NYIT Annual Program Assessment Report, June 2017 Annual Program Assessment Report, June 2017 47 3. Analysis (Note: For convenience, percentage values in this report have been rounded

NYIT Annual Program Assessment Report, June 2017

41

ELECTRICAL & COMPUTER ENGINEERING (ECE)

Rishabh Dudheria


42

This report provides evidence that students are achieving end-of-program learning goals and that

graduates are attaining achievement outcomes established by the program.

Name of the program: Electrical and Computer Engineering (Nanjing)

Year (e.g., AY16-17) of assessment report: AY16-17

Date Submitted: May 15, 2017

Contact: Rishabh Dudheria

The Statement of Program Learning Goals and Curricular Matrix are available at:

http://www.nyit.edu/planning/academic_assessment_plans_reports.

I. Annual Program Learning Assessment:

2. GOALS: List program learning goals that have been assessed in AY16-17.

3. METHOD: Describe the method of assessment and attach measurement instruments

(e.g., rubric, exam items, scoring guide for a particular task, supervisor evaluation form,

and standardized assessment tool).

4. ANALYSIS: Report assessment results per learning criteria (e.g., per row of rubric, subset

of test items, components of a learning task).

5. INTERPRETATION: Provide an interpretation of student strengths and weaknesses for a

given program learning outcome.

6. IMPROVEMENTS - PLANNED: Identify planned actions for improving student achievement

of assessed program learning goals.

NOTE: Report containing the above details is attached.

http://www.nyit.edu/planning/academic_assessment_plans_reports


43

II. Summary of Improvements Made in Response to Assessment Results in the past few years:

Year of

Assessment

Results

Brief Name of Program Learning Goal

(e.g., Writing)

Improvements

Implemented Based

on Assessment

Results

Impact of Improvements

(report reassessment

results if available)

AY13-14 PO: An ability to apply programming

language concepts such as data models,

control structures, language translation

and testing and debugging in the

development of software systems.

GO: Students can identify

interdependencies among cultures and

are able to collaborate effectively,

participating in social and business

settings globally.

--- ---

AY14-15 PO: An ability to apply programming

language concepts such as data models,

control structures, language translation,

testing and debugging in the

development of software systems.

GO: Demonstrate the ability to

contribute to the assigned tasks of a

team, work interactively with others

toward the completion of required tasks,

and constructively resolve potential

conflicts.

--- ---

AY15-16 PO: An ability to apply knowledge of

mathematics, science, and engineering.

--- ---


44

III. Brief Description of Faculty Engagement in the Current Annual Assessment Report:

The assessment report was shared with the ECE faculty members at Nanjing on 10 March 2017

requesting them to provide feedback. They thought that the overall report was satisfactory and

did not make any specific comments/suggestions regarding it.

IV. Annual Program Achievement Goals:

Please provide examples of readily available data on program student achievement (e.g., first-

year retention rates, six-year graduation rates, average time to degree completion, certification

exam pass rate, student satisfaction survey results, employer satisfaction results, % pursuing an

advanced degree, % of job placement, etc.)

---


45

Assessment Report AY 2016-2017

Electrical and Computer Engineering Department

Contributing Committee Member: Rishabh Dudheria

Program Outcome Assessment

Comments: Mathematics is an important component of a lot of courses in the Electrical and

Computer Engineering department. Thus, sound mathematical skills provide a key foundation for

succeeding in the ECE program.

Description

1. Goals

Program Outcome: “An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering.”

2. Method

The data for analyzing the above program outcome was collected in the form of two separate

tests given to ECE junior students taking the “EENG 320 – Control Systems” course and ECE

freshman students taking the course “EENG 125 – Fundamentals of Digital Logic”. The list of

participants included in this study is mentioned in Table 1.

Class # of students Junior Cohort 1 29 Junior Cohort 2 31 Junior Cohort 3 29 Freshman Cohort 2 30 Freshman Cohort 3 31

Table 1: List of participants

In particular, an initial test to evaluate the knowledge of students pertaining to the above

program outcome was conducted during the second week of classes in the fall 2016 semester.

These tests were designed to provide information regarding the background knowledge of

students in the topics listed in Table 2. It should be noted that the topics on the first test were

carefully selected after determining their applicability to the relevant courses of study (i.e.,

“Control Systems” for juniors and “Fundamentals of Digital Logic” for freshmen) in the context of

the selected program outcome.


46

Later, a second test was conducted for both the groups of students in the last week of classes in

the fall 2016 semester. The second test included topics listed in Table 2. These topics were

covered during the semester in the corresponding courses and were dependent on the topics

covered in the first test. Thus, these two tests enable us to correlate the performance of students with

respect to the chosen program outcome.

Group Test 1 Topics Test 2 Topics

Junior students Quadratic equations Transfer function

Linear Algebra State transition matrix

Trigonometric functions Sensitivity function

Partial fractions Steady state error

Differentiation and Integration Performance of Second-Order systems

Limits Routh-Hurwitz stability criterion

Freshman students Boolean Algebra Boolean Algebra

Probability Karnaugh maps

Exponential and Logarithmic functions

Latches and flip-flops

Sequence Finite State Machines

Algorithms Synchronizers

Sets Parallelism

Inequalities IEEE 754 floating point notation

Table 2: Topics included in the tests for junior and freshman students

Test parameters Test 1 Test 2

# of random questions 10 10

Pool of questions 20 20

Duration 15 minutes 15 minutes

Maximum score 10 points 10 points

Table 3: Details of the two tests

Rubric: Both the tests contained 10 multiple choice questions with four answer choices and a

simple correct or incorrect scoring for each question. Each question was worth 1 point. The tests

were conducted on the Blackboard website for the courses and the students were assigned 15

minutes to complete each of the tests. Additionally, students were given a random set of 10

questions from a pool of 20 questions to minimize cheating. The threshold for satisfactory

performance was set at 70%, which is currently the requirement for ECE students to graduate.


47

3. Analysis

(Note: For convenience, percentage values in this report have been rounded to 1 decimal place)

Analysis of both the test results for the two groups was performed to evaluate the above program

outcome. The score distribution for the two tests given to juniors is shown in Figure 1 and Figure

2 respectively. The corresponding performance metrics for each of the junior classes is shown in

Table 4.

Figure 1: Test 1 Score Distribution for juniors

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

# o

f st

ud

en

ts

Score

Test 1 Score Distribution for juniors

Cohort 1

Cohort 2

Cohort 3


48

Figure 2: Test 2 Score Distribution for juniors

Performance Metric Cohort 1 Cohort 2 Cohort 3

Test 1 Test 2 Test 1 Test 2 Test 1 Test 2

Average 5.11 6.81 5.5 5.84 4.96 6.08

Standard deviation 2.3 1.96 2.09 1.69 1.92 1.41

% of students satisfying the benchmark score

29.6% 59.3% 30% 35.5% 17.9% 46.1%

Table 4: Performance analysis of Test 1 and Test 2 given to junior students

Similarly, the score distribution for the two tests given to freshman students is shown in Figure 3

and Figure 4 respectively. The corresponding performance metrics for these tests for each of the

freshman classes is shown in Table 5.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

# o

f st

ud

en

ts

Score

Test 2 Score Distribution for juniors

Cohort 1

Cohort 2

Cohort 3


49

Figure 3: Test 1 Score Distribution for freshmen

Figure 4: Test 2 Score Distribution for freshmen

Performance Metric Cohort 2 Cohort 3

Test 1 Test 2 Test 1 Test 2

Average 5.81 6.81 5.43 6.63

Standard deviation 2 2.16 2.09 2.26

% of students satisfying the benchmark score

44.4% 66.7% 28.6% 60%

Table 5: Performance analysis of Test 1 and Test 2 given to freshman students

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

# o

f st

ud

en

ts

Score

Test 1 Score Distribution for freshmen

Cohort 2

Cohort 3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

# o

f st

ud

en

ts

Score

Test 2 Score Distribution for freshmen

Cohort 2

Cohort 3


50

The overall increase in the percentage of students satisfying the benchmark score from Test 1 to

Test 2 is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Comparison of student performances on the two tests

4. Interpretation

The conclusions that can be drawn from the performance analysis of the two tests given to junior

and freshman students are summarized below:

In general, the overall performance of all the classes has improved on Test 2 as compared

to Test 1.

The number of students satisfying the benchmark score increases significantly for junior

cohorts 1 and 3 (approximately 30% increase) as well as freshman cohorts 2

(approximately 22% increase) and 3 (approximately 31% increase) on Test 2 as compared

to Test 1.

The overall percentage of students satisfying the benchmark score on the final test is

relatively low (approximately 47% of juniors and 63% of freshmen).

Students at the junior level in the ECE program at Nanjing campus have already taken the

following Math courses at NUPT during their first two years of study in the Bachelor’s program:

Calculus I, II, III, Linear Algebra and Differential Equations. However, their performance on Test 1

that assesses their background knowledge in some of the topics related to the above subjects is

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

JuniorCohort 1

JuniorCohort 2

JuniorCohort 3

FreshmanCohort 2

FreshmanCohort 3

% o

f st

ud

en

ts s

atis

fyin

g b

en

chm

ark

sco

re

Class

Comparison of performance on the two tests

Test 1

Test 2


51

poor. Since their background knowledge is weak, they find it difficult to cope with the new

material being taught in the course resulting in low scores on Test 2. This should be a serious

matter of concern as many of these students plan to apply for Graduate school and some of them

go to NY to finish their final year of Bachelor’s program.

5. Improvements - Planned

i) Action Items

The following suggestions may help in improving the overall knowledge and performance of

students related to mathematics, science and engineering in the future:

a) Students in both the groups seem to have weak mathematical skills, which is evident from the low average scores on Test 1. One way of improving this situation would be to open a “Math Center”, where students can get help in clarifying their doubts related to basic mathematical concepts. Senior students with good Math skills could be hired on an hourly basis to work at such centers.

b) Another remedial action that may improve this situation would be to allocate all

mathematical courses in SoECS to NYIT faculty members rather than NUPT faculty members.

ii) Future Assessment Plan

If the assessment committee member decides to test the same program outcome next year, then it is recommended that he/she use a similar testing strategy for other courses in the ECE department to contribute further to such analysis.


52

Global Outcome Assessment

Description

1. Goals

Global Outcome: “Ethical/Moral and Civic Engagement: Students understand ethical concepts,

how different cultures define ethical or moral behavior, and gain a fuller understanding of the

responsibilities of citizenship.”

2. Method

A short survey of 10 minute duration with 6 multiple choice questions was administered to the

ECE junior and freshman students during the last week of classes in the fall 2016 semester. The

list of participants is the same as in the study for assessing the program outcome. The survey was

conducted on the Blackboard website for the individual courses. The survey was divided into the

following two parts:

A) Civic Engagement Questions

The first three questions of the survey focused on the civic engagement aspect of the global

outcome. These questions required a simple yes or no answer. The corresponding questions are

mentioned below:

Q1) Have you participated in community service via internships and/or field placements?

Q2) Have you personally walked, ran, or bicycled for a charitable cause – this is separate from

sponsoring or giving money to this type of event?

Q3) Have you volunteered or done any voluntary community service for no pay?

(Note that the questions 1 and 2 above have been adapted from the “Civic Engagement Quiz”

[1])

B) Ethical/Moral Questions

The next three questions were based on the ethical/moral aspect of the global outcome and

required the students to select the most appropriate multiple-choice option. The corresponding

questions are mentioned below:

Q4) Attitude towards Cheating


53

(a) I have cheated on my school work/exams while in high school/college

(b) It is acceptable for me to cheat in a non-major class

(c) I think cheating is a non-ethical way of earning more points

Q5) Shoplifting Dilemma

Your community has been plagued with stealing, and many small shops have had to close

recently. At the market one day you see an obviously poor person stealing food. No one else

seems aware of what this person is doing. A sign in the store window warns that shoplifters will

be fully prosecuted. The person sees you and realizes that you know what is happening. The

person begs you not to tell. What would you do?

(a) Call the manager right away

(b) Let person go, then tell manager later

(c) Threaten the person if they’re ever seen again

(d) Do nothing

Q6) Luddite Dilemma

You are employed by a company that is replacing many jobs with computerized systems. Even

though you are not at risk, fellow employees in your department are losing their jobs. You

discover that a good friend of yours is part of a group that is intentionally damaging the computer

systems in order to try to save jobs. What would you do?

(a) Tell the friend to confess or you will turn him/her in

(b) Tell the manager without exposing your friend

(c) Hide evidence of your friend’s guilt

(d) Do nothing

(Note that the questions 5 and 6 above are based on the “Maricopa Values and Ethics Survey”

[2])


54

3. Analysis

A) Civic Engagement Results

The responses obtained from the junior and freshman students to the first three questions on

the survey dealing with civic engagement aspect of the global outcome are shown in Table 1 and

2 respectively. The corresponding charts depicting these responses are shown in Figure 1 and

Figure 2 respectively.

Options Junior Cohort 1 Junior Cohort 2 Junior Cohort 3

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q1 Q2 Q3

Yes 44.8% 44.8% 93.1% 48.4% 48.4% 83.9% 62.1% 34.5% 69%

No 55.2% 55.2% 6.9% 48.4% 48.4% 12.9% 31% 58.6% 27.6%

Table 1: Responses by junior students to questions 1, 2 and 3 on the survey

Options Freshman Cohort 2 Freshman Cohort 3

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q1 Q2 Q3

Yes 44.8% 51.7% 82.8% 64.5% 48.4% 96.8%

No 55.2% 48.3% 17.2% 35.5% 51.6% 3.2%

Table 2: Responses by freshman students to questions 1, 2 and 3 on the survey

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 2 3

% o

f re

spo

nd

en

ts

Question #

Junior Cohort 1

Yes

No

Unanswered


55

Figure 1: Charts depicting the responses by junior students to questions 1, 2 and 3 on the survey

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 2 3

% o

f re

spo

nd

en

ts

Question #

Junior Cohort 2

Yes

No

Unanswered

0

20

40

60

80

1 2 3

% o

f re

spo

nd

en

ts

Question #

Junior Cohort 3

Yes

No

Unanswered

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1 2 3

% o

f re

spo

nd

en

ts

Question #

Freshman Cohort 2

Yes

No

Unanswered


56

Figure 2: Charts depicting the responses by freshman students to questions 1, 2 and 3 on the survey

B) Attitude towards Cheating

The students’ attitude towards cheating is depicted by Figure 3 and the corresponding responses are

shown in Table 3.

Figure 3: Chart depicting the response to question 4 on the survey

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 2 3

% o

f re

spo

nd

en

ts

Question #

Freshman Cohort 3

Yes

No

Unanswered

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

(a) (b) (c) Unanswered

% o

f re

spo

nd

en

ts

Options

Attitude towards Cheating

Junior Cohort 1

Junior Cohort 2

Junior Cohort 3

Freshman Cohort 2

Freshman Cohort 3


57

Options Junior Cohort 1

Junior Cohort 2

Junior Cohort 3

Freshman Cohort 2

Freshman Cohort 3

(a) 3.4% 9.7% 6.9% 6.9% 0%

(b) 0% 9.7% 3.4% 0% 0%

(c) 96. 6% 77.4% 79.3% 93.1% 100%

Table 3: Responses to question 4 on the survey

C) Responses to Dilemmas

The responses of the junior and freshmen students to the “Shoplifting dilemma” and “Luddite dilemma”

are shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5 respectively.

Response to Q5 Response to Q6

37.9%

48.3%

3.4%10.4%

Junior Cohort 1

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

62.1%27.6%

0%10.3%

Junior Cohort 1

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

35.5%

35.5%

3.2%

22.6%

3.2%

Junior Cohort 2

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Unanswered

61.3%22.6%

0%12.9%

3.2%

Junior Cohort 2

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Unanswered


58

Figure 4: Charts depicting the responses given by juniors to questions 5 and 6 on the survey

Response to Q5 Response to Q6

Figure 5: Charts depicting the responses given by freshmen to questions 5 and 6 on the survey

31%

44.8%

6.9%

6.9%

10.4%

Junior Cohort 3

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Unanswered

51.7%24.1%

6.9%

6.9%

10.4%

Junior Cohort 3

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Unanswered

20.7%

58.6%

6.9% 13.8%

Freshman Cohort 2

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

58.6%

37.9%

0%3.5%

Freshman Cohort 2

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

51.6%35.5%

9.7%

3.2%

Freshman Cohort 3

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)64.5%

32.3%

0% 3.2%

Freshman Cohort 3

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)


59

4. Interpretation

The following conclusions can be drawn based on the responses to the survey questions:

Most of the survey respondents (approximately 80% of juniors and 90% of freshmen)

have done voluntary community service.

However, only a small fraction of these students (approximately 50% of juniors and

freshmen) have been involved in community service via internship/externship or have

walked, ran or bicycled for a charitable cause.

Freshman students think more strongly about cheating as a non-ethical way of earning

more points as compared to junior students.

Junior students are more involved in cheating and think that cheating is an acceptable

way to earn more points (approximate 11% of juniors) as compared to freshman students.

A majority of the students select either option (a) or (b) for both these dilemmas. Note

that option (a) for both these questions seems to be the most justice oriented response,

while option (b) represents a middle ground approach.

5. Improvements - Planned

i) Action Items

a) A set of guidelines and options for community service via internships/externships in Nanjing should be developed and disseminated to all the students to educate them as well as to assist them in understanding the importance of such work.

b) NYIT Nanjing campus could arrange a “Community Day” for all its students, where

students are given a day off from their regular classes to participate in community service.

c) A significant percentage of junior students have either been involved in cheating or think

that it is acceptable to cheat in order to earn more points. A shift in this attitude can be

brought about by informing the students about the pitfalls of cheating and educating

them on the importance of one’s original work.


60

ii) Future Assessment Plan

If the assessment committee decides to test the same global outcome next year, then it is recommended that they use a similar set of questions for civic engagement to assess if the student involvement in community service via internships/externships has increased. Additionally, testing students’ attitude towards cheating would provide valuable data for the NYIT-Nanjing program.

References

[1] “Civic Engagement Quiz”, Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and

Engagement, Tufts University, 2006.

[2] “Maricopa Values and Ethics Survey”, The Institute of Global Ethics, Maricopa Community

Colleges, 2001.

Documents

NYIT Annual Program Assessment Report, June 2017 Annual Program Assessment Report, June 2017 47 3. Analysis (Note: For convenience, percentage values in this report have been rounded