Course Assessment Report
College of Engineering, The University of Iowa
(Revised 14 November 2007)
Course: 059:008 Fundamentals of Engineering II: Electrical Circuits (3 semester hours)
Semester and Instructor: Fall 2007, Mark Andersland
Coordinator: Soura Dasgupta
Student Head Count: 218
Teaching Assistants: 5 TAs (2.5 FTE)
I. Assessment Techniques
Indicate how the students’ achievement of each course goal was assessed.
Course Learning Goal
Assessment Technique
1. Application of Ohm’s Law and Kirchhoff’s Laws to resistive circuits.
exam problem thresholding
2. Analysis of resistive circuits using node and loop analysis.
3. Modeling of ideal operational amplifiers and analysis of basic op-amp configurations.
4. Determination of the Thévenin equivalent of a circuit.
5. Simplification and analysis of circuits using source transformations and superposition.
7. Characterization of capacitors and inductors.
8. Computation of the transient response of single capacitor or inductor circuits.
9. Representation of sinusoidal signals in the frequency domain using phasors.
exam problem thresholding
exam problem thresholding
exam problem thresholding
exam problem thresholding
homework problem
thersholding
exam problem thresholding
exam problem thresholding
exam problem thresholding
10. Computation of impedance and analysis of AC circuits in the frequency domain.
11. Formulation of basic voltage and current relationships in transformers.
exam problem thresholding
exam problem thresholding
6. Use of SPICE to describe and analyze circuits.
II. Course Goals and Program Outcomes
Course Learning Goal
1. Application of Ohm’s Law and Kirchhoff’s Laws to resistive circuits.
2. Analysis of resistive circuits using node and loop analysis.
3. Modeling of ideal operational amplifiers and analysis of basic op-amp configurations.
4. Determination of the Thévenin equivalent of a circuit.
5. Simplification and analysis of circuits using source transformations and superposition.
6. Use of SPICE to describe and analyze circuits.
7. Characterization of capacitors and inductors.
8. Computation of the transient response of single capacitor or inductor circuits.
9. Representation of sinusoidal signals in the frequency domain using phasors.
10. Computation of impedance and analysis of AC circuits in the frequency domain.
11. Formulation of basic voltage and current relationships in transformers.
Program Outcome
a(●), b(●)
a(●), e(●)
a(●), c(●), k(●)
a(●), c(●), e(●)
a(●), e(●)
a(●), b(●), c(●), k(●)
a(●)
a(●), e(●)
a(●)
a(●), c(●), e(●)
a(●)
Notes: ○ denotes moderate contribution to the outcome ● denotes substantial contribution to the outcome
III. Program Outcomes (provided for reference).
New graduates from the College of Engineering Undergraduate Programs will have:
(a) an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering
(b) an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data
(c) an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic,
environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability
(d) an ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams
(e) an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems
(f) an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility
(g) an ability to communicate effectively
(h) the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and
societal context
(i) a recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning
(j) a knowledge of contemporary issues
(k) an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.
IV. Assessment
Log of Recent Changes and Improvements. This section contains a running account of course
improvements, including the motivation for the changes.
This section will be provided to the instructors each semester before the course is taught, and
coordinators will add a brief account of the current semester’s changes. At any one time ~4 years will
be included.
Part A. Improvements and Recommendations this Semester. Provide a description of course
improvements that have occurred this semester relative to those of previous semester (including the
motivation for these changes), and recommended changes for upcoming semesters as needed.
The Irwin/Nelms Basic Engineering Circuit Analysis text (9th edition coming in 2008) continues to be
a good match to our needs. Use, for the first time this semester, of the text’s WileyPlus on-line
supplement to algorithmically generate homework problems with different numbers for each student
and to check their answers, encouraged students to exchange approaches to problems, not solutions,
thereby reducing the cheating that was observed during previous semesters. Students felt the system’s
feedback – students were given five attempts to enter the correct answer – helped them learn but the
computer entry of solutions seemed to hinder some students development of systematic paper and
pencil problem solving skills. I would recommend continued use, but would suggest having students
turn in the written work supporting their submitted computer answers and would suggest having TAs
grade students’ solution process for at least one randomly selected problem each assignment.
Coverage-wise, I followed Irwin/Nelms skipping only AC SPICE analysis Section 8.9 (because the
CSS PSPICE installation failed that week), all Chapter 9 material after effective or rms values Section
9.4, and all Chapter 10 material after ideal transformer Section 10.3. Over the past few years I, and
other most other instructors, have covered the text’s RLC material in Section 7.3. Given our ongoing
challenges achieving learning goals 4, 10, and 11, I would recommend dropping RLC coverage to free
up additional time (2+ lectures) for these goals. Over the past decade, I and most other instructors
have also been slipping simple design problems into a subset of the assigned homework sets (five of
twelve this semester) to help motivate the subject (virtual or physical lab exercises could serve the
same purpose). Strong students appreciated these design problems, weak students viewed them as
overload. I would recommend keeping these simple design exercises.
Part B. Quantitative Assessment Results. Provide a quantitative assessment for each course
learning goal.
Quantitative Assessment Based On Exam Scores And (for the SPICE objective only) Homework Scores.
Goals 1-5 and 7-11, were assessed by evaluating students’ performance on the subset of exam questions related to each goal using the
exam scale listed below. Goal 6 (the SPICE goal) was assessed by evaluating students’ performance on their SPICE homework
questions using the homework scale listed below.
The exam scale, mastery 70-100%, competency 40-70%, and exposure <40%, was set to account for the fact that the exams were written
to have averages of approximately 60% given the students’ time constraints and the inclusion of both basic questions and questions that
require a bit more depth of understanding to complete.
The homework scale, mastery 90-100%, competency 70-90%, and exposure <70% was set higher to account for the fact that, students
have more time to complete homework and may get feedback concerning their progress from instructors and peers.
This method for evaluating learning goals generally worked well. An account of the exam questions associated with each learning
objective is provided below. Examples of good (mastery), average (competency) and poor (exposure) student performances on each
assessed question were preserved for review.
1. Application of Ohm’s Law and Kirchhoff’s Laws to resistive circuits.
Exam 1 – Question 2: Ohm’s Law – resistors as current regulators
The question’s mean, standard deviation, max and min percentages were: 75.0%, 31.8%, 100.0% and 0.0%
The question’s mastery, competency and exposure percentages were: 64.1%, 22.6%, and 13.4% (29 of 217)
Exam 1 – Question3a: Voltage divider analysis
The question’s mean, standard deviation, max and min percentages were: 73.0%, 34.6%, 100.0% and 0.0%
The question’s mastery, competency and exposure percentages were: 64.5%, 14.7%, and 20.7% (45 of 217)
Exam 1 – Question3b: Current divider analysis
The question’s mean, standard deviation, max and min percentages were: 73.0%, 34.6%, 100.0% and 0.0%
The question’s mastery, competency and exposure percentages were: 64.5%, 14.7%, and 20.7% (45 of 217)
Exam 1 – Question3c: Current divider, passive sign convention, KVL
The question’s mean, standard deviation, max and min percentages were: 50.2%, 37.5%, 100.0% and 0.0%
The question’s mastery, competency and exposure percentages were: 26.7%, 39.2%, and 34.1% (74 of 217)
Exam 1 – Question4: Parallel series reduction of a resistor network
The question’s mean, standard deviation, max and min percentages were: 73.2%, 25.9%, 100.0% and 0.0%
The question’s mastery, competency and exposure percentages were: 63.1%, 23.5%, and 13.4% (29 of 217)
Exam 1 – Question5: Ladder network reduction analysis
The question’s mean, standard deviation, max and min percentages were: 71.6%, 32.5%, 100.0% and 0.0%
The question’s mastery, competency and exposure percentages were: 51.6%, 34.1%, and 14.3% (31 of 217)
Final Exam – Question1: Voltage and current divider analysis
The question’s mean, standard deviation, max and min percentages were: 84.3%, 23.6%, 100.0% and 0.0%
The question’s mastery, competency and exposure percentages were: 74.3%, 20.2%, and 5.5% (12 of 217)
Conclusion: The learning goal was achieved.
2. Analysis of resistive circuits using node and loop analysis.
Exam 1 – Question 6: Nodal (or Mesh) analysis of a 4-node, 2-mesh circuit with a controlled source
The question’s mean, standard deviation, max and min percentages were: 46.3%, 33.3%, 100.0% and 0.0%
The question’s mastery, competency and exposure percentages were: 25.3%, 35.5%, and 39.2% (85 of 217)
Exam 1 – Question 7: Write the node equations for a 5-node, 3-mesh circuit with 2 controlled sources
The question’s mean, standard deviation, max and min percentages were: 61.8%, 23.6%, 100.0% and 0.0%
The question’s mastery, competency and exposure percentages were: 40.1%, 42.9%, and 17.1% (37 of 217)
Exam 2 – Question 6: Write the mesh equations for a 6-node, 4-mesh circuit with 1 controlled source
The question’s mean, standard deviation, max and min percentages were: 64.3%, 28.6%, 100.0% and 0.0%
The question’s mastery, competency and exposure percentages were: 44.5%, 29.8%, and 25.7% (56 of 218)
Final Exam – Question11: Write the node equations for a 4-node, 3-mesh circuit with 1 controlled source
The question’s mean, standard deviation, max and min percentages were: 70.1%, 27.0%, 100.0% and 0.0%
The question’s mastery, competency and exposure percentages were: 58.3%, 26.6%, and 15.1% (33 of 217)
Final Exam – Question12: Write the mesh equations for a 5-node, 3-mesh circuit with 1 controlled source
The question’s mean, standard deviation, max and min percentages were: 82.5%, 23.0%, 100.0% and 0.0%
The question’s mastery, competency and exposure percentages were: 76.1%, 18.8%, and 5.0% (11 of 217)
Conclusion: The learning goal was achieved.
3. Modeling of ideal operational amplifiers and analysis of basic op-amp configurations.
Exam 2 – Question 4: Analyze a 5-node resistive ideal op-amp circuit
The question’s mean, standard deviation, max and min percentages were: 65.2%, 31.8%, 100.0% and 0.0%
The question’s mastery, competency and exposure percentages were: 54.6%, 19.3%, and 26.1% (57 of 218)
Final Exam – Question3: Sketch the linearized op-amp model and note the changes required to make it ideal
The question’s mean, standard deviation, max and min percentages were: 20.4%, 24.7%, 100.0% and 0.0%
The question’s mastery, competency and exposure percentages were: 2.3%, 30.3%, and 67.4% (147 of 217)
Conclusion: The learning goal was achieved (the midterm performance was ok, the final question too obscure).
4. Determination of the Thévenin equivalent of a circuit.
Exam 2 – Question 1b: Determine RL to maximize power transfer for a resistive circuit free of dependent sources
The question’s mean, standard deviation, max and min percentages were: 67.4%, 41.0%, 100.0% and 0.0%
The question’s mastery, competency and exposure percentages were: 58.7%, 12.4%, and 28.9% (63 of 218)
Exam 2 – Question 3: Find the Thévenin equivalent of a 3-node, 2-mesh resistive circuit with a dependent source
The question’s mean, standard deviation, max and min percentages were: 27.5%, 31.9%, 100.0% and 0.0%
The question’s mastery, competency and exposure percentages were: 12.4%, 18.8%, and 68.8% (150 of 218)
Final Exam – Question2: Find the Thévenin equivalent of a 3-node, 1-mesh resistive circuit with a dependent source
The question’s mean, standard deviation, max and min percentages were: 30.3%, 28.0%, 100.0% and 0.0%
The question’s mastery, competency and exposure percentages were: 9.6%, 28.0%, and 62.4% (136 of 217)
Conclusion: The learning goal was not achieved (many students couldn’t find Thévenins of circuits containing dependent sources).
5. Simplification and analysis of circuits using source transformations and superposition.
Exam 2 – Question 1a: Express an output voltage as the sum of a source voltage and a source current
The question’s mean, standard deviation, max and min percentages were: 72.8%, 26.5%, 100.0% and 0.0%
The question’s mastery, competency and exposure percentages were: 60.6%, 28.4%, and 11.0% (24 of 218)
Final Exam – Question 4: Use source transformations to analyze a 4-node, 2-mesh ladder network
The question’s mean, standard deviation, max and min percentages were: 39.8%, 38.8%, 100.0% and 0.0%
The question’s mastery, competency and exposure percentages were: 29.4%, 8.3%, and 62.4% (136 of 217)
Final Exam – Question 5: Use superposition to determine as source’s contribution to an output voltage
The question’s mean, standard deviation, max and min percentages were: 57.6%, 40.5%, 100.0% and 0.0%
The question’s mastery, competency and exposure percentages were: 60.6%, 8.3%, and 31.2% (68 of 217)
Conclusion: The learning goal was not achieved (for reasons unknown many students had trouble with source transformations).
6. Use of SPICE to describe and analyze circuits.
Homework 7 – Question 4: Use PSPICE to model and analyze a 4-node, 3 mesh, 0-dependent source resistive circuit.
The question’s mean, standard deviation, max and min percentages were: 83.5%, 37.1%, 100.0% and 0.0%
The question’s mastery, competency and exposure percentages were: 83.5%, 0.0%, and 16.5% (36 of 218)
Homework 7 – Question 5: Use PSPICE to model and analyze a 5-node, 4-mesh, 1-dependent source resistive circuit
The question’s mean, standard deviation, max and min percentages were: 95.4%, 20.9%, 100.0% and 0.0%
The question’s mastery, competency and exposure percentages were: 95.4%, 0.0%, and 4.6% (10 of 218)
Homework 10 – Question 8: Use PSPICE to model and find, over time, maximum voltages and currents in a switched RLC circuit
The question’s mean, standard deviation, max and min percentages were: 73.3%, 39.1%, 100.0% and 0.0%
The question’s mastery, competency and exposure percentages were: 64.7%, 9.2%, and 26.1% (57 of 218)
Conclusion: The learning goal was achieved.
7. Characterization of capacitors and inductors.
Exam 2 – Question 2a: Compute the energy stored in a series-parallel capacitor network
The question’s mean, standard deviation, max and min percentages were: 80.8%, 32.3%, 100.0% and 0.0%
The question’s mastery, competency and exposure percentages were: 77.1%, 8.3%, and 14.7% (32 of 218)
Exam 2 – Question 2b: Given the capacitor network’s voltage as a function of time, determine when it supplies power
The question’s mean, standard deviation, max and min percentages were: 26.3%, 27.7%, 100.0% and 0.0%
The question’s mastery, competency and exposure percentages were: 11.0%, 5.0%, and 83.9% (183 of 218)
Final Exam – Question 6: Determine a capacitor’s voltage and stored energy as a function of time given its current
The question’s mean, standard deviation, max and min percentages were: 53.8%, 33.3%, 100.0% and 0.0%
The question’s mastery, competency and exposure percentages were: 32.1%, 47.2%, and 20.6% (45 of 217)
Final Exam – Question 7: Determine an inductor’s voltage and stored energy as a function of time given its current
The question’s mean, standard deviation, max and min percentages were: 61.4%, 31.4%, 100.0% and 0.0%
The question’s mastery, competency and exposure percentages were: 43.1%, 41.3%, and 15.6% (34 of 217)
Conclusion: The learning goal was achieved (sign convention problems caused the weak exam 2 question 2b performance).
8. Computation of the transient response of single capacitor or inductor circuits.
Exam 2 – Question 4: Compute the transient response of a switched RL circuit with no dependent sources
The question’s mean, standard deviation, max and min percentages were: 57.6%, 29.6%, 100.0% and 0.0%
The question’s mastery, competency and exposure percentages were: 36.2%, 29.8%, and 33.9% (74 of 218)
Final Exam – Question 7: Compute the transient response of a switched RC circuit with no dependent sources
The question’s mean, standard deviation, max and min percentages were: 57.9%, 31.6%, 100.0% and 0.0%
The question’s mastery, competency and exposure percentages were: 44.0%, 27.5%, and 28.4% (62 of 217)
Conclusion: The learning goal achieved (students’ weak differential equations background was a handicap) .
9. Representation of sinusoidal signals in the frequency domain using phasors.
Final Exam – Question 8: Determine the phasor equivalent of a sinusoid
The question’s mean, standard deviation, max and min percentages were: 63.1%, 35.3%, 100.0% and 0.0%
The question’s mastery, competency and exposure percentages were: 46.3%, 41.3%, and 12.4% (27 of 217)
Final Exam – Question 9: Determine the sinusoid equivalent of a phasor
The question’s mean, standard deviation, max and min percentages were: 70.8%, 23.3%, 100.0% and 0.0%
The question’s mastery, competency and exposure percentages were: 61.0%, 31.7%, and 7.3% (16 of 217)
Conclusion: The learning goal was achieved.
10. Computation of impedance and analysis of AC circuits in the frequency domain.
Final Exam – Question 14a: Determine ZL to maximize power transfer for a RLC circuit free of dependent sources
The question’s mean, standard deviation, max and min percentages were: 45.8%, 39.8%, 100.0% and 0.0%
The question’s mastery, competency and exposure percentages were: 31.2%, 15.6%, and 53.2% (116 of 217)
Final Exam – Question 14b: Compute the average value of the power transferred to the optimal ZL
The question’s mean, standard deviation, max and min percentages were: 26.3%, 31.5%, 100.0% and 0.0%
The question’s mastery, competency and exposure percentages were: 12.8%, 8.7%, and 78.4% (171 of 217)
Conclusion: The learning goal was not achieved (more time needs to be spent on complex arithmetic and examples)
11. Formulation of basic voltage and current relationships in transformers.
Final Exam – Question 15a: Find the basic voltage current relations for a non-ideal transformer circuit
The question’s mean, standard deviation, max and min percentages were: 62.8%, 34.0%, 100.0% and 0.0%
The question’s mastery, competency and exposure percentages were: 53.2%, 26.6%, and 20.2% (44 of 217)
Final Exam – Question 15b: Determine the sinusoid equivalent of a phasor
The question’s mean, standard deviation, max and min percentages were: 56.3%, 33.9%, 100.0% and 0.0%
The question’s mastery, competency and exposure percentages were: 45.0%, 24.8%, and 30.3% (66 of 217)
Conclusion: The learning goal was achieved.