electrical electronic engineering annual program ......1. introduction the electrical/electronic...

Electrical/Electronic Engineering

Annual Program Improvement Report

2015-2016

Prepared by

Chuen H. Hsu

Chair and Program Improvement Coordinator

June 2016

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering

California State University, Chico

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2. ACTIONS TAKEN IN 2015-2016 TO IMPROVE THE PROGRAM

2.1 Implementation of Changes Approved in 2014-2015. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.1.1 Courses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.1.2 Program Outcome Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.1.3 Program Educational Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

3. ASSESSMENT DATA GATHERED IN 2015-2016

3.1 Embedded Assessment of Program Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3.2 Graduating Senior Survey………… . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3.2.1 Educational Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3.2.2 Educational Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3.2.3 Open-ended Written Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3.3 Student Evaluation of Teaching. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

4. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS

4.1 Lab Component of Courses….. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

4.2 Elective Courses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

APPENDICES

A. Statement of Mechatronic Engineering Program Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

B. Sample Program Outcome Assessment Record-Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

C. ECC Graduating Senior Survey Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

D. EENG Supplemental Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..24

E. Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

F. Summary of Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

1. INTRODUCTION

The Electrical/Electronic Engineering Program Improvement Process, edition 4 (June,

2016) documents the educational objectives, learning outcomes, and progress to make

improvements to the program.

This document, the Electrical/Electronic Engineering Annual Program Improvement

Report, provides a summary of findings and actions for the 2015-2016 academic year

resulting primarily from the implementations of the Electrical/Electronic Engineering

Program Improvement Process. This report is divided into three main sections: actions

taken in 2015-2016 to improve the program, assessment results gathered in fall 2015 and

spring 2016, and recommendations for improvements to the Program based on the

assessment results. While some detailed data are reported here, more complete data can

be found in the assessment files in the file cabinet located in the department office

(OCNL 313) and in EECE Department folder on the Chico State Bay server.

2. ACTIONS TAKEN IN 2015-2016 TO IMPROVE THE PROGRAM

2.1 Implementation of Changes Approved in 2014-2015

Areas considered include faculty instruction, curriculum and courses, program

outcome assessment, and degree progress report. Actions taken for program

improvement during 2015-2016 in the recommended areas are described in the

following.

2.1.1 Courses

Removal of CIVL 302 and CIVL 495 (6 units)

The removal of CIVL 302 (Engineering Risk and Economic Analysis) and

CIVL 495 (Professional Issues in Engineering) discussed and approved in

2014-2015 was implemented in the 2015-2016 university catalog and in the

CMPE curriculum. Program Outcomes originally assessed in CIVL 495 have

been assigned to other EECE courses. This resulted in six units available for

other curricular revisions.

Change EECE 490A/B units (from 5 units to 8 units, +3 units)

EECE 490A was changed from 3 units to 4 units and 490B from 2 units to 4

units for a total of 8 units for capstone design classes to cover material related

to the additional ABET Program Outcomes assigned.

Addition of a 3-unit restricted elective course (+3 units)

A second restricted elective course requirement is added to the CMPE degree

plan. The second elective course is 3-unit and can be selected from approved

upper-division engineering, science, and math courses not otherwise required

for graduation.

The BS in Electrical/Electronic Engineering degree remains at 127 units.

2.1.2 Program Outcome Assessment

Reassignment of Program Outcome assessments

Due to the removal of CIVL 495 from the CMPE degree plan, those program

outcomes measurements originally assigned to the course (Outcomes d, f, h, i,

and j) were re-assigned to other required EECE courses as shown in Table A.

The assessment schedule for all program outcome assessments through spring

2018 was revised as shown in Table A.

Table A – Schedule for CMPE Program Outcome assessments from 2015-2018.

Program

Outcome

Designated

Course

Fall

2015

Spring

2016

Fall

2016

Spring

2017

Fall

2017

Spring

2018

a EECE 311 X X X

b EECE 490A X X X

EECE 490B X X X

c EECE 490A X X X

d EECE 344 X X X

e EECE 343 X X X

f EECE 490B X X X

g EECE 490A X X X

h EECE 490A X X X

i EECE 481 X X X

j EECE 490B X X X

k EECE 365 X X X

The assessment schedule beyond spring 2018 will be determined after the

assessment results from fall 2015 through spring 2018 have been reviewed.

2.1.3 Program Educational Objectives

The program educational objectives were reviewed by faculty at the start of the

fall 2015 semester. No revisions were seen needed as there were no concerning

input or suggestions from program constituencies.

3. ASSESSMENT DATA GATHERED in 2015-2016

3.1 Embedded Assessment of Program Outcomes

of 31

Assessments embedded in courses and assessment results are summarized in Table B.

Note that (a) the assessment instruments and standard might have been slightly

modified by course instructors and (b) a grade of F was not assigned because the

student failed to pass the outcome assessment.

Comments and suggestions from instructors of courses designated for outcome

assessment are summarized in Table C.

A complete list of identified program outcomes can be found in Appendix A and a

sample program outcome assessment data record sheet is in Appendix B.

of 31

Table B: Embedded student learning outcome assessment instruments and results for fall

2015 and spring 2016.

Program

Outcome

Designated

Course

Assessment Instrument

Minimum Score /

Assigned Total

Score for

Demonstrating

Basic

Competency

Number of EENG Majors

Failing to Demonstrate

Basic Competency / Number

of EENG Majors Enrolled

Fall 2015 Spring 2016

a EECE 311

A minimum of six assignments

or exam problems are evaluated

throughout the semester 4/8 2/13 not assessed

b EECE 490A Documents produced in EECE

490A and 490B which focus on a

capstone design project

8/14 1/13 not assessed

EECE 490B 10/14 not assessed 1/13

c EECE 490A Project documents produced for a

capstone design project 7/12 1/13 not assessed

d EECE 344

Observation of student

participation in group design

project over the entire semester

with multiple milestones


e EECE 343 Design projects over the entire

semester 7/10 not assessed 1/13

f EECE 490B

Writing assignments exploring

professional and ethical

responsibility within the

engineering profession

5/8 not assessed 0/13

g EECE 490A

Oral status report assignments

and written requirements and

design documents in EECE 490A 36/50 2/13 not assessed

h EECE 490A

Writing and oral response

assignments covering impact of

engineering solutions in various

context


i EECE 481

Four complementary assignments

of designated class assignments

that require investigation,

learning and reporting solution

approach/methods


j EECE 490B

Writing assignments exploring

contemporary issues within the

engineering profession. 5/8 not assessed 0/13

k EECE 365

Class assignments that requires

demonstration of proficiency in

programming with MATLAB by

writing codes to plot signals,

evaluate convolution of signals

and plot it, evaluate spectrum of

signals and plot it, evaluate

transforms of signals, plot time

domain and frequency domain

response of system


of 31

Table C: Evaluation of student achievement, suitability of assessment, and suggestions of

changes for the assessment by instructors of the designated courses for 2015-2016.

Program

Outcome

Designated

Course

Comments on Student

Achievement

Comments Related to

Suitability of Assessment

Suggestions for Possible

Changes to This Assessment

a EECE 311 None None None

b

EECE 490A Stated the pass rate Suitable None

EECE 490B Stated the pass rate Suitable None

c EECE 490A None None None

d EECE 344 None None None

e EECE 343 Stated the pass rate None None

f EECE 490B None None None

g EECE 490A None None None

h EECE 490A None None None

i EECE 481 Stated the pass rate None None

j EECE 490B None None None

k EECE 365 Stated the pass rate None None

It appears in Table C that all instructors for the courses designated for program

outcome assessments seemed to be satisfied with the suitability of assessment in their

courses and had no suggestions for possible changes of the assigned outcome

assessments. Some instructors re-stated the pass rate of assessments without offering

practical comments. All assessment results and instructor input related to the outcome

assessments will be referenced by course instructors in 2016-2017.

3.2 Graduating Senior Survey

In fall 2015 and spring 2016 anonymous online surveys of Computer Engineering

graduating seniors was conducted. Common survey questions for all majors in the

College of ECC and those specifically for Computer Engineering majors are

reproduced in Appendices C and D, respectively. All responses from Computer

Engineering majors are integrated and documented in various parts of this report.

Survey questions in both parts of the annual survey can be grouped into those relating

to (1) demographics and post-graduate plans (which will not be discussed further in

this report), (2) educational satisfaction, and (3) learning outcomes.

3.2.1 Educational Satisfaction

Response, calculated as mean of all student ratings to a survey question, to

questions related to educational satisfaction in the common questionnaire for the

ECC Graduating Senior Survey are tabulated in Table D for 2012 through 2016.

Rating changes for the questions from 2015 to 2016 are summarized in Figure

1. These questions, Q15 to Q30, provide measures of graduating seniors’ degree

of satisfaction with faculty teaching, department facility, courses, and advising.

of 31

Table D: Response means to survey questions regarding educational satisfaction in the

Graduating Senior Survey from 2012 to 2016. (5 level Likert scale: 1 = very

dissatisfied and 5 = very satisfied; for question 44 only, 1 = strongly disagree and 5

= strongly agree.)

No. At Chico State, how satisfied were you with the . . . 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Q15 Quality of teaching by faculty in your department 3.14 3.64 3.47 4.00 3.89

Q16 Quality of teaching by other faculty 3.24 3.45 3.20 3.69 3.63

Q17 Access to faculty in your department 4.00 3.64 4.07 4.44 4.42

Q18 Availability of courses in your department 2.71 2.64 2.47 3.44 3.74

Q19 Quality of courses in your department 3.38 3.18 3.07 4.13 3.74

Q20 Access to lab facilities and equipment 4.10 4.09 3.53 4.25 4.32

Q21 Quality of laboratories and equipment 3.52 3.18 2.47 3.69 3.74

Q22 Access to computer facilities 4.14 3.91 3.80 4.13 3.68

Q23 Quality of computer facilities 3.00 2.82 3.07 3.00 3.37

Q24 Academic advising from your major advisor 3.67 3.36 3.87 4.31 3.95

Q25 Academic advising from the Advising Office 3.35 3.36 2.80 3.81 3.21

Q26 Career information from your department 3.43 3.09 3.27 3.69 3.79

Q27 Availability of GE courses 3.81 3.55 3.53 3.67 3.58

Q28 Quality of GE courses 3.48 3.00 3.27 3.50 3.53

Q29 Overall quality of your education 3.57 3.45 3.47 4.13 3.84

Q30 Your overall experience at Chico State 3.76 4.00 3.47 4.25 4.11

Q44 I would recommend my major at CSU, Chico to others 3.52 3.64 3.43 4.44 4.16

Figure 1 indicates that EENG graduating seniors are most dissatisfied with academic

advising from the Advising Office (Q25) and are most satisfied with the access to

department faculty (Q17).

Figure 1: Change of ratings to survey questions regarding educational satisfaction

from 2015 to 2016.

As summarized in Table D and Figure 1, questions related to educational

satisfaction in the 2015-2016 survey have mixed results comparing with those

from a year ago, generally there are more declines than improvements.

of 31

The two noticeable improvements in satisfaction are observed in:

“Quality of computer facilities” (Q23, +0.37),

“Availability of courses in your department” (Q18, +0.30), and

At the same time, significant declines are seen in:

“Academic advising from the Advising Office” (Q25, 0.60),

“Access to computer facilities” (Q22, 0.45), and

“Quality of courses in your department” (Q19, 0.37)

“Academic advising from your major advisor” (Q24, 0.36)

3.2.2 Educational Outcomes

Responses to survey questions related to educational outcomes from the 2012 to

2016 surveys are tabulated in Table E, and rating changes from 2015 to 2016 for

the same questions are summarized in Figure 2. Many of the educational

outcomes surveyed in the Graduating Senior Survey are either very close or

identical to most of the defined program outcome statements. The survey results

provide insight into the perceived learning by students.

Table E: Response means to survey questions regarding learning outcomes in

2012 through spring 2016 graduating senior surveys. (5 level Likert

scale: 1 = very unprepared and 5 = very well prepared)

No. Based on your educational experience here at

Chico State, how well prepared are you to … 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Q31 Apply knowledge of math, science, engineering, or

technology to solve problems 4.00 4.18 3.87 4.25 3.95

Q32 Design and conduct experiments 4.10 3.91 3.87 4.19 4.00

Q33 Analyze and interpret data 3.95 4.00 3.93 4.13 4.00

Q34 Design a component or system to meet desired needs 4.00 3.82 3.67 4.13 3.95

Q35 Function on a multidisciplinary team 3.91 4.00 3.40 4.33 4.05

Q36 Identify, formulate, and solve technical problems 4.29 4.00 3.80 4.06 4.05

Q37 Communicate technical matters in writing 4.05 3.91 3.67 4.38 3.94

Q38 Communicate technical matters orally 3.95 3.73 3.60 4.38 4.11

Q39 Understand & apply professional & ethical principles 4.05 4.09 4.13 4.25 4.00

Q40 Understand contemporary issues facing society 3.76 3.64 3.93 4.19 4.00

Q41 Use modern tools and technology 4.05 4.00 3.00 4.31 4.05

Q42 Enter the workplace* 3.52 3.82 3.93 4.19 4.00

Q43 Continue learning 3.90 4.18 4.20 4.47 4.21

*Question number 42 is not a defined Program Outcome

It appears that graduating seniors feel well prepared to continue learning and

least prepared to communicate technical matters in writing.

of 31

-0.5

-0.45

-0.4

-0.35

-0.3

-0.25

-0.2

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0

Q31 Q32 Q33 Q34 Q35 Q36 Q37 Q38 Q39 Q40 Q41 Q42 Q43

Ra

tin

g C

ha

ng

e

Figure 2: Change of ratings to survey questions regarding learning outcomes

from 2015 to 2016.

It is quite unusual that all survey areas related to learning outcomes saw

declines in 2016 comparing with results from a year ago. However, a close

examination of the data in Table E reveals that ratings in 2016 were actually

fairly good comparing to those from 2012-2014. It is just that the ratings from

2015 are unusually high. For reason of reporting year-to-year change, the three

worst declines are in areas of:

“Communicate technical matters in writing” (Q37, -0.44),

“Apply knowledge of math, science, engineering, or technology to solve

problems” (Q31, -0.30), and

“Function on a multidisciplinary team” (Q35, -0.28).

3.2.3 Open-ended Written Comments

Some of the written responses to the open-ended question “please provide

additional comments regarding what you LIKED most about the program and

what can be done to enhance it” in the EENG-specific part of the 2015-2016

graduating senior survey are categorized and summarized in the following. The

comments presented here are direct duplicates; no corrections of spelling and

grammatical errors were attempted.

The majority of written comments are about curriculum, courses, and lab

activities. There are also a couple comments on their peers or just being

cheerful.

Lab component of courses

of 31

• I liked the lab portion of our curriculum. The hands on experience was more

enjoyable than the theory we learned about in class and I think it gives us

advantage over other students who dont have as many lab classes.

• I really enjoyed the amount of lab classes offered for the major classes. They really

have helped me learn difficult subjects that otherwise I otherwise wouldnt. The

majority of the classes required were useful throughout my college career.

Courses

• I liked the semester-long projects in every Dr. Kredo class that I took. They were

brutal, but I learned the most from these projects. Its a realizable/tangible piece of

work you can admire at the end, or better, show potential job employers/grad

schools.

• I liked how the EE students had the option to pick what area to specialize in

(Power Systems of Communication). With this, I feel the Power Systems

specialization could incorporate some hands on labs; this also goes with the

controls class (482)

• I would hope that the electrical engineering senior project program would be

changed. Perhaps more rigor and faculty involvement. I dont think it should be

possible for students should be able to take more than 15 units and pass the senior

project class.

• There should be more elective courses, especially in specialized areas of EE. We

should be able to choose electives that increase our knowledge in our area of

interest, instead of relying on taking courses that dont really advance our

engineering knowledge.

Peers

• I really enjoyed learning about all my peers background, history, and why they

decided to become engineers.

Being cheerful

• I like every thing :-)

3.3 Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET)

Electrical/Electronic Engineering students take courses taught by the EECE

department as well as those by other academic departments. The mandatory SET is

conducted in fall and spring semester classes with enrollment of 6 or more. In both

semesters the evaluation instrument, SIR II, was adopted which is rather

comprehensive comparing with some of those used in the past. The SIR II

questionnaire contains ten categories that each comes with a set of related questions.

The ten sets of questions can be found in Appendix E.

of 31

Here the rating means for eight of the ten evaluation categories for EECE courses for

fall 2015 and spring 2016 are summarized in Figures 3. For both semesters, no

quantifiable data for categories D and H was reported. Rating distributions for each

of the eight reported categories for both semesters are summarized in Appendix F.

Figure 3 – SET rating averages for eight surveyed categories for fall2015 and spring

2016. The rating on a scale is 1 to 5 with 5 being the “most effective”.

As can be seen in Figure 3, nearly all evaluated categories received higher ratings in

spring 2016 than those reported for fall 2015. The biggest improvement is in

“Faculty and Student Interaction”. The only decline is seen in “Student Effort and

Involvement” from 4.02 to 3.97 in rating.

Of the eight reported evaluation categories for spring 2016, the ratings for Student

Effort and Involvement has the smallest range of rating distribution, 3.0 to 4.8 as

shown in Figure 4(a) while the course Overall Evaluation has the largest range of

rating distribution from <2.5 to 5.0 in Figure 4(b). The same two categories (G and

I) showing the same rating distributions can also be observed in fall 2015 SET

results as can be seen in Appendix F.

of 31

(a)

(b)

Figure 4 – The smallest (a) and the largest (b) range of rating distributions in the

evaluation categories of the spring 2016 SET.

4. Recommendations for Program Improvement

4.1 Lab component of courses

As suggested by the student written comments in the graduating senior survey, students

seem to appreciate the effectiveness of lab activities in enhancing classroom learning

and acquisition of knowledge. The department should continue to support lab activities

and faculty should be encouraged to develop more educational lad experiments.

4.2 Elective courses

of 31

It might be necessary to develop or offer additional technical elective courses as

requested by a student in his written comment in the graduating senior survey. This is a

logical step as another required elective course has just been added to the EENG degree

plan in 2015-2016. This is also an opportunity for new faculty members to develop

courses in their specialty areas.

of 31

Appendix A

Electrical/Electronic Engineering Program Outcomes

All Computer Engineering graduates shall demonstrate:

a) an ability to apply knowledge of math, 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 responsibilities,

g) an ability to communicate effectively in both oral and written forms,

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, and

k) an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for

engineering practice

of 31

Appendix B

Sample Program Outcome Assessment Data Record Sheet

Program

Outcome:

a: An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics,

science, and engineering

Instructor:

Course: EECE 311 Linear Circuits II Semester:

Description: Circuit analysis techniques for networks with both independent and

dependent sources. Network topology. Natural and forced response for RLC

circuits. Complex frequency, poles and zeros. Magnetically coupled circuits

and two-port networks.

Metric: Assessment will be based on an evaluation of selected assignments for each

student in EECE 311. A minimum of six assignments or exam problems

will be evaluated throughout the semester.

Rubric: A student will demonstrate successful completion of this outcome by

achieving a score of 4 of 8 (based on the assessment rubric shown in the

attached table) on three class assignments and one examination problem.

Standard: 4

Students must meet the standard on at least two of the four assignments

evaluated throughout the semester.

Instructor Evaluation Summary

Number of students achieving standard: 0 #DIV/0!

Number of students failing standard: 0 #DIV/0!

Comments related to student achievement of this outcome measurement.

Comments related to the suitability of this outcome measurement.

Suggestions for possible changes to this outcome measurement.

Instructions: Enter information in blue fields. Yellow fields will be updated automatically.

of 31

a: An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering 0

Number of students

achieving standard: 0 ######

Number of students

failing Standard: 0 ######

EENG Majors

Student Name Score 1 Score 2 Score 3 Score 4

Standard

Met

of 31

Appendix C

ECC Graduating Senior Survey Instrument

of 31

Appendix D

of 31

Appendix E

Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) Questionnaire

Spring 2016

of 31

Appendix F

Summary of Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) Ratings

of 31

Fall 2015

of 31

Spring 2016

of 31