Home
º Office & Courses
Taught º Education & Publications
EET Vision & Mission
º EET
Degress & Courses º Assessment Plan º
Program
Objectives º Program Outcomes º
Performance Criteria
º Course Mapping
º Course Outcomes
º Accreditation
º Measured Program
Outcomes
º EETA (the EET student club)
MEASURED PROGRAM OUTCOMES
Statement:
An
ability to conduct, analyze and interpret experiments and apply
experimental results to improve processes.
Performance
Criteria:
|
|
a |
Observes
good laboratory safety procedures |
|
|
b |
Formulates
an experimental plan of data gathering to attain a stated objective |
|
|
c |
Carefully
documents data collected |
|
|
d |
Can
select appropriate equipment and instruments to perform the experiment |
|
|
e |
Is
able to operate instrumentation and other relevant equipment |
Measured
in Course #, Course
Name in Semester Year:
2860: 225; Applications of Electronic Devices; Fall 2007.
2860: 238; Microprocessor Applications; Spring 2008
Assessment
Methods Used:
Direct measures:
2860: 225; Course outcomes were assessed by the course instructor. These outcomes were used to assess the program outcomes.
2860: 238; Faculty evaluation was used for the performance criteria for each student and the results were averaged.
Indirect measures:
Exit surveys were used for students graduating from the program.
Results:
In 2860: 225 the outcomes were
estimated by how many
students were able to achieve a satisfactory level in the lab
exercises. The
performance criteria were not developed at the time of measurement.
87.5% of the students could perform at or above a
satisfactory level in
the lab.
In 2860: 238 the outcomes were
estimated from observations
in the lab. At this time performance criteria had been developed and
approved.
The results are summarized in means.
|
Performance
Criteria |
Percent
of Students Performing at or above Satisfactory Level |
|
a |
81.8 |
|
b |
90.9 |
|
c |
72.7 |
|
d |
100 |
|
e |
100 |
|
Average: |
89.1% |
Graphically this is:
Thus
the overall average of program
outcome 3 is 88.25%.
From the exit surveys the students
felt that the outcome was
achieved 100% of the time. In the surveys the
individual performance
criteria were not estimated.
Actions:
Performance criteria that cross the 80% level are being considered satisfactory. The only performance criteria that falls below that level is c (i.e., carefully documents collected data). To alleviate the problem of careful documentation during experiments, the students will be asked to document everything they do and as precisely as they can.
Statement:
An
ability to apply creativity in the design of systems, components
or processes appropriate to program objectives.
Performance
Criteria:
|
|
a |
Develops
a design strategy, including a plan of attack, decomposition of work
into subtasks, development of a timetable |
|
|
b |
Understands
how areas interrelate and demonstrates ability to integrate prior
knowledge into a new problem |
|
|
c |
Thinks
holistically: sees the whole as well as the parts |
|
|
d |
Supports
design procedure with documentation and references |
Measured
in Course #, Course
Name in Semester Year:
2860: 260; Electronic Projects; Spring 2008.
Assessment
Methods Used:
Direct measures:
2860: 260; Faculty evaluation was used for the performance criteria for each student and the results were averaged.
Indirect measures:
Exit surveys were used for students graduating from the program.
Results:
In 2860: 260 the outcomes were
estimated from observations
in the lab. At this time performance criteria had been developed and
approved.
The results are summarized in means.
|
Performance
Criteria |
Percent
of Students Performing at or above Satisfactory Level |
|
a |
100.0 |
|
b |
91.7 |
|
c |
83.3 |
|
d |
75.0 |
|
Average: |
87.5% |
Graphically this is:
Thus
the overall average of program
outcome 4 is 87.5%.
From the exit surveys the students
felt that the outcome was
achieved 100% of the time. In the surveys the
individual performance
criteria were not estimated.
Actions:
Performance criteria that cross the 80% level are being considered satisfactory. The only performance criteria that falls below that level is d (i.e., supports design procedures with documentation and references). To alleviate the problem of careful documentation, the students will be asked to document everything they do and as precisely as they can.
Statement:
An
ability to identify, analyze and solve technical problems.
Performance
Criteria:
|
|
a |
Demonstrates
creative synthesis of solution and creates new alternatives by
combining knowledge and information |
|
|
b |
Demonstrates
understanding of how various pieces of the problem relate to each other
and the whole |
|
|
c |
Formulates
strategies for solving problems |
|
|
d |
The
answer is correct and properly labeled |
Measured
in Course #, Course
Name in Semester Year:
2860: 260; Electronic Projects; Spring 2008.
Assessment
Methods Used:
Direct measures:
2860: 260; Faculty evaluation was used for the performance criteria for each student and the results were averaged.
Indirect measures:
Exit surveys were used for students graduating from the program.
Results:
In 2860: 260 the outcomes were
estimated from observations
in the lab. At this time performance criteria had been developed and
approved.
The results are summarized in means.
|
Performance
Criteria |
Percent
of Students Performing at or above Satisfactory Level |
|
a |
83.3 |
|
b |
83.3 |
|
c |
100.0 |
|
d |
83.3 |
|
Average: |
87.5% |
Graphically this is:
Thus
the overall average of program
outcome 5 is 87.5%.
From the exit surveys the students
felt that the outcome was
achieved 100% of the time. In the surveys the
individual performance
criteria were not estimated.
Actions:
Performance criteria that cross the 80% level are being considered satisfactory. None of the performance criteria that falls below that level. At this point no intervention is necessary.
Statement:
An
ability to communicate effectively.
Performance
Criteria:
|
|
a |
Articulates
ideas clearly and concisely |
|
|
b |
Organizes
written materials in a logical sequence to enhance the reader's
comprehension |
|
|
c |
Written
work is presented neatly and professionally |
|
|
d |
Oral
presentation has enough detail appropriate and technical content for
the time constraint and the audience |
|
|
e |
Listens
carefully and responds to questions appropriately; is able to explain
and interpret results for various audiences and purposes |
Measured
in Course #, Course
Name in Semester Year:
2860: 260; Electronic Projects; Spring 2008.
Assessment
Methods Used:
Direct measures:
2860: 260; Faculty evaluation was used for the performance criteria for each student and the results were averaged.
Indirect measures:
Exit surveys were used for students graduating from the program.
Results:
In 2860: 260 the outcomes were
estimated from observations
in the lab. At this time performance criteria had been developed and
approved.
The results are summarized in means.
|
Performance
Criteria |
Percent
of Students Performing at or above Satisfactory Level |
|
a |
75.0 |
|
b |
91.7 |
|
c |
100.0 |
|
d |
91.7 |
|
e |
100.0 |
|
Average: |
91.67% |
Graphically this is:
Thus
the overall average of program
outcome 7 is 91.7%.
From the exit surveys the students
felt that the outcome was
achieved 100% of the time. In the surveys the
individual performance
criteria were not estimated.
Actions:
Performance criteria that cross the 80% level are being considered satisfactory. The only performance criteria that falls below that level is a (i.e., articulates ideas clearly and concisely). To alleviate this problem the students will be asked to write down their ideas and plan their work before execution.
Statement:
A
commitment to quality, timeliness, and continuous improvement.
Performance
Criteria:
|
|
a |
Student
completes lab work, homework reports and assignments accurately and is
meticulous in his/her work |
|
|
b |
Can
prioritize different assignments and activities by their importance and
criticality |
|
|
c |
Can
comply by any standard that needs to be abided by |
|
|
d |
Requests
evaluation and feedback if he/she feels it will improve his/her
performance. |
Measured
in Course #, Course
Name in Semester Year:
2860: 238; Microprocessor Applications; Spring 2008.
Assessment
Methods Used:
Direct measures:
2860: 238; Faculty evaluation was used for the performance criteria for each student and the results were averaged.
Indirect measures:
Exit surveys were used for students graduating from the program.
Results:
In 2860: 238 the outcomes were
estimated from observations
in the lab and lecture. At this time performance criteria had been
developed
and approved. The results are summarized in means.
|
Performance
Criteria |
Percent
of Students Performing at or above Satisfactory Level |
|
a |
81.8 |
|
b |
90.9 |
|
c |
90.9 |
|
d |
90.9 |
|
Average: |
88.6% |
Graphically this is:
Thus
the overall average of program
outcome 8 is 88.6%.
From the exit surveys the students
felt that the outcome was
achieved 100% of the time. In the surveys the
individual performance
criteria were not estimated.
Actions:
Performance criteria that cross the 80% level are being considered satisfactory. None of the performance criteria that falls below that level. At this point no intervention is necessary.
Statement:
The
application of circuit analysis and design, computer programming,
associated software, analog and digital electronics, and microcomputers
to the
building, testing, operation, and maintenance of electrical/electronic
systems.
Performance
Criteria:
|
|
a |
Uses
computer-based and other resources effectively in EET
assignments/projects |
|
|
b |
Is
able to learn and use EET simulation software |
|
|
c |
Is
able to interpret and understand information from a variety of EET
resources |
Measured
in Course #, Course
Name in Semester Year:
2860: 120; Circuit Fundamentals; Fall 2007.
2860: 238; Microprocessor Applications; Spring 2008.
Assessment
Methods Used:
Direct measures:
2860: 120; The outcomes were assessed based on course outcomes which were assessed by the instructor.
2860: 238; Faculty evaluation was used for the performance criteria for each student and the results were averaged.
Indirect measures:
Exit surveys were used for students graduating from the program.
Results:
In 2860: 120 the outcomes were
estimated by how many
students were able to achieve a satisfactory level in the lecture part
of the
course. The performance criteria were not developed at the time of
measurement.
This estimation is not based on the students grades. It was estimated
that
75.0% of the students performed at or above a
satisfactory level.
In 2860: 238 the outcomes were
estimated from observations
in the lab and lecture. At this time performance criteria had been
developed
and approved. The results are summarized in means.
|
Performance
Criteria |
Percent
of Students Performing at or above Satisfactory Level |
|
a |
100.0 |
|
b |
100.0 |
|
c |
81.8 |
|
Average: |
93.94% |
Graphically this is:
Thus
the overall average of program
outcome 12 is 84.97%.
From the exit surveys the students
felt that the outcome was
achieved 100% of the time. In the surveys the
individual performance
criteria were not estimated.
Actions:
Performance criteria that cross the 80% level are being considered satisfactory. None of the performance criteria that falls below that level. Where performance criteria were not used, 75% of the students were estimated to perform at a satisfactory level or above. This was because of the student performance in later topics in the course (concepts related to capacitance, inductance, RL and RC circuits, and RLC circuits; in particular concepts related to the last three topics). Faculty will look at how to present these concepts more effectively in an introductory course.
Statement:
The
applications of physics or chemistry to
electrical/electronic(s) circuits in a rigorous mathematical
environment at or
above the level of algebra and trigonometry.
Performance
Criteria:
|
|
a |
Combines
mathematical and/or scientific principles to formulate models of
processes and systems relevant to EET |
|
|
b |
Applies
appropriate and relevant concepts of mathematics to solve EET problems |
|
|
c |
Shows
appropriate engineering interpretation of mathematical and scientific
terms |
Measured
in Course #, Course
Name in Semester Year:
2860: 237; Digital Fundamentals; Fall 2007.
Assessment
Methods Used:
Direct measures:
2860: 237; Faculty evaluation was used for the performance criteria for each student and the results were averaged.
Indirect measures:
Exit surveys were used for students graduating from the program.
Results:
In 2860: 237 the outcomes were
estimated from the assessment
of pre-requisite course. At this time performance criteria had been
developed
and approved. The results are summarized in means.
|
Performance
Criteria |
Percent
of Students Performing at or above Satisfactory Level |
|
a |
80.0 |
|
b |
90.0 |
|
c |
70.0 |
|
Average: |
80.00% |
Graphically this is:
Thus
the overall average of program
outcome 13 is 80.0%.
From the exit surveys the students
felt that the outcome was
achieved 100% of the time. In the surveys the
individual performance
criteria were not estimated.
Actions:
Performance criteria that cross the 80% level are being considered satisfactory. The only performance criteria that falls below that level is c (i.e., shows appropriate engineering interpretation of mathematical and scientific terms). To alleviate this problem the students will ………………………. ……………………… .
Statement:
The
ability to apply project management techniques to
electrical/electronic(s) systems.
Performance
Criteria:
|
|
a |
Completely
aware of the short-term cost vs. the long-term value of a project
including consideration of immediate financial parameters as opposed to
innovative solutions that may make a project more cost-effective in the
long term |
|
|
b |
Recognizes
the role of project leadership and the value of teamwork to project
success, understands the team-building process and how to apply
team-building techniques to managing projects |
Measured
in Course #, Course
Name in Semester Year:
2860: 260; Electronic Projects; Spring 2008.
Assessment
Methods Used:
Direct measures:
2860: 260; Faculty evaluation was used for the performance criteria for each student and the results were averaged.
Indirect measures:
Exit surveys were used for students graduating from the program.
Results:
In 2860: 238 the outcomes were
estimated from observations
in the lab and lecture. At this time performance criteria had been
developed and
approved. The results are summarized in means.
|
Performance
Criteria |
Percent
of Students Performing at or above Satisfactory Level |
|
a |
83.3 |
|
b |
100.0 |
|
Average: |
91.67% |
Graphically this is:
Thus
the overall average of program
outcome 15 is 91.67%.
From the exit surveys the students
felt that the outcome was
achieved 100% of the time. In the surveys the
individual performance
criteria were not estimated.
Actions:
Performance criteria that cross the 80% level are being considered satisfactory. None of the performance criteria fall below that level. At this point no intervention is necessary.