depth and at the same time gain some breadth
within the Track area. If a student finds the track system too restrictive, then he or she with
the help and consent of a faculty advisor may propose an alternate set of electives, i.e., a
student may design his or her own track.

General Education: These are required by the University to ensure a sound university
education. They include requirements of written and oral communication, and ethics. In
particular, a student must take five Writing Intensive (W) courses, an Oral Communication
(O) course, and a Contemporary Ethical Issues (E) course. This is explained in more detail in
Section 4 “Professional Component.”
Objective A: The curriculum ensures achievement of Objective A as follows. The basic
sciences, mathematics, Engineering Required, and EE Technical Elective courses provide
students with technical competence to solve electrical engineering problems. Engineering
Required and EE Technical Elective courses ensure that students will have the fundamental
knowledge and skills to apply modern engineering techniques and tools to identify, formulate,
and solve electrical engineering problems with realistic constraints. They ensure that students
will have the ability to apply design methods effectively, and possess an understanding of the
relationship between theory and practice. This is especially true for the project courses.
Basic science and a number of Engineering Required courses have laboratories. They develop
the skills of testing, data collection, interpretation and verification for the purpose of validation
by experiments. A number of EE Technical Electives also cover this.
Objective B: The curriculum ensures achievement of Objective B as follows. The General
Education requirements and the project courses ensure that students have the basic skills to
20
communicate effectively as members of multi-disciplinary teams. In particular, the General
Education requirements have O and W requirements. All project courses require oral
presentations, and the senior project course has a writing requirement. In addition, students are
required to take a number of labs: four in basic science, five in Engineering Required, and two
in EE Technical Electives. Most if not all labs have students working in groups, usually two or
three. This provides practice in working in teams. The labs have some elements of
multidisciplinary training since the lab assignments are on non-engineering topics, e.g., physics
or chemistry. The labs also provide practice in writing since they require written lab reports.
Objective C: The achievement of this objective is ensured by the following requirements:
 General Education requirements include 6 credit hours of Global and Multicultural
Perspectives (e.g., HIST 151 World Civilization, ART 176 Survey of Global Art, and
GEOG 151 Geography and Contemporary Society), 3 credit hours of Introduction to
Economics (ECON 120, 130, or 131), a Contemporary Ethical Issues (E) course, and a
course on Hawaiian, Asian, and Pacific Issues (H). The General Education requirements
provide a broad based education to develop an understanding of societal, environmental,
and ethical issues.
 Engineering Breadth helps ensure a broad based engineering education. Figure 4.1 has
list of courses that satisfy this requirement.
 EE project courses contribute to a broad based engineering education. The project can
cover issues outside of the strictly technical ones. This is especially true of the senior
capstone design course.
 Some Regular EE courses contribute to Objective C. Figures 3.2 shows the form used to
establish course contributions to each Outcome. Figure 3.3 shows how each course
contributes to the Program Outcomes. Outcomes 6 and 8 directly relate to Program
Objective C. Figure 3.3 illustrates that there is some emphasis on Outcomes 6 and 8 in
many of the upper division courses.
Objective D: All courses provide some development of lifelong learning skills, so that students
become critical thinkers and independent learners with the ability to adapt to changing
engineering technology. This is emphasized more in the EE Technical Elective courses that
leverage the maturity of the students. Students must decide for themselves what specialization to
pursue. In addition, many EE Technical Elective courses have less detailed instruction,
assuming that students can work out the details. Project courses also emphasize lifelong learning
skills, especially the senior capstone design project. These courses involve less instruction, and
students are expected to have more initiative.
Objective E: As a recognized minority educational institution, the University of Hawaii has a
particularly strong commitment to diversity. An example is the recent partnership (funded by
Siemens Building Technologies) in which the Kamakakuokalani Center for Hawaiian Studies
and the College of Engineering will work together to identify 15-20 minority students for
scholarships each year, as well as providing them (through Siemens) opportunities for
internships. The College of Engineering has a student chapter of Society of Women Engineers
(SWE), with Prof. Audra Bullock of our department serving as their academic advisor. Professor
Nancy Reed, with the sponsorship of the Women in Technology program of the Maui Economic
Development Board, has become active in the national Women in Engineering Programs &
21
Advocates Network. She is also active in MentorNet, the national program for women in
engineering and science. It should be noted as well that the gender balance within our department
is unusual for Electrical Engineering departments, with 20% women faculty members. This
provides an excellent opportunity for improving access to engineering for young women via role
models in the classroom. In an effort to continue to improve our service to underrepresented
groups, the department chair (Prof. Todd Reed) attended the National Science Foundation’s
Workshop on Achieving Diversity in Electrical and Computer Engineering June 17-18 of this
year, and will be working with the Foundation to formulate programs supporting diversity.
Note that Section 3 will discuss how the curriculum ensures achievement of the Program
Objectives from another perspective. In Section 3, the focus is on the Program Outcomes.
However, there is a direct relationship between Program Outcomes and Program Objectives A
through D. This is represented as a matrix (Figure 3.1) in Section 3.2, “Relationship to
Educational Objectives.” By demonstrating that the curriculum ensures achievement of the
Program Outcomes, it will imply ensuring achievement of Program Objectives A through D.
2.5 Processes to Ensure Achievement
There are three processes to ensure achievement. First, instructors organize their courses to
ensure that students meet course goals. A variety of methods are employed and may include
problem sets, quizzes, midterm exams, final exams, written project reports, oral presentations,
and project and laboratory demonstrations. These are exercises that allow a student to apply
what is learned in lectures and reading assignments.
Instructors must hold office hours. They also post homework set and exam solutions, and
conduct review sessions. When appropriate, a lecture course will have an accompanying
laboratory. These laboratories may be part of a lecture course or may be separate. They provide
hands-on experience in building real systems, and in using laboratory equipment.
The second process is that instructors get feedback about their courses first-hand from their
students. The instructors can use the feedback to improve their effectiveness. One form of
feedback is the results of the assignments, quizzes, exams, and projects. The instructors may
also get feedback from discussions with students in the class. Another form of feedback is the
course assessments at the end of each semester that are administered by the Department. The
forms have a number of questions about the course, and space for comments.
The third process ensures the well being of the overall curriculum. Part of this process is the oncampus visit by the IAB that is organized by the IC, as described in Section 2.3. This meeting
includes an evaluation of the program by both the IAB and SAB. This provides input from the
constituencies of industry, alumni, and students. Of particular interest are any comments on
whether graduates meet the Program Objectives, and any suggested changes to the curriculum or
Objectives. Section 2.3 describes the surveys used.
The Assessment Committee also provides a report on the performance of students based upon its
suite of surveys and other measurements. Another source of input is from individual faculty
members who have suggestions for improving the curriculum.
22
All input is evaluated by the ABET Core Committee, the main organizing committee. If
necessary, they will update the Program Objectives. They determine the most important issues
and forward them to the appropriate entity, which usually is the Undergraduate Curriculum
Committee or the Department Chair. If the issue is about a course or the undergraduate
curriculum then it is for the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee. If it is a personnel or
resource issue it is for the Department Chair.
The Undergraduate Curriculum Committee (UCC) will evaluate the curriculum taking into
account the issues posed by the ABET Core Committee. However, the evaluation is also based
on the requirements of the College of Engineering, the University, ABET, and the EE faculty at
large. After their evaluation, the UCC proposes changes to the curriculum, and implements
those accepted by the faculty.
In the case of personnel or resource issues, the Department Chair may request additional
resources and personnel positions from higher administration.
Another process that helps ensure achievement of the Objectives is described in Section 3. This
process is actually one to ensure achievement of Program Outcomes. However, ensuring
achievement of the Outcomes implies ensuring achievement of the Objectives because there is a
relationship between the two, described in Section 3.2 “Relationship to Educational Objectives.”
2.6 Evaluation to Determine Achievement
Section 2.3 described the “small loop” of Figure 1.1, which is the annual process to evaluate and
if necessary update the Program Objectives. Section 2.5 described the process that is used to
ensure achievement of the Objectives. In that process, the IC solicits an evaluation from the IAB
of how graduates meet Program Objectives.
Another slightly less direct evaluation is done regularly. The evaluation is actually one to
determine achievement of Program Outcomes, described in Section 3. There is a direct
relationship between Program Outcomes and Program Objectives A through D. This
relationship is represented as a matrix in Section 3.2 “Relationship to Educational Objectives.”
By demonstrating that the curriculum ensures achievement of the Program Outcomes, it will
imply that it also ensures achievement of the Program Objectives A through D.
2.7 Use of Results to Improve the Program
Section 2.5 describes the process used to ensure achievement of the Program Objectives. The
ABET Core Committee forwards any issues to the appropriate entity, which is usually the
Undergraduate Curriculum Committee or the Department Chair. The entities act upon the issues
to improve the program.
The following are examples to demonstrate that this process works. During Fall 2001, the
IAB/SAB commented (i) on the need for Matlab instruction, (ii) that CEE 270 (Applied
Mechanics I)/ME 311 (Thermodynamics) requirement should be evaluated for its usefulness, and
23
(iii) that more instructors are needed for analog circuits. As a result, the Undergraduate
Curriculum Committee recommended that Matlab be covered in EE 213 (Basic Circuit Analysis
II), and the CEE 270/ME 311 requirement should be replaced by a more flexible Engineering
Breadth requirement. These were accepted by the EE faculty in Fall 2002. The Department also
hired a new faculty member (Dr. Olga Boric-Lubecke) who is an expert in analog circuits.
During Fall 2002, the IAB/SAB raised concerns regarding TA quality and quantity and the
quality of EE211/213 laboratory experience. As a result, steps were taken to improve the
communication and teaching skills of TA’s, and to improve the number of TA awardees
enrolling in our program. The EE211/213 laboratories were evaluated, and although they were
found to be in generally good condition, a substantial investment in new furniture and equipment
was made.
Another example was given in Section 2.1, which described how the Program Objectives were
updated. More examples are given in Section 3.12, as well as some pending issues that are still
being investigated.
24
3. PROGRAM OUTCOMES AND ASSESSMENT
The Program Outcomes will be described. Section 3.1 has the list of Program Outcomes, Section
3.2 has their relation to the Program Educational Objectives, and Section 3.3 has their relation to
the outcome requirements of Criterion 3. The processes used to produce and assess the Program
Outcomes are given in Section 3.4.
Sections 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7 describe how the courses lead to the achievement of Program
Outcomes. Section 3.8 has a description of the processes that ensure the achievement of
Program Outcomes.
Metric goals for the Program Outcomes that will ultimately lead to achievement of the
Educational Objectives are presented in Section 3.9. Assessment data and their analysis are
given in Section 3.10. Section 3.11 has a description of how the assessment results are used to
improve the program, and Section 3.12 has evidence of improvements. Section 3.13 has a list of
the materials to be made available during the ABET visit.
3.1. Statement of Program Outcomes
All graduates of the Electrical Engineering Program are expected to have:
Program Outcomes:
1. Knowledge of probability and statistics, including examples relevant to Electrical
Engineering (program criteria). Knowledge of mathematics through differential and integral
calculus, basic sciences, and engineering sciences necessary to analyze and design complex
devices and systems containing hardware and software. Knowledge of advanced
mathematics, including differential equations (program criteria).
2. Demonstrated an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to interpret data.
3. Demonstrated an ability to design a system or component that meets a specified need.
4. Demonstrated an ability to function in a multi-disciplinary team.
5. Demonstrated an ability to identify, formulate and solve electrical engineering problems.
6. Understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.
7. Demonstrated an ability to communicate effectively (written and oral).
8. Demonstrated an understanding of the impact of engineering solutions in a global and
societal context.
9. Recognition of the need for life-long learning.
10. Demonstrated a knowledge of contemporary issues.
11. Demonstrated an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern tools necessary for
engineering practice.
3.2. Relationship to Educational Objectives
The Program Outcomes are the expected achievements for a student at the time of graduation.
These will lead to longer-term achievements as described in the Program Educational Objectives.
Therefore, there is a relationship between the Outcomes and the Objectives. Figure 3.1 shows
25
Outcome:
Objective A
Objective B
Objective C
Objective D
Objective E
Column Sum
1
2
1
1
1
0
5
2
2
0
0
0
0
2
3
2
0
0
0
0
2
4
0
2
0
0
1
3
5
2
0
0
0
0
2
6
0
1
2
0
2
5
7
0
2
0
0
0
2
8
0
0
2
0
0
2
9 10 11 Row Sum
0 0
2
10
0 0
1
7
0 2
0
7
2 0
0
3
0 2
0
5
2 4
3
---
Figure 3.1. Matrix showing the relationship of Program Outcomes to Objectives.
Key: 0 = none, 1 = some, and 2 = strong.
the relationship in matrix form. The “weights” of the matrix are either 0, 1, or 2 and indicate
whether there is a strong or weak relationship. The value “0” means no relationship, “1” means
some relationship, and “2” means strong relationship. This matrix was established and is
maintained by the Assessment Committee.
The figure shows that the Program Outcomes provide good coverage of the Objectives. This is
indicated roughly by the “Row Sums”.
3.3. Relationship to Criterion 3
The Program Outcomes (1)-(11) in Section 3.1 cover the program outcomes (a)-(k) of Criterion
3.
3.4. Processes to Produce and Assess Program Outcomes
The Program Outcomes were designed at the same time as the Educational Program Objectives
in Fall 2000 by the department’s old ad-hoc ABET Committee. They were designed to ensure
achievement in the Program Educational Objectives and to cover Criterion 3’s program
outcomes (a)-(k).
The process to assess and update the Program Outcomes corresponds to the “big loop” in Figure
1.1. As mentioned earlier, our system does not exactly follow the information flow of the “big
loop.” However, we believe our process is effective for our organization, which is illustrated in
Figure 1.2. The process is as follows.
The Interface Committee (IC) organizes a meeting with the Industrial Advisory Board (IAB) and
Student Advisory Board (SAB), and solicits input about the appropriateness of the Outcomes and
whether fresh graduates achieve them. Note that the IAB represents the constituencies of
industry and alumni, and SAB represents the constituency of students. The IC also solicits
suggestions for improvements to the program. The inputs from the IAB and SAB are from
informal discussions, meetings, and written reports. Section 3.10 discusses how the IC collects
its inputs.
26
The Assessment Committee (AC) measures student performance, and gathers student feedback
about the curriculum and Program Outcomes. The ACs inputs are from its suite of student
surveys and other measurements. Section 3.10 discusses how the AC collects its inputs.
The Undergraduate Curriculum Committee (UCC) collects additional input from the faculty
through Course Assessment Forms as shown in Figure 3.2. This collection is described in
Section 3.5, and the results are discussed in Section 3.9. Another source of inputs are from
individual faculty who have suggestions for improving the curriculum.
The IC, AC, and UCC report their findings to the ABET Core Committee. The ABET Core
Committee determines if the Program Outcomes are appropriate, whether graduating students are
achieving them, and whether they are appropriate for achieving the Program Objectives. The
committee updates the outcomes if necessary.
The ABET Core Committee also identifies important issues to improve the
program and forwards them to the appropriate entity. If the issue is about the
curriculum then the entity is the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee (UCC).
about resources or personnel then the entity is the Department Chair. If the
assessment then the entity is the Assessment Committee (AC).
undergraduate
undergraduate
If the issue is
issue is about
After the entities receive recommendations from the ABET Core Committee, they develop
solutions or determine that there are no practical solutions. In the case that the entity is the UCC,
the committee must also maintain the curriculum to ensure that students achieve the Program
Outcomes.
All solutions must be proposed to the EE faculty during departmental meetings. All faculty have
an opportunity to discuss and vote on proposals for improvement. If the vote is in favor of the
proposed solution, the Department Chair or the chair of the appropriate committee takes
measures to implement the proposal. In many cases, this leads to a change in the curriculum or
additional resources and personnel positions, perhaps from higher administration.
3.5. Course Objectives and Outcomes
Course Objectives and Outcomes are descriptions of how a course contributes to the Program
Outcomes. Course Objectives is a short description of the purpose of the course. Course
Outcomes is a list of specific statements describing the capabilities of a student at the completion
of the course. Each statement is linked to the subset of Program Outcomes that it applies to. As
much as possible, each statement should correspond to something that is measurable.
Course Objectives and Outcomes are described in each course’s syllabus. A faculty member,
who is designated as Course Coordinator, prepares the syllabus (exceptions noted below). For
project courses (EE 296, 396, and 496), special topics courses (EE 491), provisional topics
courses (EE 494), and directed reading courses (EE 499), the Undergraduate Curriculum
Committee serves as the Course Coordinator. All syllabi are prepared with consultation from
other faculty members who may teach the course, and must be approved by the Undergraduate
Curriculum Committee.
27
Course Assessment For Program Outcomes
Instructions: This is used to assess how a course helps students meet EE Program Outcomes.
It should be completed by faculty, who are Course Coordinators or instructors of the course. A
Course Coordinator should complete it whenever a new syllabus is prepared. An instructor
should complete it after teaching the course.
Course Number and Title:
Preparer’s Name and Date:
Are you a Course Coordinator or Instructor?:
Semester and Year:
In the table below, for each EE Program Outcome, assign an integer-valued rating from 1 (“not at all”) to
4 ("a great deal") of how the course helps (or helped) students toward meeting the outcome.
EE Program Outcome
1. Knowledge of probability and statistics, including examples relevant to
Electrical Engineering (program criteria). Knowledge of mathematics through
differential and integral calculus, basic sciences, and engineering sciences
necessary to analyze and design complex devices and systems containing
hardware and software. Knowledge of advanced mathematics, including
differential equations (program criteria).
2. Demonstrated an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to
interpret data.
3. Demonstrated an ability to design a system or component that meets a
specified need.
4. Demonstrated an ability to function in a multi-disciplinary team.
5. Demonstrated an ability to identify, formulate and solve electrical engineering
problems.
6. Understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.
7. Demonstrated an ability to communicate effectively (written and oral).
8. Demonstrated an understanding of the impact of engineering solutions in a
global and societal context.
9. Recognition of the need for life-long learning.
10. Demonstrated a knowledge of contemporary issues.
11. Demonstrated an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern tools
necessary for engineering practice.
Rating (1-4)
Include any comments on improving the course. If you feel the design credit amount should be changed,
please include your comments. You may use the space below and continue on a separate sheet.
Figure 3.2. Course Assessment Forms For Program Outcomes.
When preparing a syllabus, a Course Coordinator also prepares a Course Assessment For
Program Outcomes form as shown in Figure 3.2. The form has the list of Program Outcomes,
and the Coordinator provides numerical ratings of how the course contributes to each Outcome.
For non-EE courses and requirements, the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee prepares the
forms. The results of these inputs are presented in Section 3.6.
28
In addition, each time a course is offered, the instructor completes the form. The form also has
space for comments to improve the course. For example, the instructor for EE 211 (Basic Circuit
Analysis I) for Spring 2003 put in the comments section that
“1) We currently have five experiments out of 14 with design content: Exp. 4, 6, 9, 13 in
my lab manual or ~36%. Suggest 1/3 – 1/4 cr. for design.
2) Suggest separate lab (1 CR) for lecture (3 CR), preventing students from using lab.
score to boost course grade. Also, eliminates problem with lab. grade for repeat
students.”
These comments will be considered by the UCC to possibly modify EE 211.
These forms provide a continuous faculty input on how outcomes are being achieved. The
results of these inputs are presented in Section 3.9.
3.6. Relationship of Courses to Program Outcomes
Figures 3.3 and 3.4 illustrate how the curriculum prepares students for the Program Outcomes.
Figure 3.3 lists the required courses, indicating how each contributes to the Program Outcomes
(1)-(11). The contribution is the rating given by the Course Coordinator on the Course
Assessment For Program Outcomes (Figure 3.2). The figure gives an overall view of how the
required courses contribute to the Program Outcomes. Since this is for required courses, it
applies to all students and provides a baseline of their EE education.
The required courses are divided into categories as described in Section 4, “Professional
Component.” For brevity, not all University General Education courses are listed, but only the
ones that contribute to Program Outcomes.
For non-EE courses and requirements, the
Undergraduate Curriculum Committee determined the contributions to the Program Outcomes.
From Figure 3.3, we can see that all outcomes have some emphasis from multiple required
courses, though in many cases the emphasis is small. This shows that all outcomes have at least
some coverage. Naturally, most courses have greater emphasis on technical outcomes because
of the technical nature of electrical engineering.
Figure 3.4 corresponds to the EE Technical Electives. As described in Section 4, the technical
electives are divided into three Tracks: Computers, Electro-Physics, and Systems. Each Track is
further divided into Groups I and II. A student must take 17 credit hours in a particular Track
including all of Group I. The student must also take 3 credit hours of technical elective outside
the chosen Track. This helps insure technical breadth within the EE discipline.
Since technical electives are designed for technical depth (i.e., specialization), they are focused
on Program Outcomes that are technical.
29
MATHEMATICS
Math 241 Calculus I (4 hrs)
Math 242 Calculus II (3 hrs)
Math 242L Calculus Computer Lab (1 hr)
Math 243 Calculus III (3 hrs)
Math 244 Calculus IV (3 hrs)
Math 302 Introduction to Differential Equations (3 hrs)
EE 342 EE Probability and Statistics (3 hrs)
BASIC SCIENCES
Chem 161 General Chemistry I (3 hrs)
Chem 161L General Chemistry Lab I (1 hr)
Chem 162 General Chemistry II (3 hrs)
Phys 170 General Physics I (3 hrs)
Phys 170L General Physics I Lab (1 hr)
Phys 272 General Physics II (3 hrs)
Phys 272L General Physics II Lab (1 hr)
Phys 274 General Physics III (3 hrs)
ENGINEERING REQUIRED
EE 160 Programming for Engineers (4 hrs)
EE 211 Basic Circuit Analysis I (4 hrs)
EE 213 Basic Circuit Analysis II (4 hrs)
EE 260 Introduction to Digital Design (4 hrs)
EE 296 Sophomore Project (1 hr)
EE 315 Signal and Systems Analysis (3 hrs)
EE 323 Microelectronic Circuits I (3 hrs)
EE 323L Microelectronic Circuits I Lab
EE 324 Physical Electronics (3 hrs)
EE 341 Introduction to Communication Systems (3 hrs)
EE 341L Intro. to Communication Systems Lab (1 hr)
EE 371 Engineering Electromagmetics I (3 hrs)
EE 396 Junior Project (2 hrs)
EE 496 Capstone Design Project (3 hrs)
Engineering Breadth (3 hrs)
GENERAL EDUCATION
ENG 100 Composition I (3 hrs)
SP 251 Principles of Effective Public Speaking (3 hrs)
Contemporary Ethical Issues (E) -- 1 course
Writing Intensive (W) -- 5 courses
Key:
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)
= 1, no emphasis
= 2, some emphasis
= 3, moderate emphasis
= 4, significant emphasis
Figure 3.3. Program Outcomes in relation to required courses.
30
COMPUTERS
Group I
EE 361 Digital Systems and Computer Design (3 hrs)
EE 361L Digital Systems & Computer Design Lab (1 hr)
EE 366 CMOS VLSI Design (3 hrs)
EE 367 Computer Data Structures and Algorithms (3 hrs)
EE 367L Comp. Data Structures & Algorithms Lab (1 hr)
Group II
EE 344 Networking I (4 hrs)
EE 449 Computer Communication Networks (3 hrs)
EE 461 Computer Architecture (3 hrs)
EE 467 Object-Oriented Software Engineering (3 hrs)
EE 468 Introduction to Operating Systems (3 hrs)
EE 469 Wireless Data Networks (3)
ELECTRO-PHYSICS
Group I
EE 326 Microelectronics Circuits II (3 hrs)
EE 326L Microelectronics Circuits II Lab (1 hr)
EE 327 Theory and Design of IC Devices (3 hrs)
EE 372 Engineering Electromagnetics II (3 hrs)
EE 372L Engineering Electromagnetics II Lab (1 hr)
Group II
EE 328 Physical Electronics Lab Techniques (3 hrs)
EE 328L Physical Electronics Lab (1 hr)
EE 422 Electronic Instrumentation (3 hrs)
EE 422L Instrumentation Lab (1 hr)
EE 426 Advanced Si IC and Solid State Devices (3 hrs)
EE 473 Microwave Engineering (3 hrs)
EE 475 Optical Communications (3 hrs)
SYSTEMS
Group I
EE 351 Linear Systems and Control (3 hrs)
EE 351L Linear Systems and Control Lab (1 hr)
EE 415 Digital Signal Processing (4 hrs)
Group II
EE 344 Networks I (4 hrs)
EE 442 Digital Communications (3 hrs)
EE 449 Computer Communication Networks (3 hrs)
EE 452 Digital Control Systems (3 hrs
EE 453 Modern Control Theory (3 hrs)
Key:
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)
= 1, no emphasis
= 2, some emphasis
= 3, moderate emphasis
= 4, significant emphasis
Figure 3.4. Program Outcomes in relation to EE Technical Electives.
31
3.7. Achievement of All Outcomes by All Students
This is illustrated in Figure 3.3, which shows Program Outcomes in relation to required courses.
3.8. Process for Achievement of Outcomes
The process for achievement of Outcomes is similar to the process for achievement of
Objectives, which is described in Section 2.5 “Processes to Ensure Achievement.” There are
three processes. In the first process, instructors organize their courses to meet the Course
Outcomes. Toward this end, they give appropriate assignments and teaching support which is
described in Section 2.5.
The second process is that instructors get feedback about their courses first-hand from their
students as described in Section 2.5. This includes an end-of-semester survey that asks students
to rate how a course helps to achieve each Program Outcome. It is similar to the assessment
form in Figure 3.2.
These inputs are immediate and direct feedback from students to the instructor, who use the
information to improve his or her effectiveness.
The third process ensures the well being of the overall curriculum. This process is described in
Section 3.4 and corresponds to the “big loop” in Figure 1.1.
3.9. Metric Goals for Outcomes
We took an evolutionary approach to determine metric goals for the Program Outcomes. We
started with the curriculum and collection of courses for the Academic Year 2002-03. Faculty
Course Coordinators were requested to complete the Course Assessment Form (shown in Figure
3.2) for each course. This provides ratings of how each course contributes to the achievement of
the Program Outcomes. The ratings are shown in Figures 3.3 and 3.4. The numerical values of
these ratings are displayed in Figure 3.5 for EE courses, where each column corresponds to an
outcome (1 - 11).
The ratings are a metric goal for Program Outcomes per course. Though these ratings are goals
in relation to Program Outcomes, they can be translated to goals in relation to Program
Objectives via the matrix in Figure 3.1.
With these metric goals, a quantitative evaluation can be made to determine how courses help
meet Program Outcomes.
Next an example evaluation will be discussed based upon course instructor surveys. In Section
3.5, it was mentioned that the Course Assessment Form in Figure 3.1 should be completed every
time an instructor has taught a course. These ratings were collected for the courses in Fall 2002
and Spring 2003. Refer to these ratings as Instructor Ratings, and the ratings from Figure 3.5 as
32
Coordinator Ratings. Recall that the Coordinator Ratings are a baseline on how courses
contribute to the achievement of Program Outcomes.
Ideally, Instructor Ratings should be the same as the Coordinator Ratings. If they differ then it is
preferable that the Instructor Ratings exceed the Coordinator Ratings. If the Instructor Ratings is
less than the Coordinator Ratings then the course has not contributed towards achievement in
Program Outcomes as expected.
By subtracting the Coordinator Rating from the Instructor Rating, we have a difference value
that is a measure of whether a course has met expectations. If the value is nonnegative then the
course has met expectations. Otherwise, it has not. We refer to the value as the Rating
Difference. Now recall that the ratings range from 1 through 4. Therefore, the Rating
Difference ranges from –3 through +3. If the Rating Difference is –1 then we consider it a
deficiency but at least in the “ball park.” If the Rating Difference is –2 or –3 then the deficiency
is considered significant.
Figures 3.6 shows the Rating Difference for courses taught in Fall 2002. Portions of the figure
are empty because the figure lists all EE courses and a number were not offered that particular
semester. In addition, some instructors did not complete the Course Assessment Form of Figure
3.2. From the figure, we can identify courses that did not meet expectations and the particular
outcomes when expectations were not met. Most of the Rating Differences are 0, and a few are –
1. However, EE 211 (Basic Circuit Analysis I) has significant deficiencies.
Figure 3.7 shows the Rating Difference for courses taught in Spring 2003. Again, most Rating
Differences are 0, and a minority are –1. The figure shows that there are two courses that have
significant deficiencies which are EE 371 (Engineering Electromagnetics I) and EE 372
(Engineering Electromagnetics II).
33
EE 160 Programming for Engineers (4 hrs)
1
2
3
3
2
1
2
1
2
1
3
EE 211 Basic Circuit Analysis I (4 hrs)
2
3
3
1
3
1
2
2
3
2
3
EE 213 Basic Circuit Analysis II (4 hrs)
4
3
2
2
3
1
2
1
1
1
3
EE 260 Introduction to Digital Design (4 hrs)
3
1
4
2
4
1
1
1
2
1
4
EE 296 Sophomore Project (1 hr)
1
1
4
1
4
1
3
1
2
1
4
EE 315 Signal and Systems Analysis (3 hrs)
4
1
3
1
3
1
1
2
3
2
2
EE 323 Microelectronic Circuits I (3 hrs)
4
4
4
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
2
EE 323L Microelectronic Circuits I Lab
4
4
4
2
3
2
2
1
2
1
2
EE 324 Physical Electronics (3 hrs)
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
EE 326 Microelectronics Circuits II (3 hrs)
2
4
4
4
4
2
4
1
3
3
4
EE 326L Microelectronics Circuits II Lab (1 hr)
2
4
4
4
4
2
4
1
3
3
4
EE 327 Theory and Design of IC Devices (3 hrs)
3
3
3
1
3
1
2
4
4
3
2
EE 328 Physical Electronics Lab Techniques (3 hrs)
1
1
3
2
4
2
4
1
3
3
4
EE 328L Physical Electronics Lab (1 hr)
1
4
3
2
4
2
4
1
3
3
4
EE 341 Introduction to Communication Systems (3 hrs)
3
2
3
1
3
1
1
3
2
2
2
EE 341L Intro. to Communication Systems Lab (1 hr)
2
4
3
2
3
1
2
2
1
2
2
EE 342 EE Probability and Statistics (3 hrs)
4
3
3
1
3
1
1
2
3
2
3
EE 344 Networking I (4 hrs)
2
3
4
2
3
1
2
3
4
2
4
EE 351 Linear Systems and Control (3 hrs)
2
2
3
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
EE 351L Linear Systems and Control Lab (1 hr)
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
1
2
EE 361 Digital Systems and Computer Design (3 hrs)
3
1
3
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
3
EE 361L Digital Systems & Computer Design Lab (1 hr)
3
2
4
2
4
1
4
1
3
1
4
EE 366 CMOS VLSI Design (3 hrs)
3
1
4
2
4
1
4
1
1
1
4
EE 367 Computer Data Structures and Algorithms (3 hrs)
2
4
4
2
3
2
3
3
1
2
3
EE 367L Comp. Data Structures & Algorithms Lab (1 hr)
2
4
4
2
3
2
3
3
1
2
3
EE 371 Engineering Electromagmetics I (3 hrs)
2
1
3
1
4
1
1
2
2
2
3
EE 372 Engineering Electromagnetics II (3 hrs)
3
1
2
2
4
1
2
2
1
2
1
EE 372L Engineering Electromagnetics II Lab (1 hr)
2
3
2
4
3
2
3
1
1
1
2
EE 396 Junior Project (2 hrs)
1
1
4
1
4
1
3
1
2
1
4
EE 415 Digital Signal Processing (4 hrs)
3
4
4
2
4
1
2
1
2
1
4
EE 422 Electronic Instrumentation (3 hrs)
3
4
3
3
4
2
3
3
3
3
4
EE 422L Instrumentation Lab (1 hr)
3
4
3
3
4
2
3
3
3
3
4
EE 426 Advanced Si IC and Solid State Devices (3 hrs)
3
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
4
3
3
EE 442 Digital Communications (3 hrs)
3
2
4
1
4
1
1
2
2
1
2
EE 449 Computer Communication Networks (3 hrs)
3
1
1
1
3
2
3
2
1
2
2
EE 452 Digital Control Systems (3 hrs)
2
2
3
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
EE 453 Modern Control Theory (3 hrs)
4
3
3
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
3
EE 461 Computer Architecture (3 hrs)
1
4
4
2
4
2
3
1
3
3
4
EE 467 Object-Oriented Software Engineering (3 hrs)
3
3
4
4
4
2
3
2
2
2
3
EE 468 Introduction to Operating Systems (3 hrs)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
EE 469 Wireless Data Networks (3 hrs)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
EE 473 Microwave Engineering (3 hrs)
3
4
4
2
4
1
4
3
4
3
4
EE 475 Optical Communications (3 hrs)
4
2
3
2
3
1
3
2
1
3
1
EE 496 Capstone Design Project (3 hrs)
1
1
4
3
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
Figure 3.5. EE Courses contributing to Program Outcomes 1-11, rated by Course Coordinators.
34
EE 160 Programming for Engineers (4 hrs)
0
2
EE 211 Basic Circuit Analysis I (4 hrs)
0
-1
0
1
EE 323 Microelectronic Circuits I (3 hrs)
0
EE 323L Microelectronic Circuits I Lab
0
EE 326 Microelectronics Circuits II (3 hrs)
EE 326L Microelectronics Circuits II Lab (1 hr)
1
-1
1
0
0
1
-1
0
0
0
-2
0
-1
-1
-2
-1
-2
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
EE 361 Digital Systems and Computer Design (3 hrs)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
EE 361L Digital Systems & Computer Design Lab (1 hr)
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
EE 467 Object-Oriented Software Engineering (3 hrs)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
EE 468 Introduction to Operating Systems (3 hrs)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
EE 213 Basic Circuit Analysis II (4 hrs)
EE 260 Introduction to Digital Design (4 hrs)
EE 296 Sophomore Project (1 hr)
EE 315 Signal and Systems Analysis (3 hrs)
EE 324 Physical Electronics (3 hrs)
EE 327 Theory and Design of IC Devices (3 hrs)
EE 328 Physical Electronics Lab Techniques (3 hrs)
EE 328L Physical Electronics Lab (1 hr)
EE 341 Introduction to Communication Systems (3 hrs)
EE 341L Intro. to Communication Systems Lab (1 hr)
EE 342 EE Probability and Statistics (3 hrs)
EE 344 Networking I (4 hrs)
EE 351 Linear Systems and Control (3 hrs)
EE 351L Linear Systems and Control Lab (1 hr)
EE 366 CMOS VLSI Design (3 hrs)
EE 367 Computer Data Structures and Algorithms (3 hrs)
EE 367L Comp. Data Structures & Algorithms Lab (1 hr)
EE 371 Engineering Electromagmetics I (3 hrs)
EE 372 Engineering Electromagnetics II (3 hrs)
EE 372L Engineering Electromagnetics II Lab (1 hr)
EE 396 Junior Project (2 hrs)
EE 415 Digital Signal Processing (4 hrs)
EE 422 Electronic Instrumentation (3 hrs)
EE 422L Instrumentation Lab (1 hr)
EE 426 Advanced Si IC and Solid State Devices (3 hrs)
EE 442 Digital Communications (3 hrs)
EE 449 Computer Communication Networks (3 hrs)
EE 452 Digital Control Systems (3 hrs)
EE 453 Modern Control Theory (3 hrs)
EE 461 Computer Architecture (3 hrs)
EE 469 Wireless Data Networks (3 hrs)
EE 473 Microwave Engineering (3 hrs)
EE 475 Optical Communications (3 hrs)
EE 496 Capstone Design Project (3 hrs)
Figure 3.6. Rating Differences for courses offered during Fall 2002.
35
EE 160 Programming for Engineers (4 hrs)
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
EE 211 Basic Circuit Analysis I (4 hrs)
0
-1
-1
0
-1
0
0
0
0
0
-1
EE 213 Basic Circuit Analysis II (4 hrs)
0
0
1
0
0
1
-1
0
0
0
-1
EE 260 Introduction to Digital Design (4 hrs)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
EE 323 Microelectronic Circuits I (3 hrs)
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
EE 323L Microelectronic Circuits I Lab
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
EE 324 Physical Electronics (3 hrs)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
EE 351 Linear Systems and Control (3 hrs)
0
0
0
1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
0
-1
EE 351L Linear Systems and Control Lab (1 hr)
0
0
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
0
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
EE 371 Engineering Electromagmetics I (3 hrs)
1
0
-2
0
0
0
0
-1
0
0
-1
EE 372 Engineering Electromagnetics II (3 hrs)
0
0
-1
1
-2
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1
0
0
0
1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
0
-1
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
EE 296 Sophomore Project (1 hr)
EE 315 Signal and Systems Analysis (3 hrs)
EE 326 Microelectronics Circuits II (3 hrs)
EE 326L Microelectronics Circuits II Lab (1 hr)
EE 327 Theory and Design of IC Devices (3 hrs)
EE 328 Physical Electronics Lab Techniques (3 hrs)
EE 328L Physical Electronics Lab (1 hr)
EE 341 Introduction to Communication Systems (3 hrs)
EE 341L Intro. to Communication Systems Lab (1 hr)
EE 342 EE Probability and Statistics (3 hrs)
EE 344 Networking I (4 hrs)
EE 361 Digital Systems and Computer Design (3 hrs)
EE 361L Digital Systems & Computer Design Lab (1 hr)
EE 366 CMOS VLSI Design (3 hrs)
EE 367 Computer Data Structures and Algorithms (3 hrs)
EE 367L Comp. Data Structures & Algorithms Lab (1 hr)
EE 372L Engineering Electromagnetics II Lab (1 hr)
EE 396 Junior Project (2 hrs)
EE 415 Digital Signal Processing (4 hrs)
EE 422 Electronic Instrumentation (3 hrs)
EE 422L Instrumentation Lab (1 hr)
EE 426 Advanced Si IC and Solid State Devices (3 hrs)
EE 442 Digital Communications (3 hrs)
EE 449 Computer Communication Networks (3 hrs)
EE 452 Digital Control Systems (3 hrs
EE 453 Modern Control Theory (3 hrs)
EE 461 Computer Architecture (3 hrs)
EE 467 Object-Oriented Software Engineering (3 hrs)
EE 468 Introduction to Operating Systems (3 hrs)
EE 469 Wireless Data Networks
EE 473 Microwave Engineering (3 hrs)
EE 475 Optical Communications (3 hrs)
EE 496 Capstone Design Project (3 hrs)
Figure 3.7. Rating Difference for courses offered Spring 2003.
36
3.10. Assessment of Program Outcomes and Results
The Assessment Committee of AY 2002-2003 (consisting of D. Y. Y. Yun – Chair, Tep Dobry
and K. Najita) developed several weighting schemes to help the analysis of Outcomes and the
propagation of these results to the Objectives.
For data that does not directly map to Outcomes (e.g., some of the questions in the Exit and
Alumni surveys below), a weighting vector is assigned to each question, indicating the degree to
which that question applies to each Outcome. For a given survey, the result is a “correlation
matrix.” The results from each questionnaire are then weighted, summed, and normalized to
produce an assessment for each Outcome.
Similarly, a correlation matrix mapping Outcomes to Objectives has been produced (Figure 3.1,
above), to propagate the Outcomes assessments to the Objectives. This process will be
considered in more detail for specific assessment tools, below.
Although specified earlier in this document, the Program Outcomes and Objectives are listed
below again for convenience of reference.
Outcomes (1 - 11):
1. Knowledge of probability and statistics, including examples relevant to Electrical
Engineering. Knowledge of mathematics through differential and integral calculus, basic
sciences, and engineering sciences necessary to analyze and design complex devices and
systems containing hardware and software. Knowledge of advanced mathematics, including
differential equations.
2. Demonstrated an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to interpret data.
3. Demonstrated an ability to design a system or component that meets a specified need.
4. Demonstrated an ability to function in a multi-disciplinary team.
5. Demonstrated an ability to identify, formulate and solve electrical engineering problems.
6. Understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.
7. Demonstrated an ability to communicate effectively (written and oral).
8. Demonstrated an understanding of the impact of engineering solutions in a global and
societal context.
9. Recognition of the need for life-long learning.
10. Demonstrated knowledge of contemporary issues.
11. Demonstrated an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern tools necessary for
engineering practice.
Objectives (A - E):
A. The students shall have technical competence to solve electrical engineering problems
through the application of basic science, mathematics, and engineering. They will have the
fundamental knowledge and skills to apply modern engineering techniques and tools to
identify, formulate, and solve electrical engineering problems with realistic constraints. They
37
B.
C.
D.
E.
will have the ability to apply design methods effectively, and possess an understanding of the
relationship between theory and practice. The students shall also acquire skills of testing,
data collection, interpretation and verification for the purpose of validation by experiments.
They will have the basic skills to communicate effectively and develop the ability to function
as members of multi-disciplinary teams.
In addition to acquiring a broad based knowledge of engineering practice, they will also
develop an understanding of societal, environmental, and ethical issues.
The students shall develop lifelong learning skills. They will be critical thinkers and
independent learners with the ability to adapt to changing engineering technology.
Development of diversity within the profession through the education of minority and
women students.
3.10.1. Overview of Assessment Tools
The primary data gathering approach for assessment is through surveys, although more focused
mechanisms include exams, grades, evaluations, interviews, behavior observations, alumni
career advancements, academic and professional achievements, IAB and SAB reports, peer
institution reports and national statistics. The assessments activities fall into the following six
(6) primary categories and cover (1) students, (2) graduating seniors, (3) faculty, (4) alumni, (5)
industrial advisors and (6) other comparable EE programs around the country (through their
assessment experiences):
a. Course Evaluation – Surveying students on the course content, coverage, teaching practice
and effectiveness. Conducted in the classroom by a representative of the HKN student
organization during the last week of classes every semester (fall and spring).
b. Education Outcome – Surveying students on how their educational programs have met the
requirements of the defined outcomes A—K as described below. Conducted in the
classroom during the last week of classes every semester over the last two years.
c. Exit Survey – Surveying graduating seniors on the overall educational experience at the EE
Department and their preparedness for future pursuits. Conducted at the time that every
graduating senior files for graduation near the beginning of the last semester, with
summarizing reports completed on July 31, 2001 and July 17, 2002 in the last two years.
d. Alumni Survey – Surveying graduates on their job preparedness and career satisfaction.
Conducted by mail during the last 2 months of the spring semester.
e. Industrial Advisory Board – A selected group of senior electrical engineers in related
industries, about half from local institutions and the other half from mainland are invited on
campus for a two-day meeting, which is held in October of every year.
f. Student Advisory Board – A representative cross-section of EE students are invited to meet
with the faculty and the IAB over the same a two-day meeting in October, to hear reports on
the status of the Department’s programs and discussing ways to improve them.
The response rates for these survey data gathering are indicated below:
1. Course Evaluation – Nearly 100% of the remaining students in every course offered during
any given semester (since the survey is handed out and collected by a HKN representative
during the last week of classes, which are usually well attended).
38
2. Education Outcome – Nearly 100% of the remaining students in every course offered during
any given semester (since the survey is handed out and collected by a HKN representative
during the last week of classes, which are usually well attended).
3. Exit Survey – The response rate was 49% in 2002.
4. Alumni Survey – The Spring 2002 response rate was 18% (based on 54 respondents in a 300
alumni mailing).
5. Industrial Advisory Board – Seven (7) IAB members came to the on-campus IAB meeting in
October 2002.
6. Student Advisory Board – All eight (8) members of the SAB came to most of the scheduled
events of the IAB meeting (due to their own class conflicts), whereas they continue to have
oral communications with faculty members, especially the Interface Committee and the Chair
of the Department during the semesters.
The Assessment Committee has, this year, developed and deployed a new monitoring, analysis
and propagation process to evaluate how our undergraduate program is meeting desired
objectives using the data from the surveys listed above. We have made significant progress in
implementing this new process. The assessment analyses and tabulations are shown in the
following pages.
3.10.2. Campus Senior Exit Surveys and Alumni Survey
Educational Benchmarking Inc. (EBI) was contracted to perform both Senior Exit Surveys and
Alumni Surveys for the College of Engineering. To date, we have received results from 2001 and
2002 Exit Surveys, and the 2002 Alumni Survey. The questionnaires used for these surveys are
shown in Figures 3.8 – 3.10. As can be seen from the questionnaires, many of the questions
asked are not relevant to the Outcomes and Objectives. The average responses to those that were
considered relevant are shown in Figure 3.11. Note that there are significant differences between
the 2001 and 2002 Exit Surveys. The effect of these differences will become apparent in our
analysis of the results.
The correlation matrices for the three surveys are shown on the left of Figures 3.12 through 3.14.
The sums along the columns of the matrices are shown at the bottom left. The column sums are
particularly useful as an indicator of the “coverage” of the surveys for each Outcome. Note in
particular that the 2001 Exit Survey (Figure 3.12) has a sum of zero for the column associated
with Outcome 1, indicating that it provides no information on the student’s knowledge of
statistics, advanced mathematics, and basic science. Figure 3.13 (with a nonzero sum for this
column) illustrates that this shortcoming was addressed in the 2002 survey. Similarly, the
Alumni Survey correlation matrix shows a zero sum associated with Outcome 10, so that
information relating to knowledge of contemporary issues is not available from that survey.
In the column to the immediate right of the correlation matrix in each figure, the average survey
score for each question is shown. The result of multiplying the vector of weights for each
Outcome by the average survey score and computing their sum is shown under the heading
Mmult. In the column labeled Norm, the sum of the entries in the correlation matrix for each
Outcome is shown. Dividing entries in Mmult by the corresponding entries in Norm yields the
entries in Res1. Res2 is simply a rescaling of this result to the range 0-9. Res3 is normalized
with respect to the average value in Res2. Finally, the score of each Outcome is ranked under
Rank.
39
Figure 3.8. Questionnaire for the 2001 Senior Exit Survey.
40
Figure 3.8 (continued). Questionnaire for the 2001 Senior Exit Survey.
41
Figure 3.9. Questionnaire for the 2002 Senior Exit Survey.
42
Figure 3.9 (continued). Questionnaire for the 2002 Senior Exit Survey.
43
Figure 3.10. Questionnaire for the 2002 Alumni Survey.
44
Figure 3.10. Questionnaire for the 2002 Alumni Survey.
45
EBI 2001 Exit Survey
Question No.
Average
n=8
1 to 7 scale
38
5.75
39
5.63
40
5.63
41
5.88
42
5.00
43
5.38
44
6.00
45
5.43
46
4.67
47
5.13
48
5.13
49
5.38
50
5.00
51
5.38
52
6.29
53
6.25
54
6.13
55
5.71
56
4.43
57
3.60
58
4.14
59
4.17
60
3.71
61
3.40
62
3.20
63
2.80
64
5.13
65
5.50
66
4.63
EBI 2002 Exit Survey
Question No.
Average
n=22
1 to 7 scale
38
4.86
39
4.95
40
5.09
41
4.95
42
4.91
43
5.32
44
4.95
45
5.11
46
5.23
47
5.05
48
5.15
49
4.58
50
5.05
51
5.48
52
5.68
53
5.50
54
5.64
55
5.45
56
5.23
57
4.91
58
5.64
59
5.45
60
5.15
61
4.55
62
3.69
63
4.28
64
4.26
65
4.00
66
3.75
67
3.76
68
3.29
69
4.41
70
4.14
71
4.59
EBI 2002 Alumni Survey
Question No.
Average
n=17
1 to 7 scale
19
5.18
21
5.53
23
5.56
25
5.06
27
5.29
29
5.25
31
5.38
33
5.25
35
4.93
37
5.35
39
5.47
41
5.59
43
4.94
45
5.65
47
5.75
49
5.71
51
5.65
Figure 3.11. Survey results for questions relevant to the Outcomes and Objectives.
46
Correlation Matrix
1 2
3
4
5
6
7
Analysis
8
9
10
Mmult: Norm:
11
38
9
5.75
39
9
40
9
9
41
9
42
=
0.0
0
5.63
178.1
32
5.63
158.4
36
5.88
67.0
13
5.00
207.9
45
43
9
5.38
196.1
49
44
9
6.00
116.6
22
5.43
159.8
41
4.67
144.9
24
5.13
176.7
48
171.3
34
Res1
Res2
9
45
9
46
9
47
48
9
5.13
49
9
5.38
50
5
7
5.00
9
5.38
51
3
52
9
6.29
53
5
6.25
54
5
6.13
/7*9
Res3
Outcome
/Avg*7 #
Rank
1
5.71
5.57
7.16
8.17
2
2
6
4.43
4.40
5.66
6.46
3
7
4
6
3.60
5.15
6.63
7.56
4
4
5
4
6
4.14
4.62
5.94
6.78
5
6
3
5
4
6
4.17
4.00
5.15
5.87
6
8
3
3
5
4
6
3.71
5.30
6.81
7.78
7
3
61
3
3
5
4
6
3.40
3.90
5.01
5.72
8
9
62
3
3
5
4
6
3.20
6.04
7.76
8.86
9
1
63
3
3
5
4
6
2.80
3.68
4.73
5.40
10
10
5.13
5.04
6.48
7.39
11
5
5.50 Avg
4.77
6.13
7.00
55
3
3
56
3
3
5
4
57
3
3
5
58
3
3
59
3
60
2
64
65
66
4
4
9
4.63
ColSum 0 32 36 13 45 49 22 41 24 48 34
Figure 3.12. 2001 EBI Engineering Exit Survey Question/Outcome Correlation Matrix
and Analysis of Results.
47
Correlation Matrix
1
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
ColSum
2
9
9
9
3
4
5
6
Analysis
7
8
9
10
11
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
5
7
9
3
9
9
9
9
5
5
6
9
9
6
6
7
9
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
2
4
27
32
36
13
4
70
49
22
41
24
57
9
53
4.86
4.95
5.09
4.95
4.91
5.32
4.95
5.11
5.23
5.05
5.15
4.58
5.05
5.48
5.68
5.50
5.64
5.45
5.23
4.91
5.64
5.45
5.15
4.55
3.69
4.28
4.26
4.00
3.75
3.76
3.29
4.41
4.14
4.59
=
Avg
Mmult:
151.38
157.00
154.74
60.75
343.93
202.45
108.36
172.31
128.74
233.67
272.45
Norm:
27
32
36
13
70
49
22
41
24
57
53
Res1
Res2
/7*9
7.21
6.31
5.53
6.01
6.32
5.31
6.33
5.4
6.9
5.27
6.61
6.11
5.61
4.91
4.30
4.67
4.91
4.13
4.93
4.20
5.36
4.10
5.14
4.75
Res3
/Avg*7
8.26
7.23
6.33
6.89
7.24
6.09
7.26
6.19
7.90
6.04
7.57
7.00
Figure 3.13. 2002 EBI Engineering Exit Survey Question/Outcome Correlation Matrix
and Analysis of Results.
48
Outcome
# Rank
1
1
2
6
3
8
4
7
5
5
6
10
7
4
8
9
9
2
10
11
11
3
Correlation Matrix
Analysis
Res1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Res2
Res3
Outcome
/7*9
/Avg*7
#
Rank
Mmult:
Norm:
102.2
18
5.68
7.30
7.40
1
2
19
9
5.18
21
9
5.53
171.1
32
5.35
6.88
6.97
2
6
23
9
5.56
45.5
9
5.06
6.51
6.59
3
9
5.06
47.6
9
5.29
6.80
6.89
4
7
5.29
152.5
28
5.45
7.00
7.10
5
5
9
25
9
27
=
29
9
5.25
47.3
9
5.25
6.75
6.84
6
8
31
9
5.38
99.5
18
5.53
7.11
7.21
7
3
5.25
44.4
9
4.93
6.34
6.43
8
10
4.93
68.7
12
5.73
7.36
7.46
9
1
5.35
0.0
0
0.00
0.00
10
201.7
37
5.45
7.01
7.11
11
Avg
5.37
6.28
6.36
9
33
9
35
9
37
39
9
5.47
41
9
5.59
5
43
45
3
47
9
7
4.94
9
5.65
5.75
49
9
5
6
5.71
51
ColSum
9
5
6
5.65
18
32
9
9
28
9
18
9
12
0
37
Figure 3.14. 2002 EBI Engineering Alumni Survey Question/Outcome Correlation Matrix
and Analysis of Results.
49
4
The Assessment Committee also determined a transition matrix from Outcomes to Objectives
(shown previously in Figure 3.1), and used it to assess the propagation of Outcomes from the
Alumni survey and 2 Exit surveys. The transition matrix and the results are given in Figure 3.15.
The values shown immediately under Obj. are the weighted sums of the the Outcome scores.
The values at the bottom of each column (boxed and in bold) are normalized by the row sums of
the transition matrix.
Although the value of such propagation is not clearly demonstrated in this case, due in part to the
lack of consistent data gathering, and even the change from one exit survey to the next, the
mechanism is hereby established. Its value will be more evident in the next section when 4
semesters of course evaluation/assessment survey data are analyzed, Outcomes assessed,
Objectives propagated and some conclusions made.
3.10.3. Course Evaluation/Assessment Surveys
Course Evaluation/Assessment Surveys have been conducted for 4 semesters, S01, F01, S02 and
F02. Only the S01 survey was conducted using a 3-point scale, while all others were conducted
on a 4-point scale. Since AC decided to consistently use a 9-point scale, some appropriate
conversions were made. As can be observed from the previous 3 pages of analyzed results, this
change did not affect the results (in terms of ranking) and conversion among them is a simple
process. The AC feels that a 9-point scale allows more flexibility and less arbitrariness (due to
the urge to use fractional or decimal numbers, such as 3 ¼ or 2.7). The course evaluation data on
a nine point scale are shown in Figures 3.16 – 3.19.
From these (4 semesters of) data, Outcome analyses are now possible, by a simple one-to-one
transition (identity) matrix, for each course. The real value arises from the grouping of courses,
e.g., for each track (Computer (CmP), Electro-Physics (EP), and System (Sys)), for spring
courses and fall courses, for all EE core courses, and for EE core plus each track’s courses
(Figures 3.20 – 3.24). The number of students taking the survey for each course is used as a
weighting factor to obtain any of the Outcome averages. It is satisfying to notice the
consistencies of the highly ranked and lowly ranked Outcome averages. These high and low
ranked Outcomes give good indications of successes in the program of courses (as a group) and
provide warnings of the needs to reinforce efforts in weaker areas. Overall and consistently,
Outcome 1 (Kn. of EE, Sci. & Math) ranks the highest, while 6 (Prof. & Ethic.) ranks the lowest.
Outcome 9 (life-long learning) ranks 2nd highest, while 4 (team functions) ranks 2nd lowest, 3
out of 4 semesters.
When these group Outcomes are propagated using the Outcome-Objective transition matrix,
further valuable realizations can be drawn on the effectiveness of the programs of courses to
achieve the educational Objectives that have been stated as goals for the Department (Figure
3.25). Note the anomalies in S01 Core due to the use of a 3-point scale (all other semesters used
a 4-point scale). Note also the emphasis placed on Obj.A for CpE courses (although the score for
Obj.D is quite close).
50
Outcome
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Objective A
2
2
2
-
2
-
-
-
-
-
2
10
Objective B
1
-
-
2
-
1
2
-
-
-
1
7
Objective C
1
-
-
-
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Objective D
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
-
Objective E
-
-
-
1
-
2
-
-
-
5
2
2
3
2
5
2
2
2
Column
Sum
10 11
Row
Sum
01Ex
Obj.
02Ex
Obj. 02Alm
Obj
57.60
8.26 73.27
7.40 70.34
8.17
43.95
7.23 50.21
6.97 49.55
7
6.46
34.00
6.33 44.90
6.59 33.94
-
3
7.56
17.72
6.89 24.07
6.89 22.33
2
-
5
6.78
30.12
7.24 31.14
7.10 20.58
4
3
6.09
6.84
-
5.87
7.78
5.76
7.26
7.33
7.21 7.03
5.72
6.28
6.19
7.17
6.43 7.08
8.86
4.86
7.90
6.41
7.46 4.85
5.40
5.91
6.04
8.02
0.00 7.44
7.39
6.02
7.57
6.23
7.11 4.12
Figure 3.15. The Outcome/Objective Transition Matrix and Results for the
2001 Exit Survey, 2002 Exit Survey, and 2002 Alumni Survey.
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Ave:
No.
150 160 211 213 260 315
MEAN (based on a 9-point scale)
3.00 6.99 6.69 7.29 6.00 6.96
8.01 7.05 6.54 5.22 8.01 4.26
3.99 6.51 6.00 5.34 8.49 6.15
2.01 7.32 5.64 4.83 6.00 4.11
3.99 6.54 6.69 6.90 6.00 6.48
3.00 5.34 4.74 4.23 6.00 3.00
8.01 6.00 4.41 3.66 6.24 3.63
0.99 4.08 4.56 3.51 5.76 4.59
3.00 6.12 5.28 4.71 6.00 4.89
3.00 4.44 4.95 4.68 5.76 5.67
5.01 6.54 5.46 6.27 7.74 5.52
4.00 6.22 5.62 5.08 6.50 4.90
3
59
17
23
12
19
323
327
7.41
6.96
5.40
9.33
7.35
5.04
5.22
5.22
6.66
5.22
6.96
6.51
19
7.20
6.00
6.60
6.60
7.20
4.80
6.60
4.20
6.00
8.40
7.80
6.13
5
COURSE NUMBER
342 366 367 371
8.34
2.79
1.50
5.13
7.74
1.29
3.42
1.08
5.70
0.87
6.63
4.11
14
6.48
7.26
8.04
6.48
6.48
4.59
5.22
3.63
4.26
5.22
7.11
5.83
19
6.90
7.68
7.32
5.67
6.99
3.33
5.01
4.68
5.34
6.33
6.99
5.88
19
8.07
5.46
5.07
3.21
7.68
3.39
4.68
5.64
6.57
6.39
6.75
5.53
16
372
422
426
437
442
461
496
9.00
6.00
3.00
9.00
9.00
6.00
9.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
7.00
1
8.13
8.58
7.71
7.29
7.71
6.87
8.13
5.58
7.29
6.87
8.58
7.48
7
6.00
4.50
6.75
3.00
6.75
0.75
8.25
1.50
7.50
6.00
6.00
5.00
4
6.00
6.27
6.27
3.00
6.54
3.00
4.35
3.81
4.08
4.92
5.46
4.81
11
6.99
5.01
7.20
3.99
6.99
3.00
4.20
3.60
4.80
6.39
5.40
5.09
15
6.24
4.38
4.86
5.31
6.45
3.00
5.07
2.76
4.86
4.38
5.55
4.77
13
9.00
9.00
9.00
6.00
9.00
6.00
6.00
0.00
9.00
6.00
9.00
7.00
1
Figure 3.16. Spring 2001 Course Evaluation Survey Data (converted to 9-point scale).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
No.
160 211 213 260 315 323
MEAN (based on a 9-point scale)
5.40 6.75 7.83 7.11 7.58 7.00
5.40 6.44 7.13 7.11 6.89 6.75
5.18 6.08 6.66 7.20 5.72 5.63
5.40 5.40 5.24 4.68 5.63 4.50
5.40 5.78 6.03 6.53 5.49 5.69
3.38 3.38 4.68 4.03 4.64 4.39
5.40 5.24 6.75 6.37 6.10 4.95
5.36 5.40 6.28 5.81 5.96 5.83
5.40 6.30 7.58 7.29 7.22 6.64
5.85 5.85 7.16 7.11 6.01 6.77
5.40 4.50 6.55 5.78 6.75 6.21
10
10
27
25
19
19
COURSE NUMBER
324 326 327 328
342
361
415
467
602
645
7.43
5.96
5.72
7.00
6.12
4.41
6.21
6.48
7.00
6.08
6.08
27
8.15
6.62
5.90
5.47
6.19
4.86
6.26
6.62
7.40
6.59
6.39
21
7.11
7.47
7.25
5.45
5.76
4.37
6.75
7.00
7.31
7.00
6.37
19
7.94
7.54
6.91
6.75
6.57
4.34
6.91
7.07
7.54
7.54
6.91
17
7.09
6.75
6.75
4.95
6.91
4.82
6.91
7.13
7.20
6.57
6.55
15
6.75
8.03
5.24
7.88
7.13
5.78
8.03
8.26
8.62
7.70
7.49
7
9.00
9.00
9.00
0.00
8.26
6.01
8.26
9.00
9.00
9.00
8.26
3
6.35
5.00
5.63
5.31
5.63
4.50
5.63
5.40
6.35
5.74
5.85
11
8.26
6.75
7.13
5.00
8.26
6.50
8.75
8.01
8.26
7.25
7.74
11
7.31
7.49
9.00
9.00
6.75
5.06
7.88
9.00
8.44
9.00
8.26
4
Figure 3.17. Fall 2001 Course Evaluation Survey Data (converted to 9-point scale).
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
No.
150 160 211 213 260 315
MEAN (based on a 9-point scale)
6.75 7.07 8.03 7.54 6.03 7.34
6.75 7.49 6.44 6.48 6.28 6.75
4.50 7.07 6.23 6.30 6.10 6.19
7.20 5.83 7.88 4.03 7.16
5.63 7.49 5.87 5.87 5.76 6.05
2.25 3.94 4.32 4.61 4.10 4.88
5.63 7.04 6.57 5.67 5.83 7.04
4.50 5.63 6.41 5.56 5.72 6.26
4.50 7.07 7.27 6.57 6.19 7.18
6.75 7.49 7.22 6.75 6.12 5.69
5.85 6.01 5.58 5.54 7.40
3
8
41
14
29
23
324
341
8.35
7.49
8.06
3.65
7.43
6.10
7.56
8.06
7.88
7.31
7.79
14
7.09
6.23
5.06
5.72
5.11
3.65
5.81
5.81
7.09
5.90
6.75
14
COURSE NUMBER
342 351 366
8.01
6.75
4.50
5.15
5.63
3.67
6.75
7.13
8.01
8.17
6.75
9
7.97
7.61
6.10
6.23
6.01
4.68
5.81
7.13
7.79
7.27
6.30
13
7.20
7.65
7.04
5.24
7.13
5.36
6.23
6.91
7.65
7.49
6.75
15
367
371
372
422
426
442
452
461
5.69
5.69
5.36
6.26
4.79
2.99
5.42
5.15
5.38
5.76
5.27
19
4.82
4.37
4.52
4.66
4.03
2.25
4.12
3.76
4.28
3.89
4.75
23
8.06
6.57
7.20
6.19
6.30
4.88
6.57
7.31
7.31
7.09
6.37
12
8.26
7.49
6.37
2.99
7.13
5.24
6.75
7.13
7.88
6.37
7.13
6
8.35
7.65
7.20
4.50
8.10
6.75
9.00
9.00
8.62
7.49
8.35
7
9.00
7.88
6.75
4.12
7.20
5.47
6.75
7.88
8.03
7.40
6.75
7
7.88
7.88
8.55
2.99
7.88
5.63
7.88
7.88
7.49
7.49
7.88
6
7.88
7.13
7.88
3.38
7.88
5.63
7.88
7.49
8.26
7.49
7.88
6
Figure 3.18. Spring 2002 Course Evaluation Survey Data (converted to 9-point scale).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
No.
160 211 213 260 315 323
MEAN (Based on a 9-point scale)
4.82 6.82 7.99 7.49 6.84 6.44
5.54 6.23 6.95 6.75 6.12 6.35
5.65 6.21 6.64 6.75 6.10 6.35
5.42 5.96 5.94 6.75 6.05 6.75
4.25 5.69 3.33 3.76 7.16 6.66
4.50 5.27 6.98 6.75 5.15 5.87
5.22 5.85 6.75 6.01 6.21 5.96
4.68 5.67 6.53 7.49 6.01 5.63
2.88 3.58 4.59 4.50 4.10 3.87
4.41 5.74 6.95 6.75 5.56 5.63
5.67 6.53 7.76 7.49 6.44 6.75
29
30
22
40
23
23
COURSE NUMBER
324 327 331 341 342
361
371
415
449
453
467
7.04
6.01
5.81
6.30
5.81
6.30
5.74
6.26
4.10
6.19
5.94
23
7.20
7.65
7.65
7.20
5.49
6.44
6.84
7.04
5.06
7.13
7.29
25
8.08
7.22
6.75
6.82
6.75
7.56
7.31
7.88
6.03
8.37
8.06
34
8.44
8.17
8.30
7.81
3.24
7.20
7.16
7.18
4.93
7.61
8.60
16
7.13
5.63
5.24
5.40
5.81
5.31
5.63
6.93
4.68
7.16
6.19
12
5.78
6.44
5.78
4.82
6.75
5.85
5.15
5.78
3.76
5.85
5.78
7
5.45
5.51
5.81
6.01
5.90
4.50
5.72
4.88
3.20
5.36
5.63
14
7.47
6.05
6.01
6.28
8.42
5.85
6.75
6.57
4.50
6.14
7.02
19
6.75
6.95
6.12
6.30
9.00
6.50
7.00
6.14
4.50
7.20
6.59
15
7.31
6.32
6.84
6.37
5.42
6.30
6.35
7.00
4.50
7.09
7.22
28
6.89
6.12
5.92
6.28
6.12
6.28
6.62
6.01
4.37
6.19
6.62
18
Figure 3.19. Fall 2002 Course Evaluation Survey Data (converted to 9-point scale).
53
Rank: Highest=
S01
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
EE Core
59
17
160 211
7.0 6.7
7.1 6.5
6.5 6.0
7.3 5.6
6.5 6.7
5.3 4.7
6.0 4.4
4.1 4.6
6.1 5.3
4.4 5.0
6.5 5.5
23
213
7.3
5.2
5.3
4.8
6.9
4.2
3.7
3.5
4.7
4.7
6.3
12
260
6.0
8.0
8.5
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.2
5.8
6.0
5.8
7.7
19
315
7.0
4.3
6.2
4.1
6.5
3.0
3.6
4.6
4.9
5.7
5.5
19
323
7.4
7.0
5.4
9.3
7.4
5.0
5.2
5.2
6.7
5.2
7.0
14
342
8.3
2.8
1.5
5.1
7.7
1.3
3.4
1.1
5.7
0.9
6.6
High=
Sum
179
Ave
7.18
6.05
5.77
6.09
6.84
4.41
4.91
4.24
5.79
4.72
6.45
16
371
8.1
5.5
5.1
3.2
7.7
3.4
4.7
5.6
6.6
6.4
6.8
Low=
CpE
19
366
6.5
7.3
8.0
6.5
6.5
4.6
5.2
3.6
4.3
5.2
7.1
Lowest=
176
19
367
6.9
7.7
7.3
5.7
7.0
3.3
5.0
4.7
5.3
6.3
7.0
13
461
6.2
4.4
4.9
5.3
6.5
3.0
5.1
2.8
4.9
4.4
5.6
EP
5
327
7.2
6.0
6.6
6.6
7.2
4.8
6.6
4.2
6.0
8.4
7.8
1
372
9.0
6.0
3.0
9.0
9.0
6.0
9.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
7
422
8.1
8.6
7.7
7.3
7.7
6.9
8.1
5.6
7.3
6.9
8.6
87
4
426
6.0
4.5
6.8
3.0
6.8
0.8
8.3
1.5
7.5
6.0
6.0
Sys
11
437
6.0
6.3
6.3
3.0
6.5
3.0
4.4
3.8
4.1
4.9
5.5
107
15
442
7.0
5.0
7.2
4.0
7.0
3.0
4.2
3.6
4.8
6.4
5.4
Rank
94
track
6.72
6.37
6.90
5.30
6.84
3.71
5.35
3.85
5.10
5.81
6.49
Ave
All
7.02
6.16
6.16
5.81
6.84
4.17
5.06
4.11
5.55
5.09
6.46
1
2
10
11
9
3
Figure 3.20. Spring 2001 Course Assessments.
F01
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
EE Core
10
10
160 211
5.4 6.8
5.4 6.4
5.2 6.1
5.4 5.4
5.4 5.8
3.4 3.4
5.4 5.2
5.4 5.4
5.4 6.3
5.9 5.9
5.4 4.5
27
213
7.8
7.1
6.7
5.2
6.0
4.7
6.8
6.3
7.6
7.2
6.5
25
260
7.1
7.1
7.2
4.7
6.5
4.0
6.4
5.8
7.3
7.1
5.8
19
315
7.6
6.9
5.7
5.6
5.5
4.6
6.1
6.0
7.2
6.0
6.8
19
323
7.0
6.8
5.6
4.5
5.7
4.4
5.0
5.8
6.6
6.8
6.2
27
324
7.4
6.0
5.7
7.0
6.1
4.4
6.2
6.5
7.0
6.1
6.1
21
342
8.1
6.6
5.9
5.5
6.2
4.9
6.3
6.6
7.4
6.6
6.4
Sum
158
Ave
7.34
6.63
6.11
5.46
5.98
4.35
6.06
6.08
7.04
6.54
6.11
CpE
19
361
7.1
7.5
7.2
5.4
5.8
4.4
6.8
7.0
7.3
7.0
6.4
15
467
7.1
6.8
6.8
5.0
6.9
4.8
6.9
7.1
7.2
6.6
6.5
EP
11
326
6.3
5.0
5.6
5.3
5.6
4.5
5.6
5.4
6.3
5.7
5.9
11
327
8.3
6.8
7.1
5.0
8.3
6.5
8.8
8.0
8.3
7.2
7.7
Figure 3.21. Fall 2001 Course Assessments.
54
4
328
7.3
7.5
9.0
9.0
6.8
5.1
7.9
9.0
8.4
9.0
8.3
Sys
17
415
7.9
7.5
6.9
6.8
6.6
4.3
6.9
7.1
7.5
7.5
6.9
Rank
77
track
7.35
6.89
6.92
5.74
6.55
4.81
7.00
7.06
7.40
6.99
6.74
Ave
All
7.34
6.72
6.38
5.55
6.17
4.50
6.36
6.40
7.15
6.69
6.31
1
10
11
2
S02
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
EE Core
8
41
160 211
7.1 8.0
7.5 6.4
7.1 6.2
7.2 5.8
7.5 5.9
3.9 4.3
7.0 6.6
5.6 6.4
7.1 7.3
7.5 7.2
5.9 6.0
14
213
7.5
6.5
6.3
7.9
5.9
4.6
5.7
5.6
6.6
6.8
5.6
29
260
6.0
6.3
6.1
4.0
5.8
4.1
5.8
5.7
6.2
6.1
5.5
23
315
7.3
6.8
6.2
7.2
6.1
4.9
7.0
6.3
7.2
5.7
7.4
14
324
8.3
7.5
8.1
3.6
7.4
6.1
7.6
8.1
7.9
7.3
7.8
14
341
7.1
6.2
5.1
5.7
5.1
3.6
5.8
5.8
7.1
5.9
6.8
9
342
8.0
6.8
4.5
5.2
5.6
3.7
6.8
7.1
8.0
8.2
6.8
13
371
4.8
4.4
4.5
4.2
4.0
2.3
4.1
3.8
4.3
3.9
4.7
Sum
165
Ave
7.19
6.43
6.07
5.58
5.86
4.26
6.29
6.08
6.84
6.47
6.23
CpE
15
366
7.2
7.7
7.0
5.2
7.1
5.4
6.2
6.9
7.7
7.5
6.8
19
367
5.7
5.7
5.4
6.3
4.8
3.0
5.4
5.2
5.4
5.8
5.3
6
461
7.9
7.1
7.9
3.4
7.9
5.6
7.9
7.5
8.3
7.5
7.9
EP
12
372
8.1
6.6
7.2
6.2
6.3
4.9
6.6
7.3
7.3
7.1
6.4
6
422
8.3
7.5
6.4
3.0
7.1
5.2
6.8
7.1
7.9
6.4
7.1
7
426
8.3
7.7
7.2
4.5
8.1
6.8
9.0
9.0
8.6
7.5
8.3
Sys
13
351
8.0
7.6
6.1
6.2
6.0
4.7
5.8
7.1
7.8
7.3
6.3
Rank
7
442
9.0
7.9
6.8
4.1
7.2
5.5
6.8
7.9
8.0
7.4
6.8
6
452
7.9
7.9
8.6
3.0
7.9
5.6
7.9
7.9
7.5
7.5
7.9
91
track
7.49
7.08
6.68
5.16
6.55
4.85
6.55
6.98
7.30
6.96
6.62
Ave
All
7.30
6.66
6.29
5.43
6.11
4.47
6.38
6.40
7.00
6.65
6.37
1
10
11
2
Figure 3.22. Spring 2002 Course Assessments.
F02
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
EE Core
29
30
160 211
4.8 6.8
5.6 6.2
5.4 6.0
4.3 5.7
4.5 5.3
2.9 3.6
5.2 5.9
4.4 5.7
5.7 6.5
5.5 6.2
4.7 5.7
22
213
8.0
6.6
5.9
3.3
7.0
4.6
6.8
7.0
7.8
7.0
6.5
40
260
7.5
6.8
6.8
3.8
6.8
4.5
6.0
6.8
7.5
6.8
7.5
23
315
6.8
6.1
6.1
7.2
5.2
4.1
6.2
5.6
6.4
6.1
6.0
23
323
6.4
6.3
6.8
6.7
5.9
3.9
6.0
5.6
6.8
6.3
5.6
23
324
7.0
5.8
6.3
5.8
6.3
4.1
5.7
6.2
5.9
6.0
6.3
28
341
7.3
6.8
6.4
5.4
6.3
4.5
6.3
7.1
7.2
6.3
7.0
18
342
6.9
5.9
6.3
6.1
6.3
4.4
6.6
6.2
6.6
6.1
6.0
34
371
8.1
6.8
6.8
6.8
7.6
6.0
7.3
8.4
8.1
7.2
7.9
Sum
270
Ave
7.00
6.35
6.29
5.41
6.14
4.29
6.20
6.36
6.91
6.40
6.42
CpE
25
361
7.2
7.7
7.2
5.5
6.4
5.1
6.8
7.1
7.3
7.7
7.0
12
449
7.1
5.2
5.4
5.8
5.3
4.7
5.6
7.2
6.2
5.6
6.9
14
467
5.4
5.8
6.0
5.9
4.5
3.2
5.7
5.4
5.6
5.5
4.9
EP
19
327
7.5
6.0
6.3
8.4
5.9
4.5
6.8
6.1
7.0
6.1
6.6
Figure 3.23. Fall 2002 Course Assessments.
55
Sys
16
415
8.4
8.3
7.8
3.2
7.2
4.9
7.2
7.6
8.6
8.2
7.2
Rank
15
331
6.8
6.1
6.3
9.0
6.5
4.5
7.0
7.2
6.6
7.0
6.1
7
453
5.8
5.8
4.8
6.8
5.9
3.8
5.2
5.9
5.8
6.4
5.8
108
track
6.89
6.42
6.26
6.37
5.95
4.37
6.32
6.63
6.73
6.63
6.36
Ave
All
6.94
6.35
6.26
5.86
6.04
4.30
6.25
6.43
6.80
6.47
6.33
1
10
11
2
EE Core
Accumulative Averages
S01&S02 F01&F02 All 4 Sem
7.18
1 7.12
1
7.15 6.72
6.23
6.45
3
6.35 6.73
5.91
6.23
6.09 6.69
5.84
5.43 10
5.61 5.60
6.21 6.17
6.37
2 6.08
4.34 11 4.31 11
4.32 4.22
5.57
6.14
5.89 5.99
9
5.12 10 6.25
5.75 5.79
6.29
6.96
2
6.66 6.22
5.56
6.05 6.31
9 6.45
6.32 6.45
6.34
3 6.30
EE Core + Track Averages
CpE
EP
Sys
Track Averages (no EE core)
CpE
EP
Sys
6.72
6.73
6.69
5.60
6.17
4.22
5.99
5.79
6.22
6.31
6.45
2
1
3
10
11
9
7.61
7.18
7.37
6.77
7.42
5.67
7.92
6.95
7.94
7.33
7.75
1
10
11
3
9
2
7.44
6.90
6.78
5.32
6.71
4.27
6.11
6.37
6.77
7.00
6.38
1
3
10
11
9
2
7.07
6.42
6.20
5.61
6.20
4.31
5.91
5.76
6.58
6.10
6.34
1
3
10
11
9
2
7.20
6.44
6.22
5.73
6.33
4.46
6.09
5.87
6.79
6.18
6.46
1
3
10
11
9
2
7.19
6.42
6.17
5.58
6.27
4.32
5.92
5.83
6.67
6.17
6.33
1
3
10
11
9
2
Figure 3.24. Weighted Averages used to Compile and Assess Outcome Averages for Additional Groups of Courses (Programs).
56
Objective A
Objective B
Objective C
Objective D
Objective E
S01 Core
F01 Core
S02 Core
F02 Core
7.18
6.46
7.34
6.43
7.19
6.36
7.00
6.44
6.05
5.72
6.63
5.83
6.43
5.92
6.35
5.85
5.77
4.85
6.11
5.90
6.07
5.83
6.29
5.87
6.09
6.25
5.46
7.14
5.58
6.96
5.41
6.94
6.84
4.87
5.98
5.45
5.86
5.41
6.14
5.36
4.41
4.35
4.26
4.29
4.91
64.58
6.06
64.35
6.29
63.56
6.20
64.40
4.24
40.04
6.08
40.84
6.08
41.42
6.36
40.93
Ranking:
5.79
33.92
7.04
41.28
6.84
40.81
6.91
41.10
4.72
18.76
6.54
21.42
6.47
20.87
6.40
20.82
6.45
24.35
6.11
27.24
6.23
27.04
6.42
26.79
Obj. D (Life-long Learning) is consistantly high
Obj. A (Kn. & Skills) is usually a close second
Obj. E (Minority) is consistantly low
EE Core
S01&S02 F01&F02 All 4
Objective A
Objective B
Objective C
Objective D
Objective E
High=
Track Averages (no EE core)
CpE
EP
Sys
Bold
Low=
Ital
EE Core + Track Averages
CpE
EP
Sys
7.18
6.41
7.12
6.44
7.15
6.42
6.72
6.55
7.61
7.47
7.44
6.84
7.07
6.45
7.20
6.53
7.19
6.48
6.23
5.81
6.45
5.73
6.35
5.83
6.73
5.79
7.18
7.20
6.90
5.85
6.42
5.82
6.44
5.97
6.42
5.83
5.91
5.32
6.23
5.88
6.09
5.63
6.69
5.62
7.37
6.79
6.78
6.11
6.20
5.63
6.22
5.75
6.17
5.69
5.84
6.37
6.59
5.13
5.05
6.08
7.01
5.32
5.61
6.21
6.82
5.27
5.60
6.17
6.38
5.33
6.77
7.42
7.83
6.55
5.32
6.71
6.99
5.58
5.61
6.20
6.74
5.28
5.73
6.33
6.93
5.40
5.58
6.27
6.84
5.31
4.34
4.31
4.32
4.22
5.67
4.27
4.31
4.46
4.32
5.57
64.1
6.14
64.4
5.89
64.2
5.99
65.5
7.92
74.7
6.11
68.4
5.91
64.5
6.09
65.3
5.92
64.8
5.12
40.7
6.25
40.1
5.75
40.8
5.79
40.6
6.95
50.4
6.37
41.0
5.76
40.8
5.87
41.8
5.83
40.8
6.29
37.2
6.96
41.2
6.66
39.4
6.22
39.4
7.94
47.5
6.77
42.7
6.58
39.4
6.79
40.2
6.67
39.8
5.56
19.8
6.45
21.0
6.05
20.5
6.31
19.2
7.33
23.5
7.00
21.0
6.10
20.2
6.18
20.8
6.17
20.5
6.34
25.6
6.30
26.6
6.32
26.4
6.45
26.7
7.75
32.8
6.38
27.9
6.34
26.4
6.46
27.0
6.33
26.6
Figure 3.25. Course Assessments (S01--F02, 4 Semesters) Transitioned to Objectives (Applying the Outcome-Objective Transition Matrix).
57
Figure 3.26. The Newly Developed Prerequisite Survey.
3.10.4. Prerequisite Survey
The 2002-03 Assessment Committee also developed a Prerequisite Survey (Figure 3.26) to
facilitate the tracking of material covered in those courses and to assess their relevance or value
to the course that follows. The Prerequisite Survey is intended to be filled in by the instructor of
the current course to evaluate the students’ preparedness in the relevant background material
from the prerequisite course(s).
58
3.10.5. IAB and SAB Surveys
The Interface Committee solicits and receives feedback from the constituencies. Our primary
constituencies are industry, alumni, and students who are represented by the Industrial Advisory
Board (IAB) and the Student Advisory Board (SAB). The SAB produced a questionnaire for the
students in the Fall of 2002, shortly before the IAB meeting.
A summary of the results of the SAB questionnaire is shown in Figure 3.27 below. The scores
are on a scale of 1-5, with 5 being the highest. The results show that the students are relatively
satisfied with the courses, projects and teaching in the department.
Avg. Score:
Questions:
1)
2)
Faculty instructional quality
a)
Faculty present material in the context of real-world applications
3.8
b)
Faculty instill a sense of lifelong learning
3.6
c)
Faculty are technically proficient
4.1
d)
Faculty are able to effectively deliver course material
3.7
e)
Consistency in course material among faculty teaching the same course
3.5
Quality of laboratory courses
a)
b)
c)
3)
Teaching Assistance (TA)
i)
TAs are technically proficient
3.2
ii)
TAs are able to effectively deliver course material
2.7
iii)
TAs should be required to attend a short-course in verbal communication
4.4
Lab Coursework
i)
How well does the lab-work compliment the classroom-work?
3.5
ii)
Does the lab teach practical and applicable skills?
3.5
iii)
Do you feel labs effectively teach Troubleshooting?
3.2
Lab facilities
i)
Functionality
3.3
ii)
Quality of Equipment
3.0
iii)
Availability of quality components
3.1
Coursework structure
a)
Department’s adherence to the projected course schedule
3.7
b)
Feasibility of the recommended EE curriculum check sheet
3.6
c)
Consistency of course material from semester to semester
3.6
59
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
d)
Structure of prerequisites
3.5
e)
Track curricula is well organized and course are available to facilitate completion
3.4
Quality of research facilities
a)
Do you feel you have been sufficiently informed regarding the purpose and function
of the EE research facilities?
b)
Have you had an opportunity to utilize one of the EE research facilities?
3.0
3.2
i)
If yes, please rate your experience.
3.8
ii)
If not, rate your desire to participate
4.1
Quality of EE X96 Design Projects
a)
Technical content and skills
3.8
b)
Development of Team working skills
4.0
c)
Motivation for life long learning in engineering
4.0
d)
Exposure to modern engineering tools and practices
3.9
e)
Use of creativity and design skills
4.0
Quality of student activities in the department
a)
Rate your ability/availability to participate in extracurricular student activities (e.g.,
activities outside of your classes including IEEE, HKN, etc.)
b)
Rate the Department’s efforts to accommodate extracurricular student activities
3.1
3.3
Ethics
a)
Rate your exposure to professional ethics in your coursework
3.4
b)
Rate the quality of ethics amongst students
3.4
Registration and Academic advising
a)
Rate the ease of registering for Electrical Engineering courses
3.5
b)
Rate the quality/utility of academic advising
3.7
Please rate your overall experience in the Department of Electrical Engineering
3.6
Figure 3.27. Student Questionnaire Results, Fall 2002. Scale: 1-5 (highest).
The recommendations from the SAB are included next. Text taken directly from reports is
underlined.
60
The following comments outline new issues not previously addressed last year, and are the
opinions/concerns of the SAB. This section has been divided into Faculty, Coursework,
Laboratories, Student Projects, and Student Experience (which includes activities, registration,
advising, and overall experience).
1.1. Faculty
1.1.1.
Outstanding faculty do not receive significant recognition from students.
1.1.1.1.
A handsome Outstanding/Inspirational Award could be given each semester to professors
who go beyond the call of the classroom.
1.1.2.
Lack of faculty orientation, such as the research they do and the facilities they work in.
1.1.2.1.
“Faculty Day”, an short event where professors give a short introduction/presentation of
themselves and the labs they utilize. This can open the door to x96 project possibilities,
and produce an understanding of their professor’s specialty.
1.1.3.
Student input from “Course Evaluations” have no effect.
1.1.3.1.
Put up a student bulletin board, where comments on a professor, class, etc. can be left as an
open forum (post surveys?).
1.2. Coursework
1.2.1.
Lack of understanding/motivation in engineering.
1.2.1.1.
1.2.2.
EE101.
Misunderstanding/confusion of professional ethics.
1.3. Laboratories
1.3.1.
Lack of trade skills (equipment/troubleshooting).
1.3.1.1.
1.3.2.
Little integration of simulators, software assistance (i.e. MATLAB)
1.3.2.1.
1.3.3.
Integration with existing lab/course.
Little correlation between course and lab.
1.3.3.1.
1.3.4.
Integration with existing lab/course (EE211?).
Professors stop by.
Lab experience poor.
1.3.4.1.
Course re-evaluation, overhaul.
1.4. Student Projects
1.4.1.
Currently doing well.
1.5. Student Experience
1.5.1.
Lack of EE gathering location, hangout, lounge area.
61
1.5.1.1.
Unknown solution. Would promote department cohesiveness.
2. Improvements to the SAB next year
2.1. Improve/develop SAB Webpage
2.1.1.
Informative
2.1.2.
Logged minutes from SAB meetings
2.1.3.
Suggestions/concerns box/forum
2.1.4.
Future goals
2.2. Further refining Survey
2.2.1.
Rewording of a few questions to allow for Yes/No.
2.2.2.
Very precise directions to Non-EE majors filling out survey.
2.3. Student Interviews/Open Forum
2.4. Further developed board policy
2.5. Internal management, organization, policy
2.6. Organize future board by end of Spring ’03
A summary of the response from the IAB after the meeting in 2002 is follows. Numbers in
brackets following the comments rank the priority on a scale of 1-10 with 10 being the highest.
Use lecturers and more (and better quality) TAs. Investigate ways to address student concerns
w/ TA communication skills. Most major universities successfully utilizes lecturers. The
resource pool in Hawaii is probably greater than they think. Also, many professors would kill
for a chance at a sabbatical in Hawaii (appeal to them during the winter). [8]
Great idea. You may even be able to attract ABD graduate students from mainland universities
and from Europe that way.
Close the loop back w/ the SAB student survey. Ensure that every attempt is made to address
their concerns and then “advertise” the results. [9]
Beef up controls and comm (esp. wireless) areas. Controls expertise is needed for many
applications. Comm needs will once again explode in a few years. [5]
I agree, and furthermore comms continue to be of great interest to the defense industry.
Have more space-oriented courses and activities. The Aerospace industry is predominantly
located on the west coast where most UH grads will relocate to. [7]
Other than comms, I’m not sure what else can be covered adequately in an undergraduate
curriculum regarding space. Robotics is too specialized and advanced. Same with high62
radiation physics and electronics. Aeronautics/astronautics is an entirely different discipline.
Good engineering principles and program/project management skills are more valuable than
specific knowledge of space systems.
Arrange one course that provides business management and program management exposure. [6]
Formally teach s/w tools that are commonly used in industry (Labview, Matlab, etc.). Apply
them in research projects and labs. [7]
Also include hands-on use of embedded operating systems such as VxWorks, at least in the
computing track.
If possible, reduce lab group size from 3 to 2 students. If not possible, identify three roles within
the lab group and rotate the roles for each lab session --need to have the TA enforce this, though.
Consider limiting the (x96) project group size to three students. The system-track project
presented at the IAB meeting had 5-6 students on it. This seems like a large group to ensure
everyone gets a fair share of the project and is contributing to the level expected from students
working in a smaller group. [9]
Develop and enforce an Honor Code to help emphasize ethics. [9]
Use 1-credit, C/NC seminars. Perhaps some seminars like that could address some things like
ethics and what engineers do, as brought up by the student board. The old EE 101 might be a
model for one such seminar. [no score]
Encourage and reward faculty mentoring. Encourage alumni to get involved. Implement a
process to get feedback from alumni, perhaps at specific time periods (e.g., 1 year after
graduation, 3 yrs after, 5 yrs after). Collect information such as track/emphasis studied,
employment/ graduate school, area of employment/focus of graduate studies, position or tasks
involved. Also get their take on which department objectives/outcomes were most relevant
during their post-UH experience. [8]
Increase the number of credits required for graduation. I think the concern over the time to
graduate might be a tad overblown. Rather than look at the average time it takes for a student to
graduate, it might make more sense to look at the average time to graduate from the time a
student starts his/her first calculus class, since the calculus sequence is really a prerequisite to the
entire EE (and CE and ME, for that matter) curriculum. [no score]
Investigate impact of dropping power engineering sequence. [5]
Assess costs/value of creating and maintaining new CE program vs combined ECE program [2]
Provide outcomes assessment data to IAB. [3]
Develop 5-yr plan to automate the assessment process (web-based portal for data capture and
access). [4]
63
IAB meeting was better organized this year. Good mix of members, hopefully more can attend
next time. Department did an outstanding job of preparing agenda and hosting.
IAB Documents CD is a great way to capture program information, ABET criteria, and prior
program changes. Worked well for preparing for IAB meeting. Note book also well organized
and effective. It would have been extremely useful for compilation and discussion purposes if all
IAB members utilized laptops for their inputs. Perhaps next time, computers could be made
available (even better, the utilization of collaboration tools).
The set of committees (IC, AC, UCC, SAB, IAB) that has been established appears to an
effective approach to accomplish the assessment process by dividing the responsibilities among a
broad group of participants without over burdening any one party.
I had difficulty 'projecting' what I saw from the student presentation to the entire student
population. That is, what was true of the students and their presentations was probably not
representative of the general population --but I could not tell for sure. I am not sure how this
could be improved, but perhaps some sort of summary of the grades earned for particular critical
courses (or for the different curriculum areas of emphasis) such as the writing intensive and
speaking intensive courses would be helpful.
As was last year, the SAB was impressive in what they achieved in the amount of time they were
given. They should be organized earlier to give themselves more time to possibly digest the
information from the surveys returned.
For future visits, it would be more helpful if the charter of the IAB were more carefully
delineated. As part of the department’s constituency, the IAB should be asked to provide
feedback regarding the quality of the students as potential employees. I am not sure that having
the IAB fill our ABET-like review questionnaires outside of this charter is helpful.
3.10.6. Faculty Course Assessment
As mentioned in Section 3.5, the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee (UCC) collects Course
Assessment Forms (an example form is shown in Figure 3.2) from course instructors each
semester. Section 3.9 has a description of how the data is evaluated. The data is shown in
Figures 3.6 and 3.7 as Rating Differences for the courses in Fall 2002 and Spring 2003,
respectively. This gives a quick overview of which courses are not meeting expectations
towards achieving Program Outcomes.
3.11. Processes to Apply Assessment Results to Improve the Program
The processes used to apply assessment results to improve the program were discussed in
Section 3.4. In the next section, we discuss some of the changes that have been implemented due
to the processes.
64
3.12. Changes Implemented or Pending Implementation
In this section, a brief summary of major changes to the Department made during 1997-2001 is
given. It is followed by more detailed descriptions of changes implemented during 2001-2002
and 2002-2003, and a list of pending changes and those under study.
3.12.1. Improvements from 1997-2001
Fall 1997:
 EE342 Probability and Statistics required of all majors. This requirement was added in
response to a comment from ABET.
 EE196/296/396/496 Design Project added. This requirement was added in response to a
comment from ABET.
Spring 1998:
 EE201 Electrical Engineering Skills for Transfer Students added. This course eases the
transition for students coming from other programs.
Fall 1998:
 EE160 Programming for Engineers added. This course includes a laboratory component to
provide guided hands-on experience. It replaces EE150 for EE majors.
 EE120 deleted (replaced by EE260 Introduction to Digital Design).
 EE266, EE462, EE463, EE464 deleted (obsolete).
 EE466 changed to EE366 CMOS VLSI Design, becoming a core Computer track
requirement.
Spring 1999:
 EE475 Optical Communications added. This course provides undergraduates with
fundamental knowledge in modern communications.
Fall 1999:
 Math 241, 242, 242L, 243, 244 replace Math 205, 206, 231, 232 to provide better
mathematics background for engineering problem solving.
 Math 302 Introduction to Differential Equations is added to the EE core requirements to
guarantee the necessary background for later EE courses.
Fall 2000:
 EE224 is renumbered to EE324 Physical Electronics.
3.12.2. Improvements for 2001-2002

Undergraduate Program Organization
o New Program Objectives and Outcomes. Based on the requirements set by ABET, and
the inputs received from IAB/SAB, the department has established a new set of
educational objectives and anticipated outcomes. This is described in Section 2.1.
65
o Faculty Committees and Work Flow. Several new committees were formed so that there
is a systematic approach to receiving inputs from constituents, evaluating these inputs,
and then acting upon them to achieve an on-going improvement in the curriculum. The
committees are the following:
Interface Committee, Assessment Committee,
Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, and the ABET Core Committee. Committee
duties were determined together with how they are to interact, including a time schedule.

Faculty
o Successful Recruitment of Faculty. Drs. Olga Boric-Lubecke and Victor Lubecke joined
us in January 2003. Olga Lubecke’s area is in analog circuit design, with applications in
the wireless communications. Victor Lubecke’s area is in MEMS, and semiconductor
devices. They will significantly enhance our teaching and research capabilities in the
Electro-Physics area. These additions address the issue of upgrading the analog circuit
curriculum as was suggested during the previous IAB/SAB feedback sessions. Dr.
Yingfei Dong will join us in August 2003. His areas of interest are computer architecture
and networks (including network security). This addition significantly improves the
computer engineering component of our program.
o Positions for New Faculty: We are currently recruiting faculty in the digital/mixed
circuits, analog/mixed circuits and control/optimization areas to further strengthen the
department in course offerings and research. To provide a mechanism for student input
to this process, recruitment seminars are widely publicized and open to all. When
possible, interview sessions with candidates are arranged for students.

Facilities and Resources
o Recent Equipment Upgrades. Over the last three years the Department of Electrical
Engineering has made a concerted effort to upgrade undergraduate instructional and
computer labs. New equipment and computers were purchased for the basic circuits,
analog circuits, digital circuits, and communications labs. Further improvements are
planned, subject to the availability of funds. This issue was part of the IAB/SAB
feedback.
o New Multimedia Teaching Facility. We opened a new multimedia facility (Holmes 389)
with computer projection and distance learning capabilities to enhance classroom
instruction. This room has capabilities similar to the Donald Kim classroom in the POST
building. This room was used for several courses starting in Spring 2003. The need for
more courses taught in such facilities was indicated by the SAB.

Curriculum. During Spring 2002, the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee (UCC) received
feedback from the IAB, SAB, Interface Committee and faculty about the state of the
curriculum. The Committee addressed each of the issues. For some of the issues, no action
was taken because they were beyond the scope of the program. Some others were viewed as
being already adequately addressed by the curriculum. For example, it was suggested that
66
EE 342 (EE Probability and Statistics) should cover the design of experiments. However, the
Committee found that this topic was more appropriate as part of a graduate course, and
therefore beyond the scope of the undergraduate program. For other issues, the Committee
drafted proposals to change the curriculum to address them.
The draft was presented to the EE faculty in May 2002 and September 2002. Some of the
proposals were accepted, and the rest are under further study. The proposals for further study
are included in Section 3.12.3.
The following were accepted into the curriculum.
o Design Your Own Track (DYOT): The IAB/SAB found the existing Track System
(Electro-Physics, Computers, and Systems) to be restrictive. It did not encourage students
to take other courses that better fit their career goals. As a result, the department has
implemented a new system that allows a student, in consultation with a faculty advisor, to
choose his or her own set of Technical Electives. The set must be equivalent to a track,
and approved by the Department’s Undergraduate Curriculum Committee.
o Engineering Breadth: The requirement of either CEE 270 (Applied Mechanics I) or ME
311 (Thermodynamics) has been relaxed. The new requirement is any 300-level, 3credit, non-EE engineering or physical/biological science course. This new requirement
is known as “Engineering Breadth”. This change is based on the comments of the IAB
and SAB that CEE 270 and ME 311 have questionable usefulness for electrical engineers
and therefore should not be required. However, having a non-EE engineering (or related)
course requirement was viewed as desirable because it enhanced a broader view of
engineering.
o Matlab for EE 213: It was suggested that Matlab be required since it is a standard tool.
Matlab is now a required topic in EE 213 (Basic Circuit Analysis II).
Appendix V has documentation on this process. Appendix V-A is a report by the UCC on
how they addressed each issue raised by the IAB and SAB. For example, in the report, there
is a Section 2 “Course Requirements,” which has proposed changes to the course
requirements. There is a Subsection 2.1 “IC 2002 Report and our responses”, which lists all
issues from the IAB and SAB in regards to course requirements, and the responses from the
UCC to each issue. Appendix V-B is the UCC report on the changes to the curriculum that
were accepted by the EE faculty. Appendices V-C and V-D have the annual reports by the
UCC explaining their activities for the academic years 2001-02 and 2002-03, respectively.
3.12.3. Improvements for 2002-2003
Based on IAB/SAB feedback from Fall 2002, five key areas for possible improvement were
identified and assigned to the ABET Committees and the Department Chair:
TA quality/quantity (Chair): The department currently has 8 (.5 FTE) teaching assistants
supported by general funds. Due to a lack of other resources for graduate student recruitment,
these positions have been used to bring (primarily international) students into our program. The
67
University requires a minimum TOEFL score of 600 for TA appointees. However, in some cases
the correlation between TOEFL scores and ability to communicate verbally has been poor.
To help address this problem, whenever possible substantially higher TOEFL scores are being
given preference, as are academically qualified native English speakers. Attempts to address this
via phone interviews were also made in the past, with some success. The Department Chair (who
is also Graduate Chair) has now undertaken phone interviews with any applicants for which
communication skills are in doubt.
A mandatory TA training program has been established campus-wide, which will be
supplemented by departmental training and mentoring. This is expected to contribute
substantially to improving TA performance.
In order to improve the number of TA candidates that enroll, offers in excess of the 8 existing
positions have been made. Visa problems, in particular, have motivated this approach. The Dean
of the College of Engineering has agreed to provide financial help if needed. Requests have also
been made to increase the number of funded TA positions in the department. Unfortunately,
these requests have not so far proven successful.
Improve communications for X96 projects and facilitate matching of students to
projects/supervisors (Core): All undergraduate students are required to complete a capstone
design project via the EE196/296/396/496 series of courses, referred to generically as X96
projects. EE196 is an optional Freshman course, providing a means for early identification of a
project and supervisor. Students must take at least one credit of EE 296, Sophomore Projects and
two credits of EE 396, Junior Projects to prepare for the EE 496 Capstone Design Project.
Because student involvement with the faculty is somewhat limited at the sophomore level,
students may have some difficulty in identifying a supervisor. The situation improves at the
junior and senior levels, but it has been observed (particularly through our Student Advisory
Board) that finding a suitable project is sometimes difficult.
The appropriate solution to this problem is still under study. One approach that has been
suggested is a webpage. A natural location for the link to this page would be under the
Undergraduate Information section of the departmental website.
Review EE211/EE213 labs (UCC): Comments from the Industrial and Student Advisory
Boards suggested that the laboratory facilities for EE 211 Basic Circuit Analysis I and EE 213
Basic Circuit Analysis II could be improved. The Undergraduate Curriculum Committee
investigated this in April 2003 but found the laboratories to be in adequate condition. The
laboratories were kept neat, new equipment was purchased, and there were adequate numbers of
equipment. However, the Committee did suggest to the Department Chair that the laboratory
could use more personal computers to facilitate using computer aided design tools. The
Committee suspects that the low rating by the Boards were primarily from the students who were
at the senior level. They may have experienced the laboratories when they were in worse shape a
few years ago.
68
Nonetheless, new workbenches, new (digital sampling) oscilloscopes, and new power supplies
have been ordered for these laboratories. As funds permit, additional computers will be installed.
Establish a resume bank in cooperation with HKN and/or IEEE (Interface): At the
suggestion of the Industrial Affiliates Board, a resume bank is being established. This will
facilitate placement of our students, and will aid our IAB members in justifying their taking part
in our yearly meetings.
Review and improve assessment instruments (Assessment): There are three specific areas that
appear can be improved: i) Increasing the utility of the IAB questionnaire (increasing the
coupling to our mission, objective and outcomes); ii) Doing the same for the SAB questionnaire,
and iii) Automating survey tabulation to the degree possible. To address item iii, an optical mark
reader and questionnaire design software has been purchased.
An additional item for improvement has been identified by a retention consultant from NoelLevitz, hired by the College of Engineering to review undergraduate issues College-wide. It was
observed that access to computing facilities in the College is comparatively limited. To address
this issue, the department is moving our general access computing lab to a substantially larger
room, and will upgrade and add additional facilities as funds permit. It is planned to hire student
assistants to allow the lab to be open additional hours.
3.12.3. Continuing Work
The following are continuing work by faculty to improve the curriculum. They are responses to
feedback from the IAB, SAB, and faculty.

Advanced Mathematics: A committee has been formed to study the need for additional
advanced mathematics courses in the curriculum. The particular topics are linear algebra
and discrete mathematics for engineers. It was concluded that such topics were best
taught outside the Department. It was found that appropriate discrete mathematics
courses are already offered in the Department of Information and Computer Science and
the Department of Mathematics. The Department of Mathematics currently has a course
on linear algebra, MATH 311. Currently this course does not include topics typically
used in Electrical Engineering, such as eigenvalues, but focuses more on proof
techniques, and is not well suited for electrical engineering. The Department of
Mathematics offered to make a version of MATH 311 with an applied focus, “applied
linear algebra,” but the department found the mathematics course load might become too
high if this was required of all students. Instead the committee is exploring making a
combined linear algebra/linear differential equations course to replace the currently
required course on linear differential equations, MATH 302.

Written and Oral Communication Skills: It is generally believed that technical writing
and oral communication skills of the students need improvement. A group of Electrical
Engineering faculty, in consultation with the Director of the University of Hawaii Manoa
Writing Program, is evaluating the methods with which this can be accomplished. A
proposal currently under consideration is to develop a College of Engineering Technical
69
Communication Center, lead by a fulltime director with background in technical
communications. The Director of the center would supervise a staff composed of student
employees, with demonstrated communication skills predominately at the graduate level,
who would tutor students on writing. The center would also provide resources to help
faculty teach writing- and speaking-intensive courses in the context of the disciplines
within the college. Preliminary investigations show that there are many universities that
have such centers. As an additional effort to improve student's technical communication
skills, the director would teach a course at the junior-level, open to all departments in the
College of Engineering, that would address both oral and written communication skills.
The faculty members investigating this issue believe that such a course would be
particularly beneficial to students as they proceed through the senior curriculum. This
proposal was submitted to the Interim Assistant Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs in
January 2003, with approval pending.

Ethics Education: We would like to improve our ethics education so that it is more
directly related to the electrical engineering profession. In addition, the University
General Education requires that all students must take a course that emphasizes
Contemporary Ethical Issues, i.e., an “E” course. We are investigating how a student
could fulfill the “E” requirement with an electrical engineering focus. One option is to
develop a new EE or general engineering course that satisfies the University’s “E”
requirement and perhaps will address societal and environmental issues too. The UH
requirement that these courses be at the upper division (300-level or above) makes it
difficult to satisfy the requirement in any other way. Unfortunately, staffing such a course
at this time is extremely problematic.

Improving the IAB/SAB Process: The meetings with the IAB and SAB are a major
undertaking for the Department which can take several months of planning. The
Interface Committee is continually revising the organization and itineraries of these
meetings to make them more effective. For example, in past meetings, there were few
representatives of design projects (EE 296, 396, and 496) from the Systems Track for the
SAB to evaluate. Another example was that the SAB wanted a more typical collection of
students to interview rather than the best students. The comments by the IAB/SAB have
been noted and are being acted upon by the Interface Committee.

General issues: a) The department chair will make efforts to ensure that the same book is
used for a given course if two different faculty teach the same course during a semester.
b) The training of teaching assistants is now required by the Graduate Division, provided
by the campus-wide Center for Teaching Excellence. The department will supplement
this training, including providing ongoing mentorship for teaching assistants. In the past,
the vast majority of TA’s have been international students, some of whom have had only
moderate communication skills. As before, these students will be encouraged to take
courses in English. In addition, language skills have been given increased priority in the
assignment of teaching assistantships. In cases where skills are difficult to determine
from the candidate’s application, telephone interviews are being conducted. c) The
foreign language requirement has been waived for EE students.
70

Lifelong Learning: Life-long learning can be viewed as composed of (i) having the
ability to self-learn new techniques, knowledge, etc and (ii) recognizing that a successful
electrical engineer must continue to learn. Some of the courses, especially project
courses, promote self-learning by allowing students to learn on their own or with little
supervision. It is unclear at this time what additional changes can be made to promote
item (ii).
It should be noted that EE courses have some emphasis on lifelong learning as indicated
in Figures 3.3 and 3.4. Program Outcome 9 is the recognition of the need for lifelong
learning, and as shown in the figures there is at least some emphasis of this outcome in
most EE courses. Student survey results indicate that students are gaining an
understanding of the importance of lifelong learning.

A More Relevant Curriculum: The IAB/SAB would like to see a more integrated
curriculum so that students are comfortable using skills from multiple sub-disciplines to
solve design problems. Some of our courses do this, but more could be done. The
IAB/SAB would also like to see more design oriented courses that use CAD tools as
much as possible. Again, some of our courses are design oriented, but the design content
of others could be increased.
3.13. Materials Available for Review During ABET Visit

Course Assessment Forms as shown in Figure 3.2, completed by Course Coordinators
and instructors.

Course materials including instructor evaluations, examples of student exams and other
work for all EE courses.

Exit surveys.

Alumni surveys.

Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, and Senior (Capstone design project) reports.

Industrial Advisory Board / Student Advisory Board / EE Department meeting materials.
71
4. PROFESSIONAL COMPONENT
It will be explained how the curriculum devotes adequate attention and time to each curricular
component area and described how students are prepared for electrical engineering as required
by Criterion 4. An overview of the curriculum is presented in Subsection 4.1, which describes
how students are prepared for electrical engineering practice through course work.
The
curriculum will be shown to have at least one year of a combination of college level mathematics
and basic sciences, at least one and one-half years of engineering topics, and a general education
component.
At the end of the section there is an explanation of special topics, directed reading, and inactive
courses in the curriculum. Inactive courses are not currently being taught and therefore no
syllabi or course assessments are provided for them.
Section 4.2 presents the design experience in the curriculum. It is a major component in training
students for engineering practice. Design experience comes through course work and projects,
and culminates in the senior capstone design project, which is the major design experience. The
section explains how the design experience incorporates engineering standards and realistic
constraints.
We should note that Appendix I has supporting documentation. In the appendix, Table I-1 has a
summary of the Basic-Level Curriculum, and Table I-2 has the Course and Section Size
Summary. Appendix I.B has all the course syllabi.
4.1. Overview of Curriculum Requirements
The bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering requires 122 credit hours. This includes
courses in mathematics, basic science, engineering, and general education. They satisfy
requirements by the College of Engineering, the Department of Electrical Engineering, and the
University. In this document they are organized into three categories: Mathematics and Basic
Science, Engineering Topics, and General Education. Engineering Topics are further divided
into Engineering Required and EE Technical Electives. Sections 4.1.1, 4.1.2, and 4.1.3 discuss,
respectively, Mathematics and Basic Sciences, Engineering Topics, and General Education.
Section 4.1.4 discusses inactive courses.
4.1.1. Mathematics and Basic Sciences
There are 38 credit hours (over one year) of mathematics and basic sciences which addresses the
professional component of EC 2002.
There are 20 credit hours of mathematics that includes Calculus I (basic concepts; differentiation
with applications; integration) through IV (multiple integrals; line integrals and Green’s
Theorem; surface integrals, Stoke’s and Gauss’s Theorems), and differential equations. It also
includes a thorough understanding of probability and statistics in EE 342 (3 credit hours).
72
There are 18 credit hours of basic sciences comprised of general chemistry and a sequence of
three courses in physics. This includes three 1 credit-hour laboratories.

Mathematics (20 hrs). The required mathematics courses are comprised of 16 credit hours of
lecture and 1 credit hour of lab.








Math 241 Calculus I (4 hrs)
Math 242 Calculus II (3 hrs)
Math 242L Calculus Computer Lab (1 hr)
Math 243 Calculus III (3 hrs)
Math 244 Calculus IV (3 hrs)
Math 302 Introduction to Differential Equations (3 hrs)
EE 342 EE Probability and Statistics (3 hrs)
Basic Sciences (18 hrs). The basic science courses are comprised of 7 credits hours of
chemistry including 1 credit hour of lab, and 11 credit hours of physics including two 1
credit-hour laboratories.








Chem 161 General Chemistry I (3 hrs)
Chem 161L General Chemistry Lab I (1 hr)
Chem 162 General Chemistry II (3 hrs)
Phys 170 General Physics I (3 hrs)
Phys 170L General Physics I Lab (1 hr)
Phys 272 General Physics II (3 hrs)
Phys 272L General Physics II Lab (1 hr)
Phys 274 General Physics III (3 hrs)
4.1.2. Engineering Topics
The requirement of engineering and related courses is 58 credit hours, which is more than the 1.5
years of engineering topics for the EC 2002 professional component. In this report, they are
divided into “Engineering Required” and “EE Technical Electives”.
Engineering Required covers fundamental topics in electrical engineering. It includes 6 credit
hours of project courses as an important component to the design experience. It also includes a 3
credit-hour “engineering breadth” requirement to broaden the knowledge of engineering and
related sciences. The following are the Engineering Required courses.

Engineering Required (42 hrs)
o Circuits (12 hrs)
EE 211 Basic Circuit Analysis I (4 hrs)
EE 213 Basic Circuit Analysis II (4 hrs)
EE 323 Microelectronic Circuits I (3 hrs)
EE 323L Microelectronic Circuits I Lab (1 hr)
o Computer Software and Digital Hardware
EE 160 Programming for Engineers (4 hrs)
73
o
o
o
o
o
EE 260 Introduction to Digital Design (4 hrs)
Signals and Systems
EE 315 Signal and System Analysis (3 hrs)
EE 341 Introduction to Communication Systems (3 hrs)
EE 341L Introduction to Communication Systems Lab (1 hr)
Electro-Magnetics
EE 371 Engineering Electromagmetics I (3 hrs)
Solid-State Devices
EE 324 Physical Electronics (3 hrs)
Projects
EE 296 Sophomore Project (1 hr)
EE 396 Junior Project (2 hrs)
EE 496 Capstone Design Project (3 hrs)
Engineering Breadth (3 hrs). This is satisfied by CEE 270 Applied Mechanics I, ME
311 Thermodynamics, or a CEE, ME, OE or BE course that is at the 300 level or
higher. It may also be satisfied by a physical or biological science course that is at
the 300 level or higher and approved by the Department’s Undergraduate Curriculum
Committee. The current list of approved courses is in Figure 4.1. Note that the list
includes non-engineering courses. As a result, we do not count Engineering Breadth
towards the 58 credits of Engineering Topics. In Table I-1, Engineering Breadth is
listed under “Other.”
The Engineering Required portion of the curriculum is designed to introduce EE courses to
students as soon as possible. EE 160, 260, 211 and 213 should be taken during the first two
years of college. Each has a laboratory component, equivalent to 1 credit hour, to supplement
lectures with hands-on experiments and projects. All sophomores are required to take EE 296
“Sophomore Project,” a project course of 1 credit hour. It introduces them to EE project
activities.
The remaining courses are taken in the third and fourth years. This includes two 1 credit-hour
laboratories, EE 323L and EE 341L, for additional hands-on experience.
EE Technical Electives are upper division courses. They are advanced courses with prerequisites from Engineering Required or other EE Technical Electives. They are divided into
three “Tracks”: Computers, Electro-Physics, and Systems. The Computer Track is focused on
computer hardware and software. The Electro-Physics Track is focused on the EE applications
of physics and chemistry, and covers analog circuits, micro- and millimeter-wave engineering,
optics, and solid-state devices. The Systems Track is focused on signals and systems, and covers
communications, controls, and signal processing. Tracks allow students to explore specialized
topics of their choice. The exploration is in depth and yet provides breadth within a track.
Students that find the track system too restrictive may, with the help and consent of a faculty
advisor, propose an alternate set of electives, i.e., students may design their own track. The
alternate set requires approval from the Department’s Undergraduate Curriculum Committee.
The EE Technical Electives requirement is 20 credit hours. A minimum of 17 hours must be in
one of the major tracks, which includes all courses in Group I (11 hours) and the remaining
74
courses in Group II (6 hours). Group I courses include at least two 1-credit hour laboratories. In
the Systems Track, one of the labs is a component of EE 415 Digital Signal Processing. Note
that Group I is for breadth within a track, while Group II is for depth. A minimum of 3 credit
hours must be outside the major track and at the 300 level or higher.

EE Technical Electives
 Computer Track
 Group I (11 hrs)
EE 361 Digital Systems and Computer Design (3 hrs)
EE 361L Digital Systems and Computer Design Lab (1 hr)
EE 366 CMOS VLSI Design (3 hrs)
EE 367 Computer Data Structures and Algorithms (3 hrs)
EE 367L Computer Data Structures and Algorithms Lab (1 hr)
 Group II
EE 344 Networking I (4 hrs)
EE 449 Computer Communication Networks (3 hrs)
EE 461 Computer Architecture (3 hrs)
EE 467 Object-Oriented Software Engineering (3 hrs)
EE 468 Introduction to Operating Systems (3 hrs)
EE 469 Wireless Data Networks (3 hrs)
 Electro-Physics Track
 Group I (11 hrs)
EE 326 Microelectronics Circuits II (3 hrs)
EE 326L Microelectronics Circuits II Lab (1 hr)
EE 327 Theory and Design of IC Devices (3 hrs)
EE 372 Engineering Electromagnetics II (3 hrs)
EE 372L Engineering Electromagnetics II Lab (1 hr)
 Group II
EE 328 (3 hrs) Physical Electronics Lab Techniques
EE 328L (1 hr) Physical Electronics Lab
EE 422 (3 hrs) Electronic Instrumentation
EE 422L (1 hr) Instrumentation Lab
EE 426 (3 hrs) Advanced Si IC and Solid State Devices
EE 473 (3 hrs) Microwave Engineering
EE 475 (3 hrs) Optical Communications
 System Track
 Group I (8 hrs)
EE 351 Linear Systems and Control (3 hrs)
EE 351L Linear Systems and Control Lab (1 hr)
EE 415 Digital Signal Processing (4 hrs)
 Group II
EE 344 Networks I (4 hrs)
EE 442 Digital Communications (3 hrs)
EE 449 Computer Communication Networks (3 hrs)
EE 452 Digital Control Systems (3 hrs)
EE 453 Modern Control Theory (3 hrs)
75
4.1.3. General Education
University General Education has the following requirements.

Foundation: This is intended to give students skills and perspectives that are fundamental to
undertaking higher education. For engineering students, this is satisfied by
o ENG 100 Composition I (3 hrs)
o Global and Multicultural Perspectives (6 hrs). Example courses are HIST 151 World
Civilization, ART 176 Survey of Global Art, and GEOG 151 Geography and
Contemporary Society.

Diversification: This is intended to assure that every student has a broad exposure to
different domains of academic knowledge, while at the same time allowing flexibility for
students with different goals and interests. For engineering students, this is satisfied by
o SP 251 Principles of Effective Public Speaking (3 hrs).
o ECON 120 Introduction to Economics (3 hrs). This can be substituted with ECON
130 or 131.

Hawaiian or Second Language: This is intended to “prepare students to function effectively
in a global society,” to “preserve and promulgate Hawaiian, Asian, and Pacific language,
history, and culture and [to] provide students an education experience with an international
dimension.” This has been waived for engineering students.

Focus Classes: This identifies important additional skills and discourses which can be
provided through courses across the curriculum. A more detailed description is given below.
There are four types of Focus Classes: Writing Intensive (W); Hawaiian, Asian, and Pacific
Issues (H); Oral Communication (O); and Contemporary Ethical Issues (E). All students must
take five W courses (minimum 2 in upper division), one H course, one O, and one E course.
These requirements can be satisfied by EE and Diversification courses. An example EE course
is EE 496, which is also a W course. An example of a Diversification course is SP 251, which is
also an O course.
Among the four types of Focus Classes, the W, O, and E classes help facilitate EE Program
Outcomes. Specifically, they contribute to Outcomes 6 (understanding of professional and
ethical responsibility) and 7 (demonstrated an ability to communicate effectively). The
following highlights some of the features of these Focus Classes.
Writing Intensive (W): A W course uses writing to promote the learning of course materials,
and provides interaction between the instructor and students while students do assigned
writing. It has a substantial amount of writing – a minimum of 4000 words or about 16
pages. Written assignments contribute significantly to a student’s course grade, typically
40% or more.
76
Oral Communication (O): In an O course, each student will conduct or participate in a
minimum of three oral communication assignments, which will contribute to at least 40% of
the student’s final grade. Each student will receive explicit training in oral communication
and will receive feedback, critiquing and grading of the oral communication assignments.
Contemporary Ethical Issues (E): An E course will have the equivalent of one credit hour or
30% of a 3 credit hour course will be devoted to contemporary issues, and a minimum of 8
hours of class time will be dedicated to discussing the issues. The disciplinary approach(es)
used in the course will give students tools for the development of responsible deliberation
and ethical judgment. Students will achieve basic competency in analyzing and deliberating
upon contemporary ethical issues to help make ethically determined judgments.
4.1.4. Special Topics, Directed Reading, and Inactive Courses
Special topics (EE 491 “Special Topics in Electrical Engineering” and EE 494 “Provisional
Topics”) and directed reading (EE 499 “Directed Reading”) courses are offered under special
circumstances. Special topics courses are typically on advanced topics, to be offered once or
twice. In many cases, these offerings become regular courses, and the special topics offering is
done as a trial. In directed reading, a student studies a topic under the supervision of a faculty
member. This may involve following a prescribed set of reading assignments. There is no
regular lecture, but it may require periodic meetings. The content of these courses varies.
Therefore, we do not estimate how they contribute to the Program’s Objectives and Outcomes.
A course is inactive if it has not been offered recently nor will it be in the foreseeable future. It
is not critical to the curriculum but remains in the University course catalog because it is within
the interests of one or more faculty member, who may resurrect it. The following are the
inactive courses.











EE 101 Electrical Engineering Skills
EE 423 Computer-Aided Analysis and Design
EE 425 Electronic Instrumentation II
EE 427 Computer-Aided Circuit Design
EE 446 Information Theory and Coding
EE 455 Design of Intelligent Robots
EE 477 Fundamentals of Radar, Sonar, and Navigation Systems
EE 480 Introduction to Biomedical and Clinical Engineering
EE 480L Biomedical Engineering Lab
EE 481 Bioelectrical Phenomena
EE 482 Biomedical Instrumentation
These courses are in the category of EE Technical Elective with the exception of EE 101, which
could be included in the category of Engineering Required.
Before an inactive course can be offered again, it will undergo major reorganization. This will
include updating the contents to the current state-of-the-art in theory, skills, and design
techniques. It must conform to the current resources of the Department. It may require a change
77
in the course title, pre-requisites, and credit hours to reflect new course content. As a result, no
information, such as syllabi and course assessments, were collected for inactive courses.
To prevent students from planning on taking inactive courses listed in the University Course
Catalog, the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee maintains a schedule of “Planned Course
Offerings.” The schedule presents the courses that are to be taught in the next three years. The
schedule is updated each semester before pre-registration by the Committee, and is posted on the
Department’s web site.
4.2. Design Experience in the Curriculum
The curriculum provides design experience so that students are prepared to become successful
engineers. The experience has two components. First, lecture and laboratory courses have
design features such as open-ended design-oriented homework problems, design methodologies
and tools, and design-oriented projects, which may require team activity. They also consider
engineering standards and realistic constraints.
Second, there are three required project courses at the sophomore, junior, and senior levels,
which are EE 296, 396, and 496, respectively. They provide design experience through project
activities. Students select their faculty advisor and project. Projects reflect real engineering
problems and constraints. The project experience promotes lifelong learning because new design
tools and techniques are self-learned. In many cases, projects will be a team effort, with students
from different class levels (sophomores through seniors) and sub-disciplines (computers, electrophysics, and systems). Communication skills are stressed. Each project course requires 30
minutes of oral presentation to the faculty advisor. In addition, the senior design project course
EE 496 is a writing intensive (W) course, which requires writing assignments totaling at least
4000 words or about 16 pages.
Note that in the sophomore and junior level project courses EE 296 and 396, students are not
required to be completely responsible for a design. Instead, they may participate as a member of
a design team, perhaps learning from more senior team leaders. They are expected to learn
design methodologies and tools, participate in some phase of the design process, and get handson project experience. On the other hand, EE 496 is the Senior Capstone Design. In this course,
students are expected to do a major design.
The amount of design in each course is quantified by a “design credit,” which is the amount of
credit hours dedicated to design. The amount of design credits is estimated by the course
coordinator. As an example of design credits, EE 361 (Digital Systems and Computer Design)
has 1 design credit of its 3 credit hours, which means it has a moderate amount of design. On the
other hand, EE 496 (Senior Capstone Design) has 3 design credits out of 3 credit hours, which
means it is entirely dedicated to design. To graduate, a student is required to have 16 design
credits, which is slightly more than a half-a-year’s worth of design. Nine of the design credits
are from the Engineering Required courses, while the other seven design credits are from the EE
Technical Electives. A list of the courses with design credits can be found in Figure 4.2, which
is available to both faculty and students, and can be found on the Department’s web site (wwwee.eng.hawaii.edu).
78
Significant design experience starts from the sophomore level. EE 260, “Introduction to Digital
Design,” is a sophomore level course that has 2 design credits out of its 4 credit hours. Its 4
credit hours are composed of 3 credit hours of lecture and 1 credit hour of laboratory. The
course emphasizes design methodology, from word problems through circuit implementation
using TTL circuits on protoboards. A large fraction of homework assignments (around 30%) are
open-ended design problems or cover design methods, tools, and techniques. The vast majority
of laboratory assignments (approximately 75%) are on designing circuits culminating in two
significant designs, “Electronic Racketball” and “Memory Unit,” that cover 6-7 weeks. The
other laboratories (approximately 25%) introduce students to equipment, tools, and measurement
and verification of circuits. Computer-aided design (CAD) tools for schematic capture,
simulation, and optimization are used extensively in both homework and laboratory assignments.
Relevant standards are covered such as standard discrete parts, schematic symbols, and notation.
EE 296 (Sophomore Project) also provides project experience at the sophomore level. It has 1
credit but 0 design credits. As mentioned earlier, a student is not responsible for a complete
design. Nonetheless, it provides project experience for sophomores which can help train them to
develop better projects when they are seniors. Since the projects are for sophomores, their skills
are limited to beginner-level computer programming and analog and digital circuits. An example
project is to use micro-controllers in the design of a simple network appliance. For this project,
students would self-learn micro-controllers and the associated design tools, such as compilers
and simulators. Another example is to participate in a team to design a large and complex
system, such as the “micro-mouse,” a robot mouse that can find its way through a maze. In this
scenario, a student may help more experienced team members.
In the upper division courses, there is design in both Engineering Required courses and EE
Technical Electives. The Engineering Required courses that have design credits are EE 323
(Microelectronics I), 323L (Microelectronics I Lab), 371 (Engineering Electromagnetics I), 341
(Introduction to Communication Systems), 341L (Introduction to Communication Systems Lab),
396 (Junior Project), and 496 (Capstone Design Project). EE 323, 341, and 371 have moderate
amounts of design in the form of open-ended design-oriented homework. The homework often
requires design tools for analysis such as Matlab.
EE 323L familiarizes the student with the ideal and non-ideal aspects of operational amplifiers
(inverting and non-inverting amplifiers, voltage and current offsets, frequency effects), pn
junction diodes (current-voltage characteristics), and bipolar junction and metal-oxidesemiconductor transistors (biasing, amplifier topologies, feedback). These topics are addressed in
five different experiments over 11 weeks using the laboratory manual accompanying the text by
Sedra and Smith.
EE 341L familiarizes the student with concepts in analog and digital communications. There are
eight different experiments that are conducted over the semester, with the laboratory
complementing EE 341. The laboratories cover the following topics: Fourier Analysis, linear
time invariant systems and filters, amplitude modulation methods, frequency modulation
methods, sampling, and Pulse Code modulation. Students get design experience by building
different systems, varying parameters of the system (e.g. varying the carrier frequency and
79
modulation index for an AM transmitter). Systems are built using simple circuits and simulated
via Matlab.
EE 396 is the Junior Project, which is to be taken during the junior year. It has 2 credit hours but
0 design credits. Just as in EE 296 Sophomore Project, students are not required to do a
complete design but they must be involved with a design project. It is similar to EE 296
Sophomore Project except it should be more substantial because juniors have additional
knowledge and skills from previous course work. Typically, the project will be oriented toward
a specific Track of interest to the student. It can be the continuation of a previous EE 296 project
or an entirely new one.
The Senior Capstone Design, EE 496, is to be taken during the senior year. This is described in
Subsection 4.2.1.
Almost all the EE Technical Electives have some design credits. They are the second or third
course in a series of EE courses towards a specialization. An example is EE 361 (Digital
Systems and Computer Organization) and its accompanying laboratory EE 361L. It follows EE
260 and in turn is followed by EE 461, Computer Architecture. EE 361 has 1 design credit of its
3 credit hours. The design experience comes from open-ended assembly language programming
and hardware circuit design assignments. Hardware description languages (HDL) are used in
many of the design assignments. One of the more substantial assignments is the implementation
of a single-cycle RISC processor in Verilog HDL which takes 4 weeks. EE 361L has 1 design
credit of its 1 credit hour. Students work in teams to use micro-controllers and field
programmable gate arrays (FPGAs) to solve simple to moderately difficult design problems. In
addition, there is a substantial 4-week design assignment to implement a multi-cycle RISC
processor by using Verilog HDL, and the design must be synthesizeable to an FPGA. Another
assignment is a 3-week research on an actual microprocessor of the student’s choice, and to give
an oral presentation of the research. All laboratory assignments require written reports that have
the format of a technical report. This course is a writing intensive (W) course.
Another example of an EE Technical Elective course is EE 473 (Microwave Engineering). It is a
senior-elective course in the Electrophysics track that requires EE 371 as a pre-requisite and EE
323 and EE 341 as co-requisites. The fact that EE 341 is a co-requisite helps students to realize
that electrical engineering ties together concepts across tracks. As such, a sizeable percentage of
students enrolled in EE 473 are Systems Track students taking the course as their technical
elective.
The course covers the fundamental concepts of scattering parameters and signal flow graphs in
the first three weeks of the semester, and then applies these concepts in design-oriented problems
for the rest of the semester. These include passive circuits such as filters, couplers, and antennas,
as well as active circuits such as microwave transistor amplifiers and oscillators. Throughout the
design process, the students use modern microwave CAD tools such as Microwave Office.
Although there is no formal lab associated with the course, students fabricate one or two of their
circuits and then measure their characteristics in the Microwave Lab. This is an essential part of
the course, as they learn that simulation does not always accurately predict experimental results.
80
Engineering Breadth
Approved by the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, Department of Electrical
Engineering
October 15, 2002
Engineering Breadth (3 hrs). This is satisfied by CEE 270 Applied Mechanics I, ME 311
Thermodynamics, or a CEE, ME, OE or BE course that is at the 300 level or higher.
It may also be satisfied by one of the following approved physical or biological science course
that is at the 300 level or higher. Note that the courses are lecture courses on specific topics (not
directed reading, research, or seminar) and at least 3 credits. The topics must be technical rather
than, e.g., historical perspectives, environmental issues, etc. In addition, they must be useful for
engineering design.
Biochemistry (BIOC)
BIOC 341 Elements of Biochemistry (3)
BIOC 441 Basic Biochemistry (4)
Chemistry (CHEM)
CHEM 351 Physical Chemistry I (3)
Microbiology (MICR)
MICR 351 Biology of Microorganisms (3)
MICR 394 Marine Biotechnology (3)
MICR 485 Microbes and Their Environment (3)
Molecular Biosciences and Biosystems Engineering (MBBE)
MBBE 401 Molecular Biotechnology (3)
MBBE 402 Principles of Biochemistry (4)
MBBE 412 Environmental Biochemistry (3)
Physics (PHYS)
PHYS 310 Theoretical Mechanics I (3)
PHYS 350 Electricity and Magnetism (3)
PHYS 430 Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics (3)
PHYS 460 Physical Optics (3)
Figure 4.1. Engineering Breadth.
In lieu of an in-class final exam, the students are given a three-week take-home final exam that
culminates in a significant design that is realistic in nature. For example, in December 2001, the
final exam encompassed the following scenario: American soldiers in Afghanistan are hampered
from ground-to-ground communications due to the mountainous environment. Readily
deployable small satellites are therefore launched into low-earth orbit to aid in the
communications. The students were asked to design a satellite transmitter and ground receiver,
and to consider an enemy jamming signal (originating from a conventional microwave oven) that
was also aimed towards that receiver. The design was somewhat open-ended: the receiver block
81
Design Credits
DC = Design Credits,
CH = Credit Hours.
Last updated May 17, 2003
Course
EE 160 Programming for Engineers
EE 196 Freshman Project
EE 211 Basic Circuit Analysis I
EE 213 Basic Circuit Analysis II
EE 260 Introduction to Digital Design
EE 296 Sophomore Project
EE 315 Signal and Systems Analysis
EE 323 Microelectronic Circuits I
EE 323L Microelectronic Circuits I Lab
EE 324 Physical Electronics
EE 326 Microelectronic Circuits II
EE 326L Microelectronic Circuits II Lab
EE 327 Theory and Design of IC Devices
EE 328 Physical Electronics Lab Techniques
EE 328L Physical Electronics Lab
EE 341 Intro to Communication Systems
EE 341L Communication Systems Lab
EE 342 EE Probability and Statistics
EE 344 Networking I
DC
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
1
0
1.5
CH
4
1
4
4
4
1
3
3
1
3
3
1
3
3
1
3
1
3
4
EE 351 Linear Systems and Control
EE 351L Linear Systems and Control Lab (1)
0.5
1
3
1
EE 494 Provisional Topics
EE 496 Capstone Design Project
EE 361 Digital Systems and Computer Design
1
3
EE 499 Directed Reading
EE 361L Digital Sys & Comp Design Lab
1
1
2
1.5
1
4
3
1
EE 366 CMOS VLSI Design
EE 367 Comp. Data Structures & Algorithms
EE 367L Comp. Data Struct. & Algms Lab
Course
DC
EE 371 Engineering Electromagnetics I
0.5
EE 372 Engineering Electromagnetics II
0.5
EE 372L Engineering Electromagnetics Lab
0.5
EE 396 Junior Project
0
EE 415 Digital Signal Processing
2
EE 422 Electronic Instrumentation
1
EE 422L Instrumentation Lab
1
EE 426 Adv Si IC & Solid State Devices
1
EE 442 Digital Communications
0.5
EE 449 Computer Communication Networks
0
EE 452 Digital Control Systems
0.5
EE 453 Modern Control Theory
1
EE 461 Computer Architecture
1
EE 467 Object-oriented Software Engineering
1
EE 468 Introduction to Operating Systems
1.5
EE 469 Wireless Data Networks
1
EE 473 Microwave Engineering
2
EE 475 Optical Communications
1.5
EE 491 (Alpha) Special Topics in Elec. Engg. varies
CH
3
3
1
2
4
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
varies
3
3
3
0
3
Figure 4.2. Design Credits.
diagram consisted of an anti-jamming filter, low-noise amplifier, gain stages, and the transmitter
block diagram consisted of an oscillator and power amplifier. The student had to make design
tradeoffs on power consumption, cost, design complexity, all in the context of communication
link analysis.
82
4.2.1. Required Major Design Experience
The Senior Capstone Design, EE 496, is the major design experience in the curriculum. It is
based on knowledge and skills obtained in previous course work and incorporates engineering
standards and realistic constraints. It should include most of the following considerations:
economic; environmental; sustainability; manufacturability; ethical; health and safety; social;
and political.
EE 496 has 3 design credits out of its 3 credit hours. It may be a continuation of an EE 396
project or an entirely new project. It should be a major effort, often requiring a team. Students
typically need less supervision than in the previous EE 296 and EE 396 courses.
There is a substantial communication component to the course. As with all project courses, 30
minutes of oral presentation is required. In addition, it is a writing intensive (W) course. Thus, it
has written assignments that total at least 4000 words (or 16 pages), at least 40% of the final
grade is based on writing, and there must be effective writing instruction and feedback to
students.
An example of a large design project which serves as the basis for EE 496 projects is the UH
CubeSat Project, whose objective is to design, manufacture, and test a 1-kg picosatellite for
launch into low-earth orbit. Over 60 undergraduate students in electrical engineering (EE),
mechanical engineering (ME), and civil and environmental engineering (CEE) are involved,
making it the largest multidisciplinary undergraduate engineering project in the College of
Engineering. The entire project is run by students (under the supervision of faculty members).
This includes project management, fundraising of the $120,000 budget, presentations to sponsors
and at international conferences, and conducting design reviews with representatives from
industry. The students have had to deal with all of the constraints and experiences of a real-world
engineering project, including:
Across-the-board electrical engineering: Students from all EE tracks find that they need to
work together, as the satellite combines subsystems in command software, programmable
controllers, solar cells, power distribution, thermal sensors, antennas, and RF transceivers.
Multidisciplinary, across-the-board engineering: Electrical engineering students are exposed
to other typically non-EE manufacturability constraints such as vibration, thermal dissipation,
outgassing, and deployable structures. In a like manner, CEE students learn how to tailor
their antenna ground station structure to optimize signal reception and ME students learn
how the choice of epoxy affects dielectric properties of the on-board active antenna.
Mentoring: Seniors using CubeSat as their EE 496 project serve as team leaders for the
various subsystems. Younger students taking CubeSat for their EE 196, EE 296, and EE 396
projects are mentored by the seniors and serve as apprentices. Last summer, two high school
students served as summer interns on the project, working on the on-board gas gauge and
dipole antennas.
83
Undergraduate research opportunities: While the CubeSat project is an excellent
engineering project, it has also allowed real research to be conducted at the undergraduate
level. Phase I of the CubeSat program incorporates an experimental active antenna that will
represent the first so-called grid oscillator in space. Two presentations were made on this
topic, at the Small Satellite Symposium (Logan, UT) and at the Korea-Japan Microwave
Workshop (Yokosuka, Japan). A poster on the thermal modeling of the CubeSat took first
place at an ASME conference. In Phase II of the CubeSat Program, funded through a
$100,000 award from NASA and the Air Force, undergraduates and graduate students will be
developing self-steering antenna arrays for next-generation distributed satellite networks.
Manufacturability: Since the satellite is constrained to a relatively small 1-kg, 10 cm x 10 cm
x 10 cm form factor, both the electrical and mechanical designs had to incorporate
manufacturability from the very start. An industrial advisory board was assembled so that
satellite engineers could mentor our students on real-world manufacturing issues.
Sustainability: In addition, since the satellite must survive the harsh thermal and radiation
environment of an 800-km sun-synchronous orbit, the design had to include considerations
for surviving the extreme temperature variations and van Allen Belt radiation.
Economic constraints: The students themselves organized an aggressive campaign to secure
$120,000 from industry, academic, and government sources to fund expenses for materials
and supplies, launch costs, and student summer stipends. Decisions had to be made between
a more expensive domestic launch vs. a less expensive Russian launch.
Political constraints: As a result of deciding with the Russian launch, the students have had
to deal with the ramifications of export licensing under the International Trafficking and
Arms Regulations (ITAR), as satellites are classified by the US as sensitive technology.
Some of the problems with ITAR resulted in launch delays, so the students became acutely
aware of how the political environment affected their project.
Ethical: As in any large organization, issues of ethics often came up. As an example, NASA
offered to provide summer stipends to some of our students, but only if they were US
citizens. When it was found out that a non-US student tried to get his US student friend to
submit his proposal, the faculty mentors and student project directors intervened to explain
the unethical nature of this act. In another case, a local TV reporter attempted to scoop the
CubeSat story from a TV reporter on a different station based on inside information, and the
students had to learn how to deal with such unethical practices not under their control.
Health and Safety: In Phase I of our CubeSat project, students learned the FCC safety
regulations regarding radio-frequency emissions prior to conducting antenna tests. In Phase
II of our CubeSat project, the intended launch vehicle is the Space Shuttle. NASA has
required all of our students to study and pass an extensive and exhaustive set of NASA safety
exams and safety reviews to ensure that our satellite and its deployables pose no hazard to the
Shuttle crew.
84
Social: UH is one of about 20 institutions worldwide that are working on CubeSat projects.
As such, our team has had numerous meetings with other CubeSat teams, including those
from Japan, Europe, and the mainland US. Such technical interactions also aid in helping our
students understand different cultures. Two trips to Japan and three trips to the mainland US
have already taken place for the specific purpose of having students exchange technical and
cultural information. As a specific example of cultural exchange, the University Space
Systems Symposium allowed students from Japan and the US to exchange gifts and cultural
colloquialisms after the technical sessions.
Environmental: Although the impact of CubeSat on Earth’s environment is minimal, the
issue of space junk is of growing concern within the international space community. Students
have had to consider lower orbits so that the decay rate could be faster and so that the
satellite could burn up on its own after two years.
Communications: Throughout the project, students held weekly subsystems team meetings.
Leaders of each subsystem team met with each other weekly as well. Documentation was
archived in the form of written reports and web pages. A preliminary design review and
critical design review involving all 60 students and the industrial advisory board also took
place. All of these activities reinforced the fact that communication was essential to project
success.
An example of a design project with a moderate sized team is a recently completed project on
echo cancellation. This was a team project consisting of five students that worked on
implementing an adaptive filter to perform echo cancellation. The students first implemented
adaptive learning algorithms in Matlab and then implemented the algorithms on a digital signal
processing (DSP) chip. Students started with the simple least mean square (LMS) algorithm and
proceeded to implement the more complex, recursive least square (RLS) algorithm and fast
transversal filter (FTF) algorithm. Students were confronted with many design issues including
determining parameters of the adaptive filter (e.g. step size value and order of filter). The
students also compared the performance of the different algorithms and observed tradeoffs
between error performance and computational complexity.
Students on the echo cancellation project developed communication skills by having weekly
meetings, giving oral presentations and writing a final report. Students received experience in
working in multidisciplinary teams as each student had different expertise and the project
required knowledge of adaptive signal processing algorithms, computer software tools (Matlab
and C programming), and DSP chips. Issues such as economics and feasibility of their designs
were considered in detail. The FTF algorithm was judged to be the best algorithm, but it was the
most complex to implement. Other broader issues were considered and confronted including
societal, ethical, and reliability issues. The students worked with Texas Instruments in getting
the DSP board. The students found that implementing the algorithms on the DSP board was
more difficult. In the middle of the project they had to replace the DSP board with a new DSP
board. The new DSP board required additional debugging as it was different from the original
board. With the DSP board the students achieved success in the echo generation and partial
success in the algorithm implementation.
85
5. FACULTY
5.1. Number and Competencies to Cover the Curricular Areas
There are currently 20 tenured or tenure track faculty in the Department. There are 3 emeritus
faculty members teaching regularly, and (depending on the semester) 3-4 visiting instructors. An
analysis of our current faculty is summarized in Table I-4 in Appendix I. Faculty CV’s can be
found in Appendix I-C.
As can be seen from their vitae, the members of the faculty of this department are highly
qualified. All have Ph.D.’s from reputable institutions. Many have extensive industrial
experience as well, either as regular employees at some point in their careers, or as consultants.
Their dedication and skills in teaching are reflected by a number of teaching awards, and a
generally high level of student satisfaction. Most have active research programs, and are
involved with professional societies (particularly the IEEE).
However, we have had a very high turnover rate the last four years. Of the twenty-four faculty
present in 1999, twelve have resigned or retired. The primary reason for this high turnover is that
the University of Hawaii Electrical Engineering salaries and support have not been competitive
with industry and other academic organizations. Other reasons for leaving include a high
teaching load, declining University of Hawaii budgets, instability of administration (since 1999
we have seen a turnover in every administrative position from Chairman to Dean to VP to
President), and the good mainland economy in 1999 and 2000.
We have invested a great deal of time and effort to hire eight talented new faculty members in
the last three years, but in order to maintain the quality and quantity of faculty, resources must be
expended to boost Electrical Engineering salaries, infrastructure, and the quality of students.
A shortage of faculty members in some key areas, particularly in digital and analog circuits and
control systems, remains. We have just received authorization to recruit three additional faculty
members, one in each of these areas. Assuming we are successful in filling these positions and
that there are no further retirements or resignations, we will have 23 faculty members by
sometime next year. It is felt that this is the minimum number needed to maintain a viable
program.
A listing of faculty members hired and those that have resigned or retired (together with an
indication of the reasons for leaving in the case of resignations) follows.
Tenure-track and tenured faculty hired (Jan. 1997 – August 2003)
Jung-Chih Chiao: Assistant Professor. August 1997. Research: Microwave/Millimeter-wave
electronics, micromachining (MEMS) Applications, quasi-optics, optoelectronics, and optical
networks.
Douglas Summerville: Assistant Professor. August 1997. Research: Computer engineering,
parallel processing, computer architecture, networking.
86
Zixiang Xiong: Assistant Professor. August 1997. Research: Data compression, multimedia,
digital communications, image processing.
Audra Bullock: Assistant Professor. August 2000. Research: laser spectroscopy, remote sensing,
dense wavelength division multiplexing (DWDM), and optical communication. Other interests
include bioelectric phenomena and biomedical applications of lasers.
Anders Host-Madsen: Assistant Professor. February 2001. Research: statistical signal
processing, and applications to wireless communications, including multi-user detection,
equalization and echo cancellation.
Magdy Iskander: Professor and Director of the Hawaii Center for Advanced Communication.
January 2002. Research: Numerical techniques in electromagnetics, antenna design for medical
applications, dielectric properties measurements, and scattering and diffraction of
electromagnetic waves.
Nancy Reed: Assistant Professor. January 2002. Research: artificial intelligence, autonomous
agents, cognitive modeling, diagnosis, expert systems, knowledge-based systems, knowledge
acquisition, medical informatics, and real-time systems.
Todd Reed: Professor. January 2002. Research: Signal, image and image sequence processing,
multidimensional digital signal processing, and computer vision.
Olga Boric-Lubecke: Associate Professor. January 2003. Research: RF integrated circuit
technology and biomedical applications of wireless systems.
Victor Lubecke: Associate Professor. January 2003. Research: micromechanical systems
(MEMS) for wireless and optical communications, and monitoring technologies for biomedical
and industrial applications.
Yingfei Dong: Assistant Professor. August 2003. Research: computer architecture, networking,
and security.
Tenure-track and tenured faculty resigned or retired (Jan. 1997 – August 2003)
Douglas Summerville: June 1999. Assistant Professor SUNY Binghamton. Reasons: better
educational and research opportunities, personal reasons (originally from northeast).
Kazutoshi Najita: August 1999. Retired (currently teaches as Emeritus Professor at the
University of Hawaii).
Zixiang Xiong: December 1999. Assistant Professor, Texas A&M. Better educational and
research opportunities, attractive startup package, better infrastructure.
87
Shu Lin: January 2000. Retired (currently visiting Professor at the University of California,
Davis).
Jung-Chih Chiao: December 2001. Engineer, Chorum Technologies (startup optical company
in Dallas, TX). Better compensation and career opportunities.
Gregory Uehara: January 2001. Director, Silicon Labs (integrated circuit communication
company in Austin, TX). Better compensation and career opportunities.
Eun Sok Kim: January 2001. Associate Professor, USC. Better educational and research
opportunities, attractive startup package, better infrastructure.
Alex Quilici: July 2001. Former CEO Quack.com. Bought out by AOL, now an employee of
AOL (Quack.com was an internet startup company supplying voice activated internet products).
Better compensation and career opportunities.
Frank Koide: July 2002. Retired (currently teaches as Emeritus Professor at the University of
Hawaii).
Michael Smith: September 2002. CTO IReady (network communications company in San Jose,
CA). Better compensation and career opportunities.
Michael DeLisio: January 2003. CTO Wavestream Wireless (Broadband wireless
communication chip company). Better compensation and career opportunities, personal reasons
(family from California).
Rahul Chattergy: August 2003. Retired.
Average instructional workload of current faculty
Until the Fall of 2002, the normal instructional workload for faculty was two courses per
semester plus supervising undergraduate projects and advising graduate students. This is a
significantly higher teaching load than is typical at institutions with which we compete for
faculty (and research funds), and was a major issue in both recruiting and retention. In the past,
lighter workloads were given to new faculty in their first year, junior faculty that were active in
research, and administrators such as the department chair that had heavy service responsibilities.
At the beginning of this academic year, course offerings were reorganized to reduce the number
of courses taught by pre-tenure and mid-rank faculty members. We are currently in a transition
phase in implementing a new teaching load policy. By a vote of the faculty, pre-tenure faculty
members now teach two courses per year. The target teaching load for Associate Professors is
now three courses per year. The teaching load for Full Professors remains at four courses per
year, although it is hoped that three courses per year will be possible in the near future. These
teaching loads are predicated on an active research program and an appropriate level of service
activity.
88
In the last two years the Electrical Engineering department has offered approximately 30 courses
per semester with about 70% undergraduate courses and 30% graduate courses. Lower division
courses and required courses typically have had enrollments of between 20 and 45 students.
Upper division track and elective courses typically have between 10 and 35 students. Graduate
courses typically have between 5 and 15 students enrolled. A summary of course and section
sizes is shown in Table I-2, Appendix I. Faculty workload is summarized in Table I-3.
Student advising
Students are assigned to a faculty advisor when they enter the program and keep the same
advisor until they decide on an emphasis area around the junior year. At that point they may be
assigned to an advisor within their area of interest. Students may also choose their advisor if
they have a preference. Advising is mandatory every semester prior to registration for the
following semester. Advising sessions consist of checking the student's progress in the EE
curriculum, identifying any academic problems, and helping the student select courses for the
following semester to ensure satisfactory progress toward the degree. In addition, one EE faculty
member (currently Prof. Tep Dobry) is assigned as the Undergraduate Advisor for the
department. This task includes coordinating advising, assigning advisors and assisting faculty
during advising week. The Undergraduate Advisor is available to all EE students for academic
consulting throughout the semester, and typically advises 25-30% of the undergraduate students
in place of, or in addition to, advising sessions with the assigned advisor each semester.
With an average of eighteen to nineteen (including emeritus) teaching faculty and with between
260 and 300 undergraduate students, the average number of students each faculty member
advises is between fourteen and seventeen each semester. However, the Assistant Dean and
faculty that are active with undergraduate students generally advise many more students than the
average. We have about twenty faculty members that supervise graduate students. Our graduate
student population has varied between 60 and 80 the last two years. Therefore, on average, each
faculty member also advises and supervises between three and four graduate students. This is a
relatively low student-to-faculty ratio, so that student-faculty interaction, advising and
counseling are well supported.
5.2. Department, College, and University Service Activities
Due to the modest number of faculty members in the department, the departmental service load
on each member is comparatively high. In addition to the ABET Core, Assessment and Interface
Committees and the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, we maintain a Graduate Program
Committee, Space Committee, Department Personnel Committee, and a Recruiting Committee.
The Computer Engineering, Systems, and Physical Electronics groups meet as committees, to
establish research and educational objectives. Members of our faculty also serve as advisors to
the IEEE and HKN student chapters, and for the Micromouse and CubeSat projects (most
particularly Prof. Dobry and Prof. Wayne Shiroma).
At the College level, members of the faculty serve on the College Equipment Committee
(chaired by Prof. Tep Dobry, who also serves as Interim Assistant Dean), the Donald Kim
Multimedia Lab Committee (chaired from 1998 – 2000 by Prof. Dobry), the College of
89
Engineering Scholarship Committee (also chaired by Prof. Dobry), the College Computer
Facilities Committee and the Undergraduate Student Retention Committee. Prof. Vassilis
Syrmos from our department serves as Interim Associate Dean, in addition to serving as Senior
Advisor to the Manoa Chancellor and Interim Director of the Science and Technology Division
of the Research Corporation of the University of Hawaii. Members of our faculty are also active
in the development of new programs at the College and Campus level, most notably Prof. David
Yun (Biomedical Engineering) and Prof. Audra Bullock (Graduate Outreach Program in Optics).
We also work with the College of Engineering and their outreach program, which connects with
high schools and intermediate schools in Hawaii. This program has many annual activities
during which prospective students, parents, teachers and counselors visit and tour our facilities.
We also visit high schools to give presentations to the students, teachers, and counselors. High
school students have also participated in activities and summer programs at the University of
Hawaii working in Electrical Engineering research laboratories. The outreach program has an
interactive web site: http://xtreme.eng.hawaii.edu/ .
At the University level, members of our faculty have served on numerous committees, including
the University Ethics Committee, the New Faculty Orientation Committee, the Tenure and
Promotion Review Panel (chaired by Prof. Najita in 1998 and 1999), the Committee on
Establishing a Technical Training Program on the Manoa Campus, and the Panel for Review of
UH Post-Tenure Review (American Association of Higher Education). It is expected that
University-level service will increase further as our new faculty members become more
integrated with the campus community.
5.3. Professional Development
The University provides a number of opportunities for professional development, including a
mentorship program for new faculty, workshops for the development of teaching skills, and
sessions with funding agency representatives to facilitate research connections and proposal
preparation. All members of the department are encouraged to take advantage of these
opportunities.
Sabbatical leaves are one of the most important means for professional development available to
faculty members. Although the size of the department sometimes makes it difficult, we are
committed to making sabbatical leaves available to all qualified faculty members.
5.4. Interaction with Practitioners and Employers
The department recently formed an Industrial Advisory Board (IAB) with constituents from both
mainland and local companies. The companies hire many of our undergraduate and graduate
students. The Industrial Advisory Board also includes several former students who now have
successful careers in industry. The IAB meets at the University of Hawaii once each year to
evaluate our undergraduate electrical engineering program. We get feedback from the board on
what directions they would like to see our program take. This feedback is then used to make
appropriate changes in our program.
90
A Physical Electronics Laboratory Advisory Board has also been formed, to facilitate
communications with practitioners and employers in the integrated circuit and associated
industries.
In 1999 the Hawaii Center for Advanced Communications (HCAC) was formed, which is a
multidisciplinary research and education center conducting research in wireless and broadband
communications. The Center has received funds from the state and has also started an industrial
partners program to form joint partnerships with industry. Since the inception of the Center four
companies have joined the industrial partners program: Spirent-Adtech, NEC, Orincon, and
Lockheed Martin. The website for HCAC can be found at www.hcac.edu .
UHM Electrical Engineering graduates are highly sought after by industry, both locally and on
the mainland. The informal feedback we get from industries that hire our students indicates that
those students who complete the degree perform well as engineers and do well in their careers.
An informal poll of our graduates in the past 5 years shows that 30% find engineering jobs in
Hawaii. These graduates (whether local, on the mainland, or abroad) provide an important
communication channel to industry.
Local companies that hire our students include Adtech, SPAWAR, NAVSEA, Orincon, Boeing,
Oceanit, Pearl Harbor and others, including utilities and consulting companies in the construction
industry. About 20% of our graduates find jobs in mainland companies including TRW,
Raytheon, Boeing, ON Semiconductor and others. About 12% of our graduates go on to
graduate programs at schools including MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, Arizona, Arizona
State, and UHM. Many of our graduates complete a Masters degree while working in their first
engineering position, particularly with mainland companies. The recently approved Intern Plus
program provides a means for students employed in local industry to complete a Masters degree
at UHM while continuing to work. We do not have employment information on 38% of our
graduates. The department is working on programs to better track our alumni as they progress
through their careers. This includes the institution of the above mentioned Industrial Advisory
Board to provide outcomes assessment of our program and updates on the changing needs of
industry for engineers.
The faculty interact with the professional community in many other ways. Most are active in
one or more professional societies (most commonly the IEEE). Many are active in bringing
international conferences and workshops to Hawaii. We also interact with the community
through our alumni via the College of Engineering Alumni Association.
91
6. FACILITIES
6.1 Space and equipment for faculty
Electrical engineering has more than 20,000 square feet of space with about 7500 square feet of
office space for faculty, staff, and students and the remainder of the space for instructional and
research laboratories. Equipment for faculty includes computers and laboratory equipment for
research and instruction. We have research labs in circuits, microwave / millimeter waves,
physical electronics, optical communications, computers, and communications. Research
equipment includes items ranging from a sputtering machine, to an anechoic chamber, to optical
laser communication systems. Research laboratories are supported by the University, federal
grants, and industry donations. Instructional laboratories are supported by the University and
private donations. We have about 4700 square feet in research labs, 2400 square feet in
combined instructional and research labs, and 4600 square feet in instructional labs. A new
physical electronics lab will be opening later this year in the basement of the POST building.
There are two major concerns about space and equipment. As we recruit new faculty and seek to
increase the size of both our undergraduate and graduate programs, we are experiencing space
shortages. The Department of Electrical Engineering lost a significant amount of space in Krauss
Hall this past year. While have managed (with difficulty) to deal with this loss of space, we will
need additional space for newly recruited faculty and our growing program. The second concern
is about our ability to maintain undergraduate instructional labs and is addressed in the next
section.
6.2 Undergraduate and Project Laboratories
We have several instructional labs to enable our undergraduate students to obtain hands-on
experience with electrical engineering principles. These include the basic circuits lab, analog
circuits lab, digital circuits lab, communications lab, physical electronics lab, and computer labs.
Laboratory sessions are also held in some of our research laboratories (particularly in
microwaves and optics). We also have laboratory space set aside for undergraduate projects and
design courses. The labs are equipped with a wide range of equipment including computers,
spectrum analyzers, oscilloscopes, and facilities for fabricating electronic devices. An inventory
of equipment available in each laboratory follows.
6.2.1 Basic circuits lab (Holmes 357)
Computers:
1 each Gateway 2000 PC
1 each Gateway P5-166 PC
1 each PDCS PC
Printers:
1 each HP Laserjet II
1 each HP Laserjet IID
92
Function Generators:
12 each HP 3312A Function Generator or Agilent 33120A 15MHz Function/Arbitrary
Waveform Generator
Power Supplies:
12 each DC Power Supply, HP 6205C Dual, HP 6236B Triple, or Agilent E3631A Triple
Digital Multimeters:
12 each Fluke 8050A or 45 Dual Display
Oscilloscopes:
12 each Tektronix 2225 50 MHz, 2230 100MHz, or TDS 3012 Dual Channel Color
Digital 100MHz
Analog Multimeters:
12 each Simpson 260 or Triplett 630A
Note: The laboratory has 12 work benches. Each work bench has an equipment set consisting of
a function generator, oscilloscope, digital multimeter, DC power supply, and analog multimeter.
New benches, oscilloscopes, and power supplies are on order. It is planned to install PC’s as
funding permits.
6.2.2 Analog circuits lab (Holmes 358)
Computers:
1 each Dell Dimension XPS P90
Printers:
1 each HP Laserjet III
Function Generators:
10 each HP 3312A
Power Supplies:
10 each DC Power Supply, HP6205C Dual or Agilent E3620A Dual
Digital Multimeters:
10 each Fluke 8050A or 45 Dual Display
Oscilloscopes:
10 each Tektronix 2245A 100 MHz
Curve Tracers:
3 each Tektronix 577 W/ 177 Standard Test Fixture
1 each Tektronix 576
93
Note: The laboratory has 10 work benches. Each work bench is equipped with a function
generator, oscilloscope, digital multimeter, and DC power supply.
6.2.3 Digital circuits lab (Holmes 451)
Computers:
1 each Gateway P5-166 w/ EPP-04AE EPROM Programmer
1 each Tower PC
10 each Gateway E4600 w/ 15.7” LCD display (Pentium 4, 1.2GHz, 256MB 133MHz
SDRAM) and PC-based logic analyzers
2 each Macintiosh Centris 650
Printers:
1 each Apple Laserwriter II
Function Generators:
10 each HP 3312A
Power Supplies:
10 each HP 6205B Dual DC Power Supply
Digital Multimeters:
10 each Fluke 45 Dual Display Multimeter
Oscilloscopes:
10 each Tektronix 2225 50MHz
Misc.:
2 each EPROM Erasers
Note: The laboratory has 10 work benches. Each work benches has an equipment set consisting
of a function generator, oscilloscope, digital multimeter, DC power supply, and PC.
6.2.4 Communications lab (Holmes 386)
Computers:
10 each Gateway E3600 W/15” LCD flat panel display (Pentium 4, 1.8GHz, 256MB
133MHz SDRAM). Matlab, OfficeXP, Exceed Xwindows installed.
Function Generators:
4 each HP 3312A 15 MHz Function/Arbitrary Function Generator
4 each Sony/Tektronix AFG310 Arbitrary Function Generator
Power Supplies:
4 each Agilent E3631A Triple Output DC Power Supply
94
Digital Multimeters:
4 each Fluke 45 Dual Display Multimeter
Oscilloscopes:
4 each Tektronix 2232 100 MHz Digital Storage Oscilloscope
Spectrum Analyzers:
4 each Agilent E4401B 9kHz – 1.5 GHz
Note: Four work benches are used for the Communication Lab, with an equipment set including
two function generators, power supply, oscilloscope, digital multimeter, and spectrum analyzer.
The Control Lab uses all ten work benches, where each bench has a PC.
6.2.5 Physical electronics lab (POST Building)
1 each Veeco 4 Source Filament Evaporation System (Refurbished 1999)
1 each 4-pt Probe Station
4 each Chemical Fume Hoods (New in POST)
2 each HP Digital Oscilloscope
1 each HP LCR Meter
1 each Agilent 4155C Semiconductor Parameter Analyzer (New 6/03)
1 each HP Spectrum Analyzer
2 each Agilent Precision Power Supplies (new 6/03)
2 each Fluke 45 DMM's (new 6/03)
1 each K&S Thermosonic Wire Bonder
2 each Laminar Flow Hoods
1 each Micromanipulator Wafer Probing Station
1 each Probing Solutions Wafer Probing Station (New 6/03)
1 each Nikon photomicrography system (Refurbished 7/03)
1 each Union Carbide Parylene Deposition System
2 each OAI and JBA Contact Mask Aligners
4 each Ovens/Incubators (New 6/03)
1 each PC-based Instrumentation Controller
1 each Solitec Photoresist Spinner
1 each Reverse Osmosis/Deionized Water System (New in POST)
1 each Rudolf Ellipsometer
2 each Tektronix Curve Tracer (Refurbished and Calibrated 1/03)
5 each Tektronix Function Generators
1 each Thermco Diffusion Furnaces
6.2.6 Casual Use Computer lab (Holmes 486, soon to be moved to Holmes 387)
5 each Pentium 4 Processor 1.6GHz, 256MB 133MHz SDRAM W/19” CRT Monitor.
Matlab, OfficeXP, Exceed Xwindows, Adobe Acrobat, MS Visual C++ installed.
95
6 each Pentium 4 Processor 2.40GHz, 384MB PC1200 SDRAM W/18” UltraSharp LCD
Flat Panel Display. Matlab, OfficeXP, PowerLAN X-Windows, Adobe Acrobat,
MS Visual Studio .Net installed.
6 each Sun Blade 500-MHz UltraSPARC-IIe, 256-KB External Cache, 384-MB RAM
W/19” CRT Monitor. Solaris 9, Sun Workshop Compilers (C, Fortran, etc.),
Matlab, StarOffice, Opera installed.
4-6 each Apple Macintosh G3 500 MHz W/19” CRT Monitor. Matlab, MSOffice
installed.
1 each HP C7670A scanner
1 each HP 5M LaserJet printer
Other software available through server: Cadence (electronic design), Synopsys
(electronic design), Opnet (network modeling), Allegro Common LISP (object-oriented
software development), Xilinx (for programmable logic devices), Verilog, GNU
compilers, LaTeX, Prolog, Perl.
In addition, we have laboratories dedicated to undergraduate student projects (Holmes 447 and
450), Micromouse (Holmes 408A), CubeSat (Holmes 406 and 412), and IEEE/HKN (Holmes
411).
The integration of computer-aided design has been a major focus of the department in the past
several years. Students are introduced to computing very early in their careers (C programming
in EE160). Computer-aided design tools including PSpice and Electronics Workbench
(Multisim) are used in the basic circuits class (EE211) as well as in later courses (such as EE326
and EE422). MatLab is used extensively throughout the curriculum, beginning in EE211. The
use of these software tools in multiple classes allows students to gain a significant degree of
sophistication in their use.
Later courses make use of more specialized tools. Examples include Xilinx or Logicworks in
EE260, the Cadence software suit (EE328), and specialized routing simulation software from
Cisco (EE344). The MatLab toolboxes have proven useful (EE351, EE452, EE453) as has
Simulink (EE452, EE453). Students use the SPIM RISC processor simulator to run and debug
assembly language programs, use the "mcc" MIPS C compiler to compile C programs into
assembly language programs, and design, simulate, and debug digital circuits using an HDL
simulator software tool (e.g., veriwell or Xilinx Student Edition) in EE361. They use the Simple
Scalar Simulator to simulate the impact on processor performance by changing various design
parameters in EE461. In addition to the above examples, more conventional software tools (C,
C++ and Java) are in widely used, particularly in our computer engineering courses.
Computer-aided design tools have also had an immense impact on the microwave and optics
fields. Freeware available on the web is used to visualize waves on transmission lines and in
material media in EE371. Students use the ZeMax or Optica ray optics programs to simulate
96
optical systems in EE372. Microwave Office is used as the primary design tool for designing all
of the microwave circuits in EE473.
We have been very fortunate in receiving a major infusion of funds over the past year for the
upgrading of our undergraduate laboratories. However, there is serious doubt about the
availability of funds to maintain these laboratories in the future. The decrease in support we have
experienced over the past several years seems likely to continue, so that the gains we have made
recently may be lost over time. We will return to this issue in Section 7, below.
6.3 Space and equipment for teaching or research assistants
Graduate students have access to our research laboratories and have office space. Currently
there is about 3000 square feet of office space for graduate student teaching and research
assistants. These offices include computers, peripherals, desks, and bookshelves. As we recruit
new faculty members and increase the extramural funding coming into our department, our
graduate student population will increase. This will result in a need for additional graduate
student office space.
97
7. INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES
7.1 Institutional support, financial resources, and constructive leadership.
The University of Hawaii, as many public educational institutions, faces some very serious
budgetary challenges. The College of Engineering has received budget cuts for the past several
years, and it unfortunately looks likely that this will continue.
With the help of the Interim Associate Dean and the Chancellor, we have managed to address
some of our most serious immediate needs (particularly undergraduate laboratory upgrades) to
keep our program viable. We have managed to attract two very talented new faculty members
this past year and hope to be joined by another this fall, by virtue of being able to make
competitive salary and startup package offers as approved by the Dean. We have recently
received permission to advertise for three additional critically needed faculty positions.
There are very serious concerns, however, about our ability to make offers sufficiently attractive
to fill these positions in the face of continued budget cuts. Startup funding is of particular
concern. Retention of our current faculty members is also a potential issue. Although the salaries
of most recently hired faculty members are competitive, others are not (particularly given the
cost of living in Hawaii). The merit increase system recently instituted by the College of
Engineering is excellent in principle and could be used to address this issue, but it is seriously
under-funded. The shortage of research support (both administrative and financial) is also of
major concern. While the reduction in course load instituted recently in the department is
expected to be helpful in retaining faculty, it cannot replace competitive salaries and support.
Needless to say, concerns about our ability to make competitive offers to fill our currently open
positions extend to our ability to replace our current faculty members should they leave.
7.2 Processes used to determine the budget.
Funds are allocated on a College-by-College basis by the Manoa budget office. Once these
funds are received, the Dean’s Office’s first priority is to provide the departments with needed
funds for salaries. Faculty/staff/TA needs for all the departments are considered in allocating
those funds. Second, recurring costs like phone bills, maintenance contracts, and software
license renewals are considered and funds allocated. Remaining funds become the College
operating budget, which is allocated according to what the Dean perceives as the needs of the
departments. In the future, this last step may become more formal, based on faculty teaching
loads, research dollars generated, etc.
Once the department receives its budget, it is presented to the faculty. Uses for the discretionary
portion of the budget are proposed by individual faculty members or groups of faculty members
for consideration by the chair. Establishing a committee or committees for this purpose (e.g., an
undergraduate laboratory equipment committee, a computer equipment committee, etc.) is under
consideration, but may not be practical in the near future due to the already heavy service load on
the faculty.
98
7.3 Faculty professional development.
There are a number of programs at the campus level provided through the Office of Faculty
Development and Academic Support, (http://www.ofdas.hawaii.edu/ofdasH.html). Examples
include the New Faculty Orientation Program, the Junior Women Faculty Mentoring Program,
the Technology and Teaching Series, the Departmental Leadership Workshop, Conflict
Management at the University, and Instruction and Course Evaluation. A new web-based Course
and Faculty Evaluation system (CAFÉ) has recently been introduced. All are excellent programs.
At the departmental level, the primary means of professional development is through sabbatical
leaves. As the department does not receive funds when faculty members take sabbaticals, these
leaves are supported (in the sense of covering the teaching loads of faculty members on leave)
either by other faculty members, or (when funds permit) by hiring temporary instructors.
7.4 Plan and sufficiency of resources to acquire, maintain, and operate facilities and equipment.
The laboratories described in Section 6.2 are maintained using departmental equipment funds, as
(and when) available and according to need. E.g., new oscilloscopes and workbenches were
ordered for Holmes 357, and new power supplies for all instructional laboratories were
purchased this year. In addition, a microwave/optics instructional laboratory (tentatively to be
housed in Holmes 455) is planned, to be funded by a combination of departmental funds and
funds requested from the College of Engineering.
A comprehensive plan (available on request) for equipment acquisition, maintenance, and
operation of the Physical Electronics Laboratory has been developed, with initial funding
requested from the UH Manoa Chancellor’s Office. Of the approximately $2 million dollars
needed, $280,000 has been allocated at this point. After the initial funding, a recharge system is
planned to make the laboratory self-sufficient.
7.5 Support personnel and institutional services.
The department currently has three fulltime office staff positions, and three fulltime technical
staff (one supporting our computing facilities, one supporting the Physical Electronics
laboratory, and one providing general engineering support). Assuming 20 faculty members, this
corresponds to .15 office staff, and .05 each computer, laboratory, and general support staff per
faculty member. According to the Computing Research News November 2000 survey of CS/CE
Ph.D. granting departments (which have needs similar to EE departments), average secretarial
support per faculty member among public institutions is .36/faculty member. Computer support
averages .23/faculty member. Data for laboratory and general support were unavailable. By these
figures, office staff support in the department is approximately 42% of the national average.
Computer support is approximately 22% of the national average. The department has been
seeking to improve this situation by hiring student aides for our existing staff members, but the
level of responsibility that can be assigned to students is of course limited. We have also seen a
steady increase in administrative workload in the department, some of which was at one time
dealt with by other administrative units.
99
8. PROGRAM CRITERIA
The curriculum satisfies the program criteria for an electrical engineering program. As described
in Section 4 (“Professional Component”), it provides depth and breadth across a range of
electrical engineering topics. Engineering Required courses cover the breadth of electrical
engineering fundamentals, while EE Technical Electives provide the depth.
Students gain knowledge of probability and statistics as applied to electrical engineering in EE
342 (EE Probability and Statistics). In addition, a solid foundation of mathematics through
differential and integral calculus is ensured by the required mathematics courses (MATH 241,
242, 242L, 243, and 244).
CHEM 161, 161L, and 162 and PHYS 170, 170L, 272, 272L, and 274 ensure that students
understand basic science. The EE courses ensure knowledge of engineering sciences necessary
to analyze and design complex electrical and electronic devices.
In EE 160 (Programming for Engineers), students are introduced to the analysis and design of
complex computer software by learning and practicing the art of programming using the C
language.
Students gain an understanding of aspects of computer science in EE 160, EE 260 (Introduction
to Digital Design), and EE 342. EE 160 introduces students to programming language,
computation, and algorithms. EE 260 covers logic, Boolean algebra, the binary number system,
simple algorithms for computer arithmetic, digital circuits, and the elements of computer
architecture. Students learn and derive formulas to count discrete objects in EE 342.
In EE 260, students study systems containing hardware and software components. The course
covers a simple computer including its hardware architecture, machine instructions, and machine
language programs.
The curriculum ensures that graduates have knowledge of advanced mathematics such as
differential equations, complex variables, discrete mathematics, and linear algebra. This is partly
accomplished by required courses that specifically cover the math. In particular, all EEs must
take Math 302 (Introduction to Differential Equations I) and EE 342. Math 302 covers
differential equations, and EE 342 covers probability and statistics.
Students also learn advanced mathematics in required EE courses as they arise in applications.
EE 213 (Basic Circuit Analysis II), EE 315 (Signal and System Analysis), and EE 342 ensure
knowledge of linear systems in the time and frequency domains, e.g., Fourier and Laplace
transforms. These courses cover many concepts in complex variables including manipulation of
complex functions and calculation of residues when inverting Fourier and Laplace Transforms.
EE 213 introduces topics in linear algebra including matrix manipulation, eigenvectors and
eigenvalues. It also discusses state space representations and solutions.
EE 211 (Basic Circuit Analysis I) and EE 371 (Engineering Electromagnetics I) covers first- and
second-order linear ordinary differential equations with constant coefficients for characterizing
100
RLC and transmission-line circuits, as well as plane wave propagation. EE 324 (Physical
Electronics) and 371 covers partial differential equations. In EE 324 the context is with respect
to Schrodinger’s equation, while in EE 371 the context is with respect to Maxwell’s equations.
The diffusion equation is also covered in EE 324.
Students gain some knowledge discrete mathematics in EE 342 and EE 260. As mentioned
earlier EE 342 covers formulas for counting discrete objects and EE 260 covers logic, Boolean
algebra, and the binary number system.
Many EE Technical Electives will also increase a student’s knowledge of advanced mathematics
towards a specialization. For example, EE 315 and EE 415 (Digital Signal Processing) builds
upon knowledge in linear systems. EE 415 is a course on signal processing that has additional
topics in complex variables including the Z transform (Laurent Series). EE 351 (Linear Systems
and Control) is control theory course that provides more exposure to topics in linear algebra.
Both EE 315 and 415 are Group I in the Systems Track (recall that Group I are the required
courses for a Track).
EE 372 (Engineering Electromagnetics II) and EE 475 (Optical Communications) will further a
students understanding of differential equations in the context of Maxwell’s equations, and EE
327 (Theory and Design of IC Devices) continue with the diffusion equation covered in EE 324.
Both EE 372 and EE 327 are Group I in the Electro-Physics Track.
An example of an EE Technical Elective that is not in Group I and has advanced math topics is
EE 473 (Microwave Engineering). It is in Group II in the Electro-Physics Track. It covers
complex matrix representation of two-port networks (via y-, z-, h-, ABCD-, and s-parameters)
and the manipulation of those networks. Roughly half of the course deals with networks that can
be represented via unitary matrices.
101
APPENDIX I
PROGRAM DATA
Part A: Curriculum, Faculty and Expenditure Information
Part B: Course Syllabi
Part C: Faculty Curriculum Vitae
I-2
I-14
I-111
APPENDIX I-A
CURRICULUM, FACULTY AND EXPENDITURE
INFORMATION
Table I-1. Basic-Level Curriculum
Electrical Engineering
Semester
Freshman
Fall
Freshman
Spring
Sophomore
Fall
Sophomore
Spring
Junior
Fall
Category (Credit Hours)
Engineering
Topics
Check if Contains
Math & Basic
Significant
General
Sciences
Design ()1
Education Other
( )
3
4
( )
Course
(Department, Number, Title)
ENG 100 Composition I
MATH 241 Calculus I
CHEM 161 & 161L General Chemistry I
and Lab
SP 251 Principles of Effective Public
Speaking
EE 160 Programming for Engineers
MATH 242 & 242L Calculus II and
Computer Lab
PHYS 170 & 170L General Physics I
and Lab
CHEM 162 General Chemistry II
EE 211 Basic Circuit Analysis I
EE 260 Introduction to Digital Design
MATH 243 Calculus III
PHYS 272 & 272L General Physics II
and Lab
EE 213 Basic Circuit Analysis II
MATH 244 Calculus IV
PHYS 274 General Physics III
EE 296 Sophomore Project
FG (Foundation Course)
Economics Elective2
EE 315 Signal and Systems Analysis
EE 323 & 323L Microelectronic
Circuits I and Lab
EE 324 Physical Electronics
EE 371 Engineering Elecgtromagnetics I
MATH 302 Introduction to Differential
Equations I
(continued on next page)
4
(
)
(
)
4 (
)
4
(
)
5
(
)
3
3
( )
4( )
4 ( )
( )
4
(
)
4 (
(
(
1 (
(
(
3 (
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
3
3
3
3
3
4 ( )
3 ( )
3 ( )
3
(
)
1
Courses with design credits (0.5 design credits or higher) are designated as having significant design. Note that all
EE students are required to have a sum of 16 design credits to graduate.
2
The Economics Elective is satisfied by one of either ECON 120 Introduction to Economics, ECON 130 Principles
of Economics, or ECON 131 Principles of Economics.
Appendix I, Part A
2
Table I-1. Basic-Level Curriculum (continued)
Electrical Engineering
Category (Credit Hours)
Course
(Department, Number, Title)
EE 342 EE Probability and Statistics
EE 396 Junior Project
EE 341 & 341L Introduction to
Communication Systems and Lab
EE Technical Elective and Lab
(Major Track)
Engineering Breadth3
Senior
EE Technical Elective (Major Track)
Fall
EE Technical Elective and Lab
(Major Track)
EE Technical Elective
(Outside Major Track)
Humanities Elective
Social Sciences Elective
Senior
EE 496 Capstone Design Project
Spring
EE Technical Elective (Major Track)
EE Technical Elective (Major Track)
FG (Foundation Course)
TOTALS-ABET BASIC-LEVEL REQUIREMENTS
OVERALL TOTAL
122
FOR DEGREE
PERCENT OF TOTAL
Totals must Minimum semester credit hours
satisfy one set Minimum percentage
Semester
Junior
Spring
Math & Basic
Science
3
3
Engineering
Topics
Check if
Contains
Significant
Design ()
( )
2( )
4( )
4(
)
(
3(
4(
)
)
)
3(
)
39
( )
( )
3( )
3( )
3( )
( )
59
32.0%
32 hrs
25%
48.4%
48 hrs
37.5 %
General
Education
Other
3
3
3
3
21
3
17.2%
2.5%
Engineering breadth is an engineering or science course. It either satisfies Basic Science/Math or Engineering
Topics but it depends on the course. Therefore, we categorized it under “Other”.
Appendix I, Part A
3
Significant Design in EE Technical Electives: The following is a list of EE Technical
Electives that have significant design (i.e., some design credits, 0.5 design credits and higher).
There is at least two classes in each of the Tracks (Computers, Electro-Physics, and Systems)
with 3 credit hours or higher that are in Group I. Recall that all of Group I are required for a
Track.

 Computer Track

Group I (11 hrs)

EE 361 Digital Systems and Computer Design (3 hrs)
EE 361L Digital Systems and Computer Design Lab (1 hr)
EE 366 CMOS VLSI Design (3 hrs)
EE 367 Computer Data Structures and Algorithms (3 hrs)
EE 367L Computer Data Structures and Algorithms Lab (1 hr)
Group II
EE 344 Networking I (4 hrs)
EE 461 Computer Architecture (3 hrs)
EE 467 Object-Oriented Software Engineering (3 hrs)
EE 468 Introduction to Operating Systems (3 hrs)
EE 469 Wireless Data Networks (3 hrs)
Electro-Physics Track

Group I (11 hrs)

EE 326 Microelectronics Circuits II (3 hrs)
EE 326L Microelectronics Circuits II Lab (1 hr)
EE 327 Theory and Design of IC Devices (3 hrs)
EE 372 Engineering Electromagnetics II (3 hrs)
EE 372L Engineering Electromagnetics II Lab (1 hr)
Group II
EE 328 (3 hrs) Physical Electronics Lab Techniques
EE 328L (1 hr) Physical Electronics Lab
EE 422 (3 hrs) Electronic Instrumentation
EE 422L (1 hr) Instrumentation Lab
EE 426 (3 hrs) Advanced Si IC and Solid State Devices
EE 473 (3 hrs) Microwave Engineering
EE 475 (3 hrs) Optical Communications
 System Track

Group I (8 hrs)

EE 351 Linear Systems and Control (3 hrs)
EE 351L Linear Systems and Control Lab (1 hr)
EE 415 Digital Signal Processing (4 hrs)
Group II
EE 344 Networks I (4 hrs)
EE 442 Digital Communications (3 hrs)
EE 452 Digital Control Systems (3 hrs)
EE 453 Modern Control Theory (3 hrs)
Appendix I, Part A
4
Table I-2. Course and Section Size Summary
Electrical Engineering
No. of Sections
offered in
Course No.
Title
Current Year
EE 160
Programming for Engineers
6
EE 196
Freshman Project
43
EE 211
Basic Circuit Analysis I
6
EE 213
Basic Circuit Analysis II
4
EE 244
Networking I
1
EE 260
Intro to Digital Design
4
EE 296
Sophomore Project
46
EE 315
Signal & System Analysis
2
EE 323
Microelectronic Circuits I
2
EE 323L
Microelectronic Circuits I Lab
4
EE 324
Physical Electronics
2
EE 326
Microelectronic Circuits II
1
EE 326L
Microelectronic Circuits II Lab
1
EE 327
Theory & Design IC Devices
2
EE 328
Physical Electronic Lab Technq
1
EE 331
Electric Machines and Drives
1
EE 341
Intro to Communication Systems
2
EE 341L
Communication Systems Lab
4
EE 342
EE Probability & Statistics
2
EE 351
Linear Systems & Control
1
EE 351L
Linear Systems & Control Lab
1
EE 361
Digital Sys & Computer Design
1
Type of Class
Avg. Section
Enrollment
20
0
17
19
7
20
1.5
35
33
16
34
21
19
18
8
19
35
17
31
29
18
37
(continued on next page)
Appendix I, Part A
5
Lecture
50%
Laboratory
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
Recitation
Other
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Table I-2. Course and Section Size Summary (continued)
Electrical Engineering
No. of Sections
offered in
Course No.
Title
Current Year
EE 361L
Digital Sys & Comp Des Lab
2
EE 366
CMOS VLSI Design
1
EE 367
Comp Data Struct & Algrthm
1
EE 367L
Comp Data Struct & Alg Lab
1
EE 371
Engineering Electromagnetics I
2
EE 372
Engineering Electromagnetics II
1
EE 372L
Eng Electromagnetics II Lab
1
EE 396
Junior Project
47
EE 415
Digital Signal Processing
1
EE 426
Adv SI IC & Solid State Devices
1
EE 449
Computer Communication Nets
1
EE 452
Digital Control Systems
1
EE 453
Modern Control Theory
1
EE 461
Computer Architecture
1
EE 467
Object-Oriented Software Eng
1
EE 468
Intro to Operating Systems
1
EE 473
Microwave Engineering
1
EE 475
Optical Communications
1
EE 491F
Spec Topics: Comp Soft
1
EE 496
Capstone Design Project
51
EE 499
Directed Reading
7
EE 500
Master’s Plan B/C Studies
2
Type of Class
Avg. Section
Enrollment
17
25
17
16
35
29
24
1.5
17
6
13
16
10
15
19
15
26
16
4
1.3
.43
.5
(continued on next page)
Appendix I, Part A
6
Lecture
Laboratory
100%
Recitation
Other
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
50%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
50%
100%
100%
100%
Table I-2. Course and Section Size Summary (continued)
Electrical Engineering
No. of Sections
offered in
Course No.
Title
Current Year
EE 602
Algorithms I
1
EE 604
Artificial Intelligence
1
EE 607
Advanced Network Algorithms
1
EE 620
Advanced Electronic Circuits
1
EE 621
Advanced Solid State Devices
1
EE 622
Optical Electronics I
1
EE 640
Applied Random Processes
1
EE 642
Detection & Estimation Theory
1
EE 644
Computer Communication Nets
1
EE 645
Neural Nets & Learning Theory
1
EE 646
Advanced Information Theory
1
EE 650
Linear System Theory
1
EE 660
Computer Architecture I
1
EE 665
Computer Systems
1
EE 668
Telecommunication Networks
1
EE 671
Electromagnetic Theory & App
1
EE 673
Advanced Microwave Eng
1
EE 693D
Special Topics: Communications
1
EE 693F
Special Topics: Comp Software
1
EE 693F
Special Topics: Comp Software
1
EE 699
Directed Reading or Research
49
EE 700
Thesis Research
49
Type of Class
Avg. Section
Enrollment
6
4
12
4
3
5
8
11
8
5
5
10
8
4
7
7
8
1
5
5
1.1
.65
(continued on next page)
Appendix I, Part A
7
Lecture
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Laboratory
Recitation
Other
100%
100%
Table I-2. Course and Section Size Summary (continued)
Electrical Engineering
Course No.
Title
EE 790
Directed Instruction
EE 800
Dissertation Research
Appendix I, Part A
No. of Sections
offered in
Current Year
16
7
Type of Class
Avg. Section
Enrollment
.31
.14
8
Lecture
Laboratory
Recitation
Other
100%
100%
Table I-3. Faculty Workload Summary
Electrical Engineering
Faculty Member (Name)
Boric-Lubecke, Olga
Bullock, Audra
Chattergy, Rahul
Dobry, Tep
Dong, Yingfei
Fossorier, Marc
Gaarder, N. Thomas
Hac, Anna
Holm-Kennedy, James
Host-Madsen, Anders
Iskander, Magdy
Koide, Frank
Kuh, Anthony
FT
or
Classes Taught (Course
PT
No./Credit Hrs.)
(%)
Term and Year
100 EE620 (3cr) S’03
100 EE475 (3cr) , EE622 (3cr) F’02
EE211 (4cr), EE331 (3cr) F’02
100
EE351/L (4cr), EE452 (3cr) S’03
100 EE260 (4cr) F’02, EE160 (3cr) S’03
100
100
100 EE213 (4cr), EE646 (3cr) F’02
EE468 (3cr), EE668 (3cr) F’02
100
EE491F (3cr), EE665 (3cr) S’03
EE324 (3cr), EE327 (3cr) F’02
100
EE324 (3cr), EE426 (3cr) S’03
100 EE415 (4cr) F’02, EE642 (3cr) S’03
100 EE671 (3cr) F’02, EE371 (3cr) S’03
40 EE211 (4cr) F’02, S’03
EE315 (3cr), EE342 (3cr) F’02
100
EE341/L (4cr), EE645 (3cr) S’03
Teaching
50
50
Total Activity Distribution
Research
40
10
30
80
10
10
50
0
0
30
10
0
0
10
40 (Int. Assist. Dean)
0
(New hire F’03)
100
(Sabbatical)
60 (Sabbatical S’03)
50
40
10
30
20
50 (Sick leave F’02)
50
30
80
40
20
10
10
50 (Director HCAC)
10
(Emeritus)
50
30
20
Other
(New hire S’03)
20
Malhotra, Vinod
100
EE621 (3cr) F’02
EE327 (3cr) S’03
50
20
30
(Grad. Chair F’02,
Emergency class F’02
EE327 (3cr))
Najita, Kazutoshi (emeritus)
40
EE326/L (4cr) F’02
EE323/L (4cr) S’03
70
10
20 (Emeritus, Emergency
class F’02 EE324 (3cr))
(continued on next page)
Appendix I, Part A
9
Table I-3. Faculty Workload Summary (continued)
Electrical Engineering
Faculty Member (Name)
Lubecke, Victor
Reed, Nancy
FT
or
Classes Taught (Course
PT
No./Credit Hrs.)
(%)
Term and Year
100 EE328 (3cr) S’03
EE467 (3cr) F’02
100
EE693F (3cr) S’03
Reed, Todd
100
Sasaki, Galen
100
Shiroma, Wayne
100
Syrmos, Vassilis
Weldon, Edward
100
20
Yee, James
100
Yun, David
100
Jinghu Chen
Mu Feng
25
25
Claudio Talarico
50
Masahiro Tsuchiya
50 EE160 (4cr) F’02, EE461 (3cr) S’03
100 EE372/L (4cr) S’03
100 EE341/L (4cr) F’02
Zhengqing Yun
Zhijun Zhang
Appendix I, Part A
EE361/L (4cr), EE607 (3cr) F’02
EE260 (4cr), EE693F (3cr) S’03
EE371 (3cr) F’02
EE473 (3cr), EE673 (3cr) S’03
EE453 (3cr), EE650 (3cr) F’02
EE449 (3cr) F’02
EE244 (4cr), EE640 (3cr) F’02
EE342 (3cr), EE644 (3cr) S’03
EE602 (3cr), EE660 (3cr) F’02
EE367/L (4cr), EE604 (3cr) S’03
EE213 (4cr) S’03
EE315 (3cr) S’03
EE323/L (4cr) F’02
EE366 (4cr) S’03
10
Teaching
50
Total Activity Distribution
Research
40
10
50
30
20
0
20
80 (Chair, Graduate
Chair S’03, ABET Chair
S’03)
50
25
25
45
25
30
25
80
25
10
80
10
10
45
40
15
100
100
0
0
0
0
(Instructor)
(Instructor)
100
0
0
(Instructor)
80
25
25
10
75
75
50
10
Other
(New hire S’03)
(Leave S’03)
(Emeritus)
10 (Visiting Assist. Prof.)
0
(Assist. Res., HCAC)
0
(Assist. Res., HCAC)
Table I-4. Faculty Analysis
State in which
Registered
.5
3
35
None
None
None
Dobry, Tep
I3 100 Ph.D.
UC Berkeley, 1987
7.3
15
14
None
Dong, Yingfei
Fossorier, Marc
Gaarder, N. Thomas
Hac, Anna
Holm-Kennedy, James
Host-Madsen, Anders
Iskander, Magdy
Koide, Frank (emeritus)
Kuh, Anthony
Lubecke, Victor
Malhotra, Vinod
Najita, Kazutoshi (emeritus)
I3
I4
I5
I5
I5
I3
I5
I5
I5
I4
I4
I5
2.6
0
2
5
0
4.3
1.5
3
3
10
.3
5
0
7
38
15
34
7
27
37
17
.5
16
44
0
7
35
12
26
2.3
1.5
34
17
.5
16
44
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Reed, Nancy
I3 100 Ph.D.
U of MN, 1995
0
10
1.5
None
Reed, Todd
I5 100 Ph.D.
U of MN, 1988
8
15
1.5
None
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
40
Ph.D. U of MN (pending)
Ph.D. U of Hawai’i, 1994
Stanford, 1965
Ph.D.
Ph.D. Warsaw Univ., 1982
U of MN, 1968
Ph.D.
Ph.D. TU Denmark, 1993
Ph.D. U of Manitoba, 1975
U of Iowa, 1966
Ph.D.
Princeton, 1987
Ph.D.
CalTech, 1995
Ph.D.
Ph.D. Colorado State, 1987
Ph.D. U of Hawai’I, 1969
(continued on next page)
Appendix I, Part A
11
H (IEEE)
H (SWE)
L (IEEE)
HAMS)
(IEEE,
HKN)
M (IEEE)
H (IEEE)
L (IEEE)
H (IEEE)
L (IEEE)
H (IEEE)
H (IEEE)
L (IEEE)
H (IEEE)
H (IEEE)
M (ECS)
M (HKN)
H (AAAI,
ACM)
H (IEEE)
Consulting
/Summer
Work in
Industry
This
Institution
.5
3
35
Research
Total
Faculty
8
0
0
Years of Experience
Level of Activity
(high, med, low, none)
Profession
al Society
(Indicate
Society)
Govt./
Industry
Practice
UCLA, 1995
Old Dominion, 2000
UCLA, 1968
Highest Degree
I4 100 Ph.D.
I3 100 Ph.D.
I5 100 Ph.D.
FT or PT
Boric-Lubecke, Olga
Bullock, Audra
Chattergy, Rahul
Name
Rank
Institution from
which Highest
Degree Earned &
Year
Electrical Engineering
H
H
L
N
N
N
L
N
H
H
N
H
M
H
H
N
H
H
L
L
H
H
N
M
L
L
L
N
M
N
N
N
H
L
M
N
Table I-4. Faculty Analysis (continued)
This
Institution
State in which
Registered
None
I4 100 Ph.D. U of Colorado, 1996
5
7
7
None
Syrmos, Vassilis
Weldon, Edward (emeritus)
Yee, James
Yun, David
I5
I5
I4
I5
Ph.D. Georgia Tech, 1991
Ph.D. U of Florida, 1963
MIT, 1986
Ph.D.
MIT, 1973
Ph.D.
1
39
0
10
12
37
22
20
12
37
12
14
Jinghu Chen
Mu Feng
Claudio Talarico
Masahiro Tsuchiya
Zhengqing Yun
Zhijun Zhang
I2
I2
I2
I3
UH Manoa, 2003
M.S.
M.S. X’ian Jiaotong, 1998
M.S. U of Genova, 1992
Ph.D. U of Texas, 1974
Ph.D. Chongqing Yun, 1994
Ph.D. Tsinghua U, 1999
.5
3
7
22
8
2
.5
.5
1.5
3.5
1.5
1
.5
.5
1.5
3.5
1.5
1
I4 100 Ph.D.
Shiroma, Wayne
Appendix I, Part A
R3
R3
100
20?
100
100
12
H
H
H
M
None
HI, NY
None
None
H (IEEE)
H (IEEE,
HKN)
H (IEEE)
M (IEEE)
L (IEEE)
H (various)
H
L
N
H
H
H
N
N
None
None
None
None
None
None
L (IEEE)
N
L (IEEE)
L (IEEE)
M (IEEE)
M (IEEE)
H
H
M
N
H
H
H
H
H
M
N
N
Profession
al Society
(Indicate
Society)
Consulting
/Summer
Work in
Industry
Total
Faculty
16
Sasaki, Galen
Years of Experience
Level of Activity
(high, med, low, none)
Research
Govt./
Industry
Practice
16
Highest Degree
.5
FT or PT
U of Illinois, 1987
Name
Rank
Institution from
which Highest
Degree Earned &
Year
Electrical Engineering
Table I-5. Support Expenditures
Electrical Engineering
Fiscal Year
Expenditure Category
Operations
(not including staff)
Travel
Equipment
Institutional Funds
Grants and Gifts
Graduate Teaching
Assistants
Part-time Assistance
(other than teaching)
Appendix I, Part A
1
2001
2
2002
3
2003
4
2004 (est.)
121,182
210,952
233,039
233,039
8.955
193,039
193,039
99,424
8,648
143,019
143,019
103,027
17,275
115,548
90,548
25,000
104,853
17,275
115,548
90,548
25,000
104,853
44,161
70,202
40,000
40,000
13
APPENDIX I-B
COURSE SYLLABI
Number
Course Title
EE 160
Programming for Engineers
EE 196
Freshmen Project
EE 211
Basic Circuit Analysis I
EE 213
Basic Circuit Analysis II
EE 260
Introduction to Digital Design
EE 296
Sophomore Project
EE 315
Signal and Systems Analysis
EE 323
Microelectronic Circuits I
EE 323L
Microelectronic Circuits I Laboratory
EE 324
Physical Electronics
EE 326
Microelectronic Circuits II
EE326L
Microelectronics Circuits II Lab
EE 327
Theory and Design of IC Devices I
EE 328
Physical Electronics Lab Techniques
EE 328L
Physical Electronics Lab
EE 341:
Introduction to Communication Systems
EE 341L:
Communication Systems Lab
EE 342
EE Probability and Statistics
EE 344:
Networking I
EE 351
Linear Systems and Control
EE 351L
Linear Systems and Control Lab
EE 361
Digital Systems and Computer Design
EE 361L
Digital Systems and Computer Design Lab
EE 366
CMOS VLSI Design
EE367
Computer Data Structure and Algorithms
EE367L
Computer Data Structure and Algorithms Lab
EE 371
Engineering Electromagnetics I
EE 372
Engineering Electromagnetics II
EE 372L
Engineering Electromagnetics Laboratory
EE 396
Junior Project
EE 415
Digital Signal Processing
EE 422
Electronic Instrumentation
EE 422L
Electronic Instrumentation Laboratory
EE 426
Theory and Design of IC Devices II
EE 442
Digital Communications
EE 449
Computer Communication Networks
EE 452
Digital Control Systems
EE 453
Modern Control Theory
EE 455
Design of Intelligent Robots
EE 461
Computer Architecture
EE 467
Object-Oriented Software Engineering
EE 468
Introduction to Operating Systems
EE 469
Wireless Data Networks
EE 473
Microwave Engineering
EE 475
Optical Communications
EE 491 (Alpha)
Special Topics in Electrical Engineering
EE 494
Provisional Topics
EE 496
Capstone Design Project
Appendix I, Part B
15
APPENDIX I-C
FACULTY CURRICULUM VITAE
Name
Title
Boric-Lubecke, Olga
Associate Professor
Bullock, Audra
Assistant Professor
Chattergy, Rahul
Professor
Chen, Jinghu
Instructor
Dobry, Tep
Assistant Professor
Feng, Mu
Instructor
Fossorier, Marc
Associate Professor
Gaarder, N. T.
Professor
Hać, Anna
Professor
Holm-Kennedy, James
Professor
Host-Madsen, Anders
Assistant Professor
Iskander, Magdy
Professor
Koide, Frank
Emeritus Professor
Kuh, Anthony
Professor
Lubecke, Victor
Associate Professor
Malhotra, Vinod
Associate Professor
Najita, Kazutoshi
Emeritus Professor
Reed, Nancy E.
Assistant Professor
Reed, Todd R.
Professor
Sasaki, Galen
Associate Professor
Shiroma, Wayne
Associate Professor
Syrmos, Vassilis
Professor
Talarico, Claudio
Instructor
Tsuchiya, Masahiro
Visiting Assistant Professor
Weldon, E. J.
Emeritus Professor
Yee, James R.
Associate Professor
Yun, David Y.Y.
Professor
Yun, Zhengquing
Instructor/Assistant Researcher
Zhang, Zhijun
Instructor/Assistant Researcher
APPENDIX II
INSTITUTIONAL PROFILE
APPENDIX III
ROLE OF COMMITTEES
ABET CORE COMMITTEE (ACC)

At least one member from each of the other committees must be on ABET Core
Committee.

In addition to determining the overall departmental framework of ABET evaluation
process and its logistics, the primary responsibility of the ABET Core Committee is to do
the following: 1) develop the undergraduate educational objectives, 2) develop a
mechanism by which these objectives are determined and evaluated, 3) develop a system
of ongoing assessment that leads to continuous improvement of the undergraduate
curriculum, and 4) evaluate outcomes and provide recommendations to insure the
objectives are achieved.
The ACC has the responsibility to oversee the whole process, implement
programs and prepare documents as required by ABET. It must prepare and
update documents on educational objectives and outcomes, and describe how
these meet the mission of the program. It should describe the processes used to
establish and review the objectives and the extent to which the program's various
constituencies are involved in these processes.
It should prepare documentation that describes the ongoing evaluation of the level
of achievement of these objectives, the results obtained by this periodic evaluation
and the evidence that the results are being used to improve the effectiveness of the
program.
It should define all committees involved with ABET accreditation. Currently,
these committees include Assessment, Undergraduate Curriculum, and Interface
Committees. Defining a committee includes describing its responsibilities, why it
is needed, how it interacts with other committees, and how it fits into the ABET
accreditation processes.
After reviewing all the internal and external assessment data, it should provide
recommendations to the following committees:
o To the Assessment Committee, recommend performances to measure in
accordance to the objectives and outcomes.
o To the Interface Committee, recommend feedback/interaction mechanisms with
the stakeholders. Any changes to the constituency list must be documented
including the reasons for the changes.
o To the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, recommend changes to be made in
the undergraduate curriculum.

A secondary responsibility of the ABET Core Committee is to establish a schedule for
completing tasks and preparing for the ABET visit. It should disseminate information
about activities both in public and internally. It should document any processes that are
outside of the responsibilities of any of the other committees.

The committee will prepare an annual report summarizing its activities related to its
mission. The report must include the following: 1) the state of the overall undergraduate
program related to the department’s undergraduate educational objectives, 2) document
changes, if any, in the objectives and provide reasons for modification, 3) summary and
analyses of all the external and internal assessment data, 4) and the recommendations,
with supporting reasons, made to the various committees. The report should also include
an evaluation of whether the overall undergraduate program is meeting, or failing to
meet, the objectives.
ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE (AC)

At least one member (preferably the coordinator of the AC) must participate in the ABET
Core Committee.

The Assessment Committee’s primary responsibility is the assessment of the outcomes
obtained from the undergraduate students to verify that the undergraduate curriculum
satisfies the department’s objectives.
The committee should consider gathering both qualitative and quantitative data on
a regular basis to assess the quality of achievement of each of the outcomes by the
students.
The assessments should indicate whether or not the students will ultimately
satisfy each of the department’s objectives.

A secondary responsibility is the continual modification of the metrics, methods and
procedures used to assess the outcomes.
It includes development of metrics, methods, and collection procedures to insure
that the quality of achievement of each of the department’s objectives is
illustrated in the gathered data. Continual refinement and modification of the
metrics, methods, and collection procedures is expected to be an on-going
process.

The committee should consider the recommendations of the ABET Core Committee.

The committee will prepare an annual report summarizing its activities related to
monitoring and assessment of the collected data. It should describe how the students are
evaluated and monitored in a manner consistent with the department’s objectives. The
Appendix III
2
report should also include the state of the undergraduate program and how it is meeting,
or failing to meet, these objectives.
UNDERGRADUATE CURRICULUM COMMITTEE (UCC)

At least one member (preferably the coordinator/chairperson) must participate in the
ABET Core Committee.

The Undergraduate Curriculum Committee’s primary responsibility is to insure continual
improvement of the undergraduate curriculum, such that it meets the department’s
objectives.
The UCC must consider, and if feasible, implement and oversee modifications in
the curriculum based upon the recommendations of the ABET Core Committee.
The recommendations will be based upon reports from the other participating
committees (Assessment, External Interface Committees, etc) and the overall
assessment of the state of the curriculum and the department’s objectives.
Efforts to implement any major changes in the undergraduate curriculum should
require faculty and Department Chairman’s approval.

The secondary responsibility of the UCC is to update documents for the undergraduate
curriculum. This includes, UH Catalog, planned course offerings for each semester and
the undergraduate information on the EE web site.

The committee will prepare an annual report that describes its accomplishments for the
year. The report should highlight any changes made to the curriculum, the reasons for
the changes and provide quantitative and qualitative data, whenever possible, to support
the reasons.
INTERFACE COMMITTEE (IC)

At least one member must participate in the ABET Core Committee.

The primary responsibility of the committee is to identify, interface with and get
feedback from the constituencies on the department’s performance in educating
undergraduate students. The current constituencies are students, industry, alumni, and
community. The committee may also interact with other stakeholders to get input and
feedback.
The committee may form constituency advisory boards. Currently there are two
boards: Student Advisory Board (SAB) and Industrial Advisory Board (IAB).
Appendix III
3
The committee’s role is to provide necessary logistical support to the boards. To
each of them, they should provide the following: 1) objectives, responsibilities,
and mission statements, 2) help in organizing meetings and hosting their visit to
the department, and 3) developing respective evaluation surveys or forms to
facilitate their feedback to the department. The committee is also responsible for
organizing, whenever necessary, the documents for the constituency boards. This
may include general information on the department and reports on the state of the
undergraduate program.
The committee may seek the Department Chairperson’s help, whenever
necessary, in financing its activities, such as hosting boards’ visit to the
department.

The committee will prepare an annual report summarizing its activities related to its
interactions and with the constituencies. It should include a description of how the
feedback was sought, and a quantitative and qualitative data of the feedback itself. The
nature of the report must focus on the undergraduate program and the department’s
effectiveness in meeting, or failing to meet, its objectives.

Recommendations from the ABET Core committee should be taken into account.
Appendix III
4
APPENDIX IV
SUMMARY REPORT TO CONSTITUENTS
FY 2001 - 2002
This document summarizes major changes or improvements that have taken place since the last
review provided by the Industrial Advisory board (IAB) and the Student Advisory Board (SAB)
in Fall 2001. The department has carefully studied the feedback provided by IAB and SAB, and
in the context of ABET requirements, has addressed them in the manner described below.
IMPLEMENTED

Based on the requirements set by ABET, and the inputs received from IAB/SAB, the
department has established a new set of educational objectives and anticipated outcomes.
This is attached as Appendix I and II of this document. The department has also formed
several committees so that there is a systematic approach to receiving inputs from
constituents, evaluating these inputs, and then acting upon them to achieve an on-going
improvement in the curriculum. The committees are the following: Interface Committee,
Assessment Committee, Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, and the ABET Core
Committee.

This past year we successfully recruited Drs. Olga Lubecke and Victor Lubecke. Olga
Lubecke’s area is in analog circuit design, with applications in the wireless
communications field. Victor Lubecke’s area is in MEMS, and semiconductor devices.
They will significantly enhance our teaching and research capabilities in the
Electrophysics area. These additions also address the issue of upgrading the analog
circuit curriculum as was suggested during the previous IAB/SAB feedback sessions.

We are currently recruiting faculty in the computer hardware and wireless
communications areas to further strengthen the department in course offerings and
research. We are looking forward to incorporating student feedback in the recruitment
process.

Over the last three years the EE dept. has spent roughly $250,000 to upgrade
undergraduate instructional and computer labs. We have made improvements by buying
new equipment and computers for the basic circuits, analog circuits, digital circuits, and
communications labs. Further improvements are needed and we are exploring additional
ways and resources to realize these improvements. Although, this issue was part of the
IAB/SAB feedback, the year to year improvements in the laboratory infrastructure is
subject to the availability of funds.
Appendix IV
1

This past year we opened a new multimedia facility (Holmes 389) with distance learning
capabilities to enhance classroom instruction. It is somewhat fortuitous that this room has
capabilities similar to the Donald Kim room in POST building: as desired by the SAB.

Design Your Own Track (DYOT): It was suggested by IAB/SAB that they found the
existing track system, namely the three tracks Electrophysics, Computers, and Systems,
to be restrictive. It did not encourage students to take other courses that better define their
career goals. As a result, the department has implemented a new system that gives the
students, in consultation with their advisor, an option to design their own program. A
faculty member or a student along with a faculty advisor may propose an alternate set of
courses to one of the existing tracks. The set must be equivalent to a track, and then
approved by the department’s Undergraduate Curriculum Committee. It is anticipated
that this will improve mentoring and provide open-ended career possibilities for the
students.

At the present time, our plan is to leave the core EE requirements more or less the same
except for the changes mentioned below. However, improvement in the core courses will
be worked upon with more opportunities for integration and intra department
communication to address the fundamental topics in the curriculum (example: successful
co-operation with the Mathematics department in the past).

CE 270/ME 311 requirement: Based on the feedback received, it appears that the
usefulness of these courses is somewhat questionable and that a change in these
requirements is necessary. Since ABET requires that the students take at least one 3
credit course in engineering which is non EE, the scope of this has now been expanded to
include many other options. The requirement may be satisfied through not only CE 270,
ME 311, but also any CE, ME, OE (Ocean Engineering), or BE (Biosystems
Engineering) course that is at the 300 level or higher. It may also be satisfied by a
physical or biological science course that is at the 300 level or higher and approved by
the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee.

EE 342 (Probability and Statistics) requirement: The department will continue to keep
this course mandatory for the students. A course such as this is required by ABET. The
issue of including Design of Experiments in this particular course was found to be
beyond the scope and level of the course.

Design Projects and Communication Skills: EE 296, EE 396, and EE 496 design project
courses provide practical hands-on training for the students. The systems track did not
have many projects during the last IAB visit and this fact has been taken note of. The
department is working on having a broad selection of projects in the future. The
development of communication skills, through writing and oral presentations, has been
made mandatory for these courses.

General issues: a) The department chair will make efforts to ensure that the same book is
used for a given course if two different faculty teach the same course during a semester.
b) Training of teaching assistants is being considered by the Graduate Division, and the
Appendix IV
2
department may supplement this training if it finds it necessary to do so. A large
majority of the TAs are foreign students and they will be encouraged to take courses in
English. c) The foreign language requirement has been waived for EE students. d) EE
213 will require the use of MATLAB.
IN-PROCESS

A committee has been formed to study the need to add an advanced mathematics course
in the curriculum. The course may include topics from Linear Algebra and Discrete
Mathematics.

It is generally believed that technical writing skills of the students need significant
improvement. A group of faculty is evaluating the methods with which this can be
accomplished.
ISSUES THAT NEED FURTHER THOUGHT

Lifelong-learning: The feedback from IAB/SAB, during their visit in 2001, included
‘lifelong-learning’ as a quality that the students should acquire during the course of their
education. This is also one of the objectives of the department. A somewhat related
issue that also needs careful thought and planning are how best to make them
‘independent learners’ so that they have the ability to adapt to changing engineering
technology.

Pre-selection of students for IAB: It was felt that IAB had an opportunity to meet only
with students that were pre-selected by the department. The logistics of how best to
implement a random selection of students or perhaps selection of the students by IAB
itself needs to be worked upon.

We are exploring the ways in which societal, environmental, and ethical issues may be
incorporated in the curriculum.
Appendix IV
3
APPENDIX V
UNDERGRADUATE CURRICULUM COMMITTEE
REPORTS
In this appendix are reports from the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee (UCC). The report
in Appendix V-A is a proposal by the UCC for changes to the curriculum in response inputs
from the Industrial Advisory Board (IAB), Student Advisory Board (SAB), and faculty during
the Academic Year 2001-02. The report was submitted in May 2002. The proposal was
discussed in a departmental faculty meeting in September 2002. Some of the proposed changes
were accepted by the faculty, and this is explained in the report in Appendix V-B.
Appendices V-C and V-D have the final reports of the UCC for Academic Years 2001-02 and
2002-03, respectively. These reports summarize the activities of the committee during the year.
APPENDIX V-A. UCC Proposal: May 2002
Proposed Changes to the Undergraduate Curriculum
Date: May 8, 2002
By: Undergraduate Curriculum Committee: G. Sasaki (Chair), T. Gaarder, and J. Holm-Kennedy.
1. Introduction
We are proposing changes to the undergraduate curriculum. The changes respond to a report by the
Interface Committee (IC) and input from faculty. The report from the IC is an Excel spread sheet titled
"IAB SAB F01 Task Summary". It is a list of numbered items, that are comments and suggestions from
the Industrial Advisory Board (IAB) and Student Advisory Board (SAB). For brevity, we will refer to it
as the IC 2002 Report.
We suggest open faculty discussion (or forum) about the changes, and fully expect revisions.
We
recommend EE faculty approval before any changes are implemented. The changes are organized into
the following categories (a)-(d). They are discussed in more detail in Sections 2 through 5. Actually, the
last category (d) is not a curriculum change but a suggestion to improve the program.
a) Course requirements (see Section 2)
i)
EE 213 course requirements will include Matlab as a tool.
ii)
Applied Linear Algebra will be required of all EE students.
iii)
The CE 270/ME 311 requirement will be changed to a 3 credit engineering or
physical/biological science requirement at the 300 level or higher.
b) Curriculum organization and coordination (see Section 3)
i)
A student along with a faculty advisor may propose an alternate set of courses to one of the
existing Tracks (Computers, Electro-Physics, and Systems). The set must be equivalent to a
track, and must be approved by another faculty and then by the Undergraduate Curriculum
Committee.
c) Communication skills (see Section 4)
i)
A student must take three EE courses that are writing intensive (WI). At least two must be
300 level or higher. Note that this includes EE 496.
ii)
The speaking intensive (SI) requirements for EE 496 will be a total of 75 minutes. For at
least 50 of those minutes, the instructor is required to give feedback. In addition, the SI
component will be a significant part of the grade.
d) Practical education (see Section 5)
i)
The faculty should organize a forum to exchange ideas on supervising student projects and
introducing practical experience in courses.
Sections 6 through 9 cover additional topics. Sections 6 is on life-long learning and creativity, while
Section 7 discusses ethics education. Section 8 summarizes other issues in the curriculum, and Section 9
list topics that the committee is still considering.
The organization of Sections 2 through 9 is as follows. Each section will have a list of issues, including
changes to the curriculum. The "items" from IC 2002 Report that correspond to the issues are listed in a
subsection.
Section 10 explains how the changes relate to our program's outcomes.
Appendix V, Part A
2
2. Course Requirements
There are a number of course requirements that should be changed. Many of them are for math courses.
For the convenience of the reader, we provide the requirements of the math courses.
Course
Description
Math 241, Calculus I Basic concepts, differentiation with applications, integration.
Math 242, Calculus II Integration techniques and applications, series and approximations,
differential equations.
Math 242L, Calculus Introduction to symbolic computer software for solving calculus
Computer Lab
problems, graphing functions and experimenting with calculus
concepts. No knowledge of computers required.
Math 243, Calculus Vector algebra, vector-valued functions, differentiation in several
III
variables, and optimization.
Math 244, Calculus Multiple integrals, line integrals, and Green's Theorem; surface
IV
integrals, Stokes' and Gauss' theorems.
Math
302, First order ordinary differential equations, constant coefficient linear
Introduction
to equations, oscillations, Laplace transform, convolution, Green's
Differential Equation function.
EE 315, Signals and Discrete Fourier transform, Fourier series, Fourier transform, Laplace
Systems Analysis
transform. Fast Fourier transform, analysis of linear systems.
EE 342, Probability Probability, statistics, random variables, distributions, densities,
and Statistics
expectations, limit theorems, and applications to electrical
engineering.
The changes to the curriculum is as follows:
The course requirements for EE 213 will include Matlab. Matlab is widely used in industry for
mathematical computation and data analysis. It is appropriate to integrate it early in our curriculum. In
the UH 2002-2003 Catalog, EE 213 will be described as "Laplace transforms and their applications to
circuits, Fourier transforms and their applications to circuits, frequency selective circuits, introduction to
active filters, convolution, state space analysis of circuits." This should be changed to "Laplace and
Fourier transforms and their applications to circuits, frequency selective circuits, introduction to active
filters, convolution, state space analysis of circuits, Matlab."
Introduce a new 3 Credit EE Core Course on Applied Linear Algebra: We suggest a team of experts
(e.g., J. Yee, V. Syrmos, and A. Host-Madsen) identify the best options for electrical engineers with an
emphasis that the course be useful to practicing engineers.
In place of the CE 270/ME 311 have a 3 credit Engineering or Physical or Biological Science
Requirement. The objective of the CE 270/ME 311 was to provide breadth of engineering knowledge.
We recognize technical breadth as worthwhile and that CE 270/ME 311 is useful for professional
engineer (PE) certification. However, since PE certification is not required for most EE jobs, increased
course selection flexibility is desirable. Thus, we propose to change the CE 270/ME 311 requirement to
simply a non-EE 3-credit engineering or physical/biological science requirement. The requirement can
be satisfied by CE 270, ME 311, or a CE, ME or OE course that is 300 level or higher, or by a physical or
biological science course (300 level or higher).
The following topic is in regards to EE 342 (engineering probability and statistics) and Math 302.
Appendix V, Part A
3
We do not suggest any changes to EE 342 but, as we have in the past, encourage the instructors to
include additional practical experiments, projects, and other applications whenever possible: In the
IC 2002 Report there were two suggestions to change EE 342: eliminate it or have it cover designing
experiments. We cannot eliminate it because probability and statistics are fundamental to an EE
education and is required for accreditation by ABET.
We cannot dedicate it to cover designing
experiments because such a topic is advanced, and in many cases at the graduate level. We should note
that EE 342 does cover confidence intervals and t-tests, so it introduces careful data interpretation.
Math 302 will remain unchanged. Math 302 is not a pre-requisite or co-requisite to any EE courses.
Thus, we considered it as possibly being unnecessary. However, we recognize it as being fundamental
knowledge and essential to fulfilling our program's outcomes.
2.1. IC 2002 Report items and our responses













Item 24: Linear algebra as a program elective. [See above.]
Item 25: Offer Matlab tutorial course. [EE 213 will introduce Matlab. See above.]
Item 4: Statistics apps need modification. [See above.]
Item 41: Math and science content too low and linkage to EE courses should be improved. [We are
currently reviewing our math and science requirements. Faculty discussion directed to this will be
solicited. Further discussion with IAB and SAB in the Fall 2002 is anticipated for clarification on the
specifics of this input. See Section 9.]
Item 12: Consider revision in prerequisites (math/physics) structure. [See item 41 above and Section
9.]
Item 17: Math not always needed where required. [See item 41 above.]
Item 68: Make experiment design/data analysis part of EE 342. [See above.]
Item 15: Eliminate CE 270 and ME 311 requirement. [See above.]
Item 22: EE 101 reinstatement, address communications skill training/EE topic exposure. [EE 101
trained freshman in communication skills and allowed them to explore EE topics. Though this may
have enhanced the experience of EE students early on, it is not necessary for a basic electrical
engineering education. Communication skills are covered in WI and SI courses, and EE topics are
covered throughout the curriculum. Since there is a faculty and staff shortage, EE 101 cannot be
offered at this time.]
Item 10: Waive foreign language requirements. [There is no foreign language requirement in the
curriculum.]
Item 66: Drop CE 270/ME 311. [See above.]
Item 73: Satellite communications course recommended: [A satellite communications course may be
too specialized for a core or track-required offering. It may be offered as a technical elective
contingent on faculty availability.]
Item 23: Power and biomed course reinstatement. [Though power and biomed are important topics,
they are not necessary for an electrical engineering education. The current faculty shortage prevents
the department from adding more power or biomed coures.]
Appendix V, Part A
4
3. Curriculum Organization and Coordination
There are three main issues. The first is that the track system may be too restrictive. We respond by
suggesting a "Design Your Own Track" option which is explained below.
The second issue is to reduce the EE Core requirements. We have discussed dropping EE 341 and Math
302, but decided that these courses are too important. EE 341 covers communication theory, which is
very relevant in the telecommunications industry. Math 302 covers differential equations which is a
mathematical basis for circuit analysis.
The third issue is to better integrate courses and labs. The committee's opinion is that this issue is about
implementing courses, and so it is outside the scope of the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee.
Designing Your Own Track (DYOT) Option: The purpose of the track system is to provide guidance
in taking courses for professional preparation. Upper division courses should be taken to gain expertise in
an area, but the area should not be too narrow. Thus, a track covers both breadth and depth of technical
topics. The current tracks are Computers, Electro-Physics, and Systems.
However, for a student who has a clear education objective, which does not fit into an existing track, a
curriculum composed by the student with an advisor is an alternative. We refer to this as Designing Your
Own Track (DYOT) Plan. A DYOT Plan must be equivalent to one of the three tracks. To apply for a
DYOT Plan, a student along with a faculty advisor must submit a proposal that explains the DYOT Plan
and why it is equivalent to an existing track. It must be endorsed by an additional faculty and approved
by the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee.
3.1. IC 2002 Report items and our responses







Item 48: Link track system to career possibilities, provide mentoring. [To be addressed with IAB
members at the F2002 meeting.]
Item 11: Track format restrictive. [See above. In addition, this topic is appropriate for the next IAB
meeting (F2002).]
Item 26: Tighter integration of lab experiments with course lecture/timing. [See above.]
Item 36: Curriculum should be more flexible to allow students to specialize in areas that cross track
boundaries. [See above.]
Item 39: More cohesion in curriculum to reinforce use of engineering skills learned in courses. [We
are still considering this issue. See Section 9.]
Item 42: Content is too low and linkage between EE courses should be improved. [This input
requires further discussion and some clarification. Which course(s), what linkage is most desirable?
How should linkages of appropriate courses best be executed? …]
Item 72: Increase program flexibility (less core?). [See above.]
Appendix V, Part A
5
4. Communication Skills
Our students should be able to communicate effectively. We suggest two changes to improve the
training.
Three EE courses must be WI courses and at least two must be 300 level or higher (this includes
EE 496). EE courses that are WI provide the best training for written communication. Currently, there
are no requirements on the number of EE courses that must be WI.
Improve speaking intensive (SI) requirements for EE 496. The oral communication requirement for
our curriculum is SP 251 and three speaking intensive (SI) courses, and in particular EE 296, EE 396, and
EE 496. SI means 30 minutes of oral presentation.
We believe that getting feedback about an assignment is vital, and incorporating the feedback into the
next assignment is just as vital. The current SI requirement does not guarantee this training. Toward this
end we propose the following SI requirement for EE 496: A student must give three presentations, each a
minimum of 25 minutes. The first two presentations must include 3-5 minutes of technical dialog (e.g.,
questions and answers about the design, related issues, and background information). The instructor
must provide feedback on these two presentations and the technical dialog. The speaking component
must be a significant portion of the grade.
The following is an example format:
1. Design review -- 25 minutes of presentation that can be informal. The instructor should provide
feedback to improve technical presentation and dialog skills.
2. Progress report -- 25 minutes, and similar to the format for the design review. The instructor should
note whether any improvement was made.
3. Final Presentation -- 25 minutes of formal presentation. A formal PowerPoint presentation is
suitable for the final presentation with hard copy being distributed to peers. The instructor should
note whether a student has sufficient technical presentation and dialog skills.
Presentation evaluation forms that have SI objectives may be used to identify speaker weaknesses. Peer
evaluation is strongly encouraged, e.g., oral feedback on what worked well and what did not.
4.1. IC 2002 Report items and our responses



Item 8: Student communication skills needed/integrated with dialog re design problems. [See above
for a partial solution. We are still considering this issue. See Section 9.]
Item 9: Technical writing course absent. [See above on WI requirements.]
Item 76: Formal day of presentations for senior projects recommended. [This may be logistically
impossible with our current staffing. However, the changes to the SI requirement for EE 496 may
satisfy this comment. In addition, we started a UH EE Design Contest which has students presenting
their EE x96 projects to be judged by industry people.]
Appendix V, Part A
6
5. Practical Education
There were a number of suggestions in the IC 2002 Report to make our curriculum more useful to a
practicing engineer. The main suggestions were (i) make the courses/labs more design oriented; (ii) have
students use state-of-the art tools such as CAD tools; (iii) more exposure to practical engineering issues
such as trade-offs, applications, and open-ended problems.
To a large extent our project courses EE 296, 396, and 496 provide this experience, especially EE 496.
For many of our lecture courses, it is difficult to cover significant design experience because of time
limitations. These lecture courses necessarily spend most of their time covering fundamental principles
and techniques.
The following suggestion may help to improve practical experience.
Provide a forum for faculty to share ideas about practical education. This forum would facilitate
sharing information among faculty about how to manage student projects and introduce additional
practical experience. This can be in the form of a web site or a meeting once a semester. However, this
suggestion goes beyond the scope of this committee.
5.1. IC 2002 Report items and our responses








Item 29: Make labs design oriented. [We need to take inventory on our labs and determine if they
should have more design. See Section 9.]
Item 51: Hands on experience with CAD tools needed. [We need to document the labs that use CAD
tools. See Section 9.]
Item 52: Exposure to packaging technology, performance, reliability. [Performance is a topic many
courses will cover. Reliability could be covered better and is perhaps something that could be
discussed further. Packaging seems very specialized. Perhaps it can be touched upon in an EM or
circuits course (e.g., EE 371 or 323) as an example or application.]
Item 5: Course architecture, practical problem re design tradeoffs needed. [See above.]
Items 75 and 71: Increase quality of projects. [See above.]
Item 13: Some courses/theory emphasized, need practical features. [See above.]
Item 18: More applications needed/application driven courses suggested. [See above.]
Item 6: Realistic sample problems/open ended with tradeoffs. [See above.]
Appendix V, Part A
7
6. Life-Long Learning and Creative Reasoning
There are two aspects to life-long learning. The first is the ability to self-learn. This is exercised in our
project courses EE 296, 396, and 496 and selected lecture courses that are project oriented. Students are
often given tasks where they self-learn new tools, techniques and concepts and apply them towards
creating their own designs.
The second aspect of life-long learning is the recognition that people, and especially engineers, must
continually update themselves. This topic is under further consideration. See Section 9.
The ability to be creative and original is also important. Again, project courses such as EE 296, 396, and
496 allow students to exercise their ability to pose and solve design problems.
6.1. IC 2002 Report items and our responses

Item 35: Curriculum should aim to develop creative reasoning and imaginative thought. [This is
partially addressed in our project courses. See Section 9.]
Appendix V, Part A
8
7. Ethics Education
Our ethics education is covered in EE 211 and EE 496 . EE 211 has two lecture periods that provide an
overview of ethics in engineering. An EE 496 design project should include ethical aspects of the
problem. In addition, the University of Hawaii General Education requires all students take a course with
a contemporary ethical issues component. Appropriate courses will involve significant readings on and
discussion of contemporary ethical issues.
7.1. IC 2002 Report items and our responses


Item 46: Inadequate overall view of engineering as a responsibility in the Dept's mission statement.
[This is out of the scope of the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee.]
Item 7: Where is ethics best taught? [In our EE curriculum, it's covered in EE 211 and EE 496.
However, we still want to improve the ethics education in our curriculum. See Section 9]
Appendix V, Part A
9
8. Other Issues That We Addressed
The following are items from the IC 2002 Report that we addressed.








Item 60: Advising process should be less confusing for first year students. [This an issue for the
College of Engineering since they advise the first semester.]
Item 64: Absence of design projects in systems track. [This comment is attributed to the fact that the
systems track did not have a demo during the IAB visit. Thus, this is not an issue for the UCC.]
Item 19: Student oversight on course content. [Students can input their thoughts in the course
evaluations at the end of each semester. In addition, the Student Advisor Board is another venue for
students to make their views known.]
Item 14: Reduce overall course load. [Currently our course load is 121 credit hours. This includes 6
credits of EE x96. Thus, the total number of class/lab credit hours is 115. That averages to less that
15 credit hours per semester for four years. This is a reasonable course load that still insures that all
graduates are well trained to successfully participate in the work force.]
Item 57: Physical electronics lab should be used. [This is an issue for the Department Chairman, not
the UCC.]
Item 65: Analog IC design curriculum needs upgrading. [We agree, but our first step is to hire
qualified faculty who can do this. We are in the process of faculty recruiting this semester Spring
2002. Our highest priority is to find faculty who can teach circuits and computers.]
Item 69: What is the objective of computer engineering? [There is a Computer Engineering Task
Force (lead by Magdy Iskander) which should provide a better picture of computer engineering.]
Item 59: Classes too large, should be max 15-20 students per class. [This is not an issue for the
UCC.]
Appendix V, Part A
10
9. Issues To Be Considered Further
The following are issues that are still under consideration.
The curriculum should be integrated better. There are two types of integration.
Technical dialog training. Our students should improve their abilities to conduct dialog about technical
subjects. We partially addressed this by improving the SI requirements of EE 496.
Curriculum should be more design oriented, especially laboratories. We need to reevaluate how we
determine sufficient design experience. Currently we require that a student have 16 design credits.
However, the assignment of those credits to courses should be more clearly defined and motivated. In
addition, why is 16 design credits necessary? Why not 12 or 20?
More experience with CAD tools. We need to take inventory on how our courses take advantage of
CAD tools. We may have a sufficient amount of CAD experience.
Recognition of life-long learning. Our students should recognize that life-long learning is important.
We are unsure how to accomplish this in a meaningful way.
More ethics. Our ethics education is somewhat minimal, but it is unclear how we can improve it.
9.1. IC 2002 Report items that we are still considering


Item 1: UH EE students inferior with respect to concept command.
Item 62: Should there be a minimum standard for students, gateway exam?
Appendix V, Part A
11
10. Program Outcomes
All graduates of the Electrical Engineering Program are expected to have:
1.
Knowledge of probability and statistics, including examples relevant to Electrical Engineering
(program criteria). Knowledge of mathematics through differential and integral calculus, basic
sciences, and engineering sciences necessary to analyze and design complex devices and systems
containing hardware and software (program criteria and 3a). Knowledge of advanced mathematics,
including differential equations (program criteria).
2.
Demonstrated an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to interpret data (3b).
3.
Demonstrated an ability to design a system or component that meets a specified need (3c).
4.
Demonstrated an ability to function in a multi-disciplinary team (3d).
5.
Demonstrated an ability to identify, formulate and solve electrical engineering problems (3e).
6.
Understanding of professional and ethical responsibility (3f).
7.
Demonstrated an ability to communicate effectively (written and oral) (3g). The changes described
in Section 4 should improve this outcome.
8.
Demonstrated an understanding of the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal
context (3h).
9.
Recognition of the need for life-long learning (3i).
10.
Demonstrated a knowledge of contemporary issues (3j).
11.
Demonstrated an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern tools necessary for engineering
practice (3k).
Appendix V, Part A
12
APPENDIX V-B. UCC Report on Curriculum Changes: September 2002
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
EE Faculty
Galen Sasaki, Chairman of
Undergraduate Curriculum Committee
Undergraduate Curriculum Changes, Results of Faculty
Meeting on 9/16/02
9/22/02
Hi folks,
This memo summarizes our EE faculty meeting on 9/16/02 (tuesday) on the proposed changes to the
undergraduate curriculum by the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee (UCC). The following were the
proposed changes, and the results of our discussion.
Change #1. EE 213 course requirements will include Matlab as a tool:
In particular, the UH Course Catalog description of EE 213 should be changed.
The current description in the 2002-03 UH Catalog: "Laplace transforms and their applications to
circuits, Fourier transforms and their applications to circuits, frequency selective circuits, introduction to
active filters, convolution, state space analysis of circuits."
The new description: "Laplace and Fourier transforms and their applications to circuits, frequency
selective circuits, introduction to active filters, convolution, state space analysis of circuits, use of
Matlab."
This was approved
Change #2. Agree in principle to determine if linear algebra and or discrete
math should be required of all EE students (i.e., be part of the EE core). They
should determine how best to implement it, e.g., by Dept of Mathematics or by
developing new EE courses. They may provide one or more options for the
faculty consider.
This was approved.
Note: Anders has agreed to lead the study. He is the chair of the Applied Linear Algebra and Discrete
Math Committee, whose members include Audra Bullock (representing EP), Nancy Reed (representing
computers), and Tony Kuh (representing Systems).
Change #3. The CE 270/ME 311 requirement should be relaxed to a 3 credit
non-EE engineering or physical/biological science requirement at the 300 level or
higher.
The EE 270/ME 311 requirement has been amended to the following
Appendix V, Part B
13
"An EE student is required to take a non-EE 3-credit engineering course. The requirement may be
satisfied by CE 270, ME 311, or a CE, ME, OE, or BE course that is at the 300 level or higher. It may
also be satisfied by a physical or biological science course that is at the 300 level or higher and approved
by the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee."
The amendment was approved.
Change #4. Design Your Own Track (DYOT)
"A faculty member or a student along with a faculty advisor may propose an alternate set of courses to
one of the existing tracks (Computers, Electro-Physics, and Systems). The set must be equivalent to a
track, and must be endorsed by another faculty and then approved by the Undergraduate Curriculum
Committee."
This was approved.
Change #5. A student must take three EE courses that are writing intensive
(WI). At least two must be 300 level or higher.
During the meeting, it was agreed that a study is needed to determine how to improve the writing skills of
our students. Audra has volunteered to look into this.
Change #6. The speaking intensive (SI) requirements for EE 496 will be a
total of 75 minutes. For at least 50 of those minutes, the instructor is required to
give feedback. In addition, the SI component will be a significant part of the
grade.
It was agreed that this needs further study. The main drawback is that this requirement may be too
intrusive (restrictive) on how a faculty manages his/her project courses.
Mahalo
Please join me in thanking Anders and Audra for graciously volunteering to study the issues of advanced
math requirements and improving writing skills. We should also thank Nancy, Tony, and (again) Audra
for agreeing to help Anders and to provide input from the computer, systems, and EP perspectives.
Appendix V, Part B
14
APPENDIX V-C. UCC Final Report: Academic Year 2001-02
Undergraduate Curriculum Committee: Final Report
May 26, 2002
Committee Members: Tom Gaarder, Jim Holm-Kennedy, Galen Sasaki, Chairperson and author of this
report.
The purpose of this report is to summarize the activities of the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee
(UCC) for the academic year 2002-03. The activities and responsibilities of the UCC are given in the
ABET-System Organization document (submitted around December 19, 2001 by V. Malhotra). For the
convenience of the reader, it is given below:

At least one member (preferably the coordinator/chairperson) must participate in the
ABET Core Committee.

The Undergraduate Curriculum Committee’s primary responsibility is to insure
continual improvement of the undergraduate curriculum, such that it meets the
department’s objectives.
The UCC must consider, and if feasible, implement and oversee modifications in
the curriculum based upon the recommendations of the ABET Core Committee.
The recommendations will be based upon reports from the other participating
committees (Assessment, External Interface Committees, etc) and the overall
assessment of the state of the curriculum and the department’s objectives.
Efforts to implement any major changes in the undergraduate curriculum should
require faculty and Department Chairman’s approval.

The secondary responsibility of the UCC is to update documents for the undergraduate
curriculum. This includes, UH Catalog, planned course offerings for each semester and
the undergraduate information on the EE web site.

The committee will prepare an annual report that describes its accomplishments for the
year. The report should highlight any changes made to the curriculum, the reasons for
the changes and provide quantitative and qualitative data, whenever possible, to
support the reasons.
To fulfill these responsibilities we did the following. First, as chairperson, I attended all ABET Core
Committee meetings, which were every week or every other week. Second, we proposed changes in
response to the inputs of the ABET Core Committee, Interface Committee (IC), and the faculty. We got
our input from the IC in the form of an Excel spread sheet titled "IAB SAB F01 Task Summary". It is a
list of numbered items that are comments and suggestions from the Industrial Advisory Board (IAB) and
Student Advisory Board (SAB). For brevity, we will refer to it as the IC 2002 Report. The report was
received at the end of February.
Appendix V, Part C
15
We commenced study of the curriculum at the beginning of March, completed a proposal for curriculum
changes at the beginning of May, and attempted to get EE faculty approval during the week of May 14.
However, we were unsuccessful in getting any changes approved. This is described in more detail in
Section 1.
Third, we improved and updated the documents describing the curriculum. This is described in Section 2.
We should note that we started a UH EE Design Contest for our undergraduates. Teams of students may
enter a design. The design must fulfill a design project requirement, i.e., EE 296, EE 396, and EE 496.
There was a workshop held on May 4, 2002 in Holmes Hall with four teams giving presentations before
judges from industry. There were industry sponsors that provided cash prizes (totaling $2000) and judges
for the judging team. The contest allowed us to get feedback from industry about our design projects, and
to exchange ideas about projects between faculty.
1. Proposed Curriculum Changes
As stated earlier, we commenced study of the curriculum at the beginning of March. We had two
meetings, spaced one week apart, to go over all the items in IC 2002 Report. We tried to answer each
item as best we could.
From mid-March until around April 6 (about 3 weeks), we put together a draft of a proposal for changes
to the curriculum. Since we had a short time frame, we focused on changes that would be easier to get
faculty approval. We had a version of the draft by approximately April 6. However, it was not ready for
distribution (not easy to read), so we polished it for another two weeks. Around April 26, we submitted it
to the ABET Core Committee for review. After approval by the ABET Core, we submitted it to the EE
faculty around May 6. This version of the proposal is titled "UCC Proposal May 6" which can be found
in the ABET-UHEE Intranets site. For the convenience of the reader, the following is a summary of the
proposed changes:
a) Course requirements
i)
EE 213 course requirements will include Matlab as a tool.
ii)
Applied Linear Algebra will be required of all EE students.
iii)
The CE 270/ME 311 requirement will be changed to a 3 credit engineering or
physical/biological science requirement at the 300 level or higher.
b) Curriculum organization and coordination
i)
Design Your Own Track (DYOT): A student along with a faculty advisor may propose an
alternate set of courses to one of the existing Tracks (Computers, Electro-Physics, and Systems).
The set must be equivalent to a track, and must be approved by another faculty and then by the
Undergraduate Curriculum Committee.
c) Communication skills
i)
A student must take three EE courses that are writing intensive (WI). At least two must be
300 level or higher. Note that this includes EE 496.
ii)
The speaking intensive (SI) requirements for EE 496 will be a total of 75 minutes. For at
least 50 of those minutes, the instructor is required to give feedback. In addition, the SI
component will be a significant part of the grade.
d) Practical education [Note: this is not a curriculum change but a vehicle to improve our advising and
instruction]
i)
The faculty should organize a forum to exchange ideas on supervising student projects and
introducing practical experience in courses.
Appendix V, Part C
16
We had an EE Department faculty meeting on May 14, 4:30 pm to discuss the proposal, with another
meeting scheduled on May 16 to decide on approval. In attendance at the May 14 meeting was W.
Shiroma, K. Najita, A. Host-Madsen, T. Dobry, A. Kuh, T. Gaarder, and myself. I gave a power-point
presentation explaining the changes. The meeting lasted for around 2 hours.
The faculty in attendance had some concerns about the proposal. Next is a summary of these concerns.
First, it was unclear why Applied Linear Algebra should be EE core, so it was decided that further study
be done which should include at least a syllabus. The new SI requirements for EE 496 were viewed as
too restrictive. The requirement of 3 WI EE courses seemed to be infeasible, so it was decided to study
further how to implement it.
The following proposed changes were approved subject to minor modifications. EE 213 should include
Matlab in its course description. Design Your Own Track should require one less faculty approval
(though it would still require UCC approval). The ME 311/CE 270 requirement should be loosened to
any CE, ME, or OE engineering 300 level (or higher) course because this is consistent with the purpose of
"engineering breadth." However, it should not include physical and biological sciences.
Later there were objections to these modifications because the turnout at meeting was too small to get a
majority approval by the EE faculty. Therefore, it was suggested that any approval be postponed until
the next academic year. There were no further meetings on the proposal and none of the changes were
approved.
2. Curriculum Documents
We improved and updated the curriculum documents. There were three sets of documents. The first set
is for the University of Hawaii Course Catalog 2002-2003. This was done in October 2001. We collected
updates on course descriptions. Jim and Tom got updates for EP and Systems courses. I updated the
"Undergraduate Study" in the catalog (for reference see page 217 in the current 2001-02 catalog. This
description has been changed). The updates were significant.
The second set of documents were for the EE web site on Advising Information. They were the 3 Year
Plan of Course Offerings, the Curriculum Flow Chart, and Curriculum Description. They were all
updated (with significant updates) and reformatted. The 3 Year Plan was formatted into an Excel spread
sheet so that it can be easily updated. The Curriculum Flow Chart was formatted as a Word document for
the same reason. (Earlier it was formatted as a bit-map making it virtually impossible to change.) The
Curriculum Description was rewritten to better explain the curriculum and provide web links to other
information. These documents were updated at the end of every semester. They have been organized
into a Windows folder for the next UCC chairperson.
The third set of documents is a sample of a course description that may be used in our next ABET report.
Jim requested that we use the syllabi from the University of Illinois Department of Electrical and
Computer Engineering as a model. This has been accomplished May 26, 2002 for the course EE 361 and
has been uploaded onto the ABET-UHEE Intranets site.
Appendix V, Part C
17
APPENDIX V-D. UCC Final Report: Academic Year 2002-03
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Reed, Dept Chair
FROM: Galen Sasaki, UCC Chair
SUBJECT: Final Report of UCC Activities for the Academic Year 2002-03
DATE: May 8, 2003
CC: T. Gaarder, A. Kuh, and T. Gaarder
This memo summarizes the activities for the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee (UCC) for
the Academic Year 2002-03.
Members:
The UCC members were Tom Gaarder, Tony Kuh, Wayne Shiroma, and myself. Tom served in
Fall 2002 but left on sabbatical in 2003. Tony took his place in Spring 2003. Wayne and I
served for the whole year. Note that the membership had representation from all three tracks:
Computers, EP, and Systems.
Activities:
A. Curriculum Changes
The UCC proposed a number of curriculum changes at the end of Spring 2002. They were
discussed at a faculty meeting at the end of the semester, but there were not enough faculty to
vote on whether to accept the changes.
The UCC discussed the proposed changes again at the beginning of Fall 2002. The following is a
summary of the proposed changes.
1. EE 213 should require Matlab as a design tool: This was approved.
2. Applied linear algebra should be required of all EE students: The EE faculty wanted more
details about how this would be implemented. Currently, Anders Host-Madsen is working on
this and is having discussions with the Math Department.
3. The CE 270/ ME 311 requirement should be broadened to a 3 credit engineering or
physical/biological science requirement at the 300 level or higher: This was approved. The
UCC followed up by providing a list of non-EE courses that will satisfy the requirement.
4. A student along with a faculty advisor can propose an alternate set of courses to the current
Tracks (Computers, EP, Systems). This is known as Design Your Own Track: This was
approved.
5. A student must take three EE courses that are writing intensive (W), which includes EE 496.
This requires that the Department require a certain number of EE courses to be designated
as WI: This was rejected. However, the University requires five writing intensive courses to
graduate. Audra Bullock volunteered to study how the writing intensive requirements can be
implemented within our Department. I believe there is a proposal to start a writing center
within the college. This will help students become better writers. However, it’s unclear how
this will completely solve the writing intensive requirements, which are five W courses. But
perhaps there’s more than I am unaware of.
Appendix V, Part D
18
6. The speaking requirements of EE 496 should total 75 minutes, where the instructor is to
provide feedback for at least 50 of those minutes. In addition the speaking assignments
should count towards the final grade: This was rejected because it was too constraining.
B. Course Catalog Updates
The UCC is responsible for updates to the UH Course Catalog. The updates were submitted
around November 2002 for the 2003-04 Catalog. There were a number of updates including
changes to the curriculum and course descriptions (e.g., a new wireless networks course EE 469).
In addition, the Department Chairman asked the UCC to take on the responsibility of reviewing
proposals of new undergraduate courses.
C. New UH Requirements (W,O,E)
In the middle of Fall 2002, the College’s Assistant Dean Tep Dobry called a meeting of the
Department and Curriculum Chairs. He notified us of the new UH curriculum requirements. Of
particular concern are the new ethics (E) and oral (O) requirements. In addition, starting Spring
2004, courses that satisfy the requirements must be at the 300 level or higher, i.e., junior and
senior level courses.
This may present problems for our students. For example, currently Speech 251 satisfies the O
requirement. However, from Spring 2004 and thereafter, it cannot satisfy the O requirement
because it is a 200 level course. Thus, to satisfy the O requirement, a student may have to take a
300 level speech course, which in turn may have a sophomore level speech requirement. Thus, to
satisfy the O requirement, a student may have to take two speech courses.
Ideally, EE courses will satisfy the O and E requirements. The UCC began studying this issue.
For example, we found information about ethics education on an IEEE web site. We found
information about a CEE course that satisfies both the O and E requirements.
We came up with two approaches to deal with the issue. The first is to find someone who is
willing to develop a course that satisfies the O and E requirements. But the big obstacle is
finding that person. The second approach is to for the UCC to develop the course. But this
would take a fair amount of time.
Besides ABET, I felt that this was a top priority issue and the UCC should be given the time to
explore the second approach. However, the Dept Chair felt there were other issues with higher
priority. As a result, the Dept Chair has taken the responsibility of dealing with the O and E
issue. In Fall 2002, I submitted to the Dept Chair a report explaining what the UCC found
including the IEEE resources and the CEE course.
Note that the writing intensive requirement (W) is being studied by Audra Bullock, so the UCC is
not considering this issue.
Also note that the Department’s Program Outcomes requires ethics education. At some point in
the past, this was taken care of by students viewing a video tape on ethics in either EE 211 or 213.
However, this has not been done recently. It’s also unclear where the tape is. According to Kazu,
the tape came from the College but he doesn’t know whether they still have it.
D. ABET Self-Study Report
Appendix V, Part D
19
During Spring 2003, the UCC worked on the ABET Self Study Report. The UCC has completed
a number of drafts of its portion of the ABET Self-Study Report. The final draft is almost
complete except a few figures need a bit more data.
We collected syllabi of the EE undergraduate courses. Note that the syllabi had to conform to a
single format and to the requirements of ABET. We also developed a course assessment form to
map the outcomes of the courses to the curriculum outcomes. We collected course assessments
for each course by the Course Coordinators. We also collected some course assessments by the
actual instructors of the courses.
E. Response to IAB and SAB Feedback
The Industrial Advisory Board (IAB) and Student Advisory Board (SAB) visited the Department
in Fall 2002 and provided comments about our program. One of their comments was that the labs
for EE 211 and 213 should be improved. In Spring 2003, the ABET Core Committee asked the
UCC to see what can be done.
The UCC visited the labs in April 2003 which are in the same lab room. We looked over the lab
assignments, made available by Frank Koide (EE 211) and the 213 lab TA Diana. We also talked
to Frank and the two TAs Diana (EE 213) and Anjana (EE 211)
We found the lab facilities to be adequate. The lab has been cleaned over the past year. Old
equipment has been removed, new equipment (oscilloscopes) ordered, and parts are neatly stored
in cabinets.
UCC has only two suggestions. First, more PCs should be in the lab to facilitate the use of CAD
tools. Second, a student survey should be given at the end of the semester for improvements of
the labs.
Appendix V, Part D
20
APPENDIX VI
INTERFACE COMMITTEE DOCUMENTS
Document
Page
SAB Student Questionnaire, Fall 2002
VI-2
IC Objectives Questionnaire, 2002
VI-4
IC Outcomes Questionnaire, 2002
VI-11
IC General Questionnaire, 2002
VI-19
SAB Final Report, Fall 2002
VI-22
IAB Responses to Objectives, 2002
VI-40
IAB Responses to Outcomes, 2002
VI-48
IAB Responses to General Questions, 2002
VI-56
CD Table of Contents, IAB Meeting 2002
VI-62
Meeting Agenda, IAB/SAB/EE, October 2002
VI-64
Interface Committee Report, 2002-2003
VI-66
APPENDIX VII
ABET Assessment Committee Activities
Spring 2002
Prepared by T.R. Reed on behalf of the Committee
6/1/02
I. The Assessment Committee The purpose of the Assessment Committee is to evaluate
the success of the program in achieving the desired outcomes. Assessment tools include
surveys of key constituents, analyses of student performance, and instructor and course
evaluations.
II. Key points addressed:
1. IAB-related Action Items for the Interface Committee.
There were three items raised by the IAB (numbers 47, 90, and 91) that the
Interface Committee considered potentially relevant to Assessment. These items
were discussed in Assessment Committee meetings on 2/25 and 4/8 (dates
approximate).
The first is a request for quantitative assessment metrics. We agreed that this will
be done, and appropriate scoring methods are under development.
The second and third relate to low ratings in the IAB Perception of Graduates and
Demonstration of Objectives evaluations (tables on the second page of the IAB
report). The feeling in Assessment was that, unless the methodology used in the
polls was faulty, that this was not an Assessment issue. It was recommended that
an action item be added to the fall IAB agenda to discuss these two points. These
recommendations have been communicated to the Interface Committee via email.
2. Development of Assessment Methods/Tasks.
Based on an outline provided by Prof. Najita, a very productive discussion on
future plans took place during the 5/6 meeting. A summary of conclusions/plans
is included in Appendix I.
Appendix I: Assessment Methods and Tasks
1. Course Syllabus
Course syllabi should be reviewed and modified (if necessary) to be consistent with the
expectations of ABET. The modifications should be minor in most cases, and may
consist of nothing more than observing ABET’s use of the terms “objectives” and
“outcomes.” E.g., it may be advisable to use the term “overall educational goals” instead
of “overall educational objectives” because of ABET’s interpretation of “objectives.”
2. Course Level Assessment
A. Instructor assessments
B. Grades
C. HW, exams, project reports, lab reports
D. End-of-course student course assessment
The above assessment mechanisms are in place. A review of the end-of-course
assessments is planned, to ensure consistency of terminology. Fall-only courses must be
alerted to collect documentation for the review. A selection of exams, etc. representing
minimum, maximum, and median performance is requested.
3. Curriculum Level Assessment of Outcomes
A. EE student survey (SAB)
B. Alumni survey
C. Private benchmark senior exit survey
D. Employer survey
In the student surveys, it was felt that auxiliary questions may be needed to gauge
students impressions on how well our stated outcomes are satisfied. This could be
through an additional questionnaire collected during advising, or by adding to the SAB
survey form.
An alumni survey is not currently done. It may be possible to have this done by the same
company doing the benchmark exit survey. However, a database of alumni contact
information must be built to allow this.
The benchmark senior exit survey is administered by EBI (a private firm), with results
compared to a select set of comparison institutions. The Assessment Committee has
suggested modifications to the set to be consistent with the mission of the department
(essentially focusing on Research 1 programs with comparable characteristics to ours).
An employer survey must be designed, and distributed to primary employers. In part, this
can be done through the IAB and recruiters visiting the UH campus, but a more organized
Appendix VII
2
effort (e.g., building an employer database via the information gained from alumni) may
be advantageous.
4. Where Graduates Go
We do not currently ask graduating seniors about their future plans. This information is
an important measure of the success of the program. One series of questions that could be
asked:
At the time of graduation, students:
a) Have jobs
b) Expect jobs
c) Are accepted to graduate school
d) Are waiting for acceptance to graduate school
e) Transfer to a different profession
e) Are undecided
These questions could be easily added to the EBI questionnaire.
5. A timeline for assessment activities.
The discussion above provides a framework for a timeline for next year, which is in
progress. The first item on the timeline is updating syllabi to reflect ABET’s
expectations.
Appendix VII
3