Student Learning Outcomes Electrical Engineering

CRITERION 3. STUDENT OUTCOMES

A. Student Outcomes The student outcomes are identical to the listed (a) through (k) outcomes in Criterion 3. The student outcomes are documented on the department website.

Electrical Engineering Program Outcomes The graduates of the Electrical Engineering program must have:

(a) an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering. (b) an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret

data;

(c) an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability;

(d) an ability to function on 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; and

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

B. Relationship of Student Outcomes to Program Educational Objectives Student outcomes support the Program Educational Objectives as shown in Table 3.B.1. The objectives are made up of two general categories – career success and success in continued studies.

The career success requires all student outcomes as they require technical, business, communication, professionalism, and individual outcome categories. The success in continued studies focuses on technical, communication, and individual outcome categories.

Electrical Engineering: Student Learning Outcomes Assessment - WWU - Selected Pages from ABET Self-study

Objective and Evidence Student Outcomes Success in their chosen profession as evidenced by:

career satisfaction a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k career advancement a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k life-long learning h, i, j professional visibility b, c, e, g, h, i, j entrepreneurial activities d, f, g, h, i, j

success in continued studies as evidenced by: satisfaction with the decision to further their education

a, b, c, e, g, i

graduate and professional degrees earned, and/or a, b, c, e, g, i academic credits earned. i

Table 3.B.1 Outcomes Support of PEOs


CRITERION 4. CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT Part A of this section documents the process by which the EE program regularly assesses and evaluates the extent to which the student outcomes are being attained, as well as the extent to which those outcomes are being attained. It also describes the systematic course assessment process utilized to improve the courses and, indirectly, the student outcomes.

Part B of this section describes examples of how the results of these and other systematic processes have been utilized to effect the continuous improvement of the program.

A. Student Outcomes The continuous improvement process used to regularly assess student outcomes is shown in Figure 4.A.1.

Figure 4.A.1 Continuous Improvement Process – Student Outcome Assessment

1. Student Outcome Assessment Process

The assessment process, P1, is used to measure the attainment of each student outcome (D1).

Each student outcome from Criterion 3 is measured using various methodologies (D2). A set of methodologies is defined for each student outcome as shown in Table 4.A.2. Here is a short description of each methodology.


Selected Coursework. A homework question(s), quiz, exam question(s), or lab is selected that directly measures the attainment of the student outcome. Sample coursework used in the assessment process are shown in Appendix E.

FE Exam. With support from the IAC, it has been decided to have the program require the EE students take the FE Exam during their senior year. Results will be evaluated as direct measures for the attainment of outcomes (a), (b), (c), (e), and (f). However, the State of Washington does not allow our seniors to take the exam unless the program in accredited. So this measure will not be used until the 2017-18 academic year.

Senior Project. The senior project courses, provide multiple opportunities for direct measures of student outcomes. Typically these involve the project proposals, descriptions, and design reviews. The senior project course numbers are: EE 491, EE 492, and EE 493 for the Electronics concentration, and EE 471, EE 472, and EE 473 for the Energy concentration. The Energy senior project courses will not be offered until the 2016-17 year so new measures will be identified at that time.

Senior Survey. As required, senior survey(s) are given to each graduating senior during spring quarter. It can provide both direct and indirect measures.

Grade Distributions. The grades received in some courses, or set of courses, provide a direct measure of the attainment of a student outcome(s).

The EE program director and program faculty share the responsibility of measuring student outcomes. If the assessment is made in a specific course, the responsibility is normally assigned to the faculty member that is teaching the course during the quarter when the assessment is made. This is normally the course coordinator. If not, the course coordinator works with the faculty member teaching the course to develop and coordinate the assessment.

The Course Specifications (D3) are the ‘official syllabi’ for each course. They contain all information required for Appendix A including the mapping of course outcomes of instruction to the student outcomes, which helps guide in the selection of the assessment methodologies. In addition, most program changes for continuous improvement are course changes so these changes are reflected in the course specifications. All course specifications can be found in Appendix A.

The assessment data along with other data are evaluated by the EE program faculty during a program evaluation meeting (P2). This meeting occurs at least once a year at the end of spring quarter. The program director is responsible for holding the meeting. The program director and the EE faculty evaluate the assessment results and propose changes to assessment methodologies or changes to the program to improve the attainment of the student outcomes.

Proposed changes are presented to the Industrial Advisory Committee for feedback (P3). This feedback is contained in the IAC meeting minutes, which will be made available in the displayed materials during the visit. The program faculty then make the final decision of the changes to be made for improvement.


If the change involves a catalog change, which includes the course number, title, description, and prerequisites, the proposed changes must be approved by the department faculty, the College of Science and Engineering Curriculum Committee, and the University’s Academic Coordinating Committee. If not, the changes are made in the appropriate documents and the loop is complete.

2. Frequency of the Assessment Processes

The assessment processes are carried out every year based on the schedule shown in Table 4.A.2. This table is modified each year based on the results of an assessment and if a measure needs to be re-assessed. At minimum, each student outcome is assessed every three years. As can be seen in Table 4.A.2, not all measures for each student outcome were measured this year. This is because of the transition of the program and the logistics of coordinating all measures. For example, the FE Exam is not available to our students until the program is accredited so assessment of the FE Exam results will not start until the 2017-18 year. After this initial transition, the schedule will have all measures for a given student outcome assessed in the same year.

3. Expected Level of Attainment

The expected levels of attainment for the measures vary and are always being evaluated and improved. The current targets are described in the summaries in Section 4. As part of visualizing the attainment of the outcome, a ‘colored light’ system is used. This allows for a range of results rather than simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. Table 4.A.1 shows the meaning of each color and a typical example metric. In the metric, NE is the number of students that achieved the measure at an exemplary level, NS is the number of students that achieved the measure at a satisfactory level, ND is the number of students that achieved the measure at a developing level and, NU is the number of students that achieved the measure at an unsatisfactory level. This system can be seen in the summary of recent results in Table 4.A.2.

Color Meaning Example Metric The outcome is attained for the given

target. Action is not required. NS+NE > 70%

The outcome is marginally attained at the targeted level. Action may be required.

(NU>10%) OR (ND>20%)

The outcome is not attained at the targeted level. Action is required

NU + ND > 30%

The outcome is attained but at such a high level that it may not be a valid measure.

NE = 100%

Table 4.A.1 Color System for Showing the Level of Attainment

4. Summaries of the Results of Student Outcomes Assessment

The current assessment schedule with a description of the measures for each student outcome is shown in Table 4.A.2. This table shows the results of the assessment during the 2015-16 year using the color system described above. It also shows the


schedule for the next three years as determined during the June 2016 program evaluation meeting. Since this was our first year offering all of the courses, we assessed all of the student outcomes. The table shows that after this year, the schedule transitions so each student outcome will be assessed and evaluated, at least, every three years.

Table 4.A.2 Assessment Schedule and Methodologies

A – Assess and Evaluate, a – Assess Only, R – Re-Assess


Student Outcome (a). As shown in Table 4.A.2 three measures were made for outcome (a) during the 2015-16 year. A summary of the evaluation meeting for outcome (a) can be found in Appendix E.

In EE310, Problem 2 of the final exam given spring 2016 was selected. This final can be found in Appendix E. For this measure, 86% of the students attained the outcome. This meets the target of 70% however, there was a discussion that the students were having trouble with complex numbers in this problem so it was decided to add a review and short quiz for complex numbers and re-assess in the 2015-16 year.

In EE220, the final exam given winter 2016, less problems 6d, 6e, and 7, was selected. This final can be found in Appendix E. For this measure, only 30% of the students attained the outcome. This falls well below the target of 70%. This result does support our decision to revise the outcomes of instruction and topics covered in the electronics series, including EE 220. With this change in progress, we will find a better measure and also evaluate the target then re-assess in the 2015-16 year.

In EE460, Quiz 3 given fall 2015 was selected. This quiz can be found in Appendix E. For this measure, 55% of the students attained the outcome. This again falls below the target of 70%. In this case, it was felt that this was too small a sample size to justify any changes. Therefore, we will re-assess in the 2015-16 year.

These three measures indicate that changes are required and this outcome be re-assessed in 2016-17. Based on this re-assessment along with assessing another measure from EE 378, we will have a better idea if we are falling short with this student outcome and need to make some more significant changes.

Student Outcome (b). As shown in Table 4.A.2 three measures were made for outcome (b) during the 2015-16 year. A summary of the evaluation meeting for outcome (b) can be found in Appendix E.

In EE333, a homework problem and an exam question given in spring 2016 were selected. These two problem involved design of a test fixture to fully test a HDL design. These problems can be found in Appendix E. For this measure, 55% of the students attained the outcome. This falls below the target of 70%. During the evaluation, it was decided that an exam was not the best measure for this outcome. Therefore, a lab will be used for the measure and it will be re-assessed during the 2016-17 year.

In EE444, the student’s incorporation of debugging methods in Lab3 was selected. This final can be found in Appendix E. For this measure, only 44% of the students attained the outcome. This falls well below the target of 70%. During evaluation, it was decided that the grading rubric needed modification to directly measure this part of the lab. Before major changes are made, this will be re-assessed in the 2015-16 year.

In EE493, the Test and Verification Plan during the Software System Review was selected. The rubric can be found in Appendix E. For this measure, 44% of the students attained the outcome. This again falls below the target of 70%. In this case,


it was felt better explanation of the expectations for a Test and Verification plan is needed. This will be incorporated into the course next year we will re-assess.

These three measures indicate that students are not attaining this outcome at the targeted level. The changes described will be made and this outcome be re-assessed in 2016-17. Based on this re-assessment along with assessing another measure from EE 480, we will have a better idea if we are falling short with this student outcome and need to make some more significant changes.

Student Outcome (c). As shown in Table 4.A.2 four measures were made for outcome (c) during the 2015-16 year. A summary of the evaluation meeting for outcome (c) can be found in Appendix E.

In EE491, the proposal and description required in fall 2015 were selected. The proposal requires the students identify realistic constraints and the description require the students to incorporate the constraints into specifications and standards. The rubrics can be found in Appendix E. For this measure, 88% of the students attained the outcome. This meets the target of 70%. During the evaluation, it was decided no action was required at this time.

In EE492, the student’s meeting the hardware design and fabrication specifications was selected. This data can be found in Appendix E. For this measure, 89% of the students attained the outcome. This meets the target of 70%. During evaluation, it was decided that feedback based on functional tested should be added to the measure to show student success. This change will be made before the next assessment.

In EE493, the Code Review was selected. The rubric can be found in Appendix E. For this measure, 67% of the students attained the outcome. This falls slightly below the target of 70%. During evaluation it was decided that no change was needed based on the sample size and the distance from the target.

To get feedback from the IAC members, we asked them to fill out a survey during the senior project demonstration. This survey only addressed the constraints considered in the student design and asked for other constraints that should have been considered. Two out of seven project did not address constraints at a satisfactory level so this falls short of the target of 70%. During evaluation it was decided that this indirect measure, by itself, did not warrant changes. The most value from this survey was in the suggested constraints listed. These constraints will be added to the documentation for next year’s projects.

These four measures indicate that students are attaining this outcome at the targeted level. The changes described will be made before the next assessment of this outcome.

Student Outcome (d). As shown in Table 4.A.2 three measures were made for outcome (d) during the 2015-16 year. A summary of the evaluation meeting for outcome (d) can be found in Appendix E.

In EE444, two team projects given in spring 2016 were selected – Lab2 and Lab4. For this measure, results of the student questionnaire showed that the students attained the outcome beyond the target. One area that two teams identified as not


meeting the target was “Completed individual assignments on time”. During the evaluation, it was decided that a better discussion of the tradeoffs in Agile decisions needs to be added. This change will be made before the next scheduled assessment.

In EE493, the project teamwork questionnaire was selected. This questionnaire can be found in Appendix E. For this measure, only 89% of the students attained the outcome. This meets the target of 70%. During evaluation, it was decided that no changes are needed.

In EE110, the teamwork effectiveness for the final project was selected. The rubric can be found in Appendix E. For this measure, 94% of the students attained the outcome. This again meets the target of 70%. During evaluation, it was decided that one or more specific teamwork questions were needed in the report. This change will be made before the next scheduled assessment.

These three measures indicate that students are attaining this outcome at the targeted level. The changes described will be made and this outcome will be assessed during the 2018-19 year.

Student Outcome (e). As shown in Table 4.A.2 two measures were made for outcome (e) during the 2015-16 year. A summary of the evaluation meeting for outcome (e) can be found in Appendix E.

In EE444, Lab4 given in Winter 2016 was selected. This lab can be found in Appendix E. 67% of the student attained this outcome at a satisfactory level or higher. During the evaluation, too much time was required for Lab 2 and this took away time for the students to learn the material for Lab4. This change will be made and this measure will be re-assessed during the 2016-17 year.

In EE491 and EE493, the project description, system software review and code review were selected. The rubrics can be found in Appendix E. For this measure, only 44% of the students attained the outcome. This falls short of the target of 70%. During evaluation, it was decided that no changes should be made at this point and the measure will be re-assessed during the 2016-17 year.

These two measures indicate that students are not attaining this outcome at the targeted level. The changes described will be made and this outcome will be re-assessed along with another measure from EE372 during the 2016-17 year.

Student Outcome (f). As shown in Table 4.A.2 three measures were made for outcome (f) during the 2015-16 year. A summary of the evaluation meeting for outcome (f) can be found in Appendix E.

The first measure selected is that there should be no incidents of plagiarism reported during the year. This is a practical measure that would directly measure the students understanding of their ethical responsibility. While this zero tolerance is a reflection of the program expectations of the students, it may not end up being a good measure. There were no incidences this past year and while faculty are encouraged to report incidents, this may actually have the opposite effect. It was decided to try this one more time next year to fill in until the FE Exam is used as a measure for this outcome.


In EE111, the results of a plagiarism scan on the student contemporary issues paper was selected. The data can be found in Appendix E. For this measure, 88% of the students attained the outcome. This falls well below the target of 90%. During evaluation, it was decided that no changes were needed at this time.

In EE493, the Ethics quiz was selected. The quiz can be found in Appendix E. For this measure, 78% of the students attained the outcome. This meets the target of 70%. During evaluation, it was decided that no changes were needed at this time.

These three measures indicate that students are attaining this outcome at the targeted level. The outcome will be assessed again during the 2017-18 year.

Student Outcome (g). As shown in Table 4.A.2 two measures were made for outcome (g) during the 2015-16 year. A summary of the evaluation meeting for outcome (g) can be found in Appendix E.

The first measure selected is seniors’ grade distribution for ENG302 – Technical Writing. The course syllabus can be found in Appendix E. For this measure, 100% of the students attained the outcome. This meets the target of 90% but deserves a ‘blue light’ indicating that it may be a poor measure or target. During evaluation, it was decided that no changes were needed at this time beyond the possible adjustment of the target level.

In EE 491 the proposal and description were selected for written communications and in EE493, the design reviews were selected. The rubrics can be found in Appendix E. For this measure, 89% of the students attained the outcome. This meets the target of 70%. During evaluation, it was decided that no changes were needed at this time.

These two measures indicate that students are attaining this outcome at the targeted level. However, the target may need to be adjusted for the ENG302 GPA. The outcome will be assessed again during the 2018-19 year.

Student Outcome (h). As shown in Table 4.A.2 two measures were made for outcome (h) during the 2015-16 year. A summary of the evaluation meeting for outcome (h) can be found in Appendix E.

In EE 491, the proposal was selected. The rubric can be found in Appendix E. For this measure, 100% of the students attained the outcome at the satisfactory or exemplary level. This meets the target of 70%. During evaluation, it was decided that no changes were needed at this time.

The second measure selected is seniors’ grade distribution in the General University Requirements’ (GURs) HUM, SSC, and CGM categories. The description of the GUR’s can be found in Appendix E. For this measure, 83% of the students attained the outcome. This meets the target of 70%. During evaluation, it was decided that no changes were needed at this time.

These two measures indicate that students are attaining this outcome at the targeted level. The outcome will be assessed again along with two new measures in EE378 and EE492 during the 2018-19 year.


Student Outcome (i). As shown in Table 4.A.2 two measures were made for outcome (i) during the 2015-16 year. A summary of the evaluation meeting for outcome (i) can be found in Appendix E. These two measures were combined into one result.

In EE 491, the proposal research was selected and in EE493 the use of new parts or technology used in the project was used. The rubric can be found in Appendix E. The results for these two measures were averaged together. For this measure, 100% of the students attained the outcome at a satisfactory or exemplary level. This meets the target of 70%. During evaluation, it was decided that no changes were needed at this time.

This measure indicates that students are attaining this outcome at the targeted level. However, it was noted that additional measures are required for the next assessment. Measures in EE492, EE378, and a senior survey will be added before the outcome is assessed again during the 2017-18 year.

Student Outcome (j). As shown in Table 4.A.2 two measures were made for outcome (j) during the 2015-16 year. A summary of the evaluation meeting for outcome (j) can be found in Appendix E.

In EE 111, the students were required to write a paper on contemporary issues. The rubric can be found in Appendix E. For this measure, 28% of the students attained the outcome. This falls well below the target of 70%. During evaluation, it was decided that no changes were needed at this time beyond the possible adjustment of the target level. Because of the developmental nature of this paper, the development level of attainment should be considered during the next assessment. It was also decided that this paper would be assigned every year to collect data that may be correlated with the contemporary issues essay in EE492.

The second measure selected is seniors’ grade distribution in the General University Requirements’ (GURs) HUM, SSC, and CGM categories. The description of the GUR’s can be found in Appendix E. For this measure, 83% of the students attained the outcome. This meets the target of 70%. During evaluation, it was decided that no changes were needed at this time.

These two measures indicate that students may be attaining this outcome at the targeted level. However, the target may need to be adjusted for the EE 111 paper. The outcome will be assessed again along with one new measure in EE492 during the 2018-19 year.

Student Outcome (k). As shown in Table 4.A.2 three measures were made for outcome (k) during the 2015-16 year. A summary of the evaluation meeting for outcome (k) can be found in Appendix E.

In EE 344, Lab1 was selected. The lab can be found in Appendix E. For this measure, 87.5% of the students attained the outcome. This meets the target of 70%. During evaluation, it was decided that no changes were needed at this time.

In EE 492, successful use of the Altium software was selected. The data can be found in Appendix E. For this measure, 100% of the students attained the outcome.


This meets the target of 70%. During evaluation, it was decided that no changes were needed at this time.

In EE 433, Lab1 was selected. The lab can be found in Appendix E. For this measure, 100% of the students attained the outcome. This meets the target of 70% however this deserves a ‘blue light’ as it may not be a good target level or measure. During evaluation, it was decided that no changes were needed at this time beyond adjusting the target level for the EE433 lab.

These three measures indicate that students are attaining this outcome at the targeted level. However, the target may need to be adjusted for the EE 433 lab. The outcome will be assessed again along with one new measure in EE480 during the 2018-19 year.

5. Documentation and Maintenance

All student outcome evaluations are recorded on an evaluation form and are saved, along with supporting documentation, on a shared drive in the DisplayMaterials folder.

6. Course Assessment

In addition to the student outcome assessment process the program has a systematic course-level assessment process to assure the courses’ outcomes of instruction, and indirectly the student outcomes, are being attained. Figure 4.A.2 shows the course assessment process.

Figure 4.A.2 Continuous Improvement Process – Course Outcome Assessment

Course assessment follows a process very similar to the student outcomes process. Faculty may informally do this course assessment every time the course is taught however each course must be formally assessed every three years.


Table 4.A.3 shows the course review schedule. The courses are assessed on a three year cycle. All courses with the exception of the senior project and energy courses have been assessed so far. The remaining courses will be assessed during the 2016-17 year.

Course assessment results and evaluation forms will be made available in the display materials at the time of the visit.

Table 4.A.3 Course Assessment Schedule


Documents

Student Learning Outcomes Electrical Engineering