The curriculum goals of the unit, as currently stated in the catalog or other departmental documents, are as follows:
“The primary mission of the ECEE department is:
- To provide relevant and highly respected undergraduate EE and ECE degree programs to on-campus students.
- To provide excellent graduate degree programs in electrical engineering.
- To advance industry in the state of Colorado and the nation, as well as the accumulated knowledge of mankind, through our high quality research programs.
- To use our on-campus educational activities to provide high-quality continuing education programs for off-campus students.
The objectives of the EE degree program are that during the first several years after completion of their baccalaureate studies (BS):
- EE-1. Graduates will be situated in growing careers involving the design, development or support of electrical or electronic systems, devices, instruments, or products, or will be successfully pursuing an advanced degree.
- EE-2. Graduates will have advanced professional standing based on their technical accomplishments and will have accumulated additional technical expertise to remain globally competitive.
- EE-3. Graduates will have demonstrated professional and personal leadership and growth.
The outcomes of the EE degree program, as defined by ABET, are:
- an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering
- an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data
- an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability
- an ability to function on multidisciplinary teams
- an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems
- an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility
- an ability to communicate effectively
- the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context
- a recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in, life-long learning
- a knowledge of contemporary issues
- an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.”
Are these goals still accurate/current or do they need to be revised? What is the unit’s schedule for reviewing the curriculum goals?
The goals of the EE BS program are reviewed at least once a year at faculty meetings. In addition, the curriculum goals are discussed at the twice yearly meetings of the Industrial Advisory Board (IAB). The faculty and the IAB concur that the goals as stated above are still current and accurate.
During the last review period, how has the department/program assessed how well it has accomplished its curriculum goals?
A number of surveys are administered by the College of Engineering and Applied Science and are reviewed by the department faculty and/or committees. These include:
- Freshman Survey (spring 2011), general program
- Senior Surveys (fall 2010 and spring 2011 graduates) – program and advising satisfaction, success factors, and assessment of program outcomes
- Post-Graduation Surveys sent to alumni within the first year after graduation (data from May through December 2010 grads) – assessment of program outcomes
- Alumni Survey (sent summer 2011 to alumni from 2008) – program and institution satisfaction, preparedness in meeting program outcomes, current employment and/or advanced academic experience
- Internship Survey (fall 2011) – details regarding internships and their usefulness in meeting educational goals.
- Employer Survey (spring 2011) – details of how employers judge the graduates from the program, which majors they hire and what positions they are filling.
In addition, the Curriculum Committee, which meets weekly, regularly reviews course materials, especially for new and required core courses. It also assesses individual courses using Faculty Course Questionnaire (FCQ) results and occasional in-class evaluations following a format developed by the Faculty Teaching Excellence program.
The ECEE Department hosts its Industrial Advisory Board for two meetings a year at the end of the fall and spring semesters. The members of the board, all of whom are medium- to high-level practicing and managing engineers from local companies that represent a spectrum of industries that hire our graduates, are routinely asked for input on department goals and success in meeting those goals.
What has the department/program concluded with respect to the outcomes of its undergraduate (and, if applicable, graduate) curriculum?
As a result of analysis of the various assessment instruments administered by the College of Engineering & Applied Science as well as FCQ data, curriculum committee proceedings, curriculum matters discussed at faculty and Executive Committee meetings, and input from the Industrial Advisory Board, the Department has concluded that the EEEN program is strong, that it has appropriate curriculum objectives and outcome goals, and that it serves its students, the industry, and the future academic goals of its graduates extremely well.
Survey Results
Freshman Survey
Three EEEN freshmen responded to the spring 2011 survey (plus seven ECEN majors for a total of 10 department majors). EEEN students reported that they felt fairly well-prepared for engineering in terms of mathematics (4.33 on a scale of 1-5), physics (4.33), and to a lesser extent in terms of chemistry (3.67). Their understanding of engineering as a career improved from 3.0 before enrolling to 4.0 in their second semester. They were certain (but not completely certain) of both engineering as a career choice and EE as a major (4.0 on a 1 to 5 scale for both). All were certain (4.0 on a 1 to 5 scale) that they would stay in engineering until graduation. All would recommend the College of Engineering, one with no and two with some reservations.
Two reported having worked on a team the previous semester and considered it beneficial (4.5 out of 5). They rated their experiences with facilities, staff, and faculty in the College at 4.0 (out of 5); the “College of Engineering Students” category was rated as 4.33. None used any form of tutoring and studied “always” or “sometimes” with peers.
On the subject of advising, all three responded to the survey of satisfaction with staff advising, rating it overall at 3.33 out of 5. Faculty advising was rated 3.5 overall (2 respondents). All three were open option majors during part or all of their freshman year and they were satisfied (4.0 overall) with open option advising. Two said their experience in their first year was “pretty much like expected,” and one said he/she was not sure what to expect.
Senior Survey
A total of 25 EEEN seniors completed the fall 2010 and spring 2011 surveys. The overall response rate was 86.2%. Results are reported as a weighted average for the two semesters. Seniors reported a high degree of satisfaction with CU (4.0 on a scale of 1-5), the College of Engineering (3.92), and their major choice (4.22). Satisfaction with their curriculum was 3.84, with the sequence of courses was 3.72, with the availability of required courses 3.88, and with the availability of electives 3.25. Fifteen (out of 24) students would recommend the program with no or some limited reservations, 6 would recommend with strong reservations and 3 responded that they would probably not recommend the program. Overall satisfaction with faculty advising was 4.1 and with staff advising, 3.7. The response to the question of how well the capstone course reinforced concepts learned previously scored 4.40 out of 5. The question of how well the capstone course prepared them for a career received a score of 4.36 out of 5. All of these numbers are similar to, or slightly higher than, ratings in recent years.
By far the highest ranked success factor (from a list of 18) was friends support (77%); next, in descending order, were working with others and family support (73% each), natural ability (69%), self-motivation and enjoyed course work (58% each), future rewards (54%), and stress relief (50%). The rest were chosen by fewer than 50% of the respondents. The top factors are very similar to previous years although the exact ranking varies somewhat.
Results from the section asking students to rate how well their education equipped them in the following areas are shown below. Responses are weighted for the AY and are on a scale of 1=not at all, 3=moderately well, and 5=extremely well.
| Ability to apply mathematics, science, and engineering principles | 4.08 |
| Ability to design and conduct experiments, analyze, and interpret data | 3.96 |
| Ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs | 3.88 |
| Ability to function on mulstidisciplinary teams | 3.56 |
| Ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems | 3.92 |
| Understanding of professional and ethical responsibility | 3.60 |
| An ability to make effective oral presentations | 3.28 |
| An ability to communicate effectively using the written word | 3.56 |
| The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context | 3.56 |
| Recognition of the need for and an ability to engage in life-long learning | 3.80 |
| Knowledge of contemporary issues | 3.32 |
| Ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice | 4.08 |
Questions asking seniors to rate how well their EEEN education prepared them for a future career resulted in the following:
| I understand the physical and mathematical principles underlying electrical and electronic technology | 4.32 |
| I am able to analyze and solve electrical engineering problems using this knowledge | 4.04 |
| I am prepared to pursue a career involving the design, development, or support of new electrical and electronic systems, devices, instruments, or products | 3.96 |
| My undergraduate education provided a foundation that prepared me for future professional and personal growth | 4.20 |
The EEEN seniors’ answers to these items indicate a strong belief that they have been well-prepared for promising careers in their chosen fields and that they will be able to grow personally and professionally due to their solid academic foundation.
Post-Grad Survey
Ten EEEN alumni responded to the survey of students graduating in the 2010 calendar year. Eight had received B.S. degrees, and two received B.S./M.S. degrees. Seven were employed (6 of them full-time), three were in graduate school, and one was in the military. None reported being unemployed and looking. In addition to three who are currently working on an advanced degree, six said they were considering pursuing an advanced degree.
For those seven who reported being employed, six were either “very satisfied” or “extremely satisfied” with their jobs, and one was “somewhat satisfied.” Six reported their jobs had “much relation” or were “completely related” to their major and one reported “little relation” to their major. The average salary for a full-time engineering position was $58,600 for alumni with a BS degree (5 respondents). There were no reported salaries for those alumni with a BS/MS degree.
Alumni Survey
There were nine responses to the Summer 2011 survey of EEEN alumni. All reported being “very” or “extremely satisfied” with CU-Boulder and the field of engineering. Seven said their program of study “definitely” met their educational goals; two said it did so “somewhat.” All would recommend CU and the College either with no reservations or with some reservations. If they had a position open, all would recommend hiring a CU grad with no or only some reservations. Eight were “very satisfied” or “extremely satisfied’ with their choice of major, and one was only “satisfied.” All nine felt their engineering education had contributed to their success to a moderate (2 responses), high (3) or extremely high (4) degree.
This survey, combined with responses to the senior and post-grad surveys, plus anecdotal contact with alumni in general, leads us to conclude that EEEN graduates are meeting our program objectives by being established in rewarding careers involving design, development or support of electrical and electronic systems, devices, instruments, or products. They have advanced in professional standing, accumulated additional technical expertise, and demonstrated professional and personal leadership and growth.
Internship Survey
Of the 34 EEEN students who responded to the Internship, Co-Op and Summer School Survey in summer 2011, thirteen reported having had engineering-related internships. Seven worked at a job not considered an internship or co-op, and the rest pursued other activities including 13 who went to summer school. Only two reported being unable to find an internship. As in previous years, we believe we can conclude from the survey data and numerous conversations directly with students, many undertake internships and both they and the companies they work for are very satisfied.
Employer Survey
One hundred seven employer representatives in the spring 2011 survey indicated they had an interest in hiring EEEN graduates. The following charts compiled from this survey indicate that our majors score well compared to other colleges in the opinion of survey respondents (1 to 5 scale, with 1 - Much Worse than other colleges, 3 - About the same as other colleges, and 5 - Much better than other colleges).
For ABET criteria:
| Ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering | 4.04 |
| Ability to design and conduct experiments | 3.81 |
| Ability to analyze and interpret data | 3.83 |
| Ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints | 3.88 |
| Ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams | 4.04 |
| Ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems | 3.98 |
| Understanding of professional and ethical responsibility | 3.81 |
| Ability to communicate effectively in writing | 3.66 |
| Ability to communicate effectively in verbal communications | 3.72 |
| Understanding the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context | 3.72 |
| Recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in, life-long learning | 3.70 |
| Knowledge of contemporary issues | 3.49 |
| Ability to use the technique, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice | 3.96 |
For other general abilities:
| Ability to "hit the ground running" | 4.15 |
| Ability to advance in the company | 3.88 |
| Ability to assume leadership roles | 3.90 |
| Demonstrated work ethic | 3.96 |
| Ability to learn and apply new information | 3.96 |
| Ability to identify evidence to evaluate hypotheses | 3.74 |
We are pleased that these responses from those who either hire or seek to hire our graduates indicate that they see them, in general, as better prepared to varying degrees than their peers from other colleges.
Course Reviews
The ECEE Department occasionally conducts in-class evaluations in a format similar to that developed by the CU Faculty Teaching Excellence Program. The results of these surveys are intended to, and do, provide information different from that on the FCQ forms. The in-class evaluations are used to provide additional feedback for faculty promotion and tenure evaluations but are also used when more information is sought on particular issues with existing courses and/or for newly developed courses being taught for the first or second time. For the 2011 calendar year, five evaluations were done, two in core courses and three in senior-level courses. None resulted in data which is useful in assessing achievement of curriculum goals.
FCQ Data
Ratings for individual courses are reviewed each semester. The chart below shows averaged ratings for fall 2010 and spring 2011 for the core courses.
Additional questions were added in spring 2011 to certain courses to survey students’ assessment of the degree to which the program outcomes were being met. The following table shows the results of these questions (on a scale of 1=low to 6=high):
| Improved ability to appy knowledge of math, science | Improved ability to identify, formulate, and solve problems | Improved understanding of engineering profession | Confidence to succeed was enhanced | Prepared me for a career in engineering | Labs provided design experience | Overall course rating | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Circuits 1 Fall 2010 | 4.7 | 3.6 | 4.4 | 4.1 | |||
| Circuits 1 Spring 2011 | 5.4 | 5.3 | 4.7 | 4.5 | 5.1 | 4.9 | |
| Circuits 2 Fall 2010 | 5.2 | 4.8 | 5.3 | 4.8 | 4.9 | ||
| Circuits 2 Spring 2011 | 5.2 | 5.3 | 5.2 | 5.2 | 5.3 | 5.1 | |
| Electronic Design Lab Spring 2011 | 5.9 | 5.9 | 5.9 | 5.7 | 5.6 | 5.9 | |
| Circuits 3 Fall 2010 | 4.0 | 3.9 | 4.1 | 3.4 | 3.9 | ||
| Circuits 3 Spring 2011 | 5.2 | 4.9 | 5.0 | 5.1 | 5.4 | 5.0 | 5.5 |
| Digital Logic Fall 2010 | 4.6 | 4.3 | 4.4 | 4.9 | 4.3 | ||
| Digital Logic Spring 2011 | 4.0 | 3.9 | 3.8 | 3.6 | 4.1 | 3.7 | |
| Linear Systems Fall 2010 | 2.6 | 3.0 | 2.3 | 2.3 | 2.8 | ||
| Linear Systems Spring 2011 | 5.2 | 5.2 | 5.2 | 5.0 | 5.1 | 4.4 | 5.3 |
| EM Fields Fall 2010 | 4.6 | 4.9 | 4.8 | 3.1 | 5.1 | ||
| EM Fields Spring 2011 | 4.0 | 3.9 | 4.2 | 3.4 | 3.9 | 2.4 | 3.8 |
| Capstone Fall 2010 | 6.0 | 5.9 | 6.0 | 6.0 | |||
| Capstone Spring 2011 | 5.4 | 5.5 | 5.6 | 4.9 | 5.4 | 5.6 | 5.4 |
The fall 2010 Circuits 1 and the spring 2011 Circuits 2 courses were taught in the new 3-credit hour format without the integrated labs. The overall ratings are similar to those reported in the old 5-credit hour format. However, the students rated the new 3-credit hour electronic design lab course, which is meant to demonstrate topics contained in the circuits 1 and 2 lecture courses, extremely high (5.9 and 5.6 out of 6). Circuits 3 was still offered in the 2010-2011 year in the five-hour format, but was a three-hour lecture-only course in fall 2011. The student ratings were similarly high for both semesters.
While the new, three-hour version of Linear Systems received ratings similar to the previous five-hour version, the ratings for the new three-hour version of EM Fields were significantly higher. Students in prior semesters reported that they did not see additional benefit from the laboratory portion of the course; the fall 2011 results suggest that they consider the course greatly improved. Follow-up evaluations will be done on all new courses over the next few years.
Three of the new sophomore elective courses, which were developed to give students an earlier look at some areas of emphasis in the department without having to have the core courses as prerequisites, were offered in 2011. FCQ results are shown below.
| Improved understanding of engineering profession | Confidence to succeed was enhanced | Prepared me for a career in engineering | Overall course rating | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wireless Electronics Spring 2011 | 5.3 | 5.0 | 5.2 | 4.8 |
| Renewable and Efficient Energy Systems Fall 2011 | 4.5 | 4.3 | 4.0 | 3.8 |
| Application of Embedded Systems Fall 2011 | 5.1 | 4.8 | 5.0 | 5.1 |
Curriculum Committee
The Curriculum Committee continued its oversight of the changes being made in the ECEN and EEEN curricula. The objective is to add more flexibility and choices to the curriculum, to offer sophomore electives where students can explore different areas of electrical engineering, and to provide a more comprehensive and design oriented lab experience. Since the first three sophomore elective courses were offered in 2011, time was spent analyzing the content of each and how it fit into subsequent courses. In addition, with the initiation of the new curricula in fall 2009, EEEN juniors will be, or are, ready to choose their tracks. The Help Guide was updated and e-mails listing the tracks and the availability of courses were sent out to students to ensure that sufficient advice is available to assist them in that choice.
Faculty Meetings
Curriculum issues are discussed by the faculty at large in regular meetings. All major changes in undergraduate courses and curricula must be approved by a majority faculty vote. There were no curricular issues that required a vote of the faculty in 2011.
Industrial Advisory Board
During the December 2010 meeting, the ABET accreditation process, the program educational objectives, and the student outcomes were discussed in detail. It was concluded that the EEEN program is strong, that it has appropriate curriculum objectives and outcome goals, and that it serves its students, the industry, and the future academic goals of its graduates extremely well.
Meeting April 27, 2011. Members visited the Capstone Lab Expo and discussed the projects with students and the course instructor. They also visited the analog robot projects built in the new sophomore analog lab course. Their comments were extremely positive, especially in regard to the “engagement” of the students and the idea of exciting them about the field early in their academic career as a way to keep them enthusiastic about engineering. They were very positive about the ties between theory and application demonstrated.
The IAB members were given a survey asking for their rating of how well graduates from our EEEN and ECEN programs which they have hired perform with respect to ABET outcomes a through k. Nine members completed the survey (two said they had insufficient experience to give an accurate assessment). There were between 7 and 9 responses to each of the following items; ratings were from 1 (worst) to 10 (best):
| Average Rating | |
|---|---|
| Ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering | 8.75 |
| Ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data | 8.44 |
| Ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs | 7.89 |
| Ability to function on multidisciplinary teams | 8.56 |
| Ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems | 8.56 |
| Understanding of professional and ethical responsiblity | 8.00 |
| Ability to communicate effectively orally | 8.22 |
| Ability to communicate effectively in written form | 7.50 |
| Broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions | 7.38 |
| Recognition of the need for, and an ability to, engage in lifelong learning | 8.38 |
| Knowledge of contemporary issues | 7.14 |
| Ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice | 9.22 |
We believe the responses from industry representatives who are actually familiar with our graduates demonstrate that they have a high level of confidence that our graduates will perform well in their companies. The responses to the last criterion are especially indicative of the high quality of our students since eight of the nine respondents rated that as either 9 or 10 (with the only other response a 8).
Faculty
Five faculty members left the department in calendar year 2011:
- Ewald Fuchs, power, retired spring 2011
- Vincent Heuring, computer engineering, retired spring 2011
- Howard Wachtel, biomedical engineering, retired fall 2011
- Aaron Bradley, computer engineering, resigned spring 2011
- Manish Vachharajani, computer engineering, resigned spring 2011
What changes in the curriculum or in major requirements have occurred as a result of your assessment of your undergraduate program?
New Curriculum
The department is in the third year of the new curriculum for the EEEN degree. The Help Guide for Fall 2010-Spring 2011 may be found here, and the Fall 2011 Guide may be found here.
New Course Numbers and Names
In connection with the curriculum revision, the following changes were made to the numbers and names of the ECEN core courses.
| Old Course Number and Name | New Course Number and Name |
|---|---|
| ECEN 2250-5 Circuits/Electronics 1 | ECEN 2250-3 Intro to Circuits & Electronics |
| ECEN 2260-5 Circuits/Electronics 2 | ECEN 2260-3 Circuits as Systems |
| N/A | ECEN 2270-3 Electronics Design Lab |
| ECEN 3100-5 Digital Logic | ECEN 2350-3 Digital Logic |
| ECEN 2120-5 Computers as Components | ECEN 3350-3 Programming of Digital Systems |
| N/A | ECEN 3360-3 Digital Design Lab |
| ECEN 3250-5 Circuits/Electronics 3 | ECEN 3250-3 Microelectronics |
| ECEN 3300-5 Linear Systems Theory | ECEN 3300-3 Linear Systems |
| ECEN 3400-5 EM Fields & Waves | ECEN 3400-3 EM Fields & Waves |
| N/A | ECEN 4610-2 Capstone Lab: Part 1 |
| ECEN 4610-3 Capstone Laboratory | ECEN 4620-3 Capstone Lab: Part 2 |
Sophomore Electives
New 3 credit hour courses were phased in starting in fall 2010 in connection with the new curriculum. Wireless Electronics was offered in spring 2011, and Application of Embedded Systems and Renewable Energy were offered in fall 2011. It is planned to offer an additional course in robotics and perhaps other topics in the next year or two. These courses will continue to be assessed by FCQ and in-course evaluations to assure that they are accomplishing the goal of giving sophomores an overview of topics without the need for an in-depth background.
Digital Courses
Previous assessment concluded that our students were not receiving sufficient instruction in C and C++ in the freshman programming course taught by Computer Science and Chemical Engineering faculty. The department developed and has been teaching its own freshman course (now as a special topics course but soon to be established as a regular course). The same assessment also showed students without a good background, or experience in how computers work, were frustrated in the sequence of ECEN 2120 (Computers as Components) and ECEN 3100 (Digital Logic). Starting with fall 2010, Digital Logic (now ECEN 2350) is taught first, followed by Programming of Digital Systems (ECEN 3350). The integrated lab portion was removed from each course and replaced with ECEN 3360, Digital Design Lab. This course will be offered for the first time in spring 2012.
Analog Courses
Previous assessment resulted in the conclusion that students’ understanding of the material would be improved if the sequence of topics for the two existing courses were modified. As with the digital sequence, the integrated labs were removed and replaced by a stand-alone laboratory course covering materials in the new analog sequence. This course was offered both semesters of 2011 with enthusiastic response from students (see FCQ results above).
ECEN 3300, Linear Systems, and ECEN 3400, EM Fields and Waves
In conjunction with the restructuring of the undergraduate curriculum, the integrated laboratory portions of these courses were removed and the courses re-established as lecture-only courses. This appears to have improved students’ assessment of these courses.