| Class | Concept, Principle, or Skill |
|---|
| EE214 | Every week students work on a new lab assignment, and after the fourth week, every assignment requires use of state-of-the-art CAD tools and modern design technologies. Students who complete the class have strong experience in schematic-based circuit design, behavioral circuit design using VHDL, circuit simulation, and circuit synthesis. Further, every lab requires students to implement circuits using an FPGA-based circuit board that contains a variety of I/O devices. |
| EE221 | Homework assignments and in-class examinations are used to assess this criterion. Assessment of student performance is primarily dependent upon examination scores; 65% of the students’ final grade is based on examination scores. Homework scores account for 35% of the students’ final grade. Homework questions are designed to be somewhat more in-depth than exam questions and are designed to require some synthesis of various topics covered in the course. Exam and homework scores indicate that students performed well relative to outcome A. The overall average of the two midterm exams and the final exam was approximately 76%. The average of all homework scores was approximately 85%, significantly higher than the average exam score. |
| EE234 | |
| EE261 | |
| EE262 | Most labs require using basic test equipment in order to get data needed for interpretation. Several lab experiments require PSICE computer simulation and two labs are totally devoted to computer modeling. Midterm quiz confirmed that most students know how to write a PSPICE program. |
| EE304 | |
| EE311 | This is essentially the principle outcome of this course and is assessed via the exams. |
| EE321 | Ability to perform computer-aided time domain analysis of linear, lumped parameter circuits using state variable methods. Ability to use computer tools (Matlab) to perform circuit analyses in the time and frequency domain, and enhance understanding of the underlying concepts. Complete a class project designed to introduce the student to more advanced topics in the field of system analysis and document the results of the project. |
| EE324 | The class is structured around the laboratory, where students must regularly complete designs that require mathematical and/or scientific knowledge. Al designs also require an increasing fund of engineering knowledge and skill. For example, the second lab project (numbered lab experiment #14), requires that students design a digital circuit to synthesize various waveshapes, and a pulse-width-modulator circuit to output the synthesized wave to a reconstruction filter. To adequately design for sample rate and filter characteristics, students must understand applicable mathmatical analysis and modeling, as well as possess the engineering skills to implement the circuit. All four lab projects this semester required in-depth knowledge of engineering methods and technologies. The completion rate for all students across all four lab designs was 96% and the average score was 88%. The lab assistants understand a large part of their job is to ensure that all students complete their own work, and adequate support is provided to the students to make sure this goal is met. The examinations in the class probed students grasp of the concepts practiced in the lab. The first three problems (and #8) of exam #1 tested student's understanding of the structural design of sequential circuits, and the remaining problems tested their behavioral design abilities. The relatively high average (76) was a good indicator that students comprehend the material. |
| EE331 | |
| EE334 | Students worked on problems that required knowledge of discrete math. Exam 1 had problems that required math as well as engineering methods to find satisfactory solutions. Problem 2 in Exam 1 corroborated what students have learned in other digital courses about binary arithmetic. Students show competence on applying math and engineering methods. Exam 1: Problem 1.a and Problem 2 Exam 2: Problem 1, Problem 2 Homework 8: problems 1 and 2 |
| EE341 | Understand the concept of a system and basic system properties. Understand the analysis of linear time-invariant (LTI) systems using convolution. Learn Fourier representations of signals and apply them to the analysis of LTI systems. Understand the effect of sampling an analog signal in the frequency domain and its implications to digital signal processing. Understand the concept of modulation (AM, FM, PM) in communication systems. Understand elementary concepts in information theory |
| EE351 | Mathematics, science, and engineering permeate nearly all topics in EE351. All topics listed in the table are especially pertinent with respect to the students’ ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering. Students studied Maxwell’s equations and solutions of the wave equations under different boundary conditions. The class also studied engineering devices closely related to these science topics including waveguides and antennas, both important to optical and wireless communication. Test 1 measured student performance on Topics 1 and 2. The average score of all students who took this test was 77.5 which is rather high. When we remove the scores of the five students who did not pass the course, the average was 84.2. This high score clearly indicates the students met this objective in terms of wave fundamentals. Test 2 measured performance on Topic 3. The average score of all students was 81.1 and was 86.4 when the scores of students who did not pass the class are removed. This is again high but it must be noted that in this offering of the course we did not cover fiber optics. The students only considered rectangular waveguides and resonators which are much simpler than fiber optic cables. Fiber optic cables were dropped in order to spend more time at the beginning of the semester reviewing electromagnetic theory (for reasons stated in the S'05 EE 331 assessment). Test 3 measured performance on Topic 4. The average on this test was 47.8 for all students and 54.2 for the students who passed the course. This is a very low score! A significant factor in this low score is that the last lecture on this material was given November 17th, before the Thanksgiving break, but Test 3 was not given until December 4th. This late date was at the unanimous request of the class owing to the fact that nearly all the students had a significant test in other subjects for each of the days in the week following Thanksgiving break. The students felt they would have more time to study if the exam in 351 were postponed. However, in hindsight, this was a mistake. The lack of homework or lectures on this material between November 17th and December 4th clearly hurt the students. The test was somewhat challenging even if the students were “fresh” with the material in that the questions were not clearly variations of what had been assigned as homework. It should also be noted that the students were allowed to drop their lowest homework score. It appears that most students failed to submit one of the three homeworks associated with this topic, probably realizing that they could afford to drop one score and concentrate their time on other courses at this point in the semester. Hence, unfortunately, it is not clear that the students who completed the course with a C or better truly understood this particular material. Test 4 measured the performance on the Topic 5. The average of all students was 69.2 and for the students passing the course it was 74.4. This score was satisfactory for this material and demostrates a relatively good understanding of the material. In this offering of the course we only covered the method of moments applied to electrostatics. Matlab was used for coding a solution for the homework, but the test was merely “pencil and paper.” |
| EE352 | Laboratory assignments, pre-labs, and final design project require application of math and science concepts. |
| EE361 | |
| EE362 | |
| EE415 | For archiving and reporting purposes, the instructor gave each team an icon name from a list of “mountains and volcanoes”. This report will use the icon names for the sake of brevity. Table A.1 gives a summary of some team characteristics for Fall 2006 EE415. Each of the seven design teams wrote a proposal. There were several locations in these proposals where students showed ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering. For this report student performance in the Introduction section will be cited as evidence that they have ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering. Writing guidelines for the Introduction say in part, “As you climb the technical learning curve associated with your design project (by reading refereed journal articles and other literature), this section should be easy to write. Here are objectives for the Introduction: a) by way of a literature review it shows the reader that the team has accumulated a reading knowledge of the topics covered by your design project, b) it allows the reader to strengthen their background in these topics by reading the Introduction and by reading cited references, c) it shows the reader that you will not duplicate other’s work since your work will go beyond what is described in the Introduction, and d) it cites high quality references as epitomized by refereed engineering and science journal articles. Spend about 70% of the Introduction on engineering topics within the general discipline where your design project is located and only about 30% of the Introduction on your specific design project. Present an equivalent circuit whenever practical. Equivalent circuits of interest could be induction motor, autotransformer, solar cell, dc-ac inverter, charge controller, fuel cell, force transducer for a robot arm, stepper motor, oscillator, antenna, etc. Digital systems are not well represented by equivalent circuits but for some projects background information is needed on items such as FPGA, VHDL, digital communication protocol, etc.” Table A.2 lists teams and technical topics covered in the Introduction section of their proposal. The instructor reviewed the Introduction section of graded proposals and tabulated points lost to technical errors (see Table A.3.) Four teams lost 0 points, two teams lost 2 points each, and one team lost 6 points. Kilimanjaro lost two technical points due to failure to include figures with their technical descriptions (figures requested by the instructor on previously graded drafts). Tambora lost two technical points because they did not include an induction motor equivalent circuit (requested by the instructor on previously graded drafts.) Vesuvius lost six technical points due to lack of a feedback component in their technical descriptions and due to many confusing dynamics equations. In the instructor’s judgment, Tambora and Kilimanjaro could have easily addressed their technical weaknesses given one more iteration of writing their proposal; however, Vesuvius did not demonstrate clear ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering. All members of the Vesuvius team received a course grade less than C thus they were required to repeat EE415. The Introduction in the written proposal shows that all teams not required to repeat EE415 demonstrated an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering; however it does not present evidence regarding individual student abilities. For that, the instructor invokes the fact that each student wrote an appendix in the proposal that described the project from their vantage point. These individual stuent scores are shown in Table A.4. Remarkably low scores (68, 68, 68, 72) appear for students # 8, 12, 20, and 26. Students #12 and 20 received a course grade of C- and must repeat EE415. Students #8 and 26 lost points from their work due to errors associated with writing style, figures and tables but lost no points due to technical erros. Thus the data shown in this section supports the contention that students passing EE415 Fall 2006 possessed suffiently strong ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering. |
| EE416 | For archiving and reporting purposes, the instructor gave each team an icon name from a list of “bird species”. This report will use the icon names for the sake of brevity. Table A.1 gives a summary of team activity for fall 2006 Semester. Each of the eight design teams wrote a final report, which contained their experiences including modeling, simulation and analysis. Table A.2 lists teams and topics covered in their final written reports for this semester. A review of the written final report evaluations shows that the work in this section of the reports was of sufficient quality and quantity to result in no loss of points (for technical content) for these eight teams. In addition, each team participated in weekly meetings with the instructor during the semester. These meetings focused on the progress and process of the teams. However, issues regarding math, science, and engineering knowledge being applied in the students’ modeling, simulation, and analysis activities were also discussed on a regular basis. Based upon these meetings, and the information in Table A.2, all of the fall 2006 students passing EE416 showed acceptable abilities to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering. |
| EE431 | All the homeworks, quizes, exams and lab reports were related to this outcome, therefore, I feel the final grade can be a reasonable measure of this outcome. There were seven (7) “A”, twelve (12) “A-”, five (5) “B+”, two (2) “B-”, and two (2) “C+”, grades. The lab components cover both circuit design and hands-on measurement experience to learn how to apply their knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering to RF and microwave circuit and system problems. The class averages in Midterm1, 2, 3 and final were 93, 81, 83, and 80 respectively out of 100 showing a good performance by the class. Homework, quizzes and exams were also designed for measuring this ability and the final grade showed this class satisfies the requirement of ABET 3(A). |
| EE432 | |
| EE434 | Midterm exam 1: problems 2, 3,4. Midterm exam 2: problems 2, 3, 4. Final exam: problems 1, 3, 4, 5, Homework 1, 2, 3. The homework assignments corresponnding to this evaluation criterion were performed well by students with a success rate of around 90%. The examination problems measuring this criterion wre adequately answered by most of the students. Some of the students faced problems with few homework assignments. This happened due to lack of proper background. But they overcame this difficulty with help from the instructor. |
| EE451 | The students complete various homework exercises, two computer exercises, and a project that require application of knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering. Examples include: a) computing probability of symbol or bit error based on probabilistic models of channel noise (application of mathematics); b) analysis of decoding methods for codes based on finite state machines, such as using the Viterbi algorithm (application of mathematics and engineering) to perform maximum likelihood sequence estimation. Homework exercises, e.g., Hmwk exercises 2.2, 2.3, 2.4; 4.1, 4.3; 7.1, computer exercises 1, 2; project report |
| EE455 | |
| EE464 | Understand the basic properties of discrete-time signals and systems. Ability to analyze discrete-time linear time-invariant systems in the time-domain. Ability to use effectively mathematical transforms for the analysis of systems. Understand the effect of sampling in the frequency-domain. Ability to solve linear difference equations in time- and transform-domains. Learn efficient implementations of discrete Fourier transform. |
| EE466 | The laboratory experiments and homework assignments matching this evaluation criterion were performed well by students with an extimated success rate of 80%. There was always assistance from the teaching assistant and the instructor to ensure successful completion of the labs and homework assignments. As a result many of those who sought help were successful. The first laboratory experiment saw students registering very low grades because of their failure to follow specified guidelines on their required laboratory reports. This brought the average low. The three examinations had a component of criterion A and the students performed well, solving the relevant mathematical problems and relating the theory to the paractical problems well. An average score of 80% was recorded in these examinations. Exam 1, Exam 2 and Exam 3. Homework assignments 1-4 |
| EE476 | The entire course involves the application of mathematics to analyze and design amplifier circuits and determine their performance parameters. The underlying behavior for transistors is the physics of the device. This ability can be assessed by the students’ overall average. |
| EE477 | Labs 2, 3, 5 and 6 cover characterization of op-amps, automating data measurements using GPIB, transmission line measurements and characterizing DACs respectively. These require using knowledge of transistors, op-amps, transmission lines and analyzing data. This ability can be assessed by the students’ average of 87% on these 4 labs. The lowest score was 60%, which was due to lack up time writing the report. The student completed the measurements in the lab. The next lowest score was 70%. Thus, students showed proficiency in this ability. |
| EE483 | |
| EE486 | |
| EE489 | Develop models for interesting physical systems; become fluent in representing models in standard form, in the state-space form, and in the Laplace domain; understand the notions of internal and BIBO stability, and be able to test for BIBO stability (including using the Routh criterion); be able to characterize the steady-state and transients of linear systems; be able to find transfer functions from block diagrams; learn to sketch root locus; understand the relationship between the forward-path frequency response and closed-loop stability/performance (including using the Routh criterion); gain time-domain insights into PID and lead-lag control of typical plants; understand some limitations of the control theory; briefly explore the differences between classical and modern control. |
| EE491 | |
| EE493 | |
| EE494 | |
| EE496 | Most of the homeworks quizes and exams measured this ability, so I feel the final grade can be a reasonable measure of this outcome. There were five (5) “A”, two (2) “A-”, one (1) “B+”, four (4) “B”, one (1) “B-”, and one (1) “C+” grades. The students did quite well in their application of basic science and math to semiconductor device engineering problems. Most of students were well prepared for following up the lectures, and solving homework assignments. Homework and exams were designed for measuring this ability and the grade showed this class satisfies the requirement of ABET 3(A) which is an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering. |
| EE499 | |
| EE519 | |
| EE511 | |
| EE512 | |
| EE514 | |
| EE515 | |
| EE516 | |
| EE517 | |
| EE518 | |
| EE501 | |
| EE502 | |
| EE503 | |
| EE504 | |
| EE505 | |
| EE507 | |
| EE510 | |
| EE509 | |
| EE508 | |
| EE520 | |
| EE521 | |
| EE522 | |
| EE524 | |
| EE526 | |
| EE527 | |
| EE528 | |
| EE530 | |
| EE531 | |
| EE534 | |
| EE538 | |
| EE541 | |
| EE543 | |
| EE544 | |
| EE545 | |
| EE548 | |
| EE551 | |
| EE554 | |
| EE555 | |
| EE562 | |
| EE564 | |
| EE574 | |
| EE581 | |
| EE582 | |
| EE584 | |
| EE586 | |
| EE595 | |
| EE596 | |
| EE597 | |
| EE598 | |
| EE600 | |
| EE700 | |
| EE702 | |
| EE800 | |
