Weber State University   

Computer & Electronics Engineering Technology

Results of Assessment

2006-2007 (submitted 06/04/07)

Notes for reading summary assessment grid (Figure 1) below:
"-" = Middle of the road score, not a weakness or a strength
"+" = Top score, "+1" highest score, "+2" Second highest score, etc.
"-" = Bottom score, "-1" = lowest score, "-2" second lowest score, etc.
"Blank" = not measured

Figure 1.  CEET Program Objectives and Student Outcomes Assessment Grid

Student Learning Outcomes Conclusions and Goals

1.     Demonstrate a fundamental mastery of knowledge and the use of electronic equipment in electrical, digital, and analog circuits.

SLO 1 Technical knowledge was measured by five of our assessment tools.  The senior project design review scored this area (technical merit) as the highest.  The two surveys rated this area as a strength.  The department technical exam scores were relatively low because we tested our students on topics they had 3-5 years earlier.  We have concluded that we our technical education is satisfactory and meets the needs of the community.  We will continue the never-ending task of adding new technologies and knowing what to eliminate.  From the findings of the department exam, we will add a technical review sessions in our curriculum for seniors.  The details have yet to be decided.

2.    Apply current knowledge and adapt to emerging applications.

SLO 2 Adapt and apply was measured using the senior project design review, Employer Survey and Graduate Survey.  The senior project design review scored this area (technical merit) as the highest.  The collected data shows that this SLO is satisfactory because it was not identified as a weakness or a strength.  The high mark received in the senior project review was countered by the perceived weakness in the Graduate Survey.  A "-4" means that it was a weakness, but may not be significant enough to merit a major change.  At a department meeting in the spring, the faculty agreed to offer more opportunities for students to apply their knowledge to real-world applications.

3.    Use computer simulation and design software to conduct, analyze and interpret electrical, digital, and analog circuits.

SLO 3 Computer Tools was measured by three of our assessment tools.  This SLO was one of our weaker areas..  It was not the weakest in any of our measurement tools, but it was consistently weak (-3, -2, -3).  In both the Employer Survey and Graduate Survey, the scores improved slightly between 2003 and 2007.  This area now looks weaker because the other areas have improved significantly.  This is a good sign that we are showing progress at raising scores.  The newly developed rubric for senior projects confirmed our need to re-evaluate our use of computer tools.  For years, we have been using the common software tools for circuit simulation, PCB design, ASIC design, embedded controller design, and automated control.  Employers and students want more emphasis put on computer tools.  Every one of our lab rooms (except the motors lab) has computers at each workstation.  We have discussed adding a special course called software tools, but the logistics of offering it at the right point during their studies has been insurmountable.  We have concluded that particular software tools should be taught in the courses where the topic is being taught.  The problem has been to get our faculty to ease up on course content and shift the emphasis slightly to the education and use of the appropriate computer tools.  The department faculty have agreed to do this, but it has been difficult to measure the shift.  The senior project review revealed a different computer tool weakness, graphics.  We have required the use of PowerPoint for years, but the presentation graphics has not kept up with the latest technologies.   The new senior project review rubric has identified and quantified this weakness and the feedback to the students will hopefully improve their computer skills. 

4.    Understand the fundamentals of creative problem solving and apply them to circuit and system design.

SLO 4 Creative Problem Solving was measured by only two of our assessment tools, Employer and Graduate Surveys.  Both surveys scored this SLO in the middle of the pack, not a weakness or a strength.  We have not yet decided how to measure this characteristic.  Many of our faculty believe that solving electronic problems is a creative process, but we couldn't agree on how to measure it.   Until we figure it out, we have pressed ahead on two fronts.  One, we included creativity as a one-hour discussion in the CEET 2000/4000 Engineering Seminar courses.  Two, will modify the new senior project design review rubric to include creativity.  Until we come up with a measurement tool, we only have two surveys to fall back on.

5.         Function effectively on teams.

SLO 5 Teamwork was measured by four of our assessment tools.  This SLO hit both extremes.  The Supervisor's Evaluation scores teamwork as the weakest (-1) characteristic, while the surveys rank it as the strongest (+1).  The senior project reviewers have found it to be a strength (+2).  We do not know where we are on this one.

6.    Identify, analyze and solve electrical, digital, analog, and embedded controller problems.

SLO 6 Problem Solving was measured by five of our assessment tools.  This SLO is the easiest to measure because it is more quantifiable than other areas.  The senior project review identified problem solving as the students greatest strength.  We are doing satisfactorily in this area.  The department technical exam pointed out to us that our students have problems retaining technical knowledge.   Our average student takes seven years to graduate and retention is a problem.  We have already added a FE Study Preparation course (CEET 4050) to review and prepare students to take the Fundamentals of Engineering Exam.  Our goal is to add review sessions or even a course for seniors.

7.         Demonstrate professional written, presentation, and graphical communications skills.

SLO 7 Communications was measured by four of our assessment tools.  This SLO has always and continues to be the weakest area for our students.  The interesting thing about this SLO is that the students believe they are good communicators, while the other measurement tools score it as a weakness.  Communications skills were a discussion topic during our last CEET Advisory Committee meeting (April 2007).  We have put more effort into correcting this weakness than any other area.  We have made great progress and the scores have come up significantly, but still end up being a weakness.  The newly created senior project review rubric will help us identify specific communications weaknesses and provide direct feedback to students.  CEET 4010 and 4020 Senior Projects courses require students to make a formal presentation in each class.  This gives us the opportunity to provide feedback during the first presentation and allows students the opportunity improve the second presentation.  An upper-division writing class is required of all our students.  Thre