ABET Self-Study Report - SEED Office

ABET Self-Study Report

for the

Electrical Engineering

Program

at

University of Puerto Rico

Mayagüez, Puerto Rico

July 1, 2008

CONFIDENTIAL

The information supplied in this Self-Study Report is for the confidential use of ABET and its authorized agents, and will not be disclosed without authorization of the institution concerned, except for summary data not identifiable to a specific institution.

ii

Table of Contents 0. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ................................................................................................. v 0.1 Contact information .......................................................................................................................... v 0.2 Program History ............................................................................................................................... v 0.3 Options ........................................................................................................................................... vi 0.4 Organizational Structure ................................................................................................................. vi 0.5 Program Delivery Modes ............................................................................................................... vi 0.6 Deficiencies, Weaknesses or Concerns Documented in the Final Report from the Previous Evaluation(s) and the Actions taken to Address them ................................................................................. vi

0.6.1 Findings of the November 2002 ABET Visit ........................................................ vii 0.6.2 Action Taken ......................................................................................................... vii

1. STUDENTS .................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 ABET Requirement for Criterion 1 .............................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Student Admissions ...................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Admission requirements ............................................................................................................... 1-2 1.4 Determination of the applicant ranking ........................................................................................ 1-2 1.5 Determination of minimum applicant qualifications .................................................................... 1-2 1.6 Applicant selection process .......................................................................................................... 1-3

1.6.1 Freshman Course Placement ................................................................................ 1-4 1.6.2 Articulation Agreements ...................................................................................... 1-5

1.7 Evaluating Student Performance .................................................................................................. 1-5 1.7.1 Student Evaluation ............................................................................................... 1-5 1.7.2 Satisfactory Academic Progress Policy ................................................................ 1-6 1.7.3 Probations and Suspensions ................................................................................. 1-7 1.7.4 Curriculum Enforcement ...................................................................................... 1-8

1.8 Advising Students ......................................................................................................................... 1-8 1.8.1 Academic Advising .............................................................................................. 1-9

1.9 Transfer Students and Transfer Courses ..................................................................................... 1-10 1.9.1 Criteria of Eligibility .......................................................................................... 1-10

1.10 Graduation Requirements ........................................................................................................... 1-12 1.11 Enrollment and Graduation Trends ............................................................................................ 1-12 2. PROGRAM EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES ............................................................................ 2-1 2.1 ABET Requirement for Criterion 2 .............................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Program Educational Objectives .................................................................................................. 2-1 2.3 Relation to Institutional Mission .................................................................................................. 2-2 2.4 Constituency of the Program ........................................................................................................ 2-4 2.5 Process Used to Establish and Review of the Objectives ............................................................. 2-5 2.6 Assessment of the Program Educational Objectives .................................................................... 2-7 2.7 Involvement of the Constituents ................................................................................................... 2-8 2.8 Results of the Evaluation .............................................................................................................. 2-8

2.8.1 Evaluation of Objectives 1 and 5. ...................................................................... 2-11 2.8.2 Evaluation of Objective 2 ................................................................................... 2-12 2.8.3 Evaluation of Objective 3 ................................................................................... 2-13 2.8.4 Evaluation of Objective 4 ................................................................................... 2-14 2.8.5 Summary ............................................................................................................ 2-14

iii

2.9 Evaluations of the new objectives by Seniors and Alumni ........................................................ 2-15 2.10 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 2-17 3. PROGRAM OUTCOMES ........................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Process for Establishing and Revising Program Outcomes .......................................................... 3-1

3.1.1 Rubrics as an instrument for assessment .............................................................. 3-4 3.2 Program Outcomes ..................................................................................................................... 3-12 3.3 Relationship of Program Outcomes to Program Educational Objectives ................................... 3-12 3.4 Relationship of Courses in the Curriculum to the Program Outcomes ...................................... 3-13 3.5 Documentation ........................................................................................................................... 3-18 3.6 Achievement of Program Outcomes........................................................................................... 3-20 4. CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT .............................................................................................. 4-1 4.1 ABET Requirement for Criterion 4 .............................................................................................. 4-1 4.2 Information Used for Program Improvement ............................................................................... 4-1 4.3 Actions to Improve the Program .................................................................................................. 4-1 4.4 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 4-9 5. CURRICULUM ........................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 ABET Requirement for Criterion 5 .............................................................................................. 5-1 5.2 Program Curriculum ..................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.3 General Education ........................................................................................................................ 5-3

5.3.1 Mathematics and Physical Sciences ..................................................................... 5-4 5.3.2 Fundamental Knowledge of Engineering ............................................................. 5-6 5.3.3 Professional Component ...................................................................................... 5-7 5.3.4 Definition of the Major Design Experience ....................................................... 5-13

5.4 Procedures Used to Assure Compliance ..................................................................................... 5-15 5.5 Other Aspects of the Professional Component ........................................................................... 5-15

5.5.1 Student Chapters of Technical Societies ............................................................ 5-15 5.5.2 Fundamentals of Engineering Exam .................................................................. 5-16 5.5.3 Cooperative Education and Internships .............................................................. 5-16 5.5.4 Undergraduate Research .................................................................................... 5-16 5.5.5 Industrial Affiliates Program .............................................................................. 5-17

5.6 Evaluation of the Professional Component ................................................................................ 5-18 5.7 Course Syllabi ............................................................................................................................ 5-18 5.8 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 5-18 6. FACULTY .................................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Leadership Responsibilities .......................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Authority and Responsibility of Faculty ...................................................................................... 6-1

6.2.1 Faculty Workload ................................................................................................. 6-2 6.3 Faculty .......................................................................................................................................... 6-4 6.4 Faculty Competencies .................................................................................................................. 6-5 6.5 Faculty Size .................................................................................................................................. 6-6 6.6 Faculty Development.................................................................................................................... 6-7 7. FACILITIES ................................................................................................................................. 7-1 7.1 ABET Requirement for Criterion 7 .............................................................................................. 7-1 7.2 Space ............................................................................................................................................ 7-1

7.2.1 Administrative Facilities ...................................................................................... 7-1 7.2.2 Classrooms ........................................................................................................... 7-1 7.2.3 Computing Resources Laboratories ..................................................................... 7-2 7.2.4 Undergraduate Instructional Laboratories ............................................................ 7-2 7.2.5 Library .................................................................................................................. 7-5

iv

7.3 Resources and Support ................................................................................................................. 7-7 7.3.1 Computing and Information Infrastructure .......................................................... 7-7 7.3.2 Access to Modern Engineering Tools .................................................................. 7-8 7.3.3 Laboratory Planning, Maintenance and Enhancement ......................................... 7-8 7.3.4 Support Personnel ................................................................................................ 7-8 7.3.5 Support Personnel for Hardware, Software, and Networking Facilities .............. 7-8

7.4 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 7-8 8. SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................... 8-1 8.1 Program Budget Process and Sources of Financial Support ........................................................ 8-1

8.1.1 University System Budget .................................................................................... 8-1 8.1.2 UPRM Operating Budget ..................................................................................... 8-2

8.2 Sources of Financial Support ........................................................................................................ 8-2 8.3 Adequacy of Budget ..................................................................................................................... 8-2 8.4 Support of Faculty Professional Development ............................................................................. 8-3 8.5 Support of Facilities and Equipment ............................................................................................ 8-4 8.6 Adequacy of Support Personnel and Institutional Services .......................................................... 8-4

8.6.1 Services for Students ............................................................................................ 8-4 8.6.2 Support for professors .......................................................................................... 8-5 8.6.3 Support for Accreditation and Continuous Improvement .................................... 8-6

8.7 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 8-6 9. PROGRAM CRITERIA ............................................................................................................... 9-1 9.1 ABET Requirement for Criterion 9 .............................................................................................. 9-1 9.2 Discussion .................................................................................................................................... 9-2 9.3 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 9-2

v

Self-Study Report

Electrical Engineering

Bachelor of Science

University of Puerto Rico

0. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

0.1 Contact information

Dr. Isidoro Couvertier Director Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Stefani Bldg. S-224 University of Puerto Rico Mayagüez, PR 00680

Telephone number: +1.787.832-4040 x 3094 Fax number: +1.787.831-7564 e-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Raúl E. Torres Muñiz Quality Improvement and Accreditation Coordinator for Electrical Engineering Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Stefani Bldg. S-705 University of Puerto Rico Mayagüez, PR 00680

Telephone number: +1.787.832-4040 x 3610-4010 Fax number: +1.787.831-7564 e-mail: mailto:[email protected]?subject=Self-Study 2008

0.2 Program History

The Bachelor of Science program in Electrical Engineering (BSEE) is a five-year program with a minimum credit requirement of 165 credit-hours. It is administered by the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Puerto Rico. The Department is one of the six departments of the College of Engineering located it the

mailto:[email protected]�

mailto:[email protected]?subject=Self-Study%202008�

vi

Mayagüez Campus. The program started in 1928. It was accredited by ABET for the first time in 1960. Currently, a total of 638 students are enrolled in the program.

The program has well-defined educational objectives, which are driven by the needs of its constituents. Constituents of the program are: (i) the people of Puerto Rico, represented by the students of the program, both enrolled and alumni; (ii) employers, which include industry, commerce and government; and (iii) faculty. In 2001 the Department approved the first declaration of Educational Objectives and Outcomes. In February of 2007 and as a result of the assessment process the Department approved an amendment of the educational objectives. A curricular revision in 2003 led to improve the flexibility of the program. More recently, the faculty is discussing the next curricular revision to change the modality of complying with the Major Design Experience (MDE). More details will be found in Criterion 4.

0.3 Options

The program offers five areas of emphasis: Applied Electromagnetics, Communications and Signal Processing, Control Systems, Power Engineering Systems, and Electronics. To ensure that all students reach the MDE each area, controlled by an area committee, is responsible to offer the MDE through a course of sequence of courses (the latter is the case for the electronics area).

0.4 Organizational Structure

The organizational structure of the University of Puerto Rico is shown in Tables D-7(A), D-7(B) and D7(C) in Appendix D.

0.5 Program Delivery Modes

The program is offered in-campus in a conventional day class mode and combines lecture and laboratory work. Also, as part of the electives, students may take 6 credits in cooperative education.

0.6 Deficiencies, Weaknesses or Concerns Documented in the Final Report from the Previous Evaluation(s) and the Actions taken to Address them

This section is organized as follows. The first part presents the findings of the November 2002 visit. This part consists of three concerns, two of them related to closing the loop. The second part presents the actions taken by the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering during the six year cycle, since no further respond was requested.

vii

0.6.1 Findings of the November 2002 ABET Visit

Three concerns were marked under the “Exit Interview” column in the following items:

1. CURRICULAR OBJECTIVE (IV.C.2.): There needs to be some mechanism to identify and subsequently utilize results of assessment metrics (this was not entirely done, for example, for Criterion 3(h) which did not meet the set goals but was not identified for improvement).

2. CURRICULAR CONTENT (IV.C.3.): There needs to be some mechanism to identify and subsequently utilize results of assessment metrics (this was not entirely done, for example, for Criterion 3(h) which did not meet the set goals but was not identified for improvement).

3. ADMINISTRATION (IV.C.4): There is a potential for concern relating to the continuation of department leadership when the present director steps down.

0.6.2 Action Taken

The first two concerns are related to closing the loop, rather than the quality of the program. The faculty had met to discuss the findings in the previous visits, and perceived that the threshold in some of the outcomes was set to high. The constituents had been consulted, and they (including the faculty) feel that the strength of our program is in the technical aspects of electrical engineering where the student take a fifth year extra compare to a BSEE in the mainland. During that fifth year our students take extra credits towards a sub-specialization within electrical engineering. As a consequence of constituent’s observations, the outcome assessment process had been changed twice during the six year cycle. When the results in the outcome assessments proved that we are in compliance with the outcomes, no further action is taken. (More details will be provided in criteria 3 and 4.) Nevertheless, a curricular revision was implemented to make our program flexible to accommodate fast changes by defining breath electives within a set of courses. Also some members of the faculty saw the opportunity to summit proposals to the NSF to improve the engineering soft skills such as ethics and social aspects of engineering. These efforts had been joined with the faculty of humanities in our campus. An example, of one of the effort can be found in http://cnx.org/content/col10414/latest/. A final note regards outcome h is that this outcome is mainly cover in socio-humanities courses. The lack of evidence in early courses does not imply that our students are unaware of social aspects. In the advanced courses where the outcome h is sampled, the performance is satisfactory, as it will be seen in Criterion 3.

The third concern was related to the tension that causes changing the director of the department. Historically, however, research, master programs, and other departmental interests had been improved or developed shortly after a change of directors. These

http://cnx.org/content/col10414/latest/�

viii

changes commonly occur after elections years, or after changes of the university administration. At least, twelve of our departmental faculty had been either director or associate directors. This creates sympathy with the actual director, and mechanisms to maintain stability had been created. Most administrative tasks had been assigned to staff and committees inside the department. This creates continuation, even when a director steps down. In that way the departmental leadership never had been in stake. Internal tension for changes always had been an issue, but that is expected and normal.

Criterion 1: Students 1-1

1. STUDENTS

1.1 ABET Requirement for Criterion 1

ABET Criterion 1 states that:

“The program must evaluate student performance, advice students regarding curricular and career matters, and monitor student’s progress to foster their success in achieving program outcomes, thereby enabling them as graduates to attain program objectives.

The program must have and enforce policies for the acceptance of transfer students and for the validation of courses taken for credit elsewhere. The program must also have and enforce procedures to assure that all students meet all program requirements.”

This section discusses how the program complies with the ABET requirement for Criterion 1.

1.2 Student Admissions

The University of Puerto Rico system has a unified freshmen admission policy. With a single application form and fee, high school students can apply to up to three program options at any of the ten UPR system units that accept freshmen. There are no restrictions on the options; therefore the student choices can vary from the same program selected at three different UPR system units to three different programs at the same unit. This policy simplifies the admission process from the student’s perspective. It also benefits the academic programs because they have a broad pool of prospective applicants, allows for uniformity in the evaluation of applicants’ qualifications, and prevents an applicant from holding multiple seat reservations at different institutional units. Figure 1-1 illustrates

High SchoolDiploma

High SchoolDiploma

CEEB Examination

CEEB Examination

UPR Application

for Admission

UPR Application

for AdmissionAdmission

System

Programs’ Estimated Capacity

Programs’Estimated Capacity

Programs’ Minimum

Admission Index

Programs’ Minimum

Admission Index

Selected ApplicantsSelected Applicants

Applicant Requirements

Institutional Decisions

Figure 1-1. An overall view of the freshmen admission process at the University of Puerto Rico System.


graphically the admission process at the UPR system.

1.3 Admission requirements

Applicants for freshmen admission must:

• Have completed their High School studies before the beginning of the University Academic year.

• Submit scores report of either the Scholastic Aptitude Test (in English) or the Academic Aptitude and Academic Achievement Tests (Prueba de Aptitud Académica and Prueba de Aprovechamiento Académico in Spanish), offered by the College Entrance Examination Board.

The Academic Aptitude Test (PAA for its acronym in Spanish) is designed to measure the verbal and mathematical reasoning skills of the student. This test score is used for admission purposes. The Academic Achievement Test is designed to measure the level of knowledge of the student who has been exposed to a High School curriculum. UPR uses the latter for first-year course placement purposes only.

Since Spanish is the primary language for most applicants, they usually take the “Prueba de Aptitud Académica” (Academic Aptitude Test) (PAA) and “Prueba de Aprovechamiento Académico” (Academic Achievement Tests). This set of tests is considered equivalent to the SAT that is designed for native English speakers.

1.4 Determination of the applicant ranking

The UPR system ranks its applicants according to an applicant’s General Application Index (IGS, Índice General de Solicitud) which is calculated as a normalized weighted average of the High School Grade Point Average (50% weight) and the Academic Aptitude Test score (50% weight). The resulting IGS value varies from 0 to 398, where 398 corresponds to a 4.0 HS GPA and a perfect PAA (or SAT) score.

1.5 Determination of minimum applicant qualifications

Each UPR institutional unit defines its programs’ minimum IGS and maximum capacity. The program’s IGS is usually decided using one of the following criteria:

• Experience with the academic performance of candidates accepted in previous years. For example, a high dropout rate experience in a program may indicate that the IGS is being set too low.

• IGS of the applicant who fills the last available slot. For example, if the program capacity is 50 students and the 50th applicant in the ranking has an IGS of 315, then this number becomes the minimum IGS required for that particular year.

High-demand programs such as EE set the minimum IGS based on the second criterion. Rejection of the applicant in this case means that other students with better qualifications filled the available slots. It does not necessarily mean that the applicant was unqualified for


EE studies. Table 1-4 summarizes the PAA scores, High School GPA and IGS of students admitted during the last 5 years to the EE program. From this table, it can be seen that the minimum HS GPA was 3.05 and the minimum IGS was 330 while the average HS GPA ranged from 3.83 to 3.87 and the average IGS ranged from 344 to 349. Thus, we can conclude that admission to EE is highly competitive and that the students admitted are at the top of their class.

The highly selective nature of the program makes the assessment of the effectiveness of the admission criteria very difficult. Due to the narrow range of HS GPA and the IGS scores, there is little correlation between the IGS and the first-year of college GPA. All of these students have well above average scores in the test and almost all A’s HS grades. Their performance at UPRM may depend more on issues related to the adaptation to university life rather than academic qualifications. Since transfer acceptance at the “First Year” or “Second Year” classification is rare, enrollment data can be used to estimate the first-year retention rate. This rate ranged between 83.5 and 95.2 from 2002 to 2005. This indicates that the admission (and college-life adaptation) is reasonably good.

1.6 Applicant selection process

Applicants are ranked according to the calculated IGS. Their three program choices are evaluated as shown in the diagram included in Figure 1-2. The UPR system receives

Applicant IGS and Program Selection

Applicant Rejected

Applicant Admitted

Space Available

First Program Minimum IGS

Applicant IGS > Program IGS

Second Program Minimum IGS


Third Program Minimum IGS


Rank Applicants by IGS

Yes Yes

Space Available


Yes Yes

Space Available


Yes Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

Figure 1-2. Application evaluation process at UPR system.


around 18,000 applications and admits about 2/3 of the applicants under this policy.

Experience shows that EE was the first choice for almost all of the admitted students. With such a highly competitive process, for the UPR System is important to assure that the program still receives students from diverse social and economic backgrounds. The Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, however, does not have to worry about that other than offering open houses, and talks. The Admission Office and the Dean of Engineering provides the resources to monitor the diversity of freshman students, and make corrective actions. As an example, according to the freshmen 2007 class survey done by the Office of Institutional Research:

o 27% report that they are first-generation college students (32% report that HS or less as their father highest educational achievement, 21% for their mothers).

o 25% will need to work part-time to pay for their studies

o 65% qualify for financial aid programs.

o 59% live with both parents and 32% only with their mother.

o 30.9% of the registered freshman engineering students graduated from public high schools, according from another study from 2002 to 2005, published in 9th

International Conference on Engineering Education, July 2006. o 50.4% of the registered freshman engineering students in 2007 graduated from

public high schools, after outreach activities had been done in response to the study mentioned in previous item.

o 21.9% of the registered students in electrical engineering are women.

1.6.1 Freshman Course Placement As previously stated, all UPR applicants must take the Academic Aptitude Test and the Academic Achievement Test designed by the College Board. The Academic Achievement Test is used for placement in first level courses. The Placement Policy is clearly stated in the undergraduate catalog. It consists of:

Placement in first level courses: Students that do not qualify for advanced placement (in a second year course) must take the first level course in Spanish, Mathematics, and English but they can be placed in different tracks following criteria defined by the departments and which may include but not be limited to College Board Achievement tests scores. Placement is compulsory.

Advanced placement is granted upon approval of College Board Advanced Placement test with scores of 4 or 5 in English, Spanish, Mathematics (level II), Calculus AB, or Calculus BC. Students who meet those conditions are placed in the second year level course as specified by their curricula, and receive credit for the first year course. These credits are counted to meet graduation requirements and appear in the student record as course approved (P).

Precalculus intervention system: Students who score 650 or less in the Mathematics part of the College Board should take a diagnostic exam prepared by the Mathematics Department. Those students who score less than 50% in this exam


are required to attend the Precalculus Intervention Laboratory at least one semester before they take the Precalculus course.

1.6.2 Articulation Agreements The College of Engineering maintains articulation transfer agreements with the University of Puerto Rico at Bayamón (UPRB), Ponce (UPRP), Arecibo (UPRA), Humacao (UPRH), Rio Piedras (UPRRP) and Cayey (Cayey UPR). Under the terms of the agreement, students may opt to pursue the first two years of the program at any of these locations, transferring to Mayagüez to continue with the remaining three years of the program. The objective of the articulation program is to allow students in these geographical areas to start their studies without the expense of moving to Mayagüez. However, most applicants select Mayagüez. Under the terms of the agreement:

UPRM determines freshmen admission criteria and capacity for the articulated programs at Ponce Bayamón, Arecibo, Humacao, Rio Piedras and Cayey.

The transfer of students who complete the agreed courses in any of these campuses is accepted at Mayagüez.

Regardless of where they are initially admitted, students must meet the same admission criteria and course requirements.

Under the articulation agreement, students at UPRB, UPRP, UPRH, UPRRP and Cayey UPR are allowed to register in selected basic engineering science courses (Statics and Dynamics, Materials Science, Algorithms and Computers, and Electrical Circuit Analysis I). Professors teach the courses using the same course syllabi and textbook as in UPRM. Faculty there must have at least a MS degree in Engineering.

1.7 Evaluating Student Performance

The published curriculum is strictly enforced. No unauthorized curricular variations are allowed so every graduating student must satisfy all of the stated requirements. Every entering student receives a comprehensive catalog that lists all academic requirements, curricular plan, course descriptions, and requirements.

Since degree requirements are clearly defined, the Office of the Registrar uses the Student Information System to monitor the students’ academic progress. Students who fail to satisfy the minimum academic progress requirements may be placed on probation or suspension, depending on the severity of the deviation. The Satisfactory Academic Progress Policy is clearly stated in the institutional catalog under “Academic Regulations” and repeated below.

1.7.1 Student Evaluation Students are evaluated in each course by grading their performance in different outcomes, which are associated to the Program Educational Objectives. On the first week of classes, professors hand out detailed content of the courses, how they contribute to the educational program outcomes, and how the grading system for that particular course will work.


Conventional evaluation tools are used, such as exams, homework, and projects. A university-wide grading scale is used: A=Excellent, B=Good, C=Average, D=Deficient, F=Failure. The professor is responsible for mapping the weighted sum of performance measures to an equivalent grade.

Grades are calculated at the course level by a weighted average of grades from exams, homework and projects. Each professor during the first day of classes must distribute and discuss the course evaluation policy.

All required EE courses and EE technical electives must be approved with a grade of C or better. A student who obtains a D in a EE course is not allowed to register in any other course that has such course as a prerequisite.

1.7.2 Satisfactory Academic Progress Policy The university instituted a satisfactory academic progress policy to define the institutional expectations from the students. Students will be considered as having satisfactory academic progress and “in good standing” if by the end of the academic year they meet the conditions listed in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1. UPRM Academic Progress Policy Criteria Condition Expectation

Minimum GPA

First year student > 1.70 Second year student > 1.90 Third year student > 1.95 Fourth or fifth year student > 2.00

Approve enough credit-hours to demonstrate academic progress towards the completion of the degree requirements before time frame expires

2 year programs < 4 consecutive years 4 year programs < 8 consecutive years 5 year programs < 10 consecutive years

The time frame condition can be stated in terms of percentage of credit hours approved toward completion of degree requirements as shown below.

Table 1-2. Time Frame Requirements For Academic Programs In Terms Of The Minimum Percentage Of Approved Credit-Hours According To The Duration Of The Program

Academic Years Studied Two Year Programs Four Year Programs Five Year Programs1 25% 12.5% 10% 2 50% 25.0% 20% 3 75% 37.5% 30% 4 100% 50.0% 40% 5 62.5% 50% 6 75.0% 60% 7 87.5% 70% 8 100.0% 80% 9 90%

10 100%

Students who fail to achieve satisfactory academic progress by the end of the academic year may be placed on probation or suspended from the campus, depending on the degree of deviation. The current policy is listed in the institutional catalog and is repeated below.


1.7.3 Probations and Suspensions Students who at the end of an academic year do not show satisfactory academic progress may continue studies under probation if they satisfy the following three conditions:

have a GPA not lower than 0.20 below the expectation shown in Table 1-1;

have approved, during the year, at least twelve credits if regular students, and six credits if part-time students; and have accumulated the percentage of credit-hours shown in Table 1-3.

Table 1-3. Minimum Percentage Of Approved Credit-Hours According To The Duration Of The Program (Required To Avoid Suspension)

Academic Years Studied Two Year Programs Four Year Programs Five Year Programs

1 12.5% 7.5% 5% 2 37.5% 17.5% 15% 3 62.5% 30.0% 25% 4 87.5% 42.5% 35% 5 55.0% 45% 6 67.5% 55% 7 80.0% 65% 8 92.5% 75% 9 85%

10 95%

Students who do not qualify for probation according to the requirements stated above will be dismissed from the UPRM. Students on probation can carry a course load of no less than nine and no more than fifteen credit hours per semester, if a regular student; and no less than three and no more than six credit-hours per semester, if a part-time student at the time of evaluation. They must also maintain the amount of credit hours required under the probation status.

For recovering a good standing status after a year on probation, students must:

Comply with the minimum GPA,

Attain the minimum accumulation of credit-hours required for good standing status, and

Approve more than half the credit-hours registered during the year.

Students who comply with only two of the three criteria stated above will be on probation for another year. Students who comply with only one or none of these criteria on the first year on probation or those who do not comply with all three criteria on the second year on probation, will be dismissed from UPRM.

Dismissed students not eligible for probation will not be able to continue their studies during the following year. Students must apply for readmission after no less than one year of academic suspension during the period of time that has been established in the academic calendar. The Scholastic Achievement Committee will evaluate the applications. Readmitted students will be placed on academic probation and will be subjected to the established norms.


Probations and suspensions of EE students are rare. These cases are usually associated to personal problems that impact academic performance. On other policies, the University allows students withdraw (‘W’) courses without restricting the number of ‘W’. This policy was established to give the students the opportunity to improve their skills before attempting further courses in the program, avoiding unnecessary probations late in the program.

1.7.4 Curriculum Enforcement The registration process serves to assure that students stay within their curriculum and that all course requisites are met. The Student Information System screens cases who do not meet the published minimum academic progress requirements. Holds are placed on the registration preventing matriculation until the issue is resolved.

Students who manage to register in a course without satisfying the prerequisite or exceed the maximum authorized course-load are flagged soon after the registration period ends. The departmental staff reviews these cases to screen out clerical errors. If the students do not have the requirements, they are dropped from the course administratively.

When students request graduation, the Office of the Registrar performs a degree-completion audit to assure that all degree-candidates have completed all requirements. Departmental staff also performs a similar audit as a cross check.

1.8 Advising Students

The Office of the Dean of Students is primarily responsible for the counseling and guidance services. Counseling and guidance are offered to the students so that they achieve a better understanding of their skills and limitations, and make an adequate adjustment to the college environment. Programs and services are offered to diminish the negative impact of everyday stress and to help students cope with academic and other college-life demands.

The Counseling and Guidance Program uses two main strategies:

The first is the traditional individualized (one to one) service to the student in need.

The second is a broad effort of freshmen orientation that starts with an initial mailing to the admitted student, a three-day orientation period before the first registration, and a semester-long Extended Orientation Program.

A professional counselor, located in the Student Center during regular office hours, is assigned as the contact person for the EE major students. The Department of Counseling provides personal counseling, career and life planning, testing, and psychological and social work services. Individual counseling and seminars help students define their interests, abilities, values, work and life-style preferences, and career goals. Counselors also help students explore occupational information, investigate career options, and develop appropriate strategies for achieving their immediate and long term career goals. Workshops according to student needs are offered throughout the year. Topics include


stress management, assertiveness, personal and social growth, study strategies, time management, and decision-making.

A Career Resource Library located at the Student Center is available to students during regular business hours. It contains information about undergraduate and graduate studies, job-hunting techniques, and labor market trends. Information and distribution of test applications for admission to graduate and professional schools are also handled at the library. College catalogs and bulletins from other institutions both in print and microfiche are also available.

A Tutoring Program offers remedial help services in basic academic areas such as Mathematics, Spanish, English, Chemistry, and Physics. Tutors are selected among honor or advanced students. Their departmental advisor or the professional counselor either refers students who need these services or they may drop in at the Student Center.

Prior to Freshman registration, students must attend an on-campus Orientation Week, a campus-wide activity in which new students receive academic orientation and information on student services, student organizations and other campus-life topics. Members of the Peer Counseling Program work intensively during this week and throughout the year in coordination with the Department of Counseling.

All freshmen are required to attend an Extended Orientation Program during the first semester. The program consists of 15 one-hour per week conferences on diverse topics such as academic regulations, study skills, time and stress management, sex education, and others. It has been designed to enhance academic and social integration to college.

1.8.1 Academic Advising Academic advising of EE students follows a three-tier approach.

At the first level are the technical issues like curriculum compliance, which are handled by the departmental office.

The second level is the faculty who gives career guidance and advice. Current university regulations require that every full-time professor dedicates 50% of his academic credits hours per week for individual student consultation, which may include classroom issues and academic advice. For a professor with 12 credits hours of teaching, this represents 6 hours per week minimum.

The third level is the Academic Orientation Day. The activity ends with a survey used to improve the administration of the academic orientation. It is common to have a wide representation of the faculty during this activity.

Besides the faculty, the Department Head has assigned two staff persons for drop-in advising, registration advising, and referral. The professional staff at the department office refers students with issues related to career guidance to individual faculty members with the expertise to answer the questions. Most faculty members are willing to provide on-request informal academic and career advice to students who drop by their offices.

Most professors belong to one or more of the course area committees; therefore, the departmental staff referrals are directed to professors with demonstrated interest and


knowledge of the Electrical Engineering area. Students are also referred to professors who teach advanced-level courses to receive advice on professional development issues.

Additionally, each year (sometimes twice a year upon demand) the department organizes a “Career Orientation Day” in which faculty members of the different areas meet with students in a semiformal environment to discuss issues related to curriculum in the areas of emphasis of the program as well as job, graduate studies and other professional opportunities. In the evaluation of the Career Day of January-May 2007, 94% of students indicated their expectations about the activity were satisfied, and 99% indicated the information obtained was useful. Attendance is non-compulsory and most of the students that attend these activities are at the point in the program where they need to choose the area of emphasis and thus the technical elective courses.

1.9 Transfer Students and Transfer Courses

Students interested in transferring to the Electrical Engineering program have access to the program requirements through the catalog and on the ECE website. The academic advising staff offers orientation to potential transfer candidates regarding coursework that may be accepted, GPA, and previous course requirements. The process of admission through transfer is shown in Figure 1-3.

Transfer applicants are defined as those who have taken courses at any college-level accredited institution after completing high school.

Figure 1-3. Transfer application process.

1.9.1 Criteria of Eligibility Candidates for admission with advanced standing by transfer from accredited colleges or universities must fulfill the following requirements:

College TranscriptCollege

Transcript

UPR Application

for Admission

UPR Application

for AdmissionTransferProcess



Programs’ Minimum

Requirements

Programs’ Minimum

Requirements

Selected ApplicantsSelected Applicants

Applicant RequirementsInstitutional Decisions


Be free of any disciplinary action in the previous institution.

Have completed at least 48 credit-hours with a general grade point average of 2.00 (on a scale 4) or higher.

Comply with the specific departmental requirements.

The specific departmental requirements for transfer into the EE Program are:

Applicants should have completed at least 48 academic credits with a grade index of 3.00 or higher, 9 of these credits must have been taken in Chemistry, Mathematics, Physics or Engineering courses with a grade index of 3.0 or

Students, who at the time of admission to the university of origin, had the admission index required by the Engineering program selected at UPRM, may be admitted if they have accumulated 48 academic credit hours with a GPA of 3.0 or higher.

The Office of Admissions (for non-UPR transfers) and the Office of the Registrar (for UPR transfers) require students to submit transcripts from all previously attended higher education institutions. Figure 1-4 illustrates the flow diagram of the process.

Figure 1-4. Transfer application evaluation process.

As part of the evaluation process, the previously completed course work is evaluated to assess what courses are considered equivalent, and within a subject area, if the required minimum number of credit hours is met.

UPR system policy requires that all coursework taken within the system be transferable if the letter grade meets the campus minimum requirement and if the course is required under the new program.

Courses taken outside of the UPR system are transferable only if approved with a

Student’s GPA and

Academic Record

Qualifies?Yes

Yes

Applicant Accepted

No No

Applicant Rejected

SpaceAvailable?

Program’s Minimum

Requirements


letter grade of “C” or better.

UPRM does not accept the transfer of upper level engineering courses taken at a non-ABET accredited university.

1.10 Graduation Requirements

As stated in Section 1.7.4 Curriculum Enforcement, when students request graduation, the Registrar Office and the departmental staff perform an audit to assure that all degree-candidates have completed all the degree requirements. This audit consists of a detailed analysis of each student transcription and academic progress records.

1.11 Enrollment and Graduation Trends

Table 1-4 presents the number of students admitted during the last five years and shows a decreasing trend. This trend may have been driven by the expected number of transfer students from the articulated transfer agreements, and limitation of space. However, only in 2002-2003 the number of transfer students was very high and later on it stabilized about 30 as shown in Table 1-5. While the Department prepared for a large number of transfer students, still most of the EE students seem to prefer to move to Mayagüez from the very beginning of their studies. Last year the number of new students decreased significantly. The total number of students enrolled in the last five years in the EE Program also shows this trend, as can be seen in Table 1-6. In terms of space, the research areas within the Department have growth, taking space typically associated to instructional purposes. This growth benefits the students because it opens new professional opportunities, brings resources to the University, and makes room for the growth of our graduate programs. The adverse result is a decrease in the admission capacity of undergraduate students, but the benefits justify the trade-off.

Table 1-4. History of Admissions Standards for Freshmen Admissions for Past Five Years

Academic Year

High School GPA Composite PAA1 General Application

Index (IGS) Number of

New Students Enrolled MIN. AVG. MIN. AVG. MIN. AVG.

2002-2003 3.05 3.83 1114 1327 330 345 127 2003-2004 3.21 3.87 1025 1343 335 349 116 2004-2005 3.25 3.85 1111 1341 335 348 102 2005-2006 3.19 3.87 1072 1310 331 344 103 2006-2007 3.27 3.86 1124 1341 331 349 88 2007-2008 3.13 3.78 1000 1309 320 339 103

1 As stated in section 1.3 Admission requirements, since most students’ language is Spanish the “Prueba de Aptitud Académica” (PAA) administered also by de CEEB is used instead of the SAT.


Table 1-5. Transfer Students for Past Five Academic Years

Academic Year Number of Transfer Students Enrolled2

2002-2003 73 2003-2004 37 2004-2005 21 2005-2006 30 2006-2007 34

Table 1-6. Enrollment Trends for Past Five Academic Years

Year 2002-2003

Year 2003-2004

Year 2004-2005

Year 2005-2006

Year 2006-2007

Year 2007-2008

Full-time Students

820 789 736 712 669 638

Part-time Students NA 25 34 39 34 36 Student FTE1 820 803 754 733 688 660 Graduates 140 145 125 129 144 115

1 FTE = Full-Time Equivalent

Table 1-7. Program Graduates (For Past Five Years or last 25 graduates, whichever is smaller)

Numerical Identifier

Year Matriculated

Year Graduated

Certification/ Licensure

(If Applicable)

Initial or Current Employment/

Job Title/ Other Placement

1 2004 May 2008 Took the FE exam this semester

Electrical Engineering Design-Manufacturing

2 2002 May 2008 Plans to take the FE exam after graduation

Yes

3 2002 May 2008 Plans to take it next semester

No


No

5 2003 May 2008 Plans to take April 12, 2008

No

6 2002 May 2008 Plans to take April 12, 2008

(OMCP) GE- Aviation


AEE

8 2002 May 2008 Plans to take it this semester

No

9 2002 May 2008 Plans to take it next semester, Plans to take

the FE exam after graduation

No

2 These numbers include the students transferred by the articulated transfer agreements as well as internal and external transfers.



No


Project Engineer


No


Quality Control


No


No


Distribution Engineer III


Control Engineer III

18 2002 May 2008 Don’t plan to take it in the foreseeable future

Developmental Engineering USAF


No


Analyst

21 2004 May 2008 Will take this last semester 2008

Electrical Engineering United Technologies

Corporation Pratt & Whitney

22 2003 May 2008 Plans to take it this semester

Image Scientist

23 2003 May 2008 Don’t plan to take it in the foreseeable future

Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Technical

Aide, Engineering Laboratory (APL)


Electrical Engineer III


No

(NOTE: ABET recognizes that current information may not be available for all students)

Criterion 2: Program Educational Objectives 2-1

2. PROGRAM EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES



“Each program for which an institution seeks accreditation or reaccreditation must have in place: (a) Published educational objectives that are consistent with the mission of the institution

and these criteria.

(b) A process that periodically documents and demonstrates that the objectives are based on the needs of the program's various constituencies.

(c) An assessment and evaluation process that periodically documents and demonstrates the degree to which these objectives are attained.”

This section discusses how the program complies with the ABET requirement.

2.2 Program Educational Objectives

The Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering revised and approved the program educational objectives, after two cycles of consultation with the different constituents. After eight years using the previous educational objectives, the declaration of Program Educational Objectives for the Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering changed as follows:

Graduates from the EE program will:

1. Become educated citizens who, as electrical engineers, contribute by applying, ethically, their specialized knowledge to the educational, cultural, social, technological and economic development of their societies.

2. Demonstrate a combination of analytical, computational, and experimental knowledge and skills to make them competitive within the electrical engineering practice.

3. Demonstrate communication skills in Spanish and English that enable them to effectively participate and contribute in both linguistic environments.

4. Value the importance of lifelong learning as demonstrated by pursuing graduate studies, being involved in professional societies, or pursuing professional advancement and success.

We define objective as what the program proposes to the incoming students that they will be able to accomplish during their careers, while outcome is used to describe the knowledge, skills and abilities that the typical graduate should possess after completing the program. Figure 2-1 illustrates the naming convention used in this report.


For instance, the program outcomes might be similar in wording to objectives, but the meaning is completely different. For example, Objective 2 might look similar to the “outcome a” where we measure the analytical performance of our students in the courses. Objective 2, however, is related to assignment of design work within the companies, and how well our graduate performed compared to employees from other universities. Texas Instruments, for example, had established a partnership with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering due to several patents directly related to design assignments given to our students. Similarly, being bilingual and having good communication skills might look like “outcome g” of our program. In the outcome, professors measure the student work to see how well they learned the communication skill. Objective 3, however, measured how being bilingual opens opportunities within the companies. We had graduates working in USA that had been able to establish relationships with clients in Latin America, for example. We have others that had been able to negotiate bringing production lines to PR from the mother company because they could communicate effectively in English and Spanish, among other skills. Finally, Objective 3 is similar to “outcome i” in that both are related to life long learning. The outcome measured the ability of our students finding information, while Objective 3 measured how our graduates are able to adapt to different technologies within the companies, and how many are motivated to continue graduate school.

2.3 Relation to Institutional Mission

The University of Puerto Rico was created by law to educate the island citizens, search for new knowledge, and promote the social and economic development of the society. Although UPRM has focused on science and technology issues, since its creation in 1911, it strives to provide a broad educational offering to serve the general needs of the population. The UPR System Mission declares that:

"Given its function of serving the people of Puerto Rico, the primary mission of the University of Puerto Rico is to increase knowledge through

Electrical and Computer Engineering Undergraduate Programs

Work Force or Graduate School

Program Objectives Measurements

High School Graduates

Professional ready for Engineering Practice through Outcomes

Program Criteria How the programs should be structured

Figure 2-1. Flow diagram of the process under study.


the arts and sciences, and to contribute to the development and enjoyment of the ethical and aesthetic values of society. To accomplish this mission, the University works towards cultivating a love of knowledge; encouraging the search for and constant discussion of truth; preserving, enriching, and spreading the cultural values of Puerto Rico; promoting students complete development as human beings in carrying out their responsibilities as servants of their community and society; maximally developing the intellectual and spiritual wealth latent in the people; and contributing and participating, within the limits of the academic community, in the study and search for solutions to the problems of Puerto Rico."

As part of the UPR System, UPRM mission statement directs the institutional effort to the areas of business administration, agriculture, social and natural sciences, humanities, and engineering. The URPM Mission states that:

“Within the philosophical framework established by the University of Puerto Rico Act, the Mayagüez campus directs its efforts towards the development of educated, cultured citizens, capable of critical thinking, and professionally qualified in the fields of agricultural, social and natural sciences, engineering, humanities and business administration. They should be able to contribute in an efficient manner to the cultural, social, and economic development of the Puerto Rican and international communities. This process is aimed at endowing our alumni with a strong technical and professional background and instills a strong commitment to Puerto Rico and our hemisphere. Our alumni should have the necessary skills and knowledge to participate effectively in the search of solutions to the problems facing us, to promote the enrichment of the arts and culture, the development and transfer of technology as well as to uphold the essential attitudes and values of a democratic society.”

The institutional mission is broad; therefore, not all goals need to apply to all academic programs (complete text is available in Appendix I-E). Table 2-1 shows how the Program Educational Objectives match the institutional mission’s objectives. The table shows a close match to the relevant institutional objectives.

Table 2-1. Comparison of UPRM Mission’s Objectives to the EE Program Educational Objectives

UPRM Mission's Objectives 1 2 3 4

Define the priorities and academic approaches of each college in such a way that they will provide opportunities to meet the needs of regular and continuing education.

x

Provide a university education that will equip its graduates for fulfilling professional career and leadership training that will contribute to the enrichment of their spiritual and personal lives.

x x x x

Assist students in their understanding of the changing social issues and economic problems and issues of our time. x Develop students’ ability to analyze, judge critically, summarize, formulate hypotheses, consider alternatives, distinguish between feelings and x x x x


UPRM Mission's Objectives 1 2 3 4

reasons, and reach valid conclusions. Encourage students to develop a personal philosophy of life that will make them feel a part of their community and of the world. This will enable them to establish their own values, standards, and ideals; thereby, making them active rather than passive members of the community.

x x

Develop in students a positive attitude towards learning in order to encourage them to continue to improve and update their knowledge. x Expedite the establishment of interdisciplinary programs in order to facilitate the full development of the intellectual potential of students and enable them to function in a variety of areas of human endeavor.

x

Develop programs which will create student awareness of the need to properly utilize and conserve natural, physical, and economic resources in order to ensure a better life for the people of Puerto Rico and for all humanity.

x

Assist government agencies and the private sector in the search for solutions to the problems that affect our times and the Island. x x x x

2.4 Constituency of the Program

The department faculty has identified the following groups as the program constituency:

The People of Puerto Rico – The UPR was created by the Legislative Assembly to provide higher education opportunities for its citizens and to promote the social and economic development of the Island. Puerto Rican taxpayers provide more than 92 % of the UPR budget. This constituency is adequately represented by the following sub constituents:

• Students - Students are the direct beneficiaries of the program; thus it must be effective in helping them achieve their goals and aspirations. Their participation, however, is limited to surveys related to outcomes, faculty, and facilities.

• Alumni – Former students who completed the program contribute to the social and economic development of society through their work and expertise.

• Employers of our students – Employers’ satisfaction drives employment opportunities for our students. Even when companies are from US mainland, some of them have satellite sites in PR. Companies hiring students to work in US that are part of our Industrial Advisory Board had been contributing economically to our program for several years.

• Faculty – Faculty are directly responsible to educate the students. Their experience and opinion related to the needs of the society and adjustments to our program usually represent the best interest of the University, students, and the society.

The constituencies are grouped in an Industrial Advisory Board (IAB) that not only helps us to determine how well our graduates are doing with our objectives, but also sponsors most of our undergraduate research and supports some research / educational laboratories.


2.5 Process Used to Establish and Review of the Objectives

As part of the reaccreditation cycle of ABET 2002, the constituencies defined the objectives of the program, which were approved by the departmental faculty on August 30, 2001. These original objectives were stated as follows:

Graduates from the EE program will:

1 Obtain a broad educational experience necessary to understand the impact of electrical engineering problems and solutions within a global and societal context.

2 Possess a combination of knowledge and analytical, computational, and experimental skills necessary to solve practical electrical engineering problems.

3 Have adequate communication skills both as an individual and as part of a team.4 Value the importance of lifelong learning.

5 Be aware of contemporary issues and thus be able to make decisions taking into consideration professional and societal needs, and ethical implications.

After ABET’s last visit, these objectives were surveyed twice, and the results were discussed with our IAB and faculty. The discussions helped us to decide to change the program objectives such that they become easier to measure, and more aligned to ABET’s definition of objectives. The results are the four objectives presented in section 2.2

The plan to revise and measure the program objectives is composed of three stages:

• Performance Measurements – Specify, design, and implement a continuous assessment process that will allow the department faculty to gauge the program objective performance.

• Analysis and discussion – Tabulate data and meet with the IAB to discuss the findings. The feedback is summarized and presented to the departmental faculty for discussion and plan a course of action.

• Plan and implement change – Assign tasks to committees to revise the objectives, and suggest improvement to the curriculum by adding learning modules to key courses or replacing course sequences.

Figure 2-2 presents a diagram of the three stages and how the constituencies participate. The complete document is included in Appendix I-F. The complete cycle of revising the objectives had been completed. The current declaration of the EE Program Educational Objectives is the result of this effort. The department feels that the new declaration of objectives described well the program and was consistent with the needs of the constituency groups. Also, a new alumni survey had been designed and delivered to measure the new objectives.


Figure 2-2. Conceptual diagram of the objectives revisions adopted by the department.

The assessment process consisted of the following major steps:

1. Measurement should occur from Recruiters Survey, Alumni Survey and Senior-Students Survey.

2. Recruiter Survey should be executed at least twice in six years during the October job fair.

3. Alumni and senior students’ survey should be applied at least once in the cycle, preferably during Mid April up to early June.

4. Tabulation should be presented to the faculty for comments.

5. Tabulation should be presented to the Industrial Advisory Board preferably before the Industrial Affiliates Program’s (IAP’s) meeting.

6. Suggestions and changes are considered by assigning the tasks to departmental committees.

7. When curriculum revision takes place, the Departmental Committee of Academics Affairs should propose changes to the Faculty approval.

8. Previous to the ABET visit, a self-study subdocument related to the objectives should be published in a password protected web site during the summer one year previous to the ABET site visit.

9. Educational Objectives must be published in a public domain web site at all times.

The Department is about to close a second loop by revising the curriculums to improve the performance in the objectives and the program outcomes. This revision comes as a consequence of the objectives performance discussion and the outcome assessment, but will be discussed in the section of the Program Criteria.

Performance Measurements

Program Constituency

Analysis and Discussion Plan and Implement Changes


2.6 Assessment of the Program Educational Objectives

The existing curriculum was described in terms of the components used to achieve the objectives. These components are described in Table 2-2. This description simplified the analysis by grouping courses or program features that share common skills and goals.

Table 2-2. Program Components Used In the Electrical Engineering Program

Component What it includes Language oral and written communication Spanish and English language requirements.

Humanities and social sciences Economics, social sciences, humanities requirements. Electives Elective courses.

Mathematics Calculus, differential equations, numerical methods, probability, and topics on linear algebra and complex variables.

Physical sciences Chemistry and physics.

Fundamental knowledge of engineering sciences

Basic courses on engineering graphics, computer algorithms and languages, engineering materials, static and dynamics, thermodynamics, engineering probability.

Fundamental knowledge within the concentration Basic courses on circuit and system analysis.

Core breadth within the concentration

Required courses in electronics, computer architecture, electromagnetics, electrical energy conversion, communications, control systems, and laboratory experiences.

Option depth within the concentration

EE option track courses, which provides in depth coverage of at least one EE sub discipline and the design experience.

Table 2-3 presents the contribution of each program component to the achievement of the program educational objectives.

Table 2-3. Components contribution to the achievement of the objectives

Components

UPRM ECE Objectives

1 2 3 4

Language oral and written communications X X Humanities and social sciences X X X Electives X Mathematics X X Physical sciences X X Fundamental knowledge of engineering sciences X X X Fundamental knowledge within the concentration X X Core breadth within the concentration X X X Option depth within the concentration X X X X

As a result of the component mapping to the objectives, two surveys were designed and administered. At the moment the employer survey is on revision, keeping in mind the following constraints:


• Objectives should be properly evaluated or assessed by including employers and alumni. Seniors students can also be addressed upon the last month prior to their graduation. Senior survey tabulation is included for data collection and triangulation with the employers’ and alumni’s surveys.

• The implementation should not put an excessive burden on the limited departmental resources.

• The methodology should be appropriate for a large size program. A return rate above 15% in the surveys is considered appropriate for representing the programs’ population.

The final list is summarized in Table 2-4. These surveys can be found in Appendix III. The Program Objectives and Outcomes Assessment Plan is also included in Appendix I-G.

Table 2-4. Evaluation instruments that were selected to evaluate the program objectives Evaluation

Instruments Consists of: Administration frequency

Recruiters survey Forty-four (44) questions mapped to the program objectives which give us the importance and satisfaction of each item.

Twice in the ABET cycle (six years) during the job fairs, and IAP meetings.

Alumni survey Thirty-eight (38) questions related to the program objectives and data collection. This survey is administered to alumni within three years from graduation.

Once in the ABET cycle. They are also represented in the Recruiters Survey.

Seniors survey Thirty-five (35) questions similar to the alumni questions. This survey is administered to seniors a month previous to their graduation.

Every time the Alumni Survey is administrated.

2.7 Involvement of the Constituents

Input from the constituencies was obtained through the surveys and meeting with the IAB. The survey items included questions about the objectives and their importance, and invited the respondents to submit written recommendations about additions, deletions, or changes they deemed necessary.

Recruiters were surveyed using the most recent list of campus visitors. Among the recruiters, there were alumni recently graduated from our programs. These factors helped to obtain a good response rate (from 20% to 27%).

After tabulation of the survey results, an IAB meeting was organized. The IAB participated sharing their opinion on our strengths and weaknesses related to the objectives of the program. They had the opportunity to give suggestions on how to improve our program where weaknesses were found. These suggestions were presented to the departmental faculty for discussion.

2.8 Results of the Evaluation

This section summarizes the findings of the evaluation process. The research issue was to determine the performance of the various program components in the achievement of the


program objectives. An observation was defined for each program component that was deemed to have a significant influence on the achievement of the objective. The acceptable values for the assessment metric were selected according to the following rationale:

• Measures related to importance were set above 3.0 on a scale from 1.0 to 5.0. • Measures related to satisfaction were set above 3.0 on a scale from 1.0 to 5.0. • This action divides the results graphs in four quadrants as shown in Figure 2-3. • Quadrant I told us that no corrective action needs to be taken. Items in the boundary

needed to be observed carefully. • Quadrant II and III gave us space for changes without affecting the perspective of our

recruiters toward our program. Particularly, no effort should be spent improving items related to quadrant III.

• Quadrant IV told us that corrective action is necessary. Further discussion with faculty and IAB was needed to carry out an improvement course of action.

Figure 2-3. Performance quadrants. I: Everything is fine. II: Although the items seem unimportant, the satisfaction tells us not to worry about it. III: Although the satisfaction is low, it is not an important item. We need to pay attention after considering other priorities first. IV: Danger zone. We need to improve the satisfaction promptly.

The following subsections present a short discussion on the results of the evaluation of the past objectives. Keep in mind that from the discussion with the IAB, the objectives changed to the ones presented in section 2.2

Figure 2-4 showed the responses to all questions asked related to the educational objectives. Notice that there were items in three quadrants – I, II, and IV. Overall, the program was accomplishing its objectives, although there were a few items that needed attention. As we stated before, the priority items are those separated inFigure 2-5. These priority items affected the previous Objectives 1, 3 and 5, which we will discuss shortly.

1 1

3

3

5

Importance

Satis

fact

ion

5

I II

III IV


Figure 2-4. Survey results of 2005 including all questions related to the educational objectives. Legend includes items least important for the recruiters.

Figure 2-5. Items from the recruiters’ survey that needed special attention.

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

Satisfaction

Importance

Survey to Employers Fall 2005Effective professional and technical communication in Spanish to audiences of varied sophistications, orally, in writing or with presentation aids

Knowledge of Humanities

Exposure to socio‐humanistic areas of study

Knowledge of Social Sciences and Economics

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

2.20

2.40

2.60

2.80

3.00

3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

Satisfaction

Importance

Survey to Employers: Fall 2005 ‐‐ Quadrant IV

Effective professional and technical communication in English to audiences of varied sophistications, orally, in writing or with presentation aids

Understand the proper use of the work of other and issues such as plagiarism, copyrights and patents

Ability to communicate effectively with other team members

Ability to determine the reasonableness of a solution within the physical and ethical context of the problem


2.8.1 Evaluation of Objectives 1 and 5.

Objective 1 states that the program will allow the graduates to: “Obtain a broad educational experience necessary to understand the impact of electrical / computer engineering problems and solutions within a global and societal context.

Objective 5 states that the program will allow the graduates to: “Be aware of contemporary issues and thus be able to make decisions taking into consideration professional and societal needs, and ethical implications.”

Figure 2-6. Items from the recruiters’ survey related to Objectives 1 and 5. The average performance of these objectives is an Importance of 3.83 and a Satisfaction of 3.37 with a standard deviation of 0.82 and 0.31 respectively.

Our survey questions related to these objectives were the same, sharing equal responsibility in the assessment of these objectives. The results were shown in Figure 2-6. Notice that overall the objectives were accomplished with an Importance of 3.83 and a Satisfaction of 3.37. There were, however, two items that needed attention. These items with low performance were as follows:

1. “Understand the proper use of the work of others and issues such as plagiarism, copyrights and patents.”

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

Satisfaction

Importance

Survey to Employers ‐ Fall 2005: Objectives 1 and 5Knowledge of Humanities



Ability to understand one's own cultural traditions in a broader context

Ability to distinguish between ideas, opinions, beliefs, and facts

Ability to determine the reasonableness of a solution within the physical and ethical context of the problem

Awareness of the ethical and societal aspects of the profession


It was rated with an Importance of 4.45 and a Satisfaction of 2.86.

2. “Ability to determine the reasonableness of a solution within the physical and ethical context of the problem.”


When the IAB was addressed with these issues they agreed that the rate was low because of the lack of knowledge of our alumni concerning legal issues and patents opportunities. They acknowledged that their technical knowledge and honesty conducts at work as not a problem, otherwise they will not be hiring at our university. They also mentioned that the problem spread along other employees as well, and that their companies had developed training seminars that they will be happy to share with us. They all agreed that there is no room for a curriculum change for these particular issues.

There were also some questions related to these objectives that seemed unimportant to the companies. We asked the IAB about the items to give us their recommendations. The items in question were the following:

1. “Knowledge of Humanities”


2. “Exposure to socio-humanistic areas of study”


3. “Knowledge of Social Sciences and Economics”


Their observations were as followed:

1. They value an employee that keeps up with contemporary issues by reading the newspaper or economic magazines.

2. Our curriculum puts too much emphasis on the socio-humanistic credits. They suggested that we could eliminate up to 9 credits of socio-humanistic courses without affecting their willingness to hire our graduates.

3. Social and humanistic courses needed to be related to the engineering profession in order to account them as an extra asset of our students. Specifically, they mentioned that they valued the knowledge of economics behavior.

2.8.2 Evaluation of Objective 2 Objective 2 states that the program will allow the graduates of the program to:

“Possess a combination of knowledge and analytical, computational, and experimental skills necessary to solve practical electrical engineering problems.”

This objective was accomplished with the related questions in the survey above the threshold. All items were located in the first quadrant with an Importance of 4.05 and a Satisfaction of 3.57, and a standard deviation of 0.53 and 0.34 respectively. The IAB agreed with the results, and made no further suggestions or observations.


2.8.3 Evaluation of Objective 3 Objective 3 states that the program will allow the graduates of the program to:

“Have adequate communication skills both as an individual and as part of a team.”

The results were shown in Figure 2-7. Notice that overall, this objective was accomplished with an Importance of 4.10 and a Satisfaction of 3.18. There were, however, two items that needed attention. These items with low performance were as followed:

1. “Effective professional and technical communication in English to audiences of varied sophistications, orally, in writing or with presentation aids.”


2. “Ability to communicate effectively with other team members.”


Figure 2-7. Items from the recruiters’ survey related to Objective 3. The average performance of this objective was an Importance of 4.10 and a Satisfaction of 3.18 with a standard deviation of 1.13 and 0.31 respectively.

When the IAB was addressed with these issues they agreed that some of our graduates are a little shy communicating in front of an audience. They mentioned that they are worried that some students refuse to do an interview in English and that takes away the hiring opportunity. As an encouraging observation, they mentioned that our alumni adapt to the spoken English within their first six months at work. After that point they pretty much

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

Satisfaction

Importance

Survey to Employers ‐ Fall 2005: Objective 3Effective professional and technical communication in Spanish to audiences of varied sophistications, orally, in writing or with presentation aidsAbility to organize information

Ability to lead effectively

Ability to articulate teamwork principles (group dynamics)

Effective professional and technical communication in English to audiences of varied sophistications, orally, in writing or with presentation aidsAbility to communicate effectively with other team members


blend in with their peers. They also mentioned that the language hardly ever interfese with their technical performance with the working teams. The IAB makes the following suggestions regarding this objective:

1. To include a technical writing and a public speaking course in the curriculum whenever became feasible.

2. To add more oral presentations in English within the depth core courses.

There was also a question related to Objective 3 that seemed unimportant to the companies. We asked the IAB about the item to give us their recommendations. The item in question was the following:

1. Effective professional and technical communication in Spanish to audiences of varied sophistications, orally, in writing or with presentation aids


The IAB mentioned that to have a bilingual employee is important when dealing with international companies. On the other perspective, to most of the day to day activities English is more important. For companies in Puerto Rico, the Spanish language comes natural as a spoken language. Their main suggestion was to look if the pattern repeats itself in future surveys, which somehow is observed in Figure 2-8. They question about the number of native companies that participated in the survey. There was no answer because the survey did not ask that particular question, and the submissions were anonymous.

2.8.4 Evaluation of Objective 4 Objective 4 states that the program will allow the graduates to:

“Value the importance of lifelong learning.”

This objective was accomplished with the related questions in the survey above the threshold. All items were located in the first quadrant with an Importance of 4.08 and a Satisfaction of 3.33, and a standard deviation of 0.41 and 0.31 respectively. The IAB agreed with the results, and made no further suggestions or observations.

2.8.5 Summary The IAB looked at the objectives and agreed with the faculty that they needed to be redacted following their intended purposed in measuring them. The past objectives (the ones surveyed) were program oriented rather than alumni or employee oriented. Once the new objectives got approved, a new survey needed to be developed aligned with the new objectives. They also suggested that a separated alumni survey will be useful. Their last comment was that they agree with the faculty that a curriculum revision should consider the presented observations. This particular suggestion will be presented in the discussion of the program criteria.


Finally, a second Recruiters Survey showed, once again, that all the five objectives were accomplished as shown in Figure 2-8. In this survey all items where above the satisfaction threshold. Once again, the results related to the socio-humanistic and the Spanish language repeated. This time, however, Spanish got an importance of 2.96, which is greater than before.

Figure 2-8. Survey results for 2006 including all questions related to the educational objectives. Legend includes items least important for the recruiters.

2.9 Evaluations of the new objectives by Seniors and Alumni

Two surveys were designed to evaluate the accomplishment of the new Program Educational Objectives. Seniors were surveyed to have their perception of how well they feel prepared to fulfill the objectives. The alumni answers, however, are direct measurements of the objectives. At this moment employers did not participate because the new survey needs to be re-designed.

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

Satisfaction

Importance

Survey to Employers Fall 2006Knowledge of Humanities



Effective professional and technical communication in Spanish to audiences of varied sophistications, orally, in writing or with presentation aids

Continuation of studies in graduate school


Figure 2-9. Results of seniors survey for the new Program Educational Objectives

Figure 2-10. Results of alumni survey for the new Program Educational Objectives

4.01, 4.60

4.21, 4.44

4.03, 4.36

4.32, 4.284.25

4.30

4.35

4.40

4.45

4.50

4.55

4.60

4.65

3.95 4.00 4.05 4.10 4.15 4.20 4.25 4.30 4.35

Satisfaction

Importance

Senior's Perception of Objectives Achivements

Objective 1

Objective 2

Objective 3

Objective 4

4.01, 4.60

4.21, 4.44

4.03, 4.36

4.32, 4.284.25

4.30

4.35

4.40

4.45

4.50

4.55

4.60

4.65

3.95 4.00 4.05 4.10 4.15 4.20 4.25 4.30 4.35

Satisfaction

Importance

Alumni's Opinion of Objectives Achivements

Objective 1

Objective 2

Objective 3

Objective 4


2.10 Conclusions

The Electrical Engineering Programs had achieved their goal related to their Program Educational Objectives. The Program Educational Objectives had been modified maintaining consistency with the institutional mission and reflecting more on the achievement of our alumni. New surveys are in the process of being developed for the new objectives.

Criterion 3: Program Outcomes 3-1

3. PROGRAM OUTCOMES

ABET definition: Program outcomes are narrower statements that describe what students are expected to know and be able to do by the time of graduation. These relate to the skills, knowledge, and behaviors that students acquire in their matriculation through the program.

ABET definition: Assessment under this criterion is one or more processes that identify, collect, and prepare data to evaluate the achievement of program outcomes. ABET definition: Evaluation under this criterion is one or more processes for interpreting the data and evidence accumulated through assessment practices. Evaluation determines the extent to which program outcomes are being achieved, and results in decisions and actions to improve the program.

3.1 Process for Establishing and Revising Program Outcomes This section presents the analysis of the outcomes assessment process in the self-study report of 2002 and how the current process was designed. After the previous ABET visit the Electrical Engineering Academic Committee decided to change the instruments used for outcomes assessment for the following reasons:

1. Transcript analysis is based on course grades which are global measurements of all the course outcomes and do not provide an individual outcome achievement measurement.

2. Seniors surveys provide information about the perception of students on outcome achievement but are not direct measures of actual outcome achievement.

3. Alumni and employer surveys are more suitable for educational objectives assessment than to individual outcome achievement along the program.

4. Although the NCEES FE Examination may be used for outcome assessment of seniors, it does not provide information about progress along the program and could be more appropriate for benchmarking. Additionally, the number of students taking this examination is very low and therefore is not representative of the large number of graduates from the program.

5. It is more appropriate to have a unified assessment method and process for all the programs in the department.

The faculty of the department commissioned the Quality Improvement and Accreditation coordinators of the Electrical Engineering and the Computer Engineering programs to propose an assessment process that would:

1. Solve the shortcomings found in the outcomes assessment process used until 2002.

2. Measure directly outcome level of achievement in the courses.

3. Become instruments to validate program interventions such as curricular reforms, new courses, new pedagogic strategies, course restructuring.

4. Minimize the burden on faculty.

The Quality Improvement and Accreditation team analyzed several assessment approaches which are shown in Table 3-1. This table summarizes the pros and cons of each alternative.


On October 27, 2005 these alternatives were presented to the Departmental Faculty, and alternative 4 was chosen, i.e., course material-based.

Table 3-1 Analysis of Assessment Alternatives

Alternative Pros Cons

1. Student Portfolios • Unified assessment for all students and all academic term.

• Comprehensive

• Manageable with small student population.

• How do we store and organize such a large amount of portfolios?

2. Periodic comprehensive tests

• Standardized

• Unified assessment for all students and all academic terms

• Professional licensure could be one of the tests

• How do we assess criteria d, g and i?

• How and when would we give them?

• How can we motivate students to take them seriously?

• Who designs the tests?

• Standardized tests measure how well students learned information but may not demonstrate how well they solve problems

3. Cornerstone and capstone courses

• Comprehensive

• Assessment instruments could be more standardized than in content courses (no need to come up with new questions for tests or exams)

• What are the cornerstone courses?

• Do we have any?

• We need to identify candidate courses

• We may need to create cornerstone courses and that would require a major curricular reform


Alternative Pros Cons

4. Course material-based assessment

• We may already have many necessary elements and evidence materials

• Probably the smallest additional burden on faculty

• Allows student progress monitoring

• Allows multiple measures of each outcome

• Need to do a mapping between materials and outcomes

• How to determine sample materials and sample size?

• Not comprehensive

5. Professional Licensure test (NCEES FE Examination)

• Almost comprehensive

• Can be used for comparative analysis with rest of the nation

• Shows outcomes of the whole program

• Does not allow assessment of outcomes d, g and i.

• Only one point measurement and does not let us see how students develop skills to achieve outcomes

• Long response time to any curricular changes

Once the assessment method was chosen some other issues related to the assessment process were also decided:

1. Assessment cycles for the department courses would be established.

2. There is no need to exhaustively collect all the course material, just collect student work that is representative of course outcomes.

3. Mapping of course material and educational outcomes would be necessary and requires collaboration of course instructor.

4. The measurement of outcome achievement would directly use student work and outcome mapping as provided by course instructor.

5. There is no need to assess every course every semester, except when the faculty or the Academic Committee deems it necessary.

6. Not all sections of a course need to be assessed. The assessment plan will establish cycle of sections assessment to minimize burden on faculty members and distribute the assessment load as evenly as possible among faculty members.


7. The assessment results would be sent to area committees for review and to the Academic Committee to take corrective actions when needed.

The assessment process is shown in Figure 3-1.

Figure 3-1 Assessment Process

3.1.1 Rubrics as an instrument for assessment After reviewing the outcome assessment results in a faculty retreat on April 20, 2007, the outcome assessment instrument was revised. The faculty of the department discussed the issue of unity of criteria for assessing each outcome. The grades of course material were perceived as dependent on each instructor’s criteria and could vary from course to course along the program and even between sections of the same course. Thus, the faculty commissioned the Quality Improvement and Accreditation team to design rubrics for each program outcome so that the same criteria would be used for outcomes assessment of all the courses in the department.

The rubrics were designed taking into consideration all performance criteria summarized in the courses syllabi. Once the rubrics were finished, they were presented to the Area Coordinators of the two programs on September 18, 2007 and the Electrical Engineering Academic Committee on September 13, 2007. In these meetings the rubrics were discussed and edited. The final version of the rubrics were presented to and approved by the department on September 25, 2007. Implementation will start in the Fall of 2007. The rubrics are shown in Table 3-2 through Table 3-12. It should be observed that rubrics were designed based on our performance criteria, and therefore they defined the common performance criteria for the academic program. Also notice that the rubrics are aligned with ABET’s definition of outcomes, i.e., Program outcomes are narrower statements that

Tabulate results from samples

Evaluation by Area

Committees

General evaluation by Steering Committee

Implement corrective actions

Sample course

materials


describe what students are expected to know and be able to do by the time of graduation. Rubrics thus designed will show students’ progress along the program. The minimum value to consider that students have achieved a particular outcome at the time of graduation is 3. Rubrics should be submitted accompanied with sample material from the course that evidences how the rubric value was attained.

Table 3-2 Rubric for Outcome a: An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering

5 The student is able to apply mathematics and science fundamentals, and probability and statistical principles to solve or to analyze an engineering problem or principle within the course material. The student shows proper use of equations to represent signals or systems and is able to find the desired output. Probability and statistics are applied to handle uncertainties related to the engineering problem. Economics calculations are displayed in the analysis of applications, where it applies.

4 The student is able to apply mathematics and science fundamentals, and probability and statistical principles to solve or to analyze an engineering problem or principle within the course material. The student shows proper use of equations to represent signals or systems and is able to find the desired output. Probability and statistics are applied to handle uncertainties related to the engineering problem.

3 The student is able to apply mathematics and science fundamentals to solve or to analyze an engineering problem or principle within the course material. The student shows proper use of equations to represent signals and systems and is able to find the desired output.

2 The student is able to apply mathematics and science fundamentals to solve or to analyze an engineering problem or principle within the course material. The student may show difficulties handling equations to represent signals and systems, or make mistakes when calculating the desired output.

1 The student has some difficulties applying mathematics and science fundamentals to solve or to analyze an engineering problem or principle within the course material.

Table 3-3 Rubric for Outcome b: An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data

5 Students develop and conduct the laboratory work, and use troubleshooting where applicable to implement a prototype of their design. Results and data are correctly interpreted to prove correspondence between theory and practice of their engineering design.

4 Students develop and conduct the laboratory work, and use troubleshooting where applicable, but are unable to complete an implementation of their design. Data are correctly interpreted to prove correspondence between theory and practice of their engineering design.


3 Students are able to calibrate, configure, and test the instruments while conducting laboratory work to collect data. Students may obtain data using simulation tools, instead of laboratory work. Data are analyzed and interpreted to draw conclusions aligned to the theoretical part of the field.

2 When conducting laboratory work, students may need help calibrating, configuring, or testing the instruments. When using simulation tools, the students need help to complete the practice. Data are analyzed and interpreted to draw conclusions aligned to the theoretical part of the field.

1 Students do not carry out laboratory work or simulation when required, but are able to analyze and interpret presented data to draw conclusions. They show an ability to approximate and generalize from data sampling, and express their conclusions into equations or diagrams.

Table 3-4 Rubric for Outcome 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

Given a design problem related to the student area of study: 5 The students are able to follow logical and orderly design procedures, and complete a

design to meet the given set of specification. The students clearly document their alternatives and decisions along the design process, and include considerations of codes, protocols, and engineering standards related to the design area.

4 The students are able to follow logical and orderly design procedures, and complete a design to meet the given set of specification. The students clearly document their alternatives and decisions along the design process.

3 The students are able to follow logical and orderly design procedures, and complete a design to meet the given set of specification.

2 The students are able to follow logical and orderly design procedures to choose the best solution, but the final design or implementation is incomplete.

1 The students are unable to follow logical and orderly procedures to do the design.

Table 3-5 Rubric for Outcome d: An ability to function on multidisciplinary teams

Given an engineering problem to be made by a group of students:

5 Students show an ability to subdivide a complex problem in parts, combining peer work into the final solution. Team members demonstrate an ability to organize the team assigning responsibilities, balancing the work load, and participating in regular meetings. The objective of the design or assignment is completed.


4 Students show an ability to subdivide a complex problem in parts, combining peer work into the final solution. Team members are able to assign responsibilities, but in the implementation have an unbalanced workload. The objective of the design or assignment is completed.

3 Students complete the design or assignment successfully, but lack the ability to subdivide a complex problem in parts. The members of the team seem to participate in all aspects of the design or assignment without a clear division of responsibility.

2 Students are unable to complete the design or assignment successfully, because they lack the ability to subdivide a complex problem in parts. The students, however, seem to meet and try to delegate responsibilities of parts of the assignment. Some aspect of the design or assignment is functional.

1 Students lack the ability to work in a team. They are unable to break a complex problem in parts, and they lack team coordination.

Table 3-6 Rubric for Outcome e: An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems

Given the opportunity to identify an engineering problem to be solved:

5 Students are capable of identifying and describing a problem that can be solved with the skills related to the field of study. Students are able to compare different alternatives to present a suitable solution. Their solution shows their ability of physical thinking, approximation and simplification.

4 Students are capable of identifying and describing a problem that can be solved with the skills related to the field of study. Their solution shows their ability of physical thinking, approximation and simplification. Alternatives solutions to the problem are not presented.

3 Students are capable of identifying and describing a problem that can be solved with the skills related to the field of study. Alternatives solutions to the problem are not presented. Their solution, although plausible, could be improved if the approach changes.

2 Students are able to describe a problem after the design problem is given. Their solution shows their ability of physical thinking, approximation and simplification. Alternatives solutions to the problem are not presented.

1 Students are unable to identify and describe a problem. If the design problem is given, however, their solution does not show their ability for approximation and simplification, and could be improved if the approach to solve the problem changes. Alternatives solutions to the problem are not presented.


Table 3-7 Rubric for Outcome f: An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility

5 Students are able to apply ethical analysis in the evaluation of the proposed design. The ethical analysis includes the perspectives of the designer and the user or affected parties, and knowledge of any applicable code of ethics, such as, the CIAPR, the IEEE or ACM Codes of Ethics. The work complies with safety standards, and their final design solution avoids ethical compromises.

4 Students are aware of any applicable code of ethics, such as, the CIAPR, the IEEE or ACM Codes of Ethics and are able to identify and relate this knowledge to their designs and applications.

3 Students are aware of any applicable code of ethics, such as, the CIAPR, the IEEE or ACM Codes of Ethics and understand their professional and ethical responsibility.

2 Students have a general understanding of their professional and ethical responsibility by including safety compliance, but are unaware of any applicable code of ethics, such as, the CIAPR, the IEEE or ACM Codes of Ethics.

1 Students are aware of any applicable code of ethics, such as, the CIAPR, the IEEE or ACM Codes of Ethics, but are unable to use them.

Table 3-8 Rubric for Outcome g: An ability to communicate effectively

5 Students are able to write a project report or paper. Students also prepare a well organized presentation or poster. Their work reflects proper use of the language (Spanish or English) and their ability to communicate graphically using schematics, tables, graphics, mathematical equations, and any necessary technical documentation.

4 Students are able to write a project report or paper. Students also prepare a well organized presentation or poster. Their work reflects their ability to communicate graphically using schematics, tables, graphs, mathematical equations, or any necessary technical documentation. Students, however, may show difficulties with grammar.

3 Students either write a project report or make a presentation, but not both. Their work reflects their ability to communicate graphically using schematics, tables, graphics, mathematical equations, or any necessary technical documentation. Students, however, may show difficulties with grammar or putting ideas together in organized sentences.

2 Students write a project report or make a presentation. Although proper use of the language (Spanish or English) is shown, the report may be incomplete, or the presentation is not well organized. The works show some communications skills.

1 Students are unable to write a coherent project report, paper, or presentation. Students also present problems with grammar or putting ideas together in organized sentences.


Table 3-9 Rubric for Outcome h: The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context

5 Students are able to analyze the impact of their design on the environment, as well as the social implications such as acceptance, and adaptation of the people. Students also understand the economic implications of their design, such as entrepreneurship potential, sustainability, or employment sustitutions.

4 Students are able to analyze the impact of their design on the environment, as well as the social implications such as acceptance, and adaptation of the people.

3 Students have an awareness of the social and environmental impact of engineering situations. Students are aware of safety considerations, social acceptance and adaptation to the situation.

2 Students have an awareness of the social and environmental impact of engineering situations presented to them, but need guidance to assess safety considerations, social acceptance and adaptation to the situation.

1 Students are not fully aware of the social and environmental impact of engineering situations presented to them, and need guidance to assess safety considerations, social acceptance and adaptation to the situation.

Table 3-10 Rubric for Outcome i: A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in lifelong learning

5 Students prove their ability to find information related to their discipline by including a reference list of articles related to their course work. The references are included and discussed in their report. The list includes journals, proceedings, books, or professional magazines related to the engineering field discussed in the classroom. The students also are able to find specialized tools, software or supplies, for example, sensors, microcontroller boards, PLC, or CAD software.

4 Students prove their ability to find information related to their discipline by including a reference list of articles related to their course work. The references are included and discussed in their report. The list includes journals, proceedings, books, or professional magazines related to the engineering field discussed in the classroom.

3 Students prove their ability to find information related to their discipline by including a reference list of articles related to their course work. The list includes journals, proceedings, books, or professional magazines related to the engineering field discussed in the classroom.

2 Students prove their ability to find information related to their discipline by including a reference list of articles related to their course work. The list is limited to a web search, and their reference in the report is similar in content to what is presented in the web site.

1 Students are unable to provide a reference list, although some reference material is included in the report of their work.


Table 3-11 Rubric for Outcome j: Knowledge of contemporary issues When given an engineering design problem:

5 Students discuss different alternatives to solve their problem. These alternatives should include emerging technologies and their associated cost, and comment on their importance and how they cope with the needs of their design. They also show knowledge of the role and scope of regulating agencies such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), etc.

4 Students discuss different alternatives to solve their problem. These alternatives should include emerging technologies and their associated cost, and should be commented on their importance and how they cope with the necessities of their design.

3 Students discuss different alternatives to solve their problem. These alternatives should include emerging technologies and their associated cost.

2 Students comment on different alternatives to solve their problem. These alternatives should be commented on their importance and how they cope with the necessities of their design. Students, however, are unaware of emerging technologies.

1 Students only present one alternative to solve their problem and the reasons that drive their solution, because they are unaware of other alternatives.

Table 3-12 Rubric for Outcome k: An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.

5 Students are able to make an appropriate choice and use of specialized tools, software, or hardware to complete a design or to collect and analyze data. Implementation of the design is completed within the allotted time specified by deadline for the deliverable.

4 Students are able to use specialized tools, software, or hardware provided by the professor to complete a design or to collect and analyze data. Implementation of the design is completed within the allotted time specified by deadline for the deliverable.

3 Students are able to use specialized tools, software, or hardware to complete assignments. Their work reflects the skills related to the hardware or software presented in the course material, but there is no implementation requirement.

2 Students are able to use specialized tools, software, or hardware to complete assignments. Their work is almost completed within the allotted time, or completed given extra time.

1 Students are able to use specialized tools, software, or hardware to do assignments. Their work reflects some lack of skills related to the hardware or software presented in the course material.


A full assessment cycle was defined for the use of rubrics as shown in Table 3-13.

Table 3-13 Assessment Timetable

Outcomes Sampling Period

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

Spring 2009 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

Fall 2007

d An ability to function on multidisciplinary teams

e An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems

f An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility

Spring 2008 g An ability to communicate effectively

h The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context

i A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in lifelong learning

Fall 2008 j Knowledge of contemporary issues

k An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.


3.2 Program Outcomes On August 30, 2001, the faculty of the Department adopted the declaration of Program Educational Outcomes as specified in the ABET Document “Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs” and has been adopting the new versions as they have been published by ABET. Thus, the program outcomes for the Electrical Engineering Program are:

(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 multidisciplinary 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.

Additionally, as part of the Outcome Assessment Plan, the course syllabi were revised by the Area Committees of the Department and course-specific performance criteria associated to each outcome were added as shown in Appendix A. Section 13 of the syllabi contains a table where each course-specific outcome is mapped to one of the program outcomes. Tables that map the courses and the program outcomes are shown in Section 3.4.

3.3 Relationship of Program Outcomes to Program Educational Objectives The Program Educational Objectives have been discussed in Chapter 2. Table 3-14 shows the relation between the program outcomes adopted by the department and the Educational Objectives. In this table it can be observed that each outcome is related to at least one of the objectives and that there is a good balance between the numbers of outcomes related to each objective.


Table 3-14. Relation of Outcomes and Objectives

ECE Program Educational Outcomes ECE Objectives

1. 2. 3 4

(a) An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics,science, and engineering X

(b) Ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data X X X

(c) Ability to design a system, component, or process tomeet desired needs within realistic constraints such aseconomic, environmental, social, political, ethical, healthand safety, manufacturability, and sustainability

X X X X

(d) Ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams X (e) Ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineeringproblems X X X X

(f) Understanding of professional and ethicalresponsibility X X X

(g) Ability to communicate effectively X X X (h) Broad education necessary to understand the impact ofengineering solutions in a global, economic,environmental, and societal context

X X

(i) Recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning X X X X

(j) Knowledge of contemporary issues X X (k) Ability to use the techniques, skills, and modernengineering tools necessary for engineering practice X X

3.4 Relationship of Courses in the Curriculum to the Program Outcomes As part of the process to design a Department’s Assessment Plan and as stated in Section 3.2 above, the syllabi of all the Department’s courses were revised and course-specific outcomes were added as Section 13 of the syllabi. The purpose of this revision was twofold. On one hand it was perceived that several courses had too many outcomes which could not be realistically assessed. On the other hand, course-specific outcomes would set assessment within the context of the course contents and the mapping to the program outcomes would allow observing the students progress along the program. Table 3-15 contains the relation of the courses to the program outcomes as of 2002. Table 3-15 and Table 3-16 contain the revised maps of the ECE Department courses to program outcomes as defined for the new performance criteria. The relation between courses and outcomes for the technical electives is defined by the Area Committees of the five different tracks or concentrations. These mapping are shown in Table 3-18 through Table 3-21. The rows in those tables are filled with the expected performance level of the rubrics for the particular course. Feedback from the professor is required if the measured performance is below 70% of that level. It is possible that a particular professor includes extra activities to raise


that level. An ‘x’ in these tables represents sampling of outcomes in the course in the first evaluation cycle, but not sample with the rubrics method. Notice, also, that some courses contribute to the outcome performance, but the area committees decide not to sample their contributions. In most cases, the courses contribute little to the left-out outcomes, and in others, the contribution is not present for all the students.

Table 3-15 Relation of Courses in Electrical Engineering to Program Outcomes as of 2002

Program Outcomes a b c d e f g h i j kINGL 3101-02 Basic course in English I & II X X ESPA 3101-02 Basic course in Spanish I & II X X INGL 3201-02 Second year courses in English X X ECON 3021 Economics principles I X X X X ---- ---- Electives in Social Sciences and

Humanities X X X X X

EDFI ---- Electives in Physical Education X ---- ---- Free electives X X X MATE 3005 Precalculus X X X X X MATE 3031 Calculus I X X X X X MATE 3032 Calculus II X X X X X MATE 3063 Calculus III X X X X X MATE 4009 Ordinary Differential Equations X X X X X MATE 4061 Numerical Analysis I X X X X X ININ 4010 Probability and Statistics for Eng. X X X X X QUIM 3001-02 General Chemistry with Lab I & II X X X X X X FISI 3171-73 Physics I and Lab X X X X X X FISI 3172-74 Physics II and Lab X X X X X X INGE 3011 Engineering Graphics I X X X INGE 3016 Algorithms & Comp. Programming X X X X X INGE 3035 Engineering Mechanics X X X X INGE 3045 Materials Science for Elec. Eng. X X X X INME 4045 General Thermodynamics X X X X ININ 4015 Engineering Economics X X X X X INEL 3105 Electrical Systems Analysis I X X X X X INEL 4102 Electrical Systems Analysis 2 X X X X X INEL 4103 Electrical Systems Analysis 3 X X X X X INEL 4115 Electrical Measurements Lab X X X X X INEL 4151-52 Electromagnetic Theory I & II X X X X X INEL 4201-02 Electronics I & II X X X X X X X X X X INEL 4205 Logic Circuits X X X X X X X X X X INEL 4211-12 Electronics Laboratory I & II X X X X X X X X X X INEL 4206 Microprocessors I X X X X X X X X X X INEL 4405 Electric Machines X X X X X X X X X X INEL 4406 Electric Machines Laboratory X X X X X X X X X X INEL 4301 Communications Theory X X X X X X X X X X INEL 4505 Introduction to Control Systems X X X X X X X X X X INEL ---- Technical Electives X X X X X X X X X X


Table 3-16 Relation of Core Courses in Electrical Engineering to Program Outcomes

Course Code

Course Title a b c d e f g h i j k Required/Elective

INEL 3105 Electrical Systems Analysis I

3 1 x 1 x R

INEL 3115 Introduction to Electrical Engineering

x 2 3 3 3 E

INEL 4102 Electrical Systems Analysis II

3 1 3 R

INEL 4103 Electrical Systems Analysis III

3 2 R

INEL 4115 Electrical Measurements Laboratory

3 3 2 3 3 R

INEL 4151 Electromagnetics I 3 RINEL 4201 Electronics I 3 3 x 3 RINEL 4205 Logic Circuits 3 1 x x 1 x x RINEL 4206 Microprocessors 3 3 2 3 4 RINEL 4211 Electronics Laboratory I 3 3 2 3 3 R

INEL 4406 Electric Machines Laboratory

3 3 2 3 R

INEL 4505 Introduction to Control Systems

3 x 3 x R

Outcomes

Table 3-17 Relation of Breath Electives Courses in Electrical Engineering to Program Outcomes

Course Code


INEL 4152 Electromagnetics II 3 x x x x x x x EINEL 4202 Electronics II 3 1 3 2 x EINEL 4212 Electronics Laboratory II 3 3 2 3 3 EINEL 4301 Communications Theory I 3 x x x x x x 2 3 EINEL 4405 Electric Machines 3 1 2 3 E

Outcomes

*Students must choose 10 credits from these 13 credits.


Table 3-18 Relation of Depth Electives in Applied Electromagnetics to Program Outcomes

Course Code


INEL 4152 Electromagnetics II 3 x x x x x x x R

INEL 4301 Communications Theory I 3 x x x x x x 2 3 RINEL 5029 Telecommunications

Electronicsx 3 x 4 3 x x x E

INEL 5305 Antenna Theory and Design

x x x 4 x 5 5 E

INEL 5306 Microwave Engineering x x x x 4 x x 5 EINEL 5307 Optical Communications 4 1 3 EINEL 5316 Wireless Communications x x x x 5 x 5 5 x EINEL 5325 Communication System

Design: Circuits and Antennas

5 5 5 x 5 x 5 x x x R

Outcomes

*Listed breath electives are listed because they are required by the area.

Table 3-19 Relation of Depth Electives in Communication and Signal Processing to Program Outcomes

Course Code

Course Title a b c d e f g h i j k Required in Area / Elective

ICOM / INEL 4308

Networking and Routing Fundamentals

3 3 3 E

ICOM / INEL 5318

Intermediate Routing, Switching, and Wide Area

4 3 3 E

INEL 4301 Communications Theory I 3 x x x x x x 2 3 R

INEL 4307 Communication Between Computers

4 5 3 E

INEL 5046 Pattern Recognition 4 3 x 3 3 3 4 EINEL 5307 Optical Communications 4 3 3 E

INEL 5309 Digital Signal Processing 3 3 3 3 E

INEL 5315 Theory of Communications II

4 3 E

INEL 5326 Communication System Design: Signal Processing

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 x 5 x 5 R

INEL 5327 Image Processing 3 3 x 4 E

Outcomes


Table 3-20 Relation of Depth Electives in Controls Systems to Program Outcomes

Course Code


INEL 5205 Instrumentation 3 5 4 5 3 5 5 EINEL 5208 Principles of Biomedical

Instruments3 5 5 5 E

INEL 5505 Linear System Analysis 3 5 4 5 5 4 RINEL 5506 Process Instrumentation

and Control Engineering3 5 5 5 5 2 5 5 4 5 R1

INEL 5508 Digital Control Systems 3 5 4 5 3 5 4 RINEL 5516 Automation and Robotics 3 5 5 5 5 2 5 4 5 4 5 R2INEL 4416 Power Electronics 3 3 3 3 4 EINEL 5408 Electrical Motors Control 3 4 3 4 E

Outcomes

*R1 / R2: Student must choose among these two courses to accomplish the major design experience. Some students take both courses.

Table 3-21 Relation of Depth Electives in Power to Program Outcomes

Course Code


INEL 4405 Electric Machines 3 1 2 3 RINEL 4407 Electrical Systems Design I 3 4 3 3 4 E

INEL 4408 Electrical Systems Design II 3 4 5 3 5 EINEL 4409 Illumination Engineering 3 x 5 5 5 5 3 x 3 4 5 EINEL 4415 Power System Analysis 3 x x 3 RINEL 4416 Power Electronics 3 3 3 3 4 R

INEL 5406Design of Transmission and Distribution Systems 3 5 5 5 3 3 4 5 E

INEL 5407Computer Aided Power System Design 3 3 5 3 4 4 E

INEL 5408 Electrical Motors Control 3 x 4 x 3 x 4 E

INEL 5415Protection Design for Electrical Systems 3 4 4 E

INEL 5495Design Projects in Power Systems 3 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 R1

INEL 5496Design Projects in Power Electronics 3 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 R2

Outcomes

*R1 / R2 Student must choose among these two tracks to accomplish the major design experience. Listed breath electives are listed because they are required by the area


Table 3-22 Relation of Depth Electives in Electronics to Program Outcomes

Course Code

Course Title a b c d e f g h i j k Required in Area / Elective

ICOM 5217 Microprocessor Interfacing 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 R1

INEL 4225 Digital Electronics Laboratory

3 3 x 2 3 x x 3 E

ICOM 4215 Computer Arquitecture and Organization

3 3 4 R1

INEL 4202 Electronics II 3 1 3 2 R

INEL 4207 Digital Electronics 3 1 3 3 RINEL 4212 Electronics Laboratory II 3 3 2 3 3 R

INEL 4218 Introduction to VLSI Design 4 3 5 5 3 4 R1

INEL 4416 Power Electronics 3 3 3 3 4 EINEL 5205 Instrumentation 3 5 4 5 3 5 5 R2 INEL 5206 Digital Systems Design 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 R2INEL 5207 Analog Design with

Operational Amplifiers and Integrated Circuits

3 1 2 3 R2

INEL 5208 Principles of Biomedical Instruments

3 5 5 5 E

INEL 5209 Introduction to Solid State Electronics

4 5 3 4 E

INEL 5265 Analog Integrated Circuit Design

3 5 4 R2

Outcomes

*R1 / R2: Student must choose among these two tracks to accomplish the major design experience. Students might take courses from the other track, but must complete one of the tracks.

3.5 Documentation As explained in Section 3.1, the first-cycle-assessment system was based on sampling the students’ course work. Thus, the course assessment files contain the material that the professor chose for sampling and a table made by the course instructor where the sections or problems of these samples are mapped to the program outcomes.

For example, if an instructor provided the final exam of a course as a sample for assessment he/she should submit the graded exams with the problem-program outcome mapping table. An example of this kind of table is shown in Table 3-23. Notice that the


instructor did not need to be exhaustive and include every problem in the exam, only those that were representative of the course outcomes.

Table 3-23 Example of problem-program outcome map for an exam

Problem Number (Max. Grade) Outcome assessed Performance Level 2.a (25) a (22) 0.88 5.b (15) b (15) 1.0 5.c (20) e (17) 0.85

In the first assessment cycle, the faculty members were asked to assess the outcomes as defined in the syllabi for the 2002 ABET visit and provide feedback to the Quality Improvement and Accreditation Team about the assessment process. This led to the revision of the syllabi and the definition of course-specific outcomes and the addition of section 13 of the syllabi, where the course outcomes are mapped to the program outcomes.

The second assessment with rubrics started in the Fall of 2007. It will take two years to be completed. A subset of the outcomes is evaluated each semester in all courses as is scheduled in Table 3-13 shown before. “Outcomes c, d, and e” were chosen first for two reasons. The first reason was because those outcomes are considered most important ones. The second was that from previous assessment cycle there was a concern of uniformity in the major design experience across the areas of concentration. (See chapter 4 for details.) Outcomes f, and h were chosen next because those are the more difficult to collect in terms of opportunity and quantity of material. “Outcome g” was added to follow alphabetical order because that particular outcome is one of the easiest to collect, and another important outcome to accomplish one of our educational objectives. The rest of the outcomes were easily accomplished every semester. Notice, however, that the probabilistic use was added in the rubric of “outcome a” to force the collection of material to direct measure the program criteria along the program and were it was appropriate. This chapter included the results of the partial assessment cycle implemented with the rubrics.

Table 3-24 represented the way professors handle the tabulation of the outcomes. Each column represented one assignment or work that would contain the evidence of the performance criteria level of the particular outcome achieve by the students. Notice that the last line of the table tells the professor how well the exercises given to students measure the outcome. The last column tells how the sampled student performs in average in the outcome. Professors should know, however, if the average is a good representative number to evaluate the level of achievement of the measured program outcome. That is if the student reaches the maximum performance level allowed by the work, the average will be limited to a maximum. Any average below the maximum will indicate room for improvement. The total average of the course (last cell in the low right corner of the table) is used by the Quality Improvement and Accreditation team to evaluate the level of achievement of the measured outcome within the program.


Table 3-24 Example of problem-program outcome map using rubrics

Outcome Assessed: ‘c’ Work or Problem Number Student or group identifier Project Ex 1. Prob 2 Performance

Level Average 1 5 4 4.5 2 5 3 4 3 4 3 3.5 Average 4.67 3.33 4

3.6 Achievement of Program Outcomes According to the assessment plan explained in Section 3.1, when using the graded student course work provided a full assessment cycle takes 1.5 years. In using rubrics presented in Section 3.1.1, for which implementation started in the Fall of 2007 a full assessment cycle will take two years, since the strategy now is based on outcomes as shown in Table 3-13. The results of the first assessment cycle are shown in Figure 3-2 through Figure 3-8. The minimum value for considering that the outcome has been attained is 0.7, which corresponds to a C grade, the minimum passing grade for any department’s course. From these figures it can be observed that all outcomes were attained in this cycle. These results were presented and discussed with the faculty of the department in the meeting of August 28, 2007, thus closing the loop for outcomes assessment for the whole program.

Figure 3-2 Average of outcomes assessment for core courses in Electrical Engineering

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

a b c d e f g h i j k

Performan

ce (0

‐1)

Outcome

Outcome Rating for Core Courses in Electrical Engineering


Figure 3-3 Average of outcomes assessment for the Applied Electromagnetics Area

Figure 3-4 Average of outcomes assessment for the Communications and Signal Processing Area

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1


Performan

ce (0

‐1)

Outcome

Outcome Rating for Applied Electromagnetics Option in Electrical Engineering

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1


Performan

ce (0

‐1)

Outcome

Outcome Rating for Communications and Signal Processing Option in Electrical Engineering


Figure 3-5 Average of outcomes assessment for the Control Area

Figure 3-6 Average of outcomes assessment for the Electronics Area

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1


Performan

ce (0

‐1)

Outcome

Outcome Rating for Control Option in Electrical Engineering

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1


Performan

ce (0

‐1)

Outcome

Outcome Rating for Electronics Option in Electrical Engineering


Figure 3-7 Average of outcomes assessment for the Power Area

Figure 3-8 Average of outcomes assessment for common electives in EE

Through the assessment cycle, the faculty (through different area committees and the Quality Improvement and Accreditation team) discussed the partials results. Uniformity

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1


Performan

ce (0

‐1)

Outcome

Outcome Rating for Power Option in Electrical Engineering

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1


Performan

ce (0

‐1)

Outcome

Outcome Rating for Common Electives in Electrical Engineering


on performance level was a concern due to the fact that obtaining a 1.0 in a depth elective was far more difficult than obtaining a 1.0 in a core course. Other observation was about the implementation of capstone courses in several areas versus continuing having sequences of design courses to complete the major design experience (MDE), as we had in the previous ABET re-accreditation visit in year 2002. Other critical observation was the difficulty on measuring outcome h. This difficulty initiated a proposal to introduce social aspects in engineering across the curriculum. The followed model was similar to Ethics Across the Curriculum (EAC) proposal the our campus initiated in 2003.

In the first cycle all outcomes measured above the threshold, and therefore no action was taken to change courses contents. Some interesting discussions, however, were initiated that culminate in revising all course syllabi to include performance criteria in each course, changing the assessment tools to rubrics, and deciding on moving all MDE to capstone courses in the near future.

To close this chapter, Figure 3-9 through Figure 3-15 present the results of the partial assessment cycle using rubrics. Notice that once again the program demonstrates accomplishment of the outcomes c, d, and e. Notice also that there is a separation between formative courses and demonstrative courses. In formative courses the students gain the necessary skills for being able to demonstrate the skills in the design courses towards the end of the program. Each Area Committee defines its demonstrative courses as the courses used to complete the MDE. One last observation is that the Electronics Concentration includes several demonstrative courses that are formative to other areas. This observation explains why “outcome c” does not reach the minimum threshold. We will detail this finding in Criterion 4.

0 1 2 3 4 5

c

d

e

Rubrics Scale

Outcomes

Outcomes Rating for Core Courses in Electrical Engineering

Demonstrative

Formative

Figure 3-9 Average of outcomes assessment for core courses in the EE program using rubrics


0 1 2 3 4 5

c

d

e

Rubrics Scale

Outcomes

Outcomes Rating for Applied Electromagnetics Option in Electrical Engineering

Demonstrative

Formative

Figure 3-10 Average of outcomes assessment for the Applied Electromagnetics Area using rubrics

0 1 2 3 4 5

c

d

e

Rubrics Scale

Outcomes

Outcomes Rating for Communications and Signal Processing Option in Electrical Engineering

Demonstrative

Formative

Figure 3-11 Average of outcomes assessment for the Communications and Signal Processing Area using rubrics


0 1 2 3 4 5

c

d

e

Rubrics Scale

Outcomes

Outcomes Rating for Control Option in Electrical Engineering

Demonstrative

Formative

Figure 3-12 Average of outcomes assessment for the Control Area using rubrics

Figure 3-13 Average of outcomes assessment for the Electronics Area using rubrics

0 1 2 3 4 5

c

d

e

Rubrics Scale

Outcomes

Outcomes Rating for Electronics Option in Electrical Engineering

Demonstrative

Formative


0 1 2 3 4 5

c

d

e

Rubrics Scale

Outcomes

Outcomes Rating for Power Option in Electrical Engineering

Demonstrative

Formative

Figure 3-14 Average of outcomes assessment for the Power Area using rubrics

0 1 2 3 4 5

c

d

e

Rubrics Scale

Outcomes

Outcomes Rating for Common Electives in Electrical Engineering

Demonstrative

Formative

Figure 3-15 Average of outcomes assessment for common electives in the EE Program using rubrics

Criterion 4: Continuous Improvement 4-1

4. CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT



“Each program must show evidence of actions to improve the program. These actions should be based on available information, such as results from Criteria 2 and 3 processes.”


4.2 Information Used for Program Improvement

The Electrical Engineering program has an assessment process to evaluate our objectives and program outcomes as described in Criteria 2 and 3. This assessment process is primarily based on surveys, and course sampling. For program objectives, survey to recruiters and alumni are implemented, as well as interviews. For program outcomes, examinations, assignments and class projects related to each outcome are tabulated by the faculty teaching the course.

Surveys are tabulated, interpreted and summarized by the Academic Affair Committee, before presenting the findings to the faculty. Depending on the results and desired output, the faculty either gives an assignment to a committee, or decides on a course of action. All tabulated data is posted in a private webpage for future reference.

4.3 Actions to Improve the Program

Actions to improve the program and closing the loops related to Criteria 2 and 3 are summarized in Table 4-1 through Table 4-3. Besides these loops, the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering closes several loops by providing students the opportunity to evaluate their professors towards the end of each semester. The professor receives the evaluations results about his teaching, gets to see how the courses they teach contribute to the program outcomes, and makes improvements according to the received data. Our faculty is well recognized in the campus and the University system for the dedication and excellence in their work. From Table 4-1 through Table 4-3 it can be appreciated that the faculty in the Electrical Engineering Program take very seriously the improvement cycle. Regardless of the good results of the assessment process, there is always a discussion of how to improve, or a better way to take the measurements. Traditionally, the decision process takes several months because we as a faculty like to corroborate with data our suspicious. Whenever there is a strong discrepancy, we end up assigning a committee task, making a survey, or requesting a common ground understanding before making the decision. This process is


precisely what ABET is looking in a program; define processes, thresholds, and common understandings, evaluate them or collect data and make changes when it seems necessary.

Table 4-1 Closing the loop for the educational program objectives

Timing Action Motive Result Oct. 5, 2005

Recruiters Survey was administrated.

Following the scheduled assessment cycle to evaluate the objectives.

Above 20% of recruiters answered the survey.

Jan. 2006 - Sept. 28, 2006

Data were tabulated and presented to the Academic Affairs Committee of the Department.

Inform the Committee of the results to plan a course of action.

Although the assessment cycle for the objectives should include two years survey, the Committee suggested the following:

1. To use the results for major revision of the programs curriculums.

2. To present the data to the Industrial Advisory Board (IAB) for further understanding of the sub-results.

Oct. 3, 2006

IAB met with the ABET coordinators of the department and several faculty members to discuss the results of the survey administrated in Oct. 2005.

Inquiring about the results, getting the IAB participating in the curriculum suggested changes, and explain them about the second year survey.

The IAB comments were summarized in Criteria 2. In general, the recruiters were happy with our graduates.

Oct. 4 – 10, 2006

Second year Recruiters Survey was administrated.

Following the scheduled assessment cycle to evaluate the objectives

Above 20% of recruiters answered the survey. Data was tabulated, and results reflected that all objectives were satisfied to our expectations.


Timing Action Motive Result April 7, 2006 – Sept. 28, 2006

The Committee of Academics Affairs of the ECE Department started the revision on the program objectives.

Previous objectives were written as outcomes. Objectives needed to change to reflect what our graduates were able to accomplish. They also needed to highlight the uniqueness of our programs.

Revision was finished and presented to the Faculty.

Oct. 31, 2006

Proposed program objectives were discussed with the departmental faculty.

To close the loop of the objectives assessment.

The proposed objectives were returned to the Committee of Academics Affairs because they were too detailed, and difficult to measure.

Nov 2006 – Feb. 15, 2007

The Committee of Academics Affairs of the ECE Department revised the proposed program objectives.

To consider the input of the faculty body into the proposed objectives.

Objectives were edited into their final wording.

Feb. 27, 2007

Revised proposed objectives were presented to the departmental faculty

To close the loop. Faculty approved the objectives. They were published in the departmental webpage, and submitted to the authorities to include them in all official documentations, such as the catalog.

March 5, 2008

Revised proposed objectives were presented to IAB.

To collect their feedback.

IAB agree on adapting the new objectives. They agree that the objectives are oriented to graduates working on their company rather of focusing in the program. They agree on sending support letters to be included in this Self-Study.

It can be appreciated from Table 4-1 that our constituents were happy with the new objectives. The objectives focus in the strength of our graduates in a clearer way. In conclusion, everybody agrees that we are fulfilling our objectives.


Table 4-2 Closing the loop for the program outcomes

Timing Action Motive Result Oct. 27, 2005

Alternatives for outcomes sampling were discussed with the faculty.

Outcomes were sampled based on grades for the last ABET visit. That modality is not compatible with what ABET had been requested for outcome assessment.

Material course sampling was selected by the faculty as a valid outcome assessment tool.

Jan – May 2006

Sampling of outcomes started.

To start the new outcomes assessment.

A sample of courses was selected considering not to load on one particular professor, and to cover all concentration areas.

Oct. 2006 – Feb. 2007

Tabulation of outcomes data, and continuing the assessment plan.

To analyze the outcome assessment data of the sampled courses.

Results were given to all concentration areas committee for their discussion. Some of the areas were short of outcomes h, and f, and professors with low assessment results got the chance to give us feedback or correct any problem proven any particular outcome. It was found that for some particular outcomes there was no uniformity across concentrations, or that they were difficult to measure.

Oct. 10, 2006

The steering committees of the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering gave the assignment to the all area committees of adding the way the outcomes were met in the particular course into the course syllabus.

To establish or study the uniformity of outcome assessment across the areas.

Outcomes with the evaluation criteria were included in all course syllabi to be sampled. Some areas forgot to include outcome h and f.


Timing Action Motive Result Aug. – Dec. 2006

Sampling of outcomes continued.

To continue with the new outcome assessment plan.

A sample of courses was selected considering not to load on one particular professor, and to cover all concentration areas. Different courses and professors were selected whenever it was possible.

Jun. 1, 2007

Tabulation of outcomes data, and continuing the assessment plan. Data was appended to data collected the previous semester.


Results were promising, so the steering committees talked with the area coordinators and the affected professors that could help in improving the performance of some of the outcomes near the passing threshold. Some areas still need to complete the assessment.

Jan. – Summer 2007

Sampling of outcomes continued.

To continue with the new outcome assessment plan.

A sample of courses was selected considering the outcomes that needed to collect more data.

July 2007

Tabulation of outcomes data, and continuing the assessment plan. Data was appended to data collected the previous semester.


First cycle was finished. All outcomes were met. The assessment plan, however, was found to still lack uniformity across the areas, and assessment using rubrics were suggested.

Aug. – Sept. 13, 2007

The Committee of Academics Affairs wrote the first draft of outcome rubrics based on all course syllabi.

The outcomes assessment needed uniformity across the areas.

Rubrics were developed, discussed and modified by the Committee of Academics Affairs to accomplish uniformity and to reflect the outcome progress through the program.

Sept. 25, 2007

Rubrics were presented to the faculty.

To close the cycle. The faculty approved the rubrics without changes. They became available shortly in the Departmental webpage. They are included in Criteria 3 of this self-study.

It can be observed from Table 4-2 that the program outcome assessment process had been modified twice seeking direct measurements of the outcome, simplicity in the process, effectiveness in the measurements, and uniformity across the program regardless the area


of concentration in the depth courses the students choose. Precisely the uniformity of the assessment was the key, not only to change the assessment process to rubrics, but also to starting to discuss the Major Design Experience (MDE).

Table 4-3 Closing the loop for the Major Design Experiences

Timing Action Motive Result October 2002

Capstone Courses in Power Systems and Power Electronics were created.

Testing the idea of having the Major Design Experience in one course (MDE).

In May 2004, the courses were included as requisites to complete the Power System concentration. Students could take either one depending on their interest.

September 29, 2005

Having the MDE in one course versus continue the MDE spread through a series of courses in the Depth electives was discussed.

To unify the program structure, and to give more time to students to do their MDE.

The faculty decided to let the area define their MDE according to the area necessity. Controls and Electronics kept its design experience in a sequence of courses.

November 2007

Discussion of the MDE modality of one course versus multiple was re-initiated.

Outcome assessment showed variability of learning experience through the areas.

Faculty request a re-definition of the meaning of the MDE for our program for being able to understand better the problem before making a decision on the matter.

January 29, 2008

The Committee of Academics Affairs presents the definition of the MDE for departmental approvals.

Fulfilling the faculty’s request on the MDE issue.

Department faculty made small modifications and the MDE definition was completed in an extended meeting on Feb. 14, 2008.

February 2008

Survey to our constituents on the MDE issue was done.

To include all of our constituents in the discussion and decisions.

Results are shown in Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2.


Timing Action Motive Result February 26, 2008

Faculty vote in a separate meeting on the MDE modality issue.

Decide a course of action.

The vote was to modify the curriculum to include a capstone course in electrical engineering for every student regardless of their area of concentration.

March 5, 2008

Industrial Advisory Board (IAB) supports the decision of the faculty in an IAB meeting.

Give participation in the decision, and ask for support on the implementation of the capstone courses.

At least one company already sent two design project ideas. Other companies are working in MOUs to participate without compromising intellectual property or proprietary information.

March 25, 2008

The faculty approved the creation of the MDE capstone course, and the corresponding transition courses, following the recommendation of the Committee of Academics Affairs.

Define the courses syllabi, and help in the transition of the change of curriculum.

The process of creation was initiated for one capstone per area to implement changes promptly without revising the program description. Eventually the program will be revised to have one common capstone course.

March 25, 2008.

An AD-HOC Committee was created to unify all capstone implementations per area into one course.

To make sure that the implementation of the one capstone course covers the need of all the constituents regardless of the area of concentration of our students.

A guide document was created on May 20, 2008. It will be presented in the next departmental meeting in the Fall Semester of 2008. This document can be found in Appendix E.


Figure 4-1 Results on the decision of having the MDE in one capstone course versus a sequence of design courses

Figure 4-2 Result of the modality to implement the capstone course

It can be concluded from Table 4-3 that the faculty is using the outcome assessment to solve observed problems. The rubrics method reflects, in the measurements, the problem of having a lower threshold in some areas. The IAB is aware of the flaw, but agrees on that

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Alumni Employer No relation Professor Student Grand Total

Approach for the Major Design Experience

Multiple Courses One Course

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Alumni No relation Professor Student Grand Total

Modality for One Capstone Course

Common for All Engineering Common for EE One per Area


even in electronics where some demonstrative courses (the MDE in electronics) can be considered formative (due to the fact that they are 4xxx level or have too much new material), the students are getting the necessary skills. The debate was really intense mainly for two reasons. The first is that our students’ employers were happy with our program results. The second is that ABET re-accreditation visit in year 2002 accepted the sequence of courses as a modality to get the MDE. These two facts pointed that we have a good program. This is mainly to the fact that we have a five-year program, and that our MDE is in our fifth year in courses that are considered advanced courses. These advanced courses could be considered as graduate courses for four year programs. Finally our constituents agree on raising the threshold by taking a capstone course for our MDE. These changes are right now in transition, and are expected to be completed in the next two years. The faculty expects to prove easier that our program outcomes are fulfilled. (The expectations are a reflection of what it is happening in the Computer Engineering Program of our department at this moment.)

4.4 Conclusions

It can be appreciated from this chapter that the program had closed three big loops. During the process of closing those loops, smaller loops were also closed by providing feedback to the faculty, IAB, and give them the opportunity to contribute with the discussion of the findings. It also can be appreciated from Criteria 2, 3 and 4 that the program is graduating electrical engineering well prepared according to the defined standards.

Criterion 5: Curriculum 5-1

5. CURRICULUM


ABET Criterion 5 states that: “The curriculum requirements specify subject areas appropriate to engineering but do not prescribe specific courses. The faculty must ensure that the program curriculum devotes adequate attention and time to each component, consistent with the outcomes and objectives of the program and institution. The professional component must include:

(a) one year of a combination of college level mathematics and basic sciences (some

with experimental experience) appropriate to the discipline (b) one and one-half years of engineering topics, consisting of engineering sciences

and engineering design appropriate to the student's field of study. The engineering sciences have their roots in mathematics and basic sciences but carry knowledge further toward creative application. These studies provide a bridge between mathematics and basic sciences on the one hand and engineering practice on the other. Engineering design is the process of devising a system, component, or process to meet desired needs. It is a decision-making process (often iterative), in which the basic sciences, mathematics, and the engineering sciences are applied to convert resources optimally to meet these stated needs

c) a general education component that complements the technical content of the curriculum and is consistent with the program and institution objectives

Students must be prepared for engineering practice through a curriculum culminating in a major design experience based on the knowledge and skills acquired in earlier course work and incorporating appropriate engineering standards and multiple realistic constraints.”

This section will demonstrate that UPRM complies with these requirements.

5.2 Program Curriculum

The curriculum for the Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering degree prepares students for engineering practice and meets the Electrical Engineering Program Educational Objectives as well as the applicable ABET EE Program criteria. It is a five-year program that requires 165 credits to complete. At UPRM, one semester credit hour corresponds to one lecture hour (50 minutes) or two to three hours of laboratory-time per week. A typical 3 credit hour lecture course consists of 45 lecture hours or equivalent, excluding the final examination period. One academic year represents 30 weeks of classes, exclusive of final examinations and holidays.

The course requirements of the curriculum are listed in Table 5-1. A total of 165 semester credit hours is required for the degree, including 43 credit hours of math and basic sciences, 75 credit hours of engineering topics (including design), and 47 credit hours of general education courses. The latter includes 12 credit hours of free electives. The


curriculum clearly exceeds all ABET minimum credit hour requirements. Figure 5-1 provides a graphical view of the credit hour distribution.

Figure 5-1. Distribution of credit-hour requirements of the BSEE Program.

Table 5-1 Curriculum for the Electrical Engineering Program

Semester Course(Department, Number, Title)

Category (Credit Hours) Math & Basic

Sciences

Engineering Topics Check if Contains

Design ( )

General Education

Other

1 INGL 31__ Basic Course in English I ( ) 3 2 INGL 31__ Basic Course in English II ( ) 3 3 INGL 3201 Second year course in

English I ( ) 3

4 INGL 3202 Second year course in English II

( ) 3 1 ESPA 3101 Basic Course in Spanish I ( ) 3 2 ESPA 3102 Basic Course in Spanish II ( ) 3

Various Humanities and Social Sciences ( ) 15 Various EDFI ---- Elective in Physical Education ( ) 2 Various ----- ---- Free Electives ( ) 12

1 MATE 3005 Pre-Calculus 5 ( ) 2 MATE 3031 Calculus I 4 ( ) 3 MATE 3032 Calculus II 4 ( ) 4 MATE 3063 Calculus III 3 ( ) 5 MATE 4009 Ordinary Differential

Equations 3 ( )

6 MATE 4061 Numerical Analysis I 3 ( ) 7 ININ 4010 Probability and Statistics for

Eng 3 ( )

1 QUIM 3001 General Chemistry I 4 ( ) 2 QUIM 3002 General Chemistry II 4 ( ) 3 FISI 3171 Physics I 4 ( ) 3 FISI 3173 Physics Laboratory I 1 ( ) 4 FISI 3172 Physics II 4 ( ) 4 FISI 3174 Physics Laboratory II 1 ( )

Credit-Hour Distribution for the EE Program

Math and Basic Sciences

26%

Engineering Topics45%

General Education29%


Semester Course(Department, Number, Title)

Category (Credit Hours) Math & Basic

Sciences

Engineering Topics Check if Contains

Design ( )

General Education

Other

1 INGE 3011 Engineering Graphics I 2 ( ) 3 INGE 3016 Algorithms & Computer

Programming 3 ( )

3 INGE 3035 Engineering Mechanics 3 ( ) 4 INGE 3045 Materials Science for

Electrical. Engineers 3 ( )

8 INME 4045 General Thermodynamics 3 ( ) 9 ININ 4015 Engineering Economics 3 ( ) 4 INEL 3105 Electrical Systems Analysis I 3 ( )

7 INEL 4095 Signal and Systems 3 ( )

5 INEL 4102 Electrical Systems Analysis 2 3 ( ) 6 INEL 4103 Electrical Systems Analysis 3 3 ( )

5 INEL 4115 Electrical Measurements Lab 1 ( )

5 INEL 4151 Electromagnetic I 3 ( ) 6 INEL 4152 Electromagnetic II 3 ( )

5 INEL 4201 Electronics I 3 ( )

6 INEL 4202 Electronics II 3 ( ) 5 INEL 4205 Logic Circuits 3 ( )

7 INEL 4211 Electronics Laboratory I 1 ( )

8 INEL 4212 Electronics Laboratory II 1 ( ) 6 INEL 4206 Microprocessors I 3 ( )

7 INEL 4405 Electric Machines 3 ( )

8 INEL 4406 Electric Machines Laboratory 1 ( ) 7 INEL 4301 Communications Theory 3 ( )

7 INEL 4505 Introduction to Control Systems

3 ( )

Various 8-10 INEL ---- Technical Elective 18 ( )

TOTALS-ABET BASIC-LEVEL REQUIREMENTS 43 75 47 0 OVERALL TOTAL FOR DEGREE 165 PERCENT OF TOTAL 26.06 % 45.46 % 28.48% 0%

The curriculum is divided into four curricular major components, which are:

• General Education • Mathematics and Physical Sciences • Fundamental Knowledge of Engineering • Professional Component

Each one of these components will be explained in the following subsections.

5.3 General Education

Within the context of the EE Program, the General Education Component is primarily responsible for fulfilling Objective 3 (Demonstrate communication skills in Spanish and


English that enable them to effectively participate and contribute in both linguistic environments.) It also helps to attain Objective 1 (Become educated citizens who, as electrical engineers, contribute by applying, ethically, their specialized knowledge to the educational, cultural, social, technological, and economic development of their societies.) It is organized as three subcomponents as listed in Table 5-2.

Table 5-2. Description of the General Education Component of the EE curriculum

Subcomponent Courses Cr Total Cr.

Language Oral and Written Communication

INGL 31X1-X2 Basic course in English I & II 6 18 ESPA 3101-02 Basic course in Spanish I & II 6

INGL 32Y1-Y2 Second year courses in English 6 Humanities and Social Sciences ---- ---- Electives in Social Sciences and

Humanities 15 15

Electives EDFI ---- Electives in Physical Education 2 14 ---- ---- Free electives 12

The communication skills subcomponent consists of a one-year sequence of Spanish and a two years sequence of English. Since Spanish is the primary language in Puerto Rico, it is essential to promote further development of the English language communication skills of the students. The second year of English is considered equivalent to the typical Freshman English courses at mainland institutions. The first year courses in English and Spanish include work in grammar and composition. In addition, the Spanish courses include the study of literary works of Puerto Rican and Latin American authors, thereby promoting awareness and appreciation of the cultural heritage.

Students with scores of 469/800 or less in the English Achievement Test are placed in a remedial English course, which must be approved before the students are allowed to take the freshman English sequence. This case, however, is not common for EE students.

To promote interest and awareness of the educational, cultural, social, technological and economic issues within the local and global context, the curriculum requires the students to take 15 credits from a restricted list of elective courses in the areas of the Social Sciences and Humanities.

As a means of promoting the student’s development and maintenance of health and fitness, UPRM requires that every student approves at least two credits of Physical Education. Students can select from general physical fitness to sports related courses.

The UPR system also requires that every bachelor-level program must include at least 12 credits to be taken as unrestricted free electives. Although students are encouraged to use those credits for topics outside of EE, some students use them for technical courses. Students who participate in Coop programs or ROTC receive credits that can be used to satisfy this requirement.

5.3.1 Mathematics and Physical Sciences The Mathematics and Physical Sciences component contributes significantly to fulfill Objective 2 (Demonstrate a combination of analytical, computational, and experimental knowledge and skills to make them competitive within the electrical engineering practice.)


It is organized as two subcomponents as listed in Table 5-3. The timeline for the component is presented in Figure 5-2.

Table 5-3 Description of the Mathematics and Physical Sciences Component of the EE Curriculum

Subcomponent Courses Cr. Total Cr.

Mathematics

MATE 3005 Precalculus 5

25

MATE 3031 Calculus I 4 MATE 3032 Calculus II 4 MATE 3063 Calculus III 3 MATE 4009 Ordinary Differential Equations 3 ININ 4010 Probability and Statistics for Eng. 3 Elective inMathematics to be chosenfrom:

Numerical Analysis (MATE 4061), Linear Algebra (MATE 4031) or Complex Variables (MATE 4010). 3

Physical Sciences QUIM 3001-02 General Chemistry with Lab I & II 8

18 FISI 3171-73 Physics I and Lab 5 FISI 3172-74 Physics II and Lab 5

Figure 5-2. Time line for the Mathematics and Physical Science component

Year-Term

I-1 I-2 II-1 II-2 III-1 III-2 IV-1

MATE 3005

MATE 3031

MATE 3032

MATE 3063

MATE 4009

INGE 3016

FISI 3171

FISI 3172

FISI 3173

FISI 3174

MATE Elective

ININ 4010

QUIM 3131

QUIM 3132

QUIM 3133

QUIM 3134


The Mathematics sequence starts with Precalculus. UPRM has established a Precalculus Intervention Program for all freshmen. Students who scored less than 650/800 on the Mathematics part of the Achievement Test offered by the College Board must take a diagnostic exam. Depending on the diagnostic exam score, students may be required to attend a Precalculus Intervention Laboratory and repeat the exam before being allowed to take the Precalculus course. The three-course sequence of Calculus is similar in contents and depth to courses offered at the best universities on the mainland. All students are required to take courses in Differential Equations, and Probability and Statistics. In addition, all students must take a mathematical elective to be chosen from Numerical Analysis, Linear Algebra or Complex Variables. The Probability and Statistics course is offered by the Industrial Engineering Department to provide a more practical approach to the subject, and to include engineering applications related to manufacturing, as this is one professional track for future employment in Puerto Rico. This subcomponent provides students with the necessary mathematical analysis skills required for Engineering and helps them to develop the ability to communicate and represent ideas through equations and mathematical principles.

Students are required to take a one-year sequence of Chemistry and another one-year sequence of Physics, all with their respective laboratories. These courses provide the students with the necessary knowledge to understand the physical principles that govern matter. Students also learn to describe or model physical problems using mathematical equations and problem solving techniques. The required laboratory experiences help strengthen their understanding of the physical principles being studied and provide them the opportunity to collaborate in groups in the study of a problem.

Taken together, this subcomponent seeks to develop in students the desire to continue learning about the physical world around them.

5.3.2 Fundamental Knowledge of Engineering The Fundamental Knowledge of Engineering component contributes significantly to fulfill Objective 2 (Demonstrate a combination of analytical, computational, and experimental knowledge and skills to make them competitive within the electrical engineering practice.) It is organized as listed in Table 5-4 and the time line is presented in Figure 5-3.

Table 5-4. Description of the Fundamental Knowledge of Engineering Component of the EE curriculum

Subcomponent Courses Cr. Total Cr.

Fundamental Knowledge of Engineering Sciences

INGE 3011 Engineering Graphics I 2

17

INGE 3016 Algorithms & Computer Programming 3 INGE 3035 Engineering Mechanics 3 INGE 3045 Materials Science for EE 3 INME 4045 General Thermodynamics 3 ININ 4015 Engineering Economics 3

The Fundamental Knowledge of Engineering Sciences subcomponent provides students with knowledge and skills necessary to learn not only the basic engineering principles of other engineering disciplines but also to understand the terminology and the basic issues of other engineering fields.


Figure 5-3. Time line for the fundamental knowledge of engineering component

5.3.3 Professional Component The Professional component contributes significantly to fulfill Objective 2 (Demonstrate a combination of analytical, computational, and experimental knowledge and skills to make them competitive within the electrical engineering practice.), Objective 3 (Demonstrate communication skills in Spanish and English that enable them to effectively participate and contribute in both linguistic environments), Objective 4 (Value the importance of lifelong learning as demonstrated by pursuing graduate studies, being involved in professional societies, or pursuing professional advancement and success), and Objective 1 (Become educated citizens who, as electrical engineers, contribute by applying, ethically, their specialized knowledge to the educational, cultural, social, technological and economic development of their societies). It is organized as three subcomponents as shown in Table 5-5. The time line of this component is presented in Figure 5-4.

Year-Term

I-1 I-2 II-1 II-2 IV-1 IV-2

INGE 3011

MATE 3031

INGE 3016

FISI 3171

FISI 3172

QUIM 3132

INGE 3035

INGE 3046

MATE 3032

ININ 4010

ININ 4015

INME 4045


Table 5-5. Description Of The Professional Component Of The EE Curriculum

Subcomponent Courses Cr Total Cr.

Fundamental Core of EE

INEL 3105 Electrical Systems Analysis I 3

30 INEL 4102 Electrical Systems Analysis 2 3 INEL 4103 Electrical Systems Analysis 3 3 INEL 4115 Electrical Measurements Lab 1 INEL 4151 Electromagnetic Theory I 3 INEL 4201 Electronics I 3 INEL 4211 Electronics Laboratory I 1 INEL 4205 Logic Circuits 3 INEL 4206 Microprocessors I 3 INEL 4095 Signal and Systems 3 INEL 4406 Electric Machines Laboratory 1 INEL 4505 Introduction to Control Systems 3

Breadth Electives of EE (To choose 10 of 13 credits)

INEL 4152 Electromagnetic Theory I I 3

10 INEL 4202 Electronics II 3 INEL 4212 Electronics Laboratory II 1 INEL 4301 Communications Theory 3 INEL 4405 Electric Machines 3

Depth Electives of EE INEL ---- Technical Elective 18 18

The Fundamental Core of EE subcomponent provides the necessary analytical skills to describe, simplify, and analyze EE components and subsystems. Students learn topics such as current/voltage circuit analysis, mathematical systems, electromagnetic fields and waves, electronics, electric machines and introduction to control systems. In this group of courses students develop skills on the usage of several engineering analysis procedures or techniques that are applicable to a wide range of problems.

Through the Breadth Electives subcomponent, the program provides knowledge and design skills that enable students to explore fundamental more in-depth knowledge in the areas such as electronics, communications, electric machines, and electromagnetics. These electives equip the students with broad skills necessary to adapt to a wide range of engineering jobs in their career.


Figure 5-4. Time line for the Fundamental Core and Breadth Electives subcomponents

The Depth Electives subcomponent allows students to specialize in one of the sub disciplines or areas of their choice. The area includes a minimum of six courses in a specialty area of Electrical Engineering, including at least one course that provides a major design experience (MDE). The department supports five (5) different areas of concentration for the BSEE degree program:

Applied Electromagnetics

Communications and Signal Processing

Control Systems

Power Engineering Systems

Electronics

In order to assure adequate depth in at least one area, students will select technical elective courses with the advisor's approval to satisfy the following requirements:

Year-Term

II-1 II-2 III-1 III-2 IV-1 IV-2

INGE 3016

FISI 3172

INEL 4115

INEL 3105

INEL 4151

MATE 3032

MATE 4009

MATE 3063

INEL 4102

INEL 4201

INEL 4205

INEL 4211

INEL 4095

INEL 4103

INEL 4202

INEL 4152

INEL 4206

INEL 4212

INEL 4405

INEL 4301

INEL 4505

INEL 4406

Depth Electives: Pre-requisites are defined by the area committees


• At least 12 credit hours must be selected from one area of concentration. These must include the MDE.

• Another 6 credit hours must be selected in Depth Electives for a total of 18 credits in advanced technical courses. The extra 6 credits could be in any concentration in the EE Program.

Notice that each area courses listing was defined in Criterion 3 including the mapping to the outcomes. The faculty associated to the area committees will be listed in the section corresponding to Criterion 6: Faculty. In this criterion, the prerequisites and the Major Design Experience (MDE) will be identified in BOLD ITALICS to prove how the program criteria is met regardless of the area chosen by the student.

5.3.3.1 Applied Electromagnetics The Applied Electromagnetics area deals with the generation, transmission, propagation, scattering and reception of electromagnetic waves applied to telecommunications and remote sensing. Telecommunications applications include radio frequencies, microwave and millimeter-wave systems and circuits, antenna theory and design and electromagnetic wave propagation and scattering. Remote sensing applications include the design and use of passive and active sensors to gather information on the physical properties of natural and artificial media, as well as the interaction of the electromagnetics waves with such objects. Table 5-6 describes the courses that are considered as part of this area.

Table 5-6. Description of the Professional Component of the Applied Electromagnetics Area

Course Code Course Title

Pre‐requisites / Co‐requisites Credits

INEL 4152 Electromagnetics II INEL 4151, MATE 4009

Breath Elective

INEL 4301 Communications Theory I INEL 4102, ININ 4010 3 INEL 5029 Telecommunications Electronics Director's Permission 3 INEL 5305 Antenna Theory and Design INEL 4152, INEL 4301 3 INEL 5306 Microwave Engineering INEL 4152 3 INEL 5307 Optical Communications INEL 4152, INEL 4301 3 INEL 5316 Wireless Communications INEL 4301 3

INEL 5325 Communication System Design: Circuits and Antennas

INEL 5305, (INEL 5306 or INEL 5329) 3

5.3.3.2 Communications and Signal Processing This area considers the generation, analysis, transmission, reception, and processing of electronic information. It also works with image analysis and voice recognition as examples of digital signal processing. Table 5-7 describes the courses that are considered as part of this area.


Table 5-7 Description of the Professional Component of the Communications and Signal Processing Area

Course Code Course Title Pre‐requisites / Co‐

requisites Credits ICOM / INEL 4308 Networking and Routing Fundamentals

MATE 3063 or Director's Permission 3

ICOM / INEL 5318

Intermediate Routing, Switching, and Wide Area Networks

ICOM/INEL 4308 or Director's Permission 3

INEL 4301 Communications Theory I INEL 4102, ININ 4010 Breath Elective

INEL 4307 Communication Between Computers INEL 4301, INEL 4206, (ININ 4010 or ININ 4011) 3

INEL 5046 Pattern Recognition (INEL 4301 or ININ 4010) or Director's Permission 3

INEL 5307 Optical Communications INEL 4301, INEL 4152 3 INEL 5309 Digital Signal Processing INEL 4301 3 INEL 5315 Theory of Communications II INEL 4301, ININ 4010 3

INEL 5326 Communication System Design: Signal Processing INEL 5309 3

INEL 5327 Image Processing INEL 5309 3

5.3.3.3 Control Systems This Control Systems area studies the mathematical modeling of dynamic systems, their properties, and how to use controllers to change its behavior. Emphasis is placed on continuous and discrete systems in applications on manufacturing processes automation. Implementation of automation and control on a physical system is required to complete this area. The MDE in this area is completed by taking either the Process Instrumentation and Control Engineering course, or the Automation and Robotics course. It is common, however, that students in the control area take both courses. Table 5-8 describes the courses that are part of this area.

Table 5-8 Description of the Professional Component of the Control Area



INEL 5205 Instrumentation INEL 4202, INEL 4206 3 INEL 5505 Linear System Analysis INEL 4505 3

INEL 5506 Process Instrumentation and Control Engineering INEL 4206, INEL 4505 3

INEL 5508 Digital Control Systems INEL 4505 3 INEL 5516 Automation and Robotics INEL 4206 or ININ 4057 3 INEL 4416 Power Electronics INEL 4103, INEL 4201 3

INEL 5408 Electrical Motors Control INEL 4405, INEL 4416, INEL 4505 3


5.3.3.4 Electronics This specialty area encompasses course offerings and research that embrace contemporary topics in solid state electronics, analog and digital systems design, and computer-aided electronic design. Modern laboratories and computer equipment are available to support both teaching and research. Table 5-9 describes the courses that are considered as part of this area.

Table 5-9. Description of the Professional Component of the Electronics Area



ICOM 5217 Microprocessor Interfacing* (ICOM 4009 or ICOM 5016) and (ICOM 5217 or INEL 5206 or INEL 5265)

3

INEL 4225 Digital Electronics Laboratory INEL 4211, INEL 4207 3 ICOM 4215 Computer Arquitecture and Organization INEL 4206 3 INEL 4202 Electronics II INEL 4201, INEL 4102 Breath

Elective INEL 4207 Digital Electronics INEL 4201, INEL 4205 3 INEL 4212 Electronics Laboratory II INEL 4211 /Co: INEL

4202 Breath Elective

INEL 4218 Introduction to VLSI Design Director's Permission 3 INEL 4416 Power Electronics INEL 4103, INEL 4201 3 INEL 5205 Instrumentation INEL 4202, INEL 4206 3 INEL 5206 Digital Systems Design INEL 4207 3 INEL 5207 Analog Design with Operational

Amplifiers and Integrated Circuits INEL 4201, INEL 4205 3

INEL 5208 Principles of Biomedical Instruments INEL 4202 4 INEL 5209 Introduction to Solid State Electronics Director's Permission 3 INEL 5265 Analog Integrated Circuit Design INEL 4201, INEL 4205 3

*Light Blue is the digital electronics track MDE.

5.3.3.5 Power Engineering Systems This area studies the analysis and design of electrical power generation, transmission and distribution system. It also covers NEC, energy utilization, illumination, power quality, and the corresponding electronic controls. Recent technological advances in semiconductor had made possible the introduction of power electronics in all areas of power systems. Thus, students in the Power Engineering option get to choose their MDE in one of the two options: power systems or power electronics. Besides power engineers, students from electronics or control areas usually attend power electronics courses. Table 5-10 describes the courses that are considered as part of this area.


Table 5-10 Description of the Professional Component of the Electric Power Engineering Area



INEL 4405 Electric Machines INEL 4103 Breath Elective

INEL 4407 Electrical Systems Design I INEL 4103 or INEL 4075 3 INEL 4408 Electrical Systems Design II INEL 4407 3 INEL 4409 Illumination Engineering INEL 4103 or INEL 4075 3 INEL 4415 Power System Analysis INEL 4103, INEL 4405 3 INEL 4416 Power Electronics INEL 4103, INEL 4201 3 INEL 5406 Design of Transmission and Distribution Systems INEL 4415 3 INEL 5407 Computer Aided Power System Design INEL 4415 3

INEL 5408 Electrical Motors Control INEL 4405, INEL 4416, INEL 4505 3

INEL 5415 Protection Design for Electrical Systems INEL 4415 3 INEL 5495 Design Projects in Power Systems Director's Permission 3 INEL 5496 Design Projects in Power Electronics Director's Permission 3

5.3.4 Definition of the Major Design Experience The definition of the major design experience for our department is the following: “Major Design Experience (MDE) is a project that gives students the opportunity to develop an engineering solution based on a problem statement. MDE is based on previously acquired skills and knowledge. The solution must be technically sound and satisfy realistic constraints such as economic feasibility, social and environmental impact, engineering standards, regulations, ethical implications, entrepreneurship potential, manufacturability, sustainability, political aspects, and health/safety issues.

1. The MDE must satisfy the following outcomes, and it may do so by:

b. Developing and conducting the laboratory work or simulation, and troubleshooting where applicable to implement a prototype of their design. Results and data are correctly interpreted.

c. Following logical and orderly design procedures based on a set of specifications. Alternatives and decisions are clearly documented along the design process, and include considerations of codes, protocols, and engineering and safety standards related to the design area.

e. Identifying and describing a problem that can be solved with the skills related to the field of study. Students are able to compare different alternatives to present a suitable solution. Their solution shows their ability of physical thinking, approximation and simplification.


g. Writing well organized project documents and presentations. The work should make proper use of language (Spanish or English), and use schematics, tables, graphics, mathematical equations, as appropriate.

h. Analyzing the social and environmental impact. The analysis may discuss economic implications, such as entrepreneurship potential, sustainability, usability, and employment substitutions.

i. Using information and bibliographic resources, and finding specialized tools, software or supplies necessary for the project. The reference list is included and discussed in the documents.

j. Discussing contemporary issues related to the project such as innovations, business opportunities, and local needs.

k. Making appropriate choice and use of specialized tools, software, or hardware to complete the design or to collect and analyze data.

2. The MDE may satisfy also the following outcomes depending on the particular design project. It may satisfy the outcomes by:

a. Applying fundamentals of mathematics, science, probability and statistics to solve or to analyze an engineering problem when applicable. Economic aspects are considered as appropriate.

d. Demonstrating an ability to organize the team assigning responsibilities, balancing the work load, and participating in regular meetings.

f. Evaluating any ethical aspects of the project. The ethical aspects can include the perspectives of the designer and the user or affected parties, and knowledge of any applicable code of ethics, such as, the CIAPR, the IEEE or ACM Codes of Ethics.”

This definition was adopted on February 26, 2008 by the faculty after a long discussion. To complete the MDE each area is responsible of providing this experience within the technical electives as mentioned in the previous section. Also, it is interpreted that “previously acquired knowledge” might include knowledge acquired within the MDE courses if that knowledge is necessary to complete the design project. This measurement is taken more for the protection of expensive laboratory equipment rather than the lack of previous knowledge acquired through the rest of the program. The MDE projects are virtually impossible to complete with only the small portion of knowledge acquired in the MDE courses. Previous knowledge of physics, electrical analysis, mathematics, laboratory skills, language, and socio-humanities are necessary to complete the MDE. That is the main reason to have the MDE towards the fifth year of the program.

From section 5.3.3it can be appreciated that for some areas the MDE covered in several courses. In control systems, for example, the MDE can be completed before finishing the body of knowledge necessary to complete the area. The MDE has a strong component of manufacturing processes due to the fact that job offers for control systems experts in Puerto Rico focus in that area. A control expert, however, must know other skills that are taught in the other two courses. In the electronics area, students get to choose one of two


sequences to complete the area. Regardless of the sequence they choose, the courses will provide projects that fit the MDE definition.

Finally, Appendix G shows a guide for the uniform implementation of the MDE. This guide will be presented to the Departmental Faculty next semester for their approval or modification. This indicates a dynamic action towards improving the curriculum based on outcome assessment.

5.4 Procedures Used to Assure Compliance

To insure that students have a satisfactory level of skills and knowledge, they are required to earn a C or better in each course with the INEL (EE) code; otherwise it must be repeated.

The following procedures assure compliance with requirements of the professional component:

Faculty committees in the areas of concentration configure the area tracks of the curriculum. As faculty interest and student needs change, courses are added or dropped from the restricted technical elective list.

Technical elective course contents are reviewed periodically to keep them up to date. According to the level of complexity of the course, the Area Committee assigns the contribution of the course in the major design experience.

Courses that contribute to the major design experience require a design project that constitutes the major weight of the final course grade.

The major design experience varies from one capstone course or a sequence of courses as defined by the faculty in the respective Area Committees.

As part of the degree audit, the advisor checks that the required courses within an area have been taken as defined by the respective Area Committees.

5.5 Other Aspects of the Professional Component

5.5.1 Student Chapters of Technical Societies EE students are active in appropriate student chapters of international technical societies such as IEEE student branch. Interest in professional activities has also promoted the establishment of student chapters of some of the IEEE Societies. The first to be established was the student chapter of the IEEE Computer Society in 1994. In 1998, the local student chapter of the IEEE Power Engineering Society was created. There are also local student chapters of the IEEE Communications Society and the IEEE Control System Society, both founded in 1999. Faculty members serve as advisors.

Students are also active in the student chapter of the Puerto Rico Association of Electrical Engineers. Students may also join Tau Beta Pi, the Society of Women Engineers, and the


Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers.

UPRM actively supports these students associations with concrete actions such as:

• Shared office space is provided within the Engineering Building. For example IEEE student chapters share room S-211.

• Faculty serves as advisors. • The department provides mail and telephone communications. • Students Activities Office allows the chapters to use university facilities free of charge

for their activities. • Sponsorship of travel to some national or international activities is provided either by

the University or by sponsors of the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering.

The technical associations engage in activities such as holding regular meetings with guest speakers, and inviting students to meetings of the parent chapters of the technical societies, thus stimulating interaction between industry and academia.

Most faculty members belong to at least one of these societies and serve as valuable role models for the students.

5.5.2 Fundamentals of Engineering Exam Although seniors are not required to take the Fundamentals of Engineering Examination, some students (about 30%) do take it voluntarily and very high percentages pass. The faculty encourages all students to take the examination, if not during the final year, then as soon as possible after graduation.

5.5.3 Cooperative Education and Internships In addition to engineering coursework requirements, a number of students prepare for professional practice by undertaking co-op or intern experiences. The participating student receives six credits in the free elective category for a minimum of two working periods, one of which must take place during a regular academic semester.

For students not willing or able to commit themselves to one semester away from school, the department also offers the option of the Electrical Engineering Practice during the summer. Students work on a practical engineering project in an industrial environment. The university and cooperating industry jointly supervise the work.

5.5.4 Undergraduate Research A number of students prepare for professional practice by undertaking undergraduate research experiences. Participating students receive from one to six credits in the technical elective category. The amount of credit allocated depends on the duration and complexity of the project, which lasts for a minimum of two working periods, one of which must take place during a regular academic semester.

The UPRM has established, through grants from NASA and NSF, some research centers where students can participate in undergraduate research projects. One example is the


Bernard M. Gordon Center for Subsurface Sensing and Imaging Systems (CenSSiS), an Engineering Research Center (ERC) designated by the National Science Foundation with the vision to revolutionize our ability to look under surfaces, allowing our expanding information technology access to hidden worlds to improve the quality of life and conserve the earth's physical resources. Besides UPRM, CenSSiS academic partners include Northeastern University, Boston University, and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

Another center is the Center for Power Electronics Systems (CPES) sponsored by NSF. CPES’s vision is to provide the nation with the capabilities to become a world leader in power electronics. Its partners include Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, University of Wisconsin – Madison, Virginia, and North Carolina A&T University.

The Tropical Center for Earth and Space Studies (TCESS) comprises a multidisciplinary effort in several components: Space Information Laboratory (SIL), Bio-Optical Oceanography, Materials and Electronics for Space Applications (MESA), Information Processing and Extraction Group (IPEG), an Education and Outreach Effort GLOBE/TEST, and Carbon Sequestration in Tropical Watersheds. TCESS was first funded by NASA’s University Research Centers Program from July 1, 1995, up to July 2005. After July 2005, the center had been operating with funding from the University, NOAA CREST (Cooperative Remote Sensing Science and Technology) and the private sector. Its outreach and education component works in concert with TCESS to further enhance SMET student participation. A Technology Transfer Internship Program will allow professors and selected students to visit national laboratories, universities, and NASA field centers to facilitate technology transfer and encourage advanced studies

The last center is CASA, the Center for Collaborative Adaptive Sensing of the Atmosphere, sponsored by NASA. CASA seeks to revolutionize the way we detect, monitor and predict atmospheric phenomena by creating a distributed collaborative adaptive sensor network. The project has the potential of having a profound impact on the society in terms of lives, property and the economy by increasing the warning time and forecast accuracy for tornadoes, flash floods, land-falling hurricanes, and other airborne hazards. The center organizes outreach activities to K-12 teachers, and provides our students opportunities for participation as tutors in such activities.

5.5.5 Industrial Affiliates Program The Industrial Affiliates Program (IAP) is an organization that is geared toward enriching the educational experience of interested undergraduate students. IAP offers creative technical experience to complement the strong Electrical and Computer Engineering curriculum.

The program was founded in 1989 and is fully sponsored by several global corporations working in tandem with the UPRM faculty. This joint collaboration has allowed many of our students to gain increased exposure to the field of engineering through direct involvement in educational outreach opportunities, technical projects, and research efforts.

Students thus acquire a broader knowledge and practical working expertise in state-of-the-art technologies. Coupled with their formal academic studies, undergraduates expand their intellectual and personal breadth and scope. Sponsoring companies are interested in recruiting their unique talents.


5.6 Evaluation of the Professional Component

The execution of the professional component of the program was assessed through measuring the outcomes and program objectives accomplishments, by meeting with our Industrial Advisory Board, and by discussing the results with the departmental faculty.

5.7 Course Syllabi

Course syllabi detailing the Electrical Engineering courses according to ABET specifications are in Appendix I-B

5.8 Conclusions

The Electrical Engineering Program has a well-defined curriculum that satisfies the Criterion 5 requirements. The evidence demonstrates that the program is well organized and provides in depth coverage of the Electrical Engineering discipline. The required areas are well covered and each program component has a well-defined purpose. An assessment process has been established to monitor the professional component implementation and execution through program outcomes and educational objectives. The results of the assessment process are used to revise the program.

To summarize, Table 5-11 presents the curriculum information given to students, and Table 5-12 Course and Section Size Summary of the Electrical Engineering Program: January 2008- May 2008.

UPRM adequately meets ABET requirements under Criterion 5.


Table 5-11 Curriculum of the Electrical Engineering Program for Students Admitted After August 2007

First Semester First Year Second Semester

Code Course Pre o Co-Requisites Cr Code Course Pre o Co-

Requisites

Cr

*Mate

3005

Pre-Calculus 5 Mate 3031 Calculus I Mate 3005 or Mate

3172 or 3143

4

Quim

3131

General Chemistry I Co-Req. Mate 3171 or MATE 3005

3 Quim 3132 General Chemistry II Quim 3131 and

3133 or Quim 3001

3

Quim

3133

Chemistry Lab I Co-Req. Mate 3171 or MATE 3005

1 Quim 3134 Chemistry Lab II Quim 3133 or QUIM 3001 Co-Quim 3132

1

*Espa

3101

Basic Spanish I 3 *Espa

3102

Basic Spanish II Espa 3101 3

*Ingl

3XXX

First Year English 3 *Ingl

3XXX

First Year English 3

Inge

3011

Engineering Graphics 2 ***Socio-Humanistic Electives 3

Edfi Physical Education 1 Edfi Physical Education 1

Second Year


Requisites

Cr

Mate 3032

Calculus II Mate 3031 or Mate 3144

4 Mate 3063 Calculus III Mate 3032 3

Fisi

3171

Physics I Mate 3031 or Mate 3144

4 Fisi 3172 Physics II Fisi 3171 4

Fisi

3173

Physics Lab I Co-Fisi 3171 1 Fisi 3174 Physics Lab II Fisi 3173, Co-Fisi

3172

1

Inge 3016

Algorithms and Comp. Programming.

Mate 3031 or Mate 3144

3 Inge 3045 Materials Science for EE

Quim 3132 and 3134 Co- Fisi 3172

3

*Ingl

3XXX

Second Year English 3 Inel 3105 Elect. System

Analysis I

Mate 3032, Co-

Fisi3172, Mate 3063 3

Inge 3035

Engineering Mechanics Mate 3031 or Mate 3144 Co-Fisi 3171

3 *Ingl 3XXX

Second Year English 3

Third Year


Requisites

Cr

Mate

4009

Ord. Diff. Equations Mate 3063 3 Inin 4010 Probability Th. for

Eng.

Inge 3016, Mate

3032

3

Inel

4102

Electrical System

Analysis II

Inel 3105, Fisi 3172,

Inge3016, Co-Mate4009 3 Inel 4103 Electrical System

Analysis III

Inel 4102, Inel

4151, Mate 4009

3

Inel

4205

Logic Circuits Inge 3016, Co-Inel 4201 3 Inel 4095 Signals and Systems Inel 4102, Mate 4009

3

Inel

4201

Electronics I Inel 3105, Fisi 3172 3 Inel 4211 Electronics Lab. I Inel 4115, Co-Inel

4201

1

Inel Electromagnetics I Mate 3063, Fisi 3172, Co-Mate 4009

3 Inel 4____ ** Breath Electives in EE 3


4151

Inel

4115

Elect. Measure. Lab Co-INEL 3105 1 Inel 4206 Microprocessors Inel 4205, Inel

4201

3

Fourth Year


Requisites

Cr

Inin

4015

Engineering Economic

Analysis

Mate 3032 3 Inme 4045 Thermodynamics Quim 3132, Fisi

3172

3

Inel

4____

** Breath Electives in EE 3 Mate/Inge

__

****Math Elective 3

Inel

4____

** Breath Electives in EE 3 Inel 4406 Electric Machines

Lab

Inel 4103, Inel 4115,

Co-Inel 4405 1

Inel

4505

Intro. Control Sys. Inel 4102 3 Inel____ ** Depth Electives in EE 6

Inel

4____

** Breath Electives in EE 1 ***Socio-Humanistic Electives 3

Elective 3

Fifth Year


Requisites

Cr

Inel

____

** Depth Electives in EE 6 Inel____ ** Depth Electives in EE 6

***Socio-Humanistic Electives 6 ***Socio-Humanistic Electives 3

Elective 3 Elective 6

*Check advanced placement requirements. **The BSEE degree requires 28 credits in technical electives divided in 10 credits of Breath Electives and 18 credits of Depth Electives. It is required that the student complete at least one EE option by using the Depth Electives. The areas of emphasis are Control Systems, Electronics, Applied Electromagnetics, Power Systems, and Communications and Signals Processing. These courses must be selected from the published list of each Area Committee. ***The 15 credits in Socio-Humanistic electives must be chosen from the faculty recommended list ****Mathematics elective is chosen from the following courses: MATE 4061 or INGE 4035 or MATE 4031 or MATE 4010.

Criterion 5: C

urriculum

5-21

Table 5-12 Course and Section Size Summary of the Electrical Engineering Program: January 2008- May 2008

Course No. Title

Responsible Faculty Member

No. of Sections Offered

in Current

Year

Avg. Section Enrollment Lecture1 Laboratory1 Other1

INEL 3105

ELECTRICAL SYSTEM ANALYSIS I

Raúl E Torres Muñiz, Samuel R Irizarry, Jose M Rosado, Baldomero Llorens Ortiz

6 25 100

INEL 3115

INTRODUCTION TO ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING Miguel A Figueroa Villanueva 3 6 100

INEL 4075

FUNDAMENTALS OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING

Hector Monroy, Ramón Vásquez Espinosa, Rogelio Palomera, Alberto R Ramirez, Samuel R Irizarry

6 37 100

INEL 4076

FUNDAMENTALS OF ELECTRONICS

José A Rivera Cartagena, Nelson Sepúlveda

4 32 100

INEL 4077

BASIC ELECTRONICS LABORATORY Andrés Díaz 3 15 100

INEL 4085

FUNDAMENTALS OF TRANSFORMERS AND ELECTRIC MACHINERY

Alberto R Ramírez 2 27 100

INEL 4086

TRANSFORMERS AND ELECTRIC MACHINERY LABORATORY

Abel A. Labour Castro, Felix Muñiz Rodríguez, Enid M. Serrano Faría

4 15 100

Criterion 5: C

urriculum

5-22

INEL 4102

ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS ANALYSIS II

Rogelio Palomera, Krishnaswamy Venkatesan, Eduardo I Ortiz Rivera

4 23 100

INEL 4103

ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS ANALYSIS III

Andrés Calderon, Alberto R Ramírez

3 16 100

INEL 4115

ELECTRICAL MEASUREMENTS LABORATORY

Andrés Díaz 5 18 100

INEL 4151 ELECTROMAGNETICS I

Héctor Monroy, Rafael A Rodríguez Solís, Nelson Sepúlveda

3 24 100

INEL 4152 ELECTROMAGNETICS II Hector Monroy, Henrick M

Ierkic 3 20 100

INEL 4201 ELECTRONICS I Baldomero Llorens Ortiz, Jaime

A Arbona Fazzi 4 24 100

INEL 4202 ELECTRONICS II Guillermo Serrano, Jaime A

Arbona 4 24 100

INEL 4205 LOGIC CIRCUITS Jorge L Ortiz Alvarez, Manuel

Toledo Quiñones 4 24 100

INEL 4206 MICROPROCESSORS

José Navarro Figueroa, Thomas Luther Noack, Jorge L Ortiz Alvarez

5 23 100

INEL 4207 DIGITAL ELECTRONICS Manuel Toledo Quiñones,

Manuel A Jiménez 2 27 100

INEL 4211

ELECTRONICS LABORATORY I Andrés Díaz 6 12 100

Criterion 5: C

urriculum

5-23

INEL 4212

ELECTRONICS LABORATORY II Andrés Díaz 3 13 100

INEL 4225

DIGITAL ELECTRONICS LABORATORY Andrés Díaz 3 14 100

INEL 4301

COMMUNICATIONS THEORY I Shawn D. Hunt, Hamed Parsiani 4 21 100

INEL 4307

COMMUNICATION BETWEEN COMPUTERS Henrick M. Ierkic 1 13 100

INEL 4405

COMMUNICATION BETWEEN COMPUTERS Juan Caro Moreno 3 21 100

INEL 4406

ELECTRIC MACHINES LABORATORY

Felix Muniz Rodriguez, Abel A. Labour Castro, Damian Galarza Torres

4 10 100

INEL 4407

ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS DESIGN I

José R Cedeño Maldonado, Lionel R Orama Exclusa

2 25 100

INEL 4415 POWER SYSTEM ANALYSIS Erick E Aponte Bezares 1 45 100

INEL 4416 POWER ELECTRONICS Carlos E Cuadros Ortiz 2 19 100

INEL 4505

INTRODUCTION TO CONTROL SYSTEMS Gerson Beauchamp 1 79 100

INEL 4995

ENGINEERING PRACTICE CO-OP FOR STUDENTS

José G Colom Ustariz 1 23 100

Criterion 5: C

urriculum

5-24

INEL 4998

UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH

Manuel A Jiménez, Eduardo I Ortiz Rivera, Rafael A Rodríguez Solís, Raul E Torres Muñiz, Andrés J Díaz Castillo, Gladys O Ducoudray Acevedo, Guillermo Serrano Rivera, David Serrano Acevedo, Erick E Aponte Bezares

9 2 100

INEL 5029

TELECOMMUNICATIONS ELECTRONICS José M. Rosado Román 1 5 50 50

INEL 5207 ANALOG SYSTEMS DESIGN Manuel Toledo Quiñones 1 10 100

INEL 5208

PRINCIPLES OF BIOMEDICAL INSTRUMENTS Eduardo J Juan Garcia 1 11 80 20

INEL 5265

ANALOG INTEGRATED CIRCUIT DESIGN Gladys O Ducoudray Acevedo 1 30 100

INEL 5305

ANTENNA THEORY AND DESIGN Rafael A Rodríguez Solis 1 8 100

INEL 5309

DIGITAL SIGNAL PROCESSING Shawn David Hunt 1 24 100

INEL 5315

THEORY OF COMMUNICATIONS II Henrick M Ierkic 1 3 100

INEL 5325

COMMUNICATION SYSTEM DESIGN: CIRCUITS AND ANTENNAS

José G Colom Ustariz 1 7 100

Criterion 5: C

urriculum

5-25

INEL 5326

COMMUNICATION SYSTEM DESIGN: SIGNAL PROCESSING

Domingo Rodriguez 1 5 33 67

INEL 5406

DESIGN OF TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS

José R Cedeño Maldonado 1 28 100

INEL 5415

PROTECTION DESIGN FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS Lionel R Orama Exclusa 1 19 100

INEL 5495

DESIGN PROJECT IN POWER SYSTEMS Erick E Aponte Bezares 3 11 20 80

INEL 5496

DESIGN POWER ELECTRONICS Krishnaswamy Venkatesan 1 8 20 80

INEL 5505 LINEAR SYSTEM ANALYSIS Gerson Beauchamp 1 19 100

INEL 5506

PROCESS INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL ENGINEERING

Eduardo J Juan García 1 24 100

INEL 5508 Digital Control Systems Gerson Beauchamp 1 28 100

INEL 5995 SPECIAL PROBLEMS Efrain O’Neill, Gladys O

Ducoudray Acevedo 2 7 100

1 Enter the appropriate percent for each type of class for each course (e.g., 75% lecture, 25% laboratory).

Criterion 6: Faculty 6-1

6. FACULTY

6.1 Leadership Responsibilities

The Electrical Engineering Program is led by the Academic Affairs Committee which is composed of one representative from each of the five areas of emphasis of the program, one representative from the CpE program, three elected faculty members and the ABET Coordinator. The Academic Affairs Committee is responsible for keeping the Electrical Engineering Program up-to-date and consistent.

The Committee Coordinator presides over the committee and reports directly to the Department Director. Responsibilities include proposing changes to the curriculum, which include changes to existing courses; create, inactivate or eliminate courses, as proposed in the Academic Committee or in any of the area committees; conduct curricular revisions and design all the internal processes related to the transition when a curricular reform takes place. Any curricular changes should follow rigorous processes according to the university regulations and policies3,4.

6.2 Authority and Responsibility of Faculty Faculty actively participates in course creation, modification and evaluation. Faculty members may propose the creation or modification of courses either out of their own initiative or as delegated by the Academic Affairs Committee or any of the area committees. Course creation follows a rigorous process. The faculty members design the course syllabus, select the textbook or any bibliography; and indicate any necessary resources. The syllabus is accompanied by the “Course creation and coding application form”. These documents are submitted to the corresponding area committee where they are analyzed and modified when necessary according to the area requirements. If the course is related to the core of the EE Program, then, the documents are submitted to the Academic Affairs Committee where the new course is analyzed within the context of the whole program and additional modifications may result to maintain program consistency. The course documents are submitted to the full Department for approval. Availability of resources is also verified. From this point on, the process varies depending on the type of course.

There are two types of courses: temporary and permanent. In the case of a temporary course, the director of the department submits the course documents to the College of

3 Board of Trustees. Certification 130 (2006-2007). http://www.uprm.edu/decasac/docs/guiacert3.pdf 4 Board of Trustees. “Guía para la Evaluación de Programas Académicos en la Universidad de Puerto Rico, según la Certificación 43 (2006-2007) de la Junta de Síndicos”. (Guidelines for the Evaluation of Academic Programs at the University of Puerto Rico, according to Certification 43 (2006-2007). http://www.uprm.edu/decasac/docs/guiacert4.pdf


Engineering Directors and Deans Committee for approval. The flow diagram of this process is shown in Figure 6-1.

The application of temporary courses is then submitted to UPRM Dean of Academic Affairs for approval and coding. The UPRM Office of the Academic Affairs assigns a temporary code. Temporary courses can only be offered twice.

In the case of a permanent course, the course documents are submitted to the Academic Committee of the College of Engineering and after their approval the course creation application goes to the full Faculty of the School of Engineering. After the faculty approval the course application is submitted to the UPRM Dean of Academic affairs. The next step is the approval of the course by the UPRM Academic Senate. After this the Dean of Academic Affairs sends the documents to the Vice-presidency for Academic Affairs and Research at the UPR Central Administration where the course code is assigned5.

In every step of the process course documents can be returned to a previous step for modifications or clarifications that the higher instance deem necessary. These steps are directed to ensure that the proposed course fits the different contexts and complements or supplements the current course offer without duplicity of efforts and resources.

To ensure the quality and consistency of teaching faculty members are required to hand-out the course syllabus to all the students in the course during the first week of each academic semester. Professors have to cover all the contents as specified in the syllabus and use the textbook indicated.

Additionally to Educational Objectives and Outcomes Assessment, faculty members are evaluated each semester by the students by means of the Student Opinion Questionnaire (“Cuestionario de Opinión Estudiantil” – COE). These evaluations and other course material submitted by the faculty are used for the evaluation members for promotion, tenure and the periodic evaluation of all the professors. Faculty evaluation also follows a rigorous process that starts at the Personnel Committee of the department and, depending on the purpose of the evaluation, may go all the way to the Board of Trustees in a similar fashion to the course creation.

6.2.1 Faculty Workload The workload for a full-time faculty member at UPRM is 12 credits. This workload may be divided among teaching, research, service and other assignments. The workload is assigned each academic period according to the needs of the department and commitments of the faculty members or the institution. The department encourages research and service activities of its faculty members and also assigns workloads to administrative and other types of tasks. In some cases when the workload of a faculty member exceeds 12 credits he or she is given an additional compensation.

5 Board of Trustees. Certification 130 (1999-2000). http://www.uprm.edu/decasac/docs/guiacert8.pdf.


Course creation

Faculty Member Designs course

Core or specilized

Area Committee

CpE Steering Committee

Area course

Core course

Full ECE Department

Approval

Temporary or Permanent

Deans and Directors

Committee

Academic Affairs Committee

Full Engineering Faculty Approval

Temporary course Permanent Course

To the UPRM Dean of Academic Affairs for Creation and Coding

according to Certification 130 (1999-2000)

Figure 6-1. Flow diagram of course creation process


6.3 Faculty The Electrical and Computer Engineering Department programs are primarily supported by 53 full-time and 1 part-time faculty members. Currently 50 members are males (92.6%). In regard to degrees earned, 49 faculty members hold a doctorate (90.7%) while the remaining 5 members (9.3%) hold a Master’s degree. One of the faculty members with a Master’s degree is finishing his doctoral dissertation as condition for continuation of employment. The rest of the faculty members with a Master’s degree are persons with considerable academic or industrial experience.

The faculty is very experienced and stable. As seen in Figure 6-2, 58% of the faculty has reached the highest rank at the institution, which indicates maturity and stability. The faculty has increased by 5 since the previous visit, despite the recent retirement of three members and the resignation of two for personal reasons. Also, the fact that the percent of full professors has increased by 3% by promotion since the previous visit reinforces this view of stability and maturity. The increase in faculty size is also a result of the success obtained in recruiting new faculty or bringing back junior faculty after the completion of their doctoral studies.

Figure 6-2. Percentage of Faculty by Rank

Half of the faculty members have a total experience that is almost evenly distributed between 5 and 20 years as seen in Figure 6-3. Figure 6-4 shows the specific years of experience at UPRM and corroborates the stability of faculty in the ECE Department and that there is a fresh pool of 11 junior members (less than 5 years of experience at UPRM). The information on Table 6-2 also shows that about half of the faculty has industry experience. From this table it can be seen that on average faculty members dedicate 65% of their time to teaching, 25% to research and 10% to other activities.

Faculty distribution by rank

58%19%

19%4%

Total ProfessorsTotal Associate ProfessorsTotal Assistant ProfessorsTotal Instructors


Figure 6-3. Histogram of Faculty Total Experience

Figure 6-4. Histogram of Faculty Experience at UPRM

6.4 Faculty Competencies The program currently has five areas of emphasis: Electronics; Control; Communications; Power and Applied Electromagnetics. The faculty is recruited or given economic support for doctoral studies according to a plan that takes into consideration the needs of the areas of the programs of the department. As said above, a high percent of the faculty holds a doctoral degree and most of the faculty that holds a Master degree have extensive industry or academic experience. The number of faculty members per area of specialty of the

Faculty Experience

02468

1012141618

<5 5 to 10 10 to 15 15 to 20 20 to 25 25 to 30 More

Years of Experience

No.

of F

acul

ty M

embe

rs

Distribution of Faculty by Experience at UPRM

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

<5 5 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 More

Years of Experience at UPRM

No.

of F

acul

ty M

embe

rs


program is shown in Figure 6-5. It is important to notice that faculty is shared between the programs of the department and some faculty members of areas specific of the program of Computer Engineering (CpE) do not appear in this figure. However, students are allowed to take CpE courses as electives, as long as the requisites are met.

Figure 6-5. Number of Faculty of the ECE Department per area of the EE Program

6.5 Faculty Size The current student population of the department is composed of 703 undergraduate students in EE, 580 in CpE, 65 graduate students in the Master’s program in EE, 45 graduate students in Master’s program in CpE and 29 graduate students in the PhD program in Computer Information Science and Engineering (CISE) which gives a total student population of 1422. With 53 full-time faculty members the ratio of students to full-time faculty members is 27. This counts students in the first and second academic year who take mostly courses outside the department. Also, the PhD program is a joint effort with the Department of Mathematics. Thus, the effective ratio of students to faculty member is lower.

All faculty members are involved in teaching courses at undergraduate or graduate levels and through professional orientation activities, e.g. the Career Orientation Day described in Criterion 1, and help the students in making career choices at different stages in the program. Also, faculty members offer undergraduate research courses, where students interact closely with faculty and get involved most of the times in funded research projects. One very successful initiative in the department is the Industry Affiliates Program (IAP) through which a department fund for undergraduate research is built with the annual contributions of participating companies. Faculty members or student teams with the supervision of one or more faculty members present proposals to obtain funds for small undergraduate research projects. This program also benefits the students by getting them in direct contact with the representatives of the participating companies, which provides excellent opportunities for the students to probe industry interests, when projects are

Distribution of Faculty per Area of the EE Program

Power, 10

Control, 4

Communications, 10

Applied Electromagnetics, 5

Electronics, 11


proposed by companies, or to be recruited as employees, interns or through the Coop program.

6.6 Faculty Development As stated before, the number of faculty members has had a net growth of 5 members since 2002 despite the retirement of three members and the resignation of two over this period. This growth is a combined effort to recruit new faculty and the success of the faculty development plan. During this period six positions have been filled with faculty members that have returned after completing their doctoral studies. One of them returned already and is finishing his doctoral dissertation. In this program, UPRM provides a scholarship of $23.526 per year plus $700 for books. The faculty members are free to apply for other sources of financial aid. There are currently 10 more faculty members pursuing doctoral studies.

In addition, every faculty member is required to take a minimum number of 21 credit hours of professional enhancement during the first year at UPRM. Twelve out of these required credit hours correspond to the orientation week that is compulsory for all the new faculty members and teaching assistants. This program is coordinated by the Center for Professional Enhancement6. The remaining 9 credit hours can be taken in courses, seminars or workshops. This Center offers regularly seminars, workshops and courses in a diversity of areas, such as pedagogy, assessment, on-line course material design, academic administration and ethics, among others. These courses are open to any faculty member. Equivalence for courses not offered by the Center should be requested to them.

To conclude, the faculty of the ECE Department is well prepared and in sufficient number to provide quality education to the students of the program. The experience of faculty members is diverse in areas of specialty and years of experience, showing an adequate combination of experienced members and potential for professional development especially by the pool of junior faculty members. It is important to notice the increase of faculty members, particularly the growth of the number of full professors through promotion which, as stated above, shows stability and growing maturity. The university has a well structured development plan for new faculty which gives economic support for doctoral studies and has been successful in faculty growth. The Center for Professional Enhancement is a unit of the Mayagüez Campus that offers ample opportunity for the faculty to keep up-to-date in topics related to their endeavors.

6 For detailed information visit http://www.uprm.edu/cep/english.html.

Criterion 6: Faculty

6-8

Table 6-1 Faculty Workload Summary Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering: First Semester 2007-200

Faculty Member (Name) FT or PT

Classes Taught (Course No./ Credits) First Semester 2007-08

Total Activity DistributionTeaching Research /

Scholarly Activity

Other

Aponte, Erick E. FT INEL 4998 (1cr AH), INEL 6028 (3 cr TR), INEL 6046 (1 cr AH), 35 42 21

Arbona, Jaime FT INEL 4201 (3 cr TR), INEL 4201 (3 cr TR), INEL 4202 (3 cr TR), INEL 5206 (3 cr TR) 100 0 0

Arroyo, Javier FT ICOM 4009 (3 cr TR), ICOM 4009 (3 cr TR), ICOM 4015 (3 cr TR) 60 0 40

Beauchamp, Gerson FT INEL 5505 (3 cr TR), INEL 5508 (3 cr TR), INEL 6001 (3 cr TR) 69 07 23

Borges, José FT ICOM 4995 (3 cr TR), ICOM 6089 (3 cr TR), ICOM 6115 (1 CR CA), ICOM 6999 (2 cr CA), INEL 4076 (3 cr TR), INTD 4995 (0 cr AH) 80 11 0

Caro, Juan FT INEL 4405 (3 cr TR), INEL 4405 (3 cr TR), INEL 4405 (3 cr TR), 75 0 25 Cedeño, José R. FT INEL 4407 (3 cr TR), INEL 4409 (3 cr CA), INEL 6046 (1 cr CA) 100 0 0

Colom, José FT INEL 4151 (3 cr TR), INEL 4995 (3 cr TR), INEL 5306 (3 cr TR), INEL 6046 (1 cr AH) 76 23 0

Couvertier, Isidoro FT CIIC 9995 (1 cr AH), ICOM 5318 (0 cr AH), ICOM 5318 (3 cr AH), ICOM 5318 (0 cr AH) 57 0 42

*Cruz, José Luis Licencia

Cruz Emeric, Jorge FT INEL 4301 (3 cr TR), INEL 4301 (3cr TR), INEL 4301 (3 cr TR), INEL 4307 (3 cr TR) 100 0 0

Cruz Pol, Sandra FT INEL 6046 (1 cr AH), INEL 6216 (3 cr TR) 17 56 26

Cuadros, Carlos FT INEL 4075 (3 cr TR), INEL 4075 (3 cr TR), INEL 6046 (0 cr AH), INEL 6085 (3 cr TR) 75 25 0

Díaz, Andrés FT INEL 4085 (3 cr TR), INEL 4085 (3 cr TR), INEL 5408 (3 cr TR) 75 0 25 Ducoudray, Gladys FT INEL 4218 (3 cr TR), INEL 6995 (3 cr TR), INEL 6995 (0 cr AH) 48 54 0

Figueroa, Miguel FT INEL 3115 (2 cr TR), INEL 3115 (2 cr TR), INEL 3115 (2 cr TR), INEL 4075 (3 cr TR), INEL 4075 (3 cr TR), 100 0 0

Hunt, Shawn FT INEL 5309 (3 cr TR), INEL 5326 (5 cr TR), INEL 6046 (1 cr AH, 1 cr TR) 76 23 0

Ierkic, H. Mario FT INEL 4075(6 cr TR), INEL 4301 (3 cr TR), INEL 5316 (3 cr TR), INEL 6046 (1 cr AH) 100 0 0

Irizarry, Agustín FT INEL 4415 (3 cr TR), INEL 6046 (0 cr AH) 16 83 0

Irizarry, Samuel FT INEL 3105 (3 cr TR), INEL 3105 (3 cr TR), INEL 4075 (3 cr TR), INEL 4075 (3 cr TR) 100 0 0

*Jiménez, Luis Licencia

Jiménez, Manuel FT ICOM 4998 (2 cr AH), ICOM 5217 (3 cr TR), INEL 6046 (1 CA), INEL 6080 (3 TR) 56 43 0

Juan, Eduardo J. FT INEL 4102 (3 cr TR), INEL 4505 (3 cr TR), INEL 5205 (3 cr TR), INEL 6046 (1 cr AH), 62 0 37

Llorens, Baldomero FT INEL 3105 (3 cr TR), INEL 3105 (3 cr TR), INEL 4102 (3 cr TR), INEL 4102 (3 cr TR) 80 0 20


6-9




Scholarly Activity

Other

Lu, Kejie FT ICOM 4075 (3 cr TR), ICOM 5026 ( 3 cr TR), ICOM 6999 (2 cr TR) 66 33 0

Manian, Vidya FT CIIC 8997 (0 cr AH), INEL 4075 (3 cr TR), INEL 5046 (3 cr TR), INEL 6046 (0 cr AH) 33 66 0

Monroy, Héctor FT INEL 4151 (3 cr TR), INEL 4151 (3 cr TR), INEL 4152 (3 cr TR), INEL 4152 (3 cr TR) 72 27 0

Moura, Andre Luiz FT CIIC 8015 (1 cr TR), CIIC 8996, (3 cr TR), CIIC 8997 (1 cr TR), ICOM 4075 (3 cr TR) 66 33 0

Navarro, José PT (50%) ICOM 4215 (3 cr TR), INEL 4206 (3 cr TR) 100 0 0

Noack, Thomas FT ICOM 4215 (3 cr TR), ICOM 5007 (3 cr TR), ICOM 5007 (3 cr TR), INEL 4206 (3 cr TR) 100 0 0

O'Neill, Efrain FT INEL 6045 (1 cr CA), INEL 6046 (0 cr AH, 1 cr CA), INEL 6995 (0 cr AH), 08 65 25

Orama, Lionel PT INEL 4407 (3 cr TR), INEL 5995 (1 cr AH), INEL 6046 (0 cr AH), INEL 6077 (3 cr TR), INEL 6995 (5 cr CA) 63 15 21

Ortiz, Eduardo FT ICOM 5995 (0 cr AH), INEL 4505 (3 cr TR), INEL 4505 (3 cr TR), INEL 4998 (0 cr AH), INEL 5995 (0 cr AH) 100 0 0

*Ortiz, Jorge licencia Ortiz, Luis FT ICOM 4075 (3 cr TR), ICOM 6215 (3 cr TR) 50 50 0

Palomera, Rogelio FT INEL 4076 (3 cr TR), INEL 4076 (3 cr TR), INEL 4076 (3 cr CA), INTD 6995 (0 cr TR) 41 30 27

Parsiani, Hamed FT INEL 4205 (3 cr TR), INEL 4205 (3 cr TR), INEl 5307 (3 cr TR) 37 50 12

Ramírez, Alberto R. FT INEL 4103 (3 cr TR), INEL 4103 (3 cr T), INE L 4103 (3 cr TR), INEL 4415 (3 cr TR), INEL 6046 (1 cr AH) 100 0 0

Rivera Cartagena, José FT INEL 4076 (3 cr TR), INEL 4201 (3 cr TR), INEL 4201 (3 cr TR), INEL 4201 (3 cr TR) 100 0 0

Rivera, Wilson FT CIIC 9995 (0 cr TR), ICOM 4998 (0 cr TR), ICOM 6025 (3 cr TR), ICOM 6999 (0 cr TR), INEL 6046 (0 cr TR) INEL 6995 (0 cr TR) 25 75 0

Rivera, Pedro FT ICOM 4015 (3 cr TR), ICOM 4015 (3 cr TR), ICOM 4035 (3 cr TR), ICOM 4035 (3 cr TR), ICOM 6999 (1 cr AH) 100 0 0

Rodríguez Solís. Rafael FT INEL 4152 (3 cr TR), INEL 4998 (0 cr AH), INEL 6046 (0 cr AH, 2 CA), INEL 6068 (3 cr TR) 53 46 0

Rodríguez, Domingo FT CIIC 8015 (3 cr TR), INEL 6049 ( 3 cr TR) 40 60 0 Rodríguez, Néstor FT ICOM 6095 (3 cr TR), ICOM 6999 (2 cr AH, 0 TR)) 21 26 52

Rodríguez, Manuel FT CIIC 9995 (1 cr TR), ICOM 5016 (1.5 cr CA, 3 cr TR), ICOM 6998 (1 cr TR), ICOM 6999 (1 cr TR) 55 44 0

Rosado, José FT INEL 4102 (3 cr TR), INEL 4102 (3 cr TR), 50 25 25

Santiago, Julio FT INEL 5406 (3 cr TR), INEl 5415 (3 cr TR), INEL 5495 (3 cr TR), INEL 5495 (3 cr TR) 100 0 0

Santiago, Nayda FT ÌCOM 6999 (1 cr CA), INEL 3105 (3 cr TR), 26 73 0 Seguel, Jaime FT ICOM 5995 (3 cr TR) 25 50 25 Sepúlveda, Nelson FT INEL 4202 3 cr TR), INEL 4202 (3 cr TR) 46 53 0


6-10




Scholarly Activity

Other

Serrano, Guillermo FT INEL 4205 (3 cr TR), INEL 4205 ( 3 cr TR) 50 50 0

Toledo, Manuel FT INEl 4206 (3 cr TR), INEL 4206 (3 cr TR), INEL 4207 (3 cr TR), INEL 4207 (3 cr TR) 100 0 0

Torres, Raúl FT INEL 4205 (3 cr TR), INEL 5516 (3 cr TR), INEL 6045 (0.5 cr AH) 54 0 48 Vásquez, Ramón FT INEL 4075 (3 cr CA), INEL 6046 (2 cr CA), INGE 3016 (3 cr CA) 34 12 50

Vega Riveros, José F. FT ICOM 4998 (1 cr AH), ICOM 5047 (5 cr TR), ICOM 6995 (1 cr AH), ICOM 6998 (1 cr CA), ICOM 6999 (2 cr AH) 58 .05 35

Vélez, Bienvenido FT CIIC 8015 (3 cr TR), ICOM 4036 (3 cr TR), ICOM 6999 (0 cr AH, 2 cr CA) 78 21 0 Vélez, Miguel FT INEL 6078 (3 cr TR) 17 82 0 Venkatesan, K. FT INEL 4085 (3 cr TR), INEL 4416 (3 cr TR), INEL 4416 (3 cr TR) 69 23 .07

1 Indicate Term and Year for which data apply (the academic year preceding the visit). 2 Activity distribution should be in percent of effort. Members' activities should total 100%. 3 Indicate sabbatical leave, etc., under "Other." 4 FT = Full Time Faculty PT = Part Time Faculty

Table 6-2 Faculty Workload Summary Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering: Second Semester 2007-2008


Classes Taught (Course No./ Credits Second Semester 2007-08

Total Activity DistributionTeaching Research/Schola

rly Activity Other

Aponte, Erick E. FT INEL 4415 (3.5 TR, 1.5 CA), INEL 4998 (1 cr AH), INEL 5495 (3 cr TR), INEL 5495 (3 cr TR), INEL 5495 (3 cr TR), INEL 6046 (3 cr CA) 100 0 0

Arbona, Jaime FT INEL 4201 (3 cr TR), INEL 4201 (3 cr TR), INEL 4202 (3 cr TR), INEL 4202 (3 cr TR) 100 0 0

Arroyo, Javier FT ICOM 4009 (3 cr TR), ICOM 4009 (3 cr TR), ICOM 4015 (3 cr TR) 75 0 25 Beauchamp, Gerson FT INEL 4505 (6 cr Tr), INEL 5505 (3 cr TR), INEL 5508 (3 cr TR) 92 8 0

Borges, José FT ICOM 4995 (3 cr TR), ICOM 6117 (3 cr TR), ICOM 6999 (2 cr TR, 1 cr AH), INTD 4995 (1 cr AH) 71 21 8

Caro, Juan FT INEL 4405 (3 cr TR), INEL 4405 (3 cr TR), INEL 4405 (3 cr TR) 75 0 25 Cedeño, José R. FT INEL 4407 (3 cr TR), INEL 5406 (3 cr TR) 50 0 50

Colom, José FT ICOM 4998 91 cr AH), INEL 4995 (3 cr TR), INEL 5325 (3 cr TR), INEL 6046 (2 cr AH), INEL 6115 (3 cr TR) 81 19 0

Couvertier, Isidoro FT CIIC 9995 (0 cr AH), ICOM 4308 (0 cr AH), ICOM 4308 (3 cr AH), ICOM 6998 (0 cr AH), INTD (0 cr AH) 20 0 80

*Cruz, José Luis license Cruz Pol, Sandra FT INEL 6046 (1 AH) 4 68 28 Cuadros, Carlos FT INEL 4416 (3 cr TR), INEL 4416 (3 cr TR), INEL 6058 (3 cr TR), INEL 6046 100 0 0


6-11




rly Activity Other

(2 cr AH)

Díaz, Andrés FT ICOM 5217 (3 TR), ICOM 5217 (3 cr TR), INEL 4998 (2 cr AH), INEL 6066 (Cr TR) 75 0 25

Ducoudray, Gladys INEL 4998 (1 AH), INEL 5265 (3cr TR), INEL 5995 (3 CA), INEL 6046 (1 AH) 46 54 0

Figueroa, Miguel FT ICOM 5047 (5 cr TR), INEL 3115 (2 cr TR), INEL 3115 ( 2cr TR), INEL 3115 (2 cr TR) 91 0 9

Hunt, Shawn FT INEL 4301 (3cr TR), INEl 5309 (3 cr TR), INEL 6046 (1 cr AH), INEL 6076 (3 cr TR) 77 23 0

Ierkic, H. Mario FT INEL 4152 (cr TR), INEL 4307 (3 cr TR), INEL 5315 ( 3 cr TR), INEL 6046 (1 cr CA), INEL 6106 (3 cr TR) 100 0 0

Irizarry, Agustín FT INEL 6027 (3 cr TR), INEL 6046 (3 cr AH), INEL 6995 (1 cr CA) 30 70 0

Irizarry, Samuel FT INEL 3105 (3 cr TR), INEL 3105 (3 cr TR), INEL 4075 (3 cr TR), INEL 4075 (3 cr TR) 100 0 0

*Jiménez, Luis license

Jiménez, Manuel FT INEL 4207 ( 3 cr TR), INEL 4998 ( 3 cr AH), INEL 6046 (1 cr CA), INEL 6079 (3 cr TR) 46 54 0

Juan, Eduardo J. FT INEL 5208 (5 cr TR), INEL 5506 (3 cr TR), INEL 6046 (1 cr AH) 60 0 40

Llorens, Baldomero FT INEL 3105 (3 cr TR), INEL 3105 (3 cr TR), INEL 4201 (3 cr TR), INEL 4201 (3 cr TR) 80 0 20

Lu, Kejie FT CIIC 9995 (1 cr CA), ICOM 4075 (3 cr TR), ICOM 6505 (3 cr TR), ICOM 6995 (1 cr AH), ICOM 6999 (1 cr AH, 1 cr CA) 62 38 0

Manian, Vidya FT CIIC 9995 (1 CR AH), INEL 6046 (2 cr AH) 17 83 0

Monroy, Héctor FT INEL 4075 (3 cr TR), INEL 4151 (3 cr TR), INEL 4152 (3 cr TR), INEL 4152 (3 cr TR) 73 27 0

Moura, Andre Luiz FT CIIC 8015 (1 CR CA), CIIC 8996 (3 CR TR), CIIC 8997 (1 CR CA), ICOM 5018 (3 CR TR) 57 43 0

Navarro, José PT ICOM 4215 (3 cr TR), ICOM 4215 (3 cr TR), INEL 4206 ( 3 cr TR) 100 0 0

Noack, Thomas FT ICOM 4998 (1 cr AH), ICOM 5007 (3 cr TR), ICOM 5007 (3 cr TR), INEL 4206 (3 cr TR), INEL 4206 (3 cr TR) 100 0 0

O'Neill, Efrain FT INEL 5995 (3 CR TR), INEL 6045 (2 CR CA), INEL 6046 (3 CR AH) 35 42 23 Orama, Lionel FT INEL 4407 (3 cr TR), INEL 5415 (3 cr TR), INEL 6046 (1 cr AH) 54 23 23

Ortiz, Eduardo FT INEL 4102 (3 CR TR), INEL 4998 (1 CR CA), INEL 6000 (3 CR TR), INEL 6046 (2 CR CA) 50 50 0

Ortiz, Luis FT CIIC 8015 (3 CR TR), ICOM 5015 (3 CR TR) 50 50 0

Ortiz, Jorge FT INEL 4205 (3 cr TR), INEL 4205 (3 cr TR), INEL 4206 (3 cr TR), INEL 4206 (3 cr TR) 100 0 0

Palomera, Rogelio FT INEL 4102 (3 CR TR), INEL 4075 (3 CR TR), INEL 6995 (1 CR AH), INTD 6995 (1 CR AH) 38 33 29

Parsiani, Hamed FT ICOM 6999 (1 cr AH), INEL 4301 (3 cr TR), INEL 4301, (3cr TR), INEL 6045 38 52 10


6-12




rly Activity Other

(1 cr AH)

Ramírez, Alberto R. FT INEL 4075 (3 cr TR), INEL 4085 (3 cr TR), INEL 4085 (3 cr TR), INEL 4103 (3 cr TR), INEL 6046 (1 cr CA) 100 0 0

Rivera Cartagena, José FT INEL 4076 (6 cr TR), INEL 4076 (3 cr TR), INEL 4076 (3 cr TR) 100 0 0

Rivera, Wilson FT CIIC 9995 (1 cr AH), ICOM 4075 (3 cr TR), ICOM 4075 (3 cr TR), INEL 6046 (1 cr AH) 57 43 0

Rivera, Pedro FT ICOM 4015 (3 cr TR), ICOM 4015 (3 cr TR), ICOM 4035 (3 cr TR), ICOM 4035 ( 3 cr TR) 100 0 0

Rodríguez Solís. Rafael FT INEL 4151 (3 cr TR), INEL 4998 (1 cr AH), INEL 5305 (3 cr TR), INEL 6046 (1 cr AH, 2 cr CA), INEL 6995 (1 cr AH) 46 54 0

Rodríguez, Domingo FT INEL 5326 (3 cr TR), INEL 6050 (3 cr TR), CIIC 9995 (1 cr AH), ICOM 6999 (1 cr AH), INEL 6045 (1 cr AH) 75 0 0

Rodríguez, Néstor FT ICOM 6999 (1 cr AH, 1 cr CA), INEL 6009 (3 cr TR), 25 15 60

Rodríguez, Manuel FT CIIC 8997 (1cr CA), CIIC 9995 (2 cr AH), ICOM 6005 (3 cr TR), ICOM 6998 (1cr CA), ICOM 6999 (1cr AH, 1 cr CA) 43 29 28

Rosado, José FT INEL 3105 (3 cr TR), INEL 5029 (3 cr TR) 50 25 25 Santiago, Nayda FT ICOM 4998 (3 cr TR), ICOM 5047 (2 CA, 3 cr TR) 50 50 0 Seguel, Jaime FT CIIIC 6005 (3 cr TR), CIIC (1 cr CA) 30 47 23 Sepúlveda, Nelson FT INEL 4076 (3 cr TR), INEL 4151 (3 cr TR), INEL 6046 (2 cr AH) 43 57 0 Serrano, Guillermo FT INEL 4202 (3 cr TR), INEL 4202 (3 cr TR), INEL 4998 (1 cr CA) 54 46 0 Suris, Juan E. FT ICOM 4035 (3 cr TR), ICOM 4075 (3 cr TR) 50 50 0

Toledo, Manuel FT INEL 4205 (3 cr TR), INEl 4205 (3 cr TR), INEL 4207 (3 cr TR), INEL 5207 (3 cr TR) 100 0 0

Torres, Raúl FT INEL 3105 (3 cr TR), INEL 4998 (1 cr AH), INEL 6046 (1cr CA, 1 cr AH) 40 0 60 Vásquez, Ramón FT ICOM 6999 (1 cr AH), INEL 4075 (6 cr CA) 22 11 67

Vega Riveros, José F. FT CIIC (1 cr CA), ICOM 6015 (3 cr TR), ICOM6998 (1 cr CA), ICOM 6999 (2 cr CA) 41 6 53

Vélez, Bienvenido FT ICOM 4036 (3 CR TR), icom 4036 (3 CR TR), ICOM 6999 (3 CR TR) 69 23 8 Vélez, Miguel FT INEL 6007 (3 cr TR), INEL 6046 (3 cr AH) 19 81 0 Venkatesan, K. FT INEL 4102 (3 cr TR), INEL 4102 (3 cr TR), INEL 5496 (3 cr TR) 69 23 8


6-13

Table 6-3 Faculty Analysis: Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering

Name Rank

FT or PT

*Hig

hest

Deg

ree

and

field

Institution from which Highest Degree Earned

& Year

Years of Experience

Pro

fess

iona

l

Reg

istra

tion/

Cer

tific

atio

n

Level of Activity (high, med, low, none)

Gov

t./

Indu

stry

P

ract

ice

Tota

l Fac

ulty

This

Inst

itutio

n

Pro

fess

iona

l Soc

iety

Rese

arch

Cons

ulting

/

Summ

er

Wor

k in I

ndus

try

Type of Academic

AppointmentTT,T, NTT

Aponte, Erick Assist Prof.

TT FT PhD EPE

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, 2005 0 2.5 2.5 -- L L N

Arbona, Jaime Prof. T

FT PhD EE

University of Arkansas, 1972 0 36 36 PR M N

H

Arroyo, Javier Assoc. Prof.

T FT PhD

CE University of Florida, 1997 6 17 17 PR L

N

N

Beauchamp, Gerson Prof. T FT PhD

EE Georgia Institute of Technology, 1990 0 24 24 -- N N N

Borges, José Prof T

FT PhD CS

University of Illinois at Urbana, 1990 3 25 25 -- N

L

N

Caro, Juan Prof. T

FT MS NE

University of Puerto Rico at Mayagüez, 1971

4 31 31 PR M N N

Cedeño, José R. Assoc. Prof.

T FT PhD EE

Ohio State University, 2002 2 8 7 PR H H H

Colom, José Prof. T FT PhD EE

Pennsylvania State University, 1998 -- 17 17 -- M M N

Couvertier, Isidoro Prof. T FT PhD

EE Louisiana State University, 1996 8 25 25 PR M N N


6-14

Name Rank

FT or PT

*Hig

hest

Deg

ree

and

field


& Year

Years of Experience

Pro

fess

iona

l

Reg

istra

tion/

Cer

tific

atio

n


Gov

t./

Indu

stry

Pra

ctic

e

Tota

l Fac

ulty

This

Inst

itutio

n

Pro

fess

iona

l Soc

iety

Rese

arch

Cons

ulting

/

Summ

erW

ork i

n Ind

ustry

Type of Academic


*Cruz Emeric, Jorge Prof. T FT PhD

EE University of Florida, 1976 11 35 35 -- L N M

Cruz Pol, Sandra Prof. T FT PhD EE

Pennsylvania State University, 1998 1 17 17 -- M M N

**Cruz Rivera, José L. Prof T FT PhD

EE Georgia Institute of Technology, 1996 3 11 11 -- N N N

Cuadros, Carlos Assist Prof.

TT FT PhD EE

Virginia Tech at Blacksburg, VA 3 4 4 -- N L H

Díaz, Andrés Assist Prof

TT FT PhD Michigan State University 3 11.5 11.5 PR M N M

Ducoudray, Gladys

Assist Prof.

TT FT PhD EE

New Mexico State University, 2003 1 5.5 3.5 NM M L H

Figueroa, Miguel Instr NTT

FT MS Michigan State University, 2001 0 1 1 PR M L

N

Hunt, Shawn Prof. T FT PhD EE

Michigan State University, 1992 0 15 15 -- M M N

Ierkic, H. Mario Prof. T

FT PhD EE

Cornell University, 1980 13 17 17 -- N N

N

Irizarry, Agustín Prof. T FT PhD EE

Iowa State University, 1996 5 10 10 PR H

M M

Irizarry, Samuel Prof. T FT PhD NE

University of Michigan, 1974 7 36 36 PR M L M

**Jiménez, Luis Prof. T FT PhD Purdue University, -- --


6-15

Name Rank

FT or PT

*Hig

hest

Deg

ree

and

field


& Year

Years of Experience

Pro

fess

iona

l

Reg

istra

tion/

Cer

tific

atio

n


Gov

t./

Indu

stry

Pra

ctic

e

Tota

l Fac

ulty

This

Inst

itutio

n

Pro

fess

iona

l Soc

iety

Rese

arch

Cons

ulting

/

Summ

erW

ork i

n Ind

ustry

Type of Academic


1996

Jimenez, Manuel Prof. T

FT PhD EE

Michigan State University, 1999 0 16 16 RD

EU M H

N

Juan, Eduardo J. Assoc. Prof.

T FT PhD EE

Purdue University, 2001 2 6 6 PR M L M

Llorens, Baldomero Prof.

T FT MS

EE Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1976

3 28 28 PR L N N

Lu, Kejie Assist Prof.

TT FT PhD EE

The University of Texas at Dallas, 2003 4 2 2 -- M H N

Manian, Vydia Assist Prof.

TT FT PhD CISE

University of Puerto Rico 1 1 1 -- M M N

Monroy, Héctor Prof. T FT MS EE

Ohio State University, 1971 0 36 21 Col L N N

Moura, Andrés Assoc Prof.

TT FT PhD

CS University of California at Santa Bárbara -2000

0 2 2 -- L L

M

Navarro, José Inst. NTT

PT MS EE CE

University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez, 2001

2 18 7 -- N N N

Noack, Thomas Prof. T FT PhD EE

Iowa State University, 1963 9 42 25 PR

EU M N N

O'neill, Efraín Prof. T FT PhD EE

Arizona State University, 1999 1 3 8 PR H H

N


6-16

Name Rank

FT or PT

*Hig

hest

Deg

ree

and

field


& Year

Years of Experience

Pro

fess

iona

l

Reg

istra

tion/

Cer

tific

atio

n


Gov

t./

Indu

stry

Pra

ctic

e

Tota

l Fac

ulty

This

Inst

itutio

n

Pro

fess

iona

l Soc

iety

Rese

arch

Cons

ulting

/

Summ

erW

ork i

n Ind

ustry

Type of Academic


Orama, Lionel R. Prof. T FT PhD Renselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1997 1 10 10 PR M M H

Ortiz, Eduardo Assist Prof.

TT FT PhD. EE

Michigan State University,2006 1 1 3 -- M M N

Ortiz, Jorge L. Prof. T FT PhD EE

University of Houston, 1984 0 25 25 PR N N N

Ortiz, Luis Assist. Prof.

TT FT PhD CS Brown University 0 2 1 0 N L N

Palomera, Rogelio Prof.

T FT PhD

ST Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, 1979

0 22 22 MX M N N

Parsiani, Hamed Prof. T FT PhD EE

Texas A&M University, 1979 0 21 21 -- L M N

Ramírez, Alberto Assoc. Prof.

TT FT PhD EE

University of Texas at Arlington

0 5 5 -- M H N

Rivera Cartagena, José Prof. T FT PhD

EE City University of New York, 1992 4 28 28 PR M N N

Rivera, Wilson Assoc. Prof.

T FT PhD

CE Mississippi State University , 2000 0 7 7 -- L

M

N

Rivera, Pedro Prof. T FT PhD CS

University of Florida, 1990 0 21 6 -- L L L

Rodríguez Solís, Rafael Prof. T FT PhD

EE Pennsylvania State University, 1997 2 10 10 PR H H H

Rodríguez, Prof. T FT PhD City University of New 0 20 20 -- M H N


6-17

Name Rank

FT or PT

*Hig

hest

Deg

ree

and

field


& Year

Years of Experience

Pro

fess

iona

l

Reg

istra

tion/

Cer

tific

atio

n


Gov

t./

Indu

stry

Pra

ctic

e

Tota

l Fac

ulty

This

Inst

itutio

n

Pro

fess

iona

l Soc

iety

Rese

arch

Cons

ulting

/

Summ

erW

ork i

n Ind

ustry

Type of Academic


Domingo EE York, 1988

Rodríguez, Néstor Prof.

T FT PhD

EE University of Wisconsin Madison, 1988

1 16 16 -- M L N

Rodríguez, Manuel

Assoc. Prof.

T FT PhD

CS University of Maryland, College Park, 2001

0 6 6 -- M L N

Rosado, José Assoc. Prof.

T FT PhD EE

Cornell University, 1999 1 8 8 -- N L M

*Santiago, Julio Prof. T

FT MS EE

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1970

0 31 31 PR N N N

Santiago, Nayda Assist Prof.

TT FT

Ph.D EE

Michigan State University, 2003 0 11 11 PR M H N

Seguel, Jaime Prof. T FT PhD CM

City University of New York, 1987 0 19 19 -- L N N

Sepúlveda, Nelson

Assist. Prof.

TT FT PhD EE

Michigan State University 0 1 1 -- L L

N Serrano, Guillermo

Assist Prof

TT FT PhD EE

Georgia Institute of Technology 0 1 1 -- L L N

Suris, Juan Assist Prof.

TT FT PhD

CE Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State

University 2 1 1 -- M L N

Toledo, Manuel Assoc. Prof.

T FT PhD EE

Boston University, 1995 11 13 9 -- L M N


6-18

Name Rank

FT or PT

*Hig

hest

Deg

ree

and

field


& Year

Years of Experience

Pro

fess

iona

l

Reg

istra

tion/

Cer

tific

atio

n


Gov

t./

Indu

stry

Pra

ctic

e

Tota

l Fac

ulty

This

Inst

itutio

n

Pro

fess

iona

l Soc

iety

Rese

arch

Cons

ulting

/

Summ

erW

ork i

n Ind

ustry

Type of Academic


Torres, Raúl Assoc. Prof.

T FT PhD EE

University of Virginia, 1998 1 8 8 PR M M M

Vásquez, Ramón Prof. T FT PhD EE

Louisiana State University, 1984 0 31 31 -- H M N

Vega Riveros, José F. Prof. T FT PhD

EE Syracuse University, 1989 4 16.5 5.5 -- L M N

Vélez, Bienvenido Assoc. Prof.

TT FT PhD

CS Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1999

2 8 7 -- M L N

Vélez, Miguel Prof. T

FT PhD EE

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1992

0 14 14 PR H H N

Venkatesan, Krishnaswamy Prof. T FT PhD

EE University of Roorkee, India, 1974 1 27 24 PR M L N

* Retired ** Leave of absence Instructions: Complete table for each member of the faculty of the program. Use additional sheets if necessary. Updated information is to be provided at the time of the visit. The level of activity should reflect an average over the year prior to visit plus the two previous years.

Column 3 Code: TT = Tenure Track T = Tenured NTT = Non Tenure Track

Criterion 7: Facilities 7-1

7. FACILITIES


ABET Criterion 7 requires that: “Classrooms, laboratories, and associated equipment must be adequate to accomplish the program objectives and provide an atmosphere conducive to learning. Appropriate facilities must be available to foster faculty-student interaction and to create a climate that encourages professional development and professional activities. Programs must provide opportunities for students to learn the use of modern engineering tools. Computing and information infrastructures must be in place to support the scholarly activities of the students and faculty and the educational objectives of the program and institution.”

This section will demonstrate that UPRM complies with this requirement.

7.2 Space

The BSEE program shares its resources with the BS program in Computer Engineering and the graduate programs in Electrical Engineering and Computer Engineering. This arrangement serves the program well since it allows enrolled students access to state of the art equipment, especially for design projects. All classrooms and laboratories used for EE undergraduate courses are located in the Luis Stefani Building, except for undergraduate research that share graduate research laboratories.

7.2.1 Administrative Facilities The Department Headquarters occupies 3,500 square feet for various administrative and support functions. Approximately 7,660 square feet are dedicated to 51 faculty offices. Most faculty offices are located in the Luis Stefani building and a small number in the Esteban Terrats building, which is adjacent to the main facility.

7.2.2 Classrooms Most lecture courses are offered in rooms S-203 to 207, S-227 to S-229. Classrooms in the first group occupy an area of 473 square feet each and can accommodate up to 23 students while those in the second group occupy an area of 888 square feet each and can serve up to 45 students in two of the classrooms, and 38 in the third. The consolidated classroom area is 5,029 square feet in 8 classrooms. All classrooms must have whiteboards, overhead projectors, and ceiling-mounted data display projectors. The department also owns four spare data display projectors that can be used by professors for their lectures, conferences, or educational activities outside the campus. All classrooms are air-conditioned, but only three offer the option of using natural ventilation.

For large groups, the building auditorium with capacity of 150 students (S-113) is used as needed. It includes an amplified audio system and a ceiling-mounted data display projector. This room is mainly used for departmental tests in the evenings, and in occasions to


accommodate mega-sections courses.

7.2.3 Computing Resources Laboratories The ECE department maintains a variety of multi-platform computing facilities for instructional, research, and administrative use. The computing facilities are located in laboratories, machine rooms, and offices across several buildings. These include over 600 computers connected to the network. The server infrastructure is comprised of a variety of Linux/UNIX/Windows systems providing mail, web, print, high performance computing (HPC), virtualization, backup, file, and authentication services. The network consists of a switched gigabit Ethernet core and a wireless network that provides connectivity throughout the buildings. The network provides access to both commodity and Internet 2. Most computers in general computing laboratories are Precision T3400 (Dual Core 2.66 GHz, 2 GB RAM, 250 GB HD, NVIDIA Quadro FX 570, DELL 1908FP LCD) with the following software: “7-Zip, Adobe Flash Player, Adobe Reader, Agilent ADS, Altova Enterprise XML Suite, Autodesk Building Systems, Blender, Cadence Tools (SPB, Orcad, IC, MMSIM, IUS, SOC, etc), Code Composer, Comsol, Designer, Dev-C++, Eagle, Eclipse, Exadel Studio, FileSilla, Firefox, Ghostscript, Ghostview, GNU Compilers, Google Earth, HFSS, IAR Embedded Workbench, IBM Academic Initiative Software, Java JDK, Lab View, Lithonia Visual, LogicWorks, MASM Assebler, Matlab, Mentor Graphics Tools, Microsoft Expression Web, Microsoft Office Enterprise, Microsoft Project, Microsoft Visio, Microsoft Visual Studio 2008, MiKTeX, MPLAB, MSDN AA Software, MSPGCC, MySQL Tools, NEC-Win, NetBeans, PDFCreator, PowerDVD, PowerFactory, PowerWorld, ProModel, PuTTY, Rational, Roxio, SSH Secure Shell, Symantec Antivirus, SystemView, TeXnicCenter, The Constructor, Thunderbird, VideoLan, WinCon, W-Win32, Xilinx ISE, and Xming”. Most computing laboratories also have a laser printer with enough capacity to cover the expected demand. There are two scanners strategically located to optimize their use among students.

7.2.4 Undergraduate Instructional Laboratories The instructional laboratory facilities that support regular course instruction are divided as courses laboratories and support laboratories. The “purpose” of the facility reflects its usage with respect to the instructional needs of the EE Program. The courses instructional laboratories are listed in Table 7-1. These courses laboratories are used by all undergraduate students when they take the associated course. The support laboratories are listed in Table 7-2. Each concentration track has its laboratories associated to it, and those labs are only used by students taking the corresponding concentration track.

The Energy Conversion Laboratory consists of 10 computer-based data acquisition stations, arranged for use with LabVolt equipment. Students assemble scaled-power systems using motors, generators, impedance and other power components modules. Measurements are obtained through software that allows students to observe not only voltage and current read-outs, but also waveforms (time &frequency) and phasors. Power engineering courses are conducted during the mornings (instrumentations used for demonstrations), laboratory courses during the afternoons.


Table 7-1 Courses Instructional Laboratory Facilities for the Electrical Engineering Program

Location Purpose Condition Number

of stations

Area (sq. ft.)

S-103A Energy Systems Instrumentation Laboratory I: Energy Conversion Lab -- Support for INEL 4406 & 4086. Adequate 10 865

S-104A Basic Analog and Digital Electronics -- Support laboratory courses INEL 4077, 4115, 4211, 4212, and 4225 Adequate 12 665

S-104B Basic Analog and Digital Electronics -- Support laboratory courses INEL 4077, 4115, 4211, 4212, and 4225 Adequate 12 665

S-105D CAD Lab – Support for general computing needs of INEL 3105, 4102, 4205, 4201, 4103, 4405, etc. Adequate 28 1109

The Basic Analog and Digital Electronics Laboratories consist of 12 stations. Each station has a DC power supplies, a digital multimeter, a 20MHz function/arbitrary waveform generator, a 2 Channel 100 MHz 1GSa/s Oscilloscope, and digi-labs. The laboratories have been recently renovated, and PC with acquisition boards had been purchased. These PC will have Labview Express and Multisim installed along with all commonly installed software described in the previous section. Each station accommodates 2 students, although in practice the course section are limited to 20 students. This laboratory supports laboratory courses such a basic circuit measurements, analog electronics, and digital electronics. These laboratories are also open for course demonstrations, and homework related to basic circuits and basic electronics. It is common practice to have a supervising person (graduate student or professor) checking the work of students working in these laboratories.

Table 7-2 Instructional Laboratory Facilities for the Electrical Engineering Program

Location Purpose Condition Number

of stations

Area (sq. ft.)

S-101 Power Electronics Laboratory -- Capstone design and demonstration laboratory for Power Electronics Courses and Undergraduate Research

Adequate 1 367

S-102 Robotics Laboratory – Capstone design and laboratory work for the robotics and automation courses Adequate 6 562

S-103B Energy Systems Instrumentation Laboratory II – Supports design projects, undergraduate and graduate research Adequate 4 644

S-115 Microprocessor Development Lab. – Supports design projects of ICOM 5217 Adequate 14 969

S-122A ECE Computer Networking Laboratory – Supports INEL / ICOM 4308 and INEL / ICOM 5318 Adequate 16 439

S-202 Group of Applied Electromagnetics (GEMA) Laboratory – Support for INEL 5305, 4305, and 5306 Adequate 6 463

S-210B Integrated Circuits Design Laboratory --Analog, Digital, and Mixed-signal Integrated Circuit Design and test. Supports design projects in INEL 5065, INEL 4998, and INEL 5995

Adequate

16 design,

4 testing.

966

S-213 Process Instrumentation and Control – Support for projects and demonstrations for INEL 5205, 5208, 5505, 5506 and 5508

Adequate 17 956

S-222 Tools and Toys Laboratory – Support for INEL 3115 and Pre-Engineering camps Adequate 12 596

S-222E Communications and Digital Signal Processing – Supports INEL 5309 demonstrations and INEL 5326 design projects Adequate 14 758


The Power Electronics Laboratory includes three workstation with specialize software for power electronics application, and motor control. This laboratory serves the capstone design course in power electronics, demos for the motor control course, and research (both graduate and undergraduate). Students in this laboratory design systems with solar power, and converting from DC to AC and vice versa. A detailed list of the equipment is in Appendix C.

The Robotics Laboratory includes two A225 robots, one Epson Robot, three analog vision systems, and three PLC families (Rockwell, AROMAT, and Omron) with their supporting software development tools. The Robotics and Automation Laboratory includes two clones Pentium 4 used to assist a CRS 5-DOF robotic arm each, and one Epson 4-DOF Robot with a PC-Based Controller running in WINDOWS 2000. There is one machine vision system for advanced projects in robots vision, and a second vision station for projects in the capstone course or in graduate projects. There are also six multi-purpose workstations, each equipped with a Dell Precision 370. These can be setup to program and implement PLC designs, to create simulation of manufacturing processes, and to program microcontrollers for mobile robots applications. Finally, there is a pneumatic station with no computer for students to practice some theoretical concepts in the area.

The Energy Systems Instrumentation Laboratory II supports the capstone design and demonstration laboratory for Power Systems Courses and Undergraduate Research (in use and continuing development through NSF CCLI grant). It has Labvolt equipment for the Power Systems Protection course (equipment shared with ESIL I- S103A), a workbench for the laboratory assistant (for the repair and maintenance of motors, generators and other laboratory modules), a photovoltaic system for demonstrations, an UG research unit composed of a 2 kW inverter for stand alone operation, and a 100W inverter with capability of interconnection with utility. Power engineering courses are conducted during the mornings (instrumentation used for demonstrations), while undergraduate research and design courses are held during the afternoons.

The Microprocessor Development Systems Lab was recently renovated and its equipment replaced. The lab is used primarily for projects associated with the Microprocessor Interfacing course. It provides students with all the major tools required for the implementation of microprocessor/microcontroller-based system prototypes. This Laboratory has three types of stations: Design Stations, PCB Stations, and Prototyping Stations. There are fourteen Design Stations are devoted to design entry, programming, simulation, prototype debugging, and document preparation. The PCB Station provides access to PCB construction tools. Finally, the two Prototyping Stations provide access to mechanical assembly, soldering, and building equipment. A detailed list of the equipment is found in Appendix C.

The ECE Computer Networking Laboratory consists of 30 routers, 23 switches, 2 Dell Precision 360, 14 Dell Precision 350, and Access Servers. The lab assists students in providing the necessary infrastructure to put in practice their knowledge in design, testing, and troubleshooting of LANs, WANs, VLANs, VPNs, WLANs, and digital telephony. The lab support two CISCO related courses in routing protocols such as RIP, OSPF, ISIS, and BGP4. The lab is also accessible via the Internet, and students could be CISCO certified after passing the CISCO examination.


The Group of Applied Electromagnetics (GEMA) Laboratory serves for demo laboratory to the Electromagnetics II course, for the design projects in the “Antenna Theory and Design” and “Microwave Engineering” courses, and for working and development space for students in the “Communication System Design: Circuits and Antennas” (Capstone in Applied Electromagnetics Area) course. It is equipped with machinery to do boards, network analyzers, transmitters, and receivers.

The Integrated Circuits Design Laboratory (ICDL) is devoted to the tasks of designing and testing analog, digital, and mixed-signal integrated circuits and systems. The facility was established in 1999 with funding provided by Texas Instruments (TI) under the UPRM-TI Collaborative Program. It provides 16 design workstations running industry-grade software tools for the design entry and design validation in bipolar and MOS technologies. In addition the lab provides 4 testing stations with state-of-the- art test and measurement tools used by senior and graduate students, in advanced and graduate course projects in electronics as well as graduate research students for their projects. Specialized software tools in ICDL include Cadence Tools, Mentor Graphics Design Suite, NI-LabView, Tanner Tools, Aldec ActiveHDL/Synplify, and Xilinx ISE 9.2. ICDL is served by a distributed processor network that includes one large application server, four compute nodes, and one backup server.

The Process Control and Instrumentation Laboratory is used as a workshop to develop and work on term projects for five advanced courses of the EE Program. The laboratory is also used to give control system demonstrations to students in the Introduction to Control Systems Course (INEL 4505) and also to visiting high school students. The Process Instrumentation and Control Laboratory includes 12 Dell Precision T3400 and 5 Dell Precision 390. All workstations include data acquisition equipment and software either from National Instruments or Quanser Consulting. It includes demonstrative control equipment such as inverted pendulum, fluid level control, magnetic levitation, vibration control, and others for simple projects to supplement three courses in the automatic control area.

The Tools and Toys Laboratory supports the Introduction to Electrical Engineering freshman course, open houses, and pre-engineering camps or activities. It provides pre-assembly parts of electrical systems in several areas to motivate students to study electrical engineering, explore the different areas in the field, and develop their imagination completing and assembly the projects. One of the most popular projects is the construction of a mobile robot using Lego Mindstorm. Other projects include signal modulation to transmit their voices over a radio channel, power generation, and signal amplification.

The Communication and Signal Processing Laboratory has 14 workstations. Each station has a Dell Precision T3400 with external DSP boards, and peripheral instrumentation equipment. The lab also has four 2.3GHz Spectrum Analyzers. The laboratory software consists of Matlab, Texas Instruments Assembly and Floating Point tools including Code Composer, Microsoft Office, and Microsoft Visual C++.

7.2.5 Library The library of the University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez Campus is located in the central part of the campus. The library is one of the first buildings that a visitor will see when entering the campus through the main entrance. The Mayaguez Campus General Library


consists of a main library, a special departmental collection (Marine Sciences) and an Educational Technology Unit. The collections include around 164,100 books, 5,200 magazines, 296,000 microfilms, 562 government documents, 8,100 maps, 35,000 audiovisual resources (music, tapes, DVD, etc.), and a over 7 million patents through a satellite patents office. The main library building has an area of approximately 124,335 square feet, with a seating capacity of approximately 1,000.

The library has its own accreditation process established by the Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL). In its Self-Study of May 2007 the vision, the mission, and objectives are stated as follows:

“The vision of the library is to create a suitable environment conducive to study and research while maximizing its bibliographic, as well as human and economic resources. In the last thirty years technological changes have driven libraries to modify their procedures. However, the purpose and essence of libraries continue to be the same: facilitating access to sources of information and education, and providing orientation and training in the process of identification, evaluation and interpretation of information.

The mission of the library is to provide the campus community with a technologically advanced library, so that users may pursue academic excellence. Bibliographic resources should support academic programs and reference services should satisfy the information needs of the academic community as well as the community at large.

The objectives of the library are:

• To maintain a collection that supports undergraduate and graduate programs. • To evaluate services in order to determine if they meet the information needs of

users. • To maintain a staff development and training program. • To use efficiently the library’s available physical space. • To acquire and promote the necessary technology to support the needs of the users

as well as that of the library staff so that they may perform in an efficient and effective manner.

• To market services both inside as well as outside of the library. • UPRM Library serves the campus community as well as the residents of Mayagüez

and nearby towns. It fully supports the University’s educational and research mission and objectives by providing the necessary library and information resources, facilities and services. In order to fulfill its purpose, the library is divided into three major areas: Public Services, Technical Services, and Educational Technology.

Public Services provides reference and research resources and services directly to the users of the library. It includes the following collections, departments and centers:

• Álvarez Nazario Collection

http://www.uprm.edu/library/autoestudio/docs/SelfStudySummaryReport.pdf�


• Circulation and Reserve Collection • Center for Technological Assistance (for the Disabled) • Interlibrary Loans Department • Marine Sciences Collection • Patent and Trademark Depository Library (PTDL) • Puerto Rico Census Data Center • Puerto Rican Collection – Manuel María Sama y Auger • Reference and Documents Collection • Serials and Electronic Resources Collection • The Center for Information Literacy and Bibliographic Research

Technical Services processes library materials and this includes selection, ordering, invoicing, bookkeeping, labeling, cataloging, and classification. Technical Services is also responsible for library automation, in-house binding and the gift and exchange program.

Educational Technology consists of the departments of Audiovisual Services and the Closed Circuit Television, and the Music and Oral History Collection. Audiovisual Services is further subdivided into the Film and Video Collection, Graphic Arts Workshop, A/V Equipment Lending & Repair Shop, and an Audio Recording Studio. The mission of Educational Technology is to support the academic programs of the University through multimedia technology applications.”

A Bibliographic Instruction Program exists for the benefit of students and faculty. Through this program our staff of professional librarians offer instructions specifically tailored to provide support for courses offered on campus. Bibliographic guides are prepared and distributed among the attendees. Orientation of the General Library facilities is offered to freshmen, high school students, and patrons requesting this service.

The General Library has sufficient funds to support and maintain technical publications such as the IEEE Digital Library. They assign enough money for books acquisition through recommendation of the faculty. In that way, they stay up-to-date with the necessary library resources to support all academics programs within the campus.

7.3 Resources and Support

7.3.1 Computing and Information Infrastructure Computers constitute a major instructional resource for all EE courses. As explained in Section 7.2.3 all computer laboratories are networked. Professors’ offices are also wired allowing them to access all the departmental and campus information resources. All computers have access to the Internet, providing students with additional learning opportunities.


7.3.2 Access to Modern Engineering Tools EE laboratories are equipped with modern instrumentation in good to excellent condition. Computer equipments are modern and the university has obtained them through either direct purchase or donations. Students have access to modern design support software that serves to enhance class and laboratory experiences.

7.3.3 Laboratory Planning, Maintenance and Enhancement The Departmental Head submits an annual plan for schedule maintenance and enhancement of laboratories. Petitions for equipment for new laboratories are submitted separately, and are usually initiated by a donation or MRI proposal. The budget of the institution is examined, before the upper administration compromises the money. Whenever the budget is not enough for supporting the enhancement or maintenance petitions, the budget to cover the need is added to the following cycle. Every three to five years the University administration assigns money in their budget to replace computers, and other obsolete equipment. Faculty also contributes with money from their grant to support some laboratories miscellaneous supplies. Although there is room for improvement of this policy, the laboratories in general are adequate for instructional purposes.

7.3.4 Support Personnel All laboratory courses or laboratories associated to a course are administrated by a faculty member supervising graduate students. The selection and assignment of teaching assistants have the highest priority for the laboratory courses. A faculty member supervises one or more graduate teaching assistants teaching laboratory courses to enforce course content, quality of lectures, and appropriate grading policy.

The department has an electronics service shop that employs one full-time technician to maintain the equipment in the undergraduate teaching laboratories. Equipment in the instructional laboratories is serviced by one of three methods: (a) in-house, by the departmental electronics service shop; (b) service contract or warranty by the manufacturer of the equipment; and (c) repair by the manufacturer at the expense of the department for complex equipment that is not covered by a service contract and cannot be repaired by the electronics service shop. The ECE Director assigns the supervisor of the electronics repair shop, who gets help from the faculty members in charge of the laboratories.

7.3.5 Support Personnel for Hardware, Software, and Networking Facilities Another major function is related to the department's network of workstations and PCs, where one engineer supervising two certified technicians oversee the administration of the network, distribution of software, and general user support. Two graduate students of the computer engineering master program assist the group as part of their assistantship.

7.4 Conclusions

The Electrical Engineering Program has well equipped instructional laboratories that enable students to experience the use of modern instrumentation and design tools. These facilities


are renovated every four to six years, depending on the cost and expected utilization life. Budget for this maintenance will be explained in Criterion 8.

UPRM adequately meets ABET requirements under Criterion 7.

Criterion 8: Support 8-1

8. SUPPORT

8.1 Program Budget Process and Sources of Financial Support

The annual budget proposal for each academic unit is generated using the previous year distribution as the base, and adjustments due to increases or decreases in expenditures are estimated. At the College of Engineering level a proposal is drafted with input from the department directors and it may include additional request for funding of new projects. The prioritization of new projects is done at the campus level. However, to fully understand how the final budget is assigned the organization of the UPR system budget is explained below.

The UPR is organized as a public corporation with fiscal autonomy. As such, neither does it have to compete for funding with other government agencies nor does have to convince the Legislature to provide funds. The state appropriations are defined by law as approximately 9.6% of the average total tax revenue of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico for the previous two fiscal years. The university is authorized to generate and retain its revenues. Budget surpluses are retained by the corporation and need not be returned to the Government. On the other hand, the University must maintain a balanced budget since as a state corporation its annual expenditures cannot exceed its revenues.

8.1.1 University System Budget The UPR annual budget is organized into three main components:

• General Fund, which reflects mainstream educational categories in instruction and facilities. It is unrestricted, that is, there are no legal or contractual restrictions on its uses. Revenues within this component come from state appropriations, tuition, fees, grant and contract overheads, sale of services, investment income, and rental of facilities. The main sources of revenues of the General Fund are the state appropriation and tuition collection. The second source is tuition and fees, which currently account for less than 8 % of the total unrestricted revenue. Income from tuition and fees is allocated for debt service by the credit covenant but the university is free to use for other purpose the amount in excess of the debt coverage.

• Restricted Fund, which includes revenues and expenditures related to financial aid programs, external research contracts, and other contracted commitments. Revenues within this component are usually from extra-university sources and its allocation is restricted by contracts or legal mandates.

• Capital Expenditures Fund, which funds the capital improvements of the university such as major renovation of facilities and the construction of new buildings. Its sources of income are a line of credit from the PR Governmental Development Bank and the regular emission of capital improvement bonds. The use of these funds is restricted by the credit covenants. Debt service is paid from the General Fund.

The General Fund distributions are a set of base-budget line-items that propagate from year-to-year, with incremental adjustments that arise from annual increases (or decreases) in revenues and from changes in institutional priorities.


Each campus drafts an operating budget petition for the incoming fiscal year, which is submitted to the Office of the President where a consolidated operating budget project is created. Early in the budgetary cycle, each institutional unit is provided with an estimate of the expected allocation so that the budget petition is aligned to the fiscal realities. The consolidated budget proposal is presented to the University Board and submitted with recommendations to the Board of Trustees that has the authority by law to approve the final project.

8.1.2 UPRM Operating Budget After the Board of Trustees approves the consolidated operating budget, each campus must adjust its petition to the final allocation. Since each campus has a local Budget Office, the details of the distribution are a campus decision. On each campus its Administrative Board approves the final operating budget. The Capital Improvements Budget is managed at the system level.

The General Budget covers compensation for all program faculty and administrative staff as well as equipment maintenance and replacement. In addition, academic units may receive restricted and unrestricted funds from gifts and grants, including sponsored research awards. The Department Heads manage the totality of these funding streams in accordance with contracts and restrictions where appropriate, and in accordance with university regulations.

8.2 Sources of Financial Support As said above, the main source of financial support for the UPR system comes from state appropriations. This is the main source of income for the general fund for the UPR system, its institutional units and all of the academic units. The second source comes from tuition and fees. The department also has restricted and unrestricted funds that originate from indirect costs of research activities and donations.

8.3 Adequacy of Budget UPR budget dependence on a percentage of total tax revenue makes it fluctuate with local economy. As a consequence the UPR budget, and all its units, has seen the effects of an economy that is slowing down. Nevertheless, as will be seen below, the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering has seen in 2005-2007 a global increment but this increment has gone mainly to faculty salaries and graduate teaching assistants. Other expenditures have been reduced as shown in Table 8-1. The budget of the department, despite the effects of a slowing economy, has been adequate to keep the department and its programs running.

Table 8-1. Non- Salary Expenditures during the Previous Three Fiscal Years

Fiscal Year 2005-2006 2006-2007 (2007-2008)Expenditure Category Operations (not including staff)4 $47,010 $25,780 $17,755 Travel5 $7,464 $4,389 $5,467 Equipment6 0 0 0


Fiscal Year 2005-2006 2006-2007 (2007-2008)Expenditure Category (a) Institutional Funds $16,636 $44,821 $1,509,667 (b) Grants and Gifts7 0 0 0 Graduate Teaching Assistants $204,746 $245,177 $199,205 Part-time Assistance8

(other than teaching) 0 0 0

Faculty Salaries $3,436,613 $3,697,696 $3,678,562 TOTAL $3,712,469.00 $4,017,863.00 $5,410,656.00

8.4 Support of Faculty Professional Development To assist faculty in shaping their careers, UPRM has instituted a policy of investing in their professional development. The policy covers several aspects:

1) Development of new faculty – Carefully selected UPRM graduates participate under a graduate studies financial assistance program. UPRM pays for tuition and provides the student with a monthly stipend. After completing the degree, the recipient of the aid must work for the UPR for a period equal to the time funded. If the recipients fail to comply with the agreed work period, they must pay back the funds received. Since 2002 six faculty members have returned to work for the department after participating in this program. Ten more faculty members are currently pursuing doctoral studies.

2) Initiating new faculty as researchers – Recently recruited faculty with earned doctoral degrees are granted a six credit per semester research assignment for at least four consecutive semesters. Each new hire is provided with basic computing equipment and seed money. As a result, several faculty members have been able to start successful research careers, which help the program in several ways. First, the professor is more likely to stay at UPRM if the research environment supports his work. Secondly, research grants may provide additional income to the professor. Thirdly, the program benefits when the professor is able to obtain state of the art instrumentation and equipment that otherwise would be impossible to obtain with departmental funds. The typical cost of this package is estimated at $ 44K for a new assistant professor with a Ph.D.

3) Initiating new faculty as teachers – Recently recruited faculty are required to attend a seminar series sponsored by Center for Professional Enhancement. The Center sponsors the following development activities:

a) Orientation week for new faculty and graduate teaching assistants.

b) Orientation week for graduate laboratory assistants.

c) Series of seminars and workshops offered during the academic year on topics related to teaching and learning. (This series is open to all professors regardless of their status.). The Center sponsors an average of five seminars per semester.

4) Sabbaticals – After six years of service in a regular position, faculty members can request a year of sabbatical leave for scholarly activities. Three ECE professors have requested and used this benefit over the past five years. None of the requests were


denied. Given the size of the faculty, this number is low. The department estimates that it could support up to 5% of its faculty on sabbatical leaves per year. Unfortunately, a reduced number of professors apply. At this point in time, the use of sabbatical leaves for professional development is limited by research compromises, and for the lack of interest from the non-researcher faculty.

The existing faculty development policies are considered adequate and no issues were identified that impact the EE Program.

8.5 Support of Facilities and Equipment To compensate for the reduction in institutional funds for equipment, the department received an extraordinary budget allocation of $1.500.000 during the fiscal year of 2007-2008. This allocation was dedicated to the purchase of new equipment and has allowed the update of the laboratory facilities. The distribution of this allocation is shown in Table 8-2.

Table 8-2. Distribution of extraordinary budget allocation

Laboratory Budget allocated General Computer Center $347,063.00

Electronics $249,692.00 Process Inst. & Control $190,022.00 Robotics & Automation $75,180.00

Networking $100,161.00 Applied Electromagnetic $87,584.00

Integrated Circuits Design $225,000.00 Microprocessor Development System Electric Machines $122,653.00

Total $1,397,355.00

8.6 Adequacy of Support Personnel and Institutional Services The University of Puerto Rico has different levels of support on all aspects of the academic environment. This support is present in institutional services for students, professors and administrators. Services such as the library, and support personnel for laboratory were explained in criterion 7. This section pretends to summarize a description of the services without going into details, assuming that the reader is familiar with university related services.

8.6.1 Services for Students The University has all common academic services, and support for extracurricular activities. Those services include the followings:

• Counseling Office per department (as mentioned in Criterion 1) • Academic Orientation (as mentioned in Criterion 1) • Placement Office: This office helps students to prepare resumes, find job

opportunities, provides recommendations to conduct a good job interview, among other things.


• Library (explained in Criterion 7) • Cafeteria: Provides a variety of food for a wide range of diet habits at a cost within

the average student’s budget. • Bookstore: Sells books and educational materials. It also sells electronics

components, calculators, and tools upon request by extension of local electronic stores.

• Recreational Room: Provides ping-pong and pool tables, and passive recreational games for students.

• Students Association Office: This office is handled by the Students’ Dean Office. The University helps the student associations to find meeting rooms, get legal recognition within the University, among other services.

• Student Council Body: All students get represented through this body for university purposes. Students have the right of representation in all University’s bodies that affect the students’ academic life. The students select their representatives, almost in every occasion.

• Sport Facilities: The University has facilities for basketball, volleyball, softball, soccer, indoor soccer, tracks, judo, boxing, tennis, swimming, weight lifting, and gym for fitness. Some of these facilities are used by the University teams at allocated times during the day. Any student or employee could reserve the facilities for use by following a procedure. Of course, there are sports facilities open to the public, and monitored by the university police.

• Student Center: Provides a place to gather, see movies, space for religious services, etc. The bookstore, the recreational room, barbershop and hair saloon, copy center, and Placement Office are conveniently located in the Student Center.

All these facilities have the necessary personnel to operate. Their budget comes in part from the service the particular service provides, or from the University’s budget.

8.6.2 Support for professors The University provides professional services to all professors. These services are divided in different levels, and go from departmental support up to institutional support. These services are the following:

• Research and Development Center: Provides help in the preparation of proposals, purchase of research equipment, scheduling travels related to research activities, handle professors’ compensations for their research work, among many things.

• Purchase Office: Responsible of making the purchases of non-research related activities such as equipment for instructional laboratories

• Maintenance Office: Fixes all electrical and plumbing problems, give maintenance to air conditioners, makes small remodeling of classrooms, laboratories and offices, and all kinds of handyman work. They also help moving equipment in activities upon request. The Engineering Dean Office has a satellite office dedicated to maintenance activities for the engineering buildings.


8.6.3 Support for Accreditation and Continuous Improvement The University takes seriously the accreditation of their program. All academic programs that are accreditable must seek accreditation according to the University policy. There is a support structure for this purpose. The Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering has an administrative person dedicated to accreditation and continuous improvement. This person helps all the programs (undergraduate and graduate programs in EE and CompE) with tasks related to accreditation. These tasks include collecting the data for direct measurement of the outcomes, implementing surveys, collecting resumes, keeping track of syllabuses changes related to performance criteria, filling forms, making budget petition for accreditation activities, and helping with the organization of accreditation activities such as the Orientation Day, ABET Mock visits, ABET seminars, and visits of other agencies that give accreditation. This person is also responsible of supporting activities related to the Middle State Accreditation, and “Consejo de Educación Superior” Accreditation Board of Puerto Rico. The Engineering Dean Office has a sub-office (SEED) in charge of all accreditation processes which support all engineering programs (undergraduate and graduate). This office is responsible of preparing and making the petition of the budgets of the accreditation of the subordinate programs. This office handles the petition for the ABET visit, collects the self-studies of all engineering program, makes the necessary arrangements for editing to them, and organizes the ABET visits. It also helps in handling the purchase of equipments related to the continuous improvements of laboratories. Finally, at University level, the Chancellor appointed the Office of Continuous Improvement of Academics (OMCA for its acronym in Spanish). OMCA is responsible of handling all accreditations in the University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez. It handles the evaluation of personnel and faculty, and keeps historic data of these evaluations to study improvement patterns.

8.7 Conclusion The Electrical Engineering Program has been well supported by the university, taking into consideration the severe financial constraints that a public university has to face. Despite recent economic circumstances, an extraordinary budget allocation has allowed to update the laboratory facilities. The department is adequately staffed to fulfill all the instructional obligations.

Criterion 9: Program Criteria 9-1

9. PROGRAM CRITERIA



“Each program must satisfy applicable Program Criteria (if any). Program Criteria provide the specificity needed for interpretation of the baccalaureate level criteria as applicable to a given discipline. Requirements stipulated in the Program Criteria are limited to the areas of curricular topics and faculty qualifications. If a program, by virtue of its title, becomes subject to two or more sets of Program Criteria, then that program must satisfy each set of Program Criteria; however, overlapping requirements need to be satisfied only once.

PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR

ELECTRICAL, COMPUTER,

AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS

Lead Society: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

Cooperating Society for Computer Engineering Programs: CSAB

These program criteria apply to engineering programs that include electrical, electronic, computer, or similar modifiers in their titles.

1. Curriculum

The structure of the curriculum must provide both breadth and depth across the range of engineering topics implied by the title of the program.

The program must demonstrate that graduates have: knowledge of probability and statistics, including applications appropriate to the program name and objectives; and knowledge of mathematics through differential and integral calculus, basic sciences, computer science, and engineering sciences necessary to analyze and design complex electrical and electronic devices, software, and systems containing hardware and software components, as appropriate to program objectives.

Programs containing the modifier “electrical” in the title must also demonstrate that graduates have a knowledge of advanced mathematics, typically including differential equations, linear algebra, complex variables, and discrete mathematics.

Criterion 9: Program Criteria 9-2

Programs containing the modifier “computer” in the title must also demonstrate that graduates have a knowledge of discrete mathematics.”


9.2 Discussion

The EE curriculum includes all the elements required under Program Criteria for Electrical Engineering.

As demonstrated under Criterion 5, the program provides breadth and depth across the range of Engineering topics.

• Within the EE components, students are required to approve courses on electronics, digital computers, circuits and systems analysis, control systems, communications, electromagnetic theory, and power systems.

• Our five year program provides room for students to specialize in one of the five concentration areas that are explored in the first four years. This scheme is attractive to our constituents, and it follows the trends that IEEE is discussing for the future of engineering education.

• Outside of EE, students study Engineering Graphics, Statics and Dynamics, Materials, Engineering Economics, Algorithms and Computers, and Thermodynamics.

• Mathematics coverage requires three courses in Calculus and a separate one for Differential Equations.

• The Physical Sciences coverage includes two-course sequences with laboratory for Chemistry and Physics.

• The curriculum includes a course in Probability and Statistics. • Linear algebra and complex variables do not require separate courses. Topics from these

two areas are present in Calculus, Control Systems, Communications Theory, Circuit Analysis, and Electromagnetic Theory.

• Discrete Mathematics topics are presented in Algorithm and Computers course as well as in the Logic Circuits.

• Our analysis of other EE curricula shows that UPRM EE students are exposed to a broader coverage of topics than their peers in the USA.

The area of concentration requirement explained in the Professional Component section primarily provides depth in the program. The assessment process using the surveys, and direct measurements using students’ work did not reveal any issues that merit attention related to Criterion 9 requirements.

9.3 Conclusions

Our analysis of other EE curricula shows that UPRM EE students are exposed to a deeper coverage of concentration topics than most of their peers in the USA. The Electrical Engineering Program satisfies the Criterion 9 requirements.