3 Cycle of Assessment for Program Outcomes

(1)

– Electronics Engineering Technology – 2010-11 Assessment Report

Cristina Crespo & Mateo Aboy

Electrical Engineering & Renewable Energy Department

(2)

1 Introduction

1.1 Program Location

The Bachelor of Science in Electronics Engineering Technology (BSEET) is offered at the Portland West Campus in order to accommodate degree-seeking professionals working for high-tech companies. The West Campus is located at the heart of the high-tech industry cluster (Silicon Forest), minutes away from companies such as Intel, Tektronix, MAXIM, Credence, Lattice, Synopsis, TriQuint, and ESI. Some of the core courses for the degree and technical electives are also available online and at the OIT-Portland East campus.

1.2 Program Goals and Design

The program is designed to prepare graduates to assume engineering and technology positions in the electronics industry. Graduates of the Electronics Engineering Technology Program fulfill a wide range of functions within industry. Bachelor degree graduates are currently placed in positions such as component and system design, test engineering, prod- uct engineering, field engineering, manufacturing engineering, sales or market engineering, and quality control engineering. The program also provides a solid preparation for students intending to continue to graduate school to pursue master’s degrees in engineering, engineering management, and M.B.A.s. Employers of Electronics Engineering Technology graduates include research and development laboratories, electronic equipment manufac- turers, public utilities, colleges and universities, government agencies, medical laboratories and hospitals, electronic equipment distributors, semiconductor companies, and automated electronic controlled processing companies. Recent graduates have been employed at companies such as MAXIM, Tektronix, TriQuint, MSE, and Intel.

The BSEET degree at OIT-Portland is especially suited for working professionals with an associate’s degree in Electronics Engineering Technology, Microelectronics Technology, or equivalent coursework. Students entering the B.S. degree in Electronics Engineering Tech- nology program by transfer are requested to contact the EET Program Director concerning transfer of technical coursework. An accredited Associate of Applied Science (A.A.S.) degree in Electronics or Microelectronics and Calculus-level math is a perfect preparation to start our upper-division coursework. Alternatively, coursework on DC Circuit Analysis, AC Circuit Analysis, Combinational Logic (Digital Circuits), Sequential Logic (Digital Cir- cuits), Semiconductor Devices, and other technical and general education courses provides adequate preparation. Our BSEET program has articulation agreements with the Electron- ics and Microelectronics programs at Portland Community College, Clackamas Community College, and Chemeketa Community College. It is recommended that students start the advising process with OIT right after they complete the first year of their A.A.S. degree.

(4)

needs began to shift more towards hiring graduates of full electrical engineering programs and the BSEET program started to experience significant enrollment declines. A department committee, in consultation with the industry advisory board, recommended that the program change from EET to EE in Klamath Falls, but continue as the BSEET program at OIT-Portland to continue serving degree completion students and working professionals with A.A.S. EET degrees. Once the decision to discontinue the BSEET program from Kla- math Falls was made, the BSEET program underwent a major revision in order to optimize it to address the needs of working professionals and transfer students at OIT-Portland.

These revisions were approved by the Curriculum Planning Commission (CPC) in 2008.

The BSEET program also has strong relationships with industry, particularly through its program-level Industry Advisory Committee and alumni from the EET program. These relationships allow the BSEET program to meet a third institutional mission objective,

“Develop and maintain partnerships with public and private institutions, business and industry, and government agencies to ensure quality programs that meet the needs of students and the organizations that employ them.”

(5)

2 Program Mission, Educational Objectives, and Outcomes

2.1 Program Mission

The mission of the EET Program is to provide a comprehensive program of instruction that will enable graduates to obtain the knowledge and skills necessary for immediate employment and continued advancement in the field of electronics. The department will be a leader in providing career ready candidates for various electronics technology fields. Faculty and students will engage in applied research in emerging technologies and provide professional services to their communities.

2.2 Program Educational Objectives

Program educational objectives are broad statements that describe the career and professional accomplishments that the program is preparing graduates to achieve. The Program Educational Objectives of OIT’s Bachelor of Science in Electronics Engineering Technology are:

• The graduates of the program will possess a strong technical background as well as analytical and problem solving skills, and will contribute in a variety of technical roles within the electronics and high-tech industry. Within three years of graduation, BSEET graduates are expected to be employed as test engineers, characterization engineers, applications engineers, field engineers, hardware engineers, process engineers, and similar engineering technology positions within this industry.

• The graduates of the program will be working as effective team members with excellent oral and written communication skills, assuming technical and managerial leadership roles throughout their career.

• The graduates of the program will be committed to professional development and lifelong learning by engaging in professional and/or graduate education in order to stay current in their field and achieve continued professional growth.

2.3 Relationship Between Program Educational Objectives and Institu- tional Objectives

These program objectives map strongly to two of the six objectives in OIT’s institutional mission statement, particularly the central objectives “Provide degree programs that enable graduates to obtain the knowledge and skills necessary for immediate employment,” and

“Enable students to be effective communicators, responsible citizens, and lifelong learners by assisting them in the development of critical thinking and problem solving skills, and ethical and cultural awareness.”

(6)

2.4 Program Outcomes

The BSEET Program Outcomes include ABET’s TACa−k outcomes as well as the electronics specific l−p outcomes. These are listed below:

a an appropriate mastery of the knowledge, techniques, skills and modern tools of their disciplines.

b an ability to apply current knowledge and adapt to emerging applications of mathematics, science, engineering and technology.

c an ability to conduct, analyze and interpret experiments and apply experimental results to improve processes.

d an ability to apply creativity in the design of systems, components or processes appropriate to program objectives.

e an ability to function effectively on teams.

f an ability to identify, analyze and solve technical problems.

g an ability to communicate effectively.

h an ability to engage in independent learning and recognize the need for continual professional development.

i an ability to understand professional, ethical and social responsibilities.

j a respect for diversity and knowledge of contemporary professional, societal and global issues.

k a commitment to quality, timeliness, and continuous improvement.

l knowledge and hands-on competence in the application of circuit analysis and design, computer programming, associated software, analog and digital electronics, and mi- crocomputers to the building, testing, operation, and maintenance electronic systems.

m knowledge and hands-on competence in the applications of physics to electronics circuits in a rigorous mathematical environment.

n the ability to analyze, design, and implement control systems, instrumentation systems, communications systems, computer systems, or power systems.

o the ability to apply project management techniques to electrical/electronic(s) systems.

p the ability to utilize statistics/probability, transform methods, discrete mathematics, or applied differential equations in support of electronic systems.

(7)

3 Cycle of Assessment for Program Outcomes

3.1 Introduction and Methodology

Assessment of the program outcomes is conducted over a three year-cycle. Table 1 shows the minimum outcomes assessed during each academic year. During the 2007/08 academic year almost all the outcomes were assessed in order to establish a baseline.

3.2 Assessment Cycle

Table 1: BSEET Outcome Assessment Cycle

Outcome 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

a. Fundamentals √

– √

– – √

b. Application √ √

– – √

–

c. Experimentation √

– – √

– –

d. Design Ability √ √

– – √

–

e. Teamwork √ √

– – √ √

f. Problem Solving √

– – √

– –

g. Communication √

– – √ √

–

h. Lifelong Learning √

– – √

– –

i. Professionalism – – √

– – √

j. Contemporary Issues √

– √

– – √

k. Continuous Improvement √

– – √

– –

l. Electronic Fundamentals √

– √

–

m. Math and Physics √ √

– – √

– n. Electronics Design √

– √

– – √

o. Project Management √

– – √ √

–

p. Advanced Mathematics √ √

– – √

–

(8)

3.3 Summary of Assessment Activities & Evidence of Student Learning 3.3.1 Introduction

The Electronics Engineering Technology faculty members conducted formal assessment of six Program Outcomes during the 2010/2011 academic year using direct measures such as comprehensive ABET Projects and ABET Assignments¹ and targeted ABET Program Outcome Exam Questions. Additionally, the Program Educational Objectives were assessed using indirect measures, namely, surveys of employers and alumni.

3.3.2 Methodology for Assessment of Program Outcomes

The BSEET mapping process links specific tasks within engineering assignments to ABET program outcomes and on to program educational objectives in a systematic way based on ABET rubrics². The program outcomes are evaluated as part of the course curriculum primarily by means of comprehensive ABET assignments specifically designed to measure program-level outcomes in addition to course-level outcomes. These assignments typically involve a short project or lab requiring the student to apply math, science, and engineering principles learned in the course to solve a particular problem requiring the use of modern CAD tools and engineering equipment, working in teams, writing a project report, and giving an oral presentation. ABET assignments are designed to assess several fundamental program outcomes at once. An ABET multi-outcome rubric is used to perform direct assessment of these assignments. A systematic, rubric-based process is then used to quickly assess tasks within assignments and link them directly to a group of program outcomes.

Evaluations of these outcomes are then gathered and accounted in outcome-specific tables, analyzed and then individually summarized. Summaries for all outcomes are then compiled into a comprehensive program outcome summary for each course. The outcome summary is then evaluated for relevance with respect to the program objectives. The summary of outcomes is formatted and organized such that it is suitable for inclusion in an ABET review document.

The mapping process aims to systemize the assessment of engineering coursework, and to provide a mechanism that facilitates the design of engineering assignments that meet the ABET-relevant (“a” through “k”) outcomes, particularly those that are more distant from traditional engineering coursework. Rather than considering how the outcomes match the assignment, the assignment is designed to map to the program outcomes.

By assessing multiple outcomes per assignment, the number of assessed assignments may be reduced and assignments become more relevant to the program outcomes, since the assignments are designed with the general program outcomes in mind. Additionally, incorporating multiple outcomes in a single assignment provides for a richer assignment, one that takes into account a wider range of engineering issues.

1ABET Projects and ABET Assignments refer to projects and assignments especially designed by OIT BSEET faculty to go beyond the assessment of course outcomes in order to assess more general program-level outcomes including the ABETa−koutcomes.

2ABET rubrics refer to rubrics especially designed by OIT BSEET faculty to assess ABET Projects based on program-level outcomes.

(9)

3.3.3 2010-2011 Targeted Assessment Activities

The sections below describe the 2010-2011 targeted assessment activities and detail the performance of students for each of the assessed outcomes. The Tables report the number of students performing at a developing level, accomplished level, and exemplary level for each performance criteria, as well as the percentage of students performing at an accomplished level or above.

3.3.4 Targeted Assessment for Outcome c: an ability to conduct, analyze and interpret experiments and apply experimental results to improve processes.

This outcome was assessed using an ABET Project. The project involved the design, sim- ulation, implementation, and characterization of a two-stage operational amplifier at the transistor level. The circuit was to be designed and implemented both in BJT and MOS- FET technologies, in order to be able to compare the advantages and limitations of each technology. Students were expected to analyze and interpret their simulated and experimental results, and iteratively make modifications as needed to improve circuit performance.

Additionally, the students were required to write a complete report following the guidelines of the IEEE Transactions Journals (IEEE Transactions Publication-Ready Template and Instructions for Authors).

Thirteen students were assessed in Winter 2011 in the course EE323 Transistor Am- plifiers using the performance criteria listed in the table below. The minimum acceptable performance level was to have above 80% of the students performing at the accomplished or exemplary level in all performance criteria.

Table 2 summarizes the results of this targeted assessment. The results indicate that the minimum acceptable performance level of 80% was met on all performance criteria for this program outcome, that is, over 80% of students were able to conduct, analyze and interpret experiments and apply experimental results to improve processes.

Table 2: Targeted Assessment for Outcome c: 1) Criterion 1- an ability to conduct experiments, 2) Criterion 2- an ability to analyze and interpret experimental results, and 3) Criterion 3- an ability to apply experimental results to improve processes.

Performance Criteria 1-Developing 2-Accomplished 3-Exemplary % Students ≥2

1 - Conduct 0 7 6 100.0%

2 - Analyze/Interpret 2 6 5 84.6%

3 - Improve 2 6 5 84.6%

(10)

3.3.5 Targeted Assessment for Outcome f: an ability to identify, analyze and solve technical problems.

This outcome was assessed using an ABET Project. The project consisted of designing, simulating, implementing, and experimentally testing an AC–to–DC power supply and linear regulator with current boosting to provide an adjustable regulated output voltage with short–circuit/overload protection. Students were provided with a series of challenging design specifications and design constraints. Students were expected to select an initial topology within the given constraints, identify the limitations of this topology and work on improving the design through an iterative process of analyzing and solving technical problems until the given specifications were met. Once the design was finalized and the simulations indi- cated the results were met, students were required to physically implement their designs and experimentally test them. This additional step was intended to get students to identify, analyze, and solve an additional set of technical problems related to implementation and measurement of electronic designs. Finally, the students were required to write a complete report following the guidelines of the IEEE Transactions Journals (IEEE Transactions Publication-Ready Template and Instructions for Authors).

Fourteen students were assessed in Fall 2010 in the course EE321 Introduction to Am- plifiers and Semiconductors using the performance criteria listed in the table below. The minimum acceptable performance level was to have above 80% of the students performing at the accomplished or exemplary level in all performance criteria.

Table 3 summarizes the results of this targeted assessment. The results indicate that the minimum acceptable performance level of 80% was met on all performance criteria for this program outcome, that is, over 80% of students were able to identify, analyze, and solve technical problems. Hands-on laboratory skills are definitely a strength of the students in the BSEET program. This may be due to the strong emphasis placed on laboratory instruction and practical projects as part of most courses in the curriculum, as well as the fact that many of the students in the program are working professionals with experience as technicians , who are typically required to identify and solve technical problems as part of their job responsibilities.

Table 3: Targeted Assessment for Outcome f: 1) Criterion 1- an ability to identify technical problems, 2) Criterion 2- an ability to analyze technical problems, and 3) Criterion 3- an ability to solve technical problems.

1 - Identify 0 5 9 100.0%

2 - Analyze 2 3 9 85.7%

3 - Solve 2 3 9 85.7%

(11)

3.3.6 Targeted Assessment for Outcome g: an ability to communicate effectively.

This outcome was assessed by requiring students to prepare and orally deliver a slide presentation for one of the laboratory assignments in the EE321 Introduction to Amplifiers and Semiconductors course. Different students were assigned a different laboratory assignment for their oral presentation. Students were required to present the main objective of the lab experiment, their analysis and calculations, the results of the simulations obtained using cad tools, and the experimental results obtained from physical measurements. Students were also required to provide some discussion on the meaning of their results, as well as ex- plain any disagreements between theoretical and experimental results, summarize the main conclusions, and answer questions from their classmates and the instructor regarding their presentation. Students were evaluated based on an ABET rubric, which targets different aspects of effective oral communication, such as the ability of the speaker to present their arguments in a clear, organized, easy to follow manner, to speak in a firm, clear voice, loud enough so that the entire audience can hear, to keep the audience engaged by maintaining eye contact, being dynamic, and avoiding distracting mannerisms, to maintain an appropriate level of formality and composure, and to stay within the time allotted.

A total of 14 students were assessed in the course EE321 Introduction to Amplifiers and Semiconductors during the 2010-2011 academic year. Table 4 summarizes the results of this targeted assessment, and the corresponding criteria used for the assessment. The minimum acceptable performance level was to have above 80% of the students performing at the accomplished or exemplary level in all performance criteria. The results indicate that the acceptable performance level was reached in all of the performance criteria, with the exception of criterion 3 (ability to keep an audience engaged), where the percentage of students who reached an accomplished level was 78.6%. These results suggest that most students in the program are effective oral communicators in terms of clarity and organization, ability to stay composed and keep an adequate level of formality in front of an audience, staying within the allotted time, and answering questions related to their presentation. One area where the results suggest improvement is needed is the ability of students to keep the audience engaged. Ideas on how to improve performance in this area should be discussed at the annual assessment meeting.

Table 4: Targeted Assessment for Outcome g: 1) Criterion 1-ability to deliver a well organized presentation, 2) Criterion 2-ability to speak in a firm, clear voice, 3) Criterion 3-ability to keep audience engaged, 4) Criterion 4-ability to stay composed and maintain an appropriate level of formality, 6) Criterion 6-ability to stay within time allotted, 7) Criterion 7-ability to answer questions from audience related to presentation.

(12)

3.3.7 Targeted Assessment for Outcome h: an ability to engage in independent learning and recognize the need for continual professional development.

This outcome was assessed by means of an ABET project in the course EE321 Introduc- tion to Amplifiers and Semiconductors during the 2010-2011 academic year. The project consisted of designing, simulating, implementing, and experimentally testing an AC–to–DC power supply and linear regulator with current boosting to provide an adjustable regulated output voltage with short–circuit/overload protection. Principles of AC–to–DC conversion were covered as part of the class, but no specific linear regulators were included in the curriculum. Students were therefore required to individually research the concept of linear regulation, as well as an adequate topology for their design that would meet the specifications while staying within the design constraints given as part of the project definition.

The project allowed to assess the ability of students to engage in independent learning, as well as their understanding that learning is a lifelong process and that as future engineers they will be expected to be resourceful researchers and independent learners.

A total of 14 students were assessed in the course EE321 Introduction to Amplifiers and Semiconductors in the 2010-11 academic year. The minimum acceptable performance level was to have above 80% of the students performing at the accomplished or exemplary level in all performance criteria.

Table 5 summarizes the assessment results. The results indicate that the minimum acceptable performance level of 80% was met on all performance criteria, that is, over 80%

of students were able to recognize the need for and display the ability to engage in lifelong learning.

Table 5: Targeted Assessment for Outcome h: 1) Criterion 1 - ability to engage in independent learning, and 2) recognize the need for continual professional development

1 - Ability 2 5 7 85.7%

2 - Recognition 0 7 7 100.0%

(13)

3.3.8 Targeted Assessment for Outcome k: a commitment to quality, timeliness, and continuous improvement.

In ENGR266 this outcome was assessed with two projects. The projects involved designing and implementing a signal generator and an oscilloscope/spectrum analyzer using LabVIEW programming. Students were required to engage in the process of continuous improvement of their designs upon delivering a demonstration and receiving feedback regarding the func- tionality, user interface, and overall design.

Thirty students were assessed in Winter 2011 in ENGR266 Computer Programming for Engineers using the performance criteria listed in the table below. The minimum acceptable performance level was to have above 80% of the students performing at the accomplished or exemplary level in all performance criteria.

Table 6 summarizes the results of this targeted assessment. The results indicate that the minimum acceptable performance level of 80% was met on all performance criteria for this program outcome, that is, over 80% of students were able to produce projects of acceptable quality (i.e. at the accomplished or exemplary levels), meeting the optional and required due dates, and engaging in the process of continuous improvement upon receiving feedback regarding the feature set, user interface, and overall design from the instructor and classmates in a presentation that simulates a design review.

Table 6: Targeted Assessment for Outcome k: 1) Criterion 1- commitment to quality, 2) Criterion 2- timeliness, and 3)- continuous improvement

1 - Quality 5 22 3 83.3%

2 - Timeliness 2 16 10 86.6%

3 - Cont. Improvement 3 23 4 90.0%

(14)

3.3.9 Targeted Assessment for Outcome o: the ability to apply project management techniques to electrical/electronic(s) systems.

While the assessment of this outcome was scheduled to be performed in EET473 for the 2010-11 academic year, due to a change in the instructor of record from a full-time faculty member to an adjunct, the assessment could not be conducted. Refer to section 4.2 for details.

(15)

4 Changes Resulting From Assessment

This section describes the changes resulting from the assessment activities carried out during the year 2010-2011. It includes any changes that have been implemented based on assessment in previous assessment cycles, from this or last year, as well as considerations for the next assessment cycle.

4.1 Changes Resulting from the 2010-2011 Assessment

The results of the 2010-11 Assessment indicate that the minimum acceptable performance level of 80% was met on most performance criteria for all assessed outcomes. Consequently, there are no major changes needed in the curriculum to correct specific deficiencies. The only outcome where the performance level was below 80% for one of the performance criteria was outcome g: an ability to communicate effectively. During the 2010-11 academic year, only oral communication was assessed. In this area, criterion 3 - ability to keep audience engaged scored a performance level of 78.6%. The faculty agreed that a higher standard must be set regarding students’ ability to communicate, both orally and in writing. To achieve this, the following changes were proposed:

• Oral communication: Students will be required to do at least one oral presentation for at least half of the upper-division core courses in the EET curriculum. Students will be provided with guidelines for oral presentations as well as a copy of the rubric so that they can develop an adequate idea of the level expected and the criteria used for evaluation. After their presentation, students will be provided timely feedback on their oral presentations so that they are aware of the areas where they need improvement. Having multiple presentations throughout the curriculum will give the students the ability to progressively build their confidence and skill as oral communicators, as well as perfect their oral presentation skills by receiving feedback for their own presentations and attending the presentations of their classmates. Additionally, students will be required to do an oral presentation as part of their senior project demonstration. This will be assessed and count towards the final grade in their senior project.

• Written communication: Students will be required to produce at least one written report for at least half of the upper-division core courses in the EET curriculum.

Students will be provided with guidelines, a copy of the rubric, and preferably a sample report, so that they can develop an adequate idea of the expectations and the criteria used for evaluation of the report. Students will be provided timely feedback on their reports so that they are aware of the areas that need improvement. Having multiple graded reports throughout the curriculum will allow students to progressively improve their technical writing skills. Additionally, students will be required to write

(16)

4.2 Changes to Assessment Methodology Resulting from the 2010- 11 Assessment

The assessment conducted during the 2010-2011 academic year revealed areas of improvement. These include:

– Outcome g: Ability to communicate effectively. During the 2010-11 academic year, only oral communication was assessed. Future assessment of this outcome should include both oral and written communication. It is proposed to re-assess this outcome during the 2011-12 academic year, including results from at least two sequential courses in oral communication and another two sequential courses for written communication. This will also provide an opportunity to test the effectiveness of some of the changes made to the assessment methodology for this outcome (see section 4.1)

– Outcome o: Ability to apply project management techniques to electrical / electronic(s) systems. During the 2010-11 academic year, this outcome could not be assessed due to a change in instructor for the course where asessemnt had been planned. The instructor was changed from a full-time faculty member to an adjunct instructor. In general, adjunct faculty do not perform assessment activities. The change in the schedule was made at a point where no other course could be found in the Spring 2011 schedule where this outcome could be ade- quately assessed. It is proposed that this outcome be assessed during the 2011-12 academic year. To avoid this kind of situation from happening in the future, it is recommended that the assessment plan generated at the beginning of the year lists at least two courses per outcome, preferably on different quarters. This will provide some redundancy in cases where the assessment cannot be carried out in a specific course due to unforeseen circumstances, but will also provide some comparison as to the performance of different student populations in different courses for the same set of criteria. Over time, it will allow to observe whether there is any improvement in performance from lower level courses to upper level courses.

3 Cycle of Assessment for Program Outcomes

– Electronics Engineering Technology – 2010-11 Assessment Report

Contents

1 Introduction

2 Program Mission, Educational Objectives, and Outcomes

3 Cycle of Assessment for Program Outcomes

4 Changes Resulting From Assessment