Weber State University   

Computer & Electronics Engineering Technology

Results of Assessment

2004-2005 (submitted 01/01/06)

The Computer and Electronics Engineering Technology department is committed to continual improvement. The department CEET Continuous Improvement Plan was established as a method to ensure an ongoing process of identifying, evaluating, and improving the Computer Engineering Technology (CET) and Electronics Engineering Technology (EET) degree programs. The assessment program is designed as a simple "problem identification, evaluation, change, and result" continuous loop that is described below. 

1. Identify a Problem: 

How does a department identify problems or strengths? A number of feedback channels have been created to identify possible problems and strengths within the CEET program. These channels were established as a feedback source for determining whether or not the CEET program is functioning effectively and efficiently.

The established CEET Improvement Plan feedback tools are:

AT-1 Student Feedback (interviews and surveys)
AT-2 Senior Student Feedback (senior project, co-op work, interviews/surveys)
AT-3 Alumni Feedback (interviews and surveys)
AT-4 Faculty Feedback (interviews and department meetings)
AT-5 Employer Feedback (interviews and surveys)
AT-6 Advisory Committee Feedback (meeting minutes)
AT-7 University Feedback (Career Services, Deans, Provost)
AT-8 National Sources and Standards (ABET, journal articles, research reports)
AT-9 Standardized Tests (Work Keys and Fundamentals of Engineering Exams)

2.  Identify a Solution:

The CEET department, under the leadership of the department chair, will constantly monitor the feedback channels in order to identify emerging problems and recognize program strengths. The department will periodically review the collected feedback and determine whether or not action is merited. Action options will be discussed and the best option will be selected. The department will then establish the procedures for approval and implementation.

 3.  Implement Change:

The CEET department will implement the necessary changes to obtain the desired outcome. These changes are called Assessment Actions (AA-1, AA-2, etc.). Change proposals will be carried forward to the proper authority. Some changes will require the approval by the dean, department advisory committee, the Faculty Senate and the Provost.  Minor changes will not require approval outside the department.

 4.  Evaluate Result:

The department will determine the success of the action and decide whether or not to repeat the process.

 5.  Goals/Assessment Table:

The table below lists each one of the Assessment Tools available for each of the department goals and student learning outcomes.

 6.  Assessment Tracker Worksheet:

Each problem identified in the "identification" step will be tracked on a CEET Continuous Improvement Tracker Form. The format is designed to record the actions taken during the assessment cycle.

1. Identify a Problem
2. Identify a Solution
3. Implement Changes
4. Evaluate the Result

 7.  Summary of Assessment Actions:

The following list summarizes the department assessment activities that resulted in action since 1998. The department determined that these observations/problems were significant enough to justify action to be taken. The activity is called an Assessment Action (AA) and they are numbered below.

Assessment Tools used in Assessment Actions

Assessment Action #12 (AA-12)    OPEN
Electronics Engineering
Review of Goals and Outcomes (2005)

Identify Problem:

Hill AFB held a meeting on 26 Aug 2005 for the local colleges and universities. They stressed the need for a local engineering program. This prompted us to re-evaluate our mission, goals, and learning outcomes. Are we serving the needs of Hill AFB? Should we be doing more? Should we offer an engineering degree?

AT-3    Alumni Feedback (interviews and surveys). Graduates working at Hill AFB started calling saying that Hill AFB has shut down two methods that were used to get our graduates into GS-855 Electronics Engineering positions.

AT-4    Faculty Feedback (interviews and department meetings). Department faculty started meeting weekly in October of 2005 to address this issue.

AT-6    Advisory Committee Feedback (meeting minutes). One of our Advisory Committee Members, Hill AFB employee Nathan Stong, initially brought this to our attention a few months before the Hill AFB meeting with university representatives.

AT-7    University Feedback (Career Services, Deans, Provost). The President, Provost, and Dean attended the meeting at Hill AFB that kicked off our review.

Identify Solution:

The decision to take action occurred in September of 2005. After many meetings, surveying other institutions, and getting permission from administrators, we decided to pursue the approval process for a new program, Electronics Engineering. 

Implemented Change:

Changes have not yet been implemented.

Evaluate Result:

This action is open.

Assessment Action #11 (AA-11)    CLOSED 2005
Engineering Ethics (2002)
In Support of BS CET and EET SLO #4

Identify Problem:

The CEET department conducted a survey to determine the most important hiring criteria used by IT companies. Fifteen CEO's were interviewed. The data revealed that the most important hiring criterion was "integrity." We heard from one of the CEO's that two WSU computer science graduates were fired over an ethical issue.

AT-4    Faculty Feedback (interviews and department meetings). Informal feedback from faculty revealed the need for some form of ethics awareness.

AT-5    Employer Feedback (interviews and surveys). Informal interviews revealed the need for some sort of ethics awareness training.

AT-6    Advisory Committee Feedback (meeting minutes). The Advisory Committee recommended we add ethics awareness to our curriculum (Dec 2002).

AT-8    National Sources and Standards (ABET, journal articles, and research reports). ABET has identified ethics awareness as an important criterion.

Identify Solution:

The decision to take action occurred fall of 2002. The department faculty agreed that we should offer ethics training/awareness. In a department meeting, we agreed to reduce the required Co-operative Work Experience credits from three to two and create a one-credit course called "Engineering Ethics."

Implemented Change:

Changes were approved by WSU Faculty Senate in April 2003 and will go into the catalog for academic year 2003-2004. During the Faculty Senate approval process, they hung a 3 credit hour prerequisite philosophy course to our new CEET 3000 Engineering Ethics 1 credit hour course. This was rather unsettling, especially for a 1 credit course. ABET evaluators noted this problem in their campus visit accreditation report in 2004.  We fought back by offering the ethics topics in our existing CEET 2000 and 4000 Engineering Seminar courses. The CEET 3000 Engineering Ethics was deleted as a required course in Spring 2005. The course was never taught, but will stay on the books for possible later use.

Evaluate Result:

The CEET 2000 and 4000 Engineering Seminar courses have been an ideal place to teach ethics. We should have gone this route from the start. This action was closed Spring 2005.

Assessment Action #10 (AA-10)    CLOSED 2005
Review CET Program (2002)
In Support of Department Goal #3, AAS CET/EET SLO #1

Identify Problem:

The CEET department received approval to offer the AAS and BS degrees in Computer Engineering Technology (CET) in 2000. Since then, the CET enrollments have grown to over 100 declared majors. We have noticed that many CET majors are coming in with misperceptions of what a CET graduate should be able to do. It is time to take another look at the CET major and re-define the objectives.

AT-1    Student Feedback (interviews and surveys). Informal student feedback revealed the need to clearly define or re-define the CET objectives.

AT-4    Faculty Feedback (interviews and department meetings). Informal feedback from faculty revealed the student misperceptions of incoming students.

Identify Solution:

The decision to take action occurred spring of 2002. The department faculty agreed that we should clearly define or re-define the CET curriculum. Many of our CET majors are coming in with the misperception that we are training for network engineering positions. We solicited the hiring of another faculty member with the vision needed to clearly set the direction and provide the leadership. That faculty member, John Ellsworth, was hired 1 Jan 2003 to take on that challenge. John left and was replaced by Gil Bearnson. Gil left and was replaced by Jeff Ward. Professor Verne Hansen was given the responsibility to direct the program. The CET program is continually on the agenda for bi-weekly department meetings.

Implemented Change:

In Spring of 2005, significant changes were made through the University Curriculum Committee and approved by the Faculty Senate.

Evaluate Result:

This action is closed. We understand the review process is a continuous process and it is a challenge to know when action should be taken.

Assessment Action #9 (AA-9)    CLOSED 2005
Upgrade Laboratory Equipment (2001)
In Support of Department Goal #3, AAS CET/EET SLO #1, and BS CET/EET SLO #1

Identify Problem:

The CEET department will maintain leading edge curriculum, which meets the needs of employers (Dept Goal #3) requires the latest laboratory equipment. Many of our labs have antiquated equipment that must be replaced as soon as possible.

AT-1    Student Feedback (interviews and surveys). Informal student feedback revealed the need to replace old and malfunctioning test equipment.

AT-4    Faculty Feedback (interviews and department meetings). Informal feedback from faculty revealed the need to replace outdated equipment.

AT-5    Employer Feedback (interviews and surveys). Informal interviews with employers revealed the need to purchase new test equipment and computers.

AT-6    Advisory Committee Feedback (meeting minutes). An advisory committee survey revealed the need to improve the communications skills of our graduates.

Identify Solution:

The decision to take action occurred spring of 2001. The department faculty estimated it would take $30,000 per year to upgrade our laboratory equipment over a five-year period. Perkins funding and miscellaneous received funds have fallen short of our needs. We agreed to do the following to increase our funding for replacement equipment. (1) Perkins funding is determined by the number of declared majors and we will ensure all our students are properly declared. (2) Charge a lab fee to cover the repair and replacement of laboratory equipment. (3) Solicit donations and partnerships to develop state-of-the-art laboratories.

Implemented Change:

CEET students are now closely monitored to ensure they are properly declared majors. This action ensured $30,000 per year for the last few years. Lab fees have been approved and the additional funds are being used to replace older equipment. The department has secured a number of donations and sponsors for developing improved laboratories. Additional funds in the amount of $25,000 were secured in the spring of 2005 and were used to upgrade the laboratory equipment.

Evaluate Result:

As of Spring 2005, we are where we originally wanted to be and this assessment action is considered closed.  We understand we must maintain this same "high-effort mode to maintain our laboratories.

Assessment Action #8 (AA-8)    CLOSED 2003
Faculty Shortage (2001)
In Support of Department Goals 1 and

Identify Problem:

The CEET department continues to offer quality programs even though budgets are declining and enrollments are growing. The department faculty picked up much of the additional workload by teaching overload classes.  The faculty cannot and should not have to sustain an effort of this magnitude. Our Dean, Warren Hill, was even teaching courses for us. The number of adjunct faculty skyrocketed to ten before peaking out. Four full-time faculty for 300 declared majors was not enough and we estimated the ratio would continue to get worse we took aggressive action.

AT-1    Student Feedback (interviews and surveys).  Informal student feedback revealed the need to hire additional faculty to handle the number of declared majors in the department.

AT-4    Faculty Feedback (interviews and department meetings).  Informal feedback from faculty revealed the need to hire additional faculty.  Adjunct faculty members temporarily help, but do not totally solve the problem.  A large part of the additional faculty workload comes from supporting adjunct.

Identify Solution:

The decision to take action occurred spring of 2001. The department faculty agreed that we should seek additional funding for faculty. It was time to crank up our creative problem solving skills to obtain additional funding. We started a campaign to find corporate sponsors. Enterasys and RBH Sound came onboard early as corporate sponsors by donating laboratory equipment. A decision to move Dr. Jay Smith from his release-time assignment as Director for the Center for Aerospace Technology occurred July of 2001. Environmental Potentials joined us with a $132,000 grant to hire Weber's first Visiting Professor, Ed Price. Ed teaches full-time in exchange for using our campus facilities for research. The State of Utah started an initiative to double the number of engineering and technology graduates within five years. Our department was fortunate enough to be the recipient of enough funding to hire a new faculty member. The dean found enough money to bring on one of our adjunct, Steve Green, as a 3/4 instructor. The department went from four to eight faculty members within two years.

Implemented Change:

• Dr. Jay Smith returned from another assignment to teach in our department (Jul 2001)

• Ed Price joined our faculty as Weber's first Visiting Professor (Jul 2002)

• John Ellsworth was hired Jan 2003

• Steve Green joined our faculty as a three-quarter time instructor

Evaluate Result:

Te department doubled the number of faculty between 2001 and 2003. This action is closed.

Assessment Action #7 (AA-7)    CLOSED 2003
Communication Skills (2000)
In Support of Department Goal #3, AAS CET/EET SLO #2, and BS CET/EET SLO #2

Identify Problem:

Engineering students, in general, are typically criticized for their poor communications skills. Graduates must be able to communicate effectively (ABET Technology Criterion 1.g.). Are CEET graduates meeting this criterion? The department occasionally hears of students/graduates who seem to have poor communications skills. Feedback channels used to identify the observation/problem:

AT-5    Employer Feedback (interviews and surveys). Informal interviews with employers revealed the need for additional communications skills training.

AT-6    Advisory Committee Feedback (meeting minutes). An advisory committee survey revealed the need to improve the communications skills of our graduates.

AT-8    National Sources and Standards (ABET, journal articles, and research reports). ABET has identified communications skills as an important criterion.

AT-9    Standardized Tests (Work Keys). Work Keys testing considered in 2000, but not implemented until 2002.

Identify Solution:

The decision to take action occurred spring of 2000. Three actions were considered and adopted. One, add an additional writing course (CEET 3070) within the department designed to improve a student's ability to communicate. Two, require a more formal and thorough student presentations for Project Management (CEET 4010) and Senior Projects (CEET 4020). Three establish a laboratory write-up format for laboratory experiments taught within the department.

Implemented Change:

Approval by the dean obtained spring of 2000. A new elective course (CEET 3070) was approved through the faculty senate spring of 2000. Project Management and Senior Project design reviews were modified to include formal Power Point presentations. A laboratory write-up standard was written and approved.

Evaluate Result:

As of spring 2003, one-third of the graduates take CEET 3070 course. Student design reviews have improved considerably. Lab write-up formats were not successfully implemented. This action needs to be re-evaluated in the future.

Assessment Action #6 (AA-6)    CLOSED 2002
Online Courses (2000)
In Support of Department Goals 3 and 4

Identify Problem:

More and more of the students live outside the immediate area and attending on-campus classes is often very difficult. Eighty percent of our students are working full-time, have families, and trying to complete a degree. The evening program has helped many students, but does not totally take care of the problem. The idea of offering online courses became an option worth considering.

AT-1    Student Feedback (interviews and surveys). Informal student feedback revealed the need to offer courses online. Most of our students are working full-time, have families, and trying to finish their degrees.

AT-4    Faculty Feedback (interviews and department meetings). Department faculty did not believe online courses would be feasible or even acceptable.

AT-6    Advisory Committee Feedback (meeting minutes). Advisory Committee members confirmed the need to experiment with online courses.

Identify Solution:

The decision to take action occurred spring of 2000. Discussed using online courses to supplement the on-campus courses. We all agreed to bring online a few courses and then confirm feasibility. The first three courses to be brought online would be a beginning course (CEET 1140), the most advanced course (CEET 3010), and senior projects courses (CEET 4010 and 4020)

Implement Change:

Approval by the dean obtained spring of 2000.  Action implemented fall of 2000.

Evaluate Result:

As of spring 2003, the department has two-thirds of the CEET courses online. The initial four courses were very successful and we gradually added more online courses. The Utah State Board of Regents has approved the BS CET and EET degrees as online programs. A recent university evaluation of campus online courses revealed that online courses were as effective as regular on-campus classes. Additional action not warranted at this time.

Assessment Action #5 (AA-5)    CLOSED 2002
Graduate Employment (2000)
In Support of Department Goals 3 and 4

Identification of the problem:

The CEET department prides itself at preparing graduates to make great contributions to society. One measure of that is the employability of the graduates. An earlier department survey (Career Services Exit Survey) revealed that 75 percent of our graduates were not in engineering positions when they completed the exit survey. Feedback channel(s) used to identify the observation/problem.

AT-2    Senior Student Feedback (interviews and surveys). Informal interviews with seniors revealed their concern for getting engineering positions upon graduation.

AT-3    Alumni Feedback (interviews and surveys). Informal interviews with alumni revealed that we should emphasize related work while going to school.

AT-7    University Feedback (Career Services, Deans, Provost). Career Services Exit Survey revealed that many of our graduates did not go directly into engineering positions.

Identify Solution:

The decision to take action occurred spring of 2000). The department suspected the reason students were not going directly into engineering positions is that most of them did not have related work while attending school. The department conducted a survey that revealed that only 30 percent of the students had related work. The department met with Career Services counselors and investigated options to improve employability.  Department faculty members agreed unanimously to encourage every student to seek related work while going to school. The department developed a related work model. The department unanimously agreed to require co-operative work experience for each graduate.

Implement Change:

The college and university curriculum committees approved co-operative work experience as a requirement for the BS degree in CET and EET. Action implemented Fall 2001. The department chair and faculty agreed to encourage students to seek related work while attending school.

Evaluate Result:

As of Oct 2001, sixty six percent of the department students were working in related work. One-third of the graduates were going directly into engineering positions, one-third were getting into engineering positions one to five years after graduation, and the other third were getting technician positions or less. Additional action not warranted at this time.

Assessment Action #4 (AA-4)    CLOSED 2001
CET Degree (1999)
In Support of Department Goals 1 and 3

Identification of the problem:

There is a growing demand for graduates who have combined skills in software and hardware. Computer science programs are typically 90 percent software related and electronics programs are typically 90 percent hardware. Industry has been asking for graduates who understand software and hardware. Weber State University does not have an educational program that emphasizes both. Feedback channel(s) used to identify the observation/problem.

AT-4    Faculty Feedback (interviews and department meetings). EET faculty members started talking about another degree option during the fall of 1999.

AT-5    Employer Feedback (interviews and surveys). Employers have been asking for graduates that are skilled in both software and hardware. They have to hire a CS and an EET graduate to get the overall skill they need. In a large company, that works fine. On the other hand, a smaller company may not have the resources to employ two engineers to complete software/hardware projects.

AT-6    Advisory Committee Feedback (meeting minutes). The CEET Advisory Committee recommended the department create a new degree called Computer Engineering Technology. (11 Nov 99 EET Advisory Committee meeting minutes).

Identify Solution:

The decision to take action occurred spring if 1999. The department faculty members agreed unanimously to create a new AAS and BS degree called Computer Engineering Technology. This decision and what the new degree would look like required almost a year of research and two meetings of the EET Advisory Committee.  Computer Engineering Technology degree details were finalized and forwarded up- channel for approval.

Implement Change:

The Faculty Senate (spring 2000) approved approval for the CET emphasis. The Faculty Senate and the Utah State Board of Regents approved (spring 2000) the CET AAS and BS degree. Action implemented fall of 2000.

Evaluate Result:

As of 8 Oct 2002 there are 100 declared CET majors. The CET graduates are competing favorably with CS and EET graduates. The department needs to re-evaluate the CET curriculum and better define the career path.

Assessment Action #3 (AA-3)    CLOSED 2001
Mon-Wed and Tue-Thur Classes (1999)
In Support of Department Goals 2 and 3

Identification of the problem:

Each EET course requires four trips to campus. Lectures are held every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.  The labs are held on either Tuesday or Thursday. Eighty percent of the EET students are married and working full-time. Which also means they are unable to attend school full-time. Each student averages only 8-10 credits. Four trips to campus for a single EET course are excessive for those juggling full-time work, family, and school. Feedback channels used to identify the observation/problem.

AT-1    Student Feedback (interviews and surveys).  Informal student feedback revealed the need to reduce the number of trips to the campus a student is expected to make, since most of them are working full-time.

AT-2    Senior Student Feedback (interviews and surveys). The EET seniors are working in related work more than any other student. Those students were especially sensitive to making a dozen trips to campus each week.

AT-4    Faculty Feedback (interviews and department meetings). Department faculty members suggested changing the courses to reduce the number of times a student has to commute to class.

AT-5    Employer Feedback (interviews and surveys). Local employers are complaining how difficult it is for their employees to complete the program when they ask to be excused to attend class so frequently.

Identify Solution:

The decision to take action occurred spring of 2000. The department faculty members unanimously agreed to divide the week into two sections, Monday/Wednesday and Tuesday/Thursday courses. Class times were 8:00 - 9:50 AM, 10:00 - 11:50 AM, 5:00 - 6:50 PM, and 7:00 - 8:50 PM. The students recommended these time slots. For example, the evening classes were starting at 4:30, which was considered too early for working students. No one wanted afternoon classes.

Implement Change:

The dean approved the changes spring 1999. The action was implemented Fall 2000

Evaluate Result:

Not a complaint has been heard since the change. Additional action not warranted at this time.

Assessment Action #2 (AA-2)    CLOSED 2001
Evening Program (1999)
In Support of Department Goals 2 and 3

Identification of the problem:

Most of the EET students work full-time during the day to provide for their families. The department traditionally has offered a couple of courses in the e evening, but not enough to allow a student to complete the program during the evening. The department estimated that enrollments would increase substantially if a full evening program was incorporated. Feedback channel(s) used to identify the observation/problem.

AT-1    Student Feedback (interviews and surveys).  Students were informally queried to determine whether or not they desired an evening program.  A student survey/data form was created and distributed in all the department courses.  The form was primarily used to collect personal information, but also asked students for a day or evening preference.  The data collected clearly identified a need for the department to offer a full evening program.

AT-4    Faculty Feedback (interviews and department meetings).  Department faculty members were against a full evening program because they knew their evening commitment would require them to teach classes two nights a week until 9 PM.

Identify Solution:

The decision to take action occurred spring of 1999. The department explored options for offering a full evening program. They considered using adjunct faculty to teach the evening courses. That idea was rejected because it would be difficult to find qualified adjunct to teach the upper division CEET courses. What would the department have to do to convince the faculty to teach half of their instruction load during the evening? The department faculty unanimously agreed to offer a full program in the evening. They all agreed to teach half of their teaching loads at night. The class schedules were modified to a four-day schedule. The tradeoff was to eliminate Friday classes if professor was willing to teach two evenings each week.

Implement Change:

The dean approved the idea of offering a full evening program, but it would have to be phased in as enrollments grew. The department would be able to offer a full evening program only if they had sufficient enrollment. Action implemented Fall 2000.

Evaluate Result:

The number of declared majors has double within the last four years and one-third of them are now attending in the evening. Additional action not warranted at this time.

Assessment Action #1 (AA-1)    CLOSED 2002
Program Enrollment (1998)
In Support of Department Goal #1

Identification of the problem:

Electronics Engineering Technology enrollments had been falling since the late eighties. Numbers have dropped about fifty students per year to a low of 140 in 1998. The department enrollment peaked at 600 students in 1988. The department has not hired a new faculty member since 1987. As the enrollment dropped, retiring faculty members were not replaced. The number of full-time faculty fell from a high of twelve (1988) to a low of five in 2002. The department dropped near the critical mass needed to maintain an associate and bachelor degree program. Journal articles reported that this was commonly occurring across the country. Two-year electronic technology programs around the country were experiencing declines in enrollments. The electronics technology AAS programs at Utah Valley State College and Salt Lake Community College were hit especially hard. Feedback channels used to identify the observation/problem.

AT-5    Employer Feedback (interviews and surveys). Employers were asking for more graduates than what we could provide. Their needs were not being met. The feedback came in the form of informal discussions with the faculty.

AT-7    University Feedback (recommended or directed). Informal discussions between the faculty and administrators were leading us to consider combining the department with another or even eliminating the department all together.

Identify Solution:

The department decided to take action spring of 1999. The department faculty decided to gather information in an attempt to find out why enrollment numbers were falling. The new department chairman accepted the challenge to attempt to halt the enrollment decline. The department chairman was tasked to gather information and make recommendations to the department faculty.

Implement Change:

The department chairman identified a number of concerns the students had that may be affecting enrollments. A number of changes are identified in subsequent Assessment Actions (AA-2 through AF-5.

Evaluate Result:

Department enrollments rose by an average of fifty students per year to a total of 300 by fall of 2002. Additional action not warranted at this time.

Mission Statement / Student Learning Outcomes / Curriculum Grid / Assessment Plan / Contact Person